From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
Over 50 Interpreters
Explain the Gospel of Luke
A COMPENDIUM OF THE MOST INSIGHTFUL MATERIAL FROM COMMENTARIES
AND OTHER WORKS
NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Volume 2:
Chapters 7-12
Compiled and Edited
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2015 by author
Reproduction of this book for
non-profit circulation
by
any electronic or print media means is hereby freely granted
at no cost—provided
the text is not altered in any manner
and
compiler credit is given.
If accompanied by additional,
supplemental material
--in agreement or
disagreement—
it
must be clearly and visibly distinguishable
from
the original text.
The primary text of this work is the traditional King
James Version. More modern renditions
are included from the New King James Version of selected words and phrases and
occasionally others.
Scripture taken from the New King
James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved.
*
CHAPTER
SEVEN
Entire
Chapter: Verses 1-50
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
7:1 Translations
Weymouth: After He had finished teaching all these things in the
hearing of the people, He went into
WEB: After he
had finished speaking in the hearing of the people, he entered into
Young’s: And when he completed all his sayings in
the ears of the people, he went into Capernaum;
Conte (RC): And when he had completed
all his words in the hearing of the people, he entered
7:1 Now when he had ended all His sayings in
the audience [hearing, NKJV] of the people He entered into
The wording would seem to imply that the
preceding sermon in chapter six was delivered near
7:2 Translations
WEB: A certain
centurion's servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death.
Young’s: and a certain centurion's servant being
ill, was about to die, who was much valued by him,
Conte (RC): Now the servant of a
certain centurion was dying, due to an illness. And he was very dear to
him.
7:2 And a certain centurion’s servant. This man was probably in the service
of Herod Antipas, and may have been a Roman, or, with equal probability, some
Greek or Oriental raised in the Roman manner.
He was, perhaps, “a proselyte of the gate,” one who accepted the
principles of the Jews in the main, and followed some of their customs. Had he been circumcised, thus becoming a
“proselyte of righteousness,” they could not have distinguished between him and
“our nation.” [52]
centurion. From [two Greek terms meaning] a hundred, and to command.
Commander of a hundred
men. Mark uses a Graecized form
of the Latin word centurio. A centurio
was originally a division consisting of a hundred things of a kind; and thence
came to mean any division, whether consisting of a hundred or not. In military language it meant a division of
troops, a company, not necessarily of a hundred, the captain of which
was called centurio. The numbers of a century varied from about
fifty to a hundred. The Roman legion
consisted of ten cohorts or bands, as "the Italian
band," of which Cornelius was a centurion (Acts x. 1). The commanders of these cohorts were called chiliarchs, or chief captains (John xviii.
12, Rev.). Each cohort contained six centuries,
or companies, of which the commanders were called centurions. The duty of the centurion was chiefly
confined to the regulation of his own corps, and the care of the watch. The badge of his office was the vitis, or vine-stock. He wore a short tunic, and was also known by
letters on the crest of his helmet. Dean
Howson ("Companions of St. Paul") remarks
on the favorable impression left upon the mind by the officers of the Roman
army mentioned in the New Testament, and cites, besides the centurion in this
passage, the one at the cross, and Julius, who escorted Paul to Rome. [2]
servant. Strictly, a bond-servant or
slave. Slaves were very numerous
at that time throughout the
who was dear
unto him. [“Dear:”]
The adjective means, primarily, “valuable,” “precious,” then “held in
honor,” “esteemed.” It might therefore
possibly be understood as denoting pecuniary worth, or capacity for usefulness;
but the whole tenor of the narrative consists better with the idea of personal
esteem and affection suggested by the word “dear.” [52]
The love of the captain
for his servant was a good example for the Jews themselves, who in the Talmud
forbade mourning for slaves. [56]
was sick. Matthew
says, “stricken with paralysis, and in terrible pain”
(8:6). Luke, as a physician, may have
omitted this specification because the description applies rather to tetanus
than to the strict use of “paralysis.”
[56]
and ready to
die.
Time was running out. This was the last opportunity the servant would
have to escape death. [rw]
In
depth: understanding the nature of the
man's disease [45]. The case itself is thus described in the
two narratives: It was one of paralysis
accompanied by grievous pain (Matt.); and the sufferer was considered "ready to die" (Luke). Non-professional commentators have been a
good deal troubled about this description of "palsy,"--the more ordinary
features of that disease being painless infirmity and long, but not dangerous
illness. Medical authority finds no difficulty
in the description. Another
proof that the more knowledge of all sorts we bring to the study of the sacred
narratives the better. "In
this instance," says Sir Risdon Bennet, "we have probably a case of progressive
paralysis, attended by muscular spasms, and involving the respiratory
movements, where death is manifestly imminent and inevitable. In such a case there would be symptoms
indicative of great distress, as well as immediate danger to life."
In depth: Differences
in Matthew and Luke's account as to how Jesus learned of the man's afflicted
condition [14]. The following narrative is a striking instance
of variation in word where there is no contradictions
in purpose or thought. In
Matthew's account the centurion "came unto him, saying." In the present account he sent "the
elders of
Now these variations
are, we think, fairly reconciled on the principle "that what a man does by
another he does by himself. The act of
an agent is the act of the principal. So
in Exodus 18:6, Jethro being himself not present (as
appears by the following verse), is made to say, by his messenger, "I, thy
father-in-law, Jethro, am come," etc.
In Matthew 11:2-3 John sent
to Jesus "and said." That is,
John said by a messenger.
In John 4:1, Jesus is
said to have baptized, though He did it only by disciples.
Comparing Mark
We have no hesitation to
say that the king conquers a country or that Solomon built the temple, though
they were done entirely through their subjects.
Matthew then gives the briefer substance; Luke gives the details. But Matthew reading Luke,
would not for a moment have supposed himself to be contradicted. He would only have seen the story more
explicitly given and some interesting points added.
7:3 Translations
Weymouth: and the
Captain, hearing about Jesus, sent to Him some of the Jewish Elders, begging
Him to come and restore his servant to health.
WEB: When he
heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and
save his servant.
Young’s: and having heard about Jesus, he sent
unto him elders of the Jews, beseeching him, that having come he might
thoroughly save his servant.
Conte (RC): And when he had
heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to him, petitioning him, so that
he would come and heal his servant.
7:3 And when he heard. He had not yet seen Christ. [8]
of Jesus he sent unto Him. The
centurion, feeling that as a Gentile and a sinner he might have little hope of
a favorable reception from the holy prophet of the Jews, sends the most weighty
men and magistrates of Jewish
the elders of the Jews. "Presbyters." The word literally signifies "the older
men." But as it became an official
epithet, it acquired the official sense.
Subsequent to the restoration from the captivity, a part of the
Sanhedrin consisted, with the chief priests and the scribes, also of "the
elders." Similarly the courts of the
individual towns, consisting of seven judges, were composed of "the elders
of
Or: Heads, probably of a synagogue of the place,
and a sort of religious magistrates. [52]
beseeching him that he
would come and heal his servant. These
might be more persuasive messengers than ordinary servants; and they, in
consideration of his personal friendliness were ready to do for him what they
would ordinarily spurn to do for a centurion.
[52]
Likewise
their willingness to go out of their way to help an outsider, would be living
testimony to Jesus that this Gentile was worthy of consideration regardless of
whatever His normal response would have been. [rw]
7:4 Translations
Weymouth: And they, when they came to Jesus, earnestly entreated Him,
pleading, "He deserves to have this favour
granted him,
WEB: When they
came to Jesus, they begged him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy for you to
do this for him,
Young’s: And they, having come near unto Jesus,
were calling upon him earnestly, saying -- 'He is worthy to whom thou shalt do this,
Conte (RC): And when they had
come to Jesus, they petitioned him anxiously, saying to him: "He is worthy
that you should provide this to him.
7:4 And when they came
to Jesus, they besought him instantly [earnestly, NKJV]. Their passion in making the plea showed
their sincerity. [rw]
saying, That he was worthy for whom He should do this. It was not natural for a Jew of that day to
plead for favors in behalf of a Gentile, but the generosity made him an
exceptional case. They were even willing
to apply for him to Christ, whom many of their rank had now come to regard as
an object of hatred and abhorrence. But
we ought not to charge upon all, even of the scribes and Pharisees, that
hostility which prevailed among them as a class. [52]
In depth: Was this
centurion a convert to Judaism [14]? The
Jews divided converts into two classes:
1. Proselytes of
the gate, who
had not entered into the complete adoption of the ritual of Moses. These stood on the patriarchal basis, aiming
to keep the seven precepts of Noah's dispensation. By these they were to abstain from (1) idolatry;
(2) murder; (3) incest; (4) robbery; (5) profanity; (6) eating blood and strangled
animal food; (7) rebellion. Those
keeping these ethical principles would, according to Jewish opinion, be
saved. These were commonly called
"those worshipping God," in distinction from "those worshipping
gods."
2. Proselytes of
righteousness. Those who became circumcised, and accepted
the whole law as complete naturalized Jews.
Whether the present
centurion had progressed so far as complete Judiasm or not, he seems to have progressed further [to]
faith [in Christ].
7:5 Translations
Weymouth: for he loves
our nation, and at his own expense he built our synagogue for us."
WEB: for he
loves our nation, and he built our synagogue for
us."
Young’s: for he doth love our nation,
and the synagogue he did build to us.'
Conte (RC): For he loves our nation, and he has built a synagogue for us."
7:5 For he loveth our nation. The
Romans were tolerant, from motives of policy, of the religions of the nations
they conquered. But this man did
more. There were many even at
It is not impossible
that he may have been a Roman, though there is no direct proof that
Romans ever held such offices under Herod Antipas. More probably he was some Greek or Syrian,
holding a commission under the tetrarch.
[56]
and he hath built us a synagogue. He build them a new synagogue at Capernaum, finding
that what they had was either gone to decay or not large enough to contain the
people, and that the inhabitants were not of [the] ability to build one for themselves. Hereby he testified his veneration for the
God of Israel, his belief of His being the one only living and true God, and
his desire, like that of Darius, to have an interest in the prayers of God's
Israel (Ezra 6:10). This centurion built
a synagogue at his own costs and charges, and probably employed his soldiers
that were in garrison there in the building, to keep them from idleness. [32]
In depth: How many synaogues
were in
7:6 Translations
WEB: Jesus
went with them. When he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent
friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I am not
worthy for you to come under my roof.
Young’s: And Jesus was going on with them, and now
when he is not far distant from the house the centurion sent unto him friends,
saying to him, 'Sir, be not troubled, for I am not worthy that under my roof
thou mayest enter;
Conte (RC): Then Jesus went with
them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to
him, saying: "Lord, do not trouble yourself. For
I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof.
7:6 Then Jesus went with them. No indication of reluctance is given. He takes their endorsement at full face
value. [rw]
And when he was
now not far from the house, sent friends
to Him. A second deputation; for the more he thought
of it, the more troubled he was how to receive such a mysterious visitor. If Jesus was actually coming to his house,
ought he not to go out to receive Him?
And how could he receive with due honor such a guest at such a
time? [6]
Here the narrative of
Luke is much more detailed, and therefore probably more exact, than that of
Matthew, who represents the conversation as taking place between our Lord and
the centurion himself.
We see from Luke that he had been prevented from coming in person by
deep humility, and the belief that the elders would be more likely to win the
boon [= favor] for him. Meanwhile, he
probably stayed by the bedside of his dying slave. [56]
saying unto Him, Lord. The word in itself may mean no more than
“Sir,” as in John
trouble not Thyself. Namely, by coming so far
out of Thy way. We can only
harmonize this with the desire in verse 2 that Christ should “come and heal,”
by supposing that the elders had expressed their sense of what he wished
or that he afterwards reflected that actually visiting his house was
unnecessary. It will be noticed that in
Matthew, where the delegation is entirely unnoticed, nothing is said about
requesting Jesus to go to the centurion’s house. [52]
for I am not
worthy that thou shouldest enter under my
roof. So
saith Jacob of himself, Genesis 32:10; so Paul, 1
Corinthians 15:8-10; so the Baptist, Matthew
7:7 Translations
WEB: Therefore
I didn't even think myself worthy to come to you; but say the word, and my
servant will be healed.
Young’s: wherefore
not even myself thought I worthy to come unto thee, but say in a word, and my
lad shall be healed;
Conte (RC): Because of this, I
also did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my
servant shall be healed.
7:7 Wherefore neither
thought I myself worthy to come unto thee. Relationships
between Jews and Gentiles could become skittish easily enough due to both
cultural and religious differences. Much
as it would be good to have Jesus come to look at the servant, He might
hesitate to enter a Gentile’s home (consider Peter’s remark in Acts
but say in a word. The centurion had clearly heard how Jesus, by
His mere fiat, had healed the son of the “courtier” at
and my servant.
Anxious, not like Jairus, for an only daughter
(Mark
Yet he thought of him as if a son: The centurion here uses the more tender word,
pais, “son.” [56]
shall be
healed. He has
not the least doubt that if Jesus wills it, so it will be. Even from a distance. [rw]
7:8 Translations
Weymouth: For I too am a man obedient to authority, and have soldiers
under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; to another, 'Come,' and he
comes; and to my slave, 'Do this or that,' and he does it."
WEB: For I
also am a man placed under authority, having under myself soldiers. I tell this
one, 'Go!' and he goes; and to another, 'Come!' and he comes; and to my
servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
Young’s: for I also am a man placed under
authority, having under myself soldiers, and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Be coming, and he cometh; and to my
servant, Do this, and he doth it.'
Conte (RC): For I also am a man
placed under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and
he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, 'Do this,'
and he does it."
7:8 For I also am a man set under authority,
having under me soldiers. This assigns the reason why he made the
request. He was but a subordinate
himself, “under authority” of his chiliarch and other
officers, and yet he had soldiers under him as well as a servant, who at a word
executed his orders. He inferred that
Jesus, who had the power of healing at a distance, had at His command thousands
of the “Heavenly Army” (
and I say. Am accustomed to say, in the exercise of authority. [7]
unto one, Go,
and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh;
and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Implies active, energetic service in general. I am still, yet my wishes are perfectly and
promptly performed by others. [7]
Note
that he got similar full dedication out of both his military and
civilian staffs. [rw]
7:9 Translations
WEB: When
Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turned and said to the
multitude who followed him, "I tell you, I have not found such great
faith, no, not in
Young’s: And having heard these things Jesus
wondered at him, and having turned to the multitude following him, he said, 'I
say to you, not even in Israel so much faith did I find;'
Conte (RC): And upon hearing
this, Jesus was amazed. And turning to the multitude following him, he said,
"Amen I say to you, not even in
7:9 When Jesus heard
these things, he marvelled at him. The only other
place where the astonishment of Jesus is recorded is astonishment at unbelief
(Mark 6:6). [56]
and turned Him
about, and said unto the people that followed him. The centurion—though a Gentile—deserved
praise and Jesus was quite willing to share it publicly and openly. Indeed, He provides a subtle (but surely
intended) slap at the kind of excessive Jewish pride He encountered all too
often: “I have never found this great a
faith among those who are so proud of being God’s people—the place where I should
have already encountered it, but have not!”
[rw]
I say unto you,
I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. The excellency of the centurion’s
faith seems to have lain in his persuasion of the ability of Jesus to do
miracles of cure by a mere word of command.
In previous cases, as in that of rebuking the fever of Peter’s
mother-in-law, it had been necessary for Him to lay His hands on them or touch
the blind eyes or the bound tongue and allow them to touch His garments. These were accommodations to weakness [of
faith], to which this Gentile was entirely superior. [52]
These
words are preserved with similar exactness in Matthew. Nothing can be more clear
than that neither Evangelist had seen the narrative of the other, and, since
Matthew is the less exact, we infer that both Evangelists in this instance drew
from some cycle of oral or written apostolic teaching. The words added by Matthew (
Weymouth: And the friends who had been sent, on returning to the
house, found the servant in perfect health.
WEB: Those who
were sent, returning to the house, found that the servant who had been sick was
well.
Young’s: and those sent, having turned back to the
house, found the ailing servant in health.
Conte (RC): And those who had
been sent, upon returning to the house, found that the servant, who had been
sick, was now healthy.
Rather,
“convalescent,” a medical word which is found also in
The servant had
been sick; now he was recuperating.
Death and the disease were no longer a threat. [rw]
Weymouth: Shortly
afterwards He went to a town called Nain, attended by
His disciples and a great crowd of people.
WEB: It
happened soon afterwards, that he went to a city called Nain.
Many of his disciples, along with a great multitude, went with him.
Young’s: And it came to pass, on the morrow, he
was going on to a city called Nain, and there were
going with him many of his disciples, and a great multitude,
Conte (RC): And it happened
afterwards that he went to a city, which is called Nain.
And his disciples, and an abundant crowd, went with him.
But if, with the
Revisers, we adopt another reading, which in their judgment is better supported
than the common one, and which differs from it only in one letter, we are under
no necessity whatever to account for the rapidity of the Saviour's
movement from the one place to the other, since the statement then becomes, "It
came to pass soon after." [46]
that he went into a
city called Nain. The city was in
Eusebius and
Jerome speak of the town as not far from Endor. Some have thought the reference is to a Nain in
and many of his
disciples went with Him, and much people. More literally, “there were
accompanying Him His disciples, in considerable numbers, and a large
multitude.” In the first year of His
ministry, before the deadly opposition to Him had gathered head, while as yet
the Pharisees and leaders had not come to an open rupture with Him, and He had
not sifted His followers by “hard sayings,” our Lord was usually accompanied by
adoring crowds. [56]
Weymouth: And just as He reached the gate of the town, they happened
to be bringing out for burial a dead man who was his mother's only son; and she
was a widow; and a great number of the townspeople were with her.
WEB: Now when
he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, one who was dead was carried out,
the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Many people of the city were
with her.
Young’s: and as he came nigh to the gate of the
city, then, lo, one dead was being carried forth, an only son of his mother,
and she a widow, and a great multitude of the city was with her.
Conte (RC): Then, when he had
drawn near to the gate of the city, behold, a deceased person was being carried
out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from
the city was with her.
to the gate of the city. Most towns and villages were walled for the
sake of protection. [9]
behold, there
was a dead man carried out. Dead bodies, being ceremonially unclean, were
not allowed to be buried within the cities (although the kings of David's house
were buried in the city of
the only son of his mother. The object of her fondest
affections, and perhaps the support of her declining years. There is no one loss referred to in Scripture
which is spoken of as so deep, severe and painful, as the loss of an only son. "Make thee mourning as for an only son,
most bitter lamentations" (Jeremiah
and she was a widow. Losing
a child is a hideous experience. Having
no one left escalates the pain of loss to a hideous level. [rw]
and much people of the city were with her. Doubtless
the large attendance was an expression of the respect and sympathy felt for the
bereaved and deeply distressed mother. [9]
Compare the public
sympathy for the family of
Funeral
rites were designed rather for the sake of the mourners than of the dead. [24] Comment: How else could it be? The dead already have their life record
established and the book closed; nothing we can see will alter it in either a
positive or negative direction. Hence
the ritual becomes a formalized way of saying goodbye and to comfort the
survivors since, for them, life goes on.
And when one is like this widow, childless now as well, she needed all
the comfort and reassurance she could be given [rw]
WEB: When the
Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said to her, "Don't cry."
Young’s: And the Lord having seen her, was moved
with compassion towards her, and said to her, 'Be not weeping;'
Conte (RC): And when the Lord
had seen her, being moved by mercy over her, he said to her, "Do not
weep."
Jesus,
who was always touched by the sight of human agony (Mark
and said unto her, Weep not. Rather, “Be not weeping,” i.e., “dry thy
tears.” [56]
These words
were not prohibitory, but consolatory. How easy a word to use; how difficult to obey. [7]
WEB: He came
near and touched the coffin, and the bearers stood still. He said, "Young man, I tell you, arise!"
Young’s: and having come near, he touched the
bier, and those bearing it stood still, and he said, 'Young man, to thee I say,
Arise;'
Conte (RC): And he drew near and
touched the coffin. Then those who carried it stood still. And he said,
"Young man, I say to you, arise."
the bier. The
Jews did not use a coffin for their dead.
This belonged to
they that bear him stood still. His touch was with an air of authority which
caused the bearers to stand still, though after the Jewish custom they were [certainly]
going with quick step [to the burial site].
[8]
And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. The child of the widow of Sarepta (1 Kings
Arise. Probably the single monosyllable Kum!
Compare 8:54; John 11:43; Acts 9:40.
How unlike the passionate tentative struggles of Elijah (1 Kings
WEB: He who
was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother.
Young’s: and
the dead sat up, and began to speak, and he gave him to his mother;
Conte (RC): And the dead youth
sat up and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother.
And He delivered him to his mother.
Luke here hints at the Old Testament instance in 1 Kings 17:23 and 2
Kings 4:36, "Take thy son hence."
[8]
WEB: Fear took
hold of all, and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen
among us!" and, "God has visited his people!"
Young’s: and
fear took hold of all, and they were glorifying God, saying -- 'A great prophet
hath risen among us,' and -- 'God did look upon His people.'
Conte (RC): Then fear fell over
all of them. And they magnified God, saying: "For a great prophet has
risen up among us," and, "For God has visited his people."
The natural effect of such a
manifestation of supernatural power (compare 1:12; 2:9: 5:8-9). [52]
and they glorified
God. Praised or honored God, that He had sent such a prophet. [11]
saying, That a great
prophet is risen up among us. The expectation of the return of Elijah,
Jeremiah, or “one of the Prophets” was at that time widely spread. See 9:8, 19.
[56]
and, That God hath
visited his people. Compare 1:68; John 3:2. [56]
WEB: This
report went out concerning him in the whole of
Young’s: And the account of this went forth in all
Conte (RC): And this word about
him went out to all of
went forth
throughout all
Some
have scented a mistake in this mention of
WEB: The
disciples of John told him about all these things.
Young’s: And the disciples of John told him about
all these things,
Conte (RC): And the disciples of
John reported to him concerning all these things.
of all these
things. i.e.,
he received a full report. This was
probably for two reasons: (1) he would
naturally wish to know all he could about events outside his prison and (2)
John’s public words of praise at Jesus’ baptism would make Him an obvious topic
of conversation. Even for disciples who
had not heard of the baptismal remarks would be fascinated by what this other
advocate of moral transformation was doing and advocating. [rw]
In depth: John's
questions/doubts as reflecting second hand sources of information [18]. In
the course of John's imprisonment, it is probable that very many of his
disciples became hearers of Jesus.
During the early period, at all events, of the Baptist's captivity it is
clear that his friends and disciples had free access to his prison. There is no doubt but that, in reply to the
anxious inquiries of John, his disciples told him of all the miracles they had
witnessed, and the words they had heard, especially, no doubt, recounting to
him much of the sermon on the mount which Jesus had lately delivered as the
exposition of his doctrine. We can well
imagine these faithful but impatient disciples, after detailing these marvels which
they had seen, and the strange new words of winning power which they had heard,
saying to their imprisoned master.
"We have seen and heard these no further; we hear nothing of the
standard of King Messiah being raised, nothing of the high hope of the people
being encouraged; he seems to pay no attention to the imperious rule of the foreigner,
or the degrading tyranny of men like Antipas, the Herod who has wrongfully shut
you up. He rather withdraws
himself, and when the people, fired by his winning words and mighty acts, begin
to grow enthusiastic, then this strange Man hides himself away. Can he be Messiah, as you once said?"
WEB: John,
calling to himself two of his disciples, sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are
you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?"
Young’s: and John having called near a certain two
of his disciples, sent unto Jesus, saying, 'Art thou he who is coming, or for
another do we look?'
Conte (RC): And John called two
of his disciples, and he sent them to Jesus, saying, "Are you he who is to
come, or should we wait for another?"
saying, Art thou he
that should come? or look we for another? [“Another:”]
Greek, "one of a different sort." [7]
Or:
Rather, “Art thou the coming [Messiah], or are we to expect
another?” “The Coming (One)” is a
technical Hebrew term for the Messiah (Habba)
This brief remarkable message is identical with that in Matthew, except that
Luke uses allon (“another”) and Matthew heteron (“a second,” or “different one”). Probably there is no significance in this
variation, since the accurate classical meaning of heteros
was partly obliterated. Probably too the
messengers spoke in Aramaic. “The
coming” is clearer in Matthew, because he has just told us that John heard in
prison the works of “the Christ,” i.e., of the Messiah. [56]
Or: It is now better known that one first
century Jewish opinion was that there would be two Messiahs sent by
God. Even if one did not embrace this
view personally, the knowledge of it would surely have been widespread among
Messianic awaiters like those in the Baptist
movement. Jesus not being quite what
they expected, they might easily play with the possibility that there was,
indeed, “another” one to come as well—without in any way intending to slight
the importance of Jesus Himself. [rw]
In depth: Did John question Jesus to reassure his own
disciples or to still his own wavering [18]? What, now, was in John the Baptist's mind,
when from his prison he sent his disciples to ask Jesus this anxious
question? Disappointed in the career of
Jesus, possibly himself partly forgotten, accustomed to the wild freedom of a
desert-life, suffering from the hopeless imprisonment,--had his faith begun to
waver? or was the question put with a view of
reassuring his own disciple's with the intention of giving these faithful
followers of his an opportunity of convincing themselves of the power and real
glory of Jesus? In other words, was it
for his own sake or for his disciples' sakes
that he sent to ask the question?
Generally
speaking, the second of these two conclusions--that which ascribed the question
to a desire on the part of John to help his disciples (which we will call
B)--was adopted by the expositors of the early Church. A good example of this school of
interpretation is the following quotation from
On the other
hand, Tertullian among the Fathers, and nearly all
the modern expositors, believe that the question [was] of [John’s own] faith--a
faltering no doubt shared in by his own disciples. This conclusion (which we will term A) is
adopted, with slightly varying modifications, by Meyer, Ewald,
Neander, Godet, Plumptre, Farrar, and Morrison.
This way--(A)
generally adopted by the modern school of expositors--of understanding the
Baptist's question to Jesus, is evidently the conclusion which would suggest
itself to all minds who went to the story without any preconceived desire to
purge the character of a great saint from what they imagine to be a blot; and
we shall presently see that our Lord, in his answer to the question, where a
rebuke is exquisitely veiled in a beatitude, evidently understood the
forerunner's question in this sense.
It is thus
ever the practice of Holy Scripture; while it tenderly and lovingly handles the
characters of its heroes, it never flinches from the truth. We see Elijah (John's own prototype) in the
Old Testament, Peter and Paul in the New Testament, depicted in this book of
truth with all their faults; nothing is hid.
Only one flawless character appears in its storied pages--it is
only the Master of Peter and Paul who never turns aside from the path of
right.
Variants of the two basic alternatives and why it would have
been quite natural for John to be frustrated and concerned [56].
Those who are shocked with the notion that the faith of the Baptist
should even for a moment have wavered, suppose that (1) John merely meant to
suggest that surely the time had now come for the Messiah to reveal Himself as
the Messiah, and that his question was one rather of “increasing impatience”
than of “secret unbelief;” or (2) that the message was sent solely to reassure
John’s own disciples; or (3) that as Matthew here uses the phrase “the works of
the Messiah” and not “of Jesus,” the Baptist only meant to ask “Art thou
the same person as the Jesus to whom I bore testimony?” These suppositions are excluded, not only by
the tenor of the narrative but directly by verse 23 ([cf.] Matthew 11:6).
Nothing is more natural
than that the Great Baptist—to whom had been granted but a partial
revelation—should have felt deep anguish at the calm and noiseless advance of a
Kingdom for which, in his theocratic and Messianic hopes, he had imagined a
very different proclamation. Doubtless
too his faith like that of Elijah (1 Kings 19:4), of Job in his trials (John
3:1), and of Jeremiah in prison (Jeremiah 20:7), might be for a moment drowned
by the tragic briefness, and disastrous eclipse of his own career; and he might
hope to alleviate by this message the anguish which he felt when he contrasted
the joyous brightness of our Lord’s Galilean ministry with the unalleviated
gloom of his own fortress-prison among the black rocks at Makhor. “If Jesus be indeed the promised Messiah,” he
may have thought, “why am I, His Forerunner, suffered to languish
undelivered—the victim of a wicked tyrant?”
[56]
WEB: When the
men had come to him, they said, "John the Baptizer has sent us to you,
saying, 'Are you he who comes, or should we look for another?'"
Young’s: And having come near to
him, the men said, 'John the Baptist sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he who
is coming, or for another do we look?'
Conte (RC): But when the men had
come to him, they said: "John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying: 'Are
you he who is to come, or should we wait for another?' "
Recall now
that in our reflections on John’s work in chapter 3, we have seen that, as near
as He came to Christ, he was far from the view of Him which Jesus distinctly
presented of Himself in His first reported discourse, at Nazareth. The leading features of Him that was to come, are seen by the herald in quite other proportions from
what the course of Jesus for now many months had realized. The unfruitful trees had not been cut down;
the grain had not been winnowed from the chaff, nor was the unquenchable fire
kindled to his view. He probably saw no
tendency toward any of these results.
Not one prominent element of the prevailing conception of the reign of
the Messiah, could he recognize in the proceedings of Jesus. [52]
or look we for another? This may have meant only, “or not.” The whole meaning would thus be, “If Thou art
not Messiah, thou art nothing; and we must simply wait until he comes.” But the words used suggest rather that John
questioned, not whether Jesus was an eminent messenger from God, but only
whether, as there were some who held that the forerunner would come in one
character, some in another, there might not be two, and so Jesus only a
second forerunner like himself. [52]
As noted previously, we now know
that there were those who suspected that there would be two Messiahs
coming. Hence John’s concerns could lay
not in whether Jesus was a second forerunner like John himself, but whether He
was only one of the two messianic figures that would be required to redeem
WEB: In that
hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits; and to many who
were blind he gave sight.
Young’s: And in that hour he cured many from
sicknesses, and plagues, and evil spirits, and to many blind he granted sight.
Conte (RC): Now in that same
hour, he cured many of their diseases and wounds and evil spirits; and to many of the blind, he gave sight.
WEB: Jesus
answered them, "Go and tell John the things which you have seen and heard:
that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the
deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to
them.
Young’s: And Jesus answering said to them, 'Having
gone on, report to John what ye saw and heard, that blind men do see again,
lame do walk, lepers are cleansed, deaf do hear, dead are raised, poor have
good news proclaimed;
Conte (RC): And responding, he
said to them: "Go and report to John what you have heard and seen: that
the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead
rise again, the poor are evangelized.
how that the blind see, the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised. Not just one kind of miracle but no less
than five types are mentioned.
Jesus’ challenge to John is: What
conclusion can this possibly lead to? I
won’t give you the answer, but I will give you the evidence for you to
decide upon. [rw]
to the poor the gospel is preached. This was a sign of Messiah's time (Isa. xxix. 19). Contempt for the poor seems to have been very
common in the times of the Gospel (John vii. 49; ix. 34 and James ii. 24). Concern and tender interest about the poor
was a distinguishing feature of our Lord's ministry and that of His
Apostles. Then, as ever since,
the poor of the world have been more disposed than other men to hear and
embrace the Gospel. [9]
WEB: Blessed
is he who is not offended by me."
Young’s: and happy is he whoever may not be
stumbled in me.'
Conte (RC): And blessed is
anyone who has not taken offense at me."
whosoever shall not be
offended in me. For instances of the stumbling-block which
some made for themselves of incidents in our Lord’s career, see Matthew
WEB: When
John's messengers had departed, he began to tell the multitudes about John,
"What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed
shaken by the wind?
Young’s: And the messengers of John having gone
away, he began to say unto the multitudes concerning John: 'What have ye gone
forth to the wilderness to look on? a reed by the wind
shaken?
Conte (RC): And when the
messengers of John had withdrawn, he began to speak about John to the crowds.
"What did you go out to the desert to see? A reed shaken
by the wind?
A
reed shaken with the wind? A reed rises to the thought as
one of the features of the vicinity of the
John
was not like the reeds which they had seen waving in the wind on the banks of
Jordan, but rather, as Lange says, “a cedar half uprooted by the storm.” [56] In other
words: Don’t dismiss him or think less
of him because of anything you’ve just heard.
[rw]
WEB: But what
did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold,
those who are gorgeously dressed, and live delicately, are in kings' courts.
Young’s: but what have ye gone forth to see? a man in soft garments clothed? lo,
they in splendid apparellings, and living in luxury,
are in the houses of kings!
Conte (RC): Then what did you go
out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold, those who are in costly
apparel and finery are in the houses of kings.
Behold, they
which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately
[in luxury, NKJV]. The Herods were
specially given both to ostentation in dress (Acts
are in kings'
courts. In the palaces. Such were the false prophets in the courts of
the kings of old. You did not find the
hermit preacher in such places. [52]
Such as the palace of the Herods which
they had seen at Tiberias,
WEB: But what
did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and
much more than a prophet.
Young’s: 'But what have ye gone forth to see? a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and much more than a prophet:
Conte (RC): Then what did you go
out to see? A prophet? Certainly, I tell you, and more
than a prophet.
a prophet? The popular conception of a prophet is
limited to his foretelling future events.
This is indeed included in the term, but does not cover its meaning
entirely. The word is from [Greek], to
speak, and [Greek],
before, in front of. This meaning
of the preposition may have reference to time, viz., before, beforehand;
or to place, viz., in front of, into that of in behalf of; for. The prophet is,
therefore, primarily, one who speaks standing before another, and thus
forming a medium between him and the hearer.
This sense runs naturally into that of instead of. Hence it is the technical term for the
interpreter of a divine message. So
Plato: "For this reason it is
customary to appoint diviners or interpreters to be judges of the true
inspiration. Some persons call them diviners,
seers; they do not know that they are only repeaters of dark sayings and
visions, and are not to be called diviners at all, but interpreters
of things divine" ("Timaeus," 72). Similarly of an advocate to speak for, or instead
of one. The central idea of the
word is, one to whom God reveals himself and through whom he speaks. The revelation may or may not relate to the
future. The prophet is a forth-teller,
not necessarily a foreteller. The
essence of the prophetic character is immediate intercourse with God. One of the Hebrew names for "prophet,"
and, as some maintain, the earlier name, signified a shewer
or seer. See 1 Sam. ix. 10; and in 1 Cor. xiv. 26-30, Paul
shows that revelation stands in necessary connection with prophesying. [2]
Yea, I say unto
you, and much more than a prophet. Namely, an actual personal
herald and forerunner; the Angel or Messenger of Malachi 3:1, and so the only
Prophet who had himself been announced by Prophecy. [56]
WEB: This is
he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who
will prepare your way before you.'
Young’s: this is he concerning whom it hath been
written, Lo, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way
before thee;
Conte (RC): This is he of whom
it is written: "Behold, I send my Angel before your face, who shall
prepare your way before you."
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall
prepare thy way before thee. Jesus here refers to John the same prophecy
in which His work had been foretold by the angel to Zacharias
(
Compare
1:76; Mark 1:2. In the parallel passage
of Matthew our Lord adds that the Baptist is the promised Elias: Matthew
WEB: "For
I tell you, among those who are born of women there is not a greater prophet
than John the Baptizer, yet he who is least in the
Young’s: for I say to you, a greater prophet,
among those born of women, than John the Baptist there is not; but the least in
the reign of God is greater than he.'
Conte (RC): For I say to you,
among those born of women, no one is greater than the prophet John the Baptist.
But he who is least in the
Among those that are born
of women. An idiomatic phase, meaning
all mankind. [7]
there is not a
greater prophet. As forerunner of Christ. Being herald of the Sun of Righteousness
elevated him to an eminence unsurpassed by the most distinguished of his predecessors. [7]
“He
was the lamp, kindled and burning,” John
than John the Baptist. Greek, "Baptizer." His [special] work as our Lord's forerunner. [7]
but he that is
least in the
The simple meaning of
these words seems to be that in blessings and privileges, in knowledge, in
revealed hope, in conscious admission into fellowship with God, the humblest
child of the new kingdom is superior to the greatest prophet of the old. In the old dispensation “the Holy Ghost was
not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” John
Weymouth: And all the people, including the tax-gatherers, when they
listened to him upheld the righteousness of God, by being baptized with John's
baptism.
WEB: When all
the people and the tax collectors heard this, they declared God to be just,
having been baptized with John's baptism.
Young’s: And all the people having heard, and the
tax-gatherers, declared God righteous, having been baptized with the baptism of
John,
Conte (RC): And upon hearing
this, all the people and the tax collectors justified God, by being baptized
with the baptism of John.
Free
from the ambitions and prejudices of the wealthy, proud, and respectable,
[they] felt their need of repentance. [52]
This is a continuation of Chtist’s
discourse—not, as some have understood it, an interpolation of a bit of
the history of Luke. [52]
and the publicans. The tax-gatherers, the worst kind of people,
who had however been converted. [11]
justified God. By
acknowledging the rightfulness of His claim upon them, and were baptized as a
declaration of their renewedness of mind, and pledge
of life consistent with such a declaration.
By owning themselves sinners and honoring His way for their obtaining
pardon. [52]
1650s: i.e.
They glorified his word, Acts 13:48, and acknowledged His righteousness,
repenting of their sins, and believing John’s and Christ’s testimony, which the
Pharisees so rejected, and so deservedly perished. For as wine, a strong remedy against hemlock,
yet mingled with it doubleth the force of the poison;
so it is with the word when mingled with unbelief, and cast away with
contempt. [54]
being baptized with the baptism of John. They showed that they approved of the message
of God by submitting to the ordinance which he commanded, the ordinance of baptism [11]
WEB: But the
Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the counsel of God, not being baptized by
him themselves.
Young’s: but the Pharisees, and the lawyers, the
counsel of God did put away for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
Conte (RC): But the Pharisees
and the experts in the law despised the counsel of God concerning themselves, by not being baptized by him.
lawyers. Not legal practitioners, but
interpreters and doctors of the Mosaic law. [2]
rejected. Now the word 'rejected' would be more
adequately rendered 'frustrated,' thwarted, made void, or some such expression,
as indeed it is employed in other places of Scripture, where it is translated
'disannulled,' 'made void,' and the
like. And if we take that meaning, there
emerge from this great word of the Master's two thoughts, that to disbelieve
God's word is to thwart God's purpose, and that to thwart His purpose is to
harm ourselves. [47]
the counsel of God against themselves. The "counsel of God" towards them
was the solemn admonition by John to repent and to be baptized and be prepared
to receive the Messiah. This was the
command or revealed will of God in relation to them. [11]
against themselves. i.e., nullified (Galatians
To
their own hurt or detriment. The
rejection of the counsel of God will deeply injure them. God is wise and good. He knows what is best for us. He, therefore, that rejects what God
commands, rejects it to his own injury. [11]
being not
baptized of him. The
test of whether they accepted the message John preached was whether they were
willing to accept a baptism of repentance, carrying with it the
obligation to change their lifestyle and behavior where it was repugnant to God. [rw]
WEB: "To
what then will I liken the people of this generation? What are they like?
Young’s: And the Lord said, 'To what, then, shall
I liken the men of this generation? and to what are
they like?
Conte (RC): Then the Lord said:
"Therefore, to what shall I compare the men of this generation? And to
what are they similar?
He challenges the listeners to come up with
their own illustration of their folly and then suggests His own. In doing so there is the implicit warning to
them that if they act in a similar manner, they too will be similarly
foolhardy. He knows where He is going
even before giving His own answer. [rw]
Or: He
studies as He speaks, inquiring of Himself what comparison might truly set
forth their strange conduct. In a moment
it comes to Him. [52]
Weymouth: They are like
children sitting in the public square and calling out to one another, 'We have played the flute to you, and you have not danced: we
have sung dirges, and you have not shown sorrow.'
WEB: They are
like children who sit in the marketplace, and call one to another, saying, 'We
piped to you, and you didn't dance. We mourned, and you didn't weep.'
Young’s: they are like to children, to those
sitting in a market-place, and calling one to another, and saying, We piped to
you, and ye did not dance, we mourned to you, and ye did not weep!
Conte (RC): They are like
children sitting in the marketplace, talking with one another, and saying: 'We
sang to you, and you did not dance. We lamented, and you did not weep.'
sitting in the
marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and
ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. It seems
that they had reduced to something like a definite game, plays which in a less
regular way have amused young children in every country and time—“playing
wedding” and “funeral.” The Savior
refers to a case where they had divided into two sections, one to give the
music and direct the movements, the other to carry out the play; but when the
first proposed the “wedding,” the others would not have that, and yet peevishly
refused to join in playing “funeral” also.
[52]
In depth: Deciding
the roles John and Jesus play in the illustration [52]. These
speakers seem intended to represent John and Christ, as endeavoring in
different tempers and ways, to induce their countrymen to embrace God’s word;
the immovable and impenitent nation are the other section who hang back, and
consent, as a whole, to the invitation of neither herald. It is objected to this, the common explanation, that it makes Jesus and John a part of that
generation, inappropriately.
Hence Mayer supposes the speakers here to stand
for the Jewish people; and those addressed, for John and Jesus Christ. But surely it is those addressed who are to
blame. And when did the people ever
manifest any desire to win over their teachers?
Godet curiously
makes the two sets of children represent John and his adherents on the one
side, and Jesus with His disciples on the other, who mutually complain that
their leading is not followed, while yet he would have the fault lie with “the
moral insensibility and carping spirit in Israel,” whereby the opposite
teachings are paralyzed. This, at least
is what we make out of the translation, not having the original at hand.
We might understand it as if John and Jesus with
their disciples, in one group, were reckoned as belonging to that
generation. But there
is no need of stickling for the letter of the simile, more than in many other
parables, e.g., that of the Sower.
Understand the Saviour
as saying, “The case with this generation in their relation to me is like that
of children playing—one part faithfully trying to promote the pleasure of all,
the other (strictly, that which represents the men of this generation)
captious, sullen, responding to no kind of proposal that is made for their
recreation.” That the generation should
be likened to a set of children, and then identified with only a portion
of them, is not unlike the comparison of the kingdom of heaven to a sower sowing seed on various soils, and afterward confining
the similitude to the seed, the soil, and the crop. The one point to be illustrated as the
refusal of the Jews to enter the kingdom, as urged either by the ascetic and
rigorous demands of John, or by the gentle and more urbane invitations of
Christ.
[Furthermore note the words in the next verse,]
“Ye say, He hath a devil;” “it is the devil’s message, not God’s.” This is not the language of those who are
piping cheerfully to John, and wishing that he would more fitly present the
cause of the Lord, as Meyer’s view of the Saviour’s
simile supposes, in which view Lange and Van Oosterzee
unite. It is the language of hatred,
scorn, rejection.
Arriving at much the same final solution [56]: The difficulties and differences of
explanation found in this simple parable are only due to a needless
literalness. If indeed we take the
language quite literally, “this generation” is compared with the dancing and
mourning children who complain of the sullenness of their fellows; and
if this be insisted on, the meaning must be that the Jews complained of John
for holding aloof from their mirth, and of Jesus for discountenancing their
austerities. But it is the children
who are looking on who are blamed, not the playing children, as is clearly shewn by the “and ye say” of verses 33, 34. In the explanation here preferred our Lord
and the Baptist are included in this generation, and the comparison
(such as in the Homeric similies) is taken as a
whole to illustrate the mutual relations between them and their
contemporaries. So in Matthew 13:24,
“The kingdom of heaven is like unto a sower, &c,”
where the comparison is more to the reception of the seed.
Weymouth: For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking
no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!'
WEB: For John
the Baptizer came neither eating bread nor drinking
wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Young’s: 'For John the Baptist came neither eating
bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, He hath a demon;
Conte (RC): For John the Baptist
came, neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'
nor drinking wine.
Luke 1:15. The
ordinary table-drink, then and now [mid-nineteenth century], in the East. Simply implies, he denies himself comforts
everybody shared. [7]
“His
meat was locusts and wild honey,” Matthew 3:4.
Being a Nazarite he drank no wine,
and ye say. The same set of
people are complaining about both John the Baptist and
Jesus. They are simply people who find
it impossible to accept any authority but something they themselves have
originated or which furthers their personal interests. [rw]
He hath a devil. Was under the unconscious
influence of a demon. An enthusiast, fanatic, or
spirit-struck mind. Not a charge
of demonical assistance in pursuing such a life, but of demonical
perverseness in adopting it. The
Bible clearly distinguishes between madness and possession (John
This
in fact was their coarse way of describing any peculiarity or exaltation which
struck them as strange. At a later
period they said the same of Christ, John
Weymouth: The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say,
'Look, there is a man who is overfond of eating and
drinking--he is a friend of tax-gatherers and notorious sinners!'
WEB: The Son
of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man,
and a drunkard; a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
Young’s: the Son of Man came eating and drinking,
and ye say, Lo, a man, a glutton, and a wine drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers
and sinners;
Conte (RC): The Son of man came,
eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a voracious man and a drinker of
wine, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners.'
The
title [“Son of Man”] explains the reason of our Lord’s practice. He came as the Son of man, and therefore He
came to shew that the common life of all men could be
lived with perfect holiness, and that seclusion and asceticism were not
necessary as universal conditions. [56]
is come eating and drinking. The feast at Levi's house, the wedding
at Cana, the meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee
(Luke 7:30-50), the dinner given by Simon the leper (Mark 14:3-9) and the
banquet by one of the chief Pharisees (Luke 14:1-5) show that Christ was no
ascetic like John. He did not attend
these feasts, however, merely for pleasure.
They were opportunities for self-revelation and helpfulness to
others. [22]
Those who think that the
highest perfection consists in outward austerity of life, and who pronounce it to be an
angelical life when a person is abstemious, or mortifies himself by fasting,
ought to attend to this passage. On this
principle John would rank higher than the Son of God; but, on the contrary, we
ought to maintain, that bodily exercise profiteth
little, but godliness is profitable to all things, (Tim. iv. 8). [19]
and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend
of publicans and sinners! It doesn’t really matter how a moral
reformer faced these people or how he behaved:
Unless he confirmed them in their rejection of God’s will, an excuse would be found to dismiss him. Because Jesus enjoyed a good meal what else
could that mean than He was gluttonous!
And everyone “knew” that “a friend of publicans and sinners” was
unquestionably endorsing their sin! Thus
no wrestling with Jesus’ teaching was required.
It could all be cavalierly dismissed.
[rw]
WEB: Wisdom is
justified by all her children."
Young’s: and the wisdom was justified from all her
children.'
Conte (RC): But wisdom is
justified by all her children."
wisdom. The personification of God’s wisdom was
common in the later Jewish literature, as in the Book of Wisdom. It is also found in the Old Testament
(Proverbs
is justified
of all her children. Vindicated,
approved, pronounced right or praised. [7]
In more detail: Rather, “was justified by,” i.e., has from
the first been acquitted of all wrong and error, receives the witness of being
just, at the hands of all her children.
The “children of wisdom” generally (Proverbs 2:1, 3:1, etc.) are
those who obey God, and here are those of that generation who accepted the
baptism of John and the ministry of Jesus, without making a stumbling-block of
their different methods. The Jews, like
the petulant children, refused to sympathize either with John or Jesus—the one
they condemned for exaggerated strictness, the other for dangerous laxity: yet the Wise—Wisdom’s true children—once for
all declare that she is righteous, and free from blame: for they know that wisdom is polupoikilos, “richly-variegated,” “of many colours,” Ephesians 3:10.
The world’s wisdom was foolishness; those whom the world called fools were divinely wise, John
3:33. Wisdom is thus justified by her
children both actively and passively; they declare her to be just and
holy, and the world ultimately sees that her guidance as exemplified by
their lives is the best guidance (Wisdom 5:5, 4; Psalms li.
4; Romans 3:4). [56]
WEB: One of
the Pharisees invited him to eat with him. He entered into the Pharisee's
house, and sat at the table.
Young’s: And a certain one of the Pharisees was
asking him that he might eat with him, and having gone into the house of the
Pharisee he reclined (at meat),
Conte (RC): Then certain
Pharisees petitioned him, so that they might eat with him. And he went into the
house of the Pharisee, and he reclined at table.
[Assuming this occurred at an earlier point in the
ministry and is placed here by Luke:] This incident belongs, chronologically, to a
period when the attitude of the Pharisees had not yet become so flagrantly
hostile to the Lord as to prevent some friendly intercourse between them. Nor, indeed, need we suppose that even later
every one bearing the name of Pharisee was so inflamed with their
characteristic hatred of Jesus as personally to wish Him harm, or to destroy
hope in the latter of some benefit to the Pharisee. [52]
The hostile intent interpretation: The invitation was clearly due to a
patronizing curiosity, if not to a worse and hostile motive. The whole manner of the Pharisee to Jesus was
like his invitation, ungracious. But it
was part of our Lord’s mission freely to accept the proffered hospitality of
all, that He might reach every class. [56]
desired him that he
would eat with him. Requested Him to do so, apparently personally. [rw]
And he went
into the Pharisee's house, and sat down. The
original word here means only that he placed Himself, or reclined, at the
table. The notion of sitting at
meals is taken from modern customs and was not practiced by the Jews. [11]
The custom among Greeks,
Romans, and Orientals, in Christ’s day, was to recline at table, leaning on the
left elbow, extended at full length on a broad couch or settee, with the face
toward the table, and the feet sloping backward, across the couch, so as to be
easily reached by one approaching from the rear. [52]
The change of eating customs among Jews over the
centuries: The old method of
the Jews had been that of the East in general, to sit at table (anapiptein, 11:37; anakeisthai,
7:37; anaklinesthai, 12:37) generally
cross-legged on the floor, or on divans (Genesis 27:19; 1 Samuel 20:5, 18;
Psalms cxxviii. 3; Canticles 1:12, etc.). They had borrowed the custom of reclining on
couches from the Persians (Esther 1:6, 7:8), the Greeks and Romans, after the
Exile (Tobit 2:1; 1 Esdras
to meat [to eat, NKJV]. Food of any kind. [11]
WEB: Behold, a
woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the
Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of ointment.
Young’s: and lo, a woman in the city, who was a
sinner, having known that he reclineth (at meat) in
the house of the Pharisee, having provided an alabaster box of ointment,
Conte (RC): And behold, a woman
who was in the city, a sinner, found out that he was reclining at table in the
house of the Pharisee, so she brought an alabaster container of ointment.
in the city. What city is meant is unknown. Some have supposed it was Nain;
some
which was a sinner. Who was depraved or wicked. Perhaps an abandoned woman
or a prostitute. [11]
There is thus brought
before us a woman who was known in the city as being, in the worst sense, “a
sinner.” That she could approach the
table in a respectable house, especially the house of a scrupulous Pharisee, is
to be explained only from the freedom, elsewhere brought to view in the
Gospels, with which people went in and out of the abodes of their neighbors,
and observed what was taking place in them.
The same custom frequently surprises and annoys travelers in the East at
the present day [late 1800s]. [52]
Argument that she was a Gentile: Dr.
Clarke holds, correctly we think, that the word "sinner," here and
often elsewhere, signifies "heathen" or "Gentile." The decisive proof-text for this then
customary meaning of the word is Galatians 2:15, where it was held ritually
unclean to eat with "sinners," namely, "of the Gentiles." The phrase "publicans and sinners"
requires this meaning; otherwise the phrase is a solecism; for the publicans
themselves were a class of sinners in the common sense of that term. See Mark 2:15-17; 14:41; Luke 15:1-2, 7, 10;
19:7; John 9:31. [14]
when she knew
that Jesus sat at meat in the
Pharisee's house. Note
the “when:” This was not originally part
of her plans, but when the opportunity arose to honor Jesus face to face she
proceeded to grab it—no matter what the hostile Pharisees or others might think
of it. [rw]
brought an
alabaster box of ointment. It was much in vogue at that time among all
more civilized peoples, as promotive of health, and
pleasant to the senses of sight and smell, and so an indispensable accompaniment
or banquets and all festive occasions.
It was used on the hair and face in great profusion, compared with
anything familiar now, and probably, with a much greater outlay of expense. [52]
Or: This
was doubtless one of the implements of her guilty condition (Proverbs
Weymouth: and, standing
behind close to His feet, weeping, began to wet His feet with her tears; and
with her hair she wiped the tears away again, while she lovingly kissed His
feet and poured the perfume over them.
WEB: Standing
behind at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she
wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed his feet, and anointed them with
the ointment.
Young’s: and having stood behind, beside his feet,
weeping, she began to wet his feet with the tears, and with the hairs of her
head she was wiping, and was kissing his feet, and was anointing with the
ointment.
Conte (RC): And standing behind
him, beside his feet, she began to wash his feet with tears, and she wiped them
with the hair of her head, and she kissed his feet, and she anointed them with
ointment.
More
detail: This is explained by
the arrangement of the triclinia, by which the
guest reposed on his elbow at the table, with his unsandaled
feet outstretched on the couch. Each
guest left his sandals beside the door on entering. Literally the verse is, “And standing behind
beside His feet weeping, with her tears she began to bedew His feet, and with
the hairs of her head she wiped them off, and was eagerly kissing His feet, and
anointing them with the perfume.” As she
bent over His feet her tears began to fall on them, perhaps accidentally at first,
and she wiped them off with the long disheveled hair (1 Corinthians 11:15)
which shewed her shame and anguish, and then in her
joy and gratitude at finding herself unrepulsed, she
poured the unguent over them. No one but
a woman in the very depths of anguish would have violated all custom by
appearing in public with uncovered head (1 Corinthians
weeping. From sorrow on account of
her sinful life; partly, also, with thankfulness and complacency toward Him who
had led her to amendment, and opened to her a prospect of peace and hope. [52]
Doubtless at the
contrast of His sinlessness and her
own stained life. She could not
have done thus to the Pharisee, who would have repelled her with execration as
bringing pollution by her touch. The
deepest sympathy is caused by the most perfect sinlessness. It is not impossible that on that very day
she may have heard the “Come unto me” of Matthew 11:28. [56]
and began to wash his feet with tears and
did wipe them with the hairs of
her head. “Wash” is not warranted by the Greek, but
“wet” or “moisten.” This may have been
unintentional, although it was, more probably, an act symbolic of the most
humble devotion to his service. Washing
another’s feet was performing a menial office, and
would be voluntarily undertaken only as a sign of affectionate regard. The same sentiment was further expressed by
her next act, “and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his
feet.” [52]
and kissed His feet. The kiss was an emblem of love and
affection. [11]
The
verb is a compound in the Greek, denoting special tenderness of regard, and the
tense of this and the following verb shows that the actions were continued and
repeated, as though she could not desist.
[52]
and anointed them with the ointment. The
ointment, which she would not venture near to pour on the head, as was usual,
she lavished, as a treasure of respect, on her Saviour’s
feet. It was a very unusual, and to the
Pharisee, we may suppose, an astounding, a horrifying scene. [52]
In depth: How many times
was Jesus anointed by women [36]? Much importance is to be attached by the careful reader to the fact,
that this woman washed the feet of our Saviour: for this
circumstance identifies her, it would appear, with Mary the
sister of Lazarus (S. John
xi. 2); who is again brought before our notice, as performing a like office of dutiful service to her Redeemer,
shortly before His sufferings (S. John xii. 3).
Distinct from her is the woman, who in the house of Simon the leper poured ointment
upon the
head of our Lord, but did not
anoint His feet, as Mary did. Her act is recorded by S. Matthew (xxvi. 6), and S. Mark (xiv. 3), while S. Luke and S. John commemorate the above mentioned acts of Mary; the first, done in the depth of her repentance; the last, in the growing confidence of her justification and
pardon. S. Augustine and S. Chrysostom agree in the opinion, that there were
only two different women, who thus testified their devout feelings
towards our Lord; and the supposition that Mary Magdalene was one of these rests on no better ground, than a
vague tradition.—J. Ford.
WEB: Now when
the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "This man, if
he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what kind of woman this is who
touches him, that she is a sinner."
Young’s: And the Pharisee who did call him, having
seen, spake within himself, saying, 'This one, if he
were a prophet, would have known who and of what kind is the woman who doth
touch him, that she is a sinner.'
Conte (RC): Then the Pharisee,
who had invited him, upon seeing this, spoke within himself, saying, "This
man, if he were a prophet, would certainly know who and what kind of woman is
this, who is touching him: that she is a sinner."
saw it, he spake with himself.
[i.e.,] Thought. [11]
This man. The word in the original expresses the
supercilious scorn which is discernible in the bearing of the speaker. [56]
if he were a prophet, would have known. The Jews believed that discerning of spirits
was one of the marks of a true prophet and eminently of the Messiah (from
Isaiah 9:3-4). See 1 Kings 14:6; 2 Kings
1:3 and
who and what
manner of woman this is that toucheth him. Rather, “who is clinging to him.” Simon makes a
double assumption—first that a prophet would have known the character of the
woman, and next that he would certainly have repelled her. The bearing and tone of the Rabbis towards
women closely resembled that of some mediaeval monks. They said that no one should stand nearer
them than four cubits. But Jesus knew
more of the woman than Simon did, and was glad that she should shed on His feet
the tears of penitence. A great prophet
had declared long before that those which say “Stand by thyself, come not near
to me, for I am holier than thou,” were “a smoke in my nose.” Isaiah lxv.
5. [56]
for she is a
sinner. The
concept of her willingness to change her life is clearly alien to his frame of
mind. Indeed, could anything
she did convince such a hostile mind that it could occur? [rw]
WEB: Jesus
answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you." He said,
"Teacher, say on."
Young’s: And Jesus answering said unto him,
'Simon, I have something to say to thee;' and he saith,
'Teacher, say on.'
Conte (RC): And in response,
Jesus said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." So he
said, "Speak, Teacher."
“He heard the Pharisee
thinking.” --
Simon. A name very common among the Jews,
originating in the Hebrew for Simeon, slightly changed to assimilate it to a
familiar Greek proper name. [52]
This is one of the rare cases where we actually have the name of
His critics. [rw]
I have somewhat
to say unto thee. The emphasis is on these [last two] words, You have been thinking of Me: I have something to say to thee. [56]
Others present might well be thinking the
same thing as Simon, but Jesus singles out His host to answer all through
answering the one who had invited him to dinner. [rw]
And he saith,
Master, say on. He
can’t imagine Jesus is a prophet (verse 39), so he is more than curious what He
will say to “wiggle Himself” out of this self-created discrediting. [rw]
In depth: Attempting to identify which Simon is being talked about [56].
This exquisite narrative is
peculiar [= unique] to Luke, and well illustrates that conception of the
universality and free gift of grace which predominates in his Gospel as in
Paul. To identify this Simon with Simon
the Leper in Mark 14:3 is quite arbitrary.
It was one of the commonest Jewish names. There were two Simons among the Twelve, and
there are nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament alone, and twenty
in Josephus. There must therefore have
been thousands of Simons in
The
incident itself was one which might have happened frequently, being in
close accordance with the customs of the time and country. And with the uncritical attempt to identify
Simon the Pharisee with Simon the Leper, there also falls to the ground the
utterly improbable identification of the woman who was a sinner with Mary of
WEB: "A
certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii,
and the other fifty.
Young’s: 'Two debtors were to a certain creditor;
the one was owing five hundred denaries, and the
other fifty;
Conte (RC): "A certain
creditor had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii,
and the other fifty.
which had two debtors. The one representing the
guilty woman, the other the Pharisee, in their relation to God. [52]
the one owed five hundred pence, and the other
fifty. The “penny” of our Gospels [as of the 1870s]
is estimated [at] about seventeen cents of our money. This is correct, measuring by the weight of
silver contained in the Roman coin, at the price of silver in our coins. But if we measure it by the equivalent in
labor, and in the products of labor at that day its value was very much
greater. Thus, it was the pay for a
day’s work in a vineyard (Matthew 20:2), for a day’s entertainment [= food and care] of
an invalid at an inn (Luke
WEB: When they
couldn't pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him
most?"
Young’s: and they not having wherewith to give
back, he forgave both; which then of them, say thou, will love him more?'
Conte (RC): And since they did
not have the ability to repay him, he forgave them both. So then, which of them
loves him more?"
Tell
me therefore, which of them will love him most? No doubt each ought to love to
the utmost of his power. The ruin of the
least guilty is so utter, and forgiveness so great,
that all the gratitude that his human heart can hold is due. But as human nature is, which will
feel the most intense emotions of gratitude for salvation? [14]
WEB: Simon
answered, "He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most." He said to
him, "You have judged correctly."
Young’s: And Simon answering said, 'I suppose that
to whom he forgave the more;' and he said to him, 'Rightly thou didst judge.'
Conte (RC): In response, Simon
said, "I suppose that it is he to whom he forgave the most." And he
said to him, "You have judged correctly."
“I
imagine;” “I presume.” The original word
has a shade of supercilious irony (compare Acts
that he, to whom he
forgave most. It is
hard to imagine how he could even attempt to defend any other answer. You love the person more who forgives
you less? The human mind boggles
at the idea. [rw]
And He said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. There is a
touch of gentle sarcasm in the use of this word [“rightly”], which involves
Simon’s self-condemnation. It is the
word so often adopted by Socrates as one of his implements of dialectic
irony. [56]
WEB: Turning
to the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered into
your house, and you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with
her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head.
Young’s: And having turned unto
the woman, he said to Simon, 'Seest thou this woman?
I entered into thy house; water for my feet thou didst not give, but this woman
with tears did wet my feet, and with the hairs of her head did wipe;
Conte (RC): And turning to the
woman, he said to Simon: "Do you see this woman? I entered into your
house. You gave me no water for my feet. But she has washed my feet with tears,
and has wiped them with her hair.
Rather, “Dost thou mark?” Hitherto the Pharisee, in accordance with his
customs and traditions, had hardly deigned to throw her one disdainful
glance. Now Jesus bids him look full upon
her to shew him that she had really done the honors
of his house. Her love had more than
atoned for his coldness. [56]
I entered into thine house. I came at your invitation, where I might expect
all the usual rites of hospitality. [11]
thou gaves me no water for my feet. This was a courtesy to guests in the East (Genesis
18:4; Judges
It would not appear that
Simon had been deficient in the ordinary courtesies paid by a host to his
guests--for these, though marks of honour sometimes
paid, were not (even the washing of the feet, except when coming from a
journey) invariably paid to guests:
--but that he had taken no particular pains to shew affection or reverence for his Guest. [15]
but she hath
washed my feet with tears, and wiped them
with the hairs of her head. Talk
about two extremes of behavior. He
had not even acted the role of a good host while she had gone far beyond
what anyone could demand. [rw]
WEB: You gave
me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet.
Young’s: a kiss to me thou didst not give, but
this woman, from what time I came in, did not cease kissing my feet;
Conte (RC): You gave no kiss to
me. But she, from the time that she entered, has not ceased to kiss my feet.
In more detail: The ordinary salutation of respect in the
East, where the first thing when two friends meet and wish to do each other honour is to try to kiss each other’s hands. The kiss on the cheek is between equals and
also to superiors. Absalom,
to gain favour, kissed every man who came near him to
do him obeisance; 2 Samuel 15:5.
“The king kissed Barzillai,” 2 Samuel
19:39. Hence this was a natural signal
of recognition for the traitor to give; Matthew 26:49. See Acts
but this woman
since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. It was repeated, ongoing. In contrast, the Pharisee had not even
bestowed the inevitable courtesy a guest would expect to receive. It is hard to regard this neglect as anything
short of an intended slur or insult. A
non-verbal way saying, “I’m willing to eat with you to soften you up for an
argument, but no way am I going to be courteous in the process.” [rw]
WEB: You
didn't anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
Young’s: with oil my head thou didst not anoint,
but this woman with ointment did anoint my feet;
Conte (RC): You did not anoint
my head with oil. But she has anointed my feet with ointment.
with oil. In
antithesis to "the ointment," costly and compounded. "Oil" was unmixed, and from the
abundance of olives among the Jews, cheaper.
[24]
The Orientals used oil,
prepared carefully with sweet spices, to soften and refresh the skin of the
head. Climate and manners vary the world
over. To furnish guests with this
refreshment was customary in
but this woman
hath anointed my feet with ointment. This "ointment" was a mixture of
various aromatics and was therefore far more costly and precious than the
"oil" commonly used for anointing the head. Her conduct, compared with that of Simon, was
therefore more striking. He did not give
even the common oil for his head, used on such occasions. She had applied to His feet a
far more precious and valuable unguent. He,
therefore, showed comparatively little love.
She showed much. [11]
In the dry, dusty
climate of
Weymouth: This is the
reason why I tell you that her sins, her many sins, are forgiven--because she
has loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
WEB: Therefore
I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."
Young’s: therefore I say to thee, her many sins
have been forgiven, because she did love much; but to whom little is forgiven,
little he doth love.'
Conte (RC): Because of this, I
tell you: many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much. But he who is forgiven less, loves less."
Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much. On a psychological level, this had to deeply
annoy the Pharisee: She—Her—was forgiven?
If there were any forgiven in that house surely it must be the
host and his fellow Pharisees! Giving
them the benefit of every doubt (probably needlessly) they had down pat the art
of passing muster on every divine commandment—at least in their own eyes--but
the attitude that was supposed to go with forgiveness was so alien to
their way of thinking! [rw]
but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth
little. He
who feels that little has been forgiven--that his sins were not as great as
those of others[--will love little]. A man's love to God will be in proportion to
the obligation he feels to Him for forgiveness. [11]
In depth: Did love
save her (verse 47) or faith (verse 50)?
How do the two statements interlock? One analysis [11]: In
our translation this would seem to be given as a reason why her sins had been
forgiven--that she had loved much before they were pardoned. This would be contrary to the whole New
Testament, which supposes that love succeeds, not precedes
forgiveness. It was not to show why
her sins had been forgiven, but to show that she had given evidence that they actually
had been, and that it was proper therefore that she should come near to Him
to manifest this love.
A similar analysis [52]: He does not declare that her sins are
forgiven on account of this practical love which she has exhibited; but that, on
account of this [behavior] He is warranted in declaring that her sins “are
forgiven.” Rather “have been forgiven”;
for the verb in Greek is in the perfect tense:
She has been forgiven. It
may be known from the fact that she loves.
We might not
hesitate to think that the Saviour might have said
that her forgiveness came in consequence of her love, love itself being
only a phase of faith; but the order of the words, the perfect tense of the
verb, the drift of the parable where the debtors’ love is consequent [= after]
their forgiveness, and the explicit declaration in verse 50, all warrant the
conclusion that here also, as everywhere else in all the Scripture, He
recognizes her faith as the condition of that forgiveness which her love bespeaks.
WEB: He said
to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Young’s: And he said to her, 'Thy sins have been
forgiven;'
Conte (RC): Then he said to her,
"Your sins are forgiven you."
thy sins are forgiven. Rather, “have been forgiven.” The “is forgiven” of the previous verse is in
the present, “is being forgiven.” Both
in the Old and New Testaments the readiness of God to forgive the deepest and
most numerous sins is dwelt upon (Isaiah
1650s: Melancthon makes mention of a godly woman, who having
upon her death bed been much conflicted, and afterwards much comforted, brake
out into these words, Now, and not till now, I understand
the meaning of those words, Thy sins are forgiven. [54]
WEB: Those who
sat at the table with him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who
even forgives sins?"
Young’s: and those reclining with him (at meat)
began to say within themselves, 'Who is this, who also doth forgive sins?'
Conte (RC): And those who sat at
table with him began to say within themselves, "Who is this, who even
forgives sins?"
Who is this that forgiveth sins
also? A very pertinent question. Who could He be but God? Man could not do it, and there is no wonder
that they were amazed. [11]
WEB: He said
to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."
Young’s: and he said unto the woman, 'Thy faith
have saved thee, be going on to peace.'
Conte (RC): Then he said to the
woman: "Your faith has brought you salvation. Go in peace."
Thy faith hath saved thee. The faith of the recipient was the necessary
condition of a miracle, whether physical or spiritual, Mark 5:34, 9:23; Matthew
9:2, 13:58, 15:28; John 4:50; Acts 3:16, 14:8.
[56]
go in peace. He comforts her, against the rude looks and
cavils of the persons about them. [4]
[It]
is a phrase which was the usual valediction among the Jews, as much as our
Farewell, or God be with you, they under the term of peace comprehending
all good; but when we consider who it is that speaketh,
and what immediately preceded, we have reason to think this was a more than
ordinary compliment or farewell, even as much as is comprehended [= included]
under the term peace, which, as I before said, is all good, but more
especially that peace mentioned by the apostle, Romans 5:1, as an effect of
faith. Go thy way a blessed and happy
woman, and in the view and sense of thy own blessedness, and be not troubled at
the censures and reflections of persons, who may despise or overlook thee
because thou hast been a great sinner.
God hath pardoned thy sins, and this I assure
thee of; only take heed to keep and maintain that peace. [51]
In depth: Is this the
same anointing placed by the other gospel accounts in the last week of Jesus
life [13]? A
very similar narrative to this is found in the other three Gospels, but
assigned to a much later time--to the Passion week. Mary, a sister of Lazarus, annoints Jesus at a repast which is given Him by the people
of
These reasons,
doubtless, have their weight; but they are not decisive. The act of anointing was associated with such
a common usage on festive occasions (Luke
As to the name Simon, it
was so common, that out of the small number of persons designated by name in
the New Testament, there are no less than fifteen Simons!
The reasons in favor of
the difference of the two incidents are the following:
1st. The difference of place--
2nd. The difference of time.
3rd. The difference of persons: the woman that was a sinner, in Luke, is a stranger
in the house of the host (verse 37, "a woman of the city"), and Simon
himself regards her as such, and as altogether unknown to Jesus (verse
39). Mary, on the contrary, belongs to a beloved family, which habitually
received Jesus under their roof.
Besides, we must always feel a repugnance to identify Mary the sister of
Lazarus, as we know her in John 11 and Luke 10:38-42, with a woman of ill fame.
4th. The most important difference respects what
was said: at Bethany, a complaint from
Judas on behalf of the poor, and a reply from Jesus announcing His approaching
death; in Galilee, the great evangelical declaration, that love is the fruit of
forgiveness, which is bestowed on the simple condition of faith. What agreement can be discovered between
these two conversations? We may conceive
of very considerable alterations being made by tradition in the historical
framework of a narrative. But by what marvellous process could one of these two conversations
have been transformed into the other?
In depth: Motive for
Luke omitting incidents—to avoid duplication [56]? Notice that
Luke omits the anointing of Jesus by Mary of
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint,
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John.
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John.
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus.
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes.
"Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids,
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
14 =
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament.
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
. . . with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke.
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both).
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel.
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint,
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition.
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments.
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ.
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus.
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York:
A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament.
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
the
University Press, 1882.