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.
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.
And it came to pass, that on the next day. They remained the rest of the night on the mountain. Why do otherwise? Night travel on a rugged hill or mountain posed the needless danger of accidents that could be avoided by waiting daylight. One does wonder whether the apostles got any more sleep that night and what, if anything Jesus explained to them about the event. [rw]
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. 
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
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.
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee. He got the attention through crying out so loud he could not be missed. In some cases that would be self-centered ego; in this case it was out of love for his child. [rw]
look. Only here and James 2:3. To look with pitying regard; and by medical writers of examining the condition of a patient. 
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
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, lo, a spirit taketh him. This was the supernatural aspect of his deafness, epilepsy, and madness. Matthew gives the natural aspect when he says, “he is a lunatic, and sore vexed, etc.,” . 
and he suddenly. “Suddenly:” ἐξαίφνης --
Used only once outside of the writings of Luke:
Mark . Naturally, frequent in medical writers, of
sudden attacks of disease. Luke has more medical details in his account than
the other evangelists. He mentions the sudden coming on of the fits, and their
lasting a long time. Mr. Hobart remarks that Aretaeus,
a physician of Luke's time, in treating of epilepsy, admits the possibility of
its being produced by demoniacal agency.
Epilepsy was called by physicians "the sacred disease.” 
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 I besought Thy disciples to cast him out. A quite logical action. The seventy had been sent out to visit the various places Jesus intended to visit Himself. It would be almost inescapable that the current audience had heard of these healings and, quite possibly, witnessed one or more of them. They had healed before, so why not appeal to them to do so again. And then the horror (surely of those who had been sent as well) when this was a case they could do no good for! [rw]
and they could not. Jesus afterwards, at their request, told them the reason of this, which was their deficient faith. Matthew 17:19-21. 
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."
And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation. The language seems to have been addressed to the multitude, including the disciples. It suggests, if we may be allowed to attribute such a feeling to our Lord, something like discouragement. After all His wonderful works, to find not only little faith, but no faith! And to come down from the mount of glory to a generation of faithless—to men who seemed to have thus far derived no benefit from His stay among them—forces, as it were, the question how long? 
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. 
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). 
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.
And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. The “devil” could not stop Jesus from doing what He wished, but it could—at least temporarily—still make life miserable for the boy. [rw]
tare. συνεσπάραξεν -- Only here in New Testament. Convulse, which is the exact Latin equivalent, would, perhaps, be the nearest rendering. 
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
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:
And they were all amazed. To us the miracles of Christ have ceased to be wonders. We can but regard them as matters of course—as something normal and natural; for the multitudes which followed Him wondered afresh at every new display of power, and were surprised and amazed at every succeeding work. The reason is easily found. In their apprehension [that] He was only a man, and if so He must at some point reach the limit of His power. The scribes thought, and no doubt had argued before He came down from the mount that this kind of spiritual possession was beyond the limit. Perhaps they had urged many plausible reasons for it—among others the failure of the disciples who were acting in His name—and had succeeded in convincing the multitude. Hence their great amazement. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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 shew that these warnings of His approaching betrayal, death, and resurrection now formed a constant topic of His teaching. 
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."
Let these sayings. Probably this refers to the sayings of the people [verse 43], who had seen His miracles, and who on that account had praised and glorified God. Or it may mean, "Remember that I am about to die, and let my sayings in regard to that, sink down into your hearts." This last interpretation, however, does not agree as well with the Greek as the former. 
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.
But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them. They had imbibed the common notions that [the Messiah] was to be a prince and a conqueror, to deliver the nation. They could not understand how that could be, if He was soon to be delivered into the hands of His enemies to die. In this way it was hid from them--not by God--but by their previous false belief. And from this we learn that the plainest truths of the Bible are unintelligible to many because they have embraced some belief or opinion which is erroneous and which they are unwilling to abandon. The proper way of reading the Bible is to lay aside all previous opinions and submit entirely to God. 
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. 
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.
Then there arose a reasoning [dispute, NKJV] among them. The only “good thing” that can be said about this dispute is that they kept it “in house”—among themselves. They were “campaigning” among the disciples in general for backing. They recognized that if there was to be a unique leader among the apostles, it needed to be the apostles themselves who made the decision. (Note that they did not bother to ask Jesus His judgement! Fearful of being rejected? A tad ashamed to be having the conversation in the first place, though confident that they were the one who was most deserving of the position?) [rw]
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 (-26). 
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.
And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart. Their declining to respond at all surely “gave the game away” that they had been feuding among themselves and what more likely than power in such a small group of men and with no clearly designated leader other than Jesus Himself? Recognizing what their thoughts must have been (was supernatural insight even needed in a case like this? one could conceive it either way), He was determined to teach them a lesson in humility. Although not a word overtly critical is spoken, could they possibly miss the point that in humble service, there is where true greatness is found? [rw]
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). 
and set him by Him. Literally, by himself. Mark alone record the taking him in his arms. 
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
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 said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in My name receiveth me. Jesus is apparently asking them to do what would normally be unlikely: accept this child—with the overtones of respect, courtesy, and concern. If they aren’t willing to do this on its own merits, let them do it because they respect and desire to obey Me. To not accept the child on those terms is not merely to ignore Me, it is actually to reject Me for I have commanded it. [rw]
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 John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name. Mark 9:38-41. This sudden question seems to have been suggested by the words “in my name,” which Jesus had just used. 
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. 
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.” 
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."
And Jesus said unto him, He that is not against us is for us. The older authorities, manuscripts, and the more venerable versions here read for the last clause, "He that is not against you is for you." Exegetically as well as critically this amended reading is to be preferred. The offence of the stranger, if it were an offence, was not against Jesus, whose Name had evidently been used reverently and with faith, but against the disciples, whose rights and privileges were presumably infringed upon. 
In depth: Reconciling this verse with Jesus' teaching in Matthew . In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me." Renan declares that the sayings are contradictory, "Two irreconcilable rules of proselytism, evoked by a passionate struggle." They are, however, two tests to be applied in quite different circumstances; by the one we are to test our own devotion to Christ, by the other we are to test the judgments we are apt to pass on neighbors. The one is for ourselves, the other for others.
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. .
And: Both are true in different circumstances. Neutrality is sometimes as deadly as opposition (Judges ); it is sometimes as effectual as aid. Guizot expresses his astonishment at so frivolous a criticism and calls them two contrasting facts which every one must have noticed in the course of an active life. 
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. 
In depth: To what extent is this a guideline for embracing or rejecting those of different religious convictions today ? 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
And it came to pass, when the time was come that He should be received up. The word here translated "received up" means, literally, a removal from a lower to a higher place; and here it means evidently the solemn ascension of Jesus to heaven. It is often used to describe that great event. See Acts 1:11, 22; Mark 16:19; 1 Timothy 3:16. 
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. 
In depth: An analysis of the Perean ministry, which begins in this verse . 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 , of which only -43 is parallel to Mark. A fraction of the remainder is paralleled in Matthew, but in the latter gospel is assigned, nor to this period, but to the Galilean ministry and passion week.
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.
And sent messengers before His face. “Messengers:” In the original the word is "angels;" and the use of that word here shows that the word "angel," in the Bible, does not always mean heavenly beings. 
Some think that they were two of the Seventy disciples; others that they were James and John. 
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. 
of the Samaritans. They had no dealings with the Jews (John 4:9). 
Samaritans were the descendants of a mixed race brought by Esarhaddon
(eighth century B.C.) from
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 , 26); and in the Talmud we read this terrible passage, "Let not the Samaritans have part in the resurrection!" This hatred, however, we know, was not shared in by our Lord. 
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 . On the way to
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
And they did not receive Him. Did not entertain him hospitably, or receive Him with kindness. 
The aorist implies that they at once rejected Him. 
because His face was as though He would
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?"
And when His disciples James and John. They were called "Boanerges," sons of thunder, probably on account of their energy and power in preaching or of their vehement and rash zeal--a remarkable example of which we have in this instance (Mark 3:1). 
“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." 
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. 
to come down from heaven. Lightning, to consume them. 
as Elias did. They had yet in mind this great prophet, as he so lately appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (-33). This sight may have animated them to an emulation of his conduct. 
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. 
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?
But he turned, and rebuked them. Not mildly rejecting the idea, but emphatically ruling it out of order. [rw]
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. 
You know not yourselves. It is rather a love of revenge; improper feelings towards the Samaritans, than proper feelings towards Me. 
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. 
"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. 
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.
For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. You should imitate Him in your spirit. He came not to destroy. He is not soon angry. He bears patiently opposition to Himself, and you should bear opposition to Him. 
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. 
This clause is omitted by the majority of uncials [see “In depth” discussion below], and some editors therefore regard it as a repetition of or Matthew . However that may be, we have the same sentiment in John , ; 1Timothy . The Sons of Thunder were showing the spirit of the Talmud (which says, “Let not the Samaritans have part in the Resurrection”) rather than that of the Gospel (, ; Acts 1:8). 
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. 
In depth: Are the words before their traveling on to the next village part of the genuine Biblical text ? 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 ;
James , 20, , 17; John , ).
They learnt that the spirit of Jesus was the spirit of the dove; and
that there is a difference between
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."
And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man. St. Matthew tells us that the "certain man" who made this offer of service was a scribe. This detail is useful, as showing that those who were attracted by our Lord's teaching were by no means confined to the peasant and artisan class. 
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."
And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head. In this verse more than in any other we see the poverty and homelessness of the latter part of the Lord’s ministry (2 Corinthians 8:9). Perhaps St. Luke placed the incident here as appropriate to the rejection of our Lord’s wish to rest for the night at En Gannim. Was this Scribe prepared to follow Jesus for His own sake alone? 
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."
And he said unto another, Follow me. Here Jesus initiates the idea of following Him. That would seemingly imply that He found in this man a greater potential than He found in the first case (verse 57). But His invitation is responded to with a polite but clearly cut desire to avoid doing so immediately. Some opportunities come but once and he was going to miss it because he found a rationale to avoid immediate action. [rw]
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). 
WEB: But Jesus
said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead, but you go and
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
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. 
It is all so understandable, but the result is still the same: A unique missed opportunity. [rw]
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. 
plough. Every sowing time [is] preceded by a ploughing time. Strong arms and stout hearts persevere in exhausting toil. 
looking back. Confuses our plans and arrests our progress. 
is fit for the
In depth: The chronological location of and the following chapters in the life of Jesus . The great characteristic feature in St. Luke's Gospel, distinguishing it especially from the other two synoptical Gospels of Matthew and Mark, are the events in the public ministry of Jesus dwelt on in the next ten chapters of this Gospel. Many incidents in the succeeding chapters are recorded by this evangelist alone. To what period of the Lord's public work does this large and important section of our Gospel refer?
Commentators frequently, and with
some accuracy, speak of this great section of St. Luke's work as "the journeyings towards
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.
(with number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New Testament . . . with a Commentary and
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.
5 = John Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II: Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
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
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.
15 = Henry Alford. The Greek Testament. Volume I: The Four Gospels.
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,
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)
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies in the Life of Christ: Historical and
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.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath Evening Readers on the New Testa-
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
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
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.
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
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
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
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge & Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
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.
52 = George R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
53 = J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. 1654.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to St. Luke. In “The
the University Press, 1882.