rwp - Luke:13:31-35

rwp@Luke:13:31 @{In that very hour} (\en auti ti hri\). Luke's favourite notation of time. {Pharisees} (\Pharisaioi\). Here we see the Pharisees in a new role, warning Jesus against the machinations of Herod, when they are plotting themselves.

rwp@Luke:13:32 @{That fox} (\ti alpeki tauti\). This epithet for the cunning and cowardice of Herod shows clearly that Jesus understood the real attitude and character of the man who had put John the Baptist to death and evidently wanted to get Jesus into his power in spite of his superstitious fears that he might be John the Baptist _redivivus_. The message of Jesus means that he is independent of the plots and schemes of both Herod and the Pharisees. The preacher is often put in a tight place by politicians who are quite willing to see him shorn of all real power. {Cures} (\iaseis\). Old word, but in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:4:22,30|. {I am perfected} (\teleioumai\). Present passive indicative of \teleio\, old verb from \teleios\, to bring to perfection, frequent in the N.T. Used in strkjv@Hebrews:2:10| of the Father's purpose in the humanity of Christ. Perfect humanity is a process and Jesus was passing through that, without sin, but not without temptation and suffering. It is the prophetic present with the sense of the future.

rwp@Luke:13:33 @{The day following} (\ti echomeni\). See strkjv@Acts:20:15|. The same as the third day in verse 32|. A proverb. {It cannot be} (\ouk endechetai\). It is not accepted, it is inadmissible. A severely ironical indictment of Jerusalem. The shadow of the Cross reaches Perea where Jesus now is as he starts toward Jerusalem.

rwp@Luke:13:34 @{O Jerusalem, Jerusalem} (\Ierousalm, Ierousalm\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:37f.| Jesus utters a similar lament over Jerusalem. The connection suits both there and here, but Plummer considers it "rather a violent hypothesis" to suppose that Jesus spoke these words twice. It is possible, of course, though not like Luke's usual method, that he put the words here because of the mention of Jerusalem. In itself it is not easy to see why Jesus could not have made the lament both here and in Jerusalem. The language of the apostrophe is almost identical in both places (Luke:13:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:23:37-39|). For details see on Matthew. In Luke we have \episunaxai\ (late first aorist active infinitive) and in Matthew \episunagagein\ (second aorist active infinitive), both from \episunag\, a double compound of late Greek (Polybius). Both have "How often would I" (\posakis thelsa\). How often did I wish. Clearly showing that Jesus made repeated visits to Jerusalem as we know otherwise only from John's Gospel. {Even as} (\hon tropon\). Accusative of general reference and in strkjv@Matthew:23:37| also. Incorporation of antecedent into the relative clause. {Brood} (\nossian\) is in Luke while Matthew has {chickens} (\nossia\), both late forms for the older \neossia\. The adjective {desolate} (\ermos\) is wanting in strkjv@Luke:13:35| and is doubtful in strkjv@Matthew:23:39|.