Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Luke 13:35 - 13:35
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Luk 13:35. Ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν) Many have added ἔρημος from Matthew.[137] In Luke the Saviour is represented as having said these words in Galilee: nor did He subsequently afford the people of Jerusalem the opportunity of seeing Him, until, after the resurrection of Lazarus, at His own royal entry, they said, Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the Lord.[138] Therefore, from the time of this declaration and prelude up to the time of that entry of His, He left their house to them,[139] though not yet however ‘desolate’ [therefore the ἜΡΗΜΟΝ here is spurious]. But in Matthew, after His royal entry, going out from the temple for the last time, He solemnly declared their house to be left desolate.[140] [We have been permitted to observe the same nice distinction in the words respectively used, between Luk 11:49, and Mat 23:34 : see the notes on both passages.-Harm., p. 407.]-λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, but I say unto you) He speaks sternly, and yet mercifully, as we have just now remarked. Nay, even in Mat 23:39, the ἀμὴν, verily, is wanting, by the insertion of which in Luke some have intensified the sternness of His denunciation.[141] The particle, δὲ, but, opposes to one another the present desolation of their abandoned house, and their acclamations so soon about to follow.
[137] AB Vulg. Orig. 3,188b; 642d, omit ἔρημος. But Dabc Iren. and Rec. Text, add ἔρημος.-ED. and TRANSL.
[138] This can only be the immediate temporary fulfilment of His prophecy. For that it is not the full and exhaustive fulfilment of it is plain from the fact, that presently after they had used the words, “Blessed is He,” etc., ch. Luk 19:38, He “wept over the city,” Luk 11:41-44, and denied that it even then “knew the time of its visitation” by Him in mercy. Therefore the time is yet future when the Jews, according to Psa 118:22; Psa 118:26, Zec 4:7; Zec 12:10, shall recognise Him in the character (= name) of Lord.-ED. and TRANSL.
[139] I am confidently of opinion that the house in this passage is the same as that of which He speaks in Mat 23:38, though at a different time. Moreover, that the temple is meant in the passage of Matthew, is evident from Mat 24:1, where, immediately after that most solemn declaration, the Saviour is said to have departed from the temple. What need, then, could He have had of the demonstrative οὖτος in order to point out that house or temple, seeing that He spake these words in the temple itself? Truly the article ὁ, in such a case, was more than sufficient. I moreover will most freely grant, that the Jews never called the temple their own house, but always the house of the Lord (although S. R. D. S. F. Lorenz, in his diss. de Induratione Israelis ante finem dierum finiendâ, Argent. 1771, p. 50, shows the contrary to be the fact). But yet, seeing that He did not hesitate to call the temple σπήλαιον λῃστῶν (ch. Luk 19:46), need we wonder that He, in order to express indignation, might have called it in this passage “the house of the Jews?” Never did the Jewish people, as far as I know, call themselves the people of Moses: and yet the Lord, when angry with the people, says to Moses, “Thy people have corrupted themselves,” Exo 32:7. Comp. by all means Jer 7:4; Jer 7:8, where the nomenclature [which they arrogated to themselves]. The temple of the Lord, is reproved as false: Comp. Hos 1:9, לֹא עַמִּוי, not-my people and Rom 2:28, not a Jew; comp. with this Rev 3:9, etc. I make these remarks by the way of an answer to Ernesti Bibl. Theol. Tom. x. p. 184, et seqq.-E. B.
[140] Mat 23:38, BL Memph. Orig. 3,167cd omit ἔρημος. But both internal probability for the reason given by Beng., and the weighty authorities, Dabcd Vulg. Orig. Iren. and Cypr. support it.-ED. and TRANSL.
[141] ABDabc Vulg. omit ἀμὴν. Rec. Text, without any primary authority, inserts it.-ED. and TRANSL.