T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Four Volumes, imperial 8vo, handsomely bound, price 18s. each, A POPULAR COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS. Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE— Joseph Angus, D.D. Principal David Brown, D.D. Marcus Dods, D.D. J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. Paton J. Gloag, D.D. The Very Rev. Dean Howson, D. D. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. Maps and Plans — Professor Arnold Guyot. Illustrations -"W. M. Thomson, D.D.,-Author of ' The Land and the Book. William Milligan, D.D. W. F. Moulton, D.D. Edward H. Plumptre, D.D. AVilliam B. Pope, D.D. Matthew B. Piddle, D.D. S. W. F. Salmond, D.D. Rev. Canon Spence. Volume I —THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. Now Ready. Volume II — ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. By W. Milligan, D.D., and W. F. Moulton, D.D. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the Very ^ShorthJ- Rev. Dean Howson and Rev. Canon Spence. From the Bight Rev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. ' A useful, valuable, and instructive Commentary. It contains a large amount of in formation, is judiciously illustrated, and, so far as I can judge, is likely to be of great use. I have not tested it in difficult doctrinal passages, but I see in it nothing to lead me to doubt tbat it would stand the test. Its design seems to be that of a popular Commentary, and this design, it seems to me, it has fully carried out.' From the Eight Bev. the Bishop of Winchester. 'I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. They seem to me very well done, witb great fairness, and with evident knowledge of tbe controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt that the book will prove very valuable.' From the Very Bev. Edward Bickersteth, D.D., Dean of Lichfield and Prolocutor of Canterbury. 'I have been looking into this volume, and I am much struck with the fulness and accuracy of tbe annotations, wherever I have examined them, as well as with the general excellence of the work.' From Bev. W. G. T. Shedd, D.D. (Presbyterian), Professor in Union Theological Seminary, New York. 'Having examined the volume with some care, it impresses me as admirably adapted to the class for whom it is prepared, and calculated to promote a popular understanding of the "Word of God. It selects the important words and clauses, and explains them concisely yet thoroughly. It grapples with the difficult questions, and answers them generally in a satisfactory manner. The illustrations are well chosen, and the style in which the book is made is very attractive.' From Eev. Professor Lindsay Alexander, D.D. 'I feel satisfied that, if the whole were completed after the same manner, it would be the Commentary par excellence in the Eoglish language. Indeed, as a Commentary for popular use, I know nothing equal to it in any language.' T. and T. Clark's Publications. LANGE'S COMMENTARY. In 24 Volumes Imperial 8vo {Subscription price, nett), 15s. each. HpHEO LOGICAL AND HOMILETICAL COMMENTARY x ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Specially designed and adapted for the use of Ministers and Students. By Prof. John Peter Lange, D.D., in connection with a number of eminent European Divines. Translated, enlarged, and revised under the general editorship of Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, assisted by leading Divines of the various Evangelical Denominations. It is proposed to add a volume on, the APOCRYPHA, which will be advertised when ready. OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMES. I. GENESIS. With a General Introduc tion to the Old Testament. By Prof. J. P. Lange, D.D. Translated from the German, -with Additions, by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D., and A. Goshan, D.D. II. EXODUS. By J. P. Lange, D.D. LEVITICUS. By J. P. Lasgb, D.D. With GENEEAL INTRODUCTION by Rev. Dr. Osgood. III. NUMBEES AND DEUTEEONOMY. NUMBERS. Bv Prof. J. P. Lange, D.D. DEUTERONOMY. By Wilhelm Jolids SCHROEDER. IV. JOSHUA. ByEev.F.RFAY. JUDGES and RUTH. By Prof. Paulus Cassell, D.D. V. SAMUEL, L and II. By Professor Erdmann, D.D. VI. KINGS. By Karl Chr. W. F. Bahr, D.D. VII. CHEONICLES, I. and II. By Otto Zockler. EZRA. By Fe. W. Schultz. NEHEMIAH. By Rev. Howard Crosby, D.D..LL.D. ESTHER. By Fr. W. Schultz. VIII. JOB. A Ehythmical Version, with an Introduction and Annotations by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D. A Commentary by Dr. Otto Zockler, together with an Intro ductory Essay on Hebrew Poetry by Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D. IX. THE PSALMS. By Carl Bernhardt Moll, D.D. With a new Metrical Version of the Psalms, and Philological Notes, by T. J. Conant, D.D. X PEOVEEBS. By Prof. Otto Zockler, D.D. ECCLESIASTES. By Prof. 0. Zock ler, D.D. With Additions, and a new Metrical Version, hy Prof. Tatler Lewis, D.D. THE SONG OF SOLOMON. By Prof. 0. Zockler, D.D. XL ISAIAH. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach. XII. JEEEMIAH. By C. W. E. Naegels bach, D.D. LAMENTATIONS. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach, D.D. XIII. EZEKIEL. By P. W. Schroder, D.D. DANIEL. By Professor Zockler, D.D. XIV. THfi MINOE PEOPHETS. HOSEA, JOEL, and AMOS. By Otto Schmoller, Ph.D. OBADIAH and MICAH. By Rev. Paul Kleinert. JONAH, • NAHUM, HABAKKUK, and ZEPHANIAH. By Rev. Paul Kleinert. HAGGAI. By Eev. James E. M'Curdy. ZECHARIAH. By T. W. Chambers, D.D. MALACHI. By Joseph Packard, D.D. NEW TESTAMENT VOLUMES. I. MATTHEW. With a General Intro duction to the New Testament. By J. P. Lange, D.D. Translated, with Additions, by Philip Schaff, D.D. II. MAEK. By J. P. Lange, D.D. LUKE. By J. J. Van Oosterzee. III. JOHN. By J. P. Lange, D.D. IV. ACTS. By G. V. Lechler, D.D., and Rev. Charles Geeok. V. ROMANS. By J. P. Lange, D.D., and Rev. F. K. Fay. VI. COEINTHIANS. Eling. By Christian F. VII. GALATIANS. By Otto Schmollkr, Ph.D. EPHESIANS and COLOSSIANS. By Karl BracbE, D.D. PHILLPPIANS. By Karl Bracne, D.D. VIII, THESSALONIANS. By Drs. Auber- lin and Riggenbach. TIMOTHY. Bv J. J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. TITUS. Bv j. J. Van Oosierzke, D.D. PHILEMON. "By J. J. Van Oosterzke, D.D. HEBREWS. By Karl B. Moll, D.D. IX JAMES. By J. P. Lange, D.D.. and J. J. Van Oosterzre, D.D. PETER and JUDE. By G. F. C. Fronmuller, Ph.D. JOHN. By Karl Braune, D.D. X. THE EEVELATION OF JOHN. By Dr. J. P. Lange. Together with double Alphabetical Index to all the Ten Volumes on tbe New Testament, by John H. Woods. Computing the New Testament portion. NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. MESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the First Issue of Fourth Year of Dr. Meyer's Commentary (being the 13th and 14th volumes ofthe Series), viz. :— ST. MARK and 1 _ _ > Two Volumes. St. Luke, J These volumes are translated from the latest Editions {issued during Dr. Meyer's lifetime) by special arrangement with the German Publishers. The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, in their great accuracy ; and this is true of the whole Series. It is evident that the value of the Commentary very much depends on minute accuracy. The Series will be continued by the publication of Ephesians with Philemon in one volume, thus completing the New Testament Commentary so far as written by Dr. Meyer himself. But to this the Publishers add Thessalonians by Dr. Lunemann, in one volume, on the issue of which sixteen volumes will have been published. But, in answer to the request made by the Publishers last year, many of the Subscribers have expressed their desire to have the New Testament Commentaries completed. The Publishers have therefore arranged for the publication of — Timothy and Titus, by Professor Huther. Hebrews, by Professor Lunemann. James, by Professor Huther. John's Epistles, by Professor Huther. Peter and Jude, by Professor Huther. They are more doubtful of publishing Revelation, by Dr. Dusterdieck, but will decide as soon as possible. Translations of the above are being proceeded with, and will be much more rapidly published than the earlier volumes. 38 George Street, Edinburgh, March 1880. May the Publishers request an early remittance of Subscription for vols. 13 to 16,— 21s. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY THE NEW TESTAMENT.BY HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Th.D., OBERCONSISTOKIALKATH, HANNOVER. dProm tijt German, luitfj tljj Sanction of tijt Author. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., AMD WILLIAM STEWAET, D.D. PART I.^-SECOND DIVISION. THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE. VOL. II. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXX. PHINTED BY MOKKISON AND GIBB, FO II T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND 00. DUBLIN, . . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO. y NEW YOKK, SCRIBNEH AND WELFOl'.D. niySo CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE. BY HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Th.D., OBERCONSISTOHIALRATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY EEV. EOBEET EENEST WALLIS, Ph.D. YOL. II. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WILLIAM STEWAET, D.D, PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. MDCCCLXXX. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTEE III. Ver. 2. Instead of iiri ap^iepeug, Elz. has lir otp-^npioiv, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 4. 'kiyovroc] is wanting iu B D L A K, min. Copt. Arm. Vuig. It. Or. Eus. Condemned by .Griesb, deleted by Einck, Lacbm. Tisch. ; taken from Matt. iii. 3. — Ver. 5. ivfaTav] B D H, min. Vuig. It. Or. Ir. have evdeiag. So Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition from. ver. 4. The verse bears no trace of its having been altered to agree with the LXX. — Ver. 10. trcirieoft.iv] iroi^sa,u,ev, which Griesb. has recommended, and Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted, is here and at vv. 12, 14'decisively attested. — Ver. 14. The arrangement ri mi^m/itv nal weT; is, with Lachm. and Tisch, to be adopted, following B C* L x, min. Syr. Ar. Vuig. Ed. Ver. Brix. Colb. ; -/.al ?i/j.s?s was omitted, because %ai follows again, — an omission which, moreover, the analogy of vv. 10, 12 readily suggested, — and was afterwards restored in the wrong- place (before ri irc-iye.). — irpbg avroug] Lachm. has aitroig, follow ing B C* D L B, min. Vuig. It. The Becepta is a repetition from ver. 13. — Ver. 17. z-ai dict.xatla.piif] Tisch. has bmxaiapai, as also afterwards %. cuvaywyiTv, on too weak attestation. — Ver. 19. After ywaixoc, Elz. has <&i\iirirov, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. X'syovsav] is wanting in BDLs, Copt. Vuig. codd. of It. Ambr. Condemned by Griesb. and Einck, deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Taken from Matt. iii. 17. Comp. on ver. 4. — ci eT . . . jjJcioxjjira] D, Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb* Rd. Clem. Method. Hilar, ap, also codd. in Augustine, have viog juou tl eii, syii enihtpav yiyewrixa ei. An old (Justin, c. Tryph. 88) Ebionitic (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 13) addition, which, echoing the expression in Acts xiii. 33, found its way into the narrative, especially in the case of Luke. — Ver. 23. Many various read ings, which, however, are not so well attested as to warrant a departure from, the Received text/ (Lachm. and Tisch. have LUKE II. A 2 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. adopted &v u'.lg, iig ho/^iro, and Tisch. has upx6/j.. after 'JjjffoDg). — Ver. 23 ff. Many variations in the writing of the proper names. — Ver. 33. ro3 'Apa^] Tisch. has rou 'A&,u,eh rov 'Apvi!, following B 1 X r K, Copt.'SyrP. So also Ewald. Eightly; the Becepta is a correction in accordance with Matt. i. 4 ; 1 Chron. ii. 9. Vv. 1, 2. As, on the one hand, Matt. iii. 1 introduces the appearance of the Baptist without any definite note of time, only with iv Be rat? r/fiipat,? e«etVat? ; so, on the other, Luke (" the first writer who frames the Gospel history into the great history of the world by giving precise dates," Ewald), in fulfil ment of his intention, i. 3, gives for that highly important starting-point of the proclamation of the Gospel (" hie quasi scena N. T. panditur," Bengel) a date specified by a sixfold reference to the history of the period, so as to indicate the emperor at Eome and the governors of Palestine, as well as the high priest of the time ; namely — (1) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Augustus, who was succeeded by his step-son Tiberius, died on the 19 th August 7C7, or the fourteenth year of the era of Dionysius. See Suetonius, Octav. 100. Accordingly, it might appear doubtful whether Luke reckons the year 767 or the year 768 as the first; similarly, as Tiberius became co-regent at the end of 764, or in January 765 (Tacit. Ann. i. 3 ; Sueton. Tib. 20 f. ; Velleius Paterculus, ii. 121), whether Luke begins to reckon from the commencment of the co-regency (Ussher, Voss, Pagius, Clericus, Sepp, Lich ten stein, Tischendorf, and others), or of the sole- government. Since, however, no indication is added which would lead us away from the mode of reckoning the years of the emperors usual among the Eomans, and followed even by Josephus,1 we must abide by the view that the fifteenth year in the passage before us is the year from the 19th August 781 to the same date 782. See also Anger, sur Chronologie d. Lehramtes Christi, I, Leipzig 1848 ; Ideler, Chronol. I. p. 418. 1 Also Antt. xviii. 6. 10, where ax*" a-Ms t«» kpxw does not refer back to an earlier co-regency of Tiberius, so that airos would be equivalent to /tivas ; but this xvris indicates simply a contrast betweeen him and Caius, who had been nominated his successor. CHAP. III. 1, 2. 3 Authentication from coins ; Saulcy, Athen. francais. 1855, p. 639 f. — (2) When Pontius Pilate (see on Matt, xxvii. 2) was procurator of Judaea. He held office from the end of 778, or beginning of 779, until 789, in which year he was recalled after an administration of ten years ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2. — (3) Wlien Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Herod Antipas (see on Matt. ii. 22, xiv. 1) ; this crafty, unprincipled man of the world became tetrarch after the death of his father Herod the Great in 750, and remained so until his deposition in 792. — (4) When Philip his brother w-as tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis. This paternal prince (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 45 f.) became prince in 750, and his reign lasted till his death in 786 or 787, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 6. His govern ment extended also over Batanaea and Auranitis, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11. 4, as that of Herod Antipas also took in Peraea. For information as to Ituraea, the north-eastern province of Palestine (Miinter, de rebus Ituraeor. 1824), and as to the neighbouring Trachonitis between the Antilibanus and the Arabian mountain ranges, see Winer, Bealwort. — (5) When Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. See especially, Hug, Gutacht. 1. p. 119 ff. ; Ebrard, p. 180 ff . ; Wieseler, p. 174 ff . ; Schweizer in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 1 ff . (who treats the chronology of Luke very unfairly) ; Wieseler in Herzog's Encykl. I. p. 64 ff.; Lichtenstein, p. 131 ff. ; Bleek in loc. The Lysanias, son of Ptolemaeus, known from Josephus, Antt. xv. 4. 1; Dio Cass. 49. 32, as having been murdered by Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra in 718, cannot here be meant, unless Luke has perpetrated a gross chronological blunder ; which latter case, indeed, Strauss, Gfrorer, B. Bauer, Hilgenfeld take for granted; while Valesius, on Eus. H. E. i. 1 0 ; Michaelis, Paulus,1 Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 1064, would mend matters uncritically enough by omitting -reTpapj(ovvTO<; (which is never omitted in Luke, see Tischendorf) ; and the remaining expression : ical t^? Avaavtov 1 In his Commentary. But in his Mceget. Handh. he acquiesces in the text as it stands, and forces upon it, contrary to the letter, the meaning : when Philip ihe tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis was also tetrarch over Abilene of Lysanias. Thus, indeed, the former old Lysanias would also here be meant. 4 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. A{ii\r)vri<; some have attempted to construe, others to guess at the meaning. After the murder of that older Lysanias who is mentioned as ruler of (BvvaaTevav) Chalcis, between Lebanon and Antilibanus (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 4), Antony presented a great part of his possessions to Cleopatra (see Wieseler, p. 179), and she leased them to Herod. Soon after wards Zenodorus received the lease of the ol/co? tov Avaaviov (Joseph. Antt. xv. 10. 1 ; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 4); but Augustus in 724 compelled him to give up a portion of his lands to Herod (Joseph, as above), who after the death of Zenodorus in 734 obtained the rest also, Antt. xv. 10. 3. After Herod's death a part of the o'Ikov tov ZrjvoBwpov passed over to Philip (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). It is consequently not to be proved that no portion of the territory of that older Lysanias remained in his family. This is rather to be assumed (Casaubon, Krebs, Siiskind the elder, Kuinoel, Siiskind the younger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 431 ff. ; Winer, and others), if it is supposed that Abilene also belonged to the principality of that elder Lysanias. But this supposition is itself deficient in proof, since Josephus designates the territory of the elder Lysanias as Chalcis (see above), and expressly distinguishes the kingdom of a later Lysanias, whieh Caligula (Antt. xviii. 6. 10) and Claudius bestowed on Agrippa i. (Antt. xix. 5. 1, xx. 7. 1 ; Bell. ii. 11. 5, ii. 12. 8) from the region of Chalcis (Bell. ii. 12. 8). But since Abila is first mentioned as belonging to the tetrarchy of this later Lysanias (Antt. xix. 5. 1), and since the kingdom of the elder Lysanias is nowhere designated a tetrarchy, although probably the territory of that younger one is so named,1 it must be assumed that Josephus, when he mentions "AfttXav Trjv Avaaviov (Antt. xix; 5. 1), and speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antt. xx. 7. 1; comp. Bell. ii. 11. 5, ii. 12. 18), still designates the region in question after that older Lysanias ; but that before 790, when Caligula became emperor, a tetrarchy of a later 1 Of whom, therefore, we have to think even in respect of the Greek inscrip tion which Pococke (Morgenl. II. § 177) found at NebiAbel (the ancient Abila), and in which Lysanias is mentioned as 'tetrarch. Comp. Bbckh, Inscr. 4521, 4523. CHAP. III. 1, 2. 5 Lysanias existed to which Abila1 belonged, doubtless as his residence, whereas it is quite another question whether this latter Lysanias was a descendant or a relation of that elder one (see Krebs, Obss. p. 112). Thus the statement of Luke, by comparison with Josephus, instead of being shown to be erroneous, is confirmed.2 — (6) When Annas was high priest, and Caiaphas. Comp. Acts iv. 6. The reigning high priest at that time was Joseph, named Caiaphas (see on Matt. xxvi. 3), who had been appointed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2, 2. His father-in-law Annas held the office of high priest some years before, until Valerius Gratus became procurator, when the office was taken away from him by the new governor, and conferred first on Ismael, then on Eleazar (a son of Annas), then on Simon, and after that on Caiaphas. See Josephus, I.e. This last continued in office from about 770 till 788 or 789. But Annas retained withal very weighty influence (John xviii. 12 ff.), so that not only did he, as did every one who had been ap%t,epev<;, continue to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the functions of high priest. In this way we explain the certainly inaccurate expres sion of Luke (in which Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 16 5, finds a touch of irony, an element surely quite foreign to the simply chrono logical context), informing the reader who may not be acquainted with the actual state of the case, that Annas was primarily and properly high priest, and next to him Caiaphas also. But according to Acts iv. 6, Luke himself must have had this view, so that it must be conceded as a result that this expression is erroneous, — an error which, as it sprang from the predominat- 1 It was situated in the region of the Lebanon, eighteen miles north from Damascus, and thirty-eight miles south from Heliopolis. Ptolem. v. 18 ; Anton. Itiner.j Ritter, Erdlc. XV. p. 1060. To be distinguished from Abila in Decapolis, and other places of this name (Joseph, v. 1. 1 ; Bell. ii. 13. 2, iv. 7. 5). 2 It is, however, altogether precarious with Lichtenstein, following Hofmann, to gather from the passage before us a proof that Luke did not write till after the destruction of Jerusalem, because, namely, after that crumbling to pieces of the Herodian territories, no further interest would be felt in discovering to whom Abilene belonged at the time of Tiberius. But why not ? Not even a chronological interest ? 6 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ing influence of Annas, was the more easily possible in pro portion to the distance at which Luke stood from that time in which the high priests had changed so frequently; while Annas (whose son-in-law and five sons besides filled the office, Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1) was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm. To agree with the actual historical relation, Luke would have been obliged to write : iirl ap^iepew; Ka'id(f>a ical "Awa. Arbitrary shifts have been resorted to, such as : that at that period the two might have exchanged annually in the administration of the office (Beza, Chemnitz, Selden, Calovius, Hug, Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 73 ff.) ; that Annas was vicar (pD, Lightfoot, p. 744 f.) of the high priest (so Scaliger, Casaubon, Grotius, Lightfoot, Eeland, Wolf, Kuinoel, and others, comp. de Wette), which, however, is shown to be erroneous by his name being placed first ; that he is here represented as princeps Synedrii (sW3, Lightfoot, p. 746). So Selden, Saubert, Hammond, and recently Wieseler, Chronol. Synapse, p. 186 ff, and in Herzog's Encykl. I. p. 354. But as ap%t,epevs nowhere of itself means president of the Sanhedrim, but in every case nothing else than chief priest, it can in this place especially be taken only in this signification, since ical Kaidcpa stands alongside. If Luke had intended to say : " under the president Annas and the high priest Caiaphas," he could not have comprehended these distinct offices, as they were at that time actually distinguished (which Selden has abundantly proved), under the one term dp-^iepem^. Even in xxii. 54, dp^tep. is to be understood of Annas. — ijeveTo pfjfj.a Qeov k.t.X.] Comp. Jer. i. 2 ; Isa. xxxviii. 4 f. Prom this, as from the following ical rj\6ev k.t.X., ver. 3, it is plainly manifest that Luke by his chronological statements at vv. 1, 2 intends to fix the date of nothing else than the calling and first appearance of John, not the year of the death of Jesus (Sanclemente and many of tire Fathers, who, following Luke iv. 19, comp. Isa. lxi. 1 ff, erroneously ascribe to Jesus only one year of his official ministry), but also not of a second appearance of the Baptist and his imprisonment (Wieseler1), or of his beheading (Schegg). The mention of the 1 See in opposition to Wieseler, Ebrard, p. 187 ; Lichtenstein, p. 137 ff. CHAP. III. 3-6. 7 imprisonment, vv. 19, 20, is rather to be regarded only as a digression, as the continuance of the history proves (ver. 21). The first appearance of John, however, was important enough to have its chronology fixed, since it was regarded as the dp%f) tov elayyeklov (Mark i. 1). It was the epoch of the commence ment of the work- of Jesus Himself (comp. Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24), and hence Luke, having arrived at this threshold of the Gospel history, ver. 22, when Jesus is baptized by John, makes at this point a preliminary pause, and closes the first section of the first division of his book with the genealogical register, ver. 23 ff, in order to relate next the Messianic ministry of Jesus, ch. iv. ff. Ver. 3. See on Matt. iii. 1 f. ; Mark i. 4. — irepixapov tov 'IopS.] Matthew and Mark have iv Ty iprfum. There is no discrepancy ; for the apparent discrepancy vanishes with r)\8e in Luke, compared with the narrative of the baptism in Matthew and Mark. Vv. 4—6. See on Matt. iii. 3. Luke continues the quota tion of Isa. xl. 3 down to the end of ver. 5, following the LXX. freely. The appeal to this prophetic oracle was one of the commonplaces of the evangelic tradition in respect of the history of John, and betokens therefore, even in Luke, no special source ; "he only gives it — unless a Pauline purpose is to be attributed to his words (HoTtzmann)— more fully than Matthew, Mark, and John (i. 23). — In a>? yiypainai the same thing is implied that Matthew expresses by ovto<; yap ia-Tiv 6 p"ri6eL<;. — v f3pd)/Mt,Ta'] not : " qui cibis abundat," Kuinoel, following older commentators. The demand of the stern preacher of repentance is greater ; it is that of self-denying love, as it is 1 The generalization proves nothing on behalf of Luke's having been ignorant of our Matthew (Weiss). From such individual instances an easy argument is drawn, but with great uncertainty,, especially as Luke knew and made use of a multitude of evangelistic sources of which we know nothing. CHAP. III. 12-15. 9 perfected from the mouth of Jesus in tlie Sermon on the Mount. Vv. 12, 13. TeX&vai] See on Matt. v. 46. — irapct to BiaTeTayfi. vp2v\ over and above what is prescribed to you (to demand in payment). See Winer, p. 215 [E. T. 300 f.]. The unrighteousness and the exactions of those who farmed the taxes are well known. See Paulus, Exeget. Handb. I. p. 353 f. On irpdaaetv, to demand payment, to exact, see Blomfield, Gloss, ad Aesch. Pers. 482 ; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 17. Ver. 14. HTpaTevouevoi] those who were engaged in military service, an idea less extensive than a-TpaTiaJTat. See the passages in Wetstein. Historically, it is not to be more precisely defined. See references in regard to Jewish military service in Grotius. According to Michaelis, there were Thracians, Germans, and Galatians in the service of Herod in his war against Aretas ; but this war was later, and certainly Jewish soldiers are meant. According to Ewald : soldiers who were chiefly engaged in police inspection, e.g. in connec tion with the customs. — ical rjfteis] we also. They expect an injunction similar (/cat) to that which the publicans received. ¦ — Biaa-eleiv] to do violence to, is used by later writers of exactions by threats and other kinds of annoyance (to lay under contribution), as concutere. Comp. 3 Mace. vii. 21 ; see Wetstein, and Schneider, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1. — cvko- (pavTelv, in its primitive meaning, although no longer occur ring in this sense, is to be a fig-shower. According to the usual view (yet see in general, Ast, ad Plat. Bep. p. 362 ; Westermann, ad Plut. Sol. 24), it was applied to one who denounced for punishment those who transgressed the pro hibition of the export of figs from Attica. According to the actual usage, it means to denounce falsely, to traduce, and, as in this place, to be guilty of chicane. It is often thus used also in the Greek writers. See Eettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 775 ff. ; Becker, Char. I. p. 289 ff. Tlovnpov, irovrjpbv 6 avKO^}dvTrj<; del ical /3d BairTt,a8fjvai k.t.X.] Whilst1 the assembled people (an hyperbolical expression) were being bap tized, it came to pass when Jesus also (Kal) was baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, etc. The entire people was therefore present (in opposition to Kuinoel, Krabbe, and others). The characteristic detail, Kal irpocrevx,,, is peculiar to Luke. — crwfiaTiKm eiBet, ma-el ireptar.] so that He appeared as a bodily dove. See, moreover, on Matthew. Ver. 23. Avtos;] as Matt. iii. 4: He Himself , to whom this divine crrjfieiov, ver. 22, pointed. — Tjv wael eVwi/ tpMKovTa dpypiievos] He was about thirty years of age (comp. ii. 42 ; Mark v. 42), when He made the beginning2 Yit,. of His Mes sianic office. This limitation of the meaning of dpxpuevot, results from ver. 22, in which Jesus is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the Messiah. So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Er. Schmid, Spanheim, Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach (in Velthusen, Comment. I. p. 358), Kuinoel, Anger (Tempor. rat. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and others. With the reception of his baptismal consecration, Jesus entered on the 1 Bleek is in error (following de Wette) when he translates : when . . . He was baptized. See ii. 27, viii. 40, ix. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1, xix. 15, xxiv. 30 ; in general, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 226 f. [E. T. 264]. ' 2 So also Paulus, only that, after the example of Calvisius, he further attaches at to xpxifttves, in which case, however, it would be useless, and the subsequent genealogy would be without any connecting link. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 125, placing ap^i/iMs before ini (so Lachmann in the margin and Tischen dorf), explains : " and he was — namely, Jesus when He began — about thirty years of age. " Therefore in the most essential point his view is in agreement with ours. 12 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. commencement of His destined ministry. Comp. Mark i. 1 ; Acts i. 21 f, x. 37. The interpretation given by others: " Incipiebat autem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta," Castalio (so Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and many more), could only be justified either by the original running : tfpgaTo elvat, mcrel iT&v TptaKovTa, or r\v mael erov? TpiaKoo-Tov dpy/pfievos. It is true that Grotius endeavours to fortify himself in this interpretation by including in the clause the following cov, so that apyouat, wv irmv TptaKovTa might mean : incipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if fjv . . . cov be conjoined in Greek usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 13, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy would be the expression ?jv dp^o/ievo? mv, incipiebat esse ! and, according to the arrangement of the words, quite intolerable. Even ep%6uevo<; has been conjee- tared (Casaubon). — mv] belongs to vw? 'IWj?^, and to? ivofil^eTo, as he was considered (go? eSo/eet to?? 'IovBalow a>? yap r] dXrjOeia elyev, ovk yjv vlbs avTov, Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who connects mv with dp%6fi., explains : according to custom (Jesus did not begin His ministry sooner). Comp. on Acts xvi. 13. It is true the connecting of the two participles dpxpfievo? mv would not in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hee. 358); but this way of looking at the matter is altogether wrong, because, in respect of the appearance of the Messiah, there could be no question of a custom at all, and the fixing of the age of the Levites (Num. iv. 3, 47), which, moreover, was not a custom, but a law, has nothing to do with the appearance of a prophet, and especially of the Messiah. Comp. further, on &)? ivo/il^., Dem. 1022. 16 : ol vo/ju£6ftevoi /iev vlets, fifj ovTe<; Be yevei eg aiiT&v, and the passages in Wetstein. Others (quoted by Wolf, and Wolf himself, Bosenmuller, Osiander) refer mv to tov 'HXt: existens (cum putaretur filius Josephi) filius, i.e. nepos Eli. So also Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wieseler (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 361 ff.) has condescended in like manner (comp. Lightfoot, p. 750) to the desperate expedient of exegetically making it out to be a genealogical tree of Mary thus : " being a son, as it was thought, of Joseph (but, in fact, of Mary), of Eli," etc. Wieseler CHAP. III. 23. 13 supports his view by the fact that he reads, with Laehmann and Tischendorf, a>? ivo/j,t£. after v'm (B L N), and on weaker evidence reads before 'Iwo-ijip the tov which is now again deleted even by Tischendorf. But as, in respect of the received arrangement of co? ivo/i., it is only the mv vlb? 'Ima-yip, and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked out as coming under the to? ivofii^eTo, so also is it in the arrangement of Laehmann (only that the latter actually brings into stronger prominence the supposed filial relationship to Joseph) ; and if tov is read before 'Imo-i](p, no change even in that case arises in the meaning.1 For it is not wos that would have to be supplied in every following clause, so that Jesus should be designated as the son of each of the persons named, even up to tov ©eov inclusively (so Lightfoot, Bengel), but vlov (after tov), as the nature of the genealogical table in itself presents it,2 making tov Qeov also dogmatically indubitable ; since, accordmg to Luke's idea of the divine sonship of Jesus, it could not occur to him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected through Adam. No ; if Luke had thought what Wieseler reads between the lines in ver. 23, that, namely, Eli was Mary's father, he would have known how to express it, and would have written something like this : mv, ob? fiev evofil^ero, ww? 'Imarjcp, 6Ww? (xxiii. 47, xxiv. 34) Be Mapia? tov 'HXl k.t.X. But he desires to give the genealogy of Jesus on the side of His foster-father Joseph : therefore he writes simply as we read, and as the fact that he wished to express required. As to the originally Ebionitic point of view of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, see on Matt. i. 17, Remark 3. Remark. — All attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of the passage before us are balked by the ixsti of ver. 23. Yet the era of Dionysius bases its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on Luke iii. 1 This indifferent ™S came into the text with extreme facility, in accordance with the analogy of all the following clauses. 2 Instances of a quite simUar kind of stringing on the links of a genealogy one after the other hy ™5 are found in Herod, iv. 157, vii. 204, viii. 131, and others in Wetstein. The Vulgate is right in simply reading, "filius Joseph, qui fait Heli, qui fuit M.a.tth.&t," etc. , 14 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 1, 23. Hase, L. J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because of its mythical associations, the account of .Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus occurred as early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these legendary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regarded as the nucleus around which the legend gathered. As, however, Herod died in 750 (Anger, Bat. tempor. p. 5 f. ; Wieseler, Chronol. Synapse, p. 50 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at any rate at least about four years in error. If, further, it be necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, which occurred in the beginning of April, then, even on the assumption that He was bom as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in February of that year), it follows that at the time when the Baptist, who was His senior only by a few months, appeared — accord ing to iii. 1, in the year from the 19th August 781 to 782 — He would be about thirty-one years of age, which perfectly agrees with the ues! of ver. 23, and the round number rpid- ¦/.ovra; in which case it must be assumed as certain (comp. Mark i. 9) that He was baptized very soon after the appear ance of John, at which precise point His Messianic apxfl com menced. If, however, as according to Matt. ii. 7, 16 is extremely probable, the birth of Jesus must be placed as early as perhaps a year before the date given above,1 even the age that thus results of about thirty-two years is sufficiently covered by the indefinite statement of the passage before us ; and the year 749 as the year of Christ's birth tallies well enough with the Baptist beginning to preach in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius.2 1 Not " at least two years, probably even four or more years," Keim, D. ges- cliichtl. Christus, p. 140. 2 From the fact that, according to the evangelists, Jesus after His baptism began His public official ministry without the intervention of any private teach ing, the opinion of the younger Bunsen (The Hidden Wisdom of Christ, etc., London 1865, II. p. 461 ff.) — that the Lord, at the beginning of His official career, was forty-six years of age — loses all foundation : It rests upon the mis understanding of John ii. 20 f., viii. 57, which had already occurred in the case of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Rbsch in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 4 ff. The assumption of the latter, that the year 2 before the era of Dionysius was the year of Christ's birth, rests in accordance with ancient tradition, to he sure, yet on the very insecure foundation of the appearance of the star in the history of the Magi, and on distrust of the chronology of Herod and his sons as set forth by Josephus, for which Rbsch has not adduced sufficient reasons. CHAP. III. 27-36. 15 Ver. 27. Tov ZopoBdBeX, tov ZOKuOijk] The objection that in this place Luke, although giving the line of David through Nathan, still introduces the same two celebrated names, and at about the same period as does Matt. i. 12, is not arbitrarily to be got rid of. The identity of these persons has been denied (so, following older commentators, Paulus, Olshausen, Osiander, Wieseler, Bleek), or a levirate marriage has been suggested as getting quit of the difficulty (so, fol lowing older commentators, Ebrard, who says that Matthew mentions the legal, Luke the natural father of Salathiel), or it has been supposed (so Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf iill. II. p. 37) that Salathiel adopted Zerubbabel. But the less reliance can be placed on such arbitrary devices in proportion as his torical warranty as to details is wanting in both the divergent genealogies, although they both profess to give a genealogy of Joseph. The attempt to reconcile the two must be given up. It is otherwise in respect of the names Amos and Nahum, ver. 25, which cannot be identified with the well-known prophets, and in respect of the names Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, vv. 29, 30, which cannot be identified with the sons of Jacob, as (in opposition to B. Bauer) is shown by the great difference of time. Ver. 36. Tov Kalvdv] In Gen. x. 24, xi. 12 ; 1 Chron. i. 24. Shalach (iw) is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in Gen. (as above) ; and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his copy of Genesis. See Bertheau on 1 Chron. p. 6. Remark. — The genealogy in Luke, who, moreover, in accord ance with his Pauline universalism carries on the genealogical line up to Adam, is appropriately inserted at this point, just where the Messianic consecration of Jesus and the commence ment therewith made of His ministry are related. Hence, also, the genealogy is given in an ascending line, as Luke did not intend, like Matthew, to begin his Gospel just at the birth of Jesus, but went much further back and started with the conception and birth of the Baptist ; so in Luke the proper and, in so far as the historical connection was concerned, the right place for the genealogy could not have been, as in Matthew, 16 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. at the beginning of the Gospel. Comp. Kostlin, p. 306. — In its contents the genealogy is extremely different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more and almost throughmit different links in the genealogy; since Matthew gives the line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2 Sam. v. 14; 1 Chron. iii. 5), although he intro duces into it from the former SaAad^A and Zopol3a.j3t\. Seeking in several ways to get rid of this last-mentioned difficulty (see on ver. 27), many have assumed that Matthew gives tlie genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Mary. To reconcile this with the text, ™D ' HX/ has been taken to mean : the son- in-law of Eli, as, following many older commentators (Luther, also Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel)> Paulus, Olshausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Riggenbach, Bjsping, and others will have it ; but this, according to the analogy of the rest of the links in the chain, is quite impossible. The attempt has been made to connect with this the hypothesis of Epiphanius, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, that Mary was an heiress, whoso husband must therefore have belonged to the same family, and must have had his name inscribed in their family register (Michaelis, Olshausen) ; but this hypothesis itself, while it is equally objectionable in being arbitrary, and in going too far in its application, leaves the question altogether unsolved whether the law of the heiress was still in force at that time (see on Matt. i. 17, Rem. 2), even apart from the fact that Mary's Davidic descent is wholly with out proof, and extremely doubtful. See on i. 36, ii. 4. Another evasion, with a view to the appropriation of the genealogy to Mary, as well as that of Wieseler, is already refuted1 at ver. 23. See also Bleek, Beitr. p. 101 f. — Hence the conclusion must be maintained, that Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew ? It has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. evangel, ii. 3 ; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from a levirate inarriage (Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H. E. i.,7), so that Matthew adduces his natural father Jacob, while Luke adduces his legal father Eli (Julius Africanus, Theophylact, Euthymius 1 That Eli was the father of Mary is also inferred by Delitzsch on Hebr. p. 290, who suggests that after the premature death of his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and brought up along with Maiy ; that thus, therefore, Eli was Joseph's foster father, but Mary's actual father. What groundless devices ! And yet the passage itself is "as simple as possible until we want to force it to say what it does not say," Hofmann, Schrift- hew. II. 1, p. 112. CHAP. III. 17 Zigabenus, Augustine), or vice versd (Ambrosius, Grotius, Wet stein, Schleiermacher). But what a complication this hypothesis, in itself quite arbitrary, involves ! In this way Eli and Jacob must be taken to be mere half-brothers, because they have different fathers and forefathers ! So in respect of Salathiel's mother, we must once more call in the help of a levirate marriage, and represent Neri and Jechonia as in like manner half-brothers ! In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is not authenticated, and the im porting of the natural father into the legal genealogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Joseph's father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal relationship. No ; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although they both refer to Joseph, is impossible ; but it is very natural and intelligible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual steps is obscure, no anxiety was felt to investigate his ancestry until long after the death of Jesus — until the living presence of his great manifestation and ministry no longer threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. The genealogical industry of the Jewish Christians 'had collected from tradi tion and from written documents several registers, which, ap pearing independently of one another, must have given very different results, as far back as David, in consequence of the obscurity of Joseph's genealogy. The first evangelist adopted a genealogy in accordance with the David-Solomon line ; but Luke adopted a totally different one, following the David- Nathan line.1 But that Luke, as a matter of fact, rejected the genealogy of Matthew, is according to i. 3 to be regarded as a result of his later inquiries, as in general the great and irreconcilable divergence of his preliminary history from that of Matthew suggests the same conclusion. Only the motives of his decision are so completely unknown to us, that to con cede to his genealogy the preference (v. Ammon, L. J. I. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation of the Davidifi descent of Jesus from the Nathan (therefore not the royal) line presupposes an investigation, in consequence of which the derivation of that descent through Solomon, which doubtless had first presented itself, was abandoned in the interest of rectification (according to Kostlin, indeed, in the Ebionitic 1 This variation in the Davidic descent of the Messiah occurs also in the later Jewish theology. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1860, 3, p. 460 f. LUKE II. B 18 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. interest, in opposition to the royal line stained with crime, and in opposition to worldly royalty in general). — As the genealogy in. Matthew is arranged in accordance with a significant numerical relation (three times fourteen), a similar relation is also recognisable in the genealogy by Luke (eleven times seven), even although no express reference is made to it. See already Basil. M. III. p. 399 C. CHAP. IV. 19 CHAPTER IV. Ver. 1. ih rfiv 'iprifiov] BDLk, Sahid. codd. of It. have h rjj ipwu. Approved by Griesb, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Becepta is a mechanical alteration in accordance with the parallels. — Ver. 2. Before itwuos Elz. Scholz have vertpov, in opposition to BDLs, vss. Cyr. Beda. From Matt. iv. 2. — Ver. 3. Following nearly the same evidence, read with Lachm. and Tisch. eJWek de instead of xal tTiriv. — Ver. 4. &W \ml irairl pfoan ©sou] is wanting in B L X, Sahid. Left out by Tisch. But almost all the versions and Fathers vouch for these words ; if they had been added, they would, especially in an expression so well known and frequently quoted, have been more closely and perfectly adapted to Matthew. — Ver. 5. o ,didj3o\og] is wanting in B D L N, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cant. Condemned by Griesb, deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. There is almost quite as strong evidence against ilg opog ty., which nevertheless is found in D, but with the addition of >Jav. Lachm. has bracketed tig opog {/¦*]/. Tisch. has rightly deleted it. The expression amy. by itself seemed to be in need of the more exact definition, and so it was added from Matthew. — Ver. 7. Instead of iraca, Elz. has vdvra, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matt. iv. 9. — Ver. 8. Instead of yiypairrai by itself, Elz. has : Ways bntiata [lov aaram " yiypawrai yap. So also has Scholz, but without yap; Lachm. has u«. i*. //,. a. in brackets, and has deleted ydp. Against itr. hie. p. ij/irj k.t.X.] and rumour went forth, etc, not anticipating what follows in ver. 1 5 (de Wette) ; but it is the rumour of the return of the man who had been so distinguished at his baptism, and had then for upwards of forty days been concealed from view, that is meant. — ««#' 0X77? k.t.X.] round about the whole neighbourhood, Acts viii. 31, 42. Ver. 15. Avtos] He Himself, the person as opposed to their report. Ver. 16. As to the relation of the following incident to the similar one in Matt. xiii. 53 ff, Mark vi. 1 ff, see on Matthew. No argument can be drawn from ver. 23 against the view that the incidents are different, for therein a ministry at Capernaum would already be presupposed (Schleiermacher, Kern, de Wette, Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), as a previous ministry in that same place in the course of a journey (not while residing there) is fully established by vv. 14, 15. According to Ewald (comp. also his Gesch. Chr. p. 345), who, moreover, rightly distinguishes the present from the subsequent appearance at Nazareth, there are incorporated together in Luke two distinct narratives about the discourses of Jesus in Nazareth. But with reference to the mention of Capernaum at ver. 23, see above; the connection, however, between vv. 22 and 23 is sufficiently effected by oi)/ ovto? io-Tiv 6 i/i'o; 'Iao-i]!-a<; to BiBX. and evpe the lighting exactly on this passage is represented as fortuitous, but just on that account as being divinely ordered (according to Theophylact : not kuto, trvvTvylav, but aiiTov 6eXijo-avToXot? and Tedpavo-fievov^ (crushed to pieces), whereby the misery of the trTmypi is represented as a blinding and a bruising. According to the typical reference to the Messiah, these predicates refer to the misery of the spiritual bondage, the cessation of which the Messiah was to announce and (dtroa- TeiXdi) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies consider ably from the original Hebrew (doubtless the result of a various reading which mixed with this passage the parallel in Isa. xlii. 7), and Luke again does not agree with the LXX, especially in d-iroo-TeiXai TeOpavo-fi. iv dcpicrei, which words are from Isa. lviii. 6, whence Luke (not Jesus, who indeed read from the roll of the book) or his informant relating from 1 Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 270 f. 2 Observe the difference of tense, 'Ixf'** • • • ««o,f«a.x£ : He anointed me, He hath sent me (and I am here !) ; also the lively asyndeton in the two verbs (Ah-sot. without mi), as well as also in the three infinitives. 26 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. memory having taken them erroneously, but by an association of ideas easily explained mixed ,them up in this place. — iviavTov Kvpiov Bbktov] an acceptable year of the Lord, i.e. a welcome, blessed year belonging to Jehovah, whereby is to be understood in the typical reference of the passage the Mes sianic period of blessing, while in the historical sense the blessed future of the theocracy after the exile is denoted by the words '"ri^,? IftviW*, ie. a year of satisfaction for Jehovah, which will be for Jehovah the time to show. His satisfaction to His people (comp. ii. 14). The passage before us is strangely abused by the Valentinians, Clemens, Horn. xvii. 19, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and many more, to limit the ministry of Jesus to the space of one year} which even the connection of the original text, in which a day of vengeance against the enemies of God's people follows, ought to have prevented. Even Wieseler, p. 272, makes an extraordinary chronological use of eviavToi and of ar]aepov, ver. 21, in support of his assumption of a parallel with John vi. 1 ff. in regard to time, according to which the sojourn of Jesus in Nazareth is said to have fallen on the Sabbath after Purim 782. The year is an allusion to the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 9), as an inferior prefigurative type of the Messianic redemption. The three infinitives are parallel and dependent on direo-TaXKe fie, whose purpose they specify. — iv dnrepio-Te] If Luke had intended to an ticipate the later history of Matt. xiii. and Mark vi, for what purpose would he have omitted the brothers and sisters ? Vv. 23, 24. Whether what follows, as far as ver. 27, is taken from the Logia (Ewald), or from some other written source (Kostlin), or from oral tradition (Holtzmann), cannot be determined. But the Logia offers itself most obviously as the source. — irdvTm irvpeTm] the fever regarded as a hostile power, and as personal. Mark, whom Matthew follows, has not this detail; whereas both have the touching with the hand. A divergence in the tradition as to the miraculous method of cure. — avTois] refers to Jesus, Simon, and the other members of the family. Comp. r)pmTr\ iirniOek] Matthew has Xoym, with 1 The arrangement in Luke, so far as he places (ch. v. ) the call of Peter later, is in any case not arbitrarily produced, although he follows the tradition which (as Matthew) does not include the companionship of James and John (so Mark). 2 All three also agree essentially as to the time of day (imms toD bkiw). Until the evening Jesus luxd remained in the house of Simon, therefore the sick were first brought to Him there. Thus it was neither with a view to avoiding the heat of the sun, nor to choosing, from "delicacy of feeling," as Lange supposes, the twilight for the public exhibition of infirmities. CHAP. IV. 42-44. 33 reference, however, to the demoniacs. In evl e/cua-Tw, which need not be pressed (Weiss, Holtzmann), are implied the solicitude and the indefatigableness of this miraculous ministry of love. — XaXeiv, Sti] to speak, because. See on Mark i. 34. Vv. 42—44. See on Mark i. 35—39, who is more precise and more vivid. — The bringing of so many sick folks to Him, ver. 40, is to be explained, not by this hasty departure, the appointment of which had been known (Schleiermacher), but, in accordance with the text (ver. 37), by the fame which the public healing of the demoniac in the synagogue had brought Him. — e«? avTov] not simply : to Him, but : even up to, Him, they came in their search, which therefore they did not -discontinue until they found Him. Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 26; Acts ix. 38, xxiii. 23. — et? tovto] namely, to announce not only here, but everywhere throughout the land, the kingdom of God. — dTreo-TaX/iat] It is otherwise in Mark i. 36, whose expression is original, but had already acquired in the tradition that Luke here follows a doctrinal development with a higher meaning. LUKE. II. 34 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTER V. Ver. 2. The mss. have anirXvmv (so Elz. Scholz), eirlvw, 'iirXwov, dw'iirXuvov. Tisch. has the second reading, Lachm. the third. The preponderance of evidence wavers between 'iirXwov (B D) and sirXumv (0* L Q X s), and excludes the compound form. But since, according to this, even the mss. which read the Becepta (A E F G, etc.) add to the evidence in favour of tVXunAN, this form receives the critical preponderance. The compound form is either a mere clerical error (as Ev. 7 has even WtuXow), or a gloss for the sake of more precise specifica tion. — Ver. 6. irXriiog l-x&iuf] So Griesb. Matth, Scholz, Tisch, following the greater number of the Uncials, but not B D, which have /^6«» whtyog, which Lachm. has again restored. Comp. Vuig. and codd. of It. The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred on account of its preponderating evidence, and still more because the words irXtjhg noXl would more readily be brought together by the transcribers than separated. — Ver. 15. As W airou is wanting in important authorities, in others stands after dxoinv, and A has dit1 airou, it is rightly condemned by Griesb, struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 17. iXv-Xvoong] Lachm. has e\in\r\k., following only A* D, min. Goth. Vere. — «6ro4s] Tisch. has aWfo, follow ing BLsti. Rightly ; avroig arose from a misunderstanding, because an accusative of the object appeared necessary. — Ver. 19. itolag] Elz. has hot, iroiag, in opposition to decisive evi dence. An interpretation. — Ver. 21. With Lachm. and Tisch. read apaprlag atptTmi, according to B D L 3, Cyr. Ambr. The Becepta is from Mark ii. 7. But in ver. 24 the form apthai (Tisch.) is too weakly attested [Tisch. 8 has aphai], — Ver. 22. The omission of AmxpiS. (Lachm.) is too feebly accredited. — Ver. 24. irapaXiXufiivy] Lachm. has irapaXvrixp, following important authorities, but it is taken from the parallels. — Ver. 25. Instead of Ip' o, Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have ip' <£. But the former has a preponderance of evidence in its favour, and $ more naturally occurred to the transcribers. — Ver. 28. faoXoiStieev] Lachm. and Tisch. have yxoXoihi, following CHAP V. 1-11. 35 B D L S 69. The Becepta is taken from the parallels. — • Ver. 29. Before Atuig (Tisch. has on very good authority Atutig) the article (Elz.) is on decisive evidence deleted. Ver. 30. airuv] is wanting in D F X K, min. vss, and is re garded with suspicion by Griesb, but it was omitted as beino- superfluous and apparently irrelevant. The arrangement 7i apivr)<; dvOpmiros (Euthymius 1 Augustine has interpreted this tearing of the nets allegorically of the heresies, and the Saxon Anonymus (p. 212 f.) of Judaism and the law; both interpretations being equally arbitrary. There is much allegorical interpreta tion of the whole -narrative in the Fathers (the ship, the church ; the net, the doctrine; the sea, the heathen world, etc.). 38 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Zigabenus). See the later exaggeration of the sinfulness of the apostles before their call, in Barnabas 5. — Ver. 9. dypa] in this place is not the draught, as at ver. 4, but that which was caught (to Orjpdo/jievov, Pol. v. 1), as Xen. Be Venat. xii. 3, xiii. 13, and frequently. — Ver. 10. This mention of James and John at the end is one of the traces that the narrative grew out of the older history of the call. But certainly Andrew was not found in the source from which Luke drew. — dvOpmirovs] instead of fishes. — %mypmv] vivos capiens — in characteristic keeping with this ethical draught (winning for the Messiah's kingdom), as well as with the figure taken from fishermen (Aristaen. Ep. ii. 23). Vv. 12-14. See on Matt. viii. 1-4; Mark i. 40-44. According to Matthew, immediately after the Sermon on the Mount; in Luke (comp. Mark), without any definite state ment of place or time, as a fragment of the evangelic tradition. — iyeveTo . . . Kal] as ii. 15 ; Matt. ix. 10. Kal is not nempe (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 341), but, in accordance with Hebraic simplicity, the and, which, after the preparatory and yet indefinite iyeveTo, leads the narrative farther on. The narrator, by means of iyivero together with a note of time, first calls attention to the introduction of a fact, and then, in violation of ordinary syntax, he brings in afterwards what occurred by the word Kal. — iv uia t. ttoX.] according to Mark : in a house. — irX^prji;] a high degree of the sickness. — Ver. 14. Kal avTo?] and He, on His part. — aTreXdmv k.t.X.] a transition to the oratio directa. See on Mark vi. 8. Vv. 15, 16. Comp. Mark i. 45. — BirfpxeTo] The report ran throughout, was spread abroad. So absolutely, Thuc. vi. 46 : iireiBr/ BirjXBev 6 Xoyos, Sti k.t.X.; Soph. Aj. 978 ; Xen. Andb. i. 4. 7 ; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 348 B. — /acIXX.] in a still higher degree than before; only all the more. Comp. xviii. 39. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. p. 30 A ; Nagelsbach on the Iliad, ed. 3, p. 227. — avTos] He, however, He on his part, in con trast with the multitudes who were longing for Him. — rjv viroxcoprnv iv toii ipvpi,] i.e. He was engaged in withdrawing Himself into the desert regions (that were there), and in praying, so that He was therefore for the present inaccessible. — Kal CHAP. V. 17-26. 39 Trpoaevxouevos] This detail is given on several occasions by Luke alone. See iii. 21, vi. 12 f, ix. 18, 29, and elsewhere. Vv. 17-26. See on Matt. ix. 1-8; Mark ii. 1-12. Between this and the foregoing history Matthew has a series of other transactions, the sequence of which he accurately indicates. Luke vaguely says : iv uia Tmv r/uepmv, which, however, specifies approximately the time by means of the connection (" on one of those days." namely, on the journey entered upon -at iv. 43 f.). Comp. viii. 22. — koI cw'to?] and He, as ver. 1, but here in opposition to the Pharisees, etc, who were surrounding Him. — e« 7racny? Kmp,Tji k.t.X.] popularly hyperbolical. As to voptoBiBda-K., see on Matt. xxii. 35. — Bvvaui'; Kvpiov k.t.X.] and the power of the Lord (of God) was there (praesto erat, as at Mark viii. 1) in aid of His healing. So according to the reading ovtov (see the critical remarks). According to the reading ovtovs, this would have to be taken as a vague designation of the sufferers who were present, referring back to ver. 15 ; aiTov is the subject, chJtou? would be the object. Others, as Olshausen and Ewald, have incorrectly referred Kvpiov to Jesus, whose healing power was stirred up (vi. 19). Wherever Luke in his Gospel calls Christ the Lord, and that, as would here be the case, in narrative, he always writes 6 Kvpto? with the article. See vii. 13 (31), x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61. — In the following narrative the precedence of Mark is indeed to be recognised, but the tracing out of the features of dependence must not be carried too far (in opposition to Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 703 f.). — Ver. 19. elo-eveyK.] into the house, where Jesus and His hearers (ver. 17) were. Comp. afterwards to Bcbfia. — 7reu'a?] qualitative : in what kind of a way. On the 6Bov, which must be supplied in analysing the passage, see Bos, Ellips., ed. Schaefer, p. 333; on the genitive of place (comp. xix. 4), see Bernhardy, p. 138 ; Kriiger on Thucyd. iv. 47. 2. Accordingly, although no instance of 7ro/a? and iKelvr]'} used absolutely occurs elsewhere, yet the conjecture Troi'a and iKeivrj (Bornemann) is not authorized. — Bid Tmv Kepdfimv] through the tiles, with which the flat roof was 40 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. covered, and which they removed from the place in question. Mark ii. 4 describes the proceeding more vividly. See the details, sub loco, and Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 21 f. — Ver. 21. fip^avTo] a bringing into prominence of the point of com mencement of these presumptuous thoughts. A vivid descrip tion. — BiaXoyt%eo-0ai . . . Xeyovres] See on Matt. xvi. 7. They expressed their thoughts to one another; hence ver. 22 is not inappropriate (in opposition to Weiss). — Ver. 24. et7re Tm trapaXeX.] is not to be put in parenthesis, but see on Matt. ix. 6. — aoi] placed first for the sake of emphasis. — Ver. 25. dpa<; id> b KaTeKeno] he took up that on which (till now) he lay, an expression purposely chosen to bring out the changed relation. With reference to i(f>' S, on which he was stretched out, comp. the frequent eivai eirl x^ova, and the like. See in general, Kiihner, § 622 b. — Ver. 26. The narrative is summary, but without precision, since the impression said to be produced by the miraculous incident (tb irapd B6%av ytyvbweva, Polyb. ix. 16. 2. Comp. Wisd. xvi. 17, xix. 5; 2 Mace. ix. 24; Xen. Cyr. vii. 2, 16) applies indeed to the people present (Matt. ix. 8), but not to the Pharisees and scribes. Vv. 27-39. See on Matt. ix. 9-17; Mark ii. 13-22. — i^tjXde] out of the house, ver. 19. — eSedaaTo] He looked at him observingly. — Ver. 28. The order of events is: after lie had forsaken all, he rose up and followed Him. The imperfect (see the critical remarks) is used for the sake of vividness. diravTa, as in ver. 11, refers to the whole previous occupation and posi tion in life. Bengel well adds : " quo ipso tamen non desiit domus esse sua," ver. 29. — Ver. 29. koI fjv] et aderat, as in ver. 17. — Ver. 30. avT&v] of the dwellers in the town. — 7T/30?] an antagonistic direction. — Ver. 33. olBe eltrov] As to this variation from Matthew and Mark, see on Matt. ix. 17, Remark. On the association of fasting and making prayers, comp. ii. 37, and on iroielo-Qai Berjaeif, 1 Tim. ii. 1. — iad. k. it'ivovo-iv] the same thing as oi vrjo-Tevovcri in the parallels, but more strongly expressed. In accordance with the deletion of StaT^ (see the critical remarks), there remains no question, but an affirmative reflection. Ver. 34. p,rj Bvvaade k.t.X.] CHAP. V. 27-39. 41 ye cannot, etc, brings out the inappropriateness of that reflec tion in a more concrete form than in Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 35. Kal] might be taken explicatively (and ¦ indeed) (Bornemann, Bleek). But it is more in keeping with the profound emotion of the discourse to take eXevaovTai k.t.X. by itself as a thought broken off, and Kai in the sense of: and: But days shall come (and not tarry) . . . and when shall be taken away, etc. — iv eKelv. Tat? rjp^ep.] a painful solemnity of expression, whereby the emphasis is laid upon e«etWt?. Comp. on Mark ii. 20. — Ver. 36. iTiBX^fia l/xaT. Kaivov] i.e. a patch cut off from a new garment. By the use of luaTiov the incongruity of the proceeding comes still more strongly into prominence than by paKovs, which is used in Matthew and Mark. An unintentional modification of the tradition — not an alteration proceeding from the Paulinism of the writer, and directed against the syncretism of the Jewish Christians, as Kostlin, p. 174, ingeniously maintains. Even Lange explains the expression by supposing that there floated already before the mind of the Pauline Luke a clearer vision of the Christian community as distinct from Judaism (L. J. III. p. 395).- — -Kal to Katvbv tr%lo-ei Kal k.t.X.] comprises the twofold mischief which will ensue (future, see the critical remarks) if one does not obey that principle taken from experience; He will not only cut the new (garment) in twain (in taking off the piece), but, moreover, the (piece) of the new (garment) will not be in keeping with the old (garment). Comp. Kypke, Paulus, de Wette, Bleek, Schegg, even as early as Erasmus. On cr^to-et, comp. John xix. 24 ; Isa. xxxvii. 1. But usually to Kaivov is explained as the subject, and either ax^ei is taken intransi tively (" scindet se a veteri," Bengel), or to iraXaibv lp,d.Tiov is regarded as its object : the new piece will rend asunder the old garment (comp. Kuinoel). Incorrectly; since this supplying of the object is not required by the context, but is obtruded for the sake of the harmony with Matt. ix. 16, Mark ii. 21, and to a7ro toO Kaivov (it is not to Kaivov) clearly shows that even to to Kaivov we are to understand only IptdTiov, not iirlBXTjua ; and, moreover, to ct7ro tov Kaivov would be altogether superfluous and clumsy. — Ver. 39, Peculiar, to 42 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Luke ; but it is as little to be explained as resulting from later reflection on the difficulty of the mission to the Jews (Weizsacker), as is the emphasis laid upon the incompatibility of the two, ver. 36. As Jesus in vv. 36-38 made it manifest how unsuitable and injurious it would be to bind up the essence and the life of the new theocracy with the forms and institutions of the old, so now at ver. 3 9 he once more, by means of a parabolic expression, makes it intelligible how natural it is that the disciples of John and of the Pharisees should not be able to consent to the giving up of the old forms and institutions which had become dear to them, and to the exchanging of them for the NEW life in accordance with ITS fundamental principles. He says that this should be as httle expected as that any one when he has drunk old wine should long for new, since he finds that the old is better. So in substance Theophylaet, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Paulus, Olshausen, Lange, and others ; 1 and rightly, since even in ver. 3 7 f. the contrast of the old and new wine typified the contrasted old and new theocratic life. Hence we are neither, with Wetstein, to suppose the meaning reversed : " Pharisaeorum austeritas comparatur vino novo, Christi lenitas vino veteri ; " nor, with Grotius (comp. Estius and Clericus), to interpret : " Homines non subito ad austeriorem vitam pertrahendos, sed per gradus quosdam assuefaciendos esse " (Jesus, in truth, had no wish to accustom them to an " austeriorem vitam ! ") ; nor, with Schegg, to substitute the meaning : " that not till the old wine is expended (in reference to ver. 35) is the new drunk (which refers to fasts, etc, as a remedy for their being deprived of the presence of Christ)." But by the objection that the old wine is actually better (Eccius. ix. 10, and see Wolf and Wetstein) the parable is unduly pressed (in opposition to 1 Baur, Markusevang. p. 202 (comp. Zeller, Apost. p. 15 ; Hilgenfeld, Krit. (Inters, p. 403, and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 200 f.), regards ver. 39, which is wanting in D and codd. of It, as an anti-heretical addition. But the omission is explained simply from the apparent incongruity of the sense, and from the lack of any expression of the kind in the parallel passages, although Laehmann also (Praef. p. xxxvi.), but from purely critical hesitation, was doubtful about the genuineness of the verse. CHAP. V. 27-39. 43 de Wette and others), since in vv. 37-39 the point of com parison is not the quahty of the wine in itself, but the relation of the old and the new. Outside the point of com parison, every parable is apt to be at fault. Moreover ^/3?yo-To? denotes the agreeable delicious taste. Comp. Plut. Mor. p. 240 D, 1073 A. The new has, as it were, no taste if the old has been found agreeable. But irony is as little to be found in ver. 39 as in ver. 37 f, and the gentle exculpatory character of the discourse, ver. 39 (which must in no wise be taken to mean full approval, in opposition to Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 215), is perfectly explained from the fact that, according to Matt. ix. 14, it is to be supposed that this conversation about fasting did not originally take place with the Pharisees, but with the disciples of John. See on Matthew. Comp. also Volkmar, Evang. Marcions, p. 2 1 9 ff. If in the two parables it were desired to abide by the general thought of unsuitableness (as it would be unsuit able to pour new wine into old skins, and after old wine immediately to drink new; so also it would be unsuitable if my disciples desired to bind themselves to the old institutions), the figure of ver. 39 would be very much out of harmony with the appropriate figure in ver. 38, and the unsuitable matter would at ver. 39 be represented in direct contradiction to fact (in opposition to de Wette) ; apart from this, moreover, that OeXei (not irivei) applies the saying subjectively. According to Kuinoel and Bleek, Jesus spoke the words in ver. 39 at another time. But it is in keeping with the connection, and is certainly taken from the Logia. 44 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTER VI. Ver. 1. IfoTipoirpisrw] is wanting in B L X and seven min. Syr. Ar^. Perss. Copt. Aeth. codd. of It. Condemned by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. and Tisch. syn°Ps- See the exegetical re marks. — Ver. 2. airoTg] bracketed by Lachm, is, with Tisch, to be struck out, as it is wanting in B C* L X X, min. Copt. Vere. Colb, while D, Cant, read avra- 'ibi. An addition in accordance with the parallels. Of ironn h, the h alone is to be deleted, with Tisch, on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm, the noun also. — Ver. 3. bitort] Lachm. has on, in accordance, indeed, with B C D L X A s, min. ; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, the omission of ovng (Lachm.) is to be explained, as well as in ver. 4 the reading irug (Lachm, following LEX x**, min.). — Ver. 4. The omission of iig (B D, Cant. Mareion) is to be regarded as a transcriber's error (occasioned by the subsequent Eis). If nothing had originally been found there, only rZig, not oig would have been added. — iXa/3t xal] Lachm. has Xafiw, following B C* L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. The Becepta is to be maintained. The words were left out, — an omission occa sioned the more easily by the similar 'itpayt xal which follows, as the parallels have not 'iXafti xal. The omission occurs, more over, in D K K, min. vss. Ir. Then Xafi&v was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical form. — xal rotg] B L 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vuig. It. Theophyl. Ir. Ambr. have merely rotg. In view of these important authorities xal must be traced to Mark ii. 26 (where the evidence against it is weaker), and should be deleted. — Ver. 6. hi xai] Lachm. has bt, in accordance with B L X K, min. vss. Cyr. But why should xai have been added ? Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of iripoi gave rise to its omission. — Ver. 7. With Lachm. and Tisch. read iraptrripouwo (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with preponderating evidence. See on Mark iii. 2. — After bi Elz. has airov on weighty evidence, indeed, but it is an addition. Comp. xiv. 1 ; Mark iii. 2. — kpavtieii] Lachm. and Tisch. have hpawiiu; the future is taken from Mark. — xarnyoplav] B S X N, min. and vss. have xarnyopih. So Tisch. D also vouches for the infini- CHAP; VL 45 tive by reading xarriyoprjaui, the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the substantive. — Ver. 8. dtttpuiiru] BLs, min. Cyr. have dvdpl. Approved by Griesb, adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; ra dvbpl was omitted by reason of the follow ing ra (so still D, Cant.), and then ra dvUpuvu was inserted, in accordance with ver. 6 and Mark iii. 3, instead of ra dibpl. ¦ — 6 bi] Lachm. and Tisch. have xal, following B D L X d, 1, 33, Vuig. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more readily to the transcribers. Comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 9. oiv] Lachm. and Tisch. have bi, following B D L K, min. Vuig. It. Goth. Not to be decided ; oh, it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between olv and bi ; yet it is established in iii. 7, xix. 12, xxii. 36. — eiiiptarv\eoi] Tisch. has evepuru, following B L X, 157, Copt. Vuig. Brix. For. Ed. The Becepta has resulted from a reminiscence of xx. 3 ; Mark xi. 29. The present is extremely appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action. — ti or ri] Lachm. and Tisch. have tl, following BDLS 157, Copt. Vuig. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these important autho rities, and because ei fits in with the reading eiripwru, which, according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), tl is to be preferred. — diroX'ecai] also retained by Lachm. and Tisch, following B D 1 X K, vss. even Vuig. It. Griesb. and Scholz have diroxTiTvai, which is introduced from Mark iii. 4, whence also comes ro7g ed$$aiXmir., before Mark, before 'Uxufr, and before 'lobb. 'lax., is to be inserted xai, on external evidence (Tisch). — Ver. 16. h xai] Lachm. and Tisch. 46 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. have only 5g, following Bis, min. vss. even Vuig. It. Mareion. Eightly; xai is from the parallels. — Ver. 18. o^Xoi/t.] Tisch. has Jvo%x, following very important mss. The compound form was overlooked. — Instead of air 6 Elz. has bird, in opposition to decisive evidence. An alteration arising from misunderstand ing, because dul «. dxaS. was beheved to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Acts v. 16), which error, moreover, gave rise to the xai before Ihpair. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted this xal, in accordance with preponderating evidence. — Ver. 23. Instead of %dpnrt Elz. has ^aiptn, in opposition to decisive evidence. — ravra or raird] Lachm. and Tisch. have rd abrd, following B D Q X H, min. Mareion. The Becepta is a transcriber's error. The same reading is to be adopted in ver. 26 on nearly the same evidence ; so also in xvii. 30. — Ver. 25. b,u,?v before oi ytX. (suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with B K L S X 3 K, min. Or. Ir, with Tisch, to be struck out. An addition to conform with what precedes. Elz. has v/A/ii also before Srav, ver. 26, in opposition to decisive evi dence. But viv is, with Tisch, following very important evidence, to be inserted after l^iirX. — Ver. 26. oi avfy.] Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have wdvng ol avSp. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of irdvng, and it is to be maintained in opposition to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inap propriate relation to o! nariptg aiiruv. — Ver. 28. u/mTv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have bpag. There are weighty authorities on both sides, although the evidence is stronger for tytSs ; but tyift is the more unusual, and is attested even so early as by Justin (?) and Origen ; bfi&g is from Matt. v. 44. — Before irpo- ctbx- Elz. has xai, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 34. The reading bani^in, although approved by Griesb, is a tran scriber's error. Comp. on Eom. xiv. 8. Lachm. has baniecr^aTo?, penultimus, Helio- dorus in Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might — since from eo-xaTO'i the reckoning must be backwards, while from 7t/3wto? it must be forwards, in order to get a BeiJTepos — be the second first, i.e. the second of two firsts. All accurate grammatical information is wanting. As, however, if any definite Sab baths at all had borne the name of cdBBaTov BevTepoirpmTov (and this must be assumed, as Luke took for granted that the expression was a familiar one), this name would doubtless occur elsewhere (in the Old Testament, in the LXX, in Philo, Josephus, in the Talmud, etc.) ; but this is not the case, as the whole Greek literature has not even one instance of the pecu har word in itself to show ; 1 as among the Synoptics it was 1 In Eustathius in Vita Eutycli. n. 95, the Sunday after Easter is called hunpnirpuTn xvpmxri ; but this epithet manifestly originated from the passage before us. 48 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. precisely Luke that could least of all impute to his reader a knowledge of the name ; and as, finally, very ancient and im portant authorities have not got BevTepoirpcoTm at all in the passage before us (see the critical remarks), just as even so early an authority as Syrp. remarks in the margin : " non est in omni exemplari," — I regard BevTepoirprnTm as not being genuine, although, moreover, the suspicion suggests itself that it was omitted " ignoratione rei " (Bengel, Appar. Crit), and because the parallel places have nothing similar to it. In considera tion of eV eTepm aaBB-, ver. 6, probably the note irpcoTm was written at the side, but a comparison with iv. 31 occasioned the corrective note BevTepm to be added, which found its way into the text, partly without (so still Arro. and Arer.), partly with irpmTm (thus BevTepm TrpdoTm, so still E T, min.), so that in the next place, seeing that the two words in juxtaposition were meaningless, the one word BevTepoirprnTm was coined. Wilke also and Hofmann, according to Lichtenstein ; and Lichtenstein himself, as well as Bleek' and Holtzmann (comp. Schulz on Griesbach), reject the word ; Hilgenfeld regards it as not being altogether certain.1 Of the several attempts at explanation, I note historically only the following : (1) Chrysostom, Horn. 40 in Matth. : Srav BnrXrj r] dpyla y Kal tov craBBaTOv tov Kvpiov Kal ere/aa? eopTrii BiaBexop-evrj<;, so that thus is understood a feast-day immediately following the Sabbath. Comp. Epipha nius, Haer. 30, 31. So also Beza, Paulus, and Olshausen. (2) Theophylaet understands a Sabbath, the day before which (irapao-Kevrj) had been a feast-day? (3) Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. ih. 1 1 0 (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Surenhusius, Wolf), thinks that the irpmrr] Tmv dtypuov is meant, and was called BevTepoTrpcoTT) : iireiBrj BevTepov /lev fjv tov 7rao"Ya, irpmTov 1 Tischendorf had deleted it in his edition of 1849, but in ed. 7 (1859) [also in ed. 8 (1869)] had restored and defended it ; now [1867] (in the Synops. ed. 2) he has, with Laehmann, bracketed it. 2 Comp. Luther's obscure gloss: "the second day after the high Sabbath.'' Schegg explains the expression even as a Oliristian designation, namely, of the Saturday after Good Friday. In opposition to Serno (Tag des letzt. Passah- mahls, 1859, p. 48 ff. ), who, according to his mistaken supposition of the douhling of the first and last feast-days, brings out the sixteenth Nisan, see Wieseler in Keuter's Repert. 1860, p. 138. CHAP. VI. 1-5. 49 ol Tmv d^ufimv iairepas ydp dvovTes to rrdaxa ttj ef?}? ttjv Tmv a^vpimv iiravTjyvpi^ov eoprrjv, f)v Kal BevTepoirpmTOv iKaXovv, — that every festival was called a Sabbath. Comp. Saalschiitz : " the second day of the first feast (Passover)." (4) Most pre valent has become the view of Scaliger (Emend, tempor. VI. p. 557) and Petavius, that it is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover} Comp. aheady Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 31. From the second Easter day (on which the first ripe ears of corn were offered on the altar, Lev. xxiii. 10 ff. ; Lightfoot, p. 340) were numbered seven Sabbaths down to Pentecost, Lev. xxiii. 15. Comp. also Winer, Bealworterb. II. p. 348 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 72, and Gesch. Chr. p. 304. (5) According to the same reckoning, distinguishing the three first Sabbaths of the season between Easter and Pentecost from the rest, Bed- slob in the Intell. BI. der allgem. Lit. Zeit., Dec. 1847, p. 570 f, says that it was the second Sabbath after the second Easter day, BeuTepoTrpmTo*; being equivalent to BevTepos Tmv irpmTmv, there fore about fourteen days after Easter. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. XI. p. 254: that it was the second of the two first Sabbaths of the Passover month. (6) Von Til and Wetstein : that it was the first Sabbath of the second month (Igar). So also Storr and others. (7) Credner, Beitr. I. p. 357, concludes that according to the Krjpvyfia tov Tlefpov (in Clem. Strom, vi. 5, p. 760, Pott) the Sabbath at the full moon was called wpmTov (a mistaken explanation of the words, see Wieseler, p. 232 f.), and hence that a Sabbath at the new moon was to be under stood. (8) Hitzig, Ostern und Pfingst. p. 19 ff. (agreeing with Theophylaet as to the idea conveyed by the word), conceives that it was the fifteenth Nisan, which, according to Lev. xxiii. 11, had been called a Sabbath, and was named BevTepovp., 1 The explanation of Scaliger is followed by Casaubon, Drusius, Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, and many more ; and is defended, especially against Paulus, by Luhkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 671 S. Opposed to Scaliger are Wieseler, Synopse, p. 230 ; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 394 f. ; and aptly Grotius in loc. Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 813, tries to improve the ex planation of Scaliger by assuming that preceding the cycle between Easter and Pentecost there is a shorter cycle from 1 Nisan to Easter ; that the first Sabbath of this first cycle is therefore the first-first, while the first Sabbath of that second cycle (from Easter to Pentecost) is the second-first. LUKE II. D 50 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. because (but see, on the other hand, Wieseler, p. 353 ff.) the fourteenth Nisan always fell on a Saturday. (9) Wieseler, I.e. p. 231 ff,1 thinks that it was the second-first Sabbath of the year in a cycle of seven years, i.e. the first Sabbath of the second year in a week of years. Already L. Capellus, Ehenferd, and Lampe (ad Joh. II. p. 5) understood it to be the first month in the year (Nisan), but explained the name from the fact that the year had two first Sabbaths, namely, in Tisri, when the civil year began, and in Nisan, when the ecclesiastical year began. (10) Ebrard, p. 414 f, following Krafft (Chron. und Harm. d. vier Evang. p. 18 f.), regards it as the weekly Sabbath that occurs between the first and last Easter days (feast- Sabbaths). For yet other interpretations (Grotius and Valckenaer : that the Sabbath before Easter was called the first great one irpm- TOTrpcoTov, the Sabbath before Pentecost the second great one BevTepbirpmTov, the Sabbath before the feast of Tabernacles TpiToirpwTov 2), see in Calovius, Bibl. III., and Lubkert, I.e. — tov? crTa^na?] the ears of corn that offered themselves on the way. — fjadiov tymxovTes k.t.X.] they ate (the contents), rubbing them out. The two things happened at the same time, so that they continually conveyed to their mouths the grains set free by this rubbing. — Ver.' 3. ovBe toOto] have you never so much as read this ? etc. — o7roTe] quandoquidem, since, Plato, Legg. x. p. 895 B ; Euthyd. p. 297 D ; Xen. Anab. hi. 2. 2 ; not elsewhere in the New Testament. Comp. Hermann, ad Soph. 0. C 1 6 9 6. — Ver. 4. ef ecrTt] with an accusative and infinitive, occurring only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers, Plat. Polit. p. 290 D; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, iii. 12. 8, and else- 1 Tischendorf, Synopse, ed. 2, now opposes the explanation of Wieseler, with which in ed. 1 he agreed. 2 V. Gumpach also (ub. d. altjud. Kalend., Briissel 1848) understands a Sabbath of the, second rank. Very peculiarly Weizsacker, p. 59, says: "that Luke iv. 16, 31 recounts two Sabbath narratives, and now vi. 1, 6 recounts other two," and that the Sabbath in the passage before us is therefore the first of this second series of narratives, consequently the second-first. But what reader would have been able to discover this reference, especially as between iv. 31 and vi. 1 so many other narratives intervened ? Weizsacker, moreover, pertinently observes, in opposition to every hypothesis of an explanation in accordance witli the calculation of the divine services, that our Gospel stands much too remote from things of this kind. CHAP. VI. 6-49. 51 where ; also after a preceding dative (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 5 7, ed. 2). — Ver. 5. eXeyev avT.] as Mark, but without the auxihary thought found in Mark which introduces the conclusion. Eemakk. — In D, which does not read ver. 5 till after ver. 10, the following passage occurs after ver. 4 : rjj abrf rip'epa kaed- fitvbg riva ipyaZjifhevov ra o?] as Matt. v. 1. — -rrpoo-evfjao-Qai k.t.X.] comp. on v. 16. — iv -rfj irpoo-- ex>xv T0V &eov] in prayer to God. Genitive of the object (see Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 231 f.]). — tov? ua67)Td<; uvtov] in the wider sense. Comp. ver. 1 7. — Kal eVXe^a/t. k.t.X.] The connection is : " And aftef He had chosen for Himself from them twelve . . . and (ver. 1 7) had come down with them, He took up His position on a plain, and (scil. eo-Ti), there stood there) a crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people . . . who had come to hear Him and to be healed ; and they that were tormented were healed of unclean spirits : and all the people sought," etc. The discovery of Schleiermacher, that iKXegdp,. denotes not the actual choice, but only a bring ing them together, was a mistaken idea which the word itself ought to have guarded against. Comp. Acts i. 2. — oft? Kai air. mvbp,.] An action concurring towards the choice, and therefore, according to Luke, contemporaneous (in opposition esoteric (given to the disciples exclusively) and exoteric (in the ears of the people), is neither to be established exegetically, nor is it reconcilable with the creative power of discourse manifested by Jesus at other times, in accordance with which He was certainly capable, at least, of extracting from the origmal dis course what would be suitable for the people (in opposition to Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 566 ff.). And how much does the discourse in Matthew contain which there was no reason for Jesus keeping back from the people in Luke's supposed exoteric discourse ! Comp. also Matt. vii. 28, from which passage it is clear that Matthew neither regarded the discourse as esoteric, nor knew anything of two discourses. CHAP VI. 14-16. 53 to Schleiermacher). Comp. Mark iii. 14, which is the source of this certainly anticipatory statement. Vv. 14-16. Comp. on Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 16-19. — ?ijX6>tiji/] Comp. Acts i. 13. See on Matt. x. 4. — 'IovBav 'IaKmBov] Usually (including even Ebrard and Lange): Judas the brother of James, and therefore the son of Alphaeus ; but without any foundation in exegesis. At least Jude 1 might be appealed to, where both Jude and James are natural brothers of the Lord. In opposition to supplying dSeX^o?, however, we have to point out in general, that to justify the supplying of the word a special reference must have preceded (as Alciphr. Ep. ii. 2), otherwise we must abide by the, usual i/to?, as at ver. 1 5 ; further, that Matt. x. 2 mentions the pairs of brothers among the apostles most precisely as such, but not among them James and Lebbaeus (who is to be regarded as identical with our Judas ; see on Matt. x. 21). Hence (so also Ewald), here and at Acts i. 13, we must read Judas son of James, of which James nothing further is known.2 — ¦jrpoBoTV'i] Traitor (2 Mace. v. 15, x. 13, 22 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4) ; only here in the New Testament is Judas thus designated. Matthew has irapaBovs, comp. Mark. Yet comp. Acts vii. 52. — Observe, moreover, that Luke here enumerates the four first-named apostles in pairs, as does Matthew ; whereas in Acts i. 13 he places first the three most confidential ones, as does Mark. We see from this simply that in Acts i. 13 he followed a source containing the latter order, by which he held impartially and without any mechanical reconciliation with the order of the passage before us. The conclusion is much too hasty, which argues that Mark was not before him 1 Ewald takes a different view, that even during the lifetime of Jesus 'lovha-s 'lamijidii had taken the place of the Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus), who had probably been cut off by death. See his Gesch. Chr. p. 323. In this way, indeed, the narrative of Luke in the passage before us, where the choice of the Twelve is related, would be incorrect. That hypothesis would only be capable of recon ciliation with Acts i. 13. According to Schleiermacher also, L. J. p. 369, the persons of the apostolic band were not always the same, and the different catalogues belong to different periods. But when the evangelists wrote, the Twelve were too well known in Christendom, nay, too world-histqrical, to have allowed the enumeration of different individual members. 2 Comp. Nonnus, Paraphrase of John xiv. 22: 'I«i!S«j viis 'laxijien. 54 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. till Acts i. 13, and that when he wrote the Gospel he had not yet become acquainted with Mark's work (Weizsacker). Ver. 1 7. 'Eirl tottov ireBivov] according to the connection of Luke (ver. 12, et? to opo^; ver. 17, K«Ta/3a?), cannot be otherwise understood than : on a plain ; not : over a plain (Michaelis and Paulus) ; nor : on a small overhanging place of the declivity (Tholuck) ; comp. Lange, who calls the dis course in Matthew the /Swmwi^-sermon, and that in Luke the Terrace-sermon. The divergence from Matt. v. 1 must be admitted, and remains still, even if a plateau is supposed on which jutted .out a crest previously ascended by Jesus (Ebrard; comp. Grotius, Bengel, and others; a vacillating arbitrariness in Olshausen). Matthew's narrative is original ; Luke has a later tradition. As the crowd of hearers, according to this later tradition, came from greater distances, and were thus represented as more numerous, a plain was needed to accommodate them. According to Baur, Evang. p. 457, this divergence from Matthew is due also to the tendency of Luke to degrade the Sermon on the Mount, which would surely be a very petty sort of levelling. — Kal ox~Xo<; k.t.X.] scil. eo-Trj. See on ver. 13. A similar structure in the narrative, viii. 1—3. Vv. 18, 19. '-47ro -irvev/ji. aKaO.] belongs to iQepair. Comp. ver. 17, la8rjvai diro. The Kal before iOepair. is not genuine. See the critical remarks. After iOepair. only a colon is to be placed ; the description of the healings is continued. — Kal toro irdvT.] not to be separated from what precedes by a comma, but Bvvauis is the subject. See v. 17. — *I;VPX-] Comp. viii. 46 : " Significatur non adventitia fuisse efficacia, sed Christo intrinseca c'k t?)? f?et'a? cpvo-ems," Grotius. Vv. 20, 21. Kal outo?] And He, on His part, as contrasted with this multitude of people seeking His word and His healing power. Comp. v. 1, 16. — et? tovoplo~. ; or : when they shall have spread your name abroad as evil (defamed you) (Grotius, Bengel,. Bosenmuller, Schegg), which is un- grammatical, and not to be established by Deut. xxii. 19; or : when they declare it as evil (Bleek), which, nevertheless, would be very different from the classical eirr) iKBdXXeiv, to cast up words, verba proferre (Horn. II. vi. 324; Pind. Byth. ii. 148) ; and, withal, how feeble and inexpressive ! Ver. 23. 'Ev eKeivrj t. i?/te/>.] in whiph they shall have thus dealt with you. aKipTr\t, also with twos. Ver. 29. See on Matt. v. 39 f. — dirb tov k.tX.] KmXveiv dirb tivofr.] namely, in the Messiah's kingdom. See xx. 36, and on Matt. v. 9, 45. In general, the designation of believers as sons of God in the temporal life is Pauline (in John : Te/cva ©eov), but not often found in the synoptic Gospels. See Kaeuffer in the Sachs. Stud. 1843, p. 197 ff. — Sti avTOetBo/jievm]v. Comp. awereXeae, Matt. vii. 28. — aKod?] as Mark vii. 35. — The heahng of the leper, which Matthew introduces before the heahng of the servant, Luke has inserted already at v. 12 ff. — Ver. 3. ¦n-peaBvrepov<;] as usuaUy : elders of the people, who also on their part were sufficiently interested in respect of the circum stance mentioned at ver. 5. Hence not : chiefs of the synagogue; dpxiavvaymyow;, Acts xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17. — a£io? iaTiv, m] equivalent to agio? io-Tiv, iva avTm. See Kiihner, § 802. 4 ; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 198 [E. T. 229]. — iXdmv] Subse quently, in ver. 6, he changed his mind ; his confidence rose to a higher pitch, so that he is convinced that he needs not to suggest to Him the coming at all. — Ver. 4. irape^rj] The Becepta irape^ei, as the second person, is not found anywhere ; for ofei and BovXei (Winer, p. 70 [E. T. 89]) are forms sanctioned by usage, to which also is to be added otet ; but other verbs are found only in Aristophanes and the tragic writers (Matthaei, p. 462 ; Eeisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. p. xxii. f.). If irapegei were genuine, it would be the third person of the future active (min. : 7ra/>e£et?), and the words would contain the utterance of the petitioners among themselves. — Vv. 5,6. avTos] ipse, namely, of his own means.1 The Gentile buUder did not prejudice the sanctity of the buUding, because that came by means of the consecration. See Lightfoot, p. 775. — which, moreover, is actually read after avTr) by important authorities. It should be written in its simplest form, avrq (Vuig. and most of the codd. of It. have : haec). Beza : k. ai/Ty xvpa (ft ipsi quidem viduae). 68 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Vv. 13-15. The sympathy with the mother was in itself sufficiently well founded, even without the need of any special (perhaps direct) acquaintance with her circumstances. — p,rj KXale] " Consolatio ante opus ostendit operis certo futuri potestatem," Bengel. — The coffin (n aopo?) was an uncovered chest. See Wetstein in loc. ; Harmar, Beob. II. p. 141. — The mere touch without a word caused the bearers to stand still. A trait of the marvellous. — veavlaKe, aol X.] The preceding touch had influenced the bearers. — dveKaOiaev] He sat upright. Comp. Acts ix. 40 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 19 ; Plat. Phaed. p. 60 B : dvaKadi%6p,evopiXolev rmv iv Tm avveBplm. Among the ancients the kissing of the feet was a proof of deep veneration (Kypke, I. p, 242 ; DorviU, ad Charit. p. 203), which was manifested especiaUy to Eabbins (Othonius, Lex. p. 233 ; Wetstein in loc). — The tears of the woman were those of painful remembrance and of thankful emotion. Vv. 39, 40. To the Pharisee in his legal coldness and 1 Heller follows him in Herzog's Encyhl. IX. p. 104. 74 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. conceit, the essence, the moral character of the proceeding, remains entirely unknown ; he sees in the fact that Jesus acquiesces in this homage of the sinful woman the proof that He does not know her, and therefore is no prophet, because He allows Himself unawares to be defiled by her who is unclean. — ovto<;] placed first with an emphasis of deprecia tion. — iroTairr)] of what character, i. 29. — ^Tt? oVt. avTov] she who touches, comes in contact with Him. — Sti] that she, namely. — Ver. 40. Jesus saw into the thoughts of the Pharisee. The e%w k.t.X. is a " comis praefatio," Bengel. Observe that the Pharisee himself, in respect of such a scene, does not venture to throw any suspicion of immorality on Jesus. Vv. 41-43. By the one debtor 1 the woman is typified, by the other Simon, both with a view to what is to be said at ver. 47. The supposition that both of them had been healed by Jesus of a disease (Paulus, Kuinoel), does not, so far as Simon is concerned, find any sure ground (in opposition to Holtzmann) in the 6 Xeirp6<; of the later narrative of the anointing (in Matthew and Mark). The creditor is Christ, of whose debtors the one owes Him a ten times heavier debt (referring to the woman in her agony of repentance) than the other (the Pharisee regarded as the righteous mm he fancied himself to be). The difference in the degne of guilt is measured by the difference in the subjective consciousness of guUt; by this also is measured the much or httle of the forgiveness, wliich again has for its result the much or little of the grateful love shown to Christ, ver. 41 ff. — fir) ixovTmv] " Ergo non solvitur debitum subsequente amore et grato animo," Bengel. — On the interpolated etVe', which makes the question more pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Bern. adv. Bhil. I. p. 119. Vv. 44-46. Jesus places the affectionate services rendered by the woman in contrast with the cold respectable demeanour of the Pharisee, who had not observed towards Him at all the customs of courtesy (foot-washing, kissing) and of deference 1 Instead of xpwtp,, the late inferior form of writing, XP""P, is on decisive evidence to be adopted, along with Laehmann and Tischendorf (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 691). CHAP. VII. 47. 75 (anointing of the head). — aov et? t. otV] I came into thy house. The crov being placed first sharpens the rebuke. — That, moreover, even the foot-washing before meals was not absolutely a rule (it was observed especiaUy in the case of guests coming off a journey, Gen. xviii. 4 ; Judg. xix. 2 1 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 41 ; 2 Thess. v. 10) is plain from John xiii, and hence the neglect on the part of the heartless Pharisee is the more easily explained. — eBpe%e aov t. 7to6\] moistened my feet. Comp. on John xi. 32; Matt. viii. 3. — Observe the contrasts of the less and the greater : — (1) vBwp and toi? BaKpvcriv ; (2) (piXrjua, which is plainly understood as a kiss upon the mouth, and ov BieX. KaTa. p,. tov? 7rooa?; (3) eXatm ttjv KeaX. and p.vpm f[X. p.. tov? 7roSa? (pivpov is an aromatic anointing oil, and more precious than eXaiov, see Xen. Conv. ii. 3). — d(p' ^? elarfxOov] loosely hyperbolical in affectionate con sideration, — suggested by the mention of the kiss which was appropriate at the entering. Ver. 47. Ov x",Plv> by Beza, Grotius, Griesbach, Laeh mann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others, is separated from Xeym cot by a comma, and connected with dtf>emvTai. But the latter has its limitation by Sti k.t.X. It is to be interpreted : on account of which I say unto thee ; on behalf of this her manifestation of love (as a recognition and high estimation thereof) I declare to thee. — dfyemvTai k.tX.] her sins are forgiven, the many (that she has committed, w. 37, 39), since she has loved much. This Sti rjydirTjo-e iroXv expresses not the cause, and therefore not the antecedent of forgiveness. That the words do express the antecedent of forgiveness is the opinion of the Catholics, who maintain thereby their doctrine of contritio charitate formata and of the merit of works; and lately, too, of de Wette, who recognises love for Christ and faith in Him as one; of Olshausen, who after his own fashion endeavours to overcome the difficulty of the thought by regarding love as a receptive activity; of Paulus, who drags in what is not found in the text; of Baumgarten - Crusius, and of Bleek. Although dogmatic theology is not decisive against this opinion (see the pertinent observations of Melanchthon in the Apol. iii. 31 ff. p. 87 f.), 76 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. yet perhaps the context is, because this view directly con tradicts the •n-apaBoXt], vv. 41, 42, that lies at its foundation, as weU as the m Be oXlyov dtpleTai k.t.X. which immediately follows, if the love does not appear as the consequent of the forgiveness; the antecedent, i.e. the subjective cause of the forgiveness, is not the love, but the faith of the penitent, as is plain from ver. 50. Contextually it is right, therefore, to understand ort of the ground of recognition or acknowledg ment : Her sins are forgiven, etc, which is certain, since she has manifested love in an exalted degree. Bengel says perti nently: "Eemissio peccatorum, Simoni non cogitata, probatur a fructu, ver. 42, qui est evidens et in oculos incurrit, quum Ula sit occulta;" and Calovius : "probat Christus a pos teriori." Comp. Beza, Calvin, Wetstein, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 603 f. ; HUgenfeld also, Evang. p. 175. The objection against this view, taken by Olshausen and Bleek, that the aorist rjydinjo-e is inappropriate, is quite a mistake, and is nullified by passages such as John iii. 16. The demvTai expresses that the woman is in the condition of forgiveness (in statu gratiae), and that the criterion thereof is the much love manifested by her. It is thereafter in ver. 48 that Jesus makes, even to herself, the express declaration. — m Be oXlyov dieTai, oXiy. aya7ra] a general decision in precise opposition to the first half of the verse, with intentional apphcation to the moral condition of the Pharisee, which is of such a kind that only a little forgiveness falls to his share, the consequence being that he also manifests but little love (vv. 44-46). There was too much want of self-knowledge and of repentance in the self-righteous Simon for him to be a subject of much forgiveness. Ver. 48. The Bharisee is dismissed, and now Jesus satisfies the woman's need, and gives her the formal and direct assur ance of her pardoned condition. Subjectively she was already in this condition through her faith (ver. 50), and her love was the result thereof (ver. 47) ; but the objective assurance, the declared absolution on the part of the forgiver, now com pleted the moral deliverance (ver. 50) which her faith had wrought. CHAP. VII. 49, 50. 77 Ver. 49. "HpfjavTo] The beginning, the rising up of this thought, is noteworthy in Luke's estimation. — ti? ovto? iaTiv k.t.X.] a question of displeasure. — Kal : even. Ver. 50. Jesus enters not into explanation in answer to these thoughts, but closes the whole scene by dismissing the woman with a parting word, intended to confirm her faith by pointing out the ground of her spiritual deliverance. — rj 7rtb-Tt? a.] "fides, non amor ; fides ad nos spectat, amore con- vincuntur alii," Bengel. — et? elprjvnv] as viii. 48. See on Mark v. 34. Eemark. — From the correct interpretation of this section it is manifest of itself that this passage, pecuhar to Luke, contains nothing without an adequate motive (ver. 37) or obscure (ver. 47) ; but, on the contrary, the self-consistency of the whole incident, the attractive simplicity and truth with which it is set forth, and the profound clearness and pregnancy of meaning characteristic of the sayings of Jesus, aU bear the stamp of originality; and this is especially true also of the description of the woman who is thus silently eloquent by means of her behaviour. This is in opposition to de Wette (comp. also Weiss, II. p. 142 ff.). A distorted narrative (Schleiermacher), a narrative from "a somewhat confused tradition" (Holtz mann), or a narrative gathering together ill-fitting elements (Weizsacker), is not marked by such internal truth, sensibility, and tenderness. 78 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTEE VIII. Vee. 3. Instead of abra Scholz and Tisch. have abroTg, on pre ponderating evidence. The singular more readUy occurred to the transcribers, partly because rieav rehpamtM^. had gone before, partly by reminiscences of Matt, xxvii. 55 ; Mark xv. 41. — Instead of dira we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch, on deci sive evidence, ix. — Ver. 8. Elz. has iiti. But tig has decisive attestation. — Ver. 9. xiyovng] is wanting in B D L R H X, min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Arm. Vuig. It. Suspected by Griesb, rejected by Wassenb. and Schulz, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But the oratio obliqua was the cause rather of its omission than of its addition. — Ver. 16. iiriri&n] Lachm. has ^ocxo/^ivn, in accordance with B D K U~ X, min. Syr. Aeth. Vere. From the paraUels. — irapexdXom] Lachm. and Tisch. have irapixdXusav, in accordance with B C* L H, min. In Matthew the former, in Mark the latter reading. The evidence is not decisive, but probably the imperfect is from Matthew, as it is only in that Gospel that the reading is without varia tion. — Ver. 33. Instead of ilarjXfav, il6riX6ov is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch). — Ver. 34. ytyivrnj/imv] With Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch, who follow decisive evidence, read ytyovog. — direXiovreg] which Elz. has before aviiyy., is condemned on deci sive evidence. — Ver. 36. xai] is not found in B C D L P X X, CHAP. VIII. 79 min. Syr. Pers.P Copt. Arm. Slav. It. Condemned by Griesb, deleted by Lachm. But as it might be dispensed with, and, moreover, as it is not read in Mark v. 16, it came easily to disappear. — Ver. 37. ^ptirrimv] Lachm. has npdirneiv, in accord ance with A B C K M P X X, min. Vere. An emendation. — Ver. 41. aire's] Lachm. has olrog, in accordance with B D R,min. Copt. Brix. Vere. Goth. The Becepta is to be maintained ; the reference of abr&g was not perceived. — Ver. 42. h be ra birdyuv] Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. 8 has h bi ra birdyuv] read xal eyevero h ra mpebenSai, but only on the authority of C D* P, Vuig. also, It. Mareion. The Becepta is to be adhered to in consideration of the preponderance of evidence in its favour, and because the frequently used iroptbtciai would be more readily imported than birdyen. — Ver. 43. bir] Lachm. and Tisch. have air', in accord ance with A B R H 254. The Becepta is a correction, instead of which 69 has trap'. — Ver. 45. Instead of eiv abra Elz. Scholz have (lit abroi, in opposition to decisive evidence (in B, min. and a few vss. the words xal ol eiv aira are wanting altogether). — x. X'eyeig' rig 6 a-v)/. p.] is, with Tisch, following B L X, min. Copt. Sah. Arm, to be deleted. Taken from Mark, on the basis of ver. 45. — Ver. 48. bdpeei] An addition from Matthew; deleted by Lachm, Tisch. — Ver. 49. Instead of (ijj Lachm. Tisch. have p.7ixen, in accordance with B D X, Syr.P (marked with an asterisk), Cant. This prixin, in consequence of Mark v. 35 (ri 'in), was written in the margin by way of gloss, and was afterwards taken in, some times alongside of w (thus B: /tr, prixiri), sometimes instead ofit. — Ver. 51. Instead of ixiuv (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) Elz. has tlgiXQidv, in accordance with B D V, min. Copt. Aeth. This latter is to be restored ; the simple form is from Matt. ix. 23, Mark v. 38, and was the more welcome as distinguished from the following ileeXkTv ("et cum venisset domum, non permisit intrare," etc, Vuig.). — obbeva] Lachm. and Tisch. have r/v<& ebv abrSi, upon sufficient evidence, obbha is from Mark v. 37. — Ver. 52. oix] BCDFLXax, min. vss. have oi ydp. Commended by Griesb, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. 8 has oix]. From Matt. ix. 24, whence also in many authorities rh xopdawv is imported after dirik — Ver. 54. ix$aXuv e%a irdvr. xai] is wanting in B D L X X, min. Vuig. It. Syr.cur Ambr. Bede. Suspected by Griesb, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. If the words had been genuine, they would hardly, as recording a detail of the narrative made familiar by Matthew and Mark, have been omitted here. — iyelpov] with B C D X X 1, 33, 'eynpi is in this place also (comp. v. 23 f, vi. 8) to be written. So Lachm., and Tisch. [Tisch. 8 has iyeipov]. Comp. on Matt. ix. 5. 80 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Vv. 1-3. A general historical statement in regard to the continued official teaching in Galilee, and the ministry of women connected therewith. — iv t$ KaOel;.] Comp. -vii. 11. — Kai avTo?] Kai is that which carries forward the narrative after iyeveTo (see on v. 1 2), and avTo<; prepares the way for the mention of the followers of Jesus (koX ol BmBeKa k.t.X). — KaTa iroXiv] as ver. 4. — MayB.] see on Matt, xxvii. 56. She is neither the woman that anointed Jesus, vii. 37, nor the sister of Lazarus. — day ifc Baipbv. eirTd i^eXvX.] Comp. Mark xvi. 9. A simultaneous possession by seven devUs is to be conceived Of, so far similar to the condition of the possessed man at Gadara, vhi. 30. Comp, even at so early a period, TertuUian, Be Anim. 25. Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 292, ration alizes : J " a convert whom Jesus had rescued from the heavy curse of sin." Comp. also Hengstenberg on John, II. p. 206, according to whom she was " an emancipated woman " who found in Christ the tranquillizing of the tumult of her emotional nature. The express Tedepairevuevai, healed, should certainly have guarded against this view. — e7TtT/307rov] Matt. xx. 8. He had probably been a steward, and she was his widow. She is also named at xxiv. 10. — 'HpmBov] Probably Antipas, because without any distinguishing limitation. Neither Joanna nor Susanna is known in any other relation. — Bivkovow] with means of hving and other kinds of necessaries, Matt. xxvii. 55. Vv. 4-15. See on Matt. xiii. 1-23 ; Mark iv. 1-20. The sequence of events between the message of the Baptist and this parabohc discourse is in Matthew whoUy different. — avviovToi Be] whilst, however, a great crowd of people came together, also of those who, city by city, drew near to Him. rmv k.t.X. 1 That what is here meant is "the ethically culpable and therefore meta phorical possession of an erring soul that was completely under the power of the spirit of the world. " This explaining away of the literal possession (in which, moreover, Fathers such as Gregory and Bede have already preceded him) is not to be defended hy comparison of Matt. xii. 43 ff, Luke xx. 24 ff, where certainly the seven demons only serve the purpose of the parable. Besides, it is pure invention to find in the seven demons the representation of the spirit of the world in its whole power. At least, according to this the demon in Matt. xii. 45 would only have needed to take with him. six other demons. CHAP. VIII. 4-15. 81 depends on 6'^Xov iroXXov, and Kat, also, shows that this ox^-os 7roXv?, besides others (such, namely, as were dwelling there), consisted also of those who, city by city, i.e. by cities, etc. " Ex quavis urbe erat cohors aliqua," Bengel. — iirnro- peveaQai, not : to journey after (Eettig in the Stud. u. fCrit. 1838, p. 486), but to journey thither, to draw towards. Comp. Bar. vi. 62; Polyb. iv. 9. 2. Nowhere else in the New Testament ; in the Greek writers it is usually found with an accusative of place, in the sense of peragrare terram, and the like. — Bid irapaB.] by means of a parable. Luke has the parable itself as brief and as little of the pictorial as possible (see especially vv. 6, 8) ; the original representation of the Logia (which Weiss finds in Luke) has already faded away. — Ver. 5. The collocation 6 aTrelpmv tov crirelpai tov airbpov has somewhat of simple solemnity and earnestness. — p,kv] Kat follows in ver. 6. See on Mark ix. 12. — Kat «aT67raT.] not inappropriate, since the discourse is certainly of the foot path (in opposition to de Wette), but an incidental detail not intended for exposition (ver. 12). — Ver. 7. iv ueo-m] The result of the eireaev. See on Matt. x. 16'; and Kruger, ad Bion. Hal. Hist. p. 302. — a-vp,^>velo-ai] "una cum herba segetis," Erasmus. — Vv. 9 -11. Tt? . . . avTif] nam'ely, KaTa ttjv epp.7]vewuv, Euthymius Zigabenus. — Tot? Be Xot7rot? iv irapaB.] but to the rest the mysteries of the kingdom of God are given in parables, that they, etc. What foUows, viz. "va BXeirovTes p,rj BXeirmai k.t.X., is the contrast to yvmvai. — eoTi Be avTn ¦t) irapaBoXr)] but what follows is the parable (according to its meaning). — ol Be irapd ttjv 6B6v] to complete this expression understand a?rapevTe<;, which is to be borrowed from the fore going d otto/so?. But since, according to ver. 11, the seed is the Gospel, a quite fitting form into which to put the exposi tion would perhaps have been to Be irapd ttjv 6Bbv TovTmv iaTiv, oi k.t.X. Vv. 14, 15 come nearer to such a logicaUy exact mode of expression. — Ver. 13. Those, however, (sown) upon the rock are they who, when they shall have heard, receive the word with joy ; and these, indeed, have no root, who for a while believe, etc. — Ver. 14. But that which fell among tlie thorns, these are they who have heard, and, going away among LUKE II. F 82 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. cares, etc., they are choked. The ovTot (instead of tovto) is attracted from what foUows (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 42), as also at ver. 15. — v-rrb pepipwmv k.t.X.] a modal hmitation to wopevouevoi, so that viro marks the accompanying relations, in this case the impulse, under whieh their iropeveaOai, that is, their movement therefrom (that is, their further life-guidance), proceeds, Bornemann in loc. ; Bernhardy, p. 268 ; Ellendk, Lex. Soph. II. p. 881. The connecting of these words with avpurviy. (Theophylaet, Castaho, Beza, Eisner, Zeger, Bengel, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Schegg, and others) has against it the fact that without some qualifying phrase ¦n-opevbp.evot would not be a picturesque (de Wette), but an unmeaning addition, into which the interpreters were the first to introduce anything characteristic, as Beza, Eisner, Wolf, Valckenaer: digressi ab audito verbo, and Majus, Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others : sensim ac paulatim (following the supposed meaning of T^n, 2 Sam. iii. 1, and elsewhere). Comp. Ewald, '' more and more." — tov Blov] belongs to all the three particulars mentioned. Temporal cares (not merely with reference to the poor, but in general), temporal riches, and temporal pleasures are the conditioning circumstances to which their interest is enchained, and among which theh iropeveadai proceeds. — o-v/«7WYoi/Tai] the same which at ver. 7 was expressed actively : at dxavdai dveirvt^av avTo. Hence avpnrvvyovTat is passive ; not : they choke (what was heard), but : they are choked. That which holds good of the seed as a type of the teaching is asserted of the men in whose hearts the efficacy of the teaching amounts to nothing. This want of precision is the result of the fact that the hearers referred to were them selves marked out as the seed among the thorns. — k. ov TeXeaq^>.] consequence of the avprrvvy., they do not bring to maturity, there occurs in their case no bringing to maturity. Examples in Wetstein and Kypke. — Ver. 15. to Be iv r. k. yr}] sc. ireabv, ver. 14. — iv KapBia, k.t.X^] belongs to KaTe- ^ovcrt (keep fast, see on 1 Cor. xi. 2), and aKovaavTe<; tcv Xoy. is a qualifying clause inserted parenthetically. — KaXfj k. dyadfj] in the truly moral meaning (comp. Matt. vii. 1 7), not according to the Greek idea of evyiveia denoted by k«Xc? CHAP. VIII. 16-18. 83 Kayados (Welcker, Theogn. Proleg. p. xxiv. ff. ; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 137; StaUbaum, ad Plat. Bep. 8, p. 569 A). But the heart is morally beautiful and good just by means of the purifying efficacy of the word that is heard, John xv. 3. — ^iv inrop,ovfj] per sever ingly. Comp, Eom. ii. 7. A contrast is found in dcptaTavTat, ver. 13. Bengel well says : " est robur animi spe bona sustentatum," and that therein lies the " summa Christianismi." Vv. 16-18. See on Mark iv. 21-25; Matt. v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12. The connection in Luke is substantially the same as in Mark : But if by such explanations as I have now given upon your question (ver. 9) I kindle a light for you, you must also let the same shine further, etc. (see on Mark iv. 21), and thence follows your obligation (BXeireTe ovv, ver. 18) to listen aright to my teaching. On the repeated occurrence of this saying the. remark of Euthymius Zigabenus is sufficient : etKo? Se, Kara Btaopov<; Kaipoi><; Ta roiavTa tov Xpiarov eiireiv. — Ver. 17. Kat et? ^ai*. eXOy] a change in the idea. By the future yvmadtfaeTai that which is to come is simply asserted as coming to pass ; but by the subjunctive (eX6y) it is in such a way asserted that it leads one to expect it out of the present, and that without av, because it is not conceived of as dependent on a conditioning circumstance (Klotz, ad Bcvar. p. 1 5 8 f.) : There is nothing hidden which shall not be known and is not bound to come to publicity. Comp. on the latter clause, Plato, Gorgias, p. 480 C: et? to m ^ac*> occurs when the knowledge has not actually been made a man's own ; a man believes he has it, and the slight insight which he regards as its possession is again lost. It is not reproach against the apostles (Baur, Hilgenfeld), but warning that is conveyed in 84 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. the form of a general principle. In xix. 26 the expression with SoKet would have been inappropriate. But even here the mere o e^et, as in Mark iv. 25, would have been not only allowable, but even more significant. The BokbI k.t.X. already shows the influence of later reflection. Vv. 19-21. See on Matt. xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35. Luke has the section in accordance with Mark, but in a shortened form,1 without anything to indicate chronological sequence or connection of subject, and he gives it a different position. — Ver. 20. XeyovTmv] by its being said. See Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 736]; Bemhardy, p. 481 ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 53. — Ver. 21. ovtoi] my mother and my brethren are those who, etc. Vv. 22-25. See on Matt. viii. 18, 23-27 ; Mark iv. 35-41. In Luke there is no precise note of time, but the voyage is the same; abridged from Mark. — Ver. 23 f. dabvirvovv] which means to wake up (therefore equivalent to dvTrvi- %ea8ai), and also (as in this case) to fall asleep (consequently •equivalent to KaOvirvovv 2), belongs to the late and corrupt Greek. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 224. — KaTeBrf] from the high ground down to the lake. Comp. Polyb. xxx. 14. 6 : XaiXa- 7rd? tivoowto] What happened to the ship is said of the sailors. Examples in Kypke, I. p. 248. Observe the imperfects in relation to the preceding aorist. — Birjyeipav] they awoke him (Matt. i. 24) ; but sub sequently iyepdel<; : liaving arisen (Matt. ii. 14). — Ver. 25. i^oBrfd.] the disciples, as Mark iv. 41. — The first Kat is : even. Vv. 26-39. See on Matt. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20. Luke follows Mark freely. — kotc'ttX.] they arrived: See Wetstein. — Ver. 27.- c'k t?j? 7rdXe&>?] does not belong to vTrr]vTr)aev, but to dvrjp tis, alongside of which it stands. To connect the clause with vir^vTrjaev would not be contradictory 1 Therefore it is not to be said, with Baur, Evang. p. 467 f, that Luke pur posely omitted the words in Matthew : »at Ixnims t. %i7px auvo'ij \vi r. p.a.&*ra; x.r.x., in an interest adverse to,the Twelve. It is not the Twelve alone that are meant in Matthew. 2 It corresponds exactly to the German " entschlafen," except that this word is not used in the sense of becoming free from sleep, which xmiwrieOn miglU have according to the connection. CHAP. VIII. 26-39. 85 ' to ev otKta . . . pivripiaaiv, but would require the presupposi tion, not presented in the text, that the demoniac had just rushed out of the city. — Ver. 28. /mj pie Baaav.] as at Mark v. 7. — Ver. 29. iraprjyyeXXev] not in the sense of the pluperfect, but like eXeyev, Mark v. 8. — Nothing is to be put in a parenthesis. — 7roXXot? yap xpbvois k.t.X.] To account •for the command of Jesus the description of his frightful condition is given : for during a long time it had fared with him as follows. Comp. Eom. xvi. 2 5 ; Acts viii. 1 1 ; John ii. 20 ; Herodian, i. 6. 24 : ov iroXXm XPovm > Phit. Thes, vi. : XpbvoK 77-0XX01? vo-Tepov. See generally, Bernhardy, p. 81 ; Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. p. xl. In opposition to usage, Erasmus and Grotius render the words : often. So also Valckenaer. — o-vvrjpwdKei] may mean : it had hurried him along with it (Acts vi. 12, xix. 29, xxvii. 15, and very frequently in the classical writers), but also : it had (absolutely and entirely, aw) seized him (Ar. Lys. 437 ; 4 Mace. v. 3). It is usually taken in the latter sense. But the former is the more certain of the two according to the usage of Luke, corresponds better with its use elsewhere, and likewise agrees perfectly with the con nection. For eSeo-yttetTo k.t.X. then relates what was accus tomed to be done with the sufferer in order to prevent this tearing and dragging by the demon ; observe the imperfect, he was (accustomed to be) chained, etc. Ver. 31. avTot?] as Mark v. 1 0, from the standpoint of the consciousness of the several demons possessing the man. — dBvaaov] abyss, i.e. Hades (Eom. x. 7). The context teaches that in particular Gehenna is meant (comp. Apoc. ix. 1 f, xi. 7, xx. 3). The demons know and dread their place of punishment. Mark is different and more original ; in opposition to Baur, Markusevang. p. 42. — ; Ver. 33. direirviyn] of choking by drowning, Dem. 833, pen. ; Eaphel, Bolyb. p. 199 ; Wakefield, Silv. Grit. II. p. 75. Even Hug (Gutacht. II. p. 1 7 f.) attempts to justify the destruction of the swine in a way which can only remind us of the maxim, "qui excusat, accusat." — Ver. 35. i%rfX6ov] the people from the city and from the farms. — Trapd t. TrdSa?] as a scholar with his teacher. The whole of this description, indeed, and the subsequent prohibition, ver. 39, is intended, according to 86 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Baur, Evang. p. 430 f, to set forth the demoniac as a repre sentative of the converted heathen world. — Ver. 36. Kat ot to"(We?] the disciples and others who had seen it together. The Kat places these in contrast even with the people who came thither and found the cure accomplished, and to whom the eye-witnesses also of the proceeding narrated it. — Ver. 3 8. e'SeeTo] See on this Ionic form, which, however, was also frequent among Attic writers, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 220 ; Schaefer, ad Greg. Cor. p. 431 ; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 4. 8. The reading iBeho (B L) is a correction, and iBeelTo (A P, Laehmann) is a transcriber's mistake for this correction. Ver. 39. 7rdXtv] Gadara, ver. 27. Mark, certainly with greater accuracy, has eV t§ AeKairoXei. Vv. 40-56. See on Matt. ix. 1, 18-26; Mark v. 21-43. In Matthew the sequence is different. The narrative of Luke, indeed, is not dependent on that of Mark, but has it in view, without, however, on the whole attaining to its clearness and vividness. — direBe^aTo] is usually understood of a joyous reception (&>? evepyeTrjv Kal o-wTrjpa, Euthymius Zigabenus) ; but quite arbitrarily. Comp. Acts xv. 4. The narrative says simply : that on His return the crowd received Him (comp. ix. 11), because aU had been in expectation of His coming back ; so that thus immediately His ministry was again put in requisition. — Ver. 41. Kat ai/Tos] and He, after mention of the name comes the personal position. Comp. xix. 2. — diridvrjaKev] died (imperfect), i.e. was dying, not : " obierat, absente mortuamque ignorante patre" (Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 348). That the death had not yet taken place is indicated, Bernhardy, p. 373; Wyttenbach, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ff. — aweirviyov] a vivid picture : they stifled Him ; in point of fact the same as avveQXtBov, Mark v. 24. — Ver. 43. irpo- aavaXmaaaa] wlien she even in addition (over and above her suffering) Iwtd expended, Dem. 460. 2, 1025. 20; Plat. Prot. p. 311 D. — taT/oot?] on physicians. As to SXov t. Biov, comp. Mark xii. 44. — Ver. 45. d IIeTpo<; p.ev toeTo irepl dirXr}? iirwprjs Xiyeiv tov Xpiarov . . . avTo? Be ov 7reot ToiavTi?? eXeyev, dXXd irepl tj}? yevop.evrj<{ ix 7rt'o-Teto?, Euthy mius Zigabenus. — Ver. 49. ti? irapd tov dpx-] ie. one of CHAP. VIII. 40-56. 87 his dependants. Comp. on Mark iii. 21. — Te6vr)Kev] placed first for emphasis: she is dead. On the distinction from diredvr)o-Kev, ver. 42, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 64 A: dirodvqaKeiv re Kal TeBvdvai. — Ver. 51. elaeXdelv] into the chamber of death. — Ver. 5 2 relates to the bewailing crowd assembled in the house (not in the death-chamber), with whom occurred this conversation, ver. 52 f, while Jesus and those named at ver. 5 1 were passing into the chamber where the dead body lay. Among those who laughed, the three disciples are as little intended to be reckoned1 in Luke as in Mark, whom he follows. — iKoiTTovTo avT-rjv] a well-known custom, to express one's grief by beating on one's breast. As to the construction of KOTTTeaOai (also TinrTeaQai) and plangere with an accusative of the object (xxiii. 27) on whose account one beats oneself, see Heyne, Obss. ad Tibull. i. 7. 28, p. 71. — Ver. 55. eVe- arpetye k.tX.\ purposely narrates the reanimation of orie that was actually dead,2 whose spirit had departed. In Acts xx. 1 0 also this idea is found. — iraprjyy. avTot? k.t.X.] following Mark v. 43. 1 They would not, moreover, have to be understood as associated with those who were put out, if ix/iaX. i\u tu'w. were genuine (but seethe critical remarks). Kostlin is right in adducing this against Baur, who detected in this passage a Pauline side-glance to the original apostles. 2 How opposed, therefore, is this to the view of an apparent death ! There cannot remain even a shadow of uncertainty as to how the matter is to be regarded (Weizsacker). Jesus Himself will not leave the crowd in any doubt, but declares (ver. 52) in His pregnant style what must immediately of itself be evident. 88 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTEE IX. Ver. 1. After bubexa Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have /j.a6rtrdg abroi, which is not found in A B D K M S V r A, min. vss. Fathers. An addition, instead of which other authorities of importance have diroeroXoog. Luke always writes oi bubexa absolutely. So also do Mark and John, but not Matthew. — Ver. 2. robg dbi is from the parallels. — The readings ierairm and yibecavrai (Elz. : eerrixorojv and ytbeov- ra) have (the latter strongly) preponderating evidence in their favour. — Ver. 35. dyairr\rog] B L B X, VSS. have ixXtXty/jiivog. Commended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Tisch. The Becepta is from the parallels. — Ver. 37. ev rf e^g] h, in accord ance with B L S X, 1, 69, is to be deleted. See on vii. 11. — Ver. 38. a«/3.] Lachm. has eponaiv, in accordance with BCD L X, min. A neglect of the compound form, which form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt, xxvii. 46, and even there is disregarded by several authorities. — Instead of iirtfixi-i/iai (to be accented thus) Elz. Lachm. have iirlQXt-\ov. Authorities of importance on both sides. The latter is an inter pretation. The infinitive EniBAEYAi was taken for an im perative middle. — Ver. 43. iwoineiv] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have iitoki ; decisively attested. — Ver. 48. Instead of ieri, which is approved by Griesb, and, moreover, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch, Elz. Scholz have 'ierai. But ieri is attested by B C L X B X, min. vss. (also Vuig. It.) Or. (thrice) ; the future was introduced in reference to the future kingdom of heaven. — Ver. 50. Instead of vp.uv Elz. has jipuv both times, in opposition to preponderating evidence. See on Mark ix. 40. — Ver. 54. iig x. 'H\. iv.] is wanting in B L B X, 71, 157, vss. (Vuig. also and codd. of It.) Jer. (?). Suspected by Griesb. (following Mill), deleted by Tisch. But how easUy the indirect rebuke of Elias, contained in what follows, would make these words objection able ! — Ver. 55. xal elirev . . . b/ieTg] is wanting in A B C E, etc, also X, min. Copt. Aeth. Sax. Germ. 1, Gat. Fathers. Con demned by Griesb, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The words have such a weight of evidence against them that they would have to be rejected, if it could be explained how they got into the text. How easily, on the other hand, might an intentional 90 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. omission, out of consideration for Elias, occur ! Moreover, the simple, short, and pregnant word of rebuke is so unhke a tran scriber's addition, and so worthy of Jesus Himself, as, on the other hand, it is hardly to be conceived that Luke would have limited himself on an occasion of so unprecedented a kind only to the bare iirtrl/jirieiv abroig. But the additional clause which follows in Elz. is decidedly spurious : 6 ydp vlbg roi avDpa- iroo obx rXSt -^/v^dg dvdptiiirtiiv diroXieai, dXXd eZieai. — Ver. 57. iy'mro bi] Lachm. Tisch. have xai, in accordance with B C L X B X, min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Rightly; a new sec tion was here begun (a lection also), and attention was called to this by adding iyivero to xai (so D, 346, Cant. Vere. Colb.), or by writing iyivero bi, in accordance with ver. 51. — xbpn] is wanting in B D L S X, min. Copt. Arm. Vuig. codd. of It. Condemned by Griesb, deleted by Lachm. But since it stood at the end of the sentence, and since the parallel passage, Matt. viii. 19, had no corresponding word at the end, xbpit would the more easily drop out. — Ver. 62. ilg rij> /3a if)] These words do not fit into the construction. ' See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410; Kruger, ad Dion. -p. 287; Schoemann, ad Is. p. 444. — et plijti k.t.X.] unless, perchance, etc. ; this is neither to be regarded as a direct question (Kypke, RosenmiiUer), CHAP. IX. 10-17. 93 nor is the thought : " even therewith we cannot feed them," to be previously supplied (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, and others). On the contrary, the two parts of the sentence are closely connected : We have not more than . . . unless, perchance, we shall have bought. The tone of the address is not one of irony (Camerarius, Homberg, Kuinoel), as is often expressed by et p,r) (Kuhner, II. p. 561; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 317), but of embarrassment at the manifest impossibility of carrying the order into effect (np,efc . . . et? irdvra tov Xaov). On et with a subjunctive, which is to be recognised even in the Attic writers, although rarely, but is of frequent use in the later Greek, see Winer, p. 263 [E. T. 368]; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 12; Poppo, ad Cyrop. iii. 3. 50 ; Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 500 ff. ; EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 491. Winer is mistaken in regarding the mood in this case as a deliberative subjunctive not dependent on el, as Buttmann, p. 191 [E. T. 221], also takes it. See above for the connection; and on the difference of meaning between the subjunctive with and without av (condition absolutely, without dependence upon circumstances that may or may not happen), see Hermann, Be part, av, ii. 7, p. 95; Hartung, Bartikell. II. p. 301. — j^ei?] with emphasis ; for previously they had advised to leave the people themselves to procure food. — Ver. 14. Observe the numerical relation, five loaves, five thousand, ranks of companies by fifty. To form such companies is, in Luke, said to have been commanded even by Jesus Himself. The tradition is gradually rounded into shape as we advance, from Matthew (and John) to Luke. — Ver. 16. evXby. avTov?] an intimation of the benediction uttered in. prayer, which was effectual in causing the increase. Matthew and Mark have it otherwise. — Ver. 1 7. KXaapiaTrnv] is, in accordance with the opinion of Valckenaer, Laehmann, and Tischendorf, to be regarded as governed by koijhvoi BmBeKa. If, in accordance with the usual view, it had been construed with to ireptaa. air, it would have been Tmv KXaaa. (comp. Matt. xiv. 20; Soph. El. 1280: Ta p,ev irepiaaevovra Tmv Xdymv aobe Biaxopi&aQai «vtov? dv ainov. — While Peter speaks 1 Comp. Weizsacker, Evang. Gesch. p. 481. LUKE II. G '98 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. with Jesus, the cloud appears which overshadows the depart ing Moses and Ehas. These (continuing tlieir departure) pass away into the cloud ; the voice resounds and the entire appear ance is past, Jesus is alone. — iKXeXeyp..] See the critical remarks; comp. xxiii. 35. — Of the conversation on the sub ject of Ehas, Luke has nothing. It was remote from his Gentile-Christian interest. But aU the less are we to impute an anti-Jewish purpose (such as that he would not have John regarded as Elias) to Luke, whose style, moreover, elsewhere tends to abbreviation (in opposition to Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 80). — Ver. 36. iaiyyaav] Of the command of Jesus, with a view to this result, the abbreviating Luke has nothing. Vv. 37-45. See on Matt. xvii. 14-23; Mark ix. 14-32-, the latter of which Luke foUows on the whole, but abbreviating. — Ty egrj? yaepa] According to Luke, the transfiguration took place at night, ver. 32. — Ver. 38. iiriBXeyjrat] to look upon, with helpful pity to cast eyes upon. Comp. i. 48; Eccius. xxxiii. 1; Tob. iii. 3, 15; Judith xiii. 4. See the critical remarks. The middle voice does not occur, povoyevys in this passage, as at viii. 42, is found only in Luke. — Ver. 39. Kpd£ei] does not refer to the demon (Bornemann), but to the son, since Kat egal^vyi intro duces the result which is brought about in the possessed one by the irvevpta Xap,Bdvei avTov. The sudden change of the subjects is the less surprising when we take into account the rapid impassioned delineation. See Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 787], and Schoemann, ad Is. p. 294 f. — uoym] hardly, with trouble and danger; used only here in the New Testament. — avvTplBov ovtov ] whilst he bruises him (even stiU — as he yields). Conceive of a paroxysm in which the demoniac ferociously beats and knocks and throws himself down. This literal meaning of avvTp. is, on account of the vivid description in the context, to be preferred to the figurative meaning — frets, wears away (Kypke, Kuinoel, Bornemann, Ewald), although Mark has gypalverai, in another coUoca- tion, however. — Ver. 42. eTt Be irpoaepx- avTov] but as he ivas still coming — not yet altogether fully come up. — CHAP. IX. 46-50. 99 eppnfjev . . . avveaTrdpagev] a climax describing the con vulsive action, he tore him, and convulsed him (comp. o-7ra- pay/id?, cramp). — IdaaTo r. ir.] namely, by the expulsion of the demon. — e7rt t. p,eyaXeior. t. @eov] at the majesty (Josephus, Antt. Prooem. p. 5 ; Athen. iv. p. 130 F) of God. \Hiovto ydp, ovk ii; ioYa? Bvvdp,em<;, dXX' c'k Qeov Tavra repaTovpyelv ovtov, Euthymius Zigabenus. — eVot'et] Im perfect (see the critical remarks). Their wonder was excited by the miracles of Jesus as a whole, among which was to be reckoned also that special case. — Ver. 44. Oeade vp,elopia6evTa P>exp<> TV^ dvaXyiJrem<; avTov t>j? dirb yr)? et? ovpavov. In the New Testa ment dvdXyyfri? occurs only in this place. But it appears in the same sense of the taking up into heaven, and that hkewise of the Messiah, in the Test. XII. Pair. p. 585: Kat p,eya- XvvdyaeTat iv Ty o'lKovpievy ea>? dvaXyiJrea><; avTov ; and in the Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 282); although in the New Testament the verb dvaXaptBdveadai is the customary word to express this heavenly reception, Mark xvi. 19 ; Acts i. 2, 11, 22 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16. Comp. 1 Mace. ii. 58; Eccius. xlviii. 9; 2 Kings ii. 11 ; Eccius. xlix. 14 ; Tobit iii. 6. The objections Of Wieseler are unfounded: that the plural tmpiaev, eKvpmaev, eaTyae BovXyv, Theophylaet. Vv. 52, 53. 'AyyeXovs does not as yet mean the Seventy (Neander), and wore is as at iv. 29. — eToip,do-ai avTw] to make preparation for Him (comp. Mark xiv. 1 5), i.e. in this case : eroipAaai viroBoxyv 7T/30? KaTaymyyv avrov, Euthymius Zigabenus. — Ver. 53. Kal ovk iBegavro avTov] which rejec tion was accomplished by the refusal given to the messengers that He had sent before, see ver. 52. That Jesus Himself fol lowed them is not implied in the passage. — Sri rb irpbamirov, not because generally He was journeying towards Jerusalem (ivavTim<; ydp oi SapiapelTat irpbs tov? ' IepoaoXvpyiTa1? BieKeivTo, Euthymius Zigabenus; so usually), for through Samaria passed the usual pilgrims' road of the Galilaeaus, Josephus, Antt. xx. 6. 1; Vit. 52 ; comp. John iv. 4; nor yet because they were unwilling to lodge " so large a Jewish procession" as the train of disciples (Lange, of which, how ever, nothing appears), — but because they regarded an alleged Messiah journeying towards Jerusalem as not being the actual Messiah. We must think of the messengers themselves announcing Jesus as the Messiah, although, besides, according to John iv, the knowledge of His Messianic call might have already penetrated from Galilee to the Samaritan viUages; but .the Samaritans did not expect of the Messiah (see the expositors on John iv. 25) the observance of festivals in Jerusalem, but the restoration and glorification of the worship upon Gerizim. (Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 21 f.) The expression to trpoamir. avTov yv iropevop,. is a Hebraism, Ex. xxxiii. 14; 2 Sam. xvii. 11. Vv. 54-56. 'IB6vTe<;] they saw it in the return of the 106 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. messengers, who would not otherwise have come back. — The two disciples are not to be identified with the messengers (Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus). — irvp] Fire, not : fulmen (Wetstein, Kuinoel), a modern mode of explaining away, of which, neither in 2 Kings i. 10-12 (when at the word of Elias fire from heaven devours the people of Ahaziah) nor on the part of the disciples is there any notion. — ovk oiSaTe k.t.X.] As in respect of v/jet? the emphatic contrast with Elias is not to be disregarded ("retunditur provocatio ad Eliam," Bengel), so it is objectionable to explain, with Borne mann: "Nonne perpenditis, qualem vos . . . animum pro- datis ? Certe non humaniorem, quam modo vobis Sarnaritani praestiterunt!' The Samaritans had not, indeed, refused to receive Jesus from lack of humanity ; see on ver. 53. Rightly the expositors have explained o'iov irvevpiaTos of a spirit which is differently disposed from that displayed by Elias. In that " respect the form of the saying has been taken by some affirma tively (so Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others ; latest of all, Ewald), some interrogatively (so Luther, Zeger, and most of the later critics) ; but the matter of it has been so understood that Jesus is made to say to the disciples either (a) that they knew not that they were allowing themselves to be guided by a whoUy different spirit from that of Elias (see as early as Augustine, C. Adimant. 1 7, Calvin, Grotius : " Putatis vos agi Spiritu tali, quali ohm Elias . . . ; sed erratis. Habetis quidem £f}Xov, sed ov KaT iirlyvmaiv, et qui proinde humani est affectus, non divinae motionis "), so in substance Ch. F. Fritzsche also in his Nov. Opusc p. 264 ; or (b) that they knew not that they as His disciples were to follow the guidance of a whoUy different spirit from that of Elias, — the evangelical spirit of meekness, not the legal spirit of severity (so Theophy laet, Erasmus, Zeger, Jansen, Bengel, and most of the later commentators). The view under (a) bears on the face of it the motives on which it depends, viz. to avoid making Jesus rebuke the spirit of Elias. The view under (b) is simply in accordance with the words, and is to be preferred in the inter rogative form, as being more appropriate to the earnestness of the questioner ; yet irvevpaTos is not to be explained^ as most CHAP. IX. 57-62. 107 of the later commentators explain it, of the human spirit (" affectus animi," Grotius), but (rightly, even so early as Euthy mius Zigabenus) of the Holy Spirit.1 To this objective irvevua the categorical iaTe points (which does not mean : ye ought to be). As to etiW Tti>o?, -whereby is expressed the relation of dependence, see on Mark ix. 41, and Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 243 £]. — Ver. 56. hepav] into a village which was not Sama ritan. Theophylaet: oti ovk iBegavTo avTov, ovBe elayXdev ei? %ap.dpeiav. Thus the journey at its very commencement diverged from the direct course that had been decided on (in opposition to Wieseler, p. 326). To suppose the further progress of the journey through Samaria (in this place con sequently Schenkel misplaces the incident in John iv.) is altogether without authority in the text. Vv. 57-60. See on Matt. viii. 19-22, who has placed the incidents earlier. These little narratives circulated pro bably in general without definite historical arrangement. Arbitrarily enough, Lange2 finds the three unnamed ones that follow, vv. 57, 59, 61, in Judas Iscariot, Thomas, and Matthew. According to Luke, they were assuredly none of the twelve (vi. 1 3 ff). — iropevo/ievrnv airmv] to wit, ei? erkpav Kmp,yv, ver. 56. — ev Ty 6Bm] is to be taken with what follows (Laeh mann). If, as is usually the case, it were connected with Trop. air., it would simply be useless. — direXdbvri] Case of attraction, Kuhner, II. p. 344. — Ver. 60. BtdyyeXXe k.t.X.] announce everywhere ( Bid, comp. Rom. ix. 1 7) the kingdom of God, the imminent establishment of the Messiah's kingdom. Vv. 61, 62. Peculiar to Luke. — diroTa^aadat k.t.X.J to say farewell to my family. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 1 3, and see on Mark vi. 45 ; Vuig. : " renuntiare." So also Augustine, Maldonatus, and others. Literally, and likewise rightly (see xiv. 33 ; 1 Tcurt yap &yaPi» iim xxi avt%ixxxM, Euthymius Zigabenus. But not as though Jesus indirectly denied to Elias the Holy Spirit (comp. already on i. 17), but in His disciples the Holy Spirit is in His operations different from what He was in the old prophets, seeing that He was in them , the instrument of the divine chastisement. 2 He — just as arbitrarily, since the brief narratives omit all such details — represents the first as being of a sanguine, the second of a melancholic, the third of a phlegmatic temperament. See L. J. III. p. 424. 108 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 24). But the answer oi «esus, ver. 62, gives for dirord^. the idea of attachment, not of renunciation. • — toi? ei? k.t.X, according to the above explanation of diroTa^., must be masculine, not neuter. (Vulgate in Laehmann, Augus tine, Maldonatus, Paulus.) — ei?] not instead of iv (thus de Wette, however), but a case of attraction, such as we very frequently meet with in the classical writers. The two ideas, direpx^aOai ei? tov oXkov pov and diroTa^. Tot? ev rm oik a uov, are so blended together that the former is forced into the latter, and has driven out iv for ei?. See in general, Kuhner, II. p. 318 f, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 5. Comp. Buttmann,~ Nev.t. Gr. p. 286 [E. T. 332]. — Ver. 62. The meaning of the proverbial saying, in which, moreover, " cum proverbio significatur, cui rei aptetur proverbium " (Grotius) is, No one who has offered to labour in my service, and, withal, still attaches his interest to his earlier relations (BXeirmv irdXiv iirl tov Kiapiov, Theophylaet), is well fitted (adapted, available) for the kingdom of the Messiah (to labour for it). Entire devotion, not divided service ! On. et? Tt BXe7reiv, oculos aliquo convertere, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 112. CHAP. X. 109 CHAPTER X. Ver. 1. eSbowxovra] B D M, 42, Syr.cur- Perss. Arm. Vuig. Cant. Vere. Colb. For. Rd. Sax. and many Fathers add bbo here, and most of them likewise at ver. 17 ; Laehmann has adopted the latter in brackets. Supposed to be a more exact fixing of the number in accordance with the relation (12 times 6). — Ver. 2. Instead of the first oun, Lachm. Tisch. have bi ; see on vi. 9. — Ver. 3. eyu] is wanting in A B X, min. Arm. Vuig. ms. codd. of It. Lachm. Tisch. It is from Matt. x. 16. — Ver. 5. tleipyr^eh] Here and at ver. 10 eiaixSrjn must be read, on preponderating evidence. Approved by Griesb, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. If it were not original, but an alteration, eieipyjffih at ver. 8 would not have been acquiesced in. — Ver. 6 f. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted pU after idv, the article before Mg, and ieri, ver. 7. — Ver. 8. S av] Lachm. Tisch. have &r, according to evidence not preponderating ; and how easily the b', that might be dispensed with, would drop away, since already the connecting particle was found in xai\ — Ver. 11. After bpwv Griesb. has added tig robg irobag wav, in accordance with decisive authorities, among which, however, B D R X, min. Sax. It. want iipm, which therefore Lachm. and Tisch. have not adopted with the rest. But it was just this word wwv that occasioned the omission of the words in question, because the transcriber passed on immediately from bpuv to ^Ziv. Hence the reading of Gries- bach is to be maintained in its integrity. — After qyyixtv, Elz. Scholz have i

d irpoamirov uvtov and the imperfect yaeXXev are decisive. In general it is a mistake to assume that the mission of the Seventy went beyond the bounds of Judaism — on which assumption Baur and his school base the supposed Pauline tendency of the narrative. The region of the Samaritans is scarcely trodden before it is again forsaken, ix. 56, prior to the appointment of the Seventy. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 711, is right in saying: " Of any appointment of the seventy disciples for Samaria, or for the heathen world at all, there is not a single word said." Comp. Holtzmann, p. 393. Eemark.— The narrative of the Seventy has been relegated into the unhistorical domain by Strauss, de Wette, Gfrorer (Jahr. d. HeUs, II. p. 371), Theile (z. Biogr. J. p. 51 f.), von Amnion (L. J. II. p. 355 ff.), Baur (Evang. p. 498 ff.), Schwegler, Bruno Bauer, Kostlin, Zeller, Ritschl, and others. But (1) as they accept the position that this was only a temporary and special appointment for the present journey, and not a permanent function, ver. 1, the silence of the rest of the evangelists, who indeed have not in general the detaUed thread of this journey, as well as the silence of the subsequent history about their doings, is very easy to understand. — (2) That Jesus in general had around Him a larger circle of constant disciples, besides the Twelve, from whom He could appoint seventy for a special commission, is in itself, and from the evidence of such passages CHAP. X. 1. 113 as Acts i. 15, 21, 1 Cor. xv. 6, as well as John vi. 60, not to be doubted. — (3) The tradition would hardly have restrained itself within these narrow limits, but would have gone further than simply to allow the Seventy to be appointed and sent forth, and then to return and vanish; and would especiaUy have passed over into the apostolic history. — (4) That Jesus gave them a commission similar to that which He gave the Twelve, arose from the similar character of their temporary relation, in respect whereof, moreover, it is to be conceded that the tradi tion involuntarily mingles elements out of the two commissions.1 (5) If the narrative had been, as has been supposed (see especi ally Baur, Evang. p. 435 ff, 498 ff.), an invention of the author, intended typically to keep the apostolic call of Paul in inces sant contrast with that of the Twelve, it would have been just as necessary as it was easy to the inventor to relate what they did, or at least to inweave into the commission characteristic references to the ministry of Paul, yet these are entirely wanting (comp. rather xxiv. 47 f. ; Acts i. 8) ; moreover, the Acts of the Apostles would not have been perfectly silent about the Seventy. In like manner as Baur, Kostlin also, p. 267 f, judges, deriving the narrative, as an account typically prefiguring the mission to the heathen,8 from the supposed Gospel of Peter, without, how ever, acquiescing in the opposition to the Twelve asserted by Baur. Ewald (Evang. p. 285, Gesch. Chr. p. 349), with whom in substance Holtzmann, p. 392 f, agrees, refers the narrative to a later period, in which the gradual disappearance of the Twelve gave to the Lord's remaining companions so much more importance, that what was at first true only of the Twelve was involuntarily transferred to a wider circle; comp. also Weizsacker, p. 161 f, 409 f. But against this also the reasons specified under 1-4 hold good. Ewald, in his Gesch.^ d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 158, supposes that they belonged to the hundred and twenty persons mentioned in Acts i. 15. — The purpose of the mission was not in any way to further the personal faith of those who were sent (Hase, p. 200 ; Krabbe, p. 306), but, as is 1 According to Baur, elements of the commission given to the Twelve are trans ferred tendentially by the evangelist to the discourse to the Seventy, in order to give the preference to the latter, as being the true and genume disciples. Comp. also Baur, Das Ghristemthvm der drei ersten Jahrh. p. 76 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 183 ff. See, in general, against such supposed tendencies of Luke in regard to the primitive apostles, Holtzmann, p. 394 f. ; Weiss, p. 709 ff. "Weizsacker, p. 163, rightly emphasizes the fact that it is just these sayings which, in an emment measure, must have been the common property of tradition. s Comp. "Weizsacker, p. 409. LUKE II. II 114 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. evident from the commission itself (see especially yer. 9), to prepare, by miraculous cures and by preaching, for the imminent advent of the Messiah. This entire journey of Jesus was intended to afford the people an opportunity for a final decision before the Lord's departure from what had up to this time been His field of action, and to be in every quarter that Messianic entry which culminated in the final entry into Jerusalem. This func tion of forerunners, which, according to ver. 1, was held in that respect by the Seventy, is at variance neither with ver. 7, which assumes no relatively long sojourn, but only forbids the change of quarters, nor with the return at ver. 17, which was necessary for pointing out the route of the journey. — The source from which Luke derived the section is none other than that of the entire narrative of the journey (see on ix. 51). That he gave to a fragment of the Logia " an expansion of the original title, from a mere calculation of what was probable," is too hastUy concluded by Holtzmann, p. 146. Ver. 2. Comp. Matt. ix. 37 f. First of all, Christ makes them apprehend the greatness of their task, and (ver. 3) their risk, and then gives them (ver. 4 ff.) rules of conduct.1 — 0X1704] notwithstanding your numbers, ye are still far from sufficient2 71730? Td TrXyOos Tmv p,eXX6vrmv iriaTeveiv (Euthy mius Zigabenus) ! — iKBdXrj] In this is contained the import ance, the urgency of the mission : should drive forth (comp. on Mark i. 12 ; 1 Mace. xii. 27). Ver. 3. See on Matt. x. 16, where irpoBaTa appears. A different form of the tradition, not to be explained as though Jesus called the Twelve irpoBaTa as being TeXeio- Tepovs (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. John xxi. 1 5-1 7. Ver. 4. Comp. ix, 3 ; Matt. x. 9. — BaXXdvTiov] a purse ; 1 But the prohibition against going to the heathens and the Samaritans, Matt. x. 5, He does not give to the Seventy, and that for the simple reason that they had precisely to make the journey only as it'was definitely marked out to them in ver. 1 (through Galilee). For this that prohibition would not have been at all appropriate. 2 According to "Weiss, Jesus, in respect of Myoi, must have thought originally of Himself, while Luke thought of the Twelve. The former view contradicts the words of the passage, the latter the context. But that the discourse was originally addressed to the Twelve does not follow from xxii. 35, for the passage there alluded to is to be sought in ix. 3 (although with certain coincidences from x. 4). CHAP. X. 5-7. 115 found only in Luke in the New Testament, frequently in the Greek writers. The spelling with XX is decisively attested in the New Testament, although in itself the spelling with one X would be more correct. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Leg. I. p. 348 D. — pyyBeva . . . datrdayaOe] not a prohibition of the desire of good-will (Olshausen, B.-Crusius), or of making a bustle (as Lange conjectures), which would have to be found in the context, but which has opposed to it k&tu ryv 6B6v; but a command to make haste, so as to avoid every delay upon the road that might not be neeessary for the performance of their task. In this respect there is no need of any reference to the circumstantial modes of greeting (embraces, benedictions, kisses, and the hke). Comp. 2 Kings iv. 29. Jesus impresses on them the properare ad rem ! in accordance with the object of the mission, vv. 1, 9, and in a concrete form, which should not be pressed to a literal meaning. Theophylaet well says : Bid to p,y diroaxoXelaQai irepl dvOpmirtvov; dairaap.ov'i Kal v/ifi? is wanting this time ; see the critical remarks. Ver. 12. Comp. Matt. x. 15. Vv. 13-15. See on Matt. xi. 21-24. Luke has not here any mistaken reminiscence (de Wette), but the disaster of these Galilaean cities lay sufficiently close to the heart of Jesus to force from Him the denunciation of woe more than once, and here, indeed, in very appropriate connection, since this woe brings into the light and confirms what has just been said at ver. 12 by the example of the cities which had rejected Jesus HimseU. — Kadypevot (see the critical remarks) : the inhabitants, namely. See Buttmann, Neut. Gram. p. 114 [E. T. 130]. Ver. 16. Comp. Matt. x. 40 ; John xiii. 20, xii. 48. A con firmation in principle of the fact that He placed on equal grounds the cities that reject them with those that reject Himself. CHAP. X. 17-20. 117 In the second part the saying rises to a climax (d0eT. r. diroaT. ue). A deepening of the emotion ; a solemn conclusion. Vv. 17-20. The fact that the account of the return of the Seventy foUows immediately cannot prove that in the history of this journey (from ix. 51 onward) Luke is not holding the chronological thread (Olshausen). In accordance with the purpose of the mission (ver. 1), some must have returned very soon, others later, so that Jesus might anticipate the return of one portion of them before the return of those who had gone farther, and Luke might equally exclude the summary narration of the return without passing over any thing of importance that intervened. — Kal Ta Baip,6via k.t.X.] over which He had not given to them, as He had to the Twelve (ix. 1), an express authority : " Piura in effectu experti sunt, quam Jesus expresserat," Bengel. This is necessarily implied in Kat ; but it is not to be inferred, as Kostlin assumes, that Luke regarded the casting out of demons as the highest x^piapia. — iv Ta> bvop. a.] by means of Thy name, by the fact of our utterance of it. Comp. on ix. 49 ; Matt. vii. 22. Otherwise in Mark xvi. 17. — Ver. 18. This I saw happen in this wise when I sent you forth (idempovv, imperf.) ! This your victorious agency against Satan (whose servants the demons are) was not hidden from me. / beheld at that time (in the spirit, in idea) Satan fallen like a lightning flash from heaven, i.e. I then1 1 "Without any ground in the context, ihupouv has been dated farther back in various ways. Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 1070 f. (comp. also Philippi, Olaubenslehre, III. p. 308), refers it to the temptation in the desert, and conceives that with the rebuke of Christ, Get thee hence from me ! Satan was "cast forth from the heavenly circle of Christ and His people." Gregory Nazianzen and other Fathers, Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, and others, refer it to the time of Christ's incarnation, by which Satan was cast down, a result which Christ here describes as a " dux belli suas narrans victorias " (Maldonatus). Other Fathers, including Origen and Theophylaet, Erasmus and others, refer it to the fall of the devil by sin, whereby he lost his place in heaven. Thus also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 443, who indeed would have " the fall from heaven " to signify only the loss of the fellowship of the supramundane life of God (p. 458). According to this, the imperfect must have its reference to a fact of which Christ was a witness when He was still the i-iyes aeapxas. But against the explanation of Satan's fall by sin, it is decisive that with this overthrow of Satan his power on earth was not broken, but it then first began. The explana tion is therefore quite opposed to the connection in which our passage stands, 118 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. perceived the swift overthrow of Satan from his lofty power, in so lively a manner that it presented itself to me in my inward perception, as if he were like a flash of lightning (so swift, so momentary !) hurled out of heaven (ireaovTa, not the present). The whole reply of Jesus (comp. vv. 19, 20) is rich in imagination, full of vivid imagery, confirming the triumphant assertion of the disciples in equally joyous excite ment.1 Comp. Rev. xii. 9 ; and on the fact itself, John xii. 31, where no more than here is intended any allusion to the downfaU of the hierarchical party (Schenkel). Pie does not mean to speak of a vision (von Amnion, L. J. II. p. 359), since such a thing nowhere occurs in His experience, inas much as in consideration of His direct perception He had no need of such intermediate helps ; but He means an intui tion of His knowledge, and speaks of it under a vivid, lifelike form, which the imagination is able to grasp. The relative tense idempovv might also be referred to the time of the dis ciples' ministry (de Wette, Bleek, Schegg; comp. Bengel, tenta tively, " quum egistis "). ; yet this is the less appropriate to the assertion of the instantaneous ireaovTa, and to the comparison with the hghtning's flash, that the ministry of the Seventy since Jesus is not at all desirous of warning, against arrogance (the view of many Fathers), but must certainly be speaking of the destruction of the devil's power, of the overthrow of the devilish strength. Hence also Hilgenfeld is quite mis taken, Evang. p. 184, in making it refer to Rev. xii. 9, saying that Jesus saw how the devil "even now is working with special energy upon the earth," that with the near approach of the passion of Jesus (not for the first time shortly before the last day) came therefore the point of time when the devil, who had been driven out of the field, should develope his power anew. More over, Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 342, rightly referring shmpovv to the time of sending but the Seventy, finds the meaning to be : I beheld Satan descend from heaven with the rapidity of lightning to hinder your work; but fear ye not, behold I give you power, etc. In accordance with the context, ¦xariira. must mean the knocking down of the devil, not his descent from heaven ; but the connection which Hahn makes with ver. 19 is neither intimated (in any wise by «xx' i'Sou x.t.x.), nor does it suit the correct reading liiaixa. 1 Against this view Hofmann objects that it is foreign to the connection (wherefore?), and that it gives to the mission an importance that does not belong to it. But was it then something of little importance to send forth seventy new combatants against Satan's power ? Could not the commander of this new warrior band behold, in the spirit, when He sent them forth, the devil's overthrow ? CHAP. X. 17-20. 119 lasted for a time. — The representation c'k tov ovpavov ireaovTa} does not in any way presuppose Satan's abode in heaven (as to Paul's representation of the abode of the demons in the atmosphere, see on Eph. ii. 2), but corresponds to the thought of highly exalted power, as above, ver. 15, and Isa. xiv. 12 ; the representation, however, of its swiftness and suddenness by comparison with a flash of lightning was by feason of the tov ovpavov as natural and appropriate as is the comparison of the lightning in Matt. xxiv. 27. — Ver. 19. According to the reading BeBaKa (see the critical remarks), Jesus gives them not a mere supplementary explanation (objection by de Wette), but He explains to them what a much greater power still they had received from Him and possessed (perfect) than that which they had experienced in the subjec tion of the demons. This investiture with power occurred before the sending of them forth, although it is not ex pressly mentioned in the commission, ver. 2 ff. ; but it was left to become clear to their consciousness through experience, and they had already partiaUy begun to be conscious of it in the subjection of the demons to their power. — tov iraTelv iirdvm o(f>eav k. aKopir.] a figurative description (in accordance with Ps. xci. 13, and see the Rabbinical passages in Wetstein) of the dangerous Satanic powers, which the Seventy were to tread under their feet, as warriors do their conquered foes (Rom. xvi. 2 0). — Kal] and generally. — The emphasis of the discourse as it advances lies on irdaav and ovBev. — tov ix^pov] of the enemy, of whom our Lord is speaking, and that is none other than Satan. Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 657: •jrpoaixeTe eavrol? dirb tov SaTava . . . KaTtvavTi Tys BaaiXeta<; tov ix&pov aTyaerai. Matt. xiii. 25 ; 1 Pet. v. 8. — ovBev] is the accusative neuter: and in nothing will it (the Bvvap.ipoveiv, y). The predestination thereby set forth is that which occurred be fore the beginning of time in Christ (Eph. i. 4). See on Phil. iv. 3. Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. xi. 25-27.2 Luke places this thanksgiving prayer in immediate chronological connection (in the same hour) with the return of the Seventy. Theophy laet says : mairep iraTyp dyaObs TratSa? IBmv KaTopdmaavTa*} 1 "Which, however, by a glance at Bev. iii. 5, xvii. 8, is shown to be erroneous. Moreover, according to "Weizsacker, vv. 18-20 are said to be of the "latest origin. " 2 Keim, Oeschichtl. Christus, p. 51, sees here the climax reached of the con sciousness of the divine Sonship, and that hence there now appears, instead of the " your Father," as hitherto, the designation " my Father." But on the one hand " your Father " is still said at the same time and later (xii. 30, 32 ; Matt. x. 20, xviii. 14, xxiii. 9), and on the other Jesus, not to mention ii. 49, says "my Father" even as early as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vii. 21). Baur, indeed (Neutest. Theol. p. 86), knows no other way of getting rid of the offence which this expression of Matt. vii. 21 gives him than by attributing the words to a later period of the ministry of Jesus. It is easy in this way to set aside what will not fit into our notions. CHAP. X. 21, 22. 121 Tt, ovt« Kat o aaTyp dydXXeTai, oti roiovTmv dyaOmv yfymQyaav ol diroaToXoi. Still this chronological position is hardly the historical one. See on Matth. — tu> irvevp-aTi] not the Holy Spirit (see the critical remarks). Comp. i. 47. It is His own irvevptci dyimavvy;, Rom. i. 4. The opposite of this, yyaXX. t. itv., occurs in John xi. 33. — TavTa] finds in Luke its reference in oti Ta bv6p,aTa vp,mv k.t.X., ver. 20, and is hence to be understood1 of the knowledge of the life eternal in the kingdom of Messiah (comp. viii. 10 : yvmvai Ta pivaTypia t?j? BaaiXeiw;). — Ver. 22. Kat aTpaeh k.t.X.] (see the critical remarks). From the prayer to God He turns in the following words to the disciples (the Seventy and the Twelve). — 77730? tov? p,a6.] belongs to aTpael<;. Comp. vii. 44, xiv. 25. As to the idea of the irdvTa pot. irapeB., which is not, as with Baur, Schenkel, and others, to be referred merely to the spiritual and moral region, see on Matt. xxviii. 18. — yivmaKei] That the Marcionite reading eyvm is the original one, and not a gnostic alteration, is rendered probable by the very ancient date at which it is found (Justin, the Clementines, the Marcosites). Comp. on Matt. xi. 27. The gnostic interpretation of eyvm, which is contested by the Clementines (xviii. 13 f.), very easily brought about the change into the present tense. See (after Baur, Hilgenfeld, Semisch, Kostlin, Volkmar) Zeller, Apostelg. p. 1 3 f. — Tt'?] in respect of His nature, counsel, will, thought, etc. In what way, however, ti? iariv 6 iraryp is said to be gnostic rather than biblical (Kostlin, p. 161) it is not easy to see. The Father who has sent the Son has His perfect revelation for the first time in Him. Comp. John xiv. 9. — m idv /3ovX.] Comp. concerning the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 1 1. This will of the Son, however, in virtue of His essential and moral unity with the Father; is no other than the Father's will, which the Son has to fulfil. Comp. Gess, Bers. Chr. p. 18 f. Observe, again, that the negation, which is not to be relatively explained away, ovSet? . . . ei p,y, establishes a relation of a unique kind, namely, that of the metaphysical fellowship. 1 Not, of the power over the demons, as "Wittichen, d. Idee Gottes als des Vaters, 1865, p. 30, wishes to have it. To that also belongs vmra., ver. 22. 122 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Vv. 23, 24. See on Matt. xiii. 16 f, where the historical connection is quite different. But the significant beatitude may have been spoken on different occasions, especially with a different reference of meaning (as here in particular BXeireiv has a different sense from what it has in Matthew). — Kat o-Tpa(pel<; k.t.X.] Here we have a further step in the narrative (comp. ver. 22), which is marked by KaT IBiav, to be taken along with aTpatfrek. This turning, which excluded the others who were present (see ver. 25), is to be regarded as per ceptible by the movement and gesture of the speaker. " Lucas accurate notare solet pausas et flexus sermonum Domini," Bengel. Consequently the reproach of inappropriateness, occasioned by the omission of Bevre 77730? p,e irdvTe? (in Matthew), does not touch Luke (Holtzmann, p. 147 ; Weiss). — Kai jSao-tXet?] peculiar to Luke. Think of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and others. — IBelv . . . aKoveTe] The point of the contrast varies : to see what ye see . . . and to hear what ye (actually) hear. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 29. Ver. 25 ff. This transaction is different from the later nar rative of Matt. xxii. 35 ff. (comp. Mark xii. 28 ff). The fact that the same passages of the law are quoted cannot outweigh the difference of time and plaee, of the point of the question, of the person quoting the passages, and of the further course of the conference. Comp. Strauss, I. p. 650 f, who, however, also holds Matthew and Mark as distinct, and thus maintains three variations of the tradition upon the one subject, viz. that Jesus laid stress on the two commandments as the foremost of the law ; whUe Kostlin, p. 275, supposes that Luke arbitrarily took the question, ver. 25, out of its original place in Matthew and Mark, and himself made it the entire introduction to the parable (ver. 3 0 ff). Comp. Holtzmann : " two independent sections brought by Luke within one frame." — iKireipd^mv avTov] trpoaeBoKyaev irayiBevaai tov XpioTov ei? t6 iravTw; iiriTa%ai ti ivavTlov Tm vop,q>, Euthymius Zigabenus. As to eKireipd^., lo try thoroughly, see on 1 Cor. x. 9. Vv. 26, 27. n«? dvayivmaKei^] n&Op »ko, a customary Rabbinical formula to give occasion to a scriptural citation, Lightfoot, p. 794. — 7tw?] how, that is, with what words, not CHAP. X. 28, 29. 123 instead of Tt (Kypke and others). Comp. 77-&J? <£i}?, 7rw? Xeyet?, 7rai? So/eez?, and the like. Observe that ev Tm vop,m is placed first for the sake of emphasis, and that the doubled expression of the question indicates the urgency of the ques tioner. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 8Q2, is wrong in explaining the passage as if it were 7r<5? av avay. — Ver. 2 7. The lawyer quotes Deut. vi. 5 along with Lev. xix. 18. The Jews had to repeat daily morning and evening the former passage, together with Deut. xi. 13 ff. (Berac. f. 3. 3 ; comp. on Mark xii. 29) ; it appeared also on the phylacteries (see on Matt, xxiii. 5), but not Lev. xix. 18 ; hence the opinion of Kuinoel 1 " Jesum digito monstrasse thecam iUam, qua se ornaverat legis peritus," must be rejected. The reason why the lawyer answered entirely in the meaning of Jesus, and especially adds the passage from Leviticus, is found in the fact that his attention was directed not to what had immediately preceded, but to the problem ri<; e'o-Tt uov irXyalov; and that he used the question Tt riroiyaa<; k.t.X., ver. 25, only as an introduction thereto. To this question, familiar as he was with the principles of Jesus, he must have expected an answer in which the duty of the love of one's neighbour was not wanting, and thereto he would then attach the special question meant to tempt him, viz. ti? eo-Tt p,ov irXyalov ; But since the dialogue takes such a turn that he himself becomes the respondent, he gives ihe answer which he had expected from Jesus ; and now for his own self-justification — to show, to wit, that notwithstanding that correct answer, he did not ask his question without reason, but still needs more detailed instruction, he adds the problem under cover of which the temptation was to be brought in. The questioner, unexpectedly made to play the part of the respondent, thus keeps his object in view with presence of mind and craftiness, and it can neither be asserted that by his reply, in keeping with the meaning of Jesus, he at once gave himself up as a captive (de Wette), nor that this reply was not suggested till the question of Jesus was interposed (Bleek). Vv. 28, 29. Tovto volet] tovto has the emphasis correspond ing to the Tt of ver. 25. — tfay] t,ooyv almviov KXypovop,yaei<;, 124 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ver. 25. It is thus that Jesus declared the fundamental law of the divine retribution, as Paul, Rom. ii. 13. But as to the manner in which this moral, fundamental law leads to the necessity of the righteousness of faith (see on Romans, loc. cit), there was no occasion for Him to explain further in the presence of the legal tempter. — Ver. 29. BiKaimaat eavTov] namely, in reference to his question, to prove that he had put it with reason and justice ; see on ver. 26 f. Comp. also Maldonatus, de Wette, Bleek, Schegg. The view that he wished to represent himself as being honestly disposed, xvi. 15 (so usually), has against it 1 the purpose with which the scribe had presented himself, iKireipd^mv avTov, in spite of which he himself has still answered rightly, ver. 27. — Kal ti? k.t.X.] See on the Kat occurring thus abruptly and taking up •the other's discourse, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 879 f.; "Mire ad y6o<; facit," Bengel.— irXyalov] without an article, hence : who is neighbour to me ? Comp. ver. 3 6.. See Bornemann, Schol. p. 6 9 ; Winer, p. 1 1 8 f. [E. T. 163]. The element of temptation consisted in this, that from the mouth of Jesus was expected some sort of heterodox reply which should deviate- from the Rabbinical definition that the Jew's nearest neighbour is his fellow-Jew. Vv. 30, 31. 'TiroXap,Bdvetv, in the sense of " taking up the discourse of another by way of reply," occurs only here in the New Testament, and hence is probably taken by Luke from the source used by him. It is frequent in the LXX. (TO) and in the classical writers. Comp. Herod, vii. 101 : 6 Be viroXaBmv e(py ; Dem. 594. 21, 600. 20 ; Polyb. iv. 85. 4, xv. 8. 1. — dvdpmirb'i Tt?] without any more definite limitation, which, however, is not to be regarded as intentional (Paulus thinks that it is meant to intimate that the Samaritan asked no questions about his nationality, comp. also Schenkel), but leaves it to be understood of itself, by means of the context, that a Jew is meant (not a heathen, as Olshausen takes it), in 1 Lange, L. J. II. p. 1076, conjectures that the scribe wished, as the disciples had just returned from Samaria, to call Jesus to account in respect of this fellow ship with the Samaritans — which could not be the way to life. But the Seventy had not -been to Samaria at all. Comp. on ver. 1 and ix. 56. CHAP. X. 32, 34. 125 virtue of the contrast between Jew and Samaritan. — 'Iepixm] See on Matt. xx. 29. It was separated from Jerusalem by a desert region (Joseph. Bell. iv. 8. 3), which was unsafe because of robbers (Jerome on Jer. hi. 2). It was not a priestly city. — irepieireaev] he met with robbers, fell among them, as 7rej0t- iriirTeiv rivi, incidere in aliquem, is very often used in the classical writers (Herod, vi. 105, viii. 94, vi. 41 ; Dem. 1264. 26 ; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 38 ; Polyb. iii. 53. 6). There is no question here about chancing upon unfortunate circumstances, for this would have required the dative of an abstract noun (such as avp^opy, tvxv k.t.X). — o'i Kat k.t.X.] This and the subsequent Kat correspond to one another ; et . . . et. They took his clothes off him in order to rob him of them, and while doing so they beat him (because he resisted). The two participles therefore stand in the correct sequence of what actually occurred (in opposition to de Wette). — rvyxdvovTa] not equivalent to dWa, but : they left him when he was just half dead 1 (this was the condition to which he was reduced). Comp. Plat. Brot. p. 3 1 3 E, and elsewhere. See Ast, Lex. Blat. III. p. 420. ovTa might have been added besides, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 277. — dvTiirapyXOev] ex adverso praeteriit (Winer, de verb, compos. III. p. 18), he passed by on the opposite side. This dvTi gives a clear idea of the cold behaviour of the hard-hearted passer-by. The word occurs elsewhere only in Strat. vii. 2 (Jacobs, Anthol. III. p. 70) and Wisd. xvi. 10 (in which place, however, it means ex adverso advenire ; see Grimm). Comp. dvriirapievai, Xen. ' Anab. iv. 3. 17 ; Hell. v. 4. 38. Ver. 32. Observe the climax in the description — having reached the place (in question), he went, when he had come (approached) and seen (the state of the case), by on the other side. On yevop,. KaTa, comp. Herod, iii. 86 : oj? Kara tovto to xcopt°v iyevovTo ; Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. ver. 33. Ver. 34. 'Eirixemv k.t.X.] while he, as he was binding them up, poured on them oil and wine, the ordinary, remedy in the 1 The expression makes us feel the unconcernedness of the robbers about the ¦unfortunate -man whom they left to his fate just as he was. 126 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. case of wounds (see the passages in Wetstein and Paulus), which he carried with him for any casual need. — eVt to iBiov kttjvos] on his own beast (his ass), so that thus he himself gave up its use. — TrafoV^etoi/] instead of the Attic 77-apSoKetoi', Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 307. The word has also passed over into the Rabbinical vocabulary : P1J1S, see Lightfoot, p. 799. We must picture to ourselves a caravanserai, over which pre sided an ordinary landlord. Vv. 35, 36. \E7rt] as in Markxv. 1; Aetsiii. 1: towards the morrow, when it was about to dawn. — i%eX8mv] out of the inn. He gave the money to the landlord outside (past parti ciple). The small amount, however, that he gave him pre supposes the thought of a very early return. — iKBaXmv] a vivid picture; out of his purse. Comp. Matt. xiii. 52. — Trpoo-SaTrai/.] thou shalt have expended in addition thereto, besides; Lucian, Ep. Sat. xxxix. ; Corp. inscr. 108, 8. — eym] with emphasis ; the unfortunate man was not to have the claim made on him. — iiravepxeadat] signifies " reditum in eum ipsum locum," Tittmann, Synon. p. 232. Very fre quently in use in the classical writers. — yeyovevai] to have become by what he had done. On ylveadai, in the sense of se praestare, see Kuhner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4. Flacius, Clav. II. p. 330, weU says : " omnes quidem tres erant jure, sed unicus facto aut officio." — tov ip.irea. ei? t. X.] who fell among tlie thieves. See Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 153. Ver. 3 7. 'O -iroiyaw; k.t.X.] Bengel : " Non invitus abstinet legisperitus appellatione propria Samaritae." On the expres sion, comp. i. 72. — to e'Xeo?] the compassion related ; Kat av : thou also; not to be joined to iropevov (Laehmann), but to frolei. Comp. vi. 31. Eemaek. — Instead of giving to the theoretical question of the scribe, ver. 29, a direct and theoretical decision as to whom he was to regard as his neighbour, Jesus, by the feigned (according to Grotius and others, the circumstance actually occurred) history of the compassionate Samaritan, with all the force of the contrast that puts to shame the cold Jewish arro gance, gives a practical lesson on the question : how one actually becomes the neighbour of another, namely, by the exercise of helpful love, independently of the nationality and religion of CHAP. X. 38. 127 the persons concerned. And the questioner, in being dismissed with the direction, xal ei iroiu b[t,oioig, has therein indirectly the answer to his question, rig ieri /j.ov irXrieiov ; namely : Every one, without distinction of people and faith, to whom the circum stances analogous to the instance of the Samaritan direct thee to exercise helpful love in order thereby to become his neigh bour, thou hast to regard as thy neighbour. This turn on the part of Jesus, like every feature of the improvised narrative, bears the stamp of originality in the pregnancy of its meaning, in the insight which suggested it, and in the quiet and yet perfectly frank way in which the questioner, by a direct per sonal appeal, was put to the blush.1 Ver. 38. 'Ev Tm iropeveaflai] to be understood of the con tinuation of the journey to Jerusalem. See ix. 51, 57, x. 1. But Jesus cannot yet be in Bethany (see xiii. 22, xvii. 11), where Martha and Mary dwelt (John xi. 1, xii. 1 f.), and hence it is to be supposed that Luke, because he was un acquainted with the more detailed circumstances of the per sons concerned, transposed this incident, which must have occurred in Bethany, and that on an earlier festal journey, not merely to the last journey, but also to some other -village, and that a village of Gahlee. The tradition, or the written source, which he foUowed had preserved the fact and the names of the persons, but not the time and place of the incident. If we regard Luke as unacquainted with those particulars, the absence of all mention of Lazarus is the less surprising, seeing that the substance of the history concerns the sisters only (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 751). — Kal avTof] Kat is the usual and after iyeveTo, and avTo? brings Jesus Himself into prominence above the company of travellers (avTov?). He, on 1 The Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophylaet, Euthymius Zigabenus, have been able to impart mystical meanings to the individual points of the history. Thus the Mponehs tis signifies Adam; Jerusalem, paradise; Jericho, the world ; the thieves, the demons; the priest, the law; the Levite, the prophets; the Samaritan, Christ; the beast, Christ's body; the inn, the church; the landlord, the bisJiop ; the Denarii, the Old and New Testaments; the return, the Parousia. See especially Origen, Horn. 34 in Life., and Theophylaet, sub loc. Luther also similarly allegorises in his sermons. Calvin wisely says : " Scripturae major habenda est reverentia, quam ut germanum ejus sensum hac licentia transfigurare liceat." 128 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. His part, without the disciples, went into the village and abode at the house of Martha. — The notion that Martha was the wife (Bleek, Hengstenberg) or widow (Paulus) of Simon the leper, is based upon mistaken harmonistics. See on vii. 36 ff. and Matt. xxvi. 6 f. Whether she was a widow at all (Grotius) does not appear. She was the housekeeper and manager of the household, and probably the elder sister. Vv. 39, 40. TyBe] This word usuaUy refers to what foUows, but here in a vividly realizing manner it points to what lias gone before, as sometimes also occurs in the classical writers. See Bernhardy, p. 278 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ih. 3. 12. — f) Kat] Kat is not : even (Bornemann), which would have no reference to explain it in the context; but: moreover, bringing into prominence the fact that Mary, besides whatever else she did in her mind after the coming of Jesus, moreover seated herself at His feet, etc. See Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 636. — The form irapaKa6ea6elaa] (see the critical remarks), from irapaKade£op,at, to sit down near to, belongs to later Greek. Joseph. Antt. vi. 11. 9. — Mary sits there as a learner (Acts xxii. 3), not as a companion at table (at the right of Jesus, where His outstretched feet were), as Paulus and Kuinoel wiU have it (women sat at table ; see Wetstein in loc). For the text as yet says nothing of the meal, but only of the hospitable reception in general (ver. 38), and, moreover, ver. 40 aUudes generally to the attendance on and entertainment of the honoured and beloved Guest, wherein Martha was exhausting her hospitality. There is no trace of any reclining at table ; the context in k. yKove r. Xoy. air points only to the idea of the female disciple. — irepiairaaOat, in the sense of the being withdrawn from attention and solicitude by reason of occupa tions, belongs to later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Bhryn. p. 415. Comp. Plut. Mor. p. 517 C : irepuriraap,bd? Se iari XP€l'a^\ -A- contrast with 7roXXa : hit of one thing there is need ; one thing is necessary, that is to say, as an object of care and trouble. By these words Jesus, in accordance with the context, can mean nothing else than that from which Martha had withdrawn, while Mary was bestowing pains upon it — the undivided devotion to His word for the sake of salvation, although in tenderness He abstains from mention ing it by name, but leaves the reference of the expression, in itself only general, to be first discovered from the words which foUow. In respect of the neuter ei>d? nothing is to be sup plemented any more than there is in respect of iroXXd. Following Gregory, Bede, Theophylaet, Zeger, Michaelis, and others (comp. Erasmus in the Annotations), Paulus under stands : one dish, " we need not many kinds," and t^i> dyaByv p,eplBa is then taken as meaning the really good portion} which figuratively represents the participation in, communion with Jesus. The former, especially after the impressive Mdpda, Mdp6a, would have been just as trivial and out of harmony with the serious manner of Jesus as the latter would have been discourteous to the weU-intentioned hostess. Nachtigall also mistakes (in Henke's Magaz. VI. p. 355), and Stolz agrees with him in interpreting : one person is enough (in the kitchen), in opposition to which the contrast of iroXXd is decisive, seeing that according to it evd? must be neuter. — ttjv dya9yv ueptBa] the good part. That, namely, about which care and pains are taken, consists, according to the various kinds of these objects, of several parts. Mary has selected for herself among these, for her care and pains, the good part ; and this is, in accordance with the subject, nothing else than precisely that ev which is necessary — that portion of the objects of solicitude and labour which is the good one, the good portion, 1 Comp. the form of speech, xpls /ttpiias itnrnft, to dine in portions, and sea examples in "Wetstein. LUKE II. I 130 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. which only one can be. More vaguely Grotius, Eisner, Kypke, Kuinoel, and others put it : the good occupation ; and de Wette, generalizing this : the good destination of life. Comp. also Euthymius Zigabenus : Bvo pxplBes iroXirela<; iiratveTal, y p,ev irpaKTiKy, y Be OempyTiKy. — t^v dyadyv] neither means optimam (Kuinoel and others), nor does it imply that the care of Martha, in which assuredly love also was expressed, was mala (Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 19); but it designates the portion as the good one KaT* i^&xyv. — yris ovk daip. air' air] refers certainly, first of all, to Martha's appeal, ver. 40. Hence it means : which shall not be taken away from her ; she shall keep it, Mark iv. 25, whereby, however, Jesus at the same time, in thoughtful reference to further issues, points, in His characteristicaUy significant manner, to the everlasting possession of this uep£v Elz. has simply bfiuv, in opposition to decisive evidence. On similar evidence, moreover, jj is subsequently adopted instead of tl (Elz.), and at ver. 13 btfiara &ya6d (reversed in Elz.). — Ver. 12. Instead of n xa! idv Tisch. has merely 3) xai, foUowing B L X, min. But idv was the more easily omitted, since it does not occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, ahqeei is so decisively attested that it is, with Tisch, to be adopted instead of the Becepta alrfjeri. — - Ver. 15. ™ before apxovn is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested ; the omission is explained from Matt. xii. 24. — Ver. 19. xpiral bp,uv abroi] B D, Lachm. Tisch. have abroi b/iuv xfirnl. A C K L M U, min. Vuig. It. 1 Thus or similarly Mareion read the first petition, and Hilgenfeld, Kritik. Unters. p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the petition in this place about the Holy Ghost as original (because specifically Pauline), and the canonical text as an alteration in accordance with Matthew ; see also Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 222 f., and in his Evangel, p. 187 f. ; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 14. But ver. 13 easily occasioned the alteration, welcome as it was to the one-sided Paulinism, seeing that by its means the Holy Spirit was represented as the chief of what was to be asked for from God. Comp. Tholuck, Sergpred. p. 347 f. 132 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. have abroi xpiral i,u.uv. So also has X, which, however, places 'ieovrai before ip.. [Tisch. 8 has adopted the reading of K]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Becepta. The omission of abroi (it is wanting still in 113) occasioned its being very variously placed when it was reintroduced. The place assigned to it by Lachm. is the rather to be preferred, as B D, the authorities in its favour, have in Matt. xii. 27 : abroi xpiral ieovr. b/j,Zv, and have not therefore borrowed their arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, has also in Matt. I.e. : abroi xpiral b/iZv 'ieovrai ; hence the reading of A C, etc, is probably due to a conformity with Matthew. — Ver. 22. The article before lexopor. is wanting in B D L r N, and is, with Lachm. and Tisch, to be deleted. It was intro duced in accordance with o iexvpfc, ver. 21. — Ver. 25. Instead of 1x06k, important authorities (but not A B L X) have ixDuv. Eightly; see on Matt. xii. 44. — Ver. 29. After '\mva Elz. Scholz have roi irpoip^rou, in opposition to important evidence. It is from Matt. xii. 39, whence, however, the Becepta iirityrtT was also derived, instead of which ZpreT, with Tisch, is to be read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch, ytved is again to be inserted before tovnpd. — Ver. 32. N/keui'] ABC E** GLMUXrAN, min. Syr. Vuig. It. have NmvTrai. Recommended by Griesb, adopted by Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. 8 has Nivtutlrai]. Rightly ; Luke has followed Matthew (xii. 41) verbatim. — Ver. 34. After the first 6 ll.1 — to KaO' ypApav] needed day by day, daily. See Bernhardy, p. 329. — Kat ydp avTot] The special consideration placed before God for the exercise of His forgiveness, founded in the divine order of grace (Matt. vi. 14; Mark xi. 25), is here more directly and more strongly expressed than in Matthew. — dqbioftev] (see the critical remarks) from the form a^t'w, Eccles. ii. 18; Mark i. 34, xi. 16. See generally, Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. p. 174. — iravTi ocfielXovTi yp.lv] to every one, when he is indebted to us (in an ethical sense). Comp. Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 138]. The article before 6etXovTt is too weakly attested, and is a grammatical addition. Vv. 5-8. After He had taught them to pray, He gives them the certainty that the prayer will be heard. The con struction is interrogative down to irapaOyam aiTm, ver. 6 ; at KaKelvo';, ver. 7, the interrogative construction is abandoned, 1 The attempt of Hitzig (in the Theol. Jahrb. p. 1854, 131) to explain the enigmatical word, to wit, by 1*1 Una, according to which it is made to mean, the nourishment equivalent to the hunger, is without any real etymological analogy, and probably was only a passing fancy. "Weizsacker, p. 407, is mistaken in finding as a parallel the word ua-sSjoiw<« in respect of the idea panem necessarium. This, indeed, does not come from tWm, but from %\ow'm, and this latter from i'Ieitti. Moreover, the "1HD of the Gospel to the Hebrews cannot betray that the first understanding of the word had become lost at an early date, but, considering the high antiquity of this Gospel, it can only appear as a pre servation of the first mode of understanding it, especially as the Logia was written in Hebrew. In order to express the idea : necessary (thus ivxyxxTct, i:iwijSii«), there assuredly was no need of any free and, for that purpose, faulty word-making. CHAP. XI. 9, 10. 135 and the sentence proceeds as if it were a conditional one (idv), in accordance with which also the apodosis beginning at ver. 8 (Xeya> vp.lv k.t.X) is turned. Comp. on Matt. vii. 9. This anacoluthon is occasioned by the long dialogue in the oratio directa : (piXe k.t.X, after which it is not observed that the first et'7777 (ver. 5) had no idv to govern it, but was inde pendent.1 — ti? ef vpimv efet k.t.X.] The sentence has become unmanageable ; but its drift, as originaUy conceived, though not carried out, was probably : Which of you shall be so circum stanced as to have a friend, and to go to him, etc, and would not receive from him the answer, etc. ? Nevertheless I say unto you, etc. — Kat e'liry avTm] The sentence passes over into the deliberative form. The converse case is found in Antiph. Or. i. 4 : 77730? Ttva? ovv eX9y ti? Boy0ov<;, r) irol ryv KaTaq^vyyv iroiyaerai . . . ; See thereon, Maetzner, p. 130. — Ver. 7. Ta vaiBla uov] the father does not wish to disturb his little chil dren in their sleep. — ei? r. Kolryv] they are into bed. See on Mark ii. 1. — Ver. 8. Bid ye k.t.X.] at least on account of his impudence. On the structure of the sentence, comp. xviii. 4 f. On the position of ye before the idea to which it gives emphasis, see Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 118. Vv. 9, 10. Comp. Matt. vii. 7 f. Practical application of the above, extending to ver. 13, in propositions which Christ may have repeatedly made use of in His exhortations to prayer. — Kaym vp.lv Xeym] Comp. Luke xvi. 9. Also I say unto you. Observe (1) that Kaym places what Jesus is here saying in an incidental parallel with the Bmaet ainm oamv %p»)£« which immediately precedes : that according to the measure of this granting of prayer, to that extent goes also His precept to the disciples, etc. ; (2) that next to Kaym the emphasis rests on vpTiv (in ver. 8 the emphasis rested upon Xeym), inasmuch as Jesus declares what He also, on His part, gives to the disciples to take to heart. Consequently Kaym corresponds to the subject 1 Hence the less difficult reading of Laehmann, Ipu, ver. 5, following A D, etc. , is a correct indication of the construction, namely, that not with iJVrji, ver. 5 (Bleek, Ewald), but, first of all, with xixews, ver. 7, does the sentence proceed as if what went before were conditionally stated. If, with Laehmann and Tischendorf, a point is placed before t-iyai i/*h, ver. 8, a complete break in the sentence needlessly arises. 136 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. of Secret, and vp.lv to the avrm of ver. 8. The teaching itself, so far as Jesus deduces it from that irapaBoXy, depends on the argument a minori ad majus : If a friend in your usual relations of intercourse grants to his friend even a trouble some petition, although not from friendship, yet at least for the sake of getting quit of the petitioner's importunity ; how much more should you trust in God that He will give you what you pray for ! The tendency of the irapaBoXy points therefore not, as it is usually understood, to perseverance in prayer, for of this, indeed, Jesus says nothing in His applica tion, vv. 9, 10, but to the certainty of prayer being heard. Vv. 11-13. Comp. on Matt. vii. 9-11. Still on the hear ing of prayer, but now in respect of the object petitioned for, which is introduced by the particle Be expressing transition from one subject to another. — The construction here also is an instance of anacoluthon (comp. on ver. 5), so that the sentence is continued by ay XlOov k.t.X., as if instead of the question a conditional protasis (as at ver. 12) had preceded. — tov iraTepa] Whom of you will his son ask as his father for a loaf ? — d e|? ovpavov Bmaet] Attraction, instead of d iv oipavm i£ ovpavov Bmaet. See on ix. 61, and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 323 [E. T. 377]. — irvev/ut dyiov] this highest and best gift ; a more definite, but a later form of the tradition than that which is found in Matthew. Comp. the critical remarks on ver. 2. Vv. 14-22. See on Matt. xii. 22-29; Mark ih. 22 ff. Luke agrees with Matthew rather than with Mark. — fjv eV/SaXX.] he was busied therein. — Kat avTo] and he himself, the demon, by way of distinguishing him from tho possessed person. — Kmqbov] See on Mark ix. 17. — Ver. 16. A varia tion from Matthew in the connection of this (in Luke pre mature) demand for a sign (see on Matt. xii. 38), and in its purport (ef ovpavov). — Ver. 1 7. Kat oIko<: iirl oIkov 7ri77"Tet] a graphic description of the desolation just indicated by ipyuovTat : and house falleth upon house. This is to be taken quite literaUy of the overthrow of towns, in which a building tumbling into ruins strikes on the one adjoining it, and falls upon it. Thus rightly Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and others, CHAP. XI. 23. 137 Bleek also. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 84. 2 : vav<; Te vyi irpoaeirtine. This meaning, inasmuch as it is still more strongly descriptive, is to be preferred to the view of Buttmann, which in itself is equally correct (Neut. Gr. p. 291 [E. T. 338J) : House after house. Many other commentators take ot«o? as meaning family, and explain either (Bornemann), " and one family falls away after another" (on eVi, comp. PhU. ii. 27), or (so the greater number, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, de Wette) they supply Bia- p,epiadel<; after oIkov, and take eVi ,oIkov as equivalent to e'<£' eavTov : " et familia a se ipsa dissidens salva. esse nequit " (Kuinoel). It may be argued against the latter view, that if the meaning expressed by i eavTov had been intended, the very parallelism of the passage would have required e'<£' eavTov to be inserted, and that oIko? iirl oIkov could not in any wise express this reflexive meaning, but could only signify: one hmise against the other. The whole explanation is the work of the Harmonists. It may be argued against Bornemann, that after epyuovTat the thought which his interpretation brings out is much too weak, and consequently is not suffi ciently in accordance with the context. We are to picture to ourselves a kingdom which is devastated by civU war. — Ver. 18. Kal 6 Sarav.] Satan also, corresponding with the instance just referred to. — oti XeyeTe k.t.X.] the reason of the question. — Ver. 20. iv BatcrvXm Qeov] Matthew: ev irvevp,aTt ©eov. Luke's mode of expressing the divine agency (Ex. viii. 19 ; Ps. viii. 3 ; Philo, Vit. Mos. p. 619 C; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 820) appeals more to the senses, especially that of sight. It is a more concrete form of the later tradition. — Ver. 21. d laxvpbo?] not the subject (Luther), but: armed. — Tyv eavTov avXyv] not : his palace (see on Matt. xxvi. 3), but : his own premises, at whose entrance he keeps watch. — ev elpyvy iaTt k.t.X.] This is the usual result of that watching. But the case is other wise if a stronger than he, etc. See what follows. Thus in me has a stronger than Satan come upon him, and vanquished him ! — Ta aicvXa aiTov] the spoils taken from him. Ver. 23. After Jesus has repeUed the accusation: lv BeeX- 138 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. £eBovX k.t.X., ver. 1 5, He pronounces upon the relation to Him of those men spoken of in ver. 15 (see on Matt. xii. 30), and then adds — Vv. 24-26, a figurative discourse, in which He sets forth their incorrigibility. See on Matt. xii. 43—45. Luke, indeed, gives the saying concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost (Mark iii 28 f. ; Matt. xh. 31 f.), but not until xh. 10 ; and therefore it is wrong to say that he omitted it in the interest of the Pauline doctrine of the forgiveness of sins (Baur).- Vv. 27, 28. A woman (assuredly a mother), following with out restraint her true understanding and impulse, pubhcly and earnestly pays to Jesus her tribute of admiration. Luke alone has this feminine type of character also (comp. x. 3 8 ff), which bears the stamp of originahty, on the one hand, in the genuine naivete' of the woman (" bene sentit, sed muhebriter loqui tur," Bengel) ; on the other, in the reply of Jesus forthwith turning to the highest practical interest. This answer con tains so absolutely the highest truth that lay at the heart of Jesus in His ministry, that Strauss, I. p. 719 (comp. Weizsacker, p. 169), concludes, very erroneously, from the resemblance of the passage to viii. 21, that there were two different frames or moulds of the tradition in which this saying of Christ was set. The incident is not paraUel even with Mark iii. 31 ff. (Holtzmann), even although in its idea it is similar. — iirdpaaa] iitymaaaa' amvm<; ipMKapiae ryv yevvyaaaav aiTov to? toiovtov p/iyrepa yeveaOai d^imOelaav, Euthymius Zigabenus. — e'k tov d'^Xov] out of the crowd she lifted up her voice. — puiKapla k.t.X.] See analogous beatitudes from the Rabbins and classical writers in Wetstein, Schoettgen, and Eisner, Obss. p. 226. — Ver. 28. p,evovvye] may serve as corrective (imo vero) as weU as con firmatory (utique). See generaUy, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 400 ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 9, ii. 7. 5. In this passage it is the former, comp. Rom. ix. 20, x. 18 ; Jesus does not deny His mother's blessedness, but He defines the predicate /taKapto?, not as the woman had done, as a special external relation, but as a general moral relation, which might be established in the case of every one, and under which even CHAP. XI. 29-36. 139 Mary was brought, so that thus the benediction upon the mother, merely considered as mother, is corrected. The posi tion of pievovv and pievovvye at the beginning of the sentence belongs to the later Greek usage. See examples in Wetstein, Sturz, Bial. Al. p. 203 ; Lobeck, ad Bhryn. p. 342. Vv. 29-32. See on Matt. xii. 39-42. Jesus now, down to ver. 36, turns His attention to the dismissal of those eVe/sot who had craved from Him a ayptelov ef ovpavov (ver. 16). — yp^ard] He first began this portion of His address when the crowds were stUl assembling thither, i.e. were assembling in still greater numbers (iiradpot^), comp. Plut. Anton. 44. But it is arbitrary to regard this introductory notice of the assembling of the people as deduced by Luke himself from the condemnation of the entire generation (Weizsacker). — Ver. 30. Comp. Matt. xvi. 4. Jonah was for the Ninevites a sign (divinely sent) by means of his personal destiny, oti virep(pvm diroKpv^ov oIkIov : in recent times, Valckenaer, Matthaei (ed. min. I. p. 395), Kuinoel, Bretschneider, Bleek, Holtzmann, Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298], have it. Comp. Beza. Ver. 35. See therefore ; take care, lest, etc. Beza weU says : " Considera, num." Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [R T. 243]. Gal. vi. 1 is not quite similar, for there fiy stands with the subjunctive, and means : that not. — to <£gj? to iv aol] 6 i/ov? d mTeivov has 1 These words have nothing further to do with the refusal of the sign. This is iu opposition to Hilgenfeld, who regards the connection as being : that there is no need at all of such a sign, since, indeed, Jesus does not conceal His light, etc. Comp. also.Weizsacker, p. 157. Besides, the discourse, ver. 33, manifestly does not describe a. procedure that takes place, but a duty. CHAP. XI. 37. 141 the emphasis, and the kind and degree of this light are illus trated (comp. ver. 34) by »? orav k.t.X. : " If therefore thy body is absolutely and entirely bright, without having any part dark, then bright shall it be absolutely and entirely, as when tlie light with its beam enlightens thee." For then is the eye rightly constituted, fulfilling its purpose (see on Matt. vi. 22) ; but the eye stands to the body in the relation of the light, ver. 34. It is complete enlightenment, therefore, not merely partial, of which this normal condition of light (oj? oTav k.t.X.) is affirmed. Airo tov KaTa to amp,a irapaBeiypiaTos irepl t?j? 1^1^}? BtBmat voelv . . . 'Edv avTy b\y tri\x» x.t.x., v^as historically indicated in the Church by: h emp/a mv 6s»u sTirsv' k^roanXZ k.t.X. And Luke here makes Jesus Himself speak in this later mode of indicating it. It is a irn^n trpirspn in form. According to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 101 (comp. also Sehegg), Jesus announces God's counsel in the form of a word of God. Comp. Grotius and van Hengel, Annot. p. 16 f. To this view sis aureus '(instead of tis ifiZs) would certainly not be opposed, since those whom the speech concerned might be opposed as third persons to the wisdom of God which was speaking. But instead of d*ii might be expected xiyu ; for now through Jesus the divine wisdom would declare its counsel (Heb. iii. 10, to which Hofmann refers, is different, because there Ci*ci in connection with Tpntuxfi'ixL actually relates, to the past). Moreover, if by « amplx nv emil were not meant the personal wisdom of God that appeared in Christ, and emitted the utterance, it would not he conceivable why it should not simply have been said : -S;a touts xa) o 6s« xiyu. Nowhere else in the New Testament is a declaration of God called a declaration of the divine wisdom. Besides, accord ing to Matt, xxiii. 34, Jesus is the subject of ixoo-nxS ; and this is also the case in the passage before us, if h e-atpla. t. ©£»» is understood of the person of Christ as being the personal self-revelation of the divine wisdom. Christ sends to His Church the prophets and apostles (x. 3), Eph. iv. 11. Biggenbach's explanation (Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 599 f.) is similar to that of Hofmann, — ¦ though more correct1 in taking the tretpia t. 0hS in the Logos-sense, but interpret ing the past tense i!Xn is indeed attested by authorities of importance (BD1 MSVXs, min. vss. Clement) ; yet ydp (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) betrays itself as a connective addition, in opposition to which is the evidence also of oJ^/ % *\>vx*i m min- (following Matthew). — Ver. 25. The omission of ptpi/Muv (Tisch.) is too weakly attested by D and two cursives for us to be able to regard the word as an addition from Matthew [Tisch. 8 has restored it]. The Homoioteleuton after up.™ might easily cause its being dropped out. — Ver. 26. oiire] Lachm. and Tisch. have oidi. Necessary, and sufficiently attested by B L X, etc. — Ver. 27. irug ai%dver oi xov. oude vrieei] D, Vere. Syr.™1'- Mareion ? Clem, have irug oun vtifoi oun ipaivei. So Tisch., and rightly; the Becepta is from Matt. vi. 28. — CHAP. XII. 1. 151 Ver. 28. rhv x°PT0V 'ev T$ dyp$ (rij/i. ovra] many variations. Both the word rS> and the order of. the Becepta are due to Matt. vi. 30. FoUowing BLs, etc., we must read with Tisch. h dypcz rh x°PTOv efi/iepov ovra [Tisch. 8, following N, B L A, 262, Sah. Copt., has ovra erifitpov] (Lachm. has r. xoprov eri/i. h dyp. ovra). — Ver. 31. Elz., Scholz have roi ©sou. But the weU-attested airoi was supplanted by roD &eoi, following Matt. vi. 33, whence also was imported irdvra after raira (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 36. dvaXueu] dvaXieji is decisively attested, and is hence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred. — Ver. 38. oi SoiXoi] is want ing in B D L N, vss. Ir. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with ver. 37 [Tisch. 8 has also deleted IxtTvoi, which is wanting in K*]. — Ver. 40. oun] is to be struck out with Lachm. and Tisch., as also is aura [not omitted by Tisch. 8], ver. 41. — Ver. 42. Instead of 6 iep,evoi eKaaro's irXyaid^eiv airm, Theophylaet. — ypijaTo] He began, pictorial style. — irpmTov] before all, is to be taken with irpoaexeTe, comp. ix. 61, x. 5 ; Gersdorf, p. 107. It does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Bengel, Knapp, Schulz, Scholz, Paulus, Laehmann, Tischendorf), in connection with which it would be absolutely superfluous, although A C D VK, etc, do take it thus. Ewald weU says, "As a first duty." — t?)? £vp,ysi] see on Matt. xvi. 6 ; Mark viii. 15. Here also is not meant the vice of hypocrisy (the usual interpretation), because in that case the next clause would have y viroKpiav; (with the article) ; but it glances back to the subject of the previous conversation at the table,1 and means : the pernicious doctrines and principles. Of these He says : their nature is hypocrisy ; therein hes what constitutes the reason of the warn ing (yTis, quippe quae). 1 Therefore not to be interpreted of the Judaizers of the apostolic times (Weiz sacker, p. 364); just as little is xvi. 14. CHAP. XII. 2-10. 153 Vv. 2-10. See on Matt. x. 26-33. The connection is indi cated by means of the continuative Be : " Ye must the more, however, be on your guard against this hypocritical typy, since your teaching is destined to the greatest publicity for the future.'' Comp." Mark iv. 22. Pubhcity which lies open to the world's judgment, and hypocritical character which must shun disclosure, are irreconcilable. If you would not dread the former, the latter must remain far from you. According to Weiss, Luke has given to the whole saying only the mean ing, that everything concealed by hypocrisy nevertheless one day comes to light, and therefore, even every word, however secretly it is spoken, shall come one day to publicity. But this supposition, without any ground for it, attributes to Luke a complete misapprehension of the meaning. — Ver. 3. dvd' mv] quare, wherefore. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 710; Schaefer, Appar. Bern. I. p. 846. — oaa iv Ty aKOTia k.t.X,] Everything which (in dread of persecutions) ye shall have spoken in the darkness, i.e. shall have taught in secret, shall (in the triumph of my cause) be heard in the clear daylight, i.e. shall be known in full publicity by your preaching and the preaching of others. The expression eV Ty aKOTia used of the apostolic agency is not inappropriate (de Wette), since it characterizes it not in general, but only under certain circumstances (ver. 4). But certainly the original form of the saying is found in Matt. x. 27, whUe in Luke it was altered to suit the apostolic experiences after these had often enough proved the necessity of teaching in secret what at a later period came to be publicly proclaimed before the whole world,1 when the gospel, as in Luke's time, was triumphantly spread abroad. — iv t& mTi] in the clear day; Horn. Od. xxi. 429 ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 26; Wisd. xviii. 4. — Ver. 4. If Jesus reminded His disciples by eV Ty aKOTia and irpb<; to ov? . . . 1 According to Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 192 (comp. his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 192), and Kostlin, p. 147, this publicity is regarded as having been meant as a con trast to the ministry of the Twelve, because they had chiefly limited themselves to the circle of Judaism. It is not indeed in agreement with this that tliat which is secret should so purposely be made prominent. The Twelve neither limited their ministry merely to Judaism, nor did they minister among the Jews in quietness and secrecy like preachers in a corner. 154 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. iv t. . Tayneioi?, ver. 3, of the impending pressure of perse cutions, He. now exhorts them to fearlessness in presence of their persecutors. — T019 ^>t*Xot? p,ov] for as such they were the object of persecution. — pteTa TavTa] p,eTa to diroKTelvai. The plural depends on the idea of being put to death, compris ing all the modes of taking away life. See Kuhner, II. p. 423. — Ver.. 5 f. Observe the marked emphasis on the oBy0yTe. — Vv. 8-10. Not an admonition for the disciples to remain faithful, for ver. 10 would not be appropriate to that, inas much as there was no occasion to be anxious at all about theh speaking against the Son of man, and it would have been even inappropriate to bid them beware of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ; x but Jesus adds to the previous encouragements a new one (Xeym Be vp!iv, comp. ver. 4), saying to them how momentous for the eternal destiny of men is the apostolic work conducted by the Holy Spirit, how even the decision of the judgment on men would be given in accordance with the result of the work of the apostles among them. Hence, ver. 10 has been wrongly regarded as not pertinent to this (Kuinoel, de Wette) ; whUe, on the other hand, Schleiermacher con siders the arrangement of Matt. xii. as less appropriate, in that he introduces a contrast of the present time (in which the Son is resisted) with the future (when the more rapid and mighty agency of the Spirit is blasphemed). In itself the saying is appropriate in both places, nay, it may have been uttered more than once ; but in Matthew and Mark we have its closest historical connection and position. 1 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 342, insists on regarding the blasphemy against the Spirit in this place as not distinct from the denial of Jesus. He says that this denial, in the case of those, namely, who had not only had the earthly human manifestation of Jesus before them, but had received the Holy Spirit, is blasphemy against the Spirit. But it is very arbitrary to assume, in contradiction to Matt. xii. 81, Mark iii. 29, that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Spirit has already been received. The blasphemers of the Spirit are malevolently conscious and hardened opposers of Christ. They may certainly have already had the Spirit and have apostatized and become such opposers (Heb. x. 29) ; but if such people were to be under stood in this passage, some clearer indication should have been given. Still, how far from the Lord must even the mere thought have been, that the disciples, His friends, ver. 4, could ever change into such malignant blasphemers 1 CHAP. XII. 11-15. 155 — As to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, see on Matt. xii. 31 f. Vv. 11, 12. But when they bring you — foUowing out this denial of me and blasphemy against the Spirit — to the syna gogues, etc. ¦ — 7rw? rj ri] Care not about the kind and manner, or the substance of your defence. See also on Matt. x. 1 9 ; Mark xiii. 11. On diroXoy. Tt, comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 4 ; Dem. 227. 13; Plat. Gorg. p. 521 A, Bhaed. p. 69 D, Polit. 4, p. 420 B; Acts xxiv. 10. Vv. 13-21. Peculiar to Luke; from his source containing the account qf the journey. — Ver. 1 3 f. ti?] certainly no attend ant of Jesus (Lightfoot, Kuinoel, and others), as Luke himself points out by ck tov 6'^Xov; besides, such a one would have known Jesus better than is betrayed by this uncongenial request. It was a Jew on whom the endowments and autho rity of Jesus produced such an impression that he thought he might be able to make use of Him in the matter of his inheritance. Whether he was a younger brother who grudged to the first-born his double share of the inheritance (Ewald), must be left in doubt. — e« t. cr^X.] belongs to et7re, as is shown by the order. The mode of address, dvdpmire, has a tone of disapproval, Rom. ii. 1, ix. 20 ; Plat. Protag. p. 350.D ; Soph. Aj. 778, 1132. Observe that Jesus instantly rejects the appUcation that concerns a purely worldly matter ; on the other hand, He elsewhere gives a decision on the question of divorce.1 Ver. 15. Jesus recognised irXeove^la as that which had stirred up the quarrel between the brothers, and uses the • occasion to utter a warning against it. — irpbs avTov';] i.e. 7T|0o? tov ox^ov, ver. 13. — oti ovk iv t& ireptaaeveiv k.tX.] for not by the fact of a man's possessing abundance does his life (the support of his life) consist in his ^possessions. This — the fact that one's life consists in one's possessions — is not depend ent on the abundance of the possession, but — this, the contrast unexpressed, but resulting from ver. 30 — on the will of God, 1 This is worthy of consideration also in respect of the question : whethei matters of marriage belong to the competency of the spiritual or the temporal tribunal ? 156 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. who calls away the selfish collector of treasures from the midst of his abundance. The simple thought then is : It is not superfluity that avails to support a man's life by what he possesses. h Vivitur parvo bene." To this literal meaning, moreover, the following parable corresponds, since it does not authorize us to understand £my in its pregnant reference : true life, amTypia, or the like (Kuinoel, Bornemann, Olshausen, Ewald, and the older commentators) ; on the other hand, Kaeuffer, Be f?5? almv. not. p. 12 f.1 Observe, moreover, that oiK has been placed at the beginning, before iv tS ireptaa., because of the contrast which is implied, and that tivI, according to the usual construction, that of the Vulgate, goes most readily with irepta aeveiv (xxi. 4; Tob. iv. 16; Dion. Hal. iii. 11), and is not governed by what follows. An additional reason for this construction lies in the fact that thus the following aiTov is not superfluous. Finally, it is to be noted that etvat c'k is the frequent proflcisci ex, prodire ex. De Wette is wrong in saying : "for though any one has superfluity, his life is not a part of his possessions, i.e. he retains it not because he has these posses sions." In this manner elvai ix would mean, to which belong ; but it is decisive against this view entirely that owe iv tw ireptaaeveiv must be taken together, whUe in respect thereof, according to the former view, no contrast can be conceived; for the life is in no case a part of our possessions (in the above sense). Vv. 16-19. On the idea of this parable, comp. Ps. xlix. 18 ; Eccius. xi. 1 7 ff. — eitpopyaev] not in the sense of the pluper fect (Luther, Castalio, and others), but : bore well. Examples of this late and rare verb (Hipp. Ep. 1274, 20 ; Joseph. Bell. ii. 21. 2) may be found in Kypke. Comp. eiy ei? 6eb v irXovTmv. — Ver. 24. tov? KopaKasi] not in reference to the young ravens forsaken by the old ones (Job xxxviii. 41 ; Ps. cxlvii. 9) ; but a common and very numerous species of bird is mentioned (the pulli corvorum must other wise have been expressly named: in opposition to Grotius and others). — Ver. 2 8. According to the Becepta (but see the critical remarks), iv t& dypm would have to be connected with ovra ; on the other hand, foUowing the reading of the amended texts : but if in tlie field God in such wise clothes the grass, which to-day is here and to-morrow is cast into an oven, etc. Instead of dpKpiivvvat, we must read, with Laehmann, dp,(j>id£ei, or, with Tischendorf, dp,te£et. Both forms belong to later Greek (Themist., Plut., LXX.). — Ver. 29. Kat fytet?] as the ravens and the lilies. — p,y p.eTempl£ea6e] The Vulgate rightly translates : " nolite in sublime tolh ; '; and Luther : " be not high-minded." Exalt not yourselves ; lift not yourselves up to lofty claims, which is to be taken as referring not to mere eating and drinking, but generaUy. The usus loquendi of p,eTempi%eadai, efferri, physicaUy and (Aristoph. Av. 1447 ; Polyb. iii. 70. 1, iv. 59. 4, vii. 4. 6; Diodor. xi. 32. 41) psychically is weU known. See also the passages from Philo in Loesner, p. 116. But others (Castalio, Beza, Grotius, CHAP. XII. 32-34. 159 Maldonatus, Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Krebs, Valckenaer, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Paulus, Bleek, and many more) have : nee inter spem metumque fluctuetis. Comp. Ewald: "waver not, lose not your balance." The view of Euthymius Zigabenus also is that, Christ refers to rbv irepiairaaabv tov dirb Tmv ovpavtmv iirl rd yyiva. Certainly, as p.eT&mpo'; may mean : fluctuans (see Schweighauser, Lex. Pol. p. 387; Josephus, Antt. iv. 3. 1, Bell. iv. 2. 5), pieTempl^eiv may signify : to make wavering (Dem. 169. 23; Polyb. v. 70. 10; Schol. ad Soph. Oed. B. 924; Eurip. Or. 1537); but there appears no reason in the connection for departing from the above, which is the usual meaning in which the word is currently employed, even in the LXX. and in the apocryphal writers (2 Mace. vii. 34, v. 17 ; 3 Mace. vi. 5). This pteTemp. has for its opposite the avvairdryeadat Tot? TaTreivot?, Rom. xii. 16. Ver. 32. Pecuhar to Luke. An encouragement to fearless ness in the endeavour after the Messiah's kingdom, by means of the promise of the divinely-assured final result. — p,y oBov] in consideration of their external powerlessness and weakness (to pitKp. iroip,viov). But Christians generally, as such, are not the little1 flock (which is not to be changed into a poor oppressed band, as de Wette, following Grotius, does), but the little community of the disciples (ver. 22), as whose head He was their shepherd (comp. Johnx. 12; Matt. xxvi. 31). — evBoKyaev] it has pleased your, Father. See on Rom. xv. 2 6 ; Col. i. 19. ¦ — Bovvat vpliv r B.] see xx. 29 f. Vv. 33, 34. Comp. Matt. vi. 19-21. This end is so im portant that, in order to strive thereafter with your whole interest (ver. 34), ye must renounce your earthly possessions, etc. This selling and giving up of the proceeds as alms (iXeypioa., as xi. 41) is not required of all Christians (ver. 22), as de Wette wiU have it, but of the disciples, who, in the discharge of their office, needed perfect release from what is temporal. AU the less do the words furnish a basis for the consilium evangelicum and the vow of poverty (Bisping). — eavTot?] whUe ye give to others. — BaXXavTia (x. 4) p.y 1 But rai/tviiiv is not a diminutive, as Bengel supposed, but is a contraction for * irapaB. TavT.] to wit, of the slaves who wait for their lord, ver. 36 ff. See ver. 42 ff. The reference to the master of the house and the thief, ver. 39, belonged also thereto as a concrete warning example. — y Kal] Peter asks whether the parable is intended for the disciples, or also (or at the same time also) has a general reference. Vv. 42-44. In the pregnant style characteristic of Jesus as it most of aU appears in John, He makes no direct reply to that question, but proceeds with His parable of the servants, and among these He now for the first time begins to speak of that one (the apostles generally cannot be described in w. 42-46) whom He, before His departure, would set over the rest of the household as oiKovopov (the post destined for Peter !). He depicts his great recompense in the event of his being faithful, and his heavy punishment in the event of his being unfaithful (down to ver. 48) ; and He consequently made Peter, whose question betrayed an inconsiderate exaltation above the crowd, understand His reply to mean : Instead ot meddling with that question, thou hast thine own consequent position to keep in view with fear and trembhng ! Then, however, ver. 47 f., he links on the general law of retribution under which every one comes, and which every one has to lay to heart. As to the reference of Ti? dpa, and the relation of the question to ver. 43, see on Matt. xxiv. 45 f. Vv. 45, 46. But if that slave, whom the lord will place over his servants as oiKov6p,o<; (ver. 42), instead of being faithful, shaU have thought, etc. — Moreover, see on Matt. xxv. 48-51. — fierd t&v d7rto-T.] with the faithless (ver. 42), whose final destiny is the punishment of Gehenna (ver. 5). Vv. 47, 48. This passage, which is pecuhar to Luke, gives CHAP. XII. 4r, 48. 163 explanatory information of a general kind, yet related to Matt. xxv. 14 ff, to account for the severity of the punish ment, ver. 46. This will ensue, in accordance with the general rule of retribution coming into operation at the return of the Lord : that that slave, etc. 'EKelvoi, though placed first for emphasis, does not refer to the single concrete person indicated at ver. 45, but is a general term indicating the class to which the oiKovopio<; also belongs ; and Be carries on the meaning with an explanatory force (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 845 ; Kuhner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — eavTov] of his own Lord, makes the responsibUity to be felt the more strongly. — eToipidaasi] eavrbv is not to be supplied (Luther, Kuinoel, and many others), but : and has not made ready, has made no preparation. Comp. ix. 52. It belongs also to irpb}i/ proceeded from the consciousness of His heavenly origin. Comp. Matt. x. 34. — Kal ti OeXm k.t.X.] It is the usual and the correct view, held also by Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, which interprets : and hoto earnestly I wish, if (that) it were already kindled ! iirtairevBei ydp t^v ava^Jriv tovtov tov 7rv/3o?, Theophylaet. Regarding the tI, see on Matt. vii. 14. More over, the usus loquendi of ei with BeXm (instead of the more confident oti, as with Bavpid^m, etc. ; see on Mark xv. 44) is not to be disputed. See Eccius. xxiii. 14: deXy- aet0r}\ just wished for, what is still to happen first : But I have a baptism to be baptized with. This baptism is His deep passion awaiting Him, into which He is to be plunged (comp. on Mark x. 38) ; 166 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. and He has this baptism as the destiny ordained for Him, and consequently appropriated to Him. — Kat irm avvexopat k.t.X.] and how am I distressed (comp. viii. 37 ; Dem. 1484. 23, 1472. 18) till the time lhat it shall be accomplished! A true and vivid expression of human shrinking at the present ment of the agonies that were imminent, similar to what we find in Gethsemane and at John xii. 27. It was a misappre hension of the human feeling of Jesus and of the whole tenor of the context, to make out of &wexop,at aii urgency of longing (maavel dymvim Bid Tyv BpaBvTyTa, Euthymius Zigabenus, comp. Theophylaet). So also de Wette and Bleek, who wrongly appeal to Phil. i. 23. See on the passage, also on 2 Cor. v. 14. Jesus does not long for and hasten to death, but He submits Himself to and obeys the counsel of God (comp. John xii. 2 7 ; PhU. ii. 8 ; Rom. v. 1 9, and elsewhere), when His hour is come (John xiii. 1 and elsewhere). Ewald takes the question as making in sense a negative assertion : I must not make myself anxious (comp. on 7rw?, ver. 56), I must in aU patience aUow this worst suffering to befall me. This agrees with Ewald's view of tI 0tXm k.t.X., ver. 49 ; but, according to our view, it does not correspond with the paraUehsm. And Jesus actually experienced anguish of heart (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4, avvoxy KapBla?) at the thought of His passion, without detracting . from His patience and submis- siveness. Vv. 51-53. See on Matt. x. 34 f., where the representa tion is partly simplified, partly, on the model of Mie. vii. 6, enriched. — dXX' y] but only, originated from aXXo and in, without, however, its being required to write aXX' y. See on this expression in general, Kriiger, de formula dXX' in et affinium particul. etc. natura et usu, Brunsvig. 1834; Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 31 ff. Comp. on 2 Cor. i. 13. Otherwise StaUbaum, ad Blat. Phaedr. p. 81 B. — otto tov vvv] Jesus already realizes His approaching death. Comp. xxii. 69. — In ver. 53 are three hostile couples ; the description therefore is different from that at ver. 52, not a more detailed statement of the circumstances mentioned in ver. 5 2 (Bleek). Vv. 54-56. See on Matt. xvi. 2 f . The reason of those CHAP. XII. 57-59. 167 hostile separations, spoken of in ver. 52 f., lay, on the part of the people in whose bosom they were sure to arise, in the mistaking of the Messianic period as such. Hence the rebuke that now foUows is addressed to the people ; it is otherwise in the historical connection that appears in Matthew. Still the significant saying, in different forms, may have been uttered on two different occasions. — Tyv veobeXyv] the cloud, which shows itself. — dirb Bvapt,.] therefore from the region of the sea. Comp. 1 Kings viii. 44, and see Robinson, Pal. II. p. 305. — ev0e eTepov piereBy Xoyov), and assume a mistaken reminiscence, suggested by the affinity of BoKiud£etv and Kpivetv. But Luke did not weave together the discourses of Jesus in so thoughtless a manner. The train of thought, even although the connection is less clear and appropriate, is as foUows : As, however, it turns to your reproach that ye do not rightly estimate the present time, so not less also is it your reproach that ye do not of your own selves judge what is duty. Jesus refers to the duty of repent ance whieh is still seasonable, and by means of the rhetorical figure metaschemaiismus — since He pictures repentance as an agreement with an adversary who has a pecuniary claim to make, but by this adversary He means (not the devU, Euthy mius Zigabenus, nor the poor, Michaelis; but) God, to whom man is a debtor — He represents this duty of repentance as still seasonable, in order not to incur the divine punishment, like 168 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. the accused person who still seasonably comes to terms with his creditor. — Kat dd>' eavrmv] even of yourselves, even of your own independent judgment. Comp. Bengel : " sine signis et citra considerationem hujus temporis." These words indi cate the progressive advance of the discourse. Comp. on xxi. 30. — Ver. 58. ydp] explanatory. — to?] is the simple sicuti : As thou, namely, art in the act of going away with thine adversary to an archon (in correspondence with this condition of time and circumstance), give diligence on the way, etc. ; while you are stiU on the way, before it is too late, make the attempt, that may avert the danger. virdyei<; has the emphasis (comp. subsequently iv Ty bBm) ; so close is the time of decision ! Both the apx^v and the Kptryi must be considered as local magistrates (KpiTys not as an assessor of the Sanhedrim, with which KaTaavpy is not in accord, for this certainly cannot be taken as a dragging to Jerusalem). Comp. KjOtVi?, Matt. v. 21, and the remark thereafter. By one of the archons, i.e. of the chief city officials, who, namely, is a competent person in matters of debt, the accused is recognised as liable to pay, and in default of payment the Kptryi, who happens to be subordinate to the apxcov, orders compul sion to be used. For the rest, this handing over from one official to another belongs to the details of civic procedure, without being intended for special interpretation. — Bb<; ipya- atav] da operam, a Latin idiom, probably taken from the common speech, Hermogenes, de Invent, ih. 5. 7; Salmasius and Tittmann (Synon. p. 102), following Theophylaet, erroneously interpret: give interest. This is not the meaning of ipyaala, and the Israelites were forbidden to take interest from one another (Michaelis, Mos, B. § 154 f. ; Saalschiitz, M. B. pp. 184, 278, 857). — diryXXdx0at air avTov] in order to be delivered from him, Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 868 D; Josephus, Antt. x. 6. 2, and elsewhere. The genitive might also stand alone, Thuc. ih. 63; Dem. 11. 16, 237. 14, and elsewhere, and the passages in Kypke and Loesner. Settle ment is to be conceived of as obtained by payment or by arrangement. Comp. Dem. 34. 22. — 6 irpaKTmp] exactor, coUector, bailiff. In Athens the collector of the court fees CHAP. XII. 57-59. 169 and fines was so called (Bbckh, Staatshaush. I. pp. 167, 403 ; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 151. 3). The irpaKTmp also is part of the imagery, without contemplating thereby any special interpretation (otherwise, the angels would have to be under stood, Matt. xiii. 41 f.). — to eax- ~XeirTov] (Mark xh. 42): to wit, of the debt sued for. But this terminus in the punitive condition depicted (in the Gehenna) is never attained. Comp. on Matt, xviii. 34. 170 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, CHAPTER XIII. Vv. 3 and 5. The evidence in the two verses is so divided between peramnn (Elz.) and /^eravortenn (Lach.), as also between iieaurwg and opo'iug (Lachm. has in both places opoiug, which Elz. reads onlyinver. 5), that it affords us no means of decision. Tisch. reads in ver. 3, peravorirt . . . opoiag, but in ver. 5, fieravor,erire . . . iieaurcng. It is certain that the one passage was changed in accordance with the other, — most probably ver. 5 in accordance with ver. 3, and that consequently both passages are not, as by Lachm., to be read alike, because in that case no reason would have been suggested for the variation. — Ver. 4. Instead of olroi Lachm. and Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, airoi. The Becepta is a frequent alteration. — Ver. 6. The arrangement irtipu- rtv/t. h r. dpir. air. (Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderatingly attested, and stUl more strongly is tr,rwv xapnt. (Elz. has xapir. £.). — Ver. 7. After eV» Tisch. has dip ol, foUowing B D L T6 N, al. Rightly; it was passed over because it could be dispensed with. — Ver. 8. Elz. has xoirpiav. But decisive authorities have xoirpia. The feminine form was more common from its use in the LXX. — Ver. 11. 3j»] is wanting after yuvn in B L T5X K, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch. A frequent addition. — Ver. 12. rjjs] Lachm. has dirh rr\g, in accordance with A D X n N, min. An exegetical expansion. — Ver. 14. rauraig] A B L, etc. have airatg. So too Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; rauraig occurred readUy to the tran scribers; comp. on ver. 4. — Ver. 15. Instead of iiroxpird (Elz.), imoxpirai is rightly approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with , considerably preponderating evidence. The singular was introduced in accordance with the foregoing airf. In the previous clause instead of o5v read hi, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with BDLs, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Vuig. It. This hi easily dropped out after the last syllable of dirtxpih (thus stiU in one cod. of It.), and the con nection that was thus broken was wrongly restored in some authorities by oui>, in others by xai (16, Aeth.). — On the other hand, in ver. 18, instead of hi we are to adopt ouk with Tisch., following BLs, min. Vuig. It. al., the reference of which was CHAP. XIII. 1-9. 171 not understood. — Ver. 19. piya] is wanting in B D L T5 K, 251, vss. Ambr. Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. [omitted by Tisch. 8]. Omitted in accordance with Matt. xiii. 32. — Ver. 24. iruXyg] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have dipag. The Becepta is from Matt, vii 13. — Ver. 25. We are here to read xipn only once, with Tisch., following B L K, 157, Copt. Sahid. Vuig. It. Sax. The repetition is from Matt. xxv. 11. — Ver. 31. w'tpa] Tisch. has wpa, which is so weightUy attested by A B* D L R X N, min., and is so frequent in Luke, that r^'epa appears as having come in by means of the subsequent numeration of days. — Ver. 32. eirmXu] Lachm. and Tisch. have diror'eXu, in accord ance with B L N, 33, 124, to which also D is associated by dironXoi/j.ai, — it was displaced by the more famUiar word enirth. — Ver. 35. After ipm Elz. has tprifiog, in opposition to prepon derating evidence. An exegetical addition in this place and at Matt, xxiii. 38. — Hug civ] this dv is wanting in B D K L R, min., in accordance with Matt, xxiii. 39. — %%ri] Lachm. and Tisch. have %&, in accordance with A D V A A, min. The weight of these authorities is aU the more considerable in this place that B L M R X K have not %%$ on at aU, which omission occurred in accordance with Matthew. Vv. 1-9. Peculiar to Luke ;* from the source of his account of the journey. At the same moment (when Jesus had spoken the foregoing discourse) there were some there with the news (irapijadv nve? dtrayyeXXovre1;, Diod. Sic. xvii. 8) of the Gali leans (t&v TaXiX. indicates by the article that their fate was known) whose blood Bilate had mingled with their sacrifices. This expression is a tragically vivid representation of the thought : " whom PUate caused to be put to death while 1 The narrative, vv. 1-5 (also w. 6-9), was not found, according to Epiphanius and Tertullian, in the text of Mareion. This omission is certainly not to be regarded as intentional, or proceeding from dogmatic motives, but yet it is not to be explained by the supposition that the fragment did not originally appear in Luke (Baur, Markusevang. p. 195 f.). It bears in itself so clearly the stamp of primitive originality that Ewald, p. 292, is able to ascribe it to the oldest evangelical source, Kostlin, p. 231, to a Jewish local source. In opposition to Volkmar's attempt (p. 102 f.) to prove the omission in Mareion as having been dogmatically occasioned (comp. also Zeller, Apostelg. p. 21), see Hilgen feld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 224 ff. Yet even Kostlin, p. 304, seeks dog matically to account for the omission by Mareion, on assumptions, indeed, in accordance with which Mareion would have been obliged to strike out no one can tell how much more. 172 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. engaged in their sacrifices." See similar passages in Wetstein. That the communication was made with evU intention to represent the murdered people as special sinners (Lange), is a hasty inference from the answer of Jesus. — pierd t&v 0vatmv air] not instead of p,erd tov aiuaTos t&v Ova. air, which abbreviation, although in itself aUowable, would here be arbi trarily assumed; but we may regard the people as actuaUy engaged in the slaughter or cutting up, or in otherwise work ing with theh sacrifice at the altar (in the outer court) (Saal schiitz, M. B. p. 318), in which they were struck down or stabbed, so that their blood streamed forth on their offering. — The incident itself, which the Ttve? who had arrived men tion as a novelty, is not otherwise known to us. Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, is speaking of the Samaritans, and what he says belongs to a later date (in opposition to Beza). To think of followers of Judas the G,aulonite (Theophylaet, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, and others) is arbitrary; but the conjec ture that they were enthusiastic devotees of Jesus (Lange) is preposterous, because it does not agree with the subsequent explanation of the Lord. Probably they had made themselves suspected or guilty of (secret) sedition, to which the GalUeans were extremely prone (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 3 ; Wetstein on the passage ; see especially Rettig in the Stud, und Krilik. 1838, p. 980 f.). It is possible also that in the tumult that arose on account of the aqueduct built by Pilate (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 2) they also had been drawn in (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 40), with which building, moreover, might be connected the falling of the tower, ver. 4. Vv. 2, 3. Jesus makes use of this news by way of warning, and to stir them up to repentance. He points to the slaughter of those people as an example of the divine punishment, which teaches not that the persons concerned are the most deserving of punishment, but that punishment, if carried into effect against individuals, must fall upon all (to wit, the whole class, so that in the application the Messianic punishment of eternal dirmXeia is intended J) if they should not have repented. — irapd] more than; see Bernhardy, p. 259; Buttmann, Neut. 1 Not the destruction of Jerusalem, as Grotius and many will have it. CHAP. XIII. 4-9. 173 Gr. p. 292 [E. T. 339]. — iyevovTo] not were (yaav), but became (see generally, C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 284 f.) — to wit, declaratory: that they became known as sinners by the fact, namely, that they suffered such things (ireirbv0), perfi, see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 338]. Vv. 4, 5. Likewise historicaUy unknown. — 6 irvpyosi] the well-known tower. What sort of a one it was is altogether uncertain ; perhaps a tower of the town-waUs (Joseph. Bell. v. 4. 2), so that the spring of Siloah is here meant (Joseph, l.c. says of the walls of the ancient city, irpb<; votov virep ttjv ^iXmap, iiriaTpediov iryyyv). As to the spring (on the south-east side of the ancient city) and the pool of Siloah, see on John ix. 7. — iv t. %tX.] iv of the immediate neighbourhood, at. Comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 32, and thereon, Kuhner, Horn. II. xvih. 521, and elsewhere. — Kat direicr. airov ov (see the critical remarks) : It is three years since I, etc. Comp. Thucyd. i. 18. 2. — ivarl Kal k.t.X.] wherefore also (besides that it itself bears nothing), see Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837; Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 635 ff. The Kat belongs, as is often the case in questions, to the whole sentence (Baeumlein, Partikeln, p. 152). — Karapyel] it makes the land useless — to wit, by useless occupation of the space, by exhausting and shading it. Examples of KaTapyelv, inertem facere, Eur. Phoen. 760; Ezra iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8. — Ver. 8. Kat tovto to eVo?] the present year also — as already those three ineffectual past years. — ew? otov k.t.X.] until the time that I sliall have dug, etc. — whereupon there shaU occur, even according to the result, what is said at ver. 9. — kolv p.ev irotyay Kapirov] and in case perchance it shall have brought forth fruit — even in the classical writers a frequent aposiopesis of the apodosis KaXto? e^et. See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 217; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 833; Butt mann, Neut. Gr. p. 339 [E. T. 396]. On the interchange of idv and ei in such antitheses, in which the first conditional sentence is spoken with reference to the result, comp. Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 37 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B, Gorg. p. 470 A; Winer, p. 263 [E. T. 369]. — ei? to p.eXXov] sc. ero?, at the following year, which therefore comes in with the next year's fig-harvest, thou shalt cut it down. Let it still therefore remain so long. Comp. on i. 20. To supply eVo? is by means of the correlation to tovto to eVo?, ver. 8, more strictly textual than the general notion postea (as it is usually taken). — e'KKOi/ret?] " Non dicit vinitor : exscindam, coU. ver. 7, sed rem refert ad dominum ; desinit tamen pro ficu deprecari," Bengel. Vv. 10-17. A Sabbath cure peculiar to Luke, without any more precise specifying of time and place. He might find a motive for inserting it just in this place in his source of the narrative of the journey itself. But to explain its posi- tionem." Within three years, asarule, the tree when planted bore fruit, Wetstein in loc. The people addressed are the tnU, ver. 1 as ver. 2, but as members of God's people (the vineyard), not as inhabitants of Jerusalem (Weizsacker). CHAP. XIII. 10-17. 175 tion here from the fact that the three years of ver. 7 had reminded him of the eighteen years of ver. 11 (Holtzmann, p. 153) would be fantastic. — Ver. 11. yv] aderat. — irvevua daOeveiat] a spirit of weakness, i.e. a demon (see ver. 16), who paralyzed her muscular powers, so that she could not straighten herself. This conception of dadev. is more in accordance with the context than the general one of sickness. — ei? to 7rai>TeXe?] comp. Heb. vii. 25, and thereon Bleek; Ael. xii. 20, v. 7. It belongs adverbiaUy not to p,y Bvvapt. (de Wette, Bleek, and most commentators), but to dvaKvy^ai, with which it stands. She was bowed together (Eccius. xii. 11, xix. 26 f., and in the Greek writers), and from this position to straighten herself up perfectly was to her impossible. — Ver. 12. d7ro- XeXvo-at] thou art loosed ; that which wiU immediately occur is represented as already completed. — Ver. 14. diroKpt0el? v7ro- Kpivop,evov<; p,ev Tipdiv tov aaBBaTov vopiov, iKBiKovvras Be tov abOovov eavT&v. — dirayaymv] pictorially, " ad opus demon strandum," Bengel. — Ver. 1 6. The argument is a minori ad majus (as xiv. 5), and the majus is significantly indicated by the doubled description Ovyarepa 'ABp. ovaav (comp. xix. 9) and $)v eByaev 6 Haravds k.t.X. " Singula verba habent emphasin " (Grotius), — a remark which holds good also of the vividly introduced IBov, comp. Deut. viii. 4. As a daughter of Abraham, she belongs to the special people of God, and must hence be wrested from the devil. Of spiritual relation ship with Abraham (Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 821) nothing is said. — yv eByaev 6 aar] since he, namely, by means of one of his servants, a demon, has taken away her liberty in the manner mentioned at ver. 11. — BeKa k.t.X. is not a nominative, but an accusative of the duration of time. Comp. ver. 8, xv. 29, and elsewhere. — Ver. 17. Karyaxvv. 176 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 7rdfT. ot dvTiK. aiT.] Comp. Isa. xlv. 16. — yivop,evot. 06p., without any more definite explanation (comp., on the other hand, Matt. I.e.), bears the stamp of a reference to something already previously propounded (in opposition to de Wette, Weiss, and others, who are in doubt as to the originality of the saying in this place). — t,yTyaovaiv] weaker than dymvi^eaOe. — elaeXOeiv] in general ; Bid t>)? crTei/Tj? dvpas is not repeated. — k. ovk laxvaovatv] because they omit dymvlt/eadai elaeXdelv Bid T/J? aTevys 6vpa<;, i.e. they have not repented. Vv. 25— 2 7.1 If you are excluded from the kingdom of Messiah, you shaU then in vain urge your external connection with me ! IlXaTTet ydp o'tKoBeairoTyv Tivd Ka0yptevov k. frequently elsewhere, and since in the isolated places where it occurs it is just the meaning of the doubtful question (whether indeed ?) which is very appro priate (Matt. xii. 10, xix. 3 ; Luke xiii. 23, xxii. 49 ;.Acts i. 6, vii. 1, xix. 2, xxi. 37, xxii. 25). On the classical beginnings of this usage, nothing hkewise is to be decided other than on the New Testament usage, to wit, with Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 601 : " Dubitanter interrogat, ita ut interrogatio videatur directa esse." 1 Down to ver. 29 we have a series of reminiscences of very varied discourses linked together in Luke's source of the journey, which are found in several portions of Matthew taken from the Logia. LUKE II. M 178 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. viroBexdpievov (at the repast, ver. 29) tov? ^t'Xov? avTov (rather his family; see subsequently on irodev), eiTa iyeipop,evov k. diroKXeiovTa ttjv Qvpav tov o'ikov airov, k. p.y avyxoipovvra toIs dXXoii; elaeX0elv, Euthymius Zigabenus. The construction is such that the apodosis begins with Tore, ver. 26 (Bengel, Bornemann), and continues down to dBiKlas, ver. 27, in ac cordance with which the punctuation should be adjusted. The apodosis does not begin as early as Kat diroKpi0ei<;, ver. 25 (the usual mode of punctuation), so that with ver. 26 a new sentence would begin ; for the former Kat, which would not be a sign of the apodosis (de Wette), but would mean also, would be superfluous and confusing, whereas totc presents itself, according to a usage known to every one (v. 35, xxi. 20, and elsewhere), of itseff, and according to the meaning, as the divi sion of the sentence. It is according to the meaning, for thus the apodosis brings out the principal point, namely, the urging of the relation of external connection and (observe only the continuation of the apodosis through ver. 27) its fruitlessness. Laehmann (foUowing Beza) connects dfi ov . . . avoijjov yp.lv (after which he places a fuU stop) with Kat ovk laxvaovatv, ver. 24. Schegg follows him. But opposed to this is the second person ap^ya0e, which is not in accordance with laxvaov atv, but carries forward the address that began with dymvl£ea8e. Ewald conceives the apodosis as beginning as early as Kat dp%ya0e, ver. 25, but in such a manner that this apodosis is transformed into a second protasis. The harshness of this supposition is increased still more by the fact that if we read ap!;ya0e, ver. 26, the force of the protasis must come up anew with the repetition of the sound.1 — Kat apgyade] can only arbitrarUy be Umited to Kpoveiv, as though it ran dp^. e£a> eo-TWTe? Kpoveiv (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 541). It refers to both the infinitives. The people have begun the persistent standing there and knocking, in respect of which they say : Lord, open to us ; then the master of the house answers that he knows them not (Matt. xxv. 12), etc. ; next, they begin to 1 This reading, indeed, has in its favour iDKLMT'XrinS and many min., but it is a mechanical repetition of the subjunctive from ver. 25. Yet it is now adopted by Tischendorf [Tisch. 8 has xplurd]. CHAP. XHL 28, 29. 179 say something else, to wit, their itpdryoptev k.t.X. Thus there appears in dp^yaOe and apgeade, ver. 26, a very vivid repre sentation of their several fruitless attempts. — Kat diroKp. ipel v/i.] a graphic transition to the future : after that . . . ye shall have begun . . . and he shall say. At the same time, however, it is a departure from the regular construction,1 as though av had not gone before (Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 142). — oiK olBa v/ta? nbBev iare] Comp. John vii. 27; Winer, p. 551 [E. T. 781]. — irbQev] i.e. of what famUy (see on John vii. 27) ; ye are not members of my house, but of another that is unknown to me. — Ver. 26 f. ivmmbv aov] before thine eyes, as thy guests, but corresponding in a more lively manner to the expression of the master of the house than the mere fierd aov. — iv Tat? 7rXaT. ypt,. iBlBaj;.] A divergence from the person describing to the person described, which occurs in ver. 27 in dircaTyre . . . dStKiia?,2 and at ver. 28 f. Bengel aptly says on ver. 27 : " Iterantur eadem verba ; stat sententia; sed iterantur cum emphasi." For the rest, comp. on Matt, vii 22 f. According to the tendency-critics, the doers of iniquity in Matthew must be Pa«it7i0-Christians, but in Luke Jewish-Christians ; see HUgenfeld, Krit. Uhters. p. 184 f., Evang. p. 196, Zeitschr. 1865, p. 192. What crafty turns the evangehsts have got credit for! Antinomians (Weizsacker) are not meant at aU, but immoral adherents. Vv. 28, 29. Comp. on Matt. viii. 11 f. The words of Jesus. — eKet] there, in the place to which ye shaU thus be turned away. For the most part it is understood temporally, iv iKelvm r& icaipm, Euthymius Zigabenus. Rarely thus in the classical writers (Soph Phil. 394; Bornemann, Schol. p. 90 f.), but never (yet comp. iKeWev, Acts Tin. 21) in the New Testa ment ; and here the context points definitely by diroaryTe air iptov to the weU-known locality, as, moreover, the standing type 1 On the question discussed in so many ways whether in the classical writers (except Homer) £r stands with the future (Brunck, Heindorf, Hermann, Hartung, Stallbanm, Beisig, Kiihner, Kriiger, and many others) or not, see especially Hermann, de part, it, p. 30 ff. ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 282 ft (both in favour of it) ; and Klotz, ad Devar. p. 118 ff. (against it). 1 On ipya.Tfis, a doer of good or evil (so only in this place in the New Testa ment), comp. Xen. Mem. iL 1. 27 : m xaxZr xx) Se, which Be is not to be taken as explanatory, in the sense of ydp (because it is not followed by dirdpn as in Matthew), but as in continuation, autem, as an advance towards a new point in the announcement: "Ye shall be abandoned, but how long? abandpned even till my Parousia.'' Comp. the expression ty)TyaeTe ue k. ovx evpyaere in John vii. 34: the restoration of Israel, so that by eco? k.t.X. would be meant the conversion of the people (Hofmann, Schriftb. II. 2, p. 90 ff), is neither here nor elsewhere taught in the New Testament. — ea>? yget (see the critical remarks) 6Ve e'tiryTe] till it (the point of time) shall be, when ye shall have said. The subjunctive after ore without av : " si res non ad cogitationem refertur et eventus tantummodo spectatur," Klotz, ad Bevar. p. 688. See on this specially Homeric use, even Thiersch in the Act. Monac. I. p. 13 ff.; Bernhardy, p. 397 f., 400. In this place to consider the subjunctive as occasioned by ew? (Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 199 [E. T. 231 f.]) is arbitrary. 186 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTER XIV. Vee. 3. ti] is wanting in B D L N, min. Pers. Copt. Syr.Jer- Cant. Brix. Condemned by Griesb. and Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It is from Matt. xh. 10. — kpantueiv] B D L a, min. have hpaireiaai, to which these authorities and vss. add ij ou. This oepaireieai 5) oii is, with Lachm. (who, however, brackets ?j o!i) and Tisch., to be adopted. The Becepta is from Matt. xii. 10. — Ver. 5. Instead of ovog in Elz., uiog is to be read, on preponderat ing evidence. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. ; comp. also Rinck. The heterogeneous collocation vibg 5] fioig excited objection, so that uiog was displaced in some authorities by hog (following xiii. 15), in others by npofiarov (D, Cant., following Matt. xii. 11). — Ver. 10. Elz. has avdneeov, which on decisive evidence is to be rejected. The most important MSS. are divided between dvdirtst (Matth. Scholz, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch.) and dvdireeai (Griesb. Schulz, Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 640). Although the attestation of dvdirtae (A B* E H K S U V r X, min.) is stUl stronger than that of dvdireeai, yet the latter is to be preferred. The less familiar form gave place to one that was better known. To regard dvdirtsai as a clerical error (so Tisch. and Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 87]) is the more pre carious, as the same clerical error must be assumed also at xvii. 7. — Ver. 16. piya] B** D A, min. Clem, have piyav. So Lachm. Rightly; p,iya is an amendment [Tisch. 8 has fiiya]. — Ver. 18. The order irdvng irapair. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred on decisive evidence. — Ver. 21. After hoi\og Elz. has extnog, which is condemned by Griesb., and on decisive evidence struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An exegetical addition. — %wX«D; x. ruayelv aprov] comp. Matt. xv. 2. Jesus was invited, ver. 1 2. — Kat amol] This is the common use of Kat after iyivero ; aviol, they on their part, the Pharisees. — irapaTypov/i.] generaUy, whether He would give them occasion for charge or complaint. Other wise, vi. 7. — Ver. 2. And behold a dropsical man was there in His presence. This denotes the unexpected sight of the presence (not as a guest, see ver. 4) of the sick man, who yv laTapievoi, Kal p,y roXpt&v piev ^yryaai Oepaireiav Bia to adBBaTov Kal tov1; .$apiaaiov}m aivop.evos Be p,bvov, iva IBmv o'tKTeipyay tovtov d' eavTov Kal airaXXd^y rov iiBprniros, Euthymius Zigabenus. The view of many (see also Wetstein, Kuinoel, Glockler, Lange), that the sick man was intentionaUy brought in by the Pharisees, is the more arbitrary, as ver. 2 is 188 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. not linked on by ydp. Moreover, the cure occurred before the dinner, ver. 7. — Ver. 3. diroKpid.] at this appearance of the sick man. — Ver. 4. iiriXaBop.evo'i] a taking hold which brought about the miraculous cure, stronger than d^dpevo?} Otherwise Mark viii. 23. The accusative aiTov is not dependent on iiriX. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 140 [E. T. 160]. — Ver. 5. Comp. on Matt. xii. 11. The con struction is such that the nominative of tipo? vp&v is the subject in the second half of the sentence. Comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 468 ; StaUbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 B. — In respect of the reading v'io<; (see the critical remarks ; Mill, Bornemann, and Laehmann, Praef. II. p. vii., unjustifiably conjecture 6'i'?), which is not inappropriate (de Wette), the conclusion of Jesus is not drawn, as xiii. 1 5 f., a minori ad majus,2 but from the ethical principle that the helpful com passion which we show in reference to that which is oitr own (be it son or beast) on the Sabbath, we are also bound to show to others (love thy neighbour as thyself). Vv. 7-11. On the special propriety of this table conversa tion (in opposition to Gfrorer, HeU. Sage, I. p. 265, de Wette, .Schenkel, Eichthal), comp. on xi. 38 f. Here, again, the circumstance especially which had just occurred with the dropsical man had prepared a point of view widely different from that of customary politeness. — irapaBoXyv] " sumtam a moribus externis, spectantem interna," Bengel. The moral significance of this figurative apophthegm fati) may be seen at ver. 11. — iirij(dyeaai and irteaai (xvii. 8). But these forms come from the future forms abdyopMi and irlouai, and hence are not analogous to the one before us. — iva] corre sponds to the fiyirore, ver. 8, and denotes the purpose of the dvdrrreaai ei? r. eo-%. totov. The result is then specified by tot6 eo-Tat. — irpoaavdByBi] The host occupies the position where the higher place is (irpb<;= hither). Comp. moreover, Prov. xxv. 7. — Ver. 11. Comp. Matt, xxiii. 12. A general law of retribution, but with an intentional application to the ¦ Messianic retribution. Comp. Erubin, f. xiii. 2 : " Qui semet ipsum deprimit ; eum S. B. exaltat ; et qui se ipsum exaltat, eum S. B. deprimit." Vv. 12-14. Doubtless the coUocation of the company at table suggested these words, which likewise are meant not probably as an actual table arrangement, but parabolicaUy, as a foU to the customary teaching, that instead of arranging the manifestations of human friendliness with a view to receiving a return, we should make such manifestations just to those who cannot repay them again; then shaU we receive requital in the kingdom of the Messiah. At the root of tins lies the idea that the temporal requital striven after excludes the Messianic compensation, the idea of the direxeiv rbv p.ia06v (Matt. vi. 2, v. 16). There is no allusion in this place to the 1 For the intervening places are already rightly arranged, and not to be changed. " Qui semel cedere jubetur, longe removetur," Bengel. 190 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. caUing of the heathen (Schenkel). — pty] not : non tam or non tantum (Kuinoel, and many others), which here would be even logically wrong on account of p,yiroTe k. amol ae ovtik. Jesus gives, indeed, only a figurative discourse. — <^mvei] purposely chosen ; the manifest, obvious element of the KaXelv (ver. 13) is denoted. — 71-Xovo-iov?] belongs only to yeiVoz/a? (in opposi tion to Grotius). — pyiroTe k.t.X.] " Hie metus mundo ignotus est, ut metus divitiarum," Bengel. — dvriKaXeamai] Comp. Xen. Symp. i. 15 : ovre p,yv w? dvTiKXyOyaop,evo<;, KaXel pie tidyeTat, future) with the patriarchs of the nation (Matt. viiL 1 1 ; Luke xiii. 28 f. ; Bertholdt, Christol. § 39) in the (miUennial) Messianic kingdom about to be set up. This transporting prospect, in which his mis taken security is manifested, compels his exclamation. Vv. 16, 17. Jesus answers with a parable which comes from the source of the account of the journey (not iden tical,' but simUar is Matt. xxii. 1 ff., see in loc), in which He keeps to the idea of a banquet, and thereby depicts the Messianic blessedness, but without reserve cuts off the prospect of that guest in reference to it and its hke by teaching figuratively that they, the representatives of the theocracy, would deprive themselves of the Messianic salva tion (ver. 24), because for the sake of theh earthly objects of ambition they despised the repeated invitation to the Messianic kingdom (vv. 17-20). On the other hand, the poor and the unfortunate of the people (ver. 21), and even the heathen (ver. 23), are called, and being obedient to the call are adopted into the kingdom. "Progreditur vocatio ad remotiores, vi semper maj ore pensans moram," Bengel. — p.eyav (see the critical remarks) : the masculine form Belirvo<; is rare (Aesop. Fragm. 129) and late. See Bast, Ep. Or. App. p. 22, 61. — iKaXeae] refers in the interpretation to the caU by the prophets. — Ver. 17. tov BovXov aiTov] kut i^oxyv. Grotius weU says vocatorem, to be interpreted of the Messiah at whose advent yyyiKe y BaatXela r&v oipav&v, Matt. iv. 17. — On the custom even now in use in the East of a repetition of the invitation when aU is prepared, see RosenmuUer, Morgenl. V. p. 1 9 2 f. 192 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Vv. 18-20. "HpgavTo] brings into prominence the begin ning as a striking contrast to what has gone before. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 541. — dirb puds] " Utut enim diversas causas adferant, in eo tamen conveniunt, quod sua praetexant negotia," Calovius. On the adverbial use of dirb p.id<;, comp. dirb ttj? to-?;? (Thuc. i. 15. 3), air ev0elapay- /aov?] not : places fenced in, which the word does not mean, but : go forth into the ways (highways and other roads outside the town) and hedges (beside which wanderers, beggars, houseless folk have camped). In the interpretation : at KaroiKiai t&v i9v&v, Euthymius Zigabenus. — avdyKaaov] as Matt. xiv. 22. The time presses ! A strikingly picturesque touch, which, moreover, found its corresponding history in the urgent holy zeal of the apostles (especially of Paul) for winning the heathen to the faith; but its pernicious abuse, in the case of Augustine and many others, in their approval of the coercion of heretics (see, on the other hand, Grotius and Calovius). Maldonatus well says : " adeo rogandos, adeo incitandos, ut quodammodo compelli videantur." — yep.ia0y] "Nee natura nee gratia patitur vacuum. Multitudo beatorum: extremis mundi temporibus maximam plenitudinis suae partem nanciscens," Bengel. — Ver. 24. Not an assertion of Jesus (Kuinoel, Paulus, and others), bnt of the master of the house, which is certain from p,ov tov Behrvov {none shall taste LUKE II. N 194 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. of my supper), since Jesus in the parable appears as the servant. — ydp] for the empty place is not to be occupied by you. — iip.lv] spoken to the servant, and to those who were supposed to be elsewhere than there present. Euthymius Zigabenus, moreover, says aptly : Bid tovtov ovv tov Xoyov y oXy irapaBoXy avveredy. Comp. ver. 15, to the substance of which this conclusion reverts. Those who are excluded are thus those Jews who have despised the call of Christ, but who, as the representatives and chiefs of God's people, were first of aU by the gospel invited and laid under obligation to follow the invitation to the kingdom (KeKXypsvot and irapatTovpievoi, ver. 17 ff.) ; not the Jews in general, as Baur supposes, in accordance with his assumption of a GentUe- Christian tendency. Vv. 25, 26. After the meal was over, Jesus goes forward on His journey towards Jerusalem, and draws with Him much people, as they thronged everywhere in Galilee upon the marvellous teacher (xii. i, ix. 11, and elsewhere). But the nearer He is to His own painful self- surrender, the more decidedly and ideally His claims emerge. To the dependent and undecided people going with Him He addresses Himself with the claim of the perfect, most self-denying surrender required of His disciples. Comp. Matt. x. 37, where the same claim, although less ideal in form, is made, and is addressed exclusively to the apostles. With the Christian communions (Weizsacker) these instructions have even in Luke nothing to do. — et' rf; 'ipxeTat 7rpo? pie] namely, with a view to hearken to me as a confessor and follower. — pitaei] not minus amat, or the like (Kuinoel, de Wette, and many others) ; see, on the other hand, on Matt. vi. 24. Father, mother, etc., as even also the special desire for the preserva tion of one's own life (comp. Matt. x. 39), are assumed as being in opposition to fellowship with Christ (comp. xii. 53), so that, according to Matt. vi. 24, comp. Luke xvi. 3, in respect of the love of the one Lord the hatred of others must find place.1 — 'in Se Kat] besides, also, moreover ; the extreme case of all is yet added. " Saepe qui inferiorem sancti odii 1 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 327 f. CHAP. XIV. 27-33. 195 gradum visus erat assequi, in altiore deficit," Bengel. — ptaOyrys elvai] ver. 27, elvat uaOyrys. The emphasis in both cases rests on paOyrys, but in ver. 27 more strongly. Ver. 27. Comp. Matt. x. 38, xvi 24; Mark viii. 34, x. 21; Luke ix. 23. He who does not as the bearer of his own cross follow me, etc. Vv. 28-33. Peculiar to Luke from the source that he has followed since ix. 51. — ydp] Reason for the ov Bvvarat . . . pia6yry Bairdvyv. — dirapTiap,6s, completion, only to be found in Dion. Hal. Be compos, verb. 24. On the use of diraprl^eiv in Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. — Ver. 30. ovto<;] with scornful emphasis: this man, forsooth! — Ver. 31. avuBaXelv] intransitive: to encounter, confligere, 1 Mace. iv. 34; 2 Mace. viii. 23, xiv. 17. See Wetstein and Kypke. — ei? iroXepov] belongs to avp,BaXelv : for a battle. Thus frequently avp,BdXXeiv tivi ei? pidxyv (see Kypke) ; ei? in the sense of the purpose. Comp. ttjoo? pAxyv, Polyb. x. 37. 4, also Xen. Cyr op. vii. 1. 20 : ei? p,ovop.axiav 7r/3o? riva; Strabo, xiv. p. 676. — /3ovXeveTat] deliberates "with his generals and counsellors. Comp. Acts v. 33, xv. 37. — iv BeKa %tX.J iv, in the midst of, surrounded by, amongst. Comp. Jude 14. — Ver. 32. el Be fiyye] sc. Svz/aTo? et'17. See on Matt. vi. 1, and Dindorf, ad Bern. Braef. p. v. f. — Ta 777305 elpyvyv] quae ad pacem componendam spectant, arrangements for peace. Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 599. Contrast: to irpbs tov iroXepiov, Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 10. On the whole sentence, 1 More precise interpretations of the figures are not justified. Especially the second ought not to have been expounded, as it has often been, of the struggle against the devil (Augustine : " simplicitatem Christiani dimicaturi cum dupli- citate diaboli "), to which, indeed, the peacemaking of ver. 32 would be wholly inappropriate. 196 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 8. — Ver. 33. The application, and consequently the doctrine, of both examples as a commentary on the ydp of ver. 28. — Trwi toi? eavrov virdpx] the general statement to which the special instances, ver. 26, belong. eavrov has the emphasis of the self-denial. Comp. ver. 27. Vv. 34, 35. Comp. on Matt. v. 13; Mark ix. 50. Jesus uttered the saying about salt more than once, and with differences in the details. Here He commits to His hearers by 6 exmv Sna dxoveiv, aKoverm, the charge of themselves giving the interpretation according to what has gone before. But this interpretation depends on the fact that to dXa hi ; hence also the placing of it before Xipw, in accordance with D R IT, min. vss. Chrys., is, with Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., to be preferred [Tisch. 8 has Xipw lXyaev] he kissed him again and again ; see on Matt. xxvi. 48. — Ver. 21. The iroiyaov pie co? eva r. pitaO. aov of ver. 1 9 is repressed by the demeanour of his father's love ; the deeply moved son cannot bring these words to his lips in the presence of such paternal affection. A psychologically delicate and significant representation. — Ver. 22. "FUiore- spondet re ipsa," Bengel. — aroXyv ryv irpmryv] a robe, the first that we have in the house — to wit, according to its rank and worth, i.e. ryv rtptfOTaTyv, Euthymius Zigabenus. The idea — the one that had previously been worn by him (Theophy laet, Calovius), which would be the righteousness lost in Adam — is opposed to ver. 1 3 in the service of dogmatic inter pretation. Moreover, ovtov would have been added in that connection. With regard to the article after -the anarthrous substantive, see Winer, p. 126 f. [E. T. 174 f.]. The aroXy is the long and wide overcoat of the people of distinction, Mark xii. 38, xvi. 5 ; Rev. vi. 11. The BaKTvXto<;, i.e. signet ring (Herod, ii. 38), and the viroBypMra (slaves went bare footed), are signs of the free man, which he who had returned was to be as a son of the house. — Ver. 23. tov pioaxov rbv air] the well-known one which stands in the staU. — Ovaare] slaughter, as at ver. 30, not: sacrifice (Eisner). — (payovres eipav0.] not: laeti epulemur (Kuinoel), but : epulantes laetemur. Beware of forced interpretations like the following : according to Olshausen (comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others), the aroXi) irpmry denotes the divine righteousness (Rev. iii. 18, vii. 13, xix. 8); the ring, the seal of the Spirit; the sandals, the capacity to walk in God's ways (Eph. vi. 15) : according to Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophy- CHAP. XV. 25-32. 205 laet, and others, the fatted calf is Christ ! Comp. also Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 381.— Ver. 24. wk/jo? r> k. dvet, k.t.X.] is meant by the father in a moral sense : veKpmatv ptev Kal dirm- Xetav paivea0ai] to be glad. The feast is naturally understood according to ver. 23. Vv. 25-32. The legally righteous one. Instead of sharing the divine joy over the converted sinner, he is envious, regards himself — in respect of his legality, according to which he has been on his guard against momentary transgression — as neglected, and judges unlovingly about his brother, and discontentedly about God. A striking commentary on ver. 7 ; and how fitted to put to the blush the murmur ing Pharisees and scribes, ver. 2 ! — avp,d? crov ovto?. How bitter, moreover, is : " who has devoured for - thee thy living," and p,erd iropv&v, as contrasted with p.erd t&v iX&v pov\ — Ver. 31. reKvov] fuU of love. — av iravrore k.t.X^] represents to the heart of the jealous brother the two great prerogatives that he had above his brother (hence the emphatic av). Thy constant association with me (while, on the other hand, thy brother was separated far and long from me), and the circumstance that my wliole possessions belong to thee (as to the future heir of all, ver. 12), ought to raise thee far above such envious dispositions and judgments! — Ver. 32. ei(f>pav0yvai] stands first with the emphasis of contrast, in opposition to such iU-humour. — e'Set] not to be supplemented CHAP. XV. 25-32. 207 by o-e, but generally it was fitting or necessary, — a justification of the prearranged joy of the house, which, under the circum stances, was a moral necessity. — e^yaev] (see the critical remarks) was dead, and has become alive, Matt. ix. 1 8 ; John v. 25 ; Rom. xiv. 9. Remark. — (1) The exclusive title to the xXripovo^ia, which, according to ver. 31, is adjudged to those who are legally upright, has its justification in principle ; o) iroinrai v6/iou hxam&ricovrai, Rom. ii. 13. — (2) For the adoption of sinners into this prerogative, which belongs in principle to the legally righteous, the parable indicates the method of self-knowledge, of repentance, and of confidence in the grace of God (faith). But the interposition of this grace through the death of recon ciliation, and consequently the more specific definition of that confidence, Jesus leaves unnoticed, leaving these particulars to the further development of faith and doctrine after the atoning death had taken place ; just as, moreover, He in general, accord ing to the synoptic Gospels, limits Himself only to single hints of the doctrine of reconciliation as seed-corn for the future (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28 ; otherwise in John). — (3) As the reality does not correspond to the idea of legal righteousness, He points to the example of the son who has continued in outward con formity to the law, but therewith is proud of his virtue, unbro- therly and unfilial, and consequently holds up to the Pharisees a mirror for self-contemplation, the picture in which must tell them how very much they also needed repentance (in order to see the title in principle to legal righteousness realized in themselves), instead of censuring the fellowship of Jesus with publicans and sinners (vv. 7, 1, 2). 208 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. CHAPTER XVI. Vee. 2. cW>it'Xov? ck r. pap,, tj)? aSiKta? was so extremely foreign (xi. 41, xx. 47), helped to urge to this theme. Other attempts to make out the connec tion are arbitrary, as, for instance, that of Schleiermacher (besides' that it depends on an erroneous interpretation of the parable itself), that Jesus is passing over to a vindication of the publicans, so far as they showed themselves gentle and beneficent towards their people ; or that of Olshausen, that He wishes to represent the compassion that in ch. xv. He has exhibited in God, now also in ch. xvi. as the duty of men. But there is no reason for denying the existence of any connec tion, as de Wette does. — 77730? r. p,a0yr. avTov] not merely the Twelve, but the disciples in the more extended sense, in contrast with the opposition which was likewise present. Comp. Matt. viii. 21; Luke vi. 13, vii. 11, xix. 37, and else where. The parable had the first reference to the publicans that happened to be among them (xv. 1), but it concerned also, so far as there were generally stiU wealthy people among them, the disciples in general. See above. — dv6pmirb<} Tt? yv 7rXovo-to?] not to be defined more particularly than these words themselves and vv. 5—7 indicate. To think of the 1 Not as Wieseler will have it, beside the Pharisees, to His disciples also. 212 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Bomans (Schleiermacher), or the Boman Emperor (Grossmann1), in the interpretation, is quite foreign to the subject. More over, it is not, as is usually explained, God2 that is to be understood ; with which notion ver. 8 would conflict, as well as the circumstance that actuaUy the dismissal from the service of the rich man brings with it the same shelter to which, in the application, ver. 9 corresponds,3 the reception into the 1 He finds in the olxnop] lie was denounced to him (on the dative, comp. Herod, v. 35> viii. 22; Plat. Polit. viii. p. 566 B; Soph. Phil. 578 ; Eur. Hee. 863, and thereon, Pflugk; elsewhere also with ei? or Tr/ad? with accusative). Although the word, which occurs only in this place in the New Testament, is not always used of groundless, false accusations, though this is mostly the case (see Schweighauser, Lex. Herod. I. p. 154), yet it is still no vox media, but expresses,' even where a corresponding matter of fact lies at the foundation (as Num. xxii. 22 ; Dan. ih. 8, vi. 25 ; 2 Mace. iii. 11 ; 4 Mace. iv. 1, and in the passages in Kypke, I. p. 296), hostile denunciation, accusation, Niedner, p. 32 ff. Comp. the passages from Xenophon in Sturz, I. p. 673. See also Dem. 155. 7, where the BiaSdXXovrei and the koXokc? are contrasted. So also here ; Luther aptly says : " he was ill spoken of." Vuig. : " diffamatus est." There was some foundation in fact (hence, moreover, the steward does not defend himself), but the manner in which he was denounced manifested a hostile purpose. Thus, more over, in the relation portrayed in that of the uaOyral to temporal riches, as the unfaithful stewards of which they manifested themselves to the covetous Pharisees by their entrance into the Christian conversion, there lay at the founda tion the fact that they had no further interest in Mammon, and were no longer iXdpyvpoi. Compare the instance of Zacchaeus. Kbster says wrongly that the hitherto faithful steward had only been slandered, and had only allowed him self to be betrayed into a knavish trick for the first time by the necessity arising from the dismissal. No ; this knavish trick was only the path of unfaithfulness on which he had hitherto walked, and on which he took a new start to get out of his difficulty. Against the supposition of the faithfulness of the steward, see on ver. 3. — co? BtaaKopirl^mv] as squan dering (xv. 13), i.e. so he was represented} Comp. Xen. Hell. 1 To gather from us that the indebtedness was unfounded (Holbe) is unjusti fiable, us might also be used in the case of a well-founded iix/SxXXirSxi, and hence in itself decides nothing at all. Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Or. p. 263 [E. T. 307]. 216 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ii. 3. 23 : BieBaXXov co? Xvuaivopievov, and thus frequently; Jas. ii. 9. It might also have been co? with the optative; Herod, viii. 90, and elsewhere. Erroneously, moreover, in view of the present, the Vuig. reads (comp. Luther) : quasi dissipasset. — rd virdpxovra avTov] therefore the possessions, the means and property (xi. 21, xii. 15, 33, xix. 8), of his lord} Ver. 2. Tl tovto aKovm irepl aov ;] what is this that I hear 'concerning thee 1 quid hoc est, quod de te audio ? A weU- known contraction of a relative clause with an interrogative clause ; Plat. Gorg. p. 452 D, and elsewhere. See Kuhner, II. § 841. 1; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 780; Bornemann, Schol. p. 97, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p.. 120. Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 715 : Tt ravra aKovm; Acts xiv. 15. The fre quency of this usus logiiendi, and the appropriateness of the sense just at the opening of the reckoning, gives to the inter pretation the preference over this : wherefore do I hear, etc., Kuinoel, de Wette, Meuss, and others (comp. Luther, and so early as the Gothic version). — a7rdSo? k.t.X.] give the (due) reckoning of thy stewardship. The master desires to see the state of affairs made plain. On Xoyov BiBovai, diroBiBovat (Matt. xii. 36 ; Acts xix. 40 ; Bom. xiv. 12), see Schweig- hauser's Lex. Herod. II. p. 74. Comp.' tov Xoyov dirijrovv, Dem. 868. 5. — ov ydp] for thou shalt not, etc. The master decides thus according to what he had heard, and what he regards as established. Ver. 3. This reflexion of the steward issued from the con sciousness that he cannot deny his guUt, for he sees his dismissal as the near and certain result (dfyaipelrai, present) of the rendering of the account demanded of him. If he were to be represented as innocent, the parable must needs have placed in his mouth a justification, or at least have assigned to him the corresponding epithet. This is also in opposi- 1 Therefore not the possessions of the debtors, to which result van Oosterzee comes, assuming that the steward had made the debtors (who were tenants) pay more than he had given up and paid over to his lord ; in the alteration of the leases he had only the right sums introduced which ho had hitherto brought into account. CHAP. XVI. 4. 217 tion to Francke,1 Holbe. — 6Vt] equivalent to ei? eVetvo on, see on Mark xvi. 14. — aKairreiv] in fields, gardens, vine yards ; it is represented in Greek writers also as the last resource of the impoverished ;2 Aristoph. Av. 1432 : aKairreiv yap ovk iirlaraptat. See Wolf and, Kypke. — ovk tV^vw] not being accustomed to such labour, he feels that his strength is not equal to it. — iiranelv] infinitive, not participial. On the distinction in sense, see Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 165. These reflections are not inserted with a view to the inter pretation, but only for the depicting of the crisis. Ver. 4. The word eyvmv, coming in without any connecting particle, depicts in a lively manner what was passing in his mind, and is true to nature. The aorist is used not as being the same as the perfect, although de Wette will have it so, but expresses the moment of occurrence : / have come to the knowledge. Bengel well says : " Subito consilium cepit." — OTav p,eraaTa0m] when (quando) I shall have been dismissed. He thus expresses himself to indicate the critical point of time, imminent to him by reason of the near experience that he is expecting, after the occurrence of which the Bixea0ai k.t.X. is to take place. Comp. ver. 9. — Se^cofTat] the debtors 1 According to Francke, Jesus desires to represent the risks' of being rich in the' passionate rich man, who arranges the dismissal without any inquiry. He is the indebted chief person. The steward is falsely accused : he is driven from the house as not aSuus ; but the rich man, first of all, drives him by his cruelty ' to the xSixix, which, moreover, was only a momentary one, as the (inequitable) •ypxfcfiarx were only once used ; while, on the other hand, they were only used for the purpose of putting matters on an equitable footing again. In the latter reference Dav. Schulz precedes with the assumption, that the steward wished before his dismissal to do some good. He assumes with equal contradiction of the text, that the setting down of the items of account was done with the know ledge of the master. Comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 57. 2 Hence — for the steward, before he decides on the expedient, ver. 4, sees digging and begging before him — it is not to be supposed, with Brauns, that he paid the amounts written down, ver. 6 f., from his own funds. Contrary to the text, contrary to ver. 3 f., and contrary to t7,s xoixixs, ver. 8, which refers to that writing down. This, moreover, is in opposition to Holbe, who, in a similar misinterpretation of vv. 6, 7, brings out as the meaning of the parable, that "the publicans, decried by the Pharisees as robbers, etc., are frequently not so. In spite of their being repudiated, they are equitable people, and frequently combine with great experience of life and prudence a heart so noble that they acquire friends as soon as this is only known. " 218 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. of his master, ot pydyvai p,eXXovre<;, Euthymius Zigabenus. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 117 [E. T. 134]. — oIkov?] houses, not families (Schulz), comp. ver. 9. Vv. 5-7. Tmv ^/oecoc/)etX.] of the debtors, they had borrowed the natural products named from the stores of the rich man. This agrees better with the word, the opposite of which is Baveiarys (vii. 41 ; Plut. Caes. 12), than the notion of tenants. — -From eva emarov it is seen that subsequently the two debtors are mentioned by way of example. — tov Kvpiov eairov] By the debtors of his own master he knew how to help him self. — irbaov dc/>eiXet? k.t.X.] Going to work promptly and surely, he questions their own acknowledgment of obligation, which must agree with the contents of the bond. — Ver. 6. Bdrovs] 6 Be @dro<; (H3) Biyarai x^pvaat fjearas eBBopiyKovra Bio, Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 9. Therefore equal to an Attic perpyry'i. — Sefat] take away. The steward, who has the documents in his keeping, gives up the bill (ra ypdp,p,ara, that which is written, in the plural used even of one docu ment, see on Gal. vi. 11), that the debtor may alter the number. Usually, that he may write a new bond with the smaller amount. But this is not contained in the words ; moreover, for that purpose not the surrender of the document, but its destruction, would have been necessary. — Ka0lo-a o'tKovbp,. ttj? dStK.] dStK. is a genitive of quality (see on ii. 14), the unrighteous steward; of such a quality he had shown himself in his service, as weU by the waste in general as specially by his proceeding with the CHAP. XVI. 8. 219 debtors.1 The dogmatic idea (Schulz) is out of place in the context. Schleiermacher and Bornemann (comp. also Paulus) construe Ti}? dStKt'a? with iiryveaev : iniquitatis causa. Gram matically correct (Dion. Hal. Bhet. xiv. ; Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 5; Bernhardy, p. 152; Kuhner, II. p. 192; Bornemann, Schol. p. 98), but here it is in contradiction with the parallel expression : c'k tov ptapimva, tj)? dBtKia<;, ver. 9. Comp. also d KptTy<; t?)? dBiKtas, xvih. 6. And it is not the dBtKia, but the prudence, that is the subject of the praise,2 as is shown from the analogy of ver. 9. ry<} dStKt'a? is intended to make it clear that the master praised the steward even in spite of his dishonest behaviour, because he had dealt prudently. In the dishonest man he praised " his procedure, so well advised and to the purpose, with the property that still remained under his control'' (Schulz, p. 103), even although from a moral point of view this prudence was only the wisdom of the serpent (Matt. x. 16), so that he was not the 7rto-To? oikovouopbvip,oi; (xii. 42), but only <$>povtuo<;, who had hit on the practical savoir faire. — on ol viol k.t.X.] Immediately after the words abpovtptms iirolyaev, Jesus adds a general maxim,3 in justification of the predicate used ((ppovlpuos). Con sequently : " Et merito quidem iUius prudentiam laudavit, nam quod prudentiam quidem attinet, filii hujus saeculi, etc.," Maldonatus. Francke erroneously says (compare the 1 The expression tyis xSixixs contains the judgment of Jesus on the conduct of the olxovift-os, vv. 5-7, which, nevertheless, the master praised with reference to the prudence employed. Hence t*s x&ixixs is decidedly opposed to the assump tion that the steward was honest, and it is only a device springing from necessity to which Holbe clings, that the faithful steward is called olxot. rtis ihx'ix; only in the sense of his calumniators. 2 We may imagine the master calling out to the steward from his own worldly standpoint something like this : Truly thou hast accomplished a prudent stroke ! Thy practical wisdom is worthy of all honour! Comp. Terent. Heaut. iii. 2. 26. But to conclude that the steward remained in his service, is altogether opposed to the teaching of the parable (in opposition to Baumgarten-Crusius, Holbe). 3 Not a piece of irony upon the Pharisees (Zyro), as Brauns also assumes, un derstanding by the children of this world the publicans, who were contemned as children ofthe world; and by the children of light, the Pharisees, as the educated children of light. So also Holbe. Extorted by an erroneous interpretation of the whole parable. Textually the children of the world could only be those to whom the steward belonged by virtue of his unrighteous dealing {rvs xSixtxt). 220 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. " perhaps," etc., of de Wette) that 6Vt ot viol k.t.X. refers to the iiryveaev 6 Kvpiov. This the context forbids by the cor relation of (ppovlpo}<; and a^povtpMtrepoi. The sons (see on Matt. vih. 12) of this generation (njfi D?ijJ5 see on Matt. xh. 32) are those who belong in their moral nature and endeavour to the period of the world prior to the Messianic times, not men who are aspiring after the BaaiXeta tov 0eov Kal T^f BtKato- avvyv avrov (Matt. vi. 33). Comp. xx. 34. See examples of the Eabbinical avabv ^3 in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 298, and Wetstein. The sous of light are those who, withdrawn from temporal interests, have devoted themselves wholly to the divine dXy0eia revealed by Christ, and are enlightened and governed by it, John xii. 36; 1 Thess. v. 5 ; Eph. v. 8. The' former are more prudent than the latter, not absolutely, but ei? ryv yevedv tjji/ eavrmv, in reference to their own generation, i.e. in relation to their own kindred, if they have to do with those who, hke themselves, are children of this world, as that steward was so prudent in reference to the debtors. The whole body of the children of the world — a category of like- minded men — is described as a generation, a clan of connections; and how appropriately, since they appear precisely as viol I Observe, moreover, the marked prominence of ryv eavrmv, which includes the contrasted saying that that higher degree of prudence is not exercised, if they have to deal with others who are not of their own kind. With unerring sagacity they know, as is shown by that steward in his dealing with the debtors, how, in their relations to companions of their own stamp, to turn the advantage of the latter to their own proper advantage. On the other hand, hi relation to the children of light, they are not in a condition for such prudent measures, because these are not available for the immoral adjustment of the selfish ends of those men, as was the case with those debtors who by their own dishonesty were serviceable to the dishonest sagacity of the steward by the falsification of their bonds.' Kuinoel and Paulus, follow ing older commentators, explain : in relation to their con- 1 tis is therefore to be taken in the quite usual sense of : in reference to, but not to be twisted into : after the manner, or after the measure (Lahmeyer), and CHAP. XVI. 9. 221 temporaries. But how unmeaning would be this addition, and how neglected would be the emphatic t^i> eavrmv ! Grotius, in opposition to the words themselves, explains : " in rebus suis ; " Wieseler : for the duration of their life, for the brief time of their earthly existence ; Holbe : in their own manner, according to theh own fashion. Comp. Schulz, Lange, and others: after their kind; de Wette, Eylau: in their sphere of life. — Moreover, ei? t. yev. k.t.X. is not to be referred to both classes of men (Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Brauns, and others), but merely to the viov