Bible Commentaries
Luke 11

Verses 1-54

XI 1-13 Teaching on Prayer —The material collected here, except for the parable of the Importunate Friend, is found in Matthew 6:9-13 and 7:7-11. We have already noted Lk’s insistence on prayer, particularly in the life of our Lord (cf. 1:10, 46 ff., 68 ff.; 2:14, 20, 29 ff., 37; 3:21; 6:12; 9:18, 29; 10:21; 22:32, 42-44; 23:34; 24:53), most of these cases being proper. Here in a short treatise he sets before us the example of Jesus, the model of prayer taught by him, the conditions required for efficacious prayer, i.e. perseverance and faith in the goodness of God. 2-4. In the Our Father, as in the Beatitudes, Lk shortens the form given by Mt. Some hold that Lk’s form is the more primitive, that of Mt being amplified for liturgical purposes (cf. the addition in the Syriac version, ’for thine is the kingdom’ etc., which is a liturgical addition). But the fact that Mt’s form is the one adopted in the liturgy probably shows that it is the more primitive; Lk has the habit of abridging. See Matthew 6:9-13 for commentary. 5-8. By

teaching his disciples to begin their prayers with the word ’Father’, Jesus wishes to inspire them with confidence; there are two things looked for in the person from whom we seek favours: the ability to do what we require and the goodwill to do it for us. But if God is our Father, then he has our good at heart, and if he is a heavenly Father then there is no need to doubt his ability. To drive home this lesson Lk records a delightful parable for the full understanding of which it is necessary to put oneself in the circumstances of the time: a house of one room, beds spread on the floor, scant means of artificial lighting, all of which go to render more obvious the untimeliness of the request. Allegorization induces conclusions very unworthy of application to God; it is a clear parable with an evident meaning: unwearying and confident prayer.

9-13. But for an added example in 12 and the remarkable variation in 13b Lk gives this teaching as in Matthew 7:7-11. The change from Mt in 13b is very characteristic in view of Lk’s insistence on the part played by the Holy Ghost: ’how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit (Mt "good things") to them that ask him’? The influence of the Spirit, as in Genesis 1:2; Genesis 2:7, is always represented as productive of good. The chief good the disciple is to ask in prayer is that he may be like his Father in heaven, and this will be accomplished by the reception of God’s Spirit, as Lk has so often heardfrom St Paul, Romans 8:9 ff., etc.

14-54 Beginning of Denunciations of Scribes and Pharisees —Here begins a series of incidents common to Lk and Mt but found very scattered in Mt. Mk has but one parallel, the parables following the accusation of diabolical agency in Jesus, Mark 3:22-27, an incident put by Mt and Mk in the Galilean ministry. The first series of disputes with the Scribes and Pharisees, 5:17-6:11, ended with the threat against our Lord’s life; here is the first fulfilment of that threat, an effort to discredit the undeniable miracles he has worked by making out that he is a tool of Satan. That is the key to the very strong condemnations he utters in reply, for such an accusation is a blasphemy against the good Spirit just spoken of, 13.

14-28 Satan does not fight Satan —(Matthew 12:22-30, Matthew 12:43-45; Mark 3:22-27). Lk omits to say who the adversaries are, but we learn from Mt and Mk that they are Scribes and Pharisees. In Lk the Pharisees do not appear till the denunciations begin in 37-39. As in Mt the accusation of using diabolical agency arises out of the cure of the dumb man (also blind in Mt); both Synoptists attribute the defect of the man to diabolical influence. The ancient Semites, like the modern Arabs, attributed disease to demonic influence, especially such diseases as induce an apparent change of personality, like madness. Rationalist critics maintain that our Lord was subject to the same superstition, and it is common for orthodox scholars to reply that he merely accommodated his language to the current notions of his time. But that cannot be true of all the cases in the Gospels, for our Lord accepts diabolical possession as an objective reality as the Church does still. The fact is that there is nothing theologically wrong in attributing all human ills to diabolical agency from the Fall downwards. ’By consenting to sin man has subjected himself to the dominion of Satan; John 8:34, Romans 6:12-14; the purpose of the Incarnation is to deliver man from the consequences of the Fall and to destroy the reign of Satan through the reestablishment of the Reign of God. All this is reflected here. The only differences between Lk and Mt are Lk’s additional demand for a sign from heaven (found later in Matthew 12:38), and the unexpected change of Mt’s ’Spirit of God’ to ’finger of God’ in 20; Lk’s expression echoes the cry of Pharaoh’s magicians in Exodus 8:19. The demand for a sign is logical after the accusation; Jesus is required to show a sign that he acts through the Spirit of God and not through the evil spirit. The conclusion in 23 is a very stern hint for the adversaries; if they have so sided against Jesus when he casts out a devil, is not that in itself a sign that they have taken sides with Satan whose reign, as is shown in the allegorical application of the preceding parables, our Lord has come to overthrow?

24-26. This corresponds very closely with Matthew 12:43-45, a passage which is variously interpreted. In Lk it seems to express by means of a parable the lesson that the Jews, in refusing to accept the Kingdom of God inaugurated in the person of Jesus and his victory over Satan, have placed themselves in a worse position than that in which they were before; cf.John 9:41. It reinforces the warning of 23. 27-28. Lk alone. In the context of Mt and Mk the Mother and brethren of Jesus are here brought in (earlier in Luke 8:19-21). This suggests that our Lady’s appearance may have inspired the good woman’s words of admiration at the victory of our Lord over his enemies: ’Happy mother’, she cries, ’that bore such a son’.

The reply of 28 is the same in effect as that in 8:21; Jesus does not deny the woman’s affirmation, but he declares that exact fidelity to the will of God (of which he knew better than anyone Mary was so outstanding an example) is cause for greater happiness.

29-32 Jonas as a Sign of the Son of Man—Close correspondence here with Matthew 12:38-42, save that Lk has put earlier, 11:16, the demand for a sign. He omits all reference to the whale and application to the Resurrection. The sign of Jonas is his preaching to the Ninevites, Jonah 3:1 ff., whom he converts to such thorough-going penance. The Jews come out badly by comparison with the pagan Ninevites, and even with the Queen of Sheba. Note the growing severity of the reproaches and the significance of the claims Jesus is superior to the Prophets, greater than Solomon.

33-36 Jesus is a Light for those who receive him — (Matthew 5:15; Matthew 6:22-2). Lk has already used 33 before in the context on the use of parables, 8:16-17, but the verses are well-placed here where our Lord tells the Jews why they fail to see what is staring them in the face; their dispositions are evil. There is plenty of light, and he is that light. The moral application is well drawn out in John 3:19-21.36b. ’the whole (man) shall be lit-up as when the lamp enlighteneth thee with its shining brightness’. 37-54 Denunciation of Pharisees and Scribes — (Matthew 23:4, Matthew 23:613, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 23:25-26, Matthew 23:29-31) 34-36). The section concludes, as does the former series of disputes, with violent rage on the part of the adversaries of Jesus and renewed efforts to close his mouth. On this occasion battle is joined more earnestly; he sees that it is time to show them up for what they are, hypocrites, and therefore a danger to their fellow Jews. From the start we are surprised to see him breaking out into an attack on the Pharisee who has invited him to dinner. Note here again ’the Lord said’, 39. 41. An obscure verse but evidently with the meaning that external observance is useless without interior observance; Is58; Matthew 5:20 ff. Hence ’give in alms that which is within (i.e. inside the cup and platter); this would make them cleaner than all their repeated purifications; Psalms 40:1-2.47-48. Lk, makes this more difficult to understand than the parallel in Mt. But perhaps he turns it into a piece of irony. While the Jews show honour to the Prophets by building their tombs, they are seeking an opportunity of killing Jesus, who is the Prophet of the Prophets; cf. 11:32. 53. ’And as he went out thence, the Pharisees . . .’