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.
11:37-38 Many of Jesus' teaching opportunities arose during meals (cf. 14:1-24; Matt. 15:1-20; 23:1-36; Mark 7:1-22). This was one such situation. Jesus offended His host by not washing ritually before eating. Luke omitted an explanation of the Jewish custom (cf. Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-4) and only recorded the reason for the Pharisee's objection. The Mosaic Law did not demand this washing (Gr. baptizo), but it had become customary and the Pharisees viewed it as a safeguard against defilement.
11:39-40 Jesus did not criticize this Pharisee and his religious brethren for washing their hands before eating or for observing ritual purification beyond what the law required. He used His host's objection as an occasion to point out the hypocrisy involved in Pharisaic teaching and practice. The Pharisees typically neglected more important things while stressing the necessity of much less important things (cf. 6:27-36; 10:25-37). By washing ceremonially they were only doing half of what God expected of them. They needed to purify themselves internally as well as externally. To wash the outside of a person and not cleanse the inside is as foolish as only washing the outside of a bowl without washing the inside.
"Did not he (the potter or God) who made the outside also make the inside (and therefore you must cleanse both)?"294
11:41 Jesus' point was that giving to the poor would demonstrate that the person had cleansed himself inwardly and adequately. He may have been continuing the metaphor and speaking of a dish or vessel, which the NIV has supplied, but He was thinking of a person. He may have meant that the Pharisees should give food as an act of charity, but the giving of what was theirs was the important thing.
Jesus now specified two examples of the Pharisees' spiritual myopia (vv. 42-43), and then He compared them to something similar that defiles (v. 44). Jesus announced His condemnation with the use of "woe."
11:42-43 The Pharisees typically tithed scrupulously, even their garden herbs two of which Jesus specified (cf. Lev. 27:30-33; Deut. 14:22-29; 26:12-15). This was proper, but they neglected giving more important things to God including justice and love. Normally the leaders of the synagogues occupied the front seats, so Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees' love of position. Respectful greetings in public places pandered to their pride too.
11:44 The Pharisees scrupulously avoided touching graves to avoid ritual defilement. However they themselves defiled other people who contacted them as hidden graves defiled those who unknowingly walked over them (cf. Num. 19:16). While trying to remain ritually pure themselves, they were defiling many other people who were unaware of the Pharisees' evil influence on them. Their sins contaminated the whole nation.
11:45-46 The lawyers (or scribes) were a distinct group, though most of them were Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees often acted together. The lawyer who spoke up wanted to distinguish his group from the Pharisees, but Jesus refused to do so because the scribes were as hypocritical as the Pharisees. The lawyers involved themselves more in the interpretation of the law whereas the Pharisees generally advocated and enforced those interpretations. By interpreting the law strictly the scribes placed heavy moral burdens on the Jews. However they had cleverly found ways of escaping their own responsibility to keep the law while at the same time giving the impression that they were obedient. This reflected lack of love for the rest of the Jews who had to labor under their demands.
11:47-48 It was not morally wrong for the lawyers to take the lead in building new tombs to replace the older tombs of Israel's prophets. However, Jesus saw in this practice an ironic testimony to their opposition to God's recent prophets, namely John the Baptist and Himself. By building these tombs the lawyers appeared to be honoring the prophets, but they were also walling them in and sealing them off from the people. That was really what they were doing when they turned the people away from the prophets whom God had recently sent to Israel. In this they were following in the footsteps of their ancestors who killed the prophets.
The relatives of a guilty criminal have sometimes given money to the family members of the victim of the criminal's crimes, blood money to atone for their shared guilt. Perhaps the lawyers were building the prophets' tombs with the same motivation.295
11:49-51 The lawyers claimed the greatest wisdom in Israel by declaring that their interpretations of Scripture were the correct ones. However, Jesus cited a greater source of wisdom.
The "Wisdom of God"may be a title for Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:3).296However it seems unusual for Jesus to refer to Himself this way. Moreover what follows is Old Testament revelation. It could mean "God in His wisdom"making God the source of the words that follow (NIV).297God is definitely the ultimate source of wisdom and the wisdom that follows in the context, but this is an interpretation of the text rather than a translation of it. Another possibility is that it means "divine wisdom"and refers to wisdom personified (cf. Prov. 1:20-33; 8).298However what follows is not a revelation of the wisdom literature of the Old Testament that such a personification would imply.
The words that follow (vv. 49-51) are not a quotation from the Old Testament. Rather they embody the essence of Old Testament revelation about the fates of the prophets and those who oppose them. Therefore I tend to think that the "Wisdom of God"refers to the Old Testament that Jesus here summarized and added to (i.e., fulfilled, established).
The content of this revelation was that God's people would typically reject the prophets and messengers (cf. 9:1-6; 10:1-16) whom He sent to them. The result would be that God would hold the present generation of rejecters responsible. This last rejection would be "the straw that broke the camel's back."It was the rejection of God's Son, not just His servants (cf. 20:9-19). It would prove to be the rejection that would add the last measure of guilt that would result in God pouring out His wrath for all those unjustified murders throughout history. Abel was the first righteous martyr (Gen. 4:8) and Zechariah the prophet the last (cf. Matt. 23:35; Zech. 1:1). There had probably been other victims since Zechariah, but his murder was the last one that the Old Testament recorded.
11:52 Jesus' third woe against the lawyers condemned them for taking the key of spiritual knowledge away from the people. This key is probably a reference to Jesus' teachings. Jesus called this the key of knowledge, not the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 16:19). The scribes professed to have the key to the understanding of the Old Testament. The people viewed them as the experts in it. However, they rejected Jesus' teachings and, therefore, would not enter into the knowledge that acceptance of His teachings would have opened to them. Moreover they opposed Jesus and thereby discouraged the people who were entering into that knowledge. This last woe is the climax of the six (vv. 42-52) and revealed the most serious offense of Israel's religious leaders.
Some interpreters view this verse as a clear statement that the messianic kingdom was a present reality when Jesus spoke these words.299However, I believe this conclusion is improper for the following reasons. First, knowledge is the stated subject of the verse, not the kingdom. Second, the subject of the kingdom is not in the context, but the subject of spiritual understanding is (vv. 33-51). Third, the Gospel writers did not present Jesus as inaugurating the kingdom at His first advent but as offering it and then postponing it due to the Jews' rejection of their Messiah (Matt. 12).
These inflammatory words of criticism and condemnation fanned the embers of Pharisaic hostility into an inferno of hatred and hostility. Luke wrote that these religious leaders now questioned Him closely on many subjects. He had challenged their expertise. Now they sought to defend themselves by discrediting Him. They plotted against Him seeking to trip Him up and trap Him. They also tried to get Him to say something wrong, unwise, or inappropriate. This antagonism escalated shortly after the encounter that Luke just described (v. 53). These verses document the Jewish religious leaders' official rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt. 12; Mark 12).
Luke's original readers would have learned the importance of accepting and believing Jesus' teachings as a result of Luke's selection of material in this section (11:14-54). To fail to do so results in dire consequences. Listening to the Word of God continues to be a major emphasis in this section. Furthermore the hypocrisy that characterized the Pharisees and scribes can also mark disciples of Jesus if we elevate ritual observance above real worship. Jesus developed this idea in the next pericope (12:1-12).
"The issues Jesus raises here [vv. 37-54] are dangers that those of a conservative theological bent always face. In pursuit of truth and the way of God, far too many people conduct their zeal for righteousness by making sure that every i' is dotted and every t' crossed, and by watching over others to make sure they are acting properly. On the other hand, these same people have often lost sensitivity to God's call for justice. God wants us to care about those whose plight is less fortunate than our own (Rom. 12:16)."300
