Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 11

Luke 11:2-4. Elz. and Scholz have after πάτερ: ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and after βασιλ. σου: γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. After πειρασμόν Elz. has ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Lachm. also (not Tisch.) reads all this; but he has ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (without τῆς) in brackets. The important authorities both for and against these additions lead us to regard them as supplements taken from the usual form of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:9 ff. According to Gregory of Nyssa (comp. Maxim.), instead of ἐλθέτω … σου Luke must have Written ἐλθέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς. An ancient gloss.[140]

Luke 11:4. The form ἀφίομεν is, on decisive evidence, to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Luke 11:9-10. The authorities for ἀνοιγήσεται and ἀνοιχθήσεται are about equally balanced. Tisch. has rightly adopted the latter. The Recepta is from Matthew 7:7 f.

Luke 11:11. Instead of ἐξ ὑμῶν ELz. has simply ὑμῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. On similar evidence, moreover, ἤ is subsequently adopted instead of εἰ (Elz.), and at Luke 11:13 δόματα ἀγαθά (reversed in Elz.).

Luke 11:12. Instead of ἢ καὶ ἐάν Tisch. has merely ἢ καί, following B L א, min. But ἐάν was the more easily omitted, since it does not occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, αἰτήσει is so decisively attested that it is, with Tisch., to be adopted instead of the Recepta ΑἸΤΉΣῌ.

Luke 11:15. Τῷ before ἌΡΧΟΝΤΙ is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested; the omission is explained from Matthew 12:24.

Luke 11:19. ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΑὐΤΟΊ] B D, Lachm. Tisch. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ὙΜῶΝ ΚΡΙΤΑΊ. A C K L M U, min. Vulg. It. have ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ. So also has א, which, however, places ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ before ὙΜ. [Tisch. 8 has adopted the reading of א]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Recepta. The omission of αὐτοί (it is wanting still in 113) occasioned its being very variously placed when it was reintroduced. The place assigned to it by Lachm. is the rather to be preferred, as B D, the authorities in its favour, have in Matthew 12:27 : αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσοντ. ὑμῶν, and have not therefore borrowed their arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, has also in Matt. l.c.: ΑὐΤΟῚ ΚΡΙΤΑῚ ὙΜῶΝ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ; hence the reading of A C, etc., is probably due to a conformity with Matthew.

Luke 11:22. The article before ἸΣΧΥΡΌΤ. is wanting in B D L Γ א, and is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. It was introduced in accordance with Ὁ ἸΣΧΥΡΌς, Luke 11:21.

Luke 11:25. Instead of ἘΛΘΌΝ, important authorities (but not A B L א) have ἘΛΘΏΝ. Rightly; see on Matthew 12:44.

Luke 11:29. After ἸΩΝᾶ Elz. Scholz have ΤΟῦ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΟΥ, in opposition to important evidence. It is from Matthew 12:39, whence, however, the Recepta ἐπιζητεῖ was also derived, instead of which ζητεῖ, with Tisch., is to be read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch., γενεά is again to be inserted before πονηρά.

Luke 11:32. Νινευΐ] A B C E** G L M U X Γ Δ א, min. Syr. Vulg. It. have Νινευῖται. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8 has Νινευεῖται]. Rightly; Luke has followed Matthew (Luke 12:41) verbatim.

Luke 11:34. After the first ὈΦΘΑΛΜΌς, Griesb. and the later editors have rightly added ΣΟΥ. The omission is explained from Matthew 6:22; its insertion, however, is decisively attested.

ΟὖΝ] after ὍΤΑΝ is wanting in preponderating authorities. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is an addition from Matthew 6:23.

Luke 11:42. After ΤΑῦΤΑ Griesb. has inserted ΔΈ, which Lachm. brackets, while Tisch. has deleted it; it is too weakly attested, and is from Matthew 23:23.

ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ΠΑΡΕῖΝΑΙ, in accordance with B* L א** min. The Recepta is from Matthew. A has a fusion of the two: παραφιέναι; D, 11 :have not got the word at all.

Luke 11:44. After ὑμῖν Elz. (and Lachm. in brackets) has γραμματεῖς κ. Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί. So also Scholz, but in opposition to evidence so important, that it can only be regarded as an addition from Matthew 23:27.

οἱ before περιπ. is, on preponderating evidence, to be deleted. It arose from the preceding syllable. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. [retained by Tisch. 8].

Luke 11:48. μαρτυρεῖτε] Tisch. has μάρτυρές ἐστε, in accordance with B L א, Or. The Recepta is from Matthew 23:31.

ΑὐΤῶΝ ΤᾺ ΜΝΗΜΕῖΑ] is not found in B D L א, Cant. 11 :Verc. Rd. Vind. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. deleted by Tisch. The words, both read and arranged differently by different authorities, are a supplement, in accordance with Matthew.

Luke 11:51. The article before ΑἽΜΑΤΟς in both cases is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with important evidence, to be struck out as an addition.

Luke 11:53. ΛΈΓΟΝΤΟς ΔῈ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΡῸς ΑὐΤΟΎς] B C L א, 33, Copt. have ΚἈΚΕῖΘΕΝ ἘΞΕΛΘΌΝΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ. This is, with Tisch., to be adopted. The authorities in favour of the Recepta have variations and additions, which indicate that they have originated as glosses.

Luke 11:54. Many variations in the form of glosses. Lachm. follows the Recepta, only omitting ΚΑΊ before ΞΗΤ. Tisch. has simply ἘΝΕΔΡ., ΘΗΡΕῦΣΑΊ ΤΙ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ, founding it mainly on B L א. All the rest consists of additions for the sake of more explicit statement.

[140] Thus or similarly Marcion read the first petition, and Hilgenfeld, Kritik. Unters. p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the petition in this place about the Holy Ghost as original (because specifically Pauline), and the canonical text as an alteration in accordance with Matthew; see also Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 222 f., and in his Evangel. p. 187 f.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 14. But ver. 13 easily occasioned the alteration, welcome as it was to the one-sided Paulinism, seeing that by its means the Holy Spirit was represented as the chief of what was to be asked for from God. Comp. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 347 f.

Luke 11:1-4. See on Matthew 6:9 ff. In Luke it is only apparent that the Lord’s Prayer is placed too late,[141] to the extent of his having passed it over in the Sermon on the Mount, and from another source related a later occasion for it (which, according to Baur, indeed, he only created from his own reflection). Hence its position in Luke is not to be described as historically more correct (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Bleek, Weizsäcker, Schenkel, and others), but both the positions are to be regarded as correct.[142] Comp. on Matthew 6:9. So far as concerns the prayer itself, we have the full flow of its primitive fulness and excellence in Matthew. The peculiar and shorter form in Luke (see the critical remarks) is one of the proofs that the apostolic church did not use the Lord’s Prayer as a formula.

The matter of fact referred to in καθὼς καὶ Ἰωάννης κ.τ.λ. is altogether unknown. Probably, however, John’s disciples had a definitely formulated prayer given them by their teacher.

The τὶς τῶν μαθητῶν is to be regarded as belonging to the wider circle of disciples. After so long and confidential an intercourse of prayer with the Lord Himself, one of the Twelve would hardly have now made the request, or had need to do so. Probably it was a later disciple, perhaps formerly one of John’s disciples, who, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount, was not yet in the company of Jesus. The sight, possibly also the hearing of the Lord praying, had now deeply stirred in him the need which he expresses, and in answer he receives the same prayer in substance which was given at an earlier stage to the first disciples.

αὐτοῖς, Luke 11:2 : to the disciples who were present, one of whom had made the request, Luke 11:1. ἐπιούσιον] crastinum, see on Matthew 6:11.[143]

ΤῸ ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ] needed day by day, daily. See Bernhardy, p. 329.

καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί] The special consideration placed before God for the exercise of His forgiveness, founded in the divine order of grace (Matthew 6:14; Mark 11:25), is here more directly and more strongly expressed than in Matthew.

ἈΦΊΟΜΕΝ] (see the critical remarks) from the form ἈΦΊΩ., Ecclesiastes 2:18; Mark 1:34; Mark 11:16. See generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 174.

παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν] to every one, when he is indebted to us (in an ethical sense). Comp. Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 138]. The article before ὈΦΕΊΛΟΝΤΙ is too weakly attested, and is a grammatical addition.

[141] Schenkel, p. 391, transposes the circumstance of the giving of the prayer to the disciples even to the period after the arrival in Judaea, since, indeed, the scene at Bethany, Luke 10:38 f., was already related. But Luke did not think of Bethany at all as the locality of this scene.

[142] Without, however, by means of harmonistic violence, doing away with the historical difference of the two situations, as does Ebrard, p. 356 f. In Luke, time, place, and occasion are different from what they are in Matthew, comp. Luke 6:17 ff.

[143] The attempt of Hitzig (in the Theol. Jahrb. p. 1854, 131) to explain the enigmatical word, to wit, by ἐπὶ ἴσου, according to which it is made to mean, the nourishment equivalent to the hunger, is without any real etymological analogy, and probably was only a passing fancy. Weizsäcker, p. 407, is mistaken in finding as a parallel the word ὑπεξούσιος in respect of the idea panem necessarium. This, indeed, does not come from οὐσία, but from ἐξουσία, and this latter from ἔξεστι. Moreover, the מחר of the Gospel to the Hebrews cannot betray that the first understanding of the word had become lost at an early date, but, considering the high antiquity of this Gospel, it can only appear as a preservation of the first mode of understanding it, especially as the Logia was written in Hebrew. In order to express the idea: necessary (thus ἀναγκαῖος, ἐπιτήδειος), there assuredly was no need of any free and, for that purpose, faulty word-making.

Luke 11:5-8. After He had taught them to pray, He gives them the certainty that the prayer will be heard. The construction is interrogative down to παραθήσω αὐτῷ, Luke 11:6; at κἀκεῖνος, Luke 11:7, the interrogative construction is abandoned, and the sentence proceeds as if it were a conditional one (ἐάν), in accordance with which also the apodosis beginning at Luke 11:8 (λέγω ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ.) is turned. Comp. on Matthew 7:9. This anacoluthon is occasioned by the long dialogue in the oratio directa: φίλε κ.τ.λ., after which it is not observed that the first εἴπῃ (Luke 11:5) had no ἐάν to govern it, but was independent.[144]

ΤΊς ἘΞ ὙΜῶΝ ἝΞΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.] The sentence has become unmanageable; but its drift, as originally conceived, though not carried out, was probably: Which of you shall be so circumstanced as to have a friend, and to go to him, etc., and would not receive from him the answer, etc.? Nevertheless I say unto you, etc.

καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ] The sentence passes over into the deliberative form. The converse case is found in Antiph. Or. i. 4 : πρὸς τίνας οὖν ἔλθῃ τις βοηθούς, ἢ ποῖ τὴν καταφυγὴν ποιήσεται …; See thereon, Maetzner, p. 130.

Luke 11:7. ΤᾺ ΠΑΙΔΊΑ ΜΟΥ] the father does not wish to disturb his little children in their sleep.

εἰς τ. κοίτην] they are into bed. See on Mark 2:1.

Luke 11:8. διά γε κ.τ.λ.] at least on account of his impudence. On the structure of the sentence, comp. Luke 18:4 f. On the position of γέ before the idea to which it gives emphasis, see Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 118.

[144] Hence the less difficult reading of Lachmann, ἐρεῖ, ver. 5, following A D, etc., is a correct indication of the construction, namely, that not with εἴπῃ, ver. 5 (Bleek, Ewald), but, first of all, with κἀκεῖνος, ver. 7, does the sentence proceed as if what went before were conditionally stated. If, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, a point is placed before λέγω ὑμῖν, ver. 8, a complete break in the sentence needlessly arises.

Luke 11:9-10. Comp. Matthew 7:7 f. Practical application of the above, extending to Luke 11:13, in propositions which Christ may have repeatedly made use of in His exhortations to prayer.

κἀγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω] Comp. Luke 16:9. Also I say unto you. Observe (1) that κἀγώ places what Jesus is here saying in an incidental parallel with the δώσει αὐτῷ ὅσων χρήζει which immediately precedes: that according to the measure of this granting of prayer, to that extent goes also His precept to the disciples, etc.; (2) that next to κἀγώ the emphasis rests on ὑμῖν (in Luke 11:8 the emphasis rested upon λέγω), inasmuch as Jesus declares what He also, on His part, gives to the disciples to take to heart. Consequently κἀγώ corresponds to the subject of δώσει, and ὑμῖν to the αὐτῷ of Luke 11:8. The teaching itself, so far as Jesus deduces it from that παραβολή, depends on the argument a minori ad majus: If a friend in your usual relations of intercourse grants to his friend even a troublesome petition, although not from friendship, yet at least for the sake of getting quit of the petitioner’s importunity; how much more should you trust in God that He will give you what you pray for! The tendency of the παραβολή points therefore not, as it is usually understood, to perseverance in prayer, for of this, indeed, Jesus says nothing in His application, Luke 11:9-10, but to the certainty of prayer being heard.

Luke 11:11-13. Comp. on Matthew 7:9-11. Still on the hearing of prayer, but now in respect of the object petitioned for, which is introduced by the particle δέ expressing transition from one subject to another.

The construction here also is an instance of anacoluthon (comp. on Luke 11:5), so that the sentence is continued by μὴ λίθον κ.τ.λ., as if instead of the question a conditional protasis (as at Luke 11:12) had preceded.

τὸν πατέρα] Whom of you will his son ask as his father for a loaf?

ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει] Attraction, instead of ὁ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει. See on Luke 9:61, and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 323 [E. T. 377].

πνεῦμα ἅγιον] this highest and best gift; a more definite, but a later form of the tradition than that which is found in Matthew. Comp. the critical remarks on Luke 11:2.

Luke 11:14-22. See on Matthew 12:22-29; Mark 3:22 ff. Luke agrees with Matthew rather than with Mark.

ἦν ἐκβάλλ.] he was busied therein.

καὶ αὐτό] and he himself, the demon, by way of distinguishing him from the possessed person.

κωφόν] See on Mark 9:17.

Luke 11:16. A variation from Matthew in the connection of this (in Luke premature) demand for a sign (see on Matthew 12:38), and in its purport (ἑξ οὐρανοῦ).

Luke 11:17. καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει] a graphic description of the desolation just indicated by ἐρημοῦται: and house falleth upon house. This is to be taken quite literally of the overthrow of towns, in which a building tumbling into ruins strikes on the one adjoining it, and falls upon it. Thus rightly Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and others, Bleek also. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 84. 2 : ναῦς τε νηῒ προσέπιπτε. This meaning, inasmuch as it is still more strongly descriptive, is to be preferred to the view of Buttmann, which in itself is equally correct (Neut. Gr. p. 291 [E. T. 338]): House after house. Many other commentators take οἶκος as meaning family, and explain either (Bornemann), “and one family falls away after another” (on ἐπί, comp. Php 2:27), or (so the greater number, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, de Wette) they supply διαμερισθείς after οἶκον, and take ἐπὶ οἶκον as equivalent to ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν: “et familia a se ipsa dissidens salva esse nequit” (Kuinoel). It may be argued against the latter view, that if the meaning expressed by ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν had been intended, the very parallelism of the passage would have required ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν to be inserted, and that οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον could not in any wise express this reflexive meaning, but could only signify: one house against the other. The whole explanation is the work of the Harmonists. It may be argued against Bornemann, that after ἐρημοῦται the thought which his interpretation brings out is much too weak, and consequently is not sufficiently in accordance with the context. We are to picture to ourselves a kingdom which is devastated by civil war.

Luke 11:18. καὶ ὁ Σαταν] Satan also, corresponding with the instance just referred to.

ὅτι λέγετε κ.τ.λ.] the reason of the question.

Luke 11:20. ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ] Matthew: ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. Luke’s mode of expressing the divine agency (Exodus 8:19; Psalm 8:3; Philo, Vit. Mos. p. 619 C; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 820) appeals more to the senses, especially that of sight. It is a more concrete form of the later tradition.

Luke 11:21. ὁ ἰσχυρός] as τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, Matthew 12:29.

καθωπλισμένος] not the subject (Luther), but: armed.

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν] not: his palace (see on Matthew 26:3), but: his own premises, at whose entrance he keeps watch.

ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστί κ.τ.λ.] This is the usual result of that watching. But the case is otherwise if a stronger than he, etc. See what follows. Thus in me has a stronger than Satan come upon him, and vanquished him!

τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ] the spoils taken from him.

Luke 11:23. After Jesus has repelled the accusation: ἐν βεελζεβοὺλ κ.τ.λ., Luke 11:15, He pronounces upon the relation to Him of those men spoken of in Luke 11:15 (see on Matthew 12:30), and then adds—

Luke 11:24-26, a figurative discourse, in which He sets forth their incorrigibility. See on Matthew 12:43-45. Luke, indeed, gives the saying concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost (Mark 3:28 f.; Matthew 12:31 f.), but not until Luke 12:10; and therefore it is wrong to say that he omitted it in the interest of the Pauline doctrine of the forgiveness of sins (Baur).