eet. Peer 5 ΣῈ git τοδὶ ἐδ βύθενι ise > a ee he Sma a tm = Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON -: NEW JERSEY ty ie "ἢ HN " ᾿ ἱ cea ta ih, ht ie [ὴ ΤῊΝ 1 rn The International Critical Commentary on the Holn Scriptures of the Old and New Gestaments UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York; THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford; THE REv. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Master of University College, Durham. A Γ ΠΣ +‘ re SEA νο "ἐδ x 7 Ὕ ry i ‘ Aa ES i νυ νυ ς “ome tp Sore ΕΥ The International Critical Commentary on the §olv Scriptures of the Old and New Gestaments. EDITORS PREFACE, THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblischer Commentar tiber das A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s Handkommentar sum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar zum IV. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- speaking public; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive EDITORS’ PREFACE Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- ship, and in a measure lead its van. Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, in Great Britain. The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archzological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series. THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. ee pee ΤῊΣ following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes named below :— Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers, Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Samuel. Kings. Chronicles. Ezra and Nehemiah. Psalms. Proverbs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Minor Prophets. Daniel. THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Rev. T. K. Cu&yNz, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford. The Rev. A. R.S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. The Rev. H. A. WHITE, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, B.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mans- field College, Oxford. The Rev. 5. R. DRIvER, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. The Rev. GEORGE Moorkg, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. [Now Ready. The Rev. H. P. ΘΜΙΤΗ, D.D., late Professor of Hebrew, Lane Theological Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. The Rev. FRANCIS Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. The Rev. EDWARD L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of He- brew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. The Rev. CHARLES A. Briccs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har- vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. The Rev. A. B. Davipson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh. The Rev. A. F. K1RKPATRICK, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of the University of Chicago, Illinois. The Rev. JoHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, New York City. THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY—continued, Mark, Luke. Harmony of the Gospels. Acts. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians. Ephesians, Philippians. Hebrews. Peter and Jude. James. The Pastoral Epistles. Revelation. -------.2ῳὁ0ὁὦΝὄ. ΄[ὃοὃ.. THE NEW TESTAMENT. The Rev. E. P. GouLp, D.D., Professor of New Testa- ment Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [πα the Press. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., Master of University College, Durham. The Rev. WILLIAM Sanpay, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, Μ.Α., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. The Rev. FREDERICK H. CHASE, D.D., Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., Dean Ireland's Pro- fessor of Exegesis, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. HEAD- LAM, M.A., Fellow of Ἐπ Souls’ College, tel [ Ready. The Rev. ARCH, eee D.D/, PBncipal of Bishop Hatfield" afft Ruxhay. ᾿ The Rev. ErNEsT D. Burton, Α΄. Β., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. The Rev. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΊ, B.D., D.Lit., fotiedy Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin. The Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor of Bib- lical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. The Rev. Τ᾿ C. EDwarDs, D.D., Principal of the Theo- logical College, Bala; late Principal of University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., Leamington, Eng- land. The Rev. JAMES H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor in New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. The Rey. WALTER Lock, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, and Tutor of Keble College, Oxford. The Rev. RoBERT H. CHARLES, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford. Other engagements will be announced shortly. President W. R. Harper, of Chicago University, writes in The Biblical World: “It is hardly necessary to say that this series will stand first among all English serial commentaries upon the Bible. It stands with and admirably supplements the ‘International Theological Library,’ to which we have already learned to look for the best and most recent in the historical, literary, and lin- guistic study of the Bible. promises to give.” We are greatly in need of just what this series ΕΠ ΞΡΕ ΙΑ ΘΘΕΌΙΝα TO ΕΣ EUKE παν ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY A CRIMNICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE BY THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 1896 ὲ ; Ὁ hie Μααν eae ΙΒ Py 7 my ae ὰ ea] ν᾿ δ, 1 os . A Ε Δ ΒΡ vA ye aoe i 37 an ke ἐ! ar 4 ads ἫΝ is aS ‘ 3. « ἧς Ὁ , ἣἥ ᾿ ἰ ‘ »\ ἜΝ “᾽ γ ὯΝ ᾿ - ar 7 > ‘ Fe ayal bh PRE PACE THIS volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. The day is probably still far distant when any such com- mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which the present commentator has had to contend is the im- possibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every month, brings its list of new books, some of which the writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to increase, one’s difficulties: it is waiting dum defluat amnis. Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published. And these notes are now offered to those who care to use them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of those things which it is intended to convey to us. They will have done their work if they help someone who is far better equipped entirely to supersede them. The writer of this volume is well aware of some of its shortcomings. There are omissions which have been knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate reasons. (1) This series is to include a Commentary on iii iv PREFACE the Synopsis of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis- tinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C. Allen, Fellow and Lecturer of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second, which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to com- ment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to any one book in the New Testament: and therefore sub- jects, which might with propriety be discussed at some length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely un- touched. Indeed, as editor of those New Testament volumes which are written by British scholars, the present writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what he had written as contributor to this series. And it has been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the commentary on Romans, have been altogether omitted, as being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on one of the Synoptic Gospels. For the same reason separate headings to sections and to special notes have been used very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate head- ings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading. The fact of the same person being both contributor and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced short- comings of another kind. Two heads are better than one, and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and questionable or erroneous statements might have been amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another’s supervision. Even in the humble but important work of PREFACE Vv detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is great. Only those who have had the experience know how easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again and again. If this commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions, and in the attention which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S. Luke’s style. The illustrations from Jewish writings have been sup- plied, not because the writer has made any special study of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish Christians are now among the most promising helps towards understanding the New Testament; and because these writings have of late years become much more accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psalms of Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the Fourth Book of Ezra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr. James. A very eminent scholar has said that the best com- mentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance; and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate. There is truth in both these sayings: and, with regard to the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, ἃ fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has 1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schiirer, Wzs¢. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. iii. ; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wiinsche, Die jidische Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, Trier: Part III. has just appeared. v1 PREFACE been made to render those who use this commentary to a large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr. White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testa- ment, and other writings. The large majority of them have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of excluding error in such things is so great that the writer cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is possible that a few references have accidentally escaped verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted without it, because the reference seemed to be of value, the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy. Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a study of S. Luke’s style as a matter of great interest and importance ; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel. It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer of these two books was Luke the beloved physician. Dogma in the polemical sense is excluded from the plan of these commentaries. It is not the business of the com- mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com- mentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the historical basis of the Christian faith (i. 1-4). The Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully PREFACE vil investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming of the Christ (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im- mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iii. 23, iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur- rection he then narrates in detail. On all these points the student is again and again met by the question, What does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this or that word or sentence there may often be room for discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole there is no doubt. If we ask what were “the things wherein” Theophilus “was instructed” and of “the certainty ” concerning which he is assured, the answer is not difficult. We may take the Old Roman Creed as a convenient summary of it. Πιστεύω εἰς Θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα (i. 37, 111. 8, xi. 2-4, xii. 32, etc.). Καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ (Pest 1 21 10. IX. 3-. Χ' 21, 22, ΧΧΙΠ 29, 79; xxii. [22] 46: comp. iv. 41, Vili. 28), τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν (i. 43, li. 11, Vii. 13, x. I, ἘΠῚ 30: ΣΧ 12; ΣΥΪ 5; Ὁ, XIX. 8, 21, ΧΧΙ Gx, XXIV. 3, 34) τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου (1.31--35, 43, ii. 6, 7), τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυροθέντα καὶ ταφέντα (xxii., Xxlii.), TH τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν (xxiv. 1-49), ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς (xxiv. 50-53), καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός (xxil. 69), ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (comp. ix. 26, ΧΙ. 35-48, xvili. 8). Καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 26, iv. I, 14, Xl. 13, ΧΙ. 10, 12)* ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν (comp. i. 74, 75, ix. 1-6, x. I-16, xxiv. 49)" ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (1. 77, iii. 3, xxiv. 47)" σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν (xiv. 14, XX. 27-40). The Evangelist’s own convictions on most of these points are manifest; and we need not doubt that they include the principal things in which Theophilus had been instructed, and which the writer of the Gospel solemnly affirms to be well established. Whether in our eyes they vill PREFACE are well established depends upon the estimate which we form of his testimony. Is he a truth-loving and competent witness? Does the picture which he draws agree with what can be known from other authorities? Could he or his informants have invented the words and works which he attributes to Jesus Christ? A patient and fair student of the Third Gospel will not be at a loss for an answer. ALFRED PLUMMER. University College, Durham, Feast of S. Luke, 1896. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . τς . . . e § 1. The Author : : - Ξ . was the Author of the Acts ὃ . . a Companion of 5. Paul Ξ ° S. Luke . 3 5 : ὃ - § 2. 5. Luke the Evangelist . : ° . § 3. The Sources of the Gospel Ξ . ° No Ebionite Source. . . Supposed Dislike of Duplicates . . τ 4. Time and Place. : Ξ . : 5. Object and Plan. : ° : . § Analysis of the easpely 5 . . ν ὃ 6. Characteristics, Style, and Language a The Gospel of S. Paul . ὃ Ε . of Prayer . - : . of Praise . - Po literary, historic, domestic . . S. Luke’s Command of Greek . ὁ. Expressions peculiar to 5. Luke . ὁ to him and S. Paul . - . . to both with Hebrews. . ° to S. Luke with Hebrews - . “ Expressions frequent in 5. Luke . Ξ possibly medical His Diction compared with that ὩΣ 5. and 5. Mark . : solange “"§ 7. The Integrity of the roo Se ae Pos 6: The Text .° Sto SAD ea ἐς “ § 9. Literary History "ieee ane Clement of Rome. as) tte . . The Didaché. 5 - . . . Gospel of Peter Pe Testaments of XII. Patr ees . ° ΙΧ Matthew x CONTENTS § 10. Commentaries . C : - Abbreviations . c 3 - . GOMMENTARY: &\ ce) eas bee SPECIAL NOTES On the use of ἐγένετο. ° ° . The Decree of Augustus ὦ 4 5 The fifteenth year of Tiberius - : The Genealogy . : = - : Demoniacal Possession . : The Miraculous Draught of Ἐπ: - The title “Son of Man” - δ The word δευτεροπρώτῳ. : . . The Sermon ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ . : ᾿ Christ’s Raising the Dead . : 3 The Journeyings towards Jerusalem The word ἀνάλημψις : The Mission of the Seventy . The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the (0 T. The Blind Man at Jericho The Parable of the Pounds The Question about Psalm cx. The Apocalypse of Jesus . Readings in Chapters xxii. and xxiii. The Narratives of the Resurrection 5 Western Non-interpolations . ὃ : Interpolations in the Sinaitic Syriac. INDEX TO THE NOTES I. General . 5 ἐ 5 5 Il. Writers and Writings . ° III. Greek Words . : " IV. English and Latin Words ° PAGE lxxx Ixxxvi 1-569 45 48 82 IOI 136 147 156 165 176 201 260 262 269 397 429 437 472 487 544 546 566 569 571 577 581 590 ΤΙ ΚΟΡΙΧΘΟΥΎΤΟΝ —>— Soh) ΗΕ AUTHOR: As in the case of the other Gospels, the author is not named in the book itself. But two things may be regarded as practically certain, and a third as highly probable in itself and much more probable than any other hypothesis. (i.) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts. (ii.) The author of the Acts was a companion of S. Paul. (iii.) This companion was 5. Luke. (i.) Zhe Author of the Third Gospel ts the Author of the Acts. This position is so generally admitted by critics of all schools that not much time need be spent in discussing it. Both books are dedicated to Theophilus. The later book refers to the former. The language and style and arrangement of the two books are so similar, and this similarity is found to exist in such a multitude of details (many of which are very minute), that the hypothesis of careful imitation by a different writer is absolutely excluded. ‘The idea of minute literary analysis with a view to discover peculiarities -and preferences in language was an idea foreign to the writers of the first two centuries; and no known writer of that age gives evidence of the immense skill which would be necessary in order to employ the results of such an analysis for the production of an elaborate imitation. To suppose that the author of the Acts carefully imitated the Third Gospel, in order that his work might be attributed to the Evangelist, or that the Evangelist carefully imitated the Acts, in order that his Gospel might be attributed to the author of the Acts, is to postulate a literary miracle. Such an idea would not have occurred to any one; and if it had, he would not have been able to execute it with such triumphant success as is conspicuous here. Any one who will underline in a few chapters of the Third Gospel the phrases, words, and constructions which are specially frequent in the book, and then underline the ΧΙ 7 xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [$ 1. same phrases, words, and constructions wherever they occur in the Acts, will soon have a strong conviction respecting the identity of authorship. The converse process will lead to a similar result. Moreover, the expressions which can be marked in this way by no means exhaust the points of similarity between the two books. There are parallels of description ; e.g. about angelic appearances (comp. Lk. 1. 11 with Acts xi. 7; Lk. i. 38 with Acts 1. 11 and x. 7; Lk. ii. 9 and xxiv. 4 with Acts i. 10 and x. 30); and about other matters (comp. Lk. i. 39 with Acts i. 15; Lk. ii. 39 with Acts xiii. 29; Lk. ili. 8 with Acts xxvi. 20; Lk. xx. 1 with Acts iv. 1; Lk. xxi. 18 with Acts xxvu. 345 Lk. xx. 35 with Aets xvii. 26; Lk. xxiii. 2 with Acts xxiv. 2-5; Lk. xxiii. 5 with Acts x. 37; Lk. xxiv. 27 with Acts viii. 35).1_ And there are parallels of arrangement. The main portion of the Gospel has three marked divisions: The Ministry zz Gadilee (111. 1-1x. 50), between Galilee and Jerusalem (ix. 51-xix. 28), and 7” Jerusalem (xix. 29—-Xxiv. 11). And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions: Hebraic (ii.-v.), Transitional (vi.-xii.), and Gentile (xiii.—xxviii.). In the one case the movement is from Galilee through Samaria, etc. to Jerusalem: in the other from Jerusalem through Samaria, etc. to Rome. And in both cases there is an introduction con- necting the main narrative with what precedes. (ii.) Zhe Author of Acts was a Companion of S. Paul. A full discussion of this statement belongs to the commentary on the Acts rather than to the present volume: but the main points in the evidence must be noted here. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more certain than this statement. There are the ‘“‘ we” sections in which the writer uses the first person plural in describing journeys of S. Paul. This “we” is found in Codex Bezae as early as xi. 28 at Antioch, and may represent a true tradition without being the original reading.” It appears certainly xvi. τὸ at Troas® and continues to Philippi (xvi. 17).4 Several years later it reappears at Philippi (xx. 5)° and continues to Jerusalem (xxi. 18).6 Finally, it reappears at the departure for Italy (xxvii. 1)" and continues to Rome (xxviii. 16).8 1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apfostelgeschichte Werke desselben Verfassers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a whole stands ; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact. 2 For ἀναστὰς δὲ els ἐξ αὐτῶν D has συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, revertentibus autem nobis ait unus ex ipsis, This reading is also found in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 57 [xvii.]). 3 ἐζητήσαμεν ἐξελθεῖν. 4 ἡμῖν ἔκραζεν. ὅ ἔμενον ἡμᾶς. 6 εἰσήει ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν. 7 τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν ἡμᾶς, 8 εἰσήλθαμεν εἰς Ῥώμην. 81. THE AUTHOR xiil The “we” necessarily implies companionship, and may possibly represent a diary kept at the time. That the “we” sections are by the same hand as the rest of the book is shown by the simple and natural way in which they fit into the narrative, by the refer- ences in them to other parts of the narrative, and by the marked identity of style. ‘The expressions which are so characteristic of this writer run right through the whole book. ‘They are as frequent inside as outside the “we” sections, and no change of style can be noted between them and the rest of the treatise. The change of person is intelligible and truthlike, distinguishing _ the times when the writer was with the Apostle from the times when he was not: but there is otherwise no change of language. To these points must be added the fact that the author of the Acts is evidently a person of considerable literary powers, and the probability that a companion of S. Paul who possessed such powers would employ them in producing such a narrative as the Acts. -- (111.) Zhe Companion of S. Paul who wrote the Acts and the Third Gospel was S. Luke. Of the companions of S. Paul whose names are known to us no one is so probable as S. Luke; and the voice of the first eight centuries pronounces strongly for him and for no one else as the author of these two writings. If antiquity were silent on the subject, no more reasonable conjecture could be made than “Luke the beloved physician.” He fulfils the conditions. Luke was the Apostle’s companion during both the Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11), and may well have been his companion at other times. That he is not mentioned in the earlier groups of Epistles _ is no objection ; for none of them coincide with the ‘‘ we” sections in the Acts. Moreover, the argument from medical language, although sometimes exaggerated, is solid and helpful. Both in the Acts and in the Third Gospel there are expressions which are distinctly medical; and there is also a good deal of language which is perhaps more common in medical writers than elsewhere. This feature does not amount to proof that the author was a physician ; still less can it prove that, if the author was a physician, he must have been Luke. The Apostle might have had another medical companion besides the beloved physician. But, seeing that there is abundance of evidence that Luke was the writer of these two documents, the medical colour which is discernible here and there in the language of each of them is a valuable con- firmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both to Luke. xiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 1. For the voice of antiquity is not silent on the subject ; and we are not left to conjecture. There is no need to argue whether Timothy, or Titus, or Silas, or some unnamed companion of the Apostle is more likely than 5. Luke to have written these two books. The evidence, which is both abundant and strong, is wholly in favour of Luke. Until we reach the blundering state- ment in Photius near the end of the ninth century, there is no hint that any one ever thought of any person but Luke as the author of either treatise. Photius has this statement: “Some say that the writer of the Acts was Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist; but Luke | himself decides the question, for at the beginning of his preface he mentions that another treatise containing the acts of the Lord had been composed by him” (Amphil. Qu. 123). Here he seems to be transferring to the Acts conjectures which had been made respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. But at any rate the statement shows that the Third Gospel was regarded as un- questionably by Luke. The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now com- monly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held to stultify himself. But is not the evidence for the Lucan author- ship of the Third Gospel and the Acts equally strong? If these are not named by any writer earlier than Irenzeus, neither are those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respect- ing the Third Gospel and the Acts is even more intelligible than their silence respecting Galatians and Romans, because the two former, being addressed to Theophilus, were in the first instance of the nature of private writings, and because, as regards the Gospel narrative, the oral tradition still sufficed. But from Irenzeus onwards the evidence in all these cases is full and unwavering, and it comes from all quarters of the Christian world. And in considering this third point, the first point must be kept steadily in view, viz. the certainty that the Third Gospel and the Acts were written by one and the same person. Con- sequently all the evidence for either book singly is available for the other book. Every writer who attributes the Third Gospel to Luke thereby attributes the Acts to Luke and wice versd, whether he know anything about the second book or not. Thus in favour of Luke as the author of the Third Gospel we have three classes of witnesses: viz. those who state that Luke wrote the Third Gospel, those who state that Luke wrote the Acts, and those who state that he wrote both treatises. Their combined testimony is very strong indeed; and there is nothing against it. At the opening of his commentary on the Acts, Chrysostom says that many in his day were ignorant of the authorship and even of the existence of the book (Migne, lx. 13). But that statement 811] THE AUTHOR XV creates no difficulty. Many could be found at the present day, even among educated Christians, who could not name the author of the Acts. And we have seen that the late and confused state- ment in Photius, whatever it may mean respecting the Acts, testifies to the‘ universal conviction that the Third Gospel was written by Luke. But we obtain a very imperfect idea of the early evidence in favour of the Third Gospel when we content ourselves with the statement that it is not attributed to Luke by any one before Irenzeus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little earlier than the work of Irenzus, but is probably a little later. We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel previous to Irenzeus; and also the manner in which he himself and those who immediately follow him speak of it as the work of S. Luke. That Justin Martyr used the Third Gospel (or an authority which was practically identical with it) cannot be doubted. He gives a variety of particulars which are found in that Gospel alone ; e.g. Elizabeth as the mother of the Baptist, the sending of Gabriel to Mary, the census under Quirinius, there being no room in the inn, His ministry beginning when Jesus was thirty years old, His being sent by Pilate to Herod, His last cry, “ Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (1 Afo/. xxxiv.; Z7y. |xxviii., Ixxxvill., ¢., Cili., cv., cvi.). Moreover, Justin uses expressions respecting the Agony, the Resurrection, and the Ascension which show that the Third Gospel is in his mind. That his pupil Tatian possessed this Gospel is proved by the Diatessaron. See Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. 3 ff. Celsus also knew the Third Gospel, for he knew that one of the genealogies made Jesus to be descended from the first man (Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 32). The Clementine Homilies contain similarities which are pro- ably allusions (iii. 63, 65, xl. 20, 23, XVil. 5, XViii. 16, xix. 2). The Third Gospel was known to Basilides and Valentinus, and was commented upon by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9, p. 596, ed. Potter). Marcion adopted this Gospel as the basis for what he called the ‘‘Gospel of the Lord” or ‘‘ Gospel of Christ.” He omitted a good deal as being inconsistent with his own teaching, but he does not appear to have added anything.! See ὃ 7; also Wsctt., Int. to Gospels, App. D; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, App. In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the Churches in Asia there is a quotation of Lk. i. 6 (Eus. HZ. v. τ. 9). 1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo of what is known of Marcion. xvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [$1. These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It re- mains to notice the way in which Irenzus and his later contem- poraries speak of the book. Irenzeus, who represents the traditions of Asia Minor and Rome and Gaul in the second half of the second century, quotes it many times and quotes from nearly every chapter, especially from those which are wholly or in the main peculiar to this Gospel, e.g. 1., 1., 1x.-xix., xxiv. [ἢ a very remark- able passage he collects together many of the things which this Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke: ‘‘ Now if any one reject Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will manifestly be casting out the Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For very many and specially necessary elements of the Gospel we know through him, as the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary,” ete. etc. (iti., 14. 3. - Comp. Hl. Io. £, 22. 4. 12.. 12, ΤΆ. 4, ete). eo wae observed that he does not contemplate the possibility of any one denying that Luke was the author. Those who may reject it will do so as thinking that Luke’s authority is inadequate; but the authorship is unquestioned. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-202) had had teachers from Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Palestine, and had received the tradition handed down from father to son from the Apostles (.S¢vom. i. 1, p. 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. 1. 21, p. 407, ed. Potter). Tertullian (A.D. 190-220) speaks for the African Church. He not only quotes the Gospel frequently in his other works, but in his treatise against Marcion he works through the Gospel from ch. iv. to the end, often calling it Luke’s. The Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 170-200) perhaps represents Rome. The first line of the mutilated Catalogue probably refers to S. Mark; but the next seven unquestionably refer to S. Luke, who is twice mentioned and is spoken of as medicus. (See Lft. on Supernatural Religion, p. 189.) It would be waste of time to cite more evidence. It is mani- fest that in all parts of the Christian world the Third Gospel had been recognized as authoritative before the middle of the second century, and that it was universally believed to be the work of S. Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on the point. The possibility of questioning its value is mentioned ; but not of questioning its authorship. In the literature of that period it would not be easy to find a stronger case. ‘The authorship of the four great Epistles of S. Paul is scarcely more certain. In all these cases, as soon as we have sufficient material for arriving at a conclusion, the evidence is found to be all on one side and to be decisive. And exactly 81. THE AUTHOR xV1l the same result is obtained when the question is examined as to the authorship of the Acts, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (art. “ Acts” in D.&.2). Both the direct and the indirect argument for the Lucan authorship is very strong. With this large body of historical evidence in favour of S. Luke before us, confirmed as it is by the medical expressions in both books, it is idle to search for another companion of S. Paul who might have been the author. Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded by Acts xx. 4, 5. And it is not easy to make Silas fit into the “we” sections. Titus is possible: he can be included in the “we” and the “us” without contradiction or difficulty. But what is gained by this suggestion? Is a solution which is supported by no evi- dence to be preferred to an intrinsically more probable solution, which is supported by a great deal of evidence, and by evidence which is as early as we can reasonably expect ? Those who neglect this evidence are bound to explain its existence. Irenzus, Clement, and Tertullian, to say nothing of other authorities, treat the Lucan authorship as a certainty. So far as their knowledge extends, Luke is everywhere regarded as the writer. How did this belief grow up and spread, if it was not true? There is nothing in either treatise to suggest Luke, and he is not prominent enough in Scripture to make him universally acceptable as a conjecture. Those who wanted apostolic authority for their own views would have made their views more conspicuous in these books, and would have assigned the books to a person of higher position and influence than the beloved physician, e.g. to Timothy or Titus, if not to an Apostle. As Renan says, ‘‘ There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name. Luke was not yet sufficiently famous for any one to make use of his name, to give authority to a book” (Les Hvangiles, ch. xill. p. 252, Eng. tr. p. 132). ‘The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a work . . . was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. But to place at the head of a document a false name and an obscure one withal, that is inconceivable. . . . Luke had no place in a Nall in legend, in history” (Les Apdfres, p. xvil., Eng. tr. ἘΣ 11} 1 Even Jiilicher still talks of ‘‘ the silence of Papias ” as an objection (2 χε. in das NV. T. ὃ 27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in the much larger portions which have perished? The probabilities, in the absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite without evidence. In the ‘‘ Hexzemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai is a passage in which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Lk. x. 18 is quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed from Papias. Lft. Swpernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. Hilgenfeld thinks b xvili THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 2. ͵ § 2. S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST, The name Lucas is probably an abbreviation of Lucanus, but possibly of Lucilius, or Lucius, or Lucianus. ‘There is, however, no proof that Lucanus was shortened into Lucas.! Nevertheless some of the oldest Latin MSS. (e.g. Cordetensis and Vercellensis) have secundum Lucanum as the title of the Third Gospel. Lucas, like Apollos, Artemas, Demas, Hermas, and Nymphas, is a form not found in classical literature, whereas Lucanus is common in inscriptions. Lobeck has noticed that these contracted proper names in -ἂς are common in the case of slaves (Patholog. Proleg. Ρ. 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Cesar, and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen. That Lucas=Lucanus is probable.? But that Lucanus= Silvanus, because lucus=stlva, and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. Equally grotesque is the idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. 4. £. iii. 39. 4, 6), because ἀρισ- τεύειν = lucere (Lange). Only in three places is Lk. zamed in Scripture ; and it is worth noting that in all three of them the other Evangelist who is not an Apostle is named with him (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). These passages tell us that “the physician, the beloved one” (6 ἰατρὸς ὃ ἀγαπητός), was with 5. Paul during the first Roman imprisonment, when the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon were written, and also during the second imprisonment, when 2 Timothy was written. Besides telling us that Luke was a physician very dear to the Apostle, they also tell us that he was his “‘ fellow-worker ” in spreading the Gospel. But apparently he was not his “fellow-prisoner.” In Col. iv. ro Aristarchus is called συναιχμάλωτος, and in Philem. 23 Epaphras is called such ; but Lk. in neither place. Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke is that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (/zzr. p. 90, ed. 5). 1The argument from the Greek form (that Λευκανός, not Λουκανός, is the equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about A.D. 50 forms in Λουκ-- begin to take the place of forms in Λευκ-. 2Comp. Annas for Ananus; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts xvili. 24); Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit. iii. 12; Mart. v. 40); Cleopas for Cleopatros ; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus. For other examples see Win. xvi. 5, p. 127; Lft. on Col. iv. 15; Chandler, Grk. Accent. § 34. 3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evan- gelist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible as the human body (Zexte und Unters. viii. 4, p. 40). § 2.] 5. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xix separated from “those of the circumcision,” and therefore was a Gentile Christian.! Hofmann, Tiele, and Wittichen have not suc- ceeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before he was a Christian must remain uncertain: his knowledge of Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin; and, with the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos, he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who had had scientific training. If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius, who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). This Lucius was Paul’s kinsman, and therefore a Jew. The identifica- tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xii. 1) is less impossible. But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas | was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In Afost. Const. vi. 18. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden- tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22). Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which seems to have been adopted by those who made Lk. x. 1-7 the Gospel for S. Luke’s Day. ‘The tradition probably is based solely on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy (Epiph. Her. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. go8). The same reason is fatal to Theophylact’s attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to Emmaus (xxiv. 13), who was doubtless a Jew (vv. 27, 32). The conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion (Jn. xii. 20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, separates himself from those ‘‘who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word” (i. 2). The Seventy, these Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness Jrom the beginning, although at the end of Christ’s ministry he became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best 1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, (2) as μόνοι συνεργοὶ els THY βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, z.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is συναιχμάλωτος, and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are οἱ συνεργοί μου, while Justus is not men- tioned. ΧΥ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [δ 2. authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion, would he not have let us know this? Why did he not use the first person, as in the “we” sections in the Acts? He belongs to the second generation of Christians, not to the first. It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for S. Luke’s Day are right in identifying “the brother whose praise in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches” (2 Cor. vill. 18) with S. Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke is a reasonable conjecture. The attempt to show that the writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts is a Jew is a failure ; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below (§ 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles, Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the ‘‘ we” sections. The first of these (Acts xvi. 10-17) tells us that during the second missionary journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (A.D. 51 or 52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time when his distressing malady (2 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia, and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 13-15). Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him ‘the physician, the beloved one,” the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned his gratitude. The second section (xx. 5—xxi. 18) tells us that about six years later (A.D. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke was again at Philippi! with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. 1- Xxvili. 16) shows that he was with him during the voyage and shipwreck until the arrival in Rome. With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2) S. Paul. That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly doubt,—cnseparabilis fuit a Paulo, says Irenzeus: but how often he was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no means of knowing. ‘Tertullian perhaps means us to understand that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus, 1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsays takes the same view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Acts xvi. 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas (S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202). 8.21] 5. LUKE THE EVANGELIST XX1 where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education : φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τ. ἄλλην παιδείαν ἐγκύκλιον ἅπασαν (44). Our earliest authori- ties appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1. I, ΤΌ. I, 14. 1-4, 15. 1, 22. 3; Canon Murator. sub init.; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 sub jin.; Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). Nor can much that is very trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of Eusebius (4. £. iii. 4. 7) and of Jerome (De wir. 2/7. vii.), which -may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Zex¢e und Unters. vill. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthy- mius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts. Λουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας (Eus.) need not mean more than that Luke had a family connexion with Antioch ; but it hardy ‘‘amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian.” Jerome says expressly Lucas medicus Antiochensis. ‘This is probable in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of only one of the deacons are we told to which locality he belonged, ‘‘ Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch” (vi. 5)!: and we see elsewhere that the writer was well acquainted with Antioch and took an interest in it (xi. 19-27, Rill tA, ΤΌ 20, 20; xv. 22; 23° (20, 35; Xvill, 22); Epiphanius states that Luke ‘‘ preached in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul says of some of his companions, in his Epistles, Crescens 22 Gallia, for we are not to read 27% Galatia, as some errone- ously think, but zz Gallia” (Her. 11. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908) ; and Oecumenius says that Luke went from Rome to preach in Africa. Jerome believes that his bones were translated to Constantinople,” and others give Achaia or Bithynia as the place of his death. Gregory Nazianzen, in giving an off-hand list of primi- tive martyrs—Stephen, Peter, Andrew, etc.—places Luke among them (Ογαί. -adv. Jul. i. 79). None of these statements are of any value. The legend which makes Luke a painter is much more ancient than is sometimes represented. Nicephorus Callistus (7. 25. ii. 43) in the fourteenth century is by no means the earliest authority for it. Omitting Simeon Metaphrastes (¢ A.D. 1100) as doubtful, the Menology of the Emperor Basil 11., drawn up A.D. 980, represents ΤῸ has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 1812, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch extraction. * His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopol [vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens] ad guam urbem vicesimo Constantid anno ossa ejus cum reliquits Andrew apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first insertion is made in more than one place in De vir, 7//. vii. ΧΧΙΙ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [δ 2. S. Luke as painting the portrait of the Virgin. The oldest witness, however, is Theodorus Lector, reader in the Church of Constantin- ople in the sixth century. Some place him as late as the eighth century ; but the name is common, and between Α.Ὁ. 500 and 800 there may have been many readers ‘of that name at Constantinople. He says that the Empress Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of the Θεομήτωρ painted by Luke the Afost/e, and sent it to Constantin- ople as a present to her daughter Pulcheria, wife of Theodosius 11. (Collectan. 1. 7, Migne, Pair. Gr. Ixxxvi. 165). In 1204 this picture was brought to Venice. In the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome, in the Capella Paolina, is a very ancient picture of the Virgin ascribed to S. Luke. It can be traced back to A.D. 847, and may be still older. But although no such legend seems to be known to Augustine, for he says, xegue novimus faciem virginis Marie (De Trin. vill. 5. 7), yet it is many centuries older than Nicephorus (Kraus, Real-Eunc. d. Christ. Alt. ii. p. 344, which quotes Glukselig, Christus-Archdol. 101; Grimouard de S. Laurent, Guide de Part chrét. 111. 15-20). And the legend has a strong ele- ment of truth. It points to the great influence which Luke has had upon Christian art, of which in a real sense he may be called the founder. The Shepherd with the Lost Sheep on His shoulders, one of the earliest representations of Christ, comes from Lk. xv (Tert. De Pud. vii. and x.): and both medieval and modern artists have been specially fond of representing those scenes which are described by S. Luke alone: the Annunciation, the Visit of Mary to Elizabeth, the Shepherds, the Manger, the Presentation in the Temple, Symeon and Anna, Christ with the Doctors, the Woman at the Supper of Simon the Pharisee, Christ weeping over Jeru- salem, the Walk to Emmaus, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son. Many other scenes which are favourites with painters might be added from the Acts. See below, § 6. i. d. The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Ezek. i. and Rey. iv., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously ex- plained by different writers from Ireneeus (111. 11. 8) downwards. But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to 5. Luke. “This sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation ; and this exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of St. Luke’s Gospel, as one which more especially conveys mercy to the Penitent. . . . It begins with the Priest, dwelling on the Priestly family of the Baptist; and ends with the Victim, in our Lord’s death” (Isaac Williams, Ox the Study of the Gospels, et gl. sect. ‘V1.). 1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed to the Evangelist, see Zhe Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 1895. § 3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xxiii § 3. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL. The idea of a special revelation to the Evangelist is excluded by the prologue to the Gospel: his narrative is the result of care- ful enquiry in the best quarters. But (4) which “ eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” were his principal informants, (6) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, (c) whether it was mostly in Aramaic or in Greek, are questions about which he is silent. Internal evidence, however, will carry us some way in finding an answer to them. (2) During a large portion of the time in which he was being prepared, and was consciously preparing himself, for writing a Gospel, he was constantly with S. Paul; and we may be sure that it was among S. Paul’s companions and acquaintances that Luke obtained much of his information. It is probable that in this way he became acquainted with some of the Twelve, with other disciples of Christ, and with His Mother and brethren. He certainly was acquainted with S. Mark, who was perhaps already preparing material for his own Gospel when he and S. Luke were with the Apostle in Rome (Col. iv. το, 14; Philem. 24). S. Paul himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Cor. xv. 3); but he could help him to first-hand information. While the Apostle was detained in custody at Czsarea, Luke would be able to do a good deal of investigation, and as a physician he would perhaps have access to people of position who could help him. (ὁ) In discussing the question whether the information was given chiefly in an oral or a documentary form, we must remember that the difference between oral tradition and a document is not great, when the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent repetition. A document cannot have much influence on a writer who already knows its contents by heart. Luke tells us that many - documents were already in existence, when he decided to write ; and it is improbable that he made no use of these. Some of his sources were certainly documents, e.g. the genealogy (ili. 23-38) : and we need not doubt that the first two chapters are made up of written narratives, of which we can see the conclusions at i. 80, 11. 40, and ii. 52. The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the main portion of S. Mark’s Gospel, was probably already in writing when Lk. made use of it. S. Luke may have had the Second Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form in which we have it, and may include the author of it among the πολλοί (i. 1). But some phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (vi. 5) “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. 11. 27). He omits the whole of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 9, which contains χχὶν THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. LUKE [8 8. the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew (xv. 21-28). And all this would have been full of interest to Luke’s Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much less probable. There is so much that he would have been likely to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the visit of the Gentile Magi (Mt. ii. 1-15). At xx. 17 he omits “Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Mt. xxi. 43). At xxi. 12-16 he omits ‘‘ And this gospel of the kingdom “λα be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto αὐ the nations” (Mt. xxiv. 14; comp. Mk. xili. 10). Comp. the omission of Mt. xvii. 6, 7 at Lk. ix. 35, of Mt. xvii. 19, 20 at Lk. ix. 43, of Czesarea Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13; Mk. viii. 27) at Lk. ix. 18; and see p. xli. Both to S. Luke and his readers such things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as they are, if he had been aware of them? Contrast Mt. il. 14, 15 with Lk. ii. 39, Mt. xxvill. 7, το, 16 with Lk. xxiv. 49; and gener- ally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and of the Resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergences in the two genealogies, the “eight days” (Lk.) and the ‘‘six days” (Mt. and Mk.) at the Transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion that Lk. was not famz/iar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke used the same collection, or two similar collections, of ‘‘ Oracles ” or “ Sayings of the Lord” ; and hence the large amount of matter, chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have been a single document, for the common material is used very differently by the two Evangelists, especially as regards arrange- ment.! A Book of “Oracles” must not be hastily assumed. In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew ; and be- sides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself,—Luke 1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28 = Lk. iv. 33-37); the Journey in Galilee (Mk. i. 35-39 = Lk. iv. 42-44); the Request of the Demoniac (Mk. v. 18 = Lk. viii. 38); the Complaint of John against the Caster out of Demons (Mk. ix. 38 = Lk. ix. 49); the Spices brought to the Tomb (Mk. xvi. 1 = Lk. xxiv. 1). Are these the result of the time when S. Mark and S. Luke were together (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24) ? § 3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXV evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. These are specially prominent in chapters ix. to xix. and in xxiv. But it must not be forgotten that the matter which S. Luke alone gives us extends over the whole range of Christ’s life, so far as we have any record of it. It is possible that some of these sources were oral, and it is probable that one of them was connected with the court of Herod (lier, £0, Vili. 3, ΤΕ} 7 Ὁ xiii. 31, xxill. 7-12 ; Acts’ xiii. 1}} But we shall probably not be wrong if we conjecture that most of this material was in writing before Luke made use of it. It is, however, begging the question to talk of an “ Ldionttic source.” First, is there any Ebionism in S. Luke? And secondly, does what is called Ebionism in him come from a portion of his materials, or wholly from himself? That Luke is profoundly im- pressed by the contrasts between wealth and poverty, and that, like S. James, he has great sympathy with the suffering poor and a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich and to which many succumb, is true enough. But this is not Ebionism. He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful, or that rich men must give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be spoiled by the poor. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which is sup- posed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the super- fluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of posi- tions. The strongest saying of Christ against wealth, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God” is in Matthew (xix. 24) and Mark (x. 25) as well as in Luke (xviii. 25). So also is the story of Peter and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and following Christ (Mt. iv. 18-22 ; Mk. i. 16-20; Lk. v. 1-11). So also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to - follow Christ (Mt. ix.9; Mk. ii. 14; Lk. v. 27, 28). In both these cases Luke expressly states that they forsook a// (v. 11, 28), which, however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the story about Zacchzeus, which is peculiar to Luke, this head tax- collector retains half his great wealth, and there is no hint that he ought to have surrendered the whole of it. Elsewhere we find touches in the other Gospels which are not in Luke, but which would no doubt have been considered Ebionitic, if they had been found in Luke and not in the others. Thus, in the description of the Baptist, it is Matthew (iii. 4) and Mark (i. 6) who tell us of John’s ascetic clothing and food, about which Luke is silent. In the parable of the Sower it is the others (Mt. xiii. 22; Mk. iv. 19) who speak of “216 deceitfulness of riches,” while Luke (viii. 14) has simply “riches.” It is they who record (Mt. xix. 29; Mk. x. 29) that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and 270- Xxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 8. erty (ἀγρούς) for His sake, where Luke (xviii. 29) omits ἀγρούς. He alone preserves Christ’s declaration that he who sits at meat is superior to him who serves (xxii. 27), and there is no hint that to have servants is wrong. While the others tell us that Joseph of Arimathzea was a man of rank (Mk. xv. 43) and wealth (Mt. xxvil. 57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his goodness and rectitude (xxiii. 50, 51), which does not look like prejudice against the rich. And it is Luke alone who tells us of the women, presumably well-to-do, who ‘‘ ministered unto them of their substance” (vill. 3). ΤῸ which may perhaps be added the fact that in the quotation from Ps. cvii. 10 in Lk. i. 79 those “fast bound in poverty” (πτωχείᾳ) are omitted. Throughout the Third Gospel there is a protest against worldliness; but there is no protest against wealth. And there is no evidence that the protest against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he drew, and from which the others did not draw. Rather it is something in the writer himself, being apparent in the Acts, as well as in the Gospel; and it shows itself, sometimes in what he selects from his materials, sometimes in the way in which he treats it. As Jiilicher says, JZan hat von dem ebionitischen charakter dieses Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einflussen oder Quellen gesucht: sehr mit Unrecht.... Von tendenzidser Ebtonitisitrung des Evangeliums kann bei thm nicht die Rede sein (Einl. ὃ 27, p. 206). (c) Frequent Hebraisms indicate that a great deal of Luke’s material was originally in Aramaic. These features are specially common in the first two chapters. In translating Aramaic sources Luke would have ample opportunity for exhibiting his own pre- dilection for certain words, phrases, and constructions. If the materials were already in Greek when Luke made use of them, then he could and did somewhat alter the wording in appropriat- ing them. But it will generally be found that wherever the ex- pressions which are characteristic of him are less frequent than usual, there we have come upon material which is common to him and the ‘others, and which he has adopted without much alteration. Thus the parable of the Sower (viii. 4-15) has few marks of his style (ἐν μέσῳ, ver. 7; ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ver. 11; δέχονται and ἀφίστανται, ver. 13) which are not also in Mt. (τοῦ σπεῖραι, ver. 5) or in both (ἐν τῷ σπείρειν, ver. 5). But absence or scarcity of Luke’s characteristics is most common in those reports of dis- courses which are common to him and Matthew: e.g. lll. 7-9, 17 = Mt. iil. 7-10, 12 ; vii. 6-9 = Mt. viii. 8-10; ix. 57, 58 = Mt. viii. 19, 20; vil. 22-28 = Mt. x1. 4-11; vii. 31-35 = Mt. x1. 16-19. This last passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings ; § 8.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXVii and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of individual style. But we cannot doubt that an immense amount of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it. It is incredible that two or three independent translations should yagree quite or almost word for word. ~ ΤῈ is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. vill. 22-56= Mk. iv. 35-41, Vv. 1-43 = Mt. viii. 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives swarm with marks of Luke’s style, although he keeps closely to the common material (see below, ὃ 6. ii.). Thus he has εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐπιστάτα, δέομαι cov, ἐξελθεῖν ἀπό, ἱκανός, ἐδεῖτο αὐτοῦ, σύν, ὑπόστρεφε, παρὰ τοὺς πόδας, παραχρῆμα, etc., where Mark has λέγει αὐτοῖς, διδάσκαλε, ὁρκίζω σε, ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ, μέγας, παρεκάλει αὐτόν, μετά, ὕπαγε, πρὸς τοὺς πόδας, εὐθύς, etc. Moreover Luke has ἐν τῷ ¢. tnfin., καὶ οὗτος, καὶ αὐτός, ὑπάρχειν, πᾶς OF ἅπας, μονογενής, etc., where the others have nothing. The following examples will repay examination : iv. 38-41 = Mk. 1. 29-34 = Mt. vill. 14-17 ; v. 12-16 = Mk. i. 40-45 =Mt. viii. 1-43; v. 17-2 =6Mk. 11. 1-12 = Mt. ix. 1-8 ; 1x. 10-17 = Mk. vi. 30-44 = Mt. xiv. 13-21; ix. 38-40= Mk. ix. 17, 18= Mt. xvii. 15, 16; and many others. It is quite evident that in appropriating material Luke works it over with his own touches, and sometimes almost works it up afresh; and this is specially true of the narrative portion of the Gospel. It is impossible to reach any certain conclusion as to the amount of material which he had at his disposal. Some suppose that this was very large, and that he has given us only a small portion of it, selected according to the object which he is sup- posed to have had in view, polemical, apologetic, conciliatory, or historical. Others think that his aim at completeness is too conspicuous to allow us to suppose that he rejected anything which he believed to be authentic. Both these views are probably exaggerations. No doubt there are cases in which he deliberately omits what he knew well and did not question. And the reason for omission may have been either that he had recorded something very similar, or that the incident would be less likely to interest or edify Gentile readers. No doubt there are other cases in which the most natural explanation of the omission is zgzorance: he does not record because he does not know. We know of a small amount which Mark alone records; of a considerable amount which Matthew alone records; of a very considerable amount which John alone records; and of an enormous amount (Jn. xxi. 25) which no one records. To suppose that Luke knew the great part of this, and yet passed it over, is an improbable hypothesis. And to suppose that he knew scarcely any of it, is also improbable. But a definite estimate cannot be made. XXVill THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 8. The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been made and accepted too hastily. It is quite possible that he has deliberately omitted some things, because of their similarity to others which he has recorded. It is possible that he has omitted the feeding of the 4000, because he has recorded the feeding of the 5000; and the anointing by Mary of Bethany, because of the anointing by the sinner; and the healing of the Syrophenician’s daughter at a distance, because of the centurion’s servant at a distance ; and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, because of the parable of the same ; and the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because of the mocking by Herod’s soldiers. But in many, or even most, of these cases some other motive may have caused the omission. On the other hand, we must look at the doublets and triplets which he has admitted. If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates, the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they extend all through the Gospel. The Mother of the Christ has a song (1. 46 ff.), and the father of the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes the infant Christ in the temple (11. 28), and so does the venerable Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus (v. 27 ff.), and Zaccheeus the publican also (xix. 1 ff.). The mission of the Twelve (ix. 1) is followed by the mission of the Seventy (x. 1). True disciples are equal to Christ’s relations (viii. 21), and to His Mother (xi. 28). Twice there is a dispute as to who is the greatest (ix. 46, xxil. 24). Not content with the doublets which he has in common with Mt. (viii. 19-22, ix. 16, 17, Χχίν. 40, 41), he adds a third instance (ix. 61, 62, v. 39, xvii. 36?) ; or where Mt. has only one example (xxiv. 37-39), he gives two (xvii. 26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow’s son raised (vil. 14), and also Jairus’ daughter (viii. 54), where no other Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances of cleansing lepers (v. 13, xvii. 14); two of forgiving sins (v. 20, vil. 48); three healings on the sabbath (vi. 6, xiii. 10, xiv. 1); four castings out of demons (iv. 35, vill. 29, 1x. 42, xi. 14). Similar repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed by the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin (xv. I-10); and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1). The exceptions to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter sayings of Christ: ‘viii. ΤΟ ΞΘ ΣΙ. 335 vill. 17 =XiL 2; Ville τις 26; 1X. 23 =Xiv. 27; ix. 24 —=Xvil. 33; 1x. 26 -χ gs & 25 — eye eee Xi. 43=xx. 463 Xil) Il, 12 ΞΧΣΙ. 14, 155 ive τπ ΚΠ eee XIX. 44=xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 21, and xxi. 23 with xxiii. 29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suf- fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have had any very strong objection to recording duplicate instances of similar inci- § 4.] TIME AND PLACE ΧΧΙΧ dents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other Gospel ? For recent (since 1885) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham, The Formation of the Gospels, 1891; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896 ; Jolley, The Synoptic Problem, 1893; Salmon, 7storecal Introduction to the Books of the N.T., 5th ed. 1891 ; Wright, Ze Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 1896; Holsten, Dze synopt. Evang. nach Form thres Inhalts dargestellt, 1886 ; Holtzmann, Zzlettung in das N.7. 1802; Jiilicher, Zzz/. ix das N.T. 1894; Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, being Part I. of Gesch. der N.T. Offenbarung, 1891; H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre und das Leben Jesu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. Ixxxy. See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, p. 345 ff.; in Dict. of the Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on ‘‘ Gospels,” pp. 1217-1243 ; and in the Zxfosztor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891. § 4. TIME AND PLACE. (i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lightfoot’s admirable article on the Acts (D.4.? i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Daze. The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, how- ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 1893 (Lect. vi.), and we may safely accept this guidance. The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel contend respectively for a time in or near the years A.D. 100, A.D. 80, and a.D. 63. (a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a date near the close of the first century or early in the second! is the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts had read the Antiguzties of Josephus, a work published about A.D. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing in- dependently about the same facts; while the divergences are so great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should not be employed to prove that Luke’s statements are erroneous. If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge from it only to make blunders? It is much more reasonable to suppose that where Luke differs from the Axtigucties he had in- dependent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often 1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over- beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135. ΧΧΧ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 4. convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by Lit. D. 2.2 p..39; by Holtzmann, Zin’, im a. N.T. p. 374, tage and by Schanz, Comm. uber d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. 16, 1883. The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one side by Clemen (Dze Chronologie der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel (Josephus und Lukas ; der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jiidischen Geschicht- schretbers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Zheo/. Quartalschrift, Tiibingen, 1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially of Krenkel.t It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such words as ἀποστέλλειν, ἀφικνεῖσθαι, αὐξάνειν, παιδίον, πέμπειν, πύλη, K.T.A., ID their usual sense: and such phrases as προέκοπτεν τῇ σοφία καὶ ἠλικίᾳ (Lk. ii. 52) and ἐξίσταντο πάντες οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ TH σύνεσει Kal ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (ii. 47) are not strikingly similar to εἰς μεγάλην παιδείας προὔκοπτον ἐπίδοσιν, μνήμῃ τε καὶ συνέσει δοκῶν διαφέρειν (Jos. Vita, 2) and θαύμασας τὴν ἀπόκρισιν αὐτοῦ σοφὴν οὕτω γενομένην (Antz. xii. 4. 9). Far more striking resemblances may be found in writings which are indisputably independent. Luke alone in N.T. calls the Sea of Galilee ἡ λέμνη Tevynoapér. Could he not call it a dake without being prompted? Josephus also calls it a λίμνη, but his designations all differ from Luke’s: Γεννησὰρ ἡ λίμνη, ἡ Xr. Tevynodp, Δ. ἡ Τεννησαρῖτις, ἢ Τεννησαρῖτις Δ. (B. J. il. 20. 6, ili. 10. 7; Azz. xviii. 2. 1; Veta, 65), and other variations. Luke has προσέπεσεν τοῖς γόνασιν ᾿Ιησοῦ (v. 8), and Josephus has τοῖς γόνασιν αὐτοῦ προσπέσοντες (Ant. xix. 3. 4). But Josephus more often writes προσπίπτειν τινι πρὸς τὰ γόνατα, and the more frequent phrase would more probably have been borrowed. Comp. συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (Lk. iv. 38) with τεταρταίῳ πυρετῷ συσχεθείς (Ant. ΧΙ]. 15. 5); μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε (xii. 29) with Azz. xvi. 4. 6, seb fin. (where, however, νενεωτέριστο is the more probable reading) ; ἄφαντος ἐγένετο dm’ αὐτῶν (xxiv. 31) with ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο (Ant. xx. 8. 6). In these and many other cases the hypothesis of copying is wholly uncalled for. The expressions are not very uncommon. Some of them perhaps are the result of both Luke and Josephus being familiar with LXX. Others are words or. constructions which are the common material of various Greek writers. Indeed, as Belser has shown, a fair case may be made out to show the influence of Thucydides on Luke. In a word, the theory that Luke had read Josephus ‘‘ rests on little more than the fact that both writers relate or allude to the same events, though the differences between them are really more marked than the resemblances” (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 278). As Schiirer and Salmon put it, if Luke had read Josephus, he must very quickly have forgotten all that he read in him. In itself, the late date a.D. 100 is not incredible, even for those who are convinced that the writer is Luke, and that he never read Josephus. Luke may have been quite a young man, well under thirty, when he first joined 5. Paul, a.pD. 50-52; and he may have been living and writing at the beginning of the second century. But the late date has nothing to recommend it; and we may believe that both his writings would have assumed a different form, had they been written as late as this. Would not ὁ Χριστός, which is still a title and means “the Messiah” (ii. 26, 11]. 15, iv. 41, ix. 20, XX. 41, XXli. 67, Xxlil. 35, 39, xxiv. 26, 46), have become a 1F, Bole, H/avius Josephus tiber Christus und die Christen in den Juidischen Alterthiimern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (xviil, 3. 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke. § 4.] TIME AND PLACE ΧΧΧῚ proper name, as in the Epistles? Would not ὁ Κύριος, as ἃ designation of Jesus Christ, have been still more frequent? Τί is not found in Matthew or Mark (excepting in the disputed appendix); but it is the invariable designation in the Gosfe/ of Pore in) uke +(vitt 153) ἘΠῚ; xi. S05 XI. 42) xill. 15, xvii. δ, 6, XViii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61, xxiv. 34) and in John this use is begin- ning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would xxi. 32 have stood as it does, at a date when “this generation” had ‘‘ passed away ” without seeing the Second Advent? Moreover, the historical atmosphere of the Acts is not that of A.D. 95-135. Inthe Acts the Jews are the persecutors of the Christians; at this late date the Jews were being persecuted themselves. Lastly, what would have induced a companion of S. Paul, whether Luke or not, to watt so long before publishing the results of his researches? Opportunities of contact with those who had been eye-witnesses would have been. rapidly vanishing during the last twenty years. (ὁ) The intermediate date of a.D. 75-80 has very much more to recommend it. It avoids the difficulties just men- tioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant use of ὁ Κύριος to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omis- sion of the very significant hint, “let him that readeth under- stand” (Mk. xii. 14; Mt. xxiv. 15). When the first two Gospels (or the materials common to both) were compiled, the predicted dangers had not yet come but were near; and each of these Evangelists warns his readers to be on the alert. When the Third Gospel was written, these dangers were past. It accounts for the greater definiteness of the prophecies respecting the destruction of Jerusalem as given by Luke (xix. 43, 44, xxi. 10-24), when com- pared with the records of them in Mark (xiii. 14-19) and Matthew (xxiv. 15-22). After the destruction had taken place the tradition of the prediction might be influenced by what was known to have happened ; and this without any conscious tampering with the report of the prophecy. The possibility of this influence must be admitted, and with it a possibility of a date subsequent to a.D. 70 for the Gospel and the Acts. Twice in the Gospel (viii. 51, ix. 28), as in the Acts (i. 13), Luke places John before his elder brother James, which Mt. and Mk. never do; and this may indicate that Luke wrote after John had become the better known of the two. Above all, such a date allows sufficient time for the “many’ to “draw up narratives” respecting the acts and sayings of Christ. 1 Some year between A.D. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Giider, Holtzmann?, Jiilicher, Keim Ὁ, Kostlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, Schenkel, Trip, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, é.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make A.D. 80 the latest date that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts. ΧΧΧΙ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ὃ 4. (¢) The early date of about A.D. 63 still finds advocates ;! and no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the szmplest explanation of the fact that S. Paul’s death is not recorded in the Acts is that it had not taken place. If that explanation is correct the Third Gospel cannot be placed much later than a.p. 63. Again, the writer of the Acts can hardly have been familiar with the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians : otherwise he would have inserted some things and explained others (Salmon, /77s¢. Int. to N.T. p. 319, ed. 5). How long might Luke have been without seeing these Epistles? Easily till a.p. 63; but less easily till A.D. 80. Once more, when Luke records the prophecy of Agabus respecting the famine, he mentions that it was fulfilled (Acts xi. 28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 5-36), he does not mention that it was fulfilled. The s¢mp/est explanation is that the destruction had not yet taken place. And, if it be said that the prediction of it has been retouched in Luke’s record in order to make it more distinctly in accordance with facts, we must notice that the words, “Let them that are in Judzea flee 20 the mountains,” are in all three reports. ‘The actual flight seems to have been, not to the moun- tains, but to Pella in north Perza; and yet “to the mountains ” is still retained by Luke (xxi. 21). Eusebius says that there was a “revelation” before the war, warning the Christians not only to leave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (H. £. iii. 5. 3). This “revelation” is evidently an adaptation of Christ’s prophecy ; and here we reasonably suspect that the detail about Pella has been added after the event. But there is nothing of it in Luke’s report. Nevertheless, the reasons stated above, and especially those derived from the prologue to the Gospel, make the intermediate date the most probable of the three. It combines the advantages of the other two dates and avoids the difficulties of both. It may be doubted whether any of the Gospels, as we have them, was written as early as A.D. 63; and if the Third Gospel is placed after the death of S. Paul, one main reason for placing it before A.D. 70 is gone. (ii.) As to the Place in which Luke wrote his Gospel we have no evidence that is of much value. The Gospel itself gives no sure clue. The peculiarities of its diction point to a centre in which Hellenistic influences prevailed; and the way in which places in Palestine are mentioned have been thought to in- dicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (i. 26, I. 4; iy. (31, ΜΙ: 726, ΧΧΗΙ, 51,° xxiv. τ). Thesiret of jlaece considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the 1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, Hahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nosgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Riehm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, and Wieseler. 8 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXxiil second has little or no weight. The fact that the Gospel was written for readers outside Palestine, who were not familiar with the country, accounts for all the topographical expressions. We do not know what evidence Jerome had for the statement which he makes in the preface to his commentary on 5. Matthew: Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis (cujus laus tn LEvangelio), gut et discipulus apostoli Pauli, in Achaiz Boeotizeque partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viil.), guedam a/tius repetens, et ut ipse in proemio confitetur, audita magis, quam visa describens (Migne, xxvi. 18), where some MSS. have 4ithynie for Beotix. Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com- position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses vary much: Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lesebusch, Zeller), Czsarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor (Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet). There is no evidence for or against any of them. §5. OBJECT AND PLAN. (i.) The immediate Odject is told us in the preface. It was written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which he had adopted, by supplying him with further information respecting its historical basis. ‘That Theophilus is a real person, and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in general,! is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of this. A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name was a very common one,—fairly frequent among Jews, and very frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book, or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet κράτιστε is far more likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one. It does not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts XXili. 26, xxiv. 3, XXxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor- ance as to who Theophilus was.and where he lived. But the tone of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gendéile convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo- graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as “the 1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as Origen (Hom. i. 2x Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose : scrzptum est evangelium ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i. 3). Epiphanius regards the name’s denoting πᾶς ἄνθρωπος Θεὸν ἀγαπῶν asa possible alternative (Hwy. ii. I. 51, Migne, xli. 900), c - XXxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [δ 5. feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover” (xxii. 1), would not have been required for a Jewish convert. But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile con- verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo- philus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he probably did. Among the many indications that the book is written by a Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, ὁ Ζηλωτής for ὁ Kavavatos (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Kpavioy for Γολγοθᾶ (xxiii. 33); his never using Ῥαββεί as a form of address, but either διδάσκαλε or ἐπιστάτα :1 his comparatively sparing use of ἀμήν (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he sometimes substitutes ἀληθῶς (ix. 27, xii. 44, Xxi. 3) or ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας (iv. 25, xxii. 59); his use of νομικός for γραμματεύς (vil. 30, X. 25, xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3); his adding ἀκάθαρτον as an epithet to δαιμόνιον (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good δαιμόνια, whereas to a Jew all δαιμόνια were evil; his avoiding μετεμορφώθη (Mk. ix. 2; Mt. xvii. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ii. 1), and using his reign as a date (iii. 1); his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (iii. 38). Although full honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (il. 21, 27, 39, V. 14, X. 26, Xvi. 17, 29-31, xVii. 14, xVill. 20), yet there is not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no parallels to Mt. v. 17, Io, 20, 21, 24, 31, 33, xl. 5-7, 27-20, xv. 1-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, Vi. 4, Vii. 27, Vill. 10, xili. 19, 28, 20, 35, XVill. 20, xix. 46, xx. 17, 37, 42, 43, xxl. 10, 24, 26, 27, 35, Xxli. 37, 69, xxiii. 30, 46) or Of others, (1. 15; τῇ, 37, 46 τ», 68--70, ii. 30, 31, 32, iv. 10, 11, ἈΠ 2 Χχα 2βὴ. Very little is said about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would nottgrdathy.igjterest Gentile readers (iii. 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii. 37, xxiv. 44); and of these five instances, all but the first occur in sayings of Christ addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere 1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, are not found in Luke: ’ABB& (Mk.), Boovepyés (Mk.), Γαββαθᾶ (Jn.), ’EBpaiorl (Jn.), ᾿Εμμανουήλ (Mt.), ἐφφαθά (Mk.), Κορβᾶν (Mk.), Κορβανάς (Mt.), Μεσσίας (Jn.), ὡσαννά (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, ταλειθὰ κοῦμι (ΜΚ.) and ἐλωΐ, ἐλωΐ, «.7.A. (Mt. Mk.). § 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXXV reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture ; but the following are definitely given as citations: 11. 23, 24, 111. 4, ἵν 7. 8, 10, IL, Τ2, 18, Τῇ; Vil. 27, ΣΧ. 27: ΧΥΠ 20, xIx..46, xx. 17, 28, 37, 42, 43, Xxil. 27. Excepting vii. 27, they may all have come from LXX.! And vii. 27 does not agree with either the Hebrew or LXX of Mal. iii. 1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist " knew Hebrew. On the other hand it agrees verdatim with Mt. x1. ro, and weneed not doubt that both Evangelists used the same source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the Greek language and his use of “ Judea” for the land of the Jews, i.e. the whole of Palestine (i. 5, iv. 44?, vil. 17, xxiil. 5; Acts 1]. 9, Xx. 37, Xl. 1, 29). This combination of non-Jewish features would be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles. In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fw/ness. He desires to make his Gospel as comf/ede as possible. ‘This is clearly indicated in the prologue. He has “traced up the course of a// things accurately from the first” (ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν), in order that Theophilus may “know zz full detail” (ἐπιγνῷς) the historic foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than any other Evangelist ; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on to the very end: not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascen- sion. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calcula- tion, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (3), Matthew 114 (8), and Mark 84 (4); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to himself (2), Matthew has 22 (4), and Mark has 5 (,3;). According to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78, and Mark 67; and of these 124 Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Matthew 17, and Mark 2.5 The portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we possess, and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his collection as full as possible. 1Jerome (Comm. in Js. vi. 9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres Ecclesiw tractatores medicine artis fuisse sctentissimum, et magis Grecas litteras scisse quam Hebreas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evan- gelo quam in Actibus Apostolorum, td est in utroqgue volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloguentiam, magisque testimonits Greets utitur quam Hebreis. 2 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark. Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark. See p. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the Synoptists see Westcott, Zutr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff. ΧΧΧΥῚ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [8 5. It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It was Luke’s intention to write history, and not polemical or apolo- getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi- ally Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was founded. The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the Christ winning salvation for the whole world ; in the Acts we see His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the interests of S. Paul; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of Judaizing opponents ; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke incurred by Peter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21; Mk. x. 37), the boastful declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt. xxvi. 35; Mk. xlv. 31), and the subsequent flight of all (Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. xiv. 50); which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones (xxii. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” (xxiv. 47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile? Lastly, how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on Judaism as Luke has recorded? See, for instance, the following passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke: iv. 28, 20, X. 10, 11, 31, 32, Xl. 39, 40, Xil. 47, ΧΙ]. 1-5, 15, XVI. 15, xvii. 18, XVill. IO-14, xxill. 28-31; Acts il. 23, v. 30, vil. 51-53, etc. It is well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have been propounded: the examination of them is most instructive. But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets under the cover of fictitious history. (ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In the preface Luke says that he means to write “in order” (καθεξῆς), and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the main features of the First and Third Gospels agree ; and in outline their structure agrees to a large extent with that of the Second.! Luke perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from other sources. In arranging the additional material he followed chronology, where he had any chronological clue; and where he 1 As regards order, in the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly agree, while the First varies. In the second half the First and Second com- monly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew’s additions to the common material are mostly in the first half; Luke’s are mostly in the second. § 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXXVii had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar incidents or sayings in juxtaposition. But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been found: for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he attains it; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often, being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct. The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted; and this is strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in arrangement. Comp. the use of καθεξῆς vill. 1; Acts ill. 24, xi. 4, xviil. 23. That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im- pression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted ; and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to illustrate it. So far as there is ‘‘ organic structure and dogmatic connexion ” in the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist. Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended or not) are illuminative. They also show, by their extraordinary divergences, how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosf. Hzst. I. i. 1, ὃ 20, 21), McClellan (4. 7. pp. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange’s Comm. Int. 8 4), and West- cott (Zt. to Gospels, ch. vii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the Evangelist. The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the different sections and grouping them under different heads. There is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another begins ; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative. But most analyses recognize a break between chapters 11. and iil, ~ at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxii. If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer- ous sections may be assigned. In the two main central divisions, which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its cor- rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke.t. The mark ὃ indicates that this portion is found in Luke alone; * that it is common to Luke and Mark ; Τ that it is common to Luke and Matthew ; * that it is common to all three. 1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of WH. are most instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not. The analysis of the Gospel by Sanday in Sook ὧν Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be found very helpful. XXXViil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ὃ 5. There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some source that was not used by Mark or Matthew ; and this presumption is in some cases a strong one; δ... the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk to Emmaus ; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and Matthew, but omitted 5y Mark, comes from some source not employed by the latter ; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them, but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse; e.g. the Parable of the Lost Sheep. Yet the book of ‘‘ Oracles,” known to Matthew and Luke, but not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which a good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. xxiv) sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the Widow’s Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency of the mark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in the sections which are common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these in the notes. They should be contrasted with the additions made to the Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels. I. i. 1-4. §THE Prerace. THE SouRCES AND OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL. 11. 1. 5-11. 52. ὃ THE GosPEL OF THE INFANCY. . The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25). The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38). The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of the Forerunner (39-56). 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80). 5. The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20). 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour (21-40). 7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52). Qe τς III. iii. 1-ix. 50. THE MINISTRY, MAINLY IN GALILEE. i. The External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach- ing of the Baptist (111. 1-22). τι § The Date (1, 2). 2. *The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and Death (3-20). 4. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). § The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38). ii. Zhe Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * The Tempta- tion (iv. I-13). ili. The Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-1xX. 50). 1. Visit to Nazareth; “Αἴ Capernaum an unclean Demon cast out (iv. 14-44). 2. §*The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon; * Two Healings which provoke Controversy ; * The Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which provoke Controversy (v. I-vi. II). δὅ.} OBJECT AND PLAN ΧΧΧΙΧ 4. * The Nomination of the Twelve; + The Sermon “on the Level Place”; ~The Centurion’s Servant ; §The Widow’s Son at Nain; + The Message from the Baptist ; §The Anointing by the Sinner; § The Ministering Women; * The Parable of the Sower ; * The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem- pest ; * The Gerasene Demoniac ; *, The Woman with the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. 12—vill. 56). 4. *The Mission of the Twelve; * The Feeding of the Five Thousand ; * Peter’s Confession and the First Prediction of the Passion; * The Transfiguration ; * The Demoniac Boy; * The Second Prediction of the Passion; * Who is the greatest? ° Not against us is for us (1x. I-50). IV, ix. 51-xix. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM: MINISTRY OUTSIDE GALILEE. i. Zhe departure from Galilee and First Period of the Journey (ix. 51—Xiil. 35). 1. §The Samaritan Village; +§Three Aspirants to Dis- cipleship ; § The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions and §the Good Samaritan; § Mary and Martha (ix. 51-x. 42). 2. § Prayer ; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; ὃ True Blessedness ; * The Demand for a Sign: § Denuncia- tion of Pharisaism; 7 Exhortation to Sincerity ; §The Avaricious Brother; § The Rich Fool ; God’s Providential Care ; § The Signs of the Times (xi. τ-- ἘΠῚ 59) 3. § Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity; * The Mustard Seed ; t The Leaven; The Number of the Saved; §The Message to Antipas and 7 the Lament over Jeru- salem (xiii. I-35). ii. 7he Second Period of the Journey (xiv. 1-xvii. 10). 1. §The Dropsical Man; §$Guests and Hosts; ὃ The Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship ; + The Lost Sheep; § The Lost Coin; ὃ The Lost Son (xiv. 1-xv. 32). 2. §The Unrighteous Steward ; 87 Short Sayings; ὃ The Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences, ὃ Forgiveness, + Faith, ὃ Works (xvi. 1-xvii. 10). ili. Zhe Third Period of the Journey (xvii. 11-xix. 28). 1. §The Ten Lepers ; §* The coming of the Kingdom ; §The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the Publican (xvii, 11—xvili. 14). xl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 5. 2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; * The Third Prediction of the Passion; * The Blind Man at Jericho; ὃ Zaccheus; §The Pounds (xviii. 15- KIX, 20): V. xix. 29-xxl. 38. Last Days or Pusiic TEACHING: MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM. 1. * The Triumphal Procession and ὃ Predictive Lament- ation; * The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 29-48). 2. The Day of Questions. * Christ’s Authority and John’s Baptism ; * The Wicked Husbandmen ; * Tribute ; * The Woman with Seven Husbands ; * David’s Son and Lord; *The Scribes; °The Widow’s Mite; ἂς Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. 1-xxi. 38). VI. xxii—xxiv. THE PAssION AND THE RESURRECTION. i. Zhe Passion (xxii. I1-xxill. 56). 1. * The Treachery of Judas (xxii. 1-6), 2. * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist ; * The Strife about Priority ; § The New Conditions (xxii. 7-38). 3. *§The Agony; * The Arrest; * Peter’s Denials; The Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; § Jesus sent to Herod; * Sentence; *Simon of Cyrene; § The Daughters of Jerusalem; * The Crucifixion ; §The Two Robbers; * The Death (xxii. 39- XXxill. 49). 4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56). ii. Zhe Resurrection and the Ascension (xxiv.). Ἂς The Women at the Tomb (1-11). . §[Peter at the Tomb (12).] . § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32). . § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43). . §Christ’s Farewell Instructions (44-49). . § The Departure (50-53). Aun PWN H Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins with scenes which are typical of Christ’s rejection by His people: the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth (iv. 28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem with the Lament over the city (xix. 41-44). In the first and last case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a momentary welcome. It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and the Parables which are recorded by 5. Luke. 8.6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xli MIRACLES. PARABLES, ° Unclean Demon cast out. § Two Debtors. * Peter’s Wife’s Mother healed. § Miraculous Draught of Fish. * Leper cleansed. * Palsyed healed. * Withered Hand restored. + Centurion’s Servant healed. § Widow’s Son raised. * Tempest stilled. * Gerasene Demoniac. * Woman with the Issues * Jairus’ Daughter raised. * Sower. § Good Samaritan. § Friend at midnight, § Rich Fool. § Watchful Servants. § Barren Fig-tree. * Mustard Seed. + Leaven. § Chief Seats, § Great Supper. § Rash Builder. * Five Thousand fed. § Rash King. * Dethoniac Boy. + Lost Sheep, + Dumb Demon cast out. § Lost Coin, § Spirit of Infirmity. § Lost Son. § Dropsical Man. § Ten Lepers cleansed. * Blind Man at Jericho- § Unrighteous Stewarde § Dives and Lazarus. § Unprofitable Servants. § Malchus’ ear. § Unrighteous Judge. § Pharisee and Publican. § Pounds. * Wicked Husbandmen. Thus, out of twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him; while, out of twenty-three parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (iv. 26-29). Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records? And whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records? If the “* Oracles” contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many? If S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the Two Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see p- xxiv). In illustration of the fact that the material common to all three Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark. _It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three occur in the same order in each of the Gospels; and the same is true of the three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection closes all. Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all three Evangelists employ. 86. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE. (i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at fulness and completeness. (a) Comprehensiveness is a charac- teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography ; and his object seems to have been to give his readers xlil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [$6 as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the portions of it—infancy, boyhood, manhood—respecting which he had information. But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind which is equally characteristic of him: and for the sake of a different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S. Luke is in a special sense the wzversal Gospel. All four Evangelists tell us that the good tidings are sent to “all the nations” (Mt. xxviii. 19 ; Mk. xiii. 10; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13). But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as 5. Luke. He gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered.to all, and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the King- dom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan (ix. 51-56, x. 30-37, xvil. 11-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, ili. 6, 38, iv. 25-27, Vii. 9, X. I, Xill. 29, xxi. 24, xxiv. 47) as well as to the Jew (1. 33, 54, 68-79, 11. 10); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts (ili, 12, 13, V. 27-32, Vil. 37-50, XV. I, 2, 11-32, xvill. 9-14, xix. 2-10, XXxill. 43) as well as to the respectable (vii. 36, Xi. 37, XIV. I) 5 to the poor (19535 11. 7. 8,,24,1V- 18;\\Mie 20; 20," Vile 2 25 ey, Gey 21 XVi. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2, Xxilil. 50). And hence Dante calls 5. Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ,” scrtba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchia, i. 16 [18], ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of Simon, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. _ Nor yet that it omits Mt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxil. 14, which might be regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening of the ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the great prophecy from Is. xl. 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) till he reaches the words “ All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (iii. 6). And at the close of it he alone records the gracious declaration that ‘‘the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (xix. 10; interpolated Mt. xviii. 11).} It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women. Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women.” But all through this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types 1Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. xxviii. 28; and the πᾶς (Lk. xvi. 16), which is not in Mt. (xi. 12). 2In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made women. 8. 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlili of womanhood are placed before us: Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and the women at the tomb. A Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (iii. 38). It is possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness ; but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have beer present also. It is this allembracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it is spoken of as the “ Gospel of S. Paul.” The tone of the Gospel is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris- tianity. It advocates faith and repentance apart from the works of the Law, and tells abundantly of God’s grace and mercy and the work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and expressions are constant. The word πίστις, which occurs eight times in Mt., five in Mk., and not at all in Jn., is found eleven times in Lk. and sixteen in the Acts: μετάνοια, twice in Mt., once in Mk., not in Jn., occurs five times in Lk. and six in Acts: χάρις, thrice in Jn., not Mt. or Mk., is frequent both in Lk. and Acts: ἔλεος, thrice in Mt., not in Mk. or Jn., occurs six times in Lk. but not in Acts: ἄφεσις ἁμαρτίων, once in Mt., twice in Mk., not in Jn., is found thrice in Lk. and five times in Acts ; and the expression ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” which is found five times in Mt., four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in Acts. See oni. 15. It is characteristic that τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε (Mt. v. 46) becomes ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστιν (Lk. vi. 32); and ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν (Mt. v. 48) becomes γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν -οἰκτίρμων ἐστιν (Lk. vi. 36). Note also the incidents recorded iv. 25-27 and x. I-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated i. 15, 35, 41, 67, il. 25, 26, 27, iv. I, X. 21, x1. 13, all of which are peculiar to Lk. But it is misleading in this respect to compare the Second Gospel with the Third. From very early times the one has been called the Petrine Gospel, and the other the Pauline. S. Mark is said to give us the teaching of 5. Peter, 5. Luke the teaching of S. Paul. The statements are true, but in very different senses. Mark derived his materials from Peter. Luke exhibits the spirit of Paul: and no doubt to a large extent he derived this spirit from the Apostle. But he got his material from eye-witnesses. Mark was the zu¢erprefer of Peter, as Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1, το. 6) and Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. v. 5) aptly call him: he made known to others what Peter had said. Paul was the 2//wminator of Luke (Tert. Zc.) : he enlightened him as to the essential character of the Gospel. xliv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [δ 6. Luke, as his “ fellow-worker,” would teach what the Apostle taught, and would learn to give prominence to those elements in the Gospel narrative of which he made most frequent use. Then at last ‘‘ Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him” (Iren. iii. 1. 1). Jiilicher sums up the case justly when he says that Luke has adopted from Paul no more than the whole Catholic Church has adopted, viz. the universality of salvation and the boundlessness of Divine grace: and it is precisely in these two points that Paul has been a clear-sighted and logical interpreter of Jesus Christ (Zin. § 27, p. 204). See also Knowling, Zhe Witness of the Epistles, p. 328, and the authorities there quoted. Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (Jztrod. to N.T. ii. p. 17) and Schaff (Apostolic Christcanzty, ii. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism be- tween the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (Awssercanonische Paraileltexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of Holtzmann’s ex- amples, adds others; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon doubtful readings. S. LUKE. ive 32. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἣν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. vi. 36. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν. vi. 39. μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν ; vi. 48. ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον. vii. 8. ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος. Vili, 12. πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν. viii. 13. μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τ. λόγον. x. 7. ἄξιος yap ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. x. 8. ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν. x. 16. 6 ἀθετῶν ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ" ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ ἀθετῶν ἀθετεῖ τὸν ἀποστειλαντά με. χ. 20. τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐνγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. xi. 7. μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε. xi. 29. ) γενεὰ αὕτη. . . σημεῖον ζητεῖ. xi, 41. καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστίν. xii. 35. ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμένοι. xii. 42. τίς οἰκονόμος ; xiii. 27. ἀπόστητε am’ ἐμοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας (Ps. vi. 8). Xvili, I. δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς ἄρα The following are worth considering :— S. PAUL I Cor. ii. 4. 6 λόγος wou... ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως. 2 Cor. i. 3. ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν. Rom. ii. 19. πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν. I Cor. iii. 10. θεμέλιον ἔθηκα. Rom. xiii. 1. ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. I Cor, 1. 21. “σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας. Rom. i. 16. εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τ. πιστεύοντι. 1 Thes. i. 6. δεξάμενοι τ. λόγον .. - μετὰ χαρᾶς. I Tim. v. 18. ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. 1 Cor. x. 27. πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε. 1 Thes. iv. 8. ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἀνθρω- πον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν. Phil. iv. 3. ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς (Ps. lxix. 28). Gal. vi. 17. κόπους μοι μηδεὶς mape- χέτω. 1 Οοτ. 1. 22. ᾿Τουδαῖοι σημεῖα αἰτοῦσιν. Tit. i. 15. πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθα- ροῖς. Eph. vi. 14. στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν (Is. xi. 5). 1 Cor. iv. 2. ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονό- μοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ. 2 Tim. ii. 19. ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου. Col. i. 3. πάντοτε προσευχόμενοι. 2 Thes. 1.11. προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε. δ 6.] καὶ μὴ ἐνκακεῖν. xx. 16. μὴ γένοιτο. XX. 22, 25. ἔξεστιν ἡμᾶς Καίσαρι φόρον δοῦναι ἢ οὔ; ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσα- ρος Καίσαρι. XX. 35. οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν. xx. 38, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν. xxi, 23. ἔσται γὰρ . . . ὀργὴ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ. Xxl. 24. ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν. ΧΧΙ. 34. μή ποτε βαρηθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι ὑμῶν ἐν κρεπάλῃ καὶ μέθῃ. .. καὶ ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ὡς πάγις. xxi. 36. ἀγρυπνεῖτε δέ ἐν παντί καιρῷ δεόμενοι. ΧΧΙΙ, 53. ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlv Gal. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνκακῶμεν. Rom. ix. 14, xi. 11; Gal. iii, 21. Rom. xiii. 7. ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν τὰς ὀφέιλάς, τῷ τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον. 2 Thes. i. 5. εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rom. vi. 11. ζῶντας τῷ Θεῷ. Gal. ii. 19. ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω. 1 Thes. ii. 16. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος. Rom. xi. 25. ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ. I Thes. v. 3-5. τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐπίσταται ὄλεθρος. . . ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης [κλέπτας] καταλάβῃ. Eph. vi. 18. προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ . . . καὶ ἀγρυπνοῦντες. ( 0]. 1.13. ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους. It is not creditable to modern scholarship that the foolish opinion, quoted by Eusebius with a φασὶ δέ (7. £. iii. 4. 8) and by Jerome with guzdam sus- picantur (De vir. zllus. vii.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of ‘‘my Gospel” (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted I Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words λέγει ἡ γραφή refer to the first sentence only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. What follows, ‘‘ the labourer is worthy of his hire,” is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Lk. x. 7; Mt. x. 10) and then by S. Paul. Had 5. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, he would not have said λέγει 7 γραφή. He would have used some such expres- sion as μνημονεύειν τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Τησοῦ ὅτι αὐτὸς λέγει (Acts xx. 35), Or παραγγέλλει ὁ κύριος (I Cor. vil. 10, 12), or μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, ods ἐλάλησεν (Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii. 1; comp. xlvi. 7), or simply εἶπεν 6 κύριος (Polyc. vil. 2). Comp. 1 Thes. iv. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 230 (ὁ) More than any of the other Evangelists 5. Luke brings before his readers the subject of Prayer; and that in two ways, (1) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Mt. Ἔστι 39; Mk. xiv. 35; Lk. xxii. 41); Mark (i. 35) mentions His retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew (xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed: at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy (v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first prediction of the Passion (ix. 18); at the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (xi. 1); and on the Cross (xxiii. [34], 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the Twelve, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation” (xxii. 32, 40). xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you” (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re- cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8) ; and to the charge to “ watch” (Mt. xxv. 13; Mk. xili. 33) He adds “δῇ every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail,” etc. (xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the Sa μὰ between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviii. II-13). (ῶ The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends with worship in the temple (i. 9, xxiv. 53). Luke alone has pre- served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Géoria in Excelsis, or Song of the Angels (ii. 14); the Magnificat, or Song of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55); the Benedictus, or Song of Zacharias (i. 68-79) ; and the Wunc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon (ii. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told that those who received special benefits “glorified God” (δοξάζειν tov @eov) for them (ii. 20, v.25, 26, vil. 16, ΧΙ τῷ ΠΡ Xvlii. 43). Comp. Mt. ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii. 12. The expression “praising God” (αἰνεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke in NT. Gi. 13, 20; X1x. 39, ΧΧΙν 5. δ; Acts 1747-111. +8,10).) ἘΠ -- ing God” (εὐλογεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke (1. 64, ii, 28, xxiv. 53?): elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. ‘Give praise (αἶνον διδόναι) to God” occurs Luke xviii. 43 only. So also χαίρειν, which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen times in Luke and Acts ; χαρά seven times in Matthew and Mark, thirteen times in Luke and Acts. (4) The Gospel of S. Luke 15 rightly styled “the most /zerary of the Gospels ” (Renan, Zes Lvangiles, ch. Χ111.). “5. Luke has more literary ambition than his fellows” (Sanday, Book by Book, p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect. He can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his readers. ‘The way in which he tells the stories of the widow’s son at Nain, the sinner in Simon’s house, Martha and Mary at Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. ‘The sixth century was not far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he had painted the portrait of the Virgin. There is no picture of her so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias, Anna, Zaccheus, Herod Antipas! And with how few touches is each done! Asa rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire δ. 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlvii and food (Mk. i. 6; Mt. iii. 4). In the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. i. 31; Mt. vill. 15). In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2). And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have an illuminating addition which is all his own (ili. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15, We, ΣῪ I, 12, 15, 16, Υ 12, vill. 47, etc.) His contrasts are not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank- ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people (xix. 47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between Christ’s work and Satan’s! (iv. 13, x. 17-20, xill. 16, Xxil. 3, 31, 53), often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to His work (xi. 52, xii. I, ΧΙ]. 14, 31, XV. 2, ΧΥΪ. 14, XIX. 39, 47, XX. 20), is brought out with special clearness. The development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and shadows of character and the conflict between spiritual forces, which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its original purpose (i. 4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad ; but even where it is most tragic it is almost always serene.” As the fine literary taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world. (6) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes A7s¢ory as distinct from memoirs. He aims at writing “in order,” which probably means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, 11. 42, ill. 23, ix. 28, 37, 51, Xxli. 1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii. 1, 11. 1). The sixfold date (iii. 1) is specially remarkable: and it is possible that both it and ii. 1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narra- tive. The words ἔτος ($$) and μήν (*2) occur more often in his writings than in the rest of N.T.: and this fact points to a special fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date, —probably because he found none in his authorities,—he fre- quently lets us know what incidents are connected together, although he does not know in what year or time of year to place the group (iv. 1, 38, 40, Vil. 1, 18, 24, Vill. I, X. 1, 21, Xl. 37, Xl. I, Mili, I, 31, xix. 11, 28, 41, xxii. 66, xxiv. 13). He is very much 1 Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv. 31-37) the miracle of healing the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being typical of Christ’s whole work. But there is no evidence of any special **demonology” in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the ‘spirit of infirmity ” (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone records. 2 A marked exception is the violent scene so graphically described xi. 53, 54. xlvili THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [8 6. less definite than Josephus or Tacitus; but that is only what we ought to expect. He had not their opportunities of consulting public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The value of Christ’s words and works was quite independent of dates. Such remarks as he makes xvi. 14, Xvill. 1, 9, xix. 11 throw far more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own’ estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do (ii)-50, iii. 115, ‘Vili. 150; XX: 20, XXii. 3, xxii. 12): and theinetcs, whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. Τῇ chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity and development which may be taken as evidence of the true historic spirit.1 He follows the Saviour through the stages, not only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40, 42, 51, 52, iii. 23, iv. 13, xxii. 28, 53). He’ traces the course of the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Perzea, from Perzea to Jeru- salem, just as in the Acts he marks the progress of the Gospel, as represented successively by Stephen, Philip, Peter, and Paul, from Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and finally to Rome. (7) But along with these literary and historical features it has a marked domestic tone. In this Gospel we see most about Christ in His social intercourse with men. The meal in the house of Simon, in that of Martha and Mary, in that of a Pharisee, when the Pharisees were denounced, in that of a leading Pharisee on a sabbath, when the dropsical man was healed, His sojourn with Zaccheus, His walk to Emmaus and the supper there, are all peculiar to Luke’s narrative, together with a number of parables, which have the same quiet and homely setting. The Good Samaritan in the inn, the Friend at Midnight, the Woman with the Leaven, the Master of the house rising and shutting the door, the Woman sweeping for the Lost Coin, the Father welcoming the Lost Son, all have this touch of familiar domesticity. And perhaps it is to this love of homely scenes that we may trace the fact that whereas Mk. (iv. 31) has the mustard-seed sown “on the earth,” and Mt. (xiii. 31) makes a man sow it “in his field,” Lk. (xiii. 19) tells us that a man sowed it “in his own garden.” Birks, Hor. Ev. (ii.) When we consider the style and language of S. Luke, we are struck by two apparently opposite features,—his great com- 1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one who “ἐς commands excellent means of knowledge . . . and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight (S. Pau the Traveller, pp. 2, 3, 20, 21, Hodder, 1895). § 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlix mand of Greek and his very un-Greek use of Hebrew phrases and constructions. ‘These two features produce a result which is so peculiar, that any one acquainted with them in detail would at once recognize as his any page torn out of either of his writings. This peculiarity impresses us less than that which distingu shes the writings of S. John, and which is felt even in a translation ; but it is much more easily analysed. It lies in the diction rather than in the manner, and its elements can readily be tabulated. But for this very reason a good deal of it is lost in translation, in which pecu- liarities of construction cannot always be reproduced. In any version the difference between 5. Mark and 5. John is felt by the ordinary reader. The most careful version would fail to show to an attentive student more than a good portion of the differences between S. Mark and S. Luke. The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile of all the N.T. writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society, and Greek in describing Greek society. It is impossible to determine how much of the Hebraistic style is due to the sources which he is employing, how much is voluntarily adopted by himself as suitable to the subject which he is treating. ‘That Aramaic materials which he translated, or Greek materials which had come from an Aramaic source, influenced his language con- siderably, need not be doubted ; for it is where he had no such materials that his Greek shows least sign of such influences. In the second half of the Acts, where he writes of his own experiences, and is independent of information that has come from an Aramaic source, he writes in good late Greek. But then it is precisely here that he is describing scenes far away from Jerusalem in an Hellen- istic or Gentile atmosphere. So that it is quite possible that to some extent he is a free agent in this matter, and is not merely exhibiting the influence under which he is writing at the moment. No doubt it is true that, where he has used materials which directly or indirectly are Aramaic, there his style is Hebraistic ; but it may also be true that he has there a//owed his style to be Hebraistic, because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject- matter. He has enabled us to judge of the two styles by placing two highly characteristic specimens of each in immediate juxtaposition. In the Acts the change from the more Hebrew portion to the more Greek portion takes place gradually, just as in the narrative there is a change from a Hebrew period (i.—v.), through a transitional period (vi.—xii.), to a Gentile period (xili.—xxviil.).1_ But in the . 1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) and the speech of Hertullus (xxiv. 2-9) with the speeches of Peter (ii. 14-39, 11]. 12-26). Ϊ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [3 6. Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the open- ing narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon to a chapter in the LXX.1_ And he never returns to the style of the Preface. In the Gospel itself it is simply a question of more or less Hebrew elements. They are strongest in the first two chapters, but they never entirely cease ; and they are specially common at the beginning of narratives, ¢.g. v. 1, 12, 17, Vi. I, 6, 12, Vill. 22, ix. 18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construc- tion, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. Comp. Lk. 1x. 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 with Mt. xvu. 1,\2, 4,)a5 57a xill, 30 with Mt. xix. 30; Lk. xviii. 35 with Mt. xx. 29; Lk. xx. 1 with Mt. xxi. 23. From this strong Hebraistic tinge in his language some (Tiele, Hofmann, Hahn) have drawn the unnecessary and improbable conclusion that the Evangelist was a Jew; while others, from the fact that some of the Hebraisms and many other expressions which occur in the Third Gospel and the Acts are found also in the Pauline Epistles, have drawn the quite impossible conclusion that this hypothetical Jew was none other than S. Paul himself. To mention nothing else, the “‘we” sections in the Acts are fatal to the latter theory. In writing of himself and his companions, what could induce the Apostle to change backwards and forwards between “they” and “we”? As to the former theory, good reasons have been given above for attributing both books to a Gentile and to S. Luke, who (as S. Paul clearly implies in Col. iv. 11-14) was a Gentile. The Hebraistic colour in the Evangelist’s language, and the elements common to his diction and that of the Pauline Epistles, can be easily explained, and more satisfactorily explained, without an hypothesis which imports more difficulties than it solves. The Hebraisms in Luke come partly from his sources, partly from his knowledge of the LXX, and partly from his intercourse with S. Paul, who often in his presence discussed the O.T. with Jews in language which must often have been charged with Hebraisms. The expressions which are common to the two Lucan documents and the Pauline Epistles are partly mere accidents of language, and partly the result of companion- ship between the two writers. Two such men could not have been together so often without influencing one another’s language. S. Luke’s command of Greek is abundantly shown both in the Jreedom of his constructions and also in the richness of his vocabulary. 1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the influence of Aramaic sources. §6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE li (a) The freedom of his constructions is seen not infrequently even in his Hebraisms. ‘Two instances will suffice. (1) His frequent use of éyévero is often purely Hebraistic (i. 8, 9), sometimes less so (vi. 1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all (Acts ix. 3, xxl. 1). This will be found worked out in detail in a detached note at the end of ch. i. (2) His frequent use of periphrastic tenses, ze. the substantive verb with a present or perfect participle instead of the simple tense, exhibits a similar variety. The use of ἣν with pres. or perf. part. as a periphrasis for imperf. or pluperf. indic. is of Aramaic origin in many cases and is frequent in the Gospels,—most frequent in Luke; but it is not always easy to say whether it is a Hebraism or a use that might very well stand in classical Greek. For ἣν with pres. part. see LOMO Tar 2P 1122.) 51: ἵν. 20. 21. 35: AAs) Ve 16} 17. 29; Vie, 12, Vall. AO, 1x. 53, ἘΠ ΤῊ τ ΤῸ, ΤῊ ive 1, πνεῖν IK 47; XXT, 37. Χ ΠῚ: 8, KU s, 122. elViost of these are probably due to Hebrew or Aramaic influence ; but many would be admissible in classical Greek, and may be used to imply continuance of the ACHONG MN E21. 22 1|: ἡ, ἵν: 21, XVe 1, ΣΙΣ 4, XX 8: XXIV. 145) 92° the simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such cases as il. 33, iv. 20, ix. 53, xl. 14, xiii. IO, II, xiv. I are Hebraistic need hardly be doubted. So also where ἣν with perf. part. is used for the pluperf. [τ τ zon νὰ αὉ, 17. ν. 17. 1Χ. 32, 45; XVI.) 34). Jy 7 and. ix. 22° with\ most of the others are probably Hebraistic, but v. 17 almost certainly is not. Anyhow, Luke shows that he is able to give an Hellenic turn to his Hebraisms, so that they would less offend a Greek ear. Much the same might be said of his use of καί to introduce the apodosis, which may be quite classical (ii. 21), but may also be Hebraistic, especially where ἰδού is added (vil. 12, xxiv. 4), or αὐτός (v. I, 17, viii. I, 22, ix. 51, etc.): or of his frequent use of ἐν τῷ with the infinitive (i. 8, 21, 11. 6, 43, v. I, etc.). Simcox, Lang. of Δ. 7. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of periphrastic imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke’s Hebraisms, Writers of N.T. pp. 19-22. But Luke’s freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects. ΑἹ- though he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with a simple καί (i. 13, 14, 31-33, Xvi. 19, etc.), yet he is able to vary his sentences with relatives, participles, dependent clauses, genitive absolutes, and the like, almost to any extent. We find this even in the most Hebraistic parts of the Gospel (i. 20, 26, 27, ii. 4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43); but still more in other parts: see especially vii. 36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the optative in indirect questions, both without ἄν (i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 3 ; Acts XVli. II, XXi. 31, xxv. 20) and with it (vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, x. 17), some- times preceded by the article (i. 62, ix. 46). In xviii. 36 the ἄν is doubtful. The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke (Gan 4enven 0591x201 30;.xlle 40, XV. LO;exxill.)40);| Acts. 22. 11: 22, il, 21, 25. tetc.); especially after πᾶς (ii. 20, iii. 19, ix. 43, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Actsi. I, x. 39, ΧΙ]. 39, Xxii. 10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (xviii. 19, xxiv. 50) and once in Mark (vii. 13). His more frequent use of re is another instance of more idiomatic Greek (ii. 16, xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. II (625), xxii. 66, xxiii. 12, xxiv. 20): only once in Mark and four times in Matthew. Sometimes we find the harsh Greek of Matthew or Mark improved in the parallel passage in Luke : 6... τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασποὺς ἐν Tals ἀγοραῖς (Mk. xii. 38) has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting φιλούντων before ἀσπασ- μούς (xx. 46). Or again, ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν “HE avOpimrav—époBodvro τὸν ὄχλον" ἅπαντες yap εἶχον τὸν ᾿Ἰωάνην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἣν (Mk. xi, 32) is smoothed lil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ὃ 6. in more details than one in Luke: ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν Ἔξ ἀνθρώπων, ὁ λαὸς ἅπας καταλιθάσει ἡμᾶς: πεπεισμένος γὰρ ἐστιν ᾿Ιωάνην προφήτην εἶναι fae: 6). Com- pare καὶ πρωὶ ἔννυχα λίαν, which perhaps is a provincialism (Mk. i. 35), with γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας (Lk. iv. 42). In the verses which follow, ee s diction is smoother than Mark’s. Compare also Lk. v. 29, 30 with Mk. ii. 15, 16 and Mt. ix. 10, 11; Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21 and Mt. ix. 16; Lk. vi. 11 with Mk. iii. 6 and Mt. xii. 14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke’s narrative of the message of the Baptist (vil. 18-21), as compared with that of Matthew (xi. 2, 3), is very marked. (ὁ) But Luke’s command of Greek is seen also in the richness of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two writings and nowhere else in N.T. is estimated at 750 or (includ- ing doubtful! cases) 851; of which 26 occur in quotations from LXX. In the Gospel the words peculiar to Luke are 312; of which 52 are doubtful, and τα occur in quotations. Some of these are found nowhere else in Greek literature. He is very fond of compound verbs, especially with διά or ἐπί, or with two preposi- tions, as ἐπανάγειν, ἐπεισέρχεσθαι, ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, συγκατατιθέναι, “ προσαναβαίνειν. He may have coined some of them for himself. The following are among the most remarkable words and expres- sions which occur either in both his writings and nowhere else in N.T., or in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. No account is here taken of the large number, which are peculiar to the Acts. Those in thick type are found in LXX. ‘Those with an asterisk are shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers. Many of these might be frequent in any writers. But the number of less common words, which are peculiar to Luke in N.T., and are fairly common in medical writers, is remarkable ; and those of them which are not found in LXX are specially to be noted. Thirty times in G. and A. ἐγένετο δέ (not Jn. x. 22). Nine times in ἃ. and A. ἡμέρα γίνεται. Eight times in G. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ (ἡμέρᾳ, ὥρᾳ, οἰκίᾳ). Seven times in G. and A. ἀποδέχεσθαι: seven in Ὁ. μνᾶ. Stx times in ἃ. and A. * συνβάλλειν, καθότι, πονηρός as an epithet of πνεῦμα : six in G. ἐπιστάτα. Five times in G, and A. ἑξῆς, καθεξῆς, καθ᾽ ὁλῆς τῆς, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, ὁ στρατηγός or οἱ στρ. τοῦ ἱεροῦ, 6 ὕψιστος or ὕψιστος (of God): five in G. ἀνακρίνειν (in the legal sense), καὶ οὗτος, Kal ὡς, λίμνη. four times in G. and ra ἅπτειν, διαπορεῖν, ἐπαίρειν τὴν φωνήν, ἐπιφωνεῖν, καθιέναι, * ὀδυνᾶσθαι, ἢ ὁμιλεῖν, ὃ συναρπάζειν, αἴτιον, ἐναντίον, εὐλαβής, κράτιστος, * παραλελυμένος (in the medical sense of “palsied”) : four in G. * κατακλίνειν, βαλλάντιον, φάτνη. Three times in G. and A. ἀναζητεῖν, ἀξιοῦν Ζὶ infin. > διελθεῖν € ἕως, διιστά- ναι, ἐπιβιβάζειν, * ἐπιχείρειν, συμπληροῦν, αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρα, ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, | δικασ- τής, τὰ δέσμα, “δούλη, ἔναντι, ἑσπέρα, θάμβος, βουλὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, * ἰάσις, πολίτης, τῇ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων, * συγγένεια, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῷ, χεὶρ κυρίου : three in ἃ. θεραπεύειν ἀπό, σκάπτειν, σκιρτᾷν, κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, σιτευτός, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου. 1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the word is used by Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. § 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 1111 Twice in G. and A. ἀναδεικνύναι, ἀνακαθίζειν, ἢ ἄνασπᾷν, ἀναφαίνειν, * ἀνευρίσκειν, ἀντειπεῖν, ἀπογραφή, * ἀποτινάσσειν, ὅ διατηρεῖν, * διισχυρί- ἕεσθαι, * διοδεύειν, * ἐνεδρεύειν, ἐπιδεῖν, * εὐτόνως, τῇ ἐχομένῃ, ἄχρι καιροῦ, * κατακλείειν, κατακολούθειν, κλάσις, κλίνει ἣ ἡμέρα, ὅ κλινίδιον, ὀρινός, * παραβιάζεσθαι, περιλάμπειν, πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην, * προβάλλειν, προπορεύ- εσθαι, “προσδοκία, ᾿προυπάρχειν, στρατιά, συνεῖναι, τραυματίζειν, τραχύς, χρεοφιλέτης : twice in G. ἄγρα, * ἀνάπειρος, * ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, ἀστράπτειν, ἄτερ, ᾿ αὐστηρός, βουνός, γελᾷν, διαγογγύζειν, διαλαλεῖν, * δοχή, ἐκμυκτηρί- Leu, ἐκτελεῖν, ἐπαιτεῖν, * ἐπανέρχεσθαι, ἐφημερία, ζεῦγος, ἡγεμονεύειν, οὐσία, | παῖς, πράκτωρ, πρεσβεία, προφέρειν, * σπαργανοῦν, συκοφαντεῖν, * ὑπο- χωρεῖν. It is not worth while to make a complete list of the words (over 200 in number) which occur ovce in the Third Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. The following will give a good idea of their character :— ἀγραυλεῖν, ἀθροίζειν, ἀλλογενής, ἀμπελουργός, ἀνάδειξις, * ἀνάλημψις, Ἑ ἀναφωνεῖν, ᾿ ἀντιβάλλειν, ἀπαρτισμός, ἀπελπίζειν, * ἀποκλείειν, ἀποστομα- rigew, * ἀποψύχειν, ἀρχιτελώνης, * αὐτόπτης, * ἀφρός, * βελόνη, * Body, βρώσι- μος, ᾿ γῆρας, * διαβάλλειν, διαγρηγορεῖν, * διαλείπειν, διαμερισμός, διανεύειν, * διανόημα, * διανυκτερεύειν, * διαπραγματεύεσθαι, * διασείειν, * διαχωρίζειν, * διηγήσις, * ἔγκυος, * ἐθίζειν, * ἐκκρέμασθαι, * ἐκχωρεῖν, * ἑλκοῦν, * ἐμβάλ- λειν, ἐνδέχεται, ἐπαθροίζειν, ἐπειδήπερ, ἔἐπεισέρχεσθαι, τὸ ἐπιβάλλον, * ἐπιμελῶς, ἐπιπορεύεσθαι, ἐπισιτισμός, * ἐπισχύειν, * ἐπιχεῖν, * εὐφορεῖν, * ἡμιθανής, * θεωρία, * θύμιᾷν, " ἰκμάς, ἰσάγγελος, ἢ κατάβασις, * καταδεῖν, καταλιθάζειν, καταπλεῖν, * καταψύχειν, κεράτιον, κλισία, κρεπάλη, κρυπτή, λαμπρῶς, * λῆρος, * λυσιτελεῖ, * μετεωρίζειν, μεριστής, * δδεύειν, ὄμβρος, * dards, * ὀφρύς, παμπληθεί, πανδοχεῖον, πανδοχεύς, * παράδοξος, παρακαλύπτειν, * παρατήρησις, περικρύπτειν. περιοικεῖν, περισπᾷν, πήγανον, * πιέζειν, * πινακίδιον, * πλημμύρα, * πραγματεύεσθαι, προμελετᾷν, * προσαναβαίνειν, προσδαπανᾷν, προσεργαζέσθαι, * προσψαύειν, * πτύσσειν, * ῥῆγμα, *aados, σίκερα, σινιάζειν, σιτομέτριον, * συκάμινος, συκομορέα, συνκατατιθέναι, * συνκυρία, * συνπίπτειν, * συν- φύειν, ἣ τελεσφορεῖν, τετραπλόος, ᾿ τραῦμα, ἦ ὑγρός, * ὑδρωπικός, * ὗπο- στρωννύναι, * φόβηθρον, φρονίμως, * χᾶσμα, * ὠόν. But the words which are peculiar to Luke in N.T. are by no means even the chief of the marks of his style. Still more striking are those expressions and constructions which he uses frequently, or more frequently than any other writer. Many of these occur more often in S. Luke’s writings than in all the rest of N.T. A collection of them is rendered much more useful by being to some extent classified ; and the following lists have been made with a view to illustrating the affinities between the diction of S. Luke and of S. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews both jointly with the Pauline Epistles and also by itself. In this survey the Pastoral Epistles have been kept distinct from the main groups of the Pauline Epistles, in order to show their harmony with the diction of the Apostle’s beloved companion, Words peculiar to Luke and to the Pastoral Epistles are not improbably Pauline. Words which are found in other Pauline Epistles as well as in the Pastoral Epistles and in Luke’s writings are still more safely regarded as Pauline. Eight classes have been made; and in them the very great variety of the words included,—many of them quite classical or of liv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ὃ 6. classical formation,—illustrate the richness of S. Luke’s vocabulary and his command of the Greek language. (1) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. (2) Peculiar to 5. Luke and S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (3) Peculiar to 5. Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) Not found in any other Gospel and more frequent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (5) Found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more fre- quent in 5. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (6) Due to Hebrew influence. (7) Miscellaneous expressions and constructions which are specially frequent in his writings. (8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. In the first of these classes the second list con- tains expressions peculiar to the writers in question, although not frequent in Luke. ‘The figures state the number of times which the word occurs in that book or group ; and in fractions the upper figures indicates the number of times that the word occurs in the writings of Luke, the lower figure the number of times which it occurs elsewhere: e.g. in class 3 the fraction ? means twice in Luke’s writings and once in Hebrews; and in classes 4 and 5 the fraction 7 means seven times in Luke’s writings and four times in the other books of N.T. Where various readings render the exact proportions doubtful a ‘‘c.” is placed in front of the fraction; e.g. ¢. 4. In classes 1 and 2, when a reference to chapter and verse is given, this is the only instance of the use of the word in that book or group. (1) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. 5. LUKE. 5. PAUL Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν : - : 3 | ΧΙ]. 23 7) ΤΠ Ts 10) ἀπολογεῖσθαι ἅ : 2 2 ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. ‘ ᾿ δ Xvili. 6 2.Gor..v. 16 ἀτενίζειν . . ᾿ 2 ΙΟ 2 *dromos : : 5 ΧΙ vin 2 2 Th. iii. 2 διαπορεύεσθαι - ᾿ 3 ΧΥ]. 4 Rom. xv. 24 ἐγκαλεῖν . τ ci 6 Rom. viii. 33 TO εἰρημένον : 5 Hath 22 2 Rom. iv. 18 ἐξαποστέλλειν ς : 3 7 2 ἐργασία : : exile 4 Eph. iv. 19 ἐφιστάναι ‘ 7 II Ths ves 2 "ἡσυχάζειν i 2 2 1: ΤΙ 01 ἰδοὺ γάρ ' 5 ix. II 2 Cor, vii. 11 κακοῦργος 3 2 Tim. ii. 9 | καταγγέλλειν ;: II 7 | κατάγειν ; v. II 7 Rom. x. 6 κατανταν ' 9 4 i ὃ 6. | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lv S. LuKE. S. PAUL. Gosp. Acts. Main. Past καταξιωθῆναι 5 . i v. 41 2 Ones ὁ λόγος τ. κυρίου. : 6 eT as οἰκονομία. - ° 3 5 ?1 Tim. i. 4 τὰ περί . . 3 II συνειδέναι, -ἰδεῖν, : 3 I Cor. iv. 4 ψαλμός : . e 2 2 3 All the above are proportionately common in S. Luke’s writings ; but there are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers ; ¢.g. &dndos ἡ ς αἰφνίδιος . αἰχμαλωτίζειν ἀνάγνωσις. ἀνάθεμα 5 ἀνακρίνειν . ἀναλίσκειν ς ἀναλύειν 5 Χἀναπέμπειν.. ἀναστατοῦν. ἀνατίθεσθαι. Χἄνεσις.. δ ἀνόητος . ἄνοια. . ἀνταπόδομα ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι ἀντικεῖσθαι. ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι ἀπειθής ° ἀπειλή . ἀποδεικνύναι ἀποβολή. *amodover Oat ἀποστολή ἀπρόσκοπος- ἀπωθεῖσθαι. dpa; or ἄρα; ἀροτριᾷν "ἀσφάλεια ἄτοπος ἀχάριστος βάρβαρος βιωτικός βυθίζειν . δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι δεκτός. Se. OF δ συν 6... ν᾽ 6 δι συ ο΄ £8 16. αἱ α΄’ δι. σ᾽ ἃ σ΄. ὦ, a) © δ΄' = ie. ὦ 6 ὦ Ἢ ΧΙ. 44 Xxl. 34 ron, Ζή Xxiil, 14 ix. 54 ΧΙ. 36 xviii. 8 XVil. 7 1: 4 Xxili. 41 vi. 35 Xxl. 34 Ven, Vv. 33 2 xii. 15 xxiii. 14 5 PXXV. 21 2 xxv. 14 XXIV. 23 XxX. 35 XXVl1. 19 3 2 XXVIi. 22 Xxil. 16 i. 25 Xxiv. 16 3 vill. 30 Vv. 23 2 2 x. 35 I Cor. xiv. 8 1 ΤΣ ν. 3 2 2 Cor. iii. 14 5 10 2? Phi 25 Philem. 12 Gal. v. 12 Gal. ii. 2 4 3 Rom. xi. 9 Rom. ix. 20 4 Rom. i. 30 Eph. vi. 9 2 Rom. xi. 15 I Cor, vi. 11 N ΩΣ 2 Gal. ii. 17 TCor ix 10 Eh ν. 3 any, abi 2 2 Tim. iit. 6 Τ τ: 1: 18 2 Tim. iil. 9 1a Bhim 2 2 Tim. iii. 2 1 Tim. i. 19 2 Tims 11|. 2 I Tim. vi. 9 1 Tim. ii. 1 lvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. διαγγέλλειν. διαιρεῖν ὃ διαταγή , διερμηνεύειν δόγμα. δρόμος δυνάστης εἰ δὲ καί ἐμφανής ἔνδοξος ἐνδύεσθαι ἐνκακεῖν ἔννομος 5 ἐξαρτίζειν . ἐξουθένειν. eoeee#eeee#e#eeees?®e*e ἐξουσία τ. σκότους ἑξουσιάζειν. ἐπαινεῖν : ἐπαναπαύεσθαι ἐπέχειν 4 ἐπιείκεια . ἐπιμελεῖσθαι ἐπίστασις . ἐπιφαίνειν. εὐαγγελιστής εὐγενής . εὐσεβεῖν. ζέειν τ. πνεύματι ζημία. . ζωγρεῖν ἕ *Cwoyovely . θέατρον . καθήκεν , κατευθύνειν. κινδευνεύειν. κραταιοῦσθαι κυριεύειν sg λείπειν = fail μαρτύρεσθαι. μεθιστάναι -ειν μεθύσκεσθαι μέρις. . μεταδιδόναι. νομοδιδάσκαλος νοσφίζεσθαι. νουθετεῖν ξενία. ξυρᾶσθαι. eee ee ec ee Θ ὃ. ὁ S. LUKE. Gosp. Acts. ix. 60 xxi. 26 xv. 12 Vii. 53 rSahe C47] |) see Bio we 1 2 2 ity 5 Vili. 27 xi. 18 x. 40 2 Xxiv. 49 Xviil. I xix. 39 Xxl. 5 2 iv. II XXxll. 53 XXll. 25 xvi. 8 χ Ὁ xiv. 7 2 XXIV. 4 2 XXiv. 12 i. 79 XXVIl. 20 xxi. 8 xix. 12 XVI. II xvii. 23 Xviil. 25 2 v. τὸ XViil. 33 | vil. 19 2 Seat ΦΖ i. 79 Vili. 23 2 ΧΧΙΙ. 25 XVili, 22 χχ. 26 XVl. 4 2 ΧΙ]. 45 X. 42 2 111. II v. 17 Vv. 34 2 xX. 51 S. PAUL. Main. Rom. ix. 17 1 ΟΥ̓ αὶ αἱ Rom. xiii. 2 4 2 4 Rom. x. 20 2 14 5 1 Cor. ix. 21 8 Col. i. 13 3 Rom. ii. 17 Phil. ii. 16 2 Cor. x. I 2 Cor. xi. 28 Eph. iv. 11 I Cor. i. 26 Rom. xii. 11 2 I Cor. iv. 9 Rom. i. 28 2 1 Cor. xv. 30 PoHONHHKH NN Xxvill. 23} Philem. 22 ΧΧΙ. 24 2 Past. 2 Tim. iv. 7 1 Tim. vi. 15 2 Tim. iii. 17 1 Tim. iv. 16 1 Tim. iii. 5 2 1 Tim. v. 4 2 Tim. 11. 26 I Tim. vi. 13 1 Tim. vi. 15 2 ΤΣ 7 Τα τὸ § 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lvil S. LUKE. 5. PAUL. Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. ὀνομάζειν . 5 . Ζ ΧΙΧ, 13 6 2 Tim. ii. 19 ὀπτασία sg : . 2 ΧΧΥΙ. I9 | 2 Cor. xii. I ὁσιότης . . 175 Eph. iv. 24 ὀψώνιον . . « | ii. 14 3 ways . . - οι ΧΣΙ Rom. xi. 9 3 πανοπλία. . 5 ΠΣ 22 2 πανουργία . . ΕΣ 23 4 πάντως . . ο ἵν: 23 3 5 παραγγελία. - . 2 1 Th. iv. 2 2 παρασκευάζειν ς . x. 10 παραχειμάζειν : 2 Ὶ Cory συ 6) | ΤΙ. ὙΠ 12 “ παροξύνεσθαι - : xvii, 16 [1 Cor. xiii. 5 παρρησιάζεσθαι - : 7 2 πατρία ᾿ | i. 4 111. 25 Eph. lie 15 πειθαρχεῖν. ° . 3 ΤΊ ii © περίεργος - . . xix. 19 1-Tim. v. 13 περιποιεῖσθαι . - | xvii. 33 | xx. 28 1 Tim. ili. 13 ἐπὶ πλεῖον. 5 ° 3 2 πληροφορεῖν 5 5 lio 3 2 πολιτεία. . . xxii. 28 | Eph. ii. 12 πολιτεύεσθαι . . Foes [Paull th, 27 πορθεῖν 6 . ° ΙΧ. 21 2 πρεσβυτέριον ° » | xxii, 66 | xxii. 5 1 Tim. iv. 14 πρεσβύτης . 0 1 1 Philem. 9 Ais obs Ζ προδότης - . - | vi. 16 vii. 52 2 Tim. ill. 4 προειπεῖν. : 5 1. 16 2 προθυμία. 5 ° xvii. IT 4 προιδεῖν - " Ξ 1: 91 Gal. iii. ὃ προκόπτειν. Ξ 1 52 2 3 πρόνοια . . ° xxiv. 2 | Rom. xiii. 14 προορίζειν : 5 iv. 28 5 προπετής . - xix. 36 2 Tim. iti. 4 κατὰ πρύσωπον - 5 |[ aie Br 2 2 ῥαβδίζεινν . ° : ΧΥΪ 22) 8) 2 (ΟἿ, ΣΧ: 25 σέβασμα. 5 Θ ΝΠ 22, Oo |. 4 σκοπεῖν . ° 5 lank 5 5 στοιχεῖν. : : ΧΧΙ. 24 4 συγκαθίζειν. . » | Xxil. 55 Eph. ii. 6 συγκλείειν . a el ave 3 συγχαίρειν. δ ° 3 4 συμβιβάζειν. A F 3 4 συναντιλαμβάνειν.. - | .x. 40 Rom. viii. 26 σύνδεσμος. . . Vill. 23 3 ouveéKOnmos . 5 5 ΧΙΧ. 29 2 Cor. viii. 19 | συνεσθίειν. . 5 || en 2 ἘΠῚ Ὁ 4 συνευδοκεῖν. . = χὶ 48 2 συνοχή : . 5 ji] ea 25 2 Cor. i. 4 συστέλλειν. : : v. 6 1 Cor. vii. 29 lviil σωματικός . τὸ σωτήριον. | σωφροσύνη - | τετράποδα. *rnpnots c δοῦναι τόπον ὕβρις . . ὑπήκοος . ὑπωπιάζειν. ὑστέρημα. φάσκειν 5 φιλανθρωπία φιλάργυρος. φόρος. . φρόνησιι yg χαρίζεσθαι ς χαριτοῦν ς χειροτονεῖν ς χρῆσθαι Ξ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE S. LUKE. Gosp. Acts. iii. 22 2 XXVili. 28 XXVi. 25 2 2 xiv. 9 2 vii. 39 Xvili. 5 ΧΧΙ. 4 2 XXVill. 2 Xvi. 14 2 ἘΠῚ) I 4 i. 28 xiv. 23 2 [ὃ 6. Sy PAU Main. Past. 1 Tim. iv. 8 Eph. vi. 17 2 Rom. i. 23 I Cor, vii. 19 2 2 Cor. xii. 10 2 1 Cor. ix. 27 8 Rom. i. 22 Tit. iii. 4 2. Τα 1:2 2 Eph. i. 8 15 Eph. i. 6 2 Cor. viii. 19 7 2 (2) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. ἄμεμπτος ° ἀναγκαῖος - ἀνάμνησιι. . ἀνταποδιδόναι ἀξιοῦν ἀποκεῖσθαι. ἀπολύτρωσις . ἀσφαλής ° ἀφιστάναι. βουλή. - διαμαρτύρεσθαι δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν, ἐκφέρειν Ξ ἐκφεύγειν. ἐνδυναμοῦν . ἐντυγχάνειν. ἐπίθεσις καταργεῖν .- λειτουργεῖν Gosp. i. 6 [xxil. 19] 2 vii. 7 xix. 20 xxi. 28 4 3 xvi. 28 Vill. 47 XV. 22 xxl. 36 xiii. 7 Acts. Nv NAWON DAW ix. 22 XXV. 24 vii. 18 xiii, 2 Main. PNHARW 2 Th: i. It Col. i. 5 Phil. iii. 1 2 Cor. xii. 8 2 1 ΤῊ. iv.16 21 Rom. xv. 27 Past. Heb. viii. 7 Mita. ΤᾺ || ὙΠῸ xs 3 x. 30 Δ Ταῦτα, avs 17 2 2 Tim. iv. 8 | ix. 27 2 vi. 19 3 111. 12 vi. 17 3 ii. 6 3 ii. II 1 Tim. vi. 7 | vi. 8 2 3 ὌΧΙ. 34 vil. 25 2 vi. 2 2 Tim. i. 10 | ii. 14 Kei 8. 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lix λειτουργία . | 1. 23 3 2 μεταλαμβάνειν 4 2 Tim. ii. 6 2 vot, 5 2 18? P viii. 6 *oplfew . = ἸΣΣΙ 22 5 Rom. i. 4 ἶν. 7 παραιτεῖσθαι. 3 XXV. II 4 3 παράκλησις. 2 4 19 1 Tim. iv. 13 3 περιαιρεῖν . 2 2 Cor. ili. 16 Χο ἘΣ περιέρχεσθαι. 2 Bim Ὑ5 15 1 31 σκληρύνειν . xix. 9 | Rom. ix. 18 4 τάξις. τὸ ite) 2 6 τυγχάνειν =. | XX. 35 5 3 2 Tim, ii. 10 2 ὑποστέλλειν. 2 Gal. ii. 12 x30 χρίειν. . | iv. 18 2 2 Corny or 1: Ὁ (3) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke’s Writings and to the Epistle to the Hebrews. ἀναδέχεσθαιξ, ἀναθεωρεῖν:, ἀναστάσεως Tvyxdvewt, ᾿ ἀνορθοῦν, dvwreport, "ἀπαλλάσσεινξ, ἀπογράφεσθαιΐ, ἀρχηγόςξ, ἀσάλευτος, ἀστειος ἢ, ἄστρον }, " βοήθειαξ, διατίθεσθαι, μετ᾽ εἰρήνης 1, εἰσιέναι ξ, ἐκλείπειν 3, * ἐνοχλεῖν 1, ἔντρο- pos?, ἐπιστέλλειν ξ, ἐσώτερος3, "εὔθετος 3, ἱερατεία 3, ἱλάσκεσθαι, καταπαύεινᾷ, καταφεύγειν. 4, κεφάλαιον ξ, λύτρωσις ἢ of μέτοχοι!, ὀρθός, TOL els τὸ marrehest, “παραλύεσθαιξ, παροικεῖν ἢ, ᾿ παροξυσμός:, πατριάρχης ξ, περικεῖσθαί τιΞ, πόρρωθεν ξ, συναντᾷν ἃ, σχεδόν ξ, τελείωσις 1, ὕπαρξις 7. Excepting ἀναθεωρεῖν, ἀναστάσεως τυγχάνειν, ἀνώτερον, ἐσώτερος, and εἰς τὸ παντελές, all the above are in LXX. (4) Expressions not found in the other Gospels and more frequent in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. ἀγαλλίασις 3, αἰνεῖν δ, "ἀναπέμπειν, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, ἀπολογεῖσθαι8, ἀσφάλεια, "ἀτενίζειν ῷ, * ἄτοπος ᾿, ἀφιστάναι 13, βουλή ϑ, βρέφος 8, διαμαρτύρεσθαι 1.9, διαπορ- εὐεσθαιξ, ἐγκαλεῖν ξ, ἔμφοβος ξ, ἐξαποστέλλειν 1,9, ἐπέρχεσθαι 8, “ἐργασία 2, ἐσθής *, cea yey εσθαι 34, Sona 18, * ἡσυχάζειν 4, κατάγειν ἃ, KaravTgy 2, * ᾿ κατέρχεσθαι cs 14, ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίουΐ, μεθιστάναιϑ8ϑ, μέρις ὃ, μήν ᾽ῷ, ἀπὸ τι νῦν, ὀπτασία, ὁρίζειν ὃ, παύεσθαι, τὰ περί ῖς 4) m peo Buréptoy +, προέρχεσθαι: C.F, *mpood-yew c. 4, πυκνός, σιγᾷνξ, σπεύδειν 3, * στεῖρα ἕξ, συναντᾷν ξ, ὑπάρχειν (excluding τὰ ὑπάρ- xovra) 22, “ὑποδέχεσθαι, “ὑπολαμβάνειν ξ, ὑποστρέφειν 533 : and several others which occur twice in Luke and once elsewhere. ΑἹ] of these occur in LXX, except ἀναπέμπειν. (5) Expressions found tn one or more of the other Gospels, but more ee in S. Luke’s Writings than tn all the rest of N.T: ἄγειν ἘΞ 5: ty *axpyBas, “Ἑσπέραν 8. ἐπ᾽ ἀλήθειας: 3, ἀμφότεροι 8, A “ € ἄναγειν 3.1, * ἀναιρεῖν 7}, a ἀνιστάναι οϑϑ, ἀντιλέγειν ἦ 5, Se γε χλεν Gi. Ts 8 32 ἀποτάσσειν 5, αὔριον ς, ἐπι αὐτός 3, peat «ἁμαρτιῶν ὃ, Boav c.%, γίνεται φωνή 6. ὃ, δεῖσθαι 4, διαμερίζειν 8, διανοίγειν 7, διαστρέφειν ὃ, Ω διασώζειν 3, διατάσσειν ἢ, διέρχεσθαι «. 532, διηγεῖσθαιϑ, δοῦναι 15, Ix THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. ἐᾷν 3 ὃ, ἐγγίζειν 18 18 ἔθος 10, εἰ δὲ μήγε, εἷς ἐκαυτος τ᾽ εἰσάγειν, εἰσ- φέρεινδ, ἑκατοντάργης τ, ἔκστασις ὃ, ἐλεημόσυνη 1°, ἐμπιμπλάναι, eae as evade &, eaves, ἐξαίφνης, ἐξαυτῆς, ἐξηγεῖσθαι, ἐξιστάναι 'κ' pen ClOp Sanco oe Ys ἐπιπίπτειν 19, οὐρα ἔτος 38, 45 24 16 3 \ ἐν τε ἡμέραις 1, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν "5, θαυμάζειν ἐπίξ, ὃ ἰᾶσθαι}, ἰδοὺ γάρϑ, ἱκανός «.31. SATO, καθαιρέν ἢ ὃ» κατάλυματ, κατανοεῖν ὃ, ἜΤ page) κολλᾶσθαυΐ, ρος κρεμᾷν $, κτᾶσθαι, κωλύειν 13, παρ ὃ λαός τῷ : μεγαλύνειν ὃ 3 ἢ μεσονυκτιον ΕΝ μνῆμα 3 νομίζειν ὃ, νομι- Kos 8, ἡ οἰκουμένη 8. ὀνόματι 5, ποτ 3, BIEN, εἰπεῖν OF λέγειν / παραβολήν Ἢ Τῇ παραγίνεσθαι «. 7.9, * mppemip ria: Ὁ TOPO NOE a περί- χωρος 3, typas, πληθεῖν 22, πλῆθος", ieee 18, *aAnpys ty, is δοκᾷν a SEES τὸ, προσφωνεῖν, ῥύμη ξ, σαλεύειν 8, a ua στόματος 3, στρέφεσθαι, συγκαλεῖν, συ λεῖα * συλλαμ- βάνειν 1.1, CURE: 3, συν ὦ. 532 συνέρχεσθαι ys 13» δ συγέχεινξ, συντιθέναι 3 1 τάσσειν ¢.% ke τετράρχης ὃ » τίς €& ὑμον; ὃν Τρόπονξ b ὑβρίζειν ὃ, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα 2, ὑποδεικνύναι 4+, ὕψιστος 3, χαλᾷν ὃ, ὡσεί «. 18, Excepting ἀκριβέστερον, ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, ἐξαυτῆς, ὀνόματι, τετράρχης, and τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν, all the above are found in LXX. To these may be added a few which are specially frequent in Luke’s writings, although not in excess of the rest of N.T. taken together : ἄρχεσθαι Ξ, ἄχρι 6.29, δέχεσθαιξ 8, ἐπιτάσσειν 3, ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ Ὁ, λύχνονξ, Ἡρ τ τὸ προσπίπτειν, προσδέχεσθαι, σχίζειν ᾧ, τρέφειν +, τροφήϑ, χάρις twenty-five times in Lk. and Acts, not in Mt. or Mk., and only thrice in Jn. Phrases which indicate the expression of emotion are unusually common, τς belong to the picturesqueness of - style; eg. φόβος μέγας Ξ, χαρὰ μεγάλη or πολλή, φωνὴ μεγάλη ἢ ar Equally remarkable is his fondness for 4 ἀνήρ, where others have ἄνθρωπος or εἷς or nothing. Thus, vi. ὃ τῷ ἀνδρί, Mt. and Mk. τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; Vill. 27 ἀνήρ τις, ΜΚ. ἄνθρωπος ; ix. 38 ἀνήρ, Mt. ἄνθρωπος, Mk. eis; xxiii. 50 ἀνήρ, Mt. ἄνθρωπος, Mk. nothing. Comp. v. 8, 12,05, 111: 28, Px 30, xxll. 63: and the word is very much more frequent i in Lk. than in all the other Gospels together. The expression παῖς αὐτοῦ or cov in the sense of “God’s servant” is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 54, 69 ; Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30), with the exception of Mt. xii. 18, which is a quotation from 15. sabre τὶ (6) Expressions frequent in S. Lukes Writings and probably due to Hebrew Influence. The frequent use of ἐγένετο is discussed at the end of ch. i. Add to this Luke’s fondness for ἐνώπιον, which does not occur in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (xx. 30). It is found more than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially in the phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (1. 19, 75, Xi. 6, Xvi. 15) Or κυρίου (i. 15). With this com- §6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xi pare πρὸ προσώπου τινός (Vii. 27, ΙΧ. 52, x. 1) and car ch mov twos (ii. 31). The frequent use of ἰδού (i. 38, il. 34, 48, Pilg 2 5 2: 24; etc.) and kat idod (i. 20, 31, 36, ἬΝ, Ὑ20 ὙΠ 12, 37, etc.); οἵ ῥῆμα for the matter of what is spoken (i. 65, i τ. 19, 51); Of otkos in the sense of “family” (i. 27, 33, 69, il. 4, X. 5, XIx. 9); Of ets in the sense of tus (v. 12, 17, Vili. 22, Xill. Io, xx. 1) or Of πρῶτος (xxiv. 1); of ὕψιστος for “the Most High” (i. 32, 35, 76, Vi. 35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So also do such expressions as ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά ( 92% 37) and μεγαλύνειν ἔλεος μετά (i. 58); ποιεῖν κράτος (i. Ἐπ}; ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (i. 15); combinations with ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ or ἐν ταῖς κι, such as διαλόγεσθαι (ili. 15, V. 22 ; Comp. xxiv. 38), διατη- ρεῖν (ii. 51), θέσθαι (i. 66, xxi. 14), Ga βυλ κει (il. 19); ἐν ταῖς WjLeputs (155; 59; ii. 1} 1ν 25.285. V-. 35,7etc.); τῇ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαβ- βάτου (xill. 14, 16, xiv. 5); with perhaps διὰ στόματος (i. 70), where both the expression and the omission of the article seem to be Hebraistic: in LXX we commonly have, however, ἐν τῷ στόματι or ἐκ Tov στόματος. Nearly all these expressions are found in the Acts also, in some cases very often. The frequent use of peri- phrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. li) as being due in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common in Luke (iv. 22, xvi. 8,.9, xviil. 6; comp. x. 6, xx. 34, 36); and of the frequent use Of καὶ αὐτός (it, 28; Vy ty 075 Vili, 225 XVll. 11, xix. 2), καὶ αὐτή (ii. 37), and καὶ αὐτοί (xiv. I, XXiv. 14) after ΤΙ καὶ ἰδού, and the like. Phrases like δοξάζειν τὸν @cdv (ἡ 25, 26, vii. 16, ΧΠῚ 13, ἈΝ 15, XVlil. 43, Xxili. 47), 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (ν. 1, viii. 11, 21, xi. 28), and ἐπαίρειν τὴν φωνήν (ΧΙ. 27) may be placed under the same head ; and they all of them occur several times in the Acts. In common with other N.T. writers S. Luke uses several Hebrew words, which may be mentioned here, although they are not specially common in his writings: ἀμήν (iv. 24, ΧΙ]. 37, XViil. 17, etc.), βεεζεβούλ (xi. 15, 18, 19), yeerva (xii. 5), πάσχα τὰ 41, ἘΣΠΤ 77..9. ΤῊ 133 15); σάββατον τον 2 ιν Ty 2, ἘΌΝ 7.00] etc.), σατανᾶς (x SETS, ἘΠ τ, ΧΙ ΤΟ; etc.). Three ὅτ ‘occur once in his Gospel and Ror hene 5ῈΞ ΠΝ ; Paros (xvi. 6), κόρος (XVi. 7), σίκερα (i. 15). Other words, although Greek in origin, are used by him, as by other N.T. writers, in a sense which is due to Hebrew influence ; ἄγγελος (i. 11, 13, 18, etc.), ypap- ματεύς (Vv. 21, 30, Vi. 7, ix. 22, etc.), διάβολος (Give ΖΞ 15. vill. 12); ἔθνη (ii. 22. Xvill. ΘΝ xed oy bis, etc.), εἰρήνη (1. 79, 1]. 20, Vil. 50, etc.), κύριος (i. 6, 9, 11, 15, etc.); and ἐφημερία. (i. 5, 8) is a Greek word specially formed to express a Hebrew idea. Ixii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. (7) Miscellaneous Expressions and Constructions which are specially frequent in S. Luke's Writings. In his use of the article he has several favourite constructions. He is very fond of ἐν τῷ followed by a present infinitive to express time during which (i. 8, 21, il. 6, 43, Vv. I, 12, Vill. 5, 42, etc.) or by an aorist infinitive to express time after which (ii. 27, ill. 21, IX. 34, 36, ΧΙ. 37, etc.); also of rod with an infinitive to express purpose or result (i. 73, 11. 27, Υ. 7, ΧΙ. 42, etc.). He frequently employs τό to introduce a whole clause, especially interrogations, much as we use inverted commas (1. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, ΧΧΙΪ. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37). In the case of certain verds he has a preference for special constructions. After verbs of speaking, answering, and the like he very often has πρός and the accusative instead of the simple dative. ‘Thus, we have εἰπεῖν πρός (i. 13, 18, 28, 34, 61, ii. 15, 34, 48, 49, etc.), λαλεῖν πρός (1. 19, 55, ii. 18, 20, ΧΙ]. 3, etc. ) λέγειν πρὸς (iv. 21, ν. 36, Vil. 24, Vill. 25, ἼΧ 151. etc.), ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρός (iv. 4, Vi. 3, xiv. 5), γογγύζειν πρός (ν. 30), συνζητεῖν πρός (xxii. 23), συνλαλεῖν πρός (iv. 36). It often happens that where Mt. or Mk. has the dative, Luke has the accusative with πρός (Mt. ix. 11; Mk. ii. 16; Lk. v. 30). Whereas others prefer ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ, he has ἐξέρχεσθαι amd (iv. 35, 41, V. 8, Vill. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38, ix. 5, etc.), and for θαυμάζειν τι he prefers θαυμάζειν ἐπί τινι (11. 33, iv. 22, ix. 43, XxX. 26). For θεραπεύειν νόσους he sometimes has θεραπεύειν ἀπὸ νόσων (V. 15, Vii. 21, vill. 2). He is fond of the infinitive after διὰ πὸ (11: 4, Vill. 6, ix. 7, xi. 8, xvill. 5, etc.), wera τὸ (X11. 5, XXII. 20), and πρὸ τοῦ (il. 21, xxii. 15). The quite classical ἔχειν τι is common (vii. 42, ix. 58, xi. 6, xii. 17, 50, xiv. 14). His use of the optative has been mentioned above (p. li). FParticiples with the article often take the place of substantives (ii. 27, iv. 16, Vili. 34, xxii. 22, xxiv. 14). They are frequently added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner: ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον (iv. 29), καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν (ν. 3), σταθεὶς ἐκέλευσεν (xVill. 40), στραφεὶς ἐπετίμησεν (ix. 55), etc. They are sometimes strung together without a conjunction (ii. 36, lv. 35, V. II, 19, 25, etc.). S. Luke is very fond of πᾶς, and especially of the stronger form ἅπας. It is not always easy to determine which is the right reading ; but ἅπας is certainly very common (iil. 21, iv. 6, v. 26, Vill. 37, 1X. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. 1; also in Acts). Elsewhere in N.T. ἅπας is rare. Not unfrequently Luke has πᾶς or ἅπας where the others have nothing (iii. 15, 16, 21, iv. 37, ἡ. 11, 28, Vl. 4, 10, T7, 10, 30, Vil. 25; ἰδ): In the use of certain prepositions he has some characteristic expressions : eis τὰ ὦτα (. 44, ix. 44) and εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς (vii. 1), ἐν τοῖς ὠσίν (iv. 21) and ἐν μέσῳ (ii. 46, Vili. 7, X. 3, ΧΧΙ. 21, XXil. 27, 55, § 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE }xiii xxiv. 36); κατὰ τὸ ἔθος (i. 9; 1 42. xxl: 39), τὸ εἰθισμένον (ii. 27), τὸ εἰωθός (iv. 16), τὸ εἰρημένον (ii, 24), and τὸ ὡρισμένον (xxii. 22) ; παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (Vil. 38, Vill. 35, 41, XVil. 16), whereas Mark has πρὸς τ. πόδας (Υ. 22, Vii. 25). Luke is very fond of σύν, which is rather rare in the other Gospels but is very frequent in both of Luke’s writings. Sometimes he has σύν where the others have pera (vill. 38, 51, Xxll. 14, 56) or καί (xx. 1) or nothing (v. 19). The pronouns αὐτός (see below) and οὗτος are specially common. The latter is added to a numeral, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν (xxiv. 21), to make it more definite. τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ; is almost peculiar to him (xi. 5, xii. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii.-7), and so also is tis ἐστιν οὗτος Os; (Vv. 21, Vil. 49). In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining δέ with καί, a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (ii. 4, iii. 9, 12, iv. 41, V. 10, 36, vi. 6, ix. 61, etc.) and seven in the Acts. It is rare in the other Gospels. His Hebraistic use of καὶ αὐτός, αὐτή or αὐτοί, and of καὶ ἰδού, to introduce the apodosis to ἐγένετο and the like, has been pointed out above (p. lxi). But Luke is also fond of καὶ αὐτός at the beginning of sentences or independent elauses (1: 22; Ul.) 23). IV. 15, γι.375) Vi. 20, XV. 14, \etc!); and of καὶ otros, which is peculiar to him (i. 36, viii. 41?, xvi. 1, xx. 28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses δέ, and εἶπεν δέ occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts. It is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. (xii. 6 [viil. 11 7}: ix. 37?): they prefer ὃ ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, or καὶ λέγει, K.7.X. Luke also has ἐλεγεν δέ nine times in the Gospel ; it occurs twice in Mk., once in Jn., and never in Mt. Five times he begins a sentence with καὶ ὡς (temporal), which is not found elsewhere in N.T. (xv. 25, xix. 41, Xxil. 66, xxiii. 26; Actsi. 10). The inter- rogative ei is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (vi. 7, 9, ΧΙ]. 23, xlv. 28, 31, xxil. 49, 67, etc.), εἰ δὲ μήγε five times, and εἰ ἄρα twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere. The idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in both books (i. 4, i. 20, lil. 19, V. 9, 1X. 36, 43, xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, etc.): it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn. After τοῦτο he has ὅτι in Gospel and Acts (x. 11, xii. 39, etc.) ; Mt. and Mk. never; Jn. only after διὰ τοῦτο. He is fond of combinations of cognate words, €.£. φυλάσσοντας φυλακάς (11. 8), ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν (il. 9), βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπ- τισμα (Vil. 29), ἣ ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα (xvii. 24). Some of these are Hebraistic, especially such as ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (xxii. 15). (8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. _ It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the existence of medical phraseology in the writings of 5. Luke. In the lxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. Gentleman's Magazine for June 1841 a paper appeared on the subject, and the words ἀχλύς (Acts xiii. 11), κραιπάλη (Lk. xxi. 34), παραλελυμένος (v. 18, 24; Acts vill. 7, ix. 33), mapoévopos (Acts XV. 39), συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (Lk. iv. 38), and ὑδρωπικός (xiv. 2) were given as instances of technical medical language. Since then Dr. Plumptre and others have touched on the subject ; and in 1882 Dr. Hobart published his work on Zhe Medical Language of St. Luke, Dublin and London. He has collected over 400 words from the Gospel and the Acts, which in the main are either peculiar to Luke or are used by him more often than by other N.T. writers, and which: are also used (and often very frequently) by Greek medical writers. He gives abundant quota- tions from such writers, that we may see for ourselves ; and the work was well worth doing. But there can be no doubt that the number of words in the Gospel and the Acts which are due to the Evangelist’s professional training is something very much less than this. It may be doubted whether there are a hundred such words. But even if there are twenty-five, the fact is a considerable confirmation of the ancient and universal tradition that ‘‘ Luke the beloved physician” is the author of both these books. Of Dr. Hobart’s long list of words more than eighty per cent. are found in LXX, mostly in books known to S. Luke, and sometimes _ . occurring very frequently in them. In all such cases it is more reasonable to suppose that Luke’s use of the word is due to his knowledge of LXX, rather than to his professional training. In the case of some words, both of these causes may have been at work. In the case of others, the medical training, and not famili- arity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the prob- ability is the other way. Unless the expression is known to be distinctly a medical one, if it occurs in books of LXX which were known to Luke, it is probable that his acquaintance with the ex- pression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. If the expres- sion is also found in profane authors, the chances that medical training had anything to do with Lk.’s use of it become very remote. It is unreasonable to class as in any sense medical such words as ἀθροίζειν, ἀκοή, ἀναιρεῖν, ἀναλαμβάνειν, ἀνορθοῦν, ἀπαιτεῖν, ἀπαλλάσσειν, ἀπολύειν, ἀπορεῖν, ἀσφάλεια, ἄφεσις, etc. etc. All of these are frequent in LXX, and some of them in profane authors also. Nevertheless, when Dr. Hobart’s list has been well sifted, there still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due to the fact of his being a physician. ‘The argument is a cumulat- ive one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large number of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for §6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixv all of them ; especially where the word is either rare in LXX, or not found there at all. The instances given in the Gentleman’s Magazine require a word of comment. Galen in treating of the diseases of the eye gives ayAvs as one of them, and repeatedly uses the word, which occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Perhaps κραιπάλη, which in bibl. Grk. is found Lk. xxi. 34 only, is a similar instance. It occurs more than once in Aristophanes, but is frequent in medical writers of the nausea which follows excess. In παραλελυμένος we have a stronger instance. Whereas the other Evangelists use παραλυτικός, Luke in harmony with medical usage has παραλελυ- μένος, as also has Aristotle, a physician’s son (Zh. Vic. 1. 13. 15). But this use may come from LXX, as in Heb. xii. 12. That παρο- ξυσμός is a medical term is indisputable; but as early as Demos- thenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX (Deut. xxix. 28; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii.] 37). The instance in Lk. iv. 38 is perhaps a double one: for συνεχομένη is possibly, and πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and Mk. have merely πυρέσσουσα, and in Acts xxviii. 8 we have the parallel πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεντερίᾳ συνεχόμενον. In ὑὕδρωπικός we have a word peculiar to Luke in bibl. Grk. and perhaps of purely medical origin. By adopting doubtful or erroneous readings Hobart makes other instances double, ¢.g. ἐπέπεσεν for ἔπεσεν (Acts xiii. 11), βαρυνθῶσιν for βαρηθῶσιν (Lk. xxl. 34). Again, whether or no ἀναπτύσσειν has any medical flavour, Lk. iv. 17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is ἀνοίξας. To the examples given in the Gentleman’s Magazine may per- haps be added such instances as δακτύλῳ Ana (xi. 46), where Mt. has δακτύλῳ κινῆσαι: διὰ τρήματος βελόνης (xviii. 25), where Mk. has διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς ῥαφίδος : ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος (viii, 44), where : ΜΚ. has ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τ. αἵματος : ἐστερεώθησαν αἱ βάσεις αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σφυδρά (Acts ili. 7); and more doubtfully ὀθόνην τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιέμενον (Acts x. 11) and ἀνεκάθισεν (vil. 14; Acts ix. 40). Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of the healing of Malchus’ ear (xxii. 51). And perhaps the marked way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease (vi. 18, xili. 32 ; Acts xix. 12) may be put down to medical train- ing. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been afflicted (xiii. 11 ; Acts ix. 33) and the age of the person healed (viii. 42 ; Acts iv. 22) is a feature of the same kind. For other possible instances see notes on iv. 35, v. 12, Vii. 10. The coincidences between the preface of the Gospel and the opening words of some medical treatises are remarkable (see small print, pp. 5, 6). And it is worth noting that Luke alone records Christ’s quotation of the proverb, Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν 6 Ixvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 6. (iv. 23); and that almost the last words that he records in the Acts are 5. Paul’s quotation from Is. vi., which ends καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς (xxviii. 26, 27). The following table will illustrate some characteristics of 9. Luke’s diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists :— S. MATTHEW. iii. 10. ἤδη δέ. lii. 16. πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. iii, 17. φωνὴ ἐκ τ. ovp- «νῶν. is. I. ἀνήχθη. iv. 5) 8 παραλαμβάνει. iv. 12. ἀνεχώρησεν. iv. 18. τὴν θάλασσαν. iv. 20. ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα. Vili. 2. λεπρὸς προσελθὼν : ροσκύνει αὐτῷ. vill. 4. καὶ λέγει ὁ Τησοῦς. ix. 2. προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτικόν. ix. 7. ἐγερθείς. ix. 8. ἐφοβήθησαν. ix. 9. Μαθθαῖον λεγομένον. ΧΙ, 50. τὸ θέλημα τ. πατ- ἧς μου. ΧΙ], 7. ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκάνθας. xlil, 19. τ. λόγον τ. βα- σιλείας. xill. 20. λαμβάνων. ΧΙ]. 21. σκανδαλίζεται, v. 15. καίουσιν λύχνον. Vili. 21. κύριε. villi, 30. ἀγέλη χοίρων φολλῶν, ix. 18. ἰδοὺ ἄρχων [εἷς] ὁοσελθὼν προσκύνει αὐτῷ. x. 18, ἐτελεύτησεν. x. 14. ἐξερχόμενοι ἔξω. tvi, 15. λέγει. S. Mark. τὸ πνεῦμα. . φωνὴ ἐκ τ. οὐρα- . τὸ πν. αὐτὸν ἐκβάλ- . ἦλθεν. . τὴν θάλασσαν. . ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα. i. 40. λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν. i. 44. καὶ λέγει. ii. 3. φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν. li. 12. ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθύς. ii. 12. ἐξίστασθαι. ii. 14. Λευείν. ili, 35. τὸ θέλημα τ. Θεοῦ. iv. 7. εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας. iv. 14. τὸν λόγον. iv. 16. λαμβάνουσιν. iv. 17. σκανδαλίζονται. iv. 38. διδάσκαλε. v. 7. ὁρκίζω σε. v. II. ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγ- ἀλη. v. 22. ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρ- χισυναγώγων καὶ πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. νυ. 23. ἐσχάτως ἔχει. v. 29. εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη 7 πηγή. vi. II. ἐκπορευόμενοι ἐκεῖ- θεν. viii. 29. ἐπηρώτα. S. LUKE. iii. 9. ἤδη δὲ καί. lil, 22. τὸ πν. τὸ ἅγιον. iil. 22. φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι. iv. i. ὑπέστρεψεν. iv. 5, 9. ἤγαγεν, dva- γαγών. iv. 14. ὑπέστρεψεν. v. I. τὴν λίμνην. v. 11. ἀφέντες πάντα. v. 12. ἀνὴρ πλήρης λέπρας πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσ- wrov ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ. v. 14. καὶ αὐτὸς παρ- ἠγγειλεν. ν. 18. ἄνδρες φέροντες .. - παραλελυμένος. ν. 25. παραχρῆμα ἀν- αστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν. ν. 26. ἐπλήσθησαν φό- ου. v. 27. ὀνόματι ΔΛευείν. viii, 21. τὸν λόγον 7. Θεοῦ. vill. 7. ἐν μέσῳ τ. ἀκαν- θῶν. vill. 11. ὁ λόγος τ. Θεοῦ. viii. Vill. viii. viii. 13. δέχονται. 13. ἀφίστανται. 16. λύχνον ἅψας. 24. ἐπιστάτα. vill. 28. δέομαί σου. Wille 22: ἱκανῶν. vili. 41. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ. vill. 42. καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέ- θνησκεν. Vill. 44. παραχρῆμα ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις. ix. 5. ἐξερχόμενοι ἀπό. ix. 20. εἶπεν δέ. ἀγέλη χοίρων Ὶ 87. 5. MATTHEW. Xvi. 20. ἐπετίμησεν. xvi. 28. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. xvii. 4. κύριε. XVii. 16. προσήνεγκα. xvii. 18. ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς. xix. 13. παιδία. xxil, 18. γνοὺς τὴν πον- ρίαν. XXV1. 20, μετὰ τ. δώδεκα μαθητῶν. XXVi. 27. λαβών. XXVi. 29. οὐ μὴ ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι. ΧΧΥΪ. 41. γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε. XxvVi. 64. ἀπ ἄρτι. XXVil. 2. ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ. xxvii. 13. λέγει. XXVil. 57. ἄνθρωπος πλού- σιος, τοὔνομα ᾿Ιωσήφ. Xxvill. 8. ἀπελθοῦσαι. .. ἔδραμον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL 5. Mark. viii. 30. ἐπετίμησεν. ix. I. ἀμὴν λέγω by». ix. 5. Ῥαββεί. ix. 18. εἶπα. ix. 27. ἀνέστη. x. 13. παιδία. xii. 15. εἰδὼς τὴν ὑπό- κρισιν. xiv. 17. μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα. xiv. Xiv. 23. λαβών. 25. οὐκέτι οὐ μή. xiv. 38. γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε. xv. 1. ἀπήνεγκαν καὶ παρέδωκαν ΤΠειλάτῳ. χν. 4. ἐπηρώτα. xv. 43. Ἰωσὴφ εὐσχήμων βουλευτής. xvi. 8. ἐξελθοῦσαι « « e οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν. lxvii S. LUKE. ix. 21. ἐπιτιμήσας παρ- ἠγγειλεν. ix. 27. λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλη- θῶς. ix. 32. ἐπιστάτα. ix. 40. ἐδεήθην. ix. 42. ἰάσατο παῖδα. xvill. 15. τὰ βρέφη. χχ. 23. κατανοήσας τὴν πανουργίαν. Xxll. 14. οἱ ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ. xxil, 17. δεξάμενος. xxii. 18. οὐ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. xxii, 46. ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε. xxii, 69. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. xxiii. I. ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τ. ἸΠειλᾶτον. xxiii. 9. ἐπηρώτα ἐν λό- γοις ἱκανοῖς. xxiii. 50. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἴ., βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων. χχῖν. 9. ὑποστρέψασαι .... ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἕνδεκα καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς. τὸν These are only specimens taken from a large number of instances, and selected for their brevity and they admit of comparison. the ease with which The student who has mastered the -main features of Luke’s style will be able to find many more for himself. § 7. THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. This question may be regarded as naturally following the dis- cussion of S. Luke’s peculiarities and characteristics, for it is by a knowledge of these that we are able to solve it. The question has been keenly debated during the last forty years, and may now be said to be settled, mainly through the exertions of Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and Sanday. Dr. Sanday’s article in the Fortnightly Review, June 1875, in answer to Supernatural Religion, was pro- nounced by Bishop Lightfoot to be ‘able and (as it seems to me) unanswerable” (On Sup. Rel. p. 186). This article was incor- Ixviti THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [S 7. porated in Zhe Gospels in the Second Century, Macmillan, 1896, now unfortunately out of print, and it remains unanswered. It is now conceded on all sides! that Marcion’s Gospel does not represent the original S. Luke, and that our Third Gospel has not been largely augmented and interpolated, especially by the addition of the first three chapters and the last seven verses ; but that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of our S. Luke, which therefore was current before Marcion began to teach in Rome in or before a.p. 140. The statements of early Christian writers (not to be accepted as conclusive without examination) have been strongly confirmed, and it is right to speak of Marcion’s Gospel as a “mutilated” or “amputated” edition of 8. Luke. Irenzeus says of Marcion: zd guod est secundum Lucam evangelium circumcidens (1. 27. 2, 111. 12. 7); and again: AWarcton et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas converse sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cog- noscentes, secundum Lucam autem evangelium et epistolas Pauli decurtantes, hxc sola legitima esse dicunt, que ipst minoraverunt (iii. 12. 12). Similarly Tertullian: (δεῖς fam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelta corrosit ? (Adv. Marcon. 1. 1). Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. . ex ts commentatoribus guos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem cexederet (bed, iv. 2). Epiphanius also: ὁ μὲν γὰρ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν σημαίνει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον᾽ ws δὲ ἠκρωτηρίασται μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχων, μήτε μέσα, μήτε τέλος, ἱματίου βεβρωμένου ὑπὸ πολλῶν σητῶν ἐπέχει τὸν τρόπον (Her. i. 3. II, Migne, xli. 709). Epiphanius speaks of additions, τὰ δὲ προστίθησιν : but these were very trifling, perhaps only some two or three dozen words. The evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the contents of Marcion’s Gospel is quite independent, and it can be checked to some extent by that of Irenzus. ‘Their agreement is remark- able, and we can determine with something like certainty and exactness the parts of the Third Gospel which Marcion omitted ; not at all because he doubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. ‘They contradicted his doctrine, or did not harmonize well with it, or in some other way displeased him. In this arbitrary manner he discarded i. 11. and iii. excepting iii. 1, with which his Gospel began. Omitting 11]. 2-iv. 13, 17-20, 24, he went on continuously to xi. 28. His subsequent omissions were Xl. 29-32, 49-51, ΧΗ]. I-9, 29-35, XV. II—32, XVii. 5—I0, XVlil. 31-34, xix. 29-48, xx. 9-18, 37, 38, xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22, xxil. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51, xxiv. 47-53. Perhaps he also omitted vil. 29-35 ; and he transposed iv. 27 to xvii. 18. It should be observed that not only does Marcion’s Gospel 1 An exception must be made of the author of Zhe Four Gospels as Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and rakes together criticisms and positions which have been rendered impotent and untenable. One is tempted to apply to it the author’s own words (respecting a volume of very real merit and ability, which has rendered signal service to the cause of truth), that it ‘‘may be said, without much injustice, to beg every question with which it deals” (p. 491). 57] THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL Ixix contain nearly all the sections which are peculiar to Luke, but it contains them in the same order. Where Luke inserts something into the common tradition, Marcion has the insertion ; where Luke omits, Marcion omits also. This applies in particular to “the great intercalation” (ix. 51—xvili. 14) as well as to smaller insertions; and this minute agreement, step by step, between Marcion and Luke renders the hypothesis of their independence incredible. The only possible alternatives are that Marcion has expurgated our Third Gospel, or that our Third Gospel is an expansion of Marcion’s; and it can be demonstrated that the second of these is untenable. (1) In most cases we can see why Marcion omitted what his Gospel did not contain. He denied Christ’s human birth ; therefore the whole narrative of the Nativity and the genealogy must be struck out. The Baptism, Temptation, and Ascension involved anthropomorphic views which he would dislike. All allusions to the O.T. as savouring of the kingdom of the Demiurge must be struck out. And so on. In this way most of the omissions are quite intelligible. The announcement of the Passion (xvill. 31-34) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, etc. (xix. 29-48), were probably disliked as being fulfilments of O.T. prophecy. It is less easy to see Marcion’s objection to the Prodigal Son (xv. 11-32) and the massacre of Galileans, etc. (xiii. 1-9) ; but our knowledge of his strange tenets is imperfect, and these passages probably conflicted with some of them. But such changes as ‘‘all the righteous” for “ Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” (xiii. 28), or “the Lord’s words” for “the law” (xvi. 17), or ‘those whom the god of that world shall account worthy” for ‘‘they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world” (xx. 35), are thoroughly intelligible. Others which his critics supposed to be wilful depravations of the text are mere differences of reading found in other authorities ; e.g. the omission of αἰώνιον (x. 25) and of ἢ μεριστήν (xii. 14); and the insertion of καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον Kal τοὺς προφήτας (XxXIil. 2). (2) But the chief evidence (in itself amounting to something like demonstration) that Marcion abridged our S. Luke, rather than the Evangelist expanded Marcion, is found in the peculiari:' a Ν \ y+ a e fo) \ , Ν 3 αὐτῶν κατὰ TO ἔθος 3 τῆς ἑορτῆς, καὶ τελειωσάντων τὰς ἡμέρας, τοῖς 2 γνωστοῖς" 12 καὶ μὴ εὑρόντες ὑπέστρεψαν %3 εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, § 8, THE TEXT. The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from different sources, of which Tischendorf’s JVov. Zest. Gree. vol. 1. ed. 8, Lipsie, 1869, and Sanday’s “422. ad Nov. Test. Steph., Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in many cases verified. Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf, Lipsiz, 1884-94, and Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s utroduction to the Criticism of N.T., Bell, 1894, must be consulted by those who desire more complete information respecting the authorities, 8 8.] THE TEXT Ixxi (1) GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. Primary unctals. ἐξ Cod. Sinaiticus, sec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Peters- burg. Contains the whole Gospel complete. Its correctors are x* contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second MS. of high value ; x” attributed by Tischendorf to szc. vi. ; x° attributed to the beginning of sec. vii. Two hands of about this date are sometimes distinguished as x and xe. A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. B. Cod. Vaticanus, sec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul iit, etc., p. 86). Complete. The corrector B? is nearly of the same date and used a good copy, though not quite so good as the original. Some six centuries later the faded characters were retraced, and a few new readings introduced by B’. C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sec. v. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1. 2-ἰ|1. 5, 11. 42—iil. 21, iv. 25-]. 4, Vi. 37-Vil. 16 or 17, Vili. 28—xil. 3, XIX. 42—-XX. 27, ΧΧΙ. 2I—-Xxil. 10, xxiii. 25— Χχῖν. 7, Xxiv. 46-53. These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T. “Ὁ. Cod. Bezae, sec. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel. L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, 5856. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel. R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sec. viii. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains i. 1-13, i. 69-11. 4, 16-27, iv. 38-v. 5, if a 8, 18-36, 39, vi. 49-Vil. 22, 44, 46, 47, Vill. 5-15, 1. 25-1. 1, 12-43, X. 3-16, ΧΙ. 5- -27, Xil. 4-15, 40-52, ΧΙ], 26-Xlv. I, XIV. I2—-XV. I, XV. I3—XVl. 16, XVii. 21—xviii. ΤΟ, XVill. 22—XX. 20, XX. 33-47, xxi. I2-Xxll. 15, 42-56, xxii. 71-- Xxili. 11, 38-51. By a second hand xv. 19-21. T. Cod. Borgianus, sec. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains xxii. 20—xxiii. 20, Ixxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ὃ 8. X. Cod. Monacensis, sec. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1. 1-37, li. 19-11. 38, iv. 21-x. 37, Xl. I-XVill. 43, Xx. 46--χΧΧῖν. 53. A. Cod. Sangallensis, 5880. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel. ἘΞ. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sec. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains i. 1-9, 19-23, 27, 28, 309-592, 36-66, i. 777i. 19, 21, 22, 33-39; 111. 5-8, 11-20, iv. 1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, v. 17-36, vi. 21τ-- vil. 6, 11-37, 39-47, Vill. 4-21, 25-35, 43-50, ΙΧ. 1-28, 32, 33, 35) 1X. 41-X. 18, 21-40, Xi. I, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 33. If these uncials were placed in order of merit for the textual criticism of the Gospel, we should have as facile princeps B, with δὲ as equally easily second. Then Τὶ 2, L, C, R. The Western element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely absent from the Gospels. Secondary Uncials, E. Cod. Basileensis, seec. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains the whole Gospel, except iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53. F. Cod. Boreeli, sec. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel. Cod. Harleianus, sec. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.. Cod. Cyprius, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel. M. Cod. Campianus, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel. 5. Cod. Vaticanus, sec. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel. U. Cod. Nanianus, seec. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel. Only six uncials MSS., δὲ ΒΚ MSU, afford complete copies of all four Gospels. (2) VERSIONS. The Versions quoted are the following : The Latin (Lat.). The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.). The Vulgate (Vulg.). The Egyptian (Aegyptt.). ‘The Bohairic (Boh.). The Sahidic (Sah.). The Syriac (Syrr.). The Curetonian (Cur.). The Sinaitic (Sin.). The Peshitto (Pesh.), § 9.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxiii The Harclean (Harcl.). The Palestinian (Hier.). The Armenian (Arm.). The Ethiopic (Aeth.). The Gothic (Goth.). We are not yet ina position to determine the relation of the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-Sin.) to the other Syriac Versions and to other representatives of primitive texts: and it would be rash for one who is ignorant of Syriac to attempt a solution of this problem. But the readings of Syr-Sin., as given in the translation by Mrs. Lewis, are frequently quoted in the notes, so that the reader may judge to what extent they support the text adopted in this commentary. It should be noticed that four of the seven instances of Con- fiate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18, xxiv. 23). Mr. Miller, in his new edition of Scrivener’s Zztroduction to the Criticism of the N.T. (Bell, 1894), denies the cogency of the proof; but the only case with which he attempts to deal, and that inadequately (ii. pp. 292, 293), is Lk. xxiv. 53. See the Classical Review, June 1896, p. 264. §9. LITERARY HISTORY. It is not easy to determine where the literary history of the Third Gospel begins. The existence of the oral tradition side by side with it during the first century of its existence, and the existence of many other documents (i. 1) previous to it, which may have resembled it, or portions of it, very closely, are facts which render certainty impossible as to quotations which bear considerable resemblance to our Gospel. They may come from this Gospel; but they may also have another source. Again, there are possibilities or probabilities which have to be taken into account. We do not know how soon Harmonies of two, or three, or four Gospels were constructed. The Third Gospel itself is a combination of documents; and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that before Tatian constructed his Déatessaron others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 302). Some early quotations of the Gospel narrative look as if they may have come either from material which the Evangelists used, or from a compound of their works, rather than from any one of them as they have come down to us. On the other hand the difficulty of exact quotation must be remembered. MSS. were Ixxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 58. LUKE [§ 9. not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a diffi- culty in “verifying their references,” when rolls were used and not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were num- bered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of different Gospels would easily become mixed ; all the more so, if the writers who quote were in the habit of giving oral instruction in the Gospel narrative ; for in giving such instruction they would be in the habit of constructing a compound text out of the words which they chanced to remember from any two or three Gospels. What they wanted to convey was the substance of “the Gospel,” and not the exact wording of the Gospel according to Matthew, or Mark, or Luke. There is nothing in the Epistle of Barnabas which warrants us in believing that the writer knew the Third Gospel: and the co- incidence of κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τῷ πλησίον Gov, καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι (xix. 8) with Acts iv. 32 is too slight to be relied upon. Comp. Didaché iv. 8. Indeed it is not impossible that this Epistle was written before our Gospel (A.D. 70-80). In the Epistle of Clement, which doubtless is later than the Gospel (A.D. 95, 96), we have the perplexing phenomena alluded to above. MT. Ve 7, Vile I, 20 CEM. Rom. Cov. xiii. 2. Lk. vie 36=38. οὕτως yap εἶπεν" éde- μακάριοι of ἐλεήμονες, Gre, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε᾽ ἀφίετε, γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες καθ- ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται. ἵνα ἀφεθῇ ὑμῖν" ws ποι- ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν olk- εἴτε, οὕτω ποιηθήσεται τίρμων ἐστίν" καὶ μὴ ὑμῖν: ὡς δίδοτε, οὕτως κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε" μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" ὡς κρί- καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ κριθῆτε" ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίμα- vere, οὕτως κριθήσεσθε' οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε. τι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, ὡς χρηστεύεσθε, οὕτως ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυ- καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε χρηστευθήσεται ὑμῖν" ᾧ θήσεσθε" δίδοτε, καὶ δο- μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν αὐτῷ θήσεται ὑμῖν «οὐ... ᾧ γὰρ μετρηθήσεται duty. μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρη- θήσεται [or μετρηθήσεται] ὑμῖν. This quotation is found in the Epistle of Polycarp (ii. 3) in this form : μνημονεύοντες δὲ ὦ ὧν εἶπεν 6 κύριος διδάσκων" μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε: ἀφίετε, καὶ ἀφεθήσται ὑμῖν" ἐλεᾶτε, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε" ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. And Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 11. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) has it exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of ἀντιμετρηθήσεται for μετρηθήσεται: but he is perhaps quoting his namesake. If not, then the probability that both are quoting a source different from any of a Gospels becomes much greater (Resch, Agrapha, pp. 96, 97 891 MT. xviii. 6, 7, xxvi. 24. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων, τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς ἐμέ, συμ- φέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τρά- χήλον αὐτοῦ καὶ κατα- ποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς cee oval τῷ κόσμῳ... οὐαὶ δὰ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ Ov οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ LITERARY HISTORY CLEM. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 8. εἶπεν ydp° oval τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ" καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, ἢ ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι" κρεῖττον ἢν αὐτῷ περιτεθῆναι μύλον καὶ καταποντισθῆναι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ἢ ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου διαστρέψαι. xxv LK. xvii. I, 2, xxii. 22. ἀνένδεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάνδαλα μὴ ἐλθεῖν, πλὴν οὐαὶ δι’ οὗ ἔρχεται" λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ λίθος μυλικὸς περίκειται περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔρριπται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ἢ ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ἕνα. οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώτῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ παραδίδοται. ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται" καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθηη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. Here again Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 18, p. 561) quotes exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of μή for οὐκ after εἰ, and the omission of τήν before θαλάσσαν. In Clem. Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have a composite quotation (Is. xiii. 11; Ps. Xxili, 10; Job v. 11, etc.), which may possibly have been in- fluenced by Lk. i. 52, 53, xiv. 11, xvili. 14; but nothing can be built on this possibility. We must be content to leave it doubtful whether Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to Luke; and the same must be said of Polycarp (see above) and of Ignatius. In £ph. xiv. we have φανερὸν. τὸ δένδρον ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ, which recalls ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται (Mt. xii. 33) and ἕκαστον yap δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκεται (Lk. vi. 44). Smyr. 111. we have the very remarkable passage which perplexed Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome as to its source: ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς: Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. This may be a condensation of Lk. xxiv. 36-39, Or may come from oral tradition or a lost document. Of other possibilities, τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον (21. xvi.) recalls Mk. ix. 43 rather than Lk. iii. 17: καλοὺς μαθητὰς ἐὰν φιλῇς, χάρις σοι οὐκ ἔστιν (Polyc. 11.) is not very close to Lk. vi. 32: ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου {Rom. vii.) is found Lk. viii. 14, but is a common phrase: and other slight resemblances (e.g. Magn. x.) may as easily come from other Gospels or from tradition. We are on surer ground when we come to the Didaché and the Gospel of Peter, the dates of which remain to be determined, but which may be placed between Α.Ὁ. 75 and 125. In the former we find further evidence of a combination of passages from Matthew and Luke, of which we have seen traces in Clement of Rome, and which suggests the possibility of a primitive Harmony of these two documents. Ixxvi MT. xxv. 13. γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε ἡμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὥραν. τὴν THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DIDACHE xvi. I. ypnyopetre ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν: οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήσωσαν, καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν, ἀλλὰ γιν- εσθε ἕτοιμοι" οὐ γὰρ οἴδατε τὴν ὥραν ἐν ἣ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται. 5, LUKE [59. EK. σὶρ 35. ἕστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι καὶ οἱ λύχ- νοι καιόμενοι, καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσ- δεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν. Here the acquaintance with our Gospel is highly probable, for of the Evangelists Luke alone has the plural of λύχνος and of ὀσφύς. In giving the substance of the Sermon on the Mount, the Didaché again seems to compound the two Gospels. MT. vii., v. 12 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς. 44 ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς. © ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; . .. 5 Οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; 89 ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιάγονα, στρέ- ψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην. Ἢ ὅστις σε ἀγγαρεύσει μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ δύο. “0 τῷ θελοντί σοι κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χι- τῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἀφὲς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. 42 τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σου δα- νίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς. DIDACHE i. 2-5. πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελ- ἤσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ ἄλλῳ μὴ mole... εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρω- μένους ὑμῖν καὶ προσεύ- χεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν, νηστεύετε δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς" ποία γὰρ χάρις, ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς; οὐχὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν : ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀγα- πᾶτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε ἐχθρόν. .. ἐάν τις σοι δῷ ῥάπισμα εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα, στρέψ" αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἔσῃ τέλειος" ἐὰν ἀγγα- ρεύσῃ σέ τις μίλιον ἕν, ὕπαγε μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ δύο" ἐὰν ἄρῃ τις τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου, δὸς αὐτῷ καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα" ἐὰν λάβῃ τις ἀπὸ σοῦ τὸ σόν, μὴ ἀπαίτει" γὰρ δύνασαι. παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ μὴ ἀπαίτει. οὐδὲ ἡ Τιςς υἱ» 81 καθὼς θέλετε ἵνα ποι- ὥσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως. 28 εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς κατα- ρωμένους ὑμᾶς, προσεύ- χεσθε περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεα- ζόντων ὑμᾶς. 77 ἀλλὰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν. 82 καὶ εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστίν ; καὶ γὰρ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγα- πῶντας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. 35 πλὴν ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν. .. καὶ ἔσται ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολύς. °° τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ. τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς. * παντὶ αἱ: τοῦντί σε δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός τὰ 'σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει. Expressions which are peculiar to each form of the Sermon are here so abundant that we conclude that this doctrine of the Two Ways has been influenced by both forms. But the order in which the several precepts are put together is so different from both Gospels, that the editor can scarcely have had either Gospel before him. Very possibly the order and wording have been disturbed by oral instruction in Christian morality given to cate- chumens (Sanday, Gamptons, p. 302). But the evidence of LITERARY HISTORY Ixxvil 891 acquaintance with the Third Gospel is strong ; and it is somewhat strengthened by the fact that in the Dzdaché Christ is called the “Servant (παῖς) of God” (ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3), a use of παῖς which in N.T. is almost confined to Luke (Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30; comp. iv. 23; Lk. 1. 54, 69). But this use is common in LXX, and may easily be derived from Isaiah or the Psalms rather than from the Acts. Nevertheless there is other evidence of the in- fluence of the Acts on the Didaché, and scarcely any evidence of the influence of Isaiah or of the Psalms: indeed the references to the O.T. are remarkably few. And this not only makes it quite possible that the use of ὁ παῖς cov comes from the Acts, but also still further strengthens the conviction that the Dzdaché is in- debted to the writings of 5. Luke. Comp. συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι (Did. iv. 8) with οὐδὲ εἷς τι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἣν αὐτοῖς πάντα κοινά (Acts iv. 32). Bryennios and Wiinsche see traces of Lk. ix. 1-6 and x. 4-21 in Vid. xi.; but this chapter might easily have stood as it does if Luke had never written. Yet there is enough in what has been quoted above to establish the fact of the influence of Luke on the Didaché. It is generally admitted that the fragment of the Gospel of Peter suffices to show that the writer of that apocryphal narrative was acquainted with all four of the Canonical Gospels. But it will be worth while to quote some of the expressions and state- ments which have a marked resemblance to Luke in particular. GOSPEL OF PETER. 4. Πειλᾶτος πέμψας πρὸς ‘Hpddnv. 5. καὶ σάββατον ἐπιφώσκει. 10. ἤνεγκον δύο κακούργους. 13. εἷς δέ τις τῶν κακούργων ἐκείνων ὠνείδισεν αὐτούς, λέγων" ἡμεῖς διὰ τὰ κακὰ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν οὕτω πεπόνθαμεν, οὗτος δὲ σωτὴρ γενόμενος τῶν ἀνθρώπων τί ἠδίκησεν ἡμᾶς ; 15. ὁ ἥλιος ἔδυ. 28. ὁ λαὸς ἅπας γογγύζει καὶ κόπ- τεται τὰ στήθη. 34. πρωΐας δὲ ἐπιφώσκοντος τοῦ σαβ- βάτου. 36. δύο ἄνδρας κατελθόντας ἐκεῖθεν πολὺ φέγγος ἔχοντας. 50. ὄρθρου δὲ τῆς κυριακῆς... ἐπὶ τῷ μνήματι. 54. ἃ φέρομεν εἰς μνημοσύνην αὐτοῦ. Lk, xxlil., XxiVe 7. ἸΤειλᾶτος . « » ἀνέπεμψεν αὐτὸν πρὸς Ηρῴδην. 54. καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν. 32. ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο. 39. εἷς δὲ τῶν κρεμασθέντων κακούρ- γων ἐβλασφήμει αὐτόν... .. 41. ἄξια γὰρ ὧν ἐπράξαμεν ἀπολαμ- βάνομεν" οὗτος δὲ οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔπραξεν. 45. τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος. 48. πάντες οἱ συνπαραγενόμενοι ὄχλοι ..- τύπτοντες τὰ στήθη. 54. καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν. 4. ἄνδρες δύο ἐπέστησαν αὐταῖς ἐν ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ. Ι. τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέως ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα ἦλθαν φέρουσαι ἃ ἠτοίμασαν ἀρώματα. These resemblances, which are too close and too numerous to be accidental, are further emphasized when the parallel narratives Ixxviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 9. are compared. 5. Luke alone mentions the sending to Herod. He alone uses the expression σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν (contrast Mt. xxviii. 1).- He alone calls the two robbers κακοῦργοι. He alone tells us that ove of the robbers reviled, and that one contrasted the justice of their fate with the innocence of Jesus. He alone mentions the sun in connexion with the darkness. He alone speaks of αὐ the multitudes of spectators, and of their beating their breasts. He alone calls the two Angels at the tomb ἄνδρες (Mt. and Mk. mention only one), and calls the tomb μνῆμα ; and he alone uses φέρειν of the women bringing the spices. ‘There are other passages in which the Gospel of Peter resembles Luke with one or more of the other Gospels; but what has been quoted above is sufficient to show that the writer of the apocryphal gospel was influenced by 5. Luke’s narrative. It must be remembered that these ten coincidences are found within the compass of fifty- five verses, and that they are not exhaustive. The inscription on the cross, οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (11), is closer to that given by S. Luke, 6 β. τῶν *Iovdaiwy οὗτος (xxiii. 38), than to any of the other forms; and perhaps the words of the robber, σωτὴρ γενόμενος (see above, 13), are suggested by σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς (xxl. 39). The use of μεσημβρία for “midday” (15) is found in N.T. nowhere but Acts xxii. 6. The cry of the Jews after Christ’s death, (ere ὅτι πόσον δίκαιός ἐστιν (28), looks like an adaptation of the centurion’s confession, ὄντως 6 ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος ἣν (xxiil. 47); and perhaps ἐξηγήσαντο πάντα ἅπερ εἶδον (45) is an echo of ἐξηγοῦντο τὰ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (xxiv. 35). And, as already pointed out (§ 1), Pseudo-Peter always speaks of Jesus Christ as ὁ κύριος, a use which begins to be common in the Third Gospel. The evidence of another interesting document of about the same date is worth quoting. The Zestaments of the XII. Patri- archs is a Jewish Christian writing which almost certainly was composed between the two destructions of Jerusalem, A.D. 70 and 135. It shows marked traces of a knowledge of the Synoptic traditions and of S. Luke’s Gospel in particular. Some of the coincidences given below are probably the result of independent citation of the O.T. But the citation may have been suggested to the later writer by acquaintance with it in the Gospel narrative. TEsT. XII. PaTR, S. LUKE. οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐκ ἔπιον (Reubeni.). οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ (i. 153 Num. vi. 3). ἔγνων ὅτι δικαίως πάσχω (Sim. iv.). καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως (xxiii. 41). ἔσεσθε εὑρίσκοντες χάριν ἐνώπιον Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτεν . . . χάριτι παρὰ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων (Sim. v.). Θέῴ καὶ ἀνθρώποις (ii, 52; I Sam. ii. 26). § 9.] LITERARY ὁ Θεὸς σῶμα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν αὐτούς (Sim. vi.). ἀνεῴχθησαν οἱ Xviii.). περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (Lbzd.). ἕως ἐπισκέψηται Κύριος πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σπλάγχνοις υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος (Levi iv. ). συνετήρουν τοὺς λόγους τούτους ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου (Levi vi.). καίγε ἐκρυψα τοῦτο ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, καὶ οὐκ ἀνήγγειλα αὐτὸ παντὶ ἀν- θρώπῳ (Levi viii.). δύναμις Ὑψίστου (Levi xvi.). ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς τρομός (Judah iii. ). ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα Κυρίου καὶ ὑπακούειν ἐντόλας Θεοῦ (Judah xiii.). ἀνοιγήσονται ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν οἱ οὐρανοί, ἐκχέαι πνεῦμα, εὐλογίαν Πατρὸς ἁγίου (Judah xxiv.). οἱ ἐν πτωχείᾳ διὰ κύριον πλουτισ- θήσονται, καὶ οἱ ἐν πενιᾳ χορτασθή- σονται, καὶ οἱ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ ἰσχύσουσι (Judah χχν.). ἐπιστρέψει καρδίας Κύριον (Dan v.). οὐρανοί (Levi ii., ἀπειθεῖς πρὸς καὶ ἐὰν ὁμολογήσας μετανοήσῃ ἄφες αὐτῷ (Gad vi.). kal αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν ws ἄνθρωπος, ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (Asher vii.), See above, Sim. vi. HISTORY lxxix συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς (xv. 2) comp. ouve- φάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν αὐτῳ (Acts π᾿ 41): ἀνεωχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν (ill, 21 ; Is. Ixiv. I). αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων λυγροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (xxiv. 21). διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐν οἷς ἐπισκέψεται ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους (i. 78). συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα Tatra... ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς (ii. 19 ; comp. ii. 51). καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐσίγησαν καὶ οὐδενὶ ἀπήγ- γείλαν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ὧν ἑώρακαν (ix. 36). δύναμις Ὑψίστου (i. 35). φόβος ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν (i. 12; comp. Acts xix. 17). πορεύομενοι ἐν πάσαις Tats ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου (i. 6). ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κατα- βῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (11. 21, 22). μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, ὅτι ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. μακάριοι οἱ πει- νῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσονται (vi. 20, 21; Mt. ν. 3-6). ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίας πατέρων. ἐπὶ τέκνα" καὶ ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρονήσει δικαίων {Ξ 17; Male 1ν: π᾿): καὶ ἐὰν μετανοήσῃ, (xvii. 3). ἐλήλυθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔσθων καὶ πίνων (vii. 34; Mt. xi. 19). ἄφες αὐτῷ Besides these verbal coincidences there are many coincidences in thought, especially respecting the admission of the Gentiles to the Kingdom through the Messiah, who is the Saviour of all, Jew and Gentile alike. nations (Levi viii.). Naphtali iv., viii. ; Asher vii. ; Benjamin ix. “The Lord shall raise up from Levi a Priest, and from Judah a King, God and man. nations and the race of Israel” (Simeon vii.). from Judah and shall make a new priesthood... Comp. Judah XXIV. 5 He shall save all the “A King shall rise . unto all the Zebulon ix. ; Dan. vi. ; Moreover, there are passages which are very similar in meaning, although not in word- ing, to passages in Luke: comp. the end of Joseph xvii. with Lk. xvii. 27, and the beginning of Joseph xviii. with Lk. vi. 28. It is hardly necessary to trace the history of the Third Gospel in detail any further. It has been shown already (pp. xv—xvii) that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, the writer of the Clementine Homilies, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, knew the Third Gospel, and that Irenzus, the Ixxx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 10. Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others definitely assign it to S. Luke. In the second half of the second century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative ; and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized at a very much earlier date. The order of the Gospels has not always been the same. But, just as in the interpretation of the four symbolical creatures, the calf has uniformly been taken as indicating S. Luke, so in the arrangement of the Gospels his has almost invariably been placed third. The order with which we are familiar is the common order in most MSS. and Versions: but in D 594, abcdefff,igr and the Gothic Version, and in the Afostolic Constitutions, what is called the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) prevails. The obvious reason for it is to have the two Apostles together and before the other two Evangelists. In a few authorities other arrangements are found. X and the Latin & have John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, while 90 has John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and 399 John, Luke, Matthew. ‘The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. § 10. COMMENTARIES. A good and full list of commentaries on the Gospels is given by Dr. W. P. Dickson in the English translation of Meyer’s Com- mentary on S. Matthew, i. pp. xxiii—xliii and of commentaries on S. Mark and S. Luke in that of Meyer’s Commentary on S. Mark and S. Luke, i. pp. xiii-xvi. It will suffice to name a few of the chief works mentioned by him, especially those which have been in constant use during the writing of this commentary, and to add a few others which have appeared since Dr. Dickson published his lists (1877, 1880), or for other reasons were omitted by him.! Of necessity the selection here given in many cases corresponds with that in the volume on Romans by Dr. Sanday and Mr. Headlam; and the reader is referred to that (pp. xcix—cix) for excellent remarks on the characteristics of the different com- mentaries, which need not be repeated here. 1. GREEK WRITERS. OrIGEN (Orig.); ἵ 253. Homiliex in Lucam in Origenis Opp. ed. Delarue, iii. 932; Lommatzsch, v. 85; Migne, xiii. 1801, 1902. ‘These thirty-nine short Homilies are an early work, and have been preserved in the Latin translation made by Jerome. A few fragments of the original Greek survive in the /Azlocalia (ed. 1 See also /ntroduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. P. J. Gloag, Τὶ ἃ Ὁ, Clark, 1895, and the literature quoted p. 209. 810.] COMMENTARIES ΙΧΧΧῚ J. A. Robinson, Camb. 1893) and elsewhere. The genuineness of these Homilies has been disputed, but is not doubtful. A sum- mary of the contents of each is given in Westcott’s article OrIGENES, D. Chr. Biog. iv. 113. The first twenty are on Lk. i, 1., and the next twelve on Lk. 11., iv., leaving the main portion of the Gospel almost untouched. Besides these there are frag- ments of notes in the original Greek, which have been preserved in Venice MS. (28, 394); Migne, xviii. 311-370. They extend over chapters 1.—xx. Eusesius of Czesarea (Eus.); + before 341. THis τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον in Migne, xxiv. 529. Only fragments remain: ΠΕ 1 15,0 16. 10.502; 35,038, ils 32. 4V.. £8, Vi.-18, 20, Vii. ‘2g, .30, Vili. 31, 43, ix. I, 3, 4, 7, 26, 28, 34, x. 6, 8, xi. 21, xii. 11, 22, 34, 36, 37, 42, 45, xiii. 20, 35, xiv. 18, xvii. 3, 23, 25-31, 34, 375 MyM 2; MAK. B25 TZ) 17, XX: 2. 3; ΧΕΙ 25, 20; 28--22. 36, xxil..30, 57, XXIV. 4. Cyrit of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.); + 444. Ἔξήγησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον in Migne, ΙΧΧΙ]. 475. Only portions of the original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this version into English (Oxford, 1859). The Syriac version shows that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the com- mentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writ- ings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation. The com- mentary is homiletic in form. THEOPHYLACT (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); fafter 1118. Migne, cxxiil. EvuTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS (Euthym.); tafter 1118. Migne, ΟΧΧΙΧ. 853. These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but do not follow slavishly, and are far superior to medizval Latin commentaries. ‘The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of Bengel. 2. LATIN WRITERS. AmBrosE (Ambr.); +397. Zxpositio Evang. sec. Lucam ; Migne, xv. 1525. Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched : 2” verbis ludit, in sententiis dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Hom. Orig. in Luc.). EUCHERIUS; +449 or 450. Luber instructionum in Luce Evang. ; Migne, 1. 799. ARNOBIUS JUNIOR; {after 460. Annotationes ad quedam LEvangeliorum loca; Migne, lil. 570, 578. Ὁ Ixxxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. PaTerius of Brescia; friend of Gregory the Great. He col- lected from the writings of Gregory an L£xfositio Vet. et Μοῦ. Test., of which Book III. is a catena of Passages on S. Luke; Migne, Ixxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk ALULF made a similar collection ; Migne, lxxix. 1199. None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. ‘The extracts from Gregory are mainly from the AZora/ia or commentary on Job, full of allegorical interpretation. ΒΕΡΕ, the Venerable; +735. Ju Lucam Exp. Libri ΓΑ; Migne, xcii. 307, Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, v. 217. The character of the work may be given in his own words: “I have made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to com- pile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret accord- ing to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these following pieces ”—and he gives a list of his writings (1. 25. sud jin. See also the Prol. in Marc.). This commentary is far superior to those just mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert. SEDULIUS Scotus; { ¢ 830. A mere compiler, often from Origen; Migne, cili. 27. WALAFRID StTRaBus of Reichenau ; + 849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter ; Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous. We may pass over with bare mention CHRISTIANUS DRUTHMARUS; ὦ 850; Migne, cvi. 1503: BRUNO ASTENSIS; ¢ 1125; Migne, clxv. 33: and PETRus CoMESTOR ; ὦ 1180; Migne, cxevill. 1537. Tuomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus; +1274. xpositio continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary of patristic theological teaching. Of. ed. Venet. iv. 5 ; translated Oxford, 1845. ALBERTUS Macnus of Ratisbon; 1280. 3. REFORMATION AND PosT-REFORMATION WRITERS. Erasmus, Desiderius; +1536. Adnotationes in N.T., 1516; Paraphrases, 1522. BuTzER or Bucer, Martin; ¢1551. J sacra quatuor Evan- gelia Enarrationes, 1551. Catvin, John; 7 1564. Jn harmoniam ex Matt. Marc. et Luc. compositam Commentarit, 1553; Brunsvige, 1868; translated by the Calvin Trans. Society, 1842; strong and independent. Breza, Theodore; +1605. . Adnotationes in N.T., 1565, 1504. Grotius (Huig van Groot); +1645. Adnotationes in N.T., 1644. Arminian ; an early attempt to apply philological principles § 10.] COMMENTARIES | lxxxiii (learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible ; still useful. Hammonb, Henry ; + 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; “the Father of English Commentators.” Paraphrase and Annota- tions of the N.T., 1653, 1845; “reveals genuine exegetical tact and learning.” Biblical paraphrase is of English origin. One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period require mention. CaJETAN, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio) ; +1534; a Dominican. 771 guatuor Evang. et Acta Apost. Commentarit, 1543. Under pressure from Luther (1518) he became considerably emancipated from patristic and scholastic influence. MaLponatus, Joannes (Maldon.); +1583; a Spanish Jesuit. Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. K. Martin (condensed) 1850. Admirable of its kind: he rarely shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by Hodges. CorRNELIUS A LAPIDE (van Stein); +1637; ἃ Jesuit. Comm. in guatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the whole Bible. A voluminous compilation, including much allegory and legend; devout and often edifying, but sometimes puerile. English translation of the Comm. on S. Luke, Hodges, 1887. Escopar Y MeEnposa, Antonio; +1669; a Spanish Jesuit, whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. Jn Evangelia sanctorum et temporis commentarit, 1637. Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the present age. BENGEL, Johann Albrecht (Beng.); 1751. Gnomon N.T., 1742. A masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, -and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, Clark, 1857. WETSTEIN, Johann Jacob (Wetst.); +1754. ov. Test. Grecum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest service to all subsequent students of N.T. 4. MopDERN WRITERS. SCHLEIERMACHER, Fried. Dan. Ernst; 1834; Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, 1817. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 1825. BoRNEMANN, Fried. August.; +1850. Scholia in Luce Evan- gelium, 1830. Ixxxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 10. De Werte, Wilh. Mart. L.; 71849. a τῷ Δαυεὶδ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος, The hymn falls into four strophes, 46-48, 49 and 50, 51-53, 54 and 55.1° 46. Μεγαλύνει ἣ ψυχή μου τὸν κύριον. The verb is used in the literal sense of “ enlarge,” Mt. xxii. 5: comp. Lk.i. 58. More often, as here, in the derived sense of “esteem great, extol, magnify ” (Acts v. 13, X. 46, xix. 17). So also in class. Grk. Weiss goes too far when he contends that “distinctions drawn between ψυχή and πνεῦμα have absolutely no foundation in N.T. usage” (sind gdnzlich unbegriindet) ; but it is evident that no distinction is to be made here. The ψυχή and the πνεῦμα are the immaterial part of man’s nature as opposed to the body or the flesh. [1 15 in her inner, higher life, in her_real_self, that Mary blesses God in jubilation. If a distinction were made here, we ought to have μεγαλύνει TO πνεῦμά μου and ἠγαλλίασεν ἣ ψυχή pov, for the πνεῦμα is the seat of the religious life, the ψυχή of the emotions. See Lft. Notes on the Epp. of S. Paul, p. 88, 1895, and the literature there quoted, esp. Olshausen, Ofwsc. p. 157. 47. ἠγαλλίασεν. A word formed by Hellenists from ἀγάλλομαι, and freq. in UXX (Ps. xv. 9; ΧΙ. 12, Ixix. 55 Is. xxxv. 2; Jer. xlix. 4). The act. is rare ; perhaps only here and Rev. xix. 7; but as v./, I Pet. i. 8. The aor. may refer to the occasion of the angelic visit. But it is the Greek idiom to use the aor. in many cases in which we use the perf., and then it is mis- leading to translate the Grk. aor. by the Eng. aor. Moreover, in late Grk. NPs Ibowobe ΤΙς 2 Job xii. 19. Ϊ Jan Seman 11:} ἡ. ΡῈ: ὅν: OF θ᾽ ΞΕ ἘΠῚ 9: 7 Ps. xcvili. 3. 8 Mic. vii. 20. 92 Sam. xx 51. 10 On the structure of Hebrew poetry, see Driver, Literature ο) the O.T. pp. 338-345, T. & T. Clark, 1891. On the use of the A/agnzfcat, first at Lauds in the Gallican Church, from A.D. 507, and then at Vespers on Saturday in the Sarum Breviary, see Blunt, Annotated Prayer-Book, 3 Job v. II. 39 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [I. 47-51. the distinction between aor. and perf. had become less sharp. Simcox, Lang. of N.T. pp. 103-106. τῷ Θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί pou. He is the Saviour of Mary as well as of her fellows. She probably included the notion of external and political deliverance, but not to the exclusion of spiritual salvation. For the expression comp. 1 Tim. i. I, ii. 3; Tit. 1. 3, u. ΤΟΙ mL 45 Jude 25; Ps. xxili. 5, cvi. 21. In the Ps. Sol. we have *AAyGea τῶν δικαίων παρὰ Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτῶν (ill. 7); and ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐλπιοῦμεν ἐπὶ Θεὸν τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν (xvil. 3). Comp. Ps. SoZ. vill. 39, XVi. 4. 48. ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αὐτοῦ. Comp. Hannah’s prayer for a child 1 Sam. 1. 11. In spite of her humble position as a carpenter’s bride, Mary had been chosen for the highest honour that a human being could receive. For ταπείνωσις comp. Acts vill. 33 (from Is. lili. 8) and Phil. iii. 21 ; and for ἰδεῖν τὴν ταπείνωσιν comp. 2 Kings xiv. 26 and Ps. xxv. 18. This use of ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπί is freq. in LXX (Ps. xxv. 16, lxix. 16, cil. 19, CxIX. 122. ΘΕ): 2See (esp: 1 oam1x. τὸ ἰδοὺ yap ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσίν pe πᾶσαι at yeveat. For ἰδοὺ γάρ see on ver. 42, and for ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν see on v. το. Elisabeth had begun this μακαρίζειν, and we have another instance in the woman from the crowd (xi. 27). Note the wide difference between the scope of Mary’s prophecy, μακαριοῦσιν πᾶσαι at yeveot, and Leah’s statement of fact, μακαρίζουσίν με πᾶσαι ai γυναῖκες (Gen. ck. 18): The Latin renderings of ἀπὸ rod νῦν are interesting: ex hoc (Vulg.), a modo (d), a nunc (Cod. Gall.). 49, ὅτι ἐποίησέν μοι μεγάλα ὁ δυνατός. Here the second strophe begins. The reading μεγαλεῖα may come from Acts 11. 11: comp. ἃ ἐποίησας μεγαλεῖα (Ps. Ιχχ. 19). With 6 δυνατός comp. δύναμις Ὑψίστου (ver. 35) and Κύριος κραταιὸς καὶ δυνατός (Ps. xxiil. 8). In LXX δυνατός is very common, but almost invariably of men. After both δυνατός and αὐτοῦ we should place a colon. The clause καὶ ἅγιον TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 15 a separate sentence, neither dependent upon the preceding ὅτι, nor very closely connected with what follows. 560. καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς Kal γενεὰς τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν. Comp. Ps. Sol. x. 4, καὶ τὸ ἔλεος Κυρίου ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληθειᾳ, καὶ μνησθήσεται Κύριος τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐλέει : also ΧΙ]. 11, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ὁσίους τὸ ἔλεος κυρίου, καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμέ- vous αὐτὸν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ. With εἰς γενεὰς x. y. Comp. εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν (Is. Xxxiv. 17), εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν (Ps. Ixxxix. 2), and κατὰ γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν (1 Mac. ii. 61). ‘‘ Fearing God” is the O.T. description of piety. Nearly the whole verse comes from Ps. ὉΠ τ ἢ: 51. “Εποιήσεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ, διεσκόρπισεν, κιτ.λ. Begin- ning of the third strophe. The six aorists in it are variously explained. I. 51-54. | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 33 1. They tell of things which the Divine power and holiness and mercy (vv. 49, 50) have already accomplished in the past. 2. According to the common prophetic usage, they speak of the future as already past, and tell of the effects to be preduced by the Messiah as if they had been produced. 3. They are gnomic, and express God’s normal acts. We may set aside this last. It is very doubtful whether the aor. is ever used of what is normal or habitual (Win. xl. 5. b, I, p. 346). Of the other two explanations, the second is to be preferred. It is more likely that Mary is thinking of the far- reaching effects of the blessing conferred upon herself than of past events un- connected with that blessing. In either case the six aorists must be translated by the English perfect. They show that in this strophe, as in the second, we have a triplet. There it was God’s power, holiness, and mercy. Here it is the contrasts between proud and humble, high and low, rich and poor. Both ἐποίησεν κράτος and ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ are Hebraisms. For the former comp. δεξιὰ Κυρίου ἐποίησεν δύναμιν (Ps. cxvili. 15). For βραχίων to express Divine power comp. Acts ΧΙ]. 17; Jn. xii. 38 (from Is. liii. 1); Ps. xliv. 3, xcviii. 1, etc. The phrase ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ καὶ ἐν βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ is freq. in LXX (Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vi. 21, xxvi. 8). This use of ἐν is in the main Hebraistic (xxii. 49; Rev. vi. 8; Judg. xv. 15, xx. 16; 1 Kings xii. 18; Judith vi. 12, viii. 33). Win. xviii. 3. d, p. 485. ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν. The dat. limits brepnddvous: they are proud and overweening in thought. In N.T. ὑπερήφανος is never ““conspicuous above” others, but always in a bad sense, ‘‘ looking down on” atners (Jas.av. Ὁ; 1 Pet: v. 5; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim: 1Π|: 2 It is freq. in LXX. Comp. Ps. Sol. 11. 35, κοιμίζων ὑπερηφάνους els ἀπώλειαν αἰώνιον ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ ; also iv. 28. See Wsctt. on I Jn. ii. 16, and Trench, Syz. xxix. 52. καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς. ‘He hath put down potentates from thrones.” ‘ Potentates” rather than “princes” (RV.), or “the mighty” (AV.), because of 1 Tim. vi. 15. Comp. δυνάσται Φαραώ (Gen. |. 4). In Acts viii. 27 it is an adj. It is probable that ταπεινούς here means primarily the oppressed poor as opposed to tyrannical rulers. See Hatch, BzbZical Greek, pp. 73-77. Besides the parallels given in the table (p. 31) comp. ἀναλαμβάνων πρᾳεῖς ὃ κύριος, ταπεινῶν δὲ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἕως τῆς γῆς (Ps. exlvii. 6); θρονοὺς ἀρχόντων καθεῖλεν ὃ κύριος, καὶ ἐκάθισεν πρᾳεῖς ἀντ᾽ αὐτῶν (Ecclus. x. 14); also Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14; Jas. i.9, 10. In Clem. Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have what looks like a paraphrase, but may easily come from O.T. 53. πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν. Both material and spiritual goods may be included. Comp. πλήρεις ἄρτων ἠλαττώθησαν, καὶ ἀσθενοῦντες παρῆκαν γῆν (τ Sam. il. 5); also Ps. Sol. v. 10-12, x. ἢ. 54. ᾿Αντελάβετο ᾿Ισραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ. The fourth strophe. The regular biblical meaning of ἀντιλαμβάνομαι is “lay hold of in order to support or succour” (Acts xx. 35 ; Ecclus. ii. 6); hence ἀντίληψις is “succour, help” (1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Ps. xxi. 20, Ixxxiii. 8), and ἀντιλήπτωρ is “helper” (Ps. xviii. 3, liv. 6). There is no doubt that παιδὸς αὐτοῦ means “ His servant,” not “His son.” The children of God are called τέκνα or υἱοί, but not παῖδες. We have wats in the sense of God’s servant used of Israel or Jacob (Is. xli. 8, 9, xlii. 1, xliv. 1, 2, 21, xlv. 4); of David (Lk. i. 69; 3 7 34. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE he 54-56, Acts iv. 25; Ps. xvii. 1; Is. xxxvil’ 55); and “of Christ "(ets lil. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30). Comp. Ps. Sol. ΧΙ. 7, xvii. 23; Didaché, WKS 2519, X12, 2: μνησθῆναι ἐλέους. “50 as to remember mercy,” Ze. to prove that He had not forgotten, as they might have supposed. Comp. Ps. Sol. x. 4, καὶ μνησθήσεται Κύριος τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐλέει. 55. καθὼς ἐλάλησεν πρός. “Βγεῃ as He spake unto”: see on vv. 2 and 13. ‘This clause is not a parenthesis, but explains the extent of the remembrance of mercy. RV. is the first English Version to make plain that τῷ “ABpadp, κιτιλ., depends upon μνησθῆναι and not upon ἐλάλησεν by rendering πρός “unto” and the dat. “toward.” ‘To make this still more plain, “As He spake unto our fathers” is put into a parenthesis, which is not necessary. The Genevan is utterly wrong, “(Even as He promised to our fathers, fo wz, to Abraham and his sede) for ever.” It is im- probable that Lk. would use both πρός and the simple dat. after ἐλάλησεν in the same sentence; or that he means to say that God spoke to Abraham’s seed for ever. The phrase eis τὸν αἰῶνα is common in the Psalms, together with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (Heb. i. 8) and εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος. It means “unto the age,” 26. the age κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the age of the Messiah. The belief that whatever is allowed to see that age will continue to exist in that age, makes εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα equivalent to ‘‘for ever.” This strophe, like ver. 72, harmonizes with the doctrine that Abraham is still alive (xx. 38), and is influenced by what takes place in the development of God’s kingdom on earth (Jn. viii. 56; comp. Heb. Mi ry) Nis) xix 25, 25) For εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ACF MS here have ἕως αἰῶνος (1 Chron. xvii. 16; Ezek. xxv. 15), which does not occur in N.T. 56. Ἔμεινεν δὲ Μαριὰμ σὺν αὐτῇ. Lk. greatly prefers σύν to pera. He uses σύν much more often than all N.T. writers put together. In his Gospel we find him using σύν where the parallel passage in Mt. or Mk. has μετά or καί; e.g. vill. 38, 51, XX. I, XXll. 14, 56. We have σύν three times in these first two chapters ; here, 11. 5 and 13. It is not likely that an interpolator would have caught all these minute details in Lk.’s style: see Introd. § 6. ὡς μῆνας τρεῖς. This, when compared with μὴν ἕκτος (ver. 36), leads us to suppose that Mary waited until the birth of John the Baptist. She would hardly have left when that was imminent. Lk. mentions her return before mentioning the birth in order to complete one narrative before beginning another; just as he mentions the imprisonment of the Baptist before the Baptism of the Christ in order to finish his account of John’s ministry before beginning to narrate the ministry of Jesus (ill. 20, 21). ‘That Mary is not named in wv. 57, 58 is no evidence that she was not I. 66, 567.) ΤΗΕ GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 35 ~ present. It would be unnatural to say that one of the ..dusehold heard of the event; and, in fact, ot συγγενεῖς would include her, whether it is intended to do so or not. Origen, Ambrose, Bede, and others believe that she remained until the birth of John. For the patristic arguments for and against see Corn. a Lap. Lk. leaves us in doubt, probably because his authority left him in doubt; but Didon goes too far in saying that Lk. insinuates that she was not present.! For this use of ws comp. viii. 42 (not ii. 37); Actsi. 15, v. 7, 36. Lk. more often uses ὡσεί in this sense (iii. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59, xxili. 44; Acts li. 41, etc.). In ὑπέστρεψεν we have another very favourite word which runs through both Gospel and Acts. It does not occur in the other Gospels, and is found elsewhere only Gal. i. 17 and Heb. vii. 1. Meyer rightly remarks that ‘‘the historical character of the Visitation of Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation.” The arguments against it are very inconclusive. 1. That it does not harmonize with Joseph’s dream in Mt. i. 20; which has been shown to be incorrect. 2. That there is no trace elsewhere of great intimacy between the two families ; which proves absolutely nothing. 3. That the obvious purpose of the narrative is to glorify Jesus, in making the unborn Baptist acknowledge Him as the Messiah; which is mere assertion. 4. That the poetic splendour of the narrative lifts it out of the historical sphere ; which implies that what is expressed with great poetic beauty cannot be historically true,—a canon which would be fatal to a great deal of historical material. We may assert oi this narrative, as of that of the Annuncia- tion, that no one in the first or second century could have imagined either. Least of all could any one have given us the J/agnzficat,—‘‘ the most magni- ficent cry of Joy that has ever issued from a human breast.” Nothing that has come down to us of that age leads us to suppose that any writer could have composed these accounts without historic truth to guide him, any more than an architect of that age could have produced Milan cathedral. Comp. the Pro¢- evangelium of James xil.—xiv.; the Pseudo-Matthew ix —xii.; the Hest. of Joseph the Carpenter iii.-vi. 57-80. Zhe Birth and Circumcision of the: Forerunner. 57. ἐπλήσθη ὁ χρόνος τοῦ τέκειν αὐτήν. Expressions about time or days being fulfilled are found chiefly in these two chapters in N.T. (ver. 23, il. 6, 21, 22). They are Hebraistic: e.g. érAnpo- θησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τέκειν αὐτήν (Gen. xxv. 24; comp. xxix. 21 ; Lev. ΧΙ. 4,6; Num. vi. 5, etc.). And rod réxew is gen. after 6 χρόνος. 1Didon has some excellent remarks on the poetical portion of this narrative. La podsze est le langage des impressions véhémentes et des ζωὸς sublimes. Chez les Juifs, comme chez tous les peuples d Orient, elle jaillatt @inspiration. Tout Ame est pocte, la 7016 ou la douleur la fatt chanter. Si jamais un coeur a adi faire explosion dans quelque hymne inspirée, Cest bien celut de la jeune fille élue de Dieu pour étre la mere du Messie. Lille emprunte ἃ (histoire biblique des femmes gut, avant elle, ont tressaillt dans leur maternité, comme Liah et la mére de Samuel des expressions gu elle largit et transfigure. Les hymnes nationaux qui célebrent la glotre de son peuple, la mtséricorde, la puissance, la sagesse et la fidélité de Dieu, reviennent sur ses levres habituées a les chanter (Jésus Christ, p. 112, ed. 1891). The whole passage is worth consulting. 36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 57-62. ἐμεγάλυνεν Κύριος τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ pet αὐτῆς. The verb is not used in the same sense as in ver. 46, nor yet quite literally as in Mt. xxili..5, but rather “made conspicuous,’ "2.6. bestowed con- spicuous mercy. Comp. ἐμεγάλυνας τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου (Gen. xix. 19). The per αὐτῆς does not mean that she co-operates with God, but that He thus deals with her. Comp. ver. 72, x. 37, and εἴδετε ἃ ἐμεγάλυνεν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν (1 Sam. ΧΙ]. 24). In συνέχαιρον αὐτή we have the first beginning of the fulfilment of ver. 14. Τί means “rejoiced with her” (xv. 6, 9; 1 Cor. xi. 26); τ Ὁ than “congratulated her” (Phil. ii. 17). 59. ἦλθαν περιτεμεῖν τὸ παιδίον. The nom. must be under- stood from the context, amici ad eam rem advocati, viz. some of those mentioned ver. 58. Circumcision might be performed anywhere and by any Jew, even by a woman (Exod. iy. 25). On the mixture of first and second aorist in such forms as ἦλθαν, ἔπεσα, εἴδαμεν, ἀνεῖλαν, etc., see Win. ΧΙ]. I. a, p. 86; WH. ii. App. p. 164; and comp. ver. 61, 11- 16, v. 7, 26, Vi. 17, Vil. 24, xl. 2, 52, xxil. 523 Acts 11. 23, ΧΙ]. 7, XVI. 37, XX. 7, etc. ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, Not merely “they wished to call, “but “they began to call, were calling” ; comp...v. G3; Acts vi. 26; Mit. uit... The vcustemimon com- bining the naming with circumcision perhaps arose from Abram being changed to Abraham when circumcision was _ instituted. Rae after the father was common among the Jews: (Jos. Vita, 3) Ani. xiv. 1. 3). Hor the ἐπί comp: colar ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματι αὐτῶν (Neh. Vii. 63). 60. κληθήσεται ᾿Ιωάνης. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that the name had been divinely revealed to her, or that she chose it herself to express the boon which God had bestowed upon her. Zacharias would naturally tell her in writing what had taken place in the temple. With καλεῖται τῷ ὀνόματι Comp. ΧΙΧ. 2. 62. ἐνένευον. Here only in N.T., but we have νεύω similarly used Acts xxiv. ro and Jn. xii. 24. Comp. ἐννεύει ὀφθαλμῷ, σημαίνει δὲ ποδί, διδάσκει δὲ ἐννεύμασιν δακτύλων (Prov. vi. 13), and ὁ ἐννεύων ὀφθαλμοῖς μετὰ δόλου (Proy. x. 10). Some infer that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb; and this is often the meaning of κωφός (ver. 22), viz. “ b/unted in speech or hearing, or both” (vil. 22). But the question is not worth the amount of discussion which it has received. τὸ τί ἄν θέλοι. The art. turns the whole clause into a sub- stantive. ‘They communicated by signs ¢he guestion, what he,” etc. Comp. Rom. vii. 26; 1 Thes.. iv. 1; Mt xx, τὸ. Dieiiaa serves the purpose of marks of quotation. This use of τό with a sentence, and especially with a question, is common in Lk. (ix. 46, xix. 48, xxil. 2, 49/23, 24, 37; Acts iv. 21, xxii, 30); tere I. 62-65. ] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY a7 the dv: ‘‘ what he would Jerhaps wish, might wish.” We have exactly the same use of dy Jn. xiii. 24; comp. Lk. vi. 11; Acts v. 24, xxi. 33. Win. xlil. 4, p. 386. 63. αἰτήσας πινακίδιον. Postulans pugillarem (Vulg.), cum petis- set tabulam (4). Of course by means of signs, ἐννεύμασιν δακτύλων. One is inclined to conjecture that Lk. or his authority accidentally put the evvevew in the wrong place. Signs must have been used here, and they are not mentioned. They need not have been used ver. 62, and they are mentioned. The πινακίδιον would probably be a tablet covered with wax: loguitur in stylo, auditur tn cera (Tert. De idol. xxiii.). All four forms, πίναξ, πινακίς, πινάκιον, and πινακίδιον, are used of writing- tablets, and πινακίδα is v./.(D) here. But elsewhere in N.T. πίναξ is a ‘‘ dish” or “ platter” (xi. 39; Mt. xiv. 8,11; Mk. vi. 25, 28). Note the Hebraistic particularity in ἔγραψεν λέγων, and comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Mac. x. 17, xl. 57. This is the first mention of writing in N.T. ᾿Ιωάνης ἐστὶν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. Not ἔσται, but ἐστίν : habet vocabulum suum quod agnovimus, non quod elegimus (Bede) ; guasi dicat nullam superesse consultationem in re quam Deus jam definitsset (Grotius) ; non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat (Beng.). The ἐθαύμασαν πάντες may be used on either side of the question of his deafness. They wondered at his agreeing with Elisabeth, although he had not heard her choice of name; or, they wondered at his agreeing with her, although he had heard the discussion. 64. ἀνεώχθη δὲ τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ παραχρῆμα. The prophecy which he had refused to believe was now accomplished, and the sign which had been granted to him as a punishment is withdrawn. That the first use of his recovered speech was to continue blessing God (ἐλάλει εὐλογῶν), rather than to complain, is evidence that the punishment had proved a blessing to him. ‘The addition of καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ involves a zeugma, such as is common in all lan- Biases comp. 1 Cor ni 2; Ὁ Vim: iv. 2; Win. xvi. r: e, p. 777: The Complutensian Bible, on the authority of two cursives (140, 251), inserts διηρθρώθη after ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ: see on 11. 22. For παραχρῆμα see on v. 25 and comp. iv. 29. We are left in doubt as to whether ἐλάλει εὐλογῶν refers to the Lenedictus or to some εὐλογία which preceded it. The use of ἐπροφήτευσεν and not εὐλόγησεν in ver. 67 does not prove that two distinct acts of thanks- giving are to be understood. 65. ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος. See on iv. 36. Zacharias (ver. 12) and Mary (ver. 30) had had the same feeling when conscious of the | nearness of the spiritual world. A writer of fiction would have been more likely to dwell upon the joy which the wonderful birth of the future Prophet produced; all the more so as such joy had been predicted (ver. 14). The αὐτούς means Zacharias and Elisabeth. 28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 65, 66. διελαλεῖτο πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα. This need not be confined to what was sazd at the circumcision of John. It is probably the Hebraistic use of ῥήματα for the things which are the subject- matter of narration. Comp. 1]. 19, 51, “where RV. has “sayings” in the text and “things” in the margin; and Acts v. 32, where it has “things” in the text and “sayings” in the margin. Comp. LXX, Gén. xv: 1, xxi. 1, 16, xxix. 7, xl 1, ΣΙΝ 1, andgesm χχῖν. 66, πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐποίησεν. The verb διαλαλεῖν occurs only here and vi. 11: not in LXX, but in Sym. several times in the Psalms. 66. ἔθεντο πάντες of ἀκούσαντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῶν. Comp. ii. 19. We find all three prepositions with this phrase, ἐν, ἐπὶ, and eis: ἔθετο Δαυεὶδ τὰ ῥήματα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ (τ Sam. xxi. 12); ἔθετο ἈΝ ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ (Dan. i. 8) ; τίθεσθε εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν (Mal. ii. 2). Lk. is fond of constructions with ὃν ΤῊ Κ' or ὃν ταῖς x. (il. 19, ill. 15, v. 22, xxi. 143 comp. lil. 51, xxiv. 38). In Hom. we have both θεῖναί τι and θέσθαι τι, either ἐν φρεσί or ἐν στήθεσσι. Note that, not only is πᾶς or ἅπας a favourite word with Lk., but either form combined with a participle of ἀκούω is also freq. and characteristic (ii. 18, 47, iv. 28, vi. 47, Vil. 29, xx. 453 Acts v. 5, BARS Bits se WL, ΚΕ νΙ: 29 ; comp. Acts iv. 4. xviii. 8). See on vi. 30. Ti dpa τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο ἔσται; Not ris; the neut. makes the question more indefinite and comprehensive: comp. τὲ dpa ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο (Acts xii. 18). The dpa, zgz¢ur, means ‘‘in these circumstances” ; viii. 25, xii. 42, x25 kat γὰρ χεὶρ Κυρίου ἦν pet αὐτοῦ. ‘For besides all that,” Ze. in addition to the marvels which attended his birth. This is a remark of the Evangelist, who is wont now and then to interpose in this manner: comp: i. 50, iL) ΤῈ; vil. 20: xvi. 24, sane xxill. 12. The recognition that John was under special Divine influence caused the question, τί ἄρα ἔσται; to be often repeated in after times. Here, as in Acts xi. 21, χεὶρ Κυρίου is followed by pera, and the meaning is that the Divine power interposes to guide and bless. See small print on i. 20 for other parallels between Gospel and Acts. Where the preposition which follows is ἐπί, the Divine interposition is generally one of punishment (Acts xii. 11; Judg. ἢ. τὸ; x Sam. ν. 2; 6, vi. 135 Exod. ‘vil. 4, (5); Βπ| ΕπΡ τ by no means always the case (2 Kings iii. 15; Ezra vii. 6, viii. 22, 31); least of all where χείρ has the epithet ἀγαθή (Ezra vii. 9, 28, vii. 18). In N.T. χεὶρ Κυρίου is peculiar to Lk. (Acts Kl 21, Kill) τῦ: company. 28. 59) 67-79. The Benedictus οὐ Song of Zacharias may be the ed- λογιά mentioned in ver. 64.1 To omit it there, in order to continue the narrative without interruption, and to give it as a solemn conclusion, would be a natural arrangement. As the J/agnificat is modelled on the psalms, so the exedictus is modelled on the 1 Like most of the canticles, the Bemedictus was originally said at Lauds: and it is still said at Lauds, in the Roman Church daily, in the Greek Church on special occasions. See footnote on p. 67. I. 66.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 39 prophecies, and it has been called “the last prophecy of the Old Dispensation and the first in the New.” And while the tone of the Magnificat is regal, that of the Benedictus is sacerdotal. The one is as appropriate to the daughter of David as the other to the son of Aaron. seen in a table. THE BENEDICTUS. Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος 6 Θεὸς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ, ὅτι ἐπεσκέψατο καὶ ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν ἐν οἴκῳ Δαυεὶδ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἐλάλησεν διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν αὐτοῦ σωτηρίαν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς, ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὐτοῦ, ὅρκον ὃν ὥμοσεν πρὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν, τοῦ δοῦναι ἡμῖν ἀφόβως ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ῥυσθέντας λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἡμῶν. Καὶ σὺ δέ, παιδίον, προφήτης ᾿γψίστου κληθήση, προπορεύσῃ γὰρ ἐνώπιον ἸΚυρίου ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ, τοῦ δοῦναι γνῶσιν σωτηρίας τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀφέσει ἁμαρτίων, διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἐκ come ἐν οἷς ἐπισκέψεται ἡμᾶς 5 Ue ey ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους, ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένοις τοῦ κατευθῦναι τοὺς πόδας ἡμῶν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰρήνης. There is a manifest break at the end of ver. 75. The relation between new and old may again be THE O1D TESTAMENT. 1 Ἡὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ. 3 λύτρωσιν ἀπέστειλεν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. ἐκεῖ ἐξανατελῶ κέρας τῷ Δαυείδ. 4 ἀνατελεῖ κέρας παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραήλ. ὅ ὑψώσει κέρας Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ. 3 6 ἔσωσεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ χειρῶν μισούντων καὶ ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθροῦ. 7 δώσει εἰς ἀλήθειαν τῷ ᾿Ιακώβ, ἔλεον τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ, καθότι ὥμοσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν. 8 ἐμνήσθη τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ. 9 ἐμνήσθη ὁ Θεὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ τῆς πρὸς ᾿Αβραάμ, καὶ ᾿Ισαάκ, καὶ Ἰακώβ. 10 ὅπως στήσω τὸν ὅρκον μου, ὃν ὥμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν, τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι. U ἐμνήσθη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διαθήκης αὐτοῦ λόγου οὗ ἐνετείλατο εἰς χιλίας γενεάς, ὃν διέθετο τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ, καὶ τοῦ ὅρκου αὐτοῦ τῷ Ἰσαάκ. 15 ᾿γὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου 18 ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου. 14 καθημένους ἐν σκότει. 18 οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκίᾳ θανάτου φῶς λάμψει ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. 16 καθημένους ἐν σκότει καὶ σκίᾳ θανάτου. The first of these two portions thus separated may be divided into three 1 Ps. xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, cvi. 48. alhizekeexnix. 21, Salam 11. LO. ΒΈΡΕ, ὌΨΙ. 45. ® Exod. ii. 24. 12 Mal. iii. 1. ΡΞ ΕΙΣ ΟΣ 16 ῬΕΣ ΟΥ̓. ΤΌ; ἘΠ ΒΞ ΟΣ1: Ὁ: WIPSS ον, ΤῸ: Dera xa 15% He Tis, Sabb, 97, 2 Ps) Ckexi. τῆς 7 Mic. vii. 20. EES CY.) 65,0; STs, ix. 1. 40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1. 66-70. strophes (68, 69; 70-72; 73-75), and the second int» two (76, 7 5 70). 67. ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ ἐπροφήτευσεν. See on ver. 15. The prophesying must not be confined to the prediction of the future ; it is the delivery of the Divine message ; speaking under God’s influence, and in His Name. Zacharias sees in his son the earnest and guarantee of the deliverance of Israel. In some texts ἐπροφήτευσεν has been altered into the more regular προεφή- revoev, but everywhere in N.T. (even Jude 14) the augment should precede the prep. in this compound. This is intelligible, seeing that there is no simple verb φητεύω. Comp. Num. xi. 25, 26; Ecclus. xliii. 13, and the similar forms ἤφιεν and ἤνοιξεν. Win. xii. 5, p. 84. 68. Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Tod ᾿Ισραήλ. Not ἐστίν but εἴη is to be supplied. The line is verbatim as Ps. xli. 14, lxxil. 18, cvi. 48, excepting that in LXX τοῦ is omitted. In N.T. εὐλογητός is used of God, but never of men: see on ver. 42. In LXX there are a few exceptions: Deut. vil. 14; Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13, ROG 22. ἐπεσκέψατο καὶ ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῴ aw αὐτοῦ. Here, as in Ecclus. xxxii. 17, an acc. is to be supplied after ἐπεσκέψατο ; there τὸν ταπεινόν, here tov λαόν. See on vil. 16. Excepting Heb. ii. 6, where it is a quotation from Ps. viii. 5, this verb is used in the Hebrew sense (Exod. iv. 31) of Divine visitation by Lk. alone in N.T. Comp. Ps. SoZ. iti. 14. No doubt λύτρωσιν has reference to political redemption (ver. 71), but accompanied by and based upon a moral and spiritual reformation (vv. 75, 77). Comp. IPS. GxxIx, 7. 69. καὶ ἤγειρεν κέρας σωτηρίας ἡμῖν. For this use of ἐγείρω comp. ἤγειρεν Κύριος σωτῆρα τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ (Judg. ili. 9, 15). In Ezek. xxix. 21 and Ps. cxxxii. 17 the verb used is ἀνατέλλω or ἐξανατέλλω (see table). ‘The metaphor of the horn is very freq. in O.T. {τ Sam. it to; 2 Sam. xxi..3; Psiiexv. 5,.6, ΤΠ ete; ame is taken neither from the horns of the altar, nor from the peaks of helmets or head-dresses, but from the horns of animals, especially bulls. It represents, therefore, primarily, neither safety nor dignity, but strength. The wild-ox, wrongly called “unicorn” in AV., was proverbial for strength (Num. xxiv. 22; Job xxxix. 9-11; Deut. xxxill. 17). In Horace we have addis cornua paupert, and in Ovid tum pauj,er cornua sumit. In Ps. xviii. 3 God is called a κέρας σωτηρίας. See below on ver. 71. For παιδὸς αὐτοῦ see on ver. 54. “In the house of His servant David” is all the more true if Mary was of the house of David. But the fact that Jesus was the heir of Joseph is sufficient, and this verse is no proof of Mary’s descent from David. 70. Second strophe. Like ver. 55, this is not a parenthesis, but determines the preceding statement more exactly. As a priest, 1. 70-74. | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 41 Zacharias would be familiar with O.T. prophecies. Even if the τῶν before az’ αἰῶνος (A C D) were genuine, it would be unlikely that τῶν ἁγίων means “the saints” in app. with τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν. Lk. is fond of the epithet ἅγιος (ver. 72, ix. 26; Acts lll. 21, x. 22, xxi. 28). He is also fond of the periphrasis διὰ στόματος (Acts i= FO,) 1|1: 18, 21, Iv. 25): comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. And the expression ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος 15 peculiar to him in N.T. (Acts ii. 21, xv. 18). It is used vaguely for “of old time.” Here it does not mean that there have been Prophets “since the world began.” Comp. ot γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος (Gen. vi. 4), and ἘΠ καὶ καταφέγγει τοὺς ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος ῥήτορας (Longin. xxxiv.), and adverbially (Hes. Zheog. 609). 71. σωτηρίαν ἐξ ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν. This is in app. with κέρας σωτηρίας and epexegetic of it. That the ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν and τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς are identical is clear from Ps. xvi. 18 and cvi. 10 (see table). The heathen are meant. Gentile domination prevents the progress of God’s kingdom, and the Messiah will put an end to this hindrance. Comp. Exod. xviii. το. . Neither σωτηρία (vv. 69, 77, xix. 9; Acts iv. 12, etc.) nor τὸ σωτήριον (11. 30, 11. 6; Acts xxvill. 28) occur in Mt. or Mk. The former occurs once in Jn. (iv. 22). Both are common in LXX. The primary meaning is preservation from bodily harm (Gen. xxvi. 31; 2 Sam. xix. 2), especially of the great occasions on which God had preserved Israel (Exod. xiv. 13, xv. 2; 2 Chron. xx. 17); and hence of the deliverance to be wrought by the Messiah (Is. xlix. 6, 8), which is the meaning here. Comp. τοῦ κυρίου 7 σωτηρία ἐπ᾽ οἶκον ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς εὐφροσύνην αἰώνιον (Ps. Sol. x. 9; and very similarly xii. 7). As the idea of the Messianic salvation became enlarged and purified, the word which so often expressed it came gradually to mean much the same as “eternal life.” See on Rom. i. 16, 72. ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετά, κιτλ. This is the purpose of ἤγειρεν κέρας. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12 ; Judg. Ivo vil. 35; Ruth i. 8; 1 Sam. xx. 8, etc.). Comp. per αὐτῆς, ver. 58. “In delivering us God purposed to deal mercifully with our fathers.” ‘This seems to imply that the fathers are congcious of what takes place: comp. vv. 54, 55. Besides the passages ἌΝ in the table, comp. Lev. xxvi. 42, and see Wsctt. on Heb. BS, 10: 73. ὅρκον ὃν ὥμοσεν πρὸς ABpadp. Third strophe. The oath is recorded Gen. xxii. 16-18: comp. xxvi. 3. It is best to take ὅρκον in app. with διαθήκης, but attracted in case to dv: comp vv. 4, 20, and see on 111. 19. It is true that in LXX μνησθῆναι is found with an acc. (Exod. xx. 8; Gen. ix. 16). But would Lk. give it first a gen. and-then an acc. in the same sentence? For the attraction of the antecedent to the relative comp. xx. 17 and Acts x. 36. ὥμοσεν πρός "A. So also in Hom. (Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288): but see on ver. 13. 74. τοῦ δοῦναι ἡμῖν. This is probably to be taken after ὅρκον as the contents and purpose of the oath; and the promise that ‘‘thy seed shall 42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [π 74-77. possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen. xxii. 17) is in favour of this. But it is possible to take τοῦ δοῦναι as epexegetic of ver. 72; or again, as the purpose of ἤγειρεν κέρας, and therefore parallel to ver. 72. This last is not likely, because there is no τοῦ with ποιῆσαι. This τοῦ c. zfin. of the purpose or result is a favourite constr. with Lk. (wv. 77, 79, 11. 24, where see reff.). It marks the later stage of the language, in which aim and purpose become confused with result. Perhaps the gen. of the aim may be explained on the analogy of the part. gen. after verbs of hitting or missing. ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν. It does not follow from ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαι- οσύνῃ that spiritual enemies are meant. ‘The tyranny of heathen conquerors was a hindrance to holiness. In addition to the parallel passages quoted in the table, comp. Ps. xvii. 18, ῥύσεταί με ἐξ ἐχθρῶν pov δυνατῶν καὶ ἐκ τῶν μισούντων με. For the δος. ῥυσθέντας after ἡμῖν comp. σοὶ δὲ συγγνώμη λέγειν τάδ᾽ ἐστί, μὴ πάσχουσαν ὡς ἐγὼ κακῶς (Eur. Jed. 814). 75. λατρεύειν αὐτῷ. Comp. λατρεύσετε τῷ Θεῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ (Exod. iii. 12). We must take ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ with λατρεύειν αὐτῷ. The service of the redeemed and delivered people is to be a priestly service, like that of Zacharias (ver. 8). For ἐνώπιον see on ver. 15, and for λατρεύειν on iv. 8. The combination ὁσιότης καὶ δικαιοσύνη becomes common ; but perhaps the earliest instance is Wisd. ix. 3. We have it Eph. iv. 24 and Clem. Rom. xlvii.: comp. Tit. i. 8 and 1 Thes. ii. ro. 76. Καὶ σὺ δέ, παιδίον. Here the second part of the hymn, and the distinctively predictive portion of it, begins. The Prophet turns from the bounty of Jehovah in sending the Messiah to the work of the Forerunner. “δὴ thou also, child,” or “ Yea and thou, child” (RV.). Neither the καί nor the δέ must be neglected. There is combination, but there is also contrast. Not “my child”: the personal relation is lost in the high calling. The κληθήσῃ has the same force as in ver. 32: not only “shalt be,” but “shalt be acknowledged as being.” προπορεύσῃ γὰρ ἐνώπιον Kupiouv. Comp. Κύριος ὃ Θεός σου ὃ προπορευόμενος πρὸ προσώπου σου, καθὰ ἐλάλησεν Κύριος (Deut. xxxi. 3). Here Κυρίου means Jehovah, not the Christ, as is clear from vv. 16, 17. 77. τοῦ δοῦναι γνῶσιν σωτηρίας τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ. ‘This is the aim and end of the work of the Forerunner. In construction it comes after ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ. We may take ἐν ἀφέσει ἁμαρτίων αὐτῶν with either δοῦναι, or γνῶσιν, or σωτηρίας. The last is best. John did not grant remission of sins; and to make “knowledge of salvation” consist in remission of sins, yields no very clear sense. But that sa/vat¢ion is found in remission of sins makes excellent sense (Acts v. 31). The Messiah brings the σωτηρία (vv. 69, 71): the Forerunner gives the knowledge of it to the people, as consist- ing, not in a political deliverance from the dominion of Rome but I. 77-79.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 43 in a spiritual deliverance from the dominion of sin. This is the first mention of the ‘‘remission of sins” in the Gospel narrative. 78. διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. The concluding strophe, referring to the whole of the preceding sentence, or (if we take a single word) to zporopevon. It is because of God’s tender mercy that the child will be able to fulfil his high calling and to do all this. Comp. Zest. Χ 71. Patr. Levi iv., ἕως ἐπισκέψηται Κύριος πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ev σπλάγνοις υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος. Originally the σπλάγχνα were the ‘‘inward parts,” esp. the upper portions, the heart, lungs, and liver (wzscera thorac?s), as distinct from the ἔντερα or bowels (wescera abdomznis). The Greeks made the σπλάγχνα the seat of the emotions, anger, anxiety, pity, etc. By the Jews these feelings were placed in the ἔντερα ; and hence in LXX we have not only σπλάγχνα (which may include the ἔντερα), but also κοιλία and ἔγκατα used for the affections. Moreover in Hebr. literature these words more often represent compassion or love, whereas σπλάγχνα in class. Grk. is more often used of wrath (Aristoph. az. 844, 1006; Eur. 4c. 1000). “* Heart” is the nearest English equivalent for σπλάγχνα (RV. Col. iii. 12; Philem. 12, 20). See Lft. on Phil. i. 8. ‘‘ Because of our God’s heart of mercy,” z.e. merciful heart, is the meaning here. For this descriptive or characterizing gen. comp. Jas. 1. 25, 11. 4; Jude 18. Some would make γνῶσιν σωτηρίας an instance of it, ‘‘ saving knowledge,” z.e. that brings salvation. But this is not necessary. For ἐν οἷς see on ἐν βραχίονι, ver. 51. For ἐπισκέψεται" comp. vii. 17; Ecclus. xlvi. 14; Judith viii. 33 ; and see on ver. 68. ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψους. “Rising from on high.” The word is used of the rising of the swm (Rev. vii. 2, xvi. 12; Hom. Od. xii. 4) and of stars (Atsch. P.V. 457; Eur. Phen. 504). Here the rising of the heavenly body is put for the heavenly body itself. Comp. the use of ἀνατέλλω in Is. lx. τ and Mal. iv. 2. Because sun, moon, and stars do not rise from on high, some join ἐξ ὕψους with ἐπισκέψεται, Which is admissible. But, as ἀνατολή means the sun or star itself, whose light comes from on high, this is not necessary. Seeing that ἀνατέλλω is used of the rising or sprouting of plants, and that the Messiah is sometimes called “the Branch” (Jer. xxiii. 5, XXxlll. 15; Zech. ill. 8, vi. 12), and that in LXX this is expressed by ἀνατολή, some would adopt that meaning here. But ἐξ ὕψους, ἐπιφᾶναι, and κατευθῦναι are conclusive against it. ‘These expres- sions agree well with a rising sun or star, but not with a sprouting branch. 79. ἐπιφᾶναι τοῖς ἐν σκότει καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου καθημένους. For ἐπιφᾶναι comp. Acts xxvii. 20, and for the form Ps. xxx. 17, cxvii. 27. In 3 Mac. vi. 4 we have 30 Φαραὼ... . ἀπώλεσας, Φέγγος exipavas ἐλέους ᾿Ισραὴλ yeve. Note that the καθημένους ἐν σκότει of Is. xl. 7 and the σκίᾳ θανάτου of Is. ix. 1 are combined here as in Ps. cvii. 10 (see table). Those who hold that these hymns are 1 This is the reading of § B Syr. Arm. Goth. Boh. and virtually of L, which has ἐπεσκέψαιται. Godet defends ἐπεσκέψατο, because Zacharias would not suddenly turn from the past to the future; but this thought would lead to the corruption of the more difficult reading. 44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. LUKE [LI 79, 80. written in the interests of Ebionism have to explain why zemednpée vous ἐν πτωχείᾳ (Ps. cvil. 10) is omitted. τοῦ κατευθῦναι τοὺς πόδας ἡμῶν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰρήνης. For the constr. comp. vv. 74, 7]. Those who sat in darkness did not use their feet: the light enables them to do so, and to use them profitably. The ἡμῶν shows that Jews as well as Gentiles are regarded as being in darkness until the Messianic dawn. ‘The way of peace” is the way that leads to peace, especially peace between God and His people (Ps. xxix. 11, lxxxy. 9, cxix. 165; Jer. x1v. τὴς ΜΠ πα of the many blessings which the Messiah was to bring (ii. 14, x. 5, xxiv. 36). See on Rom.i. 7 and comp. ὁδὸν σωτηρίας (Acts xvi. 17). 80. Td δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο mvedpatt. The verse forms a set conclusion to the narrative, as if here one of the Aramaic documents used by Lk. came to an end. Comp. ii. 40, 52; Judg. ΧΙ]. 24, 25; 1 Sam. 11. 26. In LXX αὐξάνω is never, as here, intrans. Thus αὐξανῶ σε σφόδρα (Gen. xvii. 6); ηὐξήθη τὸ παιδίον (Gen. xxi. 8). In N.T. it is used of physical growth (ii. 40, ΧΙ]. 27, Xlil. 19), and of the spread of the Gospel (Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20). With ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι comp. Eph. iii. 16; and for the dat. Rom. iv. 20 and 1 Cor. xiv. 20. ἣν ἐν Tats ἐρήμοις. The wilderness of Judzea, west of the Dead Sea, is no doubt meant. But the name is not given, because the point is, not that he lived in any particular desert, but that he lived in desert places and not in towns or villages. He lived a solitary life. Hence nothing is said about his being “in favour with men”; for he avoided men until his ἀνάδειξις brought him disciples. This fact answers the question whether John was influenced by the Essenes, communities of whom lived in the wilderness of Judza. We have no reason to believe that he came in contact with them. Excepting the ascetic life, and a yearning for something better than obsolete Judaism, there was little resemblance between their principles and his. He preached the Kingdom of God; they preached isolation. ‘They abandoned society ; he strove to reform it. See Godet zz loco and D.B.? art. “ Essenes.” Lk. alone uses the plur. αἱ ἐρήμοι (v. 16, Vili. 29). ἕως ἡμέρας ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ. John probably went up to Jerusalem for the feasts, and on those occasions he and the Messiah may have met, but without John’s recognizing Him as such. Here only in N.T. does ἀνάδειξις occur. In Ecclus. xiii. 6 we have ἀνάδειξιν χρόνων as a function of the moon. In Plut. the word is used of the proclaiming or inauguration of those who are appointed to office (AZar. viil.; C. Grac. xii.). It is also used of the dedication of a temple (Strabo, vil. 5. 23, p. 381). Comp. ἀνέδειξεν of the appointment of the Seventy (x. 1). It was John himself who proclaimed the inauguration of his office by manifesting himself to the people at God’s command (iil. 2). THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 45 ΝΟΤΕ ON THE USE OF ἐγένετο. More than any other Evangelist Lk. makes use of the Hebr. formula, éyévero δέ or καὶ ἐγένετο. But with it he uses a variety of constructions, some of which are modelled on the classical use of συνέβη, which Lk. himself employs Acts xxi. 35. The following types are worth noting. (a) The ἐγένετο and that which came to pass are placed side by side as parallel statements in the indicative mood without a conjunction. 1. 8. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν. . . ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι. 1. 23. καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ, ἀπῆλθεν. i. 41. καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μ. h’E., ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος. li. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα. Of the same type are i. 59, il. 6, 15, 46, vil. II, ix. 18, 28, 29, 33, 37, xi. I, Wal, Diy Silly 17 ἘΥΠ| Boy ΣΙΣ. ADS TOG 1. ΣΧΕΙ͂Ν. 50, Gury [ἢ ably 40; 155. δῇ, ΣΧ: 38 the ἐγένετο δέ is probably spurious. In the Acts this type does not occur. (8) The ἐγένετο and that which came. to pass are coupled together by καί, which may be regarded as (1) uniting two co-ordinate statements; or (2) epexegetic, ‘“‘It came to pass, zamely” ; or (3) introducing the apodosis, as often in class. Grk., ‘‘ It came to pass ¢hat.” v. I. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ. . . Kal αὐτὸς ἣν ἑστώς. v. 17. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμέρων καὶ αὐτὸς ἣν διδάσκων. viii. I. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς καὶ αὐτὸς διώδευεν. Vili. 22. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμέρων καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέβη εἰς πλοῖον. Of the same type are v. 12, 1x. 51, xiv. I, Xvil. II, xix. 15, xxiv. 4; Acts ν. 7. It will be observed that in nearly all cases the καί is followed by αὐτός or αὐτοί. Inv. 12 and xxiv. 4 it is followed by the Hebraistic ἰδού, and in xix. 15 we have simply καὶ εἶπεν. (vy) That which takes place is put in the infinitive mood, and this depends upon ἐγένετο. lil, 21. ἐγένετο δέ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν. . . ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν. vi. 1. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων. vi. 12. ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἐξελθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος. XVI. 22. ἐγένετο δὲ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πτωχόν. This type of construction is common in the Acts: iv. 5, ix. 32, 37, 43, xi. 26, Sve Te κυ Τὸ; KIX. Ty xxi. ὁ; 17, xxvii. 8, 17- (6) In the Acts we have several other forms still more closely assimilated to classical constructions, the éyévero being placed later in the sentence, or being - preceded by ws or Gre. ix. 3. ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐγγίζειν τῇ Δαμασκῷ. Xxi. I. ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἀναχθῆναι ἡμᾶς. .. ἤλθομεν εἰς τὴν Κῶ. xxl. 5. ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο ἐξαρτίσαι ἡμᾶς τὰς ἡμέρας, ἐξέλθοντες ἐπορευόμεθα. X. 25. ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Ilérpov, . . . προσεκύνησεν. In these last three instances we are far removed from the Hebraistic types (a) and (8). The last is very peculiar ; but comp. xxvii. I and the exact parallel in Acta Barnab. Apocryp. vil. quoted by Lumby, ws δὲ ἐγένετο τοῦ τελέσαι αὐτοὺς διδάσκοντα. We have obtained in this analysis the following results. Of the two Hebra- istic types, (a) is very common in the first two chapters of the Gospel, where Lk. is specially under the influence of Hebrew thought and literature, and is probably translating from the Aramaic ; but (a) is not found at all in the Acts, and (β) occurs there only once. On the other hand, of the more classical types, (γ) is much less common in the Gospel than in the Acts, while the forms grouped under (δ) do not occur in the Gospel at all. All which is quite what we might have expected. In the Acts there is much less room for Hebrew influences than there is in the Gospel ; and thus the more classical forms of construction become there the prevailing types. 46 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. II. 1-20. Zhe Birth of the Saviour, its Proclamation by the - Angels, and its Verification by the Shepherds. The second of the narratives in the second group (i. 57-11. 40) in the Gospel of the Infancy (1. 5-11. 52). It corresponds to the Annunciation (i. 26-38) in the first group. Like the sections which precede and which follow, it has a clearly marked conclusion. And these conclusions have in some cases a very marked resemblance. Comp. ii. 20 with i. 56, and ii. 40 and 52 with i. 80. This similarity of form points to the use of material from one and the same source, and carefully arranged according to the sub- ject-matter. This source would be some member of the Holy Family (see oni. 5). The marks of Lk.’s style, accompanied by Hebraistic forms of expression, still continue; and we infer, as before, that he is translating from an Aramaic document. The section has three marked divisions: the Birth (1-7), the Angelic Proclamation (8-14), and the Verification (15-20). The con- nexion with what precedes is obvious. We have just been told how the promise to Zacharias was fulfilled ; and we are now to be told how the promise to Mary was fulfilled. 1-7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem at the Time of the Enrolment. ‘The extreme simplicity of the narrative is in very marked contrast with the momentous character of the event thus narrated. We have a similar contrast between matter and form in the opening verses of S. John’s Gospel. The difference between the evangelical account and modern Lives of Christ is here very remarkable. The tasteless and unedifying elaborations of the apocryphal gospels should also be compared.! 1-3. How Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus Christ, although Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. ‘This explanation has exposed Lk. to an immense amount of criticism, which has been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced a voluminous literature. In addition to the commentaries, some 1 ἐς Such marvellous associations have clung for centuries to these verses, that it is hard to realise how absolutely naked they are of all ornament. We are obliged to read them again and again to assure ourselves that they really do set forth what we call the great miracle of the world. If, on the other hand, the Evangelist was possessed by the conviction that he was not recording a miracle which had interrupted the course of history and deranged the order of human life, but was telling of a divine act which explained the course of history and restored the order of human life, one can very well account for his calmness” (F. D. Maurice, Lectures on S. Luke, Ὁ. 28, ed. 1879). 11. 1.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 47 of the following may be consulted, and from Schirer and Herzog further information about the literature may be obtained. S. J. Andrews, Zzfe of our Lord, pp. 71-81, T. & T. Clark, 1892; T. Lewin, fast Sacri, 955, Longmans, 1865; J. B. McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, 1. pp. 392-399, Macmillan, 1875; C. F. Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christt, pp- 172-174, Beck, 1891; *E. Schirer, /ezw7sh People in the Time of Wess Christ, 1.2, pp... 105-143, T. & T. Clark, 1890; B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, i. 2. 4, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. pp. 250-252; K. Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 66-106, 129-135, Deighton, 1864; O. Zockler, Handbuch der Theologischen Wissen- schafien, 1. 2, pp. 188-190, Beck, 1889; A. W. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (reviewed by Woolsey in the BibLotheca Sacra, nee) Leipzig, 1869; ° 2).5.* art. ““Cyrenius”; Herzog, PRA? xi. art. “Schatzung”; P. Schaff, Hstory of the Church, 1. pp. 121-125, T. & T. Clark, 1883; P. Didon, /ésus Christ, Appen- dice A, Plon, 1891. 1. “Eyéveto δὲ ἐν Tats ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καί- σαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. For the constr. see detached note at the end of ch. i.; and for ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις see On 1. 5 and 39. ‘The time of the birth of John is roughly indicated. Even in class. Grk. the first meaning of δόγμα, as “opinion, philosophic tenet,” is not very common (Plat. Ref. 538 C); it is more often a “public decree, ordinance.” This is always the meaning in N.T., whether an ordinance of the Roman Emperor (Acts xvil. 5), or of the Apostles (Acts xvi. 4; comp. Ign. Mag. xiii.; Didaché, xi. 3), or of the Mosaic Law (Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15; comp. 3 Mac. i. 3; Jos. Amz. xv. 5. 3). For ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα comp. Dan. 11. 13 (Theod.). In Daniel δόγμα is freq. of a royal decree (ili. τὸν Iv: 3, ἱ Ὁ; 10). See Lit. on Col. ii. 12. ἀπογράφεσθαι. Probably passive, μΖ describeretur (Vulg.), not middle, as in ver. 3. ‘The present is here used of the continuous enrolment of the multitudes ; the aorist in ver. 5 of the act of one person. The verb refers to the writing off, copying, or entering the names, professions, fortunes, and families of subjects in the public register, generally with a view to ¢axation (ἀποτίμησις or τίμημα). It is a more general word than ἀποτιμάω, which implies assessment as well as enrolment. But it is manifest that the dzo- γραφή here and in Acts v. 37 included assessment. The Jews were exempt from military service; and enrolment for that purpose cannot be intended. In the provinces the census was mainly for purposes of taxation. πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. ‘The whole inhabited world,” ze. the Roman Empire, ογόϊε ¢errarum. Perhaps in a loose way the ex- pression might be used of the provinces only. But both the πᾶσαν and the context exclude the limitation to Palestine, a meaning 48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [II. 1. which the expression never has, not even in Jos. Azz. vill. 3. 4. See on iv. 5 and xxi. 26. In inscriptions Roman Emperors are called κύριοι τῆς οἰκουμένης. ‘The verse implies a decree for a general census throughout the empire. It must be confessed that xo direct evidence of any such decree exists beyond this statement by Lk., and the repetitions of it by Christian writers. But a variety of items have been collected, which tend to show that a Roman census in Judeea at this time, in accordance with some general instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable. I. The vatzonarium or rationes tmperit, which was a sort of balance-sheet published periodically by the emperor (Suet. Azg. xxviii.; Cal. xvi.). 2. The libellus ox breviartum totius tmperiz, which Augustus deposited with his will (Tac. Azz. i. 11. 5,6; Suet. Aug. ci.). 3. The zudex rerum gestarum to be inscribed on his tomb, which was the original of the A/armor Ancyranum. But these only indicate the orderly administration of the empire. A general census would have been useful in producing such things; but that does not prove that it took place. Two passages in Dion Cassius are cited ; but one of these (liv. 35) refers to a registration of the emperor’s private property, and the other (lv. 13) to a census of Roman citizens. If Augustus made a general survey of the empire, of which there is evidence from the commen- tarzz of Agrippa mentioned by Pliny (at. Azsé. iii. 2. 17), this also would have been conveniently combined with a general census, although it does not show that such a census was ordered. Of some of the provinces we know that #0 census was held in them during the reign of Augustus. But it is probable that in the majority of them a census took place; and the statement of so accurate a writer as Lk., although unsupported by direct evi- dence, may be accepted as substantially true: viz. that in the process of reduc- ing the empire to order, Augustus had required that a census should be held throughout most of it. So that Lk. groups the various instances under one ex- pression, just as in Acts xi. 28 he speaks of the famines, which took place in different parts of the empire in the time of Claudius, as a famine ἐφ᾽ ὅλην οἰκου- μένην. Of the Christian witnesses none is of much account. Riess seems to be almost alone in contending that Orosius (fst. Rom. vi. 22. 6) had any authority other than Lk. Cassiodorus ( Var¢arum Epp. iii. 52) does not men- tion a census of persons at all clearly ; but if ovd¢s Romanus agris divisus cen- sugue descriptus est means such a census, he may be referring to Lk. i. 1. The obscure statement of Isidore of Spain (Ztymologiarum, v. 26. 4; Opera, 111. 229, ed. Arevallo) may either be derived from Lk. or refer to another period. What Suidas states (Lex. s.v. ἀπογραφή) partly comes from Lk. and partly is improb- able. At the best, all this testimony is from 400 to 1000 years after the event, and cannot be rated highly. The passages are given in full by Schiirer ( /ew7sh People in the 7. of J. C. 1. 2, pp. 116, 117). But it is urged that a Roman census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In A.D. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judea, sich a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod acted independently (Azz. xv. 10. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvil. 2. I, 11. 2; comp. xvii. 8. 4). Tnat Herod paid tribute to Rome is not certain ; but, if so, he would pay it out of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of Herod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation ; and he states that II. 1, 2.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 49 the census undertaken by Quirinius A.D. 7 excited intense opposition, presum- ably as being an innovation (Azz. xviii. I. I, 2. 1). In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schiirer and Zumpt that the case of the Clit is not parallel. Tacitus (dz. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus wished to have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus would not interfere with Herod’s subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. When Palestine was divided among Herod’s three sons, Augustus ordered that the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Avz7. xvii. 11. 4; B./. i. 6. 3); and this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine ; and the obsequi- ous Herod would not attempt to resist.1_ The value of such information would be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was adequate ; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine in the future. If he knew that Herod’s health was failing, he would be anxious to get the information before Herod’s death ; and thus the census would take place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of Herod. 2. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. This may be accepted as certainly the true reading ;? and the meaning of it is not really doubtful. “This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was governor of Syria.” The object of the remark is to distinguish the census which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem from the one undertaken by Q. in a.D. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor of Syria. But was he governor B.c. 4, when Herod died? It is very difficult to establish this. From B.C. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor; from B.c. 6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until a.p. 6, when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the census mentioned Acts v. 37 and also by Josephus (Axz. xviii. I. I, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval between B.c. 4 and A.D. 6, and that his first term of office was B.C. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him between B.c. 9 and the death of Herod; and, unless we can do that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Mare. iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, and in one place states that this can be officially ascer- tained ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν τῶν γενομένων (Afol. i. 34, 46; Dial. Ixxviil.). 7 See the treatment to which Herod had to submit in the matter of Sylleus (Jos. Azz. xvi. 9. 3, 4). 2 B (supported by $1, 131, 203) has αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. & has the impossible αὐτὴν ἀπογραφὴν ἐγένετο πρώτη. D (supported by Orig-Lat.) has αὕτη ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη. Thus all three are against the ἡ before ἀπογραφή inserted in ACL RE, 4 50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 2. We must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is monstrous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake as to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole story about the census and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem is a fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business con- nected with enrolment might take Joseph to Bethlehem, and Lk. would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused this census with the one in A.D. 6, 7, which he himself mentions Acts v. 37, is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1) that a Roman census in Judea at this time, in accordance with instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable; and (2) that some oilicial connexion of Quirinius with Syria and the holding of this census 1s not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such that we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far better to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade this by either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it. The following methods of tampering with the zex¢ have been suggested: to regard πρώτη as a corruption of πρώτῳ ἔτει through the intermediate πρωτει (Linwood); to insert πρὸ τῆς after ἐγένετο (Michaelis) ; to substitute for Kv- ρηνίου either ἹΚυιντιλίου (Huetius), or Kpovtov=Saturnini (Heumann), or Σατουρ- vivov (Valesius); to omit the whole verse as a gloss (Beza, Pfaff, Valckenaer). All these are monstrous. The only points which can be allowed to be doubtful in the text are the accentuation of αὕτη and the spelling of Kupnviov, to which may perhaps be added the insertion of the article. Among the various z7¢evpretations may be mentioned— (1) Giving πρῶτος a comparative force, as in Jn. i. 15, 30: ‘‘ This taxing took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Huschke, Ewald, Caspari) ; or, as ἐσχάτη τῶν υἱῶν h μήτηρ ἐτελεύτησε (2 Mac. vii. 41) means ‘‘ The mother died last of all, and later than her sons,” this may mean, ‘‘ This took place as the first enrolment, and before Q. was governor of S.” (Wieseler). But none of these passages are parallel: the addition of ἡγεμονεύοντος is fatal. When πρῶτος is comparative it is followed by a simple noun or pronoun. It is incredible that Lk., if he had meant this, should have expressed it so clumsily. (2) Emphasizing ἐγένετο, as in Acts xi. 28: ‘‘ This taxing took effect, was carried out, when Q. was governor of S.” (Gumpach, etc.) ; z.e. the decree was issued in Herod’s time, and executed ten or twelve years later by Q. This makes nonsense of the narrative. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem to be enrolled, if no enrolment took place then? There would be some point in saying that the census was fizzshed, brought to a close, under Q., after having been begun by Herod ; but ἐγένετο cannot possibly mean that. (3) Reading and accentuating αὐτὴ 7 ἀπογραφή: ‘‘The raising of the tax itself (as distinct from the enrolment and assessment) first took place when Q.,” etc. ‘* Augustus ordered a census and it took place, but no money was raised until the time of Q.” (Ebrard). This involves giving to ἀπογραφή in ver. 2 a totally different meaning from ἀπογράφεσθαι in ver. 1 and ἀπογράψασθαι in ver. 5; which is impossible. (4) With αὐτὴ ἡ ἀπογραφή, as before: ‘‘ The census itself called the first took place when Q.,” etc. The better known census under Q. was commonly regarded as the first Roman census in Judeea: Lk. reminds his readers that there had really been an earlier one (Godet). This is very forced, requires the insertion of the article, which is almost certainly an interpolation, and assumes ws 11. 2.4.) THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 51 that the census of A.D. 6, 7 was generally known as ‘‘ the frst census.” From Acts v. 37 it appears that it was known as ‘‘¢A4e census”: no previous or subsequent enrolment was taken into account. In his earlier edition Godet omitted the 7: in the third (1888) he says that this interpretation requires the article (i. p. 170). McClellan quotes in illustration of the construction: αἰτία δὲ αὕτη πρώτη ἐγένετο τοῦ πολέμου (Thuc. i. 55. 3); αὕτη τῶν περὶ Θήβας ἐγένετο ἀρχὴ καὶ κατάστασις πρώτη (Dem. 291. 10); πρώτη μὲν μήνυσις ἐγένετο αὕτη κατὰ τούτων τῶν ἀνδρῶν (Andoc. iil. 5); αὕτη πρώτη δημοτελὴς κρίσις ἐγένετο ἀρετῆς πρὸς πλοῦτον (Aristid. i. 124) ; and adds the curious remark that ‘* the Holy Spirit would have us note that the Saviour of the World was registered in the jirst census of the World !” ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. Like ἡγεμών (xx. 20, ΧΧΙ. 12, etc.) and ἡγεμονία (ii. 1), the verb is generic, and may express the office of any ruler, whether emperor, propretor, procurator, etc. It does not tell us that Quirinius was /egatus in B.c. 4 as he was in Α.Ὁ. 6. And it should be noted that Justin (see above) states that Quirinius was procurator (ἐπίτροπος) at the time of this census (4fo/. i. 34); and that in the only other place in which Lk. uses this verb he uses it of a procurator (111. 1). This gives weight to the suggestion that, although Varus was legatus of Syria at the time of the enrolment, yet Quirinius may have held some office in virtue of which he undertook this census. Lk. is probably not giving a mere date. He implies that Quirinius was in some way connected with the enrolment. For what is known about P. Sulpicius Quirinius see Tac. Azz. 1]. ΠΟ τ ΡΤ 2°23. 1 and esp. ἠδ; Suet., 770. xlix. Dion Cassius (liv. 48) calls him simply Πόπλιος Σουλπίκιος. But he was not really a member of the old patrician gens Sulpicia. The familiar word Quirinus (Kvptvos) induced copyists and editors to substitute Quirinus for Quirinius. B has Κυρείνου, but there is no doubt that the name is Quirinius and not Quirinus. This is shown, as Furneaux points out in a note on Tac. Azz. ii. 30. 4, by the MS. readings in Tacitus; by the Greek forms Κυρίνιος (Strabo, 12, 6, 5, 569) and Κυρήνιος (here and Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1), and by Latin inscriptions (Orell. 3693, etc.). Quirinius is one of the earliest instances of a person bearing two Gentile names. 3. Kal ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, ἕκαστος eis τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν. The καί looks back to ver. 1, ver. 2 being a parenthesis. The πάντες means all those in Palestine who did not reside at the seat of their family. A purely Roman census would have required nothing of the kind. If Herod conducted the census for the Romans, Jewish customs would be followed. So long as Augustus obtained the necessary information, the manner of obtaining it was immaterial. 4. ᾿Ανέβη δὲ Kal ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρέτ. For ἀνέβη comp. ver. 42, xvili. 31, xix. 28; Acts xi. 2; and for 52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [II. 4, 5. δὲ καί see on ili.9. Note the change of prep. from ἀπό to ἐκ. But dé is used of towns (x. 30; Acts vill. 26, ΧΠῚ 14, xx. 17, etc.), and ἐκ of districts (xxill. 55; Acts vii. 4, etc.); so that there is no special point in the change, although it should be preserved in translation. Comp. Jn. i. 45 and xi. 1; also the ἐκ of Lk. xxi. 18 with the ἀπό of Acts xxvii. 34. εἰς πόλιν Δαυείδ. ‘That Bethlehem was David’s birthplace and original home is in accordance with 1 Sam. xvii. 12 ff. and xvii. 58 ; but both passages are wanting in LXX. In O.T. “the city of David” always means the fortress of Zion, formerly the stronghold of the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 7, 9; 1 Chron.-xi. 5, 7), and im Lox πόλις In this phrase commonly has the article. Bethlehem is about six miles from Jerusalem. Note that Lk. does not connect Christ’s birth at Bethlehem with prophecy. ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλεέμ. In late Greek ὅστις is sometimes scarcely dis- tinguishable from és: comp. Acts xvii. 10. But in ix. 30 (as in Acts xxiii. 14, xxvill. 18, and Eph. i. 23, which are sometimes cited as instances of ὅστις ΞΞ és) there may be special point in ὅστις. Even here it may ‘‘denote an attribute which is the essential property of the antecedent,” and may possibly refer to the meaning of Bethlehem. Comp. πόλιν κτίσας ταύτην, ἥτις νῦν Μέμφις καλεῖται (Η αἴ. ii. 99. 7). Βηθλεέμ. ‘House of Bread”; one of the most ancient towns in Palestine. It is remarkable that David did nothing for Bethlehem, although he retained affection for it (2 Sam. xxlll. 15); and that Jesus seems never to have visited it again. In Jn. vil. 42 it is called a κώμη, and no special interest seems to have attached to the place for many years after the birth of Christ. Hadrian planted a grove of Adonis there, which con- tinued to exist from A.D. 135 to 315. About 330 Constantine built the present church. .#.? art. “ Bethlehem.” The modern name is Let Lahm; and, as at Nazareth, the population is almost entirely Christian. οἴκου κ. πατριᾶς. Both words are rather indefinite, and either may include the other. Here οἶκος seems to be the more com- prehensive ; otherwise καὶ πατριᾶς would be superfluous. Usually πατριά is the wider term. ‘That. a village carpenter should be able to prove bis descent from David is not improbable. ‘The two grandsons of S. Jude, who were taken before Domitian as descendants of David, were labourers (Eus. HZ. £. iii. 20. 1-8). 5. ἀπογράψασθαι. ‘To get himself enrolled.” The aorist of his single act, the present (ver. 3) of a series of such acts. Both are middle, while ἀπογράφεσθαι in ver. 1 is probably passive. We must not take σὺν Μαριάμ with ἀπογράψασθαι : it belongs to ἀνέβη. It is essential to the narrative that she should go up with with him; not so that she should be enrolled with him. In a Roman census women paid the poll-tax, but were not obliged to I. 5-7.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 53 come in person. That Mary had property in Bethlehem is a con- jecture which is almost disproved by her resourcelessness in the place. And if it was necessary for her to come, because she also was of David’s line, would not Lk. have written διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐξ οἰκου x. 7. A.? This reading is found in Syr-Sin.: ‘ because they were both of the house of D.” It is fuiile to argue that a woman in her condition would not have gone unless she was com- pelled : therefore Lk. represents her as being compelled: there- fore he has made a mistake. She would be anxious at all risks not to be separated from Joseph. Lk. does not even imply that her presence was obligatory ; and, if he had said that it was, we do not know enough about the matter to say whether he would have been wrong. Had there been a law which required her to remain at home, then Lk. might be suspected of an error. For σύν see on 1. 56. TH ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῴ, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. The γυναικί of A, Vulg. Syr. and Aeth. is a gloss, but a correct one. Had she been only his betrothed (1. 27; Mt. i. 18), their travelling together would have been impossible. But by omitting γυναικί Lk. intimates what Mt. states 1. 25. The οὔσῃ introduces, not a mere fact, but the reason for what has just been stated. Not, he had her with him, and she happened to be with child; but, he took her with him, “ decawse she was with child.” After what is related Mt. 1. 19 he would not leave her at this crisis. See oni. 24. 6, 7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem. The Gosfel of Pseudo-Matthew (xiii.) represents the birth as taking place before Bethlehem is reached. So also apparently the Protevangelium of James (xvii.), which limits the decree of Augustus to those who lived at Bethlehem! For ἐπλήσθησαν see on 1. 15 and 57. ἡ. τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. ‘The expression might certainly be used without implying that there had been subsequent children. But it implies the possibility of subsequent children, and when Luke wrote this possibility had been decided. Would he have used such an expression if it was then known that Mary had never had another child? He might have avoided all ambiguity by writing μονογενήν, as he does vii. 12, Vill 42,1538; In considering this question the imperf. ἐγίνωσκεν (Mt. i. 25) has not received sufficient attention. See Mayor, £7. of St James, pp. X1X—Xxi1. ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτόν. It has been inferred from her being able to do this that the birth was miraculously painless (τὴν ἀνώδινον κύησιν, Euthym.), of which there is no hint. For the verb comp. ὁμίχλῃ αὐτὴν ἐσπαργάνωσα, “1 made thick darkness a swaddling band for it” (Job xxxviii. 9). ἐν φάτνῃ. ‘The traditional rendering “in a manger” is right; not “‘a stall” either here or in xiii. 15. The animals were out at --.-. 54 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. MG pasture, and the manger was not being used. Justin (77y. Ixxviii.) and some of the apocryphal gospels say that it was in a cave, which is not improbable. In Origen’s time the cave was shown, and the manger also (Coz. Ce/s. 1. 51). One suspects that the cave may be a supposed prophecy turned into history, like the vine in xix. 31. Is. xxxill. τό (οὗτος οἰκήσει ἐν ὑψηλῷ σπηλαίῳ πέτρας ὀχυρᾶς) Was supposed to point to birth in a cave, and then the cave may have been imagined in order to fit it, just as the colt is represented as “tied fo a vine,” in order to make Gen. xlix. 11 a prediction of Lk. xix. 30-33 (Justin, Aol. i. 32). οὐκ ἣν αὐτοῦς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι. Most of the Jews then residing in Palestine were of Judah or Benjamin, and all towns and villages of Judah would be very full. No inhospitality is implied. It is a little doubtful whether the familiar translation “in the inn” is correct. In x. 34 “inn” is πανδοχεῖον, and in Xxil. 11 κατάλυμα is not “inn.” It is possible that Joseph had relied upon the hospitality of some friend in Bethlehem, whose “‘ouest-chamber,” however, was already full when he and Mary arrived. See on xxil. 11. But κατάλυμα in LXX represents five different Heb. words, so that it must have been elastic in meaning. All that it implies is a place where burdens are loosed and let down for a rest. In Polybius it occurs twice in the plural: of the general’s quarters (11. 36. 1), and of reception rooms for envoys (xxxil. το. 2). It has been suggested that the “inn” was the Geruth Chimham or “lodging-place of Chimham” (Jer. xli. 17), the [son] of Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 37, 38), “which was dy Bethlehem,” and convenient for those who would “go to enter into Egypt.” See Stanley, Szz. & Fal. pp. 163, 529. Justin says that the cave was σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης, Which agrees with ‘by Bethlehem.” The Mandra of Josephus (Azz. x. 9. 5) was perhaps the same place as Geruth Chimham. 8-14. The Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds: πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται (vil. 22). It was in these pastures that David spent his youth and fought the lion and the bear (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35). “A passage in the Mishnah (Shek. vil. 4; comp. Baba K. vii. 7, 80 a) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and accordingly, that the shepherds who watched over them were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances and their manner of life, which rendered strict religious observance unlikely, if not absolutely impossible. ‘The same Mischnic passage also leads us to infer that these flocks lay out αὐ the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover—that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest” (Edersh. Z. ὦ: Ζ' 1. pp. 186, 187). For details of II. 8, 9.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY gs the life of a shepherd see JD.4. art. “Shepherds,” and Herzog, PRE.? art. “ Viehsucht und Hirtenleben.” 8. ἀγραυλοῦντες. Making the ἀγρός their αὐλή, and so “ spend- ing their life in the open air”: a late and rare word, whereas ἄγραυλος is Class. This statement is by no means conclusive against December as the time of the year. ‘The season may have been a mild one; it is not certain that all sheep were brought under cover at night during the winter months. It is of the flocks in the wz/derness, far from towns or villages, that the often quoted saying was true, that they were taken out in March and brought home in November. These shepherds may have returned from the wilderness, and if so, the time would be between November and March. But the data for determining the time of year are so very insufficient, that after minute calculation of them all we are left in our original uncertainty. Among those who have made a special study of the question we have advocates for almost every month in the year. The earliest attempts to fix the day of which we have knowledge are those mentioned (and apparently condemned as profane curiosity) by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1. 21 sab fin.). In his time some took April 21, others April 22, and others May 20, to be the day. What was unknown in his time is not likely to have been discovered afterwards respecting such a detail. December 25th cannot be traced higher than the fourth century, and it seems to have been adopted first in the West. We must be content to remain in ignorance as to the date of the birth of Christ. See on ἐφημερίας i. 5; D. of Chr. Ant. art. ““ Christmas”; Andrews, L. of our Lord, pp. 12-21, ed. 1892. φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς. The plural refers to their watching in turns rather than in different places. ‘The phrase occurs Num. vill. 26; Xen. Anad. 11. 6. το; but in LXX τὰς φυλακὰς dvd. is more common; Num. i. 7, 8, 28, 32; »38).etc: Comp. Plat. Phedr. 240 E; Laws, 758 D. ‘The fondness of Lk. for such combinations of cognate words is seen again ver. 9, Vii. 20, XVll. 24, Xxll. 15, and several times in the Acts. See on x1. 46 and xxill. 46. We may take τῆς νυκτός after φυλακάς, ‘“ night-watches,” or as gen. of time, “ by night.” 9. ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς. The notion of coming suddenly is not inherent in the verb, but is often derived from the context: see on ver. 38.1 In N.T. the verb is almost peculiar to Lk., and almost always in 2nd aor. In class. Grk. also it is used of the appearance of heavenly beings, dreams, visions, etc. Hom. Hix 100; xxii, 106; Tidt..1, 34. 2; vu. τὰ. τ. Comp: Lk. xxiv. 4 ; PAGtS ΣΙ 7p ΚΧΙΠΠ: τι. δόξα Κυρίουι ‘The heavenly brightness which isa sign of the presence of God or of heavenly beings, 2 Cor. 111. 18: comp. Lk. πὴ 1 52. ἴῃ Ol. onthelsnechinah, Exod. xvi. 7, 10,,Xxiv.,.17, 1 In Vulg. it is very variously translated: e.g. stare juxta (here), supervenire (11. 38, xxi. 34), stare (iv. 39, x. 40, xxiv. 4), comventre (xx. 1), concurrere (Acts vi. 12), adstare (Acts x. 17, xi. II, xil. 7), adszstere (Acts xvii. 5, XXill. II), 2wemzznere (Acts xxviii. 2). 56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II Θ xl. 34; Lev. ix. 6, 23; Num. xii. 8, etc. This glory, according to the Jews, was wanting in the second temple. 10. ὁ ἄγγελος. The art. is used of that which has been mentioned before without the art. Comp. τὸ βρέφος and τῇ φάτνῃ in ver. 16. Μὴ φοβεῖσθε. Comp. i. 13, 30, v. 10; Mt. xiv. 27, xxvill. 5, 10.1 For ἰδοὺ γάρ see on 1. 44. εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην. The verb is very freq. in Lk. and Paul, but is elsewhere rare; not in the other Gospels excepting Mt. xi. 5, which is a quotation. See oni. 19. The act. occurs Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6; the pass. Lk. vii. 22, xvi. 16; Gal. i. 11; Heb. iv. 2, 6; 1 Pet. i. 25, iv. 6; the mid. is freq. with various constructions. As here, dat. of pers. and acc. of thing, i. 19, iv. 43; Acts vill. 35; acc. of thing only, viii. 1; Acts v. 42, viii. 4, 12 ; acc. of person, 111. 18; Acts vili. 25, 40 ; acc. of person and of thing, Acts xiii. 32. ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ. ‘Which shall have the special char- acter of being for all the people.” The ἥτις has manifest point here (see on ver. 4); and the art. before λαῷ should be preserved. A joy so extensive may well banish fear. Comp. τῷ λαῷ, i. 68, 77, and τὸν λαόν, vil. 16. In both these verses (9, 10) we have instances of Lk. recording intensity of emotion: comp. i. 42, viii. 37, xy. ‘52; οί ν πὶ ΤΠ τν 9: 11. ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτήρ. To the shepherds, as a part, and perhaps a specially despised part, of the people of Israel. Here first in N.T. is σωτήρ used of Christ, and here only in Lk. Not in Mt. or Mk., and only once in Jn. (iv. 42): twice in Acts (ν. 31, xiii. 23), and freq. in Tit. and 2 Pet. The rst aor. of τίκτω, both act. and pass., is rare: see Veitch. Χριστὸς κύριος. ‘The combination occurs nowhere else in N.T., and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either ‘“‘ Messiah, Lord,” or “Anointed Lord,” or ‘the Messiah, the Lord,” or “an anointed one, a Lord.” It occurs once in LXX as a manifest mistranslation. Lam. iv. 20, ‘The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord,” is rendered πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς κύριος. If this is not a corrupt reading, we may perhaps infer that the expres- sion Χριστὸς κύριος was familiar to the translator. It occurs in the Ps. SoZ, where it is said of the Messiah καὶ οὐκ ἐστιν ἀδικία ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, ὅτι πάντες ἅγιοι, καὶ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν Χριστὸς κύριος (xvii. 36: comp. the title of xviii.). But this may easily be another mistranslation, perhaps based on 1 << This Gospel of Luke is scarce begun, we are yet but a little way in the second chapter, and we have already three zo/z ¢2meres in it, and all, as here, at the coming of an Angel (i. 13, 30, il. 10). . . . What was it? It was not the fear of an evil conscience ; they were about no harm. . . . It is a plain sign our nature is fallen from her original ; Heaven and we are not in the terms we should be, not the best of us all” (Bishop Andrewes, Servm. V. On the Nativity). 11. 11-14,]} THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 57 that in Lam. iv. 20. Comp. εἶπεν ὃ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ pov (Ps. cx. 1), and ἐπεκαλεσάμην Κύριον πατέρα κυρίου μου (Ecclus. li. το). See Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. pp. 141-143. The addition of ἐν πόλει Δαυείδ here indicates that this σωτήρ is the King of Israel promised in the Prophets: see on ver. 4. 12. καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον. BE omit the τό. Sign for what ? By which to prove that what is announced is true, rather than by which to find the Child. It was allimportant that they should be convinced as to the first point ; about the other there would be no great difficulty.—ebpyoete βρέφος. “Ye shall find a babe,” “not the babe,” as most English Versions and Luther; Wiclif has “a yunge child.” This is the first mention of it ; in ver. 16 the art. is right. In N.T., as in class. Grk., βρέφος is more often a newly- born child (xviii. 15; Acts vii. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 2) than an unborn child (Lk. i. 41, 44); in LXX it is always the former (1 Mac. i. 61; 2 Mac. vi. 10; 3 Mac. v. 49; 4 Mac. iv. 25), unless Ecclus. xix. 11 be an exception. Aquila follows the same usage (Ps. viii. 3, xvi. 14; Is. lxv. 20).---ἐσπαργανωμένον καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ. Both points are part of the sign. ‘The first participle is no more an adjective than the second. No art. with φάτνῃ : the shepherds have not heard of it before. 18. é&€pvns.1 The fact that this is expressly stated here confirms the view that suddenness is not necessarily included in ἐνέστη (ver. 9). For σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ see on 1. 56.—otpatids. Magna appellatio. Hic exercitus famen pacem J/audat (Beng.). The genitive is partitive: “a multitude (no art.) forming part of the host: 0 Comp: τ Kings: xi: τὸ" 2 Chron. xviit. 18 ;.Ps..cil. 21 ; Josh. v. 15).—aivodvrwy. Constr. ad sensum. The whole host of heaven was praising God, not merely that portion of it which was visible to the shepherds. The verb is a favourite with Lk. (Vere 26, ΧΙΧ 97; (xxiv. 537; Acts ti. 47, 11. ὃ,.0)» . Elsewhere only Rom. xv. 11 (from Ps. cxvii. 1) and Rev. xix. 5; very freq. in LXX. 14. Δόξα... εὐδοκίας. The hymn consists of two members connected by a conjunction ; and the three parts of the one mem- ber exactly correspond with the three parts of the other member. Gory to God 7x the highest, And on earth PEACE among men of His good will. Δόξα balances εἰρήνη, ἐν ὑψίστοις balances ἐπὶ γῆς, Θεῷ balances ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. ‘This exact correlation between the parts 15 lost in the common triple arrangement; which has the further awkwardness of having the second member introduced by a con- 1 The word is thus written in the best texts here and ix. 39: comp. ἐφνίδιος, XX. 34.3 Kepéay, xvi. 17; κρεπάλη, xxi. 34 (WH. App. pp. 150, 151). In class. Grk. οὐράνιος is of three terminations ; but the true reading here may be οὐράνοῦ (B D). 58 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 14. junction,! while the third is not, and of making the second and third members tautological. “On earth peace” is very much the same as “ Good will amongst men.” Yet Scrivener thinks that “in the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the third refers to both those preceding, and alleges the efficient cause which has brought God glory and earth peace” (Int. to Crit. of LV.T. ii. p. 344) ; which seems to be very forced. The construction ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας is difficult ; but one of the best of modern Greek scholars has said that it “may be translated ‘among men of His counsel for good’ or ‘of His gracious purpose.’ This rendering seems to be in harmony with the preceding context and with the teaching of Scripture in general” (T. 5. Evans, Contemp. Rev., Dec. 1881, p. 1003). WH. take a similar view. They prefer, among possible meanings, “1 (among and within) accepted man- kind,” and point out that “the Divine ‘favour’ (Ps. xxx. 5, 7, Ixxxv. 1, Ixxxix. 17, ΟΥ̓. 4) or ‘good pleasure,’ declared for the Head of the race at the Baptism (11. 22), was already contemplated by the Angels as resting on the race itself in virtue of His birth” (ii. App. p. 56, where the whole discussion should be studied). H. suggests that the first of the two clauses should end with ἐπὶ γῆς rather than Θεῷ, and that we should arrange thus: ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth; Peace among men of His good pleasure.” With the construction of this first clause he com- pares vil. 17 and Acts xxvi. 23: ‘Glory to God zo¢ on/y in heaven, but now also on earth.” “In this arrangement ‘ glory’ and ‘peace’ stand severally at the head of the two clauses as twin fruits of the Incarnation, that which redounds to ‘God’ and that which enters into ‘men.’” This division of the clauses, previously commended by Olshausen, makes the stichometry as even as in the familiar triplet, but it has not found many supporters. It destroys the exact correspondence between the parts of the two clauses, the first clause having three or four parts, and the second only two. W. here leaves H. to plead alone. εὐδοκίας. The word has three meanings : (1) “ design, desire,” as Ecclus. xi. 17; Rom. x. 1; (2) “satisfaction, contentment,” as Ecclus. xxxv. 14; 2 Thes. 1. 11; (3) “benevolence, goodwill,” as Ps, evi. 4; Lk. 11. 14. Both it and εὐδοκεῖν are specially used of the favour with which God regards His elect, as Ps. cxlvi. 12; Lk. iii. 22. The meaning here is “ favour, goodwill, good pleasure” ; and ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας are “men whom the Divine favour has blessed.” See Lft. on Phil. i. 15. Field (Otium JVorv. ii. p. 37) urges that, according to Greeco-biblical usage, this would be, not ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας, but ἄνδρες εὐδοκίας, and he appeals to nine ex- amples in LXX. But two-thirds of them are not in point, being singulars, and having reference to a definite adu/t ma/e and not to 1 Syr-Sin. inserts a second ‘‘and” before ‘‘ goodwill to man.” II. 14-16.] | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 59 human beings in general. ‘These are 2 Sam. xvi. 7, xvili. 20; Ps. Ixxx. 18; Jer. xv. 10; 2,70. Aq.; Dan. x. 11. There remain ἀνὸρες βουλῆς pov, Ps. cxix. 24, Aq. ; οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς διαθήκης σου, Obad. 7; ἄνδρες εἰρηνικοί cov, Obad. 7. This last is again not parallel, as being accompanied by an adj. and not a gen. Substitute ἄνδρες αἰμάτων, Ps. exxxvill. 19. Of these instances, all xecessarily refer to adult males, excepting Aq. in Ps. cxix. 24, and this more naturally does so, for “counsellors” are generally thought of as male. But, allowing that the usual expression would have been ἀνδράσιν εὐδοκίας, this might well have been avoided here in order to em- phasize the fact that all, male and female, young and old, are included. Even in the case of an individual S. Paul writes 6 ἀν- θρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (2 Thes. 11. 3), so that the combination is at anyrate possible. See on Rom. x. 1. The reading is a well-known problem, but the best textual critics are unanimous for εὐδοκίας. The internal evidence is very evenly balanced, as regards both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, which are well stated and estimated in WH. (ii. App. pp. 55, 56). The external evidence is very decidedly in favour of the apparently more difficult reading εὐδοκίας. Roughly speaking, we have all the best MSS. (excepting C, which is here defective), with all Latin authorities, against the inferior MSS., with nearly all versions, except the Latin, and nearly all the Greek writers who quote the text. Syr- Sin. has ‘‘ avd goodw7ll to men.” For εὐδοκίας, ἐξ ἢ A BD, Latt. (Vet. Vulg.) Goth. Iren-Lat. Orig-Lat. and the Lat. Glorda in excelsts. For εὐδοκία, LPI AAS, etc., Syrr. (Pesh. Sin. Harcl.) Boh. Arm, Aeth. Orig. Eus. Bas. Greg-Naz. Cyr-Hier. Did. Epiph. Cyr-Alex. “* The agreement, not only of δὲ with B, but of D and all the Latins with both, and of A with them all, supported by Origen in at least one work, and that in a certified text, affords a peculiarly strong presumption in favour of εὐδοκίας. If this reading is wrong, it must be Western ; and no other reading in the New Testament open to suspicion as Western is so comprehensively attested by the earliest and best uncials” (WH. p. 54). The vehemence with which Scrivener argues against evdoxias is quite out of place. 15-20. The Verification by the Shepherds. 15. ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους Διέλθωμεν Sy. “They repeatedly said unto one another, Come then let us go over,” or “ Let us at once go across.” The compound verb refers to the intervening country (Acts ix. 38, xi. ΤΌ, xviii. 27), and the ὃ makes the exhortation urgent. Lk. is fond of διέρχεσθαι, which occurs thirty times in his writings and less than ten elsewhere in N.T. In LXX it is very freq. τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. ‘This need not be limited to the saying of the Angel. It is rather the thing of which he spoke: see oni. 65. In class. Grk. λόγος is used in a similar manner; e.g. Hdt. 1. 21. 2. Videamus hoc verbum quod factum est (Vulg.). 16. ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες καὶ avedpav. For these mixed forms of the aor, see oni. 59. Lk. alone in N.T. uses σπεύδειν in its clasg. intrans. sense (xix. 60 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [II. 16-20. 5,65 Acts xx. 16, xxii. 18). Im 2 (Petsii. 12 itisantrans. 89 1Π|1Ξ: xvi. Lk. alone uses ἀνευρίσκειν (Acts xxi. 4), but the mid. occurs 4 Mac. iii. 14: 2nd aor. in all three cases. The compound implies a search in order to find. In his Gospel Lk. never uses te without καί (xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. IT, etc.). Here both βρέφος and φάτνῃ, having been mentioned before, have the article. 17. ἐγνώρισαν. ‘They made known,” not merely to Mary and Joseph, but to the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally. Both in N.T. and LXX γνωρίζω is commonly trans. ; but in Phil. 1. 22 and Job xxxiv. 25, as usualiy in class. Grk., it is intrans. Vulg. makes it intrans. here: cognoverunt de verbo quod dictum erat tlis de puero hoc. But ver. 14 makes this very improbable. 18. πάντες ot ἀκούσαντες. See oni. 66. This probably includes subsequent hearers, just as ver. 19 includes a time subsequent to the departure of the shepherds. The constr. ἐθαύμασαν περί is unusual. But in English “about,” which is common after “ perplexed,” might easily be transferred to such a word as “astonished.” 19. ἡ δὲ Μαρία πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα. “κέ Mary” could have no such astonishment; neither did she publish her impressions. ‘The revelations to Joseph and herself precluded both. Note the change from momentary wonder (aor.) to sus- tained reticence (imperf.): also that πάντα is put before the verb with emphasis. Comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xxxix. 2.---συνβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς. Conferens in corde suo. From whom could Lk. learn this? The verb is peculiar to him (xiv. 31 ; Acts iv. 15 ; xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14). See small print note on 1. 66. 20. δοξάζοντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες. The latter is the more definite word. ‘The former is one of the many words which have acquired a deeper meaning in bibl. Grk. Just as δόξα in bibl. Grk. never (except 4 Mac. v. 18) has the class. meaning of ‘ opinion,” but rather “praise” or “glory,” so δοξάζω in bibl. Grk. never means “form an opinion about,” but “praise” or “glorify.” It is used of the honour done by man to man (1 Sam. xv. 30), by man to God (Exod. xv. 2), and by God to man (Ps. xci. 15). It is also used of God glorifying Christ (Acts 11. 13), a use specially common in Jn. (viii. 54, x1. 4, ete.), and of Christ gloryfying God (xvii. 4). See on Rom. i. 21. For the combination comp. αἰνετὸν καὶ dedogac- μένον (Dan. 111. 26, 55). For αἰνεῖν see on ver. 13. πᾶσιν ois. For the attraction see on 111. 19. If ἤκουσαν refers to the angelic announcement, then καθώς refers to εἶδον only. But ἤκουσαν καὶ εἶδον may sum up their experiences at Bethlehem, which were a full confirmation (καθώς = “even as, just as”) of what the Angel had said. Schleiermacher points out that, if this narrative had been a mere poetical composition, we should have had the hymn of the shepherds recorded and more extensive hymns assigned to the Angels (.S. Ze, Eng. tr. p. 31). He regards the shepherds as the probable source of the narrative ; ‘‘for that which to them was most material and obvious, the nocturnal vision in the fields, is the only II. 20, 21] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 61 circumstance treated in detail” (p. 33). But any narrator would give the vision, and could hardly give it more briefly without material loss. The brevity of it, especially when contrasted with the apocryphal gospels, is strong guarantee for its truth. How tempting to describe the search for the Babe and the conversa- tion between the parents and the shepherds! Of the myth-hypothesis Weiss rightly says that ‘‘it labours in vain to explain the part played here by the shepherds by means of the pastoral tales of the ancients, and is driven to drag in, awkwardly enough, the legends of Cyrus and Romulus” (Leben Jesz, i. 2. 4, note, Eng. tr. p. 255). As for the old rationalism, which explained the angelic vision by zg7zzs fatwes or other phosphoric phenomena, which travellers have said to be common in those parts; ‘‘ the more frequent such phenomena, the more familiar must shepherds above all men, accustomed to pass their nights the whole summer long in the open air, have been with them, and the less likely to consider them as a sign from heaven pointing at a particular event” (Schleierm. p. 36). 21-40. Zhe Circumcision and the Presentation in the Temple. This forms the third and last section in the second group of narratives (i. 57-1. 40) in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-11. 52). It corresponds to the Visitation (i. 39-56) in the first group. Its very marked conclusion has close resemblance to i. 80 and 1]. 52. See introductory note to vv. 1-20 (p. 46). The absence of parallel passages in the other Gospels shows that at first this portion of the Gospel narrative was less well known. An oral tradition respect- ing the childhood of the Christ (when hardly anyone suspected that He was the Christ) would be much less likely to arise or become prevalent than an oral tradition respecting the ministry and cruci- fixion. We can once more trace a threefold division, viz. a longer narrative between two very short ones: the Circumcision (21), the Presentation in the Temple (22-38), and the Return to Home Life at Nazareth (39, 40). 21. The Circumcision. The verse contains an unusual number Gimarks of Lk.’s, style. 1. Kati ὅτε (vv. 22, 42, vi. 13; xxii. 14, Xxili. 33); 2. πλήθειν (twenty-two times in Lk. and Acts, and thrice elsewhere in N.T.); see oni. 57; 3. τοῦ ὦ. zvjfin. to express aioeorspunpose (1. 74,°77, 70, i. 24, iv. 10, Vv. 7, vill. 5, etc.) ; see on 1. 74; 4. καί introducing the apodosis (v. 1, 12, 17, vii. 12, ix. 51, etc.); 5. συλλαμβάνειν (eleven times in Lk. and Acts, and five times elsewhere). See on v. 1. 21. τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν. There being no art. with ἡμέραι (contrast ver. 22), we cannot, as in ver. 6 and i. 57, make the gen. depend on αἱ ἡμέραι or ὃ χρόνος. The ὀκτώ does not take the place of the art. As Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. vill. 3), and “it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren” (Heb. ii. 17), He underwent cir- cumcision. He was “born under the law” (Gal. iv. 4), and ful- filled the law as a loyal son of Abraham. Had He not done so, οὐκ ἂν ὅλως: παρεδέχθη διδάσκων, GAN ἀποπέμφθη ἂν ὡς ἀλλόφυλος 62 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ITI. 21, 22. (Euthym.) His circumcision was a first step in His obedience to the will of God, and a first shedding of the redeeming blood. It was one. of those things which became Him, in order “to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt. ii. 15). The contrast with the circumcision of the Baptist is marked. Here there is no family gathering of rejoicing neighbours and kinsfolk. Joseph and Mary are strangers in a village far from home. The reading τὸ παίδιον (Ὁ) E G H) for αὐτόν (δὲ ABR & and versions) prob- ably arose from this being the beginning of a lection, ‘‘ Him” being changed to ‘‘the child” (AV.) for greater clearness. The same kind of thing has been done at the beginning of many of the Gospels in the Book of Common Prayer, ‘‘ Jesus” being substituted for ‘‘ He” or ‘‘ Him”: e.g. the Gospels for the 6th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Sundays after Trinity. καὶ ἐκλήθη. The καί is almost our “then” and the German da: but it may be left untranslated. It introduces the apodosis, as often in Grk., and esp. in Lk. This is simpler than to explain it as a mixture of two constructions, ‘‘ Wen eight days were ful- filled . . . He was called” and “Eight days were fulfilled ... and' He was called” (Win. li. 3. f, p. 546, lxv. 3. cp ysep Comp. Acts i. 10. “ He was adso called” is not likely to be right. The Vulgate and Luther are nght. £7 postguam consummati sunt dates octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen 6745 Jesus. Und da acht Tage um waren, dass das Kind beschnitten wiirde, da ward sein Name genannt Jesus. ‘This passage, with that about John the Baptist (i. 59), is the chief biblical evidence that naming was connected with circumcision: comp. Gen. xvil. 5, ro. Among the Romans the naming of girls took place on the eighth day: of boys on the ninth. The purification accompanied it ; and hence the name des lustricus. ‘Tertullian uses xominalia of the naming festival (Zdo/. xvi. 1). Among the Greeks the naming festival was on the tenth day ; δεκάτην ἑστιᾷν or θύειν. συλλημφθῆναι This and corresponding forms, such as λήμψομαι, προσω- πολημψία, and the like, are abundantly attested in good MSS. both of LXX and of N.T. See oni. 31. 22-38. The Purification and the Presentation in the Temple. Here also we have a triplet. The Ceremony (22-24); Symeon and the Nunc Dimittis (25-35); and Anna the Prophetess (36-38). Symeon and Anna, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, with those spoken of in ver. 38, are evidence that Judaism was still a living religion to those who made the most of their opportunities. 22. ai ἡμέραι tod x. Lev. xii. 6. Lk. is fond of these peri- phrases, which are mostly Hebraistic, Comp. ἣ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββά- Τὶ 95} THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 63 tov (iv. 16), Or τοῦ σαββάτου (xii. 14, τό, XIV. 5), 7 ἡμέρα τῶν ἀζύμων (xxil. 7), and the like. τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν. ‘Of ¢hezr purification.” The Jewish law (Ley. xii.) did not include the child in the purification. This fact, and the feeling that least of all could Jesus need purifying, produced the corrupt reading αὐτῆς, followed in AV. No uncial and perhaps only one cursive (76) supports the reading αὐτῆς, which spread from the Complutensian Polyglott Bible (1514) to a number of editions. It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no authority becoming widely adopted. It now has the support of Syr-Sin. The Complutensian insertion of διηρθρώθη after ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ in i. 64 was less successful, although that has the support of two cursives (140, 251). D here has the strange reading αὐτοῦ, which looks like a slip rather than a correction. No one would alter αὐτῶν to αὐτοῦ. The Vulgate also has purgation?s ejus, but some Lat. MSS. have eorvwm. The αὐτῆς might come from LXX of Ley. xii. 6, ὅταν ἀναπληρωθῶσιν ai ἡμέραι καθάρσεως αὐτῆς. Note that Lk. uses καθαρισμός and not κάθαρσις, which is a medical term for menstruation, and which Gentile readers might misunderstand. The meaning of αὐτῶν isnot clear. Edersheim and Van Hengel interpret it of the Jews; Godet, Meyer, and Weiss of Mary and Joseph. The latter is justified by the context: ‘When the days of their purification were fulfilled . . . Hey brought Him.” Con- tact with an unclean person involved uncleanness. Purification after childbirth seems to have been closely connected with purifica- tion after menstruation; the rites were similar. Herzog, PRE.” art. Reinigungen. After the birth of a son the mother was unclean for seven days, then remained at home for thirty-three days, and on the fortieth day after the birth made her offerings. κατὰ Tov νόμον Μωυσέως. ‘These words must be taken with what precedes, for the law did not require them to bring Him to Jeru- salem (Lev. xi. 1-8). We have already had several places in ch. 1. (vv. 8, 25, 27) in which there are amphibolous words or epatases > Comp, Vill. 20. 1Σ. 17, 18, 57, X..18, x1, 20; Xil. 1, XVIL) 22, EVIL 21. ΣΙΝ 37, ΧΧΙ 36, Cte: The trisyllabic form Μωῦσῆς is to be preferred to Μωσῆς. The name is said to be derived from two Egyptian words, mo = ‘‘ water,” and wgaz = “" to be preserved.” Hence the LXX, a version made in Egypt, and the best MSS. of the N.T., which in the main represent the text of the N.T. that was current in Egypt, keep nearest to the Egyptian form of the name by preserving the v. Josephus also has Μωυσῆς. But Μωσῆς is closer to the Hebrew form of the name, and is the form most commonly used by Greek and Latin writers. Win. Vv. 8, Pe 47- ἀνήγαγον. One of Lk.’s favourite words (iv. 5, viii. 22, and often in Acts). It is here used of bringing Him wf 20 the capital, like ἀναβαινόντων in ver. 43. In the literal sense they went dowz ; for Bethlehem stands higher than Jerusalem. This journey is the first visit of the Christ to His own city, 64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE (II. 22, 23. Ἰεροσόλυμα. In both his writings Lk. much more often uses the Jewish form Ἱερουσαλήμ (vv. 25, 38, 41, 43, 45, etc.), which Mt. uses only once (xxiii. 37), and Mk. perhaps not at all (Ὁ xi. 1). Jn. uses the Greek form in his Gospel, and the Jewish form in the Apocalypse. The Jewish form is used wherever the name is not a geographical term, but has a specially religious signification (Gal. iv. 25; Heb. xii. 22). The Greek form is neut. plur. In Mt. il. 3 it may be fem.; but perhaps πᾶσα ἡ πόλις was in the writer’s mind. Neither form should have the aspirate, which a “ false association with tepos” has produced (WH. 11. 313; App. p. 160). This visit to Jerusalem probably preceded the arrival of the Magi, after which Joseph and Mary would hardly have ventured to bring Him to the city. If this is correct, we must abandon the traditional view that the Epiphany took place on the thirteenth day after the Nativity. There is no improbability in Joseph’s going back to Bethlehem for a while before returning to Nazareth. See Andrews, Le of our Lord, p. 92, ed. 1892; Swete, Zhe Apostles Creed, p. 50, ed. 1894. In any case the independence of Mt. and Lk. is manifest, for we do not know how to harmonize the accounts. Lk. seems to imply that ‘‘ the law of Moses” was kept in all particulars; and if so, the purification did not take place before the fortieth day. Mt. implies that the flight into Egypt took place immediately after the visit of the Magi (ii. 14). As Bethlehem is so close to Jerusalem, Herod would not wait long for the return of the Magi before taking action. We adopt, therefore, as a tentative order the Presenta- tion on the fortieth day, Return to Bethlehem, Visit of the Magi, Flight into Egypt, without any return to Nazareth. παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ. ‘The Heb. verb in Ex. xii. 12 means “cause to pass over.” It is elsewhere used of parents causing their children to pass through the fire in offering them to Moloch, but is not then translated by παρίστημι (Deut. xviii. 10; 2 Kings xvi. 3, XVli. 17, xxiii. το, ete.). For παραστῆσαι of offering to God comp. Rom. xii. 1. This παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ is quite distinct from the purification, which concerned the mother, whereas the presentation concerned the son. It is evident that the presentation is the main fact here. Not, “she came to offer a sacrifice,” but ‘they brought . Him up to present Him to the Lord,” is the principal statement. The latter rite points back to the primitive priesthood of all first- born sons. Their functions had been transferred to the tribe of Levi (Num. iii. 12); but every male firstborn had to be redeemed from service in the sanctuary by a payment of five shekels (Num. XVili. 15, 16), as an acknowledgment that the rights of Jehovah had not lapsed. This sum would be about twelve shillings accord- ing to the present worth of that amount of silver, but in purchasing power would be nearly double that. 23. The quotation (which is not a parenthesis) is a combination of Ex. xiii. 2 with Ex. xiii. 12, and is not exact with either: κληθήσεται ay. perhaps comes from Ex. xii. 16; comp. Lk. i. 35. For wav ἄρσεν see Gen. vil. 23 ; II. 238, 24.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 65 mx. i. 22. The διανοῖγον μήτραν seems to be fatal to patristic speculations respecting Mary’s having given birth to the Christ c/awso wtero, and therefore painlessly : see on ver. 7. : ; ε Excepting Mk. vii. 34, διανοίγω is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 31, 45; Acts vii. 56, xvi. 14, xvii. 3); freq. in LXX (Gen. ili. 5, 7; Exod. xii. 15; Num. iii. 12, etc.). 24. τοῦ δοῦναι θυσίαν. See on i. 74, and to the reff. there given aetivenyy, Vill, 5, IX. ΕἸ, Xi. 42, XXi. 22, xxii, 6, 31, XxIV. 15, 25, 29, 45. This is Mary’s offering for her own purification : it has nothing to do with the ransom of the firstborn. ‘The record of the offerings is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed zof to bring the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. ζεῦγος τρυγόνων. ‘The offering of the poor. It has been argued that this is evidence that the Magi had not yet come. But their gifts, even if they had already offered them, would not have raised Mary’s condition from poverty to riches. Only well-to-do people offered a lamb and a pigeon. Neither here nor elsewhere in N.T. have we any evidence that our Lord or His parents were among the abjectly poor. ‘* The pigeon and turtle-dove were the only birds enjoined to be offered in sacrifice by the law of Moses. In almost every case they were permitted as a substitute for those who were too poor to provide a kid ora lamb. . . . But while the turtle-dove is a migrant, and can only be obtained from spring to autumn, the wild pigeons remain throughout the year; and not only so—they have young at all times. Consequently, at any time of the year when the turtle- dove was unattainable, young pigeons might be procured. There is also a force in the adjective ‘ young’; for while the old turtle-dove could be trapped, it was hopeless to secure the old pigeon” (Tristram, Wat. Hist. of the B. pp. 211, 213). 25-35. The Benediction of Symeon. He and Anna are repre- sentatives of the holiness which, in a time of great spiritual deadness, - still survived among the men and women of Israel. They are instances of that “spontaneous priesthood” which sometimes springs up, and often among the lower orders, when the regular clergy have become corrupt and secularized. To identify Symeon with any other Symeon is precarious, the name being exceedingly common. He is introduced rather as an unknown person (ἄνθρωπος ἦν). It is sometimes said that Symeon, son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel, would hardly have been old enough; he was president of the Sanhedrin a.p. 13. But ver. 29 does not necessarily imply that Symeon is very old. What we know of the Sanhedrin at this period, however, does not lead us to expect to find saints among its presidents. In the Gosfel of Nicodemus he is called sacerdos magnus, and it is his two sons who are raised from the dead by hee and reveal what they have seen in Hades (Pars altera, ἌΦΕΣ : 5 66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [II. 25, 38. 25. ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. It is remarkable that with one excep- tion (Rom. xv. 26) this expression is used in N.T. by no one but Lk., who has it very often (ver. 43, ix. 31; Acts i. 8, ii. 5, Vi. 7, IX. 13, 21, X)39, Xie 29, xvii 4, Xxi. 21), Un eee common. εὐλαβής. The word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts ii 5, Vill. 2, xxil. 12): lit. “taking hold well,” and so “cautious.” Lat. timoratus (Vulg.), d¢imens (e), metuens (d), timens deum (1). Plutarch uses εὐλάβεια in the sense of “ carefulness about religious duties, piety”; but εὐλαβής is not thus used in class. Grk. We find the combination of these same two adjectives, δίκαιος and εὐλαβής, twice in Plato’s sketch of the ideal statesman. He ought to have both moderation and courage ; and of moderation the two chief elements are justice and circumspection. If he is merely courageous, he will be wanting in τὸ δίκαιον καὶ εὐλαβές (Polit. 311 B). See also Philo, Quzs rer. div. hzr. vi., of the εὐλάβεια of Abraham. ‘The meaning of the combination here is that Symeon was conscientious, especially in matters of religion. προσδεχόμενος (See ON XXill. 51) παράκλησιν. 1. “ Appeal for help”; 2. “encouragement”; 3. “consolation.” The last is the meaning here. ‘Those who “sit in darkness and the shadow of death” (i. 79) need consolation; and the salvation which the Messiah was to bring was specially called such by the Jews. Comp. ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people” (Is. xl. 1, xlix. 13, li. 3, lxi. 2, Ixvi. 13). There was a belief that a time of great troubles (dolores Messix) would precede the coming of the Christ. Hence the Messiah Himself was spoken of as “the Consoler,” or “the Consolation.” Comp. Joseph of Arimathza, “who was wait- ing for the kingdom of God” (xxiii. 51; Mk. xv. 43); and with this “ waiting” or “looking” of Symeon and Joseph comp. Jacob’s death-song, Gen. xlix. 18. πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον. This is the order of the words in the best authorities ; and the separation of ἅγιον from πνεῦμα by ἦν accentu- ates the difference between this expression and that in the next verse. Here the meaning is, “an influence which was holy was upon him”; i. 15, 35, 41, 67 are not parallel. See oni. 15. The accusative, ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, indicates the coming, rather than the resting, of the holy influence; the prophetic zpudse. 26. κεχρηματισμένον. The act. = τ. “transact business” (χρῆμα); 2. “give a divine response” to one who consults an oracle ; 3. “give a divine admonition, teach from heaven” (Jer. XXV. 30, Xxxi. 25 Job xl. 8). The pass. is used both of the admonition divinely given, as here, and of the person divinely admonished (Mt. ii. 12, 22; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5, xi. 7). It is gratuitous to conjecture that it was in a dream that the Holy Spirit made this known to Symeon, II. 26-28.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 67 μὴ ἰδεῖν Θ. πρὶν ἢ ἂν ἴδῃ. This is the only example in N.T. of πρίν with the subj. (Win. xli. 3. Ὁ, p. 371); and, if the reading is correct, the only instance of πρὶν ἄν : but perhaps either ἤ or ἄν should be omitted. The repe- tition of ‘‘ see” is doubtless intentional. In many languages ‘‘see” is used of any kind of experience (Acts il. 27, 31, xiii. 35-37, etc.). τὸν Χριστὸν Κυρίου. “The Anointed of the Lord”; Him whom God has sent as the Messiah. Comp. τὸν Xp. τοῦ Θεοῦ (ix. 20), and also 1 Sam. xxiv. 7. 27. ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. Not “ina state of ecstasy” (Rev. i. 10), but “under the influence of the Spirit,’ who had told him of the blessing in store for him. By τὸ ἱερόν is probably meant the Court of the Women.—ev τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν. ‘After they had brought in”: see on ili. 21. The verb is a favourite with Lk. (xiv. 21, xxii. 54, and six times in Acts): elsewhere only Jn. xviii. 16; Heb. i. 6. τοὺς γονεῖς. We cannot infer from this that either here or ver. 41 Luke is using an authority that was ignorant of the super- natural birth of Jesus. It is more reasonable to suppose that the whole of this ‘Gospel of the Infancy” comes from one source, viz. the house of Mary, and that in these passages the narrator employs the usual expression. Joseph (iv. 22) and Mary were commonly called His parents: comp. ver. 33.—It is possible to take περὶ αὐτοῦ after νόμου or after εἰθισμένον ; but more prob- ably it belongs to τοῦ ποιῆσαι. For κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον see on i. 8. 28. καὶ αὐτός. First the parents, and then Ze holds the child in his arms ; the καί being either “also” (he as well as they), or simply introducing the apodosis after ἐν τῷ eicayayeiv.. Each side acts its proper part. The parents bring Him in accordance with the Divine Law, and Symeon welcomes Him in accordance with the Divine impulse. Symeon is sometimes called Θεοδόχος. See on vill. 13. Latin renderings of ἀγκάλας vary: wdnas(Vulg.), manus (cef), amplexum (a), alas (d). The last is a late use of ala. 29-32. The unc Dimittis. In its suppressed rapture and vivid intensity this canticle equals the most beautiful of the Psalms. Since the fifth century it has been used in the evening services of the Church (Agost. Const. vii. 481), and has often been the hymn of dying saints. It is the sweetest and most solemn of all the canticles. Symeon represents himself as a servant or watchman released from duty, because that for which he was commanded to watch has appeared. Comp. the opening of the Agamemnon of Atschylus, 1 Most of the canticles from O.T. and N.T. were said at Lauds both in East and West. But the J/agz/ica¢ was transferred in the West to Vespers, and the Nunc Dimitt?s seems to have been always used in the evening, in the East at Vespers, in the West at Compline. Kraus, Real.-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. p. 5063 Bingham, Orzg. vi. 47. 68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [11. 29-81. where the sentinel rejoices at his release from the long watch for the fire-signal respecting the capture of Troy. 29. viv. “ow that I have at last seen the long-looked for Messiah”: the νῦν stands first with emphasis. ἀπολύεις τ. δοῦλόν σ., δέσποτα. All three words show that the figure is that of the manumission of a slave, or of his release from a long task. Death is the instrument of release. ᾿Απολύω is used of the deaths of Abraham (Gen. xv. 2), of Aaron (Num. xx. 29), of Tobit (Tob. iii. 6), of a martyr (2 Mac. vii. 9) : comp. Soph. Azz. 1268, and many examples in Wetst. Δεσπότης is the “master of a slave,” and the Greeks sometimes refused the title to any but the gods in reference to themselves (Eur. /Z7ppo/. 88). In Scripture it is not often used of God: Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; perhaps Jude 4, which, however, like 2 Pet. ii. 1, may refer to Christ. Comp. Job v. 8; Wisd. vi. 7, vill. 3; Ecclus. xxxvi. 1; 3 Mac. ii. 2; Philo, Quzs rer. div. her. vi.; and see Trench, Syz. xxviii. In using the word Symeon acknowledges God’s absolute right to dispose of him, either in retaining or dispensing with his service. κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά cov. The Divine command communicated to him (ver. 26). Note the exact correspondence between his hymn and the previous promise: ἀπολύεις = ἰδεῖν θάνατον, εἶδον = ἴδῃ, τὸ σωτήριόν gov = τὸν Χριστὸν Κυρίου.---ἐν εἰρήνῃ. With emphasis, answering to the emphatic νῦν : the beginning and the end of the verse correspond. It is the peace of completeness, of work finished and hopes fulfilled. Comp. “Thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace” (Gen. xv. 15). 80. ὅτι. Introduces the cause of the perfect peace.—eidov ot ὀφθαλμοί pou. Hebraistic fulness of expression: comp. Job xix. 27, xlii. 5. His hands also had handled (τ Jn. 1. 1); but he mentions sight rather than handling, because sight was specially promised (ver. 26). This verse probably suggested the worthless tradition that Symeon was blind, and received his sight as the Messiah approached him. τὸ σωτήριον. ‘The Messianic salvation,” and scarcely to be distinguished from τὴν σωτηρίαν. Comp. iil. 6; Acts xxviil. 28; Ps. xcvili. 3; Is. ΧΙ δ; Clem. Rom: Cor χα τ Tn ee a freq., sometimes in the sense of “safety,” sometimes of “ peace- offering.” Win. xxxiv. 2, p. 294. That Symeon says so little about the Child, and nothing about the wonders which attended His birth (of which he had probably not heard), is a mark of genuine- ness. Fiction would have made him dwell on these things. 81, 32. The second strophe of the canticle. Having stated what the appearance of the Messiah has been to himself, Symeon now states what the Messiah will be to the world. 81. ἡτοίμασας. When used of God, the verb almost = “ ordain.” Comp. Mt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mk. x. 40; 1 Cor. u. 93 Heboaime ) II. 31, 32.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 69 where, as here, the word is used of ordaining blessings. It is used only once of punishment (Mt. xxv. 41). κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν. ‘This includes both Jews and Gentiles, as the next verse shows, and is in harmony with the universal character of this Gospel: comp. Is. xix. 24, 25, xlii. 6, xlix. 6, lx. 3, and especially lil. 10, ἀποκαλύψει Κύριος τὸν βραχίονα αὐτοῦ τὸν ἅγιον ἐνώπιον πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν, καὶ ὄψονται πάντα τὰ ἄκρα τῆς γῆς τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Both in LXX and N.T. κατὰ πρόσωπον is common; it occurs several times in Polybius. 32. The σωτήριον is analysed into light and glory, and “the peoples” into heathen and Jews,—that “profound dualism which dominates the biblical history of humanity from Genesis to Revela- tion” (Godet). The passage is a combination of Ps. xcviii. 2, ἐναντίον τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀπεκάλυψε τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, With Is. xlix. 6, δέδωκά σε εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν, and φῶς and δόξαν are in apposition with τὸ σωτήριον. But some take both as depending on ἡτοίμασας, and others take δόξαν after εἰς coordinately with ἀποκάλυψιν. This last is Luther’s: ez Licht zu erleuchten die Heiden und sum Prets deines Volkes ; but it is very improbable. ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν. Either 1. “revelation 20 de/ong to the Gen- tiles” ; or 2. “‘zustruction of the Gentiles” ; or 3. “ wnvetling of the Gentiles,” z.e. for removing the gross darkness which covers them (Is. xxv. 7, lx. 2); or 4. (taking ἐθνῶν after φῶς) “a light of the Gentiles unto revelation” (Is. xl. 5). The first is best, “a light with a view to revelation which shall belong to the Gentiles,” making ἐθνῶν a poss. gen. Does ἀποκάλυψις ever mean “instruction”?! And to represent the heathen as revealed by the light seems to be an inversion: revealed fo whom? Elsewhere in N.T. the gen. after ἀποκάλυψις is either the person who reveals (2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1), or the thing revealed (Rom. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 13); but the poss. gen. is quite possible. The word is eminently Pauline (Crem. Zex. p- 343). It may be doubted whether the glory of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) is men- tioned after the enlightening of the Gentiles in order to indicate that Israel obtained its full glory after and through the enlightenment of the Gentiles ; for the heathen accepted the salvation which the Jews refused, and from the heathen it came back to Israel (Bede, Beng.). The strain of confidence and joy which pervades the canticle is strong evidence of the historical character of the narrative. The condition of the Jewish nation at the close of the first century or beginning of the second is cer- tainly not reflected in it: cest le pur accent primztif (Godet). And Schleier- macher remarks that ‘‘it is a circumstance too natural for a poetical fiction ” that Symeon takes no notice of the parents until they show surprise, but is lost in an enthusiastic address to God. See small print oni. 56. 83-35. Symeon’s Address to the Virgin. ‘The foreboding of suffering to Mary, so indefinitely expressed, bears no mark of fos¢ 1 Grotius admits without commending this rendering, and quotes Ps, cxix. 18, ἀποκάλυψον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου. 7O THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 33-35. actum invention. But the inspired idea of Messiah in the pious old man obviously connected the sufferings which He was to endure in His strife against the corrupt people with those which were foretold of Him in Is. li.” (Neander, Zeden Jesus Christi, § 18, Eng. tr. p. 27). The change from the unmixed joy and glory of the angelic announcements and of the evangelic hymns is very marked. Here for the first time in the narrative we have an intimation of future suffering. 33. ἦν. When the sing. verb was written, only the first of the persons mentioned was in the writer’s mind: such irregularities are common (Mt. xvii. 3, xxii. 40). θαυμάζοντες ἐπί. Excepting Mk. xii. 17, this construction is peculiar in N.T. to Lk. (iv. 22, ix. 43, xx. 26; Acts iii. 12). ΤῈ is quite class. and freq. in LXX (Judith x. 7, 19, 23, xi. 20; Job xli. 1; Eccles. v. 7 ; Is. lii. 15). The objection of Strauss, that this wonder of the parents is inconsistent with the angelic annunciation, is pointless. Symeon’s declaration about the Gentiles goes far beyond the Angel’s promise, and it was marvellous that Symeon should know anything about the Child’s nature and destiny. 84. κεῖται. “15 appointed,” Phil. 1. 16; 1 Thes. 11. 3; Josh. iv. 6; not “15 lying” here in thine arms. εἰς πτώσιν. In accordance with Is. viii. 14, where the same double destiny is expressed. The coming of the Messiah neces- sarily involves a crisis, a separation, or judgment (κρίσις). Some welcome the Light; others ‘love the darkness rather than the Light, because their works are evil” (Jn. ii. 19), and are by their own conduct condemned. Judas despairs, Peter repents; one robber blasphemes, the other confesses (2 Cor. ii. 16). Hence the πτῶσις Of many is an inevitable vesw/t of the manifestation of the Christ. Yet the purpose is not πτῶσις, but ἀνάστασις and σωτηρία (Rom. xi. 11, 12). Elsewhere in N.T. ἀνάστασις means the resurrection of the dead; in bibl. Grk. it is never transitive. Some understand the metaphor as that of a stone lying (κεῖτια), against which some stumble and fall (Mt. xxi. 44; Acts iv. 11; Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 6), while others use it as a means to rise. But the latter half of the figure is less appropriate. σημεῖον. A manifest token, a phenomenon impossible to ignore, by means of which something else is known. A person may be a σημεῖον, as Christ is said to be here, and Jonah in xi. 30,—évttheyopevov. ‘Which zs spoken against.” This is the πτῶσις, that men recognize, and yet reject and oppose, the σημεῖον ; an opposition which reached a climax in the crucifixion (Heb. xii. 3). For the passive comp. Acts xxvill. 22. 35. From καὶ σοῦ to ῥομφαία is not a parenthesis; there is nothing in the construction to indicate that it is one, and a state- ment of such moment to the person addressed would hardly be introduced parenthetically. It is the inevitable result of the ἀντιλογία : the Mother’s heart is pierced by the rejection and II. 35, 36. ] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 71 crucifixion of her Son.—adris.1 In opposition to οὗτος.---τὴν ψυχήν. The seat of the affections and human emotions.—fopoaia. (1) A long Thracian pike ; (2) a large sword, greater than μάχαιρα (xxil. 36, 38, 49, 52) or ξίφος. Such a weapon better signifies extreme anguish than doubt, the interpretation which Origen, Bleek, and Reuss prefer, as if she would be tempted to join in the ἀντιλέγειν. In that case we should expect τὸ πνεῦμα for τ. ψυχήν. The word is frequent in LXX and Rev. (i. 16, il. 12, 16, vi. 8, sik ΤΣ 27), ὅπως ἄν. ‘This depends upon the whole statement from ᾿1δού to ῥομφαία, not on the last clause only; on κεῖται, not on διελεύ- σεται. It was the Divine purpose that the manifestation of the Messiah should cause the crisis just described ; men must decide either to join or to oppose Him. ‘The ay indicates that in every case the appearance of the Christ produces this result: thoughts, hitherto secret, become known through acceptance or rejection of the Christ. Acts iii, 19, 20 should be compared. There, as here, we have eis followed by ὅπως ἄν. In N.T. ὅπως ἄν is rare ; elsewhere only in quotations from LXX (Acts xv. 17 from Amos ix. 12; Rom. iii. 4 from Ps. li. 6). ἐκ π. kapdiov. ‘forth from many hearts,” where they have been concealed; or “Forth from the hearts of many.” For διαλογισμοί see On v. 22. 36-38. Anna the Prophetess. That the Evangelist ebtained this narrative “directly or indirectly from the lips of this Anna who is so accurately described,” is less probable than that the source for all this chapter is one and the same, viz. some member of the Holy Family, and probably Mary herself. 36. ἦν. Either “was present,” as in Mk. xv. 40, in which case ἣν in the sense of “was” has to be understood with what follows ; or simply “there was,” which is better. Thus all runs in logical order. First the existence of Anna is stated, then her life and character, and finally her presence on this occasion. Symeon comes to the temple under the influence of the Spirit; Anna (Hannah) dwells there continually. The sight of the Messiah | makes him at once long for death; it seems to give her renewed | vigour of life. Is this subtle distinction of character the creation of a writer of fiction? We find fiction at work in the tradition that Mary had been brought up in the temple under the tutelage of Anna. There is nothing here to indicate that Anna had ever seen Mary previously. 1 It is not easy to decide whether the δέ after σοῦ is genuine or not. Om. BL#, Vulg. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Ins. δὲ A D, Syrr., Orig. If it be admitted, comp. i. 76; and render καὶ... δὲ. . . in the same way in both passages: “Yea and.” For διελεύσεται see on ver. 15. 72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [II. 36, 37. Neither in ver. 36 (καὶ ἣν) nor in ver. 37 (καὶ αὐτή) does καί = ‘‘also” in ref. to ver. 25. The meaning is not ‘‘ There was Symeon, the holy and aged man ; a/so Anna, the holy and aged woman.” Throughout the section καί = Heine be προφῆτις. She was known as such before this occasion. Like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and the daughters of Philip, Anna was a woman divinely inspired to make known God’s will to others. That her genealogy is given because prophetesses are rare, is doubtful. But Lk.’s accuracy appears in such details, which a forger would have avoided for fear of mistakes. Although the ten tribes were lost, some families possessed private genealogies. For the word προφῆτις comp. Rev. 11. 20; Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4; 2.\Chron. soxxiv. 23 15: Μ11| 5. For the omission of the art. after θυγάτηρ see on i. 5.—Pavound = ‘* Face of God,” Peniel or Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 31, 32); in LXX εἶδος Θεοῦ.---᾿ Ασήρ, 2 Chron. xxx. II. αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα, k.t.A. “She was advanced in many days, having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity, and herself a widow even for eighty-four years.” From αὕτη προβεβ. to τεσσάρων 15 a parenthesis in which ἣν is to be understood: ζήσασα explains προβεβηκυῖα, and αὐτή balances μετὰ ἀνδρός. She was of great age, decause she had lived! seven years as a wife and eighty- four years dy herself (Rom. vii. 25) as a widow. The ἕως draws attention to the great length of her widowhood; “up to as much as” (Mt. xviii. 21, 22). That she should be considerably over a hundred years old is not incredible. But the eighty-four may be intended to include the seven years and the time before her marriage. In any case the clumsy arrangement of taking all three verses (36-38) as one sentence, and making αὕτη the nom. to ἀνθωμολογεῖτο, Should be avoided. ‘That she had never, in spite of her early widowhood, married again, was held to be very honourable to her: comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 5. Jonogamia apud ethnicos in summo honore est (Tertul. de. Exh. Cast. ΧΙ]. : comp. de Monog. xvi.; ad Uxor. i. 7). See quotations in Wetst. on 1 Tim. iii. 2, and Whiston’s note on Jos. Azz. xvii. 6. 6. 87. οὐκ ἀφίστατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ. See on vill. 13. This is to be understood, like xxiv. 53, of constant attendance, rather than of actual residence within the temple precincts, although the latter may have been possible. She never missed a service, and between the services she spent most of her time in the temple. In spite of her age she kept more than the customary fasts (comp. v. 33), perhaps more than the Mondays and Thursdays (see on xvii. 12), and spent an unusual amount of time in prayer. 1 The first aorist of ζῆν is late Greek. It occurs Acts xxvi. 5; Rom. xiv. 93 Rey. ii. 8, xx. 4. Attic writers use ἐβίων, which is not found in N.T II. 87-89.}] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 73 Aatpevovoa. Freq. in Lk., Paul, and Heb. See on iv. 8. Not in Mk. or Jn. Mt. iv. 10 from Deut. vi. 13.-νὐκτα κ. ἡμέραν. Comp. Acts xxvi. 7. This is the usual order: Mk. iv. 27, v. 5; Acts xx. 31; 1 Thes. eon 1: 10; 2 Dhes. ii. 8; 1 Lim. v. 5: 2 Lim. i 3. But the other is also common: xvili. 7; Acts ix. 24; Rev. ix. 8, etc.; and in O.T. is more common. It may be doubted whether the order makes any difference of meaning: see Ellicott on 1 Tim. v. 5, and comp. Hom. Qa. ii. 345; 74. xxiv. 73, v. 490; Plat. Zheaet. 151 A. 38. αὐτῇ τῇ wpa. “That very hour” (RV.): see on x. 7, 21. AV. exaggerates with “that instant,” as does Beza with eo 7250 momento, and also Gen. with “at the same instant.”—émuortdéoa. “Coming up” and “standing by,” rather than ‘‘ coming suddenly” (Gen. and Rhem.), although the word often has this meaning from thaecontext. Comp. xxl. 34,x. 40, xx/1 ; Acts iv. 1, Vis 12, xxil. 13, Xxlll. 27 ; and see on ver. 9.—édv@wpodoyettro. The ἀντί does not refer to Symeon, meaning that “she zz ¢urn gave thanks”; but to the making @ return, which is involved in all thanksgiving: Ps. πεν 13), Ezra. τὰ; 2. Mac, vi. 335 Zest 7... Parr. Judah 1. ἐλάλει. Not on that occasion, but afterwards, “she was habitually speaking.” When she met Mary and Joseph she could not speak πᾶσιν τοῖς προσδεχομένοις, for they were not present. Grammatically περὶ αὐτοῦ may refer to τῷ Θεῷ, but it evidently refers to the Child. Godet divides the people into three sections : the Pharisees, who expected a political deliverer ; the Sadducees, who expected nothing; and the blessed few, who expected the spiritual deliverance or consolation (ver. 25) of Jerusalem. Bengel argues from πᾶσιν evant igitur non pauct, which does not follow, especially when we consider Lk.’s fondness for the word. λύτρωσιν ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. This, without ἐν, is certainly the true reading (δ Β, many Versions and Fathers), ‘‘redemption of Jerusalem.” Comp. Is. xl. 2. Fiction would probably have given Anna alsoa hymn. Against the hypothesis that this narrative 1s ‘‘a poetical and symbolical representation,” Schleiermacher asks, ‘‘ Why should the author, along with Symeon, have introduced Anna, who is not made even to answer any poetical purpose ?” 39. ἐτέλεσαν. “‘ Brought to a close, accomplished”; especially of executing what has been prescribed: xii. 50, XVill. 31, XXil. 47; Acts ext. 20; Roms wu. 274) Jas: 1 8. See Jn. xix. 28; which illustrates the difference between τελέω and τελειόω. Syr-Sin. here inserts “Joseph and Mary” as nom. to ‘‘accomplished.” Why not “ His father and His mother” (ver. 33) or “‘ His parents ” (ver. 43), if that text was framed to discredit the virgin birth ? Ναζαρέτ. Lk. appears to know nothing of the visit of the Magi. It would have suited his theme of the wuversality of the Gospel so well, that he would hardly have omitted it, if he had known it. In that case he was not familiar with our First Gospel. From Mt. ii. rr we infer that the Holy Family, after the Purifi- cation, returned to Bethlehem and there occupied a house (τὴν 74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 39-41. οἰκίαν). The parents may have thought that the Son of David, born in Bethlehem, ought to be brought up there. Thence they fly to Egypt, a flight not mentioned in the authority used by Lk. 40. The conclusion of a separate narrative: comp. i. 80. Contrast the reticence of this verse (which is all that we know respecting the next eleven years) with the unworthy inventions of the apocryphal gospels. ἠύξανεν κ. expatatodto. Of bodily development in size and strength ; for πνεύματι is an insertion from i. 80.—dnpovpevov. Pres. part. “ Being filled” day by day. The σοφία is to be regarded as wisdom in the highest and fullest sense. The intellectual, moral, and spiritual growth of the Child, like the physical, was vea/. His was a perfect humanity developing perfectly, unimpeded by hereditary or acquired defects. It was the first instance of such a growth in history. For the first time a human infant was realizing the ideal of humanity. χάρις Θεοῦ ἢν ew αὐτό. See on iv. 22 and comp. Acts iv. 33. It was near the beginning of this interval that the Jews sent an embassy of fifty to follow Archelaus to Rome, to protest against his accession, and to petition that Judzea might be annexed to Syria (Jos. B. /. ii. 6. 1; Ant. xvii. 11. I), of which fact we perhaps have a trace in the parable of the Pounds (xix. 14). And it was near the end of this interval that another embassy went to complain of Archelaus to Augustus: and he was then deposed, and banished to Vienne in Gaul (Azz. xvil. 13. 2; B. /. ii. 7. 3). Lewin, Fastz Sacrz, 877, 944, IOII, 1026, 41-52. Zhe Boyhood of the Messiah. His Visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, and His first recorded Words. Here again, as in the Circumcision, the Purification, and \the Presentation, the idea of fidelity to the Law is very con- ‘spicuous. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, Lect. ii., Macmillan, 1894. 41. κατ᾽ ἔτος. The expression occurs here only in N.T. ‘Combined with the imperf. it expresses the habitual annual practice of Josephand Mary. At the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles every male had to go up to Jerusalem (Ex. xxiii. 14-17, Xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16). But since the Dispersion this law could not be kept ; yet most Palestinian Jews tried to go at least once a year. About women the Law says nothing, but Hillel prescribed that they also should go up to the Passover. Mary, like Hannah (1 Sam. i. 7), probably went out of natural piety, and not in obedience to Hillel’s rule. τῇ ἑορτῇ. ‘‘ Hor the feast,” or, more probably, “αὐ the feast”: dat. of time, as in vill. 29, xii. 20, ΧΙ. 14, 15, 16; Acts-vil. ὃ; xu. 21, xxi 2G, xxii. 13, xxvil. 23. In class. Grk. τῇ ἑορτῇ without ἐν is rare: Win. xxxi. 5, p- 269. The phrase ἡ ἑορτὴ τοῦ πάσχα occurs again Jn. xiii. I only; not in II. 41-44. | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 75 LXX. The fact that γονεῖς has not been changed here, even in those MSS. in which vv. 27 and 43 have been corrupted, is some evidence that the corruption was not made for dogmatic reasons. The love of amplification or of definiteness might suffice. 42. ἐτῶν δώδεκα. At the age of twelve a young Jew became “a son of the Law,” and began to keep its enactments respecting feasts, fasts, and the like. ‘The mention of the age implies that since the Presentation Jesus had not been up to Jerusalem.— ἀναβαινόντων. Imperf. part. “On their usual going up.”—xara τὸ ἔθος. See small print on 1. 9. 43. καὶ τελειωσάντων. Note the change of tense. ‘And after they had fulfilled.” There is nothing ungrammatical in the com- bination of an aor. with an imperf. part. But the reading ἀναβάντων is an obvious correction to avoid apparent awkwardness.—tas ἡμέρας. The prescribed seven days (Ex. xi. 15, 16; Lev. xxiii. 6-8 ; Deut. xvi. 3), or the customary two days, for many pilgrims left after the principal sacrifices were over. ὑπέμεινεν. Contains an idea of persistence and perseverance, and hence is used of remaining after others have gone: comp. Acts xvii. 14. The attraction of Divine things held Him fast in spite of the departure of His parents. It would be His first experience of the temple services, and especially of the slaying of the Paschal lamb.—6 παῖς. “The Boy,” to distinguish from τὸ παιδίον : see on ver. 52.—ouk ἔγνωσαν. ‘This shows what confidence they had in Him, and how little they were accustomed to watch Him. ‘That it shows neglect on their part is a groundless assertion. They were accustomed to His obedience and prudence, and He had never caused them anxiety. See Hase, Geschichte Jesu, § 28, p. 276, ed. 1891. 44. τῇ συνοδίᾳ. “The caravan.” The inhabitants of a village, or of several neighbouring villages, formed themselves into a caravan, and travelled together. The Nazareth caravan was so long that it took a whole day to look through it. The caravans went up singing psalms, especially the “songs of degrees” (Ps. exx.—Cxxxiv.): but they would come back with less solemnity. It was probably when the caravan halted for the night that He was missed. At the present day the women commonly start first, and | the men follow ; the little children being with the mothers, and the older with either. If this was the case then, Mary might fancy that He was with Joseph, and Joseph that He was with Mary. ‘Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 56. ἡμέρας ὁδόν. In LXX ὁδὸν ἡμέρας (Num. xi. 31; 1 Kings xix. 4). Comp. πορείαν ἡμέρας μιᾶς (Jon. 11]. 4). The compound ἀνεζήτουν expresses thoroughness (Acts xi. 25; Job iii. 4, x. 6; 2 Mac. xiii. 21). συγγενεῦσιν. A barbarous form of dat. plur. found also Mk. vi. 4 and I Mac. x. 89. For γνωστοῖς see on xxiii. 49. 76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 45-47. 45. μὴ εὑρόντες. ‘‘ Because they did not find”: see on ili. 9. - ὑπέστρεψαν ἀναζητοῦντες. The turning back was a single act, the seeking continued a long time. Comp. Mk. vill. 11, x. 2. In such cases the pres. part. is not virtually fut., as if it meant “in order to seek.” The seeking was present directly the turning back took place. Win. xlv. 1. Ὁ, p. 429. For ὑπέστρεψαν see small print on i. 56, and for ἐγένετο see detached note after ch. 1. 46. ἡμέρας τρεῖς. These are reckoned in three ways. (1) One day out, at the end of which the Child is missed; one day back ; and on the third the finding. This is probably correct. (2) One day’s search on the journey back ; one day’s search in Jerusalem ; and on the third the finding. - (3) Two days’ search in Jerusalem, and then the finding. This is improbable. Jerusalem was not a large place, and less than a day would probably suffice. We may understand that on all three days Jesus was in the temple with the doctors. Godet conjectures that He there had an experience similar to that of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 10-22): ‘‘God became more intimately As God, As Father.” ‘There is no evidence. ἐν τῷ tep@. Not in a synagogue, if there was one in the temple enclosure, but probably on the terrace, where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and festivals. If this is correct, His parents had left on the third day, and the Passover was still going on. If all had been over, this public teaching would have ceased. καθεζόμενον. Asa learner, not asa teacher. St. Paul sat “at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts xxii. 3). ᾿ Jesus probably sat on the ground, while the Rabbis sat on benches or stood.—ev μέσῳ. See on viii. 7. Not dignitatis causa (Beng.) or as doctor doctorum (Calov.), but because there were teachers on each side, possibly in a semicircle. The point is that He was not hidden, but where He could easily be found. For a list of distinguished persons who may have been present, see Farrar, Z. of Christ, 1. ch. vi., from Sepp, Leben Jesu, i. ὃ 17. Of biblical personages, Symeon, Gamaliel, Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea are possibilities. ἀκούοντα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπερωτῶντα αὐτούς. Note that the hearing is placed first, indicating that He was there as a learner ; and it was as such that He questioned them. It was the usual mode of instruction that the pupil should ask as well as answer questions. A holy thirst for knowledge, especially of sacred things, would prompt His inquiries. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy represents Him as instructing them in the statutes of the Law and the mysteries of the Prophets, as well as in astronomy, medicine, physics, and metaphysics (1.—li.). See on iii. το. 47. ἐξίσταντο. A strong word expressing great amazement: II. 47-49. | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY Th vill. 56; Acts ii. 7, 12, viii. 13, ix. 21. For ἐπί comp. Wisd. v. 2 and the ἐπί which Lk. commonly uses after θαυμάζειν (see on ver. 33); and for πάντες ot ἀκούοντες see On 1. 66.---συνέσει. “ Intelli- gence”; an application of the σοφία with which He was ever being filled (ver. 40): see Lft. on Col. i. 9.—dmoxpiceow. His replies would show His wonderful intellectual and spiritual development. The vanity of Josephus (V7fa, 2) and of Bellarmine (V7¢a, pp. 28-30, ed. Dollinger und Reusch, Bonn, 1887) leads them to record similar amazement respecting themselves. 48. ἰδόντες. Return to the original subject, οἱ -yovets.—éée- πλάγησαν. Another strong expression: ix. 43; Acts xiil. 12. They were astonished at finding Him there, and thus occupied, apparently without thought of them. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ. It was most natural that she should be the first to speak. Her reproachful question perhaps contains in it a vein of self-reproach. She and Joseph had appeared to be negligent. ζητοῦμεν. ‘‘ Are seeking”: the pain of the anxiety has not yet quite ceased. For κἀγώ see on xvi. 9. ἐξ B read ζητοῦμεν, which WH. adopt. Almost all other editors follow almost all other authorities in reading ἐζητοῦμεν. ὀδυνώμενοι. ‘In great anguish” of mind, as in Acts xx. 38 and Zech. xii. 10; of body and mind, xvi. 24, 25; comp. Rom. ix. 2; 1 Tim. vi. το. The ῥομφαία (ver. 35) has already begun its work. | Anguish cannot be reasonable. But they might have been sure that the Child who was to be the Messiah could not be lost. This agrees with ver. 50. 49. ti ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ pe; Not a reproof, but an expression of surprise : comp. Mk. ii. 16. He is not surprised at their coming back for Him, but at their not knowing where to find Him. Here also §& has the pres. ζητεῖτε. ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός pou. ‘Engaged in My Father’s business” is a possible translation: comp. τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33); τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου (τ Cor. vii. 32, 34). But “in My Father’s house” is probably right, as in Gen. xli. 51. Irenzeus (2787. v. 36. 2) para- phrases the ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ of Jn. xiv. 2 by ἐν τοῖς : comp. ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αμάν (Esth. vil. 9); ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ (Job xvili. 19); τὰ Λυκώνος (Theoc. ii. 76). Other illustrations in Wetst. The Armenian Version has im domo patris met. ‘The words indicate His surprise that His parents did not know where to find Him. His Father’s business could have been done elsewhere. There is a gentle but decisive correction of His Mother’s words, “Thy /a¢her and I,” in the reply, ‘Where should a child be (δεῖ), but in his father’s house? and My Father is God.” For the δεῖ see on iv. 43. It is notable that the first recorded words of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine 78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [II. 49-52. Sonship as man; and His question implies that they knew it, or ought to know it. But there is nothing which implies that He had just received a revelation of this relationship. ‘These first recorded words are the kernel of the whole narrative, and the cause of its having been preserved. They must mean more than that Jesus is a son of Abraham, and therefore has God as His Father. His parents would easily have understood so simple a statement as that. 50. οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα. Lrgo non ex illis hoc didicerat (Beng.). There is nothing inconsistent in this. ‘They learnt only gradually what His Messiahship involved, and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recog- nized that at this stage she and Joseph had not understood. This verse, especially when combined with the next, shows clearly who was the source of Lk.’s information.+ 51. qv ὑποτασσόμενος. This sums up the condition of the Messiah during the next seventeen years. ‘The analytical tense gives prominence to the continuance of the subjection: comp. i. 18, 20, 21. For ὑποτάσσειν comp. x. 17, 20. αὐτοῖς. The last mention of Joseph. He was almost certainly dead before Christ’s public ministry began; but this statement of continued subjection to him and Mary probably covers some years. The main object of the statement, however, may be to remove the impression that in His reply (ver. 49) Jesus resents, or henceforward repudiates, their authority over Him. διετήρει. Expresses careful and continual keeping. Gen. XXXVil. 11 1s a Close parallel: comp. Acts xv. 29. We must not confine πάντα τὰ ῥήματα to vv. 48, 49; the phrase is probably used in the Hebraistic sense of “things spoken of.” Comp. 1. 65, ii. 19; Acts v. 32: but in all these cases ‘‘ sayings” is more possible than here. Still more so in Dan. vii. 28: τὸ ῥῆμα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου διετήρησα [Ὁ συνετήρησα]. 52. The verse is very similar to 1 Sam. ii. 26, of which it is perhaps a quotation. See Athan. Con. Arian. 111. 51, Ρ' 203, ed. Bright ; Card. Newman, Select Treatises of S. Athan. 1. p. 419; Wace & Schaff, p. 421; Pearson, Ox the Creed, art. 111. i 160, ᾿Ιησοῦς. ‘The growth is very clearly marked throughout: τὸ βρέφος (ver. 16); τὸ παιδίον (ver. 40); Ἰησοῦς ὃ παῖς (ver. 43); ᾿Ιησοῦς (ver. 52). Von statim plena statura, ut Protoplasti, appa- ruit: sed omnes xtatis gradus sanctificavit. Senectus cum non decebat (Beng.). Schaff, Zhe Person of Christ, pp. 10-17, Nisbet, 1880. 1 «This fine tender picture, in which neither truth to nature, nor the beauty which that implies, is violated in a single line, . . . cannot have been devised by human hands, which, when left to themselves, were always betrayed into coarseness and exaggeration, as shown by the apocryphal gospels” (Keim, 765. of Naz., Eng tr. 11. p. 137). II. 52.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 79 προέκοπτεν. Here only in the Gospels, and elsewhere in N.T. only in S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 12; Gal. i. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13). The metaphor probably comes from pioneers cutting in front; but some refer it to engthening by hammering. Hence the meaning of “promote”: but more often it is intransitive, as always in N.T. Actual growth is expressed by the word, and to explain it of progressive manifestation is inadequate. Hooker, Zcc/. Pod. bk. v. . I-3. a ee Not “knowledge” but “ wisdom,” which includes know- ledge: it is used of the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 22). Jesus was capable of growth in learning; e.g. He increased in learning through experience in suffering: ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν (Heb. v. 8, where see Westcott’s notes). ἡλικίᾳ. Not “age,” which is probably the meaning xii. 25 and Mt. vi. 27, but would be rather an empty truism here. Rather, “stature,” as In xix. 3: sustam proceritatem nactus est ac decoram (Beng.). His intellectual and moral growth (σοφία), as well as His physical growth (ἡλικία), was perfect. The προέκοπτε ἡλικίᾳ corre- sponds to ἐμεγαλύνετο (in some copies ἐπορεύετο μεγαλυνόμενον) in Pam. a. 26. χάριτι. “ Goodwill, favour, loving-kindness” (ver. 40, i. 30; Acts iv. 33, Vil. 10): see on iv. 22. That He advanced in favour with God plainly indicates that there was moral and spiritual growth. At each stage He was perfect for that stage, but the perfection of a child is inferior to the perfection of a man; it is the difference between perfect innocence and perfect holiness. He was perfectly (τελέως) man, as set forth in the Council of Constan- tinople (A.D. 381) against Apollinaris, who held that in Jesus the Divine Logos was a substitute fora human soul. In that case an increase in σοφία and in χάρις παρὰ Θεῷ would have been incon- ceivable, as Pearson points out (Ox the Creed, art. 111. Ὁ. 160; comp. -E. Harold Browne, Exp. of the XX XIX. Articles, iv. 2. 4). kat ἀνθρώποις. Nothing of the kind is said of John (i. 66, 80); his sternness and his retirement into the desert prevented it. But an absolutely perfect human being living among men could not fail to be attractive until His public ministry brought Him into collision with their prejudices and sins.!_ Comp. what Josephus says of the development of Moses (Azz. 11. 9. 6); also the promise made in Prov. iii. 4 to him who keeps mercy and truth: “so shalt 1 Pearson in a long note gives the chief items of evidence as to the primitive belief that Is. lili. 2, 3 was to be understood literally of the personal appearance of Jesus as ‘‘a personage no way amiable ; an aspect, indeed, rather uncomely.” . . - “But what the aspect of His outward appearance was, because the Scrip- tures are silent, we cannot now know” (Ox the Creed, art. ii. pp. 87, 88). Lange has some good remarks on the ‘‘ master-stroke of Divine wisdom ” which caused Jesus to be brought up at Nazareth (2. of Christ, Eng. tr. i. pp. 317, 324). 80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [1. 52-III.1. thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man "ἡ ἐνώπιον Κυρίου καὶ ἀνθρώπων. For answers to the objections urged by Strauss against the historical character of this narrative see Hase, Gesch. Jesu, ὃ 28, Ρ. 280, ed. 1891. III. 1-IX. 50. THE MINISTRY. III. 1-22. The External Preparation for the Ministry of the Christ: the Ministry of John the Baptist, Mt. ui. 1-12; Mk. 1. 1-8; Jn. 1. 15-24. fic quasi scena N.T. panditur is Bengel’s illuminative remark. “Tt was the glory of John the Baptist to have revived the function of the prophet” (Zcce Homo, p. 2); and it is difficult for us to realize what that meant. A nation, which from Samuel to Malachi had scarcely ever been without a living oracle of God, had for three or four centuries never heard the voice of a Prophet. It seemed as if Jehovah had withdrawn from His people. The breaking of this oppressive silence by the voice of the Baptist caused a thrill through the whole Jewish population throughout the world. Lk. shows his appreciation of the magnitude of the crisis by the sixfold attempt to give it an exact date. Of the four Evangelists he is the only one to whom the title of historian in the full sense of the term can be given; and of Christian writers he is the first who tries to fit the Gospel history into the history of the world. It is with a similar wish to do justice to a crisis that Thucydides gives a sixfold date of the entry of the Thebans into Plateea, by which the thirty years’ truce was manifestly broken and the Peloponnesian War begun (il. 2 ; comp. v. 20). The section is carefully arranged. First the Date (1, 2); then a Description of the new Prophet (3-6); then an account of his Preaching and its Effects (7-17); and an Explanation as to how it came to an End (18-20). He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 1,2. The Date. The event that is thus elaborately dated is the appearance of the new Prophet, not the beginning of Christ’s ministry. See below on the conclusion of ver. 2. Ellicott con- siders it the date of the captivity of the Baptist. This had been advocated by Wieseler in his Sywofsis (ii. ch. 11. Eng. tr. p. 178), but he abandoned it in his 4eztrége. Others would make -it refer to Christ’s baptism, which may have followed closely III. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 81 upon John’s first appearance as a preacher (Caspari, Chron. Ein. § 33, Eng. tr. p. 41). But the interval between the beginning of John’s ministry and his baptizing Jesus cannot be determined. Some estimate it at one month, others at six months, because John was six months older than Jesus (Lewin, Fastz Sacri, 1171). Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 11. 8, Eng. tr. 1. p. 316) shows that the interval was not more than six months. ‘The appearance of one who seemed to be a Prophet soon attracted immense attention; and when large numbers accepted his doctrine and baptism, it became imperative that the hierarchy should make inquiry as to his authority and claims. But it appears from Jn. 1. 19-28 that the first investigation made by the Sanhedrin was about the time when the Baptist met Jesus. In neither case can year or time of year be determined. JZ/ Jesus was born towards the end, John about the middle, of 749 (B.c. 5), then John might begin to preach about the middle of 779, and Jesus be baptized early in 780 (A.D. 27). It is little or no confirmation of this result that both the Greek and the Roman Churches celebrate the Baptism of Christ on Jan. 6th. Originally, the Nativity, the Visit of the Magi, and the Baptism were all celebrated on Jan. 6th. When Dec. 25th was adopted as the date of the Nativity, the Roman Church continued to celebrate the Baptism with the Epiphany to the Gentiles on Jan. 6th, while the Greek Church transferred the latter along with the Nativity to Dec. 25th, commemorating the Baptism alone on Jan. 6th. The fact that both the Eastern and the Western Church have concurred in celebrating the Baptism on Jan. 6th seems at first sight to be imposing testimony. But there is little doubt that all trustworthy evidence had perished before any of these dates were selected.? Instead of the elaborate dates given in these first two verses, Mt. (iii. 1) has simply ’Ev δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, while Mk. (i. 4) has nothing. Comp. the somewhat similar dating of the erection of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings vi. 1). Beng. says of this'date, Hpocha ecclestx omnium maxima. Hic quasz scena N.T. panditur. Ne nativitatis quidem, aut mortis, resurrectionts, ascenstonts christé tempus tam precise definitur. 1. Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος. He naturally begins with the Roman Empire, and then takes the local governors, civil and ecclesiastical. “Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Ceesar,” or “of Tiberius as Cesar.” Is the 15th year to be counted from the death of Augustus, Aug. 19th, A.U.C. 767, A.D. 14? or from the time when he was associated with Augustus as joint ruler at the end of 764 or beginning of 765, A.D. 11 or 12? It is impossible to determine this with certainty. Good authorities (Zumpt, Wieseler, Weiss) plead for the latter reckoning, which makes the Gospel chronology as a whole run more smoothly; but it is intrinsically less probable, 1 For the chief data respecting the limits of our Lord’s life see Lift. Liblical Essays, p. 58, note; and on Lk.’s chronology in these verses see Ewald, 2715. of Jsrae/, vi., Eng. tr. p. 149, and Lange, Ζ. of C. bk. ii. pt. iii, τ τ ha 82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ΠΠΠΞ 1: and seems to be inconsistent with the statements of Tacitus and Suetonius. The main points are these. 1. Tiberius was not joint Emperor with Augustus ; he was associated with him only in respect of the provinces and armies: wt provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret, simulque censum ageret (Suet. 716. xxi.); ut xguum et jus in omnibus provincits exercitibusgue esset (Vell. Paterc. 11. 121); filéus, collega itmpertt, consors tribunicie protestatis adsumitur, omnisque per exercitus ostentatur (Tac. Ann. i. 3.33 comp. i. 11. 2 and iii. 56. 2). 2. It is clear from Tacitus (Am. i. 5-7) that, when Augustus died, 77bercus was not regarded by himself or by others as already Emperor. Suetonius confirms this by saying that Tiberius, while manifestly getting the imperial power into his hands, for a time refused the offer of it (722. xxiv.). 3. No instance is known of reckoning the reign of Tiberius from his association with Augustus. The coins of Antioch, Lk.’s own city, which helped to convert Wieseler from the one view to the other by seeming to date the reign of Tiberius from the association, are not admitted by Eckhel to be genuine. On the other hand, there are coins of Antioch which date the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. It remains, therefore, that, although to reckon from the association was a possible method, especially in the provinces, for there Tiberius had been really a consort of Augustus, yet it is more probable that Lk. reckons in the usual way from the death of the predecessor (see Wieseler, Chron. Synop. 11. ch. ii.; Keim, Jesus of Naz. il. pp. 381. 382; Lewin, Fasté Sacrt, 1044; Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 65). Fifteen years from the death of Augustus would be A.D. 29, at which time our Lord would probably be 32 years of age, which sufficiently agrees with Lk.’s ‘about 30” (ver. 23). Jf the earlier date is admissible, the agreement becomes exact. ἡγεμονίας. Quite a vague term, and applicable to the rule of emperor, king, /egatws, or procurator, as is shown by Jos. Anz. xvili. 4. 2, and by the use of ἡγέμων in N.T.: xx. 20, xxl. 12; Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, etc. Wieseler is alone in seeing in this word (instead of μοναρχία), and in καῖσαρ (instead of Σεβαστός), evidence that the co-regency of Tiberius is meant (Bev¢rdge 5. richtigen Wirdigung d. Evan. 1869, pp. 191-194). From the Emperor. Lk. passes to the local governor under him. ἡγεμονεύοντος. ‘The more exact ἐπιτροπεύοντος of D and other authorities is an obvious correction to mark his office with pre- cision: éwitporos=procurator. Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus A.D. 25, and was recalled a.p. 36 or 37 by Tiberius, who died, March A.D. 37, before Pilate reached Rome. Having mentioned the Roman officials, Lk. next gives the local national rulers. τετραρχοῦντος. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is used by Josephus of Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis (B. 7. ili. ro. 7). The title tetrarch was at first used literally of the governor of a fourth ; e.g. of one of the four provinces of Thessaly (Eur. AZ. 1154), or one of the fourths into which each of the three divisions of Galatia were divided (Strabo, 430, 540, 560, 567). But after- wards it came to mean the governor of any division, as a third or a half, or of any small country; any ruler not a βασιλεύς (Hor. III. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 83 Sat. i. 3. 12). Such seems to be the meaning here; but it may be used in its literal sense, Pilate’s province representing the fourth tetrarchy, viz. the dominions of Archelaus. In ἃ we have the singular rendering: 2 anno guintodecimo ducatus Tiberi Cxsaris procurante Pontio Pilato Judex, quaterducatus Galiwxe Herode. Ἡρῴδου. Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace the Samaritan. See small print on i. 5 for the iota subscript. Two inscriptions have been found, one at Cos and one at Delos, which almost certainly refer to him as tetrarch, and son of Herod the king (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C.I. vol. ii. p. 17). His coins have the title tetrarch, and, like those of his father, bear no image. Herod Philip was the first to have any portrait on the coins of a Jewish prince. He had the images of Augustus and Tiberius put upon his coins. As his dominions were wholly heathen, this would cause little scandal. He even went so far as to put the temple of Augustus at Panias on his coins. Herod Antipas was made tetrarch of Perea and Galilee, B.c. 4 (Jos. Azz. xvil. 11. 4; Ὁ. 7. 11. 6. 3). As he ruled this district until a.p. 39 or 40, the whole of Christ’s life falls within his reign, and nearly the whole of Christ’s ministry took place within his dominions. For his character see on ΧΙ. 32. He was by courtesy allowed - the title of βασιλεύς (Mk. vi. 14); and as Agrippa had obtained this by right, Antipas and Herodias went to Rome, A.p. 39, to try and get the courtesy title made a real one by Caligula. The attempt led to his banishment, the details of which are uncertain, for Josephus makes inconsistent statements. Either he was banished at Baiz, A.D. 39, to Lugdunum (Ant. xviii. 7. 2), or he had a second audience with Caligula af Lugdunum, a.p. 40, and was banished to Spain (δ. /. il. 9. 6). The latter is probably correct (Lewin, /as¢i Sacri, 1561). Φιλίππουι Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleo- patra. He reigned for nearly 37 years, B.c. 4 to A.D. 33, when he died at Julias, which he had built and named in honour of the infamous Julia, d. of Augustus and wife of Tiberius. He was the builder of Czesarea Philippi (2. /. 11. 9. 1), and was the best of the Herods (Azz. xvui. 4. 6). He married his niece Salome soon after she had danced for the head of the Baptist, ¢ a.p. 31 (Azz. xviii. 5. 4). Trachonitis (τραχών -- τραχὺς καὶ πετρώδης τόπος) derived its name from the rugged character of the country. ΤῈ lay N.E. of Galilee in the direction of Damascus, and its inhabitants were skilled archers and very often banditti (Avé. xv. το. 1). The expression τῆς ‘Ir. καὶ Tp. χώρας, “the region of Itureea and Trachonitis,” seems to indicate that more than these two is included ; probably Auranitis and Batanza. Ἰτυραία, both here and perhaps everywhere, is an adjective, 84 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [III. pe Λυσανίου τῆς ᾿Αβιληνῆς tetp. Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. Bauer, and Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute to Lk. the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B.C. 36, when he was killed by M. Antony, is still reigning 60 years after his death. Such a mistake is very improbable ; and the only difficulty about Lk.’s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this tetrarch Lysanias. But 1. Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was styled 42~g and not tetrarch, and _ the seat of his kingdom was Chadéc?'s in Coele-Syria, not Abila in Abilene. 2. It is pure assumption that no one of his name ever ruled in these parts afterwards. 3. Josephus (Azz. xix. 5. 1) speaks of ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias,” and (xx. 7. 1) of a tetrarchy of Lysanias (comp. 4. /. ii. 11. 5, 12. 8); and as the son of Ptolemy was not called tetrarch, nor was connected with Abila, and, moreover, reigned for only 5 or 6 years, it is imprebable that ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias” was called after him. Therefore these passages in Josephus confirm rather than oppose Lk. 4. A medal found by Pococke designates Lysanias ‘‘ ¢e¢rarch and high priest.” If this refers to either, it is more likely to refer to Lk.’s Lysanias. 5. Two inscriptions exist, one of which proves that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, left children ; the other, that at the time when Tiberius was associated with Augustus there was a ‘‘¢etrarch Lysanias” (Boeckh, Corp. tuscr. Gr. 4523, 4521). See Davidson, 7γεέγ. to Δ. 7. i. pp. 214-221, Ist ed.; Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures for 1859, p. 203; Wieseler in Herzog,” i. pp. 87-89; and the reff. in Thayer’s Grimm under Λυσανίας. 2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καιάφα. Lk. now passes to the ecclesiastical rulers. The singular is probably not accidental, and certainly not ironical. ‘‘ Under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas,” which means that between them they discharged the duties, or that each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas de jure (Acts iv. 6) and Caiaphas de facto (Jn. xi. 49). Annas had held office A.D. 7-14, when he had been deposed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held office Α. Ὁ. 18-36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded Caiaphas, the last of whom (another Annas) put to death James the ‘‘ brother of the Lord’ and the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas retained very great influence, and sometimes acted as high priest. ‘‘ Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (Acts iv. 6). Perhaps, so far as it was safe to do so, he was encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and to continue in office during the high priesthoods of his successors. This would be especially easy when his own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman nominee.! There were no less than twenty-eight high priests from the time of Herod the Great to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. “4727. xx. 10). ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Ιωάνην. It is clear from this that what Lk. is anxious to date with precision is not any event in the life of the Messiah, but the appearance of the new Prophet, who was 1 Josephus says that David appointed Zadok high priest per’ ᾿Αβιαθάρου, φίλος yap ἣν αὐτῷ (Anz, vii. 5. 4). See Lft. Bzb/ical Essays, p. 163. III. 2, 8.1] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 85 to be the Messiah’s herald, and who was by some mistaken for the Messiah. John’s preaching and baptizing is an epoch with Lk. (Acts i. 22, x. 37, xili. 24). As distinct from 6 λόγος τοῦ @eov, which means the Gospel message as a whole (see on Vill. 11), ῥῆμα Θεοῦ means some particular utterance (Mt. iv. 4; comp. Lk. xxii. 61). The phrase γίνεσθαι ῥῆμα Κυρίου (not Θεοῦ) is freq. in LXX (Gen. xv. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Sam. vil. 4; 1 Kings XVii. 2, 8, xvill. 1, xx. 28, etc.) ; also γίνεσθαι λόγον Κυρίου (2 Sam. iver ΤΠ 1 MOINES Vi. ΤΠ, XU, 22, will, 20, KV 1, etc.), It 15 the] 7 O.T. formula to express Divine inspiration. In all cases the phrase is almost always followed by πρός : but in 1 Chron. xxii. 8 (Ὁ) and Jer. i. 1 we have ἐπί. Jer. i. 1 is a close parallel to this: τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ᾿Ιερεμίαν. ‘The phrase occurs nowhere else in N.T. ᾿Ιωάνην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱόν. Lk. alone describes the Baptist thus. No other N.T. writer mentions Zacharias.—e€v τῇ ἐρήμῳ. The one mentioned as his abode (1. 80). Both AV. and RV. rather obscure . this by using “deserts” in 1. 80 and ‘“‘wilderness” here. Mt. calls it ‘the wilderness of Judzea” (11. 1). It is the Jeshimon of 1 Sam. xxill. 19. See D.£.7 art. “ Arabah,” and Stanley, Szz. & Pal. p. 310. 3-6. Description of the New Prophet. Lk. omits the state- ments about his dress and food (Mt. i. 4; Mk. 1. 6), and also the going out of the people of Jerusalem and Judzea to him (Mt. ii. 5 ; Mk. i. 5). The famous account of the Baptist in Jos. “31. xviii. 5. 2 should be compared. It may have been altered by Christian scribes, but its divergence from the Gospel narrative as to the motive for imprisoning and killing John, is in favour of its origin- ality.t 3. πᾶσαν περίχωρον Tod Ιορδάνου. The same as “the plain of Jordan,” which is thus rendered in LXX Gen. xiii. το, 11; by τῷ περιχώρῳ tov ᾽1., 2 Chron. iv. 17; and by τῷ περιοίκῳ τοῦ ’I., 1 Kings vil. 46. The expression covers a considerable portion of the Jordan valley at least as far north as Succoth (2 Chron. iv. 17). The Baptist, therefore, moved north from the limestone desert on the W. shore of the Dead Sea, and perhaps went almost the whole length of the valley to the confines of the Sea of Galilee. For “Bethany (Beth-Anijah=‘ House of Shipping’) beyond Jordan” must have been near Galilee (Jn. i. 28), and is supposed by Conder to be the same as Bashan (Handbook of the Bible, pp. 315, 320). See, however, D.B.? art. “ Bethabara.” John was some- times on one bank and sometimes on the other, for we read of his working in Perzea (Jn. x. 40). His selection of the valley of the 1“ This part of John’s ministry, viz. his work as a reformer, Josephus has brought out prominently ; while he has entirely failed to notice the indelible stamp of the Baptist’s labours left upon the history of the Theocracy ” (Neander, 2.1.6. § 34): 86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [111. 8, 4. Jordan as his sphere of work was partly determined by the need of water for immersion. Stanley, S7z. & Pal. p. 312. κηρύσσων... ἁμαρτιῶν. Verbatim as Mk. i. 4. Nowhere in N.T. has κηρύσσειν its primary meaning of “act as a herald” ; but either “proclaim openly” (viii. 39, xii. 3; Mk. i. 45, etc.) or ‘preach the Gospel” (Mt. xd, 1; Mk. 11.'14 ; Rom: Στ etc.). To “preach baptism” is to preach the necessity or value of baptism ; and “repentance baptism” (βάπτισμα μετανοίας) is bap- tism connected with repentance as being an external symbol of the ‘inward change (Acts xill. 24, xix. 4). The repentance precedes ‘the baptism, which seals it and reminds the baptized of his new obligations. ‘To submit to this baptism was to confess that one was a sinner, and to pledge oneself to a new life. The “change of mind”! (μετάνοια) has reference both to past deeds and to future purposes, and is the result of a realization of their true moral significance (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1, 6, xii. 17). This inward change is specially insisted upon in the account of John’s preach- ing in Jos. Af. xvill. 5. 2. The word is rare in Mt. (ii. 8, 11) and Mk. (1. 4), and does not occur in Jn. It is freq. in Lk. (ver. ὃ, V..32, XV; 7, xxiv. 473 Acts v.31, κὶ 18, ete). ΕΣ ΠΟ τ Jos. Anz. xi. 11. 3 of Aristobulus after the murder of his brother ; in Plut. Fevicles, x., of the Athenians after the banishment of Cimon ; and in Thuc. 11. 36. 3 of the Athenians after the sentence on Mitylene. See American Ch. Rev. No. 134, pp. 143 ff. John’s “repentance baptism” was eis ἄφεσιν ἀμαρτιῶν. This was its purpose, assuring the penitent of forgiveness, and of deliverance from the burden, penalty, and bondage of sin (Trench, Sy. xxxiil.; Crem. 2x. p. 297: comp. Lk. 1. 77; Acts. 38; Heb. x aa) 4. ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων. With the exception of Phil. iv. 3, ἐν βίβλῳ is peculiar to Lk. (xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vil. 42). The form βίβλος is usual where the meaning is a writing or document, βύβλος where the plant or papyrus as writing material is intended (Hdt. ii. 96. 3, v. 58. 3). For λόγοι in the sense of the “utterances of a teacher or prophet” comp. Acts xx. 35; Amos i. 1. φωνὴ βοῶντος... τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ. From Mt. 11. 3 and Mk. i. 3 we see that, in the tradition of which all three make use, these words were quoted as applying to the Baptist. This is therefore a primitive interpretation; and we learn from Jn. i. 23 that it originated with the Baptist himself. John was a φωνή making known the Λόγος. “The whole man was a sermon.” ‘The message was more than the messenger, and hence the messenger is regarded 1 Lactantius, in writing de Pendtentia prefers res¢pzscentia as a better, al- though still inadequate, rendering. Js exzm quem factz στ ponitet, errorem suum pristinum intelligtt ; tdeogue Grect melius et significantius μετάνοιαν dicunt, quam nos latine possumus resipiscentiam adzcere. Resipiscét enim ac mentem suam guasz ab insania recipit, etc. (Div. Lust. vi. 24. 6). 111. 4-6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 87 as mainly a voice. Jn. has εὐθύνατε for εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (i. 23), and this looks as if he were translating direct from the Hebrew, which has one word and not two. The quotation in the other three is identical, and (with the substitution of αὐτοῦ for τοῦ Θεοῦ [ἡμῶν ]) verbatim as LXX. Lk. quotes Is. xl. 4, 5 as well as xl. 3, and here slightly varies from LXX, having εὐθείας for εὐθεῖαν, and αἱ τραχεῖαι εἰς ὁδοὺς λείας for 7 τραχεῖα εἰς πεδία.1 ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. It is possible to take these words with ἑτοιμάσατε, rather than with φωνὴ βοῶντος : but here, as in Mt. and Mk., the latter arrangement is more natural—vox clamantis in deserto. Barnabas (ix. 3) connects them with βοῶντος. It is evident from the scenery which is mentioned that it is in a desert that the road for the coming King has to be made. The details symbolize the moral obstacles which have to be removed by the repentance baptism of John, in order to prepare the people for the reception of the Messiah, or (as some prefer) of Jehovah (Is. xxxv. 8-10). That Lk. means the Messiah is shown by the substitution of αὐτοῦ for rod Θεοῦ : and that this interpretation is in accordance with the primitive tradition is shown by the fact that all three Gospels have this substitution. Just as Oriental monarchs, when making a royal progress, send a courier before them to exhort the population to prepare roads, so the Messiah sends His herald to exhort His own people (Jn. i. 11) to prepare their hearts for His coming. 5. φάραγξ. ‘*A valley shut in by precipices, a ravine” ; here only in N.T., but found in LXX (Judith ii. 8) and in class. Grk. (Thue. ii. 67. 4). It is perhaps from the same root as ¢apdw= ‘‘ plough” and foro=“‘ bore.” Bovvés. Herodotus seems to imply that this is a Cyrenaic word (iv. 199. 2): but it is freq. in later writers and in LXX. Comp. xxiii. 30, and for the sense Zech. iv. 7; Is. xl. 4. ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς, K.t.A. “The crooked A/aces shall become straight ways, and the rough ways smooth ways”: ze. roads shall} be made where there were none before, and bad roads shall be’ made good roads. Comp. the account of Vespasian’s march into Galilee, especially the work of the pioneers (Jos. B. /. iil. 6. 2). 6. πᾶσα σάρξ. Everywhere in N.T. this expression seems to refer to the human race only; so even Mt. xxiv. 22; Mk. xiii. 20; t Pet. i. 24; comp. Acts il. 17; Rom. ili. 20. Fallen man, man in his frailty and need of help, is meant. In LXX it often in- eludes the brutes: Gen. vi. 19, vii. 15, 16, 21, Vill. 17, ix. 11, 1 Ewald says of the prophecy of which these verses form the introduction, that ‘*it is not only the most comprehensive, but also, in respect of its real prophetic subject-matter, the weightiest piece of that time, and altogether one of the most important portions of the O.T., and one of the richest in influence for all future time. . .. It is especially the thought of the passing away of the old time, and the flourishing of the new, which is the life of the piece” (Prophets of Ο. 7.» Eng. tr. iv. pp. 244, 254; comp. pp. 257, 259). 88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III 6, 7. 1, 26, 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 25 ‘fer! xExii. 97, xlv. 5." The’ parasees one of many which occur frequently in Is. xl.-lxvi., but not at all in the earlier chapters (Driver, /saza/, p. 197). τὸ σωτήριον. It was obviously for the sake of this declaration that Lk. continued the quotation thus far. That “the salvation of God” is to be made known to the whole human race is the main theme of his Gospel. 7-17. John’s Preaching and its Effects. This section gives us the burden of his preaching (Ἔλεγεν, imperf.) in accordance (οὖν) with the character which has just been indicated. The herald who has to see that hearts are prepared for the Messiah must be stern with hypocrites and with hardened sinners, because the impenitent cannot escape punishment (7-9); must supply different treatment for different classes (10-14; comp. ver. 5); and must declare the certainty of his Master’s coming and of its consequences (15-17). 7. Ἔλεγεν οὖν. ‘He used to say, therefore”: being the pre- dicted Forerunner, his utterances were of this character. We need not regard this as a report of what was said on any one occasion, but as a summary of what he was in the habit of saying during his ministry to the multitudes who came out of the towns and villages (ἐκπορευομένοις) into the wilderness to hear the Prophet and gain something from him. Mt. (11. 7) represents this severe rebuke as addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees; which confirms the view that Lk. is here giving us the substance of the preaching rather than what John said on some particular day. What he ‘said to some was also said to all; and as the salvation offered was | universal, so also was the sin. This is thoroughly characteristic of Lk. βαπτισθῆναι. As a substitute for repentance, OF as some magical rite, which would confer a benefit on them independently of their moral condition. ‘Their desire for his baptism showed their belief in him as a Prophet; otherwise the baptism would have been valueless (Jn. i. 25; comp. Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25). Hence the indignation of John’s disciples when they heard of Jesus baptizing, a rite which they regarded as their master’s prerogative (Jn. iii. 26). The title ὁ βαπτιστής or ὁ βαπτίζων shows that his baptism was regarded as something exceptional and not an ordinary purification (Jos. Azz. xviil. 5. 2). Its exceptional character con- sisted in (1) its application to the whole nation, which had become polluted ; (2) its being a preparation for the more perfect baptism of the Messiah. It is only when baptism is administered by im- mersion that its full significance is seen. Βαπτίζω is intensive from βάπτω, like βαλλίξω from βάλλω: βάπτω, “1 dip”; βαπτίζω, “41 immerse.” Τεννήματα is ‘‘ offspring” of animals or men (Ecclus. x. 18) ; ‘‘ fruits” of the earth or of plants (Deut. xxviii. 4, 11, 18, 42, 5; Mt. xxvi. 29; Mk. xiv. 25; Lk. xxii. 18); ‘‘ rewards” of righteousness “i(ELOS: X. 12; 2 Cor: 1x. 10): ὙΠ, 8.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 89 Γεννήματα ἐχιδνων. Genimina (Vulg.) or generatio (Ὁ ff2lqr) or progenies (acdef) wiperarum. In Mt. this is addressed to the Pharisees, first by John and afterwards by Jesus (111. 7, xii. 34, Xxill. 33). It indicates another parentage than that of Abraham (Jn. vill. 44), and is perhaps purposely used in opposition to their trust in their descent: comp. Aesch. Cho. 249; Soph. Anz. 531. John’s metaphors, like those of the prophecy (ver. 5), are from the wilderness ;—vipers, stones, and barren trees. It is from this stern, but fresh and undesecrated region, and not from the “ Holy,” but polluted City, that the regenerating movement proceeds (Is. xli. 18). These serpent-like characters are the σκολιά that must be made straight. Comp. Ps. lviil. 4, cxl. 3. ὑπέδειξεν. “Suggested” by showing to eye or ear: vi. 47, xii, 5; Acts ix. 16, xx. 35; elsewhere in-N.T. only Mt. ii. 7. τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς. It is possible that this refers primarily to the national judgments involved in the destruction of Jerusalem and the banishment of the Jews (xxi. 23; 1 Mac. i. 64); but the penalties to be inflicted at the last day are probably included (Rom. i. 18, il. 5, 8, ill. 5, v. 9). The Jews believed that the judg- ments of God, especially in connexion with the coming of the Messiah, as threatened by the Prophets (Joel 11. 31; Mal. ii. 2, iv. 1; Is. xiil. 9), were to be executed on the Heathen. The Baptist proclaims that there is no such distinction. Salvation is for all\~ who prepare their hearts to receive the Messiah; judgment, for all | who harden their hearts and reject Him. Birth is of no avail. 8. ποιήσατε οὖν καρποὺς ἀξίους τ. p. “ If you desire to escape this wrath and to welcome the Messiah (οὖν), repent, and act af | once (aor. imperat.) as those who repent.” Comp. xx. 24; Acts | ill. 4, Vil. 33, 1X. II, Xvi. 9, Xxi. 39, xxii. 13 ; and see Win. xliii. 3. a, p- 393. Mt. has καρπόν (11. 8), which treats the series of acts 2 a collective result. Comp. S. Paul’s summary of his own preaching, - esp. ἄξια τῆς μετανοίας ἔργα πράσσοντας (Acts xxvi. 20). It was a Rabbinical saying, ‘‘If Israel would repent only one day, the Son of David would come forthwith” ; and again, ‘‘If Israel would observe only one sabbath according to the ordinance, forthwith would the Son of David come” ; and, ‘‘ All the stages are passed, and all depends solely on repentance and good works.” The phrase ποιεῖν καρπόν is not necessarily a Hebraism (Gen. i. II, 12): it occurs Arist. De Plant. 1. 4, p. 819, 11. 10, p. 829. Comp. Jas. iii. 12; Mk. iv. 32. μὴ ἄρξησθε. “ Do not even begin to have this thought in your minds.” Omnem excusationis etiam conatum precidit (Beng.). If there are any passages in which ἄρχομαι with an infin. is a mere periphrasis for the simple verb (xx. 9), this is not one of them. See Win. lxv. 7. d, p. 767; Grim-Thay. p. 79; Fritzsche on Mt. XV1l. 21, Pp. 539.---λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. ‘To say within yourselves” go THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 8-11. rather than “among yourselves.” Comp. vil. 49 and λέγετε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν (Ps. iv. 5). For the perennial boast about their descent from Abraham comp. Jn. vill. 33, 53; Jas. il. 21; 2 Esdr. vi. 56-58 ; Jos. Anz. iil. 5. 3; B. 7. v. 9. 4; Wetst. on Mt. iii. g. ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων. There is a play upon words between “children” (danim) and “stones” (abanim). It was God who made Abraham to be the rock whence the Jews were hewn (Is. li. 1, 2); and out of the most unpromising material He can make genuine children of Abraham (Rom. iv., ix. 6, 7, xi. 13-24; Gal. iv. 21-31). The verb ἐγεῖραι is applicable to both stones and children. 9. ἤδη. “Although you do not at all expect it.” The image of the axe is in harmony with that of the fruits (ver. 8). In the East trees are valued mainly for their fruit ; and trees which pro- duce none are usually cut down. ‘And even now also the axe is laid unto the root.” The πρός after κεῖται may be explained either, ‘‘is brought to the root and lies there”; or, ‘‘lies directed towards the root.” In either case the meaning is that judgment is not only inevitable, but will come speedily : hence the presents, ἐκκόπτεται and βάλλεται. The δὲ xaé(in Mt. simply δέ) is Lk.’s favourite method of giving emphasis ; ver. 12, 114. ἵν. 41, ve 10, 360) 1x. ΟἿ. ἘΞ 22, ΣΙ. 19, ile aay τ τος ΧΥΪ. I, 22, Xvill. 9, ΧΙΧ. 19, xx. 12. For μή with a participle, expressing a reason or condition, comp. 11. 45, vii. 30, x1. 24, xii. 47, xxiv. 23; Acts xi. 26, xvii. 6, xxl. 34, xxvii. 7; and see Win. lv. 5 (8), p. 607. For ἐκκόπτειν, “to cut off,” of felling trees, comp. ΧΙ]. 7, 9; Hdt. ix. 97. 1. See notes on vi. 43. 10-14. John’s Different Treatment of Different Classes. Peculiar to Lk., but probably from the same source as the preceding verses. It shows that, in levelling the mountains and raising the valleys, etc. (ver. 5), he did not insist upon any extraordinary penances or “counsels of perfection.” Each class is to forsake its besetting sin, and all are to do their duty to their neighbour. The stern warnings of the Baptist made the rulers leave in disgust without seeking baptism at his hands (vii. 30; Mt. xxi. 25); but they made the multitude anxious to comply with the conditions for avoiding the threatened judgment. 10. ἐπηρώτων. ‘Continually put this question.” The notion of repetition comes from the imperf. and not, as in ἐπαιτεῖν (xvi. 3, XViii. 35), from the ἐπί, which in ἐπερωτᾷν indicates the direction of the inquiry ; Plato, Soph. 249 E, 250. Comp. ἐπεδόθη in iv. 17. Ti οὖν ποιήσωμεν ; ‘ What then, if the severe things which thou sayest are true, must we do?” For the conjunctivus deliberativus comp.. xxiil.. 21; ΜῈ σαν! 54; Mk. x. τὰ; (Jn. ΣΠ 27; ΠΏ ΟΕ Win. xli. 4. Ὁ, p. 356; Matth. 515. 2; Arnold’s Maduvig, p. 99; Green, p. 150. 11. δύο χιτῶνας. The χιτών was the under and less necessary as ἢ ~Y Ps in 11. 11-'3.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY ΟἹ garment, disiinguished from the upper and almost indispensable ipatuov ; V1. 29; Acts ix. 39; Mt. v. 40; Jn. xix. 23. When two of these χιτῶνες were wo.7 at once, the under one or shirt would be the Hebrew ce¢oneth, the upper would be the Hebrew mez/, which was longer than the ce¢oneth. It was common for travellers to wear two (Jos. Anz. xvii. 5. 7); but Christ forbade the disciples to do so (ix. 3; Mt. x. 10). It is not implied here that the two are being worn simultaneously. See Trench, Syz. 1. ; Conder, Handd. of B. Ῥ 195; D.B.? art. “ Dress”; Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Clothing and Ornaments of the Hebrews.” If the owner of two shirts is to “ give a share” (petadétw), he will give one shirt. Comp. Rom. i. 11, xii. 8; and contrast Peter’s reply to the same question Acts ii. 37, 38. With regard to βρώματα, nothing is said or implied about having superfluity or abundance. He who has any food is to share it with the starving. Comp. 1 Thes. ii. 8. This verse is one of those cited to support the view that Lk. is Ebionite in his sympathies, a view maintained uncompromisingly by Renan (Les Hvangzles, ch. xiii; V. de_/. chs. x., xi.), and by Campbell (Cretecal Studzes in St. Litke, p- 193). For the answer see Bishop Alexander (Leading /deas of the Gospel, p- 170). Here it is to be noticed that it is Mt. and Mk. who record, while Lk. omits, the poor clothing and poor food of the Baptist himself; and that it is Mt. who represents his sternest words as being addressed to the wealthy Pharisees and Sadducees, while Lk. directs them against the multitudes generally. 12. τελῶναι. From τέλη (Mt. xvil. 25; Rom. ΧΙ]. 7) and ὠνέομαι ; so that etymologically τελῶναι = publicani, “those who bought or farmed the taxes” under the Roman government. But in usage τελῶναι = portitores, “those who collected the taxes” for the publicant. ‘This usage is common elsewhere, and invariable in N.T. Sometimes, and perhaps often, there was an intermediate agent between the τελῶναι and the pudblicani, e.g. ἀρχιτεχώνης or magister (xix. 2). These ‘‘ tax-collectors” were detested everywhere, because of their oppres- siveness and fraud, and were classed with the vilest of mankind: μοιχοὶ καὶ πορνοβοσκοὶ καὶ τελῶναι καὶ κόλακες Kal συκοφάνται, Kal τοιοῦτος ὅμιλος τῶν πάντα κυκώντων ἐν τῷ βίῳ (Lucian. Mecyomant. xi.; comp. Aristoph. Zguzt. 248 ; Theophr. Charac. vi.; Grotius, 2% /oco; Wetst. on Mt. v. 46). The Jews especi- ally abhorred them as bloodsuckers for a heathen conqueror. For a Jew to enter such a service was the most utter degradation. He was excommunicated, and his whole family was regarded as disgraced. But the Romans allowed the Herods to retain some powers of taxation ; and therefore not all tax-collectors in Palestine were in the service of Rome. Yet the characteristic faults of the profession prevailed, whether the money was collected in the name of Czesar or of Herod ; and what these were is indicated by the Baptist’s answer. See Lightfoot, Ofera, i. pp. 324, 325; Herzog, PRE.” art. Zo//; Edersh. 2. & 7. 1. ΠῚ g1s, 13. Διδάσκαλε. LPudblicant majore ceteris reverentia utuntur (Beng.). πλέον παρά. For παρά after comparatives comp. Heb. i. 4, iii. 3, ix. 23, Ο2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE 111. 18, 14. xi. 4, ΣΙ]. 24; Hdt. vii. 103. 6; Thuc. i. 23. 4, iv. 6.1. The effect is to intensify the notion of excess: so also ὑπέρ, xvi. 8; Heb. iv. 12. τὸ διατεταγμένον. “That which stand! prescribed” (perf.) ; a favourite word with Lk.: vill. 55; xvil. 9, 10; Acts vii. 44, xvili. 2, XX. I3, XXIll. 31, Xxiv. 23. Comp. disponere, verordnen. It is from the general meaning of ‘transacting business” that πράσσειν acquires the special sense of “exacting tribute, extorting money”: comp. xix. 23. This use is found from Herodotus onwards: Hdt. 111. 58. 4; AXsch. Cho. 311; Pers. 476; Hum. 624; Xen. Anabd. Vil. 6. 17: Comp. πράκτωρ, εἰσπράσσειν, ἐκπράσσειν, and many illustrations in Wetst. Agere is similarly used: publicum quadra- gesime in Asia egit (Suet. Vesp. 1.); but what follows is of interest as showing how rare an honourable pudblicanus was: manebantque imagines in civitatibus et posite sub hoc titulo KAKO TEAQNH- SANTI. This is said of Sabinus, father of Vespasian. After farm- ing the guvadragesima tax in Asia he was a money-lender among the Helvetii. It is to be noticed that the Baptist does not con- demn the calling of a tax-collector as unlawful for a Jew. He assumes that these τελῶναι will continue to act as such. 14. στρατευόμενοι. ‘Men on service, on military duty” ; mz/- tantes rather than mi/ites (Vulg.). In 2 Tim. 1]. 4, οὐδεὶς στρατευό- pevos is rightly rendered emo militans. Who these “men on service” were cannot be determined ; but they were Jewish soldiers and not Roman, and not on service in the war between Antipas and his father-in-law Aretas about the former’s repudiation of the latter’s daughter in order to make room for Herodias. That war took place after the Baptist’s death (Jos. Amz. xvill. 5. 2), two or three years later than this, and probably a.p. 32 (Lewin, Fast Sacri, 1171, 1412). These στρατευόμενοι were possibly gendarmerie, soldiers acting as police, perhaps in support of the tax-collectors. Such persons, as some modern nations know to their cost, have great opportunities for bullying and delation. By their καὶ ἡμεῖς they seem to connect themselves with the τελῶναι, either as know- ing that they also were unpopular, or as expecting a similar answer from John. Μηδένα διασείσητε. Like concutio, διασείω is used of intimida- tion, especially of intimidating to extort money (3 Mac. vii. 21). Eusebius uses it of the extortions of Paul of Samosata (ZZ £. vii. 30. 7); where, however, the true reading may be ἐκσείει. In this sense σείω also is used (Aristoph. Zguzt. 840; Pax, 639); and it is interesting to see that Antipho couples σείω with συκοφαντῶ. Φιλοκράτης οὗτοσί ἑτέρους τῶν ὑπευθεύνων ἔσειε καὶ ἐσυκοφάντει (Oral. vi. p. 146, 1. 22).! This last passage, combined with the verse 1 Τῇ the Passzo S. Perpetux, iii., the martyr suffers much στρατιωτῶν συκοῴαν- τίαις πλείσταις, and this is represented in the Latin by concussure militum. Comp. Tert. De Muga tn Pers. xii., xii. ΟΠ 14,15. PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 93 before us, renders it probable that συκοφάντης, a “ fig-shower,” is not one who gzves information to the police about the exportation of figs, but one who shows figs by shaking the tree; ze. who makes the rich yield money by intimidating them. Nowhere is συκό-! gavrys found in the sense of “informer,” nor yet of ‘‘sycophant.” | It always denotes a “false accuser,” especially with a view to obtaining money ; Arist. Ach. 559, 825, 828. Ι | Hatch quotes from | Brunet de Presle, MVotices οἱ textes du Musée du Louvre, a letter of B.C. 145 from Dioscorides, a chief officer of finance, to his sub- ordinate Dorion: περὶ δὲ διασεισμῶν καὶ παραλειῶν ἐνίων δὲ καὶ συκοφαντεῖσθαι προσφερομένων βουλόμεθα ὑμᾶς μὴ διαλανθάνειν, κιτιλ., “in the matter of fictitious legal proceedings and _ plunder- ings, some persons being, moreover, alleged to be even made the victims of false accusations,” etc. (B72. Grk. p. 91). Comp. Lev. xix. τι; Job xxiv. 9. Hesychius explains συκοφάντης as Ψευδο- κατήγορος. ὀψωνίοις. From ὄψον, “cooked food” to be eaten with bread, and ὠνέομαι, “1 buy”: hence “rations, allowance, pay” of a Beloienr; © Cor 1x. 7; 1 Mac, π| 28, xiv. 32; 1 Esdr. iv. 56; and freq. in Polybius. John does not tell these men on service that theirs is an unlawful calling. Nor did the early Christians con- demn the life of a soldier: see quotations in Grotius and J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, Serm. v. 15-17. The certainty of the Messiah’s Coming and the Conse- quences of the Coming. Mt. i. 11, r2. The explanatory open- ing (ver. 15) is peculiar to Lk. The substance of ver. 16 is common to all three; but here Lk. inserts the characteristic πᾶσιν. In ver. 17 he and Mt. are together, while Mk. is silent. Lk. shows more clearly than the other two how intense was the excitement which the Baptist’s preaching caused. 15. Προσδοκῶντος. What were they expecting? The result of all this strange preaching, and especially the Messianic judgment. Would it be put in execution by John himself? For this absolute use of προσδοκάω comp. Acts xxvii. 33. Excepting Mt. xi. 13, xxiv. 50, 2 Pet. ili. 12-14, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (i. 21, vii. 19, 20, Vili. 40, xii. 46; Acts iii. 5, etc.). The Vulg. here has the strange rendering exzstémante ; although in i. 21, Vii. 19, 20, vill. 40 προσδοκάω is rendered exfecto, and in xii. 46 sfero. Cod. Brix. has sfevante here. See on xix. 43 and xxi. 23, 25 for other slips in Jerome’s work. Here d has an attempt to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin: et cogitantium omnium. Comp. 1X. 43, ΧΙΧ. II, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 41. μή ποτε αὐτός. “If haply he himself were the Christ.” Their thinking this possible, although “ John did no sign,” and had none of the insignia of royalty, not even descent from David, is remark- able. Von ita crassam adhuc ideam de Christo habebant, nam 94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 15, 16 Johannes nil splendoris externi habebat et tamen talia de eo cogita- dant (Beng.). That this question had been raised is shown by Jn. i. 20. The Baptist would not have declared “I am not the Christ,” unless he had been asked whether he was the Messiah, or had heard the people discussing the point. For the constr. comp. μή ποτε δῴη αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς μετάνοιαν (2 Tim. ii. 25). The opt. in indirect questions is freq. in Lk. both without ἄν (i. 29, viii. 9, Acts xvii. II, xxi. 33) and also with ἄν (i. 62, vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, ni 7)) 16. πᾶσιν. Showing how universal the excitement on this point was. Neither Mt. (ili. 11) nor Mk. (i. 7) has the πᾶσιν of which Luke is so fond: comp. Vi. 30, Vil. 35, 1X. 43, ΧΙ 4, Xl. ΤΟΙ The aor. mid. ἀπεκρίνατο is rare in N.T. (xxii. 9; Acts 1. 12; Mt. xxvii. 12; Mk. xiv. 61; Jn. v. 17, 19); also in LXX (Judg. v. 29; 1 Kings ii. 1; I Chron. x. 13; Ezek. ix. 11). In bibl. Grk. the pass. forms prevail : see small print on 1. 19. ᾿Εγὼ μὲν ὕδατι. Both with emphasis: “ Z with wader.” 6 ἰσχυρότερος. Valebat Johannes, sed Christus multo plus (Beng.). The art. marks him as one who ought to be well known. λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων. More graphic than Mt.’s ra trod. βαστάσαι, but less so than Mk.’s κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ip. τῶν ὑποδ. αὐτοῦ. Both AV. and RV. mark the difference between ὑπόδημα, “that which is bound under” the foot, and σανδάλιον, dim. of σάνδαλον, by rendering the former “shoe” (x. 4, XV. 22, XXil. 35; Acts vii. 33, xiil. 25) and the other “sandal” (Mt. vi: 9; Acts xii. 8). The Vulg. has cadceamenta for ὑποδήματα, and sandalia or calige for σανδάλια. In LXX the two words seem to be used indiscriminately (Josh. ix. 5, 13); but tod. is much the more common, and it is doubtful whether the Jews before the Captivity wore shoes or manadim (Deut. xxxiil. 25) as distinct from sandals. Comp. οἱ ἱμάντες τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτῶν (Is. v. 27). To unfasten shoes or sandals, when a man returned home, or to bring them to him when he went out, was the office of a slave (See Wetst. on Mt. iii. 11). John is not worthy to be the bond-servant of the Christ. The αὐτοῦ is not so entirely redundant as in some other passages : ‘whose latchet of his shoes.” + αὐτός. In emphatic contrast to the speaker. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. See on 1. 15. That the ἐν with πνεύματι ἁγίῳ and its absence from ὕδατι marks a distinction of any great moment, either here or Acts 1. 5, must be doubted; for in Mt. 111. 11 doth expressions have the ἐν, and in Mk. i. 8 mezther. The simple dat. marks the instrument or matter wz¢# which the baptism 1€omp: Mk: νἱῖί: 25; 1 Pet. 1]. 24; Rev. ii. 8, vil. 2, Ὁ. ΧΠΠΠ 95 ἘΝ Such pleonasms are Hebraistic, and are specially common in LXX (Gen. i. 113 Exod. xxxv. 29, etc.) ; Win. xxii. 4 (b), p. 184. a III. 16, 17.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 95 is effected; the ἐν marks the element zz which it takes place (Jn. i 30): : ΕΝ πυρί. This remarkable addition is wanting in Mk. Various explanations of it are suggested. (1) That the jexy tongues at Pentecost are meant, is improbable. Were any of those who received the Spirit at Pentecost among the Baptist’s hearers on this occasion? Moreover, in Acts 1. 5 καὶ πυρί is not added. (2) That it distinguishes two baptisms, the penitent with the Spirit, and the impenitent with fena/ fire, is very improbable. The same persons (ὑμᾶς) are to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire. In ver. 17 the good and the bad are separated, but not here. This sentence must not be made parallel to what follows, for the winnowing-shovel is not baptism. (3) More probably the πυρί refers to the illuminating, kindling, and purifying power of the grace given by the Messiah’s baptism. Spiritus sanctus, quo Christus baptizat, igneam wim habet: atque ea vis ignea etiam conspicua fuit oculis honinum (Beng.): comp. Mal. i. 2. (4) Or, the frery trials which await the disciple who accepts Christ’s baptism may be meant: comp. xii. 50; Mk. x. 38, 39. The passage is one of many, the exact meaning of which must remain doubtful ; but the purifying of the believer rather than the punish- | ment of the unbeliever seems to be intended. 17. πτύον. The “winnowing-shovel” (fala Lignea; Vulg. ventilabrum), with which the threshed corn was thrown up into the wind (zrjw=“spit”).! This is a further description of the Messiah,—He whose πτύον is ready for use. Note the impressive repetition of αὐτοῦ after τῇ χειρί, τὴν ἅλωνα, and τὴν ἀποθήκην.3 τὴν ἅλωνα. The threshing-floor itself, and not its contents. It is by removing the contents—corn to the barn, and refuse to the fire—that the floor is thoroughly cleansed. Christ’s threshing- floor is the world; or, in a more restricted sense, the Holy Land. - See Meyer on Mt. iii. 12. ἀσβέστῳ. Comp. Mk. ix. 43; Lev. vi. 12, 13; Is. xxxiv. 8-10, Invi. 24.5 Jer. vil. 20; Ezek. xx.. 47, 48. In Homer it is a freq. epithet of γέλως, κλέος, βοή, μένος, and once of φλόξ (74. xvi. 123). As an epithet of πῦρ it is opposed to μαλθακόν and μακρόν. See 1 The wooden shovel, Zala lignea (Cato, R. R. Vis 45. 151), ventélabrum (Varro, &. &. i. 52), seems to have been more primitive than the vanzuws, which was a basket, shaped like the blade of a large shovel. The πτύον was a shovel rather than a basket. In Tertullian (Prescrzp. iii.) palam 2 manu portat ad purgandam aream suam is probably the true reading: but some MSS. have ventilabrum for palam. * The form διακαθᾶραι is worth noting: in later Greek ἐκάθᾶρα for ἐκάθηρα is not uncommon. Mt. here has διακαθαριεῖ, but classical writers prefer δια- καθαίρειν to dtaxabapifev.—For the details of Oriental threshing see Herzog, PRE.” art. Ackerbau; D.B? art. “Agriculture.” For ἄχυρα comp. Job xxi, 18, and Hdt. iv. 72. 2; the sing. is less common (Jer, xxiii. 28), | 96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 17-19. Heinichen on Eus. HZ £. vi. 41. 15 and viii. 12. 1. It is therefore a fierce fire which cannot be extinguished, rather than an endless fire that will never go out, that seems to be indicated: and this is just such a fire as τὸ ἄχυρον (the refuse left after threshing and winnowing) would make. But ἄσβεστος is sometimes used of a fire that never goes out, as that of Apollo at Delphi or of Vesta at Rome (Dion. Hal. cxciv. ὃ). For κατακαίειν comp. Mt. xiii. 30, 40; also Ex. iii. 2, where it is distinguished from καίειν : it implies utter consumption. 18-20. § Explanation of the Abrupt Termination. of the Baptist’s Ministry. This is given here by anticipation in order to complete the narrative. Comp. the conclusions to previous narratives: i. 66, 80, ii. 40, 52. 18. Πολλὰ μὲν οὖν kat ἕτεραι The comprehensive πολλὰ καὶ ἕτερα confirms the view taken above (ver. 7) that this narrative (7-18) gives a summary of John’s teaching rather than a report of what was said on any one occasion. The ἕτερα means “of a different kind” (Gal. 1. 6, 7), and intimates that the preaching of the Baptist was not always of the character just indicated. The cases in which μὲν οὖν occurs must be distinguished. 1. Where, as here, μέν is followed by a corresponding δέ, and we have nothing more than the distributive μὲν... δὲ. . . combined with οὖν (Acts viii. 4, 25, xi. 19, Xll. 5, Xiv. 3, xv. 3, 30, etc.). 2. Where no δέ follows, and μέν confirms what is said, while οὖν marks an inference or transition, guzdem zgztur (Acts 1. 6, 11. 41, Vv. 41, xiii. 4, xvii. 30; Heb. vii. 11, viii. 4, etc.). Win. li. ὃ. a, p- 556. παρακαλῶν ednyyeAtleto . . . ἐλεγχόμενος. These words give the three chief functions of the Baptist: to exhort all, to preach good tidings to the penitent, to reprove the impenitent. It is quite unnecessary to take τὸν λαόν with παρακαλῶν, and the order of the words is against such a combination. In late Greek the acc. of the ferson to whom the announcement is made is freq. after εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Acts xiv. 15, xvi. 10; Gal. i. 9; I Pet. i. 12; comp. Acts vill. 25, 40, xiv. 21): and hence in the pass. we have πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται. The acc. of the message announced is also common (viii. I; Acts v. 42, vill. 4, 12, x. 36, xi. 20). Where both person and message are combined, the person addressed is in the dat. (i. 19, ii. 10, iv. 43; Acts vill. 35; comp. Lk. iv. 18; Acts xvii. 18; Rom. i. 15, etc.): but in Acts ΧΙ, 32 we have double acc. Here the Lat. texts vary between evangelézabat populum (Cod, Am.) and evang. populo (Cod. Brix.). 19. Ἡρῴδης. Antipas, as in ver. 1. The insertion of the name Φιλίππου after γυναικός comes from Mk. and Mt. (ACK X and some versions). This Philip must be carefully distinguished from the tetrarch Philip, with whom Jerome confuses him. He was the son of Mariamne, on account of whose treachery he had been disinherited by Herod the Great ; and he lived as a private III. 19, 20.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 97 individual at Jerusalem (Jos. 2. Δ i. 30. 7). Josephus calls both Antipas and also this Philip simply “Herod” (Amz. xviii. 5. 4). Herodias became the evil genius of the man who seduced her from his brother. It was her ambition which brought about the down- fall of Antipas. Lk. alone tells us that John rebuked Antipas for his wicked life (kal περὶ πάντων) as well as for his incestuous marriage. Obviously ἐλεγχόμενος means “rebuked, reproved” (x Tim. v. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 2), and not “convicted” or “ convinced” (Jn. viii. 46, xvi. 8). In the former sense ἐλέγχειν is stronger than ἐπιτιμᾷν : see Trench, Syz. iv. Once more (see on ver. I) we have a remarkable rendering in d: erodes autem quaterducatus cum argueretur ab eo, etc. Note the characteristic and idiomatic attraction (πάντων ὧν), and comp. ΠΟ. ἶνες Ὁ. ἰχ. 22; ΣΠ: Ζ20,. xv. 10; XIX. 37, xxlv.) 25\5) Acts iil. 21x. 20, ἘΠῚ. 39, ΧΣΙΙ. 10; xxvi. 2. 20. προσέθηκεν καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, κατέκλεισεν, κιτλ. “He added this also on the top of all—he shut up John in prison” ; z.e. he added this to all the other πονηρά of which he had been guilty. Josephus, in the famous passage which confirms and _ supple- ments the Gospel narrative respecting the Baptist (Az. xviii. 5. 2), says that Antipas put him in prison because of his immense influence with the people. ‘They seemed to be ready to do what- ever he told them; and he might tell them to revolt. This may easily have been an additional reason for imprisoning him: it is no contradiction of the Evangelists. What Josephus states is what Antipas publicly alleged as his reason for arresting John: of course he would not give his private reasons. ‘The prison in which the Baptist was confined was in the fortress of Machzerus at the N.E. corner of the Dead Sea. Seetzen discovered the site in 1807 above the valley of the Zerka, and dungeons can still be traced among the ruins. ‘Tristram visited it in 1872 (D¢scoveries on the Last Side of the Dead Sea, ch. xiv.). It was hither that the daughter of Aretas fled on her way back to her father, when she discovered that Antipas meant to discard her for Herodias. Macherus was then in her father’s dominions; but Antipas probably seized it immediately afterwards (Jos. Amv. xviil. 5. 1, 2). The expression προσέθηκεν τοῦτο, κατέκλεισεν must not be confounded with the Hebraisms προσέθετο πέμψαι (xx. II, 12), προσέθετο συλλαβεῖν (Acts xii. 3). It is true that in LXX the act. as well as the mid. is used in this manner: προσέθηκε τεκεῖν (Gen. iv. 2); προσέθηκε λαλῆσαι (Gen. xviii. 29): see also Exod. x. 28; Deut. iii. 26; and for the mid. Exod, xiv. 13. But in this Hebraistic use of προστίθημι for ‘‘ go on and do” the second verb is always in the infin. (Win. liv. 5, p. 588). Here there is no Hebraism, and therefore no sign that Lk. is using an Aramaic source. Κατακλείειν is classical, but occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxvi. 10; in both cases of imprisoning. It is freq. in medical writers, and Galen uses 7 98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [TII. 20, 21. it of imprisonment (Hobart, A/ed. Lang. of Lk. pp. 66, 67). Mt. xiv. 3 we have ἀπέθετο, and Mk. vi. 17, ἔδησεν, of Herod’s putting John into prison. 21, 22. Jesus is baptized by John.—It is remarkable, that although the careers of the Forerunner and of the Messiah are so closely connected, and so similar as regards prediction of birth, retirement, ministry, and early end, yet, so far as we know, they come into actual contact only at one brief period, when the Forerunner baptized the Christ. Once some of John’s disciples raised the question of fasting, and Jesus answered it (v. 33; Mt. ix. 14), and once John sent some of his disciples to Jesus to question Him as to His Messiahship (vil. 19-23; Mt. xi. 2-19) ; but there is no meeting between Christ and the Baptist. Lk., having completed his brief account of the Forerunner and his work, begins his main subject, viz. the Messiah and His work. This involves a return to the point at which the Forerunner met the Messiah, and performed on Him the rite which prepared Him for His work, by publicly uniting Him with the people whom He came to save, and proclaiming Him before them. 21. ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαόν. “After all the people had been baptized”; cum baptizatus esset omnis populus (Cod. Brix.) : not, ‘‘zeAzve they were being baptized”; cum baptizaretur (Cod. Am.). The latter would be ἐν τῷ with the ges. infin. Both constructions are very freq. in Lk. Contrast the aorists in ii. 27, ix. 36, xi. 37, xiv. I, xix. 15, xxiv. 30, Acts xi. 15 with the presents in v. I, 12: Vill. Ὁ; 42, 1X. 18, 20, 33; 51; X- 355.30, ΧΙ. - 275 ΧΥΠ. 11, cepa 15, 51; Acts vill. 6, xix. I. Lk. is also fond of the stronger form ἅπας, which is rare in N.T. outside his writings. Readings are often confused, but ἅπας is well attested v. 26, vill. 37, ix. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. 1; Acts 1]. 44, iv. 31, Ve 16, x. 8, Xie 10, xvi. 3, 28, xxv. 243 and may be right in other places. That there were great multitudes present when John baptized the Christ is not stated; nor is it probable. Had Lk. written év τῷ βαπίζεσθαι, this would have implied the presence of many other candidates for baptism; but it was not until “after every one of the people had been baptized” that the baptism of Jesus took place. Possibly Jesus waited until He could be alone with John. In any case, those who had long been waiting for their turn would go home soon after they had accomplished their purpose. It was some time before this that John said to the people, “‘ He that cometh after me . . . is standing in the midst of you, and ye know Him not” (Jn. i. 26). They could hardly have been so ignorant of Him, if large multitudes had been present when John baptized Him. kal Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος. It is remarkable that this, which seems to us to be the main fact, should be expressed thus incidentally by a participle. It is as if the baptism of all the people were regarded as carrying with it the baptism of Jesus almost as a necessary com- III. 21, 22.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 99 plement: ‘After they had been baptized, and when He had been baptized and was praying.” But perhaps the purpose of Lk. is to narrate the baptism, not so much for its own sake as an instance of Christ’s conformity to what was required of the people, as for the sake of the Divine recognition and authentication which Jesus then received. Jerome has preserved this fragment of the Gosfel acc. to the Hebrews: ‘‘ Lo, the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist baptizeth for remission of sins: let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? except perchance this very thing which I have said is ignorance” (Adv. Pelag. 111. 1). The Tractatus de Rebaptismate says that the Paul: Predicatio represented ‘‘ Christ, the only man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respecting His own sin, and driven almost against His will by His mother Mary to accept the baptism of John: also that when He was baptized fire was seen on the water, which is not written in any Gospel” (xviil.; Hartel’s Cypréan, il. p. 90). The fire in the water is mentioned in Justin (77y. lxxxviii.), but not as recorded by the Apostles ; and also in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. kat προσευχομένου. Lk. alone mentions this. On his Gospel as emphasizing the duty of prayer see Introd. § 6. Mt. and Mk. say that Jesus saw the Spirit descending ; Jn. says that the Baptist saw it; Lk. that it took place (ἐγένετο) along with the opening of the heaven and the coming of the voice. Mk. says simply τὸ πνεῦμα; Mt. has πνεῦμα Θεοῦ; Lk. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. See on 1: ἀπ: The constr. of ἐγένετο with acc. and infin. is on the analogy of the class. constr. of συνέβη : it is freq. in Lk. See note, p. 45. The form dvewx- θῆναι is anomalous, as if assimilated to ἀνεῷχθαι: comp. Jn. ix. 10, 14; Rev. iv. I, vi. I. 22. σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστεράν. “In a bodily form” is peculiar to Lk. Nothing is gained by admitting something visible and rejecting the dove. Comp. the symbolical visions of Jehovah - granted to Moses and other Prophets. We dare not assert that the Spirit cannot reveal Himself to human sight, or that in so doing He cannot employ the form of a dove or of tongues of fire. The tongues were appropriate when the Spirit was given “‘ by measure” to many. The dove was appropriate when the Spirit was given in His fulness to one. It is not true that the dove was an ancient Jewish symbol for the Spirit. In Jewish symbolism the dove is Israel. The descent of the Spirit was not, as some Gnostics taught, the moment of the Incarnation: it made no change in the nature of Christ. But it may have illuminated Him so as to com- plete His growing consciousness of His relations to God and to man (ii. 52). It served two purposes: (1) to make Him known to the Baptist, who thenceforward had Divine authority for making Him known to the world (Jn. i. 32, 33); and (2) to mark the offi- cial beginning of the ministry, like the anointing of a king. As at 100 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 22. the Transfiguration, Christ is miraculously glorified before setting out to suffer, a voice from heaven bears witness to Him, and “the goodly fellowship of the Prophets” waits on His glory. The phrase φωνὴν γενέσθαι is freq. in Lk. (i. 44, ix. 35, 36; Acts ii. 6, vii. 31, X. 13, xix. 34). Elsewhere only Mk. i. 11, ix. 7; Jn. xii. 30; Rev. viii. 5. Comp. ἔρχεται φωνή, Jn. xii. 28; ἐξέρχεται φωνή, Rev. xvi. 17, xix. 5. Σύ. Responsio ad preces, ver. 21 (Beng.). The Σύ shows that the voice conveyed a message to the Christ as well as to the Baptist. Mk. also has Σὺ ef: in Mt. iii. 17 we have Οὗτός ἐστιν. Diversitas locutionum adhuc etiam utilis est, ne uno modo dictum minus intellt- gatur (Aug.). In the narrative of the Transfiguration all three have Οὗτός ἐστιν. The reference seems to be to Ps. ii. 7; and here D and other important witnesses have Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον yeyévynkd oe. Augustine says that this was the reading of some MSS., ‘‘although it is stated not to be found in the more ancient MSS.” (De Cons. Evang. ii. 14: comp. Enchir. ad Laurent. xlix.). Justin has it in his accounts of the Baptism (77y. 1xxxviii., ciii.). In Mt. it is possible to take ὁ ἀγαπητός with what follows: ‘‘The beloved in whom I am well pleased” ; but this is impossible here and in Mk. i. 11, and therefore im- probable in Mt. The repetition of the article presents the epithet as a separate fact: ‘Thou art My Son, My beloved one.” Comp. μοῦνος ἐὼν ἀγαπητός (Hom. Od. 11. 365). It is remarkable that St. John never uses ἀγαπητός of Christ: neither in the Fourth Gospel nor in the Apocalypse does the word occur in any connexion. εὐδόκησα. “41 am well pleased”: the timeless aorist. Comp. Jn. xiii. 3. The verb is an exception to the rule that, except where a verb is compounded with a prep., the verbal termination is not retained, but one from a noun of the same root is substituted: e.g. ἀδυνατεῖν, εὐεργετεῖν, not ἀδύνασθαι, εὐεργάζεσθαι. Comp. kapadoxety and δυσθνήσκειν, which are similar exceptions, Win. xvi. 5, 5 WAR. ε The voice does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, as a legend would prob- ably have represented. No such proclamation was needed either by Jesus or by the Baptist. The descent of the Spirit had told John that Jesus was the Christ (Jn. i. 33). This voice from heaven, as afterwards at the Transfiguration (ix. 35), and again shortly before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), followed closely upon Christ’s prayer, and may be regarded as the answer to it. His humanity was capable of needing the strength which the heavenly assurance gave. To call this voice from heaven the Lath-Kol of the Rabbis, or to treat it as analogous to it, is misleading. The Rabbinic Zath-Xo/, or ‘‘ Daughter-voice,” is regarded as an echo of the voice of God: and the Jews liked to believe that it had been granted to them after the gift of prophecy had ceased. The utterances attri- buted to it are in some cases so frivolous or profane, that the more intelligent Rabbis denounced it as a superstition. It has been pointed out that Lk. appears to treat the baptism of Jesus by John as a matter of course. Mt. tells us that the Baptist at first protested against it; and many writers have felt that it requires explanation. Setting aside the profane suggestions that Jesus was not sinless, and therefore needed ‘repentance baptism for remission of sins,” or that He was in collusion with John, we may note four leading hypotheses. 1. He wished to do honour to John. 2. He desired to elicit from John a declaration of His Messiahship. 3. He thereby gave a solemn sign that He had done with home life, and was beginning His public minis‘ry. 4. He thereby consecrated Himself for His III. 22.]} ΡΒΕΡΑΒΑΤΙΟΝ FOR THE MINISTRY 101 work.—This last seems to be nearest to the truth. The other three would be more probable if we were expressly told that multitudes of spectators were present ; whereas the reverse seems to be implied. John’s baptism was prepara- tory to the kingdom of the Messiah. For everyone else it was a baptism of repentance. The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could yet accept the preparation. In each case it marked the beginning of a new life. It conse- crated the people for the reception of salvation. It consecrated the Christ for the bestowing of it (Neander, Z. /. C. § 42 (5), Eng. tr. p. 68). But besides this it was a ‘‘ fulfilment of righteousness,” a τ τς with the requirements of the Law. Although pure Himself, through His connexion with an unclean people He was Levitically unclean. ‘‘ On the ΠΣ οἵ O.T. righteousness His baptism was required” (Lange, Z. of C. i. p. 355). In the Fathers and liturgies we find the ἘΠ, ἫΝ by being baptized Him- self Jesus elevated an external rite into a sacrament, and consecrated the element of water for perpetual use. aptizatus est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, sed mundare aguas (Ambr. on Lk. ili. 21, 23). ‘‘ By the Baptisme of thy wel beloved sonne Jesus Christe, thou dydest sanctifie the fludde Jordan, and al other waters to this misticall washing away of synne” (First Prayer-Book of Edw. v1. 1549, Public Baptism) ; which follows the Gregorian address, ‘‘ By the Baptism of Thine Only-begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water” (Bright, Azczent Collects, p. 161). There is no contradiction between John’s ‘‘Comest Thou to me?” (Mt. iii. 14) and “1 knew Him not” (Jn. i. 31, 33). Asa Prophet John recognized the sinlessness of Jesus, just as Elisha recognized the avarice and untruthfulness of Gehazi, or the treachery and cruelty of Hazael (2 Kings v. 26, viii. 10-12) ;| but until the Spirit descended upon Him, he did not know that He was the Messiah (Weiss, Lebex Jesu, I. 1. 9, Eng. tr. i. p. 320). John had three main functions: to predict the coming of the Messiah ; to prepare the people for it ;}~ and to point out the Messiah when He came. When these were accomplished, | his work was nearly complete. 23-38. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Comp. Mt. i. 1-17. The literature is very abundant: the following are among the prin- cipal authorities, from which a selection may be made, and the names of other authorities obtained. Lord A. Hervey, Zhe Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour, Macmillan, 1853; J. B. McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 408-422, Macmillan, 1875; W. H. Mill, Observations on the Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospel, pp. 147-218; D.B.* art. “Genealogy”; D. of Chr. Biog. art. “ Africanus”; Schaff’s Flerzog, art. “Genealogy”; Commentaries of Mansel (.Sfeaker), Meyer, Schaff, on Mt. 1.; of Farrar, Godet, M. R. Riddle, on ile in: Why does Lk. insert the genealogy here instead of at the beginning of his Gospel? It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that this zs the beginning of his Gospel, for the first three chapters are only introductory. The use of ἀρχόμενος here implies that the Evangelist is now making a fresh start. Two of the three introductory chapters are the history of the Forerunner, which Lk. completes in the third chapter before beginning his account of the work of the Messiah. Not until Jesus has been anointed by the Spirit does the history of the Messiah, z.e. the Anointed One, begin ; and His genealogy then becomes of importance. In a similar way the pedigree of Moses is placed, not just before “12 102 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 22, 23. or just after the account of his birth (Exod. ii. 1, 2), where not even the names of his parents are given, but just after his public appearance before Pharaoh as the spokesman of Jehovah and the leader of Israel (Exod. vi. 14-27). The statement of Julius Africanus, that Herod the Great caused the genealo- gies of ancient Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to conceal the defects of his own pedigree (Eus. 27. Z. i. 7. 13), is of no moment. If he ever gave such an order, it would of necessity be very imperfectly executed. The rebuild- ing of the temple would give him the opportunity of burning the genealogies of the priests, which were preserved in the temple archives, but pedigrees in the possession of private families would be carefully concealed. Josephus was able to give his own genealogy, as he “‘ found it described in the pzb/zc records ”—ev ταῖς δημοσίαις δέλτοις ἀναγεγραμμένην (V2ta, 1); and he tells us what great care was taken to preserve the pedigrees of the priests, not merely in Judzea, but in Egypt, and Babylon, and ‘‘ whithersoever our priests are scattered” (Apzon. i. 7). It is therefore an empty objection to say that Lk. cou/d not have obtained this genealogy from any authentic source, for all such sources had been destroyed by Herod. It is clear from Josephus that, if Herod made the attempt, he did not succeed in destroying even all public records. Jews are very tena- cious of their genealogies ; and a decree to destroy such things would be evaded in every possible way. The importance of the evidence of Africanus lies in his claim to have obtained information from members of the family, who gloried in preserving the memory of their noble extraction; and zz his referring both pedigrees as a matter of course to Joseph. It is not probable that Joseph was the only surviving descendant of David who was known to be such. But it is likely enough that all such persons were in humble positions, like Joseph himself, and thus escaped the notice and jealousy of Herod. Throughout his reign he took no precaution against Davidic claimants ; and had he been told that a village carpenter was the representative of David’s house, he would possibly have treated him as Domitian is said to have treated the grandsons of Judas the brother of the Lord—with supercilious indifference (Eus. H. 25. iii. 20). 23. αὐτός. “He Himself,” to whom these miraculous signs had reference: comp. i. 22; Mt. iii. 4. The AV. translation of the whole clause, αὐτὸς ἦν ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, “Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age,” is im- possible. It is probably due to the influence of Beza: zncipiebat esse quast annorum triginta. But Cranmer led the way in this error in the Bible of 1539, and the later versions followed. Purvey is vague, like the Vulgate: “was bigynnynge as of thritti year,”— erat incipiens quasi annorum trigtnta. Tyndale is right: “was about thirty yere of age when He beganne”; z.e. when He began His ministry in the solemn way just recorded. Comp. the use of ἀρξάμενος in Acts i. 22. In both cases διδάσκειν may be under- stood, but is not necessary. In Mk. iv. 1 we have the full expres- sion, ἤρξατο δίδασκειν, which is represented in the parallel, Mt. xiii. 1, by ἐκάθητο. Professor Marshall has shown that ἤρξατο and ἐκάθητο may be equivalents for one and the same Aramaic verb (Expositor, April 1891): see on v. 21. It is obvious that this verse renders little help to chronology. “ About thirty” may be anything from twenty-eight to thirty-two,— to give no wider margin. It is certain that our era is at least four years too late, for it begins with a.u.c. 754. Herod the Great III. 23-27.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 103 died just before the Passover A.U.c. 750, which is therefore the latest year possible for the Nativity. If we reckon the “ fifteenth year” of ver. 1 from the death of Augustus, Jesus was probably thirty-two at the time of His Baptism. ὧν vids, ds ἐνομίζετο, ᾿Ιωσήφ τοῦ Ἡλεί. This is the right punctua- tion: “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli.” It is altogether unnatural to place the comma after Ἰωσήφ and not before it: “being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli”; ze. being supposed to be the son of Joseph, but being really the grandson of Heli. It is not credible that vids can mean both son and grandson in the same sentence. J. Lightfoot pro- posed that “Jesus” (viz. vids, not viod) should be understood throughout ; “ Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and so the son of Matthat,” etc. (Hor. Hed. on Lk. iii. 23). But this is not probable: see on τοῦ Θεοῦ (ver. 38). It is evident from the wordzng that Lk. is here giving ¢he genealogy of Joseph and not of Mary. It would have been quite out of harmony with either Jewish ideas or Gentile ideas to derive the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the eye of the law Jesus was the heir of Joseph ; and therefore it is Joseph’s descent which is of importance. Mary may have been the daughter of Heli; but, if she was, Lk. ignores the fact. The difference between the two genealogies was from very early times felt to be a difficulty, as is seen from the letter of Julius Africanus to Aristides, ¢c. A.D. 220 (Eus. #. £. i. 7; Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. p- 228) ; and it is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedi- gree of Joseph and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon advocated, if there had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting it. But this solution is not suggested by anyone until Annius of Viterbo pro- pounded it, c. A.D. 1490. The main facts of the two genealogies are these. From Adam to Abraham Lk. is alone. From Abraham to David, Lk. and Mt. agree. From David to ‘Joseph they differ, excepting in the names of Zorobabel and his father Salathiel. The various attempts which have been made at reconciling the divergences, although in no case convincingly successful, are yet sufficient to show that recon- ciliation is not impossible. If we were in possession of all the facts, we might - find that both pedigrees are in accordance with them. Neither of them presents difficulties which no addition to our knowledge could solve. In addition to the authorities named above, the monographs of Hottinger, Surenhusius, and Voss may be consulted. 27. τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ. It is highly improbable that these are different persons from the Zerubbabel and the Shealtiel of Mt. i. 12. That at the same period of Jewish history there should be two fathers bearing the rare name Salathiel or Shealtiel, each with a son bearing the rare name Zerubbabel, and that both of these unusually-named fathers should come in different ways into the genealogy of the Messiah, is scarcely credible, although this hypothesis has been adopted by both Hottinger and Voss. Zerubbabel (= “ Dispersed in Babylon,” or ‘Begotten in Baby- lon”) was head of the tribe of Judah at the time of the return from the Babylonish Captivity in the first year of Cyrus; and he was ΙΟ4 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 27-38. therefore an obvious person to include in the pedigree of the Messiah. Hence he was called the Afesa or Prince of the Cap- tivity. In τ Chron. ili. 19 he is given as the son of Pedaiah and nephew of Shealtiel: and this is probably correct. But he became the heir of Shealtiel because the latter had no sons. In Mt. 1. 12 and, r Chron. 11. 17, Shealtiel is the son of Jechoniah, king of Judah; whereas Lk. makes him the son of Neri. Jeconiah is called Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, and Jehoiachin, lii. 31; 2 Kings xxiv. 6; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, 9; and all three names mean “The Lord will establish.” From Jer. xxii. 30 we learn that he had no children; and therefore the line of David ¢hrough Solomon became extinct in him. ‘The three pedigrees indicate that an heir for the childless Jeconiah was found in Shealtiel the son of Neri, who was of the house of David through Nathan. ‘Thus the junction of the two lines of descent in Shealtiel4 and Zerubbabel is fully explained. Shealtiel was the son of Neri of Nathan’s line, and also the heir of Jeconiah of Solomon’s line; and having no sons himself, he had his nephew Zerubbabel as adopted son and heir. Rhesa, who appears in Lk., but neither in Mt. nor in t Chron., is probably not a name at all, but a title, which some Jewish copyist mistook for a name. ‘Zerubbabel Rhesa,” or “ Zerubbabel the Prince,” has been made into “Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.” This correction brings Lk. into harmony with both Mt. and 1 Chron. For (1) the Greek ’Iwavas represents the Hebrew Hananiah (1 Chron. ili. 19), a generation which is omitted by Mt.; and (2) Lk.’s ᾿Ἰούδα is the same as Mt.’s ᾿Αβιούδ (Jud-a = Ab-jud). Again, Ἰούδα or ᾿Αβιούδ may be identified with Hodaviah (1 Chron. iii. 24); for this name is interchanged with Judah, as is seen by a comparison of Ezra iii. 9 and Neh. xi. 9 with Ezra 11. 40 and τ Chron. ix. 7. 86. Σαλὰ τοῦ Καινὰμ τοῦ ᾿Αρφαξάδ. In LXX this Cainan appears as the son of Sala or Shelah, and father of Arphaxad, in the genea- logy of Shem (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12; 1 Chron. i. 18). But the name is not found in any Hebrew MS,., or in any other version made from the Hebrew. In LXX it may be an insertion, for no one earlier than Augustine mentions the name. D omits it here, while 8 B L have the form Καινάμ for Kawav. But the hypothesis that. inter- polation here has led to interpolation in LXX cannot be maintained upon critical principles. 38. ᾿Αδάμ. That Lk. should take the genealogy beyond David and Abraham to the father of the whole human race, is entirely in harmony with the Pauline universality of his Gospel. To the Jew it was all-important to know that the Messiah was of the stock of Abraham and of the house of David. Mt. therefore places this fact 1 Both forms of the name, Shealtiel and Salathiel, are found in Haggai and elsewhere in O.T.; but in the Apocrypha and N.T. the form used is Salathiel (‘*I have asked God”). 7. EEF, 38. | PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 105 in the forefront of his Gospel. Lk., writing to all alike, shows that the Messiah is akin to the Gentile as well as to the Jew, and that all mankind can claim Him as a brother.! But why does Lk. add that Adam was the son of God? Cer- tainly not in order to show the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, which would place Him in this respect on a level with all mankind. More probably it is added for the sake of Gentile readers, to remind them of the Divine origin of the human race,—an origin which they share with the Messiah. It is a correction of the myths respecting the origin of man, which were current among the heathen. Scrip- tura, etiam quod ad humani generis ortum pertinet, figit satiatque cognitionem nostram ; eam qui spernunt aut ignorant, pendent errant- gue inter tempora antemundana et postmundana (Beng.). It is very forced and unnatural to take τοῦ Θεοῦ ἃ5 the gen. of 6 Θεός, and make this gen. depend upon ὧν vids at the beginning of the gene- alogy, as if Jesus and not Adam was styled the “son of God.” Thus the whole pedigree from ὡς ἐνομίζετο to ᾿Αδώμ would be a gigantic parenthesis between ὧν vids and τοῦ Θεοῦ. The τοῦ throughout belongs to the word 771 front of it, as is clear from the fact that ᾿Ιωσήφ, the first name, has no τοῦ before it. Each τοῦ means ‘‘ who was of,” z.e. either “the son of” or “the heir of.” Both AV. and RV. give the sense correctly. Iv. 1-13. Zhe Internal Preparation for the Ministry of the Christ: the Temptation in the Wilderness, Mt. iv. 1-11; Mk. 2. 1. ; R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 1-65, Macmillan, ΘΟ. Weiss, Leven Jesu, 1: i. τὸ; ‘Berlin; 18823 Eng. tr. 1. pp. 319-354; H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 112-146, Bell, 1890; P. Schaff, Person of Christ, pp. 32, 153, Nisbet, 1880; A. _M. Fairbairn, /:xfosvtor, first series, vol. 111. pp. 321-342, Hodder, 1876; P. Didon, Jésus Christ, ch. 11. pp. 208-226, Plon, 1891. Many futile and irreverent questions have been raised respect- ing this mysterious subject; futile, because it is impossible to answer them, excepting by empty conjectures; and irreverent, because they are prompted by curiosity rather than by a desire for illumination. Had the answers to them been necessary for our spiritual welfare, the answers would have been placed within our reach. Among such questions are such as these: Did Satan 1 “Tn the one case we see a royal Infant born by a regal title to a glorious inheritance ; and in the other a ministering Saviour who bears the natural sum of human sorrow” (Wsctt. 7712. to the Gospels, 7th ed. p. 316). The whole passage should be read. 106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. assume a human form, and change his form with each change of temptation, or did he remain invisible? Did he know who Jesus was, or was he trying to discover this? Did he know, until he was named, that Jesus knew who he was? Where was the spot from which he showed all the kingdoms of the world ἢ Three points are insisted upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ii. 18, iv. 15), and beyond them we need not go. 1. The tempta- tions were real. 2. Jesus remained absolutely unstained by them. 3. One purpose of the temptations was to assure us of His sym- pathy when we are tempted. The second point limits the first and intensifies the third. ‘The sinlessness of Jesus excluded all those temptations which spring from previous sin ; for there was no taint in Him to become the source of temptation. But the fact that the solicitations came wholly from without, and were not born from within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being regarded as desirable. The force of a temptation depends, not upon the sin involved in what is proposed, but upon the advantage connected with it. And a righteous man, whose will never falters for a moment, may feel the attractiveness of the advantage more keenly than the weak man who succumbs ; for the latter probably gave way before he recognized the whole of the attractiveness ; or his nature may be less capable of such recognition. In this way the sinlessness of Jesus augments His capacity for sympathy: for in every case He felt the γε force of temptation.! It is obvious that the substance of the narrative could have had only one source. No one has succeeded in suggesting any probable alternative. There is no Old Testament parallel, of which this could be an adaptation. Nor is there any prophecy that the Messiah would have to endure temptation, of which this might be a fictitious fulfilment. And we may be sure that, if the whole had been baseless invention, the temptations would have been of a more commonplace, and probably of a grosser kind. No Jewish or Christian legend is at all like this. It is from Christ Himself that the narrative comes ; and He probably gave it to the disciples in much the same form as that in which we have it here. 1 ἐς Sympathy with the sinner in his trial does not depend on the experience of sin, but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin, which only the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last strain” (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 18). See Neander, Z. 7. C. 88 46, 47, pp. 77, 78. toe ἸΥ.; 2.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 107 1. πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου. These words connect the Tempta- tion closely with the Baptism. It was under the influence of the Spirit, which had just descended upon Him, that He went, in obedience to God’s will, into the wilderness. All three accounts mark this connexion ; and it explains the meaning of the narrative. Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was tempted to make use of it in furthering His own interests without regard to the Father’s will. And here ἀνήχθη. . . πειρασθῆναι (Mt. iv. 1) must not be understood as meaning that Christ went into the wilderness to cowr¢ temptation. ‘That would be too like yielding to the temptation which He resisted (vv. 9-12). He went into the desert in obedience to the Spirit’s promptings. ‘That He should be zemfted there was the Divine purpose respecting Him, to prepare Him for His work. . Neither Mt. nor Mk. has ἅγιον as an epithet of πνεῦμα here (see on i. 15) ; and neither of them has Lk.’s favourite ὑπέστρεψεν. ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν TH ἐρήμῳ. “He was led zz (not 77/0) the wilderness,” 26. in His wanderings there, as in His progress thither, He was under Divine influence and guidance. The imperf. indicates continued action. ‘Tradition, which is not likely to be of any value, places this wilderness close to Jericho. Some region farther north is more probable. ‘The ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα may be taken either with ἤγετο (RV.) or with πειραζόμενος (AV.). As the temptation by Satan was simultaneous (pres. part.) with the lead- ing by the Spirit, the sense will be the same, whichever arrange- ment be adopted. In Mk. also the words are amphibolous, and may be taken either with ἦν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ or with πειραζόμενος. Τί we had only the account in Mt. we might have supposed that the temptations did not begin until the close of the forty days. The three recorded may have come at the end of the time, as seems to be - implied with regard to the first of them. Or they may be given as representative of the struggles which continued throughout the whole period. 2. πειραζόμενος. The word is here used in its commonest sense of “‘try or test,” with a szzzster motive. In N.T. it has three uses: 1. “try or attempt” to do (Acts ix. 26, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6); 2. “try or dest,” with a good motive (Jn. vi. 6; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Rev. ii. 2), especially of God’s sending trials (1 Cor. x. 13; Heb. xi. 17 ; 1 Ze baptéme et la tentation se succedent [un ἃ [autre dans la réalité de Phistotre, comme dans le réctt des Evangélistes. Ces deux faits tinséparables, gui Séclairent en Sopposant dans un contraste vigoreux, sont le vrat prélude de la vie du Christ. Lun est la manifestation de Esprit de Dieu, Pautre, celle de Pesprit du mal; Pun nous montre la filiation divine de Jésus, Pautre, sa nature humaine vouce ἃ la lutte et a Cépreuve; Pun nous révele la force infinie avec laquelle zl agira, autre, obstacle gwil saura renverser ; Tun nous ensezgne sa tntime, Pautre, la loc de son action (Didon, p. 225). 108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 58. LUKE [IV. 2. Rev. iii. 10); 3. “try or zes¢,” with a dad motive, in order to pro- duce perplexity or failure (xi. 16; Mt. xix. 33 Jn. vill. 6), especially of tempting to sin (1 Cor. vii. 5; 1 Thes. ili. 5; Jas. 1. 13). Itis thus of much wider meaning than δοκιμάζειν (xil. 56, xiv. 19), which has only the second of these meanings. ‘Trench, Syz. Ixxiv. ; Cremer, Zex. p. 494. ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλουι All three use ὑπό of the agency of Satan. He is not a mere instrument. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11; Acts x. 38. In N.T. διάβολος with the art. always means Satan, “the calumni- ator,” κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. In Mt., Jn., Acts, Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James, Jude, 1 Pet., and Rev. this use is invariable. It is possible that ὁ διάβολος was originally a translation of Satan=‘“ the ad- versary.” In LXX ἐνδιαβάλλειν sometimes means “ meet; oppose” (Num. xxii. 22, 32), and διάβολος means “adversary” (1 Mac. i. 36). In Job (i. 6-12, 11. 1-7) and Zech. (iii. 1-3) ὁ διάβολος is used as in N.T. for Satan, as the accuser or slanderer of God to man and of man to God. In this scene he endeavours to mis- represent God, and to induce Jesus to adopt a false view of His relation to God. The existence of such a being is sometimes denied, but on purely ἃ prior? grounds. ‘To science the question is an open one, and does not admit of demonstration either way. But the teach- ing of Christ and His Apostles is clear and explicit; and only three explanations are possible. Either (1) they accommodated their language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such; or 2) they shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such; or 3) the doctrine is not a superstition, but they taught the actual truth. As Keim rightly says, one cannot possibly regard all the sayings of Jesus on this subject as later interpolations, and “ Jesus plainly designated His contention with the empire of Satan as a personal one” (/es. of Waz., Eng. tr. ii. pp. 318, 325). See Gore, Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 23-27. οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδέν. This does agree well with the supposition that Jesus partook of the scanty food which might be found in the wilderness. The νηστεύσας of Mt. seems to imply the deliberate fasting which was customary in times of solemn retirement for purposes of devotion. But this does not exclude the possibility that the mental and spiritual strain was so great that for a time there was no craving for food. In any case the want of food would at last bring prostration of body and mind; and then the violence of temptation would be specially felt. Both Mt. and Lk. appear to mean that it was not until near the end of the forty days that the pangs of hunger were endured. For συντελεῖσθαι of days being completed comp. Acts xxi. 27; Jobi. 5; Tobit x. 7.1 1 The fasts of Moses and Elijah were of similar duration (Deut. ix. 9; 1 K. xix. 8). The number forty in Scripture is connected with suffering. The IV. 5: PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 109 8. εἶπεν. Mt. adds προσελθών, which is a very favourite ex- pression of his. It does not necessarily imply corporal presence, although Mt. himself may have understood it in that sense. Jesus says of the approaching struggle in Gethsemane, ‘‘ The prince of the world cometh” (Jn. xiv. 30). Nowhere in Scripture is Satan said to have appeared in a visible form: Zech. 111. 1 is a vision. And nothing in this narrative requires us to believe that Satan was visible on this occasion. Ei υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Both Mt. and Lk. have vids τ. ©. without the article, the reference being to the relationship to God, rather than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is υἱός. The allusion to the voice from heaven (iii. 22) is manifest, but is not likely to have occurred to a writer of fiction, who would more probably have written, “If Thou art the Christ.” The “if” does not necessarily imply any doubt in Satan, although Augustine takes it so;? but it is perhaps meant to inspire doubt in Jesus: ‘“ Hath God said, Thou art My beloved Son, and yet forbidden Thee to give Thyself bread?” Comp. “ Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” (Gen. ui. 1). The suggestion seems to be that He is 20 work a miracle in order to prove the truth of God’s express declaration, and that He may doubt His relation to God, if God does not allow the miracle. This seems better than to regard the first temptation as a temptation of the Jiesh. If the food had been there, would it have been sinful for Jesus to partake of it? Again, it is sometimes said that it was a temptation 720 wse 725 supernatural power to supply His own necessities. Among ‘‘the Laws of the Working of Signs” we are told was one to the effect that ‘‘Our Lord will not use His special powers to provide for His personal wants or those of His immediate followers.”? This law perhaps does not hold, except so far as it coincides with the principle that no miracle is wrought where the given end can be ob- tained without miracle. Some of Christ’s escapes from His enemies seem to have been miraculous. Was not that ‘‘ providing for a personal want”? His _ rejoining His disciples by walking on the sea might be classed under the same head. The boat coming suddenly to land might be called ‘‘ providing for the wants of His immediate followers.” Had He habitually supplied His personal wants by miracle, then He would have ceased to share the lot of mankind. But it would be rash to say that it would have been sinful for Him to supply Himself with food miraculously, when food was necessary for His work and could not be obtained by ordinary means. It is safer to regard this as a temptation to satisfy Himself of the truth of God’s word by a test of His own. Deluge lasted forty days and nights (Gen. vii. 4, 12). The Israelites wandered for forty years (Num. xiv. 33, xxxii. 13). Egypt is to lie waste forty years (Ezek. xxix. 11). Ezekiel is to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah (2.6. the penalty for that iniquity) forty days, each day representing a year (iv. 6). Offenders received forty stripes as a maximum (Deut. xxv. 3). A mother was unclean for forty days after childbirth (Lev. xii. 1-4). Perhaps we are to understand that the fast of the Ninevites lasted forty days. 1 Dubitavit de tllo demonum princeps, eumgque tentavit, an Christus esset explorans (De Civ. Dez, ix. 21). 2 Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 113. ILO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 3-5. The singular τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ is more graphic than the οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι of Mt. A single loaf is all that He need produce. The similarity between lumps of stone and loaves of bread perhaps explains why this material, so common in the wilderness, was selected for change into food. For the use of ἵνα after εἰπέ (x. 40, xix. 15, etc.) see Win. xliv. 8, pp. 420-424; B. Weiss on Mt. iv. 3; Simcox, Lang. of NV.7. p. 177; Green, Gr. of N.T. p. 170. It is a weakening of the telic force of ἵνα rather than a mere substitute for the infinitive. 4. Christ does not reply to the “if” by affirming that He is the Son of God; nor does He explain why the Son of God does not accept the devil’s challenge. He gives an answer which holds good for any child of God in similar temptation.1. The reply is a pointed refutation, however, of the special suggestion to Himself, ὁ ἄνθρωπος having direct reference to υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ. Satan suggests that God’s Son would surely be allowed to provide food for Him- self. Jesus replies that God can sustain, not only His Son, but any human being, with or without food, and can make other things besides bread to be food. Comp. ‘‘My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me” (Jn. iv. 34). The reply is verbatim as LXX of Deut. viii. 3. As all His replies come from this book, we may conjecture that Jesus had recently been reading it or meditating on it. The repeated use of a book which is so full of the trials of Israel in the wilderness may suggest a parallel between the forty days and the forty years. The direct reference is to the manna. The addition of the remainder of the quotation in A D and other authorities comes from Mt. It differs in wording in the texts which insert it. If it were genuine here, its absence from the best authorities would be most extra- ordinary. The insertion of ὁ διάβολος and of els ὄρος ὑψηλόν in ver. 5, and the substitution of τοῦ κόσμου for τῆβ οἰκουμένης, are corruptions of the same kind. 5. Lk. places second the temptation which Mt. places last. The reasons given for preferring one order to the other are sub- jective and unconvincing. Perhaps neither Evangelist professes to give any chronological order. ‘Temptations may be intermingled. It is very doubtful whether the τότε with which Mt. introduces the temptation which he places second, and the πάλιν with which he introduces his third, are intended to specify sequence in time. Many Lat. MSS. (Gbcflqr) here place vv. 5-8 after vv. 9-11. Lk. omits the command to Satan to depart ;* and we have no means of knowing which temptation it zsmediately followed. Mt. naturally connects it with the one which he places last. ἀναγαγών. See on i. 22. The word does not require us to 1 Trench quotes from Ambrose: (Von enim quast Deus utitur protestate (guzd enim mht proderat), sed guast homo commune στ arcessit auxtlium. 2 It is worth noting that AV., which follows those texts that insert Ὕπαγε ὀπίσου μου, Davavd in ver. 8, renders the words ‘‘ Get thee behind Me, Satan” there, and ‘‘ Get thee hence, Satan” in Mt. ΙΥ. ὅ, 6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY III believe that Satan had control of Christ’s person and transferred Him bodily from the desert to a mountain-top. From no mountain could “all the kingdoms of the world” be visible, least of all ‘in a moment of time.” If Satan on the mountain could present to Christ’s mind kingdoms which were not visible to the eye, he could do so in the desert. We may suppose that he transferred Jesus 7% thought to a mountain-top, whence He could in thought see all. For “all the kingdoms of the world” comp. Ezra 1. 2, where we have τῆς γῆς for “of the world”: in Mt. τοῦ κόσμου, which D substitutes here. τῆς οἰκουμένης. A favourite expression with Lk. (11. 1, xxi. 26; Acts xi. 28, xvil. 6, 31, ΧΙΧ. 27, xxiv. 5): elsewhere only six times, of which one is a quotation (Rom. x. 18 from Ps. xix. 5). It describes the world as ὦ place of settled government, “the civilized world.” To a Greek it might mean the Greek world as distinct from barbarian regions (Hdt. iv. 110. 4; comp. Dem. De Cor. Ρ. 442). Later it meant “the Roman Empire,” ovd7s terrarum, as in ii, 1 (Philo, Leg. ad Caz. 25). In inscriptions the Roman Emperor is ὃ κύριος τῆς οἰκουμένης. Finally, it meant “the whole inhabited earth,” as here and xxi. 26 (Rev. xvi. 14; Heb. i. 6; fos int vis 13) 42 Bf. vi. 3.3). In ΕΒ ἢ 5 τ 15 used of the world to come as an ordered system: see Wsctt. Lk. omits καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν here, but adds it in Satan’s offer. ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου. Puncto temporis: comp. ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ fenton x52). Not in ΜΠ ‘Comp. 15: ΣΣΙΣ πὶ; 2 Mac. ix: rr. It intimates that the kingdoms were represented, not in a series of pageants, but simultaneously: acuta tentatio (Beng.). To take ἐν στιγμῇ xp. With ἀναγαγών is not a probable arrangement. With στιγμή (στίζειν = “to prick”) comp. stimulus, “stick,” and “sting.” 6. Σοὶ δώσω. . . ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται. Both pronouns are emphatic: “To Zhee I will give . . . because to me it hath been ~ delivered.” The αὐτῶν after τὴν δόξαν is a constructio ad sensum, referring to the kingdoms understood in τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην, ‘this authority and jurisdiction.” In παραδέδοται we have the common use of the perf. to express permanent and present result of past action; ‘‘it has been given over” and remains in my possession: comp. γέγραπται (4, 8, 10) and εἴρηται (12). Satan does not say by whom it has been given over ; and two answers are possible: 1. by God’s permission ; 2. by man’s sin. But the latter does not exclude the former; and in any case conjfitetur tentator, se non esse condttorem (Beng.). That it refers to a Divine gift previous to his revolt against God, is a gratuitous conjecture. Christ Himself speaks of Satan as ‘‘the ruler of this world” (Jn. xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). In the Rabbinical writings ‘‘ Lord of this world” is a common name for Satan, as ruler of the heathen, in opposition to God, the Head of the Jewish theocracy. The devil is the ruler of the un- believing and sinful ; but he mixes truth with falsehood when he claims to have dominion over all the material glory of the world. Comp. Eph. ii. 2; 2 Cor. 112 THE ‘GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 6-9. iv. 4; Rev. xiii. 2. In @ ἂν θέλω the mixture of falsehood seems to be still greater. Even of those who are under the dominion of Satan it is only in a limited sense true that he can dispose of them as he pleases. But the subtlety of the temptation lies partly in the fact that it appeals to what is in a very real sense true. Satan intimates that the enormous influence which he possesses over human affairs may be obtained for the promotion of the Messiah’s King- dom. Thus all the pain and suffering, which otherwise lay before the Saviour of the world, might be evaded. 7. ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς. Mt. adds πεσών, which, like προσελθών, indicates that he may have believed that Satan was visible, although this is not certain. Even actual prostration is possible to an invisible being, and “fall down and worship” is a natural figure for entire submission or intense admiration. In the East, prostration is an acknowledgment of authority, not necessarily of personal merit. The temptation, therefore, seems to be that of admitting Satan’s authority and accepting promotion from him. ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ. Lk.’s favourite expression (i. 15, 17, 19, 75, αἴξε)ς. ἘΠ usual constr. after προσκυνεῖν is the acc. (ver. 8; Mt. iv. 10; Rev. ix. 20, xiii, 12, xiv. 9, 11) or the dat. (Acts vii. 43; Jn. iv. 21, 23; Rev. iv. 10, vil. τ): but Rev. xv. 4 as here. ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα. ‘The ἐξουσία which has been delivered to me I am willing to delegate or transfer”: magna superbia (Beng.). The acceptance of it would be equivalent to προσκύνησις. Just as in the first case the lawful desire for food was made an occasion of temptation, so here the lawful desire of power, a desire specially lawful in the Messiah. Everything depends upon why and how the food and the power are obtained. Christ was born to be a king ; but His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. xviii. 36, 37), and the prince of this ‘world has nothing in Him (Jn. xiv. 30). He rejects the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly potentate, and thus condemns Himself to rejection by His own people. He rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable enemy. The end does not sanctify the means. 8. προσκυνήσεις. Mt. also has this word in harmony with Satan’s προσκυνήσῃς ; but in LXX of Deut. vi. 13 we have φο- βηθήσῃ: see on vil. 27.---λατρεύσεις. Lit. “serve for hire” (λάτρις -- “‘hireling”). In class. Grk. it is used of the service of slaves and of freemen, whether rendered to men or to God: in N.T. always of religious service, but sometimes of the worship of idols (Acts vii. 42; Rom. i. 25). Trench, Syz. xxxv. Propositum erat Domino humilitate diabolum vincere, non potentia (Jerome). 9. τὸ πτερύγιον Tod ἱεροῦ. It is impossible to determine what 1 ΤῊ this connexion a remark of Pere Didon is worth quoting. Of the traditional scene of the Temptation he says that there Christ avazt sous les yeux ce chemin de Jéricho ἃ Jer usalem gwil devait sucvre, un jour, avec ses disciples, pour aller ἃ la mort ( Jésus Christ, ch. ili. p. 209). IV. 9-12. | PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 113 this means. ‘The article points to its being something well known by this name. The three points conjectured are: 1. the top of the Royal Porch, whence one looked into an abyss (Jos. Azz. XV. II. 5); 2. the top of Solomon’s Porch; 3. the roof of the -aos. It was from τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ that James the Just was thrown, according to Hegesippus (Eus. 7” £. 11. 23. 11, 16). Had any part of the ναός been intended, we should perhaps have had τ. ναοῦ rather than τ. ἱεροῦ. Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The repetition of this preamble is evidence that this temptation is in part the same as the first (ver. 3). In both cases Jesus is to “tempt” (ver. 12) God, to challenge Him to prove His Fatherhood bya test of His Son’s own choosing. But, whereas in the first case Christ was to be rescued from an existing danger by a miracle, here He is to court needless danger in order to be rescued by a miracle. It may be that this is also a partial repetition of the second temptation. If the suggestion is that He should throw Himself down into the courts of the temple, so that the priests and the people might see His miraculous descent, and be convinced of His Messiahship, then this is once more a temptation to take a short cut to success, and, by doing violence to men’s wills, avoid all the pain and suffering involved in the work of redemption.! If this is correct, then this tempta- tion is a combination of the other two. It is difficult to see what point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of the wilderness would have served for that. The βάλε σεαυτόν expresses more definitely than the mid: would have done that the act is to be entirely His own. Not “Fall,” nor “Spring,” but “om Thyself” ; dezece teepsum. Comp. ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν (1 Jn. 1. 8} 10. The fact that after τοῦ φυλάξαι σε Satan omits ἐν πάσαις - ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου is in favour of the viev that presumptuous rushing into danger is part of the temptation. To fling oneself down from a height is not going “in one’s ways,” but out of them. The disobedient Prophet was slain by the lion, the obedient Daniel was preserved in the lions’ den. But we are not sure that the omission of the words has this significance. 11. ἐπὶ χειρῶν. “οι their hands,” implying great carefulness. The πρὸς λίθον has no special reference either to the temple or the rocks below: stones abound in most places, and lie in the way of those who stumble. 12. Εἴρηται. In Mt. Πάλιν γέγραπται. Jesus had appealed to Scripture; Satan does the same; and then Jesus shows that isolated texts may be misleading. They may be understood in a sense plainly at variance with some other passage. Satan had 1 See Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 304; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 140. ὃ 14 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (Ewe 12, 13. suggested that it was impossible to put too much trust in God. Christ points out that testing God is not trusting Him. The verb ἐκπειράζειν is wholly biblical (x. 25 ; Mt. iv. 7; Ps. Ixxvii. 18). In the Heb. it is ‘‘ Ye shall not tempt”: but in LXX we have the sing. as here. 13. πάντα πειρασμόν. “ Every kind of temptation”: a further indication that He was tempted throughout the forty days, and that what is recorded is merely an illustration of what took place. The enemy tried all his weapons, and was at all points defeated. Comp. πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία, “all manner of sin and blasphemy” (Mt. xii. 31); πᾶν δένδρον, “every kind of tree (Mt. 111. το); ὃ μὲν πάσης ἡδονῆς ἀπολαύων καὶ μηδεμιᾶς ἀπεχόμενος ἀκόλαστος, “he who enjoys every kind of pleasure,” etc. (Arist. ἜΣ Nico ie 2.7). ἄχρι καιροῦ. ‘Until a convenient season.” This rendering gives the proper meaning both of ἄχρι and of καιρός : comp. Acts ΧΙ. Ir, xxiv. 25; Lk. xxi. 24. It is Satan’s expectation that on some future occasion he will have an opportunity of better success ; and an opportunity came when Judas was allowed to deliver the Christ into the hands of His enemies. That this was such an occasion seems to be indicated by Christ’s own declarations: “The prince of this world cometh; and he hath nothing in Me” & xiv. 30); and “This is your hour and the power of darkness” Lk. xxii. 53). Satan was not visible in a bodily shape then, and probably not on this earlier occasion. It is Peter who on one occasion became a visible tempter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33). Not that we are to suppose, however, that Satan entirely desisted from attacks between the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry: “Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations,” rather implies the contrary (xxii. 28); but the evil one seems to have accumulated attacks at the beginning and the end. In the wilder- ness he employed the attractiveness of painless glory and success ; in the garden he tried the dread of suffering and failure. All human temptation takes place through the instrumentality of pleasure or pain. Luke says nothing about the ministration of Angels which followed the temptation, as recorded by both Mt. and Mk., not because he doubts such facts, for he repeatedly records them (i. 11, 26, ii. 9, xxii. 43; Acts v. 19, viii. 26, xii. 7, xxvii. 23), but probably because his source said nothing about them. Mk. seems to mean that Angels were ministering to Jesus during the whole of the forty days: his three imperfects (fv . . . ἣν. . . διηκόνουν) are co-ordinate. The Temptation is not a dream, nor a vision, nor a myth, nor a parable, translated into history by those who heard and misunderstood it, but an histor- ical fact. It was part of the Messiah’s preparation for His work. In His baptism He received strength. In His temptation He practised the use of it. Moreover, He thus as man acquired experience (Heb. v. 8) of the possibilities of evil, and of the violent and subtle ways in which His work could be ruined. Only from Himself could the disciples have learned the history of this IV. 13. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 115 struggle. Among other things it taught them the value of the Jewish Scriptures. With these for their guide they could overcome the evil one, as He had done: no special illumination was necessary (Xvi. 29, 31). IV. 14-IX. 50. The Ministry in Galilee. Lk., like Mt. and Mk., omits the early ministry in Judea; but we shall find that his narrative, like theirs, implies it. All three of them connect the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the Baptism and the Temptation; while Mt. and Mk. make the kn- prisonment of the Baptist to be the occasion of Christ’s departure from Judzea into Galilee (Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14). But they neither assert nor imply that John was imprisoned soon after the Tempta- tion; nor do they explain why the arrest of John by Herod Antipas should make Christ take refuge in this same Herod’s dominions. It is from the Fourth Gospel that we learn that there was a con- siderable interval between the Temptation and John’s imprison- ment, and that during it Jesus went into Galilee and returned to Judeea again (11. 13). From it also we learn that the occasion of the second departure into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees, who had been told that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples even than the Baptist. Much as they disliked and feared the revolutionary influence of John, they feared that of Jesus still more. John declared that he was not the Christ, he “did no sign,” and he upheld the Law. Whereas Jesus had been pointed out as the Messiah ; He worked miracles, and He disregarded, not only traditions which were held to be equal to the Law (Jn. iv. 9), but even the Law itself in the matter of the Sabbath (Jn. v. 9, 10). | Thus we see that it was not to escape the persecution of Herod, but! to escape that of the Pharisees, who had delivered the Baptist into the hands of Herod, that Jesus retired a second time from Judea into Galilee. It was “after that John was delivered up” (Mk. i. 14), and “when He heard that John was delivered up” (Mt. iv. 12), that Christ retired into Galilee. In neither case was it Herod’s action, but the action of those who delivered John into the hands of Herod, that led to Christ’s change of sphere. And in this way what is recorded in the Fourth Gospel explains the obscurities of the other three. There is a slight apparent difference between the first two Gospels and the third. The three Evangelists agree in noticing only one return from Judea 116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [IV. 14. to Galilee, and possibly each knows of only one. But whereas Mt. and Mk. seem to point to the second return, for they connect it with the delivering up of the Baptist, Lk. seems rather to point to the first return, for he connects it with ‘‘ the power of the Spirit,” an expression which suggests a reference to that power which Jesus had received at the Baptism and exercised in the Temptation. It is quite possible, however, that the expression refers to the power with which He had worked miracles and taught in Galilee and Judea ; in which case all three Gospels treat of the second return to Galilee. Not very much plan is discernible in this portion of the Gospel ; and it may be doubted whether the divisions made by com- mentators correspond with any arrangement which the writer had in his mind. But even artificial schemes help to a clearer appre- hension of the whole; and the arrangement suggested by Godet is, at any rate, useful for this purpose. He takes the Development in the Position of Christ’s Disciples as the principle of his divisions. 1. iv. 14-44. To the Call of the first Disciples. 2. v. I-vi. 11. To the Nomination of the Twelve. 3. Vi. 12—viil. 56. To the first Mission of the Twelve. 4. ix. 1-50. ‘To the Departure for Jerusalem. These divisions are clearly marked out in the text of ΜΗ. space being left at the end of each. Iv. 14-44. The Ministry in Galilee to the Call of the first Disciples. The Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum. 14, 15. Comp. Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14. These two verses are introductory, and point out three characteristics of this period of Christ’s activity. 1. He worked in the power of the Spirit. 2. His fame spread far and wide. 3. The synagogues were the scenes of His preaching (comp. ver. 44). 14. ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος. This is perhaps to remind us that since His first departure from Galilee He has been endowed with the Holy Spirit and has received new powers (iii. 22, iv. 1, 18). Bengel’s post victoriam corroboratus connects it too exclusively with the Temptation. Unless, with De Wette, we take καὶ φήμη ἐξῆλθεν as anticipating what follows, the statement implies much preaching and perhaps some miracles, of which Lk. has said nothing ; for Jesus is famous directly He returns. The power of the Spirit had already been exhibited in Him. Jn. says that ‘the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast” (iv. 45). But it is not likely that they had heard of the wonders which attended the Birth, or of those which attended the Baptism. There are various marks of Lk.’s style. 1. ὑπέστρεψεν, for which Mt. has ἀνεχώρησεν and Mk. ἦλθεν. Comp. ver. 1, where Lk. has ὑπέστρεψεν, while Mt. has ἀνήχθη. 2. δύναμις of Divine power. Comp. i. 35, and see on iv. 36. 3. καθ᾽ ὅλης in this sense. Comp. xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, x. 37: IV. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 117 it is peculiar to Lk. See Simcox, Zang. of N.T. p. 148. 4. ἡ περιχώρος, se. γῆ, is an expression of which Lk. is fond (iii. 3, iv. 37, vil. 17, vill. 37; Acts xiv. 6); not in Jn.,-and only twice in Mt. (iil. 5, xiv. 35) and once in Mk. (i. 28 ; not vi. 55). 15. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδίδασκεν. Lk. is so fond of this mode of transi- tion that αὐτός possibly has no special significance ; if it has, it is “He Himself,” as distinct from the rumour respecting Him. The imperf. points to His habitual practice at this time, and seems to deprive what follows of all chronological connexion. All the Gospels mention His teaching in synagogues, and give instances of His doing so during the early part of His ministry (Mt. iv. 23, IX. 35, Xil. 9, xill. 54; Mk. i 21, 30, lll τὸ vi 2: Lkyivi-aggevi. 6; Jn. vi. 59). Towards the close of it, when the hostility of the teachers became more pronounced, there is less mention of this practice: perhaps He then taught elsewhere, in order to avoid needless collision. It should be noticed that here, as elsewhere, it is the feaching rather than the worship in the synagogues that is prominent. Synagogues were primarily places of instruction (xiii. 10; Jn. xvili. 20; Acts xiii. 27, xv. 21, etc.), and it was as such that Augustus encouraged them. Morality of a high kind was taught there, and morality is on the side of order. ἐν Tats συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν. This means in the synagogues of the Galileans. Galilee at this time was very populous. Josephus no doubt exaggerates when he says that the smallest villages had fifteen thousand inhabitants (2. /. ii. 3. 2), and that there were over two hundred towns and villages. But in any case there were many Galileans. Among them there was more freshness and less formalism than among the inhabitants of Judea. Here the Pharisees and the hierarchy had less influence, and therefore Galilee was a more hopeful field in which to seek the first elements of a Church. On the other hand, it was necessary to break down | - the prejudices of those who had known Him in His youth, and had | seen in Him no signs of His being the Messiah that they were | expecting: and the fame of the miracles which He had wrought in | Judzea was likely to contribute towards this. Thus the Judzean ministry prepared the way for the more promising ministry in Galilee. We have no means of estimating the number of Galilean synagogues; but the fact that such a place as Capernaum had either none, or only a poor one, until a Roman centurion was moved to provide one (“himself built us ow synagogue,” vii. 5), is some evidence that by no means every village or even every small town possessed one. The remains Οἱ ancient synagogues exist at several places in Galilee; Ze//-Hum, Jrbid (the Arbela of t Mac. ix. 2), /ésch (Giscala), Metron (Mero), Kasyoun, Nabartein, and Ke/r-Berecm. But it is doubtful whether any of these are older than the second or third century. 118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 15, 16. The origin of synagogues is to be sought in the Babylonish captivity ; and they greatly increased in number after the destruction of the temple. The fact that Jewish legend derives the institution of synagogues from Moses, shows how essential the Jews considered it to be. The statement that there were at one time 480 synagogues in Jerusalem is also legendary ; but 480 may be a symbol- ical number. One has only to remember the size of Jerusalem to see the absurdity of 480 places of public instruction in it. But large towns sometimes had several synagogues, either for different nationalities (Acts vi. 9; see Lumby and Blass) or different handicrafts. δοξαζόμενος ὑπὸ πάντων. Because of the power of His preach- ing, especially when contrasted with the lifeless repetitions and senseless trivialities of ordinary teachers. 16-80. The Visit to Nazareth. Comp. Mt. xii. 53-58; Mk. vi. 1-6. It remains doubtful whether Lk. here refers to the same visit as that recorded by Mt. and Mk. If it is the same, he per- haps has purposely transposed it to the opening of the ministry, as being typical of the issue of Christ’s ministry. He was rejected by His own people. Similarly the non-Galilean ministry opens with a rejection (ix. 51-56). In any case, the form of the narrative is peculiar to Lk., showing that he here has some special source. We are not to understand that the Galilean ministry began at Nazareth. More probably Christ waited until the reports of what He had said and done in other parts of Galilee prepared the way for His return to Nazareth as a teacher. 16. οὗ ἢν [ἀνα]τεθραμμένος. This tells us rather more than ii. 51: it implies, moreover, that for some time past Nazareth had ceased to be His home. But the addition of “‘where He had been brought up” explains what follows. It had been “ His custom” during His early life at Nazareth to attend the synagogue every sabbath. It is best to confine κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός to the clause in which it is embedded, and not carry it on to ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι : it was possibly the first time that He had stood up to read at Nazareth. But the phrase may refer to what had been His custom elsewhere since He began His ministry ; or it may be written from the Evangelist’s point of view of what was afterwards His custom. We may therefore choose between these explanations. 1. He had previously been in the habit of attending the synagogue at Nazareth, and on this occasion stood up to read. 2. He had previously been in the habit of reading at Nazareth. 3. He had lately been in the habit of reading elsewhere, and now does so at Nazareth. 4. This was an early example of what became His custom. In no case must the sermon be included in the custom. ‘That this was His first sermon at Nazareth is implied by the whole context. 1On synagogues see Edersh. Z. & 7: i. pp. 430-450, Hast. of Jewish Nation, pp, 100-129, ed. 1896; Schiirer, Jewzsh People in the T. of J. C. ii. 2, pp. 52-89; Hausrath, 4. 7. Zzmes, i. pp. 84-93; Plumptre in D.4.; Leyrer in Herzog, PER.'; Strack in Herzog, PRL.*; and other authorities in Schiirer. IV. 16.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 110 In D both τεθραμμένος and αὐτῷ after εἰωθός are omitted, and the text runs, ἐλθὼν δὲ els Nagaped ὅπου ἢν κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς ἐν TH ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων eis τὴν συναγωγήν ; but in the Latin the former word is restored, venzens autem in Nazared τε erat nutricatus introtbet secundum consuetudinem in sabbato in synagogam. The omissions are perhaps due to Marcionite in- fluence. According to Marcion, Christ came direct from heaven into the synagogue, de cx/o in synagogam (see Ὁ. 131); and therefore all trace of His previous life in Nazareth must be obliterated. He was not reared there, and was not accustomed to visit the synagogue there. Only a custom of attend- ing the synagogue existed. See Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Beze, p. 232, in Texts and Studies, ii. 1. Comp. the insertions ix. 54, 55, which may be due to the same influence. The phrase κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός occurs in LXX Num. xxiv. 1; Sus. 13. Itis characteristic of Lk. See on κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, i. 8. With the dat. κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός occurs only here and Acts xvii. 2; and τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων occurs only here, Acts xiii. 14, and xvi. 13: but comp. Lk, xili. 13, 16 and xiv. 5. It is a periphrasis for ἐν τοῖς σαβ., or ἐν τῷ σαβ., or τοῖς σαβ., or τῷ σαβ. ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶνωι. Standing to read was the usual practice, excepting when the Book of Esther was read at the Feast of Purim : then the reader might sit. Christ’s standing up indicated that He had been asked to read, or was ready to do so. This is the only occasion on which we are told that Jesus read. The lectern was close to the front seats, where those who were most likely to be called upon to read commonly sat. A lesson from the Zhorah or Law was read first, and then one from the Prophets. After the lesson had been read in Hebrew it was interpreted into Aramaic (Neh. viii. 8), or into Greek in places where Greek was commonly spoken. This was done verse by verse in the Law; but in the Prophets three verses might be taken at once, and in this case Jesus seems to have taken two verses. Then followed the exposition or sermon. The reader, interpreter, and preacher might be one, two, or three persons. Here Christ was both reader and preacher ; and possibly He inter- preted as well.1_ Although there were officers with fixed duties attached to each synagogue, yet there was no one specially appointed either to read, or interpret, or preach, or pray. Any member of the congregation might discharge these duties ; and probably those who were competent discharged them in turn at the _ invitation of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος (Acts ΧΗ]. 15. Comp. Philo in Eus. Prep. Zvang. vill. 7, p. 360 A, and Quod omnis probus liber xii.). Hence it was always easy for Jesus to address the congregation. When He became famous as a teacher He would often be invited to do so. And during His early years He may have read without interpreting or expounding; for even those under age were sometimes allowed to read in the synagogues. We cannot infer from His being able to read that He Himself possessed the Scriptures. In N.T. ἀναγινώσκω is used in no other sense than that of veadzng; lit. recognizing 1 We have no right to infer from this incident that the Hebrew Bible could still be understood by the people. Nothing is said about interpretation ; but we cannot assume that it did not take place. Mk. xv. 34 is evidence of some knowledge of O.T. in Aramaic. See Classical Review, May 1894, p. 216, against Kautzsch, Grammatik des biblischen Aramdischen, p. 19. 3 Comp. ᾿Αναστὰς δέ τις τῶν ἐμπειροτάτων ὑφηγεῖται τἄριστα Kal συνοίσοντα, οἷς ἅπας ὁ βίος ἐπιδώσει πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον (Philo, De Septenarzo, vi.). See also the fragments of Philo in Eus. Prep. Evang. viii. 7. 12, 13, and viii. 12. 10, ed. Gaisford. These three passages give us Philo’s account of the synagogue services. 120 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO §S. LUKE [τν. 16-18. again the written characters; of reading aloud, Acts xiii. 27, xv. 21; 2 Cor. Wie THis) Col. iv. Τό, 1 Dhes.vei2y7- 17. ἐπεδόθη. ‘‘ Was handed” to Him, “was given over by handing”: comp. ἐπεζήτουν (ver. 42). It does not mean “was handed to Him 7” addition,” implying that something else had been handed to Him previously. This meaning is not common, and is not found elsewhere in N.T. The reading of the Pavascha, or section from the Law, had probably preceded, and had been read possibly by someone else. This was the Hafhthara, or pro- phetic section (Acts xiii. 15). That Is. lxi. 1, 2 was the lesson appointed for the day is quite uncertain. We do not even know whether there was at that time any cycle of prophetical lessons, nor whether it would be strictly adhered to, if there was such. Apparently Isaiah was handed to Him without His asking for it; but that also is uncertain. The cycle of lessons now in use is of much later origin; and therefore to employ the Jewish lectionary in order to determine the day on which this took place is futile. On the other hand, there is no evidence that ‘Jesus takes the section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled”; for εὗρε quite as easily may mean the opposite ;—that He intentionally found a passage which had been previously selected. The more definite ἀναπτύξας (N% D) is probably a correction of ἀνοίξας (A BL and most versions). The former occurs nowhere in N.T., while the latter is very common: see esp. Rev. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, Χ. 2, 8, xx. 12. Fond as Lk. is of analytical tenses, ἣν γεγραμμένον occurs nowhere else in his writings : ἔστι γεγραμ. 15 common in Jn. (11. 17, vi. 31, 45, Χ. 34, ΧΙ]. 14, 16). 18. The quotation is given by the Evangelist somewhat freely from LXX, probably from memory and under the influence of other passages of Scripture. ΤῸ argue that the Evangelist cannot be S. Luke, because S. Luke was a Gentile, and therefore would not know the LXX, is absurd. 5. Luke was not only a constant companion of S. Paul, but a fellow-worker with him in dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. He could not have done this without becoming familiar with the LXX. Down to ἀπέσταλκέν pe inclusive the quotation agrees with LXX. After that the text of LXX runs thus: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντε- τριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν Kal τυφλοῖς ava- βλεψιν, καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν. In many authorities the clause ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν has been inserted into the text of Lk. in order to make the quotation more full and more in harmony with O.T. We have similar insertions Mt. xv. 8; Acts vii. 37; Rom. xiii. 9; Heb. xiii. 20, and perhaps i. 7.1 1 Scrivener, Zt. to Crit. of N.T. i. pp. 12, 13, 4th ed. The evidence against the clause ἰάσασθαι... τὴν καρδίαν here (in δὲ AQ of LXX τῇ καρδίᾳ) is decisive. It isomitted by 8 BD LE ,13-69, 33, most MSS. of IV. 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE . 121 In the original the Prophet puts into the mouth of Jehovah’s ideal Servant a gracious message to those in captivity, promising them release and a return to the restored Jerusalem, the joy of which is compared to the joy of the year of jubilee. It is obvious that both figures, the return from exile and the release at the jubilee, admirably express Christ’s work of redemption. Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ. In applying these words to Himself the Christ looks back to His baptism. He is more than a Prophet ; He is “the Son, the Beloved One,” of Jehovah (iii. 21, 22). With ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ (ἐστι) comp. ἣν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (ii. 25).---οὗ εἵνεκεν. Not ‘* where- fore,” as in Acts xix. 32, which here would spoil the sense, but ‘‘ because,” a meaning which οὕνεκεν often has in class. Grk. Vulg. has propter quod. Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, xix. 8, xxii. 16, xxxviii. 26; Num. x. 31, xiv. 43, etc. The Ionic form εἵνεκεν is found xviii. 29 ; Acts xxviii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 10: but ἕνεκεν is the commonest form (2 Cor. vii. 12), and ἕνεκα also occurs before consonants (vi. 22; Acts xxvi. 21). ; ἔχρισεν με. ‘The Christ was anointed with the Spirit, as Pro- phets and priests were anointed with oil (1 Kings xix. 16; Ex. XXVill. 41, xxx. 30). Unlike πένης (2 Cor. ix. 9), πτωχός “always had a bad meaning until it was ennobled by the Gospels” (vi. 20, vii. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Jas. ii. 5). It suggests abject poverty (πτώσσω -- “1 crouch”). See Hatch, Bib/. Grk. pp. 76, 77. ἀπέσταλκέν pe. Change from aor. to perf. “He anointed Me (once for all); He hath sent Me (and I am here)”: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 4. We have had ἀποστέλλω of the mission of Gabriel (i. 19, 26); here and ver. 43 we have it of the mission of the Christ ; vil. 27 of the Forerunner ; ix. 2 of the Twelve. Whereas πέμπω 15 quite general and implies no special relation between sender and sent, ἀποστέλλω adds the idea of a delegated authority making the person” sent to be the envoy or representative of the sender. But πέμπω also is used of the mission of the Christ (xx. 13), of Prophets (ver. 26, xx. 11, 12), and of the Apostles (Jn. xiii. 20, XX. 21). Strictly speaking, αἰχμαλώτοις means “ prisoners of war” (aixuy and ἁλωτός) : freq. in class. Grk. but here only in N.T. The cognate αἰχμαλωτίζω occurs xxi. 24; 2 Cor. x. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 6; αἰχμαλωσία, Eph. iv. 8. Neither this metaphor nor that of τυφλυῖς ἀνάβλεψιν harmonizes very well with the year of jubilee, to which Godet would restrict the whole passage. Both might apply to captives in exile, some of whom had been blinded by their captors, or by long confinement in a dungeon. ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει. ‘These words come from another part of Isaiah (viii. 6), and are perhaps inserted through a slip of memory. Jesus was reading, not quoting without book ; and therefore we cannot suppose that He inserted the clause. Lat. Vet. and best MSS. of Vulg., most MSS. of Boh. Aeth. Arm. Syr-Sin., Orig. Eus. etc., all the best editors and RV. See Sanday, 4p. ad N.T. p. 117. 122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IVv. 18-20, Lightfoot says that it was lawful to skip from one passage to an- other in reading the Prophets, but not in reading the Law (for. ffeb, on Lk. iv. 17). That might explain the omission of a few verses, but not the going Jack three chapters. The insertion comes from the Evangelist, who is probably quoting from memory, and perhaps regards the unconsciously combined passages as a sort of “programme of the ministry.” The strong expression τεθραυσμένους is here applied to those who are shattered in fortune and broken in spirit. For the pregnant construction, ‘send so as to be in,” comp. i. 17. The asyndeton throughout, first between ἔχρισεν and ἀπέσταλκεν, and then be- tween the three infinitives which depend upon ἀπέσταλκεν, is impressive. 19. ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν. The age of the Messiah, which is Jehovah’s time for bestowing great blessings on His people. Comp. καιρὸς δεκτός (2 Cor. vi. 2; Is. xlix. 8): δεκτός is not found in class. Grk. It is strange that Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who are commonly so ready to turn fact into figure, here turn an expression which is manifestly figurative into a literal statement of fact, and limit Christ’s ministry to a period of twelve months (comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 19). Keim and other modern writers have made the same limit; but the three Passovers dis- tinguished by S. John (iil. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55) are quite fatal to it.4 It is, however, an equally faulty exegesis to find the three years (16. two years and a fraction) of Christ’s ministry in the three years of Lk. xiii. 6-9 or the three days of xiii. 31-33. ‘The first of these is obviously a parabolic saying not to be understood literally ; and the other probably is such. The suggestion that the three servants sent to the wicked husbandmen mean the three years of the ministry is almost grotesque. See Nosgen, Gesch. Jesu Christi, Kap. viil., Munchen, 1890. 20. The vivid description of what followed the reading of the lesson points to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative. But the ‘‘ closed” of AV. and RV. gives a wrong impression of the first incident : it leads one to think of a modern book with leaves. The Rhemish has ‘‘ folded”; but ‘‘rolled up” would be a better rendering of wrvgas. The long strip of parchment, or less probably papyrus (2 Jn. 12), would be wound upon a rosiei; ur possibly upon two rollers, one at each end of the strip. Hence the name megz//ah (volumen), from gG/a/, ““ἴο roll.” Such a book was in Greek sometimes called κεφαλίς (Ezr. vi. 2; Ezek. iii. 1-3) or κεφαλὶς βιβλίου (Heb. x. 7; Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. ii. 9): and it is said that κεφαλίς originally meant the knob (corn or umbzlicus) at the end of the roller ; but no instance of this use of κεφαλίς appears to be known (Wsctt. on Heb. x. 7). ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ. The ἀπο- implies that it was the minister or 1QOn the uncertainty respecting the length of the ministry, and the con- jectures respecting it made by early Christians, see Iren. Ha@r. 11. 22; Ens. H. £.i. 10; Sanday in the Zxfosztor, Ist series, xi. p. 16. ee IV. 20, 21.] | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 123 chazzan who had handed Him tue book who received it dack again. The τῷ may have the same meaning, just as τὸ βιβλίον means the book which had been given to Him. But τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ more prob- ably means the minister usually found in a synagogue. It was among the duties of the chazzan to take the Scriptures from the ark and put them away again (Surenhusius, J/7shua, i. 246, iii. 266). He taught the children to read, and inflicted the scourgings (Mt. x. 17). A Roman epitaph to a Jew who held this office is quoted by Schiirer, 11. 11. p. 66— @®AafBros lovAcavos vrnperns Praia lovAravyn Ovyarnp πατρι Ev εἰρηνὴ ἢ κοιμησις σου. The chazzan of the synagogue became the deacon or sub-deacon of the Christian Church. A ὑπηρέτης is lit. ‘an under-rower” (ἐρέσσω). The word may be used of almost any kind of attendant or servant (Acts v. 22, 26, xill. 5; Mt. xxvi. 58; Mk. xiv. 54, 65; Jn. vii. 32, 45; I Cor. iv. 1). For the two participles, wrvfas . . . ἀποδούς, without καί, comp. Acts xii. 4, 25. ἐκάθισεν. This was the usual attitude for expounding or preaching, and in the synagogues there was commonly a raised seat for the purpose. On other occasions we find Christ sitting tay teach (vy. 3; Mt. v.:r; Mk. iv. τὶ [Jn.. viii. 2]);. and the disciples do the same (Acts xvi. 13). ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες. ‘‘ Were fixed intently.” ‘Their intense interest was caused by His reputation as a teacher and as a worker of miracles, as well as by His having been brought up amongst them; perhaps also by His look and manner of reading. ‘That He had selected an unexpected passage, or had omitted the usual lesson from the Law, and that this surprised them, is pure con- - jecture. Comp. Acts vi. 15, where the same verb is used of the — whole Sanhedrin riveting their eyes upon Stephen. It is a favourite word with Lk., who uses it a dozen times: elsewhere in Nel. Guly 2°Cor. nt 7, 13. It occurs in) LXX (τ Es. vi. 28; 3 Mac. ii. 26), in Aq. (Job vii. 8), and in Jos. (2. 7. v. 12. 3). The analytical tense marks the continuance of the action. 21. ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν. The ἤρξατο is not pleonastic: it points to the solemnity of the moment when His words broke the silence of universal expectation: comp. vii. 24, ΧΙ. 29, xii. 1, xiv. 18. What follows may be regarded as a summary of what was said. It gives us the main subject of His discourse. We are led to suppose that He said much more; perhaps interpreting to them in detail the things concerning Himself (xxiv. 27). The conversation with Nicodemus is similarly condensed by S. John (iii. 1-21). Even without this narrative we should know from vii. 22 and Mt. 124 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [IVv. 21, 22. xi. 5 that Christ interpreted Is. Ix!, 1 ff. of Himself. The whole of the O.T. was to Him a prophecy respecting His life and work. And this applies not only to prophetic utterances, but also to rites and institutions, as well as to historical events, which were so ordered as to be a forecast of the salvation and judgment which He was to bring.! ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη. “This passage of Scripture” (Mk. xii. 10; Jn. vil. 42, etc.): for Scripture as a whole the plural is used (xxiv. 27, 32, 45; Mt. xxi 42, xxi! 20, xxvi. §4, 56; ΜΚ’ ΣΕ σ᾿ Εἰ His interpretation of the prophecy was at the same time a fulfil- ment of it; for the voice of Him of whom the Prophet wrote was sounding in their ears. Hence it is that he affirms πεπλήρωται ἐν τοῖς ὦσιν ὑμῶν. As Renan says, // ne préchait pas ses opinions, a se préchatt luiméme. 22. ἐμαρτύρουν atta. “They bore witness to Him,” not that what He said about Himself, but that what rumour had said respecting His power as a teacher, was true. They praised Him in an empty-hearted way. What they remembered of Him led them to think that the reports about Him were exaggerations ; but they were willing to admit that this was not the case. Comp. xi. 48. This ‘bearing witness” almost of necessity implies that Jesus had said a great deal more than is recorded here. What follows shows that they did not believe the teaching which so startled and impressed them, any more than those whose attention was riveted on Stephen, before he began to address them, were disposed to accept his teaching. The cases are very similar. Hence ἐθαύμαζον expresses amazement rather than admiration. For θαυμάζειν ἐπί see small print on ii. 33. τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος. Characterizing genitive or genitive of quality ; freq. in writings influenced by Hebrew, ‘‘ which employs this construction, not merely through poverty in adjectives, but also through the vividness of phrase- ology which belongs to Oriental languages (Win. xxxiv. 3. b, p. 297. Comp. οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας (xvi. 8); κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας (xvill. 6) ; ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς (Jas. 1. 25); κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν (Jas. 11. 4); and perhaps the difficult τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα (Jas. i. 17). The meaning here is ‘‘ winning words.” The very first meaning of χάρις (χαίρω) is ‘‘ comeliness, winsomeness” (Hom. Od. 1 “Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament in its full extent and its perfect sacredness. Zhe Scripture cannot be broken, He says (Jn. x. 35), and forthwith draws His argument from the wording of it. Of course He can only have meant by this the Scripture in the form in which it was handed down, and He must have regarded it exactly as His age did (comp. xi. 51). Any kind of superior knowledge in these matters would merely have made Him incapable of placing Himself on a level with His hearers respecting the use of Scripture, or would have compelled Him to employ a far-reaching accommodation, the very idea of which involves internal untruthfulness. All, therefore, that is narrated in Scripture He accepted absolutely as actual history, and He regarded the several books as composed by the men to whom they were ascribed by tradition ” (B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. iii. 5, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 62, 63). IV. 22, 23. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 125 vill. 175; Eccles. x. 125 Ps. xliv. 3; Ecclus. xxi. 16, xxxvii. 21; Col. iv. 6): and in all these passages it is the winsomeness of /anguage that is specially signified. From this objective attractiveness it easily passes to subjective ‘favour, kindness, goodwill,” esp. from a superior to an inferior (Acts li. 47 ; Gen. xvili. 3, xxxil. 5, xxxill. 8, etc.) ; and hence, in particular, of finding ‘favour with God (i. 30; Acts vil. 46; Exod. xxxiii. 12, 13, 16, etc.). From the sense of God’s favour generally (11. 40, 52; Jn. i. 14, 16) we come to the specially theological sense of ‘‘God’s favour to sinners, the free gift of His grace” (Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24, 32; and the Pauline Epp. assem). Lastly, it sometimes means the ‘‘ gratitude” which this favour produces in the recipient (vi. 32-34, xvii. 9; I Cor. x. 30). The word does not occur in Mt. or Mk. See Sanday on Rom. i. 5, and Blass on Acts ii. 47 and iv. 33. Origen evidently had this passage in his mind when he wrote: ‘‘ For a proof that grace was poured on His lips (Ps. xliv. 3, ἐξεχύθη ἡ χάρις ἐν χείλεσίν cov) is this, that although the period of His teaching was short,—for He taught somewhere about a year and a few months,—the world has been filled with His teaching” (De Prim. iv. 1. 5). But the words so calculated to win did not win the congregation. They were “‘ fulfilled in their ears,” but not in their hearts. A doubt at once arose in their minds as to the congruity of such words with one whom they had known all His life as the ‘‘son of Joseph” the carpenter. Here οὗτος has a contemptuous turn, as often (v. 21, vil. 39, 49, xv. 2, xxii. 56, 59, etc.) : yet the Vulg. in none of these places has zs¢e, but Azc. ‘‘Is not this person Joseph’s son? What does he mean by using such language?” Just as a single sentence is given as a summary of His discourse, so a single question is given as a summary of their scepticism. While the οὗτος and υἱός is in all three, the question as a whole differs. Mk. has Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων, ὁ vids τῆς Μαρίας ; (vi. 3). Mt. has Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος vids; (xiii. 55). Lk. Οὐχὶ vids ἐστιν ᾿Τωσὴφ οὗτος: And while the others mention Christ’s brothers and sisters in close connexion with His mother, Lk. mentions none of them. Lk. and Jn. seem to prefer the expres- sion ‘‘son of Joseph ” (Lk. iii. 23, iv. 223 Jn. i. 45, vi. 42). NRenan thinks that Mare ne connait pas Joseph (V. de 7. p. 71). But it may be that, as he does not record the virgin birth of Christ, he avoids the expression ‘‘son of Joseph ” or ‘‘the carpenter’s son,” which those who have recorded the virgin birth could use without risk of being misunderstood. 28. Πάντως ἐρεῖτέ μοι τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην. “At all events, assuredly, ye will say,” εἴς. : πάντως is used in strong affirmations (Acts xxi. 22, xxvill. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 10). Excepting Heb. ix. 9 and xi. 19, παραβολή occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels: in Jn. x. 6 and XVi. 25, 29, aS in 2 Pet. 11. 22, the word used is παροιμία. It need not be doubted that the notion of placing deside for the sake of comparison, rather than that of merely putting forth, lies at the root of παραβολή. From the notion of (1) “throwing beside” come the further notions of (2) “exposing” and (3) “comparing,” all three of which are common meanings of παραβάλλειν. While the adj. παράβολος represents the derived notion on the one side, the subst. παραβολή represents that on the other side. A παραβολή, therefore, is “‘an utterance which involves a comparison.” Hence various meanings: 1. a complete parable or allegory (viii. 4, xiii. 6, ‘Comp. Augustine’s description of his indifference to the preaching of Ambrose, although charmed with his winning style: Rerum incurtosus et con- temptor adstabam et delectabar suavitate sermonis (In Ezek. xxxiii. 32). , [26 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. 1ὕ ΚΕ [IV. 28. etc.); 2. a single figurative saying, proverb, or illustration (here ; v. 36, Vi. 39); 3. ἃ saying of deeper meaning, which becomes in- telligible through comparison, in which sense it is sometimes joined with σκοτεινὸς λόγος (Prov. i. 6), πρόβλημα (Ps. xlix. 5s Ixxviil. 2), and the like. In the teaching of Christ παραβολή is commonly used in the first sense, and is a means of making known the mysteries of the kingdom in a mixed audience ; for it conceals from the unworthy what it reveals to the worthy (viii. 9, 10). See Crem. Lex. pp. 124, 657; Hatch, 470/. Grk., p. 70; Hase, Gesch. Jesu, § 63, Pp. 535, ed. 1891; Didon, Jésus Christ, ch. vi. p. 391, ed. 1891 ; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, ch. x. ‘latpé, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν. ‘‘ Heal thine own lameness” is the Hebrew form of the proverb. Similar sayings exist in other litera- tures: 6.5. a fragment of Euripides, ἄλλων ἰατρός, αὐτὸς ἕλκεσι βρύων ; Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero, egue imitare malos medicos, gut in alients morbis profitentur tenere se medicine scientiam, 1251 se curare non possunt (Cic. Epp. ad diversos, iv. 5). Hobart quotes from Galen, ἐχρῆν οὖν αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ πρῶτον ἰᾶσθαι τὸ σύμπτωμα Kal οὕτως ἐπιχειρεῖν ἑτέρους θεραπεύειν. Comp. Aesch. P. V. 469; Ov. Metam. vii. 561 ; and the other examples in Lightfoot and Wetst. It is remarkable that this saying of Christ is preserved only by the beloved physician. Its meaning is disputed. Some take the words which follow to be the explanation of it: “ Heal the ills of thine own town.” Thus Corn. ἃ Lap., “Cure Thine own people and Thine own country, which should be as dear to Thee as Thyself.” Similarly Beng. Alf. Sadler and others. It is thus made to mean much the same as ‘Charity begins at home.” But ἴατρε and σεαυτόν Ought to be interpreted of the same person or group; not one of a person and the other of his neighbours. “ Prophet, heal Thine own countrymen” is not parallel to ‘Physician, heal Thyself.” ‘The saying plainly refers to the passage just read from Isaiah ; and although Lk. omits the words “to heal the broken- hearted,” yet Christ must have read them, and He had probably explained them. He professed to be the fulfilment of them, and to be healing the miseries of mankind. The people are supposed to tell Him to better His own condition before bettering that of others. He must make His own position more secure, and give evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must work convincing miracles, such as He is sazd to have worked elsewhere. Comp. σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς (xxiii. 39). ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν. ‘They do not say ὅσα ἐποίησας, wishing to leave it open whether the report may not be untrue. We learn from Jn. 11. 12 that after the miracle at Cana, Jesus was at Capernaum for a short time ; and from John ii. 23, that there were many unre- corded miracles. It is probably to reports of some of these that reference is here made. For the constr.comp. Acts vii. 12 and xxiv. Io. Iv. 23-25. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 127 eis τὴν Kadapvaovp. See on ver. 31. The readings vary between εἰς τὴν Kad. (NB), εἰς Kad. (D L), ἐν τῇ Kag. (x), and ἐν Καφ. (A K). The substitution of ἐν for εἰς, and the omission of the article between a preposition and a proper name, are obvious corrections by a later hand. The els is not “*put for ἐν. It may be doubted whether these two prepositions are ever interchanged. Rather εἰς is used because of the idea of motion contained in “*come to pass.” It is scarcely possible that εἰς contains the notion of ‘‘ to the advantage of,” and indicates the petty jealousy of the people of Nazareth. We have the same constr. i. 44; Acts xxviii. 6 (comp. Lk. xi. 7) ; and in no case is there any idea of advantage. That the jealousy was a fact, and that the people of Nazareth were inclined to discount or discredit all that seemed to tell in favour of prosperous Capernaum, is probable ; but there is no hint of this in the els. What is said to have happened zo Capernaum ought to happen Ψ67γ6. Comp. the Cornish use of ‘*‘to” for “ αἱ." In N.T. ὧδε is never ‘‘ thus,” but either ‘‘ hither” (ix. 41, xiv. 21, xix. 27) or ‘‘here” (ix. 33, xxii. 38). The ἐν τῇ πατρίδι σου is epexegetic of ὧδε, and means ‘‘ Thy native town,” not the whole of Israel: comp. Mk. vi. 5; Mt. xiii. 58. 24. Εἶπεν δέ. When these words occur between two utter- ances of Christ, they seem to indicate that there is an interval between what precedes and what follows. The report of what was said on this occasion is evidently very condensed. Comp. ΕΠ 39. x00, XV. ΤΙ, XV 1, 22, xvill. 9, and seé π΄ 1 8. |The δέ is “ but” (Cov.) rather than “and” (all other English Versions) ; ait autem (Vulg.). ‘But, instead of gratifying them, He said.” There are various proverbial sayings which declare that those who are close to what is great do not appreciate the greatness. Jesus declares that He is no exception to this rule, and implies that He will work no miracles to free Himself from its operation. In the wilderness He had resisted a similar suggestion that He should work a miracle of display, a mere τέρας (vv. 9-11). In this matter Nazareth is a type of the whole nation, which rejected Him because He did not conform to their own ideas of the Messiah. Their test resembles that of the hierarchy, “He is the King of Israel ; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him” (Mt. xxvil. 42). Εἶπεν δέ is peculiar to Lk. (i. 13). 25. “But I am like the Prophets, not only in the treatment which I receive from My own people, but also in My principles of action. For they also bestowed their miraculous benefits upon outsiders, although there were many of their own people who would have been very glad of such blessings.” Christ is here appealing to their knowledge of Scripture, not to any facts out- side the O.T. Zestatur hoc Dominus ex luce omniscientie sux is not a legitimate inference. Arguments drawn from what was known to Him, but not known to them, would not be likely to influence His audience. ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας. ““Οπ a basis of truth”: comp. Mk. xii. 14. We have similar adverbial expressions in ἐπ᾽ tons (sc. μοίρας), ἐπὶ σχολῆς, ἐπὶ καιροῦ, ἐπ᾽ ἀδείας. 128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 25-28. ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ. Jesus, like His brother James (Jas. v. 17), follows Jewish tradition as to the duration of the famine. — In 1 Kings xviii. 1 we are told that the rain came in the third year, which would make the drought about /wo years and a half. But ever since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three years and a half (=42 months=1260 days) had become the traditional duration of times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25, xil. 7 ; Rev. xi. 2, 3, Xil. 6, 14, xiii. 5). The Jews would regard “in the third year” as covering three years, and would argue that the famine must have continued for some time after the rain came. For ἐπί c. acc. of duration of time (‘‘ over,” z.e. ““ during”), comp. Acts Xi. 210 Xix. ΤΟ; Edt. 11. 50: 2. va) TOL. 3); hue; a. 25. 4. ἘΠΕ: xian different. In accordance with common usage λιμός is here masc. ; but in xv. 14 and Acts xi. 28 it is fem. acc. to what is called Doric usage, as in the Megarean of Aristoph. Acharn. 743. But this usage occurs elsewhere in late Greek. It perhaps passed from the Doric into the Κοινὴ Διάλεκτος : for examples see Wetst. and L. and 5. Zex. In LXX perhaps only 1 Kings xviii. 2. ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. Here, as in Jas. v. 17, only the land of Israel need be understood ; but it is possible that in each case we have a popular hyperbole, and that the whole world is meant. Lk. xxi. 23 and Rom. ix. 28 are not quite parallel, for there the context plainly limits the meaning. Lk. xxii. 44 is another doubtful case, and there AV. has “earth” and RV. “land.” Both have “land” here. 26. The translation of εἰ μή in this and the following clauses by ‘‘ but only ” (RV.), sed (Beza), or sed tantum, is justifiable, because ‘‘ save” (AV.) and #zs¢ (Vulg.) seem to involve an absurdity which was not apparent to a Greek. It is not, however, correct to say that in such cases εἰ μή is put for ἀλλά, any more than in Mt. xx. 23 or Mk. iv. 22 it would be correct to say that ἀλλά is put for ef μή. Here and in Mt. xii. 4 (comp. Rom. xiv. 14; I Cor. vii. 17; Gal. i. 7, 11. 16) ‘‘ the question is not whether εἰ μή retains its exceptive force, for this it seems always to do, but whether the exception refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone” (Lft. on Gal. 1. 19): comp. Rev. xxi. 27.—In els Σάρεπτα, k.7.d., we perhaps have a quotation from LXX of 1 Kings xvii. 9. There, as here, the readings vary between Σιδῶνος and Σιδωνίας (sc. γῆς or xwpas). Here the latter is right, meaning the ¢errztory of Sidon, in which Sarepta lay. Zarephath (in Syriac 7sarfah, in Greek Σάρεφθα, Σάρεπτα, and Σέφθα) is probably represented by the modern Stirafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. 27. ἐπὶ Ἐλισαίου. For this use of ἐπί with a proper name to give a date, *“in the time of,” comp. iii. 2; Acts xi. 28; 1 Mac. xiii. 42, xiv. 27 ; 2 Mac. xv. 22. The spelling ᾿Βλισσαῖος is not well attested (WH. il. App. p. 159). For some of the ‘‘ many lepers” comp. 2 Kings vii. 3, where we have four at the gate of Samaria. In N.T. Σύριος is the only form of the adj. that is found, viz. here and perhaps Mk. vii. 26 ; but Σύρος, Σύριος, and Συριακός occur elsewhere (Hdt. 11. 104. 6; Aesch. Pers. 83 ; Theophr. C. P. ii. 17. 3). 28. ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυμοῦ. See on i. 66. They see the point of His illustrations; He has been comparing them to those Jews who were judged less worthy of Divine benefits than the IV. 538-80.]} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 129 heathen. It is this that infuriates them, just as it infuriated the Jews at Jerusalem to be told by S. Paul that the heathen would receive the blessings which they despised (Acts χη]. 46, 50, xxii. 21, 22). Yet to this day the position remains the same; and Gentiles enjoy the Divine privileges of which the Jews have deprived themselves. His comparing Himself to such Prophets as Elijah and Elisha would add to the wrath of the Nazarenes. On the other hand, these early instances of God’s special blessings being conferred upon heathen, would have peculiar interest for Lk. 29. ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους. ‘Tradition makes the scene of this attempt to be a precipice, varying from 80 to 300 feet in height, which exists some distance off to the S.E. of the town; and we read that “they cast Him owf of the town and led Him as far as the brow,” etc. But modern writers think that a much smaller precipice close at hand is the spot. Van der Velde conjectures that it has crumbled away ; Conder, that it is hidden under some of the houses. Stanley says that Nazareth “is built ‘upon,’ that is, on the side of, ‘a mountain’; but the ‘brow’ is not beneath, but over the town, and such a cliff as is here implied is to be found, as all modern travellers describe, in the abrupt face of the lime- stone rock, about 30 or 40 feet high, overhanging the Maronite Convent at the S.W. corner of the town” (δ. & Fal. p. 367). So also Robinson (Res. 7x Pad. 11. pp. 325, 330), Hacket (22..8. ii. p-. 470), and Schulz in Herzog (PRE. x. p. 447). The ἐφ᾽ οὗ, of course, refers to τοῦ ὄρους, not to ὀφρύος. Both AV. and RV. have “the brow of the hill whereon,” which might easily be misunder- stood. The town is on the hill, but not on the brow of it: the brow is above the modern village. Nowhere else in N.T. does ὀφρύς occur. Comp. Hom. 74. xx. 151; and ὀφρυόεις, 77. xxii. 411, and Hdt. v. 92. 10, with other instances in Wetst. Supercilium is similarly used: Virg. Georg. 1. 108; Liv. xxvii. 18, xxxiv. 29. ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι. The ὥστε is not needed (i. 22; Mt. ii. 2, xx. 28; Acts v. 31); but it expresses more clearly the result which was intended. Comp. xx. 20, where, as here, ὥστε has been altered in some texts into the simpler εἰς τό, a constr. which Lk. does not employ elsewhere. In ix. 52 the true reading is perhaps ὡς ; but in Mt. x. 1, xxiv. 24, xxvii. I there is no doubt about the ὥστε. For κατακρημνίζω (here only in N.T.) comp. 2 Chron. xxv. 12; 2 Mac. xii. 15, xiv. 43; 4 Mac. iv. 25; Jos. Azz. vi. 6. 2, ix. 9. I. The whole attempt to put Jesus to death was perhaps an instance of the form of punishment which the Jews called the ‘‘rebel’s beating,” which was some- what analogous to Lynch Law. ‘The ‘‘rebel’s beating” was administered by the people, without trial and on the spot, when anyone was caught in what seemed to be a flagrant violation of some law or tradition. Comp. the attempts to stone Jesus (Jn. viii. 59, x. 31). We have a similar attempt upon S. Paul’s life (Acts xxi. 31, 32). In 5. Stephen’s case a formal trial seems to have ended in the ‘‘rebel’s beating” (Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 43). 30, αὐτὸς δὲ διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο. “But He (in 9 130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5.ὄ LUKE [IVv. 30, 31. contrast to this attempt), after passing through the midst of them, went His way.” The addition of διὰ μέσου is for emphasis, and seems to imply that there was something miraculous in His passing through the very midst of those who were intending to slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely in their power. They had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them. Those who think that it was His determined look or personal majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue.! It seems better with Meyer and ancient commentators to understand a miracle dependent on the will of Jesus: comp. Jn. xviii. 6; Dan. vi. 22. Jn. vill. 59 is different: then Jesus hid Himself before escaping. For διελθών see on 1]. 15. émopeveto. Here used in its common signification of going on towards a goal: “‘ He went His way” to Capernaum. And, so far as we know, He did not return to Nazareth. It had become a typical example of “His own people receiving Him not” (Jn. i. 11); and apparently it had no other opportunity (but see Edersh. Z. & Z. i. ch. xxvii.). If Mk. vi. 1-6 and Mt. xiii. 53-58 refer to a different occasion, it probably preceded this. After the attempt on His life He would not be likely to return ; and, if He did return, they could hardly, after this experience of Him, ask, “‘ Whence has this man this wisdom?” or be astonished at His teaching. Meyer (on Mt. xiii. 53), Wieseler (Chron. Syn. iii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 258), Godet (2.c., Eng. tr. i. p. 240), Tischendorf (Syzop. Evan. §§ 29, 54), and others dis- tinguish the two occasions. If with Caspari (Chvon. Jnt. § 100) we identify them, then Lk. is the more full and vivid, for the others omit the text of the discourse and the attempt to kill Him. In this case Strauss may be right in sup- posing that Lk. has placed the incident at the beginning of the ministry, although it took place later, because he saw how typical it was of the ministry as a whole (Leben Jesu, p. 121, 1864). That it was this attempt on His life which made Christ change His abode from Nazareth to Capernaum is contradicted by ver. 16. ‘‘ Where He had been brought up” implies that He had ceased to reside there: and from ver. 23 we infer that Capernaum had already become His headquarters. Thither His Mother and brethren had also moved, while His sisters remained at Nazareth (Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3), very probably because they had married there. 31-44. The Stay at Capernaum: chiefly a Record of Miracles of Healing. See Wsctt. Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, Macmillan, 1859; lutroduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. E: “A Classification of the Gospel Miracles,” Macmillan, 1888. 31-37. The Healing of a Demoniac in the Synagogue at Caper- 1 Even Godet is among these. La mayesté de sa personne et la fermeté de son regard imposérent a ces furteux. Lhistorie raconte plusieurs traits sem- blables (i. p. 327, 3eme ed.). Better Didon: Une force divine le gardait (p. 312, ed. 1891). See Hase, Gesch. Jesu, p. 445, ed. 1891. IV. 81.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 131 naum. Mk. i. 21-28. Both Lk. and Mk. place this first among Christ’s miracles; whereas Mt. puts the healing of a leper first (viii. 2-4). Marcion began his mutilated edition of Lk. at this point with the words ‘O ΘΕΟΣ κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναούμ. The earlier portion, which teaches the humanity of Christ, he omitted, excepting the first clause of 111. 1 (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. 1). 81. κατῆλθεν. Nazareth is on higher ground than Capernaum, which was on the shore of the lake; and therefore “went down” or “‘came down” is the probable meaning. But it is possible that here and Acts xviii. 5 it means “returned,” as often in class. Οὐκ. (Hdt.iv. 4: 2: v. 30.45 Thuc. vui. 68. 3). Excepting Jas. iii. 15, the verb occurs in N.T. only in Lk. (ix. 37 and twelve times in Acts). Καφαρναούμ. This is the correct spelling, Caphar-Nahum, of which Καπερναούμ is a Syrian corruption (WH. ii. App. p. 160). It was the chief Jewish town, as Tiberias was the chief Roman town, of the neighbourhood. It was therefore a good centre, especially as traders from all parts frequently met there (Mk. ii. 15, ili. 20, 32, etc.). It is not mentioned in O.T., and perhaps was not founded till after the Exile. Josephus mentions it only once, viz. in his description of the lake (4. /. iii. 10. 7, 8), and then not as a town but asa πηγὴ γονιμωτάτη, which irrigates the neighbourhood: but there is no doubt that the Κεφαρνώμη, to which Josephus was carried, when he was thrown from his horse in a skirmish with Roman troops, is Capernaum (Vzta, 72). The identi- fication with the modern Ze// Hum (Nau, Pococke, Burckhardt, Renan, Ritter, Rédiger, Ewald) is possible, but not certain. Many advocate the claims of Khan Minyeh, which is three miles to the south (Quaresmius, Keim, Robinson, Sepp, Stanley, Strauss, Wilson). For the chief arguments see Wilson in D.&.? i. p. 530, and in Prcturesque Palestine, 11. p. 81; Schulz in Herzog, RE.? vii. Ρ. 501; Keim, /es. of WVaz., Eng. tr. il. p. 369; Andrews, Lzfe of our Lord, pp. 221-239, ed. 1892. The doubts about the site show how completely the woes pronounced upon the place (Mt. xi. 23) have been fulfilled. But in any case Jesus left the seclusion of the mountains for a busy mercantile centre by the lake. πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Lk. adds this, because this is the first _ time that he mentions Capernaum in his narrative. The explana- tion could not be made ver. 23. It is another small indication that he is writing for those who are not familiar with the geography of Palestine: comp. i. 26, 11. 4. ἣν διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν. Some make vv. 31, 32 a general introduction, stating the habitual practice, of which vv. 33-37 gave a particular instance. In support of this they urge the analytical tense, ἣν διδάσκων, and the plur. τοῖς σάββασιν: “He used to teach them on the sabbath days.” But in the parallel passage ἐδίδασκεν and ἦν διδάσκων are equivalent, and 1 Of the céng petites villes dont Vhumanité parlera eternellement autant que de Rome et d Athénes, Renan considers the identification of Magala (AMedjde/) alone as certain. Of Capharnahum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, and Bethsaida he says, // est douteux gwon arrive jamais sur ce sol profondement dévasté, ἃ fixer les places ott Vhumanité voudratt venir baiser Pempreinte de ses pieds (Vie de Jésus, p. 142). 132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 31-33. apparently refer to one occasion only (note the εὐθύς, Mk. i. 22, 23): and τὰ σάββατα is often sing. in meaning (Mt. xxviii. τ ; Col. ii. τὸ" Exod.xx. τὸ ; Lev. xxiii. 22; Jos: Ζ 22. 1.1. 1, i. 6.36). Hor. Sav. i. 9. 69). Acts xvii. 2 is the only place in N.T. in which σάββατα is plur. in meaning, and there a numeral necessitates it, ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία ; which, however, may mean “ΤΟΥ three weeks,” and not “ for three sadéazhs.” Syr-Sin. here has “ the sabbath days.” The Aramaic form of the word ends in a, the transliteration of which into Greek looked like a neut. plur. This idea was confirmed by the fact that Greek festivals are commonly neut. plur.: τὰ γενέσια, ἐγκαίνια, παναθήναια, κιτιλ. Hence σάββατα may either mean ‘‘a sabbath” or ‘‘sabbaths” or ““ἃ week.” Here it is better to retain the sing. meaning, and refer the whole of 32-37 to one occasion. In N.T. σάββασιν is the usual form of the dat. plur., with σαββάτοις as v.Z. in some authorities (in B twice, Mt. xii. 1, 12). In LXX σαββάτοις prevails. Josephus uses both. 32. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἣν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. ‘This does not refer to the power which His words had over the demoniac, but to the authority with which they came home to the consciences of His hearers. The healing of the demoniac was not so much an example of this ἐξουσία as evidence that He had a Divine commission to exercise it. Lk. omits the comparison with the formal and ineffectual teaching of the scribes (Mk. i. 22; Mt. vii. 29). The ἐν means ‘‘clothed in, invested with” (i. 17, iv. 36, xi. 15, 18, 19, 20, xx. 2, 8; 1 Cor. il. 4; Eph. vi. 2; 2 Thes. i. 9). This use of ἐν is freq. in late Grk. Green, Gram. of N.T. p. 2006. 88. ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ. “In che synagogue” in which He was teaching on that sabbath; which confirms the view that ver. 31 refers to a particular occasion. We have already been told that it was His practice to teach in the synagogues. But “in the syna- gogue” may mean in the only one which Capernaum possessed (vil. 5). ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτους ‘The phrase-is unique, and the exact analysis of it is uncertain. ‘The gen. may be of apposi- tion (ii. 41, xxli. 1; Jn. ii, 21, xi. 13, xiii. 1), or of quality (see on ver. 22), or of possession, Ζ.6.. an influence which belonged to an unclean demon (Rev. xvi. 14). As to the Evangelists’ use of the epithet ἀκάθαρτον, strange mistakes have been made. Wordsworth inaccurately says, ‘Both St. Mark and St. Luke, writing for Gentiles, add the word ἀκάθαρτον to δαιμόνιον, which St. Matthew, writing to Jews (for whom it was not necessary), ever does.” Alford in correcting him is himself inaccurate. He says, “The real fact is, that St. Mark uses the word δαιμόνιον thirteen times, and ever adds the epithet ἀκάθαρτον to it (his word here is πνεῦμα only) ; St. Luke, eighteen times, and only adds it this once. So much ‘for the accuracy of the data on which inferences of this kind are IV. 33, 84.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 133 founded.” Edersheim is still more inaccurate in his statement of the facts (Z. & 7: 1. p. 479 ἢ). Farrar has the strange misstate- ment that “the word ‘unclean’ is peculiar to St. Luke, who writes for Gentiles.” It occurs in Mt., Paul, and Apoc., as well as Mk. The facts are these. Mt. uses δαιμόνιον ten times, and has ἀκάθαρτον twice as an epithet of πνεῦμα. Mk. has δαιμόνιον thirteen times, and ἀκάθαρτον eleven times as an epithet of πνεῦμα. Lk. in the Gospel has δαιμόνιον twenty-two times, with ἀκάθαρτον as an epithet, once of δαιμόνιον, and once of πνεῦμα ; and with πονηρόν twice as an epithet of πνεῦμα. In the Acts he has δαιμόνιον once ; and uses ἀκάθαρτον twice, and πονηρόν four times, as an epithet of πνεῦμα. ‘The fact, therefore, remains, that the two Evangelists who wrote for Gentiles (to whom demons or spirits were indifferent) add a distinctive epithet much more often than the one who wrote for Jews (who distinguished evil spirits from good). Moreover, both Mk. and Lk. add this epithet the very first time that they mention these beings (Mk. 1. 23; Lk. iv. 33); whereas Mt. men- tions them several times (vii. 22, vill. 16, ix. 33, 34) before he adds the ἀκάθαρτον (x. 1). In this passage Lk. and Mk. describe the fact of possession in opposite ways. Here the man has the unclean spirit. There he is in the unclean spirit’s power, ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ : with which we may compare the expression of Josephus, τοὺς ὑπὸ τών δαιμονίων λαμβανομένους (Anz. vill. 2. 5). Similarly, we say of a man that “he is out of his mind,” or that ‘his mind is gone” out of him. That a man thus afflicted should be in the synagogue is surprising. He may have come in unobserved ; or his malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to be cured. The presence of “the Holy One of God” provokes a crisis. For ἀνέκραξεν comp. Josh. vi. 5; 1 Sam. iv. 5; and for φωνῇ μεγάλῃ see on 1. 42. 84. Ἔα. Probably not the imperative of éaw, “ Let alone, leave me in peace,” but an interjection of anger or dismay ; common in Attic poetry, but rare in prose (Aesch. P. V. 298, 688; Eur. Hee. Bor; Plato; Prot. 314 ')); Here only in N.T. ‘Comp. Job iv. 19 ?, xv. 16, xix. 5, xxv. 6. Fritzsche on Mk. 1. 24 (where the word is an interpolation) and L. and S. Zex. regard the imperative as the origin of the interjection, which does not seem probable. τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; Not “What have we to contend about?” a meaning which the phrase has nowhere in N.T. and perhaps only once, if at all, in O.T. (2 Chron. xxxv. 21), but “ What have we in common?” Comp. vill. 28; Mt. villi. 29; Mk. i. 24; Jn. ii. 4; fudge? xi) r2; 1 Kings xviii 1S; 2 Kings iii. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; ΠΕ ΠΤ 265 Hpict. Pres, 1 1: 16, 1. 247. 12; i. 9. 16. Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ. This form of the adjective is found xxiv. 19; Mk. i. 24, Χ. 47, xiv. 67, xvi. 6; but not in Mt. or Jn. or Acts. Its appearance here is no proof that Lk. is borrowing from Mk. Ναζωραῖος occurs Lk. xviii. »ε.-- 134. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [IV. 84, 35. 37; Mt. ii. 23, xxvi. 71; Jn. xviii. 5, 7, xix. 19; Acts ii. 22, iil. 6, iv. 10, vi. 14, xxii. 8, xxvi. 9; but not in Mk. The adjective, esp. Ναζωραῖος, which is used in the title on the cross, sometimes has a tinge of contempt ; and with the article it may be rendered ‘‘the Nazarene.” Hence the early Christians were contemptuously called ‘‘ the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5). Con- trast ὁ ἀπὸ Nafapér (Mt. xxi. 11; Mk. i. 9; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38), which is a mere statement of fact. It is worth noting that this demoniac, who is a Jew, addresses Jesus as ‘‘ of Nazareth,” which the Gerasene, who was fosszbly a heathen, does not do (viii. 28). ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; The ἡμᾶς and the preceding ἡμῖν prob- ably do not include the man, but rather other evil spirits. Com- munem inter se causam habent dxmonia (Beng.). It seems to be idle to speculate as to the meaning of ἀπολέσαι: apparently it is the same as eis τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν (Vill. 31). οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ. In Mk. οἴδαμεν, which is more in harmony with ἡμῖν and ἡμᾶς. Godet remarks that ὃ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ explains the knowledge. It was instinctive, and therefore otda is more suitable than γινώσκω. L’antipathie west pas moins clairvoyante que la sympathie. In the unique holiness of Jesus the evil spirit felt an essentially hostile power. The expression ὃ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs in the parallel in Mk. and Jn. vi. 69; but nowhere else: comp. Acts iv. 27; 1 Jn. ii, 20; Rev. i. 7. It may mean either ‘consecrated τ God” or “consecrated éy God.” In a lower sense priests and Prophets are called ἅγιοι τοῦ Θεοῦ or Κυρίου (Ps. evi. 16). It was not in flattery (male adudans, as Tertullian says) that the evil spirit thus addressed Him, but in horror. From the Holy One he could expect nothing but destruction (Jas. 11. 19; comp. Mt. viii. 29). 35. ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ: ‘He rebuked the demon” who had used the man as his mouth-piece. The verb is often used of rebuking violence (ver. 41, Vili. 24, ix. 42; Mt. viii. 26, xvii. 18; Mk. iv. 39; Jude 9); yet must not on that account be rendered “restrain” (Fritzsche on Mt. viii. 26, p. 325). In N.T. ἐπιτιμάω has no other meaning than ‘‘rebuke”; but in class. Grk. it means—1. “‘lay a value on, vate”; 2. ‘‘lay a penalty on, sentence” ; 3. ‘‘chide, vate, rebuke.” But while there is a real connexion between the first and third meanings of the Greek verb, in English we have a mere accident of language: ‘‘ rate” = ‘‘ value” is a different word from “rate” = “ὁ scold.” φιμώθητι. Lit. “Stop thy mouth with a φιμός, be muzzled”: used literally 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18; andas here, Mt. xxii. 12; Mk. i. 25, iv. 39; Jos. B. fi. 22. 3. The peculiar infin. φιμοῖν occurs τ Pet. ii. 15. Comp. ἀποδεκατοῖν (Heb. vil. 5); κατασκηνοῖν (Mt. xiii. 32; Mk. iv. 32). The verb is probably a vernacular word: it is not found between Aristoph. (4Vwé. 592) and LXX (Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 41). — τσ Το ΝΗ ΑΝ κοι ——— a γυναι IV. 35-37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 155 καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. This is the true reading. Other writers commonly have ἐξέρχομαι ἐκ; but Lk. prefers ἐξέρχομαι ἀπό (ver. 41, ν. 8, νι. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38, ix. 5, ΧΙ. 24, etc.). ῥίψαν αὐτὸν... μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν. “ Having thrown him” down in convulsions (σπαράξαν Mk.). . . without (as one might have expected) having injured him at all.” With οὐδὲν βλάψαν we should have had a mere statement of fact. But in N.T. we com- monly have μή with participles: comp. xi. 24, xii. 47, and see Win. lv. 5. β, p.607. For μηδὲν βλάψαν Mk. has φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. It was the convulsions and the loud cry which made the spectators suppose that the man had been injured. The malice of the demon made the healing of the man as painful as possible. Hobart classes both firrew'’and βλάπτειν as medical words, the one being used of convulsions, the latter of injury to the system (Med. Lang. af LR. Ὁ: 2). 86. ἐγένετο θάμβος. Mk. has ἐθαμβήθησαν ; but Lk. is fond of these periphrases with γίνομαι (1. 65, Vi. 49, Vill. 17, ΧΙ]. 40, ΧΙ]. 2, 4, XVlil. 23, etc.): see on ili. 22. The word expresses amazement akin to terror, and the subst. is peculiar to Lk. (v. 9; Acts iii. 10). Just as Christ’s doctrine amazed them in comparison with the formalism of the scribes, so His authority over demons in compari- son with the attempts of the exorcists: all the more so, because a single word sufficed for Him, whereas the exorcists used incanta- tions, charms, and much superstitious ceremonial (Tob. viii. 1-3 ; Jos. Anz. vill. 2. 5; Justin, Apo. τι. 6; Try. lxxxv.). tis 6 λόγος οὗτος. Not, (κα hoc ret est? ‘What manner a thinge is this?” (Beza, Luth. Tyn. Cran. Grotius), but Quod est hoc verbum? ‘What is this word?” (Vulg. Wic. Rhem. RV.). It is doubtful whether in N.T. Adyos has the meaning of “ event, occurrence, deed”: but comp. i. 4 and Mk. 1. 45. Whether λόγος is here to be confined to the command given to the demon, or - includes the previous teaching (ver. 32), is uncertain. Mk. i. 27 is in favour of the latter. In this case we have an ambiguous ὅτι to deal with; and once more “because” or ‘‘for” is more probable than “that” (see oni. 45). But if “that” be adopted, 6 λόγος has the more limited meaning: “What is this word, that with authority?” GLE: ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει. ἐξουσίᾳ, cud non potest contradict; δυνάμει, cui non potest resisti (Beng.). Mk. has κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν only. The beloved physician is fond of δύναμις, esp. in the sense of “ inherent power of healing” (v. 17, Vi. 19, Vill. 46, ix. 1; Acts ili. 12, iv. 7, vi. 8). ΜΚ. has it only once in this sense (v. 30), and Mt. not at all. The plural in the sense of “ manifestations of power, miracles ” (ΤΊ XIX, 27)» 15 freq, in Mt. and Mk. See on Rom. 1. 16. 837. ἐξεπορεύετο ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ. In these sections attention is often directed to the impression which Jesus made on His audi- 136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE. [IV. 37. ences (v2. 20, 22, 32, 36, v. 26), and to the fame which spread abroad respecting Him (vv. 14, 15, 37; 40, V. 15, 17). Ἤχος (6) occurs only here, Acts ii. 2, and Heb. xi, To." “Insane ἤχους may be gen. of either ἣ ἠχώ or τὸ ἦχος. But the existence of τὸ ἦχος is doubtful. The more classical word is ἢ ἠχή, of which ὁ ἦχος is a later form. Hobart classes it as a medical word, esp. for noises in the ears or the head (p. 64). As already stated, this healing of a demoniac is recorded by Mk., but not by Mt. Ebrard and Holtzmann would have us believe that it is to compensate for this omission that Mt. gives two demoniacs among the Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. have only one. In considering the question of demonzacal possession we must never lose sight of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to depart out of the afflicted persons. Zhe Synoptzc Gospels uniformly state that Jesus went through the form of casting out demons. If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims free, there is nothing to explain: the narrative is in harmony with the facts. If the demons were not there, and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we must choose between three hypotheses. 1. Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him. 2. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out. 3. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His con- temporaries. On the whole subject consult articles in D. 2.7, Schaff-Herzog, Eucy. Brit. on ‘* Demoniacs,” ‘‘ Demons,” ‘‘ Demonology”; Trench, JZvacles, No. 5; Caldwell, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876, vol. xxvii. pp. 369 ff. No explanation is satisfactory which does not account for the uniform and repeated testimony of the Evangelists. 38, 39. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law. Mk. 1. 30. It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship expressed by πενθερά is either ‘wife’s mother” or ‘‘husband’s mother” (xii. 53; Mt. viii. 14, x. 35; Mk. i, 30; Ruthi. 14, ii. 11, 18, 19,23; Mic. vii. 6; Dem. Plut. Lucian). So also πενθερός is either ‘‘ wife’s father” or ‘‘husband’s father” (Jn. xviii. 13; Gen. XXXVili. 25, 38; Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam. iv. 19, 21). But for ‘‘ wife’s father” the more indefinite γαμβρός (‘fa relation by marriage”) is freq. in LXX (Exod. 11. 1, iv. 18; Num. x. 29; Judg. iv. 11, xix. 4, 7, 9). In Greek there is a dis- tinct term for ‘‘ stepmother,” viz. the very common word μητρυιά (Hom. Hes. Hdt. Asch. Plat. Plut.); and if Lk. had intended to designate the second wife of Peter’s father, he would have used this term. That he should have ignored a word in common use which would express his meaning, and employ another word which has quite a different meaning, is incredible. That Peter was married is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 5. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter’s wife helped him in ministering to women,—an apostolic anticipation of Zenana missions (.S¢vomz. 111. 6, p. 536, ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip had children, and that Philip gave his daughters in marriage (7224. p. 535, ed. Potter, quoted Eus. 4. £, iil. 30. 1); but he gives no names. It is remarkable that nothing is known of any children of any one Apostle. This is the first mention of Peter by Lk., who treats him as a person too well known to need introduction, For other miracles of mercy on the sabbath see on xiv. I. IV. 38, 39.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 137 88. ᾿Αναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς. This may refer to Christ’s ᾿ rising from His seat; but it is more natural to understand it of His leaving the synagogue. The verb is used where no sitting or lying is presupposed, and means no more than preparation for departure (i. 39, xv. 18, 20, xxiil. 1; Acts x. 20, xxil. ro): see on i. 39. Mk. has ἐξελθόντες, the plur. including Simon and Andrew, James and John. Neither Lk. nor Mt. mention the presence of disciples, but Peter, and perhaps Andrew, may be understood among those who ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν περὶ αὐτῆς. συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ. Perhaps all three words are medical, and certainly συνέχομαι occurs three times as often in Lk. as in the rest of N.T. Galen states that fevers were distinguished as “oreat” and “slight,” μεγάλοι and σμικροί (Hobart, p. 3). Comp. Plat. Gorg. 512 A. Note the analytical.tense. 89. ἐπιστὰς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς ἐπετίμησεν. Instead of this both Mt. and Mk. state that He touched her hand. Pvroximus accessus ostendebat, virtuti Jesu cedere morbum, neque ullum corport ejus a morbo imminere periculum (Beng.). The ἐπετίμησεν of ver. 35 does not show that the use of the same word here is meant to imply that the fever is regarded as a personal agent. But comp. xiii. 11, 16; Mk. ix. 17, 23. The ἀφῆκεν, which is in all three narratives, harmonizes with either view. In any case this unusual mode of healing would interest and impress a physician; and Lk. alone notices the suddenness with which her strength returned. For παραχρῆμα see ON V. 25. διηκόνει αὐτοῖς. Mk. has αὐτῷ : the αὐτοῖς includes the disciples and others present. Her being able to minister to them proves the completeness of the cure. Recovery from fever is commonly attended by great weakness. And this seems to be fatal to the view of B. Weiss, that Christ’s cures were ‘‘momentary effects produced by His touch, which, although the result was absolutely certain, yet - merely began a healing process that was completed in a perfectly natural way.” What is gained by such an hypothesis ? The Attic form of the imperf. of dcaxovéw is ἐδιᾶκόνουν ; but διηκόνουν is the reading of the MSS. in Eur. (γε. 406 (Veitch, s.v.). Comp. viii. 3; Mt. hs Mis ὙΠ 15; WMS 1 Teh Sve {|| 2; 1 leew 12- 40, 41. Numerous Healings in the Evening. Vows rencontrons tet un de ces moments dans la vie du Seigneur ou la puissance miracu- leuse se adéployait avec une richesse particulicre: vi. 19” (Godet, i. p. 339). Comp. Mt. viii. 16, 17; Mk. i. 32-34. The healing of the demoniac (ver. 35), and of Peter’s mother-in-law, had proved that He could heal diseases both of mind and body. All three note the two kinds of healing; but “‘the physician separates the two with special distinctness, and lends no support to the view that possession is merely a physical disorder.” -. .Ξ.. 138 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE _[IV. 40, 41. 40. Δύνοντος δὲ τοῦ HAtov. Mt. has ᾿Οψίας δὲ γενομένης, while Mk. has ᾿ψίας δὲ γενομένης, ὅτε ἔδυσεν ὃ ἥλιος. We infer that here Mk. gives us the whole expression in the original tradition, of which all three make use; and that Mt. uses one half and Lk. the other half of it. See v. 13, xxii. 34, xxili. 38, for similar cases. Some infer that Mk. has combined the phrases used by the other two, and therefore must have written last of the three. But an analysis of the passages which all three have in common shows that this is incredible. The literary skill required for combining two narra- tives, without adding much new material, would be immense ; and Mk. does not possess it. It is much simpler to suppose that Mk. often gives the original tradition in full, and that the other two each give portions of it, and sometimes different portions. See E. A. Abbott, Zucy. Brit. oth ed. art. “Gospels,” and Abbott and Rushbrooke, Ze Common Tradition of the Syn. Gosp. p. Vi. Auvovtos. “When the sun was setting,” or “ere the sun was set,” as the hymn gives 1.1 The eagerness of the people was such that the very moment the sabbath was over they began to move the sick: comp. Jn. v. το. Note Lk.’s favourite ἅπαντες. ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ αὐτῶν Tas χεῖρας ἐπιτιθείς. Lk. alone preserves this graphic detail, which emphasizes the laborious solicitude of the work. Svc singuli penitius commoti sunt ad fidem (Beng.). It does not apply to the demoniacs, who were healed λόγῳ, as Mt. states. The action is a generally recognized symbol of ¢vansmdsston, especially in conferring a blessing (Gen. xlviii. 14; Lev. ix. 22, 23; Mk. x. 16). It is also used to symbolize the transmission of guilt (Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, vill. 14, xvi. 21, 22). The statement that ‘‘our Lord healed at first by laying on of hands, but gradually passed over to the exclusive use of the word of power, in order that He might not encourage the popular idea that there was a necessary connexion between the laying on of hands and the cure,” is not confirmed by Scripture. The nobleman’s son and the man οἱ Bethesda were healed by a word (Jn. iv. 50, ν. 8); Malchus, by a touch. There was no necessity to use either word or touch. He could heal by an act of will, and at a distance from His person (vii. 10, xvii. 14; Jn. iv. 50). But He more often used means, possibly to aid the faith of those who needed healing (xiii. 13, xiv. 4, Mt. viii. 3, ix. 29; Mk. Vil. + 33, Vill. 23, 25; Jn. ix. 6: comp. Mk. v. 23, 28, 41, vil. 32, vill. 22): The fact that Jesus commonly used some action in healing made the Jews the more irate at His healing on the sabbath. Excepting Acts xvil. 25, θεραπεύω in N.T. is always ‘‘ heal, cure,” not merely ‘‘ serve, take care of. Like colere, it is used of service both to God and to men; and like curvare, it is both ‘‘ to care for” and ‘‘to cure.” The imperfects, ἐθεράπευεν and ἐξήρχετο, mark the con- tinuance and repetition of the actions. 41. ἐξήρχετο δὲ kal δαιμόνια ἀπὸ πολλῶν. “ But demons also” 1 The form δύνω seems to be Ionic, but occurs once or twice in Attic prose (Veitch, s.v.). Except ἔδυσεν or ἔδυ in Mk. i. 32, the word does not occur again in N.T. It is freq. in LXX (Judg. xiv. 18; 2 Sam. ii. 24; 1 Kings xxii. 365 2 Chron. xviii. 34, etc.). It means ‘‘sink into, enter,” πόντον or the like being expressed or understood. Lk. never uses the unclassical ὀψία (ix. 12, xxl. 14, xxiii. 54, xxiv. 29), which occurs often in Mt. and Mk. and twice in Jn. IV. 41, 42.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 139 (as well as diseases) “came out of many.” For δὲ καί see on iil. 9, and for ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπό see on ver. 35: both are characteristic of Lk. He alone mentions the κράζειν of the demons. There is not much difference between 6 vids τοῦ Θεοῦ here and 6 ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 34. In both cases it is the presence of Divine holiness which is felt and proclaimed. Phil. 11. ro is here not to the point ; for καταχθόνια there probably does not mean devils. οὐκ ela αὐτὰ λαλεῖν, ὅτι. “He suffered them not to speak, because.” Not, “suffered them not to say that”; which would require λέγειν. In N.T. λαλεῖν and λέγειν are never confused ; not even) Rom: xv. 18; 2 Cor: xi. 17; 1 Thes.1.8. Excepting Mt. xxiv. 3 and 1 Cor. x. 13, édw is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 55; ΓΟ ΞΕ 39, xiv. 16, xvi.7, XIX. 30, ΣΧΙΠΠ 72, XxVIL. 22, 40, xxvill: 4)'; and εἴων is the usual form of imperf. Godet’s suggestion, that the demons wished to compromise Jesus by exciting a dangerous enthusiasm among the people, or to create a belief that there was a bond of connexion between their work and His, is gratuitous. Their cries are more like involuntary exclamations of dismay. That Jesus should not allow them to make Him known was natural, although Strauss condemns it as incon- sistent. Vec tempus erat, nec hi precones (Beng. on Mk. ili. 12). ‘‘ It was not meet that unclean demons should usurp the glory of the apostolic office ” (Cyril Alex.). Jesus had rejected the offered assistance of the evil one in the wilderness, and could not desire to be proclaimed as the Messiah by His ministers. Moreover, while the national ideas respecting the Messiah remained so erroneous, the time for such proclamation had not yet come. Comp. Jus vie 15. 42, 43. The Multitude’s Pursuit of Him. Comp. Mk. i. 35-39. Although Lk. has some features which Mk. has not, the latter’s account is more like that of an eye-witness. 42. Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας. See on vi. 12. Mk. has the strong expression πρωὶ ἔννυχα λίαν. It was so early that it was still like night. ‘This shows His anxiety to escape the multitude and secure time for refreshment of His spiritual nature by converse with God: Mk. adds κἀκεῖ προσηύχετο. Jesus had probably passed the night in Simon’s house ; and for οἱ ὄχλοι Mk has Σίμων καὶ of per αὐτοῦ, for as yet Jesus had no fixed disciples. Peter in telling Mk. of the incident would say, “ We went after Him.” ot ὄχλοι ἐπεζήτουν αὐτόν. “The multitudes kept seeking for Him.” The ἐπι- marks the direction of the search: comp. ἐπέδοθη (ver. 17). They wanted more of His teaching and of His miraculous cures. See on xi. 29. But neither this nor the πολλῶν in ver. 41 proves that there had not been time to heal all who came the previous evening. Would He have sent any empty away? Lk. is fond of recording the eagerness of the people to come to Christ (v. 1, 19, Vi. 19, Vill. 19, 40, ΧΙ]. I, xxi. 38: comp. xix. 3 and xxiil. 8). ἦλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ, kal κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, 140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE _ [IV. 42, 48. They did not leave off seeking wnziZ they reached Him, and they tried to stay Him from going away from them. This use of ἕως with a person is not classical: comp. ἕως ἡμῶν (Acts ix. 33) and ἕως τοῦ βασιλέως (1 Mac. 111. 26). Of place (iv. 29, x. 15) or of time (xxiii. 44) ἕως is common enough. With κατεῖχον (imperf. of attempted or intended action) comp. ἐκάλουν (i. 59). The τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι is not Lk.’s favourite construction to express purposes or result (see on i. 74), but the gen. after a verb of detention or prevention: comp. Rom. xv. 22. For the apparently superfluous negative comp. xx. 27, xxlv. 16; Acts x. 47, xiv. 18, xx. 27. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409; Ixv. 2. B, Pe 755. 48. Καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν. Placed first for emphasis. “To the other cities also (as well as to Capernaum) I must preach the good tidings.” It is a rebuke to them for wishing to monopolize Him. It is not a rebuke for interrupting His preaching by requiring Him to work miracles. ‘There is no evidence that He ever regarded these works of mercy as an interruption of His ministry, or as an unworthy lowering of it. On the contrary, they were an essential part of it; not as evidence of His Messiahship, but as the natural work of the great Healer of body and soul. They were, moreover, an important element in His teaching, for His miracles were parables. As evidence they did not prove His Messiahship, and He did not greatly value the faith which was produced by them (Jn. 11. 23, 24). He Himself regarded them as merely auxiliary (Jn. xiv. 11). He warned His disciples that false Christs and false prophets would work miracles (Mk. xiii. 22), just as the O.T. had warned the Jews that a Prophet was not to be believed simply because he worked miracles (Deut. xiii. 1-3). And, as a matter of fact, Christ’s miracles did not convince the Jews (Jn. ΧΙ]. 37): Some thought that He was a Prophet (vil. 16, 1χ- 8: τὸν Mt. xxi. 11; Jn. ix. 17), a view taken even by His disciples after the crucifixion (xxiv. 19); while others attributed His miracles to Satanic agency (Mt. xii. 24). On the other hand, the Baptist, although he wrought no miracles, was thought to be the Messiah (see on iii. 15). The saying here recorded does not mean, there- fore, “ You are mistaking My work. I came to preach the good tidings, not to do works of healing”: but, “ You are selfish in your desires. I came to preach the good tidings and to do works of healing to all, and not to a favoured few.” For εὐαγγελίσασθαι see on il. Io. δεῖ. For the second time (ii. 49) Christ uses this word respect- | j ing His own conduct. Comp. ix. 22, xiii. 33, xvil. 25, xix. 5, | xxii. 37, xxiv. 26, 44, 46. His work and His sufferings are ordered by Divine decree. The word is thus used of Christ throughout | NT. (Acts iii..21, xvii. 3; 1_Cor. xv. 25). τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is Lk.’s first use of this frequent IV. 483.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 141 expression (vi. 20, vii. 28, vili. 1, 10, etc.), which Jn. employs twice (iii. 3, 5), Mt. thrice (xii. 28, xxi. 31, 43), and Mk. often. For its import see Ewald, ist. of Israel, vi, Eng. tr. pp. 201-210; Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Kingdom of God”; Edersh. Z. & 7. i. pp. 265-270. The ἐπὶ τοῦτο refers to the whole of what precedes : “For this end,” viz. “to preach the good tidings everywhere in the land.” For this use of ἐπί comp. xxiil. 48 and Mt. xxvi. 50. It is quite classical (Xen. Anad. 11. 5. 22, vil. 8. 4). For ἀπεστάλην see on ver. 18. The evidence for it (§ BC DLX) as against ἀπέσταλμαι (A QR) is overwhelming. Yet Godet says on peut hésiter. It refers to the mission from the Father, as does the ἐξῆλθον of Mk. But it is possible to give the latter the inadequate interpretation of leaving the house at Capernaum. 44. Kal ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας. This statement forms a conclusion to the section (14-44); and the analytical tense indicates that what is stated continued for some time. Both Lk. and Mk. have els τὰς cuvaywyds, which in both cases has been altered into the easier ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς. The εἰς may be explained asa pregn. constr., ‘‘ He went into the synagogues and preached there” or as ex- pressing the motion or direction of the preaching (Mk. iv. 15; Jn. viii. 26). Comp. és τὸν δῆμον ταῦτα λέγωσιν (Thuc. v. 45. 1). It seems probable that the reading ᾿Ιουδαίας (§ BC LQR) is the original one, which has been corrected to Ταλιλαίας (A Ὁ Χ Γ ΔΛ ΠῚ on account of its difficulty. But, as in 1. 5 and vii. 17, Judzea may here mean the whole country of the Jews, Palestine. Lk. often uses Iovdala in this sense (xxiii. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xl. I, 29, xxvi. 20; comp. Gal. i. 22). Classic writers use the term in much the ean manner. Strabo means by it all the region from Lebanon south- wards. : V. 1-VI. 11. From the Call of the first Disciples to the Nomina- tion of the Twelve. This section presents a symmetrical arrangement, which possibly is intentional. The call of a leading disciple (1-11) is followed by two healings which provoke controversy (12-16, 17-26) ; and then the call of another leading disciple (27-39) is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, which again provoke controversy (vi. 1-5, 6-11). V. 1-11. The call of Simon. In Mt. iv. 18-22 and Mk. i. 16-20 the narrative is the call of Simon and Andrew, and of James and John. Here Andrew is not mentioned. And although all obey the call (ver. tr), yet Simon alone is addressed (vv. 4, 10). But 142 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE Ae ΠῈΣ the identity of this incident with that narrated by Mt. and Mk. can neither be affirmed nor denied with certainty. In Mt. and Mk. the disciples are fishing; here they are washing their nets before putting them away. ‘The important point is that in all narratives those called are at work. Similarly, Levi is called from his busi- ness. It would seem as if none of the Twelve were called when idle. 1. *Eyéveto δέ. See detached note at the end of ch. 1. For τὸν ὄχλον see On xi. 29 ; for ἐν τῷ τὸν ὄχλον ἐπικεῖσθαι see On ill. 21 ; for τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ see On Vill. 11; for καί introducing the apodosis see on li. 21; and for καὶ αὐτός see on ver. 14. All these points, with the analytical ἣν ἑστώς (1. 7, 10, 20, 21, etc.), are characteristic of Lk. Not often do we find so many marks of his style in so small a compass. Comp. viil. 22, 37, 40, 41. For the popular desire to behold Christ see on iv. 42. With ἐπικεῖσθαι comp. xxil. 23> Acts xxvii. 20; 1 Cor. ix, 16; Heb. ix. 10; Jos: Aviva It is used in a literal sense Jn. xi. 38, xxi. 9. Here it is mainly figurative, but it includes the notion of physical pressure. The αὐτός distinguishes Jesus from the 6xAos: comp. iv. 15, 30. παρὰ τὴν λίμνην Γεννησαρέτ. With characteristic accuracy Lk. never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake. Except in Rev. of the “lake of fire,” λίμνη in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. When he uses θάλασσα, he means sea in the ordinary sense (xvii. 2/0, xx, 25. Acts ive 24,,6tC)). In AV. of 1611 both here and Mk. vi. 53 the name appears as ‘‘ Genesareth,” following the spelling of the Vulgate ; but in Mt. xiv. 34 as ‘‘ Genesaret.” The printers have corrected this to ‘*Gennesaret” in all three places. Τεννησαρέτ is the orthography of the best MSS. in all three places. Josephus writes both λίμνη Τεννησαρῖτις (Ant. xviii. 2. 1) and λίμνη Tevynodp (δ. 7. ili. το. 7). 1 Mac. xi. 67 we have τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Tevynodp. But in O.T. the lake is called Θάλασσα Xevéped (Num. xxxiv. 11?; Josh. xii. 3) from a town of that name near to it (Josh. xix. 35). Josephus contrasts its fertility with the barrenness of the lower lake in the Jordan valley (2. /. iv. 8. 2): the one is the ‘‘Sea of Life,” the other the ‘‘Sea of Death.” See Stanley’s fine description of ‘‘ the most sacred sheet of water that this earth contains” (Sz. & Pal. pp. 368-378) ; Farrar, Lzfe of Christ, i. pp. 175-182; Conder, D.&.? art. ‘‘ Gennesaret.” For παρά c. acc. after a verb of rest comp. xvili. 35; Acts x. 6, 32; Heb. xi. 12: Xen. Avaé. 111. 5. 1, vii. 2. 11. 4 With ἣν ἑστώς (which is the apodosis of ἐγένετο), καὶ εἶδεν is to be joined : “ΤΕ came to pass that He was standing, and He saw.” It is very clumsy to make καὶ αὐτὸς ἣν ἑστώς parenthetical, and take καὶ εἶδεν as the apodosis of ἐγένετο. 2. οἱ δὲ ἁλιεῖς. “ But the sea-folk” (ἅλς) or “fishermen.” It is one of many Homeric words which seem to have gone out of use and then to have reappeared in late Greek. Fishing in the lake has now almost ceased. The Arabs dislike the water. The washing of the nets was preparatory to hanging them up to dry. As distinct from νίπτω, which is used of washing part of the human V. 2-6.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 143 body, and Aovw, which is used of washing the whole of it, πλύνω is used of washing inanimate objects (Rev. vil. 14, xxii. 14; Gen. xlix. 11; Exod. xix. 10). In Lev. xv. 11 all three words are used with exactly this difference of meaning. ‘Trench, Syz. xlv. τὰ δίκτυα. The most general term for nets of all kinds, of which ἀμφίβληστρον (Mt. iv. 18) and σαγήνη (Mt. xiii. 47) are special varieties. Trench, Syz. lxiv.; D.B. art. “ Net.” 8. ἐπαναγαγεῖν. The correct word for “putting off to sea” (2 Mac. xii. 4?; Xen. edlen. vi. 2. 28): elsewhere in N.T. only Mt. xxi. 18 in the sense of “return.” For the double preposition comp. ἐπανέρχομαι (x. 35, Xix. 15) and ἐπαναπαύω (x. 6). Christ uses Peter’s boat as a pulpit, whence to throw the net of the Gospel over His hearers. We have a similar scene Mk. iv. 1, and in both cases He sits to teach, as in the synagogue at Nazareth. Peter was probably steering, and therefore both before and after the sermon he is addressed as to the placing of the boat. But the letting down of the nets required more than one person, and hence the change to the plural (χαλάσατε). Von statim promittit Dominus capturam: explorat prius obsequia Simonis (Beng.). 5. ᾿Επιστάτα. Lk. alone uses ἐπιστάτης (vill. 24, 45, 1X. 33, 49, xvii. 13), and always in addresses to Christ. He never uses Ῥαββεί, which is common in the other Gospels, esp. in Jn., but would not be so intelligible to Gentiles. The two words are not synonymous, ἐπιστάτης implying authority of any kind, and not merely that of a teacher. Here it is used of one who has a right to give orders. δι᾿ ὅλης νυκτὸς KoTUdcavtes. Through the whole of the best time for fishing they had toiled fruitlessly. Only in bibl. Grk. has κοπιάω the meaning of “ work with much effort, toil wearisomely ” (ibe 7; Acts xx. 95; Mt. vig23; Josh. xxiv. 13, etc.). The original meaning is “become exhausted, grow weary” (Jn. iv. 6). ~ Clem. Alex. quotes a letter of Epicurus, Μήτε νέος τις ὧν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν, μήτε γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν (Strom. iv. 8, Ῥ- 594, ed. Potter). ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ ῥήματί σου xahdow τὰ δίκτυα. ‘But relying upon Thy word I will have the nets let down.” The “nevertheless” of AV. Cran. and Gen. is too strong: for that we should have πλήν (vi. 24, 35, etc.). For this use cf ἐπί, “on the strength of,” comp. 1 20; Acts iv. 21. Win. xlviil. d, Ὁ. 491. The χαλάσατε and ποιήσαντες Show that the χαλάσω includes the employment of others. Excepting Mk. ii. 4 and 2 Cor. xi. 33, χαλάω is peculiar to Lk. (vv. 4, 5; Acts ix. 25, xxvii. 17, 30). With the faith involved in χαλάσω τὰ δίκτυα We may compare κέλευσόν με ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐπὶ τὰ ὕδατα (Mt. xiv. 28). 6. συνέκλεισαν πλῆθος ἰχθύων πολύ. Not a miracle of creation, but at least of knowledge, even if Christ’s will did not bring the 144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 6-8, fish to the spot. In no miracle before the Resurrection does Jesus create ; and we have no sufficient reason for believing that the food provided at the second miraculous draught of fishes was created (Jn. xxi. 9-13). There is no exaggeration, as De Wette thinks, in διερρήσετο or in βυθίζεσθαι (ver. 7). The nets “were breaking,” 2.6. beginning to break, when the help from the other boat prevented further mischief, and then both boats were over- loaded. On the masses of fish to be seen in the lake see Tristram, Nat. Fist. of the Bible, Ὁ. 285, and D.B.? Ὁ. 1074: “The density of the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can scarcely be con- ceived by those who have not witnessed them. They sometimes cover an acre or more on the surface in one dense mass.” The form ῥήσσω occurs in poetry (Hom. 71. xviii. 571, xxiv. 454) and late prose (Strab. xi. 14. 8). It is a collat. form of ῥήγνυμι (Veitch, s.v., and Curtius, Ztym. 511, 661): but see on ix. 42. 7. κατένευσαν τοῖς μετόχοις. Possibly because they were too far off for a call to be heard. ‘The other boat was still close to the shore (ver. 2), for Simon alone had been told to put out into deep water. ‘The verb is freq. in Hom., and occurs in Hdt. and Plato, generally in the sense of “nod assent, grant.” Here only in N.T. EKuthymius suggests that they were too agitated to call. Here and Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 8) we have μέτοχος as a subst. Comp. Heb. iii. I, 14, vi. 4, xii. 8: and see T. S. Evans on 1 Cor. x. 16—18 in Speaker's Com. ‘* As distinguished from κοινωνός (ver. 10; Heb. x. 33), which suggests the idea of personal fellowship, μέτοχος describes participation in some common blessing or privilege, or the like. The bond of union lies in that which is shared and not in the persons themselves” (Wsctt. on Heb. iii. 1). For συλλαβέσθαι in the sense of “assist” comp. Phil. iv. 3. In class. Grk. the act. is more common in this sense. For ἦλθαν see on i. 59. ἔπλησαν ἀμφότερα τὰ πλοῖα ὥστε βυθίζεσθαι αὐτά. For ἔπλησαν see On 1. 15; ἀμφότεροι is another favourite word (i. 6,07; Vinig9; vil. 42; Acts vill. 38, x. 16, xxiii. 8); not in Mk. or Jn. ‘They filled both the boats, so that they Jegan to sink” : comp. διερρήσετο. The act. is used 2 Mac. xii. 4 of the sinking of persons ; by Poly- bius (ii. το. 5) of the sinking of ships ; and 1 Tim. vi. 9 of sending down to perdition. Nowhere else in N.T. 8. Σίμων Πέτρος προσέπεσεν τοῖς γόνασιν ᾿Ιησοῦ. This is the only place in his Gospel in which Lk. gives Peter both names, and it is the first mention of the surname: see on vi. 14. The constr. προσπίπτειν τοῖς yor. is quite classical (Eur. Ov. 1332 ; comp. Mk. vii. 25 ; Soph. O. C. 1606) ; often with dat. of pers. (vili. 28, 47 ; Acts Xvi. 20 5) ΜΚ. ΠΡ ΤΥ sve 33) Ἔξελθε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Not “Leave my boat,” which is too definite, but, “Go out of my vicinity, Depart from me.” See on iv. 35. V. 8-10.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 145 It is quite erroneous to introduce here the notion that sailors believe it to be unlucky to have a criminal on board (Cic. De /Vat. Deor. ii. 37. 89 ; Hor. Carm. iti. 2. 26). In that case Peter, like Jonah, would have asked to be thrown into the sea. That the Twelve, before their call, were exceptionally wicked, ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους (Barn. v. 9), is unscriptural and incredible. But Origin seems to accept it (Con. Ce/s. 1. 63; comp. Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii. 2). See Schanz, ad loc. p. 198. Peter does not regard himself as a criminal, but as a sinful man ; and this miracle has brought home to him a new sense, both of his own sinfulness and of Christ’s holiness. 1{ is not that he fears that Christ’s holiness is dangerous to a sinner (B. Weiss), but that the contrast between the two is felt to be so intense as to be intolerable. The presence of the sinless One is a reproach and a con- demnation, rather than a peril ; and therefore such cases as those of Gideon and Manoah (Judg. vi. 22, xiii. 22), cited by Grotius and De Wette, are not quite parallel. Job (xl. 5, 6) is a better illustration; and Beng. compares the centurion (Mt. viii. 8). The objection that Peter had witnessed the healing of his wife’s mother and other miracles, and therefore couid not be so awestruck by this miracle, is baseless. It frequently happens that one experience touches the heart, after many that were similar to it have failed to do so. Perhaps, without being felt, they prepare the way. Moreover, this was a miracle in Peter’s own craft, and therefore was likely to make a special impression on him ; just as the healing of a disease, known to the profession as incurable, would specially impress a physician. Κύριε. ‘The change from ἐπιστάτα (see on ver. 5) is remarkable, and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. [ is the “ Master” whose orders must be obeyed, the ‘ Lord” whose holi- ness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan. x. 16). Grotius, followed by Trench, points out that the dominion over all nature, including “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas” (Ps. vill. 8), lost by Adam, is restored in Christ, the ideal man and the second Adam. But that Peter recognized this is more than we know. In what follows notice the characteristic πάντας and σύν. 9. ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων. This was the daszs of their amaze- ment: see small print on 11. 33, and comp. Acts xiv. 3 and Rom. v. 14. There is no need to make ἄγρα act. in ver. 4, ‘‘a catching,” and pass. here, “the thing caught.” ‘For a catch” in ver. 4; “at the catch of fish” here. If ὧν συνέλαβον (BD X, Goth.) is the true reading, both may be act. But if 4 συνέλαβον is right, then in both places ἄγρα is pass. In either case we have the idiomatic attraction of the relative which is so freq. in Lk. See small print on ili. 19. The word is common in poetry both act. and pass. Not in LXX, nor elsewhere in N.T. Note the change of meaning from συλλαβέσθαι in ver. 7 to συνέλαβον. The verb is freq. in Lk., but elsewhere rare in N.T. 10. ᾿Ιάκωβον καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην. The first mention of them by Lk, IQ 146 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [V.10, 11. In Mt. and Mk. they were in their boat, mending their nets, when Jesus called them; and Mt. adds that Zebedee was with them, which Mk. implies (i. 20). For κοινωνοί see on ver. 7. Are they the same as the péroxou? It is possible that Peter had his κοινωνοί in his boat, while the μέτοχοι were in the other boat. In any case the difference of word should be preserved in translation. This Tyn. Cran. and Gen. effect, with “fellows” for μέτοχοι and “partners” for κοινωνοί But Vulg. and Beza have soci for both; and RV. follows AV. with “partners” for both. εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Σίμωνα ᾿Ιησοῦς. It is still Peter who is singled out for notice. Yet some critics affirm that it is the tendency of this Evangelist to depreciate Peter. For μὴ φοβοῦ see on i. 13: excepting Mk. v. 36 and Rev. 1. 17, Lk. alone uses the expres- sion without an accusative. Peter’s sense of unworthiness was in itself a reason for courage. Quo magis sibi displicebat hoc magis Domino placet (Grotius). ἀπὸ τοῦ viv. The present moment is a crisis in his life, of which he was reminded at the second miraculous draught of fishes, when the commission given to him now was restored to him after his fall. Excepting 2 Cor. v. 16 and [Jn. viii. 11], ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν is peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, xii. 52, xxii. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). Comp. ἕως Tod νῦν (Mt. xxiv. 21; Mk. ΧΙ]. 19) and ἄχρι τοῦ viv (Rom. vill. 22; Phil: i. 5). ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ Lwypav. Both substantive and verb have special point (sex instead of fish ; for /zfe instead of for death) ; while the analytical tense marks the permanence of the new pursuit: comp. i. 20. This last is preserved in Rhem. “shalt be taking,” follow- ing Vulg. ev?s capiens. Beza seems to be alone in giving the full force of Cwypav (ζωός and ἀγρεῖν) : vivos capies homines. But to add “alive” in English deprives “‘men” of the necessary emphasis.? The verb is used of sparing the lives of those taken in battle: ζώγρει, ᾿Ατρέος υἱέ, σὺ δ᾽ ἀξια δέξαι ἄποινα (Hom. 74. vi. 46). Else- where in N.T only 2 Tim. ii. 26, of the evil one. Comp. the exhortation of Socrates to Critobulus: ᾿Αλλὰ θαρρῶν πειρῶ ἀγαθὸς γίγνεσθαι, καὶ τοιοῦτος γιγνόμενος θηρᾶν ἐπιχείρει τοὺς καλούς τε κἀγαθούς (Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 28). 11. καταγαγόντες τὰ πλοῖα. Like ἐπαναγαγεῖν in ver. 3, this is a nautical expression ; freq. in Acts (ix. 30, XXll. 30, xxlil. 15, 20, etc.). Comp. ἀνάγειν, viii. 22. ἀφέντες πάντα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷς Even the large draught of fishes does not detain them. They are sure that He who has given them such marvellous returns from their usual business will be ready to provide for them when, at His summons, they abandon 1Cod. Brix. has homznum eritis captores, including James and John, although mold timere precedes. D has ποιήσω yap ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων (from Mt. and Mk.) after the insertion μὴ γίνεσθε ἁλιεῖς ἰχθύων. 8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 147 their business. The call was addressed to Peter (ver. 10), but the sons of Zebedee recognize that it concerns them also; and they leave and follow. In this late Greek ἀφίημι is preferred to λείπω and its compounds, and ἀκολουθέω to ἕπομαι (which does not occur in N.T.) and its compounds. The fact that other disciples besides Peter obeyed the call and followed Jesus, is the main reason for identifying this narrative with Mk. i. 16-20 and Mt. iv. 18-22. All three have the important word ἀφέντες, and Mt. and Lk. have ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, for which Mk. has ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσου αὐτοῦ. But note that Lk. alone has his favourite πάντα after ἀφέντες (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, ix. 43, Xl. 4, xii. 10). Against these similarities, however, we have to set the differences, chief among which is the miraculous draught of fishes, which Mt. and Mk. omit. Could Peter have failed to include this in his narrative? And would Mk. have omitted it, if the Petrine tradition had contained it? It is easier to believe that some of the disciples were called more than once, and that their abandonment of their original mode of life was gradual: so that Mk. and Mt. may relate one occasion and Lk. another. Even after the Resurrection Peter speaks quite naturally of ‘‘ going a fishing” (Jn. xxi. 3), as if it was still at least an occasional pursuit. But we must be content to remain in doubt as to the relation of this narrative to that of Mk. and Mt. See Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. iii. 4, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 54-59. This uncertainty, however, need not be extended to the relation of this miracle to that recorded in Jn. xxi. 1-14. It cannot be accepted as probable that, in the source from which Lk. drew, ‘‘ the narrative of the call of Peter has been confused with that of his reinstatement in the office which had been entrusted to him, and so the history of the miraculous draught of fishes which is connected with the one has been united with the other.” The contrast between all the main features of the two miracles is too great to be explained by confused recollection. 1. There Jesus is not recognized at first; here He is known directly He approaches. 2. There He is on the shore; here He is in Peter’s boat. 3. There Peter and John are together ; here they seem to be in different boats. 4. There Peter leaves the capture of the fish to others ; here he is chief actor in it. 5. There the net is not broken; here it is. 6. There the fish are caught close to the shore and brought to the shore; here they are caught in deep water and are taken into the boats. 7. There Peter rushes through the water to the Lord whom he had lately denied ; here, though he had committed no such sin, he says, ‘‘ Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” There is nothing improbable in two miracles of a similar kind, one granted to emphasize and illustrate the call, the other the re-call, of the chief Apostle. The way in which the Fathers allegorize the two miracles is well known, the first of the Church Militant, the second of the Church Triumphant. R. A. Lipsius would have it that the first is an allegory of quite another kind, the main point of which is the μέτοχοι in the other boat. He assumes that James and John are in Peter’s boat, and explains thus. That Christ first teaches and then suddenly speaks of fishing, tells us that the fishing is symbolical. The fishing in deep water is the mission to the heathen, which Peter at first is unwilling (Ὁ) to undertake (comp. Acts x. 14). The marvellous draught after the night of fruitless toil is the conversion of many heathen after the failure of the mission to the Jews. This work is so great that Peter with the two other Apostles of the Jews are unequal to it, and have to call Paul, Barnabas, and others to help them. Peter then recognizes his former unwillingness (?) as a sin, and both he and the sons of Zebedee are amazed at the success of the mission to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9). Thus the rejection of Jesus by the people of Nazareth (iv. 29, 30), and His preaching ‘‘ to the other cities also” (iv. 43), teach the same lesson as the miraculous draught ; viz. the failure of the mission 148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5.ὄ LUKE [V. Hl, 12. to the Jews and the success of the mission to the heathen (Jahrb. fiir prot. Theol. 1875, i. p. 189). The whole is exceedingly forced, and an examination of the details shows that they do not fit. If the common view is correct, that James and John were the μέτοχοι in the other boat, the whole structure falls to the ground. Had Lk. intended to convey the meaning read into the narrative by Lipsius, he would not have left the point on which the whole is based so open to misconception. Keim on the whole agrees with Lipsius, and dog- matically asserts that ‘‘the artificial narrative of Lk. must unhesitatingly be abandoned . . . It is full of subtle and ingenious invention . . . Its historical character collapses under the weight of so much that is artificial ” (Jes. of Naz. iii. pp- 264, 265). Holtzmann also pronounces it to be ‘‘ legendary and consciously allegorical” (27 /oco). Does Peter’s apparently inconsistent conduct, beseeching Jesus to depart and yet abiding at His feet, look like invention ? 12-16. The Healing of a Leper. Here we certainly have an incident which is recorded by all three Evangelists. The amount of verbal agreement is very great, and we may confidently affirm that all three make use of common material. Mt. (viii. 1-4) is the most brief, Mk. (i. 40-45) the most full; but Mt. is the only one who gives any note of time. He places the miracle just after Jesus had come down from delivering the Sermon on the Mount. On the subject of Leprosy see H. V. Carter, Leprosy and Llephantiasis, 1874; Tilbury Fox, Skim Diseases, 1877 ; Kaposi, Flautkrankheiten, Wien, 1880 ; and the literature given at the end of art. Aussazz in Herzog ; also in Hirsch, Handb. d. Pathologie, 1860. 12. Καὶ ἰδού. Hebraistic; in Mt. vii. 2, but not in Mk. 1. 4o: the καί is the apodosis to ἐγένετο, as in ver. 1. No verb follows the idov, as if the presence of the leper were a surprise. Had the man disregarded the law in approaching the crowd? Or had the people come upon him suddenly, before he could avoid them? What follows shows a third possibility. πλήρης λέπρας. ‘This particular is given only by the beloved physician. His face and hands would be covered with ulcers and sores, so that everyone could see that the hideous disease was at a very advanced stage. This perhaps accounts for the man’s venturing into the multitude, and for their not fleeing at his approach ; for by a strange provision of the law, “if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague, from his head even to his feet, . . . then the priest . . . shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague” (Lev. xiii. r2, 13). ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ. Excepting Mt. ix. 38, the verb is peculiar in N.T. to Lk. and Paul. It is especially freq. in Lk. (vii. 28, 38, ix. 38, 40, x. 2, etc.). In LXX it represents a variety of Hebrew words, and is very common. Here Mk. has παρακαλῶν. ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί pe καθαρίσαι. All three accounts have these words, and the reply to them, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι, without variation. The δύνασαι is evidence of strong faith in the Divine power of Jesus ; for leprosy was believed to be incurable by human means. We 12-14. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 149 It was “the stroke” of God, and could not be removed by the hand of man. But it is characteristic of the man’s imperfect apprehension of Christ’s character, that he has more trust in His power than in His goodness. He doubts the will to heal. He says καθαρίσαι rather than θεραπεῦσαι or ἰάσασθαι because of the pollution which leprosy involved (Lev. xiil. 45, 46). In O.T. “unclean” and “clean,” not “sick” and “healed,” are the terms used about the leper. The old rationalistic explanation, that καθαρίσαι means “to pronounce clean,” and that the man was already cured, but wanted the great Rabbi of Nazareth to absolve him from the expensive and troublesome journey, to Jerusalem, contradicts the plain statements of the Gospels. He was “full of leprosy” (Lk.); “immediately the leprosy departed from him” (Mk. Lk.). If καθαρίσαι means “to pronounce clean,” then καθαρίσθητι means ‘be thou pronounced clean.” Yet Jesus sends him to the priest (Lk. Mk. Mt.). Contrast the commands of Christ with the prayers of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, when they healed. 13. ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα. All three have this Hebraistic ampli- fication. In LXX the phrase commonly occurs in connexion with an act of punishment: Ex. vil. δ, 19, Vill. I, 2, 1x. 22, 23, Reet 2; 22: ΧΙ EO, 21. 20; 27; Ezek. vil 14, “xiv. Ὁ; xvi_27, ervey, £3, Τῷ Υχχν 2; Zephy τ ΠΕ; ΕΠ Υἱ 12. ave 6: In N.T. it rarely has this meaning. Jesus touched the leper on the same principle as that on which He healed on the sabbath: the ceremonial law gives place to the law of charity when the two come into collision. His touch aided the leper’s faith. ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν dw αὐτοῦ. Here again (see on iv. 40) Mk. has the whole expression, of which Lk. and Mt. each use a part. Mk. has ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη, and Mt. has ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἣ λέπρα. ΑἹ] three have εὐθέως or εὐθύς, showing that Jesus not merely prepared the way for a cure which nature accomplished, but healed the leper at once by His touch. 14. καὶ αὐτός. Lk.’s favourite form of connexion in narrative: ΤΠ ΠΡ Τὴ 22. 29. ΠῚ 23, ἵν 05, νἱ «20; ete παρήγγειλεν. The word is specially used of commanders, whose orders are passed along the line (παρά), and is freq. in Lk. {1 20. 50, 1x. 21; Actsrisd, iv. 18, Υ 28, 40, x. 42, ete.)* rare in Mt. (x. 5, xv. 35) and Mk. (vi. 8, viii. 6); not in Jn. All the others use ἐντέλλεσθαι, and Mt. κελεύειν, both of which are rare in Lk. Here Mt. and Mk. have λέγει. μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν. The charge was given with emphasis (ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς) and sternness (ἐμβριμησάμενος), as Mk. tells us. ‘The meaning of it is variously explained. To prevent (1) the man from having intercourse with others before being pronounced clean by proper authority; (2) the man from becoming proud 15ῸὋῸ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [V. 14, through frequent telling of the amazing benefit bestowed upon — him ; (3) the /rzests from hearing of the miracle before the man arrived, and then deciding, out of hostility to Jesus, to deny the cure; (4) the feople from becoming unhealthily excited about so great a miracle. Chrysostom and Euthymius suggest (5) that Christ was setting an example of humility, διδάσκων τὸ ἀκόμπαστον καὶ ἀφιλότιμον, in forbidding the leper to proclaim His good deeds. Least probable of all is the supposition (6) that “our Lord desired to avoid the Levitical rites for uncleanness which the unspiritual ceremonialism of the Pharisees might have tried to force upon Him” for having touched the leper. ‘The first of these was prob- ably the chief reason; but one or more of the others may be true also. The man would be likely to think that one who had been so miraculously cured was not bound by ordinary rules ; and if he mixed freely with others before he was declared by competent authority to be clean, he would give a handle to Christ’s enemies, who accused Him of breaking the law. In the Sermon on the Mount He had said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets” (Mt. v. 17); which implies that this had been said of Him. ‘The command μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς is further evidence that Jesus did not regard miracles as His chief credentials. And there are many such commands (vill. 56; Mt. ix. 30, xii. τό; Mk. 1. 34, ill. 12, V. 43, Vil. 36, vill. 26). ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ ἱερεῖ. Sudden changes to the ογαζζο directa are common after παραγγέλλω and similar verbs (Acts i. 4, xxill. 22 ; Mk. vi. 8, 9; comp. Acts xvii. 3; Tobit viii. 21; Xen. Azad. i. 3. 16, 20). Win. Ixiii. 2, p. 725. τῷ ἱερεῖ. As in the original (Lev. xiii. 49), the sing. refers to the priest who was on duty at the time. Note the καθώς, “ exactly as”: the reference is to Lev. xiv. 4-10, which enjoins rather ex- pensive offerings. Comp. Mt. 1. 24. For the form Μωυσῆς see on 11. 22. This charge is in all three narratives almost in the same words. On its import see Hort, /udazstic Christianity, Ὁ. 30. καθαρισμοῦ. Lmundatio (Vulg.), mundatio (fq) purgatio (a), purificatio (a). εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. This addition is in all three, and various explanations have been suggested. That (1) the priests may be convinced of My Divine power ; (2) the priests may see that I do not disregard the Law; (3) the people may be convinced that the cure is complete, and that the leper may be readmitted to society ; (4) the people may see that I do not disregard the Law. It is the sacrifice which is the μαρτύριον, and therefore the second or fourth explanation is to be preferred. Both may be nght.? 1“see on xe ἐθεάσατο τελώνην. ‘Looked attentively at, contemplated, a tax-collector,” as if reading his character. The verb often implies Vv. 27-29. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 159 enjoyment in beholding (vil. 24; Jn. i. 14, 32, 38; 1 Jn.i.1). For the τελῶναι see on iii. 12. The Talmud distinguishes two classes of τελῶναι: the Gadbdai or tax-gatherer (e.g. of income-tax or poll- tax), and the JJokhes or custom-house officer. The latter was specially hated, as having greater opportunities for vexatious exactions, especially from the poor. Levi was one of the latter. The great commercial route from Acre to Damascus, which con- tinued until the crusades as the wz@ maris, passed the lake at or near Capernaum, and gave employment to excisemen (Is. ix. 1). ὀνόματι Λευείν. Mk. has Λευεὶν τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου, and Mt. has Μαθθαῖον. The fondness of Lk. for ὀνόματι in introducing ἃ name is here conspicuous. Mt. has λεγόμενον, and Mk. has neither. Comp. i. 5, xX. 38, Xvi. 20, xxiii. 50, and over twenty times in the Acts. Mt. and Mk. have ὀνόματι once each. Jn. says ὄνομα αὐτῷ (i. 6, 111. 1, xvill. 10). καθήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον. Excepting in the parallel passages, τελώνιον does not occur in N.T. Nor is it common elsewhere. In Strabo, xvi. 1. 27, it seems to mean “customs, taxes,” and some would render ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον, ‘to receive the customs.” But it is more probable that it means the place where dues were collected, “the tol bothe” (Wic.) or “the custom-house” (Rhem.). Comp. the similarly formed δεκατώνιον, “the office of a collector of tenths.” Very likely Levi was sitting outside the fortiforium. He must have been visible from the outside: the ἐπί is “at,” not “in.” 28. καταλιπὼν πάντας, Lk alone mentions this.!_ Note the characteristic πάντα, and comp. ver. τι. The fact illustrates the doctrine, to which Lk. often bears witness, that riches are a peril and an impediment, and that the kingdom of God is specially preached to the poor. The statement is against the supposition (D.B. ii. p. 969) that Mt. returned to his business afterwards ; and it is quite gratuitous to suppose that the statement is a mere "reminiscence of ver. 11. In that case why has ἀφιέναι been changed to καταλείπειν ὃ There is a slight awkwardness in καταλιπών preceding ἀναστάς : the rising was the first act in the leaving all and in the following Christ. Both Mt. and Lk. represent the following as habitual, ἠκολούθει. Mk. regards the single act on this occasion, ἠκολούθησεν. With the call, ᾿Ακολούθει μοι, comp. Jn. i. 44, and with the result comp. ver. 11 and Mt. iv. 19, 22. The two combined lead one to the view that this is a call to become an Apostle. 29. ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην. “Made a great reception” (δέχομαι) or banquet. The word is peculiar to Lk., who has δοχὴν ποιεῖν again xiv. 13. The phrase occurs in LXX (Gen. xxi. 8, xxvi. 30; Esth. 1. 3, v. 4, 8). Of course ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ 1 Ce seul mot σέ. La parole qui venart de guérir le lépreux, de rendre au paralysé le mouvement et de remettre les péchés, transforma soudainement un publicain en disciple (Didon, 7. C. ch. iii. p. 340). 160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. LUKE [V. 29 81. means in Levi’s house, which is not included in καταλιπὼν πάντα. He was not at his house when he left all. The πάντα refers to his whole mode of life, his business as a τελώνης. It is strange that any one should understand the words either here or Mk. ii. 15 as meaning ‘‘in the house of Jesus.” Had Jesus a house? If so, how improbable that Levi should hold a reception in it! If the narrator had meant this, must he not have given the name instead of αὐτοῦ, which would inevitably be misunderstood? Mt. has simply ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, which possibly means ‘‘in- doors,” as opposed to the outdoor scene ἐπὶ τὸ τελώνιον. There is no evidence that Christ had a house at Capernaum. After the call of Simon and Andrew He is entertained in the house of Simon and Andrew (Mk. i. 16, 29); and after the call of Levi He is entertained in the house of Levi. The new disciple wishes his old friends to make the acquaintance of his new Master. Cvest son premuer acte misstonatre (Godet). ἣν ὄχλος πολὺς τελωνῶν καὶ ἄλλων ot ἦσαν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν κατακεί- μενοι. This proves that the house was a large one, which the house of Jesus would not have been: and it also shows the character of the company, for only social outcasts would sit down at the same table with τελῶναι. ; 80. éydyyulov οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ ot γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν. The αὐτῶν means “the scribes of the Pharisees,” 2.5. who belonged to that party. Some scribes were Sadducees. That this is the meaning is clear from Mk. ii. 16. It is pointless, and scarcely grammatical, to make αὐτῶν refer to the inhabitants of the place, who have not been mentioned. ‘These scribes were probably not invited guests, but had entered during the meal, like the woman that was a sinner in the house of Simon. The Szvazticus and other authorities omit αὐτῶν, doubtless because it was not clear what it meant. _ For γογγύζω, which is not in Mk. or Mt., see Lft. on Phil. ii. 14, and Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39. The Atticists preferred τονθορύζω. Both are probably onomatop.—Note that here, as in vv. 31, 33 and iv. 43, Lk. has mpésc. acc. after a verb of speaking, where Mk. (ii. 16-19) has the dat. See oni. 13. Διὰ τί μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν Kal ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίετε; The single article (so in all three) brackets them as one class. In Mt. and Mk. the disciples are not included in the charge (ἐσθίει, not ἐσθίετε) ; but they both mention that the disciples were sitting at table with Jesus and the τελῶναι, and therefore were open to the charge. Lk., on the other hand, does not mention that the disciples were sitting at table, but his ἐσθίετε implies it. With διὰ τί comp. Exod. v. 14. 31. In all three accounts Jesus ignores the insinuation against His disciples, and answers for Himself. He is responsible for the intercourse with tax- collectors and sinners. For ot ὑγιαίνοντες Mt. and Mk. have οἱ ἰσχύοντες. This looks like a deliberate change made by Lk. for the sake of a word which would more definitely express health as opposed to sickness. Like παραλελυ- μένος for παραλυτικός (vv. 18, 24) and ἰᾶσθαι for διασώζειν (vi. 19), these changes V. 31-34.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 161 may be the result of Lk.’s medical training (Hobart, p. 67 ; Salmon, /yz. 20 N.T. p. 129, 5th ed.). But would Lk. have made changes in a report of Christ’s words? There would be no need to have scruples, for οἱ ἰσχύοντες is only a translation of the Aramaic, and Lk. might think that of ὑγιαίνοντες was a better translation. Christ’s reply is an argumentum ad hominem, partly ironical. On their own showing the Pharisees had no need of a teacher, while these outcasts were in the greatest need of one. 32. εἰς μετάνοιαν. These words are peculiar to Lk., but in some texts have been transferred to Mk. and Mt. Both μετάνοια and μετανοεῖν are freq. in Lk. See on xv. 7. Obviously those who are really δίκαιοι do not need to be called to repentance ; but who .are δίκαιοι Ρ That is the question which Christ’s reply suggests. If we had only Mk.’s account, we might suppose that what follows took place on some other occasion ; but both Lk. and Mt. (τότε) connect it with the banquet in Matthew’s house. 33. ot δὲ εἶπαν. ‘The same who asked the previous question, viz. the Pharisees and their scribes (ver. 30). Mt. says that it was the disciples of John who came up and put this question. Mk. states that both the disciples of John and the Pharisees were keeping a fast at that very time, and joined in asking why Christ’s disciples did not do so also. We know from Jn. iii. 26 how jealous the Baptist’s disciples were of Christ, and therefore ready to criticize. Perhaps they were also jealous of the freedom from legal restraints which His disciples seemed to enjoy. They leave an opening for the reply, ‘‘ Yow have no need to fast.” The four words which follow νηστεύουσιν, viz. the words πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις _ ποιοῦνται, are peculiar to Lk. They imply that Christ’s disciples habitually neglected the frequent fasts which the disciples of John and of the Pharisees kept. The fasts on Mondays and Thursdays are probably meant, which were not obligatory, but which some Pharisees observed (xviii. 12). | Moses was believed to have gone up ~Mount Sinai on a Thursday and to have come down ona Monday. The Day of Atonement was the only fast of universal obligation. For ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις comp. 1 Tim. 11. 1; it refers to prayers at fixed times according to rule. The disciples of Jesus seemed to have no rule respecting such things. A late tradition fixes the number of the Baptist’s disciples as thirty, answering to the days of the month, as the Twelve are supposed to answer to the months of the year (Clem. Hom. ii. 23).—xai πίνουσιν. These words also are peculiar to Lk. in harmony with καὶ πίνετε in ver. 30. 34. Individuals were at liberty to choose their own days for fasting, but they must not select a sabbath or any of the great feasts. Christ suggests another exception, which very possibly was made by the Pharisees themselves. Is it possible to make the guests fast at a wedding? Mt. and Mk. omit the ποιεῖν : Can the wedding-guests fast? Would it not be morally impossible to II a 162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. LUKE [V. 84-86. have such a combination? ΤῸ John’s disciples this parable would come home with special force, for their master had called Jesus “the Bridegroom,” and himself “the friend of the Bridegroom.” τοὺς υἱοὺς Tod νυμφῶνος. The common Hebraism to express those who are closely connected with the νυμῴφών : comp. x. 6, xvi. 8, xx. 36; Acts iv. 36; Mt xxiii. 15; Jn. xi’ 5306) ΘΟ ἤπ 1: Mac. iv. 2 οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς ἄκρας means the garrison of the citadel. But in LXX such expressions are not very common (1 Kings 1. 52; 2 Sam. xii. 5; Gen. xi. 10). The word νυμφών seems scarcely to occur in class. Grk., but it is rightly formed (Tobit Vi. «04, ἘΠῚ Comp. παρθενών, γυναικών, ἀνδρών, βοών, ἀμπελών, K.T.d, 35. ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι. “ But days will come,” z.e. days very different from the joyous days of the wedding. It is best to take this clause separately. After it there is an aposiopesis, which is mournfully i impressive ; and then the sentence begins again. c καὶ ὅταν ἀπαρθῇ am αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος. There is no καί in Mt. ‘or Mk., and some texts omit it here, because of its apparent ee awkwardness. We may take the καί as beginning a fresh sentence, or as epexegetic of the preceding clause. ‘‘ But days will come— and when the bridegroom shall be taken away,” etc. Or, “ But days will come, yea, days when the bridegroom,” etc. The word ἀπαρθῇ is in all three, and nowhere else in N.T. It is common in class. Grk., esp. of the moving of fleets and armies. τότε νηστεύσουσιν. ‘Then they will fast "οἵ their own accord. He does not say, ‘‘ Then ye will be able to make them fast,” which would be the exact antithesis of what goes before ; and the change is significant. Compulsion will be as superfluous then as it would be outrageous now: comp. xvii. 22. This is the first intimation of His death and departure, after which fasting will be appropriate and voluntary. Its value consists in its being spontaneously adopted, not forcibly imposed. This point is further developed in the short parables which follow. Note the characteristic év ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις (not in Mt. ix. 15), and see on ix. 36. 36. Ἔλεγεν δὲ kal παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτούς. These introductory words are peculiar to Lk., and the phrase λέγειν παραβολήν is used by no one else (xii. 41, ΧΙ]. 6, Xiv. 7, Xvill. 1, xx. 9). For the characteristic δὲ kat see small print on iii. 9, and for λέγειν πρός see oni. 12. For pairs of parables see on ver. 37 and xi. 18. ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας. This also is peculiar to Lk.’s narra- tive, and it heightens the effect of the parable. Both Mt. and Mk. represent the patch as coming from an unused piece of cloth. To tear it from a new garment is an aggravation of the folly. A good garment is ruined in order to mend, and that very ineffectually, an old one. In all three we have ἐπίβλημα for patch ; in Mt. and Mk. πλήρωμα also; and Mk. for ἐπιβάλλει has ἐπιράπτει. In Plutarch and Arrian ἐπίβλημα means “tapestry” for hangings. In the [: V. 36, 37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 163 sense of “patch” it seems to occur only in Sym. Josh. ix. 11 (5). The Latin translations of ἐπίβλημα vary: commissura (Vulg.), incu- mentum (a), immissura (d). εἰ δὲ μήγε (εἰ δὲ μή ye, Lach. Treg.). ‘‘ But if he acts otherwise,” z.e. if he commits this folly. V7 caveat errorem (Grotius). The formula is freq. in Lk. (ver. 37, x. 6, ΧΙ]. 9, xiv. 32), who never uses ef δὲ μή. Ei δὲ μή γε is stronger than εἰ δὲ μή, and follows both negative (xiv. 32; Mt. ix. 17; 2 Cor. ΧΙ. 16) and affirmative sentences (x. 6, xiii, 9; Mt. vi. 1). It is found in Plato (Zep. ii. 375 C): comp. Hdt. iv. 120. 4. See Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 1 and Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 16. kat τὸ καινὸν σχίσει. “ Both he will rend the new garment ”— in tearing the patch from it. AV. here goes wrong, although (except as regards the tense) all previous English Versions were right. Reading σχίζει with A and Vulg. zwmfzt, Wic. Tyn. Cran. and Rhem. have “ He breaketh the new,” while Cov. has ‘“‘ He renteth the new.” Beza has “the o/d breaketh the new.” Luther and AV. seem to be alone in taking τὸ καινόν as the nom., “ Both the new maketh a rent.” With σχίσει comp. Jn. xix. 24; Is. XXXVI. I. καὶ τὸ καινὸν... καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ. The double καί marks the double folly. RV. avoids the awkwardness of “ Both he will rend . and the piece,” etc., by rendering, “He will rend . . . and also the piece,” etc. The combination with καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ shows that τὸ καινόν is object and not subject. As to the precise meaning, interpreters are not agreed, beyond (ἢ the general truth that a new spirit requires a new form. But the piece torn from the new garment is probably exemption from fast- | ing. ‘To deprive Christ’s disciples of this freedom, while He is with them, would be to spoil the system in which they are being trained. And to impose this exemption upon the disciples of John and the | Pharisees, would also spoil the system in which they have been trained. In the one case fasting, in the other non-fasting, was the natural outcome of the environment. For a variety of interpreta- tions see Godet, who in his third ed. has changed his own (1888). 37. This second parable carries on and develops the teaching of the first. We have similar pairs of parables in the Mustard-seed and the Leaven, the Treasure hid in the Field and the Pearl of great price, the Ten Virgins and the Talents, the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin, the Unwise Builder and the Unwise King. In three respects this second parable differs from the first. (1) The piece of new cloth represents only a fragment of the new system ; the new wine represents the whole of it. (2) The new garment and the old one are only marred; the new wine is lost and the old skins are destroyed. (3) Not only is the wrong method con- demned, the right method is indicated (ἀλλὰ... βλητέον). The argument is ἃ fortiort, If it is a mistake to take the natural out- 164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 37-39. come from one system and force it upon an alien system, much more fatal will it be to try to force the whole of a new and grow- ing system into the worn out forms of an old one. “I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes” (x. 21). The scribes and Pharisees, wise in the letter of the law, and understanding their own cramping traditions, were incapable of receiving the free spirit of the Gospel. Young and fresh natures, free from prejudice and open to new light and new impressions, were needed to receive the new word and preserve it unchecked and untramelled for future generations. On the fitness of the twofold parable to the occasion Bengel remarks, parabolam a veste, a vino: tmprimis opportunam convivio. οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς. For βάλλειν of pouring liquids comp. Jn. xiii. 5; Mt. xxvi. 12; Judg. vi. 19; Epictet. iv. 19. 12. Skin-bottles, w¢ves, are still in use in the East, made of a single goat-skin (Hom. 724. iii. 247), from which the flesh and bones are drawn without ripping up the body. The neck of the animal becomes the neck of the bottle. Gen. xxi. 14, 15, 19; Ps. cxix:'83. Comp. Hdt. 1. rer. 20, ui. Ὁ: 2; Hom: Oda yeear In Job xxxii. 19 it is said that even new skins are ready to burst when they are full of new wine: comp. xxxvill. 37. See Herzog, PRE? art. Schlauch; Tristram, Wat. Hist. of B. p. 92. 88. οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς BAyntéov. Here certainly, and perhaps here only in N.T., the difference between νέος and καινός must be marked in translation: “ Vew wine must be put into /resh wine-skins.” While νέος is new in reference to “me, “young” as opposed to “aged,” καινός is new in reference to guadity, “fresh” as opposed to “worn out.” Trench, Syz. lx.; Crem. Zex. p. 321. But “a fresh heaven and a fresh earth” (2 Pet. ili. 13; Rev. xxi. 1), and still more a “fresh Jerusalem” (Rev. iil. 12, xxi. 2), would be intolerable. No English version prior to RV. distinguishes here between νέος and καινός ; and Vulg. has zovus for both. None translates ἀσκοί “skins” or “ wine-skins,” but either “bottles” (Wic. Cran. Rhem. AV.) or “vessels” (Tyn. Cov. Gen.). The conclusion, καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται, is an interpolation from Mt. ix. 17 (SBL and Aegyptt. omit). 89. This third parable is peculiar to Lk. While the first two show how fatal it would be to couple the new spirit of the Gospel with the worn out forms of Judaism, the third shows how natural it is that those who have been brought up under these forms should be unwilling to abandon them for something untried. The con- ‘ version of an outcast τελώνης, who has no such prejudices, may be easier than one whose life is bound up in the formalism of the past. Grotius, starting from Ecclus. ix. 13, οἶνος νέος φίλος νέος: ἐὰν παλαιωθῇ, per εὐφροσύνης πίεσαι αὐτόν, interprets: Szgnificavit hoc V. 39-VI.1.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 proverbio Christus homines non subito ad austertorem vitam pertra- hendos, sed per gradus quosdam assuefaciendos esse ; which implies that Christ considered Jewish fasting the more excellent way, up to which His disciples must be gradually educated. Moreover, the subito on which this explanation turns is an interpolation: εὐθέως is not genuine (8B C!L, Boh. Ath. Arm. omit). Wetstein quotes a multitude of passages to show that old wine was considered to be superior to new, and concludes ; Pharisxorum austeritas com- paratur vino novo, Christi lenitas vino vetert ; which exactly inverts the parable. The comparative merits of the old and the new wine are not touched by the parable, but the /as¢e for them. One who is accustomed to old will not ze7s# for new: it does not attract him by look or fragrance. mT λέγει γάρ’ Ὃ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν. The reading of A C and Vulg. (χρηστότερος, melius) is a manifest corruption. The prejudiced person will not even try the new, or admit that it has avy merits. He knows that the old is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough: he is not going to change. Pharisxis doctrina sua antigua mags erat ad palatum, quam generosa doctrina Jesu, quam wl putabant esse novana (Beng.), and which they would not even taste. Comp. Rom. vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. If we admit the undoubtedly spurious εὐθέως, we have another iambic line in this verse as in ver. 21: πιὼν παλαιὸν εὐθέως θέλει νέον. The whole verse is omitted in D and in most of the best MSS. of the old Latin ; but WH. seem to be alone in placing it in brackets as of doubtful authority. On the three parables see Trench, S¢udzes in the Gospels, pp. 168-183. VI. 1-5. The first Incident on the Sabbath (see Maurice, ZLec- tures on St. Luke, p. 823, ed. 1879). The Call of Peter was followed by two healings which provoked opposition to Christ : and now the Call of Levi is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, which lead to similar opposition. Mk. agrees with Lk. in placing these two immediately after the call of Levi; Mt. has them much later _ (xil. 1-14). On the connexion here see Schanz, ad /oc. 1. ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ. This passage is a well-known crux in textual criticism and exegesis. Is δευτεροπρῴτω part of the true text? Ifso, what does it mean? ‘The two questions to some extent overlap, but it is possible to treat them separately. 1 I. The external evidence is very much divided, but the balance is against the words being original.! The reading is Western and Syrian, and ‘‘has no other clearly pre-Syrian authority than that of Daf” The internal evidence is also divided. On the one hand, ‘‘ The very obscurity of the expression, which does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuine- ness” (Scriv.), for ‘‘ there is no reason which can explain the insertion of this lins ACDEHKMRSUVXIAATI most cursives, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. Goth. Arm., Epiph. Chrys. Greg-Naz. Amb. Hieron. and perhaps Clem-Alex. om. ἐξ BL six or seven good cursives, Syrr. Boh. Aeth. That evangelistaria omit is not of much moment, as they often omit notes of time. 166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. ΚΕ [VI.1 word, while the reason for omitting it is obvious” (Tisch.) On the other hand, “all known cases of probable omission on account of difficulty are limited to single documents or groups of restricted ancestry, bearing no resemblance to the attestation of text in either variety or excellence” (WH.). Moreover, if any sabbath had really borne this strange name, which is introduced without explan- ation as familiar to the readers, it would almost certainly have been found elsewhere, either in LXX, Philo, Josephus, or the Talmud. In the life of Eutychius (512-582) by his chaplain Eustathius devreporpwrn κυριακή is used of the first Sunday after Easter, but the expression is obviously borrowed from this passage, and throws no light. In the whole of Greek literature, classical, Jewish, or Christian, no such word is found independently of this text. The often quoted δευτεροδεκάτη, ‘*second tenth” (Hieron. ad 25. xlv. 13), gives no help. The analogy of devrepoydmos, devrepordkos, k.T.A., Suggests the meaning of ‘fa sabbath which for a second time is first” ; that of devrepéoxaros, which Heliodorus (apud Soran. Med. vet.) uses for ‘‘ last but one,” suggests the mean- ing ‘‘first but one,” z.e. ‘‘second of two firsts.” But what sense, suitable to the passage, can be obtained from either of these? The more probable conclusion is that the word is spurious. How then did it get into the text and become so widely diffused? The con- jecture of Meyer is reasonable. An early copyist inserted πρώτῳ to explain ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ in ver. 6; this was corrected to δευτέρῳ because of iv. 31; and the next copyist, not understanding the correction, combined the two words. A few MSS. have the reading δευτέρῳ πρώτῳ, among them R (Cod. Nitriensis), a palimpsest of the sixth cent. in the British Museum. 2. If the word is genuine, what can be its meaning? Jerome put this ques- tion to Gregory Nazianzen, and the latter e/eganter luszt, saying, Docebo te super hac re in ecclesta (Hieron. £7. lii.). Of the numerous conjectures the following may be mentioned as not altogether incredible. (1) The first sabbath of the second year in a sabbatical cycle of seven years. This theory of Wieseler has won many adherents. (2) The first sabbath in Nisan. The Jewish civil year began in Tisri, while the ecclesiastical year began in Nisan; so that each year there were two first sabbaths, one according to civil, the other according to ecclesiastical reckoning: just as Advent Sunday and the first Sunday in January are each, from different points of view, the first Sunday in the year. It would be possible to call the second of the two ‘‘a second first Sunday.” But would anyone use such language and expect to be understood? (3) The first sabbath of the second month. [{ is asserted that the story of David obtaining the shew- bread would often be in the lesson for that sabbath. But the lectionary of the synagogues in the time of Christ is unknown. See on iv. 17. For other guesses see Godet, McClellan, and Meyer. Most editors omit or bracket it. Tisch. changed his decision several times, but finally replaced it in his eighth edition. διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων. Excepting Rom. xv. 24, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (xiii. 22, xvilil. 36; Acts xvi. 4). In N.T. σπόριμος occurs only here and parallels. In Theophr. (. P. vi. 5. 4) we have ἡ σπορίμη, sc. γῆ. In Gen. 1. 29 it is applied to the seed, πάντα χόρτον σπόριμον σπεῖρον σπέρμα : SO that, like σπείρεσθαι, it can be used either of the field or of the seed. ἔτιλλον ot μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας. For this Mk. has ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας, Which has been interpreted to mean “began to make a way by plucking the ears.” But (1) all three imply that Jesus was walking in front of the dis- ciples. What need was there for them to make a way? (2) How would plucking the eavs make a path? (3) In LXX ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is VI. 1-4. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 167 used for 2225. facere (Judg. xvii. 8). All three mean that the disciples went along plucking the ears. This was allowed (Deut. XXxill. 25). ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. This and the τίλλοντες constituted the offence : it was unnecessary labour on the sabbath. According to Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, thrashing, winnowing, and pre- paring food all at once. Lk. alone mentions the rubbing, and the word ψώχειν seems to occur elsewhere only in the medical writer Nicander (2 heriaca, 619). It is from the obsolete ψώω, a collat. form of ψάω. Comp. Hdt. iv. 75. 2. For the action described see Robinson, Res. in Pal. i. ΡΡ. 493, 499. £22 2. τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων. As in ver. 30, they are represented as addressing their question to the disciples. In Mk. 11. 24 and Mt. xii. 2 the charge against the disciples is addressed to Christ, while in Mk. ii. 16 and Mt. ix. 11 the charge against Christ is addressed to the disciples. The tots σάββασιν may mean either “on the sabbath days” (AV. and most English Versions) or “on the sabbath day” (RV.). Although Vulg. has zz sadbbatis, Wic. has “in the saboth”; Cov. also “upon the sabbath.” See on ive! 31. 8. οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ. “Have ye not read even this that David did?” Does your knowledge not extend even thus far? RV. follows AV. in translating ὃ ἐποίησεν as if it were the same as the τί ἐποίησεν of Mt. and Mk., “what David did.” kal ot per αὐτοῦ ὄντες. “The young men,” whom David was to meet afterwards. He came to Nob alone (τ Sam. xxi. 1). 4. εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘This is not stated in O.T., but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, who was “detained before the Lord”: 2.6. he was in the tabernacle _ as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow. τοὺς ἄρτοὺς τῆς προθέσεως. Lit. “the loaves of the setting forth.” These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed before the Lord in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word *‘shewbread” first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther’s chaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with *looves of proposisiounn,” which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has “loves of halowed breed.” In O.T. we have also ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου, 7:6. of the presence of God (1 Sam. xxi. 7; Neh. x. 33), Or ἄρτοι ἐνώπιοι (Exod. XXV. .30), ΟΥ ἄρτοι τῆς προσφορᾶς (1 Kings vil. 48), or again ot ἄρτοι οἱ διαπαντός, 1.6. “the perpetual loaves” (Num. iv. 7). But the expression used here, Mt. xii. 4 and Mk. ii. 26, occurs Exod. xxxix. 36?, xl. 23; 1 Chron. IX. 22. Sexi. (20): comp. 2 Chron. iv. 19. For the origin of 4 πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων (Heb. ix. 2) comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 11, xxix. 18. See Edersh. Zhe Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, PRE.” art. Schaubrote. των 168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [VI. 4-6. ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. This also is not stated in 1 Sam. xxl, but it is implied in David’s asking for five loaves, and in Abimelech’s asking whether the wallets of the young men’ were Levitically clean. For ἔξεστιν ¢. acc. et inf. see on xx. 22. 5. Κύριός ἐστιν tod σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. In all three accounts Κύριος comes first with emphasis. ‘The Son of Man con- trols the sabbath, not is controlled by it. This does not mean that He abrogates it (Mt. v. 17-20), but that He has power to cancel the literal observance of it in order to perform or permit what is in accordance with its spirit. Mk. gives the additional reason that ‘the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath,” 2.6. that it was given to be a blessing, not a burden. Even the Rabbis sometimes saw this; ‘The sabbath is handed over to you; not, ye are handed over to the sabbath” (Edersh. L. ὃ: T. ii. p. 58). Ritual must give way to charity. The Divine character of the Law is best vindicated by making it lovable ; and the Pharisees had made it an iron taskmaster. And, if the sabbath gives way to man, much more to the Son of Man. In Jn. v. 17 Christ takes still higher ground. The Father knows no sabbath in working for man’s good, and the Son has the same right and liberty. For 6 υἱὸς tod ἀνθρώπου see on v. 24. The point here is that Christ as the representative of man defends man’s liberty. Cod. D transfers ver. 5 to after ver. 10, and instead of it has the remarkable insertion: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἷπεν αὐτῷ" ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἷδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἴ" εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης el τοῦ νόμους For ἄνθρωπε comp. xii. 14 ; ἐπικατάρατος, Jn. vil. 47 ; παραβάτης νόμου, Rom. ii. 25, 27; Jas. ii. 11. It is possible that the tradition here preserved in Cod. D is the source from which both 5. Paul and S. James — derive the phrase παραβάτης νόμου. In Rom. ii., where it occurs twice, we have the address ἄνθρωπε twice (vv. I, 3). There is nothing incredible in Christ’s having seen a man working (not necessarily in public) on the sabbath. The words attributed to Christ are so unlike the undignified, silly, ana even immoral inventions in the apocryphal gospels that we may believe that this traditional story is true, although it is no part of the Canonical Gospels. D has other con- siderable insertions Mt. xx. 28 and Jn. vi. 56. See A. Resch, Agrapha Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889) pp. 36, 189. 6-11. The Second Incident on the Sabbath. Mt. xii. 9 would lead us to suppose that it was the same sabbath (μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν). Lk. definitely states that it was ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ, but not that it was ‘fon the very next sabbath following.” He alone mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogue on this occasion, and that the withered hand that was healed was the right one. 6. Ἐγένετο δὲ. . . εἰσηλθεῖν αὐτὸν. .. καὶ ἣν... καὶ ἣν. Thesame Hebraistic constr. as in ver. I, somewhat modified in accordance with classical usage: see note at the end of ch. i. We have ξηροί at the Pool of Bethesda (Jn. v. 3); but outside N.T. the word seems to mean, when applied to the human body, either ‘‘ not wet” or ‘‘ lean.” VI. 7-9.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 ἡ. παρετηροῦντο δὲ αὐτὸν ot γραμματεῖς Kal οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. Lk. alone tells us who the spies were. Mt. puts their inquisitiveness into words, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” The verb signifies “watch narrowly,” esp. with sinister intent, perhaps from looking sideways out of the corner of one’s eyes, ex obliquo et occulto. As in Gal. iv. το, the mid. gives the idea of znterested observance. Mk. has παρετήρουν : comp. xx. 20; Sus. 12, 15, 16; Polyb. xvii. 2:2; Aris. ef: 11. 6.205 Top: vill. τα. τ. εἰ ἐν τῷ σαββάτῳ θεραπεύει. The present has reference to His habitual practice, of which His conduct on this occasion would be evidence. But 8B with other authorities read θεραπεύσει, which is probably genuine in Mk. iii. 2, and may be genuine here. The future would limit the question to the case before them ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτόν. According to what is probably the invariable rule in N.T. we have the subj. in spite of the past tense on which the final clause is dependent. The opt. for this purpose is obsolete ; for yvot (Mk. ix. 30) and similar forms are probably meant to be subj. Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 107. 8. αὐτὸς δὲ ηδει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς αὐτῶν. “ But He,” in contrast to these spies (v. 16, vill. 37, 54) “knew their thoughts.” For διαλογισμός Comp. 11. 35, V- 22, ΙΧ. 46, xxiv. 38. Tt commonly means intellectual and inward questioning rather than actual dis- puting : but see on v. 22 and comp. I Dim. 11. ὃ. τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ξηρὰν ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρας “ΤῸ the man who had his hand withered,” not “who had the withered hand.” For ἀνδρί comp. v. 12: Mt. and Mk. have ἀνθρώπῳ. Ἔγειρε καὶ στῆθι eis τὸ μέσον. Lk. alone preserves this. Christ’s method is as open as that of His adversaries is secret. “ Arise and stand zz/o the midst” ; z.e. ‘Come into the midst and find there: comp: x. ἡ; Acts vii, 40. Win: 1 7. b, (p. 516: - In what follows note Lk.’s favourite ἀναστάς (i. 39), which neither Mt. nor Mk. has here. None of them records any words of the man ; but Jerome in commenting on Mt. xii. 13 states, 2722 evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionite . . . homo tste gut aridam habet manum cxemmentarius scribitur, rstéusmodt vocibus auxilium precans, Cexmentarius eram, manibus victum queritans : precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restitues sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. See on xviii. 25. 9. ᾿περωτήσω ὑμᾶς, et. He answers the questioning in their hearts by a direct question which puts the matter in the true light. To refuse to do good is to do evil; and it could not be right to do evil on the sabbath. The reading of TR., ἐπερωτήσω ὑμᾶς τι, is wrong in both variations ; and has the disadvantage of being ambiguous, for τί may_be indefinite or inter- rogative. ‘‘I will ask you something, Is it lawful?” etc. Or, “1 will ask you what is lawful,” etc. 170 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VI. 9-11. ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἢ ἀπολέσαι. It was a principle of the Rabbinists that periculum vite pellit sabbatum; but the life must be that of a Jew. This canon was liberally interpreted ; so that a large number of diseases might be attended to on the sabbath, as_ being dangerous. These modifications of the rigid rule were based on the principle that it was lawful to do good and avert evil on the sabbath ; and to this Jesus appeals. If the Pharisees said, “This man’s life is not in danger,” the answer would have been easy, “Vou do not know that, any more than in the cases always allowed.” The addition of ἢ ἀπολέσαι has special point, for this was what these objectors were doing. ‘They did not consider that they were breaking the sabbath in plotting to destroy Jesus on this day (ver. 7). Were they to be allowed to destroy, while He was forbidden to save ? ; 10. περιβλεψάμενος πάντας αὐτού. Mk. adds, still more graphically, μετ᾽ ὀργῆς, συλλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν: but πάντας is peculiar to Lk. See on vil. 35 and ix. 43. Mt. omits the whole of this, but inserts the case of the sheep fallen into a pit. Lk. has a similar question about an ass or ox fallen into a well, which was asked on another occasion (xiv. 5). Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου. As His challenge to His enemies remained unanswered, He now makes trial of the man. The attempt to obey this command was evidence of his faith. With the double augment in ἀπεκατεστάθη comp. ἐπροέταξα, ἐπροεφήτευον, ἐκατεσκεύασαν, ἐσυνεμαρτύρουν, ἠφώρισται, which occur in various writers. Exod. iv. 7, ἀπεκατέστη ; Jer. xxlll. 8, ἀπεκατέστησεν; Ign. Smyr. xi., ἀπεκατεστάθη. Win. xii. 7. a, p. 84. Cod. D here inserts ver. 5. 11. ἀνοίας. The phrensy or loss of reason which is caused by extreme excitement ; dementza rather than zvszpzentia (Vulg.) or amentza (Beza). Plato distinguishes two kinds of ἄνοια, τὸ μὲν μανίαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἀμαθίαν (Tim. 86 Β). It is the former which is intended here. Elsewhere 2 Tim. iii. 9 ; Prov. xxii. 15 ; Eccl. xi. 10; Wisd. xv. 18, xix. 3; 2 Mac. iv. 6, etc. τί ἂν ποιήσαιεν. “What they should do,” if they did any- thing. In Lk. the opt. is still freq. in indirect questions: see on iii. 15. Mk. says that the Pharisees forthwith took counsel with the Herodians how they might destroy Him (ἀπολέσωσιν). They would be glad of the assistance of the court party to accomplish this end. With their help Antipas might be induced to treat Jesus as he had treated the Baptist. Lk. nowhere mentions the Herodians. The Aecolic form ποιήσειαν is not found in the best MSS. here. In Acts XViis 27 ψηλαφήσειαν is probably genuine. VI. 12, 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 171 VI. 12-VIII. 56. -rom the Nomination of the Twelve to their First Mission. In proportion as the work of Christ progresses the opposition | between Him and the supporters of moribund Judaism is in- | tensified. 12-16. The Nomination of the Twelve. Common to all three: comp. Mk. i. 13-19; Mt. x. 2-4. L’élection des Douze est le premier acte organisateur accompli par Jésus-Christ. Sauf les sacrements, Cest le seul. Car Cétait ce college, une fois constitué, gui devait un jour faire le reste (Godet). 12. ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τ. See on 1. 39. This expression, like ἐγένετο and ἦν with the participle, are characteristic of Lk., and are not found in the parallels in Mt. and Mk. For the constr. comp. vv. 1 and 6; for προσεύξασθαι see Introd. ὃ 6. The momentous crisis of choosing the Twelve is at hand, and this vigil is the pre- paration for it. διανυκτερεύων. Here only in N.T., but not rare elsewhere; Job ii. 9 (where LXX has much which is not in the extant Heb.); Jos. Amt. vi. 13.9; B. /. i. 29. 2; Xen. Hellen. v. 4.3. The analytical tense emphasizes the long continuance of the prayer. τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘The phrase occurs nowhere else. It means prayer which has God for its object: comp. ζῆλος Θεοῦ (Rom. x. 2); ὃ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου (Jn. 11. 17); πίστις Ἰησοῦ (Gal. ili. 22). Win. xxx. I. ἃ, p. 231.1 That προσευχή here means an oratory or place of prayer is incredible: see on Acts xvi. 13. Lightfoot says that some Rabbis taught that God prays: “Let it be My will that My mercy overcome My wrath.” But such trifling _ has no place here. 18. ἐγένετο ἡμέρα. The phrase is freq. in Lk. (iv. 42, xxii. 66; Acts ΧΙ. 18, XVl. 35, XXill. 12, xxvii. 29, 33, 39).—mpoceddvnger. “Called to Him, summoned.” This is the more correct use of . the word. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “address, call to”; and, excepting Mt. xi. 16, it is used only by Lk. (vii. 32, xiii. 12, Xxlil. 20; Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2).---τοὺς μαθητάς. These are the larger circle of disciples, out of whom He selected the Twelve. Comp. Jn. vi. 70; Mt. xix. 28; Rev. xxi. 14. That either the larger circle or the Twelve had spent the night with Him is neither stated nor implied. ἐκλεξάμενος. ‘This implies the telling over (λέγειν) in preference to others (é«) for one’s own advantage (mid.). The word is fatal 1 Green compares ἐπ᾽ εὐσεβείᾳ Θεοῦ (Jos. Ant. ii, 8. 1) and πρὸς ἱκετείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ (ii. 9. 3): and, for the art. before προσευχῇ ““85 an abstract or general term,” Mt. xxi. 22; Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 5 (Gram. of N.T. Ρ. 87). 172 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VI. 13, 14. to Lange’s theory that Judas was forced upon our Lord by the importunity of the other Apostles (Z. of C. ii. p. 179). ols καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν. Not at the time possibly, but afterwards. ‘The καί marks the naming as a separate act from the election. ‘The word ἀπόστολος is used only once each by Mt. (x. 2), Mk. (vi. 30), and Jn. (xiii. 16); by Lk. six times in the Gospel (ix. το, xi. 49, ἘΠ: 5, XXll. 14, xxiv. ro) and often in the Acts. In the Gospels the Twelve are generally called the Twelve. The word occurs once in LXX, ἐγώ εἰμι ἀπόστολος πρός σε σκληρός (τ Kings xiv. 6); and once in N.T. it is used of Christ (Heb. iii. r). See Lft. Galatians, pp. 92-101, 6th ed.; D.Z.? art. “ Apostle” ; Harnack in Zexte u. Untersuch. 11. 111 ff.; Sanday on Rom. 1. 1. The theory that Lk. writes in order to depreciate the Twelve, does not harmonize with the solemn importance which he assigns to their election. And criticism is out of harmony with itself, when it adopts this theory, and then suggests that Lk. has invented this early election. See on xxii. 45. 14-16. In construction the twelve names are in apposition to ἀποστόλους, and the narrative is not resumed until ver. 17. The four lists of the Apostles preserved in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts:agree in two main features. 1. The names are arranged in three groups of four. 2. The same Apostles, Peter, Philip, and James of Alphzeus, stand first in each group. Only in respect of one name is there material difference between the lists. In the third group Lk. both here and Acts i. 13 has Judas of James; for whom Mt. (x. 3) and Mk. (iii. 18) have Thaddzeus or Lebbzeus. In both places Thaddeeus is prob- ably correct, Lebbzeus being due to an attempt to include Levi among the Apostles. Levi = Lebi or Lebbi, the Greek form of which might be 1, εββαῖος, as Θαδδαῖος of Thaddi. Some MSS. read 1, εβαῖος, which is still closer to Levi. See WH. ii. App. pp. 12, 24. The identification of Thaddzeus with Judas of James solves the difficulty, and there is nothing against it excepting lack of direct evidence. No pairing of the Apostles is manifest in this list as in that of Mt. If the καί after Θωμᾶν be omitted, there is a break between the second and third group; but otherwise the list is a simple string of names. In the first six names Lk. agrees with the first three pairs of Mt. In the other six he places Matthew before Thomas (while Mt. places himself last in his group) and Simon Zelotes before Judas of James. 14. Σίμωνα ὃν καὶ ὠνόμασεν Πέτρον. The similarity to the pre- ceding clause is marked. This certainly does not mean that Simon received the name of Peter on this occasion, and there is nothing to show that the Twelve received the name of Apostles on this occasion. But it should be noticed that henceforth Lk. always speaks of him as Peter (vill. 45, 51, ix. 20, 28, 32, 33, xii. 41, etc.) and not as Simon. In xxi. 31 and xxiv. 34 Lk. is quoting the words of others. Hitherto he has called him Simon (iv. 38, v. 3, 4, 5, 10) and once Simon Peter (v. 8), but never Peter. In the Acts he is never called Simon without the addition of the surname. The usage with regard to the names Saul and Paul is very similar. See papers by Dean Chadwick on “The Group of the Apostles” VI. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 173 and on “Peter” in Exfositor, 3rd series, vol. ix. pp. 100-114, 187-199, 1889 ; also Schanz, ad /oc. p. 216. ᾿Ανδρέαν. Only in his lists of the Apostles does Lk. mention Andrew. Mt. mentions him on one other occasion, and Mk. on three others (Mt. iv. 18; Mk. i. 16, 29, xiii. 3). Nearly all that we know about him comes from Jn. (i. 41, 45, vi. 8, ΧΙ]. 22). Although one of the earliest disciples, he does not become one of the chosen three, although Mk. xiil. 3 seems to indicate special intimacy. For legends respecting him see Lipsius, Afokryphen Afpostelgeschichten u. Apostellegenden, 1. pp. 543-622 ; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, PP. 17; 34. ; . . ᾿Ιάκωβον kat ᾿Ιωάνην. This is their order according to age, and it is observed in all three Gospels ; in Acts i. 13 John precedes James. ‘The fact that James was the first of the Twelve to be put to death is evidence that he was regarded as specially influential. James and John were probably first cousins of the Lord; for, according to the best interpretation of Jn. xix. 25, their mother Salome was the sister of the Virgin Mary. That the title of Boanerges was given to them “‘at the time of the appointment of the Twelve” (D.B.? i. p. 1509) is a baseless hypothesis. See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 138-146 ; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. βροντή. For legends see D.4.71. p. 1511; Lipsius, iii. pp. 201-228, 1. pp. 348-542. φίλιππον. All that we know of Him comes from Jn. (i. 44-49, Vi. 5-7, ΧΙ]. 21, 22, xiv. 8,9). There seems to have been some connexion between him and Andrew (Jn. i. 44, xii. 22); and both in Mk. i, 18 and Acts 1. 13 their names are placed together in the lists; but the nature of the connexion is unknown. §Lipsius, ill. pp. I-53. Βαρθολομαῖον. The ancient and common identification with Nathanael is probable, but by no means certain. 1. As Bar-tholomew is only a patronymic, “son of Talmai,” the bearer of it would be likely to have another name. 2. The Synoptists do not mention Nathanael ; Jn. does not mention Bartholomew. 3. The Synoptists place Bartholomew next to Philip, and Philip brought Nathanael to Christ. 4. The companions of Nathanael who are named Jn. xxi. 2 are all of them Apostles. Lipsius, ili. pp. 54-108. 15. Μαθθαῖον kai Θωμᾶν. In all three these names are com- bined ; but Mt. reverses the order, and after his own name adds 6 τελώνης, Which is found in none of the other lists. All that we know of Thomas is told us by Jn. (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29, xxi. 2). Lipsius, 111. pp. 109-141, 1. pp. 225-347. ᾿Ιάκωβον ᾿Αλφαίου. His father is probably not the father of Levi (Mk. 11. 14), end James himself is certainly not the brother of the Lord (Mt. xiit. 55 ; Mk. vi. 3; Gal. 1. 19) who was the first over- seer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13 ; Gal. ii. 9, 12). 170. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Ὁ1. 15. 16. The brethren of the Lord did not believe on Him at this time (Jn. vii. 5), and none of them can have been among the Twelve. But the Apostle James the son of Alpheus is probably identical with James the Little (Mt. xxvii. 56; Mk. xv. 40; Jn. xix. 25), for Alpheus and Clopas may be two different Greek forms of the Aramaic Chalpai; but this is uncertain. See Mayor, 22. of S. James, pp. i-xlvi; also Expositor’s Bible, S. James and S. Jude, pp. 25-30 (Hodder, 1891). Inall the catalogues James of Alphzeus heads the third group of Apostles. Lipsius, ill. 229-238. τὸν καλούμενον ζηλωτήν. Lk. has this in both his lists, while Mt. and Mk. have 6 Kavavatos, which in some authorities has been corrupted into Kavavirns. Neither of these forms can mean “Canaanite,” for which the Greek is Χαναναῖος (Mt. xv. 22 and LXX), nor yet “of Cana,” for which the Greek would be Kavaios. Kavavatos is the Aramaic Kanan in a Greek form (on the analogy of Φαρισαῖος from Pharish and’Acodaios from Chasid) and = ζηλωτής. Lipsius, ill. pp. 142-200. Rhem. leaves the word untranslated, Cazanzus, and Wic. makes it unintel- ligible, ‘‘Canane.” All the other English Versions make it a local adj., ‘‘ of Cana,” or “" of Cane,” or ‘of Canan,” or ‘‘of Canaan,” or ‘‘ the Canaanite.” The last error seems to begin with Cranmer in 1539. RV. is the first to make clear that ‘‘ Kananzean” means ‘‘ Zealot.” Lft. Ox Revzszon, pp. 138, 139 (154, 155, 2nd ed.); Fritzsche on Mt. x. 4. The Zealots date from the time of the Maccabees as a class who attempted to force upon others their own rigorous interpretations of the Law. S. Paul speaks of himself as περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων (Gal. 1. 14), 2.6. he belonged to the extreme party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5; Phil. iii. 5, 6). Large numbers of this party were among the first converts at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20). From these extremists had sprung the revolt under Judas of Galilee (Acts. v. 373 Jos. “472. xviii. I. 1, 6), and the Szcarzz, who were the proximate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jos. B. /. iv. 3. 9, 5. I, 7. 2, vil. 8. 1, 10. I, 11. 1). Milman, Hest. of the Jews, ii. pp. 191, 291, 299, 323, 4th ed. 1866; Ewald, Hist. of Zsrael, vii. 559 ff., Eng. tr.; Herzog, PRE.? art. “¢Zeloten.” Whether the Apostle Simon was called ξηλωτής because he had once belonged to this party, or because of his personal character either before or after his call, must remain uncertain. 16. ᾿Ιούδαν Ἰακώβου That there were two Apostles of the name of Judas is clear from Jn. xiv. 22, although Mt. and Mk. mention only one; and the identification of their Thaddzeus with the Judas not Iscariot of Jn. and with this Judas of James makes all run smoothly. “Iovéas ᾿Ιακώβου must be rendered “ Judas the son of James,” not “the brother of James,” for which there is no justification. When Lk. means “brother” he inserts ἀδελφός (ili. 1, vi. 14; Acts xii. 2). Nonnus in his Paraphrase (Μεταβολή) of Jn. xiv. 22 has Ἰούδας vids ᾿Ιακώβοιο. Ἰούδας ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου (Jude 1) is quite a different person, viz. the brother of James the 1 This use of καλούμενος is very common in Lk. (vii. II, vill. 2, ix. 10, x. 39, ΧΧΙ. 37, xxii. 3, xxiii, 33), and still more so in Acts. Not in Mt, Mk, or Jn, ΜΠ 16.1.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 175 Lord’s brother. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. rightly supply “sonne” here, and Luth. also has so#n. The error begins with Beza’s fratrem. Of this James, the father of Judas Thaddeus, nothing is known. Lk. adds the name of the father, because his arrange- ment places this Judas next to the traitor. ᾿Ισκαριώθ. This epithet probably means “man of Kerioth,” which was a place in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), or possibly in Moab (Jer. xlvili. 24). Jn. vi. 71 confirms this; for there and Jn. xili. 26 the true reading gives “Judas son of Simon Iscariot” ; and if the name is a local epithet, both father and son would be likely to have it. In this case Judas was the only Apostle who was not a Galilean, and this may have helped to isolate him. Other derivations of “Iscariot,” which connect the word with “lying,” or “strangling,” or “apron,” 2:6. bag, or “date-trees ” (kapwwrides), are much less probable. We know nothing about Simon Iscariot. Farrar identifies him with Simon Zelotes, which is most improbable. Simon was one of the commonest of names. The MSS. vary between ἸΙσκαριώθ, which is right here, and Ἰσκαριώ- τῆς, Which is right xxil. 3. Here only is προδότης used of Judas: it occurs in the plur. Acts vii. 52; 2 Tim. iii. 4; and in the sing. 2 Mac. v. 15, x. 12. All English Versions go wrong about ἐγένετο προδότης. Nowhere in Scripture is Judas styled “ ¢#e traitor,” and ἐγένετο should be distinguished from ἦν : therefore, not “was the traitor,” but “decame a traitor,” as the American Revisers pro- posed. Judas “turned traitor.” The difficulty about the call of Judas is parallel to the powers bestowed upon a Napoleon. The treason of Judas shows that no position in the Church, however exalted, gives security against the most complete fall. The verb used of the treachery of Judas is never προδιδόναι, but παραδι- δόναν ΓΞ 4M Ὁ. 21 22, 25; Minox. 4050 Mik 1. 10.; [π| ν᾿. δά. 71)» in class. Grk. προδιδόναι commonly has this meaning; παραδιδόναι rarely. Here the Lat. texts vary between frodztor (Vulg.) and ¢radztor (c f ff, r) and gue tradtdit eum ox zllum (ἃ 6). 17-19. The Descent from the Mountain, and many Miracles of Healing. ‘The parallel passages in Mk. iii. 7-12 and Mt. iv. 24, 25 are very different from Lk. and from one another in wording. 17. ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. This vay mean a level spot below the summit; but in connexion with καταβάς, and without qualification, it more naturally means level ground near the foot of the mountain. Hither it would be more likely that multitudes would come and bring their sick, than to a plateau high up the mountain. The Latin texts vary: 727 loco campestrz (Vulg.), 2% loco campense (a), zn /. plano (f) 2 2. pedeplano (1.). καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ Not a mom. pendens, but 176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [VI. 17-19. included in the preceding ἔστη : comp. the constr. villi. 1-3. He stood, and they stood. But the ἔστη is no evidence as to Christ’s attitude during the discourse, because the healings intervene: iv. 20 shows that Lk. is aware of Christ’s sitting to preach. kat πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ, κιτιλ. This is a third group. Christ and the Twelve form one group. The multitude of disciples in | the wider sense form a second. And besides these there is a mixed throng from Judzea and the sea-coast: see on x1. 29. ἰαθῆναι ἀπό. The prep. is not classical ; but we say ‘‘to be cured from” (Mk. v. 29). In the perf., 1 aor. and 1 fut. pass. the dep. idowac is pass. in meaning (vil. 7, Vill. 47, xvil. 15 ; Acts iii. 11). Except in Lk., the verb is rare in N.T. writers.—There should be at least a colon at τῶν νόσων αὐτῶν : here the long sentence which began at ver. 13 ends. 18, 19. For similarly condensed accounts of groups of miracles comp. iv. 40, Vv. 15, vl. 21. We once more have an amphibolous expression: see on ii. 22. Here ἀπὸ πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων may be taken either with ἐνοχλούμενοι or with ἐθεραπεύοντο. From ver. 17 and vii. 21 we infer that the latter constr. is right: “‘They that were troubled with them were healed of unclean spirits.” But in the other cases the gen. with ἀπό follows the verb; so that évoxAovpevor ἀπό may be right. The “and” before “were healed ” in AV. is from a corrupt reading: not only Wic. and Rhem. with Vulg., but also Cov., omit the “and.” For πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων see on iv. 32. Note πᾶς and πάντας here and πάσης in ver. 17. They are not found in Mk. ili. 7, 10: see on ver. 30. With trap’ αὐτοῦ ἐξήρχετο comp. Jn. xvi. 27. Lk. commonly writes ἐξέρχο- μαι ἀπό: see small print on iv. 35, and comp. vill. 46, which illustrates ἅπτεσθαι, δύναμις, and ἐξήρχετο. For δύναμις and ἰᾶτο see on iv. 36. 20-49. The Sermon ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. To call it ‘‘ the Sermon on the Plain,” following the AV. in ver. 17, is con- venient, but scarcely justifiable. ‘‘ The plain” has not, been mentioned, and τὸ πεδίον does not occur in N.T. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this τόπος πεδινός was at the foot of the mount. And to talk of ‘‘ the Sermon on the Plain” assumes, what cannot be proved, that the discourse here recorded is entirely distinct from ‘‘the Sermon on the Mount” (Mt. v. I-vil. 29). The relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because the materials are insufficient for a final decision. The following are the chief hypotheses which have been suggested in order to explain the marked similari- ties and differences. 1. They are reports, at first or second hand, of two similar but different discourses, distinct in time, place, and circumstance (Auger, Greswell, Osiander, Patritius, Plumptre, Sadler ; so also in the main Barradius, Basil, Doddridge, Toletus, Tostatus). 2. They are reports of two different discourses delivered on the same day, Mt. giving the esoteric address to the disciples on the mountain, Lk. the exoteric address to the mixed multitude below (Augustine, Lange). 3. They are recensions, with interpolations and omissions, of two independent reports of one and the same sermon (Schleier- macher), 4. They are recensions of the same report, to which Mt. adds VI. 20-49. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 177 material from other sources, and from which Lk. perhaps omits portions (B. Weiss). 5. Mt. gives a conflate arrangement of sayings which were uttered on various occasions, and some of these occasions are given by Lk. (Bleek, Calvin, Godet, Holtzmann, Keim, Kuinoel, Neander, Pott, Semler, Weizsacker, Wieseler). 6. Both sermons are a conglomeration of detached sayings collected into an anthology of aphorisms (Strauss, and to some extent Baur). Besides the writers mentioned above under the last four heads, a multitude of commen- tators adopt the view that the main portions of the reports given by Mt. and Lk, represent one and the same discourse (Bengel, Bucer, Calovius, Caspari, Chemnitz, Chrysostom, De Wette, Ebrard, Edersheim, Ellicott, Ewald, Farrar, Fritzsche, Grotius, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lewin, Luther, McClellan, Meyer, Milman, Olshausen, Oosterzee, Origen, Robinson, Schanz, Schneckenburger, Sieffert, Stroud, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Wordsworth). Bad or inadequate arguments are used on both sides. It is a great deal too much to say with Schleiermacher that the fact that the portions common to both appear in the same order, with the same beginning and end, ‘“‘ proves zncontro- verttbly the identity of the discourse.” Any preacher repeating a carefully prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put his points in the same order. And it is mere dogmatism without argument when Sadler asserts that ‘‘the Lord szws¢t have pronounced each [beatitude] which St. Matthew records, and yet it is equally plain that He cow/d hardly have pronounced them according to St. Luke’s form. He would not have said, Blessed are ye meek ones, Blessed are ye merciful ones, Blessed are ye peacemakers. The four given by St. Luke are the only ones which could well have been pronounced personally on the disciples; so that the beatitudes as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke respectively, coz/d not have been altered forms of the same discourse.” Much more reasonable is the position of Grotius, who believes that both record the same sermon: szcut facté narrationes circum- stantits congruentes non temere ad res diversas referendx% sunt, tta sermones nihil vetat sepius habitos eosdem aut similes, presertim continentes vitew totius pre- cepla, que non potuerunt nimium sepe repett (on Lk. vi. 17). We know beyond all question that some of our Lord’s words were uttered several times, and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the hypothesis that the words of this discourse, gux non potuerunt nimium sepe repetz, were delivered in one ‘or other of these forms more than once. Nor does it follow that those portions which Lk. gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered as parts of a continuous discourse. A preacher naturally repeats fragments of his own sermons in giving catechetical instruction, and also gathers up detached items of instruction when composing a sermon. The fact that Lk. meant to record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the similar words in this discourse. Another consideration which may have deter- mined his selection is the thought of what would best suit Gentile readers. But in any case the dictum of Grotius must be remembered, that the hypothesis of a repetition of verbally similar sayings may be used with much more freedom than the hypothesis of a repetition of circumstantially similar acts. The conclusion arrived at by Sanday and P. Ewald is of this kind. The beatitudes originally stood in the Zogza in a form similar to that in Mt. v. 3-12. Lk. used the Zogza, but had also a document entirely independent of the Zogza ; and this contained a discourse, spoken originally on some other occasion, but yet so like the Sermon on the Mount as to be identified with it by Lk. The sermon in Luke is, therefore, a compound of the reports of two similar but different discourses ; and in this compound the elements derived from the Zogéa are dominated by those derived from the independent document (Zxfosztor for April 1891, p. 315). It seems, however, simpler to suppose that Lk. took the whole of his report from the document which contained this very similar, but different sermon. See Paul Feine, Ueber das gegensett. Verhiltniss d. Texte der Bergpredigt bet Matthius und Lukas in the Jahrb. fur Protest. Theologie,, xis τς 12 178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5, LUKE [VI. 20-49, The following tables will show the parallels between the two Evangelists :— BETWEEN THE Two SERMONS. Lk. vi. 20, 21 ΜΕ ΕΣ avin 3514 Ὁ. ὙΠΟ Ν,, 32».35.- Mt. vii. 1, 2. 222k we 4 ΤΣ 125 Al, Aaa. > 3-5. 27-30 - - 39-42. 43-46. . 16-21. 3 . e vill. 12. 47-49 . e 24-27. BETWEEN DETACHED SAYINGS IN LK. AND THE SERMON. IN ΜΊ. Lk. xiv. 34, 35 = Mt: γε} 12. Lk. κι. 34—36) » Mt. vi. 22-23. vill. 16 and xi, 33 . 15. Xvi. 13. - 24. Saab W7/ o 18. ΧΠ 22—2ilne . 25-34. XH. 58, 5 Ole 5 25, 26. xi, 9-13. 5 vii. 7-11. xvi. 18 . ᾿ B2t vat, Qk ὃ 13. ΧΙ. 2-4. . vi. 9-13. 25-27. > 22; 28: xii, 33,34. + 19, 21 BETWEEN THE SERMON IN LK. AND DETACHED SAYINGS IN MT. Tee vie 30° te : ΜῈ Saye τ ΜΠ το - - Mt. x. 24. This last saying was frequently uttered. It is recorded twice by Jn. (xiii. 16, xv. 20), and the four records seem to refer to four different occasions ; besides which we have a similar utterance Lk. xxii. 27. These tables leave three verses of the sermon in Lk. without a parallel in Mt. (or any other Gospel), viz. the four woes corresponding to the four beati- tudes, vv. 24-26. The portions of the sermon in Mt. which have no parallel in Lk. amount to forty-one verses, viz. Mt. v. 5, 7-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-24, 27-31, 33-38, 43, vi. 1-8, 14-18, vii. 6, 14, 15. The plan of both discourses is the same. 1. The qualifications of those who | can enter the kingdom (Lk. 20-26; Mt. v. I-12); 2: The duties of those who") have entered the kingdom (Lk. 27- 45; Mt. v. 13-vil. 12); 3~The judgments which await the members of the kingdom (Lk. 46-49 ; Mt. Vii. 13-27). En- couragement, requirement, warning ; or invitation, principles, sanction ;—these , are the three gradations which may be traced in these discourses ; and, as Stier | remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected. There is considerable unanimity as to the spot where the sermon was delivered (Stanley, Séz 9 Pal. pp. 368, 369; Caspari, Chron. and Geograph. Int. to the L. of C. § 108, p. 171; Robinson, Pad. ii. 370, ili. pp. 241, 485; Farrar, Z. of C. i. p. 250, and on Lk. vi. 12; Keim, Jes. of Waz. ii. p. 289). On the Gt: hand, Edersheim asserts that ‘‘ the locality is for many reasons unsuitable” ; but he gives no reasons (Z. & 7. i. p. 524; see also Thomson, Land and Book, i. Ρ. 118). 20-26. The Qualifications necessary for Admission to the Kingdom : the Happiness of those who possess them (20-23), and the Misery of those who possess them not (24-26). This contrast of Blessings and Woes at the beginning of the sermon corresponds with the contrast in the parable with which it ends. VI. 20.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 179 THE BEATITUDES COMMON TO MT. AND LK. WITH THE CORRESPONDING Μακάριοι Ι. οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύ- ματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. 2. οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται. 4. οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψ- ὥντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. 8. ἐστε ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώξωσιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ψευδόμενοι ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ: χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" οὕτως yap ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν. WOES IN LK, Μακάριοι I. οἱ πτωχοί, ὅτι ὑμε- τέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 3. οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, ὅτι γελάσετε. 2. οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε. 4. ἐστε ὅταν μισήσωσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ ὀνει- δίσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώ- που χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε, ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ: κατὰ τὰ Οὐαί Ι. ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παρά- κλησιν ὑμῶν. 3. οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε. 2. ὑμῖν, οἱ ἐμπεπλησ- μένοι νῦν, ὅτι πεινάσετε. 4. ὅταν καλῶς ὑμᾶς εἴ- πωσιν πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς Ψευδοπροφήταις ob πατέρες αὐτῶν. αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προ- φήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. VI. 20-23. Four Beatitudes; which correspond to the first, second, fourth, and eighth in Mt. v. 3-12; those relating to the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers being omitted. In the four that Lk. gives the more spiritual words which occur in Mt. are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more | external conditions. declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corre- sponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and fulness of bread (as being sources of temptation). It is in the last Beatitude that there is least difference between the two. Even in Lk. unpopularity is not declared to be blessed, unless it is “for the Son of Man’s sake”; and there is no Woe pronounced upon popularity for the Son of Man’s sake. 20. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς μαθητάς. Lk.’s favourite mode of connexion in narrative: see on v. 14 and comp. Vill. I, 22, ΙΧ. 51, etc. With ἐπάρας τ. 666. comp. xvili. 13 and Jn. xvii. 1. We must not take eis with ἔλεγεν ; Lk. would have written πρός, and after ἔλεγεν : contrast xxii. 65 and Mk. 111. 29. Mt. has προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. Kal... ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς. ‘The discourse in off cases is addressed to 276 disciples ; there is nothing to indicate that the discourse zz ZA. is addressed to mixed multitudes, including unbelieving Jews and heathen. These Beatitudes would not be true, if addressed to them. It is to the faithful Christian that poverty, hunger, sorrow, and unpopularity Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are 180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [VI. 20, 21. are real blessings; to others they may be mere sterile suffering. Whereas, even for the heathen, to be poor zz spzrtc and to hunger and _ thirst after righteousness are blessed things. In Mt. the Beatitudes are in the third person and have a wider sweep. μακάριοι ot. This is the common constr. both in LXX and N.T., the reason for the blessedness being expressed by a noun or participle which is the subject of the sentence (Ps. ii. 12, xl. 5, xli. 2, Ixxxiv. 5, 6, 13, Ixxxix. 16, etc.); but the reason is sometimes. expressed by the relative with a finite verb (Ps: i. 1, xxxii 1; 2; ΤᾺ xiv. U5); Jas. 1- 12); or by, Ovi (xivenlA ets iv. 14), or by ἐάν (Jn. xiii, 17 ; I Cor. vii. 40). ot πτωχοί. See on iv. 18. We have no right to supply τῷ πνεύματι from Mt. It is actual poverty that is here meant. Nor is it the meaning that actual poverty makes men “ poor in spirit.” Still less does it mean that in itself poverty is to all men a blessing. There is no Ebionite doctrine here. But “to you, My disciples, poverty is a blessing, because it preserves you in your dependence on God, and helps you to be truly His subjects”: τὸ yap ὑμετέρα Mare τ: πρὸς πάροντας ἐλέγετο (Eus.) Some of these disciples had made themselves poor by surrendering all in order to follow Christ. Comp. Ps. lx. 12, 13. ὑμετέρα ἐστὶν ἣ βασιλεία. “Yours zs the kingdom,” not “ will be.” It is not a promise, as in the next Beatitudes, but the state- ment of a fact. But the Kingdom is not yet theirs in its fulness ; and those elements which are not yet possessed are promised in the Beatitudes which follow. 21. ot πεινῶντες viv. ‘Those of you who are suffering from actual want in this life. Ye shall have compensation.” ~éxoptacOjcec8e. Originally the verb was confined to supplying animals with fodder (χόρτος), and if used of men implied a brutish kind of feeding (Plato, Ref. ix. p. 586). But in N.T. it is never used of cattle, and when it is used of men it has no degrading asso- Giations (x. 175 Jn! vi 26%) Phil} iv, ΤΣ; ; Jas. ii. 16); not even xv. 16, if the word 15 genuine there, nor xvi. 21. Comp. τοῦς aaaans αὐτῆς χορτάσω ἄρτων (Ps. CXXxii, 15). In LXX χορτάζω and πίμπλημι are used to translate the same Hebrew word, some- times in the same verse: ὅτι ἐχόρτασεν ψυχὴν κενήν, καὶ ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν (Ps. cvii. 9). Here the filling refers to _ the spiritual abundance in the Kingdom of God. “x αὐ] four cases, | although the suffering endured is external and literal, yet ‘he com- | | Bensating blessing ts spiritual. ot κλαίοντες viv. Mt. has πενθοῦντες, which expresses the mourning, while κλαίοντες implies outward manifestation of grief in loud weeping, just as yeAdoere implied outward expression of mirth in laughter. ‘Though common in LXX, yeAdw occurs in N.T, only here and ver, 20, VI. 32, 23.] ΤΗΒ MINISTRY IN GALILEE 181 22. ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς. “ Mark you off from (ἀπό) by a boundary (dpos).” It is used both in a good sense (Acts aut. 2; Rom: 1. τ; Gal. i. 15) and also in a bad, as here. Comp. καί μ᾽ ἀπὸ yas ee (Eur. Hec. 940). Excommunication from the congregation as well | as from social intercourse is here meant. ‘The usual sentence was \ ; for thirty days, during which the excommunicated might not come ἡ within four cubits of any one. Comp. Jn. 1x. 22, ΧΙ]. 42, xvi. 2. Whether there was at this time a more severe form of excommunica- ἡ tion is uncertain. Herzog, PREZ.” art. Bann bet den Hebriern ; Grotius on Lk. vi. 22; Lightfoot, Hor. Hed. on Jn. ix. 22. ὀνειδίσωσιν. The object to be supplied may be either the preceding ὑμᾶς (so most English Versions) or the following τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν (Bede, Weiss). Vulg. supplies nothing ; and Tyn. and Gen. have simply “‘and rayle ” with- out an object. Neither AV. nor RV. has ‘‘ you ” in italics. ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρόν. “Throw your name con- temptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing.” There is no idea of striking a name off the list as a mark of dis- grace, ex albo expungere, a meaning which ἐκβάλλειν never has. It is used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing with contempt (Aristoph. 4g. 525; Wud. 1477; Soph. O. C. 631, 636; O. T. 849; Plato, Cvzto, 46 B). “Your name” means “the name by which you are known as My disciples,” as Christians. “Christian” or “Nazarene” was a name of bad repute, which it was disgraceful, and even unlawful, to bear, for Christianity was not a religio licita. For πονηρόν as an epithet of ὄνομα comp. Deut. ΣΙ ΤῸ: ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. A vital qualification. The hatred and contempt must be undeserved, and be endured for Christ’s / ‘i sake ; not merited by one’s own misconduct. 23. oxiptyoate. Peculiar to Lk. See on 1. 41 and comp. Mal. iv. 2. κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ yap ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις. ‘This implies that they are to receive “ἃ prophet’s reward” (Mt. x. 41), as in this world, so in the next. For the dat. comp. τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (ver. 27). In class. Gk. we should have had τὰ αὐτὰ ἐποίουν τοὺς pop. Thus, ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα τοῦτον ἐποίησα σὺν δίκῃ (Hdt. i. 115. 3, iv. 166. 3: comp. Aristoph. Wud. 259; Vesp~. 697). In later Gk. the dat. of relation becomes much more common, οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. The gen. refers to of ἄνθρωποι in ver. 22; “the father of them” who hate and abuse you. 24-26. Four Woes corresponding to the four Beatitudes There is no evidence that these were not part of the original dis- course. Assuming that Mt. and Lk. report the same discourse, Mt. may have omitted them. But they may have been spoken on some other occasion. Schleiermacher and Weiss would have it ὧν 182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 24, 25. that they are mere glosses added by Lk. to emphasize and explain the preceding blessings. Cheyne thinks that some of them were suggested to Lk. by Is. lxv. 13-16. We have no right to assume that no persons were present to whom these words would be applicable. Even if there were none present, yet these Woes might have been uttered as warnings both to those who heard them and to others who would learn them from those who heard. Just as the Beatitudes express the qualifications of those who are to enter the Kingdom, so these show the qualities which exclude men from it. It is possible that some of the spies and adversaries | from Judzea were among the audience, and thus Jesus warns them — of their condition. When the discourse as placed by Mt. was spoken there was less opposition to Christ, and hence no Woes (Pastor Pastorum, p. 256). 24. πλήν. Curtius makes πλήν an adverbial form of πλέον, so that its radical meaning would be ‘‘ more than, beyond” (G7. Ztym. 282); but Lft. (Phil. iii, 16) connects it with πέλας, in the meaning “ besides, apart from this, only.” For the accusatival form comp. δίκην, ἐπίκλην, clam, coram. It sometimes restricts, sometimes expands, what precedes. It is a favourite word with Lk., in the Gospel as an adv. (ver. 35, X. II, 14, 20, xi. 41, ΧΙ]. 31, xiii, 33, xvii. I, xvili. 8, xix. 27, xxii. 21, 22, 42, xxiil. 28), in the Acts asa prep. (viii. 1, xv. 28, xxvii. 22). ‘‘ But” is the only possible rendering here. οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις. As a matter of fact the opponents of Christ came mostly from the wealthy classes, like the oppressors of the first Christians (Jas. v. 1-6). See Renan, L’Antechrist, p. xii; Ewald, Hist. of Israel, ii. p. 451. But the cases of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea show that the rich as such were not excluded from the kingdom.—dméyete. ‘Ye have to the full”; so that there is nothing more left to have. The poor consolation derived from the riches in which they trusted is all that they get: they have no treasure in heaven. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Philem. 15 ; and see Lft. on Phil. iv. 18. This meaning is classical: comp. ἀπολαμβάνω, ἀπεργάζομαι. For παράκλησιν see on 1]. 25, and comp. xvi. 25 of Lazarus. 25. οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν. ‘Sated with the good things of this life,” like Dives (Ezek. xvi. 49). Grotius compares the epitaph, τόσσ᾽ ἔχω ὅσσ᾽ ἔπιον καὶ édyrva. It may be doubted whether the change of word from χορτάζεσθαι (ver. 21) indicates that horum plenitudo non meretur nomen satietatis (Beng.): comp. i. 53. In Lat. Vet. and Vulg. we have satuvor both here and ver. 21. mewvdoete. This received a partial and literal fulfilment when Jerusalem was reduced to starvation in the siege: but the reference is rather to the loss of the spiritual food of the Kingdom. Comp. Is. lxv. 13. Hillel said, “‘The more flesh one hath the more worms, the more treasures the more care, the more maids the more unchastity, the more men-servants the more theft. The more law VI. 25-27.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 183 the more life, the more schools the more wisdom, the more counsel the more insight, the more righteousness the more peace.” ot γελῶντες νῦν. “Who laugh for joy over your present pro- sperity,” the loss of which will surely come and cause grief. But the worst loss will be that of spiritual joy hereafter (Is. lxv. 14). 26. ὅταν καλῶς εἴπωσιν ὑμᾶς. It is the wealthy who are com- monly admired and praised by all who hope to win their favour. The praise of worldly men is no guarantee of merit: rather it shows that those who have won it do not rise above the world’s standard (Jn. xv. 19; Jas. iv. 4). Plutarch says that Phocion, when his speech was received with universal applause, asked his friends whether he had inadvertently said anything wrong. τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις. Just as the persecuted disciples are the representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jer. Woe) comp: xxiii. 17; Is. xxx. ΤΟΙ; Mic. i. rr). Having stated who can and who cannot enter the Kingdom, Jesus goes on to make known the principles which regulate the Kingdom. 27-45. Requirement: the Duties to be performed by those who are admitted to the Kingdom of God. This forms the main body of the discourse. Lk. omits the greater portion of what is reported in Mt. respecting Christ’s relation to the Mosaic Law (v. 17-19), and His condemnation of existing methods of interpret- ing it (v. 20-48) and of fulfilling it (vi. 1-18). This discussion of Judaic principles and practices would not have much meaning for Lk.’s Gentile readers. The portion of it which he gives is stated without reference to Judaism. The main point in Mt. is the contrast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. In Lk. the main point is that true righteousness is love; but the opposition between formalism and the spirit of love is not urged. The opposition which is here marked is the more universal opposition between the spirit of selfishness and the spirit of love. There is a break in this main portion, which Lk. marks by making a fresh start, Εἶπεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν αὐτοῖς, but the second half ~ (39-45) continues the subject of the working of the principle of love. 27. *A\Ad. What is the contrast which this ἀλλά marks? The emphatic position of the ὑμῖν seems to show that the contrast is between those on whom the Woes have been pronounced and the faithful hearers now addressed. Others interpret, “ But, although 184 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 27, 28. I have denounced them, I do not allow you to hate them: you must love them.” There is, however, no indication that the enemies who are to be loved are the wealthy who have just been denounced, and such a limitation of the meaning of enemies cannot be justified : comp. Mt. v. 44. τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. ‘Who give ear and obey,” rots πειθομένοις (Euthym.). It is unnatural to take it literally as meaning “ My audience,” in contrast to the rich who have just been addressed zx their absence. Representatives of the rich may have been present among the audience. Schanz interprets ‘‘who listen with attention.” There is on the whole a double climax in what follows,—the worse the treatment received, the better the return made ; but it is not quite exact. One would expect that ἀγαπᾶτε would be coupled with τοῦς μισοῦντας. This is the first time that Lk. uses the word ἀγαπᾷν, which sums up the whole spirit of the Gospel: it is most frequent in the writings of Jn. ‘‘It should never be forgotten that ἀγάπη is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion: it occurs in the Septuagint ; but there is no example of its use in any heathen writer whatever” (Trench, Syz. xii.). This is not true of ἀγαπᾷν and ἀγαπά- few, which are common in class. Grk. But Christianity has ennobled the meaning of both ἀγαπᾷν and φιλεῖν, with their cognates : ἐρᾷν, which is scarcely capable of such advancement, does not occur in N.T. See on xi. 42, the only place where ἀγάπη occurs in Lk. τοὺς ἐχθρούς. For the combination with rots μισοῦσιν comp. i. 71; Ps. xvui. 18, cvi. 10; and for the fourfold description of enmity comp. ver. 22. In Mt. v. 44 we have only enemies and persecutors according to the best texts; and as καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μισ. ὑμᾶς (note the acc.) is not genuine there, this is the only passage in which καλῶς ποιεῖν -- “benefit, do good fo”: comp. καλῶς εἰπεῖν (ver. 26), and contrast Mt. xii. 12; Mk. vii. 37; Acts Σ 3331 Cor. vii. 37, 385 Phil. av. 245 Jas. v8) 165 bebe 1. 19; 3 Jn. 6.---τοῖς μισοῦσιν. For the dat. comp. τοῖς προφήταις (ver. 23) and τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις (ver. 26). See the expansion of this principle Rom. xii. 17-21; 1 Thes. v. 15; 1 Pet. mao. Comp. Exod: xxi. 4; Job’ xxx!) 29; Prov. xvii. ἢ: sivas xxv. 21. See detached note on ¢he relation of Rom. xii.-xiv. to the Gospels at the end of Rom. xiii. 28. εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς. In class. Grk. εὐλογεῖν means “ praise, honour,” whether gods or men: comp. 1. 64, 11. 28 ; Jas. iii. 9. The meaning “invoke blessings upon” is confined to LXX and ΝΕ. (Gen. xiv. τὸ; xxii. 17, xlvii.'9; Rom. xm ΤῊ Acts ili. 26). In class. Grk. καταρᾶσθαι is followed by a dat. (Hom. Hdt. Xen. Dem.), as in Ep. Jer. 65: but in N.T. by an acc. (Mk. ix. 21; Jas. iii. 9) ; and the interpolation Mt. v. 44.—For προσεύχεσθε περί we might have expected mp. ὑπέρ, and the MSS. here and elsewhere are divided between ὑπέρ and περί (Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 3; Rom. i. 8). But comp. Acts viii. 15; Heb. xiii. 18; Col. iv. 3. Win. xlvii. 1. 2, p. 478. VI. 958-80.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 185 A > , ε A s > ’ ΕἸ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. Aristotle defines ἐπηρεασμός as ἐμπο- ~ a 9 3. ὦ > δισμὸς ταῖς βουλήσεσιν, οὐχ iva τι αὑτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα μὴ ἐκείνῳ (Lhet. il, 2. 5). It is “spiteful treatment.” 29, 30. Whereas vv. 27, 28 refer to the active ἀγάπη which returns good for evil, these refer rather to the passive μακροθυμία, which never retaliates, The four precepts here given are startling. It is impossible for either govern- ments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist; and if individuals acted in strict obedience to them society would be reduced to anarchy. Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The inference is that they are not precepts, but cllustrations of principles. They are in the form of rules; but as they cazmot be kept as rules, we are compelled to look beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with observing the letter, and have never penetrated to the spirit. What is the spirit ? Among other things this :—that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our property must never be a Zersonal matter: so far as we are concerned we must be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to with- stand and even to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and protect society ; not because of any personal azzmus. It is right also to with- hold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them ; but in order to check idleness and effrontery ; not because we are too fond of our possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery, whatever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because com- pliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or suffering. 29. τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ Thy σιαγόνα. A violent blow with the fist seems to be meant rather than a contemptuous slap, for σιαγών means “jaw-bone” (Judg. xv. 15, 16; Ezek. xxix. 14; Mic. v. 4; Hos. xi. 4). In what follows also it is an act of violence that is meant; for in that case the upper and more valuable garment (ἱμάτιον) would be taken first. In Mt. νυ. 40 the spoiler adopts a legal method of spoliation (κριθῆναι), and takes the under and less indispensable garment (χιτῶνα) first. See on lil. 11 and comp. Jn. xix. 23. Here only do we find τύπτειν ἐπί c. dat. In class, Grk. c gen, 2.8. ἐπὶ κόρρης τύπτειν or πατάσσειν (Plato, Gorg. 486 C, 508 D, 527 A). Some- times we have εἰς (Mt. xxvii. 30), which some MSS. read here and xviii. 13. Comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5. So also κωλύειν ἀπό is not common. Comp. οὐ μὴ κωλύσει τὸ μνημεῖον αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ σοῦ (Gen. xxill. 6) and ἀπὸ σοῦ κωλύων (Xen. Cyr. i. 3. II, ili. 3. 51). The more usual constr. both in N.T. and class. Grk. is either acc. and inf. (xxi. 2; Acts xvi. 6, xxiv. 23) or acc. of pers. and gen. of thing (Acts xxvii. 43). Note that αἴρειν does not mean simply ‘‘ take,” which is λαμβάνειν, but either ‘‘take up” (v. 24, ix. 23) or “take away” (xix. 24, xxiii. 18). 80. παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου. There is no παντί in Mt. v. 42, and this is one of many passages which illustrate Lk.’ 5 fondness for was (ver. 17, Vil. 35, 1x. 43, xi. 4). The παντί has been differently understood. ‘No one is to be excluded, not even 186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [VI. 80, 81. one’s enemies ” (Meyer, Weiss). Ommni petent? te tribue, non omnia petenti ; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes (Aug.). Neither remark is quite right. Our being able to give juste et honeste depends not only on what is asked, but upon who asks it. Some things must not be conceded to any one. Others ought to be given to some petitioners, but not to all. In every case, however, we ought to be zwz//ing to part with what may be lawfully given to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive for refusing. δίδου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ atpovtos τὰ σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει. The pres. in all three cases implies continual action, making a practice of it. “Continually give, and from him who continues to take away thy goods do not continue to ask them again.” For αἴρειν in the sense of “take as one’s own, appropriate,” comp. xi. 52, xix. 21; Mk. xv. 24. It does not imply that violence is used. But the μὴ ἀπαίτει implies that hitherto asking them back has been usual. The verb ἀπαιτεῖν is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xii. 20: comp. Wisd. xv. 8; Ecclus. xx. 15; Hdt.i. 3. 2). Prof. Marshall thinks that we have here another instance of different translation of the same Aramaic, and that Lk.’s aipovros and Mt.’s δανείσασθαι may repre- sent the same word ; also Lk.’s ἀπαίτει and Mt.’s ἀποστραφῇς. See on v. 21 and viii. 15. 81. καὶ καθὼς θέλετε. The καί introduces the general principle which covers all these cases: “‘and in short, in a word.” How would one wish to be treated oneself if one was an aggressor? How ought one to wish to be treated? But obviously the principle covers a great deal more than the treatment of aggressors and enemies. In Tobit iv. τὸ we have, ‘Do that to no man which thou hatest” ; but this purely negative precept, which was common with the Rabbis, falls immeasurably short of the positive command of Christ. Isocrates has ἃ πάσχοντες ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ὀργίζεσθε, ταῦτα τοῖς ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖτε, and the Stoics said, Quod tibi 7671 non v1, alteri ne feceris; and the same is found in Buddhism. In the Διδαχή, i. 2, and Agost. Const. vii. 2. 1, we have both the positive and the negative form. Cod. D, Iren. (iii. 12. 14), Cypr. (Zesé. iii. 119) and other authorities insert the negative form Acts xv. 29. How inadequate the so-called Rabbinical parallels to the Sermon on the Mount are, as collected by Winsche and others, has been shown by Edersheim (2. & Z. 1. p. 531). Note the καθώς, ‘‘ even as, precisely as”: the conformity is to be exact. For θέλειν ἵνα comp. Mt. vii. 12; Mk. vi. 25, ix. 30, x. 35; Jn. xvii. 24, and see on iv. 3. The καὶ ὑμεῖς before ποιεῖτε is omitted by B and some Latin texts. 32-35. Interested affection is of little account: Christian love is of necessity disinterested ; unlike human love, it embraces what is repulsive and repellent. VI. 82--5.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 187 32. ποία ὑμῖν χάρις. ‘What kind of thank, or favour, have you?” ‘This may be understood either of the gratitude of the persons loved or of the favour of God. The latter is better, and is more clearly expressed by τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; (Mt. v. 46). Other- wise there does not seem to be much point in οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί, For χάρις of Divine favour comp. i. 30, il. 40, 52; Acts vii. 46. καὶ yap. ‘For even”; xam etiam. Comp. Mt. viii. 9; Mk. vii. 28, xX. 45; Jn. iv. 45; 1 Cor. xii. 14; and see Ellicott on 2 Thes. 1]. 10; Meyer on 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 88. Here only is ἀγαθοποιεῖν found with an acc. after it. It does not occur in profane writers, and elsewhere in N.T. is absolute: vv. 9, 353; Mk. Ἢ ΡῈ 1. 15, 20; Win G17 > 2: Ti... But im 1 Pet. and 2. Jn. 1015 used of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whereas in Lk. and Mt. it is used, as in LXX, of helping others as opposed to harm- ing them: Num. x. 32; Jud. xvii. 13 (Cod. B ἀγαθυνεῖ) ; Zeph. 1. 12. Hatch, 4267. (γᾷ. p. 7; but see Lft. on Clem. Rom. Cor. 11. p. 17. For ἁμαρτωλοί Mt. has in the one case τελῶναι and in the other ἐθνικοί. Of course both “publicans” and “heathen” are here used in a moral sense, because of their usual bad character ; and Weiss confidently asserts that Lk. is here interpreting, while Mt. gives the actual words used. But it is possible that Mt. writing as a Jew, has given the classes who to Jews were sinners κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν instead of the general term. 84. This third illustration has no parallel in Mt., but see Mt. v. 42; and comp. Prov. xix. 17. davlonre. The texts are divided between this form, davelonre, davel(nre, and davelgere. In N.T. davifw is to be preferred to davelfw, which is the class. form. The verb means to ‘‘lend upon zwerest,” whereas κίχρημι indicates a friendly loan; and therefore τὰ toa would include both interest and principal. ἀπολάβωσιν. “Receive as their due, receive back,” or perhaps “receive 7m full” ; comp. ἀπέχω in ver. 24, and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 5; also Ellicott and Meyer. The phrase ἀπολ. τὰ ἴσα need not mean more than “receive equivalent services,” but more probably it refers to repayment in full: comp. ἐρανίζω and ἀντερανίζω. 35. πλήν. See on ver. 24. “διέ, when this kind of interested affection has been rejected as worthless, what must be aimed at is this.” Note the pres. imperat. throughout: ‘‘ Hadztually love, do good, and lend”; also that Christ does not change the word daviere, nor intimate that it does not here have its usual meaning of lending on interest. μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες. The meaning of this famous saying de- pends partly upon the reading, whether we read μηδέν or pydéva,} 1 The external evidence stands thus— For μηδέν ἀπ. ABLRXT Aetc., Latt. Syr-Harcl.? Boh. For μηδένα ἀπ. SZIL*; Syrr. Tisch. is almost alone among recent editors in preferring μηδένα ; WH. and RV. place in the margin, 188 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [VI. 85. but mainly upon the interpretation of ἀπελπίζοντες. All English Versions previous to RV. adopt the common view that ἀπελπ. means “hoping for in return,” a meaning which is without example, but which is supposed to be justified by the context, or rather by the corrupted context. Thus Field argues: ‘“ No doubt this use of the word is nowhere else to be met with; but the context is here too strong for philological guzbé/es (!). “Τῇ ye lend to them παρ᾽ ὧν "EATIIZETE ᾿ΑΠΟλαβεῖν, what thank have ye?’ ‘Then follows the precept: ‘Lend μηδὲν “AITEATIIZONTES,’ which can by no possi- bility bear any other meaning than μηδὲν ἐλπίζοντες ἀπολαβεῖν ” (Otium Norv. 111. p. 40). The argument would be precarious, even if the facts were as stated ; but the true reading is παρ᾽ ὧν ἐλπίζετε λαβεῖν (8 BL, Justin), and therefore the whole falls to the ground. The usual meaning of ἀπελπίζω, “I give up in despair,” makes excellent sense ; either “despairing of nothing,” or ‘“ despairing of no one” (μηδένα). “ Despairing of nothing” or “ never despairing ” may mean either “never doubting that God will requite you,” or “never despairing about your money.” The latter meaning is almost identical with “ despairing of no one,” ze. “never doubting that your creditor will pay.” But it has been suggested that μηδένα may be meut. plur., on the authority of Steph. Zzesaur. v. col. 962 iii. col. 3645]. If this were correct, the two readings would have the same meaning. On the authority of a single passage in the Anthologia Palatina (ii. 114, p. 325, Brunck), Liddle and Scott give ἀπελπίζω a transitive meaning, ‘“‘causing to despair”; but there ἄλλον ἀπελπίζων (of an astrologer who said that a person had only nine months to live) may mean “giving him up in despair” : comp. Polyb. ii. 54. 7. Therefore we may safely abandon the common interpretation and render “giving up nothing in despair” or “never despairing.” Comp. ἐπὶ φίλον ἐὰν σπάσης ῥομφαίαν, μὴ ἀπελπίσῃς (Ecclus. xxii. 21); ὃ δὲ ἀποκαλύψας μυστήρια ἀπήλπισε (xxvii. 21); τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπηλπίσας (2 Mac. ix. 18), of Antiochus when stricken with an incurable disease. Galen often uses the verb of desperate cases in medicine; see Hobart, p. 118, and Wetst.? D and many early Latin texts have xzhz/ desperantes. See the valuable note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate, p. 344. But he thinks it Josszb/e that Lk. may have written ἀπελπίζειν for ἐλπίζειν ἀπό on the analogy of ἀπεσθίειν for ἐσθίειν ἀπό and ἀπολαβεῖν for λαβεῖν ἀπό. 1 What mischief the common interpretation (sanctioned by the Vulgate, zzz inde sperantes) has wrought in Europe is strikingly shown by Dollinger (44a- demische Vortrdge, i. pp. 223 ff. ; Studies in European History, pp. 224 ff.). On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, and Christians were forbidden to take it, money-lending passed into the hands of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were held. The paradox that Christians may not take interest has been revived by Ruskin. VI. 35-38. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 189 ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ Ὑψίστου. In Mt. v. 9 peacemakers are called υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. The moral likeness proves the parentage. Just as in vv. 32, 33 Lk. has the generic ἁμαρτωλοί where Mt. has the specific τελῶναι and ἐθνικοί, so here we have “zs kind towards the unthank- ful and evil” instead of “‘ maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Mt. v. 45). For Ὑψίστου comp. 1. 32, 35, 76. 36, 37. A further development of the principle of Christian love. Having told His disciples to cherish no personal azzmus against those who injure them, He now warns them against judging others respecting any supposed misconduct. To pose as a general censor morum is unchristian. Censoriousness is a transgression of a the royal law of love, and an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. | Not only vengeance but judgment belongs to God. And judgment, when it is inevitable, must be charitable (ἀπολύετε), directed by a desire to acquit rather than to condemn. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; Jas. iv. 11, 12. Hillel said, “ Judge not thy neighbour until thou comest into his place ” (Ewald, Hist. of Israel, vi. p. 27). See on Wer: Sr. The loose citations of these two verses by Clement of Rome (i. 13. 2) and Clement of Alexandria (.Stvom. ii. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) are interesting. Both have the words ὡς χρηστεύεσθε, οὕτως χρηστευθήσεται ὑμῖν immediately before ᾧ μέτρῳ, κιτ.λ. They represent γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες in Lk., for which Justin has γίνεσθε δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰκτίρμονες (Try. xcvi.; Apol. i. 15). Comp. Clem. HTom. 111. 57. It is probable that Clem. Alex. here quotes Clem. Rom. uncon- sciously. 88. The transition is easy from charity in judging others to benevolence in general. Comp. ver. 30 and iii. 11. God remains in debt to no man. “He giveth not by measure” (Jn. 11. 34), nor does He recompense by measure, unless man serves Him by measure. Disciples who serve in the spirit of love make no such calculations, and are amply repaid. We are here assured of this fact in an accumulation of metaphors, which form a climax. They are evidently taken from the measuring of corn, and Bengel is clearly wrong in interpreting ὑπερεκχυννόμενον of fluids: eis τὸν κόλπον is conclusive. ‘The asyndeton is impressive. The form ὑπερεκχυννόμενον seems to occur nowhere else, excepting as v.l. Joel ii. 24. The class. form is ὑπερεκχέω. δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμών. Who shall give? Not the persons benefited, but the instruments of God’s bounty. The verb is almost impersonal, ‘‘there shall be given,” δοθήσεται. Comp. αἰτοῦσιν (xii. 20) and αἰτήσουσιν (xii. 48). The κόλπος is the fold formed by a loose garment overhanging a girdle. ‘This was often used as a pocket (Exod. iv. 6; Prov. vi. 27; and esp. Ps. Ixxix. 2; ts) lev 6; Jer. sod 18). ‘Comp. Hdt. vi. 125. 8; Liv. xxi. 18.10; Hor. Sa¢. ii. 3. 172, and other illustrations in Wetst. 190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 38-40. ᾧ yap μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε. There is no inconsistency, as Weiss states (stimmt immer nicht recht), with what precedes; but he is right in condemning such interpretations as τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, od μὴν τοσούτῳ (Theophyl.) and eadem mensura in genere sed exuberans (Grot.) as evasions. The loving spirit uses no measure in its services ; and then God uses no measure in requiting. But the niggardly and grudging servant, who tries to do just the minimum, receives just the minimum in return. In Mk. iv. 24, 25 we have this saying with a different application. 39. The second half of the discourse begins here, and this is marked by a repetition of the introductory Εἶπεν. The connexion with what precedes perhaps is, that, before judging others, we must judge ourselves ; otherwise we shall be blind leaders of the blind. This saying occurs in quite another connexion Mt. xv. 14. It may easily have been uttered several times, and it is a common- place in literature. We are thus shown the manifold application of Christ’s sayings, and the versatility of truth. See Wetst. on Mt. xv. 14. With the exception of Mk. xii. 12, the phrase εἶπεν παρα- βολήν is peculiar to Lk. (xil. 16, xv. 3, xviii. 9, xix. 11, xx. 19, Xxi. 29). eis βόθυνον. “Into a pit” rather than “into the ditch,” which all English Versions prior to RV. have both here and Mt. xv. 14. In Mt. xii. 11 nearly all have “ἃ pit.” The word is a doublet of βόθρος, putews, and is perhaps connected with βαθύς. Palestine is full of such things, open wells without walls, unfenced quarries, and the like. For ὁδηγεῖν comp. Acts viii. 31; Jn. xvi. 13; Ps. ΣΙΝ 5, IXKXy. TI, Cxvill. 355° Wisd, 1x, ΤΗΣ 17, - 40. This again is one of Christ’s frequent sayings. Here the connexion seems to be that disciples will not get nearer to the truth than the teacher does, and therefore teachers must beware of being blind and uninstructed, especially with regard to knowledge of self. In xxi. 27 and in Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples must not set themselves above their master. In Mt. x. 24 the point is that disciples must not expect better treatment than their master. So also in Jn. xv. 20, which was a different occasion. κατηρτισμένος δὲ πᾶς ἔσται ὡς διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ. The sentence may be taken in various ways. 1. Every well instructed disciple shall be as his master (AV.). 2. Every disciple, when he has been well instructed, shall be as his master. 3. Every disciple shall be as well instructed as his master (Tyn. Cran.). But Per- Jectus autem omnis 6717, st sit sicut magister ejus (Vulg.), “ Every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master” (Rhem.), Wenn der Jiinger ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen (Luth.), is impossible. The meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master; at the best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults, the disciple will be likely to copy them. Wi. 40-48. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE IOI For καταρτίζω, ‘‘make ἄρτιος, equip,” comp. Mt. iv. 21; Mk. i. 19; 1 Thes. iii. 10; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, xiii. 21. It is a surgical word, used of setting a bone or joint: for examples see Wetst. on Mt. iv. 21. There is no πᾶς in Mt. x. 24, 25: see on ver. 30. 41, 42. In order to avoid becoming a blind teacher, whose disciples will be no better than oneself, one must, before judging and attempting to correct others, correct oneself. Self-knowledge and self-reform are the necessary preparation of the reformer, without which his work is one of presumption rather than of love. 41. κάρφος. ‘‘ Anything small and dry”: in class. Grk. usually in plur, of chips, twigs, bits of wood, etc. Curtius connects it with σκαρφίον, ‘‘a splinter” (Grk, Etym. 683); but better with κάρφειν, ‘‘to dry up.” In Gen. viii. II it is used of the olive twig brought by the dove. See Wetst. on Mt. vii. 3. The δόκος is the ‘‘bearing-beam, main beam,” that which receives (δέχομαι) the other beams in a roof or floor. It is therefore as necessarily large as a κάρφος is small. κατανοεῖς. ‘Fix thy mind upon.” It expresses prolonged attention and observation. Careful consideration of one’s own faults must precede attention to those of others. The verb is specially freq. in Lk. (xil. 24, 27, xx. 23; Acts xl. 6, xxvil. 39: comp. Heb. mi. 1, x. 24; Rom. iv. 19). 42. πώς δύνασαι λέγειν. “With what face can you adopt this tone of smug patronage?” In Mt. vi. 4 the patronizing ᾿Αδελφέ is wanting. ἄφες ἐκβάλω. For the simple subj. after ἀφίημι comp. Mt. xxvii. 49; Mk. xv. 36. Epict. Dzss. i. 9. 15, 11]. 12. 15. In modern Greek it is the regular idiom. Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356.—In οὐ βλέπων we have the only instance in Lk. of οὐ with a participle: ‘‘ When thou dost not look at, much less anxiously consider” (κατανοῶν) : see small print on i. 20. imoxpitdé. The hypocrisy consists in his pretending to be so pained by the presence of trifling evil that he is constrained to endeavour to remove it. Comp. xiii. 15. That he conceals his own sins is not stated; to some extent he is not aware of them. The τότε means “then, and not till then”; and the διαβλέψεις is neither imperative nor concessive, but the simple future. When self-reformation has taken place, then it will be possible to see how to reform others. Note the change from βλέπειν to διαβλέ- mew; not.merely look at, but “see clearly.” In class. Grk. διαβλέπω means “look fixedly,” as in deep thought. Plato notes it as a habit of Socrates (PAedo, 86 D). 43. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν. Codex D and some versions omit the γάρ, the connexion with the preceding not being observed. The con- nexion is close. A good Christian cannot but have good results in the work of converting others, and a bad Christian cannot have such, for his bad life will more than counteract his efforts to reclaim others. 192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VI. 43-48. The etymological connexion between καρπός (carfo, Herbst, harvest) and κάρφος is by no means certain. But if it is a fact, it has no place here. The phrase ποιεῖν καρπόν is not classical, but a Hebraism (iii. 9, viil. 8, xill. 9 ; Gen. 1. 11, 12; Ps. cvul. 37). By σαπρόν (σήπω) is meant (1) what is ‘‘ rotten, putrid,” and (2) what is ‘‘ worthless.” See Wetst. on Mt. vii. 18. A rotten tree would produce no fruit ; and fishes just caught would not be putrid (Mt. xiii. 48). In both places the secondary meaning is required. 44, The unreformed can no more reform others than thorns and briars can produce figs and grapes. It is by their fruits that each comes to be known (γινώσκεται). The identification of the many Hebrew words which denote thorny shrubs is a hopeless task. Neither the originals nor their Greek representatives can be satisfactorily determined (Groser, Zyees and Plants of the Bible, p. 172). Elsewhere in N.T. βάτος is used of the burning bush (xx. 37; Acts vil. 30, 25; Mk. xii. 26; Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4): in Hom. it is a “thorn-bush, bramble” (Od. xxiv. 230). The verb τρυγάω is specially used of the vintage (Rev. xiv. 18, 19; Lev. xix. 10, Xxv. 5, 11; Deut. xxiv. 21). Comp. the similar sayings Jas. lil. 11, 12, which are probably echoes of Christ’s teaching as remem- bered by the Lord’s brother. 45. This forms a link with the next section. When men are natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth sometimes professes what the heart does not feel. 46-49. The Judgments which await the Members of the King- dom. The Sanction or Warning. Mt. vii. 13-27. This is some- times called the Epilogue or the Peroration: but it is not a mere summing up. It sets forth the consequences of following, and the consequences of not following, what has been enjoined. 46. The question here asked may be addressed to all dis- ciples, none of whom are perfect. The inconsistency of calling Him Lord and yet failing in obedience to Him was found even in Apostles. What follows shows that the question applies to the whole of Christian conduct. Of the four parables in the latter half of the sermon, the first two (the blind leading the blind; the mote and the beam) have special reference to the work of correct- ing others; the third (the good and bad trees) may be either special or general ; while the fourth (the wise and foolish builders) is quite general. With Κύριε comp. xili. 25; Mt. xxv. 11, 12; jas) 22 20. 47. For πᾶς 6 ἐρχόμενος see small print on 1. 66, and for ὑποδείξω see on 111. 7 and Fritzsche on Mt. iil. 7. 48. ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον. “He dug and went deep (not a hendiadys for ‘dug deep’) and laid a founda- tion.” The whole of this graphic description is peculiar to Lk.. VI. 48, 49.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 193 Robinson stayed in a new house at Nazareth, the owner of which had dug down for thirty feet in order to build upon rock (Res. zz Fal. ii. p. 338). The parables in Mt. and Lk. are so far identical that in both the two builders desire to have their houses near a water-course, water in Palestine being very precious. In Mt. they build on different places, the One on the rock and the other on the sand, such as is often found in large level tracts by a dry water-course. Nothing is said about the wise builder digging through the sand till he comes to rock. Each finds what seems to him a good site ready to hand. πλημμύρης. “A flood,” whether from a river or a sea: and hence a flood of troubles and the like. See Jos. “4212. 11. το. 2 and examples in Wetst. Here only in N.T., and in LXX only ΠΟ χχ: 22. οὐκ ἴσχυσεν. “Had not strength to.” The expression is a favourite one with Lk. (vill. 43, xill. 24, xiv. 6, 29, xvi. 3, xx. 26; Acts vi. 10, XV. 10, ΣΙ͂Σ. 16, 20, xxv. 7, Xxvil. 16). For σαλεῦσαι comp. vil. 24, ma. 26 Acts i. 25 fr. Ps. χν. 8; ἵν. 31 > freq. in LX. διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν. This is certainly the true reading (8 BL& 33 157, Boh. Syr-Harcl. marg.). The common reading, τεθεμελίωτο yap ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (AC DX etc.; Latt. Syrr. Goth. Arm.), is obviously taken from Mt. The Ethiopic combines the two readings. 49. 7 προσέρηξεν 6 ποταμός. Lk. gives only the main incident, the river, created by the rain, smiting the house. But Mt. is much more graphic : κατέβη ἢ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ. συνέπεσεν. “It fell in,” 2.6. the whole fell together in a heap: much more expressive than ἔπεσεν, Which some texts (A C) here borrow from Mt. ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα. ‘To harmonize with προσέρηξεν. This use of ῥῆγμα for “ruin” (so first in Rhem.) seems to be without example. In class. Grk. it is used of bodily fractures or ruptures, and also of clothes ; so also in 1 Kings x1. 30, 31; 2 Kings iil. 12. But Amos vi. 11 of rents in a building, πατάξει τὸν οἶκον τὸν μέγαν θλάσμασιν, kal τὸν οἶκον τὸν μικρὸν ῥάγμασιν. Hobart contrasts the βροχή, προσέκοψαν, ἔπεσεν, and πτῶσις of Mt. with the πλήμμυρα, προσέρ- pygev, συνέπεσεν, and ῥῆγμα οἵ Lk., and contends that the latter four belong to medical phraseology (pp. 55, 56). The μέγα, like μεγάλη in Mt., comes last with emphasis. Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, produce disastrous ruin. The κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν (il. 34) is fulfilled. The audience are left with the crash of the unreal disciple’s house sounding in their ears. ie Similar Rabbinical sayings are quoted, but as coming from persons who lived after A.D. 100, by which time Christ’s teaching had filtered into both Jewish 13 194 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [VI. 49-VII. 2. and pagan thought. ‘‘ Whosesoever wisdom is above his works, to what is he like? Toa tree whose branches are many and its roots few. Then the wind cometh and rooteth it up and turneth it over. And, whosesoever works are above his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few and its roots many. Though all the winds come upon it, they move it not from its place” (Afishna, Pirge aboth, 111. xxvii.) And again, ‘‘To whom is he like, that with many merits uniteth great wisdom? To him who first layeth granite blocks and then bricks. Though ever so mighty floods wash round the building, yet they cannot make it give way. But to whom is he like, who knoweth much and fulfilleth little? To him who layeth the foundation with bricks, which are disturbed by the least water (Adoth R. Nathan, xxiii.). See Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 540; Nicholson on Mt. vii. 24. VII. 1. The division of the chapters is misleading. This verse forms the conclusion of the preceding narrative quite in Lk’s manner: Comp: iv: 30,°37, 44, v. 11, 16, 26, Vi Peer It is not the introduction to what follows, for Jesus must have been in Capernaum some time before the centurion heard about Him. Lk. says nothing about the impression which the discourse made upon the people (Mt. vii. 28), nor about their following Him (Mt. viii. 1). Ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ. This is the only place in N.T. in which ἐπειδή is used in the temporal sense of ‘‘after that, when now.” Hence ᾿Επεὶ δέ is found in many texts. K has Ered) δέ, while Ὁ has Καὶ ἐγένετο dre. In the causal sense of ‘‘since, seeing that,” ἐπειδή occurs only in Lk. and Paul (xi. 6; Acts xiii. 46, xiv. 12, xv. 243 I Cor. i, 21, 22, xiv. 16, xv. 21). See Ellicott on Phil. ii. 26. For ἐπλήρωσε, *“completed,” so that no more remained to be said, comp. Acts xii. 25, ἘΠῚ 25, xiv. 20, ΣΙΧ. 20s εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ. The εἰς marks the direction of what was said: comp. i. 44, iv. 443 Acts xi. 22, xvii. 20, Both in bibl. Grk. and in class, Grk. ἀκοή has three senses. 1. ‘“‘ The thing heard, report” (1 Sam. ii. 24; 1 Kings ii. 28; Jn. xii. 38; Rom. x. 16). 2. ‘The sense of hearing” (2 Sam. xxii. 4, 5: Job. xli. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 175; 2 Pet. τ 8). 35 ine ear” (Mk. viie 35; Heb. v. 11; 2 Mac. xv. 39). 2-10. The healing of the Centurion’s Servant at Capernaum. Mt. viii. 5-13. Mt. places the healing of the leper (Lk. v. 12-14) between the Sermon on the Mount and the healing of the cen- turion’s slave. This centurion was a heathen by birth (ver. 9), and was probably in the service of Antipas. He had become in some degree attracted to Judaism (ver. 5), and was an illustration of the great truth which Lk. delights to exhibit, that Gentile and Jew alike share in the blessings of the kingdom. The azma naturaliter Christiana of the man is seen in his affection for his slave. 2. ἤμελλεν τελευτᾷν. “Was on the point of dying,” and would have done so but for this intervention (Acts xii. 6, xvi. 27, etc.). Burton, § 73. For ἔντιμος, “held in honour, held dear,” comp. xiv. 8; Phil. iL, 293.2 Ῥεῖ: ἢν 4, δ᾽; Is. sacvill τον Ome ae explains why this deputation of elders came. VII. 3-6. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 195 3. ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρους. These elders (no article) would be leading citizens ; but they need not be identified with the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι (vill. 49, xiii. 14; Acts ΧΙ]. 15, xviii. 8, 17), as Godet formerly advocated. The compound διασώζειν, “to bring safe through,” is almost peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts ΣΝ 5, XKVI. 43, 44, xxvill. 1,4; Mt. xiv. 36; © Pet, iil., 20). 4. ot δὲ παραγενόμενο. A favourite verb (ver. 20, Vili. 19, xi. 6, Xl. 51, XIV. 21, xix. 16, xxli. 52; and about twenty times in Acts): elsewhere in N.T. eight or nine times, but very freq. in 1ΧΧ. ἄξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ τοῦτο. ‘‘He is worthy that Thou shouldest do this for him”; 2 sing. fut. mid. The reading παρέξει (GT A) is 3 sing. fut. act. and must not be taken as analogous to the exceptional forms οἴει, ὄψει, and βούλει. But beyond doubt παρέξῃ (NA BCDRZ& etc.) is the correct reading. 5. ἀγαπᾷ yap τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν. This would hardly be said of one who was actually a proselyte. He had learned to admire and respect the pure worship of the Jews and to feel affection for the people who practised it. This would be all the more likely if he were in the service of the Herods rather than that of heathen Rome. τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς ὠκοδόμησεν ἡμῖν. “At his own expense he built us eur synagogue,” the one which we have; not “a syna- gogue” (AV.). Had Capernaum only one synagogue? If Ze// Him represents Capernaum, and if the ruins of the synagogue there are from a building of this date, they show with what liberality this centurion had carried out his pious work. But it is doubtful whether the excellent work exhibited in these ruins is quite so early as the first century. The centurions appear in a favourable light in N.T, (xxiii. 47 ; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 23, 24, XXIV. 23, XXvil. 43). Roman organization produced, and was maintained by, excellent individuals, who were a blessing to others .and themselves. As Philo says, after praising Petronius the governor of Syria, τοῖς δὲ ἀγαθοῖς ἀγαθὰς ὑπηχεῖν ἔοικε γνώμας ὁ Θεὸς δ᾽ ὧν ὠφελοῦντες ὠφεληθήσονται (Leg. ad Caium, Ῥ- 1027, ed. Gelen.). Augustus had recognized the value of synagogues in maintaining order and morality. 6. οὐ μακράν. Comp. Acts xvii. 27. The expression is peculiar to Lk., who is fond of οὐ with an adj. or adv. to express his meaning. Comp. οὐ πολλοί (xv. 13; Acts i. 5), οὐ πολύ (Acts XXVIl. 14), οὐκ ὀλίγος (Acts ΧΠ 18, xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvii. 4, 12, XIX, 23, 24, XXVil. 20), od« 6 τυχών (Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2), οὐκ ἄσημος (Acts xxl. 39), οὐ μετρίως (Acts xx. 12). ἔπεμψεν φίλους. Comp. xv. 6, Acts x. 24. Mt. says nothing about either of these deputations, but puts the message of both into the mouth of the centurion himself, who comes in person. In Lk. the man’s humility and faith prevail over his anxiety as soon as he sees that the first deputation has succeeded, and that the great Rabbi 196 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [VII. 6-9. and Prophet is really coming to him. Therefore he sends the second deputation to say that he is not worthy of a visit, and that the visit is not necessary. Κύριε, μὴ σκύλλου. “Lord, cease to trouble Thyself.” The verb is a marked instance of the tendency of words to become weaker in meaning: σκύλλω (σκῦλον, xi. 22) is 1. “flay”; 2. “mangle”; 3. “vex, annoy” (vin. 40; Mk: v. 35 > Ν ἴπ Τ See Lxfositor, 1st series, 1876, iv. pp. 30, 31. What follows seems to show that the centurion was not a proselyte. ‘The house of a Gentile was polluting to a Jew; and therefore οὐ γὰρ ἱκανός εἰμι, k.7.X., 15. quite in point if he was still a heathen. But it is rather strong language if he had ceased to be a heathen. For ἵνα after ixavos see Burton, ὃ 216. 7. εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω ὃ παῖς pov. Lit. “Say with a word, and let my servant be healed.” ‘The word is to be the instrument with which the healing is to take place, instead of Jesus’ coming in person: comp. Acts 11. 40 and Gal. vi. 11. There is no doubt that 6 παῖς μου means “ my servant.” ‘This use is found in N.T. (xii. 45, xv. 26; Mt. viil. 6, 8, 13), and is very freq. in LXX and in class. Grk,. It has been contended that in Mt. viii. 6, 8, 13 παῖς must mean ‘‘son,” because the centurion calls his servant δοῦλος in ver. 9: as if it were improbable that a person in the same conversation should speak sometimes of his ‘‘ servant ” and sometimes of his ‘‘ boy.” In both narratives παῖς and δοῦλος are used as synonyms ; and it is gratuitous to suppose that in using δοῦλος Lk. has misin- terpreted the παῖς in the source which he employed. Comp. xv. 22, 26. Here ὁ παῖς μου is more affectionate than 6 δοῦλός μου would have been. 8. ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἶμι ὑπὸ ἐξούσιαν τασσόμενος. The εἰμι must not be united with τασσόμενος and made the equivalent of τάσσομαι: τασσόμενος is adjectival. ‘Thus, “ For I am a man who is habitually (pres. part.) placed under authority.” But, “For I am an ordinary person (ἄνθρωπος), avd a person in a dependent position” is rather an exaggeration of the Greek. Comp. ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἐξουσίαν πεσεῖν (2 Mac. ili. 6). The καὶ γάρ shows the intimate connexion with what precedes, εἰπὲ λόγῳ καὶ ἰαθήτω : see on vi. 32. “1 know from personal experience what a word from one in authority can do. A word from my superiors secures my obedience, and a word from me secures the obedience of my subordinates. ‘Thou, who art under no man, and hast authority over unseen powers, hast only to say a word and the sickness is healed.” Perhaps ἄνθρωπος hints that Jesus is superhuman. Evidently ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος means that, if an inferior can give effective orders, much more can a superior do so. It is the certainty of the result w7thout personal presence that is the point. 9. ὃ Ἰησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν. This is stated in both narratives, Comp. Mk. vi. 6. Those who are unwilling to admit any limita- VII. 9, 10.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 197 tions in Christ’s knowledge have to explain how wonder is com- patible with omniscience. One limitation is clearly told us by Himself (Mk. xiii. 32); so that the only question is how far such limitations extend. See on ii. 46, 52, and xvii. 14. Note the solemn Λέγω ὑμῖν, and comp. ver. 28, x. 12, 24, ΧΙ. 8, 9, 51, etc. οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. ‘This again points to the centurion being still a heathen. Nowhere among the Jews had He found any one willing to believe that He could heal without being present. It is natural that Lk. should express this preference for a Gentile more strongly than Mt., who has παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον. Lk. here omits the remarkable passage Mt. viii. 11, 12; but he gives it in quite a different connexion xiii. 28, 29. Such teaching, so necessary and so unwelcome to the Jews, may easily have been repeated. 10. ὑποστρέψαντες. See oni. 56 and iv. 14. Lk.’s ὑγιαίνοντα is stronger than the ἰάθη of Mt. The servant was not only cured, but “in good health.” on modo sanum, sed sanitate utentem (Beng.) Hobart remarks that Lk. “15 the only N.T. writer who uses ὑγιαίνειν in this its primary sense, ‘to be in sound health,’ with the exception of 8. John, 3 Ep. 2. For this meaning it is the regular word in the medical writers” (p. 10). See on v. 31 and comp. xv. 27. Here and v. 31 Vulg. has sazus ; in xv. 27, salvus. The identification of this miracle with that of the healing of the son of the royal official (βασιλικός) in Jn. iv. is not probable: it involves an amount of misinformation or carelessness on one side or the other which would be very startling. Irenzeus sees to be in favour of it ; but ‘‘ centurion” with him may be a slip of memory or a misinterpretation of βασιλικός. Origen and Chrysostom contend against the identification. Is there any difficulty in supposing that on more than one occasion Jesus healed without being present? The difficulty is to explain one such instance, without admitting the possession of supernatural powers: this Strauss has shown, and the efforts of Keim and Schenkel to explain it by a combination of moral and psychical causes are not satisfying. There is no parallel to it in O.T., for (as Keim points out) the healing of Naaman is not really analogous. 11-17. §The Raising of the Widow’s Son at Nain. Because Lk. alone records it, its historical character has been questioned. But there were multitudes of miracles wrought by Christ which have never been recorded in detail at all (iv. 23, 40, 41, vi. 18, 19; Jn. ii. 23, iv. 45, Vil. 31, ΧΠ 37, XX. 30, xxl. 25), and among these, as ver. 22 shows, were cases of raising the dead. We must not attribute to the Evangelists the modern way of regarding the raising of the dead as a miracle so amazing, Jecause so difficult to perform, that every real instance would necessarily become widely known, and would certainly be recorded by every writer who had knowledge of it. ‘Toa Jew it would be hardly more marvellous than the heal- ing of a leper; and to one who believes in miracles at all, dis- tinctions as to difficulty are unmeaning. It is not unreasonable to 198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [ἹἹ. 10-12. suppose, either that this event never came to the knowledge of the other Evangelists, or that, although they knew of it, they did not see the necessity for recording it. It is worth noting that nearly all recorded instances of raising the dead were performed for women (x Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36; Jn. ΧΙ: 22; 52; Acts sxe Heb. xi. 35). 11. ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς. It is not easy to decide between the reading ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς, sce χρόνῳ (ABR), and ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς, sc. ἡμέρᾳ (SCD). On the one hand, Lk. elsewhere, when he writes ἐν τῷ, has καθεξῆς (vill. 1) ; on the other, when he writes τῇ ἑξῆς, he does not prefix ἐν (ix. 37; Acts xxl. I, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18). The less definite would be more likely to be changed to the more definite than vice versa. Thus the balance both of external and internal evidence is in favour of ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς, and we must not limit the interval between the miracles toa single day. In N.T. ἑξῆς is peculiar to Lk. (ix. 37 ; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18). Naty. The place is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture ; and the village of that name in Josephus (2. /. iv. 9. 4) is on the other side of the Jordan, and cannot be the same. A hamlet called Vez was found by Robinson about two miles west of Endor, on the north slope of Little Hermon, which is where Eusebius and Jerome place it; and it would be about a day’s journey from Capernaum. “ΟΠ entrance alone it could have had, that which opens on the rough hillside in its downward slope to the plain” (Stanley, $77. ὦ Pal. p. 357) ; so that the very path on which the two companies met can be identified. About ten minutes’ walk on the road to Endor is a burying-place which is still used, and there are many tombs cut in the rock. Robinson, ad. iil. p. 469; Bzb2. Res. ii. 361; Thomson, Land & Book, p. 445; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 127. The expression, πόλιν καλουμένην Naiv, looks as if Lk. were writing for those who were not familiar with the country ; comp. i. 26, 39, iv. 31. See on vi. 15. ot μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. Including more than the Twelve; vi. 13. See on ΧΙ. 29. 12. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκώς. “Behold there was being carried out a dead man.” Or, ‘there was being carried out dead the only son,” etc. The καί introduces the apodosis of ὡς δὲ ἤγγισε, and must be omitted in translation: “then” would be too strong. See on v.12. The compound verb occurs here only in N.T. and nowhere in LXX. It is equivalent to ἐκφέρειν (Acts v. 6, 9, 10) and efferre, and is used of carrying out to burial, Polyb. xxxv. 6. 2; Plut. Ags, xxi.; Cie. xlii. In later Gk. éxxopusdy is used for ἐκφορά of burial. With τεθνηκώς comp. Jn. xi. 44. μονογενὴς υἱὸς TH μητρὶ αὐτοῦ. Comp. vill. 42, ix. 38; Heb. xi. 17; Judg. xi. 34; Tobit 1. 15, vili. 17. Only in Jn. is μονογενής used of the Divine Sonship (i. 14, 18, iii. 16, 18; 1 Jn. iv. 9). καὶ αὐτὴ ἦν χήρα. The ἣν may safely be pronounced to be certainly genuine (§BCLSV2& and most Versions). For αὐτή some editors write αὕτη, and a few authorities have καὶ αὐτῇ χήρᾳ. The mourning of a widow for an only son is typical for the extremity of grief: orba cum flet unicum VII. 12-15. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 199 mater (Catull, xxxix. 5). Comp. Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii, 10; Zech, xii, 10; Prov. iv. 3. ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανός. Some of this multitude would be hired mourners, and musicians with flutes and cymbals. The mother would walk in front of the bier, and Jesus would naturally address her before touching it. This use of ἱκανός for “enough and to spare, much,” is specially freq. in Lk. (viii. 27, 32, xx. 9, xxi. 38, xxi. 8, 9; Acts Vill. 11, ix. 23, 43, xl. 24, 26, etc.). It is possibly colloquial : it occurs in Aristoph. Pax 354. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 79. D here has πολύς. 13. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ Κύριος ἐσπλαγνίσθη ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ. The introduc- tion of ὁ Κύριος has special point here: it is the Lord of Life meet- ing sorrow and death. The expression is characteristic of Lk. Comp. xxiv. 34, and see on v. 17. Compassion 1s elsewhere men- tioned as a moving cause in Christ’s miracles (Mt. xiv. 14, xv. 32, xx. 34; Mk. i. 41, vill. 2). The verb is peculiar to the ae and, excepting in parables (Lk. X. 33, xv. 20; Mt. xviii. 27), i used of no one but Christ. It is followed, as here, by ἐπί ¢. ae Mt. xiv. 14; and by περί c. gen. Mt. ix. 0: but generally by ἐπ ¢. acc. (Mt. xv. 32; Mk. vi. 34, viii. 2, ix. 22). Μὴ κλαῖε. “Do not go on weeping, cease to weep”: comp. ver. 6. He is absolutely sure of the result ; otherwise the command would have been unnatural. (μῆς matrem, nist mentis inops, in Junere nati Flere vetat? 14. ἥψατο τῆς σοροῦ, ot δὲ βαστάζοντες ἔστησαν. Lk. clearly intimates that the purpose of the touching was to make the bearers stand still. At such solemn times words are avoided, and this quiet sign sufficed. Perhaps it also meant that Jesus claimed as His own what Death had seized as his prey. Lk. equally clearly intimates that the resurrection was caused by Christ’s command. This is the case in all three instances of raising the dead (vill. 54 ; Jn. x1. 43). The copes may be either the bier on which the body was carried, or the open coffin (probably wicker) in which it was laid (Gen. 1. 26; Hat. i. 68. 3, ii. 78. 1). It is worth noting that βαστάζειν, which occurs twenty-seven times in N.T. (x. 4, xi. 27, xiv. 27, xxil. 10, etc.), is found only once in LXX. σοί λέγω. “To chee I say, Arise.” To the mother He had said, “Weep not.” The σοί is emphatic. For this use of λέγω, almost in the sense of “1 command,” comp. xi. 9, ΧΙ]. 4, xvi. 15. ἀνεκάθισεν ὃ νεκρός. The verb occurs only here and Acts ix. 40 in N.T. ; in both cases of persons restored to life and sitting up. Not in LXX. In this intrans. sense it is rare, excepting in medical writers, who often use it of sick persons sitting up in bed (Hobart, p. 11). The speaking proved complete restoration. 200 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [VII. 15-17. To suggest that the young man was in a trance does not get rid of the miracle. How did Jesus know that he was in a trance, and know exactly how to rouse him? And can we suppose that this happened on ¢/vee different occa- sions, even if we could reconcile Christ’s action with a character for truthfulness ? Here and in the case of Jairus’ daughter it is the Evangelist who tells us that the person was dead ; but Jesus Himself declared that Lazarus was dead (Jn. xi. 14). We are told that the symmetry of the three instances is suspicious ; raised from the death-bed, raised from the bier, raised from the tomb. But no Evangelist gives us the triplet. Lk. is the only writer who records more than one, and the two which he records he places in unsymmetrical order, the raising from the bier coming before the raising from the death-bed. Strauss has shown how unsatis- factory the trance theory is (Leder Jesw, ed. 1864, p. 469). ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν TH μητρί. The sudden change of nominative causes no obscurity. Comp. xiv. 5, xv. 15, xvil. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 6, x. 4. Jesus might have claimed the life which He has restored, nam juvents jam desierat esse matris sue ; but compassion for the mother again influences Him. Comp. ix. 55; Acts ix. 41; 1 Mac. x. 9; I Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36. 16. Ἔλαβεν δὲ φόβος πάντας. It is natural that this should be the first feeling on seeing a corpse reanimated. But a writer of fiction would rather have given us the frantic_joy of the mother and of those who sympathized with her. Comp. i. 65, v. 8, 26, vill. 37; Acts il. 43, xix. 37. See oni. 12, and also Schanz, ad Joc. λέγοντες ὅτι. . . καὶ ὅτι. It is very forced to make ὅτι in both cases argumentative: “Saying, (We praise God) because . and because.” It is possible to take the second ὅτι in this way; but the common method of making both to be recitative is preferable. Both, therefore, are to be omitted in translation, the words quoted being in the orato recta (Tyn. Cran. Cov. RV.). Cases in which ὅτι may be taken either way are freq. in N.T. (45, Ue WT, ἵν. 20, Vil. 30, 1x. 22, x 21: ΧΙ 38, xxii. Yo" Tne 12-14, etc.). ᾽᾿Επεσκέψατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. Comp. 1. 68, 78; Acts xv. 14; Heb. ii. 6. The verb was specially used of the “visits” of a physician. Comp: Mt: xxv. 36, 435 Jas..i. 275 Acts vii 3))viiees xv. 36, the only other passages in N.T. in which the word occurs. In the sense of visiting with judgment or punishment it is never used in N.T. and but seldom in LXX (Ps. Ixxxviti. 33 ; Jer. ix. 9, 25, ΧΙ. 22, li. 29). After the weary centuries during which no Prophet had appeared, it was indeed a proof of Jehovah’s visiting His people that one who excelled the greatest Prophets was among them. No one in O.T. raised the dead with a word. 17. ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐν ὅλῃ TH ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ περὶ αὐτοῦ. The λόγος is the one just mentioned,—that God had visited His people in sending a*mighty Prophet. The statement does not imply that Lk. supposed Nain to be in Judea, “Iovdata here probably means Palestine: see on iv. 44 and xxiil. 5. But even if we take it in the VII. 17-19.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 201 narrower sense of Judzea as distinct from Galilee, Samaria, and Perza, there is no need to attribute to Lk. any geographical in- accuracy. ‘This saying went forth (from Nain and circulated) in Judeea’ ”; Ze. it reached the headquarters of Christ’s opponents. For περὶ αὐτοῦ comp. v. 15. This pregnant use of a prep. of rest after a verb of motion is perhaps found only in late Grk., for in Thuc. iv. 42. 3 and Xen. He//en. vii. 5. 10 the readings vary between ἀπήεσαν and ἀπῆσαν. Comp. viii. 7, and see Win. 1. 4. a, p. 514. kal πάσῃ TH περιχώῳ. Note the position of this clause, which is added after περὶ αὐτοῦ with augmented force: ‘and (what 15 more) in all the region round about”; z.e. round about ᾿Ιουδαία, not Nain. Comp. Acts xxvi. 23. The verse prepares the way for the next incident by showing how the Baptist’s disciples came to hear about “‘all these things.” The evidence that Jesws razsed the dead is that of all four Gospels and of primitive tradition. The fact seems to have been universally believed in the early Church (justin, Ago 122.) 45; Zr. Ixix'; Ong. δ els. 11: 48): Quadratus, one of the earliest apologists, who addressed a defence of Christianity to Hadrian A.D. 125, says in the only fragment of it which is extant, ‘‘ But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true; those that were healed and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present ; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His departure, they were there for a considerable time, so that some of them lived even to our own idimes)-(US.) 274) .5. 1ν. 3.12). This does not mean that Quadratus had seen any of them, but that there was abundance of opportunity, long after the event, to inquire into the reality of these miracles. S. Paul uses the same kind of argument respecting the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Weiss points out how unsatisfactory are all the attempts to explain the evidence on any ee hypothesis than the historical fact that Jesus raised the dead (Leder Jesu, ῬΡ. 557-565, Eng. tr. ii. 178-186). He concludes thus: ‘‘In no other ΤΠ did the grace of God, which appeared in His Messiah, manifest itself so gloriously, by overcoming the consequences of sin and thereby g giving a pledge for the highest consummation of salvation.” See Aug. Zz Joh. Trac. xix. 2. 18-35. The message from the Baptist to the Christ. Peculiar to Lk. and Mt., who place it in different connexions, but assign to it the same occasion, viz. that John had “heard in his prison the works of the Christ” (Mt. xi. 2). Lk.’s narrative, as usual, is the more full. He does not mention that John is in prison, having already stated the fact by anticipation (iii. 20). The περὶ πάντων τούτων shows that the works reported to the Baptist include the healing of the centurion’s servant and the raising of the widow’s son. πρὸς τὸν κύριον. This is probably the true reading (B LRX, a ff, Vulg.) rather than πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν (NA XT, bcf). See on ver. 13. 19. Σὺ et ὁ ἐρχόμενος; “Art Zhow (in emphatic contrast to ἕτερον) He that cometh,” ze. whose coming is a matter of quite notorious certainty (iii. 16, Paitin so RIK. 59; ley mea): 202 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VII. 19-21. ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν ; “ΟΥ̓ must we look for another, different in kind?” whereas ἄλλον might be another of the same kind (Lft. on Gal. i. 6, 7). The reading érepov (8 BL R X Ἐ) is right, and is not taken from Mt. It is ἄλλον (A D) that is the corruption. For the delib. subj. comp. ill. 10, 12, 14. See oni. 15. The meaning of the question thus sent to Christ has been much discussed. 1. Chrystostom and other Fathers have sug- gested that the question was asked for the sake of John’s disciples, who needed strengthening or correcting in their beliefs. See Oxford Lzbrary of the Fathers, x. p. 267, note e. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others adopt this view. But the whole context is against it. Christ’s reply is addressed to John, not to the disciples; and it is not clear that the disciples even under- stood the message which they carried. 2. Weiss and other critics follow Tertullian (JZarcion. iv. 18) in contending that John’s own faith was failing, because the career of Jesus did not seem to correspond with what he and the people had expected, and with what he had foretold (iii. 17). There is nothing incredible in this view ; but the Baptist had had such a long and stern preparation for his work, and had received such convincing evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, that a failure in his faith is surprising. 3. Hase and others suggest that he was not failing in faith, but in patence. John was disappointed that Jesus did not make more progress, and he wished to urge Him on to take a more prominent andy indisputable position. ‘If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself, 1 unto the world.” Perhaps John was also perplexed by the fact that one who could work such miracles did not set His forerunner free, nor “cleanse His threshing-floor” of such refuse as Antipas and Herodias. This view suits the context better than the second. John’s sending to Jesus is strong evidence that he was not seriously in doubt as to His Messiahship. For a false Christ would not have confessed that he was false; and what proof could the true Christ give more convincing than the voice from heaven and the visible descent of the Spirit? 4. The view of Strauss, that John had just begun to conjecture that Jesus is the Messiah, and that therefore this narrative is fatal to the story of his having baptized Jesus and proclaimed Him as the Messiah, is answered by Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 39, p- 388, ed. 1891). See also Hahn, i. . 475: fi 21. θεραπεύειν ἀπό. See on Υ. 15: it is peculiar to Lk. μαστίγων. “ Distressing bodily diseases” ; Mk. ill. το, v. 29, 34. In LXX it is used of any grievous trouble, but not specially of disease: Ps. xxxv. 15, Ixxxviil. 32; Ecclus. xl. 9; 2 Mac. vil. 37: comp. Hom. /7. xii. 37, xill. 812; Aesch. Sep7. 607 ; Ag. 642. The notion that troubles are Divine chastisements is implied in the word. It is used literally Acts xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. VII. 21-24. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 203 ἐχαρίσατο. “He graciously bestowed, made a free present of”; magnificum verbum (Beng.); comp. 2 Mac. iii. 31. 22. ἀπαγγείλατε ᾿Ιωάνει. See on viii. 20. The answer is ex- pressly sent to John: there is no intimation that it is for the in- struction of his disciples, who are sent back, “like the messenger from Gabii to Sextus Tarquinius,” to relate a symbolical narrative, which their master is to interpret. That ¢Zey can understand it is neither stated nor implied. τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν, k.t.A. There is probably a direct reference to Is. xxxv. 5, 6, Ixi. x. It is clear, not only that Lk. and Mt. understand Jesus to refer to bodily and not spiritual healings, but that they are right in doing so. John’s messengers had not “ seen and heard” Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally leprous. Moreover, what need to add πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται, if all that precedes refers to the preaching of the good tidings? It is unnatural to express the same fact, first by a series of metaphors, and then literally. All the clauses should be taken literally. They seem to be arranged in two groups, which are connected by καί, and in each group there is a climax, the strongest item of evidence being placed last. πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται. ‘This was the clearest sign of His being the Christ (Is. Ixi. 1), as He Himself had declared at Nazareth (iv. 18-21). His miracles need not mean more than that He was “a great Prophet” ; moreover, the Baptist had already heard of them. But it was a new thing that the poor, whom the Greek despised and the Roman trampled on, and whom the priest and the Levite left on one side, should be invited into the Kingdom of God (vi. 20). For the passive sense of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι comp. Heb. iv. 2, 6, and see Win. xxxix. I. a, p. 326, and Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 4. For εὐαγέλλιον see on Rom. i. 1. 23. μακάριος. Not μάκαριοι, as it would have been if the direct reference were to the disciples of John. It implies that the Baptist had in some way found an occasion of stumbling in Jesus (z.e. he had been wanting in faith, or in trust, or in patience) ; and it also encourages him to overcome this temptation. σκανδαλισθῇ. Only here and xvii. 2 in Lk., but frequent in Mt. and Mk. The verb combines the notions of “trip up” and “entrap,” and in N.T. is always used in the figurative sense of “causing to sin.” See on xvii. 1. This record of a rebuke to the Baptist is one of many instances of the candour of the Evangelists. For ὃς ἐάν see Greg. Proleg. p. 96, and Win. xli. 6, p. 390; this use of ἐάν for dv is common in LXX and: N.T. (xvii. 33°; Mt. v. UO, 22; ΣΙ 32, XVill. ΠΣ Jas. iv. A). 24. περὶ ᾿Ιωάνου. This is further evidence that the question and answer just recorded concerned John himself. The people had heard Jesus send a rebuke to the Baptist. But He forthwith 204 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ VII. 24-27. guards them from supposing that John has ceased to be worthy of reverence. He waits till his disciples are gone; because if they had heard and reported Christ’s praise of John to their master, it might have cancelled the effect of the rebuke. This panegyric is almost the funeral oration of the Baptist ; for soon after this he was put to death. For ἤρξατο see on iv. 21. t ἐξήλθατε. In each of the three questions it is possible to put the note of interrogation defore the infinitive, and render, ‘‘ Why went ye out? to behold?” etc. But the order of the words favours the usual punctuation. Perhaps θεάσασθαι implies ‘‘ behold” with wonder and admiration. κάλαμον... σαλευόμενον. The literal meaning makes ex- cellent sense: “Did you go out into the wilderness to admire what you would certainly find there, but which would have no interest or attraction? Or did you go out to see what would no doubt have been interesting and attractive, but which you were not likely to find there?” But it also makes good sense to in- terpret, ‘Had John been a weak and fickle person, you would not have made a pilgrimage to see him.” 25. ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς. Such a person would not be found in the wilderness; although he might have attracted them. This seems to show that the καλάμον is not metaphorical, for this is obviously literal. οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ Kal τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες. “Those who live in gorgeous apparel and luxury.” The word ἱματισμός is of late origin, and is seldom used excepting of costly vesture (ix. 29; Acts xx. 33; Jn. xix. 24; 1, Tim. 11 Ὁ; Gen. xxiv. 53; ΕΣ ΣΘΟΙ mm 22, xl 353; I Kings x. 5). See Trench, Syz. 1. For evddgw comp. ΧΗ]. 17, and for 6 ὑπάρχοντες see on viii. 41. In N.T. τρυφή occurs only here and 2 Pet. 11. 13; in LXX only as v./. Lam. iv. 5. But it is freq. in class. Grk. It means an enervating mode of life (θρύπτομαι, “1 am broken up and enfeebled ”). 26. περισσότερον προφήτου. This completes the climax: κάλα- pov, ἄνθρωπον, προφήτην, περισσότερον προφήτου. In περισσότερον we have a late equivalent οἵ πλέον. It may be masc. or neut., but is probably neut., like πλεῖον in xi. 32. Comp. Xil. 4, XX. 47. They went out to see something more than a Prophet, and they did see it. 27. This quotation from Malachi (111. 1) is given by Mk. at the opening of his Gospel coupled with φωνὴ βοῶντος, κ-ιτιλ., and attributed as a whole to Isaiah. Neither Heb. nor LXX has πρὸ προσώπου σου, W hich Mt. Mk. and Lk. all insert in the first clause. See on ix. 52. Moreover, they all three have ἀποστέλλω and κατασκευάσει instead of the ἐξαποστέλλω and ἐπιβλέψεται of LXX. See on iv. 18. The passage.was one of the common-places of Messianic prophecy, and had been stereotyped in an independent Greek form before the Evangelists made use of it. VII. 28. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 205 28. ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν. A solemn periphrasis for the whole human race ; that it implies weakness and frailty is not evident: in Job xiv. 1 these qualities are expressed. It is human generation as distinct from heavenly regeneration that is meant. John’s superiority lay, not in his personal character, but in his office and mission: the glory of being the immediate forerunner of the Messiah was unique. He was a Prophet, like Moses and Elijah ; yet he not only prophesied, but saw and pointed out to others Him of whom he prophesied. The word προφήτης is an interpolation, The external evidence against it is immense (δ BK LM X4& and most Versions), and it is improbable that the possibility of Prophets outside Israel would be indicated. 6 δὲ μικρότερος. ‘There is no need to make this a superlative, as AV. alone among English Versions: better, “he that is in- ferior,” z.e. less than other members of the Kingdom, less than any among the more insignificant. It is most unnatural to explain ὁ μικρότερος Of Christ. Chrysostom says, περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λέγων εἰκότως κρύπτει τὸ πρόσωπον διὰ τὴν ἔτι κρατοῦσαν ὑπόνοιαν καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ δόξαι περὶ ἑαυτοῦ μέγα τι λέγειν (Hom. xxxvii. p. 417), and above he explains μικρότερος as κατὰ τὴν ἡλίκιαν καὶ κατὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν (p. 416). Much the same view is taken by Hilary, Theophy- lact, Erasmus, Luther, Fritzsche, and others. In that case ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ must be taken after μείζων, which is awkward ; and we can hardly suppose that Jesus would have so perplexed the people as to affirm that He was inferior to the Baptist, who in all his teaching had enthusiastically maintained the contrary (iii. Page te, Mier 77 [ne Lers, 20, 27,-30, 1. 28-30)" By his office John belonged to the old dispensation ; he was its last and highest product (major propheta, quia finis prophetarum), but he belonged to the era of preparation. In spiritual privileges, in grace, and in knowledge any even of the humbler members of the Kingdom are superior to him. He is a servant, they are sons; he is the friend of the Bridegroom, they are His spouse. It is possible to understand “Iwavov after μικρότερος, but it is unnecessary : more probably the comparative refers to others in the Kingdom. The paradox, “‘ He that is less than John is greater than John,” is capable of interpretation ; but the principle that the lower members of a higher class are above the highest member of a lower class is simpler. The superlative of μικρός does not occur in N.T. 29, 30. Many have supposed that these two verses are a parenthetical remark of the Evangelist. But a comment inserted in the middle of Christ’s words, and with no indication that it is a comment, is without a parallel and improbable. Jn. iii. 16-21 and 31-36 are not parallel. ‘There the question is whether com- ment is added. In both passages it is probable that there is no 206 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [VII. 28-31. comment. But, assuming that the Evangelist is in both cases commenting, he affends his comment: he does not zwser¢ it into the utterances of others. Here vv. 29 and 30 are part of canes address, who contrasts the effect which John’s preaching upon the people and upon the hierarchy (see Schanz). The con- nexion between ver. 30 and ver. 31 is close, as is shown by the οὖν. 29. πᾶς 6 λαὸς ἀκούσας. “ All the people, when they heard” the preaching of the Baptist. Note the πᾶς, and see small print on 1. 66. ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν Θεὸν, βαπτισθέντες. “‘ Admitted the righteous- ness of God (in making these claims upon them and granting them these opportunities) dy being baptized.” Their accepting baptism was an acknowledgment of His justice. See on ver. 35, and the detached note on ¢he word δίκαιος and its cognates, Rom. i. 17. 30. ot νομικοί. Lk. often uses this expression instead of ot γραμματεῖς, which might be misleading to Gentile readers (x. 25, ΧΙ. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3). Elsewhere in N.T. the word occurs only Mt. xxl. 35; ΤΠ. Ὁ, 15.) Comp. 4; Mac.. v.45, (Compete 2787, 8 τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς. “They frustrated the counsel of God concerning themselves”: comp. εἰς ἡμᾶς in 1 Thes. v. 18. The rendering, “for themselves, so far as chey were concerned, they rendered the counsel of God effectless,” would require τὸ εἰς ἑαυτούς. The verb is a strong one: “render aberov, placeless, inefficacious” (Gal. 11. 21, 11. 15; Jn. xii. 48; Lk. x. 16). Free will enables each man to annul God’s purpose for his salvation. ‘The phrase τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ is peculiar to Lk. in ΝΠ. (Acts xi.. 36, Χχ: 27. comp. 11: 23. iv. 28).) [i jpeemes Wisd. vi. 4.3. comp. Ps. xxxil 11, Cvi, 11.;. Prov. xix. 21.) Wathgmy βαπτισθέντες comp. the case of Nicodemus (Jn. ili. 4, 5). 31. The spurious reading εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος was interpolated at the be- ginning of this verse to mark vv. 29, 30 as a parenthetical remark of the Evangelist. Owing to the influence of the Vulgate the interpolation was followed by all English Versions prior to RV. Almost all MSS. and ancient versions omit the words. But their spuriousness must not be quoted as evidence against the view which they support. Many false readings are correct glosses upon the true text, although that is probably not the case here. Τίνι οὖν ὁμοιώσω. The οὖν would not be very intelligible if vv. 29, 30 were omitted; but after ver. 30 it is quite in place. ‘Seeing that the rulers and teachers have rejected the Divine in- vitation given by John, and that ye (λέγετε, ver. 34) follow them in refusing to follow Me, to what, then, shall I liken the people of this generation ?” So comprehensive a phrase as τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης may include the Baptist and the Christ: and to assume that it does include them frees the true interpretation of the parable from seeming ‘to be somewhat at variance with the VII. 31-33.] © THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 207 opening words. With the double question comp. xiii. 18; Mk. Iv. 30. 32. There are two parties of children. This is more clearly marked by τοῖς ἑτέροις in Mt. than by ἀλλήλοις here. Which of the two groups is blamed? It has been taken both ways. (1) The children who invite the second group to play, first at dances and then at dirges, represent Jesus and the Baptist with their respective followers. The children who waywardly refuse to join in any kind of game are the Jews as represented by the hierarchy and the majority of the people. These rejected both the asceticism of John and the joyous freedom of the- Gospel. Godet infers from ἀλλήλοις that the two groups of children change sides and take turns in proposing the form of play. But it is not necessary to give so much meaning to ἀλλήλοις. Yet such a change would not be difficult to interpret. The Jews may have proposed to the Baptist to become less stern. ‘They certainly tried to force fast- ing on Jesus. And hence (2) the possibility of the other inter- pretation, which is preferred by Euthymius, Stier, and Alford, and is ably detended by Trench (Studies in the Gospels, pp. 150-153). The children sitting in the market-place and finding fault with their fellows are the Jews. John comes to them in his severity, and they want him to play at festivals. When he retains his strict mode of life, they complain and say, “‘ We piped to you, and you did not dance.” ‘Then Christ comes to them as the bringer of joy, and they want Him to play at funerals. When He retains His own methods, they say, “‘ We wailed, and you did not weep.” This interpretation has two advantages. It makes the men of this generation, viz. the Jews, to be like the children who cry, “ We piped,” etc. And it gives the two complaints a chronological order. ‘We piped,” etc., is a complaint against the Baptist, who came first; ‘We wailed,” etc., is a complaint against the Christ, who came afterwards. With καθημένοις comp. v. 27; with ἀγορᾷ, Mk. vi. 56; with προσφωνοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις, Acts xxii. 2; with ηὐλήσαμεν, 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ; with ὠρχήσασθε, 2 Sam. vi. 21; with ἐθρηνήσαμεν, Jn. xvi. 20. Of these προσφων εἶν is a favourite word: see on vi. 13. Both θρηνεῖν and κλαίειν refer to the outward manifestation of grief as distinct from the feeling ; and here the outward expression only is needed. 33. μὴ ἔσθων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον. “Without eating bread or drinking wine” ; spoken from the point of view of those who objected to John. He did not take the ordinary food of mankind ; and so Mt. says, “neither eating nor drinking.” For the poetic form ἔσθω see on x. 7. Δαιμόνιον ἔχει. They afterwards said the same of Jesus (Jn. Vil. 20, vill. 48, x. 20); and δαιμόνιον ἔχεις shows that δαιμόνιοι: is acc, and not nom. Renan compares the Arabic AZedjnoun enté 208 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VII. 33-35. as showing that Orientals consider all madness to be possession by a demon (V. de 7. p. 263). See on iv. 33. One regrets that the American Revisers did not carry their point in getting “ demon” substituted for “devil” as the rendering of δαιμόνιον. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. make great confusion by translating “hath /4e devil.” Wic. is better with “hath a fende.” The λέγετε in vv. 33 and 34 shows that some of those censured are present. Comp. ΧΙ. 15, where Jesus is accused of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub. 34. φάγος. Like οἰνοπότης, this is a subst. and therefore paroxytone : φαγός, which L. and S. give, would be an adj. See Chandler, Greek Ac- centuation, § 215. Latin Versions vary between devorator (Vulg.), vorator (q), vorax (Cc e), manducator (d). English Versions vary between ‘‘ deyourer ” (Wic.), ‘‘glutton” (Tyn. Cov.), ‘‘gurmander” (Rhem.), and ‘‘ gluttonous man” (Cran. AV. RV.). The ref. is to v. 33 and similar occasions. For φίλος τελωνῶν see ν. 27, 29, 30. 35. καὶ ἐδικαιώθη copia. “And yet wisdom was justified.” In N.T. καί often introduces a contrast, which is placed side by side with that with which it is contrasted: “‘and (instead of what might be expected), and yet.” This is specially common in Jn. (τ, ho; εἴ £1, 32, ν᾿ 30, 40; Vi. 36, 43, 70, vill 28, ete) Nees sometimes has the same force; Cic. De Of. il. 11. 48. Although the Jews as a nation rejected the methods both of John and of Christ, yet there were some who could believe that in both these methods the Divine wisdom was doing what was right. ἐδικαιώθη. This looks back to ἐδικαίωσαν in ver. 29, and ἡ σοφία looks back to τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ in ver. 30. Here, as in Rom. ii. 4 (Ps. li. 6), δικαιόω means “Show or pronounce to be righteous, declare or admit to be just.” The analogy of verbs in -όω is often Wrongly urged. An important distinction is sometimes overlooked. In the case of ex¢erna/ qualities, such verbs do mean to “make or render,” whatever the noun from which they are de- rived signifies (ἐρημόω, τυφλόω, χρυσόω, «.7.r.). But in the case of mora/ qualities this is scarcely possible, and it may be doubted whether there is a passage in which δικαιόω clearly means “1 make righteous.” Similarly, ἀξιόω never means “1 make worthy,” but “I consider worthy, treat as worthy.” In the case of words which might apply to either external or moral qualities both mean- ings are possible acc. to the context: thus ὁμοιόω may mean either ‘make like,” e.g. make an image like a man (Eur. /e/. 33, comp. Acts xiv. 11; Rom. ix. 29), or “consider like, compare ” (ver. 31, xiii. 18, 20). In ἐδικαιώθη we perhaps have an example of what is sometimes called the gnomic aorist. Comp. Jn. xv. 6; Jas. i, 11, 24; 1 Pet. i. 24. Burton, § 43. But see Win. xl. b. 1, p. 346, where the existence of this aorist in N.T. is denied. ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. “Αἱ the hands of all her chil- VII. 35. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 209 dren”: the justification comes from them. It is certainly incorrect to interpret ἀπό as implying rescuing or protecting “from the attacks of all her children,” viz. from the Jews. The children of the Divine Wisdom are the faithful minority who have welcomed the Baptist and the Christ, not the unbelieving majority who re- jected them. In Mt. xi. 19 there is no πάντων, and DLMX omit it here. But it is certainly genuine: see on vi. 30. In APE πάντων is placed last with emphasis: there are no exceptions. But the order of δὶ B is to be preferred. Mt. has ἔργων for τέκνων, and ἃ has ἔργων here. For the personification of the Wisdom of God comp. Prov. viii., ix.; Ecclus. xxiv. ; Wisd. vi. 22-ix. 18. 36-50. §The Anointing by the Woman that was a Sinner. Without note of time or express connexion. The connexion apparently is that she is an illustration-of ver. 35. The proposal to identify this anointing with that by Mary of Bethany just before the Passion (Mt. xxvi. 6; Mk. xiv. 3; Jn. xii. 3) is ancient, for Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6 contends against it; and it still has sup- porters. Thus Holtzmann is of opinion that the act of a “clean” person in the house of “δὴ unclean” (Simon the leper) has been changed by Lk. into the act of an “unclean” person in the house of a “clean” (Simon the Pharisee), in order to exhibit the way in which Christ welcomed outcasts, a subject which Lk. often makes prominent. But the confusion of Mary of Bethany with a notorious ἁμαρτωλός by Lk., who knows the character of Mary (x. 39, 42), is scarcely credible. And there is nothing improbable in two such incidents. Indeed the first might easily suggest the second. Simon is one of the commonest of names (there are ten or eleven Simons in N.T. and about twenty in Josephus), and therefore the identity of name proves nothing. Moreover, there are differences of detail, which, if not conclusive, are against the identification. The chief objection is the irreconcilable difference - between Mary of Bethany and the ἁμαρτωλός. Strauss and Baur suggest a confusion with the woman taken in adultery. But the narrative betrays no confusion : everything is clear and harmonious. The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity towards Simon and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection. On the traditional, but baseless, identification of the woman with Mary of Magdala see on viii. 2. The identification of this woman with do¢2 Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany is ad- vocated by Hengstenberg. His elaborate argument is considered a tour de force, but it has not carried. conviction with it. The potest non eadem esse of Ambrose is altogether an understate- ment. It is probably from considerations of delicacy that Luke does not name her: or his source may have omitted to do so. 14 210 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VII. 35-37. The leading thought in the narrative is the contrast between Pharisees and sinners in their behaviour to Christ. 36. Ἠρώτα δέτις αὐτὸν τῶν Φαρισαίων ἵνα φάγη μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. There is nothing to show that the Pharisee had any sinister motive in asking Him, although he was evidently not very friendly. As the Pharisees were generally hostile to Christ, it may have been a courageous thing. He is inclined to believe that Jesus may be a Prophet (ver. 39); and Jesus rebukes him as one who loved little, not as a secret enemy. But, like Herod Antipas, he may simply have been curious. Lk. records two other instances of Christ being the guest of a Pharisee (xi. 37, xiv. 1). For tva see on iv. 3, and comp. Vi. 31, Vil. 6; and for κατεκλίθη (δ Β D L Χ Ἐ) see on ix. 14. 37. Καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ ἥτις ἦν. The opening words imply that her presence created surprise. The ἥτις is stronger than 7 and has point here: ‘‘ who was of such ἃ. a_character as to be”: comp. Vili. ἘΣ This i is the right order, and ἐν τῇ πόλει follows, not precedes, ἥτις ἣν (SBLE and most Versions). The exact meaning is not quite clear: either, “which was a sinner in the city,” z.e. was known as such in the place itself; or possibly, ‘“‘which was in the city, a sinner.” The city is probably Capernaum. ἅμαρτωλός. A person of notoriously bad character, and prob- ably a prostitute: comp. Mt. xxi. 32. For instances of this use of ἁμαρτωλός see Wetst. To the Jews all Gentiles were in a special SENSE apapTwAci (Vi.. 32, 33, xxiv. 7; Gal. 11 15; 1 Maco: but something more than this is evidently meant here. The ἣν need not be pressed to mean, ‘She was even up to this time” Alf.) ; nor does accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda aes imply this. The ἣν expresses her public character: ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει. She had repented (perhaps quite recently, and in conse- quence of Christ’s teaching); but the general opinion of her remained unchanged. Her venturing to enter a Pharisee’s house in spite of this shows great courage. In the East at the present day the intrusion of uninvited persons is not uncommon (Trench, Parables, p. 302 n.; Tristram, Lastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 36). Mary ‘of "Bethany was not an intruder. Note the idiomatic pres. κατακεῖται : just equivalent to our “He is dining with me to-day,” meaning that he will do so. ἀλάβαστρον μύρουι Unguent-boxes or phials were called ἀλά- βαστρα even when not made of alabaster. But wxguenta optime servantur in alabastris (Plin. WV. H. xiii. 3, XXxvl. 12; comp. Hdt. iii. 20. τὴ See Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 6. The word is of all three genders in different writers ; but in class. Grk. the sing. is ἀλάβαστρος, either masc. or fem. The origin of μύρον is unknown, μύρω, μύρρα, σμύρνα, βύρτος being conjectures. In N.T. certainly, and prob- ably in LXX also, μύρον, “ointment,” is distinguished from ἔλαιον, ““ oil.” Trench, Syz. xxxvill, WALT. 38-40. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 211 88. στᾶσα ὀπίσω παρὰ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ. The sandals were removed at meals, and people reclined with their feet behind them; she could therefore easily approach the feet. While Lk. writes rapa τοὺς πόδας (Vill. 35, 41, X. 39, xvil. 16; Acts iv. 35, 37, V. 2, 10, Vii. 58, xxii. 3), Mk. has πρὸς τοὺς πόδας (Υ. 22, Vil. 25), and Jn. εἰς τοὺς πόδας (xi. 32). Mt. has παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (xv. 30). τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ Kal ταῖς θριξίν, κιτιλ. This was no part of her original plan. She came to anoint His feet, and was overcome by her feelings; hence the ἤρξατο. The βρέχειν led to the ἐξέμασσεν, which was also unpremeditated. Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice. For βρέχειν comp. Ps. vi. 7: it is probably a vernacular word (Kennedy, Sources of N.T: Grk. p. 39). kat κατεφίλει. Note the compound verb and the change of tense: “She continued to kiss affectionately.” The word is used of the kiss of the traitor (Mt. xxvi. 49; Mk. xiv. 45), which was demonstrative, of the prodigal’s father (Lk. xv. 20), and of the Ephesian elders in their last farewell (Acts xx. 37), and nowhere else in N.T. Comp. Xen. Mem. 11. 6. 33. Kissing the feet was a common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading Rabbis (Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 32; Polyb. xv. 1. 7; Aristoph. Vesp. 608). 89. προφήτης. Referring to the popular estimate of Jesus (vv. τό, 17). The οὗτος is contemptuous. No true Prophet would knowingly allow himself to be rendered unclean by contact with such a person. ‘The reading ὃ προφήτης (B=) would mean “ the great Prophet” of Deut. xvili. 15 (comp. Jn. i. 25, vil. 40), or possibly “the Prophet that He professes to be.” The art. is accepted by Weiss, bracketed by WH., put in the margin by Treg., and rejected by Tisch. τίς καὶ ποταπὴ H γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ. “Who and of what character is the woman who is clinging to Him.” She was notori- ous both in person and in life. See oni. 29. The ἅπτεται implies more than mere touching, and is the pres. of continued action. Trench, Syz. xvu.; Lft. on Col. 11. 21. mo si tu, Simon, sctres, gualis hxe jam esset femina, aliter judicares (Beng.). The ὅτι comes after ἐγίνωσκεν : ‘that she is,” not ‘‘ decause she is.” See on ver. 16, and comp. Is. Ixv. 5. 40. ἀποκριθεὶς 6 “Ingots. Audivit Phariseum cogitantem (Aug. Serm. xcix.). Jesus not only answered but confuted his doubts. Simon questioned the mission of Jesus because He seemed to be unable to read the woman’s character. Jesus shows Simon that He can read Azs inmost thoughts: He knows τίς καὶ ποταπός ἐστι. For ἔχω σοί τι εἰπεῖν see on ΧΙ]. 4. Christ asks permission of His host to speak. As Godet remarks, there is a tone of Socratic irony in the address, 212 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [VII. 41- 44. 41. Avo χρεοφιλέται ἦσαν δανιστῇ τινί. For the orthography of the two substantives see WH. ii. App. p. 154; Greg. Proleg. p. 89. In N.T. χρεοφιλέτης occurs only here and xvi. 5 ; in LXX Job xxxi. 37; Prov. xxix. 13. The word is of late origin. All English Versions, except Rhem. and AV., rightly have ‘‘lender” and not ‘‘creditor” for δανιστής : Vulg. fenerator, Luth. Waucherer. In weight of silver the denarvzus was considerably less than a shilling ; in purchasing power it was about two shillings, the wage of a day- labourer (Mt. xx. 2) and of a Roman soldier (Tac. Azz. 1. 17. 8, where see Furneaux). The two debts were about £50 and £5. 42. μὴ ἐχόντων αὐτῶν ἀποδοῦναι. ‘ Because they had not where- with to pay”; 2on habentibus tllis unde redderent (Vulg.). Comp. xll. 4, Xlv. 14; Acts iv. 14. Others render ἔχειν in these passages “to be able,” like Zabeo guod with the subjunctive. In ἐχαρίσατο, “he made them a present” of what they owed, we trace the Pauline doctrine of free grace and salvation for all. Comp. ver. 21. τίς οὖν αὐτῶν πλεῖον ἀγαπήσει; This is the point of the parable, and perhaps the only point. The love and gratitude of those who have had debts remitted to them depends upon ¢hezr estimate of the amount which has been remitted to them rather than upon the actual amount. 43. Ὑπολαμβάνω. “1 suppose,” “1 presume,” with an air of supercilious indifference. Comp. Acts 11. 15; Job xxv. 3; Tobit vi. 18; Wisd. xvii. 2. It is very improbable that ὑπολαμβάνω here means'* L reply,” as inox. 305 Jobat: '4, iv. 1, vil τῷ ix a, eevee In N.T. the verb is peculiar to Lk. The Ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας may be compared with the πάνυ ὀρθῶς of Socrates, when he has led the disputant into an admission which is fatal. In N.T. ὀρθῶς occurs only here, x. 28, xx. 21; Mk. vii. 35. Freq. in LXX. Comp. ovx ἐκρίνατε ὀρθῶς (Wisd. vi. 4). 44. στραφεὶς πρὸς Thy γυναῖκα. She was behind Him. His turning to her while He spoke to Simon was in itself half a rebuke. Up to this He seems to have treated her as He treated the Syrophenician woman, as if paying no attention. The series of contrasts produces a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry, and in translating a rhythm comes almost spontaneously. Βλέπεις ταύτην THY γυναῖκα ; This is probably a question: Simon had ignored her presence. The σου being placed before eis τὴν οἰκίαν gives point to the rebuke, but it hardly makes the cov em- phatic. An enclitic cannot be emphatic, and gov here is enclitic. The meaning is not “I entered into ¢Azne house,” in preference to others; but rather, “1 came to thee in thy house,” and not merely in the public street ; “1 was thy invited guest.” ὕδωρ μοι ἐπὶ πόδας. Comp. Gen. xviii. 4; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. xxv. 41; Jn. xill. 5; 1 Tim. v.10. The reading is somewhat un- certain, and there are many variations between pou and μου, πόδας and τοὺς πόδας, and also of order: μου ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας (8 LE) may be right. VII. 45-47.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 213 45. φίλημα. Comp. Gen. xxxiil. 4; Exod. xviil. 7; 2 Sam. XV. 5, xix. 39, xx. 9. The traitor’s choosing it as a sign seems to mark it as usual. ἀφ᾽ ἧς εἰσῆλθον. The reading εἰσῆλθεν (1,1 Vulg.) is an attempt to avoid the apparent exaggeration in ‘‘since the time I came in.” But there need be no exaggeration, or difference of meaning, be- tween the two readings. ‘The woman very likely entered zwz/h Christ and His disciples in order to escape expulsion. Fear of it would make her begin to execute her errand directly the guests were placed. ‘The compound καταφιλοῦσα makes the contrast with φίλημα more marked, and τοὺς πόδας makes it still more so. The φίλημα would have been on the cheek, or possibly (if Simon had wished to be very respectful) on the hand. 46. ἐλαίῳ. Very cheap in Palestine, where olives abound, and very commonly used (Ps. xxiii. 5, cxli. 5; Mt. vi. 17). The μύρον would be more valuable, and possibly very costly (Jn. ΧΙ]. 3, 5). This woman, whom Simon so despised in his heart, had really done the honours of the house to his guest. This fact would be all the more prominent if she entered close after Jesus, and thus at once supplied Simon’s lack of courtesy. 47. This is a verse which has been the subject of much contro- versy. What is the meaning of the first half of it? We have to choose between two possible interpretations. 1. ‘For which reason, I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because she loved much” ; 2.6. οὗ χάριν anticipates ὅτι, and λέγω σοι 15 paren- thetical. Her sins have been forgiven for the reason that her love was great ; or her love won forgiveness. This is the interpretation of Roman Catholic commentators (see Schanz), and the doctrine of contritio caritate formata is built upon it. But it is quite at variance (a) with the parable which precedes ; (4) with the second half of the verse, which ought in that case to run, “but he who loveth little, wins little forgiveness”; (¢) with ver. 50, which states that it was fazth, not love, which had been the means of salvation ; a doctrine which runs through the whole of the N.T. This cannot be correct. 2. ‘‘For which reason I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven (and I say this to thee), because she loved much” ; 2.6. λέγω σοι is not parenthetical, but is the main sentence. This statement, that her many sins have been forgiven, is rightly made to Simon, because he knew of her great sinfulness, he had witnessed her loving reverence, and he had admitted the principle that the forgiveness of much produces much love. This interpreta- tion is quite in harmony with the parable, with the second half of the verse, and with ver. 50. ‘There were two things evident,—the past sin and the present love,—both of them great. A third might be known, because (according to the principle just admitted) it explained how great love could follow great sin,—the forgiveness 214. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VII. 47-50. of the sin. Remissio peccatorum, Simont non cogitata, probata a Jructu, qui est evidens, quum tlla sit occulta (Beng). ai ἀμαρτίαι αὐτῆς ai πολλαί. The second art. refers to v. 39: “The many sins of which thou thinkest. » “Fler Sins, yes (accord- ing to thy estimate), her many sins.’ ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται. ‘‘ But he to whom little is forgiven,” z.e. who thinks that he has committed little which could need forgiveness. It is said with evident reference to Simon. O Pharisxe, parum ailigis, guia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris ; non quia parum dimit- titur, sed quia parum putas quod dimittitur (Aug. Serm. xcix.). For this use of the dat. comp. Soph. Azz. 004. 48. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῇ. What He had to say to Simon (ver. 40) is finished : it is His true entertainer (44-46) who now occupies His attention. ἀφέωνται. ‘‘ Have been and remain forgiven”: see on v. 20. There is nothing either in the word or in the context to show that her sins were not forgiven until this moment: the context implies the opposite, and this is confirmed by the use of the perf. Augus- tine’s accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda is in this respect misleading. ‘The teaching of Christ had brought her to repentance and to assurance of forgiveness, and this assurance had inspired her with love and gratitude. Jesus now confirms her assurance and publicly declares her forgiveness. He thus lends His authority to rehabilitate her with society. 49. λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. ‘To say within themselves” rather than among themselves ; so that Jesus answered their thoughts, as He had already answered Simon’s. The οὗτος is slightly contemptu- ous, as often (v. 21; Mt. xiii. 55; Jn. vi. 42, 52, ete). Therap in ὃς καὶ ἁμαρτίας ἀφίησιν is “even” rather than “also.” It is difficult to see the point of also.” 50. εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα. ‘‘ But He said unto the woman.” He ignored their objection, and yet indirectly answered it, by telling her that it was her faith that had delivered her from her sins. πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην. “Depart into peace,” ze. into a lasting condition of peace: a Hebrew formula of blessing and of good- will, with special fulness of meaning. Comp. vill. 48; Mk. v. 34; 1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42. In Acts xvi. 36 and Jas. il. τὸ we have év εἰρήνῃ, Which is less strong, the peace being joined to the momertt of departure rather than to the subsequent life: comp. Judg. xviii. 6. In Acts xv. 33 we have per εἰρήνης. Among the various points which distinguish this anointing from that by Mary of Bethany should be noted that 4eve we have no grumbling at the waste of the ointment and no prediction of Christ’s death, while ¢Aere no absolution is pro- nounced and Mary is not addressed. See Hase, Gesch. J. § 91, p. 651, ed. 1891 ; also Schanz, p. 250, at the end of this section. VIII. 1-3. ὃ The ministering Women. This section is VIII. 1, 2.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 215 evidence of the excellence of Lk.’s sources. The information contained in it is exact and minute. The names and other details are utterly unlike fiction. An inventor would avoid such things as likely to be refuted: moreover, no motive for invention can be discerned. The passage tells us—what no other Evangelist makes known—how Jesus and His disciples lived when they were not being entertained by hospitable persons. The common purse (Jn. xiii. 29; comp. xii, 6) was kept supplied by the generosity of pious women. This form of piety was not rare. Women sometimes contributed largely towards the support of Rabbis, whose rapacity in accepting what could ill be spared was rebuked by Christ (xx. 47; Mt. xxiii. 13; Mk. xii. 40) with great severity. 1. Kal ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς καὶ αὐτὸς διώδευεν. See detached note p. 45, and comp. Vv. I, 12, 14: for ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς see small print on vii. 11. The αὐτός anticipates καὶ οἱ “δώδεκα, “He Himself and the Twelve.” But the καί before αὐτός Comes after ἐγένετο and must not be coupled with the καί before οἱ δώδεκα. In N.T. διοδεύω occurs only here and Acts xvii. 1, but it is freq. in LXX (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 17, etc.) ; also in Polyb. Plut. etc. Comp. ix. 6, ΧΙ]. 22. κατὰ πόλιν καὶ κατὰ κώμην. (Δ guis Judeus preteritum se quert posset (Grotius), Jesus preached city by city (Acts xv. 21) and village by village. The clause is amphibolous. It probably is meant to go with διώδευε, but may be taken with κηρύσσων καὶ evayy. The incidental way in which the severity of Christ’s labours is mentioned is remarkable. Comp. ix. 58, xi. 22; Mt. ee TE Mk. vi. 31. For εὐαγγελιζόμενος see on Ii. το. We are not to understand that the Twelve preached in His presence, if at all. Note the σύν (not μετά), and see on vv. 38, 51, and i. 56. 2. πνεύματων πονηρῶν. See on iv. 33. We cannot tell how many of these women had been freed from demons: perhaps only Mary Magdalen, the others having been cured ἀπὸ dofevadv. For the ἀπό comp. Vv. 15, Vil. 21. ἢ καλουμένη Μαγδαληνή. See on vi. 15. The adj. probably means “ of Magdala,” a town which is not named in N.T.; for the true reading in Mt. xv. 39 is “ Magadan.” ‘‘ Magdala is only the Greek form of A/zgdol, or watch-tower, one of the many places of the name in Palestine” (Tristram, 57é/e Places, p. 260); and it is probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now bear the name of A/ejde/, near the centre of the western shore of the lake. Magdala was probably near to Magadan, and being much better known through 7 Maydadnvy, at last it drove the latter name out of the common text. See Stanley, Siz. & Pad. p. 382. Mary being a common name, the addition of something distinctive was convenient ; and possibly a distinction from Mary -«...-«͵ οὐρὰν Pees rae, - 216 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING Τὸ 5. LUKE [VIII 2, 8. of Bethany was specially designed by the Evangelists. Mary Magdalen is commonly placed first when she is mentioned with other women (Mt. xxvii. 56, 61, xxvili. 1; Mk. xv. 40, 47, Xvi. 1; Lk. xxiv. 10). Jn. xix. 25 is an exception. ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει. This fact is mentioned in the disputed verses at the end of Mk. (xvi. 9). It indicates a pos- session of extraordinary malignity (Mk. v. 9). We need not give any mystical interpretation to the number seven: comp. xi. 26; Mt. xii. 25. There is nothing to show that demoniacs generally, or Mary in particular, had lived specially vicious lives: and the fact that no name is given to the ἁμαρτωλός in the preceding section, while Mary Magdalen is introduced here as an entirely new person, is against the traditional identification of the two. Moreover, such an affliction as virulent demoniacal possession would be almost incompatible with the miserable trade of prosti- tution. If Lk. had wished to intimate that the ἁμαρτωλός is Mary Magdalen, he could have done it much more clearly. Had he wished to conceal the fact, he would not have placed these two sections in juxtaposition. Had he wished to withhold the name of the ἁμαρτωλός, who may possibly be included among the ἕτεραι πολλαί, he would have done as he has done. The ἁμαρτωλός and Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany are three distinct persons. 8. Ἰωάνας She is mentioned with Mary Magdalen again xxiv. 10: all that we know about her is contained in these two passages. Godet conjectures that Chuza is the βασιλικός, who “believed and his whole house” (Jn. iv. 46-53). In that case her husband would be likely to let her go and minister t6 Christ. The Herod meant is probably Antipas, and his ἐπίτροπος would be the manager of his household and estates: comp. Mt. xx. 8. Blunt finds here a coincidence with Mt. xiv. 2; Herod “said to his servants, This is John the Baptist.” If Herod’s steward’s wife was Christ’s disciple, He would often be spoken of among the servants at the court; and Herod addresses them, because they were familiar with the subject. Comp. the case of Manaen (Acts xili. τ), Herod’s σύντροφος (Undesigned Coincidences, Pt. IV. xi. p. 263, 8th ed.). Of Susanna nothing else is known, nor of the other women, unless Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome (Mk. xv. 40) may be assumed to be among them. αἵτινες διηκόνουν αὐτοῖς. ‘Who were of such a character as to minister to them”; z.e. they were persons of substance. For ἥτις see on vii. 37, and for διακονεῖν comp. Rom. xv. 25. The αὐτοῖς means Jesus and the Twelve, the reading αὐτῷ (A L M X) being probably a correction from Mt. xxvii. 55 ; Mk. xv. 41. But αὐτοῖς has special point. It was precisely because Jesus now had twelve disciples who always accompanied Him, that there was need of much support from other disciples. VIL. 8, 4.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 217 ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐταῖς. It is this which distinguishes this passage from Mt. xxvii. 55 and Mk. xv. 41. There the διακονεῖν might refer to mere attendance on Him. We learn from this that neither Jesus nor the Twelve wrought miracles for their own support. --»οο Here, as in xii. 15 and Acts iv. 32, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα has the dat. Every- where else in Lk. (xi. 21, xii. 33, 44, xiv. 33, xvi. I, xix. 8) and elsewhere in N.T. (five times) it has ‘the gen. Soalsoin LXX ‘the gen. is the rule, the dat. the exception, if it is the true reading anywhere. Both τὰ ὑπάρχοντα and ὑπάρχειν are favourite expressions with Lk. See on ver. 41. 4-18. The Parable of the Sower. Mt. xii. 1-23; Mk. iv. 1-20. We have already had several instances of teaching by means of parables (v. 36-39, vi. 39, 41-44, 47-49, Vil. 41, 42); but they are brief and incidental. Parables. seem now to become more common _in_ Christ’s teaching, and also more elaborate. This is intelligible, when we remember the characteristics of parables. ‘They have the double property of-revealing..and_con- cealing. They open. the. truth, and. impress it upon the minds. of those who are ready to receive it: but they do not instruct, though they_may_impress,the careless (ver. 10). As Bacon_says of a parable, ‘if tends to vail, and it tends to illustrate ἃ truth.” As the hostility to His teaching increased, Jesus would be likely to make more use of parables, which would benefit disciples without giving opportunity to His enemies. The parable of the Sower is in some. respects chief among the_parables, as Christ Himself seems to indicate (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the two which all three record, the other being the Wicked Husbandmen: and itis one_of which we have Christ’s own interpretation. 4. Συνιόντος δὲ ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλιν ἐπιπορευομένων Tr. av’t. The constr. is uncertain, and we have choice of two ways, according as the καί is regarded as simply co-ordinating, or as epexegetic. 1. “And when a great multitude was coming together, avd they of every city were resorting to Him.” 2. “And when a great multitude was coming together, zamedly, of those who city by city were resorting to Him.” According to 2, the multitude consisted wholly of those who were following from different towns (ver. 1). As no town is named, there was perhaps no crowd from the place itself. In any case the imperf. part. should be preserved in translation. It was the growing multitude which caused Him to enter into a boat (Mt. xiii. 2; Mk. iv. 1). See on xi. 29. The Latin Versions vary greatly: convenzente autem turba magna et eorum qui ex civitatibus adventebant dixit parabolam (a); convenzente autem turba multa et qui de singulis crvitatibus exibant dixit 2. (c) ; congregato autem populo multo et ad civitatem iter factebant ad eum dixit par ‘abolam talem ad eos (A); cum autem turba plurima conventret et de civitatzbus pro- τω | BS rh 218 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [VIII. 4~7. perarent ad eum dixit per similttudinem (Vulg.) ; cum autem turba plurima convenisset (συνέλθοντος, D) et de cévetatebus advenirent multi adixit per similitudinem (Cod. Brix.). εἶπεν διὰ παραβολῆς. The expression occurs nowhere else. Mt. and Mk. write ἐν παραβολαῖς λέγειν or λαλεῖν, while Lk. has παραβολὴν εἰπεῖν or λέγειν. See on iv. 23, v. 36, and vi. 39; and on the parable itself see Gould on Mk. iv. 1 ff. 5. ἐξῆλθεν ὃ σπείρων. So in all three accounts: ‘‘ Zhe sower went forth. ” The force of the article is “ he-whose business it_is- to_sow”: he is the representative of a class who habitually have these experiences. Rhem. has ‘‘¢e sower” in all three places, Cran. in Mt. and Mk., Cov. in Mt. For the pres. part. with the article used as a substantive comp. lil. 11, V. 31, Vi. 29, 30, 1%. 2, 11, x. 16, etc. There is solemnity in the repetition, ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον. ‘The comparison of teaching with sowing is frequent in all literature ; but it is possible that J what was going on before their_eyes. See the vivid description of a startling coincidence with the parable in Stanley, Sz. & Pal. Pp. 425. ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτόν. “During his sowing, while he sowed”: αὐτόν is subj., not obj., and refers to ὁ σπείρων, not τὸν σπόρον. See on iii. 21. Note the graphic change of prepositions: παρὰ τὴν ὅδον (ver. 5), ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν (ver. 6), ἐν μέσῳ (ver. 7), εἰς τὴν ᾿ γῆν (ver. 8). In this verse Lk. has three features which are ' wanting in ὭΣ and Mk.: τὸν σπόρον, καὶ κατεπατήθη, and τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. Not “along the way,” but “ by the side of the way.” It fell on the field, but so close to the road that it was trampled on. Both Lk. and Mk. here have μέν followed by καί: ὃ μὲν . . . καὶ ἕτερον, Comp. Mk. ix. 12. The absence of δέ after μέν is freq. in Acts, Pauline Epp., and Heb. 6. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. The rock had a slight covering of-soil; and_ hence is called τὸ πετρῶδες (Mk.) and τὰ πετρώδη (Mt.), which does not mean “stony ground,” z.e. full of stones, but “rocky ground,” ze. with rock appearing at intervals and with “no depth of earth.” The thinness of the soil would cause rapid germination and_rapid withering ; ; but Lk omits the vafid growth. With φυέν comp. Prov. xxvi. 9; Exod. x. 5; and (for the constr.) Lk. 11. 4. For ἰκμάδα, “moisture,” Mt. and Mk. have ῥίζαν. The word occurs Jer. xvii. 8 ; 3 Job XXVi. 14; Jos. Az?. Π|. 1. 3; but nowhere else in N.T. ἡ. ἐν μέσῳ τών ἀκμαθ The result. οἵ the falling was that 16. was in the midst of the thorns : prep. of rest after a verb of motion: comp. vil. 16. Lk. is fond of ἐν μέσῳ (ii. 46, X. 3, ΣΙ: VIII. 7-10.] |§ THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 219 Be xxl 27, 55, xxivos@;> Acis i. 15, ete.). Elsewhere it is rare, except in Rev. Neither Mt. nor Mk. have it here. συνφυεῖσαι. Here only in N.T. In LXX only Wisd. xiii. 13. In Plato and Aristotle it is transitive: “cause to grow together.” We are to understand that the good seed fell into ground where ἢ young thorns were growing ; otherwise the growing together would hardly be possible. Indeed the ἀνέβησαν ai ἄκανθαι of Mt. and Mk. almost implies that the thorns were not yet visible, when the good seed was,.sown. in the midst of them. The ἀπέπνιξαν means os chok ὅν SOUaS fon exterminate i it: comp. the ἀπό in ἀπο- κτείνω. Wic. has “ strangliden it ” ; but 1 that, though sufficient for suffocaverunt (Vulg.), does not express the ἀπό. The verb occurs only here and ver. 31 in N.T., and in LXX only in Nah. 11. 12 and Tobit ii. 8. 8. εἰς τὴν γῆν Thy ἀγαθήν. Not merely upon, butinto the soil. ~—— The double article in all three accounts presents the soil and its goodness as two separate ideas: “the ground (that was intended for it), the good (ground).” Mt. and Mk. have καλήν. This repetition of the article is specially frequent in Jn. Lk. omits the sixty- and thirtyfold. Isaac is said to have reaped a hundredfold (Gen. xxvi. 12). Hdt. (i. 193. 4) states that in the plain of Babylon returns of two hundred- and even three hundredfold, were obtained. Strabo (xvi. p. 1054) says much the same, but is perhaps only following Hdt. See Wetst. on Mt. xi. ὃ for abundant evidence of very large returns. ὃ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. This formula occurs in all three. (ΟΥΤΩΣ ΣΙΝ 25. Mt. x. 15) ΧΠῚ 452. In πον: we have the sing:, ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω (il. 7, 11, 17, 29, 111. 6, 13, 22). The intro- ductory ἐφώνει, ‘ He cried aloud,” indicates a raising of the voice, and gives a solemnity to this concluding charge. The imperf. perhaps means that the charge was repeated. Comp. Ezek. iil. 27 ; Hom. 775. xv. 129. 9. τίς αὕτη εἴη 7 παραβολή. “ What this parable might be in meaning.” See small print oni. 29. Mt. says that the disciples asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables. Christ answers both questions. For ἐπηρώτων see on ill. 10. 10. tots δὲ λοιποῖς. “ Those_who_are outside the—circle_of Christ’s disciples” ; ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἔξω, as Mk. has it. This implies that_it is disciples generally, and ποῖ the Twelve_only, who are being addressed. Mt. is here the fullest of the three, giving the passage from Is. vi. 9, ro in full. Lk. is very brief. iva βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσιν. At first sight it might seem as if the ἵνα of Lk. and Mk. was very different from the ὅτι of Mt. Rut the principle that he who hath shall_receiye more, while he who_hath not shall be deprived of what _he_seemeth to have, e iva and_the ὅτι. Jesus speaks in parables, ϑω, 7, 229 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ VIII. 10-12, because the multitude see without seeing and hear without hearing. But He also speaks in parables zz order that they may see without seeing and hear without hearing. They “have not” a mind to welcome instruction, and therefore they are taught in a way which deprives them of instruction, although it is full of meaning to those who desire to understand and do understand. But what the unsympathetic “hear without understanding ” they remember, be- cause of its impressive form; and whenever their minds become fitted for it, its meaning will become manifest to them. WH. write συνίωσιν, from the unused συνίω, while other editors prefer συνιῶσιν, from συνίημι or the unused cuviéw. Similarly WH. have συνίουσιν (Mt. xiii. 13), where others give συνιοῦσιν. II. App. p. 167. Here some authorities have συνῶσιν, as in LXX. 11. Having answered the question διατί ἐν παραβολαῖς λέγεις ; Jesus now answers tis ἐστιν αὕτη ἡ παραβολή; ‘To the disciples “who have” the one thing needful “more is given.” The similarity between the seed and the word lies specially in the vital power which it secretly contains. Comp. “Behold I sow My law in you, and it shall bring fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it for ever. But our fathers, which received the law, kept it not, and observed not the statutes: and the fruit of the law did not perish, neither could it, for it was Thine ; yet they that received it perished, because they kept not the thing that was sown in them” (2 Esdr. ik. 31-23). 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Mt. never uses this phrase ; and it occurs only once in Mk. (vii. 13) and once in Jn. (x. 35). Lk. has it four times in the Gospel (v. 1, vill. 11, 21, xi. 28) and twelve times in the Acts. Here Mk. has τὸν λόγον (iv. t5) and Mt. has nothing (xiii. 18). So in ver. 21, where Lk. has τὸν λ. τοῦ @., Mk. has τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θ. (11. 35) and Mt. τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός (xii. 50). Does it mean ‘the word which comes from God” or “the word which tells of God”? Probably the former. Comp. the O.T. formula “The word of the Lord came to.” ‘The gen. is subjective. Lift. Zp. of S. Paul, p. 15. 12. ot δὲ παρὰ τὴν 686v. There is no need to understand σπαρέντες, as is clear from Mk. iv. 15. ‘‘Those by the wayside” is just as intelligible as “Those who received seed by the way- Side, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος. Much more vivid than “ And_the birds—are the devil.” This is Christ’s own interpretation of the birds, and it is strong evidence for the existence of a personal devil. Why did not Jesus explain the birds as meaning impersonal temptations. He seems pointedly to insist upon a personal ad- versary. See on x. 18. Mt. has 6 πονηρός, Mk. ὁ σατανᾶς. The concluding words are peculiar to Lk.: “in order that they may not by believing be saved.” VIII. 18-15.}] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 221 13. The constr. is ambiguous. In vv. 12, 14, 15 εἰσίν is expressed, and it is usually understood here: ‘‘ And-these. ‘onthe rock ave_they which, when they .havesheard, receive the word with jay; aq these have no root.” But it is not necessary to insert the εἰσίν. We may continue the protasis to τὸν λόγον and make καί mean also : nd those on the rock, whi yhen_ the haye_ heard, receive the ord with _joy,—these also (as w wayside) have—go root.” Thus οὗτοι mar σε exactly ΠΣ to obrol εἰσιν In vv. 14, 15. But the usual arrangement is better. The οἱ πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν is a further explanation of οὗτοι. Neither Mt. nor Mk. has δέχ ον τῶν, of which Lk. is fond (ii. 28, ix. 5, 48, 53, x. 8, 10, xvi. 4, 6, 7, 9, etc.). It implies the internal acceptance; whereas λαμβάνειν implies no ‘more than the external reception. ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται. Mt. and Mk. have θλίψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ, which shows that the temptation of persecution and ex- ternal suffering is specially meant: comp. Jas. i. 2. In all times of moral and spiritual revival persons who are won easily at first, but apostatize under pressure, are likely to form a large portion: comp. Heb. iil. 12. The verb does not occur in Mt. Mk. or Jn. The repetition of καιρός is impressive. As opportunity commonly lasts only for a short time, καιρός may mean “a short time.” 14. τὸ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας πέσον. It is not probable that this is an acc. abs.: ‘* Now as regards that which fell among the thorns.” The attraction of οὗτοι (for τοῦτο) to of ἀκούσαντες is quite intelligible. ὑπὸ μεριμνών καὶ πλούτου καὶ ἡδονῶν Tod βίου. It is usual to take this after συμπνίγονται ; and this is probably correct: yet Weiss would follow Luther and others and join it with πορευόμενοι, “going on their way under the influence of cares,” etc. But ver. 7 is against this: the cares, etc., are the thorns, and it is the thorns which choke. ‘This does not reduce πορευόμενοι to a gehaltloser Zusatz. The choking_is not.a-sudden_process,like_the “trampling and_devouring ; nor_a_rapid process, like the withering: it takes_ time. Itis as they go on their way through life, and_before they have reached. the goal, that the choking of the good growth takes plage. ‘Therefore they never do reach the goal. The transfer of what is true of the growing ; seed to those in whose heart it is sown is not difficult ; and συμπνίγονται is Clearly passive, not middle and transitive. ‘The thorns choke the seed (ver. 7); these hearers are_choked_by the cares, etc. (ver. 14). ~ Here only in N.T. does τελεσφορεῖν occur. It is _used_of animals as well as_ of plants (aeMac® xu. 20; 88: baywrey Sym): 15. τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ καλῇ γῇ, κιτιλ. It fell zzo_ the good ground (ver. 8), and itis 27 the right ground. Perhaps οἵτινες has its full meaning: ‘who are of such a character as to,” etc. The two epithets used of the ground, ἀγαθή in ver. 8 and καλή in ver. 15, are combined for καρδίᾳ: ‘in a right and good heart.” We must take ἐν καρδίᾳ with κατέχουσι rather than with ἀκούσαντες. Even if ἀκούειν be interpreted to mean “hearing gladly, welcoming,” it *K 222 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VIII. 15, 16, is not the same as κατέχειν, which means “hold fast” (1 Cor. xi. 2). It is reasonable to suppose that ἀκούειν means the same in all four cases (12, 13, 14, 15). But κατέχουσιν (Lk.), παραδέχονται (Mk. iv. 20), and συνιών (Mt. xiii. 23) may all ΒΕ equivalents of the same Aramaic verb, meaning “to take in”: see footnote on Ve. 21. Comp. τ Cor xv. 2; Wines, v.21: ἐν ὑπομονῇ. “ With endurance, perseverance,” rather than “patience,” which would be μακροθυμία : 7m patientia (Vulg.), 271 tolerantia (c), in sufferentia (d), per patientiam (bf ff,). See Lft. on Col. i. 11; Trench, Syz. lui. This ὑπομονή is the opposite of ἀφίστανται (ver. 12); and is not in Mt. or Mk. Thus Lk. gives the opposite of all three of the bad classes : κατέχουσιν, non ut in Via ; καρποφοροῦσιν, non ut in spinis; ἐν ὑπομονῇ, non ut in petroso (Beng.). Neither here nor in ver. 8 does Lk. give the degrees of fruitfulness. Mt. and Mk. do so both in the parable and in the interpretation. The suggestion that Lk. has mistaken three numerals for a word which he translates ἐν ὑπομενῇ seems to be a little too ingenious (Zxfositor, Nov. 1891, p. 381). That Jesus knew that all four of the classes noticed in the parable were to be found in the audience before Him, is probable enough; but we have no means of knowing it. We may safely identify the Eleven and the ministering women with the fourth class. Judas is an instance of the third. But all. are warned thatthe mere_receiving of the word is not decisive. Everything depends upon ow it is received _and how it is_zecained. Grotius quotes from the Magna Morata : ᾧ τὰ ἀγαθὰ πάντα ὄντα ἀγαθά ἐστιν, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων μὴ διαφθείρεται, οἷον ὑπὸ πλούτου καὶ ἀρχῆς, ὃ τοιοῦτος καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός. 16-18. Practical Inference. The connexion with what pre- cedes need not be doubted. By answering the question of the disciples (ver. 9) and explaining the parable to them, Jesus had kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see that it spreads to others. Here we have the opposite of what was noticed in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Lk. has, gathered into one, sayings which Mt. has, scattered in three different places (v. 15, Χ. 26, xili. 12: comp. xiii. 12, xxv. 29). Mk. and Lk. are here very similar and consecutive. Comp. xi. 33-36. 16. λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει. “‘ Having lighted a lamp,” rather than “a candle.” Trench, Sy. xlvi.; Becker, Charicles, iii. 86, Eng. tr. p. 130; Gadlus, i. 398, Eng. tr. p. 308. For ἅψας see on xv. 8: it occurs again xl. 33, but not in the parallels Mt. xii. 15; Mk. Iv. 21. Instead of σκεύει Mt. and Mk. have the more definite ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, which Lk. has xi. 33. As VIII. 16-18.] |. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 223 λύχνος is a “lamp,” λυχνία is a “lamp-stand,” on which several ‘dvxvor might be placed or hung: for, whereas the λαμπτήρ was fixed, the λύχνος was portable. Other forms of λυχνία are Avyxviov and Avxvetov (Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 40). Comp. the very similar passage xi. 33. In both passages οἱ εἰσπορενόμενοι, the Gentiles, are mentioned instead of οἱ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, the Jews (Mt. mil. 15). 17. The poetic rhythm and parallelism should be noticed. Somewhat similar sayings-are found in profane writers: ἄγει δὲ πρὸς φῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν χρόνος (Menander) ; comp. Soph. Ajax, 646, and Wetst. on Mt. x. 26. For φανερὸν γενήσεται see on iv. 36; Mt has ἀποκαλυφθήσεται, Mk. φανερωθῇ. For ἀπόκρυφον, ‘“ hidden away” from the public eye, see Lft. on Col. ii. 3. It was a favourite word with the Gnostics to indicate their esoteric books, which might not be published. Comp. the very similar passage ἘΠῚ 2; and see S. Cox in the £xfosztor, 2nd series, i. pp. 186, 372, and Schanz, ad Joc. 18. βλέπετε οὖν πῶς ἀκούετε. Because the doctrine received must be handed on and made known to all, therefore it is all-im- portant that it should be rightly heard, viz. with intelligence and a “good heart” (ver. 15). Whoever gives a welcome to the word and appropriates it, becomes worthy and capable of receiving more. But by not appropriating truth when we recognize it, we lose our hold of it, and have less power of recognizing it in the future. There is little doubt that ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν means “ that which he ¢hinketh he hath.” Wic. has “weneth” ; Tyn. and Cran. “sup- poseth” ; Cov. and Rhem. “thinketh.” “ Seemeth” comes from Beza’s videtur. It is sedf-deception that is meant. Those who received the seed by the wayside were in this condition; they failed to appropriate it, and lost it. Mk. here inserts (iv. 24) the © μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, κιτ.λ., which Lk. has already given in the sermon (vi. 38): and both Mt. and Mk. a add other parables, two of which Lk. gives later (xiii. 18-21). 19-21. The Visit of His Mother and His Brethren. Christ’s true Relations. Mt. (xii. 46-50) and Mk. (iii. 31-35) place this incident before the parable of the Sower; but none of the three state which preceded in order of time. Comp. xi. 27, 28, and see on xi. 29. On the “Brethren of the Lord” see Lange, Zeden Jesu, 11. 2, § 13, Eng. tr. 1. p. 329; Lft. Galatians, pp. 253-291, in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 3-45, Macmillan, 1892; J. B. Mayor, Epzstle of S. James, pp. v-xxxvi, Macmillan, iog2. ἢ)». arth: Erotner” ; “James”; “ Judas; the Lord’s Brother.” 1 The work as a whole, and the dissertation’on this question in particular, deserve special commendation. 224 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5: LUKE [ VIII. 19-21. 19. Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἣ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. For the verb, which is a favourite with Lk., see on vil. 4. Here © Mk. has ἔρχονται and Mt. ἰδού. In writing the sing. Lk. is think- ing only of 7 μήτηρ. Such constructions are common, and do not imply that the first in the series of nominatives was em- phatic or specially prominent, except in the writer’s thoughts. Comp. Jn. xvi. 15, xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Philem. 23. The precise relationship to be understood from the expression ot ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ will probably never be determined or cease to be discussed. ‘There is nothing in Scripture to warn us from what is the antecedently natural view that they are the children of Joseph and Mary, unless “I know not a man” (1. 34) is interpreted as ‘implying a vow of perpetual virginity. The “frstborn” in ii. 7 and the zmferfect followed by “till” in Mt. i. 25, seem to imply that Joseph and Mary ad children; which is confirmed by con- temporary belief (Mk. vi. 3; Mt. xii. 55) and by the constant attendance of the ἀδελφοί on the Mother of the Lord (Mt. xii. 46; Mk. il. 32; Jn. 11. 12). The Epiphanian theory, which gives Joseph children older than Jesus by a former wife, deprives Him of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the house of David. It seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to Péter, or Book of James) ; and, like Jerome’s theory of cousinship, to have been invented in the interests of asceticism and of ἃ priori con- victions respecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. ‘Tertullian, in dealing with this passage, seems to assume as a matter of course that the ἀδελῴοί are the children of Mary, and that she and they were here censured by Christ (AZarcion. iv. 19; De Carne Christi, vii.) He knows nothing of the doctrine of a sinless Virgin. Renan conjectures that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were the cousins of Jesus, but that the brethren who refused to believe in Him were His real brethren (V. de /. p. 23). This solution remains entirely his own, for it creates more diffi- culties than it solves. See Lxfositor’s Bible, James and Jude, ch. 11: Hodder, 1891. συντυχεῖν. Elsewhere in bibl. Grk. 2 Mac. viii. 14 only. ἀπηγγέλη. / 2 u ε Ν > a 3 ‘ byl fa περιβλέψῃς εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω and ἐπέβλεψεν ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω (Gen. xix. 17, 26). D and some Lat. texts have els τὰ ὀπίσω βλέπων καὶ ἐπιβάλλων τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ ἄροτρόν. For a similar inversion see xxii. 42. εὔθετός ἐστιν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Literally, “is well-placed,” and so, “useful, fit, for the Kingdom of God”; fit to work in it as a disciple of Christ, rather than fit to enter it and enjoy it. When used of time εὔθετος means “seasonable” (Ps. xxxi. 6; Susan. 15). It was a Pythagorean precept, Eis τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπερχόμενος | μὴ ἐπιστρέφου, which Simplicius in his commentary on Epictetus explains as meaning that a man who aspires to God ought not to be of two minds, nor to cling to human interests. Jesus says to this man neither “‘ Follow Me” (v. 27) nor “ Return to thy house” IX. 62-X.16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 269 (viii. 39), but “1 accept no lukewarm service” (Rev. iii. 16). For the constr. comp. Heb. vi. 7, and contrast xiv. 35. Hahn thinks that this third follower, of whom Lk. alone tells us, may possibly be the Evangelist himself, and that this would account for his hence- forward telling us so much which no one else records. He combines this conjecture with the hypothesis that Lk. was one of the Seventy, the diffi- culties of which have been discussed in the Introduction, § 2. X. 1-16. §The Mission of the Seventy. The number was significant in more ways than one, and we have no means of de- termining which of its various associations had most to do with its use on this occasion. (1) Zhe Seventy Elders, whom God commanded Moses to appoint, and who were endowed with the spirit of prophecy, to help Moses to bear the burden of the people in judging and instructing them: Num. xi. 16, 17, 24, 25. (2) The number of the Nations of the Earth, traditionally supposed to be seventy: Gen. x. (3) Zhe Sanhedrin, which probably con- sisted of seventy members and a president, in imitation of Moses and the seventy Elders. That Jesus should have followed the number given to Moses, in order to suggest a comparison between the two cases, is probable enough. ‘That He should have used the tradition about the number of Gentile nations, in order to point out the special character of this mission, viz. to others besides the Jews, is also not improbable.” So far as we can tell, the Seventy were sent out about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. The number of bullocks offered during the Feast was seventy in all, decreasing from thirteen on the first day to seven on the last: and, according to the Talmud, “There were seventy bullocks to correspond to the number of the seventy nations of the world” (Edersh. Ζ7ε Temple, p. 240; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Jn. vii. 37). It was about this time that Jesus had declared, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must lead, and they shall hear My voice” (Jn. x. 16). The connexion of the mission of the Seventy with this thought cannot be regarded as unlikely. It is much less probable that the number was meant “to suggest the ‘thought that the seventy disciples were placed by Him in a position of direct contrast” with the Sanhedrin. The account of the appointment of the Seventy to minister to all without distinction, like the account of the appointment of the Seven to minister to 1 That the Jews regarded seventy as the normal number for a supreme court or council is shown by the conduct of Josephus, who in organizing Galilee ‘‘ chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee” (B. /. ii. 20. 5; Veta, 14); and also of the Zealots at Jerusalem, who set up a tribunal of seventy chief men, to take the place of the courts which they had suppressed (2. Δ iv. 5. 4). Comp. the legend of the Septuagint. 2 See n. 74 in Migne, vol. i. p. 1267 (Clem. Recog. ii. 42). 270 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Σ. 1-16. the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1-7), is given by Lk. alone. This fact has led to the conjecture that he himself was one of the Seventy; a conjecture apparently sanctioned by those who selected this passage as the Gospel for S. Luke’s Day, but implicitly contradicted by himself in his preface (i. 1-4), which indicates that he was not an eye-witness. His mention of the Seventy and the silence of Mt. and Mk. are very intelligible. The mission belongs to a period about which he had special information, and about which they tell us little. They omit many other matters connected with this part of Christ’s ministry. Had they given us the other details and omitted just this one, there would have been some difficulty. Moreover, this incident would have special interest for the writer of the Universal Gospel, who sympathetically records both the sending of the Twelve to the tribes of Israel (ix. 1-6), and the sending of the Seventy to the nations of the earth. No mention of the Gentiles is made in the charge to the Seventy ; but there is the significant omission of any such command as ‘Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. x. 5, 6). And in Perzea, which was to be the scene of their labours, the propor- tion of Gentiles would be larger than in the districts to the west of the Jordan. The silence of Jn. respecting the mission of the Seventy is no more surprising than his silence respecting the mission of the Twelve. He omits these, as he omits many things, because they have been sufficiently recorded, and because they are not required for the plan of his Gospel. The proposals to treat the charge to the Seventy as a mere doublet of the charge to the Twelve, or as an invention of the Evangelist in the interest of Pauline ideas, will not bear criticism. In either case, why does Lk. also give us the charge to the Twelve (ix. 1-6), and in such close proximity? In the latter case, why does he not insert a special direction to go to the Gentiles? The difference and the similarity between the two charges are quite in- telligible. The mission of the Seventy was not permanent, like that of the Twelve. Yet the object of it was not, like that of ix. 52, to prepare shelter and food, but, like that of the Twelve, to prepare for Christ’s teaching.! The increased numbers were necessary because the time was short, and in many cases His first visit would also be His last. And when we examine the two charges in detail, we find that there is not only the prohibition noted above, which is given to the Twelve and not to the Seventy, but also several directions which are given to the Seventy and not to the Twelve. Neither in Mt. x. 5-15, nor in Mk. vi. 7-11, nor in Lk. ix. I-5 is there any equivalent to Lk. x. 2, 8; while a good deal of what is similar in the two charges is differently worded or differently arranged. See Rushbrooke’s Syzopticon, pp. 35, 36. One may readily admit the possibility of some confusion between the traditional forms of the two charges; but no such hypothesis is required. The work of the Seventy was sufficiently similar to the work of the Twelve to make the directions given in each case similar. An address to candidates for ordination now would be largely the same, whether addressed to deacons or to priests. The uncritical character of the hypothesis that this section is an invention to promote Pauline doctrine is further shown by the fact that its authenticity is clearly recognized in a work of notoriously anti-Pauline tendency, viz. the Clementine Recognitions.2 And whatever may be the worth of the traditions 1 Renan has a remarkable passage, in which he shows how the customs of Oriental hospitality aided the preaching and spread of the Gospel ( V. de 7. p. 293). 2 Peter is represented as saying: JVos ergo primos elegit duodecem sibé credentes, quos apostolos nominavit, postmodum alios septuaginta duos pro- batisstmos disctpulos, ut vel hoc modo recognita zmagine Moysts crederet multitudo, guia hic est, quem preedixit Moyses venturum prophetam (1. 40). It is worth noting that in the Recognztéons the number of the nations of the earth is given as seventy-two (ii. 42). x. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 2.21 that this or that person was one of the Seventy, how could the traditions (some of which are as old as the second century) have arisen, if no such body as the Seventy ever existed ? As Eusebius remarks (4 25. 1. 12. 1), ‘‘there exists no catalogue of the Seventy.” 1 But he goes on to mention traditions as to a few of them, some of which come from the Wyfotyposes of Clement of Alexandria. Barnabas (Acts iv. 36, etc.), Sosthenes (1 Cor. i, 1), Cephas (Gal. 11. 11), Matthias (Acts i. 26), Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23), and Thaddzeus are mentioned as among the Seventy. Clement states definitely of Barnabas the Apostle that he was one of the Seventy (.S¢vomz. 11. 20, p. 489, ed. Potter), and in Clem, Recog. i. 7 he is called one of Christ’s disciples. So far as we know, Clement was the first to separate the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11 from the Apostle. This second Cephas is an obvious invention to avoid a collision between two Apostles, and to free S. Peter from the condemnation of S. Paul. From Acts i. 21 we know that both Matthias and Barsabbas had been with Jesus during the whole of His ministry ; and therefore the tradition that they were among the Seventy may be true. Thaddzeus was one of the Twelve, and cannot have been one of the Seventy also. - Eusebius gives the tradition as rumour (φασί). To these may be added an improbable tradition preserved by Origen, that Mark the Evangelist was one of the Seventy. The early disappearance of the Seventy is sufficiently accounted for by (1) the temporary character of their mission ; (2) the rise of the order of presbyters, which superseded them ; (3) the fact that no eminent person was found among them. It is not improbable that the N.T. prophets were in some cases disciples who had belonged to this body. The Fathers make the twelve springs of water at Elim represent the Apostles, and the threescore and ten palm trees represent the Seventy disciples (Exod. xv. 27; Num. xxxiil. 9). Thus Tertul. Adv. Marcion. iv. 24; Orig. fom. vii. in Exod. and Hom. xxvii. tn Num.; Hieron. Zp. |xix. 6. 1. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα. After the incidents just narrated (ix. 46-62). The historical connexion is clearly marked. «ἀνέδειξεν 6 Κύριος. The verb is found in N.T. only here and Acts i. 24; freq. in LXX. Comp. ἀνάδειξις (i. 80). It means “show forth, display,” and hence “make public, proclaim,” especially a person’s appointment to an office: ἀναδέδειχα τὸν υἱόν μου ᾿Αντίοχον βασιλέα (2 Mac. ix. 25; comp. x. II, xiv. 12, 26; 1 Esdr. i. 34, vill. 23). This meaning of the word seems to be late (Polyb. Plut. etc.). But the use of an official word of this kind points to a more important preparation for Christ’s coming than is indicated ix. 52. Therefore ἑτέρους points back to ix. 1-6, the mission of the Twelve. For 6 Κύριος see on v. 17, and comp. vil. 13: describitur hoc loco actus vere dominicus (Beng.). The ἑτέρους is in apposition, ‘‘others, viz. seventy.” The καί before ἑτέρους (ἰδ ACD) is of very doubtful authority, and is as likely to have been inserted in explanation as omitted because superfluous. Comp. xxiii. 32, where καί is certainly genuine ; and see Win. lix. 7. 4, p. 665. ἑβδομήκοντα [δύο]. Both external and internal evidence are 1 Steinhart in his ed. of the Scholia on Luke, by Abulfaragé Bae Hebreas (p. 22, Berlin, 1895), questions the statement of Assemani (A. O. iii. 1. 320), that Bar-Hebrzeus gives a list of the Seventy. Such lists have been invented. No Vue THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 1,2. rather evenly balanced as to the addition or omission of δύο. The word might have been either inserted or omitted to make the number agree with the Seventy Elders, for with Eldad and Medad they were seventy-two. The nations of the earth also are sometimes reckoned as seventy, sometimes as seventy-two. The dvo might also be omitted to make a favourite number (Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5) Xv. 27; Judg. i. 7, ix. 2; 2 Kings x. 1; Ezra ΜΠῚ ἢ. Τά 1seeeame 15; Jer. xxv. 12, ete.). ‘See Ryle, Canon of Ὁ. 7: p. 158: ἑβδομήκοντα. NACL ΧΤ ΔΕ Π etc., dfg Syrr. Goth. Aeth., Iren-Lat. Tert. Eus: ἑβδομήκοντα δυο. BDMR, ace Vulg. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm., Clem- Recogn. Epiph. Scrivener considers the evidence against δύο to be *“overwhelming both in number and weight.” So also Keim. WH. bracket, Treg. and Tisch. omit. ἀνὰ δύο. For companionship, as in the case of the Twelve (Mk. vi. 7), of the Baptist’s disciples (Lk. vii. 19), of Barnabas and Saul (Acts xiii. 2), of Judas and Silas (xv. 27), of Barnabas and Mark (xv. 39), of Paul and Silas (xv. 40), of Timothy and Silas (xvii. 14), of Timothy and Erastus (xix. 22). The testimony of two would be more weighty than that of one; and they had to bear witness to Christ’s words and works. Comp. Eccles. iv. 9-12 ; Gen. il. 18. The reading ἀνὰ δύο δύο (B K) seems to be a combination of ἀνὰ δύο and δύο δύο (Mk. vi. 7; Gen. vi. 19, 20). ἤμελλεν αὐτὸς ἔρχεσθαι. ‘He Himself (as distinct from these forerunners) was about to come.” 2. Ὃ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, . . . εἰς τὸν θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ. This saying is verbatim the same as that which Mt. ix. 37, 38 records as addressed to the disciples just before the mission of the Twelve. The Twelve and the Seventy were answers to the prayer thus prescribed; and both had the warning of the fewness of the labourers and the greatness of the work. The ὀλίγοι has no re- ference to the Seventy as being too few: the supply is always inadequate. We cannot conclude anything as to the time of year when the words were spoken from the mention of harvest. So common a metaphor might be used at any season. Com. Jn. iv. 35. Why does RV. retain the ‘‘ truly” of AV. in Mt. ix. 37 while abolishing it here? It has no authority in either place, and apparently comes from the quidem of Vulg., which represents μέν. δεήθητε. The verb does not occur in Mk. or Jn., nor in Mt. excepting in this saying (ix. 38). It is a favourite with Lk. (v. 12, viii. 28, 38, ix. 38, 40, xxi. 36, xxii. 32; Acts iv. 31, viii. 22, etc.). Elsewhere rare in N.T., but very freq. in LXX. For the constr. see Burton, § 200. ὅπως ἐργάτας ἐκβάλῃ. “Send forth with haste and urgency.” The verb expresses either pressing need, or the directness with which they are sent to their destination. Comp. Mk. i. 12; Mt. xii. 20; Jas, ii, 25. There is always human unwillingness to be X.2-6.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 273 overcome: comp. Exod. iv. 10, 13; Judg. iv. 8; Jon. 1. 3. For ἐργάτας of agricultural labourers comp. Mt. xx. 1, 8; Jas. v. 4; Ecclus. xix. 1; and of labourers in the cause of religion, 2 Cor. Sie sys, hth iti, 2,3 2. Limp. i. 15. 8. ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς, κιτιλ. The same is said to the Twelve, with πρόβατα for ἄρνας (Mt. x. 16).1 For ἀποστέλλω see on iv. 18. In the ancient homily wrongly attributed to Clement of Rome (Lft., Clement, ii. p. 219) we have the following: λέγει yap ὁ Κύριος Ἔσεσθε ὡς ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύκων᾽ ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὃ Πέτρος αὐτῷ λέγει" ᾿Ἐὰν οὖν διασπαράξωσιν οἱ λύκοι τὰ ἀρνία; εἶπεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ" Μὴ φοβείσθωσαν τὰ ἀρνία τοὺς λύκους μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτά. Then follows a loose quotation of Mt. x. 28 or Lk. xii. 4, 5. See A. Resch, Agrapha, Texte u. Untersuch. ν. 4, p. 377, 1889. 4. μὴ βαστάζξετε βαλλάντιον, μὴ πήραν, μὴ ὑποδήματα. The Talmud enjoins that no one is to go on the Temple Mount with staff, shoes, scrip, or money tied to him in his purse. Christ’s messengers are to go out in the same spirit as they would go to the services of the temple, avoiding all distractions. Edersh. The Temple, p. 42. From βαστάζετε we infer that ὑποδήματα were not to be carried in addition to what were worn on the feet. Sandals were allowed in the temple. Comp. ix. 3, xxii. 35. The whole charge means, “Take with you none of the things which travellers commonly regard as indispensable. Your wants will be supplied.” In N.T. βαλλάντιον occurs only in Lk. (xii. 33, xxii. 35, 36): in LXX Job xiv. τῇ. The word is quite classical: Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 42. See on ix. 3 and vii. 14. μήδενα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν domdoynobe. They are to go straight to their destination, and not give their message of good tidings until they have reached it. It is not greetings, but greetings κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν that are forbidden.2 Omnia pretermittatis, dum quod in- junctum est peragatis (Aug.). Comp. 2 Kings iv. 29. Like the sayings in ix. 60, 62, this prohibition implies that entire devotion to the work in hand is necessary. 5. But directly they have reached a goal, and have obtained admission to a household, a greeting is to be given. Comp. ii. 14, εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις ; JN. XX. 19, 21, 26, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. 6. υἱὸς εἰρήνης. Another Hebraism: “one inclined to peace”: dignus qui 10 voto potiatur. Comp. υἱὸς γεέννης (Mt. xxiii. 15) ; τῆς ἀπολείας (JN. XVil. 12); τῆς ἀπειθείας (Eph. v. 6); θανάτου (2 Sam. 1 Comp. Won derelinguas nos sicut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum malignorum (4 Esr. v. 18). Ovem lupo commésisti (Ter. Eunuch. v. 1. 16). Other examples in Wetst. on Mt. x. 16. Here ἄρνας ἐν μέσῳ λύκων must be oP closely together: as certain of being attacked as lambs in the midst of wolves. 2See Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 57, for a graphic illustration of the value of the precept, ‘‘ Salute no man by the way.” Pudchra est salutatio, sed pulchrior matura exsecutio (Ambr. 27 /oco), 18 274 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 6, ἃ xii. 5). Comp. τέκνα ὀργῆς (Eph. 11. 3). It was a saying of Hillel, “* Be thou of Aaron’s disciples, loving peace and seeking for peace.” ἐπανάπαήσεται. This is the reading of 8B for ἐπαναπαύεται, like ἀναπαήσονται (Rev. xiv. 13). A 2 aor. pass. ἐπάην is given by Choeroboscus. Veitch, sb παύω, p. 456. Comp. ἐπανεπαύσατο τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς (Num. xi. 25; 2 Kingsii. 15). Here ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν probably refers to the son of peace, not to the house. For εἰ δὲ μήγε (which is freq. in Lk.) see small print on v. 36, and Burton, § 275. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀνακάμψει. “As if it had been unspoken”; or, “as if it had been spoken to you, instead of by you.”! Comp. Mt. ii. 12; Acts xvill. 21; Heb. x: τοῦ; Exod. ΧΧΧΙΙ. 27; 2 Samiaee, Vill. 13, etc. But they have no discretion as to giving this saluta- tion, however unworthy the recipient may seem to be. 7. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε. Not “in the same house” (as all English Versions, Vulg. and Luther); which would be ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ οἰκίᾳ, but ‘‘in that very house,” viz. the one which has given a welcome. Comp. 11. 38, xii. 12, xiii, I, 31, Xx. 19, xxiii. 12, xxiv. 13, 33; in all which places RV. has rightly **that very.” But here it has ‘‘ that same,” and ver. 21 it changes “that ” (AV.) to ‘‘that same.” Lk. prefers ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρα, ἡμέρᾳ, κιτιλ. The other Evangelists prefer ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, κ-τ.λ. ἔσθοντες. The poetic form ἔσθω is very rare in prose: comp. Vile 33, xxii, 30; Mk. i. 6; Lev. xvii. 10; Is. ix. 20; Ecclus. xx. 18. τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν. What their entertainers provide: they are to consider themselves as members of the family, not as intruders ; for their food and shelter are salary and not alms. Comp. τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, “the bounty which you provide” (Phil. iv. 18), and see Lft. on Gal. i. 12. The injunction is parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 7, not to 1 Cor. x. 27. Christ is freeing them from sensitiveness about accepting entertainment, not from scruples about eating food provided by heathen. ἄξιος γὰρ ὃ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. Mt. x. το has τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. Epiphanius combines the two with Lk. ili. 14: ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ épy. τ. μισθ. αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀρκετὸν τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ ἡ τροφὴ αὐτοῦ (Her. Ιχχχ. 5, p. 1072 A). Much more interesting is the quotation in τ Tim. ν. 18, which has been made an objection to the genuine- ness of the Epistle. But it is probable (1) that λέγει yap ἡ γραφή applies only to Body ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις, and (2) that “Agwos ὃ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ is given as ἃ well-known proverb or saying of Christ. See Introduction, § 6, 4; Be μὴ petaBatvete ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν. ἐς Do not go on changing,” 7.6. μένετε. ‘They were not to fear being burdensome to their first entertainers, nor to go back to those who had rejected them, still 1 Quod semel a det opulentia exitt non frustra exit, sed aliguem certe 1725 ventt, cut 27d obtingat. Solatium mintstrorum, qui stb¢ videntur nil xdificare (Beng. ). “*Talk not of wasted affection ; affection never is wasted” (Longfellow). X. 7-111 ἸΟΟΚΝΕΥΙΝΟΒ TOWARDS JERUSALEM 275 less to seek more pleasant quarters. Perhaps also this is a warn- ing against accepting numerous invitations which would waste precious time. ΤῸ this day in the East travellers who arrive at an Arab village are overwhelmed with a round of invitations (Lasserre, Evangiles, p. 324). Note the exact and original anti- thesis between ἐξ and εἰς, “out of” and “into ¢he interior of.” 8. καὶ εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν. Apparently vv. 5-7 apply to single dwellings, vv. 8-12 to towns. For δέχωνται see small print on Vili. 13. We might expect ἐὰν δέχωνται for καὶ δέχωνται. Ta παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν. Just “what is offered,” without demand- ing more or anything different. They must be neither greedy nor fastidious. Comp. ix. 16; Gen. xxiv. 33, xlilil. 31; 1 Sam. xxviii. B25 2. “πῆ. xi. 2052 Kings ΝΡ 225; Mac. vin TS. 9. kat λέγετε τας “And continue saying to them”; ze. to the inhabitants generally, not merely to the sick. "Hyytkev ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία tod Θεοῦ. So that the last preach- ing resembled the first: Mt. iii. 2, iv. 17; Mk.i.15. The King- dom of Heaven is naturally thought of as coming “ οι" men, down from above. For ἐγγίζειν ἐπί twa see Ps. xxvi. 2; 1 Mac. v. 40, 42. Comp. Mt. xii. 28. 10. One house might receive them, but the town as a whole reject them. In that case they are to leave the house (ἐξελθόντες) and deliver a public warning before leaving the town. eis τὰς πλατείας. ‘Into the open streets” (rAd, πλάτος) : It is the fem. of πλατύς with ὁδός understood: xiii. 26, xiv. 21; Acts v. 15; Prov. vil. 6; Is. xv. 3; Ezek. vii. 19. Not in Mk. or Jn. 11. Kai τὸν κονιορτὸν τὸν κολληθέντα ἡμῖν. ““ Hven the dust that cleaveth to us.” “Not even the smallest thing of yours will we have.” Hobart claims κολλάω as a medical word (pp. 128, 129). In N.T. it is used only in the passive with reflexive force. It occurs seven times. in Lk. (xv. 15; Acts v. 13, viii. 29, ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 34) and four times elsewhere (Mt. xix. 5; Rom. xii. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 16; Rev. xviii. 5), three of which are quotations from ioe where it is frequenf;,once in the. active (Jer. xii. rr). Neither in LXX (excepting Tobit vii. 16 δ) nor in N.T. does ἀπομασσειν Occur again: comp. ἐκμάσσειν (vil. 38, 44). πλὴν τοῦτο γινώσκετε ὅτι. “ But, although you reject us, the fact remains that you must perceive, that¢ etc, θα On viezdeie ce Note that there is no ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς (om. 8 B DL =) after ἤγγικεν. The message of mercy has become a sentence of judgment. “The Kingdom has come nigh, but not on you, because you have put it from you.” Lk. alone of the Evangelists uses τοῦτο. . . ὅτι (xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). Jn. has ὅτι after διὰ τοῦτο, but after τοῦτο has ἵνα. 276 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [X. 12-14. 12. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. The day of judgment following on the completion of the Kingdom, as is clear from ver. 14. Comp. ani. 134 3;Mt. vit. 225 2 ‘Thesiioae 5 2 Tim. 1. 12; τὸν ἵν (ae vi. 23 is different. As in ver. 24, Lk. omits the introductory ἀμήν : he also omits καὶ Τομόρροις. The people in the cities of the plain had had no such opportunities as those to whom Christ’s own disciples preached. Comp. Mt. xi. 23. ἀνεκτότερον. Remissius (Vulg.) ; tolerabilius (Lat. Vet.). Only the comparative of ἀνεκτός (ἀνέχομαι) occurs in N.T., and always in this phrase: Mt. x. 15, xi. 22, 24. Not in LXX. 13-15. The Solemn Farewell to the Cities in which He had preached and manifested Himself in vain. The mention of the judgment which awaits the towns that shall reject His forerunners naturally leads to the mention of those places which have already rejected Him. It is plain from ver. 16 that this lamentation over the three cities is part of the address to the Seventy. The word- ing is almost the same as Mt. xi. 21-24, but there the comparison with Sodom is joined to the denunciation of Capernaum. 18. Xopateiv. Excepting here and the similar Woe in Mt. xi. 21, Chorazin is not mentioned in N.T. This shows us how much of Christ’s work is left unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). The name does not occur in O.T. nor in Josephus. It may be identified with the ruins now called Kerazeh, about two miles N.E. of Zell Him, which is supposed to be Capernaum; and Jerome tells us that Chorazin was two miles from Capernaum: est autem nunc desertum in secundo lapide a Capharnaum. Some identify Ze/7 Him with Chorazin ; but Conder, who does not believe that Ze// Hum is Capernaum, nevertheless regards Kerdzeh as certainly Chorazin (Handbook to the Bible, pp. 324-326): and this is now the pre- vailing view. D.B.? s.v. ἐν σάκκῳ. . . καθήμενοι. Constructio ad sensum: comp. ver. 8. Χοραζείν and Βηθσαϊδά are feminine, and hence the reading καθήμεναι (D). ἐν σάκκῳ. Our “sackcloth” gives a wrong idea of σάκκος, which was made of the hair of goats and other animals, and was used for clothing. But sacks were made of it (Gen. xlii. 25 ; Josh. ix. 4) as well as garments. Comp. Jon. ili. 6. The πάλαι points to a ministry of considerable duration in these cities. μετενόησαν. Like μετάνοια (see on iil. 3), μετανοεῖν is much more frequent in Lk. (xi. 32, xill. 3, 5, xv. 7, etc.) than in Mt. and Mk. Neither is found in Jn. See on v. 32. 14. πλὴν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι. “But, guilty as Tyre and Sidon are, yet,” etc. They were both of them heathen commercial towns, and are frequently denounced by the Prophets for their wickedness: Is. xxiii.; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 3-7, xxviii. 12-22. Of Chorazin and Bethsaida the paradox was true, X. 14-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 7G that the Kingdom of God had come nigh to them, and yet they were far from the Kingdom of God. 15. μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; “Shalt thou be exalted as far as heaven? ‘Thou shalt be thrust down as far as Hades.” Both here and Mt. xi. 23 the reading ἣ . . . ὑψωθεῖσα is found in many authorities ; but the evidence against it (δ B D L Ἐ) is conclusive. Godet supports it as being parfattement claire et simple ; which is the explanation of the corruption. There is less certainty as to whether καταβήσῃ, which is probably right in Mt., is right here (BD): καταβιβασθήσῃ is well supported. In Ezek. xxxi. τό, 17 we have both κατεβίβαζον εἰς adov and κατέβησαν eis ddov. Heaven and Hades (not Gehenna) here stand for height of glory and depth of shame (Is. xiv. 13-15). The desolation of the whole neighbourhood, and the difficulty of identifying even the sites of these flourishing towns, is part of the fulfilment of this prophecy. See Jos. B. 7. iii. 10. 9; Farrar, Life of Christ, i. 101 ; Tristram, Bible Places, 267 ; Renan, L’ Antechrist, p. 277. 16. Ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ ἀκούει. Note the chiasmus. This verse connects the work of Christ with the work of His disciples (Acts ix. 4), and forms a solemn conclusion to the address to the Seventy. Those who reject their message will share the lot of those who rejected Christ : 1 all alike have rejected God. Comp. Minick. fo; jin. xi, cos a hes! iv. 8; 1 Sam. viii. ἡ. The Seventy must do their utmost to avert so miserable a result of their labours. For ἀθετεῖ see on vil. 30. 17-24. The Return of the Seventy. They would not all return at once, and probably did not all return to the same place, but met Jesus at different points as He followed them. Contrast the very brief account of the return of the Twelve (ix. 10). Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 225. 17. Ὑπέστρεψαν δὲ οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα. Most of the authorities which add δύο in ver. 1 add it here also. By “returned” is meant that they came back to Jesus. He meanwhile had been moving. See on iv. 14 and 1. 56. καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ὑποτάσσεται. ‘Even the demons are being subjected.” This was more than they expected, for they had only been told to heal the sick (ver. 9); whereas the Twelve were expressly endowed with power to cast out demons (ix. 1). There is nothing to show that Lk. considers exorcizing evil spirits to be the highest of gifts ; but the Seventy were specially elated at possessing this power. ‘They think more of it than of their success in pro- claiming the Kingdom ; yet they recognize that it is derived from their Master. It is in His name that they can exorcize. His reply is partly (ver. 20) like the reply to the woman who pro- 1 Tl cherchatt de toute maniere a établir en principe que ses apbtres ¢ était luz-méme (Renan, V. de J. p. 294). 27ὃ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 1} 23. nounced His Mother to be blessed (xi. 27, 28). They may admire this ; but there is something much more admirable. 18. ᾿Εθεώρουν τὸν Σατανᾶν. At the very time when His ministers were casting out Satan’s ministers,—nay, even as He was sending them forth to their work, Jesus knew that Satan was being overcome. In the defeat of the demons He saw the down- fall of their chief. This passage is again-conclusive evidence as to Christ’s teaching respecting the existence of a personal power of evil. See on viii. 12, and comp. xiii. 16, xxii. 31. In all these “cases it would have been quite natural to speak of impersonal evil. See D.£.1 art. “Satan”; Edersh. Z. & Z. ii. App. xiii. § i. In N.T. the form is Σατανᾶς (not excepting 2 Cor. xii. 7), which is declined, and almost invariably has the art.; but xxii. 3 and Mk. iii. 23 are exceptions. In LXX the word is rare. We have σατάν, indecl. and without art., 1 Kings xi. 14, [23, 25], in the sense of ‘‘ adversary,” a human enemy ; and τὸν Σατανᾶν, or τὸν Daravd, Ecclus. xxi. 27. For the imperf. comp. Acts xviii. 5, and see Win. xl. 3. d, p. 336. ὡς ἀστραπήν. It was as visible and unmistakable: comp. xvii. 24; Mt. xxiv. 27. The words are amphibolous, but are better taken with ἐθεώρουν than with ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which is to be joined with πεσόντα : comp. ix. 17, 27, 57, Xill. 1, etc. In B 254 ἐκ Tod οὐρανοῦ precedes ὡς ἀστραπήν. As in ver. 15, heaven is jhere put for the height of prosperity and power: comp. Is. xiv. 12 and τὰ ἐπουράνια (Eph. vi. 12). πεσόντα. Last with emphasis. The “fallen” of RV. is no improvement on the “fall” of AV. “1 beheld Satan fallen” means ‘saw him prostrate after his fall.” The aor. indicates the coincidence between the success of the Seventy and Christ’s vision of Satan’s overthrow; and neither “fallen” nor “ falling” (cadentem, Vulg.) express this so well as “fall” in English. See Burton, ὃ 146, and T. 5. Evans, £xfositor, 2nd series, iil. p. 164. Some refer the fall to the original fall of the Angels (Jude 6), in which case ἐθεωροῦν refers to con pre-existing with the Father. Others to the Incarnation, or the Temptation. Rather, it refers to the success of the disciples regarded as a symbol and earnest ~ of the complete overthrow of Satan.2_ Jesus had been contemplat- “ing evil as a power overthrown. In any case there is no analogy between this passage and Rev. xii. 12: the point is not that the devil has come down to work mischief on the earth, but that his power to work mischief is broken. This verse is sometimes quite otherwise explained. ‘‘ You are elated at 1 Comp. πρὸς οὐρανὸν βιβῶν (Soph. O. C. 381) ; Caesar fertur in celum (Cic. Phil. iv. 3), collegam de calo detraxisti (Phil, ii. 42). 2 Cum vos nuper mitterem ad evangelizandum videbam demonem sud potestate a me privatum quast de calo cadere, ac per vos magts casurum (Corn. a Lap.). X. 18, 19.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 279 your victory over the demons, and are proud of your spiritual powers. Beware of spiritual pride. There was a time when I beheld Satan himself fall even from heaven owing to this sin.” 1 Others make it a rebuke to complacency and elation, but in another way. ‘‘ You are overjoyed at finding that demons are subject to you. That is no very great thing. I once beheld their sovereign cast out of heaven itself ; and their subjection was involved in his overthrow.” Both these interpretations depend upon a misunderstanding of τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, which does not mean the abode of the Angels, but the summit of power (Lam. ii. 1). This is well expressed in the Clementine Liturgy, i in the Collect at the dismissal of the energumens, ὁ ῥήξας αὐτὸν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εἰς γῆν, οὐ τοπικῷ ῥηγματι, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τιμῆς εἰς ἀτιμίαν, δι᾿ ἑκούσιον αὐτοῦ κακόνοιαν. Hammond, Lzturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1878, p. 5. 19. δέδωκα ὑμῖν thy ἐξουσίαν. The powers which they have received are larger than they had supposed. They possessed during their mission, and still retain, the ἐξουσία to vanquish the powers of evil. Note the article, which is almost peculiar to this passage. Contrast v. 24, ix. I, xii. 5, xix. 17; Acts ix. 14. The passage is possibly moulded on Ps. xci. 13: ἐπ᾿ ἀσπιδα καὶ βασι- λίσκον ἐπιβήσῃ, καὶ καταπατήσεις λέοντα καὶ δράκοντα ; but comp. Deut. vill. 1 5: τοῦ ἀγαγόντος σε διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου τῆς ᾿μεγάλης καὶ τῆς φοβερᾶς ἐκείνης, οὗ ὄφις δάκνων καὶ σκορπίος. The meaning is that no fraud or treachery shall prevail against them. καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν δύναμιν τοῦ ἐχθροῦ. Contrast the δύναμις of the enemy with the ἐξουσία given by Christ. Nor shall any hostile strength or ability succeed. ‘The promise in both cases refers to victory over spiritual foes rather than to immunity from bodily injuries. “The enemy” means Satan: Mt. xiii. 25; Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Pet. v. 8. But protection from physical harm may be included (Acts xxviii. 3-5). The appendix to Mk. more clearly includes this (xvi. 18). Comp. the story of S. John being preserved from being harmed by boiling oil (Tertul. Preser. Her. xxxvi.), or by drinking hemlock (Lips. Afokr. Afostelgesch. 1. pp. 426, 428, 432, 480, etc.). This latter story is unknown to the Fathers of the first six centuries. ἐπὶ πᾶσαν δύναμιν. This does not depend upon πατεῖν, as is shown by the change of prep. and case, but upon ἐξουσίαν. They have ἐξουσία over every δύναμις. πατεῖν ἐπάνω. Not of trampling under foot as vanquished, but of walking upon without being hurt. οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς οὐ μὴ ἀδικήσει. Strong negation: οὐδέν is probably the subject οἵ ἀδικήσει. We might translate, ‘‘ and the power of the enemy shall not in anywise hurt you.” For ἀδικεῖν with double acc. comp. Acts xxv. 10 ; Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18: and for ἀδικεῖν in the sense of ‘‘ injure” comp. Rev. Vil. 3, ix. 4. The reading ἀδικήσῃ (BC) looks like a grammatical correction. 1 Thus Gregory the Great: J@re Dominus, ut in discipulorum cordibus elateonem premeret, mox judicium ruine retulit, quod tpse magister elationis accepit ; ut in auctore superbix discerent, quid de elationzs vitio formidarent (Moral, xxiii. 6, Migne, lxxvi. 259). 280 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 19-21. This last clause sums up the other two. They have power over fraud and force ; nothing shall harm them. Comp. Jn. x. 28, 20 5 0S. xi. 8; 9.4 20. πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ μὴ χαίρετε. “ But (although you may well rejoice, yet) cease to rejoice in this, but continue to rejoice in something better.” Pres. imperat. in both cases. Jsta /etitia periculo superbix subjacet: tlla demissum gratumque animum Deo subjicit (Grotius). The casting out of demons gives no security / for the possession of eternal life. It is not one of τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα : still less is it the καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὃδόν (1 Cor. xii. 31). ᾿Α Judas might cast out demons. Comp. “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (Hos. vi. 6), which does not mean that sacrifice is forbidden, but that mercy is greatly superior. See on xxiii. 28. For πλήν comp. vv. 11, 14. τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐνγεγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ‘Your names have been written, and remain written, in heaven,” as citizens possessing the full privileges of the heavenly commonwealth: zz celis unde Satanas decidit: etst reclamavit Satanas: etiamst in terra non sitis celebres (Beng.). But there is probably no refer- ence to ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου (ver. 17). “Do not rejoice because you exorcize demons in JZy name, but rejoice because your names are written in heaven,” is a false antithesis.2 There is no emphasis on ὑμῶν. Comp. Heb. xii. 23; Rev. πὶ 8, xvii. 8, EX: £2, 15, ΧΧΙ. 27, xxi. 19; Phil. au. 20. (ihe ioure is, ΟΕ ΘΙ many taken from O.T. and endued with a higher meaning: Is. iv.34 ezek. xui. Ὁ; Dan. xi. 1. (Comp. Hermas, Vis: 1 Bikes Sim. 11. 9. Contrast Jer. xvii. 13. For Rabbinical illustrations see Wetst. on Phil. iv. 3. Allusion to the Oriental custom of recording in the archives the names of benefactors (Esth. x. 2; Hadt. viii. 90. 6) is not probable. And it is clear from Rev. iii. 5, xxii. 19; Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. lxix. 28 that absolute predestina- tion is not included in the metaphor. For the Hebr. plur. τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Comp. ΧΙΪ. 53, ΧΧΙ. 26; Acts Vil. 55. 21-24. The Exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference shown to the Disciples. Mt. xi. 25-27. Nowhere else is any- thing of the kind recorded of Christ. Mt. connects it with the Woes on the three cities, and connects these with the message from the Baptist. 21. Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ. “In that very hour” (see small print on ver. 7), making the connexion with the return of the Seventy close 1 Justin Martyr says to the Roman Emperors, ὑμεῖς δ᾽ ἀποκτεῖναι μὲν δύνασθε, βλάψαι δ᾽ οὔ (Afol. i. 2). He is probably adapting Plat. Apo/. 30 Ὁ. 2 Augustine seems to suggest it Zxzarr. 2m Ps. xci. But Znarr. tn Ps. cxxx. he says well: Mon omnes Christiant bont demonia ejiciunt ; omnium tamen -nomina scripta sunt in celo. Non eos volutt gaudere ex eo quod proprium habebant, sed ex e0 quod cum ceteris salutem tenebant, X. 21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 281 and express. Both this and αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ (without ἐν) are peculiar ΠΡ (vil. 27, ΧΠ ne πὶ ro: and’ u. 385 Acts XVI. 18, Xxil. 13). In the parallel passage we have ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (Mt. ΧΙ. 25). ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ. “ Exulted in the Holy Spirit,” ze. this holy joy is a Divine inspiration. The fact is analogous to His being “led by the Spirit in the wilderness’ | (iv. 1). Nowhere else is anything of the kind recorded of Christ.) The verb is a strong one: comp. i. 47; Acts 11. 26, xvi. 343! 2 Kings 1/20; 1 Chron) xvi. 31; Job mi. 18; Is. xi. 6, xxv. 9; Psalms fassim. Mt. has merely ἀποκριθείς. The strangeness of the expression ‘‘ exulted in the Holy Spirit” has led to the omission of τῷ ἁγίῳ in A Syr-Sin. and some inferior authorities. There is no parallel in Scripture. Rom. i. 4; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 18, are not analogous. ᾿Εξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς. “1 acknowledge openly to Thine honour, I give Thee praise”; Gen. ἈΣΙΣ 55; (PS. XXX. 4, ΟΥ̓. 47, Cx. 4 ;) Romixiv. 11, xv. 9); (Clem. Rom. Ixi. 3. Satan is cast down from heaven, and vanquished on/ <= earth. God is Father and Lord of both; Father in respect of the love, and Lord in respect of the power, which this fact exhibits. For other public recognitions of God as His Father comp. Mt. xv. 13, xvii. 35; Jn: v. 17, x1. 41, xu. 27; Lk: xxii. 34, 46. The geni- tives belong to κύριε only, not to πάτερ : comp. Clem. Hom, xvii. 5. ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν kal συνετῶν, κιτιλ. The ταῦτα refers to the facts about the Kingdom made known by the Seventy. In sound as in sense there is a contrast between ἀπέκρυψας and ἀπεκάλυψας. The aristocracy of intellect, who prided themselves upon their superiority, are here the lowest of all. The statement is general, but has special reference to the scribes and Pharisees, who both in their own and in popular estimation were the wise and enlightened (Jn. vil. 49, ix. 40). The νήπιοι are the unlearned, and therefore free from the prejudices of those who had been trained in the Rabbinical schools. It is very arbitrary to confine the thanksgiving to ἀπεκάλυψας : it belongs to ἀπέκρυψας also. That) God has proved His independence of human intellect is a matter) “ for thankfulness. Intellectual gifts, so far from being necessary, are often a hindrance. 95. Paul is fond of pointing out this law of the “Lord of heaven and earth”: Rom. i. 22; 1 Cor. i. 19-31; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Note the omission of the article before σοφῶν, συνετῶν, and various, Lo be σοφός and συνετός is not fatal: such are not 2250 facto excluded, although they often exclude themselves. Nor are the νήπιοι 2250 facto accepted. In Clem. Hom. viii. 6 the passage is quoted thus: ἐξομολογοῦμαι σοι, πάτερ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Kai τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις θηλάζουσιν ; and again, xviii. 15: ὅτι ἅπερ ἣν κρυπτὰ 282 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [x. 21, 22. σοφοῖς, ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις θηλάζουσιν. The latter form avoids the diffi- culty about thanking God for hiding from the wise. In application the νήπιοι are made to be the Gentiles. ‘The Marcosians had the future,—éfouodoyjoo- μαι (Iren. i. 20. 3). The word νήπιος (νη, ἔπος) represents the Latin zz/fans. Lat. Vet. and Vulg. have parvulis here and Mt. xi. 25; but zzfantewm, Mt. xxi. 16. It is opposed to ἀνήρ, 1 Cor. xiii, 11 ; Eph. iv. 14 ; and to τέλειος, Heb. v. 13. vai. This resumes the expression of thanks; and hence the second ὅτι, like the first, depends upon ἐξὸμολογοῦμαί co: “1 thank Thee that thus it was well-pleasing.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3; Philem. 20; Rev. xvi. 7, xxii. 20. ὁ πατήρ. The nom. with the art. often takes the place of the voc. in N.T., and generally without any difference in meaning. This is specially the case with imperatives (viii. 54, xii. 32; Mt. xxvii. 29?; Mk. v. 41, ix. 25; Col. ili. 18; Eph. vi. 1, etc.), and may often be due to Hebrew influence (2 Kings ix. 31; Jer. xlvii. 6). Here there is perhaps a slight difference between πάτερ and ὁ πατήρ, the latter meaning, ‘‘ Thou who art the Father of all.” The use of ὁ πατήρ for πάτερ may be due to liturgical influence. Comp. Mk. xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15; and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 6 and Col. iii. 18; also Win. xxix. 2, p. 227; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 76. εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἔμπροσθέν σου. A Hebraism, with εὐδοκία first for emphasis. See on ii. 14. 22. The importance of this verse, which is also in Mt. (xi. 27), has long been recognized. It is impossible upon any principles of criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It is like “an aerolite from the Johannean heaven” (Hase, Gesch. Jesu, Ῥ. 527); and for that very reason causes perplexity to those who deny the solidarity between the Johannean heaven and the Synoptic earth. It should be compared with the following pas- sages: Jn. iii. 35, vi. 46, Vili. 19, X. 15, 30, XIV. 9, XVI. 15, XVil. 6, τοῦ The introductory insertion, καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπεν (AC) is one of the few points in which the TR. (which with ὃς BD LM omits the words) differs from the third edition of Steph. 22. Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη. The πάντα seems primarily to refer to the revealing and concealing. Christ has full power in executing 1 ἐς This passage is one of the best authenticated in the Synoptic Gospels. It is found in exact parallelism both in Mt. and Lk., and is therefore known to have been part of that ‘collection of discourses’ (cf. Holtzmann, Synopt. Zvan- gelien, p. 184; Ewald, Zvangelien, pp. 20, 255 ; Weizsacker, pp. 166-169), in all probability the composition of the Apostle St. Matthew, which many critics believe to be the oldest of all the Evangelical documents. And yet once grant the authenticity of this passage, and there is nothing in the Johannean Christo- logy that it does not cover. Even the doctrine of pre-existence seems to be implicitly contained in it” (Sanday, Hourth Gospel, p. 109). Keim affirms that ἐς There is no more violent criticism than that which Strauss has introduced” of repudiating a passage so strongly attested ( 765. of Vaz. iv. p. 63). Χ. 922--24.]} JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 283 the Divine decrees. But it is arbitrary to confine the πάντα to the potestas revelandi. γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν 6 υἱός. “Comes to know what His nature is, His counsel, His will.” Mt. has ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱόν, where the compound verb covers what is here expressed by the ris. Both ποτ be translations of the same Aramaic. ; On purely subjective grounds Keim contends for the Marcionite reading ἔγνω, which is certainly as old as Justin (dZo/. i. 63), although he has γινώσκει, Try. c. Even Meyer thinks that ἔγνω may be original. But the evidence against it is overwhelming. Syr-Sin. makes the two clauses interrogative: ‘* Who knoweth the Son, except the Father? and wo knoweth the Father, except the Son ὌΝ βούληται... ἀποκαλύψαι. “« Willing to reveal” (RV.) ; “will reveal” (AV.), is the Sale future. There isa similar weakening of Βούλεσθαι in AV. Acts xviii. 15, and of θέλειν, xix. 14. See small print on ix. 24, 28, 24. In Mt. xiii. 16, 17 this saying, with some slight differ- ences, occurs in quite another connexion, viz. after the explanation of the reason for Christ’s speaking in parables. If the words were uttered only once, Lk. appears to give the actual position, The κατ᾽ ἰδίαν seems to imply some interval between vv. 22 and 23. Christ’s thanksgiving seems to have been uttered publicly, i in the place whe: ‘e the returning Seventy met Him. 23. ἃ βλέπετε. The absence of ὑμεῖς is remarkable. Contrast ὑμῶν δὲ μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί (Με xiii. 16). Lk. has no equivalent to Kat τὰ ὦτα [ὑμῶν] ὅ ὅτι ἀκούουσιν. Comp. μακάριοι οἱ γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά (Ps. Sol. xvii. 50, xviil. 7). 24. πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ βασιλεῖς. Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, and Micah ; David, Solomon, and Hezekiah. For ΠΕ: Mt. has δίκαιοι, and for ἠθέλησαν has ἐπεθύμησαν. Vulg. has voluerunt here and cupierunt in Mt. Neither AV. nor RV. distinguishes. Note that Lk. again omits the introductory a ἀμήν, as in ver. 12.. See on ΧΙ]. 44. As to the Prophets comp. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. ἃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε. Here Mt., who has given the emphatic con- trast between “you” and the ancients at the outset, omits the ὑμεῖς. One suspects that his arrangement of the pronouns is the original one. Lk. has no ὑμεῖς with dxovere. In 2 Cor. xi. 29 we have an emphatic pronoun with the second verb and not with the first. 25-29. The Lawyer’s Questions. This incident forms the introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. ΧΙ]. 13-15, Xlv. 15, xv. 1-3. The identification of this lawyer with the one who asked, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” (Mk. xii. 28-32; Mt. xxii. 35-40) is precarious, but perhaps ought not to be set aside as impossible. There the question is theo- logical and speculative ; here it is practical. Place, introduction, and issue are quite different; and the quotation from the Law oe 284 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 25, 26. which is common to the narratives is here uttered by the lawyer, there by Christ. An identification with the man who had great possessions, and who asked the very same question as the lawyer asks here, although in a very different spirit (Mk. x. 17-22; Mt. ΧΙΧ. 16-22), is impossible, because Lk. himself records that in full (xviii. 18-23). The opening words of this narrative point to an Aramaic source. 25. νομικός τις ἀνέστη ἐκπειράζων adtov. See on vil. 30. Ex- cepting Mt. xxii. 35, which is possibly parallel to this, νομικός is used by no other Evangelist. The ἀνέστη implies a situation in which the company were seated. Neither this question nor the one respecting the great commandment was calculated to place Jesus in a difficulty, but rather to test His ability as a teacher: the ἐκπειράζων (see small print on iv. 12) does not imply a sinister attempt to entrap Him. τί ποιήσας. The tense implies that by the performance of some one thing eternal life can be secured. What heroic act must be performed, or what great sacrifice made? The form of question involves an erroneous view of eternal life and its relation to this life. Contrast the Philippian gaoler (Acts xvi. 30). ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω. ‘The verb is freq. in LXX of the occupation of Canaan by the Israelites (Deut. iv. 22, 26, vi. 1, etc.), and thence is transferred to the perfect possession to be enjoyed in the Kingdom of the Messiah (Ps. xxiv. 13, xxxvi. 9, I1, 22, 29; Is. lx. 21); both uses being based upon the original promise to Abraham. See Wsctt. Hebrews, pp. 167-169. Lk. like Jn., never uses αἰώνιος of anything but eternal beatitude (xvi. 9, xviii. 18, 30). The notion of endlessness, although not necessarily expressed, is probably implied in the word. See Wsctt. Epp. of St. John, pp. 204-208; App. E, Gosp. of S. John in Camb. Grk. Test. ; and the literature quoted in Zoeckler, Handb. ad. Theol. Wissft. iii. pp. 199-201. With the whole expression comp. ot δὲ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσουσι ζωὴν ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ (Psi Sez. xiv. 7), and ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας κυρίου (xii. 8). 26. Ἔν τῷ νόμῳ. First with emphasis. A νομικός ought to know that ἐν τῷ νόμῳ the answer to the question is plainly given: ἐπὶ τὸν νόμον αὐτὸν παραπέμπει (Euthym.). πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις; Equivalent to the Rabbinical formula, when scriptural evidence was wanted, “What readest thou?” But perhaps the πῶς implies a little more, viz. “to what effect” ? The form of question does not necessarily imply a rebuke. For ἀναγινώσκειν see iv. 16. That Jesus pointed to the man’s phylactery and meant, “What have you got written there?” is conjecture. That he had “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” on his phylactery, is improbable. The frst of the two laws was written on phylacteries, and the Jews recited it morning and evening, ΣΧ. 26-29.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 285 from Deut. vi. 3, x1. 13; hence it was the natural answer to Christ’s question. That he adds the second law, from Lev. xix. 18, is remarkable, and it may be that he was desirous of leading up to the question, “ And who is my neighbour?” See D.Z.? art. *‘Frontlets” ; Schaff’s Herzog, art. ‘ Phylactery.” 27. Here, as in Mk. xii. 30, we have four powers with which God is to be loved. Mt. xxii. 37 follows Heb. and LXX in giving ¢hyvee. They cover man’s physical, intellectual, and moral activity. Mk. and LXX have ἐξ throughout ; Mt. has ἐν throughout; Lk. changes from ἐξ to ἐν. For the last words comp. Rom. xiii. 9. 28. ᾿ορθῶς ἀπεκρίθης. Comp. ὀρθῶς ἔκρινας (vii. 43). In Mk. ΧΙ. 32 it is the scribe who commends Jesus for His answer. τοῦτο ποίει. Pres. imperat. ‘‘ Continually do this,” not merely do it once for all; with special reference to the form of the lawyer’s question (ver. 25). See Rom. ii. 13, x. 5; Lev. xviii. 5. 29. θέλων δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτόν. Not merely “ willing,” but “ zzshing to justify himself.’ For what? Some say, for having omitted to perform this duty in the past. Others, for having asked such a question, the answer to which had been shown to be so simple. The latter is perhaps nearer the fact; but it almost involves the other. “Wishing to put himself in the right,” he points out that the answer given is not adequate, because there is doubt as to the meaning of “one’s neighbour.” Quz multa interrogant non multa facere gestiunt (Beng.). For δικαιῶσαι see on vii. 35 and Rom, 1. 17. καὶ τίς ἐστίν μου πλησίον; The question was a very real one to a Jew of that age. Lightfoot, ad /oc., quotes from Maimonides, “he excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour. An . Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by) ~ the Sanhedrim; because he said, If any one lift up himself against his neighbour.” καὶ tis ἐστίν pov πλησίον: The καί accepts what is said, and leads on to another question: comp. xviii. 26; Jn. ix. 36; 2 Cor.ii.2. Win. liii. 3. a, p. 545. For the omission of the art. before πλησίον (μου perhaps taking its place) see Win. xix. 5. b, p. 163: but πλησίον may be an adverb. 30-37. §The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Entirely in harmony with the general character of this Gospel as teaching that righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of the Jew. The parable is not an answer to the original question (ver. 25), and therefore in no way implies that works of benevolence secure eternal life. It is an answer to the new question (ver. 29), and teaches tnat no one who is striving to love his neighbour as himself can be in doubt as to who is his neighbour. We may be- lieve that the narrative is not fiction, but history. Jesus would not be likel. Iv, xxent such behaviour, and attribute it to priest, 286 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 58. LUKE [X. 29, 80. Levite, and Samaritan, if it had not actually occurred. Nowhere else does He speak against priests or Levites. Moreover, the parable would have far more point if taken from real life.! 30. ὑπολαβών. “Took him up” to reply to him. Here only in N.T. has ὑπολαμβάνω this meaning, which is quite classical and freq. in Job (ii. 4, iv. 1, Vi. 1, 1x 1, Xi. I, ΣΙ. 4, xv.'1, xvieaeee: Contrast vil. 43; Acts 11. 15; Job xxv. 13, where it means “I suppose.” Here Vulg. has susczpzens, with suspictens as v./.in many MSS. Be- sides these two, Lat. Vet. has szdzczens (e) and vespondens (f); but not exctpiens, which would be an equivalent. "Ανθρωπός τις κατέβαινεν. The road is downhill; but besides this we commonly talk of ‘going down” from the capital. The narrative implies that the man is a Jew. Jericho is about twenty miles from Jerusalem ; and the road still, as in Jerome’s day, has a bad name for brigandage from “the Arabian in the wilderness” (Jer. iii. 2), 2.6. the Bedawin robbers who infest the unfrequented roads. Sir F. Henniker was murdered here in 1820.? It is possible that Jesus was on this road at the time when He delivered the parable; for Bethany is on it, and the next event takes place there (vv. 35-42). περιέπεσεν λῃσταῖς. Change from imperf. to aor. ‘Fell among robbers,” so that they were all round him. Quite classical; comp. Jas. i. 2. Wetst. gives instances of this very phrase in profane authors, and it is in- correct to classify περιπίπτειν as a medical word. For λῃστής, ‘* robber ” (xix. 46, xxii. 52; Jn. xviii. 40), as distinct from κλεπτής, ‘‘ thief” (xii. 33, 393 Jn. xii. 6), see Trench, Syz. xliv. ot καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτόν. ‘Who, in addition to other violence, stripped him.” Robbers naturally plunder their victims, but do 1 «ΤῊς spot indicated by our Lord as the scene of the parable is unmis- takable. About half-way down the descent from Jerusalem to Jericho, close to the deep gorge of Wady Kelt, the sides of which are honeycombed by a labyrinth of caves, in olden times and to the present day the resort of freebooters and outlaws, is a heap of ruins, marking the site of an ancient khan. The Kahn el Ahmar, as the ruin is called, possessed a deep well, with a scanty supply of water. Not another building or trace of human habitation is to be found on any part of the road, which descends 3000 feet from the neighbourhood of Bethany to the entrance into the plain of Jordan. Irregular projecting masses of rock and frequent sharp turns of the road afford everywhere safe cover and retreat for robbers” (Tristram, Laster Customs, Ὁ. 220). *It was near Jericho that Pompey destroyed strongholds of brigands (Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 2. 41). Jerome explains ‘‘ the Going up to Adummim ” or ** Ascent of the Red” (Josh. xv. 7, xviil. 17), which is identified with this road, as so called from the blood which is there shed by robbers. The explanation is probably wrong, but the evidence for the robbers holds good (De Loczs Heb. s.v. Adummim). The Knights Templars protected pilgrims along this road. For a description of it see Stanley, Szz. G Pal p. ° ~~ sn, Jes. of Naz. V. p. 71. wo laws % ᾿Ξ ing ana X. 80-84] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 287 not always strip them. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 28; with double accusa- tive, Mt. xxvii. 31; Mk. xv. 20. It was because he tried to keep his clothes, and also to disable him, that they added blows to robbery. For the phrase πληγὰς ἐπιθέντες comp. Acts xvi. 23; Rey. xxii. 18: in class. Grk. 7A. ἐμβάλλειν. Cicero has plagam alicut imponere (Pro Sest. xix. 44); also vulnera alicui imponere (De Fin. iv. 24. 66). For ἠβιθανῆ comp. 4 Mac. iv. 11. 81. κατὰ συγκυρίαν. Not exactly “by chance,” but “by way of coincidence, by concurrence.” Vulg. has accédit ut; Lat. Vet. Jortuito (a ff, qr), forte (d), derepente (e), while several omit (Ὁ cil). The word occurs here only in N.T. and is rare elsewhere. In Hippocrates we have dv ἄλλην twa συγκυρίαν and τὰ ἀπὸ συγκυρίας. Neither συντυχία nor τύχη occurs in N.T.; and τύχη only once or twice, συντυχία not once, in LXX. Multe bone occasiones latent sub his que fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describtt temere ut fortuitum (Beng.). ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν. This implies that he also was on his way from Jerusalem. That he was going home after discharging his turn of service, and that Jericho was a priestly city, like Hebron, is conjecture. ἀντιπαρῆλθεν. ‘Went by opposite to him.” A rare word; here only in N.T. In Wisd. xvi. 10 it has the contrary meaning, “came by opposite to them” to help them; τὸ ἔλεος γάρ σου ἀντιπαρῆλθεν καὶ ἰάσατο αὐτούς. Comp. Mal. 11. 7-9. 82. The insertion of γενόμενος before κατὰ τὸν τόπον (A) makes ἐλθών belong to ἰδών, ‘came and saw”: and thus the Levite is made to be more heartless than the priest, whom he seems to have been following. The priest saw and passed on; but the Levite came up to him quite close, saw, and passed on. But BLX omit γενόμενος, while D and other authorities omit ἐλθών ; and it is not likely that both are genuine. Syr-Sin. omits one. Most editors now omit γενόμενος, but Field pleads for its retention, and would omit ἐλθών (Otzum Norvic. 111. p. 43). 33. Σαμαρείτης δέ τις ὀδεύων. A despised schismatic, in marked contrast to the orthodox clergy who had shown no kindness. Comp. xvii. 16; Jn. iv. 39-42. He is not said to be καταβαίνων: he would not be coming from Jerusalem. ἦλθεν kat αὐτόν. “Came down upon him, or “where he was,” or “towards him” (Acts viii. 26, xvi. 7; Phil. iii. 14). The fear of being himself overtaken by brigands, or of being suspected of the robbery, does not influence him. “ Directly he saw him, forthwith (aor.) he was moved with compassion.” 34. προσελθών. This neither of the others seems to have done: 1 Blunt sees here a possible coincidence. Christ may have chosen a Samaritan for the benefactor, as a gentle rebuke to James and John for wish- ing just before this to call down fire on Samaritans (ix. 54). See Ondesigned Coincidences, Pt. IV. xxxii. p. 300, 8th ed. 288 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 34, 35. they avoided coming near him. He was half-unconscious, and they wished to get past without being asked to help. κατέδησεν τὰ τραύματα αὐτοῦ ἐπιχέων ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον. These medical details would be specially interesting to Lk. ‘ Bound up, pouring on, as he bound, oil and wine.” Neither compound occurs elsewhere in N.T. Comp. τραῦμα ἔστιν καταδῆσαι (Ecclus. Xxvil. 21); and, for ἐπιχέω, Gen. xxviii. 18; Lev. v. τὶ. Oil and wine were recognized household remedies. The two were some- times mixed and used as a salve for wounds. See evidence in Wetst. ἐπιβιβάσας δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον κτῆνος. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xix. 35; Acts xxiii. 24), but classical and freq. in LXX. Comp. ἐπιβιβάσατε τὸν υἱόν pov Σαλωμὼν ἐπὶ τὴν ἡμίονον τὴν ἐμήν (x Kings i. 33). Κτῆνος (κτάομαι) is lit. “property,” and so “cattle,” and especially a “beast of burden” (Acts xxiii. 24: t Cor. xv. 39; Rev. xvili. 13). The mav8oxetov was probably a more substantial place of entertainment than a κατάλυμα : see on ii. 7. The word occurs here only in bibl. Grk., and here only is stabulum used in the sense of “inn”: comp. stabularius in ver. 35. It is perhaps a colloquial word (Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 74). Attic πανδοκεῖον. 35. ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον. ‘‘ Towards the morrow,” as Acts iv. 5 and ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς (Acts 11. 1). Syr-Sin. has ‘‘at the dawn of the day.” In Mk. xv. I some texts read ἐπὶ τὸ πρωί. This use of ἐπί is rare. Comp. ἐπὶ τὴν ἕω (Thue. ii. 84. 2). The ἐξελθών after αὔριον (AC) is not likely to be genuine ; but it would mean that he went outside before giving the money, to avoid being seen by the wounded man. ἐὲ ΒΊ 1, ΧΙΞ and most Versions omit. ἐκβαλὼν δύο δηνάρια. The verb does not necessarily imply any violence: ‘‘having put out, drawn out,” from his girdle; not “ flung out”; comp. vi. 42; Mt. xil. 35, xili. 52. The two denarii would equal about four shillings, although in weight of silver much less than two shillings. See on vil. 41. προσδαπανήσῃς. “Spend in addition” to the two denarit. Luc. 222. Saturn. 39. From the Vulg. supererogaveris comes the technical expression ofera supererogationts. ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ἐπανέρχεσθαί pe. The ἐγώ is very emphatic: “I, and not the wounded man, am responsible for payment.” Note the pres. infin. ‘While I am returning, in the course of my return journey”: see on iii. 21. The verb occurs elsewhere in N.T. only xix. 15, but is classical and not rare in LXX. 36, 37. The Moral of the Parable. Christ not only forces the lawyer to answer his own question, but shows that it has been asked from the wrong point of view. For the question, “Who is my neighbour?” is substituted, “ΤῸ whom am I neighbour? Whose claims on my neighbourly help do I recognize?” All the X. 86, 37] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 289 three were by proximity neighbours to the wounded man, and his claim was greater on the priest and Levite; but only the alien recognized any claim. The γεγονέναι is very significant, and implies this recognition: “ decame neighbour, proved neighbour”: comp. xix. 17; Heb. xi. 6. ‘The neighbouring Jews became strangers, the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood” (Words- worth). RV. is the only English Version which takes account of γεγονέναι : Vulg. Luth. and Beza all treat it as εἶναι. 37. Ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔλεος pet αὐτοῦ. The lawyer goes back to his own question, τί ποιήσας; He thereby avoids using the hateful name Samaritan: ‘‘He that showed the act of mercy upon him,” the ἔλεος related of him. Comp. ποιῆσαι ἔλεος μετὰ TOV πατέρων ἡμῶν (i. 72), and ἐμεγάλυνεν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ pet αὐτῆς (1. 58). The phrase is Hebraistic, and in N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts xiv. 27, xv. 4): freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12 ; Judg. i. 24, viii. 35, etc.). Πορεύου καὶ od ποίει ὁμοίως. Either, “Go; thou also do like- wise”; or, “Go thou also; do likewise.” Chrysostom seems to take it in the latter way: πορεύου οὖν, φησί, καὶ ov, Kal ποίει ὁμοίως (xi. p. 109, B). There is a rather awkward asyndeton in either case; but καὶ σύ must be taken together. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 69; 2 Sam. xv. 19; Obad. 11. ‘‘ Go, and do ¢how likewise” would be πορεύου καὶ ποίει σύ ὁμοίως. Field, Ottum LVorvic. 111. p. 44. Note the pres. imperat. “Thou also habitually do likewise.” It is no single act, but lifelong conduct that is required. Also that καὶ ζήσῃ does not follow ποίει, as in ver. 28; perhaps be- cause the parable says nothing about loving God, which does not come within its scope. It is an answer to the question, ‘‘ Who is it that I ought to love as myself?” and we have no means of knowing that anything more than this is intended. The Fathers delight in mystical interpretations of the parable. For references and examples see Wordsw. Comm. im loco; Trench, Par. xvii. notes. Such things are permissible so long as they are not put forward as the meaning which the Propounder of the Parable designed to teach. That Christ Himself was a unique realization of the Good Samaritan is unquestionable. That He intended the Good Samaritan to represent Himself, in His dealings with fallen humanity, is more than we know.? 88-42. § The Two Sisters of Bethany. That this incident took place at Bethany can hardly be doubted. If the sisters had not yet settled at Bethany, the place could hardly have been called ἡ κώμη Μαρίας καὶ Μάρθας (Jn. xi. 1). Jesus is on His way to 1 Augustine’s attempt to prove the latter point is almost grotesque. The Jews said to Christ, ‘‘ Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil” (Jn. viii. 48). Jesus might have replied, ‘‘ Neither am I a Samaritan, nor have I a devil” - but He said only, ‘‘I have not a devil.” Therefore He admitted that He was a Samaritan (Sev. clxxi. 2). 19 200 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [X. 38, 39. or from a short visit to Jerusalem which Lk. does not mention. He perhaps inserts it here as a further answer to the question, |“ What must one do to inherit eternal life?” Mere benevolence, ΠΣ ies as that of the Samaritan, is not enough. It must be united with, and be founded upon, habitual co communion with the Divine. “The enthusiasm of humanity,” if divorced from the love of God, is likely to degenerate into mere serving of tables. But the narrative may be here in its true chronological position. It is one of the most exquisite among the treasures which Lk. alone has preserved ; and the coincidence between it and Jn. xi. with regard to the characters of the two sisters, the incidents being totally different, is strong evidence of the historical truth of both.1 38. Ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτούς. ‘‘ Now during their journey- ings”: see on i. 21. As Lk. does not name the village, we may conjecture that he did not know where this occurred. One does not see how the mention of Bethany would have put the sisters in danger of persecution from the Jerusalem Jews. If that danger existed, the names of the sisters ought to have been suppressed. γυνὴ δέ τις ὀνόματι Μάρθα ὑπεδέξατο αὐτόν. She was evidently the mistress of the house, and probably the elder sister. That she was a widow, is pure conjecture. That she was the wife of Simon the leper, is an improbable conjecture (Jn. xii. 1, 2). The names Martha, Eleazar (Lazarus), and Simon have been found in an ancient cemetery at Bethany. The coincidence is curious, what- ever may be the explanation. Martha was not an uncommon name. Marius used to take about with him a Syrian woman named Martha, who was said to have the gift of prophecy (Plut. Mar. 414). It means “lady” or “mistress”: κύρια. For ὀνόματι see on v. 27, and for ὑποδέχομαι comp. xix. 6; Acts xix. 7; Jas. ii. 29. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T. eis τὴν οἰκίαν. This is probably the right reading, of which els τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς is the interpretation. Even without αὐτῆς there can be little doubt that Martha’s house is meant. 39. ἣ Kal παρακαθεσθεῖσα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας. The καί can hardly be “even,” and the meaning “also” is not clear. Perhaps “Martha gave Him a welcome, and Mary also expressed her devotion in her own way,” is the kind of thought; or, ‘“ Mary joined in the welcome, and also sat at His feet.” ‘The meal has 1 «But the characteristics of the two sisters are brought out in a very subtle” way. In St. Luke the contrast is summed up, as it were, in one definite incident ; in St. John it is developed gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. In St. Luke the contrast is direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost say) of light and darkness. But in St. John the characters are shaded off, as it were, into one another” (Lft. Bzb/ical Essays, p. 38). X. 839-41. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 291 not yet begun, for Martha is preparing it; and Mary is not sitting at table with Him, but at His feet as His disciple (Acts xxii. 3). For τοῦ Κυρίου see on v. 17 and vii. 13. The verb is class., but the 1 aor. part. is late Greek (Jos. Anz. vi. 11. 9). Note the imperf. ἢ ἤκουεν : she continued to listen. 40. περιεσπᾶτο. ‘‘Was drawn about in different directions, distracted.” The word forms a marked contrast to παρακαθεσ- θεῖσα. Comp. Eccles. 1. 13, ill. 10, v. 19; Ecclus. xli. 4. ἐπιστᾶσα δὲ εἶπεν, Κύριε. ‘And she came up and said”: see on iil. 38. Cov. has ‘‘stepte unto Him.” Other Versions previous to AV. have “stood.” The word perhaps indicates an impatient movement. Her temper is shown in her addressing the rebuke to/® Him rather than to her sister. Her saying ἡ ἀδελφή pou instead of Μαριάμ 15 argumentum quasi ab iniqguo (Beng.), and μόνην is placed first for emphasis. The imperf. κατέλειπεν expresses the continu- ance of the neglect. The word does not imply that Mary began to help and then left off, but that she ought to have helped, and from the first abstained. For εἶπον . . . ἵνα comp. Mk. iii. 9, and for ἀντιλαμβάνω see on i. 54. Here the meaning of ovvavr. is ‘‘ take hold along with me, help me.” Comp. Rom. viii. 26; Exod. xviii. 22; Ps. Ixxxix. 22. See Field, Ottum Norvic. iii. p. 44. 41. Μάρθα, Μάρθα, μεριμνᾷς. The repetition of the name con- veys an expression of affection and concern: xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4; Mt. vii. 21. Comp. Mk. ix. 36; Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 16, and see on viii. 24.1 The verb is a strong one, “thou art anxious,” and implies division and distraction of mind (pepi~w), which believers ought to avoid: Mt. Vi. 25, 28, 31, 34; Lk. xii. 11, 22, 26; Phil. iv. 26. Comp. μέριμνα, Vill. 14, xxi. 34, and especially I Pet. v. 7, Where human anxiety (μέριμνα) is set against Divine Providence (μέλει). καὶ θορυβάζῃ. “And art in a tumult, bustle.” The readings vary much, and certainty is not obtainable, respecting the central portion of Christ’s rebuke. The form θορυβάζομαι seems to occur nowhere else: τυρβάζω is fairly common: περὶ ταύτας τυρβάζεσθαι (Aristoph. Pax. 1007). An unusual word would be likely to be changed into a familiar one. In any case μεριμνᾷς refers to the mental distraction, and the second verb to the external agitation. Martha complains of having no one to help her ; but it was by her own choice that she had so much to do. - Repetitio nominis indicium est delectationis, aut movendzx tntentioni’s ut audiret tmtentius (Aug.). D doubles νεανίσκε in vii. 14. It is not serving, but excess in it, that is rebuked; and this is not rebuked until Martha begins to find fault with her sister. See Wordsw. It is characteristic of Mary that she makes no reply, but leaves all to the Master. 292 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 41, 42, The difference between θορυβάζῃ (δὰ BC Ὁ L) and τυρβάζῃ (A P) is unim- portant : the question is as to the words which ought to stand between Μάρθα and Μαριάμ. As regards the first part the decision is not difficult. Nearly all Greek MSS. have μεριμνᾷς καὶ θορυβάζῃ (or τυρβάζῃ) περὶ πόλλα after Μάρθα, and have γάρ or δέ after Μαριάμ or Μαρία. But on the evidence of certain Latin authorities (ab e ff,i Amb.) the Revisers and WH. give a place in the marg?n to θορυβάζῃ only after Μάρθα, with neither γάρ nor δέ after Μαριάμ : and these same authorities with D omit all that lies between θορυ- βάζῃ and Μαριάμ. This curt abrupt reading may be rejected. It is less easy to determine the second part. We may reject ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία, which has very little support. Both this reading and ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία (Α ΟΡΤ Δ ΠῚ are probably corruptions of ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός (ἢ ΒΟΞ1,)). The last might be a conflate reading from the other two, if the evidence did not show that it is older than ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία : it is found in Boh. and Aeth. and also in Origen. See Sanday, “422. ad Λ΄. 7. p- 119. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘ Martha, Martha, Mary hath chosen for herself the good part, which,” etc. ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός. The ὀλίγων is opposed to περὶ πολλά, and évés has a double meaning, partly opposed to περὶ πολλά, partly anticipatory of the ἀγαθὴ μερίς. There was no need of an elaborate meal; a few things, or one, would suffice.! Indeed only one portion was necessary ;—that which Mary had chosen. Both χρεία and μερίς are used of food; τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρείαν being necessaries as distinct from τὰ πρὸς τὴν τρυφήν. For μερίς as a “portion” of food comp. Gen. xlii. 34; Deut. xvii. 8; 1 Sam. i, 4, 1 5 ΣΝ ἢ. vil. 12, ἘΠ. 47; Eccles. xi. 2: For μεριὲς in the higher sense comp. Κύριος ἡ μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας μου (Ps. xv. 5). See also Ps. lexi. 26, cx. 57, cxlu. '5 ; Lam. i. 24; Ps. SoZ v.16; ΣΥΝ 9: Neither ὀλίγων nor ἑνός can be masc., because the opposition is to πολλᾶ. And if the meaning were ‘‘ Few eof/e are wanted for serving, or only one,” we should require μιᾶς, as only women are mentioned. 42. Μαριὰμ γάρ. Explanation of ἑνός, and hence the yap. Not many things are needed, but only one, as Mary’s conduct shows. The γάρ (δ BL A) would easily be smoothed into δέ (A CP), or omitted as difficult (D). Versions and Fathers support all three readings. WH. and RV. adopt γάρ. τὴν ἀγαθὴν μερίδα. “The good part.” No comparison is stated ; but it is implied that Martha’s choice is inferior. In com- parison with Mary’s it cannot be called “the good part,” or “the one thing” necessary, although it is not condemned as bad. Her distracting anxiety was the outcome of affection. Lee pars Marthe non reprehenditur, sed Marix laudatur (Bede). Con- firmata Marix immunitas (Beng.). Comp. Jn. vi. 27. 1 Comp. Lucian, ‘‘ But what if a guest at the same table neglects all that great variety of dishes, and chooses from those that are nearest to him one that suffices _ for his need, and is content with that alone, without even looking at all the rest, is not he the stronger and the better man?” (Cymzc. 7). X. 42.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 293 ἥτις οὐκ ἀφαιρεθήσεται αὐτῆς. “Which is of such a character as not to be taken away from her.” Activa vita cum corpore defictt. Quis enim in xterna patria panem esurienti porrigat, ubi nemo sitit ? guts mortuum sepeliat, ubt nemo moritur? Contemplativa autem hic incipitur, ut in celesti patria perficiatur (Greg. Magn. im Lzech. il. 34). The omission of the prep. before the gen. (δ BDL, eae, ἐμ bilgq) is unusual. Hence AC PIA etc. insert ἀπ᾽ before αὐτῆς (ab ea Vulg. ἢ. In this narrative of the two sisters in the unnamed village Lk. unconsciously supplies historical support to the Johannine account of the raising of Lazarus. If that miracle is to be successfully discredited, it is necessary to weaken the support which this narrative supplies. The Tiibingen school propose to resolve it into a parable, in which Martha represents Judaic Christianity, with its trust in the works of the Law; while Mary represents Pauline Christianity, reposing simply upon faith. Or, still more definitely, Martha is the impulsive Peter, Mary the philosophic Paul. But this is quite incredible. Even Lk. has not the literary skill to invent so exquisite a story for any purpose whatever. And Martha was not occupied with legal ceremonial, but with service in honour of Christ. This service was: not condemned : it was her excitement and fault-find- ing that were rebuked. The story, whether an invention or not, is ill adapted to the purpose which is assumed as the cause of its production. XI. 1-18. §On Prayer. Lk. shows no knowledge of time or place, and it is possible that the paragraph ought to be placed earlier in the ministry. Mt. places the giving of the Lord’s Prayer much earlier, in the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 5-15). Both arrangements may be right. Christ may have delivered the Prayer once spontaneously to a large number of disciples, and again at the request of a disciple to a smaller group, who were not present on the first occasion. But if the Prayer was delivered only once, then it is Lk. rather than Mt. who gives the historic occasion (Neander, De Wette, Holtzmann, Weiss, Godet, etc. See Page, Expositor, 3rd series, vil. p. 433). Mt. might insert it to exemplify Christ’s teaching on prayer. Lk. would not invent this special incident. The section has three divisions, of which the second and third belong to the same occasion: the Lord’s Prayer (1-4) ; the Friend at Midnight (5-8); Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer (9-13). 1-4. The Lord’s Prayer. For abundant literature see Herzog, ΠΡ iy, -p.'-7'72)5) Weim esmof Waze ii: p. 237... Forythe liturgical use of the Prayer see D. Chr. Ant. ii. p. 1056; Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Chr. Alt.i. p. 562. Note the marks of Luke’s style: ἐγένετο, ἐν τῷ εἶναι, εἶναι mpocevxo- μενον, εἶπεν πρός, εἷπεν δέ, τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, αὐτοί, παντί. The last three, which are in the Prayer itself, point to the conclusion that at least some of the differences in wording between this form and that in Mt. are due to Lk., and that the form in Mt. better represents the original, which would be in Aramaic. The differences cannot be accounted for by independent translation. The Greek of the two forms is too similar for that, especially in the use of the 204. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [Χ1.1, 2. perplexing word ἐπιούσιος. Both Evangelists must have had the Prayer in Greek. F. H. Chase supposes that the disciples adapted the Prayer for use on special occasions, either by alterations or additions, and that doth forms exhibit the Prayer as changed for liturgical purposes, ἐπιούσιος being one of these later features (Zexts & Studies, vol. i. No. 3, Camb. 1891). 1. προσευχόμενον. See Introd. ὃ 6.i.b. That this was at dawn, or at one of the usual hours of prayer, is conjecture. Nothing is known of a form of prayer taught by the Baptist; but Rabbis sometimes drew up such forms for their disciples. 2. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς. The disciple had said δίδαξον ἡμᾶς, and Jesus includes all in His reply. After προσεύχησθε D inserts much from Mt. vi. 7, and in the Lat. has the form multcloguentia for multcloguium : putant enim quidam quia zn rultilo- quentia saa exandientur. Πάτερ. There is little doubt that the texts of Lk. which give the more full form of the Prayer have been assimilated to Mt. by inserting the three clauses which Lk. omits.1 The temptation to supply supposed deficiencies would be very strong ; for the copyists would be familiar with the liturgical use of the longer form, and would regard the abbreviation of such a prayer as intolerable. The widespread omission is inexplicable, if the three clauses are genuine; the widespread insertion is quite intelligible, if they are not. The express testimony of Origen, that in the texts of Lk. known to him the clauses were wanting, would in itself be almost conclusive ; and about the second and third omitted clauses we have the express testimony of Augustine also (Zuchir. cxvi.: see Wordsworth’s Vulg. zz /oco). Syr-Sin. has “Father, hallowed be Thy name. And Thy kingdom come. “πώ give us the continual bread of every day. And forgive us our sins; avd we also, we forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” A few authorities, which omit the rest, add ἡμῶν to Πάτερ, and four have sancte for noster (ac ffi). In O.T. God is seldom spoken of as a Father, and then in reference to the nation (Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Jer. 11. 4, 19, xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6, il. 10), not to the individual. In this, as in many things, the Apocrypha links O.T. with N.T. Individuals begin to speak of God as their Father (Wisd. ii. τό, xiv. 3 ; Ecclus. xxiii. 1. 4, li. 10; Tobit xiii. 4; 3 Mac. vi. 3), but without showing 1 For the details of the evidence see Sanday, “422. ad N.T. p. 119. In general it is NBL, Vulg. Arm., Orig. Tert., which omit the clauses in ques- tion ; but & is on the other side with regard to γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, K.T.r. Other authorities omit one or more of the clauses. Those which contain the clauses vary as to the wording of the first two. ‘‘ Neither accident nor intention can adequately account for such clear evidence as there is in favour of so large an omission, if S. Luke’s Gospel had originally contained the clauses in question” (Hammond, 7extual Criticism applied to N.T. p. 83, Oxford, 1890). ΧΙ. 2, 8.1] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 205 what right they have to consider themselves sons rather than Ὁ servants. Christ gave His disciples ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι (Jn. i. 12; comp. 111. 3; Rom. viii. 23; Gal. iv. 5). But we must notice how entirely free from Jewish elements the Prayer is. It is not addressed to the “ Lord God of Israel,” nor does it ask for blessings upon Israel. See Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 416. ἁγιασθήτω. “Let it be acknowledged to be holy, treated as holy; venerated.” Comp. 1 Pet.iu. 15 ; Is. xxix. 23; Ezek. xx. 41, XXXVlil. 23 ; Ecclus. xxxiii. (xxxvi.) 4. τὸ ὄνομά cov. A common expression in both O.T. and N.T. It is not a mere periphrasis for God. It suggests His revealed attributes and His relation to us. Comp. οἱ ἀγαπῶντες τὸ ὄνομα σοῦ (PS. ν. 12); οἱ γιγνώσκοντες τὸ ὄνομά σου (Ps. ix. 11) ; οὐ βεβη- λώσεις τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιον (Lev. xvill. 21). It is freq. in Ps. Sod. (v. 1, Vil. 5, Vill. 31, ix. 18, xv. 4, etc.) Codex D adds to this petition the words ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, swper nos, which may be an independent addi- tion, or a survival of the petition for the coming of the Spirit of which there are traces elsewhere.! ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου. It is asserted that in bibl. Grk. βασι- λεία is the abstract noun, not of βασιλεύς, but of κύριος, and should therefore be rendered “dominion” rather than “kingdom.” Had “kingdom” been meant, βασίλειον would have been more distinct, a word current then, and still the only designation in modern Greek. The petition therefore means, “Thy sway be extended from heaven to this world (now ruled by the adversary), so as to extirpate wickedness.” See A. N. Jannaris in Contemp. Rev. Oct. 1894, p. 585. For Rabbinical parallels to these first two petitions see Wetst. on Mt. vi. 9, 10. For such mixed forms as ἐλθάτω, which is specially common, see on i. 59. 8. From prayers for the glory of God and the highest good of all we pass on to personal needs. τὸν ἐπιούσιον. We are still in ignorance as to the origin and exact meaning of this remarkable word. It appears here first in Greek literature, and is the only epithet in the whole Prayer. And it is possible that in the original Aramaic form there was nothing 1 There is evidence from Tertullian (Adv. Marc. iv. 26), from Gregory Nyssen (De Orat. Dom. ed. Krabinger, p. 60), and from an important cursive (Cod. Ev. 604 = 700 Gregory), elaborately edited by Hoskier (1890), that the Lord’s Prayer in Lk. sometimes contained a petition for the gift of the Spirit, instead either of ‘‘ Thy kingdom come” or of ‘‘ Hallowed be Thy name.” In Gregory and Cod. Ev. 604 the petition runs thus: ᾿Ελθέτω τὸ πνεῦμά σου [τὸ ἅγιον] ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς ; but in Gregory τὸ ἄγιον is doubtful. This addition may have been made when the Prayer was used at the laying on of hands, and thus have got into some texts of Lk. Chase in Zexts & Studies, i. 3, p- 28. The ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς of D may have come from this addition. Comp. Zz uns komme dein Reich. 296 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [ΣΙ. 8. equivalent to it. The presence of the « (ἐπιούσιος, not ἐπούσιος) makes the derivation from ἐπεῖναι, ἐπών, or ἐπί and οὐσία very doubtful.. With Grotius, Scaliger, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Winer, Meyer, Bishop Lightfoot, and others, we may suppose that ἐπιούσιος comes from ἐπιών, perhaps with special reference to 7 ἐπιοῦσα, “ the coming day.” The testimony of the most ancient Versions is strongly in favour of the derivation from ἐπιέναι and of a meaning having reference to “me, whether “of to-morrow,” or “that cometh,” or “for the coming day,” or ‘ daily,” “continual,” or “for the day.” Jerome found guotzdianum as the translation both in Mt. and Lk. He sub- stituted supersubstantialem in Mt. and left guotzdianum in Lk., thus producing a widespread impression that the Evangelists use different words. Cod. Gall. has szfersubstantialem in Lk. See Lft. On a Fresh Revision of the N.T. App. i. pp. 218-260, 3rd ed. For the other views see McClellan, Zhe WV. 7. pp. 632-647. Chase confirms Lft., and contends that (1) This petition refers to bodily needs ; (2) The epithet is temporal, not qualitative ; (3) The epithet is not part of the original form of the petition, and is due to liturgical use ; (4) All the phenomena may be reasonably explained if we assume that the clause origin- ally was ‘‘Give us our (or the) bread of the day” (Zexts & Studies, i. 3, » 42-53). ἐν Jannaris contends that the word has nothing to do with time atall. He points to the use in LXX of περιούσιος in the sense of ‘‘ constituting a property ” (Exod. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18), as obviously coined from περιου- σία, ‘‘ wealth, abundance,” for the translation of the Hebrew segz//a. And he interprets, ‘‘ Ask not for bread περιούσιον, to be treasured up as wealth (segzd/a, θησαυρός), but for bread ἐπιούσιον, mere bread.” Accordingly the term ἐπιού- cos is a new formation coined for the purpose, on the analogy of, and as a direct allusion and contrast to, περιούσιος, that is, intended to imply the opposite meaning.” He considers that the formation περιούσιος was apparently facilitated by the existence of such words as πλούσιος, ἑκούσιος, ἐθελούσιος, and that it was the existence of περιούσιος which produced the form ἐπιούσιος instead of ἐπούσιος. So also in the main Tholuck. δίδου ἡμῖν. “Continually give to us,” instead of δός in Mt. The change of tense brings with it a corresponding change of adverb: δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν for δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον : “ continually give day by day” for “ Give once for all to-day.” In N.T. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν is peculiar to Lk. (xix. 47; Acts xvii. 11). This fact and the insertion of his favourite παντί with ὀφείλοντι, and the substi- tution of his favourite καὶ αὐτοί for καὶ ἡμεῖς with ἀφίομεν, incline us to believe that some of the differences between this form of the Prayer and that in Mt. are due to Lk. himself. The petition in LLk. embraces more than the petition in Mt. In Mt. we pray, ‘“‘ Give us to-day our bread for the coming day,” which in the morn- ing would mean the bread for that day, and in the evening the bread for the next day. In Lk. we pray, ‘Continually give us day by day our bread for the coming day.” One stage in advance is asked for, but no more: “one step enough for me.” D here has σήμερον, and most Latin texts have ode. But Codd. Amiat. Gat. Turon. Germ. 2 support τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν with cofédie or guotidie. ΧΙ. 4] ΙἸΟΌΒΝΕΥΙΝΟΒ TOWARDS JERUSALEM 207 4. τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν. Mt. has τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, and there is reason for believing that Mt. is here closer to the Aramaic original. The ὀφείλοντι of Lk. points to this, and sy does τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἡμῶν in the Didaché (viii. 2). Anyone accustoraed to LXX would be likely to prefer the familiar ἄφες τὰς ἁμαρτίας (Ps. xxiv. 18; comp. Num. xiv. 19; Ex. xxxil. 32; Gen. 1. 17), even if less literal. Moreover, ὀφειλήματα would be more likely to be misunderstood by Gentile readers. καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν. For this Mt. has ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν. The Old Syriac has the future in both Mt. and Lk., and in Lk. it has what may be the original form of the petition: ‘‘ Remit to us, and we also will remit.” ‘Tertuliian seems to have had the future in his mind when he wrote Dedztoribus denique dimissuros nos in oratione profitemur (De Fudic. ii.). If this is correct, ἀφίομεν is closer to the original than ἀφήκαμεν is. But the connexion is the same, whether we ask for forgiveness because we ave forgiven, or because we do forgive, or because we wr// forgive. It was a Jewish saying, Dies expiationts non expiationis donec cum proximts in gratiam redlerts. The form ἀφίω is found Mk. i. 34, xi. 16; Rev. xi. 9. Comp. συνίω, Mt. xiii. 13 ; WH. 1. App. p. 167. παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν. Here the τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν of Mt. looks more like the original form, as being simpler. The introduction of παντί is in harmony with Lk.’s usage: see on Vi. 30, Vii. 35, ΙΧ. 43. εἰσενέγκῃς. “ Bring into.” The verb occurs five times in Lk. (v. 18, 19, xil. 11; Acts xvii. 20) and thrice elsewhere (Mt. vi. 13 ; 1 Tim. vi. 7; Heb. xi. 11) ; and everywhere, except in the Lord’s Prayer, it is rendered in AV. by “bring,” not “lead.” In Lk. εἰσάγειν 15 also very common (11. 27, xiv. 21, xxii. 54; Acts vii. 45, ix. 8, etc.). The latter word implies guidance more strongly than εἰσφέρειν does. For examples of the petition comp. xxii. 40, 46; Mk. xiv. 38; Mt. xxvi. 41. The inconsistency between this peti- tion and Jas. 1. 2 is only apparent, not real. This petition refers especially to the internal solicitations of the devil, as is shown by the second half of it, as given in Mt., ‘but deliver us from the evil one.”1 5. James refers chiefly to external trials, such as poverty of intellect (i. 5), or of substance (i. 9), Or persecution (il. 6, 7). Moreover, there is no inconsistency in rejoicing in temptations when God in His wisdom allows them to molest us, and yet pray- ing to be preserved from such trials, because of our natural weak- ness. Aug. //. cxxi. 14, cxlv. 7, ὃ; Hooker, Eccles. Pol. v. 48. 13. 1 Gregory Nyssen goes so far as to make ὁ πειρασμός a name for the devil : dpa ὁ wetpacuds Te καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἕν τι καὶ κατὰ τὴν σημασίαν ἐστί (De Orat. Dom. v., Migne, xliv. 1192). So also Nilus, the friend and pupil of Chrysos- tom: πειρασμὸς μὲν λέγεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ διάβολος (2. 1., Migne, Ixxix. 573). 298 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [XI. 4-6. There is a very early Latin gloss on 724 20s ¢xducas which found its way into the text of the Prayer itself. Qzzs zon sinet mos deduct in temptationem ? asks Tertullian (Adv. Marcton. iv. 26). Ne patiaris mos znducz, or me passus fueris induct nos, is Cyprian’s form (De Dom. Orat. xxv.). Augustine says, 772 pre- cando tta dicunt, Ne nos patiaris txduct tn temptatconem (De Serm. Dom. ix. 30, Migne, xxxiv. 1282; De Dono Persev. Migne, xlv. 1000). And several MSS. of the Old Latin have these or similar readings (O/d Latin Bzblical Texts, No. ii. Oxford, 1886, p. 32). Dionysius of Alexandria explains the petition as meaning this: καὶ δὴ καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι μὴ ἐάτῃς ἡμᾶς ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς πειρασμόν (Migne, x. 1601). Evidently the idea of God’s leading us into temptation was from early times felt to be a difficulty ; and this gloss may have been used first in private prayer, then in the liturgies, and thence have found its way into Latin texts of the Gospels. Jannaris contends that this is not a gloss, but a correct translation of the Greek. He holds that in the time of Christ the active of this verb was fast acquiring the force of the middle, and that εἰσενεγκεῖν = εἰσενέγκασθαι, ‘* to have one brought into.” The petition then means, ‘‘ Have us not brought into temptation.” And he suggests that the true reading may be the middle, εἰσε- νέγκῃ, to which ς has been added by a mistake. The evidence, however, is too uniform for that to be probable. There is yet another gloss, which probably has the same origin, viz. the wish to avoid the difficulty of the thought that God leads us into temptation : me inducas nos tn temptatconem quam ferre non possumus (Jerome 272 Lzech. xlvili, 16; comp. Hilary zz Ps. cxvill.). Pseudo-Augustine combines the two: ze patiaris nos induct tn temptationem quam ferre non possumus (Serm. Ixxxiv.). ‘* The fact that these glosses occur in writers who are separated from each other in time and circumstance, and that they are found in Liturgies be- longing to different families, shows very clearly that they must be due to very early liturgical usage” (Chase, pp. 63-69). That Lk. omitted ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ because he saw that deliverance from the tempter is in- cluded in preservation from temptation, is less probable than that this clause was wanting (very possibly for this reason) in the liturgical form which he gives. All authorities here, and the best authorities in Mt., omit the doxology, which is no doubt a liturgical addition to the Prayer. See Treg. on Mt. vi. 13. 5-8. §The Parable of the Friend at Midnight. This parable is parallel to that of the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). Both of them are peculiar to Lk., whose Gospel is in a special sense the Gospel of Prayer; and they both teach that prayer must be importunate and persevering. So far as they differ, the one shows that prayer is never out of season, the other that it is sure to bring a blessing and not a curse. 5,6. Tis ἐξ ὑμῶν. The sentence is irregularly constructed : (1) the interrogative is lost in the prolongation of the sentence ; (2) the future (ἕξει, πορεύσεται) drifts into the deliberative subjunc- tive (εἴπῃ), which in some texts has been corrected to the future (ἐρεῖ). Excepting Mt. vi. 27, τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7). Win. xli. 4. b, p. 357. Excepting Mk. Ἵ Xlll. 35, μεσονύκτιον is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 25, xx. 7). In the East it is common to travel by night to avoid the heat. φίλε, χρῆσόν μοι τρεῖς ἄρτους. As distinct from δανείζω (“T lend on interest” as a matter of business), κίχρημι, which occurs πον νυ, ὟΣ ΣΑΣ el ellCY | | te OF 7 DANA =a, Ὁ. ᾿ ‘ ν Ἀδὰ ὦ XI. 6-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 299 τίθημι of food comp. ΙΧ. 16; Mk. vi. 41, viii. 6. 7. Μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε. It is the trouble that he minds, not the parting with the bread. When he has once got up (ἀναστάς, ver. 8), he gives him as much as he wants. For κόπους παρέχειν comp. Mt. xxvi. 10; Mk. xiv. 6; Gal. vi. 17; and for κόπος see Lft. Zp. p. 26. μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰς τὴν κοίτην εἰσίν. Prep. of motion after verb of rest; comp. Mk. [ii. 1], x. 10; Acts viii. 40: and plur. verb after neut. plur., the persons being animate; comp. Mt. x. 21; Mk. ui. 11, v. 13. Win. 1. 4. Ὁ, pp. 516, 518, lviii. 3. B, p. 646. 8. εἰ καί. As distinct from καὶ εἰ, εἰ. καί implies that the supposition is/aefact, “although: xvii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 11. vil. oi; 1 Pet. m1: 14. Hor cixal.. . ve comp. xviii. 4, 5; Win. li. 7. b, p. 554. ov δώσει. ‘‘ Will 7efuse to rise and give.” The negative is part of the verb and is not affected by the ef. Otherwise we should have had μή: xvi. 31, xvili. 4; Rom. viii. 9; Mt. xxvi. 42; 1 Cor. vii. 9. The use is classical. Soph. 47. 1131. Simcox, Lang. of NV.T7. p. 184; Win. lv. 2. c, p. 599. διά ye. In N.T. γὲ is rare, except as strengthening other particles : Xvili. 5; 1 Cor. iv. 8: ‘‘ At least because of.” ἀνείδιαν. ‘‘ Absence of αἰδώς, shamelessness”; Ecclus. xxv. 22; here only in N.T. 9-13. Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer, based on the preceding parable and confirmed (11-13) by personal experience. Mt. has the same almost verbatim as part of the Sermon on the Mount (vil. 7-11). 9. Καγὼ ὑμῖν λέγω. “Zalso say to you”: the ἐγώ is emphatic by being expressed, the ὑμῖν by position; contrast ver. 8, and see on xvi. 9. The parable teaches them; /esws also teaches them. ‘The parable shows how the urgent supplicant fared ; the disciples may know how fey will fare. ‘The three commands are, obviously taken from the parable, and they form a climax of in-|* creasing earnestness. They are all pres. imperat. “ Continue asking, seeking, knocking.” Comp. Jn. xvi. 24; Mt. xxi. 22; Mk. ἘΠ A 10. λαμβάνει. . . εὑρίσκει. The parallel with ver. 9 would be more exact if these two verbs, as well as ἀνοιγήσεται, were futures. But here, as in Mt. vii. 8, ἀνοίγεται (BD) is possibly the true reading ' 11. τὸν πατέρα. “As being his father.” Mt. has ἄνθρωπος, “as a human being,” or (more simply) “person.” The construc- tion is broken, and can scarcely be rendered literally. “ΟΥ̓ which of you as being his father will the son ask for a fish? Will he for a fish hand him a serpent?” The question ought to have continued, “and for a fish receive a serpent”; but the abrupt change to the father’s side of the transaction is very emphatic. 300 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [XxI. 11-18. For μή interrog. when a negative reply is expected comp. v. 34, Ἢ τὶ XVI. O, Xl. 35. μὴ ἐπιδώσει. “Will he give over, hand to him”: xxiv. 30, 42 ; Acts xv. 30. The text is confused, and it is doubtful whether we ought to have two pairs, as in Mt., or three. If two, they are not the same two as in Mt. There we have the loaf and the stone with the fish and the serpent. Here we have the fish and the serpent with the egg and the scorpion. But perhaps before these we ought to have the loaf and the stone, although B and some other authorities omit. The insertion from Mt., however, is more intelligible than the omission. 12. σκορπίον: x. 19; Rev. ix. 3, Ὁ, 10; Deut. viii. 15; Ezek. ii. 6. When its limbs are closed round it, it is egg-shaped. Bread, dried fish, and hardboiled eggs are ordinary food in the East. It is probable that some of these pairs, especially “‘a stone for a loaf,” were proverbial expressions. ‘‘ A scorpion for a fish,” ἀντὶ περκῆς σκορπίον, seems to have been a Greek proverb. The ‘meaning here is, that in answer to prayer God gives neither what is useless (a stone) nor what is harmful (a serpent or scorpion). 18. wovnpot ὑπάρχοντες. “Being evil from the first, evil already”: much stronger than ὄντες (Mt.). JL//ustre testimonium de peccato originali (Beng.). See on vill. 41 and xxiii. 50. δόματα. Mt. vii. rr; Eph. iv. 8; Phil. iv. 17. The word is very freq. in LXX, where it represents ten different Hebrew words. ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Pregnant construction for 6 ἐν οὐράνῳ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει" comp. ix. 61; Col. iv. 16. Win. lxvi. 6, p. 784. With the assurance here given comp. αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ δίδοντος Θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος (Jas. i. 5). The change from ἐπιδώσει to δώσει in both Lk. and Mt. is noteworthy: the idea οἵ “Βαηά- ing over” would here be out of place. πνεῦμα ἅγιον. See on i. 15. Mt. has ἀγαθά: One of the latest maintainers of the theory that Lk. is strongly influenced by Ebionism, remarks on this difference between Mt. and Lk., “From this important deviation in Luke’s version of this passage we learn that the course of thought is from the material to the spiritual: temporal mercies, even daily bread, are transcended altogether. . . . This is one of the most important passages in Luke that can be cited in support of an Ebionite source for much of his Gospel.” This may well be correct: in which case the total amount of support is not strong. D and some other authorities have ἀγαθὸν δόμα here. Hence various conflations: πνεῦμα ἀγαθόν (L8), donum donum spirttus sancte (Aeth.). From bonum datum (bcd ff,ilr), dona data (ay), sperztum bonum (Vulg.), spiritum bonum datum (E), etc. Assimilation to the first half of the verse is the source of corruption. ΧΙ. 14-17.} JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 301 14-26. The Dumb Demoniac and the Blasphemy of the Pharisees. Mt. xii. 22-30; Mk. ili. 19-27. 14. δαιμόνιον κωφόν. The demon is called dumb because it made the man dumb: Mt. has τυφλὸν καὶ κωφόν. When the demon is cast out, it is the man who speaks, ἐλάλησεν ὃ κωφός. For ἐγένετο see p. 45. ἐθαύμασαν. Srupebant (a, il), obstupedant (Ὁ), stupuerunt (ff). Mt. has ἐξίσταντο. The combination of dumbness and blindness with possession made them suppose that no exorcist could succeed in such a case. Probably the man was deaf also, so that there seemed to be no avenue through which the exorcist could com- municate with a victim who could neither see him, nor hear him, nor reply to his manipulations. 15. τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶπαν. This is very vague. Mt. says ot Φαρισαῖοι, and Mk. still more definitely ot γραμματεῖς οἱ ἀπὸ ᾿εροσολύμων KataBavres. ‘They had probably come on purpose to watch Him and oppose Him. It was at Jerusalem about this time that they had said, ‘Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil,” and, “ He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. vii. 48, x. 20). Ἔν BeeLeBouA. “In the power of B.” The orthography, etymology, and application of the name are uncertain. Here, vz. 18,19; Mt. x. 25, ΧΙ]. 24, 27, NB have Βεεζεβούλ, and B has this Mk. iii. 22. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and nowhere at all in O.T. With the form Βεελζεβούλ comp. Βάαλ μυῖαν (2 Kings i. 2, 3, 6) and Μυῖαν (Jos. Anz. ix. 2. 1) for Beelzebub= “Lord of flies.” But Βεελζεβούβ is found in no Greek MS. of N.T., and the form Zee/zebub owes its prevalence to the Vulgate ; but even there some MSS. have Jdee/zebu/. With the termination -BovB the connexion with the Ekronite god of flies must be abandoned. Βεελζεβούλ may mean either, “ Lord of the dwelling,” 2.6. of the heavenly habitation, or, “‘ Lord of dung,” z.e. of idolatrous abomination. ‘Lord of idols,” “ Prince of false gods,” comes close ioe Prince of the*demons.” 5.7) art“ Beelzebub.” tis’ un- certain whether the Jews identified Beelzebub with Satan, or believed him to be a subordinate evil power. Unless xiii. 32 refers to later instances, Lk. mentions no more instances of the casting out of demons after this charge of casting them out by diabolical assistance. 16. πειράζοντες. The demand for a mere wonder to compel conviction was a renewal of the third temptation (iv. 9-12). Comp. ia it 18, Vi. 30. 17. τὰ διανοήματα. “ Thoughts,” not ‘‘ machinations,” a mean- ing which the word nowhere has. Here only in N.T., but freq. in LXX and classical: Prov. xiv. 14, xv. 24; Is. lv. 9; Ezek. xiv. 3, 4; Plat. Prot. 348 D; Sym. 210 D. οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον. Mt. xii. 25 and Mk. iii. 25 do not prove that 302 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 17-20. διαμερισθείς is here to be understood. In that case we should expect ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτόν or καθ᾽ éavrod rather than ἐπὶ οἶκον. Comp. πίπτειν ἐπί τι, Vill. 6, Xill. 4, xx. 18, xxill. 30. It is better, with Vulg. (domus supra domum cadet) and Luth. (ein Haus fallet tiber das andere), to keep closely to the Greek without reference to Mt. ΧΙ. 25 or Mk. iii. 25. We must therefore regard the clause as an enlargement of ἐρημοῦται : “house falleth on house”; or possibly “house after house falleth.” Comp. ναῦς τε νηὶ προσέπιπτε (Thuc. ii. 84. 3). Wetst. quotes πύργοι δὲ πύργοις ἐνέπιπτον (Aristid. Rhodiac. p. 544). In this way Lk. gives one example, a divided kingdom ; Mk. two, kingdom and house ; Mt. three, kimgdom, city, and house. In class. Grk. ἐπί after verbs of falling, adding, and the like is commonly followed by the dat. In bibl. Greek the acc. is more common: λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην (Phil. 11. 27); λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον (Mt. xxiv. 2); ἀνομίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν (Ps. Ixviii. 28); ἀγγελία ἐπὶ ἀγγελίαν (Ezek. vii. 26). In Is. xxvili. 10 we have both acc. and dat., θλίψιν ἐπὶ θλίψιν, ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. 18. εἰ δὲ καὶ 6 Σατανᾶς. Satan also is under the dominion of the same law, that division leads to destruction. The fondness of Lk. for δὲ καί is again manifest: see on ili. 9. Contrast εἰ καί in ver. 8. Here καί belongs to ὃ Zar. and means “also.” Burton, ὃ 282. Mt. and Mk. here have simply καὶ εἰ. ὅτι λέγετε. Elliptical: “Z wse this language, because ye say,” etc. Comp. Mk. ili. 30, and see on vii. 47. 19. An argumentum ad hominem. ot υἱοὶ ὑμῶν. First with emphasis. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. Ant. vill. 2. 5 for instances of Jewish exorcisms ; and comp. Azz. vi. 8.2; B. J. vu. 6. 3; Tobit viii. 1-3; Justin M. Z7y. Ixxxyv. ; Apol. ii. 6; 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 23. 20. εἰ δὲ ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ. As distinct from the charms and incantations used by Jewish exorcists, who did not rely simply upon the power of God. Mt. has ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. Lk. seems to be fond of Hebraistic anthropomorphisms: i. 51, 66, 73. But it is not likely that “the fmger of God” indicates the ease with which it is done. Comp. Exod. viii. 19, xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 10; Ps. vill. 4. ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. In late Greels φθάνω followed by a preposition commonly loses all notion of priority or surprise, and simp’y means ‘‘ arrive δὲ, attam to) Romyax. 21; Phil? im.) 165) 26Cors ἘΞ ΙΖ. 1 ΠΌΤ τῶ: Dan. iv. 19. In 1 Thes. iv. 15 it is not followed by a preposition, and that is perhaps the only passage in N.T. in which the notion of anticipating survives. Here Vulg. and many Lat. texts have prevent, while ag has anticipavit ; but many others have fervenzt, and d has adpropinguavzt. 1 The ἐγώ after εἰ δέ (D) or after Θεοῦ (BC LR) is of doubtful authority : in the one case it probably comes from ver. 19, in the other it may come from Mt. xii. 28. ΧΙ. 21-23. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 303 21. ὅταν ὃ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος. Here Lk. is very different from Mt. xii. 29 and Mk. ili. 27, while they resemble one another. “The strong one” is Satan, and the parable is very like Is. xlix. 24-26, which may be the source of it. Luther is certainly wrong in translating, Wenn ein starker Gewapneter: καθωπλισμένος is an epithet of ὃ ἰσχυρός. Coverdale is similar: “a stronge harnessed man.” RV. restores the much ignored article: “¢e strong man fully armed.” τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν. ‘‘ His own homestead.” Mt. and Mk. have oikiav. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 3, 58; Mk. xiv. 54, xv. 16; Jn. xviii. 15. Meyer contends that in all these places αὐλή retains its meaning of “court, courtyard,” as in Mt. xxvi. 69; Mk. xiv. 66; Lk. xxil. 55. But there is no hint here that “our Lord encountered Satan in the αὐλή of the High Priest.” For τὰ ὑπάρχοντα see on Vili. 3: substantia ejus (4), facultates ejus (8.5 6), ea gue possidet (Vulg.). Mt. and Mk. have τὰ σκεύη. 22. ἐπὰν δέ. Note the change from ὅταν with pres. subj. to ἐπάν with aor. sub., and comp. χρὴ δὲ, ὅταν μὲν τιθῆσθε τοὺς νόμους. . . σκόπειν, ἐπειδὰν δὲ θῆσθε, φυλάττειν (Dem. p. 525, 11) ; ““ whenever you are enact- ing... after you have enacted.” So here: “‘ 4H the while that the strong man is on guard . . . but after a stronger has come.” In ver. 34 both ὅταν and ἐπάν have pres. subj.; in Mt. ii. ὃ ἐπάν has aor. subj.; and ἐπάν occurs nowhere else in N.T. ἰσχυρότερος αὐτοῦ ἐπελθών. This is Christ: ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγμάτισεν ἐν παρρησίᾳ θριαμβεύσας αὐτούς (Col. ii, 15). For ἐπέρχομαι in a hostile sense comp. 1 Sam. xxx. 217; Hom. 77) ΣΙ]: 136; xx: «οὐ. 566 ΘΟ 1- .25- Here Me and Mk. have εἰσελθών. Thy πανοπλίαν αὐτοῦ αἴρει ἐφ᾽ ἡ ἐπεποίθει. Because it had been so efficacious. Comp. Eph. vi. rr. τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ. Bengel explains, gvux Satanas genert humano eripuerat, identifying τὰ σκῦλα with τὰ ὑπάρχοντα (ver. 21: comp. Esth. ili. 13). But τὰ σκῦλα may be identified with τὴν πανοπλίαν. In either case Christ makes the powers of hell work together for the) good of the faithful. Some who identify τὰ σκῦλα with τὰ ὑπάρχοντα interpret both of the souls which Satan has taken captive, and especially of demoniacs. Comp. τῶν ἰσχυρῶν μεριεῖ σκῦλα (Is. liti. 12). 23. 6 μὴ ὧν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν. Verbatim as Mt. xii. 30. The connexion with what precedes seems to be that the contest between Christ and Satan is such that no one can be neutral. But that the warning is specially addressed to those who accused Him of having Beelzebub as an ally (ver. 15), or who demanded a sign (ver. 16), is less evident. See on ix. 50. suvaywv. Comp. lil. 17, xii. 17, 18. But the metaphor is perhaps not from gathering seed and fruit, but from collecting a flock of sheep, or a band of followers, Comp. συνάγει τοὺς 304. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [XI. 28-25. ἐσκορπισμένους (Artem. Oneir. 1. 56. 1). Hillel had said, “ Whoso revileth the Name, his name perisheth; and whoso doth not in- crease it, diminisheth.” σκορπίζει. Ἰοηΐς and Hellenistic for the more classical σκεδάννυμι ; comp. Jn. x. 12, xvi. 32; I Mac. vi. 54; 2 Sam. xxii. 15. 24-26. Almost verbatim as Mt. xii. 43-45, where see Alford. It is not likely that there is any reference to the success of the Jewish exorcists, as being only temporary, and leading to an aggravation of the evil. The disastrous conclusion is the result, not of the imperfect methods of the exorcist, but of the misconduct of the exorcized. The case of a demoniac who is cured and then allows himself to become repossessed is made a parable to illustrate the case of a sinner who repents of his sins, but makes no effort to acquire holiness. Such an one proves the impossibility of being neutral. He flees from Satan without seeking Christ, and thus falls more hopelessly into the power of Satan again. 24. τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. “The man” who had been afflicted by it. δι᾿ ἀνύδρων τόπων. “Through waterless places” (Tyn. RV.). The wilderness is the reputed house of evil spirits; Tobit viii. 3, where Vulg. has Angelus apprehendit demonium, et religavit twllud in deserto superioris Aegypti. Comp. Bar. iv. 35; Lev. xvi. 10; Is. ΧΙ 21; Rev, xvii 2:7 ἀνάπαυσιν. “Cessation” from wandering (Gen. viii. 9): the demon seeks a soul to restin. In LXX ἀνάπαυσις is common of the sabbath-rest: Exod. xvi. 23, xxill. 12; Lev. xxii. 3, etc. The punctuation is here uncertain. We may put no comma after ἀνά- παυσιν and make μὴ εὑρίσκον co-ordinate with ζητοῦν : ‘seeking rest and finding none.” ‘This necessitates a full stop at εὑρίσκον and the admission of τότε before λέγει as genuine. But τότε (8° B LE) is probably an insertion from Mt. xii. 44 (om. AC D R, Vulg. Aeth. Arm.) ; and, if it be omitted, we must place a comma after dva- παυσιν and take μὴ εὑρίσκον with λέγει. This is to be preferred. μὴ εὑρίσκον [τότε] λέγει. ‘‘ Because he doth not find it [then] he saith.” εἷς τὸν οἷκόν μου ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον. He still calls it “my house.” No one else has taken it, and he was not driven out of it; he ‘‘ went out.” No mention is made of exorcism or expulsion. 25. [σχολάζοντα]. This also may be an insertion fr. Mt., but the evidence is stronger than for τότε (SS BCL RIE, Aeth. flr). Tisch. omits; WH. bracket the word. If it is genuine, it is placed first as the main evil. It is “standing idle,” not occupied 1 See Gregory Nazianzen’s interpretation of ‘‘ waterless places” as the un- baptized ; ‘‘dry of the divine stream” (Ovatéon on Holy Baptism, xxxv. ; Post- Nicene Library, vii. p. 373). For the application of the parallel to the Jews, the Christian Church, and individuals, see Alford on Mt. xii. 44. ΧΙ. 355-597. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 305 by any new tenant. The Holy Spirit has not been made a guest in place of the evil spirit. σεσαρωμένον Kal κεκοσμημένον. Ready to attract any passer-by, however undesirable. The three participles form a climax, and perhaps refer to the physical and mental improvement in the man. There is much for the demon to ruin once more, but there is no protection against his return. He brings companions to share the enjoyment of this new work of destruction, and to make it complete and final. The verb σαρόω (cdpov=‘‘ a broom”) is a later form of calpw, and occurs again xv. 8. For κεκοσμημένον comp. Rey. xxi. 2. 26. παραλαμβάνει. Comp. ix. 10, 28, xvill. 31; Acts xv. 39. Here again we have a climax. He brings additional spirits, more evil than himself, seven in number. Comp. the seven that went out from Mary of Magdala (viii. 2). Here in the best texts érra comes last, in Mt. first. In either case the word is emphatic. See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xi. 43, Migne, cxx. 478. εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ. ‘There is nothing to oppose them; “they enter in and settle there,” taking up a permanent abode: ΧΙ]. 4; Acts 1. 19, 20, ll. 9, 14, lv. 16, etc. The verb is freq. in bibl. Grk., esp. in Acts and Apocalypse. In the Catholic and Pauline Epp. it is used of the Divine indwelling (Jas. iv. 53 2 Pet. i. 13 ; Eph. ii. τῇ ; Coli: τὸ; ἢ. 9). Contrast παροικεῖν of a temporary sojourn (xxiv. 18; Heb. xi. 9; Gen. xxi. 23). In Gen. xxxvii. 1 both verbs occur. χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. The expression is proverbial ; Mt. xxvii. 64. Comp. 2 Pet. Π 20; Heb. x 29; Jn. v.14. - Lk. omits the words which show the primary application of the parable: Οὕτως ἔσται καὶ TH γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ πονηρᾷ. ‘The worship of idols had been exorcized, but that demon had returned as the worship of the letter, and with it the demons of covetousness, hypocrisy, spiritual pride, uncharit- ableness, faithlessness, formalism, and fanaticism. 27, 28. These two verses are peculiar to Lk., and illustrate his Gospel in its special character as the Gospel of Women. Christ’s Mother is once more declared by a woman to be blessed (i. 42), and Mary’s prophecy about herself begins to be fulfilled (i. 48). The originality of Christ’s reply guarantees its historical character. Such a comment is beyond the reach of an inventor. 27. ταῦτα. Apparently this refers to the parable about the demons. Perhaps the woman, who doubtless was a mother, had had experience of a lapsed penitent in her own family. Bene sentit, sed muliebriter loguitur (Beng.). For a collection of similar sayings see Wetst. ἐπάρασα φωνήν. The expression is classical (Dem. De Cor. § 369, Dp: 323: comp. vocem tollit, Hor. A. P. 93); in N.T. it is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 20 306 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [XI. 27-29. ji, 14, xiv. 11, xxii. 22). But it is not rare in LXX (Judg. 11. 4, ix. 7; Ruth 1. Ὁ, 14; 2 Sam. xiil. 36). Μακαρία ἡ κοιλία. Mt. xii. 46 tells us that it was at this moment that His Mother and His brethren were announced. ‘The sight of them may have suggested this woman’s exclamation. Lk. records their arrival earlier (viii. 19-21), but he gives no connecting link. Edersheim quotes a Rabbinical passage, in which Israel is repre- sented as breaking forth into these words on beholding the Messiah : “‘ Blessed the hour in which the Messiah was created ; blessed the womb whence He issued; blessed the generation that sees Him ; blessed the eye that is worthy to behold Him” (2. & 7. i. p. 201). 28. Mevoov. This compound particle sometimes confirms what is stated, “yea, verily” ; sometimes adds to what is said, with or without confirming it, but virtually correcting it: “yea rather,” or “that may be true, but.” Here Jesus does not deny the woman’s statement, but He points out how inadequate it is. She has missed \the main point. To be the Mother of Jesus implies no more than a share in His humanity. To hear and keep the word of God implies communion with what is Divine. The saying is similar to viii. 21. ‘The relationship with Christ which brings blessedness is the spiritual one. For τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ see On Vill. 11. Here and Phil. iii. 8 some authorities have μενοῦνγε (Rom. ix. 20, x. 18) ; but in N.T. μὲν οὖν is more common (Acts i. 18, v. 41, xiii. 4, Xvi. 30, xxiil. 22, xxvi. 9). In class Grk. neither form ever comes first in a sentence. Of the Lat. text Wordsworth says, Codzces hic tantum variant quantum vix alibi in evangelits in uno saltem vocabulo (Vulg. p. 388). Among the renderings are guippe enim, quippint, guinimmo, immo, manifestissime, etiam. Many omit the word. καὶ φυλάσσοντες. Comp. Jas. 1. 22-25. S. James may have been present and heard this reply. He also says μακάριος is the man who hears and does τὸν λόγον. 29-36. The Rebuke to those who Demanded a Sign (ver. 16). A. longer account of the first half of the rebuke is given Mt. xii. 39-42. 29. Τῶν δὲ ὄχλων ἐπαθροιζξομένων. Lk. once more notes how the multitude was attracted by Christ’s words and works: comp. ver. , 245 IVs 27... τ, VILL, Wil. τα, Vill..4, 19, 40,;1%. 115.375, Seg ee XIV. 25, XV. I, xvili. 36, xix. 37, 48. The verb is a rare compound ; _ here only in bibl. Grk. For ἤρξατο λέγειν see on iv. 21 and iii. 8. | To πονηρά Mt. adds καὶ μοιχαλίς. εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον "lava. At first sight Lk. appears to make the parallel between Jonah and Christ to consist solely in their preach- ing repentance. He omits the explanation that Jonah was a type of the burial and resurrection of Christ. But δοθήσεται and ἔσται show that this explanation is implied. Christ had for long been ΧΙ. 29-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 307 preaching ; yet He says, not that sign has been given or is being given, but that it sha// be given. The infallible sign is still in the: future, viz. His resurrection. Nevertheless, even that ought not to be necessary ; for His teaching ought to have sufficed. Note the emphatic repetition of σημεῖον thrice in one verse.1 Some have interpreted σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται as meaning, either that Jesus wrought no miracles, or that He refused to use them as credentials of His Divine mission. It is sufficient to point to ver. 20, where Jesus appeals to His healing of a dumb and blind de- moniac as proof that He is bringing the kingdom of God to them. The demand for a sign and the refusal to give it are no evidence as to Christ’s working miracles and employing them as credentials. What was demanded was something quite different from wonders such as Prophets and (as the Jews believed) magicians had wrought. These scribes and Pharisees wanted direct testimony from God Himself respecting Jesus and His mission, such as a voice from heaven or a pillar of fire. His miracles left them still able to doubt, and they ask to be miraculously convinced. This He refuses. See Neander, Z. /. C. § 92, Eng. tr. p. 144. 81. βασίλισσα vétov. Lk. inserts this illustration between the two sayings about Jonah. Mt. keeps the two sayings about Jonah together. Lk. places the Ninevites after the Queen of Sheba either for chronology, or for effect, or both: their case was the stronger of the two. There is a threefold contrast in this illustration: (1) be- tween a heathen queen and the Jews ; (2) between the ends of the earth and here ; (3) between Solomon and the Son of Man. ‘There may possibly be a fourth contrast between that enterprising zoman and the mez of this generation implied in τῶν ἀνδρῶν, which is not in Mt. : : νότου. . . ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς. Sheba was in the southern part of Arabia, the modern Yemen, near the southern limits of the world as then known. Comp. Ps. 11. ὃ. πλεῖον Σολομῶνος. There is no need to understand σημεῖον : “a greater thing, something greater, than Solomon.” 82. ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται. No article: ‘Men of Nineveh.” RV. retains “" Ze men of Nineveh.” eis TO κήρυγμα. “Jn accordance with the preaching” they re- pented; ze. they turned towards it and conformed to it; comp. ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα (2 ‘Tim. 11. 26); or else, “out of regard to it” they repented; comp. οἵτινες ἐλάβετε τὸν 1 Sanday inclines to the view that Mt. xii. 40 “615 a gloss which formed no part of the original saying, but was introduced, very naturally though erroneously, by the author of our present Gospel” (Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 433). On the question whether Christ’s appeal to Jonah requires us to believe that the story of the whale is historical see Sanday’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-419 ; Gore’s Bampton Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; with the literature there quoted. 308 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [XI. 32-35. νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων (Acts vil. 53); ὃ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς ὄνομα δικαίου (Mt. x. 41). See on x. 13; and for κήρυγμα, as meaning the subject rather than the manner of preaching, see Lft. Notes on Epp. p. τότ. 33-36. The Light of the inner Eye. There is no break in the discourse, and this should hardly be printed as a separate section : the connexion with what goes before is close. Christ is still con- tinuing His reply to those who had demanded a sign. Those whose spiritual sight has not been darkened by indifference and impenitence have no need of a sign from heaven. ‘Their whole soul is full of the light which is all around them, ready to be re- cognized and absorbed. ‘This saying appears to have been part of Christ’s habitual teaching. Lk. gives it in a rather different form after the parable of the Sower (vill. 16-18). Mt. has it as part of the Sermon on the Mount (v. 15, vi. 21, 22), but does not repeat it here. Mk. has a portion of it after the parable of the Sower (iv. 21). See S. Cox in the Lxfosztor, 2nd series, i. p. 252. 33. λύχνον ἅψας. See on vill. 16.—eis κρύπτην. ‘Into a vault, crypt, cellar.” But no ancient Version seems to give this render- ing, although Euthym. has τὴν ἀπόκρυφον οἰκίαν. Win. χχχῖν. 3. b, p. 298. For the word comp. Jos. 8. /. v. 7. 4; Athen. v. (iv.) 205 A; and the Lat. crypta; Suet. Cad. lviii.; Juv. v. 106. ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον. “ Under ¢ke bushel,” z.e. the one in the room, or in the house ; as we say “216 sofa, ¢he shovel.” In capacity a modius is about a peck=16 sextarit or 1 μέδιμνος (comp. Nep. Att. ii.): elsewhere only Mt. v. 15; Mk. iv. 21. 84. 6 λύχνος τοῦ σώματος. ‘The /amp of the body.” ‘To trans- late λύχνος “candle” in ver. 33 and “light” in ver. 34 (Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. AV.) is disastrous. Vulg. has Zucerna in both ; Wic. has “lanterne” in both, and Rhem. “candel” in both; RV. still better, “lamp” in both. ὅταν... ἐπάν. See on ver. 22. Here both are followed by the pres. subj., and there is no appreciable difference. ἁπλοῦς. “Free from distortion, normal, sound.”—rovnpés. “Diseased”: πονηρία ὀφθαλμῶν occurs Plat. Ap. min. 374 10. Comp. πονηρὰ ἕξις σώματος (Plat. Zim. 86 D) and the common phrase πονηρῶς ἔχει. Faith, when diseased, becomes the darkness of superstition ; just as the eye, when diseased, distorts and ob- scures. Comp. Mt. vi. 22, 23. 35. σπόπει οὖν. Here, and not in the middle of ver. 34, the meaning passes from the eye of the body to the eye of the soul." μὴ TO φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν. ‘This happens when the eye of the soul is so diseased that it cannot receive any ray of Divine 1Comp. Seneca, Affugisse tenebras, bono lucts fruz, non tenuz visu clara prospicere, sed totum diem admitter, ΧΙ. 35-39. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 309 truth. The μή is interrogative, and the indicative after it suggests that the case contemplated is an actual fact: “look whether it be not darkness” ; considera num, schaue οὐ wohl nicht. The vide ne of Vulg. is not exact. Comp. Gal. iv. 11; Thue. iti. 53. 2. Win. lvi. 2. a, p. 631; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 109. 36. The tautology is only apparent. In the protasis the em- phasis is on ὅλον, which is further explained by μὴ ἔχον μέρος τι σκο- τινόν : in the apodosis the emphasis is on φωτινόν, which is further explained by ὡς ὅταν ὃ λύχνος, κιτιλ. “If thy whole body . .. it shall be wholly με of light.” Complete illumination is illumina- tion indeed, and those who possess it have no need of a sign from heaven in order to recognize the truth. 37-54. § The Invitation from a Pharisee. Christ’s Denuncia- tion of Pharisaic Formalism and Hypocrisy. A similar condemna- tion of the Pharisees is placed by Mt. somewhat later, and is given with great fulness (xxiil.). If these sayings were uttered only once, we have not much material for determining which arrangement is more in accordance with fact. See on ver. 54. 87. Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι. ‘Now after He had spoken” (aor.), rather than “ As He spake” (AV. RV.). See on i. 21. There is nothing to show that the invitation was the result of what Christ had just been saying. Indeed, there may have been a consider- able interval between vv. 36 and 37. ὅπως ἀριστήσῃ. Here, as in Jn. xxi. 12, 15, the early meal of breakfast or lunch is meant rather than dinner or supper: comp. xiv. 12; Mt. xxii. 4. At this time the first meal of all was called ἀκράτισμα. Bekker, Charicles, vi. excurs. 1., Eng. tr. p. 240. 88. ἐθαύμασεν. We are not told that he expressed his surprise. Jesus read his thoughts and answered them. Jesus had just come from contact with the multitude, and, moreover, He had been casting out a demon; and the Pharisee took for granted that He would purify Himself from any possible pollution before coming to table. This was not enjoined by the Law but by tradition, which the Pharisees tried to make binding upon all (Mk. vii. 3). This man’s wonder is evidence that his invitation was not a plot to} obtain evidence against Jesus: he was not expecting any trans-| gression. ἐβαπτίσθη. This need not be taken literally of bathing. Prob- ably no more than washing the hands is meant; and this often took place at table, the servants bringing water to each person. Edersh. Z. G& TZ. il. pp. 204-207. We may understand Christ’s omission to wash before coming to table, or refusal of the water offered to Him at table, as a protest against the attempt to “bind burdens” upon men, and to substitute trivialities for the weightier matters of the Law. Comp. Derenbourg, “7157. de. la Pal. p. 134. 39. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Κύριος. The use of ὁ Κύριος here (see on v. 17 310 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 39-41. and vil. 13) perhaps has special point. The Pharisee might regard Him as an ordinary guest; but He has a message to deliver to him. Név. The meaning is not certain; but it probably refers to time, and is not merely concessive. “It was not so formerly, but this is the fact now.” Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 9 and Col. i. 24, where see Lft. Or, “Here we have a case in point.” Comp. 2 Kings vil. 6. Or, “ This is what you as a matter of fact do,” in contrast to what you ought to 4ο--πλὴν τὰ ἔνοντα δότε. With the whole saying comp. Mt xxili. 25. For πίνακος Mt. has παροψίδος : comp. Mk. vi. 25; Mt. xiv. 8. τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν. Here the outside of the cup and platter is contrasted with the hearts of the Pharisees. In Mt. the point is that the outside of the vessels is kept clean, while the meat and drink in them are the proceeds of rapacity and the means of excess (ἀκρασίας). Comp. ἐν ποικιλίᾳ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ ἀκρασίαις (Ps. Sol. iv. 3): amantes convivia devoratoresgule (Assump. Moys. vil. 4). Here some make τὸ ἔσωθεν mean the inside of the vessels, and take ὑμῶν with ἁρπαγῆς κι' πονηρίας. But the position of ὑμῶν is conclusive against this. Others make τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν mean “your inward parts” in the literal sense. ‘You can keep the vessels from polluting the food; but that will not prevent the food, which is already polluted by the way in which it was obtained, from filling you with uncleanness.” But this is not probable. For Jewish trifling about clean and unclean vessels see Schoettg and Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 25, 26; and for the moral sterility of such teaching, Pressensé, Ze Szécle Apostolique, p. go. 40. ἄφρονες. A strong word: quite classical, but in N.T. almost confined to Lk (xii. 20) and Paul (Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. Ἐν. 55; 2 (ὍΝ x1. τὸ; 10,.xi1. 6, 113) Eph. v.17. (See onimmiyaem οὐκ ὃ ποιήσας τὸ ἔξωθεν. ‘This is almost certainly a question. “Not he who has done the outside has thereby done the inside,” makes sense, but it is harsh and hardly adequate. It is better with most Versions to make οὐκ = nonne. “Did not God, who made the material universe, make men’s souls also?”! It is folly to be scrupulous about keeping material objects clean, while the soul is polluted with wickedness.? 41. πλὴν τὰ Evovta δότε ἐλεημοσύνην. The πλήν is here expans- 1'We may get the same sense from the text of C DI and some cursives, which transpose ἔξωθεν and Jane So also from some Latin texts: sone gue Sect nteriora et extertora fecit (a), gut fecit quod intus est et guod fords est (ce). Lrgo miser 3.5. ne stercore feda canino Atria displiceant ociules vententis amc, Ne perfusa luto stt porticus : et tamen uno Semodio scobis hxe emundat servulus unus. Lllud non agitas, ut sanctam filius omne Adspiciat sine labe domum vitiogue carentem (Juv. xiv. 64). ΧΙ. 41-43. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 311 ive and progressive, “only.” See on vi. 24. The meaning of τὰ ἔνοντα is much disputed, and the renderings vary greatly: guex sunt (bd g); ex his gux habetts (f); guod superest (Vulg.) ; ea gue penes vos sunt (Beza) ; quantum potestis (Grot.) ; von dem, das da ist (Luth.). Quod superest is impossible ; and the others are not very probable. Nor is it satisfactory to follow Erasmus, Schleiermacher, and others, and make the saying ironical: “ Give something to the poor out of your luxuries, and then (as you fancy) all your ἁρπαγή and πονηρία will be condoned.” According to this ra ἔνοντα means either what is in the cups and platters, or what is in your purses. And this is perhaps right, but without irony. “The contents of your cup and platter give ye in alms, and, lo, all things are clean to you,” z.e. benevolence is a better way of keeping meals free from defilement than scrupulous cleansing of vessels. We are told that this is “a peculiarly Ebionitic touch.” But it is very good Christianity. Others make τὰ ἔνοντα = τὸ ἔσωθεν : “As for that which is within you, as for the care of your souls, give alms.” See Expositor, 2nd series, v. p. 318. Or, ‘Give your souls as alms,” 2.6. give not merely food or money, but your heart. Comp. δῷς πεινῶντι τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ ψυχῆς σου (Is. lvill. 10). In any case, πάντα refers specially to the vessels used at meals. Zzey will not defile where benevolence prevails. With the passage as a whole comp. Mk. vii. 18, 19 and the Baptist’s commands (Lk. iii. 11). 42. ἀλλὰ οὐαὶ ὑμῖν. “ But, far from acting thus and obtaining this blessing, a curse is upon you.” Rue is mentioned in the Talmud as a herb for which no tithe need be paid. παρέρχεσθε. “Ye pass by, neglect”: comp. xv. 29; Deut. XVli. 2; Jer. xxxiv. 18; Judith xi. 10; 1 Mac. ii. 22. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “pass by” literally (xviii. 37; Acts xvi. 8), or “pass away, perish” (xvi. 17, xxi. 32, 33, etc.). Here Mt. has ἀφήκετε. τὴν κρίσιν. ‘The distinction between right and wrong, recti- tude, justice.” This use of κρίσις is Hebraistic; comp. Gen. XVlii. 19, 25; π᾿ τ line Oise lier xvii. xr > 1 Mac. vit. 19. τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ. Here only does Lk. use the word 4 ἀγάπη, which occurs once in Mt. (xxiv. 12), and not at allin Mk. It is fairly common in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. 4, 5, 7, etc.). κἀκεῖνα μὴ παρεῖναι. Their carefulness about trifles is not con- demned, but sanctioned. It is the neglect of essentials which is denounced as fatal. It is not correct to say that Christ abolished the ceremonial part of the Law while retaining the moral part: see Hort, /udaistic Christianity, pp. 30, 31. 43. ἀγαπᾶτε τὴν πρωτοκαθεδρίαν. “Ye highly value (Jn. xii. 43) the first seat.” This was a semicircular bench round the ark, and facing the congregation. Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. p. 436. Comp. ax.1465 Mt. xxi. 6; Mk. xii. 30. —” 312 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [XI. 43-47. Some Latin texts agree with C D in adding to this verse δέ przmos descubz- tos in convivits (bl qr), or et prémos adcubitos tn cents (a). 44. ἐστὲ ὡς τὰ μνημεῖα τὰ ἄδηλα. “ Whosoever in the open field toucheth a grave shall be unclean seven days” (Num. xix. 16). Hence the Jews were accustomed to whitewash such graves to make them conspicuous. People mixed freely with Pharisees, believing them to be good men, and unconsciously became infected with their vices, just as they sometimes walked over a hidden grave and were polluted without knowing it. In Mt. xxiii. 27 the Pharisees are compared to the whitewashed graves, which look clean and are inwardly foul. 45. τῶν νομικῶν. See on vil. 30. Not all the Pharisees were professional students (νομικοί), or teachers of the Law (νομοδιδάσ- καλου). καὶ ἡμᾶς ὑβρίζεις. “Thou insultest even us,” the better in- structed among the Pharisees. ‘The verb implies outrageous treat- ment (xvili. 32; Acts xiv. 5; Mt. xxii. 6; 1 Thes. i. 2), and ‘“‘reproachest” is hardly strong enough. Comp. ἐνυβρίζειν (Heb. x. 29). In class. Gk. ὑβρίζειν is commonly followed by εἰς, esp. in prose. ‘“ Reproach” would be ὀνειδίζειν (Mt. xi. 20). 46. There is a triplet of Woes against the lawyers (vv. 46, 47, 52), aS against the Pharisees (42, 43, 44). With this first Woe comp. Mt. xxiii. 4. In both passages φορτίον occurs ; and, as dis- tinct from βάρος and ὄγκος, it means that which a man is expected to bear (Mt. xi. 30). But Lk. shows his fondness for cognate words by writing doprilere φόρτια, while Mt. has δεσμεύουσιν φόρτια. See on xxiii. 46. δυσβάστακτα. Prov. xxvii. 3. The word probably occurs here only in N.T., and has been inserted Mt. xxiii. 4 from here. The reference is to the intolerably burdensome interpretations by which the scribes augmented the written Law. They made it far more severe than it was intended to be, explaining every doubtful point in favour of rigorous ritualism. οὐ mpooavete. Touching with a view to semoving seems to be meant ; but it may indicate that, while they were rigorous to others, they were evasive themselves. ‘They were scrupulous about their own traditions, but they did not keep the Law. It is not admis- sible, however, to interpret tots φορτίοις in a different way from φορτία δυσβάστακτα, making the latter refer to traditions, and τοῖς φορτίοις to the Law. Both mean the same, the force of the article being “the φορτία just mentioned.” Seeing that the νομικοί were not neglectful of traditions, tots φορτίοις must mean the Law ; and therefore φορτία δυσβάστακτα must have this meaning. 47. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 30; Acts. vil. 52. οἰκοδομεῖτε TA μνημεῖα τῶν προφητῶν ot δὲ πατέρες ὑμῶν. “Ve build the tombs of the prophets, z/z/e your fathers.” The “Tombs ΧΙ. 47-49.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 313 of the Prophets,” near the top of the Mount of Olives, are still “an enigma to travellers and antiquarians.” All that can safely be asserted is that they are not the ‘‘ tombs of the prophets ” mentioned here. Robinson, es. 7m Fal. 111. p. 254. 48. μάρτυρές ἐστε καὶ cuveudoxeite. “‘ Ye are witnesses and con- sent to”; or, “ Ye bear favourable witnesses to and approve”: not, “Ye bear witness ‘dat ye approve.”! Mt. has μαρτυρεῖτε only (xxiii. 31), which some texts introduce here (ACD). Comp. Saul, who was συνευδοκῶν to the murder of Stephen (Acts vill. 1). The dpa as first word is not classical: comp. Acts xi. 18. τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν. ‘‘ Your fathers, morally as well as actually ; for you carry on and complete their evil deeds.” Externally the Pharisees seemed to honour the Prophets. Really they were dis- honouring them as much as those did who slew them; for they neglected the duties which the Prophets enjoined, and ignored their testimony to Christ. 49. διὰ τοῦτο καί. “Because of your complicity with your fathers’ murderous deeds, there is this confirmation of the Woe just pronounced.” Comp. Mt. xxiii. 34. ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶπεν ᾿Αποστελῶς ‘The words which are here ascribed to the ‘‘ Wisdom of God” are in Mt. xxiii. 34 Christ’s own words, spoken on a later occasion. It is improbable that Christ is here quoting what He said on some previous occasion. Nowhere does He style Himself “the Wisdom of God”; nor does any Evangelist give Him this title; nor does Θεοῦ σοφίαν or σοφία ἀπὸ Θεοῦ (1 Cor. 1. 24, 30) warrant us in asserting that this was a common designation of Christ among the first Christians, so that tradition might have substituted this name for the ἐγώ used by Jesus. That He is quoting from a lost book called ‘The Wisdom of God” is still less probable.? Written words would be intro- duced with λέγει rather than εἶπεν, and the context seems to imply some Divine utterance. In the O.T. no such words are found ; for: Prov. 1. 20-31 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22, xxxvi. 14-21 are quite inadequate. And we obtain nothing tangible when we make the passage “a general paraphrase of the Zenor of several O.T. pas- sages.” Rather it is of the Divine Providence (Prov. viii. 22-31), sending Prophets to the Jewish Church and Apostles to the Christian Courch, that Jesus here speaks: ‘God in His wisdom said.” Comp. vil. 35. Jesus here speaks with confident know-)! ledge of the Divine counsels: comp. x. 22, xv. 7, 10. 1 Vulg. has ¢estzficaménd quod consentitis, and a few cursives read ὅτι συνευδο- keire. Lat. texts vary greatly: guza consentitis (r), et consentit?s (CT), con- sentitis (E), consentire (cil), consentientes (f), non consentientes (8, Ὁ 4), non consentire (d) following μὴ συνευδοκεῖν (D). 2See Ryle, Canon of O.7. p. 155; and for apparent quotations from Scripture which cannot be found in Scripture comp. Jn. vii. 38; 1 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. v. 14. 314. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [XI 49-52. ἀποστόλους. Mt. has σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς, and mentions crucifixion and scourging along with death and persecution. By coupling the persecuted Apostles with the persecuted Prophets, Jesus once more indicates the solidarity of the Pharisees with their wicked forefathers: comp. Mt. v. 12. For ἐξ αὐτῶν (τινας) comp. Jn. xvi. 17; 2 Jn. 4; Rev. ii. το. For διώξουσιν ( δὲ BC LX) in the sense of “ persecute” comp. xxi. 12; Acts Vil. 52, 1x. 4, Xxil. 4, 7, etc. 50. ἵνα éx£ntnO_ τὸ atya. This is the Divinely ordered sequence. The verb is almost unknown in profane writings ; and nowherse else in N.T. is it used of “ demanding éack, requiring as a debt.” Comp. 2 Sam. iv. 11; Ezek. ili. 18, 20, xxxill. 6, 8; Gen, ix. 5, xiii. 22. τὸ ἐκκεχυμένον ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Comp. Mt. xxv. 34; Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26; Rev. xii. 8, xvii. 8. The expression καταβολὴ κόσμου does not occur in LXX. Comp. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (Ps. xxviii. 2). ἐκκεχυμένον. This is the reading of B and a few cursives ; but almost all other authorities have ἐκχυννόμενον, which may easily have come from Mt. The grammarians condemn ἐκχύνω or ἐκχύννω (Aeolic) as a collateral form of éxxéw. It is used of bloodshed Acts xxii. 20, and the pres. part., if genuine here, is very expressive: ‘‘ the blood which is perpetually being shed.” ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης. To be taken after ἐκζητηθῇ. The refer- ence is specially to the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 32). 51. The murders of Abel and Zacharias are the first and last murders in the O.T., which in the Jewish Canon ends with Chronicles. In both cases the ἐκζήτησις is indicated: “* The voice of the brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen. iv. 10); “The Lord look upon it, and require it” (2 Chron. xxiv. 22). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim (Jer. xxvi. 23) is later than that of Zachariah the son of Jehoiada. Zachariah the son of Barachiah was the Prophet, and there is no mention of his having been murdered: in Mt. xxiii. 35 ‘‘ the son of Barachiah” is probably a mechanical slip. For τοῦ οἴκου Mt. has rod ναοῦ, and the ναός is evidently the οἶκος meant here. vai, λέγω ὑμῖν. Comp. vil. 26, ΧΙ]. 5. Not elsewhere in N.T. 52. τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως. ‘The key which opens the door to knowledge,” not “which is knowledge”: the gen. is not one of apposition. ‘There is no reference to a supposed ceremony by which a “doctor of the law” was “symbolically admitted to his office by the delivery of a key.” No such ceremony appears to have existed. The knowledge is that of the way of salvation, which can be obtained from Scripture. But the scribes had cut off all access to this knowledge, first, by their false interpretations ; and, secondly, by their contempt for the people, whom they considered to be unworthy of instruction or incapable of enlightenment. Their false interpretations were fatal to themselves (αὐτοὶ οὐκ XI. 52, 53.) JOURNEVINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 315 εἰσήλθατε) as well as to others. See Hort, /udaistic Christianity, p. 141; Recog. Clem. 1. 54, 11. 30,46. Excepting in the Apocalypse (i. 18, iil. 7, ix. 1, xx. 1), κλεῖς occurs only Matt. xvi. 19. The reading ἐκρύψατε (1) and some Versions) for ἤρατε is an interpreta- tive gloss. Note that here Lk. has νομικοί where Mt. (xxiii. 14) has γραμματεῖς, and comp. ΧΙ]. 44. τοὺς εἰσερχομένους. “Those who were continually trying to enter” (imperf. part.). The aorists indicate what was done once for all and absolutely. 53. Κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ. In their vehemence they followed Him out of the Pharisee’s house. But it by no means follows from what they did in their excitement that ‘the Pharisee’s feast had been a base plot to entrap Jesus.” The text of this verse exhibits an extraordinary number of variations, The above is the reading of SBCL 33, Boh. For it ADX, Latt. Syr- Cur. substitute Λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα πρὸς αὐτούς or πρὸς τὸν λαόν : and to this DX Latt. Syr-Cur. add ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ or τοῦ ὀχλοῦ. For οἱ γραμματεῖς x. οἱ Pap. D and various Lat. texts give οἱ Pap. x. οἱ νομικοί, legis pertte (Vulg. cdef). For δεινῶς ἐνέχειν C has δεινῶς ἐπέχειν, Η ὃ. συνέχειν, and DS with various Lat. texts 6. ἔχειν : male habere (bd q), male se habere (a), graviter habere (cei), graviter ferre (1), and moleste ferre (1), representing ὃ, ἔχειν, while gravzter insistere (Vulg.) is Jerome’s correction to represent 6. ἐνέχειν. Again, for ἀποστοματίζειν αὐτόν D and most Lat. texts substitute συνβάλλειν αὐτῷ : comminare tli (a), committere cum zllo (bilqr), committere 2112 (d), conferre cum eo (c), conferre zlli (6), altercaré cum illo (f) representing συμβάλλειν αὐτῷ, while os ejus opprimere (Vulg.) represents ἐπιστομίζειν. Not one represents ἀποστοματίζειν. ἐνέχειν. In Mk. vi. το and Gen. xlix. 23 (the only place in which the act. occurs in LXX) this verb is followed by a dat. It may be doubted whether χόλον, which is expressed Hdt. i. 118. 1, Vi. 110. 2, Vill. 27. 1, is here to be understood. If anything is to be understood, τὸν νοῦν is more probable, as in the analogous cases of ἐπέχειν (which C here reads) and προσέχειν. The mean- ing appears to be that they “watched Him intensely, were actively on the alert against Him”; which suits Gen. xlix. 23 (évetyov αὐτῷ κύριοι τοξευμάτων) as well as the context here. But external pressure may be the meaning in both places, although in Mk. vi. 19 internal feeling suits the context better (‘cherished a grudge against”). In the gloss of Hesychius, ἐνέχει" μνησικακεῖ, ἔγκειται (Ὁ ἐγκοτεῖ), it is possible that μνησικακεῖ refers to Mk. vi. 1g and ἔγκειται (or ἐγκοτεῖ) to Lk. xi. 53. See Field, Otium Norvic. 111. pp. 22, 45, and the note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate. ἀποστοματίζειν. Originally, “to dictate what is to be learned by heart and recited” (Plato, Zuthyd. 276 C, 277 A); hence τὰ ἀποστοματίζομενα, “the dictated lesson” (Arist. Soph. 252 iv. 1). Thence it passed, either to the pupil’s part, mere recitation, as of the Sibyl reciting verses (Plut. Z%es. xxiv.); or to the teacher’s 316 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [XI. 58, 54. part, the plying with questions “to provoke to answer,” as here. See Wetst. ad doc., and Hatch, Bd. Grk. p. 40. 54. Confusion in the text still continues ; but the true reading is not doubtful. WH. give this as a good instance of conflation, the common reading being compounded of the original text and two early corruptions of τ (Comp, 1χ- τὸ; χε; 18: ΧΞΙΝ 59. (a) ἐνεδρεύοντες αὐτὸν θηρεῦσαί τι ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ. NBL Boh. Aeth. Syr-Cur. (some omit αὐτόν). (B) ἕητοῦντες ἀφορμήν Twa λαβεῖν αὐτοῦ ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορῆσαι αὐτοῦ. 1), d Syr-Sin. ? (y) ἕητοῦντες ἀφορμήν τινα λαβεῖν αὐτοῦ iva κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. Lat. Vet. (some omit αὐτοῦ). (δ) ἐνεδρεύοντες αὐτόν, ζητοῦντες θηρεῦσαί τι ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, iva κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ ACEGHKMUVIAATI, and with small variations X, all cursives, Vulg. etc. WH. ii. Introduction, p. 102. ἐνεδρεύοντες. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts xxiii. 21: comp. Deut. xix. 11; Prov. xxvi. 19; Wis. 1. 12; Ecclus. ΧΧΥΠ 10,26; Lam. iv. 19; Jos. Azz. v. 2. 12; in all which places it has, as here, the acc. instead of the usual dat. θηρεῦσαι.: Here only in N.T. Comp. Ps. ἵν]. 4. Both this word and ἐνεδρεύοντες are very graphic. Godet remarks that we have here ume scene de violence peut-étre unique dans la vie de Jésus: and huic vehementix suberat fraudulentia (Beng.). We infer from xii. 1 that now the disciples are present. It is possible that in Mt. xxiii. what took place on this occasion is com- bined with what was said in the temple just before the Passion. Lk. gives only a very brief notice of the later denunciation (xx. 45-47 ; comp. Matt. xxii. 1-7). But the fact that he gives two denunciations is against the theory that only one was uttered, which he assigns to one occasion and Mt. to another. It may, however, easily have happened that some of what was said on the first occasion has been transferred to the second, or vce versd. XII. The greater part of the utterances of Christ which Lk. records in this chapter are also recorded in different parts of Mt., for the most part either in the Sermon on the Mount (v.—vii.), or in the Charge to the Twelve (x. 5-42), or in the Prophecy of the Last Days (xxiv. 4-51). Here they are given in the main as a continuous discourse, but with marked breaks at vv. 13, 22, 54. Lk. evidently regards vv. 1-21 as spoken immediately after the commotion at the Pharisee’s house ; and there is little doubt that vv. 22-53 are assigned by him to the same occasion. How much break there is between vv. 53 and 54 is left undetermined. The fact that many of Christ’s sayings were uttered more than a 1 Comp. Εἰπέ μοι, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐκ αἰσχύνει, τηλικοῦτος wy, ὀνόματα θηρεύων, καὶ ἐάν τις ῥήματι ἁμάρτῃ, ἕρμαιον τοῦτο ποιούμενος ; (Plat. Gorvg. 489 B). XII.1.] | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 317 once, and were differently arranged on different occasions, will partly explain the resemblances and differences between Lk. and Mt. here and elsewhere. But it is also probable that there has been some confusion in the traditions, and that words which one tradition placed in one connexion were by another tradition placed in another. Lk. xii, 2-9 =Mt. x. 26-33. Lk. xii. 51-53 = Mt. x. 34-36. 22-32 = vi. 25-34. 54-50 = [xvi. 2, 3]. 33,34 = . Vi. : 19-21. 57-59 = Vv. 25, 26. 39-46 = XXIV. 43-51. 1-12. Exhortation to Courageous Sincerity. This is closely connected with what precedes. The commotion inside and out- side the Pharisee’s house had attracted an immense crowd, which was divided in its sympathy, some siding with the Pharisees, others disposed to support Christ. His addressing His words to His disciples rather than to the multitude indicates that the latter were in the main not friendly. But the appeal made to Him by one of them (ver. 13) respecting a purely private matter shows that His authority is recognized by many. The man would not have asked Him to give a decision in the face of a wholly hostile assembly. But this warning to His followers of the necessity for courageous testimony to the truth in the face of bitter opposition | implies present hostility. The connexion with the preceding scene is proved by the opening words, Ἐν οἷς, ‘In the midst of which, in the meantime.” 1. τῶν μυριάδων tod dxdov. Hyperbolical, as in Acts xxi. 20. The article points to what is usual; ‘the people in their myriads.” Comp. οὐ φοβηθήσομαι ἀπὸ saperban λαοῦ τῶν κύκλῳ ἐπιθεμένων μοι (Ps. iil. 7). ἤρξατο λέγειν. The ἌΣ gives ἃ solemn emphasis to what follows : see on iv. 21, and comp. xiv. 18 and Acts ii. 4. It may possibly refer to πρῶτον ; He began to address the disciples, and then turned to the people. The πρῶτον means that His words were addressed primarily to the disciples, although the people were meant to hear them. After the interruption He addresses the people directly (ver. 15). It makes poor sense to take πρῶτον with προσέχετε, “First of all beware” (Tyn. Cran. Gen.), for to beware of Pharisaic hypocrisy cannot be considered the first of all duties. For other amphibolous constructions see on ii. 22. Προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἀπό. “Take heed to yourselves and avoid ; beware of.” The warning phrase προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς 15 peculiar EON. (xvii. 3, xxl. 34; Acts v. 35, xx. 28); but in LXX πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ is common (Gen. xxiv. 6; Exod. x. 28, xxxiv. 12; Deut. iv. 9, etc.). For the reflexive see on xxi. 30. ‘ 318 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XII. 1-4. ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης. This constr. is common after verbs of avoiding, ceasing from, guarding against, and the like; παύω, κωλύω, φυλάσσομαι, κ.τ.λ. Comp. πρόσεχε σεαυτῶ ἀπὸ πάσης πόρνειας (Tobit iv. 12). The pronoun is often omitted, xx. 46; Mt. vil. 15, x. 17, xvi. 6, 11; Deut. iv. 23?. This warning seems to have been given more than once (Mk. Vili. 15). Leaven in Scripture is generally a type of ev¢/ which corrupts and spreads, disturbing, puffing up and souring that which it influences. The parable of the Leaven (xili. 20, 21; Mt. xiii. 33) is almost the only exception. Ignatius (A/agves. x.) uses it in both a good and a bad sense. In profane literature its associations are commonly bad. The //amen Dialis was not allowed to touch leaven or leaven bread (Aulus Gellius, x. 15): comp. Juv. iii. 188. The proverb μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ, is used of pernicious influence (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). If τῶν Φαρισαίων is rightly placed last (BL), it is epexegetic. ‘* Beware of the leaven which is hypocrisy,—I mean the Pharisees’ leaven.” In Mt. xvi. 12 ‘‘ the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees ” is interpreted as meaning their doctrine. 2. Οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον ἐστι. “διέ there is nothing covered up, which shall not,” etc. Hypocrisy is useless, for one day there will be a merciless exposure. It is not only wicked, but senseless. 3. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν. This is commonly rendered “wherefore,” like ἀντὶ τούτου, “for this cause” (Eph. v. 31). But in i. 20, xix. 44; Acts xii. 23 it=dyvri τούτων, ὅτι ; and it may have the same mean- ing here. ‘There is nothing hid, that shall not be known: because whatever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light,”"—guontam qux in tenebris dixistis tn lumine dicentur (Vulg.). Christ is continuing to insist that hypocrisy is folly, for it is always unmasked at last. There was a saying of Hillel, “ Think of nothing that it will not be easily heard, for in the end it must be heard.” See small print on i. 20. It is in wording that this is parallel to Mt. x. 26, 27: the application is very different. ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις . . . ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων. “Store chambers” are commonly ‘‘zzzer chambers, secret rooms,” especially in the East, where outer walls are so easily dug through: comp. Mt. vi. 6, xxiv. 26; Gen. xliii. 30; Judg. xvi. 9; 1 Kings xxii. 25. To this day proclamations are often made from the housetops: comp. ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων (15: δ, 5; Jer. xix. 13, xlvill. 38). 585 2m p. 1407; Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 262 n. The Latin Versions give a variety of renderings: zz cellardzs (ilr), 271 promptalibus (4), 7m promptuarizs (6), γι cubzlébus (Vulg. (f); om. bq). Comp. ver. 24. 4. Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς φίλοις pou. “ My friends are not likely XII. 4-6.}] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 319 to be hypocrites, although persecution will tempt them to become such”: comp. Jn. xv. 15. μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων. The use of ἀπό here is analogous to that in ver. I, of me which one turns away from. It is Hebraistic (Lev. xix. 30, xxvi. 2; Deut. i. 29, ili, 22, xx. 1; Josh. xi. 6; ΤΠ ΘΘΤΩ, ὙΠ. 7/5 ΠΕῚ- dros lysed Mac. li. 62, vill. 12, etc. ). It is notjused of fearing God. | peta tadta. The plural may refer to the details of a cruel death, or to different kinds of death. Not in Mt. x. 28. en ἐχόντων. ΓΚ. is fond of this classical use of ἔχειν : ver, 50, 40,42, xiv. 14.5 Acts iv, 14, Xxill. 17: 18, 19, Xxv. 20, mAvill. Ms Here Mt. (x. 28) has μὴ δυναμένων. 5. φοβήθητε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν, κ.τ.λ. There is little doubt that this refers to God and not to the devil. The change of construction points to this. It is no longer φοβήθητε ἀπὸ τούτου, but τοῦτον φοβήθητε, “fear without trying to shun,” which is the usual construction of fearing God. More- over, we are not in Scripture told to fear Satan, but to resist him courageously (Jas. iv. 7; I Pet. v. 9) ; τὸν θεὸν ἘΠ ὦ τῷ διαβόλῳ ἀντίστητε is scriptural doctrine. Moreover, although the evil one tries to bring us to Gehenna, it is not he who has authority to send us thither. This passage (with Mt. x. 28), the king with twenty thousand (see on xiv. 33), and the Unjust Steward (see on xvi. 1), are perhaps the only passages in which the same words have been interpreted by some of Satan and by others of God. ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν. Excepting here and Jas. ili. 6, yéevva occurs only in Mt. and Mk. inN.T. Not in LXX. The confusion caused in all English Versions prior to RV. by translat- ing both yéevva and ἄδης “hell” has been often pointed out. Lft. On Revision, pp. 87, 88; Trench, Ox the AV. p. 21. Téevva is a transliteration of Ge-Hinnom, “Valley of Hinnom,” where children were thrown into the red-hot arms of Molech. When these abominations were abolished by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), refuse of all kinds, including carcases of criminals, was thrown into this valley, and (according to late authorities) consumed by fire, which was ceaselessly burning. Hence it became a symbolical name for the place of punishment in the other world. ZD.8&.? artt. “Gehenna,” “ Hinnom,” and “ Hell.” 6. πέντε στρουθία. . . ἀσσαρίων δύο. Mt. has δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου. Both have ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ, which is more expressive than οὐδὲν ἐξ αὐτῶν, throwing the emphasis on ἕν : “not even one of them,” although five cost so little. Both στρουθός and στρουθίον commonly mean “sparrow,” although sometimes used vaguely for seid or “fowl”: 60: ΒΞ x1. 1, lxxxiv. 4. . The Heb. 707, which it often represents, is still more commonly generic, and was applied to any variety of small passerine birds, which are specially 320 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5: LUKE [ΚΙ]. 6-9. numerous in Palestine, and were all allowed as food. Tristram, Vaz. fist. of B. p. 201. It is unfortunate that ἀσσάριον and its fourth part κοδράντης (Mt. v. 26; Mk. xii. 42) should both be translated “farthing,” while δηνάριον, which was ten to sixteen times as much as an ἀσσάριον, is translated “penny.” ‘Shilling” for δηνάριον, “penny” for ἀσσάριον, and “farthing” for κοδράντης would give the ratios fairly correctly, although a shilling now will buy only about half what a dexarius would buy then. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. A Hebraism, very freq. in Lk. (i. 19, xvi. 15; Acts iv. 19, vii. 46: ‘comp. Lk. 1. 6, 15, 75) Acts τ τ It implies that each bird is individually present to the mind of God. Belief in the minuteness of the Divine care was strong among the Jews: /Von est vel minima herbula in terra cut non prefectus sit aliquis in celo. 7. ἀλλὰ καὶ at τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς. ‘ But (little as you might expect it) even the hairs of your head.” Comp. xxi. 18; Acts XXVil. 34; I Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings 1.52; Dany ΠῚ Φ 7. μὴ φοβεῖσθε. . . διαφέρετε. ‘‘ Cease to fear (pres. imper.)... ye are different from, 7.6. are superior to”: Mt. vi. 26, xii. 12; t Cor. xv. 41; Gal. iv. 1. This use of διαφέρω is classical. 8. Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν. The “also” of AV. (‘Also I say unto you”) is impossible. The fear of men, which lies at the root of hypocrisy, as opposed to the fear of a loving God, appears to be the connecting thought. mwas. Nom pend. placed first with much emphasis. For similar con- structions comp. xxi. 6; Jn. vi. 39, vii. 38, xvii. 2. ὁμολογήσει ἐν ἐμοί, The expression comes from the Syriac rather than the Hebrew, and occurs only here and Mt. x. 32. The phrase ὄμνυμι ev (Mt. v. 34-36) is not quite parallel. Here perhaps the second ὁμολογήσει requires ἐν, and this leads to its being used with the first. That Christ will confess His disciples is not true in the same sense that they will confess Him: but they will make a confession zz His case, and He will make a confession zz theirs ; their confession being that He is the Messiah, and His that they are His loyal disciples. As early as the Gnostic teacher Heracleon (c. A.D. 170-180), the first commentator on the N.T. of whom we have knowledge, this ἐν after ὁμολογήσει attracted notice.! 9. ἀπαρνηθήσεται ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων. This expressive com- pound verb is used of Peter’s denial of Christ (xxii. 34, 61; Mt. XXV1. 34, 75, Mk. xiv. 30, 172). In Mt. we have ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός pov. Note that Lk. has his favourite ἐνώπιον for ἔμπροσθεν (see on i. 15), and that he has “the Angels of God” where Mt. has ‘‘ My Father”: comp. xv. ro. 1 The fragment of Heracleon, preserved by Clem. Alex. Stvom. iv. 9, is translated by Westcott, Canon of V.7. p. 275, 3rd ed. XII. 10, 11 JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 321 10. Comp. Mt. xii. 31, 32 and Mk. ii. 28, 29, in both which places this difficult saying is closely connected with the charge brought against our Lord of casting out demons through Beelzebub ; a charge recorded by Lk. without this saying (xi. 15-20). We cannot doubt that Mt. and Mk. give the actual historical con- nexion, if these words were uttered only once. més. Here again Lk. has a favourite word (see on vii. 35): Mt. has ὃς ἐάν, and Mk. has ὃς av. Also for εἰς τὸν υἱόν Mt. has κατὰ Tov υἱοῦ. For this use of eis after βλασφημεῖν and the like comp. xxli. 65; Acts vi.11; Heb. xii.3. After ἁμαρτάνειν it is the regular construction, xv. 18, 21, xvii. 4; Acts xxv. 8, etc. The Jewish law was, “δ that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall certainly stone him” (Lev. xxiv. 16). Τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. See oni. 15. οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. Constant and consummate opposition to the influence of the Holy Spirit, because of a deliberate preference of darkness to light, renders repentance, and therefore forgiveness, morally impossible. Grace, like bodily food, may be rejected ‘ until the power to receive it perishes. See on 1: Jn. v. 16 in Camb. Grk. Test.,and comp. Heb. vi. 4-8, x. 26-31. The identity of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” with the “sin unto death” is sometimes denied (D.Z.? i. p. 442); but a sin which will never be forgiven must be a sin unto death. Schaff’s Herzog, i. p. 302. In each case there is no question of the efficacy of the Divine grace. The state of him who is guilty of this sin is.» such as to exclude its application (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1-8, p. 165). Blasphemy, like lying, may be gcted as well as uttered: and it cannot safely be argued that d/asphemy against the Spirit must be a sin of speech (Kurzg. Kom. N.T.i. p. 75). See Aug. on Mt. xii. 31, 32; also Paschasius Radbertus, Migne, cxx. 470-472. 11, 12. Comp. xxi. 14, 15, which is parallel to both Mt. x. το, 20 and Mk. xiii. rr, but not so close to them in wording as these verses are. ‘The connexion here is evident. There is no need; to be afraid of committing this unpardonable blasphemy by ill- advised language before a persecuting tribunal; for the, Holy Spirit Himself will direct their words. ¢% / Ch ae Re Prices 11. εἰσφέρωσιν ὑμᾶς ἐπὶ τὰς cuvaywyds. In all four passages their being brought before synagogues is mentioned. The elders of the synagogue were responsible for discipline. They held courts, and could sentence to excommunication (vi. 22; Jn. ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2), or scourging (Mt. x. 17), which was inflicted by the ὑπηρέτης (see On iv. 20). Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. II. 11. pp. 59-67 ; Derenbourg, 7157. de Za Pal. pp. 86 ff. The ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι would include the Sanhedrin and Gentile tribunals. μὴ μεριμνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί ἀπολογήσησθες Neither the form nor 21 322 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ΚΙ]. 11-15. the matter of the defence is to cause great anxiety beforehand. See on ver. 22 and x. 41. Excepting Rom. ii. 15 and 2 Cor. xii 19, ἀπολογεῖν is peculiar to Lk. (xxi. 14 and six times in Acts). Here Mt. and Mk. have λαλήσητε. D 157, abcde ff,ilq Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Aeth. omit ἢ τί, which may possibly come from Mt. x. 19. If so, this is a Western non-interpolation, See note at the end of ch. xxiv. WH. bracket. 12. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ dpa. “In that very hour”: see small print on x. 7,and comp. Exod. iv. 12 and 2 Tim. iv. 17. Renan points out the correspondence between this passage and Jn. xiv. 26, xv. 26 (V. de J. p. 297, ed. 1863). 13-15. § The Avaricious Brother rebuked. This incident forms the historical introduction to the Parable of the Rich Fool (16-21), just as the lawyer’s questions (x. 25-30) form the his- torical introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. xiv. 15, xv. 1-3. We are not told whether the man was making an unjust claim on his brother or not; probably not: but he was certainly making an unjust claim on Jesus, whose work did not include settling disputes about property. The man grasped at any means of obtaining what he desired, invading Christ’s time, and trying to impose upon his brother an extraneous authority. Facile it, gui doctorem spiritualem admirantur, eo delabuntur, ut velint eo abuti ad domestica componenda (Beng.). Compare Christ’s treatment of the questions respecting the pay- ment of the dzdrachma, the woman taken in adultery, and payment of tribute to Cesar. 18. εἰπὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ pou. He does not ask Jesus to arbitrate between him and his brotKer, but to give a decision against his brother. There is no evidence that the brother consented to arbitration. 14. Ἄνθρωπε. A severe form of address, rather implying dis- approbation or a desire to stand aloof, xxii. 58, 60; Rom. ii. 1, ix. 20. Comp. Soph. 47. 791, 1154. As in the case of the lepers whom He healed (v. 14, xvii. 14), Jesus abstains from’ invading the office of constituted authorities. No one appointed Him (κατέστησεν) to any such office. Comp. Tis ce κατέστησεν ἄρχοντα καὶ δικαστὴν eb ἡμῶν ; (Exod. 11. 14), words which may have been familiar to this intruder. Comp. Jn. xviil. 36. μεριστήν. Here only in N.T. Not in LXX. There is no need to interpret it of the person who actually executes the sentence of partition pronounced by the κριτής. The κριτής who decides for partition is a μεριστής. 15. φυλάσσεσθε ἀπό. The expression is classical (Xen. Hed/. vii. 2. 10; Cyr. ii. 3. 9), but the only similar passage in N.T. is φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων (I Jn. v. 21): it is stronger than προσέχετε ἀπό. XII. 156-17. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 323 πάσης πλεονεξίας. “Every form of covetousness”: comp. πάντα πειρασμόν, “ every kind of temptation ” (iv. 13); πᾶσα ἁμαρτία Kal βλασφημία (Mt. xii, 31). On πλεονεξία, “the greedy desire to have more,” as a more comprehensive vice than φιλαργυρία, 566 Lft. Epp. Ρ. 56 and on Col. il. 5. He quotes φυλάξασθε οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας Kat τῆς φιλαργυρίας (Zest. XLT, Patr. Jud. xviii.), and ‘somewhat differs from Trench, Syz. xxiv. Jesus, knowing what is at the root of the brother’s unreasonable request, takes the opportunity of warning the whole multitude (πρὸς αὐτούς) against this prevalent and subtle sin. οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν τινι. ‘‘ Not in the fact that a man has abundance is it the case that his life is the outcome of his possessions ” ; 2.6. it does not follow, because a man has abundance, that his life consists in wealth. Some render, “For not because one has abundance, is his life part of his possessions,” z.e. so that he can secure it. But the other is simpler. Life depends for its value upon the use which we make of τὰ ὑπάρχοντα, and for its prolongation upon the will of God. It is unlikely that ἡ ζωή here means or includes eternal life; but it includes the higher life as distinct from Bios. Comp. ov γὰρ ἐν τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τὸ αὔταρκες οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρᾶξις, δυνατὸν δὲ καὶ μὴ ἄρχοντα γῆς καὶ θαλάττης πράττειν τὰ καλά: καὶ γὰρ ἀπὸ μετρίων δύναιτ᾽ ἄν τις πράττειν κατὰ τὴν ἀρετήν (Arist. Lth. WVic. x. ὃ. 9). . For the dat. after περισσεύειν comp. xxi. 4 and Tobit iv. 16, and for that after τὰ ὑπάρχοντα see on viii. 3. 16-21. § The Parable of the Rich Fool, which illustrates both points ;—that the life that is worth living does not depend upon wealth, which may be a trouble and anxiety ; and that even mere existence cannot be secured by wealth. 16. Εἶπεν δὲ παραβολὴν πρός. Each separate combination is characteristic: εἶπεν δέ, εἶπεν παραβολήν, and εἶπεν πρός. See on vi. 39, and comp. xv. 3. εὐφόρησεν. Here only in bibl. Ce Josephus uses it of Galilee as productive of oil (4. 7 ii. 21. 2); but elsewhere it occurs in this sense in medical ites only (Hobart, Pp. 144): comp. τελεσφορεῖν (viii. 14). “ χώρα Comp. xxi. 21; Jn. iv. 35; Jas. v. 4. There is no hint that the man’s wealth was unjustly acquired ; and this is some slight confirmation of the view that the brother’s claim was not unjust (ver. 13). There is perhaps a reference to Ecclus. xi, 18, 19 or to Ps. xlix. 16-20. 17. τί ποιήσω; Comp. Eccles. v. το. οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ συνάξω. Quasi nusguam essent quibus pascendis possent tmpendt (Grot.). Lnopum sinus, viduarum domus, ora infantum . . . iste sunt apothece gue maneant in xternum (Ambr.). 324 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [ΧὩ]. 17-20.- Note the repetition of μου: “my fruits, my barns, my goods, my soul.” It is just here that there is some resemblance to the story of Nabal: “Shall I take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers and give it unto men of whom I know not whence they be?” (1 Sam. xxv. 11): but it is too much to say that there is an evident reference to Nabal. 18. καθελῶ First with emphasis: he is eager to set to work. But pauperum nulla mentio (Beng.). Comp. ἀφελεῖ, which is the true reading, Rev. xxii. 19; and see Veitch, p. 25. Note the chiasmus between καθελῶ and οἰκοδομήσω. The text of the words which follow καὶ συνάξω ἐκεῖ is much confused, but πάντα τὸν σῖτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου (N*#° BLT X, Syr-Hare. Boh. Sah. Aeth. Arm.) is probably correct, the μου after σῖτον (δὲ 2° X, Syr-Harc. Boh. Sah. Aeth.) being rejected as an insertion. WH. give the evidence in full (ii. p. 103), and regard it as a marked instance of conflation. Comp. ix. 10, xl. 54, xxiv. 53. The main facts are these. The expression τὰ γενήματα 15 very common in LXX for the fruits of the earth, and the phrase συνάγειν τὰ γενήματα occurs Exod. xxiii. 10 ; Lev. xxv. 20; Jer. vill. 13. The familiar τὰ γενήματά μου was substituted in some documents for the unusual combination τὸν σῖτον καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά (ΝΠ), in others for τὸν σῖτον (Α Ο EFG Η etc.), in one for τὰ ἀγαθά μου (346) ; yet another variation is caused by the substitution of τοὺς καρπούς μου (from ver. 17) for the whole of the unusual combination (39), omnes fructus meos (acde). Thus we have— (a) τὸν σῖτον [μου] καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (β) I. τὰ γενήματα μου. 2. τοὺς καρπούς μου. (δ) 1. τὰ γενήματά μου καὶ τὰ ἀγαθά μου. 2. τὸν σῖτόν μου καὶ τὰ γενήματά μου. The common reading (6. I) is a conflation of 8. 1 and a. 19. ἐρῶ τῇ ψυχῇ pod. There is probably no irony in making him address, not his body, but his soul: the ψυχή is here used as the seat of all joyous emotions. Comp. μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ τί φάγητε (ver. 22). Field quotes καρτέρησον, ψυχή, προθεσμίαν σύντομον, ἵνα τὸν πλείω χρόνον ἀπολαύσης ἀσφαλοῦς ἡδονῆς (Charit. Aphrod. iii. 2); and Wetst. quotes θαρρυνῶ ἐμαυτὸν Kat πρὸς τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ ψυχὴν εἰπών᾽ ᾿Αθηναῖος εἶμι (Libanius, D xvi. p. 463). See Stallbaum on Plat. Repud. 11. ὃ, p. 365 A κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά' ἀναπαύου, φάγε, mle. These words are omitted in D and some Latin authorities (a bc de ff,). With eis ἔτη πολλά comp. Jas. iv. 13-17; Prov. xxvii. 1; Ecclus. xxix. 12: and with φάγε, πίε comp. Tobit vii. 10 and the remarkable parallel Ecclus. xi. 19. The asyndeton marks the man’s confidence and eagerness. 20. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ 6 Θεός. This is a parable, not history. It is futile to ask how God spoke to him. For "Adpwv see on xi. 40 and xxiv. 25. The ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί is placed first in emphatic contrast to the ἔτη πολλά, See Schanz, pp. 347, 348. τὴν ψυχήν σου αἰτοῦσιν ἀπὸ god, “They are demanding thy ‘XII. 20-22. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 325 soul of thee”: the present tense is very impressive. They do not demand it for themselves, and so we have act. and not mid. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; and see the parallel lesson Wisd. xv. 8. For the impersonal plural comp. vv. 11, 48, Vi. 38, XVi. 9, Xxill. 31. There is no need to think of ἄγγελοι θανατηφόροι (Job xxxill. 23), or of λῃσταί (x. 30). : ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται; Vulg. Rhem. and RV. preserve the telling order: gux autem parasti cujus erunt? ‘And the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?” Comp. Ps, xxxix: 6, xlix: 6; Eccles: τ r8—23; Job xxvii. 17-22. When not even his ψυχή is his own to dispose of, what will become of his ἀγαθά ; 21. θησαυρίζων αὑτῷ. Comp. Mt. vi. 19; 2 Cor. xii-143 and for the eis before Θεόν comp. xvi. 8. It is to be regretted that the eis is rendered differently in the two passages in both AV. (“in, towards”) and RV. (“‘for, toward”). ‘‘ Being rich toward God” means being rich in those things which are pleasing to Him. Amassing wealth without reference to the God who bestows it is πλεονεξία, and πλεονεξία 15 ἀφροσύνη. The change from αὑτῷ to εἰς Θεόν, instead of Θεῷ, is intentional, and Juvenal’s aves t2bz, pauper amiczs (v. 113) is not quite parallel ; nor again Hecato in Cic. De Off ili. 15. 63: Wegue entm solum nobis adrvites esse volumus, sed liberts, propinguzs, (λεῖος, maximeque ret publicw. The whole verse is omitted in D and abd. 22-58. God’s Providential Care and the Duty of Trust in Him (22-34) and of Watchfulness for the Kingdom (35-48) which Christ came to found (49-53). ‘The address to the people (vv. 15-21) being ended, Jesus once more turns specially to the disciples; and it should be noticed that in doing so He no longer speaks in parables. That what follows was spoken on the same occasion as what precedes seems to be intended by Lk., but is not stated. ‘The διὰ τοῦτο is included in the traditional report (see Mt. vi. 25), and proves nothing as to the original historical ἢ connexion. It is more to the point to notice that covetousness and hoarding are the result of want of trust in God (Heb. xii. 5), and that an exhortation to trust in God’s fatherly care follows naturally on a warning against covetousness. ‘There is logical, but not necessarily chronological connexion. More convincing is the coincidence between details. ‘The mention of sowing, reaping, store-chamber, and barn (ver. 24) may have direct reference to the abundant harvests and insufficient barns in the parable (vz. 17, 18). But it does not follow, because this lesson was given immediately after the parable of the Rich Fool, that therefore it was not part of the Sermon on the Mount; any more than that, because it was delivered there, it cannot have been repeated here. 22. Εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς. Note both the δέ and the 322 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. LUKE [XII. 22-25. πρός, and comp. ver. 16, Vil. 50, ix. 13, 14,59, 62, etc. Assuming a connexion with what precedes, Διὰ τοῦτο will mean, “ Because life does not depend on riches.” μὴ μεριμνᾶτε. “Be not anxious”: comp. ver. 11 and x. 21. See Lft. On Revision, 2nd ed. Ὁ. 190; Trench, On the A.V. p. 39; T. L. O. Davies, Bible English, p. 100, for evidence that “thought” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries meant distressing anxiety, Comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5 with x. 2. S. Paul reiterates Christ’s teaching (1 Cor. vil. 32; Phil. iv. 6). TH Ψυχῇ. Not, “zz your soul,” but, “for your soul.” Here again the reference to the parable (ψυχή, φάγε) seems to be direct. If so, the necessity for translating ψυχή in the same way in both passages is all the stronger. The ψυχή is the source of physical life and physical enjoyment. : 23. πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς. “15 something greater than the food” (comp. xi. 31, 32). Therefore He who gave the greater will not fail to provide the less. 24. κατανοήσατε. A favourite verb: see on ver. 27. Mt. has ἐμβλέψατε; and for τοὺς κόρακας he has τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Ravens are mentioned nowhere else in N.T., but often in O.T. See especially ris δὲ ἡτοίμασεν κόρακι βοράν (Job xxxviil. 41), and καὶ διδόντι τοῖς κτήνεσι τροφὴν αὐτῶν Kal τοῖς νοσσοῖς τῶν κοράκων τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις αὐτόν (Ps. exlvii. 9g). The name (Heb. ’ored) covers the whole of the crow tribe (including rooks and jack- daws) which is strongly represented in Palestine. Like the vulture, the raven acts as a scavenger: but it is a fable that it turns its young out of the nest, leaving them to feed themselves, and that this is the point of our Lord’s mention of them. The raven is very careful of its young; and God feeds both old and young. Tristram, (Vat. Hist. of B. pp. 198-201. Here Vulg. bfl have cel/arzum for ταμεῖον, while d has promptuarium. See on ver. 3. διαφέρετε τῶν πετεινῶν. See on ver. 7. “The birds are God’s creatures ; but ye are God’s children”: ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν (Mt.), not αὐτῶν. 25. Τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν. See on ΧΙ. 5. μεριμνῶν δύναται ἐπὶ τὴν ἠλικίαν προσθεῖναι πῆχυν. “ By being anxious can add a sfan to his age.” That ἡλικία here means “ase” (Heb. xi. 11; Jn. ix. 21, 23), and not “stature” (xix. 3), 1s clear from the context. It was prolongation of life that the anxiety of the rich fool failed to secure. Not many people give anxious thought to the problem of adding to their stature ; and the addition of a πῆχυς (the length of the forearm) would be monstrous, and would not be spoken of as ἐλάχιστον. Many persons do give anxious thought to the prolongatior of their allotted age, and XII. 25-28.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 3.7 that by any amount, great or small. Wetst. quotes Mimnermus, πηχύϊον ἐπὶ χρόνον ἄνθεσιν ἥβης τερπόμεθα. See on il. 52, where ἡλικία probably means stature. For πῆχυς see D.B.1 ili. pp. 1736 ff. ; and for the literature on Hebrew Weights and Measures, Schaff’s Herzog, iv. p. 2486. 26. εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθες These words have no equivalent in Mt. and are omitted in D, which for the whole verse has simply καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τί μεριμνᾶτε. Soalso abcd ffjilr: δέ de cxterts quid sollicite estts. By τῶν λοιπῶν are meant clothing (Mt.), food, and other bodily necessities. For οὐδέ we might have expected μηδέ. But ef=ézel, and the sentence is conditional in form only. ‘‘If (as is certain) ye cannot” = ‘‘Since ye cannot.” Comp. Jn. iii. ΤΡ v. 47; 1 Cor. xi. 6; Heb. xii. 25. Win. lv. 2. a, p. 600. Or we may consider οὐδέ as belonging to δύνασθε, and not to the whole sentence: ‘‘If ye are unable.” Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 183. But the former is better. 27. τὰ κρίναι Mt. adds rod ἀγροῦ. The word occurs no- where else in N.T., but is freq. in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. τό, iv. 5, Vv. 13, Vi. 2, 3, etc.): Heb. shushan or shoshannah. Some flower with a brilliant colour is evidently meant, and the colour is one to which human lips can be compared (Cant. v. 13). Either the scarlet Martagon (Lz/iwm Chalcedonicum) or the scarlet anemone (anemone coronaria) may be the flower that is thus named. Like στρουθία, however (ver. 7), κρίνα may be generic; and to this day the Arabs call various kind of flowers “lilies.” See D.Z. art. “Lily” ; and comp. Stanley, Sz. ὦ Pal. pp. 139, 430. Note that, while Mt. has καταμανθάνειν, Lk. has his favourite κατανοεῖν (yer 21 evi, Al, ἘΧ 22; ACtS Vil, 21, 32; Xx 6; XxVi. 39)... ΕῸΣ koma see on v. 5: it covers the works of men, νήθει that of women. After τὰ κρίνα πῶς D has οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει, while d has guomodo neque neunt neque texunt, and a has guomodo non texunt neque neunt. Several cther Lat. texts have texunt. Thus, guomodo crescunt non laborant neque neunt neque texunt (blr); guomodo crescunt non nent neque texunt (C) ; quomodo crescunt non laborant non neunt neque texunt (ff,); and, by a curious slip, gzomodo non crescunt non laborant neque neunt neque texunt (i). 28. εἰ δὲ ἐν ἀγρῷς First with emphasis. “1 in the field,” where such care might seem to be superfluous. AV. wrongly takes ἐν ἀγρῷ with ὄντα σήμερον, following Vulg. guod hodie in agro est. Both here and in Mt. the right connexion is, ‘‘ which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven.” For κλίβανος, a portable oven, as distinct from ἵπνος, see D.B. The κλίβανος is often mentioned in LXX, generally as a simile for great heat (Ps. xx. 9 ; Hos. vii. 4-7, etc.) ; trvos neither in LXX nor in N.T. Wood being scarce in Palestine, grass is commonly used as fuel. For ἀμφιάζει, which is a late word (Job xxix. 14, xxxl. Ig), see Veitch. 328 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [XII. 29-32. 29. καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ ζητεῖτε. “And do you cease to seek”: comp. ver. II, Vi. 30, 37, Vil. 13, Vill. 49, 50, 52, etc. Mt. has the aor. μεριμνήσητε. μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε. In class. Grk. and in LXX (Ps. cxxx. 1; 2 Mac. v. 17, vil. 34) this would probably mean, “Be not lifted up, do not exalt yourselves, seek not high things.” So the Vulg. nolte in sublime tolli, Old Latin texts differ: zolite solliciti esse ; nec Sollicitt sitis (c); non abalienetis vos (d): and many omit the passage. Luth. fahret nicht hoch her. 'Tyn. Cov. and Cran. “ neither clyme ye up an high.” But most commentators interpret it as a metaphor from ships tossing at sea: “ Waver not anxiously, be not tossed about with cares.” Comp. μετέωρον ἐν φόβῳ of a criminal expecting punishment (Jos. B. Δ iv. 2. 5); and see S. Cox, who turns the word into a parable, Hxfosztor, 1st series, 1. p. 249, 1875. Edersheim contends for the LXX meaning, “be not uplifted” (Z. G 7: ii. p. 217). The verb is one of the rarer words which are common to N.T., Philo, and Plutarch. 30. ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα. ‘This is the right combination; not πάντα τὰ ἔθνη: hxc enim omnia gentes mundi guexrunt. ‘The heathen seek anxiously after all these things, because they know nothing of God’s providential care. The phrase τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, but represents an Aramaic expression common in Rabbinical writings. The plural verb shows that the different nations are considered dis- tributively ; and the compound expresses the anxiety with which they seek. Each nation seeks laboriously after the sum-total of these things. On the difference between ταῦτα πάντα here and πάντα ταῦτα, Mt. vi. 32, see Win. Ixi. 2. b, p. 686. In both places ἐπιζητοῦσιν is the true reading, and ἐπιζητεῖ a grammatical correction. ὑμῶν δὲ 6 πατήρ. But γον, who know that you have such a Father, have no need to be disturbed about these wants. 31. Lk. alone has his favourite πλήν. See on vi. 24. “ But (dismissing all this useless anxiety) continue to seek,” etc. Mt. adds πρῶτον to ζητεῖτε. Origen quotes εἶπε yap ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται, καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν (De Orat. ὃ 2). Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 24, p. 416, ed. Potter, and iv. 6, p. 579. 832. This verse has no parallel in Mt., and it is the only verse in this section which is entirely without equivalent in the Sermon on the Mount. The passage reads so well both with and without it, that it is difficult to see why it should have been either inserted or omitted without authority. In it the Good Shepherd assures His flock that, while the anxious seeking of the ὀλιγόπιστοι after food and raiment is vain, their seeking after the Kingdom of God will rrr XII. 82. 834] JOURNEVYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 2209 not be vain. He gives the Kingdom to those who seek it, and with it gives the necessaries of life. Whereas those who neglect the Kingdom that they may secure the necessaries, may lose both. Κύριος ποιμαίνει με, καὶ οὐδέν με ὑστερήσει (Ps. xxiil. 1). The μικρὸν ποίμνιον are the disciples as contrasted with the μυριάδες τοῦ ὄχλου (ver. 1). ποιμνίον = ποιμένιον, which is not a diminutive, and therefore μικρόν is neither superfluous nor an epithet of affection, but an expression of fact. On the nom. with the art. for the voc. see on x. 21; and for εὐδόκησεν see Lft. on Col. i. 19, and comp. Rom. xv. 26. 33. The first half of this verse (to παλαιούμενα) has no parallel in Mt. As in vi. 29, 30, we have a rule given, not that it may be kept literally, but that it may illustrate a principle. So far as attachment to our possessions is concerned, we must be ready to part with them (1 Cor. vu. 30). Our fondness for them is not our justification for keeping them. But there is no Ebionism here, no condemnation of possessions as sinful! As Bede points out, Christians are not commanded to retain nothing for their own use (for Christ Himself had a purse out of which He gave alms), but to take care that fear of poverty does not interfere with benevolence. Almsgiving is not to be a mere giving of what we can spare. Nor is it merely for the sake of the receiver, It is also for the good of the giver, that his heart may be freed from covetousness. ‘The attempt to keep the letter of the rule here given (Acts ii. 44, 45) had disastrous effects on the Church of Jerusalem, which speedily became a Church of paupers, constantly in necd.of alms. (Rom. xv..25,°26; x Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. vitt..4, ix. 1). Fortra ὑπάρχοντα see on vill. 3; and for βαλλάντια See On x. 4. ἀνέκλειπτον. Not elsewhere in N.T. or LXX. Comp. xvi. 9, ΧΧΙΙ. 32; and, for the command, Mk. x. 41. Heaven is not to be bought with money; but, by almsgiving, what would be a hindrance is made a help.? In os the reference perhaps is to costly garments, which are a favourite form of wealth in the Hast. The word+oceurs” [5:1 Ὁ, ΠΡ ἃ; 10» iv. τὸ, ‘xxvil: τὸ; Prov. xiv. 32; but in N.T. only here and Mt. vi. 19. 84. Almost verbatim as Mt. vi. 21. S. Paul states a similar 1 On the alleged Ebionism of Lk. see Introd. § 3. b, and also Alexander, Leading Ideas of the Gospels, pp. 163-180, 2nd ed. ? Margoliouth quotes from El-Ghazzali’s Revzval of the Religious Sctences many striking sayings attributed to Christ by Mahometan writers: among them these. ‘* He that seeks after this world is like one that drinks sea-water. The more he drinks the thirstier he becomes, until it slay him” (iii. 161). “* There are three dangers in wealth. First, it may be taken from an unlawful source. And what if it be taken from a lawful source? they asked. He answered : It may be given to an unworthy person. They asked, And what if it be given to a worthy person? He answered, The handling of it may divert its owner from God ? (iii. 178). 330 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XII. 34-37. principle τ Cor. vii. 32-34. Wealth stored up in this world has many enemies ; that which is stored in heaven is safe from them all. The ydp is specially to be noted. The reason why treasure must be stored in heaven is that the hearts of those who bestow it may be drawn heavenwards. 35-48. The Duty of Loyal Vigilance. From ver. 35 to ver. 38 this section has no parallel in Mt. The interpellation of Peter (ver. 41) is also peculiar to Lk. But vv. 39, 40 and 42-46 are parallel to Mt. xxiv. 43-51. The discourse once more takes a parabolic turn, watchfulness being inculcated by the parables of the Master’s Return (35-38, 42-48) and of the Thief’s Attack (39, 40). 35. Ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν at ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι. The long garments of the East are a fatal hindrance to activity. Comp. xvi. 8; Acts xii. 8; 1 Kings xviii. 46 ; 2 Kings iv. 29, ix. 1; Job xxxviil. 3, xl. 7; Jer. i. 17. Tristram, astern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 158. Note the emphatic position of ὑμῶν and ὑμεῖς. ‘‘ Whatever others may do, this is to be your condition.” οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι, K.T.A. This is the parable of the Ten Virgins condensed (Mt. xxv. 1). 36. προσδεχομένοις. Lxpectantibus (Vulg.) cum desiderio et gaudio (Beng.): comp. ii. 25, 38, Xxill. 51. πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων. If the rendering “when he shall return from,” etc., is correct, this is the only place in N.T. in which the verb has this meaning: comp. 2 Mac. vill. 25, xill. 7, xv. 28; 3 Mac. v. 21; Wisd. ii. τ. The more usual sense is “break up (a feast, camp, etc.), depart”: comp. Phil. i. 23; Judith xii. 1; 2 Mac. ix. 1: and this may be the meaning here. See instances in Wetst. So Luther, wenn er aufbrechen wird. The wedding is not his own, but that of a friend which he has been attending. In Esther (ii. 18, ix. 22) γάμοι is used of any banquet or festival : but the literal meaning is better here.} For the plural of a single marriage feast comp. xiv. 8; Mt. xxii. 2, xxv. 10, and see Win. xxvil. 3, p. 219. For the constr. ἵνα ἐλθόντος .. - ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῶ see Win. xxx. II, p. 259, and comp. xv. 20. 37. περιζώσεται καὶ ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτούς. Comp. Rev. ili. 20, 21. Christ acted in this way when He washed the disciples’ feet: not, however, in gratitude for their faithful vigilance, but to teach them humility. Nevertheless, that was a type of what is promised here: comp. Rev. xix. 9. References to the Saturnalia, when Roman masters and slaves changed places in sport, are here 1 Kimchi on Is. Ixv. mentions a saying of R. Johanan ben Zacchai, who in- vited his servants without fixing a time: sapzentes se ornarunt, stolidi abierunt ad opera sua. Thus some went ornazz and others sordzdz, when the time came, and the latter were disgraced (Keim, 765. of Vaz. v. p. 256. Comp. Schoettgen, i, p. 216). XII. 87-41.] JOURNEVINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 331 quite out of place. The parable xvii. 7-10 sets forth the usual course between master and man. 88. δευτέρᾳ. The first watch is not mentioned, because then the wedding-feast was going on. These are probably the two last of the ¢Avee Jewish watches (Judg. vii. 19), not the two middle watches of the Roman four (Mk. xiii. 35; Acts xii. 4). See on xxii. 34 and D.B. art. “Watches of Night.” In D, Marcion, Irenzeus, and some other authorities, the first watch (τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ) 15 inserted: WH. ii. App. p. 61. 89. γινώσκετε. Probably indic. But Vulg. Luth. Beza, and all English Versions make it imperat. ‘There is nothing strange in the sudden change of metaphor, especially in Oriental language. The “thief in the night” is a proverb for unexpected events {τ δεν 2; 2 Pets π|: τὸ; Rev, wi, 3,001.15). .Comp: ‘the changes of metaphor in the parallel passage Mt. xxiv. 40-44. ἀφῆκεν. ‘* Left his house” (RV.). AV. makes no distinction between ἀφῆκεν here and εἴασεν in Mt. xxiv. 43, rendering both ‘‘suffered.” But the RV. elsewhere renders ἀφίημι by ‘“‘ suffer” (vill. 51, xvill. 16); and ἀφῆκεν here cannot mean that he wet out of the house, for ‘*he would have kept awake” implies that he remained in it. If the distinction between εἴασεν and ἀφῆκεν is to be marked, the latter might be translated ‘‘allowed,” a word which the Revisers nowhere use, except in the margin of Mk. iv. 29. διορυχθῆναι. “To be dug through,” the walls being made of mud. Wic. has “to be myned ἢ here and “to be undermynyde " in Mt. for perfodirt of Vulg. Comp. διώρυξεν ἐν σκότει οἰκίας (Job xxiv. 16) ; ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ διορύγματι εὑρεθῇ ὃ κλέπτης (Exod. XXxil. 2) 5 3 οὐκ ἐν διορύγμασιν εὗρον αὐτούς (Jer. 11. 24). ᾿ 41. Εἶπεν δὲ ὃ Πέτρος. This interruption should be compared with that in ix. 33. Each of them connects the discourse in which it appears with a definite incident. It illustrates Peter’s impulsive- ness and his taking the lead among the Twelve. Perhaps it was the magnificence of the promise in ver. 37 which specially moved him. He wants to know whether this high privilege is reserved for the Apostles. For παραβολὴν λέγεις see on v. 36, and for mpos = “‘in reference to” comp. xvill. 1; Rom. ΧΥΠΐ 21; Heb. i. 7, 8, xi. 18, and possibly Lk. xix. 9 and xx. 19. Here πρὸς ἡμᾶς comes first with emphasis. ἢ καὶ πρὸς πάντας. Peter is sure that it has reference to the Twelve: the question is whether others are included. The em- ployment of parables would make him suppose that the multitude was being addressed, as in ver. 16; for Jesus did not commonly employ this kind of teaching with His permanent disciples. The spirit of the question resembles Jn. xxi. 21, and the answer resembles Jn. xxi. 22. In Mk. xiii. 37 we have what looks like a direct answer to the question here asked by S. Peter, “ What I say to you I say to all, Watch.” 232 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5: LUKE [XII. 42-46, 42. Tis dpa ἐστίν. Christ answers one question by another, which does not tell the questioner exactly what he wishes to know, but what it concerns him to know. It is enough that each who hears recognizes that he is an οἰκονόμος with responsibilities. This was true in the highest sense of the Apostles. The οἰκονόμος here is a d7spensator (Vulg.) or vildicus (d), a superior slave left in charge of the household and estate (see on xvi. 1). Other names are ordinarius, actor, procurator, the meanings of which seem to have varied at different periods and on different estates. Bekker, Gallus, Excursus ill. p. 204, Eng. tr. Hatch seems to assume that dispensator and villicus were terms of fixed and invariable meaning (Bibl. Grk. p. 62). With πιστός comp. Num. xii. 7; 1 Sam. xxii. 14; and with φρόνιμος comp. xvi. 8; Gen. xli. 39. With θεραπείας (abstr. for concr.) comp. ἐχάρη δὲ Φαραὼ καὶ ἡ θεραπεία αὐτοῦ (Gen. xlv. 16). Contrast Lk. ix. ττ. σιτομέτριον. “A measured portion of food, ration.” ‘These rations on Roman estates were served out daily, weekly, or monthly. The word occurs nowhere else, but σιτομετρεῖν is found (Gen. xlvii. 12, 14). Comp. Hor. 2%. 1. 14. 40; /ieee instances in Wetst. 44. ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν. Here, as in ix. 27 and xxi. 3, Lk. has ἀληθῶς where Mt. has ἀμήν. See on x. 12. Comp. νομικοί (ΧΙ. 52) where Mt. has γραμματεῖς (xxiii. 14), and his never using Ῥαββεί. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν Tots ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ. See on vill. 3. This passage and Mt. xxiv. 47 seem to be the only instances in N.T. of this use of ἐπί. Elsewhere we have the gen. (ver. 42) or acc. (ver. 14), the former being more common (Mt. xxiv. 45, xxv. 21, 23). 45. Xpoviter ὃ κύριός pou. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4; Eccles. vill, rr. The “But and if”? of AV.is simply “ But if (Ry “and if” being “δὴ if,” a double conditional, which was common in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. ἄρξηται. He begins to do this, but the arrival of his lord puts a stop to it: comp. v. 21, xill. 25; Acts xi. 15. This οἰκονόμος has a large familia of slaves under him. Perhaps he makes merry on what he ought to have given them. For παιδισκή as a verna- cular word for a female slave see Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 40. Μεθύσκεσθαι is “to get drunk,” as distinct from μεθύειν “to be drunk” (Acts ii. 15). 46. For the attraction in ἐν ὥρᾳ 7 οὐ γινώσκει see on iil. 19, διχοτομήσει. To be understood literally; for his having his portion with the unfaithful servants does not imply that he still lives: their portion is a violent death. For the word comp. Ex. xxix. 17; and for the punishment 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3; Susannah 59; Amos i. 3 (LXX); Heb. xi. 37. There 1s mo XII. 46-48. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 333 example of the word being used of scourging or other severe treat- ment. ‘There is a gradation of punishments: for vile misconduct and tyranny, death; for deliberate neglect, many stripes; for unintentional neglect, few stripes. Herodotus uses διατέμνειν : ii. 139. 2, Vii. 39. 5. Comp. Suet. Caligula, xxvil.: multos honesti ordinis . . . medios serra dissecutt. τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει. “Will appoint his portion with the unfaithful servants,” 2.6. those guilty of a gross abuse of trust. ‘‘ Unbelievers” here has no point. Mt. has τῶν ὕποκρι- τῶν, Which means much the same as τῶν ἀπίστων. This unfaithful steward expected to be able to play the part of a trusty agent at the time of his lord’s arrival. For τὸ μέρος we have ἡ μέρις in ΠΧ Χ 15. χυ τὰ : Jer, xt: 25. Here the parallel with Mt. xxiv. 43-51 ends. What follows is preserved by Lk. alone. 47. ἐκεῖνος δὲ ὃ δοῦλος. “ Aut that servant,” ///e autem servus. Both AV. and RV. have ‘‘and.” The δέ marks the contrast be- tween this transgressor and the οἰκονόμος, for μὴ ἑτοιμάσας ἢ ποιήσας πρὸς TO θέλημα αὐτοῦ is a less serious offence than the outrages which are described in vv. 45, 46, and one which αὐ servants may commit. δαρήσεται πόλλας. Understand πλήγας and comp. παίειν ὀλίγας (Xen. Anad. v. ὃ. 12). In N.T. δέρω is never “I flay,” but always “T beat.” Comp. the vulgar “hide, giving a hiding to.” In LXX δέρω does not occur, except as v./. in Lev. i. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 34, ΧΧΧΥ. 11; but in all three places the meaning is “flay,” and the true reading possibly ἐκδέρω. Comp. Mic. ii. 8, ili. 3. The doctrine of degrees of punishment hereafter is “taught here still more plainly than in x. 12, 14. See Aug. De Οἵζ. Det, xxi. 16. There are two classes not mentioned here: ὃ γνοὺς καὶ ποιήσας and (so far as that is possible) 6 μὴ γνοὺς καὶ ποιήσας : see on Rom. 1]. 14. 48. ὃ μὴ γνούς. Seeing that he is a servant, he might have known his master’s will, had he been anxious to find it out. Nevertheless it is true that even he, who, in ignorance for which he is not responsible, commits ἄξια πληγῶν, has to suffer. The natural consequences of excess or transgression must follow. In the second half of the verse it is doubtful whether the two parallel state- ments mean exactly the same thing or not. Either, ‘‘ He who receives much is expected to exhibit much gratitude, and also readiness to make return; and is expected to do more than ¢hose who have received less”: or, ‘‘ He who receives a gift (ἐδόθη), must make a proportionate return: and he who receives a defoszt (παρέθεντο), must restore more than he has recezved.” In the latter case the second half states the principle of the parables of the Talents and the Pounds. Note the impersonal plurals, and comp. ver. 20. 49-58. The discourse seems to return to its starting-point 334 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [ΧΙ]. 48-51. (vv. 1-2). Christ’s teaching inevitably provokes opposition and a division between those who accept it and those who reject it. There is no parallel in Mt. or Mk. to vv. 49, 50. 49. Πῦρ. First foremphasis. ‘‘It is fire that I came to cast upon the earth.” The context seems to show that the fire of division and strife is meant: or, comparing 11. 16, we may understand the fire of holiness, which excites hostility and controversy. Jgzs tlle non est nativus terre (Beng.). Eis κρίμα ἐγὼ eis τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον ἦλθον (Jn. ix. 39: Comp. iil. 19). kat τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη; A passage of well-known difficulty, the translation of which remains doubtful. With this punctuation we may follow AV. and RV., “What will I, if it be (is) already kindled?” the meaning of which is not clear: comp. LXX of Josh. vii. 7. Or, with De Wette, Weiss, and many others, “‘ How I wish that it were already kindled!” which does rather serious violence to the Greek. Or, with Origen, Meyer, etc., we may punctuate, καὶ τί θέλω ; εἰ τοι ἀνήφθη. ““Απά what will ΤΊ Ὁ Would that it were already kindled !” (Win. 1111. 8. c, p. 562); which is rather abrupt and harsh: but comp. xix. 42 and Jn. ΧΙ. 27. Per- haps the first is best, meaning, “‘What more have I to desire, if it’ be already kindled.” The next verse does not imply that it is not kindled ; and the history of Christ’s ministry shows that it was kindled, although not to the full extent. Comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 21. Christ came to set the world on fire, and the conflagration had already begun. Mal. iii. 2. 50. βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχομαι βαπτισθῆναι. Having used the meta- phor of fire, Christ now uses the metaphor of water. The one sets forth the result of His coming as it affects the world, the other as it affects Himself. The world is lit up with flames, and Christ is bathed in blood: Mk. x. 38. His passion is a flood in which He must be plunged. The metaphor is a common one in O.T. Ps. lxix. 2, 3, 14, 15, xl. 7, exxiv.'4, 5, cxliv. 7; Us τ Jordan in flood and mountain torrents in spate would suggest such figures. See on ix. 22. πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ. “ How am I oppressed, afflicted, until it be finished”: comp. viii. 37; Job iii. 24. The prospect of His sufferings was a perpetual Gethsemane: comp. Jn. ΧΙ]. 27. While He longed to accomplish His Father’s will, possibly His human will craved a shortening of the waiting. Comp. συνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν δύο (Phil. i. 23), With τελεσθῇ comp. τετέλεσται, Jn. xix. 28, 30. 51. With vv. 51 and 53 comp. Mt. x. 34, 35. It was the belief of the Jews that the Messiah would at once introduce a reign of peace and prosperity. Jesus does not wish His followers to live in a fool’s paradise. He is no enthusiast making wild and delusive promises. In this world they must expect tribulation. XII. 51-55. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 55 5. ἀλλ᾽ ἤ. ““Ἐχοερί, but.” Although the ἀλλ᾽ has no accent, it seems to represent ἄλλο rather than ἀλλά : ““1 came not to send any other thing than division.” Or there may be a mixture of οὐδὲν ἅλλο ἤ and οὐδὲν ἄλλο, αλλά : comp. 2 Cor. i. 13; Job vi. 5; Ecclus. xxxvii. 12, xliv. 10. The expression is common in class. Grk.; and in Hdt. i. 49. 1, ix. 8. 3 the origin of it seems to be shown. See Stallbaum on Phado, 81 B; Win. lili. 7. n. 5, p. 552. διαμερισμός. Comp. Mic. vii. 12; Ezek. xlviii. 29. Here only in N.T. Christ prepares them for disappointment. 52. This verse has no parallel in Mt. x. Comp. Mic. vii. 6, on which what follows seems to be based. Godet says that there are five persons here and six in ver. 53. ‘There are five in both cases, the mother and mother-in-law being the same person. Ex- cepting 2 Cor. v. 16, ἀπὸ tod νῦν is peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, v. 10, xxil. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). It is not rare in LXX (Gen. xlvi. 30; ΕΤΟΥΣ ΠΝ ΣΟΥ 26, ΕΣΣ 9: CXXIV, 2 CXxx. 3, Is. Ix. 7, €fc.). 58. πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ... μήτηρ ἐπὶ θυγατέρα. . . πενθερὰ ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην. The change from the dat. to the acc. 2055 2 ἐν indicates that the hostility is more intense in the case of the women. But LXX of Mic. vii. 6 more probably was the cause of the change. There we have ἐπὶ τήν of the women, but vids ἀτιμάζει πατέρα of the men. In Mt. x. 35 we have κατά ¢. gen. in all three cases. Lk. omits “A man’s foes shall be those of his own househol&.” Comp. Mal. iv. 6. For νύμφη ΞΞ- ““ daughter-in-law” comp. Mt. x. 35; Gen. xi. 31, xxxviii. 11; Lev. xviii. 15, etc.; Jos. “1722: ν- 9.1. In Jn. iil. 29; Rev. xviii. 23, etc., it has the classical meaning of ‘‘ bride.” 54-59. §Ignorance of the Signs of the Times. Christ once more addresses the multitude (ver. 15), apparently on the same occasion ; but it is by no means certain that Lk. means this. If so, this is a last solemn word by way of conclusion. The parallel passage Mt. xvi. 2, 3 is of very doubtful authority. It can hardly be derived from Lk., from which it differs almost entirely in word- ing, but perhaps comes from some independent tradition. 54. Ἔλεγεν δὲ καί. The formula is suitable for introducing a final utterance of special point. Comp. v. 36, ix. 23, xvi. 1, XVili. 1. For tots ὄχλοις see On ΧΙ. 29. ἐπὶ δυσμῶν. In the West, and therefore from the Mediter- ranean Sea, which was a sign of rain (1 Kings xviii. 44). Robinson, kes. τ. £al.i. p. 420 3 DB. gape Rain.” εὐθέως λέγετε ὅτι Ὄμβρος ἔρχεται. Both the εὐθέως and the pres. ἔρχεται point to the confidence with which the announcement is made: “at once ye say, Rain is coming.” Comp. ἔρχεται ὥρα. Ὄμβρος is “heavy rain, a thunder-shower”: Deut. xxxii. 2; Wisd. avi. 16% eclus. xlix.o3 Jos. “22. i. 16..3. 55. ὅταν νότον πνέοντα. Understand ἴδητε. One sees that it is a south wind by the objects which it moves. Lk. alone uses νότος 336 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. LUKE ([XIT. 55-59. of the south wind (Acts xxvii. 13, xxviii. 13). Elsewhere it means the South, as frequently in LXX (xi. 31, xiil. 29; Mt. ΧΙ], 42; Rev. RX. 13; 1 Sam. xxvii. 10, ΧΧΧΟ 2,14) 27; 2 Sam. xkiv7);) tomes Vil 24, 39 (13, 25], ete): καύσων. ‘Scorching heat”: Mt. xx. 12; Jas. 1. 11; Is. xlix. 10; Ecclus. xviii. 16, xliii, 22. Perhaps nowhere in N.T. does καύσων mean the burning east wind (Job xxvil. 21 ; Hos. xii. 1) ; but Jas. 1. 11 is doubtful. 56. ὕποκριταί. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 13 ff. They professed to be unable to interpret signs, such as the birth, preaching, and death of the Baptist, the preaching and miracles of Jesus. But their weather-wisdom proved that they could be intelligent enough where their worldly interests were concerned. δοκιμάζειν. “ΤῸ test.” In τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ and καιρόν we have almost the only words that are common to this passage and Mt. xvi. 2, 3. With τὸν καιρόν (tempus Messix) comp. xix. 44. 57. τὶ δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν. “ But why even of yourselves, out of your own hearts and consciences,” without information from externals: comp. xxi. 30. Or possibly, “ΟΥ̓ yourselves a/so,” as readily (εὐθέως) as in the case of the weather. In either case ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν comes first foremphasis. For δὲ καί see small print on ill. 9. 58. ὡς yap ὑπάγεις. γὰρ sxpe ponitur, ubt propositionem ὁ χε: tractatzo. Here ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ stands first with emphasis; no time is to be lost. And the Latinism δὸς ἐργασίαν, da operam, occurs here only. Wetst. quotes Hermo- genes, De Jnventtone, iii. 5. 7. Excepting Eph. iv. 19, ἐργασία in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 16, 19, xix. 24, 25). Hobart regards it as medical (p. 243), but it is very freq. in LXX. ὶ ἀπηλλάχθαι. “Τὸ be quit of him” by coming to terms with him. Christ is perhaps taking the case of the two brothers (vv. 13, 14) as an illus- tration. The ἀπό before the αὐτοῦ is omitted in B, but is certainly right Acts xix. 12. In class. Grk. both constructions are found, but the simple gen. is more common. Plat. Zeg. 868 D; Xen. Jem. ii. 9. 6. katacvpy. Here only in N.T. and only once in LXX of ruining or demolishing : ὅτι ἐγὼ κατέσυρα τὸν Ἡσαῦ (Jer. xlix. 10). In Lat. detraho is used of dragging into court. For examples see Wetst. Mt. has παραδῷ τῷ κριτῇ. 3) παραδώσει τῷ πράκτορι καὶ ὅ πράκτωρ σε βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν. Tradat te exactori et exactor mittat te in carcerem (Vulg.). For exactor Cod. Palat. (e) has the strange word pignerarius. No- where else in bibl. Grk. does πράκτωρ᾽ occur. At Athens the magistrate who imposed a fine gave notice to the πράκτορες, who entered it as due from the person fined ; but they did not enforce payment, if the fine was not paid. They merely kept the record. See D. of Ant.2 art. Practores. For πράκτορι Mt. has ὑπηρέτῃ. 59. λέγω σοι. He addresses each individual. Mt. has ἀμὴν λέγω σοί (comp. ver. 44), and for λεπτόν has κοδράντην. The XII. 59-XIII. 1. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 337 λεπτόν (λεπτός = “peeled, thin, small”) was half a guadrans and ’ the eighth of an as: see on ver. 6, and comp. xxi. 2; Mk. xii. 42. Can the payment be made ἐν φυλακῇ The parable gives no answer to this question. But it teaches that the proper time for payment is before judgment is given, and that release is impossible until full payment is made. The Talmud says: “The offences between man and God the Day of Atonement doth atone for. The offences between man and his neighbour the Day of Atone- ment atoneth for, only when he hath agreed with his neighbour.” There is no need to interpret the details in the parable, and make the ἀντίδικος mean the law of God, and the ἄρχων God Himself, and the κριτής the Son of God. XIII. 1-9. § Three Exhortations to Repentance, of which two (1-3; 4, 5) are based upon recent occurrences, while the third (6-9) is a parable. All three seem to have been omitted by Marcion in his mutilated Gospel ; but it is not easy to see what he disliked in them. They are peculiar to Lk., and both external and internal evidence guarantee their authenticity. Time and place are indefinite ; but the connexion with what precedes is expressly stated, and the scene must have been away from Jerusalem. 1-8. The Moral of the Massacre of the Galilean Pilgrims. There is no record of this massacre in any other source. But the turbulent character of the Galilzeans, and the severity of Pilate and other Roman governors, make the incident more than credible. Horrible massacres are recorded by Josephus (A7z. xvii. 9. 3, ΧΥ ΤΠ]. 3. 1, xx. 5.3; B./. il. 3. 3, 9.4, V- 1.5). The fact that such things were common accounts for the absence of other records ; and possibly not very many were slain, But such an outrage on Galileeans may have been one of the causes of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (xxiii. 12); and Keim conjectures that it was on this occasion that Barabbas was imprisoned. So also Lewin, fast: Sacri, 1407. Others have conjectured the occasion to have been the insurrection under Judas of Galilee, the Gaulonite of Gamala (477. xviii. 1. 1; B._/. ii. 8. 1); but that was many years earlier (c. A.D. 6), and these new-comers evidently report some recent event., On the other hand, the insurrection of the Samaritans (Azz. xviil. 4. 1) took place later than this, being the immediate cause of the recall of Pilate (A.D. 36). And what had Samaritan rebellion to do with the massacre of Galileans? Comp. Philo’s summary of the enormities of Pilate: τὰς δωροδοκίας, τὰς ὕβρεις, Tas ἁρπαγὰς, Tas αἰκίας, Tas ἐπηρείας, τοὺς ἀκρίτους καὶ ἐπαλλήλους φόνους, τὴν ἀνήνυτον καὶ ἀργαλεωτάτην ὠμύτητα (Leg. ad Gatum, ΧΧΧΥΠΪ. p. 1034 c, ed. Galen.). Again he says of him: ἣν γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἀκαμπὴς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ αὐθάδους ἀμείλικτος ; and, ola οὖν ἐγκότως ἔχων καὶ Bapv- μῆνις ἄνθρωπος. See Lewin, 1493 ; Derenbourg, p. 198. 1. Παρῆσαν. Not, “there were present,” as all English Versions render, but, “there came,” vexerunt (Cod. Brix.). These inform- ants were not in the crowd which Jesus had been addressing, but brought the news afterwards. For this use of παρεῖναι comp. Acts 22 338 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE ([XIII. 1-3. x. 21; Mt. xxvi. 50; Jn. xi. 28: sometimes followed by πρός (Acts xii. 20; Gal. iv. 18, 20), or by eis (Col. i. 6): comp. Lk. xi. 7. In Mt. xxvi. jo; Acts x. 21, xii. 20, Vulg. has vemzo; in Col. i. 6, pervenio. Wetst. quotes a close parallel: παρῆσάν τινες ἀπαγγέλλοντες πολλοὺς τῶν “Ἑλλήνων νεωτερίζειν (Diod. Sic. xvii. 8). ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ. “At that very opportunity,” viz. just as He was speaking about the signs of the times. Possibly they had heard His last words, and thought that their story would be regarded as a sign: τῷ καιρῷ may look back to τὸν καιρόν (xii. 56: comp. i. 20, iv. 13). ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πειλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν. These pilgrims from Galilee had come up to Jerusalem for one of the Feasts, probably Tabernacles, and had come into collision with the Romans, no doubt through some fanatical act of rebellion. The merciless Arocurator, himself in Jerusalem to keep order during the Feast, sent troops to attack them as they were sacrificing in the temple courts, and their blood was mingled with that of the slaughtered beasts. The expression, ‘‘ mingling blood with blood,” occurs elsewhere. Schoettgen quotes (of Israelites who were cir- cumcised in Egypt at the Passover): e¢ circumctsi sunt, et commixtus est sanguis paschatis cum sanguine circumcisionts (Hor. Hebr. p. 286). And again: David swore to Abishai, if he laid hands on Saul, “1 will mingle thy blood with his blood” (zd:d. p. 287 ; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.). 2. We gather the object of these informants from Christ’s answer. They did not want Him as a Galilzean to protest against Pilate’s cruelty, perhaps by heading another Galilean revolt. Rather, like Job’s friends, they wanted to establish the view that this calamity was a judgment upon the sufferers for exceptional wickedness (Job iv. 7, viii. 4, 20, xxii. 5; comp. Jn. ix. 1, 2). Perhaps they had heard about the threatened “cutting asunder” (xii. 46), and thought that this was a case in point. There is no hint that they wished to entrap Him into strong language respect- ing Pilate. παρὰ πάντας τ. Γ. ἐγένοντο. ‘‘ Showed themselves to be (comp. x. 36) sinners deyond all the Galilzans.” Comp. the use of παρά after comparatives, 1 15: 3. πάντες ὁμοίως ἀπολεῖσθε. The suffering of a whole nation is more likely to be produced by the sin of the nation than the suffer- ing of an individual by the sin of the individual. Zxempla sunt onmnium tormenta paucorum. Jesus condemns neither the Galileans nor Pilate, but warns all present of what must befall em unless they free themselves from ¢#ezr guilt. It is this approach of judg- ment upon His whole people which seems to fill Christ’s thought, and to oppress Him far more than the approach of His own suffer- XIII. 8. δ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 339 ings. Grotius points out how exact the ὁμοίως is. Vide guam omnia congruerint. Paschatis enim die occisi sunt, magna pars in ipso templo pecudum ritu, ob eandam causam:seditionis. But it is unlikely that this massacre took place at the Passover. The rest is right. Πολλοὶ... πρὸ τῶν θυμάτων ἔπεσον αὐτοὶ καὶ τὸν Ἕλλησι πᾶσι καὶ βαρβάροις σεβάσμιον βωμὸν κατέσπεισαν ἰδίῳ φόνῳ (8. Δ ἐπ. Ἐ2}} 4, 5. The Moral of the Catastrophe at Siloam. This incident also is recorded here only. Jesus mentions it spontaneously as something fresh in their memories. “The tower” means the well- known tower. 4. ἐν τῷ Σιλωάμ. The ἐν perhaps indicates that it was surrounded by buildings. The Greek form of the name varies. Σιλωάμ in LXX and Josephus ; Σιλωάς in Josephus ; Σιλωά in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Note the article, which agrees with Jewish usage. In Jn. ix. 7 and in LXX the article occurs : comp. τὸν Σαρῶνα (Acts ix. 35). Few sites have been identi- fied with more certainty than Siloam: Conder, Handbk. of δ. p. 3353 Stanley, Szz. S Pal. pp. 180, 428; Tristram, δ᾽ τό Places, p. 162. ὀφειλέται. vil. 41, ΧΙ. 4; Mt. vi. 12, xvill. 24-34. The change of word from ἁμαρτωλοί (ver. 2) ought to be marked in translation, as by Wic. Rhem. and RV.; and also the change from ὁμοίως (ver. 3) to ὡσαύτως (ver. 5), as by RV., although there is little change of meaning, If Ewald’s guess is correct, that these eighteen were working at the aqueducts made by Pilate, to pay for which he ὃν θησαυρόν (καλεῖται δὲ KopBavas), then ὀφειλέται in allusion to this, implying that it was held that en ought to pay back their wages into the treasury (Jos. BY. ii. 9. 4). Jesus reminds the people that they are all 5. μετανοήσητε.. The change of tense, if this be the right reading SADLMT UX), points to the need of zzmedzate repentance, as distinct from a state or continued attitude of repentance, μετανοῆτε (ver. 3). Vulg. expresses the difference by zzs¢ penztentzam habueritzs (ver. 3) and sz penz- tentiam non egeritzs (ver. 5). See on iii. 3 and v. 32. dvtes ὡσαύτως ἀπολεῖσθε. The ὡσαύτως is stronger than ὁμοίως, as “in the same manner” than “in like manner.” In both verses the MSS. are divided, but with a balance in ver. 3 for ὁμοίως and ἴον ὡσαύτως here. See es. 6. )7- vi. 5.4, 7. 2, ὃ. 2, ete., for the similarity between the fate of these eighteen and that of the Jews at the fall of Jerusalem. 6-9. §The Parable of the Barren Fig tree. It sets forth the longsuffering and the severity of God. His visitation of sin, how- ever long delayed in order to give opportunity of repentance, is sure. ‘The fig tree, as in Mk. xi. 13, is the Jewish nation, but also any individual soul. Comp. Hos. ix. 10; Joeli. 7.. It is arbitrary 340 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. LUKE [XIII. 6-9. to assert that the withering of the barren fig tree in Mt. xxi. and Mk. xi. is a transformation of this parable into a fact, or that the supposed fact has here been wisely turned into a parable. 6. Ἔλεγεν δὲ ταύτην τὴν παραβολήν. See onv. 36. The parable is a continuation of the warning, “‘ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Συκῆν. . . ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ. The main subject of the parable is placed first. Deut. xxii. 9 forbids the sowing of corn in vineyards, but to plant other fruit trees there was not a violation of this. At the present day fruit trees of various kinds are common in vineyards and in cornfields in Palestine (Stanley, Sz. & Pad. p. 421). “The fig tree ripeneth her green figs, and the vines are in blossom” (Canz. ii. 13), perhaps implies this combination. ἡ. τρία ἔτη ἀφ᾽ ov ἔρχομαι. Lit. “It is three years from the time when I continue coming”: comp. Thue. i. 18. τ. A fig tree is said to attain maturity in three years, and a tree that remained fruitless for so long would not be likely to bear afterwards. See quotations in Wetst. The three years of Christ’s ministry cannot well be meant. ‘The tree had been fruitless long before He began to preach, and it was not cut down until forty years after He ceased to do so. Cyril suggests Moses and Aaron, Joshua and the Judges, and the Prophets (Migne, vol. Ixxii. 753). Ambrose pro- poses the annunciations to Abraham, Moses, and Mary (Migne, vol. xv. 1743). Other triplets equally good might be easily de- vised ; but none are required. See Schanz, ad loc. p. 369. iva τί καὶ τὴν γῆν Katapyet; “Why, in addition to doing no good, does it sterilize the ground?” Uf guid etiam terram occupat (Vulg.). Excepting here and Heb. ii. 14, the verb is used in N.T. only by 5. Paul. He has it often, and in all four groups of his Epistles. In LXX only in Ezra (iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8). Latin Versions vary between occupat, evacuat, detinet, and intricat; English Versions between ‘‘occupy,” “keep barren,” ‘‘ cumber,” and “hinder.” All the latter, excepting Rhem. and RV., miss the καί: it not only gives no fruit, it also renders good soil useless: (ἀργόν) ae 8. κόπρια. Here only in N.T. In Jer. xxv. 33 (xxxii. 19) and Ecclus. xxii. 2 this plur. occurs as here without the art. The curious reading κόφινον κοπρίων is found in D, and is supported by cofimeum stercorés or cophinam ster- corts of various Latin texts, d having guwadum stercorés. 9. εἰς TO μέλλον. In the true text (δὶ BL 33, Boh. Aeth.) this expression precedes εἰ δὲ μήγε, and we have an aposiopesis as in Acts xxii. 9; Rom. ix. 22-24, Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32, where LXX supplies the apodosis. The ellipse of καλῶς ἔχει occurs in class. Gk. It is perhaps possible to make εἰς τὸ 1 Both ἀργός (contr. from depyds) and ἀργία are used of land that yields no return: Xen. Cy”. iii. 2. 19; Theophr. &. Phys. v. 9. 8. Comp. Rom. vi. 6, “ἐδ the body as an instrument of sin may be rendered unproductive, inactive ” (καταργήθη) ; also 1 Cor. xv. 26; 2 Cor. 111. 14; 2 Tim. i. 10. ; XIII. 9-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 341 μέλλον the apodosis: ‘‘if it bear fruit, we may postpone the question ; but if not,” etc. That εἰς τὸ μέλλον may mean ‘‘again next year” is clear from Plutarch’s use of it for magistrates designate: e.g. τὸν Πείσωνα κατέστησεν ὕπατον els τὸ μέλλον (CxHs. xiv.) ; and perhaps it may mean ‘‘ next year (Syr- Sin.),” the prep. being redundant, as in els τὴν τρίτην : comp. Jos. Azz. i. 11. 2. But that ἔτος need not be understood, and that the prep. need not be redundant, is clear from I Tim. vi. 19, where εἰς τὸ μέλλον means “‘ against the time to come.” Only if the prep. be made redundant is the transfer of εἰς τὸ μέλλον to ἐκκόψεις (A D) possible ; for ‘‘ agazwst next year thou shalt cut it down” would here make no sense; but the external evidence is conclusive against the transfer. Comp. Acts xiii. 42; Hom. Od. xiv. 384. For the change from ἐάν to el (κἂν. . . εἰ δὲ μήγε) comp. Acts v. 38, 39. It occurs in class. Grk.; and in most cases of this kind either conjunction might just as well have been used twice. Here it is possible that the first alternative is given as more problematical than the second. ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν. “Thou shalt (have) it cut down,” shalt give the order for it. The vine-dresser will not even then cut it down without express command. He does not say ἐκκόψω. Comp. the Baptist’s warning, in which this same verb (ἐκκόπτεται) is used (ili. 9). Trench gives a striking parallel in an Arabian recipe for curing a barren palm tree (Par. p. 359, roth ed.). 10-17. § Healing of a Woman on the Sabbath from a Spirit of Infirmity. The details are manifest tokens of historical truth. The pharisaic pomposity of the ruler of the Synagogue, with his hard and fast rules about propriety ; Christ’s triumphant refutation of his objections ; and the delight of the people, who sympathize with the dictates of human nature against senseless restrictions ;— all this is plainly drawn from life. See Keim, /es. of (Vaz. iv. pp. 15; 162. Here, as in vi. 1-11, Christ claims no authority to abolish the sabbath. He restores it to its true meaning by rescu- ing it from traditions which violated it. See Hort, /udaistic Christianity, p. 32. 10. This is the last mention of His teaching in a synagogue, and the only instance of His doing so in the latter part of His ministry. In many places where He was known the elders would not have allowed Him to preach, seeing that the hierarchy had become so hostile to Him. It is evident that τοῖς σάββασιν is sing. in meaning, as always in the Gospels. See on iv. 31, where, as here, we have the periphrastic imperfect. 11. πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας. “Who had a spirit that caused infirmity.” See Sanday on Rom. vil. 15. Similarly a demon that caused dumbness is called a “dumb spirit” (xi. 14; Mk. ix. 17,25). Weiss would have it that this expression is the Evan- gelist’s own inference, and a wrong inference, from jv ἔδησεν ὃ Σατανᾶς (ver. 16), which probably means that Jesus knew her malady to be the consequence of her sinful life. ‘Therefore Satan, who caused the sin, caused the malady. Weiss asserts that the laying on of hands never occurs in the case of demoniacs. And 342 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [ XIII. 11-15. he appeals to θεραπεύεσθε (ver. 14), observing that exorcisms are not healings (2. 7. ii. p. 53, Eng. tr. 1. p. 239). But we know too little to affirm that Jesus never laid His hands on demoniacs ; and both θεραπεύειν (vill. 2; Mt. xvii. 16) and ἰᾶσθαι (ix. 42) are used of healing them. Jesus generally cured ordinary diseases with a touch or laying on of hands (iv. 40, v. 13, 1X. 44, 54, XIV. 4, xxii. 51); but He sometimes healed such with a word (iv. 39, V. 24, Vi. 10, vil. 10). Although He commonly healed demoniacs with a word (iv. 35, 41, viii. 29, ix. 42), He may sometimes have touched them. And it should be noted that ἀπολέλυσαι, which implies that she has already been freed from the πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας (comp. v. 20), precedes the laying on of hands. Therefore this act, like the laying hold of the demoniac boy (Mk. ix. 27), may have been added in order to complete the physical cure. There is nothing to show that the woman had come expecting to be healed by Jesus. For συνκύπτουσα see Ecclus. ΧΙ]. 11, xix. 26. ἔτη δέκα ὀκτώ. To suggest that this is a reminiscence of the eighteen on whom the tower fell, and that the twelve in viii. 43 is a reminiscence of the twelve in viii. 42, is hardly sober criticism. Do numbers never come a second time in real life? And he must be a poor inventor who is incapable of varying numbers. μὴ δυναμένη. As usual in N.T., we have μή with the participle, although it refers to a matter of fact. Comp. i. 20; Acts ix. 9; and see Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 188. ἀνακύψαι εἰς τὸ παντελές. “Wholly to lift up herself, to straighten herself properly.” Nearly all English Versions follow the Vulgate in taking εἰς τὸ παντελές with μὴ δυναμένη; nec omnino poterat, “could not in any wise, could not at all.” But it may go with ἀνακύψαι, after which it is placed: ‘‘coulde not well loke up” (Cov.) ; konnte nicht wohl aufsehen (Luth.). Comp. σώζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται (Heb. vil. 25), the only other passage in N.T. in which it occurs. Not in LXX. Josephus always has it next to the word to which it belongs (Az. 1. 18. 5, ill. 11. 3, 12. I, Vi. 2. 3, ὙΠ 3403): 12. ἀπολέλυσαι. ‘Thou hast been and remainest loosed” ; an unasked for cure. Comp. ἀφέωνται (v. 20, vil. 48). 13. παραχρῆμα ἀνωρθώθη. See on v. 25. The verb occurs in N.T. only here, Acts xv. 16, and Heb. xii. 12; but is freq. in LXX. Hobart shows that it is used by medical writers of straightening abnormal or dislocated parts of the body (p. 22). 14. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ 6 ἀρχισυνάγωγος. Comp. vill. 41. No one had spoken to him, but he replies to what had been done. He indirectly censures the act of Jesus by addressing the people as represented by the woman. 15. Ὕποκριταί. All who sympathize with this faultfinder are addressed, especially of ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ (ver. 17). There was XIII. 15-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 343 hypocrisy in pretending to rebuke the people, when he was really censuring Jesus; and in professing to have a zeal for the Law, when his motive was azimus against the Healer. There was no evidence that people had come in order to be healed. And, if they had done so, would they have broken the Law? Cyril has a very animated attack on this man, whom he addresses as βασκανίας ἀνδράποδον, rebuking him for not seeing that Jesus had not broken even the letter of the Law in keeping its spirit (Migne, vol. lxxii. 770; Payne Smith, p. 454). See also Iren. iv. 8. 2. For ὃ Κύριος see on v. 17 and Vil. 13. The sing. ὑποκριτά (Ὁ UX and some Versions) is an obvious correction. All English Versions prior to RV., even Wic. and Rhem., have the sing., in spite of Aypocri¢z in Vulg. λύει τὸν βοῦν αὐτοῦ. Christ appeals from his perverted inter- pretation of the law to a traditional and reasonable interpretation, But here the Talmud makes the characteristic reservation that, although water may be drawn for the animal, it must not be carried to the animal in a vessel (Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. App. xvii.). For other arguments used by Christ respecting the Sabbath, see vi. 3, 5,9; Mk. 11. 27, 28; Jn. v. 17. We may place them in an ascend- ing scale. Jewish tradition; charity and common sense; the Sabbath is a blessing, not a burden ; the Son of Man is Lord of it; Sabbaths have never hindered the Father’s work, and must not hinder the Son’s. Such appeals would be varied to suit the occasion and the audience. 16. An argument @ fortiori. If an animal, how much more a daughter of Abraham ; if one whom yourselves have bound for a few hours, how much more one whom Satan has bound for eighteen ¥ears. | Comp) ΠΟ τ; Acts, κα. 59:1 'Cor., 5; 2 Cor, xi 7, 1 Tim. i. 20: and with ἰδοὺ δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη comp. ἰδοὺ τεσσερά- κοντα ἔτη (Deut. vill. 4); also Acts il. 7, xiii. 11. ἔδει λυθῆναι. Not only she may be loosed, but she ought to be. The obligation was for the healing on the Sabbath. It was a marked fulfilment of the programme of the ministry as announced in the synagogue at Nazareth (iv. 18). There is no prescription against doing good; and a religion which would honour God by forbidding virtue is self-condemned. 17. λέγοντος αὐτοῦ. “As He said” (RV.), not “ When He had said” (AV.). κατῃσχύνοντος. ‘Were put to shame”: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 14, ix. 4; τ Pet. ili. 16; in all which passages RV. is more accurate than AV. See also LXX of Is. xlv. 16. ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐνδόξοις τοῖς γινομένοις ὕπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. “Over all the glorious things that were dezmg done by Him.” For τοῖς ἐνδόξοις comp. Exod. xxxiv. 10; Deut. x. 21; Job v. 9, ix. 10, xxxiv. 24; 344 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [XIII. 17-19. and for the pres. part. Mk. vi. 2. It refers to much more than the healing of this woman: gux gloriose fiebant ab eo (Vulg.). Some would put a full stop at αὐτῷ, and make Kal πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἔχαιρεν the introduction to what follows. But this robs the statement of all point. As a revolt of the popular conscience against the censoriousness of the hier- archy it is full of meaning, 18-21. The Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven. The former is given by all three (Mt. xiil. 31, 32; Mk. iv. 30-32), the latter by two (Mt. xiii. 33). Thus Mt. as well as Lk. places them together. Both parables set forth the small beginning, gradual spread, and immense development of the Kingdom of God, the one from without, the other from within. Externally the King- dom will at last embrace all nations ; internally, it will transform the whole of human life. Often before this Jesus has mentioned the Kingdom of God (vi. 20, vii. 28, viil. 10, 1x. 2, 27, 60, 62, x. 9, II, ΧΙ. 20): here He explains some of its characteristics. Mk. places the Mustard Seed immediately after the parables of the Sower and of the Seed growing secretly; Mt. after those of the Sower and of the Tares. But neither gives any note of connexion. Whereas the οὖν of Lk. clearly connects this teaching with the preceding incident.! 18, 19. The Parable of the Mustard Seed. 18. Ἔλεγεν οὖν. It is a needlessly violent hypothesis to regard this as a fragment torn from its context, so that the οὖν refers to something not recorded. Ou the other hand, it is a little forced to connect the οὖν with the enthusiasm of the multitude for His teaching and miracles. This success is but an earnest of far greater triumphs. It is safer to refer it back to ver. τι. After the interruption caused by the hypocritical remonstrance He continued His teaching. With the double question which introduces the parable comp. τίνει ὡμοιώσατε κύριον, καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώματι ὡμοιώσατε αὐτόν ; (Is. xl. 18). The parable itself is more condensed in Lk. than in Mk. and Mt. 19. κόκκῳ σινάπεως. It is the smallness of the seed in com- parison with the largeness of the growth that is the point. Whether other properties of mustard need be taken into account, is doubtful. It is not quite certain what plant is meant. Stanley is inclined to follow Royle and others in identifying it with the Sa/vadora Persica, called in the East Kharde/, the very word used in the Syriac Version to translate σίναπι. It is said to grow round the lake of Gennesareth, and to attain the height of twenty-five feet in favourable circumstances. Its seeds are small and pungent, 1 With this pair of Parables comp. the Garments and the Wine-skins (v. 36-39), the Rash Builder and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin (xv. 3-10). Other pairs are not in immediate juxtaposition ; e.g. the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5-8) and the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). XIII. 19-21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 345 and are used as mustard (S77. & Pal. p. 427). Edersheim follows Tristram and others in contending for the Szvapzs négra. ‘‘ Small as a mustard-seed ” was a Jewish proverb to indicate the least drop of blood, the least defilement, etc. Even in Europe the Szzafzs sometimes reaches twelve feet (Z. & 7. i. p. 593; Vat. Host. of B. p. 472). ἄνθρωπος. Comp. xx. 9. Lk. commonly writes ἄνθρωπός ris: x. 30, ἘΠῚ 10: σῖν. 16. XVve 11’ Χυΐ ἴ; ΤΟ; ΣΙΧ. 12; comp: xviii, 2: εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ. See Introd. ὃ 6. 1. f. Not merely “the earth” (Mk.) or “his field” (Mt.), but “his own garden,” viz. Israel. ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον. All three use γίνομαι, Lk. alone adding els ; but μέγα before δένδρον is not genuine either here or in Mt. For γίνομαι εἰς comp. xx. 17; Acts iv. 11, and v. 36, etc. The expression is freq. in LXX, and is also classical. τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν, κιτιλ. All three have this - expression. See on ix. 58, and comp. ὑποκάτω αὐτοῦ κατεσκήνουν τὰ θηρία τὰ ἄγρια, Kal ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ κατῴκουν τὰ ὄρνεα TOD οὐρανοῦ (Dan. iv. 9, 18) and ἐν ταῖς παραφυάσιν αὐτοῦ ἐνόσσευσαν πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Ezek. xxxi. 6: Comp. ΧΥ]]. 23), pass- ages which show that this was a recognized metaphor for a great empire giving protection to the nations.! 20, 21. The Parable of the Leaven. Mt. xiii. 33; comp. Lk. ἘΠ I. ἔκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία. The beginnings of the Kingdom were unseen, and Pagan ignorance of the nature of the Gospel was immense. But the leaven always conquers the dough. How- ever deep it may be buried it will work through the whole mass and change its nature into its own nature. Josephus says that a σάτον was one and a half of a Roman modius (Ant. ix. 4. 5). It was a seaf, or one third of an ef/hah ; which was an ordinary baking (Gen. xviil. 6). There is no more reason for finding a meaning for the three measures than for the three years (ver. 7). But Lange is inclined to follow Olshausen in interpreting the three measures as the three powers in human nature, body, soul, and spirit ; and he further suggests the material earth, the State, and the Church. In class. Gk. ‘we generally have the plur. ἄλευρα (ἀλέω). It means ‘¢ wheaten meal” (Hdt. vii. 119. 2; Plat. Rep. 11. 372 B). ἕως οὗ. Comp. Acts xxi, 26. In Lk. xxiv. 25 it is followed by the subj., as often. 22-30. The Danger of being excluded from the Kingdom of God. The warning grows out of the question as to the number of 1 Wetst. quotes from the Talmud, ‘‘ There was a stalk of mustard in Sichin from which sprang out three branches, of which one was broken off, and out of it they made a covering for a potter’s hut, and there were formed on it three cabs of mustard. Rabbi Simeon, son of Calaphta, said, A stalk of mustard was in my field into which I was wont to climb, as men are wont to climb into a fig tree.” 346 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [Χ1Π]. 22-24, the saved, but no note is given of time or place. The introductory διεπορεύετο seems to point back to ix. 51, ‘‘ He was continuing His. journey” (see on vi. 1). In any case it is part of the last journey- ings which ended in the Passion. For the substance of the discourse comp. Mt. vill. 13, 14, 22, 23, xix. 30; Mk. x. 31. 22. κατὰ πόλεις καὶ Kdpas. Once more we have an amphi- bolous phrase: see on ver. 11, x. 18, ΧΙ: 309, ΧΙΠ 1, etc, Hither, “He went on His way, teaching through cities and villages” ; or, ‘He went on His way through cities and villages, teaching.” 23. Εἶπεν δέ τις att@. We have no means of knowing whether he was a disciple or not, or what his motive was. The question has always been an attractive one to certain minds (2 Esdras viil.). εἰ ὀλίγοι ot σωζόμενοι. The questioner perhaps supposes that, at any rate, none but Jews will be saved. Comp. Acts 1. 47; t Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15. Im all these passages the pres. part. should be marked ; “ those who are being saved, who are in the way of salvation.” For εἰ introducing a dzrec¢t interrogative comp. xxii. 49; Acts i. 6, xix. 2; Mt. xii. 10, etc. The constr. is not classical, and may be explained as arising from the omission of θαυμάζω, γινώσκειν θέλω, or the like. In German we might have, Ob Wenige selig werden ? εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς. Note the plur. As in xii. 15, 42, Jesus gives no answer to the question asked, but replies in a way that may benefit others as well as the interrogator far more than a direct answer would have done. 24. ᾿Αγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν. “Keep on striving to enter,” or, “Strain every nerve.” Questio theoretica initio vertitur ad praxin (Beng.). Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Ecclus. iv. 28; Dan. vi. 14 (Theod.). In Mt. vii. 13 we have εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης. But the context is quite different; and there it is an out- side gaze, while here the door leads directly into the house, and is so narrow that only those who are thoroughly in earnest (βιασταῦ) can pass through it. Vulg. has per angustam portam in both places ; but some Lat. texts have yanuam or ostium here. ζητήσουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν. The futures are most important, whether we place a comma or a full stop after the second. Jesus does not say that there ave many who s¢rzve in vain to enter, but that there wz/7 be many who we// seek in vain to enter, after the time of salvation is past. ‘Those who continue to strive now, succeed. * The change from “strive” to “seek” must also be noted. Mere ζητεῖν is very different from ἀγωνίζεσθαι (1 Tim. vi. 12). Comp: 1Π: 1 57. οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν. “Will not have strength to” (vi. 48, xvi. 3): appropriate to the attempt to force a closed door. Not in LXX. XIII. 25-29.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 347 25. ad οὗ ἂν ἐγερθῇ. Connect this closely with what precedes : ‘‘ Shall not be able, when once the master of the house shall have risen up,” etc. With this arrangement a full stop is placed at πόθεν ἐστέ, and τότε begins a new sentence. Those who place a full stop at ἰσχύσουσιν differ much as to the apodosis of ἀφ᾽ οὗ. Some make it begin at καὶ ἄρξησθε, more at καὶ ἄποκριθείς, and others at τότε. Of these three the first is the worst, making ἄρξησθε ΞΞ ἄρξεσθε, and the last is the best (AV. RV.). 26, 27. Comp. Mt. vii. 22, 23. When the attempt to force the door has failed, ye will begin to use this plea; but it will be cut short by the reply, Οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς. The plea is almost gro- tesque in its insufficiency. To have known Christ after the flesh gives no claim to admission into the kingdom. ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας. A quotation from Ps. vi. 9, where we have πάντες οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν. Aristotle says that as δικαιοσύνη sums up the whole of virtue, so ἀδικία sums up the whole of vice (Zth. Nic. v. τ. 19). Contrast the quotation of the same text in Mt. vil. 23. Vulg. preserves one difference by having guz oferamznd there and operariz here; but ignores another in using zzzgwzfas for ἀνομία there and also for ἀδικία here. Similarly AV. and RV. have ‘‘iniquity” in both. With ἐργάται ἀδικίας comp. οἱ ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας (1 Mac. ill. 6); τῶν καλῶν καὶ σεμνῶν ἐργάτην (Xen. Mem, 11. 1. 27) ; τῶν πολεμικῶν (Cyr. iv. I. 4). 28. Ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὃ κλαυθμός. There is no need to interpret ἐκεῖ of time, a use which is rare in class. Grk. and perhaps does not occur in N.T. Here the meaning is, “There in your ex- clusion, in your place of banishment.” Note the articles with κλαυθμός and βρυγμός, “the weeping and the gnashing,” which are indeed such. Elsewhere in N.T. βρυγμός occurs only in Mt. (1111 12 salir 712: 50: ΧΑΠ 15, ΧΙ. 51; xxv.30): [ἢ LX: Prov: xix. 12; Ecclus. li. 3; also Aq. Ps. xxxvii. 9. These two verses (28, 29) occur in Mt. (vill. 11, 12) in a different connexion and with some difference of wording. *ABpadp καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ πάντας τ. προφήτας. For all this Marcion seems to have substituted πάντας τοὺς δικαίους, in order to avoid a direct reference to O.T. (Tert. Adv. Marcion, iv. 30). The evidence is wholly against the conjecture that Marcion’s reading was the original one, which was altered in order to oppose him and agree with Mt. viii. 11. In Mt. πάντας τοὺς προφήτας is wanting. Some Lat. texts add dez to prophetas, and many add z7trozre, or zntrare, or tntrocuntes before 272 regno ΟΥ̓ 271 regnum. ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους ἔξω. “ But yourselves dezmg cast forth without,” in the attempt to enter. They never do enter; but, as they would have entered, but for their misconduct, their exclusion is spoken of as “ casting out.” 29. ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, x.t.A. A combination of Is. xlv. 6 and xlix. 12: comp. lix. 19; Jer. ili. 18; Mal. i. rz. In Mt. viii. 11, 12 the exclusion of the Jews and admission of the Gentiles is 348 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [XIII. 29, 80. still more clearly expressed. This was the exact opposite of Jewish expectations. lz mundo futuro mensam ingentem vobts sternam, quod gentes videbunt et pudefient (Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. p. 86); ze. the Gentiles were to be put to shame at the sight of the Jews in bliss. Here it is the Jews who gnash their teeth, while the Gentiles are in bliss. There is no πολλοί with ἤξουσιν, so that the man’s curiosity remains unanswered ; but the context implies many rather than few. In Mt. πολλοί is expressed ; and this also seems to have been against Jewish expectations. Vidi filios cenacult qui numero admodum pauct sunt (Schoettgen, p. 80). The Jews commonly spoke of the Messianic Kingdom as a banquet (xiv. 15; Rev. xix. 9). For the four quarters of the globe comp. Ps. evil. 3; 1 Chron. ix. 24. Of the order in which they are given here Bengel remarks, Hoc fere ordine ad fidem conversi sunt popult. Mt. has only East and West. Even if ὄψεσθε (Β! DX) were the right reading for ὄψησθε (A B?RT, ἴδητε δ) in ver. 28, there would be no need to make ἤξουσιν depend upon ὅταν. There should in any case be a full stop at ἔξω. 80. εἰσὶν ἔσχατοι . .. εἰσὶν πρῶτοι. ‘There are some of each class who will be transferred to the other. Mt. xx. 16 we have ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι Kai οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι. From that passage coupled with Mt. xix. 30 = Mk. x. 31 we infer that this was a say- ing which Jesus uttered more than once. But here only is it introduced with καὶ ἰδού, of which Lk. is so fond (i. 20, 31, 36, Vv. 12, Vil. 12, 37, etc.), and for which Mt. and Mk. have πολλοὶ δέ. The practical answer to the question in ver. 23 remains, ‘Whatever be the number of those who are in the way of salva- tion, that which concerns you is, that you should without delay secure a place among them.” 831-35. § The Message to Herod Antipas and the Lament over Jerusalem. From ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ it is clear that the scene does not shift. It probably lies in Perzea, but we cannot be certain. Both Perzea and Galilee were under the jurisdiction of Antipas. The Pharisees wanted to frighten Jesus into Judzea, where He would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin; but that they did not invent this alarm about Antipas is clear from Christ’s reply. He would have denounced ¢he Pharisees for cunning and deceit, if they had brought Him a lying report; and it is very unnatural to make τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ refer to the inventor of the report, or to the Pharisees as a body, or indeed to anyone but Herod. For the same reason we need not suppose that the Pharisees were in a plot with Herod. ‘They reported his words without consulting him. Although the tetrarch wished to see Christ work a miracle, yet he probably regarded Him as a dangerous leader like the Baptist ; and that he should openly threaten to put Him to death, XIII. 81, 32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 349 in order to induce Him to leave his province, is probable enough. The wish to disturb Jesus in His work, and to create a panic among His followers, would make the Pharisees report this threat, even it they had no hope of driving Him into the power of the hierarchy. The incident is remarkably parallel to the attempt of Amaziah, priest of the golden calf at Bethel, who first denounced the Prophet Amos to Jeroboam 1., and then tried to frighten Amos out of Israel into Judah, equally in vain (Amos vii. 10-17). See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 238. 81. θέλει σε ἀποκτεῖναι. “Would fain kill Thee” (RV.). The “will” of all other English Versions is too like the simple future: comp. ix. 22. They do not say, ‘‘ has determined to kill.” Possibly Jesus was in the very district in which John had been captured by Antipas; and this may have suggested the threat or the report of it, or both. 82. εἴπατε TH ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ. As ἀλώπηξ is usually fem. (ix. 58; Mt. vili. 20; Judg. i. 35; 1 Kings xxi. 10; and also in class. Grk.), we cannot infer that the fem. is here used in a contemptuous sense: but the masc. occurs Cant. 1. 15. Here, as usual, the fox is used as a symbol of craftiness, not of rapacity, as some maintain. Herod’s craftiness lay in his trying to get rid of an’ influential leader and a disquieting preacher of righteousness by a threat which he had not the courage to execute. He did not wish to bring upon himself a second time the odium of having slain a Prophet.! In the Talmud the fox is called ‘the sliest of beasts.” See examples in Keim, 765. of (Vaz. iv. p. 344, and Wetst. Foxes of more than one species are very common in Palestine. ORG ant. OH OK ἐκβάλλω δαιμόνια καὶ ἰάσεις ἀποτελῶς As in the reply to the Baptist (vii. 22), Jesus gives the casting out of demons and the healing of the sick as signs of the Messiah’s works. In N.T. ἴασις is peculiar to Lk. (Acts iv. 22, 30); in LXX Prov. ii. 8, ἵν. 22: The reading ἐπιτελῶ (AR) is a correction to a more familiar verb, for ἀποτελῶ occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Jas. ii. 15 ; 1 Esdr. v. 73 (same v.l. as here); 2 Mac. xv. 39. It means, ‘‘I bring quite to an end.” σήμερον καὶ αὔριον Kal TH τρίτῃ. The three days have been interpreted to mean (1) three actual days, (2) the three years of the ministry, (3) a long time, (4) a short time, (5) a definite time. 1 Cyril argues that, because we have ταύτῃ and not ἐκείνῃ with τῇ ἀλώπεκι, the fox must be some one nearer the spot than Herod, viz. the Pharisees (Migne, vol. lxxii. p. 582). Theophylact uses the same argument. But it is the common use of οὗτος for that which is condemned or despised, wzlpz zst7 ; or still more simply, ‘‘that fox of yours,” z.e. whom you put forward and make use of. Comp. οὗτος, v. 21, vii. 39, 49; Jn. vi. 42, vii. 15, 36, 49, ix. 16, xii. 34. 350 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [XIII. 82, 83. The last is probably right. The course of the Messiah is determined, and will not be abbreviated or changed because of the threats ofa Herod.! For the same expression of three actual days comp. x1x. 10, 11. See also Hos. vi. 2. τελειοῦμαι. “41 am perfected,” consummor (Vulg.). Comp. Heb. ii. το. In both cases the idea is that of “bringing Christ to the full moral perfection of His humanity, which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity” (Wsctt.). This is the only passage in.N.T. outside the Epistle to the Hebrews in which this verb is used of Christ. In that Epistle it is thus used thrice (ii. το, ν. 9, vii. 28), and the idea which it represents is one of the main characteristics of the Epistle. It is doubtful whether there is here any reference to the special phrase τελειοῦν τὰς χεῖρας, which is used in LXX of the installation of fvies¢s in their office (Exod. xxix. 9, 29, 33, 35; Lev. vill. 33, xvi. 32; Num. ii. 3: comp. Lev. xxi. 10; Exod. xxviil. 37 (41); Jud. xvii. 5); although such a reference would be very appropriate on the approach of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. See Wsctt. on 779 zdea of τελείωσις and on Zhe τελείωσις of Christ (Hebrews, pp. 63-67). τελειοῦμαι is probably pass. and not mid.; pres. and not Attic fut. Ellicott, Azlsean Lectures, 1859, p. 264, 4th ed.; Keim, iv. p. 344. _ 83. πλὴν Set με σήμερον κ. αὔριον K. TH ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι. “ Howbeit ” (see on vi. 24, 35) “it is ordained by Divine decree (see on iv. 43, ix. 22) that I go on My way hence, as Herod desires ; not, however, because you suggest it, but because My work at this time requires 11. The same verb is used in both places: πορεύου ἐντεῦθεν and det pe πορεύεσθαι. But, as ἐξελθεῖν is not repeated, the repetition of πορεύεσθαι (comp. πορευθέντες εἴπατε) may be accidental.2. The expression τῇ ἐχομένῃ for “the next day” occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Acts xx. 15; 1 Chron. x. 8; 2 Mac. xii. 39: comp. Acts xiii. 44, xxi. 26; 1 Mac. iv. 28. To understand χώρᾳ instead of ἡμέρᾳ and translate “‘I must go on My way to-day and to-morrow in the adjoining region also,” is against the con- text: τῇ ἐχομένῃ plainly = τῇ τρίτῃ. οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. “Τί cannot be allowed,” zon convenit, non fieri potest: 2 Mac. xi. 18; Plat. Rep. vi. 501 C. The saying is severely ironical, and that in two ways. (1) According to overwhelming precedent, Jerusalem is 1 «¢ The number three seems here, as in the three years (ver. 7), to denote a period of time as complete in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end” (Andrews, Z. of our Lord, p. 396). Undverse teniporis requisttd ad opus suum perfectio signeficatur (Caj εἴδη). * Maldonatus, whom Trench approves, makes the πλήν signify, ‘* Although I must die on the third day, yet threats will not interfere with My continuing My work until then.” Rather, ‘‘ Although I must go to Jerusalem, yet it is not threats which send Me thither.” XIII. 33, 34. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 351 the place in which a Prophet ought to be put to death. Quex urbs jus wlud occidendi Prophetas quasi usu ceperat (Grotius). Jewish usage has determined that Jerusalem is the right place for such crimes. (2) When the conditions of place and time have been fulfilled, it is not Herod that will be the murderer. ‘“‘ You profess to be anxious for My safety, if I remain in Herod’s dominions. Do not be alarmed. I am in no danger here, nor from Him. But I must go to your capital: and it is there, and at your hands, that I shall die.” Jesus is not referring to the Sanhedrin as having the exclusive ~g#¢f to try a Prophet; nor does He mean that no Prophet had ever been slain outside Jerusalem. The Baptist had been murdered at Macherus.!. But such cases were exceptional. By long prescription it had been established that Jerusalem was the proper scene for these tragedies. προφήτην. Any Prophet. To make it equivalent to τὸν προφήτην, and interpret it of Christ in particular, does violence to the Greek. 34, 35. The Lament over Jerusalem. ‘This lament is called forth by the thought of the previous verse. What sorrow that the Messiah should have to speak thus of the metropolis of His own people! The connexion is natural; all the more so if the Pharisees (ver. 31) came from Jerusalem. But the connexion in Mt. xxiii. 37 is not less natural; and there Christ is at Jerusalem. To decide between the two arrangements is not easy: and to suppose that such words were spoken on two different occasions is rather a violent hypothesis; which, however, is adopted by Alford, Andrews, Ellicott, and Stier. The wording is almost identical in both places, especially in the remarkable turn from the third sing. (αὐτήν) to the second sing. (cov), and thence to the second plur. (ἠθελήσατε). On the whole it seems to be more probable that the lament was uttered when Jerusalem was before His eyes, than when it and its inhabitants were far away. For the repetition of the name see on x. 41. 84. ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας. ‘The slayer of Prophets” ; pres. part. This is her abiding character; she is a murderess, laniena prophetarum, προφητοκτόνος. Comp. Acts vii. 52. λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς αὐτήν. As the wicked husbandmen did (Mt. xxi. 35): comp. Heb. xii. 20. This is a repetition in a more definite form of the preceding clause. It is arbitrary to make τοὺς ἀποσταλμένους refer to the Apostles and other messengers of the Gospel: they are the same class as τοὺς προφήτας. See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xxiii. 37, Migne, cxx. 789. 1 But perhaps even in the case of the Baptist the hierarchy at Jerusalem had a hand: He was ‘“‘delivered up” by some party. Comp. παραδοθῆναι (Mk. i. 14), παρεδόθη (Mt. iv. 12). 352 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE | XIII. 34, 35. ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι τὰ τέκνα σου. These words, which are found in both Mt. and Lk., are evidence from the Synoptists themselves respecting much work of Christ in Jerusalem which they do not record. As S. John tells us, He ministered there at other times than just before His Passion. ‘The context forbids us from taking τὰ τέκνα σου in any other sense than the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Comp. xix. 44, and see Neander, Z. 7. C. ὃ 110, Eng. tr. p. 165.) This is fully admitted by Strauss, if the words were really spoken by Christ.! He suggests therefore that they come from an apocryphal source, and probably the same from which he supposes xi. 49-51 to have been taken. In this he has been followed by Loman and Pfleiderer (see Hahn, 1]. p. 255). But, like x. 22, this verse—so strongly confirming the Johannean tradition—is far too well attested to be got rid of by any sup- positions. The pronouns in ἐπισυνάξαι mean “ together to one place—to Myself.” Comp. Ps. ci. 23 ?, cv. 47. ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις THY ἑαυτῆς νοσσιάν. “Even as a hen her own brood.” For ὃν τρόπον comp. Exod. 11. 14. Like “fowl” in English, ὄρνις is used specially of domesticated hens (Xen. Anad. iv. 5. 25; Aesch. Lum. 866). Mt. has τὰ νοσσία αὐτῆς, “her chickens.” This similitude is not found in O.T., but is frequent in Rabbinical literature. Schoettgen, pp. 207-210. Comp. τὰ κείνου τέκν᾽ ἔχων ὑπὸ πτεροῖς σώζω τάδε (Eur. Heracl. 10). Jerome quotes Deut. xxxii. 11 in illustration: “As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, that fluttereth over her young, He spread abroad His wings, He took them, He bare them on His pinions.” With ὕπο τὰς πτέρυγας comp. Ruth ii. 12; Is. xxxi. 5; Mal. iv. 2; Ps. xvii. 8, xxxvi. 8, lvii. 2, lxi. 5, lxiii. 8. καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε. In tragic contrast with ποσάκις ἠθέλησα: comp. Jn. 1: Ὁ: τὸ, 17. 85. ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὃ οἶκος ὑμῶν. Neither hee (DEGHMU X A, Latt. Boh. Syr.) nor in Mt. xxiii. 38, where it is better attested, is ἔρημος more than a gloss. Comp. ὅτι εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται ὃ οἶκος οὗτος (Jer. Xxil. 5), and ἐγκαταλέλοιπα τὸν οἷκόν pov, ἀφῆκα τὴν κληρονομίαν μου (Jer. xii. 7). “Is being left to you” means ‘‘ You have it entirely to yourselves to possess and protect ; for God no longer dwells in it and protects it.” Comp. ἀφεθήσεται (xvii. 34, 35). By “your house” is meant the home of τὰ τέκνα cov, the city of Jerusalem. Note the repetition ὑμῖν... ὑμῶν. Syr-Sin. here has, “ Your house is forsaken” ; in Mt. it is defective. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ pe. With great solemnity and with strong assurance. Comp. Jn. vil. 34, Vili. 21. ἕως εἴπητε. ‘Their seeing Him is dependent upon their repent- 1 Hier sind alle Ausfliichte vergebens, und man muss bekennen: sind dtess wirkliche Worte Jesu, so muss er ofter und linger, als es den synoptischen Berichten nach scheint, in Jerusalem thitig gewesen sein (L. 7. 1864, p. 249). XIII. 35. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 353 ance; and this is left uncertain; for the ἥξει dre or ἂν ἥξῃ ὅτε after ἕως (A D, Vulg.) is not genuine! There are three inter- pretations of the point of time indicated by this declaration. (1) The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday (xix. 38; Mt. xxi. 9 ; Mk. xi. 9). But this is quite inadequate. Christ would not have declared with this impressive solemnity the fact that He would not enter Jerusalem for some weeks, or possibly months. (2) Zhe Second Advent. But where are we told that the unbelieving Jews will welcome the returning Christ with hymns of praise? (3) Zhe conversion of the Jews throughout all time. ‘This last no doubt is right. The quotation Εὐλογημένος, «.7.A., 15 verbatim from LXX of Ps. cxviii. 26, and ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου means as the representative of Jehovah. Converted Israel will thus welcome the spiritual presence of the Messiah. XIV. 1-XVII. 10. Zhe Second Period of the Journey. This forms a new division of the section which has been styled “the Journeyings towards Jerusalem”: see on ix. 51. The first portion of it (xiv. 1-24) may be thus subdivided. Miki Ai, Vil. 33, vill. 22; Mit. vill. 3, 15, XVil. 7) Xx. 34) or by ἐπιτιθέναι τὰς χεῖρας (iv. 40, xiii. 13; Mk. vi. 5, vill. 23, 25, etc.). Both ἰᾶσθαι (see small print on v. 17) and ἐπιλαβέσθαι (ix. 47, Xx. 20, 26, xxill. 26, etc.) are freq. in Lk. Christ read the man’s faith, as He read the hostility of the Pharisees, and responded to it. ἀπέλυσεν. This probably means something more than the letting go after the ἐπιλαβόμενος, viz. “dismissed him” from the company, to prevent interference with him. ; 5. Tivos ὑμῶν υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς. The emphatic word is ὑμῶν. “ How do you act, when your interests are concerned? When your son, or even your ox, falls into a well?”! Palestine abounds in un- protected cisterns, wells and pits. Wetst. quotes from the Mishna, St in puteum bos aut asinus ... filius aut fiza. The argument is that what the Pharisees allowed themselves for their own benefit must be allowed to Christ for the benefit of others. Their sabbath help had an element of selfishness ; His had none. The reading ὄνος ἢ βοῦς probably comes from xiii. 15. The correction was doubly tempting: 1. because vids seemed rather to spoil the ἃ fortéord argu- ment; 2. because ὄνος is more naturally coupled with Bods. Comp. Deut. xxi. 4. The reading πρόβατον (D) for vids has a similar origin, while ὄϊς is a conjecture as the supposed original of both vids and évos. The evidence is 1 There is possibly a reference to the wording of the fourth commandment, in which son stands first among the rational creatures possessed, and ox first among the irrational (Deut. v. 14). 356 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 5-7. thus divided: vios ABEGHMSUVTAL εἰς., εἴς Syrr., Cyr-Alex.— ὄνος SK LX II, abci Syr-Sin. Vulg. Arm. Aeth. See WH. ii. App. p. 62; Sanday, “422. to Grk. T. p. 120. The ἀποκριθείς before πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν (ἃ A, Vulg.) is probably an insertion. Note the Hebraistic construction instead of τίς ὑμῶν οὗ vids, K.7.d., οὐκ εὐθέως ἀνασπάσει αὐτόν ; 6. οὐκ ἴσχυσαν ἀνταποκριθῆναι. Stronger than ἡσύχασαν (ver. 3): “They had no power to reply.” Lk. is fond of noting that people are silenced or keep silence (xx. 26; Acts xi. 18, xii. 17, XV. 12, xxii. 2). For the compound verb comp. Rom. ix. 20; Judg: v. 293 Job xvi. 8, ΣΧΣΙ rz: 7-11. Discourse on choosing the Lowest Seats at Entertain- ments. We may suppose that the healing of the dropsical man preceded the meal. This now begins; and, as they settle round the tables, there is a manoeuvring on the part of some of the guests to secure the best places. To suggest a comparison between healing the dropsy and dealing with duplicem animt hydropem, superbie tumorem et pecunix sitim is almost as fanciful as supposing that “falling into a well” is meant to refer to the dropsy. ‘The latter supposition (Aug. Bede) still finds favour. 7. Ἔλεγεν δὲ. . . παραβολήν. Comp. v. 36, ΧΙ]. 6, xviii. τ. The “parable” is not in the form of a narrative, but in that of advice, which is thus called because it is to be understood meta- phorically. Christ is not giving counsels of worldly wisdom or of good manners, but teaching a lesson of humility. Every one before God ought to feel that the lowest place is the proper place for him. There is no need to suppose that this was originally a parable in the more usual sense, and that Lk. has turned it into an exhortation ; still less that ver. 7 is a fictitious introduction to a saying of which the historical connexion had been lost. ἐπέχων. Sc. τὸν νοῦν : comp. Acts ili. 5 ; 1 Tim. iv. 16; Ecclus, xxxi. 2. He directed His attention to this: not the same as its attracting or catching His attention. τὰς πρωτοκλισίας. In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Persian customs which prevailed in Palestine at this time, we cannot be sure which were the most honourable places at table. Josephus (Azz. xv. 2. 4) throws no light. But the Talmud says that, on a couch holding three, the middle place is for the worthiest, the left for the second, and the right for the third (Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 207, 494). Among the Greeks it was usual for each couch to have only two persons (Plat. Sym. 175 A, C), but both Greeks and Romans sometimes had as many as four on one couch. D. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. artt. Cena, Symposium, Triclinium ; Bekker, Charicles, Sc. vi. Exc. i. ; Gallus, Sc. ix. Exc. i, ii, Comp, Lk. xx. 46; Mit. xxii. 65 Mik. ago: XIV. 7-10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 357 ἐξελέγοντο. “They were choosing out for themselves ; e/igebant (bcdefff,) rather than e/igerent (Vulg.).” The same thing seems to have taken place at the Last Supper (xxii. 24), and the washing of the disciples’ feet may have been intended as a rebuke for this. 8. εἰς γάμους. Probably sing. in meaning; “to a wedding- feast”: see on xii. 36. The meal at which this was said was an ordinary one, as is shown by φαγεῖν ἄρτον (ver. 1), the common Hebrew phrase for.a meal (ver. 15; Mt. xv. 2; Mk. ili. 20; Gen. ΚΕΝ 25. ΧΠῚ τὸ: ΧΘΟΝῚ 11. 29; etc.). Jesus singles out ἃ marriage, not perhaps because such a feast is a better type of the Kingdom of God, but because on such occasions there is more formality, and notice must be taken of the rank of the guests. κατακλιθῇς. Peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (vii. 36, ix. 14, xxiv. 30): four times in LXX, and common in class. Grk. 9. ὃ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας. It is misplaced ingenuity to render, “thee thyself also,” dich auch selbst. ‘Thee and him,” ¢e et {ζει (Vulg.), is right. His inviting both gave him the right to arrange both guests as he pleased. Contrast 11. 35. ἐρεῖ. For the change from subjunct. to fut. indic. comp, xii. 58. See also ἐρεῖ after ἵνα, ver. 10. Δὸς τούτῳ τόπον... τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον. Here AV. is inferior to all previous versions. Vulg. has /ocwm in both places. Luth. omits in both. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. have “rowme” in both: Wic. and Rhem. “place” in both. ‘The lowest oom” means “the lowest p/ace” ; but in that case “give this man room ” should precede. Otherwise ‘lowest room” will seem to mean the bottom chamber. ‘* Thou hast set my feet in a large xoom” (Ps. xxxi. 8), 2.2. in abundant space (Ps. xviii. 19). Bishop Hall calls Pope Pius 11. ‘fas learned as hath sat in that roome this thousand yeeres” (Ze¢fevs, Dec. ii. Ep. 3). Davies, Bzb/e English, p. 152. Comp. Ter. Heaut. 111. 3. 25. Sy. /ube hunc abire hinc aliqguo. Cl. Quo ego hinc abeam? Sy. Quo? quo libet: da tllis locum. Abi deambulatum. Cl. Deambulatum? Quo? Sy. Vah, quasi destt locus. a ἄρξη . κατέχειν. ‘The ἄρξῃ marks the contrast between the brief self-assumed promotion and the permanent merited humilia- tion. Comp. Prov. xxv. 5, 7, which Christ seemed to have had in His mind. ‘The displaced guest goes from top to bottom, because the intermediate places have meanwhile been filled. 10. ἵνα. . . ἐρεῖ σοι. Perhaps iva is here used ἐκβατικῶς, of the γερά rather than of the purpose: “so that he will say to thee.” But if the idea of purpose be retained, it is Christ’s purpose in giving the advice, not the purpose with which the hearer is to adopt the advice. There is no recommendation of ‘the pride that apes humility,” going to a low place zz order to be promoted. See small print on xx. 10 358 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. LUKE [XIV. 10-12. ny fut. indic. after ἵνα is common in late Greek: xx. 10; Mk. xv. 20; Jn. 3, Xvil. 25 Acts xxi. 241: πὴ]. ai. 4, etc, Win. xl: ἢ ΠΡ 5530: ΕἸ τος Lang. of N.T. p- 109 ; Burton, § 199. προσανάβηθι 4 ἀνώτερον. Perhaps “ Come up higher,” z.e. to where the host is sitting: accede (acf ffjiqr) rather than ascende (Vulg.). Comp. ἀνάβαινε πρός we (Prov. xxv. 7). The verb is classical and frequent in LXX, esp. in Joshua of geographical description (xi. 17, xv. 3, 6, 7, Xviil. 12, xix. 11, 12; Exod. xix. 23, etc.). The ady. occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Heb. x. 8; comp. ἀνώτερος (Neh. iii. 25), ἀνώτατος (Tobit viii. 3), ἐσώτερος (Acts xvi. 24; Heb. vi. 19), κατώτερος (Eph. iv. 9). ἐνώπιον πάντων. Both words are characteristic: see on 1. 15 and vi. 30. The πάντων is unquestionably to be retained (8 A BL X 1, 33 69, Syrr. Boh. Aeth.). 11. πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτόν. One of our Lord’s repeated utterances : xvill. 14; Mt. xxiii. 12. In all three places AV. spoils the anti- thesis by varying the translation of ταπεινόω, “ abase,” “humble.” The saying here guards against the supposition that Christ is giving mere prudential rules of conduct or of good taste. Humility is the passport to promotion in the Kingdom of God. Comp. for the first half x. 15 ; and for the second half Jas. iv. 10; 1 Pet. v. 6. Note that while Lk. in both places has πᾶς with the participle (see on i. 66), Mt. has ὅστις. 12-14. The Duty of inviting Lowly Guests. The previous discourse was addressed to the guests (ver. 7): this is addressed to the host. It is a return for his hospitality. We cannot be sure that all the other guests were of the upper classes, and that this moved Jesus to utter a warning. Some of His disciples may have been with Him, and they were not wealthy. Still less may we assert that, if all the other guests were of the upper classes, this was wrong. All depends upon whether the motive for hospitality was selfish. But it is wrong to omit benevolence to the poor, in whose case the selfish motive is excluded. As before, we have a parable in a hortatory form; for Jesus is not merely giving rules for the exercise of social hospitality. 12. Ἔλεγεν δὲ kal TO κεκληκότι αὐτόν. ‘But He was saying to him also that had bidden Him”; gui invitaverat eum (df), invitantt eum (δ), invitatori (abc ff,ilqr): convivatori suo benigne rependens, πνευματικὰ ἀντὶ σαρκικῶν (Grotius). For ἄριστον see on Xe ἢ: μὴ φώνει. Pres. imperat. “Do not hadztually call.” It is the exclusive invitation of rich neighbours, etc., that is forbidden. As distinct from καλεῖν, φωνεῖν would specially apply to invitation by word of mouth: and the use of φωνεῖν for invitations is very rare. Neither Vulg. nor any English Version before RV. distinguishes between φώνει here and κάλει, ver. 13, although in vv. 7, 8, 12 καλεῖν is rendered zzvzdare and ver, 12 φωνεῖν, vocare. πλουσίους, With γειτόνας only. It is pleasant to entertain XIV. 195-14. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 359 one’s friends, seemly to entertain one’s relations, advantageous to entertain rich neighbours. But these are not high motives for hospitality ; and we must not let our hospitality end there. μὴ πότε Kal αὐτοὶ ἀντικαλέσωσίν oe. Godet remarks that this warning is playful. Prends-y garde: la pareille ἃ recevoir, Cest un malheur a éviter! Car, une forts la retribution recue, Cen est fait de la remuneration future. Comp. οὔτε μὲν ὡς ἀντικληθησόμενος καλεῖ με τις (Xen. Symp. 1. 15). 18. δοχὴν ποιῇς. See on v. 20. κάλει πτωχούς, ἀναπείρους. The former would not have the money, the latter would not have the strength, to give an enter- tainment. That ἀναπείρους is here generic, and that χωλούς and τυφλούς are species under it, is improbable: comp. ver. 21. The πτωχοί are one class,—those wanting in means; and all the rest belong to another class,—those wanting in physical strength. Beyond this we need not specify ; but in Plato we have ἀνάπηροι] containing the other two classes, of χωλοί τε καὶ τυφλοὶ καὶ of ἄλλοι ἀνάπηροι (Crifo, p. 53 A). The ἀνά is intensive: ‘“ very maimed.” For the command comp. ver. 21 and Neh. viii. το. 14. μακάριος ἔσῃ, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνταποδοῦναι cot. The ὅτι is strictly logical. Good deeds are sure to be rewarded either in this world or in the world to come. ‘Those persons are blessed whose good deeds cannot be requited here, for they are sure of a reward hereafter. For οὐκ ἔχουσιν see on ΧΙ]. 4. For ἀνταποδοῦναι in a good sense comp. Rom. xi. 35; 1 Thes. iii. 9; in a bad sense, Rom. xii. 19; Heb. x. 30. The ἀντί expresses retaliation, exact repayment. Comp. Arist. 2 21. Vic. ix. 2. 5, where we have δόσις, ἀποδοτέον, and ἀνταπόδοσις. ᾿ ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων. Τί is possible that there is here a reference to the doctrine of a double resurrection, first of the righteous, and then of all. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thes. iv. 16; Rev. xx. 5, 6. If so, this is the ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν (xx. 35; Acts ive, bili ττ 1 Per 157: comp. Mk 1x: 9, xi. 25 ; Mt xvi. 95 Gal. i. 1), which implies that some are for the present left unraised, as distinct from the ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (Acts xvii. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 21; Heb. vi. 2), which is the general resurrection. See Lft. on Phil. ii. rr. But τῶν δικαίων may be added merely to indicate the character of those who practise disinterested benevolence. 15-24. The Parable of the Great Supper. The identity of this with the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son, often called the Parable of the Wedding Garment (Mt. xxii. 1-14), will continue to be discussed, for the points of similarity and of difference are both of them so numerous that a good case may be made for either view. But the context, as well as the points of difference, justifies 1 The form ἀνάπειρος seems to be a mere misspelling of ἀνάπηρος (Tobit xiv. 2% 3 2 Mac. vill. 24 AV); but it is well attested. WH. ii. App. p. 151. 360 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [XIV. 15-17. a distinction. The parable in Mt. is a comment on an attempt to arrest Christ (xxi. 46), and tells of rebels put to death for insult- ing and killing their sovereign’s messengers ; this is a comment on a pious remark, perhaps ignorantly or hypocritically made, and tells of discourteous persons who, through indifference, lose the good things to which they were invited. It is much less severe in tone than the other; and even in those parts which are common to the two has very little similarity of wording. 15. τις τῶν συνανακειμένων. “The resurrection of the just” suggests the thought of the Kingdom, and this guest complacently assumes that he will be among those who will enjoy it. With this introductory incident comp. x. 25-30, ΧΙ]. 13-15, XV. I-3. φάγεται ἄρτον. A Hebraism: comp. ver. 1; 2 Sam. ix. 7, 10; 2 Kings iv..8, etc., and see on ver. 8. It points to the Jewish idea that the Messianic age will be inaugurated by a banquet and will be a prolonged festival (Is. xxv. 6). The reading ἄριστον (EH MS UVTI) isa mere corruption of ἄρτον. 16. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. “ But He said to him” (Rhem.). “ And” (Wic.) and “Then” (Tyn. Gen. AV.) obscure the fact that Christ is opposing the comfortable self-complacency of the speaker. What . he says is correct, but the spirit in which he says it is quite wrong. Only those who are detached from earthly things, and treat them as of small account in comparison with the Kingdom of God, will enter therein. ἐποίει δεῖπνον μέγα. ‘Was about to make a great supper,” similar to that at which Jesus was now sitting. One might expect the mid., but comp. ver. 12; Acts vill. 2; Xen. Anad. iv. 2. 23. The πολλούς are the Jews who observe the Law. In Mt. it is ἄνθρωπος βασιλεύς who made a marriage-feast for his son. 17. tov δοῦλον. The wocator, who was sent to remind them, according to custom, and not because they were suspected of unwillingness.1 Comp. Esth. v. ὃ, vi. 14. This custom still pre- vails. ‘To omit the second summons would be “a grievous breach of etiquette, equivalent to cancelling the previous more general notification. ‘To refuse the second summons would be an insult, which is equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war” (Tristram, Lastern Customs, p. 82). The δοῦλος represents God’s messengers to His people, and specially the Baptist and τς Christ. Comp. Mt. xi. 28-30. “EpxeoOe, ὅτι ἤδη ἕτοιμά ἐστιν. The true reading may be ἔρχεσθαι (SADKLPRA) to follow εἰπεῖν (Syr-Sin.), decere tnvitatis ut ventrent (Vulg.). See small print note on xix. 13. But the πάντα after ἐστιν (AP, Syr-Sin. Vulg. ἢ) or before ἕτοιμα (1), ae) comes from Mt. xxii. 4. S* BLR, bc ff,ilq omit. 1 Vocatores suos ostendenti, ut diceret a quibus tnvitatus esset (Plin. WV. 7. xxxv. 10, 36. 89). Comp. Suet. Ca/zg. xxxix.; Sen. De /ra, ili. 37. 3 XIV. 18-20.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 5361 18. ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. Every word is full of point. The very beginning of such conduct was unexpected and unreasonable, and it lasted some time. There was no variation ; it was like a prearranged conspiracy: they all pleaded that they were at present too much occupied to come. And there was not a single exception. The παραιτεῖσθαι comes as a surprise at the end, there being no ἀλλά or δέ at the outset to prepare for a con- trast. This absolute unanimity prepares us for a joyous acceptance of the courteously repeated invitation. On the contrary, they begin “to beg off,” deprecari (Acts xxv. 11; 2 Mac. ii. 31). In Jos. Anz. vii. 8. 2 the verb is used, exactly as here, of excusing oneself from an invitation. They ought to have excused themselves when the first invitation came, if at all. Their begging off now was breaking their promise ; and the excuses were transparently worthless. In Mt. there is no begging off. Those invited simply ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον ; and some of them insulted, and even killed the wocazores. For ἄρχεσαι of proceedings which last some time comp. vil. 38, Ml. 4, XIX. 37, 45; XR. 23, xxii. 2.. Here the. further idea, of interruption is not present. ἀπὸ μιᾶς. The expression is unique in Greek literature. Comp. az’ εὐθείας, ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης, ἐξ ὀρθῆς, διὰ πάσης. We are probably to supply γνώμης : ἀπὸ μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης (Philo, De Sfec. Lege. ii. p. 311). Both ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης and ἐκ μιᾶς φωνῆς are also found. We might also supply ψυχῆς. Less probable suggestions are ὥρας, συνθήκης (Vulg. szmzl), αἰτίας, ὁδοῦ. ἔχω ἀνάγκην. A manifest exaggeration. He had already bought it, probably after seeing it; and now inspection could wait. For the phrase, which is classical, comp. 1 Cor. vil. 37; Heb. vii. 27; Jude 3; and the insertion Lk. xxii. 17. Not in LXX. ἔχε με παρῃτημένον. It is doubtful whether this is a Latinism, habe me excusatum, 1.6. ‘Consider me as one who has obtained indulgence.” ! But certainly we, which is enclitic, cannot be em- phatic: ‘‘Whatever you do about others, 7 must be regarded as excused.” ‘This would require ἐμέ, and before rather than after ἔχε. Comp. ov θαρροῦντά pe ἕξεις (Xen. Cyz, iil. I. 35). 19. πορεύομαι. ‘I am on my way.” He pleads no ἀνάγκη, and is too indifferent to care about the manifest weakness of his excuse. That he had bought the oxen “on approval” is not hinted. Both these two seem to imply that they may possibly come later, if the host likes to wait, or the feast lasts long enough. Hence the host’s declaration ver. 24. 20. οὐ δύναμαι. He is confident that this is unanswerable. See on ver. 26. ‘‘When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go 1 Jnvitas tunc me, cum σεῖς, Nasica, vocasse. Lixcusatum habeas me rogo: ceno dome. —(Mart. ii. 79.) 362. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [Κιν. 20-23. out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business: he shall be free at home one year” (Deut. xxiv. 5). Comp. Hdt. i; 936. π΄ 21. The πάντες (ver. 18) probably means more than three. But three suffice as examples. Some said that they would not come now; others declared that they could not come at all. Comp. the parable of the Pounds, where three servants are samples of the whole ten, and represent two classes (xix. 16-21). Ἔξελθε ταχέως. Not because his anger makes him impatient ; but because he has no intention of putting off anything to please the discourteous persons who have insulted him. He goes on with his arrangements at once. eis Tas πλατείας Kal ῥύμας. We have the same combination Is. xv. 3. This use of ῥύμη is late: Acts ix. 11, ΧΙ]. 10; Ecclus. ix. 7; Tobit xiii. 18. A lane resembles a stream ; and the original sense of ῥύμη is the rush or flow of what is in motion. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 16. The two words combined stand for the public places of the town, in which those who have no comfort- able homes are likely to be found. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26-28. τοὺς πτωχοὺς Kal ἀναπείρους, κιτλ. ‘The Jews who do not ob- serve the Law; the pudblicans and sinners. ‘These were not asked simply because the others refused, and in order to fill the vacant places. ‘They would have been asked in any case; but the others were asked first. ‘They both live in the city: 2.5. both are Jews. But those who respected the Law had a prior claim to those who rebelled against it. The similarity of wording shows the connexion with the preceding discourse (ver. 13); and therefore Bengel’s attractive distinction is probably not intended. He points out that the poor would get no other invitation ; the #zazmed would not be likely to marry; the 4/zd could not go to see farms ; and the Jame would not go to prove oxen. Contrast Mt. xxii. 9, Io. εἰσάγαγε ὧδε. See on 11. 27. It is assumed that they can be “brought in” at once, without formal invitation. They are not likely to refuse. The mixture of guests of all classes is still seen at Oriental entertainments. 22. Κύριε, γέγονεν ὃ ἐπέταξας. He executes the order, and then makes this report. There is no ἤδη, and we are not to sup- pose that he had azzcipated his master’s order ; which wouid have been audacious officiousness, and could hardly have been done without his master’s knowledge. ἔτι τόπος ἐστίν. Comp. ver. 9. No such expression is found in Mt. xxii. ro. It is added because the servant knows that his master is determined to fill all the places, and that the banquet cannot begin till this is done. 23. φραγμούς. “Hedges” (φράσσω = “I fence in”): Mt. xxl. 33; Mk. xii. 1. Just as πλαταῖαι καὶ ῥῦμαι represent the XIV. 23-25.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 363 public roads inside the city, so ὁδοὶ καὶ φραγμοί the public roads outside the city; and this command is the invitation to the heathen. ἀνάγκασον εἰσελθεῖν, By persuasion. A single servant could not use force, and those who refused were not dragged in. Comp. Mk. vi. 45 || and παρεβιάσαντο (xxiv. 29; Acts xvi. 15). The text gives no sanction to religious persecution. By showing that physical force was not used it rather condemns it. ἵνα γεμισθῇ pou ὁ οἶκος. LVec natura nec gratia patitur vacuum (Beng.). We are not told the result of this third invitation ; but we may conclude that the Gentiles fill the void which the unbelief of the Jews has left (Rom. xi. 25). In Mt. the result of the second invitation is ἐπλήσθη 6 νυμφών, and there is no third. Augustine interprets this third summons as a call to heretics, which cannot be correct. 24, λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν. Solemn introduction of the main point of the parable. The transition from sing. (ἔξελθε) to plur. (ὑμῖν) is variously explained. (1) That some of the πτωχοί (ver. 21) are present and are included in the address. (2) That there is a transi- tion from the parable to its application, and Christ speaks half as the host to his servant and others, and half in His own person to the Pharisee and his guests. (3) That the host addresses, not only the servant, but all who may hear of what he has done. In favour of (2) we must not quote xi. 8, xv. 7, I0, XVl. 9, XVill. 14 ; Mt. xxi. 43. In all these places it is Jesus who is addressing the audience ; not a person in the parable who sums up the result. Here the ἐκείνων and the pov show that the latter is the case. In Mt. the conclusion to the parable is πολλοὶ yap εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί (xxii. 14), and these are the words of Christ, not of the βασιλεύς. 25-35. § Warnings against Precipitancy and Half-heartedness in Following Christ. The Parables of the Rash Builder, the Rash King, and the Savourless Salt. The section has been called “The Conditions of Discipleship.” These are four. 1. The Cross to be borne (25-27; Mt. x. 37, 38). 2. The Cost to be counted (28-32). 3. All Possessions to be renounced (33). 4. The Spirit of Sacrifice to be maintained (34, 35; Mt. v.13; Mk. ix. 49). The journeying continues, but we are not told the direction ; and a large multitude is following. They are disposed to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the crisis of the Kingdom is at hand. They therefore keep close to Him, in order not to miss any of the expected glories and blessings. This fact is the occasion of the address. They must understand that following Him involves a great deal. Like the guest in the Pharisee’s house (ver. 15), they have not realized what the invitation to enter the Kingdom implies. 25. Συνεπορεύοντο δὲ αὐτῷ, “‘ Now there were going with Him,” 264 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [XIV. 25-28. of what continued for some time. Comp. vil. τι, xxiv. 15. Else- where only Mk. x. 1 of people assembling, but often in LXX (Gen. xiii. 5, xiv. 24, xvili. 16, etc.). 26. οὐ μισεῖ τὸν πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ, κιτιλ. Does not hate them so far as they are opposed to Christ. ‘The context and the parallel passages (Mt. vi. 24, x. 37) show that the case supposed is one in which choice must be made between natural affection and loyalty to Christ. In most cases these two are not incompatible; and to hate one’s parents as such would be monstrous (Mt. xv. 4). But Christ’s followers must be ready, if necessary, to act towards what is dearest to them as if it were an object of hatred. Comp. Jn. ΧΙ. 25. Jesus, as often, states a principle in a startling way, and leaves His hearers to find out the qualifications. Comp. vi. 29, 30; Mt. xix. 12. The καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα here is a comment, whether designed or not, on γυναῖκα ἔγημα in ver. 20. τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ. Not merely his carnal desires, but his life (ix. 24, ΧΙ]. 23); all his worldly interests and affections, including life itself. ec tamen sufficit nostra relinquere, nist relinguamus et nos (Greg. Mag. Hom, xxxii.). So that μισεῖν τὴν ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ is ἀπαρνήσασθαι ἑαυτόν (ix. 23) carried to the uttermost. εἶναί pou μαθητής. The emphasis is on μαθητής, not on pov, which is enclitic. ‘‘He may be following Me in some sense, but he is no disciple of Mine.” Would any merely human teacher venture to make such claims ? 27. οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ. Comp. ix. 23; Mt. x. 38, xvi. 24; Mk. vill. 34. Only here and Jn. xix. 17 1s βαστάζειν used of the cross ; here figuratively, there literally. ‘‘ Carrying his own cross” would be a familiar picture to many of Christ’s hearers. Hundreds had been crucified in Galilee for rebellion under Judas the Gaulonite (A.D. 6). In late Gk. βαστάζειν seems to be more common than φέρειν, when the carrying is figurative: LXX of 2 Kings xviii. 14; Job xxi. 3. It is specially common in the later versions of Aq. Sym. and Theod. All three have it Is. xl. 11, xvi. 12; Jer. x. 5: and both Sym. and Theod. have it Prov. ix. 12; Is. Ixiii, 9. But in none of these places does it occur in LXX. 28-33. Two Parables upon Counting the Cost: the Rash Builder and the Rash King. Comp. Mt. xx. 22; Mk. x. 38. It is possible that in both parables Jesus was alluding to recent instances of such folly. It was an age of ostentatious building and reckless warfare. The connexion with what precedes (γάρ) seems to be that becoming a disciple of Christ is at least as serious a matter as any costly or dangerous undertaking. 28. τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν θέλων. “For which of you (see on xi. 5), if he wishes.” καθίσας. In both parables (ver. 31) this represents long and XIV. 28-33.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 365 serious consideration. The matter cannot be settled off-hand. Comp. Virg. Aen. x. 159. ψηφίζει. ‘‘Calculates” (ψῆφος = calculus). In class. Gk. commonly in mid. of voting. Comp. Rev. xiii. 18: notin LXX. Neither ἀπαρτισμός nor δαπάνη occur again in N.T., but δαπάνη is fairly common in LXX, and ἀπαρτισμός is very rare in Greek literature! In LXX ἀπαρτίζειν occurs (1 Kings ix. 25) ; also in Aq. and Sym. See Suicer, ἀπαρτίζω. 29. μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι. “ Not having the means to finish.” For ἐκτελεῖν comp. Deut. xxxli. 45; 1 Kings xiv. 15; 2 Chron. iv. 5; 2 Mac. xv. 9; Dan. ili. 40 (Theod.). Not elsewhere in N.T. 80. Οὗτος. Contemptuous: v. 21, vii. 39, ΧΙ]. 32, where see reff. ‘The lesson conveyed is not so much, “It is better not to begin, than to begin and fail,” as, “It is folly to begin without much consideration.” 81. συνβαλεῖν εἰς πόλεμον. To be taken together: “to engage with another king for the purpose of war.” The verb. is intrans., as 1 Mac. iv. 34; 2 Mac. vill. 23, xiv. 17; and often in Polyb. The more common expression is συμβάλλειν εἰς μάχην (Jos. Ant. vi. 5- 3: so also in Polyb.). Comp. conjiigere. ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν. “Hguipped with ten thousand,” a meaning which readily flows from ‘clad in, invested with.” Comp. i. 17 ; om: V1 20); τὸ Cor. iv. 21 5. Heb: 1x: 25 5 Jude 14. * The, very phrase occurs 1 Mac. iv. 29. 82. εἰ δὲ μήγε. See small print on v. 36. ἐρωτᾷ [τὰ] πρὸς εἰρήνην. “‘ Asks for negociations with a view to peace.” ‘The τά is omitted in 8 B (Ὁ homeofe/.), and the meaning will then be, “negociates for peace.” BK II have εἰς for πρός (perhaps from ver. 28). Comp. xix. 42 and examples in Wetst. There is a remarkable parallel to this second parable Xen. Mem. 111. 6. 8. 33. This verse shows the futility of asking what the tower means, and who the king with the twenty thousand is.2. These details are part of the framework of the parables, and by themselves mean nothing. The parables as a whole teach that to become Christ’s disciple involves something which ought to be well weighed beforehand. ‘This something was explained before, and is shown in another form here, viz. complete self-renunciation. 1 Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. xxiv., and Apoll. Dysc. De Adv. Ῥ- 532, 7, seem to be almost the only quotations. The Latin renderings here are ad ferfictendum (f Vulg.), ad consummandum (ar), ad consummationem (6), ad perfectum (d). * Those who insist on explaining the king with the twenty thousand com- monly make him mean Satan. But would Christ suggest that we should come to terms with Satan? To avoid this difficulty others regard the king as repre- senting God. But would Christ place the difference between the power of God and the power of man as the difference between twenty thousand and ten thousand? Contrast the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence (Mt. xviii. 24, 28), See on xii. 5 and xvi, 1. 366 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 58. LUKE [XIV. 33-35. ἀποτάσσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὑπάρχουσιν. “ Renounceth all his own belongings,” the chief of which were specified ver. 26. See on ix: 61 and viii. 3. All disciples must be veady to renounce their possessions. Many of the first disciples were called upon actually to do so. Comp. the sarcasm of Julian: “In order that they may enter more easily into the Kingdom of Heaven in the way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the money of the Church of Edessa to be seized” (22. xlii.). Note the characteristic πᾶς and πᾶσιν. It is very forced to put a full stop at πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν, and make two inde- pendent sentences. ‘‘Such is the case therefore with all of you. Whoever renounceth not,” ete. MSS. vary much as to the order of the three words εἶναί μου μαθητής. 34, 35. The Spirit of Sacrifice. The similitude respecting salt was probably uttered more than once, and in more than one form. Comp. Mt. v. 13; Mk. ix. 50. The salt is the self-sacrifice spoken of vv. 26, 27, 3... The figure of salt is not found in O.T., but comp. Job. vi. 6. 84. Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας. The οὖν (8 B LX 60, Boh.) perhaps refers to previous utterances: “Salt, therefore (as I have said before), is good.” Mihil utilius sale et sole (Plin. H. NV. xxxi. 9. 45. 102). ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας. The καί (8 B L X, Vulg. codd. Syr., Bede) must be preserved. ‘‘But if even the salt.” In Mt. v. 13 there is no καί. Note the characteristic δὲ kai, and see small print on iii. 9. In LXX and N.T. ἅλας is the common form, with ἅλα as v./. in good MSS. In class. Gk. és prevails. In class. Gk. μωραίνω is “1 am foolish” (Eur. Med. 614); in bibl. Grk. μωραίνομαι has this meaning (Rom. i. 22; Mt. v. 13), μωραίνω being “1 make foolish” (1 Cor. i. 20). Mk. has ἄναλον γίνεσθαι. Vulg. has evanuerdt ; ade infatuatum fuerit. ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται; Quite impossibly Tyn. and Cran. have ‘‘ What shall be seasoned ther with?” From meaning simply ‘‘ prepare,” ἀρτύω came to be used of preparing and flavouring food (Col. iv. 6). 85. It is futile to discuss what meaning is to be given to “ the land” and “the dunghill.” They do not symbolize anything. Many things which have deteriorated or become corrupt are use- ful as manure, or to mix with manure. Savourless salt is not even of this much use: and disciples without the spirit of self-devotion are like it. That is the whole meaning.! If this saying was uttered only once, we may prefer the connexion here to that in the Sermon on the Mount. Mk. so far agrees with Lk. in placing it after the Transfiguration. But all three arrangements may be right. 1 For this savourless salt in Palestine see Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem, pp. 161 ff. (quoted by Morison on Mk. ix. 50); also Thomson, “1 ‘saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and beasts” (Lazd & Book, p. 381). XIV. 35-XV. 1. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 367 κοπρίαν. The word is one of many which seem to be of a colloquial char- acter, and are common to N.T. and the comic poets. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. pp. 72-76. In N.T. only here. Comp. xiii. 8. Ὃ ἔχων Gta ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω. A solemn indication that attention to what has been said is needed, and will be rewarded. It is another of Christ’s repeated sayings. See on vii. 8. XV. 1-382. Three Parables for the Encouragement of Penitent Sinners. The Love and Free Forgiveness of God. The Lost Sheep (3-7) and the Lost Coin (8-10) form a pair. Like the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (xiii. 18-21), and the Rash Builder and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), they teach the same lesson, which the Prodigal Son (11-32) enforces and augments. In the first two Jesus justifies His own conduct against the criticisms of the Pharisees. In the third He rebukes their criticisms, but at the same time continues the lesson to a point far beyond that touched by the objectors. When we regard them as a triplet, each parable teaching a separate lesson, Bengel’s classification will stand: 1. Peccator stupidus ; 2. sut plane nesciens ; 3. sciens et voluntarius. But the insertion of εἶπεν δέ (ver. 11) clearly marks off the third parable from the first two, whereas these are closely connected by %, which almost implies that the second is little more than an alter- native way of saying the same thing as the first. 1-8. The Murmuring of the Pharisees against Christ’s Inter- course with Publicans and Sinners. We have had several other cases in which Jesus has made a question, or an appeal, or a criti- cism, the occasion of a parable: ver. 15, 25-29, ΧΙ]. 13-15, ΧΙΥ. 15. There is once more no indication of time or place ; but connexion with what precedes is perhaps intended. There a thoughtless multitude followed Him, intending to become His disciples, and He warns them to count the cost. Here a number of publicans and sinners congregate about Him, and He rebukes the suggestion that He ought to send them away. It was well to check heedless enthusiasts, that ¢Aey might be saved from breaking down after- wards. It would have been a very different thing to have sent away penitents, that e might be saved from legal pollution. 1. Ἦσαν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐγγίζοντες πάντες ol τελῶναι Kal οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί. The meaning of πάντες determines the meaning of the tense. We may regard it as hyperbolical for “very many,”—a common use of “all.” Or it may mean all the tax-collectors and other outcasts of the place in which He then was. In either of these cases ἦσαν ἐγγίζοντες (see on 1. 10) will mean “ were drawing near” on some particular occasion. Or we may take πάντες literally of the whole class of publicans and sinners ; and then the verb will mean “used to draw near,” wherever He might be. This was constantly hap- pening, and the Pharisees commonly cavilled (imperf.), and on one occasion He uttered these parables (aor.). It was likely that He 368 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE |[XV. 1-4. would attract these outcasts more and more. Comp. vii. 29, 37, and see on xi. 29. For the characteristic πάντες see on 1. 66, Vi. 30, xii. 10, etc. Note the repeated article: the τελῶναι and the ἁμαρτωλοί are grouped together as ove class by the Pharisees them- selves (v. 30; Mt. ix. 11); not so here by the Evangelist. 2. διεγόγγυΐον. * Murmured among themselves, throughout their whole company.” In N.T. only here and xix. 7, which is very similar. Comp. Exod:'xvi;'2,7,,8 5, Nim. ἜΠΡῚ Ζ: Josh. ix. 18. “The scribes ” are usually placed before “the Pharisees ” (v. 21, vi. 7, Xi. 53; Mt. xii. 38, etc.). Here perhaps the Pharisees took the lead: comp. v. 30 (true text); Mk. vil. τ, 5. προσδέχεται. ‘Allows them access, gives them a welcome” Rom: xvi. 2’; Pail. 11: 20. συνεσθίει. A much more marked breach of Pharisaic decorum than προσδέχεται. He accepted invitations from Levi and other tax-collectors, and in His outdoor teaching He took His meals with them. 8. εἶπεν δέ. “ But (in answer to this cavilling) He said.” Cov. and Cran. have “But”; Tyn. and Gen. “Then.” Something stronger than “ And” (AV. RV.) is needed. Note εἶπὲν δέ, εἶπεν πρός, and εἶπεν τὴν παραβολήν as marks of Lk.’s style. None of them is found in Mt. xviii. 12. 4—7. The Parable of the Lost Sheep. Comp. Mt. xviii. 12-14, where this parable is given in a totally different connexion, and with some differences of detail. Comp. also Jn. x. 1-18. We have no means of knowing how often Jesus used the simile of the Good Shepherd in His teaching. No simile has taken more hold upon the mind of OMI SG 22 32 See Tert. De Pud. vii. and x. Comp. Ezek. xxxiv.; Is. xl. 11; 1 Kings xxii. 17. 4. Tis ἄνθρωπος ἐξ 6 ὑμῶν. Once more He appeals to their per- sonal experience. See on xi. 5, and comp. xii. 25, xiv. 5, 28. The ἄνθρωπος inserted here marks one difference between this parable and the next. ἔχων ἑκατὸν πρόβατα. The point is, not that he possesses so much, but that the loss in comparison to what remains is so small, ἀπολέσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἕν. This is the point of the first two parables, —the particular love of God for each individual soul. In Mt. we have πλανηθῇ (Exod. Ki, ἴδ. in. Ὁ; > Jer. XXVil. 17) for ἀπολέσας. καταλείπει τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα. He is the owner, not the shep- herd. His leaving them does not expose them to danger. The wilderness (in Mt. τὰ ὄρη) is not a specially perilous or desolate place, but their usual pasture, in which they are properly tended. He does not neglect them, but for the moment he is absorbed in the recovery of the lost. Cyril Alex. and Ambrose make the ninety and nine to be the Angels, and the one the human race. Ambrose XV. 4-7. JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 369 adds, Dives igttur pastor cujus omnes nos centesima portio sumus. Migne, xiv. xv. 1756; Ixxii. 798; Payne Smith, p. 497. πορεύεται ἐπὶ τὸ ἀπολωλός. For ἐπί of the goal comp. Acts viii. 26, ix. 11; Mt. xxii. 9; in each case after πορεύεσθαι. Mt. has here πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ πλανώμενον. ἕως εὕρῃ adté. Peculiar to Lk. There is no cessation of the seeking until the lost is found. See Lange, LZ. of C. 1. p. 497. 5. ἐπιτίθησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὥμους αὐτοῦ. This also is peculiar to Lk. The owner does not drive it back, nor lead it back, nor have it carried: he carries it himself. Comp. Is. xl. 11, xlix. 22, lx. 4, Ixvi. 12. In LXX ὦμος is common; in N.T. only here and Mt. xxiii. 4. χαίρων. There is no upbraiding of the wandering sheep, nor murmuring at the trouble. Comp. the use of χαίρων, xix. 6; Acts Vill. 39. 6. συνκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους. See on ix. 1. In Mt. there is nothing about his calling others to rejoice with him. Only his own joy is mentioned. It is a mark of great joy that it seeks sympathy. τὸ ἀπολωλός. Not ὃ ἀπώλεσα (ver. 9). The sheep went astray through its own ignorance and folly (Ps. cxix. 176): the coin was lost through the woman’s want of care. This is another mark of difference between the first parable and the second. ἡ. λέγω ὑμῖν. Mt. has the characteristic ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. ἢ ἐπί. For ἤ without a previous comparative see small print on xvii. 2, and comp. Mt. xviii. 8; Mk. ix. 43, 45, 47; 1 Cor. xiv. 19. Win. xxxv. 2. c, p. 302; Simcox, p. 92. Perhaps ἤ may be said to imply μᾶλλον by a usage which was originally colloquial. It is freq. in LXX; Gen. xlix. 12; Num. xxii. 6, etc. In Mt. xviii. 13 the μᾶλλον is expressed. δικαίοις οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν μετανοίας. ““ Righteous who are of such a character as to have no need of repentance.” The οἵτινες does not prove that δικαίοις means those who are really righteous. It will fit any explanation of δικαίοις and οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν. If both expressions be taken literally, the ninety-nine represent a hypothetical class, an ideal which since the Fall has not been reached. But as Jesus is answering Pharisaic objections to intercourse with flagrant sinners, both expressions may be ironical and refer to the external propriety of those whose care about legal observances prevents them from feeling any need of repentance. Comp. v. 31. Mt. here has τοῖς μὴ πεπλανημένοις. In any case the χαίρων, ver. 5, and the χαρά here are anthropomorphic, and must not be pressed. Jnsperata aut prope desperata magts nos afficiunt (Grotius); but such wzooked for results are impossible to Omniscience. We must hold to the main lesson of the parable, and not insist on interpreting all the details.! 1 In the Midrash there is a story that Moses, while tending Jethro’s flocks, went after a lamb which had gone astray. As he thought that it must be weary, 24 370 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Κν. 7, 8, Note the confidence with which Jesus speaks of what takes place in heaven, and compare it with the claims made upon His followers, xiv. 26, 33. μετανοοῦντι. . . μετανοίας. Both verb and substantive are much more common in Lk. than in Mt. or Mk. Neither occurs in Mt. xviii. 14 or anywhere in Jn. See on v. 32 and 11]. 3. 8-10. § The Parable of the Lost Coin. The main points of difference between this and the preceding parable are the changes from a man to a woman, and from a sheep, which could stray of its own accord, and feel the evil consequences, to a coim, which could do neither. From this it follows that, while the man might be moved by pity rather than by self-interest to bring back the sheep, the woman must be moved by self-interest alone to recover the coin; also that the woman can blame herself for the loss of the coin (ἣν ἀπώλεσα), which the man does not do with regard to the sheep (τὸ ἀπολωλός). Hence we may infer that the woman represents the Church rather than the Divine Wisdom, if she repre- sents anything at all. The general result of the two parables is that each sinner is so precious that God and His Ministers regard no efforts too great to reclaim such. 8. tis γυνή; No ἐξ ὑμῶν is added, perhaps because no women were present. Yet there may be something in the remark of Wetst. Cum varios haberet auditores Christus, mares, feminas, juniores, zis parabolas accommodat : de pastore, de muliere frugi, de filto pro- digo. Women also may work for the recovery of sinners. δραχμάς. The word occurs here only in N.T., but often in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 22; Ex. xxxix, 23) Josh. vil, 21, εἴδ 5 Greek drachma was a silver coin of nearly the same value as a Roman denarius} (vii. 41, X. 35, XX. 24), which is not mentioned in LXX. It was the equivalent of a quarter of a Jewish shekel (Mt. xvii. 24). Ten drachmas in weight of silver would be about eight shillings, but in purchasing power about a pound. Wic. has ‘“‘besant,” Tyn. and others have “groat,” Luth. has Gvoschen. That the ten coins formed an ornament for the head, and that the loss of one marred the whole, is a thought imported into the parable. ἅπτει. The act. is peculiar to Lk. in N.T., and always in the sense of kndling (vill. 16, xi. 33 ; Acts xxviii. 2, and perhaps Lk. xxii. 55: comp. Ex. xxx. 8; Tob. viii. 13; Jud. xiii. 13). Oriental houses often have no windows, and a lamp would be necessary for a search even in the day. he carried it back on his shoulders, Then God said, that, because he had shown pity to the sheep of a man, He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to feed (Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 257; Wetst. on Lk. xv. 5). 1 Nearly all Latin texts have dragmas, dracmas, or drachmas here ; but Cod. Palat. and Ad Novatianum xv. (Hartel’s Cypr. App. p. 65) have denarzos. XV. 8:-.10.1 JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 371 capo... Won sine pulvere (Beng.). It may be doubted whether there is any lesson intended in the coins being lost zz the house, whereas the sheep strays from the fold ; as showing that souls may be lost in the Church as well as by going out of it. In any case, the details are graphic, and express great and persevering activity. “The charge against the Gospel is still the same, that it turns the world upside down” (Trench, Pav. p. 386). 9. τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας. ‘Her women friends and neigh- bours.” No meaning is to be sought in the change of gender, which merely preserves the harmony of the picture. It is women who congratulate Naomi and Ruth (Ruth iv. 14, 17). 10. γίνεται χαρὰ ἐνώπιον. ‘There comes to be joy,” etc. The γίνεται = ἔσται in ver. 7. Joy will arise in any case that may occur. “In the presence of” means “in the judgment of.” The angelic estimate of the facts is very different from that of the Pharisees: comp. xii. 8, xvi. 22; Eph. 1. 4-14. ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ. This is the moral throughout,—the value of a single sinner. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for trying to reclaim multitudes of sinners. ‘They had a saying, “ There is joy before God when those who provoke Him perish from the world.” 11-32. §The Parable of the Prodigal Son. It completes the trilogy of these parables of grace, but we cannot be swze that it was uttered on the same occasion as the two other parables. The Evangelist separates it from them by making a fresh start: Εἶπεν δέ (comp. xxiv. 44). But this may mean no more than that Jesus, having justified Himself against the murmuring of the Pharisees, paused ; and then began again with a parable which is a great deal more than a reply to objections. Even if it was delivered on some other occasion unknown to Lk., he could not have given it a more happy position than this. The first two parables give the Divine side of grace ; the seeking love of God. The third gives the human side ; the rise and growth of repentance in the heart of the sinner. It has been called Zvangelium in Evangelio, because of the number of gracious truths which it illustrates.2, It has two parts, both of which appear to have special reference to the circumstances in which Lk. places the parable. The younger son, who was lost and is found (11-24), resembles the publicans and sinners ; and the elder son, who murmurs at the welcome given to the lost (25-32), resembles the Pharisees. In the wider application of the parable the younger son may represent the Gentiles, and the elder the Jews. Like the Lost Coin, it is peculiar to Lk., who would take 1MSS. of the Vulg. nearly all read ever¢?¢, which Wordsworth conjectures to be a slip for everrzt. Lat. Vet. has scopzs mundavzt (bf ff, 1), scopes mundabzt (iq), scopzs commundat (a), scopis mundat (cr), mundat (a), emundat (e). 2 Inter omnes Christe parabolas hee sane eximia est, plena affectuum et pulcherrimis picta coloribus (Grotius on ver, 20), —— 372 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ἘΠ LUKE [Κν. 1-18. special delight in recording a discourse, which teaches so plainly that God’s all-embracing love is independent of privileges of birth and legal observances. Its literary beauty would be a further attraction to the Evangelist, who would appreciate the delicacy, picturesqueness, and truth of this description of human circum- stances and emotions. See Jerome, //. xxi., for a commentary. 11. ᾿Ανθρωπός τις εἶχεν. ‘The appeal to the personal experience of each is no longer made; but the idea of Aossesszon still continues (ἔχων, ἔχουσα, εἶχεν). In each case it is the owner who exhibits the self-sacrificing care. 12. τὸ ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τῆς οὐσίας. According to Jewish law this would be half what the eldest received, ze. one-third (Deut. xxi. 17): but had he any claim to it in his father’s lifetime ? Very possibly he had. We have here perhaps a survival of that condition of society in which testaments “ took effect immedi- ately on execution, were not secret, and were not revocable” (Maine, Ancient Law, ch. vi. p. 174, ed. 1861), and in which it was customary for a father, when his powers were failing, to abdi- cate and surrender his property to his sons. In such cases the sons were bound to give the father maintenance ; but the act of resignation was otherwise complete and irrevocable. Both in Semitic and in Aryan society this seems to have been the primitive method of succession, and the Mosaic Law makes no provision for the privileges of testatorship (214. p. 197). The son of Sirach warns his readers against being in a hurry to abdicate (Ecclus. Xxxili. 19-23), but he seems to assume that it will be done before death. We may say, then, that the younger son was not making an unheard-of claim. His father would abdicate some day in any case: he asks him to abdicate now. See Zxfositor, 3rd series, X. pp. 122-136, 1889; Edersh. Hist. of J. NV. p. 367. This intrans. use of ἐπιβάλλω occurs Tobit iii. 17, vi. 11; I Mac. x. 30. Comp. κτημάτων τὸ ἐπιβάλλον (Hdt. iv. 115. 1). Other examples in Suicer. For οὐσία comp. Tobit xiv. 13; 3 Mac. iii. 28. διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον. The verb occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. 1 Cor. xi. rx ;} Num. xxxi. 27; 1 Mac. 1. Ὁ: εἴς Fer gag aauap see on Vill. 43. Here it means the same as ἡ οὐσία : Comp. ver. 31. 13. pet οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας. He allows no delay between the granting of his request and the realization of his freedom. On the fondness of Lk. for such expressions as οὐ πολλοί, οὐ μακράν, and the like, see on vii. 6. συναγάγων πάντα. He leaves nothing behind that can minister to his desires; nothing to guarantee his return. The stronger form ἅπαντα is well attested (δ A etc.). εἰς χώραν μακράν. There is no reason for making μακράν an adv. (ver. 20) rather than an adj. either here or xix. 12: μακρός in the sense of ‘‘dis- tant, remote ” is quite classical. XV. 13-16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM re: ἐκεῖ. Away from his father’s care and restraint, and from the observation of those who knew him. διεσκόρπισεν Thy οὐσίαν. The opposite of συναγάγων πάντα. It had cost him nothing to collect it together, and he squanders it as easily as he acquired it. {av ἀσώτως. The expression occurs Jos. Azz. xii. 4. 8; but ἀσώτως is not found again either in N.T. or LXX. The ἄσωτος is “one who does not save, a spendthrift, a prodigal”: Prov. vil. 11 ; comp. Arist. £¢h. JVic. ii. 8. 2, iv. 1. 5. For ἀσωτία see Eph. τὸ Wit Ὁ; τ Pet ἐν. 4; Prov. xxvii. 7; 2 Mac. ‘vis 4 Sometimes ἄσωτος is taken in a passive sense, “one who cannot be saved, abandoned”; erditus rather than prodigus, as if for aowotos (Clem. Alex. Prd. ii. 1, p. 168, 1]. p. 184, ed. Potter). But the active signification is appropriate here. ‘Trench, Syz. xvi. ; Suicer and Suidas 5. ἄσωτος. 14. The working of Providence is manifested in coincid- ences. Just when he had spent everything, a famine, and a * severe one, arose in precisely that land to which he had gone to enjoy himself, and throughout (κατά) the land. And he himself ἢ (καὶ αὐτός), as well as the country, began more and more to be in want. λιμὸς ἰσχυρά. See small print on iv. 25. For kat αὐτός see on i. 17, v. 14, vi. 20. For ὑστερεῖσθαι, ““ to fee/ want” (mid.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 8; Phils iv. 2); Ecclus: x1: 11. 15. πορευθεὶς ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν. He has to leave his first luxurious abode and attach himself, in absolute dependence, to one of another nation, presumably a heathen. Evidently his prodigality has not gained him a friend in need. Godet sees in this young Jew, grovelling in the service of a stranger, an allusion to the τελῶναι in the service of Rome. Excepting the quotation from LXX in Heb. vill. 11, πολίτης in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. (xix. 14; Acts xxi. 39): in LXX Prov. xi. 9, 12, xxiv. 43, etc. For ἐκολλήθη see on x. 11. For the sudden change of subject in ἔπεμψεν Comp. Vil. 15, XIV. 5, XVll. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 6. βόσκειν χοίρους. A degrading employment for anyone, and an \abomination to a Jew.\ Comp. Hdt. ii. 47. 1. But the lowest degradation has still to be mentioned. 16. ἐπεθύμει χορτασθῆναι. Exactly as in xvi. 21, of the pangs of hunger. See on vi. 21. There is no doubt that χορτασθῆναι (sBDLR) is not a euphemism for γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ (APQXT A), but the true reading: cupiebat saturari (ἃ f), con- cupiscebat saturari (e). Syr-Sin. supports A. ἐκ τῶν KEpatiwy ὧν ἤσθιον ot χοῖροι. The pods of the “ carob Ϊ tree,” or “locust tree,” or “John the Baptist’s tree,” or “S. John’s Bread” ; so called from the erroneous notion that its pods were << 374. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ὃ: LUKE ([XV. 16-18. the locusts which were the Baptist’s food. The carob tree, ceratonia siligua, is still common in Palestine and round the Mediterranean. It is sometimes called Scligua Greca. But it is rash to assume that the szigux of Hor. Zp. ii. 1. 1233 Pers. iii. 55; Juv. xi. 58, are carob pods (29... 1. p. 1412).! For the attraction in ὧν see on ill. 19. οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου adt@. ‘No one used to give him” even this miserable food, so that the quantity which he got was small. The neighbours cared nothing about this half-starved foreigner, who even in this vile employment could not earn enough to eat. 17. εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθών. Implies that hitherto he has been “beside himself”: comp. ἐν ἑαυτῷ γενόμενος (Acts xii. 11). The expression is classical both in Greek (Diod. Sic. xiii. 95 ; Epictet. ili. 1. 15) and Latin, vedive ad se (Hor. Zp. ii. 2. 138; Lucret. iv. 1020; Ter. Adelph. v. 3. 8). This ‘coming to himself” is mani- fested in the thought of home and the longing for it. Want rekindles what his revelry had extinguished. See Blass on Acts xii. 11. Πόσοι μίσθιοι. . . περισσεύονται ἄρτων. ‘There is no emphasis on ἄρτων in contrast to κερατίων : the contrast lies in their having plenty to eat. Godet sees the proselytes in these μίσθιοι. The word occurs in N.T. only here and ver. 19: in LXX Lev. xxv. 50 ; Job vii. 1; Tobit v.11; Ecchus. vil. 20, xxxiv. 27, ΣΣΣΥΠΣ Τα Only in late Greek is περισσεύω trans. In N.T. both act. (xii. 15, xxi. 4) and pass. (Mt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29) are used in much the same sense. ἐγὼ δὲ λιμῷ ὧδε ἀπόλλυμαι. Comp. τῷ αἰσχίστῳ ὀλεθρῷ, λιμῷ τελευτῆσαι (Thuc. il. 59. 4). The ὧδε is after λιμῷ inXBL, before λιμῷ in DRU, ego autem hic fame pereo (Vulg.), while AEF etc. omit. The transfer to before λιμῷ caused it to be lost in ἐγὼ δέ. 18. ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι. Not mere Oriental fulness of descrip- tion (i. 39; Acts x. 20, xxli. 10). The dvaords expresses his rousing himself from his lethargy and despair (Acts v. 17, ix. 6, 18). εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. ‘Against heaven.” ‘This is not a rare use of eis: comp. xvi. 4; Mt. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. vi, 18, wi. ΤΟ ἢ: common in LXX and is found also in class. Grk. Comp. Pharaoh’s confession, Ἡμάρτηκα ἐναντίον Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν καὶ εἰς ὑμᾶς (Exod. x. 16); also Plat. ep. iv. 396 A; Phedr. 242 Ὁ; ἘΠ i. 138. 2; Soph. O. C. 968. Filial misconduct is a sin utterly displeasing to God. But the eis does not mean “crying to heaven for punishment,” /zmmelschretend, which is otherwise expressed (Gen. iv. 10, xviii. 21). For ἁμαρτάνω ἐνώπιόν τινος comp. 1 Sam. 1 ἐς These ‘husks’ are to be seen on the stalls in all Oriental towns, where they are sold for food, but are chiefly used for the feeding of cattle and horses, and especially for pigs” (Tristram, JVat. “7156. of B. p. 361). XV. 18-22. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 375 Minonxx 1; LDobit ΤΠ 5. judith v: 7; Sus. 23. “The sin is regarded as something to be judged by the person who re- gards it. κληθῆναι υἱός σου. By the father himself. What other people may call him is not in question. 19. ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων cov. This will be promotion from his present position. He asks it as a favour. 20. ἀναστὰς ἦλθεν. The repentance is as real and decided as the fall. He prepares full confession, but no excuse ; and, having made a good resolution, he acts upon it without delay. Here the narrative respecting the younger son practically ends. What follows (20-24) is mainly his father’s treatment of him; and it is here that this parable comes into closest contact with the two others. Every word in what follows is full of gracious meaning. Note especially ἑαυτοῦ, “his ow father,” αὐτοῦ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος, ἐσπλαγχνίσθη, and δραμών. In spite of his changed and beggarly appearance, his father recognizes him even from a distance. ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ Kal κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. The exact parallel in Acts xx. 37 should be compared. Excepting Mk. iii. τὸ and the quotations Rom. xv. 3 and Rev. xi. 11, ἐπιπίπτειν is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 12; Acts vill. 16, x. 44, etc.), and he alone uses it in this sense: comp. Gen. xxxiil. 4, xlv. 14, xlvi. 29. Latin texts vary much in rendering ἐπέπεσεν : cecidit (Vulg.), incubuit (ad Hier. ad Dam.), procidit (1), superjecit se (e). None of them marks the κατα- in κατεφίλησεν, “kissed him tenderly,” deosculatus est. See on vii. 38, and comp. Tobit vil. 6; 3 Mac. v. 49. As yet the son has said nothing, and the father does not know in what spirit he has returned ; but it is enough that he “as returned. The father has long been watching for this. With the constr. αὐτοῦ ἀπέχοντος εἶδεν αὐτόν, for αὐτὸν ἀπέχοντα εἶδεν, comp. xii. 36. 21. He makes his confession exactly as he had planned it: but it is doubtful whether he makes his humiliating request. The words ποίησόν pe ws x.7.r., are here attested by 8B DUX; but almost all other MSS. and most Versions omit them. They may be taken from ver. 19, and internal evidence is against them. Augustine says, (Von addit quod in illa meditatione dixerat, Fac me sicut unum de mercenarilis tuis (Quest. Evang. 11. 33). He had not counted on his father’s love and forgiveness when he decided to make this request; and now emotion prevents him from meeting his father’s generosity with such a proposal. But the servants are not present. They would not run out with the father. Not till the two had reached the house could the order to them be given. 22. Ταχὺ ἐξενέγκατε. “Bring forth quickly”; cto proferte. 376 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [XV. 22-24, The father says nothing to his son ; he continues to let his conduct speak for him. The ταχύ must be retained with δὲ BLX, Syr-Sin. Vulg. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth. D and other MSS. have ταχέως. στολὴν τὴν πρώτην. Not, ‘zs best robe,” still less “his former robe,” which without αὐτοῦ is scarcely possible; but, ‘the best that we have, the finest in the house.” Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 22. The στολή (στέλλω) was any long and stately robe, such as the scribes loved to promenade in (xx. 46), the falar: Mk. xi. 38, Xvi 5; Rev. vi. 11, Vii. Ὁ, 133 Esth. vi. 8, 12; 2 Mac. x: 21 ΣΙ ΟΣ It is the common word for the liturgical vestments of Aaron: Exod, xxviii. 2, xxix. 21. Trench, Syz. 1.; D.B.? 1. Β᾽ 898. The τήν before στολήν (D? R) has been inserted because of the τήν before πρώτην, for an epithet joined to an anarthrous noun is commonly itself anarthrous, But comp. Rom. ii. 14, ix. 30; Gal. iii. 21. δακτύλιον. Here only in N.T., but freq. in LXX and in classical writers. Comp. ἀνὴρ χρυσοδακτύλιος (Jas. 11. 2). We are probably to understand a signet-ring, which would indicate that he was a person of standing and perhaps authority in the house (Esth. ili. 10, vill. 2; Gen. xli. 42). The ὑποδήματα were marks of a freeman, for slaves went barefoot. } None of the three things ordered are necessaries. The father is not merely supplying the wants of his son, who has returned in miserable and scanty clothing. \|He is doing him honour.) The attempts to make the robe and the ring and the sandals mean distinct spiritual gifts are misapplied labour. 28. θύσατε. Not “sacrifice” (Acts xiv. 13, 18; 1 Cor. x. 20), for the context shows that there is no thought of a thank-offering but “slay” for a meal (Acts x. 13, xi. 7; Jn. x. 10): it implies rather more ceremony than the simple “ kill.” τὸν μόσχον τὸν σιτευτόν. ‘There is only one, reserved for some special occasion. But there can be no occasion better than this. Comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 24; Judg. vi. 25, 28 (A); Jer. xlvi. 21. With σιτευτός COMP. ἀπαιδευτός, γνωστός, θεόπνευστος, χωνευτός. εὐφρανθῶμεν. Excepting 2 Cor. ii. 2, this verb is always pass. in N.T., but with neut. meaning, ‘‘ be glad, be merry” (xii. 19, xvi. 19; Acts vii. 41, etc.). 24. Note the rhythmical cadence of this refrain (24, 32), and comp. Exod. xv. 1, 21; Num. xxiii, xxiv.; 2 Sam. 1 19-27. Carmine ust veteres in magno effectu (Beng.). There is probably no difference in meaning between the two halves of the refrain ; but νεκρός means “dead to me,” and ἀπολωλώς “lost to me.” Would the father speak to the servants of his son’s being morally XV. 24-27. | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 377 dead? Whereas he might well speak of one who had gone away, apparently for ever, as practically dead. And if we give a moral sense to νεκρός, why not to ἀπολωλώς (xix. 10; [Mt. xviii. r1])? Here the first part of the parable ends. ‘The welcome which Jesus gave to outcasts and sinners is justified. The words καὶ ἤρξαντο εὐφραίνεσθαι should be given to ver. 25 rather than to ver. 24. An interval elapses during which the father’s command is executed ; and then the banquet, which is the setting of the second part of the parable, begins. 25-32. In the episode of the elder son the murmuring of the Pharisees is rebuked, and that in the gentlest manner. ‘They are reminded that they are sons, and that to them of right belongs the first place. God and His gifts have always been accessible to them (ver. 31), and if they reject them, it is their own fault. But self-righteousness and exclusiveness are sinful, and may be as fatal as extravagance and licentiousness. ; 25. ἐν ἀγρῷ. Doing his duty, but in no loving spirit. This | explains why he was not present when his brother returned. συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν. Performed by attendants, not by those at the banquet. Comp. Descumbens de die inter choros et symphonias (Suet. Ca/zg. xxxvii.). Neither word occurs again in N.T. In LXX τορος is freq. (Exod. xv. 20, ΣΧΣΙ 19; Judg. xi. 34, etc.); συμφωνία (Dan. 111. 5, 10) is a musical instrument. LD.£8.? art. “Dulcimer”; Pusey, Dazze/, p. 29. ‘There were some who under- stood symphonza in this passage to mean a musical instrument, for Jerome (22. xxi.) protests against the idea. It almost certainly means a band of players or singers, and probably fluteplayers (Polyb. XXVi. 10. 5, Xxx. 4. 8). D. of Ant.” art. Symphonia. 26. τῶν παίδων. Perhaps not the same as the δοῦλοι (ver. 22), who are occupied with the banquet. Vulg. has sevvz for both; Cod. Vercell. has pwerz for both ; Cod. Palat. has puerz for παῖδες and servz for δοῦλοι. No English Version distinguishes the two words, and RV. by a marginal note implies that the same Greek word is used, τί ἂν εἴη ταῦτα. ‘What all this might mean.” Comp. Acts x. 17, and contrast Lk. xviii. 36, where there is no av. Here δὲ Α Ὁ omit av. His not going in at once and taking for granted that what his father did was right, is ferzaps an indication of a wrong temper. Yet to inquire was reasonable, and there is as yet no complaint or criticism. 27. ὅτι. Recitative, and to be omitted in translation: see on i. 45 and vii. 16. Not, ‘‘ Gecawse thy brother is come.” There is no hint that the servant is ridiculing the father’s conduct. ὑγιαίνοντα. Not to be taken in a moral sense, about which the | servant would give no opinion, but of bodily health. The house- —<-e=e_ 378 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [XV. 27-80. hold knew that the father had been anxious about his son’s safety. See on vii. ro, and comp. Tob. v. 21. For ἀπέλαβεν of “ receiving back” comp. vi. 34. 28. ὠργίσθη δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν. Note the characteristic δὲ καί here and ver. 32 (see on iii. 9), and the change of tense: the unwillingness to go in was a state which continued. Hence the father’s entreaties continue also (παρεκάλει). He treats both sons with equal tenderness: the ἐξελθών here is parallel to δραμών in ver. 20. The reading ἠθέλησεν (A L PQ RX) arose from a wish to harmonize the tenses. The reading οὖν (P QT A) instead of δέ (ἐξ A B D LR X) is followed in Vulg. (pater ergo 7425) and AV. (‘‘ therefore came his father out”): but it is a correction for the sake of smoothness. Lat. Vet. either vero or autem. 29. τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω oor. His view of his relation to his father is a servile one. With τοσαῦτα comp. Jn. xii. 37, ΧΧΙ. 11. οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν σου παρῆλθον. ‘The blind self-complacency of the Pharisee, trusting in his scrupulous observance of the letter of the Law, is here clearly expressed. ‘This sentence alone is strong evidence that the elder brother represents the Pharisees rather than the Jewish nation as a whole, which could hardly be supposed to make so demonstrably false a claim. For παρῆλθον in the sense of “neglect, transgress,” see on x1. 42. ἐμοὶ οὐδέποτε ἔδωκας ἔριφον. The pronoun first with emphasis : “Thou never gavest me a kid,’—much less a fatted calf. He is jealous, and regards his father as utterly weak in his treatment of the prodigal; but what specially moves him is the injustice of it all. His own unflagging service and propriety have never been recognized in any way, while the spendthrift has only to show himself in order to receive a handsome recognition. Both here and Mt. xxv. 32, B has ἐρίφιον for ἔριφος. Here the diminutive has point. In LXX ἔριφος prevails. iva μετὰ τῶν φίλων pou εὐφρανθῶς He does not see that he is exhibiting much the same spirit as his brother. He wants to have his father’s property in order that he may enjoy himself apart from him. 80. ὃ vids σου οὗτος. Contemptuous: “This precious son of yours.” | He will not say “my brother.” peta πορνῶν. This is mere conjecture, thrown out partly in con- trast to pera τῶν φίλων pov (who of course would be respectable), partly to make the worst of his brother’s conduct. ‘That it shows how ἀξ would have found enjoyment, had he broken loose, is not so clear. But although there is contrast between πορνῶν and τῶν φίλων pov, and between τὸν σιτευτὸν μόσχον and ἔριφον, there is none between ἔθυσας and ἔδωκας, as if the one implied more exertion and trouble than the other, and therefore more esteem. = —- se * XV. 30-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 379 ἦλθεν. There is no bitterness in this, as if to imply that a | stranger had come rather than a member of the family returned. | Throughout the parable the prodigal is said to “come,” not to “return” (vv. 20, 27; comp. 18). But there may be bitterness in σοῦ τὸν βίον. As the father had freely given the younger son his share, it would more fairly have been called τὸν βίον αὐτοῦ. 81. Τέκνον. More affectionate than vie, although the son had not said, “Father.” Comp. ii. 48, xvi. 25 ; Mt. xxi. 28; Mk. x. 24; Selim, 11: 1. σύ πάντοτες In emphatic contrast to the one who has been so long absent, and perhaps in answer to his own emphatic ἐμοί (ver. 29). ‘‘What he is enjoying for this one day, thou hast always | been able to command.” But, like the Pharisees, this elder son had not understood or appreciated his own privileges. Moreover, like the first labourers in the vineyard, he supposed that he was being wronged because others were treated with generosity. πάντα τὰ ἐμὰ σά ἐστιν. If he wanted entertainments he could always have them; the property had been apportioned: διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον (ver. 12). Thus the first reproach is gently rebutted. So far from the elder son’s service never having met with recognition, the recogni- tion has been constant ; so constant that he had failed to take note of it. The father now passes to the second reproach,—the unfair recompense given to the prodigal. It is not a question of recompense at all; it is a question of yoy. Can a family do other- wise than rejoice; when a lost member is restored to it ? 32. εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ καὶ χαρῆναι ἔδει. Note the emphatic order. “To be merry and be glad was our bounden duty.” The evdpar- θῆναι of the external celebration, the χαρῆναι of the inward feeling. The imperf. perhaps contains a gentle reproof: it was a duty which | the elder son had failed to recognize. ὃ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος. The substitution of ὃ ἀδελφός σου for 6 υἱός μου, and the repetition of οὗτος, clearly involve ἃ rebuke: “this thy brother, of whom thou thinkest so severely. If I have gained a son, thou hast gained a brother.” . Not the least skilful touch in this exquisite parable is that it \ ends here. We are not told whether the elder brother at last went in and rejoiced with the rest. And we are not told how the younger one behaved afterwards. Both those events were still in the future, and both agents were left free. One purpose of the parable was to induce the Pharisees to come in and claim their share of the Father's affection and of the heavenly joy. Another was to prove to the outcasts and sinners with what generous love | they had been welcomed. XVI. 1-81. On the Use of Wealth. This is taught in two parables, the Unrighteous Steward (1-8) and the Rich Man and 380 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [XVI. Lazarus (19-31). The intermediate portion is partly supplementary to the first parable (9-13), partly introductory to the second (14-18). The first is addressed to the disciples (ver. 1), but is felt by the Pharisees who heard it to apply to them (ver. 14). The second appears to be addressed directly to the Pharisees. Both of them teach that riches involve, not sin, but responsibility and peril. They are a trust rather than a possession; and the use made of wealth in this world has great influence upon one’s condition in the great Hereafter. The steward seems to illustrate the case of one who by a wise use of present opportunities secures a good con- dition in the future ; while the rich man exhibits that of one who by misuse of his advantages here ruins his happiness hereafter. Attempts have been made to connect these two parables with the three which precede, and also with the three which follow.