“I give you power to tread on serpents and scorpions” (Luke 10 :19) A spiritual interpretation of these words seems to accord with the context much better than does a purely literal interpretation.
The verse in full reads: “I give you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.”
The “serpents” and the “scorpions” appear to be connected with the “enemy” (the “Satan” of the previous verse), and the ” treading” on them is parallel to the “fall of Satan from heaven.’
The terminology used by Jesus was probably influenced by the then current notions regarding demoniac possession.
“Give us this day our daily bread” (Luke 11:3) The Greek word translated “daily” only occurs here and in the parallel passage in Matt. 6.
One commentator thinks therefore that this Greek word (epiousios) “must have been coined for the purpose, as the best equivalent for the unknown Aramaic word which our Lord used.”
Godet, in his Biblical Studies, says much the same thing. “Certain Greek phrases are selected and adapted once for all as the stablished equivalents for Aramaic words are to translate, which Jesus had made use of,” and gives epiousios as an example. Thus Moffatt’s translation reads: “Give us ur bread for the morrow day by day”; Weymouth offers: “Give us day after day ur bread for the day”; while the R.S.V. as: “Give us each day our daily bread.”
On the other hand, Ellicott says: “When we ask for “daily bread” we mean not common food, but the “bread from heaven which giveth life unto the world.”
Perhaps we may combine these suggestions, and believe that Jesus bids us pray for sufficient food only (“food convenient for me,” as it reads in Prov. 30:8), and that in thus praying for sufficient bread, we should include in our thoughts spiritual food also.
“I am come to send fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49) This seems an abrupt change from what precedes it, and there was probably a pause to mark the change of subject.
While it appears that the “fire” refers to the Day of Judgment, which “will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12), it cannot refer exclusively to that assize, for Jesus goes on to say “and what will I, if it be already kindled?”
We suggest that the “fire” also refers to his teaching, which would separate Christians from non-Christians, and that it is therefore equivalent to the “division” of which our Lord speaks in verse 51, or—as the parallel account in Matt. 10:34 has it ”I came not to send peace, but a sword,” the symbol of consuming warfare between believers and unbelievers.
“If the salt have lost his savour” (Luke 14:34) In the corresponding passage (Matt. 5:13) this sentence follows the statement that the disciples were “the salt of the earth.”
Through the disciples’ preaching the world could be saved, could be purified, and so preserved. But if the preserving salt “have lost his savour?” If the preaching of the truth is so watered-down that it becomes insipid and worthless, the world will not be saved.
And the context seems to imply that it is hopeless to try to restore the power of the “salt.” If that is indeed so, then it is a grave warning to disciples of every age against the tendency to ” prophesy smooth things,” to preach an emasculated Gospel, and to proclaim a more “popular” message.
“We are unprofitable servants” (Luke 17 :10) Many have been led, by the use of the description “unprofitable servant” in the Parable of the Talents, to apply the same interpretation to Luke 17:10.
We suggest, however, that the circumstances are very different, and here the context suggests a different interpretation.
We are unprofitable servants; we have (only) done that which was our duty to do. The “unprofitable servant” in the parable had NOT done that which it was his duty to do, and was therefore rejected.
We are “unprofitable servants” in the sense that we do not bring any profit to God. God does not gain by our service; we are not doing God a favour by our services; we are His servants, and simply do our duty.
“I will therefore chastise him, and release him” (Luke 23 : 16) Pilate was quite convinced that Jesus was innocent of all the charges brought against him. ” I find no fault in this man,” he is reported to have said.
He ought, therefore, to have released Jesus without “chastising” (scourging) him. But to do so would have annoyed the Jewish leaders, and so Pilate proposed a compromise. “Nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.”
Pilate therefore suggested that Jesus should be treated as if he were guilty of some minor offence, for which scourging was reckoned a sufficient punishment.
“The place which is called Calvary” (Luke 23:33) The scene of the Crucifixion is called in Hebrew “Golgotha” (Matt. 27:33), or, in English, “the place ‘of a skull,” probably a reference to its skull-like appearance.
The Greek equivalent of “Golgotha” is “Kranion” (skull), and this Greek word was translated in the Vulgate by the Latin word ” Calvarium ” (skull), an&it is from this Latin word Calvarium (which would be familiar to the compilers of the Authorispd Version) that we have its Anglicised form in Calvary in Luke 23:33.
“The Gospel according to John” (Heading to Fourth Gospel)
Doubt has been expressed in some quarters whether the compiler of the Fourth Gospel was in fact the son of Zebedee, and there have been suggestions that he was a different John altogether.
Yet the Christian Fathers are unanimous in declaring John, the son of Zebedee, to be the compiler of this gospel.
Irenaeus, who had lived in his youth with the friend and disciple of John, the son of Zebedee (Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna), writes as follows: “After that, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned on his bosom, himself also published a gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”
Clement of Alexandria writes: “John, the last, having noticed that the bodily things were recorded in the gospels (the three Synoptics), at the instigation of the men of note and moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gospel.”
These are but samples of a wide tradition which, with one voice, attributes the fourth gospel to John, the son of Zebedee. From this general ascription of the Gospel to John, we must except verses 24 nno 25 of chapter 21. These two verses were probably added by those to whom John handed over his work to transmit to the Church. This suggestion, if well=founded, means that the famous sentence, “I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” was penned by someone other than the Apostle John.
“Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, an the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man” (Jno. 1:51) The preceding verses record words spoke by Jesus to Nathaniel, but the plural “ye” indicates that the words of verse 51 were addressed to the disciples’ generally.
The reference to the angels of God ascending and descending seems to be an allusion to the dream of Jacob, in which he saw a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and the angels of God (were) ascending and descending on it (Gen. 28:12).
Jno. 1:51 seems as if our Lord promised that his disciples would be vouchsafed a vision of the time when Jesus would be glorified in heaven, but when such a vision came to them we are not able to say.
May we add that this verse does not seem to us to promise those disciples a sight of the Second Coming of Christ. Perhaps our chief reason for rejecting this common interpretation is that those disciples to whom the promise was given will be still in their graves at the moment when Jesus comes again.
“The third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee” (Jno. 2 :1) What is meant by “the third day?”
Ellicott defines the “third day” as being from the last note of time in Jno. 1:43, “giving one clear day between the call of Philip and the day of the marriage.”
This seems a reasonable explanation, but we ourselves hesitate to accept it fully because Jno. 1:43 records that the day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee. Jesus was apparently then in Judea, and the journey to Galilee would take that day and the next day, so that the wedding would probably be on the following day. Suppose that the call of Philip in Judea was on (say) Monday. Tuesday and Wednesday would be taken up with the long walk to Galilee, and we suggest that the party would be too tired to attend a wedding on the Wednesday evening, so that the wedding would probably be on the Thursday, and therefore two days after the call of Philip.
The Solution