Luke 9:52-56

The Refusal.

This tentative message of Jesus does not prove, as Meyer and Bleek think, that He had the intention of penetrating farther into Samaria, and of going directly to Jerusalem in that way. He desired to do a work in the north of that province, like that which had succeeded so admirably in the south (John 4).

The sending of messengers was indispensable, on account of the numerous retinue which accompanied Him. The reading πόλιν (Luke 9:52), though less supported, appears to us preferable to the reading κώμην, which is probably taken from Luke 9:56.

In general, the Samaritans put no obstacle in the way of Jews travelling through their country. It was even by this route, according to Josephus, that the Galileans usually went to Jerusalem; but Samaritan toleration did not go so far as to offer hospitality. The aim of Jesus was to remove the wall which for long centuries had separated the two peoples.

The Hebraism, τὸ πρόσωπον πορευόμενον (Luke 9:53), פָּנִים הֹלְכִים (Exodus 33:14; 2Sa 17:11), proves an Aramaic document.

The conduct of James and John betrays a state of exaltation, which was perhaps still due to the impression produced by the transfiguration scene. The proposal which they make to Jesus seems to be related to the recent appearance of Elias. This remark does not lose its truth, even if the words, as did Elias, which several Alex. omit, are not authentic.

Perhaps this addition was meant to extenuate the fault of the disciples; but it may also have been left out to prevent the rebuke of Jesus from falling on the prophet, or because the Gnostics employed this passage against the authority of the O. T. (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.23). The most natural supposition after all is, that the passage is an explanatory gloss.

Is the surname of sons of thunder, given by Jesus to James and John, to be dated from this circumstance? We think not. Jesus would not have perpetuated the memory of a fault committed by His two beloved disciples.

The phrase, He turned (Luke 9:55), is explained by the fact that Jesus was walking at the head of the company.

A great many Alex. and Byz. MSS. agree in rejecting the last words of this verse, And said, Ye know not; but the oldest versions, the Itala and Peschito, confirm its authenticity; and it is probable that the cause of the omission is nothing else than the confounding of the words KAI EME with the following KAI ΕΠορεύθη. They may be understood in three ways: either interrogatively, “Know ye not what is the new spiritual reign which I bring in, and of which you are to be the instruments, that of meekness?” or affirmatively, with the same sense, “Ye know not yet...” The third meaning is much more severe: “Ye know not of what spirit you are the instruments when speaking thus; you think that you are working a miracle of faith in my service, but you are obeying a spirit alien from mine.” This last meaning, which is that of St. Augustine and of Calvin, is more in keeping with the expression ἐπετίμησεν, He rebuked them.

The following words (Luke 9:56), For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, are wanting in the same authorities as the preceding, and in the Cantabrigian besides. It is a gloss brought in from Luke 19:10 and Matthew 18:11. In these words there are, besides, numerous variations, as is usual in interpolated passages. Here, probably, we have the beginning of those many alterations in the text which are remarked in this piece. The copyists, rendered distrustful by the first gloss, seem to have taken the liberty of making arbitrary corrections in the rest of the passage. The suspicion of Gnostic interpolations may have equally contributed to the same result.

Jesus offered, but did not impose Himself (Luke 8:37); He withdrew. Was the other village where He was received Jewish or Samaritan? Jewish, most probably; otherwise the difference of treatment experienced in two villages belonging to the same people would have been more expressly emphasized.