Lange Commentary - Luke 6:1 - 6:11

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Luke 6:1 - 6:11


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

c. The Son Of Man, The Lord Of The Sabbath (Luk_6:1-11)

(Parallels: Mat_12:1-14; Mar_2:23 to Mar_3:6.)

1And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. 2And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawfulto do [om., to do] on the sabbath days? 3And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this [lit.: Not even this have ye read?], what David did, when himself was a hungered [he himself hungered], and they which were with him;4How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? 5And he said unto them, That the Son of man is [a, V. O.] Lord also of the sabbath.6And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man [there, ῆ ̓ í ἐêåῖ ἄíèñùðïò ] whose [lit.: and his] right handwas withered. 7And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, [to see] whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation [or, whereof to accusehim] against him. 8But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stoodforth. 9Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask [I ask] you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save [a] life, or to destroy it? And10looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand.And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 11And they were filled with madness; and communed [or, consulted] one with another what they might do to Jesus.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Äåõôåñïðñþôῳ .—Without here entering into a statement or criticism of all the different explanations of this designation, we will here only briefly justify the view taken by ourselves. So much appears at once, that this Sabbath was no ordinary but an extraordinary one, and that it must have fallen in the month Nisan, since it was not till this month that the barley was ripe. In the second half of this month fell the passover. But if the miracle of the loaves and fishes took place before the second passover in the public life of the Saviour, Joh_6:4; and if the plucking of the ears, according to all the Synoptics, preceded the miracle, the second-first sabbath must have fallen between the feast of Purim, Joh_5:1, and the passover, Luk_6:4. Since now the word äåõôåñïðñþôῳ of itself points us to a terminus a quo, it appears that the question what terminus is here meant cannot be answered more naturally than by Wieseler, Chron. Syn. pp. 226–234, that it was the first sabbath after the beginning of the second year in a cycle of seven years. We understand it, therefore, of the first sabbath in Nisan, with which the Jewish church-year began, and believe that in relation to that of the former year, which was the first in the week of years, it is named the second. That such a division of years was known among the Jews is sufficiently plain from Dan_9:24, only it cannot be absolutely demonstrated that they were accustomed also to number the years according to their place in the cycle, and the first sabbath in each year according to the cyclical yearly number. This, however, is so simple and natural that little can be objected against it. But that here, according to the view of Scaliger, which is followed by Kuinoel and De Wette, the first sabbath after the second passover is meant, can only be assumed if with them the feast of the Jews, Joh_5:1, is regarded as a passover. Bengel’s view, that here the sabbath before the new moon in Nisan, 14 days before the passover, is meant, is indeed apparently supported by his reckoning, that on this day 1Sa_20:18-42 had been read, and that, therefore, the Saviour’s answer, when He appealed to 1Sa_21:6, stood in connection with the pericope just heard. But Wieseler justly remarks that the present division of the Parashas and Haphtharas is of later origin. Other views are presented in De Wette and Meyer. For the history of the exegesis, comp. Wolf, in curis; Winer, art. Sabbath, &c. Upon the grammatical signification of the word äåõôåñïðñþôῳ , see Hitzig, Ostern und Pfingsten, p. 19.

Luk_6:1. He went through the cornfields.—Comp. Lange, Matthew, p. 217. Apparently the Lord had found the morning’s spiritual nourishment in the word of the Scripture in the synagogue, but of earthly bread His disciples have as yet enjoyed nothing, or, at least, so little that they feel the need of instantly allaying their hunger. A striking proof of the ðôù÷åýåéí of the Saviour, 2Co_8:9. They make use of the right which the law, Deu_23:25, gave to the needy. On the position of a pure Mosaism there was certainly no breach of the sabbath, since certainly their act could not be called a daily labor; they followed rather the precept of the later Rabbins, not to fast on the sabbath, but by enjoyment of food and drink to strengthen themselves. See Maimonides, Schabb., Luke 30. But the Pharisees who followed the Saviour, perhaps for the purpose of spying out whether He would go any further than the usual sabbath-day’s journey, saw here, according to their bigoted views, work, and so a criminal breach of the sabbath.

Luk_6:2. Ôéíὲò äὲ ôῶí öáñ .—According to the first two Gospels they address themselves to the Lord, according to Luke more directly to the disciples; they may have done both. It is entirely agreeable to the spirit of the Pharisees to make Jesus Himself answerable for the conduct of His disciples; on the other hand, if there were several present, some may have turned directly to the guilty ones. At all events, the Saviour takes up the cause of His own, and the way in which He does it, at the same time gives us to recognize the holy sabbath-rest of His soul.

Luk_6:3. What David did, 1Sa_21:6.—If we read, Mar_2:26, that this took place at the time of Abiathar the high-priest, this appears to be a lapse of the pen for Abimelech. The example was in the highest degree fitted to show how necessity knows no law, and the more strikingly as the Rabbins themselves said: “In the sanctuary there is no sabbath, the slaughtering expels the sabbath.” See Light-foot on the passage.

Luk_6:5. The Son of Man.—As the sabbath must give way before the temple-service, so must sabbath and temple-service both give way before something greater ( ìåßæùí in Matthew), namely, the Son of Man. If the day of rest and glorifying God must yield even to the rational inhabitant of earth, how much more might the Son of Man, the Redeemer and the Ideal of mankind, have dominion over the sabbath-service! The true sabbath-breakers were those who would sacrifice man to save the sabbath. As to the rest, Luk_6:5 appears in Luke very abrupt (De Wette), but this does not warrant us with Cod. D. to place this declaration of the Saviour after Luk_6:10, and still less on this testimony alone to receive the addition: “ ôῇ áὐôῇ ἡìÝñᾳ èåáóÜìåíüò ôéíá ἐñãáæüìåíïí ôῷ óáââÜôῳ åῖ ̓ ðåí áὐôῷ · ἄíèñùðå , åἰ ìὲí ïῖ ̓ äáò ôß ðïéåῖò , ìáêÜñéïò åἶ · åἰ äὲ ìὴ ïἶäáò , ἐðéêáôÜñáôïò êáὶ ðáñáâÜôçò åἶ ôïῦ íüìïõ .” In and of itself this utterance is by no means unworthy of the Lord, but it is not probable that at this time any one in the Jewish land would have labored unpunished, and, moreover, with a good conscience [on the sabbath], and quite as little that the Saviour, by such a declaration, exposed to various abuse, would have needlessly angered His enemies. If we do not choose to assume that the narration was invented a Marcionita quodam (Grotius), or that it was suggested by the words of Paul, Rom_14:22-23 (Neander), yet at least it may be supposed that it was inserted by some one who fully agreed with the view commended by the apostle in the above passage.

Luk_6:6. On another sabbath.—In all probability on the one immediately following. Luke, to be sure, does not expressly say this, but all the Synoptics connect this miracle immediately with the foregoing, which could the more easily happen if we assume with Wieseler, p. 237, that the day after the äåõôåñïðñþôῳ was again a sabbath, and that, therefore, not seven but only one day intervened between the two sabbaths. Then it is also intelligible how Mark and Matthew do not even definitely distinguish the days, and how the Pharisees so shortly after their discomfiture come to renew their attack.

A man.—According to Jerome on Mat_12:10, who takes his account from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, quod a plerisque vocatur Matthœi authenticum, it was a mason, who entreated to be healed that he might not have to beg. The allegorical manner in which this father sets forth this person as a type of Judaism, which in the days of Jesus had become quite incapable of building the spiritual temple of God in Israel, does not of itself justify us in doubting the truth of this account, which may actually proceed from a pure tradition.

Luk_6:7. Ðáñåôçñïῦíôï .—The snare was not laid without cunning. The healing of a sick man by any one who was accustomed to render help to sufferers, might with better title call forth the charge of breaking the sabbath than plucking ears during a walk, as this was at all events no actual work. There even existed a controversy between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, whether even the comforting of the sick on the sabbath was to be regarded as allowed. See Schöttgen, Horœ Hebrews 4, p. 123.

Luk_6:9. I ask you.—One must enter fully into the spirit of the embittered enemies in order to feel the crushing force of the question. It contains a searching antithesis (intelligible, however, to them alone) between the beneficent plan of the Saviour and the murderous intent of the assailants. He says in other words: “Which really breaks the sabbath, I, who am preparing myself for a work of beneficent healing, or you, who in secret cherish a purpose of murder against Me, the innocent one?” He will thus not only impress upon them that not to do good is of itself to do evil, but at the same time show that they cannot conceal themselves before Him. This whole address of the Saviour, moreover, united with His searching look (Mar_3:5) is a practical commentary on Paul’s word (Eph_4:26). The word which Matthew (Luk_6:14) alone has in addition, appears by Luke to be more correctly used on another occasion. See Luk_13:10; Luk_14:5.

Luk_6:11. Ἀíïßáò .—Rage made them mad; comp. 2Ti_3:9 and the passage in proof from the classic literature in Meyer.—The Æolic optative form expresses in a striking way the uncertainty and wavering of their deliberations. See Winer, N. T. Gram. 6th ed. p. Luke 275: “What they might perchance do with Jesus,” quid forte faciendum videretur (balancing the different possibilities in a wavering frame of mind).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The first sabbath miracles which we here see the Lord perform, spontaneously suggest the question in what relation He placed Himself to the Law and the Old Covenant. On one hand it must be acknowledged that He actually held Himself bound to the law of Moses, and from His first visit to the temple even to His last passover, showed that in this respect also He wished to fulfil all righteousness. The words of the Sermon on the Mount, Mat_5:17, remained His principle of life, so that He could composedly leave it to time for the new spirit awakened by Himself to destroy also the old form. But as little as He freed Himself or His own from obedience to the commandments of God, just as little could He endure to have this weakened by human ordinances. And this was actually done when the Pharisees and others explained and enjoined the commandment of the sabbath in such a way, that it must often appear as if man had been made for the sabbath. The thirty-nine different activities which they regarded as forbidden on the sabbath, were an invention of trivial narrowness, not commanded by the letter of the law, and in manifold ways at variance with its spirit. The Saviour maintains the spirit of the law precisely when He incurs in their eyes the guilt of a formal breach of the sabbath.

2. As the Lord of the sabbath He shows, on the one hand, the obligation, and, on the other hand, the freedom, of His disciples in reference to the sacred day of rest. The Lord, in visibly distinguishing the sabbath from other days, and on this day visiting the synagogue, gives us plainly to see that His disciple is also enduringly under obligation to hallow to God a weekly day of rest. But, on the other hand, He also passes through the corn, performs labors of love, and powerfully vindicates the maxim: “Necessity knows no law.” A mechanical Judaistical celebration of Sunday is, therefore, by His example as little favored as a reckless contempt of Sunday. The Christian also, the one anointed by the Holy Spirit, is a lord of the sabbath, and where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, but also order, obedience, glory given to God, and fear of offending a weak brother.

3. When the Lord, appealing to Scripture, asks: “Have ye never read?” this is not only an accommodation to the prejudices of the Jews, but also an expression of His principle to remain in all things faithful to the standard here established. David’s son mirrors Himself in the history of His illustrious ancestor. While He with compassionate care vindicates the interests of His own, He shows here at the same time the most exalted self-consciousness. He feels that in Him yet more than in the temple the Father’s glory dwells. And if He does not at once give it to be understood that He will make use of this His exalted dignity and abrogate the law of the sabbath and the temple-service, He actually did at least here what He says in the fourth Gospel, Joh_5:17 : “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”

4. In the Saviour’s sabbath miracles also His exalted character reveals itself. When once a prophet was despised by Jeroboam, the hand of the presumptuous king was dried up (1Ki_13:4). Jesus heals a withered hand, and is far from punishing the hands recklessly lifting themselves against Him. His miracles are no punishments but benefits, and even though the enemies of God’s kingdom think to destroy life, the King’s delight is to preserve it.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

General point of view for both narratives: the Son of Man, the Lord of the sabbath, who as such 1. rules in unrestricted might, 2. serves in love.

Special:—Luk_6:1. The celebration of the sabbath in the bosom of nature.—Enjoyment of nature on the sabbath: 1. Tasted, 2. embittered, 3. vindicated.—The Divine harmony of the sabbath disturbed by the discord of sin.—The hostile looks which beset even the most innocent movements of the disciples of the Lord.—The Scripture, authority in every point of religious controversy.—David, a prophetic type of evangelical freedom, in the midst of legal servitude.—The Scripture, no shew-bread in the sanctuary, for the priests alone.—Our Lord, His position towards a twofold view of the sabbath, that of freedom and that of servitude.—The dry morsel, with quietness, is better than, &c. (Pro_17:1.)—The Son of Man, the true Son of David, the true Lord of David.—How the sabbath may be disturbed even without working.—Luk_6:6 seq. No corruption in the Israelitish worship keeps Jesus back from visiting the synagogue.—The hostility of the Pharisees augmented by every discomfiture.—The afflicted one in the house of the Lord: 1. What he seeks, 2. how much more he finds.—Healing of the sick man, furthered: 1. By the malice of enemies, 2. by the compassion of the Lord, 3. by his own faith.—Evil thoughts in the house of the Lord: 1. Entertained, 2. penetrated, 3. frustrated.—Jesus overcoming His enemies by 1. the questioning of righteousness, 2. the powerful word of love.—It is permitted to do good on the sabbath.—Holy anger and compassionate love united in one look of the Lord.—The greater Jesus’ love the deeper the hate of His enemies.—The madness of enmity: 1. It thinks that it can destroy Jesus; 2. it does not once see how deeply it condemns itself.—No faith is demanded that is not also crowned.—The synagogue the theatre of the glory of our Lord: 1. His impartial judgment, 2. His heavenly knowledge of hearts, 3. His compassionate sympathy, 4. His delivering might, 5. His forbearing long-suffering.

Both together:—Two sabbath-works in the life of the Lord; difference and agreement between these two: 1. Difference of acts but oneness of end; 2. difference of enjoyment but oneness of consecration; 3. difference of strife but oneness of triumph.—The Christian sabbath celebration: a. Negatively: 1. no absolute equalizing of all days, 2. no slothful inactivity; b. positively: 1. glorifying of God in the house of prayer and in the temple of Creation, 2. labor of love for others.—The sabbath-rest of the Saviour like that of the Father: a. An active, b. a holy, c. a blessed sabbath-rest.—The Lord of the sabbath and the slaves of the law.—The sabbath a day on which the Saviour: 1. Refreshes His friends, 2. vanquishes His foes, 3. helps His afflicted ones, and by all this 4. advances the coming of the kingdom of God.

Starke:—Love and need know no law.—Majus:—It is a shame to those who will be masters of the Scripture when they do not know what is written in the law.—Quesnel:—The use of holy things, when it takes place through love, can never desecrate them, because God’s love sanctifies all things.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Those must be of evil disposition to whom even benefits can be an occasion of persecution, and even good an inducement to evil.—Canstein:—The solicitousness of Christ’s enemies to hinder His kingdom shames the sluggishness of the children of God.—Osiander:—The papistical corner-miracles (Winkel-wunder) are mere cheatery; Jesus did His miracles publicly before the world.—We are not to mind the blasphemy of the godless when we do what our vocation brings with it.—When the truth shines brightest hardened ones nevertheless are thereby not amended, but only made worse and more venomous, 2Ti_3:13.—With despisers of the truth, even miracles will accomplish nothing.

Heubner:—The excessively anxious care of the Jews in the old temple for the sabbath is a reproof to Christians.—Zeal for religion without love is an abomination.—Arndt:—Jesus the Friend of the church, since He 1. uses the means of the church, 2. furthers the ends of the church.

Calvin:—“Monemur etiam, cavendum esse, ne cœrimoniis tribuendo plus quam par est, quœ longe pluris sunt coram Deo, et quœ prœcipua legis Christus alibi vocat (Mat_23:23), effluere sinamus.”

Footnotes:

Luk_6:1.—If our critical conscience allowed us to expunge entirely the puzzling äåõôåñïðñþôῳ from the text, we should certainly have disburdened ourselves in the most convenient way of one of the most desperate cruces interpretum. However, although a not inconsiderable number of testimonies is for the omission, and, therefore, the possibility that we have here before us only an old marginal gloss, must be conceded, yet we cannot avoid supposing that this ἅðáî ëåãüìåíïí has been expunged by some only out of exegetical perplexity, ignoratione rei, as Bengel expresses himself. Respecting the presumable sense, see Exegetical and Critical remarks. [Ins., A., C., D., R.; om., B., L. Cod. Sin. has ἐí ἑôÝñῳ óáââÜôῳ . Meyer regards it as spurious. Tischendorf inserts it; Lachmann and Alford put it in brackets; Tregelles omits it.—C. C. S.]

Luk_6:2.—Rec.: áὐôïῖò . Critically too weakly supported. [Om., Sin.]

Luk_6:2.—Rec.: ðïéåῖí , as interpretamentum correct, but as reading suspicious. [Supported, however, by Sin.—C. C. S.]

Luk_6:4.—Rec.: ðῶò åἰóῆëèåí . Ðῶò rightly, as it appears, omitted by Tischendorf, according to B., D., Cantabrig., and some cursives. It is more intelligible how ðῶò should have been interpolated from Matthew, than why it should have been omitted, if it had actually stood here originally.

Luk_6:7.—With Lachmann and Tischendorf we give the preference to èåñáðåýåé over èåñáðåýóåé . The latter appears borrowed from Mar_3:2. [Cod. Sin. has èåñáðåõåé .—C. C. S.]

Luk_6:7.—Rec.: êáôçãïñéáí áõôïõ with A., R. D. has êáôçãïñçóáé . B., S., R., Cod. Sin.: êáôçãïñåéí .—C. C. S.]

Luk_6:8.— Ἀíäñὶ . Rec.: ἀíèñþðῳ . Meyer’s remarks ad loc. are entirely correct. “ Ôῷ ἀíäñß was omitted in consequence of the following ôῷ (as in D., Cant.), and then the hiatus supplied by ôῷ ἀíèþðῳ according to Luk_6:6 and Mar_3:3.”

Luk_6:8.—Entirely without reason are the last words: ὁ äὲ ἀíáóôὰò ἔóôç , omitted in De Wette’s translation of this passage.

Luk_6:9.—Rec.: ἐðåñùôÞóù . With Tischendorf, [Alford, Tregelles,] we prefer the present ἐðåñùôῶ , which is supported by B., L., [Sin.,] 157, and five ancient versions, and heightens the vividness of the whole scene. By the same authorities, [including Sin.,] the reading åἰ , instead of ôß , is strongly supported.

Luk_6:10.—The ὑãéÞò which the Rec. subjoins to ἡ ÷åῖñ áὐôïῦ , is doubtless only an interpolation from the similar passage in Mark. [But Tischendorf and Lachmann, and Alford, following them, omit the whole clause, ὑãéὴò ὡò ἡ ἄëëç , in Mar_3:5, supported by A., B., C., D., [Sin.], and 3 other uncials. It seems more likely to have been introduced from Matthew, where its genuineness is undoubted. In Luke it is omitted by A., B., D., Sin., and 6 other uncials.—C. C. S.]

Luk_6:11.—“It does not appear that this word can ever mean, as in the former editions, ‘madness,’ rage of a senseless kind. … The proper meaning, ‘senselessness,’ ‘wicked folly,’ must be kept to. See Ellicott’s note on 2Ti_3:9.” Alford. I give this note, although I am not persuaded that the not difficult transition from “utter senselessness” to “madness” has not been made in this passage. It is hard to see how they could have been “filled” with “senselessness,” “unwisdom,” as Wiclif has it, otherwise than through rage.—C. C. S.]