CHAPTER VI

Outline of Chapter 6

Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do

6:1–11 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath

A. 6:1–5 Picking, Rubbing, and Eating Grain on the Sabbath

B. 6:6–11 Healing a Shriveled Hand on the Sabbath

6:12–16 The Choosing of The Twelve

6:17–19 Jesus’ Power to Heal

The Sermon on the Mount

6:20–26 I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes

6:27–45 II. The Standard of Life Demanded by the King

A. 6:27–38 The Light of Love He Commends

B. 6:39–45 The Darkness of Sin He Condemns

6:46–49 III. Application: The Parable of The Two Builders

The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord of the Sabbath

A. 6:1–5 Picking, Rubbing, and Eating Grain on the Sabbath

Cf. Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28

6 1 Once on a sabbath, when Jesus happened to be passing through fields of standing grain, his disciples were picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath?”

3 Jesus answered, “Have you not even read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: 4 how he entered the house of God, took and ate the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat, and gave some to those who were with him?” 5 And he said to them, “Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man!”

One of the chief areas of conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders concerned the proper observance of the sabbath. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mark and Luke at this point report two sabbath controversies. Matthew also reports these two but not until much later in his Gospel.

In both Mark and Luke the story of these controversies follows Jesus’ remarks about fasting. Nevertheless, there is probably no close chronological connection: the inquiry about fasting was made a little later, after the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount. See above, p. 307. Worthy of consideration is the theory that three sabbath controversies (the first described in John’s Gospel; the second and third in the Synoptics) took place in rather close succession during the spring to midsummer of the year a.d. 28. The three were: the argument about the healing at the pool (“Bethesda”) at the time of the Passover (John 5:1–18); this was followed by the controversies concerning the picking of heads of grain (Luke 6:1–5 and parallels), and concerning the healing of the man with the “withered” hand (Luke 6:6–11 and parallels). The third of these three controversies seems to have been followed by the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of The Sermon on the Mount (see Luke 6:12–49; cf. Mark 3:6, 13–19).

But although no close chronological connection between (a) Jesus’ teaching on fasting and (b) the sabbath controversy reported here in Luke 6:1–5 is indicated, Mark and after him Luke may well have had in mind a logical connection. According to the teaching of Jesus, those who are living in close fellowship with him, the Bridegroom, should be feasting instead of fasting; they must rejoice rather than mourn. And this manifestation of gladness instead of sadness must characterize even the manner in which the sabbath is kept. That is probably the connection and accounts for the order in which these events are here related.

For the slight differences in the manner in which this incident has been reported by the synoptists see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 104, 105. Though there are these differences, there are no discrepancies or contradictions. From this point on we shall simply follow Luke’s account, referring to the other Gospels only when necessary for elucidation.

The material here presented can be logically arranged under the following two subheadings:

1. By implication the Pharisees accuse the disciples of sabbath desecration

1, 2. Once on a sabbath, when Jesus happened to be passing through fields of standing grain, his disciples were picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. Some of the Pharisees asked, Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath?

Grain is evidently ripening. Jesus, accompanied by his disciples, is walking through the grain fields. The translation “fields of standing grain” is justified by the context. Literally the meaning is “that which was sown.” It is the sabbath (verses 1, 6, 7, 9) and the disciples are hungry (Matt. 12:1). So they pick some heads or ears of grain. They rub them between the palms of their hands, and eat them. Did not the law (Deut. 23:25) clearly state that a person was permitted to do this? Yes, but … on the sabbath?

Suddenly some Pharisees arrive. Where they came from is not indicated. One moment they are absent; the next, there they are! Or had they been nearby all the while, spying “from around the corner” perhaps? The fact that this question is not answered makes the story the more dramatic. “Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath?” they ask.

The underlying reasoning of the Pharisees was as follows: Was not work forbidden on the sabbath day (Exod. 20:8–11; 34:21; Deut. 5:12–15)? Had not the rabbis drawn up a catalogue of thirty-nine principal works, subsequently subdivided into six minor categories under each of these thirty-nine, all of which were forbidden on the sabbath? In accordance with this list was not plucking the heads of grain reaping?²³⁵ And was not rubbing them with the hands threshing? Here were these disciples engaged in this forbidden activity, and Jesus was doing nothing about it! Obviously, what was happening was that Christ’s enemies were burying the real law of God—which did not in any sense forbid what the disciples were now doing—under the mountain of their man-made, foolish traditions (Luke 11:37–52; 20:45–47; cf. Matt. 15:3, 6; 23:23, 24; Mark 7:8, 9, 12, 13; 12:38–40).

2. Jesus defends them and asserts his authority as Lord of the sabbath

3–5. Jesus answered, Have you not even read what David did when he and those with him were hungry: how he entered the house of God, took and ate the consecrated bread which only the priests were allowed to eat, and gave some to those who were with him? “Have you not even read?” As if to say, “You pride yourselves in being the very people who uphold the law, and your scribes deem themselves to be so thoroughly versed in it as to be able to teach others; yet are you yourselves unacquainted with the fact that even this very law allowed its ceremonial restrictions to be ignored in case of need?” See Mark 2:25: “… what David did when he was in need?” “Have you not read about David and the showbread?” The reference is to consecrated bread, “bread of the Presence,” in Hebrew leḥem happānîm (Exod. 25:30). This showbread consisted of twelve loaves placed on a table three feet in length, one and a half feet wide, two feet three inches high. The table was overlaid with pure gold, surrounded by a molding of gold, and equipped with four rings of gold, a ring at each corner, through which poles were passed, so that the table could be carried. The description of this article of tabernacle furniture is found in Exod. 25:23, 24. In ancient times this table was standing in the Holy Place, not far away from God’s special dwelling-place: the Holy of Holies. The showbread was laid on the table in two rows. The twelve loaves represented Israel’s twelve tribes and symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God. The Israelites were, so to say, guests at his table, were consecrated to him, and by means of the offering of these presentation loaves gratefully acknowledged their indebtedness to him.

Every sabbath the old bread was exchanged for fresh loaves (I Sam. 21:6). The old loaves were eaten by the priests. They were “for Aaron and his sons,” that is, for the priesthood, definitely not for everybody (Lev. 24:9). Yet when hungry David entered “the house of God,” the court of the sanctuary in Nob, which was the shrine where the ark was kept, he was given this consecrated bread. See I Sam. 21:1–6; 22:9, 10. He took and shared it with his equally hungry companions. They all ate of it, even though by divine law it had been designated as food for the priests, for them alone. The point is this: if David had a right to ignore a divinely ordained ceremonial provision when necessity demanded it, then would not David’s exalted Antitype, namely, Jesus, God’s Anointed in a far more eminent sense, have a right, under similar conditions of need, to set aside a totally unwarranted, man-made sabbath regulation? After all, to a considerable extent the rabbinical sabbath regulations amounted to misapplications of God’s holy law. That was true also in the present case.

And he said to them, Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man! Since “all authority” had been given to the Son (Matt. 11:27; 28:18), who is one with the Father (John 10:30), with whom the Father is well pleased (Luke 3:22), and who was sent into the world by the Father (cf. Luke 4:18, “he has sent me”), it is clear that the Son of man is indeed Lord of the sabbath. As sovereign Lord he possesses the authority to lay down principles governing that day. For “Son of man” see on Luke 5:24.²³⁶

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:1–5

Verse 1

With ἐγένετο δὲ … διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτόν (Once on a sabbath while he happened to be passing through—a rather free translation) compare the Hebrew way^ehi (“And it came to pass,” etc.). In translation this can often be omitted. For the textual question, including the strange reading reflected in A.V., “on the second sabbath after the first,” see Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 80.

ἔτιλλον, the sense of this imperfect may be either progressive (they were picking) or inchoative (they began to pick).

ψώχοντες, nom. pl. masc. pres. participle of ψώχω*, to rub. This verb may be related to others constructed on the ψα base, and indicating such activities as twitching the strings of a musical instrument. Cf. psalm.

Verse 3

οὐδέ, not even. An affirmative answer is expected when οὐ or οὐδε is used; yet, the implication is that they (the Pharisees) had not even read what David did. To bring out the full force of the question, one might render the original thus: “You have surely read what David did, have you not?” See Gram. N.T., p. 1157; and Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 427, p. 220.

ἀνέγνωτε, sec. per. pl. 2nd aor. indicat. of ἀναγινώσκω; for an analysis of this verb see the note on 4:16 on page 260.

Verse 5

Note emphatic position of Κύριος.

B. 6:6–11 Healing a Shriveled Hand on the Sabbath

Cf. Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–6

6 On another sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and was teaching,²³⁷ a man whose right hand was shriveled²³⁸ was present. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees, in order that they might find a charge against Jesus, were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal on the sabbath. 8 But he knew their thoughts and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Rise and stand here in front.” So he got up and stood there.

9 Then Jesus said to them, “I am asking you, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” 10 Then he looked around at them all and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did, and his hand was restored.²³⁹

11 They, however, were filled with senseless rage and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

This is another illustration of the Son of man’s assertion of authority in the sphere of sabbath observance. For a composite account, combining the records of the three Synoptics and indicating similarities and variations, see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 113, 114.

1. A Tense Situation

6–8. On another sabbath, when he entered the synagogue and was teaching, a man whose right hand was shriveled was present. The scribes and the Pharisees, in order that they might find a charge against Jesus, were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal on the sabbath.

As Luke tells the story, the conflict between Jesus and his opponents is beginning to intensify. In verses 1–5 it was against the disciples rather than against Jesus himself that the Pharisees launched their attack; in verses 6–11, however, their attention is riveted on Jesus himself. In the preceding section it is not entirely certain whether the religious authorities had arrived with the express purpose of finding fault. The possibility must be granted that they just happened to be on the scene when they caught the disciples in the act of transgressing sabbatical regulations. This time, however, they have come in order to find grounds for an accusation against Jesus.

It was “another”—not necessarily the next—sabbath.²⁴⁰ Jesus has entered the synagogue, probably the one in Capernaum (with 6:6 cf. 7:1; with Matt. 12:9 cf. 11:23; with Mark 3:1 cf. 2:1). Here on this day there happened to be a man with a shriveled hand. The hand was paralyzed, due perhaps to muscular malfunction or atrophy. How this had come about is not made clear and it is useless to speculate. More important is the fact that it was the right hand, as Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) informs us, that was thus affected.

The apocryphal Gospel According to the Hebrews states that the man was a stonemason who pleaded with Jesus to heal him that he might not have to spend his life as a beggar. Be that as it may, the point is that this is a sabbath, and though there may well have been a difference of opinion between the disciples of Shammai, with their stricter interpretation of sabbath observance, and those of Hillel, with their more lenient view—the more rigorous position prevailing in Jerusalem, the more lenient in Galilee—the rule that only in such cases in which a man’s life was actually in danger would it be permissible to heal him on the sabbath was widely endorsed.²⁴¹ Would Jesus dare to oppose this rule, by the Pharisees regarded as a well-established and basic principle which must not be violated?

Very closely and insidiously do the scribes and Pharisees watch Jesus. By this time they had already become his enemies. As they saw it, had he not arrogated to himself the exclusively divine authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:20, 21; cf. John 5:18)? Did he not eat and drink with publicans and sinners (Luke 5:30–32)? Had he not previously transgressed the sabbath regulations held in honor by them (John 5:1–18; then Luke 6:1–5)? Besides, surely this case could wait. The man’s life was not in danger. Here, then, so reason the scribes and the Pharisees, is their chance to build up a charge against Jesus.

But he knew their thoughts and said to the man with the shriveled hand, Rise and stand here in front. —So he got up and stood there.

In this tense situation the Lord takes the offensive. He knows their thoughts. See above, on 5:4, 5. He then tells the man to get up and stand where everybody can see him.

Jesus insisted on performing his miracles out in the open, so that every suspicion of deception and trickery would be excluded. Contrast with this the under-the-table, hidden-button, lights-out operations of later-day media! Besides, Jesus may also have wished to elicit the sympathy of the audience for this seriously handicapped man.

2. An Astounding Miracle

9, 10. Then Jesus said to them, I am asking you, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it? —Then he looked around at them all and said to the man, Stretch out your hand. —He did, and his hand was restored.

The question was reasonable and to the point. Were not the Pharisees and the scribes the very people who were always claiming that they knew what was “permitted,” “lawful,” and therefore “right”? Let them therefore give their expert opinion. Of course, the answer to Christ’s question was so obvious that a child could have given it. If it is right to do good—for which see also Luke 6:33, 35; I Peter 2:14, 15, 20; 3:6, 17; 4:19; III John 11—on any ordinary day of the week, would it not be right to do good on the sabbath? Besides, in the Old Testament was it not exactly doing good, both with respect to God (loving, serving, and delighting oneself in him) and with respect to man (delivering him from bondage, feeding and clothing him), which God had required and even emphasized? And this in a context of fasting and sabbath observance? How strange that these adverse critics had not recalled the clear and definite teaching of Isa. 56:6; 58:6–14! The Lord had urged Israel to use the sabbath for the very purpose for which Jesus was here, now, and always using it. Nevertheless, it was with him that men who were supposed to be experts in the law were finding fault.

However, Jesus probed even more deeply. He exposed the perversity of the critics even more unequivocally; for not only did he ask whether it was permitted on the sabbath to do good and to save life, but he also added, “or to do harm and to destroy it?” Certainly, if it was improper to do harm and to destroy life on the other six days of the week, was it not very improper to engage in this sinister business on the day specifically set aside for honoring God and showing sympathy to man? Nevertheless this doing harm and destroying was exactly what these enemies were right now engaged in!

In which sense was it true that they were doing harm and destroying? Some answer that they were doing this by refusing to allow this man to be healed. Though that too may have been implied, is it not clear that something far worse was happening? The hearts and minds of these self-righteous scribes and Pharisees, who were finding fault with Jesus for wanting to deliver this man from his handicap, were engaged in killing the Messiah! For proof see verse 11; cf. Mark 3:6 (“how they might destroy him”). See also Matt. 5:21, 22; I John 3:15 (“Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer”). What Jesus is saying, therefore, amounts to this: “Is it right on the sabbath to do good and to save life, as I am doing; or to do harm and to destroy, as you right now are doing?” The confrontation was as sharp, dramatic, and bold as imaginable.

Then, looking around at them all (that is, at all these opponents), and “in anger, being deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart” (Mark 3:5), he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”

The cure was instantaneous and complete. Cf. I Kings 13:6. In a manner too mysterious for any mortal to comprehend, the Savior had concentrated his mind on the plight of this poor man, and by means of his power and compassion, had willed and performed the cure; and this not “in a dark corner” but in the sight of everyone present.

3. A Sad but Logical Reaction

11. They, however, were filled with senseless rage and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

Filled with madness were these scribes and Pharisees. They were boiling over, being beside themselves with fury. Jesus had given them a chance to answer his question: whether on the sabbath one should do good or inflict harm, save life or destroy it. Only one satisfactory answer was possible, but that answer would have exposed to ridicule their entire philosophy of life. So they had remained silent. Before the public they had been “shown up” for what they really were: leaders who set a higher value on their harsh, hairsplitting rules than on God’s law of love, and were more concerned about their “traditions” than about the health and happiness of a tragically handicapped fellow man. And if their self-inflicted silence had already made them angry, the actual miracle Jesus performed made matters even worse for them. O that even now they had repented and confessed their wickedness! But no, they discuss back and forth, among themselves, what they might do to Jesus! Mark 3:6 indicates that they were trying to find a way to kill him, and chose as their co-plotters … of all people, the thoroughly unholy friends of Herod Antipas and his family. To such depths of degradation sin leads, unless grace intervenes.²⁴²

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 6:1–11

Verses 2 and 11

“Why are you doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? … They, however, were filled with senseless rage.” Illustration of a legalistic view of sabbath observance in later years: A sabbath in winter, snowdrifts blocking roads and highways. The only way in which a certain village pastor can get from his parsonage to the church is by skating over the frozen canal. This he does. Upon his arrival the consistory is not pleased. Was not what he had done tantamount to joyriding on the Lord’s Day? After lengthy deliberation the decision is reached to demand of the pastor that he answer this question: “Did he enjoy his skating trip?” If the answer is “Yes,” he must be censured; if “No,” the case can be dropped, and the pastor’s action can be charitably regarded as “a work of necessity.”

Verses 5 and 9

“Lord of the sabbath is the Son of man.… Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” On the sabbath Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath, regularly attended worship, taught, and performed works of mercy. See also Isa. 58:6–14. The lesson is clear.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:6–11

Verse 6

ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ. This is indefinite (on another sabbath) and does not necessarily indicate the sabbath immediately following the one of 6:1.

Verse 7

παρετηροῦντο, third per. pl. middle imperf. indicat. of παρατηρέω (= παρά, cf. parallel, and τηρέω), to watch. The underlying picture is that of a person standing by the side of another, so that he can watch him closely. To watch closely is also the meaning in 14:1 and in 20:20.

Note εἰ in verse 7 (“whether,” “if”) and contrast with untranslatable εἰ in verse 9. The first εἰ is in an indirect question; the second, in a direct question.

ἵνα introduces purpose clause; εὕρωσιν, third per. pl. 2nd aor. active subjunct. of εὑρίσκω. Cf. Eureka!

κατηγορεῖν, present infinitive (durative) of κατηγορέω; cf. κατά, against, and ἀγορά, forum, assembly; ἀγορεύω, to speak, harangue; hence, to speak against in the assembly, in court; and thus, to accuse, denounce.

Verse 8

διαλογισμός, see the note on 2:35 on page 177, and the note on 5:22 on page 301. Derived from ἵστημι are στῆθι, sec. per. s. aor. imperative; and ἔστη, third per. s. 2nd aor. (ingressive) indicat.

Verse 9

ἐπερωτῶ = ἐπί and ἐρωτάω; literally, I put a question to (you), I am asking (you).

Note the four punctiliar aor. active infinitives: to do good, to do harm; to save, to destroy.

Verse 10

περιβλεψάμενος, aor. participle of περιβλέπομαι, to look around; elsewhere in the New Testament used only in Mark’s Gospel. See N.T.C. on Mark, p. 116, footnote 105.

ἔκτεινον, sec. per. s. aor. act. imperat. of ἐκτείνω. ἀπεκατεστάθη, third per. s. aor. pass. (effective) indicat. of ἀποκαθίστημι, to set down again, to bring back, to restore; see also Matt. 12:13; 17:11; Mark 3:5; 8:25; 9:12. In Acts 3:21 ἀποκατάστασις means restoration.

Verse 11

Note emphatic αὐτοὶ δέ, “They, however.…”

For ἐπλήσθησαν see the note on 4:28 on page 261.

ἄνοια = ἀ plus νοῦς; literally “lack of understanding”; in the present context senseless fury, madness. The Dutch (Nieuwe Vertaling) reproduces the sense of the original beautifully: “Zij raakten volkomen hun verstand kwijt”; i.e., “They completely lost their mind (so angry they were).”

For διελάλουν see the note on 1:65 on page 120.

ποιήσαιεν, third per. pl. aor. optat. (here deliberative) of ποιέω. The deliberative optative of the direct question is retained in the indirect question.

6:12–16 The Choosing of The Twelve

Cf. Matt. 5:1; 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19

12 Now it was during those days that he went out into the mountain to pray, and he spent the entire night in prayer to God. 13 When day came he called his disciples to him, and from among them he chose twelve, whom he also designated apostles:

14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

12. Now it was during those days that he went out into the mountain to pray, and he spent the entire night in prayer to God.

“During those days,” “the mountain.” Which days? Which mountain? Luke clearly is not the writer of a modern chronology. We are becoming used to his indefinite time and place indications (1:5, 24, 39; 2:1; even 3:1–3 to a certain extent; 3:15; 4:1, 14, 16, 31; 5:1, 12, 17, 27; 6:6). So also here in 6:12. The favorable aspect of this peculiarity is the fact that any actual discrepancy or conflict between Luke’s account and that of synoptic parallels, which at times are more definite, is thus avoided. But though the expression during those days is indefinite, it does say something. In the present instance the very broad interpretation “sometime during Christ’s earthly ministry” is unwarranted. As has already been shown, the choosing of The Twelve probably occurred shortly after the sabbath controversies related in 6:1–11.

The definite article (“the” mountain, not just “a” mountain), unless the reference is to the mountain region in general (“the hills”), probably indicates that a well-known mountain is meant. Was it the Horns of Hattin, named thus because its peaks resemble two horns when seen from afar? This elevation is located about six and one-half kilometers west of the Sea of Galilee and about thirteen kilometers southwest of Capernaum. Or was it even closer to, and in the same direction from, Capernaum? If so, the reference could be to the gentle, grassy slope just west of Tabgha.²⁴³

Jesus went into the mountain “to pray.” In fact, he spent the night in prayer to God. On the subject of Jesus’ prayer habits and the prominence of prayer in Luke’s Gospel see Introduction, point I A 5 b; 3:21; 5:16. If, as may be assumed, one of the items included in that prayer was the petition for wisdom in selecting a group of intimate followers, this would shed interesting light on the ways of God, especially when we bear in mind that the men who were selected were, at least mostly, run-of-the-mill individuals (cf. I Cor. 1:26). The group included even the man who was going to become a traitor, in order that, without in any way canceling human responsibility, God’s counsel regarding the salvation of his people might be carried out. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23.

13. When day came he called his disciples to him, and from among them he chose twelve, whom he also designated apostles.

The connection between this account of the choosing of The Twelve and the preceding paragraphs is probably closer than may appear on the surface. It has become clear that the enemies of Jesus were increasing in numbers and in the intensity of their opposition (5:21, 30; 6:2, 7, 11). The idea of doing away with Jesus was already being discussed (Mark 3:6; John 5:18). Jesus knew this. He also knew that according to God’s eternal decree the preaching of the gospel must continue, the gathering together of the elect must not cease. For that reason he was about to surround himself with a little band of witnesses, so that through their testimony this important task might be carried out after his own death and departure to heaven. He himself, the gloriously exalted Christ, through his Spirit, was going to continue to work and to teach by the agency of these followers. See Acts 1:1–8.

When day came he called “his disciples” to him. A disciple is a pupil, a learner. He is, however, more than a “bookworm,” or even than a “student.” Rather, he is an adherent, a follower. Between him and his Master there exists—at least should exist—a close personal fellowship. For more on the concept disciple see the note on this verse on page 333.

In the present case, as also in such passages as Luke 6:17; John 6:60, 66, the term disciple is used in the general sense of “follower.” It refers to any member of a large circle of adherents. From this wider group Jesus selected twelve men. He called them to him, and they came.

Luke makes a special point of the fact that Jesus also designated these men “apostles.” An apostle is a person who has been sent, commissioned. As such he represents his Sender, being clothed with authority, over life and doctrine, derived from him. In the New Testament the term apostle is used both in a looser and in a stricter sense. According to the broader application of the term such men as Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy are all called “apostles.” They all represent the cause of Christ. In doing so they may at times also represent certain definite churches whose “apostles” they are. See Acts 13:1, 2; II Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25. In the narrow and fuller sense, the term apostle is in the New Testament restricted to The Twelve and Paul. In the present context Paul is not yet in the picture. The reference is to the twelve men chosen at this time to be the constant followers of Jesus, the ones who, after having been taught by him, are going to be sent out on their important missions.

The idea, found in much present-day literature, according to which the “authority” of an apostle, if any, depends entirely on his charismatic gifts, lacks scriptural support. The authority is derived entirely from the Sender, and is real. See Matt. 10:1, 5, 14, 15, 20, 40; 16:19; John 20:21; Rom. 1:1; II Cor. 10:13; etc. The apostleship is an office, a divinely instituted commission with authority to carry it out.

The fact that Jesus appointed exactly twelve men, no more and no less, indicates that he had in mind the new Israel, for ancient Israel had twelve tribes and twelve patriarchs. The new Israel was going to be gathered from among all the nations, Jews and Gentiles alike (Matt. 8:10–12; 16:18; 28:19; Mark 12:9; 16:15, 16; Luke 4:25–27; John 3:16; 10:16; Rev. 21:12, 14). It was the continuation, in a new form, of the one and only “kingdom of God” that spans both the old and the new dispensation, as does “the church,” represented at times by the twelve patriarchs (or “tribes”) and the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:12, 14).

In the New Testament the names of The Twelve are listed four times (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13, 26). Acts 1:15–26 records the manner in which Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. With that exception the twelve names undoubtedly indicate the same persons in each of the four lists.

Omitting the one given in Acts, the lists are as follows:

Lists of The Twelve in the Synoptics

*Matthew*	*Mark*	*Luke*
Simon, Andrew, James, John; Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew; James (A), Thaddaeus, Simon (C), Judas Iscariot	Simon, James, John, Andrew; Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas; James (A), Thaddaeus, Simon (C), Judas Iscariot	Simon, Andrew, James, John; Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas; James (A), Simon (Z), Judas (J), Judas Iscariot

14–16. Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Simon, whom he named Peter. He was a son of Jonas or John. By trade he was a fisherman, who with his brother Andrew first lived in Bethsaida (John 1:44), afterward in Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). Both Mark and Luke report that it was Jesus who gave Simon the new name Peter. For details of this event see John 1:42. This new name, meaning rock, was a description not of what Simon was when called, but of what by grace he was to become. At first, and for some time afterward, Simon was anything but a model of steadfastness or imperturbability. On the contrary, he was constantly swaying from one position to its opposite. He turned from trust to doubt (Matt. 14:28, 30); from open profession of Jesus as the Christ, to rebuking that very Christ (Matt. 16:16, 22); from a vehement declaration of loyalty, to base denial (Matt. 26:33–35, 69–75; Mark 14:29–31, 66–72; Luke 22:33, 54–62); from “By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever,” to “Not my feet only but also my hands and my head” (John 13:8, 9). See also John 20:4, 6; Gal. 2:11, 12. Nevertheless, by the grace and power of the Lord this changeable Simon was transformed into a true Peter. In every list of the apostles Simon’s name is always mentioned first. From here on Luke calls him Peter, no longer Simon; but see 22:31; 24:34. For his significance in the post-resurrection church see N.T.C. on Matt. 16:13–20. Accordingly, when Jesus at this early date—for Luke 6:14 reflects John 1:42—assigned to Simon his new name, that was an act of love, a love that was willing to overlook the present and even the near future, and to look far ahead. Wonderful and transforming grace of our loving Lord!

Two New Testament books are by tradition accredited to this apostle: I and II Peter. And even Mark’s Gospel owes something to Peter, for Mark has not unjustly been called “Peter’s interpreter.”

His brother Andrew. It was he, also a fisherman, who brought Peter to Jesus (see N.T.C. on John 1:41, 42). For other references to Andrew see Mark 1:16, 17, 29; also study Mark 3:18; 13:3; John 6:8, 9; 12:22; Acts 1:13. See also below under Philip.

James and John. Luke mentions these two fishermen not only here and in 5:10 (see on that passage) but also later on (8:51; 9:28, 54; cf. Acts 1:13). There are also several references to them in the other Gospels. Probably because of their fiery nature Jesus called these two brothers Boanerges, “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). That the two did indeed have a fiery nature may perhaps be inferred from Luke 9:54–56. Cf. Mark 9:38. James was the first of The Twelve to wear the martyr’s crown (Acts 12:2). While he was the first to arrive in heaven, his brother John was in all probability the last to remain on earth. On the life and character of John, considered by many (I believe correctly) as being “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 18–21. Five New Testament books have by tradition been assigned to John: his Gospel, three epistles (I, II, and III John), and the book of Revelation.

Philip was at least for a while a fellow townsman of Peter and Andrew, that is, he too was from Bethsaida. Having himself responded to the call of Jesus, he found Nathanael, and said to him, “The one about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth” (John 1:45). When Jesus was about to feed the five thousand he asked Philip, “How are we to buy bread-cakes that these (people) may eat?” Philip answered, “Bread-cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something” (John 6:5, 7). Philip apparently forgot that the power of Jesus surpassed any possibility of calculation. To deduce from this incident the conclusion that Philip was a coldly-calculating type of person, more so than the other apostles, would be basing too much on too little. In the Gospels Philip generally appears in a rather favorable light. Thus, when the Greeks approached him with the request, “Sir, we would see Jesus,” he went and told Andrew, and these two, Andrew and Philip, brought the enquirers to Jesus (John 12:21, 22). It must be admitted that Philip did not always immediately understand the meaning of Christ’s profound utterances—did the others?—but to his credit it must be said that with perfect candor he would reveal his ignorance and ask for further information, as is also clear from John 14:8, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content.” He received the beautiful and comforting answer, “… He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Bartholomew (meaning: son of Tolmai) is clearly the Nathanael of John’s Gospel (1:45–49; 21:2). It was he who said to Philip, “Out of Nazareth can any good come?” Philip answered, “Come and see.” When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him he said, “Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist.” This disciple was one of the seven persons to whom the resurrected Christ appeared at the Sea of Tiberias. Of the other six only Simon Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned.

Matthew. This disciple has already been discussed in some detail (see above on 5:27–32; also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 92–97; 421–426; and on Mark, p. 95).

Thomas. The various references to Thomas indicate that both despondency and devotion marked this man. He was ever afraid that he might lose his beloved Master. He expected evil, and it was hard for him to believe good tidings when they were brought to him. Yet when the risen Savior in all his tender, condescending love revealed himself to him it was he who exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” For more information on Thomas see N.T.C. on John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28; 21:2. See also Acts 1:13.

James the son of Alphaeus. By Mark (15:40) he is also called “James the Less,” which by some is interpreted as meaning “James the younger,” but by others as “James small in stature.” About him we have no further positive information. It is probable, however, that he is the same disciple who is referred to in Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; and Luke 24:10. If this be correct, his mother’s name was Mary, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and stood near the cross. See N.T.C. on John 19:25. The Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew should probably not be identified with Alphaeus the father of James the Less.

Simon who was called the Zealot. Mark uses the expression Simon the Cananaean, this being an Aramaic surname which likewise means “enthusiast” or “zealot.” In all probability this name is here given him because formerly he had belonged to the party of the Zealots, a party which in its hatred for the foreign ruler, who demanded tribute, did not shrink from fomenting rebellion against the Roman government. See Josephus Jewish War II.117, 118; Antiquities XVIII.1–10, 23. Cf. Acts 5:37.

Judas the son of James. He is called Thaddaeus in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Lebbaeus in certain variants. He is in all probability “Judas not Iscariot” of John 14:22 (see on that passage); cf. Acts 1:13. From what is said about him in John 14 it would seem that he wanted Jesus to show himself to the world, probably meaning: to get into the limelight.

Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. His name is generally interpreted as meaning “Judas the man from Kerioth,” a place in southern Judea. (Some, however, prefer the interpretation, “the dagger-man.”) The Gospels refer to him again and again (Matt. 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3, 47, 48; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–5). He is at times described as “Judas who betrayed him,” “Judas one of the twelve,” “the betrayer,” “Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,” “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,” or simply “Judas.” This man, though thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deeds, was an instrument of the devil (John 6:70, 71). While other people, when they felt that they could no longer agree with or even tolerate Christ’s teachings, would simply disassociate themselves from him (John 6:66), Judas remained, as if he were in full accord with him. Being a very selfish person he was unable—or shall we say “unwilling”?—to understand the unselfish and beautiful deed of Mary of Bethany, who anointed Jesus (John 12:1 ff.). He was unable and unwilling to see that the native language of love is lavishness. It was the devil who instigated Judas to betray Jesus, that is, to deliver him into the hands of the enemy. He was a thief; yet it was he who had been entrusted with the treasury of the little company, with the predictable result (John 12:6). When, in connection with the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the dramatic moment arrived—forever commemorated in Scripture (Matt. 26:20–25; John 13:21–30) and emblazoned in art (Leonardo da Vinci, etc.)—in which Jesus startled The Twelve by saying, “One of you will betray me,” Judas, though having already received from the chiefpriests the thirty pieces of silver as a reward for his promised deed (Matt. 26:14–16; Mark 14:10, 11) had the incredible audacity to say, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Judas served as guide for the detachment of soldiers and the posse of temple police that arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It was by means of perfidiously kissing his Master, as if he were still a loyal disciple, that this traitor pointed out Jesus to those who had come to seize him (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:43–45; Luke 22:47, 48). As to the manner of Judas’ self-inflicted demise, see on Matt 27:3–5; cf. Acts 1:18.

What caused this privileged disciple to become Christ’s betrayer? Was it injured pride, disappointed ambition, deeply entrenched greed, fear of being put out of the synagogue (John 9:22)? No doubt all of these were involved, but could not the most basic reason have been this, that between the utterly selfish heart of Judas and the infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart of Jesus there was a chasm so immense that either Judas had to implore the Lord to bestow upon him the grace of regeneration and complete renewal, a request which the traitor wickedly refused to make, or else he had to offer his help to get rid of Jesus? See also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28. One thing is certain: The shocking tragedy of Judas’ life is proof not of Christ’s impotence but of the traitor’s impenitence! Woe to that man!

What points up the greatness of Jesus is that he took such men as these, and welded them into an amazingly influential community that would prove to be not only a worthy link with Israel’s past but also a solid foundation for the church’s future. Yes, he accomplished this multiple miracle with such men as these, with all their faults and foibles. Even when we leave out Judas Iscariot and concentrate only on the others, we cannot fail to be impressed with the majesty of the Savior, whose drawing power, incomparable wisdom, and matchless love were so astounding that he was able to gather around himself and to unite into one family men of entirely different, at times even opposite, backgrounds and temperaments. Included in this little band was Peter the optimist (Matt. 14:28; 26:33, 35), but also Thomas the pessimist (John 11:16; 20:24, 25); Simon the one-time Zealot, hating taxes and eager to overthrow the Roman government, but also Matthew, who had voluntarily offered his tax-collecting services to that same Roman government; Peter, John, and Matthew, destined to become renowned through their writings, but also James the Less, who remains obscure but must have fulfilled his mission.

Jesus drew them to himself with the cords of his tender, never-failing compassion. He loved them to the uttermost (John 13:1), and in the night before he was betrayed and crucified commended them to his Father, saying:

“I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.… Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, in order that they may be one, even as we are one.… I do not make request that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Consecrate them in the truth; thy word is truth. Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. And for thy sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecrated” (John 17:6–19, in part).²⁴⁴

Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 6:12–16

“He spent the entire night in prayer to God.”

What an amazing power there is in earnest prayer. How tremendous are the results! After this All-Night Prayer Vigil Jesus accomplished the following:

1. By calling to himself his disciples and from among them choosing The Twelve so that they might become his apostles (verses 13–16) he

a. organized the church in its New Testament manifestation, making it an institution for the good of mankind;

b. laid the foundation for world-wide missionary enterprise, a work that is still continuing.

2. He also

c. healed ever so many sick people (verses 17–19), thereby setting an example for all time of showing sympathy to and providing help for those in need; and

d. preached an unforgettably beautiful sermon (verses 20–49), one that has been a source of blessing to many throughout the centuries and continues to hold its place among the most quoted portions of sacred literature.

All this to God’s glory (Luke 2:14; cf. 17:18; 19:38; cf. Matt. 5:16; John 17:4).

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 6:12–16

Verse 12

προσεύξασθαι, aor. infinitive of προσεύχομαι, to pray, a verb occurring also in 1:10; 3:21; 5:16; 6:28; etc. Note cognate noun προσευχή (here dat. -ῃ). For synonyms see R. C. Trench, Synonyms, par. 51.

ἦν διανυκτερεύων, third per. s. periphrastic imperf. of διανυκτερεύω*, to pass or spend the night. English lacks a one-word equivalent. In 6:12 cf. Latin pernoctaret.

Verse 13

προσεφώνησεν, third per. s. aor. act. indicat. of προσφωνέω, to call to oneself (6:13; 13:12; Acts 22:2); to appeal to (23:20); to address, speak to, call out to (Matt. 11:16; Luke 7:32; Acts 22:2).

In the New Testament the term μαθητής is confined to the Gospels and Acts. In round figures it is found more than 70 times in Matthew, almost 50 times in Mark, almost 40 times in Luke, almost 80 times in John, and almost 30 times in Acts. Even when a few disputed occurrences are subtracted, it occurs about 260 times in the New Testament. At times it is used without reference to any specific master (Matt. 10:24, 25; Luke 6:40). Or the reference may be to the disciples of:

John the Baptist (Matt. 9:14a; 11:2; Luke 7:18, 19; John 3:25);

John and the Pharisees (Mark 2:18);

the Pharisees (Matt. 22:16);

Moses (John 9:28);

Paul (Acts 9:25).

In the great majority of cases the disciples of Jesus are indicated. Sometimes, as here in 6:13a, a large circle of followers or adherents is indicated. More often the reference is to The Twelve or to one or more men belonging to that inner group.

Basically a μαθητής is a learner. Cf. this noun with the verb to learn, μανθάνω. The root of such and similar words in Greek and related languages, including English, is MAN: to think. Has not man been called “a thinking animal”? Modifications of this same basic root are mind, mental, monition, monster, monument, medicine, mathematics, etc. Note also in the Greek New Testament ἀμαθής, ignorant; καταμανθάνω, to consider carefully; μαθητεύω, to make a disciple, to teach; μαθητεύομαι, to become a disciple; μαθήτρια, a woman-disciple; συνμαθητής, fellow-disciple.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that mere mental understanding or intelligence makes a person a true disciple of Jesus. It is part of the picture, an important part even, but only a part. The truth learned must be put into practice. It must enter into the very being of the person involved. The true disciple lives in close fellowship with his Master. This is true because the Master has chosen him, not vice versa (John 15:16). Jesus called him, and by God’s grace this person has responded to that call. If he remains loyal to Jesus and his word, he is truly Christ’s disciple (John 8:31).

On the meaning of the word disciple see also K. H. Renstorf’s article on μανθάνω … μαθητής and related words (Th.D.N.T., Vol. IV, pp. 390–461).

ἐκλεξάμενος, nom. s. masc. aor. middle participle of ἐκλέγω, to pick out (for oneself), select, elect, choose. Cf. ἐκλογή, election.

ἀπόστολος, apostle, one who is sent, commissioned. See John 13:16; 20:21–23. In the Third Gospel this noun occurs 6 times (6:13; 9:10; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10); in Acts 28 times (1:2, 26, etc.). In Matthew it is found only in 10:2; in Mark probably twice (3:14, if authentic; 6:30); in John once (13:16). It also occurs at least once in each of the remaining New Testament books, with the exception of II Thessalonians, Philemon, James, and the three epistles of John. On the term apostle see also N.T.C. on Gal. 1:1. In the Gospels the more usual name for the small group of constant followers—with whom Jesus surrounded himself, whom he taught and sent out to preach, to heal, to cast out demons, etc.—is The Twelve. See Matt. 10:5; 26:14, 47; Mark 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47; John 6:67, 70; 20:24.

Verse 16

προδότης (cf. προδίδωμι, to give before, to betray), betrayer, traitor. Judas became a traitor. He was not a traitor when Jesus called him.

6:17–19 Jesus’ Power to Heal

Cf. Matt. 5:1, 2

17 Then he went down with them and stopped on a level place where there was a huge crowd of his disciples and a vast throng of people from all over Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. 18 They had come to listen to him and to be cured of their diseases. Those who were trouble by unclean spirits were being healed. 19 And all the people were trying to touch him, because power was going out from him and was curing everybody.

17, 18. Then he went down with them and stopped on a level place where there was a huge crowd of his disciples and a vast throng of people from all over Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. They had come to listen to him and to be cured of their diseases. Those who were troubled by unclean spirits were being healed.

According to Luke’s account Jesus had gone into the mountain to pray and had chosen The Twelve. To this the evangelist now adds that together with this intimate band of followers the Master “went down” until he stood on “a level place.” This may well have been a large level tract that coincides with the far larger gentle, grassy slope west of Tabgha, not far from Capernaum.

We see Jesus standing here surrounded by The Twelve, a huge crowd of other followers—“disciples” in the broader sense of the term (see on verse 13)—, and a vast throng of other people not only from the south (Judea, including Jerusalem) but even from the northwest, the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. Is it not natural to see in this event a fulfilment, however partial, of Psalm 87:4 (LXX, 86:4)?

All these people had come to Jesus. Writing, no doubt, in general terms, Luke says that their purpose was twofold: (a) to listen to Jesus, and (b) to be cured of their diseases.

a. to listen

Their desire for a message from his lips did not meet with disappointment, for it was to them and on this very occasion that Jesus addressed words that were bound to live forever, that is, to be repeated over and over again throughout the centuries and in ever so many languages and dialects all over the world.

Are we correct in regarding what is reported in Luke 6:20–49 as Luke’s report of the same sermon recorded by Matthew in his chapters 5–7? But according to the Third Gospel this sermon was preached “on a level place,” whereas according to Matt. 5:1, 2 it was proclaimed from a mountain. However, this surely is no discrepancy. The “problem,” if it can even be considered such, disappears when we grant that “the level place” may well have been part of “the mountain.” It was the elevation beyond which Jesus did not now descend. He “remained standing,” or “stopped” here.²⁴⁵

Besides, as reported by Luke the sermon is introduced as follows, “Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said.…” Compare this with Matthew’s, “And he opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying.…” Luke’s ending (7:1) reads, “After Jesus had concluded all his words in the hearing of the people.…” With this compare Matthew’s, “Now when Jesus had finished these sayings.…” In addition, the train of thought is to a considerable extent the same in both Gospels: beatitudes, supremacy of love, the two builders.

It is admitted that the two reports are not identical. Matthew’s coverage is more than three times as extensive as Luke’s. This shows that the Gospel writers were not mere copyists. Each wrote in accordance with his own background, character, and endowment. Perhaps even more important: each wrote in harmony with his own specific purpose. Thus it is not surprising that Matthew includes various matters that were of special interest to his Jewish readers whom he was trying to reach for Christ (for example, 5:17–42; 6:1–6, 16–18). Since Luke was not primarily writing for Jews he omits such matters. On the other hand Luke’s account contains material (e.g., 6:24–26, 38–40) not found in that identical form in Matthew, or not included by him in this sermon at all. It is not only possible but very probable that many of the sayings found in The Sermon on the Mount were repeated by the Lord as he traveled from place to place.

b. to be cured

Note how carefully Luke distinguishes between the obviously “sick” who were cured of their diseases and the “troubled” who were delivered of “unclean,” that is, evil, spirits. For demon possession and expulsion see on 4:33–37. In each classification there must have been a good many people who were healed at this time. Something similar had happened before (4:40, 41), and was to happen again (7:21, 22). Add to this the many healings that are separately reported in the Gospels (here in Luke see 4:38, 39; 5:12, 13, 24, 25; 7:10; 8:44, etc.). And do not forget John 21:25.

It should be borne in mind, moreover, that to the tenderly loving heart of Jesus people were not merely “cases.” Each human being was the object of special treatment, such as was suitable for him, for him alone. Into each person’s circumstances the Savior wholly entered with his sympathetic heart. See Luke 7:13; cf. Matt. 8:17; 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; John 11:35.

19. And all the people were trying to touch him, because power was going out from him and was curing everybody.

In connection with 5:13 something was said about Christ’s healing touch and about the people’s desire to touch Christ. Obviously we are here concerned with the latter. All the people were trying to touch Jesus because healing power was constantly proceeding from him. That is clearly what the passage says, and we should not try to change it to something else. In fact, the truth here expressed is not confined to this single passage. The fact that our Lord at times sensed that healing power was proceeding from him is also expressed in Luke 8:46; cf. Mark 5:30. Probably with noble intentions—to guard against magical qualities being attributed to the garments or fingers of Jesus?—some prefer a different rendering for the last part of verse 19. They conceive of the words that follow the comma as constituting a compound clause, to be translated as follows, “because power was going out from him and he was curing everybody.”²⁴⁶ The vast majority of translators and commentators, however, have accepted the single clause rendering (power was going out from him and was curing) and this with good reason: (a) it harmonizes best with the passages cited earlier (Mark 5:30, see also verse 29; Luke 8:46); (b) if Luke had intended to introduce another clause into this short sentence, he would probably have done so without leaving any room for doubt. Since the evangelist states that the outgoing power was issuing from Jesus himself, making it clear that it was Jesus who was accomplishing the cure, there is no real difficulty.

It is not claimed that the “faith” of the people that caused them to rush toward Jesus so as to be able to touch him was necessarily free from all “foreign” elements. In many a case it may well have been mixed with superstition. But that is not Luke’s emphasis. He wants us to rivet our attention on Jesus, whose power was enabling him to heal all, and whose heart, filled with sympathy, was impelling him to do just that!²⁴⁷

Practical Lesson Derived from Luke 6:17–19

“They had come to listen to him and to be cured.… Power was going out from him and was curing everybody.”

Jesus satisfies every need. See Fanny J. Crosby’s “A Wonderful Savior Is Jesus My Lord” (also listed under “He Hideth My Soul”).

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions 6:17–19

Verse 17

ἔστη, third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. of ἵστημι. Jesus stopped—or remained standing—here, did not descend any farther.

πεδινοῦ, gen. s. of πεδινός* (-ή, -όν), level, flat. Cf. πεδίον, a plain, a place convenient for travel by feet; cf. pedestrian.

παραλίου, gen. of παράλιος* (supply χώρα, the seacoast, coastal region), from παρά, by, and ἅλς, sea.

Note the ὄχλος series of words in verses 17, 18, 19, including ἐνοχλούμενοι, probably originally crowded; hence annoyed, troubled; pres. pass. participle of ἐνοχλέω; cf. Heb. 12:15.

Verses 18, 19

ἀκοῦσαι, aor. act. infinitive of ἀκούω, to hear, to listen to. When there is a distinction in meaning between this verb followed by the gen. and the same verb followed by the accusative, the former indicates hearing sounds; the latter, understanding words. See Gram. N.T., p. 506; also Acts 9:7; contrast Acts 22:9. But owing to the gradual intrusion of the accusative into the territories of the other cases, a process already apparent in the Koine, this rule is by no means inflexible. See also Robertson, Word Pictures, Acts, p. 118.

Note, in verses 18, 19, ἰαθῆναι … ἰᾶτο; the first being the aor. passive infinitive; the second, the third per. s. middle imperfect, of the verb ἰάομαι. There is little, if any difference in meaning between the two verbs for “healing” here used.

On ἐθεραπεύοντο, third per. pl. imperfect (progressive, descriptive) of θεραπεύω see also the note on 4:23 on page 261. In John’s Gospel this verb is found once; in Mark 5 times; in Matthew 16 times, while Dr. Luke (in the Fourth Gospel and Acts) uses it 19 times. It is natural that the beloved physician took a deep interest in the therapeutics practiced by the Great Physician.

As presented by Luke, The Sermon on the Mount (see 6:12, 17; cf. Matt. 5:1), in which “the gospel of the kingdom” (6:20; cf. Matt. 4:23) is set forth, may be divided as follows:

I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes

with reference, respectively, to those inside and those outside the kingdom (6:20–26)

II. The Standard of Life Demanded by the King (6:27–45)

A. The Light of Love He Commends (6:27–38)

B. The Darkness of Sin He Condemns (6:39–45)

III. Application: The Parable of The Two Builders (6:46–49)

Note resemblance between this Outline and the Sermon Summary found on pp. 262, 263 of N.T.C. on Matthew. In connection with this essential similarity note also the variety of presentation.

6:20–26 I. Four Beatitudes and Four Woes

For the Beatitudes cf. Matt. 5:1–12

20 Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said:

“Blessed (are) you poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

21 Blessed (are) you who now are hungry,

for you shall be fully satisfied.

Blessed (are) you who now weep,

for you shall laugh.

22 Blessed are you when men hate you; when they exclude you, heap insults upon you,²⁴⁸ and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of man.

23 Exult in that day and leap for joy,

for great, indeed, is your reward in heaven; for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets.”

24 “But woe to you who are rich,

for you have already received your consolation in full.

25 Woe to you who now are well-fed,

for you shall go hungry.

Woe (to you) who now are laughing,

for you shall mourn and weep.

26 Woe (to you) when all men speak well of you,

for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.”

Our Lord’s “Beatitudes” as Reported by Luke and by Matthew

Luke’s Beatitude No. 1

Blessed (are) you poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

Matthew’s Corresponding Beatitude No. 1

Blessed (are) the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke’s Beatitude No. 2

Blessed (are) you who now are hungry,

for you shall be fully satisfied.

Matthew’s Corresponding Beatitude No. 4

Blessed (are) those hungering and thirsting for righteousness,

for they shall be fully satisfied.

Luke’s Beatitude No. 3

Blessed (are) you who now weep,

for you shall laugh.

Matthew’s Corresponding Beatitude No. 2

Blessed (are) the mourners,

for they shall be comforted.

Luke’s Beatitude No. 4

Blessed are you when men hate you, etc.

for great, indeed, is your reward in heaven, etc.

Matthew’s Corresponding Beatitude No. 8

Blessed (are) those persecuted for righteousness’ sake,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, etc.

Thus, while, broadly speaking, Matthew has a beatitude corresponding to each of Luke’s, Luke has no parallel to Matthew’s third, fifth, sixth, and seventh (respectively concerning the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers).

Correspondence between

Beatitudes and Woes

as reported by Luke

Beatitude No. 1

Blessed (are) you poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

Woe No. 1

But woe to you who are rich,

for you have already received your consolation in full.

Beatitude No. 2

Blessed (are) you who now are hungry,

for you shall be fully satisfied.

Woe No. 2

Woe to you who now are well-fed,

for you shall go hungry.

Beatitude No. 3

Blessed (are) you who now weep,

for you shall laugh.

Woe No. 3

Woe (to you) who now are laughing,

for you shall mourn and weep.

Beatitude No. 4

Blessed are you when men hate you

....................

for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets.

Woe No. 4

Woe (to you) when all men speak well of you,

for in just the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.

Those who, comparing Matthew’s report of this sermon with Luke’s, see a contradiction, will find it difficult to prove this. In each case what has been preserved of this sermon is a summary. Would it not be unrealistic to believe that Jesus spoke less than fifty minutes? Nevertheless, it takes the average reader only about seven minutes to read Matt. 5:3–7:27, and only about two minutes to read Luke 6:20–49. As long as what each reporter has left us is what was actually said, main points being accurately reflected, there is no real problem, no conflict. In view of John 20:30, 31; 21:25 it is unreasonable to demand something corresponding to a complete tape recording of every spoken word. In the time it took Jesus to deliver this heart-searching address he had ample opportunity to utter the eight Beatitudes reported by Matthew and the four Beatitudes plus four Woes reported by Luke, all the more so when we bear in mind that with respect to the Beatitudes there is overlapping between the two reports.

For more introductory material on the Beatitudes see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 264–268.

A. 6:20–23 Four Beatitudes

20. Then he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said:

Blessed (are) you poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

Jesus looked meaningfully at his disciples. Who were these disciples? The word may indicate the wide circle of followers to which reference was made in verse 17. Even then, however, the words, “Blessed are you poor,” were most suitable for The Twelve, whom the Master had chosen a little earlier this same day (verses 13–16), and who had given up everything to follow him (18:28).

Not that the sermon as a whole was meant only for Jesus’ disciples. Verse 27 and the parable of The Two Builders (verses 47–49; cf. Matt. 7:24–27) show that this cannot have been true. Besides, the Woes of verses 24–26 were pronounced on the wicked, not on the followers of Jesus. But in the very nature of the case the Beatitudes suited the disciples, with implied warnings for everybody.

“Blessed (are) you poor” does not mean, “Blessed are all poor people,” nor can it mean, “Blessed are you, my disciples, because you are poor in earthly goods.” Physical poverty is not necessarily a blessing (Prov. 30:9b; Isa. 8:21). But Jesus was able to say, “Blessed (are) you poor,” because, considered as a group, these men, poor with respect to earthly goods, had been made aware of their spiritual poverty and of their riches in God. See Ps. 40:17:

Though I am poor and needy,

The Lord thinks of me;

My Help and my Deliverer art thou,

O my God, delay not.

Thus interpreted, it is understandable that Jesus added, “for yours is the kingdom of God.” The sum total of blessings that result when God is acknowledged as King over heart and life belongs even now to the poor. This interpretation also brings Luke 6:20 in line with Matt. 5:3, “Blessed (are) the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

21a. Blessed (are) you who now are hungry,

for you shall be fully satisfied.

In line with “Blessed (are) you poor,” without the addition “in spirit,” is Luke’s Second Beatitude, “Blessed (are) you who now are hungry,” without the addition “for righteousness” (as in Matt. 5:6). But here again what is expressed in Matthew is implied in Luke. In both cases the final reference is to spiritual hunger, hunger for righteousness.

In a parable reported only by Luke, that of The Pharisee and The Tax-Collector, Jesus has given us a touching illustration of this spiritual hunger. Note the words, “But the tax-collector, standing at a distance, did not even venture to lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept beating his breast, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, the sinner’ ” (18:13). The hunger here meant is a yearning for mercy and forgiveness, for peace of mind and heart, purity and holiness, fellowship with God.

Full satisfaction is promised, as is the case also in the parable to which reference was made (see 18:14).

21b. Blessed (are) you who now weep,

↑ Back to top