Luke 4:40-41

4 th. Luke 4:40-41.

Here we have one of those periods when the miraculous power of Jesus was most abundantly displayed. We shall meet again with some of these culminating points in the course of His ministry. A similar rhythm is found in the career of the apostles. Peter at Jerusalem (Acts 5:15-16), and Paul at Ephesus (Luke 19:11-12), exercise their miraculous power to a degree in which they appear to have exhibited it at no other time in their life; it was at the same time the culminating point of their ministry of the word.

The memory of this remarkable evening must have fixed itself indelibly in the early tradition; for the account of this time has been preserved, in almost identical terms, in our three Syn. The sick came in crowds. The expression, when the sun was setting, shows that this time had been waited for. And that not “because it was the cool hour,” as many have thought, but because it was the end of the Sabbath, and carrying a sick person was regarded as work (John 5:10). The whole city, as Mark, in his simple, natural, and somewhat emphatic style, says, was gathered together at the door.

According to our narrative, Jesus made use on this occasion of the laying on of hands. Luke cannot have invented this detail himself; and the others would not have omitted it if it had belonged to their alleged common source of information. Therefore Luke had some special source in which this detail was found, and not this alone. This rite is a symbol of any kind of transmission, whether of a gift or an office (Moses and Joshua, Deu 34:9), or of a blessing (the patriarchal blessings), or of a duty (the transfer to the Levites of the natural functions of the eldest sons in every family), or of guilt (the guilty Israelite laying his hands on the head of the victim), or of the sound vital strength enjoyed by the person who imparts it (cures). It is not certainly that Jesus could not have worked a cure by His mere word, or even by a simple act of volition. But, in the first place, there is something profoundly human in this act of laying the hand on the head of any one whom one desires to benefit. It is a gesture of tenderness, a sign of beneficial communication such as the heart craves. Then this symbol might be morally necessary. Whenever Jesus avails Himself of any material means to work a cure, whether it be the sound of His voice, or clay made of His spittle, His aim is to establish, in the form best adapted to the particular case, a personal tie between the sick person and Himself; for He desires not only to heal, but to effect a restoration to God, by creating in the consciousness of the sick a sense of union with Himself, the organ of divine grace in the midst of mankind. This moral aim explains the variety of the means employed. Had they been curative means, of the nature of magnetic passes, for example, they could not have varied so much. But as they were addressed to the sick person's soul, Jesus chose them in such a way that His action was adapted to its character or position. In the case of a deaf mute, He put His fingers into his ears; He anointed the eyes of a blind man with His spittle, etc. In this way their healing appeared as an emanation from His person, and attached them to Him by an indissoluble tie. Their restored life was felt to be dependent on His. The repetition of the act of laying on of hands in each case was with the same view. The sick person, being thus visibly put into a state of physical dependence, would necessarily infer his moral dependence. The Alex. readings ἐπιτίθεις, laying on, ἐθεράπευε, He healed, must be preferred. The aor. (in the T. R.) indicates the completed act, the imperf. its indefinite continuation: “ Laying His hands on each of them, He healed, and kept on healing, as many as came for it.”

The demoniacs are mentioned in Luke 4:41 among the sick, but as forming a class by themselves. This agrees with what we have stated respecting their condition. There must have been some physico-psychical disorganization to afford access to the malign influence. The words ὁ Χριστός are correctly omitted by the Alex.; they have been taken from the second part of the verse.

From the fact that the multitude translated the exclamation of the devils, Thou art the Son of God, into this, It is the Christ, we have no right to conclude that the two titles were identical. By the former, the devils acknowledged the divine character of this man, who made them feel so forcibly His sovereign power. The latter was the translation of this homage into ordinary speech by the Jewish multitude. Was it the design of the devil to compromise Jesus by stirring up a dangerous excitement in Israel in His favour, or by making it believed that there was a bond of common interest between His cause and theirs? It is more natural to regard this exclamation as an involuntary homage, an anticipation of that compulsory adoration which all creatures, even those which are under the earth, as St. Paul says (Php 2:10), shall one day render to Jesus. They are before the representative of Him before whom they tremble (Jam 2:19). Jesus, who had rejected in the desert all complicity with their head, could not think of deriving advantage from this impure homage.