Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 11:37 - 11:54
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Breakfast, ἀñéóôÞóῃ .—We are here not to understand the chief meal, but a lighter prandium, which was taken earlier and required less time. That the disposition of the entertainer towards the Saviour was not on that account by any means a friendly one, sufficiently appears from the connection.
Luk_11:38.—Had not first washed.—Respecting the washings and purifications of the Pharisees before a meal, see the detailed statements of Lightfoot on Mat_15:2; Sepp, L. J. ii. p. 343.—We have no ground for supposing that the Saviour did not commonly wash Himself before a meal. Now, perhaps, He omitted it because He had just accepted the invitation, or because He was wearied by the day’s work which He had hitherto accomplished.
Luk_11:39. And the Lord said unto Him.—Against the charge that the Saviour in the here-following conversation at table in some measure lost out of mind the requirement of courtesy towards His host, we have simply to bring to mind that “such a divine rudeness is everywhere in place” (Ebrard). If we consider that the host by his surprise had at the very beginning violated the duty of hospitality and benevolence; that they had scarcely even sat down when this injurious remark was made to the Saviour; that the Saviour had respect not merely to the matter but especially to the principle and the intention of the charge, we cannot then be in the least surprised that He emphatically vindicates Himself, and combats the hypocrisy of those who had censured Him. Every-day decorum gives place here to an infinitely higher duty. We must, however, doubtless assume that the Pharisee had expressed his astonishment in some way or other, since the Saviour would otherwise have taken a different occasion for uttering such a Philippic.
Now do ye Pharisees.—It is known how remarkable an agreement there is between this rebuke of the Saviour’s and that which Matthew, Luke 23, has given much more in detail. The question which of the two Evangelists has communicated this rebuke in the most exact connection has been alternately answered in favor of Matthew and Luke. See, e.g. the view in Meyer on Mat_23:1. It is, however, to be remarked, 1, that the first reproach which, according to Luke, the Saviour addresses to the Pharisees, Luk_11:39-40, bears internal traces of having been uttered at a meal, and that also the coming forward of the scribe, Luk_11:45-46, by which a new rebuke is called forth, has internal probability. On the ground of this it appears not to admit of doubt that the Saviour really directed against a Pharisee in Galilee, on occasion of a breakfast, several similar rebukes to those which we find in Matthew, Luke 23, directed in yet greater number against the scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem. 2. On the other side, however, the denunciatory discourse in Matthew affords so many proofs of an internal connection and a living totality, that the originality and exactness of its redaction cannot possibly be denied. It Isaiah , 3, undoubtedly possible that the Saviour, as occasion offered, repeated several rebukes against the Pharisees in Galilee and those of like mind in Judæa, but less probable that a whole series of rebukes, with citation of the same passage of Scripture and the same denunciation at the end, was twice delivered. It is more simple, therefore, 4, to assume that Luke is indeed right in representing the Saviour during a meal as uttering a discourse of rebuke against the Pharisees and scribes, but that in this he has taken the liberty of inserting at the same time per anticipationem several similar expressions, which, as appears from Matthew, the Saviour actually uttered only in the last days of His life, which Luke, however, on account of their similar character, communicates here, while in consequence of this he does not recur to the last denunciatory discourse. As to the whole matter, the opinion that “the Evangelists have taken up elements of earlier discourses of Jesus in later ones and the reverse” (Lange) can only be rejected in principle by those whose harmonistics are controlled by a somewhat mechanical theory of inspiration.
Íῦí , ê . ô . ë .—Not an antithesis merely of now in opposition to an understood ðÜëáé (Meyer); for we have not a single proof that the Saviour considers the former generation of Pharisees as better than the present, but rather in the sense of eo jam perventum est, which, perhaps, in view of the character of holy irony borne by the whole discourse, is best translated by “full well,” equivalent to “this is the way, they are on the right way to,” &c.
Luk_11:39. But your inward part.—Not a contraction for “the inside of your cup,” to which Mat_23:25 appears to point, but the interior of the persons in contrast with the exterior of the cup. In Matthew the opposition between outer and inner side of the enjoyment of life appears more prominent. In the form given by Luke the outwardly purified cup is opposed to the inwardly corrupted heart of the drinker.
Luk_11:40. Ye fools.—Since God has created the inside as well as the outside, one as much as the other must be held holy; and it is not only evil but foolish to wish to separate, even in thought—to say nothing of act—that which in the nature of things is absolutely inseparable.
Luk_11:41. But rather give alms.—It appears to us entirely against the spirit and intent of this discourse of the Lord, to wish to find here an actual precept how alone they could bring about genuine purity. In this case certainly there would have had to follow in the future as the motive ðÜíôá êáèáñὰὑìῖí ἔóåôáé ; and what now stands: êáè . ὑì . ἐóôéí appears to be meant to indicate to us how soon anything in their eyes was purified,—so soon, that is, as only they had lavished ôὰ ἐíüíôá for an ostentatious almsgiving. The Saviour said date not datis, since they already actually did it, but He will urge them in the Imperative only to continue this. We thus come spontaneously to the ironical interpretation (Erasmus, Kuinoel, a. o.) in this way: “What more would be yet necessary than to designate, set apart, the contents for alms; for thereby the whole inward impurity has at once disappeared.” That there is also a holy irony appears from Pro_1:26, and elsewhere. All attempts to find here a definite moral commandment which is meant in earnest, appear to us forced in the extreme, nor may we forget that the Saviour ends with: ðÜíôá êáèáñὰ ὑìῖí ἐóôéí , that is, e vestro (perverso) judicio. Had He here wished to speak of actual objective purity, this addition would have been entirely superfluous. [This is a very doubtful interpretation. There seems no sufficient reason for doubting that our Lord means to commend practical benevolence as better than any scrupulosity about ceremonial purity. “Instead of any excessive anxiety,” He says, “about having the outside of your vessels duly purified, it would be better to give their contents to the poor. Such a spirit of beneficence will render any merely ceremonial defects of small account.”—C. C. S.]
Luk_11:42. Ye tithe.—Moses had aforetime required that they should bring the tenth of all their possessions, as an offering to the sanctuary. Num_18:21; Deu_14:23. The perverseness of the Pharisees consisted in this, that they applied the command to the most insignificant trifles, e.g. mint and rue, and on the other hand neglected inviolable requirements of the Divine law. They forgot judgment respecting themselves first of all, in the sense, that is, in which the Saviour had required it, Joh_7:24; and at the same time the love of God, considered as the genitive of object, and according to Matthew, moreover, faithfulness, ôὴí ðßóôéí (Luk_11:23). Thus did they violate the noblest duties towards God, their neighbor, and themselves.
These ought ye to have done.—It is an admirable proof of the heavenly composure and impartiality of our Lord, that instead of abrogating the fulfilment of the minor duties, or declaring it unimportant, He on the other hand permits and commands it, but then also insists with the best right that the higher duties should at least be fulfilled not less conscientiously than the rest. Comp. Mat_23:23.
Luk_11:43. The uppermost seats … greetings.—Comp. Mat_23:6-7, and see Lange, ad loc.
Luk_11:44. Graves which appear not.—In a somewhat different form the same rebuke is expressed in Mat_23:27. There the Saviour condemns especially the ornamenting and decking out of a thing that was inwardly abominable; here the consequence of it is brought forward; the whitewashed grave as such is scarcely to be recognized any longer, and one can therefore go over it without knowing it; so may one come in contact with the Pharisees, without at once receiving an impression of their inward moral corruption. [I should here suppose that in the two passages two different classes of graves are referred to. Here the humbler grave of the common people, which in time might sink into the earth and be walked over without notice, thereby defiling the passers-by; and in the passage in Matthew, on the other hand, the more pompous sepulchres of the rich, whose magnificent decorations were so poorly in agreement with the corruption which they concealed within. The application of the two images is not essentially different.—C. C. S.].
Luk_11:45. One of the lawyers.—There is no ground for thinking that this íïìéêüò belonged himself to the sect of the Sadducees (Paulus). On the other hand, it seems that we must assume that the learned caste of the íïìéêïß maintained a somewhat aristocratic position with reference to the great mass of the Pharisees, and that this man wished to remind our Lord: “If thou speakest thus, thou wilt not only raise against thee the plebs, but also the men of science; not only, so to speak, the laici, but also the clerici.” He wishes to conjure down the tempest of denunciation, and to overawe the Saviour; with what poor success will immediately appear.
Luk_11:46. Woe unto you also, ye lawyers.—Comp. Mat_23:4. “Gradus: digito uno attingere, digitis tangere, digito movere, manu tollere, humero imponere. Hoc cogebant populum, illud ipsi refugiebant.” Bengel.
Luk_11:47. Ye build the sepulchres.—Comp. Mat_23:29-31.—Not the building of the sepulchres in and of itself, but the connection which they thereby proved themselves to have with the prophet-murdering race of old, is condemned by our Lord. Fathers and children together did only one work,—the former killed the messengers of God, the latter buried them; the former incurred, the latter perpetuated, the damnable guilt of blood; and while they apparently honored the prophets, they had towards God, who had sent them, the same enmity at heart as the murderers of the prophets. For other views, see Lange, ad loc.
Luk_11:48. But ye build.—It is of course understood that it is still the graves of the prophets which are meant. If they had been of a better sort than their fathers, they would have erected no monuments of a damnable deed, which ought rather to be buried in the dust of oblivion. Now, however, when they spoke with so much ado of their fathers, they with their ìíçìåῖá apparently honored the prophets, but in effect their murderers, and—themselves.
Luk_11:49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God.—“Therefore, that is, because you have part of the guilt and are ripe for the punishment of your fathers; the wisdom of God has also said,” &c. The Lord appears hereby to mean that through Him the wisdom of God speaks personally to the children of men. The view that the Saviour here cites an ancient declaration of God, lost to us (Paulus, Von Hengel), is inadmissible, as “contrary to the analogy of all other citations of Jesus, as well as to the evangelical tradition itself, which attributed these words, with Mat_23:34, to Jesus.” Meyer. Perhaps we have here to understand a former declaration of the Saviour Himself, and to compare Mat_11:19. As the Son of the Father, who spoke what He had formerly seen and heard with the Father, the Saviour could with the best right name Himself ἡ óïößá ôïῦ Èåïῦ , and perhaps it is the recollection of similar declarations which has given John occasion to designate Him decidedly as the ëüãïò ôïῦ Èåïῦ . That here only a ὕóôåñïí ðñüôåñïí of form occurs (Neander, Twesten, Meyer), has no proof. It was certainly not unworthy of the Saviour to cite His own formerly-uttered word as that of the Incarnate Wisdom of God, and if He did this we cannot then assume that He understood by the prophets and apostles any one else than those of the New Covenant now soon to appear in His place, and by whose rejection the measure of wickedness should be fulfilled, and the murder of the prophets reach its culmination. The colors in which here the fate of His witnesses is depicted are probably all taken from their subsequent life. Even crucifixion is in Matthew not mentioned without ground, if the familiar tradition contains truth that Peter suffered the martyr’s death in this form, not, it is true, at the hands of the Jews, but yet after he had been condemned by the Jews and delivered to the heathen world. Persecute, ἐêäéþî , so that it was no longer granted to them to remain quiet in the land. Comp., e.g., Act_13:50.
Luk_11:50. The blood of all the prophets—See Lange on the parallel in Matthew. The view of Hug, Sepp, and others, that the Saviour here predicted the murder of Zacharias, the son of Baruch, shortly before the destruction of the temple (comp. Josephus, De Bell. Jud. iv 5, 4,) belongs already to the history of exegesis. We too cannot see anything else in it than that the Saviour has in mind 2Ch_24:21, and in this way brings together the murder of the prophets from the first to the last book of the Old Testament canon. He mentions therefore the ancient, as yet unatoned-for blood-guiltiness, which soon, augmented by new, will reach its fearful culmination. As respects finally the well-known difficulty that Zacharias was not the son of Barachias, but of Jehoiada, we prefer on the whole the view (Ebrard, pp. 5, 6,) that Zacharias according to the Old Testament also was a grandson of Jehoiada, and that the Saviour here correctly states Barachias, who is not mentioned in the Old Testament, as his father. Respecting this whole passage the Essay of Müller deserves to be compared, Stud. u. Krit., 1841, 3.
Luk_11:51. Yea, I say unto you.—It belongs to the fearful earnestness of the Divine retributive righteousness, that when a generation concurs in heart with the wickedness of an earlier generation, it receives, in the final retribution of the accumulated guilt, as well the punishment for its own, as also for the former sins which it had inwardly made its own.
Luk_11:52. Woe unto you, lawyers!—Comp. Mat_23:14. Here is said definitely to the íïìéêïß what had there been said to the scribes and Pharisees in general. The position of this saying in Luke, after the fearful denunciation of the previous verse, breaks more or less the climax of the discourse, and may perhaps with other things serve as a proof that he on this occasion has inserted single sayings which were actually not uttered till afterwards. By the key of knowledge we can, as to the rest, understand nothing else than the way of the knowledge of Divine truth which had been revealed and manifested in Christ. By their hierarchical influence upon the people they barred them from access thereto, and by their disposition towards the Saviour, they closed the access to it against themselves.
Luk_11:53. And when He had gone out from thence.—See the note on the text. It may be plainly noticed that either anger or conscience made immediate answer impossible to the host and the scribes. In silence therefore did they permit the Saviour to depart from the prandium, but remained together in order to consult what attempts were now further to be made. They soon seek Him again, in order to interrogate Him about all manner of things ( ἀðïóôïìáôßæåéí ), apparently trifling sophistical questions which Luke does not even account worthy the honor of mention. In case of necessity they are even ready to suffer even new castigations, by the answer which the Saviour certainly is not to be supposed to have forborne giving them, if only they could at last succeed in drawing something from Him which should in some way give them the right of denouncing Him either before the secular or before the spiritual authorities.
2. Pharisaism, far from being a merely accidental form of the Judaism of that time, is on the other hand the natural revelation of the sinful condition of the heart when men will not give up the hope of becoming righteous before God by their virtue and merits. They are proud of that which they imagine themselves to possess, and continually inclined to assume the guise of that which they well know they do not possess. The enmity of the flesh towards the immutable declarations and contents of the law (Rom_8:7), they seek to conceal behind respect for outward forms, and in each case they make a compromise with themselves, in order to conceal the transgression of the great commandment by exact fulfilment of the less. But this whole web of self-deceit is penetrated by the sun-like glance of the King of truth, and whoever, like the scribe, Luk_11:45, takes part with the cause of unrighteousness, receives his righteous proportion of the sharp chastisement.
3. When the Saviour combats the temptations of the Pharisaical hierarchy, it is by no means His intention entirely to forbid all distinctions of offices of honor in His kingdom. The same one who wills not that one of His people should be called Rabbi, has placed some as apostles, &c. Eph_4:11. But this He censures, that the office is desired for the title’s sake, instead of the title for the office’s sake; that men take honor one of another instead of seeking the honor which is of God alone, Joh_5:44. How sadly is the Catholic Church, following the Pharisees, gone astray both as to the letter and the spirit of this word of the Lord!
4. Men judge the heart according to the deed; the Saviour judges the deed according to the heart. Therefore He adduces the building of the sepulchres of the prophets, that in and of itself might be permitted and laudable, as a new ground of accusation, inasmuch as He discovers the same temper of mind in the buriers of the dead, as had once dwelt in the murderers. What they undertake against earlier and later messengers of God, is to Him so far from being surprising and unexpected that He, as the personal Wisdom of God, has already seen it beforehand and predicted it, and yet He has not permitted Himself to be held back by this mournful prospect an instant from His uninterrupted labor of love.
5. That the judgment of the Lord, severe as it was, was not at all too hard, appears at once from this fact alone, that the Pharisees have not the most distant thought of humbling themselves under the rod of this word, but only forge new attacks, and therefore fall out of one sin into another and yet worse sin.
6. There is one wisdom which shuts up the kingdom of God from one’s self and others, and another which shows and helps to find the entrance. The former is revealed in the Pharisees and scribes, the latter in the Saviour. The appellation óïößá ôïῦ Èåïῦ is one of those points of contact which occur in so manifold ways between the Synoptical and the Johannean Christology. Comp. also Pro_8:23. An Ebionitic or Socinianistic Christ could not possibly have spoken in such a way.
7. Inasmuch as the Saviour takes the two examples of unrighteously-shed blood from the first and last book of the Old Testament canon, He gives testimony for the Scriptures of the Old Testament as being a whole.
Veritas odium parit, Act_9:5 b.
Starke:—Osiander:—It is not a sin to eat and converse with people of another religion, if only we do nothing that is contrary to our profession.—Majus:—We should give offence to no one, but if he will without it take offence, he does it on his own responsibility.—Often do men make side-work the main work and the reverse.—Bibl. Wirt.:—To please men, one must not conceal the truth, but, when time and place require, confess it, without regard to private gain or loss.—Quesnel:—Sometimes to address the sinner severely is very necessary in order that he be roused and brought to the knowledge of sin.—Brentius:—Without faith it is impossible to please God, let one give as many alms as he will.—Hypocrisy and avarice, where they coexist, are almost incurable.—Everything in its due order and measure.—Quesnel: To be first or chief is not pride, but to strive after it is a sign of haughtiness.—The discovery of hypocrisy a hard work.—Canstein:—The evil conscience accuses itself when sin and vices are only rebuked in general terms.—It is the greatest hypocrisy to wish to honor departed teachers with monuments, but persecute living ones, Act_7:52.—Anton:—Evangelical preachers are appointed for this that they suffer tribulation—why do we wonder at that?—The Lord regards and inquires after His servants’ blood, Psa_9:12.—Canstein:—From one sin into another, from hypocrisy to murder of prophets.—Hedinger:—It is one thing to think we understand the Scriptures, another thing to be certain of it.—Though children of the world are otherwise at variance, yet they join together when Christ’s truth is to be opposed.—The longer, the worse, they mislead and are misled. Isa_26:10.
Heubner:—If there is a heavenly nobility, this has another character than the earthly.—How dangerous the position of the teacher of religion is!—The easy conscience is none.—The human heart may be a temple and a grave, the best and the worst may conceal itself therein.—There is for every man a measure of sin, he cannot stand half-way, comp. Rev_22:11.—There is a degree of corruption when man cannot escape destruction, but we can never determine that in the concrete.—Rieger:—A sermon upon the imputation of others’ sins in his Herzens-Postille, p. 91. Comp. Plutarchus, De sera numinis vindicta, ed. Reichii, viii. p. 213–217.—Saurin:—Les grands et les petits devoirs dans la Religion, Sermon sur Math. Luk_23:23 (parallel to Luk_11:42), tom. 10.—A Sermon by Arndt upon Jesus’ denunciation of woe in the temple, Matthew 23, in his sermons on the Life of Jesus, iv., deserves also to be compared here.
Footnotes:
[Luk_11:43.— Ôïὺò ἀóðáóìïὺò . Those to which they were accustomed, from the reverence of the people.—C. C. S.]
Luk_11:44.—The Rec. has here ãñáììáôåῖò êáὶ öáñéóáῖïé , ὑðïêñéôáß ; in all probability taken from the similar passage in Matthew. [Om., Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, Bleek, Alford with B., C., L., Cod. Sin.—C. C. S.]
Luk_11:48.—The following words of the Rec.: áὐôῶí ôὰ ìíçìåῖá , are wanting in B., L., [Cod. Sin.,] Copt., Cantabrig., and other authorities, and are therefore bracketed by Lachmann, and rejected by Griesbach, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford. But Bleek vindicates their genuineness and necessity.—C. C. S.] It is supposed with reason that they contain an interpolated supplement, as ïἰêïäïìåῖôå can stand very well alone.
Luk_11:53.—The reading êἀêåῖèåí ἐîåëèüíôïò áὐôïῦ , approved by Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles,] on the authority of B., C., L., [Cod. Sin.,] has internal probability. The Recepta varies, and it is much easier to assume that this complot took place after the Saviour’s departure than in His presence.
Luk_11:54.—The additional words of the Recepta, æçôïῦíôåò ἵíá êáôçãïñÞóùóéí áὐôïῦ , are in all probability spurious. See Meyer, ad locum. [The text, as Van Oosterzee accepts it, is Tischendorf’s. Supported by B., L., Cod. Sin.—C. C. S.]