53<\/strong>. they did not receive him<\/em> ] The aorist implies that they at once rejected Him. The Samaritans had shewn themselves heretofore not ill-disposed (Joh 4:39<\/span>), and St Luke himself delights to record favourable notices of them (Luk 10:33<\/span>, Luk 17:18<\/span>). But (i) there was always a recrudescence of hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans at the recurrence of the annual feasts, (ii) Their national jealousy would not allow them to receive a Messiah whose goal was not Gerizim, but Jerusalem, (iii) They would not sanction the passage of a multitude of Jews through their territory, since the Jews frequently (though not always, Jos. Antt.<\/em> xx. 6, 1) chose the other<\/em> route on the East of the Jordan.<\/p>\n as though he would go to Jerusalem<\/em> ] This national hatred between Jews and Samaritans (Joh 4:9<\/span>) still continues, and at the present day it is mainly due to the fanaticism of the Jews. In our Lord’s day the Jews called the Samaritans ‘Cuthites’ (2Ki 17:24<\/span>), aliens (2Ki 17:18<\/span>), ‘that foolish people that dwell in Sichem’ ( Sir 1:25-26 ), and other opprobrious names. They accused them of continuous<\/em> idolatry (2 Kings 17<\/span>), and charged them with false fire-signals, and with having polluted the Temple by scattering it with dead men’s bones (Jos. Antt.<\/em> xx. 6, I, Luk 18:2<\/span>, 2; B.J.<\/em> 11. 12, 3). No doubt originally their Monotheism was very hybrid, being mixed up with five heathen religions (2Ki 17:33<\/span>; 2Ki 17:37<\/span>); but they had gradually laid aside idolatry, and it was as much a calumny of the ancient Jews to charge them with the worship of Rachel’s amulets (Gen 35:4<\/span>) as for modern Jews to call them ‘ worshippers of the pigeon<\/em> ’ (Frankl. Jews in the East<\/em>, 11. 334). But the deadly exacerbation between the two nations, which began after the Exile (Ezr 4:1-10<\/span>; Neh 4:1-16<\/span>; Neh 4:6<\/span>), had gone on increasing by perpetual collision since the building of the Temple on Gerizim by the renegade priest Manasseh and Sanballat (Neh 13:28<\/span>; Jos. Antt.<\/em> xi. 7 , xii. 5 , 5), which was destroyed by John Hyrcanus B.C. 129.<\/p>\n They did not receive him – <\/B>Did not entertain him hospitably, or receive him with kindness.<\/P> Because his face was … – <\/B>Because they ascertained that he was going to Jerusalem. One of the subjects of dispute between the Jews and Samaritans pertained to the proper situation of the temple. The Jews contended that it should be at Jerusalem; the Samaritans, on Mount Gerizim, and accordingly they had built one there. They had probably heard of the miracles of Jesus, and that he claimed to be the Messiah. Perhaps they had hoped that he would decide that they were right in regard to the building of the temple. Had he decided the question in that way, they would have received him as the Messiah gladly; but when they saw that he was going among the Jews – that by going he would decide in their favor, they resolved to have nothing to do with him, and they rejected him. And from this we may learn:<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 53. His face was<\/B><\/I>] They saw he was going up to Jerusalem to keep the feast; (it was the feast of tabernacles, Joh 7:2<\/span>); and knowing him thereby to be a Jew<\/I>, they would afford nothing for his entertainment<\/I>; for, in religious matters, the Samaritans<\/I> and Jews<\/I> had no dealings: see Joh 4:9<\/span>. The Samaritans were a kind of mongrel heathens; they feared Jehovah, and served other gods, 2Kg 17:34<\/span>. They apostatized from the true religion, and persecuted those who were attached to it. See an account of them, Mt 16:1<\/span>. Those only who have deserted the truth of God, or who are uninfluenced by it, hate them who embrace and act by it. When a man has once decidedly taken the road to heaven, he can have but little credit any longer in the world, 1Jo 3:1<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n 53. did not receive him, because,<\/B>&c.The Galileans, in going to the festivals at Jerusalem,usually took the Samaritan route [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities,<\/I> 20.6.1], and yet seem to have met with no suchinhospitality. But if they were asked to prepare quarters for theMessiah,<\/I> in the person of one whose “face was as though Hewould go to Jerusalem,<\/I>” their national prejudices wouldbe raised at so marked a slight upon their claims. (See on Joh4:20<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And they did not receive him<\/strong>,…. The Ethiopic version reads “them”, the messengers; but it should rather seem that they did receive the messengers, and promised them lodging and entertainment; being glad that so great a person would honour them with his presence, hoping that miracles would be done by him, among them; and that he would stay with them, and show some approbation of them, and their worship; but when Christ came in person, with his disciples and the multitude, they would not admit him; the reason follows,<\/p>\n because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem<\/strong>: by all circumstances, by his words and looks, and gestures; by all that they could see and hear, and learn from him, his determination was to make no stay with them, but proceed on to Jerusalem, after he had took a night’s lodging with them, and had refreshed himself and company and therefore they would not receive him: it had been of a long time a controversy between the Jews and Samaritans, which was the right place of worship; whether at the temple at Jerusalem, or whether at their temple on Mount Gerizzim? Now if Christ would have interested himself in this contest, in favour of them, and would have staid with them, and worshipped where they did, they would have gladly received him; but they perceived he was going to Jerusalem, either to keep the feast of “tabernacles” there, or the feast of the dedication of the temple; and if the latter, it must be still more provoking to them, because it showed, that he preferred that temple to theirs: and however, it seems to be on this account that they would not admit him, because he favoured the temple worship at Jerusalem; otherwise his bare going thither, could not give the offence.<\/p>\n And they did not receive him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Adversative use of <\/SPAN><\/span> = But.<\/P> Because his face was going to Jerusalem <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Periphrastic imperfect middle. It was reason enough to the churlish Samaritans. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And they did not receive him,” <\/strong>(kai ouk edeksanto auton) “And they did not receive him, accept him,” or take Him in as a guest, even to show hospitality in His journey. Perhaps because He had not “gone up in the earlier company.”<\/p>\n 2) “Because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.” <\/strong>(hoti to prosopon auton en poreuomenon eis lerousalem) “Because his face was set to go on into Jerusalem,” apparently after a very temporary rest and refreshment. His entire ministry was a journey to death, a special kind of death, Isa 53:1-12<\/span>; Luk 9:22<\/span>; Luk 9:41<\/span>.<\/p>\n 53. He steadfastly set his face. By this expression Luke has informed us that Christ, when he had death before his eyes, rose above the fear of it, and went forward to meet it; but, at the same time, points out that he had a struggle, and that, having vanquished terror, (589) he boldly presented himself to die. For if no dread, no difficulty, no struggle, no anxiety, had been present to his mind, what need was there that he should set his face steadfastly? (590) But as he was neither devoid of feeling, nor under the influence of foolish hardihood, he must have been affected by the cruel and bitter death, or rather the shocking and dreadful agony, which he knew would overtake him from the rigorous judgment of God; and so far is this from obscuring or diminishing his glory, that it is a remarkable proof of his unbounded love to us; for laying aside a regard to himself that he might devote himself to our salvation, through the midst of terrors he hastened to death, the time of which he knew to be at hand. <\/p>\n (589) “ Estans victorieux par dessus ceste frayeur naturelle;” — “being victorious over that natural dread.” <\/p>\n (590) “ Quel besoin estoit il qu’il prinst sa resolution, et par maniere de dire s’obstinast en soy-mesme ?” — “What need was there that he should take his resolution, and, so to speak, persist in his own mind?” <\/p>\n (53) They did not receive him.<\/strong>The reason thus given exactly agrees with what has been stated above. It will be remembered that when He had visited Samaria before, it was on His return, not directly from Jerusalem, but from some unknown region of Juda where He had been baptising (Joh. 3:22<\/span>; Joh. 4:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n 53<\/strong>. <\/strong> Did not receive him<\/em> As but a single village is mentioned as thus rejecting Jesus, it would seem that his journey was generally pleasant. <\/p>\n Face would go to Jerusalem<\/em> We have described the enmity between the Samaritans and Jews in our note upon Mat 10:5<\/span>. This religious hate was doubtless more intense at the Feast time, and upon those who were going to Jerusalem rather than to Gerizim. Hence the ordinary route of the Passover caravan was on the eastern side of the Jordan, avoiding Samaria.<\/p>\n 52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n 53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 53. And they did not receive him<\/strong> ] Such is the hatred that idolaters bear against all God’s true worshippers. Illam domum in qua inventus fuerit haereticus diruendam decernimus:<\/em> It was a decree of the Council of Toulouse against the Albigenses. <\/p>\n would go = was going. <\/p>\n Luk 9:53. , because) It was openly manifest that He was seeking to reach Jerusalem: this the Samaritans regarded with aversion [as being bitter enemies to Jewish ordinances of worship.-V. g.]-, face) So the LXX. 2Sa 17:11, . Whithersoever the face is turned, thither is directed the ardour of mind which conquers every difficulty.<\/p>\n Luk 9:48, Joh 4:9, Joh 4:40-42 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 12:17 – set his face 2Ch 32:2 – he was purposed to fight Luk 9:5 – shake Luk 10:33 – Samaritan Luk 13:33 – for Joh 4:45 – for<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n The Samaritans were not on good terms with the Jews (Joh 4:9), and for that reason they had a prejudice against Jerusalem. Hence they did not welcome Jesus when they learned that he was heading in that direction.<\/p>\n Luk 9:53. And they did not receive him. Refused to grant the needed accommodations. This was doubtless done through the messengers. Of course they thus rejected Him as the Messiah.<\/p>\n As though he were going. As though he were is supplied in translating. The ground of rejection was that His going to Jerusalem (not to Gerizim) as the Messiah opposed their Samaritan expectations. What humiliation for the King of heaven that He was refused lodging in an unnamed village! But it was met with love, not with anger.<\/p>\n Verse 53 <\/p>\n There was a bitter theological controversy between the Jews and the Samaritans, on the question whether Jerusalem, or a mountain in Samaria, was the proper place for the national worship. (For other allusions to this controversy, see John 4:9,19.) Such contention and hatred, for such a cause, seem to us, at this day, sufficiently absurd. We have, however, an abundance of controversies of our own, of the same character;–disputes destroying the spirit of Christianity, in a merciless war about the forms in which it should be imbodied.<\/p>\n The Samaritans whom the messengers contacted refused to accept Jesus and His followers because they were on their way to Jerusalem, evidently to worship there. The Samaritans rejected Jerusalem as a legitimate site of worship (cf. Joh 4:20). Evidently they did not reject Jesus because He claimed to be the Messiah but simply because He was a Jew. The attitude of James and John was typically hostile. They may have been thinking that Jesus would react to the Samaritans as Elijah had to his opponents (2Ki 1:9-12). Their question suggests that Jesus’ disciples saw strong similarities between Jesus’ ministry and Elijah’s (cf. Luk 9:19). However, they were willing to play Elijah’s part by calling down judgment; they were not asking Jesus to do so.<\/p>\n It seems unlikely that Jesus gave James and John their nickname Boanerges, "sons of thunder," because of this incident (Mar 3:17). All the other disciples’ nicknames were positive rather than derogatory, and this one probably was too.<\/p>\n And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. 53. they did not receive him ] The aorist implies that they at once rejected Him. The Samaritans had shewn themselves heretofore not ill-disposed (Joh 4:39), and St Luke himself delights to record favourable notices of them (Luk … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:53”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"