CHAPTER 9
Luke 9, 1-6. = Matt. 10, 1-42; Mark. 6, 7-13.
St. Luke, after pointing out the mission entrusted to the Apostles by Our Lord Jesus Christ, confines himself, like St. Mark, to quoting a few extracts from the remarkable instruction that the divine Master addressed to them on this occasion. Leaving aside the details concerning the great functions that the Twelve and their successors were to exercise in the future (cf. Matt. 10:16-42), he considers only their more modest and easier role in the present moment.
Luke 9.1 Having gathered the Twelve together, Jesus gave them power and authority over all demons and the power to heal diseases. – Having gathered the twelve Apostles. The Twelve,This is how St. Luke usually refers to the Apostles. – Before sending the Apostles on their mission, Jesus conferred upon them extraordinary powers similar to those he himself exercised. The first is power, the second, authority: the exercise of that power. On all demons. «All» is emphatic and specific to St. Luke. And the power to cure diseases.
Luke 9.2 And he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick, – Preaching the Kingdom of God, This was the main purpose of sending out the Twelve. Healing diseases was, as has just been said, a way to more easily achieve this goal. However, and this is very clear from the more explicit account in Matthew 10:7, the Apostles did not have to elaborate at that time on the nature, conditions, etc., of the kingdom of God: they simply had to announce its imminent establishment by Christ.
Luke 9.3 and he said to them, «Take nothing for the journey, neither staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money, and do not have two tunics. It was fitting that Our Lord should give the Twelve, before their departure, some principles to guide their conduct in these entirely new circumstances. He does so in verses 3-5. The summary of this instruction is that they will always be «so virtuous, so steadfast and modest, in a word, so heavenly, that the Gospel doctrine will be propagated no less by their way of life than by their words.» St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in Chain of the Greek Fathers – Don't take anything with you on the trip. is a general injunction, which Jesus then elaborates on with five specific points. – It is interesting to note the nuances that exist here between the Synoptic Gospels. According to all three accounts, the Apostles are not to take with them money, a travel bag, or a change of tunic; St. Mark and St. Luke add no bread, This detail is omitted by St. Matthew. In the first and third Gospels, Jesus forbids the Twelve to carry a staff; in the second, he allows them to carry one. St. Luke says nothing about sandals; St. Matthew seems to indicate that they were also not authorized by the Savior; St. Mark shows us the Apostles wearing sandals (see the commentary on St. Matthew).
Luke 9.4 Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that place. 5 If they refuse to receive you, leave that city and shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.» – The first recommendation concerned their departure; it instilled in the Twelve this serious and beautiful thought: «Simplicity is the best provision for the Christian» (Clement of Alex., Paedag. 2). The second, contained in these two verses, concerns their stay in the localities they entered to preach. In some house… These words do not mean that Jesus' messengers were to ask forhospitality to the first people who come (cf. Matthew 10:11). This should be understood as the first house where prudence would allow them to settle. – Make this house the center of your comings and goings in the locality for your ministry, and do not change your residence too easily. (cf. 10:7) This detail, arranged in this way, is a peculiarity of St. Luke. If they refuse to see you… The hypothesis was by no means far-fetched, as Jesus then had declared enemies who would certainly refuse to welcome his disciples, despite the generally hospitable nature of the East and the Jews in particular. Even the dust from your feet. On this symbolic action, see St. Matthew.
Luke 9.6 The disciples went from village to village, preaching the Gospel and performing healings everywhere. – Together with St. Mark, our evangelist describes in a few words the work and success of the Apostles during this mission. The picturesque detail they went from village to village It is unique to him, as is the final adverb. everywhere, and the use of the verb preaching the gospel.« As doctors, says Eusebius on this passage (ap. Cat. D. Thomae), the Twelve proclaimed the good news; as physicians they healed, confirming their preaching by their miracles. »".
Luke 9, 7-9 = Matt. 14, 1-2; Mark. 6, 14-16.
Luke 9.7 However, Herod the tetrarch heard about all that Jesus was doing, and he did not know what to think, for some were saying, "John has risen from the dead,", 8 Others say, "Elijah has appeared," others say, "One of the ancient prophets has risen from the dead."« – According to the text of manuscripts B, C, D, L, Z, and Sinaiticus, these would refer to both the works of Jesus and those of his Apostles, vv. 1-6. It is understandable that the mission given by the latter, accompanied by miracles, produced a resurgence of enthusiasm around the name of Our Lord. His renown, which now reaches even the court, puts the tetrarch in a difficult position. At first, he does not know which side to take regarding the identity of Jesus. This is because, continues St. Luke, various rumors abounded on this point in Jewish society, rumors which reached Herod's ears and prevented him from reaching a certain conclusion. Three of the popular conjectures receive special mention. 1° John has risen from the dead.… 2° Elijah appeared, a well-chosen word, since Elijah did not die; of John the Baptist and the other prophets it was said "he arose". 3° One of the ancient prophets, one of those great prophets who had not had their equals for centuries.
Luke 9.9 Herod said, "As for John, I had him beheaded. Who then is this man about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him. The tetrarch's language indicates a perplexity that only increases. Yet, the name of his victim seems to have made a more vivid impression on him. But, he hastens to add, as if to allay his fears, I beheaded John; therefore, it is unlikely to be John the Baptist. Who then could it be? Who is this man about whom I hear such things? ("such," such surprising things). And he was trying to see him A special detail, quite natural after what precedes it. Herod hoped to be able to ascertain "with his own eyes" that Jesus was not John the Baptist. His desire was only fulfilled at the time of the Passion, as we learn from St. Luke 23:8. According to the other two Synoptic Gospels, the tetrarch Antipas, instead of remaining in suspense, unsure of which side to take, pronounces without hesitation on the nature of Jesus: "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him." Matthew 14:2 (cf. Mark 11:14). Is this a contradiction? Not at all. It is easy to resolve this apparent antilogy by saying that the psychological moment described by the narrators is not the same. St. Luke presents us with Herod's first impressions; St. Matthew and St. Mark consider the tetrarch somewhat later, after he had made a definitive decision. «Herod first showed this hesitation, then, persuaded by what was being said around him, he in turn said what we read in St. Matthew» (St. Augustine, Agreement of the Evangelists, Book 2, Chapter 43). – Our evangelist, who had mentioned earlier, in 3:19 and 20, the imprisonment of the Forerunner, gives no details about his martyrdom, contenting himself with Herod’s «I had John beheaded,» verse 8. In this, Mr. Renan sees proof that St. Luke «seeks to diminish the misdeeds» of the tetrarch, «and to present his intervention in the Gospel narrative as benevolent in some respects.» The Gospels, Paris 1877, p. 255. [These statements are stupid and false.]
The return of the Twelve and the multiplication of the loaves. Luke 9:10-17 = Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:1-13.
Luke 9.10 The apostles, having returned, told Jesus everything they had done. He took them with him and withdrew by himself to a deserted place near a town called Bethsaida. – How long had their absence lasted? Only one day, according to a peculiar hypothesis by Wieseler. But the earlier account in St. Luke (see in particular verses 4-6) suggests that the mission had encompassed a considerable number of cities and towns, and that the Apostles had stayed in several of them, which implies an interval of at least a few weeks. He took them with him and withdrew…On the two simultaneous reasons for this retreat, see the commentary on St. Matthew. We learn from other versions that the first part of the journey was made by boat. By combining this passage from St. Luke with a subsequent note from St. Mark (6:45; see the commentary), we have arrived at the very legitimate conclusion that there were then two Bethsaidas in northern Palestine. The one our evangelist mentions was built on a hill overlooking the deserted plain of El-Batiheh: only nameless ruins remain.
Luke 9.11 When the people learned of this, they followed him; Jesus welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and he restored health to those who needed it. – Cf. the picturesque details of St. Mark, 6:33. It was on foot, along the shore, that the crowd rejoined Our Lord, whom they had watched with sorrow depart. Jesus welcomed them. A special and very touching detail. Jesus was seeking some rest for his followers. If he had wished, it would have been easy for him to escape the crowd or dismiss them; but he preferred to welcome them with his customary kindness. He spoke to them… and restored their health. Jesus, as always, closely links his preaching and his miracles, confirming doctrine by works. Only St. Luke points out this union in this instance. St. Matthew speaks only of preaching.
Luke 9.12 As the day was drawing to a close, the Twelve came to him and said, «Send the people away so that they may spread out into the surrounding villages and hamlets and find shelter and food, for we are here in a desolate place.» 13 He replied, "You give them something to eat." They said to him, "We only have five loaves of bread and two fish, unless perhaps we ourselves go and buy enough to feed all these people."« – These two verses outline the preliminaries to the miracle. The phrase daylight was beginning to fade, The passage, specific to the third Gospel, possesses a distinctly Attic grace: it designates 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Anxiety grips the Apostles at this moment. Seeing that the crowd is becoming forgetful, they remind their master of the prosaic nature of the situation and the necessity of promptly sending the people away. Accommodation is a peculiarity of St. Luke, as is the use of the noun live. – Give them yourselves…In the original text, the three synoptic Gospels reproduce this reflection of Jesus identically. The following words, we only have… and two fish, These are common to St. Matthew and St. Luke. The end of verse 13 is found with a nuance in Mark.
Luke 9.14 For there were about five thousand men. Jesus said to his disciples, «Have them sit down in groups of fifty.» 15 They obeyed him and made them sit down. 16 Then Jesus took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks, broke them, and gave them to his disciples to serve the people. 17 They all ate and were satisfied, and of the leftover pieces, they took away twelve baskets. – Account of the miracle. Cf. commentary on St. Matthew. – Although Jesus had more than five thousand people to feed (Matt. 8:21; Mark 6:44), the five loaves and two fish that the Apostles had placed at his disposal were more than enough for him, for his power was limitless. But first, he arranged his guests to make the distribution of food easier. Cf. Mark 6:39-40 and the commentary. «According to St. Luke, the crowd was seated in groups of fifty, and according to St. Mark, in groups of fifty and in groups of one hundred. The difficulty cannot arise here from the fact that one reports everything that was done and the other only a part… one often encounters similar passages in the Evangelists which, through lack of reflection and haste, lead people to consider as contradictory, when they are not at all so.» St. Augustine, Agreement of the Evangelists, 1. 2, c. 46. – He gave them to his disciples to serve the people : as St. Augustine says, Enarrat. 2 in Psalm 110, 10, «Fountains of bread were in the hands of Jesus».
Confession of St. Peter and first announcement of the Passion. Luke 9:18-27 = Matthew 16:13-28; Mark 8:27-39.
There is a considerable gap here in the third Gospel. All the events recounted by St. Matthew, 14:22-16:12, and by St. Mark, 6:45-8:26, that is, the walking of Jesus on the water, miracles The events in the plain of Gennesaret, the discussion with the Pharisees about purity and impurity, Our Lord's journey to Phoenicia, the healing of the young Canaanite woman, Jesus' return to the Decapolis, the second multiplication of the loaves, the Jews' request for a sign, etc., were passed over in silence by St. Luke. But he, in turn, will soon provide us with many details omitted by the other biographers of Jesus.
Luke 9.18 One day, while he was praying in a solitary place, with his disciples with him, he asked them this question: "Who do the crowds say I am?"« – The location is not mentioned, but we know, thanks to the first two Synoptic Gospels, that Our Lord was then in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, about 40 kilometers north of Bethsaida Julia; see our commentaries on St. Matthew and St. Mark. He prayed in a solitary place. Details specific to our evangelist. Jesus' solitude was not absolute, since he had his disciples with him, but only relative, in relation to the crowd that followed the divine Master at some distance. Who am I, according to the crowds? The people in general, these enthusiastic but ignorant multitudes who follow me. Certainly, Jesus was not questioning the Twelve to obtain information on this point per se; but he wanted to obtain from them a formal act of faith concerning his messianic status and his divine nature.
Luke 9.19 They replied: "John the Baptist, others Elijah, others that one of the ancient prophets has risen again. – The Apostles, in their response, mention the three hypotheses that we heard previously (v. 8) in Herod's palace concerning Jesus (cf. commentary on St. Matthew). The phrase one of the ancient prophets is again a peculiarity of St. Luke.
Luke 9.20 »And you,« he asked them, »who do you say I am?” Peter replied, “The Christ of God.” – «Ah. What grandeur in this YOU. He distinguishes them from the crowd, so that they may avoid its opinions; as if he were saying: »You who, by my choice, have been called to the apostleship; you, witnesses of my miracles, who do you say that I am?« (St. Cyril, Chain of the Greek Fathers) – »St. Peter leaps forward, driven by the fervor of his faith« (St. John Chrysostom). The wording of St. Peter’s confession varies in the three Synoptic Gospels. St. Matthew has preserved the complete formula of this beautiful act of faith: »You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.« St. Mark’s version is the most concise: »You are the Christ.« St. Luke’s falls somewhere in between. Essentially, they all clearly express the same thought. The title "Christ of God" had already made a first appearance in our Gospel, 2, 26. – See in St. Matthew, 16, 17-19, the magnificent promises that St. Peter received from Jesus in exchange for his confession.
Luke 9.21 But he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone.The time had not yet come to make this revelation to the people. Revealing Jesus' superior nature too soon to unprepared minds would have compromised everything. Moreover, as Our Lord will indicate in verse 22, how many, after initially believing in his messianic character and divinity, would then have been scandalized by his Passion and death. Thus, he reveals and conceals himself at the same time.
Luke 9.22 «It is necessary,» he added, “that the Son of Man suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, and that he be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” – There is a striking coincidence in the three accounts concerning this painful prophecy of Jesus. It is understandable that such unexpected words could have been indelibly engraved on the hearts of the Twelve and, consequently, on Christian catechesis. The description is so precise that one would think it composed after the fact by a historian. See the explanation of the parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark. The Greek verb corresponding to rejected has great energy: its literal translation would be "rejected as false and harmful".
Christian renunciation. vv. 23-27.
cf. commentary on St. Matthew and St. Mark. The resemblance is rarely so complete between the three synoptic Gospels: only a few expressions differ.
Luke 9.23 Then, addressing everyone, he said: «If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. – Addressing everyone At this point, Jesus was no longer alone with his disciples (cf. 18). «Calling the crowd to him along with his disciples,» we read in the second Gospel. Let him bear his cross Each person has their own personal cross to cross, the one destined for them by divine Providence. Every day This is an important word, unique to the writing of St. Luke. A Christian's self-denial should not be limited to a few isolated moments in their life; it must be daily, perpetual. And let him follow me. Christians worthy of the name form, following Jesus who leads the way, a long procession of crucified men.
Luke 9.24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will save it. Our Lord now demonstrates the necessity, for the Christian, of this daily Way of the Cross. His various arguments, vv. 24-26, are presented in the striking form of wordplay and antithesis. Here, we have the image of a man who saves himself by losing himself, or who loses himself by trying to save himself.
Luke 9.25 What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit himself? – It's only a nuance, but at the same time it confirms the preceding thought. The end of the verse, if he ruins or loses himself, has received a special, slightly emphatic form in our Gospel. cf. the parallel passages.
Luke 9.26 And if anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. – It is shameful and cowardly to be ashamed of him and his doctrine after all he has deigned to do for us. – Here again we have a slight modification (cf. Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38). Our Lord mentions three distinct glories with which he will be magnificently surrounded when he comes to judge mankind at the end of time: his personal glory, the majesty of his heavenly Father, and the brilliant splendor of the angels who will compose his court.
Luke 9.27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.» – «Here» is emphatic, «present» picturesque; the disciples and the crowd were therefore standing around the Savior. – On the meaning of the promise will not taste death before…, cf. commentary on St. Matthew. The Transfiguration, despite all its splendors, could not adequately deserve the name of the reign of God («it did not show the reign, but the image of the future reign», Maldonat); it did not fully realize the words of Jesus.
Luke 9:28-36 = Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:1-12. From the point of view of outward form, we have here the opposite of what has been noted concerning the preceding verses, for a great variety of expressions reigns in all three accounts. As for the content, we are indebted to St. Luke for several valuable details, among others: v. 32, "they were heavy with sleep," "and waking up…," "who were with him"; v. 33, "as they were leaving him"; v. 34, "a cloud appeared and covered them." – This glorious event marks the culmination of the Savior's human existence.
Luke 9.28 About eight days after he said these words, Jesus took with him Peter, James and John and went up on the mountain to pray. – On this special method of counting the days that separated St. Peter's confession from the Transfiguration, see commentary on St. Matthew. He climbed the mountain. This mountain was Tabor according to some, Hermon according to others. "It is quite likely, unless someone has better reasons to think otherwise, that what is recounted in verses 18 and following took place somewhere in Caesarea Philippi," Luke of Bruges. Therefore, on Hermon or one of its foothills. To pray : such was the direct goal that Jesus set for himself in climbing the mountain with his three privileged disciples.
Luke 9.29 While he was praying, the appearance of his face changed and his clothes became dazzlingly white. – While he prayed : a repetition full of emphasis to highlight the connection between the miracle and Jesus' prayer. While the Savior was immersed in his profound and mysterious prayer, his person suddenly became the object of a wondrous phenomenon. To describe the principal characteristic of the miracle, St. Luke uses circumlocution, the appearance of his face changed ; This is what we must understand by the supernatural radiance, the divine beauty, which made the face of Jesus shine forth. "Transformation adds splendor, but does not make the face disappear," St. Jerome. Her clothes became dazzlingly white., The last word literally means: flashing lightning. «He was transfigured in a dazzling light, befitting God; and even his garment of light emitted rays, and resembled lightning,» St. Cyrillus, in Chain of the Greek Fathers. The Greek text contains a preposition that indicates that the dazzling light of the garments came from the transfigured body of Jesus.
Luke 9.30 And then two men were talking with him: they were Moses and Elijah., This way of presenting the two heavenly witnesses of the mystery of the Transfiguration to the reader is unique to St. Luke. He adopts the perspective of the three apostles, for whom Jesus' mysterious interlocutors were initially unknown men. But it soon became clear that they were Moses and Elijah (cf. St. Matthew and St. Mark). What a spectacle on the holy mountain! "Therefore, in the Church, is the kingdom of God. There, indeed, the Lord, the Law, and the Prophets appear to us: the Lord in the person of the Lord himself, the Law in the person of Moses, and the Prophets in that of Elijah. These last two appear here as servants and ministers." St. Augustine, Sermon 78.
Luke 9.31 Appearing in glory, they discussed his death, which was to take place in Jerusalem. – Appearing in glory Moses and Elijah were also radiant and transfigured. – And they spoke of his death which was to take place in Jerusalem. – What topic of conversation did Jesus, Moses, and Elijah have at that glorious moment? The death of Christ was indeed the central point of the Law and the Prophets. Of the Law, through the numerous symbolic sacrifices; of the Prophets, through their oracles, as clear as they were numerous.
Luke 9.32 Peter and his companions were overcome with sleep, but having stayed awake, they saw the glory of Jesus and the two men who were with him. From the transfigured Savior and his two heavenly companions, the evangelist leads us back to the apostles. The first detail, overwhelmed with sleep, This seems to indicate that the miracle of the Transfiguration took place during the night (cf. v. 37). However, it is possible, following the excellent reflection of St. John Chrysostom and St. Ambrose, that St. Luke did not so much intend to point out a natural drowsiness as the kind of torpor into which the human senses are sometimes plunged by the sight of divine phenomena. Having stayed awake. The apostles, therefore, would have overcome the sleep that was overcoming them through vigorous effort. The two men who were with him : picturesque detail, which reveals to us the attitude of Jesus, Moses and Elijah.
Luke 9.33 As they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, «Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.» He did not know what he was saying. The conversation ended, and the representatives of the Law and the Prophets began to depart. St. Peter noticed this and, wishing to prolong these fortunate moments as much as possible, he suggested to his Master that he and James and John immediately set to work («Peter is not only the greatest in affection, but also in apostolic zeal,» St. Ambrose) to build three shelters that would allow the three august interlocutors to remain for a long time on the mountain. But he spoke thus without knowing what he was saying ; His mind was completely troubled by his intense emotion.
Luke 9.34 As he spoke these words, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and the disciples were terrified as they entered the cloud. – A swarm «Bright,» adds St. Matthew. Came to cover them, that is to say Jesus, Moses and Elijah, as is clear from the context: They entered the cloudwhich, according to St. Ambrose, was precisely intended to allow them to bear the presence of the divinity. This bright cloud was undoubtedly of the same nature as the one that later veiled the Savior ascending into heaven. Act 19. – They were frightened at the sight of this new supernatural manifestation, more mysterious than all the previous ones.
Luke 9.35 And a voice came from the cloud, saying, «This is my beloved Son; listen to him.» – This is the main point. God the Father speaks to clearly reiterate (cf. 3:22) the relationship that unites him to Jesus: This is my Son. Instead of beloved, several translate "chosen", according to manuscripts B, L, Z, Sinait., and the Coptic version.
Luke 9.36 While the voice was speaking, Jesus was alone. The disciples remained silent and told no one at that time what they had seen. – St. Luke significantly shortens the end of the narrative; see in the parallel passages of St. Matthew and St. Mark the details he has condensed at this point. They kept silent and told no one. Emphatic repetition, to highlight the silence maintained by the three privileged witnesses of the miracle. Jesus had, moreover, strongly instructed them to keep it secret. At that time represents, according to St. Mark 9:8, the time that passed until the Resurrection of Our Lord.
Luke 9, 37-43 = Matt 17, 14-20 Mark 9, 17-28.
Luke 9.37 The next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd came to meet Jesus. – The following day. From this small chronological detail, noted only by St. Luke, it follows that Jesus and his followers had spent the night on the Mount of Transfiguration; it is even possible that the miracle took place during the night. A large crowd…See in St. Mark's narrative some very interesting details.
Luke 9.38 And a man cried out from the midst of the crowd, "Master, I beg you, take a look at my son, for he is my only child. – Master… This first part of the supplicant's request is presented in our Gospel in a very moving way. I beg you… because he is my only child…, are details specific to St. Luke. “Look upon my son” (St. Matthew, “have mercy on my son”) is very delicate. “I admire the wisdom of this man,” exclaims Tite of Bosra (Cat. D. Thom., hl). He does not say to the Savior: Do this or that, but: Look. For that is enough to heal him. This is how the Prophet said: Look and have mercy on me.
Luke 9.39 A spirit seizes him and immediately he cries out, the spirit violently agitates him, making him foam at the mouth, and scarcely leaves him after having bruised him all over. – The poor father tries to arouse even more pity in Jesus by vividly depicting the terrible attacks that frequently seized his son. A spirit takes hold of him. The child's ailments were therefore the result of demonic possession. He immediately let out cries (Special detail). Note the abrupt change of subject, so in keeping with the supplicant's emotional state. "Cries" now fall upon the sick man and not upon the demon. his mind agitates him violently. There is only one verb in the Greek text, which has the meaning of to twist, to torment. – By making it skimmed. Paulus Aegineta, one of the last illustrious physicians of antiquity, cites, in his description of epilepsy, several circumstances that bear a strong resemblance to the sad picture painted jointly by the three Synoptic Gospels: «Epilepsy is a convulsion of the whole body, preventing normal actions. This disease affects children especially, but also, and severely, adolescents. When the symptoms of the disease appear, the epileptic falls to the ground, goes into convulsions, and sometimes utters incoherent words. The most important of all the signs is the drooling that comes from his mouth.» The child was therefore likely epileptic; but the evangelist-physician does not hesitate to recognize here something more than physical illness. He barely leaves him after having bruised him completely. One more peculiarity of St. Luke, to complete the picture.
Luke 9.40 I asked your disciples to drive him out, but they could not. In the other two accounts, Jesus explains to the disciples, a little later, the reason for their humiliating powerlessness. See Matthew. Verse 41 indicates this reason, at least implicitly.
Luke 9.41 »O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long will I be with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.” The Savior is deeply saddened by the failure of his followers. Had he not given them full power over all demons? But neither they, nor the people, have sufficient faith, and that is why they are defeated. The thought of this partial unbelief in some, and total unbelief in others, makes Jesus long to return soon to his divine Father.
Luke 9.42 And as the child approached, the demon threw him to the ground and shook him violently. 43 But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the child, and gave him back to his father. – As the child approached A picturesque detail, showing the child approaching the Thaumaturge, but still a few steps away. The demon threw him to the ground and shook him : the last and violent convulsion that the evil spirit inflicted on its victim. But, on the express order of Jesus (he threatened), the demon was forced to withdraw. The divine Master then returned his fully healed son to the grateful father. This touching detail, returned it to his father, specific to St. Luke, can serve as a counterpart to 7, 15: "He returned him to his mother".
Luke 9, 44-45 = Matt 17, 21-22 Mark 9, 29-31
Luke 9.44 And they were all amazed at the greatness of God. While everyone was marveling at what Jesus was doing, he said to his disciples, «Listen carefully to this: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.» They were deeply struck: St. Luke alone, and as we see, in forceful terms, records the impression made by the healing of the possessed man. The divine power of Jesus had rarely been displayed so brilliantly before the eyes of the crowd. But this miracle reminded those who had just witnessed it of others; each one began to recount them with admiration, as our evangelist emphatically adds: Everyone was in awe of what Jesus was doing.. Jesus, it seems, feared that the universal enthusiasm might make his apostles forget the humiliations he had recently foretold to them; that is why he renewed the grim prophecy. Listen carefully to this.... This solemn introductory formula has been preserved only by St. Luke. "You" is emphatic: you, my disciples, in contrast to the superficial and ignorant crowd. – These words do not refer, as Meyer claims, to the praise of the people, but to Jesus' subsequent prediction. The Son of Man… men's hands : a remarkable antithesis, which is found in all three synoptic Gospels. St. Luke confines himself to a brief summary of the prophecy, which appears all the more gloomy in his account because he omits to mention the joyful hope of the Resurrection. cf. Matt. 17, 22; Mark. 9, 30.
Luke 9.45 But they did not understand this saying; it was veiled to them, so that they did not have the understanding and they were afraid to question him about it. We have had the impression of the crowd regarding the miracle; we now learn of the impression felt by the disciples upon hearing the somber news that Jesus reiterated to them. St. Luke describes it like a psychologist. The first (they didn't understand) and the final detail (and they were afraid to question him) are, it is true, common to him and St. Mark. But the intermediate thought, expressed by means of a vivid image, and she was veiled for them, belongs to him alone. Such was still, after long months spent in the company of Jesus, the state of mind of the apostles. A thousand prejudices blinded them. See in Bossuet, 1er sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday (Versailles edition, vol. 12, pp. 27, 33, 36 and 37), a fine commentary on this entire passage.
Luke 9, 46-50 = Matt 17, 1-6; Mark 9, 32-39.
Luke 9.46 Then a thought crept into their minds: which of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, seeing the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and laid him by his side., 48 And he said to them, «Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For the one among you who is least is the one who is great.» – Lesson inhumilitymotivated by the strange discussion that had recently arisen among the Apostles: they had wondered which one of them was the tallestA question of precedence, of vanity, preoccupied them at such a moment, while the cross of Jesus was already erected on the horizon. But now their Master reminds them of the austere thoughts of Christianity. – He took a small child and placed him beside him. This is one of the most touching details of the Gospel. It must have made the Savior's argument quite compelling. See in St. Matthew the details of this argument. St. Luke abridges it even more than St. Mark; but he has preserved its substance well in the twofold axiom of verse 48. Whoever receives this little child in my name…Little children and those like them, that is to say, the humble, are thus raised to the most sublime rank. 2° The one who is the smallest between you… A consequence of the first axiom, expressed in a paradoxical form: become small in order to be great.
Luke 9.49 John, speaking up, said: «Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not one of us.» 50 »Do not stop him,” Jesus replied, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” – A lesson in tolerance, prompted by a minor moral dilemma that the beloved disciple posed to Our Lord at that very moment. Only St. Luke and St. Mark have recounted this incident in almost identical terms. Therefore, we will have very little to add to the explanations given in our commentary on the second Gospel. Jean, speaking. It is likely that St. John played the main role in the scene he will briefly describe. The words in your name seem to contain the reason for the question addressed to Jesus so suddenly, in the middle of the instruction he had begun. The divine Master had spoken of receiving even little children "in his name," and yet here were the apostles who had behaved severely toward a man who acted in that blessed name. We stopped him because he doesn't fit in with us.. This was the motive behind the Twelve's conduct. They believed that only Christ's regular disciples should enjoy the privilege in question; it could not be allowed to be appropriated by just anyone. Don't stop him, replies Jesus; then, in turn, he justifies his decision by contrasting the "he does not follow you" with this profound statement: Anyone who is not against you is for you.
JESUS' LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM Luke 9:51–19:28. An important part of the third Gospel, with a narrative completely independent of the other Synoptic Gospels and mostly containing new details. It is true that, precisely because of its distinctive characteristics, it has attracted the hatred of the rationalist camp. Sabatier sees in it only a narrative that "teems with contradictions and impossibilities" (Essay on the Sources of the Life of Jesus, p. 25); de Wette, hl, only an "amalgam without chronological order"; Reuss, Gospel History, p. 436, only "detached scenes, the connection of which is recognized as purely arbitrary." Several Protestant exegetes, who readily acknowledge the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, have been influenced by these judgments and have similarly affirmed, albeit in more respectful terms, that St. Luke did not follow the actual sequence of events in this long passage, but rather grouped the incidents in his own way according to a purely pragmatic chain of events (Keil; W. Stewart). However, these are merely discordant voices in a grand chorus. Indeed, most commentators apply St. Luke's motto ("write in an orderly fashion," 1:3) to this part of the third Gospel, as well as to all the others, finding no sufficient reason to believe that the sacred writer would have forgotten his earlier commitments here. Not, of course, that such a promise should be pressed unduly (see the Preface, § 8), for our evangelist may well have sacrificed the order of dates to that of subjects in some minor details; But the whole is recounted according to the objective truth of events, as Dr. Wieseler, Caspari, and Farrar, among many others, have learnedly demonstrated. Regarding the various details also recounted in the first Gospel, but in a different place, it must be admitted either that St. Matthew did not conform to the historical sequence of events, as so often happens to him (cf. St. Matthew), or that there were repetitions by Our Lord on several points of doctrine in new circumstances, which could hardly fail to occur, given the nature and form of his teaching. Now, conversations and discourses abound precisely in this section; the events themselves appear only to indicate the occasion for the words. The predominant idea in the narrative, serving as a link between the various episodes that compose it, is that of a journey, with Galilee as its starting point, Jerusalem as its destination, and Perea as a place of passage. But this journey, begun shortly after the Transfiguration and completed only a few days before the Passion, unfolded slowly, over several months. More like a back-and-forth in opposite directions than a direct march, often interrupted by stays in various places, it was at least never abandoned: the evangelist clearly shows its continuation through formulas that recur from time to time like landmarks. (cf. 9:57; 10:38; 13:22; 17:11). We will make use of these milestones to try to combine the account of St. Luke with that of the fourth Gospel.
Inhospitable Samaritans. Luke 9:51-56.
Luke 9.51 When the days of his being taken from the world were near, he resolved to go to Jerusalem. – The narrative of the journey opens with a solemn and mysterious expression: When the days of his being taken from the world were near to come. The verb removed is used repeatedly to refer to the glorious Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Mark 16:19; Act 12; 11:22; 1 Timothy 3:16), just as it had been used by the Septuagint to represent that of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11; 1 Maccabees 2:58; Ecclesiasticus 48:9). Undoubtedly, Jesus would only attain the splendors of heaven through the ignominy and suffering of Calvary; but he contemplated all things through his sublime consummation, and the evangelist admirably enters into his thoughts. Cf. John 13:33. He made the decision…This reminds us, on the one hand, of the portrait of the Suffering Servant drawn by Isaiah 50:7: «I have set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame,» and on the other hand, of a striking detail from Mark 10:32: «The disciples were on their way up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. They were terrified, and those who followed were also afraid» (see the commentary). Cf. Hebrews 12:2. Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem, fully aware of the evils that await him there, and yet he goes there. with a noble and upright spirit (St. Jerome, letter 51 ad Algas., quaest. 5), ready to face all dangers.
Luke 9.52 He sent messengers ahead of him, who set out and entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his arrival., – Jesus was then accompanied by many disciples (cf. 10:1): as a precaution, he therefore had messengers precede him in the places where he was to stay, who prepared lodgings and provisions for him and his entire entourage. They entered a Samaritan village. Since Jesus was coming from Galilee, it has been conjectured that the town in question may well have been En-Gannim, now Jenin, located on the northern border of Samaria and renowned for the fanaticism of its inhabitants. The shortest and most natural route from Capernaum to Jerusalem crossed the whole of Samaria, from north to south. To prepare for his reception : his stay and his accommodation.
Luke 9.53 But the inhabitants refused to receive him, because he was heading towards Jerusalem. This rude refusal was not expressed directly to Jesus, but to his messengers. Why did the Samaritans refuse to grant Our Lord thehospitality What was he asking them? The rest of the verse makes it clear: his appearance was that of a man going to Jerusalem. On this phrase with its Hebrew flavor, see 2 Kings 17:11, in the Hebrew and the Septuagint. Relations between Jews and Samaritans, already quite unfriendly in ordinary times (cf. John 4:9; 8:48), became even more animous as the major national festivals approached, which brought crowds of Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. The hatred between the two peoples was indeed primarily caused by the difference in their religious practices, and it was at such times that this difference became most pronounced. See John 4:20. Insults often escalated into violence, as Flavius Josephus recounts, The War Jews, 2:12, 3-7, Ant. 20:6, 1, and St. Jerome, in Hosea, 5:8-9. Now Jesus (neither he nor his messengers made a secret of it) was going to Jerusalem. Those who abhorred the holy city as a rival to their temple on Mount Gerizim refused for this reason to do him any favors. Yet, in the past (cf. John 4), the Samaritans of Sychar had given Jesus the warmest welcome; but he had turned his back on Jerusalem, and the circumstances were no longer the same. – According to Meyer, Alford, Reischl, etc., Our Lord's messengers had openly announced him as the Messiah, and that is why the Samaritans acted with such harshness. But nothing in the text justifies such a conjecture.
Luke 9.54 When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, «Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?» – Several commentators, including Euthymius, Maldonatus, Bishop MacEvilly, Father Curci, etc., interpreting the verb "seeing" literally, have supposed that the two sons of Zebedee were the Savior's messengers, rejected by the Samaritans, which would explain the particular intensity of their resentment. But this opinion is rejected by the vast majority of exegetes, and rightly so, as the text in no way requires the personal presence of St. James and St. John: they were, moreover, "witnesses" to the insult when the messengers recounted the failure of their mission. Would you like us to order?…? The Recepta, most manuscripts, versions, and the Fathers add «as Elijah also did,» and although these words were omitted by manuscripts B, L, Z, and Sinaiticus, everything suggests that they are authentic. They are, at the very least, very fitting to the situation, for the two brothers had recently seen Elijah on the holy mountain, and it was natural that they should now remember the act of zeal he had performed in the province of Samaria, calling down fire from heaven upon the ministers of a sacrilegious king (2 Kings 1:10-12). They therefore ask Jesus for permission to avenge his unrecognized and outraged messianic honor. «If, to avenge the outrage done to Elijah, who was only the servant of God, the fire from heaven devoured not Samaritans, but Jews, by what flames should we not punish the contempt these impious Samaritans show for the son of God!» St. Jerome, ad Algas. 5. «What is surprising,» says St. Ambrose, hl, with great aptness, “that the sons of thunder wished to strike down?”.
Luke 9.55 Jesus turned and rebuked them, saying, «You do not know what kind of spirit you are.» – The desire of the sons of Zebedee certainly stemmed from a deep faith and ardent love for Jesus. It was nevertheless very imperfect; therefore, Our Lord firmly refused to fulfill it. Having turned around. A picturesque detail. Jesus was walking, as was his custom, at the head of the procession: he turned around to rebuke the two brothers who were behind him. This detail proves that James and John were not the messengers sent to the Samaritans, for then they would have been face to face with the Savior. You don't know. Some exegetes give the thought an interrogative twist: do you not know…?). You, the apostles of the New Covenant, as opposed to Elijah, the terrible prophet of the Old Testament. It is indeed the two Covenants, and the two very distinct spirits that dominated them, that Jesus sets aside in contrast. Now, as St. Augustine magnificently says, contra. Adim. 17, «Fear and love, such, in all its conciseness, is the difference that separates the two Testaments.» But here were the sons of Thunder, by their ill-considered request, wanting to bring back the «Fiery Law» of Sinai, forgetting the law of love brought by the Gospel: was this not to misunderstand the spirit of the institution to which they belonged? Undoubtedly, Elijah had acted by a movement of the Spirit of God, and the Savior in no way condemns his conduct; But Elijah's time had passed, and God had changed his ways toward mankind, becoming all-loving and merciful after having been a terrible God. – The two brothers later admirably demonstrated how well they understood the spirit of the Gospel: the first, St. James, by verifying Lactantius' famous saying, Divine Institutes, 5.20, "Religion must be defended not by killing others, but by dying for it"; the second, St. John, when he came with St. Peter to those same lands to bring down another fire from heaven upon them, by administering the sacrament of confirmation to its inhabitants converted to the Messiah. Cf. Acts 8:14.
Luke 9.56 The Son of Man did not come to destroy lives, but to save them.» And they went to another village. – A truly divine word, rightly called the motto of the redeeming God. It indicates in the noblest way the spirit of the new covenant, according to which Jesus wishes his collaborators to conduct themselves. See John 317; 12, 47, similar sayings of the divine Master. – The “Son of Man” came to save souls, the lives “of men”: is that not just and natural? They wentSeveral authors have concluded that the new town toward which Jesus and his followers headed was not in Samaria, but in Galilee. It is quite likely, in fact, that after the setback experienced on the border of the Samaritan region, Jesus did not want to penetrate further into the province.
Luke 9, 57-62. = Matt. 8, 19-22.
Luke 9.57 While they were on their way, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."« 58 Jesus answered him, «Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.» – (See the details of the explanation in St. Matthew). – Jesus resumed his journey, and it is on the way that the threefold dialogue will take place: a picturesque detail, worthy of St. Luke. A man told him He was a scribe, according to St. Matthew. I will follow you… Emphatic expression: everywhere you go. cf. 2 Kings 15:21. This man therefore asks to be part of the inner circle of disciples who, for some time, had hardly left the Savior's side; but he understands that by doing so he will expose himself to certain inconveniences, perhaps even real dangers. However, deluding himself about his strength, he believes himself capable of braving anything for Jesus. The Master, on the contrary, discourages him with a brief but significant description of his poor and mortified life, seeming to say: "In my service, there is no other reward than the cross; see if you can be content with this wage." The previous event had proven to what extent Jesus was justified in saying: He has nowhere to lay his head.
Luke 9.59 He said to another, "Follow me." The man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."« 60 But Jesus said to him, «Let the dead bury their own dead, but go and proclaim the kingdom of God.» – (cf. commentary on St. Matthew). After the enthusiastic and impetuous disciple, the hesitant and overly circumspect disciple. The former offered himself to Jesus of his own accord; the latter has the honor of being directly called by Our Lord: Follow me (a detail specific to St. Luke). He consents to this subject to a reservation that seems at first glance perfectly legitimate: Allow me…He had just learned of his father's death: Jesus would allow him to go and bury him. Soon, in a few days at most, he would be at his post as a disciple, never to leave it again. – The Savior does not grant this delay. No. Now or never. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:37). St. Augustine, in Sermon 62, 2, commented very well on Jesus' refusal and the play on words with which it is expressed: «The future disciple wanted to do a good work; but the Master showed him what he should prefer; for he intended to make him a preacher of the word of life to raise the dead; and there was no shortage of men to fulfill this other duty. 'Let the dead bury their own dead,' he told him. 'When unbelievers bury a corpse, it is the dead burying a dead person.'» This corpse has lost its soul, and the souls of others have lost their God.” This was also the reasoning of Jewish law, which sometimes forbade individuals from performing funeral rites for their loved ones. (See Leviticus 21:10-12; Numbers 6:6-7; 19:11-14.) For you… St. Matthew had not mentioned this formal injunction from Our Lord, which had to settle the matter definitively.
Luke 9.61 Another said to him, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me go and say goodbye to those of my household."« 62 Jesus answered him, «No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.» – Third case, specific to St. Luke. This other disciple presents himself spontaneously to the Savior, like the first; but, like the second, he asks for a little respite before committing himself definitively to his vocation. He would like, he says, to say goodbye. St. Augustine adopts the first meaning: «Let me announce it to my family, so that, as often happens, they will not seek me out,» Sermon 7 of Verbis Domini. Likewise, St. Irenaeus («to the people of my household»), and Tertullian (adverbial to Mark 1:4: «And this third man is ready to say goodbye to his family first.»). The disciple wanted first to go and put his affairs in order. – Jesus also teaches him that there is no possible delay when it comes to a heavenly calling, and he tells him this by means of a very expressive image. «To put one’s hand to the plow» was a metaphorical expression used by the Greeks to mean «to undertake a task.» But when a serious person begins an undertaking, he must pursue it vigorously, devote himself to it entirely, without allowing himself to be distracted by anything extraneous, as the rest of Jesus’ words indicate. Look back. A good plowman bends over his plow, Pliny tells us, and looks at his feet or ahead, but not behind him; otherwise, he will make crooked furrows («the plowman, if he is not bent over, will stray from the straight line,» Natural History 18, 29). The disciple who was speaking to the Savior at that moment was therefore in the false position of a man who puts his hand to the plow and casts distracted glances behind him. So Jesus told him that he could not count on success, especially in the kingdom of God, because a divided heart harms the evangelical worker even more than the one who plows a physical field. Let him therefore put an end to his irresolution. Let him not look toward the west when it is the east that calls him (St. Augustine, 11). Therein lies a precept of profound and enduring truth. It has become proverbial forever. – What a great teacher Jesus is for the guidance of souls! Here are three men who present themselves to him in almost identical outward circumstances; but he employs very different methods toward each of them, according to their different dispositions. He dismisses the first, who is presumptuous; he provokes the irresolution of the second; as for the third, who seems to have been somewhere between the first two, he neither discourages him nor pushes him forward: he simply offers him an important reflection, leaving him to decide. In these three disciples, the Gnostics, according to St. Irenaeus (1.8.3), saw archetypal figures; some authors consider them to be types of the sanguine, melancholic, and phlegmatic temperaments: the bilious or choleric temperament, according to them, made its appearance a little earlier, in verse 54, in the person of the sons of Zebedee.
