Luke 6
BolesLuke 6:1-11
- ABOUT THE SABBATH
1 Now it came to pass on a sabbath,—Parallel accounts may be found in Matthew 12:1-14 and Mark 2:23-28; Mark 3:1-6. Another ground of pharisaic opposition to Jesus is here presented; it is the supposed violation of the law of the Sabbath. The Pharisees condemned the disciples of Jesus, and he defends them because a condemnation of his disciples, when they followed his teaching, was a condemnation of Jesus. Jesus and his disciples were going through the grainfields on a Sabbath “and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.” The grain was possibly wheat or barley; as they went along through the standing grain, they plucked some of the grain and ate it. The footpath which they traveled led through the field and it was easy to pluck the grain as they went along. Plucking the grain was not a violation of the rights of property; they were not accused of trespassing; they were only accused of violating the Sabbath. The grain was eaten raw.
2-5 But certain of the Pharisees said,—The Pharisees asked: “Why do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day?” In Matthew and Mark this question is addressed to Jesus concerning the conduct of his disciples; the inquiry was probably repeated in various forms in order to show their pious horror at the act; it seems from a comparison of these statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that Jesus did not himself eat of the corn; probably his mind was so intent on the great object of his mission as to be insensible to hunger at this time. We have different records of his beipg hungry and fatigued when his disciples were eating and resting; sometimes they were sleeping while he spent the time in prayer. (Matthew 26:40; Matthew 26:43; Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:37; Mark 14:40-41; Luke 9:32; Luke 22:45.) The question is put in the form of an accusation it charges Jesus as being responsible for the violation of the Sabbath.
And Jesus answering them said,—Jesus was the leader; his disciples had done nothing that was virtually a violation of the Sabbath, so Jesus replies to the question or accusation. He knew that the charge was really made against him. Jesus refers them to what David did when he was hungry. (1 Samuel 21:1-6.) They regarded David as the faithful servant of God; they did not condemn David for what he had done, and yet Jesus and his disciples had done just what David had done under similar circumstances. Jesus put the case very emphatically by asking the question. David was fleeing from Saul and came to the tabernacle, which was located then at Nob, a place a little north of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 10:32.) David simply took and ate of the showbread, the bread set forth and exhibited on a table in the holy place. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were changed every Sabbath, when the old bread was eaten/ by the priests. (Leviticus 24:5-9.) It seems from 1 Samuel 21:6 that the bread had just been changed, and hence David and his men ate it on the Sabbath.
Jesus shows by the example of David, whom all regarded as a faithful servant of God, that things which are unlawful may be done under the law of necessity and self-preservation. Matthew presents a second and third argument, the one derived from the labors of the priests in the temple, the other from the prophet Hosea (Hosea 6:6), who declares that God desires not merely external observances, but the inward conditions of kindness and love. Mark (Mark 2:27) presents an argument not recorded by either Matthew or Luke that the Sabbath was designed for the good of man.
And he said unto them,—Here Jesus declares that “the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” The final and crowning argument, growing out from the one just stated, and founded upon the relation of the Sabbath to Christ is here given. “The Son of man” means the Messiah is head of the human race; he does not here deny his divinity. He is “lord of the sabbath”; since he has come in human nature to redeem man, and all things pertaining to the human race are committed to him as its Head, he is emphatically the Lord of the Sabbath, which was made for the benefit of man. Jesus is indeed Lord of all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, hence he is Lord of the Sabbath.
6 And it came to pass on another sabbath,—Luke does not mean that this incident occurred on the following Sabbath from that on which they plucked the grain; he is only recording what took place “on another sabbath.” This time Jesus “entered into the synagogue and taught”; as opportunity was presented Jesus taught the people. He taught on the Sabbath in their synagogue because they assembled for worship on that day. This time “There was a man there, and his right hand was withered.” Luke alone mentions that it was “his right hand” that was withered. This is a very precise way of stating incidents;this accuracy is characteristic of Luke’s profession; ancient medical writers always state whether the right or the left member is affected. “Withered” means that he had lost the use of that hand, that it was diseased so that he could not use it. The “right hand” was usually the most useful. It was similar to that with which Jeroboam was afflicted. (1 Kings 13:4-6.)
7 And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him,—The “scribes” were those who copied the law and finally became teachers of it; the “Pharisees” were those of that sect or party of the Jews who were particular about the traditions of the fathers. They had a bad motive in observing what Jesus would do. (Luke 14:1; Acts 9:24.) They were watching Jesus maliciously. The growth of opposition is seen in that they now watch intently for an occasion to censure him. Possibly they thought that he would heal this man on the Sabbath they thought that they had Jesus in a dilemma; either he must heal the man on the Sabbath, or he must refuse to do good when he has the power to do it; they thought that they had the grounds for bringing charges against him whatever he did.
8 But he knew their thoughts;—This was an evidence of the divinity of Christ. Luke does not stop to prove his divinity, but takes it for granted. In the Old Testament God’s existence is treated this way. John expresses it as follows: “Because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:25.) Jesus commanded the man that had the withered hand to “rise up, and stand forth in the midst.” He did this so that all could see the man with the afflicted hand, and could see when it was healed. The man obeyed him and “stood forth.” Jesus makes the misery and the healing of the man conspicuous, yet he performs the cure with the word.
9, 10 And Jesus said unto them,—Jesus now put them in a dilemma; he asked them: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do harm?” They must admit that it was lawful to do good they must also admit that it is wrong to do harm or fail to do good when one has an opportunity. Some understand this to mean that the question is used in a general sense other than in a particular sense. However, Jesus first asks in regard to doing good or evil in a general sense on the Sabbath, and then in a particular sense, to destroy life or to save life.
And he looked round about on them all,—Matthew (Matthew 12:11-12) records the reference to a sheep that had fallen into a pit, but Mark and Luke omit this point. Jesus “looked” “on them all.” That “look” of Jesus was very significant. Mark records (Mark 3:5) that Jesus “looked round about on them with anger”; he had a righteous indignation because of the hardness of their hearts. He silenced his opposer and then proceeded to heal the afflicted hand. He performed the miracle without any bodily effort, or any word except the command, “stretch forth thy hand.” The man obeyed and “his hand was restored.” The enemies of Jesus could not charge him with laboring on the Sabbath; he did no work, but spoke to the man. The healing took place immediately; Jesus had only to speak and the man had to obey.
The faith of the man is brought into its natural relation to his obedience and cure. Jesus gave the command; the man believed, and obeyed, and received the blessing.
11 But they were filled with madness;—The scribes and Pharisees were answered before they had expressed their thoughts; Jesus had looked into their hearts and had answered them; they were displeased with this. They were deprived of legal ground of objection since the miracle was performed without any action on the part of Jesus; there was nothing left for them to do except to receive the testimony of Jesus that he was the promised Messiah, or reject him and all the evidence that he had furnished. They could not deny the evidence. They seek to satisfy themselves with a senseless rage;this was a foolish thing for them to do.
Luke 6:12-19
- THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVE
12 And it came to pass in these days,—Parallel accounts of this are found in Matthew 10:1-4 and Mark 3:13-19. “In these days” designates the period during which the miracles just related were wrought, and the Pharisees and others were seeking how they might destroy him. He went “into the mountain to pray.” There are several mountains in Galilee on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, some think that it was the same mountain from which the “Sermon on the Mount” was preached. It is significant that he went there “to pray” and that he continued “all night in prayer to God.” Luke makes special reference to Jesus at prayer. (Luke 3:21; Luke 5:16; Luke 9:18; Luke 11:1.) Jesus resorted to special prayer before great and important events. (Mark 6:46; Luke 22:41-44; John 11:41-42; John 17:1.)
13 And when it was day,—We must distinguish between the call of these men to discipleship (John 1:35-45), their call to be constant attendants, preachers, or evangelists (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20), and their selection as apostles which is here related. After their selection they were endowed with miraculous gifts and sent out on their “limited commission.” (Matthew 10:1-4.) The next morning after the night had been spent in prayer “he called his disciples,” and from his disciples he “chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles.” The word “chose” means “he made or constituted” to be “apostles.” From the many disciples which he had made up to this time, he selected twelve of them and appointed them as his “apostles.” “Apostle” means one “sent forth.” Jesus is named or called an “Apostle.” (Hebrews 3:1.) Luke uses this term more than the other writers do. (Luke 9:10; Luke 11:49; Luke 17:5; Luke 22:14; Luke 24:10.) They are sometimes called “the twelve” (Mark 4:10; Mark 6:7), or “the twelve disciples” (Matthew 20:17), or simply “disciples” (Luke 9:12). Mark (3:14) gives the reason for their appointment “that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.”
14-16 Simon, whom he also named Peter,—There are four catalogues of the apostles, and Luke gives two of the four; Matthew and Mark give the other two. Each catalogue is divided into three classes, the names of which are never interchanged, and each class headed by a leading name. Peter heads the first class, Philip the second, James the third, and Judas Iscariot stands the last, except in the Acts, where his name is omitted because of his apostasy and death. Matthew enumerates the apostles two by two, in pairs; Mark and Luke one by one, individually; and Luke in the Acts, mixedly. This shows that the writers wrote independent of each other.
Simon Peter
Peter
Andrew, his brother
James
Andrew
John
James, son of Zebedee
John, his brother
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
Concerning John the Lord’s brother, his labors and death are not recorded in the New Testament. Bartholomew was the son of “Bar-Tholmai,” or son of Tholmai; nothing is said of his labors. Matthew was also called Levi; he was a publican; he wrote the first book of the New Testament; nothing further is known of his labors. Thomas was also called “Didymus” (John 11:16), which means “a twin”; he has been called “doubting Thomas,” but this should not be applied to him (John 20:24-29). James was the son of Alpheus; he is called “James the less” (Mark 15:40); some think that he was the cousin of our Lord (Luke 24:10; John 19:25) and that he had a brother Joses (Matthew 27:56). Simon was called the “Zealot”; Mark calls him “the Cananaean”; nothing is known of his work.
Judas “the son of James” was probably the same as “Lebbaeus” or “Thaddaeus”; some think he was the same as the author of Jude. Judas Iscariot is always designated as the traitor; he is thought to have been the only apostle who was not by birth a Galilean; the climax of his sins was the be-trayal of Jesus and his suicide.
17-19 and he came down with them,–Jesus now descended from the mountain and further instructed his disciples and taught the multitudes. He is now to be accompanied with his apostles. He “stood on a level place”; we do not know where this was. Some think that it was near Capernaum. “A great multitude” of his disciples and many from Judea, Jerusalem, and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon came to hear him. Luke here gives us a glimpse of the great crowds that attended his preaching; Jesus was at this time at the height of his popularity as a teacher; in fact, he was popular with all except those who decided against him with the Pharisees. Judea was south of Samaria and Jesus at this time was in Galilee. Palestine was divided into three divisions at this time—Galilee on the north, Samaria in the middle, and Judea on the south.
and they that were troubled with unclean spirits—Those who were “troubled with unclean spirits were healed”; troubled" in the original first meant “a crowd or mob” with the idea of “want of arrangement and discipline,” and therefore of “confusion” and “tumult.” It is applied to the noise and tumult of a crowd, and so passes into the sense of the “trouble” and “annoyance” caused by these, and of trouble generally. It is a term frequently used in medical language; here again we see evidence of Luke’s profession. Many were possessed with demons and were harassed with even crowds of evil spirits. It is significant that they were healed. These “unclean spirits” manifested their power through the bodies of men, and to a greater or less extent caused physical diseases.
And all the multitude sought to touch him;—All those who were diseased, and there was a multitude of them, sought to touch Jesus. Their eagerness was so great and their faith in his power to heal was so strong that their touching Jesus was sufficient to affect their cleaning. Theirs was a touch of faith; “for power came forth from him, and healed them all.” The multitudes were all the while seeking to touch him, for his virtue was going out of him. (Matthew 14:36; Mark 6:56.) Luke is more technical, using the strictly medical term, “healed,” which occurs twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and seventeen of these are mentioned by Luke. Luke also uses the two words employed by Matthew and Mark, but always with some addition showing the nature of the saving, or healing.
Luke 6:20-49
- THE GREAT SERMON
20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples,—A parallel of this sermon is found in Matthew 5:1 to Matthew 7:28. This “sermon” is a synopsis of a continuous discourse, spoken at one time; it may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew. Many think that Luke’s account is in chronological order, while Matthew’s is not. Both accounts in Matthew and Luke represent a great multitude present, but that Jesus spoke directly to his disciples; both Matthew and Luke present the main topics in the same order throughout; both begin with “the beatitudes” and end with the illustration of the necessity of doing as well as hearing. Matthew records nine beatitudes, while Luke gives only four; yet Luke adds four “woes” upon different classes of men which Matthew does not record. Luke puts the discourse in the second person, “blessed are ye,” while Matthew has it in the third person.
Blessed are ye poor:—The poor as used here means those who are “poor in spirit,” and not the penniless. The humble in spirit and the contrite of heart are those who are poor in the spirit. The word here means the same as that used in Isaiah 66:1-3. The poor in this sense may lay just claims to “the kingdom of God.” “The kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew calls “the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew uses “kingdom of heaven” frequently, and Jesus used that phrase to describe the kingdom. “Kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” are equivalent terms, though the preeminent title was “kingdom of God,” since it was expected to be fully realized in the Messianic era, when God should take upon himself the kingdom by a visible representative. “Kingdom of heaven” had a double meaning with the Jews—the historical kingdom and the spiritual kingdom.
21 Blessed are ye that hunger now:—Luke adds the word “now,” that is, in this life and at the present time. Those who earnestly and even painfully desire righteousness “shall be filled”; that is, they shall be satisfied. They shall find complete satisfaction in Christ, having his righteousness accounted to them and being satisfied and conformed to his image. (Prow. 21:21; Isaiah 41:17; Isaiah 60:21; 2 Peter 3:13.)
Blessed are ye that weep now:—Again Luke gives the word “now,” its proper emphasis, and restricts the weeping. This is a stronger expression than Matthew uses—“they that mourn.” It signifies that deep anguish of spirit which manifests itself in groans and tears; it does not include all kinds of weeping, for the sorrow “of the world worketh death.” (2 Corinthians 7:10.) It includes those who weep over their sins. “Ye shall laugh”; not only shall they be comforted, as Matthew expresses it, but they shall rejoice with open joy. Their sins shall be forgiven; they shall be supported in trial and cheered with the blessings of God. Their joy shall be complete, both with respect to the present and the future state. (2 Corinthians 1:4; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Revelation 21:4.)
22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you,—This expresses in strong terms the enemies of the disciples of Christ; they shall be hated. The disciples of Christ represent the kingdom of God on earth, and the world hates the kingdom of God. The disciples of Christ are hated, reproached, persecuted, and separated from their synagogues, their society, and outcasts among men. They are hated because they are the children of God; they are cast out as evil persons. All this is done “for the Son of man’s sake.” “Son of man” is a phrase frequently used in the Old Testament. It was applied to man in general (Numbers 23:19 , Job 25:6; Job 35:8; Psalms 8:4), and is used eighty-nine times in Ezekiel.
It had also a Messianic meaning in the Old Testament. (Daniel 7:13.) Jesus most frequently used this phrase when speaking of himself; and there are but two instances in which it is applied to him by another, namely, by Stephen (Acts 7:56) and by John (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14). As “Son of man” Jesus asserts his authority over all flesh.
23 Rejoice in that day,—They are to rejoice in the day that they are persecuted, when they are reproached for the name of Christ. They were even to “leap for joy”; they should be so overjoyed that they were counted worthy to suffer for Christ that they could not contain themselves without a physical demonstration of their job. Christians have reason to rejoice amid persecutions in view of a reward so great and glorious. (2 Corinthians 4:17.)
24-26 But woe unto you that are rich!—Luke here records four woes which Matthew does not record. These woes are not the expression of anger, but of lamentation and warning. “Woe unto you” or “alas for you!” Jesus is not uttering as a judge condemnation, but as the great Teacher and Prophet he declares the miserable condition of certain classes and warns them against it. The first woe is pronounced over those that are rich; this is the opposite of spiritual poverty; it includes those that make this world their possession and wealth and trust in riches. (Mark 10:24; Luke 12:21; Luke 18:24-25; 1 John 2:15.) Worldly riches are deceitful in their influence, choking the word and rendering it unfruitful.
Woe unto you, ye that are full now!—This is the opposite of those who have spiritual hunger. This class has no cravings after spiritual food, but are satisfied with the worldly pleasures which only the earth can give. There is coming a time when they shall “hunger.” When they are brought to their senses and are bereft of all spiritual food, then they shall famish for need of that which only can make the soul happy in the world to come. This will be an endless hunger.
Woe unto you, ye that laugh now!—This woe is the opposite of weeping in verse 21. Those who engage in worldly pleasure, who indulge in frivolity, and dissipation, who live in gaiety and mirth in this world, shall in the world to come “mourn and weep.” The frivolity will be turned into sorrow when they discover their miserable end, and are cast out into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Prow. 1:25-28; James 4:9.)
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!—This was spoken to his disciples;they should not court the favor of men; neither should they seek to please men. The reason given here is that “in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.” This woe is opposite to the beatitudes in verses 22 and 23. “All men” is a term used to include the world. A Christian should strive to have “good testimony from them that are without” (1 Timothy 3:7), but when his words and conduct are such as to please and delight the ungodly, affording no reproof for their wicked practices, he should be alarmed. “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:4.) The fathers sought to please “the false prophets” by encouraging them in their wicked ways, and the false prophets sought to please the people by crying “peace, peace”! when there was no peace. (1 Kings 22:6-14; Jer. 23 14; 28:10, 11; Ezekiel 13:10-11.)
27, 28 But I say unto you that hear,—Jesus here puts in contrast his teachings with that of the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees. He had told his disciples that they would have enemies and would suffer persecution; he now instructs them how they should treat their enemies. He enforces the duty of love, its extent, and its standard. Luke here arranges his account of this sermon very different from that given by Matthew. Jesus enforced this by saying: “I say unto you”; he speaks not like their scribes. “Love your enemies.” This sublime moral precept takes rank at the head of all moral duties toward our fellow beings, for the obligation to love enemies carries with it the obligation to love all who are not enemies, but who are more or less friendly.
bless them that curse you,—They would be persecuted and spoken evil against, but they were not to retaliate, and speak evil of their enemies, but were to bless them; speak words of peace, kindness, and love to those who insulted and reviled them. They were to pray for them; that is, pray that their enemies might cease to be enemies and to become disciples of Jesus. Praying for their enemies is the opposite of cursing their enemies. Jesus set the example for them when he prayed on the cross: “Father, forgive them.” (Luke 23:34.) Stephen prayed the same prayer when he said: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” (Acts 7:60.)
29, 30 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek—Jesus gives two examples to illustrate the treatment of enemies in addition to enjoining the principle of love. The first example is that of turning the other cheek when smitten on one. “Cheek” literally means “the jaw”; the blow intended is not a mere slap, but a heavy blow, an act of violence rather than contempt. It was regarded as an affront of the worst sort to be struck in the face; it was severely punished both by Jewish and Roman laws. It was a proverb to turn the other cheek when receiving injury. (Lamentations 3:30.) This sets forth a principle, and is not to be taken too literally. The other example is that if the cloak is taken from one then the coat should be given. This illustrates the same principle.
From personal violence Jesus descends to the demanding of property by legal means. The “cloak” was the outer garment; it was worn loose around the body; the “coat” was the undergarment. We are here taught to suffer wrong rather than do wrong we are to do good for evil. We are not to retaliate; this course, if followed by the disciples of Christ, would win a victory over our enemies.
Give to every one that asketh thee;—This is to be interpreted by the principles of Christian love; Jesus is here opposing a retaliating and revengeful spirit; his disciples must not out of revenge withhold help from any who may need it. Christians should be ready and willing to help the needy at all times, even if they are enemies. (2 Corinthians 8:12; Galatians 6:10.) If anyone should take “away thy goods ask them not again.” The disciples of Jesus are not to show a revengeful spirit, and should not do violence to anyone that despoils their goods; but they should be kind and liberal and strive to win back the offender to right conceptions of living. Christians should show a forbearing spirit at all times and never retaliate.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you,—This is called the “Golden Rule”; Jesus gives it as a test of love toward others. We should make the case of others our own, and as we would as honest and righteous people that others should do to us, we should do in like manner to them. This was a new requirement, but simply the application of the law to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 7:12.) Many have quoted similar statements from heathen authors, but those gave the negative part of this command, while Christ gave the positive. Not only are we to avoid doing to others what we in their situation would dislike, but we are to do to them whatever we would in righteousness wish them to do to us. This principle of determining what we shall do to others by first determining what we would have others do to us would keep down many of the difficulties that arise in society. This excludes all selfishness and enforces right thinking about others as well as righteous conduct toward them. It is the rule that Jesus gave, and hence is the one that regulates Christian conduct toward each other and all others.
32-36 And if ye love them that love you,—Sinners do good to others for policy’s sake, not from principle; they do good to others, hoping to receive good from others, and not for the good that they love to do. Jesus here lays down a higher and nobler course of conduct; Christians are to do good to others with no thought of receiving again any good from others; they are to do it because they love to do good; do it because God does and will provide for those who follow Christ. If Christians only did good to those in the world who did them good, they would do very little good in this world; if they did no more good than many church members do to each other, again they would be doing very little good. Christ gives a higher standard of conduct for his disciples. He sums up his teachings by saying that his disciples should love their enemies, “and do them good, and lend, never despairing.” There is no moral credit in simply loving those who love us; the wicked do that much; it is no mark of godliness simply to do good to those who do good to us; many godless people do like that.
Be ye merciful,—Prove yourself merciful by the conduct above described that you may be like your Father. Matthew says “be perfect.” God is the “Father of mercies” (2 Corinthians 1:3), and as mercy is one of the chief attributes of God shown to man, to be merciful like him is to reach completeness in our sphere, as he is completely “perfect” in his sphere. “Merciful” means “pitiful, compassionate”; it is the feeling produced by the misery and want of others. In James 5:11 it is very properly translated “tender mercy.”
37, 38 And judge not,—This forbids harsh, censorious judgments of the character of others; it also forbids unjust criticisms of the conduct of others. It does not forbid the forming of opinions as to what is right or wrong. It does admonish us that those opinions should be in love, never severe. Christians should not form hasty judgments, nor unkind judgments; they should never form judgments based on jealousy, suspicion, envy, or hate. The Golden Rule should govern one here; one should judge another as he would wish to be judged; one should not condemn with severity, but weigh in Christian love every judgment formed. One should not seek to judge, but if one must, let it be a “righteous judgment”; consider it as Christian.
give, and it shall be given unto you;—There are two things which are forbidden here, namely, “judge not” and “condemn not”; one will be judged and condemned with the same degree of severity, both by man and God, that he passes on others. There are also two things commanded here, namely, “release” and “give.” One will receive what one gives; the Christians’ law of conduct here is to “give and forgive.” This rule will keep peace and happiness in the church, in the community, and in the family. If one will follow this rule, one will receive full measure for it; “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into your bosom.” “Pressed down” as dry articles, “shaken together” as soft goods, “running over” as liquids. Full measure shall be given to the one who so deports himself. This “good measure” “shall they give into your bosom.” The gathered folds of the wide upper garment, bound together with the girdle, formed a pouch. In the eastern country people who wore a loose, outer garment used the bosom to pour the contents of grain or other articles into as they would a sack. In Rth 3:15 Boaz said to Ruth: “Bring the mantle that is upon thee, and hold it; and she held it; and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city.” (See also Isaiah 65:7; Jeremiah 32:18.)
39 And he spake also a parable unto them,—This “parable” is more like a proverb; it is put in the interrogative form and the original shows that a negative reply is expected. “Can the blind guide the blind?” The blind were very numerous in that country; Luke uses the word “parable” some fifteen times instead of “proverb” and for the longer narrative comparisons. This is the only use of the term parable concerning the metaphors in the “Sermon on the Mount.” One blind man is very unfit to guide another; so those who undertake to teach others when they do not know the truth themselves are unfit, for they are blind guides. The “pit” is an emblem of destruction; the Pharisees are described as “blind guides.”(Matthew 15:14; Matthew 23:16.) The reference here is to censorious and critical teachers who may have a “beam” in their eye. If ignorant and unskillful leaders attempt to guide people, they themselves will be the first to fall into the ditch or be desroyed. No one who is blind to spiritual truth can guide others into it.
40 The disciple is not above his teacher:—Here Jesus uses another proverbial statement that the disciple, so long as he is a disciple, or learner, cannot be above his master or teacher. The nature of the relationship of teacher and disciple is such that the teacher is above the disciple, and the disciple cannot become wiser and better than his teacher so long as this relationship exists. “But every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.” The disciple naturally makes his teacher his model and imitates him. If they are blind and censorious teachers, they would infuse the same spirit into their disciples; hence they would be unsafe and unfit instructors. “Perfected” as used here signifies in the original to “readjust, restore, to set right,” whether in a physical or moral sense. In Galatians 6:1 it is used as restoring a brother taken in a fault; in medical language it means to set a bone or joint when it has been broken or dislocated.
41, 42 And why beholdest thou the mote—Jesus here rebukes and instructs those who would be teachers; suggestions to those who undertake to teach others are used here, and specific application made to the Pharisees and other religious teachers. In their censorious spirit, they magnify and are quick to see the smallest fault in their neigibor, but do not perceive the enormous faults in their own character. Some can always see the faults of others quicker than they can see their own faults; again the faults in others always seem much larger than their own faults yet in reality their own faults may be much greater than those in the other person, whom they are criticizing. Jesus uses here “the mote” and “the beam” to enforce his teaching. The “mote” and the “beam” are proverbial contrasts, the “mote” being the finest particle of dust or chaff against the “beam” of timber for a house frame—like the contrast between sawdust and the saw log itself.
43, 44 For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit;—The general principle here announced by Jesus was that which all believe. The good tree cannot bear corrupt fruit, nor can a rotten tree bring forth good fruit. The character of the tree is determined by the kind of fruit it bears. The tree and its fruit illustrate the heart and the life; the bad heart yields a wicked life; the good heart, a worthy life. Honest and pure intentions, the sincere purpose to do right, yield naturally the fruit of right doing; so Jesus teaches us to estimate what the inner man is by what the outer man does. Men do not gather figs from thorn trees, nor grapes from a “bramble bush.” Matthew uses “thistle,” while Luke uses “bramble bush.” Some think that Luke was acquainted with the “bramble bush” and used it for medicinal purposes, as he was a physician.
45 The good man out of the good treasure—The figure was changed from the general tree to the particular horn tree; the thorn tree was abundant in that country. So the figures are now applied to man’s character and conduct; out of the good man come good words and deeds, because there is a treasury of goodness in his heart. His thoughts and affections are pure. Out of the evil man comes evil, because the store of things in his heart is evil. Language is the overflowing of the soul and indicates its state and condition. (Matthew 15:18; Romans 10:9-10; 2 Corinthians 4:13.) Jesus has passed by degrees from the conditions of the Christian life, the beatitudes, to the life itself; he has presented first the principle, then the life that is governed by the principle.
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord,—The force of this question is seen when we look at the meaning of “Lord”; “Lord” means master, ruler; it is inconsistent to call one “Lord” and yet not obey him. The question implies: “Why do ye admit my right to rule and to lay down the law of your life, and yet not do the things which I command?” It seems that many, both real and professed friends, were thus addressing him; the repetition emphasizes a habitual profession. If they truly accepted Jesus as Lord, they would do what he commanded them; this was applicable to his apostles, also to his disciples today. The interrogative form makes this a two-edged sword; an emphatic warning, on one hand, against a mere profession, and an emphatic command, on the other, to make their profession and practice agree. Matthew (Matthew 7:21-23) makes a different application of this.
47, 48 Every one that cometh unto me,—The one who comes to Christ in the proper sense as used here becomes a disciple or learner. Doing, obeying, comes by hearing and implies faith. (Romans 10:14.) The “words” as here used include all that Jesus had spoken during this sermon. Hearing is important, but there is something else needed; faith and obedience must be added to hearing. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves.” (James 1:22.) The one that both hears and does what Jesus says is like the man building a house, who digged deep, and placed a foundation on the solid rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not,—The foolish hearer who fails to do what the Lord requires, yet because he has heard, thinks himself secure, finds his professed Christian character swept away in a sudden flood of evil, like the house stuck upon the earth, which the sudden floods undermine and sweep away into ruin. The hearer, who does not obey, has no solid foundation for his character or hope. His hearing is commendable, but his failing to do or obey is condemned. The same figure is used here of the wind, rain, and flood beating against the house of the one who had built his house upon the rock. The difference is great; the one withstood all the furiousness of the storm, but the other went down in hopeless ruin; so it will be with those who hear but do not obey.
Luke 6:36-49
- JESUS BY A SINFUL WOMAN
36 And one of the Pharisees desired him—Luke gives the only record we have of this incident. He records two other incidences of Pharisees who invited Jesus to meals and he alone gives them. (Luke 11:37; Luke 14:1.) Jesus would dine with a Pharisee or with a publican (Matthew 9:10; Mark 2:15 Luke 5:29), and he even invited himself to be the guest of Zaccheus who was a publican (Luke 19:5). In this account two characters are brought together; they are not only diverse, but strongly contrasted. Valuable lessons may be learned from these two opposite characters. Jesus accepted the invitation to eat with this Pharisee. This Pharisee seems not to have been as hostile toward Jesus as many other Pharisees were; there is no evidence that he invited Jesus to his table to do him harm.
37, 38 And behold, a woman who was in the city,—It is probable that this woman was from Capernaum. There has been much speculation as to who this woman was. Some have thought that she was Mary Magdalene, others that she was Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus. In some respects this account is similar to the anointing of Jesus by Mary as narrated in Matthew 26:7; Mark 14:3; and John 12:3, but this does not seem to be an account of the same event. The name of the Pharisee who entertained Jesus happens to be the same in both instances; however, the Simon of Bethany was a very different man from the one here mentioned. Nor can this woman, who seems to have been of a notoriously bad reputation, be identical with the Mary of Bethany who had sat at Jesus’ feet, and by her gentle confiding love and won so strong a hold upon his affections. (Luke 10:38-42.) These incidents must have been two distinct events.
and when she knew that he was sitting at meat—It was the custom at that time for the guests to remove the sandals before the meal and recline on the left elbow or side with the feet outward from the table. They did not have the custom of sitting in chairs as we have today. It was also customary for anyone to come into the house during a feast and sit and converse with those who were invited to the feast; the invited guests reclined at the table, while the uninvited guests sat around the wall. This woman brought an “alabaster cruse of ointment,” and anointed the feet of Jesus. It seems that she was standing behind his feet weeping, and was drawn irresistibly by gratitude to Jesus and “wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head.” It was regarded among the Jews as a shameful thing for a woman to let down her hair in public but she made this sacrifice because of her affection for Jesus.
39 Now when the Pharisee that had bidden him—The emphasis is put here on “the Pharisee”; he had invited Jesus to come into his house and dine with him; Jesus had accepted the invitation and the penitent woman had approached Jesus and paid great honor and respect to him. The Pharisee had witnessed the whole affair and was “saying” “within himself” that Jesus was not a prophet as he claimed to be. Thoughts passed through his mind, or he reasoned with himself that Jesus could not be a prophet. He had already reached the conclusion that Jesus was not a prophet; if he had been one, as he claimed to be, he would have known “who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him.” This woman was regarded as a great sinner; she was notorious in person and character. Surely if Jesus had known who she was, the Pharisee reasoned, he would not have permitted her to have touched him. For a woman of such abandoned character to touch one was regarded as the highest species of defilement.
The Pharisee thought that Jesus did not know her character, or he would never have permitted her to touch him, much less to remain at his feet kissing them and continuing to express her love for him by such demonstrations. His reasoning was fallacious.
40 And Jesus answering said unto him,—The Pharisee had concluded that Jesus was not a prophet, because he did not know the life and character of this woman; he had not spoken aloud on this point; he had only reasoned with himself. But Jesus now does the very thing which the Pharisee considered as a mark or characteristic of a prophet—he reads the mind of the Pharisee. Jesus spoke directly to him; he addressed him as “Simon,” and then stated emphatically that he had something to say to him. The Pharisee is very brief and emphatic in his reply; he said: “Teacher, say on.” Jesus answers the thoughts and doubts of Simon and shows that he knows about Simon’s thoughts and therefore knows all about this woman; there is a kind of Socratic irony in the speech of Jesus.
41, 42 A certain lender had two debtors:—A lender of money for interest is here meant as the original shows. The parable which Jesus now proposed for the instruction of this self-righteous Pharisee is based on well-known facts. This lender of money for interest “had two debtors”; the first one owed him “five hundred shillings,” while the second one only owed him “fifty.” The term used here is “denarius,” which was the chief silver coin of the Romans at this time, and of the value of about seventeen cents. It was the rate of wages for a day’s work. Five hundred would amount to about eighty-five dollars, while fifty would amount to eight dollars and fifty cents; hence expressed in our values one of these debtors owed eighty-five dollars and the other owed eight dollars and fifty cents.
When they had not wherewith to pay,—Neither one of these debtors could pay the lender the amount owed him; the lender, out of the kindness and generosity of his heart, released them of their indebtedness. Favor, kindness, benevolence, compassion, and sympathy are the sole basis of the act, all merit on the part of the recipient being excluded. After presenting this parable in its simplicity to the Pharisee, Jesus asked him: “Which of them therefore will love him most?” Jesus by this question forces the Pharisee to draw the only conclusion that was possible to draw from the parable, and then Jesus makes the application. The point of the parable then is the attitude of the two debtors toward the lender who forgave both of them.
43 Simon answered and said,—It seems that Simon began to see the point that Jesus was making; hence he said, “He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.” The Pharisee’s reply indicates a descent from his lofty and arrogant tone to one of more humility. Simon saw how his answer would convict himself as he had perceived in part the drift of the illustration. Jesus did not leave him in doubt as to what he had said; he replied to Simon: “Thou hast rightly judged.” This was the end of the argument; there was nothing further to say. Leaving the matter thus as did Jesus made the point more emphatic.
44-46 And turning to the woman,—Jesus now directed Simon’s attention to the woman who had bestowed such gracious favors upon him. It seems that this was the first time that Jesus looked at the woman, and he asks the Pharisee to look at her , she was behind Jesus, hence he would have to turn to look at her. Jesus was an invited guest; the Pharisee had neglected some points of common and customary hospitality; the contrasts here made, scholars tell us, have the rhythm of Hebrew poetry; in each contrast the first word is the point of defect in Simon’s conduct toward Jesus. “Water,” “kiss,” and “oil” are the points of emphasis. The water which Simon had failed to give was supplied by the tears of the woman; the failure of Simon to show affection for his guest was supplied by the kisses of the woman; and the failure of Simon to honor his guest was supplied by the precious oil with which she anointed the feet of Jesus. Simon had failed as a host to anoint the head of Jesus, the nobler part, with ordinary oil, but the woman had anointed his feet with costly oil. This penitent, sinful woman had done far more for Jesus than had the Pharisee; it was expected of the Pharisee to show such acts of customary honor to Jesus as his guest, but it was not expected of this woman to bestow any acts of honor upon him.
47, 48 Wherefore I say unto thee,—Jesus now turns from Simon and speaks to the woman; this seems to be the first time that he has spoken to her. “Wherefore” introduces the conclusion which is drawn from what has been said. Jesus says, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Here Jesus shows that he knew her condition, and that the Pharisee had misjudged him and his ability to know the hearts of people. Jesus not only refers to her public and scandalous sins, but to all which she had ever committed. His forgiveness is most ample, covering the sins of a whole life. Jesus gave the reason for his forgiving her. “For she loved much” ‘is the assuring statement that Jesus made. All that she had done for Jesus showed her love for him; her coming to Jesus showed her consciousness of a need of a Savior; Jesus’ words to her showed that he was willing to save. Jesus then stated the conclusion from his parable by saying: “But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.”
49, 50 And they that sat at meat with him—The friends of the Pharisee who sat at meat with Jesus began to reason with themselves and made inquiry of their own hearts as to who this man was. They thought that he was presumptuous to claim to forgive sins; they did not speak aloud or speak to each other, but they were unanimous in their conclusion that he was a presumptuous sinner. Perhaps their surprise was expressed in their faces. Jesus without answering them or their thoughts changed the form of his address to the woman, perhaps that she might not be misled into thinking that her acts of devotion were misjudged. Jesus said to her: “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” This shows that Jesus knew the full condition of her heart; he knew her life; he knew her faith in him. Jesus ignored the old question which the Pharisaic mind raised about his claim to forgive sins; he had fully answered them, and had taught them an important lesson.
They were not disposed to receive the lesson. There was a wide contrast in the faith of this woman and the lack of faith on the part of the Pharisee the width between these two is emphasized in the contrast between what the woman did for him and what the Pharisee had failed to do.