the resurrection
11. The second prediction of the passion and the resurrection (Mark 9:30–32; cf. Luke 9:43b–45). Here, however, Luke omits any reference to
the resurrection
.
12. Question and answer concerning “greatness” (Mark 9:33–37; cf. Luke 9:46–48).
13. Jesus’ answer to John’s implied question (Mark 9:38–41; cf. Luke 9:49, 50).
At this point Luke’s story takes a sharp turn and ceases to follow the sequence of Mark; that is, Mark’s
14. “And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,” etc. (9:42–50), is not paralleled in Luke 9:51 f. but in 17:1, 2.
The question, then, is, “Why, after closely following Mark’s sequence up to and including Mark 6:44, does Luke bypass the material found in Mark 6:45–8:26, resume his parallel account at Mark 8:27, and break it off again at Mark 9:41?”
Many answers have been given, including the following:
a. Luke has planned his Gospel in such a manner that, within the compass of a single papyrus roll, he will have room for the inclusion of much material—especially many strikingly beautiful parables—not found in the other Synoptics.
b. Having already reported several examples of Christ’s teaching and healing during The Great Galilean Ministry, the beloved physician, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that this sufficed for the attainment of his goal.
c. Specifically, having already reported one miraculous feeding, that of the five thousand (Luke 9:10–17; cf. Mark 6:30–44), Luke did not deem it necessary to report still another, that of the four thousand (Mark 8:1–10). Besides, that miracle took place in predominantly Gentile territory, and, as stated earlier (see on 2:39), on the whole Luke reserves for the book of Acts the account of work among the Gentiles.
d. Luke did not think that Mark’s lengthy account concerning ceremonial versus real defilement, including a sharp denunciation of the Pharisees (Mark 7:1–23), was appropriate in a Gospel intended mainly for Gentile readers.
Unquestionably, these explanations are valid, but more should be added, for up to this point the last part of our question—namely, “Why does Luke resume his parallel account at Mark 8:27, and break it off again at Mark 9:41?” has not yet been answered.
It is exactly in connection with this question that the real beauty and importance of the Third Gospel becomes evident. There is nothing haphazard about Luke’s inclusions and omissions. What we have here is a step-by-step answer to the question of Mark 8:27; Luke 9:18, “Who do the people say I am?” That is why at this particular point the evangelist resumes his policy of paralleling Mark. Stated even better: Luke is simply following his own plan. At 9:18–21 (cf. Mark 8:27–30) Luke is in the midst of a process of answering the question touching the identity of Jesus. Note the evangelist’s own climactic arrangement:
a. Beginning at Luke 9:7–9 Herod asked, “Who, then, is this man about whom I am hearing such things?”
b. By means of the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (verses 10–17) Jesus starts to give an answer to the question of his identity. This is true especially in the light of such parallel passages as John 6:14, “This is really the Prophet who is to come into the world,” and 6:35, 48, “I (myself) am the bread of life.”
c. Next, Luke reports that the people were divided in their opinion about Jesus. Their answers were threefold: “(He is) John the Baptist … Elijah … one of the ancient prophets come back to life” (verses 18, 19).
d. Peter’s answer is brief and striking, “(Thou art) the Christ of God” (verse 20). In this connection Jesus points out that being the Christ—that is, the long-awaited Messiah of prophecy—means the cross for himself, and in a sense even for all his true followers; some of whom, however, will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God (verses 21–27).
e. The climax is reached in the answer given by the Father, as recorded in the account of the transfiguration (verses 28–36). It is as follows, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him” (verse 35).
f. Once having reached this climax, and having again described the sense in which Jesus is the Messiah (verse 44) and who his true followers are, a group from which no one must be arbitrarily excluded (verses 46–50), Luke had, for the time being, accomplished his purpose. He could then concentrate his attention on those precious materials (parables, etc.) that are, to a large extent, not found in the other Gospels.
Truly Luke’s Gospel is not a hodgepodge. It “stands on its own feet,” evincing an organic beauty and unity of its own.
18. Once while Jesus was praying in private—(only) his disciples were with him—he asked them, Who do the people say I am?
As to both place and time when this incident occurred, Luke, in harmony with the plan of his Gospel (see p. 178), is very indefinite. From Matt. 16:13 and Mark 8:27 we learn that the place was the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi.
By Philip the tetrarch this place had been enlarged, beautified, and named in honor of Caesar Augustus. Near it was a sanctuary to the pagan god Pan, which gave rise to the name Paneas to mark the general site where Caesarea was subsequently located. The designation Pan is still reflected in Bāniyās, as it is called today. To distinguish this Caesarea from its namesake, the important seaport south of Mt. Carmel, and to indicate its founder, the more northern city was called Caesarea Philippi.
Situated near one of the sources of the Jordan River, with 9,232 feet high majestic Mt. Hermon, snow-covered throughout most of the year, in the immediate background, it was truly a landscape of unforgettable picturesqueness, a place exactly suited to the purpose for which Jesus wished to use it, namely, for private prayer, as here stated, and for imparting instruction to his disciples.
Having been strengthened through fellowship with his heavenly Father—cf. Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12—Jesus now asks his disciples, “Who do the people say I am?”
Already Jesus knew that at the appropriate moment, that is, after the disciples’ reply, he would ask an even more important question, the one found in verse 20. What had been veiled heretofore must now come out into the open; not as yet for announcement to the general public, but so that the disciples may know who this Jesus really is and what is going to happen to him. Afterward, when the dramatic events do actually take place, these men will not remain as thoroughly perplexed as would have been the case had they not been preinformed about them. Cf. John 14:29; 16:1, 4, 33.
19. They replied, John the Baptist; and others (say) Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has come back to life.
The answer, similar to the reports Herod the tetrarch had been hearing (verses 7, 8), was that some were of the opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist risen again. This seems to have been the most general opinion. But others held Jesus to be Elijah. These first two groups may have viewed Jesus as a forerunner of the Messiah. Finally, there were those who considered Jesus to be neither John the Baptist nor Elijah but simply one of the ancient prophets come back to life. Jeremiah perhaps? See Matt. 16:14.
Note that in this connection the opinion that Jesus might himself be the Messiah is here not even mentioned. See, however, John 6:14. But even if, as a result of the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, the idea that Jesus was the Messiah had taken root in the minds of some, it was the earthly, political Messiah of Pharisaic hope whom they then imagined to see in him, as is clear from John 6:15.
20. He asked them, But you, who do you say I am?
In the original the pronoun you is very emphatic. Jesus wants his disciples to make an open confession of their faith. That, in turn, would enable him to purify that faith; that is, to tell them that he was not the Messiah of popular expectation but the One who, in harmony with Isa. 53, etc., would suffer, be rejected, killed even … and on the third day raised up. See verse 22.
Peter answered, The Christ of God.
Since the question had been put to all, that is, to The Twelve, and none objected to the answer, we may safely assume that here, as well as in the parallel passages (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29), Peter was the spokesman for all. He often acted in this capacity (Matt. 15:15, 16; 19:27, 28; 26:35, 40, 41; Mark 1:36; Luke 8:45; 9:32, 33; 12:41; 18:28; John 6:67–69; Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37, 38; 5:29).
Before leaving this subject, special attention should be called to the fact that the words of Jesus, “But you, who do you say I am?” convey a very important lesson, namely, that a true believer is one who is willing, whenever necessary, to fly in the face of popular opinion and openly to express a conviction that is contrary to that of the masses. In the best sense of the term, the believer is willing to stand up boldly in the interest of the truth.
Conformity with the world, compromise on basic issues, the unwillingness to be distinctive, is strongly condemned in Scripture (Rom. 12:2; II Cor. 6:14; I John 2:15–17). When “the sons of God” marry “the daughters of men” (Gen. 6:1, 2), the result is the deluge. When Israel worships a golden calf, three thousand Israelites lose their lives (Exod. 32:28). When Israel, with the purpose of being like other nations, demands a king, the final result is shameful defeat in a battle in which that king commits suicide (I Sam. 31:4). When the compromiser Jeroboam institutes calf-worship at Bethel and Dan, he is leading the people into a path that finally results in shameful deportation into a pagan country (I Kings 12:26–30; 14:16, 19, 26, 31; II Kings 3:3; 10:29, 31, etc.).
Not being “of the world” (John 17:16), believers are shining lights in the midst of the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). They are spiritually different from the world, in order to be a blessing to the world. So also here in Luke 9:19, 20, while everybody else is saying that Jesus is but a man—whether John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the (other) prophets, it makes no essential difference, for all these were but men—the true follower of Jesus answers, “(Thou art) the Christ of God.”
The importance of this momentous confession can hardly be exaggerated. It implies that The Twelve here acknowledge Jesus to be no less than the long-awaited One, God’s Anointed, the Messiah. For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew 16:13–19, pp. 641–652.
What the confession does not imply, however, is that The Twelve, or even Peter himself, understood in what sense Jesus was the Christ. It would take these men a very long time to learn this.
For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 508–511.
9:21–27 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection
Cf. Matt. 16:21–28; Mark 8:31–9:1
21 But he warned and commanded them to tell this to no one. 22 And he said, “It is necessary that the Son of man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.”
23 Then he said to all: “If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he shall save it. 25 For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and yet lose or forfeit his life? 26 For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and in that of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 Moreover, I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”
21. But he warned and commanded them to tell this to no one.
Possible reason for this strict order: The people would have interpreted the term Messiah = “Christ” in the political sense (cf. John 6:15). This might have fanned the flames of enthusiasm about him, as a potential Deliverer from the Roman yoke, to such an extent that the opposition and envy roused by such widespread attention might have brought his public ministry to an untimely end. This must not happen. When an open announcement must finally be made to the Jewish religious authorities, Jesus himself will make it (Matt. 26:63, 64; cf. Luke 22:66–70). We should also bear in mind that it would not have been proper for Jesus, during the days of his humiliation, to encourage public acclaim. That must be postponed until after his death and resurrection (Matt. 17:9). See also on Luke 5:14. The very fact of this death, followed by resurrection and ascension, will shed light on the character of Jesus’ messiahship (Acts 2:36; I Peter 1:3).
22. And he said, It is necessary that the Son of man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.
Characteristically Jesus calls himself “the Son of man,” a self-designation very fitting indeed, especially when the Master speaks about his coming suffering, death, and resurrection. See on 5:24. The present prediction is the first of three recorded in the Synoptics. For the second see Luke 9:43b–45 (cf. Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30–32); and for the third, Luke 18:31–34 (cf. Matt. 20:17–19; Mark 10:32–34).
The first prediction regarding Messiah’s rejection, etc., has the following characteristics:
a. This prediction was necessary. When the disciples, by the mouth of Peter, had confessed Jesus to be “the Christ of God” (verse 20), Jesus, by not contradicting this statement, had obviously assented to it. And in view of the fact that messiahship was by many interpreted in an earthly and political sense, it was necessary that the disciples be taught what it meant to be the Christ.
b. It was startling. The Son of Man, the very Messiah, actually to suffer and die; yes, to be killed, it was almost unbelievable. Even more shocking was this announcement in view of the fact that Jesus reveals that he, the Messiah, must be subjected to suffering and must be killed. This was true because of the Father’s will (John 3:16; Rom. 8:32), the Son’s own promise (Ps. 40:7), prophecy (Isa. 53), and the demands of the law (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–21; II Cor. 5:21). He must do what he himself also wanted to do (John 10:11; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20). In this first prediction all the emphasis is on necessity.
However, note also: on the third day he must be raised up. See Isa. 53:10; Luke 24:26, 27. In view of Luke 18:34 (cf. Mark 9:32) it is very doubtful whether this optimistic climax was appreciated by those who heard it.
c. It was revealing. Elders, chief priests, and scribes, the men who were supposed to protect and promote the religious interests of the people, those from whose circles the Sanhedrin was chosen, are actually going to kill Israel’s own Messiah!
Who, exactly, were these three groups?
As to elders, by this time the term had come to mean the lay members of the Sanhedrin. They were generally members of the highly privileged patrician families in Jerusalem.
The chief priests were members of the highpriestly families including the highpriest himself.
The scribes were the trained and ordained theologians of the day, the men versed in the Torah, the rabbis. Their task was to study, interpret, transmit, copy, and teach the law.
d. It was kind and wise. In order to spare the feelings of the men who were so dear to him, Jesus did not at this time convey to them the details of his gruesome approaching passion. Cf. John 16:12; Ps. 103:12–14.
e. It was clear. Earlier Messiah’s suffering, death, etc., had been indicated prophetically (Ps. 22; 69; 118; Isa. 53; Zech. 9, 11) and figuratively (Luke 2:35). Jesus himself, too, had spoken about it in a veiled manner (Mark 2:20; John 2:19). Now, however, he speaks plainly (Mark 8:32).
There is a sense in which Christ’s suffering and his death are unique. It is alone he pays the ransom for sin (Isa. 53; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 2:8–10; Phil. 3:7–9; Titus 3:4–7).
Over against every human claim to self-merit, be it the tiniest, this truth must be stressed and stressed and stressed.
It was alone the Savior prayed
In dark Gethsemane;
Alone he drained the bitter cup
And suffered there for me.
Alone, alone, He bore it all alone;
He gave himself to save his own,
He suffered, bled and died alone, alone.
Ben H. Price
Equally scriptural, however, is the truth that believers are sharers in Christ’s suffering, as they are also in his glory. So closely-knit are Christ and his people that it is difficult to think of the one apart from the other. This unity in love and consequently also in grief and glory, pain and pleasure, reproach and rejoicing, is taught in such passages as Matt. 10:22, 24, 25; 25:40; Luke 10:16; John 16:33; 17:21–24; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14; Rom. 8:17; II Cor. 1:5; Gal. 6:17; Phil. 3:10; II Tim. 2:12; I Peter 4:13, to mention only a few. It is also taught in the passage which immediately follows, beginning with the words:
23. Then he said to all …
As Mark 8:34 shows, at this point Jesus calls to himself the multitude, for the earnest exhortation which follows is of significance to all; in fact, is for all a matter of life or death, of everlasting life versus everlasting death. Hence, all—not only The Twelve—must hear what follows.
Continued: If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.
To “come behind” means to attach oneself to Jesus as his disciple. The figure is based on the fact that Christ’s “followers”—not only The Twelve but also many others—often accompanied the Master, and frequently literally came on behind him.
What, then, must a person do in order to be considered a true disciple? Well, if he wishes to come behind me, says Jesus, then first, he must deny himself; that is, he must once and for all say No to his old self, the self as it is apart from regenerating grace. A person who denies himself gives up all reliance on whatever he is by nature, and depends for salvation on God alone. He turns away in dismay not only from whatever thoughts and habits are patently sinful but even from reliance on “religious”—for example Pharisaic—thought patterns that cannot be harmonized with trust in Christ. See II Cor. 10:5. He must be willing to say with Paul, “Such things that once were gains to me these have I counted loss for Christ.…” See Phil. 3:7–11.
Secondly, he must take up his cross. The underlying figure is that of a condemned man who is forced to take up and carry his own cross to the place of execution. However, what the convict does under duress, the disciple of Christ does willingly. He voluntarily and decisively accepts the pain, shame, and persecution that is going to be his particular—note: his, not someone else’s—lot because of his loyalty to Christ and his cause. Luke has even retained Jesus’ insistence on making the taking up of one’s cross a daily assignment.
Finally, he must begin to follow and must keep on following Jesus. Here following the Master means trusting him (John 3:16), walking in his footsteps (I Peter 2:21), and obeying his commands (John 15:14) out of gratitude for salvation in him (Eph. 4:32–5:2).
To summarize, verse 23 may be paraphrased as follows: “If anyone wishes to be counted as my adherent, he must once and for all say farewell to self, decisively accept pain, shame, and persecution for my sake and in my cause—day in, day out—and must then keep on following me as my disciple. He must subject himself to my discipline.”
We must be careful not to conceive of this self-denial, etc., in a chronological fashion, as if the Lord were exhorting his hearers to practice self-denial for a while, then after a lapse of time to take up and carry the cross, and, once having shouldered that burden for another time period, to follow Jesus. The order is not chronological but logical. Together the three indicate true conversion, followed by lifelong sanctification.
A second error to be guarded against is the notion that a person would be able in his own power to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow the Savior. Conversion (as well as the process of sanctification that follows it), though certainly a human responsibility, is impossible without regeneration (John 3:3, 5), which is the work of the Holy Spirit in man’s heart. Moreover, that Spirit does not leave man to his own resources once the latter has been reborn, but remains with him forever, enabling him to do what otherwise he would not be able to do. It is, nevertheless, human responsibility and activity upon which the emphasis falls here in verses 23 ff.
In the next three verses (24–26) the obligation to be converted, etc., and the reward that results are brought into sharp contrast with the loss experienced by those who refuse to deny themselves, to take up their cross, and to follow Jesus. Each of the three verses begins with “For.”334 These “For” sentences or verses may therefore be considered as presenting, in a way, the basis for the urgent command of verse 23. What we have here is a phenomenon often occurring in Scripture and also in daily conversation, namely, abbreviated expression.335 Fully expressed, the meaning of verses 24–26 would be somewhat as follows, with implied words in parentheses: 24 (Let him not refuse) For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he shall save it. 25 (Let him not follow the wrong course) For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and yet lose or forfeit his life? 26 (Let him not refuse, therefore) For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and in that of the Father and of the holy angels.
Accordingly, with an implied “Let him not refuse,” there follows in verse 24. For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he shall save it. Meaning: the individual who would—or “should wish to”—save his life shall lose it. Exactly what is it that he wishes to save? Answer: his life, that is, himself. Here, however, we must make a distinction. In the present case the “life,” “soul” or “self” which this person presumably wishes to save is his own immaterial and invisible being considered apart from regenerating grace. This man clings to that sinful life of his, holding on to it tenaciously. He reminds us of the rich fool described in Luke 12:16–21. See also 16:19–31. He piles up material goods, thinking all the while of self, never of others. He imagines that material possessions, or else pleasure, prestige, fame, can bring him the inner peace and satisfaction he is looking for. But this selfish narrowing of his horizon makes his soul narrower and narrower. He loses it; that is, he loses whatever remnant of the higher, nobler life was left in him at the beginning.
On the other hand, whoever loses his life “for my sake,” he shall save it. One “loses” his life in the present sense by devoting oneself completely to Christ, to the service of those in need, to the gospel. Cf. “for my sake and the gospel’s” (Mark 8:35). Note that Christ lays claim to absolute devotion. This proves that he regards himself as Lord of all, and that the evangelist was fully aware of this! The person who offers this devotion saves his life, that is, his soul, or as we can also say, himself. The self here indicated is the inner being as influenced by divine grace. It is only by losing oneself—looking away from self in order to serve the Master and his “little ones” (cf. Matt. 25:40)—that one can ever be saved. The soul with wide horizons expands, becomes wonderfully enlarged. It overflows with peace, assurance, joy, etc. In helping others, it helps itself. In loving, it experiences love, that of others, especially that of God. Consequently, Jesus urges upon every person in his audience not to follow the wrong course, the course of turning inward upon oneself, in an attempt to hang on to all one’s earthly “treasures.” To do so would amount to stupendous and, if persisted in, incurable folly.
The importance of this saying is clear from the fact that, in one form or another, Jesus makes use of it on different occasions throughout his ministry; for example, in connection with (a) The Charge to The Twelve (Matt. 10:39); (b) The First Prediction of the Passion and Resurrection (Matt. 16:25; cf. Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24); (c) The Discourse on The Coming of the Kingdom (Luke 17:33); and (d) The Request of the Greeks to See Jesus (John 12:25). And since it is clear that by no means all the words and works of the Master were reported in the Gospels (John 20:30; 21:25), he may well have expressed this same thought on still other occasions. He repeated this important principle or slogan again and again because
a. it was rooted in his own Great Decision to leave the glories of heaven in order to accomplish the great work of redemption (II Cor. 8:9; cf. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:24–27), and
b. for the sinner salvation is impossible apart from obedience to this rule.
Hymnology has been slow to incorporate this principle in its popular songs. Its basic idea is, however, nicely reproduced in George Mattheson’s similarly paradoxical lines:
Make me a captive, Lord,
And then I shall be free;
Force me to render up my sword,
And I shall conqu’ror be.
And, of course, in substance it is also reflected in the prayer of Francis of Assisi:
It is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
25. For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and yet lose or forfeit his life? Imagine for a moment that a person should gain the whole world—all its hidden gems and resources, whatever good things grow on it, the cattle upon a thousand hills, all the world’s splendor, prestige, pleasures and treasures—but in the process of doing this should lose or should forfeit—i.e., lose the right to possess—his own (higher) life or self, what good will this do him? Implied answer: no good whatever, only evil.
This becomes even clearer when attention is focused on the lot of the self-centered man in the hereafter. Let no one ignore this, 26. For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and in that of the Father and of the holy angels.
To be ashamed of Jesus means to be so proud that one wants to have nothing to do with him and with his words. Jesus is going to be ashamed of such people. Cf. Matt. 7:23; Luke 13:27. At his return he will reject and condemn them. Cf. Matt. 25:41–46a. Note Christ’s self-designation, “the Son of man,” as in verse 22; see on that verse and on 5:24.
The Son of man is the One who, coming from above and therefore intrinsically glorious throughout, here on earth suffers. But through his vicarious suffering he attains to a glory that is not only inward but also outward. He shall come in his own glory (John 17:1, 5, 24), and in that of the Father and of the holy angels, a threefold glory, therefore. Cf. Dan. 7:9–14; Matt. 25:31; II Thess. 1:7.
Jesus concludes the statement begun in verse 26, namely, about his and the kingdom’s “coming,” by adding:
27. Moreover, I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.
Clearly verses 26 and 27 belong together. If verse 26 has reference to a great happening in the history of redemption, namely, Christ’s second coming, verse 27 cannot very well indicate an event entirely different in character. Jesus is speaking about the state of exaltation in store for himself and in a sense also for those who are not ashamed of him. Accordingly, to interpret this passage—whether verses 26, 27 in their entirety, or verse 27 taken by itself—as having reference to the fall of Jerusalem in the year a.d. 70336 will not do.
In a statement both startling and significant—hence, “I tell you truly” (cf. 12:44 and 21:32)—Jesus regards the entire state of exaltation, from his resurrection to his second coming, as a unit. In verse 26 he refers to its final consummation; in verse 27, to its beginning. He is saying that some of those whom he is addressing (see verse 23) are going to be witnesses of that beginning. They are going to see “the kingdom of God”; that is, they are going to be witnesses of its powerful manifestation, its coming “with power” (Mark 9:1).
The reference is in all probability to Christ’s glorious resurrection, an act of power (John 10:18b; Rom. 1:4; I Cor. 6:14), his return in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when Christ’s followers would receive power (Acts 1:8), and in close connection with that event, Messiah’s coronation in heaven, his exaltation to “the Father’s right hand … far above every principality and authority and power” (Eph. 1:20, 21). See especially Luke 22:69.
Changes so vast would then begin to take place on earth that, as outsiders were going to remark, the world would be turned “upside down” (Acts 17:6). Momentous events would occur: the becoming of age of the church, its extension among the Gentiles, the conversion of people by the thousands, the presence and exercise of many charismatic gifts, etc. Jesus predicts that all this will begin to take place during the lifetime of some of those whom he is now addressing (see verse 23).
This prediction was literally fulfilled. By no means all who heard it, not even all of The Twelve, lived or were present to see its plenary fulfilment. Some “tasted death,” that is, died, before it began to be fulfilled; for example, Judas Iscariot. Thomas was not present on Easter evening. James, the brother of John, saw only the beginning of this wonderful period (see Acts 12:1, 2). Some apostles were absent when certain other important events took place (John 21:2). But many others, both of the apostles and of other followers of the Lord (I Cor. 15:6), including undoubtedly “some of those standing here,” did not taste death until they saw these events transpiring before their eyes.
The transfiguration (Luke 9:28–36), at which occasion “our Lord Jesus Christ … received from God the Father honor and glory” (II Peter 1:17), also “majesty” (verse 16), is by some337 regarded as included in the prediction made here in Luke 9:27. It was witnessed by only three of Christ’s apostles. But whether it be included or not, sufficient evidence has been given to show that Christ’s prediction was literally and gloriously fulfilled.
For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 508–511.
9:28–36 The Transfiguration of Jesus on the Mountain
Cf. Matt. 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8
28 Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took along Peter and John and James, and went up into the mountain to pray. 29 While he was praying, the appearance of his countenance changed, and his clothing was flashing like lightning, so bright. 30 Suddenly two men were talking with him. They were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glorious splendor, were speaking about his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
32 Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep. But having suddenly become wide awake, they saw his glory and the two men who were standing with him. 33 And just as these men were starting to leave, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not realizing what he was saying.
34 But while he was saying this, a cloud came and enveloped these men, and they [the disciples] grew alarmed as these men entered the cloud. 35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” 36 When the voice ceased, Jesus was found alone. They [the disciples] kept silent, and in those days told no one anything of what they had seen.
The exaltation of Jesus, from resurrection to second coming, is foreshadowed in the transfiguration, recorded here in 9:28–36. This transfiguration served the twofold purpose of (a) preparing the Mediator to face with courage his bitter trial, by reminding him of the Father’s constant love (9:35) and of the glory that would follow his suffering (Heb. 12:2); and (b) confirming the faith of Peter, James, and John—and indirectly of the entire church afterward—in the truth that had been revealed to and confessed by Simon Peter, as spokesman for The Twelve (9:20; cf. Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29).
There is no reason whatever to accept the rationalistic theory (Wellhausen, Bultmann, etc.) that originally what is here presented was an account of an appearance of the risen Christ (cf. I Cor. 15:5–8). Not only the report itself but also the context, both preceding and following, militates against that view.
28. Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took along Peter and John and James, and went up into the mountain to pray.
The expression about eight days after these sayings is not in conflict with “six days later” (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2). While Luke was probably using the inclusive method of time computation, including in his count both the day of Peter’s confession and that of Christ’s transfiguration, the other synoptists were likely referring only to the six intervening days. Besides, Luke does not even intend to be precise, for he says “about eight days.”
It should be added, however, that by stating “about eight days after these sayings” the beloved physician is not only furnishing a chronological note, but also providing a logical link between the “sayings,” on the one hand, and the Master’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, on the other; that is, 9:31 is explained by and explains 9:22.
Why did Jesus take with him Peter and John and James when he ascended the Mount of Transfiguration? For a discussion of this question see above, on 8:51.
It is impossible with certainty to identify the “mountain” (Luke 9:28), or “high mountain” (Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2), to which Jesus brought the three. Some say, “It was Mount Tabor.” However, in view of the fact that there was at that time a city or fortress on top of that mountain it is not easy to see how the Lord and these three men could here have found the privacy they were seeking. Mount Hermon is favored by others. However, when Jesus (with the three) descends from the mountain he is met by “a great multitude,” including scribes (Mark 9:14). This seems to indicate that “the Mount of Transfiguration,” as it can safely be called, was not in the far north, populated mostly by Gentiles. A far more logical place is Jebel Jermak (or Jermuk) in Upper Galilee, the highest elevation in that entire region, rising 4,000 feet above the Mediterranean Sea, affording a beautiful view in all directions. From this mountain it was but a relatively short distance to Capernaum, which Jesus seems to have reached soon afterward (Matt. 17:24; Mark 9:28, 33). We are, of course, not certain that this was the mountain to which Luke refers, but at least it fills all the requirements.338
It is Luke alone who mentions that Jesus went up into the mountain to pray. It is exactly Luke who could be expected to report this purpose. See above, Introduction, point I A 5b. It is understandable that the Mediator would often pour out his heart to the Father in prayer, and that he would do this especially now, since he knew that before long he would be wending his way toward Jerusalem and the bitter agony that awaited him there.
29. While he was praying, the appearance of his countenance changed, and his clothing was flashing like lightning, so bright.
Suddenly the face of Jesus “shone like the sun” (Matt. 17:2). The brightness even affected his clothes, so that they “became white as the light” (thus Matthew); “whiter than any laundryman on earth could make them” (Mark 9:3). The source of this dazzling brightness is not indicated. But see also on verse 35.
30, 31. Suddenly two men were talking with him. They were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glorious splendor, were speaking about his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.
The expression appearing in glorious splendor probably indicates that the two were “surrounded with heavenly brightness.” That “his departure [literally exodus] … at Jerusalem” refers to the Lord’s bitter suffering and death on the cross needs no proof. But if any is needed, see II Peter 1:15, where one of the three who witnessed Christ’s glory on the Mount of Transfiguration uses the same term with reference to his own death. Did this term, as used here in Luke 9:31, also include Christ’s resurrection? In view of the fact that in all three predictions of these coming events (a. Luke 9:22, cf. Matt. 16:21, Mark 8:31; b. Matt. 17:22, 23, cf. Mark 9:31339 c. Luke 18:31–33, cf. Matt. 20:17, Mark 10:32–34) humiliation is followed by exaltation, death by resurrection; and also in view of both Luke 9:35 and II Peter 1:16, 17, passages clearly showing that for Jesus the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration was one of comfort and strengthening, the answer must be in the affirmative. Besides, is it even conceivable that these heavenly messengers should speak with Jesus about his sufferings and death, but not about “the glory that should follow”(I Peter 1:11)?
32, 33. Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep. But having suddenly become wide awake, they saw his glory and the two men who were standing with him. And just as these men were starting to leave, Peter said to Jesus, Master, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah—not realizing what he was saying.
It would seem that the transfiguration and the arrival of the two visitors from heaven occurred while the three disciples were wrapped in deep slumber. At least, it was not until they had suddenly become wide awake that they clearly saw Jesus in all his glory. They also recognized Moses and Elijah, who were standing near him.
How did the disciples know that the two from the other world who suddenly appeared upon the scene were Moses and Elijah? Did these visitors introduce themselves? Did the disciples know this by intuition? Did they gather this information from the words spoken by each—Moses, Elijah—in his conversation with Jesus? Had the looks or personal appearance of the two heavenly visitors been transmitted to the disciples by tradition, whether oral or written, so that for this reason it was easy to recognize them and to tell them apart? Had the identification been divinely revealed to them? Or, last but not the least fanciful, was Moses carrying in his hand a copy of the law, and did Elijah descend from heaven to the mount in his fiery chariot? All we know, and need to know, is that in a manner not revealed to us the three disciples recognized the two visitors.
As to Moses, we know that he had died and had been buried (Deut. 34:5, 6). Had his body subsequently been disinterred and translated to heaven, and does Jude 9 indirectly support this theory? Or was his body still buried, and did God equip his soul with another body to be used just for this occasion? As to Elijah, we know that he never died, but was bodily translated to heaven (II Kings 2:11).
Why just these two? Leaving aside all useless speculation, the simplest and best answer is probably that Moses and Elijah represented respectively the law and the prophets, both of which Jesus had come to fulfil (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27, 44).
At the very moment when the two men had finished their conversation with Jesus and were beginning to take their departure, Peter addressed the Lord as follows, “Master, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters,” etc.
The trouble with Peter was that too often he spoke first and did his thinking afterward, if at all. So also here. Still, we should not be too hard on him, for he had just been awakened out of a deep sleep and, as the text indicates, did not know what he was saying. Also, he certainly does not evince any selfishness: he wants to make three shelters, not four (including one for himself) or six (also one for James and one for John).
Nevertheless, his suggestion was foolish. As if Jesus and the two visitors had no other means of protecting themselves against the weather and the environment. Besides, would branches and shrubbery—let us suppose that they were immediately available—provide sturdy protection, had it been needed?
It might be said in Peter’s favor that he at least submits the suggestion to the Lord, so that the latter may decide. On the other hand, this apostle’s very desire to prolong the glory-scene (“how good it is for us to be here!”) shows that he had not yet fully taken to heart what Jesus had taught him (see on 9:22). From suffering, from the cross, whether for Jesus or for himself, he wishes to stay far removed.
Peter’s question did not even receive an answer; either that, or else: the answer was included in the action reported in verse
34. But while he was saying this, a cloud came and enveloped these men, and they [the disciples] grew alarmed as these men entered the cloud.
In Scripture the presence of God is often indicated by the mention of a cloud. In several cases, as also here, it is a bright, white, or luminous cloud (cf. Exod. 13:21; 16:10; 40:35; I Kings 8:10, 11; Neh. 9:19; Ps. 78:14; Rev. 14:14–16).
The disciples grew alarmed. So much is clear. They became frightened because “these men” or “they” entered the cloud. The question is, “Who entered the cloud?” Here commentators divide into four groups:
a. those who skip the question.
b. those who say “Moses and Elijah did.” So, for example, Greijdanus; also Williams (“they were frightened as the two visitors entered into the cloud”).
c. those who regard as more natural that Jesus, Moses, and Elijah all entered the cloud (thus Godet, Knox, etc.).
d. those who say “certainly Jesus with Moses and Elijah, but just as certainly also the three disciples.” Thus Schürmann.
Possible solution of this problem:
As Godet (op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 429, 430) and others have pointed out, the voice coming out of the cloud (verse 35) “could scarcely be addressed to any but persons who were themselves outside the cloud.” This would mean, therefore, that Peter, James, and John did not enter the cloud.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the cloud served as a kind of chariot to remove Moses and Elijah from the earthly scene and to carry them back to their heavenly abode; for, as verse 36 makes clear, they are no longer present. Cf. Acts 1:9.
The question remains, “Where was Jesus? When Moses and Elijah had entered the cloud, had he momentarily entered with them?” Though this is not specifically stated, does it not seem natural to suppose that he had done exactly that, for from verses 30–33 we learn that he had been standing and conversing with the two visitors. If this conclusion is correct, it follows that the disciples, being themselves outside the cloud, had suddenly noticed that the enveloping formation of diffused light covered Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Also, on the basis of this supposition the “alarmed” condition of the three disciples becomes all the more understandable: to be suddenly separated from their Master frightened them. See also the note on verses 33, 34 on page 511.
35. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!
As already indicated, the Father’s voice was addressed not to Jesus—though the latter also heard it and was comforted by it—but to the three disciples outside the cloud. Now if these men knew their Bible and interpreted it correctly, they realized that the voice—ending with “listen to him”—was a clear confirmation of Jesus’ messiahship, for it reflected Deut. 18:15, a messianic passage (see Acts 3:22; 7:37) containing similar words (“to him you must listen”).
This exhortation to listen was certainly necessary, for The Twelve did not always take to heart their Master’s teachings. At times they thought their own knowledge and wisdom surpassed his (Luke 8:45). And did not the constant eagerness of these men to be “the greatest” (Luke 9:46; 22:24) prove how badly they needed to hear and to heed his advice? Peter had even descended to the level of flat, breath-taking contradiction (Matt. 16:22).
“Listen to him!” He is no less than what the Father here calls him: (a) “my Son,” an echo of the messianic Ps. 2:7; (b) “my Chosen One,” a reminder of the equally messianic Isa. 42:1.
The Father loves and delights in his Son; hence this voice and this glory. See II Peter 1:16–18; cf. John 1:14; I John 1:1. No wonder, for the Son, by his very recent refusal to fall into Satan’s trap—an attempt to get Jesus to seek to win the crown without bearing the cross (Matt. 16:22, 23)—and by his present calm discussion of the “exodus” in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), was reaffirming his desire and purpose to redeem his people, whatever the cost. For further elucidation of this passage see the comments on the largely similar words that were heard at Jesus’ baptism, Luke 3:22.
What especially must not escape our attention is the infinitely tender nature of the Father’s love as here revealed: love for his Son, his Chosen One; and, implied, love for his people; in a sense even love for “the world” (John 3:16; Rom. 8:32).
36. When the voice ceased, Jesus was found alone.
Upon hearing the voice, the disciples had fallen on their faces, for they were terribly frightened (Matt. 17:6). No better commentary on Luke 9:36 is possible than Matt. 17:7, 8, “Then Jesus approached, touched them, and said, ‘Get up and do not be afraid.’ And when they raised their eyes they saw no one but Jesus only.”
Conclusion: They [the disciples] kept silent, and in those days told no one anything of what they had seen.
This silence was in obedience to the order issued by, Jesus, as recorded in Mark 9:9. Cf. Matt. 17:9. Jesus knew that the time for public disclosure of his glory had not yet arrived. When the first open announcement to the people, as represented by their leaders, must be made, he himself would make it (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). After his resurrection the disciples would be free and even duty-bound to relate far and wide what they had seen, heard, and experienced on the Mount of Transfiguration. The very fact of Christ’s death, followed by his resurrection and ascension, would illumine the transfiguration account, setting it in its proper perspective.340
Practical Lessons Derived from 9:18–36
Verses 18–20
“Who do the people say I am? … But you, who do you say I am?” Two lessons stand out very sharply here:
a. Ever so many people regard Jesus as being, at best, the equal of other “great” ones; such as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Buddha, Mohammed, Lincoln, Gandhi. Those who by grace are God’s true children regard him as being unique, “the Christ of God.” Cf. John 14:6; Acts 4:12.
b. Faith is a personal matter. The question is not what others say; it is what we say and believe. Cf. Isa. 55:7; Mark 9:23, 24; Luke 8:50; 15:17–19; 18:9–14; John 9:35–38; Rom. 10:9; Gal. 2:20; I Tim. 1:15–17; II Tim. 1:3–5, 12; 4:6–8.
Verse 23
“If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me.” To deny oneself, etc., means to substitute the discipline of Christ for the cravings of one’s own sinful nature. This can be done only by the grace and power of God. Note the word daily. To be genuine, basic conversion must be followed by daily conversion.
Verse 24
“ For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake, he shall save it.”
Contrast the river that runs through its deep and narrow channel without ever becoming a blessing to its desert environment, with the raging torrent that has a dam constructed across it, and thereby gives rise to a great inland lake, converting the surrounding barren soil to fertile fields.
What accounts for the fact that the Sea of Galilee teems with life, while the Dead Sea is, indeed, dead?
Verse 31
“His departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” It is comforting to know that, in the final analysis, our salvation does not rest upon our own changeable and subjective spiritual condition, but upon God’s eternal plan. See Ps. 2:7, 8; 40:7; 89:15–18, 24, 28, 33; 138:8; Eph. 1:3–14. That throughout his earthly ministry Jesus was deeply conscious of the fact that he had been “sent” to carry out or “accomplish” the work which the Father had given him to do is clear from ever so many dominical utterances. See, for example, Luke 4:18; 5:32; John 7:6; 13:1; 17:4; 19:30; and see also the many references to this same conviction in chapters 3–10 of John’s Gospel. Those are right who sing:
I sing the gracious, fixed decree
Passed by the great eternal Three,
The counsel made in heaven above,
The Lord’s predestinating love.
Verse 33
“Master, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters,” etc. It seems that Peter had not taken to heart the Master’s words recorded in Matt. 16:23. This is by no means the only injudicious remark issuing from this apostle’s lips and recorded in the Gospels. See also Matt. 16:22; 26:33, 35, 69–74; Luke 8:45; John 21:21. Nevertheless, even this man was saved. He became a great witness-bearer. In fact, before the days of Paul, he was the most influential leader in the early Christian church. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 648, 649. Explanation? See Luke 22:31, 32; John 21:15–17; Eph. 2:8.
Notice that here Jesus gives Peter the silent treatment. It is not always necessary to answer a foolish remark. Prov. 26:4. This, too, is a lesson we may well take to heart.
Verse 36
“When the voice ceased, Jesus was found alone.” Love for his Father, for The Twelve, and for all those he came to save prevented him from accompanying Moses and Elijah on their way back to heaven. Hallelujah, what a Savior!
Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 9:18–36
Verse 18
ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν προσευχόμενον, articular periphrastic pres. infinitive of προσεύχομαι, to pray, the most comprehensive word among the entire group to which it belongs. For synonyms see R. C. Trench, Synonyms, par. 51; also N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 91–93. Cf. periphrastic imperfect in 1:10.
συνῆσαν, third per. pl. imperf. of σύνειμι**, from σύν and εἰμί; cf. Acts 22:11, to be with (someone); not to be confused with the form used in 8:4, where συνιόντος is gen. s. masc. pres. participle of σύνειμι*, from σύν and εἶμι, to come together.
Verse 22
Note emphatic position of δεῖ (it is necessary) at the very beginning of the quotation.
Verse 23
The words of Jesus here quoted form a simple or first class conditional sentence, with εἴ plus third per. s. pres. indicat., followed by pres. middle infinitive, in the protasis; and in the apodosis a series of three imperatives (the first two ingressive aorists; the third, present linear).
Verse 24
θέλῃ, third per. s. pres. subjunct. act. of θέλω, with indefinite relative pronoun whoever.
σῶσαι, aor. act. infinitive of σώζω, to save; see the note on 6:9 on page 325.
Note resumptive οὗτος. In order to retain the full flavor and emphasis of the original, this pronoun should be retained in translation; as is done by A.V., N.A.S., R.S.V., N.E.B., Berkeley, Amplified, Jerusalem Bible, Dutch (both Statenvertaling and Nieuwe Vertaling), etc.
Verse 25
ὠφελεῖται, third per. s. pres. indicat. pass. of ὠφελέω, to help, profit, benefit, do good (to). The anopheles mosquito is not helpful.
κερδήσας, nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of κερδαίνω, to gain, profit, win. This participle is here used in the conditional sense: “if he gain” or “to gain.”
ἀπολέσας, nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of ἀπόλλυμι; see the note on 8:24 on page 444.
ζημιωθείς, nom. s. masc. aor. pass. participle of ζημιόω, to visit with loss; in the passive: to suffer loss, damage; to sustain injury, to forfeit, to lose the right to possess or receive something. Cf. damage.
Verse 26
ἐπαισχυνθῇ, third per. s. aor. subjunct. pass. (but with acc. με; hence, transitive) of ἐπαισχύνομαι, to be ashamed of. Note also ἐπαισχυνθήσεται, third per. s. fut. indicat. pass., with acc. pronoun τοῦτον.
ὅταν ἔλθῃ, third per. s. aor. subjunct., “when he comes.”
Verse 27
ἑστηκότων, gen. pl. masc. perf. participle of ἵστημι, to set; here: they have set themselves; hence, are standing.
Note strong negative οὐ μή.
γεύσωνται, third per. pl. aor. subjunct. middle of γεύομαι, to taste. Cf. gustatory. Also cf. Latin: de gustibus non disputandum est (taste is not a matter for debate); or, as the Frenchman would say, chacun à son goût (each to his taste).
ἴδωσιν (after ἕως ἂν), third per. pl. 2nd aor. subjunct. act. of ὁράω, to see.
Verse 29
τῷ προσεύχεσθαι, articular pres. infinitive (in temporal sense) of προσεύχομαι, to pray.
ἐγένετο … τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον; literally: the appearance of his countenance became different.
ἐξαστράπτων, nom. s. masc. pres. participle of ἐξαστράπτω*, to flash like lightning, to gleam, glisten.
Verse 31
ὀφθέντες, nom. pl. masc. aor. pass. participle of ὁράω, to see; in pass.: to be seen, to appear.
Verse 32
ἦσαν βεβαρημένοι, third per. pl. pluperfect pass. periphrastic of βαρέω, to be heavy, weighed down. Cf. barometer, an instrument that measures the weight of the air.
διαγρηγορήσαντες, nom. pl. masc. aor. participle, with perfective διά, of διαγρηγορέω*, to awaken thoroughly, to become wide awake. Cf. Gregory (watchful).
Verse 33
διαχωρίζεσθαι, pres. infinitive of διαχωρίζομαι, to separate oneself; hence, to depart, leave.
Note: Matt. 17:4 Κύριε, Lord; Mark 9:5 Ῥαββί, Rabbi; Luke 9:33 Ἐπιστάτα, Master. Clearly, in the present passages these three terms must be considered synonyms. All aim to do justice to the exalted character of the Savior. Each evangelist offers his own translation of the Aramaic word Peter must have used.
ποιήσωμεν (so also Mark 9:5), first per. pl. aor. act. subjunct. (hortatory) of ποιέω, to make, form, construct, put up. Cf. this “let us make” with “I will make” (Matt. 17:4). Peter’s idea seems to have been that under his own direction all three disciples would construct those shelters.
Verse 34
For the verb ἐπισκιάζω (the form here used is third per. s. imperf. indicat. active) see the note on 1:35 on page 92.
As to the fiercely debated meaning of αὐτούς, occurring twice in this verse, and once in verse 33, is not the best solution to interpret all three instances of its occurrence as having the same meaning, and referring in each case to the two men, Moses and Elijah, who were standing with Jesus (according to verse 32)? Whether, in this connection, one also directly includes Jesus in the meaning of the pronoun as used in verse 34, or by reason of the context concludes that he, too, must have entered the cloud (see the explanation), the result is the same: the disciples, seeing that the cloud of diffused light covered Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, became alarmed.
Verse 36
ἀπήγγειλαν, from ἀπαγγέλλω, same form as in 7:18; 8:34, 36; 18:37; 24:9; see the note on 7:18 on page 402.
9:37–43a The Healing of an Epileptic Boy
Cf. Matt. 17:14–20; Mark 9:14–29
37 On the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, a large crowd met him.
38 Suddenly a man from the crowd cried out, saying, “Teacher, I beg you to look upon my son, because he is my only child. 39 All at once a spirit seizes him and suddenly he screams. Then it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth, and while mauling him it will scarcely let him go. 40 I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.”
41 Jesus replied, “O faithless and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring your son here.”
42 Even while he [the boy] was approaching, the demon dashed him to the ground and threw him into a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the boy, and gave him back to his father. 43a. And they were all astonished at the majesty341 of God.
Raphael’s painting, The Transfiguration, on which that famous artist worked himself to death, dramatizes the contrast between that which had taken place on the summit of the mountain and what was happening in the plain below. Only, Raphael has united the two scenes that must have occurred at a considerable distance from each other and, as verse 37 shows, a day apart. But in bringing the two scenes together Raphael rendered a real service, emphasizing exactly what the synoptists also seem to stress, namely, the tremendous contrast between the glory above (represented by the upper half of Raphael’s masterpiece) and the shame and confusion below (the lower half). Above is the light, below are the shadows.
Nevertheless, there is also similarity: on the summit the Father, in spoken words, had reaffirmed his love for his Son, his Chosen One; in the plain a father agonizingly intercedes in behalf of his only child, a son grievously afflicted. We are shown how the great, unique Only Son, in his infinite love, revealed his power and compassion to this other only son and to the latter’s father.
Luke presents this happening in greatly abbreviated form. Mark’s account is far more detailed. Luke says nothing about the discussion between Jesus and his disciples with reference to the coming of Elijah (Mark 9:11–13), about scribes who were arguing with the disciples (Mark 9:14), or about the lad’s inability to speak (9:17). He also omits entirely that part of the conversation between the Master and the boy’s father that took place immediately after the lad had been brought to Jesus (9:21–24), ending with the father’s agonizing cry, “I do believe, help my unbelief.” Luke reduces Mark’s three-verse description (9:25–27) of the manner in which the cure was brought about to just one-half verse (Luke 9:42b). Finally, Luke omits entirely the subsequent conversation between Jesus and his disciples, during which the Lord told them, “This kind can come out only by prayer” (Mark 9:28, 29).
The question arises, therefore, since Matthew also presents this story in condensed form, is it possible that the beloved physician was following Matthew instead of Mark? However, a look at these two reports (Matthew’s and Luke’s) will convince one that the two, though not exposing any so-called “discrepancies,” are too dissimilar to prove any marked dependence of one upon the other.
Clearly, though Luke here as well as elsewhere is certainly making use of sources, probably both written and oral, and though these sources may well have included both Mark and Matthew, he is following a plan of his own. In a very orderly manner he is relating four incidents in which the disciples’ failings are brought out into the open; namely, their lack of:
a. faith (verses 40, 41)
b. understanding (verse 45)
c. humility (verse 46)
d. tolerance (verse 49).
In all but (b) Luke also shows how the Master responded to these failings.
Result: more than ever we are led to see how, at the end of The Retirement Ministry, and facing the way to Jerusalem and the cross, Jesus suffered, “alone,” in a sense “all alone.” This enhances the greatness of his sacrifice.
A. Setting
37. On the next day, when they had come down from the mountain, a large crowd met him.
It was the day after the transfiguration. Jesus, accompanied by Peter, James, and John, has completed the descent from the mountain. The four are met by a large crowd. In fact, so eager were the people when they saw Jesus that they came running up to him to welcome him (Mark 9:15). According to Mark 9:14 present were also some scribes who were arguing with the nine disciples who had been left behind when Jesus and the three ascended the mountain. But, as has already been indicated, Luke omits this part of the story.
B. Double Tragedy
The first part of this tragedy is described in verses 38, 39. Suddenly a man from the crowd cried out, saying, Teacher, I beg you to look upon my son, because he is my only child. All at once a spirit seizes him and suddenly he screams. Then it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth, and while mauling him it will scarcely let him go.
From this huge crowd one man suddenly stepped up to Jesus. Respectfully he addresses Jesus as “Teacher” (so also in Mark), and as “Lord” (thus according to Matthew). In the course of his speech the man may have used either title, or else each evangelist is giving his own translation of an Aramaic form of address.
The man continues by calling upon Jesus to “look upon” his only child. He means “to look upon with favor and compassion”; hence, to help him.
With reference to this son Luke reveals the following items:
1. He was an only child. Naturally Luke would be the evangelist to emphasize this fact. Was not also Nain’s young man, whose body was being carried outside the gate, a widow’s only son? Cf. 7:12. And was not the child of Jairus an only daughter (8:42)?
2. He was probably an epileptic. The symptoms mentioned by Luke—especially seizures, convulsions, and foaming at the mouth—are characteristic of epilepsy. It is true that in Matt. 17:15 a word is used in the original which, transliterated, would make this demoniac a “lunatic,” a translation actually adopted for that passage by A.V. and Phillips. But the rendering favored by most translators is “epileptic.” A “lunatic” is an insane person, and there is nothing in the present context that indicates insanity.
3. He was a demoniac or demon’s captive, and this to such an extent that when the evil spirit caused him to have a seizure, and in the process mauled him, it would scarcely let him go again.
4. He was a deaf-mute (Mark 9:17, 25).
The second part of the tragedy is found in verse
40. I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.
Evidently the man’s original intention had been to bring his grievously stricken boy to Jesus. But when he noticed that Jesus was not in the company of the nine disciples that had been left behind, he had asked them to heal the afflicted one. Did not demon expulsion and healing the sick belong to the task that had been assigned to The Twelve? And is it not true that they had experienced some success in doing it? See Luke 9:1, 6, 7, 10; cf. Mark 6:13. But in the present case the disciples had failed. Luke does not enter into this part of the story. See Matt. 17:20; Mark 9:29.
C. Light amid Darkness
1. The darkness of unbelief rebuked
41a. Jesus replied, O faithless and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?
Cf. Deut. 32:5; Matt. 17:17. Jesus was deeply moved, as the word O indicates. By means of this exclamation Jesus expressed his pain and indignation. The fact that he directed his complaint to the “generation” shows that he cannot have been thinking only of the nine disciples who had failed in this emergency. He was evidently deeply dissatisfied with his contemporaries: with the father, who lacked sufficient faith in Christ’s healing power (cf. Mark 9:22–24); with the scribes, who, instead of showing any pity, were in all probability gloating over the disciples’ impotence (Mark 9:14); with the crowd in general, which is pictured in the Gospels as being generally far more concerned about itself than about others (John 6:26); and last but not least, with the nine disciples, because of their failure to exercise their faith by putting their whole heart into persevering prayer (Mark 9:29).
To a greater or lesser extent all were faithless, lacking in the exercise of true, warm, enduring faith, a faith operating effectively. When Jesus adds, “How long shall I be with you; how long shall I put up with you?” he shows that in view of his own trust in the heavenly Father, a confidence that was faultless, and in view of his own love which was infinite and tender, it was painful for him to “put up with” (the exact meaning of the original) those who lacked these qualities or who failed to exercise these virtues in a sufficient degree. His ministry had lasted almost three years by now. He was longing for the end.
Not only condemnation and crucifixion brought suffering to the Lord, but so did also the unbelief and wickedness of the people among whom he lived. Nevertheless, mercy always triumphed. So here also. Jesus does not reject the prayer of the agonizing father or ignore the plight of the sorely afflicted son:
2. The light of an implied promise
41b. Bring your son here.
When Jesus said this, he did not mean, “I will see whether I can heal him,” but “I will heal him.”
D. Deliverance
1. The demon’s final attack
42a. Even while he [the boy] was approaching, the demon dashed him to the ground and threw him into a convulsion.
That this was not an ordinary case of epilepsy but one brought about and aggravated by a demon is clear from these facts: (a) the convulsion occurred at the very moment when the boy was approaching, and the demon saw Jesus (Mark 9:20); and (b) it was not a cerebral disorder operating by itself that produced the convulsion; no, it was the demon that dashed the boy to the ground and threw him into a convulsion.
At this point Mark 9:21–24 relates a brief but significant conversation between Jesus and the boy’s father, ending with the latter’s oft-quoted words, “I do believe, help my unbelief.” Both Matthew and Luke omit this conversation and concentrate the reader’s attention on the cure.
2. The cure
42b. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.
Just as previously Jesus had “rebuked” demons (4:35, 41), a fever (4:39), winds and waves (8:24), so here also in a very effective manner he asserted his authority over this unclean spirit. For more on this verb rebuked see on 8:24; also the note on 4:35 on page 267. Having been thus “rebuked,” there was only one thing the spirit could do: it left. Thus the Master healed the boy.
Significant are the words and gave him back to his father. In connection with so many instances of cures effected by Jesus it becomes evident that he was far more than a miracle-worker. His heart was in his healings. These were manifestations not only of his amazing power but also of his tender love. Thus, for example, he not only heals the paralytic but also forgives him (5:17–24), not only cures the centurion’s servant but also commends the centurion (7:2–10), not only restores to health the Gergesene demoniac but also makes him a missionary (8:26–39), not only heals but also comforts the woman who touched his garment (8:43–48), not only raises from the dead the daughter of Jairus but also sees to it that the child gets something to eat (8:40–42, 49–56). Along the same line what strikes us in the present incident is that just as the son of Nain’s widow was not only raised from the dead but then also very tenderly returned to his mother (7:11–17), so this deaf-mute and epileptic demoniac, now restored to health, is, with equal compassion and concern, given back to his, father. Cf. Isa. 53:4; Matt. 8:16, 17. Jesus stands revealed here as not only a Healer, but as the Healer, the Healer with a heart!
E. Astonishment
43a. And they were all astonished at the majesty of God.
This statement has both its plus and its minus. It was wonderful that when the people noticed that Jesus was able to do what his disciples could not do, and triumphed even over this utterly corrupt but powerful demon, they expressed their astonishment and recognized in this act of healing the majesty of God. On the other hand, however, it is clear that they did not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah sent from God. They did not surrender their hearts to him. Astonishment is fine … but not enough!
For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 522–525.
9:43b–45 The Second Prediction of the Passion (and the Resurrection)
Cf. Matt. 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30–32
43b Now while all were marveling at all the things Jesus was doing, he said to his disciples, 44 “Let these words sink into your ears: the Son of man is about to be betrayed342 into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not know what to make of this statement. It had been hidden from them, that they should not grasp it. And they were afraid to ask him about this statement.
43b, 343 44. Now while all were marveling at all the things Jesus was doing, he said to his disciples, Let these words sink into your ears: the Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men.
Jesus did not allow himself to be diverted from his goal, namely, to accomplish his “exodus” in Jerusalem. Not even universal acclaim and astonishment because of the great miracle he had just now performed could cause him to deviate from the course he had chosen to follow. So, from the crowd he now turns to his disciples. Again, as once before (verses 21, 22), he speaks about his approaching death. In the first announcement, however, he had laid special stress on the necessity of the coming events; now he is going to emphasize their certainty. That is why he says, “Let these words sink into your ears,” that is, pay close attention to what I am about to tell you; listen very carefully; store it up in your memory; roll it over in your minds; take it to heart.
What Jesus tells them is that he, the Son of man—as in verse 22; see on 5:24—the all-glorious One of Dan. 7:13, 14, is about to be delivered into the hands of men, the very men already mentioned in the first prediction, namely, the elders and the chief priests and the scribes. We know that they, in turn, will deliver him to the Gentiles—think especially of Pilate—who will deliver him to the soldiers for scourging and crucifixion. But not all of this is as yet spelled out in detail; especially not in Luke’s greatly abbreviated account. Mark’s parallel passage, and also that of Matthew, mention the being killed and the rising on the third day. But our present passage speaks only of the fact that the Son of man is about to be betrayed, or delivered, into the hands of men.
45. But they did not know what to make of this statement. It had been hidden from them, that they should not grasp it.
Because of their own misconceptions and worldly expectations concerning Messiah and his kingdom, they were unable to make sense out of this prediction. Messiah … delivered into the hands of men! How was this possible?
Up to this point there is general agreement. But now another element is introduced. There appears to have been an additional reason why The Twelve did not grasp what Jesus had said. “It had been hidden from them,” etc. It seems, therefore, that their inability to understand was not due solely to their own obtuseness—cf. Luke 24:25; Acts 13:27—but also to someone or something else. “It had been concealed from them.”
Commentators differ widely on the identity of “the Concealer.” Who or what was he or it? Among the many answers given to this question the following four stand out:
a. the apostles’ own preconceived ideas
b. the devil or “the forces of evil”
c. Jesus
d. God.
As to (a). The words It had been hidden from them clearly show that Luke was thinking of a principle, force, or person outside of the hearts and minds of the apostles.
As to (b). It has been said, “When you don’t know whom to blame, blame the devil.” That is the easy way out of the difficulty. That answer is, however, completely foreign to the present context.
As to (c). This contradicts verse 45c; see below on that line.
As to (d). This answer, adopted by many interpreters, is probably the best. It by no means excludes the element of human responsibility, error, and obtuseness. As in several other biblical passages, so here also, the overruling providence of God is recognized.
An illustration based on the Old Testament shows how human error and God’s good and overruling providence may combine.344 It is as follows:
“Rehoboam’s absurd answer was ‘the breath which kindled the dead coals of wars.’ Did not the representatives of the contending tribes realize that there is strength in union? … How deplorable this disruption! Gone was the political unity, the strongly centralized government, the religious consolidation.… The throne had lost its luster. The glory had departed!
“That is one way of looking at it. While fully maintaining the true element in this appraisal, we must not forget the divine point of view, as stated in I Kings 11:12, 13; 12:15, 24b, and especially in 11:36. We read: ‘I … will rend …; it was a thing brought about by Jehovah.… This thing is of me … that David my servant may have a lamp always before me in Jerusalem.’ ”
When the question is asked, “Why was it that God concealed from The Twelve the full meaning of the prediction found in verse 44?” it must be admitted that the answer has not been revealed. Could it be that previous to not only the death but also the resurrection, ascension, and coronation of the Lord, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the disciples were not psychologically prepared to “bear” the contents of the words, “The Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men”? In other words, does John 16:12, 13 possibly lead us to the answer?
And they were afraid to ask him about this statement. Had they only asked him, he might at least have spoken some word to comfort them. That he himself was the Concealer is not even hinted.
Why were they afraid to ask him for more light on the subject of his fast-approaching agony? We do not know. It has been suggested, however, that the mild rebuke they had received in answer to a previous question—see Matt. 17:19, 20—may have kept them from asking another one. This is possible, but we do not know.
For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 522–525.
For comments on the somewhat larger accounts of this incident see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 683–689; and on Mark, pp. 354–360. On pp. 355, 356 of N.T.C. on Mark one can also find a discussion concerning the so-called “discrepancies” between the three accounts.
9:46–48 Who Is the Greatest?
Cf. Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:33–37
46 Now there arose a dispute among them as to which of them might be the greatest. 47 But Jesus, aware of what they were thinking in their heart,345 took a little child and had him stand by his side. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever in my name welcomes this little child welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me. For he who is least among you all, he is the one who is (truly) great!”
Jesus had said—and this very recently—“Let these words sink into your ears: the Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men” (9:44). The continuation is shocking: 46. Now there arose a dispute among them as to which of them might be the greatest. On the one hand, marvelous self-sacrifice; on the other, base self-centeredness.
The historical background was as follows: Jesus and The Twelve had reached Capernaum (Matt. 17:24). On the way to “the house” an argument about rank develops among the disciples. Indoors Jesus asks them, “What were you discussing on the road?” But they keep quiet (Mark 9:33, 34). Were they ashamed of the fact that they had been discussing the question, “Who among us may be the greatest?”
47. But Jesus, aware of what they were thinking in their heart—a typically Semitic expression, where we would probably say, “But Jesus, knowing their thoughts”—took a little child and had him stand by his side.
How did Jesus know what these men had been arguing about and what they were now thinking? It is useless to try to comprehend the exact manner of Christ’s acquisition of knowledge. At this particular occasion his divine nature may have imparted information to his human nature.
Was it, perhaps, when these men became convinced of the fact that Jesus already knew what they had been discussing that they finally decided to make a clean breast of it? They admitted that their question had been, and was even now, “Who among us may be the greatest?” (cf. Matt. 18:1).
In order to impress upon these men the lesson they needed so desperately, Jesus now takes a little child and has him stand by his side.
It is pleasing to note the frequency with which the presence of children around Jesus and/or his love for them is mentioned in the Gospels. See Matt. 9:18, 19, 23–26 (cf. Mark 5:21–24, 35–43; Luke 8:40–42, 49–56); 14:21; 15:38; 18:1–6 (cf. Mark 9:33–37; Luke 9:46–48); 19:13–15 (cf. Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17); 21:15 and in a sense even 23:37 (cf. Luke 13:34).
In this connection it should not escape us that when Jesus speaks about “children,” he is thinking of them as characterized by such traits as unpretentiousness and humble trustfulness. So considered “the Lord’s little ones” are not necessarily only those who happen to be young in age and small in physical stature, but all those who reveal the spiritual characteristics just mentioned. Hence, to the passages already mentioned, as illustrating Christ’s attitude to “children,” should be added also Matt. 11:25, 26 (cf. Luke 10:21).
48. Then he said to them, Whoever in my name welcomes this little child welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me.
This dominical saying fits the present context as it does also that of Matt. 10:40; see N.T.C. on that passage.
Here in Luke 9:48 (cf. Mark 9:37) the logic is somewhat as follows: Jesus is telling his disciples to forget all about themselves, their rank and importance; and instead, to concentrate their attention on this child standing by the Master’s side. They should not only “become like” this child (cf. Matt. 18:1–4), but should “welcome” it (cf. Matt. 18:5), and others like it.
Moreover, their welcome should be in Christ’s name. The name of Christ is Christ himself viewed in his glorious self-revelation. Therefore, to truly welcome such a child means to treat it with all the love and consideration Jesus has told his followers to bestow upon it.
Since the relation between Jesus and this child—or any similar child—is very close, therefore whoever in Christ’s name or “for his sake” welcomes the child, welcomes Christ. Finally, since the relation between Jesus and his Sender, the Father, is infinitely close (John 17:10, 21, 24–26), it follows that whoever welcomes Jesus also welcomes his Sender.
Now such an attitude of looking away from oneself in order to see what can be done for Christ’s children presupposes humility. And such humility, revealed in humble service to the Lord’s little ones, is greatness; or, as the Master himself phrases it: For he who is least among you all, he is the one who is (truly) great. With this compare Matt. 20:24–28; Mark 10:41–45; Phil. 2:5–11; I Peter 5:5. And do not forget Isa. 57:15.
For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 522–525.
Here again Luke abbreviates. For the additional material in Mark 9:39b and 41 see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 362, 363.
9:49, 50 He Who Is Not Against You Is for You
Cf. Mark 9:38–40
49 “Master,” John said, “we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he is not following along with us.”
50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for he who is not against you is for you.”
49. Master, John said, we saw a man casting out demons in your name …
On the surface it might seem that between the preceding paragraph (verses 46–48) and this one (verses 49, 50) there is no thought connection of any kind. It has been suggested that the apostle John, embarrassed by the implied reprimand which he and the rest of The Twelve had received, brought up this incident concerning an exorcist merely to change the subject. Others are of the opinion that the insertion of the present little paragraph, not found in Matthew but only in Mark and (abbreviated) here in Luke, was suggested by the phrase “in my [or your] name” which occurs both in verse 48 and in verse 49. However, another possibility must not be ignored. John’s conscience may have been aroused by Christ’s remarks of implied disapproval (verse 48), so that he now wondered whether he, John, and others had behaved properly toward a certain exorcist. Whether there is any truth in any of these guesses as to the nature of the connection or lack of connection cannot be ascertained.
The title Teacher or Master (as here in Luke 9:49), either being a good equivalent of the Aramaic word John must have used in addressing Jesus, was always very appropriate (John 13:13), and might seem all the more appropriate if Christ’s teaching on humility had just now been completed.
What bothered John was that he and others—note “we”—had seen someone cast out demons in Christ’s name, though that exorcist did not belong to The Twelve and perhaps not even to the broader circle of constant followers (Luke 6:13; 10:1).
What kind of man was John talking about? Not a would-be exorcist, like the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:13–16), for these were frauds. Nor was he an exorcist in the sense of those condemned in Matt. 7:22. No, this man was in all probability a true believer in Jesus. He may have been someone who, having listened to the Master and having given his heart to him, had not as yet established close relationships with the Master’s other followers. All that we know for certain is that he had been casting out demons in Christ’s name, and that John and others—perhaps other apostles—had strongly disapproved of his actions: and we tried to stop him because he is not following along with us.
Apparently the attempt to stop the man had not succeeded. He must have been fully convinced of the fact that what he was doing was right and proper. He had been doing it “in Christ’s name,” that is, as explained previously, in full accordance, as he saw it, with the mind and words of Jesus. With this man the phrase in Christ’s name was not a magical formula; it was reality.
The reason given by John for the attempt to stop him was “because he is not following along with us.” It is entirely possible that John had taken a leading part in the attempt to stop this man from doing what he was doing. If this seems strange, could the reason have been that it took some time before this “son of thunder” (Mark 3:17; cf. Luke 9:54) was changed into “the disciple whom Jesus loved”? See John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20. But is it not more likely that it was exactly love for his Master—misguided love—that caused John and others to try to stop that exorcist, who had not joined Christ and his steady followers?
50. But Jesus said to him, Do not stop him, for he who is not against you is for you.
Since it is a fact that once a person has been confronted with Christ neutrality is forever impossible, it stands to reason that whoever is not against—down on—him is for—in favor of—him; and similarly, that one who is not against Christ’s intimate associates—here “you”—would be for them.
What kind of attitude is it against which Jesus warns in this little paragraph? Answer: that of intolerance, narrow exclusivism. It is the kind of mental state that was present already during the old dispensation. Eldad and Medad, who are very definitely children of God and true witnesses, for some reason or other have remained in the camp instead of going to the tent or tabernacle where they may have been expected. Perhaps they did not hear the call. But in the camp, among the people, they are prophesying. Excitedly a young tattletale rushes to the authorities with the news. “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp!” Even Joshua thinks that this is appalling. “My lord Moses, make them stop!” he exclaims. But Moses answers, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all Jehovah’s people were prophets, that Jehovah would put his Spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:26–29).
Even today that spirit of narrow exclusivism is at times mistaken for loyalty to one’s church or denomination. We hear people say, “Our denomination is the purest manifestation of the body of Christ on earth.” As long as we are on this sinful earth, a terrain where hypocrisy in high places frequently corrupts not only political but even ecclesiastical life, would it not be better to leave such judgments to God? Let us not be more restrictive than was Moses. Let us not be less broad-minded than was Paul (Phil. 1:14–18). Let us follow the teaching of Jesus and, while maintaining what we ourselves regard as purity of doctrine, let us reach out the hand of brotherhood to all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ and build upon the firm foundation of his infallible Word. Doing this, let us pray that we may be instrumental in leading others to the way of salvation, to the glory of God (I Cor. 9:19, 22; 10:31, 33).346
Practical Lessons Derived from 9:37–50
Verse 39
“All at once a spirit seizes him … throws him into convulsions … and while mauling him it will scarcely let him go.” Cf. John 3:16. What a contrast between the heart of God and that of the devil! To which of these two have we sworn allegiance?
Verse 40
“But they could not.” Note the contrast between The Twelve (the three plus the nine), on the one hand; and Jesus, on the other: As to The Twelve, on the mountain we found the slumbering three (Luke 9:32a); and now, in the valley we see the bumbling nine. Meanwhile on the mountain Jesus was fully awake, steadfast, and loyal; and now, in the valley he is signally alert, strong, and loving. Let us therefore heed Heb. 4:14–16.
Verse 41
“How long shall I put up with you? … Bring your son here.” When we are in deep distress, we are prone to lose interest in others. On the other hand, Jesus, even in his deepest sorrows—see also Luke 23:34, 43; John 19:26—still thinks of others, and even helps and saves them!
Verses 43a, 44
“And they were all astonished at the majesty of God.… ‘The Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men.’ ” What an act of voluntary humiliation is implied here! Cf. II Cor. 8:9.
Verse 45
“But they did not know what to make of this statement. It had been hidden from them.” The second statement “at least relieves the disciples to some extent of full responsibility for their ignorance about the death of Jesus” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Luke, p. 136). I agree. To be sure, they were guilty; see Luke 24:25–27. But there were mitigating circumstances, and so also in Luke 23:34. When someone errs grievously and/or inflicts injury, do we, too, always make allowance for mitigating circumstances?
Verses 47, 48
“Jesus … took a little child and … said … ‘Whoever in my name welcomes this little child welcomes me.’ ” It is true that the Savior wants his followers to be childlike in humble trustfulness (see Matt. 18:1–4); yet, it is not so much that as rendering humble service to the weak and needy that is recommended here in Luke’s passage. Cf. Matt. 25:31–40.
Verses 49, 50
“We tried to stop him because he is not following along with us” … “Do not stop him.”
Denominational loyalty is good, but bigotry must be condemned.
Patriotism is fine, but chauvinism is horrible.
Granted that your denomination is the most pure in its confessions, is it possible that the other organized religious group is more biblical in its church government and perhaps even in faith, hope, and love?
Granted that our country is the most blessed of all the nations in the world, is it possible that in certain areas nations in other continents—for example, Europe, Asia, Africa—are ahead of us?
The exhortation found in Phil. 2:3 is needed by every individual and by every group. One should have very good reasons, indeed, before he looks down upon that which others are trying to achieve.
Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 9:37–50
Verse 37
Note Luke’s use of genitive absolutes; here “they having come down,” and in verse 42 “even while he [the boy] was approaching.”
τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ, on the next day. See the note on 7:11 on page 389.
Verses 38–40
Luke is fond of the verb δέομαι. He uses it 8 times in his Gospel, 7 times in Acts. In the rest of the Gospels it occurs only once (Matt. 9:38). Meaning: to ask, beg, implore, make request, pray. δέομαι (verse 38) is first per. s. pres. indicat., while ἐδεήθην (verse 40) is first per. s. aor. indicat. The verb also occurs in the following Lucan passages: Third Gospel 5:12; 8:28, 38; 10:2; 21:36; 22:32; and Acts 4:31; 8:22, 24, 34; 10:2; 21:39; 26:3. Paul uses it in Rom. 1:10; II Cor. 5:20; 8:4; 10:2; Gal. 4:12; I Thess. 3:10.
ἐπιβλέψαι, aor. act. infinitive of ἐπιβλέπω, to regard with compassion. See the note on 1:48 on page 111. In James 2:3 the sense is: to show special attention to.
ἐξαίφνης, suddenly. This is exactly the kind of word Luke, a doctor, would be using in connection with an epileptic attack. But he uses it also to picture the dramatic appearance of a heavenly host (2:13), and the unexpected flashing of a bright, encircling light (Acts 9:3; 22:6). In Mark 13:36 the word indicates the sudden arrival of “the owner of the house.”
σπαράσσει, third per. s. pres. indicat. of σπαράσσω, here: to throw into convulsions. So also in Mark 1:26; 9:26. The verb is probably related to σπαίρω, to gasp, pant, quiver. Cf. spasm.
ἀφροῦ, gen. of ἀφρός*, froth, foam. Cf. Aphrodite. According to mythology she sprang from the foam of the sea. For the cognate verb ἀφρίζω see Mark 9:18, 20. Literally verse 39 (middle) reads, “Then it throws him into convulsions with foam,” which means, “Then it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth.”
μόγις*, with difficulty, scarcely, hardly. Cf. μόγος, labor, toil, drudgery, hardship. Cf. “moil and toil.”
συντρῖβον, nom. s. neut. pres. active participle of συντρίβω (from σύν and τρίβω, to rub together), to bruise, maul. Cf. tribulation.
ἠδυνήθησαν, third per. pl. aor. indicat. (Attic form) of δύναμαι, to be able. δύναμις is power, might, ability. Cf. dynamite.
Verse 41
ἄπιστος, here: faithless; in Acts 26:8, unbelievable, incredible; a word of frequent occurrence in the New Testament; especially in I Cor. Often it has the sense of unbelieving persons, unbelievers.
διεστραμμένη, perverted; nom. s. fem. perf. pass. participle of διαστρέφω, to turn thoroughly, this way and that way; to twist, pervert, make crooked, mislead. Cf. strophe (originally the turning of the Greek chorus).
ἀνέξομαι, first per. fut. middle indicat. of ἀνέχομαι, to put up with, endure.
Verse 42
ἔρρηξεν, third per. s. aor. (effective) indicat. act. of ῥήσσω, alternate form of ῥήγνυμι, to rend; meaning here: to dash to the ground. Cf. wreck, break, hemorrhage. See also the note on 5:37 on page 313.
Verse 43
ἐξεπλήσσοντο, third per. pl. imperf. indicat. pass. of ἐκπλήσσω, to strike out: they were struck out of their wits, were overwhelmed, astonished. See the note on 4:32 on page 267.
μεγαλειότητι, dat. s. of μεγαλειότης, greatness, magnificence. Cf. majesty, which is also a good translation. The word occurs, too, in Acts 19:27 (in connection with Artemis) and in II Peter 1:16 (with reference to the transfiguration).
Verse 44
θέσθε, sec. per. pl. 2nd aor. imperat. middle of τίθημι, to set, lay, put; here: pay attention to, allow to sink into.
ὦτα, ears, nom. and acc. (here acc.) pl. of οὖς, ear. Cf. parotid.
γάρ, explanatory use (“for, you see”). Little is lost by leaving it untranslated, as here used.
Verse 45
ἠγνόουν, third per. pl. imperf. indicat. of ἀγνοέω, not to understand, not to know what to make of. Cf. agnostic.
ῆ̓ν παρακεκαλυμμένον, third per. s. periphrastic pluperf. pass. indicat. of παρακαλύπτω*, to cover over, veil; the opposite of ἀποκαλύπτω, to unveil. Cf. Apocalypse.
αἴσθωνται (after ἵνα μή), third per. pl. 2nd aor. subjunct. middle of αἰσθάνομαι*, to perceive, grasp, understand. Cf. aesthetics.
Verses 46–48
διαλογισμός, deliberation; here: dispute, argument. Cf. dialog. See the note on 2:35 on page 177, and N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 282–289. The clause introduced by τό is an acc. of general reference.
ἄν εἴη, “(as to which) might be,” is third per. s. pres. optat. of εἰμί. In the New Testament the optative with ἄν occurs only in Luke’s writings. In the present instance we have what some consider and what may well be regarded as an indirect question. See E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, Chicago, 1923, p. 80, and A. T. Robertson, Ward Pictures, Luke, p. 136. See, however, also Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 386.
μείζων and μικρότερος are comparatives with sense of superlatives. See the note on 7:28 on page 403, and the note on 7:42 on page 412.
Verses 49, 50
ἐκωλύομεν, first per. pl. conative imperf. of κωλύω, to hinder, stop. Cf. colytic. Cf. the note on 6:29 on page 358. Derived from the same verb is also κωλύετε, sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. active.
Summary of Chapter 9:18–50 (The Retirement Ministry)
By means of the feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9:10–17) Jesus had revealed his greatness so strikingly that the crowds wanted to crown him king (John 6:15). It was time, accordingly, for Jesus to reveal to The Twelve (a) that he was indeed the long-awaited One, and (b) in which sense this was true.
In order to achieve the first purpose Jesus, being alone with the men he had chosen to be his constant followers, asked them, “Who do the people say I am?” They replied, “John the Baptist … Elijah … one of the ancient prophets.” There follows, “But you, who do you say I am?” Speaking for all, Peter answers, “The Christ of God” (verses 18–20).
Jesus warns his disciples not to publicize this fact. Then, to these same men he makes the first clear prediction of his fast approaching passion and resurrection. This takes care of purpose (b) above.
To an audience consisting of The Twelve plus many others he now makes clear that his true followers are partakers of his suffering, “If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me,” etc. It was also at this time that Jesus spoke those mysterious words, “Moreover, I tell you truly, that there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God” (verses 21–27).
About eight days afterward Jesus took along Peter and James and John and went up into the mountain to pray. While Jesus was thus engaged, the Father imparted glory and honor to him (II Peter 1:16, 17), by (a) enveloping his body, including even his clothes, with heavenly brilliance, (b) sending heavenly messengers (Moses and Elijah) to discuss with him his “exodus” at Jerusalem, and (c) causing him, as well as the others, to hear the heavenly voice, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him.” Peter’s suggestion to prolong the glory-scene did not even receive an answer. A cloud came and enveloped Moses and Elijah (probably also Jesus). When the two emissaries disappeared, and the voice (already mentioned) was no longer heard, Jesus was found alone. In obedience to an order issued by the Master (Mark 9:9), the disciples who had been with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration kept silent, and in those days told no one anything of what they had seen (verses 28–36).
What a contrast between the glory on top of the mountain, and the misery, shame, and confusion below; particularly the misery experienced by a demon-possessed only son, and by his father. The tragedy was twofold. Quoting the father: (a) “All at once a spirit seizes him and suddenly he screams. Then it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth, and while mauling him it will scarcely let him go”; and (b) “I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not.”
When Jesus saw: (a) this father, who admitted lack of faith (Mark 9:22, 24), (b) the disciples who, because of a similar weakness, had not been able to cure this boy, (c) the crowd of curiosity seekers, and (d) the scribes gloating over the disciples’ failure (Mark 9:14), he cried out, “O faithless and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?” However, turning to the boy’s father, the Master mercifully added, “Bring your son here.” That very order spelled defeat for the demon. Though dashing the boy to the ground and throwing him into a convulsion, at the word of Jesus the evil spirit was expelled. Thus Jesus healed the boy and tenderly returned him to his father. “And they [the crowd of spectators] were all astonished at the majesty of God” (verses 37–43a).
The disciples had failed. They failed again in connection with Christ’s second passion prediction, “the Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men.” Though in the light of Luke 24:25 this failure, too, was inexcusable, it must not be exaggerated, as the words, “It had been hidden from them,” indicate (verses 43b–45).
A very serious failure on the part of these men is now reported. While Jesus was thinking of his great sacrifice for them, as the passion (and resurrection) predictions show, they were asking, “Who among us is the greatest?” So Jesus took a little child and told his disciples, “Whoever in my name welcomes this little child welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me.” He meant that he, he alone, is truly great whose humility is expressed in deeds of love toward those who are weak and small, that is, toward the Master’s “little ones” (verses 46–48).
The story of a climactic failure on the part of the disciples—specifically of John and those with him—closes this section. The incident is told in these words, “Master, … we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he is not following along with us.” Jesus answered, “Do not stop him, for he who is not against you is for you.” From this answer it is clear that though Jesus surely commended loyalty, he took a firm stand against bigotry (verses 49, 50).
The disciples’ failures point up Jesus’ victories! Their pettiness fixes our attention on his greatness!