Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 6:27 - 6:38
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Luk_6:27-38.)
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Ἀãáðᾶô å , ê . ô . ë .—The doctrine of love to enemies is here communicated in the most complete the fourfold form, while in Mat_5:44 the second and the third member appear to be spurious. (See Tischendorf.)—Respecting the subject itself comp. Lange, Matthew, p. 117. Although it cannot be denied that love to enemies is in a certain sense required even by Jewish and heathen moralists, it must yet be remembered that the thought of requiting acts of enmity with devout intercession could only arise in the heart of Him who has Himself prayed for the evil doers. Such sayings of the Saviour, particularly, may well have elicited from even a godly man, on reading the Sermon on the Mount, the exclamation: “Either this is not true, or we are no Christians.”
Luk_6:29. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek.—The sense and application of this and similar precepts will occasion no difficulties, if we only bear in mind the simple rule: “The ethical commandments of Christ, or His explanations of the Old Testament, must themselves in turn be explained in the spirit of Christ.” (Tholuck, Bergpredigt, p. 163.) Let us in this matter consider well, first, that in proportion as civil life is more and more guided and sanctified by the spirit of Christ, it must continually be and become less and less possible that any one should unrighteously smite us, or take away our mantle, or force us to accompany him a mile. Secondly, that the Saviour did not here intend to project a definite rule of behavior, but to inculcate certain essential principles, as Augustine very justly remarks on the passage: “Ista prœcepta magis ad prœparationem cordis, quœ intus est, pertinere, quam ad opus, quod in aperto fit, ut teneatur in secreto animi patientia et benevolentia, in manifesto autem id fiat, quod iis videtur prodesse, quibus bene velle debemus.” Respecting the views of the ancient Christians as to the allowableness or inadmissibleness of military service, we find important statements in Neander’s Denkwürdigkeiten. If we remember, finally, the time of closely impending persecutions in which this precept was given, and the conflict in which a literal following of Luk_6:29-30, would bring us with the unchangeable and chief principle of Luk_6:31, the way is then as it were of itself prepared for a right explanation of this precept. We do not even need to form the supposition that “the sentence: ‘From him that taketh thy goods ask them not again,’ is hardly original with Luke, since it unnecessarily exaggerates the endurance” (Ewald), for it requires nothing more than what had immediately preceded. Better is Bengel’s remark: “Nimis hic cumulatœ sunt ingenii humani exceptiones.”
Luk_6:31. And as ye would.—Here connected still more closely with the duty of love to enemies, in Mat_7:12 more generally stated. Justly Theophylact: íüìïí ἔìöõôïí ἐí ôáῖò êáñäßáéò ἡìῶí ãåãñáììÝíïí . The Saviour gives a touch-stone into the hands of His disciples, by which they might prove themselves as to whether their demeanor towards neighbors and enemies was in agreement with their duties. His utterance contains no principle, but a touch-stone of morality, since it only refers to an outer form of action. Neither is it new (comp. Jesus Sirach xxx. and the passages cited by Tholuck, p. 488 seq.), and might even be misused by egoism and perversely interpreted by scoffers, except as it is understood and applied with the whole spirit of Christianity. Where it is so used we shall discover in it a plain, simple, universally applicable precept of the practical wisdom of life, fully fitted for the purpose for which the Saviour has given it. Only let a special emphasis be laid upon the êáèþò . Very happily Lange: “Not what people desire of us, but according to all that we desire of them, agreeably to that should we do to them.” We subjoin that here the standard is not intrusted to the hands of every natural man, but to those of the disciples of Christ.
Luk_6:32. What, thanks.—“Qualis vobis gratia, ut qui uberius quidam, mercede dignum, prœstiteris.” Bengel. It is, of course, to be understood that we are not here to think of human, but of Divine recompense. Comp. Mat_5:46-47.
For sinners also.—Here and Luk_6:33-34, each time ἁìáñôùëïß , in Matthew ôåëῶíáé êáὶ ἐèíéêïß (see Tischendorf on Mat_5:47). In Luke, from his position of liberality towards the Gentiles, it is not the ethnic but the ethic antithesis which comes most into prominence; but the meaning remains the same. The Saviour will raise His disciples above the position of the ordinary morality of the natural man. Comp. the beautiful essay of A. Vinet in his Nouveaux discours sur quelques sujets religieux, entitled, L’extraordinaire, pp. 146–184.
Luk_6:34. And if ye lend.—Lending in the hope of receiving again is human; but without this hope it becomes Christian. And yet, how many found their right to the Christian’s name almost on nothing else than on services of love so carefully measured and egoistic that every heathen or Jew equals them therein, perhaps even excels them.
Luk_6:35. Hoping for nothing again.—It is plain that the Saviour here only forbids the expectation of human recompense, inasmuch as He has already confirmed the hope of heavenly reward, Luk_6:23, and immediately animates this again with the words: And your reward shall be great. The different explanation of Meyer: “nihil desperantes,” is, without doubt, philologically admissible; yet it appears to us to be less favored by the connection.
Ye shall be the children of the Highest.—We find no reason to restrict the enjoyment of this dignity (with Meyer) to the future life. The Pauline doctrine of the õἱïèåóßá even in the earthly life of believers, appears to us, on the other hand, to have its ground in such sayings of Jesus. If the ethical relationship with God manifests itself even here, why should its reward be incapable of being enjoyed until the next life?
Luk_6:36. Be ye therefore merciful.—In Matthew, ôÝëåéïé , here, ïἰêôßñìïíåò ; explicative: (for only in His moral attributes can God be an ideal to be imitated, and of this His love is the centre). Even without the spurious ïὖí the nexus idearum is of itself evident.
Luk_6:37. And judge not.—Comp. Mat_7:1. Êñßíåéí is not the same as êáôáêñßíåéí (Olshausen), or here there would be a tautology with the immediate sequel: ìὴ êáôáäéêÜæåôå , ê . ô . ë .; but what is here understood by judging, is the considering of the faults of our neighbor with a look only sharpened by mistrust, and not tempered by love and self-knowledge. It is the not “judging of a righteous judgment,” Joh_7:24. Undoubtedly, to the spiritual man, who judges all things ( ἀíáêñßíåé , 1Co_2:15), the right to judge, in and of itself, cannot be forbidden; yet it is only granted by the Lord when one has previously cast a look of searching examination upon himself. “Luke conceives as a consequence what Matthew designates as that to be avoided.” (De Wette.) Forgive, &c.—A practical commentary on this saying see in Mat_18:23-35.
Luk_6:38. Good measure, pressed down and shaken together, and heaped up.—The distinction of Bengel: in aribus, mollibus, liquidis, appears to be more ingenious than true. At least it cannot be denied that all the epithets here used can be used of a measure for dry substances. The climax brings into relief in a vivid manner the riches of the Divine retribution. Since now the Saviour does not at all say whom He uses for the impartation of such a recompense to His disciples, it is not at all necessary to restrict the matter exclusively to the future life, and to understand it of the angels (Meyer). Even in this life His disciples might at least now and then expect a superabundant recompense of their labor of love.—With the same measure.
Very well Theophylact: ôῷ áὐôῷ , ïὐ ìὲí ôïóïýôῳ .
2. In the fulfilling, moreover, of the precepts here given, Luk_6:29-30, the main requirement of the gospel, love to God before all, and to our neighbor as ourselves, still remains at once principle and corrective. It is self-evident that an unthinking obedience to the letter would often bring with it dishonor to God, and would strengthen our neighbor in his injustice. Or should we have to give a supplicant everything, for instance even a dagger or poison to the madman who incessantly begs for them? Just as well might then the old Carpocratians derive from this passage the doctrine that a woman is obliged to follow the voice of temptation to forbidden lusts! But then the Saviour himself sinned against His own precept, when He permitted the Canaanitish woman first to entreat fruitlessly for help, and forbade one healed by Him to accompany Him, although entreated by him to permit it. The understanding, enlightened by the spirit of Christ, and the moral sense, guided by a tender conscience, must and can, in particular cases, decide whether love itself does not command to act directly contrary to the letter of the precept, in order to act agreeably to its spirit.
3. The peculiar Christian command of love to enemies must, on the one hand, not be exaggerated, nor, on the other hand, thrown aside. The former is done when the fact is overlooked that even heathen philosophers have given the most striking hints in this respect; see Tholuck on the passage. The other takes place when it is forgotten that the ground, impulse, form, measure, and ideal of this love, in the Christian sphere, are something entirely different from what they are in the extra-Christian sphere.
4. This whole pericope of the Sermon on the Mount is important for the answer of the question, how far the Saviour required an entirely pure love (Amour pur in the sense of Fénélon), or whether He has encouraged a respect to the reward promised to obedience. That He would never command a desire of reward, as the essential principle, hardly needs to be suggested; and quite as little, that genuine Christian effort does not seek its reward without, but within, itself. On the other hand, however, we see that He adds the incitement of the love of reward as a counterpoise to so many things that might be able to depress zeal and obedience. The question, Mat_19:27, although placed upon a legal position, is not of itself anti-Christian.
5. The exalted excellence of the Christian ethics comes convincingly into view when we compare its highest requirement, Likeness to God in love, with what heathen philosophers have given as the highest precept.
Starke:—Be ashamed, ye scoffers, that pretend that the gospel teaches nothing concerning friendship: He who commands to love our enemies, presupposes that true friends are much more to be loved.—Hedinger:—In all wrong suffered we must leave room for the wrath of God, Rom_12:19.—A Christian heart is easily entreated, and willingly assumes the necessities of the saints.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Better is it to lose land and goods, and to let all go, than to suffer harm to the soul. Mat_16:26.—To love enemies and do them good, is the Christian’s art and test.—Osiander:—An honest man seeks his own, but a Christian Jesus Christ’s.—A bought or bartered love is no love of God that has reward.—Cramer:—Children of God have their Father’s temper, and do not let themselves be rebuffed by the unthankfulness of man from doing them good.—Nulla re sic colitur Deus, ut misericordia, Gregor. Nazianz.—Majus:—It is a desperate blindness, rather to rush upon Divine vengeance, than to show kindness and meekness towards our own brother.—Hedinger:—Be not angry if thou gettest back again just the coin which thou hast given out.—Why do others trouble thee? Look to thyself! Gal_6:1.—It ought not to go hard with love to give that which Divine truth promises to give back. Pro_19:17.—The Christian loses by liberality nothing, but gains very much. 2Co_8:10 Act_20:35.—To be parsimonious and niggardly it not the right way to become rich, but to be beneficent and free-handed is the way.—The jus talionis is with the righteousness of God fully in accord, and never fails. Therefore be warned, whosoever thou art. Jdg_1:7; 1Ki_21:19-24. Comp. 1Ki_22:38-39.
Ubber:—The Christian eye for human faults: 1. Strict against itself, 2. gentle towards its neighbor.—Ahlfeld on Luk_6:36 :—1. The source from which compassion springs; 2. the fields on which it brings forth its fruit; 3. the hindrances with which it wrestles.—Uhle:—How we are wont to demean ourselves: 1. Towards our neighbor’s faults; 2. in the case of suffering wrong from him; 3. in the case of his necessity being made known to us—Rautenberg:—The Divine compassion: 1. The type, 2. the ground, 3. the reward of our compassion.—Burke:—The love of compassion: 1. Who gives it? 2. How is it exercised? 3. Who rewards it?—Schmaltz:—Without self-conquest no true love.—Alt:—Who can constrain his enemies to esteem?—Stier:—Concerning the evil habit of judging others.—Van Oosterzee:—What do ye more than others? The Christian called to distinguish himself. This a requirement: 1. Whose scope is extensive; 2. the urging of which is legitimate: 3. the remembering is needful. On 1. The Saviour demands that His disciples should be more upright, more disinterested, more steadfast in good than others. On 2. The Christian must distinguish himself above others; he can do it, and, as history shows, he does it in fact. On 3. By this remembrance, Humility, Faith, Heavenly longing, is awakened.