Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 13:14
And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
14. ruler of the synagogue ] See Luk 8:41.
with indignation ] The same strong word implying a personal resentment is used in Mat 20:24; Mat 26:8.
on the sabbath day ] See on Luk 6:2.
in which men ought to work ] Exo 20:9.
in them therefore come and be healed ] As though the reception of divine grace were Sabbath-breaking toil! Few remarks of the opponents of our Lord were so transparently illogical and hypocritical as this. It was meanly indirect because it was aimed at Jesus, though the man is too much in awe to address it to Him, and the implied notion that it was a crime to allow oneself to be healed on the Sabbath day springs from an abyss of Pharisaic falsity which could hardly have been conceived. It was the underhand ignorance and insolence, as well as the gross insincerity of the remark, which called forth a reproof exceptionally severe.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Answered with indignation, because … – He considered this a violation of the Sabbath, doing work contrary to the fourth commandment. If he had reasoned aright, he would have seen that he who could perform such a miracle could not be a violator of the law of God. From this conduct of the ruler we learn:
- That people are often opposed to good being done, because it is not done in their own way and according to their own views.
- That they are more apt to look at what they consider a violation of the law in others, than at the good which others may do.
- That this opposition is manifested not only against those who do good, but also against those who are benefited. The ruler of the synagogue seemed particularly indignant that the people would come to Christ to be healed.
- That this conduct is often the result of envy. In this case it was rather hatred that the people should follow Christ instead of the Jewish rulers, and therefore envy at the popularity of Jesus, than any real regard for religion.
- That opposition to the work of Jesus may put on the appearance of great professed regard for religion. Many people oppose revivals, missions, Bible societies, and Sunday-schools – strange as it may seem – from professed regard to the purity of religion. They, like the ruler here, have formed their notions of religion as consisting in something very different from doing good, and they oppose those who are attempting to spread the gospel throughout the world.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Answered here signifies no more than, he spake, as in a multitude of other places in the Gospels. The Jews were both very superstitious and very uneven as to the sanctification of the sabbaths: superstitious, because they would not do many things which by Gods law they might do, such as applying means to heal the sick, defending themselves against enemies, &c. Uneven, because they would do divers things of equal bodily labour with those things which they pretend to scruple, one of which we shall hear our Saviour by and by instancing in. This ruler studied to defame him before the people. His pretence was, this was a work, and such a work as might be done in the six days. Let us hear how our Saviour defends himself.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. with indignationnot somuch at the sabbath violation as at the glorification of Christ.(Compare Mt 21:15) [TRENCH].
said to the people“Notdaring directly to find fault with the Lord, he seeks circuitously toreach Him through the people, who were more under his influence, andwhom he feared less” [TRENCH].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the ruler of the synagogue,…. For there never was but one in a synagogue, whatever some writers have observed to the contrary; [See comments on Mt 9:18] the Ethiopic version reads, “the chief priests”, but wrongly; these dwelt at Jerusalem, and in Galilee:
answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day; his indignation was at Christ, and the miracle he had wrought, being filled with envy at the honour it would bring unto him; though he covered it under pretence of its being a violation of the sabbath, and that it ought not to have been done on such a day, and in such a place, which were appropriated not to servile works, but to religious worship;
and said unto the people; over whom he had an authority, and who stood in awe of him, because of his office and dignity; and not daring to attack Christ himself, at least not directly, though he struck at him through the people, whose doctrine and miracles were so extraordinary.
There are six days which men ought to work, in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day; referring to the fourth command: but this observation and reproof were impertinent and needless, for the people did not come to be healed; for ought appears, the cure was unthought of and unexpected; nor was healing, especially as performed by Christ, by a word and a touch, a servile work, and therefore could not be any breach of the law referred to. The Ethiopic version reads, “is there not a sixth day?—-come on that day”; the day before the sabbath.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Answered (). First aorist passive participle of . No one had spoken to him, but he felt his importance as the ruler of the synagogue and was indignant (, from and , to feel much pain). His words have a ludicrous sound as if all the people had to do to get their crooked backs straightened out was to come round to his synagogue during the week. He forgot that this poor old woman had been coming for eighteen years with no result. He was angry with Jesus, but he spoke to the multitude ( ).
Ought (). Really, must, necessary, a direct hit at Jesus who had “worked” on the sabbath in healing this old woman.
And not ( ). Instead of , because in the imperative clause.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation,” (apokeitheis de hos archisunagogos aganokton) “Then the synagogue ruler answered, being angry,” or agitated, frustrated over what had occurred. He was evidently an officer of the “barren fig, tree” that bare no fruit, Luk 13:6. His indignation was a sham, a farce, to cover a veneer of hypocritical piety, to hide the envy and malice in his own heart, Mat 7:6-7; Joh 5:15-16; Rom 10:12.
2) “Because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day,” (hoti to sabbata etherapeusen ho lesous) “Because Jesus healed on the sabbath,” right before his eyes, and the eyes of the synagogue worshippers. He cared less for the demon possessed woman and her soul and life than he did about holding his job of cold, heartless, formalism of Jewish law.
3) “And said unto the people,” (elegen to ochlo) “He said to the crowd,” in a chiding, scolding, rebuking way, not to Jesus, who had done the good deed, which he was calling evil.
4) “There are six days in which men ought to work:” (hoti heks hemerai eisin en hais dei etgazesthai) “There are six days in which time we must work,” Exo 20:9, do this kind of work, like Jesus had done in healing the woman, and evidently saving her too, since she “glorified God,” Luk 13:13.
5) “In them therefore come and be healed,” (en autais oun erchomenoi therapeuesthe) “You all are therefore to come of your own volition in those days,” come during the work week and be healed. He dare not acknowledge that What Jesus was doing was a Divine work or work of Grace, and therefore fitting and proper on the sabbath.
6) “And not on the sabbath day.” (kai me te hemera tou sabbatou) “And not on the day of the sabbath,” which he considered profaned by this miraculous healing, by which he should have recognized that Jesus was the Son of God, believed, and himself been saved, Joh 20:30-31. He dared not openly find fault with Jesus, but rather with the people, Mat 12:10; Mar 3:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. There are six days. This reprover does not venture to pass censure openly on Christ, but points the venom of his dislike to another quarter, and indirectly condemns Christ in the person of the multitude. What an astonishing display of furious malice! Six days, he tells them, were set apart for labor; but how incorrectly and foolishly does he define that work, which is not permitted but on six days! Why does he not likewise forbid them to enter the synagogue, lest they should violate the Sabbath? Why does he not order them to refrain from all the exercises of godliness? But granting that men are restrained from following their own employments on the Sabbath-day, how unreasonable is it that the grace of God should be limited in that manner!
On them, therefore, come and you shall be cured. He bids them come on the other days to seek a cure, as if the power of God lay asleep on Sabbath, and were not rather exerted chiefly on that day for the salvation of his people. What purpose is to be served by the holy assemblies, except to give an opportunity to believers for entreating the Divine assistance? That ungodly hypocrite talks as if the lawful observation of the Sabbath interrupted the course of God’s favors, hindered men from calling upon him, and took away from them all feeling of his kindness.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation.The traditional law for the work of the Jewish physician was that he might act in his calling in cases of emergency, life and death cases, but not in chronic diseases, such as this. This law the ruler of the synagogue wished to impose as a check upon the work of the Healer here.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. The ruler of the synagogue Who is so great as your little great man, who imitates, of course, the prejudices and follies of his superiors? This official had not dared, for reasons which may appear, to withhold from Jesus the pulpit or the synagogue for preaching. But he understands that the doctors and lawyers maintain that for Jesus to perform miracles on the Sabbath is a desecration of that holy day. He will therefore protest, in the name of the decalogue, against such work.
Answered It is not clear to what he gave answer; but it was most probably to the woman’s praise to God for her release from Satan.
With indignation Which he meant to have considered a holy indignation, prompted by his soul, for God and Moses.
Said unto the people He has not the courage to face Jesus. He therefore falls foul of the innocent congregation, because he dare berate them, being, as he is, ruler of the synagogue, while they are only the synagogue itself.
There are six days The man quotes, without intending a verbal exactness, a very important item in the fourth commandment; namely, that men should work six days, and that that should be the limit of their week’s work.
Come and be healed The coming to the synagogue was Sabbath duty; but the being healed was no work which the people or the woman had done. This man, then, when he whips the people, means the blow for Jesus. He commits the contradiction of supposing that the miracle is really and divinely performed, but wicked on the Sabbath; as if God was breaking his own Sabbath and must be prevented by the people.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath, answered and said to the gathered crowd, “There are six days in which men ought to work. In them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the sabbath.”
But the ruler of the synagogue, who led the synagogue committee, was angry. Possibly he recognised that he might be called on by certain of the Pharisees to explain why he had allowed this to happen in his synagogue on the Sabbath day. An enquiry might even have led up to a beating. But the fact of his anger suggests that we are to see his feeling as personal as well.
And yet his anger is directed at the crowd. Perhaps he felt wary of challenging a person with the powers that Jesus had. Or indeed perhaps he did not wish to. He may even have been secretly sympathetic, but dared not show it, while recognising that he had to make some protest. Perhaps he even acknowledged that as the miracle had happened God was clearly not displeased with it this time (it is so difficult accusing someone whose miracles actually happen of not being pleasing to God. It took certain types of Pharisees to argue like that). It may be that it in fact was the reaction of the crowd that angered him, as they surged around and clamoured for more. So he covered himself by rebuking the people who were gathered there. He pointed out to them that there were six days in every seven in which men should work, and therefore that if they wished to be healed they should come on a day other than the Sabbath. The weakness of his position comes out in the fact that Jesus was not a doctor. Had He been the ruler may have had a point. But everyone knew that only God could have done what had happened that day. Possibly that was what the ruler had recognised and had thus felt that it would probably be unwise to rebuke God by rebuking Jesus. He would feel that he was on safe ground in rebuking the crowd.
In Pharisaic eyes, however, he was totally in the right. The only healing that was allowed on the Sabbath was dealing with possible life threatening conditions to the minimum required.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Christ’s defense against the ruler of the synagogue:
v. 14. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath-day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath-day.
v. 15. The Lord then answered him and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
v. 16. And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath-day?
v. 17. And when He had said these things, all His adversaries were ashamed; and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him. How deeply ingrained was the idea of mechanical Sabbath observance in the mind of the average Jewish teacher is evident from this incident. The ruler of the synagogue became highly indignant, not because Jesus had healed the woman, but because He had done so on the Sabbath. He had too much respect for Christ’s ability to defend Himself to attack Him directly, so he spoke to the audience, striking indirectly at Jesus, rebuking them sharply for bringing any sick people to be healed on the Sabbath; for there were six days on which they could attend to such work. It sounded as though the ruler of the synagogue wanted to prevent the people from tempting Jesus to break the Sabbath. But the Lord (called so with a purpose, as the Lord of the Sabbath) retorted to this condemnation with special force, calling the ruler of the synagogue and all those that felt as he did about the matter, hypocrites, cheap, dissembling actors. What about their own case? They loosed their dumb beasts from the manger on the Sabbath; they even led them forth to water; they gave them to drink, probably not by carrying the water to them, since the Jewish elders had forbidden that, but at least by drawing the water from the well. Mark the contrast: A daughter of Abraham on the one hand, an ox and an ass on the other; the one bound by Satan for eighteen years, the others suffering from thirst merely for a few hours. The argument of Jesus suffered no gainsaying. The elders of the Jews, though not convinced, were confounded and ashamed, brought to shame before the audience; and all the people present were delighted over all the admirable, wonderful things that were performed by the Lord. Note: To this day it is hypocrisy if sanctity is attached to mere external matters, as, that the so-called Sabbath is kept with Puritan strictness, by the enforcement of blue-laws, while many important, necessary things, as benevolence to the poor, miserable, and needy, are omitted. “Therefore learn here from Christ what the true understanding of the Sabbath is, and how we must maintain the distinction between the outward use of the Sabbath, so far as the time, hour, and place is concerned, and the necessary works of love which God demands of us at all times and in all places; that we should know that the Sabbath was ordained for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath, Mar 2:27, and thus man is the lord of the Sabbath, and is to use it for his own and his neighbor’s necessity, thus being enabled to keep this and other commandments of God without hindrance. For the right understanding of the Third Commandment is really this, that we use the Sabbath to hear and learn the Word of God, how we may keep all other commandments both toward God and our neighbor and help others to this end through love.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
Ver. 14. Answered with indignation ] He that will be angry and not sin must be angry at nothing but at sin.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14. ] The ruler speaks not either to Jesus or to the woman; but covertly and cowardly, to the multitude . Stier notices the self-stultification of this speech, in making , a reception of divine grace and help, a species of .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 13:14 . But religious propriety in the person of the ruler of the synagogue is once more shocked: it is a Sabbath cure. : He spoke to the audience at Jesus plausibly enough; yet, as so often in cases of religious zeal, from mixed motives. Christ’s power and the woman’s praise annoyed him.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
not. Greek. me. App-105.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] The ruler speaks not either to Jesus or to the woman; but covertly and cowardly, to the multitude. Stier notices the self-stultification of this speech, in making , a reception of divine grace and help, a species of .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 13:14. , to the multitude) But all the while he obliquely aimed at Jesus. [For doubtless the benefit of the healing came to the woman without her expecting it.-V. g.]-, six) quite many enough.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
the ruler: Luk 8:41, Act 13:15, Act 18:8, Act 18:17
with: Luk 6:11, Joh 5:15, Joh 5:16, Rom 10:2
There: Exo 20:9, Exo 23:12, Lev 23:3, Eze 20:12
and not: Luk 6:7, Luk 14:3-6, Mat 12:10-12, Mar 3:2-6, Joh 9:14-16
Reciprocal: Exo 16:26 – General Exo 31:15 – Six days Exo 34:21 – Six Exo 35:2 – Six days Deu 5:13 – General Isa 29:20 – and all Eze 34:21 – pushed Eze 46:1 – six working Mat 9:18 – ruler Mar 5:22 – rulers Luk 6:6 – he Joh 5:10 – it is not Heb 12:3 – contradiction
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
The Jews pretended to be offended at the desecration of the sab-bath. But note that the ruler did not have the fairness to attack Jesus direct, although he was the one who had done the work, but condemned the people. This was cowardly, for there was no evidence that they had come to be healed.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 13:14. Being filled with indignation. The attitude of mind was hostile; but had been manifested hitherto on such occasions. The answer was not with indignation. The ruler was afraid to speak out so boldly, and he covertly and cowardly addresses himself, not to the Healer or to the healed, but to the multitude. His false premise was, that works of mercy are forbidden on the Sabbath.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 13:14-17. And the ruler of the synagogue Instead of joining in acknowledgments of the divine power and goodness, displayed in this gracious action of our Lord; answered The womans praises, with indignation As if Christ had committed some heinous crime in healing this poor woman! He endeavoured, however, to disguise his wrath under the form of piety and zeal; as if he was angry only because the cure was wrought on the sabbath day; saying unto the people, There are six days, &c., in them therefore come and be healed See how light he makes of the miracles which Christ wrought, as if they were things of course, which might be done by any one any day of the week. One would have thought, that the extraordinary miracle now wrought might have been sufficient to convince him that Jesus was a divinely-commissioned teacher, who spoke and acted by authority from God; and that the circumstance of the miracles being done on the sabbath day could not have served to enable him to evade the conviction. But what light can shine so clearly or strongly against which a spirit of bigotry and enmity to Christ, and his gospel, will not serve to shut mens eyes? Never was such honour done to the synagogue of which he was ruler, as Christ had now done to it; and yet he had indignation at it! The Lord then answered him, Thou hypocrite, &c. Our Lord gives him this appellation, because the real motive of his speaking was envy, not (as he pretended) pure zeal for the glory of God. Ought not this woman Ought not any human creature, which is far better than an ox or an ass: much more this daughter of Abraham Probably in a spiritual as well as a natural sense; to be loosed? Thus the Lord soon put this hypocritical ruler to silence, by placing the action with which he found fault in the light of their own avowed practice. They loosed and led their cattle on the sabbath to water, and thought the mercy of the work justified them in so doing. He, by uttering a word only, had loosed a woman, a reasonable creature, and a daughter of Abraham, that had been bound with an incurable distemper, not for a single day, but so long a time as eighteen years. Without doubt the far greater mercy of this and the other godlike works which Jesus did, justified his performing them on the sabbath day, as the ruler might easily have seen, had he not been wholly blinded by his superstition. When he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed, &c. The folly even of the men of learning among the Jews, conspicuous in this and some other instances mentioned in the gospels, shows the malignant nature of superstition. It is capable of extinguishing reason, of banishing compassion, and of eradicating the most essential principles and feelings of the human mind.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
13:14 {4} And the {f} ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
(4) A graphic image of hypocrisy, and the reward of it.
(f) One of the rulers of the synagogue, for it appears that there were many rulers of the synagogue, see Mr 5:22 Act 13:15 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
As previously, Jesus’ works proved controversial and provided another opportunity for Him to teach. The synagogue official showed more concern for Sabbath observance then for human suffering (cf. the previous Sabbath controversies in Galilee [Mat 12:9-13] and in Jerusalem [Joh 5:16]). Instead of praising God with the woman he criticized her and Jesus indirectly. Perhaps he felt safer addressing the people than Jesus. His advice to the assembled crowd amounted to keeping them from entering the kingdom (Luk 11:52). [Note: Martin, p. 240.]