Luke recorded the climax of the rejection of Jesus and His message and then narrated Jesus' instructions to His disciples about how they should live in view of rejection.
The placement of these events in Luke's Gospel again raises the question of whether Luke recorded the same incident as Matthew and Mark or whether this was a similar but different one. I, along with many other students of the passages, believe it was probably a different occasion in view of the differences in the accounts.
The connecting idea with what precedes is the Holy Spirit (v. 13). Luke had stressed the Spirit's influence in Jesus' life and ministry, but the religious leaders rejected that possibility concluding rather that Satan controlled Jesus.
"To understand the significance of Jesus' miraculous work, especially his exorcisms, one must understand 11:14-23."289
11:14-16 Luke again first presented the setting for the confrontation that followed. Jesus cast a demon out of a man whom it had made dumb. This sign of His messiahship amazed the multitudes that observed it (cf. 4:36; 9:42-43; et al.). Some of them attributed Jesus' power to the head demon, namely Satan (v. 18).290Others demanded from Jesus an even more powerful sign than demon exorcism to demonstrate His messianic claim. This unwarranted request constituted a test or provocation of Jesus.
"The narrator previously distinguished between the attitudes of the scribes/Pharisees and the crowd or people (7:29-30). Now the opposition to Jesus characteristic of the former is emerging in the latter."291
11:17-20 Jesus at least knew the thoughts of his critics by their request for a greater sign (v. 16). He argued first that the head of an army would hardly work with his enemy against his own troops. Second, if Satan was behind Jesus' exorcisms, it was logical to assume that he was behind the exorcisms that some recognized Jewish exorcists performed (cf. Acts 19:13-14). Jesus' antagonists would have been unwilling to concede that. They wanted to maintain a double standard believing that their approved exorcists operated with God's power, but Jesus used Satan's. God gave the Jewish exorcists their power too.
Jesus' allusion to the finger of God (v. 20) goes back to Moses' miracles in Pharaoh's court (Exod. 8:19). There the Egyptians confessed that the finger (i.e., action) of God was at work when they could no longer reproduce Moses' miracles. Jesus claimed the same divine source of power for His miracles. His miracles indicated the coming of the Messiah and the approach of His kingdom. This was Jesus' third argument.
11:21-22 The strong man in this parable is Satan, and the stronger man is Jesus. Satan had amassed much booty in terms of human captives and had kept these people imprisoned. Jesus had come, had attacked Satan in the instances of His exorcisms, and had overcome him. He had removed Satan's defenses, namely his demons, and had set free those whom he had taken captive.
11:23 Continuing the figure of battle Jesus reminded His hearers that whoever was not on Jesus' side was on His enemy's side. Changing the figure to reaping or herding He made the same point again. Laborers in God's field and among God's flock who did not gather people as sheaves and sheep into the barn and fold of the kingdom with Jesus scattered them abroad. There was no neutral ground. People either supported Jesus or opposed Him.
11:24-26 These verses were probably a word of warning to Jesus' critics who were scattering rather than gathering with Him (v. 23).292If so, they climax Jesus' argument. They warn against casting out demons, which some of these critics were evidently doing, without replacing them with something stronger, namely the life of God that entered those who believed in Jesus (cf. John 3:16). A formerly demon possessed person who did not believe on Jesus was in greater danger after his exorcism than he was before it. The expelled demon could return to inhabit his or her spiritually empty spirit with additional demons.
These final words then carried Jesus' warning further. Not only was it bad to oppose Jesus and attribute His works to Satan, but it was worse to exercise God's expulsive power without also preaching the gospel to people.
Instead of attacking Jesus' works His critics should have received and obeyed His words. A woman's comment, called out from the crowd, triggered this response from Jesus that forms a fitting conclusion to the previous incident.
The woman expressed how wonderful it must have been for Mary to have had such a son as Jesus. This was an indirect way of complementing Jesus. His response did not reflect unfavorably on Mary. Her privilege as the mother of the Messiah was great indeed (cf. 1:45). However those who heard God's word of salvation through Jesus and His disciples, believed it, and acted upon it had an even greater position. The implication that His hearers should do so was obvious. In the immediate context, the word of God was the teaching that Jesus had been giving.
This teaching responded to the request of Jesus' critics for a sign (v. 16; cf. Matt. 16:1-4). It is the second main part of His answer to these opponents.
11:29-30 Luke's reference to the crowds increasing ties this verse in with the previous incident involving the criticism of His miracles (vv. 14-26). Jonah himself was the sign of impending judgment to the Ninevites. His supernatural appearance and preaching precipitated widespread repentance. Likewise the supernatural appearance and preaching of Jesus and the repentance that accompanied it signified impending judgment. The difference was that the positive response to Jonah's ministry, by Gentiles no less, postponed God's judgment. The negative response to Jesus' ministry did nothing to postpone God's judgment on Israel. This judgment consisted of the postponement of the kingdom and the destruction of Jerusalem. The rejection of Jesus' preaching was all the more serious because miracles accompanied it. The title "Son of Man"presents Jesus as superior to Jonah.
Luke did not mention Jesus' reference to Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish, though that would be a sign that Jesus had come from God after the Resurrection (cf. Matt. 12:40).
11:31-32 The Queen of the South (i.e., Sheba) travelled a great distance to hear Solomon's wisdom (1 Kings 10:1-13) yet the people of Palestine paid little attention to Jesus' wisdom. This was true even though the Son of Man was greater than Solomon. Therefore their judgment was sure. Similarly the people of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, yet Jesus' hearers did not repent at His preaching despite His superiority to Jonah. Furthermore the Queen and the Ninevites both responded to spoken messages without any authenticating signs.
The neuter "something"may refer generally to the Son of Man, but it probably refers specifically to His superior wisdom in the first comparison and to His preaching in the second. Significantly for Luke's original readers the people who responded so admirably to the two Old Testament characters Jesus cited were Gentiles. By comparing Himself to the most glorious Israelite king and the most effective Jewish prophet, Jesus taught His superiority in both roles.
This exhortation concluded the controversy about signs (vv. 16, 29-33) as Jesus' teaching about the importance of obeying God's Word (vv. 27-28) concluded the controversy about casting out demons (vv. 14-26). Both conclusions called on Jesus' hearers to respond to His teaching rather than continuing in the darkness of ignorance.
The theme of opposition to Jesus continues in this section, but the source of opposition changes from the people generally to the Pharisees and, even more particularly, to their lawyers (scribes). Jesus' responses also changed from warnings and exhortations to denunciations. Jesus condemned the teachings of the Pharisees, the light that was darkness (v. 35), rather than the Pharisees and the lawyers as individuals.
The differences in the Matthean account of Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:1-36) raise questions about what Jesus really said and how the evangelists recorded what He said.
"We know from his practice elsewhere that Matthew combines material from several sources and rearranges the order, whereas on the whole Luke does not conflate his sources or re-order his material. It is, therefore, unlikely that Matthew has preserved the original order here . . ."293
Probably we are dealing with two different teaching occasions.
