56<\/strong>. For the Son of man is not come<\/em>, &c. <\/strong> This clause is omitted by the majority of uncials, and some editors therefore regard it as a repetition of Luk 19:10<\/span> or Mat 18:11<\/span>. However that may be, we have the same sentiment in Joh 3:17<\/span>; Joh 12:47 ; 1Ti 1:15<\/span>. The Sons of Thunder we re shewing the spirit of the Talmud (which says, “Let not the Samaritans have part in the Resurrection”) rather than that of the Gospel (Luk 10:33<\/span>, Luk 17:18<\/span>; Act 1:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n they went to another village<\/em> ] The word heteran<\/em> (not allin)<\/em> perhaps implies that it was a Jewish<\/em>, not a Samaritan village. Num 20:21<\/span>; Mat 2:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n For the Son of man … – <\/B>You should imitate, in your spirit, the Son of man. He came not to destroy. If he had come for that purpose, he would have destroyed these Samaritans; but he came to save. He is not soon angry. He bears patiently opposition to himself, and you should bear opposition to him. You should catch his spirit; temper your zeal like his; seek to do good to those who injure you and him; be mild, kind, patient, and forgiving.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 56. And they went to another village.<\/B><\/I>] Which probably did entertain them; being, perhaps, without the Samaritan borders.<\/P> <\/P> The words, Ye know not of what spirit ye are; for the Son of man<\/I> is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them<\/I>, are wanting in ABCEGHLS-V, and in many others. Griesbach<\/I> leaves the latter clause out of the text. It is probable that the most ancient MSS. read the passage thus: But he turned, and rebuked them, and said,<\/I> Ye know not of what spirit ye are. And they went to another <\/I> village<\/I>. See the authorities in GRIESBACH.<\/P><\/p>\n 56. For the Son of man,<\/B> c.asaying truly divine, of which all His miraclesfor salvation, neverdestructionwere one continued illustration. <\/P> went to another<\/B>illustratingHis own precept (Mt 10:23<\/span>). <\/P> Lu9:57-62<\/span>. INCIDENTSILLUSTRATIVE OFDISCIPLESHIP. <\/P> The Precipitate Disciple<\/I>(Luk 9:57<\/span> Luk 9:58<\/span>).<\/P> (See on Mt8:19, 20<\/span>.) <\/P> The Procrastinating Disciple<\/I>(Luk 9:59<\/span>; Luk 9:60<\/span>).<\/P> (See on Mt8:21<\/span>). <\/P> The Irresolute Disciple<\/I>(Luk 9:61<\/span>; Luk 9:62<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n For the son of man<\/strong>,…. Meaning himself, in his state of humiliation:<\/p>\n is not come to destroy men’s lives<\/strong>; the word “men’s” is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions: and both words, “men’s lives”, are left out in the Arabic version:<\/p>\n but to save them<\/strong>; as they might easily observe, by his casting out devils from the bodies of men, and healing all sorts of diseases: and therefore, though it was agreeably to the legal dispensation, and the times of Elijah, to punish offenders in such a manner, it was not agreeably to the Gospel dispensation, and to the ends of the Messiah’s coming into the world: so far in this verse, and the latter part of the former verse, are left out in five ancient copies of Beza’s, and in the Ethiopic version, but are in the rest of the Eastern versions, and in other copies, and are rightly retained:<\/p>\n and they went to another village<\/strong>; in Samaria, more civil and courteous, and less prejudiced, and where they got lodging and entertainment.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives,” <\/strong>(ho gar huios tou anthropou ouk elthe psuchas anthropon apolesai) “Because the Son of man (humanity) has not come to ruin the lives of men,” to execute earthly judgment at this time, Joh 3:17<\/span>; Joh 10:10<\/span>, it.<\/p>\n 2) “But to save them.” <\/strong>(alla sosai) “But to save, deliver, or liberate them,” the priority purpose of His coming, from sin’s fear and captivity; But to save men from their lost condition, Luk 19:10<\/span>; Joh 12:47<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “And they went,” <\/strong>(kai eporeuthesan) “And they passed on their way,” out of and away from the district of Samaria where He too had been rejected, Joh 1:11-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “To another village.” <\/strong>(eis heteran komen) “Into another village,” that was more hospitable for His temporary needs and care; His turning away was a great judgment against them, Joh 8:24<\/span>; Joh 15:5<\/span>; Act 4:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n (56) For the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives.<\/strong>Here, again, we have to note the absence of the words from many of the better MSS. It is, perhaps, open to conjecture that they were inserted from an oral tradition that had preserved what the Evangelist in his written record had omitted.<\/p>\n 56<\/strong>. <\/strong> They went to another village<\/em> Where the friends of Jesus may have been numerous.<\/p>\n ‘And they went to another village.’<\/p>\n So they moved on to another village. The words are poignant. The village that Jesus had chosen had lost its opportunity to hear the Good News. Significantly this will now be followed by descriptions of three men who also had to choose whether they would miss their opportunity to follow Jesus.<\/p>\n Luk 9:56<\/span> . , to another village, probably in Galilee; both in the borderland.<\/p>\n is not come = came not. <\/p>\n lives = souls. App-110. <\/p>\n another = different. App-124. <\/p>\n Luk 9:56. , souls [lives]) which are precious.-, another) A most excellent and clearly-obvious plan; see Mat 2:12; Num 20:21.-, village) the inhabitants of which were , of a more liberal spirit, than those of whom Luk 9:52 speaks.<\/p>\n the Son: Luk 19:10, Mat 18:11, Mat 20:28, Joh 3:17, Joh 10:10, Joh 12:47, 1Ti 1:15 <\/p>\n And: Luk 6:27-31, Luk 22:51, Luk 23:34, Mat 5:39, Rom 12:21, 1Pe 2:21-23 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Luk 6:9 – to save Luk 8:37 – and he Joh 8:11 – Neither Act 10:38 – who Rom 12:19 – give<\/p>\n 6<\/p>\n The kind of spirit they should have manifested was that of Jesus, desiring to save men from spiritual destruction. And that could not be done if their lives were destroyed by physical death as these brothers wished to do.<\/p>\n Luk 9:56. The first part of this verse is even less supported than the doubtful passages of Luk 9:54-55.<\/p>\n And they went to another village. This may not have been a Samaritan village, as they probably had just entered Samaria. It is possible, but improbable, that after this rejection our Lord did not go further into Samaria.<\/p>\n Verse 56 <\/p>\n To another village; for rest and refreshment.<\/p>\n Luke 9:59-62. It would seem that, in regard to both of these cases, there must have been some circumstances affecting them which we do not understand from the narrative, but which made the requests improper, and were the occasion of the reproof implied in our Savior’s reply.<\/p>\n For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save [them.] And they went to another village. 56. For the Son of man is not come, &c. This clause is omitted by the majority of uncials, and some editors therefore regard it as a repetition of Luk 19:10 or Mat … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:56”<\/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-25341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25341","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=25341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25341\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\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: Garner-Howes Baptist 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: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/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","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"