Luke 17

CHAPTER XVII

Luke 17:1

1 The view that no connection exists between the last parable and the new discourse is not tenable. The Pharisees and the scribes were causing dangerous offense to the publicans and the sinners who were inclined to believe in Jesus and were already believing in him (15:1, 2). Jesus has warned them in two chapters, and the matter is now carried a step farther. The same is true regarding the claim that the parallel utterances found in Matt. 18:6, 7 and Mark 9:42 were not recorded in their proper connection but are so recorded by Luke. A glance at Matthew and at Mark shows that this claim is untenable. Only portions of Luke are similar to those found in Matthew and in Mark, and these portions are of such a nature that they certainly permit a repetition, and the situation is decidedly different in Luke.

See the question raised by the Twelve in Matt. 18:1, then note the situation in Luke. The Pharisees and the scribes who were present throughout the time when the last two chapters were spoken, for whom the parables were spoken in particular (15:1, 2; 16:14) certainly must have been glad to withdraw. Jesus is alone with “his disciples,” and these include far more than the Twelve, namely all who had also listened to the parables, one of which was spoken to them (16:1). In v. 5 “the apostles” appear as a separate group.

Moreover he said to his disciples: Impossible it is for fatal traps not to come; nevertheless, woe through whom they come! It is profitable for him if a millstone has been placed around his neck and he has been pitched into the sea rather than that he fatally entrap one of these little ones.

The impossibility is due to the devilishness that is found in the world, a sample of which appears in 15:2, compare 11:52. Wicked men will always set deathtraps, especially for inexperienced believers, and will bait these traps in all kinds of ways; and some believers will be caught. Jesus knows all this and therefore pronounces this woe. See 7:25 on σκάνδαλον and the following σκανδαλίζω. The noun refers to a deathtrap which is baited so that, when the bait is touched, the stick holding the bait springs the trap. “Offenses” (A. V.) and “occasions of stumbling” (R.

V.) are out of line. One gets over an offense, stubs himself in stumbling, picks himself up after falling over something, but is killed by a skandalon, here, of course, spiritually, thus landing in hell like the rich man. So the verb, too, means to catch and to kill in a trap. M.-M. 576. The accusative with the infinitive “for fatal traps not to come” is the subject of the sentence, it has pleonastic τοῦ which is often added to infinitives, but the genitive force of the article is lost; the infinitive is here in the nominative; see R. 1094, 1068 (B.-D. 400, 4 and other explanations are not acceptable).

Πλήν means that in spite of the fact that deathtraps will be set, woe is “nevertheless” on him through whom they are set. This “woe” is neither an accusation nor a mere exclamation of sorrow. Exactly like the “blessed” in the Beatitudes, these “woes” are verdicts, and these verdicts will be carried out inexorably.

Luke 17:2

2 In what a terrible way this will occur is indicated by the following. Both the εἰ and the ἵνα clauses are nominative subjects of λυσιτελεῖ (R. 997); R. 992 shows that ἵνα clauses are freely used as subjects or as objects of a sentence. The thought is plain: is would be a tremendous advantage if, before a man ruined a human soul forever, he were pitched into the sea with a great millstone around his neck. The crime is so terrible in the eyes of Jesus that he mentions an unheard-of manner of death as being vastly preferable to its commission. No human judge or court ever decreed such a death as a penalty. And this answers the idea that such a penalty is to be regarded as alone befitting the crime of destroying one of God’s inexperienced children. What the awful penalty for that will actually be Jesus allows his disciples to guess from the way in which he pictures its enormity.

The λίθοςμυλικός is “a stone connected with a mill,” and περίκειται is used as the perfect passive of περιτίθημι, “has been placed around,” and thus harmonizes with the perfect ἔρριπται, “has been pitched,” the tenses saying that for this to have been done with the man, thus for his body to be beyond recovery in the bottom of the sea where it could never get near to a Christian, is preferable and to be chosen “rather than”—and now an aorist subjunctive to express a single act in the future—that he fatally entrap one of these little ones. The connection makes plain whom Jesus has in mind: new and as yet inexperienced believers like those mentioned in 15:1 as well as any others. In Matt. 18 children are especially referred to.

Luke 17:3

3 Take heed to yourselves—if thy brother commit a sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, remit it for him! And if he commit sin against thee seven times during the day and seven times turn to thee, saying, I am repentant! thou shalt dismiss it for him.

Worldly men seek to entrap the disciples so as to kill their faith. In this matter, Jesus says, take heed to yourselves, i. e., so as to guard each other; with προσέχετε we supply τὸννοῦν. The moment a brother commits a sin (the aorist to denote a single act of sin), he who sees and knows it is told to rebuke him by showing him that he has sinned and how deadly the guilt of that sin is. Ἁμαρτάνω, “to miss the mark” set by God’s law, is the ordinary verb for “to sin”; and there is no restriction here such as “against thee,” which occurs in the next verse. This is any open sin into which one of us may fall. The one aim of this rebuke is that the brother may repent (see 3:3), and the rebuke must be according.

Jesus speaks only of the case of a successful rebuke and uses the condition of expectancy, ἐάν with the subjunctive. The aorist denotes the one act of repentance, which is usually accompanied by a confession of the sin. The moment that occurs, the rebuking brother has the order: “Remit it to him,” pronounce absolution upon him in Jesus’ name; on ἄφεσις see 1:77. Luther has often spoken of this great and blessed function of the royal priesthood, this delivering a brother from his sin by getting him to repent of that sin and giving him God’s pardon to relieve his conscience. The fact that the pardon is not pronounced by a pastor but by an ordinary brother makes no difference whatever if only the brother truly knows what he is about and acts as though he were in the sight of God. This is the first place in Luke’s Gospel where “brother” is used to indicate the relation of one disciple to another. This word of Jesus is also spoken for the sinning brother; he is to know what Jesus orders others to do for him, and what his Lord expects of him, namely prompt and genuine repentance.

Luke 17:4

4 Jesus adds further instruction (καί) on this subject. The act of sin (again aorist) may be directed “against thee,” against another brother. And Jesus cites the extreme case of seven different sins that are committed against a brother in a single day. We cannot think that this is merely the same sin repeated again and again because it would then be farcical for the sinning brother to say, “I repent!” In this extreme case, in which the sins are even being committed against the one brother, upon the sinning brother’s sincere repentance of his sin, which is each time expressed by the sinning brother, Jesus bids the wronged brother to remit the sin time after time. “Seven times” is not intended as a limit but as what might possibly occur during one day, τῆςἡμέρας, the genitive to indicate the time within.

This is not an abbreviation of Matt. 18:21, etc., where no time limit such as “during the day” appears. In Matthew the remission is that of brother to brother, seventy times seven times, the moment a brother sins against another even if he never thinks of saying, “I am repentant.” Never am I to hold a grudge against a brother for any sin or any number of sins. The parable recorded in Matthew makes that plain. In Luke the remission is that of God to one who sins against me. I am pronouncing God’s pardon (not my own). To do that I must have the repentant confession: Μετανοῶ! Without that I, indeed, hold nothing against him but I cannot declare unto him the divine pardon.

Thus the disciples are to deal with each other, and those sinning are to know in advance about this dealing in order that no brother, whether because of some general sin or because of some sin against another brother, may remain under God’s condemnation. Whereas worldly men seek to entrap our brethren, the brethren are to save each other.

Luke 17:5

5 And the apostles said to the Lord (the title is explained in 7:13), Add to us faith! But the Lord said, If you have faith as a kernel of mustard, you would say to this mulberry tree, Be uprooted and be planted in the sea! and it would have obeyed you.

Not since 9:10 does Luke write “the apostles.” The term is used here in order to distinguish the Twelve from the larger body of disciples (v. 1), and it thus shows that the scene is still the same. The request, too, is in line with what precedes. One of the apostles must have voiced it, by word or by nodding the others seconded it. “Add to us faith!” is a petition for more and thus stronger faith. The apostles felt that they must have far greater faith than they had at present to beware of the skandala or deathtraps and to help each other and their other brethren as Jesus had just directed. They felt this as apostles who were to warn and to correct each other and others. This was, indeed, a good prayer like the one mentioned in 11:1.

Luke 17:6

6 The answer of Jesus is frequently misunderstood. It is thought that he is speaking of charismatic faith (1 Cor. 13:2; 12:9), as if he said that they ought to have such faith. We are also told that the apostles ought to have answered their own prayer. But who of us would have thought that the apostles asked for charismatic faith, or that this kind of faith was needed for what Jesus had just said?

This paragraph is also removed from the preceding, and we are told that Jesus must have performed some great miracle which Luke omitted, which caused the apostles to pray for more charismatic faith. Such views are answered when we note that Jesus does two things: he encourages the faith of the apostles and thus increases it; and he shows that, despite all their works of faith, they must remain humble and claim no special merit.

The sentence is unusual because it has three types of conditions: “If you have faith” (a protasis of reality; and, indeed, you have, Jesus admits it), “you would say” (apodosis of present unreality, the imperfect with ἄν; Jesus declares that in spite of having faith they are not using it), “and it would have obeyed you” (a second apodosis, now of past unreality, the aorist with ἄν; it did and could not obey because you are not telling it to do so). It is thus that Jesus gives them more faith, namely by encouraging the faith which they have to put forth its power and thus to grow by seeing to what power it can rise.

This encouragement Jesus applies to a faith that is even as small as the very least garden seed, the tiny kernel of mustard. For faith is a vessel; its power lies, not in being a vessel, but in what it contains as a vessel. Faith embraces the divine promises, and when it makes use of these promises, its greatness and its power appear, and it can do all that Jesus asks in v. 1–4 and far more because divine grace and help are contained in the promises that are held by faith. Such faith the apostles have; let them use the promises to which it holds.

The remarkable thing that Jesus says the apostles could do—though he admits that they are not doing it—is to say to this mulberry tree, “Be uprooted and be planted in the sea!” with the effect that it would have been done but was not because even now they fail to say such a thing. Note that both of the verbs are passive in this figurative command. Neither the apostles nor their faith pretend to do such things; the agent in the passives is God, and he does things that are as astounding as that wherever we have his promise.

What Jesus says is not a mere variant of Matt. 17:20; 21:21 (Mark 11:23; compare 1 Cor. 13:2). Those interpretations which assume that dropping the mountain into the sea and uprooting the mulberry tree and planting it in the sea are the same, namely two illustrations of humanly impossible things, both of which are possible only to charismatic faith, have misunderstood the words of Jesus. The mountain just drops into the sea and disappears, a hindrance that it is humanly impossible to remove is nevertheless removed by charismatic faith. But here is a fruitful mulberry tree, and it is carefully taken up by the roots and as carefully planted again right in the sea, where no man can plant anything, and it stands there and keeps on bearing fruit. This is an entirely different story from having the tree pitch itself into the sea. To be sure, human impossibility is pictured by the tree as well as by the mountain, but in the case of the tree something is added that far exceeds what occurred in the case of the mountain—the tree is planted and flourishes in the sea.

Exactly this very thing the apostles would soon do over and over again, for at their word the kingdom would be transplanted, root and branch, from Israel into the Gentile world in congregation after congregation—into territory in which no man would have thought the kingdom could grow and flourish; the Jews were sure that it could not. No charismatic faith was necessary for this, for the gospel was not spread through the world by anything but the ordinary faith of its bearers. All it needs to do is to act, and in its testing of the promise concerning the gospel that faith will grow and grow. And for that reason Jesus carefully adds the promise right here: “and it would have obeyed you.” So Jesus answers the prayer. Faith is living trust in the gospel, and that trust grows as it witnesses and experiences the gospel’s power.

Luke 17:7

7 But as he always does, so here, too, Jesus sees all sides of a subject. The apostles are now humble and feel how small their faith is even in view of what Jesus says in v. 1–4. It must remain humble when it now steps out into the world and accomplishes wonders there. That is the point of the parable.

Moreover, who of you is there, having a slave plowing or shepherding, who on his coming in from the field will say to him, At once, having come along, recline at table! On the contrary, will he not say, Make ready what I shall dine on and, after having girded thyself, keep serving me until I finish eating and drinking, and after that then thyself shalt eat and drink? Does he thank the slave because he did the things he was ordered to do? Thus also you yourselves, when you shall finish doing all the things ordered for you, be saying, Slaves unprofitable are we; what we were under obligation to do we have done.

The interrogative form into which the parable is put makes it far stronger than if it were stated in the form of an assertion. The answers to the questions are self-evident, and the disciples themselves are bound to give these answers.

Jesus asks the apostles to put themselves into the position of a man who has a slave or bondservant, one whose entire time and labor belong to his master. This slave is out in the field working all day long, “engaged in plowing or shepherding,” both participles being durative. These occupations are not selected at random but with a view to the work of the apostles. For plowing compare 1 Cor. 3:9: “ye are God’s husbandry,” meaning tillage; the figures of sowing and reaping presuppose plowing. Plowing is hard work, to be understood as such here. “Or shepherding,” which, according to the constant analogy of Scripture, refers to sheep (R. V.), certainly not to cattle (A. V.). This, too, is hard work and pictures the coming task of the apostles, John 21:15, etc.

When, after such a hard day’s work, the slave comes in toward evening, Jesus asks, would you, if you were his master, say to him, “At once, having come along, recline at table!” i. e., rest and refresh thyself? We construe εὐθέως with ἀνάπεσε (regular second aorist imperative and the correct reading) and not with ἐρεῖ (A. V.) or even with παρελθών (R. V.). “By and by” in the A. V. was proper when this translation was made in the seventeenth century, it was used for “immediately” but now misleads, for it now means “after a while.” The Jews and the Orientals reclined at table, resting on the left elbow on broad couches. This slave’s work is not yet done after all the plowing or shepherding. His labors during the entire day are not considered as being anything great at all.

Luke 17:8

8 “On the contrary,” the strong ἀλλά begins the new question, this one with the interrogative word οὐχί which involves a decided affirmative answer. The master will certainly order his slave to make ready his master’s dinner, the δεῖπνον, the main meal of the day that is eaten toward evening. We regard “what I shall dine on” as an indirect question with the aorist subjunctive and τί as the object and not as an adverb (R. 1045, “how”).

More than that, the master will order that slave to keep on serving him or waiting at table (durative present imperative) “until I finish eating and drinking,” this being the force of the two aorist subjunctives (not “while,” R. 976, which would require present subjunctives). So all this service still goes into the slave’s work; nobody expects anything else, and he himself would be the last to complain. If he were the master he would expect his bondservant to do the same thing.

“And after that thou thyself (emphatic σύ) shalt eat and drink” is a part of the master’s speech, not because he would ordinarily say this, but to express the common thought about such a slave, namely that he is to eat and to drink only when all work is done. The so-called futures like πίεσαι and φάγεσαι, which are really old aorist subjunctives (R. 869), have the uncontracted personal ending -σαι.

Luke 17:9

9 To emphasize the point of the parable Jesus asks another question, this time with μή because he thinks only of a negative answer. The master has finished dining, the slave clears the table, then he himself at last proceeds to eat. Does the master, on rising from the couch, offer anything like thanks to the slave (the idiom χάρινἔχειν = gratiam habeo, Dank wissen, to feel thankful, and thus to thank)? Trench would soften this and would let the slave receive some recognition; he lets his modern feeling enter a little. No; the slave gets not even a “thank you.” Who, even today, is everlastingly thanking us when we do what is our ordinary work in our station of life? The addition in the A.

V.: “I trow not” is an interpretative translation, an effort to show to the English reader the force of the negative answer that is assumed in the Greek form of the question. When it is so understood it may pass, for we have no interrogative word to match μή.

Luke 17:10

10 Jesus himself interprets the parable, and we should at once see that it is intended for us, for our proper attitude toward our Lord, and is not intended to bring in what he does or ought to do toward us. This is essential and clears away those criticisms of the parable which have been made when this restriction is overlooked. “Thus also you yourselves” (emphatic ὑμεῖς) is decisive on the matter. However much our faith is increased and is able to do and actually does do in the Lord’s work, let no false claims of merit enter our minds. “When you shall finish doing all things ordered for you,” actually finish them all (this being the force of the aorist ποιήσητε), then do not boast or set up special claims—which would only spoil it all. We need not discuss the question as to whether any servant of Jesus ever did all that was commanded him, without omission whatever. The Lord cites a case that is perfect in this respect. Even Paul feels constrained to say that, although he knows nothing against himself, he is thereby not justified (1 Cor. 4:4, R. V.)

Even after having served perfectly we are to say from our inmost conviction, “Slaves unprofitable are we.” The sense of ἀχρεῖοι, although “unprofitable” is not an exact translation but only the best we can do, is fortunately understood by our English Bible readers, the entire parable making it so plain. It is otherwise in the case of the commentators who labor with the etymology. Romanists even run counter to the word and in spite of it hold to works of supererogation, for which they claim the highest merit. “Unprofitable,” which is defined by the parable itself, certainly does not mean entbehrlich, servants without whom the Lord can do, but “deserving of no special thanks” because they have no special claims on the Lord. The Lord’s own interpretation is certainly lucid: we are to call ourselves “unprofitable” because “what we were under obligation to do, we have done.” We thus drop all claims, for we, indeed, have none; even the most perfect servant whom the Lord ever had has none. We do not pretend in this respect and with secret hypocrisy think that the Lord owes us something.

So much for the parable and its tertium and its teaching. We know from other parables and from other Scripture passages that the Lord is not going to act as the master in this parable did. It will not do to interpret this parable by saying “who of you” represents God or the Lord, for the Lord will not act as is here described, wherefore also Jesus does not begin this parable by saying, “There was a man” who had a slave plowing, etc. “Who of you” pictures ourselves as we in ordinary life act toward those who are working for us. The Lord does far otherwise (19:17, 19; Matt. 25: 21, 23) and rewards even those who have not succeeded in doing “all things ordered for them,” forgives them their shortcomings.

But when he so rewards, this is altogether and absolutely due to his abounding grace and generosity. It is because of himself and not because of us and our work. Once for all learn: if we think we ought to receive recognition at the Lord’s hands for our service, which is imperfect and poor at best and not to be compared with that of the slave in the parable, we are doing an outrageous and utterly presumptuous thing. We are then turning his wholly undeserved grace, his glorious generosity, which is so glorious just because he gives it without the least merit on our part, into nothing more than a mere payment that is coming to us by right and justice. Can the Lord consent to such a double lie?

Luke 17:11

11 And it came to pass in going to Jerusalem he was going through between Samaria and Galilee.

On ἐγένετοκαί see 5:12, and on ἐν with the infinitive 1:8; Luke often uses the unstressed αὐτός as the subject. Διὰμέσον, which is found only here in the New Testament, does not mean “through the midst” of the two countries, first through Samaria and then through Galilee, but between them, along the border where they meet. Luke does not keep to the chronology as we have seen hitherto. He has already brought us far on this journey to Jerusalem where Jesus was to die, as far as southern Perea, but he now reverts to the start of this journey, when, after being refused hospitality by the Samaritans (9:51, etc.), Jesus passed along the border of Samaria and Galilee to cross the Jordan into Perea. Luke, who is seldom specific about the localities of his narratives, is so here in order to explain how one of the ten lepers happened to be a Samaritan. We conclude also that Jesus is on the Galilean side of the border, for it would be hard to account for the presence of nine Jewish lepers in Samaria and much easier to have one Samaritan leper associated with nine Jewish lepers in Galilee near the border.

Luke places this incident of the lepers at this point in his Gospel as a continuation of 15:1, 2. The entire piece from 15:1–17:10 is a unit. It referred to publicans and open sinners in chapter 15, and Luke now brings in even a Samaritan, one who did not come in contact with Jesus in vain.

Luke 17:12

12 And as he was entering into a village, there met him ten leprous men who stood far off; and they lifted the voice, saying, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us! And on seeing them he said, Having gone, show yourselves to the priests! And it came to pass while they were going they were cleansed.

As he was on the point of entering a village near the border, ten men who were affected with the dread disease of leprosy meet Jesus. They came from the side toward the road that entered the village, for they had to live outside of the village in such huts or dwellings as they could construct for themselves and avoid all contact with people who were not leprous like themselves. These ten, one of them being even a Samaritan, had congregated to aid each other. Their misery had overcome national and religious antipathy. Being unclean (Lev. 13:46), they stood afar off lest they render others unclean also. The Greek says that they stood “from afar,” for it always measures the distance from the object to the beholder, not, as we do, from ourselves to the object. The rabbis prescribed a space of at least four paces, but these lepers stood well to the side because of the crowd that was following Jesus.

On leprosy see the Bible Dictionaries and Trench, Miracles of Our Lord, 10, The Cleansing of the Leper. The leper was regarded as one who was already dead, unclean for this reason. No cure was known for this disease.

Luke 17:13

13 The reason the lepers lifted up their voice was to attract certain attention from the distance at which they stood. Yes, leprosy gradually destroys the voice, but the ten could still make considerable noise. Their cry does not reveal more than that they knew about the power of Jesus to heal even men like themselves. They call him by his name “Jesus” and use only the title “Master,” which is equal to “Rabbi,” which latter title Luke never uses (see 5:5). And the prayer: “Mercy us!” (the Greek verb being transitive) means only that Jesus is to free them from their leprosy. The most that we can deduce from this is that these lepers believed that Jesus could help them.

Luke 17:14

14 He sees them, hears their shouting, perhaps raises a hand to hush them, and then issues his command, “Having gone, (the Greek always expresses the minor action by a participle) show yourselves to the priests!” And Jesus goes on into the village and lets the lepers stand there.

Imagine their situation. They must have stood and looked at each other and then started to debate this command. They had surely expected something else. If they had news of other lepers whom Jesus had healed (5:12, etc.) they knew that Jesus had never merely ordered lepers to go to Jerusalem as if they were healed when they were not. Should they go? They decided to do so, for they told each other and, indeed, rightly that this command involved a promise, the promise that they were to be healed. The command of Jesus is terse, but it means the same as it did in 5:14 where the details of the priests’ duties in reinstating healed lepers are described. Cases occurred that eventually turned out not to be leprosy.

The plural “to the priests” is used because ten lepers are involved, and the ceremonies described in 5:14 plainly show that the contention that one priest could attend to all at one time is mistaken. Did Jesus know that one of the ten was a Samaritan and, even if he desired, could not enter the Temple at Jerusalem much less offer sacrifices there? Jesus always knew all that he needs to know for his work and so did not need to wait until the Samaritan returned to learn that he was not a Jew. Did Jesus say “priests,” meaning that this man should show himself to a Samaritan priest at his own sanctuary? Let us remember that Jesus was not building up Judaism, was not trying to make men Jews. We may add that the Jewish priests accepted the findings of the Samaritan priests when they pronounced a man clean of leprosy.

Jesus healed in different ways according to the condition of the sick persons. These men as yet believed only in his healing power. Jesus desired to advance that faith to something better. So he acted as he did. Leprous as they were, these men were to go to their priests like clean men to be pronounced clean. That required stronger faith than ever in Jesus’ healing power.

The way in which to increase even such faith is to feed it with the Word. Jesus gave these men his word. That, too, moved them to act. They would have been fools not to act on that word, to stand around only to debate and to rationalize about it. In only one way could they find out whether that word had power in it, the power of which they had heard so much: they must trust that word and go to the priests. That would show just what power was in that word.

Commentators like to call this a trial of faith to which Jesus put these men. “Trial” is not the proper word. They were not tested as to the strength of their faith, their faith was given the word that it needed to give it more strength. But the word is like food, only by eating it will it give us strength; so only by trusting Jesus’ word and thus trustfully acting on it will faith grow and increase in strength.

And sure enough, while they were going, leprous as they were and holding only to that precious word from Jesus’ lips, they were all at once cleansed. Did they look at their bodies, feel of them, do this to each other, and then, certain of the fact, shout with delight? Their faith was justified to the uttermost. So this is what Jesus meant! Why are we told that they gradually, very gradually lost the disease? Is that the manner in which Jesus healed? Why are we told that they had to go all the way to the priests before they were healed? The narrative makes the impression that they went only a moderate distance, and that the happy moment came then. Luke puts stress on the sentence by starting it with “and it came to pass” (see 1:8).

Luke 17:15

15 But one of them, on seeing that he was healed, turned back, with a great voice glorifying God, and fell on his face at his feet thanking him; and he was a Samaritan. Now Jesus answering said: Were not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? Were there not found, having turned back to give glory to God, save this foreigner? And he said to him, Having arisen, be going! Thy faith has saved thee.

Before the one turned back he must have debated with the others about turning back. Had Jesus not told them to go to the priests, and now, healed as they were, had they not more cause than ever to hurry to the priests? But with nine against him, left in a minority of one, this one turned back. The idea is not that he was disobeying Jesus’ orders—how long would it take to return and to seek the priests after that? Whatever outward arguments this one had with the nine, the decisions were due to something inward. In the heart of the one, out of the faith that made him, too, cry to Jesus for mercy, and out of the word of Jesus that had healed him, something was born that was not born in the hearts of the others, something that drew him back to Jesus in spite of the decision of the nine to go on, something that could not draw the others because it was not born in them because they grasped only at the healing and not also at the Healer.

Majorities impress us too much. What would you have done if you had stood alone against nine? Majorities can go wrong as easily as an individual may go wrong. The decisive thing is the right, the true, and not the numbers. Luther stood against the world of his day; he stood with and for the truth. It is still true that God and one make a majority. It was right that this man should return, right that he should do so by glorifying God with a loud voice when he came back to Jesus and the crowd that was with him in the village, which now included the villagers. He praised God for healing him through Jesus even as Jesus did all his works to glorify God. By glorifying God he withheld nothing from Jesus.

Luke 17:16

16 For he prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him. That, too, was the proper thing to do. The greatness of Jesus that had been manifested in the miracle—healing ten lepers with less than ten words—overcame this man. So he lay at Jesus’ feet and thanked him with all his soul. The nine had the same greatness to impress their hearts, owed the same response of prostration and gratitude to Jesus, but their hearts did not, would not respond. Whatever faith in Jesus’ power had made them cry for mercy advanced not one step to something better in spite of what Jesus had given that faith.

Like a promising bud it stopped growth, then began to wilt, and finally died. They never went back to Jesus, not even after they had been to the priests; the record would have mentioned such a return, one that was made late but was vastly better than no return.

“And he was a Samaritan”—the nine Jews were absent. It was thus with the whole Jewish nation. Read Rom. 9:4, 5 regarding the Jews and John 4:22 regarding the Samaritans and then you catch Luke’s meaning: “and he was a Samaritan.” Then compare Luke 11:30–32.

Luke 17:17

17 The Greek “answered” (see 1:19) is used also here where Jesus responded to a situation—only one of the ten had returned. Jesus is addressing no one in particular. His questions are exclamations that all those about him are to hear. They are surcharged with feeling. Rom. 10:21. “But the nine—where?” with its longing and its pain, with its appeal in spite of all disappointment, has been echoing through the years, is calling, calling still.

Luke 17:18

18 The Greek places the negative with the verb: “were there not found,” whereas we place it with the noun or subject: “were none found,” etc. “To give glory to God” is meant in the same sense as it was in v. 15. The point of the question lies in the clause: “save this foreigner,” ὁἀλλογενής, one of another race. The Samaritans were of Gentile extraction, not even partly of Jewish blood as is often supposed. The personal work of Jesus was intended for the Jews (Matt. 15:24), but here nine Jews take his blessing, and the one Samaritan who was with them breaks away from them and returns alone.

Luke 17:19

19 Jesus now tells this man to get up and to be going (durative present imperative) on the journey to the priests to be legally pronounced clean and to be reinstated in the society of men. But Jesus adds what was so vital: “Thy faith has saved thee,” the perfect tense as well as the verb itself refer to his saved condition into which one act of saving or rescue had placed him. In this and in other such statements of Jesus faith is not the causa efficiens, the saving power that caused the healing from leprosy, but the causa instrumentalis, the subjective means that connect the leper with the power of Jesus. This man was healed by trusting Jesus and by trustfully crying out to him. So, indeed, were the nine. But their faith produced nothing but that cry, then faded out even as they were now far from Jesus and remained away from him.

But this man’s trust remained, brought the fruit of gratitude as described, and was thus on the way to still more. That is why Jesus reminds this man of his faith. It is as though he told him: “See what thy faith in me and my power has done for thee! Keep that faith and see what it will yet do for thee!”

This was not yet soteriological faith, justifying faith that saves the soul. It was to lead to this type of faith. The power that saved from leprosy is divine, and he who has it must be able to save also the soul with the power of grace. It is thus that soteriological faith was to be born in the Samaritan; he was on a fair way to have it produced in him.

The next statement is misunderstood when Jesus’ word addressed to this man is made equal to the word he spoke to the pardoned woman in 7:50. How could this man be already saved from sin? It will not do to say that Jesus had already saved him and declared that fact here. Jesus is not making an astonishing revelation to the man about his soul. The soul’s salvation rests on more than had as yet come to this man’s soul. But he was on the way to his salvation, and to tell him, as Jesus did, encouraged him to go on toward the greater goal of faith.

Luke 17:20

20 Luke again follows his manner of leaving the time and the place unnamed and concentrates all attention on the words that Jesus uttered as being perfectly clear without reference to the time or the place The account about the thankful Samaritan is a minor link in Luke’s progress of thought—others step in where the Jews fail. The discourse on the coming of the kingdom and on its consummation (17:20–37) connects in a broad way with the last parable recorded in chapter 16 and with 17:1, etc.

Now having been requested by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God is coming, he answered them and said: The kingdom of God does not come accompanied by observation; neither will they say, Lo here, or there! For lo, the kingdom of God is inside you!

Neither the question nor its answer betrays an ulterior motive or purpose on the part of the Pharisees. Some find ridicule in it as if the Pharisees mean. “Thou hast talked much about the kingdom, but we have as yet seen nothing of it; when will it come?” Others find a temptation in it: “He claims to be bringing the kingdom—let us get him to tell us when he is making it arrive.” But neither of these views is verifiable.

The Greek retains the tense of the direct discourse: “When comes the kingdom of God?” This question does not intend to inquire as to the date but as to the visible signs and tangible proofs for determining that the kingdom has truly come. The Jews generally looked forward with longing and hope to the arrival of the Messiah and the kingdom which he would establish But they conceived this as an outward, visible, glorious kingdom. If Jesus could have brought such a kingdom, all Jews would have flocked to his standard. That is one great reason why he was rejected—he looked, spoke, and acted like anything but such a king who was bringing the kingdom. It was a very pertinent question, this about the “when” of the kingdom.

Jesus gives a pertinent answer. These Pharisees have a complete misconception concerning the kingdom. It and therefore its coming are not like what they think. Hence Jesus must tell them: “The kingdom of God does not come (at all) accompanied with observation (with men sitting by and watching the grand spectacle of its arrival).” It is not at all a kingdom that could come in such a way.

Luke 17:21

21 Jesus explains what he means by the phrase “with observation”: “neither will they say (of this kingdom when it comes), Lo here (it is—pointing a finger at it) or there (it is)!” The plural ἐροῦσιν is indefinite. The kingdom does not come like a magnificent procession with bands playing, hosts marching, a glittering king at its head. There is no “when” at all for such a coming or for any kingdom that could come in this way.

In place of the false “lo” Jesus offers the true one, and γάρ gives the brief and complete explanation. “For, lo, the kingdom is inside you!” It is wholly and altogether a spiritual kingdom. The phrase ἐντὸςὑμῶν means neither in animis vestris, for the kingdom is certainly not in the hearts of these Pharisees, nor merely intra vos (R. V. margin), “among you,” “in your midst,” in the hearts of the believers that are scattered here and there among the Pharisees. The phrase does not locate the kingdom but states its character as being something internal and not, like earthly kingdoms, external. The pronoun “you” is general and does not mean “you Pharisees” or “you,” any definite person. So the Pharisees sit in their observation towers in vain; the kingdom, being spiritual and internal, comes right under their noses, and with their unspiritual eyes they never see a thing of it or of its coming.

See 4:43 on the kingdom. It is Luke’s concern to report this word of Jesus and therefore he says nothing more about the Pharisees.

Luke 17:22

22 The Pharisees had left, or Jesus and the disciples had proceeded on their journey. The Pharisees needed to be told that the kingdom is within, is spiritual; to this the Lord adds for the sake of his disciples that, after the spiritual work of this kingdom is done, it will come suddenly, like lightning, in judgment on the world.

Moreover, he said to the disciples: There shall come days when you shall long to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you shall not see it. And they shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! Do not go away or pursue after. For just as the lightning when lightning shines out of one part under the heaven unto the other part under the heaven, thus shall be the Son of man in his day.

The Jews looked for a glorious earthly kingdom; Jesus tells his disciples that depressing times constitute the immediate prospect. “There shall come days” again and again, many of them, which shall be filled with what Jesus does not need to say because their effect speaks for itself—days when you shall long to see “one of the days (just one as a breathing spell in your afflictions) of the Son of man” (on this title see 5:24). Note that “one of the days of the Son of man” is analogous to “the day of the Lord Jesus Christ” mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:8 and thus analogous to “his day” referred to in v. 24.

Jesus does not intend to say that times will come when the disciples will desire again to enjoy one of the happy days when he walked on earth with them, but that in future times they will long and sigh earnestly for Jesus to send, in advance of his coming, just one day of that glorious period when he shall reign in might and majesty with all his enemies under his feet. “Son of man” is the proper term, for as such he shall return to judgment, John 5:27. But all such longing must necessarily be denied: “you shall not see it.” The visible, glorious consummation of the kingdom must wait in toto until the spiritual work has been completed.

Luke 17:23

23 This ἐροῦσιν is different from the one that is negated in v. 21, for the words “they shall say to you” betray who they are, false Christs and false prophets, compare Matt. 24:24–26 which was spoken on the Tuesday of the Passion week. The spiritual coming of the kingdom into men’s hearts never interests men so that they cry, “Lo here, or there!” But it will be different in regard to the glorious coming; disregarding all that Jesus said about it, some will raise this very cry, “Lo there! Lo here!” and by that very cry demonstrate their own falseness. They will imagine that they see plain indications and signs of Christ’s immediate coming. They will pose as prophets, even as manifestations and incarnations of Christ, and call the true disciples to flock to their standards “here” or “there.” Jesus warns, “Do not go away or pursue after,” leave not your faith in the words which Jesus has spoken, do not chase after these false leaders and the promises they make. This warning has often been disregarded, will often be so, but should not be so by us.

Luke 17:24

24 Jesus gives us the reason (γάρ): his coming and the consummation of the kingdom will occur in such a manner that we need go nowhere—it will be instantaneously visible over the whole earth just as a lightning flash lightnings out of one part of heaven and shines to the other part and lights up the entire sky. In ἐκτῆς and εἰςτῆς the articles have demonstrative force: “out of this,” “unto that,” and we supply the noun μερίς, “part.” Not the mere suddenness or the unexpected flashing of the lightning or the brightness of its dazzling light is the point of the comparison but the universal, instantaneous visibility of it when it flashes across the sky; so shall the Son of man be in his day. Nor need the shape of the earth or its physical extent cause us one instant of doubt, for the world itself shall be changed, sun, moon, and stars shall be moved from their place; and grand as the simile of the lightning is it is only a faint illustration of what Christ’s appearance in his day shall be, for he is greater than heaven and earth and the whole universe of created things, the glory of his countenance shall penetrate everywhere.

Luke 17:25

25 But first it is necessary that he suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

What a contrast: the heavenly glory and majesty—suffering, rejection, and death! Jesus frequently linked the two together. This repeats the prophecy uttered in 9:22, 44, and has the same δεῖ of the necessity of God’ saving love (see it already in 2:49), the same verbs (“suffer, be rejected” after due examination like a bad coin), the same πολλά which still veils the details. The fact that Jesus knew these “many things” through direct knowledge and not merely from the Old Testament prophecies, as some claim, is evidenced by his naming scourging, mockery, deliverance to the Gentiles, and crucifixion, all of which are not directly named by the prophets. “By this generation,” ἀπό naming the agent (R. 579) “from” whom the actions come, refers to the Jewish nation then living, whose constituted authorities and great mass would, indeed, reject Jesus.—So fades the Jewish “observation” which is looking for a grand earthly Messiah and kingdom.

Luke 17:26

26 And even as it was in the days of Noah, thus shall it be also in the days of the Son of man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being married up to the day Noah went into the ark, and the deluge came and destroyed them all.

In Matt. 24:37–39, on the Tuesday of the Passion week, Jesus repeated this illustration and parts of what follows. The way in which the people acted in the days of Noah during the 120 years when they had the warning of the flood is a sample of the way in which the world will act “in the days of the Son of man,” the plural to denote the era preceding his coming, the singular is used in v. 24 to designate the day of his actual coming.

Luke 17:27

27 They disregarded absolutely all warning and lived on as though the warnings meant nothing. The four verbs which are without connectives are dramatic, all are imperfect tenses to express customary actions. It is a masterly description of that blind, secure, unbelieving, ungodly generation of Noah’s day, whose successors are with us now and shall fill the world when the Son of man comes. Such was the rich man mentioned in 16:19, etc. To eat, drink, marry, be married (the passive in the case of the woman) are not wrong in themselves, but to make life nothing more, to forget the soul, God, the Word, salvation, worship, service to God, eternity—this is not only wrong and sin but the most fatal sin of all. The Scriptures tell us that in the days of Noah the people where so wicked that God could no longer tolerate them on earth, likewise that the sin of Sodom cried to heaven. Jesus does not mention this excessive wickedness, he is content to describe the soil from which it naturally grew and will always grow, namely hearts that are devoid of God and godliness, sunken in earthly, temporal, transient things.

Noah entered the ark at God’s bidding, and then doom descended. Ἄχριἧςἡμέραν = ἄχριτῆςἡμέραςᾗ, the noun being drawn into the relative clause, the relative pronoun taking the place of the article. The word for “ark,” ὁκιβωτός, is suggestive since in Heb. 9:4 it is used for the ark of the covenant, and in Rev. 11:19 for the ark of the heavenly sanctuary; the word means a wooden chest. Impressive in its simplicity is the statement: “and came the flood and destroyed them all,” the verbs being placed forward for the sake of emphasis. Jesus states nothing but the cold, terrible facts Κατακλυσμός is derived from κατακλύζω, to overflow completely (our “cataclysm”). “All”—nothing can be more complete than this masculine pronoun.

Luke 17:28

28 Here, but not in Matt. 24, Jesus adds the second illustration. Likewise as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. According to these things will it be on what day the Son of man is revealed.

“Likewise” places the second illustration beside the first. The one intensifies the other. Both stand as the great Biblical types of the final judgment and its doom for the unbelieving which is swift, frightful, complete. We again have the same imperfects, this time six, four new ones, which include all such actions and picture lives without God.

Luke 17:29

29 Lot, like Noah, left at God’s bidding, both being preachers of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5, 7) whose preaching was in vain. Then the doom descended. The first came by water, this came by fire—God orders both. “And destroyed all,” the same power of brevity as in v. 27. What the once beautiful country is like to this day is described better in the Scripture than by modern travelers: “Brimstone, and salt, and burning … not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein,” Deut. 29:23. “Never to be inhabited, nor dwelt in from generation to generation; where neither Arab should pitch tent, nor shepherd make fold,” Isa. 13:20. “No man abiding there, nor son of man dwelling in it,” Jer. 49:18. “A fruitful land turned into saltness,” Ps. 107:34. “Overthrown and burnt,” Amos 4:11. It is only a legend that Sodom and the four other cities sank into the Dead Sea, and that traces of these cities can still be seen beneath the waters.

Luke 17:30

30 “In accord with these things,” Jesus adds most impressively, “shall it be,” etc. Once more we have the warning, and it is now given to the whole world for the last time. Noah—eight souls (not even ten); Lot—four souls (not even five), these alone escaped. “In what day the Son of man is revealed,” the tense is the prophetic present, the verb as it is used in 2 Thess. 1:7: “When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.”

Luke 17:31

31 In that day who shall be on the housetop and his utensils in the house, let him not go down to take them away; and he in the field likewise, let him not return for the things behind. Remember the wife of Lot! Whoever shall seek to preserve his life shall lose it while whoever shall lose it shall keep it alive.

In Matt. 24:17, etc., (Mark 13:15) the word regarding the housetop and the field is used with reference to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, when precipitate flight alone will save the Christians from being shut in by the Roman armies. In the present discourse the destruction of Jerusalem is not referred to; Luke 21:5–38 reports Matt. 24 and deals with Jerusalem in v. 20, etc. Jesus speaks of the end of the world throughout and therefore says nothing of flight, for no flight will then save any man. The thought begun in v. 26–30 is continued. Those who, like the people in Noah’s and in Lot’s time, cling to the things of earth alone will do so to the last. Jesus tells his disciples not to be like them in any way.

When the end comes, let no one on the housetop think of any of his goods or valuables (σκεύη) down in the house and run down to take them away to safety, or anyone working out in his field run back for anything that is left behind. The phrase εἰςτὰὀπίσω is not the adverb “back” but means “for the things behind.” They whose valuables are entirely material and earthly will think only of these. No such thought is to be in the disciples’ mind.

Luke 17:32

32 “Remember the wife of Lot!” makes plain by a historical example what the warning of Jesus means. She only looked back and was lost. To have the heart set on our earthly valuables even to so slight a degree will be fatal. To have it set only on Christ and on our eternal treasures cannot, of course, be accomplished in the last hour; we must learn this by following Christ and must live so all our lives, which is the absolute opposite of the conduct of the rich fool mentioned in 12:16, etc. For the end of the world may come at any time and does come for us who die before the end at the time we die. Read 1 Cor. 7:29–31.

Luke 17:33

33 The fact that Jesus is speaking of the disciples’ attitude toward all earthly things for the entire period up to the end of the world appears in the new statement. It is a dictum that Jesus uttered at least four times in different connections and in different formulations, Luke 9:24 (Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35); Matt. 10:39; John 12:25. “To seek to preserve one’s ψυχή or life” means to devote all one’s thought, time, and effort to getting everything for our animated body only (see 1:46), for the ψυχή is only that which makes our bodies alive. By the very act of devoting oneself only to the preservation of “the life” in this sense one simply and inevitably loses even that “life,” i. e., his ψυχή. Not, indeed, by just dying, for all believers also die; but as is stated in 12:20—the psyche goes to judgment. That which animated the body is damned, and when it is reunited with its body on the last day it shall enter hell.

Also the reverse is true: whoever loses his life (psyche) by devoting himself to his πνεῦμα or spirit, his great aim being not merely to do for that which animates his body but also being willing even to have his body die or suffer for Christ and the gospel or to lose many things the world counts dear and sweet. He it is who keeps his ψυχή, even that, alive (the verb being used in this sense in the New Testament, C.-K. 495). He, too, will, of course, die, his psyche will leave his body; but it will not be judged, it will be safe, saved, and reunited with the body at the great resurrection to live in heaven forever. The English has trouble with all these passages since we have no real equivalent for ψυχή, both “life” and “soul” being inexact. We must consult the original.

Luke 17:34

34 I tell you: On that night there will be two men on one bed; the one will be taken away, and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding together; the one will be taken away, but the other will be left.

The illustration is drawn more firmly than it is in Matt. 24:40, 41. “I tell you” lends the weight of authority to the double statement. The difference of which Jesus is speaking from v. 26 onward is not outward but inward. Here are people who are outwardly alike, first two men (δύο is masculine as ὁεἶς and ὁἕτερος show) sleeping side by side in the same bed; yet one may be taken along, accepted, and received, the other left, abandoned, rejected. The agent in the passive verbs is left unnamed, but it is surely the Son of man (v. 24) of whose great return Jesus is speaking. Why this difference? It does not need to be stated again.

The one is like Noah and Lot and the man who does the right thing for his psyche (v. 33); the other is like the people in Noah’s and Lot’s time who were out to give their psyche everything earthly only (v. 33). “On that night” does not mean that the Parousia will occur at night, for the next verse speaks of work that is done during the daytime. The coming is a certainty, it may occur at night or during daylight.

Luke 17:35

35 Two men, and now two women; two sleeping, and now two working, namely “grinding” the meal for the family which was a woman’s task and was done with a handmill. They sit side by side, doing the same thing, each woman’s hand being on the same mill, grinding the same grain, wheat or barley. Outwardly they are so alike, but inwardly there may be the greatest difference as in the case of the men, so that the one is saved, the other lost. Verse 36 about the two men in the field is plainly inserted from Matt. 24:40, where alone it belongs. Emphasis is gained by duplication, not by triplication.

Luke 17:37

37 And answering they say to him, Where, Lord? And he said to them, Where the body, the eagles will be gathered together.

The response of the disciples is to ask the Lord, “Where?” i. e., where this separation, taking the one, leaving the other, is to take place. This is an answer that tells the Lord that this point is not clear to the disciples.

The Lord’s reply is couched in the proverbial language which is repeated on the last Tuesday of his life when he sat on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3), the changes being only verbal (Matt. 24:28), that the eagles are bound to gather together where the body is, i. e., the dead, decaying body (Matthew, the carcass). In Matthew this saying applies to Jerusalem as the carcass. The attempt to have it apply so in Luke has led to misinterpretation. Some abhorrent views have been offered: Christ is the carrion, the believers the vultures; or believers are the carrion, Christ the vultures.

’Αετοί are eagles; some dictionaries have the word mean “vultures” here where carrion draws them, being ignorant of the fact, it seems, that eagles, too, love to gorge themselves on carrion. The reply of Jesus means: “Neither here, nor there, nor in any particular place, but there where men are ripe for judgment.” So it was in Noah’s time, so in Lot’s, and so it will be on the day of the final judgment. The fate of carrion that is devoured by eagles pictures the fate of all who fed only their earthly lives. The judgment is only for the ungodly who make this world their all; the godly do not come into the judgment (John 5:24: εἰςκρίσινοὐκἔρχεται). Hence the word about the dead body is enough.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.