Luke 11:38

11:38 the hand-washing ceremony required by Jewish custom: The Pharisees had developed elaborate washing rituals to ensure ceremonial purity (see Mark 7:1-5).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Luk 11:38. Ἰδὼν, having seen) that He had lain down [sat down].

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_11:38-39. Ἐβαπτ. πρὸ τ. ἀρίστ.] See on Mar_7:2.[146] Luke does not say that the Pharisee expressed his surprise; Jesus recognises his thoughts immediately. Comp. Augustine. Schleiermacher, p. 180 f., directly contradicts the narrative when he places these sayings of Jesus after the meal, saying that they were first spoken outside the house. See, on the other hand, Strauss, I. p. 654, who, however, likewise takes objection to their supposed awkwardness (comp. Gfrörer, Heil. Sage, I. p. 243, de Wette, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Eichthal). This judgment applies an inappropriate standard to the special relation in which Jesus stood to the Pharisees, seeing that when confronting them He felt a higher destiny than the maintenance of the respect due to a host moving Him (comp. Luk_7:39 ff.); and hence the perception of the fitness of things which guided the tradition to connecting these sayings with a meal was not in itself erroneous, although, if we follow Matthew 23, we must conclude that this connection was first made at a later date. Apart from this, however, the connection is quite capable of being explained, not, perhaps, from the mention of cups and platters, but from the circumstance that Jesus several times when occasion offered, and possibly about that period when He was a guest in the houses of Pharisees, gave vent to His righteous moral indignation in His anti-Pharisaic sayings. Comp. Luk_14:1 ff.

νῦν] a silent contrast with a better ΠΆΛΑΙ: as it now stands with you, as far as things have gone with you, etc. Comp. Grotius, who brings into comparison: ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη.

τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν] ὑμῶν does not belong to ἉΡΠ. Κ. ΠΟΝΗΡ. (Kypke, Kuinoel, Paulus, Bleek, and others, following Bezas suggestion), so that what is inside, the contents of the cup and platter, τὰ ἐνόντα, Luk_11:41, would be meant, which would agree with Mat_23:25, but is opposed to the order of the words here. On the contrary, the outside of the cup, etc., is contrasted with the inward nature of the persons. Ye cleanse the former, but the latter is full of robbery and corruption (comp. on Rom_1:29). The concrete expression ἁρπαγή, as the object of endeavour, corresponds to the disposition of ΠΛΕΟΝΕΞΊΑ, which in Mar_7:22, Rom_1:29, is associated with ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑ.

Mat_23:25 has the saying in a more original form. The conception in Luke, although not in itself inappropriate (Weiss), shows traces of the influence of reflective interpretation, as is also evident from a comparison of Luk_11:40 with Mat_23:26.

[146] Jesus had just come out of the crowd, nay, He had just expelled a demon, ver. 14. Hence they expected that He would first cleanse Himself by a bath before the morning meal (comp. on Mar_7:4).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 11:38 . ἐθαύμασεν : the cause of wonder was that Jesus did not wash ( ἐβαπτίσθη ) before eating. We have here Lk.’s equivalent for the incident in Mat 15:1 ff., Mar 7:1 ff., omitted by him. But the secondary character of Lk.’s narrative appears from this, that the ensuing discourse does not, as in Mt. and Mk., keep to the point in hand neglect of ritual ablutions, but expatiates on Pharisaic vices generally.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

DENUNCIATION OF THE PHARISEES. (Luke 11:37-54)

marvelled, &c.--(See Mar 7:2-4).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 38. First washed] See Clarke on Mr 7:2-4.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(38) He marvelled that he had not first washed.—See Notes on Mat_15:2; Mar_7:3. Here the word “washed” (literally, though of course not in the technical sense, baptized) implies actual immersion, or, at least, a process that took in the whole body. Mar_7:4 shows that this was the Pharisaic standard of ceremonial purity.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38. he marvelled that he had not first washed] Literally, “bathed.” No washing was necessary to eat a few dates or figs. At the chief meal of the day, where all dipped their hands into a common dish, it was a matter of cleanliness. But the duty of cleanliness had been turned by the Oral Law into a rigorous set of cumbersome and needless ablutions, each performed with certain elaborate methods and gesticulations (Mar_7:2-3) which had nothing to do with religion or even with the Levitical Law, but only with Pharisaic tradition and the Oral Law. In the Shulchan Aruk, a book of Jewish Ritual, no less than twenty-six prayers are given with which their washings are accompanied. But all this was not only devoid of divine sanction, but had become superstitious, tyrannous, and futile. The Pharisee ‘marvelled’ because he and his party tried to enforce the Oral Law on the people as even more sacred than the Written Law. The subject of ablutions was one which caused several of these disputes with Christ, Mat_15:19-20. The Rabbi Akhibha would have preferred to die of thirst rather than neglect his ablutions, and the Talmud thought that a demon—called Schibta— sat on unwashen hands. Our Lord astonished the conventionalism of these religious teachers and their followers by shewing that what truly defiles a man is that which cometh from within—from the heart.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without,.... That is, made clean that which is without, or the outside of the cup and platter;

make that which is within also? does not he make the inside clean likewise? whoever washes a cup or platter, but washes and makes clean the inside, as well as the outside? and so ye who are so very careful to have your cups and platters clean, should be as careful what you put in them, that they are clean also; not only that they are clean according to the law, in a ceremonial sense, but in a moral sense, that they are honestly and lawfully got. The word, rendered "made" and "make", answers to the Hebrew word which sometimes signifies to beautify and adorn, and to cleanse, and remove away filth, as by paring nails, and washing the feet; so in Deu 21:12 it is said of a captive woman that a man takes into his house for his wife, among other things, "she shall make her nails"; that is, "pare" them, as we render it, and remove the filth from them. Again, in Sa2 19:24 it is said of Mephibosheth, that from the day king David departed, he had not, "made his feet"; that is, as the Targum renders it, , "he had not washed his feet"; and so other Jewish interpreters understand it, either of his having not washed his feet, much less his whole body (w), or of not having pared his nails (x); and so the Vulgate Latin renders it, that he came to meet the king "with unwashen feet"; which may serve to illustrate and confirm the sense before given: though interpreters generally understand this of God, as the maker of the soul, as well as of the body; and therefore the purity of the former should be regarded, as well as that of the latter.

(w) R. David Kimchi and Rabbenu Isaiah in loc. Vid Jarchi in ib. (x) R. Levi ben Gersom in ib.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

38 And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Ver. 38. That he had not washed] This the Pharisees deemed as great a sin as to commit fornication. (Godw. Antiq. Heb 49)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Saw it - Saw that he sat immediately down without washing.

Marvelled - Wondered. Was amazed. It was so unusual, and in his view so improper.

Had not first washed - He wondered particularly, as he had been among a mixed multitude, and they esteemed the “touch” of such persons polluting. They never ate, therefore, without such washing. The origin of the custom of washing with so much formality “before” they partook of their meals was that they did not use, as we do, knives and forks, but used their hands only. Hence, as their hands would be often in a dish on the table, it was esteemed proper that they should be washed clean before eating. Nor was their impropriety in the thing itself, but the Pharisees made it a matter of ceremony; they placed no small part of their religion in such ceremonies; and it was right, therefore, that our Lord should take occasion to reprove them for it. Compare Mar 7:4.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Washed, &c. There was nothing ordained by the law concerning this washing of the hands, which the Pharisees observed before taking meat. Christ and his apostles washed their hands when they pleased, without looking for any mystery in such things, or making to themselves vain obligations in frivolous and indifferent things. They did not neglect what was ordained by the law in certain cases for purification; but beside that, they observed nothing more. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Mat 15:2, the Pharisees quarrelled with the disciples upon this account; here this Pharisee is offended at Christ himself. Mark gives us the reason of it, Mar 7:3, For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. Concerning this tradition of theirs, and the ground of it,

See Poole on "Mat 15:2", See Poole on "Mar 7:3". We would all be infallible, and therefore cannot allow others to differ from us in a rite, which hath no foundation in God’s word, and wonder at those who cannot see with our eyes, nor practise according to our latitudes.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

38. Washed—In the original, baptized. This is the same sort of washing as is mentioned Mar_7:3.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. An elaborate system of utter meaningless ablutions, each carried out with particular gestures, had been instituted by the rabbinical schools. All these senseless forms and ceremonies had been developed out of the original simple directions to secure cleanliness in the Levitical Law. It is probable that our Lord, intending to bring about this discussion. pointedly abstained from even the ordinary ablution on this occasion. The language of ver. 37 seems to point to his entering the house and at once sitting down at the table. The Talmud has many references to these practices. R. Akhibha, it proudly relates, died of thirst rather than pass over these preliminary washings. In the same compilation we read that it was currently supposed that a demon sat on hands unwashed.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38. ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη. Literally, ‘bathed.’ No washing was necessary to eat a few dates or figs. At the chief meal of the day, where all dipped their hands into a common dish, it was a matter of cleanliness. But the duty of cleanliness had been turned by the Oral Law into a rigorous set of cumbersome and needless ablutions, each performed with certain elaborate methods and gesticulations (Mar 7:2-3) which had nothing to do with religion or even with the Levitical Law, but only with Pharisaic tradition and the Oral Law. In the Shulchan Aruk, a book of Jewish Ritual, no less than twenty-six prayers are given with which their washings are accompanied. But all this was not only devoid of divine sanction, but had become superstitious, tyrannous, and futile. The Pharisee “marvelled” because he and his party tried to enforce the Oral Law on the people as even more sacred than the Written Law. The subject of ablutions was one which caused several of these disputes with Christ, Mat 15:19-20. The Rabbi Akhibha would have preferred to die of thirst rather than neglect his ablutions, and the Talmud thought that a demon—called Schibta—sat on unwashen hands. Our Lord astonished the conventionalism of these religious teachers and their followers by shewing that what truly defiles a man is that which cometh from within—from the heart.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38.] The expression of this wonder is not stated, but is probable. Our Lord would hardly have so suddenly begun, ὑμεῖς οἱ Φ., unless something had been said, to which by assent they were parties. See His proceeding when nothing was said,—ch. 7:39, 40.

ἐβαπτ.…] This use of the word shews that it did not imply necessarily immersion of the whole body;—for it was only the hands which the Pharisees washed before meat.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38. ἐθαύμασεν. We are not told that he expressed his surprise. Jesus read his thoughts and answered them. Jesus had just come from contact with the multitude, and, moreover, He had been ting out a demon; and the Pharisee took for granted that He would purify Himself from any possible pollution before coming to table. This was not enjoined by the Law but by tradition, which the Pharisees tried to make binding upon all (Mar 7:3). This man’s wonder is evidence that his invitation was not a plot to obtain evidence against Jesus: he was not expecting any trangression.

ἐβαπτίσθη. This need not be taken literally of bathing. Probably no more than washing the hands is meant; and this often took place at table, the servants bringing water to each person. Edersh. L. & T. 2. pp. 204-207. We may understand Christ’s omission to wash before coming to table, or refusal of the water offered to Him at table, as a protest against the attempt to “bind burdens” upon men, and to substitute trivialities for the weightier matters of the Law. Comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de. la Pal. p. 134.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.