Luke 13

CHAPTER XIII

Luke 13:1

1 Now there were some present at that very season reporting to him concerning the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices.

Καιρός is more than just time; it denotes a brief period that is marked and distinguished in some way, here, the period that is marked by what the twelfth chapter reports. A little later a number of people arrive with the report about the murdered Galileans. The imperfect παρῆσαν means that they had come and were now present; but the present participle does not say that they had come in order to report to Jesus, it only reports the fact that they did so. These men had probably just been in Jerusalem and brought this report as a piece of terrible news. Although Luke does not mention the presence of even the Twelve, the answer of Jesus which is addressed to “all” (in both v. 3 and 5) implies that the usual crowd is assembled and is, of course, excited because of this shocking news.

All that we know about it is what Luke has preserved about this crime of Pilate’s. Luke’s interest lies in the answer that Jesus gave, hence he does not record the crime in detail. These unfortunate men were Galileans, which is mentioned as being of interest to Jesus who came from Galilee and seems to imply also that Jesus was now not in Galilee; he was, in fact, in Perea. Pilate mingled (the aorist to express the fact only; we should use the past perfect) the blood of these Galileans with their sacrifices.

Ordinarily, only the priests were allowed in the court of the priests which extended about the Sanctuary and had in it the great altar and the brass laver; but certain sacrifices required that the laymen who brought them had to enter this priests’ court for laying the hands on the sacrifice, for slaughtering, and for waving. While they were thus engaged, Pilate had his soldiers rush in and cut down these Galileans, thus literally mingling their blood with that of their θυσίαι or slaughter sacrifices. This was a typical act of Pilate’s who perpetrated many outrages during his ten years in office.

Gentiles were forbidden to enter any but the great court of the Gentiles under penalty of death, and inscriptions to that effect were put up in warning. In Acts 21:28 Luke reports the riot that ensued on the false report that Paul had brought Greeks into the sacred courts and had thus polluted the Temple. Pilate ruthlessly violated the sanctities of the Jews. The report was made to Jesus, not because of this deed of Pilate’s, but because of the violent death of these Galileans under the assumption that these men must have committed some great sin for which God sent this signal punishment upon them through Pilate. Their sin was, of course, secret, but this penalty was assumed to be incontrovertible evidence that such a sin had been committed by these men.

Luke 13:2

2 And answering (1:19) he said to them: Do you think that these Galileans got to be sinners beyond all the Galileans because they had suffered these things? No, I tell you; but unless you repent you will all perish likewise!

Jesus denies, as he does in John 9:1–3, that these victims of Pilate’s rage were to be regarded as being guilty of some secret, heinous sin just because they had suffered as they did. He denies that their fate proved them to be sinners beyond all other Galileans. As far as such a comparison is concerned, other Galileans may be even greater sinners in God’s eyes—think of some of the Galilean Pharisees and their vicious hostility toward Jesus. Yet we should not go too far in the other direction. Sins sometimes do receive signal punishment, and God intends that we are to see the open connection between the two; consider, for instance, Acts 12:20–23. But, as a rule, divine providence works in secret ways that are too mysterious for us to unravel. Stephen is stoned, James dies by the sword.

Luke 13:3

3 “No, I tell you!” makes the denial of the Jewish assumption emphatic. Ἀλλά reverses the idea of such a deduction. The terrible death of these Galileans is to make “all,” whether they are Galileans or not, think, not of the sins of Pilate’s victims, but of their own sins and of how they may be delivered from them before death, in whatever way divine providence may send it, overtakes them. The way of escape is repentance, μετανοεῖν (see 3:3). The present tense and its durative idea are used because of the subject “all,” one after another repents as the call and the warning come to them.

“You will all perish likewise” does not mean that all the impenitent shall suffer a like violent death. What Jesus says is that, as these Galileans were swept away by death while in their impenitent state and thus perished forever, so all other impenitent men, no matter what the manner of their death may be, would “likewise perish” forever. The matter that Jesus warns his hearers against is not some form of cruel death but the danger of perishing in death.

Luke 13:4

4 Now he himself adds another case of violent death which occurred without a human agent like Pilate who might be blamed. Or those ten and eight on whom fell the tower of Siloam and killed them, do you think that they got to be debtors beyond all the men that are dwelling in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent you will all perish the same way!

This is another case of recent occurrence that was already known to Jesus and to all present. Neh. 3:15 speaks of “the wall of the pool of Shiloh by the king’s garden”; Josephus, Wars, 5, 4, 2 of “the wall’s bend to the south above the fountain of Siloam”; compare also Neh. 3:26. So this tower seems to have been connected with the city wall near the pool of Siloam and, most likely, collapsed because of disrepair and age and buried eighteen men. Sudden, unforeseen, and calamitous accidents are always occurring. Jesus presents this accident in Jerusalem as being even a plainer case than the one that had been reported to him. “Debtors” is used in the sense of sinners, it is analogous to Matt. 6:12. The idea cannot be entertained that these 18 men were greater sinners than all other men in Jerusalem, and that this was evidenced by the accident that swept them away.

Luke 13:5

5 Jesus makes the same emphatic denial, utters the same call to repent, and adds the same warning about perishing. The wording is purposely identical with that in v. 3, only the adverbs are slightly different. Every calamity that sweeps men away is a divine call to repent and a divine warning to escape perishing forever by repenting in time. Sin is the cause of all evil in this world, and when it works out in striking ways as it did in these calamities it warns against itself and its eternal effects, but does so only because God, through Christ, has made a way of escape through repentance.

Luke 13:6

6 Moreover, he went on to say (for the imperfect see 3:7) this parable. One had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit in it and did not find.

The connection with the foregoing is close so that the claim that Jesus spoke this parable at some other time and some other place is unfounded. Jesus does not solve the mysteries of the providence that lets Pilate and a falling tower kill people but points out the call to repentance that lies in such occurrences and now elaborates by showing us how God spares us so that we may have full time for repentance and at the same time warning us if we should let that time pass in impenitence.

The fact that the owner of this vineyard and fig tree pictures God is at once evident; but only some see what is imaged by the vineyard and the fig tree. The fact that a fig tree was at times planted in a vineyard shows only that the imagery Jesus used was natural but neither interprets nor shows that interpretation is not required. A point to be noted is that the vineyard and the fig tree are intended to go together. The tree “has been planted” in the vineyard, the perfect participle implying that it is now growing there as a result. This is “his” vineyard, the owner’s, who, by planting the tree there, has combined the two. This was not a wild tree that was ownerless in some wild place; nor was it planted in some orchard of fig, palm, or other trees.

When this is noted, we shall see that the usual interpretation is untenable: vineyard = the world; fig tree = Israel. These two would be opposites, have nothing in common, and be the reverse of what is pictured.

This is made still plainer by the extension of the parable to the “vinedresser,” the owner, too, being one who owns a vineyard. To be sure, the vinedresser is shown as helping to deal with the fig tree, but he is not called an orchardist or a tender of fig trees, his work is that of dressing vines. Now where do the Scriptures call the world a vineyard? What would Jesus do in the world as a vinedresser? His personal ministration was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and when his relation to the world is spoken of it is never that of one tending the world’s vines—that world is a wilderness, a jungle, and must first be converted into a vineyard. All this points to the solution that the vineyard is Israel, and the fig tree is Israel’s center of worship, Jerusalem.

The parable thus connects directly with the incident that Jesus himself brought forward (v. 4, 5) when he spoke of “all the men that are dwelling at Jerusalem.” Jerusalem, too, is often singled out in a special way as is done in Matt. 23:37; 24:2. But the fig tree that is planted in the vineyard belongs to this vineyard. So from the Galileans that Pilate slew Jesus turned to all Galileans, from the 18 Jerusalemites to all that inhabit Jerusalem. Whereas in the parable the attention centers on the fig tree, what is said about it and done with it extends to the whole vineyard. The fate of Jerusalem speaks to all Israel, yea, to the Israel of all time.

It is precisely because the owner planted this fig tree in his own vineyard that he had every right to expect it to bear fruit. The tree had grown to full maturity in the very best of places. Jerusalem was not the capital of some pagan nation; one would then know that fruit was out of the question. So this owner comes seeking fruit of the fig tree—had come on earlier occasions. It is not said that he comes to gather the fruit but just to see whether there is fruit, whatever its stage of development. “And he did not find” tells the sad story. Since no fruit was present, finding was impossible.

Where was the trouble? Not with the owner or with the vinedresser or with the vineyard. This was apparently a good-for-nothing tree. Whether it was permanently and hopelessly so was the point now to be determined—this is the point on which the parable turns. Nor are we left to guess at what “fruit” means; Jesus has already told us in v. 3 and 5: true repentance with all that this includes. See 3:3 on the term. “He found not” = Matt. 23:37.

Luke 13:7

7 And he said to the vinedresser: Lo, three years since I came seeking fruit in this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down! To what purpose does it also take up the ground?

What is meant by the “three years”? These do not, of course, mean merely three times. Fig trees bear during many months. The accusative “three years” denotes length of time. Just how often the owner had inspected the tree is not indicated and is immaterial; he had now waited so long a time in vain. Commentators have noted that some relation exists between “three years” and the following “this year also” of which the vinedresser speaks, but their interpretations are not always clear.

Some give up the point entirely, the three years, etc., mean nothing. Some think that they include the whole time before Christ. Nor does the “three” denote completeness, i. e., a sufficient time to prove the tree definitely unfruitful; Jesus would then have said ten years, for that number stands for completeness; moreover, the question of permanent fruitlessness is yet to be determined, the vinedresser still has hope for the tree.

“Three years” or “for three years” is literal as is also “this year,” which is intended to help to interpret the parable. But we should not think of three years of Christ’s ministry to which a full fourth year is to be added. His ministry extended little, if any, beyond three years. On this account this interpretation is usually dropped although it is so near the truth. We should note that twice and in a most emphatic way Jesus had used the exact words of the Baptist: “except you repent,” in v. 3 and 5, and here in the parable we again have the Baptist’s imagery of the ax “cutting out” this unfruitful tree, ἐκ, out of the vineyard. These three years start with the Baptist’s work when he first cried, “Repent!” Note how carefully Luke fixed that date in 3:1–3.

Three years have now passed. Jerusalem has stood for a long time already, but God sent the Baptist and Jesus during these three years, and it is during this time that he most certainly expected and came to seek the fruit of repentance. It should have been there already in the Baptist’s day but most certainly now that Jesus had helped and three full years had been spent on Jerusalem. But there was no fruit: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem … ye would not!”

“This year also” was the final work of Jesus and does not necessarily mean twelve full months but the time that was still left to Jesus when he spoke this parable just as the Jews count a part of a day as another day. Jesus was not as yet done with Jerusalem. He was now on his way to this city for his last effort. Jerusalem was meet for judgment already at this time, but grace is so wonderful that it extends itself to the absolute utmost. “This year also” extends from now on until the death and the glorification of Jesus.

“Cut it out!” is the peremptory aorist to indicate the one dire act. It may seem as though there is a disagreement between God and Jesus when we hear the owner give this order and the vinedresser urge delay. That this is not the case becomes apparent when the owner at once consents to this delay. This, too, is the constant teaching of Scripture which extends God’s longsuffering to the utmost. Basil of old already wrote: “This is peculiar to the clemency of God toward men that he does not bring in punishment silently and secretly but by his threatenings first proclaims them to be at hand, thus inviting sinners to repentance.” The ax is first laid to the root of the tree, Matt. 3:10, as a final call to repentance; the final warnings are issued, 19:41–44; Isa. 5:5, 6; Matt. 7:19 while judgment still holds back.

“To what purpose,” ἱνατί (supply γένηται) means: “what good can it do?” whereas διατί would ask for the reason. The present tense καταργεῖ means “continue to take up the ground” which might be devoted to a far better purpose. Hence we also have καί (omitted in the A. V.): besides being unfruitful this tree prevents the ground from growing something else that will yield fruit. When God bestows his grace and care upon any man and gives him a favored position, by remaining unfruitful he also prevents that grace and that position from being used to far better effect upon someone else. It is only right that he should be removed and another take his place, Acts 1:20, 25.

Luke 13:8

8 But he answering says (this participle is used with the present λέγει just as with the aorist εἷπε): Lord, leave it also this year until I dig around it and throw dung. And if it shall make fruit soon after—; but if not, thou shalt cut it out.

This vinedresser is undoubtedly Christ. The idea is not that the Father is severe, that Jesus alone is merciful, for the Father accepts the intercession, and Jesus the cutting down. We should not erase the wrath by the mercy, nor lose sight of the mercy because of the wrath. Both are real, and neither is absolute. Jesus is the Mediator, 1 John 2:1, 2; Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6; Heb. 7:25; 9:24. The basis of Jesus’ intercession is his atoning sacrifice which is by no means only an assurance for us of God’s disposition toward us but first of all and most vitally a propitiation and satisfaction that is rendered unto God by which our sins are expiated.

This sacrifice and satisfaction necessarily occurred at a definite time, namely when Jesus bore our sins here on earth, but in the mind and the purpose of God it was a reality from all eternity. Hence Jesus is called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” Rev. 13:8, “foreordained before the foundation of the world,” 1 Pet. 1:20. It is thus that our Mediator and Intercessor Jesus speaks in the parable, and the Father accepts the intercession. It is told us in a simple, human way in order that we may grasp it; but the essential is vividly brought out that God’s grace toward us is mediated wholly through his Son, our Savior, as our great and effectual Mediator.

Jesus came to do his Father’s will and is thus pictured as the caretaker of the vineyard, who as such addressed the owner as “lord.” But this vinedresser does not act and speak as a hired servant who merely carries out orders, for he is as much concerned about the tree as is the owner, and the owner, too, treats him accordingly. For the impenitent the intercession asks an extension of time, that grace may do its utmost to win repentance. The tree is not only to have more time, it is to receive the vinedresser’s intensive care: “till I dig around it and throw dung,” aerate and enrich the soil. Nothing that is possible is left undone to bring the sinner to the fruit of repentance. And we should note that, as it is the vinedresser who asks for the time, so it is he who will apply dung. It is Jesus who uses every means of grace; we only receive and by receiving come to the fruitage of repentance and a new life. The verbs “dig” and “throw” are subjunctives (there is no need to regard them as futures), and as aorists point to this work as being fully and properly done.

Luke 13:9

9 “And if it shall make fruit soon after” is broken off for effect and displays the vinedresser’s emotion at the prospect of securing fruit at last. We have only the protasis, no apodosis, and none should be supplied by us, for that would remove this emotional touch and thus change the sense. We may call this an ellipsis or more pretentiously an aposiopesis, R. 1202, 1023. And we should note that the condition is one of expectancy; the vinedresser goes at his work hopefully, looking for the good result, not halfheartedly, pessimistically, thinking that there is no use. Jesus is an optimist when it comes to working upon sinners.

The phrase εἰςτὸμέλλον, with the present neuter participle of μέλλω, is not merely the indefinite “thenceforth” (R. V., omitted in A. V.) or “for the future” (R. Tr.), for the idea is that of something that is about to occur, hence we translate “soon after,” for the effect of the digging and the dunging ought to appear promptly. This shows also that “this year” does not mean another entire year; it will require only a short time to determine for good and all whether the tree is hopeless.

Jesus is, however, not a blind, foolish optimist. As “soon after” show, this final trial is to be brief. So even before it is made Jesus reckons also with failure and provides for it in advance. Note the delicate balance of μέν and δέ, which it is beyond the English to reproduce. Εἰμήγε is stereotyped and is always used without a verb: “if not.” It is in fact a condition of reality: Jesus considers what shall be done if the tree, Jerusalem, actually proves hopeless. All conditional sentences present only the way in which the speaker (or writer) looks at the matter for the moment. Jesus here looks at the repentance of Jerusalem, first as something that may well happen (κἄν = καὶἐάν with the subjunctive), then as something that, after all, did not happen (εἰμήγε, the indicative verb is omitted).

If the final effort proves hopeless, “thou shalt cut it out” of the vineyard, the future tense being volitive. The vinedresser does not say, “I will cut it out,” for he has already received this order. God judges us, but he has committed all judgment to the Son. In the parable the Son honors the Father by thus referring the cutting out to him though the Son will perform the act.

It is a fact that judgment is often preceded by an intensification of grace. Trench points to Noah, the “preacher of righteousness” in the days just before the flood; Jeremiah and other prophets just before the captivity; Jesus himself before Jerusalem’s doom. The impenitent may misunderstand this and treat the abundance of grace presumptuously and make their judgment only the more severe. But we should look at this from God’s angle. This supreme effort of grace cuts off every shadow of excuse; Isa. 5:3–5, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” Rom. 10:21. In the end the sinner himself sees this, is compelled to admit it, and his complete self-blame makes his punishment the keener.

The question is left open: “Did the tree at last bear or did it, after all, remain unfruitful?” The answer is purposely withheld. The parable, both in its form and its purpose, is complete as it stands. We know what Jerusalem did. But we should not inject the synergistic fallacy of Trench and others: “The free will of man is recognized and respected.” There is no “free” will but only a bound and enslaved will in man’s natural state. We reject every idea of man’s liberty to decide between God and Satan, fruit and unfruitfulness. Man has already decided and holds to that decision.

But the grace of God is brought to bear upon him with power from on high in order to release his will from its bondage and wicked decision and to produce power by this and by it alone a totally different decision. But man may nullify every effort of that liberating, saving power and wilfully cast it from him for good and all. His doom is then sealed, and sealed by himself. But if the power of saving grace succeeds in freeing him, not he or any free decision of his will is the decisive factor or even a helping factor in his freeing; the work is wholly one of grace, and the glory of it belongs to that grace alone.

Luke 13:10

10 Now he was engaged in teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And lo, a woman having a spirit of weakness for ten and eight years and was bent together and utterly unable to bend back.

The periphrastic imperfect reveals Jesus as busily teaching. The tense is descriptive and also intimates that something happened in connection with this teaching. The time and the locality are not specified since they are not material to the event itself, and Luke has already placed us in Perea on Jesus’ last journey to Jerusalem. To find Jesus in the local synagogue on the Sabbath, engaged in teaching, is only what we expect after 4:15, 44 and the single incidents of this teaching recorded in previous accounts.

The Greek uses the plural as well as the singular form for Sabbath after the analogy of the neuter plural designation for festivals. It is material to the account that it occurred on the Sabbath. The following miracle is not reported as an illustration of the mercy of Jesus but as exhibiting his renewed clash with the Jewish leaders regarding their human traditions and regulations, here those regarding the Sabbath, which they regarded as being more sacred than God’s own law, which Jesus was, therefore, bound to antagonize. Luke has recorded this and other accounts as revealing the growing hostility toward Jesus, which soon brought him to the cross.

Luke 13:11

11 The exclamation “lo” shuts out the idea that this woman was in the synagogue from the start and presents her as slowly and painfully making her way in to it while Jesus was in the midst of his teaching. Because of her great infirmity she probably went to the synagogue only occasionally and on this occasion came only after hearing that Jesus would be there. She must have been just an ordinary person, but a Jewess (v. 16) and not a Gentile of this section which was inhabited by a mixed population. “A woman,” etc., needs no verb, the exclamation merely points to her. The two following periphrastic imperfects describe her condition: “she was bent together and was utterly (εἰςτὸπαντελές) unable to bend back” (κύπτω in both verbs), doubled up thus for no less than 18 years, the accusative of duration.

Luke writes: “having a spirit of weakness” (which is probably to be listed as an attributive genitive, R. 496). It is Luke, the physician, who writes “spirit” just as he does in other cases of demoniacal possession and thereby clearly distinguishes such cases from all other and ordinary ailments, of which he also mentions many. These cases of possession varied greatly and often, as here, inflicted only one or the other kind of physical hurt. The supposition that this woman was only hysterical or neurasthenic is even medically too weak, granting that we may disregard Luke’s “spirit.” Why not, then, say that she suffered from some injury to her spine? But even this is barred out by Luke’s word “spirit.” Like the woman mentioned in 8:43, this poor mortal had no doubt tried many a remedy—all in vain; and as the years went on, she resigned herself to her helpless condition.

Luke 13:12

12 Now when Jesus saw her he called her to him and said to her, Woman, thou hast been loosed from thy weakness! And he placed the hands upon her. And forthwith she was straightened up and began glorifying God.

There is no question that Jesus at once recognized the true nature of this woman’s trouble. He stops his teaching, calls the woman to him (πρός in the verb), at once utters the words of deliverance, and at the same time lays his hands upon her. He was sitting cross-legged on the platform while teaching and could easily lay his hands on the woman’s head or her shoulders. The perfect passive “thou hast been loosed from thy weakness” does not reach back into the past but starts only from the moment when Jesus willed her release and extends indefinitely into the future.

Varied interpretations are given to Luke’s brief wording. Some think that this woman believed before she was freed and thus support their view that no healing was possible without faith. But Luke says nothing about the faith of this woman, and that view is contradicted by clear examples in which no faith could be present before the miracle. The miracle was always dependent upon the will of Jesus alone and never on the beneficiary’s faith. Jesus certainly wanted faith, but often only as a result of the miracle. Moreover, this is a case in which, as so often, the miracle was wrought chiefly for the sake of the witnesses, as a sign for them.

Because Jesus uses only the passive and addresses the woman is not reason for concluding that her ailment was not caused by a demon. This, too, sets up a wrong view, namely, that unless the demon is directly addressed, no demon is involved.

Luke 13:13

13 Luke first records the words of Jesus and then the fact that he laid his hands on the woman. The word and the act went together with no interval between them that is worth mentioning. Yet the two are separated by the commentators, and for rather strange reasons. One is that the woman was to attribute no magical powers to the hands of Jesus. But if there was danger of this kind, why did Jesus use his hands? He would evidently then not have touched her.

Another reason advanced is that, when the woman heard the words, she did not have the courage to straighten up, and that she found that courage only when Jesus placed his hands upon her. But the verb is passive: “she was straightened up,” the divine power of Jesus straightened her body just as the cruel power of the spirit had held her bent double. The laying on of hands is always only symbolical and, like the words of Jesus, the expression of his gracious will in bestowing the divine benefaction. That omnipotent will works the miracle.

The effect of Jesus’ word and touch was instantaneous—the woman was straightened up before the eyes of all, the aorist stating the fact. The ingressive imperfect then adds that she began to glorify God. This is, of course, not meant as detracting from Jesus. All the works of Jesus were done to glorify God. When God’s power and mercy were recognized in what Jesus did, men connected Jesus with God, began to acknowledge his mission from God, and were thus in a fair way to discover and to believe that he was, indeed, the Messiah sent from God. So a mighty impression of God’s working in Jesus was here made upon the assembly in the synagogue. But there now follows an effort in the opposite direction.

Luke 13:14

14 But answering, the synagogue ruler, being indignant that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, went on to say to the multitude: Six days there are in which it is necessary to work. In them, therefore, by coming be healed and not on the day of the Sabbath.

Ἀποκριθείς is used with the imperfect, as here, and with the present as well as with the aorist and is in place when something is said in response to a deed or to a situation as is the case in this instance. Luke’s brevity leads us to wonder that Jesus was allowed to teach in this synagogue when this synagogue ruler and other opponents (v. 17) were present. So he speaks only of this one ruler, evidently because he spoke up and the other rulers deferred to him. Though Jesus was allowed to teach, these synagogue rulers remained in charge of the service. This man failed utterly to appreciate what he saw this day. He was probably a Pharisee, certainly thoroughly Pharisaic in his thinking, particularly in regard to the Sabbath. All he saw was a Sabbath desecration, and this made him indignant so that he could no longer contain himself.

But he was unable to find anything flagrant in Jesus’ conduct. Jesus had spoken only a word and used the liturgical act of laying on hands, which even the casuistic Pharisee could not condemn as a Sabbath desecration. The ruler thus had to attack the miracle itself, the act of healing as such, and could not assail some feature of the act. He is indignant with Jesus but dares not attack Jesus in person and so directs his objection to the multitude that crowded the synagogue. This indirection seems to be a part of his hypocrisy. In a commanding tone he announces that six days are ordered for doing work, Deut. 5:13, etc. Δεῖ, “must,” “it is necessary,” brings out the fact that God commanded to work on these days. And, accordingly, this ruler orders the people to come and to have their healing done during those days and not on the Sabbath (the Greek is here singular).

This ruler speaks as though this woman came to the synagogue to be healed and thus attacks her, too, although Luke reports nothing of the kind, his previous narrative implies rather the contrary. This ruler perhaps feared that others might be induced to come and might help further to desecrate the Sabbath. This ruler’s exegesis intends to strike at Jesus. He did the healing, and that the ruler regards as “doing work,” something that is forbidden on the Sabbath. The people would be involved in this work by coming and obtaining the healing. This ruler perhaps thought himself shrewd in thus delivering an indirect attack upon Jesus, one that is fortified by a divine commandment and a strong exegesis. But the man was blind both as far as the commandment and the miracle he had just witnessed were concerned and promptly receives his crushing answer.

Luke 13:15

15 But the Lord answered him and said (both verbs are finite, both carry full weight): Hypocrites! Does not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the manger and, having led him away, give him drink? But this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound, lo, for ten and eight years, was it not necessary that she be loosed from this bond on the day of Sabbath?

The Lord certainly answered “him” although he uses the plural “hypocrites” and thus at the same time answers any and all present who sided with this ruler; there were such as v. 17 indicates. The A. V. has the singular “hypocrite,” but the correct reading is that of the R. V., a plural. Here, too, the term is a judgment; and it is not left unsupported but is at once fully proved as being true. Luke writes “the Lord” and lets us feel the full authority which meets this man’s presumptuous charge; see 7:13.

Jesus asks two questions, the answers to which are beyond question. These questions are far stronger than assertions would have been, for they compel all present, also the ruler and other opponents of Jesus, to give the answer themselves. “Does not each one of you on the Sabbath (forward for the sake of emphasis) loose his ox or ass from the manger (not “stall,” our versions), and, having led him away, give him drink?” This is purposely an understatement and is stronger for that very reason, for many had several animals to be led to water. Was this not “work”? They untied the rope with their hands, they held the rope and led the animal out, and then they tied it up again. According to their own rabbinical casuistry this was most plainly work, and Jesus employs the argumentum ad hominem. The divine law did not forbid this act on the Sabbath, but these hypocrites first set up a definition of forbidden work which was not forbidden and then applied their definition against Jesus only and not against themselves.

Their hypocrisy was the greater because what they called “work” in the case of Jesus was not work even by their own definition while what they did was, indeed, work according to this definition. Hypocrisy can go little farther.

Luke 13:16

16 The second question calls for the same unavoidable answer. Jesus indicates it by using the interrogatory word οὐ which expects an affirmative answer. This question brings out the application from the illustration and uses the argument from the less to the greater. The emphasis is on ταύτην, “this woman,” in the accusative with the infinitive after ἔδει. This verb expresses all kinds of necessity, here the moral one which is vastly higher than watering an ox or an ass. The imperfect denotes a past necessity, one that in this instance lasted up to the moment when it was met by the miracle of Jesus, R. 919.

The argument is cumulative: the woman, a human being, over against the ox and the ass, mere brutes; a daughter of Abraham over against ordinary human beings; bound by the cruelty of Satan over against tethering to a manger with fodder; 18 years over against one day; need of being freed from a demon over against need of water. The argument is over-whelming. The charge of the ruler against Jesus recoils upon his hypocritical head with multiplied force. We see that the woman was a Jewess, one of God’s children, who knew and praised God. The expression “whom Satan did bind” does not refer only to common diseases as being due to the devil. Such a view needs better support than Acts 10:38 and 2 Cor. 12:7 and must first explain “spirit of infirmity” used in v. 11. “Lo, for ten and eight years” is again the accusative of duration of time and not the nominative as R. 460 regards it.

Luke 13:17

17 And he saying these things, there began to be ashamed all those opposing him, and all the multitude began rejoicing over all the glorious things occurring by him.

Two opposite effects are noted, both are expressed by ingressive imperfect tenses. The ruler seems to have had many supporters “lying against” Jesus, i. e., opposing him. It is best to regard the verb as a passive since Jesus made them ashamed. They were ashamed before the people, before whom they were exposed as hypocrites, not in their own hearts of their hypocrisy. Here all the common people were again with Jesus. By the way in which Luke writes it seems that Jesus must have done many other glorious things in this locality to cause such a wave of rejoicing.

Luke 13:18

18 The observation is correct: Luke would never have inserted these two parables at this place if Jesus had not spoken them after the incident in the synagogue. The objection that neither of them deals with the Sabbath question misunderstands the connection which refers only to the great joy of the people over the glorious deeds of Jesus. This leads him to add these words about the growth and the spread of the kingdom in the future. The reading οὖν, too, is correct; the texts that changed it to δέ failed to see the connection. He, therefore, went on to say(see 3:7), To what is the kingdom of God like? and to what shall I liken it? Luke closes the account of the miracle in the synagogue in a way that seems to imply that what Jesus said now occurred afterward; and it may be possible that he now spoke only to his disciples. “Therefore” means because of the great rejoicing of the multitude.

See 1:33 on the kingdom of God; Jesus is speaking of the rule of God’s grace among men. The two questions mean the same thing, the doubling is for the sake of emphasis. Since the first has the indicative, we regard the verb in the second as also being indicative, namely the future, and not as the aorist subjunctive. These questions would naturally arouse attention although all evidence shows that Jesus never lacked attention. Jesus wanted more here, namely, that his hearers should think of the kingdom, study its nature and its characteristics, and so find some likeness of it in earthly things. Anyone who was unable to find proper comparisons would be led to see that he knows too little about the kingdom and would be stimulated to learn far more about it.

Luke 13:19

19 Jesus himself helps his hearers by offering two remarkable comparisons. He has used them before, in Matt. 13:31–33 (Mark 4:30–32); the connection is decidedly different in each instance just as are the localities where these comparisons were spoken. In Matthew and in Mark, Jesus is in Galilee, in Luke he is making his way to Jerusalem for his Passion (v. 22). This may explain also the differences. In Matthew and in Mark the contrast is between the smallness and the final greatness; but the smallness is omitted here, and we have only the great spread of the kingdom.

Like is it to a kernel of mustard, which, having taken, a man threw it into his own garden. And it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the heaven tented in its branches.

The Sinapis nigra is referred to, the garden variety which grows to great size. This man, too, throws the mustard kernel “into his own garden,” which means Israel just as the vineyard in v. 6 is Israel. In Matthew the mustard kernel is sown “in the field” whereas Mark has “on the earth,” which refers to the human race in general. Here the thought is that of salvation’s coming from Israel. The size of the seed is not a part of the comparison, but the great growth is. Ἐγένετοεἰςδένδρον is an example of the predicative εἰς, it is like the German wurde zum Baum. The mustard seed is pungent and must be crushed to obtain its virtue as a condiment; but such ideas are far from the comparison in which the seed grows.

This growth is so great that “the birds of the heaven,” i. e., the wild birds, “tented in its branches.” We should again be content with the comparison as Jesus draws it and not have the birds eating the seed of the tree. Since this great plant is itself the kingdom, all who are in the kingdom are a part of the plant. The wild birds are not members of the kingdom; they only “tent” in it, their stay is temporary and only in the spreading branches, in superficial contact with the tree. These birds picture men in general in all lands, who enjoy some of the incidental blessings of the church.

This parable, then, pictures the visible growth and extension of the kingdom. A number of thoughts are necessarily implied. The kingdom is a living organism, and its life and its power are undying, for its growth extends through all time, Matt. 24:14. As long as the kingdom was present in the Old Testament believers it was confined to them; the parable describes the kingdom of the New Testament which is unconfined and spreads over the whole world. Vital growth is described and not outward organization which holds together great numbers (the ideal of Rome and of not a few Protestants). Being Christ’s rule of grace, the kingdom is always spiritual.

This spirituality is, however, itself power, and although it is invisible makes its presence manifest in many outward and visible ways in the world. The parable stimulates faith, encourages us in our work, and fills us with joy and hope.

Luke 13:20

20 And again he said, To whom shall I liken the kingdom of God? The force of this question is the same as that of the preceding one.

Luke 13:21

21 Like is it to leaven, which having taken, a woman hid in three measures of wheat until they were leavened completely.

We have the companion parable as we do in Matt. 13:33. Leaven or yeast (ζύμη from ζέω, to ferment) is used extensively in an evil sense with reference to something that corrupts (12:1; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8; Gal. 5:9). But in this instance leaven pictures the good power of Christ’s rule of grace which secretly, yet beneficiently, produces its blessed results. “Lion” is thus used once in an evil sense (1 Pet. 5:8), again in a noble one (Rev. 5:5); “serpent” likewise (Rev. 20:2, as against John 3:14); “dove” (silly in Hos. 7:11; harmless in Matt. 10:16). The world has many ferments, all are decomposing and destructive; Christ and his gospel alone penetrate with beneficent power.

“A woman,” just as in the other parable (Luke 15:8), cannot be the same as “a man” in v. 19. The latter is the Father, the former the church to whom the gospel of the kingdom is committed to do with it just what is here described. The view that the woman pictures the divine Wisdom mentioned in Prov. 9:1–3 or the Holy Spirit has little in its favor. It would be offensive to picture the Spirit as a woman. The participle λαβοῦσα, like its mate in v. 19, is more than “picturesque vernacular” (R. 1110); it indicates that this leaven came from elsewhere and not from this earth, and that the act of mixing it with the flour was deliberate and done with specific intent. It was not a mere impulse that caused the woman to put the yeast into the flour. The church preaches the gospel with most intelligent purpose.

Note that εἰς is static, “in.” The stress is not on any mixing which the woman did just as it was not on the throwing of the man. The idea is that the yeast was hid; it disappeared completely, it works secretly, invisibly, as a power that is hidden from view. Christ and his gospel work mysteriously, gradually, silently spreading out. We have the record of history as to how the gospel permeated the ancient Roman world until even the emperor was a Christian. Its greater work was, however, the unseen, inner change which removed superstition, social evils, vice, and lifted all it touched to a higher plane. The church just applies the gospel, and this gospel does the leavening.

This does not mean that the church is to enter the field of politics, sociology, or public reform campaigns. When this is attempted, she loses her power. The yeast does not work in that way. This seems too slow to many, and so they “take” something to hasten the leaven along and thereby only hinder its silent, steady progress.

A saton, Hebrew se’ah, the third part of an epha, is about 1½ pecks, and three sata was the quantity that was used by Sarah in Gen. 18:6. Many fancies have been attached to the number three: the three sons of Noah; the three parts of the world as then known; Greeks, Jews, Samaritans; spirit, soul, body; or simply the usual quantity of flour for an ordinary baking—the woman must have had an immense family to require a baking of over a bushel of flour! It seems best to follow Gen. 18:6; Judges 6:19; 1 Sam. 1:24, all of which mention the same quantity, and to combine with this mass of flour what lies in ὅλον: although the baking was no less than an entire epha of flour, the whole of it was wholly leavened.

The aorist “was leavened,” like the last three aorists used in v. 19, is prophecy. Jesus states what shall be as having been already accomplished. The verb should not be stressed to mean that all men in the world will eventually be converted. This would confuse the woman and the flour. The parable is without chiliasm. It describes the silent, beneficent influence of the gospel in the world. We may instance many points: the overthrow of slavery, the improved status of women, the appreciation of the child, the abolition of many barbarous practices, etc. Any land in which the gospel has an opportunity to exert its influence is raised to a higher level.

The divine power is again wholly spiritual, and while it operates altogether invisibly it produces any number of tangible effects, every one of them being wholesome. Also, the gospel cannot but succeed, and the one work of the church is to preach, teach, and spread it in the world. The parable teaches faith, patience, hope, and joy.

Luke 13:22

22 And he was traveling through city by city and village by village, teaching and making his way to Jerusalem.

In 9:51 Luke reports that Jesus set his face to be going to Jerusalem. He now recalls this statement to his readers by describing the journey as a progress through Perea “city by city, village by village” (distributive κατά), taking in all of them along this strip of territory. Through these towns and villages he had sent the Seventy in advance (10:1), and he was now on his way through them, preaching as he went along. The descriptive διεπορεύετο thus reaches back to 9:51.

The question is asked as to why Luke inserts this summary remark at this point in his narrative. A glance at 9:51 and then at 18:31 will show us that, like these two, 13:22 is also a mark of division which cuts the section 9:51–18:30 into two parts. As such this division reminds us where Jesus is now and thus indicates the background for what follows.

Luke 13:23

23 Now one said to him, Lord, are they few who are being saved?

The insertion of v. 22 shows that a new incident is now being recorded. The questioner must have been one of the multitude that was at present following Jesus. The address “Lord” is not of the same value as when Luke himself, beginning with 7:13, uses this term as a designation for Jesus but is only a term, of respect. Yet the man offers a grave question to Jesus as being the one who will be able to furnish him the correct answer. As is done in the LXX, so Luke, too, uses εἰ with direct questions, and the grammars debate as to the origin and the correct explanation of this idiom. It may be possible that εἰ is used only as an interrogative word which implies nothing about the answer, whether it may be yea or nay. “Few” is the predicate, “who are being saved” is the subject: “Are those being saved only few in number?” The present participle intends only to describe the persons referred to: those being saved now or at any time, namely by God’s grace, delivered from sin and damnation and placed safely into God’s kingdom. The only clue we have to the motive that prompted the question is found in the answer that Jesus gave, in fact, the question is introduced only because of the importance of the answer.

Luke 13:24

24 Jesus answers the man’s question in his characteristic way. It must not be put in an academic but in a personal way: “Am I among those being saved, whether these are few or many?” or: “Am I, perhaps, dallying about salvation and in danger of losing it?” So the Lord answers with an admonition and a warning, which are followed by a picture of the lost and of the saved in the other world.

But he said to them: Struggle to go in through the narrow door! Because many will be seeking to go in and will not succeed from then on when the house-lord shall rise up and shut the door, and you shall begin to stand outside and keeping knocking at the door, saying, Lord, open to us! and answering he shall say to you, I do not know you, whence you are. Then you will begin to say, We ate in thy presence and drank, and thou didst teach in our streets! And he will say, I tell you, I know not whence you are! Stand away from me, all workers of unrighteousness!

The answer of Jesus at once corrects the question and goes far beyond it even as it takes in, not only the questioner, but also all others who are present.

The question is dangerous when it is put abstractly or academically as the Concordia Triglotta, 1073, 33 points out when it quotes our passage in warning not to sound the abyss of God’s predestination. Make the question personal, and let your concern be that you may be saved. Hence we have the admonition: “Struggle to go in through the narrow door!” The kingdom is conceived as a great house, entrance to which is obtained through a door, and this door is narrow. Our effort is not to be to push open the door; it is open to begin with, but it is shut and locked after a time. So we are to let nothing deter us from entering while it is open. It is readily seen why Jesus pictures the door as being narrow; this portrays the μετάνοια or repentance by which we enter Christ’s kingdom. “Only bent quite low, made utterly small, disrobed of all righteousness of our own, and wholly willing to have the coat of the flesh removed from us down to the last rag, can one get through.” Besser.

Hence we have the strong verb “struggle,” which is taken from the ancient athletic contests, from which we still have “to agonize” and “agony.” The durative imperfect recalls Luther’s first of the famous 95 theses that repentance is to be constant. We are to exert ourselves to the utmost to enter the kingdom by true repentance. This is the opposite of indifference, being languid or careless, or living in false security.

But does this not contradict the teaching that man is spiritually dead and cannot struggle and strive? This struggling is not one on the part of man’s corrupt natural powers—they never could or would struggle to enter that narrow door. This struggling is caused by the law and the gospel when they operate upon and in the heart and move it mightily. The Scriptures are full of urgings to men who are still without faith just as the law and the gospel go out in all the world to those who are still far from God. The thought is never that man’s dead powers are to move and to save him, but the very Word itself offers what it demands, bestows what it requires, brings those it calls to come. “Struggle!” says Jesus, and in the very saying of his words there was the narrow door that was open to receive and the power to produce the struggling which is called repentance. So Jesus cries, “Believe!” And by his very call he reaches out to kindle faith.

A warning follows: “Do not wait till it is too late!” “Many will be seeking and will not succeed.” Note that the verb is changed, and that Jesus does not say that many “will be struggling” and will yet fail to succeed. He does not say even that many will struggle in the wrong way and thus fail. No; these “many” do not struggle, they turn a deaf ear to Jesus, let the time of grace when the narrow door is open pass by—they do not like this narrow door and entrance only by repentance. Then, when it is too late, they wake up and “seek” to enter and cannot “succeed” (ἰσχύειν) because the door is shut. Hence we have the future tenses “will seek,” “will not succeed.” Both point to the time when the door will be shut; and “will seek” indicates that, although they want to enter, it will even then not be by means of the struggling of repentance. Repentance, too, will then be impossible, for the gracious work of the Word will then have ceased for them.

Luke 13:25

25 Some begin a new sentence here, which would, however, require γάρ and would even then be less clear and effective than it is to make no break. Many will be seeking and not succeeding “from then on when the house-lord shall rise up and shut the door,” which is followed by the vain effort to enter. The imagery is stripped of all but the essential features, nor should we bring in a feast that is in progress or anything else. The sole idea is that, unless we get into the kingdom while we may, we shall be barred out forever. The door will, of course, be shut at the last day. But it closes also when the patience and the longsuffering of God come to an end for any nation or for any individual.

This shutting of the door belongs to the secret counsel of God, to his inscrutable judgment upon the unbelief and the obduracy of men. God either removes the gospel entirely from those who despise it, or its presence only plunges them more deeply into guilt.

“The gospel has its course and runs from one city to another; today it is here, tomorrow in another place just as a downpour passes, and now rains here, now in another place, and makes the land moist and fruitful.” Luther, Erl. ed., 48, 186; and 191: “This he told the Jews, but it helped nothing; and it will be the same with all the work-righteous when faith is lost. For what the Jews got, that we, too, will get. The world will not be helped, it does not believe, I am almost weary of it; but on my own account and on account of a few godly people I must preach, otherwise it is in vain. People will not believe but learn by experience. Thus, too, the Jews did. Christ, God’s Son, came himself, then his apostles, and warned them; but they would not believe.

So also Germany (and other countries as well) must go on and take the consequences. Thus it will come upon us, nothing will do, we want to learn by experience.”

In a parable it was not necessary to bring out the difference in time between the continued judgments and the final judgment as regards shutting the door. In the parable all is one act; and Jesus pictures what shall follow it. But now he turns in his masterly way from the third person to the second, Zahn finely combines the two: “Many—and who knows how many also of you!” The shutting of the door represents the judgment as it comes now and again and then at last. The knocking and the cry: “Lord, open!” picture the effort to evade and to reverse the judgment and to escape its doom when it is too late. Those who scorned to enter the open door can not and shall not enter the closed door. The house-lord’s reply: “I do not know you, whence you are” is the seal of the judgment. “Whence you are” points to the sin of these “many.” Where have they been all this time when the door was open?

Elsewhere—not entering the door! They had other attractions and scorned this narrow door and the house-lord who stood there waiting to welcome them. How, then, can he know them now through the shut door? They must be Landstreicher, miserable tramps, yea, worse. One thing is certain, and they have made it so by scorning the open door and the house-lord’s invitation—they do not belong inside.

Luke 13:26

26 Jesus now gives his figurative language a turn that strikes the Jews who are listening to him in the most direct way. This is really an extension or appendix. We prefer the reading that has the future indicative ἄρξεσθε since the variant aorist subjunctive ἄρξησθε seems to be only a mechanical repetition of this form from v. 25. Yes, of all people in the world the Jews had Jesus as none other had him: they ate before him and drank, and he taught in their streets, πλατεῖαι (ὁδοί), the ones that were wide and roomy enough. Certainly, was he not one of them, a native Jew, whose daily life was one with theirs? He surely knew them!

Alas, this was all that they could say; they could not add: “and we followed thee and believed in thee,” for they would then not have stood and clamored before the shut door. Jesus breaks through the figurative language as he does also in some of his parables and adds the plain reality. His concern is to be understood, and that is what language forms are for. But on the basis of what these Jews will then say to the house-lord it becomes plain who this personage really is, namely none other than Jesus himself. They ate and drank “in thy presence”—Jesus purposely avoids saying “in company with thee”; “thou didst teach in our streets”—Jesus avoids saying “thou didst teach us,” etc. The entire contact was only outward.

Luke 13:27

27 Not for a moment does this reminder change the verdict, it only intensifies it: “I tell you, I know not whence you are!” And on top of this we have the terrible command in the peremptory aorist: “Stand away from me, all workers of unrighteousness!” Matt. 7:23; 25:41. Jesus does know these men in one way, and since they insist, he tells them: they are “all workers of unrighteousness.” And right here they prove it to the last: they are demanding that the righteous Judge shall act unrighteously, unjustly, break his own, oft-given word, reopen the door which he said he would shut forever, and without repentance let them in beside all the repentant. So the rich man cried even in hell, “Nay, father Abraham!” and demanded that a new way of salvation be invented for his five brothers and thereby secretly charged that, if something like that had been done while he lived, he, too, would not have landed in hell. They who die in unbelief remain morally as base as they were when they died. As Jesus once walked among the Jews, so in his Word he now walks among us and teaches us in the identical words—shall it again be in vain?

Luke 13:28

28 There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but yourselves being thrown outside. And they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall recline at table in the kingdom of God. And lo, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.

This is the fate of those who are barred out; and it is presented with greater intensity because it is contrasted with the lot of the blessed. Matthew has the first statement no less than six times so that it must have been stereotyped already in Jesus’ time. The figure is dropped, and the stark reality stands out. Hence it is unwarranted to stress the adverb “there” by connecting it with the door that is now locked. Only two places exist in the other world, and “there” is hell. Note the articles “the weeping,” “the gnashing,” both are specific because there is no weeping, etc., like this weeping.

All interpreters are agreed that the weeping is the result of the complete loss of happiness, but some think of rage or helpless despair as causing the gnashing of the teeth. Both weeping and gnashing go together, both are caused by the torment in the outer darkness of hell. The damned are not annihilated; even their bodies shall be in hell. Jesus used Luke 13:28, 29, in Matt. 8:11, etc., but in a changed order and in a different connection; repetition was, indeed, justified.

Jesus says that this weeping and this gnashing of the teeth shall occur when the damned shall see Abraham, etc., ὄψησθε, which is regarded as a late aorist subjunctive, or the variant, the future indicative ὄψεσθε. The reference of this verb cannot be to the imagery of the door, for a door would prevent sight. Jesus speaks of the other world in a human way, and to stress the words in the fashion of this world is only to mislead ourselves. This is certain, the damned shall know fully about the joys of the blessed, and still worse they, too, might be in the midst of those joys. See 4:43 on the kingdom; the heavenly rule of glory is meant here although we need not think exclusively of its eschatological consummation, the joys and the glories are now present. The warning of Jesus is intended for Jews, hence Abraham, etc., are mentioned.

The covenant was originally made with him, and he is “the father of all them that believe,” Rom. 4:11, 16. The pride of the Jews in Abraham persists to this day. Isaac and Jacob are added because the three are exalted together in the covenant name “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Finally the prophets are added, who labored to keep Israel true to the covenant.

These were the names that made Israel glorious to every Jew. These would indeed be “in the kingdom of God,” and all their descendants should be with them, especially this generation that had the promise of the covenant, the seed of Abraham, Jesus, the Messiah himself. But lo, the tragedy: “you (emphatic) being thrown out outside.” The contrast is between “in” the kingdom and “out (ἐκ in the verb) outside,” the adverb intensifies the verb. It is unwarranted still to think of the door and to find a lack of correspondence in the participle “being thrown out.” Yet it is correct that the idea of being thrown out implies that all the Jews should be within; they even thought themselves within and in an outward way were within. The present participle is descriptive and at the same time speaks of the throwing out as it occurs throughout time.

Luke 13:29

29 But the situation will be still more poignant. The Jews took it for granted that the patriarchs and the prophets would be in heaven, but to see also hosts of Gentiles there, the people whom they utterly scorned, and themselves, the very children of Abraham, shut out, this would be the climax of their astonishment. Jesus says only that “they shall come,” on the other occasion when Jesus used this statement he said “many” and added that they would all recline at table together with the patriarchs and the prophets, namely as the true children of Abraham.

This is prophecy, one that was spoken already by the prophets, yea by God to Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. Jesus is only once more holding up the Old Testament vision of the covenant and the kingdom. These shall come from the four corners of the earth—from so vast a territory shall they be drawn. The Greek uses idiomatic plurals for “east and west” (the parts of the rising and of the setting) and the names of the winds for “north and south” with the Doric genitive βορρᾶ (R. 254); νότος is used for wind in 12:55.

“Shall recline at table” is not a continuation of the figure of the narrow door but an entirely new figure for the blessed joys of heaven, which reminds of the parable of the King’s Son’s wedding feast, Matt. 22. Heaven is too exalted to be described in direct language, hence the Scriptures condescend to our finite minds and speak of it in figures and images, but these are so rich and high that already they exceed our comprehension. What a feast as the countless millions gather! It is in progress now, and the kingdom is not yet full.

Luke 13:30

30 What Jesus says of Jews and of Gentiles he sums up in a terse mashal (pithy saying), one that is used repeatedly by him. “Lo” emphasizes the strangeness, the unexpected feature: “there are last,” etc. The “first” and the “last” are frequently taken to be those who enter the kingdom first or last, and kindly words are written of the “latecomers.” But this is a mistaken view. The play on the words by putting them first in one order then in the reverse order calls on us to mark well the sense in which they are used; and this makes them a mashal, its meaning being open only to those who have the key. “Last” = men who are far from the kingdom, the means of grace, etc. Yet they “shall be first,” by the grace of God enter the kingdom. Humanly speaking, we should not expect it. Yet the event proves it to be a fact. “First” = men who are close to the kingdom, means of grace, etc., like the Jews, Rom. 9:4, etc.

Compared with the condition of the Gentiles, the Jews were certainly first. “First” is more favored, “last” less favored. And yet these “first shall be last”=never get into the kingdom at all, “last” now in this intensive, tragic sense. Again, who would have expected it? But the event proves the fact.

So first and last are used at one time with a present tense with reference to present conditions, having and not having the means of grace; and a second time with future verbs with reference to the eventual condition, being in or being outside the kingdom. Some people have all the means of salvation but fail to use them and are lost, others are destitute of these means in the beginning, yet the moment they get them they make full use of them and thus obtain salvation. This fact is beyond dispute, and it is used here as a warning: “It is to frighten the greatest saints,” Luther. The very advantages we enjoy are to be our warning. Not because we have them shall we be saved but only because we faithfully use them. But note how Jesus places the words in this mashal: “There are last—there are first,” some, perhaps many of each sort, but not all. And that leaves also this: some who are now first shall be and remain first, and some who are now last shall also be and remain last.

Luke 13:31

31 In that very hour there came forward some Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out and be going from here because Herod wants to kill thee.

The connection with the foregoing is temporal rather than material. These Pharisees, who were always dogging the steps of Jesus, “came forward,” apparently in a very friendly way to warn Jesus regarding his life. Already that should make us suspicious. They were, of course, not sent by Herod to bid Jesus to leave his territory under pain of death; they came to Jesus of their own accord. Their motive coincides with Herod’s; both want Jesus out of Herod’s territory, these Pharisees want him in Jerusalem. In Perea as in Galilee, both of which were ruled by Herod, the people admired Jesus, and the Pharisees accomplished little; in Jerusalem this would be different. Their motive was to scare Jesus out of Herod’s territory, to get him to Jerusalem as fast as possible.

Zahn’s analysis of the situation seems to be correct. Herod had no intention of killing Jesus. He had not intended to kill John but had been crowded into this act by Herodias, and we know how this act disturbed him in his superstitious mind (9:7–9). He had himself wanted to see Jesus and with his own eyes view one of his miracles (23:8). Jesus, too, who had been sent to preach the gospel, had not attacked Herod’s vicious life as John had done. Yet we are not warranted to conclude from all this that these Pharisees lied to Jesus about Herod’s intention to kill him if he persisted in working in Herod’s domain.

Jesus does not expose these Pharisees as being liars in what they tell him. We know that the Herodians had plotted together with the Pharisees to destroy Jesus (Mark 3:6), and we see these two in conjunction again in Mark 12:13 and Matt. 22:16. Herod himself was undoubtedly involved in these machinations even as Jesus was discussed in his court (9:7–9). Herod was decidedly averse to Jesus, especially to having his own people made the object of Jesus’ activity, and thus uttered the threat that he would no longer tolerate that activity in his domain. He uttered the threat to kill Jesus, not because he was burning to shed his blood as he had shed John’s, but with the cunning purpose of having it reported to Jesus and thus driving him out of the country.

Luke 13:32

32 And he said to them: Having gone, tell this fox, Lo, I am casting out demons and accomplishing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am at the goal. Nevertheless, it is necessary that I journey today and tomorrow and the coming day because it is not permissible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.

The tertium comparationis in the term fox is cunning, and by calling Herod a fox Jesus indicated both his contempt for Herod and his threat and his perception of the tricky purpose of that threat. To call a king “that fox” in public is also to defy him and any threat of his power. Jesus notifies Herod as also these Pharisees that he will not for one moment change his course because of any power of man. In the message to Herod he refers only to his miracles, but not because Herod would not understand about his teaching—its substance he did not need to understand, that teaching was Jesus’ work he certainly understood—but rather because the divine power and the majesty of Jesus were revealed in his miracles, for which reason also the expulsion of demons is placed first. He who is master of demons and diseases remains serenely undisturbed by any barking of a tricky fox. “Today and tomorrow” have been taken literally, but Jesus neither died three days after he spoke these words nor ceased performing his miracles. He is merely indicating that the time left to him is short. He was, in fact, not far from the Jordan crossing which would take him into Jericho on the direct road to Jerusalem.

In many connections the active of τελειόω means “to lead to the goal” and the passive “to be led to the goal,” thus in the present, “I am at the goal.” Jesus is speaking of his mission, doing miracles, etc. A certain goal has been set for him, namely his death in Jerusalem (v. 33). In a short time he will attain that goal. No Herod can interfere with the program that is laid out for Jesus. On the verb see C.-K. 1049, etc.; B.-P. 1296. We reject the middle: “I finish my task.” This says too little because the goal of Jesus is his death.

His statement says far more than that Jesus will execute the last stroke and then call his job completed. Killing by Herod precedes, and perishing in Jerusalem follows. “I shall be perfected” (A. V.) and “I am perfected” (R. V.) understand this word in its other meaning.

The usual interpretation refers to a process that takes place in the personality of Jesus himself, which is incomplete until it is perfectly completed in his death. The entire context refutes this idea. Nor can it be introduced here from Heb. 2:10. Jesus is not speaking of the completion of a process in his person but of the goal he is about to reach. Let Herod threaten as he will, Jesus will not be killed in Herod’s territory; he will be killed and in his death reach the goal set for him by God (the verb is passive) only in Jerusalem, and that soon.

Luke 13:33

33 Πλήν is always adversative (R. 1187) and here means “nevertheless,” in spite of the fact that Jesus is soon reaching his goal. “It is necessary that I journey today and tomorrow and the coming day,” namely just as Jesus is now doing, here, too, in Perea, despite anything that Herod may do. Δεῖ is used to indicate any kind of necessity; the context points to the necessity of doing the appointed work (casting out demons, etc.) during the time allotted him until the goal set for him is reached. The unmodified πορεύεσθαι is not the same as πορεύουἐντεῦθεν and has nothing to do with “making his way to Jerusalem” which occurs in v. 22. All it says is that Jesus must go from place to place in his mission as he has done from the start. And so he will continue. The implication is: right here in Perea, ignoring Herod’s threat. For the period of his work Jesus names “today and tomorrow and the coming day,” three terms instead of two as he did in v. 32, but he has in mind the same period by both expressions, i. e., one that is thus characterized as being short.

Jesus tells us in the ὅτι clause why he goes on wholly unconcerned about Herod: “because it is not permitted that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem,” es ist nicht zulaessig; it would not do at all to have a prophet die outside of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has a monopoly on killing prophets. R. 1198 finds irony in this statement, and it is certainly cutting. Jesus intends to say that however long he yet lingers in Herod’s territory, there is no fear of his perishing there—prophets have a place where they perish, namely Jerusalem. Some may prefer the strong translation “it is not possible.” The sense is, however, not absolute, for John perished outside of Jerusalem; but in no other place were so many prophets put to death, and surely the greatest of them all (Deut. 18:15, 18) would have to perish there.

Luke 13:34

34 Jesus now exclaims in words that are nearly like those he uttered on the last Tuesday before his death, cf., Matt. 23:37–39. The time, the place, the connection, are totally different, which makes a hard problem, indeed, for those who think that this plaint was uttered only once by Jesus. It is more creditable also as far as the integrity of the two evangelists is concerned to say that Jesus uttered these sad words twice, here in Perea in the hearing of the Pharisees and again to the Twelve on the Mount of Olives.

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent to her, how often did I will to gather thy children to me the way a bird her own brood under her wings, and you did not will. Lo, left to you is your house! Moreover I say to you, In no way shall you see me until you say, Blessed the One coming in the Lord’s name!

These words are full of deepest pathos. The Pharisees are cold and hard, but the heart of Jesus is surcharged with deepest sadness because of their obduracy and the coming judgment. There is no “reverberating thunder” in the repetition “Jerusalem, Jerusalem!” All we need to do is to compare these repetitions as they are found elsewhere. Note 2 Sam. 18:33: “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom!” and again: “O Absalom, my son, my son!” Luke 10:41: “Martha, Martha!” Acts 9:4: “Saul, Saul!” These repetitions voice tender love and concern. “Jerusalem” stands for the nation whose capital and religious citadel this city was. The distinction between “Jerusalem” to designate the rulers and “thy children” to indicate the common people is not tenable, for the very ones whom Jesus willed to gather refused to be gathered—rulers and people alike.

“Jerusalem” means “city of peace”; but what a city of peace: “killing the prophets and stoning those having been sent (commissioned) to her” by God (the agent in the passive) to bring her peace! All her guilt is summed up. The prophets are a small group to which a wider one is added by taking in all who seconded the work of the prophets. The present participles “killing” and “stoning” mark characteristic conduct and thus go beyond aorists, which would state only the past facts. “Unto her” instead of “unto thee” matches the participles, which present the subject they modify in the third person.

“How often!”—not just once but with utmost persistence did Jesus seek to save his nation until it actually stilled his voice in blood. John describes the ministry in the capital at length, but all of Jesus’ ministry to the Jews is included here: “thy children,” the nation. One of the features of divine love that is inexplicable to us is that, in spite of the infallible foreknowledge that all will be in vain, its call and its effort to save never cease until the very end. Judas is another example. Such knowledge would either stop us at once or make our efforts a mere pretense. God is so far above us in this that even our minds cannot follow his ways.

The verb ἠθέλησα denotes the gracious, saving will of Jesus. It is the so-called antecedent will which takes into account only our lost condition, from which it works to deliver us, and not our reaction to this will. The will which deals with this reaction is always the subsequent will, and this will is judgment for the obdurate. Determinism and other confusions result when this distinction is not known or is ignored. The gracious antecedent will and its call of grace are equal for all. To make it serious and real only for one class of men and only a pretense for another class is to attribute duplicity to God, against which all Scripture cries out, Rom. 11:32.

The preaching of the Word is no Spiegelfechten (fencing only before a mirror, hence not in earnest), Concordia Triglotta, 1072. Who dares to say that Jesus willed to save even the Sanhedrists less than he willed to save the Twelve; or Judas less than Peter?

The figure of the bird and her brood is not only beautiful as a designation but especially so in the case of Jews, whose rabbis spoke of the Shekinah as being the gathering place of the proselytes. See the expressions in Deut. 32:11; Ps. 17:8; 61:4; Isa. 31:5. Ὄρνις is any bird and not merely a “hen.” The idea of the hen has led to the bringing in of the swooping hawk. The idea is rather that the brood (τὴννοσσιάν; in Matt. τὰνοσσία, the fledglings) belongs to the mother bird, and that she thus gathers them together under her wings; the reflexive ἑαυτῆς is stronger than the mere possessive αὐτῆς. So this nation belonged to Jesus, and as being his very own he willed to gather it to him (ἐτί in the verb, a first aorist infinitive). This gathering is the essential thing—all these children of Jerusalem are attached to Jesus as his very own; hence we have the aorist: to gather once for all. Luke omits the verb “gathers” in the simile, and ὃντρόπον is the adverbial accusative, the antecedents being incorporated in the relative.

Nothing is more tragic than the outcome of this gracious will of Jesus: “and you did not will.” As is done so often, the adversative idea is added with a telling copulative καί. This brings out all the abnormality, the utter unnaturalness, the absolute unreasonableness of the negative. The sentence ought to close “and you, too, willed”; but it closes “and you willed NOT!” Only this, nothing more, is said. There is no qualification, no explanation, no addition. The one fatal thing is: “you did not will.”

Despite the brevity many facts center here. Grace is not irresistible; every case of resistance proves it, notably this glaring case of the Jews. Damnation results from man’s own will, which settles into permanent, obdurate, unaccountable resistance against God’s will of grace. The more God draws the will with the power of grace, the more this will rejects God until grace can do no more. To bring in the omnipotence of God is to confound its attributes and to darken all saving Scripture, Concordia Triglotta, 1077, quoting Matt. 22:3, etc.

Why do some wills resist thus? This asks a reasonable explanation for an unreasonable act—no such explanation exists. To say that this is due to inborn sin is no explanation, for men who have the same inborn sin are won, and their wills assent under grace. Moreover, this obdurate resistance is produced only when grace operates with its power. The spring is poisonous and throws out a poisonous stream. The gratia sufficiens is applied to the spring and the stream with power sufficiens to unpoison both.

Behold, now the spring and the stream are a hundred times more poisonous than they were before! Explain that! All we know is that the mystery of this resistance lies in the will itself and in no way in God. How could Satan fall? How could Adam sin? How can man resist grace and salvation to the end?

How can a believer, whose will is changed, again turn to unbelief and be damned? It is all the same question.

“A master of music has laid all the power which his art gave him into this lament of the Messiah, and he into whose ears has once been sung ‘And ye would not!’ will never forget this heart-penetrating music. What? Shall the art of music do more than the voice of eternal love speaking from heaven? No; let it penetrate our hearts when Jesus calls to us: ‘How often would I have gathered you even as a hen her nest under her wings—and ye would not!’ Then shall we will what he wills, our salvation, and shall flee from the judgment of Jerusalem, which scorned the wings of the hen and fell into the talons of the eagle (Matt. 24:28).” Besser.

Luke 13:35

35 An exclamation may well introduce the verdict of the subsequent will which Jesus now states: “Lo, left to you is your house!” Some think that “your house” is the Temple, but the context is not so specific but points rather to Jerusalem, which, however, includes the Temple. Jerusalem is today not a Jewish city, to say no more. History tells the sad story of how the Jewish nation was driven out of its land and its capital, never to possess either again. In Matt. 23:38 ἀφίεταιὑμῖνἔρημος (the adjective is textually assured) is simple: your house “is left to you desert”; in Luke the adjective is absent, which causes difficulty and the offer of various solutions. Zahn takes ὑμῖν in the sense of the agent: “is abandoned by you,” “lost by you.” But this seems forced. We take the words in the same sense they have in Matthew: your house “is left to you.” God or Jesus leaves it entirely to them with the dire consequences we know.

They did what they pleased with Jerusalem and the Temple; they wrecked and ruined both as Jesus told them to do with the Temple in John 2:19. They were even now desecrating their Temple and making Jerusalem anything but a city of peace.

Δέ means that Jesus has something else to say in addition, and “I say to you” is the voice of authority. “In no way shall you see me” (Jesus cannot add “from now on” as he does in Matthew) with its strong οὐμή and the futuristic subjunctive announces the final, complete withdrawal of Jesus from the Jews. “Until you say (or shall say), Blessed the One coming in the Lord’s name!” has the idea of expectancy although ἕως is without ἄν (ἐάν). In whom this expectation will be fulfilled we see in Isa. 65:8–10: “that I may not destroy them all”—“a seed,” “an inheritor,” “mine elect”—“that have sought me.” Read the whole of Isa. 63:7–65:10. Paul answers: “a remnant”; read Rom. 10:18–11:5. A remnant of the Jewish nation which was made up of all those Jews who, beginning with the days of the apostles and continuing through the many years of history, turn to repentance and faith and greet Jesus with the Palm Sunday cry of Ps. 118:26: “Blessed the One coming,” etc. Εὐλογημένος is the perfect participle with its present connotation: “has been and is thus now blessed”; ὁἐρχόμενος is “the One coming,” a standard designation of the Messiah; “he comes” is also used with reference to him. “In the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) name” means “in connection with the revelation Jehovah has made.” In all such phrases “name” is the equivalent of revelation (see 9:48). Both the psalm itself and the acclamation on Palm Sunday shut out the idea that these words could ever be applied in a double sense, willingly by believers and unwillingly by the obdurate (at the second coming of Christ). Ps. 118:26 adds as the other half of the greeting: “We have blessed you out of the house of the Lord!”

Although the words of Jesus do not declare that any or many or all Jews at any one time or era in the future will greet him as the Messiah they do express the expectation that some will do so. And Jesus says that whenever any, few or many, beginning even with his present hearers, Pharisees (v. 31) and others, do so, namely by faith, they shall see him, not, indeed, merely with the eyes of the flesh—for no Christian sees him in this manner although he is always with us—but on earth with the eyes of the spirit, as our Savior, indeed, and in heaven by direct vision.

All chiliasts refer v. 35 to the final conversion of the Jews as a nation. They also add further details: the Jewish nation will stand at the head of all nations, will constitute the cream of Christendom, will have Jerusalem as the center of the millennial kingdom, the metropolis of the whole earth, and from Jerusalem the heathen living at the time of the millennium (!) will be converted by Jewish missionaries, etc., etc.

But ὑμῖν, ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν in this verse, together with the “you” form of the two verbs, address the Jewish hearers that are right before Jesus: your house is left to you, and any of you who acclaim Jesus as the Messiah shall see him. By natural implication this, of course, extends to any Jews of coming times who likewise accept Jesus. How can any man regard these simple pronouns and “you”-verbs with their obvious meaning as a reference to the last generation of the Jews that is living at the beginning of the millennium?

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

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

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