Luke 18

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 18 THE JUDGE Luke 18:1-8 Luke 18:1 —And he spake a parable unto them—Luke is the only writer that records this parable. It is thought that Jesus was still in Perea when he gave this parable, and that it grew out of the preceding conversation. It was given “ to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint.” It is observed that Luke, more than any of the other writers, notices Jesus at prayer; he relates several parables of Jesus on prayer. (Luke 11:5-10 Luke 18:9-14.) The disciples of Jesus can pray at all times; they should pray at regular and stated times; there is no time when they may not pray. The spirit of prayer should be kept constant and alive by exercise. (1 Thessalonians 5:17.) They should pray and faint not; they should not languish and fail and become discouraged because of opposition. It does not mean that one should be incessantly performing the act of prayer. Luke 18:2 —There was in a city a judge,—In a certain city there was a certain judge. According to the law of Moses, all the cities of Israel were to have their judges who were to administer justice without partiality. (Exodus 18:21; Deuteronomy 16:18; 2 Chronicles 19:6-7.) Jesus gave a very vivid picture of this judge; he “ feared not God, and regarded not man.” He was an unprincipled man and reckless in his depravity; he stood in no awe of God— had no reverence and respect for God, neither did he have any mercy or respect for man. He acted contrary to all of the requirements of the law. (Exodus 23:6-9; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16-17.) To disregard and disrespect the law that God had given was to disrespect God. Luke 18:3 —and there was a widow in that city;—This parable brings the unrighteous judge into sharp contrast with the widow. The condition of widows was indeed desolate, helpless, and friendless; God has legislated in favor of the widow because man has been prone to impose upon them. (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:17 Deuteronomy 24:17 Deuteronomy 27:19; 1 Kings 17:9 1 Kings 17:12; Malachi 3:5; Mark 12:40.) This widow was without influence and unable to bribe; she had little to hope for from this wicked judge. She lived in the same city with him, and “ came oft unto him” begging him to avenge her of her adversary; she was asking justice against those who had mistreated her; she was asking to be delivered from the oppression of her adversary. Luke 18:4-5 —And he would not for a while:—The judge was unwill-ing to give her justice and put her off from time to time and refused to hear her petition. He finally came to a decision “ within himself” that though he feared not God, nor regarded man, nevertheless, because the widow continued to trouble him, he decided that he would give her justice, “ lest she wear me out by her continual coming.” He decided to give her justice because he did not want to be troubled longer with her; his reasoning was entirely selfish; not for her sake, nor for the sake of right, but in order to get rid of her, he would grant her petition. Even in doing right from such a motive, he loses by his selfishness the praise of a sense of justice. (Galatians 6:9.) The judge feared lest her continued importunity might finally culminate in personal violence. Luke 18:6-7 —And the Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous judge saith—It seems that Jesus paused in his discourse a moment so that due attention would be given to what he said. He asked them to reflect upon what the “ unrighteous judge” had concluded to do; this includes his motive, his selfishness, and his final actions. They should note the power of importunity even upon an unrighteous and faithless man, when applied by a weak and defenseless widow. Jesus then asks a question which carries the force of the truth that he wished to teach: “ Shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsufifering over them?” God is just, and it is impossible for him to reject or neglect his chosen people. The argument is “ a fortiori,” which is establishing a stronger conclusion even than ordinary premises need to warrant us. If so wicked a judge would grant justice, how much more will the Judge of all the earth do right? Luke 18:8 —I say unto you, that he will avenge them speedily.—Jesus here, as he frequently does, draws his own lesson from his parable, and makes the proper application of it. “ Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” It has been frequently argued as to whether this coming of the Son of man is to be understood to have reference to his final coming to judgment; or whether it may mean only that whenever he shall come among men to look for faith, he will find a lack of faith upon the earth. Some think that Jesus asked this question, meaning to convey that there would be little faith among men during the Christian age; others seem to think that he means to say that there will be but little faith on the earth when he comes the second time. THE AND THE Luk_18:9-14 Luke 18:9 —And he spake also this parable—Luke is the only writer that records this parable. There are two principal characters in this parable also; another contrast between two characters is brought out here. In this parable we have a comprehensive account of two representative characters who are praying; we have their prayers that we may see the manner of their worship. This parable was addressed to “ certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought.” It seems to have been spoken, not so much to the disciples, but to the Pharisees. The Pharisees thought that they were righteous before God, and that they could by their righteousness merit an answer to their prayers. This man “ set all others at nought,” or considered all others as amounting to nothing.

He looked down on all others as being sinners and outcasts. He has the wrong attitude toward others and toward God.Luke 18:10 —Two men went up into the temple to pray;—Both of these men had access to the temple worship; they were both in covenant relation with God; presumably both were Jews.

They do not represent an alien sinner and a Christian; the parable was not given to teach the difference between the prayers of an alien and a Christian; such an application does violence to the teachings of our Lord. The Jews attended daily the services at the temple; these two went up for that purpose, and met in the court of the Israelites, near the sanctuary. They are types of opposite classes of worshipers. The temple was the place of prayer as well as the place of sacrifice. “ A Pharisee” was one of the two principal sects of the Jews at that time; the Pharisees originated about one hundred fifty years before Christ; they were noted for their rigid observance of the letter of the law and of their traditions; among their leading characteristics were formality, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy. “ A publican” was one of the collectors of revenue and taxes under the Roman government. Publicans were classed with the outcasts or sinners. These two men thus classified are now presented individually by their prayers. Luke 18:11-12 —The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,—“ Stood,” in the original, means that he struck a pose, or assumed an attitude where he could be seen; the condemnation is not so much upon the standing in prayer as it is upon the posture assumed merely to be seen of men; he manifested no humility, piety, or reverence. He prayed “ thus with himself”; some think that this means that he only prayed mentally or in silence; others think that it means that the Pharisee standing by himself prayed these things. He first gave thanks, which was an important part of his communication with God. He thanked God that he was “ not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” He thanked God that he was made separate from sinners, as he thought; he did not feel any need of God’ s pardon, for he counted himself as being righteous; he trusted in himself that he was sufficiently righteous to merit God’ s favors. “ Extortioners”—the original means a robber and plunderer, grafters, like the publicans. “ Unjust” means one who deals unfairly with his fellows; one who is unjust in feelings and attitude toward others. “ Adulterers”—those who have transgressed the law in relation to others; those who have violated the law that requires a pure life. He seemed to reach the climax when he thanked God that he was not “ even as this publican.” There is no evidence that he knew anything about the man except that he was a publican. He sustained an attitude of contempt toward the publican.

After looking at himself negatively, and feeling that he was righteous, he then began to tell the Lord about his good deeds. He said: “ I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.” In his egotism and self-righteousness he has used the pronoun “ I” five times in this short prayer. The only fast positively enjoined was on the day of atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month. (Leviticus 23:27.) Luke 18:13 —But the publican, standing afar off,—What a contrast between the two! The Pharisee struck a pose so that everyone could see him and know that he was praying, while the publican “ standing afar off” made his prayer. In his humility he “ would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.” He stood at a distance from the Pharisee, not from the sanctuary; he was not wanting to be seen of men; he was contrite in heart and humble in life. He was timid in attitude; merely standing afar off, while the Pharisee was posing to be seen of men. He “ smote his breast" a natural gesture, which the heart dictates to all men; it was a proof of the sincerity of his grief and an open confession of his sins. He prayed: “ God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.” We have here a full confession and an anxious cry for mercy; he not only makes a general confession, but singles himself out as “ a sinner.” He seems to .acknowledge himself as the sinner that the Pharisee charged him of being.

He simply pleads for God to be merciful to him. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners; the publican thinks of himself only as the sinner, not of others as did the Pharisee. It is a matter of dispute among critics as to whether it should be “ a sinner” or “ the sinner”; there is but little difference, as the publican acknowledged himself to be a sinner in the sight of God and in the sight of men; whether he was the particular sinner that the Pharisee accused him to be is of little consequence. Luke 18:14 —I say unto you, This man went down to his house—Here, again, Jesus draws his own lesson from the parable. He commented briefly on the parable and said that the publican “ went down to his house justified rather than” the Pharisee. The word “ rather” here is to be explained by such scriptures as Ephesians 4:28 Ephesians 5:4 Ephesians 5:11; Hebrews 11:25; the word excludes comparison and includes contrast. The Pharisee was not justified at all; he offered no petition and requested no blessing. The publican was conscious of his sins and confessed them. To him belonged the promise: “ But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word.” (Isaiah 66:2.) Jesus makes his own application here and emphasizes a fundamental truth: “ For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”JESUS LITTLE Luk_18:15-17 Luke 18:15 —And they were bringing unto him also their babes,—It is thought that Jesus was still in Perea when this was spoken. Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16. Mark gives a fuller record of this event than do the other writers. Matthew and Mark say that they brought to him “Little children,” while Luke says ‘‘ their babes”; the word that Luke uses means ‘‘ babe” or “ an infant.” They were evidently little children of tender age; they were too small to “ come” to Jesus and were “ brought” to him; they were carried in their arms, or were led to Jesus. We are not told who brought them; probably the fathers and mothers or those who had them in charge. Some think that Jesus was about to depart from the place where he was, and hence the parents may have sought his blessings on their children before he left.

They wanted Jesus to “ touch them,” according to Luke; “ that he should lay his hands on them, and pray,” according to Matthew. The disciples of Jesus rebuked those who brought the children. The disciples probably felt that the various duties of Jesus were too urgent for him to turn aside to bless little children. Luke 18:16 —But Jesus called them unto him,—Some think that Jesus called the parents with the children to him and addressed them, while others think that he addressed the disciples who had rebuked them. The context seems to indicate that he called the parents with the children to come closer to him and then rebuked his disciples for rebuking the parents. “ Suffer the little children to come unto me.” The plea of Jesus is that the children be allowed to come to him and receive his blessings. No one has a right to forbid anyone’ s coming to Jesus. “ For to such belongeth the kingdom of God.” The thought seems to be from that which follows this statement, and the parable which precedes it, that Jesus was teaching the beauty of a humble and childlike spirit, and to commend such a spirit to his disciples for imitation. Evidently he does not say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, but “ to such” does the kingdom of heaven belong. This idea is strengthened by the record given by Mark: “ For to such belongeth the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14.) Luke 18:17 —Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive—This makes it clear that Jesus is here speaking of those who have the characteristics of a little child are the ones to whom the kingdom of God belongeth. If one does not have these characteristics “ he shall in no wise enter therein.” No one can be saved without these characteristics; one can enter the church or the kingdom of God on earth only by receiving Christ. The meek, humble, and childlike disposition is characteristic of a citizen in the kingdom of God. Jesus here describes the spirit and frame of mind which are absolutely necessary to salvation; pride, self-righteousness, and self-exaltation must be laid aside; all must be converted and become as little children to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 18:3.) THE RICH RULER Luke 18:18-30 Luke 18:18 —And a certain ruler asked him,—Matthew and Mark give parallel records of this event. (Matthew 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-27.) In both Matthew and Mark we have the same setting with what precedes and with what follows; the salient points of the case are the same in all the records. Mark adds a new feature by saying that “ there ran one to him, and kneeled to him” ; Mark also records the fact that Jesus “ was going forth into the way” when this “ certain ruler” came to him. (Mark 10:17.) Mark also records that “ Jesus looking upon him loved him” (Mark 10:21), and that the disciples were astonished at his word. He addressed Jesus as “ Good Teacher,” or “ Master,” as some translations have it. He came with a very- important question: “ What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” This is the same way that Mark records the question, but Matthew records it, “ What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16.) We do not know how much he knew about “ eternal life.” Sometimes the word “ ar chon” means a chief, sometimes a magistrate, sometimes prince, counselor. (Matthew 20:25; Luke 12:58; John 14:30; Acts 7:27 Acts 16:19.) “ Inherit” means possess or enjoy; “ eternal life” may have been borrowed from Daniel 12:2, the only place where it occurs in the Old Testament. It implies ever¬lasting happiness. Luke 18:19 —And Jesus said unto him,—Jesus promptly replied to the young ruler to teach him something of God. He asked: “ Why callest thou me good?” And then he said there is none good “ save one, even God.” Matthew 19:17 represents Jesus as saying: “ Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” It is a matter of controversy as to what Jesus meant by this question. Some think that he meant to say that no one except God is originally, essentially, infinitely, and independently good. Here Jesus makes no reference to his own divinity, but shows the young ruler how vain are his thoughts of doing an absolutely good thing; this was the first blow to his self-righteousness. Luke 18:20-21 —Thou knowest the commandments,—Matthew records Jesus as saying: “ Keep the commandments,” and the ruler asked, “ Which?” Mark’ s record is the same as that of Luke. Jesus proceeded to enumerate some of the command¬ments as found in Exodus 20:12-16 and Deuteronomy 5:16-20. The rich young ruler was a Jew and was instructed in the law. Jesus enumerated five of the six commandments of the Decalogue, which regulated man’ s duty to his fellow man. “ Thou shalt not covet’’ is the one omitted here by Jesus. Mark records the six commandments and gives the one that Matthew and Luke omit as “ do not defraud.’’ (Mark 10:19.) The commandments are not given in their order as found in Exodus. The seventh commandment is put first, then the sixth, then the eighth, then the ninth, and last of all the fifth.

Matthew gives the sixth first and then the seventh, but Mark the same as Luke. Some think that the fifth is placed last because it is a positive command. Matthew adds, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” a positive summary of the second table. Mark adds “ defraud not” by covetousness or any dishonest act, which appears to be a brief summary of the tenth com¬mandment. (Exodus 20:17.) The young man replied that he had observed all these commandments “ from my youth up.” Luke 18:22 —And when Jesus heard it,—Jesus heard the young man’ s reply and answered his question: “ What lack I yet?” Mark tells us that Jesus loved the young man and said: “ One thing thou lackest yet.” If the young man desired to have moral completeness and lack nothing, if he would “ be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4) he should “ sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor,” in order that he should “ have treasure in heaven”; then he should “ come, follow me.” Jesus touched the weak point in the young man’ s character; he placed before him a perfect standard; he must deny himself, sell his goods, distribute them to the poor, take up his cross and follow Jesus. This was the answer that Jesus gave to his question as to what he should do to inherit eternal life. Luke 18:23 —But when he heard these things,—The young man had honestly inquired as to what he should do; Jesus plainly and simply told him what he should do. There was pointed out only one way for him to inherit eternal life; no alternative was offered him ; it was do what Jesus commanded him to do or refuse and be lost. The young man “ became exceeding sor-rowful” when he heard what Jesus had told him. Matthew says that “ he went away sorrowful” (Matthew 19:22), while Mark says that “ his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful” (Mark 10:22). The record adds an explanation to his sorrow: “ For he was very rich.” Matthew says that he “ had great possessions”; Mark makes about the same statement. The test of his faith was now put to him; he must part with his possessions or with Jesus; he chose to remain with his earthly possessions. Luke 18:24 —And Jesus seeing him said,—Jesus saw the young man turn to his riches and go away from him; he saw the struggle that the young man had and he saw the decision that the young ruler had made. Jesus “ looked round about, and saith unto his disciples” : “ How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” Matthew records Jesus as saying, “ It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven,” while Mark uses about the same words. Jesus says that it is exceedingly difficult for a rich man to become the subject and attain the blessings and honors of the new dispensation. Luke 18:25 —For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle’ s eye,—Some consider this as a current proverb for the impossi-ble; the Talmud speaks twice of an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as being impossible. It is similar to the statement in Jeremiah 13:23; it expresses the greatest conceivable difficulties, the greatest human impossibility of a rich man en-tering the kingdom of God. A needle’ s eye being very small and the camel being very large, the proverb well expresses an impossibility. (See Matthew 23:24.) Some think that there is an allusion here to the low gateways through which camels were forced on their knees; and it is said that an opening of this sort is called the eye of a needle. The simple teaching of Jesus is that it is as impossible for a rich man who trusts in his riches to go to heaven as it is for a camel to go through a needle’ s eye. Luke 18:26 —And they that heard it said,—The disciples of Jesus and others who were present asked the question: “ Then who can be saved?” The disciples were poor men themselves and thoroughly familiar with the ills of poverty and accustomed to look at the bright side only of the rich man’ s case; it was sim¬ply amazing to them and unaccountable that salvation should come so hard to the rich man; what can the poor man do if the rich man cannot go to heaven? If the way of life was so difficult, they asked, who can be saved? It was usually considered that the rich men acquired merit by their deeds of charity and gifts to the temple. Luke 18:27 —But he said, The things which are impossible with men —It is a human impossibility for one to save himself in the absolute; he can do so only by doing what God teaches him to do. It is God who saves. It is beyond human power for any to be saved, and especially those who are surrounded with the dangers and difficulties of wealth. The truth of God can break the spirit of covetousness, purify the heart by faith in the truth, and make the rich humble. In this way, that which is impossible with man is possible with God. Jesus has in mind the illustration that he has just given; the human impossibility of the camel going through the needle’ s eye has become possible with God. Luke 18:28 —And Peter said, Lo, we have left our own,—Matthew records Peter as saying that “ we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?” (Matthew 19:27.) When the apostles were called they left all, their property and business, and followed Jesus as personal attendants. (Mark 1:16-20 Mark 2:14.) This may have been suggested to Peter by what Jesus had commanded the rich young ruler to do: “ Sell that which thou hast” and come and follow me. Peter was not boasting; if he had been boasting he would have received a different an-swer from Jesus. Peter was always quick to see and to speak and apply a new thought. Luke 18:29-30 —And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,—Jesus kindly answered Peter’ s question. “ There is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’ s sake” but that will receive his reward. The enumeration of various family ties indicates that the self-denial must be complete, that consecration to the kingdom of God must be supreme. The one who does this has been promised blessings here, in self-denial for Christ, and in his kingdom. He shall receive “ manifold more in this time” than the things which he leaves behind, and “ in the world to come eternal life.” Life here means not merely existence, but existence in its right relation to God and truth, hence holy and happy existence. Physical life consists in certain connections of soul and body; so spiritual life consists in certain connections of the soul with God. The reward for leaving all and following Christ begins in this world, but has its greatest realization in the life to come. HIS DEATH AGAINLuk_18:31-34 Luke 18:31 —And he took unto him the twelve,—Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ prediction of his sufferings and death repeatedly ; the first instance we have is in the regions of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-21), and then again while they abode in Galilee (Matthew 17:22-23). Matthew and Mark give records of this prediction. (Matthew 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34.) Jesus and his disciples were still in Perea on their way to Jerusalem. Jesus said: “ We go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets shall be accompoished unto the Son of man.” It seems that Jesus took the “ twelve” apart from the other followers. We should note that Jesus said: “ We go up to Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is about four thousand feet higher than the Jordan valley. (Psalms 122:3-4.) The prophets had testified beforehand of the crucifixion of Jesus. (Read Isaiah 53.) Everything that was spoken by the prophets must be fulfilled in Jesus. Luke 18:32-33 —For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles,—Jesus, by the treachery of Judas and by the Sanhedrin, should be delivered to the Gentiles. “ Gentiles,” the Greek word, here means “ nations”; that is, “ all nations” except the Jews, hence it is equivalent to our use of the word “ heathen.” In particular it refers here to the Romans, to Pilate, and to the Roman soldiers. He should “ be mocked and shamefully treated, and spit upon.” The Romans, who bore rule in Judea, executed Jesus; he was delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans. The Jews would have executed him if they could have done so; their mode of punishment to death was stoning, while the Roman mode of execution was crucifixion. Jesus knew that they would mock him, treat him with insolence, and spit upon him; this was considered the grossest insult. They would “ scourge and kill him.” After whipping him and punishing him severely, they would put him to death. “ Scourging” usually preceded crucifixion. On “ the third day he shall rise again.” On the third day after his death he would be raised from the dead. Luke 8:34 —And they understood none of these things;—It seems strange that his disciples would not understand him. His language is plain and simple; it is not adorned with figures of speech; yet they fail to understand him. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did not fit into their scheme of the establishment of his kingdom; they would not understand that which did not fit into their conception. It may be that they did not attempt to understand him; they did not desire to understand him here. Under such circumstances we are slow to understand that which we do not want to understand. It seems that they received the facts into their minds, but did not understand them. THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHO Luke 18:35-43 Luke 18:35 —And it came to pass, as he drew nigh unto Jericho,—Matthew and Mark record this event. (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52.) Mark gives the fullest record of this event, but Luke is the only one that records the effect of the miracle on the people. (Verse 43.) Matthew says: “ And behold, two blind men sitting by the way side.” Hence, Matthew men¬tions two blind men, while Mark and Luke describe one; probably they describe the more conspicuous one. It seems that the one named Bartimaeus by Mark was the principal one and that he had a companion; hence, Matthew mentions Bartimaeus and his companion, while Mark and Luke mention only Bartimaeus. Matthew and Mark record the event as “ they went out from Jericho,” while Luke records the incident as taking place when “ he drew nigh unto Jericho.” The seeming discrepancy may be explained by the fact that they came to the blind man and his companion as they went into Jericho, and the healing occurred after they left the old Jericho and approached the new Jericho which Herod the Great had built at some distance away. History gives a record of the two Jerichos. Some have offered a possible explanation of this apparent discrepancy by the fact that the blind men made application for help when Jesus approached the city, but were not then healed until after they left the city. Compare Matthew 15:23 fF. and Mark 8:22 f. “ Jericho” means “ the fragrant place,” and was a city of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21), situated about eighteen miles northeast of Jerusalem, and seven miles west of the Jordan; it was situated on the highway.

It is also called “ the city of palm-trees.” (Deuteronomy 34:3.) Jericho has quite a lengthy history in the Old Testament. This blind man was a beggar; probably his blindness accounted for his poverty. Luke 18:36-37 —and hearing a multitude going by,—While he could not see, yet he was blessed with the faculty of hearing. He heard the multitude going by, and made inquiry as to the cause of the tumult. Jericho at this time of the season, being on the highway, would be full of people who were going up to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of the Passover. The number would be greatly increased by those coming from Galilee by the way of Perea to avoid passing through Samaria. In an¬swer to his inquiry as to the cause of the great confusion, he was told “ that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by.” “Jesus of Nazareth” had become famous now as a prophet. Nazareth was about midway between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterra¬nean Sea; it was about seventy miles from Jerusalem. Here Jesus lived with his parents for about twenty-eight years; he early acquired the title of “ Jesus of Nazareth” to distinguish him from others of the same name and to show his lowly life. Luke 18:38 —And he cried, saying, Jesus,—Some of the multitude had told the blind man that “ Jesus of Nazareth” passed by, but the blind man addressed him as “ Jesus, thou son of David.” Jesus was a descendant of David; he was a successor to the throne of David. The angel of the Lord had previously applied this title to Joseph. (Matthew 1:20.) This title was a common designation of the Messiah (Matthew 22:42), and by the use of it this blind man acknowledged the Messiahship of Jesus. Jesus did not apply this title to himself. The titles, “ the Son of man,” “ the Son of God,” and others were of deeper significance and less liable to be perverted. He cried for the Messiah, or “ son of David,” to have mercy on him. Luke 18:39 —and they that went before rebuked him,—Those who ac-companied Jesus and who led the procession did not wish to be disturbed and interrupted on the journey; hence, they rebuked the beggar and asked him to hold his peace. But, as Luke gives an account of only one, “ he cried out the more a great deal.” The more they tried to quiet him the louder became his cry for mercy; the rebuke of the multitude only aroused his earnestness, for he believed that Jesus would be willing to heal him. It was a trial of his faith, and he continued to cry: “ Thou son of David, have mercy on me.” The poor man understood the difficulty of the situation and the ability of Jesus to help him, hence his more earnest plea for help. He was determined to surmount every barrier and to get the attention of Jesus; he was not to be outdone, even by the multitude. Luke 18:40-41 —And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought—Jesus “ stood”; Matthew says that he “ stood still,” as also does Mark; Jesus stopped the procession. This would arrest the .attention of the multitude that was accompanying him; all eyes would be fixed on the cause of the halting of the procession. Jesus then “ commanded him to be brought unto him.” Jesus recognized the title by which he was called and stopped to hear further particulars of the request. Jesus commanded those who led the blind man to bring him to him, or commanded those who were in the way to move so that the blind man could approach him. Mark is more graphic in his description. He represents the multitude as calling to the blind man and saying: “ Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee.” (Mark 10:49.) When the blind man heard this, he cast away his outer garment, “ sprang up, and came to Jesus.” When he came near Jesus asked him: “ What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” The blind man immediately replied: “ That I may receive my sight.” Luke being a physician records most of the salient points in a practical way; he shows the intense earnestness of the blind man, the warm compassion of Jesus, and his promptness in meeting the request. Luke 18:42 —And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight:—It was a beautiful and impressive scene to see Jesus stop the dense crowd in order that the case of this beggar, smitten with unfortunate blindness, should be ministered to. With swift promptness Jesus said: “ Receive thy sight.” He then added: “ Thy faith hath made thee whole.” The faith of the blind man was such that he cried the more earnestly for mercy, believing that Jesus had the power to heal and would exercise his power in healing him. His eyes were opened because of his strong faith. Luke 18:43 —And immediately he received his sight—There was no delay; the promptness with which Jesus granted the request showed his interest in this unfortunate man. The multitude who winessed this could know just what was done; they knew that the man was blind, and now they knew that he had received his sight. The man not only received his sight, but he “ followed him, glorifying God.” The multitude who at first rebuked the man now joined in his praising God for his great goodness and power in giving him his sight. At the very word of Jesus the man received his sight; he wished to be with Jesus, and mingle in the joyous procession as it moved on toward Jerusalem.

Verse 1 The content of this chapter deals with two parables on prayer, that of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), that of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14), bringing children to Jesus (Luke 18:15-17), the account of the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-30), another prophecy of his Passion (Luke 18:31-34), and the healing of the blind man at Jericho (Luke 18:35-43). THE PARABLE OF THE UNJUST JUDGEAnd he spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint. (Luke 18:1) Dummelow listed the lessons from this parable, thus: (1) The duty of continual prayer; (2) the answer to prayer, persisted in, is certain; (3) in the end, God will maintain the cause of his elect against their adversaries; and (4) a warning against the failure of faith in times of seeming abandonment by God.[1]And he spake a parable … is literally, “And he spake also a parable …"[2] This indicates that this is actually a part of the preceding discourse. Ought always to pray … This has no reference to a ceaseless bending of the knee, or a continuation without intermission in the utterance of petitions to the Almighty, but to an attitude of unbroken fellowship with God. As Augustine said, “There is another interior prayer without intermission, and that is the longing of thy heart."[3] It was to this that Paul referred: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). And not to faint … There is a remarkable analogy in this comparison of spiritual failure to physical fainting. Physically, men can faint from shock, disease, hunger, fear, etc.; and for a development of the application to spiritual things, see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 12:3. [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 763. [2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 576. [3] Quoted by Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 485.

Verse 2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, who feared not God, and regarded not man.Such a judge would have been one of those notorious magistrates appointed by either Herod or the Romans, and of whom Barclay said, “Unless a plaintiff had money and influence to bribe his way to a verdict, he had no hope of ever getting his case settled."[4]Feared not God and regarded not man … “These things go together. He that has no regard for God can be expected to have none for man."[5][4] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 230. [5] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 126.

Verse 3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came oft unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.This was not a plea on the widow’s part for vengeance in a vulgar sense, but a plea for justice against an enemy who had wronged her.

Verse 4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God nor regard man; yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out by her continual coming.He said within himself … As frequently noted, one of the unique features of God’s word is that it gives the truth of what men are saying inwardly. I fear not God … nor man … This evil judge was boastful and arrogant in his infidelity and disregard of all considerations except those touching his selfishness. I will avenge her … As Barnes exclaimed: How many actions are performed from the basest and lowest motives of selfishness, that have the appearance of external propriety and even goodness.[6]This shows that even a righteous deed, undertaken upon selfish and evil motives, cannot be well-pleasing to God. Lest she wear me out … This means, literally, “Lest she give me a black eye”;[7] but from this, we should not conclude that “The judge supposed she might do him bodily harm."[8] A proverb known to all generations makes the destruction of one’s good reputation to be “giving him a black eye,” and it is clearly his reputation that concerned the judge, and not his physical safety. [6] Ibid. [7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 250. [8] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge: The Judson Press), p. 266.

Verse 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous judge saith. And shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsuffering over them? I say unto you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on earth?Jesus here contrasted the unrighteous judge’s hearing the widow’s plea with God’s hearing the prayers of his elect. Therefore, the unjust judge stands for God in the analogy. No moral problem is involved in this, because Jesus frequently used such analogies, not only to show similarities but to point up the contrast also. The concept of a suffering and persecuted church is also evident in these verses, making this parable a prophecy of the persecutions and tribulations that should come upon the church in ages to come, looking forward to so remote a time as the Second Coming (Luke 18:8). He is longsuffering over them … This is a caution against expecting a sudden answer to all prayers, no matter how persistent. As Wesley said, “God does not immediately put an end, either to the wrongs of the wicked or the sufferings of good men."[9]Shall not God avenge his elect … The power and wrath of the eternal God are ever against those who persecute his people. Lactantius has twenty pages of the most interesting discussions of the awful punishments, judgments, and miseries that befell the famed persecutors of the church, giving in detail the things that happened to Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, Diocletian, etc.[10] As Dummelow said, Jesus’ words here were literally fulfilled “in the calamities which overtook the Jews and the chief heathen persecutors of the Christians."[11]Shall he find faith on the earth …? These words are variously understood, but there seems to be a definite foretelling of the decline of faith before the end. Trench thought that: We have other grounds for believing that the church, at that last moment, will be reduced to a little remnant; yet the point is here, not that the faithful will be few, but that the faith even of the faithful will have almost failed.[12]Wesley saw this as a statement that, when Jesus shall appear, “how few true believers will be found on earth."[13] As Lamar asked, “The JUDGE will be ready, but will theWIDOW be there?"[14]The parable of the unjust judge was to teach persistence in prayer; but Jesus immediately gave another parable to show that something more than persistence is required for prayers to be answered. [9] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc. 1950), p. 271. [10] Lactantius, “Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died”. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951). Vol. VII. pp. 301-322. [11] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 763. [12] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 493. [13] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 271. [14] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), Vol. II, p. 224.

Verse 9 And he spake also this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at naught.THE PARABLE OF THE AND THE TAX With the strange reversal of values which is the hallmark of evil in all ages, the people in this generation who “set others at naught” are not the careful observers of the outward forms and ceremonies of holy religion; but they are the gross sinners who “set at naught” those people who are striving to live as Christ commanded, styling them “self-righteous bigots”! Significantly, in this parable, there is no indication whatever that the publican “set at naught” the Pharisee; and those who seek the publican’s reward by “setting others at naught” are on very precarious ground. It is just as easy to set others at naught because “we are not self-righteous like them” as it is to set them at naught for gross sins. Much of the comment one encounters with reference to this parable fails to note this significant fact.

Verse 10 Two men went up to the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.The character of both classes of men represented by these two has frequently been noted in this series. For comment on “Pharisees,” see my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 3:7. The publicans were the tax collectors, particularly odious to the Jews because they were willing agents of Roman oppression; and besides that, many tax gatherers were dishonest. The very name “publican” passed into the popular vocabulary as a designation for one who was hated and despised.

Verse 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus unto himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get. But the publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be thou merciful to me a sinner. I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.Before noting specific words and phrases in this passage, the following discussion is presented: THE AND THE TAX . The Contrast between the Two Men in the Temple. A. The Pharisee belonged to the aristocracy of his time, a member of the ruling class; and both his virtues and his sins were those of the class to which he belonged. His good points were many. He was not an adulterer, nor an extortioner, nor unjust. He avoided the outward, gross sins into which many fall. On the positive side, he was outwardly religious, as he should have been, keeping all the ceremonies of the law and paying tithes even beyond what the law required, and observing a hundred times as many fasts each year as God had commanded.

He was superior to many of his own times, and also of our own times. His failure was a lack of humility, a proud and selfish arrogance having developed within him that made him unsympathetic to others. Furthermore, he had fallen into the fatal error of supposing that he had placed God in his debt, that God owed him salvation on the basis of the good deeds that he did and his outward observance of the commandments in the law. B. The publican, on the other hand, was a social outcast, ashamed of the part he was playing in the oppression and humiliation of his own nation by the Romans, and pitifully aware of his neglect of all sacred duties. His standing “afar off” shows that he did not consider himself worthy to stand near the lordly Pharisee, whom he no doubt considered to be a righteous man. II. The Contrast between the Prayers They Offered. A. The prayer of the Pharisee was a monologue, acknowledging no need, seeking no blessing, confessing no lack, admitting no sin, and beseeching no mercy; it was as cold and formal as an icicle. It enumerated the virtues of the Pharisee and closed with an insult cast in the direction of the publican! It showed that he had a big eye on himself, a bad eye on the publican, and no eye at all upon God! Although God was mentioned, the prayer was actually with himself, presumably rising no higher than where he stood. B. The prayer of the publican, on the other hand, was short, informal, and warm with the earnestness of a soul burdened with sin. It confessed his sin, besought the Lord for mercy, and was attested by the sorrow and shame that smote his breast. This was one of few prayers Jesus ever commended. III. The Contrast in the Results of These Prayers. A. The Pharisee failed to receive anything at all; after all, he had not requested anything. All of the pompous language of the Pharisee amounted to net nothing. His prayer was not merely useless and futile, but it was also an affront to God. B. The prayer of the publican resulted in his “justification.” This is a big word which shows that God had received him, accounting him righteous to the extent this was possible under the law. It should be noted, however, that he had already enjoyed a covenant relationship with God; and, therefore, it is an abuse of this passage to make this prayer of the publican a statement of what an alien sinner should do to be saved. IV. Lessons Drawn From These Contrasts. A. Humility is taught, a virtue which is so important that all of the goodness of the Pharisee could not save him without it, and all of the shame and unworthiness of the publican could not condemn him as long as he had it. People need eternally to be reminded that Jesus was born in a stable, not in a palace; his apostles were fishermen, not Pharisees; it was the common people who heard him, not the leaders; he preached not from a throne of gold or ivory, but from the hillside and a fisherman’s boat; the central message of his gospel is for the poor and lowly, not for the proud and worldly; the clarion call of the ages is that with which Jesus concluded the parable, “Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted!” B. These teach the vanity and emptiness of self-righteousness. All people are sinners. Although it is true that some like the Pharisee are not sinners of grosser type, yet their respectability only emphasizes the sins they do have. None are righteous (Romans 3:10); all have sinned (Romans 3:23); and all human righteousnesses are “as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). C. These teach some vital facts about prayer. A short prayer is better than a long one (Matthew 6:7-8; Matthew 23:14). Also, prayers should be directed, not to ourselves, nor to the audience, but to God. Many prayers remind one of a quotation from Barclay, describing a certain prayer as “the most eloquent prayer ever offered to a Boston audience."[15]D. These contrasts teach that only the humble are truly great.

Earth’s genuine heroes are its humble souls, walking in the fear of God, lifting up holy hands in prayer. Earth’s selfish and pompous overlords, ever seeking the chief seats, ever walking in the livery of pride, and ever trimming their words and deeds to accommodate what they fancy to be the spirit of the age, - such are not heroes at all, but are to be pitied. Like Shakespeare’s “poor players,” they strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. On the contrary, the humble shall be exalted. “I will make them to come and worship before thy feet” (Revelation 3:9). The tumult and the shouting dies. The captains and the kings depart. Still stands thine ancient sacrifice, An humble and contrite heart.[16]I fast twice a week … God had commanded only one day of fasting each year, on the Day of Atonement; and the Pharisees had extended this to twice a week! I give tithes of all that I get … “Tithes were not due from all gains, but only from the production of the fields, and cattle."[17] The Pharisees, however, “even tithed what they bought."[18] In such things as these, one can see the extent to which they had “improved” (in their view) upon God’s law! The publican, standing afar off … Our English translation does not make clear the distinction between the posture assumed by the Pharisee, as contrasted with that taken by the publican. Boles noted that “STOOD (in the case of the Pharisee) in the original, means that he struck a pose, or assumed an attitude where he could be seen."[19]God be merciful … This is one of only two places in the New Testament where this word “propitiation” or the verb “propitiate” is used, the other being Hebrews 2:17; and, according to Vine, it has the meaning here of “be propitious to,” or “merciful” to the person as the object of the verb. Justified … is undoubtedly the verb spoken by Jesus which registered so indelibly in the mind of the apostle Paul, whose writings found so much use for it. We disagree with those who think that Luke, through long companionship with Paul, retrospectively injected this into Jesus’ words. It is far more likely that from this Paul received his first knowledge of the word, developing it extensively in his writings. Be thou merciful to me a sinner … The brevity of this prayer is astounding. Cox said: The Pharisee’s prayer is composed of thirty-five words, that of the publican eight words (Revised Version). As a rule, the deeper the feelings the fewer the words … We should have the attitude of the publican.[20]He that exalteth himself … This is a maxim which Jesus repeated often. See Luke 14:11. We conclude this study of the parable with a perceptive word from Summers: There is something a bit terrifying about this parable. There is within every person that which makes it possible for him to do the same thing the Pharisee did. He can go to the place of worship and go through the forms of worship and still go home the same person he was![21][15] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 232. [16] Rudyard Kipling, The Recessional. [17] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 269. [18] Donald G. Miller, The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: The John Knox Press, 1959), p. 129. [19] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 343. [20] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke, (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 55. [21] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1974), p. 210.

Verse 15 And they were bringing unto him also their babes, that he should touch them: but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. For verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. TO JESUSThis saying was commented upon under Matthew 19:13 and under Mark 10:13; and “Luke differs from Matthew only in the word which he uses for children."[22] Luke’s word is “babes.” See my Commentary on Matthew, my Commentary on Mark, (en loco). Summers said that the word here used for “babes” was used of “unborn and very young babies. Paul used it of Timothy who had received religious instruction from babyhood (2 Timothy 3:15)."[23]It should be pointed out here, as Lamar said, that: There is no baptism here, and no hint of any; and I think it is unfortunate that this beautiful and tender incident was ever transferred to the arena of controversy, especially as the lesson the Saviour draws from it is of so different a character.[24]Ash said that “At this point the material unique to Luke comes to an end, and the Gospel resumes the outline found in Mark.” This is not, however, strictly true; for, after recording the incident of the children being brought to Jesus, the account of the rich ruler, another prediction of his Passion, and the healing of the blind man at Jericho, Luke again resumes the narrative of two other episodes peculiar to himself, the story of Zacchaeus and the parable of the pounds. Also, there are some who believe, with good reason, that the prediction of the Passion here is not the third instance, as in the other synoptics, but a fourth, peculiar to Luke. In the pericope before us, the harmony and agreement in the three synoptic accounts are as nearly perfect as could be imagined; but certain schools of criticism, intent on finding some disparity, have resorted to such a comment as this: Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s statement that Jesus was “much displeased” (with the disciples for rebuking the ones who brought the children), as well as the detail in Mark 10:16 that he embraced the children and blessed them. They hesitated to attribute the human emotions of anger and affection to the Lord of the church.[25]There is positively no way that such a comment can be true. In this comment, there is the assumption that Matthew and Luke were ashamed of Mark’s statement that Jesus was “displeased,” the assumption that they “changed Mark” by omitting such a word, with the necessary corollaries that (a) they had Mark before them as they wrote, and (b) that they did not consider Mark inspired, plus still another assumption, the most amazing and arrogant of all, that Matthew and Luke considered the human emotions of anger and affection to be, in some unaccountable manner, of the Lord of the church! There is no need to examine all of these subjective guesses, since all of them self-destruct upon a little reflection; but as an example of their reliability, we shall note just two of them.

1. The notion that Luke (and Matthew) considered anger and affection to be human emotions unworthy of the Lord of the church is a monstrous contradiction of Scriptural thought. The Old Testament refers to the anger of God literally hundred of times. “He is angry with the wicked every day”; and Luke recorded the parable of the slighted invitation in which the “master of the house” bears an analogy with the heavenly Father himself, saying, “The master of the house being angry,” etc. (Luke 14:21); and in the parable of the pounds (Luke 19:12-27), in which the nobleman must be understood as Jesus Christ himself, the parable concludes with the words of Christ (the nobleman), “But those enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me!” It is as plain as the sun at perihelion at high noon on the equator that if Luke had edited Mark’s Gospel to get out of it so mild a word as “displeased,” he could never have recorded the two passages just cited.
2. As for the assumption that Mark was before Luke as he wrote his Gospel, such is disproved by the fact that he left out of his Gospel some 53 verses that are in Mark, and by the further fact that when Luke mentioned his sources, it is simply inconceivable that he would have left off mentioning Mark if indeed Mark was one of his sources (Luke 1:1-5). Many of the greatest scholars who ever lived have simply been unable to see Mark as a Lucan source, among them the immortal James MacKnight. The Markan theory is not merely unproved, but unprovable. THE RICH YOUNG RULERNote: this incident has already been commented upon fully in both Matthew (Matthew 19:16 f) and Mark (Mark 10:17 f), and for fuller discussion see in my Commentary on Matthew and my Commentary on Mark (en loco). [22] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 579. [23] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 211. [24] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 226. [25] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 311.

Verse 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?Geldenhuys was right in declaring that: Taken together (Matthew 19:16, and the verse before us) the complete question may have been: “Good Master, what good thing, etc.” and Jesus may have replied, “Why callest thou me good and askest me about good things?” Thus the Gospels supplement one another. It is unwarranted in such cases to speak of a contradiction between them."[26]To such a comment, we are delighted to say, “Amen, and Amen!” All of the alleged contradictions in the variable synoptic accounts are of as little importance as a flyspeck on Michelangelo’s MOSES! The great message of the Gospels is perfect, complete, and overwhelming. The word of God has indeed revealed to us his Christ in these precious Gospels; and the truly devout soul will be little inclined to heed the insinuations of them that make a business of finding fault with the Word. ENDNOTE: [26] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 461.

Verse 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.Hobbs caught the import of these verses perfectly: No pupil ever addressed a rabbi as “good.” So the young man paid Jesus the supreme compliment; but he called him only a “teacher.” Jesus reminded him that only God is good. Thus either he had used the term loosely, or else he must think of Jesus as more than a great Teacher. By subtle suggestion Jesus was leading him to think of him as deity, not simply as a great man.[27]ENDNOTE: [27] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 262.

Verse 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother.Salvation was always, is now, and ever shall be dependent upon obedience to the commandments of God. Matthew explicitly stated this in his account, and Luke implies as much here. As Summers said, “Implicit in Jesus’ answer is the meaning that to obey these commandments is to have eternal life … This was good Jewish religious thinking."[28] In Summers’ final sentence (above), however, there is the implication that, of course, “this is not Christian thinking, at all, but Jewish thinking.” On the other hand, this is an eternal and invariable law. Of course, human beings being utterly unable to keep God’s law perfectly, they must unite with Christ, being baptized into him; and as Christ, in Christ, they are total, perfect keepers of all God’s commandments (Colossians 1:28). This does not, however, negate the principle laid down here that eternal life is directly and irrevocably related to keeping God’s commandments. ENDNOTE: [28] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 213.

Verse 21 And he said, All these things have I observed from my youth up. And when Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.Matthew has the significant question of this young ruler, “What lack I yet?” And, since that is the question that Jesus here answered, we have another example of the supplementary nature of the Gospel accounts. Cox mentioned the “soul hunger” of this young man. “It was a case of youth asking for life, the rich seeking a treasure, hunger amidst plenty. Life was before him and wealth around him, yet he hungered."[29] Tinsley remarked that “In this particular instance, Jesus obviously thought discipleship must involve renunciation of possessions."[30] The true explanation lies much more probably, however, in the fact that this young man was called to accompany Jesus and the Twelve, perhaps as some kind of an apostle; and apostleship did require renunciation of possessions, a test that all of the Twelve met, as Peter mentioned a bit later. At any rate, it would have been the height of folly for Jesus to have invited him to “follow” in THAT company without meeting the test they all had met and passed. The allegation that one cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ except on condition of selling and distributing all of his earthly possessions is based partially upon Jesus’ words here; but it is impossible to sustain such a thesis, either from this or any other passage in the New Testament. It has just been noted that Christ’s word here was to this young man, and not to all; and the reason for this requirement in his case is easily discernible. In order to be an apostle, or to accompany Jesus, as this young man was invited to do, it was absolutely necessary to renounce all earthly possessions; but such was never made a universal requirement of Christianity (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:21). Lamar was correct in the deduction which he made from this, saying: Our Saviour, in all these wonderful lessons about worldly goods, means nothing tending to the disorganizing of society, or to the undervaluing of earthly riches, but to infuse a principle that shall uplift them to higher uses, and consecrate them to worthier objects.[31][29] Frank L. Cox, op. cit., p. 56. [30] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel According to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 169. [31] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 229.

Verse 23 But when he heard these things, he became exceedingly sorrowful; for he was very rich.In turning away from the Master, this young man not only made the wrong decision regarding his eternal state, but alas with regard to his earthly state. He would have been far better off in this present world if he had obeyed Jesus. The whole Jewish nation was, within his lifetime, to go down to utter ruin and destruction, a calamity that no Christian suffered. The deepest instincts of his heart were such that he knew the tragedy of his decision, hence the sorrow.

Verse 24 And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!Abraham, Job, David, and most of the mighty patriarchs of Israel were men of very great wealth; yet Jesus affirmed that these shall be in the everlasting kingdom (Luke 13:28). Moreover, the inspired evangelist Philip, and other distinguished persons in the New Testament church, were men of extensive means; and, therefore, what Jesus taught here is not the impossibility of a rich man’s being saved, but the difficulty of it. Wealth itself is “unrighteous,” no matter how innocently it might have been acquired, being inherently charged with temptations few find the strength to overcome. See under Luke 16:9.

Verse 25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.The sheer impossibility of a camel going through the eye of a needle forces the deduction that this is a hyperbole, employed to stress the difficulty of a rich man’s being saved.

Verse 26 And they that heard it said, Then who can be saved?Those who asked this rightly understood the impossibility of the camel going through the needle’s eye. Jesus at once softened the remark.

Verse 27 But he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.Jesus would shortly show his disciples an example of a rich man entering the kingdom, in the instance of the rich tax collector, Zacchaeus of Jericho (Luke 18:19:1-10). Significantly, in his case, Jesus did not require that Zacchaeus sell all that he had and distribute it to the poor.

Verse 28 And Peter said, Lo, we have left our very own, and followed thee. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life. Barker thought that “Peter self-righteously reminded Jesus of the sacrifices the disciples had made,"[32] but nothing in the New Testament justifies such a suggestion. Peter’s question was truthful and fair; and Jesus honored it by answering it. Manifold more in this time … Was Jesus here thinking of the sorrowful young man who had just departed? What was true of him is true of all. There is “more” in following Jesus, even in this present time, more of all that really matters. And in the world to come, eternal life …! Here in these words is the climax of the episode. The Christian pilgrimage is a quest for everlasting life, a benefit that Jesus dogmatically promised. Who but God could make such a promise? There is no way to reconcile such promises of Jesus with any conception of him that fails to include his eternal power and Godhead; and it is who Jesus is, and was, and is forever, that endows such a glorious promise with the validity that has commended it to a hundred generations of believers. This epic promise is given in this same context by all three synoptics (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:30), the same being the tonic chord and resolution of the whole episode.

One may only be astounded at the failure of some commentators even to mention this key promise. Hunting pseudocons is so much more interesting! ENDNOTE: [32] William P. Barker, As Matthew Saw the Master (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1964), p. 96.

Verse 31 And he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man. For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and shamefully treated, and spit upon: and they shall scourge and kill him: and on the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said.ANOTHER OF HIS PASSIONAll the things that were written … Some 333 prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ, and these included many prophecies of his sufferings, rejection, and death, as well as of his resurrection. That are written through the prophets … Jesus kept the distinction ever in view that it was not the prophets who wrote the Holy Scriptures, but God who wrote them “through the prophets.” We believe the same thing is true of the words of the sacred authors of the New Testament; and this writer, in a lifetime of reading, has found nothing whatever in the insinuations of those who abuse the sacred New Testament, in their assumption that it was written by fallible MEN, that justifies any relaxing of this confidence. In Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:5; Matthew 2:17, etc., throughout the Gospel, there are many texts in which this same concept of God’s writing “through the prophets” is emphatically stated. For a list of things Jesus prophesied of himself, see under Luke 9:22; Luke 9:45; Luke 13:33, and parallels, in Matthew and Mark. Geldenhuys saw this passage as the FOURTH announcement of Jesus’ Passion. “For the fourth time now the Saviour announces that he will be delivered to suffer and to die”[33] (this verse, plus the three cited above). This makes it certain that one of the four Passion predictions recorded by Luke is peculiar to this Gospel, since Matthew and Mark each have three. The third day … See the article in my Commentary on Mark on “What Day Was Jesus Crucified?” for a full discussion of the meaning of this expression. Summers was surely right in perceiving this passage as an identification of Jesus with “the Suffering Servant section of Isaiah."[34] He also denied any necessity of supposing that the details in view here were retrospectively included in Luke after the events occurred. We are face to face here with genuine prophecy. This saying was hidden from them … “It was not hidden in that Jesus did not want them to understand. It was hidden because of their reluctance to accept it."[35][33] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 463. [34] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 219. [35] Ibid., p. 220.

Verse 35 And it came to pass as he drew nigh to Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the wayside begging.HEALING THE BLIND MAN AT JERICHOThere were two Jericho’s in New Testament times, and this incident took place between the villages, where, of course, a beggar would have stationed himself to take advantage of more traffic; thus it was as Jesus was leaving one Jericho and as he “drew nigh” to entering the other.[36] See more under Matthew 20:29 and Mark 10:46. ENDNOTE: [36] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 254. Also see A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 149 (footnote).

Verse 36 And hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant. And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.A multitude going by … This was a great throng of people on the way up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Thou Son of David … The messianic connotation of this title cannot be denied, the same being the favorite designation of the long-awaited Messiah. The sad irony in view here is that this man who was physically blind had the spiritual perception to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The Pharisees (a part of every audience, or crowd) had physical eyesight but could not see the Lord as the Messiah; thus here is an example of the blind seeing and the seeing blind, as stated by Jesus in John 9:39. And again, there is a startling affinity between Luke and John.

Verse 39 And they that went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou Son of David have mercy on me.Our guess is that it was the Pharisees who objected to all the shouting which hailed Jesus as the long-expected Messiah. There cannot fail to be an element of humor in this blind man shouting to high heaven that here indeed was the Messiah, and the lordly Pharisees trying to hush him up! There was no way that they could silence the blind man nor prevent the ages from hailing Christ as the Messiah.

Verse 40 And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath made thee whole.Gilmour’s terse comment here is that “Mark’s graphic details are omitted,"[37] which, of course, is proof that Luke was not copying Mark, nor is there the slightest hard evidence that Luke ever saw the Gospel of Mark. If he had, why would those beautiful details in Mark have been omitted? Thy faith hath made thee whole … This means that Jesus gave salvation to this man as well as restoring his sight. That the multitude so understood it, and that they also recognized that only God could do such a thing, is implicit in the statement with which the paragraph closes, that the people “followed, glorifying God.” ENDNOTE: [37] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 319.

Verse 43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.Praising God … is twice repeated in this single verse; and, as these are the inspired author’s words, it is clear that Luke intended to identify Jesus as one with Almighty God. This is one of the theological overtones of the passage that justifies Summers’ comment that “such overtones were more commonly associated with John’s Gospel."[38] Thus, as Robertson affirmed, “The Christ of Paul and of John is in the synoptic Gospels. In all essentials, the picture is the same in Luke as in John."[39][38] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 221. [39] A. T. Robertson op. cit., p. 258.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 181. On what subject is the first lesson? 2. What officer is used for illustration? 3. Describe his disposition. 4. What request was made to him? 5. Did he personally favor the request? 6. For what reason did he grant it? 7. Is God like this judge? 8. Where is the comparison? 9. Notwithstanding, what is endangered? 10. For whose sake was the next parable? 11. To what place did men go to pray? 12. Was this the proper place? 13. What was the religions difference between them? 14. What was the social difference? 15. Which one was self-righteous? 16. With whom did he contrast himself? 17. With whom did the publican contrast himself? 18. Repeat his prayer. 19. State the conclusion of Jesus. 20. Classify humility and exaltation. 21. Why were infants brought to Jesus? 22. Tell who objected. 23. Why did Jesus suffer the children? 24. What is necessary to enter the kingdom ? 25. Repeat the inquiry of the ruler. 26. What admission did Jesus see in the question? 27. State the answer to his question. 28. Which one had the ruler left out? 29. Tell what he lacked. 30. Why did this make him sorry? 31. On what subject did Jesus then speak? 32. State his comparison. 33. Was the thing compared merely difficult, with men 34. What did Peter profess? 35. For this what is the reward? 36. When is it to be received? 37. Tell what is to come afterward. 38. Which of his disciples did he now address? 39. To what place were they to go? 40. What sayings were to be accomplished ? 41. Into whose hands would he be delivered? 42. Why into their hands? 43. How will they treat him? 44. But what victory is predicted ? 45. How well did they understand this? 46. On the way what unfortunate man was seen? 47. State his two misfortunes. 48. What caused his inquiry? 49. Repeat his cry. 50. What was said to him first? 51. Did this silence him? 52. For which misfortune did he ask relief? 53. What did Jesus say had saved him? 54. When was he thus saved? 55. How did he show his appreciation? 56. State the effect on the people.

Luke 18:1

1 The phrase to this end is in italics, but the thought is justified by the Greek text. Always and not to faint means to be always a praying disciple, and not hesitate or falter just because one’s prayer is not answered as soon as expected. Since the inspired writer tells us this parable was spoken for this purpose, we should not make comparisons of any other parts of it; they were spoken only to connect the story.

Luke 18:2

2 The character of this judge was revealed to show why the prayers made to him had to be persistent.

Luke 18:3

3 The justness of this widow’s complaint was not questioned.

Luke 18:4-5

5 The judge was not prompted by any regard for any being, human or divine, but because he did not want to be troubled by the widow’s persistence.

Luke 18:6

6 The strength of this verse will be better realized by emphasizing unjust. Even that kind of a judge was finally moved to action because the widow insisted.

Luke 18:7

7 The just Judge will certainly be moved to regard the prayers of His children in the proper time, if their faith does not weaken and they continue to pray.

Luke 18:8

8 Shall he find faith on the earth? We must not interpret one passage in such a way that it will contradict others. It is clearly taught in the New Testament that the church with its faithful members will be here when Jesus comes. (See Matthew 24:40-41; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.) Therefore the question of Jesus should be understood as a kind of warning, stirring up his hearers to beware lest their individual faith should fail them.

Luke 18:9

9 Trusted in themselves denotes they considered themselves righteous on the ground of the great display they were making of their deeds. On the same principle they would despise (belittle) others who could not boast of such actions.

Luke 18:10

0 It was perfectly in order for both Pharisees and publicans to pray, and to go into the temple for the purpose of prayer (Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13).

Luke 18:11-12

2. This paragraph contains the prayer of the Pharisee. Even if all of his claims were true, his prayer would have been objectionable because it did not include a single request; only a boastful statement of his deeds.

Luke 18:13

3 There were generally many people in the temple at “the hour of prayer” (Acts 3:1). The publican modestly stood away from the crowd, feeling that .his presence might be objectionable to them, due to the common opinion of that class. He made no claim of ‘goodness, but instead, he classed himself with sinners and prayed for mercy.

Luke 18:14

4 Rather is printed in italics in the King James Version, but the. American Standard Version and Mof-fatt’s translation both use the regular type. That is evidently correct according to the reasoning of Jesus. He follows his statement about who was justified, with the declaration that he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. If the publican was not justified, then no one in the verse was exalted.

Luke 18:15-17

7 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 19:13-14.

Luke 18:18-27

7 This group of verses is almost identical with Matthew 19:16-26. To conserve space, let the reader examine those verses and the comments.

Luke 18:28

8 This is commented upon at Matthew 19:27.

Luke 18:29-30

0 See the comments on Matthew 19:28-29.

Luke 18:31

1 The prophetic writings referred to are in Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53.

Luke 18:32

2 Spitting on one was to show the greatest of contempt.

Luke 18:33

3 It was customary to scourge all prisoners before executing them or otherwise disposing of them. The victim was stripped of all his clothing and a thong of leather was lashed across his back.

Luke 18:34

4 The apostles were baffled over these predictions about the death of Jesus. That was because they had a temporal kingdom in mind, and that would require the king to live and be present upon his throne.

Luke 18:35

5 Being blind, this man was depending upon alms for a living.

Luke 18:36

6 This wayside was a common place for people to travel, else the blind man would not have been occupying such a place to be seen by the people. Asked what it meant indicates that some unusual commotion was going on.

Luke 18:37

7 The fame of Jesus was frequently connected with his humble home life. It was surprising that the product of such a community could perform the deeds attributed to him. (See John 1:46.)

Luke 18:38

8 The people told the blind man it was “Jesus of Nazareth” who was passing by, while he called him the son of David. This shows that at least some persons understood the Scriptures, that a descendant of David was to be called a Nazarene. (See the notes at Matthew 2:23.)

Luke 18:39

9. As to why they rebuked him, see the notes at Matthew 20:31.

Luke 18:40

0 It would have been a hardship for the blind man to get into the immediate presence of Jesus unaided, therefore the people were commanded to lead him to the spot.

Luke 18:41

1 A large gift of money or some regular income would have relieved the blind man of his financial worries. But instead of requesting such a favor, he asked for the restoration of his sight, which would enable him to care for himself afterwards.

Luke 18:42

2 Saved is from sozo, which Thayer defines at this place, “To make well, heal, restore to health.” This favor was given the blind man because he believed in Jesus.

Luke 18:43

3 The recovery from blindness was immediate, which was always the case with miraculous healing.