From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER
NINE
Verses
37-62
Books Utilized
Codes at End of Chapter
Weymouth: On the following day, when they were come down from the
mountain, a great crowd came to meet Him;
WEB: It
happened on the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, that a
great multitude met him.
Young’s: And it came to pass on the next day, they
having come down from the mount, there met him a great multitude,
Conte (RC): But it happened on
the following day that, as they were descending from the mountain, a great
crowd met him.
when they were come
down from the hill, much people met him. Mark records their “amazement” at seeing
Him—perhaps due to some lingering radiance and majesty which clung to Him after
the Transfiguration. (Compare Exodus
34:30.) They had been surrounding a
group of the scribes, who were taunting the disciples with their failure to
cure the lunatic boy. [56]
Weymouth: and a man from
the crowd called out, "Rabbi, I beg you to pity my son, for he is my only
child.
WEB: Behold, a
man from the crowd called out, saying, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my
son, for he is my only child.
Young’s: and lo, a man from the multitude cried
out, saying, 'Teacher, I beseech thee, look upon my son, because he is my only
begotten;
Conte (RC): And behold, a man from the crowd cried out,
saying, "Teacher, I beg you, look kindly on my son, for he is my only son.
look. Only here and James 2:3. To look with pitying regard; and by medical writers of examining
the condition of a patient. [2]
upon my son: for he is mine only child. For this to happen to any child of his would
be heart-breaking. For it to happen to
the only one He had, a hundred times worse. All his hopes and dreams were bound up in
this child. Would they all perish? [rw]
WEB: Behold, a
spirit takes him, he suddenly cries out, and it convulses him so that he foams,
and it hardly departs from him, bruising him severely.
Young’s: and lo, a spirit doth take him, and
suddenly he doth cry out, and it teareth him, with
foaming, and it hardly departeth from him, bruising
him,
Conte (RC): And behold, a spirit
takes hold of him, and he suddenly cries out, and it throws him down and
convulses him, so that he foams. And though it tears him apart, it leaves him
only with difficulty.
and he suddenly. “Suddenly:” ἐξαίφνης --
Used only once outside of the writings of Luke:
Mark
crieth out; and it teareth [convulses,
NKJV] him that he foameth again, and bruising him
hardly [with great difficulty, NKJV] departeth from
him.
The tossing about injures the
child and even when the “spirit” starts to leave he acts like he can do so only
with great difficulty. As if to
threaten: “It’ll be a lot easier for me
just to stay here permanently.” A thought that had to make it even more fearful for both child and
parent. [rw]
WEB: I begged
your disciples to cast it out, and they couldn't."
Young’s: and I besought thy disciples that they
might cast it out, and they were not able.'
Conte (RC): And I asked your
disciples to cast him out, and they were unable."
and they could not. Jesus afterwards, at their request, told them
the reason of this, which was their deficient faith. Matthew 17:19-21. [56]
WEB: Jesus
answered, "Faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you
and bear with you? Bring your son here."
Young’s: And Jesus answering said, 'O generation, unstedfast and perverse, till when shall I be with you, and
suffer you? bring near hither thy son;'
Conte (RC): And in response,
Jesus said: "O unfaithful and perverse generation! How long will I be with
you and endure you? Bring your son here."
Doubtless
the Spirit of Jesus was wrung by the contrast—so immortally portrayed in the
great picture of Raphael—between the peace and glory which He had left on the
mountain and this scene of weak faith, abject misery, and bitter
opposition—faltering disciples, degraded sufferers, and wrangling scribes. [52]
how long shall I
be with you, and suffer [bear with] you? “He was hastening to His Father, yet could
not go till He had led His disciples to faith.
Their slowness troubled Him.” (Bengel). [56]
Bring thy son
hither. He will
not let His disciples’ failure mar the soul of the sufferer’s family. Not will He permit the scribes a tool which
they will inevitably use to discredit Jesus Himself. Healing was sought; healing will be
granted! [rw]
WEB: While he
was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him violently. But
Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his
father.
Young’s: and as he is yet coming near, the demon
rent him, and tore him sore, and Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed
the youth, and gave him back to his father.
Conte (RC): And as he was
approaching him, the demon threw him down and convulsed him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and he
healed the boy, and he restored him to his father.
tare. συνεσπάραξεν --
Only here in New Testament. Convulse, which is the exact Latin
equivalent, would, perhaps, be the nearest rendering. [2]
And Jesus
rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again [gave
him back, NKJV] to his father. The picture
is of Jesus holding the child—or holding onto the child—and the demon being
forced out and, with it, the struggling of the child ceased, permitting Jesus
to return the boy to its grateful father.
[rw]
WEB: They were
all astonished at the majesty of God. But while all were marveling at all the
things which Jesus did, he said to his disciples,
Young’s: And they were all amazed at the greatness
of God, and while all are wondering at all things that Jesus did, he said unto
his disciples,
Conte (RC): And all were
astonished at the greatness of God. And as everyone was wondering over all that
he was doing, he said to his disciples:
at the mighty power of God. They
plainly saw that it was a case in which any power inferior to that of God could
be of no avail. [1]
But while they
wondered every one at all things which Jesus did. The power of
the last miracle had rekindled some of their Messianic enthusiasm. [56]
Aside:
Jesus had now reached the northern limits of Palestine, and—apparently
through bypaths, and with the utmost secrecy—was retracing His steps, perhaps
along the western bank of the Jordan, to Galilee, Matthew 17:22; Mark
9:30. [56]
He said unto His disciples. Enthusiasm
deepened loyalty. Enthusiasm provided
deeper conviction when discussing Jesus with others. But enthusiasm could easily become a
two-edged sword and encourage a messianic revolution against
The imperfects in Mark
WEB: "Let
these words sink into your ears, for the Son of Man will be delivered up into
the hands of men."
Young’s: 'Lay ye to your ears these words, for the
Son of Man is about to be delivered up to the hands of men.'
Conte (RC): "You must set these words in your hearts. For it shall
be that the Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men."
sink down into your
ears. Don’t
just hear these words and scratch your heads and dismiss them because you
“can’t figure out what they mean.” Let
them penetrate your consciousness.
Accept them whether you like them or not. This is truth. And this is the way it will be
regardless of whether you or I wish it were the case. [rw]
for the Son of man shall be delivered into the
hands of men. With the implication of “into the hands of unfriendly and hostile
men.” Even John the Baptist had the respect of the
ruler who would ultimately order his execution.
Not so the enemies of Jesus. [rw]
WEB: But they
didn't understand this saying. It was concealed from them, that they should not
perceive it, and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
Young’s: And they were not knowing
this saying, and it was veiled from them, that they might not perceive it, and
they were afraid to ask him about this saying.
Conte (RC): But they did not understood this word, and it was concealed from them, so
that they did not perceive it. And they were afraid to question him about this
word.
It was not hid by any act
of God, but by their own prejudices.
They heard Jesus speak of death.
They did not believe that the Messiah was to die before conquering the
world. They had no idea of a spiritual
kingdom, begun on a cross; by which men would conquer death and sin. They thought rather of tented fields and all
the glorious array of war, the spoils of conquest and the fruits of peace. So while Jesus warned them, their minds were
in such a state as to be filled with wonder, not with instruction. [4]
that they perceived
it not. They
simply did not understand it. [rw]
and they feared to
ask him of that saying. It
really wasn’t a matter of “could not” understand but “did not want to
understand;” “refused to understand.”
That they grasped that it was ominous can be seen in their “fear”
of even asking more as to the intent and meaning. Rather than alter their concept of the
Messiah, they would much rather hide from embracing uncomfortable truths that
would force them to alter it. Has
mankind changed all that much through the centuries? [rw]
WEB: There
arose an argument among them about which of them was the greatest.
Young’s: And there entered a reasoning among them,
this, Who may be greater of them?
Conte (RC): Now an idea entered
into them, as to which of them was greater.
which of them
should be greatest. Their jealous ambition had been
kindled partly by false Messianic hopes, partly perhaps by the recent
distinction bestowed on Peter, James, and John [at the Transfiguration]. Observe how little Christ’s words to Peter
had been understood to confer on him any special preeminence! This unseemly dispute was again stirred up at
the Last Supper (
Weymouth: And Jesus, knowing the reasoning that was in their hearts,
took a young child and made him stand by His side
WEB: Jesus,
perceiving the reasoning of their hearts, took a little child, and set him by
his side,
Young’s: and Jesus having seen the reasoning of
their heart, having taken hold of a child, set him beside himself,
Conte (RC): But Jesus,
perceiving the thoughts of their hearts, took a child and stood him beside him.
took a child. This could
not have been the future martyr St. Ignatius, as legend says (Niceph. II. 3), probably by an erroneous inference from his
name of Christophoros or Theophoros,
which was derived from his telling Trajan that he
carried God in his heart (see Ep. Ad
Smyrna. III, which is of doubtful genuineness, or Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History III. 38). [56]
and set him by Him. Literally, by himself. Mark alone record the taking him in his
arms. [2]
St.
Mark mentions that this teaching was "in the house," and commentators
have suggested, with some probability, that the house was Peter's, and the
child one of his. Clement of
WEB: and said
to them, "Whoever receives this little child in my name receives me.
Whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For whoever is least among you
all, this one will be great."
Young’s: and said to them, 'Whoever may receive
this child in my name, doth receive me, and whoever may receive me, doth
receive Him who sent me, for he who is least among you all -- he shall be
great.'
Conte (RC): And he said to them:
"Whoever will receive this child in my name, receives me; and whoever
receives me, receives him who sent me. For whoever is the lesser among you all,
the same is greater."
and whosoever
shall receive me receiveth him that sent me. But the price is actually far more than the
acceptance or rejection of Jesus alone.
The rejection of Jesus automatically brings with it rejection by
the Father since He sent Jesus. In
short, it shatters the connection with the supernatural. [rw]
for he that is
least among you all, the same shall be great. Greatness
among His disciples is not based upon earthly standards of greatness but upon
doing whatever needs to be done—playing the role of servant, of being “least
among you” (for that is how servants were counted due to their lack of money,
position, and power). [rw]
WEB: John
answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we
forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."
Young’s: And John answering said, 'Master, we saw
a certain one in thy name casting forth the demons, and we forbade him, because
he doth not follow with us;'
Conte (RC): And responding, John
said: "Teacher, we saw a certain one casting out demons in your name. And we
prohibited him, for he does not follow with us."
and we forbad him. Compare the jealous zeal of Joshua against Eldad and Medad, and the truly
noble answer of Moses, Numbers 11:27-29.
[56]
because he followeth not with us. This touch of intolerant zeal is quite in
accordance with the natural disposition which shows itself in the incident of
verse 54, and with the story that John rushed out of a bath in which he saw the
heretic Cerinthus.
It was this burning temperament that made him a “Son of Thunder.” [56]
WEB: Jesus
said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for
us."
Young’s: and Jesus said unto him, 'Forbid not, for
he who is not against us, is for us.'
Conte (RC): And Jesus said to
him: "Do not prohibit him. For whoever is not against you, is for
you."
In depth: Reconciling this verse with Jesus' teaching
in Matthew
In the one the
believer is alone in the presence of Christ, in the other he is one of the many
who make up the visible fellowship of the faithful. In the one rule Jesus says "he" and
"me," in the other "he" and "us." There is no neutrality possible in the one
case; we must be on Christ's side or against Him, it is a matter of life or
death with each individual believer. In
the other there is a fellowship, a commonwealth; with the fundamental principle
in all commonwealths, that men must give and take. [6].
And:
Both are true in different circumstances. Neutrality is sometimes as deadly as
opposition (Judges
Chronological aside: It is a great pity that the chapter
does not end at this verse; since it closes another great section in our Lord’s
ministry—the epoch of opposition and flight.
A new phase of the ministry begins at verse 51. [56]
In depth: To what
extent is this a guideline for embracing or rejecting those of different
religious convictions today [3]? It is a question of some importance to what
extent the principle here announced is applicable to the circumstances of our
modern life. Without discussing it
elaborately, it may be useful to suggest that so far as the teachers of
religious error are concerned, it does not apply. Certainly we may not positively or judicially
forbid their teaching; but still we must not merely because they assume
to teach in the name of Christ, recognize them as “for us.”
The
apostolic doctrine on this subject is clear and controlling. Light is to have no fellowship with
darkness. The false teacher is not to be
received, nor bidden God-speed.
But
it is not exactly so with merely imperfect teaching, that which is
correct as far as it goes, but which comes short of the scriptural
standard. There are men who, from the
force of education and a thousand influences whose potency those of a different
sphere can not appreciate, preach a fragmentary gospel—deficient in some
important ordinance, obscure from some reversal of terms, weakened and even
perverted by some concomitant philosophy—in short, wanting in the clearness and
consistency, the completeness and power, of the gospel as preached and recorded
by the apostles; and yet, deplorable as all this is, these men are by no means anti-Christians.
In the great battle with skepticism they are “for
us.” In the fight against
materialism—against drunkenness and crime—against corruption in high places—in
a hundred conflicts in which the church of Christ must be continually
engaged—their talents, their money, their zeal, their influence of whatever
sort, are all for us. It would be
better certainly for them, better for the cause of Christ, better for the great
interests of humanity, if they “followed with us,” but if this may not be, let
us rejoice that their influence is not really against us, and that in the main
it must be for us. The spirit of the
injunction, therefore, as applicable to these cases, would lead us to be as
helpful to them as possible, and especially in seeking to lead them to a better
understanding of the truth, but to forbid them not.
WEB: It came
to pass, when the days were near that he should be taken up, he intently set
his face to go to
Young’s: And it came to pass, in the completing of
the days of his being taken up, that he fixed his face to go on to Jerusalem,
Conte (RC): Now it happened
that, while the days of his dissipation were being completed, he steadfastly
set his face to go to
He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem. He now made every thing point thither. We are not to suppose by this that Jesus went
directly to Jerusalem, but that He now did all things, guided His journeys,
sent out His disciples, and instructed them, in view of the quick-coming end of
His work. [4]
In depth: An analysis
of the Perean ministry, which begins in this verse [55]. The Perean
ministry, so-called, is bound in the departure from Galilee recorded in Matthew
19:1, Mark 10:1, and Luke 9:51 on the one side, and on the other by the arrival
at Jerusalem, likewise recorded by all three (Matthew 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke
19:29), as well as in John 12:12.
In length, however, the several records vary
greatly. Mark’s account of events
between the departure from Galilee and the arrival at Jerusalem comprises but
one chapter, the tenth. Matthew’s follows Mark’s closely, adding some material, chiefly
that of 20:1-16. Luke’s record,
on the other hand, covers ten chapters from
This whole portion of Luke has somewhat the
appearance of being a collection of events and teachings largely without
reference to their order. Very probably,
with the exception of the portions which are parallel to Mark, it constituted
one of his documentary sources, introduced here entire. Though there is no better order in which to
study these events than that in which Luke has given them, yet the student is
scarcely warranted in laying any stress on the order of succession.
The events from John’s gospel that fall in this
period occur chiefly at
Yet in view of the possibility that the order of
John’s gospel is not as it stands chronological, and a like uncertainty
concerning this portion of Luke, it is possible to affirm confidently no more
than that there was in all probability a considerable interval between the
departure from Galilee and the final arrival in Jerusalem, which was occupied
by Jesus in the evangelization of the regions not yet reached, the instruction
of the disciples, and controversy with the Jerusalem leaders.
WEB: and sent
messengers before his face. They went, and entered into a village of the
Samaritans, so as to prepare for him.
Young’s: and sent messengers before his face. They
went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, so as to prepare for him.
Conte (RC): And he sent
messengers before his face. And going on, they entered into a city of the
Samaritans, to prepare for him.
Some
think that they were two of the Seventy disciples;
others that they were James and John. [56]
and they went, and entered into a village. As but a single village is
mentioned as thus rejecting Jesus, it would seem that His journey was generally
pleasant. [14]
of the
Samaritans. They had no dealings with the
Jews (John 4:9). [11]
These
Samaritans were the descendants of a mixed race brought by Esarhaddon
(eighth century B.C.) from
They subsequently
erected a rival temple on
In the
synagogues these Samaritans were cursed. The Son of Sirach
named them as a people that they abhorred (Ecclesiasticus
to make ready for Him. To prepare a place, lodgings, refreshments. He
had no reason to expect that He would experience any kind treatment from the
Samaritans if He came suddenly among them and if they saw He was going to
In depth: The
possible route followed southward [56]. On the way to
WEB: They
didn't receive him, because he was traveling with his face set towards
Young’s: and they did not receive him, because his
face was going on to
Conte (RC): And they would not
receive him, because his face was going toward
The aorist implies that
they at once rejected Him. [56]
because His face was as though He would
go to
Or: They had probably heard of the mircles of Jesus and that He claimed to be the
Messiah. Perhaps they had hope that He would decide that they were right in
regard to the building of the temple [on
WEB: When his
disciples, James and John, saw this, they said, "Lord, do you want us to
command fire to come down from the sky, and destroy them, just as Elijah
did?"
Young’s: And his disciples James and John having
seen, said, 'Sir, wilt thou that we may command fire to come down from the
heaven, and to consume them, as also Elijah did?'
Conte (RC): And when his
disciples, James and John, had seen this, they said, "Lord, do you want us
to call for fire to descend from heaven and consume them?"
“What wonder that the
Sons of Thunder wished to flash lightning?”
St. Ambrose. But one of these
very disciples afterwards went to
saw this, they said, Lord, will thou that we command. They do not ask Christ to command the fire,
but "wilt thou that we?" They
would do it, and only want His permission, not doubting that the fire would
come at their word or under cover of His consent. Strange mixing of faith and
pride. It is, after all, more
perhaps their own rejection than that of Christ, that they so much feel, and
yet they might argue that this would be in the spirit of Christ's direction in
verse 5, "shake off the very dust of your feet." [8]
command fire. To avenge their helplessness under this gross and open insult of
the Messiah. “Christ wrought
miracles in every element except fire.
Fire is reserved for the consummation of the age.” Bengel. [56]
to come down from heaven. Lightning, to consume them.
[11]
as Elias did. They had yet in mind this great
prophet, as he so lately appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (
On textual genuineness: These
words are omitted by [several important Greek manuscripts]. But (i) they are singularly
appropriate, since the incident referred to also occurred in Samaria (2 Kings
1:5-14); and (ii) while it would be difficult to account for their insertion,
it is quite easy to account for their omission either by an accidental error of
the copyists, or on dogmatic grounds, especially from the use made of this
passage by the heretic Marcion (Tertullian
adv. Marc. IV. 23) to disparage the Old Testament. (iii)
They are found in very ancient manuscripts, versions, and Fathers. (iv) The words seem to be absolutely required
to defend the crude spirit of vengeance, and might have seemed all the more
natural to the still half-trained Apostles because they had so recently seen
Moses and Elias speaking with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They needed, as it were, a Scriptural
precedent, to conceal from themselves the personal
impulse which really actuated them. [56]
WEB: But he
turned and rebuked them, "You don't know of what kind of spirit you are.
Young’s: and having turned, he rebuked them, and
said, 'Ye have not known of what spirit ye are;
Conte (RC): And turning, he
rebuked them, saying: "Do you not know of whose spirit you are?
and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Interpreted
as referring to their individual spirits: Their supposed zeal for Christ concealed a
wounded pride. [7]
You know not yourselves. It is rather a love of revenge; improper
feelings towards the Samaritans, than proper feelings towards Me. [11]
Interpreted as referring to understanding the spirit of
the gospel age: We do not
understand by these words that these apostles knew not the nature of their own
temper or spirit; but that they knew not the spirit of the dispensation
to which they belonged. When the
fifties of the wicked king came to Elijah he said, "If I be a man of God,
let fire come down;" thus demonstrating his prophetic character by a
miracle of destruction. But the Son of
Man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Miracles of wrath belong not to His and their
mission. They forget the spirit of their
dispensation. [14]
"You are pardonable
for your ignorance--Ye know not, but, at the same time, blamable for a zeal without knowledge.
The spirit which actuates you is wrong." Let us contrast it with the epistles of this
same John, which manifest his zeal, when purified and directed by Christian
charity. They wished extermination, not
correction. [4]
WEB: For the
Son of Man didn't come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." They
went to another village.
Young’s: for the Son of Man did not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save;' and they went on to another village.
Conte (RC): The Son of man came,
not to destroy lives, but to save them." And they went into another town.
He came to save
men. The Christian errs widely from His
Master's design who seeks to crush others who differ from him. Let him condemn error, and restrain it when
he can. Let him seek to recall the
deluded to a safer and better mind. [4]
This clause is omitted
by the majority of uncials [see “In depth” discussion below], and some editors
therefore regard it as a repetition of
And they went to another village. The implication seems high that in this
Samaritan village they received a more friendly reception. Why the difference? Previous acquaintance with
Jesus? Less hostile disciples who
felt too tired to argue anymore—or even disciples who had learned to be more
refrained in what they said? These are
the type of unanswerable questions that stir the historian either in Biblical
or secular history. What Paul Harvey,
radio commentator for decades, would have called “the rest of the story.” [rw]
Or: The
word heteran (not allen) perhaps implies that it was a Jewish,
not a Samaritan village. Numbers 20:21;
Matthew 2:12. [56]
In depth: Are the words before their traveling on to the
next village part of the genuine Biblical text [56]? The whole
of this passage down to “save them” is omitted in [several major Greek
manuscripts] and other manuscripts; but it is impossible to doubt its
genuineness, because it breathes a spirit far purer, loftier, and rarer than is
ever discernible in ecclesiastical interpolations. It was omitted on the same grounds as the words
in the last verse, because it was regarded as “dangerous” to the authority of
the Old Testament. It is quite
impossible to believe that the narrative abruptly ended with the unexplained,
“He rebuked them.” Ecclesiastical
censurers have failed to see that “religionis non est religionem cogere” (Tertullian, ad Scap. 2) and that, as Bishop Andrewes
says, “The times require sometimes one spirit, sometimes another, Elias’ time
Elias’ spirit.”
The Apostles learnt these truths better when they
had received the Holy Ghost (Romans
Weymouth: And, as they proceeded on their way, a man came to Him and
said, "I will follow you wherever you go."
WEB: As they
went on the way, a certain man said to him, "I want to follow you wherever
you go, Lord."
Young’s: And it came to pass, as they are going on
in the way, a certain one said unto him, 'I will follow thee wherever thou mayest go, sir;'
Conte (RC): And it happened
that, as they were walking along the way, someone said to him, "I will
follow you, wherever you will go."
An ancient, but groundless tradition (Clement of
said unto him, Lord,
I will follow Thee whithersoever thou goest. An honorable goal but is he really prepared
to make the sacrifices of comfort that are involved? That he has not considered this is readily
deduced from the words that follow in the next verse. [rw]
WEB: Jesus
said to him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky have nests,
but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
Young’s: and Jesus said to him, 'The foxes have
holes, and the fowls of the heaven places of rest, but the Son of Man hath not
where he may recline the head.'
Conte (RC): Jesus said to him:
"Foxes have dens, and the birds of the air have nests. But the Son of man
has nowhere to lay his head."
WEB: He said
to another, "Follow me!" But he said, "Lord, allow me first to
go and bury my father."
Young’s: And he said unto another, 'Be following
me;' and he said, 'Sir, permit me, having gone away, first to bury my father;'
Conte (RC): Then he said to
another, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, permit me first to go
and bury my father."
But he said,
Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. The request
could hardly mean “let me live at home till my father’s death,” which would be
too indefinite an offer; nor can it well mean that his father was lying
unburied, for in that case the disciple would hardly have been among the crowd. Perhaps it meant “let me go and give a
farewell funeral feast, and put everything in order.” The man was bidden to be Christ’s Nazarite (Numbers 6:6, 7).
[56]
9:60 Translations
WEB: But Jesus
said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and
announce the
Young’s: and Jesus said to him, 'Suffer the dead
to bury their own dead, and thou, having gone away, publish the reign of God.'
Conte (RC): And Jesus said to
him: "Let the dead bury their dead. But you go and announce the
9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their
dead: but go thou and preach the
9:61 Translations
WEB: Another
also said, "I want to follow you, Lord, but first allow me to say good-bye
to those who are at my house."
Young’s: And another also said, 'I will follow thee,
sir, but first permit me to take leave of those in my house;'
Conte (RC): And another said:
"I will follow you, Lord. But permit me first to explain this to those of
my house."
9:61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me
first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. To take leave, inform them
of the design, and set things at home in order. [11]
It is all so understandable, but the result
is still the same: A unique missed
opportunity. [rw]
9:62 Translations
WEB: But Jesus
said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back,
is fit for the
Young’s: and Jesus said unto him, 'No one having
put his hand on a plough, and looking back, is fit for the reign of God.'
Conte (RC): Jesus said to him,
"No one who puts his hand to the plow, and then looks back, is fit for the
9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking
back. The eastern plough is made of two poles, one
of which serves for the horizontal beam drawn by the oxen; and the other,
crossing it, serves as a share, being sharpened at the lower end, to penetrate
the ground, and as a handle at the upper end, upon which the ploughman grasps
with one hand, while with the other he holds the long goad with which he pricks
and spurs his team forward. He must
place his whole weight upon the share, in order to force it into the soil, otherwise no furrow will be produced. The Savior uses the term "hand" in
the singular, because the plough is held with but a single hand. And the inclination of the whole body utterly
forbids the looking back so as to prevent the devotion of the entire man, with
all his force, to the onward work. [14]
plough. Every sowing time [is] preceded by a ploughing time.
Strong arms and stout hearts persevere in exhausting toil. [7]
looking back. Confuses our plans and arrests our
progress. [7]
is fit for the
In depth: The
chronological location of
Commentators frequently, and with
some accuracy, speak of this great section of St. Luke's work as "the journeyings towards
These journeyings
to
They fill up,
then, the last six or seven months of his earth-life—that period, roughly
speaking, from the Feast of Tabernacles (alluded to in John 7:1-53), which
falls in October, until the Passover Feast in the following spring. These last months were occupied by the Master
in a slow progress from Capernaum, through those parts of Galilee hitherto
generally unvisited by him, gradually making his way toward the capital, which
we know he reached in time for the Passover Feast, during which He was
crucified.
In the course of
this period it seems, however, likely that, in St. Luke's account of Mary and
Martha (Luke 10:38-42), we have an allusion to a short visit to Jerusalem of
the Lord, undertaken in the course of these journeyings,
at the Dedication Feast (John 10:22).
In the earlier
chapters, we have already discussed the high probability of the Virgin-mother
herself having furnished the information; so here there is little doubt that Paul and Luke,
in their researches during the composition of the Third Gospel, met with men
and women who had formed part of that larger company which had been with Jesus,
we know, during those last months of his ministry among us. Nor is it, surely, an unreasonable thought
for us to see, in connection with this important portion of our Gospel, the
hand of the Holy Spirit, who, unseen, guided the pen of the four evangelists,
especially throwing Luke and his master, Paul, into the society of men who had
watched the great Teacher closely during that period of his work, when the
other two synoptists,
Matthew and Peter (Mark), were frequently absent.
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.