Luke 6

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 6 ABOUT THE SABBATH Luke 6:1-11 Luke 6:1 —Now it came to pass on a sabbath,— Parallel accounts may be found in Matthew 12:1-14 and Mark 2:23-28 Mark 3:1-6. Another ground of pharisaic opposition to Jesus is here presented ; it is the supposed violation of the law of the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned the disciples of Jesus, and he defends them because a condemnation of his disciples, when they followed his teaching, was a condemnation of Jesus. Jesus and his disciples were going through the grainfields on a Sabbath “ and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.” The grain was possibly wheat or barley; as they went along through the standing grain, they plucked some of the grain and ate it. The footpath which they traveled led through the field and it was easy to pluck the grain as they went along. Plucking the grain was not a violation of the rights of property; they were not ac¬cused of trespassing; they were only accused of violating the Sabbath. The grain was eaten raw. Luke 6:2-5 —But certain of the Pharisees said,—The Pharisees asked: “ Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?” In Matthew and Mark this question is addressed to Jesus concerning the conduct of his disciples; the inquiry was probably repeated in various forms in order to show their pious horror at the act; it seems from a comparison of these statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus did not himself eat of the corn; probably his mind was so intent on the great object of his mission as to be insensible to hunger at this time. We have different records of his beipg hungry and fatigued when his disciples were eating and resting; sometimes they were sleeping while he spent the time in prayer. (Matthew 26:40 Matthew 26:43 Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:37 Mark 14:40-41; Luke 9:32 Luke 22:45.) The question is put in the form of an accusation; it charges Jesus as being responsible for the violation of the Sabbath. And Jesus answering them said,—Jesus was the leader; his disciples had done nothing that was virtually a violation of the Sabbath, so Jesus replies to the question or accusation. He knew that the charge was really made against him. Jesus refers them to what David did when he was hungry. (1 Samuel 21:1-6.) They regarded David as the faithful servant of God; they did not condemn David for what he had done, and yet Jesus and his disciples had done just what David had done under similar circumstances. Jesus put the case very emphatically by asking the question. David was fleeing from Saul and came to the tabernacle, which was located then at Nob, a place a little north of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 10:32.) David simply took and ate of the showbread, the bread set forth and exhibited on a table in the holy place. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were changed every Sabbath, when the old bread was eaten by the priests. (Leviticus 24:9.) It seems from 1 Samuel 21:6 that the bread had just been changed, and hence David and his men ate it on the Sabbath.

Jesus shows by the example of David, whom all regarded as a faithful servant of God, that things which are unlawful may be done under the law of necessity and self-preservation. Matthew presents a second and third argument, the one derived from the labors of the priests in the temple, the other from the prophet Hosea (Hosea 6:6), who declares that God desires not merely external observances, but the inward conditions of kindness and love. Mark (Mark 2:27) presents an argument not recorded by either Matthew or Luke that the Sabbath was designed for the good of man. And he said unto them,—Here Jesus declares that “ the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” The final and crowning argument, growing out from the one just stated, and founded upon the relation of the Sabbath to Christ is here given. “ The Son of man” means the Messiah is head of the human race; he does not here deny his divinity. He is “ lord of the sabbath”; since he has come in human nature to redeem man, and all things pertaining to the human race are committed to him as its Head, he is emphatically the Lord of the Sabbath, which was made for the benefit of man. Jesus is indeed Lord of all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, hence he is Lord of the Sabbath. Luke 6:6 —And it came to pass on another sabbath,—Luke does not mean that this incident occurred on the following Sabbath from that on which they plucked the grain; he is only recording what took place “ on another sabbath.” This time Jesus “ entered into the synagogue and taught”; as opportunity was presented Jesus taught the people. He taught on the Sabbath in their synagogue because they assembled for worship on that day. This time “ There was a man there, and his right hand was withered.” Luke alone mentions that it was “ his right hand” that was withered. This is a very precise way of stating incidents; this accuracy is characteristic of Luke’ s profession ; ancient medical writers always state whether the right or the left member is affected. “ Withered” means that he had lost the use of that hand, that it was diseased so that he could not use it. The “ right hand” was usually the most useful. It was similar to that with which Jeroboam was afflicted. (1 Kings 13:4-6.) Luke 6:7 —And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him,—The “ scribes” were those who copied the law and finally became teachers of it; the “ Pharisees” were those of that sect or party of the Jews who were particular about the traditions of the fathers. They had a bad motive in observing what Jesus would do. (Luke 14:1; Acts 9:24.) They were watching Jesus maliciously. The growth of opposition is seen in that they now watch intently for an occasion to censure him. Possibly they thought that he would heal this man on the Sabbath; they thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; either he must heal the man on the Sabbath, or he must refuse to do good when he has the power to do it; they thought that they had the grounds for bringing charges against him whatever he did. Luke 6:8 —But he knew their thoughts;—This was an evidence of the divinity of Christ. Luke does not stop to prove his divin¬ity, but takes it for granted. In the Old Testament God’ s ex¬istence is treated this way. John expresses it as follows: “ Because he needed not that any one should bear witness con¬cerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:25.) Jesus commanded the man that had the withered hand to “ rise up, and stand forth in the midst.” He did this so that all could see the man with the afflicted hand, and could see when it was healed. The man obeyed him and “ stood forth.” Jesus makes the misery and the healing of the man conspicuous, yet he performs the cure with the word. Luke 6:9-10 —And Jesus said unto them,—Jesus now put them in a dilemma; he asked them: “ Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm ?” They must admit that it was lawful to do good; they must also admit that it is wrong to do harm or fail to do good when one has an opportunity. Some understand this to mean that the question is used in a general sense other than in a particular sense. However, Jesus first asks in regard to doing good or evil in a general sense on the Sabbath, and then in a particular sense, to destroy life or to save life. Luke 6:11 —And he looked round about on them all,—Matthew (Matthew 12:11-12) records the reference to a sheep that had fallen into a pit, but Mark and Luke omit this point. Jesus “ looked” “ on them all.” That “ look” of Jesus was very significant. Mark records (Mark 3:5) that Jesus “ looked round about on them with anger”; he had a righteous indignation because of the hardness of their hearts. He silenced his opposer and then pro¬ceeded to heal the afflicted hand. He performed the miracle without any bodily effort, or any word except the command, “ stretch forth thy hand.” The man obeyed and “ his hand was restored.” The enemies of Jesus could not charge him with laboring on the Sabbath; he did no work, but spoke to the man. The healing took place immediately; Jesus had only to speak and the man had to obey.

The faith of the man is brought into its natural relation to his obedience and cure. Jesus gave the command; the man believed, and obeyed, and received the blessing. Luke 6:11 –But they were filled with madness;—The scribes and Pharisees were answered before they had expressed their thoughts; Jesus had looked into their hearts and had answered them; they were displeased with this. They were deprived of legal ground of objection since the miracle was performed without any action on the part of Jesus; there was nothing left for them to do except to receive the testimony of Jesus that he was the promised Messiah, or reject him and all the evidence that he had furnished. They could not deny the evidence. They seek to satisfy themselves with a senseless rage; this was a foolish thing for them to do. THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVELuk_6:12-19 Luke 6:12 —And it came to pass in these days,—Parallel accounts of this are found in Matthew 10 Matthew 1-4 and Mark 3:13-19. “ In these days” designates the period during which the miracles just re-lated were wrought, and the Pharisees and others were seek¬ing how they might destroy him. He went “ into the mountain to pray.” There are several mountains in Galilee on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, some think that it was the same mountain from which the “ Sermon on the Mount” was preached. It is significant that he went there “ to pray” and that he continued “ all night in prayer to God.” Luke makes special reference to Jesus at prayer. (Luke 3 Luke 21 Luk 5:16 Luke 9:18 Luke 11:1.) Jesus resorted to special prayer before great and important events. (Mark 6:46; Luke 22:41-44; John 11:41-42 John 17:1.) Luke 6:13 —And when it was day,—We must distinguish between the call of these men to discipleship (John 1:35-45), their call to be constant attendants, preachers, or evangelists (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), and their selection as apostles which is here related. After their selection they were endowed with miraculous gifts and sent out on their “ limited commission.” (Matthew 10:1-4.) The next morning after the night had been spent in prayer “ he called his disciples,” and from his disciples he “ chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles.” The word “ chose” means “ he made or constituted” to be “ apostles.” From the many disciples which he had made up to this time, he selected twelve of them and appointed them as his “ apostles.” “ Apostle” means one “ sent forth.” Jesus is named or called an “ Apostle.” (Hebrews 3:1.) Luke uses this term more than the other writers do. (Luke 9:10 Luke 11:49 Luke 17:5 Luke 22:14 Luke 24:10.) They are sometimes called “ the twelve” (Mark 4:10 Mark 6:7), or “ the twelve disciples” (Matthew 20:17), or simply “ disciples” (Luke 9:12). Mark (3: 14) gives the reason for their appointment “ that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.”Luke 6:14-16 –Simon, whom he also named Peter,—There are four catalogues of the apostles, and Luke gives two of the four; Matthew and Mark give the other two. Each catalogue is di-vided into three classes, the names of which are never interchanged, and each class headed by a leading name. Peter heads the first class, Philip the second, James the third, and Judas Iscariot stands the last, except in the Acts, where his name is omitted because of his apostasy and death. Matthew enumerates the apostles two by two, in pairs; Mark and Luke one by one, individually; and Luke in the Acts, mixedly. This shows that the writers wrote independent of each other.Acts 1:13 Simon Peter Andrew, his brother James, son of Zebedee John, his brotherSimon Peter James John AndrewSimon Peter Andrew James JohnPeter John James AndrewPhilip Bartholomew Thomas MatthewPhilip Bartholomew Matthew ThomasPhilip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas Philip Thomas Bartholomew MattthewJames, son of Alphaeus Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus Simon, the Cananaean Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Simon Zelotes Judas, son of James Judas IscariotJames, son of Alphaeus Simon Zelotes Judas, son of James Peter stands at the head of the apostles; was given the keys of the kingdom; had a prominent part in the early church; wrote two books of the New Testament. Andrew was the brother of Peter; was born at Bethsaida and afterwards lived at Capernaum; nothing is known of his work. James, the son of Zebedee, was called “ James the Greater,” and is never mentioned in the New Testament apart from John his brother; he was the first martyr among the apostles. (Acts 12:2.) John, the brother of James, ranked next to Peter; he was the beloved apostle; he wrote five books of the New Testament— John, First John, Second John, Third John, and Revelation. Philip was a native of Bethsaida, a disciple of John the Baptist; his labors and death are not recorded in the New Testament. Bartholomew was the son of “ Bar- Tholmai,” or son of Tholmai; nothing is said of his labors. Matthew was also called Levi; he was a publican; he wrote the first book of the New Testament; nothing further is known of his labors.

Thomas was also called “ Didymus” (John 11:16), which means “ a twin”; he has been called “ doubting Thomas,” but this should not be applied to him (John 20:24-29). James was the son of Alpheus; he is called “ James the less” (Mark 15:40); some think that he was the cousin of our Lord (Luke 24:10; John 19:25) and that he had a brother Joses (Matthew 27:56). Simon was called the “ Zealot”; Mark calls him “ the Cananaean” ; nothing is known of his work. Judas “ the son of James” was probably the same as “ Lebbaeus” or “ Thaddaeus”; some think he was the same as the author of Jude. Judas Iscariot is always designated as the traitor; he is thought to have been the only apostle who was not by birth a Galilean; the climax of his sins was the betrayal of Jesus and his suicide.

Luke 6:17-19 —and he came down with them,—Jesus now descended from the mountain and further instructed his disciples and taught the multitudes. He is now to be accompanied with his apostles. He “ stood on a level place”; we do not know where this was. Some think that it was near Capernaum. “ A great multitude” of his disciples and many from Judea, Jerusalem, and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon came to hear him. Luke here gives us a glimpse of the great crowds that attended his preaching; Jesus was at this time at the height of his popularity as a teacher; in fact, he was popular with all except those who decided against him with the Pharisees. Judea was south of Samaria and Jesus at this time was in Galilee. Palestine was divided into three divisions at this time— Galilee on the north, Samaria in the middle, and Judea on the south. and they that were troubled with unclean spirits—Those who were “ troubled with unclean spirits were healed”; trou¬bled” in the original first meant “ a crowd or mob” with the idea of “ want of arrangement and discipline,” and therefore of “ confusion” and “ tumult.” It is applied to the noise and tu¬mult of a crowd, and so passes into the sense of the “ trouble” and “ annoyance” caused by these, and of trouble generally. It is a term frequently used in medical language; here again we see evidence of Luke’ s profession. Many were possessed with demons and were harassed with even crowds of evil spirits. It is significant that they were healed. These “ unclean spirits” manifested their power through the bodies of men, and to a greater or less extent caused physical diseases. And all the multitude sought to touch him;—All those who were diseased, and there was a multitude of them, sought to touch Jesus. Their eagerness was so great and their faith in his power to heal was so strong that their touching Jesus was sufficient to affect their cleaning. Theirs was a touch of faith; “ for power came forth from him, and healed them all.” The multitudes were all the while seeking to touch him, for his virtue was going out of him. (Matthew 14:36; Mark 6:56.) Luke is more technical, using the strictly medical term, “ healed,” which occurs twenty-eight times in the New Testa¬ment, and seventeen of these are mentioned by Luke. Luke also uses the two words employed by Matthew and Mark, but always with some addition showing the nature of the saving, or healing.

THE GREAT SERMONMat_6:20-34 Luke 6:20 —And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples,—A parallel of this sermon is found in Matt. 5:1 to 7:28. This “ sermon” is a synopsis of a continuous discourse, spoken at one time; it may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew. Many think that Luke’ s account is in chronological order, while Matthew’ s is not. Both accounts in Matthew and Luke represent a great multitude present, but that Jesus spoke directly to his disciples; both Matthew and Luke present the main topics in the same order throughout; both begin with “ the beatitudes” and end with the illustration of the necessity of doing as well as hearing. Matthew records nine beatitudes, while Luke gives only four; yet Luke adds four “ woes” upon different classes of men which Matthew does not record. Luke puts the discourse in the second person, “ blessed are ye,” while Matthew has it in the third person. Blessed are ye poor:—The poor as used here means those who are “ poor in spirit,” and not the penniless. The humble in spirit and the contrite of heart are those who are poor in the spirit. The word here means the same as that used in Isaiah 66:1-3. The poor in this sense may lay just claims to “ the kingdom of God.” “ The kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew calls “ the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew uses “ kingdom of heaven” frequently, and Jesus used that phrase to describe the kingdom. “ Kingdom of heaven” and “ kingdom of God” are equivalent terms, though the pre-eminent title was “ kingdom of God,” since it was expected to be fully realized in the Messianic era, when God should take upon himself the kingdom by a visible representative. “ Kingdom of heaven” had a double meaning with the Jews— the historical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom. Luke 6:21 —Blessed are ye that hunger now:—Luke adds the word “ now,” that is, in this life and at the present time. Those who earnestly and even painfully desire righteousness “ shall be filled”; that is, they shall be satisfied. They shall find com¬plete satisfaction in Christ, having his righteousness accounted to them and being satisfied and conformed to his image. (Proverbs 21:21; Isaiah 41:17 Isaiah 60:21; 2 Peter 3:13.)Blessed are ye that weep now:—Again Luke gives the word “ now,” its proper emphasis, and restricts the weeping. This is a stronger expression than Matthew uses—“ they that mourn.” It signifies that deep anguish of spirit which mani¬fests itself in groans and tears; it does not include all kinds of weeping, for the sorrow “ of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10.) It includes those who weep over their sins. “ Ye shall laugh”; not only shall they be comforted, as Matthew expresses it, but they shall rejoice with open joy. Their sins shall be forgiven; they shall be supported in trial and cheered with the blessings of God. Their joy shall be complete, both with respect to the present and the future state. (2 Corinthians 1:4 2 Corinthians 4:17; Revelation 21:4.) Luke 6:22 —Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you,—This expresses in strong terms the enemies of the disciples of Christ; they shall be hated. The disciples of Christ represent the kingdom of God on earth, and the world hates the kingdom of God. The disciples of Christ are hated, reproached, perse¬cuted, and separated from their synagogues, their society, and outcasts among men. They are hated because they are the children of God; they are cast out as evil persons. All this is done “ for the Son of man’ s sake.” “ Son of man” is a phrase frequently used in the Old Testament. It was applied to man in general (Numbers 23:19; Job 25:6 Job 35:8; Psalms 8:4), and is used eighty-nine times in Ezekiel.

It had also a Messianic meaning in the Old Testament. (Daniel 7:13.) Jesus most frequently used this phrase when speaking of himself; and there are but two instances in which it is applied to him by another, namely, by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and by John (Revelation 1:13 Revelation 14:14). As “ Son of man” Jesus asserts his authority over all flesh. Luke 6:23 —Rejoice in that day,—They are to rejoice in the day that they are persecuted, when they are reproached for the name of Christ. They were even to “ leap for joy”; they should be so overjoyed that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ that they could not contain themselves without a physical demonstration of their job. Christians have reason to rejoice amid persecutions in view of a reward so great and glorious. (2 Corinthians 4:17.) Luke 6:24-26 —But woe unto you that are rich!—Luke here records four woes which Matthew does not record. These woes are not the expression of anger, but of lamentation and warning. “ Woe unto you” or “ alas for you!” Jesus is not uttering as a judge condemnation, but as the great Teacher and Prophet he declares the miserable condition of certain classes and warns them against it. The first woe is pronounced over those that are rich; this is the opposite of spiritual poverty; it includes those that make this world their possession and wealth and trust in riches. (Mark 10:24; Luke 12:21 Luke 18:24-25; 1 John 2:15.) Worldly riches are deceitful in their influence, chok¬ing the word and rendering it unfruitful. Woe unto you, ye that are full now!—This is the opposite of those who have spiritual hunger. This class has no cravings after spiritual food, but are satisfied with the worldly pleasures which only the earth can give. There is coming a time when they shall “ hunger.” When they are brought to their senses and are bereft of all spiritual food, then they shall famish for need of that which only can make the soul happy in the world to come. This will be an endless hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now!—This woe is the opposite of weeping in verse 21. Those who engage in worldly pleasure, who indulge in frivolity, and dissipation, who live in gaiety and mirth in this world, shall in the world to come “ mourn and weep.” The frivolity will be turned into sorrow when they discover their miserable end, and are cast out into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Proverbs 1:25-28; James 4:9.) Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!—This was spoken to his disciples; they should not court the favor of men; neither should they seek to please men. The reason given here is that “ in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.” This woe is opposite to the beatitudes in verses 22 and 23. “ All men” is a term used to include the world. A Christian should strive to have “ good testimony from them that are without” (1 Timothy 3:7), but when his words and conduct are such as to please and delight the un¬godly, affording no reproof for their wicked practices, he should be alarmed. “ Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4.) The fathers sought to please “ the false proph¬ets” by encouraging them in their wicked ways, and the false prophets sought to please the people by crying “ peace, peace” ! when there was no peace. (1 Kings 22:6-14; Jeremiah 23:14 Jeremiah 28:10-11; Ezekiel 13:10-11.) Luke 6:27-28 —But I say unto you that hear,—Jesus here puts in contrast his teachings with that of the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. He had told his disciples that they would have enemies and would suffer persecution; he now instructs them how they should treat their enemies. He enforces the duty of love, its extent, and its standard. Luke here arranges his account of this sermon very different from that given by Matthew. Jesus enforced this by saying: “ I say unto you” ; he speaks not like their scribes. “ Love your enemies.” This sublime moral precept takes rank at the head of all moral du¬ties toward our fellow beings, for the obligation to love ene¬mies carries with it the obligation to love all who are not ene¬mies, but who are more or less friendly. bless them that curse you,—They would be persecuted and spoken evil against, but they were not to retaliate, and speak evil of their enemies, but were to bless them; speak words of peace, kindness, and love to those who insulted and reviled them. They were to pray for them; that is, pray that their enemies might cease to be enemies and to become disciples of Jesus. Praying for their enemies is the opposite of cursing their enemies. Jesus set the example for them when he prayed on the cross: “ Father, forgive them.” (Luke 23:34.) Stephen prayed the same prayer when he said: “ Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” (Acts 7:60.) Luke 6:29-30 —To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek—Jesus gives two examples to illustrate the treatment of enemies in addition to enjoining the principle of love. The first example is that of turning the other cheek when smitten on one. “ Cheek” literally means “ the jaw”; the blow intended is not a mere slap, but a heavy blow, an act of violence rather than contempt. It was regarded as an affront of the worst sort to be struck in the face; it was severely punished both by Jewish and Roman laws. It was a proverb to turn the other cheek when receiving injury. (Lamentations 3:30.) This sets forth a prin¬ciple, and is not to be taken too literally. The other example is that if the cloak is taken from one then the coat should be given. This illustrates the same principle.

From personal vi¬olence Jesus descends to the demanding of property by legal means. The “ cloak” was the outer garment; it was worn loose around the body; the “ coat” was the undergarment. We are here taught to suffer wrong rather than do wrong; we are to do good for evil. We are not to retaliate; this course, if followed by the disciples of Christ, would win a victory over our enemies. Give to every one that asketh thee;—This is to be inter¬preted by the principles of Christian love; Jesus is here oppos¬ing a retaliating and revengeful spirit; his disciples must not out of revenge withhold help from any who may need it. Christians should be ready and willing to help the needy at all times, even if they are enemies. (2 Corinthians 8:12; Galatians 6:10.) If anyone should take “ away thy goods ask them not again.”The disciples of Jesus are not to show a revengeful spirit, and should not do violence to anyone that despoils their goods; but they should be kind and liberal and strive to win back the offender to right conceptions of living. Christians should show a forbearing spirit at all times and never retaliate. Luke 6:31 —And as ye would that men should do to you,—This is called the “Golden Rule”; Jesus gives it as a test of love to¬ward others. We should make the case of others our own, and as we would as honest and righteous people that others should do to us, we should do in like manner to them. This was a new requirement, but simply the application of the law to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 7:12.) Many have quoted similar statements from heathen authors, but those gave the negative part of this command, while Christ gave the positive. Not only are we to avoid doing to others what we in their situation would dislike, but we are to do to them whatever we would in righteousness wish them to do to us. This principle of determining what we shall do to others by first determining what we would have others do to us would keep down many of the difficulties that arise in society. This excludes all selfishness and enforces right thinking about oth¬ers as well as righteous conduct toward them. It is the rule that Jesus gave, and hence is the one that regulates Christian conduct toward each other and all others. Luke 6:32-36 —And if ye love them that love you,—Sinners do good to others for policy’ s sake, not from principle; they do good to others, hoping to receive good from others, and not for the good that they love to do. Jesus here lays down a higher and nobler course of conduct; Christians are to do good to others with no thought of receiving again any good from others; they are to do it because they love to do good; do it because God does and will provide for those who follow Christ. If Christians only did good to those in the world who did them, good, they would do very little good in this world; if they did no more good than many church members do to each other, again they would be doing very little good. Christ gives a higher standard of conduct for his disciples. He sums up his teachings by saying that his disciples should love their ene¬mies, “ and do them good, and lend, never despairing.” There is no moral credit in simply loving those who love us; the wicked do that much; it is no mark of godliness simply to do good to those who do good to us; many godless people do like that. Be ye merciful,—Prove yourself merciful by the conduct above described that you may be like your Father. Matthew says “ be perfect.” God is the “ Father of mercies” (2 Corinthians 1:3), and as mercy is one of the chief attributes of God shown to man, to be merciful like him is to reach completeness in our sphere, as he is completely “ perfect” in his sphere. “ Merciful” means “ pitiful, compassionate”; it is the feeling produced by the misery and want of others. In James 5:11 it is very properly translated “ tender mercy.”Luke 6:37-38 —And judge not,—This forbids harsh, censorious judg-ments of the character of others; it also forbids unjust criti¬cisms of the conduct of others. It does not forbid the forming of opinions as to what is right or wrong. It does admonish us that those opinions should be in love, never severe. Christians should not form hasty judgments, nor unkind judg¬ments; they should never form judgments based on jealousy, suspicion, envy, or hate.

The Golden Rule should govern one here; one should judge another as he would wish to be judged; one should not condemn with severity, but weigh in Christian love every judgment formed. One should not seek to judge, but if one must, let it be a “ righteous judgment”; consider it as Christian.give, and it shall be given unto you;—There are two things which are forbidden here, namely, “ judge not” and “ condemn not”; one will be judged and condemned with the same degree of severity, both by man and God, that he passes on others.

There are also two things commanded here, namely, “ release” and “ give.” One will receive what one gives; the Christians’ law of conduct here is to “ give and forgive.” This rule will keep peace and happiness in the church, in the community, and in the family. If one will follow this rule, one will receive full measure for it; “ good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom.” “ Pressed down” as dry articles, “ shaken together” as soft goods, “ running over” as liquids. Full measure shall be given to the one who so deports himself. This “ good measure” “ shall they give into your bosom.” The gathered folds of the wide upper garment, bound together with the girdle, formed a pouch. In the eastern country people who wore a loose, outer garment used the bosom to pour the contents of grain or other articles into as they would a sack. In Rth 3:15 Boaz said to Ruth: “ Bring the mantle that is upon thee, and hold it; and she held it; and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.” (See also Isaiah 65:7; Jeremiah 32:18.) Luke 6:39 —And he spake also a parable unto them,—This “ parable” is more like a proverb; it is put in the interrogative form and the original shows that a negative reply is expected. “ Can the blind guide the blind?” The blind were very numerous in that country; Luke uses the word “ parable” some fifteen times instead of “ proverb” and for the longer narrative comparisons. This is the only use of the term parable concerning the metaphors in the “ Sermon on the Mount.” One blind man is very unfit to guide another; so those who undertake to teach others when they do not know the truth themselves are unfit, for they are blind guides. The “ pit” is an emblem of destruction ; the Pharisees are described as “ blind guides.” (Matthew 15:14; Matthew 23:16.) The reference here is to censor¬ious and critical teachers who may have a “ beam" in their eye. If ignorant and unskillful leaders attempt to guide people, they themselves will be the first to fall into the ditch or be de- sroyed. No one who is blind to spiritual truth can guide oth¬ers into it. Luke 6:40 —The disciple is not above his teacher:—Here Jesus uses another proverbial statement that the disciple, so long as he is a disciple, or learner, cannot be above his master or teacher. The nature of the relationship of teacher and disciple is such that the teacher is above the disciple, and the disciple cannot become wiser and better than his teacher so long as this rela¬tionship exists. “ But every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher." The disciple naturally makes his teacher his model and imitates him. If they are blind and censorious teachers, they would infuse the same spirit into their disciples ; hence they would be unsafe and unfit instructors. “ Perfected" as used here signifies in the original to “ readjust, restore, to set right," whether in a physical or moral sense. In Galatians 6:1 it is used as restoring a brother taken in a fault; in medical language it means to set a bone or joint when it has been broken or dislocated. Luke 6:41-42 —And why beholdest thou the mote—Jesus here re¬bukes and instructs those who would be teachers; suggestions to those who undertake to teach others are used here, and specific application made to the Pharisees and other religious teachers. In their censorious spirit, they magnify and are quick to see the smallest fault in their neigibor, but do not perceive the enormous faults in their own character. Some can always see the faults of others quicker than they can see their own faults; again the faults in others always seem much larger than their own faults; yet in reality their own faults may be much greater than those in the other person, whom they are criticizing. Jesus uses here “ the mote” and “ the beam” to enforce his teaching. The “ mote” and the “ beam” are proverbial contrasts, the “ mote” being the finest particle of dust or chaff against the “ beam” of timber for a house frame— like the contrast between sawdust and the saw log it¬self. Luke 6:43-44 —For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit;—The general principle here announced by Jesus was that which all believe. The good tree cannot bear corrupt fruit, nor can a rotten tree bring forth good fruit. The character of the tree is determined by the kind of fruit it bears. The tree and its fruit illustrate the heart and the life; the bad heart yields a wicked life; the good heart, a worthy life. Honest and pure intentions, the sincere purpose to do right, yield naturally the fruit of right doing; so Jesus teaches us to estimate what the inner man is by what the outer man does. Men do not gather figs from thorn trees, nor grapes from a “ bramble bush.” Matthew uses “ thistle,” while Luke uses “ bramble bush.” Some think that Luke was acquainted with the “ bramble bush” and used it for medicinal purposes, as he was a physician. Luke 6:45 —The good man out of the good treasure—The figure was changed from the general tree to the particular horn tree; the thorn tree was abundant in that country. So the figures are now applied to man’ s character and conduct; out of the good man come good words and deeds, because there is a treasury of goodness in his heart. His thoughts and affections are pure. Out of the evil man comes evil, because the store of things in his heart is evil. Language is the overflowing of the soul and indicates its state and condition. (Matthew 15:18; Romans 10:9-10; 2 Corinthians 4:13.) Jesus has passed by degrees from the conditions of the Christian life, the beatitudes, to the life itself; he has presented first the principle, then the life that is governed by the principle. Luke 6:46 —And why call ye me, Lord, Lord,—The force of this ques-tion is seen when we look at the meaning of “ Lord”; “ Lord” means master, ruler; it is inconsistent to call one “ Lord” and yet not obey him. The question implies: “ Why do ye admit my right to rule and to lay down the law of your life, and yet not do the things which I command?” It seems that many, both real and professed friends, were thus addressing him; the repetition emphasizes a habitual profession. If they truly ac¬cepted Jesus as Lord, they would do what he commanded them; this was applicable to his apostles, also to his disciples today. The interrogative form makes this a two-edged sword; an emphatic warning, on one hand, against a mere profession, and an emphatic command, on the other, to make their profession and practice agree. Matthew (Matthew 7:21-23) makes a different application of this.— Luke 6:47-48 —Every one that cometh unto me,—The one who comes to Christ in the proper sense as used here becomes a disciple or learner. Doing, obeying, comes by hearing and implies faith. (Romans 10:14.) The “ words” as here used include all that Jesus had spoken during this sermon. Hearing is impor¬tant, but there is something else needed; faith and obedience must be added to hearing. “ But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” (James 1:22.) The one that both hears and does what Jesus says is like the man building a house, who digged deep, and placed a founda¬tion on the solid rock. Luke 6:49 —But he that heareth, and doeth not,—The foolish hearer who fails to do what the Lord requires, yet because he has heard, thinks himself secure, finds his professed Christian character swept away in a sudden flood of evil, like the house stuck upon the earth, which the sudden floods undermine and sweep away into ruin. The hearer, who does not obey, has no solid foundation for his character or hope. His hearing is commendable, but his failing to do or obey is condemned. The same figure is used here of the wind, rain, and flood beating against the house of the one who had built his house upon the rock. The difference is great; the one withstood all the furiousness of the storm, but the other went down in hopeless ruin; so it will be with those who hear but do not obey. Verse 1

Luke’s account in this chapter reveals: (1) how Jesus refuted the false charge of sabbath-breaking (Luke 6:1-5); (2) that he angered the Pharisees by healing a man with the withered hand on the sabbath day (Luke 6:6-11); (3) Jesus’ appointment of the apostles after a night of prayer (Luke 6:12-19); and gives (4) the content of one of Jesus’ sermons (Luke 6:20-49). THE FALSE CHARGE OF SABBATH Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. (Luke 6:1) On a sabbath … There is strong textual evidence that this should read, “on a second-first sabbath” (English Revised Version (1885) margin); but the prevailing ignorance of what such an expression means has led to the rendition here. Even a great scholar like Robertson said, “We do not know what it means."[1] To any American boy raised on a farm, however, such an expression is not arcane at all. From April or May into late autumn, farmers customarily gathered for a local auction called “the first Monday,” an event taking place each month during a certain season. Thus, the first-first Monday was in April or May, and the second-first Monday a month later, etc. Now there were definitely two first-sabbaths recognized by the Jews: “One at the commencement of the year, which would be called “first-first,” and the other at the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, called “second-first."[2]Plucked … did eat, rubbing … What Jesus’ disciples did here was legal, being specifically permitted (Deuteronomy 23:25); thus, as Summers noted, “It was lawful to eat grain in this way when walking through another man’s field."[3] The charge of illegality, brought in the next verse, had regard to when this occurred, and not to WHAT occurred. [1] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 111.. [2] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 139. [3] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books Publisher, Inc., 1972), p. 7O.

Verse 2 But certain of the Pharisees said, Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?The sabbath commandment given by God in the Decalogue was simple enough. “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” A cessation of all work was required, travel suspended, except for short distances; and all chores, such as gathering sticks, were forbidden. To divine regulations, the Pharisees had added dozens of others, resulting in the most ridiculous requirements. In their view, Jesus’ disciples were guilty of “reaping” by plucking the ears, “threshing” by rubbing them in their hands, and “carrying burdens” by conveying the grains to the mouth. It should be clearly understood, then, that what Jesus was charged with violating was not God’s word at all, but the legal doodlings of the Pharisees. Why do ye …? In the Matthew parallel (Matthew 12:1-14), it is recorded that the charge was leveled against the disciples; but, of course the Pharisees charged both Jesus and the disciples, the latter for the actual deeds they misconstrued as violations, and Jesus for the actions he permitted and condoned. It seems incredible that Christian scholars, in many cases, seem to be blind to the fact that both Christ and his disciples were totally innocent of these false charges. Even Ash writes that “their wrong was not theft,"[4] requiring the deduction that it was presumably something else; but the disciples did nothing wrong. Jesus emphatically said of them that they were “guiltless” (Matthew 12:7). ENDNOTE: [4] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 111.

Verse 3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read even this, what David did, when he was hungry, he, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone?The purpose of Christ in this citation was not to equate his actions with those of David. David’s actions were “not lawful,” as the Lord here stated; Jesus’ actions involved no guilt whatever. The Lord in this appeal to the Scriptures stressed the unfairness, hypocrisy, and deceit of the Pharisees, who improperly accepted David’s illegal actions as allowable, freely admitting that David’s deeds required no reproof; but who nevertheless falsely charged Jesus and his disciples with the capital offense of sabbath-breaking, basing it on actions completely innocent. If this had not been the case, the Pharisees would merely have said, “Ah, so you admit that you are a sinner just like David.” See fuller comment on this in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:1-12. There is not the slightest hint that Jesus “legalized” David’s unlawful actions, thus laying down a new law permitting God’s regulations to be abrogated on the basis of “human need.” Gilmour’s deduction that “Human need can override the letter of the law”[5] is a classical example of fallacious interpretations grafted upon this episode; and yet the same author admitted that “No formal charge of sabbath defilement was ever laid against Jesus."[6] The Pharisees did not allege sabbath-breaking at any of Jesus’ trials. [5] S. MacLean Gilmour, Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, p. 111. [6] Ibid., p. 113.

Verse 5 And he said unto them, The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.There were a number of arguments by which Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ false charge. (1) He showed the biased and unprincipled motives of those making the charge, as evidenced by their approval of a real violation on the part of David, and yet alleging against the Son of David a “violation” founded on their hair-splitting interpretations! (2) He showed that “on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,” and that “one greater than the temple” was among them (Matthew 12:5-6). Jesus, the true and greater temple, of which the old temple was merely a type, was being served by his disciples; and, even if their actions were illegal (although they were not) they would have been sanctified by the holy purpose of serving the greater temple. In the old temple, priests continually did things which were not allowed otherwise than in temple service. (3) He showed that the spirit of the ancient law of God should have been heeded, not merely the letter of it. “If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7). This quotation from Hosea 6:6 reveals that the Pharisees had failed to read their own scriptures. To make the conveyance of a spoonful of wheat to the mouth a violation of God’s sabbath, as carrying a burden, was contrary to the spirit of God’s law; and, if the Pharisees had heeded the spirit of it, they would not have condemned Jesus’ innocent disciples. (4) Jesus also taught that keeping the sabbath day “holy” was not intended to be fulfilled merely by what men did not do on that day, but by what they actually did. Jesus asked, “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm? to save life, or destroy it?” (see under Luke 6:9). (5) Jesus claimed absolute lordship of the sabbath, as in the verse before us. In the Greek, “Lord” comes first in the sentence, and so is emphatic. He controls the sabbath instead of being controlled by it. In the Jewish mind, this was tantamount to claiming deity. Jesus did not in these words set aside the law. He interpreted it in its true meaning.[7]The sabbath ordinance, rightly understood, was an expression of Jesus’ own will; and, therefore, his expression of lordship over it was not in order to violate it, but to uplift it and free it from the folly of human abuse, and to restore it as a blessing to mankind. “The true sabbath rest,” as Lamar said, “is found in him; it begins here in rest for the soul, and ends hereafter in the eternal rest."8 “The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). What is true of the sabbath is true of all of God’s laws.

They were not given to hinder and limit men, but to free and bless men. Jesus in this statement called attention to God’s intention in the giving of his holy laws; and it is not a statement that men may do as they please with regard to God’s laws, violating them when they wish to do so, on the grounds of “human need.” A somewhat fuller treatment of this question has been offered here because, of all the passages in the New Testament, this has become the most popular in the theology of those who would reduce Christianity to a basic humanism, the major premise of which is this: “If human needs are restricted by God’s law, it is God’s law that should be set aside; and, of course, human needs' refers actually to human WANTS’!” This is the great error of our generation. [7] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 111. [8] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), Vol. II, p. 103.

Verse 6 And it came to pass on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man there, and his right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find how to accuse him.ANOTHER SABBATH This miracle was performed under test conditions, with avowed enemies of Jesus present and observing it. Jesus, it would appear, healed every malady that came to his attention; for there seems to be no doubt at all on the part of the Pharisees that Jesus would heal this man; they only wondered if he would do it on the sabbath.

Verse 8 But he knew their thoughts; and he said to the man that had his hand withered, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. And Jesus said unto them, I ask you, is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or destroy it? He knew their thoughts … Why downgrade this by a comment that “This required no special knowledge on his part”?[9] The clear intention of Luke, in these words, was that of showing the omniscience of Jesus (John 2:25). To save a life, or destroy it … Jesus thus announced the principle that the withholding of good that may be done is equivalent to doing harm, and that refusing to save a life that could be saved is the same as destroying it. The Old Testament plainly taught that the life, even of a beast which had fallen into a pit, could be saved on the sabbath; and Jesus extended the principle, as should have been obvious to the Pharisees, as applicable to men also. Here too is subtle appeal to their consciences. The Pharisees had already decided to kill Jesus (John 5:18); and here they were, on a sabbath day, laying a net to capture Jesus with the intent of killing him and yet THEY would allege sin against Jesus for healing a man on that same day. As Miller put it, “While Jesus was saving a life on the sabbath, they were using the sabbath to take counsel how they might destroy him.[10][9] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 71. [10]Donald G. Miller, The Layman’s Bible Commentary (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1959), Vol. 18, p. 77.

Verse 10 And he looked round about them all, and said unto him, Stretch forth thy hand, And he did so; and his hand was restored, But they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.They were filled with madness … The expression here is very strong, indicating that those religious bigots were out of their rational minds with malicious fury. And why were they so angry? (1) Because he had shown his power to work a miracle; (2) because he had done so in contradiction of their rules; (3) because he had thus proved that he was from God, making them WRONG in their interpretations; (4) because Jesus had openly condemned THEIR views; and (5) because he had done these things in the sight of multitudes, - these were the reasons.[11]Evidently, Jesus deliberately challenged the religious hierarchy on the question of their sabbath regulations, the same being an excellent example of the manner in which they had made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. Trench observed that there were seven of these sabbatical wonders. These were: (1) Curing the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:21); (2) healing Simon’s wife’s mother (Mark 1:29); (3) healing of the man at Bethesda (John 5:9); (4) curing the man with the withered hand; (5) giving sight to the man born blind (John 9:14); (6) curing the woman with a spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:14); and (7) healing the man with dropsy (Luke 14:1).[12]Before leaving this, we note the pseudocon arising from Luke’s attributing the question, “is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” to Jesus, whereas in the other gospels, it is the Pharisees who ask the question. As Trench said, “Jesus answers question with question, as was so often his custom (Matthew 21:24; Luke 10:29)."[13] Thus the true record is the composite of all that the sacred gospels recorded. [11] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), Vol. Luke-John, p. 44. [12] Richard Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1953), p. 337. [13] Ibid., p. 346.

Verse 12 And it came to pass in these days, that he went out into the mountain to pray; and he continued all night in prayer to God.THE NAMING OF THE TWELVE The humanity of Jesus is emphasized in Luke, the frequent mention of Jesus’ prayers evidently having that purpose in view. Since the God-man continued all night in prayer, who is there among his followers who need not to continue steadfastly in prayers? Frank L. Cox wrote: Every great undertaking in our lives should be preceded by a season of solitude and prayer. This will assure us of God’s presence and power in our undertaking.[14]ENDNOTE: [14] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 17.

Verse 13 And when it was day, he called his disciples; and he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles: Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.Whom also he named apostles … Gilmour is obviously in error in the assertion that “It is an anachronism on Luke’s part to assert that Jesus conferred it (the titleAPOSTLES)."[15] It is true, of course, that the word “apostle” is from a Greek term; but Jesus knew at least two languages; and the borrowing of this word from the Greek tongue was exactly what one might have expected of him who clearly envisioned the preaching of the gospel in the whole world (Matthew 14:9). Besides that, if Jesus did not bestow this title, then who did? It would never have been accepted by the primitive church unless Jesus had indeed given it. Simon, whom he also called Peter … For extended comment on this apostle, whose name appears first in all New Testament lists of the Twelve, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:18. Andrew … James … John … Philip … Bartholomew … For articles on these individual apostles see index of my Commentary on John. Matthew and Thomas … See the introduction to my Commentary on Matthew and comments on Matthew 9:9 with regard to the apostle Matthew, and under John 20:25 for discussion of Thomas. James the son of Alphaeus … This Alphaeus was different from the man who was the father of Matthew. “Had that not been the case, this James would have been more clearly identified as `the brother of Matthew’."[16]Simon who was called the Zealot … There was a revolutionary group in those days which bore this title; but there is no proof that “Simon the Zealot was a former member of a terrorist group dedicated to the overthrow of Rome."[17] As Ash declared, “(The term) Zealot probably indicated one with a particular zeal for the law … It is impossible to know if the term was meant in a religious or patriotic sense here."[18] If the word is construed politically, then it must have reference to Simon’s former status, not that which he held while an apostle. Judas Iscariot … On this apostle, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:21; Matthew 26:49; Matthew 27:3-10. Also, see under John 13:2 in my Commentary on John. [15] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 114. [16] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 73. [17] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 115. [18] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 115.

Verse 17 And he came down with them, and stood on a level place, and a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him and be healed of their diseases; and they that were troubled with unclean spirits were healed. And all the multitude sought to touch him; for power came forth from him, and healed them all.This is Luke’s prelude to the Great Sermon generally identified with the Sermon on the Mount; but the conviction here is that there is no way, logically, to view this as a report of the same sermon Matthew recorded. This sermon followed immediately upon the naming of the Twelve; Matthew’s was long before that time. This sermon was on the “plain,” Matthew’s on the mountain; here Jesus stood, there he sat. This sermon has thirty verses in the record; Matthew’s has over a hundred. The beatitudes, as uttered here, are unlike those in Matthew. The woes given here are not in Matthew at all etc., etc. Efforts of commentators to “harmonize” this account with the Sermon on the Mount usually discredit one or the other accounts, sometimes both of them. For example Gilmour suggested that “Luke took over the sermon much as it stood in `Q,’ and Matthew expanded it."[19] For those who are not familiar with such things, “Q” is the name assigned by scholars to an imaginary “source” which they fancy was used by the synoptic writers; what they forget to mention when they are referring to this imaginary “source” is that it has no historical existence whatever, has never been seen by anyone, and that it has no existence at all, in fact. See the comments at the close of the previous chapter under “a” for discussion of Jesus’ method of preaching the same sermon with variations at various times and places. “There is no reason why a teacher like Jesus would not repeat lessons as the occasion demanded."[20] Furthermore, it is folly to suppose that any gospel author reported everything Jesus said on any occasion. The very idea that the extended sermon recorded here by Luke, and which Jesus delivered in the presence of so great a multitude, was a mere utterance of these thirty verses, and nothing else, cannot be logically supported. These verses may easily be read in less than three minutes! Therefore, if this record in Luke is a report of the same sermon recorded by Matthew, it must be allowed that Jesus said everything recorded in both; but if, on the other hand, these were two different sermons at different places and times, it is still true that Jesus said everything recorded by both authors. Efforts to “harmonize these sermons” as being one discourse are not satisfactory. The agreement here is with Ash who made this “The Sermon on the Plain,"[21] and with Boles, who said, “Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew."[22] Arguments based upon the similarity of content in the two sermons and upon the order and placement of various episodes contained in both are irrelevant, because a similar order and content would also have appeared in any repetitions of the sermon, whenever and wherever preached. [19] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 112. [20] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 116. [21] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 116. [22] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 134.

Verse 20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed are ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God.THE SERMON ON THE PLAINBlessed are ye poor … The poor of this earth are blessed in that they are not so much tempted to trust in riches which they do not have. Exactly this same truth appears in Mark 10:23, “How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God.” What Matthew recorded with regard to the “poor in spirit” is equally true; but these beatitudes are not the same. They interpret each other, so that the misapplication of this beatitude by making poverty itself to be the equivalent of salvation is avoided. The kingdom of God … This is the same as the “kingdom of heaven” elsewhere in the New Testament.

Verse 21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.Hunger is a dreaded state among men; but Christ here pointed out that the hungry of earth are to be enriched by his teachings, that the alleviation of their hunger shall follow acceptance of his message. Has not this been true wherever Christianity has gone? The best good news the hungry ever had is that they shall eat. Christ’s teaching assures this. A queen said, “Let them eat cake”; but Jesus said to the hungry, “Ye shall be filled.” Wherever Christ is preached, there the hardships of the poor are relieved. This beatitude says, in effect, “Blessed are you hungry people; you shall be filled as a result of the compassion that shall flow from Christ’s teaching.”

Verse 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.This is a variation of the same thought of Mat 5:10-12. “Blessed are the persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” In such a pronouncement, Jesus had in view the antagonism between light and darkness, the inevitable hatred of the carnal man of all that is holy and spiritual. For the Son of man’s sake … This is the qualifier of the whole beatitude. It is not merely “the hated” who are blessed, but those who are hated because of their acceptance of the Son of man as Lord and Saviour. As Trench noted: In no single passage of the New Testament where “Son of man” occurs (and there are eighty-eight in all) does it mean other than the Messiah, the Man in whom the idea of humanity was altogether fulfilled.[23]ENDNOTE: [23] Richard Trench, op. cit., p. 344.

Verse 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for behold your reward is great in heaven: for in the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets.See under preceding verse. Your reward is great in heaven … It has been alleged that Luke’s emphasis in this passage is principally social; but this verse disproves such a view. The reason that the poor and the hungry are blessed, in the last analysis, flows out of the eternal reward stored up for them that love the Lord (2 Timothy 4:7-8). If one should take the hope of heaven out of the New Testament, there would be nothing left. Further comment on “heaven” is found in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 6:9-13.

Verse 24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye received your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.Regarding the four “woes” Jesus uttered here, Boles said: These words were not the expression of anger, but of lamentation and warning. “Woe unto you,” or “alas for you!” Jesus is not uttering condemnation as a judge; but as the great Teacher and Prophet, he declares the miserable condition of certain classes and warns them against it.[24]Here again, it is the eternal fate of men who live for money, entertainment, and fame which is in focus. This is not the prophecy of some social revolution that will destroy the rich, etc.; but it is a warning of the final judgment. The false prophets … Coupled with Luke 6:20, where it is made clear that the thrust of these verses is directed at the apostles themselves, there appears a contrast between the holy apostles who have become poor, leaving all that they had, and even hungry, as just seen in the grainfields, and the false prophets who were made rich by their sacrifice of truth and through pandering to the depraved desires of rebellious Israel. The false prophets did indeed receive the emoluments which adorned their apostasy: riches, food, entertainment and popularity. As Summers noted, “In the history of Israel, Amos, for instance, had been condemned while Amaziah was praised."[25][24] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 136. [25] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 75.

Verse 27 But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak, withhold not thy coat also.These same teachings, phrased a little differently, were recorded by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount. For a full discussion, see my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 5:39-45. The principles taught here are non-resistance to evil, the overcoming of evil with good, and patient submissiveness to encroachment against one’s personal rights. Ours is an era when men are screaming demands for their “rights”; but the Christian way includes the renunciation of rights, rather than the violent defense of them. It is not indicated that Christ intended such an attitude to be maintained absolutely under all conditions. The application of them to the conduct of the Christian, however, should be as extensive as possible, and much further, no doubt than is usually the case.

Verse 30 Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.Luke 6:27-31 have some of the most difficult teaching ever presented by the Son of God; and it is doubtful that any person has ever been fully confident of living up to the standards here exalted by the holy Saviour. Most of the religious commentators who have addressed themselves to an analysis of this passage have consciously aimed at softening their impact. Lamar wrote: “The precept is not thus absolute. Paul protested against the smiting of his mouth contrary to the law (Acts 23:3)."[26] On “Give to every man” John Wesley made it “Give to every man what thou canst spare!'" and in the same verse, "And of him that taketh away thy goods, by borrowing, if he be insolvent,’ ask them not again."[27] Tinsley pointed out that Jesus had in view acts of physical violence and robbery; but that “these are not to be taken literally."[28]Bickersteth commented that “No reasonable, thoughtful man would feel himself bound to the letter of these commandments."[29] The tenor of these comments appears almost universally. Boles wrote that “This set forth a principle, and is not to be taken too literally."[30] The viewpoint of this writer is also to the effect that these admonitions are hyperbolic for the purpose of emphasis, the meaning being that the principles of non-resistance to evil, submission to wrongs, and refraining from retaliation should be honored by Christians in whatever situation it is possible to do so. Perhaps Christ intended by such injunctions as these to show how far above the abilities of men to fulfill them are the divine laws of the kingdom of God. The Golden Rule (Luke 6:31), as stated by Luke, is “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Negative statements of this principle were known before Christ came; but our Lord was the first to state the ethic affirmatively, thus making the doing of positive good to be the ideal, rather than merely refraining from evil. [26] J. S. Lamar, op. cit., p. 112. [27] John Wesley, One Volume Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco. [28] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 70. [29] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 147. [30] H. Leo Boles, op. cit., p. 138.

Verse 32 And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much.The message of this passage comes through with overwhelming impact: Jesus expects his disciples to demonstrate a quality of love, helpfulness, and compassion that exceeds everything that may be observed in the conduct of the natural man. This higher quality in the conduct of life must be visible in the total activity of the Christian. In such things as inviting guests, entertaining, giving favors, accommodating others, etc., the way of Christ includes the extension of such hospitality and entertainment beyond the circle of kinsfolks, friends, and acquaintances who will reciprocate them (see under Luke 14:12-14). One of the saddest things in any church is to see the same circle of friends entertaining themselves over and over without any regard to broadening the base of the relationship. Violation of the Saviour’s law in this sector results in the establishment of cliques which are not Christian in any sense, and duplicates of which may be observed in every secular organization on earth.

Verse 35 But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful.This teaching is an order for Christians to break out of themselves and their own little bunch and to include others in all of their plans and activities. Love your enemies … Summers noted that: Two Greek words are regularly translated “love” in the New Testament. One word, [@fileo], relates basically to warm personal affection. The other word, [@agapao], means rational good will and recognition of the value of its object. It is this second word which is used throughout this section.[31]Thus that Christian love of enemies is that which designs and intends what is best for enemies; enemies being, in the sight of God, subject to the invitation of the gospel and prospective heirs of everlasting life. Be merciful … This word also is not the usual New Testament word for “mercy.” “It means compassionate and pitying."[32] The employment of it in this context indicates that the clannishness and exclusiveness so severely condemned above actually derive from a lack of pity toward the ones slighted. There is no way that this verse can be equated with Matthew’s “Be ye therefore perfect, etc.” Two utterly different imperatives are in view, although the one in Matthew surely includes this. [31] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 76. [32] Ibid., p. 78.

Verse 37 And judge not, and ye shall not be judged: and condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: release, and ye shall be released.The same attitudes one manifests toward others are reflected against himself. The thing proscribed is harsh and censorious judgments of the conduct and character of others. Release … The injunction against judging is amplified by two negative commands: (1)judge not, and (2) condemn not; and by two positive commands, (1) forgive, and (2) give. The word “release” has reference to holding an attitude of vengeance, or the keeping account of some injury with a view to retaliation. It was better translated “forgive” in the KJV.

Verse 38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom. For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.Give … If there is a single word in the whole dictionary that summarizes the Christian life, this is it. “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35); and the measure of the holy life is not getting but giving. This is the second of the positive injunctions (see under Luke 6:37) related to “judging,” thus making this applicable to individuals who might have petitioned for aid or alms, which requests are to be ministered to, not grudgingly, but with overflowing generosity. Pressed down, shaken together … etc. The metaphor here is a measure of grain, the application being to a measure given, as well as a measure purchased. Short-changing the purchaser by making “the ephah small” (Amos 8:5) was condemned by God’s prophets; but the great ethic of Christianity condemns short-changing the poor by skimping the measure of alms given. The current era needs to heed this. It is sinful for Christians to skimp their giving to the church and to individuals who should be aided. Shall be measured to you again … The double application of this gives promise to God’s special blessings upon persons honoring his word and states that men themselves will respond in kind to such conduct.

Verse 39 And he spake also a parable unto them, can the blind guide the blind? shall they not both fall into a pit?VARIOUS MAXIMSThis truism was uttered on different occasions by Jesus, who directed it especially against the false religious leaders (Matthew 15:14; Matthew 23:19; Matthew 23:24); and the essential message of it is that men should be careful not to follow religious leaders who themselves are blind spiritually (John 9:39 f).

Verse 40 The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.This saying also was frequently used by the Lord to teach various lessons at different times and places. Significantly, Jesus also varied the form of the maxim, using it to foretell the slander of the apostles by unbelievers (Matthew 10:24), to encourage the apostles in the performance of service (John 13:16), and to prophesy the persecutions that would come upon them (John 15:20). Criticism of the gospel authors on the basis, either of the form of the maxim or of the occasion of its utterance, is due to failure on the part of critics to understand just how Jesus used this expression. Such criticisms are illogical and unscientific.

Verse 41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.For extended comment on this see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 7:3 ff. This is truly an inspired comparison. Of course, it would be literally impossible for a man with a plank in his eye to probe for the mote in his brother’s eye; but in the moral and spiritual realm such a thing is going on all the time. Big Guilt always yells the loudest about the mistakes of Little Guilt! Members of a Congressional Committee to investigate a President were themselves also guilty of taking illegal contributions; but this did not prevent their going after the mote in the President’s eye. True morality demands that such conduct wear the label which Jesus branded it, “hypocrisy”! (Matthew 7:5). Note also that “a mote” may be a very detrimental thing, despite the small size of it; therefore, there is nothing in Jesus’ comparison to minimize any moral fault, however insignificant on the surface. A mote in the eye may be a disaster.

Verse 43 For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit; nor again a corrupt tree that bringeth forth good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.In Matthew (Matthew 7:17-20) this teaching was applied to the identification of false teachers. No corrupt teacher can produce desirable results. It would be as logical to expect a bucket of figs to grow on a thorn bush as to expect holy and beneficial results to follow from a teacher who is not faithful to the word of God. Social excellence, eloquent speech, personable appearance, fashionable attire, and charming demeanor on the part of a teacher are not sufficient reasons for following one who does not know, or will not proclaim, the true word of God.

Verse 45 The good man out of the treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.It is not the appearance of men, but their hearts, which determine their character; and the unfailing guide to what is in men’s hearts is their speech. This verse is not in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, although Matthew recorded it (Matthew 12:35) as being used in a different context, where Jesus revealed that the evil conduct of the Pharisees sprang from inner corruption. It is likely that Jesus used the teaching of this verse many times during the years of his public ministry. Out of the abundance … The sentiment of Pro 4:23 is in this. The heart provides the motivation of life; and what is in it will invariably manifest itself. Of course, the mind is the scriptural heart.

Verse 46 And why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?It is not in mere believing, nor in mere profession of faith, nor in the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord, that salvation is received but it is through doing the things he commanded. This fundamental truth has been compromised and negated by religious theories from the Reformation to the present time; but the scriptures cannot be broken. There is no substitute for doing what Jesus commanded. A similar thought was included in the Sermon on the Mount, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). WHY DO YOUR CALL ME “LORD; LORD” BUT DO NOT OBEY ME? This question should burn in human hearts until the deeds of men more nearly resemble the faith professed; for this question is not merely an interrogation; it is an indictment, charging men with the unbelievable inconsistency of disobeying him whom they acknowledged as Lord. Jesus did not here charge his hearers with lack of faith, but with lack of action, there being not the slightest suggestion that any of them were unbelievers. Thus is emphasized the timeless truth that “While unbelievers must be lost, believers may be lost.” Ours is a generation which has accepted “faith only” as the “open sesame” of the gate of heaven; but “faith only” was not enough for the first generation that ever tried it; nor is it enough today. The doctrine of salvation by “faith only” was born during the Reformation when civilization was in the struggle and travail of rebirth from the deadness of the Dark Ages; but, in all ages, the philosophy of merely believing has had its practical adherents. The generation to whom Jesus addressed this question were believers, but they were not doers of the Lord’s will. It is to their credit, however, that they had not erected around their disobedience a theological bulwark of justification for it. Today, men not only say, “Lord, Lord, and do not,” but they go further and preach that it is not necessary to do anything. If one of those ancient sinners had been reproached for not being baptized, taking the Lord’s Supper, or belonging to the church, he would have been embarrassed and might have made some promise of doing Jesus’ will; but today, sinners reject altogether the necessity of obedience on the grounds that they “believe”! Yet, look again at this crowd that heard Jesus. Their everlasting shame sprang not from lack of faith, but from lack of action. Not only were they believers; they were confessors of his name, calling him Lord, Lord. Theirs was no mere historical faith, but they truly acknowledged him as the Messiah; and in this they were correct. It is wonderful for men to say, Lord, Lord; for with the mouth confession is made unto salvation ( Romans 10:10). In confessing Christ, those people had joined the ranks of the privileged; and from them Jesus had a right to expect obedience. Not only were they believers and confessors, they were also religious workers, not idlers in any sense, being, in fact, busy with many things. It was precisely this class of persons Jesus had in mind when he said: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:22-23). From this it is clear that the people reproached by Jesus in this text were: (1) believers; (2) confessing believers; and (3) working believers. What was their fatal sin? It was as simple as it was catastrophic: they did not do the will of the Lord. Of what did such a failure consist? The question is not merely academic; for the spiritual children of those multitudes are indeed legion: (1) Some do not his will because they are idle, doing nothing of any spiritual import. (2) Others do not his will because they are doing their “own thing.” “Walking after their own lusts and denying the promise of his coming” (2 Peter 3:3-4). (3) Multitudes do not his will because they are busy obeying the commandments of men,” or as Jesus said, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9). In a word, it is not enough to believe in Christ, to profess his holy religion, and to be busy here and there with religious activities. To win the everlasting reward, men must do the will of Christ as it is revealed in the New Testament. Even the fullest possible compliance with all Jesus’ commands does not earn or merit salvation, which in the last analysis rests upon the gracious mercy of God; but willful disobedience thwarts even that mercy.

Verse 47 Every one that cometh unto me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who digged and went deep, and laid a foundation upon the rock: and when a flood arose, the stream brake against that house, and could not shake it; because it had been well builded. But he that heareth and doeth not, is like a man, that built a house upon the earth without a foundation; against which the stream brake, and straightway it fell in; and the ruin of the house was great.This is similar to the paragraph that concludes the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew; but, even so, there are marked differences, due to the variation in Jesus’ words from time to time and place to place. Both accounts are fully true and accurate. My words … This is the key to the paragraph. People who build upon Jesus’ words build upon the solid rock; people who build upon anything else are doomed to disappointment. The word of Christ alone is the constitution of the church, the ground of eternal hope, the guide of faith, the source of redemption, and the true wisdom of God. All else is shifting sand. An infinite sadness follows the contemplation of religious precepts and traditions which have been incorporated into the historical church, traditions and doctrines which are no part of the Saviour’s teaching, being contrary to it and refuted by it.

If men indeed hope to receive eternal life, they must receive it of Christ and upon the terms laid down by him. Further detailed comment on this paragraph is found in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 7:24-29; Matthew 28:18-20.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 61. Through what did Jesus go? 2. State the day of the week. 3. What did the disciples do here? 4. Who complained? 5. On what ground was their complaint? 6. Why not accuse them of theft? 7. To whose example did Jesus refer? 8. Why was that man justified? 9. Into what building did Jesus enter and teach? 10. What unfortunate man was there? 11. Who were spying on Jesus ? 12. State their motive. 13. On what pretext could they accuse him? 14. What was done for the man? 15. State the question he asked first. 16. This filled them with what? 17. On what subject did they confer ? 18. What did Jesus do in the mountain? 19. After this service whom did he call ? 20. What title did he give them? 21. Which pairs were brothers? 22. Tell what was said of Judas Iscariot. 23. Where had Matthew been found? 24. Coming down where did he pause next? 25. Who gathered here? 26. For what had they come? 27. Were they disappointed? 28. Why did the multitude wish to touch Jesus ? 29. Tell why he blessed his poor disciples. 30. Why bless the hungry? 31. And the weepers? 32. Why is it a blessing to be hated? 33. Tell why they should rejoice? 34. To what worthies were they referred ? 35. Why is woe on the rich ? 36. Who are threatened with hunger? 37. Tell who are destined to weep. 38. Why is it dangerous to be popular ? 39. State who should be objects of our love. 40. How treat those who curse us? 41. What about striking back ? 42. And about giving? 43. Explain this in light of Matt. 7:6. 44. State the so-called golden rule. 45. What love should make us better than sinners ? 46. What indicates unselfishness in good deeds? 47. How should lending be done? 48. From where should we expect reward for our good ? What example are we to imitate ? 49. How may we avoid unfavorable judgment? 50. When will good measure be given by men to us ? 51. On what basis? 52. Why cannot the blind lead the blind? 53. With what will a perfect disciple be satisfied? 54. What should be considered before the mote ? 55. Tell what one should not wish to draw out. 56. How is such a character named by Christ? 57. Tell what he is commanded to do. 58. With what does the fruit of a tree agree? 59. By what is a tree known ? 60. From what treasure does a good man bear? 61. Does this principle apply to an evil man ? 62. Those saying “ Lord” should do what? 63. What is necessary besides hearing? 64. This is like what base? 65. How was this base found? 66. How was the building tested? 67. State the result. 68. Who was the other builder

Luke 6:1

1 Second sabbath after the first has something to do with the relation between the religious and the civil year. It does not have much significance to us with such a translation, and most versions give it simply as “on a sabbath.” For comments on taking this corn see those at Matthew 12:1.

Luke 6:2

2 The Pharisees would not accuse the disciples of stealing, for they knew what the law said on the subject of taking the corn, but pretended to object to their doing so on the sabbath because it was a holy day.

Luke 6:3-4

4 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 12:4.

Luke 6:5

5 God and his Son are one in purpose and were together in giving the law. Therefore Jesus had the right to apply his own law as he saw fit.

Luke 6:6

6 Jesus was busy every day and taught the people whenever the opportunity came. His reason for entering the synagogue on sabbath days was because on that day the Jews assembled there to read and hear read the law. The man’s hand was withered as a result of some obstruction in the circulation of his blood.

Luke 6:7

7 The scribes and Pharisees pretended to be zealous for the sanctity of the sabbath. That was only a screen for their envy of Jesus because of his teaching against their hypocritical life.

Luke 6:8

8 Jesus could read their thoughts and decided to head them off from their intended criticism. The man was told to stand, he being normal except the condition of his hand. This brought him into full view of the people in the building.

Luke 6:9

9 See the comments on Mark 3:4 for the questions Jesus asked.

Luke 6:10

0 Jesus looked round to make sure of the attention to his work. The man’s hand only was afflicted, hence he was able without miraculous help to stretch out his arm. With that act came the complete restoration of the afflicted hand.

Luke 6:11

1 Madness is from ANOIA which Thayer explains to be a condition in which they were “expressing themselves in rage.” This was because they were completely baffled by the unexpected way in which Jesus handled the case. They communed or consulted with each other as to how they might destroy him.

Luke 6:12

2 Jesus had an important problem to solve, which was the selection of men to appoint over his kingdom that was at hand. It was fitting that he should spend the preceding hours of night in prayer to his Father.

Luke 6:13

3 Jesus had many disciples, but out of them he chose twelve only to be his apostles, to be sent into the world with the message of salvation through the Gospel.

Luke 6:14-16

6 See the notes at Matthew 10:2-4 in connection with this paragraph.

Luke 6:17-18

8 This paragraph corresponds with Matthew 4:23-25, which see.

Luke 6:19

9 Virtue is from DUNAMIS, one of the words rendered by “power” in many places. The crowds sought to touch Jesus to obtain this power to cure their diseases.

Luke 6:20

0 Luke’s account of the sermon -on the mount begins with this verse. That sermon is related with more detail by Matthew, likewise my comments are more extended at that place, which are to be found in Matthew 5, 6, , 7. The reader should consult that account in connection with this chapter of Luke.

Luke 6:21

1 There is some slight variation in the way Luke words these several verses, from the way Matthew gives them, but the thoughts are the same.

Luke 6:22

2 Another word for blessed is “happy,” and the original is so rendered in many passages. These evil treatments must have been inflicted because of their devotion to the Son of man, in order for the disciples to be given this blessing.

Luke 6:23

3 The blessing was not to be in this life but after reaching heaven. In suffering for the sake of righteousness, the disciples were classed with the prophets.

Luke 6:24

4 This is somewhat figurative, meaning to be enjoying the pleasures of this world by neglecting the obligation of a righteous life.

Luke 6:25

5 Full and hunger, laugh and weep, are figures used for the purpose of contrast. The thought is the same as expressed by comments on the preceding verse.

Luke 6:26

6 A righteous man is not popular with the majority of mankind. If he does his duty he will condemn sin, and that will cause the guilty ones to speak against him.

Luke 6:27

7 Love your enemies. See the long note at Matthew 5:43 on “love.”

Luke 6:28

8 To bless means to wish for something beneficial to happen to one. It does not mean anything merely for pleasure, but that which will actually do him good.

Luke 6:29

9 See the comments at Matthew 5:39.

Luke 6:30

0 This is explained at Matthew 5:42 with its comments.

Luke 6:31

1 This verse is popularly spoken of as the “golden rule.” It is commented upon at length at Matthew 7:12 which the reader is urged to consult.

Luke 6:32

2 See the long note on the word “love” at Matthew 5:43.

Luke 6:33

3 This verse refers to men who bestow favors on others with a selfish motive, thinking chiefly of their own personal gain they hope to get in return.

Luke 6:34

4 This verse deals with the same selfishness as the preceding one.

Luke 6:35

5 Love, do good, and the other terms of service to others, are used in the sense of unselfish ministrations for the chief purpose of doing good. If gratitude returns some reward it is right to accept it, but that, should not be the motive. The Highest bestows the blessings of creation on all mankind, and His example is cited as a rule for the disciples to follow.

Luke 6:36

6 To be merciful means to be more lenient toward an offender than his conduct would entitle him to expect, but not to the extent of encouraging him in wrong doing.

Luke 6:37

7 Judge not, etc. See the comments at Matthew 7:1.

Luke 6:38

8 Almost every rule has some exceptions, but usually if a man is kind and generous with others, they will remember him when he gets in need. That is the meaning of Pro 18:24 that has been erroneously applied to Christ. That passage is explained in volume 3 of the Old Testament Commentary. The phrases in our verse are figurative, drawn from the act of crowding out unnecessary space in measuring produce.

Luke 6:39

9 A parable is a comparison. One blind man following another is like a person closing his mental eyes and letting a false teacher tell him how to go.

Luke 6:40

0 A disciple is a learner, and such a person could not know more than his teacher. Perfect means complete; if the disciple will absorb all of his master’s teaching he will be like him which should satisfy him.

Luke 6:41-42

2 See the comments on Matthew 7:3-5.

Luke 6:43-44

4 Trees and shrubs are used to illustrate the lives of men. When we see a man practicing evil we know he has an evil heart. (See Matthew 15:19.)

Luke 6:45

5 Words as well as deeds spring from the heart, whether good or bad.

Luke 6:46

6 The word “lord” means ruler. It is inconsistent to call Jesus by a name that means one who is in the rule, but then refuse to obey what he commands.

Luke 6:47-49

9 This paragraph is explained at Matthew 7:24-27.