Text -- Luke 18:14-43 (NET)

18:14 I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus and Little Children

18:15 Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them. 18:16 But Jesus called for the children, saying, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 18:17 I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.”

The Wealthy Ruler

18:18 Now a certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18:19 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 18:20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” 18:21 The man replied, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 18:23 But when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy. 18:24 When Jesus noticed this, he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 18:25 In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 18:26 Those who heard this said, “Then who can be saved?” 18:27 He replied, “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God.” 18:28 And Peter said, “Look, we have left everything we own to follow you!” 18:29 Then Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, there is no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of God’s kingdom 18:30 who will not receive many times more in this age– and in the age to come, eternal life.”

Another Prediction of Jesus’ Passion

18:31 Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. 18:32 For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; he will be mocked, mistreated, and spat on. 18:33 They will flog him severely and kill him. Yet on the third day he will rise again.” 18:34 But the twelve understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what Jesus meant.

Healing a Blind Man

18:35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 18:36 When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was going on. 18:37 They told him, “Jesus the Nazarene is passing by.” 18:38 So he called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 18:39 And those who were in front scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted even more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 18:40 So Jesus stopped and ordered the beggar to be brought to him. When the man came near, Jesus asked him, 18:41 “What do you want me to do for you?” He replied, “Lord, let me see again.” 18:42 Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” 18:43 And immediately he regained his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they too gave praise to God.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Luk 18:14

This man ( houtos ).

This despised publican referred to contemptuously in Luk 18:11 as "this"(houtos ) publican.

Robertson: Luk 18:14

Rather than the other ( par' ekeinon ).

In comparison with (placed beside) that one. A neat Greek idiom after the perfect passive participle dedikaiomenos .

Robertson: Luk 18:14

For ( hoti ).

This moral maxim Christ had already used in Luk 14:11. Plummer pertinently asks: "Why is it assumed that Jesus did not repeat his sayings?"

Robertson: Luk 18:15

They brought ( prosepheron ).

Imperfect active, they were bringing. So Mar 10:13.

Robertson: Luk 18:15

Their babes ( ta brephē ).

Old word for infants. Here Mar 10:13; Mat 19:13 have paidia (little children). Note "also"(kai ) in Luke, not in Mark and Matthew.

Robertson: Luk 18:15

That he should touch them ( hina autōn haptētai ).

Present middle subjunctive (linear action, repeatedly touch or one after the other), where Mar 10:13 has aorist middle subjunctive (hapsētai ).

Robertson: Luk 18:15

Rebuked ( epetimōn ).

Imperfect indicative active. Either inchoative began to rebuke, or continued, kept on rebuking. Matthew and Mark have the aorist epetimēsan .

Robertson: Luk 18:16

Called ( prosekalesato ).

Indirect middle aorist indicative, called the children with their parents to himself and then rebuked the disciples for their rebuke of the parents. The language of Jesus is precisely that of Mar 10:14 which see, and nearly that of Mat 19:14 which see note also. The plea of Jesus that children be allowed to come to him is one that many parents need to heed. It is a tragedy to think of parents "forbidding"their children or of preachers doing the same or of both being stumbling-blocks to children.

Robertson: Luk 18:17

As a little child ( hōs paidion ).

Jesus makes the child the model for those who seek entrance into the kingdom of God, not the adult the model for the child. He does not say that the child is already in the kingdom without coming to him. Jesus has made the child’ s world by understanding the child and opening the door for him.

Robertson: Luk 18:18

Ruler ( archōn ).

Not in Mar 10:17; Mat 19:16.

Robertson: Luk 18:18

What shall I do to inherit? ( Ti poiēsas klēronomēsō̱ ).

"By doing what shall I inherit?"Aorist active participle and future active indicative. Precisely the same question is asked by the lawyer in Luk 10:25. This young man probably thought that by some one act he could obtain eternal life. He was ready to make a large expenditure for it.

Robertson: Luk 18:18

Good ( agathon ).

See Mar 10:17 and Mat 19:16 for discussion of this adjective for absolute goodness. Plummer observes that no Jewish rabbi was called "good"in direct address. The question of Jesus will show whether it was merely fulsome flattery on the part of the young man or whether he really put Jesus on a par with God. He must at any rate define his attitude towards Christ.

Robertson: Luk 18:22

One thing thou lackest yet ( eti hen soi leipei ).

Literally, one thing still fails thee or is wanting to thee. An old verb with the dative of personal interest. Mar 10:21 has here husterei se , which see note. It was an amazing compliment for one who was aiming at perfection (Mat 19:21). The youth evidently had great charm and was sincere in his claims.

Robertson: Luk 18:22

Distribute ( diados ).

Second aorist active imperative of diadidōmi (give to various ones, dia - ). Here Mark and Matthew simply have dos (give). The rest the same in all three Gospels.

Robertson: Luk 18:23

Became ( egenēthē ).

First aorist passive indicative of ginomai . Like his countenance fell (stugnasas ), in Mar 10:22.

Robertson: Luk 18:23

Exceedingly sorrowful ( perilupos ).

Old adjective (peri , lupē ) with perfective use of peri .

Robertson: Luk 18:23

Very rich ( plousios sphodra ).

Rich exceedingly. Today, a multimillionaire.

Robertson: Luk 18:24

Shall they enter ( eisporeuontai ).

Present middle indicative, futuristic present.

Robertson: Luk 18:25

Through a needle’ s eye ( dia trēmatos belonēs ).

Both words are old. Trēma means a perforation or hole or eye and in the N.T. only here and Mat 19:24. Belonē means originally the point of a spear and then a surgeon’ s needle. Here only in the N.T. Mar 10:25; Mat 19:24 have rhaphidos for needle. This is probably a current proverb for the impossible. The Talmud twice speaks of an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as being impossible.

Robertson: Luk 18:26

Then who ( kai tis ).

Literally, and who. The kai calls attention to what has just been said. Wealth was assumed to be mark of divine favour, not a hindrance to salvation.

Robertson: Luk 18:27

The impossible with men possible with God ( ta adunata para anthrōpois dunata para tōi theōi ).

Paradoxical, but true. Take your stand "beside"(para ) God and the impossible becomes possible. Clearly then Jesus meant the humanly impossible by the parabolic proverb about the camel going through the needle’ s eye. God can break the grip of gold on a man’ s life, but even Jesus failed with this young ruler.

Robertson: Luk 18:28

Our own ( ta idia ).

Our own things (home, business, etc.). Right here is where so many fail. Peter speaks here not in a spirit of boastfulness, but rather with his reactions from their consternation at what has happened and at the words of Jesus (Plummer).

Robertson: Luk 18:30

Shall not receive ( ouchi mē labēi ).

Very strong double negative with aorist active subjunctive of lambanō .

Robertson: Luk 18:30

Manifold more ( pollaplasiona ).

Late Greek word, here alone in the N.T. save Mat 19:29 where Westcott and Hort have it though many MSS. there read hekatonplasiona (a hundredfold) as in Mar 10:30.

Robertson: Luk 18:31

Took unto him ( paralabōn ).

Second aorist active participle of paralambanō . Taking along with himself. So Mar 10:32. Mat 20:17 adds kat' idian (apart). Jesus is making a special point of explaining his death to the Twelve.

Robertson: Luk 18:31

We go up ( anabainomen ).

Present active indicative, we are going up.

Robertson: Luk 18:31

Unto the Son of man ( tōi huiōi tou anthrōpou ).

Dative case of personal interest. The position is amphibolous and the construction makes sense either with "shall be accomplished"(telesthēsetai ) or "that are written"(ta gegrammena ), probably the former. Compare these minute details of the prophecy here (Luk 18:32.) with the words in Mar 10:33.; Mat 20:18., which see.

Robertson: Luk 18:33

The third day ( tēi hēmerāi tēi tritēi ).

The day the third. In Mat 20:19 it is "the third day"while in Mar 10:34 "after three days"occurs in the same sense, which see.

Robertson: Luk 18:34

And they perceived not ( kai ouk eginōskon ).

Imperfect active. They kept on not perceiving. Twice already Luke has said this in the same sentence.

Robertson: Luk 18:34

They understood none of these things ( ouden toutōn sunēkan ).

First aorist active indicative, a summary statement.

Robertson: Luk 18:34

This saying was hid from them ( ēn to rhēma touto kekrummenon ap' autōn ).

Past perfect passive indicative (periphrastic), state of completion. It was a puzzling experience. No wonder that Luke tries three times to explain the continued failure of the apostles to understand Jesus. The words of Christ about his death ran counter to all their hopes and beliefs.

Robertson: Luk 18:35

Unto Jericho ( eis Iereichō ).

See note on Mat 20:29 and note on Mar 10:46 for discussion of the two Jerichos in Mark and Matthew (the old and the new as here).

Robertson: Luk 18:35

Begging ( epaitōn ).

Asking for something. He probably was by the wayside between the old Jericho and the new Roman Jericho. Mark gives his name Bartimaeus (Mar 10:46). Mat 20:30 mentions two.

Robertson: Luk 18:36

Inquired ( epunthaneto ).

Imperfect middle. Repeatedly inquired as he heard the tramp of the passing crowd going by (diaporeuomenou ).

Robertson: Luk 18:36

What this meant ( Ti eiē touto ).

Literally, What it was. Without an the optative is due to indirect discourse, changed from estin . With an (margin of Westcott and Hort) the potential optative of the direct discourse is simply retained.

Robertson: Luk 18:37

Passeth by ( parerchetai ).

Present middle indicative retained in indirect discourse as paragei is in Mat 20:30. No reason for differences of English tenses in the two passages (was passing by, passeth by).

Robertson: Luk 18:38

He cried ( eboēsen ).

Old verb, boaō , to shout, as in Luk 9:38.

Robertson: Luk 18:38

Son of David ( huie Daueid ).

Shows that he recognizes Jesus as the Messiah.

Robertson: Luk 18:39

That he should hold his peace ( hina sigēsēi ).

Ingressive aorist subjunctive. That he should become silent; as with hina siōpēsēi in Mar 10:48.

Robertson: Luk 18:39

The more a great deal ( pollōi māllon ).

By much more as in Mar 10:48.

Robertson: Luk 18:40

Stood ( statheis ).

First aorist passive where Mar 10:49; Mat 20:32 have stas (second aorist active) translated "stood still."One is as "still"as the other. The first is that Jesus "stopped."

Robertson: Luk 18:40

Be brought ( achthēnai ).

First aorist infinitive in indirect command.

Robertson: Luk 18:41

What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? ( Ti soi theleis poiēsō̱ ).

Same idiom in Mar 10:51; Mat 20:32 which see, the use of thelō without hina with aorist subjunctive (or future indicative). See same references also for hina anablepsō "that I may see again"without verb before hina . Three uses of anablepō here (Luk 18:41, Luk 18:42, Luk 18:43).

Robertson: Luk 18:43

Followed ( ēkolouthei ).

Imperfect active as in Mar 10:52. Either inchoative he began to follow, or descriptive, he was following.

Vincent: Luk 18:15

Infants ( τὰ βρέφη )

See on 1Pe 2:2.

Vincent: Luk 18:15

Touch

So Mark. Matthew has lay his hands on them and pray.

Vincent: Luk 18:16

Suffer

See on Mat 19:14. Only Mark notes the taking in his arms.

Vincent: Luk 18:18

Ruler

Peculiar to Luke.

Vincent: Luk 18:20

Why callest thou me good?

See on Mat 19:17.

Vincent: Luk 18:20

Do not commit adultery, etc

Compare the different arrangement of the commandments by the three synoptists.

Vincent: Luk 18:22

Yet lackest thou one thing ( ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει )

Lit., still one thing is lacking to thee. Mark alone adds that Jesus, looking upon him, loved him.

Vincent: Luk 18:22

Come ( δεῦρο )

Lit., hither.

Vincent: Luk 18:23

He was very sorrowful

Rev., more correctly renders ἐγενήθη , he became. See on Mar 10:22.

Vincent: Luk 18:23

Very rich.

The Greek order forms a climax: " rich exceedingly "

Vincent: Luk 18:25

Camel

See on Mat 19:24.

Vincent: Luk 18:25

To go through the eye of a needle ( διὰ τρήματος βελόνης εἰσελθεῖν )

Rev., more literally, to enter in through a needle's eye. Both Matthew and Mark use another word for needle (ῥαφίς ); see on Mar 10:25. Luke alone has βελόνη , which, besides being an older term, is the peculiar word for the surgical needle. The other word is condemned by the Greek grammarians as barbarous.

Vincent: Luk 18:28

All ( πάντα ).

The best texts read τὰ ἴδια , our own . So Rev.

Vincent: Luk 18:31

By the prophets ( διά )

Lit., through; the preposition expressing secondary agency.

Vincent: Luk 18:34

Saying ( ῥῆμα )

See on Luk 1:37.

Vincent: Luk 18:34

Were said ( λεγόμενα )

Or, more correctly, which were being said to them at the moment.

Vincent: Luk 18:39

Cried ( ἔκραζεν )

A stronger word than ἐβόησεν , cried , in the previous verse, which is merely to cry or shout, while this is to cry clamorously; to scream or shriek. Compare Mat 15:23; Mar 5:5; Act 19:28-34.

Vincent: Luk 18:39

To be brought unto ( ἀχθῆναι πρὸς )

Used by Luke alone in the sense of bringing the sick to Christ. He also uses the compound verb προσάγω , which was a common medical term for bringing the sick to a physician, both in that and in other senses. See Luk 9:41; Act 16:20; Act 27:27.

Wesley: Luk 18:14

From the hill on which the temple stood, justified rather than the other - That is, and not the other.

Wesley: Luk 18:15

Mat 19:13; Mar 10:13.

Wesley: Luk 18:16

Those that brought the children: of such is the kingdom of God - Such are subjects of the Messiah's kingdom. And such as these it properly belongs to.

Wesley: Luk 18:18

Mat 19:16; Mar 10:17.

Wesley: Luk 18:20

Exo 20:12, &c.

Wesley: Luk 18:22

Namely, to love God more than mammon. Our Saviour knew his heart, and presently put him upon a trial which laid it open to the ruler himself. And to cure his love of the world, which could not in him be cured otherwise, Christ commanded him to sell all that he had. But he does not command us to do this; but to use all to the glory of God.

Wesley: Luk 18:31

Mat 20:17; Mar 10:32.

Wesley: Luk 18:34

The literal meaning they could not but understand. But as they could not reconcile this to their preconceived opinion of the Messiah, they were utterly at a loss in what parabolical or figurative sense to take what he said concerning his sufferings; having their thoughts still taken up with the temporal kingdom.

Wesley: Luk 18:35

Mat 20:29; Mar 10:46.

JFB: Luk 18:14

The meaning is, "and not the other"; for the Pharisee was not seeking justification, and felt no need of it. This great law of the Kingdom of God is, in the teaching of Christ, inscribed, as in letters of gold, over its entrance gate. And in how many different forms is it repeated (Psa 138:6; Psa 147:6; Luk 1:53). To be self-emptied, or, "poor in spirit," is the fundamental and indispensable preparation for the reception of the "grace which bringeth salvation": wherever this exists, the "mourning" for it which precedes "comfort" and the earnest "hungerings and thirstings after righteousness" which are rewarded by the "fulness" of it, will, as we see here, be surely found. Such, therefore, and such only, are the justified ones (Job 33:27-28; Psa 34:18; Isa 57:15).

JFB: Luk 18:15

Showing that some, at least, of those called in Matthew (Mat 19:13) and Mark (Mar 10:13) simply "little" or "young children," were literally "babes."

JFB: Luk 18:15

Or, as more fully in Matthew (Mat 19:13), "put His hands on them and pray," or invoke a "blessing" on them (Mar 10:16), according to venerable custom (Gen 48:14-15).

JFB: Luk 18:15

Repeatedly the disciples thus interposed to save annoyance and interruption to their Master; but, as the result showed, always against the mind of Christ (Mat 15:23; Luk 18:39-40). Here, it is plain from our Lord's reply, that they thought the intrusion a useless one, as infants were not capable of receiving anything from Him. His ministrations were for grown people.

JFB: Luk 18:16

"much displeased," says Mark (Mar 10:14); and invaluable addition.

JFB: Luk 18:16

"SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME"--"AND FORBID THEM NOT," is the important addition of Matthew (Mat 19:14) and Mark (Mar 10:14). What words are these from the lips of Christ! The price of them is above rubies. But the reason assigned, "FOR OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD," or "of heaven," as in Mat 19:14, completes the previous information here conveyed; especially as interpreted by what immediately follows: "AND HE TOOK THEM UP IN HIS ARMS, PUT HIS HANDS UPON THEM, AND BLESSED THEM" (Mar 10:16). It is surely not to be conceived that all our Lord meant was to inform us, that seeing grown people must become childlike in order to be capable of the Kingdom of God, therefore they should not hinder infants from coming to Him, and therefore He took up and blessed the infants themselves. Was it not just the grave mistake of the disciples that infants should not be brought to Christ, because only grown people could profit by Him, which "much displeased" our Lord? And though He took the irresistible opportunity of lowering their pride of reason, by informing them that, in order to enter the Kingdom, "instead of the children first becoming like them, they must themselves become like the children" [RICHTER in STIER], this was but by the way; and, returning to the children themselves, He took them up in His gracious arms, put His hands upon them and blessed them, for no conceivable reason but to show that they were thereby made capable, AS INFANTS, of the Kingdom of God. And if so, then "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Act 10:47). But such application of the baptismal water can have no warrant here, save where the infants have been previously brought to Christ Himself for His benediction, and only as the sign and seal of that benediction.

JFB: Luk 18:19

Did our Lord mean then to teach that God only ought to be called "good?" Impossible, for that had been to contradict all Scripture teaching, and His own, too (Psa 112:5; Mat 25:21; Tit 1:8). Unless therefore we are to ascribe captiousness to our Lord, He could have had but one object--to raise the youth's ideas of Himself, as not to be classed merely with other "good masters," and declining to receive this title apart from the "One" who is essentially and only "good." This indeed is but distantly hinted; but unless this is seen in the background of our Lord's words, nothing worthy of Him can be made out of them. (Hence, Socinianism, instead of having any support here, is only baffled by it).

JFB: Luk 18:20

Matthew (Mat 19:17) is more complete here: "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which--as if he had said, Point me out one of them which I have not kept?--"Jesus said, Thou shalt," &c. (Mat 19:17-18). Our Lord purposely confines Himself to the second table, which He would consider easy to keep, enumerating them all--for in Mark (Mar 10:19), "Defraud not" stands for the tenth (else the eighth is twice repeated). In Matthew (Mat 19:19) the sum of this second table of the law is added, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," as if to see if he would venture to say he had kept that.

JFB: Luk 18:21

"what lack I yet?" adds Matthew (Mat 19:20). Ah! this gives us a glimpse of his heart. Doubtless he was perfectly sincere; but something within whispered to him that his keeping of the commandments was too easy a way of getting to heaven. He felt something beyond this to be necessary; after keeping all the commandments he was at a loss to know what that could be; and he came to Jesus just upon that point. "Then," says Mark (Mar 10:21), "Jesus beholding him loved him," or "looked lovingly upon him." His sincerity, frankness, and nearness to the kingdom of God, in themselves most winning qualities, won our Lord's regard even though he turned his back upon Him--a lesson to those who can see nothing lovable save in the regenerate.

JFB: Luk 18:22

Ah! but that a fundamental, fatal lack.

JFB: Luk 18:22

As riches were his idol, our Lord, who knew if from the first, lays His great authoritative grasp at once upon it, saying, "Now give Me up that, and all is right." No general direction about the disposal of riches, then, is here given, save that we are to sit loose to them and lay them at the feet of Him who gave them. He who does this with all he has, whether rich or poor, is a true heir of the kingdom of heaven.

JFB: Luk 18:23-25

Matthew (Mat 19:22) more fully, "went away sorrowful"; Mark still more, "was sad" or "sullen" at that saying, and "went away grieved." Sorry he was, very sorry, to part with Christ; but to part with his riches would have cost him a pang more. When Riches or Heaven, on Christ's terms, were the alternative, the result showed to which side the balance inclined. Thus was he shown to lack the one all-comprehensive requirement of the law--the absolute subjection of the heart to God, and this want vitiated all his other obediences.

JFB: Luk 18:24

Mark says (Mar 3:34), He "looked round about"--as if first following the departing youth with His eye--"and saith unto His disciples."

JFB: Luk 18:24

With what difficulty. In Mark (Mar 10:24) an explanation is added, "How hard is it for them that trust in riches," &c.--that is, with what difficulty is this idolatrous trust conquered, without which they cannot enter; and this is introduced by the word "children"--sweet diminutive of affection and pity (Joh 21:5).

JFB: Luk 18:25

A proverbial expression denoting literally a thing impossible, but figuratively, very difficult.

JFB: Luk 18:26-27

"At that rate none can be saved": "Well, it does pass human power, but not divine."

JFB: Luk 18:28-30

In the simplicity of his heart (as is evident from the reply), conscious that the required surrender had been made, and generously taking in his brethren with him--"we"; not in the spirit of the young ruler. "All these have I kept,"

JFB: Luk 18:28-30

"The workmen's little is as much his "all" as the prince's much" [BENGEL]. In Matthew (Mat 19:27) he adds, "What shall we have therefore?" How shall it fare with us?

JFB: Luk 18:29

Graciously acknowledging at once the completeness and the acceptableness of the surrender as a thing already made.

JFB: Luk 18:29

The specification is still more minute in Matthew and Mark, (Mat 19:27; Mar 10:29) to take in every form of self-sacrifice.

JFB: Luk 18:29

In Mark (Mar 10:29), "for MY sake and the Gospel's." See on Luk 6:22.

JFB: Luk 18:30

In Matthew (Mat 19:29) "an hundredfold," to which Mark (Mar 10:30) gives this most interesting addition, "Now in this present time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions." We have here the blessed promise of a reconstruction of all human relationships and affections on a Christian basis and in a Christian state, after being sacrificed, in their natural form, on the altar of love to Christ. This He calls "manifold more"--"an hundredfold more"--than what they sacrificed. Our Lord was Himself the first to exemplify this new adjustment of His own relationships. (See on Mat 12:49-50; and 2Co 6:14-18.) But this "with persecutions"; for how could such a transfer take place without the most cruel wrenches to flesh and blood? but the persecution would haply follow them into their new and higher circle, breaking that up too! But best of all, "in the world to come life everlasting." And

When the shore is won at last

Who will count the billows past?

KEBLE

These promises are for every one who forsakes his all for Christ. But in Matthew (Mat 19:28) this is prefaced by a special promise to the Twelve: "Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me in the Regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Ye who have now adhered to Me shall, in the new kingdom, rule, or give law to, the great Christian world, here set forth in Jewish dress as the twelve tribes, presided over by the twelve apostles on so many judicial thrones. In this sense certainly the promise has been illustriously fulfilled [CALVIN, GROTIUS, LIGHTFOOT, &c.]. But if the promise refers to the yet future glory (as may be thought from Luk 22:28-30, and as most take it), it points to the highest personal distinction of the first founders of the Christian Church.

JFB: Luk 18:31

Showing how Christ Himself read, and would have us to read, the Old Testament, in which some otherwise evangelical interpreters find no prophecies, or virtually none, of the sufferings of the Son of man.

JFB: Luk 18:34

The Evangelist seems unable to say strongly enough how entirely hidden from them at that time was the sense of these exceeding plain statements: no doubt to add weight to their subsequent testimony, which from this very circumstance was prodigious, and with all the simple-hearted irresistible.

JFB: Luk 18:38

(See on Mat 12:23).

JFB: Luk 18:39

(See on Luk 18:15).

JFB: Luk 18:39

That importunity so commended in the Syrophenician woman, and so often enjoined (Luk 11:5-13; Luk 18:1-8).

JFB: Luk 18:40

Mark (Mar 10:49) has this interesting addition: "And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise, He calleth thee"--just as one earnestly desiring an interview with some exalted person, but told by one official after another that it is vain to wait, as he will not succeed (they know it), yet persists in waiting for some answer to his suit, and at length the door opens, and a servant appears, saying, "You will be admitted--he has called you." And are there no other suitors to Jesus who sometimes fare thus? "And he, casting away his garment"--how lively is this touch, evidently of an eye-witness, expressive of his earnestness and joy--"came to Jesus" (Mar 10:49-50).

JFB: Luk 18:41-43

To try them; to deepen their present consciousness of need; and to draw out their faith in Him. Lord "Rabboni" (Mar 10:51); an emphatic and confiding exclamation. (See on Joh 20:16.)

Clarke: Luk 18:14

Went down to his house justified - His sin blotted out; and himself accepted

Clarke: Luk 18:14

Rather than the other - Η εκεινος : that is, the other was not accepted, because he exalted himself - he made use of the mercies which he acknowledged he owed to God, to make claims on the Divine approbation, and to monopolize the salvation of the Most High! He was abased, because he vainly trusted that he was righteous, and depended on what he had been enabled to do, and looked not for a change of heart, nor for reconciliation to God. It is a strange perversion of the human mind, to attempt to make God our debtor by the very blessings which his mere mercy has conferred upon us! It was a maxim among the Jews, that whoever brought a sacrifice to the temple returned justified. But our Lord shows that this depended on the state of mind - if they were not humbled under a sense of sin, they were not justified, though they had even offered a sacrifice.

Clarke: Luk 18:15-17

They brought unto him also infants - On these verses the reader is requested to consult the notes on Mat 19:13 (note), Mat 19:14 (note), and on Mar 10:16 (note)

When a spiritual guide (a gooroo) visits his disciple, the latter takes his child to him for his blessing, forcing the head of the child down to the gooroo’ s feet, who gives what is called his blessing in some such words as these, Live long! - Be learned! - Be rich!

Clarke: Luk 18:18-23

A certain ruler - See the case of this person largely explained on Mat 19:16-22 (note), and Mar 10:21, Mar 10:22 (note).

Clarke: Luk 18:24

How hardly shall they that have riches, etc. - See the notes on this discourse of our Lord, on Mat 19:21-30 (note), and Mar 10:30 (note).

Clarke: Luk 18:25

It as easier for a camel - Instead of καμηλον, a camel, S, and four other MSS., read καμιλον, a cable. See the same reading noticed on the parallel place, Mat 19:24 (note).

Clarke: Luk 18:28

We have left all - Our trades, our houses, and families. The reader is desired to consult the notes on Mat 4:20 (note); Mat 19:27 (note), etc.

Clarke: Luk 18:29

That hath left house, or parents, etc. - See on Mat 19:28, Mat 19:29 (note), and Mar 10:29, Mar 10:30 (note)

Clarke: Luk 18:29

Or brethren - Η αδελφας, Or Sisters, is added by the Cod. Bezae, and some others.

Clarke: Luk 18:31

Behold, we go up to Jerusalem - See the notes on this discourse, Mat 20:17-19 (note), and Mar 10:32 (note).

Clarke: Luk 18:33

And the third day he shall rise again - See Hos 6:2; and let the reader observe that the passage should be read thus: In the third day he will raise Him up, ( יקמנו ) and we shall live before him: his resurrection shall be the pledge, token, and cause of ours.

Clarke: Luk 18:34

They understood none of these things - Notwithstanding all the information which Christ had given them concerning this awful subject, they could not as yet fully comprehend how the Messiah should suffer; or how their Master, whose power they knew was unlimited, should permit the Jews and Gentiles to torment and slay him as he here intimates they would.

Clarke: Luk 18:35

A certain blind man - Bartimeus. See this transaction explained at large, on Mat 20:29-34 (note), and Mar 10:46 (note), etc.

Clarke: Luk 18:40

And when he was come near - See the remarkable account of the negro and white man, related on Mar 10:50 (note).

Clarke: Luk 18:43

And all the people - gave: praise unto God - They saw the finger of God in what was done; and they gave him that praise which was due to his name. The Pharisees either saw not, or would not acknowledge this. The common people are often better judges of the work of God than the doctors themselves. They are more simple, are not puffed up with the pride of learning, and are less liable to be warped by prejudice or self-interest. Happy are those spiritually blind persons, to whom Christ has given eyes, that they may know him: feet, that they may follow him: a tongue, that they may praise him: and a heart, that they may love him! A true conversion, which no way contradicts itself, but is followed by an edifying life, makes known the majesty and power of God in a more eminent manner than the greatest external miracles. Quesnel

For a practical use of the principal subjects in this chapter, see the parallel places in Matthew and Mark. How shall I be justified? is a most important question, which the parable of the Pharisee and the publican most distinctly answers. A deep consciousness of sin, humiliation of heart, and taking refuge by faith in the great atonement, is the way, and the only way. Even the worst transgressors, coming thus to God, are accepted. Blessed news for penitent sinners! - for though they cannot boast of a righteousness equal to that of the scribes and Pharisees, yet they find they can, coming as the publican, be justified freely, through the blood of the cross, from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. If this be so, how shall they escape who neglect so Great a Salvation!

Calvin: Luk 18:14

14.This man went down justified The comparison is not exact; for Christ does not merely assign to the publican a certain degree of superiority, as if righteousness had belonged alike to both, but means that the publican was accepted by God, while the Pharisee was totally rejected. And this passage shows plainly what is the strict meaning of the word justified: it means, to stand before God as if we were righteous. For it is not said that the publican was justified, because he suddenly acquired some new quality, but that he obtained grace, because his guilt was blotted out, and his sins were washed away. Hence it follows, that righteousness consists in the forgiveness of sins. As the virtues of the Pharisee were defiled and polluted by unfounded confidence, so that his integrity, which deserved commendation before the world, was of no value in the sight of God; so the publican, relying on no merits of works, obtained righteousness solely by imploring pardon, ³³⁴ because he had no other ground of hope than the pure mercy of God.

But it may be thought absurd, that all should be reduced to the same level, since the purity of saints is widely different from that of the publican I reply: whatever proficiency any man may have made in the worship of God and in true holiness, yet if he consider how far he is still deficient, there is no other form of prayer which he can properly use than to begin with the acknowledgment of guilt; for though some are more, and others less, yet all are universally guilty. We cannot doubt, therefore, that Christ now lays down a rule for all to this effect, that God will not be pacified towards us, unless we distrust works, and pray that we may be freely reconciled. And, indeed, the Papists are compelled to acknowledge this in part, but immediately afterwards they debase this doctrine by a wicked invention. They admit that all need the remedy of forgiveness, because no man is perfect; but they first intoxicate wretched men with reliance on what they call imperfect righteousness, and next add satisfactions, in order to blot out their guilt. But our faith needs no other support than this, that God has accepted us, not because we deserved it, but because he does not impute our sins.

Calvin: Luk 18:34

Luk 18:34.And they understood none of these things What stupidity was this, not to understand what Christ said to them in a plain and familiar manner, on a subject not too lofty or intricate, but of which they had, at their own suggestion, entertained some suspicion! But it is proper also to bear in mind — what I have formerly observed — the reason why they were held in such gross ignorance, which was, that they had formed the expectation of a joyful and prosperous advancement, and therefore reckoned it to be in the highest degree absurd, that Christ should be ignominiously crucified. Hence we infer with what madness the minds of men are seized through a false imagination; and therefore we ought to be the more careful not to yield to any foolish thoughts, and shut our eyes against the light.

Defender: Luk 18:17

One must be "born again" to see the kingdom of God (Joh 3:3). Therefore, when he is saved, he enters his new life as a "newborn babe" (1Pe 2:2), not as a grown man. Unless, one relinquishes all pride of position or attainment when he comes to Christ to receive spiritual life, he cannot receive it."

Defender: Luk 18:19

The "rich young ruler" is called "young" only in Mat 19:22, a "ruler" only here in Luk 18:18, but all three accounts say he had "great possessions" (Mat 19:22; Mar 10:22; Luk 18:23). He was quite righteous by most legal standards (except for selfishness), but failed to recognize the true nature of Jesus as the Son of God, calling Him "good" only in the sense that he also considered himself "good.""

TSK: Luk 18:14

went : Luk 5:24, Luk 5:25, Luk 7:47-50; 1Sa 1:18; Ecc 9:7

justified : Luk 10:29, Luk 16:15; Job 9:20, Job 25:4; Psa 143:2; Isa 45:25, Isa 53:11; Rom 3:20; Rom 4:5, Rom 5:1, Rom 8:33; Gal 2:16; Jam 2:21-25

every : Luk 1:52, Luk 14:11; Exo 18:11; Job 22:29, Job 40:9-13; Psa 138:6; Pro 3:34, Pro 15:33; Pro 16:18, Pro 16:19, Pro 18:12, Pro 29:23; Isa 2:11-17, Isa 57:15; Dan 4:37; Hab 2:4; Mat 5:3, Mat 23:12; Jam 4:6, Jam 4:10; 1Pe 5:5, 1Pe 5:6

TSK: Luk 18:15

they brought : 1Sa 1:24; Mat 19:13-15; Mar 10:13-16

they rebuked : Luk 9:49, Luk 9:50,Luk 9:54

TSK: Luk 18:16

Suffer : Gen 47:10-14, Gen 21:4; Deu 29:11, Deu 31:12; 2Ch 20:13; Jer 32:39; Act 2:39; 1Co 7:14

for : Mat 18:3, Mat 18:4; 1Co 14:20; 1Pe 2:2

TSK: Luk 18:17

Psa 131:1, Psa 131:2; Mar 10:15; 1Pe 1:14

TSK: Luk 18:18

a certain : Mat 19:16-30; Mar 10:17-31

Good : Luk 6:46; Eze 33:31; Mal 1:6; Joh 13:13-15

what : Luk 10:25; Act 2:37, Act 16:30

TSK: Luk 18:19

Luk 1:35, Luk 11:13; Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Job 25:4; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 7:26; Jam 1:17

TSK: Luk 18:20

knowest : Luk 10:26-28; Isa 8:20; Mat 19:17-19; Mar 10:18, Mar 10:19; Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7-11

Do not commit : Exo 20:12-17; Deu 5:16-21; Rom 13:9; Gal 3:10-13; Eph 6:2; Col 3:20; Jam 2:8-11

TSK: Luk 18:21

Luk 18:11, Luk 18:12, Luk 15:7, Luk 15:29; Mat 19:20,Mat 19:21; Mar 10:20,Mar 10:21; Rom 10:2, Rom 10:3; Phi 3:6

TSK: Luk 18:22

one : Luk 10:42; Psa 27:4; Phi 3:13; 2Pe 3:8

sell : Luk 12:33, Luk 16:9; Mat 6:19, Mat 6:20; Act 2:44, Act 2:45, Act 4:34-37; 1Ti 6:18, 1Ti 6:19

and come : Luk 9:23, Luk 9:57-62; Mat 19:21, Mat 19:27, Mat 19:28

TSK: Luk 18:23

he was very sorrowful : Luk 8:14, Luk 12:15, Luk 19:8, Luk 21:34; Jdg 18:23, Jdg 18:24; Job 31:24, Job 31:25; Eze 33:31; Mat 19:22; Mar 10:22; Eph 5:5; Phi 3:8; Col 3:5; 1Jo 2:15

TSK: Luk 18:24

he was : Mar 6:26; 2Co 7:9, 2Co 7:10

How : Deu 6:10-12, Deu 8:11-17; Psa 10:3, Psa 73:5-12; Pro 11:28, Pro 18:11, Pro 30:9; Jer 2:31, Jer 5:5; Mat 19:23-25; Mar 10:23-27; 1Co 1:26, 1Co 1:27; 1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10; Jam 2:5-7, Jam 5:1-6

TSK: Luk 18:25

a camel : Some render a cable; but it may justly be doubted whether καμηλος [Strong’ s G2574] ever was so translated before, for the word for a cable, as the scholiast on Aristophanes expressly affirms, is written καμιλος , not with an ""e"" η , but with an ""i"" ι . Some few manuscripts, it is true, have got the word καμιλος into the text, but it is evidently an attempted improvement. Mat 23:24

TSK: Luk 18:26

Who : Luk 13:23

TSK: Luk 18:27

Luk 1:37; Gen 18:14; Job 42:2; Jer 32:17; Dan 4:35; Zec 8:6; Mat 19:26; Eph 1:19, Eph 1:20, Eph 2:4-10

TSK: Luk 18:28

Luk 5:11; Mat 4:19-22, Mat 9:9, Mat 19:27; Mar 10:28; Phi 3:7

TSK: Luk 18:29

There : Luk 14:26-28; Deu 33:9; Mat 10:37-39, Mat 19:28-30; Mar 10:29-31

TSK: Luk 18:30

manifold more : Luk 12:31, Luk 12:32; Job 42:10; Psa 37:16, Psa 63:4, Psa 63:5, Psa 84:10-12, Psa 119:72, Psa 119:103, Psa 119:111, Psa 119:127; Psa 119:162; Rom 6:21-23; 1Ti 4:8, 1Ti 6:6; Heb 13:5, Heb 13:6; Rev 2:10,Rev 2:17, Rev 3:21

TSK: Luk 18:31

Behold : Luk 9:22, Luk 24:6, Luk 24:7; Mat 16:21, Mat 17:22, Mat 17:23, Mat 20:17-19; Mar 8:31, Mar 8:9, Mar 8:30,Mar 8:31; Mar 10:32-34

and : Luk 24:44-46; Psa. 22:1-31, 69:1-36; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:26; Zec 13:7

TSK: Luk 18:32

delivered : Luk 23:1, Luk 23:11; Mat 27:2; Mar 15:1; Joh 18:28, Joh 18:30,Joh 18:35; Act 3:13

mocked : Luk 22:63-65, Luk 23:11, Luk 23:35; Isa 50:6, Isa 52:14, Isa 53:3; Mic 5:1; Mat 26:67; Mat 27:28-30; Mar 14:65, Mar 15:17-20; Joh 18:22, Joh 19:1-5

TSK: Luk 18:33

and the : Luk 24:7, Luk 24:21; Mat 27:63; 1Co 15:3, 1Co 15:4

TSK: Luk 18:34

Luk 2:50, Luk 9:45, Luk 24:25, Luk 24:45; Mar 9:32; Joh 10:6, Joh 12:16, 16:1-19

TSK: Luk 18:35

as : Mat 20:29, Mat 20:30; Mar 10:46, Mar 10:47

begging : Luk 16:20,Luk 16:21; 1Sa 2:8; Joh 9:8; Act 3:2

TSK: Luk 18:36

he : Luk 15:26; Mat 21:10,Mat 21:11

TSK: Luk 18:37

they : Mar 2:1-3; Joh 12:35, Joh 12:36; 2Co 6:2

Jesus : Luk 2:51; Mat 2:23; Joh 1:45, Joh 19:19; Act 2:22, Act 4:10

TSK: Luk 18:38

Jesus : Psa 62:12; Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Mat 9:27, Mat 12:23, Mat 15:22, Mat 21:9, Mat 21:15; Mat 22:42-45; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16

TSK: Luk 18:39

rebuked : Luk 18:15, Luk 8:49, Luk 11:52, Luk 19:39

but : Luk 11:8-10, Luk 18:1; Gen 32:26-28; Psa 141:1; Jer 29:12, Jer 29:13; Mat 7:7, Mat 26:40-44; 2Co 12:8

TSK: Luk 18:40

Mat 20:31-34; Mar 10:48-52

TSK: Luk 18:41

What : 1Ki 3:5-15; Mat 20:21, Mat 20:22; Rom 8:25; Phi 4:6

TSK: Luk 18:42

Receive : Psa 33:9, Psa 107:20; Mat 8:3, Mat 15:28

thy faith : Luk 7:50, Luk 8:48, Luk 17:19

TSK: Luk 18:43

he : Psa 30:2, Psa 146:8; Isa 29:18, Isa 29:19, Isa 35:5, Isa 42:16, Isa 43:8; Mat 9:28-30, Mat 11:5; Mat 21:14; Joh 9:5-7, Joh 9:39, Joh 9:40; Act 26:18

followed : Luk 4:39, Luk 5:26, Luk 17:15-18; Psa 103:1-3, Psa 107:8, Psa 107:15, Psa 107:21, Psa 107:22, Psa 107:31, Psa 107:32; Isa 43:7, Isa 43:8; Isa 43:21; Act 4:21, Act 11:18; Gal 1:24; 2Th 1:10-12; 1Pe 2:9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Luk 18:14

I tell you - The Pharisees would have said that the first man here was approved. Jesus assures them that they judged erroneously. God judges of this differently from people.

Justified - Accepted or approved of God. The word "justify"means to declare or treat as righteous. In this case it means that in their prayers the one was approved and the other not; the one went down with the favor of God in answer to his petitions, the other not.

For every one ... - See the notes at Luk 14:11.

Barnes: Luk 18:15-30

See the notes at Mat. 19:13-30.

Barnes: Luk 18:31-33

See the notes at Mat 20:17-19.

By the prophets - Those who foretold the coming of the Messiah, and whose predictions are recorded in the Old Testament.

Son of man - The Messiah. They predicted that certain things would take place respecting the Messiah that was to come. See the Dan 9:25-27 notes; Isa. 53 notes. "These things,"Jesus said, would be accomplished "in him,"he being the Son of man, or the Messiah.

Barnes: Luk 18:34

Understood none of these things - Though they were "plainly"revealed, yet such were their prejudices and their unwillingness to believe them that they did not understand them. They expected that he would be a temporal prince and a conqueror, and they were not "willing"to believe that he would be delivered into the hands of his enemies. They did not see how that could be consistent with the prophecies. To us now these things appear plain, and we may, hence, learn that those things which to us appear most mysterious may yet appear perfectly plain; and we should learn to trust in God, and "believe"just what he has spoken. See Mat 16:21; Mat 17:23.

Barnes: Luk 18:35-43

See this passage explained in the notes at Mat 20:29-34.

Poole: Luk 18:14

Justified h eceinov , we translate, rather than the other not that the other was at all justified by God; the other was justified by himself only, and those of his party. The publican was justified by God. It followeth, for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased, & c. It is another of our Saviour’ s sentences, often made use of by him, Mat 23:12 , and in this Gospel, Luk 14:11 . It is applied to the ordinary practice of men, but here to God in the ways of his providence; he resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. The blessed Virgin magnifies God on this account, Luk 1:51,52 .

Poole: Luk 18:15-17

Ver. 15-17. See Poole on "Mat 19:13" , and following verses to Mat 19:15 , See Poole on "Mar 10:13" , and following verses to Mar 10:16 , where we before met with this piece of history.

Poole: Luk 18:18-27

Ver. 18-27. We have met with this story at large, Mat 19:16-26 ; and with (if not the same) very like to it. Mar 10:17-27 . See Poole on "Mat 19:16" , and following verses to Mat 19:26 . See Poole on "Mar 10:17" , and following verses to Mar 10:17 . The history is of great use to us.

1. To show how far a man may go, that yet is a great way short of a truly good and spiritual state. He may know that nothing in this life will make him perfectly happy. He may desire eternal life, and salvation. He may go a great way in keeping the commandments of God, as to the letter of them. He may come to the ministers of the gospel to be further instructed. But herein he will fail, he will not come to Christ that he may have life, but fancy he should do something meritorious of it; he doth not aright understand the law, and that there is no going to heaven that way, but by the perfect observation of it, and therefore fancies himself in a much better state than he is.

2. It instructs us in this, that there is no coming to heaven by works, but by a full and perfect obedience to the whole revealed will of God.

3. That every hypocrite hath some lust or other, in which he cannot deny himself. This ruler’ s lust was his immoderate love of the world, and the things thereof.

4. That it is a mighty difficult thing for any persons, but especially such as have great possessions on earth, to get to heaven.

5. As difficult and almost impossible as it may appear to men, yet nothing is impossible with God. He can change the heart of the rich, and incline it to himself; as well as the, heart of the poor. The rich man hath more impediments; but be men rich or poor, without the powerful influence of God upon the heart, without his free grace, no soul will be saved.

Poole: Luk 18:28-30

Ver. 28-30. See Poole on "Mat 19:27" and following verses to Mat 19:30 , See Poole on "Mar 10:28" and following verses to Mar 10:30 . The difficulty is only to reconcile Luk 18:30 to God’ s providences. For the everlasting life promised in the world to come, that is matter of faith, and not so much as seemingly contradicted by any providence of God. But how many lose much for Christ, that in this life do not receive manifold more, or a hundredfold!

Answer. It is true, if we understood it in specie. But the promise is not so to be interpreted. It is enough, if they do receive much more in valore, in value upon a true and just estimation. And this every sufferer for Christ hath, either,

1. In a joy, and peace, and assurance of God’ s love, which is a thousand times more.

2. Or at least in a contentment of mind with that state into which the providence of God bringeth them: this also is much more, as any will judge it a happier state never to thirst, than to have much drink to satisfy the appetite.

Poole: Luk 18:31-34

Ver. 31-34. We shall afterward, in the history of our Saviour’ s passion, see all these things exactly fulfilled, and our Lord here assures his disciples, that it was but in accomplishment of all that was prophesied concerning the Messiah; nor was it any more than he had told them, Luk 9:22 , and again, Luk 9:44 Mat 20:17-19 , Mar 10:32-34 . Yet it is said, that they understood none of these things. The words were easy enough to be understood, but they could not reconcile them to the notion of the Messiah which they had drank in, they could not conceive how the Messiah, that should redeem Israel, should die, or be thus barbarously used by those whom he came to redeem, or save. We have great need to consider well what notions we entertain concerning the things of God. All this blindness and unbelief of the disciples was bottomed in the false notion of the Messiah which they had taken up. However, our Saviour thought fit to inculcate them, to prepare them against the offence they might take at them when the providence of God brought them forth. It is good for us to hear, though it be only for the time to come.

Poole: Luk 18:35

This blind man was Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus , as Mark tells us, Mar 10:46 . Matthew mentions two, the other two evangelists but one, as being more famous, either upon his own or his father’ s account.

Poole: Luk 18:36-43

Ver. 36-43. See Poole on "Mat 20:30" , and following verses to Mat 20:34 , See Poole on "Mar 10:46" , and following verses to Mar 10:52 , where this whole history is more fully opened. It is here again very remarkable, how much Christ attributes to faith:

Thy faith hath saved thee Luk 18:42 , which can be no otherwise understood, than of faith as the condition that was required in the person to be healed, for it is most certain that Christ by his Divine power was the efficient cause of this blind man’ s healing; but he exerted this Divine power upon that exercise of faith which he discerned in the blind man, whose faith seemeth to be a degree higher than that of the leper’ s, Luk 17:13 , who said no more than Jesus, Master. Jesus, thou Son of David, was much more than this. It speaks the blind man’ s persuasion, that Christ was the Messiah; for it was an uncontrolled tradition amongst the Jews, that the Messiah was to be the Son of David. Christ rewards the least exercises of true faith, but much more the higher exercises of it. It doth not appear that this blind man was fully informed who the Messiah should be, viz. God man, but so far as he knew he professeth, he calleth Jesus the

Son of David

Lightfoot: Luk 18:15

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it; they rebuked them.   

[But when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.] "Wicked Israelites' little ones shall not come into the world to come: wicked heathen's little ones all men confess they shall not come into the world to come. From what time is a little child capable of the world to come? R. Chaijah and R. Simeon Bar Rabbi; one of them saith, From the time wherein he is born. The other saith, From the time that he can speak. Rabbona saith, From the time it is begot. Rabh Nachman Bar Isaac saith, From the time he is circumcised; R. Meir saith, From the time that he can answer, Amen."   

Whether this question was handled in the schools or no in the times of the apostles, it is very probable they took this bringing of little children to Christ ill, because (if they might be judges) they were not capable of the kingdom of heaven. And indeed our Saviour's answer to them seems to favour this conjecture of ours: "Is it so indeed, that you suppose such as these unfit and incapable? I tell you, that of such is the kingdom of God."

Lightfoot: Luk 18:19

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is; God.   

[Why callest thou me good?] I. For the better understanding our Saviour's sense and meaning in these and the following words, I would affirm, (and who can argue it to the contrary?) that this man acknowledged Jesus for the true Messiah.  

1. This several others did also, who, as yet, were not his disciples; so those blind men, when they call him 'the Son of David,' Mat 20:30; not to mention others. And what reason can there be for the negative upon this man? Especially when he appears to be a person of more than ordinary parts and accomplishments, not only from what he tells us of himself, but from that kind and affectionate reception he met with from Christ.  

2. This was no vulgar or ordinary question he put here, "What shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" For it seems plain that he was not satisfied in the doctrine of their schools, about the merit of good works, and justification by the law: but he thinks there is something more requisite towards the obtaining salvation, because, after he had (as he tells us) performed this law from his youth up, he yet inquireth further, "What shall I do," etc.; in which that he was in earnest, our Saviour's behaviour towards him sufficiently testified; as also that he came to Jesus, as to no ordinary teacher, to be instructed in this affair.  

3. It was very unusual to salute the Rabbins of that nation with this title. For however they were wont to adorn (not to say load) either the dead or absent with very splendid epithets, yet if they spoke to them while present, they gave them no other title than either Rabbi; or Mar; or Mari. If you turn over both the Talmuds, I am deceived if you once find either Good Rabbi; or Good Mar.  

II. So far, therefore, is our Lord in these words from denying his Godhead, that he rather doth, as it were, draw this person in to own and acknowledge it: "Thou seemest in thy very address to me, and the compellation thou gavest me, to own me for the Messias: and dost thou take me for God too as well as man, when thou callest me good; seeing there is none good but God only?" Certainly he saw something that was not ordinary in this man, when it is said of him that he loved him; Mar 10:21; i.e. he spoke kindly to him, and exhorted him, etc. See 2Ch 18:2; Psa 78:36; they flattered him with their mouth. Nor is it an ordinary affection this young man seemed to have for the blessed Jesus, in that he departs sorrowful from the counsel that had been given him; and that he had the person that had counselled him in very high esteem, appears in that he could not without infinite grief reject the counsel he gave him.

Lightfoot: Luk 18:31

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.   

[He took unto him the twelve.] This falls in with that of Joh 11:7; "Let us go into Judea." What! say they, into Judea again, where thou wast lately in so much danger? However, he comes out and goes on, his disciples following him wondering, and fearing the effects of it, Mar 10:32. He mentioned only at present his journey into Judea, to see Lazarus: but, as they were going, he foretells his progress to Jerusalem, and what was to be done with him there. It is probable he was at Bethabarah when the message came to him that Lazarus was sick; and from thence, his way lying conveniently over the Scythopolitan bridge, and so through part of Samaria, he chooseth the transjordanine way to the fords of Jericho.

Haydock: Luk 18:14

If any one should ask why the Pharisee is here condemned for speaking some few words in his own commendation, and why the like sentence was not passed on Job, who praised himself much more; the difference is evident: the former praised himself without any necessity, merely with an intention of indulging his vanity, and extolling himself over the poor publican; the latter, being overwhelmed with misery, and upbraided by his friends, as if, forsaken of God, he suffered his present distress in punishment of his crimes, justifies himself by recounting his virtues for the greater glory of God, and to preserve himself and others in the steady practice of virtue, under similar temptations. (Theophylactus)

Haydock: Luk 18:34

They understood well enough the sense of the words he spoke to them. But they could not understand how they could be reconciled with the idea they had previously conceived of the Messias. They were scandalized in the first place, to think that God should suffer any thing inflicted by man; they were scandalized in the second place, to hear that sufferings and death could lead to victory and empire; and lastly, they were scandalized, (their own feelings taking the alarm) lest they should be forced to imitate their Master in this part which he had chosen for himself. (Haydock)

Haydock: Luk 18:35

This blind man is, according to some interpreters, different from the other two whom Jesus Christ cured as he was going out of Jericho. (Bible de Vence) ---

See Matthew xx. 29. and Mark x. 46. et dein.

Gill: Luk 18:14

I tell you that this man,.... The publican that so freely owned himself to be a sinner, and by his carriage acknowledged he was unworthy of any favour; and who was treated with so much contempt by the Pharisee:

went down to his house; from the temple which was built on a mountain,

justified, rather than the other: accounted as a righteous person in the sight of God; justified from all his sins, and accepted by him, when the other was abhorred and neglected. The Syriac and Persic versions, and so Beza's most ancient copy, read, "than the Pharisee", who had such an high opinion of himself, and despised others: not that the Pharisee was justified at all, when the publican really was; but the sense is, that if judgment had been to have been made, and sentence passed according to the then conduct and behaviour of both parties, the publican had greatly the advantage, in the sight of God; an humble demeanour being well pleasing and acceptable to him, when pride, and arrogance, boasting of, and trusting in a man's own righteousness, are abhorred by him;

for every one that exalteth himself, shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. This was a proverbial expression, often mentioned by Christ on different occasions, and frequently used by the Jews; See Gill on Mat 23:12 to which may be added the following passages;

"whoever is of a haughty spirit, at last shall be made low ^y.''

And again,

"whosoever humbleth himself, the holy blessed God will lift him up ^z.''

Gill: Luk 18:15

And they brought unto him also infants,.... As well as grown persons, that were sick, to be healed by him:

that he would touch them; in order, as some learned men think, to cure them of diseases that attended them; for one of the ways by which Christ healed persons, was by touching them; nor do we read of his touching in common for any other purpose, or of persons desiring him to touch them, or theirs, but for this end; in Mat 19:13 it is read, "that he should put his hands on them"; and so the Arabic and Persic versions here read, in order to pray over them, and bless them: but neither in one place, nor the other, is any mention of their baptism, or of their being brought for such a purpose; nor can it be concluded from hence;

but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them; the persons that brought the infants; See Gill on Mat 19:13.

Gill: Luk 18:16

But Jesus called them unto him,.... Not the disciples, as the Ethiopic version reads, nor the persons that brought the children, but the children themselves; for the antecedent to the relative αυτα, "them", can be no other; which shows, that these infants were not new born babes, or children at the breast, but such as were more grown up, since they were capable of being called to, and of coming to Christ:

and said; that is, to the disciples; so the Persic version expresses it:

suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; See Gill on Mat 19:14.

for of such is the kingdom of God; or "of heaven", as the Syriac version reads, and as in Mat 19:14 that is, the kingdom of God belongs to such, "who are as these"; or, "like to these": as the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions render the words; (, Mat 19:14.)

Gill: Luk 18:17

Verily I say unto you,...., Christ takes an occasion from hence to teach his disciples humility, and guard them against pride and vanity:

whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God; the King Messiah, the doctrines of the Gospel, and the ordinances of it, even the whole Gospel dispensation;

as a little child; without prejudice, pride, ambition, and vanity, with meekness, and humility:

shall in no wise enter therein; a very unfit and improper person to be a professor of the Gospel; or to be admitted to Gospel ordinances: or be a member of a Gospel church; or be reckoned a subject of the Messiah's kingdom, which is of a spiritual nature; and as he has not a meetness for, and a right unto the kingdom of glory, he shall never see it, and enjoy it.

Gill: Luk 18:18

And a certain ruler asked him,.... A young man, Mat 19:20 a ruler among the Jews, a civil magistrate, and a very rich man; he ran after Jesus, and overtook him in the way, as he was going towards Jericho, Mar 10:17

saying, good master; "Rabbi"; or doctor,

what shall I do to inherit eternal life? See Gill on Mat 19:16.

Gill: Luk 18:19

And Jesus said unto him,.... In answer to his question, beginning with the character he gave him:

why callest thou me good? it being unusual to address men, even their Rabbins, under such a title:

none is good, save one, that is, God: or "but God alone"; as the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions render it; or, "but the one God", as read the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; See Gill on Mat 19:17.

Gill: Luk 18:20

Thou knowest the commandments,.... The ten commandments given to Moses, and delivered to people; and which they were careful to teach their children; though five are only here mentioned, and not in the order in which they stand: suggesting hereby that these must be kept, or the law must he fulfilled, and satisfaction made for the violation of it, or there can be no inheriting eternal life. The five commandments mentioned are, the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, and fifth:

do not commit adultery; do not kill; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honour father and thy mother; See Gill on Mat 19:17 and See Gill on Mar 10:19.

Gill: Luk 18:21

And he said,.... That is, the ruler said to him, as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions add; "to Jesus", as the Persic version expresses it;

all these have I kept from my youth up; See Gill on Mat 19:20 where it is added, what lack I yet?

Gill: Luk 18:22

Now when Jesus heard these things,.... That he had kept all these commandments, and that ever since he was a child, and to that very time:

he said unto him, yet lackest thou one thing; not but that he lacked many other things, and even every thing: for he had performed no one thing as it should be: but Christ said, partly in answer to his pert question, "what lack I yet?" and partly by an ironical concession, granting he had kept them all, as he had said, yet one thing was wanting; and chiefly with a view to mortify his pride and vanity:

sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me; See Gill on Mat 19:21.

Gill: Luk 18:23

And when he heard this,.... That one thing was wanting, and what that was, which was to part with all his worldly substance, and follow Christ;

he was very sorrowful, for he was very rich; See Gill on Mat 19:22.

Gill: Luk 18:24

And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful,.... As he might, by his looks and gestures; and perceived that he was determined not to part with his possessions, and follow him:

he said to his disciples, how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! embrace the Gospel, and submit to the ordinances of it; deny themselves, part with their worldly substance for the cause of Christ, and interest of religion. Riches, which should be a reason for, are often a bar unto a profession of Christ, and his Gospel. This is delivered as an affirmation, or by way of assertion; see Gill on Mat 19:23.

Gill: Luk 18:25

For it is easier for a camel,.... These words were spoken to the disciples again, and were a second address to them, after they had shown astonishment at the former; See Gill on Mat 19:24 and See Gill on Mar 10:24.

Gill: Luk 18:26

And they that heard it, said, who then can be saved? These were the disciples of Christ, who so said; see Mat 19:25.

Gill: Luk 18:27

And he said,.... That is, Jesus, as the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions express it:

the things which are impossible with men, are possible with God; See Gill on Mat 19:26.

Gill: Luk 18:28

Then Peter said,.... "To him", as the Syriac and Arabic versions add; that is, to the Lord Jesus, as the Ethiopic version expresses it; who was always the most forward to speak on any occasion: he observing what was required of the young man, and how unwilling he was to comply with it, and the difficulty in every rich man's way of entrance into the kingdom of God, spoke as follows;

lo, we have left all: the Arabic version reads, "all ours"; all we had, our friends, trades, and worldly substance;

and followed thee: in Mat 19:27 it is added, "what shall we have therefore"; referring to the promise of Christ, to the young man, that should he sell all he had, and give it to the poor, he should have treasure in heaven; See Gill on Mat 19:27.

Gill: Luk 18:29

And he said unto them,.... To his disciples, as the Ethiopic version reads; though the Syriac and Persic versions read, "and Jesus said to him"; that is, to Peter; he particularly replied to him:

verily I say unto you, there is no man: not only you shall have peculiar honour done you, as to sit on thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel; but there is not a single person of a more private character,

that hath left house, or "houses", as read the Syriac and Persic versions;

or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake: that is, for Christ's sake, and for the sake of his Gospel, as the other evangelists have it; and which teaches us how to understand the kingdom of God here, and elsewhere.

Gill: Luk 18:30

Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time,.... Not more houses, parents, brethren, &c. but that which is abundantly preferable to them; such comfort, peace, satisfaction, and pleasure, as are not to be found in such enjoyments:

and in the world to come life everlasting; which was what the young man was desirous of inheriting, Luk 18:18.

Gill: Luk 18:31

Then he took unto him the twelve,.... His twelve disciples, as the Ethiopic version expresses it; he took them aside from the rest of the company, as they were travelling on the road, and privately delivered to them, what follows; see Mat 20:17

and said unto them, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; to the feast of the passover, which was drawing near, and the last Christ was to eat with his disciples, the time of his sufferings, and death, being now at hand; and of which he thought fit to give his disciples notice: and therefore he called them aside, and in a private manner, told them,

that all things that are written by the prophets, concerning the son of man, shall be accomplished; particularly, Psa 2:1 Psa 22:6 for to these the following things have respect.

Gill: Luk 18:32

For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles,.... As he was by the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, to Pilate, the Roman governor, and by him to the soldiers:

and shall be mocked; as he was by the latter, when they crowned him with thorns, arrayed him in a purple robe, and put a reed into his hand, and bowed the knee to him, saying, hail king of the Jews; and likewise by the Jews when he hung upon the cross:

and spitefully entreated. The Syriac and Persic versions leave out this clause here, and read it the next verse. It may regard the injuries done him, the abuses and affronts he received, both by words and blows:

and spitted on; as he was both by officers in the high priest's palace, and by the Roman soldiers in Pilate's hall; see Isa 50:6.

Gill: Luk 18:33

And they shall scourge him,.... As he was by Pilate's order, before he was crucified:

and put him to death; a shameful, and a painful one, the death of the cross:

and the third day he shall rise again; as he accordingly did.

Gill: Luk 18:34

And they understood none of these things,.... "Not one of them", as the Syriac and Persic versions render it; every article of his sufferings and death were unintelligible by them; they knew not how to understand him in any one point: or how to reconcile these things to the notions they had entertained of the temporal grandeur, and glory, of the Messiah, and his kingdom; and which shows their great ignorance of the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning these things.

And this saying, or "thing"; for it answers to the Hebrew word דבר, which signifies any affair, or matter, as well as a word, or saying: and so here, the whole of this affair

was hid from them; unless it should have a peculiar regard to that part of it, which expresses his resurrection from the dead; see Mar 9:10 or the delivery of him to the Gentiles, Luk 9:44

neither knew they the things which were spoken; the meaning of them. The Ethiopic version leaves out this, and puts the former clause, by way of question, "and he said unto them, and is this saying hid from you?"

Gill: Luk 18:35

And it came to pass that as he was come nigh unto Jericho,.... Which lay in his way to Jerusalem;

a certain blind man sat by the way side begging: this was not blind Bartimaeus, nor his companion, for they were cured by Christ as he went out of Jericho; but this man before he came to it; for we afterwards read of his entrance into, and passing through Jericho, Luk 19:1 though much the same things are related in this account, as in that of the other two blind men; See Gill on Mat 20:30.

Gill: Luk 18:36

And hearing the multitude pass by,.... Their "voice", as the Syriac version expresses it; the noise of their feet, and especially of their tongues;

he asked what it meant? what was the meaning of this concourse of people, and of this clamorous noise; or, as the Syriac version reads, "who it should be?" what person of note was passing by, that there was such a multitude after him? to which the answer best agrees.

Gill: Luk 18:37

And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. Some of the company answered him, that Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth, so much talked of, and said to be the Messiah, who was become so famous for his doctrines and miracles, for healing diseases, and dispossessing devils, was just "then" passing by; and this occasioned the noise and clamour.

Gill: Luk 18:38

And he cried, saying, Jesus thou son of David,.... Believing him, at once, to be the Messiah; whence he calls him the son of David, which was a character and title of the Messiah, well known to the Jews; See Gill on Mat 1:1 and therefore immediately called out unto him, being willing to take that opportunity as he passed, and whilst he was within hearing, to make his suit to him for his sight:

saying, have mercy on me: a poor, blind, and miserable creature, and restore me to my sight, which will be an act of singular mercy, and goodness, and will always be gratefully owned as such.

Gill: Luk 18:39

And they that went before,.... In the company that preceded Christ; for he, as yet, was not come right over against the blind man:

rebuked him that he should hold his peace; being not well pleased that he should call him the son of David, which was acknowledging him to be the Messiah; or that he might not be troublesome to Christ, and retard his journey:

but he cried so much the more, thou son of David, have mercy on me; he neither dropped the character of Christ, nor his request to him; but called out more loudly, and with greater vehemence, earnestness, and importunity: so persons sensible of their need of Christ, and of his worth, excellency, and ability, are not to be discouraged from an application to him, by whatsoever they meet with from men, or devils.

Gill: Luk 18:40

And Jesus stood,.... He stood still; he made a full stop, and went no further, when, it is very likely, he was just over against him:

and commanded him to be brought unto him; either by the disciples, or by some of the multitude:

and when he was come near he asked him; the following question.

Gill: Luk 18:41

Saying, what wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?.... Is it alms thou askest? or is it thy sight thou wouldst have restored?

and he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight; this he chose, this was his request, and what he cried so vehemently for; and which he believed Christ, the son of David, was able to do for him.

Gill: Luk 18:42

And Jesus said unto him, receive thy sight,.... Be it to thee as thou desirest, look up and see: thus by a word speaking, and power going along with it, without making use of any means, he fulfilled his desire.

Thy faith hath saved thee; or has obtained salvation for thee, a temporal salvation; and it may be also a spiritual and an eternal one: for that is the concern faith has in salvation; it is the means of obtaining and enjoying it: Christ, the object of faith, is the author of it.

Gill: Luk 18:43

And immediately he received his sight,.... As soon as ever the word was gone out of Christ's mouth, virtue went forth from him, and cured the man of his blindness; his eyes were at once opened, and he saw as other men;

and followed him; his kind benefactor, with a grateful sense of his goodness, with strong affection for him, and faith in him;

glorifying God, who had sent such a Saviour to him; who had wrought such a wonderful miracle for him: for he was sensible that none but God could do this.

And all the people, when they saw it; what was done, how that the man they just before saw was blind, and begging by the way side, now had his sight restored to him, in an instant, and was following Jesus, in the crowd, along with them:

gave praise unto God; or, as Beza's most ancient copy reads, "glory"; they ascribed the glory to God, and praised his name, that he had raised up the Messiah among them; of which this was a clear proof, inasmuch as the eyes of the blind were opened, according to Isa 35:5.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Luk 18:14

¹ sn The prayer that was heard and honored was the one given with humility; in a surprising reversal it was the tax collector who went down to his home justified.

² tn Grk “the other”; the referent (the Pharisee, v. 10) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn Everyone who exalts himself. See Luke 14:11. Jesus often called for humility and condemned those who sought honor.

NET Notes: Luk 18:15

¹ tn Grk “they.”

² tn The term βρέφος (brefos) here can refer to babies or to toddlers (2:12, 16; Acts 7:19; 2 Tim 3:15; 1 Pet 2:2).

³ tn Grk “so that he would touch them.” Here the touch is connected with (or conveys) a blessing (cf. Mark 10:16; also BDAG 126 s.v. ἅπτω 2.c).

⁴ tn Grk “the disciples began to scold them.” In the translation the referent has been specified as “those who brought them,” since otherwise the statement could be understood to mean that the disciples began scolding the children rather than their parents who brought them.

NET Notes: Luk 18:16

¹ tn Grk “summoned them”; the referent (the children) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong. See Luke 6:20; 11:20; 17:20-21.

³ sn The kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Children are a picture of those whose simple trust illustrates what faith is all about. The remark illustrates how everyone is important to God, even those whom others regard as insignificant.

NET Notes: Luk 18:17

¹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

² sn On receive see John 1:12.

³ sn The point of the comparison receive the kingdom of God like a child has more to do with a child’s trusting spirit and willingness to be dependent and receive from others than any inherent humility the child might possess.

⁴ tn The negation in Greek used here (οὐ μή, ou mh) is very strong.

NET Notes: Luk 18:18

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² sn Only Luke states this man is a ruler (cf. the parallels in Matt 19:16-22 and Mark 10:17-22, where the questioner is described only as “someone”). He is probably a civic leader of some kind, a leader in the society.

³ sn The rich man wanted to know what he must do to inherit eternal life, but Jesus had just finished teaching that eternal life was not earned but simply received (18:17). See the similar question about inheriting eternal life in Luke 10:25.

NET Notes: Luk 18:19

¹ tn Grk “And Jesus.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

² sn Jesus’ response, Why do you call me good?, was designed to cause the ruler to stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was. The following statement No one is good except God alone seems to point the man in the direction of Jesus’ essential nature and the demands which logically follow on the man for having said it.

NET Notes: Luk 18:20

¹ sn A quotation from Exod 20:12-16 and Deut 5:16-20. Jesus cited the parts of the ten commandments that relate to how others should be treated.

NET Notes: Luk 18:21

¹ tn Grk “And he”; the referent (the ruler mentioned in v. 18) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

² tn Grk “kept.” The implication of this verb is that the man has obeyed the commandments without fail throughout his life, so the adverb “wholeheartedly” has been added to the translation to bring out this nuance.

³ tn Grk “these things.” The referent of the pronoun (the laws mentioned by Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

sn While the rich man was probably being sincere when he insisted I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws, he had confined his righteousness to external obedience. The rich man’s response to Jesus’ command to give away all he had revealed that internally he loved money more than God.

⁴ sn Since my youth. Judaism regarded the age of thirteen as the age when a man would have become responsible to live by God’s commands.

NET Notes: Luk 18:22

¹ sn See Luke 14:33.

² tn The words “the money” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

³ sn See Luke 1:50-53; 6:20-23; 14:12-14.

⁴ sn The call for sacrifice comes with a promise of eternal reward: …you will have treasure in heaven. Jesus’ call is a test to see how responsive the man is to God’s direction through him. Will he walk the path God’s agent calls him to walk? For a rich person who got it right, see Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-10.

⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the conversation.

NET Notes: Luk 18:23

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Or “very distressed” (L&N 25.277).

NET Notes: Luk 18:24

¹ tc ‡ The phrase περίλυπον γενόμενον (perilupon genomenon, “[When Jesus saw him] becoming sad”) is found in the majority of mss (A [D] W Θ Ψ 078 ˹³ 33^vid Ï latt sy), and it is not unknown in Lukan style to repeat a word or phrase in adjacent passages (TCGNT 143). However, the phrase is lacking in some significant mss (א B L ˹ 579 1241 2542 co). The shorter reading is nevertheless difficult to explain if it is not original: It is possible that these witnesses omitted this phrase out of perceived redundancy from the preceding verse, although intentional omissions, especially by several and varied witnesses, are generally unlikely. NA²⁷ places the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

tn Grk “him.”

² sn For the rich it is hard for wealth not to be the point of focus, as the contrast in vv. 28-30 will show, and for rich people to trust God. Wealth was not an automatic sign of blessing as far as Jesus was concerned.

³ sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong. See Luke 6:20; 11:20; 17:20-21.

NET Notes: Luk 18:25

¹ sn The eye of a needle refers to a sewing needle, one of the smallest items one might deal with on a regular basis, in contrast to the biggest animal of the region. (The gate in Jerusalem known as “The Needle’s Eye” was built during the middle ages and was not in existence in Jesus’ day.) Jesus is saying rhetorically that this is impossible, unless God (v. 27) intervenes.

NET Notes: Luk 18:26

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of thought.

² sn The assumption is that the rich are blessed, so if they risk exclusion, who is left to be saved?

NET Notes: Luk 18:27

¹ sn The term impossible is in the emphatic position in the Greek text. God makes the impossible possible.

² tn The plural Greek term ἄνθρωποις (anqrwpois) is used here in a generic sense, referring to both men and women (cf. NASB 1995 update, “people”). Because of the contrast here between mere mortals and God (“impossible for men…possible for God”) the phrase “mere humans” has been used in the translation.

NET Notes: Luk 18:28

¹ tn Or “left our homes,” “left our possessions”; Grk “left our own things.” The word ἴδιος (idios) can refer to one’s home (including the people and possessions in it) or to one’s property or possessions. Both options are mentioned in BDAG 467 s.v. 4.b. See also I. H. Marshall, Luke (NIGTC), 688; D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1488.

² tn Grk “We have left everything we own and followed you.” Koine Greek often used paratactic structure when hypotactic was implied.

NET Notes: Luk 18:29

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

⁴ tn The term “brothers” could be understood as generic here, referring to either male or female siblings. However, it is noteworthy that in the parallel passages in both Matt 19:29 and Mark 10:29, “sisters” are explicitly mentioned in the Greek text.

NET Notes: Luk 18:30

¹ sn Jesus reassures his disciples with a promise that (1) much benefit in this life (many times more) and (2) eternal life in the age to come will be given.

² tn Grk “this time” (καιρός, kairos), but for stylistic reasons this has been translated “this age” here.

³ sn Note that Luke (see also Matt 19:29; Mark 10:30; Luke 10:25) portrays eternal life as something one receives in the age to come, unlike John, who emphasizes the possibility of receiving eternal life in the present (John 5:24).

NET Notes: Luk 18:31

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

⁴ tn Or “fulfilled.” Jesus goes to Jerusalem by divine plan as the scripture records (Luke 2:39; 12:50; 22:37; Acts 13:29). See Luke 9:22, 44.

NET Notes: Luk 18:32

¹ sn The passive voice verb be handed over does not indicate by whom, but other passages note the Jewish leadership and betrayal (9:22, 44).

² sn See Luke 22:63; 23:11, 36.

³ tn Or “and insulted.” L&N 33.390 and 88.130 note ὑβρίζω (Jubrizw) can mean either “insult” or “mistreat with insolence.”

⁴ sn And spat on. Later Luke does not note this detail in the passion narrative in chaps. 22-23, but see Mark 14:65; 15:19; Matt 26:67; 27:30 where Jesus’ prediction is fulfilled.

NET Notes: Luk 18:33

¹ tn Traditionally, “scourge” (the term means to beat severely with a whip, L&N 19.9). BDAG 620 s.v. μαστιγόω 1. states, “Of the beating (Lat. verberatio) given those condemned to death…J 19:1; cf. Mt 20:19; Mk 10:34; Lk 18:33.” Here the term has been translated “flog…severely” to distinguish it from the term φραγελλόω (fragellow) used in Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15.

² tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “yet” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

NET Notes: Luk 18:34

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast.

² tn Grk “they”; the referent (the twelve, v. 31) has been specified in the context for clarity.

³ tn Grk “And this.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated.

⁴ sn This failure of the Twelve to grasp what Jesus meant probably does not mean that they did not understand linguistically what Jesus said, but that they could not comprehend how this could happen to him, if he was really God’s agent. The saying being hidden probably refers to God’s sovereign timing.

⁵ tn Grk “the things having been said.” The active agent, Jesus, has been specified for clarity, and “said” has been translated as “meant” to indicate that comprehension of the significance is really in view here.

NET Notes: Luk 18:35

¹ tn Grk “Now it happened that as.” The introductory phrase ἐγένετο (egeneto, “it happened that”), common in Luke (69 times) and Acts (54 times), is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

³ tn The phrase is “he drew near to” (19:29; 24:28). It is also possible the term merely means “is in the vicinity of.” Also possible is a reversal in the timing of the healing and Zacchaeus events for literary reasons as the blind man “sees” where the rich man with everything did not.

⁴ map For location see Map5 B2; Map6 E1; Map7 E1; Map8 E3; Map10 A2; Map11 A1.

NET Notes: Luk 18:37

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated. “They” could refer to bystanders or people in the crowd.

NET Notes: Luk 18:38

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the blind man learning that Jesus was nearby.

² tn Grk “called out, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

³ sn Jesus was more than a Nazarene to this blind person, who saw quite well that Jesus was Son of David. He understood what Luke 7:22-23 affirms. There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]).

⁴ sn Have mercy on me is a request for healing (cf. 17:13). It is not owed the man. He simply asks for God’s kind grace.

NET Notes: Luk 18:39

¹ sn That is, those who were at the front of the procession.

² tn Or “rebuked.” The crowd’s view was that surely Jesus would not be bothered with someone as unimportant as a blind beggar.

³ sn Public opinion would not sway the blind man from getting Jesus’ attention. The term shouted is strong as it can be used of animal cries.

NET Notes: Luk 18:40

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the beggar’s cries.

² tn Grk “ordered him”; the referent (the blind beggar, v. 35) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (the beggar) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Luk 18:41

¹ tn Grk “said.”

² tn Grk “Lord, that I may see [again].” The phrase can be rendered as an imperative of request, “Please, give me sight.” Since the man is not noted as having been blind from birth (as the man in John 9 was) it is likely the request is to receive back the sight he once had.

NET Notes: Luk 18:42

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

² tn Or “Regain” (see the note on the phrase “let me see again” in the previous verse).

³ tn Grk “has saved you,” but in a nonsoteriological sense; the man has been delivered from his disability.

NET Notes: Luk 18:43

¹ tn Or “received” (see the note on the phrase “let me see again” in v. 41).

² tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ sn The presence of God’s work leads again to joy, with both the beggar and the people praising God (1:64; 2:20; 5:25-26; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 19:37).

⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

⁵ tn The word “too” has been supplied for stylistic reasons.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:15

^{( f )} And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: ^{( 4 )} but when [his] disciples saw [it], they rebuked them.

^{( f )} The children were tender and young in that they were brought, which appears more evidently in that they were infants. (Ed.) ^{( 4 )} To judge or think of Christ after the reason of the flesh is the cause of infinite corruptions.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:16

^{( 5 )} But Jesus ^{( g )} called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

^{( 5 )} The elect children of the faithful are included in the free covenant of God. (Ed.)

^{( g )} Those that carried the children, whom the disciples drove away.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:17

^{( 6 )} Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

^{( 6 )} Childlike innocence is an ornament of Christians.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:21

^{( 7 )} And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

^{( 7 )} The enticement of riches carries many away from the right way.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:24

^{( 8 )} And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

^{( 8 )} To be both rich and godly is a singular gift of God.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:29

^{( 9 )} And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

^{( 9 )} They become the richest of all who do not refuse to be poor for Christ's sake.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:31

^{( 10 )} Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.

^{( 10 )} As sure and certain as persecution is, so sure is the glory which remains for the conquerors.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:34

And they understood ^{( h )} none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

^{( h )} By this we see how ignorant the disciples were.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:35

^{( 11 )} And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:

^{( 11 )} Christ shows by a visible miracle that he is the light of the world.

Geneva Bible: Luk 18:39

^{( 12 )} And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, [Thou] Son of David, have mercy on me.

^{( 12 )} The more snares and hindrances that Satan lays in our way, even by those who profess Christ's name, so much the more ought we to go forward.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Luk 18:1-43

1 Of the importunate widow.

9 Of the Pharisee and the publican.

15 Of Children brought to Christ.

18 A ruler would follow Christ, but is hindered by his riches.

28 The reward of them that leave all for his sake.

31 He foretells his death;

35 and restores a blind man to his sight.

Maclaren: Luk 18:1-14

Three Kinds Of Praying

And He spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 2. Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3. And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5. Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7. And shall not God avenge His own elect, which cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? 8. I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth! 9. And He spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee', that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.'--Luke 18:1-14.

THE TWO parables in this passage are each prefaced by Luke's explanation of their purpose. They are also connected by being both concerned with aspects of prayer. But the second was apparently not spoken at the same time as the first, but is put hereby Luke as in an appropriate place.

I. The Wearisome Widow And The Unrighteous Judge.

The similarities and dissimilarities between this parable and that in Luke 11:5-8 are equally instructive. Both take a very unlovely character as open to the influence of persistent entreaty; both strongly underscore the unworthiness and selfishness of the motive for yielding. Both expect the hearers to use common-sense enough to take the sleepy friend and the worried judge as contrasts to, not parables, of Him to whom Christians pray. But the judge is a much worse man than the owner of the loaves, and his denial of the justice which it was his office to dispense is a crime; the widow's need is greater than the man's, and the judge's cynical soliloquy, in its unabashed avowal of caring for neither God nor man, and being guided only by regard to comfort, touches a deep depth of selfishness. The worse he was, the more emphatic is the exhortation to persistence. If the continual dropping of the widow's plea could wear away such a stone as that, its like could wear away anything. Yes, and suppose that the judge were as righteous and as full of love and wish to help as this judge was of their opposites; suppose that instead of the cry being a weariness it was a delight; suppose, in short, that, to go back to Luke 11, we call on Him as Father who, without respect of persons, judgeth': then our continual coming' will surely not be less effectual than hers was. But we must note the spiritual experience supposed by the parable to belong to the Christian life. That forlorn figure of the widow, with all its suggestions of helplessness and oppression, is Christ's picture of His Church left on earth without Him. And though of course it is a very incomplete representation, it is a true presentation of one side and aspect of the devout life on earth. In the world ye shall have tribulation,' and the truer His servants are to Him, and the more their hearts are with Christ in God, the more they will feel out of touch with the world, and the more it will instinctively be their adversary.' If the widow does not feel the world's enmity, it will generally be because she is not a widow indeed.'

And another notable fact of Christian experience underlies the parable; namely that the Church's cry for protection from the adversary is often apparently unheard. In Luke 11. the prayer was for supply of necessities, here it is for the specific blessing of protection from the adversary. Whether that is referred to the needs of the Church or of the individual, it is true that usually the help sought is long delayed. It is not only souls under the altar' that have to cry How long, O Lord, dost Thou not avenge?' One thinks of years of persecution for whole communities, or of long, weary days of harassment and suffering for individuals, of multitudes of prayers and groans sent up into a heaven that, for all the answers sent down, might as well be empty, and one feels it hard to hold by the faith that verily, there is a God that' heareth.

We have all had times when our faith has staggered, and we have found no answer to our heart's question: Why tarry the wheels of His chariot?' Many of us have felt what Mary and Martha felt when Jesus abode still two days in the place where He was' after He had received their message, in which they had been so sure of His coming at once when He heard that' he whom Thou lovest is sick,' that they did not ask Him to come. The delays of God's help are a constant feature in His providence, and, as Jesus says here, they are but too likely to take the life out of faith.

But over against these we have to place Jesus' triumphant assurance here: He will avenge them speedily.' Yes, the longest delay may yet be right early,' for heaven's clock does not beat at the same rate as our little chronometers. God is the God of patience,' and He has waited for millenniums for the establishment of His kingdom on earth; His own elect' may learn long-suffering from Him, and need to take to heart the old exhortation, If the vision tarry, wait for it, for it will surely come, and will not tarry.' Yes, God's delays are not delays, but are for our profit that we may always pray and not faint, and may keep alight the flame of the sure hope that the Son of man cometh, and that in His coming all adversaries shall be destroyed, and the widow, no longer a widow, but the bride, go in to the feast and forget her foes, and the days of her mourning be ended.'

II. The Pharisee And The Publican.

Luke's label on this parable tells us that it was spoken to a group of the very people who were personated in it by the Pharisee. One can fancy their faces as they listened, and how they would love the speaker! Their two characteristics are self-righteousness and depreciation of every one else, which is the natural result of such trust in self. The self-adulation was absolute, the contempt was all-embracing, for the Revised Version rightly renders set all others at nought.' That may sound exaggerated, but the way to judge of moral characteristics is to take them in their fullest development and to see what they lead to then. The two pictures heighten each other. The one needs many strokes to bring out the features, the other needs but one. Self-righteousness takes many shapes, penitence has but one emotion to express, one cry to utter. Every word in the Pharisee's prayer is reeking with self-complacency. Even the expression prayed with himself' is significant, for it suggests that the prayer was less addressed to God than to himself, and also that his words could scarcely be spoken in the hearing of others, both because of their arrogant self-praise and of their insolent calumnies of all the rest.' It was not prayer to God, but soliloquy in his own praise, and it was in equal parts adulation of himself and slander of other men. So it never went higher than the inner roof of the temple court, and was, in a very fatal sense, to himself.'

God is complimented with being named formally at first, and in the first two words, I thank thee,' but that is only formal introduction, and in all the rest of his prayer there is not a trace of praying. Such a self-satisfied gentleman had no need to ask for anything, so he brought no petitions. He uses the conventional language of thanksgiving, but his real meaning is to praise himself to God, not to thank God for himself.

God is named once. All the rest is I, I, I. He had no longing for communion, no aspiration, no emotion.

His conception of righteousness was mean and shallow. And as St. Bernard notes, he was not so much thankful for being righteous as for being alone in his goodness. No doubt he was warranted in disclaiming gross sins, but he was glad to be free from them, not because they were sins, but because they were vulgar. He had no right to fling mud either on all the rest' or on this publican,' and if he had been really praying or giving thanks he would have had enough to think of in God and himself without casting sidelong and depreciatory glances at his neighbours.

He who truly prays sees no man any more. or if he does, sees men only as subjects for intercession, not for contempt. The Pharisee's notion of righteousness was primarily negative, as consisting in abstinence from flagrant sins, and, in so far as it was positive, it dealt entirely with ceremonial acts. Such a starved and surface conception of righteousness is essential to self-righteousness, for no man who sees the law of duty in its depth and inwardness can flatter himself that he has kept it. To fast twice a week and to give tithes of all that one acquired were acts of supererogation, and are proudly recounted as if God should feel much indebted to the doer for paying Him more than was required. The Pharisee makes no petitions. He states his claims, and tacitly expects that God will meet them.

Few words are needed to paint the publican; for his estimate of himself is simple and one, and what he wants from God is one thing, and one only. His attitude expresses his emotions, for he does not venture to go near the shining example of all respectability and righteousness, nor to lift his eyes to heaven. Like the penitent psalmist, his iniquities have taken hold on him, so that he is not able to look up.' Keen consciousness of sin, true sorrow for sin, earnest desire to shake off the burden of sin, lowly trust in God's pardoning mercy, are all crowded into his brief petition! The arrow thus feathered goes straight up to the throne, the Pharisee's prayer cannot rise above his own lips.

Jesus does not leave His hearers to apply the parable,' but drives its application home to them, since He knew how keen a thrust was needed to pierce the triple breastplate of self-righteousness. The publican was justified'; that is, accounted as righteous. In the judgment of heaven, which is the judgment of truth, sin forsaken is sin passed away. The Pharisee condensed his contempt into this publican'; Jesus takes up the this' and turns it into a distinction, when He says, this man went down to his house justified.' God's condemnation of the Pharisee and acceptance of the publican are no anomalous aberration of divine justice, for it is a universal law, which has abundant exemplifications, that he that exalteth himself is likely to be humbled, and he that humbles himself to be exalted. Daily life does not always yield examples thereof, but in the inner life and as concerns our relations to God, that law is absolutely and always true.

Maclaren: Luk 18:15-30

Entering The Kingdom

And they brought unto Him also infants, that He would touch them: but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16. But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. 18. And a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22. Now when Jesus heard these things, He said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. 23. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful He said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25. For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26. And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27, And He said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God, 28. Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed Thee. 29. And He said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, 30. Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.'--Luke 18:15-30.

IN this section Luke rejoins the other two Evangelists, from whom his narrative has diverged since Luke 9:51. All three bring together these two incidents of the children in Christ's arms and the young ruler. Probably they were connected in time as well as in subject. Both set forth the conditions of entering the kingdom, which the one declares to be lowliness and trust, and the other to be self-renunciation.

I. We Have The Child-Likeness Of The Subjects Of The Kingdom.

No doubt there was a dash of superstition in the impulse that moved the parents to bring their children to Jesus, but it was an eminently natural desire to win a good man's blessing, and one to which every parent's heart will respond. It was not the superstition, but the intrusive familiarity, that provoked the disciples' rebuke. A great man's hangers-on are always more careful of his dignity than he is for it increases their own importance.

The tender age of the children is to be noted. They were babes,' and had to be brought, being too young to walk, and so having scarcely yet arrived at conscious, voluntary life. It is of such' that the subjects of the kingdom are composed. What, then, are the qualities which, by this comparison, Jesus requires? Certainly not innocence, which would be to contradict all his teaching and to shut out the prodigals and publicans, and clean contrary to the whole spirit of Luke's Gospel. Besides, these scarcely conscious infants were not innocent,' for they had not come to the age of which either innocence or guilt can be predicated. What, then, had they which the children of the kingdom must have?

Perhaps the sweet and meek little 131st Psalm puts us best on the track of the answer. It may have been in our Lord's mind; it certainly corresponds to His thought. My heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty … I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with his mother.' The infant's lowliness is not yet humility; for it is instinct rather than virtue. It makes no claims, thinks no lofty thoughts of self; in fact, has scarcely begun to know that there is a self at all. On the other hand, clinging trust is the infant's life. It, too, is rudimentary and instinctive, but the impulse which makes the babe nestle in its mother's bosom may well stand for a picture of the conscious trust which the children of the kingdom must have. The child's instinct is the man's virtue. We have

To travel backAnd tread again that ancient track,'

regaining as the conscious temper of our spirits those excellences of humility and trust of which the first faint types may be seen in the infant in arms. The entrance gate is very low, and, if we hold our heads high, we shall not get through it. It must be on our hands and knees that we go in. There is no place in the kingdom for those who trust in themselves. We must rely wholly on God manifest in His Son.

So intent is Luke in pointing the lesson that he passes by in silence the infinitely beautiful and touching incident which the world perhaps knows better than any other in our Lord's life--that of His taking the infants in His arms and blessing them. In many ways that incident would have been peculiarly suitable for this Gospel, which delights to bring out the manhood and universal beneficence of Jesus. But if Luke knew of it, he did not care to bring in anything which would weaken the lesson of the conditions of entering the kingdom.

Maclaren: Luk 18:18-23

II. We Have Self-Renunciation As The Condition Of Entering The Kingdom.

The conversation with the ruler (Luke 18:18-23) sets forth its necessity; the sad exclamation to the bystanders (Luke 18:24-27) teaches its difficulty; and the dialogue with Peter as representing the twelve (Luke 18:28-30), its reward.

(1) The necessity of self-renunciation. The ruler's question has much blended good and evil. It expresses a true earnestness, a dissatisfaction with self, a consciousness of unattained bliss and a longing for it, a felt readiness to take any pains to secure it, a confidence in Christ's guidance--in short, much of the child spirit. But it has also a too light estimate of what good is, a mistaken notion that eternal life' can be won by external deeds, which implies fatal error as to its nature and his own power to do these. This superficial estimate of goodness, and this over confidence in his ability to do good acts, are the twin mistakes against which Christ's treatment of him is directed.

Adopting Luke's version of our Lord's answer, the counter-question, which begins it, lays hold of the polite address, which had slipped from the ruler's lips as mere form, and bids him widen out his conceptions of good.' Jesus does not deny that He has a right to the title, but questions this man's right to give it Him. The ruler thought of Jesus only as a man, and, so thinking,, was too ready with his adjective. Conventional phrases of compliment may indicate much of the low notions from which they spring. He who is so liberal with his ascriptions of goodness needs to have his notions of what it is elevated. Jesus lays down the great truth which this man, in his confidence that he by his own power could do any good needed for eternal life, was perilously forgetting. God is the only good, and therefore all human goodness must come from Him; and if the ruler is to do good,' he must first be good, by receiving goodness from God.

But the saying has an important bearing on Christ's character. The world calls Him good. Why? There is none good but God. So we are face to face with this dilemma--Either Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, or He is not good.

Having thus tried to deepen his conceptions, and awaken his consciousness of imperfection, our Lord meets the man on his own ground by referring him to the Law, which abundantly answered his inquiry. The second half of the commandments are alone quoted by Him; for they have especially to do with conduct, and the infractions of them are more easily recognised than those of the first. The ruler expected that some exceptional and brilliant deeds would be pointed out, and he is relegated to the old homely duties, which it is gross crime not to do.

A shade of disappointment and impatience is in his protestation that he had done all these ever since he was a lad. No doubt he had, and his coming to Jesus confessed that though he had, the doing had not brought him eternal life.' Are there not many youthful hearts which would have to say the same, if they would be frank with themselves? They have some longings after a bliss and calm which they feel is not theirs. They have kept within the lines of that second half of the Decalogue, but that amount and sort of good thing' has not brought peace. Jesus looks on all such as He did on this young man, loves' them, and speaks further to them as He did to him. What was lacking? The soul of goodness, without which these other things were dead works.' And what is that soul? Absolute self-renunciation and following Christ. For this man the former took the shape of parting with his wealth, but that external renunciation in itself was as dead' and impotent to bring eternal life as all his other good acts had been. It was precious as a means to an end--the entrance into the number of Christ's disciples; and as an expression of that inward self-surrender which is essential for discipleship.

The real stress of the condition is in its second half, Follow me.' He who enters the company of Christ's followers enters the kingdom, and has eternal life. If he does not do that, he may give his goods to feed the poor, and it profiteth him nothing. Eternal life is not the external wages for external acts, but the outcome and consequence of yielding self to Jesus, through whom goodness, which keeps the law, flows into the soul The requirement pierced to the quick. The man loved the world more than eternal life, after all. But though he went away, he went sorrowful; and that was perhaps the presage that he would come back.

(2) Jesus follows him with sad yearning, and, we may be sure, still sought to draw him back. His exclamation is full of the charity which makes allowance for temptation. It speaks a universal truth, never more needed than in our days, when wealth has flung its golden chains round so many professing Christians. How few of us believe that it gets harder for us to be disciples as we grow richer! There are multitudes in our churches who would be far nearer Christ than they are ever likely to be, if they would literally obey the injunction to get rid of their wealth.

We are too apt to take such commands as applicable only to the individuals who received them, whereas, though, no doubt, the spirit, and not the letter, is the universal element in them, there are far more of us than we are willing to confess, who need to obey the letter in order to keep the spirit. What a depth of vulgar adoration of the power of money is in the disciples' exclamation, If rich men cannot get into the kingdom, who can get in!' Or perhaps it rather means, If self-renunciation is the condition, who can fulfil it? The answer points us all to the only power by which we can do good, and overcome self; namely, by God's help. God is good,' and we can be good too, if we look to Him. God will fill our souls with such sweetness that earth will not be hard to part with.

(3) The last paragraph of this passage teaches the reward of self-renunciation. Peter shoves his oar in, after his fashion. It would have been better if he had not boasted of their surrender, but yet it was true that they had given up all. Only a fishing-boat and a parcel of old nets, indeed, but these were all they had to give; and God's store, which holds His children's surrendered valuables, has many things of small value in it--cups of cold water and widows' mites lying side by side with crowns and jewels.

So Jesus does not rebuke the almost innocent self-congratulation, but recognises in it an appeal to his faithfulness. It was really a prayer, though it sounded like a vaunt, and it is answered by renewed assurances. To part with outward things for Christ's sake or for the kingdom's sake--which is the same thing--is to win them again with all their sweetness a hundred-fold sweeter. Gifts given to Him come back to the giver mended by His touch and hallowed by lying on His altar. The present world yields its full riches only to the man who surrenders all to Jesus. And the' eternal life,' which the ruler thought was to be found by outward deeds, flows necessarily into the heart which is emptied of self, that it may be filled with Him who is the life, and will be perfected yonder.

Maclaren: Luk 18:40-41

The Man That Stopped Jesus

And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto Him: and when he was come near, He asked him, 41. Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? '--Luke 18:40-41.

THIS story of the man that stopped Christ is told by the three Synoptic' Evangelists, and it derives a special value from having occurred within a week of the Crucifixion. You remember how graphically Mark tells how the blind man hears who is passing, and immediately begins to cry with a loud voice to Christ to have mercy upon him; how the officious disciples--a great deal more concerned for the Master's dignity than He was Himself--tried to silence him; and how, with a sturdy persistence and independence of externals which often goes along with blindness, he cried the more a great deal' because they did try, and then how he won the distinction of being the man that stopped Christ. When Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called, the crowd wheeled right round at once, and instead of hindering, encumbered him with help, and bade him to rise, and be of good cheer.' Then he flings away some poor rag that he had had to cover himself sitting there, and wearing his under-garment only, comes to Christ, and Jesus asks, What do you want?' A promise in the shape of a question. Bartimaeus knows what he wants, and answers without hesitation, and so he gets his request.

Now, I think in all this incident, and especially in its centre part, which I have read, there are great lessons for us. And the first of them is, I see here a wonderful revelation of Christ's quick sympathy at a moment when He was most absorbed.

I said that all this occurred within a week of our Lord's Crucifixion. If you will recall the way in which that last journey to Jerusalem is described in the Evangelists, you will see that there was something very extraordinary about the determination and tension of spirit which impelled Jesus along the road, all the way from Galilee. Mark says that the disciples followed and were amazed. There was something quite unlike what they had been accustomed to, in His face and bearing, and it was so strange to them that they were puzzled and frightened. We read, too, that their amazement and fright prevented them from going very near Him on the road; as they followed they were afraid.' Then the story goes on to tell how James and John, with their arrogant wish, did draw closer to Him, the rest of them lagging behind, conscious of a certain unaccustomed distance between Him and them, which only the ambitious two dared to diminish. Further, one of the Evangelists speaks of His face being set' to go to Jerusalem, the gentle lineaments fixed in a new expression of resolution and absorption. The Cross was flinging its shadow over Him. He was bracing Himself up for the last struggle. If ever there was a moment of His life when we might have supposed that He would be oblivious of externals, and especially of the individual sorrows of one poor blind beggar sitting by the roadside, it was that moment. But however plunged in great thoughts about the agonising suffering that He was going to front, and the grand work that He was going to do, and the great victory that He was going to win so soon, He had,

A heart at leisure from itselfTo soothe and sympathise.'

Even at that supreme hour He stood still and commanded him to be called. I wonder if it is saying too much to say that in the exercise of that power of healing and helping Bartimaeus, Jesus found some relief from the pressure of impending sorrow.

Brethren, is not that a lesson for us ally It is not spiritualising, allegorising, cramming meanings into an incident that are not in it, when we say--Think of Jesus Christ as one of ourselves, knowing that He was going to His death within a week, and then think of Him turning to this poor man. Is not that a pattern for us? We are often more selfish in our sorrows than in our joys. Many of us are inclined, when we are weighed down by personal sorrows, to say, As long as I have this heavy weight lying on my heart, how can you expect me to take an interest in the affairs of others, or to do Christian work, or to rise to the calls of benevolence and the cries of need?' We do not expect you to do it; but Jesus Christ did it, leaving us an example that we should follow in His steps.' Next to the blessed influences of God's own Spirit, and the peace-bringing act of submission, there is no such comfort for sorrow, as to fling ourselves into others' griefs, and to bear others' burdens. Our Lord, with His face set like a flint, on the road to the Cross, but yet sufficiently free of heart to turn to Bartimaeus, reads a lesson that rebukes us all, and should teach us all.

Further, do we not see here a beautiful concrete instance, on the lower plane, of the power of earnest desire.

No enemy could have stopped Christ on that road; no opposition could have stopped Him, no beseeching on the part of loving and ignorant friends, repeating the temptation in the wilderness--or the foolish words of Peter, This shall not be unto Thee,' could have stopped Him. He would have trodden down all such flimsy obstacles, as a lion' from the thickets of Jordan' crashes through the bulrushes, but this cry stopped Him, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me, and the Cross and all else that He was hastening to, great as it was for the world, had to wait its turn, for something else had to be done first. There was noise enough on the road, the tramp of many feet, the clatter of many eager tongues, but the voice of one poor man sitting in the dust there by the roadside, found its way through all the noise to Christ's ears. Which things are an allegory.' There is an ocean of praise always, as I might so say breaking upon Christ's Throne, but the little stream of my petitions flows distinguishable through all that sea. As one of our poets says, we may even think of Him as missing my little human praise' when the voice of one poor boy was not heard. Surely amidst all the encouragements that we have to believe that our cry is not sent up into an empty heaven, nor into deaf ears, and that all the multitude of creatures that wait before that Throne do not prevent the individualising knowledge and the individualising love of Jesus Christ from coming straight to every one of us, this little incident is not the least instructive and precious. He that heard Bartimaeus will hear us.

In like manner, may I not say that here we have an illustration of how Christ, who" has so much besides to do, would suspend other work, if it were needful, in order to do what we need? As I have said, the rest had to wait. Bartimaeus stopped Christ. And our hand, if it be the hand of faith, put out to the hem of the garment as Jesus of Nazareth passeth by, will so far stop Him as that He will do what we wish, if what we wish is in accordance with our highest good. There was another man in Jericho who stopped Christ, on that same journey; for not only the petition of Bartimaeus, but the curiosity--which was more than curiosity--of Zacchaeus, stopped Him, and He who stood still, though He had His face set like a flint to go to Jerusalem, because Bartimaeus cried, stood still and looked up into the sycamore tree where the publican was--the best fruit that ever it bore--and said, Zacchaeus; come down, I must abide at thy house.' Why must He abide? Because He discerned there a soul that He could help and save, and that arrested Him on His road to the Cross.

So, dear friends, amidst all the work of administering the universe which He does, and of guiding and governing and inspiring His Church, which He does, if you ask for the supply of your need He would put that work aside for a moment, if necessary, to attend to you. That is no exaggeration; it is only a strong way of putting the plain truth that Christ's love individualises each of its objects; and lavishes itself upon each one of us; as if there were no other beings in the universe but only our two selves.

And then, remember too, that what Bartimaeus got was not taken from any one else. Nobody suffered because Jesus paused to help him. They sat down in ranks, five thousand of them, and as they began to eat, those that were first served would be looked upon with envious eye by the last ranks,' who would be wondering if the bits of bread and the two small fishes were enough to go round. But the first group was fed full and the last group had as much, and they took up of the fragments that remained, twelve baskets full.'

Enough for all, enough for each,Enough for evermore.'

There is one more thought rising out of this story. It teaches a wonderful lesson as to the power which Christ puts into the hand of believing prayer.

What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?' He had asked the same question a little while before, under very different circumstances. When James and John came and tried to beguile Him into a blind promise, because they knew that it was not likely that they would get what they asked if they said it out at first. He avoided the snare with that same question. To them the question was a refusal; they had said: Master, we will that Thou wouldst do whatever we should desire'; and He said: What is it that ye desire? Let Me know that first.' But when blind Bartimaeus cried, Jesus smiled down upon him--though his sightless eyeballs could not see the smile, there would be a smile in the cadence of His words--and He said: What wouldst thou that I should do for thee?' To this suppliant that question was a promise--I will do what you want.' He puts the key of the royal treasure-house into the hand of faith, and says, Go in and help yourself. Take what you will.'

Only, of course, we must remember that there are limitations in the very nature of the case, imposed not arbitrarily, but because the very nature of the truest gifts creates them, and these limitations to some of us sound as if they took all the blessedness out of the act of prayer. We know,' says one of the Apostles, that if we ask anything according to His will He heareth us.' Some of us think that that is a very poor kind of charter, but it sets the necessary limit to the omnipotence of faith. What wouldst thou that I should do for thee?' Unless our answer always, and at bottom, is, Not my will, but Thine,' we have not yet learnt the highest blessing, nor the truest meaning, of prayer. For to pray does not mean to insist, to press our wishes on God, but it means, first, to desire that our wills may be brought into harmony with His. The old Rabbis hit upon great truths now and then, and one of them said, Make God's will thy will, that He may make thy will His will.' If any poor, blind Bartimaeus remembers that, and asks accordingly, he has the key to the royal treasury in his possession, and he may go in and plunge his hand up to the wrist in jewels and diamonds, and carry away bars of gold, and it will all be his.

When this man, who had no sight in his eyeballs, knew that whatever he wanted he should have, he did not need to pause long to consider what it was that he wanted most. If you and I had that Aladdin's lamp given to us, and had only to rub it for a mighty spirit to come that would fulfil our wishes, I wonder if we should be as sure of what we wanted. If we were as conscious of our need as the blind man was of his, we should pause as little in our response to the question: What wouldst thou that I should do for thee?' Lord! Dost Thou not see that mine eyes are dark? What else but sight can I want?' Jesus still comes to us with the same question. God grant that we may all say; Lord, how canst Thou ask us? Dost Thou not see that my soul is stained, my love wandering, my eyeballs dim? Give me Thyself!' If we thus ask, then the answer will come as quickly to us as it did to this blind man: Go thy way! Thy faith hath saved thee,' and that Go thy way' will not be dismissal from the Presence of our Benefactor, but our' way' will be the same as Bartimaeus' was, when he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.'

MHCC: Luk 18:9-14

This parable was to convince some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. God sees with what disposition and design we come to him in holy ordinances. What the Pharisee said, shows that he trusted to himself that he was righteous. We may suppose he was free from gross and scandalous sins. All this was very well and commendable. Miserable is the condition of those who come short of the righteousness of this Pharisee, yet he was not accepted; and why not? He went up to the temple to pray, but was full of himself and his own goodness; the favour and grace of God he did not think worth asking. Let us beware of presenting proud devotions to the Lord, and of despising others. The publican's address to God was full of humility, and of repentance for sin, and desire toward God. His prayer was short, but to the purpose; God be merciful to me a sinner. Blessed be God, that we have this short prayer upon record, as an answered prayer; and that we are sure that he who prayed it, went to his house justified; for so shall we be, if we pray it, as he did, through Jesus Christ. He owned himself a sinner by nature, by practice, guilty before God. He had no dependence but upon the mercy of God; upon that alone he relied. And God's glory is to resist the proud, and give grace to the humble. Justification is of God in Christ; therefore the self-condemned, and not the self-righteous, are justified before God.

MHCC: Luk 18:15-17

None are too little, too young, to be brought to Christ, who knows how to show kindness to those not capable of doing service to him. It is the mind of Christ, that little children should be brought to him. The promise is to us, and to our seed; therefore He will bid them welcome to him with us. And we must receive his kingdom as children, not by purchase, and must call it our Father's gift.

MHCC: Luk 18:18-30

Many have a great deal in them very commendable, yet perish for lack of some one thing; so this ruler could not bear Christ's terms, which would part between him and his estate. Many who are loth to leave Christ, yet do leave him. After a long struggle between their convictions and their corruptions, their corruptions carry the day. They are very sorry that they cannot serve both; but if one must be quitted, it shall be their God, not their wordly gain. Their boasted obedience will be found mere outside show; the love of the world in some form or other lies at the root. Men are apt to speak too much of what they have left and lost, of what they have done and suffered for Christ, as Peter did. But we should rather be ashamed that there has been any regret or difficulty in doing it.

MHCC: Luk 18:31-34

The Spirit of Christ, in the Old Testament prophets, testified beforehand his sufferings, and the glory that should follow, 1Pe 1:11. The disciples' prejudices were so strong, that they would not understand these things literally. They were so intent upon the prophecies which spake of Christ's glory, that they overlooked those which spake of his sufferings. People run into mistakes, because they read their Bibles by halves, and are only for the smooth things. We are as backward to learn the proper lessons from the sufferings, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ, as the disciples were to what he told them as to those events; and for the same reason; self-love, and a desire of worldly objects, close our understandings.

MHCC: Luk 18:35-43

This poor blind man sat by the wayside, begging. He was not only blind, but poor, the fitter emblem of the world of mankind which Christ came to heal and save. The prayer of faith, guided by Christ's encouraging promises, and grounded on them, shall not be in vain. The grace of Christ ought to be thankfully acknowledged, to the glory of God. It is for the glory of God if we follow Jesus, as those will do whose eyes are opened. We must praise God for his mercies to others, as well as for mercies to ourselves. Would we rightly understand these things, we must come to Christ, like the blind man, earnestly beseeching him to open our eyes, and to show us clearly the excellence of his precepts, and the value of his salvation.

Matthew Henry: Luk 18:9-14

The scope of this parable likewise is prefixed to it, and we are told (Luk 18:9) who they were whom it was levelled at, and for whom it was calculated. He designed it for the conviction of some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. They were such as had, 1. A great conceit of themselves, and of their own goodness; they thought themselves as holy as they needed to be, and holier than all their neighbours, and such as might serve for examples to them all. But that was not all; 2. They had a confidence in themselves before God, and not only had a high opinion of their own righteousness, but depended upon the merit of it, whenever they addressed God, as their plea: They trusted in themselves as being righteous; they thought they had made God their debtor, and might demand any thing from him; and, 3. They despised others, and looked upon them with contempt, as not worthy to be compared with them. Now Christ by this parable would show such their folly, and that thereby they shut themselves out from acceptance with God. This is called a parable, though there be nothing of similitude in it; but it is rather a description of the different temper and language of those that proudly justify themselves, and those that humbly condemn themselves; and their different standing before God. It is matter of fact every day.

I. Here are both these addressing themselves to the duty of prayer at the same place and time (Luk 18:10): Two men went up into the temple (for the temple stood upon a hill) to pray. It was not the hour of public prayer, but they went thither to offer up their personal devotions, as was usual with good people at that time, when the temple was not only the place, but the medium of worship, and God had promised, in answer to Solomon's request, that, whatever prayer was made in a right manner in or towards that house, it should therefore the rather be accepted. Christ is our temple, and to him we must have an eye in all our approaches to God. The Pharisees and the publican both went to the temple to pray. Note, Among the worshippers of God, in the visible church, there is a mixture of good and bad, of some that are accepted of God, and some that are not; and so it has been ever since Cain and Abel brought their offering to the same altar. The Pharisee, proud as he was, could not think himself above prayer; nor could the publican, humble as he was, think himself shut out from the benefit of it; but we have reason to think that these went with different views. 1. The Pharisee went to the temple to pray because it was a public place, more public than the corners of the streets, and therefore he should have many eyes upon him, who would applaud his devotion, which perhaps was more than was expected. The character Christ gave of the Pharisees, that all their works they did to be seen of men, gives us occasion for this suspicion. Note, Hypocrites keep up the external performances of religion only to save or gain credit. There are many whom we see every day at the temple, whom, it is to be feared, we shall not see in the great day at Christ's right hand. 2. The publican went to the temple because it was appointed to be a house of prayer for all people, Isa 56:7. The Pharisee came to the temple upon a compliment, the publican upon business; the Pharisee to make his appearance, the publican to make his request. Now God sees with what disposition and design we come to wait upon him in holy ordinances, and will judge of us accordingly.

II. Here is the Pharisee's address to God (for a prayer I cannot call it): He stood and prayed thus with himself (Luk 18:11, Luk 18:12): standing by himself, he prayed thus, so some read it; he was wholly intent upon himself, had nothing in his eye but self, his own praise, and not God's glory; or, standing in some conspicuous place, where he distinguished himself; or, setting himself with a great deal of state and formality, he prayed thus. Now that which he is here supposed to say is that which shows,

1. That he trusted to himself that he was righteous. A great many good things he said of himself, which we will suppose to be true. He was free from gross and scandalous sins; he was not an extortioner, not a usurer, not oppressive to debtors or tenants, but fair and kind to all that had dependence upon him. He was not unjust in any of his dealings; he did no man any wrong; he could say, as Samuel, Whose ox or whose ass have I taken? He was no adulterer, but had possessed his vessel in sanctification and honour. Yet this was not all; he fasted twice in the week, as an act partly of temperature, partly of devotion. The Pharisees and their disciples fasted twice a week, Monday and Thursday. Thus he glorified God with his body: yet that was not all; he gave tithes of all that he possessed, according to the law, and so glorified God with his worldly estate. Now all this was very well and commendable. Miserable is the condition of those who come short of the righteousness of this Pharisee: yet he was not accepted; and why was he not? (1.) His giving God thanks for this, though in itself a good thing, yet seems to be a mere formality. He does not say, By the grace of God I am what I am, as Paul did, but turns it off with a slight, God, I thank thee, which is intended but for a plausible introduction to a proud vainglorious ostentation of himself. (2.) He makes his boast of this, and dwells with delight upon this subject, as if all his business to the temple was to tell God Almighty how very good he was; and he is ready to say, with those hypocrites that we read of (Isa 58:3), Wherefore have we fasted, and thou seest not? (3.) He trusted to it as a righteousness, and not only mentioned it, but pleaded it, as if hereby he had merited at the hands of God, and made him his debtor. (4.) Here is not one word of prayer in all he saith. He went up to the temple to pray, but forgot his errand, was so full of himself and his own goodness that he thought he had need of nothing, no, not of the favour and grace of God, which, it would seem, he did not think worth asking.

2. That he despised others. (1.) He thought meanly of all mankind but himself: I thank thee that I am not as other men are. He speaks indefinitely, as if he were better than any. We may have reason to thank God that we are not as some men are, that are notoriously wicked and vile; but to speak at random thus, as if we only were good, and all besides us were reprobates, is to judge by wholesale. (2.) He thought meanly in a particular manner of this publican, whom he had left behind, it is probable, in the court of the Gentiles, and whose company he had fallen into as he came to the temple. He knew that he was a publican, and therefore very uncharitably concluded that he was an extortioner, unjust, and all that is naught. Suppose it had been so, and he had known it, what business had he to take notice of it? Could not he say his prayers (and that was all that the Pharisees did) without reproaching his neighbours? Or was this a part of his God, I thank thee? And was he as much pleased with the publican's badness as with his own goodness? There could not be a plainer evidence, not only of the want of humility and charity, but of reigning pride and malice, than this was.

III. Here is the publican's address to God, which was the reverse of the Pharisee's, as full of humility and humiliation as his was of pride and ostentation; as full of repentance for sin, and desire towards God, as his was of confidence in himself and his own righteousness and sufficiency.

1. He expressed his repentance and humility in what he did; and his gesture, when he addressed himself to his devotions, was expressive of great seriousness and humility, and the proper clothing of a broken, penitent, and obedient heart. (1.) He stood afar off. The Pharisee stood, but crowded up as high as he could, to the upper end of the court; the publican kept at a distance under a sense of his unworthiness to draw near to God, and perhaps for fear of offending the Pharisee, whom he observed to look scornfully upon him, and of disturbing his devotions. Hereby he owned that God might justly behold him afar off, and send him into a state of eternal distance from him, and that it was a great favour that God was pleased to admit him thus nigh. (2.) He would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, much less his hands, as was usual in prayer. He did lift up his heart to God in the heavens, in holy desires, but, through prevailing shame and humiliation, he did not lift up his eyes in holy confidence and courage. His iniquities are gone over his head, as a heavy burden, so that he is not able to look up, Psa 40:12. The dejection of his looks is an indication of the dejection of his mind at the thought of sin. (3.) He smote upon his breast, in a holy indignation at himself for sin: "Thus would I smite this wicked heart of mine, the poisoned fountain out of which flow all the streams of sin, if I could come at it."The sinner's heart first smites him in a penitent rebuke, 2Sa 24:10. David's heart smote him. Sinner, what hast thou done? And then he smites his heart with penitent remorse: O wretched man that I am? Ephraim is said to smite upon his thigh, Jer 31:19. Great mourners are represented tabouring upon their breasts, Nah 2:7.

2. He expressed it in what he said. His prayer was short. Fear and shame hindered him from saying much; sighs and groans swallowed up his words; but what he said was to the purpose: God, be merciful to me a sinner. And blessed be God that we have this prayer upon record as an answered prayer, and that we are sure that he who prayed it went to his house justified; and so shall we, if we pray it, as he did, through Jesus Christ: " God, be merciful to me a sinner; the God of infinite mercy be merciful to me, for, if he be not, I am for ever undone, for ever miserable. God be merciful to me, for I have been cruel to myself."(1.) He owns himself a sinner by nature, by practice, guilty before God. Behold, I am vile, what shall I answer thee? The Pharisee denies himself to be a sinner; none of his neighbours can charge him, and he sees no reason to charge himself, with any thing amiss; he is clean, he is pure from sin. But the publican gives himself no other character than that of a sinner, a convicted criminal at God's bar. (2.) He has no dependence but upon the mercy of God, that, and that only, he relies upon. The Pharisee had insisted upon the merit of his fastings and tithes; but the poor publican disclaims all thought of merit, and flies to mercy as his city of refuge, and takes hold of the horn of that altar. "Justice condemns me; nothing will save me but mercy, mercy."(3.) He earnestly prays for the benefit of that mercy: " O God, be merciful, be propitious, to me; forgive my sins; be reconciled to me; take me into thy favour; receive me graciously; love me freely."He comes as a beggar for an alms, when he is ready to perish for hunger. Probably he repeated this prayer with renewed affections, and perhaps said more to the same purport, made a particular confession of his sins, and mentioned the particular mercies he wanted, and waited upon God for; but still this was the burden of the song: God, be merciful to me a sinner.

IV. Here is the publican's acceptance with God. We have seen how differently these two addressed themselves to God; it is now worth while to enquire how they sped. There were those who would cry up the Pharisee, by whom he would go to his house applauded, and who would look with contempt upon this sneaking whining publican. But our Lord Jesus, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secret is hid, who is perfectly acquainted with all proceedings in the court of heaven, assures us that this poor, penitent, broken-hearted publican went to his house justified, rather than the other. The Pharisee thought that if one of them must be justified, and not the other, certainly it must be he rather than the publican. "No,"saith Christ, " I tell you, I affirm it with the utmost assurance, and declare it to you with the utmost concern, I tell you, it is the publican rather than the Pharisee."The proud Pharisee goes away, rejected of God; his thanksgivings are so far from being accepted that they are an abomination; he is not justified, his sins are not pardoned, nor is he delivered from condemnation: he is not accepted as righteous in God's sight, because he is so righteous in his own sight; but the publican, upon this humble address to Heaven, obtains the remission of his sins, and he whom the Pharisee would not set with the dogs of his flock God sets with the children of his family. The reason given for this is because God's glory is to resist the proud, and give grace to the humble. 1. Proud men, who exalt themselves, are rivals with God, and therefore they shall certainly be abased. God, in his discourse with Job, appeals to this proof that he is God, that he looks upon every one that is proud, and brings him low, Job 40:12. 2. Humble men, who abase themselves, are subject to God, and they shall be exalted. God has preferment in store for those that will take it as a favour, not for those that demand it as a debt. He shall be exalted into the love of God, and communion with him, shall be exalted into a satisfaction in himself, and exalted at last as high as heaven. See how the punishment answers the sin: He that exalteth himself shall be abased. See how the recompence answers the duty: He that humbles himself shall be exalted. See also the power of God's grace in bringing good out of evil; the publican had been a great sinner, and out of the greatness of his sin was brought the greatness of his repentance; out of the eater came forth meat. See, on the contrary, the power of Satan's malice in bringing evil out of good. It was good that the Pharisee was no extortioner, nor unjust; but the devil made him proud of this, to his ruin.

Matthew Henry: Luk 18:15-17

This passage of story we had both in Matthew and Mark; it very fitly follows here after the story of the publican, as a confirmation of the truth which was to be illustrated by that parable, that those shall be accepted with God, and honoured, who humble themselves, and for them Christ has blessings in store, the choicest and best of blessings. Observe here, 1. Those who are themselves blessed in Christ should desire to have their children also blessed in him, and should hereby testify the true honour they have for Christ, by their making use of him, and the true love they have for their children, by their concern about their souls. They brought to him infants, very young, not able to go, sucking children, as some think. None are too little, too young, to bring to Christ, who knows how to show kindness to them that are not capable of doing service to him. 2. One gracious touch of Christ's will make our children happy. They brought infants to him, that he might touch them in token of the application of his grace and Spirit to them, for that always makes way for his blessing, which likewise they expected: see Isa 44:3. I will first pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and then my blessing upon thine offspring. 3. It is no strange thing for those who make their application to Jesus Christ, for themselves or for their children, to meet with discouragement, even from those who should countenance and encourage them: When the disciples saw it, they thought, if this were admitted, it would bring endless trouble upon their Master, and therefore they rebuked them, and frowned upon them. The spouse complained of the watchmen, Son 3:3; Son 5:7. 4. Many whom the disciples rebuke the Master invites: Jesus called them unto him, when, upon the disciples' check, they were retiring. They did not appeal from the disciples to the Master, but the Master took cognizance of their despised cause. 5. It is the mind of Christ that little children should be brought to him, and presented as living sacrifices to his honour: " Suffer little children to come to me, and forbid them not; let nothing be done to hinder them, for they shall be as welcome as any." The promise is to us, and to our seed; and therefore he that has the dispensing of promised blessings will bid them welcome to him with us. 6. The children of those who belong to the kingdom of God do likewise belong to that kingdom, as the children of freemen are freemen. If the parents be members of the visible church, the children are so too; for, if the root be holy, the branches are so. 7. So welcome are children to Christ that those grown people are most welcome to him who have in them most of the disposition of children (Luk 18:17): Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, that is, receive the benefits of it with humility and thankfulness, not pretending to merit them as the Pharisee did, but gladly owning himself indebted to free grace for them, as the publican did; unless a man be brought to this self-denying frame he shall in no wise enter into that kingdom. They must receive the kingdom of God as children, receive their estates by descent and inheritance, not by purchase, and call it their Father's gift.

Matthew Henry: Luk 18:18-30

In these verses we have,

I. Christ's discourse with a ruler, that had a good mind to be directed by him in the way to heaven. In which we may observe,

1. It is a blessed sight to see persons of distinction in the world distinguish themselves from others of their rank by their concern about their souls and another life. Luke takes notice of it that he was a ruler. Few of the rulers had any esteem for Christ, but here was one that had; whether a church or state ruler does not appear, but he was one in authority.

2. The great thing we are every one of us concerned to enquire after is what we shall do to get to heaven, what we shall do to inherit eternal life. This implies such a belief of an eternal life after this as atheists and infidels have not, such a concern to make it sure as a careless unthinking world have not, and such a willingness to comply with any terms that it may be made sure as those have not who are resolvedly devoted to the world and the flesh.

3. Those who would inherit eternal life must apply themselves to Jesus Christ as their Master, their teaching Master, so it signifies here ( didaskale ), and their ruling Master, and so they shall certainly find him. There is no learning the way to heaven but in the school of Christ, by those that enter themselves into it, and continue in it.

4. Those who come to Christ as their Master must believe him to have not only a divine mission, but a divine goodness. Christ would have this ruler know that if he understood himself aright in calling him good he did, in effect, call him God and indeed he was so (Luk 18:19): " Why callest thou me good? Thou knowest there is none good but one, that is, God; and dost thou then take me for God? If so, thou art in the right."

5. Our Master, Christ himself, has not altered the way to heaven from what it was before his coming, but has only made it more plain, and easy, and comfortable, and provided for our relief, in case we take any false step. Thou knowest the commandments. Christ came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to establish them. Wouldest thou inherit eternal life? Govern thyself by the commandments.

6. The duties of the second table must be conscientiously observed, in order to our happiness, and we must not think that any acts of devotion, how plausible soever, will atone for the neglect of them. Nor is it enough to keep ourselves free from the gross violations of these commandments, but we must know these commandments, as Christ has explained them in his sermon upon the mount, in their extent and spiritual nature, and so observe them.

7. Men think themselves innocent because they are ignorant; so this ruler did. He said, All these have I kept from my youth up, Luk 18:21. He knows no more evil of himself than the Pharisee did, Luk 18:11. He boasts that he began early in a course of virtue, that he had continued in it to this day, and that he had not in any instance transgressed. Had he been acquainted with the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law, and with the workings of his own heart, - had he been but Christ's disciples awhile, and learned of him, he would have said quite the contrary: " All these have I broken from my youth up, in thought, word, and deed."

8. The great things by which we are to try our spiritual state are how we stand affected to Christ and to our brethren, to this world and to the other; by these this man was tried. For, (1.) If we have a true affection to Christ, he will come and follow him, will attend to his doctrine, and submit to his discipline, whatever it cost him. None shall inherit eternal life who are not willing to take their lot with the Lord Jesus, to follow the Lamb whithersoever he goes. (2.) If he have a true affection to his brethren, he will, as there is occasion, distribute to the poor, who are God's receivers of his dues out of our estates. (3.) If he think meanly of this world, as he ought, he will not stick at selling what he has, if there be a necessity for it, for the relief of God's poor. (4.) If he think highly of the other world, as he ought, he will desire no more than to have treasure in heaven, and will reckon that a sufficient abundant recompence for all that he has left, or lost, or laid out for God in this world.

9. There are many that have a great deal in them that is very commendable, and yet they perish for the lack of some one thing; so this ruler here; he broke with Christ upon this, he liked all his terms very well but this which would part between him and his estate: "In this, I pray thee, have me excused."If this be the bargain, it is no bargain.

10. Many that are loth to leave Christ, yet do leave him. After a long struggle between their convictions and their corruptions, their corruptions carry the day at last; they are very sorry that they cannot serve God and mammon both; but, if one must be quitted, it shall be their God, not their worldly gain.

II. Christ's discourse with his disciples upon this occasion, in which we may observe, 1. Riches are a great hindrance to many in the way to heaven. Christ took notice of the reluctancy and regret with which the rich man broke off from him. He saw that he was very sorrowful, and was sorry for him; but thence he infers, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Luk 18:24. If this ruler had had but as little of the world as Peter, and James, and John had, in all probability he would have left it, to follow Christ, as they did; but, having a great estate, it had a great influence upon him, and he chose rather to take his leave of Christ than to lay himself under an obligation to dispose of his estate in charitable uses. Christ asserts the difficulty of the salvation of rich people very emphatically: It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, Luk 18:25. It is a proverbial expression, that denotes the thing to be extremely difficult. 2. There is in the hearts of all people such a general affection to this world, and the things of it, that, since Christ has required it as necessary to salvation that we should sit loose to this world, it is really very hard for any to get to heaven. If we must sell all, or break with Christ, who then can be saved? Luk 18:26. They do not find fault with what Christ required as hard and unreasonable. No, it is very fit that they who expect an eternal happiness in the other world should be willing to forego all that is dear to them in this world, in expectation of it. But they know how closely the hearts of most men cleave to this world, and are ready to despair of their being ever brought to this. 3. There are such difficulties in the way of our salvation: as could never be got over but by pure omnipotence, by that grace of God which is almighty, and to which that is possible which exceeds all created power and wisdom. The things which are impossible with men (and utterly impossible it is that men should work such a change upon their own spirits as to turn them from the world to God, it is like dividing the sea, and driving Jordan back ), these things are possible with God. His grace can work upon the soul, so as to alter the bent and bias of it, and give it a contrary ply; and it is he that works in us both to will and to do. 4. There is an aptness in us to speak too much of what we have left and lost, of what we have done and suffered, for Christ. This appears in Peter: Lo, we have left all, and followed thee, Luk 18:28. When it came in his way, he could not forbear magnifying his own and his brethren's affection to Christ, in quitting all to follow him. But this we should be so far from boasting of, that we should rather acknowledge it not worth taking notice of, and be ashamed of ourselves that there should have been any regret and difficulty in the doing of it, and any hankerings towards those things afterwards. 5. Whatever we have left, or laid out, for Christ, it shall without fail be abundantly made up to us in this world and that to come, notwithstanding our weaknesses and infirmities (Luk 18:29, Luk 18:30): No man has left the comfort of his estate or relations for the kingdom of God's sake, rather than they should hinder either his services to that kingdom or his enjoyments of it, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, in the graces and comforts of God's Spirit, in the pleasures of communion with God and of a good conscience, advantages which, to those that know how to value and improve them, will abundantly countervail all their loses. Yet that is not all; in the world to come they shall receive life everlasting, which is the thing that the ruler seemed to have his eye and heart upon.

Matthew Henry: Luk 18:31-34

Here is, I. The notice Christ gave to his disciples of his sufferings and death approaching, and of the glorious issue of them, which he himself had a perfect sight and foreknowledge of, and thought it necessary to give them warning of, that it might be the less surprise and terror to them. Two things here are which we had not in the other evangelists: - 1. The sufferings of Christ are here spoken of as the fulfilling of the scriptures, with which consideration Christ reconciled himself to them, and would reconcile them: All things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man, especially the hardships he should undergo, shall be accomplished. Note, The Spirit of Christ, in the Old Testament prophets, testified beforehand his sufferings, and the glory that should follow, 1Pe 1:11. This proves that the scriptures are the word of God, for they had their exact and full accomplishment; and that Jesus Christ was sent of God, for they had their accomplishment in him; this was he that should come, for whatever was foretold concerning the Messiah was verified in him; and he would submit to any thing for the fulfilling of scripture, that not one jot or tittle of that should fall to the ground. This makes the offence of the cross to cease, and puts an honour upon it. Thus it was written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, thus it became him. 2. The ignominy and disgrace done to Christ in his sufferings are here most insisted upon. The other evangelists had said that he should be mocked; but here it is added, He shall be spitefully treated, hubristhēsetai - he shall be loaded with contumely and contempt, shall have all possible reproach put upon him. This was that part of his sufferings by which in a spiritual manner he satisfied God's justice for the injury we had done him in his honour by sin. Here is one particular instance of disgrace done him, that he was spit upon, which had been particularly foretold, Isa 50:6. But here, as always, when Christ spoke of his sufferings and death, he foretold his resurrection as that which took off both the terror and reproach of his sufferings: The third day he shall rise again.

II. The confusion that the disciples were hereby put into. This was so contrary to the notions they had had of the Messiah and his kingdom, such a balk to their expectations from their Master, and such a breaking of all their measures, that they understood none of these things, Luk 18:34. Their prejudices were so strong that they would not understand them literally, and they could not understand them otherwise, so that they did not understand them at all. It was a mystery, it was a riddle to them, it must be so; but they think it impossible to be reconciled with the glory and honour of the Messiah, and the design of setting up his kingdom. This saying was hidden from them, kekrummenon ap' autōn , it was apocrypha to them, they could not receive it: for their parts, they had read the Old Testament many a time, but they could never see any thing in it that would be accomplished in the disgrace and death of this Messiah. They were so intent upon those prophecies that spoke of his glory that they overlooked those that spoke of his sufferings, which the scribes and doctors of the law should have directed them to take notice of, and should have brought into their creeds and catechisms, as well as the other; but they did not suit their scheme, and therefore were laid aside. Note, Therefore it is that people run into mistakes, because they read their Bibles by the halves, and are as partial in the prophets as they are in the law. They are only for the smooth things, Isa 30:10. Thus now we are too apt, in reading the prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, to have our expectations raised of the glorious state of the church in the latter days. But we overlook its wilderness sackcloth state, and are willing to fancy that is over, and nothing is reserved for us but the halcyon days; and then, when tribulation and persecution arise, we do not understand it, neither know we the things that are done, though we are told as plainly as can be that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew Henry: Luk 18:35-43

Christ came not only to bring light to a dark world, and so to set before us the objects we are to have in view, but also to give sight to blind souls, and by healing the organ to enable them to view those objects. As a token of this, he cured many of their bodily blindness: we have now an account of one to whom he gave sight near Jericho. Mark gives us an account of one, and names him, whom he cured as he went out of Jericho, Mar 10:46. Matthew speaks of two whom he cured as they departed from Jericho, Mat 20:30. Luke says it was en tō engizein auton - when he was near to Jericho, which might be when he was going out of it as well as when he was coming into it. Observe,

I. This poor blind man sat by the wayside, begging, Luk 18:35. It seems, he was not only blind, but poor, had nothing to subsist on, nor any relations to maintain him; the fitter emblem of the world of mankind which Christ came to heal and save; they are therefore wretched and miserable, for they are both poor and blind, Rev 3:17. He sat begging, for he was blind, and could not work for his living. Note, Those ought to be relieved by charity whom the providence of God has any way disabled to get their own bread. Such objects of charity by the way-side ought not to be overlooked by us. Christ here cast a favourable eye upon a common beggar, and, though there are cheats among such, yet they must not therefore be all thought such.

II. Hearing the noise of a multitude passing by, he asked what it meant, Luk 18:36. This we had not before. It teaches us that it is good to be inquisitive, and that those who are so some time or other find the benefit of it. Those who want their sight should make so much the better use of their hearing, and, when they cannot see with their own eyes, should, by asking questions, make use of other people's eyes. So this blind man did, and by that means came to understand that Jesus of Nazareth passed by, Luk 18:37. It is good being in Christ's way; and, when we have an opportunity of applying ourselves to him, not to let it slip.

III. His prayer has in it a great deal both of faith and fervency: Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me, Luk 18:38. He owns Christ to be the Son of David, the Messiah promised; he believes him to be Jesus, a Saviour; he believes he is able to help and succour him, and earnestly begs his favour: " Have mercy on me, pardon my sin, pity my misery."Christ is a merciful king; those that apply themselves to him as the Son of David shall find him so, and ask enough for themselves when they pray, Have mercy on us; for Christ's mercy includes all.

IV. Those who are in good earnest for Christ's favours and blessings will not be put by from the pursuit of them, though they meet with opposition and rebuke. They who went along chid him as troublesome to the Master, noisy and impertinent, and bade him hold his peace; but he went on with his petition, nay, the check given him was but as a dam to a full stream, which makes it swell so much the more; he cried the louder, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. Those who would speed in prayer must be importunate in prayer. This history, in the close of the chapter, intimates the same thing with the parable in the beginning of the chapter, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.

V. Christ encourages poor beggars, whom men frown upon, and invites them to come to him, and is ready to entertain them, and bid them welcome: He commanded him to be brought to him. Note, Christ has more tenderness and compassion for distressed supplicants than any of his followers have. Though Christ was upon his journey, yet he stopped and stood, and commanded him to be brought to him. Those who had checked him must now lend him their hands to lead him to Christ.

VI. Though Christ knows all our wants, he will know them from us (Luk 18:41): What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? By spreading our case before God, with a particular representation of our wants and burdens, we teach ourselves to value the mercy we are in pursuit of; and it is necessary that we should, else we are not fit to receive it. This man poured out his soul before Christ, when he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. Thus particular should we be in prayer, upon particular occasions.

VII. The prayer of faith, guided by Christ's encouraging promises, and grounded on them, shall not be in vain; nay, it shall not only receive an answer of peace, but of honour (Luk 18:42); Christ said, Receive thy sight, thy faith hath saved thee. True faith will produce fervency in prayer, and both together will fetch in abundance of the fruits of Christ's favour; and they are then doubly comfortable when they come in that way, when we are saved by faith.

VIII. The grace of Christ ought to be thankfully acknowledged, to the glory of God, Luk 18:43. 1. The poor beggar himself, that had his sight restored, followed Christ, glorifying God. Christ made it his business to glorify his Father; and those whom he healed pleased him best when they praised God, as those shall please God best who praise Christ and do him honour; for, in confessing that he is Lord, we give glory to God the Father. It is for the glory of God if we follow Christ, as those will do whose eyes are opened. 2. The people that saw it could not forbear giving praise to God, who had given such power to the Son of Man, and by him had conferred such favours on the sons of men. Note, We must give praise to God for his mercies to others as well as for mercies to ourselves.

Barclay: Luk 18:9-14

The devout observed three prayer times daily--9 a.m., 12 midday and 3 p.m. Prayer was held to be specially efficacious if it was offered in the Temple and so at these hours many went up to the Temple courts to pray. Jesus told of two men who went.

(i) There was a Pharisee. He did not really go to pray to God. He prayed with himself. True prayer is always offered to God and to God alone. A certain American cynically described a preacher's prayer as "the most eloquent prayer ever offered to a Boston audience." The Pharisee was really giving himself a testimonial before God.

The Jewish law prescribed only one absolutely obligatory fast--that on the day of Atonement. But those who wished to gain special merit fasted also on Mondays and Thursdays. It is noteworthy that these were the market days when Jerusalem was full of country people. Those who fasted whitened their faces and appeared in dishevelled clothes, and those days gave their piety the biggest possible audience. The Levites were to receive a tithe of all a man's produce (Num 18:21; Deu 14:22). But this Pharisee tithed everything, even things which there was no obligation to tithe.

His whole attitude was not untypical of the worst in Pharisaism. There is a recorded prayer of a certain Rabbi which runs like this, "I thank, Thee, O Lord my God, that thou hast put my part with those who sit in the Academy, and not with those who sit at the street-corners. For I rise early, and they rise early; I rise early to the words of the law, and they to vain things. I labour, and they labour; I labour and receive a reward, and they labour and receive no reward. I run, and they run; I run to the life of the world to come, and they to the pit of destruction." It is on record that Rabbi Simeon ben Jocai once said, "If there are only two righteous men in the world, I and my son are these two; if there is only one, I am he!"

The Pharisee did not really go to pray; he went to inform God how good he was.

(ii) There was a tax-collector. He stood afar off, and would not even lift his eyes to God. The King James and Revised Standard Versions do not even do justice to his humility for he actually prayed, "O God, be merciful to me--the sinner," as if he was not merely a sinner, but the sinner par excellence. "And," said Jesus, "it was that heart-broken, self-despising prayer which won him acceptance before God."

This parable unmistakably tells us certain things about prayer.

(i) No man who is proud can pray. The gate of heaven is so low that none can enter it save upon his knees. All that a man can say is,

"None other Lamb, none other Name,

None other Hope in heaven or earth or sea,

None other Hiding-place from guilt and shame,

None beside Thee."

(ii) No man who despises his fellow-men can pray. In prayer we do not lift ourselves above our fellow-men. We remember that we are one of a great army of sinning, suffering, sorrowing humanity, all kneeling before the throne of God's mercy.

(iii) True prayer comes from setting our lives beside the life of God. No doubt all that the Pharisee said was true. He did fast; he did meticulously give tithes; he was not as other men are; still less was he like that tax-collector. But the question is not, "Am I as good as my fellow-men?" The question is, "Am I as good as God?" Once I made a journey by train to England. As we passed through the Yorkshire moors I saw a little whitewashed cottage and it seemed to me to shine with an almost radiant whiteness. Some days later I made the journey back to Scotland. The snow had fallen and was lying deep all around. We came again to the little white cottage, but this time its whiteness seemed drab and soiled and almost grey in comparison with the virgin whiteness of the driven snow.

It all depends what we compare ourselves with. And when we set our lives beside the life of Jesus and beside the holiness of God, all that is left to say is, "God be merciful to me--the sinner."

Barclay: Luk 18:15-17

It was the custom for mothers to bring their children to some distinguished Rabbi on their first birthday that he might bless them. That is what the mothers wanted for their children from Jesus. We are not to think that the disciples were hard and cruel. It was kindness that made them act as they did. Remember where Jesus was going. He was on the way to Jerusalem to die upon a cross. The disciples could see upon his face the inner tension of his heart; and they did not want Jesus to be bothered. Often at home we may say to a little child, "Don't bother your Daddy; he's tired and worried tonight." That is exactly how the disciples felt about Jesus.

It is one of the loveliest things in all the gospel story that Jesus had time for the children even when he was on the way to Jerusalem to die.

When Jesus said that it was of the child-like that the kingdom of God was composed, what did he mean "What are the qualities of which he was thinking"?

(i) The child has not lost the sense of wonder. Tennyson tells of going early one morning into the bedroom of his little grandson and of seeing the child "worshipping the sunbeam playing on the bedpost." As we grow older we begin to live in a world which has grown grey and tired. The child lives in a world with a sheen on it and in which God is always near.

(ii) The child's whole life is founded on trust. When we are young, we never doubt where the next meal is to come from or where our clothes will be found. We go to school certain that home will be there when we return, and all things ready for our comfort. When we go on a journey we never doubt that the fare will be paid or that our parents know the way and will take us safely there. The child's trust in his parents is absolute, as ours should be in our Father--God.

(iii) The child is naturally obedient. True, he often disobeys and grumbles at his parents' bidding. But his instinct is to obey. He knows very well that he should obey and is not happy when he has been disobedient. In his heart of hearts his parents' word is law. So should it be with us and God.

(iv) The child has an amazing faculty of forgiveness. Almost all parents are unjust to their children. We demand from them a standard of obedience, of good manners, of refined language, of diligence which we seldom satisfy ourselves. Time and again we scold them for doing the very things we do ourselves. If others treated us in the way we treat our children in the matter of plain justice, we probably would never forgive. But the child forgives and forgets, and does not even realize it when he is very young. It would be so much lovelier a world if we would forgive as a child forgives.

To keep alive the sense of wonder, to live in unquestioning trust, instinctively to obey, to forgive and to forget--that is the childlike spirit, and that is the passport to the kingdom of God.

Barclay: Luk 18:18-30

This ruler addressed Jesus in a way which, for a Jew, was without parallel. In all the religious Jewish literature there is no record of any Rabbi being addressed as, "Good teacher." The Rabbis always said "there is nothing that is good but the law." To address Jesus in such a way savoured of almost fulsome flattery. So Jesus began by driving him and his thoughts back to God. Jesus was always sure that his own power and his own message, came to him from God. When the nine lepers failed to return, his grief was, not that they had forgotten to come back to say thanks to him, but that they had not come back to glorify God (Luk 17:18).

It was indisputable that this ruler was a good man, but he felt within his heart and soul that in his life there was something lacking. Jesus' command to him was that if he wanted to find all that he was searching for in life he must sell all his possessions and distribute them to the poor and follow him. Why did Jesus make this demand specially from this man? When the man whom Jesus had cured in the country of the Gerasenes wished to follow him, he told him to stay at home (Luk 8:38-39). Why this very different advice to this ruler?

There is an apocryphal gospel called the Gospel according to the Hebrews most of which is lost; in one of the fragments which remain there is an account of this incident which gives us a clue. "The other rich man said to Jesus, 'Master, what good thing must I do really to live?' Jesus said to him, 'Man, obey the law and the prophets.' He said, 'I have done so.' Jesus said to him, 'Go, sell all that you possess, distribute it among the poor, and come, follow me!' The rich man began to scratch his head because he did not like this command. The Lord said to him, 'Why do you say that you have obeyed the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law, "You must love your neighbour as yourself," and look you--there are many brothers of yours, sons of Abraham, who are dying of hunger, and your house is full of many good things, and not one single thing goes out of it to them.' And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting beside him, 'Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' "

There we have the secret and the tragedy of this rich ruler. He was living utterly selfishly. He was rich, and yet he gave nothing away. His real God was comfort, and what he really worshipped were his own possessions and his wealth. That is why Jesus told him to give it all away. Many a man uses such wealth as he has to bring comfort and joy and good to his fellow-men; but this man used it for nobody but himself. If a man's god is that to which he gives all his time, his thought, his energy, his devotion, then wealth was his god. If he was ever to find happiness he must be done with all that and live for others with the same intensity as that with which he had so long lived for himself.

Jesus went on to say that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Quite often the rabbis talked of an elephant trying to get through the eye of a needle as a picture of something fantastically impossible. But Jesus' picture may have one of two origins.

(i) It is said that beside the great gate into Jerusalem through which traffic went, there was a little gate just wide and high enough for a man to get through. It is said that that little gate was called the needle's eye, and that the picture is of a camel trying to struggle through it.

(ii) The Greek word for a camel is kamelos (2574). In this age of Greek there was a tendency for the vowel sounds to become very like each other, and there was another word which would sound almost exactly the same--the word kamilos, which means a ship's hawser. It may well be that what Jesus said was that it would be easier to thread a needle with a ship's hawser than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Why should it be so? The whole tendency of possessions is to shackle a man's thoughts to this world. He has so big a stake in it that he never wants to leave it, and never thinks of anything else. It is not a sin to have much wealth--but it is a danger to the soul and a great responsibility.

Peter pointed out that he and his fellow disciples had left all to follow Jesus; and Jesus promised that no man would ever give up anything for the kingdom of God but he would be repaid many times over. It is the experience of all Christian folk that that is true. Once someone said to David Livingstone, thinking of the trials he had endured and the sorrows he had borne, of how he had lost his wife and ruined his health in Africa, "What sacrifices you have made!" Livingstone answered, "Sacrifices? I never made a sacrifice in all my life."

For the man who walks the Christian way there may be things the world calls hard, but, beyond them all and through them all, there is a peace which the world cannot give and cannot take away, and a joy that no man takes from him.

Barclay: Luk 18:31-34

There are two kinds of courage. There is the courage of the man who, suddenly and without warning, is confronted with some emergency or some crisis, and who unhesitatingly and even recklessly flings himself into it. There is the courage of the man who sees a terrible situation looming ahead and knows that nothing short of flight can avoid it, and who yet goes steadfastly and inflexibly on. There is no question which is the higher courage. Many a man is capable of the heroic action on the spur of the moment; it takes a man of supreme courage to go on to face something which haunts him for days ahead and which, by turning back, he could escape.

In a novel a writer paints a picture of two children walking along the road playing their children's games. One said to the other, "When you're walking along the road, do you ever pretend that there is something terrible just around the next corner waiting for you; and you've got to go and face it? It makes it so exciting." With Jesus it was no game of let's pretend. It was the grim truth that there was something terrible waiting for him. He knew what crucifixion was like; he had seen it; and yet he went on. If Jesus was nothing else, he would still be one of the most heroic figures of all time.

In face of Jesus' frequent warning of what was to happen to him in Jerusalem, we sometimes wonder why, when the cross came, it was such a shock and such a shattering blow to his disciples. The truth is that they simply could not take in what he was saying to them. They were obsessed with the idea of a conquering king; they still clung to that hope that he would let loose his power in Jerusalem and blast his enemies off the face of the earth.

Here is a great warning to every listener. The human mind has a way of listening only to what it wants to hear. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. There is a kind of wishful thinking which believes that the unpleasant truth cannot really be true, and that the thing it does not want to happen cannot happen. A man must ever struggle against the tendency to hear only what he wants to hear.

One thing more we must note. Jesus never foretold the cross without foretelling the resurrection. He knew that shame lay before him, but he was equally certain that glory lay before him, too. He knew what the malice of men could do, but he knew also what the power of God could do. It was in the certainty of ultimate victory that he faced the apparent defeat of the cross. He knew that without a cross there can never be any crown.

Barclay: Luk 18:35-43

The one thing which stands out in this story is the sheer, desperate persistence of the blind man. Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to the Passover. At such a time pilgrims travelled in bands together. One of the commonest ways for a Rabbi to teach was to discourse as he walked. That was what Jesus was doing, and the rest of the pilgrim band were crowding close around him, not to miss anything that he might say. As such a pilgrim band passed through a village or a town those who themselves could not go to the feast lined the wayside to see the pilgrims pass and to bid them godspeed on the way.

It was amongst the wayside crowd that the blind man was sitting. When he heard the murmur of the approaching throng he asked what was happening and was told that Jesus was passing by. Immediately he cried out to Jesus for help and healing. Thereupon everyone tried to silence him. The people round Jesus were missing what he was saying because of the clamour of this blind man.

But the man would not be silenced. He shouted again. The word used for shout in Luk 18:39is quite different from that used in Luk 18:38. In Luk 18:38it is an ordinary loud shout to attract attention. In Luk 18:39it is the instinctive shout of ungovernable emotion, a scream, an almost animal cry. The word well shows the utter desperation of the man.

So Jesus stopped, and the blind man found the healing he so passionately desired.

This story tells us two things.

(i) It tells us something about the blind man. He was determined to come face to face with Jesus. Nothing would stop him. He refused to be silent and he refused to be restrained. His sense of need drove him relentlessly into the presence of Jesus. If a man wants a miracle that is the spirit he must show. A gentle, sentimental longing never really taps the power of God; but the passionate, intense desire of the very depths of the human heart will never be disappointed.

(ii) It tells us something about Jesus. At that moment he was discoursing to the crowd like any rabbi. But at the blind man's cry of need he stopped, the discourse forgotten. For Jesus it was always more important to act than to talk. Words always took second place to deeds. Here was a human soul in need. Speech must end and action begin. Someone has said that many teachers are like men throwing chatty remarks to a man drowning in a tempestuous sea. Jesus was never like that; he leaped to the rescue of the man. There is many a man who could not put two sentences together but others love him because he is kind. Men may respect an orator but they love a man with helping hands. Men admire a man with a great mind but they love a man with a big heart.

Constable: Luk 9:51--19:28

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51--19:27

This large section of the Book of Luke has no counterpart in the other Gospels, but some of the material in it occurs in other parts of the Gospels. The section consists largely of instruction that Jesus gave His disciples with only brief references to geographic movements. We have already noticed that Luke had more interest in lessons than in details of geography and chronology. The skeletal references to Jesus' movements show a general shift from Galilee toward Jerusalem (e.g., 9:52; 10:38; 13:22, 32-33; 17:11; 18:31, 35; 19:1, 28-29). However, His journey was not direct (cf. 10:38; 17:11). Jesus visited Jerusalem more than once, but this section records Jesus leaving Galilee and arriving in Jerusalem for the last time before His passion.

The ministry of Jesus during this journey was not just different because of where it took place. It took on new characteristics. His ministry to the disciples seems to have occupied His primary attention, though Luke featured this less than Mark. We have noted a strong emphasis on Jesus' identity (Christology) in the previous chapters. Now the disciples' mission becomes the dominant theme. There are many words of warning to the rich and the complacent as well as to the Pharisees in this section. Many students of Luke and Acts have noticed the common emphasis on travel that characterizes both books and have pointed out some significant comparisons. Jerusalem was for Jesus the destination toward which He pressed as Rome was for Paul.

Constable: Luk 18:9--19:28

J. The recipients of salvation 18:9-19:27

Luke next developed the idea of faith on the earth that Jesus introduced in verse 8. This whole section clarifies how people become believers. This subject is a fitting conclusion to the part of Luke's Gospel that deals with Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27). Essentially this section records Jesus' teaching that salvation and eventual entrance into the kingdom come by God's grace through faith rather than by claims to legal righteousness. The apostle Paul wrote about the process of justification, but Luke's concern was the recipients of it.⁴⁰⁶

Constable: Luk 18:9-14

1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 18:9-14

The superficial connection between this pericope and the preceding one is that they both contain parables about prayer. However the more significant link is the people of faith (v. 8). This parable graphically contrasts the rejectors of Jesus' gospel with its receivers. Jesus drew a verbal picture to identify the characteristic traits of two representative groups of Jews.

18:9 This verse sets the stage for the parable that follows (cf. 18:1; 19:11). "And" signals the continuation of immediately preceding lessons and themes for the reader. Obviously Pharisees are the people that Jesus was criticizing in this parable (v. 10), but Luke introduced Jesus' teaching by highlighting the characteristic about the Pharisees that Jesus addressed. This is a characteristic that many more people than the Pharisees possess, including many of Luke's readers. The only alternative to believing in Jesus is trusting in one's own righteousness for acceptance with God. It always results in elevating oneself at the expense of others and looking down on others.

18:10 The Pharisees generally rejected Jesus and His gospel whereas the tax collectors responded positively (cf. 5:12, 27; 7:34, 37; 15:1-2; 16:20). They were at opposite ends of the social and spiritual scales in Judaism. The former were the epitome of righteousness and the latter of unrighteousness. The temple was the customary place of prayer. Since it stood on a hill in Jerusalem, people literally went up to it to pray.

18:11-12 Standing was a normal posture for prayer among the Jews of Jesus' day. It did not in itself reflect the Pharisee's pride (cf. Matt. 6:5). Even though the Pharisee addressed God in prayer, Jesus noted that he was really talking to himself and reviewing his own self-righteousness. He told God what a superior person he was, using the behavior of others as his standard. He took pride in his supposed superior status and the works that he did that separated him from others. The most pious Pharisees fasted twice a week (cf. 5:33).⁴⁰⁷ This Pharisee was also scrupulous about tithing (cf. 11:42).

18:13 "But" introduces the striking contrast between the two individuals. The tax gatherer's geographical distance from the Pharisee symbolized the difference. His unwillingness to lift his eyes, much less his hands, to heaven in prayer pictures his feeling of unworthiness (cf. Ps. 123:1; Mark 6:41; 7:34; John 11:41; 17:1). Beating his chest expressed contrition, which he articulated in his prayer. He did not boast of his own righteousness but pled with God for mercy acknowledging his sin (cf. Ps. 51). He used God as the standard of righteousness and confessed that he fell short. He knew that his only hope was God's mercy.

"This parable is really the parable of the two prayers. In those prayers appear two kinds of hearts, whose contrast is not only seen in the way they make their request, but also in the way they approach God."⁴⁰⁸

Literally he asked God to be propitious (Gr. hilaskomai) or satisfied. Since Jesus made propitiation (satisfaction) for the sins of humankind on the Cross no one needs to pray this prayer today. However when the tax collector prayed it propitiation through Jesus Christ's blood was not yet available. It is, of course, permissible today to ask God to be merciful to us as sinners, but we need to remember that He has already done that through Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that God is propitious (satisfied; cf. 1 John 2:2).

18:14 Jesus declared the tax collector justified (i.e., declared righteous, a judicial act, not made righteous; cf. Rom. 3:24-25). God declared him righteous because he looked to God for the gift of righteousness rather than claiming to be righteous on his own merit as the Pharisee did.⁴⁰⁹ Jesus repeated the principle that God humbles those who exalt themselves, but He exalts those who humble themselves (cf. 13:30; 14:11). In the context Jesus meant that to be righteous in God's sight one must acknowledge his lack of personal righteousness rather than pretending to have righteousness that he does not have. Justification depends on God's grace, not on human works or merit.

Many modern Christians have heard this parable so often that we immediately associate Pharisees with self-righteous hypocrisy and tax collectors with humble piety. In Jesus' day the Jews viewed them differently. It was the Pharisees who were the models of righteous behavior and the tax collectors who epitomized sinfulness. Therefore this parable undoubtedly had a great impact on the disciples.

Constable: Luk 18:15-17

2. An illustration of humility 18:15-17 (cf. Matt. 10:13-16; Mark 19:13-15)

Luke included this incident of Jesus receiving children to illustrate the humility that is necessary for someone to receive salvation. The idea of humility is the connecting link with what precedes. Humility is necessary to receive God's grace.

Since 9:50 Luke departed from the general narrative that Matthew and Mark recorded and included much material that does not appear in those Gospels. Here at 18:15 he rejoined the story line of the other Synoptic writers. There is more duplication of incidents in the chapters that follow than we have seen recently.

18:15 The antecedent of "they" (NASB) is the "people" generally (NIV). People brought their infants (Gr. brephe) to Jesus so He would pray for God to bless them (cf. Matt. 19:13). Luke alone used brephe probably to stress the dependent condition of these children. It was customary for the Jews to bring their small children to rabbis for blessings.⁴¹⁰ The disciples probably discouraged the parents from doing this because they thought Jesus had more important things to do.

18:16-17 Jesus, however, corrected the disciples and encouraged the parents to continue bringing their children to Him. Jesus had an interest in the children because they illustrated the humility necessary to enter the kingdom. Obviously infants are not humble in the same sense that adults show humility, but infants are humble in the sense of being totally dependent and unable to provide for themselves. They receive rather than provide, and in those qualities they are good examples of humility. Without this sense of being unable to provide for oneself and a willingness to receive from another no adult can enter the kingdom.

Jesus also had an interest in these children for their own sake. As we have seen, one of Luke's characteristic emphases in his Gospel was Jesus' interest in the needy, outcasts, and other types of dependent people (4:18; et al.).

Constable: Luk 18:18-30

3. The handicap of wealth 18:18-30

This is another lesson on riches that Luke recorded (cf. 6:24; 8:14; 11:41; 12:13-34; 16), but the context here is instruction on wealth as it pertains to entering into salvation and the kingdom. Someone might conclude from the previous incident that salvation depends only on the proper human attitude. This teaching clarifies that while the correct attitude is crucial, salvation is the work of God for man, not man's work for himself. This is important revelation for unbelievers but also for disciples charged with bearing the gospel message to the ends of the earth.

"The religious leaders have repeatedly been presented as people who exalt themselves (11:43; 14:7-11; 16:15; 18:9-14) and as greedy rich people who neglect the poor (11:39-41: 14:12-14; 16:14, 19-31). However, Jesus has not given up all hope that some of these people will change. This is apparent in the scene in 18:18-27."⁴¹¹

Constable: Luk 18:18-23

Jesus' encounter with the rich young ruler 18:18-23 (cf. Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22)

The rich young ruler with his pride contrasts dramatically with the humble infants in the last pericope.

18:18 The young man believed he could do something to earn eternal life, and he wanted to make sure he had not overlooked it (cf. 10:25). John 3:3-15 shows that eternal life includes life in the messianic kingdom. To obtain eternal life meant to enter the kingdom (John 3:3-5). Luke and Mark both have him using the word "inherit" (Gr. kleronomeso) while Matthew wrote "obtain" (Gr. scho). This difference probably reflects Matthew's use of the young man's original word. Mark and Luke probably used the word "inherit" for their Gentile readers to clarify what was in the rich young ruler's mind. He was talking about getting something that he as a Jew thought that he had a good chance of obtaining because of his ethnic relationship to Abraham.

18:19 Jesus' question accomplished two things. It set the standard for goodness, namely God (cf. v. 11). It also confronted the man with the logical implication of his question (v. 18), namely that Jesus was God. That the man did not believe that Jesus was God seems clear from his response to Him (v. 23).

18:20-21 Jesus returned to the young man's question (v. 18). If he wanted to obtain eternal life by doing something, he would have to keep God's laws. Jesus cited the fifth through the ninth commandments from the Decalogue that deal with a person's responsibilities to his or her fellowman (Exod. 20:12-16). By doing so, He affirmed the authority of the Old Testament. He was also gracious with the man by not referring to the commands about people's responsibilities to God or the command about coveting. The man's response indicated that he had kept the letter of the law (cf. Phil. 3:6).

18:22 Having passed the first test to his satisfaction, Jesus now presented him with the higher hurdle of not coveting, the tenth commandment (cf. Rom. 7:7-8). Jesus' command exposed the man's greed, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5). Thus this man had really violated the first and the tenth commandments. If he would have been willing to give away his possessions, he would have shown that he was repudiating his greed. By following Jesus, he would have shown that he was repudiating his own self-righteousness. These would have been the appropriate fruits of his repentance. Treasure in heaven implies eternal reward (cf. 12:33-34).

18:23 The man's sorrow on hearing Jesus' command was proportionate to his wealth. His unwillingness to part with his riches showed that he valued them more than treasure in heaven. He really wanted material wealth more than eternal life (v. 18).

The other Synoptic evangelists recorded that at this point the young man went away (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22).

Jesus' logic is quite clear in this conversation. He reasoned that God alone is perfect (v. 19). Moreover God's standard for obtaining eternal life by good works is perfection (vv. 20-21). Therefore no one can obtain eternal life by good works.

Constable: Luk 18:24-30

Jesus' teaching about riches 18:24-30 (cf. Matt. 19:23-30; Mark 10:23-31)

Jesus continued talking with His disciples about the preceding conversation. However, Luke did not identify the disciples as those to whom Jesus spoke. This gives the impression that what Jesus said has relevance to all people including the readers, as it does.

18:24-25 Luke alone mentioned that Jesus looked at the young man and then spoke. He probably did this to make the connection between Jesus' comments that followed and the young man's attitude clear to his readers. Jesus said that wealth makes it difficult, but not impossible (cf. 19:1-10), for rich people to obtain salvation. Riches are a handicap because they present two temptations to the wealthy (cf. 1 Tim. 6:9-10). First, rich people sometimes conclude that because they are rich they are superior to the poor, perhaps more blessed by God, and therefore do not need God's grace. Second, they may conclude that because they are rich they are secure, and therefore they fail to plan for the future beyond the grave.

A camel going through the eye of a sewing needle (Gr. belones) was evidently a proverbial expression describing a very difficult thing.

18:26-27 The Jews viewed wealth as a sign of God's blessing since God had blessed many of the most godly in the past with riches (e.g., Abraham, Job, Joseph, David, et al.). The idea that riches really could hinder a person entering the kingdom rather than paving the way for his acceptance shocked them. Apparently Jesus meant that no one, including the rich, could enter the kingdom. Entrance is impossible from the human viewpoint, but God can produce repentance and faith in the heart of anyone, even the rich (cf. 1:37; Gen. 18:14).

18:28 Peter reminded Jesus that the Twelve had done what the rich young ruler had been unwilling to do (cf. 14:26-27). His comment, as Luke and Mark recorded it, was an implicit request for assurance that they would enter the kingdom (cf. Mark 10:28).

"It is surprising that, although generally Jesus does not think in terms of seeking reward, here he is prepared to respond to Peter's saying. This suggests that Peter's question was not regarded by the Evangelists as an implicit claim for a selfish reward. Rather it is seen as an opportunity to give a promise that self-denial for the sake of the kingdom will be vindicated."⁴¹²

18:29-30 For emphasis Jesus introduced His reply with the preface that affirmed the truthfulness of what followed. Everyone who denies himself or herself the normal comforts and contacts of life to advance God's mission will receive a greater reward from God for doing so. Luke used the phrase "for the kingdom of God" (v. 29; cf. v. 25) whereas Matthew used "for my sake" (Matt. 19:29) and Mark wrote "for my sake and for the gospel's sake" (Mark 10:29). These are all synonymous concepts.

First, that one will receive deeper spiritual comfort and more satisfying human contacts in the present life (cf. Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37). Second, he or she will receive an even better and enduring life in the coming kingdom. Jesus and the apostles spoke of eternal life as a reward for self-sacrifice (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:30; John 12:25-26; Rom. 2:7; 6:22; Gal. 6:8) and as the gift of God that comes to everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23).⁴¹³ Jesus mentioned it here with rewards because it provides the ultimate contrast with what disciples give up now. Giving up a wife may refer to giving up marriage rather than leaving a wife, or periods of separation to engage in kingdom business may be in view.

Constable: Luk 18:31-34

4. Jesus' passion announcement and the disciples' lack of perception 18:31-34 (cf. Matt. 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34)

Jesus' passion announcements to His disciples constitute important structural markers in Mark's Gospel. Luke and Matthew did not use them this way. The incident before us was the third passion announcement that Jesus gave beside other allusions to His death that He made (cf. 5:35; 12:50; 13:32; 17:25).

	Matthew	Mark	Luke
First passion announcement	16:21-23	8:31-33	9:22
Second passion announcement	17:22-23	9:30-32	9:43-45
Third passion announcement	20:17-19	10:32-34	18:31-34

Luke presented this announcement as part of his travel motif that records Jesus moving from Galilee to Jerusalem (9:51-19:27). He played down the amazement and fear of the disciples that Mark stressed here. Instead he focused the reader's attention on the disciples' failure to understand what was going to happen in Jerusalem. There is a continuation of the theme of responding to Jesus' words that precedes. The rich young ruler failed to respond to the good news that Jesus proclaimed. Similarly the disciples, though believing the gospel, failed to respond to the bad news He told them. There is also a continuation of the theme of entering the kingdom. The disciples would enter because they believed in Jesus, but they would have to go through trials and tribulations, as Jesus would, before they did. The death of Jesus provided the basis for God's gracious dealings with believers through His Son (vv. 26-27).

18:31 Luke alone recorded that the things that would happen to Jesus in Jerusalem would be a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (cf. 12:50; 22:37; Acts 13:29). Luke apparently stressed the fact that Jesus' ministry fulfilled prophecy so his readers would have greater confidence in Him (cf. 2:25-38; 22:37).

The Hellenistic mind resisted the idea that a God-man could be truly human. The ancient Greek concept of the gods visiting humankind lay behind this difficulty. Consequently Luke presented much evidence for his Greek readers throughout his Gospel that Jesus was a real man. The Jews on the other hand had difficulty accepting the fact that Jesus was truly God. This accounts for Matthew's stress on Jesus' deity. Throughout church history there have been those who like the Greeks had trouble accepting Jesus' full humanity and others like the Jews who have resisted His full deity.

18:32-33 This was Jesus' first reference to the Gentiles' role in His trial and death. Luke's inclusion of this detail suggests that he did not want his Gentile readers to miss the guilt of Gentiles for Jesus' death. The passive construction pictures Jesus as the victim of Gentile wrath.

"Not one prophet ever said all this, but the prophets together did say all this. Hence, this is a summation."⁴¹⁴

18:34 Luke alone repeated three times that the disciples failed to comprehend Jesus' words. He strongly suggested that their failure was due to God's withholding this understanding from them (cf. 24:16, 25-26). The illumination of believers is a necessary work of God's Spirit that is supernatural. The Twelve probably would not believe that such a fate would befall Jesus.

"The failure of the disciples to understand the necessity of Jesus' suffering and rejection involves the following interrelated defects: (1) a failure to understand God's plan as announced in Scripture, including God's way of working by using human opposition to fulfill the divine purpose; (2) a failure to accept rejection and suffering as a necessary part of discipleship; (3) a failure to reckon with the rejection of Jesus, resulting in premature, overly optimistic expectations for the immediate enjoyment of the messianic salvation; (4) rivalry over rank because of a failure to recognize that only those who devote their lives as servants can be great as Jesus is great."⁴¹⁵

Constable: Luk 18:35-43

5. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 18:35-43 (cf. Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52)

Luke's primary purpose for including this incident in his narrative seems to have been to show that God, through Jesus, can give insight to those who humbly call on Him for mercy. Here was another humble outcast similar to the tax collector (cf. v. 13) who experienced salvation because of his faith (v. 42). Jesus not only saved him but also opened his eyes physically and spiritually.

18:35 Luke wrote that Jesus met the blind man as He was approaching Jericho, but Matthew and Mark said that the incident occurred as Jesus was leaving that town (Matt. 20:29; Mark 10:46). There have been many explanations of this apparent contradiction. A summary of the most popular ones that reflect a high view of the biblical text follows.

One view is that there were three separate incidents. Matthew recorded two blind men and Mark said there was one and his name was Bartimaeus. However the similarities between the stories argue for a single incident with Mark and Luke concentrating on the more prominent of the two blind beggars. Another view is that Jesus performed two separate healings, one as He entered Jericho and another as He left. Again the similarities of the descriptions argue for one incident.⁴¹⁶ A third view is that there was just one incident but it took place in two stages. Jesus met the men as He entered Jericho but healed them as He departed. This is possible, but it seems unlikely in view of the Evangelists' accounts of the incident. A fourth and preferable explanation is that there was one incident that happened as Jesus was leaving old Jericho and entering new Jericho.⁴¹⁷ The problems with this view are essentially two. There is no evidence that people still inhabited the old town, and it is not certain that the name of the old town was still Jericho.

18:36-37 Luke alone mentioned that it was the noise of the multitude passing him by that led the blind man to ask what was happening. The writer may have done this simply to present a more vigorous scene, or the inclusion may reflect his characteristic interest in the multitudes, or both.

18:38-39 "Son of David" was a messianic title that expressed the man's faith in Jesus as Israel's Messiah (cf. 1:27, 32; 2 Sam. 7:8-16; Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 34:23-24). Like the tax collector (v. 13), he called out for mercy without claiming any merit. His insistence reflected his belief that Jesus could help him and his hope that Jesus would help him. Opposition only made him more adamant in his desire.

18:40-43 Jesus evidently asked His question to elicit the blind man's faith. He certainly knew what he wanted. The title "Lord" here obviously reflects more than simple respect. It expressed the man's faith. Jesus' words would have left no doubt that He was responsible for the miracle. He hastened to clarify that the man's faith was the instrumental cause of the healing. Luke stressed this again for his readers' benefit (cf. 7:50; 8:48; 17:19). Divine power was the efficient cause of the healing.

The responses to the instantaneous (1:64; et al.) healing were what they should have been. The man began following Jesus, and he glorified God (cf. v. 23). Likewise the observers' reaction was to praise God. Only Luke recorded the glorifying and praising of God that took place then (cf. 2:20; 5:25; et al.). This reflects his interest in the joyful outcome of salvation (cf. 5:26; 17:18; Acts. 2:47; 3:9).

Luke probably included this incident partially to contrast the faith of the blind man with the unbelief of the religious leaders. Again the humble received salvation while others who failed to realize their need for Jesus' grace did not. The incident would have been a lesson to the disciples as well as the multitudes.

College: Luk 18:1-43

LUKE 18

3. The Parable of the Persistent Widow (18:1-8)

¹ Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. ² He said: " In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. ³ And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'

⁴" For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, ⁵ yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!'"

⁶ And the Lord said, " Listen to what the unjust judge says. ⁷ And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? ⁸ I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

1. The parable of the persistent widow continues the theme of the preceding material. Jesus continues to address his disciples about how to think about the final defeat of evil and the coming of the kingdom. The parable presents two primary difficulties for the interpreter. One is the fact that the uncaring judge who only helps the woman when he is nagged is somehow like God. The other is that Jesus appears to promise a relatively quick vindication of those who have been treated unjustly because of their faith. However, we will see that the disciple is to be like the widow even though the judge is not like God. We will also see that the parable teaches that, even though it will seem that God is slow in vindicating his people, he will surely do so. Therefore the disciple should always pray and not give up .

Since they will suffer greatly, and since they do not know the time of God's final establishment of the kingdom, Jesus' disciples will face difficult and uncertain times. In such times they must learn to rely on God, praying and not despairing.

2-5. The judge who neither feared God nor cared about men is obviously a powerful man who abused his position, having neither conviction nor compassion. The widow , one of the most unfortunate and helpless people in that society, was being oppressed by her adversary . Her pleas for the judge to grant her justice were for some time . . . refused . However, the judge finally realized that this widow would not quit bothering him and in fact would eventually wear him out with her coming .

6-8. The point of the parable involves both a comparison and a contrast. The comparison is that God will bring about justice for those who continually pray to him just as the judge brought about justice for the widow who continually went to him. The contrast is that the judge did not care about the widow, whereas God loves his chosen ones .

It is the temporal references of verses 8 and 9 that make this passage so difficult. The inference seems to be that God will grant justice to Jesus' followers quickly (presumably by sending Jesus in final judgment). The final question would then mean, " When God does (quickly) send Jesus, will anyone still have faith?"

The reader is referred at this point to the supplemental study on the " Destruction of Jerusalem and End of Time." In that study there is a discussion of the primary Lukan teachings concerning these future events. At this point it must suffice to say that Luke can speak of a long period between Jesus' ascension and his second coming at the same time that he looks for Jesus to come again " quickly." What humans regard as near may not be what God regards as near. This text primarily teaches Jesus' followers to continue fervently in prayer, because God will deliver his people.

4. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (18:9-14)

⁹ To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: ¹⁰" Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee stood up and prayed about ^a himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

¹³" But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

¹⁴" I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

^a 11 Or to

As Jesus speaks again about prayer, Luke returns to a theme which he has woven into the Gospel in several locations. The message is the same as that of other passages in which Jesus deals with tax collectors, sinners, sinful women, and prodigal sons. In almost every case the opposing character is a Pharisee. Only those who are deeply aware of their own sin are able to accept the grace of God and therefore receive his forgiveness. Those who are proud are unable to see their sin and are consequently unable to receive forgiveness.

9-11. The statement that some . . . were confident of their own righteousness implies that these people were not actually righteous. Their self-righteousness made them look down on everybody else . (For information on Pharisees and tax collectors, see the supplemental studies on these groups.) The Pharisee erred not because he stood , which was a normal posture for prayer. He erred in the way he prayed about himself . The reader cannot help but notice the Pharisee's positive references to himself (four uses of " I" ). Believing that he has kept God's will and in fact has done more than required (fasting twice a week and giving a tenth of all ), he is proud that he is not like other men . His view that robbers, evildoers, and adulterers are the real sinners excludes those who, like this Pharisee, are proud, without compassion, and full of evil in the heart.

12. Jews were not required to fast except on the Day of Atonement. This Pharisee was quite proud that he did so twice a week . Similarly, he went beyond what the Law demanded by giving a tenth of all he received. The Law only demanded that Jews give a portion of what they earned (Deut 14:22-29).

13. The tax collector , on the other hand, shows his humility and sense of sinfulness in four ways. (1) He stood at a distance (from the temple proper, most likely). (2) He would not even look up to heaven . (3) He beat his breast to signify his sorrow (see 23:48). (4) He said, " God, have mercy on me, a sinner." This tax collector knows that he is a sinner and that his only hope is forgiveness. He cannot be " good" enough to merit God's favor. He cannot perform enough good deeds to outweigh the bad. He can only plead for mercy.

14. This man , the tax collector, went home justified . The term translated " justified" (dedikaiwmevno", dedikaiômenos) is the verb form of the adjective translated " righteous." The tax collector was seen as righteous by God, unlike the Pharisee. It is here that Jesus sounds most like Paul, whose teaching about justification of the sinner is essentially the same as that emphasized by Luke. " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph 2:8-9).

The " moral" of the story is that everyone who exalts himself (like the Pharisee) will be humbled (at the time of final judgment), and he who humbles himself (like the tax collector) will be exalted (being declared righteous at the judgment).

5. The Little Children and Jesus (18:15-17)

¹⁵ People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. ¹⁶ But Jesus called the children to him and said, " Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. ¹⁷ I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Jesus continues the same theme. This time the example of humility is children, just as in 9:46-48. The point is not that the kingdom is to be made up of children; it is rather to be made up of those who are like children. The meaning is apparently that disciples of Jesus must not think they can enter the kingdom because of their importance. Only those who know that they have nothing to offer God can accept what God has to offer.

15-17. Bringing babies for those who are regarded holy to touch has been a practice of many cultures. The hope is that these children will receive a special blessing from the contact with Jesus. Jesus' disciples , probably still thinking in terms of power and status, can find very little use for children. As they attempt to stop this waste of time, Jesus sees an opportunity to teach. " Do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." " Such as these" does not mean " children everywhere" but rather those who are like children in terms of the way children are regarded. They are not strong or wise or righteous. They have nothing of which to boast. Whatever they receive, they receive as a gift. It has not been earned. Therefore, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it . The Pharisees cannot enter because they trust in their own righteousness. The rich, as seen in the next story, cannot enter because they trust in their riches instead of God.

6. The Rich Ruler (18:18-30)

¹⁸ A certain ruler asked him, " Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁹" Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. " No one is good - except God alone. ²⁰ You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' ^a"

²¹" All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

²² When Jesus heard this, he said to him, " You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

²³ When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. ²⁴ Jesus looked at him and said, " How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

²⁶ Those who heard this asked, " Who then can be saved?"

²⁷ Jesus replied, " What is impossible with men is possible with God."

²⁸ Peter said to him, " We have left all we had to follow you!"

²⁹" I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, " no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God ³⁰ will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

^a 20 Exodus 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20

Jesus continues to speak about entering the kingdom. However, this story speaks of those who are hindered not so much by their pride as by their wealth (although Luke knows well that the two tend to go hand in hand). Returning to a theme he has discussed on several occasions, Jesus now offers the clearest explanation in Luke for the danger of wealth. Wealth occupies one's attention, time, and energy, and in so doing, it takes the heart away from God. " No one can serve two masters."

18-19. This certain ruler , only called a " ruler" here in Luke, is said by Matthew to be young (Matt 19:20) and is therefore called the " rich young ruler." His question appears to be a fair one: " Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" The reader is therefore surprised when Jesus rejects the question itself: " Why do you call me good? No one is good - except God alone." Several explanations of Jesus' response have been offered. While it is possible that Jesus is making a subtle claim to being deity, it is unlikely that he would expect this man to understand such a subtle remark. It is more likely that Jesus is either responding to the implication that inheriting eternal life is based on goodness or that Jesus is responding to the man's insincere flattery. In either case Jesus is not engaging the question of his own goodness. Eternal life is a gift of God's goodness and is not based on human goodness: " No one is good."

20-21. Jesus directs the ruler to the commandments of the Law. These dictate what a person must do. Luke makes it abundantly clear that no one will be saved on the basis of keeping the Law (see supplemental study on the " Law" ). No one is capable of keeping the Law perfectly. However, it is just as clear that God's will is revealed in the Law and that people are to keep it as taught by Jesus. One should remember that the Law is about loving God and loving neighbors (10:27). Jesus' teaching here is basically the same as that in the story of the Good Samaritan (see especially 10:25-28). The list of commandments given by Jesus include five of the six commandments of the decalogue which relate to treatment of others. The one which is not included is, " Do not covet." The rich ruler's response, " All these I have kept since I was a boy," is hard for the reader to believe, but Jesus does not question it. Perhaps the reader should admit that this man is a good, God-fearing man who truly has done well (relative to others) in keeping God's commands and happens to be rich. But of course that misses the point. There is no good man. There is only a good God, who accepts those who depend on him completely rather than their own righteousness or riches or anything else. No one truly keeps the Law on the deepest level, and those who claim to have kept the Law have only a superficial understanding of the Law.

22. Jesus makes this point by telling the man, " You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor." There are two ways to understand this very hard demand. One is that Jesus here is adding a new command for the people of God. They are to divest themselves of all possessions. However, even though Jesus does call on all his followers to sell possessions and give to the poor (12:33), nowhere else does he demand that his followers sell all that they have, as he commands this man (see the supplemental study on " Poor and Rich" ).

The better understanding of this text is that Jesus is calling this man to do what the Law required in terms of loving God with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind and loving neighbor as self (see 10:27). In this man's case this demanded a complete break from his possessions, because his treasure was clearly on earth rather than in heaven . His wealth kept him from trusting God, and he was not using it to help his neighbor.

23-24. As Peter will point out (v. 28), others had accepted Jesus' invitation to leave all and follow him. However, this ruler became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. The unspoken words are impossible to miss: he loved his money more than God. Jesus then uses the opportunity to teach others. " How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." From the beginning of the Gospel there have been warnings to the rich. Mary's song speaks of God sending " the rich away empty." Jesus speaks a " woe" to those who are rich. Riches are like thorns which choke out any growth of the seed which is the word of God. Those who are not " rich toward God" end up like the rich fool, and repentance comes too late for the rich man who failed to share with poor Lazarus.

25. The eye of a needle is just what it seems to be - the eye of a needle used for sewing - not a gate in the Jerusalem wall. The point of the hyperbole is that it is impossible for a camel to go through this tiny hole. Riches are that much of a danger to one's entering the kingdom of God!

It was generally believed that wealth was a sign of God's pleasure and acceptance of a person. Rich people were therefore often regarded as the pillars of the community. Jesus' hearers want to know who then can be saved , if not the rich. His response is that salvation is the result of the initiative of God, and that impossible things therefore can happen. Even rich people can enter God's kingdom when they accept the gospel message. Of course, they cannot keep their wealth for themselves. They must be like the women who used their wealth to support Jesus or like Zacchaeus who promised to give half of his wealth to the poor.

26-30. Peter understands well the import of what has just transpired. He reminds Jesus that he and the other apostles had done what Jesus asked the rich man to do - they had left all . . . to follow him. Jesus responds by reaffirming the promise of 12:31: " Seek his kingdom, and [food, clothes, and other necessities] will be given to you as well." Here he promises that no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children . . . will fail to receive many times as much in this life . The book of Acts shows the beautiful " family" which shares homes and food in the early years of the church. Possessions were sold in order to provide for the needs of all, and " there were no needy persons among them" (Acts 4:34). In the age to come , they will receive eternal life.

It is hoped that wealthy modern interpreters will not too quickly assume that this rich man's problem is not their problem. Very few concerns blind modern Christians more than our wealth. Only those who, like the women in 8:3 and Zacchaeus in 19:8, are using large amounts of their wealth for kingdom purposes should feel comfortable after studying this passage. Being wealthy, according to Jesus, poses a huge risk, because it is almost always a great barrier to entering the kingdom. Yet this is a risk most Christians are willing to take.

7. Jesus Again Predicts His Death (18:31-34)

³¹ Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, " We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. ³² He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. ³³ On the third day he will rise again."

³⁴ The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

31-33. For the third time Jesus tells the Twelve clearly what must happen to him in Jerusalem (see 9:22, 44). He is now near Jerusalem (he arrives in 19:41), and his predictions become more specific. He repeats the constant theme that all of the coming events are necessary because they are written by the prophets about the Son of Man . Whereas the first prediction indicts the Jewish officials, this is the first time he has mentioned that he will be handed over to the Gentiles . The mocking, insulting, spitting, and flogging are also new revelations, and the mocking and insulting will be explicitly narrated in chapter 23. They will also kill him , but on the third day he will rise again. The reader is reminded that Jesus and the Father are very much in charge of the situation. Jesus goes willingly to his death, which will be defeated joyously by the resurrection.

34. Luke goes to great lengths to underscore the disciples' lack of perception, saying it in three different ways. (1) The disciples did not understand any of this. (2) Its meaning was hidden from them. (3) They did not know what he was talking about. It seems clear that for Luke the statement that " its meaning was hidden" does not mean that God hid the meaning from them or that they were not guilty. Luke's view is that ignorance, hardness of heart, and closed minds hide the truth from people. This theme is further developed in 24:25, 44-46, where the risen Jesus accuses his disciples of being " foolish," " slow of heart," and closed of mind.

8. A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight (18:35-43)

³⁵ As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. ³⁶ When he heard the crowd going by, he asked what was happening. ³⁷ They told him, " Jesus of Nazareth is passing by."

³⁸ He called out, " Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

³⁹ Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, " Son of David, have mercy on me!"

⁴⁰ Jesus stopped and ordered the man to be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, ⁴¹" What do you want me to do for you?"

" Lord, I want to see," he replied.

⁴² Jesus said to him, " Receive your sight; your faith has healed you." ⁴³ Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they also praised God.

Luke narrates a final healing miracle as Jesus comes near his destination. This one is particularly illustrative of the larger narrative throughout the Gospel. Those who claim to see and those who should be able to see are blind, but those who are needy, and in this case blind, are able to see who Jesus is. This blind man understands well, because his response to the healing is to follow Jesus and praise God.

35-38. Blind people in that culture were often reduced to begging . Hearing the commotion of the crowd and asking what was happening , he is told that Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. This blind man not only believes that Jesus can heal him. He also knows, somehow, what none other than Jesus' closest disciples know: Jesus is Son of David (a messianic title). Luke demonstrates what Jesus said in 10:21: " I praise you, Father . . . because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." Of all the people to know who Jesus is, a blind beggar may be the most unexpected.

39-43. The blind man's persistence ( he shouted all the more ) gets Jesus' attention and demonstrates his faith. Jesus refuses to ignore those whom society is normally content to disregard. Jesus' question, " What do you want . . . ," prompts the expression of his faith so that Jesus can heal him. His reply to Jesus, " Lord," again reveals his faith as does his request for sight. After his faith heals him, the former blind man followed Jesus, praising God. At this point, all the people also have a positive impression of Jesus and join the man in praise. " The people" will shortly give praise for Jesus again (20:48), but their praise will be short-lived.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Luk 18:10-19

XCVII.
PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND PUBLICAN.
^cLUKE XVIII. 9-14.

   ^c9 And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought [It is commonly said that this parable teaches humility in prayer, but the preface and conclusion (see Luk 18:14) show that it is indeed to set forth generally the difference between self-righteousness and humility, and that an occasion of prayer is chosen because it best illustrates the point which the Lord desired to teach. The parable shows that the righteousness in which these parties trusted was devoid of that true charity or heart-love toward God and man without which our characters are worthless in the sight of God -- Pro 30:12, Pro 30:13, Isa 65:5, 1Co 13:1-3]:  10 Two men went up into the temple to pray [The temple was the appointed place for Jewish prayer. To it the Jew went if near at hand, and towards it he prayed it afar off. The stated hours of prayer were 9 A. M. and 3 P. M., but men went there to pray whenever they felt like it]; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. [The two represent the extremes of Jewish social and religious life -- see Rev 3:17, Rev 3:18), and he makes the sinful record of the publican a dark background on which to display the bright contrast of his own character -- a character for which he was thankful, and apparently with reason.]  12 I fast twice in the week [the law appointed one fast in the year, [536] viz.: on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29, Lev 16:30), but the Pharisees fasted on Mondays and Thursdays of each week]; I give tithes of all that I get. [I give the tenth part of my income. The law required that tithes be given from the corn, wine, oil, and cattle (Deu 14:22, Deu 14:23), but the Pharisees took account of the humblest herbs of the garden, and gave a tenth of their mint, anise, and cummin (Mat 23:23). Thus he confessed his virtues rather than his sins.]  13 But the publican, standing afar off [remote from the Holy Place], would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven [Psa 123:1, Psa 123:2, Psa 40:12, Ezr 9:6], but smote his breast [as if to remind himself of the stroke of God which he so richly deserved -- Nah 2:7, Luk 23:48], saying, God be thou merciful to me a sinner. [He makes full confession of his sin without excuse or justification, and without offset of righteousness. Moreover, he petitions for no temporal blessings, but simply asks for mercy -- 1Ti 1:15.]  14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other [we are taught here, as in the parable of the prodigal son, that the penitent unrighteous are more acceptable to God than the righteous who make no confession of their sins]: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. [Luke xiv. 11, see p. 494. The Pharisee was an example of the first, and the publican of the second.]

[FFG 536-537]

McGarvey: Luk 18:15-17

XCIX.
BLESSING CHILDREN. CONCERNING CHILDLIKENESS.
(In Peræa.)
^aMATT. XIX. 13-15; ^bMARK X. 13-16; ^cLUKE XVIII. 15-17.

   ^a13 Then were there brought  ^b13 And they were bringing aunto him little children, {calso their babes,} that he should touch them: athat he should lay his hands on them, and pray [According to Buxtorf, children were often brought to the presidents of the synagogue in order that they might pray over them. The prayers of a good man in our behalf have always been regarded as a blessing; no wonder, then, that the mothers of these children desired the prayers of Jesus in behalf of their little ones. It was customary to put the hand upon the person prayed for, probably following the patriarchal precedent (Gen 48:14, Gen 48:15). Compare Act 6:6]: cbut {aand} cwhen the disciples saw it, they [541] rebuked them.  ^b14 But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and ccalled them unto him, saying, {bsaid} unto them, ^cSuffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: afor to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. {bof God.} [The disciples wished to protect Jesus from what appeared to them to be an unseemly intrusion and annoyance, and possibly, as the context suggests, they thought it was beneath the dignity of the Messiah to turn aside from the affairs of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 19:12) to pay attention to children. But Jesus was indignant at their officious interference, and directed that the children be brought to him, declaring at the same time that the kingdom of heaven be composed, not of little children, but of such as are childlike in their nature.]  ^c17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. [See p. 431.]  ^b16 And he took them up in his arms,  ^a15 And he laid {blaying} ahis hands on {bupon} athem, band blessed them, aand departed thence. [They were [542] brought that he might lay his hands on them and bless them, and that is what he did for them. The command therefore that they be suffered to come to him should not be perverted into a precept directing that they be brought for other purposes. Those who have construed this as commanding or even permitting either infant baptism or an infant church membership, have abused the text. They are indebted for these ideas, not to the Bible, but to their creeds. The incident told in this section is a fitting sequel to the discourse on divorce. The little children, the offspring of happy wedlock, and a source of constant joy and pleasure to faithful husbands and wives, serve by their presence to correct false impressions as to supposed inconvenience of an indissoluble marriage bond. The sight of them in the arms of Jesus could not fail to leave a good impression with reference to the married life.]

[FFG 541-543]

McGarvey: Luk 18:18-30

C.
THE RICH RULER. PERIL OF RICHES. REWARD OF SACRIFICE.
PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD.
(In Peræa.)
^aMATT. XIX. 16-XX. 16; ^bMARK X. 17-31; ^cLUKE XVIII. 18-30.

   ^b17 And when he was going forth into the way, abehold, bthere ran {acame} bone ca certain ruler bto him, and kneeled to him, and asked aand said, {csaying,} ^bGood Teacher, awhat good thing shall I do, that I may have {bmay inherit cto inherit} eternal life? [The action of this young man in running and kneeling shows that he was deeply anxious to receive an answer to his question, and also that he had great reverence for Jesus. He seemed to think, however, that heaven could be gained by performing some one meritorious act. He made the mistake of thinking that eternal life is a reward for doing rather than for being, a mistake from which the Roman Catholic Church [543] developed the doctrine of "works of supererogation."]  19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God: ^aWhy askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good [To the address of the young man, viz.: "Good Master," Jesus replies, "Why callest," etc., and to his question, "What good thing," etc. Jesus replies, "Why askest," etc. The ruler using the inconsiderate, conventional language of the thoughtless, had taken an unwarrantable freedom with the word "good." Jesus shows that if his language had been used sincerely it would have committed him to a declaration of great faith, for he had addressed Jesus by a title which belongs only to God, and he had asked Jesus the question concerning that of which God alone was fitted to speak. As the ruler had not used this language sincerely Jesus challenged his words. The challenge showed the ruler that he had unwittingly confessed the divinity of Jesus, and thus startled him into a consideration of the marvelous fact which his own mouth had stated. This is done because the young man would need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to endure the test to which he was about to be subjected -- 1Jo 5:5.] but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. [By referring the ruler to the commandments, Jesus not only answered the question as to obtaining life, but he emphasized the confession of his divinity contained in the question, "Why askest," etc. God, who knows what is good, had revealed that good in the commandments which he had given. Yet the ruler had asked Jesus to be wise above God's revelation, and to propound a law or rule of goodness in addition to that already given, and of such a nature as to more fully insure the attainment of life by obeying it. The ruler's question reveals that common weakness in man which prompts him to look to his fellow-men for religious and moral instruction; forgetting that only God can propound the absolute standards of goodness. We should note, too, that the young man, being under the law given through Moses, was bidden to attain life by keeping the law. After the death of Christ a new law [544] was given. Had the man waited until that time, he would have been directed to this new law, and obedience to it would have been required. Compare Act 2:37, Act 2:38, 2Th 1:8, et al.]  18 He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said,  ^c20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot commit adultery, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot kill, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot steal, Do {^aThou shalt} cnot bear false witness, ^bDo not defraud,  ^a19 Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [The ruler still sought for some prominent commandment, but was referred to the last six of the Decalogue, these being at that time more frequently violated than the first four. For the last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," Jesus substitutes its equivalent, "Do not defraud," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," the last being a summary of all the six -- Rom 13:9.]  ^b20 And he  ^a20 The young man saith {bsaid} unto him, Teacher, ^cAll these things have I observed from my youth up. awhat lack I yet? [He had kept these commandments as far as he knew his heart and as far as he understood their import.]  ^b21 And Jesus cwhen he heard it, blooking upon him [gazing earnestly and searchingly at him] loved him ["agapan." See Jam 2:10], go, sell that which thou hast, csell all bwhatsoever thou hast, cand distribute {bgive} cunto {ato} the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. [The command to sell all is not a general one, but a special precept needed in this case, 1. To dispel the ruler's self-deception. On the negative side his character was good, but on the positive it was deficient. He had done his neighbor no harm, but he had also done him very little good. 2. To show impartiality. The invitation of Jesus shows that the ruler desired to be in some manner a disciple, and hence he is subjected to the same [545] test which the other disciples had accepted, and of which Peter soon after speaks. Paul also was rich in self-righteousness like this man, but cheerfully sacrificed all, that he might follow Christ (Phi 3:6-9). Moreover, the reference to treasure in heaven and the invitation to follow Christ tested the ruler's obedience to the first four commandments of the Decalogue as condensed in the great summary or first commandment. (Mat 22:37, Mat 22:38.) Though the ruler perhaps did not fully realize it, those who heard the conversation must afterwards have been impressed with the great truth that the ruler was called upon to make his choice whether he would love Christ or the world, whether he would serve God or mammon. The whole scene forms an illustration of the doctrine expressed by Paul, that by the law can no flesh be justified (Rom 3:20), for perfection is required of those who approach God along that pathway; those, therefore, who have done all, still need Christ to lead them.]  ^a22 But when the young man heard that saying, {cthese things} bhis countenance fell at the saying, che became exceeding sorrowful; band he went away sorrowful: cfor he was very rich. bhe was one that had great possessions. [He was not offended at the extravagance of Jesus' demands, for he was not one of the most hardened of the rich. He belonged to that class which hold Christ and their wealth in nearly an even balance. The narrative shows us how uncompromisingly Jesus held to principle. Though the ruler was sorry to turn away, and though Jesus loved him, yet the Lord did not modify his demand by a hair's-breadth to gain an influential disciple.]  ^c24 And Jesus seeing him blooked round about, and saith {asaid} unto his disciples, ^bHow hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! ^aVerily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [1Ti 6:9, 1Ti 6:10, 1Ti 6:17-19. It should be remembered that Judas heard these words only a few days before he sold his Lord.]  ^b24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in [546] riches to enter into the kingdom of God! [The possession and use of riches is permitted to the Christian, but their possession becomes a sin when the one who owns them comes to trust in them or in any way suffers them to interfere with his duties toward or relations to God.]  ^a24 And again I say unto you,  ^c25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in {bto go} through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. [The needle's eye here is that of the literal needle, and the expression was a proverbial one to indicate that which was absolutely impossible. Lord George Nugent (1845-6) introduced the explanation that Jesus referred to the two gates of a city, the large one for beast of burden, and the small one for foot-passengers. This smaller one is now called "The Needle's Eye," but there is no evidence whatever that it was so called in our Saviour's time. In fact, as Canon Farrar observes, we have every reason to believe that this smaller gate received its name in late years because of the efforts of those who were endeavoring to soften this saying of Jesus.]  ^a25 And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly,  ^c26 And they that heard it said, {bsaying} unto him, ^aWho then {^bThen who} can be saved?  ^a26 And Jesus blooking upon them saith, {^c27 But he said,} ^bWith men this is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God. ^cThe things which are impossible with men aree possible with God. [The Jews were accustomed to look upon the possession of riches as an evidence of divine favor, and the heads of the apostles were filled with visions of the riches and honors which they would enjoy when Jesus set up his kingdom. No wonder, then, that they were amazed to find that it was impossible for a rich man to enter that kingdom, and that, moreover and worse than all, riches appeared to exclude from salvation itself: that even this virtuous rich man, this paragon of excellence, could not have eternal life because he clung to his riches. But they were comforted by the assurance of Jesus that though the salvation of some men might present more difficulties than the salvation of others [547] -- might, as it were, require a miracle where others only required simple means, yet the gracious, mighty God might still be trusted to overcome the obstacles. It is impossible for any man to save himself, so that in every case of salvation God is called upon to assist man in accomplishing the impossible. God can so work upon the rich man's heart as to make him a dispenser of blessings.]  ^a27 Then answered Peter  ^c28 And bbegan to say unto him, {aand said unto him,} ^bLo, we have left all, {cour own,} band have followed thee. awhat then shall we have? [The negative conduct of the rich man reminded the disciples of their own positive conduct when confronted with a similar crisis (Luk 5:11), and the "all" which they had left was by no means contemptible, though perhaps none of them could have been said to have held great possessions. The mention of treasure in heaven, therefore, set Peter to wondering what manner of return would be made to them to compensate them for their sacrifice.]  28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [By the term "regeneration," Jesus in this case means the period in which the process of regenerating men would be in progress; i. e., the period of the mediatorial reign. After his ascension Jesus sat upon his throne (Act 2:33-35, Heb 1:13, Mat 25:31, 1Co 15:24-28). And on the day of Pentecost next following, he began this process of regeneration. Having enthroned himself, Jesus enthroned the apostles also, not as kings but as judges, having jurisdiction over all questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom. During their personal ministry, they judged in person; and since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them, but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges with the known approval of all, are the judgments of the entire bench. Moreover, the passage must be construed metaphorically, for the apostles are [548] judges in the church of Christ -- the true Israel -- and not over the literal twelve tribes of Jacob. And again, the twelve who then heard Jesus speak were not all enthroned, Judas having fallen from his position before the day of enthronement, and Matthias and Paul were afterwards added to the group. Jesus here causes the number of the judges to correspond to the number of the tribes, to indicate that there will be a sufficiency of judgment commensurate to the need.]  29 And every one {^bThere is no man that} ahath left houses, {bhouse,} cor wife, or brethren, bor sisters, or mother, or father, cor parents, bor children, or lands, for my sake, {amy name's sake,} band for the gospel's sake, cfor the kingdom of God's sake,  30 who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in the world to come eternal life.  ^b30 but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come ashall inherit eternal life. [The rewards of Christian self-denial are here divided into two parts -- the temporal and the eternal. The earthly joys -- the rewards "in this time" -- shall outweigh the sacrifices made for the kingdom. The return, of course, will not be in kind, houses for house, and fathers for father, etc., but spiritual relationships and blessings which compensate abundantly for whatever has been resigned (Mat 12:49, 1Ti 4:8). But these joys shall be mingled with the bitterness of persecution, for no pleasure is perfected in this world, but only in the inheritance which lies beyond -- 1Pe 1:4.]  30 But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last.  ^b31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. [The promise of large recompense which Jesus had just given was apt to tempt some to labor not for love, but for the rewards which might be reaped thereby. Jesus corrects this spirit by the statement, and the parable that follows which illustrates it, and which ends with the same sentiment. See Lev 19:13, Deu 24:15], the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward [his overseer], Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. [Thus following the order indicated by Mar 7:22, 1Sa 18:9, Pro 23:6-8, Pro 28:22, Deu 15:9). The lord had done no wrong to those who had labored longest, for he had paid them what they had bargained for and earned. If he chose to be generous with those whose misfortune had prevented them from being hired earlier in the day, no one had any just cause to murmur.]  16 So the last shall be first, and the first last [The meaning of this parable has often been misunderstood by those who fail to note the maxim with which Jesus begins and ends it. This maxim acts as a safeguard in the interpretation of it; the parable also in turn guards against misunderstanding the maxim. The maxim can not be applied to Judas; for, though he then stood high in honor and afterwards fell into disgrace, yet he stands outside the pale of the maxim as interpreted by the parable, for in the parable both the first and the last were received and rewarded by their master, while Judas was rejected of Christ and received no reward. The term "last," therefore, must be applied to those who were included among the accepted laborers, and not those who were excluded from that class. In the parable, the denarius or shilling stands for the gift of [551] eternal life. The vineyard represents the Lord's field of work in the world. The evening is the close of the Christian dispensation, and the coming of Christ to judgment. The parable as it unfolds and develops suggests that in no case was the reward earned by the inherent merits and toil of the laborers, but was rather bestowed because of a desire on the part of the householder to that effect, just as eternal life is bestowed, not by merit, but by covenant grace (Rom 2:6, Rom 2:7, Rom 4:3-5, Rom 5:16-21). The main object of the parable is to show that longer labor does not necessarily, as the apostles and others might think, establish a claim to higher reward. Degrees of difference there no doubt will be, but they form no account in the general covenant of grace in which the one great gift is offered to us all. As the gift can be no less than eternal life, there must of necessity be a difference in the ratio of service which is rendered for it, since it will be bestowed on the octogenarian and the child, upon Paul who made good the confession of his faith through years of toil, and the dying thief who passed to his reward while his voice of confession was, as it were, still ringing in the ears of those who heard it (1Co 15:8-11, 2Ti 4:6-9). The murmuring and envy of those who had labored longest is merely part of the parabolic drapery, introduced to bring out the answer of the householder, and to make plain the point to be illustrated. There will be no envy among those who inherit eternal life. By thus speaking of the envy, however, and showing how ineffectual it was, Jesus warns us to be prepared not to cherish it. The parable is not intended to teach that the characters of men will be exactly similar in the world to come. Paul will not be Peter, nor will Martin Luther be identical with Hugh Latimer and John Knox. God may award eternal life to the character which we are forming, but we should be careful what kind of character we bring to receive the gift. The lesson is that works are valued qualitatively and not quantitatively. Nor may the parable be rightly used to encourage hope in death-bed repentance. It certainly does teach that, however little the labor which a man does in the Lord's vineyard, he will receive the final reward if only he [552] be really in the vineyard; that is, if he be really a child of God. But whether a man who repents on his death-bed actually becomes a child of God is a different question, and is not touched by the parable. Certainly the eleventh-hour laborer who had stood idle all day only because no man had hired him, and who came into the vineyard as soon as he was called, can not represent the man who has been called by the gospel every hour of his life, but has rejected every call until his sun has sunk so low that he knows he can do but little work when he comes. In order to represent this class of sinners, the eleventh-hour men should have been invited early in the morning, and should have replied, "No, it is too early; we will not go now." Then they should have been invited at the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours, and should have made some equally frivolous excuse each time, then, finally, at the eleventh hour, they should have said, "Well, as you pay a man just the same for an hour's work as for a day's work, and as we are very anxious to get your money, we believe we will now go." Had they acted thus, it is not likely that they would have found the vineyard gates open to them at all. Yet such is the sharp practice which some men attempt in dealing with God.]

[FFG 543-553]

McGarvey: Luk 18:31-34

CI.
FORETELLING HIS PASSION. REBUKING AMBITION.
(Peræa, or Judæa, near the Jordan.)
^aMATT. XX. 17-28; ^bMARK X. 32-45; ^cLUKE XVIII. 31-34.

   ^b32 And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem [Dean Mansel sees in these words an evidence that Jesus had just crossed the Jordan and was beginning the actual ascent up to Jerusalem. If so, he was in Judæa. But such a construction strains the language. Jesus had been going up to Jerusalem ever since he started in Galilee, and he may now have still be in Peræa. The parable of the vineyard which [553] closed the preceding section was likely to have been spoken before he crossed the Jordan, for Peræa abounded in vineyards]; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. [When Jesus turned his face toward Jerusalem, his disciples dropped behind and hung back. The outer circle of his disciples knew enough not to be fearful of the consequences, and the inner circle, fully acquainted with the dangers, were amazed that he should dare to go thither. A short while before this they had despaired of his life when he had proposed to go even into Judæa (Joh 11:7-16), and his going at that time had not bettered the situation, but had, on the contrary, greatly increased the enmity and danger (Joh 11:47-57). Notwithstanding all this, Jesus was now on his way to Jerusalem itself, and was speaking no reassuring word as he formerly had done -- Joh 11:9, Joh 11:10.]  ^a17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took bagain cunto him athe twelve disciples apart [He separated them from the throng of pilgrims on the way to the Passover, and from the outer circle of the disciples, for it was not expedient that these should hear what he was about to reveal concerning his death. Such a revelation might have spurred his Galilæan friends to resist his arrest, and might have resulted in riot and bloodshed], band began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him, aand on the way he said unto them,  18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and bthe ascribes; and they shall condemn him to death,  19 and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify:  ^b34 and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and three days he shall rise again. {aand the third day he shall be raised up.} cand all the things that are written through the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man.  32 For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and shamefully treated, and spit upon:  33 and they shall scourge and kill him: [554] and the third day he shall rise again. [This was the third and by far the clearest and most circumstantial prophecy concerning his death. For the other two see Mat 26:66) and forced Pilate to confirm the sentence (Luk 23:24). Since the evangelists honestly record an actual prediction, we may well pause to note how remarkable it is in that it gives seven details as follows: 1. Delivery or betrayal by Judas. 2. Condemnation. 3. Delivery to the Gentiles. 4. Mocking and the manner of it. 5. Scourging. 6. Death by crucifixion. 7. Resurrection on the third day. The announcement of these sufferings was made for the purpose of checking any materialistic hopes which the apostles might entertain as to the glories, honors, and offices of the Messianic reign. That such hopes were present is shown by the ambitious request which immediately follows. Moreover, to prepare them that they might not be crushed either by the announcement or the accomplishment of his death he gives them the clear promise of his resurrection.]  34 And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said. [So fixed and ineradicable was their false conception of the Messianic reign that they could not believe that what Jesus said could be literally true (Mat 16:22). Only later did the full significance of his saying dawn upon them -- Joh 16-14:26.]  ^b35 And there  ^a20 Then came {bcome} near unto him athe mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, ^bJames and John, aworshipping him, [giving him homage as a coming ruler, not worshiping him as a divine being], and asking a certain thing of him. bsaying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee. [Zebedee's wife was named was Salome. See note on 1Ki 2:19, 1Ki 2:20. They asked [555] through their mother, thinking that Jesus would be more likely to favor her than themselves.]  ^a21 And he said unto her, {bthem,} ^aWhat wouldest thou? ^bWhat would ye that I should do for you? [Though Jesus knew what they wished, he required them to state it plainly and specifically, that their self-seeking might be clearly exposed and properly rebuked.] ^aShe saith unto him, Command that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and on on thy left hand, in thy kingdom.  ^b37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand, in thy glory. [In the previous section Jesus had spoken about the thrones to be occupied by the apostles. The sons of Zebedee, presuming on their high standing among the apostles, and their near relationship to Jesus, were emboldened to ask for special seats of honor among the promised thrones -- the seats to the right and left of the sovereign being next to his in dignity and consideration; thus Josephus represents Saul as seated with Jonathan on his right hand and Abner on his left. The terms "kingdom" and "glory" are here used synonymously. Despite the fact that Jesus was now telling them plainly of his death, these apostles could not rid their minds of the delusion that he was about to ascend the earthly throne of David.]  ^a22 But Jesus answered and said, bunto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I drink? {athat I am about to drink?} bor to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? [The word "cup" among the Hebrews meant a portion assigned (Psa 16:5, Psa 23:5), whether of pleasure or of sorrow. But the idea of sorrow usually predominated (Mat 26:39, Mat 26:42, Rev 14:10, Rev 16:19, Rev 18:6, Psa 75:8, Isa 51:17, Jer 25:15). To be baptized with suffering means to be overwhelmed with it, a metaphorical use of the word arising from the fact that it means an immersion. This metaphorical use of baptism aids us to understand the meaning of that word, for neither sprinkling nor pouring could have suggested the overpowering force which the metaphor implies. Alford distinguishes [556] between cup and baptism, making the former refer to inward spiritual suffering, and the latter to outer persecution and trial.]  39 And they said {asay} unto him, We are able. ^bAnd Jesus said {asaith} unto them, My {^bThe} cup that I drink aindeed ye shall drink: band with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized [They probably thought that Jesus referred to some battle or conflict which would attend the ushering in of the kingdom, and as they were not wanting in physical courage, they were ready enough to pledge themselves to endure it. They spoke with unwarranted self-confidence, but Jesus rebuked them very gently, as he foreknew what suffering they would indeed endure. James was the first apostolic martyr (Act 12:2), and John's spirit was sorely troubled with the conflict of error, as his epistles show, and his last days were darkened by the shadow of persecution -- Rev 1:9]:  40 but to sit on my right hand or {aand} on my left hand, is not mine to give; bbut it is for them for whom it hath been prepared. aof my Father. [Future rewards are indeed meted out by the hand of Christ (2Ti 4:8, Rev 2:10, Rev 2:17, Rev 2:26, Rev 2:28, Rev 3:12, Rev 3:21, et al.), but they are not distributed according to caprice or favoritism, but according to the will of the Father and the rules which he has established. Jesus proceeds to set forth the principles by which places of honor are obtained in his kingdom.]  24 And when the ten heard it, they were {bbegan to be} amoved with indignation concerning the two brethren. ^bJames and John  42 And {abut} Jesus called them unto him, and said {bsaith} unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over {athe rulers of} the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them.  26 Not so shall it be {^b43 But it is not so} among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister;  44 and whosoever would be first among you, ashall be your servant: bshall be servant of all. [The ten, sharing the same ambition as the two, jealously resented their efforts to take unfair advantage of [557] the Lord's known affection for them. To restore peace among them, and to correct their false views, he draws the distinction between the worldly greatness to which they aspired, and the spiritual greatness which they ought to have sought. In an earthly kingdom honor and authority measure greatness, but in Christ's kingdom it is measured by humility and service. Jesus added power to his rebuke by showing them that their spirit was not even Jewish, but altogether heathenish.]  45 For {^a28 even as} bthe Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. [He enforces this lesson by his own example in that he came to serve men and not to have them serve him. Jesus could ever refer to himself as the best example of the virtues which he taught. Since honor consists in being like the King, the highest honor consists in being most like him. The closing words state the vicarious nature of Christ's suffering as plainly as language can express it. The ransom is offered for all (1Ti 2:6), and will be efficacious for as many as accept it. The words are nearly a reproduction of the words of Isaiah -- Isa 53:12.]

[FFG 553-558]

McGarvey: Luk 18:35-43

CII.
BARTIMÆUS AND HIS COMPANION HEALED.
(At Jericho.)
^aMATT. XX. 29-34; ^bMARK X. 46-52; ^cLUKE XVIII. 35-43.

   ^c35 And it came to pass, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:  36 and hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant.  37 And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. [Jesus came from the Jordan, and was entering Jericho by its eastern gate. As the crowd following Jesus passed by, Bartimæus asked its meaning and learned of the presence of Jesus. Jesus on this last journey went in advance of the crowd, and hence he had already entered Jericho before the sounds of the following multitude roused [558] the beggar to question its meaning. Knowing that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem, he resolved to avail himself of the opportunity to be healed by him before he left the neighborhood. Not knowing how long Jesus would remain in Jericho, and not being sure of his ability to find him if he entered the city, he appears to have passed around the wall till he came to the southern gate, by which Jesus would depart on his way to Jerusalem. Here he stationed himself and waited patiently for the coming of Jesus. The persistency with which he cried when Jesus again appeared goes far to corroborate this determined preparation and fixed expectation of the beggar. While he waited at the southern gate the events narrated in Isa 64:6). In the race to win the presence of Christ on high, Christians are advised to lay aside every weight -- Heb 12:1, Heb 12:2.] cand when he was come near, ^bJesus answered him, casked him, band said, ^aWhat will ye {cwilt thou} athat I should do unto you? {bthee?}  ^a33 They say {^bAnd the blind man said} aunto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. ^cLord, ^bRabboni, that I may receive my sight. [Bartimæus had cried for mercy without specifying what mercy, and he had asked this mercy of Christ as the Messiah. The Lord therefore in his royal majesty asked Bartimæus to name the mercy, thus suggesting to him the fullness of the treasury of power and grace, to which he came. He was not to blame for this.]  ^a34 And Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes;  ^b52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; ^cReceive thy sight: thy faith hath made thee whole. [We can see in this instance what faith really is. It caused Bartimæus to cry out, to come to Jesus and to ask for sight. Thus we see that faith saves by leading to proper actions.]  43 And immediately astraightway they {che} areceived their {bhis} sight, aand followed him. bin the way. cglorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God. [Being a beggar, it would have been natural for him to hunt first for means of livelihood, but faith and gratitude prompted him to follow Jesus.] [561]

[FFG 558-561]

Lapide: Luk 18:1-43

CHAPTER 18

Ver. 1.— He spake a parable unto them to the end that. Christ had said, at the end of the last chapter, that the Apostles and the faithful should suffer persecutions, in which they should wish for His presence that they might seek and receive help from Him. He now names a remedy for all their sufferings, prayer, for He both hears them and grants what they ask, for He teaches, directs, strengthens.

Always to pray. Hence the heretics called Euchitæ wished, but without reason, to be always praying and to do no manual work. But it is written, "If any man will not work, neither let him eat" (2Th 3:10). "Always" here seems to mean sedulously, perseveringly, diligently, assiduously as in other things, and at befitting times, especially when temptation, persecution, and affliction are hard at hand. It is impossible for us to pray always and at all times. We must have a time for eating, drinking, labouring, &c. The word "always" means, therefore, not continuance but perseverance in prayer: that is, that we should set apart fit times for prayer, and not cease to pray until we have obtained what we need and what we ask for. Our Lord adds, "and not to faint" or in the Greek "be weary." The reason is that we daily meet so many difficulties and troubles that our whole lives appear to be one temptation and warfare. And as we are infirm and unable to overcome them we ought to ask help and strength from God through prayer. Thus our whole Christian life seems as it were one prayer. Again, "always," that is frequently, at the hours appointed by the Church, that we may do nothing without prayer—nothing that we do not ascribe to the glory of God. Bede says, mystically, "He prays always who works for God always;" and the Gloss, "He prays always who lives virtuously always." S. Chrysostom: "The Lord would have you to obtain by prayer that which He wishes to give you. The palace and the ears of princes are open to few. The ears of God are open to all who will." He refers to Ecclus. 35:20. So the apostle, Eph 6:18; 1Th 5:17. See what I have said on those three passages, Climachus: Gradu xxviii.: "Prayer, if we regard its nature or quality, is the familiar conversation and union of man with God, but if we consider its force and efficacy it is the conservation of the world, our reconciliation with God, the mother, at once, and daughter of tears, the propitiation of sins, the bridge of escape from temptation, the bulwark against the attacks of afflictions, the destruction of war, the office of angels, the food of all spirits-future joy, continual action, the fountain of virtues, the reconciler and authoress of divine graces." Not content, he speaks more highly, exaltedly, nobly still: "It is spiritual progress, the food of the soul, the illumination of the mind, the axe of despair, the demonstration of hope, the distinction of sorrow, the wealth of monks, the treasure of solitaries, the decreasing of anger, the mirror of religious growth, the index of our stature, the declaration of our condition, the signification of things future, the proof of the glory to come." So the Church sings of S. Cæcilia: She always bore the evangel of Christ in her bosom, and neither by day nor by night did she cease from divine conversation and prayer, and when the organs sounded Cæcilia sang to the Lord, "Cleanse thou my heart, that I may not be confounded." Valerian her husband found her on her bed praying, with an angel. By this increasing prayer she merited to be given to the angel for the preservation of her virginity, the conversion of her espoused husband Valerian, of Tiburtius and 400 others, and lastly a glorious martyrdom with them all.

Ver. 2.— Saying there was in a city a judge which feared not God. This judge was wicked, unjust, cruel, and godless, one who feared neither the vengeance of God, nor the ill-report of men, who cared nothing for his conscience or his character. For the wicked who have no fear of God are often deterred by the shame of men, from confessing those acts for which they are openly despised and considered godless and infamous. But this judge was moved by no fear of God or man, and therefore he had arrived, says Theophylact, at the summit of all wickedness.

Ver. 3.— And there was a widow in that city. Avenge me, that is, vindicate my right against my oppressor, and free my innocence; righteousness, substance, and character, which are brought to trial by my enemy who is powerful, and against whom I cannot stand. She did not ask for vengeance but only for justice, that she might be delivered from the violence of her adversary and get back her own.

Ver. 4.—And he would not for a while. Partly from his own wickedness and partly because he hoped for a great bribe from the opponent.

But afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man, i.e., Although I am unjust and without scruple or shame yet because this widow is troublesome to me, I will avenge her of her adversary, and give her back her right, lest continually (in novissimo) coming she weary me out (sugillet me). The Syriac has "omni tempore;" the Arabic "semper." Sugillo is properly to bruise the face and make it livid by blows. The Greek is ύποπιάζω. The metaphorical meaning is, firstly, to deafen the head and ears with noise, and many so understand it. The Syriac has, "Lest she continually trouble me." The Arabic, "Lest she be always coming to trouble me."  S. Augustine ( Ep. 121 to Proba ): "She moved the unjust judge by her persistence to listen to her. Not that he was influenced by justice or mercy, but he was overcome by weariness." So Bede, Euthymius, Lucas and others from the Greek. "As therefore this widow by the assiduity and importunity of her supplications conquered the judge, so do we overcome God. What fear cannot effect prayer can. Threats and the fear of punishment have not moved men to justice; but when the widow came as a suppliant, from a savage she made the judge humane. What then may we not conjecture of a beneficent God, if the widow by her prayers changed a judge who had been cruel before, into a humane one?"  S. Chrysostom adds that Christ here wishes to show that the chief strength of prayer consists in turning unjust and cruel judges to piety and mercy. Sugillare, applied from the body to the mind, means to brand with a mark, to affect with disgrace, to accuse. Although this senseless judge regarded neither God nor man, he feared for himself and his office, lest he should be deposed from his judgeship, and deprived of honour and profit; he therefore gave the widow her due.

A1legorically, S. Augustine ( Lib. ii . Quæst. Evangel. qu. 45), says, "The widow is the Church, which seems desolate until her bridegroom Christ, who now bears her griefs in secret, return from heaven to judgment."

In trope, "The widow," says Theophylact, "is the soul which has put away her former husband. He was hostile to her because she came to God. God is a judge Who fears no one, and regards not the persons of men. The widow represents every soul that is desolate and afflicted, and who prays to the judge, that is God, to be delivered from her adversary. But because it is incongruous to compare God to the unjust and wicked judge, as Euthymius rightly says, from S. Chrysostom, we should rather say that it is Christ who is here spoken of; and not in comparison but as concluding from the less to the greater. That is: If the unjust judge were overcome by the importunity of the widow to change injustice into justice, and give her her rights, how much rather should God do this, who is most just, nay who is justice itself, punishing all injustice?" So S. Augustine above—S. Chrysostom and Theophylact—as will be clearly shown on verse 7.

Vers. 6, 7.— And the Lord said, hear what the, &c. "God," says Theophylact, "is the leader, the judge and the vindicator of all righteousness." So David on Psa 34:17, "The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth." The Arabic has, "Hear what the unjust judge said; and shall not God more rightly avenge His own elect who cry to Him day and night?" So Ecclus. 35:21, 22; Rev 6:9-10, where the souls of the slain for Christ cry to God demanding vengeance. They hear from Him that they must rest yet a little while until the number of their fellow servants is completed. See what I have commented on the place.

Morally. Behold how great is the dignity, the need, and the power of prayer. The need, that by it we may be delivered from all the temptations and tribulations by which we are every where, and always, surrounded. The dignity, because by means of prayer we converse with God, as do the angels. The power, because by it we overcome all adversities and hardships. "To pray always," says S. Chrysostom (Book ii. of Prayer) "is the work of angels, who, wholly intent upon God, teach us while we pray to forget our human nature, and to have no regard to things present, but to conceive of ourselves as standing in the midst of angels, and performing the same sacrifice with them." He adds, "Satan does not venture to come too near to a soul fortified by prayer, for he fears the strength and fortitude which prayer confers. Prayer supports the soul more than food supports the body." And (Book i.), "As the sun gives light to the body, so does prayer to the soul. If it be a loss to a blind man not to see the sun, how much greater a loss is it to a Christian not to pray assiduously, nor to introduce the light of Christ into his soul by prayer! By it we attain to this end, that we cease to be mortal and of time. By nature we are mortal, but by pray and our life with God, we pass to the life immortal. For it is inevitable that he who holds communion with God, should come out superior to death and to all that is subject to corruption."

Ver. 8.— When the Son of man cometh. He comes to the universal judgment, when He will deliver His elect, whom He ordered to be always ready and eager; and to await that day patiently, preparing themselves for it by prayer and good works. For that day will be sudden and unexpected like lightning, as He Himself has said (chap. xvii. 24). Christ gives the reason why we should always pray, and persevere in prayer; because from His long absence, faith will fail even in many who believe, so that they will either lose all faith or believe very feebly, scarcely thinking that He will return at all. Secondly, Christ here gives the reason, why many are not heard in prayer. Their faith begins to fail and they do not continue steadfast in prayer, nor await the coming of the Lord with patience as they ought.

Thirdly, Theophylact says, "He rightly connected His words on prayer with those on faith, for the base and foundation of all prayer is faith. He declared at the same time that few would pray, for faith would be found in few."

Christ says this to add a fresh incentive to unceasing prayer, for by degrees faith is failing more and more, and offences and persecutions are therefore increasing.

Shall He find faith— perfect faith, that is; faith formed by certain confidence (fiducia) and love. "This," says S. Augustine ( tract xxxvi), "is scarcely found on earth, for the Church of the faithful is full of imperfect faith, and is, as it were, half dead." Christ Him-self explains it so, S. Mat 24:12.

This will happen more especially; at the end of the world before the coming of Christ to judgment, when men shall eat and drink themselves over to pleasure and think not of the judgment, as Christ said, Luk 17:27; and S. Peter, 2Pe 3:3. That is, Christians will deny that He is coming to judgment, even when that coming is near at hand (2Peter 3:4). As if they had said, "Nature has made the world: the same Nature continues its course in the same tenor, and always will continue it. There is no God to destroy it: no Deity to judge us and our works, and to punish them."

Ver. 9.— And He spake also this parable unto certain that trusted in themselves. Which, however, might truly happen, nay often has happened, so that it may be historical. The introduction to the parable shows its scope and the design of its introduction, namely, to rebuke the supremacy of the Pharisees, and their boasting and contempt of other men.

In the former parable Christ taught one condition of prayer-perseverance. In this He teaches another—humility, for the humble prayer is heard by God, the proud one is rejected, as Ecclus. xxxv. 21. See what has been said thereon. The Fathers thus connect these words with the preceding verse, that is with faith.  S. Augustine ( Serm. xxxvi.), on the words of the Lord that faith is not of the proud but of the humble, says, "Christ subjoins a parable on humility as opposed to pride:" Theophylact, "Because pride more than other feelings vexes the minds of men, He very frequently speaks of it." The Gloss, "That no one, from what has been said, may flatter himself on his knowledge, or his confession of faith," Christ shows that our works, and not our professions, will be judged by God, and amongst these He chiefly notes humility.

Ver. 10.— Two men went up. The one a Pharisee, with the pharisaical pride, puffed up and haughty. The other a publican, that is a sinner, and deprecating pardon. Publicans were held infamous by the Jews, nay, were termed Parisim—that is, public robbers, for, as Suidas says, from Jamblichus, "The life of a publican was one of open violence, on account of their exactions and unjust tribute, their unpunished robberies, their unprincipled conduct in business, and their unblushing usury."

Ver. 11.— The Pharisee stood and prayed thus within himself. The Jews prayed partly kneeling and partly standing, when their prayer was longer than usual—sacrifice or psalmody. For in the temple there was no place to sit, except for the High Priest and king alone, as I have showed on Eze 46:2. The word "standing" is added here to show the pride of the Pharisee; he raised his head to heaven as if to dispute with God, or to claim and exact the measure of his merits. "For a humble man," as Theophylact says, "is humble of aspect, but this Pharisee is seen to be proud both by his habit and bearing." The Arabic reads, "The Pharisee stood praying." The Pharisee, therefore, stood proudly. 1. As being secure and confident in his own merits, and as calling God to judgment. 2. He stood first, or among the first, near the altar. 3. He stood with his neck and face erect and fixed on heaven, as if heaven were his debtor. The publican, however, stood 1. Trembling and fearful, confessing his sins. 2. Afar off, at a distance from the altar, the last, or among the last. 3.With his face cast down towards the ground, not venturing to look up to heaven, showing his fear and penitence by the place in which he stood and by his appearance. Hence Bede says, allegorically, "The Pharisee is the people of the Jews, exalting their merits by the righteousness of the law. The publican is the Gentile confessing his sin apud se." The apud se of the Pharisee is referred in the Syriac to "standing," standing apud se— relying on himself, trusting to himself, insisting on his own merits and dwelling on them. The Syriac reads, "serveto." Our version more rightly connects the apud se with "orabat." He prayed with himself in his soul and mind, for the pride in his heart so puffed him up, that he would not pray or speak but with himself—he did not deign to do so before others. He prayed like the Pharisees outwardly, in a grave inflated pompous tone. Hence S. Basil on Isaiah ii. says, "He prayed a apud se not apud Deum— for he acted like himself when he fell into the sin of pride."

He prayed—In his own way, for he did not pray to God, but he praised himself. S. Augustine ( serm. xxxvi) on the words of the Lord according to S. Luke: "What did he ask of God? Seek from his own words. We find nothing. He went up to pray; he would not ask of God, but preferred to please himself, and heap insults on the devout publican as well."

I thank Thee. "He is not blamed," said S. Augustine ( serm. xxxvi.), "because he gave thanks, but because he wished for nothing to be given to him. Whoever says 'I justify myself,' is worse than the Pharisee who proudly called himself righteous, but who also gave thanks to God."

"He gave God thanks," says S. Bernard ( de Grad. Humil.), "not because he was good, but because he was alone: and not so much for the good which he had himself, as for the evil which he saw in others. He had not cast out the beam from his own eye, and he recounts the motes in his brothers' eyes. For he says 'unjust'—'extortioners.'"

I am not as other men. He should at least have said "as many others," for what does "other" mean, but all men except himself? "I," he said, "am righteous, the rest are sinners;" that is, I alone am righteous, all the rest are wicked. The proud man, to exalt himself the more, especially despises and depreciates others.

S. Gregory ( lib. xxiii . Moral. c. 7) describes four species of pride in this Pharisee. The first is, when men think that they have good, e.g., virtue a se. The second, when they ascribe this to their own merits. The third, when they think that they have that which they have not. The fourth, when they wish to be singular, and therefore despise and speak evil of others. The three last of these are clearly shown in the proud and false righteousness of this Pharisee. The first appeared in him because he ascribed his righteousness, not to God but to his own works, and said of God, with the Pagan, "Let God give me strength, let Him give me wealth, I will order my mind myself." "If, in fine," says Theophylact, "he had believed that it was the gift of God that he had graces not his own (aliena), he would not have held other men in contempt, remembering, that even he himself was naked as far as regards his own virtue."

Even as this publican.— "See," says an Interlineator on S. Augustine, "how the vicinity of this publican was the occasion of greater pride to the Pharisee." The Syriac has, "Nor as this publican," supply, "am I a public sinner." Of his pride, he judges rashly and falsely that the publican was wicked, when in truth he was a penitent and justified. The Pharisee sinned therefore, 1. In judging rashly; 2. In despising the publican; 3. In reviling and insulting him, for he casts up to the publican his sins.  S. Chrysostom in the Catena : "All human nature did not satisfy his contempt, but he attacked this publican. Whoever reproaches others, commits many offences. 1. He makes the other worse, for if he is a sinner he who is rebuked rejoices to find a partner in his wickedness; if righteous, he thinks highly of himself. 2. He harms the Church; for his hearers revile it. 3. He causes God to be blasphemed. 4. He makes the other more shameless, and engenders hate towards his rebuker. 5. He renders himself obnoxious to punishment.

S. Bernard ( de Gradib. Humil.): "The Pharisee, while rejoicing in himself, insults other men beyond measure. David does otherwise. He says, 'All men, are liars.' He excepted no one, lest he should deceive him; for he knew that all have sinned, and have need of the glory of God. The Pharisee deceived himself alone, when he excepted himself from the common reproach, lest he should be excepted from mercy. The Pharisee makes light of mercy while he dissembles his misery. The Prophet says, as well of himself as of all others, 'All men are liars.' The Pharisee admits it of all men but himself. 'I am not,' he said, 'as other men.'"

I fast thrice in the week. In Sabbato. This is 'by synecdoche, the chief day of the week being put for the whole week, which is called sabbatum. Hence the Arabic, "I fast two days in every week." Theophylact says that "the Pharisees fasted on the second and fifth days;" but he gives no authority for it.

I give tithes of all that I possess. Not only of the first-fruits which the law compels, but, for my desire for a higher and a willing service, I give tithes of all things whatever, as flesh, eggs, fish, to which I am not bound. This Pharisee had branded other men as if they were adulterers and unjust, while he himself alone was pure and just. He would prove himself pure by his fasts, which are the mother of purity, and to be just by his giving tithes of everything. "As regards impurity," says Theophylact, "he makes boast of his fasting, for from luxury comes wantonness. Against usury and injustice he brings forward his giving tithes of every thing that he possessed. 'So far am I,' he said, 'from usury and unfair dealing, that I put aside what is my own."' So S. Ephrem, in Catena.

Morally. S. Gregory here observes ( Homily vii . on Ezekiel ): "The Pharisee, who published his fasts and gave tithes, thanked God, as if his guardianship were on the watch throughout the circuit of his whole city; but because he had not noticed one opening, that of pride in himself, there the enemy took possession of him. While therefore he was silent on what he ought to have declared, he unhappily spoke of that on which he should have held his peace; and through his pride, his merits, if he had any, were diminished, for while he held humility in contempt, he augmented his sins."

Ver. 13.— And the publican, standing afar off. The publican did not resent the insult offered by the Pharisee, nay, he admitted it, confessed it, and sought pardon for it with patience. He was, therefore justified before the Pharisee.  S. Chrysostom, in his Homily on David and Saul, says, "The publican accepted the disgrace and washed it out. He acknowledged his sins, and laid them down. This accusation was to be his remission, and his enemy was changed involuntarily into his benefactor. How many labours ought that publican to have undergone, fasting, sleeping on the ground, watching, bestowing his goods on the poor, sitting long in sackcloth and ashes, that so he might lay aside his sins? But when he did none of these things, by a mere word he was rid of all his sin; and the insults and reproaches of the Pharisee, which seemed to overwhelm him with contumely, bought him a crown of righteousness, and that without toil, without labour, and without long delay."

Standing afar off. Afar from the altar and the holy place, for he thought himself unworthy of these from his sins. He was not so very far off though, but the Pharisee was able to point to him, and he to hear the Pharisee.

He would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven. He dared not, from modesty, humility, and reverence. He would not so much as lift his eyes, as if thinking himself unworthy to look to that heaven which was the abode of the glorious God, who was offended at sins. Wherefore with eyes cast down to the ground, he humbled himself. So S. Cyril in the Catena.

S. Theophylact gives the cause of his thinking himself unworthy of the heavenly vision; and S. Augustine: "That he might be looked upon by God, he looked not upon himself. He dared not look up. Conscience weighed him down. Hope lifted him up. Again he showed by his posture that he had sinned against the Heavenly Host, that is against the Angels whose inspirations he had resisted; against the Saints, whose prayers he had made of no avail; against God Himself, whose commandments he had broken."

But he smote on his breast. His breast, in which was his heart, that is his will, which is its own cause and origin of all sins. "He struck and beat it," says Euthymius, "as if to exact punishment from it: and to show that because of it he was worthy himself of stripes." The beating of the breast is a sign of penitence and a contrite heart. Hence this was formerly the act of one who confessed and was penitent, and it is so still. To beat the offending breast is both an ancient and modern custom of Christians.  S. Augustine in his 8th Sermon "On the Words of the Lord according to S. Matt.," says, "At this 'Confiteor' you beat your breasts. What is this but to confess what is lying hid in them, and by a visible blow to chastise an invisible sin? Why do you do this, but that you hear 'Confiteor tibi Pater.' Therefore our accusation of ourselves in our confession is the praising of God. For we confess ourselves to be sinners, but God to be without sin, holy and good. We therefore ask pardon of Him. The Pharisee, from his proud and unreal prayer, was the more defiled with sin. The publican was more righteous than the Pharisee, not directly and simply, but indirectly and negatively; for indeed he was righteous, but the Pharisee was unrighteous, and he returned to his house even more so than he came out." "For," says Euthymius, "he who so condemned himself was justified by God;" and S. Paulinus ( Eph. lviii.), "What righteousness built up, that pride pulled down. The publican, from a contrite heart, was accepted as an accuser of himself, and obtained pardon from his confession of sins, from the degree of his humility; that holy Pharisee (holy as the Jews are holy) bearing away the pack-load of his sins from his boast of holiness." S. Bernard ( serm iii . de Annunc.): "The Pharisee returned empty because he pretended to be full. The publican, who emptied himself, and took pains to show that he was an empty vessel, carried away the greater grace."

"Humility," says S. Chrysostom, "brought the thief into Paradise before the Apostles. But if humility has such power when close upon the offence, what can it not do when united to righteousness? And if pride, united to righteousness, can depress, what will it do when united to sin? Better are sins with humility than innocence with pride," says Optatus. ( Cont. Donat. B. ii.)

Ver. 15 . — And they brought unto Him also infants, that He should touch them. And by touching might bless them. Christ confirms the doctrine of humility by His own example. "Infants," says the Gloss, "are brought to the Master of Humility, that innocence and the age of simplicity might be shown to belong to grace."

Ver. 16 . — Suffer the little children to come unto Me. The Arabic: For the kingdom of God is theirs who are like them"—not in infancy but in innocence, simplicity, humility. So Bede. "He does not say theirs, but such as they, meaning their manner of life, not their age." And S. Ambrose: "It is not childhood, but the goodness of that simplicity which emulates child-like innocence, that is meant; for it is not a virtue not to be able to sin, but not to will to do so." I have explained the rest on Mat 19:13 and following.

Ver. 35.— And it came to pass as He, &c. Of this blind man restored to sight I have treated. Mat 20:30.

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Luk 18:18

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:19

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:20

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:21

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:22

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:23

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:24

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:25

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:26

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:27

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:28

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:29

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:30

MATTHEW 19:16-30 (cf. Mark 10:17-31 ; Luke 18:18-30 )—If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?

PROBLEM: The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God ( Mark 2:8-10 ; John 8:58 ; 10:30 ), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God ( John 20:28-29 ). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?

SOLUTION: Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”

The young man did not realize the implications of what he was saying. Thus Jesus was forcing him to a very uncomfortable dilemma. Either Jesus was good and God, or else He was bad and man. A good God or a bad man, but not merely a good man. Those are the real alternatives with regard to Christ. For no good man would claim to be God when he was not. The liberal Christ, who was only a good moral teacher but not God, is a figment of human imagination.   

LUKE 18:18-30 —If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?

(See discussion on Matt. 19:16-30 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:35

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:36

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:37

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:38

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:39

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:40

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:41

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:42

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Critics Ask: Luk 18:43

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?

PROBLEM: Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed ( 10:46 ). This appears to be a clear contradiction.

SOLUTION: Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one ( Matt. 8:28-34 ), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46 ), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.   

MATTHEW 20:29-34 (cf. Mark 10:46-52 ; Luke 18:35-43 )—Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?

PROBLEM: According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho ( 18:35 ), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.

SOLUTION: Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” ( Luke 18:35 ) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38-39 ). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43 ) the very next verse ( 19:1 ) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”

Others respond by noting there were two Jerichos, the old and the new, so that as He went out of one He came into the other.

Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city ( Matt. 20:29 ; Mark 10:46 ). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city ( 18:36 ), but both Matthew ( 20:29 ) and Mark ( 10:46 ) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.   

LUKE 18:35-43 —Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?

(See comments on Matt. 20:29-34 .)   

Evidence: Luk 18:20

Jesus gave him five " horizontal" Commandments having to do with his fellow man. When he said that he had kept them, Jesus then used the First of the Ten Commandments to show this man that his god was his money, and you cannot serve God and money.

Evidence: Luk 18:21

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIONS

" What if someone says they’ve never lied, stolen, lusted, blasphemed—if they deny having any sin at all?"

Ask the person if he has kept the First of the Ten Commandments. Has he always loved God above all else—with all of his heart, soul, mind, and strength ( Mar 12:30 )? If he says that he has, gently say, " The Bible says that ‘there is none that seeks after God’ ( Rom 3:11 ). Nobody (except Jesus Christ) has kept the First of the Ten Commandments. One of you is lying—either you or God—and the Bible says that it is impossible for God to lie" ( Heb 6:18 ; Tit 1:2 ).

Evidence: Luk 18:24

There is hope for the rich: see Luke 19:2 .

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

By Way of Introduction

There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the International and Critical Commentary , in the Introduction to Ragg’s volume on Luke’s Gospel in the Westminster Commentaries , in the Introduction to Easton’s Gospel According to St. Luke , Hayes’ Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , Ramsay’s Luke the Physician , Harnack’s Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake’s Beginnings of Christianity , Carpenter’s Christianity According to St. Luke , Cadbury’s The Making of Luke-Acts , McLachlan’s St. Luke: The Man and His Work , Robertson’s Luke the Historian in the Light of Research , to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

The Same Author for Gospel and Acts

The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as " the first treatise," ton prōton logon , (Act_1:1) and both are addressed to Theophilus (Luk_1:3; Act_1:1). He speaks of himself in both books as " me" ( kamoi , Luk_1:3) and I made ( epoiēsamēn , Act_1:1). He refers to himself with others as " we" and " us" as in Act_16:10, the " we" sections of Acts. The unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the author’s statement. It is quite possible that the formal Introduction to the Gospel (Luk_1:1-4) was intended to apply to the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury, who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: " In my study of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating axiom." He adds: " They are not merely two independent writings from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an integral part of the author’s original plan and purpose."

The Author of Acts a Companion of Paul

The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of " we" and " us" in Act_16:10 and from Act_20:6 to the end of chapter Acts 28 shows it beyond controversy if the same man wrote the " we" sections and the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with painstaking detail in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels and in his volume The Acts of the Apostles and in his Luke the Physician .

This Companion of Paul A Physician

The argument for this position lies in the use of medical terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke proves that the author of both Gospel and Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting. Harnack and Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae have picked out the most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his Style and Literary Method of Luke denies that Luke uses Greek medical words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls Luke " the beloved physician" ( ho iatros ho agapētos , Col_4:14), " my beloved physician." Together they worked in the Island of Malta (Act_28:8-10) where many were healed and Luke shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who " came and were healed ( etherapeuonto ) who also honoured us with many honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of healing ( iasato ), while Luke practised his medical art also. Other notes of the physician’s interest will be indicated in the discussion of details like his omitting Mark’s apparent discredit of physicians (Mar_5:26) by a milder and more general statement of a chronic case (Luk_8:43).

This Companion and Author Luke

All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel. Even Renan says: " There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

A Sketch of Luke

His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of Lukios and Lukanos . Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title Kata Lukanon . Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a " we" passage after Act_11:27 which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul’s converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

The Date of the Gospel

There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in Act_1:1. Unfortunately the precise date of both termini is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus and so is after a.d. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luk_21:20.), which is interpreted as a prophecy post eventum instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul’s later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about a.d. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in Luk_1:1-4. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between a.d. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark’s Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark’s Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by a.d. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before a.d. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as a.d. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae , by Sanday and others in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem , by Streeter in his The Four Gospels , by Hayes in his The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts , by Harnack in his Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels , by Stanton in his The Gospels as Historical Documents , and by many others. My own views are given at length in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel and in Luke the Historian in the Light of Research .

The Sources of the Gospel

In his Preface or Prologue (Luk_1:1-4) the author tells us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now generally accepted that we know two of his written sources, Mark’s Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew, Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable that this source was more extensive than just the portions used by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But there is a large portion of Luke’s Gospel which is different from Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is little doubt that Luke had another document for the material peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several others. He spoke of " many." This applies especially to chapters 9 to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from " eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of such data and used them along with the written sources at his command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2 which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? shows the likelihood of Luke’s contact with Mary or her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the most beautiful book in the world.

The Character of the Book

Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian’s method of research, with a physician’s care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John’s Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke’s Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark’s is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew’s for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul’s Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows ( Intr. to Lit. of the N.T. , p. 281). The Prologue is in literary Koiné and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite Luk_2:1-7 as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament . The main feature of this proof appears also in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research . So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

JFB: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10-11 --in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him--we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Act 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Act 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:11). EUSEBIUS makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; GREGORY NAZIANZEN alone affirming that he died a martyr.

The time and place of the publication of his Gospel are alike uncertain. But we can approximate to it. It must at any rate have been issued before the Acts, for there the 'Gospel' is expressly referred to as the same author's "former treatise" (Act 1:1). Now the Book of the Acts was not published for two whole years after Paul's arrival as a prisoner at Rome, for it concludes with a reference to this period; but probably it was published soon after that, which would appear to have been early in the year 63. Before that time, then, we have reason to believe that the Gospel of Luke was in circulation, though the majority of critics make it later. If we date it somewhere between A.D. 50 and 60, we shall probably be near the truth; but nearer it we cannot with any certainty come. Conjectures as to the place of publication are too uncertain to be mentioned here.

That it was addressed, in the first instance, to Gentile readers, is beyond doubt. This is no more, as DAVIDSON remarks [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 186], than was to have been expected from the companion of an "apostle of the Gentiles," who had witnessed marvellous changes in the condition of many heathens by the reception of the Gospel. But the explanations in his Gospel of things known to every Jew, and which could only be intended for Gentile readers, make this quite plain--see Luk 1:26; Luk 4:31; Luk 8:26; Luk 21:37; Luk 22:1; Luk 24:13. A number of other minute particulars, both of things inserted and of things omitted, confirm the conclusion that it was Gentiles whom this Evangelist had in the first instance in view.

We have already adverted to the classical style of Greek which this Evangelist writes--just what might have been expected from an educated Greek and travelled physician. But we have also observed that along with this he shows a wonderful flexibility of style, so much so, that when he comes to relate transactions wholly Jewish, where the speakers and actors and incidents are all Jewish, he writes in such Jewish Greek as one would do who had never been out of Palestine or mixed with any but Jews. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses will be found some traces of "the beloved physician" in this Gospel. But far more striking and important are the traces in it of his intimate connection with the apostle of the Gentiles. That one who was so long and so constantly in the society of that master mind has in such a work as this shown no traces of that connection, no stamp of that mind, is hardly to be believed. Writers of Introductions seem not to see it, and take no notice of it. But those who look into the interior of it will soon discover evidences enough in it of a Pauline cast of mind. Referring for a number of details to DA COSTA, we notice here only two examples: In 1Co 11:23, Paul ascribes to an express revelation from Christ Himself the account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper which he there gives. Now, if we find this account differing in small yet striking particulars from the accounts given by Matthew and Mark, but agreeing to the letter with Luke's account, it can hardly admit of a doubt that the one had it from the other; and in that case, of course, it was Luke that had it from Paul. Now Matthew and Mark both say of the Cup, "This is my blood of the New Testament"; while Paul and Luke say, in identical terms, "This cup is the New Testament in My blood" (1Co 11:25; Luk 22:20). Further, Luke says, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying," &c.; while Paul says, "After the same manner He took the cup when He had supped, saying," &c.; whereas neither Matthew nor Mark mention that this was after supper. But still more striking is another point of coincidence in this case. Matthew and Mark both say of the Bread merely this: "Take, eat; this is My body" (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22); whereas Paul says, "Take, eat, this is My body, which is broken for you" (1Co 11:24), and Luke, "This is My body, which is given for you" (Luk 22:19). And while Paul adds the precious clause, "This do in remembrance of Me," Luke does the same, in identical terms. How can one who reflects on this resist the conviction of a Pauline stamp in this Gospel? The other proof of this to which we ask the reader's attention is in the fact that Paul, in enumerating the parties by whom Christ was seen after His resurrection, begins, singularly enough, with Peter--"And that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve" (1Co 15:4-5) --coupled with the remarkable fact, that Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions that Christ appeared to Peter at all. When the disciples had returned from Emmaus to tell their brethren how the Lord had appeared to them in the way, and how He had made Himself known to them in the breaking of bread, they were met, as Luke relates, ere they had time to utter a word, with this wonderful piece of news, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luk 24:34).

Other points connected with this Gospel will be adverted to in the Commentary.

JFB: Luke (Outline)

• ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE FORERUNNER. (Luke 1:5-25)
• ANNUNCIATION OF CHRIST. (Luk 1:26-38)
• VISIT OF MARY TO ELISABETH. (Luke 1:39-56)
• BIRTH AND CIRCUMCISION OF JOHN--SONG OF ZACHARIAS AND PROGRESS OF THE CHILD. (Luke 1:57-80)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Luk 2:1-7)
• ANGELIC ANNUNCIATION TO THE SHEPHERDS--THEIR VISIT TO THE NEWBORN BABE. (Luk 2:8-20)
• PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN--PRESENTATION OF THE BABE IN THE TEMPLE-SCENE THERE WITH SIMEON AND ANNA. (Luke 2:22-40)
• FIRST CONSCIOUS VISIT TO JERUSALEM. (Luk 2:41-52)
• PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20) Here the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had "accurately traced down all things from the first" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1.
• BAPTISM OF AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON JESUS. (Luk 3:21-22)
• GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38)
• JESUS ENTERING ON HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, MAKES A CIRCUIT OF GALILEE--REJECTION AT NAZARETH. (Luke 4:14-32)
• DEMONIAC HEALED. (Luk 4:33-37)
• PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS, HEALED. (Luk 4:38-41)
• JESUS SOUGHT OUT AT MORNING PRAYER, AND ENTREATED TO STAY, DECLINES FROM THE URGENCY OF HIS WORK. (Luk 4:42-44)
• MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES--CALL OF PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN. (Luk 5:1-11)
• LEPER HEALED. (Luk 5:12-16)
• PARALYTIC HEALED. (Luk 5:17-26)
• LEVI'S CALL AND FEAST. (Luk 5:27-32)
• PLUCKING CORN-EARS ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 6:1-5)
• WITHERED HAND HEALED. (Luk 6:6-11)
• THE TWELVE APOSTLES CHOSEN--GATHERING MULTITUDES--GLORIOUS HEALING. (Luke 6:12-49)
• CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED. (Luk 7:1-10)
• WIDOW OF NAIN'S SON RAISED TO LIFE. (In Luke only). (Luk 7:11-17)
• THE BAPTIST'S MESSAGE THE REPLY, AND CONSEQUENT DISCOURSE. (Luke 7:18-35)
• CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
• A GALILEAN CIRCUIT, WITH THE TWELVE AND CERTAIN MINISTERING WOMEN. (In Luke only). (Luk 8:1-3)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER. (Luk 8:4-18)
• JESUS CROSSING THE LAKE, STILLS THE STORM. (Luk 8:22-25)
• JAIRUS' DAUGHTER RAISED AND ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. (Luke 8:40-56)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Luk 9:1-6)
• HEROD TROUBLED AT WHAT HE HEARS OF CHRIST DESIRES TO SEE HIM. (Luk 9:7-9)
• PETER'S CONFESSION OF CHRIST--OUR LORD'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH, AND WARNINGS ARISING OUT OF IT. (Luk 9:18-27)
• JESUS TRANSFIGURED. (Luk 9:28-36)
• DEMONIAC AND LUNATIC BOY HEALED--CHRIST'S SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 9:37-45)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST--JOHN REBUKED FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. (Luk 9:46-48) (See on Mat 18:1-5).
• THE PERIOD OF HIS ASSUMPTION APPROACHING CHRIST TAKES HIS LAST LEAVE OF GALILEE--THE SAMARITANS REFUSE TO RECEIVE HIM. (Luk 9:51-56)
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. (Luk 9:57-62)
• MISSION OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, AND THEIR RETURN. (Luke 10:1-24)
• QUESTION OF A LAWYER AND PARABLE OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN. (Luk 10:25-37)
• MARTHA AND MARY. (Luk 10:38-42)
• THE DISCIPLES TAUGHT TO PRAY. (Luk 11:1-13)
• BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED--CHARGE OF BEING IN LEAGUE WITH HELL, AND REPLY--DEMAND OF A SIGN, AND REPLY. (Luke 11:14-36)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES. (Luke 11:37-54)
• WARNING AGAINST HYPOCRISY. (Luk 12:1-12)
• COVETOUSNESS--WATCHFULNESS--SUPERIORITY TO EARTHLY TIES. (Luke 12:13-53)
• NOT DISCERNING THE SIGNS OF THE TIME. (Luk 12:54-59)
• THE LESSON, "REPENT OR PERISH," SUGGESTED BY TWO RECENT INCIDENTS, AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE PARABLE OF THE BARREN FIG TREE. (Luk 13:1-9)
• WOMAN OF EIGHTEEN YEAR'S INFIRMITY HEALED ON THE SABBATH. (Luk 13:10-17)
• MISCELLANEOUS TEACHINGS. (Luk 13:18-30)
• MESSAGE TO HEROD. (Luk 13:31-35)
• HEALING OF A DROPSICAL MAN, AND MANIFOLD TEACHINGS AT A SABBATH FEAST. (Luke 14:1-24)
• ADDRESS TO GREAT MULTITUDES TRAVELLING WITH HIM. (Luk 14:25-35)
• PUBLICANS AND SINNERS WELCOMED BY CHRIST--THREE PARABLES TO EXPLAIN THIS. (Luke 15:1-32)
• I. THE LOST SHEEP. (Luk 15:3-7) Occurring again (Mat 18:12-14); but there to show how precious one of His sheep is to the Good Shepherd; here, to show that the shepherd, though the sheep stray never so widely, will seek it out, and when he hath found, will rejoice over it.
• II. THE LOST COIN. (Luk 15:8-10)
• III. THE PRODIGAL SON. (Luke 15:11-32)
• PARABLES OF THE UNJUST STEWARD AND OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, OR, THE RIGHT USE OF MONEY. (Luke 16:1-31)
• OFFENSES--FAITH--HUMILITY. (Luk 17:1-10) (See Mat 18:6-7).
• TEN LEPERS CLEANSED. (Luk 17:11-19)
• COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND OF THE SON OF MAN. (Luke 17:20-37)
• PARABLE OF THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW. (Luk 18:1-8)
• PARABLE OF THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 18:9-14)
• LITTLE CHILDREN BROUGHT TO CHRIST. (Luk 18:15-17)
• THE RICH YOUNG RULER AND DISCOURSE THEREON. (Luk 18:18-30)
• FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. (Luk 18:31-34)
• BLIND MAN HEALED. (Luk 18:35-43)
• ZACCHEUS THE PUBLICAN. (Luk 19:1-10)
• PARABLE OF THE POUNDS. (Luke 19:11-27)
• SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AND SUBSEQUENT TEACHING. (Luk 19:45-48) As the first cleansing was on His first visit to Jerusalem (Joh 2:13-22), so this second cleansing was on His last.
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN. (Luke 20:1-19)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE AND THE RESURRECTION--THE REPLIES. (Luke 20:20-40)
• CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID AND MESSIAH, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. (Luk 20:41-47)
• THE WIDOW'S TWO MITES. (Luk 21:1-4)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND WARNINGS TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING, SUGGESTED BY IT--HIS DAYS AND NIGHTS DURING HIS LAST WEEK. (Luke 21:5-38) (See on Mat 24:1-3.)
• CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--COMPACT WITH JUDAS. (Luk 22:1-6) (See on Mat 26:1-5.)
• LAST PASSOVER--INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER--DISCOURSE AT THE TABLE. (Luke 22:7-38)
• AGONY IN THE GARDEN. (Luk 22:39-46)
• JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS--FALL OF PETER. (Luk 22:55-62)
• JESUS BEFORE HEROD. (Luk 23:6-12)
• JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE--DELIVERED UP--LED AWAY TO BE CRUCIFIED. (Luke 23:13-38)
• THE TWO THIEVES. (Luk 23:39-43)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--PETER'S VISIT TO THE EMPTY SEPULCHRE. (Luk 24:1-12)
• CHRIST APPEARS TO THE TWO GOING TO EMMAUS. (Luke 24:13-35)
• JESUS APPEARS TO THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES--HIS ASCENSION. (Luke 24:36-53)

TSK: Luke (Book Introduction)

Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been " the beloved physician" mentioned by Paul (Col 4:14); and as he was the companion of that apostle, in all his labours and sufferings, for many years (Act 16:12; Act 20:1-6; Act 27:1, Act 27:2; Act 28:13-16. 2Ti 4:11. Phm 1:24), and wrote " the Acts of the Apostles," which conclude with a brief account of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle’s sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about ad 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Col 4:10, Col 4:11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name Λουκας [Strong’s 3065], to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. But, from the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and custom, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity. Though he may not have been, as some have affirmed, one of the seventy disciples, and an eye-witness of our Saviour’s miracles, yet his intercourse with the apostles, and those who were eye-witnesses of the works and ear witnesses of the words of Christ, renders him an unexceptional witness, if considered merely as an historian; and the early and unanimous reception of his Gospel as divinely inspired is sufficient to satisfy every reasonable person.

TSK: Luke 18 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Luk 18:1, Of the importunate widow; Luk 18:9, Of the Pharisee and the publican; Luk 18:15, Of Children brought to Christ; Luk 18:18, A ruler would follow Christ, but is hindered by his riches; Luk 18:28, The reward of them that leave all for his sake; Luk 18:31, He foretells his death; Luk 18:35, and restores a blind man to his sight.

Poole: Luke 18 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 18

MHCC: Luke (Book Introduction)

This evangelist is generally supposed to have been a physician, and a companion of the apostle Paul. The style of his writings, and his acquaintance with the Jewish rites and usages, sufficiently show that he was a Jew, while his knowledge of the Greek language and his name, speak his Gentile origin. He is first mentioned Act 16:10, Act 16:11, as with Paul at Troas, whence he attended him to Jerusalem, and was with him in his voyage, and in his imprisonment at Rome. This Gospel appears to be designed to supersede many defective and unauthentic narratives in circulation, and to give a genuine and inspired account of the life, miracles, and doctrines of our Lord, learned from those who heard and witnessed his discourses and miracles.

MHCC: Luke 18 (Chapter Introduction)

(Luk 18:1-8) The parable of the importunate widow.

(Luk 18:9-14) The Pharisee and the publican.

(Luk 18:15-17) Children brought to Christ.

(Luk 18:18-30) The ruler hindered by his riches.

(Luk 18:31-34) Christ foreshows his death.

(Luk 18:35-43) A blind man restored to sight.

Matthew Henry: Luke (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Luke

We are now entering into the labours of another evangelist; his name Luke, which some take to be a contraction of Lucilius; born at Antioch, so St. Jerome. Some think that he was the only one of all the penmen of the scripture that was not of the seed of Israel. He was a Jewish proselyte, and, as some conjecture, converted to Christianity by the ministry of St. Paul at Antioch; and after his coming into Macedonia (Act 16:10) he was his constant companion. He had employed himself in the study and practice of physic; hence, Paul calls him Luke the beloved Physician, Col 4:14. Some of the pretended ancients tell you that he was a painter, and drew a picture of the virgin Mary. But Dr. Whitby thinks that there is nothing certain to the contrary, and that therefore it is probable that he was one of the seventy disciples, and a follower of Christ when he was here upon earth; and, if so, he was a native Israelite. I see not what can be objected against this, except some uncertain traditions of the ancients, which we can build nothing upon, and against which may be opposed the testimonies of Origen and Epiphanius, who both say that he was one of the seventy disciples. He is supposed to have written this gospel when he was associated with St. Paul in his travels, and by direction from him: and some think that this is the brother whom Paul speaks of (2Co 8:18), whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches of Christ; as if the meaning of it were, that he was celebrated in all the churches for writing this gospel; and that St. Paul means this when he speaks sometimes of his gospel, as Rom 2:16. But there is no ground at all for this. Dr. Cave observes that his way and manner of writing are accurate and exact, his style polite and elegant, sublime and lofty, yet perspicuous; and that he expresses himself in a vein of purer Greek than is to be found in the other writers of the holy story. Thus he relates divers things more copiously than the other evangelists; and thus he especially treats of those things which relate to the priestly office of Christ. It is uncertain when, or about what time, this gospel was written. Some think that it was written in Achaia, during his travels with Paul, seventeen years (twenty-two years, say others) after Christ's ascension; others, that it was written at Rome, a little before he wrote his history of the Acts of the Apostles (which is a continuation of this), when he was there with Paul, while he was a prisoner, and preaching in his own hired house, with which the history of the Acts concludes; and then Paul saith that only Luke was with him, 2Ti 4:11. When he was under that voluntary confinement with Paul, he had leisure to compile these two histories (and many excellent writings the church has been indebted to a prison for): if so, it was written about twenty-seven years after Christ's ascension, and about the fourth year of Nero. Jerome says, He died when he was eighty-four years of age, and was never married. Some write that he suffered martyrdom; but, if he did, where and when is uncertain. Nor indeed is there much more credit to be given to the Christian traditions concerning the writers of the New Testament than to the Jewish traditions concerning those of the Old Testament.

Matthew Henry: Luke 18 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. The parable of the importunate widow, designed to teach us fervency in prayer (Luk 18:1-8). II. The parable of the Pharisee and publican, designed to teach us humility, and humiliation for sin, in prayer (Luk 18:9-14). III. Christ's favour to little children that were brought to him (Luk 18:15-17). IV. The trial of a rich man that had a mind to follow Christ, whether he loved better Christ or his riches; his coming short upon that trial; and Christ's discourse with his disciples upon that occasion (Luk 18:18-30). V. Christ's foretelling his own death and sufferings (Luk 18:31-34). VI. His restoring sight to a blind man (Luk 18:35-43). And these four passages we had before in Matthew and Mark.

Barclay: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT LUKE

A Lovely Book And Its Author

The gospel according to St. Luke has been called the loveliest book in the world. When once an American asked him if he could recommend a good life of Christ, Denney answered, "Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?" There is a legend that Luke was a skilled painter; there is even a painting of Mary in a Spanish cathedral to this day which purports to be by him. Certainly he had an eye for vivid things. It would not be far wrong to say that the third gospel is the best life of Christ ever written. Tradition has always believed that Luke was the author and we need have no qualms in accepting that tradition. In the ancient world it was the regular thing to attach books to famous names; no one thought it wrong. But Luke was never one of the famous figures of the early Church. If he had not written the gospel no one would have attached it to his name.

Luke was a gentile; and he has the unique distinction of being the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was a doctor by profession (Col_4:14 ) and maybe that very fact gave him the wide sympathy he possessed. It has been said that a minister sees men at their best; a lawyer sees men at their worst; and a doctor sees men as they are. Luke saw men and loved them all.

The book was written to a man called Theophilus. He is called most excellent Theophilus and the title given him is the normal title for a high official in the Roman government. No doubt Luke wrote it to tell an earnest inquirer more about Jesus; and he succeeded in giving Theophilus a picture which must have thrilled his heart closer to the Jesus of whom he had heard.

The Symbols Of The Gospels

Every one of the four gospels was written from a certain point of view. Very often on stained glass windows the writers of the gospels are pictured; and usually to each there is attached a symbol. The symbols vary but one of the commonest allocations is this.

The emblem of Mark is a man. Mark is the simplest and most straightforward of the gospels. It has been well said that its characteristic is realism. It is the nearest to being a report of Jesusife.

The emblem of Matthew is a lion. Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews and he saw in Jesus the Messiah, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the one whom all the prophets had predicted.

The emblem of John is the eagle. The eagle can fly higher than any other bird. It is said that of all creatures only the eagle can look straight into the sun. John is the theological gospel; its flights of thought are higher than those of any of the others. It is the gospel where the philosopher can find themes to think about for a lifetime and to solve only in eternity.

The symbol of Luke is the calf The calf is the animal for sacrifice; and Luke saw in Jesus the sacrifice for all the world. In Luke above all, the barriers are broken down and Jesus is for Jew and gentile, saint and sinner alike. He is the saviour of the world. Keeping that in mind, let us now set down the characteristics of this gospel.

An HistorianCare

First and foremost, Lukegospel is an exceedingly careful bit of work. His Greek is notably good. The first four verses are well-nigh the best Greek in the New Testament. In them he claims that his work is the product of the most careful research. His opportunities were ample and his sources must have been good. As the trusted companion of Paul he must have known all the great figures of the church, and we may be sure that he had them tell their stories to him. For two years he was Paulcompanion in imprisonment in Caesarea. In those long days he had every opportunity for study and research and he must have used them well.

An example of Lukecare is the way in which he dates the emergence of John the Baptist. He does so by no fewer than six contemporary datings. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (1), Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea (2), Herod being tetrarch of Galilee (3), and his brother Philip being tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis (4), and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (5) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (6), the word of God came to John" (Luk_3:1-2 ). Here is a man who is writing with care and who will be as accurate as it is possible for him to be.

The Gospel For The Gentiles

It is clear that Luke wrote mainly for gentiles. Theophilus was a gentile, as was Luke himself, and there is nothing in the gospel that a gentile could not grasp and understand. (a) As we have seen, Luke begins his dating from the reigning Roman emperor and the current Roman governor. The Roman date comes first. (b) Unlike Matthew, he is not greatly interested in the life of Jesus as the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. (c) He very seldom quotes the Old Testament at all. (d) He has a habit of giving Hebrew words in their Greek equivalent so that a Greek would understand. Simon the Cananaean becomes Simon the Zealot. (compare Luk_6:15 and Mat_10:4 ). Calvary is called not by its Hebrew name, Golgotha (compare H1538 and H1556), but by its Greek name, Kranion (G2898). Both mean the place of a skull. He never uses the Jewish term Rabbi (H7227) of Jesus but always a Greek word meaning Master. When he is tracing the descent of Jesus, he traces it not to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish race, as Matthew does, but to Adam, the founder of the human race. (compare Mat_1:2 and Luk_3:38 ).

Because of this Luke is the easiest of all the gospels to read. He was writing, not for Jews, but for people very like ourselves.

The Gospel Of Prayer

Lukegospel is specially the gospel of prayer. At all the great moments of his life, Luke shows us Jesus at prayer. He prayed at his baptism (Luk_3:21 ); before his first collision with the Pharisees (Luk_5:16 ); before he chose the Twelve (Luk_6:12 ); before he questioned his disciples as to who they thought he was; before his first prediction of his own death (Luk_9:18 ); at the Transfiguration (Luk_9:29 ); and upon the Cross (Luk_23:46 ). Only Luke tells us that Jesus prayed for Peter in his hour of testing (Luk_22:32 ). Only he tells us the prayer parables of the Friend at Midnight (Luk_11:5-13 ) and the Unjust Judge (Luk_18:1-8 ). To Luke the unclosed door of prayer was one of the most precious in all the world.

The Gospel Of Women

In Palestine the place of women was low. In the Jewish morning prayer a man thanks God that he has not made him "a gentile, a slave or a woman." But Luke gives a very special place to women. The birth narrative is told from Marypoint of view. It is in Luke that we read of Elizabeth, of Anna, of the widow at Nain, of the woman who anointed Jesuseet in the house of Simon the Pharisee. It is Luke who makes vivid the pictures of Martha and Mary and of Mary Magdalene. It is very likely that Luke was a native of Macedonia where women held a more emancipated position than anywhere else; and that may have something to do with it.

The Gospel Of Praise

In Luke the phrase "praising God" occurs oftener than in all the rest of the New Testament put together. This praise reaches its peak in the three great hymns that the church has sung throughout all her generations--the Magnificat (Luk_1:46-55 ); the Benediclus (Luk_1:68-79 ); and the Nunc Dimittis (Luk_2:29-32 ). There is a radiance in Lukegospel which is a lovely thing, as if the sheen of heaven had touched the things of earth.

The Universal Gospel

But the outstanding characteristic of Luke is that it is the universal gospel. All the barriers are down; Jesus Christ is for all men without distinction.

(a) The kingdom of heaven is not shut to the Samaritans (Luk_9:51-56 ). Luke alone tells the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk_10:30-37 ). The one grateful leper is a Samaritan (Luk_17:11-19 ). John can record a saying that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans (Joh_4:9 ). But Luke refuses to shut the door on any man.

(b) Luke shows Jesus speaking with approval of gentiles whom the orthodox Jew would have considered unclean. He shows us Jesus citing the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian as shining examples (Luk_4:25-27 ). The Roman centurion is praised for the greatness of his faith (Luk_7:9 ). Luke tells us of that great word of Jesus, "Men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at the table in the kingdom of God" (Luk_13:29 ).

(c) Luke is supremely interested in the poor. When Mary brings the offering for her purification it is the offering of the poor (Luk_2:24 ). When Jesus is, as it were, setting out his credentials to the emissaries of John, the climax is, "The poor have good news preached to them" (Luk_7:22 ). He alone tells the parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man (Luk_16:19-31 ). In Lukeaccount of the Beatitudes the saying of Jesus runs, not, as in Matthew (Mat_5:3 ), "Blessed are the poor in spirit," but simply, "Blessed are you poor" (Luk_6:20 ). Lukegospel has been called "the gospel of the underdog." His heart runs out to everyone for whom life is an unequal struggle.

(d) Above all Luke shows Jesus as the friend of outcasts and sinners. He alone tells of the woman who anointed Jesuseet and bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luk_7:36-50 ); of Zacchaeus, the quisling tax-gatherer (Luk_19:1-10 ); of the Penitent Thief (Luk_23:43 ); and he alone has the immortal story of the prodigal son and the loving father (Luk_15:11-32 ). When Matthew tells how Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, he says that Jesus told them not to go to the Samaritans or the gentiles (Mat_10:5 ); but Luke omits that altogether. All four gospel writers quote from Isa 40 when they give the message of John the Baptist, "Prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God"; but only Luke continues the quotation to its triumphant conclusion, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Isa_40:3-5 ; Mat_3:3 ; Mar_1:3 ; Joh_1:23 ; Luk_3:4 , Luk_3:6 ). Luke of all the gospel writers sees no limits to the love of God.

The Book Beautiful

As we study this book we must look for these characteristics. Somehow of all the gospel writers one would have liked to meet Luke best of all, for this gentile doctor with the tremendous vision of the infinite sweep of the love of God must have been a lovely soul. Faber wrote the lines,

Therea wideness in Godmercy,

Like the wideness of the sea;

Therea kindness in his justice,

Which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader

Than the measures of manmind;

And the heart of the Eternal

Is most wonderfully kind.

Lukegospel is the demonstration that this is true.

Barclay: Luke 18 (Chapter Introduction)

Unwearied In Prayer (Luk_18:1-8)

The Sin Of Pride (Luk_18:9-14)

The Master And The Children (Luk_18:15-17)

The Man Who Would Not Pay The Price (Luk_18:18-30)

The Waiting Cross (Luk_18:31-34)

The Man Who Would Not Be Silenced (Luk_18:35-43)

Constable: Luke (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

Several factors indicate that the writer of this Gospel was the same person who wrote the Book of Acts. First, a man named Theophilus was the recipient of both books (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Second, Acts refers to a previous work by the same writer. Third, both books have several common themes some of which do not receive the same emphasis elsewhere in the New Testament. Fourth, there are general structural and stylistic similarities including the use of chiasms and the tendency to focus on specific individuals.

The writer also acquired his knowledge of Jesus' life and ministry from research rather than from eyewitness observations (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore he was not one of the disciples who travelled with Jesus.

The early church identified the writer as Luke. The heretic Marcion is the earliest witness we have to Luke's authorship (c. 135 A.D.). The Muratorian Canon (c. 180 A.D.) mentioned Luke as the writer too. It described him as the physician who accompanied Paul on his journey (cf. Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; Col. 4:14; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.) also believed Luke wrote this Gospel and called him the "inseparable" companion of Paul.¹ Later church fathers referred to Luke as the writer of this Gospel. Luke was evidently a Gentile (cf. Col. 4:10-14).² Church tradition identified Antioch of Syria as Luke's hometown, but this is impossible to validate.

Distinctive Features

The main doctrines of systematic theology that Luke stressed were Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, and eschatology. There is much emphasis on the glory of God, prayer, miracles, the divine plan that Jesus fulfilled, Israel, believing, discipleship, forgiveness, and God's Word.³

Luke stressed Jesus' concern for all people, especially for individuals that society of His day despised such as the poor, women, children, and "sinners." He used the Greek term nomikos, which means "lawyer," rather than the Hebrew term grammateus, meaning "scribe." He emphasized Jesus' practical teachings, such as what He taught about money (cf. chs. 12 and 16).

"In terms of its worldview, its theology, and its practical presentation of principles, this Gospel explains how we can serve God better."⁴

Luke showed interest in purpose, fulfillment, and accomplishment. He documented the joy that resulted from Jesus' saving and healing works. He stressed Jesus' call for people to become His disciples. He portrayed Jesus as dependent on the Holy Spirit and on the Father through prayer. Finally, Luke recorded many examples of Jesus' power.

"Luke's Gospel gives a reader a more comprehensive grasp of the history of the period than the other Gospels. He presented more facts about the earthly life of Jesus than did Matthew, Mark, or John."⁵

This is the longest book in the New Testament. Together with Acts it comprises about 27% of the Greek New Testament.⁶ Luke is the longest book in the New Testament, Matthew is second, and Acts is third, but only slightly shorter than Matthew.

Purposes

The Gospel of Luke is one of the books of the Bible that states the purpose of the writer. Luke said that he wrote to inform Theophilus about the truthfulness of the gospel that he had heard (1:4). In Acts, Luke said he had written previously about the things that Jesus began to do and teach before His ascension (Acts 1:1-2). He then proceeded to record the things Jesus continued to do and teach after His ascension through His apostles in Acts. Presumably Luke wrote both his Gospel and Acts with a larger audience than just Theophilus in view.

The distinctive emphases of the Gospel help us to identify secondary purposes. Luke demonstrated a zeal to convince his readers of the reliability of the facts that he recorded so they would believe in Jesus and become Christians. This concern is also clear in Acts.⁷ Obviously he wrote to preserve the record of events that happened during Jesus' earthly ministry, but few ancient writers wrote simply to narrate a chronicle of events.⁸ They wrote to convince their readers of something, and they used history to do that. Notwithstanding historical accuracy was important to them.⁹ We believe that Luke's Gospel is an accurate continuation of biblical history that God preserved in Scripture. This Gospel constitutes an apologetic for Christianity that would have been of special interest to Greeks because of Luke's selection of material, vocabulary, and style.¹⁰

Original Audience

Evidently Theophilus was a real person.¹¹ His name is Greek and means "friend of God." He appears to have been a fairly recent convert to Christianity from Greek paganism. Consequently it appears that Luke wrote for people such as Theophilus originally. Before his conversion, Theophilus may have been one of the Gentile God-fearers to which Luke referred several times in Acts. The God-fearers were Gentiles who had a certain respect for and who wanted to learn more about the God of the Jews. They came to the Jewish synagogues and listened to the Jewish Scriptures read there. Luke's orientation of his Gospel to the secular world and his references to Judaism also suggest that he wrote his Gospel with these people in mind. His use of the Septuagint version and his interest in the God-fearers suggest this too. The God-fearers had turned from Greek polytheism to Jewish monotheism, but many of them were not familiar with Palestinian geography and culture. Luke clarified these matters for his readers when necessary. The God-fearers were the Gentiles whom Paul found to be the most receptive soil for the gospel seed. Luke himself may have been one of this group, though there is no way to prove or to disprove that possibility.

"[Luke] writes to reassure the Christians of his day that their faith in Jesus is no aberration, but the authentic goal towards which God's ancient dealings with Israel were driving."¹²

By the first century most of the pagan Greeks had stopped believing in the gods and goddesses of their mythology and had abandoned fatalism. Many of them were following Eastern "mystery" religions that competed with Christianity for their allegiance. Both beliefs offered saviors, but the Savior of Christianity was a personal resurrected Lord whereas the savior of the mystery religions was impersonal and ideal. Luke evidently wrote to persuade these people to believe in Jesus and to give them a solid factual basis for their faith.

"That he wrote for an urban church community in the Hellenistic world is fairly certain."¹³

Literary Characteristics

Experts in Greek literary styles acknowledge Luke's style and structure as superb.¹⁴ No one knows Luke's educational background, but clearly he had training in Greek composition as well as medicine and a talent for writing. Luke used many words that the other Gospel writers did not, and many of them show a wide literary background. He also used several medical and theological terms that are unique. Luke's use of Semiticisms shows that he knew the Hebrew Old Testament well. However, his preference for the Septuagint suggests that it was the version his readers used most. Probably Luke was a Gentile who had much exposure to Semitic idioms from Paul and other Jews. He was a skillful enough writer to use chiasms as a major structural device.¹⁵ Chiasms were both Jewish and Greek literary devices that gave unity to a composition or section of text. Acts also contains them. Luke also repeated similar stories with variations (cf. 1:80; 2:40; 2:52). This literary device aids learning while giving additional new insights. He also tended to use a particular term frequently in one or more passages and then rarely or never after that. This makes the term stand out and calls attention to it where it occurs.¹⁶

Date

Practically all scholars believe that Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts. Many conservative scholars hold that he wrote Acts during Paul's first Roman imprisonment during which the book ends (60-62 A.D.). Luke accompanied Paul during much of that apostle's missionary ministry. At times Luke was not with Paul, but he was ministering as Paul's representative in one or another of the churches that Paul had founded. Evidently Paul was Luke's primary source of information for his Gospel and Acts as Peter was Mark's primary source for the second Gospel. Luke may have written his Gospel during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome along with Acts. However, it seems more likely in view of how Luke introduced these two books that he wrote the Gospel sometime earlier than Acts. Luke had the most time to write this Gospel during Paul's Caesarean imprisonment (57-59 A.D., cf. Acts 24:1-26:32). This seems to me to be the most probable date of writing.¹⁷

Message¹⁸

The first Gospel presented Jesus as the King. The second Gospel presented Him as the Servant. The third Gospel presents Him as the perfect Man. Matthew wrote to Jews about their King. Mark wrote to Romans about a Servant. Luke wrote to Greeks about the ideal Man. The title "Messiah" is most fitting for Jesus in Matthew. The title "Suffering Servant" is most appropriate in Mark. "Son of Man" is the title most characteristic of Luke's presentation of Jesus.

Luke stressed the saving work of Jesus in His Gospel. He presented Jesus as the Savior of mankind. He also proclaimed Jesus' work of providing salvation for mankind. Let us consider first the Savior that Luke presents and then the salvation that the Savior came to provide.

Luke presented Jesus as the Savior in three different relationships. He presented Him as the first-born of a new race. Second, He presented Him as the older brother in a new family. Third, He presented Him as the redeemer of a lost humanity.

Let us consider first Luke's concept of Jesus as the first-born of a new race. Luke's genealogy reveals how the writer wanted the reader to regard Jesus. Matthew traced Jesus' lineage back to David and Abraham in his genealogy to show His right to rule as Israel's Messiah. Luke traced Jesus' ancestry back to Adam. He did this to show Jesus' humanity.

However, Luke went back even farther than that to God. This indicates that Jesus was not just like other humans who descended from Adam. He was, as the Apostle Paul called Him, the "Last Adam." The first Adam that God placed on this earth failed and plunged his race into sin and death. The last Adam that God placed on the earth did not fail but saved His race from sin and brought it new life. The first man begins the Old Testament, but the "Second Man," to use another Pauline title, begins the New Testament. As Adam headed one race, so Jesus heads a new race. Both Adams were real men. Thus both men head real races of mankind. Luke viewed Jesus as succeeding where Adam failed, as atoning for Adam's transgression.

For Jesus to undue the consequences of Adam's fall, He had to be more than just a good man. He had to be a perfect man, a sinless man. Therefore Luke stressed Jesus' sinlessness. He did this primarily in his account of Jesus' birth. Luke stressed the virgin conception of Jesus. The Holy Spirit, not a sinful human, fathered Jesus. God regards the male as responsible in the human family. Husbands are responsible for their wives. Fathers are responsible for their children. God held Adam, not Eve, responsible for his descendants.

Human beings are sinners for three separate reasons. First, we are sinners because we commit acts of sin. However even if we never committed one act of sin we would still be sinners because we, second, inherited a sinful human nature. This nature apparently comes through our fathers (cf. Heb. 7:9-10).¹⁹ Third, we are sinners because God has imputed the guilt of Adam's sin to us because he is the head of the race to which we belong.

Jesus was not a sinner. He did not commit any acts of sin. Second, He did not inherit a sinful nature from His human father because God was His real Father. Third, God did not impute Adam's sin to Jesus because Jesus was the direct descendant of God and therefore the head of a new race. God gave the first Adam life by breathing the breath of life into the body that He had created. Likewise God gave the second Adam life by implanting His divine life into a body that He had created, namely Mary's body.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is extremely important because it establishes the sinlessness of Jesus in two of the three ways whereby people become sinners. If a virgin did not conceive Jesus, then He was a sinner. If Jesus was a sinner, then He cannot be the Savior.

The third way a person becomes a sinner is by committing acts of sin. Luke showed that Jesus did not do this in his account of Jesus' temptations.

In the wilderness Satan subjected Jesus to the strongest temptations that humans face. Satan directed Jesus' three tests at the three areas of human personality that constitute the totality of human existence. These areas are doing (the lust of the flesh), having (the lust of the eyes), and being (the pride of life). These are the same three areas in which Satan attacked Eve.

The first man fell in a garden, an environment conducive to withstanding temptation. The Second Man overcame temptation in a wilderness, an environment conducive to yielding to temptation. Rather than showing at every turn in Jesus' life that He did not sin, Luke showed that in the supreme test of His life Jesus did not sin. However, he continued to note Jesus' conflict with Satan, demons, and sin throughout His life. Luke's record of these encounters also demonstrates Jesus' sinlessness.

At the Transfiguration, God declared His Son acceptable to Him. This meant that He was sinless.

Second, Luke presented Jesus as the older brother in a new family. Since Jesus was the head of a new race we might think that Luke would have presented Jesus as a father. Jesus was the first and therefore the source of all that follow in the race that He established. Nevertheless Luke stressed Jesus' likeness with those in the new race. He is as an elder brother to us who have new life through Him. This is not to deny His deity. In one sense Jesus is completely different from us since He is God. However, Luke stressed the sense in which He is like us, namely in His humanity. He is one of us, fully human.

Luke presented Jesus as a man among men. He of all the Gospel writers wanted his readers to appreciate the fact that Jesus was a real person. There are many small indications of this throughout this Gospel that I have tried to identify in the notes. Luke did this because he was evidently writing to Greeks. Greeks had a background in polytheism and mythology. Because of their cultural background they tended to think of gods as superhumans. They were not real people, but they had the characteristics of people expanded into superhuman proportions. Luke wanted his readers to realize that Jesus was not that type of god. He was fully human, but He was also sinless. He had superhuman powers, but He was not the type of superman that the Greeks imagined.

Jesus was a fellow human being albeit sinless. This is very hard for us to imagine. Therefore Luke put much in his Gospel that helps us understand Jesus, from His birth announcements to His ascension into heaven.

Third, Luke presented Jesus as the redeemer of a lost humanity. Since he was writing to Greeks, Luke did not identify many allusions to the Old Testament or to Jewish life and history. These allusions are in the text, but Luke did not draw attention to them. One of the outstanding concepts in Israelite life that Luke did not identify as such, but which overshadows his portrait of Jesus, is the kinsman redeemer. His presentation of Jesus fits the image of the Jewish kinsman redeemer remarkably.

The kinsman redeemer had to be the next of kin to the person he redeemed. Luke presented Jesus as qualifying as our redeemer in this respect. He was a man as we are. Therefore He could provide redemption for His needy brothers.

The kinsman redeemer also had to accept personal responsibility for those he purposed to save from their miserable estate. Luke presented Jesus as taking personal responsibility for lost sinners. He recorded Jesus saying that He had to go to the Cross. He viewed the salvation of mankind as something that He needed to accomplish because He had made a personal commitment to do so. That commitment began in heaven but continued on earth throughout Jesus' life.

The kinsman redeemer had to overcome those who opposed his brethren. Luke presented Jesus as conflicting with Satan and his hosts. He showed Him interceding for the Father's help for His tempted brethren, Peter in particular. Jesus won the victory over mankind's great enemy for His brethren.

The kinsman redeemer had to create an opportunity for his brother's redemption. Luke presented Jesus as doing this. Luke's distinctive presentation of Jerusalem as Jesus' city of destiny contributes to this theme. Jesus deliberately advanced toward Jerusalem and the Cross because He was creating an opportunity for mankind's redemption.

The kinsman redeemer turned his back on his personal rights and privileges to provide redemption for his brother. Luke presented Jesus doing this as well. Jesus modeled this strongly for His disciples in this Gospel. He also taught the importance of disciples doing this so we can bring salvation to our brothers.

These themes are very strong in Luke. Jesus is the head of an entirely new race of people, the redeemed. He is the elder brother who provides an example for His brethren to follow. He is the Savior who has come "to seek and to save the lost."

We have considered how Luke presents Jesus as the Savior. Now let us turn to what he revealed about salvation. The key verse in the Gospel is 19:10: "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save the lost." We have been looking at the Son of Man. Now let us look as seeking and saving the lost.

Luke reveals that the Son of Man has redeemed mankind. This Gospel is a record of God's redeeming work in Jesus Christ. Jesus' work on the Cross is the climax of this Gospel as it is the climax of all the Gospels and history itself. Jesus was born to die. By His death Jesus purchased mankind's freedom at the cost of His own life. Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper so His disciples would always keep the memory of the significance of His death freshly before them. The Christian mission is to tell the world about this redemption.

Through redemption God regenerates those who are dead in sin. This is the second step in God's plan of seeking and saving the lost. Believers receive new life when they believe on Jesus. Comprehending what this new life involves, learning how to live in view of its reality, and appreciating its great potential are all things that Luke stressed in this Gospel. Jesus' disciples struggled with learning this as we do. Luke recorded many of Jesus' teachings that are helpful in understanding and appreciating regeneration.

Through regeneration God brings believers into relationship with Himself. This is the third step in this great salvation process. Luke helps the reader understand the difference between trusting for salvation and working for rewards. What is our relationship to Jesus as His followers? What are our privileges and our responsibilities? How does prayer enter into our relationship? Luke has more to say to disciples about our relationship to the Father and the Son than any other Gospel evangelist.

Then through relationship with Himself, God prepares believers for life after death as members of a new race. Luke recorded much that is of great help for us as readers here too. What is the next phase of our life with God going to be like? How should we prepare for it? What is ahead in the future? Luke teaches us what it means to be a member of the new redeemed race of humanity.

In addition to the central teaching of this Gospel let me also point out what I believe are the reasons for its abiding appeal. These are two: the personality of Jesus and the presentation of discipleship.

The personality of Jesus as Luke presents Him in this Gospel is very appealing. Possibly three things make Him so.

First, we feel that we can identify with the Jesus of Luke's Gospel. This is probably because Luke presented Him as a real man. It may be harder to identify with a King or with a Suffering Servant to say nothing about God, John's emphasis. Even though He is perfect He is someone with whom we feel a natural kinship because we share humanity together. Jesus faced what we do yet He was pleasing to God. This is very encouraging.

Second, the Jesus of Luke's Gospel is attractive because He is different from us. Even though we are of the same kind, He holds a fascination for us because He was the personification of ideal humanity. He was everything that God intended man to be. It is thrilling to view someone like that since we all fall so far short of what we should be.

Third, this Jesus is attractive because He was so sympathetic. One of the characteristic features of Luke's Gospel is the many references it contains to Jesus' concern for the needy including women, the poor, the sick, and outcasts of society. We read of the social outcasts of Jesus' day flocking to Him and feeling at home in His presence. We see Him welcoming children, and we feel ourselves drawn to Him.

Another reason for the appeal of this book is its presentation of discipleship. It contains some of the most straight talk and challenging demands for followers of Jesus that the New Testament holds. We read Jesus telling us that unless we hate our family members we cannot be His disciples, (14:26). He taught that we have to deny ourselves (14:27). We have to renounce all that we have (14:33). Interestingly these three conditions correspond to the three things that we mentioned earlier that Luke pointed out about Jesus.

Jesus calls us to sever our connections with our old race because we have become members of a new race. Jesus taught that our spiritual relations are really closer than our physical relations. Therefore we should let these old relations go if they interfere with our participation in the affairs of our new race.

Jesus calls us to accept the same responsibility that He accepted since we are now brothers. He denied Himself and took up His cross for us. Now we are brothers so we need to do the same for Him. Brothers sacrifice for each other.

Jesus also calls us to give up everything for Him. Having received the benefits of redemption because of the work of our Kinsman Redeemer who paid a great price for us, we need to pay a great price too. The price He calls us to pay is not to earn redemption. He has given that to us as a gift. It is to express our gratitude to Him for His grace and to advance the mission that He has given us to fulfill. He had a mission from God, and He gave up everything to fulfill it. We, too, have a mission from God, and we need to give up everything to fulfill it.

Finally this Gospel has a two-fold application, to the church and to the world.

To the church Luke says, "Be witnesses" (24:48).

We are to be such in view of the relationship that we now enjoy with the Son of Man. We should be such for three reasons. We have experienced redemption. We enjoy His fellowship. We have a future as members of a new race.

We are to be His witnesses also in view of the lost condition of mankind. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost. Our fellowship with Jesus requires participation in His mission to seek and to save the lost. We can do this for three reasons. He has transformed our lives. He will open people's eyes with His Word. He has empowered us with His Spirit (cf. ch. 24).

To the world Luke says, "You are lost, but the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost." A Redeemer has come. A brother is available. A new life is possible. Behold the Man! He understands you. Yet He is different from you. But He will receive you.

Constable: Luke (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-4

II. The birth and childhood of Jesus 1:5-2:52

A. The announcement of John the Baptist's birth 1:5-25

1. The introduction of John's parents 1:5-7

2. The angel's announcement to Zechariah 1:8-23

3. The pregnancy of Elizabeth 1:24-25

B. The announcement of Jesus' birth 1:26-56

1. The introduction of Mary and Joseph 1:26-27

2. The angel's announcement to Mary 1:28-38

3. Mary's visit to Elizabeth 1:39-56

C. The birth and early life of John the Baptist 1:57-80

1. The naming of John 1:57-66

2. Zechariah's song of praise 1:67-79

3. The preparation of John 1:80

D. The birth and early life of Jesus ch. 2

1. The setting of Jesus' birth 2:1-7

2. The announcement to the shepherds 2:8-20

3. Jesus' circumcision 2:21

4. Jesus' presentation in the temple 2:22-38

5. Jesus' development in Nazareth 2:39-40

6. Jesus' visit to the temple as a boy 2:41-50

7. Jesus' continuing growth 2:51-52

III. The preparation for Jesus' ministry 3:1-4:13

A. The ministry of John the Baptist 3:1-20

1. The beginning of John's ministry 3:1-6

2. John's preaching 3:7-18

3. The end of John's ministry 3:19-20

B. The baptism of Jesus 3:21-22

C. The genealogy of Jesus 3:23-38

D. The temptation of Jesus 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' ministry in and around Galilee 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus' teaching ministry and the response to it 4:14-5:11

1. An introduction to Jesus' Galilean ministry 4:14-15

2. Jesus' teaching in Nazareth 4:16-30

3. Jesus' ministry in and around Capernaum 4:31-44

4. The call of Peter, James, and John 5:1-11

B. The beginning of controversy with the Pharisees 5:12-6:11

1. Jesus' cleansing of a leprous Jew 5:12-16

2. Jesus' authority to forgive sins 5:17-26

3. Jesus' attitude toward sinners 5:27-32

4. Jesus' attitude toward fasting 5:33-39

5. Jesus' authority over the Sabbath 6:1-5

6. Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath 6:6-11

C. Jesus' teaching of His disciples 6:12-49

1. The selection of 12 disciples 6:12-16

2. The assembling of the people 6:17-19

3. The Sermon on the Mount 6:20-49

D. Jesus' compassion for people ch. 7

1. The healing of a centurion's servant 7:1-10

2. The raising of a widow's son 7:11-17

3. The confusion about Jesus' identity 7:18-35

4. The anointing by a sinful woman 7:36-50

E. Jesus' teaching in parables 8:1-21

1. The companions and supporters of Jesus 8:1-3

2. The parable of the soils 8:4-15

3. The parable of the lamp 8:16-18

4. The true family of Jesus 8:19-21

F. Jesus' mighty works 8:22-56

1. The stilling of the storm 8:22-25

2. The deliverance of a demoniac in Gadara 8:26-39

3. The healing of a woman with a hemorrhage and the raising of Jairus' daughter 8:40-56

G. Jesus' preparation of the Twelve 9:1-50

1. The mission of the Twelve to Israel 9:1-6

2. Herod's question about Jesus' identity 9:7-9

3. The feeding of the 5000 9:10-17

4. Peter's confession of faith 9:18-27

5. The Transfiguration 9:28-36

6. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:37-43a

7. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 9:43b-45

8. The pride of the disciples 9:46-50

V. Jesus' ministry on the way to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

A. The responsibilities and rewards of discipleship 9:51-10:24

1. The importance of toleration 9:51-56

2. The importance of self-denial 9:57-62

3. The importance of participation 10:1-16

4. The joy of participation 10:17-20

5. The joy of comprehension 10:21-24

B. The relationships of disciples 10:25-11:13

1. The relation of disciples to their neighbors 10:25-37

2. The relation of disciples to Jesus 10:38-42

3. The relation of disciples to God the Father 11:1-13

C. The results of popular opposition 11:14-54

1. The Beelzebul controversy 11:14-26

2. The importance of observing God's Word 11:27-28

3. The sign of Jonah 11:29-32

4. The importance of responding to the light 11:33-36

5. The climax of Pharisaic opposition 11:37-54

D. The instruction of the disciples in view of Jesus' rejection 12:1-13:17

1. The importance of fearless confession 12:1-12

2. The importance of the eternal perspective 12:13-21

3. God's provisions for disciples 12:22-34

4. The coming of the Son of 12:35-48

5. The coming crisis 12:49-59

6. A call to repentance 13:1-9

7. A sign of Jesus' ability to affect change 13:10-17

E. Instruction about the kingdom 13:18-14:35

1. Parables of the kingdom 13:18-21

2. Entrance into the kingdom 13:22-30

3. Jesus' postponement of the kingdom 13:31-35

4. Participants in the kingdom 14:1-24

5. The cost of discipleship 14:25-35

F. God's attitude toward sinners ch. 15

1. The setting for Jesus' teaching 15:1-2

2. The parable of the lost sheep 15:3-7

3. The parable of the lost coin 15:8-10

4. The parable of the lost son 15:11-32

G. Jesus' warnings about riches ch. 16

1. Discipleship as stewardship 16:1-13

2. Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for their greed 16:14-31

H. Jesus' warning about disciples' actions and attitudes 17:1-19

1. The prevention of sin and the restoration of sinners 17:1-4

2. The disciples' attitude toward their duty 17:5-10

3. The importance of gratitude 17:11-19

I. Jesus' teaching about His return 17:20-18:8

1. A short lesson for the Pharisees 17:20-21

2. A longer explanation for the disciples 17:22-37

3. The parable of the persistent widow 18:1-8

J. The recipients of salvation 18:9-19:27

1. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector 18:9-14

2. An illustration of humility 18:15-17

3. The handicap of wealth 18:18-30

4. Jesus' passion announcement and the disciples' lack of perception 18:31-34

5. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 18:35-43

6. Zaccheus' ideal response to Jesus 19:1-10

7. The parable of the minas 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry 19:28-40

B. The beginning of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 19:41-48

1. Jesus' sorrow over Jerusalem 19:42-44

2. Jesus' cleansing of the temple 19:45-46

3. A synopsis of Jesus' teaching in the temple 19:47-48

C. Jesus' teachings in the temple 20:1-21:4

1. The controversy over authority 20:1-8

2. The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 20:9-19

3. The question of tribute to Caesar 20:20-26

4. The problem of the resurrection 20:27-40

5. Jesus' question about David's son 20:41-44

6. Jesus' condemnation of the scribes 20:45-47

7. Jesus' commendation of a widow 21:1-4

D. Jesus' teaching about the destruction of the temple 21:5-36

1. The setting and the warning about being misled 21:5-9

2. The need for faithful perseverance 21:10-19

3. The judgment coming on Jerusalem 21:20-24

4. The second coming of the Son of 21:25-28

5. The certainty of these events 21:29-33

6. The concluding exhortation to watchfulness 21:34-36

E. A summary of Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem 21:37-38

VII. Jesus' passion, resurrection, and ascension 22:1-24:53

A. The plot to arrest Jesus 22:1-6

1. The leaders' desire 22:1-2

2. Judas' offer 22:3-6

B. The preparations for the Passover 22:7-13

C. Events in the upper room 22:14-38

1. The Passover meal 22:14-18

2. The institution of the Lord's Supper 22:19-20

3. Jesus' announcement of His betrayal 22:21-23

4. Teaching about the disciples' service 22:24-30

5. Jesus' announcement of Peter's denial 22:31-34

6. The opposition to come 22:35-38

D. The arrest of Jesus 22:39-53

1. Jesus' preparation in Gethsemane 22:39-46

2. Judas' betrayal 22:47-53

E. The trials of Jesus 22:54-23:25

1. Peter's denial of Jesus 22:54-62

2. The mockery of the soldiers 22:63-65

3. Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin 22:66-71

4. Jesus' first appearance before Pilate 23:1-7

5. Jesus' appearance before Herod 23:8-12

6. Jesus' second appearance before Pilate 23:13-25

F. The crucifixion of Jesus 23:26-49

1. Events on the way to Golgotha 23:26-32

2. Jesus' death 23:33-49

G. The burial of Jesus 23:50-56

H. The resurrection of Jesus 24:1-12

I. The post-resurrection appearances of Jesus 24:13-49

1. The appearance to the disciples walking to Emmaus 24:13-35

2. The appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem 24:36-49

J. The ascension of Jesus 24:50-53

Constable: Luke

Luke

Bibliography

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. New ed. 4 vols. London: Rivingtons, 1880.

Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet and Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

_____. "A Theology of Luke-Acts." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 87-166. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Boslooper, Thomas. The Virgin Birth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.

Bowman, John. "The Parable of the Good Samaritan." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):151-53, 248-49.

Brown, R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City: Doubleday, 1977.

_____. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurection of Jesus. New York: Paulist Press, 1973.

Brown, Schuyler. Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

_____. "Justification by Faith in the non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 24 (1952):66-77.

Burrows, Millar. "Levirate Marriage in Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):23-33.

_____. "The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth." Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940):445-54.

Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1920.

Cairns, Earle E. "Luke As a Historian." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July-September 1965):220-26.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In Matthew--Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Cave, C. H. "Lazarus and the Lucan Deuteronomy." New Testament Studies 15 (1968-67):319-25.

Constable, Thomas L. Talking to God: What the Bible Teaches about Prayer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to St. Luke. A Commentary on the Third Gospel. London: Macmillan and Co., 1930.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age. Proclamation Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Davis, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Eating up the Houses of Widows': Jesus's Comment on Lawyers?" Novum Testamentum 14 (1972):1-9.

_____. "Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. II. Dives and Lazarus and the preceding Sayings." New Testament Studies, 7 (1960-61):364-80.

_____. Law in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt." Novum Testamentum 13 (1971):241-58.

_____. "Law in the New Testament: The Unjust Judge." New Testament Studies 18 (1071-72):178-91.

_____. "Take thy Bond . . . and Write Fifty' (Luke xvi. 6) The nature of the Bond." Journal of New Testament Studies NS23 (1972):438-40.

_____. "You Build the Tombs of the Prophets' [Luke 11:47-51; Matt. 23:29-31]." Studia Evangelica 4 (1968):187-93.

Dillon, Richard J. From Eye-Witnesses to Ministers of the Word: Tradition and Composition in Luke 24. Analecta Biblica 82. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

_____. "Previewing Luke's Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1-4)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981):205-27.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel according to St. Luke. International Critical Commentaries series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Erickson, Richard J. "The Jailing of John and the Baptism of Jesus: Luke 3:19-21." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):455-66.

Findlay, J. A. "Luke." In Abingdon Bible Commentary, pp. 1022-59. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1929.

Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

_____. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971.

_____. The Gospel according to Luke I--IX. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1981.

_____. "The Story of the Dishonest Manager." Theological Studies 25 (1964):23-42.

Flender, Helmut. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History. London: SPCK, 1967.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J., and Lake, Kirsopp, eds. The Beginnings of Christianity. 5 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1920-33.

Forbes, Greg. "Repentance and Conflict in the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:2 (June 1999):211-229.

Ford, J. Massingbyrde. "The Meaning of Virgin.'" New Testament Studies 12:3 (1966):293-99.

France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Freyne, Sean. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, Inc. and Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaston, Lloyd. Horae Synopticae Electonicae; Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.

Geldenhuys, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1950.

Gerhardsson, Birger.The Testing of God's Son. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament series 2:1. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1966.

Geyser, A. S. "The Youth of John the Baptist." Novum Testamentum 1 (1956):70-75.

Goodspeed, E. J. "Some Greek Notes: I. Was Theophilus Luke's Publisher?" Journal of Biblical Literature 73 (1954):84.

Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1974.

Han, Kyu Sam. "Theology of Prayer in the Gospel of Luke." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:4 (December 2000):675-93.

Harvey, A. E. The New English Bible: Companion to the New Testament. Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Hawkins, John Caesas. Horae Synopticae; Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem. 1909. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Helyer, Larry R. "Luke and the Restoration of Israel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):317-29.

Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Bibliotheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Centurion's Faith in Matthew and Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):321-32.

_____. "Stop and Think! (Luke 14:13-14), Rewardable Hospitality." The KERUGMA Message 3:1 (Spring 1993):1, 3.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Inrig, Gary. The Parables: Understanding What Jesus Meant. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1991.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1986 ed. Edited by Geoffrey E. Bromiley. S.v. "money," by H. W. Perkin.

Jellicoe, S. "St Luke and the Seventy-two." New Testament Studies 6 (1960):319-21.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. New Testament Library series. 3rd ed. Revised. London: SCM Press, 1966.

_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Rev. ed. Translated by S. H. Hooke. New York: Scribner, 1963.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keck, Leander E. "The Spirit and the Dove." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):41-67.

Keck, Leander, and Martyn, J. Louis, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Larkin, William J., Jr. "The Recovery of Luke-Acts as Grand Narrative' for the Church's Evangelistic and Edification Tasks in a Postmodern Age." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):405-15.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel. 1946. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lewis, Clive Staples. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan Co., 1959.

Liefeld, Walter L. "Luke." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lindsey, F. Duane. "Lucan Theology in Contemporary Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):346-51.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second series 17. London: SCM, 1970.

Lövestam, E. Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1963.

Luce, H. K. The Gospel according to S. Luke. Cambridge Greek Testament series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Greshem. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982.

Malick, David E. "A Literary Approach to the Birth Narratives in Luke 1-2." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 93-107. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Manek, J. "The New Exodus in the Books of Luke." Novum Testamentum 2 (1955):8-23.

_____. "On the Mount - on the Plain (Mt. V. 1 - Lk. VI. 17)." Novum Testamentum 9 (1967):124-31.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. "The Divine Sonship of Jesus." Interpretation 21 (1967):87-103.

_____. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

Martin, John A. "Luke." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 199-265. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Martin, R. P. Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty. Exeter, Eng.: Paternoster Press, 1972.

Mason, Steve. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, pp. 115-77. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1995.

Mathewson, Dave L. "The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13): A Reexamination of the Traditional View in Light of Recent Challenges." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):29-39.

Mattill, A. J., Jr. "Representative Universalism and the Conquest of Canaan." Concordia Theological Monthly 35:1 (1967):8-17.

McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Cal.: Thru the Bible Radio, 1983.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Remembering: A Central Theme in Biblical Worship." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):27-36.

Mills, Montague Stephen. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Minear, P. S. "A Note on Luke xxii. 36." Novum Testamentum 7 (1964):128-34.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moore, Thomas S. "The Lucan Great Commission and the Isaianic Servant." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):47-60.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Mosley, A. W. "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66):10-26.

Neil, William, The Acts of the Apostles. New Century Bible Commentary series. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1973; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1981.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," by F. F. Bruce.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by F. F. Bruce.

Oliver, H. H. "The Lucan Birth Stories and the Purpose of Luke-Acts." New Testaments Studies 10 (1963-64):215-26.

O'Neill, J. C. "The Six Amen Sayings in Luke." Journal of Theological Studies NS10 (1959):1-9.

Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Scribner's, 1907.

Overstreet, R. Larry "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Packer, J. I. "The Comfort of Conservatism." In Power Religion, pp. 283-99. Edited by Michael Scott Horton. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Reicke, Bo. "Jesus in Nazareth -- Lk 4, 14-30." In Das Wort und die Wörter, pp. 47-55. Edited by H. Balz and S. Schulz. Stuttgart: n. p., 1973.

Roberts, C. H. "The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. xvii. 21)." Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948):1-8.

Robinson, J. A. T. Twelve New Testament Studies. Studies in Biblical Theology No. 14. London: SCM Press, 1962.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Schurer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Clark's Foreign Theological Library series. 6 vols. Translated by John Macpherson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895-1905.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sneed, R. J. "The Kingdom of God is within you' (Lk. 17, 21)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 24 (1962):363-82.

Stanton, G. N. Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton, Il.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Strugnell, J. "Amen I say unto you' in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):177-90.

Summers, Ray. Commentary on Luke. Waco: Word Books, 1972.

Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 20. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.

_____. "The Lukan Presentation of Jesus' Ministry in Galilee." Review and Expositor 64 (1967):485-97.

_____. "Prophecies of Future Greatness: The Contribution of Greco-Roman Biographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God's Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, pp. 129-41. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1980.

_____. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. "Israel in Luke-Acts: A Tragic Story." Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985):69-85.

_____. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Vol. 1: The Gospel according to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Tenney, Merrill C. "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):126-38.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittle. S.v. "daimon," by W. Foerster.

_____. S.v. "hepta," by K. H. Rengstorf.

_____. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck and G. Bertram.

_____. S.v. "nestis," by J. Behm.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

_____. S.v. "paristemi, paristano," by Bo Reicke.

_____. S.v. "pascha," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "stole," by Ulrich Wilckens.

Thompson, G. H. P. "Called -- Proved -- Obedient." Journal of Theological Studies NS11 (1960):1-12.

_____. St. Luke. New Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966.

van Ommeren, Nicholas M. "Was Luke an Accurate Historian?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:589 (January-March 1991):57-71.

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew. London: Collins, 1973.

Walls, A. F. "In the Presence of the Angels' (Luke xv. 10)." Novum Testamentum 3 (1959):314-16.

Walvoord, John F. "The Times of the Gentiles." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):3-9.

Wenham, John. "The Identification of Luke." Evangelical Quarterly 63:1 (1991):3-44.

Wilkinson, J. "The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13:10-17." Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977):195-205.

Wink, Walter. John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. London: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Winter, P. "Nazareth' and Jerusalem' in Luke chs. 1 and 2." New Testament Studies 3 (1956-57):136-42.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "The Daily Bread Motif in Antiquity." Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1965-66):147-56.

Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Yates, Gary. "The Use of Isaiah 61:1 (and 58:6) in Luke 4:18-19." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):13-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Coins," by Gleason L. Archer.

_____. S.v. "Demon, Demoniac, Demonology," by R. K. Harrison.

_____. S.v. "Diseases of the Bible," by R. H. Pousma.

_____. S.v. "Samaritans," by J. L. Kelso.

_____. S.v. "Quirinius," by E. M. Blaiklock.

Zuck, Roy B. "How Jesus Responded to Questions." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 108-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-1@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p42luk-2@

Haydock: Luke (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE.

INTRODUCTION

St. Luke was a physician, a native of Antioch, the metropolis of Syria, and well skilled in the Greek language, as his writings sufficiently evince. In some ancient manuscripts, he is called Lucius, and Lucanus. Some conjecture that he was at first a Gentile and a pagan, and was converted by the preaching of St. Paul, at Antioch; others, that he was originally a Jew, and one of the seventy-two disciples. Sts. Hippolitus and Epiphanius say, that hearing from our Lord these words, he that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood, is not worthy of me, he withdrew, and quitted our Saviour, but returned to the faith at the preaching of St. Paul. But to leave what is uncertain, St. Luke was the disciple, travelling companion, and fellow-labourer of St. Paul. Of him St. Paul is supposed to speak: (2 Corinthians viii. 18.) We have sent also with him (Titus) the brother, whose praise is in the gospel, through all churches: and again, Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you: (Colossians iv.) and, only Luke is with me. (2 Timothy iv.) Some are of opinion that as often as St. Paul, in his Epistles, says according to my gospel, he speaks of the Gospel of St. Luke. This evangelist did not learn his gospel from St. Paul only, (who had never been with our Lord in the flesh) but from the other apostles also, as himself informs us in the beginning of his gospel, when he says, according as they have delivered them unto us; who, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses, ( Greek: autoptai ) and ministers of the word. His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that St. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world. It does not appear, as Calmet observes, that he had ever read the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. ... He chiefly insists in his gospel, upon what relates to Christ's priestly office; hence the ancients gave, of the four symbolical representations, mentioned in Ezechiel, that of the ox, or calf, to St. Luke, as an emblem of sacrifices. He lived 84 years in the state of celibacy, was crucified at Elœa, in Peloponnesus, near Achaia, and was buried in the church of the apostles, at Constantinople, to which city his remains were translated, together with those of St. Andrew and St. Timothy, in the year 357, by order of the emperor Constantius. When this church was repaired, by an order of Justinian, the masons found three wooden chests, in which the bodies of these saints were interred. Baronius mentions, that the head of St. Luke was brought by St. Gregory from Constantinople to Rome, in the year of Christ 586. St. Luke writes purer Greek than any of the other hagiographers; yet many Syriac words, and turns of expressions, occur in both his gospel and Acts of the Apostles; some also that imitate the genius of the Latin tongue. He cites Scripture according to the Septuagint, and not after the Hebrew text. St. Paul, in his Epistles, generally quotes the gospel in a manner the most conformable to St. Luke, as may be seen in the following instances; 1 Corinthians xi. 23. and 24. chap. xv. 5. The Marcionites would only receive the gospel of St. Luke, and from this they retrenched the first two chapters, with regard the birth of Jesus Christ, and only admitted ten of St. Paul's Epistles, as Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have remarked. Marcion embraced the errors of Cerdon: to these he added others, the offspring of his own brain. He began to disseminate his novel opinions at Rome, about the year of Christ 144. He could not bring himself to believe how a spirit, such as the human soul, could be shut up in a body, be subject to ignorance, to weakness, to pain; nor in what manner, or for what end, the great and good Lord, the Creator of spirits, could have thus degraded them. Revelation, which teaches us the fall of the first man, did not appear to the Marcionites, to solve the difficulty, since the first man was composed of a spiritual soul and a terrestrial body; they, moreover, imagined that an all-good, an all-powerful God, ought to have prevented the fall of man. No wonder then, that they refused to adopt the first two chapters of St. Luke, which contain the miraculous births of Jesus and his precursor [John the Baptist]; as also sundry texts of the very scanty portions of holy Scriptures which their party chose to retain. But what does this shew? that tradition, in the first instance, must be admitted, to inform us what is authentic scripture; and, secondly, an infallible Church-authority, to inform us what is the genuine interpretation of the genuine text. Without the assistance of apostolical tradition and Church-authority, could any Seeker (even with the assistance of Brown's Self-interpreting Bible, in 2 vols. 4to.) rest secure, that he properly understood the disputed points of holy writ; that his, and no other interpretation, was the genuine sense of these mysterious words, when he was informed that by far the greater part of learned societies, and learned individuals, gave a widely different interpretation to the same texts. This freedom of expounding Scripture, by unassisted reason and private spirit, was the first germ of the daily increasing spread of sects and heresies; this is the nucleus, which, after enveloping itself like the comet, in much nebulous obscurity, terminates in a fiery tail, of portentous magnitude, the ruinous effects of which can only be prevented by a speedy return to first principles, apostolical tradition, and Church-authority.

====================

Gill: Luke (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO LUKE

The writer of this Gospel, Luke, has been, by some, thought, as Origen ^a relates, to be the same with Lucius, mentioned in Rom 16:21, but he seems rather to be, and without doubt is, Luke the beloved physician, who was a companion of the Apostle Paul in great part of his travels in the Gentile world: he came with him to Jerusalem, and from thence accompanied him to Rome, and continued with him when in prison, and was with him to the last; see Act 16:10, &c. Col 4:14. Jerom ^b, and others, say, he was a physician of Antioch in Syria; where it may be the Apostle Paul met with him, and might be the happy instrument of his conversion; so that he seems to be, by nation, a Syrian, as Jerom ^c calls him. Grotius thinks his name is Roman, and that it is the contraction of Lucilius. It is not an Hebrew name, but might be in common use in Syria; for though the Jews reckon owqwl, "Lukus", among foreign names, yet say ^d a it was a very illustrious one, and well known to them, as it may well be thought to be if Syriac, the language being spoke by them: and many Jews lived in Syria, and particularly in Antioch. Some say that this Gospel was written by the advice, and assistance, and under the direction of the Apostle Paul, as the Gospel according to Mark was by that of Peter; though the following preface does not seem so well to accord with this. Eusebius says ^e that it was the sense of the ancients, that whenever the Apostle Paul makes mention of his Gospel, he intends this according to Luke. The time of the writing of it is not certain; some say it was written in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord; others in the twenty second; and others in the twenty seventh. It is commonly thought to have been written after the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to the order in which it stands; but this is rejected by some learned men, who rather think that Luke wrote first of all: and indeed, there are some things in his preface which look as if there had not, as yet, been any authentic account published, at least which was come to the knowledge of this evangelist. The place where he wrote it is also uncertain. Jerom says ^f, he wrote it in the parts of Achaia, perhaps at Corinth: according to the titles prefixed to the Syriac and Persic versions, he wrote it in Alexandria: the former of these runs thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, the Evangelist, which he spake and published in Greek in Alexandria the great.''

And the latter thus;

"the Gospel of Luke, which he wrote in the Greek tongue in Alexandria of Egypt.''

However, it is agreed on all hands, that it is genuine, and of divine inspiration. Eusebius ^g relates, that it was affirmed by some, that this Gospel, together with those of Matthew and Mark, were brought to the Apostle John, who approved of them, and bore witness to the truth in them.

College: Luke (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

"Many have undertaken" to write commentaries on the Gospel of Luke, and a large number of these are very good. "It seemed good also to me" to attempt to place in the hands of a popular audience the best of recent scholarship in an easily readable form. My prayer will have been answered if those without specialized training are able to come to a deeper understanding of Luke's message as a result of these efforts.

My debt to those who have written before me will be demonstrated throughout the commentary. I am equally indebted to many who have spent hours reading and making suggestions which have vastly improved my work. To my student assistant, Meg Grandstaff; to my mother, Peggy Black; and to my colleagues, Terry Briley, Brandon Fredenburg, and Gary Holloway, I can only say, "Thank you" and "I owe you one." I must also thank Lipscomb University for the Faculty Summer Grant which gave me the summer of 1996 to work on the book.

My greatest gratitude goes to Margo, Sara, Jessica, and Allison, who have tolerated too many hours taken away from them. They fill all my days with joy, and I must ask with Elizabeth (Luke 1:43), "Why am I so favored" to be their husband and father?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

TABLE OF

SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES

Anti-Semitism 371

Baptism 84

Destruction of Jerusalem and End of Time 336

Forgiveness and Grace 163

Fulfillment of Scripture 42

Holy Spirit 93

Kingdom of God 112

Law 69

Messiah 88

Miracles and Sign-Seeking 107

Outcasts and Untouchables 127

Parables 167

Pharisees 120

Poor and Rich 142

Prayer 92

Prophet Theme 60

Repentance 83

Sadducees 327

Samaritans 200

Son of Man 124

Table Fellowship 126

Tax Collectors 87

Women 50

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

This commentary is written for serious students of the New Testament, including Bible class teachers, preachers, college students, and other motivated readers. The reader need not be acquainted with the Greek language or scholarly tools and methodology. The single goal of the present commentary is to place modern readers into the shoes of the first readers of Luke's Gospel. Two questions have been constantly asked: What did Luke want his readers to grasp as he penned each section? And what did he want them to believe and to do after they had read the whole? My assumption is that the Gospel of Luke was written for us but not directly to us. Since it was originally written for a people of a different culture almost two thousand years ago, we must attempt to understand it as they understood it in order to be faithful to Luke's intent.

Luke wrote in order to encourage active faith in Jesus, and he did so through the use of narrative literature. To put it differently, Luke has written to tell his readers what to believe, what reasons there are for believing, and what it means to live as a believer. To make his case he has chosen to tell a story, a literary form with few imperatives and exhortations directly to the reader. Since narratives teach indirectly, the reader must learn to "read between the lines" in order to grasp the message.

I have therefore taken a literary and theological approach in this commentary. I believe that Luke has given many clues regarding his intent and that a proper reading will discover that intent. Put simply, his method is to tell the story of Jesus, highlighting those aspects of the story which his readers need most to hear. He has woven many themes into the plot which begins with the birth and ends with the death and resurrection of Jesus. To understand his message, then, the reader must read the whole, paying close attention to the plot and the characters and to the many repeated themes. Therefore I am more concerned with Luke's message in any given story than I am with the attempt to discover how his source(s) told the story. Similarly, I am more concerned with the reasons for Luke's references to various events than I am with our ability to confirm the historicity of those events.

For each episode or section in Luke's Gospel, we will be concerned first with any terms, customs, institutions, places, and beliefs which might be unfamiliar to the modern reader. We will therefore offer brief introductions to Herod Antipas, first-century eating customs, messianic beliefs, and dozens of other matters with which Luke's readers would already be familiar. Our second and most important concern will be to discover the function of each section in the larger story. Does it further the plot, teach a lesson on what it means to be a disciple, encourage deeper faith, or function in some other way?

A third feature of the present commentary is the attempt to summarize Luke's teaching on a variety of topics. Luke had several areas of special concern, evidenced by his dealing with them again and again. The reader will find in the table of contents a list of one- or two-page treatments of special topics such as women, the poor, the Law, the Holy Spirit, prayer, the kingdom of God, and many others.

A final special interest (to be explained further in the introduction below) is the effort to relate the Gospel of Luke to its companion volume, the book of Acts. The reader gains inspired insight into what Luke thinks about the teachings of Jesus when he or she sees Jesus' disciples in Acts carrying out those teachings. We will regularly look ahead to Acts to understand what Jesus means in the Gospel of Luke.

I am greatly indebted to the fine commentaries on Luke's Gospel by Johnson, Nolland, Stein, and Tiede. These works, which have different purposes and perspectives, have been tremendously helpful in my writing. I have tried to footnote them when appropriate. However, having used them for several years, I am no longer sure whether many ideas are my own or borrowed from them. I recommend these four commentaries to the reader who wants more than I have provided herein. I have directed the reader to Stein's work more than the others, because his will prove easiest to understand for the nonspecialist.

AUTHORSHIP

The Gospel of Luke is anonymous. Like the other three Gospels, it makes no claim regarding authorship. However, from the late second century until the 19th, no one seems to have questioned that Luke the physician wrote Luke and Acts.

The Third Gospel was known as "The Gospel of Luke" by at least the late second century in order to distinguish it from the other three. It is impossible to know just why the early church attributed the book to Luke. Some would argue that he indeed wrote the book, and that his name was therefore associated with it from the beginning. Others argue that early Christians derived its authorship from evidence within the book of Acts (to be discussed below).

Supporting this early tradition are the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170-180), Irenaeus (late 2nd century), the earliest actual copy of the Gospel (Bodmer Papyrus XIV, 175-225), an ancient Prologue to the Gospel written against the heretic Marcion (late 2nd), Tertullian (207-208), and later Origen (254), Eusebius (303), and Jerome (398). Such is the external evidence for Lukan authorship, and it is quite strong.

The internal evidence is also strong, and it comes from volume two, the book of Acts. There the author uses the first person plural pronoun ("we") in narrating the events in the life of Paul on three occasions (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16; often called the "we-passages" of Acts). These sections imply that the author was with Paul in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Judea, on the Mediterranean, and in Rome.

This of course does not point directly to Luke, but it does encourage some detective work on the part of the reader. Who was with Paul during these times? Paul's letters and Acts suggest a number of traveling companions (see the relevant portions of Acts and especially Col 4, Phlm, and 2 Tim 4). When one eliminates those whom the author mentions by name in Acts, and if one assumes that the author of Luke-Acts was a Gentile (see below), Luke emerges as the most likely author, given the strong weight of tradition.

Given strong external and internal evidence for Lukan authorship, one may wonder why much of contemporary scholarship rejects the notion entirely. The answer is based on internal evidence which is said to disallow Lukan authorship. Quite simply, the book of Acts presents a view of Paul the Christian who appears to be quite different from the Paul who wrote the letters, especially Galatians. The book of Acts does not cite or even mention Paul's letters. More significantly, it is argued that the theological portrait of Paul in Acts could not have been painted by a companion of Paul. Luke's portrait is especially problematic with regard to Paul's stance on keeping the Law. We must admit that it is somewhat surprising when Paul, who wrote that, "All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse," (Gal 3:10), consistently upholds the Law in Acts. Most notably, James in Acts 21:24 encourages Paul to help the four men under a vow in order to show that "you yourself are living in obedience to the Law."

At the risk of oversimplifying a very complex discussion, several points should be noted. First, we should admit and not apologize for the fact that Luke and Paul have very different agendas in writing their works. This has necessarily influenced which events they narrate and what they emphasize theologically. Paul is writing for churches in crises and tends to address only those areas where the church in question needs instruction. Luke on the other hand writes in order to show the unity within the early church and therefore stresses that which all churches shared. So Paul in Galatians writes against Judaizers (those who want Gentiles to keep the Law), whereas Luke writes to Gentiles who may not have enough understanding or appreciation of the Jewish heritage of Christianity. The difference may well be one of audience and perspective rather than theological position. One should remember that Paul in his letters does write that his policy is, "To the Jews I became like a Jew," and, "To those under the Law I became like one under the Law" (1 Cor 9). In other words, Luke in Acts may be showing a side of Paul that the letters largely do not show: Paul customarily lived as a Jew, especially around Jews.

Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician. However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more "medical" language than other educated writers of his day. Of course, the healing stories and "medical" vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.

While it can never be proven absolutely, I have taken the view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote Luke and Acts. This is largely because I accept the "we-sections" at face value. The author intended to represent himself as a companion of Paul, and the best candidate is Luke. However, we still know very little about our author, because the New Testament says little about Luke. What can be known about this author other than that he was a companion of Paul (Acts 16-28), a physician (Col 4:14), and a Gentile (Col 4:11)?

We actually learn more about Luke from his writing than from other sources. First, he was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus (1:1-4). He got his information from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Second, he was a man of some education, as is clearly evidenced by his learned Greek (see esp. 1:1-4) and his ability to imitate the style of the Greek Old Testament. Third, he does appear to have been a Gentile. While this cannot be proven with certainty, his references to "the Jews" probably imply that he was not one of them, especially the reference to "their language" in Acts 1:19. This is, of course, consistent with the statement of Colossians 4:14 (which implies that Luke was a Gentile). Fourth, he was thoroughly conversant with the Scriptures. Although he has been called a Gentile writing to Gentiles, we must not overlook his constant references to every section of the Old Testament (esp. Psalms), his overriding fulfillment theme, and his great concern to show that all of his Jewish characters continue to observe the Law of Moses (even those who become Christians). This Gentile, for example, is the only Gospel writer who tells us of Jesus' circumcision on the eighth day, of Mary's purification on the fortieth day, of the disciples' observance of the Sabbath "according to the commandment" after the death of Jesus (24:1), and of Paul's taking vows (18:18) and participating in the sacrificial system long after becoming a Christian (Acts 21). Perhaps Luke had for some time been a "God-fearer," a Gentile who worshiped God, appreciated Judaism, and attended the synagogue. God-fearers are an important group in Acts who very often become Christians (see 13:16; 16:14; 18:7).

Fortunately, we need not know the author's name to interpret his narrative. In fact, the narrative tells us much more about the author than any theory about the author tells us about the narrative.

DATE

It is fortunate also that the interpreter need not know the date of Luke's writing, because no one knows exactly when it was written. Though some argue that Luke wrote his Gospel long before he wrote Acts, there are many reasons to think the two volumes were written at the same time. If so, the Gospel was written after A.D. 60-62, the date of Paul's imprisonment in Acts 28. Thus the earliest possible date for Luke's Gospel is 62. A few scholars argue that Luke must have written at that time, and that this accounts for the abrupt and frustrating (did Paul live or die?) ending of Acts. Most, however, believe that Luke had other reasons than lack of information for ending Acts as he did. I concur with those who think Luke had simply accomplished his purpose in Acts 28. He wrote to give an account of the spread of the gospel from Jews (only) in Jerusalem to Gentiles (predominantly) in Rome. He did not intend to give a biography of Paul.

Most argue that Luke had to have been written after Mark, because, in their opinions, Luke used Mark's Gospel in writing his own. However, this opinion is not universally accepted; and even if it were, one then has to answer the equally difficult question, When was Mark written? On the other hand, Luke 1:1 does suggest that Luke was probably written relatively late among early Gospels.

Many would argue that the earliest date of writing must be at least A.D. 70 on the basis of likely allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus alludes to the coming destruction of Jerusalem in the first two Gospels as well as in Luke. However, in Luke Jesus says, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies," (21:20) instead of, "When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong," (Mark 13:14). Many believe that this more specific language suggests that Luke was looking back at the destruction and interpreting for his audience the meaning of Jesus' statement. This is likely, but it is far from certain.

The latest possible date for the writing of Luke's Gospel would be the first allusion to it in other literature. But even that is difficult to determine because allusions are notoriously difficult to ascertain. It could be 1 Clement (95-96), Ignatius (110), Polycarp (135), or 2 Clement (clear allusion but uncertain date, anywhere from 120-170).

The evidence tends to point to the period of A.D. 65-85 for the composition of the Gospel of Luke. Some might like to be more exact, but it matters little for the interpretation of Luke's work.

AUDIENCE

As suggested above, the Gospel of Luke appears to be addressed to Gentile Christians. Though Theophilus is the named recipient and was certainly an intended reader, Luke undoubtedly wrote for a much larger audience. Just as modern "letters to the editor" are meant for the larger public, so was Luke's work. Numerous hints within the work point to a larger audience which is predominantly Gentile. The most important are these: (1) He relates his work to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (1:1-4). (2) He dedicates the work to Theophilus, most likely a Gentile. (3) He is profoundly interested in the Gentile mission. (4) He uses Greek and Roman terms when other Gospel writers use Hebrew ("teacher" for "rabbi;" "lawyer" for "scribe;" "Skull" for "Golgotha"). (5) He refers to the Jews in the third person.

Most agree that the original readers were Christian and that Luke-Acts is intended to build up faith rather than help create it. This is perhaps more difficult to prove, but two factors seem to lead in this direction. First, it appears that the named reader, Theophilus, had already heard the story (1:4). Second, there are simply too many matters left unexplained which would have been far too confusing for the non-Christian. Almost every episode assumes that Luke's readers had a basic knowledge about Jesus and that Luke writes to provide certainty and various additional details.

PURPOSE

Luke tells us his purpose in Luke 1:4: he wants Theophilus to have "certainty" regarding the things he has been taught. This statement is at the same time helpful and ambiguous. On the one hand, it suggests that Luke is written with a quasi-apologetic motive. What it does not tell us, on the other hand, is in what area(s) his readers needed certainty. Did they simply need to be assured of the historicity of the events narrated? Or is it possible that they needed certainty regarding their own position before God? Or could it be that they needed certainty that God was behind all of the events they had heard about and witnessed? Might it even mean that they needed certainty about the proper response to the gospel message?

Luke's purpose has been called apologetic (to defend Christianity to Rome, or, in another sense, to defend God's actions), evangelistic (to engender faith among non-Christians), anti-heretical (to combat Gnosticism), and didactic (to teach Christians what to believe and how to act), to name only the most commonly suggested. In light of the many credible suggestions offered by scholars, we should be very careful about settling upon one purpose. The question of Luke's purpose must be answered by looking not only at Luke's Gospel but also at the Acts of the Apostles, and it can only be answered with reference to the themes which keep recurring throughout both volumes.

Perhaps it is best to suggest that Luke-Acts was written primarily for Gentiles who needed "assurance" in a number of areas, both historical and theological. Perhaps they did need the account of a careful and educated historian to give them confidence that events they heard about had actually occurred. There also may have been some among them who had not yet decided to become Christians. Most likely those who were Christians needed Luke to explain how God had kept his promises to the Jews in light of the fact that there seemed to be fewer and fewer Jews among those being converted. Probably these same Gentile Christians simply needed to understand better their own place in God's plan. And surely these readers, whoever they were, needed to be reminded that being Christian meant sharing possessions, undergoing persecution, welcoming the outcast, serving one another, and generally walking as Jesus walked.

LUKE AND ACTS

Eighteen hundred fifty years ago it was apparent that Luke's first volume was very much like the works of Matthew and Mark. At that time the Gospel was placed beside its peers in the New Testament. John, assumed to be the last Gospel written, was placed between Luke and Acts, and the two works by Luke have been separated ever since. While everyone acknowledges that one author wrote both, few have truly noted the import of that fact. Luke wrote not two independent documents, but a two-volume story, as he well explains.

When Luke is read along with Acts, Acts reads quite differently. No longer do we have the self-contained story of the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem Jews to Roman Gentiles. We have nothing less than the story of Jesus, from his ministry in Galilee to his death and resurrection in Jerusalem to his continuing ministry in the Mediterranean world.

In the tradition of the Restoration Movement it has long been argued that the book of Acts provides a pattern for the later church. My thesis is that there is indeed an intended pattern in Acts, but the pattern is not rooted primarily in the practice of the early church. The pattern is that established by Jesus. Quite simply, the early church does what Jesus did and what Jesus commanded it to do. In fact, Luke insists that it is still Jesus who is carrying out his ministry through the church. In Acts 1:1 when Luke writes of the former book in which he "wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach," what he implies is that Acts will narrate what Jesus continues to do and to teach.

This is especially clear in certain passages: it is Jesus himself who calls Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Later in that chapter Peter says, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." In Acts 16:7 Paul and his companions attempt to enter Bithynia, "but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them." And in 18:9 Jesus himself speaks to Paul, encouraging him to have no fear. It should also be noted that Jesus had already said in Luke 21:15, "I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand." It is clear, of course, that in Acts Jesus is at the right hand of God, but he is active and very much in control as he directs the new movement through his Spirit. Jesus is so bound up with his church that he can tell Paul in 9:5, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting."

Consider the following parallels or "patterns" in the ministry of Jesus and that of the early church:

(1) Luke shows Jesus praying at nearly every major event (baptism, choosing disciples, confession, transfiguration, Gethsemane, and on the cross). The early church does the same (waiting before Pentecost, choosing Matthias, Peter before going to Cornelius, sending Paul, healing, and many others).

(2) In Luke Jesus is empowered when the Holy Spirit descends upon him at his baptism. Only then does he begin his ministry of preaching and healing (3:22; see 1:35; 4:1). In Acts the apostles are told to wait until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit (1:5, 8). After the Spirit descends upon them (2:4), they also do signs and wonders and preach, just as did Jesus. All the major characters in Acts, like Jesus, are said to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Peter - 4:8; Stephen - 6:5; Paul - 13:9, and dozens of other references to the guidance of the Spirit).

(3) In Luke Jesus performs various miracles as part of his ministry. The church leaders in Acts not only perform miracles - they perform miracles which are remarkably similar to those of Jesus. For example, just as Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Peter who had a fever (Luke 4:38), Paul heals the father of Publius, who also had a fever (Acts 28:8). Just as Jesus casts out unclean spirits (Luke 4:36; 6:18, etc.), so do Peter (Acts 5:16), Philip (8:7), and Paul (16:18; 19:13). Jesus heals the lame (Luke 7:22), as do Peter and John (Acts 3:2), Philip (8:7), and Paul (14:8-10).

(4) The message of Jesus and that of the leaders in Acts is the same, emphasizing the kingdom of God (30 times in Luke; see Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23), repentance, and forgiveness of sins. Jesus and the apostles on occasion even use the same Old Testament texts, such as Psalm 110 (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34).

(5) Jesus suffers at the hands of his own people and the Gentiles, and so do the disciples. Of course, Jesus predicted that they would (12:11-12; 21:12-14). Jesus teaches in the synagogue at Nazareth and is rejected and almost killed. The same will happen on numerous occasions in Acts, as Paul enters synagogue after synagogue, only to be eventually rejected. Suffering is especially the lot of Paul, whose story Luke parallels in detail with that of Jesus. The journeys to Jerusalem and treatment there of both Jesus and Paul occupy the large final sections of Luke and Acts. In 18:32 Jesus announces that he "will be delivered to the Gentiles." In Acts 21:11, speaking of Paul the prophet Agabus predicts that the Jews will "deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Of Jesus, Luke later records that the people "all cried out together, 'Away with this man,'" and of Paul Luke writes, "for the mob of the people followed, crying, 'Away with him!'" Both Jesus and Paul face Jewish accusers, including the High Priest; both appear before Herodian princes as well as Roman procurators; and both are said to be innocent by the Roman leaders.

The Jesus/Stephen parallels are even more obvious. Both are full of the Holy Spirit; both are recipients of wisdom, grace and power; both do signs and wonders; both are led to the council, the eyes of whose members are fixed on them; both are cast outside the city; both pray that God will forgive their accusers; both commit their spirits to God; both are killed; and both are buried by devout persons.

(6) There are also many examples of the apostles obeying the directives of Jesus (Luke 6:22-23: "rejoice [when people persecute you] in that day and leap for joy"- see Acts 5:41; Luke 9:5: "shake the dust off your feet . . . as a testimony against them"- see Acts 13:51; 18:6). In fact, the entire plan of Acts was commanded by the risen Jesus in Acts 1:8, where he says, "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

One of the most important areas in which the church in Acts carries out the teaching of Jesus is that related to wealth and poverty. In Luke as in no other Gospel Jesus encourages the sharing of possessions and condemns the greedy and selfish. Many of these stories and sayings appear only in Luke: Zacchaeus; the rich man and Lazarus; "blessed are you poor;" the parables about inviting the poor, lame, maimed, and blind; the dishonest steward; and the command to all of the disciples, "sell your possessions and give alms." It is not surprising, then, that Acts contains many examples, both positive and negative, of the use of possessions in the early church: the selling of possessions for the needy in chapters 2 and 4; the generosity of Barnabas, Dorcas, Paul, and the Antioch church; and the negative examples of Ananias and Sapphira, Simon the Sorcerer, Felix, and Judas (who bought a field with his money (1:18), over against Barnabas, who sold a field in Acts 4:36).

Having argued this case, it would be a mistake to suggest that Luke had no notion of the church of his day being like the church which he writes about - he surely did. But the goal is not to replicate the church of the earliest decades; it is rather to be like Jesus, and the picture of a church that looked like Jesus could only further that goal. The intent may be very much like that of Paul, who tells the churches, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ." Paul knows the advantage of giving his readers an example which is easily grasped and will lead them toward the goal. Yet he also knows quite well that he has not yet reached the goal (Phil 3:12-13), and he never makes the imitation of himself the primary goal. Luke seems to have the same intent in Acts: the early church is well worthy of imitation, insofar as its members imitate Christ.

This commentary will be written from this perspective. The best commentary on Acts is the Gospel of Luke. And conversely, Luke has made clear what Jesus' statements mean in a later generation. Therefore, to read Acts is to read an inspired commentary on the Gospel of Luke. We will refer to Luke's two-volume work as "Luke-Acts."

HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

Luke has been accused often of being careless as a historian, at least by modern standards. His treatment of the census under Quirinius (Luke 2), the rebellion under Theudas (Acts 5), and several other matters have led many to argue that Luke is a better theologian than historian. While the present commentary cannot look in detail at these matters (there will be brief comments in the appropriate sections), one should keep in mind several things. First, there are many matters about which we will never have enough information to make a final judgment. However, the silence of extrabiblical sources should never be taken as proof that an event never occurred. Secondly, each passage must be evaluated independently. The number of cases in which Luke is clearly out of step with other ancient sources is very small, and those sources always had their own agenda, just as did Luke. Thirdly, most would concede that Luke proves to be accurate when there is sufficient evidence with which to compare his writing. Luke has obviously gone to great lengths in order to have accurate information on John the Baptist and on rulers in Judea and Galilee. Considering the large number of events and people in his narrative, the surprising thing is that there are not more alleged historical inaccuracies. There can be little doubt that Luke went to much trouble to ensure accuracy. Luke is both historian and theologian.

SOURCES

Luke got his information from various sources, as he tells us in 1:1-4. However, we do not know for certain the identity of any of these. Most scholars think that Luke (and Matthew) are somehow dependent on the Gospel of Mark. I have made no such assumption in this commentary. While there is undoubtedly some advantage in knowing any writer's sources, there is no final proof for any theory regarding the relationships between the Gospels. I have, however, made two assumptions about Luke's Gospel. First, I believe it to be inspired and thus completely reliable. Second, I believe that Luke had a great deal of information about Jesus from which to choose and that we gain a great deal by simply comparing what Luke wrote to what other Gospel writers wrote. In other words, Luke has selected and adapted his material, and while we do not have access to all the information he had at his disposal, we will learn a great deal through a comparative reading.

THEMES

There may be no clearer insight into Luke's purpose than that gained by examining those themes which recur with some frequency in Luke-Acts. Narrative writers express what their readers need most by returning to a point again and again. When looked at from this perspective, Luke has many concerns. It is clear that he has much to tell his readers, and there can be no more effective way for them to hear it than from the lips of Jesus. The following list is far from exhaustive, but it at least will steer the reader into some of those areas which apparently were close to Luke's heart. The following topics receive special attention in the commentary at the place where Luke first mentions them (see p. 11 for page numbers). They are listed here in order to give the reader a preview of some of Luke's major themes and in order to show the reader where to look in the commentary for more information.

Anti-Semitism Parables Baptism Pharisees Destruction of Jerusalem Poor and Rich and End of Time Prayer Forgiveness and Grace Prophet Theme Fulfillment of Scripture Repentance Holy Spirit Sadducees Kingdom of God Samaritans Law Son of Man Messiah Table Fellowship Miracles and Sign-Seeking Tax Collectors Outcasts and Untouchables Women

A FINAL WORD ABOUT

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS

Traditional introductory questions are being given less attention today than they were a generation ago. The reason is twofold. First, it is very difficult to give "sure" answers to many questions of introduction. The evidence is often insufficient to offer more than probabilities, and what is "probable" is evaluated differently by every scholar. Second, the interpretation of many New Testament works and especially the Gospels is not significantly aided by having answers to most of these questions. For example, knowing that the author of Luke was the companion of Paul does not change the understanding of any passage in the Gospel. Similarly, knowing the date aids interpretation very little. The following commentary does not assume sure answers to any of these questions for its interpretation.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha , 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1983, 1985.

Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah . Trans. from the Hebrew with Introductory and Brief Explanatory Notes. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Epstein, I., ed. The Babylonian Talmud . London: Soncino Press, 1935-48.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah . London: Soncino Press, 1939-.

Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann.

Martínez, Florentino García. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English . Trans. Wilfred G.E. Watson. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Bock, Darrell. Luke . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995-96.

Craddock, Fred B. Luke . Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.

Danker, F.W. Luke . Proclamation Commentaries, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Ellis, E.E. The Gospel of Luke . New Century Bible, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Evans, Craig A. Luke . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel according to Luke . Anchor Bible 28, 28A. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 1985.

Green, Joel B., and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God . Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.

Johnson, Luke T. The Gospel of Luke . Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text . The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. Luke: Historian and Theologian . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.

Morris, Leon. Luke . Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Nolland, John. Luke . Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 35A, 35B, 35C. Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 1993.

O'Toole, Robert F. The Unity of Luke's Theology: An Analysis of Luke-Acts . Good News Studies 9. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984.

Stein, Robert H. Luke . The New American Commentary 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation . Vol. I: The Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Tiede, David L. Luke . Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

RSV Revised Standard Version

Main Biblical Manuscript Texts:

Codex Sinaiticus (4th century A.D.)

A Codex Alexandrinus (5th century A.D.)

B Codex Vaticanus (4th century A.D.)

D Codex Bezae (5th-6th century A.D.)

⁶⁹ Papyrus 69 (3rd century A.D.)

⁷⁵ Papyrus 75 (early 3rd century A.D.)

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Luke (Outline)

OUTLINE

There is general agreement among serious students of Luke's Gospel regarding its structure.

I. Prologue Luke 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative 1:5-2:52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry 3:1-4:13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee 4:14-9:50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem 9:51-19:27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem 19:28-21:38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death 22:1-23:56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension 24:1-53

(The Book of Acts)

IX. From Easter to Pentecost (Acts 1)

X. From Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 2-9)

XI. From Judea to Rome (Acts 10-28)

Those who are familiar with the other Gospels notice immediately several similarities and differences. Like Matthew, Luke begins with birth stories (although Luke's are very different than Matthew's). Like Matthew and Mark, Luke includes Jesus' temptation and baptism and has a large section in which Jesus teaches and heals in Galilee. And like all three other Gospels, Luke has Jesus go to Jerusalem for the final week and ends the Gospel with the trial, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

What is most distinctive about the Gospel of Luke, however, is section V in the above outline, the journey to Jerusalem. It is the largest section in Luke's Gospel and contains a great number of stories found only in Luke. Luke uses this long journey to Jerusalem primarily to teach what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. It means doing what Jesus does: teaching, healing, serving, suffering, and dying to self. In other words, it means following Jesus - all the way to Jerusalem.

Finally, the greatest difference between Luke's writing and that of Matthew, Mark, and John is that Luke continues the story. The book of Acts tells how Jesus continues to teach and heal as he leads the growing kingdom throughout the Mediterranean world.

DETAILED OUTLINE

(Episode Titles Based on NIV Headings)

I. Prologue Luke - 1:1-4

II. Infancy Narrative - 1:5-2:52

A. The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold - 1:5-25

B. The Birth of Jesus Foretold - 1:26-38

C. Mary Visits Elizabeth - 1:39-45

D. Mary's Song - 1:46-56

E. The Birth of John the Baptist - 1:57-66

F. Zechariah's Song - 1:67-80

G. The Birth of Jesus - 2:1-7

H. The Shepherds and the Angels - 2:8-20

I. Jesus Presented in the Temple - 2:21-40

J. The Boy Jesus at the Temple - 2:41-52

III. The Preparation for Jesus' Ministry - 3:1-4:13

A. John the Baptist Prepares the Way - 3:1-20

B. The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus - 3:21-38

C. The Temptation of Jesus - 4:1-13

IV. Jesus' Ministry in Galilee - 4:14-9:50

A. Jesus Rejected at Nazareth - 4:14-30

B. Jesus' Ministry in Capernaum - 4:31-44

1. Jesus Drives Out an Evil Spirit - 4:31-37

2. Jesus Heals Many - 4:38-44

C. The Calling of the First Disciples - 5:1-11

D. The Man with Leprosy - 5:12-16

E. The Beginning of Conflict - 5:17-6:11

1. Jesus Heals a Paralytic - 5:17-26

2. The Calling of Levi - 5:27-32

3. Jesus Questioned About Fasting - 5:33-39

4. Lord of the Sabbath - 6:1-11

F. The Sermon on the Plain - 6:12-49

1. The Twelve Apostles - 6:12-16

2. Blessings and Woes - 6:17-26

3. Love for Enemies - 6:27-36

4. Judging Others - 6:37-42

5. A Tree and Its Fruit - 6:43-45

6. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 6:46-49

G. Jesus the Prophet - 7:1-50

1. The Faith of the Centurion - 7:1-10

2. Jesus Raises a Widow's Son - 7:11-17

3. Jesus and John the Baptist - 7:18-35

4. Jesus Anointed by a Sinful Woman - 7:36-50

H. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 8:1-21

1. The Parable of the Sower - 8:1-15

2. A Lamp on a Stand - 8:16-18

3. Jesus' Mother and Brothers - 8:19-21

I. Jesus Shows His Divine Power - 8:22-56

1. Jesus Calms a Storm - 8:22-25

2. The Healing of a Demoniac - 8:26-39

3. A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman - 8:40-56

J. Jesus and His Apostles - 9:1-50

1. Jesus Sends Out the Twelve - 9:1-6

2. Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - 9:7-17

3. Peter's Confession of Christ - 9:18-27

4. The Transfiguration - 9:28-36

5. The Healing of a Boy with a Demon - 9:37-45

6. Who Will Be the Greatest? - 9:46-50

V. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem - 9:51-19:27

A. Jesus Faces Toward Jerusalem - 9:51-13:21

1. Samaritan Opposition - 9:51-56

2. The Cost of Following Jesus - 9:57-62

3. Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two - 10:1-24

4. The Parable of the Good Samaritan - 10:25-37

5. At the Home of Mary and Martha - 10:38-42

6. Jesus' Teaching on Prayer - 11:1-13

7. Jesus and Beelzebub - 11:14-28

8. The Sign of Jonah - 11:29-32

9. The Lamp of the Body - 11:33-36

10. Six Woes - 11:37-54

11. Warnings and Encouragements - 12:1-12

12. The Parable of the Rich Fool - 12:13-21

13. Do Not Worry - 12:22-34

14. Watchfulness - 12:35-48

15. Not Peace but Division - 12:49-53

16. Interpreting the Times - 12:54-59

17. Repent or Perish - 13:1-9

18. A Crippled Woman Healed - 13:10-17

19. Parables of Mustard Seed and Yeast - 13:18-21

B. Jesus Journeys Toward Jerusalem - 13:22-17:10

1. The Narrow Door - 13:22-30

2. Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem - 13:31-35

3. Jesus at a Pharisee's House - 14:1-14

4. The Parable of the Great Banquet - 14:15-24

5. The Cost of Being a Disciple - 14:25-35

6. The Parable of the Lost Sheep - 15:1-7

7. The Parable of the Lost Coin - 15:8-10

8. The Parable of the Lost Son - 15:11-32

9. The Parable of the Shrewd Manager - 16:1-15

10. Teachings on the Law and Divorce - 16:16-18

11. The Rich Man and Lazarus - 16:19-31

12. Sin, Faith, Duty - 17:1-10

C. Jesus Approaches Jerusalem - 17:11-19:27

1. Ten Healed of Leprosy - 17:11-19

2. The Coming of the Kingdom of God - 17:20-37

3. The Parable of the Persistent Widow - 18:1-8

4. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector - 18:9-14

5. The Little Children and Jesus - 18:15-17

6. The Rich Ruler - 18:18-30

7. Jesus Again Predicts His Death - 18:31-34

8. A Blind Beggar Receives His Sight - 18:35-43

9. Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - 19:1-10

10. The Parable of the Ten Minas - 19:11-27

VI. Jesus' Ministry in Jerusalem - 19:28-21:38

A. The Triumphal Entry - 19:28-34

B. Jesus at the Temple - 19:45-48

C. The Authority of Jesus Questioned - 20:1-8

D. The Parable of the Tenants - 20:9-19

E. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 20:20-26

F. The Resurrection and Marriage - 20:27-40

G. Whose Son Is the Christ? - 20:41-47

H. The Widow's Offering - 21:1-4

I. Signs of the End of the Age - 21:5-38

VII. Jesus' Suffering and Death - 22:1-23:56

A. Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus - 22:1-6

B. The Last Supper - 22:7-38

C. Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives - 22:39-46

D. Jesus Arrested - 22:47-53

E. Peter Disowns Jesus - 22:54-62

F. The Guards Mock Jesus - 22:63-65

G. Jesus Before Pilate and Herod - 22:66-23:25

H. The Crucifixion - 23:26-43

I. Jesus' Death - 23:44-49

J. Jesus' Burial - 23:50-56

VIII. Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension - 24:1-53

A. The Resurrection - 24:1-12

B. On the Road to Emmaus - 24:13-35

C. Jesus Appears to the Disciples - 24:36-49

D. The Ascension - 24:50-53

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Luke (Book Introduction)

S. LUKE'S GOSPEL

Third Edition

JOHN HODGES,

AGAR STREET, CHARING CROSS, LONDON.

1892.

INTRODUCTION.

——o——

THE Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to S. Luke , that is, the Holy Evangelical History of the words and acts of Jesus, as described by S. Luke. The Arabic says, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, the Gospel of the Excellent Father, Luke the Evangelist, the laying open of the glorious Gospel." The Syraic, "In the name of the Lord and our God, we Jeschua Mescicho, sign the Gospel, the holy message of Luke the Evangelist, which he spoke and proclaimed in Greek, in Alexandria." From this diversity, it is clear that the above title or inscription was prefixed to the Gospel, not by S. Luke himself, but by the Church which, in like manner, inscribed one Gospel "According to S. Matthew," one "According to S. John," and another "According to S. Mark." Nay, as regards the faith of the future, this title would have been added to no purpose by S. Luke himself, unless the Church had declared his Gospel to be genuine and not supposititious, and had handed it down as such. This speaks for Tradition against the heretics, for why is the Gospel, bearing the name of S. Luke, to be received as truly his, whilst that with the title of "Matthew and Thomas" is not to be considered theirs? Or again, why is the Gospel of S. Luke more canonical than that of Apelles or Basilides? No other reason can be given but the proof, declaration, and tradition of the Church. For we accept it, not because it is written in the sacred books, but because it has been so handed down by the Church. For instance, we believe this to be the Gospel of S. Luke and canonical, not because he wrote it, but because the Church so delivers and teaches. For although its own authority pertains to this Gospel, as to the others, yet this authority would not be plain to us, but for the declaration of the Church. The same is, a pari , to be said of the sense of Scripture. For the true sense of Scripture is not what appears to you or me, for this would be uncertain and doubtful, for Calvin affirms one sense to be the true one, Luther another, and others another, but that which is taught and received by the Church, whose office it is to deliver as well what is the true Scripture as what is its true meaning. For Holy Scripture consists not in the bark (cortice) of letters or words, but in their genuine meaning. So the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and the Fathers everywhere, especially Tertullian (B. iv. cap. 5 against Marcion). See what I have said on S. Matthew i. 1.

Observe: I. S. Matthew was the first in order of the Evangelists. He wrote in Hebrew to the Jews in Judæa. S. Mark was the second. He wrote in Greek and Latin to the Romans in Italy; then S. Luke wrote to the Greeks in Greek; and S. John last of all, also in Greek; but S. Luke wrote the more elegantly, because he was the more perfect master of Greek. Hear S. Jerome (Ep. 84 to Paulinus): "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the quadriga of the Lord, and true Cherubim (which is interpreted, the 'multitude of knowledge'), through their whole body they are 'full of eyes,' sparks shine from them, lightnings flash forth, their feet are 'straight,' and point upwards, their backs are winged, and they fly hither and thither. They hold themselves mutually one with another, and are 'enfolded' with one another, and are rolled together, like a wheel, and they go wherever the influence of the Holy Spirit directs them." See Ezekiel i. 9, x. 12; Revelation iv. 6-8.

Moreover, among the faces or forms of the four Cherubim, the third, that of the ox, is ascribed to S. Luke, as well because he begins from the priesthood of Zachariah, whose chief sacrifice was an ox, as because he underwent the labours of an ox in the Gospel, and bore about continually in his own body the mortification of the Cross for the honour of the name of Christ, as the Church sings of him. See what has been said on Revelation iv. 7, and Ezekiel i. 10.

II. S. Luke wrote his Gospel against certain gaping, ignorant, perhaps even false Evangelists, who had written, in Syria or Greece, an imperfect, it may be a lying Gospel, as S. Luke himself signifies in the beginning of his work. So say Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact, and S. Epiphanius ( Her . l. i), who, however, when he adds that S. Luke wrote against Cerinthus and Meritus, does not seem to speak correctly. For these two, and especially Basilides, were later than S. Luke, as is clear from Eusebius (Hist. B. iii. ch. 32). Theophylact and Bede think, with more truth, that S. Luke wrote against the Apocryphal Gospels of others, such as pass under the names of "Thomas, Matthew, and the Twelve Apostles."

III. S. Luke was not one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as Euthymius and S. Gregory in his preface on Job, chap. i. think, on the authority of Origen; for S. Luke never saw Christ in the flesh, but he wrote what he had heard of Him from the Apostles, as he says himself, i. 2. Hence the Fathers call S. Luke "the disciple of the Apostles," and S. Paul mentions him by name, as his "fellow-labourer." So S. Jerome, on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, and preface to S. Matthew; where he says, "The third" (evangelist) is Luke the physician, by nation a Syrian, of Antioch, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor. viii. 18 and 22), who himself was a disciple of S. Paul. He wrote his Gospel in the neighbourhood of Achaia and Bœotia, relating some things from the beginning, as he says himself, and describing rather what he heard than what he saw. St. Irenæus says the same, i. 20; Theodoret, on the Lives of the holy Fathers; Baronius, and others. Tertullian, also (Book iv. against Marcion, chap. 5), thinks this Gospel not so much S. Luke's as S. Paul's, because S. Luke wrote from the dictation of S. Paul, as S. Mark from that of S. Peter. For he says, "what S. Mark wrote may be ascribed to S. Peter, whose interpreter S. Mark was. And so the Gospel of S. Luke is generally given to S. Paul, for the productions of the disciples began to be ascribed to the masters."

S. Jerome also states that "S. Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, performed the duties of a physician of souls, as he had before done of bodies" (Ep. 103 to Paulinus); and again (in that to Philom). "Luke the physician left in his Gospel, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles to the Churches, how the Apostles from fishers of fish became fishers of men, and from the bodies of men became concerned with their souls, whose Gospel, as often as it is read in the churches, fails not of its medicine."

IV. Baronius thinks that S. Luke wrote in the companionship of S. Paul, anno 58, because S. Jerome says that he wrote his Gospel that year in Achaia and Bœotia, where S. Paul was. Others, however, are of opinion that S. Luke wrote earlier, as we must certainly admit, if we agree with S. Jerome ( Lib. de Scrip. Eccl. in Luc. ), Tertullian (Book iv. against Marcion, c. 5), Primasius, Anselm, and others, on 2 Cor. viii 18, that by, "the brother whose praise is in the Gospel" S. Paul meant S. Luke—as S. Ignatius, his fellow-citizen and contemporary, plainly asserts in his letter to the Ephesians: "As Luke bears witness, whose praise is in the Gospel." For the Second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians was written in the year 58, so that if the praise of S. Luke was in the Gospel at that time, we must necessarily say that it (the Gospel) had been published previously. Hence Euthymius, and Theophylact in his Preface to S. Luke, say that he wrote fifteen years after the ascension of Christ, that is, about the year 49. But S. Luke had not then joined S. Paul, for he came to him in the Troad in the year 51, as Baronius rightly concludes from Acts xvi. 10. It appears, therefore, that S. Luke wrote subsequently to the year 51, but some years before 58, for, as S. Paul says, in that year he was well known and celebrated.

V.  S. Luke, after he had joined S. Paul, passed some time away from him, having been sent by him to other places (as I have shown on Acts xvi. 10), until S. Paul, when he had passed through other countries, came to Greece, thence to Syria, and so to Rome. Acts xx. 3, 4. For S. Paul, with other companions of his voyage, who are named in that verse, took S. Luke also, as S Luke himself states, verses 5, 15. From that time S. Luke became the "diligent" companion of S. Paul, even up to the time of S. Paul's first imprisonment, which was in the second year of Nero, when S. Luke finished the Acts of the Apostles, and, especially, those of S. Paul. Then, as S. Epiphanius says, S. Luke left S. Paul in prison, and went into Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, and Macedonia, and preached the gospel everywhere till he came to Patara, a city of Achaia, where, in his eighty-fourth year, he was crowned with a glorious martyrdom in the year of Christ 61, the fifth of Nero, and the seventeenth of the session of S. Peter at Rome. So Baronius says, from S. Gregory Nazianzen, Paulinus, Gaudentius, Glyca, Nicephorus and others.

Lastly, who S. Luke was—of what rank and ability, I have described at length in the Book of Acts, where I have said that he appears to be the same as Lucius, whom S. Paul calls his kinsman, Rom xvi. 21. But he seems different to Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned in Acts xiii. 3. For S. Luke was of Antioch, not Cyrene. Again, the Roman Martyrology, on April 22, says that Lucius was among the first disciples of Christ, which cannot be said of S. Luke.

VI. The reason of S. Luke's having written a Gospel after SS. Matthew and Mark, was twofold. 1. To confute the false gospels that were then being published in Syria and Greece, as I have said before. 2. To write at length those words and acts of Christ which had been passed over by the other Evangelists, and especially His Infancy and Childhood, the Annunciation of His forerunner John the Baptist, His Conception, Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Presence among the Doctors, the Conversion of St. Mary Magdalene, Zacchæus, the thief on the cross, the appearance to the two Disciples at Emmaus, the Parables of the Pharisee and Publican, the Good Samaritan, the Strayed Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, Lazarus and the Rich Glutton, and others; which show the mercy and pity of Christ to sinners and the miserable. See S. Irenæus, iii. 4, who recounts each. S. Luke also relates, more fully than the others, the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

Lastly, S. Peter Damianus, in his Sermon on S. Matthew, says, "S. Luke observes the proper method and order when he describes the priestly stock of the Lord and His Person, and, with this object and intent, proceeds to describe at length every part of the Temple and the priests, to the end of the history. For, as the Mediator between God and man in His human nature, He pleased to be King and Priest in one, that through His kingly power He might rule, and, by His office of Priest, atone for us. These two "Personæ" of Christ are especially praised by the Fathers, for to Him principally and by singular prerogative God gave the seat of His Father David, that there might be no end of His Kingdom, and that He might be a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek."

S. Anselm again, on Colos. iv., gives two reasons why S. Luke, more than the others, should speak of the mercy of Christ. 1. S. Luke was a physician of bodies; then, when he turned to Christ, he was made a physician of souls. Hence he speaks, more than the other Evangelists, of the mercies of the Redeemer, by which the weaknesses of sins are driven away. 2. In Christ, he describes the person of a Priest, making intercession for the sins of the whole world

Lastly, our own John de la Haye, in his Oparat. Evangel. chap. 68, recounts the twenty-five privileges granted to S. Luke, where, among other things, from S. Jerome, Bede, and Ado, he says that S. Luke never committed mortal sin, but passed a strict life of continual mortification; that he also preserved his virginity to the end, and was therefore beloved by the Blessed Virgin especially and before all others.

S. Ambrose and Titus of Bostra have commented especially on S. Luke. And Tertullian, in his whole work against Marcion (who had declared the Gospel of S. Luke, though adulterated, to be his own), treats of and explains many passages of this Gospel. Cardinal Toletus, also, wrote at length, and with exactness, on the first twelve chapters.