Luke 11

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 11 JESUS’ ABOUT PRAYER Luke 11:1-13 Luke 11:1 —And it came to pass, as he was praying—Jesus had taught his disciples to pray by precept (Matthew 6:7-15) and example (Luke 9:29). The example of Jesus on this occasion stirred them to fresh interest in prayer and reminded them of the teachings of John the Baptist. (Luke 5:33.) Jesus gave them the substance of a model prayer as recorded in Matthew 6:7-15. Jesus was praying “ in a certain place”; this indefinite statement shows that Luke did not make a definite time or place, but that his “ order” is one of thought. This occasion may have followed close upon the visit at Bethany, the “ one of his disciples” in that case perhaps being a later one, and Jesus here repeating what had been taught the twelve disci¬ples in Matthew 6:9. The “ certain place” would then be near Jerusalem. This disciple said: “ Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.”Luke 11:2-4 —And he said unto them, When ye pray,—Two causes may be listed for this request— the example of Jesus and the fact that John had taught his disciples to pray.

Many think that his form is different in time and place from that given in Matthew 6:9-13; however this is of little consequence. The importance of prayer justifies a repetition of teaching concerning it. In Matthew the suggestive occasion is the habit of “ vain repetitions”; in Luke the occasion is a direct request. In Matthew the prayer is followed with a fuller statement of the condition of forgiveness, while in Luke Jesus gives encourage¬ment to persevering in prayer. The simplicity, brevity, beauty, directness, generality, and spiritual fitness make this prayer a model one. Father, Hallowed be thy name.—God is to be addressed, not as Creator, or Ruler, or Almighty, or as the Omniscient One — but as “ Father.” This form of address is comprehensive enough to include all the rest. It puts in the foreground his love and care, and is chosen to suggest our relation to him and his relation to us. His name is to be hallowed; this means that we are to give reverence, honor and homage to it; it forbids our using his name in an irreverent way; we are to hold it with majesty, purity, and glory. “ Thy kingdom come.” The first petition is not for ourselves, but for the in¬terest of his kingdom; his kingdom must be put first. Our in¬terests are to be identified with the interests of his kingdom. At the time that this prayer was taught, the kingdom had not been established; it was still in the future, and they were to look forward with prayer to its coming. Give us day by day our daily bread.—This phrase or peti¬tion may have been suggested from the daily gift of the manna in the wilderness. After we have sought first the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, we may make request for bread, daily needs for the body, and daily bread for the soul may be fairly understood as included in this prayer. We are dependent on God, and the petition of this prayer for daily bread keeps before us our dependence on him. The asking each day for the bread of the day carries with it efforts on our part to earn our daily bread. We are to work for it. When we pray for the kingdom to spread, we obligate ourselves to work for the spreading of the kingdom; so when we pray for our daily bread, we are pledging ourselves to cooper¬ate with God through all of the laws that he has given for the production of bread. And forgive us our sins;—Jesus teaches us here to ask God for forgiveness, as we ourselves have already forgiven those who have sinned against us. One ground, and apparently the only ground, except the mercy of God, on which we can ask to be forgiven, is that we have forgiven all— every one from our heart. It is useless to ask God to forgive us when we have neglected or refused to forgive others. Jesus teaches emphatically and clearly the conditions of God’ s forgiving us, and one of these conditions is that we already have a forgiving heart toward others. We pray that we may not be led into temptation. Jesus and God may permit us to be tempted but we ask not to be led into temptation, and not to be tempted above that we are able to bear. (1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Peter 2:9.) Luke 11:5-6 —And he said unto them,—This has a close connection with the prayer which just precedes it. The request made of Jesus was “ Lord, teach us to pray”; Jesus not only gives instruction, but gives an illustration which puts the greatest stress upon persistent importunity. One had a friend who came to his house “ at midnight,” and requested the loan of “ three loaves” to set before his guest who was on a journey, and had stopped to remain overnight with him. This request came at an unusual hour; his friend must arise from slumber, tear himself from his little ones, unbolt his well-fastened door, and hand out three loaves of bread. The man had come for the bread and would not return without it. Some have suggested that “ three loaves” were asked for, because of a custom — one loaf for the guest, one for the host, and one to show abundance. Luke 11:7-8 —and he from within shall answer and say,—The man awakened at midnight is severely tested; he responded to the call of his friend in a vexed tone. He did not wish to be bothered; his door was shut; his children were in bed with him or in the same sleeping place. The Greek word for bed applied to any room or place used for sleeping, as well as to a bed or couch. There were so many obstacles in the way, and it would be so much trouble to unbar the door, find the loaves, and disturb the children that the friend answered that he could not be bothered with him. His friendship would not move him to grant the request, but the importunity, literally “ the shamelessness” of the caller would cause him to “ arise and give him as many as he needeth.” Luke 11:9-10 —And I say unto you, Ask,—“ Ask,” “ seek,” and “ knock” represent the three ways of striving to have our wants supplied. Not content with asking, we are to follow it by seeking and searching (Deuteronomy 4:29), and to add to that knocking. When asking does not bring all that is needed, we continue seeking, as well as asking (John 15:7 John 16:23); and when there are obstacles as locked doors, barred gates, knock for help , that the difficulties may be removed and a door opened for spiritual blessings and spiritual opportunities. The three¬fold repetition—“ ask,” “ seek,” and ‘ knock”—comes naturally from the illustration that has just been given. Ask and seek as the man who went to his sleeping friend at midnight; “ knock” at the door earnestly as he did; for to such asking, seeking, knocking, God’ s door of mercy will be opened. These three repetitions of command are more than mere repetitions; since to seek is more than to ask, and to knock more than to seek. These emphasize the deep earnestness and persistency that must be exercised in prayer. Luke 11:11-12 —And of which of you that is a father—This is another illustration emphasizing prayer. A loaf of bread in the East bore resemblance to a flat stone, suggestive of this comparison ; some fish also resembled a serpent in form, as an eel. These two illustrations are given by Matthew. (Matthew 7:9-10.) Luke only gives the third illustration of the comparison between the egg and scorpion. The scorpion was a crabshaped animal, and some species were exceedingly poisonous. If a child should ask for any form of food, an earthly parent would not give him a hurtful thing in answer to the child’ s request; hence God would not give harmful things to his children who ask him in earnest prayer. Some think that “ a scorpion for an egg” was a proverbial expression. Jesus now makes his own application of these illustrations. Luke 11:13 —If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts—There is no longer a comparison, but a contrast; the contrast is between man and Jehovah as our Father. It may also signify the contrast between Jehovah God and the gods of the heathen. If earthly parents know how to give “ good things” to their children, how much more shall God our Father “ give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” It is worthy of notice that the argument for persevering prayer increases. First from a friend, then from a father, who is more than a friend, and now from the relation of heavenly Father, who is infi¬nitely more than an earthly father. AND REBUKEDLuk_11:14-36 Luke 11:14 —And he was casting out a demon—The demoniac spirit in the man seems to have made the man dumb. If this is the same case as that noticed in Matthew 12:22 he was blind also. When the demon was cast out by the power of Jesus, the man’ s powers of speech were restored to him, and the people marveled at this power in Jesus to drive out evil spirits. Others think that this was a different case to that mentioned by Matthew 12:22 and Mark 3:19-30. The greatness of the mir¬acle excites the astonishment of many; this leads to the charge and the demand in the next two verses. Luke 11:15-16 —But some of them said,—As presented here by Luke, there are two classes of objectors: (1) those who charged him with working through Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and (2) those who, discrediting all the testimonies he had given in support of his claims, demanded yet other signs from heaven. When this demon was cast out of the man he had instanta¬neous relief. “ Beelzebub” comes from the Aramaic, and was the name for the chief of demons; Beelzebub was a Philistine god of the flies, and this title may not unnaturally have been transferred to Satan. The issue between Jesus had his ene¬mies was too vital to be omitted, hence all three of them give a record of this accusation against Jesus. We have it in Matthew 9:32-34 and much more fully in 12: 22-32. Luke 11:17-20 —But he, knowing their thoughts,—Jesus first answered the charge that his power came from Satan. The kingdom or a house divided, filled with discord, strife, dissension, and an¬archy cannot stand; a kingdom is destroyed by internal civil war. If Jesus cast out demons because he was in league with Satan, then his kingdom was divided against itself; Satan is casting out Satan; how can his kingdom stand? (Mark 3:23.) To ask the question was the most forceful way of saying it cannot stand. But if Satan cast out demons, by whom did their sons cast them out? The pretended power of the Phari¬sees to cast out evil spirits belonged to their sons. This was a keen and justifiable term of the charge upon them, popularly known as “ argumentum ad hominem.” Even your sons will become your judges to condemn you on the charge; demons to do cast out demons. But if I by the finger of God—If he, by “ the finger of God,” or power of God, or Holy Spirit, cast out demons, then the kingdom of God had come unawares upon them. On the phrase, “ finger of God,” compare the expression of the magi-cians to Pharaoh—“ this is the finger of God.” (Exodus 8:19.) The “ kingdom of God,” not kingdom of heaven, is the uniform phrase used by Luke. It will be noticed here that Satan is represented as a real personal being, not a mere principle of evil. Luke 11:21-23 —When the strong man fully armed—The reasoning here is clear and forceable. So long as Satan, the strong man armed kept his palace and no mightier foe assailed him, he had things his own way and his household goods were undis¬turbed ; but when the Son of God came down upon him with far mightier forces, he wrests from him his old weapons and quickly divides his spoils. Jesus, if he had been in league with Satan, would have left him to keep his power over men in peace; but by his casting out demons, he showed that he is an enemy to Satan and superior to him— that he had himself overpowered Satan and conquered him. He that is not with me is against me;—This is a proverbial saying and was probably repeated often by Jesus; it was suited to the various classes of his hearers, many of whom were secret enemies or undecided and wavering or timid friends. Jesus emphatically declares that there can be no mid¬dle ground. He that does not take part with God and Christ must take part with Satan. Luke 11:24-26 —The unclean spirit when he is gone—Here Jesus teaches the law of Satanic operations; this especially relates to demonical possessions. When a spirit of Satan is cast out of one person or place, it seeks another favorable place. The meaning here is that the evil spirit wanders about and finds no rest; then it decides to return, and taking to itself seven other evil spirits does return. The evil spirit returns to its house, the human soul, and finds it swept and garnished as a reformed, yet unconverted, person might be. Luke 11:27-28 —And it came to pass,—“ A certain woman” was im-pressed with the wisdom and moral grandeur of Jesus as a great Teacher, and in true womanly ways cried out aloud in the multitude and gave expression to her praise. Tradition says this woman was a maidservant to Martha and Mary; there is no evidence of the truthfulness of this tradition. The woman’ s expressions indicate that she was a mother, as she voices motherly instincts and feelings. Her beatitude is simi¬lar to that of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. (Luke 1:42.) This good woman is fulfilling Mary’ s own prophecy. (Luke 1:48.) One way of praising Jesus was to praise his mother. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they—The instant re-sponse of Jesus turns the thought to the far higher blessedness of those who “ hear the word of God, and keep it.” The woman’ s sentiment was a true expression of her heart, but Jesus showed who should receive the richest blessings. She was blessing Jesus through his mother, but Jesus in contrast turns attention to others and gives them a beatitude. Jesus gives praise to his mother, but he never intended that she be worshiped; he does not deny the woman’ s words, but points out who, rather than his natural mother, are to be counted as blessed, even those who hear and keep the word, the whole counsel, commands, and will of God. Hearing is not enough; one must hear and do or “ keep” the commandments of God. Luke 11:29 —And when the multitudes were gathering—When the multitudes were thronging together, or assembling, Jesus an-nounced certain truths. Matthew 12:38-45 may be compared with Luke’ s record here. Luke does not state a definite time; he does not tell us when the multitudes were assembling. It is very probable that frequent gatherings during Christ’ s min¬istry were had. Jesus now answers those noticed in verse 16, who were seeking a sign from heaven. The generation was an evil one, for it was unbelieving, and demanded unreasona¬ble evidences of the divinity of Jesus; they wanted a heavenly sign, but the only sign granted was that of Jonah. The preaching of Jesus ought to have been sign enough as in the case of Jonah. Luke 11:30 —For even as Jonah became a sign—As Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so Jesus and his preaching should have been sufficient sign to his generation. Jonah had been com¬manded to go to Nineveh and warn them against impending destruction; but instead of going to Nineveh he went in the opposite direction, and went aboard a vessel. A storm arose and Jonah was thrown overboard by the crew; Jehovah had prepared a great fish and Jonah was swallowed and remained in the fish for three days and nights; he was then thrown out of the fish on the dry land, and was then instructed to go to Nineveh. He went to Nineveh and preached to the Ninevites. Jonah came forth from the sea monster to preach to the Nin¬evites; so Jesus came forth from the heart of the earth to send forth the gospel to every creature. Jonah’ s remaining in the belly of the fish became a type of Jesus remaining in the grave. This is the sign that Jesus gave as his proof of his Messiahship. Luke 11:31 —The queen of the south shall rise up—“ The queen of the south” was the queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1); Sheba is sup-posed to be the southern part of the Arabian peninsula. It is called here “ the ends of the earth” ; this is an expression to denote a great distance. (Jeremiah 6:20.) She came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and was filled with admiration. She had faith; she was not unbelieving; for she made the long journey to hear the wisdom of Solomon. There was in the very pres¬ence of the people something or a sign greater, or superior to that of Jonah or to Solomon. The miracles and preaching of Jesus were more significant and superior in kind and degree than those in the day of Jonah or of Solomon when the people believed. Luke 11:32 —The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment—Je-sus passes on in his discourse and contrasts that generation with the Ninevites, whom they despised as heathens and Gentile sinners. They would be witnesses against that generation for rejecting Jesus; the unreasonableness of the impenitent of this generation would be condemned by the example of the Ninevites and the queen of Sheba. The Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah, who only made them a temporary visit and performed no miracles. Jesus was living among them and preaching the gospel of the Messiah, yet they did not believe him. Jonah preached to the Ninevites about 840 B.C. Jesus as recorded by Luke here contrasted the Nine¬vites and the queen of the south; the climax is greater; it was more terrible to be condemned by the Ninevites than by the queen of Sheba. Luke 11:33 —No man, when he hath lighted a lamp,—In the discourses of Jesus this illustration occurs repeatedly, being used for var-ious purposes, yet always appropriate. (See Matthew 5:15 Matthew 6:22; Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16.) Jesus uses a very apt illustra¬tion ; a lamp was used for light, and no one would put it in a secret place, or “ in a cellar,” or “ under the bushel” ; when lighted, it was placed on the stand that it might give light to those who were in the room. The Greek word for “ secret place” or “ cellar” means any concealed place, like a vault, crypt, or covered way, or place like a cellar, a mere hole where persons would not enter. The “ bushel” was a common house¬hold measure holding about a peck. Luke 11:34 —The lamp of thy body is thine eye:—As the lamp is made for light and its useful purposes, so the eye was made for vision, needing therefore to be in perfect condition so as to ful¬fill its functions well. In like manner the moral light of God comes into this world through Christ to be accepted by men honestly and with unprejudiced mind. For as a blurred eye dooms the whole body to darkness, so does a prejudiced, worldly heart shut off the light of God and doom the misera¬ble man to the darkness of delusion and death. The “ eye is single” when it is undimmed and has its natural and proper powers for straight and clear seeing; when the eye is evil, that is, it lacks its powers of clear and correct sight, the body is full of darkness. Luke 11:35-36 —Look therefore whether the light—If the only source of light be darkness, great indeed is the darkness. The eye gives expression and radiance to the face and person; when the eye is dark the whole person is gloomy and sad. The eye has been called “ the window of the soul” ; hence through the eyes the different moods of the soul are expressed. Disputing and questioning the work and authority of Jesus as these Pharisees and others were doing, and demanding unreasona¬ble signs, and disbelieving the signs which he had already given them, was like having an eye that is dark; the whole spiritual man is soon filled with evil, with deep spiritual dark¬ness. (John 3:19; 2 Corinthians 4:4.) OF Luke 11:37-54 Luke 11:37-38 —Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh him—A Pharisee invited Jesus to dine with him. This Pharisee was more friendly than many of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a religious sect among the Jews who were very particular about the ceremonies of the law; in fact, they had added many of their traditions to the law; they were as careful to observe their traditions as they were to observe the law. This Phari¬see was not a disciple of Jesus. Jesus accepted the invitation. The original shows that it was an early meal, perhaps “ breakfast.” It was less formal than a dinner. Who the Pharisee was, or why he asked Jesus, we are not informed; some think that he invited him to criticize his teachings and his life. And when the Pharisee saw it,—Jesus accepted the invita¬tion and went into the house and dined with the Pharisee. It was the Jewish custom to dip the hands in water before eating and often between courses for ceremonial purification. In Galilee the Pharisees and scribes had criticized Jesus severely and often because he ate with unwashed hands. (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23.) On this occasion Jesus had reclined at the breakfast without this ceremonial dipping in water his hands. This neglect of Jesus to follow the custom of the Pharisees caused them to wonder. It became an occasion for Jesus to teach them a lesson. Perhaps this Pharisee was hor¬rified, not that the hands of his guest were unclean, but that he had not conformed to the Pharisaic ceremony of washing before the meal. Luke 11:39 —And the Lord said unto him,—Though Jesus was a guest in the house and at the table of this Pharisee, yet he did not hesitate to condemn the tradition which had been added to the law, and which stood in the way of this Pharisee accepting the truth. Jesus charged the Pharisees with making the out¬side clean, but neglecting the inside. He did not object to cleansing the outside, but his objection was the cleansing of the outside and leaving the inside unclean; the Pharisees would substitute the outside cleansing for the inward clean¬sing; this Jesus severely condemned. Jesus used the common illustration of “ the cup and of the platter” because these were on the table while they were eating. It was a severe charge to say that they were “ full of extortion and wickedness.” The Pharisees kept the external regulations, but their hearts were full of plunder and wickedness. The psalmist had said: “ Thou desirest truth in the inward parts.” (Psalms 51:6.) A cleansed body does not make a pure heart any more than fine clothes make a noble character. Luke 11:40-41 —Ye foolish ones, did not he that made—God had made the outside and the inward part also; he required cleanliness of both parts. They are called “ foolish ones” because they put the emphasis on the wrong thing; at other times Jesus called them hypocrites. The Pharisees gave alms and thought that they were acceptable to God because of their mere giving of alms. They gave alms of what they had and then claimed that all things that they had were clean because they had given alms of it. It mattered not how they had ob¬tained their possession, they acted as though their fraudulent gains were sanctified because they gave a part of them to Je¬hovah. They thought that they could use lawfully and enjoy all things of which they gave alms. (Luke 19:8-9; Romans 14:14; 1 Timothy 4:4-5; Titus 1:15.) Luke 11:42 —But woe unto you Pharisees!—A curse is pronounced upon the Pharisees; Jesus was not talking “ about” the Phari¬sees, but he was talking “ to” them. The reason assigned is that they carefully “ tithe mint and rue and every herb,” and fail to appreciate the full significance of this. To “ tithe” meant to take a tenth of anything and give it to Jehovah. “ Mint” was a garden plant like our spearmint” ; “ rue” was a shrubbery plant about two feet high and was grown in their gardens; “ herb” was a general term to include similar plants. Matthew 23:23 has “ anise” and “ cummin.” These were garden plants used principally for flavoring purposes. They were careful to tithe these things, but neglected the important things of “ justice and the love of God.” Matthew adds “ faith.” It was right for them to tithe these things, but wrong for them to neglect the important things. These things ye ought to do, said Jesus, but you ought not to have left undone “ the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith.” (Matthew 23:23.) Luke 11:43 —Woe unto you Pharisees!—This “ woe” is pronounced upon these Pharisees because they loved to occupy the “ chief” or “ first” seats in the synagogue. The chief seats were ele¬vated in a semicircle at one end of the synagogue and facing the congregation. Sometimes these seats were sold to those who were able to pay the best price for them. Matthew 23:6 has also the chief place at feasts, given by Luke (Luke 14:7 Luke 20:46) as a mark characteristic of the Pharisees. The Pharisees loved these positions of honor; they also loved reverential salutations, titles of honor, and praise of men. They liked to re¬ceive the plaudits of men in the market places. In all these places they appeared to be very pious and wanted praises for their pretended loyalty to the law. Luke 11:44 —Woe unto you!—This condemnation is pronounced upon them by Jesus for their hypocrisy. Matthew includes the scribes and other hypocrites with the Pharisees. “ Hypocrites” were like stage actors who put on masks and as¬sumed characters that did not belong to them; they were base pretenders. They were like graves or tombs that are hidden from view by age or the growth of grass or weeds and men passing over them are defiled. So people were spiritually de¬filed by these hypocrites, whose pretended righteousness hid from view their depraved character. These hidden graves would give ceremonial defilement for seven days. (Numbers 19:16.) Luke 11:45 —And one of the lawyers answering saith—The “ lawyers” were generally Pharisees; they were oftentimes the same as the “ scribes.” This lawyer felt the reproach that Jesus had given to the Pharisees and so informed him. He felt that what Jesus had said was an insult to the lawyers or to his class. They were interpreters of the law, and were not law¬yers in our modern use of that word. He was shrewd enough to see the force of what Jesus had said and felt that the de¬nunciations applied to the lawyers as well as to the Pharisees; he felt that his dignity had been insulted as well as that of the Pharisees. Luke 11:46 —And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also!—The “ lawyers,” one of whom now rebuked Jesus, justly merited the condemnation, and Jesus pronounced three woes upon this class. Jesus showed them to be hypocrites, for they by their interpretations and traditions placed heavy burdens upon the people, but they did not get under the load and help bear them; they would not even touch the burden with their fin¬gers. While they made the law fearfully burdensome to the people they touched not those burdens themselves with one of their fingers; but, on the contrary, they exempted themselves by their interpretations entirely from those burdensome con¬structions which they imposed upon the people. To make law bear heavily on the people, but light as air upon the lawyers and Pharisees, was the uttermost moral abomination. Luke 11:47 —Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs of the prophets,— Sepulchres among the Jews were often caves, or were hewn out in rocks on the sides of hills and the entrance decorated with ornaments. (Genesis 23:9; Isaiah 22:16.) Some interpret this speech of Jesus as being severe irony. They now pretend greatly to honor the prophets, but their fathers had killed the prophets, and they were walking in the footsteps of their fathers ; they did not condemn their fathers for killing the prophets, but went to great trouble and expense to adorn heir graves. This sounds very much like much of our modern hypocrisy, both as individuals and as nations. Luke 11:48 —So ye are witnesses and consent—The generation to which Jesus was talking became guilty of the sins of their fa¬thers by consenting or endorsing the crimes which they did in killing the prophets. Jesus knew that these Pharisees and lawyers were getting ready to destroy him. Their fathers killed the prophets, and now they were building tombs of costly stones, and were adding endless burdens by their traditions. Their fathers had disobeyed the prophets and had destroyed them; the present generation was concealing them under their whitewash of tradition, so that men could not rec¬ognize them nor their teaching. In this way they were wit¬nesses and consenting unto the works of their fathers. It is a high crime against God to persecute and destroy God’ s prophets of the present generation, but destroy those of a former generation. Luke 11:49-51 —Therefore also said the wisdom of God,—“ The wisdom of God’’ as used here does not refer to any book of the Old Testament; it has reference to Jesus as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30. Possibly it may mean that God in his wisdom said what Jesus now states; hence there is no reference to a previous revealed “ saying.” This wisdom of God now announced that God would send his prophets and apostles to them and that they would persecute and kill them. The generation to which Jesus was speaking was no better than the generation that killed the prophets of God; the present generation was seeking to do even a greater crime than their fathers had done; hence, the condemnation that fell upon their fathers would come with greater force upon them. The sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children (Exodus 20:5), espe¬cially of that generation which sanctioned the sins of the past, and even went beyond them. from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah,—Abel, the second son of Adam, was the righteous martyr, and the first recorded in the Bible, and Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, is the last one recorded, according to the Jewish arrangement of the Old Testament. (2 Chronicles 24:20-22.) His last words were: “ Jehovah look upon it, and require it.” However there is some difficulty in determining definitely who this Zachariah was. Many of God’ s prophets between Abel and Zachariah had been slain. Some think that this Zachariah was the son of Barachiah; however the usual explanation is that it has reference to Zachariah, the son of Jehoiada, the priest who was slain in the court of the temple. Matthew 23:35 gives Zachariah as the son of Barachiah. Some think that in some way “ Barachiah” as used by Matthew should be “ Jehoiada”; they think these names have been interchanged. Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim was later (Jeremiah 26:23), but this climax is from Genesis to Second Chronicles.

Zachariah was slain between the altar and the sanctuary; that is, between the brazen altar in the court and the temple. The condemnation should be cumulative, bringing the blood or the guilt for shed¬ding the blood of all of the prophets upon this generation. Luke 11:52 —Woe unto you lawyers!—This is the third woe pronounced upon the lawyers. This woe is pronounced upon them because they had taken away “ the key of knowledge.” Spiritual wisdom is represented as a treasure in a room or house, on which were lock and key; the lawyers had locked the door, and either carried, that is, “ kept” the key, or it may mean, they had taken it away. In either case they were responsible as teachers of the law for the ignorance of the people. They had not entered in, neither had they permitted others to enter in. Jesus was revealing the will of God unto the people; these lawyers had refused to accept this teaching and were hindering the people from accepting it. Luke 11:53-54 —And when he was come out from thence,—The maliciousness of the scribes and Pharisees is clearly and strongly described here. The original Greek may mean that they terribly pressed him, enraged, and plied him with questions concerning more things, setting a trap for him, to catch (or “ hunt artfully”) something from his mouth. So soon as Jesus went out from the Pharisee’ s house (verse 37) these scribes and Pharisees were ready to spend all of their fury upon him. Jesus had in no uncertain terms very severely rebuked their hypocrisy; they were enraged against him and now sought to take some word and pervert it into some accusation against Jesus. What became of the breakfast that Jesus went in to eat, we know not, but the rage of both Pharisees and lawyers, together with the scribes, knew no bounds. Jesus had pronounced three woes upon the Pharisees and three upon the lawyers. They were “ laying wait for him”; this vivid picture of the anger of these Pharisees and lawyers which Luke draws presents them as treating Jesus as if he were a beast of prey.

Verse 1 This chapter gives Jesus’ instruction on prayer (Luke 11:1-13), recounts his refutation of the Pharisees’ insinuation that Christ was in league with Satan (Luke 11:14-26), records his reaction to a compliment (Luke 11:27-28), details another instance of his reference to Jonah (Luke 11:29-32), stresses his warning against spiritual blindness (Luke 11:33-36), tells of his lunch with8 a Pharisee (Luke 11:42-44), includes an additional three “woes” against the lawyers, and concludes with Luke’s summary of the intensified evil cabal against Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 11:53-54). Much of the material in this chapter is suggestive of very similar teachings found in Matthew; but this must not be understood as variable accounts of the same events and teachings, colored by the individual viewpoints of the narrators, and therefore being inaccurate or deficient in one or another of the sacred evangelists. The holy Gospels are totally accurate in all of their details; and the conviction that underlies this series of commentaries makes it impossible to receive as valid any type of exegesis that fails to respect this viewpoint. It is absolutely certain that Christ repeated, over and over again, all of the sacred teachings regarding himself and the message which he brought from the Father; and in the light of that certainty, how inane and puerile are the speculations regarding the Lord’s prayer, recorded both in this chapter and in Matthew, and the pontifications of scholars about which is the “true” account! The same may be said of many other things in this Gospel. How natural, and how impossible to suppose that it could have been otherwise, that Jesus would have returned again and again to the principal teachings that made up the burden of his four-year campaign of enlightenment! THE LORD’S PRAYERAnd it came to pass, as he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples. (Luke 11:1) He was praying … Prayer was a characteristic habit of the Lord Jesus Christ; and no prayerless person has any kinship whatever with the Saviour. “That man is a brute, a monster, who never prays, never gives glory to his Maker, nor owns his dependence upon him."[1]When he ceased, one of his disciples said … The circumstances here are utterly different from those in which the similar Lord’s prayer was given in Matthew. Jesus repeated it “on two or more occasions”[2] for the instruction of his followers; and it was most natural that the prayer should have been repeated in different words, “for Jesus’ view of prayer was that it should not be mechanical."[3] The respect of that unnamed disciple who made the request for instruction should be noted; he waited until Jesus had finished praying. Lord, teach us to pray … “This itself is a good prayer, and a very needful one; for it is a hard thing to pray well."[4]As John taught his disciples … No other record of such action on John’s part has come down from that age. [1] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 692. [2] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 318. [3] Ibid. [4] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 692.

Verse 2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread, And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.And when ye pray, say … According to Geldenhuys, this means that prayer should be used “as nearly as possible in the form in which he taught it”;[5] but the more accurate exegesis is that “Christ8 did not design that we should be tied up to these very words, for then there would have been no variation”[6] from the account given in Matthew. Father … Harrison commented that: (Here) Jesus uses a child’s word for Father, which appears also in Romans 8:15. It is used by modern Hebrews within the family circle, and implies familiarity based on love.[7]Hallowed be thy name … The first concern in every prayer should be the honor and glory of God. The third commandment in the Decalogue forbade taking God’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7); and the Christian also is instructed to hold the name of God in highest reverence and awe. Thy kingdom come … Later in this same chapter, Jesus said, “Then is the kingdom of God come upon you” (Luke 11:20); and from this it is mandatory to see a double meaning in “come.” There was a sense in which the kingdom had already “come upon” the people of that day; and yet this petition has respect to something future. Anthony Lee Ash noted that: There is a sense in which the kingdom is to come in any age, since not all have owned the sovereignty of God … Even after the kingdom came at Pentecost (Acts 1:5-8; Acts 2:1-4), the prayer remained a valid one for Christians. If it were not, Luke would not have preserved it in a gospel written for post-Pentecost disciples. And if it were a valid prayer for them, it remains so for Christians of any age.[8]In connection with this, the Greek word translated “kingdom” in this prayer is rendered “kingly power” or “royal sovereignty” by practically all recognized expositors of recent times, and not by “kingdom” in a spatial sense.[9] For further thoughts on praying for the kingdom to come, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:9-13. Our daily bread … This indicates that basic necessities alone are proper objects of petition from the Father. This prayer shows that the Christian should be content with a simple life-style. Forgive us our sins … presupposes that all Christians shall be continually guilty of falling short of God’s will, a fact which some find hard to admit. As an example of this, Childer’s explained the popularity of Matthew’s account of the Lord’s prayer by the reference to his use of “debts” instead of “sins,” saying, “We who believe strongly that Christians do not commit sins and remain Christians sometimes avoid this form of the prayer!"[10] The Lord’s teaching here is to the effect that there are no Christians who do not need to pray for the forgiveness of their sins. For we ourselves also forgive … Geldenhuys has a profound comment on this, as follows: “FOR indicates here, not the ground upon which God grants forgiveness, but the condition with which we ourselves must comply if we are to enjoy forgiveness from God."[11] John Wesley confessed the same thing: “This does not note the meritorious cause of our pardon; but the removal of the hindrance which would otherwise render it impossible."[12] These comments, of course, are the most obvious and dogmatic truth; and this student has never been able to understand the reluctance of commentators like those just quoted (and including them) to admit the same obvious and dogmatic truth as applied to Christian baptism. Baptism is not the grounds for pardon, but it is an absolutely essential and necessary prerequisite to the pardon of alien sinners. Just as forgiveness is impossible for the unforgiving, salvation is impossible for those refusing to submit to a commandment which Christ himself made a precondition of it. And bring us not into temptation … This does not imply that God tempts any man, because “God tempts no man” (James 1:13); but this is a plea that the Christian may not encounter temptation that will cause him to fall (1 Corinthians 10:13). LESSONS FROM THE PRAYER1. Prayers should be short. 2. They should be concerned first with the honor and glory of God. 3. Human needs are basically three: (a) bread (with all related things included), (b) forgiveness, and (c) deliverance from temptation. 4. As indic8ated by the word “Father,” this is a prayer to be prayed by members of God’s family. 5. Long, bombastic prayers and vain repetitions are sinful. 6. This teaches that even Christians are presumed to be, in a sense, sinful, that is, not totally free of wrongdoing. 7. The very highest priority belongs to God’s kingdom. 8. Temptation should be as much dreaded and as carefully avoided as sin itself. 9. If Christians hope to be forgiven, they must also forgive. Before leaving this prayer, it should be observed that it is no more unreasonable that Christ should have given the Lord’s prayer twice than that the Father should have given the Decalogue twice. Even the variations are instructive and subtly appropriate. THE FRIEND AT In this paragraph, Jesus gave extensive encouragements to his followers to pray, promising, in the most positive language, the certainty of their prayers being heard and answered. First, there is the example (a parable) of the friend at midnight, then the analogy and contrast between earthly fathers and the heavenly Father, and then the dogmatic promise that the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Thus, there is a progression in the words, friend, father, and heavenly Father, a leading from the lesser to the greater in each verse. [5] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 319. [6] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 692. [7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 230. [8] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), Vol. II. p. 23. [9] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 323. [10] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 508. [11] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 323. [12] John Wesley, One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco.

Verse 5 And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say to him, Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine is come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him; and he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his import8unity he will arise and give him as many as he needeth. The friend (in contrast) = the Father in heaven. The borrower = all who would be a blessing to others. His importunity = the perseverance and urgency of true prayer. The friend’s reluctance = (the apparent) reluctance of God to answer Christians’ prayers. The final procurement of the loaves = God’s eventual response to his children’s prayers. The number of loaves received (not three, merely, but “as many as he needed”) = God’s blessing his prayerful children, not merely by supplying what they ask, but what they need. The midnight = the ultimate of all human need. The success of the mission at such an inappropriate time = the fact God is ready to bless his children in any situation, regardless of the direst extremities. All of these analogies, it will be noted, are related to the great lesson Jesus pointed out in the next two verses. A friend … at midnight … Alas, how utterly hopeless would be the state of mortal man, if in the darkness of human wretchedness and sin there was no friend to whom he might go for help and relief. It is precisely the thesis of infidelity that mankind has no friend beyond the veil, no one to whom he might go to solicit aid, no higher power to supplement his weakness, and no Person to understand his woes. How glorious is the Christian teaching that in the blackness of whatever midnight may engulf him, there is a Friend who will rise up and bless him. Let it be particularly noted that the supplicant did not set out to seek a friend; (he already had one!) “The answer to prayer is, therefore, only certain in cases where one who prays stands in a relation of friendship to God, and loves and serves him."[13]Children are with me in bed … As Boles observed, “The Greek word for bed applied to any room or place used for sleeping, as well as to a bed or couch."[14] The mention of such details as the shut door, the midnight hour, the sleeping children, etc. was to emphasize the reluctance of the friend to respond to the borrower. Because of his importunity he will arise … This is the center of the message of the parable. Trench has this: It is not his only; it is his ; for we are to suppose many askings, each more urgent than the last; although only that one is recorded which at last extorts the gift.[15]Such shamelessness in prayer (for that is what the Greek word means) is exemplified by Abraham who pleaded for Sodom and the cities of the plain (Genesis 18:23 ff), by Jacob who wrestled with the angel of the covenant (Genesis 32:28), and by pleading of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:21). But WHY did God honor such persistence, and by this parable command us to emulate it? The answer appears in a comment by Matthew Henry: “We prevail with men by importunity because they are with it, 8but with God because he is PLEASED with it!"[16] The teaching here relieves every man of any thought that God can be troubled by the number and urgency of his petitions. Let men pray ALWAYS. It is wrong, therefore, to think of prayer as overcoming the reluctance of God. “It is never an overcoming of God’s reluctance, but a laying hold of his highest willingness."[17][13] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 324. [14] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 231. [15] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 333. [16] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 694. [17] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 330.

Verse 9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.These words, in a different context, are also found in Matthew 7:7-8; and reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 7:7-8; but the purpose is the same in both passages, that being that men should not cease to pray, and ever with greater and greater urgency. There is an ascending urgency in the successive imperatives, ask, seek, and knock; because to seek is more than to ask, and to knock is more than to seek. It was for the purpose of underlining the precious promises in these teachings that Jesus had just given the parable of the friend at midnight; but he did not stop with that. He next appealed to the readiness of an earthly father to grant a son’s request; and, in that illustration, as in the friend at midnight, the analogy is one of contrast rather than likeness.

Verse 11 And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask for an egg, will give him a scorpion?The teaching here is that carnal man will honor the request of his children, and that it must be received that God, whose loving righteousness is infinitely beyond any loving-kindness of a mere earthly father, will, in a far greater degree, respond to the just petitions of his spiritual children. The things contrasted here: loaf and stone, fish and serpent, egg and scorpion, are superficially alike. “The scorpion is a small, poisonous, crab-like animal, which, when at rest is round like an egg."[18] Stones, serpents and scorpions could by no means be acceptable as Revelation 8 propriate gifts in place of food; and the teaching is that God will not reward the petitions of his children with useless or dangerous things, but will supply what they truly need and desire. ENDNOTE: [18] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 752.

Verse 13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?Here the contrast between evil men and the righteous Father is stressed; there is also a contrast between the “good gifts” of earthly fathers (such as food) which are surpassed by the greatest of gifts, that of the Holy Spirit, the gift which includes all others. In the similar record of Mat 7:11, the Saviour represented the Father as giving “good gifts,” as distinguished from “the Holy Spirit” here. This emphasizes the difference in the two occasions. As Childers noted: This discourse in Luke comes later in Jesus’ ministry and nearer to Pentecost than does the Sermon on the Mount, in which the passage cited in Matthew occurs. Therefore, Jesus can be more specific with reference to the needs of his disciples.[19]From the passage here, it is clear that God’s children should not hesitate to pray to the Father for the measure of the Holy Spirit which has been promised to baptized believers (Acts 2:38), and which is called “an earnest” of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13). ENDNOTE: [19] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 509.

Verse 14 And he was casting out a demon that was dumb. And it came to pass when the demon was gone out, the dumb man spake; and the multitudes marvelled.THE CRAVING FOR SIGNS REBUKEDDemon that was dumb … “That is, the demon made the man dumb."[20] This was another in the countless miracles of healing wrought by the Son of God, the marvel of the multitudes suggesting that perhaps the “sons of the Pharisees” had tried in vain to exorcise the evil spirit which was so easily cast out by the Saviour. Evidently, this was a celebrated case. ENDNOTE: [20] John Wesley, op. cit., en loco. 8 Verse 15 But some of them said, By Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.This portion of the chapter appears to be descriptive of some of the same incidents and teachings recorded in Matthew 12; but this may not be affirmed dogmatically. How natural it was that the Pharisees would have renewed a charge ascribing Jesus’ power to Satan, and how logical that Jesus would have replied to it with strikingly similar words and illustrations. If the two passages are indeed accounts of a single occasion, the entire event may be known by melding the two, and not by an arbitrary preference for either as “the original.” We may be very sure that every word recorded in the Gospels was truly spoken by Jesus, and that every event related is truly grounded in a historical occurrence. All three synoptics are similar at this point. See Mark 3:20-30. In Matthew’s record, the slander that Jesus’ power was derived from Beelzebub followed the suggestions of the multitude that Jesus indeed was the Messiah; but here it would seem that the campaign of the Pharisees had succeeded in dimming this perception of the crowds that thronged around Jesus, and that here the slander was preventive, in their view, and designed to foreclose any such exclamations by the crowd. This teaching is in an entirely different context in Mark. Beelzebub … This name is the same as Baalzebul, being derived through a mocking Hebrew corruption of the name of the old Canaanite god, Baalzebul, meaning “lord of the high place”; the Hebrew alteration of it, Baalzebub, meant “lord of flies” or of “the dunghill.” Baal was actually not one god, but many, more accurately referred to as the Baalim. When the Israelites entered Canaan, they found that “every piece of land had its own deity; thus there were many Baals."[21] This was “the name of innumerable local gods controlling fertility of the soil and domestic animals."[22] The name Beelzebub, as used by Luke, however, means “Satan.” The Hebrews had developed this insulting name of the old Canaanite god into a common synonym for the devil; and their application of this shameful word in connection with the holy Christ was as vulgar and evil as anything the Pharisees ever did. [21] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 115. [22] Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., 1972), Vol. 3, p. 71.

Verse 16 And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven.A sign from heaven … This was repeatedly demanded by the Pharisees, although they are not named here: and what they probably meant was some spectacular wonder, without moral value, which would cater to human curiosity. Jesus never allowed himself to be maneuvered by such evil requests. Not only were the Pharisees incapable of judging such signs, if they had been given; but they were already the sworn enemies of the Lord, intent on killing him; and they would most surely have rejected anything that even the Son of God might have done. Furthermore, their conceit that some sign in the sky was necessarily from God was erroneous. Satan caused fire from heaven to fall on the animals that belonged to Job.

Jesus would indeed give them a sign; but it would be of his choosing, not theirs. As Harrison said, “The utter unreasonableness of his enemies is demonstrated by their demand for a sign when they had just witnessed one.” [23]ENDNOTE8: [23] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 231.

Verse 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.The amazing similarity of the synoptic Gospels in their records of the teaching here, coupled with the equally amazing differences, presents a problem that may be resolved fully and satisfactorily only by understanding them as independent, trustworthy records of different events; and this writer agrees with A. T. Robertson, who, in his “Harmony of the Gospels,” made Mark and Matthew parallel and Luke independent in this section.[24] See the introduction to this chapter. Hobbs also observed that although some of these events and teachings are recorded in Mark and Matthew as having taken place in Galilee, “There is no reason why they could not have taken place in Judea also. His enemies followed him here, as in Galilee; the hearers were different and had not heard the teaching before."[25]Every kingdom divided … etc. The argument here is that Jesus’ action was not BY the devil, but AGAINST him, and that if Satan was working through Jesus he was working against himself. [24] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 124. [25] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 192.

Verse 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub.This verse startlingly reveals some things about Satan. Spence said: Throughout this argument, Jesus assumes the existence of a kingdom of evil, all armed and thoroughly organized to carry out its dread purposes. He concedes, too, in language which admits of no questioning, the existence of a chief of this evil confederacy.[26]Further, as Boles noted, “It will be noted that Satan here is represented as a real person, not a mere principle of evil."[27]Now it happened that some of the Pharisees themselves professed to cast out demons, an action which they advocated as holy, helpful, and righteous; and Jesus quickly moved to point out that, judged by their own approval of exorcism, they had already admitted such deeds as he had performed before their very eyes to be of God. [26] H. D. M. Spence, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 303. [27] H. Leviticus 8 o Boles, op. cit., p. 235.

Verse 19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.There was no logical way for the Pharisees to view exorcism by their own followers as being of God and at the same time allege that the exorcisms by Jesus were by the power of Satan. Furthermore, there were vast differences in the claimed exorcisms by the sons of the Pharisees and the real miracles wrought by Jesus. The example before them which had caused such marveling by the people was evidently wrought upon a celebrated case wherein the sons of the Pharisees had failed to produce a cure. There is no admission here by Jesus that the pretended exorcisms of the Pharisees’ disciples were in fact genuine. On the other hand, Christ was merely showing that those bigots were condemning him and charging him with being in league with Satan for doing what their own followers professed to do. “It is gross hypocrisy to condemn that in those who reprove us which yet we allow and applaud in those who flatter us."[28]ENDNOTE: [28] Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 696.

Verse 20 But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.The finger of God … This was a master stroke. When Moses performed great wonders before Pharaoh, and when for a time the magicians duplicated the wonders, then came the plague of lice. Aaron stretched the rod upon the land, and the dust of the earth became lice in man and beast (Exodus 8:17). Attempting to do this they failed; and they went and told Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:19). Jesus’ use of the same language here stresses the superiority of his miracles over the professed cures performed by the sons of the Pharisees. Then is the kingdom of God come upon you … This is not a declaration that Christ’s church, or kingdom, had at this time been established, an event that took place on Pentecost. The kingdom had come in the sense that the King had appeared and was gathering out of secular Israel, the spiritual remnant, the true Israel, who, along with Gentiles, would form the nucleus of the new institution. See under Luke 11:4.

Verse 21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh f8rom him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.This little jewel of a parable is most instructive, nor should we hesitate to draw the several analogies which are most certainly in it. The following analogies are by Dummelow:[29]The strong man fully armed = Satan. His court = the whole world under his usurped dominion. His goods = the souls whom Satan holds captive. His armor = the devices by which he enslaves men. The Stronger Man = the Lord Jesus Christ. The spoils = the souls rescued from Satan by the Lord. Overcoming the strong man = the total victory of Christ. Taking his whole armor = the frustration of all Satan’s devices through the gospel of Christ. There can be no neutrality in such a conflict as that which appears in these verses; and Christ at once stated that key truth. See next verse, (Luke 11:23). ENDNOTE: [29] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 753.

Verse 23 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.This means that any man who does not work with Christ and aid his mission of salvation is in fact working for his defeat. The Pharisees, so intent in their hatred of Jesus, were here warned that the defeat of Christ’s purpose for Israel would “scatter.” What an ominous word, and how dramatically it was fulfilled! As Geldenhuys said: Within one generation from their final rejection of Jesus, the Jews of Palestine were overwhelmed by Rome; and ever since then, until our own times, the Jews have continued to be scattered over the world, … and have constantly been the prey of the powers of darkness.[30]And Jesus’ words are still true, both of men and of nations. What a pity it is that America does not seem to be listening. This verse contrasts with its opposite (Luke 9:50); but as Harrison explained it, “There Jesus was speaking of a man who was unconsciously cooperating with him, while here he was speaking of those who consciously opposed him."[31] Also, the man in Luke 9:50 was operating in the name of Jesus, a far different thing from that in view here. [30] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 330. [31] Ev8erett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 232.

Verse 24 The unclean spirit when he is gone out of the man passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and finding none, he saith, I will turn back unto my house whence I came out. And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil than himself; and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of the man becometh worse than the first.This parable of the wandering demon, like all the words of Jesus, is true either in or out of context; and out of context, this is a marvelous teaching of the futility of negative morality, or religion. Barclay titled this section, “The Peril of the Empty Soul,” stressing (1) that a man’s soul may not be left empty, (2) that a genuine religion cannot be erected on negatives, and (3) that the best way to avoid evil is to do good.[32]However, it is a mistake not to see more than moralizings in the parable before us. Jesus had already spoken this parable, much earlier in his ministry (Matthew 12:43 f), making it a prophetic warning of Israel against rejecting her King; and here it is spoken again, near the close of his ministry, and at a time when the final rejection of himself by the secular Israel was rapidly approaching.

The man in whom the evil spirit was = Israel. The going out of the demon = the rebirth of the nation under the preaching of John the Baptist. The swept and garnished period = the emptiness of Israel’s inadequate regeneration. No meaningful change in the people occurred. The restlessness of the demon = the relentless and unresting hostility against Jesus of the evil powers. His repossession of the victim = total repossession of national Israel by Satan’s evil forces. This refers to the judicial hardening of Israel. The state “worse than the first” = the hardened secular Israel, as fully expounded in Romans 9-11. In the earlier incident recorded in the other two synoptics, Christ warned the Pharisees of the unpardonable sin; here Christ warned them of the judicial hardening that would accompany their rejection of the Lord. In the earlier episode, the wandering demon was used as a prophetic warning; here it was repeated as an explanation of what had already occurred. ENDNOTE: [32] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 151. 8

Verse 27 And it came to pass, as he said these things, a certain woman of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it.This incident is strangely similar to the episode recorded in Matthew 12:46 f and Mark 3:31 f. There, it was the mother of Jesus and his brethren who interrupted; here it is a woman who spake of Mary. The words here could not have been spoken by the mother of Jesus, but were quite properly spoken concerning her. Childers saw this as “the first New Testament fulfillment of the prediction in the that `All generations shall call me blessed’” (Luke 1:48).[33] Jesus, far from denying the reference to his mother, dogmatically affirmed it, but went on to stress spiritual kinship as far more important than earthly relationship to Jesus. ENDNOTE: [33] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 510.

Verse 29 THE SIGN OF THE PROPHET JONAHAnd when the multitudes were gathered together unto him, he began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here. And the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.The sign of Jonah … is nothing less than the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as typified by the miraculous entombment and delivery after three days of Jonah in the belly of the great fish, this truth having been spelled out in detail by Matthew (Matthew 12:40), and witnessed by the inscriptions in the catacombs for centuries afterward. Such a view as the following should be rejected out of hand. In Luke, the sign was not the experience but the preaching, Jonah proclaimed God’s message …. Nineveh, the ancient heathen city, responded in repentance. Jesus proclaimed God’s message … the Jewish people of his day were responding not with repentance but with rejection.[34]It is the first sentence which is in error. How a scholar can make Jonah’s “preaching” the sign of Jonah is a mystery, in view of the fact that Jonah’s preaching would never have been believed at all, except for the fact that Jonah’s experience of three days and three nights duration was such an astounding miracle that when “word came unto the king of Nineveh” (Jonah 3:6), Jonah was believed, and the people repented. Without that prior miracle, only a fool could believe that the king of Nineveh would have led his whole nation in repentance; such a thing, if it h8ad occurred, would have been a greater miracle than the fish episode in Jonah! We repeat, there is no authority for limiting the “sign of Jonah” to the mere man and the fact of his preaching.

Where in all holy writ was preaching ever made a “sign” of anything? Of course, all efforts to open up some variance between Luke and Matthew on this question are grounded in a prior disbelief of the Jonah record and of Jesus’ unqualified approval and endorsement of it. Therefore, the sign of Jonah is here understood in the light of Mat 12:40, as the death, burial, resurrection of the Christ, this being the great sign which Jesus promised that generation; and it should be noted that the sign was yet to be given, a future occurrence, whereas the preaching of Jesus had already been going on for years. For extensive elaboration of Jonah as a type of Christ, see indexes in my Commentary on John and my Commentary on Mark. Also, for discussion of the judgment, the repentance of the Ninevites, the greater than Solomon, and the greater than Jonah, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:41. The burden of this entire paragraph is that Israel had failed to respond to the preaching of the Master, despite the historical examples of Gentiles who had responded to God’s message, under far less privileged circumstances. ENDNOTE: [34] Ray Summers Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 144.

Verse 33 No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither under the bushel, but on the stand, that they which enter in may see the light. The lamp of the body is thine eye: when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when it is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Look therefore whether the light that is in thee be not darkness. If therefore thy whole body be full of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light as when the lamp with its bright shining doth give thee light.Light (not) under the bushel, but on a stand … This refers to Jesus’ intention of giving such a sign as should draw all men unto himself. His death, burial and resurrection, to be accomplished at the very center of Israel, would be a sign unto all generations and peoples of the earth. It would indeed be a light upon the stand. The lamp of the body … the eye … Here Jesus addressed himself to correcting his hearers’ inability (through their sins) to appreciate truth, and to read God’s sign, when they should finally see it. It was not at all the nature of the sign that needed correction but the quality of perception in his sinful audience, the evil generation which confronted him. Independently of the context, the parable of the lighted lamp has many applications, as already noted elsewhere. This simile of the light also occurs in other contexts, inMatthew 5:15 and Luke 8:16. Some critics are slaves to the superstition that Jesus could have used such a simile as this concerning the light ONLY ONE TIME, which, of course, is ridiculous on the face of it. All great teachers of all ages have used certain key expressions over and over under different circumstances, making different deductions from them, and adapting them to whatever teaching was in hand; and it is unscientific and illogical to deny that Jesus did the same thing. Despite this, some of the critical scholars insist on viewing the several mentions of this simile as “proof that Matthew or Luke or both are mistaken,"[35] trying to determine “which is the true historical setting of the simile."[36] Obviously, all the settings in which it is reported in the sacred Gospels are “true historical settings”; for Jesus used the illustration often. See the introduction of this chapter. Zahn, as quoted by Geldenhuys, suggested that Jesus might have used such a simile as this “ten or twenty times” during his ministry; and all denials of such things were unhesitatingly declared by Geldenhuys to be “devoid of all foundation."[37][35] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 339. [36] Ibid8. [37] Ibid.

Verse 37 Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh him to dine with him; and he went in and sat down to meat.Our Lord frequently dined with Pharisees, as recorded in Luke 5:29; Luke 7:36; Luke 14:1; Luke 19:5; and in John 2:1-11; John 12:1-2. This was apparently the second meal of the day; and Jesus accepted an invitation to dine, entered the Pharisees’ house, omitted the customary ablutions, so dear to the Jews, and sat down to eat. It would have compromised Jesus’ teachings concerning all those ceremonial washings, if he had submitted to them, out of courtesy, in this instance. Although refusing to compromise his teachings, Jesus nevertheless was not in any manner discourteous to the Pharisee who was his host. From the above paragraph, it is clear that Jesus dined with Pharisees no less than seven times; and coupled with this significant fact is the declaration by Luke in Acts 6:7 that “a great company of the priests believed”! Now the great majority of the priests were Pharisees; and in the conversion of so many of this class shortly after Pentecost it is quite logical to suppose that among those converted were: (a) either host Pharisees with whom Jesus dined, or (b) guest Pharisees who, along with Jesus, where entertained upon those occasions so conspicuously recorded in the New Testament, especially by Luke. While Luke did his research for this Gospel during Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea, it would have been quite natural for him to have interviewed some of those converted Pharisees (whether hosts or fellow-guests of Jesus), such interviews having been in all probability some of Luke’s “many sources,” and thus accounting for the eye-witness integrity of these remarkable episodes. Certainly, this is a thousand times more reasonable that the “Q” postulated out of their imaginations by the radical critics.

Verse 38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first bathed himself before dinner.The “bathing” in view here had absolutely nothing to do with bodily pollution or hygiene, being nothing except the ceremonial washings so punctiliously observed by the Pharisees of that day. For full discussion of such traditions, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 15:1-11. Of significance is the fact that the Pharisee evidently expected Jesus to observe the traditional washings; and from this it appears that the invitation was not tendered in the hope of entrapping Jesus, but as a bona fide act of hospitality. Otherwise, the Pharisee would not have marvelled at what happened.

Verse 39 And th8e Lord said unto him, Now ye the Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter; but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness.Jesus’ words spoken in this verse appear blunt and harsh, until it is remembered that Luke no doubt omitted much of the conversation leading up to this denunciation, moving quickly to the meat of it. The Lord here made a direct move to convert this Pharisee, and knowing fully the immorality and sin that marked his life, Jesus gave it to him plainly. The verse has this meaning: “In spite of your extreme care for the vessels of your table, your whole moral life is unclean and defiled."[38]ENDNOTE: [38] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 307.

Verse 40 Ye foolish ones, did not he that made the outside make the inner side also?This has the weight of: “Do you really think that God cares about external cleanness only, and not about internal cleanness?” Spence paraphrased this verse thus: Are you not fools to lay down such rules to avoid outward defilement, while within, in the soul, you allow all manner of wickedness? Surely God who created the things we see and touch, created the soul also! [39]The persons addressed by Jesus as “fools” include an impressive list of the “respectable.” This Pharisee was doubtless hailed by his peers as wise; the arrogant fool ofPsalms 14:1 was probably considered unconventional and daring; the man who built on the sand (Matthew 7:26) was probably a respected contractor; the rich farmer who mistook his body for his soul (Luke 12:20) probably had a high social status; and the foolish virgins of the parable (Matthew 25:1 f) were without doubt the cream of their society. This gives a glimpse of what Jesus meant by the terms “fools” or “foolish”; any person who does not respect his soul’s deep need of salvation is foolish. ENDNOTE: [39] Ibid.

Verse 41 But give for alms those things which are within; and behold all things are clean unto you.Again, we have a good paraphrase from Spence: 8I will tell you how really to purify, in the eyes of God, these cups and dishes of yours. Share their contents with your poorer neighbor.[40]Basil Jones in “The Speaker’s Commentary” has this: Let the Pharisee do one single, loving, unselfish act, not for the sake of the action nor for any merit inherent in it, but out of pure good will toward others, and their whole inward condition would be different.[41][40] Ibid. [41] Ibid.

Verse 42 But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over justice and the love of God; but these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces. Woe unto you! for ye are as the tombs which appear not, and the men that walk over them know it not.THREE “WOES” AGAINST THE Although suggestive of the longer list of “woes” recorded in Matthew 23, this is a different list, spoken on another occasion, and under different circumstances. The trouble with the Pharisees, as revealed in both places, however, seems to have been of one kind. They were specialists in trifles and externals. Their whole concept of religion had degenerated into a gross, unspiritual preoccupation with outward forms and ceremonies, while neglecting utterly the great moral verities of true religion.

Their tithing of garden herbs, even to the extent of counting tiny seeds and weighing mint leaves, and their multiplying man-made sabbath rules past the boundaries of all reason - all such things had destroyed the spiritual life of the nation. Volumes have been written regarding their silly sabbath rules, but Barclay has one of the most notable examples, thus: One of the forbidden works on the Sabbath was the tying of knots, such as sailors’ and camel drivers’ knots, and knots in ropes; but a woman might tie a knot in her girdle. Therefore, if a bucket of water had to be raised from a well, a rope could not be knotted to it; but a woman’s girdle could, and it could be raised by that![42]These ought ye to have done … applies to justice and love of God; and “not to leave the other undone” applies to tithing, an act for which Jesus commends them. It was their stress of that to the neglect of more important duties which was wrong. Ye love the chief seats … These were “seats at the front of the synagogue, around the pulpit, or lectern, and faced the congregation."[43] What men love determines their destiny; and, as it was brought out so forcefully in the Gospel of John (John 12:43), it was the love of the Pharisees for the glory which they received of themselves which blinded their eyes to the Christ of glory. The desire for pre-eminence among men, the coveting of honors bestowed by men, the popularity awarded by men - such things still snare and entrap the unwary soul; and the damage can be no less appalling than that which ruined the Pharisees; and yet how reluctantly men forego such things. A commentator whom we shall not name said, “Of course, it is not wrong to sit in the chief seats; it is only wrong to LOVE such things!” Tombs which appear not … In Numbers 19:16, the rule appears which makes every person who touches a grave unclean for a week, that is, ceremonially unclean. Jesus here compared the Pharisees to an unmarked grave which could cause a man to become unclean inadvertently. In a similar manner, but far more seriously, the people who were following the Pharisees, who supposedly were righteous, could be spiritually contaminated through contact with those evil enemies of Jesus. The lawyers were close associates with the Pharisees; and when they saw the drift of Jesus’ teachings, it suddenly appeared to them that they, the lawyers, were being condemned, no less than the Pharisees. Up to that point, the lawyers had apparently been e8njoying the strong preaching of Jesus against the Pharisees, whose conduct, actually, was the scandal of the whole nation. Pricked in conscience at last, a lawyer responded. [42] William Barclay, op. cit., p 161 [43] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 307.

Verse 45 And one of the lawyers answering saith unto him, Teacher, in saying this thou reproachest us also.THREE “WOES” TO THE LAWYERSThe lawyers … were the ones to whom the Hebrew people looked for interpretation of the Scriptures and guidance in religious questions. Thou reproachest us … This word “literally means INSULT."[44] Jesus’ strong rebuke of the Pharisees, just delivered, had not specifically mentioned the lawyers; but, as many of the lawyers were also Pharisees, the one who spoke up here felt that his class also had been insulted. Jesus’ words had struck home. “The hit dog hollers; so the lawyer complained."[45] The result was that the Lord promptly pronounced three “woes” against the lawyers. [44] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 515. [45] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 197.

Verse 46 And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye load men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.This is Woe 1. While multiplying men’s religious obligations to infinity by ridiculous and hair-splitting interpretations, the lawyers did not personally accept and fulfill the obligations which they imposed on others. They avoided the regulations they prescribed for others by all kinds of “theories and handy methods of escaping the fulfillment of the commandments while keeping the appearance of executing them."[46] Theirs was a demonstration of the truth that preaching what others should do is a far different thing from the preachers doing what they preach. ENDNOTE: [46] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 343.

Verse 47 8 Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. So ye are witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs.This is Woe 2. Gilmour thought “the argument here is obscure”;[47] but it is actually quite clear. The hypocritical conduct of lawyers in building impressive tombs to the honor of God’s prophets whose words they themselves despised and were in the process of violating (through their opposition to Jesus) was one and the same quality of action as that of killing the prophets. The character of those tomb-builders made the tombs they built monuments to the killing, and not to the prophets! It was in that light that Jesus looked upon those tombs, viewing them as evidence that the evil generation before him was of the same perverse and rebellious nature as that of their ancestors.

Summers observed that “The lawyers kept the view alive (that God’s prophets should be killed) by building the memorial reminders."[48] Phillips’ translation catches the spirit of the Lord’s word in this place thus: “You show clearly enough how you approve your fathers’ actions. They did the actual killing and you put up a memorial to it.” [47] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 218. [48] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 150.

Verse 49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute.There is no need to suppose that Jesus here quoted from “some lost Jewish apocryphal book”;[49] for only Jesus promised and sent out apostles. It is therefore Jesus’ “roundabout way of referring to himself[50] “The words are an utterance of Christ himself (Matthew 23:34); Christ’s knowledge of the divine counsels is so complete that his utterances are also utterances of the wisdom of God.[51] Jesus’ employment of the third person emphasizes the prophetic nature of his words. He saw in the evil character of his hearers the certainty of their hatred and murder of the holy apostles. [49] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 218. [50] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 150. [51] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 753.

Verse 50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation.Required of this generation … The prophecy is here extended by Jesus to reveal the fate of the chosen people. The long ages of their rebellious conduct against God would at last be resolved in the final hardening and overthrow of their nation, coupled with the scattering of the Jews all over the earth, the primary fulfillment of which occurred less than a generation aft8erward in the Jewish-Roman war which destroyed the Holy City in 70 A.D. The appearance of Christ provided the last opportunity for Israel. Their long sustained habit of breaking God’s laws and murdering his messengers had been endured on the part of God, for the reason that the preservation of Israel was necessary until the promised Seed should be delivered; but now that the Son of David had indeed appeared on earth, the summary punishment which the nation had so long merited would be suspended no longer. No generation was ever punished for the sins of its ancestors, except in the sense of their receiving the consequences of choices made by their ancestors, the great example of this being the sufferings of humanity due to the sin of Adam; but, in this place, more was intended.

Not only would the ancient policy of Israel in rejecting God and raising up a king of their own choice finally reach its climax in that generation; but added to that disaster was the inveterate wickedness of that generation themselves in rejecting the Messiah, bringing a deserved judgment of punishment upon them. Had they received Christ, the blood shed by their ancestors would not have been required of them; but through their continuation in the evil ways of their ancestors, they brought the accumulated wrath of centuries upon themselves. Zachariah … Many modern commentators identify this person with “Zechariah, the son of Jehoida (2 Chronicles 24:20-21); and, as 2Chronicles was the last book in the Hebrew arrangement of the Old Testament Scriptures, it is supposed that Jesus referred to Abel, the first victim of murder recorded in Genesis, and coupled it with this example from the last book of the Hebrew Old Testament, thus making these first and last murders an idiomatic summary of all the murders perpetrated by God’s enemies. The conviction here is that there are insurmountable difficulties in such a view: (1) It is based on the conceit that Matthew’s identification of the Zachariah mentioned here is an error. Matthew called him “Zachariah the son of Barachiah” (Matthew 23:35); and, although it is fully possible that Jehoida and Barachiah are the same person (many Hebrews had more than one name), yet there is no proof of it. (2) Furthermore, the circumstance of this murder’s having taken place between the altar and the sanctuary is not mentioned in 2Chronicles, where the murder was described as occurring “in the court of the house of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 24:21). ThisCOULD be a description of the same place; but McGarvey denied this.[52] (3) The third and most convincing objection lies in the words “whom ye slew.” This refers to a murder which those very persons whom Jesus was addressing had committed. It touches the ancient murder mentioned in 2Chronicles in only two places, the similarity of the names of the victims and the proximity of the scenes of the two murders.

It had been a secret murder, of course, not in the court, but between the “altar and the sanctuary”; and by these words Jesus revealed that he knew all about the secret lives of his diabolical enemies. See more on this in my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 23:35. Thus, Christ included all the righteous blood ever shed on earth, from the times of Abel until that very hour, as entering into the weight of that judgment that fell upon that generation, and not merely the far shorter lists of murders recorded between Genesis and 2Chronicles. By understanding “whom ye slew” as a reference to the men in his presence and a murder they had committed, the appearance of error in Matthew’s Gospel is avoided; but of course there are those who would much prefer to see an error in Matthew, and yet there can be no intelligent denial of the possible meaning ascribed here to the clause, “whom ye slew.” Of course, it will be argued “that it is not likely” that two men with the same (or similar) names would have been murdered; but why not? Josephus even gives the name of a third “Zacharias, son of Baruch”[53] who was slain about thirty-four years after Jesus spoke this. Furthermore, it should be noted that Jesus spoke this denunciation three decades before Luke recorded it, and that the Gospel itself was written nearly a decade before the third Zacharias was killed in A.D. 68. [52] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company, 1875), p. 202. [53] Flavius Josephus, Life and Works, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston), p. 755.

Verse 52 Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.This is Woe 3. “The key of knowledge …” taken away by the false interpretations of the lawyers was “the true knowledge of the Messiah, which is the key of both the present and the future kingdom of heaven; the kingdom of grace and of glory."[54] The same meaning, although expressed differently, was seen by Childers: “The key which unlocks the door of the kingdom of God is the Scriptures."[55] It should not fail to be noted that Satan still has his multitudes of “interpreters” who are neither entering the kingdom nor permitting others to enter. [854] John Wesley, op. cit., en loco. [55] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 515.

Verse 53 And when he was come out from thence, the scribes and Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things; laying wait for him, to catch something out of his mouth.When he was come out from thence … Spence believed that these words indicate that “Jesus abruptly rose and left the house of his Pharisee entertainers."[56]Vehemently … “This is the same verb used to express Herodias’ attitude toward John the Baptist (Mark 6:19).[57] It suggests that the murderous enemies of Jesus were aroused to a frenzy of violent talk against him; they were like a swarm of angry hornets. These guides of Jewish public opinion have been denounced by Jesus in the most emphatic language in the presence of the multitudes, and their vicious hatred against him overflowed. Laying wait to catch something … They engaged Jesus in conversation, plying him with questions, with only one thing in view: that of extorting, by any means, some word which they might use as a pretext for the murder of Jesus which they had already decided to accomplish. “Their kind lives on in those who listen to a preacher for no reason but to criticize him, and who study the Bible only to argue about it and against it."[58]The enemies of Jesus were completely frustrated and confounded by the Master’s wisdom. They were cunning enough to see that they had been defeated; and, as is ever the case, when they had no logical reply, they had recourse to murder of the one who spoke the truth. After this, all their energies would be directed to the murder of the Son of God. [56] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 310. [57] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 198. [58] Ibid., p. 199.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 111. State the request the disciples made. 2. What had they heard that prompted this? 3. State the prominent idea in the prayer. 4. Why pray for the kingdom to come? 5. On what condition were sins forgiven? 6. Why did the friend come at midnight? 7. What brought the desired favor? 8. Tell the exhortation Jesus then gave. 9. And what assurance did he give them? 10. Who else is referred to for example ? 11. With what are the fish and egg associated? 12. What did they admit themselves to be? 13. Who is contrasted with them? 14. State the conclusion drawn from this contrast. 15. What miracle was he performing? 16. How had the man been affected? 17. What caused the people to wonder? 18. Tell what some said. 19. Why might this seem possible? 20. What did others seek ? 21. State their purpose. 22. What will happen to a divided kingdom ? 23. And to a divided house ? 24. Who is represented by these illustrations ? 25. What claim of theirs did he ask about? 26. Who were to judge these people ? 27. What would prove the fact of the kingdom ? 28. To what man is Satan again likened ? 29. Who is the “ stronger” man? 30. Can one be “ neither for nor against” ? 31. Why does the unclean spirit return to the man? 32. Compare the first and last state. 33. Who pronounced a blessing on Christ’s mother? 34. What blessing did he prefer? 35. When the crowd gathered what did he call them 36. State the only sign to be given them. 37. To whom was he a sign? 38. What did he do to them ? 39. What miracle made that possible? 40. State a like miracle necessary for Christ. 41. What queen’ s example will shame this people? 42. Tell what she had done. 43. What showed the faith of the Ninevites? 44. How should a candle be placed? 45. What light is here illustrated? 46. How should the eye be? 47. If otherwise state the result. 48. Repeat the warning. 49. How much of our body should be lighted? 50. Who invited Jesus to dine with him? 51. What neglect did this man observe? 52. On what tradition was this based? 53. Of what inconsistency did Jesus accuse them? 54. What should they rather do? 55. What small matters were they attentive to do ? 56. But passed over what? 57. Which should they have passed over? 58. Of what pride did he accuse them? 59. How were graves used as illustration? 60. Who protested against his teaching? 61. Did Jesus apologize? 62. How did the lawyers oppress the people ? 63. What prophecy does Jesus quote? 65. This will bring what upon that generation? 66. Why begin with Abel? 67. What key had these lawyers stolen? 68. How had they acted? 69. What urging did the scribes and Pharisees do? 70. State their purpose

Luke 11:1

1 Teach us to pray. Some people would disapprove the idea of exercises for the training in prayer, yet Jesus endorsed the request of this disciple by doing the very thing he asked for. If disciples of Christ would put in some time studying and preparing themselves for prayer, there might be fewer unscriptural efforts performed.

Luke 11:2-4

4 For comments on this prayer see those at Matthew 6:9-13. 8

Luke 11:5-7

7 This parable compares an earthly friend with the disciple who wanted to know how to pray. The outcome of a proper prayer is the lesson of the illustration.

Luke 11:8

8 No illustration is intended to apply at all angles. God is not to be regarded as this householder is described, for that is not the point of the parable. The comparison is in the word importunity which means persistence. We are taught to have a faith that will not shrink because we do not receive what we think we need, or do not receive it as soon as desired.

Luke 11:9-13

3 This paragraph is explained in detail at Matthew 7:7-11, which is a part of the “sermon on the mount” delivered to the disciples.

Luke 11:14

4 It was dumb means the devil had caused the person to be dumb, for after it was cast out the dumb spake. Being possessed with a devil did not affect all people alike, the reason for which is not given in the scripture.

Luke 11:15

5 See the comments at Matthew 12:24.

Luke 11:16

6 These people were clamoring for some miracle that they imagined would be a test of the power of Jesus. Their motive was a desire to tempt the Lord.

Luke 11:17-18

8 This is explained at Matthew 12:25-26.

Luke 11:19

9 See the explanation at Matthew 12:27.

Luke 11:20

0 Explained at Matthew 12:28.

Luke 11:21-22

2 See the comments on Matthew 12:29.

Luke 11:23

3 There is no “neutral” ground in matters of right and wrong. Regardless of how inactive a man may be, if he is not active for Christ he is his enemy.

Luke 11:24-26

6 This unusual passage is explained at Matthew 12:43-44.

Luke 11:27

7 This woman meant that the mother of Jesus was to be considered in a special sense. The Ro-manists make a great ado about the Virgin just as this woman did, except she did not even suggest that any worship should be offered to her.

Luke 11:28

8 Jesus did not go even to the extent of endorsing what the woman said, but stated what he would rather be done, which was to keep the word of God.

Luke 11:29

9 Because it was an evil generation, Jesus refused to perform any miracle at the time. However, he was willing to stake his reputation as a true prophet on an event yet to come.

Luke 11:30

0. Thayer defines the original for sign, “A sign, prodigy, portent,” and he explains his definition to mean “an unusual occurence, transcending [going beyond] the common course of nature.” Jonah lived three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, which was certainly something unusual. And Jesus predicted that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) and live again.

Luke 11:31

1 See the comments on Matthew 12:42.

Luke 11:32

2 The point of the verse is one about responsibility based on opportunity. See the comments on Matthew 12:41.

Luke 11:33

3 The common judgment shown by a man after lighting a candle, is used to compare that which disciples should show about their influence.

Luke 11:34

4 The natural eye is used for the same purpose as the candle in the preceding verse. A man has but one means of seeing and that is by his natural eye. If it is single (not defective) the owner will be able to see. Likewise, a man has only one life that he can live, and he should so conduct it that it will shed spiritual light upon the world about him.

Luke 11:35

5 This verse denotes that by an improper life, a man’s influence will be turned into one that is for evil or spiritual darkness. (See Romans 14:16.)

Luke 11:36

6 This verse has a thought similar to verse 23. A man is counted either for or against Christ. His influence is either one of darkness or of light.

Luke 11:37

7 Jesus accepted the invitation to dine with the Pharisee, which was not considered strange since they both were Jews. Went in and sat down to meat, indicates that he did this without any previous ceremony.

Luke 11:38-39

9 The Pharisee was surprised that Jesus did not wash before coming to the table. This does not refer to ordinary cleanliness, but to a ritual the Jews had that was a mere formality. Jesus knew the mind of the Pharisee and accused him and his class of hypocrisy in the exercise of their formalities.

Luke 11:40

0 It is true that God made the outward man and wants him to be kept clean. But he also made the inner man and requires that he be kept clean, which means that he should not be defiled with pride of tradition and with acts of hypocrisy.

Luke 11:41

1 If we are helpful toward others with our good things of life, we will be edifying the inner man and will need have no fears of harm from imaginary defilement.

Luke 11:42

2 See the comments at Matthew 23:23 for explanation of this verse.

Luke 11:43

3 These uppermost seats were the front pews that faced the audience. The markets were public gathering places, and these Pharisees craved special attention there.

Luke 11:44

4 Appear not means that the use being made of them is not apparent. Men walking over or about them do not realize that corruption is contained within. Jesus used the fact to compare the hypocrite trying to hide his wickedness.

Luke 11:45

5 Thus saying refers to the general denunciation Jesus has been uttering against leaders among the Jews. The lawyer may have thought he would bring an apology from Jesus by complaining in this way, relying, perhaps, on the dignity of his profession.

Luke 11:46

6 With one of your fingers is a figure of speech, for a burden that could be moved with one finger would not be very heavy. It means they were not willing to exert themselves in the least toward practicing the commandments of the law.

Luke 11:47

7 The Jews were influenced much by the traditional respect for their forefathers. The devotion to their sepulchres indicated a sentimental feeling for them, and this notwithstanding their guilt of having murdered the prophets.

Luke 11:48

8 Jesus verifies the remarks on the preceding verse.

Luke 11:49-51

1 This is explained at Matthew 23:34-36.

Luke 11:52

2 Key is from KLEIS, and Thayer explains it to mean, “the ability and opportunity to obtain knowledge.” Robinson gives virtually the same comment. Entered not in, etc. They were not willing to accept the truth nor let others have it.

Luke 11:53

3 Urge him means to irritate him in the hope of provoking him to say many things in reply to them.

Luke 11:54

4 Their motive was to lead Jesus into saying something that would be subject to criticism. Had he done this, they would have gone to the authorities with it.