Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:54
And when his disciples James and John saw [this,] they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?
54. James and John ] “What wonder that the Sons of Thunder wished to flash lightning?” St Ambrose. But one of these very disciples afterwards went to Samaria on a message of love (Act 8:14-25).
fire to come down from heaven ] To avenge their helplessness under this gross and open insult of the Messiah. “Christ wrought miracles in every element except fire. Fire is reserved for the consummation of the age.” Bengel.
even as Elias did ] These words are omitted by N, B, L. But (i) they are singularly appropriate, since the incident referred to also occurred in Samaria (2Ki 1:5-14); and (ii) while it would be difficult to account for their insertion, it is quite easy to account for their omission either by an accidental error of the copyists, or on dogmatic grounds, especially from the use made of this passage by the heretic Marcion (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 23) to disparage the Old Testament, (iii) They are found in very ancient MSS., versions, and Fathers, (iv) The words seem to be absolutely required to defend the crude spirit of vengeance, and might have seemed all the more natural to the still half-trained Apostles because they had so recently seen Moses and Elias speaking with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They needed, as it were, a Scriptural precedent, to conceal from themselves the personal impulse which really actuated them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
James and John – They were called Boanerges – sons of thunder – probably on account of their energy and power in preaching the gospel, or of their vehement and rash zeal – a remarkable example of which we have in this instance, Mar 3:17.
Wilt thou … – The insult had been offered to Jesus, their friend, and they felt it; but their zeal was rash and their spirit bad. Vengeance belongs to God: it was not theirs to attempt it.
Fire from heaven – Lightning, to consume them.
As Elias did – By this they wished to justify their zeal. Perhaps, while they were speaking, they saw Jesus look at them with disapprobation, and to vindicate themselves they referred to the case of Elijah. The case is recorded in 2Ki 1:10-12.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 54. That we command fire] Vengeance belongs to the Lord. What we suffer for his sake, should be left to himself to reprove or punish. The insult is offered to him, not to us. See Clarke on Mr 3:17.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The history of Elijah to which the disciples refer, is doubtless that, 2Ki 1:10, where Elijah, not without direction from God, called fire from heaven to destroy those captains and their fifties which the king sent to take him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
54. James and Johnnot Peter,as we should have expected, but those “sons of thunder“(Mr 3:17), who afterwardswanted to have all the highest honors of the Kingdom to themselves,and the younger of whom had been rebuked already for hisexclusiveness (Luk 9:49; Luk 9:50).Yet this was “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” while theother willingly drank of His Lord’s bitter cup. (See on Mr10:38-40; and Ac 12:2). Thatsame fiery zeal, in a mellowed and hallowed form, in the beloveddisciple, we find in 2Jn 5:10;3Jn 1:10.
fire . . . as Eliasaplausible case, occurring also in Samaria (2Ki1:10-12).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when his disciples, James and John, saw this,…. The Persic version reads thus; when “James and John, and the disciples saw this”; that is, the other disciples besides them, so making all the disciples say what follows; whereas only those two are intended, who having been the messengers, were the more provoked at this indignity to their Lord and master:
they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them; being enraged at this conduct of the Samaritans towards, Christ, and burning with love to him, and zeal for his honour; being “Boanerges’s”, sons of thunder, they were for punishing of them in a most terrible manner, even with, fire from heaven; by which Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities of the plain, were destroyed: this they doubted not of doing, knowing what miraculous power was conferred upon them; but did not think proper to attempt to exert it, until they had asked leave of Christ to do it:
even as Elias did; upon the two captains of fifties, with their fifties, as recorded in 2Ki 1:9 This clause was wanting in a certain copy of Beza’s, and is not in the Vulgate Latin version; but is in other copies and versions, and by all means to be retained.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Saw this (). Second aorist active participle of . Saw the messengers returning.
We bid ( ). Deliberative subjunctive after without , probably two questions, Dost thou wish? Shall we bid? Perhaps the recent appearance of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration reminded James and John of the incident in 2Ki 1:10-12. Some MSS. add here “as Elijah did.” The language of the LXX is quoted by James and John, these fiery Sons of Thunder. Note the two aorist active infinitives (, , the first ingressive, the second effective).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And when his disciples James and John saw this,” (idontes de hoi mathetai lakobos kai loannes) “Then when James and John, his disciples saw this,” the rebuke toward hospitality for their Lord, an insult according to their own law for treatment of sojourners or strangers, Heb 13:2.
2) “They said, Lord,” (eipan kurie) “They said, Lord,” or Master, forgetting what Jesus had said about persecution and injuries, Mat 5:11; Luk 11:49; Rom 12:14.
3) “Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven,” (theleis eipomen pur katabenai apo tou ouranou) “Are you willing that we call fire to fall down forcefully from the third heaven,” as vengeance for their attitude? Rom 12:19; 2Th 1:8.
4) “And consume them, even as Elias did?” (kai analosai autous) “And to consume them?” 2Ki 1:10-12, destroy, or wipe them out? These two “sons of Thunder” figuratively “blew a fuse,” indicating perhaps why Jesus had given the “nickname”, Mar 3:17; Joh 3:17. God is a righteous judge, always right, but man is impulsive, inclined to bad judgment and hasty action, before the evidence is all in. See? 1Co 4:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
54. And when His disciples James and John saw it. The country itself had perhaps suggested to them the desire of thundering immediately against the ungodly; for it was there that Elijah had formerly destroyed, by a fire from heaven, the king’s soldiers who had been sent to apprehend him, (2Kg 1:10.) It therefore occurred to them that the Samaritans, who so basely rejected the Son of God, were at that time devoted to a similar destruction. And here we see to what we are driven by a foolish imitation (591) of the holy fathers. James and John plead the example of Elijah, but they do not consider how far they differ from Elijah; they do not examine properly their own intemperate zeal, nor do they look at the calling of God. Under a pretext equally plausible did the Samaritans cloak their idolatry, our fathers worshipped in this mountain, (Joh 4:20.) But both were in the wrong; for, neglecting the exercise of judgment, they were apes rather than imitators of the holy fathers. Now though it is doubtful whether they think that they have the power in their own hand, or ask Christ to give it to them, I think it more probable that, elated with foolish confidence, they entertain no doubt that they are able to execute vengeance, provided that Christ give his consent.
(591) “ Une folle et inconsideree imitation des saincts peres;” — “a foolish and ill-considered imitation of the holy fathers.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(54) When his disciples James and John saw this.The burning zeal of the sons of Zebedee, more fiery even than that of Peter, was eminently characteristic of those whom our Lord had named as the Sons of Thunder (Mar. 3:17). Their anger was probably heightened by the contrast with His former reception in a city of the same people (Joh. 4:40-41), and by the feeling that what seemed to them an act of marvellous condescension was thus rudely repelled. Did not such a people deserve a punishment like that which Elijah had inflicted on the messengers of Ahaziah (2Ki. 1:10; 2Ki. 1:12; 2Ki. 1:14)? The latter words, as Elias did, are, however, wanting in some of the best MSS.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
54. His disciples It does not appear that the twelve, besides James and John, were in this company. Nor, if this was a journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, is there anything to indicate that any one of these was there with Jesus. James and John were evidently not of the messengers, for they knew nothing of the opposition of this village till they arrive with Jesus.
Wilt thou that we They did not ask Jesus to command the fire, as if conscious that such would be a strange work for him. Nor do they imagine that they can perform the miracle without his permission. Nor do they doubt their own power, if done by his order.
As Elias did It was in this same Samaria, perhaps in some near locality, that Elijah the Tishbite called fire from heaven and consumed the fifties of the wicked king sent to take him. The suggestion of this example was not, then, as Olshausen says, an after thought, to protect themselves from the reproof expected from Jesus, but a forethought, awakened by both the circumstances and the place. There is a great temptation to suppose that this was a disposition to call down a thunderbolt upon the wicked, and that the name of sons of thunder given to these two apostles was a memento of their zeal. But, first, it may be doubted whether it was lightning or thunder which the words fire come down designate. Second, their name seems not so much to refer to the fire as to the roar of thunder. And, third, as Mark (Mar 3:16-17) gives the surnames of the three principal apostles in connection as being bestowed by Jesus, we must hold the epithets not as bitter mementoes of sin, but as testimonies of honour.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, is it your will that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?”
At this rejection of Jesus and His message James and John were furious. They probably considered that the Samaritans should have been feeling greatly honoured (they had never suggested similar treatment for Jews who refused to receive His words). So, with Elijah’s exploits on those who had come from Samaria in mind (2Ki 1:9; 2Ki 1:12), and with their new perception of Jesus’ glory gained at the Transfiguration, they asked Jesus whether He wanted them to call down fire on the village. That would show everybody what happened to people who treated Jesus like this! Note their confidence in what they were able to do with Jesus present. Note also that they had not yet caught on to what Jesus had been teaching them. Here their desire to be ‘the Greatest’ was still coming out. And they were trying to involve Jesus in it too. Had they had their way Jesus would never have got to the cross, and mankind would never have been offered salvation.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 9:54-56. And when his disciples, James and John That these disciples, so remarkablydistinguished by their Lord’s favour, should havesome distinguished zeal and faith, may seem less wonderful, than that a person of so sweet a disposition as John should make so severe a proposal. Our Lord, whose meekness on all occasions was admirable, sharply reprimanded his disciples for entertaining so unbecoming a resentment: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: “Ye do not know the sinfulness of the disposition ye have just now expressed; neither do ye consider the difference of times, persons, and dispensations.” The severity which Elijah exercised on the men who came from Ahaziah to apprehend him, was a reproof of an idolatrous king, court, and nation, very proper for the times, and very agreeable to the characters, both of the prophet who gave it, and of the offenders to whom it was given; at the same time it was not unsuitable to the nature of the dispensation which they were under: but the gospel breathes a different spirit from the law; and therefore it does not admit of this sort of rigour and severity. Bengelius would rather render the clause interrogatively, Do ye not know what kind of spirit ye are of? “Are you not sensible that this proceeds from a revengeful spirit, which is in every respect contrary to the nature of my dispensation, and the design of my coming into the world?” Accordinglyhe tells them, that to destroy men’s lives was utterly inconsistent with that design: The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them, Luk 9:56 alluding to his miracles, by which he restored health to the diseased bodies of men; as well as to his doctrine and death, by which he gives life to their souls. Having said these things, he went with them to another village, the inhabitants whereof were men of better dispositions. This was a noble instance of patience under a real and unprovoked injury; an instance which expressed infinite sweetness of disposition, and which for that reason should be imitated by all who call themselves Christ’s disciples. See the note on 2Ki 1:10 and the Inferences and Reflections at the end of this chapter. Sir D. Dalrymple observes upon this passage, that “it is of great moment, not only as pointing out the doctrine of the meek and merciful Jesus, but as shewing that we have the evangelical history without corruption; for would persecutors, that is, almost all men who have had power in all ages, have suffered such a passage, against persecution to have remained, had it been in their power to have corrupted it?”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 9:54-56 . ] they saw it in the return of the messengers, who would not otherwise have come back.
The two disciples are not to be identified with the messengers (Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus).
] Fire , not: fulmen (Wetstein, Kuinoel), a modern mode of explaining away, of which, neither in 2Ki 1:10-12 (when at the word of Elias fire from heaven devours the people of Ahaziah) nor on the part of the disciples is there any notion.
. . .] As in respect of the emphatic contrast with Elias is not to be disregarded (“retunditur provocatio ad Eliam,” Bengel), so it is objectionable to explain, with Bornemann: “Nonne perpenditis, qualem vos animum prodatis? Certe non humaniorem, quam modo vobis Samaritani praestiterunt .” The Samaritans had not, indeed, refused to receive Jesus from lack of humanity ; see on Luk 9:53 . Rightly the expositors have explained of a spirit which is differently disposed from that displayed by Elias . In that respect the form of the saying has been taken by some affirmatively (so Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others; latest of all, Ewald), some interrogatively (so Luther, Zeger, and most of the later critics); but the matter of it has been so understood that Jesus is made to say to the disciples either ( a ) that they knew not that they were allowing themselves to be guided by a wholly different spirit from that of Elias (see as early as Augustine, C. Adimant . 17, Calvin, Grotius: “Putatis vos agi Spiritu tali, quali olim Elias ; sed erratis. Habetis quidem , sed , et qui proinde humani est affectus, non divinae motionis”), so in substance Ch. F. Fritzsche also in his Nov. Opusc . p. 264; or ( b ) that they knew not that they as His disciples were to follow the guidance of a wholly different spirit from that of Elias, the evangelical spirit of meekness, not the legal spirit of severity (so Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, Jansen, Bengel, and most of the later commentators). The view under ( a ) bears on the face of it the motives on which it depends, viz. to avoid making Jesus rebuke the spirit of Elias. The view under ( b ) is simply in accordance with the words, and is to be preferred in the interrogative form, as being more appropriate to the earnestness of the questioner; yet is not to be explained, as most of the later commentators explain it, of the human spirit (“affectus animi,” Grotius), but (rightly, even so early as Euthymius Zigabenus) of the Holy Spirit. [124] To this objective the categorical points (which does not mean: ye ought to be ). As to , whereby is expressed the relation of dependence , see on Mar 9:41 , and Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 243 f.].
Luk 9:56 . ] into a village which was not Samaritan . Theophylact: , . Thus the journey at its very commencement diverged from the direct course that had been decided on (in opposition to Wieseler, p. 326). To suppose the further progress of the journey through Samaria (in this place consequently Schenkel misplaces the incident in Joh 4 ) is altogether without authority in the text.
[124] , Euthymius Zigabenus. But not as though Jesus indirectly denied to Elias the Holy Spirit (comp. already on Luk 1:17 ), but in His disciples the Holy Spirit is in His operations different from what He was in the old prophets, seeing that He was in them the instrument of the divine chastisement .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this , they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Ver. 54. And when his disciples ] These two brethren, sons of thunder, how soon was their choler up! they had quick and hot spirits.
Wilt thou that we command ] It were to be wished that we would first consult with Christ in his word, ere we stir hand or foot to revenge.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
54. ] The disciples whom He named ‘sons of thunder,’ Mar 3:17 . They saw some insult of manner, or actual refusal to allow the Lord to enter their village. That a collision of this kind did take place is plain from the last verse, and implied from the occasion alluded to by the two Apostles, where the fire was invoked in the presence of the offending persons. It happened also in Samaria.
, not lightning , but fire , as in the passage alluded to, and in 1Ki 18:38 .
It is exceedingly difficult to determine the true reading in this passage, which seems to have been more than usually tampered with, or wrongly written. It is hardly conceivable that the shorter text, as edited by Tischd [79] ., ; . should have been the original, and all the rest, insertion. Homoteleuton may have had some share in the omission of the latter debated portion, from to : but this does not touch . . It has been suggested that those words may have been removed as involving indirect censure of Elias: but surely this lay too far off to create any offence. And their insertion into the text is quite inexplicable. In this great uncertainty, I have thought the candid way is to let my edited text reflect such uncertainty, and I have therefore printed these latter debatable words in the same type as the text, and have annotated on them. Let it be remembered that in both cases, versions far more ancient than our oldest MSS. contain these words.
[79] Tischendorf.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 9:54 . : their outburst of temper, revealed in their truculent proposal, probably indicated the attitude of the whole company. In that case journeying through Samaria was hopeless. , infinitive, instead of with subjunctive as often after .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Lord. App-98.
wilt. App-102.
command fire = should call down fire.
heaven = the heaven (Singular.) See note on Mat 6:9, Mat 6:10.
even as Elias did = as Elijah also did. See 2Ki 1:10. Omitted by T Trm. [A] WH.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
54.] The disciples whom He named sons of thunder, Mar 3:17. They saw some insult of manner, or actual refusal to allow the Lord to enter their village. That a collision of this kind did take place is plain from the last verse, and implied from the occasion alluded to by the two Apostles, where the fire was invoked in the presence of the offending persons. It happened also in Samaria.
, not lightning, but fire, as in the passage alluded to, and in 1Ki 18:38.
It is exceedingly difficult to determine the true reading in this passage, which seems to have been more than usually tampered with, or wrongly written. It is hardly conceivable that the shorter text, as edited by Tischd[79]., ; . should have been the original, and all the rest, insertion. Homoteleuton may have had some share in the omission of the latter debated portion, from to : but this does not touch . . It has been suggested that those words may have been removed as involving indirect censure of Elias: but surely this lay too far off to create any offence. And their insertion into the text is quite inexplicable. In this great uncertainty, I have thought the candid way is to let my edited text reflect such uncertainty, and I have therefore printed these latter debatable words in the same type as the text, and have annotated on them. Let it be remembered that in both cases, versions far more ancient than our oldest MSS. contain these words.
[79] Tischendorf.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 9:54. , James and John) Who had been selected above the others to see the glory of Jesus, Luk 9:28, along with Peter, who however in this instance remained quiet. After that they had heard of the approaching death of Jesus [Luk 9:44], on that account the more they try now to preserve His life. They seem also to have had in mind that injunction which is recorded, Luk 9:5 : see Mar 9:41.-, fire) It was not for this end that they were named the Sons of Thunder. Christ wrought miracles in all the elements except fire. Fire was reserved for the end (consummation) of the present world.- , from heaven) Vengeance being impotent on earth, is readily disposed to stretch out its hand, its wishes, its sighs, to heaven for the weapons from above.- , even as) We are too willing to imitate the saints just in the cases where we ought not.-, Elias) who also did so, as in the present case, against the Samaritans, 2Ki 1:2, seqq. They at the time had Elias fresh in their remembrance and thoughts; Luk 9:8; Luk 9:19; Luk 9:30.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
wilt: 2Sa 21:2, 2Ki 10:16, 2Ki 10:31, Jam 1:19, Jam 1:20, Jam 3:14-18
fire: 2Ki 1:10-14, Act 4:29, Act 4:30, Rev 13:3
Reciprocal: Num 20:10 – General 2Sa 16:10 – What have 2Sa 19:22 – shall there any man 1Ki 17:1 – Elijah 2Ki 6:21 – shall Job 31:31 – the men Psa 37:8 – fret Ecc 3:3 – a time to heal Mat 19:13 – and the Mar 10:14 – he was Luk 18:15 – they rebuked Joh 18:6 – they went Rev 13:13 – he maketh Rev 20:9 – and fire
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
SONS OF THUNDER OR SONS OF CHRIST?
And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:54
I. The name and the lesson.The question naturally arises, Was this the incident which led to the name of Boanerges, or Sons of Thunder, being given by Christ to James and John? or was this merely an example of that fiery character which caused them to receive this surname? Many commentators think that the name did not arise from the story told in the text; and one great reason with them seems to be that the name appears as though it were recorded as a name of honour, just as the name of Peter, the Rock, was given to Simon, and recorded as a name of honour, indicating his strength as a foundation of the Church; whereas it is argued, that if this name had been given to James and John upon this occasion, it would have been a perpetual memorial of their weakness and folly, and would hardly have been set down as their recognised title. I cannot myself, however, refrain from thinking it probable that the name did take its rise from this story. Christ never did blame James and John for their zeal; He only spoke of their zeal as mistaken. He laid the blame on their ignorance, and not on any wilful violation of duty; and this lesson I can easily believe He would be most anxious to impress, so as that it should never be forgotten. What wonder, then, if He should adopt a method which would have the effect of keeping the lesson constantly before the Apostles minds? And to give them this new name would infallibly have this result.
II. Impulse v. Principle.Like all the acts and words of Christ, the acts and words recorded in this history have still most important lessons for ourselves. I should say that the contrast of the conduct of John and James with that of Christ is precisely a type of the contrast, which is continually presented, of the conduct of men who act upon the mere impulse of feeling or passion, and that of men who act upon true Christlike principles. Sons of thunder are we all, in a certain sense, until we become sons of Christ; ever ready to let feelings of selfishness and pride get the upper hand, and show themselves stronger than the feelings of gentleness and patience and forbearance, which are alone in accordance with the spirit and example of Christ. Who does not plead guilty to the charge of showing himself in this way unworthy of his Christian profession? It is because we are by nature thus different from what we ought to be that Christ has come to give us power to become the sons of God.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin.
Illustrations
(1) It is the common assumption that what the Samaritan villagers were guilty of was merely a breach of hospitality; that they refused our Lord food and shelter. There was something far worse. It is said that before setting out on this journey Jesus sent messengers before His face. It cannot be that they were only couriers, to provide food and shelter. He was not wont to take such care for His bodily comfort. They were heralds, specially sent to tell the Samaritans that the Messiah was coming, and passing through their country on His way to Jerusalem to be proclaimed there. It was this that urged them to refuse Him food and shelter. They would harbour in their village no Jewish impostor. No doubt they expressed themselves strongly; and John and James, fresh from the Transfiguration scene, and knowing that He was certainly the Son of God, were indignant at the rejection of His claims, and wanted to call down fire upon the Samaritans. If the people had been merely rude and inhospitable, the offence would have been palpably inadequate to require such a punishment. They were vindicating the claims of the true and legitimate Lord, to be recognised publicly as such. They recalled a passage in Elijahs history, which seemed to them to furnish a precedent for their conduct: Shall we call down fire from heaven to consume them, as Elias did?
(2) That name, Boanerges, the sons of thunder, which Christ probably gave to the two Apostles from this exhibition of fiery temper of indignation, which clung to them in after years, was a necessary reminder of the need of forbearance in the spread of Christianity. And who can say how much of the forgiving spirit which breathes through the pages of John was due to the lesson which he then received? What a contrast there is between the Apostle, invoking the lightning to destroy the unbelieving Samaritans, and the aged Apostle carried into the Christian assembly, when his powers of speech were failing, and he repeated the often reiterated exhortation, Little children, love one another.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
4
The brothers, James and John, were angered over the slight and suggested some physical destruction for them, citing the case of Elias (Elijah) in 2Ki 1:10; 2Ki 1:12. What they suggested would have been the action that is meant by pulling up the tares in the parable of the tares. (See Mat 13:28.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 9:54. Saw this. On the return of the messengers. Probably the company was now very near the village, and may have noticed some signs of opposition from the inhabitants. Comp. Act 8:14-17, where Johns apostolic visit to Samaria is mentioned.Even as Elijah did (2Ki 1:10; 2Ki 1:12). This clause is wanting in some of the oldest and best manuscripts, though found in ancient versions. It was readily supplied.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here observe, 1. The crime which these men were guilty of: no affront must be accounted little, no indignity light, that is offered to the Son of God. But these Samaritans did not revile Christ, nor any of his retinue, that we read of; they did not violently assault him, they did not follow him with stones in their hands, or blasphemies in their mouths, but the wrong and injury was only negative: They received him not. They denied him a night’s lodging, and this is not out of any dislike of his person, but from an antipathy against his nation.
Observe, 2. The carriage of the disciples upon this occasion: it was thus far commendable, that from the endeared love which they bore to their Master, they did highly resent the churlish denial of an act of kindness towards him.
A gracious heart is holily impatient at the sight of an indignity offered to Christ; but their fault was, that they were too far transported with passion and revenge, even to desire the death and destruction of the uncivil Samaritans: Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? They do not say, Master, will it please thee, who art Lord of the creature, to command fire to come down? Nor did they say, if it be thy pleasure command us to call down fire; but, Wilt thou that we command fire? This savours too much of pride, cruelty, and revenge; so dangerous is a misguided zeal.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Luk 9:54-56. When his disciples, James and John Who attended him; saw this When the messengers returned with the account of what had passed in the village, whither they had been sent, these two disciples, being exceedingly incensed at this rude treatment; said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven To destroy these inhospitable wretches immediately; even as Elias did After the example of the Prophet Elijah, who at, or near, this very place, thus destroyed the men who had evil-entreated him. Perhaps the place might put it into the minds of these apostles to make this motion now, rather than at any other time, or place, where Christ had received the like affront. That these disciples, so remarkably distinguished by their Lords favour, should have some distinguished zeal and faith, may seem less wonderful, than that a person of so sweet a disposition as John should make so severe a proposal. But he turned and rebuked them Jesus, whose meekness on all occasions was admirable, sharply reprimanded his disciples for entertaining so unbecoming a resentment of this offence; and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of Ye do not know the sinfulness of the disposition which ye have just now expressed, neither do ye sufficiently know your own hearts; which if you were more diligently to examine, you would soon find that there is a great deal of personal resentment and ostentation mingled with that zeal for me, which you so warmly express on this occasion. Add to this, you do not consider the genius of the gospel, so much more gentle than that of the law; nor the difference of times, persons, and circumstances. The severity which Elijah exercised on the men who came from Ahaziah to apprehend him, was a reproof of an idolatrous king, court, and nation, very proper for the times, and very agreeable to the characters both of the prophet who gave it, and of the offenders to whom it was given; at the same time it was not unsuitable to the nature of the dispensation they were under. But the gospel breathes a very different spirit from the law, (whose punishments were chiefly of a temporal kind,) and therefore it does not admit of this sort of rigour and severity. He told them, further, that to destroy mens lives was utterly inconsistent with the design of his coming into the world, which was to save them Alluding to his miracles, by which he restored health to the diseased bodies of men, as well as to his doctrine and death, by which he gives life to their souls. Having said these things, he went with them to another village, the inhabitants of which were men of better dispositions. This was a noble instance of patience under a real and unprovoked injury; an instance of patience which expressed infinite sweetness of disposition, and which, for that reason, should be imitated by all who call themselves Christs disciples.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 54
When we find in our hearts that our feelings towards those who oppose Christianity itself, or that particular form of it with which we are ourselves identified, are assuming the character of resentment or ill will, we may see the spirit which actuates us reflected here.–Even as Elias did, 2 Kings 1:10-12.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
9:54 {12} And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
(12) We must take heed of zeal and fond imitation which is not moderated, even in good causes, that whatever we do, we do it to God’s glory, and the profit of our neighbour.