Luke 8

CHAPTER VIII

Luke 8:1

1 We do not attempt to make subdivisions in this part of the Gospel (4:1–9:50). One might subdivide at 4:44; 6:12; 7:1; 8:1; and at 9:1, but it would be difficult to find adequate captions for these subdivisions. We thus regard 8:1–3 as a sketch by itself and not as an introduction to what follows. Jesus and his following are covering the towns and the villages of Galilee and are quite a delegation as they proceed from place to place.

And it came to pass afterward that he was making his way through city by city and village by village, heralding and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God, and the Twelve with him, and some women who had been cured of wicked spirits and diseases, Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Johanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, such as were ministering unto them out of their means.

Luke uses ἐγένετο in a variety of ways, here with καί following (5:12), which gives his style a Hebrew flavor; the καί is foreign to our idiom. The added phrase states only that the time is a little later than the preceding incident, Luke desires to say no more. Κατά is distributive and shows how Jesus “was making his way through” the country, namely “city by city and village by village,” one after the other. It is hard to see why this phrase should be amphibolous, for it is evidently to be construed with the main verb διώδευε and not with κηρύσσωνκαὶεὐαγγελιζόμενος. These participles describe what Jesus was doing on this tour, “proclaiming like a herald and announcing as good news” what all were to hear and what all should be glad to hear, “the kingdom of God” (see 1:33), God’s rule of grace in the Messiah for the salvation of men. Compare 4:43, 44, where Jesus starts on his first tour.

The Twelve were now with him; on that first tour their number was not yet complete. Too much is put into σὺναὐτῷ when it is thought to mean that the Twelve also preached. How about the women who are mentioned together with the Twelve? The fact that at the end of the sentence a relative clause speaks about their contributing out of their means does not separate them from the Twelve and any preaching that may be involved in the phrase “with him.” If the Twelve preached, Luke does not say so. His interest lies in informing us about the women who accompanied the party this time and enabled so many to travel from one town and village to another. Let us reflect on what this involved.

When Jesus sent out the disciples two by two, they could easily be lodged and fed by well-wishers; when he and a few disciples traveled, this was already more of a problem. But thirteen men traveling in a body made outside help decidedly necessary and welcome.

Luke 8:2

2 What means the Twelve commanded individually is known to us only in part. Matthew must have had money, considering the feast he made; also John and James since their father hired men; likely also Peter and Andrew although we do not know about their dependents. The women who came to follow Jesus on his present travels and then also on the last journey to Jerusalem were, first of all, notable disciples of his and, secondly, such as were greatly beholden to him, and besides these others who were not so distinguished. He had healed the former “of wicked spirits and diseases.” Luke again clearly distinguishes between the two ailments. See 4:33 on the former. Luke particularizes only the case of Mary, who is called “the Magdalene” from her home town Magdala on the west shore of the Lake of Galilee.

She always stood first among the women just as Peter did among the men, and Jesus appeared first to her after his resurrection. Besides this, Jesus had expelled seven demons from her (Mark 16:9); her condition, which was so wretched at one time but now so blessed, made her a fervent follower of Jesus.

Luke 8:3

3 Joanna was one of the women who were at the tomb of Jesus (24:10), and her husband Chuza was the ἐπίτροπος, of King Herod (Antipas), either the steward of his palace or his financial minister. She must have had wealth. In Acts 13:1 Manaen appears among the teachers in Antioch, and he was Herod’s foster-brother. Chuza is introduced as still living. This explains how in Matt. 14:1 Herod came to ask his “servants” about Jesus—some of them were believers in Jesus. But it is a guess to make “the royal officer” mentioned in John 4:46–53 this “steward of Herod.” We are not told in what way Jesus healed Joanna. Susanna is mentioned only here, and nothing further is known about her. But it is notable that Luke writes: “and many others,” all these besides “some” whom he had healed.

It was perfectly in order among the Jews that these women should follow Jesus, but that so many, and these the wealthy ones, should decide to do so when there was many a hardship to be endured on the journey is certainly worth being recorded. The relative is qualitative, αἵτινες, “such as” or “since they were such as.” The imperfect tense denotes repetition: “they kept ministering unto them.” This verb is used to indicate voluntary service such as is rendered for the benefit of someone. In this way a διάκονος is the opposite of a δοῦλος or slave; at the wedding mentioned in John 2:5 it was necessary for Mary to tell the diakonoi to do whatever Jesus might order because as volunteer helpers at the wedding they might have their own ideas. It was such voluntary, loving service that these women gave; and “out of their means,” τὰὑπάρχοντα, out of the things belonging to them, means out of their funds. The superior reading αὐτοῖς, plural instead of αὐτῷ, singular, is supported by the inner evidence, for if the Twelve could provide for themselves, they could have included Jesus also. The Twelve and Jesus, too, had one treasury out of which the expenses of all were paid. These women kept that treasury in funds and have thus furnished an example for unnumbered others to supply the needs of the church “out of their means.”

Luke 8:4

4 Now a great crowd coming together, and they from every city resorting to him, he spoke by parable.

Neither the time nor the place of this event are recorded, so it did not occur on the travels of Jesus mentioned in v. 1. The only connection is the fact that Jesus is here teaching about the kingdom (v. 1). From Matt. 13:1 we learn that it was the same day on which Jesus spoke about who was his mother, brother, and sister. He was at Capernaum and after going home with his relatives repaired to the seaside where from a boat he spoke a number of parables to a great crowd. We have two genitive absolutes. “A great crowd coming together” might refer only to local people, so the epexegetical καί adds: “namely they from every city coming to him.” This explains the size of the crowd. The popularity of Jesus is still on the increase. Κατά is distributive (as in v. 1), and the phrase is made a substantive: “they from city after city,” the subject of the participle in the genitive absolute.

Note the absence of the article in the phrase διὰπαραβολῆς, not “by a parable” though Luke mentions only two of the ten recorded in Matt. 13:1–53 and Mark 4:1–34, but “by parable,” i. e., “by way of parable,” denoting manner, R. 583. Why this type of teaching was chosen is explained in v. 10.

The best definition and the most thorough discussion of the parable is found in the introductory section of Trench, Notes on the Parables of our Lord. As far as we know, the first typical parable of all those uttered by our Lord is the one about the Sower.

Luke 8:5

5 There went out the sower in order to sow his seed.

With one stroke the central image is painted before our eyes. Every word is simplicity itself. The aorist “he went out” and the aorist “in order to sow” show us that the task was begun and finished. The article in ὁσπείρων lends the participle a generic or representative sense, R. 764 on Matthew 13:3: “the man whose business is sowing.” Luke alone adds “his seed,” a cardinal term in the parable.

And in the sowing part fell along the path and was trodden down, and the birds of the heaven ate it up. And another part fell down on the rock, and after springing up it was dried up on account of not having moisture. And other fell in the midst of the thorns, and springing up with it the thorns choked it off.

Luke abbreviates as much as possible. The entire description is typically Palestinian. The grain is sown by hand. The patch is not extensive and is unfenced. Along its side is a path (not “road”), which perhaps divides it from a similar patch, and in sowing some may fall along (παρά) this path and thus be trodden down by the feet of those passing and end up by having the birds of the heaven (unconfined, wild) eat it. The phrase ἐντῷσπείρειν is not temporal: “while or during the sowing,” but simply refers to the action of sowing in connection with which action (ἐν) some fell along the path, R. 1072, etc.; and ὁμέν means “part” (not “some”) like the three following ἕτερον, “another part.” These are neuters and do not refer to the masculine σπόρος.

Luke 8:6

6 So much of Palestine is rocky elevation that any tilled spaces may contain spots where the underlying rock comes close to the surface and has only a thin covering of soil. Matthew and Mark write to τὸπετρῶδες, “the rocky place,” Luke simply ἡπέτρα, “the rock formation” (ὁπέτρος would be a boulder); both refer to soil that has rock beneath it. The part of the seed that fell here sprang up indeed φυέν, second aorist passive participle from (φύω, the passive being intransitive: “having sprung up”) but was soon withered (ξηραίνω), lacking moisture (διὰτό with the infinitive states the cause). So this part, too, came to nothing.

Luke 8:7

7 Other spots in the patch were infested with thorns, ἄκανθαι. Their roots escape the plow, and they soon shoot up their thick growth, συμφυεῖσαι, “springing up with it (the grain),” and thus choke off this part of the good seed so that it comes to nothing.

Luke 8:8

8 And another part fell into good earth, and after springing up made fruit, a hundred fold. Saying these things, he went on to cry, He that has ears, let him be hearing!

The participle φυέν is repeated. Luke keeps only the maximum “a hundred fold,” the good earth makes a perfect yield. We regard the imperfect ἐφώνει as descriptive and not as iterative. Jesus proceeded to call out loudly after a brief pause. The hearer is to use his ears. The implication is that this simple narrative about the seed has a hidden meaning, and that if one applies his ears aright he will discover that meaning, but if one has no ears, i. e., if his ears refuse to function aright, he will be only mystified. Note the tenses: ears “to be hearing, let him be hearing” now and whenever Jesus speaks. This call to be hearing is really interpretative of the parable, for it pictures the different kinds of hearers which the Word finds.

Luke 8:9

9 Now his disciples proceeded to inquire of him what this parable was.

This took place after the parables had been spoken, and when the disciples were alone with Jesus. Mark 4:10 states that others joined in the asking, and Matt. 13:10 adds that they also asked for what reason Jesus now resorted to this kind of teaching. The imperfect ἐπηρώτων is surely descriptive like the imperfect in v. 8 and neither conative (R., Tr.) nor iterative (R., W. P.). This imperfect implies that something definite is to follow, namely the aorist εἷπεν. Our versions mistranslate the optative εἴη.

It is not: “what this parable might be” (which would require the optative with ἄν), but: “what this parable was.” This is merely the optative in indirect discourse which replaces the indicative “is” of the direct discourse. Luke might have retained ἐστί, but it was his privilege to change. In English we, too, change after a past verb by making “is” “was.” We see that the disciples, too, lacked a great deal.

Luke 8:10

10 Jesus first takes up his reason for now using parables. But he said: To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God but to the rest in parables in order that seeing they may not see and hearing may not understand.

“The mysteries of the kingdom of God” are all the blessed realities that are contained in the divine rule of grace and glory. They are a unit “mystery” when they are taken together as is done in Mark 4:11. They are called this because by nature and by their own native abilities men are unable to discover and to know them. It must “be given” to a man “to know” them, γνῶναι, aorist, actually to grasp them. This divine giving takes place by revelation, through the preaching and the teaching of the gospel of the kingdom. In the verb “has been given” there lies the idea of pure grace, and the agent back of the passive is God. On the kingdom of God see 1:33.

Jesus tells his disciples, both the Twelve and others, that it has been given to them to know the mysteries but to all others, to the Pharisees and the multitudes, only “in parables.” Due to something in the past the disciples have these mysteries, the others have them not. The perfect tense “has been given” points to an act of giving in the past that has resulted in the present possession of that gift. What was it in the past that caused the present difference between the disciples and “the rest”? All the Scriptures answer: no unwillingness on the part of God to bestow the gift (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; John 3:16; Matt. 28:19, 20) but only the unwillingness of so many to receive God’s grace and gift (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; Hos. 13:9). By persistently declining the grace and the gift whenever they came to them these people are now without them. Thus all the realities of the kingdom are still a mystery to them. They nullified every effort on the part of God and of Christ to bestow the heavenly gift upon them; this nullifying is the work of persistent unbelief.

The only thing that is thus left to Jesus is to speak “in parables” to those outside, who are still unbelieving after all his efforts. These parables the believers will understand because they possess the key to them in knowing the mysteries of grace. As far as the rest are concerned, parables have a double purpose: first, they are to prevent understanding as the ἵνα clause states: “in order that seeing they may not see,” etc.; second, that hope is not yet completely cut off, their judgment being only preliminary as yet. That is why Jesus does not turn from them completely but still speaks to them in these wonderful parables which, almost like nothing else, cling to the memory and the mind and keep insisting on their interpretation. So these parables are a last effort to reach “the rest.” On his second point Jesus does not, however, dwell.

As far as ἵνα is concerned, we see no reason for trying to make it equal to ὅτι in the present connection. Matthew has “because,” which makes the blindness and the deafness the reason parables are used; Mark and Luke have “in order that,” which makes it God’s purpose that these people shall not see and understand. Both are true. This ἵνα clause is really taken from Isa. 6:9, 10, which Matthew quotes and declares the prophecy fulfilled. Mark and Luke report no quotation but state only the substance of what the quotation conveys. Mark writes for Gentile readers and Luke for the Gentile Theophilus, and they thus consider it preferable to omit the formal quotation.

It is God’s intention (ἵνα) that although these people see they shall really not be seeing at all, and that although they hear they shall not be understanding and comprehending at all. When unbelief has advanced far enough, all its seeing and hearing will not only produce nothing, it is even God’s will that it should be so. This is the so-called voluntas consequens, the will that acts after grace has operated on the man; not the voluntas antecedens, the will that first comes to man and brings him grace. For all persistent unbelievers God must finally will judgment, Mark 16:16; Matt. 23:38. God is compelled to cast such people off. See the discussion on John 12:39, 40 in the author’s work on that Gospel.

The first sign of such casting off is this procedure with the Word. It begins to be withheld in the parables. When men do not want the Word, God does not bother them with it, he gradually withdraws it. When men despise the heavenly means of salvation and constantly abuse it, God must decline to submit it to such rejection and abuse. Luke abbreviates and stops with this central thought.

Luke 8:11

11 Now this is the parable: the seed is the Word of God. They along the path are those that heard; then comes the devil and takes away the Word from their hearts in order that they may not by having believed be saved.

The interpretation of the parable is as simple as is the parable itself. Jesus states merely what each point of the parable means. The key to the whole parable is offered first, namely that “the seed” stands for “the Word.” We feel at once that this is an eminent concept. Matthew (13:19) calls it “the Word of the kingdom,” the genitive most likely being subjective: the Word spoken by the kingdom, by which the kingdom thus comes to man’s heart. This λόγος is the gospel of salvation. Jesus does not need to say that “to sow” this seed means to preach and to teach the Word.

All the evangelists leave “the sower” uninterpreted, for the parable does not really deal with him but with the different kinds of soil and with what becomes of the seed when it is cast on that soil. Yet Matthew’s “kingdom” suggests Jesus as “the sower,” and ἐξῆλθεν in v. 5 fits his act exactly. All the sowing is his, all that, too, which he does through others. This sowing brings the gospel to men’s hearts.

Luke 8:12

12 In recounting the exposition of this parable the three evangelists vary greatly although they agree perfectly in substance. Hence neither could have copied from the other, nor could they have had some document before them from which they all drew. This variation is due to the oral repetitions of the exposition, which themselves soon showed variation. Luke has οἱδέ twice, which indicates the persons and thus the reality; and twice τὸδέ “the part,” which still keeps to the figure. The first group are “they along the path,” the article substantivizes the phrase—a terse way of designating this group. They are “those that heard,” which characterizes them in accord with the completed act.

Note how this act is predicated equally of all the other groups and always in the aorist, which means complete hearing. It is not like the present tense which expresses hearing that is still in progress and unfinished. The parable thus plainly speaks about hearers, namely about such as have heard to such a degree that one can tell just how the Word is faring in their hearts.

In the first group the Word fares like good seed that falls on a hard-trodden path, where passing feet crush it and wild birds eat it. This imagery has in mind the reality that the devil comes and takes away the Word from their hearts lest by actually believing it they be saved. The ears have let the Word in, but before it can accomplish its work in the hearts of these hearers it is taken away. It is the devil that does this nefarious work; he comes and takes the Word away, moved, as he is, by his inordinate wickedness and opposition to God and all that is God’s.

We need not convert the birds into devils (plural), for they represent the different ways in which Satan takes the Word away from men’s minds and hearts. Once he tells a man through some agency that the Word which disturbs his conscience is a mere exaggeration, sin is not at all so deadly, God cannot have wrath, we must not allow our enlightened minds to be moved by such outworn notions; again, that it is all uncertain, no uncontested fact in it, and no up-to-date man believes such things; then, that the preachers themselves do not really believe what they say, they preach only to make an easy living and are really hypocrites as their own actions often show. Numberless are these birds by which Satan operates.

The devil’s purpose, like his whole being, is negative: “in order that they may not by having believed be saved.” The aorist participle may be ingressive: “by coming to faith.” Incidentally, this is the plan of salvation in a nutshell: hear—believe—be saved. The Word makes us hear; the Word wants to awaken faith; the Word then saves. The devil sometimes stops even the hearing; he is here pictured as stopping the believing; his great object is that we may not be saved but be lost. By placing the heart’s reliance and confidence on the Word, namely on its promises and assurances, the power of him who uttered it and made its promises will work all those promises for the believer and will thus save him, i. e., rescue him and put him into permanent safety (see 7:50). Not to believe, not to trust the Word, separates one from all its saving power, leaves the sinner lost, and after hearing and yet not believing lost worse and more hopelessly than before. But that is the devil’s joy.

Luke 8:13

13 And they on the rock—who, whenever they get to hear with joy receive the word; and these do not have root, who for a season go on believing and in a season of temptation stand away.

“They on the rock” names these in accord with the figure as was done with the first group and omits the copula. “Whenever they get to hear” says the same thing regarding these, namely that they actually get to hear and are not deprived of that. The parable does not deal with people who do not hear, who stay away from the Word, or who sleep or prove inattentive while the Word is presented to them. These make a great show of promise: they not only believe but receive the Word “with joy.” They are delighted with the Word, they are enthusiastic about it—this is what they have been waiting for, they sing the praises of the Word.

But more of the figure is added to reveal fully who they are: “these do not have root,” and what that means is now stated literally. They are the ones “who for a season go on believing” (durative present); they are only transient, temporary believers. As he does so often, Jesus adds the adversative thought with καί: “and in a season of temptation they stand away.” They cannot endure anything like a test of their adherence to the Word. The fact that “temptation” in some form or other is bound to come to every believer is here regarded as a matter of course. When a season, a short while of this kind arrives, “they stand away,” i. e., from the Word. The hidden hardness of the heart, which the Word cannot penetrate, into which no root of faith can sink, proves fatal in a short time. So these, too, are not saved by the Word in spite of all the saving power it contains and end by being lost more surely than if they had never heard the Word.

Luke 8:14

14 And the part fallen into the thorns, these are they who heard and in going on were choked by cares and wealth and pleasure of life and bring nothing to maturity.

In τὸπεσόν (neuter participle from πίπτω) the figure is completely retained in regard to this group: “that fallen,” etc. But this neuter refers to persons into whose hearts the Word fell, not to a part of the Word itself, hence οὗτοι, “these,” and the personal description that follows. They, too, heard the Word, actually heard it and understood its contents. But as they go on, the thorns do their work. The realities referred to by “the thorns” are plainly stated: cares or worries, then wealth with its influence, finally pleasures of life with all their unspiritual effect. The Word is in the heart, but so are these hostile growths.

As these people go on (πορευόμενοι), the competition is won by these thorns which grow up thick and strong and smother the Word. Yet Jesus says that these persons themselves are choked. Any spiritual lift that the Word implanted in their hearts is overwhelmed and lost again, and thus, adding the negative to the positive: “they do not bring to maturity,” i. e., bring nothing to full growth. This word is used with reference to plants, animals, and pregnant women. The class pictured here is large.

Luke 8:15

15 And the part in the excellent earth, these are such as in an excellent and good heart, having heard the Word, hold it fast and bring fruit in patience.

Here again there occurs the neuter τό, but only with the phrase and without a participle: “the part in the excellent earth,” which is then taken up by the personal οὗτοι. In v. 8 ἀγαθός is used with reference to the earth, and now καλός is similarly used, and then when the reality, the heart, is stated, both adjectives are combined: “a heart excellent and good.” We, too, have pairs of adjectives, but none that match these two in the Greek. Καλός is the opposite of κακός or “good-for-nothing,” something that does not meet its purpose like a pen that does not write properly or a cowardly soldier; hence καλός means “excellent” for its purpose. The heart ought to be receptive to the Word, and this heart is so. Ἀγαθός, which is far more frequently used regarding a moral condition, is the opposite of πονηρός, “actively wicked,” that which does the greatest damage; so the adjective gets the idea of beneficial, good in that sense. This “good” earth is good for the seed to grow in; this “good” heart is favorable to the Word, which thrives in such a heart.

Καλός is translated “honest” in our versions like the Latin honestus (fair, noble), the word often refers to fine outward appearance; but with reference to the heart and in our day the word “honest” would only mislead. Οἵτινες, as so often, has causal force: “such as” in the sense of “being such as,” because they are such as are imaged by “the part in the excellent soil.” These, too, heard the Word as did all the others. But these retain it in an excellent and good heart after hearing it. The result is added by a simple “and”: “and bear fruit in patience,” the expression combines the figure and the reality. The fruit is faith and all that grows from faith in the way of a godly life. “In patience” points to the quiet endurance under trials. It is the way in which all spiritual fruit develops and keeps being produced.

The great question is why the Word fares so differently in different hearts. In some it does not get beyond the surface, in others it gets only just beneath the surface, in still others its top is smothered, and only in a fourth class does it flourish. A rather common view is that neither the parable nor its interpretation by Jesus offer an explanation of the difference described. Those who, nevertheless, offer an explanation restrict the parable to the very first contact of the Word with the human heart. Then even a man like Trench, who intends to hold most firmly to the unquestioned doctrine that all hearts are by nature wholly depraved, and none are made better save by the Word alone, crowds himself into contradictions of this doctrine by calling some hearts “fitter” for receiving the seed of everlasting life, “latent sons of peace” who contain tinder which the Word may set afire while others have no such tinder, or contain “particles of true metal” while other hearts have no such particles. But this explanation is synergistic if not Pelagian.

What the parable and its exposition describe is the final fate of the Word in the hearts of men. When life is done, some show a harvest; all the rest show no harvest. Some never let the Word in, some never let it root, some never let it grow up. This final fate of the Word is shown us now so that we may examine ourselves as to how we are treating the Word now, before life is done. And this is done because, though no man can change himself, God has means to change us all, trodden path, rocky places, briar patches into good soil for his Word. This means of God is the Word itself as it is exhibited in this parable.

Like all the Scripture revelations of man’s sinful states, this one, too, aims at the conscience and at repentance which thus open the soul for the gospel. The more it is opened, the more fruit will there be in the end.

Luke 8:16

16 After the interruption recorded in v. 9–15 Luke proceeds with another parable that was spoken to the multitude from the boat. Jesus has pictured hearers who really receive his Word. He now brings out the thought that they are like lamps that have been lit. Lamps are intended to give light for people, and in the same way the disciples are intended to spread the Word. Now no one having lit a lamp covers it with a vessel or places it underneath a bed, but he places it on a lampstand in order that those coining in may see the light.

Jesus uses the illustration of the lamp in various connections, compare Matt. 5:15 and Luke 11:33. Some critics deny this and posit various hypotheses by which to explain this repeated use of some striking figure or pithy saying and forget that every excellent teacher repeats such thoughts, especially when the connections are different. A touch of humor plays into this illustration which constitutes so simple and so obvious an observation. Why, of course, no one sets a lighted lamp under a vessel or beneath a couch or bed but on its proper lampstand so that all who come in may see the light.

The λύχνος is a receptacle for oil that has a snout on one end through which the wick passes and has a curved handle on the opposite end. A slender stand, usually made of metal, was provided for this lamp, and when the lighted lamp was brought in by a servant it was placed on this stand so that those coming in might see. The aorist participle from ἅπτω means “having lit” or kindled. To hide with a vessel of some kind is to put the vessel over the lamp, and another way to hide the light would be to set the lamp under a bed or under one of the couches that are used for dining. This doubling intensifies the ridiculous idea. It is self-contradictory: we light a lamp in order to have its light. If light is not wanted, the lamp is not lit and brought in in the first place or is blown out after being lit.

The interpretation is obvious. What do you suppose Jesus enlightened us for? To have our light, the Word which illumines us, hidden away where no one can see it? No; we disciples are lamps that are to be set out prominently on lampstands. The Word we possess is to enlighten also others.

Luke 8:17

17 For there is not a hidden thing which shall not become manifest, nor a thing secret which shall in no wise be known or come to light.

The statement that all hidden things are to be exposed is used also in other connections, cf., Matt. 10:26 and Luke 12:2. It here helps to elucidate (γάρ) what is said about the real purpose of a lighted lamp. Note the parallelism and the rhythmic repetition in the two synonymous statements. Note likewise the paradoxical thought: a thing hidden and secret and yet bound to be manifest, known, and published. The idea is that it is the very nature of a hidden thing to come out. One would not suppose so; and in fact, as far as men and their intentions are concerned, what they hide would stay hid, and what they do in secret would remain unknown and never come “to light” (εἰςφανερόν, a standard phrase). God decides otherwise, and what he has decided is presented as a fact; οὐμή is the strong negation that is used with a subjunctive: shall “in no wise” be known, i. e., be not known completely.

The two propositions are entirely general and thus apply in all directions. They constitute a principle which works itself out in all cases. In thousands of instances we ourselves see how sooner or later secret things come to light and are even published to the world in spite of men’s efforts to keep them in darkness. In some instances the principle does not seem to work out, some crimes, for example, are not cleared up, the criminal is not discovered. But read 1 Cor. 4:5 and Rom. 2:16. If not now then in the end God will bring to light even the secrets of men’s hearts.

In the present connection, as γάρ shows, Jesus is thinking of the blessed secrets of the gospel. The light kindled in their secret hearts is to be placed on a lampstand and not to be hidden away in an unnatural manner. The gospel is a mystery indeed, an ἀπόκρυφον, but it is to be made known everywhere. The principle works out in what pertains to God himself in that his plan of salvation is broadcast in the world (Eph. 3:3–6). He makes his own children the light of the world. This principle works itself out in another way: the light of the gospel will also expose the dark and hidden things of the world, will show what they really are (Eph. 5:13), and will thus begin what God himself will finish completely in the final judgment. This principle is an astounding fact, and men are fools to challenge it.

Luke 8:18

18 Continue to see to it, therefore, how you keep hearing. For whoever has, to him shall be given; and whoever has not, even what he seems to have shall be taken away from him.

We here have a warning that results from the principle just stated regarding secret things. We must always see to it how we proceed with our hearing—both verbs are present to indicate repeated actions. Why must we be so careful? Because the secrets of our hearts are to be exposed. If we hear in a wrong way and reject the Word because of wicked motives, it will not help us to blame the Word as though it is of such a nature as to prevent us from accepting it. The secret baseness in our hearts cannot be kept hidden by such excuses but will be brought to light to our fearful discomfiture.

Let us hear the Word in the right way and thus accept it in an excellent and good heart, and we shall then rejoice when our hearts are exposed and their inwardness is publicly revealed. Mark writes that we are to see to it “what” we hear. The sense is the same, for to what we give ear shows what our hearts are, and to what we refuse to give ear does the same.

With γάρ Jesus adds another mashal or pointed saying. It is made a reason for our manner of hearing; it will help us to hear aright. In all our hearing let us remember well that “whosoever has, to him shall be given”; also the reverse: “whosoever has not, even what he seems to have shall be taken away from him.” In Mark’s report the moral basis of this dictum is brought to view by the statement that with what measure we measure, with the same measure it shall again be measured to us. It would be morally wrong for God to use a different measure, morally wrong to take from the man who has and give to the one who has not. This would be wrong in view of what lies back of this one man’s having and the other man’s not having. The one man measured with a generous measure and thus grew rich because the same generous measure was used also for measuring to him; the reason the other man remained poor is that he used a measure that held almost nothing, and instead of adding when he measured he did the opposite, subtracted even from the tiny measure, and so, when the same sort of measuring was applied to him, subtraction likewise was made, he lost even the little that he thought he had, and it certainly served him right.

Luke omits the intermediary thought and connects directly with the way in which we hear the Word. The man who hears with a good heart and the full measure of attention and eagerness to receive the Word, more and more of the Word shall be given to him—so much depends on the right way of hearing. But he who has not is he who cared not how he heard, who gave the scantiest measure of attention and desire, and, perhaps, begrudged even that with the result that he had not, and that even what he thought he had in his niggardliness of hearing was taken away from him—so fatal is the wrong way of hearing.

The agent in the two passive verbs is God; he gives and he takes away. These are not arbitrary acts. He sends Jesus to give his Word, and they who keep hearing aright grow richer and richer. God can give to them, and thus God does give because giving and enriching us for eternity are his delight. But they who hear amiss prevent God from giving thus to them so that the more they continue hearing thus, the worse their state becomes. They may think that they have, i. e., sufficient or even superior knowledge, without this Word of Jesus, but this, they will find, is valueless, and they will thus end in everlasting poverty.

Luke 8:19

19 It happened before this sermon that is built up of parables was delivered that the mother and other relatives of Jesus came to him to draw him away from his work, Matt. 12:46–13:1. Luke disregards the order of time as he does so constantly and brings this account apart from its connection in time. Now there came up to him his mother and brothers and were not able to get to him on account of the crowd. But it was reported to him, Thy mother and thy brothers are standing outside, desiring to see thee. But he answering said (see 1:19) to them, My mother and my brothers are these who are hearing and doing the Word of God.

Luke again abbreviates and makes the record as short as possible. So we hear only that the mother and the brothers of Jesus came up and could not get to Jesus because of the crowd. Why they came is stated by Mark (3:21); they thought Jesus “beside himself,” using himself up by his excessive labors like one who is no longer in his rational mind. So the family came to get hold of him and to take him away where he could rest and be quiet. We take it that their intentions were the best, the dictates of solicitous affection.

It is certainly strange to find the mother of Jesus participating in this affair. Though she is mentioned first as being the nearest relative of Jesus, we cannot think that she was the instigator but prefer to believe that she permitted herself to be drawn into this affair by the fears and the urging of others. Even so, this is a picture of Mary that is far different from the legendary image of “the Mother of God” in medieval and in Romish tradition. She is carried along by a mistaken movement. On the other hand, we refuse to charge Mary with unbelief (John 7:5) and opposition to her son; she grew in faith as others did.

Who “his brothers” are has, in the writer’s opinion, not been determined and probably will never be. Unanswerable objection can be lodged against every solution. Take the present instance. The opinion prevailing at present is that these brothers of Jesus—there are also sisters, Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:56—were younger children who were born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus’ birth. But they here act as if they were decidedly older than he; and the same conduct appears in John 7:3, etc. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called “the son of Mary” in a marked way (compare John 19:26) and is kept very distinct from brothers and sisters.

If Mary had other sons and daughters, why did Jesus set aside their filial obligations and place his mother in the charge of John? These objections are not removed by stressing οἱἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦ as is generally done.

The Latin church since Jerome, the older Protestants, and some students today think of the sons of Clopas, a brother or certainly a brother-in-law of Joseph, and thus of first cousins of Jesus. The wife of Clopas is also the sister of the Virgin. Both have the same name Mary, which seems strange, but this may mean only that the two were children of different marriages. Their having the same name is, however, quite certain apart from the problem of the brothers of Jesus. Yet note that Luke calls the Virgin, not Mary, but Μαριάμ, 1:27, etc. The difficulty connected with this view is to prove that ἀδελφός may properly include the relationship of cousins.

The interest of Romanism, that Mary had no other children because she lived a celibate life with Joseph, was semper virgo as the older Protestants say, for instance in the Formula of Concord, no longer affects Protestant theologians, which is, however, far from proving that Mary did have other children. So we leave the question unsolved as it really is for us today.

Luke 8:20

20 Word is passed to Jesus that his relatives are standing outside desiring to see him. The perfect ἐστήκασι always has a present meaning. Since a house is mentioned in none of the accounts, we take ἔξω to mean “on the outskirts of the crowd.” Jesus was out-of-doors, sitting on a raised place where all could see and hear him, and the crowd sat cross-legged around him, so densely packed that no one could get through. Mark writes “they say to him,” Matthew “someone,” and Luke the indefinite second passive, “it was reported to him.” Matthew writes that they “are seeking to speak with thee,” and Luke “desiring to see thee.” Each writer writes in his own way, yet all say the same thing. The supposition that they all had the same document before them, from which they copied, or that one copied from the other, seems to be excluded. They merely restated the oral tradition which had been passed down with variations in the phraseology.

Luke 8:21

21 A delicate and trying situation was thus created for Jesus, yet he meets it instantaneously and with perfect mastery. He shows no trace of impatience with his relatives—at least his mother should have known better. He is absolutely truthful and resorts to no equivocation before either the people or his relatives. He utilizes the untimely and ill-advised interruption for defining and impressing a most momentous truth. Matthew and Mark picture what Jesus did and said, Luke centers on his main reply only. He even disregards the gesture that pointed to the disciples as being the real relatives of Jesus. Yet by the use of οὗτοι, “these,” we note that Luke, too, indicates the disciples sitting around Jesus.

“Mother mine and brothers mine (Luke omits sisters), these are who are hearing and doing God’s Word,” that Word which Jesus was right then and there teaching them. To hear and to do thus makes us one with Jesus, more closely one with him than any maternal or fraternal relationship indicates. “Mother,” is, of course, not intended to apply especially to women disciples of Jesus nor “brothers” especially to men. Jesus mentioned also “sisters” and intended to combine all three relationships into one, the spiritual tie that binds to him. All believers are of the household of God (Eph. 2:19), of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). All others are still “strangers and foreigners,” having, indeed, the opportunity of becoming disciples and relatives but, if remaining as they are, being sundered forever from the divine family of believers.

Matthew and Mark write “the will,” Luke “the Word” of God. This is again only a formal difference since we know God’s will only by means of its revelation in the Word. That it must be constantly heard goes almost without saying (note this hearing in v. 12–15 and again in v. 18). But to the hearing there must be added the doing. To do the Word is to believe it, to trust it in our hearts, to obey all that it tells us, to hope all that it promises us. This doing is produced by the Word itself, which is the power to save the sinner (Rom. 1:16).

It is a perversion of this and of other similar words of Jesus to conceive of the doing as an obeying the law by our own natural powers and thus earning heaven for ourselves, or as believing the gospel by our own natural powers, at least assisting the Spirit in making us believe, and thus again meriting salvation. These are the errors of Pharisaism and work-righteousness, of Pelagianism, and of synergism. “To do the Word” is, indeed, an activity on our part but one that is wrought wholly by grace in us through the Word itself. Phil. 2:13.

The question is asked whether Jesus excluded his own mother from his spiritual family. There is nothing in the narrative that can be construed thus. The mother and the other relatives of Jesus enter his spiritual family on the same terms as do all his disciples. This spiritual tie is supreme to Jesus. Alas, the earthly tie has often been placed above the heavenly: men have loved wife, child, father, mother more than Christ, Matt. 10:37. Did Mary and the brothers get to see and to speak with Jesus as they desired?

The evangelists have no interest in telling us. Jesus allowed no dictation or interference in his Messianic work even from his mother (John 2:4). Yet from what follows in Matthew it seems that Jesus finally went with them, presently, on this very day, to go out and to preach again (Matt. 13:1).

Luke 8:22

22 Now it came to pass in one of the days that he went into a boat and his disciples; and he said to them, Let us go across to the thither side of the lake; and they launched forth.

Ἐγένετοκαί plus a finite verb is used as it was in 5:12, the καί is not to be translated. The phrase “in one of the days” means merely “on a certain day,” R. 675, and intends to leave the connection of time unmarked. The time was the evening of the same day on which Jesus had related the parables; compare Mark 4:35 for a discussion of the time. The idea that Luke writes “on one of the days” because he was uncertain in regard to the day is without foundation. So also is the idea that he writes in this way because the parable, v. 16–18, was not a part of the sermon that he preached on this day but was spoken at some other time and was merely placed here by Luke. It is Jesus who directs affairs.

After the parables had been related from a boat, Jesus first went home and there instructed the disciples privately (Matt. 13:36, etc.); then, when a new crowd gathered (Matt. 8:18), Jesus entered a boat, probably that of Peter, and proposed to go across the lake. Διέλθωμεν is the hortative subjunctive: “Let us go across”; εἰςτὸπέραν is an idiomatic phrase which makes a substantive of the adverb: “to the (region) beyond.” Mark adds that this took place in the evening. The passive of ἀνάγω is nautical, going up from the land to the high sea: “they launched forth” into the deep part of the lake.

Luke 8:23

23 A study of the three accounts of the storm is highly interesting for showing the independence of each account. But as they were sailing, he fell asleep. And there came down a hurricane of wind into the lake, and they began to be filled up and got into danger. And having gone to him, they aroused him, saying, Master, master, we are perishing!

The lake lies between high hills which form a deep trough and is thus subject to sudden tempests, which at times sweep down with terrific fury as they roar through the gorge. Already the ancient commentators go beyond the natural causes involved in the storm. We refuse to bring in the devil or the presence of Judas in the boat, and we decline the allegories which even the later commentators wrap about the facts, namely that where Jesus is present upheavals must occur. We consider entirely out of place all the discussion about the two natures of Jesus: did his deity sleep; did he foreknow the coming of the storm? and similar questions. The storm came in the providence of God, in whose hand are all the forces of nature. The peaceful sleep of Jesus is due to the perfect absence of fear in his heart and to his absolute trust in God. The aorist may be ingressive.

For the λᾶιλαψἀνέμου of Mark and Luke, Matthew has σεισμός, the word for earthquake, which is here applied to the heaving waters. The storm was of the severest kind and, as ἀνήχθησαν implies, caught the boat (other boats, too, had gone along, Mark) out in the middle of the lake. Mark has the waves crashing into the boat and filling it, Luke that they were filling and were in danger, Matthew that the boat was covered by the waves. There was thus no question about the mortal danger. Luke’s two imperfect tenses are probably ingressive: “began to be filled,” etc., but these imperfects point to something definite that followed.

Luke 8:24

24 Luke mentions the fact that Jesus slept before he tells about the storm, Matthew and Mark do the reverse. The uproar and the danger did not disturb or waken Jesus; but we may imagine the condition of the disciples—and Jesus is asleep! Matthew is most dramatic in describing the action of the disciples, Luke comes next, and Mark must rank last despite the fact that he loves details, dwells on the emotions exhibited by the actors in his scenes, and had the eyewitness Peter from whom to draw his material. Since a number of the disciples aroused Jesus and cried out to him, their expressions varied, some shouted “Lord,” some “Teacher,” some “Master, Master,” which is a regular form of address for Jesus in Luke who never uses “Rabbi”; ἐπιστάτης = one who stands over others (5:5). The disciples run to Jesus and arouse him effectively (δαί in the verb), and all the synoptists record the cry that they are actually perishing, their condition is desperate.

The fact that these disciples should thus turn to Jesus for help is astounding. A number of them were expert sailors who knew all about handling a boat and had been in many a violent storm on this lake. They run to Jesus who had never handled boats but had worked as a carpenter with his father in Nazareth. How could a former carpenter help these expert sailors when all their skill was at an end, and death in the roaring waves was their certain fate? In the providence of God this storm brought to view such faith as they really had. Completely at the end of their resources in which they had always taken great pride and had great confidence, they now throw themselves upon Jesus as their only hope.

They forget that he had never sailed a boat; they think not of human but of divine ability in him. They abandon all human help, the best of which they had in their own skill; they throw themselves utterly into the divine hands of Jesus.

That was faith. But their terror (they resort to Jesus only in their extremity), their fear of death in the waves are not faith but littleness of faith, which is in glaring contrast with the calmness of Jesus. God’s providence also revealed this littleness of faith.

But he, having been aroused, rebuked the wind and surge of the water, and they ceased, and there came a calm.

We may translate διεγερθείς as a passive, “having been aroused completely,” or as an intransitive, “having waked up completely.” There is not a trace of fear in Jesus or even of startled surprise at the storm and the danger. This absolute serenity of Jesus is amazing. Matthew places the rebuke to the disciples before the act of stilling the tempest, but Mark and Luke seem to have the actual order of the acts. Luke does not report the words with which Jesus “rebuked the wind and the surge of the water” but only that the rebuke pertained to both. The aorist states merely the fact. That one word was enough.

The wind and the water heard as if they had ears and a mind. “They ceased, and there came a calm,” aorists to express the facts, the instant obedience of the wind and the water. It was God’s will in letting this tempest come at this time that Jesus should reveal his omnipotent power over the forces of nature by thus calming the wind and the waters with a word. Why should disciples be terrified at the threatening violence of natural forces when the hand of omnipotent power is over them? The rationalistic attempts to eliminate the miracle from the narrative are unworthy of serious attention.

Luke 8:25

25 Moreover, he said to them, Where is your faith? But having been struck with fear, they marvelled, saying to each other, Who, then, is this that even to the winds he gives orders and to the water, and they obey him?

Δέ adds something that is different, the word spoken to the disciples. Luke reports only the rebuking question which asked where their faith was. Their cowardliness (Mark) is merely implied. Jesus does not deny that the disciples still had faith, but he does ask where their faith was during this test. The disciples are to give an answer to themselves after humble self-examination. They certainly showed mighty little faith on this occasion.

In fact, they acted as if all the training that Jesus had given them had not yet produced real faith in them. The question of Jesus humbled and shamed the disciples; they had reason to hang their heads. Yet this question at the same time urged them and prodded what faith they had. They saw how much they needed a strong and courageous faith, and how much Jesus wanted them to have such a faith.

There is nothing in the text which indicates that, just because Jesus was physically in the boat, the disciples had no right to be afraid. They had no right to be afraid even if Jesus had not been in the boat. As disciples of Jesus they were ever in their Father’s care, and were that whether Jesus was physically present with them or not. Another point is that the disciples had no right to fear even if they perished in the waves. We have no promise that mortal danger shall never plunge us into death just because we are Christ’s own. In the counsel of God it may be his will that we die; we should then die with the mighty assurance that God’s will sends us what is best.

We should die in confidence, not in fear. The reason these points are sometimes overlooked is that this historical narrative is so frequently allegorized, and, even when the effort is made to avoid allegory, allegorical ideas still control the preacher’s mind.

Matthew notes the astonishment, Mark the fear, Luke both the fear and the astonishment. The aorists express these effects as such, namely just as facts. But this is not a fear like that of the storm and of the nearness of death in the waves, a cowardly fear. The danger was past and gone. This fear is the feeling of overpowering awe because of the revelation of almighty power in their own most personal experience. This feeling is bound to overcome weak mortals when they meet the Omnipotent and behold his might. The disciples were not afraid of Jesus, did not run from him, but now looked upon him with the greatest awe. Matthew tells us that “the men” feared Jesus and includes those in the other boats, of whom Mark speaks.

The second effect is the wonder because of what Jesus had done. Both effects prompt the question: “Who, then, is this?” etc., meaning as Matthew says: “What kind of person is this?” The insertion of ἄρα bases the question on what the disciples had experienced. All the synoptists have the significant οὖτος, “this one” or “this person” (purely deictic, R. 697), and by means of this demonstrative connect Jesus with what he had done. The point in asking in regard to his person is stated in the ὅτι clause. This ὅτι is consecutive, almost equal to ὥστε (R. 1001 and 699): “seeing that” not “since” or “because.”

The great single occurrence is generalized: “even the winds and the water” he gives orders, and they obey as a matter of course—the present tenses to express what may occur at any time. R. 1182 (on Mark 4:41) and in his translation renders “both … and”; but this would make the marvel consist in the fact that both the winds and the water obey as if there would be no marvel if only one of the two obeyed. We translate the first καί as “even” and the second as joining the winds and the water so that they are compared with other domains in which Jesus showed his power. These men recognized that even the mighty elements, the winds and the water, were wholly subject to the mere command of Jesus. Their experience was too tremendous to permit any rationalizing explanation such as skeptics, sitting safely at their desks, have given.

All the evangelists stop with the great question which passed from mouth to mouth and append none of the answers that were given. There was no need to record the answers. Yet we are told that the thought is in no way indicated, that by stilling the tempest Jesus revealed himself as God. But we feel at once that this assertion of rationalism and of its offspring, modernism, is prompted by a motive that is in contradiction with the text and with all that the Gospels say about the person of Jesus. Who but God can make the raging winds and the waters obey at a word?

Luke 8:26

26 And they sailed down to the country of the Gerasenes which is across from Galilee.

Note that “they sailed down” is the opposite of “they launched forth” (ἀνήχθησαν), v. 22. The one verb takes us up on the high sea, the other down again to the land. Matthew writes “the country of the Gadarenes” and names it after the main city Gadara. In the three synoptists the readings vary between Gadarenes, Gerasenes, and Gergesenes. We take it that Gadarenes is the assured reading for Matthew and Gerasenes for Mark and Luke who refer to a town that is nearer the lake, which was recently identified by Thomson as Khersa (Gersa), R., W. P. The distance of these cities from the lake is immaterial for the narrative since this deals with the region that is near the lake and not with the vicinity of either of the cities to the lake.

Luke 8:27

27 Now having gone out on the land, there met him a man out of the city, having demons; and for a considerable time he did not put on himself a robe and would not remain in a house but in the tombs.

Matthew reports that there were two demoniacs, but Mark and Luke do not say that there was only one, hence a contradiction is shut out. One of the two was evidently the leader and the spokesman, the other was only his companion. The case is analogous to that of Bartimaeus at Jericho, who also had a companion. These demoniacs met Jesus right on the shore after he landed; τις is added like the indefinite article. Luke reports that the one demoniac, of whom he speaks especially, was from the near-by town and at once tells us that he had demons and uses the plural. See 4:33 on demoniacal possession.

Luke states only the unnatural repugnance of this demoniac to clothes; “for a considerable time” (R. 527 on the dative) he did not put on himself (R. 809, middle) a robe or outer garment, meaning not even that much to cover his body; he, of course, wore no tunic and also cut himself with stones. (Mark.) The aorist states only the fact; the Greek does not care to mark the antecedence in the tense as does the English with its pluperfect “had put on himself” (R. 841). The following imperfect expresses continuance: “he would not remain in a house but in the tombs.” These were chambers that had been hewn into the walls of the cliffs some little distance back from the lake; some of these tombs were abandoned and afforded dens where this demoniac and his companion made their lairs. They lived like beasts. In these unclean places of the dead these unclean spirits found congenial homes.

Luke 8:28

28 Now, having seen Jesus, after yelling out, he fell before him and with a loud voice said: What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God the Highest? I beg thee, do not torment me! For he was commanding the unclean spirit to come out from the man.

We might expect that the moment the demoniac saw Jesus from a distance the demon would have compelled him to run away with all his might and to hide from Jesus. Why does the opposite take place? Why is the man drawn to Jesus as by a magnet? He actually ran to Jesus (Mark) and after yelling or shrieking (ἀνά, “up”) as if in agony or in rage fell in front of Jesus (πρό), yet not in an act of worship but only as being compelled by the power of a superior. It appears as if the will and the power of Jesus drew the demoniac to his feet. The words of the demon also accord with this involuntary approach to Jesus as the supreme master of the demon world, whose will and word the demons must obey. The shriek of the demoniac as he fell before Jesus and the unnatural “great voice” with which he shouted out his words reveal the viciousness of the demons that held the man in their possession.

On the Greek idiom: “What is there to me and thee?” see the exposition of 4:32–34. There also is explained the reason why the demons constantly published their mysterious knowledge of the deity of Jesus, and why Jesus invariably stopped them. The demon here addressed Jesus as “Son of God the Highest,” and there is really no question as to what the demon meant by that title. He attributes deity to Jesus. “The Highest” is a regular designation for God.

The demon also treats Jesus according to this title. Others he attacked, “so that no man might pass by that way” (Matt. 8:28), but he fell down before Jesus and sought to fend him off, his question meaning, “Do thou leave me alone!” All the demons know what the coming and the presence of Jesus mean for them, namely that “he might destroy the works of the devil,” 1 John 3:8. So this demon here begs (δέομαι) Jesus not to torment him, and Matthew adds, “ahead of the time” (see v. 31). According to Mark the entreaty was an adjuration and was intensely strong. He does not want to be sent into the abyss now, before the final judgment. The demons recognize and openly acknowledge the absolute power of Jesus over them. This is why they obey every command of his without the slightest resistance.

Luke 8:29

29 In explanation of this petition of the demon Luke adds the detail that Jesus was already commanding the unclean spirit to leave. We are not to understand that the demon was resisting this command. Regarding that there is no question whatever. The only question was, “Whither should this demon and all the others with him go when they left the man?”

At this point Luke adds the manner in which this demon had made his human victim his habitation by explaining with γάρ. For on many occasions it had seized him with force, and he would be bound with chains and fetters under guard and, rending asunder the bonds, he would be driven by the demon into desert places.

On the plural dative πολλοῖςχρόνοις see R. 527 and 543. We regard it as locative: “on many occasions” (R. V., “oftentimes”), to agree with the iterative past perfect: “it had seized him with ‘force,” συνηρπάκει. The paroxysms had come from time to time. Καί is explicative by showing how this took place. The two imperfect tenses are also iterative and show what would usually happen. Note, however, how the subject changes: the spirit had seized the man, the man would be bound and driven.

When he was captured the demoniac would be brought in and manacled and kept under guard, but to no avail. When the demon seized him with force, he rent the bonds, of whatever material they were, and broke loose again, and the demon drove him out where v. 27 pictured him, into desert and deserted places, εἰςτὰςἐρήμους (χώρας). All this was now to end. It was the devil’s pleasure to abuse the man thus; but what when he would now have to come out? This question is raised only in this case of possession—why it should be added in this case and not in others we do not know. So we cannot explain the question of the disposition of these demons.

Luke 8:30

30 Now Jesus inquired of him, What is thy name? And he said, Legion; because many demons went into him.

We must say that in this very exceptional case Jesus wanted more than just the liberation of the two demoniacs. For one thing, Jesus wants his disciples and the men from the other boats to know that he is not dealing with one or two demons but with a great host of them. That is the reason for the question about the name. The Greek is idiomatic, literally, “What name is for thee?” What name hast thou? The dative with ἐστί denotes possession.

The answer “legion” comes as a surprise, and the reason for this name and for its appropriateness is added, namely the number of the demons that had entered into the man. The aorist εἰσῆλθεν expresses merely the past fact whereas with its pluperfect the English expresses its relation as being prior to other past facts. A full Roman legion consists of 6, 826 men. That so many demons could possess two men is incomprehensible to us although it is already incomprehensible that one should possess a human being. Mary Magdalene was freed from seven (8:2; Mark 16:9); and Jesus tells about a devil’s returning with seven others that were worse than himself to possess a man (11:24, etc.; Matt. 12:43, etc.)

Luke writes αὐτόν twice, also ὁδέ, both refer to the man and thus not to τὸδαιμόνιον, the demon, mentioned in v. 29. Much has been made of this point, namely that Jesus is working on the man’s mind by asking this question, is recalling him to himself and to his former happy state, and is doing all this as part of the cure which Jesus was putting through. This conception is modernistic. Jesus is giving the man (men) a psychological treatment, either to free them from the fixed idea in their minds that they were full of devils (when, of course, such devils do not even exist), or to prepare their minds for the miracle he was about to work (this preparation being the condition without which no miracle could be wrought). The simple fact as regards these pronouns is that they are written without any subtlety at all. Jesus turned to the man with his question, the man’s mouth opened, and he answered. But there is no illusion anywhere—it is never the man that speaks but one of the demons.

The same is true as regards the number. Up to this point we have had but one demon mentioned, but from now on the many are referred to. To convert this simple way of telling the story into psychological expedients on the part of Jesus is to follow misleading fancies. The demon who was speaking had the name “legion” because he had so many with him; Jesus makes this plain for the sake of those who are present; as far as the name of the man is concerned, Luke hardly ever mentions names of this kind, and the man’s name is, indeed, immaterial.

Luke 8:31

31 And they began to beseech him not to place orders upon them to go away into the abyss. Now there was a drove of many swine feeding on the mountain. And they began to beseech him to allow them to go into those. And he permitted them.

Note the imperfect tenses which tell what the demons began and lead us to expect a definite aorist which tells of the outcome (“he did permit them”). The ἵνα clauses in the two verses are subfinal and state the substance of the petitions. R. 252 regards ἡἄβυσσος (χώρα) as a feminine noun also in the New Testament. What is meant by “the abyss” into which the demons dread to be ordered is shown for instance by Rev. 9:1, 2; 11:7; 17:8; 20:3, namely the burning pit of hell which was prepared especially for the evil angels, Matt. 25:41. “The abyss” is never used as the equivalent of sheol.

The term which is used here is often called the Totenreich, “the realm of the dead,” a sort of intermediate place between heaven and hell to which the souls of all the dead are consigned. This is a modern fancy without a word of Scriptural support. We know of only two places in the other world, not three and not five (Romanism). And why should the demons dread the Totenreich so greatly, and why would they be sent to a place that is intended for human souls? We combine the abyss with the word “torment” occurring in v. 28: it is the place of eternal torment for the devil and his angels.

Luke 8:32

32 Δέ introduces a parenthetical statement which is necessary for the understanding of what follows. It is a hasty assumption that the country was altogether Gentile and that these two demoniacs and the owners of the drove of hogs were pagan. The eastern shore of the lake was located in the tetrarchy of Philip and was part of the Jewish land, for Jesus, who confined himself to his own people, traveled in this tetrarchy as far north as Caesarea Philippi and was thus on strictly Jewish territory also here on the coast of the Gerasenes. It would have been exceedingly strange if the Jews, who spread themselves all over the Roman Empire at this time, should not have spread all over Philip’s tetrarchy, especially right here on the shore of the lake opposite the populous Jewish cities on the other side. All the evidence also in this account is to the effect that the owners of these hogs were most certainly Jews.

So were the demoniacs Jews. The proof for their paganism from the fact that the spokesman called God “the Highest,” and that this word showed him to be a pagan, turns into the very opposite when we compare 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35, where this designation for God is most distinctively Jewish and is presented as being Jewish by Luke’s record. It is in vain to regard this demoniac as a pagan and then to have him use “the Highest” as a designation for the God of the Jews as being far higher than pagan gods. What did he mean by Jesus as “Son of the Highest”—something pagan (son of a god) or something Jewish? This structure tumbles in a heap when we note that it was the demon and not the man who said “the Highest” and “Son of God the Highest.”

So the demons besought Jesus through their spokesman to allow them to enter into these swine, ἐκεῖνοι because they were just pointed out as feeding at some distance on the mountainside. And Jesus gave the permission. Why should demons wish to enter into hogs? We may say only this, that according to the law that God gave them the Jews’ hogs were unclean, and these demons were also morally and spiritually unclean (they are regularly designated so in the Scriptures) and were thus in affinity with the unclean hogs. Beyond this we can say nothing. The demons did not remain in the swine—where did they go after drowning the swine?

As far as the demon world is concerned, we should not expect to know too much. Moreover, devilish ideas and actions are always more or less irrational—we see this already in men—and are thus beyond any rational and satisfactory explanation.

Luke 8:33

33 And the demons, having gone out from the man, went into the swine; and the drove rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was choked.

Swine were an illegal possession for Jews; their destruction through the permission of Jesus was, therefore, the execution of God’s law. The fact that devils were used in this instance is quite in accord with God’s practice, who uses devils to punish the wicked, and sin and crime to make away with sinners in judgment. The fact that these devils destroyed the swine is also only in harmony with their nature; nor can we conceive that they would be content to make their abode in brutes.

All the evangelists say that the demons actually entered into the swine. Luke uses ἄνθρωπος and not ἀνήρ; they left “the human being,” den Menschen, and entered brutes. The swine were at first feeding peacefully but were taken by a sudden frenzy, rushed down the declivity, and were “choked off” (ἀποπνίγω, to choke to death) in the lake. Mark alone states that the number was about 2, 000. This means that the owners actually made an extensive business of raising hogs and casts its peculiar light upon the Judaism of that time. The transgression of these Jewish hog-raisers was flagrant and on a grand scale, which called for God’s judgment the more.

If these hogs were owned by Gentiles, we should be left without an adequate explanation for their destruction. Those who claim Gentile ownership for them have a moral problem on their hands in regard to Jesus, for it was he who gave the permission which destroyed the drove; by withholding that permission the hogs would have remained alive. This problem is not removed by saying that the demons were ordered merely to leave the two men, and that their entering into the swine was their own act; for this disagrees with all the records that Jesus gave specific permission to the demons to go into the swine. Equally untenable is the idea that when the swine felt the touch of the demons they reacted by rushing into the lake of their own volition. The demons deliberately drove the swine into the lake. We agree that Jesus desired this action of the demons and this fate of the swine as affording an ocular demonstration of the greatness of the deliverance of the two men—even a host of demons had to obey his word. The view that the demons went out of the men in a violent paroxysm is nowhere supported by the texts and is introduced from other accounts about the expulsion of demons.

Luke 8:34

34 Now when those feeding them saw what had occurred they fled and carried the report to the city and to the farms. And they came out to see what had occurred. And they went to Jesus and found the man sitting down from whom the demons went out, having been clothed in an outer robe and self-controlled, at the feet of Jesus; and they became frightened.

The reason for the flight of the herdsmen is their consternation at seeing the swine rush into the lake and perish. To speak of terror because of the magic power of Jesus is to slander him. He never acted as a sorcerer, and no man ever thought him a magician. These herdsmen were responsible for the swine, and this lent speed to their feet. They hurried to make report so that they would not be blamed for the loss of the swine. The city referred to must have been a small place which was situated not far from the lake. The ἀγροί, “fields,” are farms (this is the sense of the plural). Some of the owners of the swine lived in towns, some on farms.

Luke 8:35

35 “They came out,” with its indefinite subject, refers to the people of the town and the farms generally, all those who heard the news from the herdsmen. Excitement filled them all; the thing that the herdsmen reported seemed incredible. So they hurried out “to see (aorist, actually see) what had occurred,” τὸγεγονός, the articulated neuter second perfect participle: “the thing that has (had) taken place.”

What the people saw is described in the order in which they noted the facts. First of all, to their utter amazement they found the man from whom the demons had gone out (the Greek is content with the aorist) “sitting,” the participle is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, peacefully sitting, no longer raging around and threatening violence. Then, “having been enrobed” and thus now with an outer robe on (the connotation of the perfect tense of the participle) whereas heretofore the people had seen him naked. Someone lent him at least a himation with which to cover himself. The present participle αωφρονοῦντα is taken to mean “being in his right mind,” but it is better to leave it in its regular meaning “self-controlled,” no longer wild, yelling, raging around. And last of all the people note that he is “at the feet of Jesus.” This is a phrase that belongs to all the preceding participles (not merely to “sitting”) and thus forms a climax to what the people found. “At the feet of Jesus,” of him who had driven out those demons, of him who had wrought this great benefaction.

These details intend to bring out the unnaturalness and the abnormality of the action of these people. All this they saw, and it certainly spoke volumes; but “they became frightened,” ingressive aorist. Instead of being drawn to this Deliverer of the demoniac they shrank from him. They were struck, not by his mercy, but by his power over demons. This reaction was wholly abnormal and unreasonable as are all the reactions of unbelief.

Luke 8:36

36 The case becomes even worse. Moreover, there made report to them they that did see it, how the demonized man was saved. And all the crowd of the neighborhood of the Gerasenes requested him to go away from them because they were in the grip of great fear. And he, having stepped into a boat, turned back.

In addition to the report of the herdsmen the people now hear also from the very eyewitnesses themselves, here on the actual scene, with Jesus and the demoniac before them, how “the demonized man (aorist passive participle: “he that was possessed by demons”) was saved,” the verb denoting the act of deliverance plus the state of safety that follows that act. Mark adds that the witnesses told also “concerning the swine” as a minor feature of the demoniac’s deliverance. The point is that the people of the locality were fully informed by incontestable eyewitnesses, the Twelve and the men who had come in the other boats. They did not act on half-knowledge or on ignorance. The herdsmen might prevaricate and try to shield themselves but not these others, who had no other interest except to tell the exact truth.

Luke 8:37

37 What was the result? After they were in possession of the wonderful facts they asked Jesus to leave them. The verb is respectful: “they requested him,” but because of fear and not of reverence. And they did it unanimously, “the entire crowd of the neighborhood of the Gerasenes.” Luke does not call them “Gerasenes” or “the crowd of Gerasenes” as though they belonged to the city of Gerasa, for they came from the little, unnamed town near by and were inhabitants only of the χώρα that was named after Gerasa. Their action in getting rid of Jesus is so unnatural that Luke states the reason: “because they were in the grip of great fear,” literally, “were being held tight (σύν in the verb) by great fear.” The deliverance of the demoniac meant nothing to them; they regretted the loss of the swine. Any further deliverances of poor human sufferers at such a cost of material values, even if these were owned in contravention of the law, seemed to them to be paid for at too great a price. They were afraid of what Jesus might do if he remained with them.

Some people left Jesus, but Jesus himself is here asked to leave. The owners of the swine make no effort to blame Jesus for the destruction of their property. This is further proof that these owners were Jews. Pagans could not but have blamed Jesus severely, and this fact could not have been omitted in the record because it would have been a material item. And so Jesus left and returned by the boat in which he had come.

Attention is drawn to the fact that the assembling of the crowd took some time, and this time is then filled out by putting into the narrative what no evangelist recorded. The man is supposed to have had a paroxysm that exhausted him; he was only gradually becoming normal and finding himself in his surroundings; and Jesus worked with him to get him back into proper condition lest, perhaps, “the sickness of years” return. The people then asked this “Jewish sorcerer” to leave. This is romancing. When Jesus heals he restores perfectly; the man was not weak, and he had suffered from far more than “sickness.” Jesus waited for the people for the reason that had brought him to this country in the first place, to preach and to teach, to save and to help. The aorist ἀπελθεῖν is constative.

Luke 8:38

38 Now the man from whom the demons had gone out began to beg him to be with him. But he dismissed him, saying, Turn back to thy house and keep on recounting what things God did for thee. And he went away proclaiming through the whole city what things Jesus did for him.

This is a case where Jesus does not command silence on the part of the person whom he had delivered but orders the man to tell what God had done for him. It would have been to the man’s great personal interest to go along and to be with Jesus, but he is bidden to sacrifice his personal interest for the interest of others who needed what he could bring them. So gracious is Jesus that, though he is asked to depart, he leaves a strong witness behind.

Luke 8:39

39 Ἀνήρ is now the proper word, not ἄνθρωπος (v. 33 and 35), Mensch. Jesus orders him back to his own house, Mark specifies “to his relatives.” But this was surely not restrictive; no reason appears why it should be. Jesus does not impose too much upon this inexperienced preacher whom he is leaving behind; he is to tell only what he is most perfectly able to tell, “what things God did for him” through Jesus. Διηγοῦ is the present imperative to express repeated telling, and the verb means to narrate and describe in due order. Luke, writing for Theophilus, has ὁΘεός, “God,” but Mark has ὁΚύριος, Yahweh, the word that Jesus must actually have used—one that pagan people would not understand without special explanation. This again proves that these people were Jews and not Gentiles. What did Jesus expect of this man’s work?

Much indeed. All were to hear that Jehovah had come into their land and had done this great deed through his servant Jesus, which signaled his gracious presence. This man’s story was to stir the hearts of all who heard it to find out more about Jesus.

The man did his work well. He went heralding “down through the whole city,” yea, Mark says, “in the Decapolis,” in the country which is named after the Ten Cities. He began at home and reached out in ever-widening circles. We cannot understand the charge that he exceeded his commission; we must say that he interpreted it correctly. The whole country heard about the miracle. This was preparatory; in due time the entire gospel would reach these people. When Luke writes that he told “what things Jesus did for him,” this does not intend to substitute “Jesus” for “God” or to identify the two. The man felt that in praising Jesus he was truly praising God (Yahweh). It was impossible to separate the two.

Luke 8:40

40 Now as Jesus was returning, the multitude welcomed him; for they were all expecting him.

See 1:8 on ἐντῷ with the accusative and the infinitive. Jesus came back to Capernaum the same day on which he had delivered the two demoniacs in the country of the Gerasenes. But we should not suppose that the multitude met Jesus when he disembarked. From Matt. 9:1, etc., we learn that after landing Jesus went home, healed the paralytic, called Matthew, dined at Matthew’s house, and after leaving that house cleared up some matters. Matthew’s house was by the seaside, for he was a collector also of the port; so in introducing the story of Jairus Mark remarks that Jesus “was by the sea” (5:21). Luke has recorded the intervening events in 5:17–39.

It was here at Matthew’s house near the lake that the crowd of which Luke speaks had gathered and was welcoming Jesus on his return. Luke explains (γάρ) this welcome by saying that everybody “was expecting him,” the periphrastic imperfect marks the continuance of the expectation. In Matt. 9:18 we see that Jesus was still speaking to John’s disciples and the others who had gathered on the question of fasting. It was then that Jairus came.

Luke 8:41

41 And lo, there came a man by name Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. And having fallen at the feet of Jesus, he began to beseech him to come into his house because he had an only-begotten daughter of about twelve years, and she was dying. But as he was going, the multitudes were closely crowding him.

It is not often that Luke exclaims “lo”; Matthew uses this interjection more frequently. After telling us about a centurion (7:2) it is scarcely because this is a ruler of the synagogue that Luke utters this exclamation, but he does it rather because of all that was connected with Jesus’ coming. The idiom “to whom was a name Jairus” is common, but we may also have “name” as a nominative absolute or as a dative, “with a name.” Everything in the narrative points to the prominence of Jairus. So, to begin with, he was a ruler of the synagogue in Capernaum, one of the elders, a group of whom managed the services and the other affairs of the synagogue. Luke seldom recorded the names of people who were helped by Jesus; but, like the other evangelists, he preserved this man’s name. Luke uses ὑπάρχω in the sense of “to be,” and the imperfect denotes that Jairus held his rulership as a permanent position.

He came and fell at Jesus’ feet. This was, of course, Oriental demonstrativeness, but in the case of Jairus, who was weighted down with fears for his daughter’s life, the prostration was entirely natural: the man acted as he felt.

Luke 8:42

42 Luke states the reason why Jairus began beseeching Jesus (Mark adds “much”) to come to his house, but he does it in his own words by giving us briefly the important data. The idiom ἦναὐτῷ, literally, a daughter “was to him,” is the common Greek way of saying “he had a daughter.” In the adjective μονογενής there lies more than the thought that this was an “only” daughter, and that he perhaps had several sons in addition but no other daughters; she was the only child that had ever been born to Jairus and his wife. We know what it means to parents to lose such a child. Also, she was of the tender age of about twelve years, a point that is mentioned by Luke alone. Luke now states the calamity that was impending: the child was dying. If we prefer the reading αὕτη we have “she herself,” but Luke so frequently uses the pronoun αὐτός as an unaccented subject that we feel that αὐτή is the proper word here, just “she.” See R. 827 on the imperfect.

Mark 5:23 states what Jairus requested Jesus to do. The father was pleading for the life of his only child.

Jesus acceded to his appeal and started away with Jairus. The faith which the man displayed in hurrying to Jesus will be tried most severely as the sequel shows. All medical helped had failed; the child was sinking away into death, and even the time that was needed to bring Jesus might be too long to enable him to reach her while she was still alive. Jesus could not go rapidly enough to suit the anxiety of Jairus. The multitude (Luke even has the plural ὄχλοι) that had gathered at the house of Matthew was following, curious to see what would happen, and the crowds were not considerate, for they “were closely crowding him,” the verb that was used in v. 14 where it is used with reference to the thorns’ choking the grain. This point is mentioned because of what now increased the delay. Note ἐντῷ as in v. 40 (1:8).

Luke 8:43

43 And a woman, being with an issue of blood since twelve years, who, having spent all her living on physicians, was not able to be healed by anyone, having come up from behind, touched the tassel of his robe; and at once the issue of her blood stopped.

Eusebius calls this woman Veronica, a heathen from Paneas; the Acts of Pilate call her Bernice. We credit neither, least of all do we believe that she was a heathen. “Being with an issue of blood since twelve years” states and yet veils the woman’s ailment; and even the physician Luke says no more than Matthew and Mark do. It is useless to guess as to just what her ailment was. The woman herself was ashamed to expose her case, her ailment also rendered her Levitically unclean; ἥτις = “such as.”

Whether the participial modifier “having spent all her living on physicians” is to be retained is a question for the text critics to decide; Mark says even more. There is no doubt as to the fact here expressed, and the textual evidence is sufficient to retain the clause. The idea that a physician would himself not write such a statement casts a reflection on Luke’s honesty. Moreover, this participial clause makes the relative sentence complete: after having spent all her living on doctors she was able to get healing from no one. Mark makes this even stronger: the poor woman even suffered much from many physicians and was made worse. All this means that, as far as medical aid at that time was concerned, this woman’s case was hopeless.

Luke 8:44

44 This woman, despairing of all human help, mingled with the crowd, where she thought she would not be noticed, slipped up from behind, and touched the tassel of Jesus’ robe. Her motive was not to steal a healing but to keep her ailment hidden. If she had come to Jesus openly as Jairus did, she would, like him, have felt that she must tell what her trouble was. The woman succeeded in reaching Jesus in spite of the crowd. Mark omits what both Matthew and Luke note, that the woman touched “the tassel of his robe.”

Like all true Jews, Jesus wore the shimla, a large square cloth that was used as an outer robe (ἱμάτιον) and had tassels (tsitsith, κράσπεδον) at the four corners according to the requirements mentioned in Deut. 22:12. The tassels were attached to blue cords, and the Pharisees loved to make these tassels large and conspicuous in order to display their compliance with the law. Two of the corners of the shimla were thrown back over the shoulders so that two of the tassels hung down the back. The woman took hold of one of these for an instant. In that instant the issue of her blood was stopped. Luke states the objective fact, to which Mark adds the subjective feeling of the woman that she realized in her body that her scourge was gone.

Blown away in a second was all that distress of twelve years’ standing. The woman’s faith was absolutely justified.

Luke 8:45

45 And Jesus said, Who is it that touched me? But, all denying it, Peter said and those with him, Master, the crowds are hemming thee in and are crushing thee. But Jesus said, There did touch me someone, for I myself realized power having gone out from me.

The woman was not healed without the knowledge of Jesus, and this means also not without his will. In that jam many touched the garments of Jesus, and no power went out from him to them. They had no desire or purpose in touching him, but this woman came purposely and touched him with her faith. Jesus responded to that touch by letting his power go out to heal her. To say that this outgo of power from Jesus was without conscious volition on his part is to misunderstand the operation of this power. It is always under the control of Jesus’ conscious will.

To imagine a somatic mediation of this power, to think that it required physical contact with Jesus, for instance, the touch of his hand, makes Jesus a magnetic medium or a magician. Jesus healed many without a touch, some even at a distance. The touch of the hand or of the garment is symbolic for the person, an aid to his faith and nothing more. All miracles were wrought by Jesus’ almighty will. The instant this woman touched Jesus he knew it, knew her ailment and all about her, knew it by means of that supernatural knowledge which he always had for all his work wherever it was needed and to the extent that it was needed; he then willed her healing, and so she was healed.

This means that the action of making the woman reveal herself is done for her sake and thus also for the sake of the people thronging around him. The miracles were wrought for the sake of publicity and not for secrecy. When Jesus forbade certain persons whom he had helped to publish that fact he always had some specific reason for that prohibition. The order for silence was sometimes given when the miracle had been wrought in the presence of a multitude as was the case in Matt. 8:1, etc. In this case the miracle is to be revealed after it had been wrought. The woman had touched Jesus secretly.

Jesus does not want her ever to feel that she had done anything improper by securing her healing thus. It meant more than the woman at first thought for her to appear openly as one whom the power of Jesus had healed. She was not to harbor superstitious ideas concerning the way in which healing had come to her. Finally, she was to understand that there was nothing to be ashamed of or to hide in regard to her ailment and its miraculous removal.

When Jesus turned around (Mark) and asked who touched him, everybody denied. Jesus meant touch with a purpose, and so the denial was correct, none was conscious of having touched Jesus in such a way. But Peter and those with him (the disciples) remind their Master (see 5:5) that the crowds are hemming him in (συνέχω), “to hold together”) and are crushing him (ἀποθλίβω, used with reference to pressing out grapes). The disciples intend to say that the jam and the jostling make it inevitable that Jesus should be touched many times and in many ways. So why halt when there is need for hurry, why investigate? This answer was wholly inconsiderate. Jesus does not rebuke Peter and the others; the event will do that for him, and Peter will be ashamed of his speech.

Luke 8:46

46 So Jesus insists: “There did touch me somebody,” the emphasis is on the aorist verb; the middle of ἅπτω means “to take hold of,” and this verb is construed with the genitive. But he now explains (γάρ) that, when the touch occurred, he realized that power had gone out from him. The perfect participle is in indirect discourse, see R. 1040–42 and his other references; the tense states that, once having gone out, it remained so, i. e., being transmitted to the person in question.

Some interpreters have rather strange conceptions regarding Jesus and his healing power. They suppose that he here had a feeling of “goneness” and exhaustion of nervous energy such as we may at times experience. Others add the somatic idea, namely that power was mediated even through garments, and that there was an involuntary outflow of power. But Jesus felt no exhaustion and had willed the woman’s healing. Mark adds that he looked around for the person, his statement implying that he knew who she was, nor had she been able to slip away in the dense crowd.

Luke 8:47

47 But when the woman saw that she had not escaped notice she came trembling, and, having fallen before him, she reported in the presence of all the people for what cause she touched him and how she was healed at once.

Luke, too, intimates that Jesus knew who the woman was. The Greek has the aorist “did not escape notice,” namely the notice of Jesus at the moment she touched him though his back was turned, and she was behind him. She saw that Jesus knew her, and so she came. Jesus wanted her to come forward of her own volition; that was why he asked as he did. He did not himself want to point her out; it was better for her to come voluntarily. When she did step forward and fell at Jesus’ feet, Peter saw how foolish and unworthy of Jesus his remark about the crowd had been.

The idea that the woman trembled because she had made Jesus lose power is pointless. The blessed power that went from him was never lessened by thus going out, and he never felt tired, for he had omnipotent power. The supposition that Jesus had to strain himself in order to heal is untenable. The woman trembled because she had come up secretly and had secured healing thus. Would Jesus scold her for that? She trembled because her story that she wanted to hide so badly had now to come out in public after all. She is crushed with fear and shame and thus sinks in a heap before Jesus.

She then reported, right in the presence of all the people, first, “for what reason she touched him” (the English idiom is “had touched him”), Luke combines the antecedent with the relative. Luke is reticent and does not state the details. Secondly, “how she was healed at once,” which states the fact of the miracle. Although she went into this ordeal of publicity with actual trembling, it was, nevertheless, a blessed experience for her as the following shows.

Luke 8:48

48 But he said to her, Daughter, thy faith has saved thee. Be going in peace!

Not one word of blame or reproach; only words of cheer and uplift. The very address “daughter” bespeaks loving concern. When Jesus attributes the woman’s restoration to her faith, i. e., to her trust and confidence in him, he does not make her faith the causa efficiens, for this was his own power and will, but only the causa instrumentalis as the ὄργανονληπτικόν, the hand that receives the gift. Jesus himself had inspired that faith (Mark 5:27). This faith wrought the woman’s restoration by moving her to touch Jesus. The idea that this faith rested only on the physical touch is unwarranted; it rested on the person touched.

Luther has the correct view: she believes that divine, omnipotent power resides in Jesus; that he can answer the secret, unspoken trust of her heart; that all she needs is the Word and preaching by which he has made himself known, and uses the touch only as in some way to come in contact with him. Who has seen such wonderful people: this Jairus who trusts that the hand of Jesus touching his child can bring back her life, and this woman who trusts that her touch of his garment will bring her restoration? No wonder that Jesus rewarded such faith.

The perfect σέσωκε reaches back to the instant in which Jesus restored her and includes her continued restoration. Jesus wants the woman to realize the value of her faith and trust in him. Compare 7:50 where the same words are applied to the soul condition of another woman and see there also the exposition of the word with which Jesus dismissed this restored woman.

Luke 8:49

49 Jairus is sometimes pictured as burning with impatience because of the delay caused by the woman; but the records report nothing of this impatience, and the delay caused by the woman took at most only a few moments. While he is still speaking, there comes one from the synagogue ruler’s house, saying, Thy daughter has died; stop troubling the Teacher!

We feel the dramatic change when Luke now uses the present tense, which is so exceptional for him. It is true that Luke is the historian whereas Mark and John are dramatists, and that different writers feel differently as to the tenses which they prefer in narrative; but we doubt that in Luke’s time the present was considered “too familiar for his liking” (R. 867), for Luke’s and Mark’s time was the same, and John’s time was much later. Luke is struck by the tragic feature of what he tells: a woman just this minute omnipotently healed, Jesus on the way to the child, but all too late, too late! Others came with this messenger (Mark), and he must have been a relative since a servant would not direct his master what to do. In the phrase “from the synagogue ruler’s” we supply “house,” R. 502. See R. 742 on θνήσκω and its perfect “has died” or “is dead.” Death outran Jairus and won the race.

The present imperative with a negative often means to stop what one has already begun; so here: “Stop troubling the Teacher!” This bidding reveals the messenger’s thought, and Jairus most likely had similar thoughts: since the child was dead, Jesus could do nothing. The matter of going to Jesus as a last resort had, most likely, been discussed before Jairus had left home. All had agreed that Jesus should be called. All, too, in a way at least, believed that Jesus could restore the girl if he could reach her before she passed away. But none of them even for a moment entertained the thought that Jesus could restore the child after she had died. The verb σκύλλω means “to play,” but it is greatly softened in its metaphorical use (7:6).

Luke 8:50

50 Before Jairus is able to say a word Jesus takes charge of the situation. But Jesus, having heard, answered him, Have no fear; only go on believing, and she shall be saved!

Ἀποκρίνομαι is at times used with regard to something that is said in reply to a situation that may involve a question. It is used so here; after Jairus heard the death message, what was he to do? Jesus tells him what to do, he answered the thought in his heart. The news came as a shock to crush Jairus utterly. The faith that he had would now also be crushed. It is here that Jesus helps him.

Though it is a negative present command, μὴφοβοῦ cannot mean that Jairus is to stop fearing but that as a result of this news he is not to start to have fear, namely the fear that all is now lost. On the contrary, he is to go on believing just as he believed when he came to Jesus—this dread news is not to affect him. To be sure, this is easier said than done. But in order that the faith of Jairus may have something to which to cling Jesus makes him the direct promise: “And she shall be saved.” This word is as mighty as is the act which made it good. Jesus fulfills Isa. 42:3 as it is quoted by him in Matt. 12:20. The conflict between fear and faith in Jairus’ heart, the fear that Jesus could do nothing and the faith that possibly he could, is easier to imagine than to describe.

But the masterful attitude of Jesus, his commands and especially his promise had their effect on Jairus’ heart. Though his faith may have been slight it survived; stupendous though the promise was, he clung to it.

Luke tells the story of the miracle of Nain without indicating the time when it occurred, and we have seen that he disregards the order of time in his narratives. The report of the miracle wrought at Nain went through the entire country (7:17). If that miracle had preceded this incident, Jairus would have known about it; but we find no indication to that effect. So we conclude that the miracle performed at Nain followed this one which was done at Capernaum, and that Luke records them in reverse order because he deems this one and all of its circumstances the more important and instructive of the two. Mark reports that Jesus now rid himself of the crowd that surged about him. He used his mighty authority and very likely waited until all had left.

Even nine of his disciples were ordered to leave. Thus the five went on in quietness.

Luke 8:51

51 Now having come into the house, he did not allow anyone to go in with him except Peter and James and John and the father of the girl and the mother. Moreover, they were all wailing and beating themselves in regard to her. And he said, Stop wailing, for she did not die but is sleeping. And they began to laugh him to scorn, having known that she did die.

Jesus allowed only his three chosen witnesses and the girl’s parents to enter with him into the room where the dead child lay after he had cleared out all others (Matt. 10:23, 24). These three disciples formed the inner circle of the Twelve. We see that here and in two other instances, at the Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane. On each of these occasions these three were chosen—three because two or three witnesses were required by law to establish any fact that might otherwise be contested. The parents were not in this sense witnesses for the church to come.

Luke 8:52

52 The place was filled with a din of noise, people were sobbing with unrestrained noise and beating their breasts in excessive demonstration of grief—all in the approved Jewish fashion, the greater the loss, the noisier the wailing. Matthew mentions the hired flute players, and the professional wailing women were no doubt there in numbers. Note that ἐκόπτοντο governs the accusative: they were beating themselves for grief “as to her,” R. 809, an adverbial accusative.

We should not be surprised at the rapidity with which this demonstration was staged. In the Orient the dead were buried either on the day of death or the next morning. Judging from the connection of time in the present case, the child must have died toward evening and would thus be buried the next morning. So the Jewish mourning was in full swing when Jesus arrived. Because of the prominence of the family and the loss of an only child the professionals staged their best performance. With hair streaming wildly, beating their breasts violently, the women uttered loud, heart-rending wails and bursts of sobs.

The standing of the family demanded a goodly number of these women. Rising above their noise came the piercing wails of the flutes. Many condoling friends were already there. The house was full of this commotion. The custom of this artificial type of mourning extends far back, past even the times of Jeremiah (9:17), and is found among Jews and among pagans alike.

Jesus deals with this situation. He confronts all these professional mourners and tells them that their demonstration is entirely out of place: this is not a death at all, and they are foolishly acting as if it were. These professionals must have been taken aback for a moment, but they recovered quickly. The word with which Jesus checked the noise has sometimes been misinterpreted as though the girl had merely lapsed into a coma and appeared to be dead while she was holding a thread of life. “For she did not die” is stressed to deny the actuality of the death, “she sleepeth” is stressed to refer to mere sleep. But how did Jesus know about this coma? Was it a mere guess on his part?

He had not as yet seen the child. The people, however, know better; from their loud wailing they turn to scornful laughter at the word of Jesus. The negative present imperative means: “Stop wailing!” for they were in the midst of it, R. 853.

Luke 8:53

53 Κατά in the inchoative imperfect κατεγέλων, sie fingen an ihn auszulachen, has the note of scorn. They intend to say with their laughter that Jesus cannot deceive them, “having known that she did die,” having known it as a fact from the start. The explanation that Jesus spoke as he did because he wanted to cover up and hide his miracle is unwarranted. He never equivocates or deceives. “Did not die but is sleeping” (note the tenses, punctiliar and then durative) was spoken in view of the omnipotent power and will of him who changes death into life with a word. The word was true because of him who was making it true. What is gained by the rationalistic assumption of a coma? Can human power and a word abolish a coma with a grasp of the hand?

Luke 8:54

54 But he, having grasped her hand, called, saying, Girl, be rising up! And her spirit returned, and she stood up at once. And he directed that there be given her to eat.

The grasp of Jesus’ hand is only the appropriate gesture that goes with the word he addressed to the girl. Life did not flow back into her body because of the contact of his hand with hers. The widow’s son and Lazarus were raised from death without this contact. Jesus grasped the hand of the dead as if it were the hand of the living. It is not said that Jesus drew her up, but it may well be possible that he did. The grasp of the hand was accompanied by the voice which called out: Ἡπαῖς, ἐγείρου, “Girl, be rising up!” On the article with the vocative see R. 769; also 465, where the call is said to have a touch of tenderness. Mark has preserved the original Aramaic words. What Jesus commanded someone to do he enabled him to do, and to do that fully and completely.

Luke 8:55

55 The effect produced by the word that expressed the will of Jesus was instantaneous and at the same time complete. The essential point, which is expressed only by Luke, is: “There did return her spirit,” the emphasis is on the verb, and this is an aorist to express the fact of the return. When the spirit is breathed out, we die, and when the spirit returns to the body, this means to live again. It is unwarranted to call this returning of the spirit the popular form of expression over against the return of the life. In the Greek πνεῦμα and ψυχή are farther apart in meaning than “spirit” and “soul” are in the English. The popular way would be to speak of the ψυχή, our immaterial part as it animates the σῶμα or body, and to state that this “life” returned.

When Luke writes that her πνεῦμα returned he uses the higher term for our immaterial part and names it so as to indicate the ἐγώ or the personality itself, “her spirit.” The person was gone, only the clay was left; her very person came back with the spirit. See the discussion on the two words in 1:46.

Luke says more. The girl did not merely breathe again; did not lie there weak, just alive and little more; did not suffer anew from the disease that killed her and needed medical attention and nursing. She got up from the bed of death on the instant (παραχρῆμα), she proceeded to walk (Mark), and because she was hungry due to her fasting before she died, Jesus directed that she be given to eat. This means that also the disease was gone, and that health and full strength were again in her body, and that every trace of the disease had been wiped out. Jesus never gives in scant measures. Luke and Mark furnish an example of the tender thoughtfulness of Jesus.

Despite all his mighty power to rob death of his tender victim Jesus is not too great to think of this ordinary need of food. In their excitement the parents and others might forget what the child needed, but not so Jesus. Note that the infinitive δοθῆναι is impersonal, “that it be given to her,” and the aorist φαγεῖν indicates actual eating.

With a word Jesus robbed death of its prey. With a word he put life, health, and strength where a moment ago death had been with the start of decay. Take this miracle and in addition all the others, and the deity of Jesus shines out in its glory, John 1:14.

Luke 8:56

56 And her parents were amazed, but he gave orders to them to tell no one the thing that had occurred.

The miracle itself could, of course, not remain unknown, for as the girl’s death was known to many, so her appearing alive would likewise be known and reveal that Jesus had restored her to life. That was enough for Jesus in this case. He did not want the girl’s parents to act as heralds of the miracle and therefore bound them to silence. Note the neuter perfect participle to τὸγεγονός as in v. 34, “that which has come to be and now is.”

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