^w OF mNcifS;^ •Logical se»^ THE STANDARD ^ERlES.^ /0^ ^' '^ A COMMENTARY ^M"AR 31 1939 ^ THE GOSPEL OF ST. LU BY F. OODET, BOCTOR AKD PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATBt. TRANSLATED FliOJI THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION BY E . W. SHALDERS and M. D. CUSIN. WITH PREFACE AND NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY JOHN HALL, D.D. JEfiirO auction. NEW YORK : FUNK & WAGNALLS, Publisheks, 18 AND 20 AsTOR Place. ♦ 1890. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, by FUNK & WAGNALLS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. PREFACE OF THE A:\IERICAN EDITOR. TnE immt'rliate ocrasion for the issue of a separate commcntur}' on Luke's Gospel •s found in the fact lliat from it are taken the ISabbath-scliool lessons of the Inter- national uniform series for the former half of the year on which we are so soon toenler. "Wlien it is remembered how many millions of pupils receive instruction according to this widel3'-acceptpd arrangement, it will not seem unimportant that liuudreds of thousands of teachers— many of them busily engaged in ordinary life — should have all possible aid in the work of preparing themselves to teach. Who does not crave a blessing on them in their self-denying work ? Let us ask that He whose word they employ as the educating spiritual power, will make this work one of the forms iu which tiie blessing will cume to them. But it is not only such Christian laborers who are now interested in securing aid to a full understanding of Luke's Gospel. It is a matter for true rejoicing that, as the school of the Sabbath is in closest connection with the Church, and doing a part of the Church's work, ministers labor iu so many forms to increase the power of their fellow-toilers by piinted and oral e.xpositiou of the lessons, and in many instances by systematic treatment of the coming Sabbath- school lesson at the week-day service. This is done iu many cases where ministers are far removed from libraries and from the stimulus of literary fellowship, and where also the means at their disposal make it difficult for them to procure expensive theological or exegelical works. To bring such within their easier reach is not unworthy of effort : their power for good as religious educators is thus increased iu this and in every other department of their ditficult but benelicent labors. At lirst sight it might seem as it' the commentary of 3L Godet were too voluminous and too comprehensive in its plan to be of use to Sabbath-school teachers. But there are considerations to be taken into account on the other side. («) No one un- acquainted practically with this great agency of our time has any idea of the im- mense advance in biblical knowledge made during the past decade, in which uniform- ity of topic enabled publishing houses and societies to provide the best help for teachers, (b) To keep a high standard of attainment and effort before this great body of laborers is desirable in itself. That all do not reach the ideal qualification is no reason for withdrawing the means toward it which a certain proportion can and will employ, (c) The ideas of Paulus, Strauss, Renan and other authors of similar ten- dency are being diffused, and are presented witli more or less show of learning, and especially of " culture" and " enlightenment," by many who do not have them from the originals, and to man}'' who never come in contact with the works as a whole, but only in the unciualified eulogies which accompany their names when they are bemg used against evangelical interpretation. It is desirable in the highest degree that intelligent Christians who are teachers of others should know of an " antidote" to the " bane" of what Godit concisely calls "criticism" throughout his work. This consideration will reconcile any intelligent reader who has learned to identify himself with the cause of the truth to many portions of this conmientary devoted to the exposure of the shallow, arbitrary, incon- sistent, and arrogant way in which Rationalism dealn with Scripture. It is gnod for such readers to understand that, though uot themselves able to grapple with such iv CO-MMENTAliY OJS' ST. LUKE. critics, nor indeed called upon to do it, they have been dealt with, not only by the devout but by the learned, and that here as elsewhere, if a Utile scholarship leads away from intelligent simple faith, more scholarship brings back to it. That Greek, Latin, and Hebrew are quoted will not be an objection to the work, especially as a translation fur the most part accompanies the quotations. Not at all as though the present writer were qualified and entitled, by position or bj' attainments, to commend Professor Godet's work, but with the view to deepen hopeful and expectant interest in it at the outset, a few considerations suggested by a very thorough and careful reading of every page of it are here concisely stated. In the Protestant churches of France and Switzerland we cannot but feel on many grounds a deep interest. This work has been among them — as the work of one of their own children — for nearly twelve years, with ever-widening influence for good. There is no name among them more trusted than that of its author, and that name is now a possession of all the churches. He had already proved his capacity for such a task as the interpretation of Luke, by his previous work on John's Gospel, and he felt the importance and the fitness of following up that work by a commentary on one of the Synoptists. There are many reasons why such a writer should decide on Luke when he has to make a choice. Luke's is the Gospel for the Gentiles ; it is the Gospel in which Jesus is seen as the Saviour of men as men. It is marked (as Bernard in his admira- ble Bampton lectures on the "Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament" has shown) by " breadth of human sympathy and special fitness for the Gentile mind," just as is that of Matthew for the Jew inquiring after the evidences of Christ's Messiahship, and that of John for the Christian, forced by the progress of thought to discriminate between the truth of Christianity and the refinements eagerly and often amicably identified in form with its divine elements. Professor Godet has not written for professed theologians, nor has he aimed at embodying in his work those devout reflections of which Scott, ISIatthew Henry, and — in their own peculiar way — the commentaries edited by Lange, are depositories. He Las aimed at giving the connection and meaning of the narrative, and as he proceeds, at brushing aside the cobwebs which Rationalist or mythical interpreters heap on the inspired page. He does not ignore the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, enjoyed by the writers, but at the same time he is not afraid to follow the critics a- tliey examine and pronounce upon the details of that human side, which we have in the written, as we have also in the Incarnate, Word. If it be alleged, as it may truly be, that our author's arguments are often subtle, especially when dealing with the class of questions belonging to the liarmonj- of liio Gospels, and the assumption of one original document from which the Sjnoplists culled at pleasure, it is also true that they are convincing. The student of the book will moreover be rewarded for the time and pains bestowed on the argument, by the knowledge of many an unintended corroboration of Gospel narrative, interesting in this relation, and often interesting on its own account. Examples nay be cited, like the College of Rome in the days of the Emperor (p. 11), which had supervision of physicians, and the license of which implied literary culture and professional at- tainment on the part of its possessor. The " beloved physician" is, it might have been presumed beforehand, in these respects just such as we are bound to infer from his writings. But the discussion in which our author, in pursuit of his plan, fre- quently engages has many incidental attractions to a lover of God's truth. If Ration- COilMENTAKV ON .ST. LLKK. V alism be well founded, llien absolute agreement ought to mark its conclusions, and perfect harmon^'^ should prevail among ils exponents. Professor Godet never shrinks from showing how widely apart the very men go who allege that the whole tiling is so plain — so remote from I he region of the mysterious and supernatural — that it must appear at once to any eulightered intellect. (See for illustiatiou pp. 24-2G ; 144, 145. etc.) Nor is the discussion — commonly thrown into the form of notes — unrelieved b}' occasional Hashes of sarcasm and irony. We should infer from his book that Pro- fessor Godet adds to power of grouping, of ingenious and exact combiualiau (see pp. 43, 109), a certain quickness of wit, only exercised here indeed when the provo- cation is undoubted. " Our evaugelLsts, " says he (p. 240) " could never have antici- pated that they would ever have such perverse interpreters." On the other hand, the freshness and force of his own interpretations — as in the turning of "the hearts of the fathers to the children" (p. 49), and the deputation from .John the Baptist (pp. 220-324)— tiud an appropriate vehicle in clear, vivacious, and often eloquent language. See as illustration the amplification of the paiabolic language regarding " new wine and old bottles" (p. 180). Even as a bright thought or an unexpected felicitous phrase in the most earnest sermon will sometimes sur- prise the hearer into a smile, so the keenness of anal^'sis (see p. 147) and the detec- tion of nice evidences and apologetic considerations (as in pp. 57, 6(>, 101, etc.) will often touch the mind of a reatler as with a pleasant surprise. Nor is there wanting a fine suggesliveness in many of his paragraphs, as when he calls demoniacal possession the caricature of divine inspiration. How much of that awful anlilhcsis runs through revelation, as in the " m3''stery of godliness" and the " mystery of iniquil}'," the Christ and the Autichiist ! Satan is truly in many things the ape of Deity. The power of keen analysis of Professor Godet, of which an illustration maj' be seen on p. 147, will be found usefully employed in the concluding and very valuable portion of his work, when, having gone over the Gospel exegetically, he comes to deal formally with the divergent theories of Rationalism on the origin and objects of the four Gospels. It may be thought, possibly, by some, that it is enough to over- throw views contradict.ory of one another, and of vital principles, and that one is under no obligation to provide a genesis of these inspired records. But so long as men will ask after tlie how, within certain limits an answer will be attempted ; and taut of this volume does not transcend the limits of modesty and reverence. The Church, in various ways, including works like this, can " move" and " induce" to a " high and reverend estx;em of the Holy Scriptures ;" but of the Gospels this is em- phatically true, that " the heaveuliness of the mutter, the efficacy of the doctrinp, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give g\oxY to God), the full discovery made of the only way of man's salvation, the niiin}- other incomparal)le excellences, and the entire perfection thereof," are the arguments by which they " abundantly evidence themselves to be the Word of God." It could hardl3^ be supposed that no phrase in a work like this, and coming to us through a translation, would invite criticism. The author's views of the Pdi'oiina, which Greek word our continental fricuds are fond of using for the " coming" (Matt. 24 : 3 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 23), applied to Christ, are not formally stated ; but there are intimations of their nature, as on p. 406, vhich would not satisfy a large portion of VI COMMEXTAKY ON ST. LUKE, the evangelical churches. It is possible, however, that a calm and orderly statement of these opinions would make a different impression. This we infer particularly from declarations made on p. 453, which appear to be at variance with tliose commonly held by the advocates of two resurrections, divided by an interval more or less de- fined in tlieir representations. It is to be remembered also that our author, in dealing with the Tubingen school, is forced to discuss with great freedom what may be called the human side of the origin of the Gospels. This may account for such an in- ffilicilous phrase as " chronological error" on p. IIG. it must not be forgotten that, as devout scientists may discuss the mode of producing our existing woild without questioning its divine origin, or iguoring a Creator, so reverent scholarship may ex- amine the processes by which holy oracles come to us, without impugning the fact that they are the utterances of tbe Divine Teacher, given by inspiuilion of the Holy Ghost. The mode of inspiration wiil probably remain a mystery ; but that limitation in the matter of our linovvleJge will no more put it in doubt as a fact, in a candid mind, than ignorance of the piocess it details will imply question of the rtgeneia- tion by the Holy Ghost. lu both mysterious and gracious woiks the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sound and reap the benefits, but cannot tell whence it Cometh or whither it goeth. While Sabbath-school teachers will not, for the most part, follow with interest the examination of the views of Bleek, Baur, Weiss, Klosteiman, Holtzmann, and others, we do not doubt that they will be read with inteiest by ministers. They m ho love and teach definite truth will be 'able to understand how an evyngelical prophet may break into sarcasm (as on p. 43o) while giving aiticulate form to the designs of Christ's enemies. They will appreciate such clear statement as they will find on pp. 485-6 ; swch points as that made regarding the Sabbath at y. 450, and the tieatment of ihe current objection founded ou the references to Annas and Caiaphas (p. 480). Tlie analysis of our Lord's use of Jolin's baptism in his snuggle with his triicnlent foes is an admirable illustration of the author's power to place himself in the midst of the confiict waged by the Truth incarnate against sacerdotalism and perverted and par- tisan zeal. One may hesitate to take the net cast on the other side, as pointing to the ingathering of the heathen, just as the conclusions suggested on p. 495 may be left among the open questions withuut lessening admiration for the author's jains- taking ingenuity. Nor, finally, can any attentive reader fail to notice the wealth of allusion and the variety of sources whence light is made to shine on thesacied pages ; as, for example (p 5()3), in dealing with the evangelist's dittetences in foims of speech, when Basil the Great is adduced as reporting that "down to his time (fourth century) the Church possessed no written liturgy for the Holy Supper — the sacramental prayers and formuUr} were transmitted by timcntten tradition." It is with great satisfaction, then, that thepreseut writer wishes God-speed, by this prefatory note, to a volume which is at once learned and reverent, distinct in its ex- hibition of the positive truth, and vigorously controversial, in which the clearest esti- mate of the several Gospels is complemented by just views of Him of whose niany- sider] excellency and glory they are the fourfold {)resentation. The woik, it ishar'dly needJFul tosa3^ is unabridged, every Greek and Hebrew word being reproduced. Only such brief notes (indicated by his initials) as might save Sab- bath-school teachers from misapprehension — ministerial readers do not require them — have been added by the writer, and these not without hesitation. It is iioped that this issue in popular form of one of the Messrs. Clark's publications — by which sucli servi(;e has been rendered to Christian literature — will call attention to their other translations in quarters where they have not yet gone. It is hardly needful to say that Messrs. Scribner, the only house in America that has sought to make a market for the work (and therefore entitled to be consulted) give their full assent to this issue — an assent that will be appreciated by those who desire to send the results of the ripest scholarship among all classes of Christian students and laborers. J. HALL. Mft7i Avenue Prenhyterian Church, New York, December. 1880. AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. A YEAR and half has passed away — and how swiftly ! — since the publication of this Commentary, and already a second edition has become necessary. I bless the Lord for the .acceptance which this work has met with in the churches of Switzer- land and of France, and I hail it as a symptom of that revived interest in exegetical studies, which has always appeared to me one of their most urgent needs. 1 tender my special thanks to the authors of those favorable reviews which have given effect- ual aid toward the attaiument of this result. Almost every page of this second edition bears the traces of corrections in the form of my former work ; but the substance of its exegesis and criticism remains the same. Of only one passage, or rather of only one term {second-first, G : 1), has the interpretation been modified. Besides that, 1 have made a number of additions occasioned h}^ the publication of two works, one of which 1 have very frequently quoted, and the other as often controverted. I refer to M. Gess' book, " Sur la Persoune et I'Qilu^^re de Christ" (first part), and to " La Vie de J6sus" by M. Keim (the last two volumes). In a i-ecent article of the " Protestautische Kirchenzeitung, " M. Holtzmann has challenged my critical standpoint as being determined by a dogmatic prepossession. But has he forgotten the advantage which Strauss took in his first " Vie de Jesus" of the hypothesis of Gieseler, which I have defended ? The reader having the whole before him will judge. He will see for himself whether the attempt to explain in a natural aod rational way the origiu of the three synoptical texts by means of common ■written sources is successful. There is one fact especially which still waits for explanation — namely, the Aramaisms of Luke. These Aramaisms are met with not oniy in passages which belong exclusively to this Hellenistic writer, but also in those which are common to him and the other writers, who were of Jewish origin, and in whose parallel passages nothing of a similar kind is to be found ! This lact remains as a rock against which all the various hypotheses I have controverted are completely shattered, and especially that of Holtzmann. May not the somewhat ungenerous imputation of the Professor of Heidelberg, whose earnest labors no one admires more than myself, have been inspired by a slight feeling of wounded self- esteem ? And now, may this Commentary renew its course with the blessing of the Lord, to whose service it is consecrated ; and may its second voyage be as prosperous and short as the first ! P. G. Neuchatel, August, 1870. EXTRACTS FROM THE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. A Commentary on the Gospel of John remains an unfinisheJ work so long as it is left unaccompanied by a similar work on at least one of the synoptical Gospels. Of these three writings, the Gospel of Luke appeared to me best fitted to serve as a com- plement to the exegetical work which I had previously published, because, as M. Sabaticr has well shown in his short but substantial " E>*sai sur les Sources de la Vie de Jesus," Luke's writing constitutes, in several important respects, a transition between the view taken by John and that which forms the basis of tlie synoptical literature.* The exegetical method pursued is very nearly the same as in my preceding Com- mentary. I have not written merely for professed theologians ; nor have I aimed directly at edification. This work is addressed, in general, to those readers of cul- ture, so numerous at the present day, who take a heart-felt interest in the religious and critical questions which are now under discussion. To meet their requirements, a translation has been given of those Greek expressions which it was necessary to quote, and technical language has as far as possible been avoided. The most ad- vanced ideas of modern unbelief circulate at the present time in all our great centres of population. In the streets of our cities, workmen are heard talking about the con- flict between St. Paul and the other apostles of Jesus Christ. We must therefore en- deavor to place the results of a real and impartial Biblical science within reach of all. I repeat respecting this Commentary what I have already said of its predecessor : it has been written, not so much with a view to its being consulted, as read. From the various readings, I have had to select those which had a certain value, or presented something of interest. A commentary cannot pretend to supply the place of a complete critical edition such as all scientific study requires. Since I cannot in any way regard the eighth edition of Tischendorf's text just published as a standard text, though 1 gratefully acknowledge its aid as absolutely indispensable, I have adopted the received text as a basis in indicating the various residings ; but I would express m}' earnest desire for an edition of the Byzantine text that could be regarded as a standard authority. Frequently I have contented myself with citing the original text of the ancient manuscripts, without mentioning the changes made in it by later hands ; but whenever these changes offered anything that could be of any interest, I have in- dicated them. If I am a^ked with what scientific or religious assumptions I have approached tiiis study of the third Gospel, I reply, With these two only : that the authors of our Gos[jels were men of (jood sense and goodfaitJi. ■"■ The publishers intend, if these volumes on Luke meet with a favorable recep- tiin, to bring out M. Godet's celebrated Commentary on .John in an Euglij-h dtess. lii'l;iefl, they would have followed the author's order of publication, but that thi'y v>;iii(>d to take advantage of a second edition, which is preparing for the press. — COI^TEISTTS. PAGB iNTKODtlCTIOK 1-32 Section I.— Traces of the Existence of the Third Gospel in the Primitive Charck 1 Section II.— The Author 10 Section III. — Composition of the Third Gospel 18 Section IV.— Sources of the Third Gospel 21 Section V. — Preservation of the Third Gospel 29 TiiE Title OB" THE Gospel 32 1'iiE Prologue, 1:1-4 33 FIRST PART. The Narratives of the Intanct, 1 : 5 -2 : 52 41-104 First Narrative : Announcement of the Birth of John the Baptist, 1 : 5-25 43 Second Nnrrati ve : Announcement of the Birth of Jesus, 1 : 2(j-38 53 Third Narrative : Mary's Visit to Elizabeth, 1 : 39-56 59 Fonrlli Narrative : Birth and Circumcision of John the Baptist, 1 : 57-80 67 Fifth Narrative: Birth of the Saviour, 2: 1-20 73 Sixth Narrative : Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus, 2 : 21-40 84 Seventh Narrative : The Child Jesus at Jerusalem, 2 : 41-52 90 General Considerations on Chaps. 1 and 2 94 SECOND PART. The Advent op the Messiah, 3 : 1-4 : 13 105-145 First Narrative : The Ministry of John the Baptist, 3 : 1-20 105 Second Narrative : The Baptism of Jesus, 3 : 21, 22 117 On the Baptism of Jesus 121 Third Narrative : The Genealogy of Jesus, 3 : 23-38 126 Fourth Narrative : The Temptation, 4 : 1-13 13:? On the Temptation 142 THIRD PART. The Ministry op Jesus in Galilee. 4 : 14-9 : 50 146-281 First Cycle : Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum, 4 : 14-44 148 On the Miracles of Jesus 102 Second Cycle : From the Calling of the First Disciples to the Choice of the Twelve, 5:1-6:11 1&3 Third Cycle : From the Choice of the Twelve to their First Mission. 6 : 12-8 : 56 188 Fourth Cycle : From the Sending forth of the Twelve to the Departure from Galilee, 0 : 1-50. 252 X CO^TTEXTS. FOURTH PART. PAGE The Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, 9 : 51-19 : 27 283-42;J First Cycle : The Departure from Galilee— First Days of the Journey, 9 : 51-13 : 21 288 Second Cycle : New Series of Incidents in the Journey, 13 : 22-17 : 10 35« Third Cycle : The Last Scenes in the Journey, 17 : 11-19 : 27 401 FIFTH PART. The Sojourn at Jerusalem, 19 : 28-21 : 38 424-456 First Cycle : The Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, 19 : 28-44 424 Second Cycle : The Reign of Jesus in the Temple, 19 : 45-21 : 4 428 Third Cycle : The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, 21 : 5-38 443 SIXTH PART. The Passion, 23 and 23 457-501 First Cycle : The Preparation for the Passion, 22 : 1-46 457 Second Cycle : The Passion, 22 : 47-23 : 46 476 Third Cycle : Close of the History of the Passion, 23 : 47-56 496 Conclusion regarding the Day of Christ's Death 499 SEVENTH PART. The Resurrection and Ascension, 24 502-517 Of the Resurrection of Jesus 511 Of the Ascension -515 CONCLUSION. Chap. I.— The Characteristics of the Third Gospel 518 Chap. II. — The Composition of the Third Gospel 586 Chap. III.— The Sources of Luke, and the Relation of the Synoptics to one another 519 Chap. IV". — The Beginnings of the Church 567 INTRODUCTIO:^". The Introduction of a Biblical Commentary is not designed to solve the various quuslious relating to the origin of the book under consideration. Tliis solution must be tliu result of the study of the book itself, and not be assumed beforehand. The proper work of introduction is to prepare the ^ixy for the stud}'' of the sacred book ; it should prnpose questions, not solve them. But there is one side of the labor of criticism which maj', and indeed ought to be treated before exegesis — the historical. And by this we understand : 1. The study of such facts of ecclesiastical history as may throw light upon the time of publicatiuu and the sources of the work which is to engage our attention ; 2. The review of the various opinions which have been entertained respecting the origin of this book, par- ticularly in modern times. The lirst of these studies supplies exegetical and critical labor with its starting-point ; the second determines its aim. The possession of these two kinds of information is the condition of the maintenance and advancement of science. This introduction, then, will aim at making the reader acquainted with — I. The earliest traces of tlie existence of our Oospel, going back as far as possible in the hislorj"^ of the primitive Church. II. The statements made by ancient writers as to the person of the author, and the opinions current at the present day on this point. III. The information furnished by tradition respecting the circumstances in icJa'cJi ihisicriting was composed (its readers, date, locality, design), as well as the different views which ciiticism lias taken of these various questions. IV. The ideas which scholars have formed of the sources whence the author derived the subject-matter of his narrations, Y. Lasll}', the documents by means of which the text of this writing has been pre- served to us. An introduction of this kind is not complete without a conclusion in which the questions thus raised find their solution. This conclusion should seek to combine the facts established by tradition with the results obtained from exegesis. SEC. I. — TRACES OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE THIRD GOSPEL IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. "We take as our starting-point the middle of the second century, and our aim is not to come down the stream, but to ascend it. It is admitted, indeed, that at this epoch our Gospel was universally known and received, not only in the great Church (an expression of Celsus, about 150), but also by the sects which were detached from it. This admission rests on some indisputable quotations from this book in Theophilus of Antioch (about 170) and Irenoeus (about 180), and in the " Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vieune" (in 177) ; on the fact, amply verified by the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, that the Gnostic Heracleon had published a commentary ou the Gospel of Luke as well as on the Gospel of John (between 175-1!)5) ;* on the * See. for the fact, Grabe, " Spicilegium," sec. ii. t. i. p. 8 ; and for the date, Li[)sius, ' Die Zeit des Marcion und des Heracleon," in Hilgenfeld's " Zeitschrifl," 1807. 2 (JOMMEiiTAllY OX ST. LUKE. very frequent use which Valentinus, or at least writers of his school, made of this Gospel ; lastly, on numerous quotations from Luke, acknowledged by all scholars at the present day, contained in the " Clementine Homilies" (about 160). It is not sur- prising, therefore, that Origen ranks Luke's work among the number of those four Gospels aclinitted hy all the churches under heaven, and that Eusebius places it among the homologo'umena of the new covenant. The only matter of importance here is to investigate that obscure epoch, the first half of the second century, for any indica- tions which may serve to prove the presence and influence of our Gospel. We meet with them in four departments of inquiry — in the field of heresy, in the writings of the Fathers, in the pseudepigraphical literature, and lastly, in the biblical writings. 1. Heresy. — Marcion, Cerdo, Basilides. Marcion, a son of a bishop of Pontus, who wasexcomnmnicatedbyhis own father, taught at Rome from 140-170.* He proposed to purify the Gospel from the Jewish elements whicb the twelve, by reason of their education and Israelitish prejudices, had necessarily introduced into it. In order more effectually to remove this alloy, he taught that the God who created the world and legislated for the Jews was different from the supreme God who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, and was only an inferior and finite being ; that for this reason the Jewish law rested exclusively on justice, while the Gospel was founded on charity. According to him, St. Paul alone had understood Jesus. Further, in the canon which Marcion formed, he only admitted the Gospel of Luke (on account of its affinity with the teaching of Paid) and ten epistles of this apostle. But even in these writings he felt liimself obliged to suppress certain passages ; for they constantly assume the divine character of the Old Testament, and attribute the creation of the visible universe to the God of Jesus Christ. Marcion, in conformity with his ideas about matter, denied the reality of the body of Jesus; and on tiiis point, therefore, he found himself in confiict with numerous texts of Paul and Luke. The greater part of the modifications of Luke's text which were exhibited, according to the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, in the Gospel used by Marcion and his adherents, are to be accounted for in this •way. Notwithstanding this, the relation between the Gospel of Luke and that of this heretic has in modern times been represented in a totally different light. And the reason for this is not hard to find. The relation which we have just pointed out between these two writings, if clearly made out, is sufficient to prove that, at the time of Marcion's activity, Luke's Gospel existed in the collections of apostolic writings used in the churches, and to compel criticism to assign to this writing both ancient authority and a very early origin. Now this is just what the rationalistic school was not disposed to admit.f Consequently, Semler and Eichhorn in the past century, and, with still greater emphasis, Ritschl, Baur, and Schwegler in our time, have maintained that the priority belonged to the Gospel of Marcion, that this work was the true primitive Luke, and that our canonical Luke was the result of a retouch- * Lipsius, " DieZeit des Marcion unddesHeracleon," in Hilgenfeld's " Zeitschr." 1867. f Hilgenfeld himsflf points out the purely dogmatic origin of this rationalistic opinion : " Tins opinion," he says, " lias misappreiieuded the true tendency of the Gospel of Marcion, thrmigh a desire to assign to the canonical text (to our Luke) the most recent date possible'' (" Die Evaiigelicu," p. 27). CUAIMENTAUY OX ST. LUKE. 3 ing of this more ancient work, accomplished iu the second century in the sense of a modilu'd Paulinisna. AVc must do justice, however, to this critical school. No one has labored more energetically to rectify this erroneous 'bpiniDn, tentatively brought forward by several of its adherents. Hilgenfeld, and above all Volkmar, have suc- cessfully combated it, and Kitschl has expressly withdrawn it (" Theol. Jahrb. X.," p. 528, et scq.) ; Bleck ('" Einl. iu. d. X. T.," p. 122 etseq.) has given an able summary of the whole discussion. We shall only bring forward the following points, which stem to us the most essential : 1. Tiie greater pait of the differences which must have distinguished the Gospel of Marciou from our Luke are to be explained either as the result of his Gnostic si'stem, or as mere critical corrections. Thus, Marcion suppressed the first two chapters on the hirth of Jesus— a retrenchment which suited his Docetism ; also iu the passage Luke 13 : 28, " When you shall see Abraham, Inaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God," he read, " When you shall see the just enter into the kingdom of heaven," which alone answered to his theory of the old covenant ; in the same way also, for the words of Jesus in Luke 16 : 17, " It is easier for heaveu and earth to pass, than one tittle ofthelaio to fail," Marcion read, " than that one tittle of the letter of mrj words should fail." In both these instances, one must be blind not to see that it was Marcion who modified the text of Luke to suit his sj-stem, and not the reverse. Again, we read that the Gospel of Marcion began in this waj' : " In the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, Jesus descended to Capernaum" (naturally, from heaven, without having passed through the human stages of birth and youth) ; theu came the narrative of the first sojourn at Capernaum, just as it is related Luke 4 : 31 etseq.; and after that, only in the inverse order to that which obtains in our Gospel, the narrative of the visit to Nazareth, Luke A : IQ et seq. Is it not clear that such a beginning could not belong to the piimitive writing, and that the transposition of the two narratives which follow was designed to do away with the difficulty presented by the words of the inhabitants of Nazareth (Luke 4 : 28), as Luke places them, before the sojourn at Capernaum ? The narrative of Marcion was then the result of a dogmatic and critical revision of Luke o : 1, 4 : 31, 4 : 16 and 23. 2. It is a well-knowu fact that Marciou had falsified the Epistles of Paul by an exactly similar process. 3. !Marcion's sect alone availed themselves of the Gospel used by this heretic. This fact proves that this work was not an evangelical writing already known, which the author of our Luke modified, and which Marcion alone had preserved intact. From all this, a scientific criticism can only conclude that our Gospel of Luke was in existence before that of Marcion, and that this heretic chose this among all the Gospels which enter into the ecclesiastical collection as the one which he could most readily adapt to his system.* About 140, then, our Gospel already possessed full authorit}', the result of a conviction of its apostolic origin. * Zeller (in his " Apostelgeschichte") expre.sses himself thus : " We may admit as proved and geneially accepted, not only that ]\Iarcion made use of an older Gospel, but further, that he recomposed, modified, and often abridged it, ami that this older Gospel was essentially none other than our Luke. " Tiiis restriction "essentially" refers to certain passages, in which it appears to writers of the Tubingen school that Marcion's reading is more originnl than that of our canonical text. The latter, according to Raur and Hilgenfeld, must have been introduced with a view lo counter- act the use which the Gnostics made of the true text. Zeller, however (p. 12 ct seq.), 4 COMMENTAllY ON ST. LUKE. Marciou did not create bis system himself. Before him, Ceido, according to Theo- doret's iiccount (" Haeret. fubulse," i. 24), proved by the Oosjiels that the just God of tlie ohl covenant and the ffood God of the new are different beings ; and he founded this contrariety on the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5 : 38-48 ; Luke 6 : 27-88). The Gospel of Luke muht have sustained the principal part in this demonstration, if at least we credit the testimony of an ancient writer (Pseudo-Tertul- lian, in the conclusion of the " De prseseriptioue htereticorum, " c. 51): "Solum evangeUum Lvcce, nee tamen totum, recipit [Cerdo]." Some years, then, before Marcion, Cerdo sought to prove the opposition of the law to the Gospel by the written Gospels, especially by that of Luke. Basilides, one of the most ancient known Gnostics, who is usually said to have flourished at Alexandria about 120, assumed for himself and his son Isidore the title of pupils of the Apostle Matthias. The statement of Hippolytus is as follows : " Basilides, with Isidore, his true son and disciple, said that Matthias had transmitted to them orally some secret instructions which he had received from the mouth of the Saviour in His private teaching."* This claim of Basilides implies the circulation of the book of the Acts, in which alone there is any mention of the apostolate of Matthias, and consequently of the Gospel of Luke, which was composed before the Acts. 2. The Fathers. — Justin, Poly carp, Clement of Rome. If it is proved that about 140, and at Rome, Cerdo and Marcion made use of the Gospel of Luke as a book generally received in the Church, it is quite impossible to suppose that this Gospel was not in the hands of Justin, who wrote in this very city some years later. Besides, the writings of Justin allow of no doubt as to tliis fact ; and it is admitted at the present day by all the writers of that school, which makes exclusive claims to be critical — by Zeller, Volkmar, and Hilgenfeld.f With this considerably reduces the number of those passages in which Marcion is supposed to have preserved the true reading, and those which he retains are far from bearing the marks of proof. Thus, Luke 10 : 22, Marcion appears to have read ot'(5f/c f } ' w, no one hath kiiomn, instead of oink)? yivuGKei, no one knoweth ; and because this reading is found in Justin, in the " Clementine Homilies," and in some of the Fatlicrs, it is inferred that our canonical text has been altered. But Justin himself also reads yLvuoKei (" Dial, c. Tryph." c. 100). There appears to be nothing more here than an ancient variation. In the same passage, Marcion appears to have placed the words which refer to (he knowledge of the Father by the Son before those which refer to the knowledge of the Sun by the FaDier— a reading which is also found in the " Clementine Homilies." But here, again, this can only'bea mere variation of reading which it is easy to explain. It is of such little dogmatic importance that Ireneeus, who opposes it critically, himself quotes the passage twice in this form (" Tischend. ad Mallh. 11 : 27"). * " S. Hippolyli Refutationis omnium haeresium librorum decem quae super sunt" (ed. Duncker et Schneidewin), L. vii. § 20. t " Justin's acquaintance with theGospel of Luke is demonstrnted by a series of passages, of which some certainhf, and others very probably, are citations from this book" (Zeller, " Apostelffeschich'te," p. 26). On the subiect of a passage from the " Dialogue with Trypho,'" c. 40, Volkmar says : " Luke (3 : 16, 17) is quoted here, first in common with Matthew, then, in preference to the latter, literally" (" Ursprung unserer Ev. " p. 157). " Justin is acquainted with nur three synoptical Gospels, and extracts them almost completely" (Ibid. p. 91). " Besides Matthew and Mark . . . Justin also makes use of the Gospel of Luke" (Hilgenfeld, " Der Kanon," p. 2o). COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 5 admission before us, we know wliat the assertions of M. Nicolas are worth, which he does not scruple to hiy before French readers, who have so little acquaintance witli questions of this nature — such an assertion, for instance, as this : "It is impos- sible to read the comparisons which critics of this school [the orthodox] are accus- tomed to make between certain passages of Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and ev^n Justin Martyr, and analogous passages from our Gospels, without being tempted to think that the cause must be very bad that cau need, or that can be satis- fied witli such arguments."* It appears that Messrs. Zeller, Ililgenfeld, and Volkmar are all implicated together in furbishing up these fallacious arguments in favor of orthodox}' 1 Here are some passages which prove unanswerably that Justin Martyr used our third Gospel : Dial. c. 100, he quotes almost verbatim Luke 1 :26-30.f Ibid. c. 48, and Apol. i. 34, he mentions the census of Quirinus in the very terms of Luke. Dial. c. 41 and 70, and Apol. i. 6G, he refers to the institution of the Holj' Supper according to the text of Luke. Dial. c. 103, he says : " In the memoirs which I say were composed by His apostles, and by those that accompanied them, [it is related] that the sweat rolled from Him in drops while He pra5'ed," etc. (Luke 23 : 44). Ibid., Justiu refers to Jesus having been sent to Herod — an incident only related by Luke. Ibid. c. 105, he quotes the last words of Jesus, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit," as taken from " The Memoirs of the Apostles." X This prayer is only recorded by Luke (23 : 46). We have only indicated the quotations expressly acknowledged as such by Zeller himself (" Apostelgeschichte," pp. 26-37). It is impossible, then, to doubt that the Gospel of Luke formed part of those apos- tolic memoirs quoted eighteen times by Justin, and from which he has derived the greater part of the facts of the Gospel that are mentioned by him. The Acts of the Apostles having been written after the Gospel, and by the same author (these two facts are admitted by all true criticism), every passage of the Fathers which proves the existence of this book at a given moment demonstrates d fortiori the existence of the Gospel at the same time. We may therefore adduce the following passage from Polycarp, which we think can only be explained as a quotation from the Acts : Acts 2 : 24. Poltc. ad Phil. c. 1. 'Ov 6 9eo5 uvea-Tjaep, Tivaai raS (JfJivaS tov 'Ov fiyeipev o Qth^ /liiaaS rdS wrFlvaS row Oavarnv. g.dov. " Whom God hath raised up. having " Whom God hath awakened, having loosed the [birth-] pains of death." loosed the [birth-] pains of Hades." The identical construction of the proposition in the two writings, the choice of the term /.iiaai, and the strange expression the birth-pains of death (Acts) or of Hades (Polyc), scarcely permit us to doubt that the passage in Polycarp was taken from that in the Acts.g * " Etudes critiques sur Ic N. T. " p. 5. f Reference to Justin Martyr's " Dialogues" (Clarke's edition), p. 225, will show that vv. 20-38 are quoted in the way in which one who wished to summarize would reproduce. — J. 11. t So called in c. 100. when quoting from Matt. 4 : 9, 10.— J. H. § It is not impossible, certainly, that the expression (IxVivf; was taken by both these authors from Ps. 18 : 5, or from Ps. 116 : 3, where the LXX. translate by this term the word ^nrii '^bich signifies at once bo/ul'i and pains of childbirth ; but there still remains in the two propositions as a whole an unaccountable similarity. 6 COMMEXTAllY ON ST, LUKK. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome there is an exiioi tation beginning with these words : "Remember Ihe words of the Lord Jesus, in which he tau,e;ht equity and generosity ;" then comes a passage in which the texts of Matthew and Lulie in the Sermon on the Mount appear to be combined, but where, iu the opinion of Volkmar,* the text of Luke predominates (6 : 31, 3(5-38). In this same letter the Acts are twice quoted, first at c. 18. where mention is made of a divine testimony respecting King David, and there is an amalgamation of the two following Old Testament pass- ages : 1 Sam. 13 ; 14 and Ps. 89 : 21, Now a precisely similar fusion, or very nearly so, is found in the book of the Acts (13 : 22). How could this almost identi- cal combination of two such distinct passages of the Old Testament have occurred spontaneously to the two writers ? 1 Sam. 13 : 14. Ps. 89 : 20. "The Lord hath sought him a ma7i " J Jiave found David my servant ; -with after his mon lieart." my holy oil have I anointed him." Acts 13 : 22. " 7 have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will." Clem. Ep. ad Cor. c. 18, " I have found a man after my own heart, David son of Jesse ; and I have anointed him with eternal oil." The other quotation is an expression of euolgy which Clement addresses to the Corinthians (c. 2): "Giving more willingly than receiving {ixullov diSovTs'i r) ?^aft- iSdvovTEi)," — a repetition of the very words of Jesus cited by Paul, Acts 20 : 35 : "It is more blessed to give than to receive {didoiai ^io/Caov fj Xafi3uveLv)." No doubt these are allusions rather than quotations properly so called. But we know that this is the ordinary mode of quotation in the Fathers. It is true that the Tubingen school denies the authenticity of the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, and assigns them, the former to the first quarter, and the latter to the second part, of the second century ; but the authenticity of the former in particular is guaranteed by the most unexceptionable testimonies. Although in many respects not at all flattering to the church of Corinth, it was deposited in the archives of this church, and, according to the testimony of Dionysius, bishop of Cornith about 170, was frequently read publicly to the congregation. Further, it is quoted by Polycarp, Hegesippus, and Irenseus. Now, if it is authentic, it dates, not from 125, as Volkmar thinks, but at latest from the end of the first century. Accord- ing to Hase, it belongs to between 80 and 90 ; according to Tischendorf, it dates from 69, or. less probably^ from 96. For our part, we should regard this last date as most probable. In any case, we see that the use of Luke's writings in this letter confers a very high antiquity on their diffusion and authority. 3. The PsEUDEPiGRAPHiCAL WRITINGS.— Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Among the writings of Jewish or Jewish-Christian origin which antiquity has bequeathed to us, there is one which appears to have been composed by a Christian * " The text of Matthew differs most, while Luke's text furnishes the substance of the developed thought" (" Urspr.," p. 138). COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. T Jew. desirous of bringing his fellow-countrympn to tlie Christian faith. With this view he represents the twelve sous of Jacob as speaking on their deathbeds, aud assigns to each of them a prophetic discourse, in which they depict the future lot of their people, and announce the blessings to be conferred by the gospel. Contrary to the opiuion of M. Keuss, who places the composition of this work after the middle of the second century,* de Groot and Laugen tliluk that it belongs to the end of the first or the beginning of the second. f As this book alludes to the first destruction of Jerusalem hy the Romans in 70, but in no way refers to the second by Adrian in 135, it must, it would seem, date from the iiilervul between these two events. It contains numerous quotations fnmi Luke as well as from the other evangelists, but the fol- lowing passage is particularly important : " In the last days, said Benjamin to his sons- there shall S[)ring from my race a ruler according to the Lord, who, alter having heard his voice, shall spread u new light among the heathen. He shall abide in the syna- gogues of the heathen to the end of the ages, and shall be in the mouth of their chiefs as a pleasant song. Bis xoork and Im word shall be wnlten in tlie lioly hooks. He shall be chosen of God for eternity. ]\Iy father Jacob hath told me about him who is to make up for the deficiencies of my race." The Apostle Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, and there is an allusion in this passage to his work as described in the book of the Acts, and probably also to his epistles as containing his word. There is no doubt, then, that the book of the Acts is here referred to as constituting part of the collection of holy books (tv (Hji^Mii rnls uyiaic). This passage is thus the parallel of the famous As it is written, which is found in the Epistle of Barnabas, and which serves as a preamble, about the same time, to a quotation from the Gospel of St. Matthew.:}: Before the end of the first century, therefore, there were collections of apostolic writings in the churches, the contents of which we cannot exactly de- scribe : they varied, no doubt, in different churches, which were already regarded equally with the Old Testament as hohi ; and iu these, the book of the Acts, aud consequently the Gospel of Luke, found a place. 4. Biblical Writings.— Jo7t?!, Mark, Acts. The whole Gospel of John supxjoses, as we think has been proved in our Com- mentary upon that book, the existence of our sj'noptics, and their proi)agation in the Church. As to Luke iu particular, 10 : 38-43 must be compared with John 11 and 13 : 1-8 ; then 34 : 1-13 and 3G-49 with John 30 : 1-18 and 19-33, where John's nar- rative appears to allude, sometimes even in expression, to Luke's. The first distinct and indubitable trace of the influence of Luke's Gospel on a book of the New Testament is found in the conclusion of Mark (1(5 : 0-30). On the one hand, we hope to prove that, untd we come to this fragment, the composition of Mark is quite independent of Luke's narrative. On the other hand, it is evident that from this point the narrative of Mark, notwithstanding some peculiarities, is scarcely * " Die Gesch. der heil. Schr. K T.," § 2~)7. I I)e Groot, " Basilides, " p 37 ; Langen, " Das Judenthum in Palesti," 148. j Hilgenfeld, with all fairness, acknowledges this quotation in the Epistle of Barnabas and the consequences deducible from it : " We meet with the first trace of this ajipliciitiou [of the notion of inspiration as iu the writings of the Old Testament to th ise of the apostles] at the close of the first century, in tlie so-called letter of BarnaliHs, in which a sentence from the Gospel is quoted as a passage of Scripture' ("Dec Kanon," p. 10). 8 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. anything but an abridged reproduction of Lulie's. It is, as it has been called, tJie mcsi clearly marked ntyle of extract. Compare verse 96 and Luke 8:2; verses 10, 11, and Luke 24 : 10-12 ; verse 12 and Luke verses 13-22 ; verse 13, and Luke verses 33-35 ; verse 14« aud Luke verses 30-43. It is possible also that John 20 : 1-17 may have had some iotluence on verse 9a. As to the discourse verses 15-18, aud the fiagmunt verses 19, 20, the author of this couclusion must have taken these from materials of his own. Now we know that this conclusion to Mark, from 16 : 9, was wanting, according to the statements of the Fathers, iuagreatmany ancient mss. ; that it is not found at the present day in either of the two most ancient documents, the Sinaitic or Vatican ; that the earliest trace of it occurs in Ireuseus ; and that an entirely differ- ent conclusion, bearing, however, much moie evidently the impress of a later eccle- siastical style, is the reading of some other documents. If, then, the conclusion found in the received text is not from the hand of the author, still it is earlier than the middle of the second century. Wenmstalso admit that no considerable interval could haveelapsed between ihe composition of the Gospel aud the composition of this conclu- sion ; for the discourbc, verse 15 e< scq. is too original to be a mere compilation : further, it must have been drawn up from materials dating from the time of the composition of the Gospel ; aud the remarkable agreement which exists between the ending, verses 19 and 20, and the general thought of the book, proves that whoever composed this conclusion had fully entered into the miud of the author. The latter must have been suddenly interrupted in his work ; for IG : 8 could never have been the intended conclusion of his narrative. x\.n appearance of Jesus in Galilee is announced (5 : 1-8), and the narrative ought to finish without giviug an account of this. Besides, verse 9 is quite a fresh beginning, for there is an evident break of connection between this verse and verse 8. From all these considerations, it follows that at verse 8 the work was suddenly suspended, and that a short time after, u writer, who was still in the current of the author's thought, and who might have had the advantage of some materials prepared by him, drew up this conclusion. Now, if up to 16 : 8 the Gospel of Luke has exer- cised no influence on Mark's work, and if, on the contrary, from 16:9 there is a per- ceptible influence of the former on the latter, there is only one inference to be drawn — namely, that the Gospel of Luke appeared in tlie interval between the composition of Mark and the writing of its conclusion. In order, then, to fix- the date of the pub- lication of our Gospel, it becomes important to know by what circumstance the author of the second Gospel was interrupted in his work. The only probable explanation of this fact, as it appears to us, is the unexpected outbreak of Nero's persecution iu August, 64, just the time wheu Mark was at Rome with Peter. At the request of the faithful belonging to this church, he had undertaken to write the narratives of this apostle, in other words, the composition of our second Gospel. The persecution which broke out, and the violent death of his master, probably forced him to take precipitous flight from the capital. It is only necessary to suppose that a copy of the yet unfinished work remained in the hands of some Roman Christian, and was deposited in the archives of his church, to explain how the Gospel at first got into circulation iu its incomplete form. When, a little while after, some one set to wo:kto complete it, the Gospel of Luke had appeared, aud was cousulted. The work, finished by help of Luke's Gospel, was copied aud circulated in this new form. In this way the existence of the two kinds of copies is explained. The year 64 would then be the t^rininus a quo of the publication of Luke. On the other hand, the writing COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 9 of the conclusion of 'Mark must have preceded the publication, or at least the diffu- siou. of the Gospel of ]\Ialllie\v. Otherwise the cnntiuuator cf Mark would certainly have given it the preftrence, because its narrative bears au iutiuitely closer reseni. blance than Luke's to the account he was completinu;. The composition of the canonical conclusion of 3Iark would then be prior to the dillusion of our Matthew, and consequently before the close of the first century, when this writing was already cluihed with a divine authority equal to that of the Old Testament (p. 11). Now, since the conclusion of ^lark implies the existence of the Gospel of Luke, we see to what a hiirh antiquity these facts, when taken together, oblige us to refer the com- position of tl>e latter. The otlier biblical writing which presents a point of connection with our Gospel is the book of the Acts. From its opening verses, this writing supposes the Gospel of Luke already composed and known to its readers. When was the book of the Acts composed ? From the fact that it terminates so suddenly with the mention of Paul's captivity at Rome (spring 03 to G4), it has often been concluded that events had pro- ceeded just thus far at the time the work was composed. This conclusion, it is true, is hasty, for it may have been the author's intentioa only to curry his story as far as the apostle's arrival at Rome. His book w^as not intended to be a biography of ihe apostles generall}', nor of Peter and Paul in particular ; it was the work that was important to him. not the workmen. Nevertheless, when we observe the fulness of the narrative, especially in the latter parts of the work ; when we see the author relating the minutest details of the tempest and Paul's shipwreck (27), and mention- ing even the sign of the ship which carried the apostle to Italy (28 : 11) — " A ship of Alexandria, whose sign was Ctistor and Pollux") — it cannot be reasonably maintained that it was a rigorous adherence to his plan which prevented his giving his readers some details respecting the end of this ministry, and the martyrdom of his master. Or might he have proposed to make this the subject of a third work ? Had he a mind to compose a trilogy, after the fashion of the Greek tragedians ? The idea of a third work might no doubt be suggested to him afterward by subsequent events ; and this appears to be the sense of certain obscure words in the famous fragment of jMuratori. But it is not very probable that snch an intention could have determined his oiiginal plan, and influenced the composition of his two foi'mer works. What matter could appear to the author of sufficient importance to be i)]aced on a level, as the subject cf a rp/rof Anyoi, with the coutents of the Gospel or the Ads? Or, lastly, was it the premature death of the author which came and put an end to his labor? There is no ground for this supposition. Tlie conclusion. Acts 28 : 30 and 31, while resem- bling analogous conclusions at theend of each narrative in the Gospel and in the Acts, Las rather the effect of a closing period intentionally affixed to the entir-e book. We are then, in fact, brought back to the idea that Paul's career was not yet finished when the author of the Acts tei'miuated his narrative, and wrote tire last two verses of chap. 28 ; since, were this not the case, fidelit}^ to his plan would in no way have I)revented his giving some details on a subject so interesting to his readers. The book of the Acts, therefore, does not api)ear to have 1 een written very long after the time which forms tlie termination of the narrative. This conclusion, if well founded, applies a fortiori to the Gospel of Luke. To sum up : the use which was made of the third Gospel at Rome, in the middle of the second century, by Justin, Marcion, and his master Cerdo, and the apostolic authority implied in the diffusion of this work, and in tho respect it enjoyed at thii 10 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. period, oblige us to admit its existence as early as tlie beginning of this cenlurj', A veiy recent book could not have been knov>'u and used thus simultaaeuusly in the Church and by the seels. The place which the Acts held in collections of the saeied •writings at the epoch of the " Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" (toward the end of the first or the commencement of the second century), sends us back a litllc further, to about 80-100. Lastly, the relations of the third Gospel to ]\Iaik and tht; Acts carry us to an epoch still mure remote, even as far back as the period from G4 lo 80. An objection to this result has been found in the silence of Papias — a silence •which Hiigenfekl has even thought an indication of positive rejection on the part of this Father. But because Eusebius has only preserved ihe information furnished by Papias respecting the compo«ilion of Mark and Matthew — only a few lines altogether — it does not follow that Pa[jias did not know Luke, or that, if he knew, he rejected him. All that can reasonably be inferred from this silence is, that Eusebius had not found anything of interest in Papias as to the origin of Luke's book. And what is there surprising in that? Matthew and Mark had cnnmieuced their narratives with- out giving the smallest detail respecting the composition of their books ; Luke, on the contrary, in his preface, had told his readers all they needed to know. There was no tradition, then, current on this point, and so Papais had found nothing new to add to the Information given by the author. We ought to say, in concludmg this review, that we do not attach a decisive value to the facts we have just noticed, and that among the results ai rived at there are several which we are quite awaie are not indisputable.* Nevertheless, it has appeared to us that there were some interesting concidences {points de repere) which a careful study of the subject should not overlouk. The only fact wiiich appears to us absolutely decisive is the ecclesiastical and lituigical use of our Gospel in the churches in the middle of the second century, as it is established by Justin. If this book ically formed part of those " Memoirs of the Apostles," which he declared to the emperor weie publicly read every Sunday in the Christian asseml)lies, the apostolic antiquity of this l)ook must have been a fact of public notoriety, and all the more that it did not bear the name of an apostle at the head of it. SEC. II. — THE AUTHOR. Under this title are included two distinct questions : I. "What do we know of the person designated in the title as the author of our Gospel ? II. By what ecclesiasiical testimonies is the composition of this book traced to him, and what is their •worth ? The person named Luke is only mentioned in certain passages of the Xew Testa- ment, and in some few brief ecclesiastical traditions. The biblical passages are : Col. 4 : 14, " Luke, the beloved physican, and Demas, greet you ;" Philem. 24, " There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers;" 2 Tim. 4 : IL " Only Luke is with me." * "We ought to emphasize this reservation, in view of some reviews in which we have been blamed for dealing here too largel}' in hypothesis. c'oaimk:stary ox st. lukk. 11 These passages, consitlered iu their context, yield these results : 1. That Liiko was a, Cliristiua of Pagan origin. This is proved beyond duubt in the lirst passaire by the distinction between the group of Christians ot the circumcidoii (verses 10, 11), and the foliowin";: group to which Lul^e belongs (verses 12-14). The olijeclion which has been taken to this exegelical inference, on the ground of an Aramaean tincture of style in many passages of Luke, has, so far as we can see, no force. Accordingly. St. Luke would be the only author, among those who were called to write the Scriptures, who was not of Jewish origin. 2. The circumstance tliat his profession was that of aphymdan is not unimpor- tant ; for it implies that he must have possessed a certain amount of scienlificknowl- edge, and belonged to the class of educated men. There existed at Rome, in the time of the emperors, u medical supervision ; a superior college {Collegium arcJiiairo- iiiiu) was charged with the duty of examining in every city those who desired to practise the healing art. Newly admitted men were placed under the direction of older physicians ; their modes of treatment were slriclly scrutinized, and their mis- takes severely punished, sometimes by taking away their diploma.* For these reasons, Luke must have possessed an amount of scientific and literary culture above that of most of the other evangelists and apostles. 3. Luke was the fellow-laborer of Paul in his mission to the heathen, a fellow- laborer ^m<% beloved (Col. 4 : 14) au5 by the quotations from the writings of Luke which we find in the " Clem- entine Homilies" (ix. 23 ; xix. 2). The plot even of this religious romance is bor- rowed from the book of the Acts. Now, in order that parties so opposed to each other, as Marcion on the one hand and the Ebionites on the other, should airree in making use of our Gospel, the conviction of its antiquity and authority must have been very ancient and verj' firmly established {sialic, Tert.). There is another fact more strik- ing still. The onl}^ sect of the second century which appears to have expressly rejected the book of the Acts, that of the Severians, took no exception to the Gospel of Luke. These results perfectly agree with those to which we were led by the facts enumerated. Sec. 1. Thus the blank that exists between the first positive testimonies which we meet with in the second century and the apostolic age is filled up by fact. 2. It is important to observe the gradual change in the tradition which manifests itself during the coui-se of the second and third centuries. The nearer we approach its original sources, the more sober the tradition. In the eyes of Justin, the author of our Gospel is simply a companion of the apostles. In the fragment of Muratoii the same information reappears without amplification. Strictly speaking, Irena'us does not go beyond this ; only he already aims to establish a connection between the willing of Luke and the preaching of Paul. Tertulliau notices an opinion prevalent in his lime which goes nmch farther— namely, that Paul liimself was the author of this Gospel. Last of all. Origeu distinctly declares that when Paul said rnp GohjkI, he meant the Gospel of Luke. This progression is just what we want to enable us to verify the real historical character of the tradition in its primitive form. If the original information had been invented under the influence of the apologetic interest which moulded the ti-adition later on, would it not have begun where it ended ? 3. The supposition that the name of Luke, which has been allixed to our Gospel, was merely an hypothesis of the Fathers, gives no explanation why they should have preferred a man so seldom named as Luke, instead of fixing tlieir choice on one of those fellow-laborers of the apostle that were better known, such as Timothy, Silas, or Titus, whom muderu criticism has thought of. The obscurity in which this per- sonage would be veiled, if his name did not figure at the head of the writings which are attributed to him, is one of the best guarantees of the tradition which declares him the author of them. We do not see, then, what, in a historic point of view, could invalidate the force of the ecclesiastical testimony on this point ; and we agree with Iloltzmann ("Die synopt. Evang." p. 377), when he saj's liiat "this ti-adition is only to be rejected from the point where it proceeds to place the composition of our Gospel under the guarantee of Paul himself." Three opinions have been put foith by modern criticism on the question under consideration. 18 COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUJvE. 1. An " anonj'mcns Saxon," * while declaring that our Gospel is nothing but a tissue of falsehoods, a pamphlet composed out of hatred of Peter and the Twelve, boldly attributes it to Paul himself. 2. Hilgenfeld, Zeller, etc., thiuk that this writing is the work of an unknown Christian at the beginning of the second century. 3. Most admit, in conformity with the traditional opinion, that the author is the Luke m'entioned in Paul's Epistles. We only mention, to show that we have not for- gotten it, the opinion of Mayerhoff, never adopted by any one else, and which was only the very logical consequence of Schleiermacher's on the portions in which we occurs in the book of the Acts — namely, that our Gospel, as well as these portions, should be attributed to Timothy. 8EC. III. — COMPOSITIOX OP THE THIRD GOSPEL. We possess nothing from tradition but some scanty and uncertain information re- specting the origin of our Gospel. I. As to the time, the greater part of the critics are wrong in making Irengeus say that Luke wrote after the death (or the departure from Rome) of Peter and Paul {jjost horum exccfisum, iii. 1). This is a false conclusion drawn from the fact that Ireuaeus speaks of the Gospel of Luke after that of Mark, to which this chronologi- cal statement applies. The order in which this Father here speaks of the Gos-pcls and their origin may be simply the order of these books in the canon, and in no way of the date of their composition. We find in this same Irena3us (ui. 9, 10) the follow- ing order : Matthew, Luke, Mark. The only real traditional information which we possess on this point is that of Clement of Alexandria, who states it as a fact transmitted by the ]iresbyters who have succeeded each other from the beginning {a-o tcjv avfuaOei^ npea,3v-tpuv), " that the Gospels con'aiuing tlie genealogies were written fiist {irpoyeypd^f^aL rioi evayyeliuv Tu nepiExov-a nif yEVEa?,oyLai)." Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. According to this, Matthew and Luke were composed before Mark. Further, since, according to this very Clem- ent and these same authorities, Mark must have been composed at Rome during Peter's life, it follows that, according to the view embodied in this tradition, Luke was composed prior to the death of this apostle. The sober and original form of the former of these two traditions, the respectable authority on which it rests, the impos- sibility of its having been deduced from an exegetical combination, seeing that there is no logical connection between the criterion indicated (the presence of a genL-alogy) and the date which is assigned to it, seem to me to confer a much higher value on this ancient testimony than modern criticism generally accords to it. The reasons for which so earlj^ a date of composition is rejected arc purelj^ inter- nal. It is thought that the Gospel itself yields proofs of a later date than would he indicated by this tradition of Clement. Baur, who has fixed it the latest, places the composition after a.d. 130 ; Hilgenfeld, from 100 to 110 ; Zeller, at the commence- ment of the second century or earlier ; Volkmar, about 100 ; Keim, about 90. The other critics, Meyer, De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, who come nearer in general to the tra- ditional opinion, limit themselves to saying, after the fall of Jerusalem ; Holtzmann, between 70 and 80, Tholuck, Guericke, Ebrard, before the fall of Jerusalem. In the * " Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre 'Verfasser und ihr Verhaltniss zu einander," Isted. 1845; 2d," 1853 C0M.MEJ5TARY ON ST. LUKE. 19 conchuliiiii dissertation we shall weigh the exesetical reasons for and aj^fiinst these dilTuu'nt opiuions. But it appears to us, thnt the facts tiientioncd (Sec. 1) already make it clear that every opiniou which places the composition in the second century is historically uuteuahle. The use which the continuator of ]\Iarlc and Clement of Home make of our Gospel, and the use which this same Clement and the author of the " Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" make of the Acts, render so late a date of composition quite impossible. II. As to the place, we have only two hints, and we can form no critical juJg- mcnt of their Vidue. .Jerome (De vir. ill. c. 7) says : " Luke, a physician, who com- posetl his book in the countries of Achaia and Bo^otia." On theolher hand, in the Pcschito, the title of our Gospel runs tlius : " Gospel of Luke the Evangelist, which he published and preached in Greek {quod protulit et evanffelimvit c/mce) in Alexandria the Great." The two statements are not neces.sarily contradictory. Lidce may have composed his work in Greece and have published it in Alexandria, which was the great centre of the book-world at that time. Criticism cannot certainly feel itself bound by such late and uncertain informa- tion. Hiigenfeld, who on this point differs least from tradition, places the composi- tion in Achaia or Macedonia ; Kostlin at Ephesus ; the majority at Rome or in Italy. AVe shall discuss the question in concluding. III. The autiior himself announces his aim in his preface. He wrote with the /esign of completing the Christian instruction of a man in high station, named The- ophilus. Tliis name could not denote a purely ficlidous person, as Origun supposed, who was inclined to apply it to every Christian endowed wilh spiritual powers. Neither could the .Jewish high priest Theophilus, of whom Josephus speaks, be /ntended (Antiq. xviii. 6. 3 ; xix. 6. 2), nor the Athenian of this name mentioned by Tacilus (Ann. ii. 5o). The only tradlional information we possess about this person is that found in the " Clementine Recognitions" (x. 71), about the middle of the second century : " S") that Theophilus, who was at the head of all the men iu power at the city (of Antioch), consecrated, under the name of a church, the great basilica (liie p-ilace) in which he resided. " * According to this, Tlieo[)hilus was a great lord residing in tlie capital of Syria. We have already referred to the reasons which lead us to think that Luke himself was originally from this city. Did he belong to the household of Tlieophilus ? Had he been his slave, and then his freedm.an ? Lobeck has remarked that the termination o5 was a contiactiou particularly frequent in the names of slaves.f Physicians appear to liave frequently belonged to the class of slaves or freednien.|: If Luke, freed by Theophilus, practised as a physician at Antioch, and if he was brought to the faith at the time of the founding of the church in thiit city, he might very well have decided to accompany the apostle in his missioii. In this case he would have rejoined him at Troas, just as he was about to pass over into Europe ; and there woidd no looger be anylhing surprising in the pronoun we, by which he a.ssigns himself a jdace in the missijuary company. On this supposi- tion, also, we can understand why he should have dedicated his work to his old fiieud * " Ita ut Theoplnlus. qui erat cunctis potenlihtis in civitate sublimijr, domus su;e iiiirenfi'm basilicam ecciesife nomine consecraiet. " + Wolf's "Analecten, iii. 49 ;" comp. Tholuck, " Glaubwiird. " p. 148. X Qumtilian, " luslit." vii. 2 : Merlicinam factitnsse manumissum. Suet. Calig. o. 8 : Miltocum eo e\ servi'? me is medifum. Comp. Cic. pro Clueulio, c. G;3 ; Seneca, '■ De Rtneficiis," iii. 24. See Hug, " Einl." ii. p. l;W. 20 COMMENTARY OiT ST. LUKE. and patron. This dedication does not mean, however, that the book was intended for Theophilus alone. Until the discovery of printinjc, the publication of a woik was a very costly undertaking ; and authors were accustomed to dedicate their works to some high personage of their acquaintance, who could procure the writer an oppor- tunity of reading his production in some select circle, and have the first copies pre- pared at his own expense. In this way he opened to tlie author the road to publicity. Whoever was obliging enough to undertake this responsibility was called the paironvs libri. Such, doubtless, was the service which Theophilus was asked to render to Luke's worli. In reality, Luke addressed himself, through the medium of this person, to all that part of th; church to which Theophilus belonged, to the churches of the Greek world, and, in a certain sense, to the entire Church. The object he had in view, according to the Fathers, was simply to make known the history of Jesus, more particularly to converts from the heathen. Modern criti- cism lias found in the preface, and even in the narrative, indications of a more special design connected with the great movement of ecclesiastical polemics which it conceives occupied the first and second centuries. According to Baur (" Marcus Evang. " p. 223, et seq.), the original Luke, of which Marcion has preserved a faith- ful impression, was intended to oppose the .lewish Christianity of the Tvpelve, as represented by the Gospel of Matthew in its original form. The author sought to depreciate the apostles in order to e.xalt Paul ; while our canonical Luke, which is a later version of this original Luke, was directed rather against the unbelieving and persecuting Judiasm. The former part of this proposition has been reproduced and developed in still stronger terms by " the anonymous Saxon," who sees nothing in the third Gospel but a bitter pamphlet of the Apostle Paul against the Twelve, and more especially against Peter. M. Burnouf has made himself the advocate of this view in the Bevue des Deux Mondes* But even in the Tubingen school a xjrotest has been raised against what have been called the " exaggerations" of Baur. Zeller finds no trace either in the Gospel or the Acts of this spirit of systematic depreciation of Peter and the Twelve. According to him, the author simply wishes to check excessive admiration for Peter, and to preserve Paul's place by the side of this apostle. With this aim, iie guards himself from directly opposing the Christianity of the Twelve ; he simply places side by side with the views of the Jewish-Christian apostles those of Paul, whi(:h he endeavors, as far as possible, to exhibit as identical with the foimer. That in this attempt at recnnciliation real history is sacrificed, appears evi- dent to this critic. He accounts in this way for the fact that in this Gospel Jesus gives utterance alternately to particularist teaching (in the sense of the Twelve), and to universalist passages suited to the thought of Paul. Yolkmar combats this view. Nowhere in our Gospel, not even in the facts and discourses of the first two chapters, does he discover those paiticularist or Ebiouitisli elements, by means of which, according to Zeller, the author sought to win the confi- dence of the .Jewish-Christian party. lu his jud!i:ment, the Gospel of Luke is purely Pauline. In opposition to that fiery manifesto of apostolic .lewish-Chrislianity, the Apocalypse, f composed in a.d. 68, Mark, five years afterward, published his Gospel, the earliest in point of time, and written iu the sense of a m )derate Panlinism ; later still, Luke re-wrote this book, laying still greater emphasis on the principles of the apostle to the Gentiles. In all these suppositions the idea is, that Jesus speaks in the Gospel, not as He really spoke, but as it suits the evangelist to make Him speak. * December, 1865. f See p. 25.— J. H. COMMENTAIIY ON ST. LUKE. 21 All these opiniuns ns lo the jiim of Luke's work are connected with tlie grout question, siiggtsted by Buur, of a fiuuliiinuiitiil ditTeience of view between Paul and the Twelve, wiiich is represented as llie real starling point of the development of the Church and ot the entire Christian literature. This question, with which tliat of tlie origin of the Gospels is now inseparably connected, will be discussed iu our conclud- ing paragraphs. SEC. IV. — SOURCES OF THE TIIIUD GOSPEIj. There is no room for an inquiry into the sources whence the author of a Gospel derived his knowledge of the facts whicii he transmits to us, except ou two condi- lions : 1. That the evangelist is not regarded as an eye-witness of the facts related. Now this is a character which the author of the third Gospel expressly disclaims (1 : 2). 2. That we are not governed by that false notion of inspiration, according to which the sacred history was revealed and dictated to the evaugtlists by the Holy Spirit. As far as our third Gospel is concerned, this idea is altogether excludeil by what the author says himself of the information he had lo obtain to qualify hmiself to write his book (1 : 3).* It is at once, then, the right and the duty of criticism to inquire from what sources the author derived the incidents which he records. This question, however, is im- mediately conrplicated with another and more general question, as to the relation between our three synoptics. For many regard it as probable, and even certain, that some one of our Gospels served as a source of information to the writer who com- posed another of them. It is not our intention to relate here the history of the dis- cussion of this great theological and literary problem. f We do not even intend in this place to .set forth the numerous and apparently contradictory facts which bring it up afresh after every attempted solution. In view of the exegetical work we have in hand, we shall here bring forward only two matters : I. The elomnts of which crilicisui has availed itself in order to solve the problem. II. The principal systems which it constructs at the present day by means of these elements. I. The factors which criticism has hitherto employed for the solution of the problem are four in number : 1. Oral tradition (Trapddonii), or the reproduction of the apostolic testimony, as they gave it when they founded the churches. This factor must have borne a very essential part in determining the form of the evangelical historical writings from their very commencement. Luke indicates its im[)ortance, 1 : 3. According to this expression, " even as they delivered them unto us," this tradition was the original source of the oral or written narratives which were circulated in the churches. It branched out into a thousand channels through the ministry of the evangelists (Eph. 4 : 11 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 5). Gieseler, with his exquisite historical tact, was the first to bring out all the value of this fact as serving to explain the origin of the Gospels. J * The advocates of the theory of plenarj' inspiration would not regard this para- graph as a correct representation of tlieir views. Tiiey would not regard the use of foregoing documents as iucompatible with their -views.— J. H. f We refer our readers to the generally accurate account of M. Nicolas, " Etudes Critiques sur le N. T." pp. 40-85. t " Uistorisfh kritisfher Versuch liber die Entstehung und die frlihesten Schick' sale der Schriftlichea Evangelien," Leipzig, 1818. 22 COMMENTARY OJiT ST. LUKE. 2. Separate writings or memoirs {cnro/ivn/xovEvfiaTu) on some feature or particular part of the Saviour's life, ou a discourse or a miracle which an evangelist related, and which he or one of his hearers put in wriiing that it might not l)e forgotten ; or, again, some private account preserved among their family papers by the persuns more immediately interested in the evangelical diaraa : we may regard our Guspel as a collectiou of a number of such detached writings, pieced together by the hand of an editor. Carrying out this view, Schleiermacher made a very ingenious analysis of the Gospel of Luke in a little work * which was to be completed by a similar study of the Acts, but the second part never appeared. Thus this scholar thought he could discriminate, in the portion D : 51 ; 19 : 48, traces of two distinct writings, the first of which would be the journal of a companion of Jesus in His journey to the feast of dedication, the second the journal of another companion of Jesus when He went up to the feast of the Passover. The truth of this second means of explanation might be supported by the proper meaning of the word avard^aaOai, to arranrje in order, 1 : 1, if only it were proved that the arrangement implied by this word refers to the documents, and not to the facts themselves. Under this category of detached writings would have to be ranged also the various documents which several critics believe they have detected in Luke's work, on account of a kind of literary or dogmatic patchwork which they find in it. Thus Kuiucil, following Marsh, regarded the portion 9 : 51 ; 18 : 14 as a more ancient willing, containing a collection of the precepts of Jesus, to which he gave the name of guomonology. Hiigenfeld f also distmguishes from the narrative as a whole^ whicii has the uuiversalist character of the Christianity of St. Paul, certain passngea of Jewish-Christian tendency, which he regards as some very eaily materials, pro- ceeding from the apostolic Church itself. The entire portion 9 : 51 ; 19 : 28 rests, according to him, on a more anctient writing which the author introduced into his work, working it up afresh both in substance and form. Kcistlin X thinks it may be proved that there were some sources of Judean origin, and others of Samaiitan origin, which furnished Luke with a knowledge of the facts of whicli the two coun- tries of Judea and Samaria are the scene in our Gospel. Keim, while declaring him- self for this view, admits besides other sources of Pauline origin , for example, the document of the institution of the Holy Supper.^ It is impossible to doubt that the genealogical document 3 : 23, ei seq. existed before our Gospel, and, such as it is, was inserted in it by the author (see ou 3 : 23). 3. We must allow, furliier, the existence of longer and fuller documents which Luke might have used. Does he not speak himself, in his preface, of writings that were already numerous at the time he was wriling {ttoIao'.), which in respect of con- tents must have been of very much the same nature as his own, that is to say, veri- table Gospels? He designates tliem by the name of Jt^yr/ffts, a word which has been wrcuigly applied to detached writings of the kind that Schleiermacher admitted, and which can only apply to a consecutive and more or less complete narrative. It such Works existed in gieat numl)er, and were known to Luke, it is diflicult lo thinic that he has not endeavored to profit by them. The only question then is, whether, on the * " Ueber die Schriften des Lucas, ein Kritischer Versuch," von Schleiermacher, Berlin, 1817. f " Die Evangelien," 1852. i " Der Ursprung und die Compos, der sj-n. Evang. " 1853. § " Geschichte Jesu," t. i., Zurich, 18(57. COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 23 supposition that they no longer exist, we can form any idea of them by means of our Gospel, for the composition of which they supplied some materials. Keim thinks he recognizes, as a general basis of Luke's work, a Jewish-Christian Gospel, which must have been nearly related to our Matthew, very proi)ably its direct descendant, but distiugulshed from it by an unhealthy tendency to Ebionitism and Dualism. Tlic spirit of Ibis fundamental document would betray itself all through Luke's work. Ewnld imagines a whole series of writings of which Luke nmst have availed himself — a Hebrew Gospel by Philip thedeacon, acollection of the discourses of Je.sus by llie Apostle ^lalthew, of which Papias speaks, etc. (see further on). Bleek,* reviving in a new form the hypothesis of a primitive Gospel (a manual composed, accorduig to Eichhorn, for the use of evangelists, under apostolic sanction), admits, as a l)asis of our Gospels of Matthew and Luke, a Greek Gospel, written in Galilee by a believer, who at certain times had himself accompanied Jesus. This earliest account of the Saviour's life would mould all the subsequent evangelical narrations. The writings of the TTo/Aoi, many (1 : 1), would be only variations of it, and our three synoptics merely different versions of the same. Lastly, we know that many critics at the present day find the principal source of Luke and the two other s^'uoptics (at least of the narrative part) in a supposed Gospel of Mark, older than our canonical Maik, and to whi(.-h they give the name of Proto-Maik (lieuss, Reville, Holtzmann, etc.).f All these writings, anterior to that of Luke, and only known to us by the traces of them discoviired in his woik, are lost at the present day. 4. Would it be impossible for some writing which we still possess to be one of the sources of Luke — for e.vample, one of our two synoptics, or even both of them ? This fourth means of explanation has at all times been employed by criticism. At the present day it is still used with great confidence by many. According to Baur,| Matthew was the direct and sole source of Luke ; Mark proceeded from both. Hil- genfeld also puts Matthewfirst : but he interposes Mark between Matthew and Luke. According to Volkraar,§ Mark is the primary source ; from him proceeded Luke, and Matthew frum both. To sum up : Oral tradition, detached writings. Gospels more or less complete now lost ; last of all, one or other of our existing Gospels — such are the materials b)' means of which criticism has made various attempts to solve the problem of the origin, both of Luke in particular and of the synoptics in general. Let us endeavor now to describe the systema which actual criticism labors to construct out of these various kinds of materials. n. 1. We will commence with the self-styled critical school of Baur. The common tendency of writers of this school is to represent the synoptics as deriving their con- tents from each other. In their view, the contents of our Gospels cannot be histoii- * " Einleitung in das N. T.," 18G2 ; " Synoptische Erklarung der drei erstea Evangelien," 18(59. t Reuss, " Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T." 3d ed. 1860; R6ville, " Etudes critiques sur I'^Tang. selon St. Matthieu," 18G3 ; Holtzmann, " Die synopL. Ev." 1803. I Raur, " Das Marcus-Evangelium." 1851. i^ Volkmar. " Die Evaugelicu," 1870. 24 COMMENTARY ON ST, LUKE. cal, because they contain the inadmissible element of miracles.* Consequently tliey regard our Gospels, not as real liistuiicul narrations, but as compositions of a poetical or didactic character. The diffeieuccs between thciu are not in any way natural divergences proceeding from such undesigned modifications as tradition undergoes in course of oral transmission, or from tlie diversity of writlen sources, but result from different dogmatic tendencies in tlie w^iiters of the Gospels which they perfectly reflect. Each evangelist has reproduced his matter with a free hand, modifying it in accordance with his personal views. In reality, then, our Gospels are the lettectiou, not of the object they describe, but of the controversial or conciliatory tendencies of their authors. These books make us acquainted, not with the history of Jesus, but with that of the Church, and of the different theories respecting the Founder of the gospel, which have been successivel}'^ held in it. This common result of the school appears in its most pronounced form in Baur and Volkmar, in a milder form in Kost- lin and Hilgenfeld. Baur himself, as we have seen, makes, as Griesbach and De Wette did before him, Luke proceed from Matthew, and Mark from Luke and Matthew united. This relationship is made out in this way. Tliere was, first of all, a strictly legal and par- ticularist Matthew, reflecting the primitive Christianity of the Twelve, and of the church of Jerusalem. From this original Matthew afterward proceeded our canonical Matthew, the narrative being recast in a imiversalist sense (between 130 and 134) Li opposition to the original Matthew there appeared first a Luke, which was alto- gether Pauline, or anti-legal ; this was the writing Marcicm adopted, and from which proceeded later on our canonical Luke. The latter was the result of a revision designed to harmonize it with the Jewish-Christian views (about 140). Reconciliation having thus been reached from both sides, Mark followed, in which the original con- trast is entiiely neutralized. For its matter, the latter is naturally dependent on the other two. The "anonymous Saxon" f starts with the same general notion ; but he seasons it in a piquant fashion. According to him, our synoptics, with the exception of Luke, were indeed composed by the authors to whom the Church attributes them ; l)ut they intentionally misrepresented the facts. As to the third, Paul, who was its author, composed it with a view to decry the Twelve and their party. Hilgenfeld denies the opposition, admitted by Baur, between the original Matthew and a Luke which preceded ours. He believes that, in the very bosom of apostolic and Jewish-Christian Christianity, there was an internal development at work from the first century in a Pauline direction, the result partly of the force of events, but more especially of the influence of the fall of .Terusalem and the conversion of the Gentiles. He finds a proof of this gradual transformation in the numerous universal- ist passages of our canonical Matthew, which witness to the changes undergone by the original Matthew. This last writing, the oldest of the Gospels, dated from 70-80. The Gospel of Mark, which followed it, went a step further in the Pauline direc- tion. It was an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, but at the same time modified by the oral tradition existing in tiie Church at Rome, which was derived from Peter ; * Hilgenfeld (" Die Evangelien," p. 530 : '• The principal argument for the later origin of our Gospels is always this fact, that they relate very many things about the life of Jesus, which certainly could not have taken place as they narrate them." f " Sendschreiben an Baur iiber die Abfassuugszeit des Lukas uud der Synopti- ker," 1848, p. 20, et seq. COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. 25 it dates from the period from 80-100. ITilgenfcld, theroforo, does not recognize Lulve'.s inlhu-nce ;iny\vi)cro in j\Iiiilc. ■while liaiir discovers it every wliere. Luke pio- ceeds, nccording t(» him, from tlie two foimer ; he takes a fresli step in tlie universai- ist and Paidini; direction. It was wiiltcn before Marcion's time, from 100 to 110. Tims, jis lliis theologian himself remaiks, " tiie formulitm of our canonical Gos[)cls was (romplcteiy liuished before the time when Baur makes it begin" (" Kauou, " p. 172). With this difference as to dates between the master and his disciple, there is connected a more profound difference still. Instead of a sharp dogmatical coiitiast which was gradually neutralized, Ililgenfeld admits a progressive development in the very bosom of primitive Jewish Chiislianity. Willi Baur, Mark came third ; willi Ililgenfeld, second ; there was only wanted further a theologian of the same school who should assign him the fir.«t place ; and this is dune at the prcstnt time by Volkmar, who follows the example of Str)rr in the last centnr}'. According to him, that fiery manifesto uf primitive Jewish Chris-tian- it}', the Apocal^'pse, had about 68 declared implacable hostility against St. Paul, representing him ^chap. xiii.) as the false prophet of the last times, and making the churches founded by him, in comparison with the Jewish-Christian churches, a mere pkbs (chap. vii.). A moderate Paulinian took up the gauntlet and wrote (about 73), as a reply our second Gospel, the oldest of all the writings of this kind. It was a didactic poem, on a historical basis,* designed to defend Paul and the right of Ihe Gentile churches. Beyond the Old Testament and the Epistles of Paul, the author had no other sources than oral tradition, his Christian experience, the Apocahpse which he opposed, and his creative genius. Somewhat later (about the 3'ear 100), a Pauline believer of the Church of Rome, who had travelled in Palestine, worked up this book into a new form by the aid of some traditions which he had collected, and by inserting in it first a genealogical document (Genealogus Hebrseoium), and then a writing of Essenist tendency (Evangelium pauperum). His aim was to win over to Paulmism the Jewish-Christian part of the Church, which was still in a majoiity. This was our Luke. Matthew is the result of a fusion of the two preceding writmgs. It is the manifesto of a moderate Jewish-Christian feeling, which desired to gather all tile heathrn into the Clmrch, but could not see its way to this at the cost of the abolition of the law, as Paul taught ; its composition dates from 110. All the other writings, the existence of which has been supposed by modern criticism, such as a Proto-^Iatthew, the Logia, and a Proto-Mark, in Volkmar's judgment, are nothing but empty critical fancies. The third, second, and first place in succession having been assigned to !Mark, no new supposition seemed possible, at least from the same school. Nevertheless Kcistlia has rendered possible the impossible, by assigning to Mark all three positions at once. This complicated construction is difficult to follow : The oldest evangelical record would be that Proto-^Mark to which Papias must have referred ; it represented the moderate universalism of Peter. From this work, combined with oral tradition and the Logia of the Apostle ^Matthew, would ])roceed our canonical Matthew, These dilTirent works are supposed to have given birth lo a Gospel of Peter, which closely resembled the oiiginal Maik, but was still more like our actual ^lark. After that must have appeared Luke, to which all llie preceding sources contributed ; and last * " Die Evangelien," p. 4G1 : " Eine selbslbewussle Lehrpocsie auf historischen Grunde. " 26 COMMEXTAIIY ON ST. LUKE. of all our actual Mark, ■which -u-ould be the result of a revision of the original Mark by the help of the canonical Matthew and Luke. The principal wayrnarks of the route thus travel sed are these : Mark (I.) ; Matthew ; Mark (II., or the Gospel of Peter) ; Luke ; Mark (III.). We can only say thai this hypothesis is the death-blow of the theory of the Tubingen school, as formerly Marsh's sj'stem was of the hypothesis of an original Gospel. The complicated and artificial form this hypothesis is compelled to assume, by the difficuKies which weigh upon its simpler forms, is its condemna- tion. Thus, as Ililgenfeld regretfully observes, " after such multiplied and arduous labors we are still very far from reaching the least agreement even on the most essential points." Let it be observed that this disagreement is evinced by disciples of one and the same school, which advanced into the critical arena with colors flying, and thundering forth the psean of victory. Is not such a state of things a serious fact, especially for a school the fundamental idea of which is, that there is an intimate connection between the successive appearances of our Gospels and the his- tory of the primitive Church, of which last this school claims to give the world a new conception ? Dues not such a complete diversity in fixing the order in which the Gospels appeared, exhibit a no less fundamental disagreement in conceiving of the development of the Cliurch ? These are evident symptoms not only of the breaking up of this school, but, above all, of the radical error of the original notion on which it was founded. The opposition in principle between Paulinism and Jewish Chris- tianity, which is an axiom with this school, is also its izpCJTov ipeuSoi. 2. We will now enumerate the critical sj'^steras which have kept independent of the Tubingen school. If Bleek, who is at once the most discerning and judicious critic of our day, is in several respects the antipodes of Baur, he agrees wi'h him on one point : the entire dependence he altril)utes to Mark in relation to the two other synoptics. As has been already mentioned, he makes Matthew and Luke proceed from a Gospel written in Greek by a Galilean beiiever, who was present at several seentsin the ministry of Jesus in this province. This is the reason why this book has given such great preponder- ance to the Galilean work. The numerous works of which Lukespeaks (1 : 1) were all diii'erent versions of this, as well as our canonical Matthew and Luke. This impor- tant book, with all its offshoots, which preceded our sj'noptics, is lost ; these last, the most complete and best accredited, have alone survived. This conception is simple and clear. Whether it renders a sufficient account of the facts, remains to be seen. Ritschl, in a remarkable article, has pronounced in favor of the absolute prioiity of our canonical Mark (to the exclusion of any Proto-Mark). Matthew proceeded, according to him, from Mark, and Luke from both.* Ritschl endeavors to prove these statements by a very sagacious analysis of the relations between the narratives of Matthew and ^lark on certain points of detail. But the impression we have received from this labor is, that both the method followed, and the results obtained, are more ingenious than solid. Reuss, Reville, Hcltzmann, agree in making two writings, now lost, ihe original sources of our three synoptical Gospels These were: 1. The Proto-Mark, which furnished our three evangelists with their general outline, and with the narratives common to them all ; 3. The " Logia, " or collection of discourses compiled by Mat- "^ " Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der Kritik der syn. Ev.," in the " Theol. Jahrb." 1851. COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. 27 thew, wliich was Ihe source for those instructions of Jesus related in common by Mallhew and Luke. Our canunical ^lark is a reproduction (enlarged according to Hl'Uss, abridged according to ILjilzniann) of tlie former of tliese two wiilings. lis autlior made no use of tlie " Logla. " Mattliew and Luke botli proceeded from a fuyiou of these two fundamental writings. Tiieir authors inserted or distributed, in the outline .«ketch of tlie Proto-^Liik, the sayings and discourses collected in the " Logia." But hereaiises a difliculty. If the sayings of Jesus, as JIatthevv and Luke convey them to us, are drawn from the same source, how does il; happen that Mattliew transmits them in the form of large masses of discourse (for example, the Sermon on the Mount, chap. 5:7; the collection of parables, chap. 13. etc.), while in Luke these very sayings are more frequently presented to us in the form of detached instructions, occasioned by some accidental circumstance? Of these two different forms, which is to be regarded as most faithful to the original document ? Matthew, who groups into large masses the materials that lie side by side in the " Logia" ? or Luke, who breaks up the long discourses of the " Logia," and divides them into a number of particular sayings? lioltzmann decides in favor of the lirst alternative. According to this writer, we ought to allow that the form of the " Logia" was very neaily that presented by the teaching of Jesus in the uarralivu of travel, I-uke 9 : 51, 19 : 28. Weizsacker, on the contrary, defends the second view, aod thinks that the long discourses of Matthew are more or less faithful reproduc- tions of the form of the "Logia." This also is the opinion of M. Reville. "We shall have to see whether this hypothesis, under either of its two forms, bears the test of facts. Ewald sets out in the same way with the two hypotheses of the Proto-iVIark and the " Logia" ; but he constructs upjn this foundation an exceedingly complicated system, according to which our Luke would be nothing less than the combined result of eight anterior writings : 1. A Gospel written by Philip the Evangelist, which described in the Aramaean language the salient facts of the life of Jesus, with short historical explanations. 2. Matthew's " Logia," or discourses of Jesus, furnished with short historical introductions. 3. The Proto-Mark, composed by the aid of the two preceding writings, remarkable for the freshness and vivacity of its coloring, and dilTeriug very little from our canonical Mark. 4. A Gospel treating of certain critical points in our Lord's life (the temptation, for example). Ewald calls this writing tlie " Bciok of the Higher History." 5. Our canonical ]\Iatthew, combining the " Logia" of this apostle with all the other writings already named. 6, 7, and 8. Tiiree writings now last, v,'hich Ewald describes as though he had them in his hands : one of a familiar, tender character ; another somewhat brusque and abrui)t ; the third comprising the narratives of the infanc}' (Luke 1 and 2). Lastly, 9. Our canonical Luke, composed by the aid of all the preceding (with the exception of our !Matlhew), and which simply combines the materials furnished by the others. Yt'e may add, 10. Our canonical Mark, which with very slight modification is the repro- duction (if Xo. 3. This constiucti^n certainly does not recDinmend itself b}'' its intrinsic evidence and simplicity. It may prove as fatal to the hypathesis of a Protu-Mark as was formerly tliat of ^larsh to the hypothesis of a primiiive Gospel, or as that of Kostlin at the present day to the Tiiiiingen idea. Lastly, we see a new mode of explanation appealing, which seems destined to replace for a time the tlieor}', so stoutly maintaine.l by and since Willie, of tlie prior- ity of Mark or of the Proto-Mark, whenever it has any considerable connection wilk 2S C•OMME^•TAl:Y O^' 81. LL'KE. this last. This opinion h!is*been developed by Weiss in three very elaborate iirticles,* in which he seeivs to prove : 1. That the most ancient work was au apostolical Mat- thew, comprising the discourses, some longer and others shorter, with a large niniiber of facts, but without any intention on the part of the author to write the entire history of Jesus. 2. Thereupon appeared Mark, written by the aid of recollections which the author had preserved of the recitals of Peter. This was the first attempt to trace the entire course of the ministry of Jesus. He included in this sketch all the sayings of Jesus contained in the [jreoeding work which could be adapted to his narrative. 3. Tiie auliior of our canonical Matthew made use of this work of Mark, rewrote it, and supplemented it by the aid of the apostolical IMatthew. 4. Luke also rewrote the tWD more ancient works, the apostolic Matthew and ]\[ark, but in a very free manner, and enriched his narrative with new materials derived from oral or written tradition. This combination appears to me to come very near the explanation, vphich is the basis of a recent work of Klostermann.f By a consecutive, detailed, delicate analysis of the Gospel of Maik, this scholar proves that the author of this work composed it on the basis of Matthew, enamelling the story with explanatory notes, tiie suljslance of Avhich evidently emanated from an eye-witness of the ministry of Jesus, whicli could have been none other than Peter ; in general, the additions refer to the relations of Jesus with His apostk'S. With Klostermann, as with Weiss, Matthew would be the fiibt and pnncipal written source ; but with this difference (if we rightly under- stand), that with the former this IMatthew is our canonical Matthew, while in the opinion of Weiss, this last writing differed sensibly from the prmitive Matthew, which only appears in our canonical Matthew as transformed b}' means of Mark. The di^pendence of Mark on Matthew has then much more stress laid upon by it Kloster- mann than by Weiss. Klostermann announces a second work, in which he will prove a precisely similar dependence of Luke upon Mark. Thus it is clear, that in proportion as ciilicism dispenses with the Hypothesis of a Proto-Maik, it is compelled to attribute to tiie piimitive Matthew, which at the outset was to be only a collection of discourses, more and more of the historical element ; so that in Weiss it again becomes a more or less complete Gospel, and lastly in Klostermann approximates closely to our canonical Matthew itself. This question of the oiigiu of the synoptics, and of their mutual relations, must not be regarded as unimportant in regard to the substance of the evangelical beliefs. Just as the view defended by the Tiibingen school, according to which our synoptics are simply derived from one another, exiiibits the contents of these writings, and the degree of confidence they inspired at the time they appeared, in an unfavorable light (since the differences which exist between them could, in such a case only pn reed from the caprice of the copyists, and the slight faith they placed in the stoiy of their predecessors); so does the other opinion, which looks for different sources, oial or written, whence each writing proceeds, and wliich are adequate to account foi their mutual resemblances or differences, tend to re-establish their general credibiliy, and their genuineness as historical works. * In the " Studien und Kritiken," 1861 ; " .Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologi^," 1804 ; Iliiri. 1805. Since then, Weiss has attempted to prove his tneoiy by a detailed exegesis of Mark. f" Das Marcus-Evangelium, " Gottingeu, 1867. COMMENTAllY ON ST. LLKK. 29 The following is a table of the opinions of which we have just given an account : I. -SCHOOL OP TUEBINGEN. Baub. Matthew I Luke \ Mark. uke ) Mark L VOLKHAR. Matthew. Matthew I Mark HiLQENFELD. Luke. KOESTLIN. Markd."); Mattliew Mark (II.) or Gospel of Peter , _, I I H Luke. J S Mark Matt ElTSCHL. Luke. irk ) I }■ Luk he\T ) n.— INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS. Blekk. Primitive Gospel Mattlu w ; Luke EWALD. Gosp. of Phil. Lofria Mark (I.) I Matthew. Luke. J Reuss, etc. Mark (I.) Log. F., Kma Aovialv. The greater part of the Mjj. read (vayye/Aov laira Aovkuv. The T. R. , with s(>me 3Inn. only, to Karu Aovkuv Evayy. Some Mun., to kutu. \ovkuv uyiov evayy. In the opinion of several scholars (Rcuss. " Gesch. der hoil. Schr. N. T." § 177), the prep. Kara, according to, sign ifu^s not : composed by, but: diawn up according to the conception of. . . . Thus this title, so far from affirming that our Gospel was composed by the person designated, would rather deny it. This sense does not appear to us admissible. Not only may (he preposition /caru apply to the writer him- self, as the following expressions prove : ij nard Mumia nEvrdTEvxai (the Pentateuch according to Moses) in Epiphanius ; 7/ unQ' 'Bpudorov hrofiia (the history according to Herodotus) in Diodorus ; MarOalo; . . . ypacp/) Trapaduvi to kclt' avrov evayyiAiop (Mat- thew having but in writing the Gospel according t>) him) in Eusebius (H. Eccl. iii. 24) ; — but this preposition must have this sense in cur title. For, 1. The titles of our four Gospels bear too close a resemblance to each other to have come from the authors of these writings ; they must have been framed by the Church when it formed the collection of the Gospels. Now the opinion of the Church, as far as we can trace it, has always been, that these writings were composed by the persons named in the titles. 2. With respe(;t to the third Gospel in paiticular, no other sense is possible. Apostles and eye-witnesses, such as Matthew or John, might have created an original conception of the Gospel, and afterward a different writer might have produced a narrative of the ministry of Jesus according to this type. But this supposition is not applicable to persons so secondary and dependent as Luke or Mark. This Luke, whom the title designates as the author of our Gospel, can be no other than the companion of Paul. The evangelical history mentions no other person of this name. As to the term Gospel, it appears to us very doubtful whether in our four titles it indicates the writings themselves. This term applies rather, as through- out the New Testament, to the facts related, to the contents of the books, to the coming of Christ — this merciful message of God to mankind. The complement understood after EvayyiTnov is Qeov ; comp. Rcmi 1 : 1. This good news, though one in itself, is presented to the world under Tour different aspects in these four narra- tives. The meaning then is, ' f he good news of the coming of Christ, according to the version of . . ." It ht\\e EvayyPuoi' TE7i)(l/inp(pov, the Gospel with four faces, of which Irenajus still speaks toward the end of the second century, even after the term Gospel had been already applied by Justin to the written Gospels. co.mmi:ntauv on st. iake. 33 PROLOGUE. Chap. 1 : 1-4. The first of our synoptic Gospels opens witli a genealogy. This mode of entering upon ihe subject Irausports us intu a completely Jewish wurlJ. This preamble is, us it were, a oouliuualion of ihe geuealagical registers of Genesis ; iu the liiiiXol yei'eneuti of Mallhew (1 : 1) we have again the Elle Tholetlulh of JM.>ses. Ilaw different Luke's prologue, and in what an euliiely diirerent atmosphere it places us from the first ! Not only is it wntten iu most classical Gteek, but it reminds us by its contents of the simihir preambles of the laoht illustrious Greek his- torians, especially those of Herodotus and Thueydides. The more thoroughly we e.vamiue it, the more we find of that delicacy of sentiment and refinement of mind •which constitute the predominant traits of the Hellenic character. Baur, it is true, thought he discerned in it the work of a foiger. Ewald, on the contrary, admiies its true simplicity, noble modesty, and terse conciseness.* It appears to us, as to H.)liz- mann.f " that between these two opinions the choice is not difficult." The authar does not seek to put himself in the rank of the Christian authorities ; he places him- self modes! 1}^ among men of the second order. He feels it necessary to excuse the boldness of his enterpiise, by referring to the numerous analogous attempts that have preceded his own. He does not pernut himself to undertake the woik of writing u Gospel history until he has furnished himself with all the aids fitted to enable him to attain the lofty aim besets before him. Theie is a striking contrast between his frank and modest attitude and that of a foiger. It excludes even the ambitious part of a secretary of the Apostle Paul, which tiaditian has not been slow to claim for the author of our Gos()el. This prologue is not least interesting for the information it contains respecting the earliest attempts at writing histories of the Gospel Apart from these first lines nf Luke, "we know abstdutcly nothing definite about the more ancient nanalives of the life of Jesus which preceded the composition of our Gospels. Therefore every theory as to the origin of the sjmoptics, which is not constructed out of the materials furni.shed by this preface, runs the risk of being thrown aside as a tissue of vain hypotheses the day after it has seen the light This introduction is a dedication, in which Luke initiates the reader into the idea, method, and aim of his work. He is far from being the first who has attempted to handle this great subject (I'er. 1). Numerous written narratives on the history of Jesus are already in existence ; they all of them rest on the oral narrations of the apostles (vcr. 2). But while drawing also on this original source, TiUke has colh>cted more particular information, in order to supplement, select, and propeily arrange the materials for which the Church is indebled lo apostolic tradition. His aim, lastly, is to furnish his readers, by this connected account of the facts, with the moans of establishing their certainty (ver. 4). Vers. 1-4. " 8ince, as is known, many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the events which have, been accomplished among us, (2) in conformity wilh that which they have handed down to us who were eye-witnesses of them from the begin- ning, and who became ministers of the woid, (3) I have thought good also myself, * " Jahrbiichcr," ii. p. 128. f " Die Synoptlschen Evangelien," p. oOS. 34 COMMEXTAIIY OX ST. LLKE. after caref nil}' informing myself of all these facts from their commencemeut, to write a consecutive account of them for thee, most excellent Theophilus, (4) iu oider ihut thou mightest know the immovable ceitainty of the instruclious whieli thou hast received." * This period, truly Greek in its style, has lieen composed with pailicuiur oare. We do not find a style like it in all tlie New Testament, except at the end of t!ie Acts and in the Epistle to tlie Hebrews. As to the thouglit of this prologue, it cannot be belter summed up than in these lines of Tholuck. " Altliougli not an jmni'iidiate witness of the facts tliat took place, I have none the less undeital^en, fol- lowing the example of many others, to publish an account of them according to the iuformation I have gatliered." f The conjunction iKei.6r/7rep is found nowhere else in the New Testament ; it has a certain solemnity. To the idea of since {i-^ei), 6r) adds that of notoriety : " since, as is well known :" Trep draws attention to tlie relation between the great number of these writings and the importance of the events related : It is so ((5?;), and it could not be otherwise (:rep). The relation between the since thus defined and the piincipal verb, 1 have ihouylit good, is easy to seize. If my numerous predecessors have not been blamed, why should I be blamed, who am only walking in their steps ? The Xnxvivi-Ktxtip-qrsnv have undertaken, involves no blame of the skill of these predecessors, as several Fathers have thought ; the 1 have thovght good also myself is sufficient to exclude this supposition. This expression is suiigested by the greatness of the task, and contains a slight allusion to the insufficiency of the attempts hitherto made to accomplish it. The nature of these older writings is indicated by the term avara^aaOaL (UijyriaLV, to set in order a narrative. It is a question, as Thiersch X says, of an attempt at arrange- ment. Did this arrangement consist m the harmonizing of a number of separate wiitiugs into a single whole, so as to make a consecutive history of tliem ? In this case, we should have to admit that the wrileis of whom Luke speaks had al a ady found in the Church a number of short writings on particular events, which they had simply united: their work would thus constitute a second step in the develop- ment of the writing of the Gospel history. But the expression, " in conformity with that which they have handed down to us," hardly leaves room for intermediate ac- counts between the apostolic tradition and the writings of which Luke speaks. The notion of arrangement, then, refers lather to the facts themselves which these authors had co-ordinated in such a way as to make a consecutive narrative of them. The term diegesis designates not, as Schleiermacher maintained, recitals of isolated facts, but a complete narrative. What idea should we form of these writings, and are they to be ranked among the sources on which Luke has diawn ? Certain extra-canonical Gospels, which criticism * A literal translation of M. Godet's rendering of Luke's preface is given here, for the sake of iiarmonizing the text with the veibai comments which follow in the next paiagraph ; but, except when something turns on our author's rendering, tlie passages commented on will be given in the woids of the A. V. A close and hapjiy translation of the original Greek into French does not always admit of bein.ir lepio- duced literally in English, and a free translation of a translation is of little service for purposes of exegesis. — Note by the I'randator. •f " Glaubwiirdigk. der evang. Gesch." ]■>. 143. X " Versuch zur ITerstelhirig des liislniisclien Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der Neufestamentl. Schr." p. 104 (a work which we caniK;! too strongly ifccoinrnend lo beginners, although we Me far from sliaiing all its views) COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 35 nas somciiiiies regarded as prior to Luke's, may be thought of— that of the Hebrews, for example, iu which Lessing was di5>i)i)sed lo liud the coinuiou source of our Uueo synoptics; or that of Maiciuu, which Uuschl aud liaur regaided as the piiucipal docuineut'reproduced by Luke.* But does uoi IradilioQ exhibit itself in these wiit- in"-s in a form alieady perceptibly alleied, and very far removed from the primitive pmity and fieshuess which characieiize our canonical Gospels V They are, then, later than Luke. Or does Luke allude to our Gospels of Matthew and Mark ? This is nviintained by Ihdse who think that Luke wrote after MatlheAV and Mark (Hug), or only after Maltlicw (Griesbach, etc.). But however little Luke shared iu the traditional opinion which attributed the first Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, he could not speak of that writing as he speaks here ; for he clearly opposes to the writers of the tradi- tion (the noA/.oi, ver. 1), the apostles who were the authors of it. It may be affirmed, from the connection of ver. 3 with ver. 1, that Luke was not acquainted with a single written Gospel emanating from an apostle. As to the collection of the " Logia" (discourses of the Lord), which some attribute to Matthew, it certainly would not be excluded by Luke's expressions ; for the term diegesis denotes a recital, a historical narrative. Hug, in his desire to save his hypothesis, according to which Luke made use of Matthew, explained vers. 1 aud 2 in this sense : " Many have undertaken to compose written Gospels similar to those which the apostles bequeathed to us. . ." But this sense would require dnoia {i3ci3/.ia) instead of «a0u5,f and has not been accepted by any one. As to the Gospel of Mark, Luke's expressions might certainly suit this writing. For, according to tradition, Mark made use in his narra- tive of the accounts of an eye-witness, St. Peter. But still it may be questioned whether Lake would have employed the term undertake in speaking of a work which was received in the Church as one of the essential documents of the life of Jesus. For the rest, exegesis alone can determiuc whether Luke really had Mark before him either in its present or in a more ancient form. It appears probable, therefore, to me, that the works to which Luke alludes are writings really unknown and lost. Their incompleteness comlemijed them to exiinction, in proportion as writings of superior value, such as our synoptics, spiead through the Chuich. As to whether Luke availed himself of these writings, and in anj' way embodied Ihcm in his own work, he does not inform us. But is it not probable, since he was acquainted with them, that he would make some use of them ? Every aid would appear precious to him in a work the impoitance of which he so deeply felt. The subject of these narratives is set forth in expressions that have a touch of solemnity: "the events winch have been accomplished among us. " W/.-npoipopeiv \9 a word analogous in composition and meaning to T£?.£a(popelv {to brinf/ to an end, to maturiti/, 8 : 14). It signifies, when it refers to a fact, to bring it to complete accomplishmL-nt (2 Tim. 4 : .'5, to accomplish the ministry ; ver. 17, to accomplish [to finish rendering] the testimony); and when it refers to a person it meanstocau.se him to attain inward fulness [uf conviction], that is to say, a conviction whicii leaves no room for doubt (Rom. 4 : 21, 14 : 5 ; Heb. 10 : 22, etc.). With a substantive such as 'pdynara, the second sense is iriadmissil)le. Nevertheless, it has been defended by some of the Fathers, by some modern interpreters, as Beza, Grolius, Olshausen, and * Rif.schl has since withdrawn this assertion. I Tliicisdi, " Veisuch," etc., p. 211. 36 COMMEXTAKY ON ST. LUKE. by Meyer, who conclu les from 2 Tim. 4 : 17 that TT/i7]podAitai>) of the instruction which he had already received. The construction of this last phrase has been understood iu three ways. The most complicated is to understand a second COMMENTAltY OX ST. LUKE. 39 ntpi: Tiiv aersonal : "(hey are informed of thee." The simplest construction is this. -?> dd^dAftavTrcpl r,ng whom they lived] an entirely historical mode of teaching. . . . Proper names and precise dates made much more impression on tlieni than the most logicil arguments. . . . The close connection which lin-y remarked in the hi.story of thf^ Old and New Testaments was. in their view, a deiuousttatiou." Is nut Ihutths 40 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. instruction, as formulated by St. Paul, rest on an immovable basis. As a conse- quence, this npoHlle ceased to appear an innovator, and became tlie faithful expositor of tlic teaching of Jesus. To write a Gospel with this view was to introduce benesith the vast ecclesiastical edifice raised by Paul, the only foundalion which could in the end prevent it from falling. For whatever there is iu the Chuich that does not emanate from Jesus, holds a usurped and consequently a transitory place. Tins Avouid he true even of the spiritualism of St. Paul, if it did not proceed from Jesus Christ. Ceitaiuly it does not therefore follow, that the acts and words of Jesus Avhich Lulie relates, and iu which the universalist * tendency of the Gospel is mani- fested, were invented or modified by him in the interest of this tendency. Is it not important for him, on the contrary, to prove to his readers that this tendency was not infused into the Gospel by Paul, but is u legitimate deduction from the work and leaching of Jesus Christ ? The essential truth of this claim will be placed beyond all suspicion when we come to prove, on the one hand, that the author has in no way tried to mutilate the narrative by suppressing those facts which might yield a differ- ent tenden(;y from that which he desired to justify ; on the other, that the tendency which he favors is inseparable from the cjurse of the facts themselves. If we have correctly apprehended the meaning of the last words of the prologue, we must expect to find in the third Gospel the counterpart of the first. As that is " A Treatise on the right of Jesus to the "Messianic sovereignty of Israel," this is " A Treatisa on the right of the heathen to share in the Messianic kingdom founded by Jesus." In regard to the earliest vrritings ou the subject of the Gospel history, we may draw from this preface four important results : 1. The common source from which the earliest written narratives of the history of the ministry of Jesus proceeded was the oral testimony of the apostles — the £5«5a^7 ruv a.Troar6'>.uv, which is spoken of in Acts 2 : 43 a the daily food dispensed by them to the rising Church. 2. The work of committing this apostolic tradition to writing began early, not later than the period of transition from the first to the second Christian generation ; and it was attempted b}'' numerous authors at the same time. Nothmg in the text of Luke authorizes us to think, with Gieseler, that this was done only among the Greeks. From the earli- est times, the art of writing prevailed among the Jews ; children even were not igno- rant cf it (Judg. 8 : 14). 3. In composing his Gospel Luke possessed the apostolic tradition, not merelj' in the oral form in which it circulated iu the churches, but also reduced to writing in a considerable number of these earl^' works ; and these consti- tiited two distinct sources. 4. But he did not content himself with these two means of information ; he made use, in addition, of personal investigations designed to com- plete, correct, and arrange the materials which he derived from these two sources. Having obtained these definite results, it only remains to see whether they contain (he elements required for the solution of the problem of the origin of our synoptics, and of the composition of our Gospel in particular. We shall examine them for this purpose at the conclusion of the work. * It is hardly needful to remind readers that the " universalist" of Godet i=! not a denominational title, Init a rpference to the offer of the (lOspel by Paul and others to all men, as distinguished from the narrowness of Judaizing teachers. — J. H. FlllST PAUT. THE NAERATIVES OF THE INFANCY. Chap. 1 : 5, 2 : 53. Both the first and the third Gospel open with a cycle of narratives relating to the bifth and cliildliood of Jesus. These narratives do nut appear tu have formed [larl of the tiadition bequeathed to the Cliureh by the apostles (ver. 2). At least, neither tlio Gospel of Mark, the document which appears to con espond must nearly with the type of the priniijive preaching, nor tlie oldest example we have of this early preaching, Peter's discourse in I lie house of Cornelius (Acts 10 : 37-48), go fuither back than the ministry of John tlie Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. The reason, doubtless, for this is, that edification was the sole aim of apostolic preaching. It wa? intended to lay the foundation of tlie faith ; and in order to do this, the ap jstles had only to tes- tify concerning what they had themselves seen and heard dating the time the}' had been with .Jesus (John 15 : 27 ; Acts 1 -.21. 22). But these facts witli which their preaching commenced supposed antecedent cir cunistances. Actual events of such an extianrdinary ualure could not Iiave happened without preparation. This Jesus, wliom Mark himself designates fiom the outset (1 : 1) as the Son of God, coidd not have fallen from heaven as a lull-grown man of thirty years of age. Just as a botanist, when he admires a new flower, will not rest until he has dug it up by the roots, while an ordinary observer will be satisfied with seeing its blossom ; so among believers, among the Greeks especirdly, there must have been thoughtful minds— Luke and Theophilus are representatives of such— who felt the need of supplying what the narratives of the official witnesses of the ministry of Jesus were deficient in respecting the origin of this history. Tile historical interest itself awakened by faith must have tended to dissipate the obscurity which enveloped the first appearance of a being so exceptional as He who was the subject of the evangelical tradition. In proportion as the first enthusiasm of faith gave place, at the transition period between the first and the second generation of Christians, to careful reflection, this need would be felt with growing intensity. Luke felt constrained to satisfy it in his first two chapters. It is evident that the contents of Wub " Gospel of the Infancy" proceed neither from apostolic tradition (ver. 2), nor from any of the numerous writings to which allusion is made (ver. 1), but that they a:e deiived from special information which Luke had obtained. It is to these two chapters especially that Luke alludes in the thiid verse of the prologue (uvu. I. : 0-25. 43 The Gospel of tlie Infancy in Lnke comprises seven narnitivcs : 1. The aunouncemeut (if the birth of the foieruuiier, 1 : 5-25 ; 2. Tiic anuounce- ment of the birth of Jesus, 1 : 2()-;j8 ; '6. The visit of Maty to Elizubetli, 1 : U'J-50. Tiiese tliree narratives form tlie first cycle. 4. The birth of the foreiunuer, 1 : 57-80 ; 5. The birth of Jesus, 2 : 1-20 ; G. Tlic (•ircunu'isii)n and presentation of Jesus, 2 : 21-40. These three uanalives form u secnml cycle. T. The first journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, 2 : 41-52. This seventh nairative is, as It were, the crown ot the two preceding cycles. FIKST NAURATIVE. — CII.VP. 1 : 5-25. Annovnctvient of the Birth of John the Baptist. The first words of the narrative bring us back from the midst of Greece, whither we were trauspnited by the prologue, into a ccnipletely Jewish woi Id. The very style cliauges its ciiaracler. From the fiflli verse it is so saturated with Aramai. and npoaevxo/ievuv expresses better the essential idea of the proposition contained in this participle. Ver. 11. Here, with the appearance of the angel, begins the marvellous character of the story which lays it open to the suspicion of criticism. And if, indeed, the Christian dispensation were nothing more than the natural development of the human consciousness advancing by its own laws, we should necessarily and unhesilaliugly reject as ficticious this su[)ernatural element, and at the same time everything else in the Gospel of a similar character. Bat if Christianity was an entirely new beginning (Verny) in history, the second and final creation of man, it was natural that an inter- position on so grand a scale should be accompanied by a series of particular interposi- tions. It was even necessary. For how were the representatives of the ancient order of things, who had to co-operate in the new work, to be initiated into it, and their attachment won to it, except by this means ? According to the Scripture, we are surrounded by angels (2 Kings 6 : 17 ; Ps. 34 : 8), whom God employs to watch over us ; but in our ordinary condition we want the sense necessary to perceive their presence. For that, a condition of peculiar receptivity is required. This condition existed in Zacharias at this time. It had been created in him by the solemnity of the place, by the sacredness of the function he was about to perform, by his lively sym- pathy with all this people who were imploring Heaven for national deliverance, and, last of all, bj' the experience of his own domestic trial, the feeling of which was tt> be ciiAi'. I. : lo-lT. 47 paiufiilly revived by the favur about to be shown him. Under the influence of all these circunstances combined, that internal sense which puts miin in contact with tlie higher world was awakened in him. But the necessity of this inward predispo- sition in no way proves that the vision of Zacharias was merely the result of a high state of moral excitement. Several particulars in the narrative make tliis explanation inadmissible, particularly these two : the ditliculty with which Zacharias puts faith in the promise made to him, and tlie physical chastisement which is inflicted on him for his unbelief. These facts, in any case, render a simple psychological explanation impossible, anil oblige the denier of the objectivity of the appearance to throw him- self upon the mythical interpretation. The term ayyeAoi Kvplov, angel of the Lord, may be regavdeil as a kind of proper name, and we may translate the angel of the Jm/'iI, uotwithstauding the absence of the article. But since, when once this personage is inlroduceil, the word angel is preceded by the article (ver. 13), it is more natural to translate here an angtl. Tlie entrance to the temple facing the east, Zacharias, on euleriug, had on his right the table of shew-bread, placed on the north side ; on his left the candelabrum, placed on the south side ; and before him the golden altar, ■which occupied the end of the holy place, in front of the veil that hung between this liart ot the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. The expression on the right side of the altar, must be explained according to the point of view of Zacharias : the angel stood, tiierefore, between the altar anil the shewbread table. The fear of Zachaiias pro- ceeds from tilt; consciousness of sin, which is immediately awakened in the human miud when a supernatural manifestation puts it in direct contact with the divine world. The expression oo/ioc iiriiTEaev is a Hebraism (Gen. 15 : 13). Was it morning or evening? Meyer concludes, from the connection between the entrance of Zach- arias into the temple and the drawing of the lot (ver. 9), that it was morning. This proof is not very conclusive. Nevertheless, the supposition of Meyer is in itself the most probable. Tlie message of the angel : vers. 13-17.* " But the angel said unto him. Fear not. Zachaiias : for thy prayer is heard ; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his name John. 14. And thou shalt have joy and gladness ; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor stioug drink ; and he shall be fllled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16. And many of the children of Israel shall lie turn to the Lord their God. 17. And he shall go before him in the spirit and \)ower of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient lo the wisdom of the just ; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." The angel begins by reassuring Zacharias (ver. 13) ; then he describes the person of the son of Zacharias (vers. 14, 15), and his mission (vers. 16, 17). In the 13th verse the angel tells Zacharias that he has not come on an errand of judgment, but of favor ; comp. Dan. 10 : 13. The prayer of Zacharias to which the angel alludes would be, in the opinion of many, an entreaty for the advent of the Me.'^siah. This, it is said, is the only solicitude worthy of a priest in such a place and at such a time. But the preceding context (ver. 7) is iu no way favorable to this explanation, nor is that which follows (ver. IS*") ; for the .sense of tiie kul is most cer- tainly this : " And so thy wife Elizabeth . . ." Further, the two personal pio- * Ver. 14. Instead of yewtjaei, which T. R. reads with G. X. T. and several Mna., all the others read yevFoei. Ver. 17. B. G. L. V. : TTpoaeXevaETai, instead of nijocXtvaerui, the reading of T. R. with 15 Mjj., etc. 48 COMMKXTAnV ox ST. LL'KE. nouns, cov and aol, " thy wife shall bear tTiec," as also the aoi, " thou shult have (ver. 14), prove positively the entirely personal character of the prayer and its answer. The objection that, according lo ver. 7, he could no longer expect to have a child, and consequently could not pray with this design, exaggerates the meaning of this word. The jshrase KoXelv ovofia is a Hebraism. ; it signifies, properly, to call any one by his name. The name 'luawT^S, John, is composed of nin'' ^°'l 'jH : Jehovah shows grace. It is not the character of the preaching of this person which is expressed by this name ; it belongs to the entire epoch of which his appearance is the signal. The 14th verse describes the joy which his birth will occasion ; it will extend be- yond the narrow limits of the family circle, and be spread over a large part of the nation. There is an evident rising toward a climax in this part of the message : 1st, a son ; 2d, a son great before God ; 3d, the forerunner of the Messiah. 'AyaAAioaiS expresses the transports which a lively emotion of ioy produces. The beginning of the fulfilment of this promise is related, vers. 64-66. The reading yeveaei is certainly preferable to yEvnTJaet, which is perhaps borrowed from the use of the verb yei'i'dv (ver. 13;. The ardor of this private and public joy is justified in the 15th verse by the eminent qualities which this child will possess (yap). The only greatness which can rejoice the heart of such a man as Zacharias is a greatness which the Lord himself recognizes as such : great before the Lord. This greatness is evidently that which results fiom personal holiness and the moral authoritj'^ accompanymg it. The two Kai following may be paraphrased by : and in fact. The child is ranked beforehand among that class of specially consecrated men, who may be called the heroes of the- ocratic religion, the Nazarites. The ordinance respecting the kind of life to be led by these men is found in Num. 6 : 1-31. The vow of the Nazarite was either tem- porary or for life. The Old Testament offers us two examples of this second form : Samson (Judg. 13 : 5-7) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1 : 11). It was a kind of voluntary lay priesthood. By abstaining from all the comforts and conveniences of civilized life, such as wine, the bath, and cutting the hair, and in this way approaching the state of nature, the Nazarite presented himself to the world as a man filled with a lofty thought, which absorbed all his interest, as the bearer of a word of God which was hidden in his heart (Lange). I.iKipa denotes all kinds of fermented drink extracted from fruit, except that derived from the grape. In place of this means of sensual excitement, John will have a more healthfid stimulant, the source of all pure exalta- tion, the Holy Spirit, The same contrast occurs in Eph. 5 : 18 : " Be not drunk with wine . . . but be filled with the Spirit." And in his case this state will begin from his mother's womb: In, even, is not put for 7/cS;?, already; this word signifies, while he is yet in his mother's womb. The fact related (vers. 41-44) is ihe beginning of the accomplishment of this promise, but it in no way exhausts its mean- ing. Vers. 10, 17. The mission of the child ; it is described (ver. 16) in a general and abstract way : he will bring back, turn ; this is the ^''tiTI ^^ ^^^'^ O'^l Testament. This expression implies that the people are sunk in estrangement from God. The 17th ver?e specifies and develops this mission. The pronoun avroi, lie, brings out prom- inently tiie person of John with a view to connect him with the person of the Lord, who is to follow him (avTov). The relation between these two personages thus set forth is expressed by the two prepositions, npn, before (in the verb), and huTrio^i, under the eyes of ; he who precedes walks under the eyes of him that comes after him. The ciiAi'. 1. : IG-IT. I'J Alex. Tending iriyoae?Fi'e more than once read the Gospel of Luke, Professor diaries Piitice, who now beiioMs face to fare Ilim whom we have so olten contemplated together in the mirror if llii word. Generally speaking, this cummentary is as mnch h.s as mine. 54 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Head of renewed liumauity, Ihe Lord of the world to come, is to make His appear- ance ; He causes Him to come forth as a scioa from the stuclc of the aacieut royalty of Israel. Further, God has respect in this work to the conditions of the huniiia past generally, While creating in Him a new humanity, He is careful to preseive the link which unites Him to the ancient humanity. Just as in the first creation He did not create man's body out of nothing, i)ut formed it out of the dust of the already existing earth, of which Adam was to become the lord ; so, at the appearance of the second Adam, He did not properly create His body ; He took it from tlie woml) of n human mother, so as to maintain the organic connection which must exist between the Head of the new humanity and that natural humanity which it is His mission to raise to the height of His own stature. This narrative records: 1. The ap[)carance of the angel (vers. 26-29); 2. His message (vers. 30-33) ; 3. The manner in which his message is received (ver. 34-38). 1. T/ie appearance of the avgel: vers. 26-21).* From the temple the narrative transports us to the house of a young Isratlilish woman. We leave the spheie of ofBcial station to enter into the seclusion of private life. Mary probably was in player. Her chamber is a sanctuary ; such, henceforth, will be the true temple. Tlie date, the sixth month, refers to that given in ver. 24. It was the time when Eliza- beth had just left her retirement ; all that takes place in the visitation of Mary is in connection with this circumstance. The government vivb tcv Oeov, by God, or, as s mie Alex, read, aird rov deov, on the part of God, indicates a difference between this mes- sage and that m ver. 19. God interposes more directly ; it is a question here of His own Son. The received reading vro, by, seems to me for this reason more in accord- ance with the spirit of the context than the Alex, reading, which lays less emphasis on the divine origin of the message. The most usual foim of the n«me of the town in the documents is Nazareth : it is admitted here by Tischendorf in his eigiith edition. He accords, however, some probability to the form Nazara, which is the reading of 4 : 16 in the principal Alex- andrians. In Matt. 3 : 23, the Mss. c^ly vary between Nazareth and Nazaiel. Keim, in his " History of Jesus," has decided for Nazara. He gives his leasons, i. p. 319 et seq : 1. The derived adjectives Nai^ufialui, Na(apT}vdi are most readily explained from this form. 2. The form Nazareth could easily come from Nazara, as Ramatli from Rana (by the addition of the Arameun article). The forms Nazaretii and Naza- ret may also be explained as forms derived from that. 3. The phrase and Na^apuv, in Eusebius, supposes the nominative Nazara. 4. It is the form preserved in the existing Arabic name en-Nezirah. Still it would be pofsible, even though the true name was Nazara, that Luke might have been accustomed to Use the foim Nazareth ; Tischendorf thinks that this may be inferred from Acts 10 : 38, where 5i B. C. D. E. read Nazareth. The etymology of this name is probably "ij^'j (whence the feminine * Ver. 26. 5i. B. L. W«. and some Mnu., ano instead of i'tto, which is the read- ing of T. R. with 16 Mjj. and almost all the Mnu. The mss, varv heie belwetn Na(apeO (C. E. G H. M.' S. U. V. T. A. Iipieriq„e . iu addition, !». at 2:4, and B. at 2 :39. 51), NaCnpnO (A. A.), and NaCnper (K. L. X. H and Z. at2 : 4) ; further, » B, Z. read Na(apa id 4 : 16. Ver. 27. i^. B. F"'. L. and 32 Mnu. add after olkov, kcl Trnrpiac (taken from 2 :4). Ver. 28. !!i. B. L. W<=. and some Mnn. omil the words Fvloyvnevri (TV ev yvi'ai^Lv, which is the reading of T. R. with 16 Mjj., almost all the Mnn., Syi*. It. Vulg. Ver. 29. i^. B. D. L. X. and some Mnn. omit idnvaa, which T. R. reads after v ^e along with 15 Mjj., the other Man., Syr, It. i^. B. D. L. X. and some Mnn. omit nvrov after Xoyu. ojiAi'. 1. : :*4-33. 55 form n"^iJ2)' (^ ^^'c^^ or scion ; this is (he form used ia the Tiilmud. Tlic Fathers acoordinyly perceived in this name an allusion to the scion of David in tiie prophets. Burckhardt the traveller explains it more simply by the numerous shruhs which clothe the ground. Hitzig has proposed another etymology ; niHIj. '^'^ guanUan, the name referring either to some pagan divinity, the protectress of the locality, as this scholar thinks, or, as Keim supposes, to the town itself, on account of its command- ing the ditile of the valley. Nazareth, with a poi)ulation at the present day of 3000 inhabitants, is about three days' journey north of Jerusalem, and about eight leagues west of Tiberias. Il is only H short distance from Tabor. It is reached from the valley of Je/.reel through a mrunlain gorge running from S. to N., and opening out into a pleasant basin of some twenty minutes in length by ten in width. A chain of hills shuts in the valley on its northern side. Nazareth occupies its lower slopes, and lises in smiling terraces above the valley. From the summit of the lidge which incloses this basin on the noith there is a splendid view.* This valley was in Israel just what Israel was iu the midst of the earth— a place at once secluded and open, a solitary retreat and a high post of observation, inviting medilalion and at the same time affording oppor- tunity for far reaching views in al! directions, consequently admiiably adapted for an education of which God reserved to Himself the initiative, and which man couUl not touch without spoiling it. The explanation, a toini of Oulilcc, is evidently in- tended for Gentile readeis ; it is added by the translator to the Jewish document that lay before him. Do the words, of the Jiouite of David, ver. 27, refer to Joseph or Mary? Gram- matically, it appears to us that the form of the following sentence rather favors the former alternative. For if this clause applied, in the writer's mind, to Mary, he would have contiuned his nairalive in this form: "and her name was . . ." rather than iu this : " and the young gill's name was . . ." But does it follow from this that Mary was not, in Luke's opinion, a descendant of David ? By nt> means. Yeis. 32 and 60 have no sense unless the author regarded Mary herself as a daughter of this king. See 3 : 23. The term x^P^'''"'^'^ nva, to make any one the object of one's favor, is applied to believers in general (Eph. 1 :6). Thete is no thought bete of outward graces, as the translation/;//^ of grace would imply. The angel, having designated Mary by this expression as the special object of divine favor, justifies this address by the words which follow : The Lord with tliee. Supply is, and not be ; it is not a wish. The heavenly visitant speaks as one knowing how matters stood. The words. " Blessed art thou among women," are not genuine ; they are taken from ver. 42, where they are not wanting in any document. The imi)ression made on Mary, ver. 20, is not that of fear ; it is a troubled feeling, ver}' natural in a young girl who is suddenly made aware of the unexjjccted piesence of a strange person. The T. R. indicates two causes of trouble : " And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying." By the omission of 'n^oiaa, ichen she saw, the Alexs. leave only one remaining. But this very simplification casts suspicion on their reading. The two an(;ient Syriac and Latin translations here agree with the T. R. The meaning is, that trouble was joined to the surprise caused by the sight of the angel, as soon as his words had confirmed the reality of his presence. HoraTrc/S * Sec Keim's fine description, " Gesch. Jesu." t. i. p. 321. oG COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. denotes properly the origin {ttov to utto). But this terra applies also to the contents and value, as is the case liere. What was the meaning, the import of . . . Having thus prepared Mary, the angel pioceeds with the message he has hrought. 3. The message ol" the angel : veis. 30-33.* " And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary ; for thou hast found favor with God. 31. And, behold, thou' shalt con- ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. 32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David : 33. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." By long continuance, Mary's trouble would have degenerated into fear. The angel prevents this painful impression: " Fear not. " The term evpeS x^^P'-'^, thou hast found favor, reproduces the idea of KExapiTunevri ; this expression l)eloiigs to the Greek of theLXX. The angel proceeds to enumerate the striking proofs of this assertion, the marks of divine favor : 1st, a son ; 2d, His name, a sigu of blessing ; 3d, His personal superiority ; 4th, His divine title ; lastly, His future and eternal sovereignty. 'Uov, behold, express^-es the unexpected character of the fact announced. 'iTjaoOi, Jesus, is the Greek form of yVO'^' Jeschovah, which was gradually substituted for the older and fuller form yili^irp. Jehosciiovah, of which the meaning is, Jehovah saves. The same command is given by the angel to Joseph, Matt. 1 : 21. with this comment: "Fur He shall save His people from their sins." Criticism sees here the proof of two different and contra- dictory traditions. But if the reality of these two divine messages is admitted, there is nothing surprising in their agreement on this point. As to the two traditions, we leave them until we come to the general considerations at the end of chap. 2. The I)erson;d quality of this son : He shall be great — first of all, iu holiness ; this is true greatness in the judgment of Heaven ; then, and as a consequence, in power and iuflueuce. His title : Son of the Highest. This title corresponds with His real nature. For the expression. He shall be called, signifies here, universally recognized as such, and that because He is such in fact. This title has been regarded as a simple synonym for that of Messiah. But the passages cited in proof, Matt. 26 : 63 and John 1 : 50, prove precisely the contrarj' : the first, because had the title Son of God signified nothing more in the view of the Sanhedrim than that of Messiah, there would have been no blasphemy in assuming it, even falsely ; the second, because it would be idle to put two titles together between which there was no difference.! On the other hand, the Trinitarian sense should not be here applied to the term Son of God. The notion of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is quite foreign lo the context. Mary could not have comprehended it ; and on the supposition that she had comprehended or even caught a glimpse of it, so far from being sustained by it in her work as a mother, she would have been rendered incapable of performing it. The notion here expressed by the title Son of God is solely that of a personal and mysterious relation between this child and the Divine Being. The angel explains more clearly the meaning of this term in ver. 35. Lastly, the dignity and mission of this child : He is to fulfil the office of Messiah. The expressions are borrowed from the prophetic descriptions, 2 Sara. 7 : 12, 13 ; Isa. 9 : 5-7. The throne of David Khould not be taken here as the emblem of the throne of God, nor the house of Jacob * Ver. 30. D. alone reads /xapia instead of fiaptan ; so at vers. 39, 56, and (with C, at vers. 34, 38, 46, 2 : 19, the Mss. are divided between these two readings. f See my " Conferences apologetiques," 6th conference: the divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. i5-18. CUAP. T. : 34-38. 57 as a figurative designation of the Church. Tiicse expressions in the mouth of the angel keep their natural and literal sense. It is, indeed, the theocratic royalty and the Israelilish people, neitht-r more nor lesl he its meaning here, and that (jJ/fia is to be taken in its proper sense of irnrd. la lliat case we should have to give the preference to the Alex, reading touQudv: " Xo word proceeding from God shall remain powerless." But this meaning is fat- fct(;hed. H i/jd roi) Ofoy cannot depend naturally either on (n'/ixa ov ddwart/aei. ]Sin\i. 17 : 20 proves that the verb uihi'aTdv also signifies, in the Hellenistic dialect, (o be impossible. The sense therefore is, "Nothing shall be impossible." Yiapa tCj Oei^, with God, indicates the sphere in which alone this word is tiue. As though the angel said. The impossible is not divine. 'P'/im, as "in"], a thing, in so far as announced. In reference to this concise vigorous cxpiession of biblical supcrnatuialism, Oosicizee says ; " The laws of nature are not chains which the Divine Legislator has laid upon Himself ; they are threads which He holds in His hand, and which He shortens or lengthens at will." God's message bj' the mouth of the angel was not a command. The part ^Mary had to fultil made no demands on her. It only remained, therefore, for Mary to con- sent to the conse(iuences of the divine offer. She gives this consent in a word at once simple and sublime, which involved the most extraordinary act of faith that a woman ever consented to accomplish. Mary accepts the saciificc of that which is dearer to a young maiden than her very life, and thereby becomes jjre-emineutly the heroine of Lsrael, the ideal daughter ot Zion, the perfect type of human receptivity in regaid to tiie divine work. We see here what excjuisite fruits the lengthened work of the Holy Spnit under the old covenant had produced in true Israelites. The word l^ov, behold, does not here express surprise, but rather the offer of her entire being. Just as Ab;aham, when he answers God with, " Behold, here I am" (Gen. 22, Behold, ]), Maiy places herself at God's disposal. The evangelist shows his tact in the choice of the aorist yiioiro. The present would have signified, " Let it happen to me this very instant !" The aorist leaves the choice of the time to God. What exquisite delicacy this scene displays ! What simplicity and majesty in the dialogue! Xot one woivl too many, not one too few. A narrative s) perfect could only have emanated from the holy sphere within which the mysterj'^ was accomplished. A later origin wtmld inevitably have betrayed itstif by some foreign element. Here the Protevangeliiirn of James, which dates from the first pait of the second century : " Fear not, said the angel to Mary ; for thou hast found giace before the ^Master of all things, and thou shalt conceive by His word. Having heard that, she doubted and said within herself : Shall I conceive of the Lord, of the living God, and shall I give birth as every woman gives birth ? And the angel of the Lord said to her, No, not thus, Mary, for the power of God . . ." etc. THIRD XAURATIVE.— CIIAP. 1 : 39-56. Mary's Visit to Elizabeth. This narrative is, as it were, the synthesis of the two preceding. These two divinely favored women meet and i)our furlli their hearts. 00 COMMENTARY OX ST. LIKE. 1. Arrival of Mary (vers. 30-41) ; 2. Elizabeth's salutation (vers. 42-45) • 3 Song of Mary (vers. 46-55). Ver. 56 forms the hi!>toricaI conclusion. 1. Thearrimlof Mary; sexB.Z^d-i\* The terms arc^se and ma, in order that (ver. 43), may keep its ordinnry meaning : " What have I done in order that this blessing might come to me '?" This 'iva is used from the standpoint of the divine intention. From Mary and her Son, her thought glances to herself and her own child. In calling 3Iary " the mother of my Lord," she declares herself the servant of the Slessiah, and consequently of His mother also. Everything of a sub- lime chaiacter springs from a deeper source than the understanding. The leaping of John, a prelude of the work of his life, belongs to the unfathomable depths of instinc- tive life. Elizabeth sees in it a sign of the truth of the presentiment she felt as soon as she saw Mary. At ver. 45 she reverts to Mary. The expression blessed is doubtless inspiivd by the contemplation of the calm happiness that irradiates tiie figure of the young mother. 'On cannot be taken here in the sense of because ; for the word nioTeinacn, she that believed, in order that it may have its full force, must not govern anyliiing. " Blessed is she that, at the critical moment, could exercise faith (the aorist) 1" De Wette, Bleek, Meyer, think that the proposition which follows should depend on niaTEvnaaa : " she 7cho believed that the things . . . would have their accomplish- ment The two former, because aoi would be necessary in place of avT^ ; the third, * Ver. 42 i*. C. F. several Mnn., read aveSoTjnev, instead of avKbuvrjin', which is the reading of T R. with all the rest. B. L. Z. and Oiigea (three times read Knavyi) in place of ouvv. C2 COMMK.VTAin' ()>f ST. LUKE. because all that had been promised to Mary was already accomplished. But Eliza- beth's thought loses itself ia a kind of meditation, and her words, ceasing to be au apostrophe to Mary, become a hymn of faith. This accounts for the use of a pro- noun of the third person. As to Meyer, he forgets that the accomplishment is onl\' just begun, and is far from being completed. The glorification of the Messiah and of Israel still remains to be accomplished. TeAeiwatS denotes this complete accomplish- ment. But how could Elizabeth speak of the kind of things which had been prom- ised to Mary ? What had passed between the angel and Zachaiias had enlightened her respecting the similar things that must have taken place between Heaven and Mary. 3. The song of Mary : vers. 46-56. Elizabeth's salutation -was full of excitement (she spake out with ,a loud voice), but Mary's hymn breathes a sentiment of deep inward repose. The greater happiness is, the calmer it is. So Luke says simply, hItte, she said. A majesty truly regal reigns throughout this canticle. Mary describes tir.st her actual impressions (vers. 46-48«) ; thence she rises to the divine fact which is the cause of them (vers. 48Z/-50) ; she next contemplates the development of the his- torical consequences contained in it (vers. 51-53); lastly, she celebrates themoial necessity of this fact as the accomplishment of God's ancient promises to His people (vers. 54 and 55). The tone of the first strophe has a sweet and calm solemuit3^ It becomes more animated in the second, in which Mary contemplates the work of the Most High. It attains its full height and energy in the third, as Mary contemplates the immense revolution of which this w^ork is the begiuuing and cause. Her song drops down and returns to its nest in the fourth, which is, as it were, the amen of the Civiiticle. This hymn is closelj^ allied to that of the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. 2), and contain.s scperal sentences taken from the book of Psalms. Is it, as some have main- tained, destitute of all originality on this account V By no means. There is a veiy marked difference between Flannah's song of triumph and Mary's. While Mary cele- brates her happiness with deep humility and holy restraint, Hannah surrenders lierself completely to the feeling of personal Iriuinph ; with her very first words she breaks forth into tries of indignation against her enemies. As to the borrowed biblical phrases, JVfaiy gives to these consecrated v/ords an entirely new meaning and a higher application. The prophets frequently deal in this way with the words of their pred- ecessor.?. By this means these organs of the Spirit exhilnt the contirmity and prog- ress of the divine work. Criticism asks whether Mary turned over the leaves of her Bible before she spoke. It forgets that every young Israelite knew by heart from childhood the songs of Hannah, Deborah, and David ; that they sang them as they went up to the feasts at Jerusalem ; and that the singing of psalms was the daily accompaniment of the morning and evening sacrifice, as well as one of the essential observances of the passovcr meal. Vers. 46-55." "And Mary said. My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47. And my * Ver. 46. Three mss. of the Italic, a. b. 1.. read Elizabeth instead of Mary. Iren?ens, at least in the Latin translation, follows tiiis reading ; ntid Oii^-en (Latin translation) speaks of mss. in which it was found Yer. 49. ii. B. D. L. read /iFya'/.a instpad of fxeya/eta, the reading of T. R. with ;32Mjj. and all theMnn. Yer. 50. B. C L. Z. read eii yeveaS kcu yeveai ; ii. F. 31. O. and seveial Mnn., etS yevsar Kai. yrreav, ir. place of eii ytvsnc, yeveuv. which is the reading of 12 Mjj. and most of the Mnti. Ver. 5L !!^'='' E. F. H. O*. O^ and some Mnn. read diavoLai instead of Atavoin. Ver. 55. C. F. M. O. S. 60 Mnn. read ew? ntuvoi instead of ecS tov CMva. Ver. 56. !*. B. L. Z, read (j5 instead of wjfi. D. l!,i'i<-''4"<- Or., omit it. ciiAi'. [. : 4 (')-:):). c;} epirit hiith rejoiced in God mj' Saviour. 48a. For he hath regarded the low estate of his liatuhnaidi'u. " iHb. For, behold, from henceforth all neuerations shall call nic bles.sed. 4d. For he tliat is niighty hath done to mo great things ; and holy is his name. 50. And his mercy is on tliem that fear him from generation to generation. " 51. He haili siiDwed strength with his arm ; he hath scattered the proud in the irnaginali>>n of their hearts. 52. He hath put down the mighty from their .seals, and cxalled tliem of low degree. 511 Ho hath tilled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away. " 54. He hath holpeu his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy ; 53. (As he spake to our fathers), to Abraham, and to his seed for ever." Vers. 46-48(1. The contrast between the tone of this canticle and Elizabeth's dis- course forbids the adnussion of the itading of some Latin authoriti's which puts it in the mouth of the latter. It is, indeed, Mary's reply to the congialulalions of Eliza- beth. Luke does not say tiiat Mary was filled with the Spirit (comp. ver. 41). At this epoch of her life she dwelt habitually in a divine atmosphere, wliile the ins[)ira- lion of E!i/abc'lh was only momentary. Her first word, fieya'Awst, maynifies, fully expresses this state of her soul. In what, indeed, does the magnifying of the Divine Ueing, consist, if not in giving Him, by constant adoration (the verb is in the present tense), a larger place in one's own heart and in the hearts of men ? The present, magnifies, is in contrast with the aorist, rejoiced, in the following sentence. Some would give the aorist here the sense which this tense sometimes has in Greek, that of a repetition of the act. It is more natural, however, to regard it as an allu.sion to a pailieular fact, which kindled in her a joy that was altogether peculiar. The seat of this emotion was her spirit — Trveifia, spirit. When the human spirit is referred to in Scripture, the word indicates the deepest part of our humanity, the point of contact between msm and God. The soul is the actual centre of human life, the principle of individuality, and the seat of those impressions which are of an essentially personal character. This soul communicates, through the two organs with which it is en- dowed, the spirit and the body, with two worlds — the one above, the other below it — with the divine world and the world of nature. Thus, while the expression, "My soul doth magnify," refers to the personal emotions of Mary, to her feelings as a woman and a mother, all which lind an outlet in adoration, these words, " My spirit hath rejoiced," appear to indicate the moment wOien, in theprofoundest depths of her being, by the touch of the Diviuc Spirit, the promise of the angel was accomplished in her. These two sentences contain yet a third contrast : The Lord whom she mag- nifies is the Master of the service to which she is absolutely devoted ; the Saviour in whom she has rejoiced is that, mercifid God who has made her feel His restDring power, and who in her person has just saved fallen humanity. Further, it is tiiis divine compassion which she celebrates in the following words, ver. 48. What did He find in her which supplied sulficient grounds for such a favor? One thing alone — her low estate. Torre/iucts does not denote, as Taneivonjc does, the moral dispo- sition of humiliiy ; Mary does not boast of her humility. It is rather, as the form of the word indicates, an act of which she had been the object, the humbling influence under which she had been brought by her social posititm, and by the whole circum- stances which had reduced her, a daughter of kings, to the rank of the poorest of the daughters of Israel. Perhaps the inteival between the moment of the incarnation, denoted by the aorists Ituth rejoiced, luilh regarded, and that in whicii she thus cele- 64 COMMl-NTARY OX ST. LUKE. braled it, was uot very great. "Was not that tlirilling moment, when she entered the house of Zachanas, and beheld at a ghmce in t)ie person ot Elizabeth the fiiltilmciil of the si^n given her b}' the angel, the moment of supreme divine maniftbtaliuu towaid herself ? The expression, Behuld, liciiceforlh, wiiich commences the following strophe, thus becomes full of meaning. Vers. 48i-50. The greatness of her happiness appears in the renown which it will bring her ; hence the yap. for. The word hehvUl refers to the unexpected character of this dealing. Mary ascribes to God, as its author, the fact which she celebrates, and glorifies the three divine perfections displayed in it. And tirsi the power. In call- ing God the Almighty, she appears to make direct allusion to the expression of the angel : the power of the Highest (ver. 35). Here is an art in which is displayed, as in no other siuce the appearam-e of man, the creative power of God. The received re-di\'n\]s t-teya'XEla answers better than the reading of some Alex., /if} a'/.n, to the em- phatic term ri^^*7Cj, which Luke doubtless read in his Hebrew document (comp. Acts 2 : 11). But tills omnipotence is not of a purely physical character ; it is subservient to holiness. This is the second perfection which Mary celebrates. She felt herself, in this marvellous work, in immediate contact with supreme holiness ; and she well knew that this perfection more than any other constitutes the essence of God : His name is holy^ The name is the sign of an object in the mind which knows it. The name of Ood Ihetefore denotes, not llie Divine Being, but the more or less adequate reflection of Him in those intelligences which are in communion with Him. Hence we see how this nnme can be sauclified, rendered holy. The essential nature of God may be more clearly understood by His creatures, and more completely disengaged from those clouds which have hitherto obscured it in their minds. Thus Maiy had received, in the experience she had just passed through, a new revelation of the holi- ness of the Divine Being. This short sentence is not dependent on the 6rt, because, which governs the preceding. For the Kai, and, which follows, establishes a close connection between it and ver. ^O, which, if subordinated to ver. 4!), would be too drawn out. This feature of holiness which Mary so forcibly expresses, is, in fact, that which distinguishes the incarnation from all the analogous facts of heathen my- thologies. The third divine perfection celebrated by Mary is mercy (ver. 50). Mary has already sung its praise in ver. 48 in relation to herself. She speaks of it here in a more general way. By them that fear God, she intends more especially Zacbaiias and Elizabeth, there present before her; then all the members of her people who share with them this fundamental trait of Jewish piety, and who thus constitute the true Israel. The received reading eig yevedi ysveuv, from generation to generation, is a form of the superlative which is found in the expression to the age of the ages, the meaning of which is "to the most remote generations." The two other readings mentioned in the critical notes express continuity rather than remoteness in time. These words, "on them that fear him," are the transition to the third strophe. For they implicitly contain the antithesis which comes out in the verses following. Vers. 51 -53. A much more sti'ongly marked poetical parallelism characterizes this strophe. IVlary here describes with a thrill of emotion, of which even her language partakes, the great Messianic revolution, the commencement of which she was be- holding at that very time. In the choice God had made of two pei'sons of such hum- ble condition in life as herself and her cousin, she saw at a glance the great principle which would regulate the impending renewal of all things. It is to be a complete CHAP. 1. : o'*-r)(J. 05 reversal of the Lumun notions of greatness and meanness. The poor and the hungrj are evidcnily the IsimiVuesfiarini/ God of ver. 50. iSiich e"^pressious cannot apply to Israel as a whole — to the pruud Pharisees and rieh yadilucees, for example. The line of denial cal ion which she draws in these words passes, tiierefore. not between the Jews and Oeulilcs, but between the pious Isiaelites ami all that e.\'iU themselves agaiiiit God, whether in or beyou](^uv(jvi is the epithet of the substantive, proud ihour/ht.s. This reading is evidently a mi-take. Ver. 52. From the moral contrast between the proud and the faithful, Mary passes to a contrast of their social position, the mighty and those of low degree. The former are Ibose who reign without that spiiit of luiniility which is inspired by the fear at Jehovah. The thiid antithesis (ver. 53), which is connected with the preceding, is that of suffering and prospc^it3^ The hungry represent the class which toils for a living — artisans, like Joseph and Mar}' ; the rich are men gorged with wealth, Israel- ites or heathen, who, in the use they make of God's gifts, entirely forg(;t their di-- pendence and responsibility. The abundance which is to compensate the foimer cci- tainly consists— the contrast requires it — of temporal enjoyments. But friiice this abundance is an effect of the divine blessing, it implies, as its condition, the posse.-siou of spiiitual graces. For, from the Old Testament point of view, prosperity is only a snare, when it does not lest on the foundation of i)eace wilh Gud. And so also, the spoliation which is to I)efall the rich is without doubt the loss of their temporal ad vauiages. But what makes this loss a real evil is, that it is the effect of a divine curse upon their pride. The poetic beauty of these three verses is heightened by a crossing of the members of the three antitheses, which is substituted for the ordinary method of symmetrical parallelism. In the first contrast (ver. 51), the righteous occupy the first place, tho proud the second ; in the second, on the contrary (ver. 52), the mi^jht}' occupy the CO CUilMENTAKY UX ST. LUKE. first place, so as to be in close connection with the proud of vtr. HI. and the lowly the second ; in tlie third (ver. Go), the hungry come tirst, juiuiiig themselves wilh the lowly of ver. 52, and the rich form the second member. Tire mmd passes in this "Way, as it Avere, on the crest of a Avave, fiom like to like, and the taste is not offended, as it would have been by a symmetrical ariangemeut in which the homo- geneous members of the contrast occurred every time in the same order. Vers. 54-, 55. Mary celebrates in this last strophe the faithfulness of God. That, in fact, is Ihe foundation of the whole JVIessiauic work. If the preceding strophe un- veils to us the future developments of this woik, this sends us back to its beginning in the remote past. Uaii signifies here servant rather than son. It is an abusion to the title of Israel, servant of the Lord (Isa. 41 : 8). The jMaster sees His well-beloved servant ciushed beneath the burden which his pitiless oppiessors have imposed, and he lakes it upon himself (middle 'Aau^aveaOai) in order to comfort him {ami). This term, l.vael, Jus servant, seems at first sight to apply to the whole people ; and doubt- iess it is this explanation that has led several interpreters to apply the expressions, proud, mighty, rich, in (he preceding verses, solely to foreign oppressors. If, as we have seen, the latter explanation cannot be maintained, we must conclurle that by this Israel, the servant of God, Mary underslauds the God-fearing Isiaeliles of the fiflitlh verso, not as individuals, but as the true representatives of the nation itself. Tlie faithful portion of the nation is identified in this expression with the nation as a whole, because it is its true substance ; besides, ]Mary could not know beforehand how far this true Israel would corresptmd with the actual people. For her own part, she already sees in hope (aorist ap-t/fi^ero) the normal Israel Irausfoimed into the glorified Messianic nation. Would such a view as this have been possible when once tlie national unbelief had apparently foiled all these Messianic hopes ? There is noth- ing here to hinder the infinitive of the end, nvj^adfivai, from preserving its proper meaning. To remember his promises ^xgrnfm?,, in order not t.;beuufaitlifLil. Eiasnuis, Calvin, and others regard the datives tC) 'Ai3pau/i and ri^ airefifiaTi as governed by tA- iT/nat, in apposition with wpoS roi)5 xarfpac: '' As he spake to our fathers, to Abra- ham, and to his seed , " But this construction is forced and inadmissible. Besides, the last words, for ever, if referred to the verb He spake, would have no nieaning. Therefore we must m^dce the proposition, as he spake to our fathers, a parenthesis intended to recall the divine faithfulness, and refer the datives, to Abra- ham and to his seed, to the verb, to remember his mercy. It is the dative of favor, to remember toward Abraham and . . . For Abraham, as well as his race, enjoys tlie mercy which is shown to the latter (comp. ver. 17). The words forever qualify the idea, not to forget his mercy. Divine forgetfulness will never cause the favor premised to Israel to cease. Would any poet have ever put such words into the mouth of Mary, when Jerusalem was in ruins and its people dispersed ? Ver. 56. is a historical conclusion. Did the depaiture of jNIary take place before the birth of John the Baptist ? We might suppose so from the particle (St and the aoi ist fTT/r/rjO;? (ver. 57), which very naturally imply a histoiical succession. But, on the other hand, it would be hardly natural that Mary should leave at a time when the fxpected deliverance of Elizabeth was so rwwv at band. This verse, therefore, must be regarded as a h'storical anticipation, such as is frequently found in Luke. Comp. 1 . 65^ 3 : 19, 20, etc. CHAP. I. : oT-SO. CT lcX)lTRTII NAnRATIVE. — CHAP. 1:57-80. Birth and Circumcision of John the Baptist. Kere opens the second cycle of the narratives of the infancy. Tliis first narration comprises—!. Tiie hirih of .Tnlm (vers. 57, 58); 2. Tlie circiimcision of the child (vers. 59-G(J) ; o. The soui; of Zacharias, with a short historical conclusion (vers. 67-80). 1. Birth of J.)hn : vrr?. 57 and 58. These verses are like a pleasing picture of Jew- ish Iiome life. "We see the neighhors and relations arriving one after the other — the former first, because they live nearest. Elizabeth, the happy mother, is the central figure uf the scene ; every one comes up to her in turn 'K/ieyu2.vve fier' avTtji, literally', he hid nntf/iiifwd with her, is a Hebraistic expression (^y 7"12m : comp. 1 Sam. 12 : 24 in the LXX.). This use of ueTo., with, comes from the fact that man is in such cases the material which concurs in the result of the divine action. 2. Circumcision of John : vers. 59-GG.* As an Israelitish child by its birth became a member of the human family, so by circumcision, on the corresponding day of the following week, he was incorporated into the covenant (Gen. 17) ; and it was the cus- tom on tills occasion to give him his name. The subject of if/Oov, crime, is that of the preceding verse. It has been maintained that the text suggests something miracu- lous in the agreement of Elizabeth and Zacharias ; as if, during the nine months which had just passed away, the father had not made to the mother a hundred times over tlie communication which he presently irakes to all present (ver. G3) j Ha"\v mall}' times already, especiall)' during Mary's stay in their liouse, must the names of John and Jesus have been mentioned ! It has been inferred from the words, tliey made ironoua avTu>v refers to afl the indi- viduals comprehended under the collective idea of people. The authorities which read ^Mwv are iusuflScient. The words to His people show that Isnicl although the people of God, were blind to the way of salvation. John the Baptist was to show to lhi.s people, who believed that all they needed was political restoration, thnt they were not less guilty Ihau the heathen, and that Ihey needed just as much divine pardon. This was precisely the meaning of the baptism to which he invited the Jews. 3d. Vers. 78 and 79. After this episode, Zacharias returns to the principal sul) ject of his song, an^l, iu an admirable closing picture, describes the glory of Jlessiah's appearing, and of tlie salvation which He biings. Vers. 78 and 79.* " Through the tender mercy of our God. whereby the daysprin^' from on high hath visited us, 79. To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet unto the way of peace." Zacharias ascends to the highest source whence this stream of grace pours down upon our earth — the divine mercy. This idea is naturally connected with that of pardon (ver. 77). as is expressed by cJtu with the accusative, which means properly byrmsonof. The bowels in Scripture are the seat of all the sympathetic emotions. 'Zir'^.nyxva answers to C''!^""!- The future eTiaKE^ismi, tcill visit, in some Alex., is evidently a correction suggested by the consideration that Christ was not born at the * Ver. 78. ii. B. L., nriohe^l'frai. Instead of f-rnKfipaTo. 7J5 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. time Zacharias was speaking. Yet even such instances as these do not disturb the failh of critics in the authority of Alexandrine Mss. ! All the images in tlie picture portrayed m vers. 78, 79 appear to be borrowed from the following comparison : A caravan misses its way and is lost in the desert ; the unfortunate pilgrims, overtaken by night, are sitting down in tlie midst of tliis fearful darkness, expecting death. All at once a bright star rises iu the horizon and lights up tiie plain ; the travellers, taking courage at this sight, arise, and by the light of this star find the road which leads them to the end of their journey. The substan- tive avaro'/.i/, the rising, which by general consent is here translated the dawn, has two senses iu the LXX. It is employed to translate the noun nDi*' ^i". The term cnioypa(pi], description, denotes among the Human i the inscription on an official register of the name, age, profession, and fortune of each head of a family, and of the number of his children, with a view to the ast-ess-ment of a tax. The fiscal taxation which followed was more particularly indicated by the term cnvoTifjjjaiS. Criti- cism raises several objections against the truth ( f the fact related in ver. 1 : 1st, No historian of the time mentions such a decree of Augustus. 2.1, On the supposition that Augustus had issued such an edict, it would not have been applicable to the states of Ilerod iu general, nor to Judea in particular, since this country was not reduced to a Roman province until ten or eleven years later — the year 6 of our era. 3d, A Roman edict, executed within the stales of Herod, must have been executed according to Roman forms ; and according to these, it would have been in no way necessary for Joseph to put in an appearance at Bethlehem ; for, according to Roman law, regis- tration was made at the ])]ace of birth or residence, and not at the place where tlio family originated 4lh, Even admitting the necessity of removal in the case of Joseph, this obligation did not extend to Mary, who. as a woman, was not liable to registra- tion. In Older to meet some of these difficulties. Hug has limited the meaning of I he words, all the earth, to Palestine. But the connection of this expression with the name Ca3sar Augustus will not allow of our accepting this explanation; besides which, it leaves several of the difficuhies indicated untouched. The reader who feels any confidence in Luke's narrative, and who is desirous of solving its ditficulties, will find, we think, a solution resulting from the following facts : Fronr the commencement of his reign, Augustus always aimed at a stronger cen- tralization of the empire. Already, under Julius Csesar, there had been undertaken, with a view to a more exact assessment of taxation, a great statistical work, a com- plete survey of the empire, descripiio orbis. This work, which occupied thirfy-twy years, was only finished under Augustus. f This prince never ceased to labor in lite eame direction. After his death, Tiberius caused to be read in the Senate, in accoid ance with instructions contained in the will of Augustus, a statistical document, which applied not only to the empire properly so called, but also to the allied king, doms— a category to which the states of Herod belonged. This document, called " Breviarium totius imperii," was written entirely by Augustus' own hand. J It gave * Ver. 2. !!^. B. D. omit r] after avrr]. Instead of n-rroypnoij ttpljttj eyerero, Si * ic-uls a-xoypa^ri eyevETO TtpuTTj. Instead of Kvp-qvLov, A. Ktjpvdiov, B* Kvptu-ov, B^. It. Vg. Kvpivnv (Cyrino). f See the recent work of Wieseler, " Beitrage zur richtigen Wlirdigung der Evangelien," etc., 1869, p. 23. t Tacitus Ann. i. 11 ; Suetonius, Octav. c. 27, 28, 101. cHAi'. II. : 1-7. 7.") " the number of the cilizens nnJ of allies umkr arms, of the fleets, of tlic kiii»doms, of the proviuccs, of the tributes or taxes." The coinpilutiou of such a dociimeiU as tliis nece!*siiiily supposes ;i previous stalisticul labor, comprehending not only the eBi- pire proper, but ais > the allii-'d slates. And if Augustus had ordered lliis work, Herod, whose kingdom belonged to the immber of n'(7//a reddila, coidd not have re- fii>ed to take part in it. The silence of historians in regard to this fact proves simply iioiliing against its reality. Wiesiler gives a host of examples of similar omissions. Tiie great statistical work previously acc!)n>j)lished by Julius Cajsar, and about, which no one can entertain a doubt, is not noticed by any historian of tlie time.* Joscplius, in his " Jewish War," written before his " Antiquities," when giving au account of tlic g:)vernment of Coponius, does not mention even the census of Quirinius.f Then it must not be forgotten tiiat one ot our principal sources for the life of Augustus, Dion Cassius, presents a blank for just the years 748-750 u.c. Besides, this silence is am[)ly compensated for b}' the posiiive information we lind in later writers. Tluzs, Tertvdlian mentions, as a well-known fact, " the census taken in Judea under Augus- tus by Sentius Saturnius," X tliat is to say, from 74:4-748 u.c, and consequeiilly only a short time before the death of Herod in 750. The accounts of Cassiodorus and Suidas leave no doubt as to the great statistical labors accomplished by the orders of Au- gustus.g The latter says expressly : " Caesar Augustus, having chosen twenljMnen of the greatest ability, sent them into all the countries of the subject nations (rwi' v-riKuuv), and caused them to make a registration {anoypa^d'^) of men and property (ruivre avOputTuv kqI oixriuv)." These details are not furnished by Luke. And if the t.isk of these commissioners specially referred, as Suidas says, to the subject nations, the omission of all meiitiou of this measure in the historians of the time is more easily accounted for. Surprise is expressed at an edict of Augustus having reference to the states of Herod. But Herod's independence was oul}' relative. There is no money known to have been coined in his name ; the silver coin ciiculating in his dominions was Roman.! From the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, the Jews paid the Ro- mans a double tribute, a i"0 1-tax and a land-tax. T[ Tacitus al.so speak of complaints from Syria and Judea against the taxes which burdened them. Further, the Jews had quite recently, according to Josephus, been obliged to take individually an oath of i)bedience to the emperor (" Antiq. " xvii. 2, 4). The application of a decree of Au- gu.stus to the dominions of Herod, a simple vassal of the emperor, presents, therefore, nothing improbable. Only it is evident that the emperor, in the execution of the decree, would take care to respect in form the sovereignty of the king, and to exe- cute it altogether by his instrnmentali'y. Besides, it was the (custom of the Rj- mans, especially in their fiscal measures, alu^ays to act by means of the local authori- ties, and to conform as far as possible to national usages.** Augustus would not de- paitfrom this method in regard to Herod, who was generally an object of favor. And this observation overthrows another objection, namely, that according to Roman * Wie.seler, in the work referred to, p. 51. f Ibid. p. 05. X Sed et census constat artos sub Au'juste . . . in Judira prr Scnti'iin Satur- nium (Adv. Marc. 19). The word conxtat appears to allude to pu!)lic documents ; and the detail by Seulius Saturnius proves that his source of informaljon v/as iuilepeu- dent i>f Luke. ^ Wioseler, p. 53. |j Ibid. p. 8G. ^ Ibid. p. 73 and fol. ** C imp. on this point the recent works of Ilnschke (" U( l>er den Census der Kuiseizeit") and of Marquadt (" Handbucii der romischen Allerlhumer"). 70 rOMMEXTAUY ON ST. LUKE, custom Joseph would not have to present himself iu the place where his family originated, since the census was taken at the place of residence. But Roman usage did not prevail here. In conformity with the remnant of independence which Judea still enjoyed, the census demanded hy the emperor would certainly be executed ac- cording to Jewish orms. These, doubtless, were adapted to the ancient constitution of tribes and families, the basis of Israelitish organization : this mode was at once Ihe simplest, since the greater part of the families still lived on their hereditary posses- sions, and the surest, inasmuch as families that had removed would be anxious to strengthen a link on which might depend questions of inheritance and other rights besides.* That which distinguished the census of Quirinius, ten years later, from all similar undertakings that had preceded it, was just this, that on this occasion the Roman authority as such executed it, without the intervention of the national power and Jewish customs. Then, accordingly, the people keenly felt the reality of their subjection, and broke into revolt. And history has preserved scarcely any record of similar measures wliich preceded this eventful census. As to Mary, we may explain without any difficulty the reasons which induced her to accompany Joseph. If, at ver. 5, we make the words with Mary depend specially on the verb in order to he enrolled, the fact may be explained by the circumitance that, according to Roman law, women among conquered nations were subject to the capitation tax. Ulpian expressly saj's this {De censibus) : " that in Syria (this term cuinprehends Palesiiue) men are liable to the capitation from their fourteenth 3'ear, wr.men from their twelfth to their sixtieth." Perhaps women were sometimes sum- m.med to appear iu person, iu older that their age might be ascertained. Or, indeed, we may suppose that Mary was the sole representative of one of the branches of her tribe, an heiress, which obliged her to appear in person. Perhaps, also, by the in- scription of her name she was anxious to establish anew, in view of her son, her de- scent from the familj^ of David. But we may join the words with Mary to the verb went up. The motives which would induce Mary to accompan.y Joseph in this jour- iipy are obvious. If, in the whole course of the Gospel history, we never see the least reflection cast on the reputation of Mary, although only six months bad elapsed between her marriage and the birth of Jesus, is not this circumstance explained by the ver3' fact of this journey, which providentially removed Joseph and Mary from Naziireth for a sufficient length of time, just when the biith took place V ]\Iary must liave recognized the finger of God in the event which compelled Joseph to leave home, and have been anxious to accompany him. But a much more serious difficulty than any of the preceding arises relative to ver. 2. If this verse is translated, as it usually is, "This census, which was the first, took place when Quirinius governed Syria," we must suppose, on account of what precedes, that Quirinius filled this office before the death of Herod. But history proves that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until the year 4, and that he did not execute the enumeration which bears his name until the year 6 of our era, after the deposition of Archelaus, the son and successor of Herod, that is to say, ten years at least after the birth of Jesus. It was Varus who was governor of Syria at the death of Herod. An attempt has been made to solve this difficulty by conecfing the text : Theodore de Beza by making ver. 2 an interpolation ; Michaelis by adding the words npd n'/S after iyevero: "This enumeration took place before that which * Wieseler, pp. 66, 67. CHAP. II. : 1-2. ! 77 Qnirinius ext'culeil . . ."* These arc conjectures without founduliuii. Agiiin, it has heeu pioposed to give the word ^fxJTT], first, a meaniug more or less unusual, Aud aecordiugly, souie Iranshile this word as pi'imus is sometimes to be taken in Latin, and as eri>t regularly in German : " This census was executed only when . . ." {prima acccdit cum, geschah erst ah). Such a Latinism is hardly admL'si- ble And besides, if the ixeculion had not followed the decree immediately (as the trauslation supposes), how could the decree have led to the removal of Joseph aud the binh of Jesus at Bethlehem while Iltrod was still reigning ? An interpretation of the word ^ypwr;; which is sjcarccly less forced, has been adopted by Thohu'k, Ewald, Wieselcr (who maintains and defends it at length in his last wodv), and Pressens6 (in his " Vie de Jesils"). Relying on John 1 : 15, TrpuVos fiov, 15:18, TvpuTov vfiiliv, they give to npurri the sense of ■KpoTtpa, and explain vpuTij iiytfiovEvovTOQ a,& if it were -ponpov y i/yefiovevetv ; which results in the following translation: "This enumeration took place before Quirinius . . ." They cite from the LXX. Jer. 29 : 2, varspov i^e'AOovTog 'lexovlov, "after Jechonias was gone forth;"' and from Plato, va-epoi CKpUov-o r^S h MnpaQun fidxv^ yevo/utvij?, "they arrived after the battle of Marathon had taken place." But this accumulation of two irregularities, the employment of the superlative for the coinparalive, and of the comparative adjective for the adverb, is not admissible in such a writer as Luke, whose style is generally perfectly lucid, especially if, with Wipseler, after having giveu to 7r/)ea6aL (ver. 1) and of aTToypuipii (ver. 2). The former of these two inter()retalions maj' denote the registration, the second the pecuniary tax- ation which resullcd from it (the a-oTifirjaii); and this difference of meaning would be indicated by the pronoun ainr], which it would he necessary to read nvrij {ipm), and not nvrj] (m). " As to the taxation itself (which followed the registration), it took place only when Quirinius was . . ." But wiiy, in this case, did not Luke em- ploy, in the second verse, another word than a-nypav?.dToett' 0v/.uKui, the plural qivAaKui perhaps denotes that they "walched in turns. The genitive t//S wKWi must be taken adverbially ; the watch, such as is kept by nigiit. 'I(5ow (ver. 9) is omitted by the Alex But it is probably aulhentic ; it de- picts tiie .surprise of the shepherds. 'E^rearT} does not signify that the angei stood above them (comp. eniaTuaa, ver. 38). It is our survenir (to come iiue.xpectedly). "We must translate, as in 1 : 11, an angel, not the angel. This is proved by the article 6 at ver. 10 (.see 1 : i:}), By ihe ghry of ihe Lord must be here understood, as geu'iraiiy, the supernatural light with which God appears, whether personally or by Ilis representatives. Vers. 10-13. f The angel first announces the favorable nature of his message ; for at the sight of anv supernaUiral appearance man's first feeling is fear, 'HriS, " which, iimxinuch a.« great, is mtended for the whole people." Ver 11. tho mes- sage itself. By the title Saviour, in connection with the idea of joy (ver. 10). is ex- pressed the piiy angels feel at the sight of the miserable state of mankind. The title Christ, anointed, refers to the prophecies which announce this Person, and the long expeetati )n He comes t.-) satisfy. The title Lord indicates that He is the representa- tive of tiie divine sovereignty. This latter title applies also to His relation to the angels. The periphrasis, ilie city of David, hints that this child will be a second Daviii. Ver. 13, the sign b}' means of Avhich the shepherds may determine the truth of this message. This sign has nothing divine about it but its contrast with human glory. There could not have been many other children born that niglit in Btllile- hem : and among these, if there were any, no other certainly would have a manger for its cradle. Vers. 13 and 14.| The troop of angels issues forth all at once from the depths of that invisible world which surrounds us on every side. By their song they come to * Ver. 9. I*. B. L. Z. omit li^ov after koi. !*'"-. Z. It""i. Vg. , Oeov instead of Kvpiov (seciind). !!^*, e-eAnfujiei' avroii instead of Trepe'^auvev av^nvS. t Ver. 13. B. Z. omit ro before orjueiov. »* D. omit ksi/ieiov. »<= B. L. P. S. Z. some Mnn. Syr. Iipieriqu- q,. ^^],\ ^^t before Keiuei'oi' (taken from ver. 16). T. K. read'? n/ before (pnrr?}. with F'^ K, onlv (taken from ver. 10). t Vi-r, 14. ltP''^i'i"'- Ir. Or., etc., omit f^ before niffpwTO(?. i>'=- A. B* D. It. Vg. Ir. and Or. (iu the Latin translation) read evdoKias in place of evdonLa. 82 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. give the key-note of the adoration of mankind. The variation of some Alex, and of the Latin translations, which read the gen. evSoKiai instead of the noni. evdoKia, is preferred in the modern exegesis : * " peace to tlie men of goodwill." In this case the song divides itself into two parallel propositions, whether the words andonearth be referred to that which precedes, " Glory to God in the highest places and on earth ; peace to the men of goodwill ;" or, which is certainly preferable, they be connected with what follows, ' Glory to God in tiie highest places ; and on earth peace to the men of goodwill." In this second interpretation the parallelitrm is com- plete : tlie three ideas, peace, men, on eaith, in the second member, answer to the three ideas, glory, God. in the highest places, in the lirst. Men make their praise arise toward God in the heavens ; God makes His peace descend toward them on the earth. The gen. ewhKiai, of goodwill, may refer to the pious dispositions toward God with which a part of mankind are animated. But this interpretation is hardly natural. 'EMoKia, from sMoKeiv, to delight in, n j;Cn> denotes an entirely gracious goodwill, the initiative of which is in the subject who feels it. This terms does not suit the relation of man to God, but only that of God to man. Therefore, with this reading, we must explain the words thus : Peace on earth to the men who are the objects of divine goodwill. But this use of the genitive is singularly rude, and almost barbarous ; the «i««.o/5'owZwi7i;, meaning those on whom goodwill rests, . . . is a mode of expression without any example. We are thus brought back to the reading of the T. R, present also in 14 Mjj., among which are L. and Z., wiiich generally agree with the Alex., the Coptic translation, of which the same may be said, and the Ptschito. With this reading, the song consists of three propositions, cf which two are parallel, and the third forms a link between the two. In the tirst, glor}"- to God in the highest places, the angels demand that, from the lower regiGus to which they have just come down, from the bosom of humanity, praise shall arise, which, ascending from heavens to heavens, shall reach at last the supreme sanc- tuary, the highest places, and there glorify' the divine perfections that shine forth in this birth. The second, peace on earth, is the counterpart of the first. While incit- ing men to praise, the angels invoke on them peace from God. This peace is such as results from the reconciliation of man with God ; it contains the cause of the cessa- tion of all war here below. These two propositions are of the nature of a desire or prayer. The verb understood is fcrrw, let it be. The third, which is not connected Avilli the preceding by any particle, proclaims the fact which is the ground of this twofold prayer. If the logical connection were expressed, it would be by the word for Tins fact is the extraordinary favor shown to men by God, and which is dis- played in the gift He is bestowing upon them at this very time. The sense is, " for God takes pleasure in men." In speaking thus, the angels seem to mean, God has not bestowed as much on us (Heb. 2 : IG). The idea of evdoida, goodwill, recalls the tirst proposition, " Glory to God !" while the expiession towards men reminds us of t\\e second, " Peace on earth !" For the word evSoKia, comp. Eph. 1 : 5 and Phil. 2 : 13. When the witnesses of the blessing sing, how could they who are the objects of it remain silent ? 3. The visit of the shepherds : vers. lo-20. The angel had notified a sign to the shepherds, and invited them to ascertain its reality. Tliis injunction they obey. * Professor Godet uses this phrase as he elsewhere uses " criticism," and licrc as elsewhere controverts its conclusions. — J. H. CHAP. II. : 15-20. 83 Vers. 15-20.* The T. R. exhibits in ver. 15 u singular expression : " And it came to puss, when the migcls were gone away, . . . the n)en, the shepherds, said . . ." The impression of tlie shepheids when, thy angels having disap- peared, they found themselves alone among meu, could uot be better expressed. The omission of the words nal ol uvdfju'Tvoi in the Alex, is owing to the strangeness of this form, the meaning of whicli they did uot understand. The koI before ol uvOpuTToi id doubtless tlie sign of the apodosis, like the Ilobiew "] ; but at the samu time it brings out the close connection between the disappearance of the angels and the act of the shepherds, as they addressed themselves to tiie duty of obeying them. The aorist el-ov o( the T. R. is ceitaiuly preferable to the imperf. €?.aXovi' of the Alex., since it refers to an act immediately followed by a result : "They said (not thej/ were saying) one to another. Let us go therefore." The term /}///ua denotes, as "12"! so often does, a word in so far as accomplished {yeyovoi). "We see how the orig- inal Aramaean form is carefully preserved even to the minutest details. 'Avd in U.VEV0OV expi esses the discovery in succession of the objects enumerated, ''^yvd'oiaav or diEyvupiaav (Alcx.), ver. 17, may signify to verify ; in the tifteenlh verse, however, fyvuiuaav signifies to make knotcn, and in ver. 17 it is the most natural meaning. There is a giadation lieic : heaven had revealed ; and now, by the care of men, pub- licity goes on increasing. This sense also puts the seventeenth verse in more diicct conncclitm wilii what follows. The comp')und diayvuj) i^eiv, to divulge, appears to us for this rea.sou to be prefeiTcd to the simple foim (in tlie Alex.). Vers. 18-20 describe the various impressions produced by what had taken place. In the eighteenth veise, a vague surprise in the greater part (all those who heard). On the other hand ((5t), ver. 10, a profound impression and exercise of mind in Mary. First of all, she is careful to store up all the facts in her mind with a view to preserve thf-m (avvTijpe'iv) ; but this first and indispensable effort is closely connected with the fuithcr an.l subordinate aim of comparing and combining these facts, in order to discover the difiue idea which explains and connects them. What a difference be- tween this ihoughtfulness and the superficial astonishment of the people around her I There is more in the joyful feelings and adoration of the shepherds (ver. 20) than in the impressions of those who simply heard their story, but less than in Mary. Aofi^ety, to glorify, expresses the feeling of the greatness of the woik ; a'lve'tv, to l)raise, refers to ihe goodness displayed in it. Closely connected as they are, the two participles /a'«/"cf and see/i can only refer to what took place in the presence of the shepherds after they reached the stable. They were told the remarkable occurrences that had preceded the birth of Jesus ; it is to this that the word heard refers. And they beheld the manger and the infant ; this is what is expressed by the word ^ecn. And the whole was a confirmation of the angel's message to them. They Avere con- vinced that they had not been the victims of an hallucination. Tiie reading vTriarpEipav (I hey returned thence) is evidently to be preferred to the ill-supported reading of the T. R., in^fa-peipav (Ihej' returned to their flocks). Whence were these interesting details of Ihe impression made on the shepherds and those wiio listened to their story, and nf the feelings of Mary, obtained ? How can any one regard them as a mere embellishment of the author's imagination, or as * Ver. 15. i*. B. L. Z. many Mnn. Svr"'^''. TtP'«"i"«. Vg. Or. omit Km oi avftixjrroi. ». B. It""'' , e/^?.ow instead of rtrrnv. Ver. 17. 4* B. D. \j. Z., ryvupianv instead of thryvupina-K Ver. 20. Insiead of cTfarpe^av, the reading of T. R and a part of the Mnn.. all Ihc other document.^, I'Trfarpn/wi'. 8-4 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. the offspring of legend ? The Aramrean colorinc: of the narrative indicates an ancient source. The oftener we read tiie nineleenlli verse, ilie more assured "we feel that Mary was the first and real author of this whole narrative. This pure, simple, and private history was composed by her, and preserved for a certain time in an oral form until some one committed it to writing, whose work fell into the hands of Luke, and was reproduced by him in Greek. SIXTH NARRATIVE. — CHAP. 2 : 21-40. Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus. This narrative comprises— 1. The circumcision of Jesus (ver. 21) : 2, His presen- tation in the temple (vers. 22-38) ; 3. A historical conclusion (vers. 39, 40). 1. The circumcision : ver. 21. It was under the Jewish form that Jesus was to realize the ideal of human existence. The theocracy was the surrounding prepared of God for the development of the Son of man. So to His entrance into life by birth succeeds, eight days after. His entrance into the covenant by circumcision. " Born of a woman, made under the law," says St. Paul, Gal. 4 : 4, to exhibit the connection between these two facts. There is a brevity in the account of the circumcision of Jesus which contrasts with the fuller account of the circumcision of John the Baptist (chap. 1). This difference is natural ; the simply Jewish ceremony of circumcision has an importauce, in the life of the latest representative of the theocracy, wiiich does not belong to it in the life of Jesus, who only entered into the Jewish foim of existence to pass through it. Ver. 21.* The absence of the article before fjuepni oktu is due to the determinative rnv Tveptre/ifiv avrov which follows. In Hebrew the construct slate (subst. with com- plemeal) excludes the article. The false reading of the T. R., to ■naidiov instead of uvTov, ijroceeds from the cause which has occasioned the greater part of the errors in this text, the necessities of public reading. As the section to be read began with tliis verse, it was necessary to substitute the noun for the pronoun. Kai, while marking the apodosis, brings out the intimate connection between the circumcision and the giving of the name. This kuI is almost a Tore, then. 2. The presentation : vers. 22-38. And first the sacrifice, vers. 22-24.f After the circumcision there were two other rites to observe. One concerned the mother. Levitically unclean for eight days after the birth of a son, and for fourteen days after that of a daugliter, the Israelitish mother, after a seclusion of Ihiity-three days in the first case, and of double this t'mtj in the second, had to offer in the temple a sacrifice of purification (Lev. 12). The other rite had reference to the child ; when it was a first-born, it had to be redeemed by a sum of money from consecration to the service of God and the sanctuary. In fact, the tribe of Levi had been chosen for this office simply to take the place of the first-born males of all th^ families of Israel ; and in order to keep alive a feeling of His rights in the hearts of the people, God had fixed a ransom to be paia for every first-born male. It was five shekels, or, reckon- * !*. A. B. and 11 Mj]. 100 Mnn. lip'^'que read avrov in place of to naidwv, the reading of T. R. with 6 Mjj. Syi'^'^^ f Ver. 22. Instead of ni;? 77c. which is the reading of T. R. with only some Mnn., and of avrov, which is the reading of D. and 6 Mnn., all the other authorities read avruv. CHAP. II. : 21-28. 85 .u . . . formed a subordinate proposition ; this Kdi, at the same time, brings out the close connection between the act of tlie parents who present the child and that of Simeon, who is found there opening hi.s arms to receive it. By the term' receive, the text makes Simeon the true priest, who acts for the time on behalf of God. Vers. 29-32. " Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to * Meylau, " Dictionnaire Biblique," p. 353. f Ver. 25. »* K, r. FI. 10 Mnn. read evaeSri'^ instead nf ev7a3r]<;. Ayinv is placed after v^ by ». A. B. L. and 14 oth'T Mjj. and almost all the Mnn., while the T. R. places it before vv, with D. some Mnn. ItP'«>-iH"'', Syr. Ver. 26. Instead of irpiv n, »■. B. and 4 ^l]] . npiv t] nv. ; IS* c. f(j5 av. Instead of Kvpiov, A b. c. Cop., nv,'un>. Ver. 28. i(. B. L. 11. ll""'i. Ir. omit uvrov after «;««/«:. 86 COiniEXTARY OX ST. LUKE. Thy word : 30 For mine eyes have seen Thy halvalion, 31 Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people ; 33 A lighl to lighlen the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." The vivid insight and energetic conciseness which characterize this song remind us of the compositions of David. Simeon represents him.self under the image of a sentinel whom his master has placed in an elevated position, and charged lo look for the appearance of a star, and then announce it to the world. He sees this long-de- sired star ; he proclaims its rising, and asks* lo l)e relieved of the post he has occu- pied sn long. In the same way, at the opening of iEschylus' " Agamemnon," when the seutmtl, set to watch for the appearing of the fiie that is to announce the taking of Troy, beholds at last the signal so impatiently expected, he sings at once bolli the victory of Greece and his own release. Beneath each of these terms in ver. 29 is found the figure which we have just indicated : vvv, now, that is lo say, at last, after such long waiting ! The word anoAveiv, to release, discharge, contains the two ideas of relieving a sentinel on duty, and deliveiing from the burden of life. These two ideas are mixed up together here, because for a long time past Simeon's earthly ex- istence had been prolonged sunply In view of this special mandate. Tiie term dianoTa, lord, expresses Simeon's acknowledgment of God's absolute right over him. 'P^fid aov, Thy tcord, is an allusion to the word of command which the commander gives to the sentinel. The expression, in pence., answers to the word now, witii which the song begins. This soul, which for a long time past has been all expectation, has now found the satisfaction it desired, and can depart from earth in perfect peace. Vers. 80 and 31 form, as it were, a second strophe. Simeon is now free. For his eyes have seen. The term aurripiov, which we can only translate by salvation, is equivalent neither to oun'/p, Saviour, nor to curripia, salvation. This word, the neuter of the adjective auTr/pioc, savin//, denotes an apparatus fitted to save. Simeon sees in this little child the means of deliverance which God is giving to the woild. The term prepare is connected with this sense of aurr/picv: we make ready an apparatus. This notion of preparation may be applied to the entire theocracy, l)y which God had for a long time past been preparing for the appearance of the Messiah. But it is simpler to apply this term to the birth of the infant. The complement, in the sight of, must be explained in this case by an intermediate idea, " Thou hast prepared this means for placing before the eyes of ..." that is to say, in order thsit all may have the advantage of it. It is a similar expression to that of Ps. 23 : 5, " Thou hast prepared a table before me." Perhaps this expression, in the sight of allnations, is connected with the fact that this scene took place in the court of the Gtntiks. The universalism contained in these words, all nations, in no way goes beyond the hori- zon of the prophets, of Isaiah in particular (Isa. 42 : 6, 60 : 3) ; it is peifectly appio- priate in the mouth of a man like Simeon, to whom the prophetic spirit i- altiibuted. Tile collective idea, all people, is divided, in the third strophe, into its two esseuttal elements, the Gentiles and Israel. From Genesis to Revelation this is the great dual- ism of history, the contrast which determines its phases. The Gentiles are here placed first. Did Simeou already perceive that the salvation of the Jews could only be realized after the enlightenment of the heathen, and by this means ? We shall t^ee what a profound insight this old man had into the moral condition of the geneialinn * There does not appear to be any good reason for making the words noic lettcst a prayer. The whole hymn is praise. "He accepts this sight as sign of his release: noli) thou art letting. — J. 11. ciiAi'. 11. : 31-34. 87 Jn which he lived. Guitled by all (hat Isaiah had foretold respecting the future uu- beliof of Is^raei, he niiiiht have uirived at llie convietiou that his people weie uixfut to reject the Messiah (vur. 35). The idea of salvation is presented under two diireient asi)e(;ts, accordiug as il is applied to the healhen or to the Jews. To the llrsl liiis clii'd biiaijs light, to the second glory. The heathen, in fact, are sunk in ignorance. In Isa. 25 : 7 they are represented as enveloped in a thick mist, and covertd with darkness. This covering is taken away by the JMessiah. The genitive iOr may be undcrstoud in two ways : either it is an ap- pearing about ■which ineu argue coutiadictorily, or it is a sign which excites oppo- sition directly it appears. Tulcen in tlie first sense, this expression would reproduce the ideas of a fall and a rising again, and would be a simple repetition of that which precedes ; in the second sense, it wouhi merely recall the idea of a fall, and would form the transition to what follows. Will not the general unl)elief of the nation be the cause of the sad lot of the Messiah, and of the sufferings that will fill the heart of His mother ? Tlie second sense is therefore preferable. The gradation kol aov 6^ avTJji, iky own also, ver. 35, is in this way readily understood. The 6e of the received reading is well suited to the contexi. " The opposition excited by this child will go so far, that thine own heart will be pierced by it." It is natural to refer what follows to the grief of Mary, when she shall behold the rejection and murder of her son. Some such words as those of Isaiah, " He was bruised for our iniquities," and of Zechariah, " They shall look on me whom they have pierced," had enlightened Simeon respecting this mystery. Bleek has proposed another explanation, which is less natural, although ingenious : " Thou shalt feel in thine own heart this contra- diction in regard to thy son, when thou thyself shalt be seized with doubt in regard to His mission," But the image of a sword must denote something more violent than simple doubt, 'ivxv, the soul, as the seat of the psychical affections, and consequently of maternal love. It has been thought that the following proposition, in order that the tliougJUs of many . . . could not be connected with that whicli immediately precedes ; and for this reason some have tried to treat it as a parenthesis, and connect them order that with the idea, Tlih is set . . . (ver. 34'). But this violent con- struction is ailogelher unnecessary. The lialred of which Jesus will lie the object (ver. 3-1), and which will pierce the heart of Mary with poignant grief (ver. 35), will bring out those hostile thoughts toward God which in this people lie hidden under a veil of Pharisaical devotion. Simeon discerned, beneath the outward forms of Jew- ish piety, their love of human glory, their hypocrisy, avarice, and hatred of God ; and he perceives that this child will prove the occasion for all this hidden venom being poured forth from the recesses of their hearts. In order that has the same sense as is set for. God does not will the evil ; but he wills that the evil, when present, should .show itself : this is an indispensable condition to Its being either healed or con- demned. TioTiluv, of many, appears to be a pronoun, the complement of Kapdiuv (the hearts of many) rather than an adjective (of maiiy hearts) ; comp. Rom. 5 : 16. The term SiaAoyiajuot, thoughts, has usually an unfavorable signification in the N. T. ; it indicates the uneasy working of the understanding in the service of a bad heart. The epithet ttovtjpol, added by the Sinaiticus, is consequently superfluous. These words of Simeon breathe a concentrated indignation. We feel that this old man knows more about the moral condition of the people and their rulers than he has a mind to '.ell. Vers. 36-38.* Anna presents, in several respects, a contrast to Simeon. The latter came into the temple impelled by the Spirit ; Anna lives there. Simeon has * Ver. 37. !*. A. B. L. Z. It«"i , fu? instead of u?. »*, eSSnfiTjiwvTa instead of oyftorjKovTa. The Alex, omit nno rov lepov. Ver. 38. 9 Mjj. (Alex.) some ]Mnn., icat ff.vTrj T7), instead of nai avrrj avrrj tt?. A. B. D. L. X. Z. , tg> Qeo. instead of rw kvpiu, the reading of T. R. with 14 Mjj. all the Mnn. Syr. lipi^ii"". J*. B_. Z. someMnn. jipierique^ gy, »ch jf. otiiit sv betweeu '/.vrpocw and lepovoa7.7iu., which is the reading of T. R., with 15 -Mjj., the greater part of the ]Mun., etc. CHAP. II. : 3G-38. 89 no desire but to die ; Annu seems to recover tiie vigor of 3'outh to celebrate tbe Mes- siah. The words ;/ ovk ii(piaTnTo (ver. 37) might be mside the predicute of h^. luid Iho ivvo avTT) wlncii separate them, two appjsilions of 'kwa. But it is simpler to under- Bland iiv in the sense of there was, or there teas there, and to regard ?/ ovk cKpiararo as an appendix intended to bring back the narrative from the description of Anna's per- 6-jn to the actual fact. Meyer, who understands ?> in the same way, begins a fresh proposition wilh the avn] which immediately follows, and assigns to it avOufio?^o}eiTo for its verb (ver. u8). Thi3 construction is less natural, especially on account of the intermediate clauses {ver. 37). Upo>.hi3T}Kvia tv is a Hebraism (especially with nollali), 1 : 7. The moral purily of Anna is expressed by the term TrnpOevta, virginity, and by the long duration of her M-idowhood. Do the 84 years date from her birth, or from the death cf her husbaiul V In the latter case, supposing that she was married at 15. she would have been lOG years old. This sense is not impossible, and it more easily accounts perhaps for such a precise reckoning. Instead of ui, ahovt, the Alex, read Xui.iDitil, ft reading which appears preferable; for the restriction about would only be admissible with a round number — 80, for example. Did Anna go into the' temple in the morning, to spend the whole day there ? or did she remain there dur- ing the night, spreading her poor pallet somewhere in the court ? Luke's expression is compatible with either supposition. What he means is, that she was dead to the outer world, and only lived for the service of God, "We could not, with Tischendoif, following the Alex., erase one of the two avrr) (ver. 38) Both can be perfectly ac- counted for, and the omission is easilj' explained by the repetition of the word. 'kvTi, in the compound avOu/xo'/oyelTo, might refer to a kind of autiphony between Anna and Simeon. But in the LXX. this compound verb corresponds simply to pi^il (Ps. 79 : 13) ; avH only expresses, therefore, the idea of payment in acknowledgment which is inherent in an act of thanksgiving (as in the French word reconnaissance). The Alex, reading raj Gfu, to God, is probably a correction, arising from the fact that in the 0. T. the veib avOufioloyelaOai never governs anything but God, It is less natural to regard the received reading as resulting from the pronoun airov. Him, which follows. We need not refer the imperf , she spake, merely to the time then present ; she was doing it continually. The reading of some Alex., " those who were looking for the deliverance of Jerusalem," is evidently a mistaken imitation of the expression. the consoldilonof Israel {y ex. 25). The words, in Jtri/salem, naturally depend on the participle, that looted for. The people were divided into three parties. The Pharisees expected an outv.-ard triumph from the Messiah • the Sadducees expected nothing ; between them were the true faithful, who expected the consolation, that is, deliver- ance. It was the.se last, who, according to Ezekiel's expression (chap. 9), cried for all the abominations of Jerusalem, that were represented by Anna and Simeon ; and it was among these that Anna devoted herself to the ministry of an evangelist. If Luke had sought, as is supposed, occasions for ■practising his muse, by inventing personages for his hymns, and hymns for his personages, how came he to omit here to put a song into the mouth of Anna, as a counterpart to Simeon's? 3. Historical coiicliision : vers. 39, 40.* It is a characteristic feature of Luke's narrative, and one which is preserved throughout, that he exhibits the various actors * Yer. 39. Some Alex., Travra instead of a-avm. Others, Kara instead of rn Kara. !*. B. Z., e-£arfn\jmv instead of i^Tfarpfi/'o'^ Ver. 40. J*. B. D. L. Iip''"'rne of a child is the house of his father. Very natuialiy, therefore, .lesos sought His in the temple. There He un- derwent an experience resembling Jacob's (Gen. 28). In His solitude, He karned to kmnv God more familiarly as His Falher. Is not the freshness of a quite recent in- tuition perceptible in His answer (ver. 45))? The Alex, reading ol yovsls has against il, besides the Alex. A. and C, the Italic and Peschito tiauslaliuns. It was only Iu the evening, at the hour of encampment, when every family was gathered together for the night, that the absence of the child was perceived. When we think cf the age of Jesus, and of the unusual confidence which such a child must have enjoj^ed, the conduct of His parents in this affair presents nothing unaccountable. The par- lie, pres. seekinrj IThn (ver. 45) ap[)ears to indicate that they searched for Him on the road while returning. 2. The meeting : vers. 40-50.* As it is improbable that they had sought for Jesus for two or three daj's without going to the temple, the three days must certainly date from the time of separation. The first was occupied with the journey, the s"cond with the return, and the third with the meeting. Lightfoot, following the Tilnuid, mentions three synagogues within the temple inrl,>sure : one at the gate of the court of the Gentiles ; an .ther aL tiie entrance of the court of the Israelites ; a third in the famous peristyle liiclichat hagasith, in the S. E. part of the inner couit.f insf^ad of avn(iavT(jv. ^. B. D. L. some Mnn. Syr"^''. omit ftf Irporro^vaa. Ver. 43. bi. H. D. h. some Mnn, read f^i^uTav m -yni^eir avrnv instead of eyvtj lurrf^ Km. ij /ipr7}f) nvTO}>. Ver. 45. it. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. omit avTov, !S^ B. C. D. L., am^tirovi -re^ instead of Ct/towte?.. '" Ver. 48. !!t* B. (i^mv/iev instead of e^t/tovhev. Ver. 49. !!t* b. Syr*"", t^rjrfrg in. stead of e^r/TEiTt. \ Hot. hebr ad Luc. ii. 46 (after Sanhedr. xi. 2). 92 COMMEXTAKY ON' ST. IJ'KK. It was there tliat the Rabbins explaiued the hiw. Desire for iustruction led Jesus thither. The following narrative in uo way attributes to Him the part of a doctor. In order to find suppoitfor this sense in opijosition to the text, some critics have alleged the detail : seated in the midst of the doctors. The disciples, it is said, lisUned around. Tliis opinion has been refuted by Vitringa ; * and Paul's expres- sion (Acts 22 : ?>), seated at the feet of Gamaliel, would be sulBcient to prove the con- trary. Nevertheless the expression, seated in the midst of the doctors, proves n.) doubt that the child was for the time occupying a place of honor. As the Rubbinical method of teaching was by questions — by proposing, for example, a problem taken from the law— bolli master and disciples had an oppoituuity of showing their sagacity. Jesus had given some lemarkable answer, or put some original question ; and, as is the case when a particulaily intelligent pupil presents himself. He had at- tracted for the moment all the interest of His teachers. There is nothing in the nar- rative, when rightly undei stood, that savors in the least of an apotheosis of Jesus. Tlie expressions, hearing them, and asking them ^'wesiwns, bear in a precisely opposite direction. Josephus, in his autobiography (c. i.), meatious a very similar fact re- specting his own youth. When he was only fourteen years of age, the priests and eminent men of Jerusalem came to question him on the explanation of the law. Tlio apocryphal writings m;d-:e J.'sus on this occasion a professor possessing ornniscieni.e.f There we have the legend grafted on the fact so simply related by the evangelist. 'Lvveaii, understanding, is the personal quality of which the answers, d-izoKpinni, are the manifestations. The surprise of His parents proves that Jesus habitually observed a humble leserve. There is a slight tone of reproach in the words of Mary. She probably wished to justify herself for the apparent negligence of which she was guilty. Criticism is surprised at the uneasiness expressed by Mary ; did she not know who this child was? Criticism reasons as if the human heart worked accord- ino- to logic. To the indirect lepioach of Mary, Jesus replies in such words as she had never heard from Him befoie : Wherefore did ye seek me? He does not menn, " You could very well leave me at Jerusalem." The literal translation is, " Wliat is it, that you sought me?" And the im^jlied answer is, " To seek for me thus was an inadvertence on your part. It should have occurred to you at once that you would find me here." The sequel explains why. The phrase t'l on is found in Acts 5 : 9. OvK 7'/<5€ire, did ye not know ? not, do ye not know ? The expression rd tov TrnTpo^ //ov may, according to Gieek usage, have either a local meamng, the house of , or a moral, the affairs of The former sense is required by the idea of seeking ; and if, nevertheless.' we are, disposed to adopt the latter as wider, the first must be included in it. " Where my Father's affairs are carried on, there you are sure to find ine." The expression my Father is dictated to the child by the situation : a child is t-) bo found at his father's. We may add that He could not, without impropriety, have said God's, instead of my Father's; for this would have been to exhil)it in a preten- tious and affected way the entirely religious character of His ordinary thoughts, and * Svnag. p. 167. , , . t ^ f In the Gospel of Thomns (belonging to the fccnnd century ; known to Jiena^u^), Jesus when on the road to Nazarethr returns of His own accord to .lerusrdem ; tlu! doctors are stupefied with wonder at hearing Him solve the m^st difiicult questions of the law and the prophecies. In an Arabic Gospel (of later date than llie pruei- inu), Jesus instrurts the astronomers in the mysteries of the celtstial spheres, and reveals to the pjiilosophers the secrets of metaphysics. CHAT. II. : OU-.'iv'. Wo to put Himself forward as a little saiut. Lastly, does not this expression contain a d«'licale but decisive reply to Mary's words, T/iy Father and If Any allusion tu the Trinitarian relation must, of course, be excluded from the meaning of this saying. But, on the other hand, can the simple notion of moral paternity suflice to express its meaning? Had not Jesus, during those days of isolation, by metiitating anew upon tiie intimacy of His moral relations with God, been brouglit to reg;ird Him as the sole author of His existence ? And was not this tlie cause of the kind of sliuddor which He fell at hearing from Mary's lips tlie word Thy father, to which He ininic- diately replies with a certain ardor of expression, my Father? That Mary and Joseph should not have been able to understand this speech appears inexplicable to cerlain critics — to Meyer, for instance, and to Strauss, who infeis from this detail that the •whole story is untrue. But this word, viy Father, was the first revelation of a re- lation which surpassed all that Judaism had realized ; and the expression, " to be about the business" of this Father, expressed the ideal of a completely filial life, of an existence entirely devoted to God and divine things, which perhaps at this very time had just arisen in the mind of Jesus, and which we could no more understand than Mary and Joseph, if the life of Jesus had never come before us. It was onl}' Ijy the liglit Mary received afterward from the ministry of her Sou, that she could say what is liere expi-esscd : that she did not understand tliis saying at the time. Does not the original source of this narrative discover itself in this remark ? From whom else could it emanate, but from Mary herself '? 8. The residence at Nazareth : vers. 51, 52.* From this moment Jesus possesses within Him this idtal of a life entirely devoted to the kingdom of God, which had just flashed before His eyes. For eighteen years He a[>plied Himself in silence to the business of His earthly father at Nazareth, where He is called the carpenter (Mark G : 3). Tlie auah'tical form r/v vrroraaaSuevdi indicates the permanence of this sul)- mission ; and the pres. partic. mid., submitting Himself, ils spontaneous and deli!)- erate character. In this simple word, submitting Himself, Luke has summed up the entire woik of Jesus until His baptism. But why did not God permit the child to remain in the temple of Jerusalem, which duriug the feast-days had been His Eden ? The answer is not dilTlcult. He must inevitably have been thrown too early into the theologico-polilical discussions which agitated the capital ; and after having excited the admiiation of the doctors, He would have provoked their hatred by His original and independent turn of thought. If the spiritual atmosphere of Nazareth was heavy, it was at least calm ; and the labors of the workshop, in the retirement of this peaceful valle}', under the eye of the father, was a more favorable sphere for the development of Jesus than the ritualism of the temple and the Rabbinical discussions of Jerusalem. The remark at the end of ver. 51 is simihir to that at ver. 19 ; only for the verb uvrr;;- pelv, which denoted the grnupiug of a great number of circurnslances. to collect and ''combine tiiem, Luke substitutes here another compound (^laTJuielv. This 6in denotes the permanence of the rc(;o]]ection, notwithstanding circumstances which might have eUaccd it, particularl}' the inability to understand recorded in ver. 50. She carefully kept in In r possession this profound sa3'ing as an unexplained mystery. The fiftj'-second verse describes the youth of Jesus, as the fortielli verse had depicted Ilis childhood ; and these two brief sketches correspond with the two analogous pictures * V'T. 51. The Mss. and Vss. are divided between ko/. rj juv'VP and v (h fii]T7]r>. !** B. D. ]\r. omit Tdvra. Ver. 52. it. L. add ev r;/, B. ev, before cc^ia. ]). L. Syr. lip'"'i"" place v'i'ii-O' befcre cndia. O-t COMNrcXTATlY ON ST. LlKf:. of John the Baptist (1 : G6, 80). Each of these geneial remarks, if it slot d ;.!< ne might bo regarded, as Schleiermacher has suggested, as the clote of a Mimll docu- ment. But their relation to each other, and their periodical lecurrence, deiuonstiate llie unity of our writing. This form is met with again in the book of the Acts. 'HXinia docs not lieie denote age, which would yield no meaning at all, Mut htight, atature, just as 19 -.3. This term embraces the entire physical development, all the external advantages ; ao^ia, wisdom, refers to the iutellcclual and moral developuieul. The third \.qmi\, favor with God and men, completes the other two. Over tlie person of this young man there was spread a chaim at once external and spiritual ; it pro- ceeded from the favor of God, and conciliated toward Ilim the favor of men. This perfectly normal human being was the beginning of a reconciliation between heaven and earth. The term wisdom refers rather to with God ; the word stature to witli men. The last words, icith men, establish a contrast between Jesus and John the Baptist, who at this very time was growing up in the solitude of the desert ; and this contrast is the prelude to that which later on was to be exhibited in their respective ministries. There is no notion for the forgetfulness or denial of which theology pays more dearly than that of a development in pure goodness. This positive nation is de- rived by biblical Christianity from this verse. With it the humanity of Jesus may be accepted, as it is here presented by Luke, in all its reality. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON CHAPS. 1 AND 2. It remains for us to form an estimate of the historical value of the accounts con- tained in these two chapters. I. Characteristics of the Narrative. — We have already observed that Luke thoroughly believes that he is relating facts, and not giving poetical illustrations of ideas. He declares that he only wiitesiu accordance with ihe information he has collected ; he writes with the design of convincing his readers of the unquestionable certainty of the things which he relates (1 : 3, 4) ; and in speaking thus, he has very specially in vit.'W the contents of the first two chapters (coinp. the avuOev, ver. 3). In short, the very nature of these narratives admits of no other supposition (p. 42). Was he liimself the dupe of false information? Was he not in a much more favor- able position than we are for estimating the value of the communications that wei-e made to him ? There are not two ways, we imagine, of replying to these preliminary questions. As to the substance of the narrative, we may distinguish between the facts and the discourses or songs. The supernatural element in the fcicts only occurs to an extent that may be called natural, when once the supernatural character of the appearance of Jesus is admitted in a general way. If Mary was to accept spontane- ously the part to which she was called, it was necessary that she should be inroinu-d of it befonihaud. If angels really exist, and form a part of the kingdom of God, they were interested as well as men in the birth of Ilim who was to be the Head cf this orgimizatiou, and reign over the whole moral universe. It is not surprising, then, that some manifestation on their part should accompany this event. That the pro- phetic Spirit might have at this epoch representatives in Israel, can only be disputed by denying the existence and action of this Spirit in the nation at any time. Ftom the point of view presented by the biblical premisses, the possibility of the facts re- lated is tlien indisputable. In the details of the history, the supernatural is confined (il.NKUAL ('()NSlIii:!{.\'n()NS OV CHAI'S. I. ANI» II. Do •within the limits of the strictest subiiely aii.l most perfect suitability, ami differs altoiicther iu this respect fiom the marvels of the apocryphal wiiliii^'s.* The discourses or hymns may appear to have been a freer element, in the trcat- nienl of which the imayiualion of the author might have allowed itself larger scope. Should not thuse portions be regarded as souiewhal analogous to those discourses wliicli the ancient iiistoiiaus so often put into the moulh of their heroes, a product of the individual or collective Christian inu^e ? But we have proved that, in allributing 1;) the angel, to jLuy, and to Zachaiias the language which he puts into their moulhs, the author would of his own accoid have made his characteis false prophets. They would be so many omicIls post evcntum contra cccutuni, ! Isever, afier the unbelief of the people had brought about a sepaialion between the Syna- gogue and the Church, could the Chri>tiau muso have celebrated the glories of the Messianic future of Israel, with such accents of artlessjoyoushopeas prevail in these canticles (1 : 17, 54, 55, 74, and 75 ; 2:1, 32). The only woids that could be sus- pected from this point of view are those which are put into the mouth of Suneou. For the}' suppose a more distinct view of the future course of things iu Israel. But, on the other hand, it is precisely the hymn of Simeon, and his address to Mary, which, I)}' their originality, conciseness, and energy, are most cleaily maiked with the stamp of authenticity. We have certainly met with some expressions of a unl- veisalist tendency in these songs (" goodwill toward men," 2 : 14 ; "a light of the Gentiles," ver. 32) ; but these allusions iu no way exceed the limits of ancient l)rophccy, and tliey are not brought out in a suflicienll^' maiked way to indicate a time when Jewish Christianity and Paulinism were already iu open conflict. This universalism is, iu fact, that of the early daj's, simple, free, and exempt from all polemical design. It is the fresh and normal unfolding of the flower in its calyx. The opinion in closest conformity with the internal marks of the narrative, as well as with the clearly expressed intention of the writer, is therefore certainly that which regards the facts and discourses contained in these two chapters as historical. II. Eelatioa of the Xarratices of Chaps. 1 and 2 toihe Contents of other parts of the JV. r.— The lirst point of comparison is the narrative of the infancy in Matthew, chaps. 1 and 2. It is confidently asserted that the two accounts are irreconcilable. We ask, first of all, whether there are two accounts. Does what is called the narra- tive of Matthew really deserve this name ? We find in the first two chapters of Mat- thew five incidents of the infancy of Christ, which are mentioned solely to connect with them five prophetic passages, and thus prove the Messianic dignity of .Tesus, in accordance with the design of this evangelist. 1:1: Jesus, the Christ. Is this what we should call a narrative ? Is it not rather a didactic exposition ? So little does the * In addition to the specimens already sriven, we add the followinir. taken from the Gospel of James (2d c.) : Zacharias is high priest ; he inquires of God respecting the lot of the youthful M;iry, brought up in the temple. God Himself commands that she shall be confided to .Joseph. The task of embroideriutr the veil of the tetii- ple IS devolved npr-n Mary liv 1 it. When she brinirsthe work." Elizabeth at the si-jht of her plain's the molherof iIih Messiah, without :\Iarv herself knowinir whv. After- ward it is Jolin, more even Ihan .lesu*. who is the obji-cl of Herod's iralulis scavcli. Elizabeth fiefs to the desert wilh her diild ; a rock opens to receive litem ; a brii^ht light reveals Hie presence of the angel who gunrde them. Herod rinestions ZMcharias. who is ignorant him«e]f where liisVhiM i«.' Zacharias is then slain in the temple court ; the carpets of the temple cry oul ; a voice announces the avenger ; the body of the martyr disappears ; only his blood is found chanLrcd into btoue. 90 CUMMEXTAllY 0^^ ST. LUKE. author entertain the idea of relating, that in chap. 1. while treating of the birth of Jesus, he does not even mention Bethlehem : he is wholly taken up with the connec- tion of the fiict of which he is speaking with the oracle. Isa. 7. Il is only after hav- ing finished this subject, when he comes to speak of the visit of the magi, that he mentions for the first time, and as it were in passing (Jesus being bom in Bethlehem) this locality. And with what object ? With a historical view ? Not at all. Simply on account of the prophecy of Micah, which is lu be illustrated in the visit of the miigi, and in which the place of the Messiah's birth was announced betoieliand. Apait from this piophecy, he would still less have thought of mentioning Bethlehem in the second narrative than in the first. And it is tnis desultory history, made up of isolated facts, referred to solely with an apologetic aim, that is to be employed to criticise and correct a complete i:arrative such as Luke's ! Is it not clear that, be- tween two accounts of such a different nature, theie may easily be found blanks which hypothesis alone can fill up ? Two incidents are common to Luke and Mat- thew : the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, and His education at Nazareth. The histori- cal truth of the latter piece of information is not disputed. Instead of this, it is maintained that the former is a mere legendary invention occasioned by Mic. 5. But were il so. the fact would never occur in the tradition entirely detached from the prophetic woid which would be the very soul of it. But Luke does not contain the slightest allusion to the prophecy of Micah. It is only natural, therefore, to admit that the first fact is historical as well as the other. With this common basis, three differences aie discernible in which some find contradictions. First. The account which Matthew gives of the appearance of an angel to Joseph, in order to relieve his peiplexily, is, it is Faid. incompatible with that of the appear- ance of the angel to Mary in Luke. For if this last appearance had taken place Mary could not have failed to have spoken of it to Joseph, and in that case his doubts would have been impossible. But all this is uncertain. For, fiist, Mary maj^ cer- tainly have told Joseph everything, either before or after her return from Elizabeth ; but in this case, whatever confidence Joseph had in her, nothing could prevent his being for a moment shaken by doubt at hearing of a message and a fact so extraordi- nary. But it is possible also— and this supposition appears to me more probable— that Mary, judging it right in this affair to leave everything to God, who immediately directed it, held herself as dead in regard to Joseph. And, in this case, what might not have been his anxiety when he thought he saw Mary's condition? On either of these two possible suppositions, a reason is found for the appearance of the angel to Joseph. Seco?id. It would seem, according to Matthew, that at the time Jesus was born, Ilis parents were residing at Bethlehem, and that this city was their peimanent abode. Further, on their return from Egypt, when they resolved to go and live at Nazareth, their decision was the result of a divine interposition which aimed at the fulfilment of the prophecies (Matt. 2 : 23, 23). In Luke, on the contrary, the ordinary abode of the parents appears to be Nazareth. It is an exceptional circumstance, the edict of Augustas, that takes them to Bethlehem. And consequently, as soon as the duties, which have called them to Judsea and detained them there, are accomplished, they return to Nazareth, without needing any special direction (2 : 39). It is imi)()r- tant here to remember the remark which we made on the nature of Matthew's naiia- tive. In that evangelist, neither the mention of the place of birth nor of the place ■where Jesus was brought up is made as a matter of history ; in both cases it is solely a question of proving the fulfilment of a prophecy. An account of this kind with- (;i;m;kal considkuations on ciiArs. i. ani» rr. DT out doubt affirms wliat it actually says, but it iti no way denies what it does not say ; and il is impossible to derive from it a liistorical view sufficieully complete, to oi)p')se it to another ami mure detailed accjunt liiat is decMdecily historical. There is nothiiiir, therefore, lierc to prevent our eomp!etin Judica, but goes inune- diateiV to selt.e in Galilee. But notwitlistanding theie reasons, it is not impossib.e lo p'ace tlie presentation at Jerusalem, either after or before the visit of the magi. If this had already taken p.ace. Joseph and Mary must have put their trust in Gods care to protect the child ; and the time is no objection to this supposition, as Wieseler has shown. For from Bethlehem to lihinocolure. the fiist Egyi)tian town, is only three or four days' journey. Three weeks, then, would, strictly speaking, suffice to go and return. It is more natural, however, lo place the visit of the magi and the journey into Egypt after the presentation. "We have only to suppose that after this ceremony 3laiy and Joseph 'returned to Bethlehem, a circumstance of which Luke Was not aware, and which he has omitted. In the same way, in the Acts, he omits Paul's journey into Arabia after his conversion, and combines into one the two so jourus at Damascus separated by this journey. This return to Bethlehem, .situated at such a short distance from Jerusalem, is too natural to need to be particularly accounted for. But it is (completely accounted for, if we suppose that, when Josej)ii and JIary left Nazareth on account of the census, they did so with the intention of settling at Bethlehem. IMany reasons would induce them to this decision. It might appear to them more suitable that the child on whom such high promises rested should be brought up at Bethlehem, the city of His royal ancestor, in the neigliboihood of the capital, than in tlie remote hamlet of Nazareth. The desire of being near Zacha- rias and Elizabeth wou'.d h'.so attract them to Judaja. Lastly, they would thereby avoid the cahinmious judgments which the short time that elapsed between their mar- riage and the birth of the child could not have failed to occasion had they dw( It at Nazireth. Besides, even though tliis hud not been their original plan, after Josej)h had i)een settled at Bethlehem for some weeks, and had found the means of subsist- ence there, nothing would more naturally occur to his mind than the idea of settling down at the place. In this way the interposition of the angel is explained, who in Matthew induces him to return to Galilee. Bleek inclines to the opinion that the arrival of the magi preceded the presentation, and that the journey into Egypt fl- owed it. This supposition is adnii.'-sil)le also ; it alters nothing of importance in the course of things as presented in the preceding explanations, of which we give a sketch in the following recapitulation : 08 ' CO.AIMEXTAUV OX ST. LUKE, 1. The imffcl announces to Mtiry the birth of Jesus (Luke 1). 2. Mary, after or "without havini^ sptjken to Joseph, goes to EMzabelh (Luke 1). 3. After her lelurn, Joseph falls into the state of perplexily frc m which lie is delivered by the message (if the angel (Malt. 1). 4. He lakes Mary ostensibly for his wife (Matt. 1). 5. ITerod s order, carrying out the decree of Augustus, leuds them to Bethlehem (Luke 2). G, Jes'as is bora (Malt. 1 : Luke 2) 7. His parents present Him in the temple (Luke 2). 8, On their return to Bethlehem, they receive the visit of the magi and escape into Egypt (Matt, 2) 9 Returned from Egypt, they give up the idea of settling at Beth- lehem, and determine once move to fi.\ their abode at Naza-etli. Only one condition is requu'cd in (;rder to accept this etl'ort to harmonize Ihe two accounts — naaiely, the supposition thai each writer was ignorant of the other's nar- rative But this suppcsiticn is a-.owtd by even Ihe most decided adversaiies of anj"- attempt at harmony — such, for instance, as Keim, who, although he believes that Luke in composing his Gospel made use of Matthew, is nevertheless of opinion that ilietiist two chapters of Matthew's writing were not in existence at Ihe time when xjuke availed himself of it for the composition of his own. If the solution proposed doer? not satisfy the leader, and he thinks he must choose between the two writings, it will certainly be more natuial to suspect the nariative of Illatthew, because it has no proper historical aim. But further, it will only lie light, in estimating the value of the facts related by this evangelist, to remember that the more forced in some cases appears the connection which he maintains between the facts he mentions and the propuecies he applies to them, the less probable is it that llie former were invented on the foundation of the latter. Such incidents as the journey into Egypt and the massacre of the children must have been well-ascer- tained facts before any one would think of tiuding a prophetic announcement of Ihem in the words of Hosea and Jeremiah, which the author quotes and applies to them We pass on to other parts of the N. T. Meyer maintains that certain facts sub- sequently related by the synoptics themselves are incompatible with the reality of the miraculous events of the mfancy How could the brethren of Jesus, acquainted "with these prodigies, refuse to believe in their brother ? How could even Mary herse.f share their unbelief ? (Mark 3 ; 21, 81 ei seq. ; Matt. 12 : 46 et srg. ; Luke 8 19 ct scq. , comp. John 7 ; 5.) In reply, it may be said that we do not know how far Mary could communicate to her sons, at any rate befoie the time of Jesus' ministry, these extraordinary circumstances, which touched on very delicate matters affecting herse.f. Besides, jealousy and prejudice m'ght easily counteract any im- pression produced by facts of which they had not been witnesses, and induce them to think, notwithstanding, that Jesus was taking a wrong course. Did not John the Baptist himself, although he had given public testimony to Jesus, as no one would venture to deny, feel his faith shaken in view of the unexpected course which His work took ? and did not this cause him to be offended in Him ? (Matt. 11 : 6.) As to Mary, there is nothing to prove that she shared the unbeliet of her sous. If she accompanies them when they go to Jesus, intending to lay hold upon Him (Mark o), it is probably from a feeling of anxiety as to what might lake place, and from a de- sire to prevent the conflict she anticipates. Keim alleges the omission of the naira- tives of the infan-y in Slark and John. These two evangelists, it is true, make tiiu Etarting-point of Iheir nariative on this side of these facts. Mark opens his with tlic ministry of the foreiunner, which he regards as the true commencement of that of GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON (HATS. I. AND II. 1)9 Jesus.* But it does not follow from this that he denies all (lie])reviouscircuinst:inces ■which lie does not relate. All that this lU'oves is, Uiat the oriiiiiial ai)ostnIic preacliiog, of which this Gospel is the simplest reproduction, went no furtiier back ; and fortius /nunifest reason, that this preiiehiug was based on the tradition ot the aposlles as eye- witnesses (avToirrai, 1:2; Acts 1 : 21, 22 ; John 15 : 27), and that the personal testi- mony of tlie apostles did not go back as far us the early period of the life of Jesus. It is doubtless for the same reason that Paul, in his enumeration of the leslimouies lo the resurrection of Jesus, omits that of the women, because lie regards the testimony of the apostles and of thi3 Church gathered about them us the only suitable basis fur (he ollicial instruction of the Church. John commences his narrative at the hour of (he birth of his own faith, which simply proves that the design of his work is to trace the history of the development of his own faith and of that of his fellow-dit^cipies. All that occurred pret-ious to this time— tlie baptism of Jesus, the temptation— he leaves untold ; but he does not on that accoviut deny these facts, for he himself alludes to (he baptism of Jesus. Keim goes further, lie maintains that there are to be found in the N. T. three theones as to the origin of the peison of Chiist, which are exclusive of each other : First. That of the purely natural birth ; this Avould be the true view of the apus'les tmd piimilive Cliuich. which was held by the Ebionitisli communilies (Cltnient, Ilomil.). This being found insufficient to explain such a remaikable se(inci as the life of Jesus, it must have been supplemented afterward by the legend of the descent of the Hjly Spirit at the baptism. JScond. That of the miraculous birth, held by part of the Jewish-Christian communities and the Kazarene churches, and proceeding from an erroneous Messianic application of Isa. 7. This theory is found in Die Gos- pel of Luke and in jMatl. 1 and 2. Third. The theory of the pre existence of Jesus as a divine being, originated in the Greek churches, of which Paul and John are the principal representatives. To this we reply : Firs'. Tlial it cannot be proved that the apostolic and primitive doctrine was that of the natural birth. Certain words are cited in proof which are put by the evange- lists in the mouth of the people : " Is not this the carpenter's sou V" (Matt. 13 ; 5o : Luke 4 : 22 ; comp. John 6 ; 42) ; next the words uf the Apostle Philip in John • " We have found . . . Jesus of Kazarelh, the son of Josepli" (John 1 ; 45). T'.ie absence of all piotest on the part of John against this assertion of Philip's is regarded as a confirmation of the fact that he himself admitted its truth. But who could with any reason be surprised that, on the day after Jesus made the acquaintance of His first disciples. Philip should still be ignorant of the miraculous birth ? Was Jesns to hasten to (ell this fact to those who saw Him for the first time ? Was there nothing more urgent to teach these young hearts just opening lo His influence ? Who cannot understand wln-^ Jesus should allow the words of the people to pass, without an- nouncing such a fact as this to these cavilling, mocking Jews ? Jesus testifies before all what He has seen with His Father by the inward sense, and not outward facts which He had from the fallible lips of others. Above all. He very well knew that it was not faith in His miraculous iiirth that would produce faith in His person ; on the contrary, that it was only faith in His person that would induce any one to admit the miracle of His birth. He saw that, to i)tit out before a hostile and profane people * These words, T/ic ber/inninr/ of i/ie Gospel of JeKus Ckrisf, the Son of Qod (Mark 1 : 1). appear \n me to be in logical apposition with the subsequent account of the miiii>-lr} of John (■'> . 4). " 100 COMMENTAKY OX ST. LUKE. an assertion like lliis, wliicli He could not possibly prove, would only draw forth a flood of coarse ridicule, which would fall directly on tliat revered person who was more concerned in this history even than Himself, and that without the least advan- tage to the faith of any one. Certainly this was a case for the application of the pre- cept, Cast not your ptarlii before swine, if you would not have them i^r/'/i again and rend you. Tliis observation also explains the sileuce of the apostles on this point in the Acts of the Apostles. They could not have done anything more ill-advised thiui to rest the controversy between the Jews and Christ on such a ground. If John does not rectify (he statements of the people and of Philip, the reason is, that he wrote for the Church already formed and sufficiently instructed. His personal conviction appears from the following facts : He admitted the human birth, for he speaks several times of His mother. At the same time he regarded natural birth as the means of the transmission of sin: "That wliicli is born of the flesh is flesh." And never- theless he regarded this Jesus, born of a human mother, as the Holy One of Ood, and the bi-ead that came doicn from lieaven ! Is it possible that he did not attribute an ex- ceptional character to His birth ? As to Mark, we do not, with Bleek, rely upon the name Son of Mary, which is given to .Jesus by the people of Nazareth (G : 3) ; this appellation in their mouth does nut imply a belief in the miraculous birth. But in the expression, .Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1 : 1), the latter title certain implies more, in the author's mind, than the simple notion of Messiah ; this, in fact, was already sufficiently expressed by the name Chiist. There can be no doubt, therefore, that this term implies in 3Iark a relation of mysterious Sonship between the person of Jesus and the Divine Being.* All these passages quoted by Kcim only prove what is self-apparent, that the notion of the natural birth of Jesus was that of the Jewish people, and also of the apostles in the early days of their faith, before they received fuller information. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that it remained the idea of the Ebionitish churches, which never really broke with the Israel ilisli past, but were contented to apply 1o Jesus the popular notion of the Jewish Messiah. Eeim also linds a trace of this alleged primitive theory in the two genealogies con- tained in Luke and Matthew. According to him, these documents imply, l)y their very nature, that those who drew them up held the idea of a natural birth. For Avhat interest could they have had in giving the genealogical tree of Joseph, unless they had regarded him as the father of the Messiah ? Further, in order to make ihese documents square with their new theory of the miraculous birth, the two evangelists have been obliged to subject them to arbitrary revision, as is seen in the appendix «; ?/5 . . . Matt. 1 : 16, and in the parenthesis ur houi^sro, Luke 3 : 23. It is very possible, indeed, that the original documents, reproduced in Matt. 1 and Luke 3, were of .Jewish origin : they were probably the same public registers ( diAroi t^riuoriaL) from which the historian Josephus asserts that his own genealogy was taken. f It is perfectly obvious that such documents could contain no indication of the mirac- ulous birth of .Jesus, if even thev went dnwn to Him. But how could this fact fur- nish a proof of the primitive opinion of the Church about the birth of its Head ? It is in these genealogies, as revised and completed by Christian historians, that we must seek the sentiments of the primitive Church respecting the person of her Master. And this is precisely what we find in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tiie former, * If the Sinaiticus suppresses it, this is one of the numberless omissions, resulting from the negliirence of the copyist, with which this manuscript abounds, f " Jos. Vila," c. i. GENERAL CONSlDKliATIONS OX ClIAl'S. I. AM) H. 101 ir dfmonslruting. by the i^cncaloiry whicih lie presents to us, tlie Davidic sotiship of Joseph, ileelares that, as legaids Jesus, this ba:iie Joseph suslaiiis pari of the adop- tive, legal falher. The exliaet from the iiuhhe legisters wliieh llie sLCoiid hands dowu is not another edition of that of Juseph, iu eoulnulietion with tiie former ; it is llie genealogy of Levi, the father of Mary (see 1 : 28). In iransndlling tiiis document. Luke is careful to observe that the opinion which made Jesus the son of Joseph was oidy a popular prejudice, and that the relationship of which he here indicates the links is the only leal one. These are not, therefore, Jewish-Christian materials, us Keim maiulains. but purely Jewish ; and the evangelists, when inserting them into their writings, have imprinted on them, each after his own manner, the Christian seal. Keim reUes further on the silence of Paul respecting the miraculous birth. But is he really silent ? Cm it be maintained that the exprtssion, Kom. 1:3, "made of the seed of David according to the flesh," was intended by Paul to describe the entire fact of the human birth of Jesus ? Is it not clear that ihe words, accvrdiitfj to the flesh, are a restriction expressly designed to indicate another side to this fact, the action of another factor, called iu the following clause the spirit of holiness, by which lie explains the miracle of the resurrection? The notion of the miraculous birth appears equally indispensable to explain the antithesis, 1 Cor. 15:47: "The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second, from heaven." But whatever else he is, Paul is a man of logical mind. How then could he affirm, on the one hand, the hereditary transmission of sin and death b}' natural generation, as he does in Rom. 5 : 13, and ou the other the truly luiman birth of Jesus (Gal. 4 : 4), whom he regards as the Holy One, if, iu his view, the birth of this extraordinary man was not of an exceptional character? Only, as this fact could not, from its very nature, become the subject of apostolical testimony, nor for (hat reason enter into gent ral preaching, Paul does not include it among the elements of the -nafmSoati whicu he enumerates, 1 Cor. 15 : 1 et seq. And if he does not make any special dogmatic use of it, it is because, as we have observed, the miraculous birth is only the negative condilion of the holiness of Jesus ; its positive condition is, and must be, his voluntary obedience ; consequently it is this that Paul pailicularly brings out (Rom. 8 : 1-A). These reasons apply to the other didactic wiitings of the N. T. Second. It is arbitrary' to maintain that the narrative of the descent of the Hnly Spirit is only a later complement of the theory of the natural birth. Is not this nar- rative found in two of our synoptics by the side of that of the supernatural birth? And yet this is only a compicment of the theory of the natural birth ! Further, in all these synoptics alike, it is found rloseli' and organically connected with two other facts, the ministry of John and the temptation, which proves that these three narra- tives foimed a very firmly connected cycle in the evangelical tradition, and belonged to the very earliest preaching. Third. The idea of the pre-existence of Je^us is in no way a rival theory to that of the miraculous biith ; on the contrary, the former implies the latter as its necessary element. It is the idea of the natural birth which, if we think a little, appears in- compatible with that, of ihe incarnation. M. Secretan admirably says : " JIan repre- sens the principle of individuality, of progress ; woman, tliatof traditi.m, generalit3% species. The Saviour could not be the son of a particular man ; He behoved to be the son of humanit}', the Son of man." * * " La Raison et le Christianisrae," pp. 259 and 277. 102 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Fourth. So fur from tliere beiug iu the N. T. writings traces of three opposite theories on this poiut, the real state of the case is this : The disciples set out, just as the Jewish people did, with the idea of an ordinary birth ; it was the natural suppo- siliun (John 1 : 45). But as they came to understand tlie proplietic testimony, which malcea the .Messiah the supreme manifestation of Jehovah, and the testimony of Jesus Himself, which constantly implies a divine baci^grouud to His human existence, they suon rose to a knowledge of the God-man, whose human existence was preceded by His divine existence. This step was taken, in the consciousness of the Chuich, a quarter of a century after the death of Jesus. The Epistles of Paid are evidence of it (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1 • 15-17 ; Phil. 2 : 6, 7) Lastly, the mode of transition from the divine existence to the human life, the fact of the miraculous birth, entered a little later into the sphere of the ecclesiastical world, by means of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, about Ihiity-five or forty years after the departure of the Saviour. 111. Connection between these Narratioes and the Chriistian Fadh in general. — The miraculous birth is immediately and closely connected with the perfect holiness of Christ, which is the basis of the Christology ; so much s:), that whoever denies the former of these miracles must necessaiiiy be led to deny the latter; and whoever accepts the second cannot fail to fall back on the first, which is indeed implied in it. As to the objection, that even if the biblical nariative of the miraculnus birtli is accepte.1, it is impossible to explain how it was that sin was not communicated to Jesus through His mother, it has been already answered (p. 95). The nuraculous biith is eijually inseparable from the fact of the incarnation. It is true that the first may ije admitted and the second rejected, but the reverse is impossible. The neces- sity for an exceptional mode of birth results from the pre-existence (p. IGO). But here we confront the great objection to the miraculous birth : What becomes, from this point of view, of the real and proper liumanity of the Saviour ? Can it be recon- ciled with this exceptional mode of birth ? " The conditions of existence being differ- ent from ours," says Keim, " equality of nature no longer exists. " But, we would ask those who reason in this way, do you admit the theories of Vogt respecting the origin of the human race ? Do you make man proceed from the brute ? If nut, then you admit a creation of the human race ; and in this case you must acknowledge that the conditions of existence in the case of the first couple were quite diffeient from ours. Do you, on this ground, deny the full and real humanity of the first man? But to deny the human character to the being from whom has pioceeded by way of generation, that is to say, by llie transmission of his own nature, all that is called man, would be absurd. Identity of nature is possible, therefore, notwithstanding a difference in the mode of origin. To understand this fact completely, we need to have a complete insight into the relation of the individual to the species, which is the most unfalhoniable secret of nature. But there is something here still more serious. Jesus is not only the coutinuator of human nature as it already exists ; He is the elect of God, by whom it is to be renewed and raised to its destined perfectiun. In Him is accomplished the new creation, which is the true end of the old. This work of a higher nature can only take place in virtue of a fresh and immediate contact of creative power with human nature. «■' Keim agrees with this up to a certain point ; for while holding the paternal concurrence in the birth of this extraordinary man, he admits a divine interposition which profoundly influenced and completely sancti- fied the appearance of this Being.* This attempt at explanation is an homage * " Gesch. Jcsu," t. i. pp. 357, 358. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON CHAPS. I. AND II. ] 03 renrieri'd to the incompanible moral grcafuess of Jesus, aud we think it ]caves iiu- touchud the great object of faith — Jesus Christ's dignity as the Saviour. But must we not retort upon this explanation the objection wliich Iveini brings against tiie two niitions of the pre-existence and tlie superualural birlli : "These are theories, not fads estabJisiied bj' any documents !" If it is al)solute]y necessary to acknowjedire tliat Jesus was a man specitiraJiy dillerent from all others,* and if, in order to exi»lain tills plienomenou, it is iudispensal)Ie to stipulate, as Keim really does, for an excep- tional mode of origin, then why not keep to tlie positive statements of our Gospels, which satisfy this demand, rather than tlirow ourselves upon pure speculation ? IV. Origin of the KarratiKca of the Infancy. — The difference of style, so absolute and abrupt, between Luke's preface (1 : 1-4) and the foHowiug narratives, leaves no room for doubt that from 1 : 5 the author makes use of documents of which he scru- pidousl}' preserves the very form. What were these documents? According to Sclileierniiiclier, they were brief family records which the compiler of tiie Gos{)el contented himself with connecting together in such a way as to form a continuous narrative. But the modes of conclusion, and the general views which appear as recurring topics, in which Schlelermacher sees the proof of Iiis hypolhesis, on the contrary upset it. For these brief summaries, by their resemblance and correspond- ence, prove a unity of composition in the entire narrative. Volkmar regards the sources of these narratives as some originally Jewish materials, into which tiie anthnr has infused his own Pauline feeling. According to Keim, their source would lie (he great Ebionilish writing which constitutes, in his opinion, the original trunk of our Gospel, on which the author set himself to graft his Paulinism. These two suppo- sitions come to the same thing. We are certainly ."Struck with tlie twofold chaiacler of these narratives ; there is a spirit of prolDuud and scrupulous fidelity to Hie law, side by side with a not less marked universalist tendencj'. But are these reully two currents of contrary origin ? I think not. The (dd covenant already cnnlnitied iiicsi; two currents — one strictly legal, the other to a great extent universalist. L'niver.sal- ism is even, properly speaking, the primitive current ; legalism was only added to i*^ afterward, if it is true that Abraham preceded Moses. Tlie uatratives of the infancy reflect simply and faithfully this twofold character ; for they exhibit to us the normal transition from the old to the new covenant. If the so-called Pauline element had been introduced into it subsequently, it would have taken away mucli more ol the original tone, and would not appear organically united willi it ; aud if it were only the product of a party mauccuvre, its pnlemical character could not have been so com- pletely disguised. These two elements, as they present themselves in these narra- tives, in no way prove, Uierefore, two sources of an opjiosite ixdigious nature. The true explanation of tlie oiigiu of Luke's and iMatthew's narrative ajipcars to me to be found in the following fact. In IMalthew, Joseph is Hie principal persou- age. It is to him that the angel appears ; he comes to calm his perplexities ; it is to him that the name of .Jesus is notified and explained. If the picture of the infancy be reiiresented, as in a stereoscope, in a twofold form, in Matthew it is seen on tlio side of .Joseph : in Luke, on the contrary, it is Mari' who assumes the principal part. It K she who receives the visit of tiie angel ; to her is communicated the name of the chil 1 ; her private feelings are brought out in tiie narrative ; it is she wlio is pronn- neut in the address of Simeon and in tlie iiistory of the search for the child. The picture is the same, but it is taken this time on Mary's side. * " Gcsch. Jesu," t. i. p. 3.59. 104 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. From this we can draw no other conclusion than that the two cycles of narratives emanate from two dilferent centres. One of these was the circle of which Joseph wa« the centre, and which we may suppose consisted of Cleopas his brother, James and Jude his sons, of whom one was the first bishop of the flock at Jerusalem ; and Simeon, a son of Cleopas, the first successor of James. The narratives preserved among these persons might easily reach the ear of the author of the first Gospel, who douDlless lived in the midst of this flock ; and his Gospel, which, far more than Luke's, was the record of the official preaching, was designed to reproduce rather that side of thajacts which up to a certain point already belonged to the public. But a cycle of narratives must also have formed itself round Mary, in the retreat in which she ended her career. These narratives would have a much more prieate character, and would exhibit more of the inner meaning of the external facts. These, doubtless, are thos« which Luke has preserved. How he succeeded in obtaining access to this source of information, to which he probably alludes in the avuOev (1 : 3), we do not know. But it is certain that the nature of these narratives was better suited to the private character of his work. Does not Luke give us a glimpse, as it were de- signedly, of this incomparable source of information in the remarks (2 : 19, and 50, 51) Tv'hich, from any other point of view, could hardly be anything else than a piece of charlatanism ? We think that these two cycles of narratives existed for a certain time — the one as a public traditi(m, the other as a family souvenir, in a purely oral form. The author of the first Gospel was doubtless the first who drew up the former, adapting it to the didactic aim which he proposed to himself in his work. The latter was originally iu Aramaean, and under any circumstances could only have been drawn up, as we have shown, after the termination of the ministry of Jesus. It was in this form that Luke found it. He translated it, and inserted it in his work. The very songs had been faithfully preserved until then. Forthis there was no need of the stenograplier. Mary's heart had preserved all ; the writer himself testifies as much, and he utters no vain words. The deeper feelings are, the more indelibly graven on the soul are the llioxights which embody them ; and the recollection of tlie peculiar expressions in which they find utterance remains indissolubly linked with the recollection of the thoughts them- selves. Every one has verified this experience in the graver moments of his life. Lastly, in the question which now occupies our attention, let us not forget to bear in mind the importance which these narratives possessed in the view of the two writ- ers who have handed them down to us. They wrote seriously, because they were believers, and wrote to win the faith of the world. CHAP. III. : 1. 105 SECOiND PAl I THE AD YEN T OF THE MESSIAH. Chap. 3 : 1 ; 4 : 13. Fon eighteen years Jesus lived unknown in tlie seclusidn of Nazareth. His feliow-lownsmen, recalling this period of His life, designate Iliiu the carpenter (Mark G : 3). Justin iVlartjT — deriving the fact, doubtless, from tradition — represents Jesus as making ploughs and yokes, and teaching men rigliteousness by these products of Ilis peaceful toil.* Beneath the veil of tl:is life of humble toil, an inward development was arcom|ilished, which resulted in a state of perfect receptivity for the measureless communication of the Divine Spirit, This result was attained just when Jesus reached the climacteric of human life, the age of thirtJ^ when both sou! and body cnj.iy tl)e higliest degree of vilalily, antl are fitted to become the perfect organs of a higher inspiration. The forerunner then having given the signal Jesus left Ilis ob- scurity to accomplish the task which had pi'esented itself to Him for the first time in the temple, when He was twelve years of age, as the ideal of His life — the establish- ment of the kingdom of God on the eartli. Here begins the second phase of His e.x- istcnce, during which He gave forth what He had received in tJie first. This transition from private life to public activity is the subject of the following part, which comprises four sections : 1, The ministry of John the Haptist (3 , 1-20) , 2. Tiie baptism of Jesus (vers. 21, 22) ; 8. The geneah)gy (vers. 23-38) ,■ 4. The temp- tation (4 : 1-13). The corresponding part in the two other synoptics embraces only numbers 1, 2, and 4. "We shall have no difficulty in perceiving tlie connenlion be- tween these three sections, and the reason which induced St. Luke to intercaliitt tho fourth. FIRST NARRATIVE. — CHAP. 3 : 1-20. TJie Miniistry of John the Baptist. We already know from 1 : 77 why the Messiah was to have a forerunner. A mis- taken notion of salvation had taken possession of Israel. It was necessary that a man clothed with divine authority should restore it to its purity before the Messiah labored to accomplish it. Perhaps no more stirring character is presented in sacred history than that of John the Baptist. The people are excited at iiis appearing ; their con- sciences are aroused ; mullitudes flock to him. The entire nation is filled Avith solemn expectation ; and just at the moment when this man has only to speak the word to make himself the centre of this eulire movement, he not only refrains from saying this word, but he pronounces another. He directs all the eager glances that * " Dial. c. Try ph." c. 88. 106 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. were fixed ui)on himself to One coining after him, whose sandals he is not worthy to cany. Then, as soon as liis succt^ssor has appeared, he retires to the background, and gives enthusiastic expression to liis joy at seeing himself eclipseil. Criticism is fertile in resources of every kind ; but with this unexampled moral phenomenon to account for, it will find it difficult to give any satisfactory explanation of it, without appealing to some factor of a higher order. Luke begins by framing the fact which he is about to relate in a general outline of the history of the time (vers. 1 and 2). He next describes the personal appearance of John the Baptist (vers. 3-6) ; he gives a summary of his preaching (vers. 7-18) ; and he finishes with an anticipatory account of his imprisonment (vers. 19, 20). 1 Vers 1 and 2 * In this conci.se description of the epoch at which John ap- peared, Luke begins with the largest sphere — that of the empi e. Then, by a natural transition furnished by his reference to the representative of imperial power in Judaea, he passes to the special domain of the people of Israel ; and he shows us the II:)ly Land divided into four distinct states. After having thus described the political situation, he sketches in a word the ecclesiastical and religious position, which biiugs him to his subject. It cannot be denied that there is considerable skill in this pre- amble. Among the evangelists, Luke is the true historian. And first the empire. Augustus died on the 19th of August of the year 7G7 u.c, corresponding to the year 14 and 15 of our era. If Jesus was born in 749 or 750 u.c, He must have been at this time about eighteen years of age. At the death of Augustus, Tiberius had already, for two years past, shared his throne. The fifleenlU year of his reigu may consequently be reckoned, either from the time wlxCii he began to share the sovereignty with Augustus, or from the time when he began toieign alone, upon the death of the latter. Tlie Roman historians generally date the reign of Tiberius from the time when he began to reign alone. According to this mode of reckoning, the fifteenth year would be the year of Rome 781 to 782, that is to say, 38 to 29 of our era. But at this time Jesus would be already thirtj'-two to fhiity- Ihree years of a^e, which would be opposed to the statement 3 : 23, according t.j which He was only thirty years old at the time of His baptism, toward the end of John's ministry. According to the other mode of reckoning, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius would be the year of Rome 779 to 780. 26 to 27 of our era. Jesus would be about twenty-nine years old when John the Baptist appealed ; and suppos- ing that the puidic ministry of the latter lasted six months or a year, He would be about thirty years of age wdieu He received l)aptism from him. In this way agreement is established between the two chronological data, 3 : 1 and 23. It has long been maintained that this last mode of reckoning, as it is foreign to the Runuui writers, could only be attributed to Luke to meet the requirements of harmonists. Wieseler, however, has just proved, by inscriptions and medals, that it prevailed in the East, and particularly at Antioch,f whence Luke appears originally to have come, and where he certainly resided for some time. * Ver, 1 !S* omits iTovoaiai; . . . Avaavfov (confusion of the two ttjc). Vor. 2. Instead of aoxtsueup, which is the reading of T. R. with some Mnn. Iipi*^'-'M"e. Vg. all the Mjj., etc, read apxufiEuS. f " Beitrage zur richtigen Wiirdigung der Evangelien," etc., 1869, pp. 101-194. As to seeing, with him. in the terms Kalaao (instead of Augustus) and iiyefiov^n (in- stead of uovnox'ta) proofs of the co-regency of Tiberius, these are subtleties in which it is impossible for us to follow this scholar. ( iiAi'. 111. : 1. 107 Tiio circle utirroT^s. "We return to the Holy Land. The title of Pontius Pilate was propcily iiiTpoiTiii, procurator. Tluit of yye/auv belouyed to llie superior, the govcruor of Syria. i>ut as, in Judtca, tlie military ooniiuand was j.iiucd to tlic civil autiioiity, tlie pruouraior had a ri.iflil to the title of yytmJv. Upon the depiivaliou of Aichciaus, son ot Herod, in the year G of our era, Judiea was united to tlie cai[)ire. It tuimed, with Samaria and Idumea, one of the districts of the province of Syria. Pilate was its fifth governor. He airived there in the year 36, or sooner, in the autumn of the year 25 of our era ; thus, in any case, a very short time before the niini.«-tri' of John the Baptist. He remained in power ten years. Ilerod, in his will, made a division of his kingdom. The first share was given to Aichelaus, with the title of ethnarch — an inferior title to thai of king, but superior to that of tctrarch. This share soou passed to the Romans. Tlie second, which com- piised Galilee and the Pera'a, was that of Ilerod Aulii)as. Tlie title of Ictrarch, given to this prince, signifies properly soccniffn of a fourth. It was then employed as a designation for dependent petty princes junong whom had been shared (originally in fourths*) ctrlain territories previousl}' united under a single scei)lrc. Ilerod Aritipas reigned for forty-two years, until the year oU of our era. The entire ministry of our Loid was therefore accomplished in his reign. The third share was Philip's, another son of Ilerod, who had the same title as Antipas. It embraced Ituiaja (Dschedui), a country situated to the south-east of the Libanus, but not mentioned by Josephus among the states of Philip, and in addition, Trachonitis and Balanaja. Philip reigned o7 years, until the year 3-i of our era. If the title of teirarch be taken in its etymo- logical sense, this term would imply that Ilerod had made a fourth share of his stales ; and this would nalurally be that which Luke here designates b}^ the name of Aliilene, and which he assigns to Lysanias. Abila was a town situated to the north- west of Damascus, at the foot of the xVnti-Libanus. Half a century before the time of which we are wiiliug, there reigned in this country a certain Lysanias, the son and successor of Ptolemy king of Chalcis. This Lysanias was assassinated Ihirtj'^-six years before our era by Antony, who gave a part of his dominions to Cleopalra.f His heritage then passed into various hands. Profane history mentions no Lysanias afier that one ; and Sirauss is eager to accuse Luke of having, by a gross error, made Lysanias live and reign .sixty years after his death. Keim forms an equally un- favorable estimate of the statement of Luke.| But while we possess no positive pi oof establishing Ihe existence of a Lysanias posterior to the one of v.'hom Josephus speaks, we ought at least, before accusing Luke of such a serious error, to take into consideration the following facts : 1. The ancient Lysanias bore the title of king, which Antony had given him (Dion Cassius, xlix. 32), and not the very inferior title of tetrareh.s^ 2. He only reigned from four to five years ; and it would be diflinult to understand how, after such a short possession, a century afterward, had Abilene even belonged to him of old, it should still have borne for this sole reasim, in all the historians, the name of Abilene of Ly.sanias (Jos. Anliq. xviii. G. 10, xix. 5. 1, etc. ; Ptolem. V, 18). 3. A medal and an inscription found by Pococke \ mention a * Wiescler, work cited, p. 204. + .Jos. " Anliq." xiv. 7. 4 ; "Bell. Jud." i. 9. 2 ; '• Antiq." xv. 4. 1. xiv. 13. 3. ; " In the tiiird ttlrarch, Lysanias of Abilene, Luke introduces a personage who. did not exist" (" Gesch. Jesu," I. i. p. GlH). ^ Not one of the numerous passages cited by Keim (i. p. 01!), note) proves the con- trary. I " Morgenlaud," ii. 177. 108 COMMKNTAUY OX ST, LUKE, Lysanias tetrarch and high priest, titles which do not naturally apply to the ancirnt king Lysaiiius. From all these facts, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude, wilh several interpreters, that there was a younger Lysanias— a descendant, doubt- less, of the precediug — who possessed, not, as his ancestor did. Die entire kingdom of Chalcis, but simply tbe tetrarchate of Abilene. This natural supposition ma}^ at tlie present day be asserted as u fact.* Two inscriptions recently deciphered prove : 1. That at the ver}^ time when Tiberius was co-regent v.-ith Ausrustus, there actually existed a tetrarch Lysanias. For it was a freedman of this Lysanias, named Tsym- plia3us (Nv/j(i)aioS . . . Avaaviov rerpilpx^iv a7T€AEv0etJO(,), who had executed some con- siderable works to which one of these inscriptions refers ^oeckh's Corbus inscript, Gr, No. 4521). 2. That this Lysanias was a descendant of the ancient Lysanias. -f This may be inferred, with a probability verging on certaintj', from the terms of the other inscription : " and to the sons of Lysanias" (Ibid. No. 4523). Augustus took pleasure in restoring to the children what his rivals had formerly taken away from tlieir fathers. Thus the young Jamblichus, king of Eniesa, received from him the inheritance of his father of the same name, slain by Antony. In the same way, also, was restored to Archelaus of Cappadocia a part of Cilicia, which had former!}" be- longed to his father of tlie same name. Why shoulil not Augustus ha^e done as much for the young Lysanias, whose ancestor had been shun and deprived t)y An- tony? That this country should be here considered by Lul inslond of e-rvripuTDV. Almost ail the Mjj., n'e three Syn. But the preamble, ver. 15, is peculiar to Luke. It is a brief and striking sketch of the gen- eral excitement and lively expectation awakened hy .John's ministry. The uwaaiv of the T. R. c ntains the idea of a solemn gathering ; but this scene is not the same as that of John 1 : 19, et seq., which did not take place till after the baptism of .Tesus. In his answer .John asserts two things: first, that he is not the Messiaii ; second, that the Messiah is following liini close at hand. The art 6 before laxviwrcjioi denotes diis personage as expected. To unloose the sandals of the master when he came in (Luke and Mark), or rather to bring them to him (iSaardaai., Matt.) when he was dis- posed to go out, was the duty of the lowest class of slav. s. Mark expresses its menial fiharacter in a dramatic way : Kvxjia; Xmai, to stoop down and unloose. Each evangelist has thus his own shade of thought. If one of them had copied from the other, these changes, which would be at once purposed and insignificant, would be puerile. 'I/capof may be applied either to physical or intellectual capacity, or to moral diguit3^ It is taken in the latter sense here. The pronoun avroZ briugs out prominently the personality of the Messiah. The preposition h, which had not been employed before viarL, is added before ■Kvevjj.ari ; the Spirit cannot be treated as a simple means. One * Ver. 16. !*. B. L., -rraan instead of mraffiy. Ver. 17. J** 13, a. e. Heracleon, ^laKuOnpai instead of Kai (hnKaOapiei, \vhich is the reading of T. K., witli all the oHier Mjj. and all the Mnn. ii"' B. c., owayayeiv instead of awa^ei, which all the others read. CHAP. III. : JS-20. 115 baptizes wilh water, but not with the Spirit. If the pardon grauteil in llic baptism of water was not followed by the l)aplism of tiic Spirit, sin would soon regain the upper band, and the pardon would be speedily annulled (Matt. 18 : 33-25). But let the baptism of the Spirit be added to the baptism of water, and tin n the pardon is con- firmed i»y the renevval of the heart and life. Almost all modern interpreters apply the leim J/^c' to the consuming ardor of the judgment, according to ver. 17, the fire ichich is lud (jncnclied. IJut if there was such a marked contrast between the two expressi.ms Spirit and //'t, the preposition iv must liave been repeated before the latter. Therefore there can only be a shade of dillerence between these two terms. Tlie Spirit and tire both denote the same divine principle, but in two diU'erent rela- tions with human nature : the tirst, inasmuch as taking possession of all in the nat- ural man that is lilted to enter into the kingdom of God, and consecrating it to this end ; the second — the image of fire is introduced on account of its contrariness to the water of baptism— inasmuch as consuming everytlung in the old nature that is out of harmony with the divine kingdom, and destined to perish. The Spirit, in this latter relation, is indeed the principle of judgment, but of an altogether internal judgment. It is the fire symbolized on the day of Pentecost. As to the fire of ver. 17, it is expressly opposed to that of ver. IG by the e])itliet ua^haTov, which is not quenched. AVhnever refuses to be baptized with the fire of holiness, will be exposed to the fire of wrath. Comp. a similar transition, but in an inverse sense, Mark 9 : 48, 4!). John liad said, sJiaU b(ipfi-e you (ver. 10). Since thts you applied solely to the penitent it contained the idea of a sifting process going on among the people. This sifting is described in the seventeenth verse. The tlireshmg-floor among the ancients was an unovered place, where the corn, spread out upon the hardened ground, was trodden by oxen, which were sometimes 3'oked to a sledge. The straw was burned upon the spot ; the corn was gathered into the garner. This garner, in .Tohn^ th/iughl, re[)re- sents the Messianic kingdom, the Church in fact, "the earlieit^lilstorical form of this kihgrtTTTn; irrrirwhich all believing Israelites will be gathered. Jewish presumption made the line of demarcation which separates the elect from the condemned pass between Israel and tlie Gentiles ; John makes it pass ncrosti the theocracy itself, of which the threshing-fioor is the symbol. This is the force of the Jw in ihaKafjapiei. Jesus expresses Himself in exactly the same sense, John 3 : 18, ei seq. The judgment of the nation and of the individual are here mingled together, as in ver. 9 ; behind the national chastisement of the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people, is placed in the background the judgment of Individuals, under another dispensation. Tlie readings (^inKuOdpai and awayaydv, in order to purifi/, in order to gather, cannot be admitted. They rather weaken the force of this striking ])assage ; the authority of ». B. and of the two documents of the Italic are not sufficient ; lastly, the future KaruKamei, which must be in opposition to a preceding future (lU), conies in too abruptly. The pronoun airoi). twice repeated ver. 17 {Ilin threshing-floor. His garner), leaves no doubt about the divine dignity which John attributed to the ^Messiah. The theocracy lielongs to Jehovah. Comp. the expression, 7/w temple, 'Ma]. 8 : 1. 4. Vers. 18-20.*— We find here one of those general surveys such as we have in 1 : GO, 80 ; 2 : 40, 53. For the third time the lot of the forerunner becomes the pre- lude to that of the Saviour. The expression miny other things (ver. 18) confirms what * Ver. 19. The T. R., with A. C. K. X. n. many Mnn. Svr., adds, before rov ai^i:/ come to liis baptism, and bidding tiiem act with justice toward each otlier, and with piety toward God ; for their baptism would please God if ihey did not use it to justify themselves from any sin they had (committed, but to obtain purity of body after their souls had l,een previously purified i)y rigliteousness. And when a great niuMitude of peo])le came to him, and weie deeplv moved by his discourses, Herod, fearing lest he might use his iufiuence to urge tliein to revolt — for he well knew that tiiey would do whatever he advised thera-^thouglit that the liest course for him to take was to put him to death before he attempted anything of the kind. So he put him in chains, and sent him to the castle of Machaerus, and there put him to death. The .Jews, therefote, were convinced that his army was destroyed as a punishment for this murder, God being incensed against Herod." Tiiis account, while altogether independent of the evangelist's, confirms it in all the essential pr)ints : the extraor- dinary appearance of this person of such remarkable sanctity ; the rite of baptism introduced by him; his surname, the Bapiid ; John's protest against the use of baptism as a mere opus operatnm ; liis energetic exhortations; the general excite- ment ; the imprisonment and murder of John ; and further, the criminal marriage of Herod, related in what precedes. By the side of these essential. jxiinls, common to the two narratives, there are some secoudary differences : " First. Josephus makes no CHAP. III. : 21, 23. 117 monliin of tlie Messianic element in the preacliini^ of John. But in this tlierc is nolliiiig surp-ising. This silence proceetls from liie same cause as that which he ob- serves respecting tiie person of Jesus. He wlio could allow himself to apply the Mes-iianic prophecies to Vespasian, would necessarily try to avoid everything iu con- temp >raneous history that had reference either to the forerunner, as suc'h, or to Jesus. Wei/,«:ilcker riglitly observes that the narrative of Joscphus, so far from invalidating ihU of Lulve on this point, contiimsit. For it is evident that apart from its con- nection with the expectalion of the ^Messiah, the baptism of John would not have produced that general excitement which excited tlie fears of Herod, aud which is proved by the account of Jo.sephus. Second. According to Luke, the determining cau-ie of John's imprisr)nmcnt was the resentment of Herod at the rebukes of the Haptist ; while, according to Josephua, the mi)live for this crime was the fear of a l))lilical outbreak. But it is easy to conceive that llie cause indicated by Luke would not 1)0 openly avowed, and that it was unknown in the political circles wiiere Jose- p lus gathered his iuformalioa. Herod and Ids counsellors i)ut forward, as is usual in such cases, the reason of state. The previous revolts — tlioso which imraedialely followed the death of Herol, and that which Judas the Gaulonite provoked — only justified to) well the fears which thef affecicd to feel, in any case, if, on account of this general agreement, we were willing to admit that one of the two historians made u-*8 of the other, it is not Luke that we should legaid as the copyist ; for the AramiBiu forms of his narrative iutlicate a source independent of that of .Tosephus. The higher origin of this ministry of J.)hn is proved by the two following cliarac- terislics, whicli are inexplicable from a purely natural point of view : First, His con- nection s") eiuphal.ically announced, with the immediate appearance of the ^Messiah ; se,'->a'.l, The abdication of John, when at the height of his popularity, in favor of the poor (r.ililean, who was as yet unknown to all. As to the oiiginality of John's bvplism, the lustrations used in the oriental religions, in Judaism itself, and partic- ularly among the Essenes, have been alleged against it. But tiiis originality con- sisle i ie>.^ In the outward form of the rite, than — 1. In its application to liie whole people, thus prjuouncid deliled, and placed on a level willi llie heathen ; and 3. In tlie prepiratorv reliili.)n <'Stablislicd by the forerunner between this imperfect baptism auil thai tin il baptism which the Messiah was about to confer. W"e think it useful t ) give an example here of the way in which Hollzmann tries to e cplain the oomp.)silijn of our Gospel : 1. Vers, l-l) are borrowed from stmrce A. (the original IMark) ; only Luke leaves out the details respecting the ascetic life of John the Baptist, because he intends to give his discourses at greater length ; he compensates for this omission by adding the chronological data (vers. 1 .and 2), and by extending the (juotalion from the LXX. (vers. 5 and G) ! 3. Vers. 7-9 are also taken from A., just as are the parallel verses iu Mattiiew ; tlujy were left out by the author of our canonical ]\laik. whose inten- tion was to give only an abdridgment of the discourses, 8. Vers. 10-14 are taken from a i»rivate source, peculiar to Luke, Are we then to suppose that this source contained only tlie.se four verses, since Luke has depended on other sources for all the rest of his milter? 4. Vers. 15-17 are compo.sed («) of a sketch of Luke's invention (ver. lo) ; {'j) of an extract from A., vers. 16, 17. 5. Vers. 18-20 have been compiled on the basis of a fragment of A , which is found in .Maik fi : 17-20, a snnimaiy of which Luke thought should be introduced here. Do we not thus fall into that pro- cess of manufacture which Schleiermacher ridiculed so hap[)ily in his work on the composition of Luke, a propoi of Eichhorn's hypothesis, a method which we Ihouglit had disappeared from criticism for ever ? SECOND NAKRATITE. — CHAP. 3 ; 21, 22. The Baptium of Jesus. The rel'i.tion between John and Jesus, as described by St. Luke, resembles that of two stars following each other at a short distance, and both passing tlirongh a series of similar circumstances. The announcement of the appearing of the one follows clo.se upon that of the appearing of the other. It is the same with their two births. This 118 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. relatioa repeats itself in the commeuceraent of their respective ministries ; and lastly, in the catastrophes which terniiuate their lives. And yet, in the wlioJe course of the career of these two men, there was but one personal meeting --at the baptism of Jesus. After this moment, when one of these stars rapidly crossed the orbit of the other, they separated, each to follow the path that was marked out for him. It is this moment of tiieir actual contact that tbe evangelist is about to describe. Vers. 21 and 22.* This narralive of the baptism is the sequel, not to vers. 18, 19 (the imprisonment of John), which are an anticipation, but to the ])assagc, vers. 15-17, which describes the expeclalion of the people, and relates the Messianic prophecy of John. The expression u-av-a ibv /.aov, all the people, ver. 21, recalls the crowds and popular feeling described in ver. 15. But Meyer is evidently wrong in sefeing in these words, " When all the people were baptized," a proof that all this crowd was present at the baptism of Jesus. The term all the people, in such a connection, would he a strange exaggeration. Luke merely means to indicate the general agreement in time between this movement and the baptism of Jesus ; and the expression he uses need not in anyway prevent our thinking that Jesus was alone, or almost alone, with the forerunner, when the latter baptized Him. Further, it is highly probable that He would choose a time when the transaction might lake place in this manner. But the turn of exi^ression, ev rcj ffa-nTLa^Ji'ivaL, expresses more than the simultaneous- ness of the two facts ; it places them in moral connection with each other. In being baptized, Jesus surrenders Himself to the movement which at this time was drawing all the people toward God. Had lie acted otherwise, would lie not have broken the bond of solidarity which He had contracted, by circumcision, with Israel, and by the incarnation, with all mankind V So far from being relaxed, this bond is to be drawn closer, until at last it involve Him who has entered into it in the full participation of our condenmation and death. This relation of the baptism of the nation to that of Jesus explains also the singular turn of expression which Luke makes use of in men- tioning the fact cf the baptism. This act, which one would have thought would have been the very pith of the narrative, is indicated by means of a simple participle, and in quite an incidental way : " When all tiie people were baptized, Jesus also be- ing biiplized, and praying . ..." Luke appears to mean that, granted the national baptism, that of Jesus follows as a matter of course. It is the moral consequence of the former. This turn of thought is not without its importance in explaining the fact which we are now considering. Luke adds here a detail which is peculiar to him, and which serves to place the miraculous phenomena which tolli)win their true light. At the lime when Jesus, having been baptized, went up out of tlie water, He was in prayer. The extraordinary manifestations about to be related thus become God's answer to the prayer of Jesus, in which the sighs of His people and of mankind found utterance. The earth is thirsty for the rain of heaven. The Spirit will descend on Him who knows how to ask it effectually ; and it will be His office to impart it to all the vest. If, afterward, we hear Him sa^dng (11 : 9), "Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened to you," we know from what personal experience He derived this precept : at the Jordan He Himself first asked and received, sought and found, knocked and it was opened to Ili:n. The heavenly manifestation. Luke assigns these miiacidous facts to the domain * Ver. 22. iS. B. D. L., wc instead of uau. ^. B. D. L. Itpi"iq"«, omit leyovoav. D. It*"''. Justin, and some other Fathers, read, ftof nov ei av, eyu oTijxepov yeyewrjKa as, tv avi, etc. OflAl'. J II. :'^1,2'Z. 110 of objective reality : iJie Jicairiis opened, ihe Spirit descended. !Mark makes tlicm a personal intuition of Jesus :* " And coming up out of the water, lie saw tlie ]i(;avens opened, and the Spirit descending" (1 : 10). Matthew corresponds -wilh Mark ; for Bleeiv is altogether wrong ia maintaining that this evangelist makes the whole scene a vision of John the Baptist. The text does not allow of the two verbs, IJe went tip and Jle mir, which toiiow each other so closely (Malt. 3 : 1(1), having two dilTerent, subjects. Bleek alleges the narrative of the fourth Gospel, where also the foierun- ner speaks merely of what Iw. saw hiiaself. But that is natural ; for in that iia:?:sfigu his object was, not to relate the fact, but siinply to justify the testimony wiiicli he had just borne. For this purpose he could only mention what he had seen /ui/imIj. No inference can be drawn from this as to the fact itself, and ils relation to Jesus, the other witness. Speaking generally, the scene of the baptism dues not fail within the horizon of the fourth Gospel, which starts from a point of time six weeks after this event took place, Keim has no better ground thau this for asserting that the accounts of the Syn. on this subject are contradictory to that of John, because the former attribute an external reality to these miraculous phenomena, while the latter treats them as a simple vision of the forerunner, and even, according to him, excludes the realit}' of the baptism. f The true relation of these accounts to each other is this : According to the fourth Gospel, John saw ; according to the first and second, Jesus saw. Now, as tw-o persons can hardly be under an hallucination at the same time and in the same manner, this double perception supposes a reality, and this reality is aflirmed by Luke : And it ainie to pass, that . Tiie divine inauifestation comi)ri.s(s three internal facts, and three corresponding sensible phenomena. The thice former are the divine communication itself ; tiie three latter are the manifestation of this communication to the consciousness of Jesus and of J(din. Jesus was a true man, consisting, that is, at once of body and soul. In order, therefoie, to take complete possession of Him, God had to speak at once to His outward and inward sense. As to John, he shared, as an official Avilness of the spiiitual fact, the sensible impression which accompanied this comrauuicatiou from on high to the mind of Jesus. The first phenomenon is the opening oftlie heavens. While Jesus is praying, with His ej'es fixed on high, the vault of heaven is rent befoie His gaze, and His glance penetrates the abode of eternal light. The spiritual fact con- tained under this sensible phenomenon is the ])erfect understanding accorded to Jesus of God's plan in the work of salvation. The treasures of divine wisdom are oj^ened to Him, and He may thenceforth obtain at any hour the particular enlightenment He may need. The meaning of this first phenomenon is therefore perfect revelation. From the measureless heights of heaven above, thus laid open to His gaze, Jesus s,^cn(lniCitn([ a luminous apjwar a nee, having the form of a dove. This emblem is taken from a natural symbolism. The fertilizing and persevering incul)ation of the dove is an admu-able type of the life giving energy whereby the Holy Spirit develops in the human soul the germs of anew life. It is in this way that the new crealiim. deposited with all its powers in the soul of Jesus, is to extend itself around Him, under the inlluence of this creative principle (Gen. 1 : 2). By the organic form wliich invests the luminous ray, the Holy Spirit is here presented in its absolute totality. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit appears under the form of tZmVfcf? (Jto/zfptfo- * For the meaninir of the author in this seutcnce, see the close of tile paragraph. By itself it might be misunderstood. — J. U. f " Gcsch. Jesu," t. i. p. 535. 120 COMMENTARY OX ST. LL'KE. fievai) tongues of fire, emblems of special gifts, of particular x^P'^ufiTn, shared among the disciples. But in the baptism of .Icsus it is not a portion only, it is the fulness of the Spirit which is given. This idea could only be expressed by a symbol taken from organic life. John the Baptist understood this emblem : " For G;.d giveth nut," he says (John 3 : 34), " the Spirit by measure unto Rim." The vibration of the luminous ray on the head of Jesus, like the fluttering of the wings of a dove, denotes the permanence of the gift. "I saw," says John the Baptist (John 1 : 32), "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Ilim." This luminous appearance, then, represents an inspiration wdiich is neither partial as that of tlie faithful, nor intermittent as that of the prophets — perfect inspiration. The third phenomenon, that of the divine voice, represents a still more intimate and personal communication. Nothing is a more direct emanation from the personal life than speech, the voice. The voice of God resounds in the ear and heai t of Jesus, and reveals to Him all that He is to God — the Being most tenderly beloved, beloved as a father's only son ; and consequently^ all that He is called to be to the world— the organ of divine love to men. He whose mission it is to raise His brethren to the dignity of sons. According to Luke, and probal)ly Mark also (in conformity with the reading admitted by Tischendorf), the divine declaration is addressed ^o Jesus : " I'hou art my Son . . . ; in T/tee I am . . ." In Matthew it has the form of a testimony addressed to a third party touching Jesus : " This is my Son . . . in whom . . ." The first form is that in which God spoke to Jesus ; the second, that in which John became conscious of the divine manifestation. This difference attests that the two accounts are derived from different sources, and that the writings in which they are preserved are independent of each other. What writer would have deliberately changed the form of a saying which he attributed to God Himself ? The pronoun oo, Thou, as well as the predicate ayaTrijroi, with the article, the well- beloved, invest this filial relation with a character that is altogether unique; comp. 10 :22. From this moment Jesus must have felt Himself the .supreme object of the love of the infinite God. The unspeakable blessedness with which such an assurance could not fail to fill Him was the source of the witness He bore concerning Himself — a witness borne not for His own glory, but with a view to reveal to the world the love wherewith God loves those to whom He imparts such a gift. From this moment dates the birth of that unique consciousness Jesus had of God as His own Father — the rising of that radiant sun which henceforth illuminates His life, and which since Pentecost has risen upon mankind. Just as, by the instrumentality of His Word and Spirit, God communicates to believers, wiien the hour has come, the certainty of their adoption, so answering both inwardly and outwardly the praj'er of Jesus, He raises Him in His human consciousness to a sense of His dignity as the onlj'^-begottea Son. It is on the strength of this revelation that John, who shared it, says after- ward, " The Father loveth the Son. and hath given all things into His hands" (John 3 : 25). The absence of the title Christ in the divine salutation is remarkable. We see that the principal fact in the development of the consciousness of Jesus was not the feeling of His Messianic dignity, but of His close and personal relation with God (comp. already 2 :49), and of His divine origin. On that alone was based His con- viction of His Messianic mission. The religious fact was fir.'^t ; the official part was only its corollary. M. Renan has reversed this relation, and it is the capital defect of his work. The quotation of the words of Ps. 2. " To-day have I begotten, Thee," which Justin introduces into the divine salutation, is only supported by D. and some THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. 121 Mss. of the Italic. It contrasts -wilh the simplicity of the narrative. God does not ((uole Himself textuully in this way ! The Ca:ioarnv erov; would have been necessary ; and the Mmita- tion about cannot have reference to the commencement of the year. (On the agreement of this chronological fact with the dale, ver. 1, see p. lOG). We liave already observed that the age of thirty is that of the greatest physical and psychical strength, the aK/if} of natural life. It was the age at which, among the Jews, the Levites entered upon their duties (Num. 4:3, 23), and when, among the Greeks, a young man bep:an to lake part in public affairs. f The participle up, being, makes a strange impression, not only because it is purely and simply in juxtaposition with ufixo^ei-'oS (beginning, being), and depends on t/v, the very verb of whicli it is a part, but still more because its connection with the latter verb cannot be explained by any of the three logical relations by which a participle is connected with a completed verb, when, because, or although. What relation of simultaneousness, causality, or opposi- tion, could there be between the filiation of Jesus and the age at wliich He had arrived? This incoherence is a clear indication that the evangelist has with some difficulty effected a soldering of two documents— tliat which he has hither o followed, and which for the moment he abandons, and the genealogical register which he wishes to insert m this place. With the participle uv, being, there begins then a transition which we owe to the pen of Luke. How far does it extend, and where docs the genealogical regi.>ier properly begin? This is a nice and important question. We have only a hint for * 5i. B. L. X. som(! Mnn. Il"''i, Or. ])lace apxofiei'oc before uaei eruv TpinKorm, while T. R., with all the rest of the documenls, pliu:e it after these words, i*. B. L. some -Mnn. read in this order : uf vioi ui eio/ic^ero Juar/d, instead of tjf (jc evo/jiCero vioi \uriil0 in T. R. and Ihe other authorities. H. r. (not B.) same Mnn. add ruo befoi"c lu)n7/ in the gene- alogy of 'Matthew proves that the article belonged to the terminology of these docu- ments ; M. The rov thus understood would imply an intention to distinguish the individual to which it refers from some other person bearing the same name, but not having the same father, " Ileli, the one of Matthat [and not one of another father] ;" which could not be the design of the genealogist. The tov is therefore undoulitedly an article. But, admitting this, we may still hesitate between two interpretations ; we may subordinate each genitive to the preceding name, as is ordinarily done : " Heli, son of Matthat, [which Matthat was a son] of Levi, [which Levi was a son] of . . . ;" or, as TVieseler proposer!, we may co-ordinate all the genitives, so as to make each of them depend directly on the word son placed at the head of the entire series: "Jesus, son of Heli; [Jesus, son] of ?Jatthat . . ." iSo that, according to the Jewish usage, which permitted a grandson to be called the son of his (jrandfather, Jesus would be called the son of each of His ancestors in succession. This interpretation would not be, in itself, so forced as Bleek maintains. But never- theless the former is preferable, for it alone really expresses the notion of a succession of generations, which, \i\he ruling idea of every genealog}'. The genitives in Luke merely supplj the place of syewTjae, as repeated in the original document, of whicli Matthew gives us the text. Besides, we do not think that it would be necessary to CUM'. III. : ^'3-;3«. 129 supply, between eacli link in the genealogical chain, the term viov, son of, as an appo- sition of the precedinv: name. Each genitive Is also the complement of the name •which pieceiles it. The idea of liliation resides in the giammalical case. We have the gciiitice here in its essence. There remains, lastly, the still more importnnt question : On what docs the geni- tive Tov 'U'/.i (of I Id i) precisely depend ? On the name 'lun>'j(fi which iminediiitely pre- cedes it V This would be in conformity with the analogy cf all the other genitives, which, as Ave have just proved, depend each on the preceding name. Thus lleli Would have l)eeu the father of .Tosepli, and the genealogy of Luke, as xrell as that of Matthew, would be the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. In tliat case we should have to explain how the two documents could be so lolall}' dilTerent. But this view is incompatible with the absence of tlie article before Joseph.. If the name 'lua/io had been intended by Luke to be the basis of the entire genealogical series, it would have been li.xed and determined by the article with nuich greater reason certainly than the names tliat follow. The genitive roi) 'H/ii, of Ileli, depends therefore not on Joseph, but on the word son. This construction is not p(.ssil)le, it is true, wilh the received reading, in which the words son and Joseph form a single phrase, son (f Joseph. The Word son cannot be separated from the word it immediatel^v governs : Joseph, to receive a second and more distant coinplCi-nent. "With this reading, the only thing left to us is to make tov 'H/i de|)ond on the participle uf : " Jesus . . . being . . , [born] of Hell." An antithesis might be found between the real fact (lii', being) and the apparent {tvnuH^fTo, as was thought) : " being, as was thought, a sou of Joseph, [in reality] born of Ileli." But can the word (if signify both to he (in the sense of the verb substantive) and to be born of? Everything becomes much moie simple if we assume tiie Alex, reading, which on otl.er grounds has already appeared to us the more probal)lc. The word son, separated as it is from its first complement, of Joseph, l)y the words rr>i iras thomjld, may very well have a second, of Ileli. The first is only noticed in passing, ani iu order to be denied in the very mention of it ; " Son, as was thou;;ht. of Joseph." The ofTicial information being thus disavowed, Luke, by means of the second complement, substitutes for it the truth, of Ileli ; and this name he distinguishes, by means of the article, as the lirst link of thegeui.alogical cham properly so called. The text, therefore, to express the author's meaning clearlv, should be written thus : " being a son— as was thought, of Joseph — of Ileli, of Matthat . . ." Bleek has put the words tif efo/tZ^'ero into a parenthesis, and rightly ; only he should have added to them the word 'loxr;/^. This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to ulmit — 1. That the genea- logical register of Luke is that of Ileli, the grandfather of Jesus ; 2. That, this affili- ation of Jesus by Ileli being expressly opposed to His affiliation bj' Joseph, the docu- ment which he lias preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the geno- alosy of Jesus through ]\Iary, But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pa>s immediately from Jesus to His grandfather ? Ancient sentiment did not conipoit with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the sou of his father, not of his mother ; and among the Jews the adage was : " Genus matris non vocntur genus" '" Baba bathra," 110, a). In lieu of this, it is nut uncommon to find in the O. T. the grandson called the son of his giandfalher.* * * Comp. for example, 1 Chron. 8 : 3 with Gen. 4G : 21 ; Ezra 5:1,0- 14 with Zech. 1 : 1, 7 ; and in the N. T.. Matt. 1 : 8 with 1 Chron. 4:11. 12— a passage in which King Joram is even recorded as having begotten the son of his grandson. 130 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. If there were any circumstances in which this usage was applicable, would not the wholly exceptional case with which Luke was dealing be such ? There was only OQe way of filling up the hiatus, resulting from the absence of the father, between the grandfather and his grandson — namely, to introduce the name of the pitsumed father, noting at the same time the falseness of this opinion. It is remark- able that, in the Talmud, Mary the mother of Jesus is called the daughter of Ildi (" Chagig." 77 : 4). From whence have Jewish scholars derived this information? If from the text of Luke, this proves that they understood it as we do ; if they received it from tradition, it confirms the Iruih of the genealogical document Luke made use of.- If this explanation be rejected, it must be admitted that Luke as well as Matthew gives us the genealogy of Joseph. The difficulties to be encoimtered in this direction are these : 1. The absence of rov before the uiinie 'Icjaijcp, and before this name alone, is not accounted for. 2. We are met by an all but insoluble contiadiclion between the two evangelists — the one indicating Ileii as the father of Josejih, the other Jacob — which leads to two series of names wholly different. We might, it is true, have recoiuse to the following hypothesis proposed by Julius Afiicanus (third cenluiy) : f Heli and Jacob were brothers ; one of thtm died without chiidien ; the survivoi-, in coiifi^i'mity with the law, married his widow, and the first-born of this union, Joseph, was registered as u son of the deceased. In this way Joseph would have had two fatheis--one ie;il, the other legal. But; this hypnthesis is not Kifficient ; a second is needed. For if Ileli and Jacob v.'eie brothers, they must have had the same father ; and the two genealogies should coincide on leaching the name of the grandfathir c/f Josepi), v.'hich is not the case. It is supposeri, tlieiefore, that they were brothers on the miilher's side only, which explains both the diileience of the fathers and that (>f the entire genealogies. This supeistructure of coincidences is not al;solutely inad- missible, but no one can think it natural. We should l)e reduced, then, to admit an absolute contiadictiou between the two evangelists. But can it be supposed that l)Glh or either of them could have been capable of fabricating such a leg'sler, heaping name upon name quite aibitrarily, aud at the mere pleasuie of their caprice? Who could credit a proceerling so al)suid, and that in two genealogies, one of which sets out from Abiaham, the veneiated ancestor of the people, the other teiminatiug in God Himself ! All these names mu.^t have been taken from documents. But is it possil)le in this case to admit, in one or both of these writeis, an entire nustake ? 3. It is not only with Matthew that Luke would be in contradiction, but with him- self. He admits the miraculous birth (chap. 1 and 2). It is conceivable that, fiorn the theocratic point of view which 3Ia'lhew takes, a certain interest might, even on this supposition, be assigned to the g( uealogy of Joseph, as the adoptive, legal father of the Messiah. But that Luke, to whom tliis official point of view was altogether foreigu, should have handed down with so nuieh care this series of seventy-three names, after having severed the chain at the first link, as he does by the remark, as it toas thought; that, further, he shoidd give himself the trouble, after this, to de- velop the entire series, and finish at last with God Himself : this is a moral impos- silrility. What sensible man, Gfrorer has very property askerl (with a different de- sign, it is true), could take pleasure in drawing up such a list of ancestors, after hav- ing declared that the relationship is destitute of all reality? Modem ciilicism has, last of all, been driven to ilie following hypothesis : ]\Iatthew and Luke each found a genealogy of Jesus written fium the Jewisi)-Chiistian standpoint : they were both different genealogies of .Joseph ; for among tins parly (which was no other than the primitive Church) lie was without hesitation i-egarded as the father of Jesus. But at the time when these documents were published by the evangelists another theoiy already prevailed, that of the miraculou=^ birth, which these two aulhurs endiraced. They published, therefore, then- documents, adapting them as best they could to the * The relationship of Jesus to the royal family is also alEimed by the Talmud ("Tr. Sanhednm," 4;5). t Eus. "Hist Eccl." i. 7. CHAP. III. : X'o 38. 131 new IjclieF, iust :is Luke doos by his ns it ira/i f?ioi/f/hf, iiiirl Malfliow hy (lie peripliriisis, 1 : l(i. But, 1. We liave pointed out that tlie opinion wliieli iittributcs to llie primitive apostolie Cliurcli tlie idea of tlie natural birlii of Jesus rests upon no solid fouiiilation. 2. A writer wlu) spealvs of apostolie tradition as Lidie spealis of it, 1 : 2, could not have knowingly put himself in opposition to it on a point of this inipor- tanco. !5. If we advanee no claim on behalf of the sacred writers to inspiration, we protest against whati-ver impeaches their good sense. Tiie first evangelist, M. Repille maintains,* did not even perceive the incompalibilitj^ between the theory of the miraculous birlh and his genealogical document. As to Luke, this same autiior sa5's : " The third i)erceives very clearly the contradiction ; nevertheless he writes iiis history as if it did not e.Kist. " In other words, j\Ialthevv is more foolish than false, Luke more false than foolish. Criticism which is obliged to support itself i)y attribut- ing to the sacred writers absurd methods, such as are found in no sensible writer, is self-condemned. Tiiere is not (he smallest proof that the documents used by J\Ial- thew and Luke were of Jewish-Christian origin. On the C0D(rary, it is ver}' prob- able, since the facts all go to establish it, (ha( they were simply copies of the ollicial registers of ilw jm bile idhl-H (see below), referring, one to Joseph, the other to Ileli, both consequently of Jewish origin. So far from (here being any ground to regard them as monuments of a Christian conception, differing from that of the evangelists, it is these authors, or those who transmitted them to tnem, who set upon them for the tirst time the Christiau seal, by adding to them the part which refers to Jesus. 4. Lastl}', after all, these two series of completely difTerent names liave lu any case to be explained. Are they fictidous ? Who can maiu(ain (his, when wrilers so evidenlly in earnest are concerned? Are they founded upon documents? Ilow then could tliey differ so completely? This dillicuUy becomes greater still if it is maintained that these two dilferent genealogies of Joseph proceed from the same ecclesiasiical (piarter — from the Jewish-Cbnstian party. Bat have we sufficient proofs of the existence of genealogical registers among (he Jews at this epoch ? We have alreaiiy referred to the public tablets {(')i-:1toi ()Ti/i'i(7iai) from which Josephus had extracted his own genealogy : " I relate my genealogy as 1 lind it recorded in the public tiibles. " f The same Josephus, in his work, " Contra Apion" (i. 7), says : "From all the cuuutiies in whicli our priests are scattered abr[)ad, they send to Jerusalem (in order to have their (diildren entered) documents containing (he names of their parents and ances(ors, and countersigned by wit- nesses." What was done for the priestl^^ families could not fail to have been done Avith regard to the royal family, from which it was known that the Messiah was to spring. The same conclusion results also from the following facts. The famous Rabl)i Hillel, avIio lived in the time of Jesus, succeeded in proving, bj' means of a genealogical table in existence at Jerusalem, that, although a poor man, he was a descendant of David.:}: The line of descent in the different branches of the royal family was so well known that even at the end of thefiist century of the Church the grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, had to appear at Rome as descendants of David, and undergo examination in the presence of Domitian.^ According to these facts, the existence of two genealogical documents relating, one to JosephTlhe other to Hell, and preserved in their respective families, otfers absolutely nothing at all improbable. In comparing the two narratives of the infancy, we have been led to assign them to two different sources : that of Matthew appeared to us to emanate from the lelations of Joseph ; liiat of Luke from the circle of which Mary was the centre (p. IGIJ). Some- thing similar occurs again in regard to the two genealogies. That of Matthew, "Which has Joseph in view, must have proceeded from his family ; that which Luke has transmitted to us, bt'ing that of Mary's father, must have come from (his huter quarter. But it is manifest that this difference of production is connected with a moral cause. The meaning of one of the genealogies is certainly hereditary, ]\Iessianic ; the mean- ing of the other is universal redemption. Hence, in the one, the relationship is through Joseph, the representative of the civil, national, theocratic side ; in the other, * " Histoire du Dograe de la Divinile de Jesus Christ," p. 27. ^ Jos. •' Vita," c. i. | " Beresclut rabba,"'J8. ti Ucgesippus, in Euscbius' " Hist. Eccl." iii. 19 and 20 (ed. Loemmer). 132 COMMEInTARY ox ST. LUKE. the descent, is through Mary, the organ of the real human reUitiouship, Was not Jesus at once to appear and to he the son of David ? — to appear such, through him ■vvliom the people regarded as His father ; to be such, tluough her from wIkjui lie lealjy derived His human existtuce V The two athlialious answered to these two re- quirements. Second. Vers. 24-38.* And first, vers. 24-27 : from Hell to the captivity. In this period Luke mentions 21 generations (up to Nerl) ; only 19, if the various read- ing of Africanus be admitted ; Matthew, 14. This last number is evidently too small for the length of the period. As Matthew omits in the period of the kmgs four well- known names of the O. T., it is probal)le that he takes the same course here, either through an involuntarj' omission, or for the sake of keeping to the number 14 (1 : 17). This comparison should make us appreciate the exactness of Luke's register. But how is it that the names Zorobabel and Saiathiel occur, connected with each other in the same waj-, in both the genealogies ? And how can Salatbiel have Neri for Lis father in Luke, and in Matthew King JechoniasV Should these names be regarded as standmg for different persons, as Wieseler thinks? This is not impossible. The Zorobabel and the Saiathiel of Luke might be two unknown persons of the obscurer branch of the royal family descended from Na(han ; the Zorobabel and the Saiathiel of Matthew, the two well-known persons of the O. T. history, belonging to the reign- ing blanch, the first a sou, the second a grandson of King Jechonias (1 Chron. 3 : 17); Ezra 3:2; Hag. 1 : 1). This is the view which, after all, appears to Bleek most piob- able. It is open, however, to a serious objection from the fact that these two names, in the two lists, refer so exactly to the same period, since in both of them they are very nearly half way between Jesus and David. If the identiiy of these persons in the two genealogies is admitted, the explanation must be found in 2 Kings 24 : 12, which proves that King Jechonias had no son at the time when he was carried into captivity. It is scarcely probable that he had one while in prison, where he remained shut up for thirty-eight years. He or they whom the passage 1 Chron. C : 17 assigns to him (which, besides, may be translated in three different ways) must be regarded as adopted sons or as sons-m-law ; fhey would be spoken ot as sons, because they would be unwilling to allow the reigning branch of the royal family to become ex- tinct. Saiathiel, the first of them, would thus have some other father than Jechonias ; and this father would be Neri, of the Nathan branch, indicated by Luke. An alter- native hypothesis has been proposed, founded on the Levirale law. Neri, as a rel- ative of Jechonias, might have married one of the wives of the imprisoned king, in order to perpetuate the royal family ; and the son of this union, Saiathiel, would have been legally a son of Jechonias, but really a son of Neri. In any case, the numerous diff'eiences that are found in the statements of our historical books at this period prove that the catastrophe of the captivity brought considerable confusion into the reg- isters or family traditions. f Rhesa and Abiud, put down, the one by Luke, the other * We omit the numerous orthographical variations connected with these proper names. Ver. 24. Jul. Afric. Eus. Ir. (probably) omit the two names UaOOad and \tvei. + According to 1 Chron. 3 : 16, 2 Chron. 36 : 10 (Heb. text), Zedekiah was son of Jehoiakira and brother of Jehoiachiu ; but, according to 2 Kings 24 : 17 and Jer. 87 : 1, he was son of Josiah and Ijrother of Jehoiakim, According to 1 (.'hi'on. 3 : 19, Zorobahf'l was son of Pedaiah and grandson of Jecr.niali, nnd cf;npcquently neplievv of Saiathiel ; while, according to Ezra 3 : 2, Neh. 12 1, Hag. 1 : 1, he was soU of Saiathiel, etc. CHAP. IV. ; 1-13. 133 by Matllicw, as sons of Zorobiiht'l, ;ire not iiuMilioncd in tlieO. T:, according to which Ihesoiisof this restorer of Israel should iiave been Mesliuilani and Ilaiianiah (1 Ciirtni. 3 : 19). Bleek observes, that if the evangelists had fabricated their lists, they would naturall}' have made use of these two names that are furnished by the sacred text ; therefore they have followed their documents. Vers. 28-^1. From the captivity to David, 20 names. Matthew for the same period has only 14. But it is proved by the O. T. that he omits four ; the number 20, in Luke, is a fresh proof of the accuracy of his document. On Nathan, son of David, comp. 2 Sam. 5 : 14, Zech. 12 : 12. The passage iu Zechariah prov^es that this branch was still tlourishing after the return from the captivity, if Neri, the de- scendant of Nathan, was the real father of iSalathie!, the adopted son or son-in-law of Jechonias, we should find here once more the cliaractenstic of tlie two genealogies : in ^fatthew, the legal, official pointof view ; in Luke, the real, human point of view. YiM's. 32-34rt. From David to Abraham. The two genealogies agree with each other, and with the O. T. Vers. 34&-38. From Abraham to Adam. This part is peculiar to Luke. It is ctmipiled evidently from the O. T., and according to the text of the LXX., with which it exactly coincides. The name Caiuan, ver. 36, is only found in the LXX., and is wanting in the Heb. text (Gen. 10 : 24, 11 12). This must be a very ancient variation. The words, of Ood, witii which it ends, are intended to inform us that it is ni)t through ignorance that the genealogist stops at Adam, but because he has reached the end of the chain, perhaps also to remind us of the truth expressed by Paul at Athens : " We are the offspring of God." The last word of the genealogy is connected with its starting-point (vers. 22, 23). If man were not the offspring of God, the incarnation (ver. 22) would be impossible. God cannot say to a man, " Thou art my beloved son," save on this ground, that humanity itself is His issue (ver. 38).* FOURTH NARRAXn'E. — CHAP. 4:1-13. The Temptation. Every free creature, endowed with various faculties, must pass through a conflict, iu which it decides either to use them for its own gratification, or to glorify God by devoting them to His service. The angels have passed through this trial ; the first man underwent it ; Jesus, being truly human, did not escape it. Our Syn. are unanimous upon this point. Tlieir testimony as to the time wlien this conflict took place is no less accordant. All three place it immediately after His baptism, at the outset of His Messianic career. This date is important for determining the true mean- ing of this trial. The temptation of the first man bore upon the use of the powers inherent in our nature. Jesus also experienced this kind of trial. How many times during His child- hood and early manhood nnist He have been exposed to those temptations which ad- dress themselves to the instincts of the natural life ! The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life— these different forms of sin, separately or with united force, endeavored to besiege His lieart, subjugate His will, enslave. His powers, and invade this pure being as they had invaded the innocent Adam. But on the bat- * See the valuable aj)plications which Tliggenbach makes of these genealogies, " Vie de Jesus," ninth lesson, at the commencement. 134 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. tlc-field on which Adam had succumbed Jesus remained a victor. The " conscience without a scar," wliich He carried from the first part of His life iuto the second, assures us of this. The new trial He is now to undergo belongs to a higher domain — that of the spiritual life. It no longer respects the powers of the natural man, but His filial position, and the supernatural powers just conferred upon Him at His bap- tism. Tiie powers of the iSpirit are in themselves holy, but the history of the church of Corinth shows how they may be profaned when used in the service of egotism and self-love (1 Cor, 12-14). This is that filthiness of the spirit (2 Cor. 7 : 1). which is more subtle, and often more pernicious, than that of the flesh. The divine powers which Jesus had just received had therefore to be sanctified in His crxperience, that IS, to receive from Him, in His inmost soul, their consecration to the service of God. In order to this, it was necessary that an opportunity to apply them either to His own use or to God's service should be offered Him. His decision on this criticai occasion would determine forever the tendency and nature of His Messianic w^ork. Christ or Antichrist was the alternative terra of the two ways which were opening before Him. This trial is not therefore a repetition of that of Adam, the father of the old humanity; it is the special trial of tiie Head of the new humanity. And it is not simpl}^ a ques- tion here, as in our conflicts, whether a given individual shall form part of the king- dom of God , it is the very existence of this kingdom that is at stake. Its future sovereign, sent to found it, struggles in close combat with the sovereign of the hostile realm. This narrative comprises ■ 1st. A general view (vers. 1,2): 2d. The first temptation (vers. 3, 4) ; 3d. The second (vers. 5-8) ; 4^/t. The third (vers. 9-12) ; 5th. An his- torical conclusion (ver. 13). Fii'st. Vers. 1, 2.* B^' these words, full of the Holy Oliost, this narrative is brought iuto close connection with that of the baptism. The genealogy is therefore intercalated. While the other baptized persons, after the ceremony, went away to tlicir own homes, .lesus betook Himself into solitude. This He did not at His own prompting, as Luke gives us to understand, by the expression full of tlie Holy Ohost, which proves that the Spirit directed Him in this, as in every other step. The two other evanjielists explicitly say it. Matthew, He was led tq) of the Spirit; Mark, still more forcibly. Immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness. Perhaps the human inclination of Jesus would have been to return to Galilee and begin at once to teach. The Spirit detains Him ; and Matthew, who, in accordance with his didactic aim, in narrating the fact explains its object, says expressly • " He was led up of the Spirit ... to be templed." The complement of the verb retur?ied wouhl hti : from the Jordan (am)) into Galilee («?). But this com[)lex government is so dis- tributed that the first part is found in ver. 1 (the arrd without the eli, and the second in ver. 14 (the e'li without the aiirO). The explanation of this construction is. that the temptation was an interruption in the return of Jesus from the Jordan into Galilee. The Spirit detained Him in Juda?a. The T. R. reads els, " led into the wilderness ;" the Alex, iv, "led (carried hither and thither) in the wilderness." We might sup- pose that this second reading was only the result of the very natural reflection that. John being already in the desert, Jesus had not to repair thither. But, on the other hand, the received reading may easily have l)een imported into Luke * Ver. 1. !!* B. D. L. If^'i., ei rr] eprjua instead of el<= ttjv spriiiov, the reading of T. R. witii 15 Mjj., all the Mnn. Syr. Il''"i. Vg. Ver. 2. The same omit varepov (taken from Matthew.) CHAP. IV. : 1, 2. 135 from the two other Syn. And the prep, of rest {a>) in the Alex, better uccords with the imperf. j'/yero, wasted, which denotes a continuous acti')u. The ex- pression, u>as led by, indicates that the severe exercises of soul which Jesus experienced under the action of the Spirit absorbed Him in such a way that the use of His faculties iu regard to the external world was thereby suspended. In going into the desert He was not impelled by a desire to accomplish any definite object; it was only, as it were, a cover for the state of intense meditation in whiclillewas absorbed. Lost iu contemplation of His personal relation to God, the full consciousness of whicli He had just attained, and of the consc(iuent task it imposed upon Him iu reference to Israel and the world, His heart sought to make these recent revelations wlioll}' its own. If tradition is to be credited, the wilderness here spoken of was the mountain- ous and uninhabited country bordering on the road which ascends from Jericho to Jerusalem. On the right of this road, not far from Jericho, tliere rises a limestone peak, exceedingly sharp and abrupt, which bears the name of Quarantania. The rocks which surround it are pierced bj'^ a numl)er of caves. This would be the scene of the temptation. We are ignorant whether this tradition rests upon any historical fact. This locality is a continuation of the desert of Judoea, where John abode. The wordi forty days may refer either to icas led or to being temjited ; in sense both come to the same thing, the two actions being simultaneous. According to Luke and Mark, Jesus was incessantly besieged during this whole time. Suggestions of a very different nature from the holy thoughts which usually occupied Him harassed the woi king of His mind. Matthew does not mention this secret action of the cuemj', who was preparing for the final crisis. How can it be maintained that one of these forms of the narrative has bi-en borrowed from the other? The term devil, employed by Luke and Matthew, comes from (Va(iuTAiiv, to spread reports, to slander. ]\[ark employs the word Sntau (from lt2Il/> ''^ oppose ; Zeeh. ;'. : 1, 2 ; Job I : 6, etc.). The fiist of these names is taken from the relation of tliis being to men ; the second from his relations with God. The possibilily of the existence of moral beings of a different nature from that of man cannot be denied a priori. Now if these Iieings are free crentures, subject to a la.v of prol)alion, as little can it be denied that this probation might issue in a fall. Lastly, since in every societ}^ of ra iral beings there are eminent individuals who, by virtue of their ascendency, liecoine centres around which a host of iufeiior individuals group themselves, this may also l)c the case iu this unknown spiritual domain. Keim himself says : " We regard this question of the existence of an evil power as al- together an open question for science." This question, which is an open one from a scientific point of view, is settled in the view of faith by the testimony of the Saviour, who, in a passage in which there is not the slii^htest trace of accommodation to popular prejudice, John 8 : 44, delineates in a few graphic touches tlie moral position of Satan. In another pas-^agu, Luke 2'^. : ;J1, " Satan hatli desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat ; but I have praye ihe fact of the temiUation. It is tliis victory in single combat whicli makes the deliverance of every captive of Satan possible to Jesus. * " Uulersuch " p. 330 ; " Oescli. Jcsu," t. 1. p. 570. 136 , COMMENTAEY OX ST. LUKE. Luke mentions Jesus' abstinence from food for six weeks as a fact wliicb was only the natural consequence of His bein^ absorbed in profound meditation. To Him, indeed, this whole time passed like a single hour ; He did not even feel the pangs of hunger. This follows from the words : ' And when they were ended, He afterward hungered," By the terui vr/arevaas, having faded, Matthew appears to eive this ab- stinence the character of a deliberate ritual act, to make it such a fast as, among the Jews, ordinarily accompanied certain seasons devoted specially to prayer. This Bhade of thouglit is not a contradiction, but accords with the general character of the two narrations, and becomes a significant indication of their originality. The fasts of Moses and Elijah, in similar circumstances, lasted the same time. In certain mor- bid conditions, which involve a more or less entire abstinence from food, a period of six weeks generally brings about a crisis, after which the demand for nourishment is renewed with extreme urgency. Tiic exhausted body liecomes a prey to a deathly sinking. Such, doubtless, was the condition of Jesus ; He felt Himself dying. It was the moment tlie tempter had waited for to make his decisive assault. /Second. Vers. 3, 4.* First Temptation.— The text of Luke is very sober : The devil mid to llim. The encounter exhibited under this form may be explained as a contact of mind with mind ; but in Matthew the expression came to Him seems to imply a bodily appearance. This, however, is nut necessarily its meaning. This term may be regarded as a symbolical expression of the moral sensation experienced by Jesus at the moment when He felt the attack of this spirit so alien from His own. In this sense, the coming took place only in the spiritual sphere. Since Scripture does not mention any visible appearance of Satan, and as the angelophauies are facts the perception of which always implies a co-operation of the inner sense, the latter interpretaiion is more natural. The words, if thou art, express something very different from a doubt ; this if has almost the force of since : " If thou art really, as it seems . . ." Satan alludes to God's salutation at the baptism. M. de Pres- sense is wrong in paraphrasing the words : " If thou art the Messiah." Here, and invariably, the name Son of Ood refers to a personal relation, not to an office (see on ver. 33). But what criminality would there have been in the act suggested to Jesus V It has been said that He was not allowed to use His miraculous imwer for His own benefit. Why not, if He was allowed to use it for the benefit of others ? The moral law does not command that one should love his neighbor belter than himself. It has been said that He would have acted from His own will, God not having com- manded this miracle. But did God direct every act of Jesus by means of a positive command V Had not divine direction in -lesus a more spiritual character ? Satan's address and the answer of Jesus put us on the right track. In saying to Him, If thou art the Son of God, Satan seeks to arouse in His heart the feeling of His divine greatness ; and with what object? He wishes by this means to make Him feel more painfully the contrast between His actual destitution, consequent on His human con- dition, and the abundance to which His divine nature seems to give Him a light. There was indeed, especially after His baptism, an anomaly in the position of Jesus. On the one hand, He had been exalted to a distinct consciimsness of His dignity as the Son of God ; while, on the other, His condition as Son of man remained the same. He conlitmed this mode of existence wholly similar to ours, and whr.Uy * Ver. 4. 5^. B. L. omit Iejuv. 9 Mjj. 70 Mnn. Or. omit o before avf)pcjTro<:. i^. B. L. Cop. omit the words, aAX' em nov-L rrj/ian Oaov. which is the reading of 1 . R. with 15 Mjj., all the Mnn. Syr. It,. Vg. (taktn from Matthew). CHAP. IV. : 3-8. 137 depcnrlcnt, in which furm it was IIi:< mission to rciilize licrc below the fihal life. Tlience there necessarily resulted a constant temptation to elevate, by acts of power. His miserable condition to the height of Ills conscious Sunship. And this is the first point of attack by which Satan seeks to master His will, taking advantage for this purj^ose of the utter exhaustion in which he sees Him sinking. HadJtsus yielded to this suggestion. He would have violated the conditions of that earthly existence to which, out of love to us. He had sulimittod, denied His title as Son of man, in order to lealizo before the time His condition as Son of God, retracted in some sort the act of His incarnation, and entered upon that falsH path which was afterward formulated by docetisni in a total or partial denial of Christ come in the llesh. Such a course would have mado His humanity a mere appearance. This is precisely what is expressed in His answer. The word of holy writ, Deut. 8 : 3, in which He clothes His thought, is admirably adapted, both in form and sub- stance, to this purpose : man shall not live hybnad alone. This term, man, recalls to Satan the form of existence which Jesus has accepted, and fnmi which He cannot depart on His own lesponsibility. The omission, of the article 6 before uiOpwTroS in nine ^Ijj. gives this word a generi(j sense which suits the context. But Jesus, while thus asserting His entire acceptance of human nature, reminds Satan that man, though he be but man, is not left without divine succor. The experience of Isiael in the wilderness, to which Closes' words refer, proves that the action of divine power is not limited to the ordinary nourishment of bread. God can support huuKin existence by other mateiial means, such as manna and quails ; He can even, if He pleases, make a man live by the mere power of His will. This ijrinciple is only the a|)plication of a living monotheism to the sphere of physical life. By proclaiming it in this particular instance, Jesus declares that, in His career, no physical necessity shall ever ct)mpel Him to deny, in the name of His exalted Sonship, the humble mode of existence He adopted in making Himself man, until it shall please God Him- self to transform His condition by rendering it suitable to His essence as Son of God. Although Son. He will nevertheless remain subject, subject unto the weakness even of death (Heb. 5 : 8). The words, hut hi/ every word of God, are omilled by the Alex. ; they are piobably taken from ]\Iatthew. What reason could there have been for omitting them from the text of Luke ? By their suppression, the answer of Jesus assumes that brief and categorical character which agrees with the situation. The sending of the angels to minister to Jesus, which Miitthew and Maik mention at the close of their narrative, pioves that the expectation of Jesus was not disappointed ; God sustained Him, as He had sustained Elijah in the desert in similar circum- stances (1 Kings 10). The fir.st temptation refers to the person of Jesus ; the second, to His work. Third. Vers. .5-8.* Second Temptation— The occasion of this fresh trial is not a physical .sensation ; it is an aspiration of the soul. Man, created in the image of God, aspires to reign. This instinct, the direction of which is perverted by selfish- ness, is nonetheless legitimate in its origin. Itrcceivedin Israel, through the divine promises, a definite aim — the supremacy of the elect people over all otheis ; and * Ver. 5. !!i. B. D. L. some ^Vlnn. omit o f5;o 9o?iOf. ii. B. L. It""'', omit e. 139 As called to succuid him, it seemed Ho could only do it, in so far as Satan himself should Irunsfer to Him the investiture of ids olfice. The words, if thou wilt wornhip vie, are uot Ihe-efore an apptal to the ambiliun of Jesus ; they express llie condiliou sine (jud noil laid down by the ancient Master of the world to the iustalla'.ion of Jesus in the ^lessianic sovereignty. In si)caking thus, Salan deceived himself only in one point; this was, that the kingdom which was about to commence was in any lespect a continuation of his own, or depended on a transmission of power from iiim. It would have been very dilleient, doubtless, had Jesus proposed to realize such a con- ception of the ^lessianic kingdom as found expression in tlie popular prejudice of His age. The Israelitish numarchy, thus understood, wotdd really have been only a uew and transient form of the kingdom of Satan on this earth— a kingdom of exler- ual foice, a kingdom of this world. But what Jesus afterward expressed in these words, " I am a King ; to this end was I born, but my kingdom is uot of this woild" (Jolin 18 : 37, 3G), was already in His heart. His kingdom was the beginning of a rule of an entirely new nature ; or, if this kingdom had an antecedent, it was that established by God in Zion (Ps. 2). Jesus had just at this very time l)een invesled with this at the hands of the divine delegate, John the Baptist. Therefore He had nothing to ask from batan, and consequently no homage to pay him. Tins lefusal was a serious matter. Jesus thereby renounced all power founded upon material means and social institutions. He broke with the Messianic Jewish ideal under fhe re- ceived form. He conrined Himself, in accomplishing the conquest of the world, to spiritual action exerted upon souls ; He condemned Himself to gain them one by one, by the labor of conversion and sanclification — a gentle, unostentatious progress, con- temptible in the eyes of the tlesh, of which the end, the visible reign, was only to appear after the lapse of centuries. Further, such an answer was a declaration of war against Satan, and on the most unfavorable conditions. Jesus condemned Him- self to struggle, unaided by human power, with an adversary having at his disposal all human powers ; to march with ten thousand nren against a king who was coming against Him with twenty thousand (14 : 31). Death inevitably awaited Him in this path. But He uuhesitalingl}' accepted all this, that He miglit remain faithful to God, from whom alone He delernuned to receive everything. To render homage to a be- ing who had broken with God, would be to honor him in his guilt}- usurpation, to associate Himself with his rebellion. This time again Jesus conveys His refusal in a passage of holy writ, Deut. G : 13 ; He thereby removes every appearance of answer- ing him on mere human authority. The Hebrew text and the LXX. merely say : " Thou shalt fear the Lord, and thou shalt serve Him." But it is obvious that this word serve includes adoration, and therefore the act of -fioaKwelv, falling (hnrn in xcor- ship, by which it is expressed. The words, Get tliee behind me, Satan, in Luke, are taken from Matthew ; so is {ho for in the next sentence. But in thus determining to establish His kingdom without any aid from material force, was uoi Jesus relying so much the more on a free use of the supernatural powers with which He had just been endowed, in order to overcome, by great miraculous efforts, theobstac;es and dangers to be encountered in the path He had chosen? This is the point on which Satan puts Jesus to a last proof. The third temptation then refers to the use which He in- tends to make of divine power in the course of His ]\Iessiauic career. Fourth. Vers. 0-13.* Third Temptation. — This trial belongs to a higher sphere * Vcr. 9. The o before vior in the T. R. is onuttcd in all theMjj. and in loO Man. 1-iO COMMENTARY ON ST. LUXE. than that of pliysical or political life. It is of a pureij^ religious character, and touches the deepest uud most sacred relations of Jesus with His Father. The dignity of a son of God, \vi(h a view to which man was created, carries with it the free dis- posal of divine power, aud of the motive forces of the universe. Does not God Himself say to His child: "Son, thou ait ever with me, and all that 1 have is thine" ? (J5:31). But in proportion as man is raised to this filial position, and gradually reaches divine fellowship, there arises out of this state an ever-increasing danger— that of abusing his great privilege, by changing, as an indiscreet inferior is tempted to do, this fellowship into familiarity. From this giddy height to which the grace of God has raised him, man falls, therefore, in an instant into the deepest abyss— into a presumptuous use of God's gifts and abuse of His confidence. This pride is more unpardonable than that culled in Sciipture the pride of life. The abuse of God's help is a more serious offence than not waiting for it in faith (first temptation), or than regarding it as insutficient (second temptation). The higher sphere to which this trial belongs is indicated by the scene of it— the most sacred place, Jefusalein (the holy city, as Matthew says) and the temple. The term Trrepvyiou tov iepov, trans- lated ^J-i/wutcfc of the temple, might denote the anterior extremity of the line of meeting of two inclined planes, forming the roof of the sacred edifice. But in this case, vaov would have been required rather than lepov (see 1 : 9). Probably, theiefore, it is son^e part of the court that is meant — either Solomon's Porch, which was situated on the eastern side of the temple platform, and commanded the gorge of the Kedrou, or the Rnyal Porch, built on the south side of this platform, aud from which, as Josephus says, the eye looked down into an abyss. The word Tivepvyiov would denole tlie coping of this peristyle. Such a position is a type of the sublime height (o which Satan sees Jesus raised, and whence he would have Him cast Himself down into an abyss. The idea of this incomparable spiritual elevation is expressed by these words : Jf thou art a Son of God. The Alex, rightly omit the art. before the word Son. For it is a question here of the filial character, and not of the personality of the Son. " If thou art a being to whom it appertains to call God thy Father in a unique sense, do not fear to do a daring deed, and give God an op[)ortunily to show the particular care He takes of thee." And as Satan had observed that Jesus had twice replied to him by the word of God, he tries in his turn to avail himself of this weapon. He applies here the promise (Ps. 91 : 11, 12) by an a fortiori argument : " If God has promised thus to keep the righteous, how much more His well-beloved Son !" The quotation agrees with the text of the LXX., with the exception of its omitting the words in all thy tonys, which Matthew also omits ; the latter omits, besides, the pre- ceding words, to keep thee. It has been tliought that this omission Avas made by Satan himself, who would suppress these words with a view to make the application of the passage more plausible, undulj'^ generalizing the promise of the Psalm, which, according to the context, applies to the righteous only in so far as he walks in the ways of obedience. This is very subtle. What was the real bearing of this temp- tation ? With God, power is always employed in the service of goodness, of love ; this is the difference between God and Satan, between divine miracle and diabolical sorcery. Now the devil in this instance aims at nothing less than making Jesus pass from one of these spheres to the other, aud this in the name of that most sacred and tender element in the relationship between two beings that love each other — con- fidence. If Jesus succumbs to the temptation by calling on the Ahnighty to deliver CiiAi". IV. : U, i;5, J 11 Ilim from a peril into which lie has not been thrown in the service of gooducss, He jviits ({n(i in the position of either refusing His Jiul. and so separating His cause from His own — a divorce between the Father and the Sou — or of setting free the exercise of His omnipotence, at least lor a moment, from the control of holiuess — a violation of His own nature. Either way, it would be all over with Jesus, and even, if we dare so speak, with God. Jesus characterizes the impious nature of this suggestion as tempting Ood, ver. 13. This term signifies putting God to the alternative either of acting in a way opposed to His plans or His nature, or of compromising the existence or safety of a person closely allied to Him. It is confidence carried to such presumption, as to become treason against the divine majesty. It has sometimes been thought that Satan wanted to induce Jesus to estaiilish His kingdom by some miraculous demonstration, by some prodigy of personal ilisiilaj', which, accomplished in the view uf a multitude of wor- shippers assembled in the temple, would have drawn to Him the homage of all Israel. But the narrative makes no ailusion to any elfect to be produced by this miracle. It is a question heie of a whim rather than of a calculation, of divine force placed at the service of caprice rather than of a deliberate evil purpose. For the thiid time Jesus borrows the foim of His repl}' from Scripture, aud, which is lemarkable, again from Deuteronomy (6 : 16). This book, which recorded the experience of Israel dur- ing the forty years' sojourn in the desert, had perhaps been the special subject of Jesus' meditations during His own sojourn in the wilderness. The plural, ye shall not tempt, iu the O. T. is changed bj'' Jesus into the singular, thou shalt vot tempt. Did this change proceed from a double meanmg which Jesus designedly introduced into this passage ? While ap])]j'ing it to Himself in His relation to God, He ."^eems, in fact, to apply it at the same time to Satan iu relation to Himself ; as if He meant to say : Desist, therefore, now from templing me, thy God. Almost all interpreters at the present day disapprove the order followed by Luke, and prefer Matthew's, who makes this last temptation the second. It seems to me, that if the explanation we have just given is just, there can be no doubt that Luke's order is preferable. The man who is no longer man, the Christ who is no longer Christ, the Son who is no longer Son — such are the three degrees of the temptation.* The second might appear the most exalted and dangerous to men who had grown up iu the midst of the theocracy; and it is intelligible that the tradition found in the Jewish-Christian churches, the type of which has been preserved in the first Gospel, should have made this peculiarly Me.ssianic temptation (the second in Luke) tiie crowning effort of the confiica. But in reality it was not so ; the true order his- torically, in a moral conflict, must be that which answers to the moral es.sence of things. Fifth. Ver. 13. Historical Conclusion. — The expression ndvra TrEipaaiiov does not signify all the temptation (this would require tj'kov), but every kind of temptation. "We have seen that the temptations mentioned refer, one to the person of Jesus, another to the nature of His work, the third to His u.se of the divine aid accorded to Him for this work ; they are therefore very varied. Further, connected as they are, they form a complete cycle ; and this is expressed in the term avvTE~Acaa<^, hnving finished, fulfdled. Nevertheless Luke announces, in the conclusion of his narrative, * [M. Godet is not as perspicuous here as usual. The original is : " L'honime (pii n'est plus homme, le Christ qui n'est plus Christ, le Fils qui n'est plus Fiis, Yoila . . ."] 142 COMMENTAKY OX ST. LUKE, the future return of Satan to subject Jesus to a fresh trial. If the words uxpi Knipov signified, us they are often translated, for a season, we might think that this future temptation denotes in general the trials to which Jesus would be exposed during the course of His ministry. But these words signify, nntil a favorable time. Satan ex- pects, therefore, some new opportunity, just such a special occasion as the previous one. This conflict, foretold so precisely, can be none other than that of Getbsemane. " This is the hour and power of darkness," said Jesus at that very time (22 : 53) ; and a few moments before, according to John (14 : 30), He had said : " The prince of this world comelh." Satan then found a new means of acting on the soul of Jesus, through the fear of suffering. Just as in the desert he thought he could dazzle this heart, that had had no experience of life, with the eclat of success and the in- toxication of delight ; so in Gethsemane he tried to make it swerve by the nightmare of punishment and the anguish of grief. These, indeed, are the two levers by whicli he succeeds in throwing men out of the path of obedience. Luke omits here the fact mentioned by Matthew and Mark, of the approach of angels to minister to Jesus. It is no dogmatic repugnance which makes him omit it, foi' he mentions an instance whollj'' similar, 23 : 43. Therefore he was ignorant of it ; and consequently he was not acquainted with the two other narratives. THE TEMPTATION. We shall examine — 1st. The nature of this fact ; 2d. Its object ; M. The three narratives. 1st. JSature of tlie Temptation. — The ancients generally understood this account liierally. They l)elieved that the devil appealed to Jesus in a bodily form, and actually carried Him away to the mountain and to the pinnacle of Ihe temple. But, to say nothing of the impossibility of finding imywhere a mountain from which all the king- doms of the world could be seen, the Bible does not meniion a single visible appear- ance of Satan ; and in the conflict of Gethsemane, which, according to liuke, is a lenewal of this, the piesence of the enemy is not projected into the world of sense. Have we to do then liere, as some moderns have thought, with a human tempter des- ignated metaphorically by the name Satan, in the sen.'te in which Jesus addies; ed Peter, " Get thee behind me, Satan," with an envoj^ f rom the Sandedrim, ex (jr., who h:id come to lest Him (Kuinoel), or with tlie deputation from the same body men- tioned in John 1 : 19, et seq., who, on their return from their interview with the fore- runner, met Jesus in the desert, and there besought Plis Messianic co-operation, by olferinir Him the aid of the .Jewish authorities (Lange) ? But it was not until after Jesus had already left the desert and rejoined John on the banks of the Joidaii, that lie was pul)licly pointed out by the latter as the Messiah.* Up to this lime no one knew Him as such. Besides, if this hypothesis affords a sufficient explanation of the second temptation (in the order of Luke), it will not explain either the first or the third. Was this narrative, then, originally nothing more tlian a moral lesson conveyed in the form of a parable, in which .Jesus inculcated on His disciples some most im- portant maxims for their future ministry ? Never to use their, miraculous power for their personal advantage, never to associate with wicked men for the attainment of good ends, never to perform a miracle in an ostentatious spirit — these werethe pre- cepts which Jesus had enjoined upon them in a figurative manner, but which they took literally (Schleiermacher, Schweizer-, Bleek). But first, of all, is it conceivaMe that Jesus should have expressed Himself so awkwardly as to lead to such a mistake ? Next, how could He have spoken to the apostles of an external empire to be founded by them? Further, the Messianic aspect, so conspicuous in the second temptation, is completely disguised in that one of the three maxims which, according to the ex- * See my " Commentary on the Gospel of John," on 1 : 29. TllK TKMI'l'Al'lDN. 14;} planntion of these tlieologifins, onsrlit to cnrrespond wilh it. BaumgartenCniPius, in order to iiu'i'l this last objiclioii. iipi)lR's the three niaxinis, not to tliat from wliich the apostles were to absliiin, hut to lliat wliich the}' must not expect from Jesus Him- self : " As Messiah. Jesus meant tu sa}', I sliall not seek to satisfy your sensual ap- pelities, yuur ambitious aspirations, nor your thirst for miracles." But till this kind of interpVetivlion meets with an msurmountable obstacle m Mark's narrative, where mention is made merely of the sojourn in the desert, and of the temptation in geneial, without lllo three particular tests, that is, according to this opinion, without the really Rigniticaut portion of the information being even mentioned. According to this, Mark Would have lost the kernel and retained only the shell, or, as Keim says, " kept the llesh wiiile rejecting the skeleton." In transforming the ]iaral)le into history, the evani!elist would liave omitted prec-isely that w hich contained the idea of the parable. Usieri, who had at one time adojjted the preceding view, was led by these diflicullies to regard this nairative us a myth emanating from tlie Christian consciousness ; and Strauss tried to explain the origin of this legend by the j^Icssianic notions current among the J(!ws. But the latter has not succeeded in producing, from the Jewish theology, a single passage eailicr thim the tin)e of Jesus in which the idea of a per- sonal coutiint between the ^Messiah and ^ataa is expressed. As to the (/"hrstian con- sciousness, woidd it have been capable of creating complete in all ils parts a narra- tive so mysterious and profound? Lastl}', the remarkably iixed place which this event occupies in the three synoptics belween the bajjtism of Jesus and the com- mencement of His ministry proves that this element of the evangelical history be- longs to the earliest form of Christian instruction. It coidd not therefore be the pro- duct of a later legendary crealltm. Unhss all the>a indications aie delusive, the narrative of the templation must cor- resp m I wilh a leat fact in the life of the Saviour But mijht it not be the descrip- tion of a purely m )ral struggle — of a sliug.ule that was ccnlined to the soul of Jesus? Might not the temptation be a vision occasioned by the state of exallatiim resulting from a prolonged fast, in which the brilliant image of the Jewish Messiah was pre- sented to His imaginntion under the most seductive forms? (Eichhorn. Paulus). Or might not this narrative be a condensed summary of u long series of intense medita- tions, in which, after having opened His soul with tender sympathy to all the aspira- tions of His age and people, Jesus had decidedly broken with them, and determined, with a full knowledge of the issue, to become solely the JMessiah of God ? (Ullmann.) In the first case, the hcitrt whence came this carnal dream could no longer be the heart of the H'jly One of God, and the perfectly pure life and conscience of Jesus become inexplical)le. As to the second form in which this opinion is pieseuted, it contains undoubtedly elements of truth. Tlie last two templations certainly corre- spond with the most pievalent and ardent aspirations of the Jewish people — the expectation of a political ^Messiah and the thirst for external s'l'^ns {nTiuela air elv, 1 Cor. 1 : 22). 1. But how, from this point of view, is the first temptation to be ex- plained ? 2. How could the tigure of a personal tempter find ils way into such a picture? How did it beome ils predominating feature, so as to foim almost the entire picture in Clark's narrative ? .'}. Have we not the aulhenlic comment of Jesus Himself on this coutlict in the passage 11 :21, 22, already referred to (p. loo)? lu descril)ing this victory over i/ie strong man by the man stronger titan lie, and laying it down as a condition absolutely indispensable to the spoiling of the stronghold of the former, did not Jesus allude to ii personal conflict between Himself and the prince of this world, such as we find portrayed in the narrative of the temptation? For these reasons, Keim. while ho recognizes in the temptation, with Ullmann, a sublime fact in the moral life of Jesus, an energetic determination of His will by which He abso- lutely renounced any deviation wliatevcr from the divine will, notwitiistundmg the iiisulHeiency of human means, confesses that he cannot refuse to admit the possibil- ity of the existence and interposition of the representative of the powers of evil. Here we reach the only explanation wdiich, in our opinion, can account for the narrative of the temptation. As there is a mutual contact of bodies, so also, in a hii^her sphere than that of matter, there is an action and reaction of spirits on each other. It was in this higher sphere to wdiich Jesus was raised, that He, the represen- tative of voluntary dependence and filial love to God, met tliat spirit in whom the autonomy of the creature finds its most resolute representative, and in every way, and uoiwithstanding all this spirit's craft, maintained bv conscientious choice Ilia 144 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. own ruling principle. Tliis victory decided the fate of mankind ; it licrame the foinuliUii)a of the establishment of God's kingdom upon earlh. Tliis is the ess«.iilial signiticuiice of this event. As to the narrative in which this mysterious scene lias been disclosed to us, it must be just, a symbolical picture, by means of which Jesus endeavored to make His disciples understand a fact which, from its very naluie, could only be fiilj'' described in figurative langunge. Still we must remember, thnt Jesus being really man, having His spirit united to a body, He needed, quite as much as we do, sensible representations as a means of apprehending spiritual facts. ]\Iela- phorical language was as natural in His case as incurs. In ail probability, llieie- fore, it was liecessary, in order to Tlis fully entering into the conflict between Him .self and the tempter, that it should a';sume the scenic (plasiiqiw) foim in which it has been preserved to us. While saying this, we do not think that Jesus was transported bodily by Satan through the air. "We believe that, had He been observed by any .spectator while the tenTplation was going on. He would have appeared all through it motionless upon the soil of the desert. But though the conflict did not pass out of the f^piritual sphere, it was none Ihe less real, and the value of this victory M-as not less iucalculuble and decisive, This view, with some slight shades of difference, is that advocated by Theodore of ]\Iopsuestia in the ancient Church, by some of the Ileformers, and by several modern commentators (Olshausen, Neander, Oosleizee, Pressense, etc.). Bnt could Jesus be really tempted, if He was holy? could He sin, if He was the Sdu of God? /«77 in His work, if He was the Redeemer appointed by God ? Asa lialy being. He could be tempted, because a conflict might arise between some legiti- male bodily want or normal desire of the soul, and the divine will, which for Ihe time forbade its satisfaction. The Son could sin, since He had renounced His divine mode of existence in the form of God(F\\\\. 2 : G), in order to enter into a human condition altogether like ours. The Redeemer might succumb, if the question be regarded from the standpoint of His personal liberty ; which is quite consistent with God being assured by His foreknowledge that He would stand firm. This fore- knowledge was one of the factors of His plan, precisely as the foreknowledge of the faith of believers is one the elements of His eternal Trp/iOeaiZ (Rom. 8 : 20). 2d. Object of the Tempidtion. — The temptation is the complement of the baptism. It is the negeitire preparation of Jesus for His ministry, as the baptism was His ■poMtice preparation. In His baptism Jesus receii'ed impulse, calling, stieuglh. By the temptation He was made distinctly conscious of the errors to be shunned, and the perils to be feared, on the right hand and on the left. The temptation was the last act of His moral education ; it gave Him an insight into all the ways in which His Messianic ,.w?)lk could possibly be maned. If, from the very first step in His arduous taieer, ^ Jesus kept the path marked out by God's will without deviation, change, or hesi- tancy, this bold fiout and steadfast perseverance are certainly due to His experience of the temptation. All the wrong courses possible to Him were thenceforth known ; all the rocks had been observed ; and it was the enemy himself who had rendered Him this service. And it was for this reason that God apparently delivered Him for a brief time into his power. This is just what Matthew's narrative expresses so forcibly: " He was led up of the Spirit . . . to be tempted." When He left this school, Jesus distinctly understood that, as respects His person, no act of His ministry was to have any tendency to lift it out of His human condition ; that, as to His woik, it was to be "in no way assimilated to the action of the powers of this world ; and ti)at in the employmentoi divine power filial bberty was never to become caprice, not even under a pretext of bhnd trust in the help of God. And this programme was carried out. His material wants were supplied by the gifts of charity (8 : 3), not by miracles; His mode of life was nothing else than a perpetual hunuliation — a pro- longation, 80 to speak, of His incarnation. When laboring to establish His kingdom, Ileunhesitatingly refused the aid of huma;i power — as, for instance, when the multi- tude wished to inake Him a king (John 6 ; 15) ; and His ministry assumed the char- acter of an exclusively spiritual conquest. He abstained, lastly, from every miracle which had not for its immediate design the revelation of moral perfection, that is to say, of the glory of His Father (Luke 11 : 20). These supreme rules of the Messianic activity were all learned in that school of trial through which God caused Him to pass in the desert. Zd. The ^Narratives ef the Temptation. — It has been maintained that, since John THE TEMTTATION. MO (lies notTclatetlie leniptalion, he de facto doiiies it. But, as we have already observed, I lie starting point of i;is narrative l)el()ngs to a later time. Tlie narrative of .Mark (1 : I'-i, 13), is very siinimary indeed. It occupies in souie respects a middle place between the other two, approaching Matthew's in the preface and close (the minis- tration of the angels), ami Jjuke's iu the e.xtensiun of the temptalion to forty days. But it differs from both in omitting the three particular lem[)tali()ns, and by the addi- tion of the incident of the wild beasts. Here arises, for those who maintain that one of our Gospels was the source of the other, or of both the others, the following dilemma : Either the original narrative is Mark's, which the oilier two have ampli- fied (Meyer), or 3lark has given a suinmaiy of the two otheis (BlceU). There is yet a third alternative, by which Ilollziiiaun escapes this dilemma : Theie was jin original MarK, and its account was transferred in extetiso into Luke and Matthew, but abridged by our canonical Mark. This last supposition appears to us inadmissible ; for if Matthew aud Luke drew from tJic name written source, how did the strange reversal in the order of the two lemplali.,ns happen ? Schleierinacher supposes — and modern crticism approves the suggestion (Ilollzmann, p. 21o)— that Luke altered the order of ^latthew in order not to change the scene so frequently, by making Jesus leave tlie desert (for the temple), and then return to it (for the mountain). We n ally wonder how men can seriously i)ut forward such puerilities. Lastly, if the three evaugelists drew from the samj source, the Proto-]\laik, whence is the mention of the wild beasts in our canonical INLaik derived? The evangelist cannot have imagined it without any authority ; and if it was mentioned in the commoa source, it could not have been passed over, as Holtzinana admits (p. 70), by Luke aud Matthew. The ex'plmation of the latter critic being set aside, there lemains the original dilemma. Have Matthew aud Luke ainplitied Mark? How then does it happen that they coin:'iiie, n)t isianic dignity. " A prophet hath no honor in his own country" (John 4 : 44). This is why He would not undertake His work among His Galilccan fellow-countrymen until after He had achieved some success elsewhere. The reputation which preceded His return would serve to prepare His wa}- among tlicm (John 4 : 45). He had therefore Galilee in view even during this eaily activity in Judaea. He foresaw that tliis province would be the cradle of His Church; for the yoke of phaiisaical and sacerdotal despotism did not press so heavily on it as on the capital and its neighborhood. The chords of human feeling, paralyzed in Judoea by false devotion, still vibrated in the hearls of these mountaineers to frank and stir- ring ajipeals, and their ignorance appeared to Him a medium more easily penetrable by light from above than ihe perverted enlightenment of rabbinical science. Comp. the remarkable passage, 10 ; 21. It is not ea.sy to make out the plan of this part, for it describes a continuous prog- ress without anj' marked bieaks ; it is a picture of the inward and outward progress of the work of Jesus in Galilee. Ritschl is of opinion that the progress of the story is determined by the growing hostility of the adversaries of Jesus ; and accordingly he aiopls this division : 4 . 1(5, G : 11, absence of conflict ; 6 : 12, 11 : 54, the hostile 148 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. attitude assumed by the two adversaries toward each other. But, -first, the fiist symptoms of hostility break out before 6 : 12 ; second, the passage 9 : 51, which is passed over by the divisiuu of Ritschl, is evidently, in the view of the author, one of tlie principal connecting links in the narrative ; third, the growing hatred of the ad- versaries of Jesus is only an accident of His worit, and in no waj-- the governing motive of its development. It is not there, therefore, that we must seek the principle of the division. The author appears to us to have marked out a route for himself by a series of facts, in which there is a gradation easily perceived. At first Jesus preaches without any following of regular disciples ; soon He calls about Him some of tlie most attentive of His hearers, to make them His permanent disciples , after a certain time, when these disciples had become very numerous. He raises twelve of them to the rank of apostles ; lastly, He intrusts these twelve with their tirst mission, and makes them His evangelists. This gradation in the position of His helpers naturally corresponds, j/i?-«^, with the internal progress of His teaching ; second, with the local extension of His work ; third, with the increasing hostility of the Jews, ■with whom Jesus breaks more and more, in proportion as He gives organic form to His own work. It therefore furnishes a measuie of the entire movement. We are guided by it to the following division : First Cycle, 4 : 14-44, extending to the call of the first disciijles. Second Cycle, 5 : 1, 6 : 11, to the nomination of the twelve. Third Cycle, 6 : 12, 8 : 56, to their first mission. Fourth Cycle, 9 : 1-50, to the departure of Jesus for Jerusalem. At this point the work of Jesus in Galilee comes to an end ; He bids adieu to this field of labor, and, setting His face toward Jerus;dem, He carries with Him into Judaea the result of His previous labors, His Galiieeau Church. FIRST CYCLE.— CHAP. 4 : 14-44. Visits to Nazareth and to Capernaum. The following narratives are grouped around two names — Nazareth (vers. 14-80) and Capernaum (vers. 31-44). 1. Visit to Nazareth : vers, 14-30. This portion opens with a general glance at the commencement of the active Tabors of Jesus in Galilee : 14, 15. Then, resting on this foundation, but separable from it, as a particular example, we have the nar- rative of His preaching at Nazaretli : vers. lG-30. First Vers. 14, 15. The 14tli verse is, as we have shown, the complement of ver 1 (see ver. 1) The verb, he returned, comprehends, according to what pre- cedes, the two returns mentioned, John 1 : 44 and 4 : 1, and even a third, understood between John 5 and 6. The words, in the power of the Spirit, do not refer, as many have tliought, to an impulse from above, which urged Jesus to return to Galilee, but to His possession of the divine powers which He had received at His baptism, and with which He was now about to teach and act ; complflUed with the Spirit, ver. 1, Luke evidently means that he returned different from what he was when He left. Was this supernatural power of Jesus displayed solely in His preaching, or in miracles also already wrought at this period, though not related by Luke? Since the miracle at Cana took place, according to John, just at this lime, we incline to the lat- ter meaning, which, considering the term employed, is also the mure natural. In this way, what is said of His fame, which immediately spread through all the rejjiou CHAP. IV. : 14-19. 149 round about, is readily explained. Preaching alone would scarcelj' have been sufTi- cient to have brought about this resuj^ Meyer brings in here the leport of the miraculous incidents of the baptism ; but these probably had not been witnessed by any one save Jesus and John, and no allusion is made to them subsequently. The ir)tii vers^e relates how, after liis reputation had prepared the way for lliiu. He came Him.tdfiavTiig) ; then how tliey all, after hearing Hliu, ratified the favorable judg- ment which Ilis fame had bi-ougbt respecting Him (ijlorifiidofall). The synagogues, in which Jesus fultillcd His itinerant minislry, were places of assembly existing from the retutn of the captivity, perhaps even earlier. (Bleik finds the proof of an earlier date in Ps. 74 :8.) "Wherever there was a somewhat numerous Jewish populalion, even in heathen countries, there were such places of worship. They assembled in them on the Sabbath da}', also on the Monday and Tuesday, and on court and market days. Any one wishing Iv^ speak signified his intention by rising (at least according to this passage ; comp. also Acts 13 : IG). But as all teaching wrrs founded on the Scriptures, to speak was before anything else to rend. The reading finished, he tairgiu, silting down (Acts V,] : IG, Paul speaks standing). Order Avas nrairitaincd by the itpxinvrufjoyyoi, or presidents of the synagogue. Vers. 14 and l.") forrii the fourth definite statement in the accovrnt of the development of the person and work of Jesus ; comp. 3 : 40, 52, and 3 : 23. Second. Vers. l()-30. Jesus did not begin by preaching at Nazareth. In His view, no doubt, the inhabitants of this city stood in much the same relation to the people of the rest of Galilee as the inhabitants of Galilee to the rest of the Jewish people ; He knew that in a certain stnse Hisgreatestdifliculties would be encounter- ed there, and that it would be prudent to defer his visit until the time wnen His rep- utation, being already established in the rest of the country, would help to counter- act the prejudice resulting from His form.er lengthened connection with the people of the place. Vers. lG-19.* The Reading. — Ver. 10. Kai. " And in these itinerancies He came also." John (2 : 12) and 3Iallhew (4 : 13) r-efer to this time the transfer of tlie residence of Jesus (and also, according to John, of that of His motirer and br-ethren) fr'om Nazareth to Capernarrm, winch naturally implies a visit to Nazareth. Besides, John places the miracle at the marriage at Cana at the same time. Now, Cana be- ing such a very short distance from Nazareth, it would have been an affectation on the part of Jesus to be staying so near His native town, and not visit it. The words, iclieje lie had been brought vp, assign the motive of His proceeding. The expression, accordiwj to His custom, cannot apply to the short time which had elapsed since His return to Galilee, unless, with Bleek, we regard it as an indication that this event is of later date, which indeed is possible, but in no waj" necessary. ■ It rather applies to the period of Ilis childhood and youth. Tliis remark is iu close connection witlr the words, where he had been brovf/ht tip. .Attendance at the synagogue was, as Keim has well brought out (t. i. p. 434), a most important instrument in the religious and * Ver. 10. T. E., with K. L. n. manyMnn.. NaCaper (c""— ptO with 11 Mjj.) ; D.. Na;«pf(! ; !!*. B.* Z. Nf/,''V« ; A., N«C';/j"1" : ^., N«s'«p«^. Ver. 17. A. B. L. Z. S3'r. read nvui^ai instead of avuTm^as, wliich is the reading of IG Mjj. Mun. B. It. Ver. 18. Twenty Mjj. read evay-yr'Aiaaafi-u instead of tvayyt/.ii^FaOnt, which is tiie leading of T. R. wrth merely some Mnn. Ver. 1!). it. B. D. L. Z. It. omit the words laoanfjai r. owrerp. t. Kapihav, which is the reading of T. R. with 15 Mjj., the greater ]jart of the Mnn. Syr. 150 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. intellectual development of Jesus. Cliildren had access to this worship from the age of tive or six ; they were compelled to attend it when they reached tliirteen (Keim, t. i. p. 431). But it was not solely hy means of these Scripture lessons, heard regularly in the synagogue several times a week, that Jesus learned to know the O. T. so well. There can be no doubt, as Keim says, that He possessed a copy of the sacred book Himself. Otherwise He would not have known how to read, as He is about to do here. The received reading, having unrolled, ver. 17, is preferable to the Alex, var., having opened. The sacred volumes were in the form of rectangular sheets, ro.led round a cylinder. By the expression, He found, Luke gives us to understand that Jesus, surrendering Himself to guidance from above, read at the place where the roll opened of itself. We cannot then infer, as Bengel does, from the fact of this pas- sage being read by the Jews on the day of atonement, that this feast was being ob- served on that very day. Besides, the piesent course of the Haphtaroth, or readings from the prophets, dates from a later period. This passage belongs to the second part of Isaiah (61 ; 1 etseq.). This long con- secutive prophecy is generally applied to the return from the captivity. The only term which would suggest this explanation in our passage is alx/LiaXuToic, properly prisoners of war, ver. 19. But this woid is used with a more general meaning, lit. Paul applies it to his companions in work and activity (Col. 4 : 10). The term iTTuxoS, poor, rather implies that the people are settled in their own country. The re- markable expression, to proclava the acccptnhle year of the Lord, makes the real thought of the prophet sufficiently clear. There was in the life of the people of Israel a yef^r of grace, which might very naturally become a type of the Messianic era. This was the 3'ear of Jubilee, which returned every tifty years (Lev. 26). B3' means of this admirable institution. God had provided for a periodical social restoration in Israel. The Israelite who haa sold himself into slavery regained his liberty ; families which had alienated their patrimony recovered possession ; a wide amnesty was granted to persons imprisoned for debt — so many types of tiic work of Him who was to restoro spiritual liberty to mankind, to free them from their guilt, and restore to them their divine inheritance. Jesus, therefore, could not have received from His Father a text more appropriate to His present position — the inauguration of His Messianic min- istry amid the scenes of Plis pievious life. Tiie first words. The Spirit of Vie Lord is upon me, are a paraphrase of the teim n^II'D' Messiah (Xp^aros, Anointed). Jesus, in reading these wor-ds, could not but apply them to His recent baptism. Tiie expression heKEv ov cannot siirnify here therefore: " The Spirit is upon me ; wherefore God hath anointed me ;'' this would be coutfary to the meaning. The LXX. have used this conjunction to translate iyi, which in the original signifies, just as";^?^ "lyi, hecaune, a meaning which the Greek expression will also bear (on this account that, propterea quod). On the first day of the year of Jubilee, the priests went all through the land, announcing with sound of trumpets the blessings brought by the opening year {jubilee, from 7^1, to sound a trumpet). It is to this proclamation of grace that the woids. to annouitce good netos to the poor, undoubtedly allude. Lev. 25 : 6, 14, 25. The words, to heal the broken in lieart, which ilie Alex, reading omits, might have been introduced into the text from the O. T. ; but, in our view, they form the almost indispensable basis of the word of Jesus, ver. 23. We must therefore retain them, and attribute their omission to an act of negligence occasioned by the long string of infinitives. The term KTipii^ai aoeaiv, to ptroclaim liberty, employed ver. 19, a'so alludes to the solemn prcclamaliou ciiAi'. IV. : V.)-i-2. ii)l of the jubilee. This word (tpojir is found at almost every verse, in the LXX., in the statute enjoining this feast. Bleek himself observes that the formula ~ni"l ^'-^p, \vhi(;h corresponds to those two Ciieek terms, is that which is employed iu connectiiu with the jubilee ; l)ut notwithstanding, this does not prevent his applying the pass- age, aocording to the common prejudice, to the return fiom the captivity! The prisoners who recovered their freedom are amnestied malefactors as well as slaves set free at the beginning of this year of grace. The image of the blind restored l<» sight does not, at the tirst glance, accord with that of the jubilee ; but it docs iml any better suit the figure of the return from the captivity. xVud if this translaiiou of the Hebrew te.xt were accurate, we should have iu cither case to allow that the prophet had departed from the general image with which he had started. But the term in Isaiah (C''"^'CX- properly bound) denotes captives, not blind persons. The expression n'p HpC signities, it is true, the oyjening of the eyes, not the opening of a prison. But the captives coming fortli from their dark dungeon are represented under the ligure of blind men suddenly restored to sight. The words, to set at liberty them thxit ai-e bruised, are taken from another passage in Isaiah (58 : 6). Probably iu Luke's authority this passage was already combined with the former (as often hap- pens with Paul). The figurative sense of reOpavafiivoi, pierced thnAigh, is required by ti\e verb to send amiy. The acceptable year of the Lord is that in which He is l>ieascd to show mankind extraordinary favors. Several Fathers have inferred from this expression that the ministry of Jesus only lasted a single year. Tliis is to con- found the type and the antitj'pe. Vers. 20-23. The Preaching. — The description of the assembly, ver. 20, is so dra- matic that it appears to have come from an eye-witness. The sense of yp^aro. He began (ver. 21), is not that these were X\\(i firxt words of His discourse ; this expression describes the solemnity of the moment when, in the midst of a silence residting from universal attention, the voice of Jesus sounded through the synagogue. The last words of the verse signify literally, '' This word is accomplished in your ears ;" in other words, " This preaching to which you are now listening is iiself the realization of this prophecy." Such was the text of Jesus' discourse. Luke, without going into His treatment of His theme (ccmp., for example, Matt. 11 : 28-30), passes (ver. 22) to the impression produced. It was generally favorable. The term bare tritncss alludes to the favorable reports v/hich had reached them ; they proved for themselves that His fame was not exaggerated. 'EOnvjia^ov signifies here, they tccre astonished (John 7 : 21 ; Mark 0 : 6), rather than they admired. Otherwise the transition ti) what follows woull be too abrupt, ^o W\e ictm. gracio^is wo/'rf.s- describes rather the matter of Jesus' preaching — its description of the works of divine grace — than the impres.sion received by His liearers. They were astonished at this enumeration of marvels hitherto unheard of. The words, ^chich proceeded forth out of Ilis mouth, express the fulness with which this proclamation poured forth from His lieart. Two courses were here open to the inhabitants of Nazareth : either to surrender themselves to the divine instinct which, while thej' listened to this call, was drawing them to Jesus as the anointed of whom Isaiah spake ; or to give place to an intellec- tual suggestion, allow it to suppress the emotion of the heart, and cause faith to evaporate in criticism. The}' took the latter course ; is not this Joseph's son? An- nouncements of such importance appeared to them altogether out of place in the mouth of this young man, whom they had known from his childhood. "What a contrast between the cold reserve of this yuej,tion, and the enthusiasm which wel- 153 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. corned Jesus everywhere else (glorified of all, ver, 15) .' For them this was just such a critical luomeut as was to occur soon after for the inhabitauts of .ferusaleiu (John 2 : 13-22). Jesus sees at a glance the bearing of this remark which went round among His hearers : when the impressiou He has produced ends in a question of curiosity, all is lost ; and He tells them so. ' Vers. 23-27.'* The Colloquy.— " And Ho said to them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb. Physician, heal thyself ; whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. 24. And He said. Verily 1 say unto j'ou. No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when tbe heaven was shut up three j'ears and six mouths, when great famine was throughout all the land ; 26. But unto none of Ihem was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet ; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." The meaning surely, which ttuitus often has, would be of no force here ; it rather means wholly, noiliing less than:" " The question which you have just put to me is only the first sj'uiptom of unbelief. From surprise you will pass to derision. Thus you will cjuickly ariive at the end of the path in which you have just taken the first step.' ' The term TtapajSo/rj, 'parable, denotes any kind of figurative discourse, whether a complete narrative or a short sen- tence, couched in an image, like proverbs. Jesus had just attributed to Himself, applying Isaiah's words, the ofllce of a restorer of humanity. He had described the various ills from Avhieh His hearers were suffering, and directed their attention to Himself as the physician sent to heal them. This is what the proverb cited refers to. pirU (ver. 14), contains by implication, as we have seen, an indication of miracles wrought in those early days, and among these we must certainly rank the miracle at the marriage feast at Cana (John 2). This miracle was followed by a resideuce at Capernaum (John 2 : 10), during which Jesus may have performed some miraculous works ; and it was not till after that that He preached publicly at Nazareth. Tliese early miracles liave been elTaced by subsequent events, as that at Cuna would have been, if John had not rescued it from oblivion. If this is so, the twenty-third verse, which seems at first sight not to harmonize with the previous narrative, would just prove 'with what fidelity' Luke has preserved the purport of the sources whence he drew his informa- tion. John in the same way makes allusion (3 : 22) to miracles which he has not recorded. The preposition e\i before the name Capernaum appears to be the true reading: " done «< and z'/i /(»w f^ Capernaum. " The (5j (ver. 24) indicates opposition. " So far from seeking to obtain your con- fidence by a display of miracles, 1 shall rather accept, as a prophet, the fate of all the prophets." The proverbial saying here cited by Jesus is found in the scene Matt. 18 and Mark G, and, with some slight modification, in John 4 : 44. None have more difficulty in discerning the exceptional character of an extraordinary man than those who have long lived with him on terms of familiarity. The (Jt- (ver. 25) is again of an adversative force : If b3'your unbelief j'ou prevent my being j'our physician, there are others whom you will not prevent me from healing. The expression verily announces something important ; and it is evident that the application of the saj'ing, ver. 24, in the mind of Jesus, has a much wider reference than the instance before Him ; Nazareth becomes, in His view, a type of unbelieving Israel. This is pioveJ by the two following examples, which refer to the relations of Israel with the heathen. He speaks of a famineof three years and a h;df. From the expressions of the O. T., during these years (1 Kings 17 : 1), and the third year (18 : 1), we can only in strict- ness infer a drought of two j'earsand a half. But as this same figure, threeycars and a half, is found in Jas. 5 ; 17, it was probably a tradition of the Jewish schools. The reasoning would be this : The famine must have lasted for a certain time after the drought. There would be a desire also to make out the number which, ever since the persecution of Anticclius Epiphanes, had become the emblem of times of national calamity. The expressiou, all the land, denotes the land of Israel, with the known countries bordering upon it. The Alex, reading 2«5wwas, the territory of Sidon, may be a correction derived from the LXX. The reading Zi('>u)vo;, the city of Sidon itself, makes the capital the centre on which the surrounding cities depend. Thesomewliat incorrect use of el iir], except, is explained by the application of this restriction not to the special notion of hraclitish widowhood, but to the idea of icidowhood in general ; the same remark applies to ver. 27, ]SIatt. 12 : 4, Gal, 1 ; 19, and other passages. The second example (ver. 27) is taken from 2 Kings 5 : 14. The passage 2 Kings 7 . 3 and some others prove how very prevalent leprosy was in Israel at this time. The prophecy contained in these examples is being fulfilled to this hour : Israel is deprived of the works of grace and marvels of healing which tlie Messiah works among the Gentiles. 154 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. Vers. 28-30.* Conclusion. — The threat contained m these examples exasperates them : " Thou rejectest us : we reject thee," was their virtual repl}'. The terra £K3aA/.eiv, to cad out. denotes that they set upon Him with violence. About forty minutes distant from Nazareth, to the south-east, they show a wall of rock eiirhty feet high, and (if we add to it a second declivity which is found a little below) about COO feet above the plain of Esdraelon. It is there that tradition places this scene. But Robinson regards this tradition as of no great antiquity. Besides, it does not agree with the expression : on icldch the city teas built. Nazareth spreads itself out upon the eastern face of a mountain, wheie there is a perpendicular wall of rock from 40 to 50 feet high. This nearer locality agrees better with tiie text. The uare of the Alex, reading signifies : so as to be able to cast Him down. It was for that purpose that they took the trouble of going up so high. This reading is preferable to the T. R. : itS -Oyfor the jmrposeof. The deliverance of Jesus was neither a miracle nor an escape ; He passed through the gr(mp of these infuriated people with a majesty which overawed them. The history offers some similar incidents. We cannot say, as one critic does ; " In the absence of any other miracle, He left them this." The greater part of modern critics regard this scene as identical with that of Malt. 1?> and Mark G. placed by these evangelists at a much later i)eriod. They rely, 1)^1, On the expifssion of surprise: Is not this the son of Joseph ? and on the proverl. B. D. L. some Man., ware instead of f(? ro. \U.\v. IV. : :.'S-4 I. loo by Jesus, sind wliich hud iufluenced from the first the course of Ills ministry. Now, as the tliree Syii. are :i,i;ieetl in referring this saynig to a visit at Nazareth, tliis qiiola- tioii ill John clearly provt s tliul tlie visit in qurslion took place at the coaiinenceiiieut (I>uke), ami not in tlie niiiUUe or at llie end of the Galikeaii ministry (.Malthevv and Mark). We are lUu.s bioiiglu to the cunclusious : 1. Tiiat llie vi>it rcIitLed by Luke is historical ; 2. Tiial ihe rucoiluciiun of it was hist to tradiLi^n, iu couimou with many other facts rchiling to tlie bi yiuniug ((f tlie ministry (marriage at Caua, etc.) ; '6. That it was followed by another toward the end of the Gald.-eau ministry, iu the traditional account of which si-veial incidents were inlroduceil belonging to the former. As to the sojourn at Ca[)ern;ium, implied in Luke 5 : 2'>>, we have already seen that it i.4 included iu the general dcsciiiiiiou, ver. l."j. John 2 ; 12 proves that from the first the altentith. Trausiliuu to the evangelization of Galilee generally. First. Vers. 31 and 32. The term. He iccjit doicn, refers to the situation of Caper- naum on the sea-shore, iu opposition to that of Nazareth on the high land. We have to do here with a permanent abode ; comp. John 2 : 12 and ]\Lut. 4 : 13 {i'/Muv Kartl)KTj(7ev e/f K.), as well as the term, Ilis own city (Matt. 9 : 1). The name Capernaum or Ciipharnaum (see critical note, ver. 23) does not occur in the O. T. From this it would seem that it was not a very ancient place. The name may signify, town of INah>Lm (alluding to the prophet of this name), or (with more probability) town of conaolation. The name, according lo Josephus, belonged properly to a fountain ;* in the only passage iu which he menlious this town, he calls it Keoapvufjii] \ Until lately, it was very generally admitted that the site of Capernaum was maiked by the ruins of Teil-Hum towatd the northern end of the lake of Gennesareth, to the west of the embouchure of the Joidan. Since Robinson's time, however, several, and among the rest M. llenan, have inclined to look for it farther south, in the rich plain wl:ere s!and3 at the present day the town of Khan-Minyeh, of which Josephus has left us such a fine description. Kcim pronounces \cry decidedly in favor of this latter opinion, and supports it l)y reasons of great weight. + Agriculture, fishing, and com- merce, favored by the road frum Damascus lo Plolemais, which passed through or near Capernaum, had made it a nourishing city. It was therefore the most important town of the northern district of the lake country. It was the Jewish, as Tiberias was the heathen, capital of Galilee (a similar relation to that between Jerusalem and Cajsarea). The 31st and 32d verses form the fifth resting-place or general summary in (he nanative (see vers. 14, 15). The analytical form ?> i^kUokuv indicates habit. In the parallel place in Mark, the imperf. i6i6aaKev puts the act of teaching in direct and special connection with the following fact. By the authority (ikovala) which charac- terized the words of Jesus, Luke means, not the power employed in the healing of * " Bell. Jud. " iii. 10, 8 : "To the mildness of the climate is added the advan- tage of a copiuus spring, which the inhabitants call Cupharnaum." t Jos. " Vita," ij 72 X Delitzch, iu his little tractate, " Ein Tag in Capernaum," does not hesitate to recognize in the great field cf ruins of Tell-Iliim the remains of Capernaum. 15G CO.MMEXTAJIY OX ST. LUKE. the demoniiiu (to express this he would rather have used dvvafiii, force), but the com- manding chaiacter which distinguished His teaching. Jesus did not dissecl texts, like the Rabbis ; He laid down truths which carried with them their own evidence. He spoke as a legislator, not as a lawyer (Matt. 7 . 28, 29). The following incident proves ilie right He had to teach in this way. It appears that it was with this 31st verse that Maicion commenced his Gospel, prefacing it with the fixing of the dale, iii. 1 ; "In the loth year of the government of Tiberius, Jesus went down into the town of Galilee called Capernaum."* The complement understood or we?i^ doicn was evidently , from heaven. As to the visit to Nazareth, Marcion places it after the scene which follows ; this transposition was certainl}'^ dictated by ver. 23. Second. Vers. 33-37. f Should the possessed mentioned by the evangelists be re- garded simply as perswna afflicted after the same manner as our lunatics, whose de- rangement was attributed by Jewish and lieathen superstition to supernatuial in- fluence? Or did God really permit, at this extraoidinary epoch in history, an ex- ceptional display of diabolical power? Or, lastly, s-hould certain morbid conditions now existing, which medical science attributes to purely natural causes, either physical or psychical, be put down, at the present day also, to the action of higher causes? These are the three hypotheses which present themselves to the mind. Several of the demoniacs healed by Jesus certainly exhibit symptoms very like those which are observed at the present day in those who are simply afflicted ; for example, the epileptic child, Luke 9 : 37 e< seq., and parall. These strange conditions in every case, therefore, were based on a real disorder, either physical or physicu-p.^ychical. The evangelists are so far from being ignorant of this, that they constantly class the demoniacs under the category of the sick (vers. 40 and 41), never under that of the vicious. The possessed- have nothing in common with the children of tlie devi', (John 8). Nevertheless tiiese afflicted persons are constantly made a class by them- selves. On what does this distinction rest ? On this leading fact, that those who are simply sick enjoy their own personal consciousness, and are in possession of their own will ; while in the possessed these faculties are, as it were, confiscated to a foreign power, with which the sick person identifies himself (ver. 34, 8 : 30). IIow is this peculiar symptom to be explained ? Josephus, under Hellenic influence, thought that it should be attributed to the souls of wicked men who came after death seeking a domicile in the living. % In the eyes of the people the strange guest was a demon, a fallen angel. This latter opinion .Jesus must have shared. Strictly speak- ing, His colloquies with the demoniacs might be explained by an accommodation to popular prejudice, and the sentiments of those who were thus afflicted ; but in His private conversations with His disciples. He must, whatever was true, have discliis(d His real thoughts, and sought to enlighten them. But He does nothing of the kird ; on the contrary. He gives the apostles and disciples i[)ovieT Xo cast out devil's {^ -A), and to tread on nil the power of the enemy (10 : 19). In Mark 9 : 29, He distinguishes a certain class of demons that can only be driven out bv prayer (anrl fasting V). In lAike 11 :31)and parall. Heexplair- the facility with which He casts out demons by the personal victory which He had achieved over Satan at the beginning. He therefore admitted the intervention of this being in these mysterious conditions. If * Terlullian, " Contra Marc," iv. 7. t Ver. 33. i». B. L. V. Z. omit Ityuv. Yer. 35. ». B. D. L. V. Z. several Mnn. read crro instead of fi. X "Bell. Jud." vii. 6. a CHAi'. IV. : 33-;>i. 157 this is so, is it not iiatural to ailniit Ihat IIo who excrcisorl over this, as ovor all other kiiuls of mahulies, such absolult! power, best uiulurslootl its uaturu, and that there- fore His views upon tlie point siiould determine ours? Arc there not times wiien God permits a superior evil power to invade humanity? Just as God sent Jesus at a period in liistory when moral and soeial evil had reached its culminating point, did not He also permit an cxliaordinary manifestation of dia- bolical power to take place at the same time? By this means Jesus could he prch claimed externally and visibly as the conqueror of the enemy of men, as He who came to destroy the works of the devil in the moral sense of the word (1 John 3 : 8). All the miiacles of healing have a similar design. They are signs by which Jesus is revealed as the author of spiritual deliverances corresponding to these phj'sical cures. An objucliou is found in the silence of the fourth (Jospel ; but John in no way pro- fessed to relate all he knew. He sa\'s himself, 30 30, 31. thut there are besides many miracles, and different miracles {tzoa'au, kch aA/in), which he does not relate. As to the present state of things, it must not be compared with the limes of Jesus. Not only might the latter have been of an exceptional character ; but the beneficent inlluence which the Gos[)el has exercised in restoring man to himself, and bringing his conscience under the power of the holy and true God, may have brought about a complete change in the spiritual world. Lastly, apart from all this, is there nothing mysterious, from a scientific point of view, in certain cases of mental derangement, particularly in those conditions in which the will is, as it were, confiscated to, and paralyzed by, an unknown power ? And after deduction has been made for all those forms of mental maladies which a discriminating analysis can explain by moral and physical lelalions, will not an impartial physician agree that there is a residuum of cases respecting which he must say : Non liquet? Possession is a caricature of inspiration. The latter, attaching itself to the moral esvseuce of a man, confirms him forever iu the possession of his true self ; the former, while profoundly opposed to the nature of tiie subject, lakes advantage of its state of morbid passivity, and leads to the forfeiture of persimality. The one is the highest work of God ; the other of (he devil. The question has been asked, IIovv could a man in a state of mental derangement, and who would be regarded as unclean (ver. 33), be found in the synagogue ? Per- haps his malad}' had not broken out before as it did at this moment — Luke says literally: a man who had a spirit {nn afflatus) of an unclean devil. In this expression, which is only found in Rev. 10 : 14, the term spirit or afflatus denotes the influence of the unclean devil, of the being who is the author of it. The crisis which breaks out (ver. 3-1) results from the opposing action of those two powers which enter into conflict with each other — the influence of the evil spirit, and that of the person and word of Jesus. A hoi}' power no sooner begins to act in the sphere in which this wretched creature lives, than the unclean power which has dominion over him feels its empire threatened. This idea is suggested by the contrast between the epithet vhclean applied to the diabolical spirit (ver. 33), and the address : Thou art the Holy One of God(ver. 34). The exclamation la, ah! (ver. 34) is properly the imperative of idu, let he! It is a cry like that of a criminal Avho, when suddenly apprehended by the police, calls out : Loose me ! This is also what is meant in this instance by the expression, in frequent use amonij the Jews with different applications : What is there heticeen vs and thee? of which the meaning here is : "Wliat have we to contend about? What evil have we done thee? The plural we does not apply to the devil 158 COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE. and to the possessed, since the latter still identifies himself tiltogelher -vvilli the former. The devil speaks in the name of all the other spirits of his kind vviiich have succeeded in obtaining- possession of a human being. Tlie perdition whicli he dreads is being sent into the abyss where such spirits await the judgment (8 ; 31). Tliis abyss is the emptiness of a creature that possesses no point of support outside itself — neither in God, as the faithful angels have, nor in the world of sense, as sinful men endowed with a l)ody have. In order to remedy this inward destitution, lliey en- deavor to unite themselves to some human being, so as to enter tiirough this medium into contact with sensible realities. Whenever a loss of this position befalls them, they fail back into the abyss of their empty self-dependence {vide subjecUvite). The term Holy One of God expresses the character in which this being recognized his deadly enemy. We cannot be surprised that such homage sliould be altogether re- pugnant to the feelings of Jesus. He did not acknowledge it as the utterance of an individual vvrhose will is free, which is the oul}'' homage that can please Ilim ; and He sees what occasion may be taken from such facts to exhibit His work in a sus- picious light (11 : 15). He therefore puts an end to this scene immediately by these two peremptory words (vcr. 35) : Silence! and Gome out. By the words ik avTov, of Mm, Jesus forcibly distinguishes between the two beings thus far mingled together. This divorce is the condition of the cure. A terrible convulsion marks the deliver- ance of the afflicted man. The tormentor does not let go his victim without subject- ing him to a final torture. The words, without having done him any hurt, reproduce in a striking manner the impression of eye-witnesses : they ran toward the unhappy man, expecting to find him dead ; and to their surprise, on lifting him up, they find him perfectly restored. "We may imagine the feelings of the congregation when they beheld such a scene as this, in Avhich the tw^o powers that dispute the empire of mankind had in a sensi- ble manner just come into conflict. Vers. 36 and 37 describe this feeling. Several have applied the expression this word ("What a word m this ! A. "V.) to the command of Jesus v.hi' h the devil had just obeyed. But a reference to ver. 32 obliges us to take the teim word in its natural sense, the preaching of Jesus in general. The authority with which He taught (ver. 32) found its guarantee in the authority backed by poicer (diva/jii), with which He forced the devils themselves to render obedience. The power which Jesus exercises by His simple word is opposed to the prescriptions and pretences of the exorcists ; His cures differ from theirs, just as His teaching did from tliat of the scribes. In both cases He speaks as a master. The account of this miracle is omitted by Matthew. It is found with some slight variations in Mark (1 : 23 et seq.). It is placed by him, as by Luke, at the bcgmnmg of this sojourn of Jesus at Capernaum, Instead of f>li>av, havitig thrown hnn, Mark spys, crraputav, having torn, violently convulsed him. Instead of What word is thi-f Mark makes the multitude sav : What nero doctrine is thisf—nn expression which .To-iees with the sense which we have given to Aoyoc: in Luke. Tlie mraning of I he epithet nno in the mouth of the people misrht be rendered by the common exclama- tion ; Here is something new ! According to Bleek. Mark borrowed his nairative from Luke. But how very paltry and insignificant these changes wnihd seem ' Ac- cording- to Holtzmann. the original source was the primitive Mark (A.), tlie nairative of which has been reproduced^exactly bv our Mark ; while Luke has modified it with a view to exalt the miracle, bv changing, for example, having torn inio hamrg thrown, and by addincr on h's own autliority the details, ivith a loud voice, and with- out having done him any hurt. Hollzmann congratulates himself, afler tiiis, on having made Luke's df'peudence on the Proto-Mark (iuite evident. But the suiiple ('II A 1'. IV. : oS, :>\). loU term leord, which in Luke (ver. \W) supplies llie place of Mark's emphatic expression, this new doctrine, coulradicis lliis exphuiiition. And if this miracle was in tlie primitive i\lark, from which, according to lloltzmann, jMatlhew must also have tliiiwn his narrative, how came the latter to umit an incident so striking? Iloltz- miinn's answer is, that this evangelist thought another example of a similar cure, that of the demoniac at CJadaraT the more striUing ; and to compensate for the (.nns'siou of the healing at Capernaum, he has put down two demoniacs, instead of om-, to Gadara . . . ! lluvv can sucti a cliildish procedure be imputed to a grave historian ? T/drd. Vers. 38 and 39.* Peter, according to our narrative, seems to have lived at Capernaum, Accortliug to John 1 : 45, he was oiiginally of Bethsaida. The two places weie very near, and might have had a conunon synagogue ; or while origi- ually belonging to the one, Peter might have taken up lus abode at the other. The term TTf.'Oepfi (not /i;?7py,n) proves that Peter was man ied, which agrees with 1 Cor. 9 :5. It is possible that from this time Jesus took up Ilis abode in Peter s house. Matt. 17 : 24 et seq. According to Mark 1 : 29, His train of disciples consisted, not only of Simon and xVndrew, but also of James and John. This already existing associatioa suppo.ses a prior connection between .Jesus and these j'ouag fialiermen, which is ex- plained in John 1. Luke does not name the companions of Jesus. We only see by the wokIs, she arose and ministered unto them (ver. 30). that He was not alone. The expression n-i-perd? fikyai does not appear to be used heie in the technical sense which it has in ancient books of medicine, where it denotes a particular kind of fever. In Luke, Jesus A^'rt(f.s down over the sick woman. This was a means of tuteiing into spiiilual conmnmication with her ; comp. Peter's words to the impotent man (Acts 3:4): Look on me. In Matthew, He touches the sick woman with His hand. This action has the same design. In xMark, He takes her by the hand to lift her up. How are these variations to be explained, if all three drew from the same source, or if one derived his account from the other t Luke says, literally, He rebuked the fever ; as if He saw in tiie disease some principle hostile to man. This agrees with .John 8 ■ 44, where the devil is called the murderer of man. It was doubtless at the time of the evening meal (ver. 40). The first use which the sick woman makes of her recovered strength was to serve up a repast for her guests. Hollzmann finds a proof in the plur. auroii, " she served them," that Luke's narrative depends on Mark : for thus far Luke has only spoken of .Jesus : He came down (ver. 31), He entered (ver. 38). But this proof is weak. In the description of the public scene, Luke would only present tiie principal person, Jesus : while in the account of the domestic scene he w^ould naturally mention also the other persons, since they had all the same need of being waited upon. In Luke and Mark the position of this narrative is very nearly the same, with merely tills difference, that in the latter it follows the calling of the four dis(;iples, wliile in Luke it precedes it. In Matthew, on the contrary, it is piaced very much later— after the Sermon on the Mount. As to the details, Matthew is almost identical with Mark. Thus the twoevanacelists which agree as to the time (Luke and Mark) differ most as to the details, and the two which come nearest to each other in details (M:itlhp>v and Mark) differ considerably as to lime. How can this singular relation be explained if they drew from common written sources, or if they copied from each otlierV Luke here omits Andrew, whom Mark mentions. Why so. if he copied from the primitive Mark ? Had he any animosity against Andrew ? Holtz- * Ver. 38. The mss. are divided between a-ro and «. I'JO COMMEXTAliY UX ST. LUKE. intmn replies : Because he does not speak of Andrew in what follows. As if, in Murk himself, he was any the more mentioned in the incidents that follow ! Fourth. Vers. 40 and 41.* Here we have one of those periods when the miracu- lous power of Jesus was most abundantly displayed. We shall meet again with somu of these culmitialini>- points in the course of His ministry. A siiuilar rhythm is found HI the career of the apostles. Peter at Jeiusalem (Acts 5 : 15, 10). and Paul at E|)hesus (19 : 11, 13), exercise their miraculous power to a degree in which thuy ap- pear to have exhibited it at no other time in their life ; it was at the same time the culminating point of their ministry of the woid. The memory of this remarkable evening must have fixed itself indelibly in the early tradition ; for the account of this time has been preserved, in almost identical terms, in our three Syn. The sick came in crowds. The expression, when the sun teas setting, shows that this time had been waited for. And that not " because it was th'j cool hour," us many have thought, but because it was the end of the Sab- batii, and carrying a sick person was regarded as work (.John 5 : 10). The whole cily, as Maik, in his simple, natural, and somewhat emphatic style, says, was gather- ed together at the door. According to our narrative. Jesus made use on this occasion of the laying on of hands. Luke cannot have invented this detail himself ; and the others would not have omitted it if it had belonged to their alleged common source of information. Therefore Luke had some special source in which this detail was found, and not this alone. This rite is a symbol of any kind of transmission, ■whether of a gift or an otflce (Moses and Joshua. Deut. 34 : 9), or of a blessing (tJie patriarchal blessings), or of a duty (the transfer to the Levites of the natural functions of the eldest sons in every family), or of guilt (the guilty Israelite laying his hands on the head of the victim), or of the sound, vital strength enjoyed by the person who imparts it (cures). It is not certain'.}^ that Jesus could not have worked a cure by His mere word, or even by a simple act of volition. But, in the first place, there is something profoundly human in this act of laying the hand on the head of any one whom one desires to benefit. It is a gesture of tenderness, a sign of beneficial com- munication such as the heart cra^'es. Then this symbol might be morally necessary. Whenev(^r Jesus avails Himself of any material means to work a cure, whether it be the sound of His voice, or clay made of His spittle. His aim is to establish in the form best adapted to the particular case, a personal tie between the sick person and Him- self ; for He desires not only to heal, but to effect a restoration to God, by creating in the consciousness of the sick a sense of union with Himself the organ of divine grace in the midst of mankind. This moral mm explains the variety of the means employed. Had they been curative means — of the nature of magnetic passes, for example — they couid not have varied so much. But as they were addressed to the sick person's soul. Jesus chose them in such a way that His action was adapted to its character or position. In the case of a deaf mute. He put His fingers into his ears ; He anointed the eyes of a blind man with His spittle, etc. In this way their healing a{)peared as an emanation from His person, and attached them to Him by an indis- soluble tie. Their restored life was felt to be dependent on Hi.s. The repetition of * Ver. 40. B. D. Q. X. eTririOeii; instead of EmfJetS. B. D. It. Syr., eOepanevev in- stead of eOeomrevnev. Ver. 41. The Mss. are divided between Kpavyai^avra and Kpal^ovra. The T. R., with 14 Mjj. almost all the Mnn. Syr., reads o Xpcaros before o vioS Tov Qeov, contrary to J>. B. C. D. F. L. R. X. Z. Itp'"e"e explanation called natural, which upholds tiie credibility of the narrative, hut cxplidns the text in such a way that its contents offer nothing extraordinary. This at'empt has railed ; it is an expedient repudiated at the present day, rationalisiic ciilicisni only having recourse to it in cases where other methods are manitesiiy in- ofEeclual. S(Co?id. The mythical explanation, according to which the accounis of the miiacles would be owing to reminiscences of the miraculous stories of the O. T. — the Messiah could not do less tiian the prophets — or would be either the product of spontancKUS creations of tlie Chiistian consciousness, or the accidental result of cer- tain words or parables of Jesus that weie misimderstood (the resurrection of Lazarus, e.ff., the result of the passage Luke Hi : 31 ; the cursing of the barren fig-tree, atran.s- hilion into fact of the parable, l^uke 13 : G-9). But the sinrple, plain, historical chiir- acter of our Gospel narratives, so free frcothesis, aceordingto which these facis must he ascribed to natural laws as yet luiknown. This was the explanation of Schleiermacher ; in part als') it was the explanation of M. Kenan : " The miraculous is only the uutxplaiaed." It is in conflict with two insurmountable difficulties : 1. * See on this sub.iect the fine chapter of Holtzmann, "Die Svn'-pt. Evanorlien " g 30; "Die Synoptischen Wrmderberichte :" and my lecture on the " Miracles de Jesus," secorrd edition, p. 11 et seq. CHAP. Y. : 1 ; vi. : 'I. 1G3 If certain euros may be explained after a fasliiun, we may be perfectly sure that no one will ever discover 6 iiaUiru! lasv ea|ial)le of j)ii>dueiiig a nmllipliiialion of leaves and of cooked fiyii, c resurrection of llic dead, and above all, siieli an event as ihe resurreoii in of Jo3Ui: Uinisdf. 2. We must, according to llus i-xplauatiou, allribnte to Jesus mi:acles of scienlific kumvledge quite as inexpheable as the miracles of power whicli are now in (lueslion. Fourth. Tiie psychological ex(danation. Alter havinj; got rid of the miracles wrought on external nature (the multiplication of the loaves" all 1 the stilling of the storm) l)y one of the three methods indicated, Keim ad- mils a residuiun of extraordinary and indisputable facts in the life of Jesus. These are the cures wrouglit ui)ou the sick and Ihe possessed. Belore him, M. Kenan had spoken of tiie iiill.i.'iicu ixerted on suffering and nervous people by the contact of a person of linely orgiuiizcd nature (inn; j)erKoiine exqiiise). Keim merely, in fact, amplilies this expression. The ouly real mirac^les in the histoiy of Jesus — the cures — are to be asciibijd, according to him, to moral influence (ethico-psychological, t. ii. p. 1()2). Wo reply : 1. That the miracles wrought on nature, whieh are set aside as mythical, are attested in exactly the same manner as the cures which are admitted. 2." That Jesus wrought these cures with an absolute certainty of success (" Now, in order that ye may Iciiow. I say unto thee . . ." " 1 will ; be thou clean." "Be it unto thee as thou wilt "), and that the effect produced was immediate. These two features are inconipalible with the psychological explanation. 3. That if Jesus had known that these cures did not proceed fnmi an order of things above nature, it is in- conceivable that He would have offered them as God's testimony in flis favor, and as signs of His Messianic dignity. Charlatanism, however sight, is incompatible with the moral character of Jesus. On the possessed, see pp. 150-7. Jewish legends themselves bear witness to the reality of Jesus' miracles. " The Son of Stada (a nickname applied to Jesus in Ihe Talmud) brought charms from Egypt in an incision which he had made in his flesh." This is the accusation of the Talmud against Him. Surely, if the Jews had been able to deny His miracles, it would have been a simpler thmg to do than to explain them in this way. Lastly, when we compare the miracles of the Gos[)els with those attributed to Him in the apocryphal writings, we feel what a wide difference there is between tradition and legend. SECOND CYCLE. — CHAP. 5:1; 6 : 11. From ihe Call of the First Disciples to the Choice of the Twelte. Up to this time .Tesus has been preaching, accompanied by a few friends, but with- out forming about Him a circle of permanent di«ciples. As His work grows. He feels it necessary to give it a more definite form. The time has arrived when He deems it wise to attach to Himself, as regular disciples, those whom the Father has given Him. This new phase coincides with that in which His work begins to come into conflict with the established order of things. This cycle comprises six narratives : 1. The call of the first four disciples (5 : 11) ; 2 and 3. Two cures of the leper and the paralytic (5 : 12-14 and 15-20) ; 4. Tiie call of Levi, with the circumstances connected with it (5 : 27-39) ; 5 and 6. Two conflicts relating to the Sabbath (G : 1-11). 1. The Call if the Dimples: 5 : 1-11. — The companions of Jesus, in the preced- ing scene, have not yet been named by Luke (they besought Him, 4 : 38 ; she min- istered unto them (4 : 39). According to Mark (1 : 29), they were Peter, Andrew, James, and John. These are the very four young men whom we find in this nar- rative. They had lived u[) to this time in the bosom of their families, and continued their old occupations. But this state of things was no longer suitable to the part which Jesus designed for them. They were to treasure up all His instructions, be the constant witnesses of His works, and receive from Him a daily moral education. 164 COMMEXTAlil ON ST. LUKE. In order to this it was indispensable that tliey should be continually with Him. In culllDg Ihem to leave their earthly occupation, and assigning them in its place one that was wholly spiritual, Jesus founded, properly speaking, the Christian ministry. For this is precisely the line of demarcation between the simple Christian and the minister, that the former realizes the life of faith in any earthly calling ; while the latter, excused by his Master from any particular profession, can devote himself en- tirely to the spiritual woik with which he is iotrusted. Such is the new position to which Jesus raises these young fishermen. It is more than simple faith, but less than apostleship ; it is the ministry, the general foundation on which will be erected the apostolate. The call related here by Luke is certainly the same as that which is related, in a more abridged form, by Matthew (4 : 18-22) and Mark (1 : lG-20). For can any one suppose, with Riggenbach, that Jesus twice addressed the same persons in these terms, " I will make you fishers of men," and that they could have twice left all in order to follow Him ? If the miraculous draught of tishes is omitted in Matthew and Mark, it is because, as we have frequent proof in the former, in the traditional nar- ratives, the whole interest was centred in the word of Jesus, whii;h was the soul of every incident. Mark has given completeness to these narratives wherever he could avail himself of Peter's accounts. But here this was not the case, because, as many facts go to prove, Peter avoided giving prominence to himself in his own narrations. Vers. 1-3.* The General Situation. — This desgription furnishes a perfect frame to the scene that follows. The words, kcu uvtoS . . . He was also standing there, indicate the inconvenient position in which He was placed by the crowd collected at this spot. Tlie details in ver. 2 are intended to explain the request which Jesus makes to the fishermen. The night fishing was at an end (ver. 5). And they had no intention of beginning another by daylight ; the season was not favorable. More- over, they had washed their nets {a-izi-K/.wav is the true reading ; the imperf. in B. D. is a correction), and their boats were drawn up upon the strand {toTijTa). If the fishermen had been ready to fish, Jesus would not have asked them to render a service which would have interfered with their work. It is true that Matthew and Mark represent them as actually engaged in casting their nets. But these two evangelists omit the miraculous draught altogether, and take us to the final moment when Jesus says to them : " I will make you fishers of men." Jesus makes a pulpit of the boat which his friends had just left, whence He casts the net of the word over the crowd which covers the shore. Then, desiring to attach henceforth these young believers to Himself with a view to His future work, He determines to give them an emblem they will never forget of the magnificent s\iccess that will attend the ministry for the love of whi(h He invites them to forsake all , and in order that it may be more deeply graven on their hearts, He takes this emblem from their daily calling. Vers. 4-lOa.f The Preparation. — In the imperative, launch out (ver. 4), Jesus speaks solely to Peter, as director of the embarkation ; the order, let down, is ad- dressed to all. Peier, the head of the present fishing, will one day be head also of the mission. Not having taken anything during the night, the most favorable time * Ver. 1. 5i. A. B. L. X., km ukoveiv instead of tov aaovEiv. Ver. 2. B. D., En'Avvov, instead of F-^lwav or aneTrAwav, which is the reading of .ill the others. •f Ver. 6. i^. B. L. (^leprjaaero, C. ' has reached an ad- vanced stage. The unhappy man looks for Jesus in the crowd, und having ducovcrcd Jlim (/'5ut') he rushes toward Him ; the moment he lecognizes Him. he is at His feet. Luke says, fallinrj on his face ; JMark, kneeling down ; Matthew, he irorahipp d. "Would not these variations in terms I)e puerile if this were a case of copying, or of a derivation from a common source ? The dialogue is idenlical in the three narratives ; it was expressed in the tradition in a fixed form, while the historical details were re- produced with greater freedom. All three evangelists say cleanse instead of heal, on account of the notion of uucleanness attached to this malady. In the words, if Thou wilt. Thou canst, there is at once deep anguish and great faith. Other sick persons had been cured— this the leper knew— hence his faith ; but he was probably the first m.an atflicled with his particular malady that succeeded in reaching Jesus and entreating His aid— hence his anxietj'. The older rationalism used to explain this request iu this way : "Thou canst, as Messiah, pronounce me clean." According to this explanation, the diseased person, already in the way of being cured naturally, simply asked Jesus to verify the cure and pronounce him clean, in or-^or that he might be spared a costly and troublesome journey to Jerusalem. But tor the erni Ka^plCeiv, to purify, comp. 7 : 23. IVIatt. 10 : 8. where the sim[)ly declarative sense is impossible ; and as to the context, Strauss has already shown that it comports just as little with this feeble meaning. After the words, be thou clean (pronouuced pure), these, and he was cleansed (pronounced pure), would be nothing but absurd tautology. Maik, who takes pleasure in portraying the feelings of Jesus, expresses the deep compassion with which He was moved by this spectacle {aTtlayxviaBeii). The three narratives concur in one detail, which must have deeply impressed those who saw it, and which, for this reason, was indelibly imi)rinted on the tradition : Hi put forth His hand, and touched him. Leprosy was so contagious,* that this cour- * It probably was regarded as contagious iu popnliir apprel.ensinn, which would justify the remark in the text ; but the man who was so coiii()li toly covered with the iOS COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ageous act excited the liveliest emotion in the crowd. Throughout the -whole course of His life, Jesus confronted the touch of our impure nature iu a similar mimuer. Mis answer is identical in the thiee narialives ; but ihe result is variouhly expressed. Matthew taj's : his lepi'osy was cleansed, regarding it fromacercmunial point of view. Luke simply says ; the leiyrosy departed from Jam, looking at it from a human point of view. Mark combines the two forms. This is one of the passages on which they rely who make Mark a compiler from the other two ; but if Mark was anxious to ad- here so slavishly to the minutest expressions of his predecessors, to the point even of re- producing them without any object, how are we to explain the serious and important modifications which in so many other cases he introduced into their narratives, and the considerable omissions which he is contmually making of the substance of what they relate? The fact is, that there were two sides to this cure, as to the malady it- self, the physical and the religious ; and Mark combiaes them, while the other two appear to take one or the other. The prohibition which Jesus lays on the leper appears in Luke 5 : 14 in the form of indirect discourse ; but in relating the injunction which follows it, Luke passes to the direct form. This form is peculiar to his narrative. Luke and Matthew omit the threat with which Jesus, according to Mark, accompanied this injunction (iuiipi- fi7]aufievo<;). What was the intention of Jesus? The cure having been public. He could not prevent the report of it from being spread abroad. This is true ; but He wanted to do all in His jjower to diminish its fame, and not give a useless impetus to the popular excitement produced by the report of His miracles. Comp. Luke 8 : 56 ; Matt. 9 : 30, 13 : 16 ; Mark 1 : 34, 3 : 12, 5 : 43, 7 : 36, 8 : 26. All tliese passages forbid our seeking a particular cause for the prohibition He laj^s on the leper ; such as a fear that the priests, having had notice of his cure before his reaching iheni, wouhl refuse to acknowledge it ; or that they would pronounce Jesus unclean for having touched him ; or that the sick man would lose the serious impicssions which he had received ; or that he would allow himself to be deterred from the duty of offering the sacrifice. Jesus said, " Show thyself," because the person is here the convincing proof. In Luke we read, accordinrj to Moses ... in Matthew, the gift wldch Moses ... in IMark, the things ichich Moses . . . Most puerile changes, if they were designed ! What is the testimony contained in this sacrifice, and to whom is it addressed ? According to Bleek, the word tJiem would refer to the people, who are to be apprised that every one maj'^ henceforth renew his foimer relations with the lep;v^ But is not the term testimony too weighty for this meaning? Gerlach refers the pronoun t?ie?n to the priests : in order that thou, by thy cure, maj^cst be a wit- ness to (hem of my almightiness ; but according to the text, the testimony consists not iu the cure being verified, but in the saciifice being offered. The word them docs indeed refer to the priests, who are all represented by the one wdio will verify the cure ; but the testimony respects Jesus Himself, and His sentiments in regard to the law. In the Sermor. on the Mount Jesus repels the charge already preferred against Him of despising the law (]VIatt. 5 : 17 : " Think not that I am come to destroy tl e law"). It is to His respect, therefore, for the Mosaic legislation, that this offering will testify to the priests. During His earthly career Jesus never dispensed ILs people from the obligation to obey the prescriptions of the law ; and it is an error to disease that it could find no further range was clean, according to Lev. 13 : 13. See Smiili's Diet, of Bible, sub voce. — Tu. CHAP. V. : lo-2G. IGU regard Flini ns having, mulcr certain circnnistances, set aside (he law of the Sabbath as far as He Himself was eouccrned. He only tiansgressed the arbitrary enaetuients ■with which Pharisaism liad surrounded it. We see by these remarkable words that Jesus had already become an object of suspicion and serious cliarges at Jerusalem. This stale of things is exphiined by the narrative of the fouith Gospel, where, from the second chapter, we see Jesus exposed to the animosity of thedomiuanl party, and aci'ords to 1 : 1. He is even obliged to leave Jud;ea in order that their unfaviHablo impressions may not be aggravated before the lime. In chap. 5, "wliich describes a fresh visit to Jerusalem (for the feast of Pnrim), the conflict thus prepared breaks forth with violence, and Jesus is obliged to testify solemnly His respect for this Moses, who will l)c the Jews' accuser, and not His (o : 45-47). This is just tho state of things with Avhich the i)assage we are explaining agrees, as well as all the facts which are the sequel of it. Notwithstanding apparent discrepancies between the Syn. and John, a substantial similarity prevails between them, which proves that both forms of narrative rest on a basis of historic reality. The leper, according to Mark, did not obey the injunction of Jesus ; and this dis- obedience served to increase that concourse of sick persons which Jesus endeavored to lessen. 1 This cure is a difficulty for Keim. A purely moral influence may calm a fever (4 : 39), or restore a frenzied man to his senses (4 : 31 ct scq.) , but it cannot purify vitiated blood, and cleanse a body covered with pustules. Keim here resorts to what is substantially tlie explanation of Paulus, The leper already cured simply desired to be pronounced clean by authorized lips, that he might not have to go to Jerusalem. It must be acknowledged, on this view of the matter, that the three narratives (Matthew as well as Luke and Mark, wliatever Keim may say about it) are complelely falsified by the legend. Then how came it to enter into the mind of this man to subslilule Jesus for a priest? II )w could Jesus have accepted such an office? Having ac- cepted it, why should He have sent the afflicted man to Jerusalem ? Further, for what reason did He impose silence upon him. and enforce it wilh threats ? And what could the man have had to publish abroad, of sufficient importance to attract the crowd of peopli; described 3Lirk 1 : 40 ? Ilollzinanu (p 432) concludes, f r jiu the words i^eSnTiev and i^e'/Ouv, literally. He eaxt him out, and hncinrj (jone forth (Mark 1 : 43, 4o), that according to Mark this cure took place in a house, which agrees very well with the leper being prohibited from making it known ; and that consequently the other two Syn. are in error in making it take place in public — Luke in a city, Matthew on the road from the mountain to Capernaum (8.1). He draws gicat excgetical inferences from this. But when it is said in Mark (1 : 12) that the Spirit drove, out {iiKiin'/'Aei) Jesus into the wilderness, does this mean nut of a house ? And as to the verl) e^yfixeoOai, is it not frequently used in a broad sense : to gi out of tlie midst of that in which one happens to be (here : the circle fotmed around Jesus) ? Comp. Mark G : 34 (Matt. 14 : 14), 0 : 12 ; John 1 : 44, etc. A leper would hardly have been able to make his way into a house. His taking them by surprise in the wa\' he did could scarcely have happened except in the open country ; and, as we have seen, the prohibition of Jesus can easily be explained, tak- ing this view of the incident. The critical consequences of Holtzmann, Iherefure, have no substantial basis. 3. T/ie Paralytic : vers. 15-26. — First. A general description of the state of the work, vers. 15, IG ; Second. The cure of the paralytic, vers. 17-2G. First. Vers. 15 and IG.* While seeking to calm the excitement produced by His miracles, Jesus endeavored also to preserve His energies from any spiritual deteriora- * 5*. Vi. C. D. L. some Muu. It. omit f/r' av-ov. 170 COM.MKNTARV OX ST. LUKE. lion by devoting part of His time to medilation und prayer. As Son of man, He had, in common with us all, to draw from Gjd the streuglli He needed for His hours of activity. Such touches as these in tlie narrative certainly do not look like an apotheosis of Jesus, and they constitute a striking difference between the evangelical portrait and the legendary caiicature. Tliis thoroughly original detail sultices also to prove the independence of Luke's sources of information. After this general description (the seventh), the narrative is resumed with a detached and special incident, given as an example of the st.ite of things described. Second. Vers. 17-19.* The Arrival. — The completely Aram£ean form of this pre- face (the nai before avroc, the form kuI Jjaav . . . ol rjaav, and especially the ex- pression 7jv e'li TO idaOai) proves that Luke's account is not borrowed from either of the two other Sj^noptics. This was one of those solemn hours of which we have another instance in the evening at Capernaum (4 : 41, 42). The presence of the Phari- sees and scribes from Jerusalem is easily explained, if the conflict i elated John 5 had already taken place. The scribes did not constitute a theological or political party, like the Pharisees and Sadducees. They weie the professional lawyers. They were designedly associated with the Phaiisees sent to Galilee to watch Jesus (ver. 21). The narrative in the first Gospel is exliemely concise. Matthew does not tell the stor}' ; ho is intent upon his object, the word of Jesus. ]\Iaik gives the same details as Luke, but without the two narratives presenting one single teim in common. And yet they worked on the same document, or one on the text of tlie other ! The roof of the house could be reached by a flight of steps outside built against the "wall, or by a ladder, or even from the next house, for the houses fiequently communicated with each other by the terraces. Does Luke's expression, (5m tuv Kspu/j.ui', signify simply bf/ the ?'oo/"— that is to say, by the stairs which conducted from the terrace to the lower stories, or down over the balustrade which surrounded the terrace ; or Is it just C(^uivalent to Mark's description: " thej' uncovered the ceiling of the place wheie He was, and having made an opening, let down the pallet"? This teim, through the tiles, would be strange, if it was nut to express an iilea similar to that of Mark. Strauss o'ojects that such an operation as that of raising the tiles could not have been effected without danger to tiiose who were below ; and he concludes from this that the narrative is onl}' a legend. But iu any case, a legend would have been invented iu conformity with the mode of construction then adopted and known to everybody. Jesus was probably seated in a hall immediately beneath the terrace. f Vers. 20 and 21.:!: The Offence. — The expression their faith, in Luke, applies evidently to the perseverance of the sick man and his bearers, notwiths^tauding the obstacles they encountered ; it is the same iu Mark. In Matthew, Avho has not meu- * Ver. 17. 5*. B. L. Z., avmv instead of avTovi. Ver. 19. All the Mjj. omit dia before TToiai. f Delitszch represents the fact in this way (" Ein Tag in Capernaum," pp. 40-40) : Two bearers ascend the roof by a ladder, and by means of cords they diaw up by the same way the sick man after them, assisted by the other two bearers. In the middle of the terrace was a square place open in summer to give liglit and air to the licusc, but closed with tiles duiiug the rainy season. Having opened this passage, the bearers let down the sick man into the large inner court immediately below, wlieie Jesus was teaching near the cistern, fixed as usual in this court. The trap-slaiis which lead down from the terrace into the house would have been too narrow f' r their use, and would not have taken them into the court, but into the apartiiieuis which overlooked it from all sides. X "Ver. 20 i^. B. L. X. omit avTu after EiTrev. (•11 A 1'. V. : K--.»4. in tioucd these obstacles, but who ncverlhcluss emploj-s the same terms, and seeing tlidr faith, this expression cau only refer to the simple fact of the paralytic's coming. The identical form of expression indicates a common source ; but at tiie same time, the different sense put upon the common words by their entirely different reference to what precedes proves that this source was not written. The oral tradition had cvidenlly so stereotyped this form of expression that it is found in the narrative of ^.latlhew, though separated from the ciicumslanccs to wliich it is applied in the two otliers. Jesus could not repel such an act of failh. Seeing the persevering con- fidence of the sick man, recognizing in him one of those whom Ills Fdther dntirs to Jliin (John G : 44), lie receives him with open arms, by telling him that he is for- given. The three salutations differ in our Syn. : Man (Luke) ; Jfi/ son Qilark) ; Take courage, my Son (Alatthew). Which of the evangelists was it that changed in ttiis at bilrary and aimless manner the words of Jesus as recorded in his predecessor?* 'A(peu)VTai is an Attic form, either for the present (Kpievrai, or rather for the pcrf. apslf-at. It is not impossible that, by speaking in. this waj', Jesus intended to throw down Ihe gauntlet to His incjuisilors. They took it up. The scribes are put before the Pharisees ; they were the experts. A blasphemy ! How wclcume to them ! Noliiing could have sounded more agreeably in their eais. "We will not say, in re- gard to this accusation, with manj'' orthodox interpreters, that, as God, Jesus had a right to pardon ; for this would be to go directly contrary to the employment of the title 8(7)1 of man, in virtue of which Jesus attributes to Himself, in ver. 24, this power. But may not God delegate His gracious authority to a man who deserves His con- fidence, and who becomes, for the great work of salvation. His ambassador on earth ? This is the position which Jesus takes. The only question is, whether this pretension is well founded ; and it is the demcmstration of this moral fact, already contained in His previous miracles, that He proceeds to give in a striking form to His adversaries. Vers. 22-24. f The Miracle. — The miraculous work which is to follow is for a moment deferred. Jesus, without having heard the words of those about Him, under- stands their murmurs. His mind is, as it were, the mirror of their thoughts. The form of His rep!_v is so striking that tlie tradition has preserved it to the very letter ; hence it is found in identical terms in all three narratives. The jiropositiou, tliat ye wirt^ /t/itfw, depends on the following command : I say to thee . . . The principal and subordinate clauses having been separated by a moment of solemn silence, the three accounts fill up this interval with the parenthesis : He saith to the paralytic. This original and identical form must necessarily proceed from a common source, oral or written. It is no easier, certainly, to pardon than to heal ; but it is much easier to convict a man of imposture who falsely claims the power to heal, than him who falsely arrogates authority to pardon. There is a sliglit irony in the way in which Jesus gives expression to this thought. "You think these are empty words that I utter when I say. Thy sins are forgiven thee. See, then, whether the com- mand which I am about to give is an empty word." The miracle thus announced acfpiires the value of an imposing demonstration. It will be seen whether Jesus is not really what He claims to be, the Ambassador of God on earth to forgive sins. Earth, where the pardon is granted, is opposed to heaven, where He dwells from whom it proceeds. * Our author means by this and many similar expressions, to disprove the idea of the Gospels being ct)pied from one another. — J. H. f The MSS. vary between Trapa'Ae'/.vuevu and ■n-apa^.vriKu. 172 COM.MEXTARY OX ST. LL'KE, It is generally acknowledged at the present day, that the title Son of man, by which Jesus preferred to designate Himself, is not simply an allusion to the sym- bolical name in Dan. 7, but that it sprang spontaneously from the depths of Jesus' own consciousness. Just as, in His title of Son of God, Jesus included whatever He was conscious of being for God, so in that of Son of man He comprehended all He felt He was for men. The term So7i of man is geueiic, and denotes each representa- tive of the human race (Ps. 8:5; Ezek. 37 : 3, 9, 11). "With tlieart. {the Son of man), this expression contains the notion of a superiority in the equality. It designates Jesus not simply as man, but as the normal man, the perfect representative of the race. If this title alludes to any passage of the O. T., it must be to the ancient prophecy, " The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head " (Gen. 3 : 15).* .There is a tone of triumph in this expression, ver. 25 : He took up that whereonhe lay. The astonishment of tlie people, ver. 26, is expressed differently in the three narra- tives : We never saw it on this fashion (Mark) ; They glorified God, wJiicJi had given such power unto iruen (Matthew). _ This remarkable expression, to men,, is doubtless connected with Son of man. Whatever is given to the normal man, is in Him given to all. Matthew did not certainly add this expression on his own authoril3% any more than the others arbitrarily omitted it. Their sources were different. n«/)d(5o^a, strange thin,gs, in Luke, is found in Josephus' account of Jesus. By the term to-day the multitude allude not only to the miiacle — they had seen others as astounding on previous days — but more particularly to the divine prerogative of par- don, so magnificently demonstrated by this miracle with which Jesus had just con- nected it. The different expressions by which the crowd give utterance to their sur- prise in the three Syn. might really have been on the lips of different witnesses of this scene. Keim, applying here the method indicated, pp. 162-3, thinks that the paralysis was overcome by the moral excitement which the sick man vmderwent. Examples are given of impotent persons whose power of movement has been restored by a mighty intc^rnal shock. Therefore it is just possible that the physical fact might be explained in this way. But the moral fact, the absolute assurance of Jesus, the challenge im- plied in this address, " Iti oider that ye may know, . . . arise and walk !" — a speech the authenticity of wliich is so completely guaranteed by the three nairatives and by its evident originality — how is this to be explained from Keiiu's standpoint? Why, Jesus, in announcing so positively a success so problematical, would have laid Himself open to be palpably contradicted by the fact ! At the commencement of His ministry He would have based His title to l)e the Son of man, His authority to for- give sins. His mission as the Saviour, His entire spiritual work, on the needle's point of this hazardous experiment ! If this were the case, instead of a divine demonstra- tion (and this is lhe,meaning which Jesus attaches to the miracle), there would be nothing more in the fact than a fortunate coincidence. 4. Tlie Call of Levi : vers. 27-39. —This section relates : First. The call of Levi ; Second. The feast which followed, with the discourse connected with it ; Third. A double lesson arising out of a question about fasting. * M. Gess, in his tine work, " Christi Zeugniss von seiner Person und seinera Werk," 1870, understands by the Sort of man, He who represents the divine majesty in a human form. The idea in itself is true ; the normal man is called to share in the divine estate, and to become the supreme manifestation of God. But the notion of divine majesty does not belong to the term Son of man. It is contained in the term Son of God. The two titles are in antithetical connection, and for this reason they complete each other. (-11 A p. V. : 27, ;28. IT.-J Firxt. Vers. 27 and 28, * The Call. — This fact occupies an Important place in the development of llie wcilc of Jesu«, not only as (he c()iui)lenient. of the cull of the fust disciples (ver. 1 et neq), hut especially as a continuation of the conflict already enter- ed into with the old order of Ihings. Tlie publicans of the Gospels are ordinarily regarded as Jewish sub-collectors in the service of Ilouic knights, to whom the tolls of Palestine had been let out at Rome. "Wieselcr, in his recent work.f corrects this view. He proves, by an edict of Caesar, quoted in Josephus ('' Antiq." xiv. 10. 5), that the tolls in Judaea were remitted direct to the Jewish or heathen collectors, without passing through the hands of the Roman financiers. The publicans, especially such as, like Matthew, were of Jewish origin, were hated anil despised by their fellow-countrymen more even than the heathen themselves. They were e.vcommunicated, and deprived of the right of tendering an oath before the Jewish authorities. Their conduct, which was too often marked by extortion and fraud, generally justified the opprobrium which public opinion cast upon them. Capiirnaum was on the road leading from Damascus to the Mediter- ranean, which terminated at Ptolemais (St. Jean d'Acre). It was the commercial l»ighway from the interior of Asia. In this city, therefore, there must have been a tax-of!lcc of considerable importance. This office was probably situated outside the oil)', and near the sea. This explains the expression, He went out (Luke) ; lie went forth in order to go to the sea-side (Mark). In the three Syu. this call immediately follows the healing of the paralytic (ilatt. 9:9; Mark 2 -.IS et seq.). Jesus must have had some very important reason for calling a man from the class of the publicans to join the circle of His disciples ; for b^' this step He set Himself at open variance with the theocratic notions of decorum. Was it His deliiierale in- tention to throw down the gauntlet to the numerous Pharisees who had come from a distance to watch Ilim, and to show them how completely He set Himself above their judgment? Or was it simply convenient to have among His disciples a man accus- tomed to the use of the pen ? This is quite possible ; but there is something so abrupt, so spontaneous, and so strange in this call that it is impossible to doubt that Jesus spoke to him in obedience to a direct impulse from on high. The higher nature of the call appears also in the decision and promptness with which it was accepted. Between Jesus and this man there must have been, as it were, a flash of divine sym- pathy. The relation between Jesus and His first apostles was formed in this way (John 1). The name Levi not otrcurring in any of the lists of apostles — it is impos- sible to identify it with Lebba;us, which has a different meaning and etymology — it might be thought that this Levi never belonged to the numl)er of the Twelve. But in this case why should his call be so particularly related ? Then the expression, having left all, Ice followed Ilim (ver. 28), forbids our thinking that Levi ever resumed his profession as a toll-collector, and puts hira in the same rank as the four older dis- ciples (ver. 11). We must therefore look for him among the apostles. In the cata- logue of the first Gospel (10 : 3), the Apostle Matthew is called the publican ; and in the same Gospel (9 : 9) the call of Matthew the publican is related, with details identical with those of our narrative. Must we admit two different but similar in- cidents? This was the supposition of the Gnostic Ileracleon and of Clement of Alexandria. Sieffert, Ewald, and Keim prefer to admit that our first Gospel applies * Ver. 28. Th cmss. vary between KaTa?uTruv and Kara/.etnuv, as well as betweeu OTravTu and Travra, ^KOAovOei and Tjcu/.ovOTjnev. f " Beitrage zur richtigen Wiirdigung der Evangelien," p. 78. 1T4 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. by mistsike to the apostle and older publiciia Matthew, the calling of anolher less known publican, who should be called Levi (Mark and Luke). This opinion naturally implies that the first Gospel is unauthentic. But is it not much simpler to suppose that the former name of this man was Levi, and that Jesus, perceiving the direct hand of God in this event, gave him the surname of Matthew, gift of God, just as He gave Simon, at His first meeting with him, the surname of Peter ? * This name, w^hich Matthew habitually bore in the Church, was naturally that under which he figured afterward in the catalogues of the apostles.f Were Luke and Mark unaware tliat the apostle so named was the fjublican whom they had designated by the name of Levi ? Or have they neglected to mention this identity in their lists of the apostles, because they have given these just as they found them in their documents ? We do not know. We are continually struck by seeing how the evangelical tradition has left in the shade the secondary personages of this great drama, iu order to bestow exclusive attention on the principal actor. 'Wedaaro does not signify merely He saw, but He fixed His eyes uiwn him. This was the moment when something peculiar and inexplicable took place between Jesus and the publican. The expression KuOiifiEvov Inl TO tea6v,ov cannot signify seated in the office ; ertoreirtj TeAwt'^a) would be necessar3^ As the accusative after knl, the word toll might mean, seated at his work of toll-collecting ; but this sense of te^uviov is unexampled. Might not the prep, f TTf have the sense here in which it is sometimes employed in the classics— in Herodotus, for example, when he says of Arist ides that he kept eTvl to awiSpiov iu front of the place where the chiefs were assembled (8 : 79) ? Levi must have been seated iu front of his office, observing what was passing. How, indeed, if he had been seated in the ouice, could his glance have met that of Jesus ? Without even re-entering, he follows Him, forsaking all. Second. Vers. 29-32. t The -Fms^.— According to Luke, the repast was spread in the house of Levi ; the new disciple seeks to bring his old friends and Jesus together. It is his first missionary efi'ort. Meyer sees a contradiction to Matthew here. Mat- thew sa^s, " as Jesus sat at meat in the house" — an expression which, in his opinion, can only mean the dwelling of Jesus. He decides in favor of Matthew's narrative. But (1) how came the crowd of publicans and people of ill-fame at meat all at once in tlie house of Jesus? (2) Where is there ever any mention of the house of Jesus f (3) Tlve repetition of Jesus' name at the end of the verse (ver. 10 in Matthew) ex- cludes the idea that the complement imderstood of tJie house is Jesus. As to Mark, the pron. avrov, Aw- house, refers to Levi ; this is proved (1) by the opposition of uvtov to the preceding avTi^v, und (2) hy the repetition of the name 'Irjoov in the following phrase. § The expression in ihe house, in Matthew, denotes theiefore the house, wherever it was, in which the meal took place, iu opposition to the outside, where the call, with the preaching that followed it, occurred. As usual, Matthew passes * Comp. the MaTfJalov ?.£yofi£vov, Matt. 9 : 9, with Hjxuv 6 leyofievog Jlerpoc, 10 : 2. —John 1 :43. f In the opinion of Gesenius, the name Matthias is a contraction of the Hebrew Mattathias, gift of God, hut the opinion is not universally accepted. The conclusion, however, of our author is generally received. — J. H. X Part of the mss. put oi ^apiaatoi. before m -ypapfjaTEiS avruv ; T. R., with the others, oi ypn/uu. nvTuv before oi ^apia. Avtov is omitted by i^. D. F. X. some Man. If'W. ; T. R. omits T(ov, with S. V. n. only. _ § I am happy to find myself in accord liere with Klostermaiin in his fine and con- scientious study of the second Gospel. (" Das Marcus-Evangelium," pp. 43, 44.) ciiAi'. Y. : -.'O-;;,"). ITS rapidly over the cxteniiil circiiinstaiiCL's of the narnitivc ; it. is the word of Jesus in which he is iiiteiesled. The rupiist, doubtless, toolc i)lace on the ground floor, and the apartment or gallery in which the table was spread could easily be readied from Die street. While Jesus was surrounded by His new friends. His adversaries at- tacked His disciples. The T. K. places their scribes before the Pharixees. In this case they would be the scribes of the place, or those of (he nation. Neither mean- ing is very natural ; the other readuig, therefore, must be preferred : the Fhuriaecs and (heir ncribcs, the defenders of i>(rict observance, and the learned men sent with them from Jerusalem as experts (vers. 17-21). The Sinait. and some others Lave omitted uvtuv, doubtless on account of the diflicully and apparent uselessness of this pronoun. Eating togctlier is, in the East, as with us, the sign of very close intimacy. Jesus, therefore, went beyond all the limits of Jewish decorum in accepting the hospitality of .Matthew's house, and in such company. His justification is pailly serious and partly ironical. He seems to concede to the Pharisees that they are perfectly well, and concludes from this that for them He, the phj'siciun, is useless , so far the irony. On the other hand, it is certain that, speaking ritually, the Pharisees were right according to the Levitical law, and that being so, they would enjoy the means of grace offered by the old covenant, of which those who have broken with the theocratic forms are deprived, hi this sense the latter are really in a more serious condition than the Phiuisees, and more urgently need that some one sh'tuld interest liirasclf in their salvation ; (his is the serious side of the answer, This word is like a two-edged sword : first of all, it justifies Jesus from His adversaries' point of view, and by an argument ad homincm ; but, at the same time, it is calculated to excite serious doubts in their minds as to whether this point of view be altogether just, and to give them a glimpse of another, according to which the difference that separates them from the publicans has not all the worth which they attributed to it. (see on 15 : 1-T). The words to repentance are wanting in Matthew and Mark, according to the best authorities ; the words understood in this case are : to the kingdom of God» to salvation. In Luke, where these words are authentic, they continue the irony which forms the substance of this answer : come to call to repentance just persons! It is for the Pharisees to ask themselves, after this, whether, because they meet the requirements of the temple, the}' satisfy the demands of God. The discussion here takes a new turn ; it as,sumes the character of a conversation on the use of fasting in the old and new order of things. Third. Vers. 3;5-;>9. Instruction concerning Fasting. Vers 3;3-li.5.* In Luke they are the same parties, particularly the scribes, who contiune the conversation, and who allege, in favor of the regular practice of fasting, the example of the disciples of John and of the Pharisees. The scribes ex- press themselves in this manner, because they themselves, as scilbes, belong to no party whatever. In iMatthew it is the disciples of John who appear aC at once in the midst of this scene, and interrogate Jesus in their ovvu name and in that of the Pharisees. In ^Maik it is the disciples of John and of the Pharisees united who put the question. This dilTerence might easily find its way into the oral tradition, bnt it * Ver. 33. »» (?) B. L. X. omit ^inTt. Ver. 34. i«* D. ItP'-'W"", ^^ t^wavrat oi vtoc . VTjaTEvaaL (,)r vT/rjvEVfii) instead of /ir} (hvanOe rovi viovi . . . noirjaai vrjcTsvam (or vr/nTEveir). Ver. 3.5. ii. C. F. L. M. some Mnn. Syr. Itpi^'i"*, omit kcu before orav. The same (with the exception of C. L.) and A. place it before tote. ITG COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. is iuexp'.icahle on any of the hypotheses which deduce the three texts from one and the same written source, or one of them from another. Mark says literally . the dincipks of J aim and the Pharisees xcere fasting ; and we may uuflerstaud that day. Devout persons in Israel fasted, in fact, twice a week (Luke 18 : 12), on Mondays and Fridays, the days on which it was said that Moses went up Sinai (see Meyer on Matt. 6 : 16) ; this particular day may have been one or other of these two days. But we may also explain it : fasted hahitually. They were fasting persons, addicted to relig- ious observances in which fasting held an important place. It is not easy to decide between these two senses : with the first, there seems less reason for the question ; with the second, it conveys a much more serious charge against Jesus, since it refers to His habitual conduct ; comp. 7 ; 34, " Ye say. He is a glutton and a winebibber (an eater and a drinker)." The word Jjar/, omitted by the Alex., appears to have been taken from Matthew and Mark. Whether the disciples of John were present or not, it is to their mode of religious reformation that our Lord's answer more especially applies. As they do not appear to have clierished very kindly feelings toward Jesus (John 3 : 25, 26), it is very pos- sible that they were united on this occasion with His avowed adversaries (Matthew). Jesus compares the days of His presence on the earth to a nuptial feast. The Old Testament had represented the Messianic coming of Jehovah by this figure. If Joliu the Baptist had already uttered the words'reported by John (3 : 29) ; ' He that hath the bride is the bridegroom ; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of (he bridegroom's voice : this my joy therefore is fulfilled "—what appropriateness there was in this figure by which He replied to His disciples ! Perhaps the Pharisees authorized a departure from the rule respecting tasting during the nuptial weeks. In this case Jesus' reply would become more striking still. Nv/icpuv signifies the nuptial chamber, and not the bridegroom {vvfifioi), as Martin, Ostervald, and Crampon translate. The true Greek term to in- dicate the nuptial friend would have been TTapavvjKpini ; John says : ^/Ao? tov wfopiov. The expression of the Syn., son of the nuptial chamber, is a Hebraism (comp. son of the kingdom, of wisdom, of perdition, etc.). The received reading, " Can ^ou make the marriage friends fast?" (notwithstanding the joy with which their hearts are full), is preferable to that of the Sinait. and of the Graeco-LatiaCodd., " Can they fast?" which is less forcible, and which is taken from Matthew and Mark. In the midst of this feast of publicans the heart of Jesus is overflowing with joy ; it is one of the hours when His earthly life seems to His feeling like a marriage day. But sud- denly His countenance becomes overcast ; the shadow of a painful vision passes across His brow : TJie days will come , . . said He in a solemn tone. At the close of this nuptial week the bridegroom Himself will be suddenly smitten and cut off ; then will come the time of fasting for those who to-day are rejoicing ; there will be no necessity to enjoin it. In this striking and poetic answer Jesus evidently an- nounces His violent death. The passive aor. cannot, as Bleek admits, be explained otherwise. This verb and tense indicate a stroke of violence, by which the subject of the verb will lie smitten (comp. 1 Cor. 5 : 2). This saying is parallel to the words found in John 2 : 10, '■ Destroy this temple ;" and 3 : 14, " As i\Ioses lifted up the serpent, so must the Son of man be lifted up." The fasting which Jesus here op- poses to the prescribed fasting practised in Israel is neither a state of purely inward grief, a moral fast, in moments of spiritual depression, nor, as Keander thought, the life of privation and sacrifice to which the apostles would inevitably be exposed after (11 A 1'. V. : ;3:)-3H. 177 the (lop:irtnr(> of tliL-ir Miistor ; it is indeed, according to the context, fasting in the proper se.ise of the lerm. Fastiii!,^ has always been practised in the Church at cerlain soK-mn seasons, but it is not a rile imposed on it from without, but tlie expiessiou of a sentiment of real grief. It proceeds from the sorrow which tlie Church feels in the absence of its Head, and is designed to lend intensity to its prayers, and to insure with i^reater certainly that assistance of Jesus which alone can supply the place of His visible presence (comp. .Mark 9 : 29 (?) ; Acts 12 : 2, 3 ; U : 23). This re- markable saying was preserved wiih literal exactness in the tradition ; accordingly we liud it in identical words in the three Syn. It proves, first, that from the earliest I)eriod of His ministry Jesus regarded Himself as the Messiah ; next, that He identified His coming with that of Jehovah, the husband of Israel and of mankind (Hos. 3 : 19) ; * lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and announced His vio lent death. It is an error, therefore, to oppose, on these three points, the fourth Gospel to the other three. Vers. 36- 39. Here we have the second part of the conversation. The expression eleye (5? Kai, and He mid also, indicates its range. This expression, vrhich occurs so frequently in Luke, als\'ays indicates the point at which Jesus, after having treated of the particular subject before Him, rises to a more general view which commands the whole question. Thus, from this moment He makes the particular difference respecting fasting subordinate to the general opposition between the old and new order of things— an idea Avhich carries Him back to the occasion of the scene, the call of a publican. Ver. 30. t First Parable. — The T. R. saj^s : " Nomanputteth a pieceof new cloth unto an old garment." Tlie Alex. var. has this : " No man, rending a piece from a new garment, putteth it to an old garment." In ^latthew and Maik the new i)icce is taken from any piece of cloth ; in Liike, according to two readings, it is cut oui of a whole gaimeut ; the Alex, reading only puts this in a somewhat stronger form. The verb o,v\"f', lends (Alex. oxi'^Et, will rend), in the secimd proposition might have the intransitive sense: "Otherwise the new [piece] maketh a rent [in the old]," which would come to the same meaning as the passage has in Matthew and Mark : " The new piece taketh away a part of the old, and the rent is made worse. But in Luke the context requires the active sense : " Otherwise it [the piece used to patch with] rendeth the new [garment]." This is the only sense admissible in the Alex, reading, after the partic. ax'ioai, rending, in the preceding proposition. The received reading equally requires it: for, Firi^t. The second inconvenience indicated, "the new agreeth not with the old." would be too slight to be placed after that of the enlargement of the rent. Second. The evident correlation between the two Kai, loth. . . and . . . contains the following idea : the two garments, both the new and the old. are spoiled together ; the new, because it has beea rent to patch the old ; the old, because it is disfigured by a piece of different cloth. Certainly it would still be possible to refer the expression, not agree, not to the incongruity in appearance of the two cloths, but to the stronger and more resisting quality of the new cloth— an inequality which would have the effect * See Gess, " Christi Zeugniss," pp. 19, 20. f Ver. 36. !*. B. D. L. X. Z. several Mnn. Syr. It"''"i. omit a-o before tpnnov. i*. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. add axtnni before e-Lfla'A/ei. i^. B. C. D. L. X., ajdTfi, ai\uii nothing is so natural as the subhme. All that has been called the system of Paul, uU that this apostle hhnself designates his gospel — the decisive contrast between the two covenants, the mutual exclusiveucss of the systems of law and grace, of tho oldiu'sx of the ktkr and tite newness of ihc spirit (Rom. 7 : 0), this inexorable dilemma : " If by grace, then is it no more of works ; if il be ofwoiks, then is it no more grace" (Kom. 11 ; (i), whicii constitutes the substance of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians — all is contained in this homely tigure of a garment patched with a piece of cloth, or with part of a new garment ! How can any one, after this, main- tain that Jesus was not conscious fiom the beginning of the bearing of His work, as well of the task He had to accomplish in regard to the law, as of His Jkssianic dignity? How can any one contend that the Twelve, to whom we owe the preserva- tion of this paiable. were only narrow Jewish Christians, as prejudiced in favor of their law as the most extreme men of the party? If they perceived the meaning of this saymg alone, the pail attiibutcd to them becomes impossible. And if the}'' had no comprehensi )n of il, how was il that they thought it worthy of a place in the teaching of Jesus, which they handed down with such care to the Church ? Often, after having presented an idea by means of a parable, from a feeling that the figure employed fails to represent it completely, Jesus immediately adds u second paialdo, designed to set forth another aspect of the same idea. In this way aie formed what may be called the pairs of parables, which are so often met with in the Gospels (the grain of mustard-seed and the leaven ; the treasure and the pearl ; the unwise builder .and the imjirudeut warrior ; the sower and the tares). Following the same method, Jesus here adds to the parable of the piece of clolh that of ihcleathoru bottles. Vers. 37, 38 f The Second Parable. — The figure is taken from the Oiicntal custom of p eserving liquids in leathern bottles, made generally of goat-skins. " No one," says ^I. Pierotli, " travels in Palestine without having a leathern bottle filled with water among his luggage. These battles preserve the water for driukuig, without impurling any ill taste to it; also wine, oil, honey, and inilk."t In this parable theie is evidently an advance ou the preceding, as we always find in the case of double parables. This difference of meaning, misapprehended by Neander and the grea'er part of interpreters, comes out more patticuhu'ly from two features : 1. Tho oppasiti(ni between the irnily of the garment in the first, and the ])lurality of the bot- tles in the second ; 2. The fact that, since the new wine answers to the new garment, * Eph. 4 : 22, 24, is a metaphor, not a parable. f Ver. 38. !*. B. L. and some ]Mnn. omit the words, mi n/uooTepni avvTrjpowTnt. X "Macpelali," p. 78. The author gives a detailed description of the way in •which these bullies are made. 180 COMMENTARY OK ST. LUKE. the new bottles must represent a different and entirely new idea. In fact, Jesus here is no longer opposini^ the evangelical principle to the legal principle, but the repre- sentatives of Ihe one to those of the other. Two complaints were raised against Jesus : Fint. His ntgligence of the legal forms ; to this accusation He has just re- plied. Second. His contempt for the repiesentatives of legahsm, and His sympathy with those who had thrown off the theocratic discipline. It is to this second charge that He now replies. Nothing can be more simple than our parable from this point of view. The new wine represents that living and healthy spirituality which flows so abundantly through the teaching of Jesus ; and the bottles, the mtn who are to become the depositaries of this principle, and to preserve it for mankind. And whom in Israel will Jesus choose to fulfil this part? The old practitioners of legal observance ? Pharisees puffed up with the idea of their own merit ? Rabbis jaded with textual discussions? Such persons have nothing to learn, nothing to receive from Him ! If associated willi Hi§ work, they could not fail to falsify it, by mixing up with His instructions the old prejudices with which they are imbued ; or even if they should yield their hearts for a moment to the lofly thought of Jesus, it would put all their religious notions and rouliue devotion to the rout, just as new and sjiark- ling wine bursts a worn-out leathern bottle. Where, then, shall He choose His future instruments? Among those who have neither merit nor wisdom of their own. He. needs fiesh natures, souls whose only merit is their receptivity, new men in the sense of the homo novus among the Romans, fair tablets on which His hand may write the characters of divine truth, without coming across the old traces of a false human wis- dom. " God, I thank Thee, because Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to these babes" (Luke 10:21). These babes will save the tiuth. and it will save them ; this is expressed bj' these last words : " and both, the wine aad the bottles, are preserved." These words are omitted in Luke by some Alex. They are suspected of having been added from Matthew, where they are not wanting in an}'' document ; Meyer's conjecture, that they have been suppressed, in accordance with Jtlark, is less probable. It has been thought that the old bottles represent the rmregenerate nature of man, and the new bottles, hearts renewed by the Gospel. But Jesus would not have rep- resented the destruction of the old corrupt nature by the Gospel as a result to be dreaded ; and He would scarcely have compared new hearts, the works of His Holy Spirit, to bottles, the existence of which precedes that of the wine which they con- tain. Lange and Gess see in the old bottles a fiirure of the legal forms, in the new bottles the image of the evangelical forms. But Christian institutions are an ema- nation of the Christian spirit, while the bottles exist independently of the wine with which they are filled. And Jesus would not have attached equal importance to the preservation of the wine and of the bottles, as He does m the words : " And both are preserved." It is a question, then, here of the preservation of the Gospel, and of the salvation of the individuals who are the depositaries of it. Jesus returns here to the fact which was the occasion of the whole scene, and which had called forth the dissatisfaction of His adversaries, the call of Levi the publican. It is this bold act which He justifies in the spcond parable, after having vindicated, in the first, the prmciple on which it was based. A new system demands new persons. This same truth will be applied on a larger scale, when, through the labors of St. Paul, the gospel shall pass from the Jews to the Gentiles, who are the new men in the kingdom of God. CHAP. V. : 39. 181 Ver. 89.* The Third Parable. — The thorough opposition -wliich Jesus has just es- tablished lictwcen tiie lee;al system and tlie evangelical system (first parable), then between the representatives of the one and those of the other (second parable) must not lead the organs of the new principles to treat those of the ancient order with harshness. They must rememl)er thai it is not easy to pass from a system, Tvith which one has been identified from childhood, to an entirely different principle of life. Such men must be allowed time to familiarize themselves with tlie new princi- ple that is presented to them ; and we must beware how we turn our backs upon them, if they do not answer, as Levi the publican did, to the first call. The conver- sion of a publican ma)- be sudden as lightning, but that of a scrupulous observer of the law will, as a rule, be a work of prolonged effort. This figure, like that of the preceding [larable, is taken from the actual circumstances. Conversation follows a me.d ; the wine in the bottles ciiculates among the guests. "With the figure of the bottles, which contain the wine, is easil}' connected the idea of the individuals who drink it. The new wine, however superior rnay be its quaiitj', owing to its sharper flavor, is always repugnant to the palate of a man accustomed to wine, the rough- ness of which lias been softened by age. In the same way, it is natural that those who have long rested in (he works of the law, should at first take alarm — Jesus can well understand it — at the piinciple of pure spirituality. It is altogether an error in the Alex, that has erased here the word eiOeui, iirunediitebj. The very idea of the parable is concentrated in this adverb. "We must not judge such people by their first impression. The antipathy which they experience at the first moment will perhaps give place to a contrary feeling. "We must give them time, Jis Jesus did Xicodcmus. There is a tone of kindly humor in these ■nords : for he snith, " Attempt to bring over to gospel views these old followers of legal routine, and immediately they I til you . . ." If, with llie Alex, the positive xftV'^'''oi h read : " the old is mild," the repugnance for the new wiue is more strongly marked than if we read, with the T. T{., the c(;mparative : xPV'^'^oTepos , milder; for in the first case the antitliesis im- plied is : " The new is not mild at all." As the idea of comparison runs through (he entire phrase, the copyists were induced to substitute the comparative for the posi- tive. The Alex, reading is therefore preferable. " It was a great moment," as Gess truly saj's, " when Jesus proclaimed in a sin- gle breath these three things : the absolute nevvuess of His Spirit, Ilis dignity as the Husband, and the nearness of His violent death." If the first parable contains the ^erm of Paul's doctrine, and tlie second foreshadows His work among the Gentiles, the tliiid lays down the principle whence He derived His mode of acting toward His fellow-countrymen ; making Himself all things to all by subjectinir Himself to the law, in order to gain them that were under (lie law (1 Cor. 9 : 19, 20). What gentle- ness, condescension, and charity breathe through this saying of Jesus ! Vv'iiat 'sweet- ness, grace, and appropriateness characterize its form ! Ziller would have us believe (" Apostelgcsch." p. 15) that Luke invented this touching saying, and added it on his own authority, in order to render the decided Paulinism of the" two preceding par- ables acceptable to Jewish-Christian readers. But does he not see that in saying this he vanquishes him.self by his own hand ? If the two former parables are .so Pauline, that Luke thought be must soften down their meaning by a corrective of his own in- vention, how comes it to pass that the two other Syn.. the Gospels which are in the main .lewi.sh-Christian, have transmitted them to tiie Church, without the sliirhlest softening down V Criticism sometimes loses its clear-sightedness through excessive * D. ItP'^ii"', and probably En.sebius, omit this verse. !*. B. C. L. omit evOcwS. it. B. L. two Mnu. Syi"'\, xPV<^'o<: instead oi xPV'^'orefjvc. 182 COMMEKTAKY ON bX. LUKE. sharpness. That the iiltra-Pauline Maicion slioiild have omitterl this third parable is perfectly natural ; it proves that he thoroughly understood it, for it carries with it the condemnation of his system. But no consequence unfavorable to its authenticity can be drawn from this. The omission of this veise in D., and some versions, is no less easily explained by its omission in the two other synoptics. The independence of Luke's text, and the oiiginality of its sources, come out clearly from this last passage, which forms such an excellent close to this portion. Tlie difference which we have pointed out in the purport of the first parable, a dif- ference which is entirely in Luke's favor, also attests tiie excellence of the document from which he has drawn. As to the others, they are no more under obligation to Luke than Luke is to them ; would they, of their own accord, have made the teach- ing of Jesus more anti-legal than it was ? 5. A Sabbath Scene : 6 : 1-5. — The two Sabbath scenes which follow, provoke, at last, the outbreak of the conflict, wliich, as we have seen, has long been gathering strength. We have already noted several symptoms of the hostility which was be- ginning to be entertained toward Jesus : ver. 14 {for a testimony unto tlicm) ; ver. 21 {Jie blaHiyJiemeth) ; vers. 30-3o (the censure Implied in both questions). It is the ap- parent contempt of Jesus for the ordinance of the Sabbath, which in Luke as well as in John (chaps. 5 and 9). alike in Galilee and in Judaea, provokes the outbreak of this latent irritation, and an open rupture between Jesus and the dominant party. Is there not something in this complete parallelism that abundantly compensates for the superficial differences between the s^'noptical narrative and John's? Vers. 1-5* ^\iq Xevm. second-first is omitted by the Alex. But this omission is condemned b}^ Tischendorf himself. Matthew and Mark presented nothing at all like it, and they did not know what meaning to give to the word, which is found nowhere else in the whole compass of sacred and profane literature. There are half a score explanations of it. Chrysostom supposed that when two festival and Sabbath days followed each other, the first received the name of second-first: the first of the two. This meaning does not give a natural explanation of the expression. "Wetslein and Slorr saj^ that the first Sabbalh of the first, second, and third months of the year were called first, second, and third ; the second-first Sabbath would thus be Wia first Sabbath of the second month. This meaning, although not very natural, is less forced. Scaliger thought that, as they reckoned seven Sabbaths from the IGfh Nisan. the second day of the Pa?sover feast, to Pentecost, the second-first Sabbath denoted the first of the seven Sabbaths : the first Sabbath after tbe second day of the Passover. This explanation, received by De Wette, Neander, and other moderns, agrees very well with the season when the following scene must have taken place. But the term does not correspond naturall}^ with the idea. Wieseler supposes that the first Sabbath of each of the seven years which formed a Sabbatic cycle was called first, second, third Sabbath : thus the second-first Sabbath would denote the first Sabbath of the second year of the septenary cycle. This explanation has been favor- ably received by modern exegesis. It appears to us, however, less probable than ihat which Louis Cappel was the fiist to offer : The civil year of the Israelites commenc- ing in autunm, in the monlh Tizri (about mid-September to mid-October), and the ecclesiastical year in the month Nisan (about mid-March to mid- April), there were * Ver. 1. 5*. B. L. some Mnn. Syr^'^''. If'W. omit (^evrepoTvpuru. Ver. 2. i*. B. C. L. X. some Mnn. omit avroiS. Ver. 8. S. B. D. L. X. Syr. omit ovres. Ver. 4. ii. D. K. n. some Mnn. omit eAaSe Kai ; B. C. L. X. read z.a^uv. Ver. 5. D. places this verse after ver. 10. See at ver, 5 (the end.) CHAP. VI. : 1-5. 183 thus every year two first Sabbaths : one at the commencement of the civil year, of which the name would have Imen Jirst-firnt ; the other at the beginning of the relig- ious year, which would be called second first. This explanation is very simple in it- self, and the form of the Greek term favors it : sccond-Jlrd signifies naturally a first. doubled or ticicc over {bme). But there is yet another explanation which appears to us still more probable. Proposed by Selden,* it has been reproduced quite lately by AudreiC in his excellent article on the day of Jesus' death. f When the observers in- trusted with the dut}' of ascertaining the appearance of the new moon, with a view to fixing the first day of the month, did not present themselves before the coiuniissiou of the Sanhedrim assemljled to receive their deposition until after the sacrifice, this daj' was indeed declared the first of the month, or monthly (aa.33aT^v -^pCiTov, fiirst Habbath) ; but as the lime of offering the sacrifice of the new moon was passed, they sanctified the following da}', or second of the month {cdi33aTov dtvrepoTrpdirov, second- first Sabbath), as well. This meaning perfectl}^ agrees with the idea naturally ex- pressed b}- this term (a first twice over), and with the impression it gives of having been taken from the subtleties of the Jewish calendar. Bleek, ill-satisfied with these various ex[)lanations, supposes an interpolation. But why should it have occurred in Luke rather than in Matthew and ]\Iaik V Meyer thinks that a copyist had written in the margin 'irpwru), first, in opposition to tripu, the <^//,''/' (Sabbath), ver. G ; that the next copyist, wishing, in consideration of the Sab- ba'h indicated 4 :ol, to correct this gloss, wrote Jfi/rt'pw, second, in place of ^pwru, fird ; and that, lastly, from these two glosses together came the word second-fu:st . ■which has made its way into the text. What a tissue of impiobabililies ! Holtzmaun thinks that Luke had written irpuru, tJie first, d&tiuir from the journey recorded in 4:41, and that in consideiation of 4:31 some over-careful corrector added the second; whence our reading. But is not the interval which separates our narrative from 4 : 44 loo great for Luke to have emploj'ed the word first in refeiencu to this journey? And what object could he have had in expiessing so particularly this quality of first ? LastI3^ how did the gloss of this copyist find its way into such a large number of documents? Weizsiicker (" Unters." p. o'J) opposes the tw^o fir?t Sab- baths mentioned in 4 : IG, 33, to the two mentioned here (vers. 1, C), and thinks that the name second-fwst means here Wxe first of the second group. How can any one at- tribute such absurd trifling to a serious writer ! This strange term cannot Lave been invented by Luke ; neither could it have been introduced accidentally by the copyists Taken evidently from the Jewish vocabulary, it holds its place in Luke, as a witness attesting the originidity and antiquity of his sources of information. Further, this precise designati )n of the Sabbath when the incident took place points to a narrator who witnessed the scene. From ^Mark's expiession Trnpa-n-opeveaOai, to pass hy the side of, it would seem to follow that Jesus was passing along the side of, and not, as Luke says, across the field (tUaTTopeveaOni). But as Mark adds : through the corn, it is clear that he describes tsvo adjacent fields, separated by a path. The act of the disciples was expressly authoiized by the law (Deut. 23 : 25). But it was done on the Sabbath day ; there was the grievance. To gather and rub out the ears was to harvest, to grind, to labor ! ii was an infraction of the thirty-nine articles which the Pharisees had framed into * " De anno civili et calendario veteris ecclesife judaica?. " \ In the jotirual : JJciceis dcs Glnubens, September, 1870. 184 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. a Sabbatic code. ■^6xovTci,nihbLnff out, is designed]y put at the end of the phrase: this is the labor ! Meyer, pressing llie letter of Murk's text, o(hv noielv, to make a ■way, maintains that the disciples Avere not thinking of eating, but simply wanted to make themselves a passage across the field by plucking the ears of corn. According lo him, the middle Trouladiu, not the active iroulv, would have been necessary fur the ordinary sense. He translates, therefore : they cleared a way by iTiucking {TiAAovTei) the ears of corn (Mark omits rpuxovrei, ruhhiiig them out). He concludes from this that Mark alone has preserved the exact form of the incident, which has been altered in the other two through the influence of the next example, Avhich refers to food. Holtzmann takes advantage of this idea to support the hypothesis of a proto-Mark. But, 1. What traveller would ever think of clearing a passage through a iield of wheat by plucking ear after ear ? 2. If we were to lay stress on the active •koizIv, as Meyer does, it would signify that the disciples made a road for the public, and not for themselves alone ; for in this case also the middle would be necessary ! The ordinary sense is therefore the only one possible even in Mark, and the critical con- clusions in favor of the proto-Mark are without foundation. The Hebraistic form of Luke's phrase {kykvero . . . kuI eTt'/.'Aov) which is not found in the other two, proves that he has a particular document. As to who these accusers were, comp. 5 : 17, 21 : u0-'6'd. The word avTols, which the Alex, omits, has perhaps been added on account of the plural that follows : Whp do ye . . . .? It follows from this in- cident that Jesus passed a spring, and conscquentl}' a Passover also, in Galilee be- fore His passion. A remarkable coincidence also with the narrative of John (G : 4). The illustration taken from 1 Sam. 21, cited in vers. 8 and 4, is very appropiiateli*" cliosen. Jesus would certainly have had no difficulty in showing that the act of the disciples, although opposed perhaps to the Pharisaic code, was in perfect agreement with the lAIosaic <;ominandnu ut. But the discussion, if placed on this ground, might have degenerated into a mere casuistical question ; He therefore transfers it to a sphere in which He fetls Himself master of the position. The conduct of David rests upon this principle, that in exceptional casts, when a moral obligation clashes with a ceremonial law, the latter ought to yield. And far this reason. The rite is a means, but the moral duty is an end ; now, in case of conflict, the end has piiority over the means. The absurdity of Pharisaism is just this, that U subordinates the end to the means It was the duty cf the high priest to preserve the life of David and his com- panions, having regard to their mission, even at the expense of the ritual command- ment ; for the rite exists for the theocracy, not the theocracy for the rite. Besides, Jesus means to clinch the nail, to show His adversaries — and this is the sting of His reply — that when it is a question of their own particular advantage (saving a head of cattle for instance) they are ready enough to act in a similar way, sacrificmg the rite to what they deem a higher interest (13 : 11 et seq.). De Wette understands ovdi in the sense of 7io< even: "Do j'ou not even know the history of your great king?" This sense would come very near to the somewhat ironical turn of Mark : " Have you never read . . . — never once, in the course of your profound biblical studies ?" But it appears more simple to explain it as Bleek does : '■ Have j'^ou not also read . . ? Does not this fact appear in your Bible as well as the ordinance of the Sabbath ?" The detail : aiid to those icho tcere loith him, is not distinctly ex- pressed in the O. T. ; but whatever Bleek may say, it is implied ; David would not have asked for five loaves for himself alone. Jesus mentions it because He wislies to institute a parallel between His apostles and David's followers. The pron. ovi does CHAP. VI. : 1-G. 185 not refer to roH fxer' avrov as in Matthew (llie present e^eart. docs not permit of it), but to aprovS, as the objeiit of tpayelv ; e'l fii) is therefore taken here in its regular sense. It is not so in Mattlie\v, where « /z// is vised as in Lulie 4 : 26, 27. Mark gives llie name of the higli priest as Ahiathar, while according to 1 Sam. it was Ahinielecli, his son (comp. 3 Sam. 8 : 17 ; 1 Chn)n. 8 : 10), or his father (according to Josephus, Antiq. vi. 13. G). The question is obscure. In IVIalthew, Jesus gives a second instance of transgression of the Sabbath, the labor of the priesis in the temple on the Sabbath day, in connection with the buint-offerings and otiier religious services. If the work of God in the leniple liberates man from the law of the Sabbath rest, how much more must the service of Iliiu who is Lord even of the temple raise him to the same liberty ! The Cod. D. and one Mn. here add the following narrative : " The same day, Jesus, seeing a man who was working on the Sabbath, saith to him : O man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, blessed art thou ; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed, anil a transgressor of the law." This narrative is an interpolation similar to that of the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, but with this difference, that the latter is proI)ably the record of a real fact, while the former can only be an invention or a perversion. Nobody could have labored publicly in Israel on the Sab- bath day without being instantly punished ; and Jesus, who never permitted Himself the slightest infraction of a true commandment of Moses (whatever interpreters may say about it), certainly would not have authorized this premature emancipation ia any one else. After having treated the question from a legal point of view, Jesus rises to the principle. Even had the apostles broken the Sabbath rest, they would not have sinned; for the Son of man has the disposal of the Sal>bath, and they are in His service. We find again here the well known expression, Kal e?.eyev, and lie said to Vicm, the force of which is (see at ver. 36) : " Besides, I have something more impor- tant to tell 3'ou. " Tlie Sabbath, as an educational institution, is only toicniaiu until the moral development of mankind, for the sake of which it was instituted, is accom- plished. When this end is i.tlained, the means naturally fall into disuse. Now, this moment is reached in the appearance of the Son of man. The normal representative of the race, He is Himself the realization of this end ; He is th(!refore raised above the Sabbath as a means of education ; He may consequently modify the form of it, and even, if He think tit, abolish it altogether, Kal. : even of the Sabbath, this pecu- liar property of Jehovah ; with how much greater reason, of all tlie rest of the law ! * How can any one maintain, in tlie face cf such a saying as this, that Jesus only assumed the part of the Jlessiali after the conversation at Caesarea-Philippi (9 : 18), and when moved to do so by Peter ? Mark inserts before this de(^laration one of those short and weighty sayings (he has preserved several of them), which he cannot have invented or added of his own authority, and which the other two Syn. would never have left out, had they made ■"■ It is not without justification tliat Ritschl, in his fine work, " Entstehung der altkatliol. Kirche," 2d ed., sets out to prove frmn this passage, which is common to the three Syn., that tlie abolition of the law, tlie ne(;essary condition of Christian universalisin, i.^ not an idea imported into tlie reliirif/u of Jesus by Paul, but an in- tegral element of the teaching of Jesus Himself. It belongs lo that common fonndii- tiou on which rest i)oth the work of Paul and that of the Twelve ; this is already proved by tlic parable of the two garments (ver. 36). 18G COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. • use of his book or of the document of which he availed himself (the proto-Mark) : " The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." God did not cieate man for the greater glory of the Sabbath, bat Fie ordained tlie Sabbath for the greater •welfare of man. Consequently, whenever the welfare of man and the rest of the Sabbath happen to clash, the Sabbath must yield. So that {uare, Mark 2 : 28) the Son of man, inasmuch as He is head of the race, has a right to dispose of this inslitu- tion. This thought, distinctly expressed in Mark, is just what we have had to supply in order to explain the argument in Luke. Are we authorized to infer from this saying the immediate abolition of every Sab- batic institution in the Christian Church? By no means. Just as, in His declara- tion, vers. 84, 85, Jesus announced not the abolition of fasting, but the substitution of a more spiritual for the legal fast, so this saying respecting the Sabbath fore- shadows important modilications of the form of this institution, but not its entire abolition. It will cease to be a slavish observance, as in Judaism, and will become the satisfaction of an inward ueed. Its complete abolition will come to pass only when redeemed mankind shall all have reached the perfect stature of the Son of man. The principle : The Sabbath is made for man, will retain a certain measure of its force as long as this earthly economy shall endure, for which the Sabbath was first established, and to the nature of which it is so thoroughly fitted. 0. A Second- Sabbath Scene: G : 6-]!.— Vers. 3-11.* Do Matthew and Mark place the folloM'ing incident on the same day as the preceding ? It is impossible to say (Tvd/uv, in Mark, does not refer to 2 : 2;j, but to 1 : 21). Luke says positively, on another Sabbath. He has therefore His own source of information. This is confiimed by the character of the style, which continues to be decidedly Hebraistic (koI . . . Ka] . . . instead of the relative pronoun). The withering of the hand denotes para- lysis resulting from the absence of the vital juices, the condition which is commonly described as atrophy. In Matthew, the question whether it is right to heal on the Sab- bath day is put to the Lord by His adversaries, which, taken literally, would be highly improbable. It is evident that Matthew, as usual, condenses the account of. the fact, and hastens to the words of Jesus, which he relates at greater length than the others. His adversaries, u) doubt, did put the question, but, as Luke and Mark tell us, simply in intention and by Ibeir looks. They watch to see how He will act. The present Oe/MiTEvei, icliethcr lie heals, in the Alex., would refer to the habit of Je.sus, to His principle of conduct. This turn of expression is too far-fetched. The spies want more particularly to ascertain what He will do now ;■ from the fact they will easily deduce the principle. The received reading fjepaTTEvaei, whether He will heal, must therefore be preferred. The Rabbis did not allow of any medical treat- ment on the Sabbath day, unless delay would imperil life ; the strictest school, that of Shammai, forbade even the consolation of the sick onthat day (Schabbat xii. 1), Ver. 8. Jesus penetrates at a glance the secret spy system organized against Him. * Ver, 7, 14 Mjj. several Mnn. It. omit avTov after 6e. \k. A. D. L. IT, : Ospairevei instead of Oepa-nrevaFi. ^* B. S. X. some Mnn, Syr. It"''"!. : KaTr]yopei.v in- stead of KnrrjyopLav. Ver. 8. ii. B. L. some Mnn.: av6pi instead of avOpunu. Ver. 9. !*. B. L. : enepuTo) instead of etrepuTTjau. ^. B. D. L. Itp'^rique . ^^^^5 ^^ instead of f/zas Ti. 5*. B, D, L. X. Syr^'=''. Itpi«'-'>i"« : aT^nlsnaL instead of aroK-eivni. Ver. 10. 13 Mjj. ; avT(j instead of ru avBpunu, which is tiie reading of T. R. with i>. I). L. X. It. T. R. with K. n, several Mnn,: enmnaei' ovrug : 12 Mjj, 80 Mnn, omit ovru'^. J*. D, X, several jMnn. It. e^e-etvev. 11 Mjj. several Mnn. Syr. It, omitvyirji. 13Mjj,many Mnn. read w? 1/ n>/'/, which T. R. with i*. B. L. omit. ciiAi'. VI. : ;]-l I. 187 and sfcms to take pleasure in giving the work He is about to perform the greatest publicity possible. Conunuuding the man to place himself in the midst of the as- sembly, He makes him the subject of u veritable theological demonstration. Mat- thew omits these dramatic details \vhi(;h Mark and Luke liave transmitted to us. Would he have omitted them had he known them ? He could not have had tlie al- leged proto-]\Iark before him, unless it is supposed that the autlior of our canonical Mark added these details on his own authority. But in this case, how comes ]\Iaik to coincide with Luke, who, according to this hypothesis, had not our actual ^latk in his hanils, but simply the primitive ^Lirk (the common source of our three Syn.)? Here plainly is a lab^'iintli from which criticism, having once entered on a wrong path, is unable to extricate itself. The skilfulness of the question proposed b}' the Lord (ver. !)) consists in its representing good omitted as evil committed. The (pies- tiou thus puts answers itself ; for what Pharisee would venture to make the preroga- tive of the Sabbath to consi.'-t in a permission to torture and kill with impunity on that day ? This question is one of those marks of genius, or rather one of those inspiia- tiou of the heart, wliich enhance our knowledge of Jesus. By reason of His com- passion, He feels Himself responsible for all the suffering which He fails to relieve. But, it may be asked, could He not have put oft" the cure until the next day? To this question He would have given the same answer as any one of us : To-morrow belongs to God ; onl}' to-day belongs to me. The present i-tpurd), I ask you (Alex ), is more direct and severe, and consequently less suited the Lord's frame of mind at this moment, than the fuluie of the T. K. : 1 will ask you. For tlie same reason, "we think, we must read, not ft, if, or is it, with the Alex., but ri, and make this word not a complement : ' I ask you what is allowable," a form in which the intentional sharpness of His address is softened down too much (see the conlrarj' case, 7 .40), but the subject of tieart : " I ask you ; answer me ! Wliat is permitted, to . . . or to . . . for in my position I must do one or the other. " JMaltliew places here the illustration of the sheep fallen into a ditch, an argument which, as we shall see, is better placed in Luke (14 : 5, 6). Ver. 10. A profound silence (Mark 3 ; 4) is the only answer to this question Those who lai 1 the snare are taken in it themselves. Jesus then surveys His adversaries, ranged around Him, withalougaud solenm gaze. This striking moment, omitted in MattheM', is noticed in Luke ; in Maik it is de- scribed in the most dramatic manner. We feel heie how much Mark owes to some source of iufoimatiou closely connected with the person of the Saviour ; he describes the feeling of sorrowful indignation which ej'e-wilnesses couid read in His glance : " with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts." The command Jesua gives the sick man to stretch forth liis hand, affords room for surprise. Is it not pre- cisely what he was unable to do? But, like cverj' call addressed to faith, this com- mand contained a promise of the strength necesFarj' to accomplish it, provided the will to obey was there. He must make the attempt, depending on the word of Jesus (ver. 5), and divinq. power will accompany the elfoit. The word vyirii is probably' taken from Matthew ; it is omitted l)y six 'Mjj. It would be hazardous, perhaps, to erase also the words cjr 7 oaa?; wilii the Ihiee Mjj. which omit them. It is here that Cod. D. places the general proposition, ver. 5. The Jewish-Christian Gospel which Jerome had found among the Nnzarenes re- lates in detail the prayer of this sick man : " I was a mason, earning my livelihood with my own hands ; I pray thee, Jesus, to reslorp me to health, in order that I may not with shame beg my bread." This is an instance of how ampliiicatiou and vul- 18S (.'UMMKNTAUY OS ST. J^UKE. garity meet us directly we step beyond the threshold of the canonical Gospels. Apostolical dignity has disappeared. The word avoia (ver. 11), properly wiatiness, by which Luke expresses the effect produced on the adversaries of Jesus, denotes literallj'' the absence of I'oi'c, of the power to discriminate the true from the false. They were fools through rage, Luke means. In fact, passion destroys a man's sense of the good and true. IMatthew and j\Iaik notice merely the external result, the plot which from this moment was laid against the life of Jesus : " They took counsel to kill Him ;" Mark adds to the Phari- sees, the Herodians. The former, in fact, could take no effectual measures in Galilee against the person of Jesus without the concurrence of Herod ; and in oider to ohtain this, it was necessaiy to gain over his counsellors to their plans. Why should they not hope to induce this king to do to Jesus what he had already done to John the Baptist ? Hollzmann thinks it may be proved, by the agreement of certain words of Jesus in the three narratives, that they must have had a common written source. As if words so striking as these : 77ie Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath day, could not be preserved liy oral tradition ! The characteristic divergences winch we have ob- served at every line in the historical sketch of the narrative, are incompatible, as we have seen, with the use of a common document. THIKD CYCLE. — CHAP. 6 : 12-8 : 56. From the Election of the Twelte to their First Mission. In the following section we shall see the Galilean ministry reach its zenith ; it be- gins with the institution of theapostolate and the most important of Jesus' discourses during His sojourn in Galilee, the Sermon on the Mount ; and it ends with a cycle of miracles that display the extraordmary power of Jesus in all its grandeur (8 : 23-50). The hostility against Him seems to moderate; but it is sharpening its weapons in secret ; in a very little while it will break out afresh. This section comprises eleven portions : 1*/, the choosing of the Twelve, and the Sermon on the Mount (6 : 12-49) ; 2d, the healing of the centurion's servant (7 : 1-10) ; ?>d, the raising of the widow's son at Nain (7 : 11-17) ; 4/«, the qui stinn r)f John the Baptist, and the discourse of Jesus upon it (7 : 18-35) ; bth, the woman that was a sinner at the feet of Jesus (7 : 36-50) ; Qth, the women who ministered to Jesus' suppoit (8 : 1-3) ; 1th, the parable of the sower (8 : 4-18) ; Wi, the visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus (8 : 19-2t) ; Wi, the stilling of the storm (8 ; 22-25) ; 10///, llie healing of the demoniac of Gadara (8 : 26-39 ; lltJi, the raising of Jai'rus' daughter (8 : 40-56). 1. The Choofnnrj of the Tireke, and the Sermon on the Mount : 6 : 12-49.~Our afiix- ing this title to this portion implies two things : 1st, that there is a close connection between the two facts contained in this title ; 2d. that the discourse, Luke 6 : 20-49, is the same as that we read in Matt. 5-7. The truth of the first supposition, from Luke's point of view, appears from ver. 20, where lie puts the discourse which fol- lows in close connection with the choosing of the Twelve which he has just narrated. The truth of the second is disputed by those who think that in consequence of this choice Jesus spoke two discourses — one on the summit of the mountain, addressed specially to His disciples — the second lower down (m level ground, addressed to the multitude : the former, which was of a more private character, being that of Mat- rtant, in that it substantiates that of Luke, and conlirnis Ihe siirnificance alliibuled by this evangelist to the act of the choosing of the Twelve. Tjiis compaiisou with the two other Syn. shows how well Luke under- stood the development of tlu; work of Jesus, and the superior chronological skill with which he corn[)ileil his narrative {KaOe^rj; ypurpai, 1 : y). Gess has replieil to our objections against the chronnlngical accuracy of Matthew's narrative [Litter. Aiizviijer of Audrea?, Septeinl)er, 1871) in liie following manner : Till' mention of the persecutions might refer to the fact mentioned John 4 : 1, and to the fate of John the Baptist : the charge of undermining the law had aiieady i)eeu made in Juda?a (cotnp. Jolm 5) ; the false disciples might iiave been imitalois of the man who wrought cures in the name of Jesus (Luke 1) : 4'J ; Mark 1) : iJb), although of a less pure chaiacter. And, in any case, the time of Ihe discourse indicated by Luke does not dili"er sensibly from that at whieh 3Iatthew places it. But neither the hos- tility whifli Jesus had met with in Judrea, nor the accnsalions which had been laid against Ilini there, could have induced Hun to speak as He did in the Sermon on the ]\Ii)unl, unless some similar events, such as those which Si. Luke has alicady related, luid taken place in Ih's province, and within Ih'; knowledge of tlie peoi)le. It is ([uite p)si?il)le that the fads related by Luke di> not prove any very great interval between the time to which he assigns tins discourse and the beginning of the Galilean ministry, at which Matthew places it. But they serve at least as a piepaiation for Jt, and give it lust that historical foundation which it needs, Avhile in M;itthew j». occurs ex abnipto, and wilboul any historical framework. The fact Hint the call of Mallhew is placed in the tiist Gospel (!) : 9) after the Sf^rmon on the i\Inunt. which supposes tills call alieady accomplished (Ltdie G : 13 et neq.), woul.l be sufficient, if necessary to show that this discourse is detached, iu tuis Gospel, fiom its true historical context. 1st. Vers. 1^-19. Choosing of the Twelve.— Yar. 12.* Luke has already brought before us more than once the need of prayer, which so often drew Jesus away into solitude [i : 42, 5 : 6). But the expressions he inakes use of here are intended to carry special weight. AiawKrepeveiv, to pass the night in watching, is a word rarely used in Greek, and which iu all the N. T. is only found here. The choice of this unusual term, as well as the analytical form (the imperf. with the participle), express the per- severing energy of this vigil. The term -rzooatyxii rov Oeov. literally, prayer of God, is also an unique expression in the N. T. It does not denote any special re(iuest, but a stale of rapt contemplation of God's presence, a prayer arising out of the most pro- found communion with Him. The development of the work of Jesus having now reached a critical point, during this night He laid it before God, and took counsel with Ilim. The choosing of the twelve apostles was the fruit of this lengthened season of prayer ; iu that higher light in which Jesus stood, it appeared the only measure answering to the exigencies of the present situation. The reading i^t/.Oeiv is a correciioa of the Alexandiian purists for e^fyAOev, which, after hykvETo, offended the Greek ear. Vers. 13-17a.f In the execution, as in the choice, of (his important measure, * !* A. B. D. L., f^fAOf/v avTov instead of tiJ]?fjEv. t Ver. 14. i*. B. I). K. L. A. n. 20 Mnn. Syi"^''. It""i. read kol before UkuSdv. ik. B. D. L. Syr"'''. Il"'''i. read kui before i>iT77Tov. Ver. lo. The same, or ucaily 192 COMMKNTAKY ON ST. LUKE. Jesus no doubt submiUed Himself to divine direction. His numerous disciples spcut the night not far from tlie mountain-top to which He withdrew. During tliis lenglliened communion, He presented them all, one by one, to Hisfallier ; au'l God's linger pointed out tliose to whom He was to intiust tlie salvation of the world. "Wlien at last all had been made perfectly clear, toward morning He called them to Him. and made the selection which had thus been i)rearranged. The Kai, also, indi- ciUs that the title proceeded from Jesus, as well as the commission. Schleiermacher iliought that this nomination was made simply in reference to the following discourse, of which these twelve were to be the official hearers, and that the name apostles (ver. I'd, " whom He also named apostles") might have been given them on some other occasion, either i)revious or subsequent. The iimilur expiesiinu relative to Peter, ver. 1-i, might favor this latter opinion. Nevertheless, it is natural to su[)pose that He entitled them apostles when He liist distinguished them from the rest of the dis- ciples, just as He gave Simon the surname Peter when He met him for the first time (Jahn 1). And if these twelve men had been chosen to attend Jesus officially simply on this occasion, they would not be found the same in all the catalogues of apostles. The fact of this choice is expressly confirmed by Mark (y : l;d. 14), and indirectly by John (^6 •, 7U) : "Have not I chosen you twelve {e^s^E^nurjijT' The function of the aposllcs has often been reduced to that of simple witni'sses. But this very title of apostles, or ambassadors, expresses nnre, comp. 2 Cor. 5 : 20. " We are ambassadors for Christ . . . and we beseech you to be reconciled to God," W lien Jesus says, " I piay for them who shall believe on me througii their word," the expression their loord evident!}' embraces more than the simple narration of the facts about Jesus and His woiks. The marked prominence which Ltike, together with Jlark, gives to the choosing of the Twelve, is the best refutation of the unfair criticism which affects to discover throughout his work indications of a design to depreciate them. According to Keim (t. ii. p. yOo), the choice of the Twelve must have taken place latpr on, at the time of their first mission, 9 :'[ et seq. It is then, in ftict, that Mat- thew gives the catalogue, 10 : 1 et seq. His idea is that Luke imagined this entire scene on the mountain in order to refer the choosing of the apostles to as early a period as possible, and thus give a double and triple consecration to their authority, and that tluis far Mark f(jllowed him. But Luke, he believes, went much further still. Wantinu' to ])ut some discrmise into the nioulh of Jesus on this occasion, he availed himself for this purpose of part of the Sermon on the Mount, though it was a discourse which had nothing in common with the occasion. ]\Iaik, however, lejected this amplification, but with the serious defect of not being able to assign anj^ adequate reas)n fjr the choosing of the apostles at this time. Thus far Keim. But, 1. The preface to the account of the first apostolic mission in Matthew (10 : 1), " and havnig called to Him the twelve disciples, He gave them . . ." does away with the idea of their having been chosen just at this time, and implies that Ihi'^ event had already taken place. According to ^Matthew himself, the college of the Twelve is already in existence; Jesus calls them to set them to active service. 2. A scene described in such solemn terms as that of Luke (.Jesus spending a night in prayer to God), cannot be an invention on his part, consistently with the slig-litest pretensions to good faith. 3. The narrative of Mark is an indisputable confirmation of Luke's ; for it is inde- penilent of it, as a[)pears from the way, so completely his own, in which he defines the object of choosing the apnstles. 4, AVe have seen how exactly this measure was adapted to that stage of development which tlie work of Jesus had now reached. 5. Does not rationalistic criticism condemn itself, by attributing to Luke here the entire so : Kai before VlarOaiov and IukuRov. Ver. IG. The same, or nearl}'' so : nm before \ov6ai>, \k. B. D. L., laKapiuO insteiid of laKapiurriv. \^. B. L. It. omit nai after of. <1IAI'. VI. : l-i l!l. VJ'6 invention of a scene designi-rl to confer the most solemn cousecralion on the apostolic authority of tlie Twelve, and by assertinsr elsewhere that this same Luke lahors to depreciate them (the Tiibuiiieu school, and, Ij a certain cxieut, Keini himself ; see on U . 1) ? The four catalogues of apostles (Matt. 10 -.2 H seq. ; M rk 3 : IG f< seq. ; Luke G ; and Acts 1 : lii) piestnt three marks of rcsemhlauce : 1st. They contain the same names, with the exception of Jude the son of James, for whom in Mark Thaddteus is substituted, and in ^Matthew Lcbb;eus, suruamed Thaddani.s (according to the received reading), Thaddieus (according to 5*. B. ), Lebbieus (according to I).). 2d. These twelve arc distribute 1 in the four lists into three groups of four each, and no indi- vidual of either of tliese groups is transfirred to another. We juay conclude from Ihii that lbs apostolical college consisted of three concentric circles, of which the inner- most was in the closest relations with Jesus. M. The same three apostles are found at the head of each quaternion, Peter, Philip, and James. Besides this quaternary division, Matthew and Luke indicate a division into pairs, at least (according to the received reading, in Luke, and certainly in Matthew) for the last eight apostles. In the Acts, the first four apostles are connected with each other b}' Kai ; the remaining eight are grouped in pairs. Luke places at the head of them the two brothers, Simon and Andrew, with whom Jesus became acquainted while they were with the Forerunner (John 1). At the first glance, Jesus had discerned that power of taking the lead, that promptness of view and action, which distinguislied Peter. He pointed him out at the time by the sur- name tS^, in Aranuean XCr« Ceplms (properly a mn^s of rock), as he on whom IIo would found the edifice of His Church. If the character of Peter was weak and un- stable, he was none the less for that the bold confessor on whose testimony the Cuurch was erected in Israel and am^ng the heathen (Acts 2 and 10). There is noth- ing in the text to indicate that this surname was given to Peter at this time. The aor. uui1/xar}£ indicates the act siniph-, without reference to time. The kuI merely serves toexpiess the identity of the person (ver. 10). Andrew was one of the first believers. At the time when Jesus chose tlie Twelve, he was no doubt appointed at the same time as Peter ; but he gradua ly falls below James and John, to whom be ajjpears to have been inferior ; he is placed after them in Mark and in the Acts. The order followed by Luke indicr^tes a very primitive source. Andrew is very often found associated with Pliilip (John G : 7-0, 12: 21, 22). In their ordinary life be formed the link between the first and the second group, at the head of which was Philip. The second pair of the first group is formed by the two sons of Zebedee, James and John. Mark supplies (3 : 17) a detail respecting them which is full of interest : Jesus had surnamed them .wns of thunder. This surname would have been offensive liad it expressed a fault ; it denoted, therefore, rather the ardent zeal of these two brothers in the cause of Jesus, and their exalted affection for His person. This feel- ing which burned within their hearts, came forth in sudden flashes like lightning from the cloud. John 1 : 42 * contains a delicate trace of the calling of James ; this, * Prr)l)ably it is ver. 41 that is meant. M. Godet, following the usual opinion that the unnamed disciple of ver. 40 is John, the writerof the Gospel, seems to imderstand tlie next verse as intimating that Andrew found his bi-oiher Simon before John found his brother James. Alford's view is, that both disciples (John and Andrew) went to seek Simon, but that Andrew found him first. — Tk.\nslator. VJ4: COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LVKK. therefore, must have taken place while he was with John the Baptist, immediately after that of his brother. James was the first martyr from the number of the apos^lles (Acts 13). This fact is only to be explained by the great influence which he exerted after Pentecost. John was the personal friend of Jesus, who doubtless felt Himself belter understood by him than by any of the others. While the other disciples were especially impressed by His miracles, and stored up His moral teaching, John, at- tiacted rather by His person, treasur-ed up in his heart those sayirrgs in which Jesus unfolded His consciousness of Himself. Wreseler has tried to prove that these two brothers were first-cousins of Jesus, by Salome, their mother, wlro would have been the sister of the Virgin Mary. Comp. 31att. 27 : 5, G, Mark 15 : 40, with John 19 : 25. But this interpretation of the passage in John is hardly natural. The second quaternion, which no doubt comprised natures of a second or'der, contained also two pairs. The first consists, in all three Gospels, of Philip and Bar- tholomew. In the Acts, Philip is associated with Thomas. Philip was the fiflh be- liever (John 1) ; he was originally from Bethsaida, as were also the pi-eceding fimr. J ;hn C) :5 seems to show that Jesus was cu terms of special cordiality with him. The name Bartiiolomew signifies son of Tolmai ; it was therefore only a surname. It has long been supposeil that the true name of this aposile was Nathanael. John 21 ; 2, where Nathanael is named among a string of apostles, proves unquestionably that he Avas one of the Twelve. Since, according to John 1, he had been drawn to Jesus by Philip, it is natural that he should be associated with him in the catalogues of the apostles. j\latthew and Thomas form the second pair of the second grorrp in the three Syn., while in the Acts Matthew is associated with Bartholomew. One remarkable circum- stance, all the more significant that it might easily pass unperceived, is this, that wiiile in Murk and Luke Matthew is placed ilrstof the pair, in our first Gospel he oc- cupies the sec(md place. Further, in this Gospel also, the epithet tJie publican is add- ed to his name, which is wanting ia the two others. Are not these indications of a personal pailicipation, more or less direct, of the Apostle Matthew in the composiliim of the first Gospd ? Having been formerly a toll-collector, Matthew must have been more accustomed to the use of the pen than his colleagues.. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should be the first among them who felt called to put into writing the history and instructions of Jesus. The account of his calling irirplies that he possessed unirsrral energy, deeision, and strength of laith. Per-haps it was for that reason Jesrrs saw fit to associate hini with Thomas, a man of scruples and doubts. The name of the latter signifies a twin. The circumstances of his call are unknown. He was doubtless connected with Jesus first of all as a simple disciple, and then his terious character attracted the attention of the Alasler. If the incident 9 : 59, 60 was net placed so long after the Sermon on the Mount, we might be tempted with some writers to. apply it. to Thouras. The third quaternion contains the least striking chai'acters in the number of the Twelve. All thei^e mm, however, not excepting Judas Iscariot, have had their share in the fulfilment of the apostolic task, the transmission of the holy figure of the Chris% to the Church through all time. The stream of oral tradition was formed by the affluents of all these sources together. The last pair comprises here, as in the Acts, James the son of Alphfeus, and Simon the Zealot. But the distribution is different in the two other Syn. It has been generallj^ allowed since the fourth century that this James is the peisan so often mentioned, in the A(;ls and the Galatians, as the brother c'iiAi\ VI. : i;-ll). ]0o of the Lord, llie first head of tlio Hock r.t Jcriisalcni. This identity is made out, (1) by applying to hioi tlie passago j\Iark 1.") : 40. accordiug to whicjh his suriiaine would have been the less or the youiujer (relalirely to James the son of Zebedce), and his mother would have been a ^l;uy, whom, aecording to John 10 : 2o, we should have to regard as a sister (probabl}' sister-in-law) of the mother of Jesus ; (2) by identify- ing the name of his father Alphirus with the name Clopas OCTTl = K/un-d?), which was borne, according to Ilegesippus, by a brother of Joseph ; (3) by taking the term brother in the sense of cousin (cf the Lord). But this hypothesis cannot, in our judg- ment, be maintained : (1) The word mhAipui, brother, used as it is by the side of fi'/rr/p, mother ('* tiie mother and brethren of Jesus"), can only signify brother in the proper sense. The example oltcn cited. Gen. lo : 8, when Abraham says to Lot, " "Wo are brethren," is not parallel. (2) John says positively (7 •• o) that the brethren of Jesus did not believe on Him. and this long after the choice of the Twelve (John 6 : 70). This is confirmed by Luke 8 -.19 et seq. ; comp. with ]\[ark 13 : 20-;JJ5. One of them could not, therefore, be found among His apostles. A comparison of all the passages leads us to distinguish, as is generally done at the present day, three Jameses : the first, the son of Zebedee (ver. 14) ; the second, the son of AlphjBus indicated here, whom there is nothing to present our identifj'ing with James the less, the son of Clopas and Mary, and regarding him as the lirst-cousin of Jesus ; the third, the brother of the Lord, not a believer before the death of Jesus, but alterward first bishop of the flock at Jerusalem, The surname Zxilot, given to Simon, is probably a translation of the adj. kaniia (in the Talmud, kunanil), zealous. If this be correct, this apostle belonged to that fanatical partj' Avhich brought about the ruin of the people, hy leading them into war against the Konians. This sense corresponds with the epithet Kavaviriji, which is applied to him in the Byz. reading of 3Iatthew and Mark, confirmed here by the authority of the Sinai t. This name is simply the Hebrew term, translated by Luke, and Hellenized bj' ^latthew and Mark. The reading Y^avavalo^ in some Ale.K. may signify either Cnnaanite or citizen of Cana. This second etymology is not very probable. The first would be more so, if in Matt. 15 : 23 this word, in the sense cf Canaanite, were not written with an X instead of a K. Luke has therefore given the precise meaning of the Arama?an term employed in the document of which he availed himself (Keim, t. ii. p. 319). The liist pair comprises the two Judes. There were in fact two men of this name in the apostolic college, although ]\Iatthew and Mark mention but one, Judas Iscariot. This is very clear from John 14.22 • "Judas, not Iscariot, saith to Him." Tiie names Lebbaeus and Thaddajus, in Matthew and Mark, are therefore surnames, de- rived, the former from 2/. heaii, the latter either from Hp, mamma, or from ^"^j poteiis. The name Thaddai is of frequent occurrence in the Talmud. These sur- names were probably the names by which they were usually desiguated in the Church. The genitive 'IokuSov nmst, according to usage, signify sou of James ; this was to distinguish this Judas from the next. With the desire to make this apostle also a cousin of Jesus, the phrase has frequenth' been translated brother of James, that is to say, of the son of Aliiha'us, mentioned in ver. 15. But there is no instance of the genitive being used in this sense. In the 14th verse, Luke himself thought it necessary to use the full expression, rnv a(h?.(;)oi> avrov. And would not the two other Syn., who join Lebba?U3 immediately to James, have indicated this relationship ? 19G COMMEXTARY OX ST. LUKE. As there was a town called Kerijntli in Jutlsca, it is probable that lliename Iscariot si.2;nifies a man vf Kerijotli (at the present day Kuiiul), toward the northern boundary of Judtea. The objections which De Wette lias raised against this elymology are without force. He proposes, with Lightfoot, the etymology ascara, stra)igulation. Ilengstenberg prefers isch sdieker, man of falsehood, from which it would follow that this surname was given post eventum. These etymologies are all the more untenable, that in the fourth Gospel, according to the most probable reading ('Icr/coptcjrou, G : 71 and elsewhere), this surname Iscariot mu^t have been originally that ot the father of Judas. The character of this man appears to have been cold, reserved, and calcula- ting. He ■rt'as so very reserved that, with the exception perhaps of John, none of the disciples guessed his secret hatred. In the coolness of his audacity, he ventured to cope with Jesus Himself (John 12 : 4, 5). "With what motive did Jesus clioose a man of this character ? He had spontaneously joined himself, as did so many others, to the number of His disciples ; there was therefore a germ of faith in him, and per- haps, at the outset, an ardent zeal for the cause of Jesus. But there also existed in him, as in all the otheis, the selfish views and amhilious aspirations which were almost inseparable from the form which the Messianic hope had taken, until Jesus purified it from this alloy. In the case of Judas, as of all the nthers, it was a ques- tion which of the two ccnflicting principles wcmld prevail in his heart : whether faith, and through this the t^anctifying power of the spirit of Jesus, or pride, and thereby the unbelief which could not fail eventually to result from it. This was, for Judas, a question of moral liberty. As for Jesus, He was bound to submit in respect to lum, as in respect to all the others, to God's plan. On the one hand. He might cer- tainly hope, by admitting Judas into the number of His apostles, to succeed in purify- ing his heart, while by setting him aside He nughfc irritate him and estrange him for- ever. On the other hand. He certainly saw through him sufficiently well to perceive the risk He ran in giving him a place in that inner circle which He was about to foim around His person. We may suppose, therefore, that, during that long night which preceded the appointment of the Twelve, this was one of the questions which en- gaged His deepest solicitude ; and certainly it was not until the will of His Father became clearly manifest that He admitted this man into the rank of the Twelve, not- withstandmg His presentiment of the heavy cross He was preparing for Himself (John G : 64 and 71). Still, even Judas fulfilled his apostolic fanction ; his despairing cry, " I have betrayed the innocent blood !" is a testimony which resounds through the ages as loudly as the preaching of Peter at Pentecost, or as the cry of the blood of James, the first martyr. The ku'l, also, after 65 (ver. 16). omitted by some authorities, is perhaps :.iken from the two other Syn. If it is authentic, it is intended to biing out more forcibly, through the identity of the person, the contradiction between his mission and the course he took. Surrounded hy the Twelve and the numerous circle of disciples from which He had chosen them, Jesus descends from the summit of the mountain. Having reached a level place on its slopes, He stops ; the crowd which was waiting for Him toward the foot of the mountain, ascends and gathers about Him. TottoS n-£(5iv6s, a level place on an inclined plane. Thus the alleged contradiction with the expression, the mountain, in Matthew disappears (see above). The icnr}, He stood still, in opposition to having come doicn, does not in anyway denote the attitude of Jesns during the dis- course. There is therefore no contradiction between this expression and Matthew's liavimj sat doicn. What are we to say of the discovery of Baur, who thinks that, by ciiAi'. VI. : 1?-'^'J. 197 subslituting7/rtiv'n/7 ''"w (?"?f», vcr. Ifi, for lie w(Snt vp, ^latt. 5 : 1, Luke intended to degrade tlie Serniun on tlie Mount ! * Vers. 176-11). f "We niiglitinake oxAoi n'/f/JoS, Vie croird, the multitude, etc., so many subjeets of to-// : "He stood slill, along with tlie crowd . . ." But it is inoio natural to understand some verb : " And there was with Ilim the crowd . . ." In an}' case, even if, with the Alex., we omit the nai before iOeixnTEvuvrn, tecre /taitcd (I'er. 18), we could not think of making these subst. nominatives to this last ve.b ; for the crowd of disciples, etc., was not composed of sick people. Three classes of per- sons, therefore, surrounded Jesus at this time : occasional hearers (the laultitude come together from all parts), the permanent disciples (the crowd of disciploi), and the apostles. The first represent the people in so far as they are called to the kingdom of God ; the second, the Church ; the third, the ministry in the Church. The teim crowd, to denote tlie second, is not too strong. Did not Jtsus take out of them, only a little while after, seventy disciples (10 : 1) ? If, at the 18th verse, we read and be- fore tJiey were healed, the idea of healing is only accessory, and is added by way of parenthesis ; but the prevailing i lea is that of gathering togeliier : " Demoniacs also were there ; and what is more, they were healed." If the sed are ye that weep now : for ye shall laugh." The dis- ciples arc the constant hearers of Jesus, among whom He has just assigned a distinct place to His apostles. I^uke does not t^ay that Jesus sookc to them alone. He spoke to all the people, but regarding them as the representatives of the new order of things wiiich lie was about to institute. In Matthew, avrovr, ver. 2 (He taught them), com- prises both the iitople and the, disciples, ver. 1. This commencement of the Sermon on the 3Iount breathes a sentiment of the deepest joy. In these disciples immedi- ately about Him, and in this multitude surrounding Him in orderly ranks, all eager to hear the word of God, Jesus beholds the first appearance of the true Israel, the true people of the kingdom. He surveys with deep joy this congregation which His father has brought together for Him, and begins to speak. It must have been a peculiarly solemn moment ; comp. the similar picture. Malt. 5 : 1, 2. This assembly wjis chiefly composed of persons belonging to the poor and suffer- ing classes. Jesus knew it ; He recognizes in this a higher will, and in Ilis first words He does homage to this divine dispensation. Uruxoi, which we translate poo?% comes from Trruacu, to make one's self little, to crouch, and conveys the idea of humilia- tion rather than of poverty (TTt'vj??). Yleivuvre;, the hungry (a word connected •with nivj):.), denotes rather those whom poverty condemns to a life of. toil and privation. 200 CO-MMEXTARY OX ST. LUKE. This second term marks the transition to the third, tliose who iceej), among whom must be numbered all classes of persons who are weighed down by the trials of life. All those persons who, in ordinary language, are called nnhapp}', Jesus salutes with the epithet fiUKupioL, blessed. This word answers to the "'7Ii7{>^. felicitates, of Ihe O. T. (Ps, 1 : 1 and elsewhere). The idea is the same as in uumeiuus passages in which the poor and despised are spoken of as God's chosen ones, not because poverty and suf- fering are in themselves a title to His blessing, but they dispuse the soul to those meek and lowly dispositions which qualify them to leceive it, just as, on the other liand, prosperity and riches dispose the heart to be proud and haid. In the very composition of this congregation, Jesus sees a proof of this fact of experience so often expressed in the O. T. The joy which He feels at this sight arises fiom the mag- nificent promises which He can offer to such hearers. The kingdom of God is a state cf things in which the will of God reigns supreme. This stale is realized fiistof all in the hearts of men, in the heart it may be of a single man, but speedily in the hearts of a great number ; and eventually there will come a ;day when, all rebellious elements having been vanquished or taken away, it will be ifound in the hearts of all. It is an order of things, therefore, which, from being in- ward and individual, tends to become outward and social, until at length it shall take possession of the entire domain of human life, and appear as a distinct epoch in his- itory. Since this glorious state as yet exists m a perfect manner only in a higher sphere, it is also called the kingdom of heaven (the ordinary term in Matthew). Luke V says : is— not shallbe — j'ours ; which denotes partial present possession, and a right lo perfect future possession. But are men members of this kingdom simply through being poor and suffering? The answer to this question is to be found in what pre- cedes, and in such passages as Isa. GG . 2 . " To whom will I look ? sailh the Lord. To him who is poor (i-y) and of a broken spirit, and who trembles at my word." It is to heaits which suffering has broken that Jesus brings the blessings of the king- [dorii. These blessings are piimarily spiritual — pardon and holiness. But outward blessings cannot fail to follow them ; and this notion is also contained in the idea of a kingdom of God, for glory is the crown of grace. The words of Jesus contain, therefore, the following succession of ideas : temporal abasement, from which come humiliation and sighing after God; then spiritual graces, crowned with outward ^blessings. The .same connection of iicas explains the beatitudes that fellow. Yer. 21a : temporal poverty (being hungry) leads the soul to the need of God and of His 'grace (Ps. 42:1); then out of the satisfaction of this spiritual hunger and thirst arises full outward satisfaction (being filled). Ver. 2lb : with tears shed over tem- poral misfortunes, is easily connected the mourning of the soul for its sins ; the latter draws down the unspeakable consolations of divine love, which eventually raise the soul to the triumph of perfect joy. The terms K/inieiv, to sob, yelg.v, to laugh, cannot well be literally rendered here. They denote a grief and joy which find outward demonstrathjn ; comp. Ps. 126 : 2, " Our mouth was filled with laughter," and Paul's uavxu-aBai hv Qtu, to joy in God (Rom. 5 : 11). The text of Matthew presents here two fmportant differences : 1st. He employs the third person instead of the second : " Blessed are the poor, fur theirs is the kingdom of heaven ; they that mourn, for they shall be comfoited." etc. The beatitudes, which in Luke are addressed directly to the hearers, are presented here under the form of general maxims and moral sen- tences. 2d. In Matthew, these maxims have an exclusivel}'' spiritual meaning : " the poor in spirit, they who hunger after righteousness." Here interpreters are divided. CHAP. VI. : 22, 23. X'Ol some maiutaining that Matthew has sjiiritutilizi'd the words of Jesus ; others (as Kcim), thai Luke, under the iufluuncu of a prejudice against riches, has given to these blessings a grossly temporal meaning. Two things appear evident to us : (l)i That the direct form of address in Luke, " Ye," can alone be historically accurate : Jesus was speakuig to His heaiers, not discoursing bufore them. (2) That this first difference has led to the second , having adopted the third person, and given the beatitudes that Maschai form so ofteu found in Ihediilaclicparlsof the O. T. (Psalms, Proverbs), Matthew was obliged to bring out expressly iu the text of the discourse lh')se moral aims which are inherent iu the very persons of the poor whom Jesus addresses directly m Luke, and without which these words, iu this abstract form, would have been somewhat too unqualified. How could one say, without qualifica- tion, Blessed are the poor, the hungry ? Tempoial sufferings of themselves could not be a pledge of salvation. On the other hand, the form, Blessed are ye poor, ye hungry, in Luke, renders all such explanation superfluous. For Jesus, when He spoke thus, was addressing particular concrete poor and afflicted, whom He alntady recognized as His disciples, as believers, and whom He regarded as the representatives of that uew people whicli He was come to install in the earth. That they were such attentive hearers sutlieiently proved that the}' were of the number of those in whom temporal sufferings had awakened the need of divine consolation, that Ihej' belonged to those laboiing aud heavj'-laden souls whom He was sent to lead to rest (Matt. 11 : 29), and that they hungered, not for material bread cnlj-, but for the bread of life, for the word of God, for God Himself. The qualificaliou which Matthew was necessarily obliged to add, in order to limit the application of the beatitudes, in the general form which he gives to them, is in Luke then implied in this ye, which was ordy addressed to poor believers. These two differences between Mallliew and Luke are very sig- nificant. They seem to me to i)rove : (1) that the text of Luke is a more exact report of the discourse than ^latthew's ; (3) that Matthew's version was originally made with a didactic rather than a historical design, aud consequently that it foimcd part of a collection of discourses in which the teaching of Jesus was set foilh without re- gard to the paitieular circumstances under which He gave it, before it entered into the historical framework in which we find it contained at the present day. Vers. 23 aud 23.* " Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and wheu they shall separate you from their c.)mpauy, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. 23. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy ; for, behold, your leward is great in heaven : for in Lke manner did Ihtir fathers unto the prophets." This fourth beatitude is completely accounted for, in Lidve, by the scenes of violent iiostility which ha 1 already taken place. It is not so well accounted for in Matthew, who places the Sermon on the Mount at the opening of the ministry of Jesus. In JMatthew, this saying, like the preceding, has the abstract form of a moral maxim : " Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake ; for theirs is the kingdom c)f heaven." But Jesus was certainly not giving utterance here to abstract principles of Christian morality : He spoke as a living man to living men. Besides, Mallhew himself passes, in the next verse, to the form of address adopled by Luke from the commencement. The i xplanatory adjunct, for 1-tghteousness' sake, in Matthew, is to be ascribed to the same cause as the similar * Ver. 23. Al' the Mjj., x"PV'^^ instead of xntperf, the reading of T. R. with some Mnu. B, D. t^. X. Z. Syr"*'. It*"''., Kara ra avra instead of />.«7ci tuvtu. 202 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. qualifications in the precedinc^ beatitudes. By the prcs. eare, " happy arc ye," Jesus transports His hearers directly into this immediate future. The term CKpopl^eiv, to separate, refers to exclusion from the synagogue (.John 9 : 22). The strange expres- sion, cast out your name, is explained in very jejune fashion, both by Bleek, to pro- nounce the name with disgust, and bj' De Wette and Meyer, to refuse altogether lo pronounce it. It refers rather to the expunging of the name from the synagogue roll of membership. There is not, on this account, any tautology of the preceding idea. To separate, to insult, indicated acts of unpremeditated violence ; to erase the name is a permanent measure taken with deliberation and coolness. Tlovripuv, evil, as an epitome of every kind of wickedness. In their accounts of this saying, this is the only word left which Matthew and Luke have in common. Instead of for tJie Son of man's sake, Matthew say:i for my sake. The latter expression denotes attachment to the person of Jesus ; the former faith in His Messianic character, as the perfect representative of humanity. On this point also Luke appears to me to have pre- served the true text of this saying ; it is with IIis work that Jesus here wishes to con- nect the idea of persecution. This idea of sulimission to persecution along with, and for the sake of, the Messiah, was so foreign to the Jewish point of vipw that Jesus feeKs He must justify it. Tlie sufferings of the adiisrents of Jesus will only be a continuation of the sulteriugs of the prophets of Jehovah. Tliis is the great matter of consolation that He offers them. They will be, by their very sufferings, raised to the rank of the old prophets ; the recompense of the Elijahs and Isaiahs will become theirs. The reading Kara r« avrd, in the same manner, appears preferable to the received reading Kara rnvrn, in this manner. Ta and avrd have probably been made into one word. The imperf. knoiow (treated) indicates liabit. The pronoun avTtjv, their fathers, is dictated by the idea that the disciples belong already to a new order of things. The word their serves as a transition to the woes which folluw, addressed to the heads of the existinsr order of things. Vers. 24-26."-^ " But woe unto you that are lich ! for ye have received your con- solation. 25. Woe unto you that are full ! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now ! for ye shall mourn and weep. 20. Woe unto you wheu all men shall speak well of you ! for so did their fathtis to the false prophets." Jesus here con- templates in spirit those adversaries who were sharpening against Him only just be- fore (ver. 11) the swnid of per; ecution : the rich and powerful at Jerusalem, whose emissaries surrounded Him in Galilee. Perhaps at this very moment He perceives some of their spies in the outer ranks of the congregation. Certainly it is not the rich, as such, that He curses, any more than He pronounced the poor as such blessed. A Nicodemus or a Joseph of Arimathea v.'ijl be welcomed with open arms as readily us the poorest man in Israel. Jesus is dealing here with historical fact, not with moral philosophy. He takes the fact as it presented itself to Him at that time. ("Were not the rich and powerful, as a class, already in open opposition to His mis- Ision ? They were thus excluding themselves from the kingdom of God. The fall of Jerusalem fulfilled ovi\Y too literally the maledictions to which Jesus gave utterance on that solemn daj'. The nljiv, excejA, only, wliich we can only render by hut {vex. 24), makes the persons here designated an exception as regards the preceding * Ver. 25. 9Mjj. someMnn. read vw after efnreTXrjnuevoi. !*. B. K. L. S. X. Z. and some Mnn. omit the second vfiiv. Ver. 26. 20 Mjj. omit vjiiv, which is the reading of T. R. with B. A. only. 8 Mjj. 100 Mnn. omit^rai^res. The Mss, are divided be- tween Kara ravra (T. R.) and Kara ra avra. cHAi'. VI. : 2-^'2(>. ;2U3 beatitudes. The term Jvc/i refers to soc.iul position, /»K to mode of living; tli(! cx-\ pri'ssioti, you tluit Uiiigh, describes a personal dispnsilion. All these outward con- dilious are considered as associated with an avaricious spirit, with injustice, pioud sulf-satisfacliou, and a profane levity, which did indeed attach to them at that time. It was to the Pharisees and Sadducees more particularly that these threaleuings were addiessed. The word vvv, now, which several Mss. read in the liist proposition, is a faulty imitatioQ of the second, where it is found in all the documents. It is in i)laee in the latter ; for the notion of laughing coulains something more transient than thaf of being full. The expression u-jixeTe, which we have rendered by ye have received, signifies : you have taken and carried away everything ; all therefore is exhau.'ted. Cunip. IG : 25. The terms hunger, weeping, were literally realized in the great national catastrophe which followed soon after this malediction; but thej^ also con- tain an allusion to the privations and sufferings which await, after death, those who have found their happiness in this world. lu ver. 26 it is more paiticuhuly the Pliarisees :md scribes, whi were so generally honored in Israel, that Jesus points out as continuing the work of the false prophets. These four woes would be iucompalible with the spiritual sense of the terms ^wor, hungry, etc., in the beatitudes. The sec-und part of the discourse : vers. 27-45. I'he Hew Law. — Here we have the body of the discourse. Jesus proclaims the supreme law of the new society. The diderence from Matthew comes out in a yet more striking manner in this part than in liie preceding. In the first Gospel, the principal idea is the opposition between Ugal righteousness and the new righteousness which Jesus came to establish. He Ilimstlf auuouaces the text of the discourse in this saying (ver. 20) : " Except your right- eousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The law, in the greater number of its statutes, seemed at first sight only to require outward observauce. But it was evident to every true heart, that by these commandments the God of holiness desired to lead His wor- shippers, not to hypociitical formalism, but to spiritual obedience. The tenth com- mandment made this very clear, as far as respected the decalogue. Israelitish teach- ing should have labored to explain the law iu this truly moral sense, and to have carried the people up from the letter to the spirit, as the prcphels had endeavored to do. Instead of that, Pharisaism had taken pleasure in multipljing indefiuitely legal observances, and in regulating them with the minutest exactness, urging the letter of the precept to such a degree as sometimes even to make it contradict its spirit. It had stifled morality under legalism. Comp. Malt. 15 : 1-20 and 23. In dealing with this crying abuse, .Icsus breaks into the heart of the letter with a bold hand, iu order to .set free its spirit, and displaying this iu all its beauty, casts aside at once the letter, which was only its imperfect envelope, and that Pharisaical righteousness, which rested on nothing else than an indefinite amplification of the letter. Thus Jesus finds the secret of the abolition of the law in its very fulfilment. Paul understood and de- veloped this better than anybody. What, in fact, is the legislator's intention in im- posing the letter ? Not the letter, but the spirit. The letter, like the thick calj'X under the protection of which the flower, with its delicate organs, is formed, was only a means of pre.-^erving and developing its inward meaning of goodness, until the time came when it could bloom freely. Tliis time had come. Jesus on the moun- tain proclaims it. And this is why this day is the counterpart of the day of Sinai. He opposes the letter of the divine commandment, understood as letter, to the spirit contained in it, and develops this contrast. Matt. 5, iu a series of antitheses so strik- ;20-t COMMJCNTAllY OX ST. LUKE, Ing that it is impossible to doubt either their authenticity or that tliey formed the reul substance, the centre of the Sermon on tlie Mount. Ilollzmann -vsill never suc- ceed in persuading any one to tlie contrary ; his entire crilical hypothesis as to llic relations of the Syn. will crumble away sooner than this conviction. The CDnnec- tion of the discourse in Matthew is this : 1. Jesus discloses wherein the Pharisaical liirhteousuess fails, its want of inward trulh (vers. 13-48). 2. He judges, l)y this law, the three pos^itive manifestations of this boasted righteousness : almsgiving, pra^^er, and fasting (G : 1-18). 8. He attacks two of the most characteristic sins of Pharisaism : covetousness and censoriousuess (G : 19-84 ; 7 : 1-5). 4. Lastly there cime various particular precepts on prayer, conversion, false religious teaching, etc. (7 : 6-30). But between these precepts it is no longer possible to establish a perfectly natural couneclion. Such is the body of the Sermon in Matthew : at the commence- ment, an unbroken chain of thought ; then a connection which becomes slighter and slighter, until it ceases altogether, and the discourse becomes a simple collection of detached sayings. But the fundamental idea is still the opposition between the for- malism of the ancient righteousness and the spirituality of the new. I In Luke also, the subject of the discourse is the perfect law of the new order of things ; but this law is exhibited, not under its abstract and pol'imical relation of spirituality, but under its concrete and positive form of charity. The plan of this part of the discourse, in Luke, is as follows : Isi. Jesus describes the practical mani- festations of the new piiuciple (vers. 27-30) ; then, 2d. He gives concise expiessiou to it Cver. 31) ; 3d. He indicates the distinctive characteristics of charity, by contrast- ing this vittue with ceitain natural analogous sentiments (vers. 32-3r)a) ; 4th. He sets fui th its model and source (vers. 856 and 8G) ; 5(h. Lastly, He exhibits this giatu- ilous, disinterested love as the principle of a'l sound judgment and salutary religious teaching, contrasting in this respect the new ministry, which He is establishing in the eaith in the presence of His disciples, with the old, which, as embodied in the Phari- sees, is vanishing away (vers. 37-45). At the first glance there seems little or nothing in common between this body of the discourse and that which, as we have just seen, Matthew gives us. We can even understand, to a certain extent, the odd notion of Schleiermacher, that these two versions emanated from two hearers, of whom one was more favorably situated for hearing than the other ! The difference, however, lietween these two versions may be accounted for by connecting the fully -developed subject in Luke with the subject of the last two of the six antitheses, by which Jesus describes (Matt. 5) the contiast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. Jesus attacks, vers. 88-48, the Pharisaical comraentar}^ on Ihete two precepts of the law : an eye for an eye . . . and, Viou sMlt love thy neighbor as thyself. This commentar3% by applying the lex talionis, which had only been given as a rule for the judges of Israel, to private life, and by deducing from the word neighbor this consequence : therefore thou mayest hate him who is not thy neighbor, that is to say, the foreigner, or thine enemy, had entirely falsified the meaning of the law on these two points. In opposition to these caricatures, Jesus sets forth, in Matthew, the inexhaustible and perfect grace of charity, as exhibited to man in the example of his heavenly Benefactc* ; then He pro- ceeds to identify this charity in man with the divine perfection itself : " Be ye per- fect [ihrough charity], as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Now it is just at this point that Luke begins to appropriate the central part of the discourse. These last two antitheses, which terminate in Matthew in the lofty thought (ver. 48) of man c'liAi'. VI. : 2], -i^. 20ij beiri? elevated by love to the perfection of God, furnish LuUp with the leading idea of tiie discourse ns he presents it — namely, charily as the law of the new life. Its tlienie is in this way nioditied in form, but it is not altered in substance. For if, as St. Paul says. Rom. lo : 10, " charity is the fulfilling of the law ; " if perfect spirituality, complete likeness to God, consists in charily ; the fundamental agree- ment between the.se tw,> f()ims of the Sermon on the ISlount is evident. Only Luke has deemeil it advisahlu to omit all that specially referred to the ancient law and the comments of the Pliarisees, and to pieserve only that which has a universal hiunan bearing, the opposition between charily and than natural seltishuess of the human heart. The two accounts being thus related, it follows, that as regards the original structure of the discourse, in so far as this was determined by opposition to Phari- saism, Matthew has preserved it more completely than Luke. But though this is so, Matthew's discourse still contains many details not originally belonging to it, which Luke has very properly assigned to entirely different places in other parts of his narrative. We find here once more the two writers following their respective bent : Matlliew, having a didactic aim., exhibits in a general manner the teaching of Je.^us on the righteousness of the kingdom, by including in this outline many saj-ings spoken on other occasions, but ix-aring on the same subject ; Luke, writing as a historian, confines himself more strictly to the actual words which Jesus uttered at this time. Thus each of them has his own kind of superiority over the other-. Ut. The manifestations of charity ; vers. 27-30. To describe the manifestations of this new princii)le, which is henceforth to sway the world, was the most popular and effectual waj' of introducing it into the consciences of his hearers. Jesus de- scribes, first of all, charity in its active form (vers. 27 and 28) ; then in its passive form of endurance (vers. 2"J and 30). Vers. 27. 28.* " But 1 say unto j'ou which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate jou. 28. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." There is a break in the connection between ver. 2G and ver. 27. De "W'ette and ^Nfeyer think that the link is to be found in this thought under- stood : " Notwithstanding these curses which I pronounce upon the rich, your per- secutors, I command you not to hate, but to love them." But in the verses that fol- low, it is not the lich particularly that are represented as the enemies whom His dis- ciples should love. The precept of love to enemies is given in the most general manner. Rather is it the new law which Jesus announces here, as in Matthew. The link of connection with what goes before is this : In the midst of this hatred of which you will be the ol)jects (ver. 22), it will be your duty to realize in the world the perfect law which I to-day proclaim to you. Tholuck, in his " E.xplunation of the Sermon on the Mount" (p. 498), takes exception to Luke for giving these precepts a place here, where they have no connection ; but he thus shows that he has failed to understand the structure of this discourse in our Gospel, as we have exhibited it. In this form of expression : But J say unto you xoldcli hear, there is an echo as it were of the antithesis of Matthew : " Ye have heard . . . But I say unto you." By this expression, you which hear, Jesus opposes the actual hearers surrounding Him to those unaginary hearers to whom the preceding woes were addressed. We * Ver. 28. The .\iss. are divided between v//a5 and vfiiv. All the ]Mjj. omit Kat be- fore npoaevxeaOe, which is the reading of T. R. with merely some Mnu. The msh. are divided between ncfji and vnep. 206 COMMEXTAKY OX ST, LUKE. must conceive of the words, ver. 27 and ver. 28, as having been pronounced with some kind of enthusiasm. These precepts overflow with love. You have only to meet every manifestation of hatred with a fresh manifestation of love. Love ! Love ! You can never love too much ! Tlie term love denotes the essence of the new principle. Then come its manifestations : first, in acts (do good) ; then in words (bless) ; lastly, the highest manifestation, which is at once act and word [prai/ for). These manifestations of love correspond with the exhibitions of hatred by which lliey are called forth : }x^P°-> hatred, the inward feeling ; fiLaelv, to Jiold in abhorrence, the acts ; KarapuaOai, to curse, tlie words. ''E.TZTjpediiEiv (probably from e-ni and alfjeaOai, to rise against, to thicart) corresponds with intercession. Jesus therefore here requires more than that which to natural selfishness appears the highest virtue : not to render evil for evil. He demands from His disciples, according to the expression of St. Paul (Rom. 12 : 21), that they shall overcome evil with good ; Jesus could not yet re- veal the source whence His disciples were to derive this entirely new passion, this divine charity which displays its riches of forgiveness and salvation toward a rebel- lious world at enmity with God (Rom. 5 : 8-10). In the parallel passage in Matthew, the two intervening propositions have probal:)ly been transferred from Luke. Vers. 29 and .30.* Patient Charity. — " And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other ; and him that takelh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. 30. Give to every man that askelh of thee ; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." — Paul also regards iiaKpofiv^elv, to be long-suf- fenng, as on a par with ;j:p??(TT£:v£aOai, to do good (Charity sufTereth long, and is kind. 1 Cor. 13: 4). The natural heart thinks it does a great deal when it respects a neighbor's rights ; it does not rise to the higher Idea of sacrificing its own. Jesus liere describes a charity which seems to ignore its own lights, and knows no bounds to its self-sacrifice. He exhibits this sublime ideal in actual instances (lit. in the most concrete traits) and under the most paradoxical forms. In order to explain these ditiScult words, Olshausen maintained that they only applied to the members of the kingdom of God among themselves, and not to the relations of Christians with the world. But would Jesus have entertained the supposition of strikers and thieves among His own i)eoplc ? Again, it has been said that these precepts expressed noth- ing more than an emphatic condemnation of revenge (Calvin), that they were hyper- boles (Zwingle), a portrayal of the general disposition which the Christian is to ex- emplify in each individual case, according as regard for God's glory and his neigh- bor's salvation may permit (Tholuck) ; which comes to. St. Augustine's idea, that these precepts concern the prceparatio cordis rather than the opus quod in apertofit. Without denying that there is some truth in all these explanation?, we think that they do not altogether grasp the idea. Jesus means that, as far as itself is cimcerned, charity knows no limits to its self-denial. If, therefore, it ever puts a stop to its concessions, it is in no way because it feels its patience exhausted ; true charity is infinite as God Himself, whose essence it is. Its limit, if it has any, is not that which its rights draw around it ; it is a limit like that which the beautiful defines for itself, proceeding from within. It is in charity thiit the disciple of Jesus yields, when he yields ; it is in charity also that he resists, when he resists. Charity has mo other limit than Charity itself, that is to say, it is boundless. "Ziayuv does not properly mean, as it is ordinarily translated, the clieek (TrapEid), but Ihn jaw ; the blow given, * Ver. 29. ii. D., et? ttji> for £~i Trjv. Ver. 30. i4. B. omit tcj after ^rairt. ciiAK VI. : ;]u-;;i. ;207 therefore, U not a slap, but a heavy blow. Consequently it is an act of violence, rather than of contempt, that is meant. The disciple who has completely sacrificed his person, naturally will not refusu his clothes. As ifj-unov denotes the upper trar- ment, and x'tCiv the under garment or tunic which is worn next the skin, it would seem that here also it is an act of violence tliat is meant, a tiieft perpetrated by main force ; the thief first snatches away the uj)per garment. jMatthew presents the re- verse order: "He who would take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." This is because with him it is an affair of legal process {if any man will une thee at tlie lair). Tlie creditor begins by possessing himself of the coat, which is less valualjle ; then, if he is not sulUcienlly compensated, be claims tlie under garment. This ju- ridical form stands connected in Matthew with the article of llie j\Iosaic code which Jesus lias just cited : an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Matthew, therefore, ap- pears to have preserved tlie original words of this passage. But is it possible to con- ceive, that if Luke had had ^latthow's writing before him, or the document made use of by the author of this Gospel, he would have substituted, on his own authority, a totally different thouglit from that of his predecessor ? Yer. 80. Another form of the same thought, A Christian, so far as he is con- cerned, would neither refuse anything nor claim anything l)ack. If, therefore, he does either one or the other, it is always out of charity. This sentiment regulates his refusals as well as his gifts, the maintenance as well as the sacrifice of his riglits. '2d. After having descrilied tlie applications of the new principle, Jesus gives a formal cimnciation of it, ver. 81 : " And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to (iiem likewise." The natural heart says, indeed, with tlie Rabbins: " "What is disagreeable to thj'self, do not do to thy neighbor." But charily saj-s, by the mouth of Jesus : " Whatsoever thou desirest for thyself, that do to thy neighbor." Treat thy neighbor In everything as thine other self. It is obvious that Jesus only means desires that are reasonable and really salutary. His disciples are regarded as unable to form any others for themselves. Ka/, and, may be rendered here by, in a word. In Matthew this precept is found in chap. 7, toward the end of the discourse, between an exhortation to prayer and a call to conversion, consequently without any natural connection with what precedes and follows. Notwithstanding this, Tholuck prefers the position which it has in ^latlhew. He regards this saying as a sununarv of the whole discourse (p. 498). But is it not manifest that it is more naturally con- nected with a series of precepts on charity, than with an exhortation to prayer ? 8(7. The distinguishing characteristic of charity, disinterestedness : vets. 52-3oa.* " And if 3'e love them which love j'ou, what thank have ye ? For sinners also love those that love them. 83. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what tiiank have ye ? For sinners also do even the same. 34. And if ye lend to those of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have yo ? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive the same service, o'la. But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, without hoping for anything again." Human love seeks an object which is congenial to itself, and from which, in case of need, it may obtain some return. There is Jilwnys somewhat of self-interest in it. The new love which Jesus proclaims will be completely gratuitous and disinterested. For this reason it will be able to embrace even an object entirely opposed to its own nature. Xilpig : the favor which comes * Ter. 33. !*"* B. add yap between /cat and eav. ^. B. A. omit yap after Kai. Ver. 34. Instead of firro/.a3«i', which is the reading of T. K. with 14 Mjj.. i^. B. L. Z,' read '/.ajitLv. S^. B. L. Z. omit yap. Yer. 85. i*. Z. n. Syr., /i^<5fia instead oi iirjiSsv. 208 COMMENTAllY OX ST. LUKE. from God ; in Matthew : rifafxtadov, whit matter of recompense ? 'A7TOAau0dv£Lv tu laa may signify, to withdraw the capital lent, or indeed, to receive some day the same (service. The preposition ano wouhl favor the first sense. But the Alex, reading renders this prep, doubtful. The covert se'fishuess of this conduct comes out better in the second sense, only to lend to those who, it is lioped, will lend in their turn. It is a shrewd calculation, selfishness in instinctive accord wilh the law of retalialiou, utilitarianism coming foiward to reap the fruits of moral- itJ^ Wliat fine irony there is in this picture ! What a criticism on natural kindness ! The new principle of wholly disinterested charity comes out very clearly ( n this dark background of ordinary benevolence. This paradoxical form which .Jesus gives His precepts effectually prevents all attempts of a relaxed morality to weaken them. WAijv (ver. 35) : " This false love cast aside ; fur you, my disciples, there only remains this." ' AireA-KilleLv means properly, to despair. Mej'er would apply this sense here : " not despairing of divine remuneration in the dispensation to come." But how can the object of the verb jitjiUv, nothing, be harmonized with this meaning and the antithesis in ver. 34 ? The sense which the Syriac tran.slation gives, reading probably with some mss. f^r/f^eva, no one, "' causing no one to despair by a refusal," is grammatically inadmissible. The only alternative is to give the dro in aireAniiiEiv the sense which this prep, already has in ano'AaiSelv , hoping for nothing in return from him who asks of you. Uh. The model and source of the charity which Jesus has just depicted : vers. 35& and 36.* " And your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest : for He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. 30. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Having referred to the love which His disciples are to surpass, that of man by nature a sinner, Jesus shows them what they must aspire to reacli— that divine love wliich is the souice of all gratuitous and disinterested love. The promise of a reward is no contradiction to the perfect dis- interestedness which Jesus has just made the essential characteristic of love. And, in fact, the reward is not a payment of a nature foreign to the feeling rewarded, the prize of merit ; it is the feeling itself lirought to perfection, the full participation in the life and glory of God, who is love ! Ka/, and in fact. This disinterested love, whereby we become like God, raises us to the glorious condition of His sons and heirs, like Jesus Himself. The seventh beatitude in Matthew, " Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God," is probably a general maxim taken from this saying. If the imgrateful and the wicked are the object of divine love, it is because this love is compassionate {oiKTipfiuv, ver. 30). In tlie wicked man God sees the unhappy man. Malt. 5 : 45 gives tliis same idea in an en- tirely different form : " For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendelh rain on the just and on the unjust." How could these two forms have been taken from the tame document ? If Luke had known this fine saying in Mat- thew, would he have suppressed it ? Matthew concludes this train of thought by a general maxim similar to that in Luke 5:86: "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." These two different forms correspond exactly with the difference in the body of the discnurse in the two evangelists. Matthew speaks of the inward righteousness, the perfection (to which one attains through charity) ; Luke, of charity (the essential clement of perfection ; comp. Col. 3 : 14). * Ver. 30. ». B. D. L. Z. Itpi^ii"'' omit ow. J*. B. L. Z. omit kui. ('11 AT. VI. : '.Vi, ;js. ;i()y ruh. Lore, the principle of all beneficent moral action on the world: vers. Zl-A^i. — Tlitj tiisci|)les of Jesus are nol ouly called to practise what is good themselves ; they ate charged to make it prevail iu the earth. They are, as Jesus says iu Matthew, iljiniediately after the hraliludes, tlie light of the world, thesultofthe earth. Now they can ouly e.\ereise this salutary iutlueuce through love, which mauifests itself in this sphere also (coinp. ver. 27), either by what it refrains fiom (vers. 37-42), or by ucliou (vers. 4o— i.1). Above all things, love retrains from judging. Vers. 37 aud 38.* "And jiulgo nol, and ye shall nut be judged ; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned ; foriiive, and ye shall be forgiven. 3S. Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, piessed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom ; for with the same measure that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again." There is no reference here to the pardon of personal ofieuces ; the reference is to charity, which, in a general way, refuses to judge. Jesus evidently has in view in this passage the judgment which the scribes and Pharisees assumed the right to exercise iu Israel, and which their harshness and arrogance rendered more injurious than useful, as was seen in the effect it produced on the publicans and other such persons (5 : 30, l.o : 28-30). Kal inilicates the transition to a new but analogous subject; And further. Kpiveif, to judge, is not equivalent to comlemn ; it means generally to set one's self up as a judge of the moral worth of another. But since, wherever this disposition prevails, judg- ment is usually exercised iu an unkindly spirit, the word is certainly employed here in an unfavorable sense. It is strengthened by the following term : condemn, to condemn pitilessly, and without taking into account any reasons for foibearance. 'k-^ii/.vetv, to alMolve, does not refer, therefore, to the pardon of a. personal offence ; it is the anxiety of love to find a neighbor innocent rather than guilty, to excuse rather than to condemn. The Lord does not forbid all moral judgments on the conduct of our neighbor ; this would contradict many other passages, for example, 1 Cjr. 5 : 13 : " D J not ye judge them that are within V" The true judgment, inspired by love, isiui- plied in ver. 42. What Jesus desires to banish from the society of His disciples is the judging spirit, the tendency to place our faculty of moral appreciation at the service of natural malignity, or more simply still, judging for the pleasure of judging. The reward promised : not to be judged or condemned, to be sent aicay absolved, may refer either to this world or the other, to the conduct of men or of God. The latter is the more natural meaning, it enforces itself in the next precept. It is probably from here that the fifth beatitude in Matthew has been taken : " Blessed are the merciful ; for they shall obtain mere}'. " With a disposition to absolve those that are accused is naturally connected that of giving, that is to say, of rendering service to all, even to the greatest sinners. This idea is introduced here only as an accessory to the other. Theie is some feel- ing in these successive imperatives, and a remarkable affluence of expression iu the promise. Some one has sad : " Give with a full hand to God, and lie will give ■with a full hand to you." The idea of this boundless liberality of God is forcibly expressed by the accumulation of epithets. The measure, to which Jesus alludes, is one for solids (jjressed, shaken together) ; the epithet, running over, is not at all op- * Ver. 37. A. C. A. If"a of Iho dis- course !" (p. loo). Vers. 41 niul 43. " And wliy bcholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but peroeivest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? 42. Either how canst tliou say to tliy brother. Brollicr, let me pull out the mote that is in tliino eye, when tiiou tliy- sclf bt-hohlost not the beatn lliat is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first tlic l)Lani out of tliine own eye, and tlien shalt thou see cleatl}' to pull out the mole tlial is in thy brother's eye." In order to be useful in correctiuji another, a man nnist begin by correcting himself. Love, when sincere, never acts otherwise. Be-- yoiid the limits of tlii.-s restraint, all judgment is the fruit of presumption and blind- ness. Sucli was tlie judgment of the Pharisees. The mote, the bit of straw whith has slipped into the eye, lepresents a defect of secondary importance. A beam in the eye is a ludicrous image which ridicule uses to describe a ridiculous proceeding — a man's assuming, as the Pharisee did, to direct the moral education of his less vicious neighbor, when he was himself saturated with avarice, i)ride. and other odious vices. Such a man is rightly termed a hypocrite ; for if it was hatred of evil that inspired his judgment, would he not begin by showing this feeling in an unsparing judgment of himself? Ordinaiily, (im.J.Vi/'fJ is understood in this sense: Thou wilt be able lo think to, to see to . . , But can JAtrreu', to see, be used in tiiis connection in an abstract sense ? The connection between e/vi3aA/.e, takeaway, and 6ia3Ae-ijieii, thou shalt see, shoidd suffice to prove the contrary: "Take away the beam which takes away thy sight, and then thou shalt see cleaily to , . ." The \{irb ^laS'^Jireiv, to sec through, to see distinctly, is only fouml in this passage, and in its parallel in Mat- thew, in all the X. T. This has been held to prove tiiat the two evangelists both employed the same Greek document. But characteristic expressions such as these d.Jubtless originated in the first rendering of the oral tradition into the Greek tongue ; precepts tlien took a fixed form, certain features of which were preserved in the preaching, and thence passed into our Syn. In vers. 43-45, the idea of teaching, which is perceptible in ver. 40, takes the place altogether of the idea of judging, witli which it is closely connected. Vers. 4o-4.5.* " For a good tree biingeth not forth corrupt fruit ; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 44. For every tree is known by his own fruit : for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble-bush gather they grapes." la order that our words may have a good influence on our neighbor, we must be good ourselves. In this passage, therefore, the fruits of the tree are neither the moral conduct of the individual who teaches, nor his doctrines. They are the results of bis labor in others. In vain ■\\ ill a proud man preach humility, or a sellish man charity; the injurious influence of example will paralyze the efforts of their words. The corrupt tree (nap-dv) is a tree infected with canker, whose juices are incapable cf producing palatable fruit. The connection between vers. 43 and 4Ari is this : " This principle is so true, that every one, without hesitation, infers the nature of a tree from its fiuits." In Palestine there are often seen, behind hedges of thorns and brambles, fig-trees completely garlanded with the climbing tendrils of vine branches.f * Vcr. 43. ii. B. L. Z. and several Mnn. add ~n2.iv after ovih. Ver. 45. S^. B. omit nuTov after KnpSinS. J^. B D. L. omit avOpuKoi after ■Kovrjaoi. ^, B. D. L. Z, omit the WOids Oijoavpov rtii ixnfxhni nvrov. t Kourad Furrer, " die Bedeulung der biblischen Geogra[)hie fiir die bibl. Exe- gese," p. 34. 2VZ COMMEXTAIIY OX ST. LUKE. Ver. 4") gives expression to tlie general principle on which the whole of the preceding rests. A man's word is the most direct commuuicatiou of his being. If a man de- sires to reform others l:y his word, he must refoim himself ; then his word will chauge the world. Jesus Himself succeeded in depositing a germ of gocdness in the world by Ilis word alone, because He was a perfectly good man. It is for His disciples to coutmue His work by this method, which is the antipodes of that of the Phaii.sees. An analogous passage is found in Matthew, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7 : 15-20). There Jesus is exhorting His hearers to beware of false prophets, wlio ' betray their real character by tlieir evil fruits. These false prophets may indeed be, in this precept, as in that of Luke, the Pharisees (comp. our ver. 26). But their fruits are certaini}', in Matthew, their moral conduct, their pride, avaiice, and hypoc- risy, and not, as in Luke, the effects produced by their ministr3^ On the other hand, we find a passage in Matthew (13 : C3-3o) still more like ours. As it belongs to a warning against blaspheming the Holy Ghost, the fruits of the tree are evidently, as in Luke, the words themselves, in so far as they are good or bad in their nature and in their elTect on those who receive them. From this, is it not evident tiiat this j^as- sage IS the true parallel to ours, and that the passage which Matthew has introduced into the Sermon on the Mount is an importation, occasioned probably by the employ- ment of the same image (that of the trees and their fruits) in both ? Thus Jesus has risen by degrees from the conditions of the Christian life (the beatitudes) to the life itself ; fust of nil to its principle, then to its action on the world. He has made His renewed disciples instruments for the renewal of humanity. It now only remains for Him to bring this inaugural discourse to a close. Third part of the discourse : vers. 46-49. The Sanction.— Here we have the con- clusion, and, so to speak, the peroration of the discourse. The Lord enjoins His dis- ciples, for the sake of their own welfare, to put in practice the new principle of con- duct which lie has just laid down. Ver. 46. " And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say." This saying proves that Jesus was already recognized as Lord by a huge part of tills multitude, but that even then He would have been glad to find in many of those who saluted Him by this title a more scrupulous fidelity to the law of chaiity. This •warning is connected, doubtless, with the preceding context, by this idea : " Do not be guiltj', in the dispensaiion now commencing, of the same hypocrisy as the scribes and Pharisees have been guilty of in that which is coming to an end ; they render homage to Jehovah, and, at the same time, perpetually transgress His law. Do not deal, with my word in this way." The same idea is found in Matthew, at the cor- responding place in the Sermon on the Mount (7 : 21 et seq.), but under that abstract and sententious form already observed in the Beatitudes : " Not every one that saith unto me : Lord, Lord," etc. In this passage in Matthew, Jesus expressly claims to be the Messiah and Supreme Judge. The same idea is expressed in the Lord, Lord, of Luke. Vers. 47-49.* " Whosoever cometh to me, and hcareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like : 48. He is like a man which built au house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock : and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and couid not shake it ; for it was * Ver. 48. i^. B. L. Z., (5m to KaTiu? oiKodojuTjaOai avTTjv instead of rsOefie^iiuro yap s-ai TT)v nerpav. wliich is the reading of T. R. with all the other authorities. Ver. 49. (J. and some Mnn.. oii\0('iofAovTi instead of OLKodojirjaapTc, CHAP. VI. : 46-49. 5ii3 foundeil upon a rock. 49. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that, witlijut a foundation, built a house upon the earth ; ugaiust which the stream did beat vehemrntly, and ininiedintuly it fell ; uud« the ruin of tbat house whs > great." Tlie two evaugelisls coincide in this closing illuslraliuu. On the shelving lauds which surround the Lake of Genuesareth, there are some hills on which the rock is covered with only a ihin layer of earth (>7>, Luke) or sand ('V/^o?, Mai.lhew). A prudent man digs through this niovable soil, digs deep down (/dKoi/'e /•«' et3u0vve), even into the rock, upon and in wliicli (iirl with the accusative) he lays the foundation. Luke only meulinns one cause of destruc- tion, the waterspout (TrXj'/fjfivpa), that breaks on the summit of the mountain and creates the torrents which carry away the layer of eaith and sand, aud with it the building that is not founded on the rock. Matthew adds the hurricane {ave/xoi) that ordinarily accompanies these great atmospheiic disturbances, and ovei throws the buildi'ig which the torrent undermines. Though the dillereuccs between these two descriptions in ^latthew and Luke are for the most part insignificant, thej' aie too numerous to suppose that botli couid have been taken from the same document. To buiid on the earth is to admit the Lord's will merely into the understanding, that most superficial and impersonal part of a man's silf, while closing the conscience against Him, and wilhhulding the acquiescence of the will, which is the really per- sonal element within us. The triid of our sjnrilual building is brought about by temptation, persecution, and, last of all, by judgment. Its overthrow is accom- plished by unbelief here below, and by condemnation from above. The Alex, read- ing, because it had brcn icell built {var. 48), is to be preferre I to that of llie T. 'R.,for it teas founded on a rock, whit h is taken from Matthew. A single lost soul is a great ruin in the eyes of God. Jesus, in closing his discourse, leaves His hearers under the impression of this solemn thought. Each of them, while listening to this last word, might tliink that he heard the crash of the falling edifice, and .say within himself : This disaster will be mine if 1 prove hypocritical or inconsistent. TIic Sermon on the Mount, therefore, as Weiz-^ilcker has clearly seen, is : the inauiiuration of the new law. The order of the discourse, according to the two doc- uments, is this: Jesus add re.^ses His hearers as btlongiug to a cla.ss of people who, even according to tlie Old Tcstamjiit, have the greatest need of heavenly C'mpen.sa- tions. Treating them as (liscii)ies, either becau.'.e they were already attached to Him as such, or in tiieir character as vuluntary hearers. He regards tins inidience, brought togL-ther without previous preparation, as representing liie new onier of things, and promulgates befoie this new Israel the |)rinciple of the perfect hiw. Then, substi- tuting His disciples for the doctors of the ancient economy, He points cut lo lluiu tlie Sole contlition on which they will be able to accomplish in the world the glorious ■work which He confides to them. Lastly, He urges iheni, in the name of all they hold most precious, to fulfil tiiis condiiion by making their life ngree vvilh their pro- fession, in order that, when tested bj' the iudgment,'they may not come lo ruin. In what respect d.>es this discourse lack unity and regular progression '? How can "Weizsacker .say that these precepts, in liUke, are for the most part thrown foirether, without connection, and detached from their n:itural conlcxl V* It is in ^Matthew rather, as Wciz^ar'ker, among others, acknowledges, that we find foreign elements interwoven with the tissue of ihe discourse ; they are easily perceiveii, for they break the connection, and tiie association of ideas which has occasioned the inter- polation is obvious. Thus, vers. 23-20, reconciliation [apropoa of hatred and mur- der) ; vers. 2U, 30, a precept, which is found elsewhere in Matthew itself (18 : 8, 9) ; "'•■ " Uatcrsuchungcn," p. 154. 214 COMMENTAKY OX ST. LUKE. vers. 31 and 32 (a passage which is found 19 : 3-9) ; G : 7-15, the Lurd's Prayer, an evident interruption in His treafment of the lliree principal Pharisaic virtues (aims, vers. 2^ ; prayer, vers, u, 6 ; fasting, vers. lG-18) ; 6 : 24 (if nut even 19) -34, a pas- sage on providence (in connection with the avarice of tlie Pharisees) ; 7 : 0-11, and 13, 14, precepts, simply juxtaposJled ; 7 : l.")-20, a passage tor which 12 : 33-35 should be substituted ; lastly, 7 : 22, 23, where allusion is made to facts which lie out of tlie norizou of that early period. It is remarkable that these passages, whose foreitrn cliaracter is proved by th(! context of Matthew, are the very passages that are found dispersed over dilferent places in the Gospel of Luke, wheie thtir appropiiateness in easily verified. The aulhor of the first Gospel could not be blamed for this conibi- nalion of heterogeneous elements wiihin one and the same outline, xmless his compi- lalion of the discourse had been made from the first with an historical aim. But if we admit, as we are authorized by the testimony of Papias to admit, that this dis- course bc;longed originally' to a colkclion of discourses compiled with a didactic or liturgical aim, and that the aulhor wanted to give a somewhat complete exposition of the new moral law proclaimed by Jesus, there is nothing more natural than tliis agglomerating process. It is evident that the autlior founti, in this way, a means of producing in his readers, just as any other evangelist, the thrilling impression which the word of .Jesus had made on the hearts of His hearers (Matt. 7 : 28, 29). The way in which these two versions stand related to each other, will not allow of therr being deduced from a proto-Mark as a common source, according to Holtzmann and Weizsacker. And besides, how, in this case, did it happen that this discourse was omitted in our canonical Mark? The species of logopliobia which Ihey attribute to him, in order to explain this fact, is incompatible with j\Iark 9 : 39-51, and 13. A religious party has made a party-banner of this discorrrse. According to them, this discourse is a summary of the leaching of Jesus, who merely spiiitualized the Mosaic law. But how are we to harmonize with this view the passages in which Jesus makes attachment to His person the very centre of the new righteousness (for my mice. Matt. 5 : 11 ; for the srd'£ of the Son. of man, Luke 6 : 22), and those in which He announces Himself as the Final and Supreme Judge (Malt. 7:21-23, comp. with Luke (5 : 46 : Lord, Lnrd!)'l The true view of tlie i-eligious import of this discourse, is that which Gess has ex[)ressed in these well-wtighed words : " The Sermon on the Mount describes that earnest piety which no one can cuilivjile wfth- oiit an increasing feeling of the need of redemption, by means of which the right- eousness required by such piety may at last be realized" (p. 6). / 2. The Centurion's Servant: 7:1-10. — This was the most striking instance of faith that .Tesus had met with up to this time ; and what was more astonishing, He was indebted for this surprise to a Gentile. Jesus instantly perceives the deep sig- nificance of this unexpected incident, and cautioirsly indicates it in ver. 9, while in Matt. 8 : 11, 12 it is expressed with less reserve. We should have expected the reverse, according to the dogmatic prepossessions which criticism imputes to our evangelists. It is obliged, therefore, to have recourse to the hypothesis of subsequent interpolations. This cure is connected, in Matthew as well as in Luke, with the Sermon on the Mount. This resemblance in no way proves, as some think, a common written source. For, 1. The two passages are separated in JIatthew by the healing of the leper, which Luke assigns to another time ; 2. The narratives of the two evangtlisls present very considerable differences of detail ; lastl}\ 3. Theie was nothing to pre- vent certain groups of narrative, more or less fixed, being formed in the oral teach- ing of the gospel, which passed in this way into our written narratives. As to Mark, he omits this miracle, an omission difficult to account for, if he copied Matthew and Luke (Bleek), and equally difficult if, with them, he derived his narrative frcra an original Mark (Ewald and Holtzmann). Hollzmann (p. 78), with Ewald, thinks that " if he cut out the Sermon on the Mount, he might easily omit also the passage which follows, and which opens a new section." But on other occasions it is asserted that en A I'. VII. : 1-lU. 215 ]\rark purposely omits the discourses, to make room for facts. Now, are we not here couceined with a fad V BIclU dots not evtn attempt to explain this omission. Vers. 1-Ga.* The First Deputation. — The Ale.x. reading t7rf.'(5>;, since assuredly, has no meaning. There is something solemn in these expressions : irr'/.Tiauae, had fulfilled, and Ws TuS uKoai, in tlie cars of the people. The pniclamation whicli had just taken place is given as something complete. The circumstance that this miracle took place; just when Jesus returned to Capernaum, after this discour.se, was remembeied in tlic traditional account, and has been faithfully preserved in our two evangelical nana- lives. The centurion (ver. 2) was probably a Romau soldier in the service of llerod ; he was a proselyte, and had even manifested special zeal on behalf of his ne'.v faith (ver. 5). Instead of 6ov/.o;, a xlcux, ]\Iatthew says ira/?, a word which may signify either a son or a sertxint, and which Luke employs iuthe latter sense at ver. 7. Bletk and llollzmanu prefer the meaning son in Matthew, because otherwise it would be necessary to admit that the centurion had only one slave." As if a man could not say : " My servant is sick," though he had seveial servants ! Tiie meaning sermnt is more probable in Matthew, because it better explains the reluctance which the cen- turion feels to trouble the Lord. If it had been his sun. ho would doubtless have been bolder. Tlie maladj'' must have been, according to ]\Iatthew's description, ver. 6. acute rheumatism. And whatever criticism may say, this malady, when it affects certain organs, the heart for instance, may become luortcd. The wotds : inho icris" rer>/ dear U> him, serve to explain why a step so important as a deputation of the eld- ers should have been taken. The latter are doubtless the rulers of the synagogue, whose duty it was to maintaiu order in the congregation. They could more easily explain to Jesus the honorable facts which made in favor of the centurion, than he could himself. Vers. G^S.f The Second Deputation. — The centurion, from his house, sees Jesus approaching with His retinue of disciples. The veneration with which this mysteri- ous person inspires him makes him afraid even to receive Hmi under his roof ; he sends, therefore, a second deputation. Strauss sees in this a contradiction of his former proceeding. But it was simply a deeper humility and stronger faith that had dictateil this course. 'I/carof here denotes moral worth, as in 3 : 16 and elsev.-here. Faith vies with humility in this man. The expression e'lnk hr/u, say in a word, sug- gests this means m preference to His coming in person. In Matthew's narrative all these proceedings are united in a single act ; the centurion comes himself to tell Jesus of the sickness, and to the offer of Jesus to visit his house, returns the answer which we find in Luke 5 : 8.:j: Bleek regards the details in Luke as an ampliticati^n of the original narrative ; others consider Matthew's account an abridgment of Luke's. But how could Luke exaggerate in this way the plain statement of Matthew, or Mat- thew mangle the description of Luke 'i* Our evangelists were earnest believers. All that tradition had literally preserved was the characteristic reply of the centurion (ver. 8), and our Lord's expression of admiration (ver 9). The historical outline had beec * Yer. 1. A. B. C. X. IT., cTvei^^ instead of eirei 6e. f Ver. 6. B. L., eKnrovTapxyi instead of eKarovrapxag, i^* B. omit TrpoS avTov. Ver. 7. B. L., inOTjTu instead of KcOrifjErat. X What can be more natural than the reporting that as said by one's self which is Faid by an authorized deputation, where the object of the writer is to condense? This is what JMailhew has done. " lie does that which is done, though it be done bv anotlier for him." See a parallel case in 3IaU. 20:20, compared with ]\lark 10 : ;J5.— J. II. 316 COMMENTAEY ON ST. LUKE. created •with greater freedom in the oral narration. This explains in a very natrsral manner (he difFereuce between our two narratives. Although he was only an ordinary man (ufOpuTroS). and a man in a dependent position, the centurion had some subordi- nates through whom he could act without always going himself to the place. Could not .Jesus, who stood far above him in the hierarchy of being, having the powers of the invisible world at His disposal, make use, if lie pleased, of a similar power? We may compare here .Jesus' own words respecting the angels which ascend and descend (.John 1 : 52). How are we to explain the existence of such faltk in this man V We must bear in mind the words cf ver. 3: having heard of Jesus. The fame of the miracles of Jesus had reached even him. There was one cure especially, which Jesus had wrought at Capernaum itself, and since Cana, which presented a re- markable similarity to that which the centurion besought — the cure of the nobleman's son (John 4). Perhaps his knowledge of this miracle is the most natural mode of explaining the faith implied in the message which he addresses to Jesus by the mouth of his fr'euds. Tlie expression, sucIl faith, refers not to the request for a cure, but for a cure without the aid of His bodily presence. It was, as it were, a paroxysm of faith ! Vers. 9 and 10. ''^ The Cure. — The severe words respecting the Jews, which in !Mat(hew .Jesus adds to the praise bestowed on the centurion's faith, seem to prove that Matthew makes use of a different source of information from Luke's. These words are found, in fact, in Luke in a totally different connection (13 : 28), at a more advanced period, when they are certainly more appropriate. Several ancient and moJern critics identify this cure with that of the nobleman's son (John 4). Tlie differences, however, are considerable : f here we liave a soldier of Gentile origin, there a courtier of Jewish origin ; here tiie jdace is Capernaum, there Cana ; here we have a man who in his humility is reluctant that Jesus should enter his house, th(;re a man who comes a long way seeking Jesus that he may induce Him to go with him to his home ; lastly, aud in our view this diffeience is most de- cisive, here we have a Gentile given as an example to all Jsiatl, ihere a Jew, whose conduct furnishes occasion for Jesus to throw a certain amouut of blame on all his Galilean fellow-countrymen. In truth, if these two narratives referred to the same fact, the details of the Gospel narratives would no longer deserve tlie least credence. According to Keim, the miracle is to be explained, on the one hand, b}' the faith of the centurion and the sick man, which already contained certain liealing virtues, aud on the other, by the moral power of the word of Jesus, which word was .something between a wish and a command, and completed the restoration. But does not this ethico-psychical mode of action require the presence of him who effects a cure in this way? Now this presence is unmistakably excluded here in both narratives by the prayer of the centurion, and by this word of Jesus: so great faith ! And what is this something between a wish and a command ? 3. The Son of the Widow of Nain : 7 : 11-17.— The following narrative is one of those which clearly reveal our Lord's tenderness of heart, and the power which human grief exerted over Him. The historical reality of this fact has been objected to on the ground that it is only related by Luke. Criticism always reasons as if the evangelists were swayed by the same historical prepossessions as itself. The life of * Ver. 10. !*. B. L. Iti'''""'!"^, omit aaOevovvra before dovT^ov. f 'This difference is well stated in the admirable work of Trench on "The Miracles." p. 127 (7lh edition)— a book which, with that on " The Parables," readers who, like Sabbath-school teachers, wish to have the meaning of the Gospels, will tiud most valuable— J. H. CHAP. VII. : 9-15. 217 Jesus presented such a rich store of niiniculous iucidcnls that no one ever dreamed of givius a complete record of lliein. Jt-sus alludes to miracles performed at Cbora- zin, none of which are related in our Gospels. With a single exception, we are equally ignorant of all that were wrought at Belhsaida. It is very remarkable that, among all the miracles which are indicated summaiily in our Gospels (4 : 28, 40, 41, G : 18. ID and parull., 7 : 21, etc. : John 2 : 23, 4 : 45. 6 : 1, 20 : 30, 21 ! 25), one or two only of each class are related in detail. It appears that the most striking example of each class was chosen, and that from the tirst no attempt was made to pieserve any detailed account of the others. For editication, which was the sole aim of the popu- lar preaching, this was sulllcient. Ten cures of lepers would say no more to faith than one. But it might happen that some of the numerous miracles passed over by the tradition, came, through private sources of information, to the knowledge of one of our evangelists, and that he inserted them in his work. Thus, under the category of resurrections, the raising of Jairus' daughter had taken the foremost place in the tradition — it is found in the three Syn. — while other facts of the kind, such as that before us, had been left iu the background, without, however, being on that account denied. Vers. 11 and 12.* The Meeting. — The reading ev tcj l^r/i (xpovu), in the folloicing time, does not connect this narrative so closely with the preceding as the reading iv rj e^/'/i {'/fiepa), tlie following day. This is a reason for preferring the former ; it is only natural that the more precise should be substituted for the less definite connection. Robinson found a hamlet named Nein to the south-west of Capernaum, at the north- ern foot of the little Hermon. It is in this locality, moreover, that Eusebius and Jerome place the city of Nain. Jesus would only have to make a. day's journey to reach it from Capernaum. Josephus (Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 4) mentions a city of Nain, situated on the other side of Jordan, iu the south part of the Persea ; and Kostlin, relying on the expressions in ver. 17, applied this name to this town in the immediate neighl)orhood of Judaea, and thought that Luke's narrative must have come from a Judaean source. But we shall see that ver. 17 may be explained without having re- course to this supposition, which is not very natural. The Kal uhv, and behold, ex- presses something striking in the unexpected meeting of the two processions — the train which accompanied the Prince of Life, and that which followed the victim of death. This seems to be expressed also by the relation of iKavoi in ver. 11 to UavdQ in ver. 12. The first of these words has been omitted by many mss., because the ex- pression : Ms disciples, appeared to refer to the apostles alone. At ver. 12 the con- struction is Aramaean. The dative ttj fijjTpi expresses all the tenderness of the re- lationship which had just been severed. Vers. 13-15. f The Miracle. — The expression : tTie Lord, is seldom met with iu our Gospels except in Luke, and principally in the passages which are peculiar to him : 10 : 1, 11 ; 39, 12 : 42, 13 : 15, 17 : 5. G, 18 : G, 22 : 31, Gl (Block). The whole circum- stances enumerated ver. 12 : an only son, a widowed mother, and the public sympa- thy, enable us to understand what it was that acted with such power upon the heart of Jesus. It seems that He cuuld not resist the silent appeal presented by this com- * Vers. 11-14. ^Ijj. 70 "Mnn. It""'', read, tv -u e^rjr iristeiid of ev -tj e^rji, which is the reading of T. it. with !*. C. D. K. M. S, II. many Mnn. Syr. If'W. !*. B. D. F. L. Z. Syr•'^^ jipierique^ Qojjt i^avoi. Vcr. 12. 7 jMjj. add t/v after avTT], ik. B. L. Z. add riv before axw nvrrj. \ Ver. 13. The .mss. vary between en' avrr] and eir' avTjjv. 218 COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE. / bi nation of circumstances. His heart is completely sul)duecl by the sobs of Ihel mothor. Hence the woixl, at once tender and authoritative : Weep not. Prudence'") perhaps would have dictated that He should uot work such a strildng miracle at this | time. But when pity speaks so loud {ia-AayxvMri), there is no longer any room for! prudeuce. Besides, He feels Himself authorized to comfort. For in this very meet- ing He recognizes the will of His Father. Among the Jews the bier was not cov-' ered ; it was a simple plank, with a somewhat raised edge. The body, wrapped in j its shroud, was therefore visible to all. Jesus lays His hand on the bier, as if to arrest this fugitive from life. The bearers, struck by the majesty of this gesture, which was at once natural and symbolical, stopped. There is a matchless grandeur in this aol Aiyu : " I say to thee, ... to thee who seemest no longer able to hear the voice of the living ..." There is absolutely nothing in the text to justify the sarcasm of Keim : " Faith in a force which penetrates to the dead, even through the wood of the bier, evidently belongs to the evangelist, but it is uot ours." The" resurrection is in no way attributed to the touching of the bier, but to the command, * •* of Jesus. The interruption of the connection between the soul and the body in deathj as in sleep, is only relative ; and as man's voice suffices to re-establish this connection in any one who is rapt in slumber, so the word of the Lord has power to restore this interrupted connection even in tlie dead. The advocates of the natural interpretation have maintained that the young man was only in a lethargic sleep. But if this were so, the miracle of power would only disappear to be replaced by a miracle of knowl- edg(; quite as incomprehensible. Huw could Jesus know that this apparently dead man was still living, and that the moment of his awaking was imminent ?* As soon as the soul returned to animate the body, motion and speech indicated its presence. Jesus ceilainly has acquired a right over the resuscitated man ; He asserts this right, but simply to enjoy the happiness of restoring to the afflicted mother the treasure which He has rescued from death. The expression : lie gave Mm to Im mother, cor- responds to this : lie teas moved with compassion, ver. 13. Vers. IG, 17. f The Effect produced. — On the feeling of fear, see chap. 5:8. A great prophet .■ a greater tlian John the Baptist himself, a prophet of the first rank, such as Elijah or Moses. The second expression : Ood hath visited . . . is more forcible still ; it suggests more than it expresses. The expression : this saying [this rumor, A. V.], might be referred to the fame of the miracle which was immediately spread abroad. But the words Trepl avroii, cowerning Hi)n, which depend, as in ver. 15, on Aoyo'i ovtoZ, rather incline us to refer this expression to the two preceding ex- clamations (ver. 16): " This manner of thinking and speaking about Jesus spread abroad." It is an indication of progress in the development of the woik of Jesus. In order to explain into Judcea, Keim (i. p. 72) unceremoniously says : Luke justf makes Nain a city of Judaja. But the term k^riWev, literally : went out, signifies the; **- very contrary ; it intimates that these sayings, after having filled Galilee (their fiist sphere, understood without express mention), this time passed beyond this natural * Zeller (" Aposlelgesch." p. 177) re[)lies with some smartness to this ancient rationalistic exphmatiun. " In order to ailmit it," he says, " it must be thought cred- ible that, witliin the short period embraced by the evangelical and apostolic history, there took [)lace five times over, thrice in the Gospels and twice in the Acts, this snme circumstance, this same remarkable chance of a lethargy, which, tliough unper- ceived by those who were engaged about the dead, yields to the first word of the di- vine messenger, and gives rise to a belief in a real resurrection." f Ver. 1(5. A. B. C. L. Z., rp/tp^ii] for tyityiprat. riiAi'. VI r. : IG, ir. ;^1'J limit, and resounded as far as the country of Juda?a, -where they filled every mouth. There is no necessity, therefore, to give the word Judica here the unusual meaning of llie entire Holy Land, as Meyer and Bleelc do. The reason why this detail is added, is not in any way wlial Kiisllin's acute discernment surmised in order to build upon it tiie critical hypothesis ihat the narrative is of Juda-au origin. These words arej inlended to form tiie Iransiiinn to the following passage. John was in prison iu the/ S)uth of the Holy Lund, in the neighborhooil of .Judae.i (iu Peiiea, in the castle ofL^^. Mach;erus, according to .Toscphus). The fame of the woiksof Jesus, Ihirefore, only reached him in his prison by passing through Judteu. The words : and throuyhout^. all ilie region round about, which refer especially to the Pcriea, leave no doubt as to the intention of this remark of Luke. It forms the introduction to the foUowiug nar- rative. There is a difflcnlty peculiar to this miracle, owing to the absence of all moral receptivity in the subject of it. Lazarus was a believer , in the case of the daughter of Jairus, the faith ot the parents to a certain extent supplied the place of htr per- somd faith. But here there is nothing of the kind. The only receptive element that can be imagined is the ardent desiie of life with which this young man, the only son of a widowed mother, had doublless yielded his last bieath. And this, iodted. is sufficient. For it follows from this, that Jesus did not dispose of him arbitrarily. And as to faith, many facts prove that not in any miracle is it to be regarded as a dynamical fasean- der, Bleek). But tlils reed shaken by the v;ind may be regarded simply as the em- blem of something of ordinar}', every-day occurrence. " It was not certainly to be- hold something which may be seen every day that you flocked to the desei-t." The verb J^<5/^f/.i', /i9 ,1719 cw^, expresses the great commotion caused by sucli a i)ilgrimage. The perf t-^E'TjAiYja-e signifies ; " What impression have you retained fiom what you went to see " while the aor. (Alex.) would signify: "What motive induced you to go ..." Tischendorf acknowledges that the perf. is the true leading. The nor. is taken from Matthew. The verb Oedaaadai. depends on e^eWriXvfjaTE, and must not be joined to the following proposition : they went out in search of a spectacle. This expression remind.'^ us of the saying of Jeii.s ^Johu 5 : 35) : " John was a burning and a shining light : and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in hislight." In an^- case, therefore, .John is something great — the popular opinion is not deceived here. But * Ver. 24. The mss. are divided between rrpoi mvq ox/~"vS and mv? o\/ovf. Vers. 24 and 25. Instead of E^t/.v'^vfiaTE, which is the reading of T. R. with 12 Mjj. and the greater part of the Mnn., iJ. A. B. D. L. X. and some Mnn. read eirf/fjarc ; K. D. iiU Mnn., eEri'^-dere. Ver. 26. Just as vers. 24 and 25, except with A. K. 11., which here read e.^f/??Xw(3are with T. R. Ver. 27. ii. B. D. L. X. some Mnn. It. omit fju after i6ov. Ver. 28. B. Z., /eyu ; i^. L. X., a/iT/v '/eyu instead of '/eyu ynp, whi'h is the reading of T. R. Avith 13 Mjj. and the Mnn. ii. B. K. L. ]\I. X. Z. n, 25 .^lun. jjpierique^ omit 7rpo(pr]TrjS, which is the reading of T. R. with 10 Mjj. lt"'"i. Syr-*'=''. !!*. B. L. X. omit rov BaTrrisTov. ciiAi'. vii. : ;i4-;;r). :i2:i niere are two kinds of greatness — earthly {greatness, and heavenly. Of which is John's? If it had been, Jesus continues, of an earthly nature, Jolui would not have dwelt in a wilderness, but in a palace. His greatness, therefore, was of a divine order. But, according to Jewish opinion, all greatness of this kind consists in a propiietic mission. Hence the conclusion at which the people arrived respecting John, which Jesus begins by contirming, " Yea, I say unto you ;" and then going beyond this, (indmore Ihaa a prophet. Is it not greater, iudied, to be the subject of jjiodiction than to predict — to tigure, in the picture of the ^Messianic tunes, as a per- son foreseen by the prophets, than one's self to hold the prophetic glass? Tliis is why John is more than a propliet : his appearing is a yEypafi/xhov, an event icritten. The quotation from Mai. 3 : 1 is found in the three Syn. ; in Matthew, in the par- allel passage (11 : 10) ; in Muilc (1 : 2), at the opening of the Gospel, but with this dilTerence, that he omits the words, before Thee. On the t>(j, / (after \^ov), the vari- ous readings do not permit us to pronounce. This general agreement is remarkable ; for the quotation is identical neither with tlie Hebrew te.xt nor with the LXX. Neither Malachi nor the LXX. have the words, fo/o/v my face, in the proposition ; but in the second, the former says, hifore me, aud the lauer, before my face. Fur- ther, the LXX. lead i^a7zo-!rc'/2u) instead of a-xoariklu, and i/i3?Jrlie-ai instead of h(i7a-iKevu(TEt. This might be an argument in favor of a common written source, or of the use of one of the Syn. by the rest ; but it would not be decisive. For, 1. If the common source is the Proto-Mark, how could Mark himself place this quotation in (piite a different context ? 2. If it is the Lngia, why does ISIaik, instead of simply copying it, omit" the words, before Thee? 3. It would bejnstthe same if Mark copied one of the other Syn. 4. Neil her do these copy Mark, which does not contain the discourse. Tiie coincidences in the Syn. must therefore be explained in a different way. The subslilulion in Luke and Mattliew of before Thee for before me (in ]\Iala- chi), resulis fi-oin the way in which Jesus Himself had cited this pusiage. In the prophet's view. He who was sending, and He before whom the way was to be pre- pared, were one and the same person, Jehovah. Hence the before me in Malachi. But for Jesus, who, in speaking of Himself, never confounds Himself with the Father, a distinction became necessary. It is not Jehovah who speaks of Himself, but Jehovah speaking to Jesus ; hence the form before Thee. From whicli evidence, dots it not follow from this quotation that, in the prophet's idea, as well as in that of Jesus, Messiah's appearing is the appearing of Jehovah ? (See Gess, pp. oD, 40.) As to the other expressions in common, Weizsiicker correctly explains them b\' saying thai, since " this quotation belonged to the ^lessianic demonstration in habitual use," it acquired in this way the lixed form under which we find it in our Syn. Tiie /(??•. VL*r. 28, refers to the words, of whom it is written. The person whose lot it has been to be mentioned along with the ^lessiah, must be of no ordinary distinc- tion. TheT. R., with the Byz. Mjj. reads: "I say nnto you, that among them which are horn of woman, there hath arLien no greater prophet than John the Bap- tist." The Alex, omit the word prophet, and lightly; for there is tautology. Is not every prophet born of woman V The superiority of John over all other thcocratio and human appearances, refers not to his personal worth, but to his position and work. Did his inward life surpass that of Abraham, Elijah, etc. , . . ? Jesus does not say it did. But his mission is higher than theirs. And nevertheless, Jesus adds, the aneient order of things and the new are separated by such a gulf, that the least in Ihu latter has a higher position than John himself. The weakest disciple has -Z'^4: C03IMEXTAIIY ( ^' ST. J.UKE. a more spiritual iutuilion of divine things tlian the forerunner. He enjoys in .Tcsus the dignity of a sun, while John is only a servant. The least believer is one wiili this Son whom John announces. It does not follow from this, that tliis believer is more faithful than John. John may be further advanced on his line, but none tlie less for that the line of the believer is higher than his. There is au element of a higher life io the one, wiiicli is wanting in the other. This leflectiou is added b}" Jesus not with a view to depreciate John, but to explain and excuse the uuslead- fastness of his faith, the oKavda'/.i^eaOai (ver. 23). Seveial of the ancients underslocd by the least Jesus Christ, as being cither John's junior, or, for the time, even Jess iUustrious than he. The only way of supporting this interpretation would be to re- fer the words, in the kingdom of God, to is (jreater, which is evidently forced. We have given to the compaiative, less, asupeilative meaning, hust. Meyer, pressing the iJea of the comparative, gives this explanation : "he who, in the new era, has a position relatively less lofty than that which John had in the old." This meaning is far-fetched ; Matt. 18 : 1 shows us how the sense of the comparative becomes su[)er- 'lalive : he who is greater [than the other] ; whence : the greatest of all. Comp. also Luke 9 : 48. This saying, the authenticity of which is Jjej'ond suspicion, shows how fully conscious Jesus was of introducing a principle of life supeiior to the most ex- alted element in Judaism.* Vers. 29 and 30. Retrospective Survey of ths. Ministry of John. — " And all the people that heard "Him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. CO. But the Phaiisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves [the Pharisees and scribes lendered God's design vain in their case. — M. Godei's Trans.'], being not baptized of him." These verses form tiie transition from the testimony which Jesus has just borne to John, to the application iwhich he desires to make to the persons present. He attributes to ttie mmistiy of 'John a twofold result : a general movement among the lower classes of the people, ver. 29 ; an open opposition on the part of the julers who determine the fate of the nation, ver. 30. Several interpreters (Knapp, Neandei) have been led by Ine histor- ical form of these verses to regard them as a reflection of the evangelist introduced into the discourse of Jesus. But such a mention of a fact interrupting a discourse would be unexampled. In any case it would be indicated, and the resumption of the discourse pointed out in ver. 31 ; the formula, And the Lord said, at the commence- ment of this verse, is not authentic. Had John been still at liberty, the words all that heard might, strictly speaking, have referred to a fact which had taken place at that time, to a resolution which His hearers had formed to go and be baptized by John that very hour. But John was no longer baptizing (3 : 19, 20 ; Matt. 11 : 2). These words are therefore the continuation of the discourse. Tho meaning of Jesus is : John's greatness (286 is only a parenthesis) was thoroughly understood by the people ; for a time they did homage to his mission, while (ie, ver. 30) the lulers rejected him. And thus it is that, notwithstanding the eagerness of the peopie in seeking baptism from John, his ministry has neveitheless turned out a decideti fail- ure, in regard to the nation as such, owing to the opposition of its leaders. The ob- * It is worth considering whether the element of knowledge be not that in which the inferiority of the Baptist lies. It was from defective knowledge — even according to our author's lucid account (p. 220) — that John's question was put. Nor can it be said, surely, that John was not a son, in the same sense in which all believers ai« children of God. — J. H. (-11 A I', vn. : "^'.(-ao. 2-Zo ject Tindorstood nftei- all that heard is John tlic Baptist and his preachin him satisfactor\^ and inserted this same passage iu hiscAvn CTOspel, 10 ; 10, iua context where it becomes m^re unintelligible still ! Is it not much uii/re natural to supp)se tiiat Matthew's discourse was originally composed for a collection of Login, in which it bore the title, " On John the Baptist, " and that the compiler collected ua.ier this heai all the words known to him which Jesus had uttered at different limes on this subject? As to Luke, he follows his own sources of information, which, as he has told us, faithfully represent the oral tradition, and which furnish evidence of their accuracy at eveiy fresh test. Gess endeavois, it is true, to prove the superiority of Matthew's text. Tlie violent (Matt. 11 : 13) would lie, according to him. the messengers of John the Baptist, thus designated on account of the abruptness with which ihey had put their cpiestion lo Jesus before all the people. And Jesus declared this zeal laudable in comparison with the inditference shown by the people (vers. 31-35). But, 1. How could Jesns say of ihe disciples of John that they were forcing an entrance into the kingdom, while they trequenlly assumed a hostile attitude toward Hun (Matt. a/.Tii/Tioci, calling one to another, ver. 32) ; but Avith equal want of success. Each time the actors whose turn it is to start the g.uTie aie foiled by the disagreeable humor of their companions, whose part it is to take up the representation and finish the scene. The first company comes playing a dunce tune ; the others, instead of rising and forming a dance, remain seated and in- different. The latter, in their turn, indicate a scene of mourning ; the others, instead of forming themselves into a funeral procession, assume a weary, sullen attitude. And thus, when the game is over, each company has reason to complain of the other, and say : "We have . . , you have not." The general meaning is obvious: the actors, in both cases, represent the two divine messengers joined by the faithful folio weis whu gathered about them from the first : John, with his call to repentance, and his train of penitents ; Jesus, with His promises of grace, and attended by a company of happy believers. But while the means thej' employ are so different, and so opposed evea, that it seems that any man who resists the one must submit to the other, moral insensibility and a carpmg spirit have reached such a height in Israel that they paralyze their effects.* De Wette, Meyer, and Bleek give quite a different application of the figure According to them, the company which begins the game icpresents the people, who want to make the divine messengers act according to their fancy ; the other com[)any, which refuses to enter into their humor, represents John and Jesus, who persevere, without deviation, in the path God has marked out for them. But in this case the blame in the parable should fall not on the second * The figure, as explained by M. Godet, would rather illustrate a want of sympa- thy lietweeu tlie disciples of John and those of Jesus, llian the waywardness and in- difference of the Jewish people to God's messengers. Suiely the difficulty which the commentators finf! here arises from pressing the correspondence of the figure beyond the single point of the untowardness of the generation to which John and Jesus preached. — Tu. [Tlie tianslator's \iew of j\l. Godet's rendering docs not appear to be well founded. He i« sunly light in his view of frequent indefiniteness in the in- troductory words — an indt^finftenPss belonging to the nature of the ease. "Tliat re- minds me," says one. and ichat he .w?/v indicates the point of contact, the thing sug- gesting and the tniiig suggebti;d. — J. il.] cii.vr. VII. : -ZU-ob. 227 company, which would l)o jastitieil in not entering into a i)art imposed uprm them, but on the lirst, wiiich tries to exact a tyrannical compulsion on liio other. Now it is not so at all. It is evident that those on whom the blame falls arc the dissatisfied and peevish spectatois, who each time refuse to cuter into the pioposed game (atnl ye siti/ . . . and ye say . . . vers. 33, 34). Besides, when did the people seek to cxcit such an influeuccon John and Jesus a3 would be indicated here ? Lastly, there is an evident correspoudeuce between the two reproaches: "We have piped . . . we have mourned . . ." and the two facts : " John came . . . The Son of man is come . . ." What has led these interpreters astray is the some- what inaccurate f>)rm in which tlie jvirable is introduced at ver. 33 : " This general ion is like to children calling one to another." But in these preambles the connection between the image and llie idea is often indicated in a concise and somewhat inaccu- rate manner. Tims Matt. 8 : 24 : " The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man which sowed," and elsewhere. The meaning, therefore, of ver. 32 is simply this: "The conduct of the present generation toward the messengers sent to it by God is like that which takes place among children who . . ." By the repetition of "and ye say" (vers. 33 and 34), Jesus translates, so to speak, into words, the refusal of the people to enter mto the feeling of holy grief or holy joy with which God would im- press them. But notwithstanding this general resistance, divine wisdom finds some hearts which open to its dilTerent solicitations, and which justify by their docility the con- trary methods it adopts. These Jesus calls the cJdldrai of wisdom, according to au expression used in the book of Proverbs. Kai (ver. 35) : " And neverlheless. " The preposition a -(J, /raw, indicates that God's justification is derived from these same men, that is to say, from their repentance on hearing the reproof and threatenings of John, and from their faith, resembling a joyous amen, in the promises of Jesus. HavTuv, all : not one of these children of wisdom remain behind ... all force their way into tlie kingdom. The term ickdom recalls the word counsel (ver. 30) ; tiie expression is justified, the justified of ver. 29. This connection will not allow of the meaning being given to ver. 35 which some have proposed : " Divine wisdom has been justified from the accusations (otto) brought against it by its own children, the Jews." This meaning is also excluded by the word a^?, which would contain an inadmissible exaggeration (ver. 20).* Instead of tekvuh, children, ^ reads epyuv, works: "Wisdom has derived its justification from the excellent works which it produces in those who sul)mit to it." But the epithet ttovtwv, all, does not suit this sense. The reading ipyui' is taken from the text of Matthew, in ceitaiu documents (i*. B. Syr. Cop.). It would be more allowable in that Gospel, in which the word ndvTuv is omitted. But even then it is improbable. This discourse is one of those which best show what Jesus was as a popular * Iloltzinann, following Hifzig, regards the word navTuv, all, as added by Luke, who wrongly applied (as we have done) this expression, children of toisdom, to be- lie i^ers. What wonderful sagacity our critics have ! Not only do they know more tlian the evangelists did respecting the meaning of the words of the Master, but they have a more accurate knowledge of their exact terms ! For Holtzmann's'sense ittS woidd Iiave been needed instead of oto. It is unnecessary to refute the opinion of Weizsiicker and others, who regard the question of John the Bapti-st as the first sign of A new-born faith. This opinion gives the lie to the scene of the baptism, to tliL! testimonies of John tiie Baptist, and to the answer even of Jesus (vers. 23 and 228 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. speaker. The understanding is brought into phiy, and Ihe curiosity stimulated by' the interrogative form (vers. 24, 26, and 81) ; and the imagiuiition excited by lively images, full of charm (vers. 24, 25, and 32). Lastly', there is a striking application to the conscience : John failed through his austerity ; I shall fail through my gentle- ness ; neither under one form nor auolher will you obey God. Nevertheless there are those whose conduct by condemning you justifies God. 5. IVte Gratitude of the Woman who was a Sinner:. 7:36-50. — The following narrative seems to have been placed here as an illustration of wisdom being justified by her children (ver. 35), and particularly of this last word : all. Vers. 36-39.* The Offence. We are still in that epoch of transition, when the rupture between our Lord and the Pharisees, although already far advanced, was not complete. A member of this party could still invite Him without difficulty. It has been supposed that this invitation was given with a hostile intention. But this Pharisee's own reflection, ver. 39, shows his moral state. He was hesitating lie- tween the holy impression which Jesus made upon him, and the antipathy which his caste felt against Him. Jesus speaks to him in a tone so friendly and familiar that it is difficult to suppose him animated by malevolent feelings. Further, ver. 43 proves unanswerably that he had received some spiritual benefit from Jesus, and that he felt a certain amount uf gratitude toward Him ; and ver. 47 says expressly that he loved Jesus, although feebly. The entrance of the woman that was a sinner into such society was an act of great courage, for she might expect to be ignomini- ously sent away. The power of a gratitude that kiicw no bounds for a priceless beueflt which she had received from the Saviour can alone explain her conduct. Ver. 42 shows wliat this benefit was. It was the pardon of her numerous and fearful sins. "Was it on hearing Him preach, or in a private interview, or through one of those looks of Jesus, which for broken hearts were like a ray from heaven . . . ? She hud received from Him the joy of salvation ; and the perfume which she brought with her was the emblem of her ardent gratitude for this unspeakable gift. If we adopt the Alex, reading, the sense is : " A woman who was a sinner in that citj'," that is to say, who practised in that very citj' her shameful profession. The received reading : " There was in the city a woman that was a sinner," is less harsh. 'A/mp- TuXoS a sinner, in the same superlative sense in which the Jews thought (hey might apply this epithet to the Gentiles (Gal. 2 : 15). Mvpov denotes any kind of odoriferous vegetable essence, particularly that of the myrtle. As it was the custom when at table to recline upon a couch, the feet being directed backward, and without their sandals, there was nothing to prevent this woman from coming up to Jesus and anointing His feet. But just when she was preparing to pay Him this homage, she burst into tears at remembrance of her faults. Her tears streamed down upon the Saviour's feet, and having no cloth to wipe them, she promptly loosed her hair, and with that supplied its place. In order to duly appreciate this act, we must remember that among the .lews it was one of the greatest huniiliations for a woman to be seen in public with her hair down.f The n's w>,o (ver. 39), refers to the name and family, and the TroranT/, what, to the character and conduct. * Ver. 36. S^. B. D. L. Z. It"''"?, some Mnn., mv oikov jristead of ttjv oiKiav. ^. B. D. L. X. Z. some Mini., KaTeK'Ai67i instead of avFK?uH7i. Ver. 37. ». B. L. Z. If'^i. place jyrtc v^ after ywrj, and not after ev ttj noXei. Ver. 38. i^* A. D. L. X., t^efiaaaev instead of e^e^a^sv. f See my " Commentaire sur I'Evangile de St. Jean," chap. xii. 3. CHAP. VIT. : ;](i-17. 'Z'Zd Vers. 40-4o.* 77>c rarahJc.—ll this man wanted a proof of tlio proplictic gift of Jcpus, he received it instaull}' in the following parahle, which so exactly meets his thoughts and secret questions. The form of the following conversation is kindly, familiar, and even slightly humorous. It is just the tone of the Socratic irony. I The denarius was equivalent to about three farthings ; the larger of the two sums ••xmouuted, therefore, to about £1(5. the smaller to o2s. The former represents the enormous amount of sins to which this sinful woman pleaded gviilty, and wliicii Jesus had pardoned ; the latter, the few infractions of the law for which the Pharisee reproached himself, and from the burden of which .Jesus had also released him. 'OoOcJ; inpirac : " iJioii Iinst rir/hUi/jiidffcd ; and in judging so rightly, thou hast con- demned thyself." It is the Tvdw opOcJi of Socrates, when he had caught his interlocu- tor in his net. But that which establishes such an immeasurable distance between Jesus and the Greek sage is the way in which Jesus identities Himself, both here and in what follows, with the offended God who pardons and who becomes the object of the sinner's grateful love. A''ers. 44-47.f The Application. — Jesus follows an order the inverse of that which He had taken in the parable. In the latter He descends from the cause to the effect, from the debt remitted to the gratitude experienced. In the application, on the con- trary. He ascends from the effect to the cause. For the effect is evident, and conies under the observation of the senses {3'AenEii). Jesus describes it, vers. 44-46, while the cause is concealed (ver. 47), and can only be got at by means of the principle which forms the substance of the i)arable. During the first part of the conversation Jesus was turned toward Simon. He now turns toward the woman whom He is about to make the subject of His demonstration. Jesus had not complained of the want of respect and the impoliteness of His host. But lie had noticed them, and felt them deeply. And now what a contrast He draws between the cold and meas- ured welcome of the Pharisee, who appeared to think that it was honor enough to admit Him to his table, and the love shown by this woraau that was a sinner ! The customary bath for the feet had been omitted by the one. while copious tears were showered upon His feet by the other ; the usual kiss with which the host received his guests Simon had neglected, while the woman had covered His feet with kisses ; the precious perfume with which it was usual to aooint an honored guest on a festive day (Ps. 23 : 5) he had withheld, but she had more than made up for the omission. In fact, it is not Simon, it is she who has done Jesus the honors of the house ! The omission of riji KetpaATjc (ver. 44) in the Alex., " [the hairs] of her head,'' is probably the result of negligence. The word perfectly suits the conte.xt ; the head, as the most noble part of the bod}', is opposed to the /ee^ of Jesus. The reading e/avPT^fi^, " [e?er since] Kite entered," found in one Mn., has at first glance something taking about it. But it has too little support ; and the T. R., " ever since J entered," is in reality preferable. Jesus thereby reminds Simon of the moment when He came under his roof, and when He had a right to e.xpect those marks of respect and affection ■which had been neglected. The woman had followed Jesus so closely that she had all but entered with Him ; there she was, the moment He was set at the table, to pay Him homage. From this visible effect— the total difference between the love of the * Ver. 42. !*. B. L. Z. some Mnn. Syr. omit et-f. + Ver. 44. rr^i /cepa/?;?, which is the reading of T. R. with 11 Mjj. after Ooi^w, is omitted by 11 Mjj. 25 Mnn. Syr"'''. It., etc' Ver. 45. L* some Mnn. lt""i. read eia>iMtv instead of einr/Mov. Ver. 47. !**, ei-jrov instead of /eyu. 230 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. one and the love of the other, Jesus ascends, ver. 47, to its hidden cause — the differ- ence in the measure of forgiveness accorded to them respectively. Ov x'^pi^^, where- fore; properly, au account of which, that is to say, of this contrast between ihe respective exhibitions of your gratitude (vers. 44-46). This conjunction is tlie in- verse of the therefore in ver. 43, which led from the cause to the foreseen effect. We might make this wherefore bear upon the priucipal idea," Her sins are forgiven her." lu that case we should have to regatd the words 'Aiyu aui, I say unto thee, as an inserted phrase, and the last proposition as an exegetical explanation of this where- fore : " Wherefore I say unto thee, her many sins are forgiven, and that because she loved much." But we may also malce the wherefore bear directly on " I say unto thee," and make all the rest of tiie verse the complement of this veib : " Wherefore I say unto thee, that her many sins are forgiven her, because tliat . . ." The latter is evidently the more simple construction. The reading, 1 said unto thee, of !!^, would indicate that this truth was already contained in this parable. It has neither authority nor probability. How should we understand the words, for she lovtd much? Is love, according to Jesus, the cause of forgiveness? Catholic interpreters, and even many Protestants, understand the wurds in this sense : God forgives us much when we love much ; little, if we love little. But, 1. In this case there is no cuhe- lence whatever between the paral)le audits application. On this principle, Jesus should not have asked, ver. 42, " Which of them ^dUI love Him most ?" but, " Which then fowcZ Him most ?" The remission of the two debts of such different amounts would result from the different degrees of love in the two debtors ; while, on the con- trary, it is the difference between the debts remitted which produces the different amount of gratitude. 2. Tliere would be, if possible, a more striking incoherence still between the first part of the application, ver. 47«, and the second, ver. Alb : " To whom little is forgiven, the same lovelh little." To l)e logical. Jesus should have said precisely the contrary : " Who loves little, to him little is forgiven." 3. The words, Thy faith hath saved thee (ver. 50), clearly show what, in Jesus' view, was the principle on which forgiveness was granted to this woman ; it was faith, not love. We must not forget that on, because, frequently expresses, just as our for does, not the relation of the effect to its cause, but the relation (purely logical) of the proof to the thing proved. We may say. It is liiiht, for the sun is risen ; but we may also say, The sun is risen, for [I say this because] it is light. So in this passage the otl, because, for, may, and, according to what precedes and follows, must mean : " I say unto thee that her many sins are forgiven, as thou must infer from this, that she loved much." Thus all is consistent, the application with the parable, this saying with the words that follow, and Jesus with Himself and with St. Paul. Ver. 475 contains the other side of the application of this same principle : the less forgiveness, the less love. This is addressed to Simon. But with delicacy of feeling Jesus gives this severe truth tlie form of a general proposition, " Ha to lohom . . . ;" just as He also did with Nicodemus, " Except a man be born . . ." (John 3 : 3). The thought expressed in this ver. 47 raises two ditficultics : 1. May forgiveness be only partial ? Then there would be men half-saved and half-lost ! 2. Is it neces- sary to have sinned deeply in order to love much ? The real forgiveness of the least sin certainly contains in germ a complete salvation, but only in germ. If faith is maintained and grows, this forgiveness will gradually extend to all the sins of a man's life, just as they will then become more thorougiily known and acknowledged. The first forgiveness is the pledge of all the rest. In the contrary case, the forgiveness cnAP. vii. : 4S-oO. 231 already grantt'd will be witbdrawn, just as represented in the parable of the wicked debtor, Malt. 18 ; and the work of grace, instead of becoming complete, will prove abortive. A\l is transition here below, free transition, either to perfect salvation or to complete coridemnation. As to the great amount of sin necessary in order to loving much, we need add nothing to what each of us already has ; it is sulliciint to estimate accurately what we have. What is wanting to the best of us. in order to love xuucii, is not sin, but the knowledge of it. Vers. 48-50. Condasioii. Bleek has inferred from vcr. 48, thy sins arcforc/ivcih ( thee, that until this moment the woman had not obtained forgiveness. This supposi- tion is excluded by all that precedes. Bleek forgets that (kpsuivtul is a perfect indica- ting an actual state resulting from an act accomplished at some indefinite time in the past. Having regard to the Pharisaical denials of the persons composing the assem- bly, and to tiie doubts which might arise in the heart of the sinning woman herself, Jesus renews to her the assurance of the divine fact of which she had within her the witness and warrant. This direct and personal declaration corresponds with tlirj inward witness of the Divine Spirit in our own experience, after we have embraced the promises of the Word (Eph. 1 : 13). On the objection, ver. 4U, couip. ver. 21. Krt/, even ; besides all the other extraordinary things He does. Jesus continues as if He had not heard, but all the while taking account of what was being said around Him («n-£ 6e, "but He said") . AVhile addressing the woman He shows the people assembled the firm foundation on which her forgiveness rests. She has the benefit of this decree : Whosoever believeth is saved. Let her go away, then, with her treas- ure, her peace, in spite of all their pharisaical murmurs ! Eif elfjr/vjjv, in peace, and to enjoy peace. This beautiful narrative, preserved by Luke alone, contains the two essential clc- menls of what is called Paulinism — the freeuess and universality of salvation. Does it follow from this that it was invented -posterior to Paul in order to set forth IhesR great principK'S ? It simply proves that it was Luke's intention, as he said at the begiuning (1 :4), to show by his Gospel, that the doctrine so clearly expressed and so earnestly preached by Paul was already contained in germ in all the acts and teaching of Jesus ; that t/ie Gospel of Paul is nothing but the application of the principles previously laid down by the Lord Himself. A very similar narrative to this is found in the other three Gnspels, but assigned to a mucii hiler lime — to the Passion week. Mary, a sister of La/arus, anoints Jesus at a repast which is given Him by the people of Bethany (Matt. 2() : 6, H seq. : Mark 14 : 3, et seq. ; John'"l2 : 1, et seq.). A great number of interpreters agr-ee that this incident is the same as that we have just been considering in Luke. "They rciv on tlie similarity of the act, on the circumstance that Luke does not rehile the anointing at Bethany ; and tiiat, on the other band, the three other evangelists do not mention this in Galilee , and lastly, on the fact that in both cases the owner of the house where the repast is given Itears the name of Simon (Luke 5 : 40 ; Malt. 26 : 6 ; Mark 14 : 3). These reasons, doubtless, have their weight ; but they are not decisive. The act of anointing was associated with such a commnn usage on festive occasions (Luke 5 : 46 ; Ps. 23 . 5), that there can be no difficulty in supposing that it was repeated. The causes of the omissjou of a narrative in one or two of the evangelists are too accidental for us to be a''l(! to base any solid conclusion upon it. We need onlv refer to the omission in Matthew of I he healing of the possessed at Capernaum, and of the healing of tlie centurion's servant in Mark, omissions which it is impossi- ble to account for. As to the name Simon, it was so common, that out of the small number of persons designated by name in the N. T. , there are no less than fifteen Sim. JUS ! The reasons in favor of the difl'crcnce of the two incidents arc the fiJLuv- 2'3'Z COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. ing ; 1st. The difference of place — Galilee in Luke ; in the other three, Judsea. This reason is of secondary value, it is true, because in chap. 10 Luke appears to place the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary in the midst of the Galilean ministry. 2d. The dillereiice of time. Sd. The difference of persons : the woman that was a sinner, ia Liilie, is a .stnuiger in the house of the host (ver. 87, " a woman of the city"), and iSunuu himself regards her as such, and as altogether unknown to Jesus (ver. 31)) ; Mary, on tlie conliary, belongs to a beloved family, which habitually received Jtsus under their ruof. Besides, we must always feel a repugnance to identify Mary the itiister of Luzaius, as we know her in Ji)hn 11 and Luke lU : 38-42, with a woman ui ill fame. Uli. The most important difference re-jpecls what was said : at Belhany, a complaint from Judas on behalf of the poor, and a reply from Jesus announcing His approaching death ; in Gahlee, the great evangelical declaration, Ihat love is the fiuit of forgiveuess, which is bestowed on the simple condition of faith. Whal agreement can he discovered between these two conversations ? We may conceive uf very con- siderable alterations being made by tradition in the historical framewoik of a narra- tive. But by what marvellous process could one of these two conversations have been transformed into the other ? 6. The Women w1i/> ministered to Jesus : 8 : 1-3. — By the side of the high religious problems raised by the life of Jesus, there is a question, seldom considered, which nevertheless possesses some interest : How did Jesus find the means of subsistence during the two or three years that His miuistry lasted V He had given up His earthly occupation. He deliberately refrained from using His miraculous power to supply His necessities. Further, He was not alone ; He was constantly accompanied by twelve men, who had also abandoned their trade, and whose maintenance He had taken on Himself in calling them to follow Him. The wants of this itinerant society were met out of a common x^urse (John 13 : 29) ; the same source furnished their alms to the poor (John 12 : 6). But how was this purse itself filled ? The problem is partly, but not completely, explained by hospitality. Had He not various npeds, of clothing, etc. ? The true answer to this question is furnished by this passage, which possesses, therefore, considerable interest. Jesus said : " Seek first the king- dom of God, and other things shall be added unto you." He also said : " There is none that leaves father, mother, . . . house, lands for the kingdom of God, who does not find a hundred times more." He derived these precepts from His daily experience. Tiie grateful love of those whom He filled with His spiritual riche-s provided for His temporal nece.ssitxes, as well as for those of His disciples. Some pious women spontaneously rendered Him the services of mother and sisters. This passage would suffice to prove the excellence of Luke's sources ; their orig- inality, for the other evangelists furnish no similar information ; their exactness, for who would have invented such simple and positive details, with the names and rank of these women ? and their purity, for what can be further removed from false mar- vels and legendary fictions than this perfectly natural and prosaic account of the Lord's means of subsistence during the course of His ministry ? Vers. 1-3.* Luke indicates this time as a distinctly marked epoch in the ministry of the Lord. He ceases to make Capernaum, His ISia ttoAj?, Ris men city (Matt. 9:1). the centre of His activity ; He adopts an altogether itinerant mode of life, and lilcr- nlly has no place where to lay His head. It is this change in His mode of living, carried out at this time, which induces Lnke to place here this glimpse into the means * Ver. 3. Instead of avru. which is the reading of T. R. with J*. A. L. M. X. FT. several Mnn. It"'"!., ai^roiS is read in 13 Mjj. 90 Mnn. Syr. It"""!. Or. Aug. The Mss. vary lietwcen e« and cto. CHAP. VIII. : 1-3. 233 of His itinlerial support. The aor. kyevero, it came to pass (ver. 1), itiilicntcs a definite time. The nai before ai'ro?, as the sign of the apodosis, belra3^s an Aranueau source. The imperf. (hMeve, lie icent throughout, denotes a slow and conlinuuus mode of travelling. The preposition kotu expresses the particular care whicii lie bestowed on every place, whither large (citi/) or small (rilltu/c). Everywhere He gave Himself time to stay. To the general idea of a proclamation, expressed by the verb njipvaneiv, to preach, the second verb, to evangelize, to announce the glad tidings of the kingdom, adds the idea of a prjclamatiou oi grace as the prevailing character of His teaching. The Twelve iiccompanied Him. What a strange sight this little band presented, [luss- iug through the cities and country as a number of members of the heavenly kingdom, entirely given up to the work of spreading and celebrating salvation ! Had the world ever seen anylhmg like it? Among the women who accompanied this band, filling the humble office of ser^'anls, Luke makes special meution first of Mary, sur- named Magdnlcne. This surname is probably derived from her being originally from TVIngilala, a town situated on the western shore of the sea of Galilee (^latt. 15 : 39), the situation of which to the north of Tiberias is still indicated at the present day b}' a village named ElMegdil {the toioer). The seven demons (Mark 16 : 9) denote with- out doubt the culminating point of her possession, resulting from a series of attacks, each of which had aggravated the evil (Luke 11 : 24-26). It is without the least foundation that tradilion identifies 3Iar3' Magdalene with the penitent sinner of chap. 7. Possession, which is a disease (see 4: 33), has been wrongi}' confounc^ed with a slate of moral corruption. The surname, of Magdala, is intended to distinguish this Mary from all the others of this name, more particularly from her of Bethany. Chuza was probably intrusted with some ofiice in the household of Herod Antipas. Might he n it be that 3aai/.iKd<^, cmtrt lord, whose sou Jesus had healed (.lohn 4), and who had bt'lievred tcith aU his house? We know nothing of Susanna and the other ■women. klrivEs u.se of th's method. The parable pos.sesses the double property of making an indelililo impression of the truth on the mind of him who is able to perceive it tlirough the figure in which it is clothed, and of veiling it from the ol)servation of the inattentive or indolent hearer whose mind makes no effort to penetrate this covering. It is thus udmirabl}' fitted for making a selection from the liearers. The term ^wz-rtW*" (from irapaSa/.y.siv, to place side b>/ side) denotes a form of instruction in whici;, by the side of the truth, is placed the image which represents it. This is also the meaning of 234 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. irnooiiuia, a patli bj' the side of tlie high roacl. The parable bears a close resemblance to the fable : but it differs from it in two respects, one of substance, the other of foim. While the fi.bie refers to tlie relations of men witli one another, and to the moral laws which regulate these relations, the parable dials with man's relations wilh God, and with the Ijfty principles by which they are governed. The loftier sphere ia ■which the parable moves determines the difference of form which distinguishes it fi-oni the fable The fable partakes of a humorous character ; it is quite allowable, therefore, in it to make plants and animals speak. The aim of the parable is too serious to comport with such fictions. There must be nothing in the picture to violate probability. Animals and material objects may be employed in the parable (sheep, leaven) ; but they uuist not assume a character contrary to their actual nature. The parable was the m jst natural made of teacliiiiu- fui Jesus to adopt. Living in the incessant contemplaiion of the divine world, which lay open to His inward sense, finding Himself at tbe same time also in constant intercourse with the external world, which He observed with intelligent and calm attention, He was necessatily led to make constant comparisons of these two spheres, and to perceive the innumerable analogies which exist between them. The fiist parable He uttered that was fully worked out, a^ipears to have been this of the sower. Matthew makes it the opening paraltle of the iarge collection in chap. 13. Mark assigns it a similar place at the head of a moie limited collection, chap. 4. It is the only one besides that of the vine-dressers, a parable belonging to our Lord's last days, which has been preserved in all the three Syn. In all three, the general explanation, which Jesus gives His disciples once for all, as to why He employs this form of teaching, is connected with the account of this parable. It appears, therefore, that it was the first complete similitude that He offered them. Moreover, it was the one which seems to have struck the disciples the mo.st, and which was most frequently told in the oral tradition ; this explains its reproduction by our three evangelists. The following passage contains : 1st. The parable (vers. 4-8) ; 2cl. The explana- tionsgivenby Jesus respecting this mode of teachiog (vers. 9 and 10) ; '6d. The expo- sition of the parable (vers. 11-15) ; AtJi. A warning to the apostles as to the course they must pursue m regard to truths which Jesus teaches them in this way (vers. lG-18). 1st. Vers. 4-8.* The Parable. — Matthew and Mark place this parable after the visit' of the mother and brethren of Jesus CShM. 13 : 1 ; Mark 4 : 1). In Luke it immediately precedes the same narrative (ver. 19, et seq.). This connection may be the result of a real chronological relation, or of a moral relation as well ; comp. ver. 15, " those who keep the word and biing forth fruit," with ver. 21, " those who hear the word of God and practise it." We might make nJv ennrupEvoiiivb)v, coming together unto nim, the comi)lemPnt of ox'^ov. a multitude, ]iy g\v'wg na't the sense of even. But tbis construction is forced the two genitives, tue parallel. Luke's mean- ing is : " As a great multitude was gathered about Him, and as it was continually increasinsr, owing to fresh additions, which were ariiping mote or less from every city." Tliis prefatory remaik contains a great deal. Jesus gres through the country stopping at every place ; the Twelve are His immediate attendants ; the cities are * Ver. 4. i*. some Mnn. , cwovto^. Ver. 6. Ti. L. R. Z., KaTen-eGEV instead of cTTeaFv. Ver. 8. Almnst all the Mjj. read £tS instead of £~i, which is the reading of T. R. with D. and some Mnn. CHAP. YiTi. : 4-8. 2'.)o emptied, so to speak ; their entire populations accompany Ilim, Wo have evidently icaila-tl a crisis. But the more tiie nunil)erof His bearers increases, the more clumly Jesus sees that the time has come to set some siftinij; process to work amouj;- tliem ; if, on the one hand, it is necessar}' to draw the spiiitual into closer attachment, on the other, it is of importance to keep the carnal at a distance. The parables, in gen- eral, have this tendency ; that of the sower, by its very meaning, has a direct appli- cation to this slate of Ibinj^s. It appears from ]M,itlhew and ]\liirk tiiat Jesus was seated in a vessul on the sea-sliore. and that from this kind of pulpit He taught tiio people who stood upon the banks. Hi could therefore easily discern the various expressions of the persons composing the multitude. The art. 6 before cTreipuv desig- nates that one of the servants who has been intrusted with this work. Cess points out the contrast between this sower, who commences the woik of establishing tiic kingdom of God by means of tlie Word alone, and the ]\Icssiah, as pictured by John the Baptist, Jmvinr/ UiHfiui in His hand. Jesus divides His hearers into four classes, and compares them to four kinds of soil, of which the surrounding country furnished Him with illustrations at the very time He was speaking. From the edge of the lake the soil rises very rapidly ; now, on such slopes, it easily happens that the higher portion of a field has onl3'-a thin layer of mould, while, going down toward the plain, the bed of earth becomes deeper. Hence the differences indicated. The first soil {by the wai/side) is the part nearest the path which is freely used by passers-b3\ The second (on the rock, according to Luke ; in stony jilnces, in Matthew and Mark) dues wii denote, as is often thought, a soil full of stones ; but, as is well expressed by Luke, and confirmed by the explanation, because there 'icas no depth of airlh (^Litthew and Mark), that portion of the field where the rock is only covered witli a thin layer of earth. The third is a fertile soil, but already choke-full of the seeds of thorns and briers. There remains \\iq (jood soil (Mark and Matthew, /crtA?/'). This last laud is neither hard as the first, nor thin as the second, nor unclean as the third ; it is soft, deep, and free from other seeds. The four prep, employed by Luke well describe these different relations of the seed with the soil : ■Kapa, by the side ; eni, ttpon ; kv /liaij, in the midst; eli. into {tni in the T. Jx., ver. 8, has only very iusufiicient authorities). The fate of the seed is determined by the nature of the soil. On the first soil it does not even spring up. The (pvtv, having sprung nj) (vers. G-S), is passed over in silence in the 5th verse. Not having germinated, tiie seed is destrnyed by external causes, the passers-by and the birds. Matthew and Mark mention only th'_' latter. On the second soil the seed sjirings up ; but the root, immediately meeting with the rock, cannot develop itself in proportion to the stem, and, as soon as tlie Sun has dried up the thin layer of earth, the plant perishes. The seed on tlie third soil grows into ear ; but briers choke it before tlie grain is foimed. Thus in the first case tiiere are two external causes of destruction ; in the second, an external and an internal cause ; in the third, a single cause, and this altogether internal. On the fourth soil the plant successful!}^ accomplishes the entire cycle of vegetation. Luke only men- tions the highest degree of fertility, a hundred-fold. Matthew and ]Maik speak of lesser degrees ; !Matk in an ascending, and Matthew in a descending order. How puerile and unworthy of earnest men these trifiing variations would be, if the evan- gelists worked upon a common document ! The Lord invites the serious attention of the multitude to this result ; kpuvei, Jle raises Ilis voice {lie cried, A.V.], these are the words which He emphasizes. He '^:Ui COMMEXTAKY UN ST. LUKE. endeavors to awaken that inward sense for divine things, witliout which religious teaching is only an empty sound. The design of Jesus is, first of all, to show that llu is not deceived by the sight of this crowd, which is apparently so attentive ; then to put His disciples on their guard against the expectations which such a large con- course might create in their minds : lastly, and more than all. to warn His hearers of the perils which ihreatened the holy impressions they were then experiencing. 2d. Vers. 9 and 10.* TJie Parables in general. — " And His disciples asked Him, saying, What might this parable be ? 10. And He said. Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God : but to others in parables ; that seeing Ihey might not see, and hearing they might not understand." The question of the disciples referred solely to the meaning of the preceding parable ; but Jesus takes advantage of it to give them a general explanation of this mode of teaching. It is the same in Mark, who only adds this detail : w?ieii they were alone with Him. In Mat- tliew the question of the disciples is altogether general : " Wherefore speakest Thou unto them in parables?" This form of the question appears to us less natural. The reply of Jesus is more extended in Matthew. He quotes in extenso the prophecy of Isaiah (chap. 6) to which Luke's text alludes, and which Mark incorporates into the discourse of Jesus. Bleek professes to find in the because of Matthew (13: 13) a less harsh thought than the in order that of Mark and Luke. He is wrong ; the thought is absolutely the same. In both cases, Jesus distmctiy declares that the object of His parables is not to make divine truths intelligible to all, but to veil them from those who are indifferent to them. And it is for this very reason that He avails Him- self of this mode of teaching just from this time. By such preaching as the Sermon on the Mount He had accomiilished the first work of His spiritual fishing ; He had cast the net. Now begins the second, the work of selection ; and this He accom- plishes by means of teaching in parables. As we have seen, the parable possesses the double property of attracting some, while it repels others. The veil which it throws over the truth becomes transparent to the attentive mind, while it remains impenetra- ble to the careless. The opposition between these two results is expressed in Luke by these words designedly placed at the beginning of the phrase, to you and to others. It is the same in Matthew, to you and to those ; in Mark, more forcibly still, to you and to those tc7io are without. The perf. dsJorai does not refer to any antecedent decree (the aor. would have been requu-ed), but to the actual condition of the disciples, which renders them fit to receive the revelation of divine things. It is the inward drawing due to divine teaching, of which Jesus speaks in John 0. The term mystery, in Scripture, denotes the plan of salvation, in so far as it can only be known by man through a higher revelation (fivEto, to initiate). Used in the plural {the mysteries), it denotes the different parts of this great whole. These are the heavenly things of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (John 3 : 13), and which He contrasted with the earthly things which He had preached at the commencement. The verb understood before h wapaiiolalz is Aa/.elTai. But how, when God makes a revelation, can it be His will not to be understood, as Isaiah says (chap. G), and as is repeated here by Jesus ? That is not, as Riggenbach says, either His first will or His last. It is an intermediate decree ; it is a chastisement. When the heart has failed to open to the first beams of truth, the brighter beams which follow, instead of enlightening, dazzle * Ver. 9. i^. B. D. L. R. Z. some Mnn. Syr. Itpi"Wue_ omit Xejovrsi before tic. Vcr. 10. !S. R. some Mnn., aKovauaiv instead of awtuacv. CHAP. VIII. : O-lo. 237 and blind it ; and this resxilt is -willed by God ; it is a judgment. Since Pharaoh refuses to humble himst'lf under the first lessons he receives, subsequent lessons shall hiirdt'u him ; for, if he is unwilling to be converted himself, he must at least subserve the conversion of olhers by the conspicuousness of his punishment. The Jewish people themselves in the time of Isaiah, were just in this position. God makes them feel this by calling them, not my people, but thi>t people. God already sees that the nation is incapalilc of fultilliiig the part of an apostle to the world whi(;h had departed from Him. This part it shall accomplish, neveitheless ; only it shall not be by its missionary action, but by its ruin. This ruin, therefore, becomes necessary ; and because this ruin is necessary (Matthew), or iti order thai it may take place (jMaik and Luke). Israel must be hardened. A similar state of things recurred at the period in Jesus' ministry' which we have now reached. Israel rejected as a nation the light which shone in Jesus ; and this light covered itself under the veil of the parable. But through this veil it sent out still more brilliant rays into the hearts of those who, like His disciples, had welcomed with eagerness its first beams. The terms, nee, liear, refer to the description in the parable ; not seeing, and not undcrdaiiding, to its real meaning. M. Vers, 11-15.* The Explanation of tJie Parable. — The expression. Now the par- able is thin (ver. 11), signifies that the essence of the picture is not in its outward form, but in its idea. Tiie point of resemblance between the word and the seed is the living power contained in a vehicle which conceals it. By the word Jesus doubtless - means primarily His own teaching, but He also comprehends in it any preaching that faithfully represents His own. Among the multitude Jesus discerned four kinds of expression : countenances expressing thoughtlessness and indilYerence ; faces full of enthusiasm and delight ; others with a care-worn, preoccupied expression ; and lastly, expressions of serene joy, indicating a full acceptance of the truth that was being taught. In the explanation which follows, the word is sometimes identified with the new life which is to spring from it, and the latter with the individuals (hem- ' selves, in whom it is found. This accounts for the strange expressions : those which are sown by the wayside (ver, 13 ; comp. vers. 13, 14, 15) ; these have no root (ver. 13) ; they are choked (ver. 14). The first class contains those who are wholly insensible to religion, who are conscious of no need, have no fear of condemnation, no desire of salvation, and consequently no affinity with the gospel of Christ. In their case, therefore, the word becomes a pre}' to external agents of destruction. On!}'- one is mentioned in the application, the devil (Luke), Satan (Mark), the evil one (^latthew), who employs various means of diverting their minds, in order to make them forget what they have heard. Had not Jesus believed in the existence of Satan. He would never have spoken of him as a reality answering to the figure of the parable. 01 ciKovovTec, tcho hear, must be thus explained : " who hear, and nothing more." This implies Matthew's do not understand. • The second are the superficial but excitable natures, in whom imagination and sensibility for the moment make up for the absence of moral feeling. They are charmed with the novelty of the Gospel, and the opposition which it offers to received ideas. In everj' awakening, such men form a considerable portion of the new con- verts. But in their case the word soon comes into conflict with an internal hin- * Vor. 12. 5*. B. L. U. Z. some Mnn., a/covcravres instead of a/cofovrts. Ver. 13. S* D. F"-. X., TT]v itETftav instead of r^5 Trrroas. 238 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. drance : a heart of stone which the humiliatioa of repentance and the love of lioliness have never broken. Thus it finds itself given over to external agents of destruction, such as leinptatio?i (Luke), tribulation, and persecution (Matthew and Mark) ; tlie enmity of the rulers, the rage of the Pharisees, the danger of tixcommunicalion, in a word, the necessity of suffering in order to remain faithful. Those who have merely j sought for spiritual enjoyment in the Gospel are therefore overcome. In ver. 13 the verb daiv must be understood, and olbrav must be made tbe predicate : are those icho, when . . . The ol at the end of the verse is a development of ovtoi, and signifies who, as such. The third are persons with a measure of earnestness, but their heart is divided ; they seek salvation and acknowledge the value of tbe gospel, but they are bent also upon their earthly welfare, and are not detelmined ti) sacrifice everything for the truth. These persons are often found at the present day among those who are re- garded as real Christians. Their worldly-mindedness maintains its ground notwith- standing their serious interest in the gospel, and to the end hinders their complete conversion. The miscarriage of the seed here results from an inward cause, which is both one and threefold : cares (in the case of those who are in poverty), riches (in those who are making their fortune), and the pleasures of life (in those who are already rich). These persons, like Ananias and Sapphira, have overcome the fear of persecution, but, like them, they succumb to the inward obstacle of a divided heart. ilopevo/ievot, go forth, describes the bustle of an active life, coming and going in the transaction of business (3 Sam. 3 : 1). It is in this verse especially that the seed is identified with the new life in the believer. The form differs completely in the three Syn. In the fourth their spiritual wants rule their life. Their conscience is not asleep, as in the first ; it is that, and not, as in the case of the second, imagination or sensibil- ity, which r\iles the will ; it prevails over the earthly interests which have sway in ihe third. These are the souls described by Paul in Rom. 7. 'Ef Kopcii a and rhv /uyov depend on the two verbs uKovaavre; Karexovaiv combined, which together denote one and the same act : to Jicaj- and to keep, for such persons, are the same thing. The term versezerance refers to the numerous obstacles which the .seed has had to over- come in order to its full development ; comp. the Kafj' iiro/iovj/v epyov ayabov (Rom. 3 : 7). Jesus was certainly thinking here cf the disciples, and of the devoted women who accompanied Him. Luke makes no mention either in the parable or the ex- planation of the different degrees of fertility indicated by Matthew and Mark, and the latter meation them here also in a contrary orrier. We do not think that a single verse of this explanation of the parable is compati- ble with the hypothesis of the employment of a common text by the evangelists, or of their having copied from each other ; at least it must be admitted that they allowed themselves to trifle, in a puerile and profane way, with the words of the Lord. The constant diversity of the three texts is. on the other hand, very naturally explained, if their original source was the traditional teaching. Ath. Vers. 16-18.* Practical Conclusion.—" No man, when he hath lighted a can- dle, covereth it with a vessel, or puttelh it iinder a bed ; but setteth it on a candle- stick, that they which enter in may see the light. 17. For nothing is secret that shall * Ver. 16. The Mss. vary between ettl /.vxviai and s-rzi ttjv /.vxviav (a reading de- rived from Matthew and Mark, and from 11:33). Ver. 17. ». B. L. Z., o ov mj yvua^Tj instead of o ov yvucbyjerai. CHAP. VIII. : Ifi-is, M'.} noi be marie manifest ; neither anything hid that shall not be known and come abroad. 18. Take heod therefore how ye lioar ; for whosoever halh, to him shall be given ; and whoeoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have. " Bleek can perceive no conueclion between these reflections and the pre- ceding; parable. But they are closely connected with the similar reflections in vers. 0 and 10. There is even a designed antithesis between the growth of the light (ver. IG and 17) and the increase of the daikne^s (ver. 10). Jes-us is speaking to the dis- ciples. The word which is translated candle denotes simply a lamp, just n saucer lilled with oil in which a wick is placed — the mode uf lighting mo.st used in the East. It may therefore be placed without any danger under such a vessel as a bushel, which serves at once for measure, table, and dish among the poor, or under the divau (K/.iv7}), a bench furnished with cushions and raised from the floor from one to three feet, on which it is customary to rest while engaged in conversation or at meals, Beds properly so called are not used in the East ; they generally lie on the ground, on wraps and carpets.* The lighted lamp might denote the apostles, whom Jesus culiglilens with a view to make them the teachers of the world. Covering/ their light would be not putting them into a position of suflEicicnt influence in regaid to other men : and seiting it on a atndleatick would signify, conferring on them the apostolic office, in virtue of which they will become the light of the world. Those who see the light on entermg the house would be their converts from the .Tews and hea- then. Ver. 17 would be an allusion, as in 12 : 3, to that law according to which truth is to be fully revealed to the woild by the apostolic preaching, l^aslly, the 18lh verse would refer to that growth of inward light which is the recompense of the preacher for the faithfulness of his labors. But it is just this last verse which upsets the whole of this interpretation. For, 1. With this meaning, Jesus ought to have said, not : 2'ake heed how ye Jiear, but, hoio ye preach. 3. To haw, in the sense of the 18th verse, is not certainly to produce fruits in others, but to possess the truth one's self. We must therefore regard the term Ivx^'o^, the lump, as denoting the truth concerning the kingdom of God which Jesus unveils to the aptistles in His parables. If He clothes the truth in sensible images, it is not to render it unintelligible {to put it under a bushel) ; on the contrary, in explaining it to them, as He has just done. He places it on the candlestick ; and they are the persons who arc illuminated on entering into the house. All will gradu- ally become clear to them. While the night thickens over Israel on account of its unbelief, the di.sciples will advance into even fuller light, until there is nothing left in the plan of God {His mysteries, ver. 11) which is obscure or hidden (ver 17). The heart of Jesus is lifted up at this prospect. This accounts for the poetical rhythm which always appears at such moments. Here we see why it behoves the disciples to hear with the greatest care ; it is in order that they may really hold what He gives them, like the good soil which receives and fertilizes the seed (ver. 18). He alone who assimilates His teaching by an act of living comprehension, who really hath (the opposite of seeing without seeing, ver. 10), can receive continually more. Acquisitions are made onlj' by means of, and in proportion to, what is already pos- se.ssed. Tlie Spirit Himself only makes clear what has been kept (John 14 : 2G). If, therefore, any one among them contents Himself with hearing truth without ap- propriating it, by and by he will obtain nothing, and at last even lose everything. * Felix Boret, " Voyage en Terre-Sainte," pp. 348 and 349. 240 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. Mark (4 : 21-25) says : Hiat which he hath ; Luke : that which he thinkeih lie hath. It comes to the same thing ; fur, as to what is heard witliout compreliending it, it is equally true to say tliat he hath (iu a purely external sense), or that lie thinks he hath (in the real sense of the word have). Comp. Luke 19 : 26. This very apophthegm is found several times iu Matthew. It expresses one of the profoundest laws of the inural world. Baur and Hilgenfeld thought the}^ found in the word fJo/ceZ, thinks he liath, a censure of Luke on the haughty pretensions of the Twelve ! Our evangelists could never have anticipated that they would ever have such perverse interpitlers. Nothing cou'd more effectually allay any undue elation which the sight of these multitudes might excite in the minds of the disciples, than their being reminded in this way of their responsibility. The similar reflections iu Mark (4 : 25) are too differ- ent in form to have been drawn from the same source. Mark goes on to narrate the parable of the ear of corn, which he alone records. In Matthew there are six parables respecting the kingdom of God given along with that of the sower. They form an admirai)le whole. After the foundation of the kingdom described in the parable of the sower, there follows the mode of its develop- incnt in that of the tares ; then its power, presented under two aspects (extension and transformation) — in those of the grain of mustard seed and the leaven ; next, its in- comparable value iu the parables of the treasure and the pearl ; lastly, its consum- mation iu that of the net. Is this systematic plan to be attributed to Jesns ? I think not. He was too good a teacher to relate in this way seven parables all in a breath.* On the other hand, did He only utter on this occasion the parable of the sower ? Cer- tainly not, for Matthew says respecting this very time (13 : 3) : " And He spake many things unto them in parables," and Mark (4:2): "He taught them many things in parables." Probal)ly, therefore, Jesus spoke on this day, besides the par- al)le of the sower, that of the tares (Mattiiew), and that of the ear of corn (Mark), the images of which are all taken from the same sphere, and which immediately follow the first, the one in one Gospel, the other in the other. As to the other parables, Matthew has united them with the preceding, in accordance with his constant method of grouping the sayings of our Lord around a given subject. Such different arrange- ments do uot appear compatible with the use of the same written document. 8. Visit of the Mother and Brethren of Jesus : 8 : 19-21 . —We should have been igno- rant of the real object of this visit, unless, in this as m several other cases, Maik'd narrative had come in to supplement that of the other two. According to Mark, a report had reached the brethren of Jesus that He was in a state of excitement border- ing on madness ; it was just the echo of this accusation of the Pharisees : " He casteth out devils by Beelzebub." Comp. Mark 3 :21, 22. His brethren therefore came, intending to lay hold on. Him {KparF/nai, avrov, ver. 21), and take Him home. Matthew also connects this visit (12 : 46) with the same accusation. In John, the brethren of Jesus are represented in a similar attitude in regard to Him (7 ; 5) : " His brethren also did not believe on Him." As to Mary, it is not said that she shared the sentiments of her sons. But when she saw them set out under the influence of such feelings, she would naturally desire to be present at the painful scene which she an- ticipated would take place. Perhaps also, like John the Baptist, she was unable to explain to herself the course which her Sou's work was taking, and was distracted between contrary impressions. * I abide by this statement, notwithstanding the contrary assertion of Gess. CHAP. VIII. : 19-25. 241 Vers. 10-21.* The word vitliout (vcr. 20) might be understood to mean : " out- side tlie circle wliieli suriounded Jesus." Hut Muik expressly nienlious a house iii ■vvliiih he was receiviug hospilalily (vcr. 20), aud where a large crowd icat< .seated aiDiiitd Him (vers. 32 aud VA) : Aie these brethren of Jesus younger sons of Joseph anil Mary, or sons of Joseph uy a previous marriage ; or arc they cousins of Jesus, sons of Cleopas (the brolher of Jo.sepli), who would be called his bretl)ren, as having been brought up iu the bouse of their uncle Joseph? We cannot discuss this ques- tion here. (See our " Comnienlary on the Gospel of John," ii. 12). One thing is ceitain, that the literal interpretation of the word brother, placed, as it is here, by the side ot the word mother, is the most natural. The answer of Jesus signifies, not that family ties are in Ilis eyes of no value (comp. John 19 : 26), but that they are subordinate to a tie of a higher and more durable nature. In those women who accompanied Illm, exercising over Ilim a mother's care (vers. 2 aud 3), and in those discii)les who so faithfully associated themselves with llim iu IIis woik. He had found a family which supplied the place of that which had deliberately fors dieu Him. Aud tins new spiiitual relationship, eternal even as tlie God in whom it was based, was it not superior in dignity to a lelationship of blood, which the least acci- dent might break ? In this saying He expresses a tender and gralef id affection for those faithful souls whose love every day supplied the place of the dearest domestic affection. He makes no mention of father : this place belongs in His e3'es to God alone. We see how the description of the actual circumstances, given by Mark, enables us to understand the appropriateness of this saying. Tliis fact proves that Luke knew neither the narrative of this cs'angelist, nor that of the alleged proto- ]\Iark. How could he in sheer wilfulness have neglected the light which such a nar- rative threw \ipon the whole scene ? 9. 27ie SliUiiij of the Storm: 8 : 22-25. — We come now to a series of narratives which are fouud united together in the three Syn. (Matt. 8 -AS et seq. ; Mark 4 : 35 et seq.) : the storm, the demoniac, the daughter of Jairus, together with the woman afflicted with an issue of blood. Fiom the connection of these incidents in our three Gospels, it has frequently been inferred that their authors made use of a common written source. But, 1. How, in this case, has it come to pass that this cycle fills quite a different place in Matthew (immediately after the Sermon on the Mount) from that which it occupies iu the other two ? And 2. How came Matthew to intercalate, between the return of Jesus and the account of the daughter of Jairus, two incidents of the greatest importance — the healing of the paralytic (9 : 1 et seq.), and the call of Matthew — with the feast and the discourse which follow it (ver. 9 et seq.), incidents which in Mark and Luke occupy quite a different place ? The use of a written source does not accord with such independent arrangement. It is a very simple explanation to maintain that, in the traditional teaching, it was customary to relate these three facts together, probably for the simple reason that they were chronologically connected, and that to this natural cycle there were sometimes added, as in Matthew, other incidents which did not belong historically to this precise time. That which renders this portion particularly remarkable is, that in it we behold the mirac- ulous power of Jesus at its full height : power over the forces of nature (the storm) ; over the powers of darkness (the demoniacs) ; lastly, over death (the daughter of Jairus). * Ver. 20. S* B. D. L. A. Z. some Mnn. Syr. It. omit ItyovTuv. Ver. 21. The Alex, omit al/To^. 2-i2 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Vers. 23-25.* Miracles of lliis kind, -wliile manifesting the original power of man over nature, aie at the same lime llie prelude of the regeneiation of tlie visible world which is to crown the moral renovation of humanity (Rom. 8). From Matthew's narrative it might be inferred that this voj'age took place on the evening of the same day on which the Seimou on the Mount was spoken. But, on the other liand, too many things took place, according to Mr.tthew himself, for the limits of a single day. Tilaik places this embarkation on the evening of the day on which Jesus spoke the jiarable of the sower ; this note of the time is much more piobable. Luke's indica- tion of the time is more general : on one of these days, but it does not invalidate Maik's. The object of this excursion was to preach the gospel in the country silualed on the other side of the sea, in accordance with the plan drawn out in 8:1. According to jSlaik, the disciples' vessel was accompanied by other boats. When they started, the weather wus calm, and Jesus, yielding to fatigue, fell asleep. The pencil of Maik lias preserved this never-to-be-forgotten picture : the Lord reclining on the hinder p:irt of the ship, with His head upon a pillow that had been placed there by seme fiiendly hand. It often happens on lakes surrounded by mounliuns, that sudden and violent storms of wind descend from the neighboring heights, especially toward even- ing, after a warm day. This well-known phenomenon is described by the woid /cffrt'^T/, came down.\ In the expression aweirAripovvTo, they were filled, there is a con- fusion of the vessel witii those whom it carries. The term iTTcaTara is peculiar to Luke ; Mark says 6L6aaKa7,E, Matthew iivpie. Ilow ridiculous these variations would be if all three made use of the same document ! The 24tii veise descriljes one of the sublimest scenes the earth has ever beheld : uian, calmly confident in God, by the perfect union of his will with that of the Almighty-, controlling the wild fury of the blind forces of nature. The term i^ireTi/nr/Ge, rebuked, is an allusion to the hostile character of this power in its present manifestation. Jesus speaks not only to the wind, but to the water ; for the agitation of the waves (kAvScju) continues after the liuriicane is appeased. In Mark and Luke, Jesus first of all delivers His disciples from danger, then lie speaks to their heart. In Matthew, he first upbraids them, and then stills the storm. This latter course appears less in accordance with the wisdom of the Lord. But why did the apostles deserve blame for their want of faith ? Ought they to have allowed the tempest to follow its course, in the assurance that with Jesus with them the}' ran no danger, or that in any case He would awake in lime V Or did Jesus expect that one of them, by an act of prayer and commanding failh, would still the tempest? It is more natural to suppose that what He blames in them is the state of tiouble and agitation in which He finds them on awaking. When faith possesses the heart, its prayer may be passionate and urgent, but it will not be full of trouble. There is nothing surprising, whatever any one may say, in the exclamation attributed to those who witnessed this scene (ver. 25) : first, because there were other persons there be- skles the apostles (Mark 4 : 30) ; next, because such incidents, even when similar * Yer. 24. !*" X. T. several Mnn. Sy^"'''^ Itp'erWie, omit etnaTara emaTnTa. D. reads iivine Kvpie. i>. E. F. G. H. some Mnn. It»''i., tTravaaro instead of enavanvTo. K. A. n. several Mnn. add /jeya'A-ri to yaAr]vri (taken from the parallel passiige.s). f On these hurricanes, to which the Lake of Genuesareth is parficuhirly exposed, comp. W. Thompson, " The Land and the Book," Loudon, 1808, [>. 375 (cited by M. Furrer) : " Storms of wind rush wildly through the deep moimtain gorces which descend from the north and north-east, and are not only violent, but sudden ; they often take place when the weather is perfectly clear." CHAP. VIII. : 2i}-2'X 243 occurrt'uccs have been sucn before, always iippeiir now ; lastly, because this was the fi.sl time thai the apostles saw their JMaster coateud wllh ihc blintl forces of uatiire. Strauss niaiiilaius liiat this is a pure myth. Keiin, iu oppositiou tj him. alleges the evident antiquity of the nairaiive (llic sublime majesty of tlie picture of Jesus, the absence of all ostentation from His words and actions, and the simple expression of wonder on the i)att of the spectators). The narrative, therefore, nuist have some foundation in fact, in some natural incident of water-travel, which has been ideali/.ed in ace irdance with such Avords as Ps. 101 ■.2'3, ei seq., and the appeal to Jonah (1 :4-G) : " Awake, O sleeper." There, says criticism, 3-ou see how this history was made We should rather say, how the trick was done. 10. Tlie Healing of the Demoniac: 6 : 26-39.— Tiiis portion brings before us a slorm no less ditHcult to still, and a yel more striking victory. Luke and Mark men- (ijn only one demoniac; Matthew speaks of two. The hypothesis of a common written source heie encounters a difficulty wliich is very hard for •it to surmount. But criticism has expedients to meet all cnses : according to Ilollzmanu, IMatlhew, who had omitted the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum, here repairs this omis- si-m." by grouping the possessed wlio h id been neglected along with this new case" (p. 2.")). This is a sample of what is calL-d at the present day critical sagacity. As if the evangelists had no faith themselves in what they Vv-rote with a view to win the failh of otiiers ! Why should it be deemed impossible f-ir the tv.'o maniacs to have lived logellier, and for the healing of only one of the two to have presented the striking features mentioned iu the following narrative? Howeverit was, we have here a proof of the independence of Matthew's narratives on the one hand, and of those of Mark and Lnke on the other. Vers. 26-29.* Tlie Encounter.— Tlwrc are three readings of the name of the inhabi- tants, and unf;;rtunately they are also found in both the other Syn. Epiphanius mentions the following forms : Tt/jyeT??!^!;)!^ in Mark and Luke (but in it is probal)le t'lal, in the case of Luke, we should read reprt(T7?i^(jy in this Fatiiet) ; Tn^apnvuv hi Matthew (Fe/a} euacwv in some manuscripts). It wauld seem to follow from a passage in Origen (" Ad. Job." t. vi. c. 24) that the most widely-diffused reading in his time was Tei)a'jTiv(j', that Tnikii)riv<:)v was only read in a small number of manuscripts, and that TeitytarivCiv was only a conjecture of his own. He states that Oerum is a city of Arabia, and that there is neither sea nor lake near it ; that Oadara, a city of Judtea, well known for its warm baths, has neither a deep-lying piece of Avaler with steep banks iu its neighborhood, nor is there any sea ; Avhile, near the lake of Tiberias the remains ate to be seen of a city called Oergem, near wliich there is a precipice overlooking the sea, and at which the place is still shown where the herd of swine cast themselves down. The Mss. are divided between these readings after the mo.-t capiicious fashion. The great majority of the Mun. in Matthew read VqjnoT]vC)v ; in JMark and Luke TepyeGTjvuv. The Latin djcumcnis are abmst ail in favor of Te()-/EaTii'uv. Tischendorf (8lh edition) reads Ta^apTjvuv in Matthew, TepaoTji'uii iu * Ver. 26. T. R., with A. R. T. A. A. and 10 other Mjj. many Mnn. Syr., reads Tn<'inpTii>(ji>. B. D. It. Vg., Tepnavi'ui'. !*. L. X. Z. some Mnn. Cop. Epi|)ii., TepyenFvuv. Ver. 27. i*. B."E. Z. sonn; Mnn. omit nvru. ik. B., e^Y^y instead of fixer. fii IJ. L. Z. some Mnn., ««t xf'^^^'^ ikuvuv instead of ek xpovuv uavui' Kai. Ver. 2S. ii. B. L. X. Z. some Mnn. Syr. Ii. omit ««< before avaKpn^aq. Ver. 29. B. F. M. A. Z., Tra.irjyyFile instead of -apijyyeVev, which is the reading of T. R. with 16 Mjj. several Mnn. Syr., elr. Ver. 29. The mss. vary between e^eaixeiru and ei^ea/jevero. The M.SS. vary between tov ^niuoio', and tov ihujwvtov. 244 COMMFJNTAUY OX ST. LUKE. Mark, Tepysnrivuv in Luke. Bleek thinks that the primitive Gospel on Tvhich, in his opinion, our three S3^n. are based, read TefMa-rivuv, but that, owing to the improbability of this readin.i!;, it was changed by certain copyists into TarSaprjvuv , and byOrigen into VepyEaTjvuv. Looking simply at the fact, tliis hist name appears to him to agree with it best. In fact, Gerasa was a large city situated at a considerable distance to the south-east, on tlie borders of Arabia ; and the reading Tepaarjvcjv can only be admitted by supposing that the district dependent on this city extended as far as 1o tlie sea of Galilee, which is inadmissible, altliough Stephen of Byzantium calls Gerasa a city uf Decapolis. Qadara is nearer, being only a few leagues from the smth-east end of the sea of Galilee. Josephus calls it the metropolis of the Perjea ; Pliny reckons it among the cities of Decapolis. Its suburbs might extend as far as the sea. But it is highly natural to suppose, that these cities, being so well known, the copyists sub- stituted their names for that of Gergcsa, which was generally unknown. It is a confirmation of this view, that the existence of a town of this name is attested not only by Origeu, Eusebins, and Jerome, but by the recent discovery of ruins bearing the name of Gersa or Kliersa, toward the embouchure of the Wady Semakh. The course of the walls is still visible, according to Thompson (p. 375). This traveller also says, that " the sea is so near the foot of the mountain at this spot, that animals having once got fairly on to the incline could not help rolling down ioto the water" (p. 877). Wilson {Athenreum, 1866, i. p. 438) states that this place answers all the conditions of the Bible narrative.* The true reading, therefore, would be TEpyEaTjvCiv or Tspyeaaiuu. This name so little known must have been altered first into Tepaojjvuv, "which has some resemblance to it, and then into Va6apTjvi:)v.\ On the demoniacs, see 4 : 33. The 27th verse aives a description of the demoniac, wliich is afterward finished in the 29th. This first description (ver. 27) only contains that which presented itself immediaUly io the (ibservalion of an eye-witness of the scene. The second and fuller description (ver. 2v») is accounted for by tlie command of .Jesus, which, to be intelligible, required a more detailed statement of the state of the possessed. This interruption, which is not found in Mark, reflects very natu- rally the impression of an eye-witness ; it demonstrates the independence of the respective narratives of Matthew and Luke. The plural dai^bvia {demons), explained afterward (ver. 30) by the at!licted man himself, refers doubtless to the serious nature and multiplicity of the symptoms — melancholy, mania, violence, occasioned b}'^ a number of relapses (see on 8:3 and 11:24-26). liis refusing to wear clothes or remain in a house is connected with that alienation from .society wliich characteiizes such states. The Alex, reading : " who for a long while past had worn no clothes," is evidently an error. The note of time cannot refer to a circumstance altogether so [subordinate as that of clothing. Tlie Levitical uncleanness of the tombs insured to this man the solitude he sought. The sight of Jesus appears to have produced an extraordinary impression upon him. The holy, calm, gentle majesty, tender compas- sion, and conscious sovereignty which were expressed ia the aspect of our Lord, * We cite these tw^o authors from M. Konrad Furrer : " Die Bedeutung der bibl. Geographie," p. 19. f M. Eleer has lecently proposed (" Der Kirchenfreimd," 13th May, 1870), a view which would more easily account for the reading Gerana found in the mss. by Origeu • The original name of the place Gergesa, abbreviated into Gersa, might be altered in popular speech into Gerasa, which it would be necessary not to confound with the name of the Arabian city. CHAP. VIII. : 30-33. 245 awakened in him, by force of contrast, the humbling consciousness of his own state of moral disorder. He felt himself at once attracted and repelled by this man ; tliis led to a violent crisis in him, which revealed itself first of all in a cry. Tiien, like some ferocious beast submitting to the power of his subduer, he runs and kneels, protesting all the while, in tiie name of the spirit of wliich he is still the organ, against the power which is exerted over Jiim. Luke says : npoaKinreLv, not ■Kimouvvelv (Mark). The former term docs not imply any religious feeling. On the expression : Wlint have 1 to do with thee? see cm 4 : 24. The name Jems is wanting in Mntthew, and it looks strange. IIow did he know this name? Perhaps he had iieard Jesus talked of, and instinctively recognized Ilim. Or perhaps tliere was a tupernatural knowledge appertaining to this extraordinary state. The expression : Son of the most high God is explained by the prevalence of polytheism in those countries where there was a large heathen population. Josephus calls Gadara a Greek city. We umst nut infer from this that this man was a heathen. In his petition, ver. 28, the demoniac still identifies himself with llie alien spirit which holds him in his power. The torment which he dreads is being sent away into the abyM (ver. 31) ; Matthew adds, before the time. The power of acting on the world, for beings that are alienated from God and move only within the void of their own subjectivity, is a temporary solace to their unrest. To be deprived of this power is for them just what a return to prison is for the captive. If we read napi/yyeiXe, we must give ihis aor. the meaning of a plus perfect : For He had commanded. But MS. authority is rather in favor of the imperf. nnpijyeXXev : " For He was commanding him.'* This tense indicates a continuous action wliich does not immediately pro- duce its effect. The demon's cry of distress. Torment me not, is called forth by the strong and continued pressure which the command of Jesus put upon him. This imperf. corresponds with Mark's Eltye yup. "VYe find in these two analogous forms the common type of the traditional narration. T\wfor, which follows, ex[)lains this imperfect. The evil did not yield instantly, because it had taken too deep root. "ZvvTipTtdKEi, it kept him in its possession. liol'Aoli ;i-p6i^o«5 may signify /(??• a long tirne past or oftentimes. With the second sense, there would be an allusion to a scries of relapses, each of which had aggravated the evil. Vers. 30-3li.* The Cure. — To this prayer, in which the victim became involuntarily the advocate of his tormentor, Jesus replies by putting a question : He asks the afflicted man his name. For what purpose? There is nothing so suitable as a calm and simple question to bring a madman to himself. Above all, there is no mor^ natural wa3' of awakening in a man who is beside himself the consciousness of his own per- sonalitj", than to make him till his own name. A man's name becomes the expres- sion ofhis character, and a summary of the history of his life. Now. the first con- dition of any cure of this afllicted man was a return to the distinct feeling of his own personality. There was at this time a word which, more than any other, called up the idea of the resistless might of the conqueror under whom Israel was then suffer- ing oppression. This was the w-ord Legion. The sound of this word called up the Ihought of those victorious armies before which the whole world bowed down. So it is by this term that this afflicted man describes the power which oppresses him, * Ver. ,S0. Sc. E. Syr"^''. It. omit;\f}wi). Ver. 31. The Mss. vary between napfKn'/ow and TTnpcKa/.ei. Ver. 32. The mss. vary between (SofTKOfievTi and ^oaKOjievuv. J*<^ B. C. Ic Z. some Mnn. Itpiei-Wue, irap'^KaAeaav instead of napeKa?.ovv. 246 COMilEXTAIlY OX ST. LUKE. aud with which he still confounds himself. The expression, many demons, is ex- plained by the multipiicity aud diversity of the symptoms (ver. 29). To this answer the demoniac adds, in the name of his tyrant, a fresh lequest. The demon under- stands that he must release his prey ; but he does not want to enter fortiiwith into a condition in which contact with terrestrial realities would be no longer possible to him. In Mark there is here found the sliange expression: "not to send them out of the country," which may mean, to the desert, where unclean but not captive spirits were thought to dwell, or into tlte abyss, whence they went fortii to find a temporary abode upon the earth. The sequel shows that the second meaning must be preferred. Jesus makes no answer to this request. His silence is ordinarily regarded as signify- ing consent. But the silence of Jesus simply means that He insists on the command which He has just given. When He wishes to reply in the affirmative— as, for in- stance, at the end of ver. 32 — he does so distinctly. This explanation is confirmed by Matthew, " If thou cast us out . . ." Their request to enter into the swine only refers, therefore, to the way by which they were suffered to go into the abyss. "What is the explanation of this request, aud of the permission which Jesus accorded to it ? As to these evil spirits, we can understand that it miglit be pleasant to them, before losing all power of action, to find one more opportunity of doing an injurjr. Jesus, on his part, has in view a twofold result. The Jewish exorcists, in order to assure their patients that they were cured, were accustomed to set a pitcher of water or some other object in the apartment where the expulsion took place, which the demon took care to upset in going out. What they were accustomed to do as charla- tans, Jesus sees it good to do as a physician. The identification of the sick man with his demon had been a long-existiug fact of consciousness (vers. 27 and 29). A de- cisive sign of the reality cf the departure of the evil power was needed to give the possessed perfect assurance of his deliverance. Besides this reason, there was prob- ably another. The theocratic feeling of Jesus had been wounded by the sight of these immense herds of animals which the law declared rmclean. Such an occupa- tion as this showed how cumpletely the line of demarcati;m between Judaism and pag.inism was obliterated in this country. Jesus desired, by a sensible judgment, to reclaim the people, and prevent their being still more unjudaized. The influence exerted by the demons on the herd was iu no sense a possession. None but a moral being can be morally possessed. But we know that several species of animals are accessible to collective infiueuces — that swine, in particular, readily yield to panics of terror. The idea that it was the demoniac himself who frightened Ihern, by throwing himself into the herd, is incompatible with the text. Mark, whose narrative is always distinguished by the exactness of its details, says that the number of the swine was about two thousand. An item of his own invention, says De Wette ; an appendix of later tradition, according to Bleek ; here we see the neces- sary consequence of the critical system, according to which Mark is supi)osed to have made use of the text of the other two, or of a document common to them all. The number 2000 cannot serve to prove the individual possession of the swine by the demons {legivn, ver. 30), for a legion comprised 4000 men. The question has been asked, Had Jesus the right to dispose in this way of other people's property? One might as well ask whether Peter had the right to dispose of the lives of Ananias and Sap phi ra ! It is one of those cases in which the power, by its very nature, guaran- tees the right. CHAP. VIII. : 34-39. 247 Vers. 34-39.* The Effect pi-oducfd. — First, on the people of the country ; next, on the afflicted man. Tlie owners of the herd dwelt iu the city and neighborhood. Thej' came to convince themselves with their own eyes of the loss of which they had been informed hy the herdsmen. On reaching the spot they beheld a sight which impressed them deeply. The demoniac was known all through the countr3', and was an object of universal terror. They found him calm and restored. So great a miracle could not fail to reveal to them the power of God, and awaken their con- science. Their fears were confirmed by the account giveu them of the scene which had just occurred by persons who were with Jesus, and had witnessed it {ol Idovrec, vcr. 36). These persons were not the herdsmen ; for the cure was wrought at a con- siderable distjvnce from the place where the herd was feeding (Matt. 8 : 30). They were the apostles and the people who had passed over the sea with them (Mark 4 : 30). The Kai, also, is undoubtedly authentic ; the latter account was supplementary to that of the herdsmen, which referred principally to the loss of the herd. The fear of the Inhabitants was doubtless of a superstitious nature. But Jesus did not wish to force Himself upon them, for it was still the season of grace, and grace limits it- self to making its offers. He yielded to the request of the inhabitants, who, regard- ing Him as a judge, dreaded further and still more terrible chastisement at His hand. He consents, therefore, to depart from them, but not without leaving them a wit- ness of His grace in the person of him who had become a living monument of it. The restored man, who feels his moral existence linked as it w^ere to the person of Jesus, begs to be permitted to accompany Him. Jesus was already in the ship, Mark tefls us. He does not consent to this entreaty. In Galilee, where it was necessary to guard against increasing the popular excitement. He forbade those He healed publish- ing abroad their cure. But in this remote country, so rarely visited by Him, and which He was obliged to leave so abruptly. He needed a missionary to testify to the greatness of the Messianic work which God was at this time accomplishing for His people. There is a fine contrast between the expression of Jesus : " What God hath done for thee," and that of the man : " What Jesus had done for him." Jesus re- fers all to God ; but the afflicted man could not forget the instrument. The whole of the latter part of the narrative is omitted in Matthew. Mark indicates the field of labor of this new apostle as comprising not his own city merely, but the whole of the Decapolis. Volkmar applies here his system of allegorical interpretation. This incident is nothing, according to him, but the symbolical representation of the work of Paul among the Gentiles. The demoniac represents the heathen world ; the chains with which they tried to bind him are legislative enactments, such as those of Lycurgus and Solon ; the swine, the obscenities of idolatry ; the refusal of Jesus to yield tolhe desire of the restored demoniac, when he wished to accompany Him, the obstacles which Jewish Christians put in the way of the entrance of the converted heathen into the Church ; the request that .Jesus would withdrav^, the irritation caused in heathen countries by the success of Paul (the riot at Ephesus, ex. gr.). Keim is op- posed to this unlimited allegijrizing, which borders, indeed, on al)surdity. He vcrv properly objects, that the demoniac is not even (as is the case with the"Canaanitish * Ver. 34. The mss. vary between yeyovo'; and yeyevrmevov. kizElOovTEZ, in the T. R., is only read in a few Mnn. Ver. 35. ii* B., e^7)?.dev instead of e^s?.7}AvOii. Ver. 36. i*. B. C. D. L. P. X. some Mnn. and Vss. omit /cat before oi t<)ovTEi. Ver. 37. The MSS. vary between ijpuTtjaav (Byz.) and TjpurrinEv (Alex.). ^* L. P. X., repyenrivuv. B. C. D. It. Vg. , Vepaarivuv instead of Ta6apr]vuv, which is the reading of T. K. with U 31 jj. many Mnn. Syr. 243 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ■woman) spoken of as a hcatlien ; that tlie precise locality, so little known, to which the incident is referred, is a proof of ils historical reality ; that the request to Jesus (o leave the country is a fact without any corresponding example, whicli does not look lilie imitation, but has the very featuies of truth. In short, he only objects to tlie episode of the swine, which appears to him lo !)e a legeuilary amplification. But is it likely that the preachers of the gospel would have ailmitted into their teaching an iucideut so remarkable, if it could be contradicted by the population of a wholeVlis- irict, which is distinctly pointed out? If p:)ssessiun is only, as Keim thuiks, an ordinary malady, this conclusion is certainly inevitable. But if there is any degree of reality attaching to the mysterious notion of possession, it would be ditiieull to determine a priori what might not result from such a state. The picture forms a whole, in which each incident implies all the rest. The request made to Jesus to leave the country, in which Keim acknowledges a proof of authenticity, is only ex- plained by the loss of the swine. Keim admits too much or too little. Either Volk- mar and his absurdities, or the frank acceptance of the narrative — this is the only alternative (comp. Heer's fine work, already referred to, " Kircheufreuud," Nos. 10 and 11, 18TU). 11. The Eaisinq of Jairus' Davgliier ; 8 : 40-56.— In Mark and Luke, the follow- ing incident follows immediately on the return from the Decapolis. According to Luke, the multitude which He had left behind Him when He went away had not dis- persed ; they were expecting Him, and received Him on His landing. According to Mark, it collected together again as soon as His arrival was known. In Matthew, two facts are interposed between His arrival and the resurrection of Jairus' daughter — the healing of the paralytic of Capernaum, and the calling of the Apostle Matthew. As the publican's house was probably situated near the port, the second of these facts might certainly have happened immediately on His landing ; but, in any case, the feast given by the publican could not have taken place until the evening, and after what occurred in the house of Jairus. But the same supposition will not apply to the healing of the paralytic, which must be assigned to quite another time, as is the case with Mark and Luke. Vers. 40-42.* The Request. — The term anoSsxeoOai indicates a warm welcome. Mark and Luke mention the age of the young girl, which Matthew omits. The cir- cumstance of her being an only daughter, added by Luke, more fully explains the father's distress. Criticism, of course, does not fail to draw its own conclusions from the same circumstance being found already in 7 : 12. As if an only son and an only daughter could not both be found in Israel ! According to Mai k and Luke, the young girl was dying ; in Matthew she is already dead. This evangelist tells the story here, as elsewhere, in a summary manner ; he combines in a single message the arrival of the father, and the subsequent arrival of the messenger announcing her death. The process is precisely similar to that already noticed in the account of the healing of the centurion's servant. Matthew is interested simply in the fact of the miracle and the word of Jesus. Vers. 43-48.f The Interruption. — The preposition Trp6?, in irpoaavaluxjaaa, expresses the fact that, in addition to these long sufferings, she now found herself destitute of * Ver. 40. i*'"'. B. L. R. some Mnn. Syr., ev (^e ru instead of E-yevero 6e sv tu. Ver. 42. C. D. P , wopgveaflac instead of vnaysiv. C. L. U., gweOTllBov for avvenvLyov. f Ver. 43. All the Mjj., larpntc instead of etS larpuvi, which is the reading of T. R. with some Mnn. Ver. 45. The mss. vary between oi aw avTu (Alex.) and oc fiera avTov (T. R. Bj'z.). ii. B. L. some Mnn. omit the words Kai leyei . . . fiov. Ver. 40. it. B. L., eie7.i]lvfjvLav instead of eielfjovaav. Ver. 47. 9 Mjj. Syr. It. Vg. omit avTu after a-ijy/EU.sf. Ver. 48. !*. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. and Vss. omit fjapaet. CHAP. VIII. : 4U-.jG. 249 resources. Mark expresses with u little more force the injury ■which the physicians hutl done her. Hilzij,^ and lloltzniauu niaiutuiu that Luke, iieing a physician him- self, intentionally tones down these details from the proto-Mark. We liud nothing here but Mark's characteristic amplification. The malady fiom which this wonuiu suffered rendered her Levitically unclean ; it was even, according to the law, a suffi- cient justificatiou for a divorce (Lev. 15 : 25 ; Deut. 24 : 1). Hence, no doubt, her desire to get cured as it were by stealth, without being obliged to make a public avowal of her disorder. The faith which actuated her was nut altogether free from superstition, for she conceived of the miraculous power of Jesus as acting in a purely physical manner. The word Kpuaneduv, which we translate by t/te hcvi, (of llie gar- ment), denotes one of the four tassels or tufts of scarlet woollen cord attached to the four corners of the outer robe, which were intended to remind the Israelites of their law. Their name was zitzit (Num. 15 : 38). As this robe, which was of a rectangular form, was worn like a woman's shawl, two of the corners being allowed to hang down close together on the back, we see the force of the expression came behind. Had it been, as is ordinarily understood, the lower hem of the garment which she at- tempted to touch, she could not have succeeded, on account of the crowd which sur- rountled Jesus. This word KpuaKeSov, according to Passow, comes from Kt'pac and iredov, the forward part of a plain ; or belter, according to Schleusner, from KEiipa^ivov eJ5 zeihv, that w/u'c/i hangs down toward the cjroiind. Both Mark and Luke date the cure from the moment that she touched. ^latthew speaks of it as taking place a little later, and as the effect of .Jesus' word. But this difference belongs, as we shall see, to Mat- thew's omission of the following details, and not to an}' difference of view as to the efficient cause of the cure. The difficulty about this miracle is, that it seems to have been wrought outside the consciousness and will of Jesus, and thus appears to be of a magical character. In each of Jesus' mirucles there are, as it were, two poles : the receptivity of the person who is the subject of it, and the activity of Him by whom it is wrought. The maximum of action in one of these factors may correspond with the minimum of action in the other. In the case of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, in whom it was necessary to excite even the desire to be cured, as well as in the raising of the dead, the human receptivity was reduced to its minimum. The activity of the Lord in these cases reached its highest degree of initiation and intensity. In tlie present instance it is the reverse. The receptivity of the woman reaches such a de- gree of energy that it snatches, as it were, the cure from Jesus. The action of .Jesus is here confined to that willingness to bless and save which always animated Him in His relations with men. He did not, however, remain unconscious of the virtue which He had just put forth ; but He perceives that there is a tincture of sui)erstition in the faith which had acted in this way toward Him ; and, as Riggenbach admirably shows ("Leiden Jesu," p. 443), His design in what follows is to purify this incipient -faith. But in order to do this it is necessaiy to discover the author of the deed. There is no reason for not attrilnding to Jesus the ignorance implied in the question, " Who touched me ?" Anything like feigning ignorance ill comports with the can- dor of His character. Peter shows His usual forwardness, and ventures to remon- strate with Jesus. But, so far from this detail implying any ill-will toward this apostle, Luke attributes the same fault to the other apostles, and equally without any sinister design, since Mark does the same thing (ver. 31). Jesus does not stop to le- buke His disci [iles ; He pursues His inquiry ; only He now substitutes the assertion, 250 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Somebody Tiath touched me, for the question, Who touched me? Further, He no longer laj's stress upon tlie person, but upon (he act, in reply to the observation of Peter, which tended to deny it. The verb urpaaOai, to feel about, denotes a voluntary, de- liberate touch, and not merely an accidental contact. Mark adds that, while putting this (juestion, He cast around Him a scrutinizing glance. The reading i^elnAvitvlav (Alex.) signifies properly : " I feel myself in the condition of a man from whom a force has been withdrawn." This is somewhat artificial. The received reading, ikE/^%vaav, merely denotes the outgoing of a miraculous power, which is more simple! Jesus had been inwardly apprised of the influence which He had -just exerted. The joy of success gives the woman courage to acknowledge both her act and her malady ; but the words, befoi-e all the jjeople, are designed to show how much this avowal cost her. Luke says trembling, to which Mark adds fearing ; she feels afraid of having sinned against the Lord by acting without His knowledge. He reassures her (ver. 48), and confirms her in the possession of the blessing which she had in some measure taken by stealth. This last incident is also brought out by Mark (ver. 34). The intention of Jesus, in the inquiry He had just instituted, appears more es- pecially in the words, Thy faith hath saved thee ; thy faith, and not, as thou wast thinking, the material touch. Jesus thus assigns to the moral sphere (m Luke and Maik as well as in Matthew) the virtue which she referred solely to the phj'sical sphere. The word ^idpan, take courage, which is wanting in several Alex., is prob- ably taken from Matthew. The term saved implies more than the healing of the body. Her recovered health is a link which henceforth will attach her to Jesus as the personification of salvation ; and this link is to her the beginning of salvation in the full sense of the term. The words in Matthew, " And the woman was healed from that same hour," refer to the time occupied by the incident, taken altogether. Eusebius says (H. E. vii. 18, ed. Loemmer) that this woman was a heathen and dwelt at Paneas, near the source of the Jordan, and that in his time her house was still shown, having at its entrance two brass statues on a stone pedestal. One repre- sented a woman on her knees, with her hands held out before her, in the attitude of a suppliant ; the other, a man standing with his cloak thrown over his shoulder, and his hand extended toward the woman. Eusebius had been into the house himself, and had seen this statue, which represented, it was said, the features of Jesus. Vers. 49-56.* The Prayer granted. — We may imngine how painful this delay had been for the father of the child. The message, which just at this moment is brought to him, reduces him to despair. Matthew, in his very summary account, omits all these features of the story ; and interpreters, like De Wette, who maintain that this Gospel was the source of the other two, are obliged to regard the details in Mark and Luke as just so many embellishments of their own invention ! The present niareve, in the received reading, signifies : " Only persevere, without fainting, in the faith which thou hast shown thus far." Some Alex, read the aor. TriaTevaov : "Only exercise faith 1 Make a new effort in view of the unexpected difficulty which has * Ver. 49. ii. B. L. X. Z. some Mnn. omit avru. !*. B. D., /iriKeri instead oi fir}. Ver. 50. 6 Mjj. some Mnn. Syr. It. omh^eyuv after avru. B. L. Z., viuTevaov in- stead of niGTEve. Ver. 51. T. R., with D. V. some Mnn., eiaeWuv instead of eIQuv. The MS9. vary between nva and ovSeva. The mss. vary between luawrji^ kui Innufiov and laKu(iov KOL luavvrtv (taken from Mark). Ver. 52. 8 Mjj. some Mnn. Syr. It., ov yap instead of ovk before anehavev. Ver. 54. i*. B. D. L. X. sf)me IVlnn. and Vss. omit EKjialuv e^u navrai aai, which is the reading of T. R. with all the rest (taken from Matthew). CHAP. Vlll. : 49-50. 251 arisen." This second meaning seems to agree better witli the position of /iSvov, only, before the verb. Perliaps the other reading is taiieu from Mark, where all the anlhor- ities read nioTeve. The reading of the T. R., eiae?id6v, hating entered, ver. 51, is not nciiily so -well supported as the reading e'AQwv, luiving come. But with either reading there is a dis- tinction observed between the arrival {f-7/}uv) or entrance {e'iael(j6v) into the house and the entrance into the chamber of the sick girl, to which the eiae'/Jjdv which follows refers : " lie sufferi'd no man to go in." What obliges us to give this sense to this infinitive, is the mention of the mother among the persons excepted from the pro- hibition ; for if here also entrance into the house was in question, this would suppose that the mother had left it, which is scarcely probable, when her daughter had only just expired. Jesus' object in only admitting just the indispensable witnesses into Ihe room, was to diminish as far as possible the fame of the work He was about to perform. As to the three apostles, it was necessary that they should be present, in order that they might be able afterward to testify to what was done. The following scene, vers. 53, 53, took place at the entrance of the sick chamber. The TravTci, all, are the servants, neighbors, relations, and professional mourners {avATj-al, Matthew) assembled in the vestibule, who also wanted to make their way into the chamber. Olshausen, x^eandcr, and others infer from Jesus' words, that the child was simply in a lethargy ; but this explanation is incompatible with the expres- sion elSorec, knowing iccll, ver. 53. If this liad been the idea of the writer, he would have employed the word SoKovvrsg, believing that . . . On the rest of the verse, see 7 : 14. By the words, " She is not dead, but sleepeth," Jesus means that, in the order of things over which He presides, death is death no longer, but assumes the character of a temporary slumber (.John 11 : 11, explained by ver. 14). Baur main- tains that Luke means, ver. 53, that the aposll^s also joined in the laugh against Jesus, and that it is with this in view that the evangelist has chosen the general term all (ver. 53 ; Evaug. p. 458). In this case it would be necessary to include among the Troiref the father and mother!! The words, having ind them all out,'Ya.W\(i T. R., are a gloss derived from Mark and Matthew. It has arisen in this way : Mark expressly mentions two separate dismissals, oue of the crowd and nine apostles at the entrance of the house, and another of the people be- longing to the house not admitted into the chamber of the dead (ver. 40) As ia Luke, the word enter (ver. 51) had been wrongly referred to the first of these acts, it was tliought necessary to mention here the second, at first in the margin, and afterward in the text, in accordance with the parallel passages. The command to give the child something to eat (ver. 55) is related by Luke alone. It shows the per- fect calmness of the Lord when performing the most wonderful work. He acts like a ph>sician who has just felt the pulse of his patient, and gives instructions respect- ing his diet for the day. Mark, who is fond of local coloiing, has preserved the Aramaean form of the words of Jesus, also the graphic detail, immediately the child began to walk about. In these features of the narrative we recognize the account of an eye-witness, in whose ear the vo)ce of Jesus still sounds, and who still sees the child that had been brought to life again moving about. Matthew omits all details. The fact itself simply is all that has any bearing on the Messianic demonstration, which is his object. Thus each follows his own path while presenting the common substratum of fact as tradition had preserved it. On the prohibition of Jesus, ver. 56, see on 5 : 14 and 8 : 39. 40'4 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LIKE. According to Yolkmar, the -woman with an issue would be only the personificH- tion ot the believing Jews, in wliom Iheir rabbis (the physicians of ver. 4b) had been unable to elfect a moral cure, but whum Jesus will save after having healud the lieallieu (the return from Gadaia) ; and the daughter of Jairus represents the dead Judiasm of the synagogue, which the gospel alone can restore to life. Keim acknowl- edges the insufficiency of symbolism to explain such narratives. He admits the cure of tlie woman as a fact, but mamtains that she herself, by her failli, was the sole contributor toward it. In the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus, he sees cither a myth, modelled after the type of the resurrection of the Shunammite widow's son by Elisha(a return to iStrauss), or a natural awaking from a lethargy (a return to Paidus). But is not the local coloring quite as decided in this narrative as in that of the possessed of Gadara, of which Keim on this ground maintains the historical truth ? And as to an awakening from a lethargy, what lias he to reply to Zeller ? (See p. 318, note.) FOURTH CYCLE. — 9 : 1-50. From the Mission of tlie Twelve to the Departure from Oalilee. This cycle describes the close of the Galilean ministry. It embraces six narra- tions : 1st. The mission of the Twelve, and the impression made on Herod by the public activity of Jesus (9 ; 1-9). 2d. The multiplication of the loaves (vers. 10-17). 3(?. The first communication made by Jesus to His apostles respecting His approach- ing sufferings (vers. 18-27). Ath. The transfiguration (vers. 28-30). bth. The cure of the lunatic <;hild (vers. 37-43a). Qth. Some circumstances which preceded the departure from Galilee (vers. 4^6b to 50). 1. Tlie Mission of the Twelve, and tlie Fears of Herod: 9 :l-9. — T]>e mission with "whicli the Twelve were intrusted marks a twofold advance in the work of Jesu--. From the first Jesus had attached to Himself u great number of pious Jews as disciples (a first example occurs, vers. 1-11 ; a second, ver. 27) ; from these H'? had chosen twelve to form a permanent college of apostles (Q .12 et seq.). And i>'^w this last title is to become a more complete reality than it had hitherto been. Jesus sends them forth to the people of Galilee, and puts them through their first apnrenticcship in their future mission, as it were, under His own eyes. With this advance in their position corresponds another belonging to the work itself. For six mo;)ths .Jesus dj/oted Himself almost exclusively to Galilee. The shores of the lake of G"unesaret, the western plateau Decapolis itself on the eastern side, had all been visiter^ by Him in turn. Before this season of grace for Galilee comes to an end, He desires to ad- dress one last solemn appeal to the conscience of this people on whom sucb length- ened evangelistic labors have been spent ; and He does it by this mission, w^ich He confides to the Twelve, and which is, as it were, the close of His own ministry. Marls also connects this portion with the preceding" cycle by introducing betwe'?n the two the visit to Nazareth (6 : 1-6), which, as a last appeal of the Saviour to this jjlace, so dear to his heart, perfectly agrees with the position of affairs at this time. Matthew, chap. 10, also mentions this mission of the Twelve, connecting V'th it the catalDgue of apostles and a long discourse on the apostolate, but he appea''s to place thisfact earlier than Luke. Keim (ii. p. 308) thinks that Luke as.-igns it a place in nearer connection with the mission of the seventy disciples, in order thai this second incident (a pure invention of Luke's) may be more certain to eclipse the former. In imputing to Luke this Machiavellian design against tlie Twelve, Keim f irgets two tilings ; 1. That, according to him, Luke invented the scene of the tlec- tiun of the Twelve (6) with the view of conferring on tlitir ministry a double and riiAi'. IX. : i-.')(». 253 triple cnnsecratlon. After linving had recourse to invention to exalt them, we are to t.u|)|)()s(; tlial lie iu)\v invents lo (It'giade tiit-m ! 3. Thiit the tiiree Syn. arc agreed in l)laeing tins mission of tlio Twelve just al'ter the preceding cycle (the tempest, Gadarii, Jaiius). and thai as Matthew places this cycle, us well as the Sermon on Hie Mount, which it closely follows, earlier than Luke, the dilTerent position which the mission of the Twelve occupies ni the one from that which it holds in the other, results very naturally from tliis fact. It is lo be observed that Mark, whose account of the sending fortiiof the Twelve fully confirms that of Luke, is quite independent of it, as is proved by a nuiviber of details whicli are peculiar to him j^G : 7, two and two; ver. S, save one staff only ; ihid., put on two coats; ver. lo, they anointed with oil). 1st. Vers. 1, 2.* The Mission. — There is something greater than preacliing — this is to make preachers ; there is something greater than performing miracles— this is to impart the power to perform them. It is this new stage which the work of Jesus here reaches. He labors to raise His apostles up to His own level. The expression avyKa'/iGufitvo':, having called together, indicates a sulemn meeting; it expresses more than the term -pocKd/.eiaOni, to call to Hun, used in Mark and Matthew. Wiiat would Baur have said if the first expression had been found in Matthew and the second in Luke, when throughout Luke's narrative as it is he sees an intention to depreciate this scene in comparison with that which follows, 10 : 1, et seq, f In Jewish estimation, the most divine form of power is that of working miracles. It is with this, therefore, that Jesus begins : dvvciiii, the power of execution ; e^ovaia, the authoiily which is the foundation of it; the demons will therefore otve thum obedience, and will not fail, in fact, to render it. These two terms are opposed to the anxious and labored practices of tlie exorcit-ts. Uupm : all the different maladies coming under this head— melancholy, violence, mania, elc. . . . QcpaizeveLf, to heal, depends neither on (%vafj.Lq nor k^ovnia, but on e6uKEv, He gave them; there is no k^ovaia in regard to diseases. Such will be their power, their weapon. But these cures are not the end ; tliey are only the means designed to lend support to their message. The end is indicated in ver. 2. This is to proclaim throughout Galilee the commg of the kingdom of God, and at the same time to make the people feel the grave importance of the present time. It is a leturn to the ministry of John the Baptist, and of our Lord's at its commencement (Mark 1 : 15). This undertaking was within the power of the Twelve. " To preach and to heal" means " to preach while liealing. " Only imagine the messengers of the Lord at the present day travers- ing cur country with the announcement of His second coming being at hand, and confirming their message by miracles. What a sensation such a mission would pro- duce ! According to Mark, the Lord sent them two and two, which recalls their distribution into pairs, Luke G : 13-15 ; Matt. 10 : 2-4. 2d. Vers. 3-5. f Their Instructions. — " And He said unto tbern, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money ; neither have two coats apiece. 4. And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide and thence * Ver. 1. T. R., with E. F. H. L^ several Mnn lt""i., reads //«07?rn;; n?jroi; after SuAsKa (taken from Matthew) ; 11 Mjj. 100 ]\Inn. Syr. omit these words ; i^. C* L. X. A. Z. some ilnn. I"''ii. substitute a-roaToXovi for tliem. Ver. 2. B. SyT'"" omit Tovi a'jOevovi'Tai ; it. A. D. L. X. read rovi acOeveii. t Ver. 3. ». B. C* D. E* F. L. M. Z. several Mnn. Syr. It. Ens. read pa/B^w instead of pa3(hvi. whicli is the reading of T. R. with 10 Mjj. many Mnn., but which appears taken from Matthew, it. B. C* F. L. Z. omit nm. Ver. 4. Vg., according to C, adds fiTi alter eKeihcv, Ver. 5. it. B. C. D. L. X. Z. some Mnn. It»"i. omii nai. 254 COMMEifTAKY ON ST. LUKE. depart. 5. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." "Ver. 3 conlaius instructions for their setting out ; ver. 4 instructions respecting their arrival and stay ; ver. 5, instructions for leaving each place. Ver. 3. The feeling of confidence is the key to the injunctions of this verse : " Make no preparations, such as are ordinarily made on the eve of a journey ; set out just as you are. God will provide for all your wants." The reply of the apostles, 22 : 35, proves that this promise was not unfulfilled. Mi?(5fv, nothing is a general negative, to which the subsequent, iiijre, neither . . , nor . . . are subordi- nate. Mark, who commences with a simple fii], naturally continues with the negative (iri^e, nor further. Each writer, though expressing the same idea as the other, has bis own particular way of doing it. Luke says, neither staff, or, according to another reading, neither staves ; Matthew is like Luke ; Mark, on the contrary, save one staff only. The contradiction in terms could not be greater, j'et the agreement in idea is perfect. For as far as the sentiment is concerned which Jesus wishes to express, it is all one to say, "nothing, not even a staff" (Matthew and Luke), or, "nothing, except it be simply (or at juost) a staff" (Mark). Ebrard makes the acute observation that in Aramisean Jesus probably said, niTD C^? '^2> Z'^'* i/" • • • a stojf, an ellip- tical form also much used in Hebrew, and which may be filled up in two ways : For, if you take a staff, this of itself is quite sufficient (Mark) ; or, this of itself is too much (Matthew and Luke). This saying of Jesus might therefore be reproduced in Greek either in one way or the other. But in no case could these two opposite forms be explained on the hypothesis of a common written Greek source. Bleek, who piefera the expressicm given in Matthew and Luke, does not even attempt to explain how that in Mark could have originated. If we read staves, according to a various read- ing found in Luke and ilatthew, the plural must naturally be applied to the two apostles travelling together. Luke says, Do not have each {avd, disliibutive) two coats, that is to say, each a change of coat, beyond what you wear. As they were not to have a travelling cloak (mjpa), they must have worn the second coat on their person ; and it is this idea, implied by Luke, that is exactly expressed by Mark, "neither put on two coats." The infinitive fiij ix^Lv depends on elne : "He said to them . . . not to have. . . ." As an unanswerable proof of an opposite tendency in Matthew and Luke, it is usual to cile the omission in this passage of the prohibition wilh which in Matthew this discourse commences (10 : 5) : " Go not into the way of the Gentile«, Hud into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not : but go rather to the 1' si sheep of the house of Israel." But even in Jlatthew this prohibition is not absolute (rather) nor permanent (28:10), "Go and teach all nations''). It was therefore a lestriction temporarily imposed upon the disciples, in consideration of the privilege accurded to the Jewish nalion of being the cradle of the work of the Messiah. With some exceptions, for which theie were urgent reasons, Jesus Himself was generally governed by this rule. He says, indeed, in reference to His earthly ministry : " I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15 : 24) ; nevertheless, He is not ignorant that it is His mission to seek and to save all that tohich is lost, and conseciucuti}^ the heathen. He affirms it in the Gospels of Matthew and Maik, no less lh;in in that of Luke. Paul himself does homage to this diviue fidelity, when he recalls the fact that Jesus, during His earthly life, consented to become a minister of the circumcision (Rom. 15 : 8). But, 1. What reason could Luke have, in the circle for which he was wilt- ing, to refer to this restriction temporarily imposed upon the Twelve for the puipose of this particular mission ? 2. Mark, no less than Luke, omits these words in the account he gives of this discourse, but the harmony of his leaning with that of the CHAP. IX, : 3-G. 255 first evangelist is not suspected. 3. This last circumstance makes it all but certain that this detail had already been omitted in the sources whence these two evangelists drew their narratives, and must completely exculpate Luke from all anti-Jewish prej- udice iu his reproduction of this discourse. Yer. 4. On their arrival at a city, they were to settle down in the first house to which they obtained access {elc yv av, into tc/tatcver house), which, however, was not to exclude prudence and well-ascertained information (Matthew) ; and, once settled in a house, they were to keep to it, and try to make it the centre of a divine work in that place. To accept the hospitality of several families in succession would be the means of creating rivalry. It would tlierefore be from this house also, which was the first to welcome them, that they would have to set out on leaving the place : " till ye go thence." The reading of the Vulg. : " Go not out of this house," is an errone- ous correction. In the primitive churches Christian work was concentrated in certain houses, which continued to be centres of operation (comp. the expression iu Paul's epistles, " The church which is in his house"). Ver. 5. The gospel does not force itself upon men ; it is an elastic power, pene- trating wherever it finds access, and retiring wherever it is repulsed. This was Jesus' own mode of acting all through His ministry (8 : 37 ; John 3 : 22) Tiie Jews were accustomed, on their return from heathen countries to the Holy Land, to shake off the dust from their feet at the frontier. This act symbolized a breaking away from all joint-pailicipatic n m the life of the idolatrous world. The apostles were to act in the same Avay in reference to any Jewish cities which might reject in their person the kingdom of God. Kai, even the dust. By this symbolical act they relieved them- sels'es of the burden of all farther responsibility on account of the people of that city. The expression, for a testimony, with the complement £t' avTov<^, t/pon them, has evidently reference to the judgment to come ; iu Maik the complement avToli,for them, makes the testimony an immediate appeal to their guilty consciences. Zd. Yer. 6. 'Ihe Result. — Ata, in diTipxovro (they went through), has for its comple- ment the country in general, and denotes the extent of their mission. Kara, which is distributive, expresses the accomplishment of it in detail : " staying in every little town." Only Mark makes mention here of the use of oil in healing the sick — a re- markable circumstance, with which the precept, James 5 : 14, is probably connected. In Matthew the discourse absorbs the attention of the historian to such a degree that he does not say a word, at the end of chap. 10, about the execution of their mission. This short address, giving the Twelve their instructions, is onlv the preamble in Matthew (chap. 10) to a much more extended discourse, in which Jesus addi esses the aposih^s respcL-ting their future ministry in general. Under the influence of his fixed idea, Baur maintains that Luke purposely abridged tlie discourse in Matthew, in order to diminish the importance of the mission of the Twelve, and bring out in bolder relief that of the seventy disciples (Luke 10). " We see," he says, " that every word here, so to speak, is too much for ihe evangelist" (" Evangel." p. 43')). But, 1. If Luke had been animated by the jealous feeling with this criticism imputes to him, and so had allowed himself to tamper with the history, would hi." have put the elec- tion of the Twelve (chap. 6), as distinct from their first mission, into such promi- nence, when Jlalthew appears to confound these two events (10:1^)V Would ho mention so expressly the success of their mission, as he does, ver. 6, while ]\Ialtlie\v himself preserves complete silence upon this point? It is fortunate for Luke that their respective parts wtre not changed, as they might have been and very innocently, so far as ho is coucerned. He would iiave hnd to pay smartly for his omission in the 25G CUilMENTAllY 0>i ST. LUKE. bauds of such critics ! 2. Mark (6 : 8-10) gives this discourse in exactly the same form as Luke, and not at all after Matthew's mauuer ; he, however, is not suspccltd of any antipathy to the Twelve. It follows from tliis, tbat Mark and Luku have simply given the discourse as they found it, either in a commua document (llie primitive Mark, according to Hollzmanu),or in documents of a very similar chaiae- ter, to whicli they had access. There is suthcient proof, from a comparison of vei. G in Luke with ver. lo in Mark, that of these two suppositicnis the latter must be preferred. 3. We may add, lastly, that in the discourse oih the apvstvlate (Matt, 10) it is easy to recognize the same characteristics already observed in the Sermon on the Mount. It is a cumposition of a didactic nature on a dehuite subject, in which frag- ments of very different discourses, speaking chronologically, are cullected into a single discourse. "The instructions it contains," HuUzmauu rightly observes (p. 18;i), " go far beyond the actual situation, and imply a nnicli more advanced state of things. . , ." Bleek, Evvald, and Hilgenfeld also recognize the more evident indications of antici|)ation. We find the true place for the greater part of the passages grouped together in Matthew, under the heading, general instructions on the apostolate, in Luke 12 and 21. For all these reasons, we regard the accusation brought against Luke respecting this discourse as scientifically untenable. Ath. Vers. 7-9.* The Fears of Herod. — This passage in Matthew (ch. 14) is sepa- rated by several chapters from the preceding narrative ; but it is connected with it both chronologically and morally by Luke and Mark (6 : 14, et seq.). It was, in fact, the stir created by this mission of the Twelve which brought the fame of Jesus to Herod's ears (" for His name was spread abroad," Mark G ; 14). The idea of this prince, which Luke mentions, that Jesus might be John risen from the dead, is the only indication which is to be found iu this evangelist of the murder of the fore- runner. But for the existence of this short passage iu Luke it would have been laid down as a critical axiom that Luke was ignorant of the murder of John the Baptist ! The saying, Elias or one of the old prophets, meant a great deal — nothing less, in the hinguage of that time, than the Messiah is at hand (Matt. IG •, 14 , John 1 : 21, et seq.) In Matthew and Mark the supposition that Jesus is none other than the forerunner risen from the dead proceeds from Herod himself. In Luke this apprehension is sug- gested to him by popular rumor, which is certainlj' more natural. The repetition of eyu, I, is, as Meyer says, the echo of an alarmed conscience. The remarkable detail, which Luke alone has preserved, that Herod sought to have a private interview with Jesus, indicates an original source of information closely connected with this king. Perhaps it reached Luke, or the author of the document of which he availed him- self, b}'' means of some one of those persons whom Luke describes so exactly, 8 ; 3 and Acts 13 :1, and who belpnged to Herod's household. 2. llLe Multiplication of the Loaves: 9:10-17. — This narrative is the only one in the entire Galilean ministry which is common to the four evangelists (Matt. 14 : 13, et seq. ; Mark G : 30, et seq. ; John G). It forms, therefore, an important mark of connection between the synoptical narrative and John's. This miracle is placed, in all four Gospels alike, at the apogee of the Galilean ministry. Immediately after it, in the Syn., Jesus begins to disclose to His apostles the mystery of His approaching suf- ferings (Luke 9 : 18-27 ; Matt. IG : 13-28 ; Mark 8 : 27-38) ; in John this miracle leads to an important crisis in the work of Jesus in Galilee, and the discourse which fol- lows alludes to the approaching violent death of the Lord (6 : 53-5G). * Yer. 7. !!^. B. C. D. L. Z. omit vn' avrov. The same and 10 Mnn., jy/foO?? instead of sjTiyepTai.. Yer. 8. The Alex. rtS instead of eiS. Yer. 9. !!^. B. C. L. Z. omit evu before arrt/ce^aAtaa. (.'HAi'. 1 \. : ', \[. 2")7 Ist. Vers. 10, 11.* T/te Occasion. — Accordin<;to Luke, the Tiiotivo ■which induced Jesus to witlulnnv into a desert place was His desire fur more privacy willi His dis- ciples that lie might talk with them of their experiences during their mission. Mark relates, with n slight difference, that His object was to secure them some rest after their labors, there being such a multitude constantly going and coming as to leave them no leisure. According lo Matthew, it was the news of the murder of the fore- runner which led Jesus to seek solitude with Ills disciples ; which, however, could in no way imply that lie sought in tliis way to shield Himself from Herod's violence. For how could He, if this were so, have entered the very next day into tlio dominions of this sovereign Olatt. 1-i : 34 ; comp. with Mark and John) ? All these facts i)rovc the nuitual inikpeuJence of the Syn. ; they are easUy harmonized, if we only suppose that the intelligence of the murder of John was communicated to Jesus by His apos- tles on their return from their mission, that it made Him feel deeply the approach of His own end (on the relation between these two deaths, see Matt. 17 : 12), and that it was while He was under these impressions that He desired to secure a season of retire- ment for His disciples, and aa opportunity for more private intercourse with them. The reailing of the T. R. : in a desert place of the city called Bethna'lda, is the most complete, but for this very reason the most doubtful, since it is probably made u[) out of the others. The reading of the principal Alex., in a citi/ called Bet hmida, om'Ws the notion, so important iu this passage, of a desert place, probably because it appeared inconsistent with the idea of a citi/, and specially of Bethsai'da, where Jesus was .so well known. The reading of i^ and of the Curetou Sj'riac translation, in a desert place, is attractive for its brevity. But whence came the mention of Belhsaida in all the other variations ? Of the two contradictory notions, the desert and Bethsaida, this reading sacritices the proper name, as the preceding had sacriliced the desert. The true reading, therefore, appears to me to be that which is preserved in the Syriac ver- sion of Schaaf and in the Italic, in a desert place called Bethsaida. This reading retains the two ideas, the apparent incousi-stency of which has led to all these alterations of the text, but iu a more concise and at the same time more correct form than that of the received reading. It makes mention not of a city, but of an inhabited country on the shore of the lake, bearing the name of Bethsaida. If by this expression Luke had intended to denote the city of Bethsaida between Capernaum and Tiberias, on the west- ern side of the lake, the country of Peter, Andrew, and Philip, he would be in open contradiction to Matthew, Mark, and John, who place the multiplication of the loaves on the ea.steru side, since in all three Jesus crosses the sea the next day to return to Galilee {into the country of Gennesareth, Matt. 14 ; 34 ; to Bethsaida, on the western shore, Mark G : 45 ;f to Capernaum, John 6 : 49). But in this case Luke would con- tradict himself as well as the others. For Bethsaida, near Capernaum, being situated in the centre of the sphere of the activity of Jesus, how could the Lord repair thither with the intention of linding a place of rciremtnt, a desert place '? The meaning of the name Bethsaida (Jtshiny jjlace) naturally leads us to suppose that there were sevcr:d * Ver. 10. T. R. witll 14 Mjj. several Mnn., rorrov eprj/mu no/ieox; KaTiOVUCvrji BriOoaiAa. li'". B. Jj. X. Z. (Tiscji. Stii ed.), tto/.lv Ka/Mvutviiv Br/jaauUi. Syr*"^^". It. Vulg. , TOTDV ef)7]/inv Ka'/ovfjEVov YiTi'jGai()a. ^* SjT'^"''., Tonov epr]fxov. Ver. 11. The MS3. are divided between ^ein/ievoT and fiTvoSe^afisvoi. f It is really incredible that Klo.stermann should have been induced to ad'^pt an Snterpretation so forced as that which connects the words -poi B^''jo(ut)dv with the fol- lowing proposition, by making them depend on uTro'/.va/j : " until He had sent awuy the people to Bethsaida !" 258 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. fisheries along the lake of this name. The term Bethsaula of Galilee, John 12 : 21, coufirms this supposition : for this epithet must have served to distinguish this Beth- saida from some other. Lastlj', Jcsephus (Anliq. xviii. 2. 1 ; Bell. Jud. ili. 10. 7) and Pliny (v. 15) expressly mention another Beihsaida, situated in Gaulouitis, at the north- east extremity of the sea of Galilee, near the embouchure of the Jordan. The tetrarch Philip had built (probably in the vicinity of a district of this country called Beth- sai'da), a city, vv'hich he had named, after a daughter of Augustus, Beth said a -cTw^ias the ruins of which Pococke believes he has discovered on a hill, the name of which (Telui) seems to signify inountain of Julia (Morgenl. ii. p. lOG).* There Jesus would more easily find the solitude which He sought. The term, vnexcjpn'^e, Be withdrew, does not inform us whether Jesus made the journey on foot or by boat. Luke doubtless did not know ; he confines himself to reproducing his information. The three other nairatives apprise us that the journey was made by water, but that the crowds which, contrary to the intention of Jesus, knew of His departure, set out to follow Ilim neZy, on foot (Matthew and Mark), by land, and that the more eager of them arrived almost as soon as Jesus, and even, ac- cording to the more probable reading in Mark, before Him. The bend of the lake at the northern end approximates so closely to a straight line that the journey from Capernaum to Julias might be made as quickly by laud as by sea. f The unexpected arrival of the people defeated the plan of Jesus. But He was too deeply moved by the love shown for Him by this multitude, like sheep without a shepherd (Mark), to give them anything but a tender welcome {^e^dusvoi, Luke) ; and while these crowds of people were flocking up one after another (John 6 : 5), a loving thought ripened in His heart. John has disclosed it to us (G : 4). It was the time of the Passover. He could not visit; .Jerusalem with His disciples, owing to the virulent hatred of which He had become the object. la this unexpected gathering, resembling that of the nation at Jerusalem, He discerns a signal from on high, and determines to celebrate a feast in the desert, as a compensation for the Passover feast. 2d. Vers. 12-15. t The Preparntions. — It was absolutely impossible to find suffi- cient food in this place for such a multitude ; and Jesus feels Himself to some extent responsible for the circumstances. This miracle was not, therefore, as Keim main- tains, a purely ostentatious prodigy. But in order to understand it thoroughly, it must * Winer, " Realworterbuch." •f- Konrad Furrer, in the work cited, p. 24, maintains that John (in his view, the romancing Pseudo-John of the second centuijO places the multiplication of the h)aves very much more to the south, opposite Tiberias. The proof of this assertion V John 6:23: " Howbeit tliere came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread." It appears, according to M. Furrer, that a large lake can only be traversed in the direction of its width aud througti the middle of it ! Pray, why could not boats, setting out from Tiberias, visit Bethsaida-Julias, where it was un- derstood that a great multitude had gone V Comp. the account which Josephus gives of the transport of a body of troops from Tarichese, at the southern extremity of the jake, to Julias, and of the transport of Josephus, wounded, from Julias to Tarichese (Jus. Vita, § 72). Keim himself says : " The multitude, in order to rejoin Jesus, must have made a journey of six leagues round the lake" (on the hj^pothesis of Furrer) ; and how couM Jesus say tolJis disciples, when He sent them away to the other side, after the multiplication of the loaves, that He should very soon join them (John 6:17; Matt. 14 : 22 ; Mark 6 : 45) ? It is on such grounds {auf topographiscli^ Bcioeise gestutzt) that the evansrelist Jolm is made out to Ite an artist and romancer ! X Ver. 12. ». A. B. C. D.^L. R. Z., TropcvOeiTEf instead of QTf?.9ovrej. Ver. 14. 5», L. If'''!. Vg., tJf instead of yap. it. E. C. D. L. R. Z., unn ava instead of ava. CHAP. IX. : 12-17. 259 be looked at from the point of view presented by John. In the Syn. it is the disciples ■wbo, as evening draws near, cjill the attention of Jesus to the situalion of tlie peo- ple ; He answers them by inciting tiieni to provide for the wants of tlie multiliule themselves. In John it is Jesus wiio takes the initiative, addressing Himself specially to Philip ; then He confers with Andrew, who has succeeded in discovering a young lad furnished with some provisions. It is not difficult to reconcile these two ac- counts ; but in the first we recognize the blurred lines of tradition, in the second the recollections of an eye-witucbs full of freshness and accuracy. The two hundred pennyworth of bread formsaremaikable mark of agreement between the narrative of John and that of ^lark. John does not depend on Mark ; his narrative is distin- guished by too many marks of originality. Neither has Mark copied from John ; he would not have effaced the strongly marked features of the narrative of the latter. From this coincidence in such a very insignificant detail we obtain a remarkable con- firmation of all those little characteristics by which Mark's narrative is so often dis- tinguislied, and which De Wette, Bleek, and others regard as amplifications. Jesus has no sooner ascertained that there are five loaves and two fishes than He is satisfied. He commands them to make the multitude sit down. Just as though He had said : I have what I want ; the meal is ready ; let them be seated ! But He takes care that this banquet shall be conducted with an order worthy of the God who gives it. Everything must be calm and solemn ; it is a kind of passover meal. By the help of the apostles, He seats His guests in rows of fifty each (Matthew), or in double rows of fiftj-, by hundreds (Mark). This orderly arrangement allowed of the guests being easily counted. Mark describes in a dramatic manner the striking spec- tacle presented by these regularl}^- formed companies, each consisting of two equal ranks, and all arranged upon the slope of the hill {av/iiroaia avfinuaia, npaaial npaaial, ver. 39, 40). The pastures at that time were in all their spring splendor, and John and Mark offer a fresh coincidence here, in that they both bring forward the beauty of this natural carpet (xopros TroTiVc, John ; x^<^P^'^ X"P'''o^> Mark ; Matthew says, ol xoproi). In conformity with oriental usage, according to which women and chil- dren must keep themselves apart, the men alone {ol uvSpsZ, John 5 : 10) appear to be seated in the order indicated. This explains why, according to the Syn., they alone were counted, as Luke says (ver. 14), also Mark (ver. 44), and, more emphatically still, Matthew (ver. 21, " without women and children"). Zd. Vers. 16, 17.* Th^ Repast.— The pronouncing of a blessing by Jesus is an inci- dent preserved in all four narratives. It must have produced a special impression on all the four witnesses. Each felt that this act contained the secret of the marvellous power displayed on this occasion. To bless God for a little is the way to obtain much. In Matthew and Mark, tvl/JyTjae, He blessed, is absolute : the object uuder- stood is God. Luke adds avroii, them (the food), a word which the yinaiticus erases (wrongly, it is clear), in accordance with the two other Syn. It is a kind of sacra- mental consecration. John uses the word evxapifrrelv, which is chosen, perhaps, not without reference to the name of the later paschal feast (eucharist). The imperfect ididov in Luke and Mark is graphic : " He gave, and kept on giving." The mention of the fragments indicates the complete satisfaction of their hunger. In John it is Jesus who orders them to be gathered up. This act must therefore be regarded as an expression of filial respect for the gift of the Father. The twelve baskets are men- * Ver. 16. !*. X. Syr"'', omit avTov;. 260 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. tioned in all the four narratives. The baskets belonged to the furniture of a caravan. Probably tliey were what the apostles had provided themselves with when they set out. The number of the persons fed is given by Matthew and Mark here. Luke had mentioned it already in the 14th verse, after the reply of the disciples ; John a little later (ver. 10), at the moment when tlie companies were being seated. What unaccountable caprice, if these narratives were taken from each other, or even from the same written source ! The criticism which sets out with the denial of the supernatural is compelled to erase this fact from the history of Jesus ; and this miracle cannot, in fact, be ex- plained by the " hidden forces of spontaneit\^ " by the " charm wliich a person of fine organization exercises over weak nerves." It is not possible cither to fall buck, with some cn after having licard iLe olhei ? Is it not striking that, owing to the omission in Luke, the account of this crnfession, in his narrative as in John's follows immediately upon that of the multiplicalion of the loaves? Certainly the situation des(-ribed in the f( urih Gnsjiel is veiy different In consequence of a falling away which had just been going ( n simong His Galilean disciples. Jesus puts the question to His apostles cf ilitir having Him. But Ihe questions which Jesus addresses to them in the Syn. niight easily Lave fiund a place in the conversation of which John gives us a meie cuthne. At the first ghmce, it is true, John's narrative dues not lead us to suppose such a long interval between the multiplication of the loaves and this conversation as is Hquind for the jouiney from Capernaum to Csesarea Philippi. But the desertion of the Galilean disciples, which had beiiun immediately, was not completed in a day. It might have exti nded over some time (John 6 : 66 : U TovTov,from that Hme). Alligelher the resemblance be- tween these two scenes appears to us to outweigh their dissimilaiity. Keim admirably says : " We do not know which we must think the greatest; whether the spirit ot "the disciples, who shatter the Messianic mould, set aside the judgment of the priests, rise above all the intervening degrees of popular apprecia- tion, and proclaim as lofty and divine that which is abased and downtrodden, be- cause to their minds' eye it is and remains great and divine— or this personality of Jesus, which draws from these feeble disciples, notwithstanding the piessure of (he most overwiielming experiences, so puie and lofty an expitssirn of the effect pro- duced upon them by His whole life and ministry." Gess : " The sages of Caper- naum remained unrrioved, the enthusiasm of the people was cooled, on every side Jesus was threatened with the fate of .the Baptist ... it was then that the faith of His disciples shone out as genuine, and came forth from the furnace of trial as an energetic conviction of truth." m. Vers. 21, 22.* The Suffering Chriftt.— The expression of Luke." He strait ly charged and commanded them." is very energetic. The general reason for this pro- hibition is found in the following announcement of the rejection of the Messiah, as is proved by the participle eItt^v, saying. They were to keep from proclaiming Him openly aa the Christ, on account of the contradiction between the hopes which this title had awakened in the minds of the people, and the way in which this office was * The Mss. vary between ecneiv (T. R.) and ?ie}eiv (Alex.). Ver. 22. The mss. vary between cy.Tp'irji'ai (T- R-) '^nd au((^< ai^u-. CHAP. IX. :2l, 22. 2G5 to bc! rcalizod in Him. But this threatening prohibition liad a moro spociiil nature, which a|)pi'ars from John's narrative. It refers to tlie recent attempt of the people, after tlie multiplication of the loaves (John G : li, 15). to i)roclaim Him king, and the efforts whicii Jesus -was thin obli!j:e(l to make to preserve His disciples from th's mis- taken enthusiasm, which miuht have seriously compromised His work, ll is the recol- lection of this critical moment which induces Jesus to use this severe language {fttit- ijiijaa^). It was only after the idol of the carnal Christ had been forever nailed to the cross, that the apostolic preaching could safely connect this title Christ with the name of Jesus. " See how," as Riggenbach says (" Vie de Jesus," p. 318), " Jesus was obliged in the very moment of self- revelation to veil Himself, when He had lighted the fire to cover it again." Ae (ver. 21) is adversative : " Thou sayest tru!}', I am the Christ ; hut ..." Must, on account of the prophecies and of the Divine purpose, of which they are the expression. The members composing the Sanhedrim consisted of three classes of members : the elders, or presidents of synagogues ; the high priests, the heads ot twenty-four classes of priests ; and scribes, or men learned in the law. All three Syu. give here the enumeration of these official classes. This paraphrase of the technical name invests the announcement of the rejection with all its importance. "What a complete reversal of the disciples' Messianic ideas was this rejection of Jesus by the very authorities from whom they expected tiie recognition and proclamation of the Messiah I 'Ano(hKi/ii is in the two other Syn. ; and Luke more generally makes use of in-' uh]fteiai (three times in the Gospel, twice in the Acts). It must, then, belong to iiolv : " There are certainly among you." The Alex, reading avToi, here, must be pre- ferred to the received reading, i'^f, which is taken from the other Syn. 4. The Transfgu ration : 9 :2S-3G.— There is but one allusion to this event in the •whole of the N. T. (2 Peter 1), which proves that it has no immediate connection with the work of salvation. On the other hand, its historical reality can only he satisfactorily established in so far as we succeed in showing in u reasonable way its place in the course of the life and development of Jesus.* According to the descrip- tion of the transfiguration given in the Syn. (Malt. 17 : 1. et seq. ; Mark 9 : 2, e< seq.), we distinguish three phases in this scene : 1*/. The personal glorification of Jesus (vers. 28, 29) ; 2d. The appearing of Moses and Elijah, and His conversation with them (vers. 30-33) ; '6d. The interposition of God Himself (vers. 34-3G). * No one seems to us to have apprehended the real and profound meaning of the transfiguration so well as Lange, in his admirable " Vie de Jesus," a book the defects of which have unfortunately been much more noticed tlian its rare beauties. Keini might have learned more from him, especially in the study of this incident. 270 COMMENTAEY ON ST. LUKE. 1st. Vers. 28, 29.* The Glory of Jesus.— The three narratives show that there was an interval of a week between the transfiguration and the first announcement of the sufferings of Jesus, with this slight difference, that Matthew and Marii say six days after, while Luke says about eight days after. It is a very simple explanation to sup- pose that Luke employs a round number, as indeed the limitation oaei, about, indi- cates, while the others give, from some document, the exact figure. But this explanation is too simple for criticism. " Luke," says Holtzmann, " affects to be a better chronologist than the others.'* And for this reason, forsooth, he substitutes eiglit for six on his own authority, and immediately, from some qualm of conscience, corrects himself by using the word about! To such puerlities is criticism driven by the hypothesis of a common document. The Aramaean constructions, which charac- terize the style of Luke in this passage, and which are not found in the two other Syn. {iyivETo kuI avsfiTi, ver. 28 ; h/evero Elrrev, ver. 33), would be sufficient to prove that he follows a different document from theirs. The nominative v/uepaL 6kt6, eight days, is the subject of an elliptical phrase which forms a parenthesis : " About eight days had passed away." It is not without design that Luke expressly adds, after tliese sayings. He thereby brings out the moral connection between this event and the preceding conversation. We might think, from the account of Matthew and Mark, that in taking His disciples to the mountain, Jesus intended to be transfig- ured before them. Luke gives us to understand that He simply wished to pray with them. Lange thinks, and it is probable, that in consequence of the announcement of His approaching sufferings, deep depression hud taken possession of the hearts of the Tv/elve. They had spent these six days, respecting which the sacred records pre- serve unbroken silence, in a gloomy stupor. Jesus was anxious to rouse them out of a feeling which, to say the least, was quite as dangerous as the enthusiastic excite- ment which had followed the multiplication of the loaves. And in order to do this He had recourse to prayer ; He sought to strengthen by this means those apostles especially whose moral state would determine the disposition of their colleagues. Knowing well by experience the influence a sojourn ujjon some height has upon the soul — how much more easily in such a place it collects its thoughts and recovers from depression — He leads tliem away to a mountain. The art. tu denotes the moun- tain nearest to the level country where Jesus then was. According to a tradition, of which we can gather no positive traces earlier than the fourth century (Cyril of Je- rusalem, Jerome), the mountain in question was Tabor, a lofty cone, situated two leagues to the south-east of Nazareth. Perhaps the Gospel to the Hebrews presents an older trace of this opinion in the words which it attributes to Jesus : " Then my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me up by a hair of my head, and carried me to the high mountain of Tabor." But two circumstances are against the truth of this tradi- tion : 1. Tabor is a long way off Csesarea Philippi, where the previous conversation took place. Certainly, in the intervening six days Jesus could have returned even to the neighborhood of Tabor. But would not Matthew and Mark, who have noticed the journey into the northern country, have mentioned this return ? 2. The summit of Tabor was at that time, as Robinson has proved, occupied by a fortified town, which would scarcely agree with the tranquillity which Jesus sought. We think, therefore, that probably the choice lies between Hermon and Mount Panias, from * "Ver. 28. J** B. H. Syr. It"""!, omit Kai before ivapaXajSuv. The Mss. vary between luavvjjv Kai laKufSov and laKuiSoP kcl Iuovvtjv, CHAP. IX, : 28-33. 271 whose snowy summits, visible to the admiring eye in all the northern parts of the Holy Liinil, the sources of the JorcUin are coustautly fed. The strentjtheuing of the faith of the three principal apostles was the object, therefore, of this mountain excursion ; the glorification of Jesus was an answer to prayer, and the means employed by God to bring about the desired result. The connection between the prayer of Jesus and His transfiguration is expressed in Luke by the prei>osition fK, which denotes more than a mere simultaneousness (while Ho prayed), and makes His prayer the cause of this mysterious event. Elevated feeling imparts to tlie countenance and even to the figure of the entire man a distinguished appearance. Tiie impulse of true devotion, the enthusiasm of adoration, illuniiue him. And when, corresponding with this state of soul, there is a positive revelation on the part of God, as in the case of Moses or of Stephen, then, indeed, it may como to pass that the inward illumination, penetrating, through the medium of the soul, even to its external covering, the body, may produce in it a prelude, as it were, of its future glorification. It was some phenomenon of this kind that was produced in the person of Jesus while lie was praying. Luke describes its elTects in the simplest manner : " His countenance became other." How can Holtzmanu maintain that in him the vision is " a?sthetically amplified." His expression is much more simple than Mark's : " He was transfigured before them," or than tliat of Matthew, who to these words of Mark adds, " and his countenance shone as the sun." This luminous appearance possessed the body of Jesus in such intensity as to become perceptible even througli His garments. Even here the expression of Luke is very simple : " His garments became white and shining," and contrasts witii the stronger expres- sions of Mark and Matthew. The grandeur of the recent miracles shows us that .Tesus at this time had reached the zenith of His powers. As everything in His life was in perfect harmony, this period must have been that also in which He reached the perfection of His inward development. Having reached it, what was His normal future ? He could not advance ; He must not go back. From this moment, tlierefore, earthly existence became too narrow a sphere for this perfected personality. There only remained death ; but death is the offspring of the sinner, or, as St. Paul says, the wages of sin (Rom. 6 : 23). For the sinless man the issue of life is not the sombre passage of the tomb ; rather is it the royal road of a glorious transformation. Had the hour of this glorification struck for Jesus ; and was His transfiguration the beginning of the heavenly renewal ? This is Lange's thought ; it somehow brings this event within the range of the understanding. Gess gives expression to it in these words : " This event indicates the ripe preparation of Jesus for immediate entrance upon eternity." Had not Jesus Himself voluntarily suspended the change which was on the point of being wrought in Him, this moment would have become the moment of His ascension, 2d. Vers. 30-33. The Appeariiiff of Moses and Elijah. — Not only do we sometimes see the eye of the dying lighted up with celestial brightness, but we hear him con- versing with the dear ones who have gone before him to the heavenly home. Through the gate which is opened for him, heaven and earth hold fellowship. In the same way, at the prayer of Jesus, heaven comes down or earth rises. The two spheres touch. Keim says : " A descent of heavenly spirits to the earth has no warrant either iu the ordinary course of events or in the Old or New Testament." Gess very properly replies : " Who can prove that the appearing of these heroes of the Old Cove- nant was in contradiction to the laws of the upper world ? We had far better confess 273 COMMEXTAUY OX ST. LUKE. our ignorance of those laws." Moses and Elijah are there, talking with Him. Luke does not name them at first. He says tico men. This expression reflects the im- pression which must have been experienced by the eye-witnesses of the scene. They perceived, first of all, the presence of two persons unlinown ; it was only afterward that tliey knew them by name. 'I(5ov, behold, expresses the suddenness of the appari- tion. The imperf., they were talking, proves that the conversation had already lasted some time when the disciples perceived the presence of these strangers. Ohivei is emphatic: who were no other than . . . Moses and Elijah were the two most zealous and powerful servants of God under the Old Covenant. Moreover, both of them hud a privileged end : Elijah, by his ascension, was preserved from the un- cloti)ing of death ; there was something equally mysterious in the death and disap- pearance cf Moses. Their appearing upon the mountain is perhaps connected with the exceptional character of the end of their earthly life. But how, it is asked, did the apostles know them ? Perhaps Jesus addressed them by name in the course of the conversation, or indicated who they were in a way that admitted of no mistake. Or, indeed, is it not rather true that the glorified bear upon their form the impress of their individuality, their new name (Rev. 3 : 17) ? Could we behold St. John or St. Paul in their heavenly glorj'' for any length of time without giving them their name ? The design of this appearing is only explained to us by Luke : " Tliej' talked," he says literally, " of the departure which Jesus was about to accomplish at Jerusa- lem." How could certain theologians imagine that Moses and Elijah came to in- struct Jesus respecting His approachiug sufferings, when only six days before He had Himself informed the Twelve about them? It is rather the two heavenly mes- sengers who are learning of Jesus, as the apostles were six da3'3 before, unless one imagines that they talked with Him on a footing of equality. In view of that cross which is about to be erected, Elijah learns to know a glory superior to that of being taken up to heaven — the glory of renouncing, through love, such an ascension, and choosing rather a painful and ignominious death. Moses comprehends that there is a sublimer end than that of dying, according to the fine expression which the Jewish doctors apply to his death, " from the kiss of the Eternal ;" and this is to deliver up one's soul to the fire of divine wrath. This interview, at the same time, gave a sanc- tion, in the minds of the disciples, to an event from the prospect of which only six days before they shrank in terror. The term i^odoq, going out, employed by Luke, is chosen designedly ; for it contains, at the same time, the ideas both of death and ascension. Ascension was as much the natural way for Jesus as death is for us. He might ascend with the two who talked with Him. But to ascend now would be to ascend without us. Down below, on the plain. He sees mankind crushed beneath the weight of sin and death. Shall He abandon them ? He cannot bring Himself to this. He cannot ascend unless He carry them with Him ; and in order to do this, He now braves the other issue, which He can only accomplish at Jerusalem. Ji'Arjpovv, to accomplish, denotes not the finishing of life by dying (Bleek). but the completion of death itself. In such a death there is a task to accomplish. The ex- pression, at Jerusalem, has deep tragedy in it ; at Jerusalem, that city which has the monopoly of the murder of the prophets (13 : 38). This single word of Luke's on the subject of the conversation throws light upon the scene, and we can appraise at its true value the judgment of the critics (Meyer, Holtzmann), who regard it as nothing more than the supposition of later tradition ? Further, it is through Luke that we are able to form an idea of the true state of CHAP. IX. : 3;j-:i»;. x'7;» the disciples clurin<; this srenc. The imperf., tJuy talked, ver. 80, has shown us that the couversaliuu hud iilreiidy lasted some time when the disciples perceived the pres- ence of the two heavenly persouages. "We must infer from this that they were asleep dtiring the prayer of Jesus. This idea is confirmed by the plus-peifcet ;/oav (Seiicipriatvoi, they had btcn weighed down, ver. 33. They were in this condition durin;^ the former part of the interview, and they onlj-^ came to themselves just as the con- veisaliou was concluding. The term 6iaypT]yopnv is used nowhere else iu the N. T. la profane Greek, wliere it is very little used, it signifies : to keep awake. Meyer would give it this meaning here : " persevering in keepmg themselves awake, not- witlislanding the drowsiness which oppressed them." This sense is not inadmissi- ble ; nevertheless, the <5e, but, which denotes an opposition to this state of slumber, rather inclines us to think that this verb denotes their return h) self-consciousness tlirougli {i'ii'i) a momentary slate of drowsiness. Perhaps we should regard the choice of this unusual term as indicating a strange state, which many persons have experi- enced, when the soul, after having sunk to gleep in prayer, in coming to itself, no longer finds itself in the midst of earthly things, but feels raised to a higher sphere, iu which it receives impressions full of unspeakable joy. Ver. 38 also enables us to see the true meaning of Peter's words mentioned in the three narratives. It was the moment, Luke tells us, when the two heavenly messen- gers were preparing to part from the Lord. Peter, wishing to detain them, ventures to speak. lie offers to construct a shelter, hoping thereby to induce them to prolong their sojourn here below^ ; as if it were the fear of spending the niglit in the open air that obliged them to withdraw ! This enables us to understand Luke's remark (comp. also llaik): not knoiriiKj irliat he said. This characteristic speech was stereotyped iu the tradition, with this trifling difference, that in Matthew Peter calls Jesus Lord {Kvpie), in ^laik Master {pajijii), iu Lulie Master {iKiaTdrn). And it is imagined that our evaugtlists amused themselves by making these petty changes in a common te.\t ! Sd. Vers. 34-36.* The Divine Voice. — Here we have the culminating point of this scene. As the last sigh of the dying Christian is received by the Lord, who comes for him (John 14 : 3 ; Acts 7 : 55, 56), so the presence of God is manifested at the mo- ment of the glorification of Jesus. The cloud is no ordinary cloud ; it is the veil in which God invests Himself when lie appears here below. We meet with it in the desert and at the inauguration of the temple ; we shall meet with it again at the ascension. Matthew calls it a bright cloud ; nevertheless, he suys, with the two oth- ers, that it overshadowed this scene. His meaning is, that the brightness of the cen- tral light pierced through the cloudy covering which cast its mysterious shadow on the scene. If with the T. R. we read tKEivovg, only Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were enveloped in the cloud, and the fear felt by the disciples proceeded from uneasiness at being separated from their Master. But if with the Alex, we read avrovi, all six were enveloped in an instant by the cloud, and the fear which seized the apostles was caused by their vivid sense of the divine nearness. The former meaning is more natural ; for the voice coming forth out of the cloud could scarcely be addressed to any but persons who were themselves outside the cloud. * Ver. 34. i^. B. L. some IMnn., e-eoKini^ev instead of eirtoKianEv. ^. B. C. Tv. some Mnn., Eiie/.'jFiv avrovi instead of cKsivovi tineA^imv, whieii is tlie reading of T. \i. with the other Mjj. and the versions. Ver. 3."). !!*. B. L. Z. ("op., o fKAt'/e^Mevui instead of o ayn-Tirnr, which is the reading of T. B. with ]y Mjj., the greater part of the Mun. Syr. 1l»'W. 274 COMMENTARY OK ST. LUKE. The form of the divine declaration is very nearly the same in the three accounts. The Alex, reading in Luke : tlds is my Elect, is preferable to the received reading : iJds is my beloved Son, which is taken either from the tv?o other narratives, or from the divine salutation at the baptism. It is a question here of the elect in an absolute sense, in opposition to servants, like Moses and Elijah, chosen for a special work. Corap. 23 : 35. The exhortation : Hear Him, is the repetition of that by which Moses, Deut. 18 . 15, charged Israel to welcome at some future day the teaching of the Messiah. This last word indicates the design of the whole scene : " Hear Him, whatever He may say to you : follow in His path, wherever He may lead you." We have only to call to mind the words of Peter : " Be it far from thee. Lord ! this shall not be unto Thee," in the preceding conversation, to feel the true bearing of this divine admonition. We find here again the realization of a law which occurs throughout the life of Jesus ; it is this, that every act of voluntary humiliation on the part of the Sun is met by a corresponding act of glorification, of which He is the ob- ject, on the part of the Father. He goes down into the waters of the Jordao, devot- ing Himself to death ; God addresses Him as His well-beloved Son. In John 12, in the midst of the trouble of His soul. He renews His vow to be faithful unto death ; a voice from heaven answers Him with the most magnificent promise for His filial heart. Matthew mentions here the feeling of fear which the other two mention earlier. The word : Jeaus only, ver. 36, is common to the three narratives. It is a forcible expression of the feeling of those who witnessed the scene after the disappearing of the celestial visitants ; see on 2 : 15. Does it contain any allusion lo the idea which has been made the very soul of the narrative : The law and the prophets pass away ; Jesus and His word alone remain ? To me it appears doubtful. The silence kept at first by the apostles is accounted for in Matthew and Mark by a positive command of Jesus. The Lord's intention, doubtless, was to prevent the carnal excitement which the account of such a scene might produce in the hearts of the other apostles and in the minds of the people. After the resurrection and the ascension, there would no longer be anything dangerous in the account of the transfiguration. The risen One could not be a king of this world. Luke does not mention Jesus' prohibition ; he had no reason for omitting it, had he known of it. The omission of the following conversation respecting the coming of Elijah may be accounted for, on the other hand, as intentional. This idea being current only among the Jews, Luke might not think it necessary to record for Gentile readers the conversation to which it had given rise. Besides, 1 : 17 already contained a summary of what there was to be said on this subject. This entire scene, then, in each of its phases, conduced to the object which Jesus had in view — the strengthening of the faith of His own. In the first, the contemplation of His glory ; in the second, the sanction of that way of sorrow into which He was to enter and take them with Him ; in the third, the divine ap- proval stamped on all His teaching : these were powerful supports for the faith of the three principal apostles, which, once confirmed, became, apart from words, the support of the faith of their weaker fellow -disciples. The objections to the reality of the transfiguration are : 1. Its magical character and uselessness : Why, asks Keim, should there be a sign from heaven on this grand scale, when Jesus always refused to grant any such prodigy ! But nowhere, per- haps, does the sound reasonableness of the gospel come out more clearly tlian in this narrative ; glorification is as much the normal termination of a holy life, as death is THE TRANSFIGURATION. 275 of corrupt life. Tlic design with which this mfinifestalion, which might have been concealcii from tlie (liscnpics, was dispiiiyed lo llieni, appears from its connection Willi tile previous conversation respecting llie sufferings of llie Messiaii. 2. The im- possibility of tlie reappearing of beings who have long been dead (see on ver. 30). 8. A real appearing of Elijah would be an actual contradiction to the following con- versation (in Matthew and Murk), in which Jesus denies the return of this prophet in person, as expected by the rabbis and the people. These are the arguments of Bleek and Keini. But what Jesus denies in the following conversation is not a temporary appearance, like that of tlie transfiguration, but Elijah's return to life on earth in order to fulfil a new ministry. This is what John the Baptist had accomplished (1 : 17). 4. The silence of John, who must have conceived of the glory of Jesus in a more spiritual manner. Is it to be believed that this objection can be raised by the 8arae critic who blainas John for the magical character of the miracles which he relates, and denies their reality for this reason? The transfiguration, along with many other incidents (the choice of the Twelve, the institution of baptism and the Lord's Supper, etc.), is omitted by John for the simple reason that they were suffi- ciently known througli the Syn., and did not necessarily enter into the plan of his book. 5. " The artiticiid cliaracter of the narrative apiiears from its resemblance to certain narratives of the O. T." (Keini). And yet this very Keim disputes the reality of the appearing of Moses and Elijah, on the ground that apparitions of the dead aro not warranted by the O. T. ! But how is the existence of our three narratives to Le explained? Paulas reduces the whole to a natural incident. He supposes an inter- view of Jesus with two unknown friends with whom He had made an appointment on the mountain. The refleclioa of the rising or fcettiug sun on the snows of Her- mon, foUowcii by a sudden clap of thunder, occasioned all the rest. But who were those secret friends more closely connected with Jesus than His most intimate apos- tles ? Tliis explanation only results in making this scene a got-up affair, and Jesus a charlatan. Il is abamlonecl at the present day. Weisse, Strauss, and Keim regard the tninsfiguratiju as nothing but an invention of myliiical oiigin, designed to repre- sent the moral glory of Jesus under images derived from the history of Moses and Elij ill. Bur they can never explain how the Church created a picture so complete as this out of fragments of O. T. narrative. And how could a myliiical narrative occur in the mi 1st of sucli precise historical notes of time as those in which it is contained in the three narrations (six or eight days after the conversation at Cijesarea, on the one hand ; the eve of the cure of the lunatic child, on the other)? And Jesus' strict in- junction forbidding His apostles to publish an event which never took place ! We must pass here, as everywhere else, from the mythical theory to the supposition of imposture. And Peter's absurd speech — would the Church have been likely to make its founder speak after this fashion? Lastly, others have regarded the transfigura- tion simply as a dream of Peter's. But did the two other apostles have the same dream at the same time ? And would Jesus have attached such importance to a dis- ciple's dream as to have strictly prohibited him from relating it until after His resur- rection from the dead ? All these fruitless attempts prove that the denial of the fact has also iis difficulties. From innocence to holiness, and from holiness to glory ; here we liave the normal development of human existence, its royal path. The tran.sfiguration, at the culmi- nating point of the life of Jesus, shows that once at least this ideal has been realized in the history of humanity. This narrative is one of those in wdiich Ave can mo-st clearly establish the origi- nality and superiir character of Luke's sources of information. Certainly, he has neither derived his matter from the two other evangelists, nor from a document com- mon to all three. This is evident from these two expressions : eight daya after, and the elect of God (ver. 28 and ver. 35). The details by which Luke determines for us tile precise object of this scene, and the subject of Jesus' conversation with Moses and Elijah, as well as the picture he gives of the state of the disciples, are such in- imitable touches, and are so suggestive for purposes of interpretation, that criticism must renounce its mission as a search after historic truth, or else decide to accord to Luke the possession of independent sources of information closely connected with the fact. 276 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. The transfiguration is the end and seal of the Galilean ministry, and at the same time the opening of the history of the passion in oiir three Gospels. 5. The Cure of the Lxinatic Child : 9: 37-43a. — The following narrative is closely connected with the preceding in the three Syn. (Malt. 17 : 14, ct seq. ; Mark 9 : 14, et seq.). There was a moral contrast which had helped tradition to keep the chrono- logical thread. Vers. 37-40.* The Request. — The sleep with which the disciples were overcome, as well as Peter's offer to Jesus, ver. 33, appear to us to prove that the transfiguration had taken place eitiier in the evening or during the night. Jesus and Ilis three companions came down from the mountain the next morning. A gieat multitude awaited them. Nevertheless, according to Mark, tlie arrival of Jesus excited a feeling of sui prise. This impression might be attributed to a lingering reflection of glorj', which still illumined His person. But a more natural explanation of it is the violent scene which had just taken place before all this crowd, which gave a peculiar oppor- tuneness to the arrival of the Master. Matl:hew omits all these details, and goes straight to the faot. The symptoms of the malady, rigidity, foaming, and cries, shovi' to what kind of physical disorder it belonged ; it was a specirs of epilepsy. But the 42d verse and the conversation following, in Matthew and Mark, prove that in the belie'f of Jesus the disorder of the nervous system was either the cause or the effect of a mental condition, of the same kind as those of which we have already had several examples (4 : 33, et seq., 8 : 26, et seq.). According to Matthew, the attacks were of a periodical character, and were connected with the pliases of the moon {at7.r]VLdQETaL). Maik adds three items to the description of the malady : dumbness (in the expression dumb demon there is a confusion of the cause with Ihe effect ; comp. 8 : 12, 13, 14, 23, for examples of similar confusion), grinding of the teeth, and wa.-w long . . . .? is also explained by the contrast to the preceding scene. It is not an expression of impatience. The scene of the transtiguration has just proved that if Jesus is still upon tiie earth, it is by i/ts own free tcill. Tlie term suffer you implies as much. But lie feels Himself a stranger in the midst of this unbelief, and He cannot suppress a sigh for the lime when His filial and fraternal heart will be no longer chilled at every moment by exhibitions of feeling opi)0.sed to His most cher- ished aspirations. Tiie holy enjoyment of the night before has, as it were, made Ilim lumiesick. Ilpoc vfiCii, among you, in Luke and Matk, expresses a more active relation than fuO' v/iuv, with you, in Matthew. The command : Bring Ihy son hither, has SDinelhiug abrupt in il. Jesus seems anxi )U3 to shake off tlie pninful feeling which possesses Him ; Ciunp. a similar expressi^^a, John 11 : Z\. There is a kind cf gradati(>n in the three narratives. ]\Ialtliew, without mention- ing the precedmg attack, merely relates the cure ; tiie essential thing for him is the eonversatiou of Jesus with His disciples which followed. In Luke, the narrative of the cure is preceded by a desciiptiou of the attack. Lastly, Mark, in describing the attack, relates the remarkable conversation which Jesus had with the father of the child. Tins conversatijn, wiiich bears the highest marks of authenticity, neither allows US to admit tliat Maik drew his account from either of the others, or that Ihey had his narrative, or a narrative auylliing like his, in their possession ; how could Luke especially have voluntarily omitted such details? We shall ml analyze here the dialogue in Mark in which Jesus suddenly changes the qu'Sliou, whether He has ]>ovver to heal, into anolhtr, wiiether His quesiii/iier has p )wer to hu-beve ; alter wiiich, the latter, terrified al the itspcuisil'ility llirowa up m him l>y tliis turn being gi»en to the questii n, iovokes wilii anguish llie power of Jesus to help his faith, which ajjpeais to him no better than unbelief. Nothing more profound or exquisite has come from the pen of any evangelist, ll is the very piiotography of the human and paternal heart. And we are to suppose that the oilier evangelists had this masterpiece of ^laik's before their eyes, and mutilated it ! We find these two incidents in Luke mentioned al.-o in the raising of the widow of N^aio's 8 )n : an on'y .so/i (ver. 38): and Ileganihim to his father (ver. 42). " They belong to Luke s manner," says the critic. But ought not theoiiginnl and chariictenstic delads with which our Gospel is full to inspire a little more confidence in his naria- tives? The conversation which followed this miracle, and icliicli, Luke omits, is one of the passages in which the unbelief of the apostles is most severely blamed. This omissiiiu do 's not prove, at any lale, that the sacred writer was animated with that feeling of ill-will toward the Twelve which criticism imputes to him. 6. The three last Incidents of Jesus' Galilean Ministry : 9 ; 435-50. 1st. Tlie 8 cond Announcement of the Passio7i : vers. ASb-iT).* — Wemay infer from the two other Syu. (Matt. 17 : 22, 23 ; Mark 9 : 30-32), more especially from Mark, that it was during the return from Csesarea Philippi to Capernaum that Jesus liad this second conversation with His disciples respecting His sufferings. Luke places it in connection w ith the state of excitement into which the minds of those who weie with Jesus had been thrown by the preceding miracles. The Lord desires to sup- press this dangerous excitement in the hearts of His disciples. And we can under- * Ver. 43. The Mss. are diridcd between t-on^o^v (T. R.) and eizoui (Alex.). 278 COMMENTAKY ON ST. LUKE. Stand, therefore, why this lime Jesus makes no mention of the resurrection (comp. 1) : 23). By the pronoun i;//ei5, you. He distinguishes the apostles from the multi- tude : '' You who ought to know the real slate of things." The expression (Jiabe «r T(i ura, literally, put this into your ears, is very forcible. " If even you do not under- stand it, nevertheless impress it on your memory ; keep it as a saying." The sayings which they are thus to preserve, are those which are summarized in this very 44th Verse, and not, as Meyer would have us think, the euthusiastio utterances of the people to which allusion is made in ver. 43. The for which follows is not opposed to this meaning, which is the only natural one : " Remember these sayings ; for incredible as they appear to you, they will not fail to be realized." The term, be delivered into the hands of men, refers to the counsel of God, and not to the treachery of Judas. They can know very little of the influence exercised by the will on the reason who find a difficulty in the want of understanding shown by the disciples (ver. 45). The prospect which Jesus put before them was regarded with aversion (Matt. 5 : 23), and consequently they refused to pay any serious attention to it, or even to question Jesus about it (Mark 5 : 32). Nothing more fully accords with psycho- logical experience than tliis moral phenomenon indicated afresh by Luke. The following narrative will prove its reality'. The Iva, in order that, ver. 45, does not signify simply, so that. The idea of purpose implied in this conjunction refers to the providential dispensation which permitted this blindness. 2d. The question : Which is the greatest ? vers. 46-48.* — This incident also must belong, according to Matthew and Mark, to the same time (Matt. 18 : 1, et seq. ; Mark 9 : 33, et seq.). According to Mark, the dispute on this question had taken place on tTie road, during their return from Csesarea to Capernaum. " What were ye talking about by the way?' Jesus asked them after their arrival (ver. 33) ; and it was then that the following scene took place in a house, which, according to Matthew, was probably Peter's. We have several other indications of a serious dispute between the disciples happening about this time ; for example, that admonition preserved by Mark at the end of the discourse spoken by Jesus on this occasion (9 : 50) : " Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace among yourselves ;" then there is the instruction of Jesus on the conduct to be pursued in the case of offences between brethren, Matt. 18 : 15 : " If thy brother sin against thee . . . ;" lastly, the question of Peter ; " How many times am I to forgive my brother?" and the answer of Jesus, 18 : 21, 22. All these sayings belong to the period of the return to Capernaum, and are indications of a serious altercation between the disciples. According to the highly dramatic account of Mark, it is Jesus himself who takes the initiative, and who ques- tions them as to the subject of their dispute. Shame-stricken, like guilty children, at first they are silent ; they then make up their minds to avow what the question was about which they had quarrelled. Each had put forward his claims to the first place, and depreciated those of the rest. Peter had been the most eager, and, perhaps, the most severely handled. We see how superficial was the impression made on them by the announcement of their Master's sufferings. Jesus then seated Himself (Mark 5 : 35), and gathering the Twelve about Him, gave them the following instruction. All these circumstances are omitted by Matthew. In his concise way of dealing with facts, contrary to all moral probability, he puts the question : Which of us is the * Ver. 47. i^. B. F. K. L. IT. several Mnn. Syr. read firfwS instead of i^o>v. B. C. D., ■KaidLov instead of Tzai,6i.ov. Ver. 48. !!^. B. C. L. X. Z. some Mnn. Itpi-s^q"', eotlv instead of eaTai. ciiAi'. IX. : io-oO. 279 greatest f into the mouth of the disciples who address it to Jesus, All he repards as important is the teaching given on the occasion. As to Luke, Bleek, pressing the words kv avroii, in thtm, supposes that, according to him, we have simply to do witli llie thoughts which had arisen in the iiearts of the disciples (comp. ver. 47, rF/g unfiMai), and nut with any outward ()uarrel. But tlie term tlaij/tie, occnrred. indicates a posi- tive fact, just such as tliat ^larlc so graphically descril)es ; and the expression in (hem, or (unoiig (hem, applies to the circle of llie disciples in liie midst of which tiiis discus- sion liad taken place. Jesus takes a cliild, and makes him the subject of Ills demon- stration. It is a law of heaven, that the feeblest creature here below shall enjoy the hirgest measure of lieavenly help and tenderness (Matt. 18 : 10). In conformity with this law of heaven Jesus avows a peculiar interest in children, and commends them to the special care of His own people. Whoever entering into His views receives them as such, receives Ilim. He receives Jesus as the riches which have come to fill the void of his own existence, which in itself is so poor, and in Jesus, God, who, as a consequence of the same principle, is the constant complement of the existence of Jesus (.John G : 57). Consequently, for a man to devote himself from love to Jesus to the service of the little ones, and so make himself tJic lead, is to be on the road toward possessing God most completely, and becoming (lie grcated. The meaning of Jesus' words in 31atthew is somewhat dilTerent, at least as far as concerns the first part of the answer. Here Jesus lays down as the measure of true greatness, not a tender sympathy for the little, but the feeling of one's own littleness. The child set in the midst is not presented to the disciples as one in wliom they are to interest themselves, but as an example of the feeling with which they must them- selves be possessed. It is an invitation to return to their infantine humility and simplicity, rather than to love the little ones. It is only in the 5th verse that Matthew passes from this idea, by a natural transition, to that which is contained in the answer of Jesus as given by Luke and Mark. It is probable that the first part of the answer in Matthew is borrowed from another scene, which we find occurring later in Mark (10 : 18-lG) and Luke (18 : 15-17), as well as in Matthew himself (19 : 13-15) ; this Gospel combines here, as usual, in a single discourse elements belongmg to different occasions. Meyer thinks tliat in this expression, receive in my name, tlie in my name refers not to the disposition of him who receives, but of him who is received, in so far as he presents himself as a disciple of Jesus. But these two notions : present- ing one's self in the name of Jesus (consciously or unconsciouslj'). and being received in this name, cannot be opposed one to the other. As soon as the welcome takes place, one becomes united with the other. The Alex, reading icTi, is, is more spiiit- ual than the Byz. earaL, sluill be, which has an eschatological meaning. It is difficult to decide between them. 3fZ. llie Dissenting Disciple : vers. 49 and 50.* — Onlj'' in some very rare cases does John play an active part in the Gospel history. But he appears to have been at this time in a state of great excitement ; comp. the incident which immediately fol- lows (9 : 54, et seq.), and another a little later (Matt. 20 : 20, eUseq.). He had no * Ver. 49. i^. B. L X. A. Z. some Mnn. read ev tcj in place of e-i tu (ev perhaps taken from Mark), it. B. L. Z. ll"'"i., eKD?.vofxev instead of f/c«/t)cra/«i'. Ver. 50. C. I). F. L. M. Z. add nvrov to ^T} KoAvere. They read Kn6' vuuv and vTrep v/iuv in ^'^^ B. C. D K. L. M. Z. n. several Mnn. It. Syr. ; /caO' vnuv and vTrfp r]U(->v in it* A. X. A. some Mnn. ; and KaV rjuup and vireprjuuv in T. R., according to it''» E. F. G. H. S. U. V. r. A. and most of the Mnn. 880 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LL'KE. doubt been one of the principal actors in the incident related here by himself, and "Which might very easily have had sume counecliou with the dispute whicli had just been goin^ on. The link of connection is more simple than criticism imagines. The importance which .lesus had just atlrii)iited to His name in the preceding answer, makes John fear that he has viohited by his rashness the majesty of this august name. When once in the Avay of confession, he feels that he must make a clean breast of it. This connection is indicated by the terms cnrnKpiOeis (Luke) and anEKinOri (Mark). Tins incident, placed here in close connection with the preceding, helps us to understand some parts of the lengthened discourse. Matt. 18, whicii certainly belongs to this period. These little ones, whom care must be taken not to offend (ver. G), whom the good shepherd seeks to save (vers. 11-13), and of whom not one by God's will shall jierish (ver. 14), are doubtless beginners in the faith, such as he was toward whom tlie apostles had shown such intolerance. Thus it very often hap- pens, that by bringing together separate stones scattered about in our three narra- tives, we succeed in reconstructing large portions of the edifice, and then, by joining it to the Gospel of John, the entire building. Tlie fact here mentioned is particularly interesting. " We see," as Meyer says, " that even outside the circle of the permanent disciples of Jesus there were men in whom His word and His works had called forth a higher and miraculous power ; these sparks, which fell beyond the circle of His disciples, had made llames burst forth here and there away from the central fire." Was it desirable to extinguish these fires? It was a delicate question. Such men, though they had never lived in the society of Jesus, acquired a certain authority, and might use it to disseminate error. With tiiis legitimate fear on the part of the Twelve there was no doubt mingled a reprehensible feeling of jealousy. They no longer had the monopoly of the work of Christ. Jesus instantly discerned this taint of evil in the conduct which they had just pursued. In Luke, as in Mark, instead of the aor. eKu/.vao/iev, we for- bade Mm, some mss. read the imperf. iKuAvojiev : " AVe were forbidding him, and thought we were doing right ; were we deceived ?" Their opposition was only tenta- tive, inasmuch as Jesus had not sanctioned it. This is the preferable reading. The answer of Jesus is full of broad and exalted feeling. The divine powers which emanate from Him could not be completely contained in any visible society, not even in that of the Twelve. The fact of spiritual union with Him takes pre- cedence of social communion with the other disciples. So far from treating a man who makes use of His name as an adversary, he must rather be regarded, even in his isolated position, as a useful auxiliary. Of the three readings offered by the mss. in ver. 50, and which are also founrl in Mark {ngaind you— for you ; against you— for vs ; against us— for us), it appears to me that we must prefer the first : " He who is not against you, is, for you. The authority of the Alex, mss., which read in this way, is confirmed by that of the ancient versions, the Italic and the Pescliito, and still more by the context. The person of Jesus is not in fact involved in this conflict— is it not in His name that the man acts ? As a matter of fact, it is the Twelve who are con- cerned : "he followefh not witli vs ;" this is the grievance (ver. 49). It is quite different in the similar and apparently contradictory saying (Luke 11 : 23 ; Matt. 12 :30) : " He who is not with me, is against me." The difference between these two declarations consists in this : in the second case, it is the personal honor of Jesus which is at stake. He opposes the expulsions of demons, which He effects, to those of the Jewish exorcists. These latter ar-pear to be laboring with Him against a com- CHAP. IX. : 50. 281 mon enemy, but renlly tliey are strcngthcninc: the enemy. In the application ■which we mii^ht make of Ihese nvixinis at the present day, the former wonid apply to brethren who, wliile separated from us ecclesiastically, are fighting with us tor tlio cause of Christ ; while the latter would apply to men who, althuugh belonging to the same religious society as ourselves, arc sapping the foundations of the gospel. Wo should have the sense to regard the first as allies, although found in a different camp ; the others- as enemies, although fouud in our own camp. 3Iark introduces between the two parts of this reply a remarkable saying, the import of which is, that no one need fear that a man who does such works in the uame of Jesus will readily pass over to the ranks of those who speak evil of Him, that is to say, of those who accuse Him of casting out devils by Beelzebub. After having invoked the name of .Jesus in working a cure, to bring such an accusation against Jesus would be to accuse himself. Nowhere, perhaps, is the fitting of the Syn. one into the other, albeit quite unde- signed, more remarkable, lu Matthew tiie words, without the occasion of them (the dispute between the disciples) ; in Luke the incident, with a brief saying having reference to it ; in j\Iark the incident, with some very graphic and much more cir- cumstantial details than in Luke, and a discourse which reseml>les in part that in Matthew, but differs from both by omissions iind additions which are equally impor- tant. Is not the mutual independence of the three traditional narratives oaluablv proved 2 FOURTH PART. JOUENEY FEOM GALILEE TO JERUSALEM. Chap. 9 : 51-19 : 28. A GREAT contrast marks the sj'noptical narrative : that between the ministry in Galilee and the passion week at Jerusalem. According to Mnttbew (19 : 1-20 : 34) and 3Iark (chap. 10), the short journey from Capernaum to Judea Uirough Perea forms the rapid transition between those two parts of the ministry of Jesus. Notii- jng, either in the distance between the places, or in the number of the facts related, would lead us to suppose that this journey lasted more than u few days. This wiD appear from the following table : Matthew. Conversation about divorce. Presentation of the children. Tiie rich young man. Parable of the laborers. Third announcement of the passion. The request of Zebedee's aon.i. Cure of the blind man of Jericho. Wanting. Id. Mark. Same as Matt. Id. Id. Wanting. Same as Matt. Id. Id. Wantinfj, Id. Ltjkk. Want in Of. Same as Matt. Id. Wantintr. Same as in Matt. Wan tin OP. Same as ^Iatt. Zaccliaeiis. Parable of the pounds. Tlie fourth part of the Gospel of Luke, which begins at 9 : 51, gives us a very differ- ent idea of what transpired at that period. Here we find the description of a slow and lengthened journey acoss the southern legions of Galilee, which border on Samaria. Jerusalem is. and remains, the fixed goal of the journey (ver. 51, 13 : 22, 17 : 11, etc.). But Jesus proceeds only by short stages, stopping at each locality to preach tiie gospel. Luke does not say what direction lie followed. But we maj' gather it from the tirst fact related by him. At the first step which He ventures to take with His followers on the Samaritan territory, He is stopped short by the ill-will excited against Him by national piejudice ; so that even if His intention had been to repair directly to Jerusalem through Samaria (which we do not believe to have been the case), He would have been obliged to give up that intention, and turn eastward, in order to take the other route, that of Perea. Jesus therefore slov/ly approached the Jordan, with the view of cros.sing that river to the .south of the lake Gcnnesaret, and of continuing His journey thereafter through Perea. The inference thus drawn from me nanative of Luke is positively confirmed by [Matthew (19 : 1) and Mark (10 : 1;, uotn oi whom indicate the Pereau route as that which Jesus followed after Hiii de- 284 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. parlure from Galilee. In this way the three synoptics coincide anew from Luke 18 : 15 onward ; and horn the moment at which the narrative of Luke rejoins the two others, we have to rtga.'d the facts related by him as having passed in Perea. This slow ■journeying, first from west to east across southern Galilee, then from north to south through Perea, the description of which fills ten whole chanters, that is to say, mure than a third of Luke's narrative, forms in this Gospel a real section intermedi- ate between the two others (the description of the Galilean ministry and that of the passion \i. cek) ; it is a third group of narratives coirespouding in importance to tlie two others so abruptly brought into juxtaposition in Marli and Matthew, and wliich softens the contrast between them. But can we admit with certainty the historical reality of this evangelistic journey in southern Galilee, which forms one of the characteristic features of the third Gos- pel ? Many modern critics refuse to regard it as historical. They allege : 1. The entire absence of any analogous account in Matthew and Mark. Matthew, indeed, relates only two solitary facts (Matt. 8 : 10 et seq. and 12 ; 21 et seq.) of all those which Luke describes in the ten chapters of which this section consists, up lo the moment when the three narratives again become parallel (Luke 18 : 14) ; Maiii, not a single one. 2. The visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, which Luke puts in this journey (10 : 38-42), can have taken place only in Judea, at Bethany ; likewise the saying, 13 : 84, 35, cannot well have been uttered by Jesus elsewhere than at Jerusalem in the temple (Matt. 23 : 37-39). Do not these errors of lime and place cast a more than suspicious light on the narrative of the entire journe.y. M. Sabatier himself, who thoroughly appreciates the important bearing of this narrative in Luke on the har- monj' of the four Gospels, nevertheless goes the lengtli of saying : " We see with how many contradictions and material impossibilities this narrative abounds." * It has been attempted to defend Luke, by alleging that he did not mean to relate a journey, and that this section was only a collection of doctrinal utterances arranged in the order of their subjects, and intended to show the marvellous wisdom of Jesus. It is impossible for us to admit this explanation, with Luke's own words befoie us, which express and recall from time to time his intention of describing a consecutive journey : 9 : 51, " He 'steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem ;" 13 : 22, " He wns going through the cities and villages . . . journeying toward Jerusalem ;" 17 : 11 (lit. trans.), " And it came to pass, as He went to Jerusalem, that He traversed the country between Samaria and Galilee." Wieseler, taking up an entirely opposite point of view, finds in those three pas- sages the indications of as many individual journeys, which he connects with three journeys to Jerusalem placed by John almost at the same epoch. It is hoyjed in this way to find the point of support for Luke's narrative in the fourth Gospel, which is wanting to it in the two first. The departure mentioned 9 : 51 would correspond with the journey of Jesus, John 7 : 1-10 : 39 (feast of Tabernacles and of Dedication), a journey which terminates in a sojourn in Perea (John 10 ; 40 et seq.). The mention of a journey 13 : 22 would refer to the journey from Perea to Bethany for the raising of Lazarus, John 11, after which Jesus repairs to Ephraim. Finally, the Dassa^e 17 : 11 would correspond with the journey from Ephraim to Jerusalem lor tne iMst Passover (John 11 : 55). It would be necessary to admit that Jesus, after His * " Essai sur les Sources de la Vie de Jesus." p. 29. CHAP. IX. : 51-xix. : :^8. 287 which He could make some excursions among that Samaritan people, at whobc hands lie hail found so eager a welcome at the beginning of His ministry ? Regarding the visit to Martha and i\Iary, and the saying 13 : 84, 35, we refer to the explauutiou of the passages. Perhaps tlie first is a trace (imconscious on the l)art of Luke) of Jesus' siioit sojourn at Jerusalem at the feast of Dedication. In any case, the narrative of Luke is thus found to form the narural transition between the s}noptical accounts and that of Jolm. And if we do not find in Luke that nnil- tipHcity of journeys to Jerusalem which forms the distinctive feature of John's Gos- pel, we shall at least meet with the intermediate type of a ministry, a great part of which (the Galilean work once finished) assumes the form of a prolonged pilgrimage in the direction of Jerusalem. As to the contents of the ten chapters embraced in this part of Luke, they are perfectly in keeping with the situation. Jesus carries along with Ilim to Judea all the following of devoted believers which He has found in Galilee, the nucleus of His future Church. From this band will go forth the army of evangelists which, with the apostles at its head, will shortly enter upon the conquest of the world in His name. To prepare them as thej' travel along for this task — such is His constant aim. He prosecutes it directly in two ways : by sending them on a mission before Him, as formerly' He had sent the Twelve, and making them serve, as these had done, a first ai)pienticeship to their future work ; then, by bringing to bear on them the chief part of His instructions respecting that emancipation from the w^orld and its goods which was to be the distinctive character of the life of His servants, and thus gaining them wholly for the gnat tiisU which He allots to them.* What are the sources of Luke in this part which is peculiar to him ? According t;) Iloltzmann, liUke here gives us the contents of ^Matthew's Logia, excepting the in- troductions, which he adds or ilraplifies. We shall examine this whole hypothesis hereafter. According to Schleieimacher, this narrative is the result of the combina- tion of two accounts derived from the journals of two companions of Jesus, the one of whom took part in the journey at the feast of Dedication, the other in that of the last Passover. Thus he explains the exactness of the details, and at the same time the apparent inexactness with wUich a visit to Bethany is found recorded in the midst of a series of scenes in Galilee. According to this view, the short introduc- tions placed as headings to the discourses are worthy of special confidence. But * We cannot help recalling here the admirable picture which Eiiseliius draws of the body of evangelists who, under Trajan, continued the work of those whom Jesus had trained with so much care : " Alongside of him ((Quadrat us) there fiourished at liiat time many other successors of the apostles, who, admirable discip.les of those gieat men, reared the edifice on the foundations which they laid, continuing the work of prea(!iiing the gospel, and scattering abundantly over the wlmle earth the wliolesome seed of tlie heavenly kmgdom. For a very large number of His disciples, carried away by fervent love of the ti'ulh which the divine word had revealed to them, fulfilled the command of the Saviour to divide their goods among the poor. Then, taking leave of their country, they filled ihe oflice of evangelists, cov( ting eagerly to preach Christ, and to carry the glad tidings of God to those who had not yet hi ard the word of faith. And afler laying the foundations of the faith in some remote and barbarous countries, establishing pastors among them, and cnnfiiiiug to them the care of those young settlements, without stni>ping loiigr-r, tiicv hasted on to other nations, attended bythe grace and viitue of God" (c'l. Lu'innier. iii. y>S). Such were the spiritual children of those whom Jesus had equipped on this journey, which some have reckoned an invention of Luke. 288 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. how has this fusion of the two writings whicli has merged the two journeys into one been brought about ? Luke cannot have produced it cunsciousl}' ; it must have ex- isted in his sources. The difficulty is only removed a stage. How was it possi))le for the two accounts of different journeys to be fused into a unique whole '! As far as we are concerned, all that we believe it possible to say regaiding tlie source from which Luke drew is, that the document must have been either Aramaic, or trans- lated from Aramaic. To be convinced of ihis, we need only lead the verse, 9 : 51, which forms the heading of the narrative. If we were proceeding on the relation of Luke to the two other synoptics, we should divide this part into two cycles — that in which Luke moves alone (9 : 51-18 : 14), and that in which he moves parallel to them (18 : 15-19 : 27). But that division has nothing corresponding to it in the mind of the author, wiio prol)a- bly knows neither of the two other canonical accounts. He himself divides his nar- rative into three cycles by the three observations with which he marks it off : 1st. 9 : 51-13 : 21 (9 : 51, the resoiution to depart ; 2d. 13 : 22-17 : 10 (13 : 22, the direction of the journey) ; 3cl. 17 : 11-19 : 27 (17 : 11, the scene of the journey), buch, then, will be our division. FIRST CYCLE.— CHAP. 9:51-13:21. The Departure from Galilee. — First Period of the Journey. 1. Unfavorable Beception by the Samaritans: 9 : 51-56. — Ver. 51. Introduction. — The style of this verse is peculiarly impressive and solemn. The expressions ejevero . . KQi iaTrjpi^e irpvacj-Tov oTripii^Hv betiay an Aramaic original. The verb cvnTrATipoiJaOai, to be fulfilled, means here, as in Acts 2 . 1, the gradual filling up of a series of days which form a complete period, and extend to a goal determined befoie- hand ; comp. TTATjaOr'/vai, 2 : 21, 22. The period here is that of the days of the de- parting of Jesus from this world ; it began with the first anuouocement of His suf- feriugs, and it had now reached one of its marked epochs, the departure from Gali- lee. The goal is the avuXri^ii the perfectincj of Jesus ; this expression combines the two ideas of His deatlr and ascension. Those two events, of which the one is the complement of the other, form together the consummation of His return to the Father ; comp. the same combination of ideas in vfuOr/vat and vndyeiv, John 3 : 14, 8 : 28, 12 : 32, 13 : 3. For the pluial ij/xepai, Luke 1 : 21. 22. Wieseler (in his Synop- sis) formerly gave to avdATj^Li the meaning of good reception : " When the time of the favorable reception which He had found in Galilee was coming to an end." But as this meaning would evidently require some such definition as kv Ta?u?.ala, he now un- derstands by v/j-sp. ava'A., " the days during which Jesus should have been received by men" (" Beitriige," etc., p. 127 ei seq.). But how can we give toa substantive the meaning of a verb in the conditional ? and besides, comp. Acts 1 : 2, whicli fixes tliR meaning of avdArifii. On the other hand, when Meyer concludes from the passiigo in Acts that the ascension only is here referred to, he forgets the difference of con- text. In Acts 1 this meaning is evident, the death being already a past event ; but here it is difficult to believe that the two events yet to come, by which the departure of Jesus to heaven {ava/Lj]i}n(.) was to be consummated, are not comprehended in this word. The pronoun av-6i, by emphasizing the subject, brings into prominence the free and deliberate character of this departure. On the kcu of the apoilnsis, see pp. 83, 84. This Kui {and He also) recalls the correspondence between the divine riiAP. IX. : 52-56. 283 decree implied in tlic term nvfiirltjpovafiai, to he fulfilkd, and the free will witli vliifli Jc'sus conforms thertto. Tlie phrase TtiJocGonuv Cnjpi'^Eiv corresponds in the LXX. to ^i^r CC (•^^''■- -^ '■ 10) or C"':D in; (Ezik. O : 2), drcsxermi face tern (Oster- valti), to give onus view an iuvariable ilireciiou toward an end. Tiie expression snp- poses a lear to be snrmonntcd, an energy to be disi)layed. On the prepositional phrase to Jenimlcm, comp. 1) : iJl and Mark 10 : 33 : " And they were in tlie way go- ing up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus went before them : and as they followed they were afraid." To slart for Jerusalem is to march to His death ; Jesus linows it ; the dis- ciples have a preseutimeul of danger. This coutirms our interpretation of dvdXrjiju'i. Vers. 52-5G.* I'he Itefimd. — This tentalive message of Jesus does not prove, as Meyer and Bleek think, that lie had the intention of penetrating farther into Sama- ria, and of going directly to Jerusalem in that way. He desired to do a woik in the north of that province, like that which had succeeded so admirably in the south (John 4). The sending of messengers was indispensable, on account of the numerous ret- inue which accompanied Him. The reading nuXiv (ver. 52), though less supported, appears to us preferable to the reading ku/utiv, which is probably taken from ver. 56. In general, the Samaritans put no obstacle in the way of Jews travelling through tlieir country. It was even by this route, according to Josephus, that the Galileans usuidly went to Jerusalem ; but Samaritan toleration did not go so far as to offer hospitality. The ami of Jesus was to remove the wall which for long centuries had separated the two peoples. The Hebraism, to TcpodooTiuy noijevoiiEvov (ver. 53), CtS"1 CVi"} (Ex. 33 ; 14 ; 2 Sam. 17 : 11), proves an Aiamaic document. The con- duct of James and John betrays a state of exaltation, which was perhaps still due to the impression produced by the transfiguration scene. The proposal which they make to Jesus seems to be related to the recent appearance of Elias. This lemark does not lose its truth, even if the words, as did Elias, which several Alex, omit, are not autlientic Perhaps this addition was meant to extenuate the fault of the disciples ; but it may also have been left out to prevent the rebuke uf Jesus from falling on the proph- et, or because the Gnostics employed this passage against the authority of the O. T. (Tertullian, Adv. JIarc. iv. 23). Tlie most natural supposition after all is, that the passage is an explanatorj^ gloss. Is the surname of sons of ihiinder, given by Jtsus to James and John, to be dated from this circumstance? "We think not. Jesus would not have perpetuated the memory of a fault committed by His two beloved (lisci[)les. The phrase. lie turned (ver. 55), is explained by the fact tiial Jesus was walkii.g at the head of the company. A great many Alex, and Byz. mss. agree in rejecting the last words of this verse, And said. Ye know not; but the oldest versions, the Itala and Peschito, confirm its authenticity ; and it is probable that the cause ot the omis- sion is nothing else than the confounding of the words KAl EME with the follo'ving * Ver. 52. !*. F. A. 24Mnn. It. Vir. read itoXtv instead of xoourfv. Yor. 54. !*. B. some Mun. r^mit aurov after /nadr/rm. ». B. L. Z. 2 Mnn. II""^. Syl'•"^ omit the words &p? xai IlXtai £ZoiT}6fv. Ver. 55. ». A. B. C. E. G. H. L. S. V. X. A. Z. 64 Aliin omit the words xai FiitEv ovx oidare oiov TtvEviiaroi f6re vi-UTi, which arc found in D. F". K. M. U. V. A. n. the majority of the Mnn. Syr. Iipi^wue. Ver. 56. The T. R. adds at the beginning of the vense : o yap vioi rov ai'f)pa)7tov ovx t/AOs il)vxai ixt'OpooTCOjy aTtoAfdcn aXAa 6oo6ai, following F^'. K. ^I. U. T. A. 11. aliuo-t all the Mnn. Syr. IiP'^W"". These words are omitted in the other 14 Mjj. 05 Muu. 290 COiniEXTARY ON ST. LUKE. KAI EIIopEvOTf. They may be understood iu three ways : eit.her interrogativel3% " Know ye not what is the new spiritual reign which I being in, and of wiiich yuu are to be the instruments, tlial of meekness'/" or affirmatively, with tbe samu sense, " Ye know not yet . . ." The Ihiid meaning is nmch more severe : " Ye know- not (if what spirit you are the inslrumenls when speaking thus ; you think that you are working a miracle of faith in my service, but you aie obeying a spiiit alien from mine." This last meaning, which is that of St. Augustine and of Calvin, is more iu keeping with the expiession tTtEri/xyiGev, He rebuked them. The following words (ver. 5t)), For the ISon of man is not come to destroy men's lives, bid to save them, are wanting in the same authorities as the precedmg, and in the Cantabrigian besides. It is a gloss brought in from 19 ; 10 and Matt. 18 : 11. In these words there are, besides, numerous variations, as is usual in interpolated pas- sages. Here, probably, we have the beginning of those many alterations in the text which are remarked in this piece. The copyists, rendered distrustful by the first gloss, seem to have taken the liberty of making arbitrary corrections in the rest of the passage. The suspicion of Gnostic interpolations may have equally contributed to the same result. Jesus offered, but did not impose Himself (8 : 37) ; He withdrew. Was the other village where He was received Jewish or Samaritan ? Jewish, most probably ; other- wise the difference of treatment experienced in two villages belonging to the same people would have been more expressly emphasized. 2. The Three Discifles: 9:57-63. — Two of these short episodes are also con- nected in Matthew (chap. 8) ; but by him they are placed at the time when Jesus is setting out on His excursion into Decapolis. Meyer and Weizsacker prefer the situa- tion indicated by Matthew. The sequel will show what we are to think of that opinion. \d. Vers. 57 and 58.* Luke says, a certain man ; in Matthew it is a scribe. Why this ditference, if they follow the same document? The homage of the man breathed a blind confidence in his own strength. The answer of Jesus is a call to self-examination. To follow such a Master whithersoever He cjoeth, more is needed than a good resolution ; he must walk in the way of self-mortification (9 : 23). f Tiie word Haradxr/voodii strictly denotes shelter under foliage, as opposed to holes in the earth. Night by night Jesus received from the hand of His Father a resting-place, which He knew not in the morning ; the beasts were better off in respect of comfort. The name Son of man is employed with precision here to -bring out the contrast between the Lord of creation and His poorest subjects. This offer and answer are ceitainly put more naturally at the time of final departure from Galilee, than at the beginning of a few hours' or a few days' excursion, as in Matthew. 2d. Vers. 59, 60. | Luke says, another (individual) ; Matthew, another of His disciples. The scribe had (jffered himself ; this latter is addressed by Jesus. Luke alone indicates the contrast which the succeeding conversation explains. Here we * Ver. 57. i^. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. It»". and some Mnn. only. !!*. B., ETtavaitarjdE- rai instead of ETtavaitcxv6Erai. X Ver. 7. E6ri is omitted by ». B. D. L. X. Z. CHAP. X. : 5-16. 295 of God is come nigh unto you." A favorable reception is supposed. The messen- ger of Christ, regardiog his entrance into that house above evei} thing elsa as a prov- idential event, is to fix his residence there during the entire period of his stay in tliat place (see ou 9 : 4). ^Ey avrtj ry oi'mux, not " in the same house," as if it were iv Tjf avrfj oihia, but, " in that same house which he entered at first." They are, be- sides, to regard themselves immediately as members of the family, and to cat with- out scruple the bread of their hosts. It is the price of their labor. They give more than they receive. In ver. 8 Jesus applies the same principle to the whole city which shall receive them. Their arrival resembles a triumplial entrance : they are served with food ; the sick are brought to them ; tliey speak publicly. It is a mistake to find in the words of Paul, Ilav to TcapanOafisvov IdOieTS (1 Cor. 10 : 27), an allusion to this ver. 8 ; the object of the two sayings is entirely different. There is here no question ■whatever as to the cleanness or uncleanness of the viands ; we are yet in a Jewish •world. The accus. government tcp vjitdi, unto (t/pon) you, expresses the efficacy of the message, its action upon the individuals concerned. The perf. i)yyiKE indicates that the approach of the kingdom of God is thenceforth a fact. It is near ; the presence of the messengers of the Messiah is the proof. Vers. 10-12.* " But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11. Even the verj' dust of your oily, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you : notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12. But 1 say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city." This proc- lamation, and the symbolical act with which it closes, are solemn events ; they will play a part in the judgnienf of those populations. Kai, this tery dust. The dat. ■v^uv, to you, expresses the idea, '' we return it to you, by shakiug it from our feel." There is the breaking up of everj'- bond of connection (see 9 : 5). IIXijv indicates, as it always docs, a restriction : " Further, we have nothing else to announce to you, excepting that . . ." In spite of the bad reception, which will undoubtedly pre- vent the visit of Jesus, this time will nevertheless be to them the decisive epoch. 'E

a)fh}6^, "Wilt thou be exalted? No, thou wilt come down . . ." The meaning which this reading gives is tame and insipid. It has arisen simply from the fact that the final n of Capernaum was by mistake joined to the following rj, which, thus become a /.irj, necessitated the change from vipooOsTda to vjf)oo''n'j6y. This vari- atiou is also found in Matthew, where the mss. show another besides, ?/ vil^wfirj'i, which gives the same meaning as the T. R. As Heaven is here the eml)lem of the highest divine favors. Hades is that of the deepest abasement. In the O. T. it is the in i*. B. D. L. Z. SyT<^°^ Tt»". 76). f Comp. Van de Velde and Felix Bovet. The latter snys : " They assure me at Tiberias tiiat there is on the ninunta'n, at the distance of a, league and a half from Tel-Hum, a ruin called Bir (W/H) Keresoun. This may probably be the Chorazin of tlie Gospel." " Voyage eu Tairc-Saiulc," p. 415. CHAP. X. : 17-20. 297 place of silence, wlicre nil earthly nclivily ceases, where all human c^randeur returns to its nolhini.niess (K/.ek. ;]1 and ',12). 3Ialthe\v places this declaration in the middle of the Galilean ministry, immedi- ately after the einl>assy sent by John the Baptist. We can underslanil without dilTi- cully the association of i leas which led the evangelist to connect the one of those pieces with the other. The imiienitence of the people in respect of the forerunner was the prelude to their unbelief in respect of Jesus. But does not the historical sit- uation indicated by LuUe deserve the preference ? Is such a denunciation not much more intelligible when the mission of Jesus to those cities was entirely linlshed? Luke adds u saying, ver. IG, which, by going back on the thought in the first part of the discourse, brings out its unity— the position taken up with respect to the mes- sengers of Jesus and their preaching, shall be equivalent to a position taken up with respect to Jesus, nay. with respect to God Himself. What a grandeur, then, belongs to the work which lie cunlides to them ! 2d. The Eciuni : vers. 17-24 — Jesus had appointed a rendezvous for His disciples at a li.xed place. From the word vTtE^TiJE^av, they returned {var. 17), it would even appear that the place was that from which He had sent them. Did He await them there, or did He in the interval take some other direction along with His apostles ? The sequel will perhaps throw some light on this question. His intention certainly was Himself to visit along with them all those localities in which they had preceded Him (ver. 1). This very simple explanation sets aside all the improbabilities which have been imputed to this narrative. The return of the disciples was signalized, first of all, by a conversation of Jesus with them about their mission (vers. 17-20) ; then by an outburst, unique in the life of the Saviour, regarding the unexpected but mar- vellous progress of His work (vers. 21-24). Vers. 17-20.* The Joy of tlie Disciples. — "And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through Thy name. 18. And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy : and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20. Only in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you ; but rejoice because your names are written in heaven." The phrase, with joy, expresses the tone of the whole piece. The joy of the disciples becomes afterward that of Jesus ; and then it bursts forth from His heart exalted and purified (ver. 21, et seq.). Confident in the promise of their Master, they had set themselves to heal the sick, and in this way they had soon come to attack the severest nialad}- of all — that of possession ; and they had succeeded. Their surprise at this unhoped-for success is described, with the vivacity of an entirely fresh experience by the nai, "even the devils," and by the prcs. vnuTaddsrcxi, submit themaelves. The word iOsaJpovv, I teas contemplating, denotes an intuition, not a vision. Jesus does not appear to liave had visions after that of Jlis baptism. The tvvo acts which the imperfect I teas contemplating shows to be simultaneous, are evi- dently that informal perception, and the triumphs of the disciples recorded in ver. 17 : " While j-ou were expelling the subordinates, I was seeing the master fall." On * Ver. 17. B. D. It""!, add di>o after r^/iour/Hnvra. Ver. 19. i». B. C. L. X. some Mnn. Vss. and Fathers, Se^mmci: in place of Si'ioj/.ii, which is the reading of 15 Mjj. the most of Ihe ]Mnn. Syr. Justin, Jr. Ver. 20. The //aAAo/' which the T. R. reads after jn-zp^re de is supported only by X. and some Mnn. !*. B. L. X., EyyEypanrai instead of Eyftatpij. 398 COMMENTAIIY ON ST. LUKE. the external scene, the representatives on both sides were struggling : in the inmost consciousness of Jesus, it was the two chiefs that were face to face. The fall of Satan wiiich He contemplates, symbolizes the complete destruction of his kingdom, the goal of that work which is inaugurated by the present successes of llie disciples ; Comp. John 12 : 31. Now the grand work of Saian on the earth, according to IScnp- lure, is idolatry. Paganism throughout is nothing else than a diabolical enchantment. It has been nut unjustly called une j^osnessioii en grande* Satan sets himself up as the object of human adoration. As the ambitious experience satisfaction in the incense of glory, so he finds the savor of the same in all those impure worships, which are in reality addressed to himself (1 Cor. 10 : 20). There remains nevei- theless a great difference between the scriptural view of Paganism and the opiuiou prevalent among the Jews, according to which eiery Pagan divinity was a sepaiate demon. Heaven denotes here, like kv eitovpavwii, Eph. 6 : 12, the higher spheie from the midst of which Satan acts upon human consciousness. To fall from lieaven, is to lose this state of power. The figure used by our Lord thus represents the over- throw of idolatry throughout the whole world. The aor. itEGovzcx, falling, denotes, under the form of a single act, all the victories of the gospel over Paganism from that first preaching of the disciples down to the final denouement of the g.eat drama (Rev. 12). The figure lightening admirably depicts a power of dazzling l)rillinnce, which is suddenly extinguislied. This description of the destruction of Paganism, as the cer- tain goal of the work ))egun by this mission of the disciples, confirms tlie aniversallsm which we ascribed to the number 70, to the idea of harvest, ver. 2, and in general to this whole piece. Hofmann refers the word of Jesus, ver. 18, to the devil's original fall ; Lange, to his defeat in the wilderness. These explanations proceed from a misunderstanding of the context. Ver. 10. If we admit the Alex, reading, deSooHa, I Jiave given you, Jesus leads His disciples to measure what they had not at first apprehended— ihe full extent of the power WMlh wliich lie has invested them; and /Sou, behold, relates to the surprise which should be raised in them by this revelation. He would thus give them the key to the unhoped-for successes which they have just won. The pres. diSojjLit in the T. R. relates to the future. It denotes a new extension of powers in view of a work more considerable still than that which they have just accomplished, precisely' tliat which Jesus has described symbolically, ver. 18 ; and iSov expresses the astonish- ment which they might well feel at the yet more elevated perspective. Thus under- stood, the sentence is much more significant. Serpents and scorpions are emblems of the physical evils by which Satan will seek to hurt the ambassadors of Jesus. Tiie expression, all tkepoicer of the enemy, embraces all the agencies of nature, of human society, of things belonging to the spiritual order, which the prince of this world can use to obstruct the work of Jesus. ''Eni is dependent on hqov6iav rather than on TtarsLV (9 : 1). In the midst of all those diabolical instruments, the faithful servant walks clothed with invulnerable armor ; not that he is not sometimes subjected to their attacks, but the wounds which he receives cannot hurt him so long as tlie Lord has need of his ministry (the viper at Malta, Peter's imprisonment by Herod, the messenger of Satan which buffets Paul). The same thought, with a slight difference of expression, is found Mark 16 : 18 ; comp. also Ps. 91 : 13. Ver. 90. Yet this victory over the forces of the enemy would be of no value to * M. A. Nicolas. CHAP. X. : VJ-22. o(j.j themselves, if it did not rest on their personal salvation. Think of Judas, and of those who are spoken of iu Matt. 7 : 23, et seq. ! nXijv, only, reserves a Inilh mure iniportaut than that which Jesus has just allowed. Tlie word ^ldX^.oy, "rather rejoice," which Ihe T. It. rends, and which is found iu the Sinait., weakens the thought of Jesus. There is uo liniitulion to the truth, that tlie most magniticent suc- cesses, the finest elfects of eloquence, temples filled, conversions h}' thousands, are n,j real cause of joy to the servant of Jesus, the instrument of those works, except in sa far as he is saved himself. From tlie personal point of view (which is that of the joy of the disciples at the moment), this ground of satisfaction is and remains the only one. The figure of a heavenly register, in which the names of the elect are inscribed, is common iu the Old Testament (E.k. 33 : 33, 33 ; Isa. 4:3; Dan. 13 : 1). This book is the type of the divine decree. But a name may be blotted out of it (Ex. 33 : 33 ; Jer. 17 : 13 ; Ps. GO : 39 ; Kev. 33 : 19) ; a fact which preserves human freedom. Between the two readings, tyyeypanzat, is inscribed, and iypdcpi^, was written, it is dillicult to decide. Vers. 31-34. Ihe Joij of Jesus.— Wit reach a point in the life of the Saviour, the exceptional character of which is expressly indicated by the first words of the narra- tive, in that same hotir. Jesus has traced to their goal the lines of which His disciples discern as yet only the beginning. He has seen in spirit the work of Satan destroyed, the structure of the kingdom of God raised on the earth. But by what hands ? By the hands of those ignorant fishermen, those simple rustics wliom the powerful and learned of Jerusalem call accursed rabble (John 7 : 49), " the vermin of the earth" (a rabbinical expression). Perhaps Jesus had often meditated on the problem : How shall a work be able to succeed which does not obtain the assistan(;e of any of the men of knowledge and authority iu Israel ? The success of the mission of the seventy has just brought Him the answer of God : it is by the meanest instruments that He is to accomplish the greatest of His works. In this arrangement, so contrary to human anticipations, Jesus recognizes and adores with an overflowing heait the wisdom of His Father. Vers. 31, 33.* " In that same hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from tfie wise and prudent, and hast revealed tliem unto babes : even so, Father ; for so it seemed good in Thy sight. 33. All things are delivered to me of my Father : and no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father ; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Ttvevjita, the spirit, which is here spo- ken of, is undoubtedly that of Jesus Himself, as an element of His human Person (1 Thess. 5 :23 ; Heb. 4 : 13 ; Rom. 1 : 9). The spirit, iu this sense, is in man the boundless capacity of receiving the communications of the Divine Spirit, and conse- quently the seat of all those emotions which have God and the things of God for their object (see on 1 : 47). We think it necessarj'' to read ro? Ttvai/nazi as dat. instr., and that the addition of t(2 dyia> {the holy) and of the prep, kv iu some mss. arises from the false application of this expression to the Spirit of God. ""AyaXXi- d69ai, to exult, denotes an inner transport, which takes place in the same deep * Ver. 31. The mss. are divided between sv rca nvEx^iiari and ro) Ttvsvjaart. ii. B. D Z. Svr'="V It""'!, reject o iTjdoDi after Trvfv/iicxri, and add rai ayjco, with 5 other Mjj. some Mnn. Syr'-^^ Ver. 33. 14 Mjj. the most of the Mnn. Syr»"=^ It'-'i. here add the words, nai drpaqisi? TTpn? rovi fiaOt^rai Finev, which are omitted by T, R. with ». B. D. L. M. Z. n. some Mnn. Syr'="^ Itpi^ique^ 300 COMMENTAKY UN ST. LUKE. regions of the soul of Jesus as the opposite emotion expressed by the EpL/3pi/.id6^cn, to [/rocui {John 11:33). This powerful influeuce of external events on the inner being of Jesus proves how thoroughly in earnest the Gospels take His humanity. ' E^ojiioXo}^£i60ai, strictly, to declare, confess, corresponds in the LXX, to niin. io p?'aise. Here it expresses a joyful and confident acquiescence in the ways of God. The words Father and Lord indicate, the former the special love of which Jesus feels Himself to be the object in the dispensation which He celebrates, the latter the glori- ous sovereignty iu virtue of which God dispenses with all human conditions of suc- cess, and looks for it only from His own power. The close of this verse has been explained iu this way : " that while Thou hast hid . . . Thou hast revealed . . ." The giving of thanks would thus be limited to the second facit. Comp. a similar form, Isa. 50 : 2, Rom. 6 : 17. But we doubt that this is to impair the depth of our Jjord's thought. Did not God, in the way iu which He was guiding the work of Jesus (in Israel), wish quite as positively the exclusion of the wise as the co-operatiou of the ignorant ? The motive for tiiis divine method is apparent from 1 Cor. 1 : 23-31, in particular from vers. 29 and 31 : " that no flesh should glory ;" and, " that he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." By this rejection the great are humbled, and see that they are not needed for God's work. On the other hand, the mean can- not boast of their co-operation, since it is evident that they have derived nothing from themselves. We may compare the saying of Jesus regarding the old and the new bottles (vers. 37, 38). The wise were not to mingle the alloy of their own sci- ence with the divine wisdom of the gospel. Jesus required instruments prepared ex- clusively in liis own school, and having no other wisdom than that which He had communicated to them from His Father (John 17 : 8). When He took a learned man for an apostle. He required, before employing him, to break him as it were, by the experience of his folly. Jesus, in that hour of holy joy, takes account more defi- nitely of the excellence of this divine procedure ; and it is while contemplating its first effects that His heart exults and adores. " L'6venement capital de I'histoire du monde,"* carried out by people who had scarcely a standing in the human race ! Comp. John 9 : 39. The vai, "yea. Father," reasserts strongly the acquiescence of Jesus iu this paradoxical course. Instead of the nom. 6 ncxzyp. Father, it might be thought that he would have used the voc. TtdvEp, O Father ! as at the beginning of the verse. But the address does not need to be repeated. The nom. has another meaning : " It is as a Father that Tliou art acting in thus directing my work." The on, for that or because, which follows, is usually referred to an idea which is understood ; " yea, it is so, because . . ." But this ellipsis would be tame. It would be better in that case to supply the notion of a prayer : " Yea, let it be and remain so, since . . . !" But is it not more simple to take on as depending on t^oixoXoyov^ai : "yea, assuredly, and in spite of all, 1 praise Thee, because that . . ." The phrase evSom'a Efxitp. dov is a Hebraism {HMV ^jC7 ]iy~l% Ex. 28 : 38). Gess thus sums up the thouglit of this verse : " To pride of knowledge, blindness is the answer ; to that simplicity of heart which wishes truth, revelation." Ver. 22. The words, And lie turned Him unto His disciples, which are read here by several Mjj., are in vain defended by Tischendorf and Meyer. They are not authentic. How indeed could we understand this drpaq^eii, having turned Himself? Turned, Meyer explains, turned from His Father, to whom He has been praying, * Renan, " Vie de Jesus," p. 1. CIIAl'. X. ;i()i toward men. But would the phrase turn Himself hack be suitable iu this sense 7 "We have here a gloss occasinued by the xat 161'ay, privalely, of ver. 23. The wish has to been to establish a difference between this tirst revelation, made to the disciples in general (ver. 23). and the following, more special still, addressed to some of ihein only (ver. 28). Here we have one of tlie rare instances in which the T. R. (which rejects the words) differs from the third edition of Steph. Thejoytul outburst of ver. 21 is carried on without interruption into ver. 22 ; only the tirst impression of adoration gives way to cahn meditation. The experience through which Jesus has just passed has transported llim, as it were, into the bosom of His Father. He plunges iulo it, and His words become an echo of the joys of His eternal generation. As iu the passage which precedes (ver. 21), and in that which follows (22J), it is only knowledge which is spoken of, the words, " All things are delivered to me of my Father," are often taken as referring to the possession and communication of religious truths, of the knowledge of God. But the work accomplished by the disci- ples, on occasion of which Jesus uttered those sayings, was not merely a work of teaching— there was necessarily involved in it a display of force. To overturn the throne of Satan on the earth, and to put iu its place the kingdom of God, was a mis- sion demanding a power of action. But this power was closely connected with the knowledge of God. To know God means to be initiated into His plan ; means to think with Him, and consequently to will as He does. Now, to will with God, and to be self-consecrated to Him as an instrument in His service, is the secret of partici- pation in His omnipotence. " The education of souls," Gess rightly observes, " is the greatest of the works of Omnipotence." Everything in the univer.se, accord- ingly, should be subordinate to it. Ther-e is a strong resemblance between this saj'- ing of Jesus and that of John the Baptist (John 3 : 85) : " The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand "—a declaration which is immediately con- nected with the other relative to the teaching of Jesus : " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God." The gift denoted by the aor. TtcxpeSu'OT/, are deliveved to me, is the subject of an eternal decree ; but it is realized progressively in time, like everything wliich is sub- ject to the conditions of human development. The chief periods in its realization are these three : The coming of Jesus into the world, His entrance upon His Messianic ministry, and His restoration to His divine state. Such are the steps by which the new Master took the place of the old (4 : 0), and was raised to Omnipotence. " De- livered," Gess well observes, " either for salvation or for judgment." The xai, and, which coanects the two parts of the verse, may be thus paraphrased : and that, be- cause . . . The future conquest of the world by Jesus and His disciples rests on the relation which He sustains to God, and with which He identifies His people. The perfect knowledge of God is, in the end, the sceptre of the universe. Here there is a remarkable difference in compiling between Luke and jMatthew : ovf^eli Inyi- ro66KEi, uo one recognizes, or discerns, says Matthew. To the idea of knowing, this ETti (to put the finger upon) has the effect of adding the idea of confirming experi- mentally. The knowledge in question is one de visu. Luke uses the simple verb ytvo66HEiv, to know, which is weaker and less precise ; but he makes up for this de- ficiency in the notion of the verb by amplifying its regimen. " What is the Father . . . what is the Son ;" that is to sa\% all that God is as a Father to the man who has the happiness of knowing Him as a son, and all that the name son includes for 302 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. the man who has the happiness of hearing it pronounced by the muuth of the Father — all that the Father and Son are the one to the otherl Perhaps Matthew's form of expression is a shade more intellectual or didactic ; thit of Luke rather moves in the sphere of feeling. How should we explain the two forms, each of which is evidently- independent of the other? Jesus must have employed in Aramaic the verb y-ji, to know* Now v'~p is construed either with the accusative or with one of the two prep- ositions -I, in, or ^y, upon. The construction with one or other of these preposi- tions adds something to the notion of the verb. For example, yj3^', to hear; h yOti'. to listen; "2 JJDIi'*. to listen toith acquiescence of heart. There is a similar difference of meaning between yT and ^ yii or ^y y"l">— a difference analogous to that between the two expressions, ram cognoacere and cofjnoscere de re, to know a thing and to know of a thing. Thus, in the passage in Job 37 : 16, wh«re j;"!^ is construed with ^y, upon, the sense is not, " Knowest thou balancings of the clouds ?"— Job could not but have known the fact which falls under our eyes — but " Understandest thou the . . '?" Now if we suppose that Jesus used the verb y]i with one of the prepositions ^ or 7, the two Greek forms may be explained as two different at- tempts to render the entire fulness of the Aramaic expression ; that of Matthew strengthening the notion of the simple verb by the preposition tTtt (recognize) (which would correspond more literally with "p'y y"*p) ; that of Luke, by giving greater ful- ness to the idea of the object, by means of the paraphrase r/5 Idriv, what is.\ A remarkable example, 9 : 3, has already shown how differences of matter and form in the reproduction of the words of Jesus by our evangelists are sometimes ex- plained with the utmost ease by going back to the Hebrew or Aramaic text.^ What a proof of the authenticity of those discourses ! What a proof also of the independ- ence of our several Greek digests ! That exclusive knowledge which the Father and Son have of one another is evi- dently not the cause of their paternal and filial relation ; on the contrary, it is the effect of it. Jesus is not the Son because He alone perfectly knows the Father, and is fully known only by Him ; but He knows Him and is known by Him in this way only because He is the Son. In like manner, God is not tlie Father because He alone knows the Son, and is known only by Him ; but this double knowl- edge is the effect of that paternal relation which He sustains to the Son. The article before the two substantives serves to raise this unique relation above the relative tem- poral order of things, and to put it in the sphere of the absolute, in the very essence of the two Beings. God did not become Father at an hour marked on some earthly dial. If He is a Father to certain beings l)orn in time, it is because He is the Father absolutely — that is to say, in relation to a Being who is not born in time, and who is toward Him the Son as absolutely. Such is the explanation of the difficult verse, Epb. 3 : 15. Mark, who has not the passage, gives another wherein the term the * 1 owe the following observations to the kindness of M. Felix Bovet. f In the passage quoted from Job, the two principal German translations present a remarkable parallel. DeWette: Weisstduum . . ? Ewald : Verstehs dn. . ? Both have thoroughly apprehended the sense of tbe original expression ; each has sought to reproduce it in his own way. X Many other similar examples might be cited, e.g. Luke 6 : 20. If Jesus said Ciijy we can explain both the brief nr 00x01 ol Luke as a literal translation ad sensam (ac- cording to the known shade which the meaning of ijy bears throughout the Old Testament). cHAi'. x. : 2:i, -^'o. 303 i>on is used in the same absolute sense, 13 : 32 : " But of that day and that hour know- eth no man, no, not the angels |\'hich are m heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." After words like these, we catfcot admit any radical difTerence between the Jesus of the Synoptics and llial of John.* The existence of the Son beh>nging to tho essence of the Father, the pre-existence of the one is implied in the eternity of tho other. Immediate knowledge of the Father is the exclusive privilege of the Son. But it becomes the portion of believers as soon as He initiates them into the contents of Ilis filial consciousness, and consents to share it with them. By this participation in the consciousness of the Son (the work of the Holy Spirit), tho believer in his turn at- tains to the intuitive knowledge of the Father. Conip. John 1 : 18, 14 : 6, 17 : 26. With Gess, we ought to remaik the unportance of tho priority given to the knowledge of the Son by the Father over that of the Father by the Son. Were the order inverted, the gift of all things, the nixpaSiSoyat, would have appeared to rest on the religious instruction which Jesus had been giving to men. The actual order makes it the con- sequence of the unsearchable relation between Jesus and the Father, in virtue of which He can be to souls everything that the Father Himself is to them. This pas- sage (vers. 21, 22) is placed by ]\Iatthew, chap. 11, after the denunciation pronounced on the Galilean cities, and immediately following on the deputation of John the Bap- tist. We cannot comprehend those of our critics, Gess included, who prefer this situa- tion to that of Luke. Gess thinks that the disciples (10 : 21) are contrasted with the unbelieving Galilean cities. But the whole passage refers to the disciples as instru- ments in God's work ; and Jesus contrasts them not with the ignorant Galileans, but with the wise of Jerusalem. See Matthew even, ver. 25. As to the following sen- tence, ver. 22, Gess thinks that he can paraphrase it thus : " No man, not even John the Baptist, knoweth the Son . . . "in order thus to connect it with the account of the forerunner's embassy, which forms the preceding context in Matthew. But in relation to the preceding verse the word no man alludes not to John, but to the %cise and learned of Jerusalem, who pretended that they alone had the knowledge of God (11 : 52). It is not difficult, then, to perceive the superiority' ot Luke's context ; and we may prove here, as everywhere else, the process of concatenation, in * M. Tleville has found out a way of getting rid of our passage. Jesus, he will have it, said one day in a melancholy tone : " God alone reads my heart to its depths, and I alone also know God." And this " perfectly natural" thought, " under the intluence of a later theology, " took the form in which we find itliere (" Hist, du Dogme de la Div. de J. C. " p. 17). M. Reville finds a confirmation of his hypothe- sis in the fact that in their present form the words strangely break the thread of the discourse. We think that we have shown their relation to the situation in geneial, and to the preceding context in particular. And the searching study of the fclations between Luke's form and that of Matthew has led us up to a Hebrew formula neces- sarily anterior to all " later theology. " One must have an exegetical conscience of rare elasticity to be able to find rest bj-- means of such expedients. M. Reuan having no hope of evacuating I he words of their real contents, simply sets them down as a later interpolation : " ^latt. 11 : 27 and Luke 10 : 22 represent in the synoptic system a late interpolalion in keeping with the tj'pe of the Joliannine discourses." But what ! an interpolalinn simultaneously in the two writings? in two different contexts? in all the manuscripts and in all the versions? and with the dilTerences which we have established and explained by the Aramaic? Let us take an example : The dox- ology interpolated in Matthew (6 : 13), at the end ot the Lord's prayer. It is wanting in very many Mss. and Vss., and is not found in the parallel passage in Luke. Such are the evidences of a real interpolation. 304 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. virtue of which we find differeut elements united together in Matt 11 : 7-30 by a simple association of ideas iu the mind of the compiler. With the last words of ver. 22, and he to whom the Son will revcaZ Him, the thought of Jesus reverts to His disciples who surround Him, and in whom there is produced at this very time the beginning of the promised illumination. He now ad- dresses Himself to them. The meditation of ver. 22 is the transition between the adoration of ver. 21 and the congratulation which follows. Vers. 23 and 24,* " And He turned Him unto His disciples, and said privately. Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see : 24. For 1 tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them ; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." Elevated as was the conception which the disciples had of the person and work of Jesus, they were far from appreciating at its full value the fact of His appearance, and the privi- lege of being the agents of such a Master. At this solemn hour Jesus seeks to open their eyes. But He cannot express Himself publicly on the subject. It is, as it were, in an undertone that He makes this revelation to them, vers. 23 and 24 This last sentence admirably finishes the piece. We find it in Matthew, chap. 13, applied to the new mode of teaching which Jesus had just employed by making use of the form of parables. The expression, those things which ye see, is incompatible with this application, which is thus swept away by the text of Matthew himself. Luke here omits the beautiful passage with which Matthew (11 : 28-30) closes this discourse : " Come luiio ine . . ." If he had known such words, would he have omitted them ? Is not this invitation in the most perfect harmony with the spirit of his gos- pel ? Holtzmann, who feels how much the theory of the emploj'ment of a common source is compromised by this omission, endeavors to explain it. He supposes that Luke, as a good Pauliuist, must have taken offence at the word zaneivoS, humble, when applied to Christ, as well as at the terms yoke and burden, which recalled the law too strongly. And it is in face of Luke 22 : 27, " 1 am among you as he that serveth . . ." and of 16 : 17, " It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . ." that such reasons are advanced ! His extremity here drives Holtzmann to use one of those Tubingen processes which he himself combats throughout his whole book. Modern criticism denies the historical character of this second mission. It is nothing more, Baur alleges, than an invention of Luke to lower the mission of the •Twelve, and to exalt that of Paul iind his assistants, of whom our seventy are pro- vided as the precursors. With what satisfaction does not this Luke, who is silent as to the effects of the sending of the Twelve, describe those of the present mission ! He goes the length of applying to the latter, and that designedly, part of the instruc- tions which .Jesus had given (Matt. 10) iu regard to the former ! Besides ,the other Gospels nowhere mention those seventy evangelists whose mission Luke is pleased to relate ! Holtzmtmn, who likewise denies the historical character of the narrative, does not, however, ascribe to Luke any deliberate fraud. The explanation of the matter is, according to him, a purely literary one. Of the two sources which Mat- thew and Luke consulted, the former — that is, the original Mark — recorded the send- ing of the Twelve with a few brief instructions, such as we have found in Luke 9 : 1-6 and Mark 6 : 7-13 ; the second, the Logia, contained the full and detailed dis- course which Jesus must have delivered on the occasion, as we read it Matt. 10. The author of our first Gospel saw that the discourse of the Logia applied to the send- ing of the Twelve mentioned iu the original Mark, and attached it thereto. Luke * Ver. 23. D. Syr<=". Itpi^iti-^ Vg. omit xar iSiav. CHAP. X. : :>a-37. 305 hud not the same perspicucity. After having related the mission of the Twelve (U : l-(i) iiller the pioto-Miii k, lie found the great discourse in the Ln(/i(t ; iiird to get a suitiible place for il, lie tliouglil thai he niii*-t ereate a situation at his own luiiid. With tills view, but without tlie least purpose of a dogmatic kind, he iuuigiued a sec- ond uiissiuu, that of the seventy. IJul if tlie origin of this narrative were as Baur supposes, how should only the Twelve reappear later in the Gospel of Luke (17 : 5, 18 : 'i\), without evir a word more of those sevcuty ? How should Luke in the Acts make nt) nuiilimi of those latter? Was it not easy and natural, after having inrenUd llicni, to give tluni a part i to play in the mission organized uudtT Paul's direelion ? An author does u(,t lie in goi.d earnest, only to forget theieafler to make use of his liaud. We have found liial. as to the mission of liie Twelve, Luke says at least (1) : 10), " And the apostles, when the}- were leturued. told Him, all that they had done" (lemark tlie ocJft, stronger llian the simple a) ; while iMatlheft', after the discouise, adds not a single woiilabout the missiiu and its results 1 In shoit, the narrative of the sindiug of the seventy is so far fioiu being a Pauliuist invention, that in a work of the second cen- tury, pioeeediiig from the sect most hostile to Paul, we tind the following jiai-siige put in the mouih of Peter (" Recegnil. Clem.," i. 24) : " He first chose us twelve, whom lie called apostles ; then He chose seventy-two other disciples fiom among the most faithful." The JQ ^^*^ sense of feeling ; the active powers, the impulsive aspirations, "IIXSJ, the might, the will ; and the intellectual powers, analytical or contemplative, 8tavo{a, mind. The difference between the heart, which resembles the trunk, and the three branches, feeling, will, and understanding, is emphatically marked, in the Alex, variation, by the substitu- * Ver. 27. i*. B. D. A. Z. some Mnn. It""'', read, ev oXrj rr] ipvxv, f ^^^f ^7 idxvEiy £v oXr^ rrj diavuia, instead of £| with the genitive. cnAi". X. : 25-;5r. 307 tioB of the proposition h', in, for U, with (from), in ilw. three lust nuniheis. Moral life proceeds from the heart, and mauifesls itself without, in the liirue forms of activity indicated. The impulse Godvvaid proceeds/zw/t the heart, and is realized in the life through- the atTecliou, which feeds on thai supreme object ; through the will, ■which conseciates itself actively to the accomplishment of His will ; and through liie m:nd, which pursues the track of His thoughts, in all His works. The secoml pait of the summur}' is the corollary of the first, and cannot be realized except in conn(;c- tion with it. Nothing but the reigning love of God can so divest the individual of ocvotion to hi? own person, liiat the ego of his neighbor .';hall rank in his eyes exactly on the same level as his own. The pattern must be loved above all, if the image in others is to appear to us as worthy of esteem and love as ui ourselves. Thus to love is, as Jesus says, tue path to life, or rather it is life itself. God has no higher life than that of love. The answer of Jesus is therefore not a simple accommodation to the legal point of view. The work which saves, or salvation, is really loving. The gospel does not differ from the lavv in its aim ; it is distinguished from it only by its indication of means and the communication of strength. Vers. 29-37. 2'he good Samaritan. — How is such love to be attained ? This would have been the question put by the scribe, had he been in the state of soul which Paul describes Rom. 7, and which is the normal preparation for faith. He would Lave confessed his impotence, and repeated the question in a yet deeper sen.?c than at the beginning of tlie interview : What shall 1 do ? What shall I do in order to love thus? But insteail of that, feeling himself condemned by the holiness of the law which he has himself formally expressed, he takes advantage of his ignorance, in other words, of the obscurity of the letter of the law, to excuse himself for not having observed it : " What does the word neighbor mean ? How fur does its application reach ?" So long as one does not know exactly what this expression signities, it is quite impossible, h8 means, to fulfil the commandment. Thus the remark of Luke, " willing <(; j;/«^yi/ himself," finds an explanation whi(;h is perfectly natural. The real aim of the parable of the good Samaritan is to show the scribe that the answer to the theological question, which he thinks good to propose, is written by nature on every right heart, and that tn know, nothing is needed but the trill to understand it. But Jesus does not at all mean thereby tiiat it is by his charitable disposition, or by this solitary act of kindness, that the Samaritan can obtain salvation. We must not forget that a totally new question, that of the meaning of the word neighbor, has in- tervened. It is to the latter question that Jesus replies by the parable. He lets the scribe understand that this question, proposed by him as so difficult, is resolved by a right heart, without its ever i)roposing it at all. This ignorant Samaritan naturally ((pvaei, Rom. 3 : 14) possessed the light which the Rabbins had not found, or had lost, in their theological lucubtations. Thus was condemned the excuse which he had dared to advance. May we not suppose it is from sayings such as this that Paul has derived his teaching regarding the laic written iri the li£art, and regarding its partial observance by the Gentiles, Rom. 2 : 14-lG ? Vers. 29-32.* The Priest and the Lecite. — Lightfoot has proved that the Rabbins did not, in general, regard as their neighbors those who were not members of the * Ver. 29. The Mss. arc divided between diKoiow (T. R.) and (WKmuoai (Alex.). Ver. 30. E. G. H. T. V. A. A. several jVlnn. It"''*). Vg., £^e(^vaai> instead of eKihonvrei. it. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. omit -vyxaiovTa. Ver. 32. !*'". B. Ij. X. Z. omit yevouevoi. !*. 1). r. ^. several Mnn. Vss. lerid uvrov after i<^ui\ 308 COMilENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Jewish uation. Perhaps the subject afforded matter for learned debates ia their schools. Tlie word TvXr/aiop, beiug without article here, might be taken in strictness as au adverb. It is simpler to regard it as the well-known substantive 6 Kh'/aiov. The ml, and, introducing the answer, brings it into relation with the preceding question which called it forth. The word vnoXa3iJv, rejoining, which does not occur again in the N. T., is put for the ordinary term arroKpiSet!; , aasicering, to give more gravity to what follows. The mountainous, and for the most part desert coimtry, traversed by the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, was far from safe. Jerome {ad Jerem. 3 : 2) re- lates that in his lime it was infested by hordes of Arabs. The distance between the two cities is seven leagues. The Kui, also, before kaSvaavTei, ver. 30, supposes a first act which is self-understood, the relieving him of his purse. There is a sort of irony in the Kara avyavfuav, by chance. It is certainly not by accident that the narrator brings those two personages on the scene. The preposition avri in uvTLKapi}/Me, he passed by, might denote a curve made in an opposite direction ; but it is simpler to understand it in the sense of over against. In view of such a spectacle, they pass on. Comp. the antithesis npoaeWuv, having gone to him, ver. 34. Vers. 33-35.* The Samaritan.— Fox the sake of contrast, Jesus chooses a Samari- tan, a member of that half Gent ile people who were separated from the Jews by au old national hatred. In the matter about which priests are ignorant, about which the scribe is still disputing, this simple and right heart sees clearly at the first glance. His neighbor is the human being, wiioever he may be, with whom God brings him into contact, and who has need of his help. The term ddsvuv, as he journeyed, con- veys the idea that he miglit easily have thought himself excused from the duty of compassion toward this stranger. In every detail of the picture, ver. 34, there breathes the most tender Ytxty {kanlayxviafir])- Oil and wine always formed part of the provision for a journey. We see from what follows that ■Kav^o)(E'iov signifies not a simple caravansary, but a real inn, where people were received tor payment. 'Ett^, ver. 35, should be understood as in Acts 3:1: Toward the morrow, that is to say, at daybreak. The term e^eXOuv, wlien he departed, shows that he was now on horse- back, ready to go. Two pence are equal to about Is M.. After having l)rought the wounded man the length of the hostelry, he might have regarded himself as dis- charged from all responsil)ility in regard to him, and given him over to the care of his own countrymen, saying: " He is your neiglibor rather than mine." But the compassion which constrained him to begin, obliges him to finish. What a master- piece is this portrait ! What a painter was its author, and what a narrator was he who has thus transmitted it to us, undoubtedly in all its original freshness ! Vers. 36, 37.f The Moral. — The question with which Jesus obliges the scribe to make application of the parable may seem badly put. According to the theme of discussion: " Who is my neighl)or ?" (ver. 29), it would seem that He should have jisked : Whom, then, wilt thou regard as thy neighbor to guide thee to him, as the Samaritan was guided to thy compatriot ? But as the term neighbor implies the idea of reciprocity, Jesus iias the right of reversing the expressions, and He does so not without reason. Is it not more effective to ask : By whom should I like to be suc- * Ver. 33. ». B. L. Z. 3 Mnn. omit avTov after i()uv. Ver. 35. ». B. D. L. X. Z some Mnn. Syr, It. omit EieTiBuv. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. Syi'^"'. It"''*!, omit avru after eltev. t Ver. 36. !*. B. L. Z. some Mnn. Vss. omit ow after r^s. Ver. 37. The Mss. vary between ow (T. R.) and Se (Alex.) after eltte. CHAP. X. : 33-42. 300 cored in distress ? than Whom should 1 assist in case of distress ? To the first ques- tion, the leply is nut doubtful Self-regard coniiuu; to the aid of conscience, all will answer : By everybody. The scribe is quite alive to this. He cannot escape, when he is brought face to face with the question in this form. Only, as his heart refuses to pronounce tlie word Samaritan with praise, he paia[ihrases the odious name. On the use of ^f ni, ver. 37, see on 1 : 58. In tiiis tinal declaration, Jesus contrasts the il dug of the Samaritan with tUe vain casuistry of the Rabl)ins. But while saying. Do thou It/ccirise, He does not at all add, as at ver. 28, (i)id tlujii sltdlt lire. For benefi- cence dues not give life or salvation. Were it even the complete fulfilment of the second part of the sum of the law, we may not forget the first part, the realization of which, thougii not less essential to salvation, may remain a strange thing to the man of greatest beneficence. But what is certain is, that the man who in his conduct contradicts the law of nature, is on the way opposed to that which leads to faith and salvation (.John 3 : 19-21). The Fathers have dwelt with pleasure on the allegorical interpretation of this para- ble : Tlie wounded man representing humanity ; the brigands, Ihe devil ; the priest and Levite, the law and the prophets. The Samaritan is Jesus Himself ; the oil and wine, divine grace ; the ass, the body of Christ ; the inn, the Church ; Jerusalem, paiailise; the expected return of the Samaritan, the final advent of Christ. This exegesis rivalled that of the Gnostics. 5. Martha and Mary : 10 : 38-43 —Here is one of the most exquisite scenes •which Gospel tradition has preserved to us ; ir has been transmiited by Luke alone. What surprises us in the narrative is, the place which it occupies in the middle of a journey throush Galilee. On the one hand, the expression ev raJ iropeveaOaL aiirovi, as they we?it, indicates that we have a continuation of the same journey as began at 9 : 51 ; on the other, Ihe knowledge which we have of Maitha and Mary, John 11, does not admit of a doubt that the event transpired in Judea at Bethany, nrar Jerusalem. Hengstenberg supposes that Lazarus and his two sisters dwelt first in Galilee, and afterward came to settle in Judea. But the interval between autumn and the follow- ing spring is too short to allow of such a change of residence. In John 11 : 1, Beth- any is called the town of Mary and her sister Martha, a phrase which assumes that they had lived there for a length of time. The explanation is therefore a forced one. There is another more naluml. In ,Tohn 10 tliere is indicated a short visit of Jisus to Judea in the month of December of that year, at the feast of dedication. Was not that then the time when the visit took place which is here recorded by Luke? Jesus must have interrupted His evangelistic journey to go to Jerusalem, perhaps while the seventy disciples were carrying out their preparatory mission. After that short ap- pearance in the capital, He returned to put Himself at the head of the caravan, to visit the places where the Jisciples had announced His coming. Luke himself cer- tainly did not know the place where this scene transpired (m a certain villar/t) ; lie transmits the fact to us as he found it in his sources, or as he had received it by oial tradition, without more exact local indication. Importance had been attached rather to the moral teaching than to the external circumstances. It is remarkable that the scene of the preceding paral)le is precisely the country between Jericho and Jerusa- lem. Have we here a second proof of a journey to Judea at that period ? Here we must recall two things : 1. That the oral tradition from which our writ- ten compilations (with the excei)tion of that of John) are derived, was formed imme- diately after the ministry of our Lord, when the actors in the Gospel drama were yet 310 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. alive, and that it was obliged to exercise great discretion in regard to the persons who figured in it, especiully where women were concerned ; hence the omission of many proper names, y. That it is John's Gospel which has restored those names to the Gospel history ; but that at the time when Luke wrote, this sort of imognilo still continued. Vers. 38-40.* Martha's Complaint. — It is probably the indefinite expression of Luke, into a certain village, which John means to define by the words : Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha, 11 : 1 ; as also the words of Luke 5 : 39, wldch sat at Jesus' feet, seem to be alluded to in those others : But Mary sat still in the house, 11 : 2U. The entire conduct of Martha and Mary, John 11, reproduces in every par- ticular the characters of the two sisters as they appear from Luke 10. It has been supposed that Martha was the wife of Simon the Leper (]VIiilt. 26 : 6 ; Mark 14 : ?>), and that her brother and sister had become inmates of the house. All this is pure hypothesis. If the two words tj and ku'l, " which also sat," really belong to the text, Luke gives us to understand that Mary began by seiving as we,l as Martha; but that, having completed her task, she also sat to listen, rightly considering that, with such a gue.st, the essential thing was not serving, but above all being herself served. Jesus was seated with His feet stretched behind Him (7 : 38). It was therefore at His feet behind Him that she took her place, not to lose any of His words The term nepiEmruTo (teas cumbered), ver. 40, denotes a distiaction at once external and moral. The word knioTdaa, came to Him, especially with ^s adversative, but, indi- cates a sudden suspension of her feverish activity ; at the sight of Jesus and her sis- ter, who was listeuiug to Him with gladness, Martha stops short, takes up a bold al- titude, and addresses the latter, reproaching her for her selfishness, and Jesus for His partiality, implied in the words. Dost Thou not caref Nevertheless, by the very word which she uses, KaTelnre, liath left me (this reading is preferable to the imper- fect KarpELTve), she acknowledges that Mary up till then had taken part in serving. In the compound Gvi>avn?Mu3di>EcOai three ideas are included — charging one's self with a burden (the middle) for another (ai'Ti), and sharing it with him (aiiv). Vers. 41, 43. f The Ansioer, — Jesus replies to the reproach of jVIartha by charging her with exaggeration in the activity whicli she is putting forth. If she has so much trouble, it is because she wishes it. Mepif^v^v, to be careful, refers to moral preoccu- pation ; TvpSd'^^eaOai, to be troubled, to external agitation. The repetition of Martha's name in the answer of Jesus is intended to bring her back gent I}', but firmly, from her dissipation of mind. The expression in which Jesus justifies His reinike is at once serious and playful. According to the received reading. One thing only is need- ful, the thought might be : "A single dish is sufficient." But as it was certainly not a lesson on simplicity of food that Jesus wished to give here, we must in that case admit a double reference, like that which is so often found in the words of Jesus (John 4 : 31-34) : " A single kind of nourishment is sufficient for the body, as one * Ver. 38. i^. B. L. Z. Syr"'"'., ev 6e tu irorifvea^ai instead of eyevero (h ev tu iTopEveadac. Hi. C. L. Z., oiKiav instead of oikoi'. ii*. L. Z. omit avrrji. B. omits ftS . . . avTTji. Ver. 39. !*. L*. Z. omit ??. I). It""'!, omit mi after ?/. Instead of TrapaKaOiaaaa (T. R.), i^. A. B. C. L. Z., 'TrapaKaOeGOeiaa. Instead of napa, the same, npos. Instead of Irjaov, the same, Kvpiov. Ver. 40. Instead of KarEAnrev, 15 Mjj. KaTElEiTTEV. D. L. Z. , eiTTov iostcad of enze. f Ver. 41, is*. B. L. It"''"!. Vg.. o Kvpios instead of o Irjaovi. !*. B. C. D. L., 6opv3a(r) instead of rvpSaO], Ver. 43. Si. B. L. 3 Mnn., oTiiyuv 6e eart ;^p£ta rj evoi instead of Evoi (h EG71 xpct^i- CHAT. x. : oS— 10 ; XI. : 1-Ju. ;jil ciilj' is necessary for the soul." This is probably the meuniDg of the Ale.x. reading : " Tliure needs l)ut lillle (for the body), or even but one thing (for the soul)." Tliere is sublillj' in this residing , too much perhaps. It has against it 15 Mjj. the Peschito and a large number of the copies of the Itala. It is simpler to hold tliat by the ex- jiression one thing, Jesus meant to designate spiritual nourishment, the divine word, but not ■without an .illusion to tlio simplicity in physical life which naturally results from tlie preponderance given to a higher interest. The expression ayiJjii /itpii, tli^, siatutum, is tacitly opjiosed to the superfluity, TrepLovaiov, which is secretly desired by the human heart ; and it is this biblical expression of which Jesus probably made use in Aramaic, and which should serve to explain that of our passage. It has been inferred, from the remarkable fact that the two evangelists employ one aud the same Greek expression, otherwise alto- gether unknown, that one of the evangelists was dependent on the other, or that both were dependent on a common Greek document. But the verj' important differences which we observe in Luke and Matthew, between the two editions of the Lord's Prayer, contain one of the most decisive refutations of the two hypotheses. What flT.VP. XI. : 3-4. 315 ■writer should have taken the liberty wilniM}'- and arbitrarily to introduce such modi- fications into the text of a formulary* bej^inniiig with the words : " When ye pray, say . . ." ? The differences here, still more than anywhere else, must be invol- untary. It must therefore bo admitted that this Greek term common to both was chosen to translate the Aramaic ex})ressinn, at the time when the priniilive oral tradi- tion was reproduced in Greek for the numeious Jews speakini" that language who dwelt in Jerusalem and Palestine (Acis 6 : 1, ct seq. This translation, onee fixed in the oral tradition, passed thence into our Gospels. Instead of il"j/l>i/ ih y, ]Matlhew says a>,/iei)ov, (his day. Luke's expression, from its very generality, does not answer so well to the character of real and present sup[)lica- lion. Matthew's form is therefore to be preferred. Besides, Luke em[)loys the pres- ent Siihv, wliich, in connection with the expression day by day, must designate the permanent act : "Give ws constantly each day's bread." The aor. JoS, in ^Matthew, in connection with the word this day, designates the one single and momentary act, whicli is preferable. What a reduction of human requirements to their minimitin, in the two respects of quality'' (bread) and of quantitj^ (suliicient for each day) ! Ver. 4. Tlie deepest feeling of man, after that of Ids dependence for his very ex- istence, is that of his guiltiness ; and the first cmdiliou to enable him to act in the way whicli is indicated by tlie fust petition, is his being relieved of this burden b}' pardon. For it is on pardrn tiiat the union of the soul with God rests. Instead of the word sins, JIatthew in the first clause uses debts. Even^ neglect of duty to God reall}' constitutes a debt requiring to be discharged by a penalty. In the second prop- osition Luke says : For we ourselves also {avroi) ; Matthew : as we also. . . . The idea of an imprecation on ourselves, in the event of our refusing pardon to him who has offended us, might perhaps be found in the form of Matthew, but not in that of Luke. Tlie latter does not even include tiie notion of a condition ; it simply ex- ])iesses a motive derived from the manner in whieh we ourselves act in our humble sphere. This motive must undoubtedly be understood in the same sense as that of ver. 13 : " If j-e then, being evil, Know how to give good gifts unto your chil- dren." " All evil as we are, we yet ourselves use the right of grace which Ijelougs to us, by remitting debts to those who are our debtors ; how much more wilt not Thou, Father, who art goodness itself, use Thy right toward us !" And this is proliably also the sen.se in which we should understand the as also of Matthew. The only difTerence is, that what Luke alleges as a motive (for also), Matthew states as a point of comparison (as aho'\. Luke's very absolute expression. We forgive every one that is indebted to us, sup- poses the believer to be now living in that sphere of chariti'' which Jesus came to cieate on the earth, and the princii)le of whicli was laid down in the Sermon on the !^Ioant. The term usedbyjesns might be applied solely to material debts : " Forgive us our sins, for we also in our earthly relations relax our rights toward out indigent debtors." So we might explain Luke's u.se of the woid sins in tlie first clause, and cf the term Ix^ei/.ovTi, debtor, in the second. This delicate shade would be lost in ]\lat- thcw's form. It is possible, however, that by the words, every one that is indebted to us, in Luke, we are to understand not only debtors stiictly so called, but every one * Dr. Alford relies upon the variations as proof that this was not a " set form developed for liturgi(;al uses" by our Lord. This is all the more weighty a contirm- ation of our author's view% as Dr. Alford might be naturally wdling to fall in with such a view as Wordsworth's.— J. H. olf; CUM.MENTAUY OX ST. LUKE. who has offended us. The navri is explained oerhaps more easily in this wide sense of 6. L. X. Byr. Itp''*''i"«, omit o before c| ovoavov. L. 8 j\Iun. Vg. , TiVeviia nyaOov instead of nvev/m ayiov. rilAl'. \l. : il-oC, ,11'.) prays ; and -when prayinij to Iliin in conformity with tlic model proscribed, he is sure to ask nothing except tiiose thiuirs which such a Father cannot refuse to Ilis child, and iustead of which that Fatiier would not give him other thincis, either hurt- fid or even less precious. The end of the piece thus brings us back to the starting- point : the title Father given to God, and the filial character of him who prays the L)rd's Pra^'er. At', then, relates to the a fortiori, iu the certainly which we have just expressed. Tiie reading of some Alex., Ws ... 6 vloi or vloc, " What son sliall ask of his father," would appeal to the feeling of son«hip among the hearers ; till! reading nva ... is clearly to be preferred to it, " Wiiat father of whom his son shall ask," by which .Jesus appeals to the heart of fathers iu the nsscmbl}-. The three articles of food enumerated by Jesus appear at fiist sight to be chosen at ran- dom. But, as M. Bovet * remarks, loaves, hard eggs, and fried fishes are precisely the ordinary elements of u traveller's fare iu the East. Matthew omits the tliird ; Luke has certainly not added it at his own hand. The correspondence between bread and stone, fish and serpent, egg and scorpion, appears at a glance. In the teaching of Jesus all is picturesque, full of appropriateness, exquisite even to the minutest details. 'E-i(h6ovai, to transfer //w;i hand to hand. This word, which is not repeated in ver. llj, includes this thought : " What P'alher will have the courage to put into the hand . . . ?" The conclusion, ver. 13, is drawn by a new argument d fortiori ; and the reason- ing is still further strengthened hy the words, ye being evil. The reading v-jrapxovrei, " raiding yourselves evU," seems more in harmony with the context than uvrei, being (which is taktn from ^lalthew, where the readings do not vary). "Y-apx^iv denotes the actual state as the starting-point for the supposed activitj'. Bengel justly ob- serves ; lllustre tedimonium de peccato originnli. The reading of the Alex., which omits 6 before t^ ov^avov, would admit of the translation, will give from Jieaven. But there is no reason in the context which could have led Luke to put this construction so prominently. From heaoen thus depends on the word FatJier, and the untranslat- able Greek form can only be explained by introducing the verbal notion of giving between the substantive and its government : " The Father who giveth from heaven." Instead of the IloJy Spirit, Matthew says, good things; and De Wette ac- cuses Luke of having corrected him in a spiritualizing sense. He would thus have done here exactl}' the opposite of that which has been imputed to him iu respect to 6 : 20 1 Have we not then a complete proof that Luke took this whole piece from a source peculiar to himself? As to the intrinsic value of the two expressions, that of Matthew is simple and less didactic , that of Luke harmonizes better peihaps with the elevated sphere of the Lord's Prayer, which is the starting-point of the piece. The use of the simple ^uoei (instead of kniduaei, ver. 12) arises from the fact that the idea does not recur of giving from hand to hand. We regard this piece as one of those in which the originality and excellcuce of Luke's sources appear iu their full liglit, allhough we consider tiie compaiisouof Matthew indispensable to restore tlie words of our Lord iu their entirety. 7. Jhe Blastphnnii of the Phnrixeen : 11 : 14-80.— We have already ob.served (see on G : 11; how remarkably coincident iu time are the accusations called forth in Galilee by the healings on the S;U)batli, and tiiose which are raised about the same period at Jerusalem by the healing of the impotent man (John 5). There is a similar corre- * See the charming passage, " Voyage en Terre-Sainte," p. J5G2, Gth ed. 320 CO.MMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. spondence between the yet graver accusation of complicity with Beelzebub, raised agaiust Jesus on the occasion of His healing demoniacs, and the charge brought against Him at Jerusalem at the feasts of Tabernacles and of the Dedication : " Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil !" (John 8 : 48) ; " He hath a devil, and is mud !" (10 :20). Matthew (chap. 12) and Mark (chap, o) place this accusation and the answer of Jesus much earlier, in the first part of the Galilean ministry. The ac- cusation may and must have often been repeated. The comparison of John would tell in favor of Luke's narrative. Two sayings which proceeded from the crowd give rise to the following discourse : the accusation of complicity with Beelzebub (ver. 15), and the demand for a sign from heaven (ver. 10). It might seem at hist sight that these aie two sayings simply placed in juxtapositiou ; but it is n«t so. Tlie second is intended to offer Jesus the means of dealing Himself of the terrible charge involved in the first : " "Work a miracle in the heavens, ihat sphere which is exclusively divine, and we shall then acknowledge that it is God who acts through tliee, and not Satan." This demand in appearance proceeds from a disposition favorable to Jesus ; but as those who address Him reckon on his poweilessness to meet the demand, the result of the test, in their view, will be a condemnation with- out appeal. Those last are therefore in reality the w-orst iutentioned, and it is in that light that Luke's text represents them. Matthew isolales the two questions, and simply puts in juxtaposition the two discourses which reply to them (12 : 22 (t seq., 30 et seq.) ; thus the significant connection which we have just indicated disappeais. It is difficult to understand how Holtzmann and other moderns can see nothing in this relation established by Luke, but a specimen of his " [arbitrary] manner of join- ing together pieces wiiich were detached in the Logia (.V)." This piece includes : \st. A statement of the facts which gave rise to the two fol- lowing discourses (vers. 14-16) ; 2d. The first discourse in reply to the accusation of ver. 15 (vers. 17-26) ; M. An episode showing the deep impression produced on the people by this discourse (vers. 27 and 28) ; Ath. The second discourse in reply to the challenge thrown out to Jesus, ver. 10 (vers. 29-30). 1st. Vers. 14-10.* 'Hi- ekSu'^Iuv, He ioas occupied in casting out. The word Kufptli dull, may mean deaf or dumb; according to the end of the verse, it here denotes dumbness. On the expression du?7ib devil, see p. 276. I>leek justly concludes, from this term, that the dumbness was of a psj'chical, not an organic nature. The construction h/evero . . . tA&.Tiaev betrays an Aramaic source. The accusation, ver. 15, is twice mentioned by Matthew — 9 : 32, on the occasion of a deaf man pos- sessed, but without Jesus replying to it ; then 12 : 22, which is the parallel passage to ours ; here the possessed man is dumb and blind. Should not those two miracles be regarded as only one and the same fact, the account of which was taken first (Malt. 9) from the Logia, second (Matt. 12) from the proto-Mark, as Holtzmann appears to think, therein following his system to its natural consequences ? But in that case we should have the result, that the Logia, the collection of discourses, contained the fact without the discourse, and that the proto-Mark, the strictly historical writing, con- tained the discourse without the fact — a strange anomaly, it must be confessed ! In Mark 3 this accusation is connected with the step of the brethren of Jesus who come * Ver. 14. YLni nvro t]v is wanting in 5i B. L. 7 Mnn. Syr<^"". A. C. L. X. 6 Mnn., eKiS/^rjOevroi instead of e^eAOoiroc. D. It"''?, present this verse under a s.jtne- what different form. Ver. 15. A. D. K. M. X. n. 40 Mnn. read here a long appen- dix taken from Mark 3 : 23. (11. \r. \i. : 14-11). 321 to lay hold of Him, because they have heard say that He is beside Himself, that He is mail (;3 :21, dri iitani). This expression is neaily synonymous with that of posucsscd (Juhn 10 : 20). Accordhig lo this accusation, it was tlius as one Himself possessed by the piince of the de\ils that Jesus had the power of expelling inferior devils. From this point of view, the ir, (ItnuKjIt, before the Uiiine Bteizebuh, litis a n\()re for- cible sense Ihiin iipptars at the lirsl gUiuce. It signifies nut only by the aulbority t.f, but by IJeelzel)ub himself dwelling personally in Jesus. This name given to Satan appeals in all the documents of Luke, and in almost a:l those of ]\Ialihew, with the terminalipn bid ; and this is certainly thetiue reading. It is probai)ie. howevet, ibat the name is derived from the Heb. Baal-Zebub, God of Flies, a divinity who, accord- ing to 2 Kings 1 ct seq., was woishipped at Ekron, a city of the Philistines, and who may be compared with the 7.ei0-22. 32:J half cures, generally followed by ri;lai)ses, wliicli they wroiigiit ! To ascribe the imperfect cures to God, and to refer the perfect cures to the devil — what lo^ic ! Vers. 20-^0. After having by this new (o-cjumdituiii ad homhictn refuted the sup- position of llis adversaries, Jesus gives tlie true explanation of Ilis cures by contrast- ing the picture of one of those oxp\ilsions which He works (vers. 20-22) with that of a cure performed by the exorcists (vers. 2;]-2r)). Vers. 20-22. " But if I with the linger of God cast out devils, no doubt the king- dom of God is come upon you. 21. "VVhcn a strong man armed keeiietli his palace, his goods arc in peace. 22. But when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor wherein he trusted, and dividelh his spoils." Vcr. 20 draws the conclusion (('f, noio ; upn, then) from the preceding arguments, and forms the transition to the two following scenes. In this declaration there is betrayed intense indignation : " Let them take heed ! The kingdom of God, for which they are waiting, is already there without their suspecting it ; and it is upon it that their blasphemies fall. They imagine tluit it will come with noise and tumult ; and it has come more quickl}' than they thought, and far otherwise it has reached thfux {i(p'jaaev). The construction to' iiuds, «j;oim j/ow, bas a threatening sense. Since they set themselves in array against it, it is an enemy which has surprised them, and which will crush them. The terni finger of God is admirably in keeping with the context : the arm is the natural seat and emblem of strength ; and the finger, the smallest part of the arm, is the symbol of the ease with which this power acts. Jesus means, '" As for me, 1 have ovAy to lift my finger to make the devils leave their prey." These victories, so easily won, prove that henceforth Satan has found his conqueror, and that now God begins really to reign. This word, full of majesty, unveils to His adversaries the grandeur of the work which is going forward, and what tragic results are involved in the hostile attitude which they are taking toward it. Instead of by the finger of Ood, Matthew says by the Spirit of God ; and Weiz- siicker, always in favor of the hypothesis of a common document, supposes that Luke has designedly replaced it by another, because it seemed to put Jesus in dependence on the Holy Spirit. What maj' a man not prove with such criticism ? Is it not simpler, with Bleek, to regard the figurative term of Luke as the original form in the saying of Jesus, which has been replaced by the abstract but radically equivalent expression of Matthew ? Mark omits the two verses 19 and 20. Why ■would he have done so, if he had had before his eyes the same document as the others ? Vers. 21 and 22 serve to illustrate the thought of ver. 20 : the citadel of Satan is plundered ; the fact proves that Satan is vanquished, and that the kingdom of God is come. A strona: and well-armed warrior watches at the gate of his fortress. So "long as he is in this position (orav), all is tranquil (ev e'lpipjj) in his fastness ; his cap- tives remain chained, and his booty {aKvla) is secure. The warrior is Satan (the art. 6 alludes to a single and definite personality) ; his castle is the world, which up till now has been his confirmed property. His armor consists of those powerful means of influence which he wields. His booty is, first of all, according to the context, those possessed ones, the palpable monuments of his sway over humanity ; and in a wider sense, that humanity itself, which with miith or groans bears tlie chains of sin. But a wai'rior superior in strength has appeared on the world's stage ; and from that moment all is changed. 'E-di\from the time that, denotes the abrupt and decisive character of this succession to power, in opposition to orar, as long as, which 324 COMMEXTARY ON ST. LUKE. suited the period of security. Tliis stronger maa is Jesus (the art. 6 also alludes to His defiuite personality). He alone can really plunder the citadel of the prince of this world. Why? Because He alone began by conquering him in single combat. This victory in a personal engagement was the preliminary condition of His taking possession of the earth. It cannot be doubted that, as Keim and Weizsitcker ac- knowledge, .Jesus is here thinking of the scene of His temptation. That spiritual tri- umph is the foundation laid for the ebtablislmient of the kingdom of God on the earth, and for the destruction of that of Satan. As soon as a man can tell llie prince of this world to his face, " Thou hast nothing in me" (.John 14:80), the stronger man, the vanquisher of the strong man, is come ; and the plundering of his house be- gins. This plundering consists, tirst of all, of the heaUngsof the jiossessed wrought by Jesus. Thus is explained the ease with which He performs those acts by which He rescues those unht-ppy ones from malignant powers, and restores them to God, to themselves, and to liumau society. All the figures of this scene are evidently bor- rowed from Isa. 49 : 24, 35, where Jehovah Himself fills the part of liberator, which Jesus here ascribes to Himself. Vers. 28-26.* " He that is not with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. 24. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest ; and finding none, he saith, I will return imto my house whence I came out. 25. And wlien he comelh, he findeth it swept and gar- nished. 26. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself ; and they enter in, and dwell there : and the last state of that man is worse than the first." T^he rel-dtiou between ver. 23 and the verses which precede and fol- low has been thought so obscure by De Wette and Bleek that they give up the at- tempt to explain it. In itself the figure is clear. It is that of a troop wliich has been dispersed bj' a victorious enem\', and which its captain seeks to rail}', after hav- ing put the enemy to fiight ; but false allies hinder ratlier tlian promote the rallying. Is it so difficult to understand the connection of this figure with the context '? The dispersed army denotes humanity, which Satan has conquered ; the chief who rallies it is Jesus ; the seeming allies, who have the appearance of fighting for the same cause as He does, but who in reality scatter abroad with Satan, are the exorcists. Not having conquered for themselves the chief of the kingdom of darkness, it is only in appearance that they can drive out his underlings ; in realit3^ they serve no end by those alleged exploits, except to strengtlien the previous state of things, and to keep up the reign of the ancient master of the world. Such is the object which the fol- lowing illustration goes to prove. By the thrice-repeated e/iov, me, of ver. 23, there is brought into relief the decisive importance of the part which .Jesus plays in llie hi.story of humanity ; He is the impersonation of the kingdom of God ; His appear- ance is the advent of a new power. The words aKopTviZeLv, to disperse, and avvuyeLv, to gather together, are found united in the same sense as here, .John 10 : 13-16. The two following verses serve to illustrate the saying of ver. 23, as vers. 21 and 22 illustrated the declaration of ver. 20. They are a sort of apologue poetically de- scribing a cure wrought by the means which the exorcists employ, and the end of which is to show, that to combat Satan apart from Christ, his sole conqueror, is to Work for him and against God ; comp. the opposite case, 9 : 49, 50. The exorcist * Ver. 24. !*^ B. L. X. Z. some Mnn. It»"i. read tote after evpianov. The mss. are divided between evpioKov and evoinKuv, and at ver. 25 between e'/'jov and F.?f)xy. This is an evil generation : they seek a sign ; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas. J30. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Sou of man be to this generation. 31. The queen of the south shall rise up in the jtidgmeut with the men of this generation, and condemn them : for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. 33. The men of Nineveh shall rise up iu the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. " Diuiug the pre- vious scene, a crowd, growing more and more numerous, had gathered ; and it is before it than Jesus gives the following testimony against the national unbelief. In the ■TTovr/pd, icichrd, there is an allusion to the diabolical spirit which had dictated the call for a sign {■^etpii^ovrei, ver. IG). The point of comparison between Jonas and Jesus, according to Luke, appears at first sight to be only the fact of their preaching, while in Matt. 12 : 39, 40 it is evidently the miraculous deliverance of the one and the resurrection of the other. M. Colani concludes from this difference that Matthew has materialized the comparison which Jesus gave forth iu a purely moral sense (Luk().f But it must not be forgotten that Jesus says in Luke, as well as in Matthew : " The Sou of man *7irt^^ ic (frrrat) a sign," by which He cannot denote His present preaching and appearance, the Fut. necessarily referring to an event j^et to come — an event which can be no other than the entirely exceptional miracle of His resurrec- tion. They ask of Jesus a sign e^ ovpavov, proceedinrj from heaven, ver. 10. His les- urrection, iu which no human agency interveues, and iu which divine power appears alone, fully satisfies, and only satisfies, this demand. This is the feature which Peter as.serts in Acts 3 : 24, 32, 3 : lo, etc. : " God hath raised up Jesus." In John 2 : 19, Jesus replies to a similar demand by announcing the same event. The thought in Luke and Matthew is therefore exactly the same : "It was as one who had nu- raculou.sly escaped from death that Jonas presented himself before the Ninevites, sum- moning them to anticipate the danger which threatened them ; it is as the risen One that I (by mj' messengers) shall proclaim salvation to the men of this generation." Which of the two texts is it which reproduces the answer of our Lord most exactly ? But our passage may be parallel with JVIatt. 10 : 4, where the form is that of Luke. As to the words of Matt. 13 : 39, 40, they must bo autheutic. No one would liavo put into the mouth of Jesus the expression three datjn and three niyhiK, when Jesus had actually remained iu the tomb only cue day and two nights. But how shall this sign, and this preaching which will accompany it, be received ? It is to this new thought that vers. 31 and 33 refer. Of the two examples which Jesus quotes, Matthew puts that of the Ninevites first, that of the Queen of Sheba second. Luke reverses the order. Here again it is easy to perceive the superiority of Luke's text. 1. Matthew's order has been determined by the natural tendency to * Ver. 29. .5 Mjj. repeat yevea after avri], read C'ye' instead of ETnCTjTei, and omit the words -ov 7TiJO(pr,Tov (taken from Matthew). Ver. 33. 12 Mjj. 80 Muu. Syr"=''. It. read Jiiveveirat instead of Ntvevi. f " Jesus Christ ct les croyauces Messianiqucs, " etc., p. 111. 328 COMMEKTART OJT ST. LL'KE. hring the example of thoNinevites into immediate proximity with what Jesus has been saying of Jouas. 2. Luke's order presents an admirable gradation : while the wis- dom of Solomon sufficed to attract the Queen of Sheba from such a distance, Israel demands that to the intinitely higher wisdom of Jesus there should be added a sign from heaven. This is serious enough. But matters will be still worse : while the heathen of Nineveh were converted by the voice of Jonas escaped from deatii, Israel at the sight of Jesus raised from the dead, shall not be converted. Comp. as to the Queen of the South, 1 Kings 10 : 1 et seq. Seba seems to have been a part of Arabia- Felix, the modern Yemen. 'EyepOTjasTai, shall rise rtp from her tomb on the day of the great awakening, at the same time as the Jews {ue-d, with, not against), so that the blindness of the latter shall appear m full light, contras?ted with the earnestness aud docility of the heathen queen. The word avSpuv, "the men of this generation," certainly indicates a contrast with her female sex. Indeed, this term uv6pEi, men, does not reappear in the following example, where this generation is not compared with a woman. Perhaps the choice of the first instance was suggested to Jesus by the incident which had just taken place, vers. 37, 38. The word avaarijaovTai, ver. ?>li, shall rise tip, denotes a more advanced degree of life than eyepOriaovTai {shall awake). These dead are not rising from their tombs, like the Queen of Sheba ; they are already in their place before the tribunal as accusing witnesses. How dramatic is everything in the speech of Jesus ! and what variety is there in the smallest details of His descriptions ! Vers. 33-30.* The Spiritual Eye. — " No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under the bushel, but on the candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. 34. The light of the hoiXy is the ej^e : therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light ; but when thine eye is evil, thy whole body is full of darkness. 35. Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. 36. If thy whole body, therefore, be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light." Christ — such is the sign from heaven whose light God will diffuse over the world. He is the lamp which gives light to the house. God has not lighted it to allow it to be banished to an obscure corner ; He will put it on a candlestick, that it may shine before the eyes of all ; and this He will do by means of the resurrection. Kpvnrrjv, a place out of view, under a bed, e.g. (8 : 16). T6i> fiddiov, not a bushel, but ilie bushel ; there is but one in the house, which serves in turn as a measure, a dish, or a lantern.f But it is with this sii^n in relation to our soul, as with a lamp relatively to our body, ver. 34. To the light which shines with- out there must be a corresponding organ in the individual fitted to receive it, and which is thus, as it were, the lamp within. On the state of this organ depends the more or less of light which we receive from the external luminary, and which we actually enjoy. In the body this organ, which by means of the external light forms the light of the whole body, the hand, the foot, etc., is the eye ; everything, theie- * Ver. 33. ». B. C. D. U. r, several Mnn. Syr. It""'?, omit (^e after ovSeic Inslend of KpvTTTov, which the T. R. reads, with some Mnn., all the other documents read KpvTCTj]v. The Mss. are divided between to (peyyoi (T. R.) and to ©u? (Alex.), which appears to be taken from 8 : 16. Ver. 34. 6 Alex, add oov after o(p^ialuoi (the first). i*. B. D. L. A. It. Vg. omit ow after oTav. K. L. M. X. 11. some Mnn. It«''9., earat instead of taTiv. K. M. U. X. n. 50 Mnn. Itpi^Wue^ afj^^ soTai. after aiwTeivov. Ven :]0. D. Svr"'". ItP's^'iue, omit this verse. t M.'F. Bovet, " Voyage cu Terre-Sainte," p. 313. CTIAP. XI. : 33-36. 320 fore, depends on llie stale of this organ. For the soul it is — Jesus docs not say wJiat, He leaves us to guess — the heart, Kapdia ; coinp. Malt. G : 21 aud 23. The underslaud- ing, the will, the wliole spiritual being, is illuniiuatcd by the diviue light which the heart admits. With every motion iu the way of righteousness tiiere is a discharge of liglit over the wlioIe soul. 'A-AorS, single, aud hence iu this place — wliich is iu its oi igiual, normaJ state ; Tvo.jipoi, corrupt-jd, aud heuce diseased, iu ihe meauiug of the plirase noirnnji fv"''. to be ill. If tiie Jews were rigiit in heart, they would see the diviue sign put l)efore their ej'es as easily as the Quetn of the South aud the Niuc- vitcs perceived the less brilliant sign placed before them ; l)ut their heart is perverse : tliat oigau is diseased ; and hence the sign shines, and will shine, in vain before their view. The liglit without will not become light in them. Ver. 33. It is supremely important, therefore, for every one to Tvatch with the greatest care over the state of this precious organ. If the eye is not enlightened, what member of the body will be so ? The foot and hand will act in the daikness of night. So with the faculties of the soul when the heart is perverted from good. Ver. 3G. But what a contrast to this condition is formed by that of a being who opens his heart fully to the truth, his spiritual eye to the brightness of the lamp which has been lighted by God Himself 1 To avoid the tautology which the two members of the verse seem to present, we need only put the emphasis diilercutly in the two prop- ositions ; in the first on d?.ov, whole ; and iu the second on (Jxjteivuv, full of UglU, connecting this word immediately with the following as its commentary : full of light as wlLcn . . . The very position of the words forbids any other giammatical ex- planation ; and it leads us to this meaning : " When, through the fact of the clear- ness ot thme eye, thy whole body shall be penetrated with light, Avitbout there being in thee the least trace of darkness, then the phenomenon which will be wrought in thee will resemble what takes place on thy body when it is placed iu the rays of a luminous focus." Jesus means, that from the inward part of a perfectly sanctified man there rays forth a splendor which glorifies the external man, as when he is shone upon from without. It is glory as the result of holiness. The phenomeuon desciibed here by Jesus is no other than that which was realjzed in Himself on the occasion of His transfiguration, and which He now applies to all Ijelievers. Passages such as 2 Cor. 3 ; 18 and Rom. 8 : 29 will always be the best commentary on this sublime dec- laration, which Luke alone has preserved to us, aud which forms so perfect a conclu- sion to this discourse. Bleek having miosed the meaning of this saying, and of the piece generally, accuses Luke of having placed it heie without ground, and prefers the setting which it has iu ^lattliew, iu llie middle of the Sermon on the Mount, inun( diatel}' after the maxim : " Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Undoubtedly this context of ^latthew proves, as Wi' have recognized, that the eye of the soul, accord- ing to the view of Jesus, is the heart. But what disturbs the i)urily of that organ is ni>t merely avarice, as would appear from the context of ^latt. 0. It is sin in general, perversity of hea'.i hostile to the light ; i;nd this more geneial application is precisely that which we find in Luke. This passage has been jjlaced iu the Sermon on the Mount, like .so many othens, rather bi'cause of the associaliou of ideas than from bis- tnrical reminiscence. The context of Luke, from 11 : 1-1 to ver. ;!(i. is without fault. On the one side the accMisatinn and dcniaiKl made by tlie enemies cf Jesus, vers. 15, 16, on the other the enthusiastic exclauialion of the lielieving wcman, vers. 27, 28, furnish Jesus with the slarting-poiuls for His two contrasted desciiptious — that of growing blindness which terminates in midnight darkness, and that of gradual illumi- nation which leads to perfect glory. Wc may, after this, estimate the justness of 330 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Holtzmanu's judgment : "It is impossible to conuect this passage about ligbt, in a simple and natural vvay, witli tlie discourse respecting Jonas." 8. Tlie Dinner at a Pharisee s House : 11 : 37-12 : 12.— Agreeably to the coun«ction established by Luke himself (12 : 1), we jom the two pieces 11 : b7-54 and 12 : 1-12 in one whole. Here, so far as Galilee is concerned, we have the culminating point of the struggle between Jesus and the pharisaic party. This period finds its couniui- part in Judea, in the scenes related John 8, 10. The background of the contlict which now ensues is still the odious accusation refuted in the previous passage. The actual situation assigned to the repast is, according to Hollzmanu, merely a tic- tiun, the idea of which had been suggested to Luke by the figures of vers. 39 and 40. Is it not more natural to suppose that the images of vers. 39 and 40 were suggested to Jesus by the actual sltuatiim, which was that of a repast ? It is true, a great many of the sayings which compose this discourse are found placed by Matthew in a dif- ferent connection ; they form part of the great discourse in which Jesus denounced the divine malediction on the scribes and Pharisees in the temple a few days before His death (Matt. 23). But first it is to be remarked, that Hollzmaun gives as little credit to the pl;lce which those sayings occupy in (he composition of Matthew, as to the "scenery" of Luke. Then we have already found too many examples of the process of aggregation used in the first Gospel, to have our confidence shaken thereby in the narrative of Luke. We shall inquire, therefore, with impartialil3% as we pro- ceed, which of the two situations is that which best suits the words of Jesus. This piece contains : \st. The rebukes addressed to the Pharisees (vers. 37-44) ; 2d. Those addressed to the scribes (vers. 45-54) ; M. The encouragements given to the disciples in face of the animosity to which they are exposed on the part of those enraged adversaries (12 : 1-12). 1st. To the Pharisees: vers. 37-44.— Vers. 37 and 38.* Tlie Occasion.— This Pharisee had probably been one of the hearers of the previous discourse ; perhaps one of the authois of the accusation raised against Jesus. He had invited Jesus along with a certain number of his own colleagues (vers. 45 and 53), with the must malevo- lent intention. Thus is explained the tone of Jesus (ver 39, et seq.), which socae com- mentators have pronounced impolite (!). The reading of some Fathers and Vss., " He began to doubt (or to murmur, as (haKpivenfjai sometimes means in the LXX.), and to say," is evidently a paraplirase. 'Kplotov, the morning meal, as delirvov, the principal meal of the day. The meaning of the expression el'7F:'A0dv averveaev is this : He seated Himself without ceremony, as He was when He entered. The Pharisees laid great stress on the rite of purification before meals (Mark 7 : 2-4 ; Matt. 15 : 1-3) ; and the Rabbins put the act of eating with unwashed hands in the same cate- gory as the sin of impurity. From the surprise of His host, Jesus takes occasion to stigmatize the false devotion of the Pharisees ; He does not mince matters ; for after what has just passed (ver. 15), war is openly declared. He denounces : Isi. The hypocrisy of the Pharisees (vers. 39-42) ; 2d. Their vainglorious spirit (ver. 43 ; Sd. The evil influence which their false devotion exercises over the whole people (ver. 44). Vers. 39-42. f Their Hypocrisy. — " And the Lord said unto hira, Now do ye Phar- * Ver. 38. Instead of i6uv eOavfiaasv on, D. Syr'^"^ ltpi<""'i"e^ Vg. Tert. ; VP^ara diaKpivofxevoi ev eavru /ieyecv diari. f Ver. 42. i^^ B. L. 2 Mnn., napeivat instead of a^Lsva:. niAP. XI. : ;)7-44. 3:U isees make clean the outside of the cup and the plattor ; but your inward part is tuU of raveuiug and wickedness. 40. Ye fodls, did not lie lliat made that wiiich is willi- out, make llmt which is within also? 41. Kathcr give alms of such things as are within ; and, behold, all things are clean nut > you. 43. But woe unto you, I'lKiii- sees ! for ye tilhc mint and lue, and all manner of heibs, und pass over jiulmncnt and the love of God: these ought ye to ha\edone, and not to have the other un- done." God had appointed for His pople certain washings, that they might culti- vate the sense of moial purity in His presence. And this is what the I'harisecM havo brought the rite to ; multiplying its applicatiiuis at their pleasure, lliey think them- selves excused thereby from the duty of heart purification. Was it possible to go more directly in opposition to the divine intention : to destroy the practice of the duty by their practices, the end by the means ? Meyer and Bletk translate I'fi', now, in the sense of time : " Things have now come to such a pass with you . . ." It is more natural to give it the logical sense which it often has : " Well now ! There you are. you Pharisees ' I take j^ou in the act." If, in the second member of the verse, the term to eaudev, the inward part, was not supplemented by iiyuui', your inward part, the most natural sense of the first member would be thus : " Ye make clean the outside of the vessels in which ye serve up the repast to j'our guests." Bleek maintains this meauing for the first proposition, notwithstanding the vudv in the second, bj' joining this pron. to the two substantives, upTr-ay/ji and novijinas : " But the inside [of the cups anu platters] is full [of the products] of your raveniugs and ^? iaKTvAuv. 334 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. the Pharisees. As to those minute prescriptions which they discovered daily in the law, and which they recommended to the zeal of devotees, they had small regard for them in their own practice. They seemed to imagine that, so far as they were con- cerned, the knowing dispensed with the doing. Such is the procedure characterized by Jesus in ver. 46. Constantly drawing the heaviest burdens from the law, they bind them on the shoulders of the simple. But as to themselves, they make not the slightest effort to lift them. Vers. 47-51.* Persecuting Orthodoxy. — " Woe unto you ! for yQ build the sepul- chres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48. Truly ye are witnesses that ye allow the deeds of your fathers : for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute : 50. That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foimdation of the world, may be required of this generation ; 51. From the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, whicti perished between the altar and the temple : verily I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation." Head religion is almost alwaj's connected with hatred of living piety, or spiritual religion, and readily becomes persecuting. All travellers, and par- ticularly Robinson, mention the remarkable tombs, called tombs of the prophets, which are seen in the environs of Jerusalem. It was perhaps at that time that the Jews were busied with those structures ; they thought thereby to make amends for the injustice of their fathers. By a bold turn, which translates the external act into a thought opposed to its ostensible object, but in accordance with its real spirit, Jesus says to them : " Your fathers killed ; ye bury ; therefore ye continue and fin- ish their work." In the received reading, fxaprvpelTe, ye bear witness, signifies: " When ye bury, ye give testimony to the reality of the bloodshed committed by your fathers." But the Alex, reading juap-rvpe? ears, ye are witnesses, is undoubtedly preferable. It includes an allusion to the official part played by witnesses in the punishment of stoning (Deut. 17 : 7 ; Acts 7 : 58). It is remarkable that the two terras /udprvi icitness, and awevSoKelv, to approve, are also found united in the descrip- tion of Stephen's martyrdom. They seem to have had a technical significance. Thus : " Ye take the part of witnesses and consummators of your fathers' crimes." The reading of the Alex., which omit avruv tu /ni'Tj/iela, their graves, at the end of ver. 48, has a forcible conciseness. Unfortunately those Mss. with the T. R. read avrovc after cnriicTeivav ; and this regimen of the first verb appears to settle that of the sec- ond. In connection with the conduct of the Jews toward their prophets, whom they slew, and honored immediately after their death, the saying has been righlly quoted : sit licet divus, dumtnodo non vivus. The parallel passage in Matthew (23 : 29-31) has a rather difi"erent sense : " Ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets ; Wherefore ye witness against yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." The oneness of sentiment is here proved, not by the act of building the tombs, but by the word children. The two forms show such a difference, that they could not proceed from one and the same document. That of Luke appears every way preferable. In Matthew, the relation between the words put by Jesus into the mouth of the Jews, ver. 30, and the building of the tombs, ver. 29, is not clear. * Ver. 47. 2**. C, km ol instead of oi f5c. Ver. 48. i^. B. L., finpTvpEi enre instead of p-aprvpeiTE (taken from Matthew), ii. B. D. L. It*'"i. o;nit avruv rd fivij^iela after ouio6onuTE. Ver. 49. Marcion omitted vers. 49-51. <'IIAI>. XI. : \:-'A. 335 Aid. TovTo Kai ; " Ami bcciiuse the matter is rciilly so, notwithstandini; appearances to the contrary, the wisdom of God liath said." AVhat does .Jesus undti stand liy the wisdom of God V Ewald, Bleek, etc., thinli tliat Jtsiis is here quolini; a lost book, wliivli assigned tills saying to the wisdom of God, or which itself bore this title. Bleek supposes that the quotation from this book does not go further than to the mi, ver. 51 : tiie discourse of Jesus is resumed at the words. Verily 1 sdi/ vnto you. But, 1. The discourses of .Jesus present no other example of an extra-canonical (piotation ; 8. The term apostle, in what follows, seems to betray the language of .Jesus Himself ; 3. The thought of vers,. 50 and 51 is too profound and m^'slerious to be ascribed to any human source whatever. According to 3Ieyer, we have indeed a saying of Jesug here ; but as it was repeated in oral tradition, it had become a habit, out of reverence for Jesus, to quote it in this form : The wisdom of God (.Jesus) said, I send . . . Comp. Matt. 23 : 34 : 1 send (q ti aTToaTi?J.cj). This form of quotation was mistakenly regarded by Luke as forming jiart of the discourse of Jesus. But Jjuke has not made us familiar thus far with such blunders ; and the (Uu tovto, on account of this — which falls so admirably into the context of Luke, and which is found identically in Matthew, where it has, so to speak, no meaning (as IloUzniann a(;knowledges, p. 228) — is a striking proof in favor of the exactness of the document from which Jjuke draws. Baur thinks that by the word, the wisdom of God, Luke means to designate the Gospel of Matthew, itself already received in the Church as God's word at the time when Luke wrote. But it must first be proved that Luke knew and used the Gospel of Matthew. Our exegesis at every step has proved the contrary ; besides, we have uo example of an apostolical author having quoted the writing of one of his colleagues with such a formula of quotation. Neander and Gess think that here Ave have a mere parenthesis inserted by J^uke, in which he reminds us in passing of a saying which Jesus in point of fact did not utter till later (Matt. 2t>). An interpola- tion of this kind is far from natural. The solitary instance which could possibly be cited (Luke 7 : 29, 30) seems to us more than doubtful. Olshausen asserts that Jesus intends an allusion to the words (2 Chron. 24 : 19) : " He sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto Him ; but ihey would not re- ceive them." But the connection between those two sayings is very indirect. I think there is a more satisfactory solution. The book of the O. T. which in the primitive Church as well as among the Jews, in common with the books of Jesus Sirach and Wisdom, bore the name of ao(pia, or tcisdom of God, was that of Proverbs.* Xow here is the passage which we find in that book (1 : 20-31) : " Wisdom uttereth her voice in the streets and crieth in the chief places of concourse . . . Behold, I will pour out my Spirit upon you (LXX., e/^i/i jdw/S ^rjaiv), and I will make known my words unto j'ou . . . But ye liave set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof. Therefore I will lauuh at j'our calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh . . . (and I shall say). Let them eat of the fruit of their works !" This is the passage which Jesus seems to me to quote. For the breath of His Spirit, whom God promises to send to His people to instruct and reprove them, Jesus substitutes the living organs of the Spirit — Ills apostles, the new prophets ; then lie applies to the Jews of the day (ver. 49/>) the sin of obstinate resistance pro- oiaimed in the same passage ; finally (vers. 50, 51), He paraphrases the idea of linal * Clemens Rom., Irenseus, Hegesippus call it rj -iravupeToi auoin ; Melito (accord- ing to the reading ^ Kai, (Eus. iv. 33, ed. Lsemm.) aoipia. See Wieseler, " Stud, und Krilik." 1856, 1. 33G COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. puaialiment, which closes this prophecy. The parallelism seems to us to be com- plete, aud juslilies iu the most natuiai manner the use of the term, the wimlohi of (Jod. By the words prophets and apostles Jesus contrasts this new race of the !S[)irit'3 agents, wiiich is to continue the work of the old, with the men of the dead letter, ■with those scribes whom lie is now addressing. The lot which lies before them at the bauds of the latter will be precisely the same as the prophets had to meet at ihe hands of their fathers ; thus to the sin of the fathers there will be justly added that of the children, until the measure be full. It is a law of the Divine goveinmeut, which controls the lot of societies as well as that of individuals, that God does not correct a development once commenced by premature judgment. While still warn- ing the sinner, He leaves his sin to ripen ; and at the appointed hour He strikes, not for tiie present wickedness only, but for all which preceded. The continuous unity of the sin of the fathers involves their descendants, who, while able to change their conduct, persevere and go all the length of the way opened up by the former. This continuation on the part of the children includes an implicit assent, in virtue of which they become accomplices, responsible for the entire development. A decided breaking away from the path followed was the only thing which could avail to rid them of this terrible implication in the entire guilt. According to this law it is that Jesus sees coming on the Israel round about Him the whole storm of wrath which has gathered from the torrents of innocent blood shed since the beginning of the hu- man race. Comp. the two threatenings of St. Paul, which look like a commentary on this passage (Rom. 3:3-5; 1 Thess. 2 : 15, 16). Jesus quotes the first and last examples of martyrdoms mentioned in the canoni- cal history of the old covenant. Zacharias, the son of the high priest Jehoiada, ac- cording to 2 Chron. 24 : 20, was stoned iu the temple court by order of King Joash. As Chronicles probably formed the last book of the Jewish canon, this murder, the last related iu the O. T., was the natural counterpart to that of Abel. Jesus evi- dently alludes to the words of Genesis (4:10), " The voice of thy brother's blood cri- eth from the ground," and to those of the dying Zacharias, " The Lord look upon it, anl require it." Comp. skI^jittiOt/, ver. 50, and sKl^rjTTfliqaEraL, ver. 51 (in Luke). If Matthew calls Zacharias the son of Barachias, it may be reconciled with 2 Chron. 24 by supposing that Jehoiada, who must then have been 130 years of age, was his grandfather, and that the name of his father Barachias is omitted because lie had died long before. Anyhow, if there was an error, it must be charged against the com- piler of the first Gospel (as is proved by the form of Luke), not against Jesus. Ver. 53 : The Monopoly of Theology. — " Woe unto you, lawyers ! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge : ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." The religious despotism with which Jesus in the third place charges the scribes, is a natural consequencie of their fanatical attachment to the letter. This last rebuke corresponds to the third which He had addressed to the Pharisees — the pernicious influence exercised by them over the whole people. Jesus represents knowledge, {yvuatc) under the figure of a temple, into which the scribes should have led the people, but whose g-ate they close, and hold the key with jealous care. This knowledge is not that of the gospel, a meaning which would lead us out- side the domain of the scribes ; it is the real living knowledge of God, such as might alread3r be found, at least to a certain extent, in the O. T. The key is the Scrip- tures, the interpretation of which the scribes reserved exclusively to themselves. But their commentaries, instead of tearing aside the veil of the letter, that their hear- ciiAF. XII. : 1-3. 337 ers mii^Iit penetrate to tht- spirit, tbickeued it, ou the contrury, as if to prevent Israel fiiuu belmlditig the face of the liviug God who revealed llimseU' in the O. T., and fiom couiiug iuto coutact wilh Ilim The pres. part, ciaepxofitvoi denotes those who weie ready to rise to this vital knowledge, and who only lacked the sound interpreta- tion of Sciipture to biing Iheni to it. Mullhew, in a long discourse which he puts into the mouth of Jesus in the temple (chap. 2o), has combiued in one compact mass the contents of those two apostrophes addressed to the Pharisees and lawyers, which are so nicely distinguished hy Luke. .Jesus certainly uttered in the temple, as Matthew relates, a vigorous discourse addressed to the scribes and Piiarisees. Luke himself (20 : 45-47) indicates the time, and gives a summary of it. But it cannot be doubted that here, as in the Sermon on the Mount, the lirst Gospel has combined many sayingn uttered on different ccca- Rions, The distribution of accusations between the Pharisees and lawyers, as we find ft in Luke, corresponds perfectly to the characters of those two classes. The question of the scribe (ver. 4.j) seems to be indisputably authentic. Thus Luke shows himself here again the historian properly so called. Vers, iio and 54.* Iliatoricdl Conclusion. — These verses describe a scene of violence, perhnps unique, in the life of Jesus. Numerous vaiiations prove the very early alteration of the text. According to tlic reading of the principal Alex., And irheii He had gone thence, this scene must have taken place after Jesus had left the Phari- see's house ; but this reading seems designed to establish a closer connection with what follows (13 : 1, et seq.), and produces the impression of a gloss. On the other hand, the omission of the words, and scekinr/, and that they might accuse Ilim, in B. L. (ver. 54), renders the turn of expression more simple and lively. The reading aTToaTu/iii^^iiv (to blunt) has no meaning. We must read aivuaro/xan^eiv, to utter, and then to cause to utter. od. To the Disciples : 12 : 1-12. — This violent scene had found its echo outside ; a considerable crowd had flocked together. Excited by the animosity of their chiefs, the multitude showed a disposition hostile to Jesus and His disciples. Jesus feels the need of turning to His own, and giving them, in presence of all, those encouragements which their faituation demands. Besides, He has uttered a word which must have gone to their inmost heart, some of you, they will slay and persecute, and He feels the need of supplying some counterpoise. Thus is explained the exhortation which fol- lows, and which has for its object to raise their courage and give them boldness in testifying. ]\Iust not one be very hard to please, to challenge, as iloltzmaan does, the reality of a situation so simple? Jesus encourages His apostles : 1st. By the certainty of the success of their cause (vers. 1-y) ; 2d. By the assurance which lie gives them as to their persons (vers. 4-7) ; "id. By the promise of a glorious recompense, which He contrasts witii the punish- ment of the timid, and of their adversaries (vers. 8-10) ; finally, B3' the assurance of powerful aid (vers. 11, 12). Vers, l-o :f TJie Assured 'Success of tJieir Ministry, and the Fall oj their Adver- * Ver. 5.1. Si. B. C. L. read KaKeifiev e^eMovror avrov instead of ?.eyovToi . . . avTovi, L. S. V. A. Several Mnn., a-<)OTnfii!^eiv instead of unonTounTi^giv. Ver. 54. ii. X. omit 01)701' after eif'5pn»;i'T£-5. 15 Mjj. Syr. It. read C^^roj^ire? instead of «ai ^j^rovireS ; K. B. L. omit these words. !!i. B. L. omit i'« KnTrjyoi)i)aijr!iv nvrav. I Ver. 1. Instead of iv oii . . . o|;/.(jv, D/ lir'"''ique^ Vg., tto/./Iwi' ch o;^;/wy awneit uxovruv HVK?,u. Tert. Vg. omit Tipurov. 338 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKES. g^,.2-^g,_" In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable mul titude of people, insomuch that ihey tiocJe one upon auolher, He began to hay unlo His disciples first of all : Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hj poc risy. 2. For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed ; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in daikuess shall be heard in the light ; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the house-tops." The words ev ols, on which, establish a close connection between the following scene and that which precedes. This gather- ing, which is formed as in the previous scene (11 : 29), is readily explained by the general circumstances— those of a journey. When Jesus had arrived at a village, some time was needed to make the population aware of it ; and soon it flocked to Ilim en masse. "Up^aTo, He began, imparts a solemn character to the words which follow. Jesus, after having spoken severely to His adversaries, now addresses the little company of His disciples, lost among that immense throng, in language full of boldness. It is the cry omcard, with the promise of victory. The words, to the dis- ciples, are thus the key to the discourse followmg. The word npurov, before all, should evidently be connected with the verb which foUows, beicare ye. Comp. 9 : 61, 10 : 5. Meyer concludes, from the absence of the article before vKOKpLOLi, that the leaven is not hypocrisy itself, but a style of teaching which has the character of hypocrisy. This is a very forced meaning. The absence of the article i3 very common before terms which denote virtues and vices. (Winer, " Gramra. des N. T. Sprachidioms," § 19, 1.) Leaven is the emblem of every active principle, good or bad, which pos- sesses the power of assimilation. The devotion of the Phar.'sees had given a false direction to the whole of Israelitish piety (vers. 39, 44). This warning may have been repeated several times (Mark 8 : 13 ; Matt. 10 : 6). The tie adversative of ver. 2 determines the sense of the verse: "But all this Pharisaic hypocrisy shall be unveiled. The impure foundation of this so vaunted holiness shall come fully to the light, and then the whole authority of those masters of opinion shall crumble away ; but, in place thereof {dvO' djv, ver. 3), those whose voice cannot now find a hearing, save within limited and obscure circles, shall become the teachers of the world." The Hillels and Gamaliels v.ill give place to new teach- ers, who shall fill the world wilh their doctrine, and those masters shall be Peter, John, INIatthew, here present ! This substitution of a new doctorate for the old is announced in like manner to Nicodemus (John 3 : 10, 11). Here, as there, the poeti- cal rhythm of the parallelism indicates that elevation of feeling which arises from so great and transporting a thought. Comp. the magnificent apostrophe of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 1 : 20 : "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe . . . ?" By St. Paul's time the substitution had been fully effected. Tafislov, the larder (from riuvcj) ; and hence the locked chamber, the innermost apartment, in opposition to the public room. The roofs of houses in the East are terraces, from whicli one can speak with those who are in the street. This is the emblem of the greatest possible publicity. The mouth of the scribes shall be stopped, and the teaching of the poor disciples shall be heard over the whole universe. The apophthegms of vers. 2 and 3 may be applied in many ways, and Jesus seems to have repeated them often with varied applications. Comp. 8 : 17. In the parallel passage (Matt. 10 : 27), the matter in question is the teaching of Jesus, not that of the apostles ; and this saying appears in the form of an exhortation addressed to the latter : " What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light." Natural'y the maxim which precedes (ver. 2 of Luke) should also receive a CHAP. XII. :4-10. 339 different application in Maltliew (vcr. 26) : " Everylhiug that is true must come to tliu light, rublisli, lhcrt'l\>rc, withoul Icar whalsocver i have tokl >ou." Vers. 4-7.* rersonal Security.—" And 1 say uulo you, mj Irieuds, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, aud af er that have uo more tuat they cau do. 5. But I ■w ill foiewaru you whom ye shall fear ; fear Him whieh, after Uc hath killed, hath power to cast into bell ; yea, I say uuto you, fear Him. G. Are not five sparrows sold for two failhiugs ; aud not one of them is forgotten before God ? 7. But even tlic very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore : ye are of more value Ihau many sparrows." The success of their cau^e is certain. But what of their ^jetsnual future? After 11 : 49 there was good cause for some disquiet on this point. Hire the heart of Jesus softens : the thought of the lot which some of them will have to undergo seems to render His own more dear to Him. Hence the tender form of address, To you, my friends. Certainly Luke did not invent this word : aud if Matthew, in whom it is not found (10 .28. et seq.), had used the same document as Luke, he would not have omitted it. Olshausen has taken up the strange idea, that by him who can cast into hell we are to understand, not God, but the devil, as if Scripture taught us to fear the devil, and not rather to resist him to his face (1 Pet. 5:9; James 4 : 7). The mss. are divided between the forms anoKTErv6vTui> (Eolico- Doric, according to Bleek), cnvoKvefni^Tuv (a corruption of the preceding), and czoKTcivdi'Tuv (the regular form). The term Gehenna (hell) properly signifies talley of IIinnoni{Q^j-f^ ij, Josh. 15 : 8, comp. 18 : 16 ; 2 Kings 23 : 10 ; Jer. 7 : 31, etc.). It was a fresh aud pleasant valley to the south of the hill of Zion, where were found in early times the king's gardens. But as it was there that the worship of Moloch was celebrateil under the idolatrous kings, Josiah converted it into a place for sewage. The valle}' thus became the type, and its name the designation, of hell. This saying of Jesus distinguishes soul from body as emphatically as modern spiritualism can do. What are we to think of M. Renan, who dares to assert that Jesus did not know the exact distinction between those two eleiueuts of our being ! Jesus dues not promise His disciples that their life shall always be safe. But if they perish, it will not be without the consent of an all-powerful Being, who is called their Father. The sayings whieh follow expre.ss by the most forcible emblems the idea of a providence which extends to the smallest details of human life. To make a more appreciable sum, Luke speaks of five birds of the value of about two farthings, ^lallhew, who .speaks of two birds only, gives their value at one farthing ; that is, a little dearer. Did five cost proportionally a little less than two? Can we imagine one of the two evangelists amusing himself by making such changes in the text of the other, or in that of a common dociuncnt I The expression before God is Hebrais- tic ; it means that there is not one of those small creatures whi(;h is not individually present to the view of divine omniscience. The knowledge of God extends nut only to our persons, but even to the most insignificant parts of our being — to those 140,- 000 hairs of which we lose some every day without paying the least attention. No fear, then ; ye shall not fall without God's consent ; and if He consent, it is because it will be for His child's good. Vers. 8-10. f The Recompense of faithful Disciples, contrasted with the PunisJiment * Ver. 4. 5 !Mjj. 10 Mim. read neptaanv instead of Trepinaorepov. Ver. 7. B. L. R. It*'''!, emit oui/ after /i7?. 6 Mjj. 60 Mnu. Vg. add v/xeii after (^laaepere (taken from Malthew). t Ver. 8. it. D. read on after vuid. !Marrion omitted tdv ayye/~uv. Ver. 9. A. D. K. Q. U. 20 Mini., eu-oon iv instead of the first ei-u-lov (according to Malthew). 340 COMMENTARY OIST ST. LUKE. of the Cowardlji, and with thai of Adversaries. — " Also 1 say unto you, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, liim shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God. 9. But he that denieth me before men, shall be denied before the angels of God. 10. And whosoever shall speak a woid against the Son of man, it shall be for- given him ; but unto him that blasphemeth agamst the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven." The profession of the gospel may undoubtedly cost the disciples dear ; bul if they persevere, it assures them of a magnificent recompense. Jesus, when glo- ritied, will requite them by declaring them His before the heavenly throng, for what they did for Him by acknowledging Him their Lord below at the lime of His hu- miliation. The gnostic Heracleou remarked the force of the prep, ev with o/^oAoydv. It e.xpresscs the rest of faith in Him who is confessed. Ver. 9 guards the disciples against the danger of denial. This warning was by no means out of place at the time when they were surrounded by furious enemies. It is to be remarked that Jesus does not say lie iciU deny the renegade, as He said that He woukl confess the confess- or. The verb is here in the passive, as if to show that this rejection will be a self- consummated act. Ver. 10 glances at a danger more dreadful still than that of being rejected as a timid disciple. This punisimient may have an end. But the sin of which ver. 10 speaks is forever unpardonable. This tenible threat naturally applies to the sin of the adversaries of Jesus, to which His thought recurs in closing. They sin, not through timidity, but through active malice. By the expression Uasiihcme against the Holy Spirit Jesus alludes to the accusation which had given rise to this whole con- flict (11 : 15), and by which the woiks of that divine agent in the hearts of men (conip. Matt. 12 : 28, " If least out devils by the Spirit of Ood") had been ascribed lo the spirit of darkness. That was knowingly and deliberately to insult the holi- ness of the principle from which all good in human life proceeds. To show the greatness of tliis crime of high treason, Jesus compares it with an outrage committed against His own person. He calls the latter a simple icord (/.njoi'), an imprudent word, not a blasphemy. To utter a word against the poor and humble Son of man is a sin which does not necessarily proceed from malice. Might it not be the position of a sincerely pious Jew, who was still ruled by prejudices with which he had been imbued by his pharisaic education, to regard Jesus not as the expected Messiah, but as an enthusiast, a visionary, or even an impostor ? Such a sin resembles that of the woman who devovitly brought her contribution to the pile of Huss, and at the sight of whom the martyr exclaimed, Sancta simpUcitas. Jesus is ready to pardon in this world or in the next every indignity offered merely to His person ; but an insult offered to goodness as such, and to its living principle in the heart of humanilJ^ the Iluly Spirit, the impious audacity of putting the holiness of His works to the ac- count of the spirit of evil — that is what He calls blasplteming the Holy Spirit, and what He declares unpardonable. The history of Israel has fully proved the truth of this threatening. This people perished not for having nailed .Jesus Christ to the cross. t)therwise Good Friday would have been the day of their judgment, and God would not have continued to offer them for forty years the pardon of their crime. It was its rejection of the apostolic preaching, its obstinate resistance to the Spirit of Pentecost, which fillei up the measure of Jerusalem's sin. And it is with individ- uals as with that nation. The sin which is forever unpardonable, is not the rejection of the truth, in consequence of a misunderstanding, such as that of so many unbe- lievers who confound the gospel with this or that false form, which is nothing better CHAT. XII. : 11, 12. 341 than its caricature. It is hatred of holiness as such — a hatred which leads men to in.ike iLu gus|>< 1 a woik of prule or fiaud, and lo asciibu il to llie s[)iiil of evil. This is not Id tiju agHiu^l Jesus personally; it is to iu&ult the divine piiueiiije which ac- tiialed liiui. li IS haired of gonduets itself in its supreme maniftslalion. Tlie luim iu whicli Mallhew (1'^ : ol, 'S'-l) has preserved this \vaiuin,«r dilTers ron- sideiably from thai of Luke ; and that of 3Iark (ii : 2S, 2U) dillers in ils turn from that of .Matthew. Il is wholly iucuuceivable, that iu a statemtut uf such gravit}' the evangelists arbitrarily introduced changes into a written text which tliey had before their eyes. Ou the contrary, we can easily understand how this saying, wliile circu- lating in the churches iu the shape of oral tradition, assumed somewhat difTerent forms. As to the place assigned to this declaration by the synoptics, that which ]Mat- thew and .Maik give, immediately after the accusation which called it forth, appears at Ihst sight preferable. Iseverlheless, the connection which it has in Luke's context wiih what precedes and what follows, is not difficult to apprehend. There is at once a gradation iu respect of the sin of weakness mentioned ver. 9, and a contrast to the promise of vers. 11 and 12, where this Holy Spirit, the subject of blasphemy on the part of the Phaiisees, is presented as the powerful support of the persecuted disciples. There is thus room for doiibt. Vers. 11 and 12.* T/ie Aid. — " When they bring j'ou unto the synagogues, and before magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say : 12. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Jesus seems to take pleasure iu enumerating all llie different kinds of powers whose hostility they shall have to feel, ^vvayuyal, the Jewish tribunals, having a leligious character ; «w«t. Gentile authorities, r)urely civil, from provincial prefects up to the emperor ; i^ovcini, any power whatsoever. But let them not make preparation to plead ! Their answer will be sujiplied to them on the spot, both as to ils form (ttw?, how) and substance (r/, ich(it). And their part will not be confined to defending themselves ; they will take the ofifensive ; they will bear testimony (tl elnr/re, uhat ye slinllmy). In this respect, also, every thins: shall be given them. Witness Peter and Stephen before the Sanhedrim, St. Paul before Felix and Festus ; they do not merely defend their persfiece embraces : \st. A historical introduction (vers. 13, 14) ; 2d. A discourse addressed by Jesus to the mul- titude on the value of earthly goods to man in general (vers. 15-21) ; M. A discourse, which He addresses specially to the disciples, on the position which their new faith gives them in respect of those goods (vers. 32-4U) ; Ath. A still more special applica- tion of the same truth to the apostles (vers. 41-53) ; btk. In closing, Jesus returns to the people, and gives them a last warning, based on the threatening character of pres- ent circumstances (vers. 54-59). \st. The Occasion : vers. 13 and 14.*— A man in the crowd profits by a moment of silence to submit a matter to Jesus which lies heavily on his heart, and which proba- bly brought him to the Lord's presence. According to the civil law of the Jews, the eldest brother received a double portion of the inheritance, burdened with the obliga- tion of supporting his mother and unmarried sisters. As Ic^ the younger members, it would appear from the parable of the prodigal son that the single share of the prop- erty which accrued to them was sometimes paid in money. This man was perhaps one of those younger members, who was not satisfied with the sum allotted to him, or who, after having spent it, still claimed, under some pretext or other, a part of the patrimony. As on other similar occasions (the woman taken in adultery), Jesus abso- lutely refuses to go out of His purely spiritual domain, or to do anything which might give Him the appearance of wishing to put Himself in the place of the powers that be. The answer to the rl?, loho? is this : neither God nor men. The difference between the judge and the tiEpLanji, him who divides, is that the first decides the point of law, and the second sees the sentence executed. The object of Jesus in this journey being to take advantage of all the providential circumstances which could not fail to arise, in order to instruct the people and His disciples, He immediately uses this to bring before the different classes of His hearers those solemn truths which are called forth in His mind by the unexpected event. Holtzmann is obliged to acknowledge the reality of the fact mentioned in the in- troduction. He therefore alleges that in this special case the common source of Mat- thew and Luke contained a historical preface, and that the latter has preserved it to us, such as it was. We accept for Luke the homage rendered iu this case to his fidelity. But, 1st. With what right can it be pretended that we have here something exceptional? 2d. How can it be alleged that the occasion of the following discourse was expressly indicated in the Logia, and that, nevertheless, in the face of this pre- cise tlatum, the author of the first Gospel allowed himself to distribute the discnurse as follows: two fragments (vers. 22-31, and 33. 34) in the Sermon on the Moimt (Matt. 6 : 25-33, 19-21) ; another fragment (vers. 51-53) in the installation discourse * Ver. 14 !!*. B. D. L. some Mnn. read npn^v instead of diKaaTjjv (perhaps follow- ing Acts 7 : 27, 35, Tischendorf). CHAP. XII. : i;3-21. 343 to tlio Twelve (^Fatt. 10 : o-l-SG) ; finall}'. various passajres in the great eschutolngical (lisonurse (Matt. '2[ and 2")) ? Weizsiicker iVels the inipossiliility ot' siicli a procedure. AccortUug to hiui, iMatthew has itie.-erved to us the foiiu of the discourse exactly as it appeared iu the Logia. But vvliat dues Luke in Ids turn do? Drawing fiom tlujse great discourses of liie Logia tlie niateiiais winch suit him, he forms a new one. purely fanciful, at the head of widch lie sets as tlie origin a historical anecdote of his own invention ! In what respect is tins procedure better than tiiat whicii Ilollzmatin ascril)es to iMatthew V touch are llie psychological monstrosities in opposite diieciions to wliich uieu are reduced by the hypjlhesis of a commuu document. M. To the People: vers. lo-21.* The Jiich Fool.—TlpoS ai-ovs ("He said unto them"), ver. 15, stands in opposition to Ilin disciples, ver. 22. This slight detail cr' kavTuv, of yourselves ; same meaning as the " at once ye say' (ver 54). It should be so natural to perform this dutj^ that it ought not to be necessary to remind them of * Ver. 54. 0 Mjj. (Alex.) some Mnn. omit ttjv. ^. B. L., ettl instead of otto. Ver. 50. 0 "Mjj. 40 Mnn. iSyr. It. Vg. put tov ovpavov before t7/S yni. ^. B. L. T"'., ovK oidaTE doKifia^cLV instead of ov 6uKifja^£TE. \ Ver. 58. Some Mjj., 7:apa6unEi instead of -rapa^u (T. R. with 14 Mjj.) ; /3aA« or (3a?hn instead of paAXri (T. II. willi some Mnn.). Ver. 59. 5^. B. L., ewS instead of eui ov. 5 Mjj., TO £(7X0701/ instead of tov eaxarov (14 Mjj.). ciiAi'. XH. : b-i-o'J ; xiir. : 1-3. 355 It. Bui, alas 1 in the domain of which Jes-us is speaking Ihoy are not so quick to draw conolusious as in that wherein thej' haltitually move. Their finger needs lo be put on things. To ihnawv, irhat ixjuttt, denotes the right t^tep lo be taken in the fiven situation — to wit, as the sequel thows. rteoncilialion lo God by conversion. The fol- lowing parable (ver. 08) is piesenled in the form of an exhortation, because tlie a])- plication is blended with the figure. The for (ver. 58) has this force : " Why dcst not thou act thus with God V For it is what thou wouldsl not fail to do with a human adversai-y." We nuist avoid translating the (ver. 1), in the same circumstances. The three following say- ings (vers. 1-3, 4, 5, G-9) breathe the same engagedness of mind as filled the preced- ing discourses. The external situation also is the same. Jesus is moving slowly on, taking advantage of every occasion which presents itself to direct the hearts of men to things above. The necemty of conversion is that of which Jesus here reminds His hearers ; in 12 : 54 et seq. He had rather preached its urgency. 1st. Vers. 1-3.* 17ie Galileans massacred by Pilate. Josepliusdoes not mention the event to which the following words relate. The Galileans were somewhat restless ; conflicts with the Roman garrison easily arose. In the expression, mingling their blood with that of the sacrifice, there is a certain poetical emphasis which often character- izes popular accounts. The impf. 7Tapr/cai> signifies " they were there relating." Jesus with His piercing eye immediately discerns the prophetical significance of the fact. The carnage due to Pilate's sword is only the prelude to thai which will soon be carried out by the Roman army throughout all the Holy Land, and especially in the temple, the last asylum of the nation. Was not all that remained of the Galilean people actually assembled forty yeais later in the temple, expiating their national im- penitence under the stroke of Titus? The word likewise (ver. 3) may therefore be * Ver. 2. 5*. B. D. L.. ravm instead of Toi'ivra. Ver. 8. The Mss. are divided be- tween unavrui (T. R., By/..) and onotug (Alex.) A. D. M. X. F. and Bevetal Mnn., fteTCirnrjatjrt' instead of /xtravorirt. 356 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. taken lilerally. A serious, indivitlnal, and national conversion at the cell of Jesus could alone have prevented that catasslroplie. 2d. Vers. 4, 5.* The Penons buried by the Tower of Siloam. The disaster which has been related recalls another to His mind, which He mentions spontaneously, and wliich He applies specially to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The aqueduct and pool of Siloam are situated where the valley of Tyr(;peon, between ISion and Moriah, opLUS into that of Jehoshaphat. Forty years later, the fall of the houses of the burning capital justified this warning not less strikingly. When a disaster comes upon an in- dividual, there is a disposition among men to seek the cause of it in some special guiltiness attaching to the victim. Jesus turns His hearers back to human guilt in general, and their own in particular ; and from that, which to the pharisaic heart is an occasion of proud confidence, He derives a motive to humiliation and conversion, an example of wliat was called, 12 : 57, judging what is right. 3d. Vers. 6-9. f The Time of Grace. Here again we have the formula eleyE 6e, which announces the true and final word on the situation. (See at 12 : 54.) A vine- yard forms an excellent soil for fruit-trees. As usually, the fig-tree represents Israel. God is the owner, Jesus the vine-dresser who intercedes. 'Iva-l (-yevT/rai), To ichat end? Kat, moreover ; not only is it useless itself, but it also renders the ground use- less. Bengel, Wieseler, Weizsacker find an allusion in the three years to the period of the ministry of Jesus which was already passed, and so draw from this parable chronological conclusions. Altogether without reason ; for such details ought to be explained by their relation to the general figure of the parable of whi<;h they form a part, and not by circumstances wholly foreign to the description. In the figure chosen by .Jesus, three years are the lime of a full trial, at the end of which the in- ference of incurable steiility may be drawn. Those three years, therefore, represent the time of grace granted to Israel ; and the last year, added at the request of the gardener, the fort}^ years' respite between the Fiiday of the crucifixion and the de- struction of Jerusalem, which were owing to that prayer of .Jesus : " Father, forgive them." The mss. have the two forms Kowpia, from Khirpiov, and Konpiav, from KOTrpia. The proposition «av //ei; , . . ia elliptical, as often in classical Greek; we must understand /caAwS ixet.. The Alex., by placing slg rd jxeklnv before e'l f>l /Jvye, pro- bably wished to escape this ellipsis : " If it bear fruit, let it be for the future [live]." The extraordinary pains of the gardener bestowed on this sickly tree represent the marvels of love which Jesus shall display in His death and resurrection, then at Pen- tecost and by means of the apostolic preaching, in order to rescue the people from their impenitence. This parable gives Israel to know that its life is only a respite, and that this respite is neaiing its end. Perhaps Paul makes an allusion to this say- ing when he admonishes Gentile Chiistians, the branches of the wild olive, saying to them, knel kuI av eKKOTTT/arj (Rom. 11 : 22). Holfzmann acknowledges the historical truth of the introduction, vtr. 1. He as- cribes it to the Logia, like everything: which he finds true in the introductions of Luke. But if this piece was in A., of which Matthew made use, how has he omitted it altogether? * Ver. 4. The mss. are divided between ovtoi (T. R.) and avrm (Alex). Ev before lepovnalrjfi is omitted l»y B. D. L. Z. Ver. 5. The Mss. are divided between o/xoius and unavTui ; l)ptweeu fiemvorjre and perapoarjTjTe. f Ver. 7. !!*. B. D. L. T"'. some Mnn. Syr'^"^ It. Vg. add af ov after rpta err/. Ver. 9. !!^. B. L. T". 2 Mnn. place £/.S to iieTaov before ei 6e /JTjye. (11. u'. XIII. : 4-n. 357 11. The Progress of the Kin f/dom : 13:10-21. During tins jouriic}', as throughout His whole niitiistry, Jesus tliil not fail to frecjueut llic syuagogues on the Sabbalh days. The preseut navnilive iulroduces us to one of those scenes. Perhaps (he fr>eliiig which led Luke to place it liere, was that of the contrast between Israel, which was hasting to destruction, and the Church, which was already growing. A gluri JUS deed, which tells strongly on the multitude (vers. lU-17), leads Jesus to de- tciibe in two parables the power of the kingdom of God (vers. 18-21). Id. Vers.10-17.* The Healing of (he jmIhccI Woman. And first the miracle, vers. 10-13. This woman was completely bent, and her condition was connected wilh a psychical weakness, which in turn arose from a higher cause, by which the will of the sufferer was bound. This state of things is described by the phrase : a spirit of infirmity. Jesus first of all heals the psychical malady : Thou art looned. AfAvnOui, the perfect : it is an accomplished fact. The will of the sufferer through faith draws from this declaration the strength which it lacked. At the same time, by the laving on of His hands, Jesus restores the bodily organism to the control of the emancipated will ; and the cure is complete. The conversation, vers. 14r-17. It was the Sabbath. The ruler of the synagogue imagines that he should apply to Jesus the Rabbinical regulation for practising phy- sicians. Only, not daring to attack Him, he addresses his discourse to the people (ver. 14). Qepa-eijeaOe, come to get yourselves healed. Jesus takes up the challenge. The plural hypocrites is certainly the true reading (comp. the plural adversaries, ver. IT). Jesus puts on trial tlie whole part}' of whom this man is the representative. The severitj'' of His apostrophe is jusslitied l)y the comparison which follows (vers. 15 and 16) between the freedom which they take with the Sabbalh law, when their own in- terests, even the mrst trivial, are involved, and the extreme rigor with which they apply it, when the question relates to their neighbor's interests, even the gravest, as well as to their estimate of the conduct of Jesus. The three contrasts between ox {or ass) and daughter of Abraham, between stall and Satan, and between the two bonds, material and spiiitual, to be unloosed, are obvious at a glance. The 1-ast touch : eighteen years, in which the profounuest pity is expressed, admirably closes the an- swer. Holtzmann thinks that what has led Luke to place this account here, is the con- nection between the eighteen years' infirmity (ver. 11) and the three years' sterility (ver. 7) ! Xot content wi»h ascribing to Luke this first puerililj'. he imputes to him a second still greater : that which has led L'lke to place at ver. 18 the jiarable of the grain of musiard seed, is that it is borrowed from the vegetable kingdom, like that of the fig-tree (veis. 7-9) ! ! This so nervous reply brings the admiration of the people to a height, and shuts the mouth of His adversaries. Jesus then, rising to the general idea, of which this deed is only a particular ai)()lication, to wit, the power of the kingdom of God de- velops it in two parables fitted to present this truth in its two chief aspects ; the two are, the mustard seed (vers. 18, 19) and the learen (vers. 20, 21). 2d. Vers. 18-21. 2he Tico Parables. — The kingdom of God has two kinds of power : the power of extension, by which it gradually embraces all nations ; the * Ver. 11. ». B. L. T*. X. someMnn. l(ri"W"e_Yg. omit ^i' after yvvrj. Ver. 14. The Mss. are divided between ev Tavrai.'i (T. R.) ami ev avTui^ (Ale.x.). Ver. 15. Some Mjj. and Mnn. S3'r., o IjjGovi instead of o Kvpioi;. 17 Mj]. 80 ^Inn. It. Vg., v-oKpcrai in.slcad of v-oKfum^ which the T. R. reads with D. V. X. the most of the Mnn. fcyr. 358 COilMENTAIlY ON ST. LUKE. power of transformation, by which it gradually regenerates the whole of human life. The natural symbol of the first is a seed which acquires in a short time an increase out of all proportion to its original smaliness ; that of the second, a fermenting ele- ment, materially very inconsiderable, l)ut capable of exercising its assimilating virtue over a large mass. Those two parables form part of the collection. Matt. 13 ; 31, et seq. ; the first only is found Mark 4 :30, 31. Vers. 18 and 19.* Again the formula tv.fje de (or ovv, as some Alex. read). The two questions of ver. 18 express the activity of mind which seeks in nature the anal- ogies which it needs. The first : "To what i« like . . .," affirms the existence of the emblem sought ; the second: "To what shall I liken . . .," has the dis- covery of it in view. Mark likewise introduces this parable with two questions ; but they differ both in substance and form from those of Luke. Tradition had indeed preserved the memory of this style of speaking ; only it had modified the tenor of the questions. We must certainly reject with the Alex., in the text both of Luke and Matthew the epithet great, applied to tree. Jesus does not mean to contrast a great tree with a small one, but a tree to vegetables m general. The mustard- plant in the East does not rise beyond the height of one of our small fruit-trees. But the excep- lional thing is, that a plant like mustard, which belongs to the class of garden herbs, and the grain of which is exceedingly small, puts forth a woodj' stalk adorned with branches, and becomes a rentable tree. It is thus the striking type of the dispropor- tion which prevails between the smaliness of the kingdom of God at its commence- ment, when it is yet enclosed in the person of Jesus, and its final expansion, when it shall embrace all peoples. The form of the parable is shorter and simpler in Luke than in the other two. Vers. 30 and 21. f Jesus anew seeks an image (ver. 20) to portray the power of the kingdom of G:id as a principle of moral transformation. There is here, as in all the pairs of parables, a second aspect of the same truth ; comp. 5 : 36-38 ; 15 : 3-10 ; Matt. 13 : 44-46 : John 10 : 1-10. We even find in Luke 15 and John 10 a third parable completing the other two. Leaven is the emblem, of every moral principle, good or bad, possessing in some degree a power of feimentation and assimilation ; comp. Gal. 5 : 9. The three measures should be explained, like the three years (ver. 7), by the figure taken as a whole. It was the quantity ordinarily employed for a batch. They have been understood as denoting the three branches of the human race, Shemites, Japhethites, and Hamites ; or, indeed, Greeks, Jews, and Samaritans (Theod. of Mopsuestia) ; or, again, of the heart, soul, and spirit (Augustine). Such reveries are now unthoughl of. The idea is, that the spiritual life enclosed in the Gospel must penetrate the ichole of human life, the individual, thereby the family, and through the latter, society. Those two parables form the most entire contrast to the picture which the Jewish imagination had formed of the establishment of the Messiah's kingdom. One wave of the magic wand was to accomplish everything in the twinkling of an eye. In opposition to this superficial notion, Jesus sets the idea of a moral development which Works by spiritual means and takes account of human freedom, consequently slow and progressive. How can it be maintained, in view of such sayings, that He * Ver. 18. ?*. B. L. some Mnn. ItP'^-'Wue, yg_^ ^y^ instead of 6e after e/^syev. Ver. 19. !!*. B. D. L. T". Syr<^"^ It''"i. omit /teja after dev^pov. j Ver. 20. The Alex. It. Vg. add mi before 7ra/tv, Ver. 21. The MSS. are divided between evEKpvipev (T. R.) and EKpvfev (Alex.). CHAP. xiir. : 22-27. 359 believed in the immediate nearness of His return ? The place which those two par- ables occupy in the great collection ]\Iatt. 13 is evidently the result of a systematic airatigemcut ; there lluy have the ellect of two flowers in a herbarium. Luke has restored them to their natural situation. His account is at once independent of and superior to that ot Matthew ; Mark accords with Mattliew. SECOND CYCLE.— 13 : 22 ; 17 : 10. A New Series of Incidents in the Journey. Yer. 22 serves as an intrcductiou to this whole cycle. Jesus slowly continues His jouiney of evaugelizaliou {6ienoptvETo, Ik 2)roaeded throvg/i the country), stopping at every city, and even at every vijhige {Kara, distributive), taking advantage of every occasion which presents itself to instruct both those who accompany Him and the people of the place, only puisuing in the main a general direction toward Jerusalem {ihi'idaKui', TToiovfievoS). Nothing could be more natural than this remark, which is founded on the general introduction, 9 : 51, and in keeping with the analogous forms used in cases of suumiing up and transition, which we have observed throughout this Gospel. 1. The Rejediun of Israel, and the Admission of the Gentiles: 13:28-^0. An un- foreseen question calls forth a new flash. It was probably evoked by a saying of Jesus, which appeared opposed to the privileges of Israel, that is to say, to its national participation in the ^lessiauic blessedness. Vers. 2o-2T.* " Then one said unto Him, Lord are there few that be saved ? And He said unto them. 24. Strive to enter in at the strait gale : for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25. When once the Master of the house is risen up, and shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying Lord, Lord, open unto us, and He shall answer and say luito you, 1 know you not whence yc are : 26. Then shall ye begin to sa}'. We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets. 27. But He shall saj', I tell you, I know j^ou not whence ye are ; depart from me, all ye workeis of iniquity." The question of vcr. 23 was to a cei tain extent a matter of curiosity. In sueh cases Jesus immediatelj'' gives a practical turn to His answer. Comp. 12 : 41, John 3:3; and hence Luke says (ver. 23); "He said to tlicm.'" Jesus gives no direct answer to the man ; He addresses a warning to the people on the occasion of His question. The Messianic kingdom is represented under the flgure of a palace, into which men do not enter, as might appear natural, by a magnificent portal, but by a narrow gate, low, and scarcely visible, a mere postern. Those invited refuse to pass in thereby ; then it is closed, and they in vain supplicate the master of the house to re-open it ; it remains closed, and they are, and continue, excluded. The applica- tion is blended, to a certain extent, as in 12 : 58, 59, with the figure. 'Ayuvt^tcOai, to strive, refers in the parable to the difliculty of passing through the narrow opening ; in the application, to the humiliations of penitence, the struggles of conversion. The •v^/Y/^V f/«^(' represents attachment to the lowly IMessiah ; the magnificent galewa}"^ b}- which the Jews would have wished to enter, would represent, if it were mentioned, the appearance of the glorious Messiah whom they expected. 7 declare untoyov, * Ver 24. ». B. D. L. 2 Mnn. It"''-!.. Giym? instead of ut;?.???. Ver. 25. ». B. L. j(aiiq Yp j-pad ^,,p,f only once. Ver. 2t3. The mss., ap^eafie «ir np^jicOe. Ver. 27 B. T"'., Aeyuv instead of ?'.eyu. J*. Vss. omit this word. B. L. K. T*'. omit v//«s. / 360 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. saj^s Jesus : They will think it incredible that so great a number of Jews, with (he ardent desire to have part in that kingdom, bhould not succeed in entering it. Tlie word Tvo'Aloi, many, proves the connection between this discourse and the question of ver. 33. Only Jesus does not say whether there will be few or many saved ; He confines Himself to saying that there will be many lost. This is the one impoiluut matter for practical and individual application. It is perfectly consistent with this truth that there should be many saved. The meaning of the expression, will seek to enter in, ver. 34, is explained at ver. 35 by the cries which are uttered, and the knock- ings at the gate ; and the meaning of the words, but shall not be able, ver. 84, is explained by vers. 36 and 27, which describe the futility of those efforts. It is not possible to connect the a^' oi, when once, wilh the preceding phrase ; the period would drag intolerably. The principal proposition on which this conjunction depends must therefore be sought iu what follows. This might be km up^eaOs (not up^TjaOe), ver. 2ob : "When once the Master has risen ... ye shall begin, on ymir side (noi), . . . ;" or /cat anoKfjiOeli epel at the end of the same ver. 35 : " He, on His side (kc/), shall answer and say . . . ;" or, finallj% and most nat- urally of all, the apodosis may be placed, as we have put it in our translation, at ver. 26, in the words : tote ap^eaOe : then ye shall begin. The word then favors this con- struction. The decitrive act of the Master iu rising from His seat to shut the door symbolizes the fact that conversion and pardon are no longer possible (ri^' ov, when once). What moment is this ? Is it that of the rejection and dispersion of Israel ? No : for the Jews did not then begin to cry and to knock according to the descrip- tion of ver. 35. Is it the time of the Parousia, when the grent Messianic festival fcha'l open ? Xo ; for the Jews then living shall be converted and received into the palace. The words, when ye shall see (ver. 38), strikingly recall a similar feature iu the parable of the wicked rich man, that in which this uuhappy one is represented in Hades con- templating from afar the happiness of Lazarus iu Abraham's bosom. We are thereby led to apply what follows ("when ye shall see Abraham . . ." ver. 33) to the judgment which Jesus pronounces at present on the unbelieving Jews, excluding them in the life to come from all participation in the blessings of salvation. Gess : " The house where Jesus waits can be no other than heaven ; it is the souls of the dead who remind him, ver. 36, of the relations which He had with them on the earth." This ver. 36 indicates the tendency to rest salvation on certain external religious advan- tages : " Thou wast one of ourselves ; we cannot perish." Is there in the words, / know not lulience ye are (ver. 27), an allusion to the false confidence which the Jews put in their natural descent from Abraham ? Vers. 38-30.* " There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 39. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which eball be last." Wailings express despair, gnashings of teeth rat;e. The souls of Ihe condemned oscillate between those two feelings. The article before the two substan- tives has the force of setting aside all former similar impressions as comparativelj^ in- significant. Messianic blessedness is represented in ver. 38, according to a figure * Vev. 28. Marcion substituted for the enumeration, ver. 28 : travTas rovi 6iKaini<, and omitted veis. 39 and 36 riiAi". xiir. : 28-35. 361 familiar among the Jews (14 : 1.1), under tlic image of a banrjuet presided over by the patriarchs. From ver. 29 it follows Unit tlie believing Gonlilos arc admitted as well as tlie faithfid posterity of Abraham. Thus there aie really many persons saved. The words (tnd behold (ver. 'M) refer to the surprise produced by this entire reversal of position. The lunt here are not those who, within the confines of the kingdom, occupy the last place ; they are, as the context proves, those who are excluded from it ; they are in tlie last place, absolutely speaking. The first are all the saved. The first proposition evidently applies to the Gentiles who are admitted (ver. 29), the sec- ond to the Jews who are rejected (vers. 27 and 28). Sayings similar to those of vers. 25-27 are found in Matt. 7, at the end of the Ser- mon on the ]\Iount, also in 2.") : 10-13 and 30. There is nothing to prevent us from regarding them as uttered on a different occasion. Those of ver. 28 and 29 appear in Miitt. 8 : 11, 12, immediately after the cure of the centurion's son. But they are not so well accounted for there as in the context of Luke. The apophthegm of ver. 30 forms (^latt. 19 : 30 and 20 : K!) the preface and the conclusion of the parable of the laborers called at different hours. In this context, the last who become the first are manifestly the laboreis who, having come later, find themselves privileged to receive the same hire ; the first who become the last are those wlio, having wrought from the beginning of the da}', are therebj'- treated less advantageously. Is this sense natural ? Is not the application of those expression.^ in Luke to the rejected Jews and admitted Gentiles more simple ? The Epistles to the Galatians and to tlie Romans aie the only true commentary on this piece, and on the sayings of vers. 28 and 20 in particular. Now, as the historical truth of the whole passage is certified b}' the parallel of Mat- thew, we have a clear proof that the gospel of Paul no way differed in substance from that of Jesus and the Twelve. 2. 2'he Farewell to the Thcocreiey : 13 : 31-35. When the heart is full of some one feeling, everything which tells upon it from without calls forth the expression of it. And so, at the time when the mind of Jesus is specially occupied about the future of His people, it is not surprising that this feeling comes to light with every circum- stance which supervenes. There is therefore no reason why lliis perfectly natural fact should be taken to prove a systematic arrangement originating with Luke. Vers. 31-33.* " The same day there came certain of tlie Pharisees, saying unto Him, Get thee out, and depart hence ; for Herod will kill thee. 33. And He said unto them. Go ye and tell that fox. Cehold, I cast out devils, and 1 do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day 1 shall be perfected. 33. Nevertheless, I must walk to-da\', and to-morrow, and the day fallowing ; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." We cannot help being surprised at seeing the Pharisees interesting themselves in the safety of Jesus, and we are naturally led to suspect a feint, if not a secret understanding with Herod. Already at a umch earlier date Mark (3 : G) had showed us the Hcrodians and Phai isees plotting together. Is not s imetliing of the same kind now repeated? Herod, on whose conscience tliere already weighed the nuuder of a prophet, was not anxious to commit another crime of the same sort ; but no moi'e did he wish to see this public activity of Jesus, of which his dominions had been for some time the theatre, and the popular excitement which accompanied it, indefinitely prolonged. As to the Pharisees, it was natural that * Ver. 31. 7 Mjj. fAlex.) 15 Mnn.. i.,i>a instead of rjuEpn. Ver. 33. i». B. L. 2 Mnn., aTrnTt?u instead of r-ire/u. B. some .Mnn. V.ss. add tjucpa after Tpirt). Ver. 33. !*. D. -\. some Mnn., ep,\'oufi7; instead of tx^F^^'V- 362 COiniENTARY ON ST. LUKE. they should seek to draw Jesus to Judea, where He would full more directly under tlie power of the Sauhedrhn. It had been agreed, Iberefoie, to bring this lengthtned journey to an end by terrifying Jesus. He penetrates their intrigue ; and hence He addresses His reply to Herod Himself, making the Pharisees at the same time His message-bearers, as they had been the king's message-bearers to him. " I see well on whose pari you come. Go and answer Herod . . ." Thus also the epilhit fox, which He applies to this prince, finds its explanation. Instead of issuing a com- mand, as becomes a king, he degrades himself to play the part of an intriguer. Not daring to show the teeth of the lion, he uses the tricks of the fox. Fault has beiu found with Jesus for speaking with so little respect of the prince of His people. But it must be remembered that Herod was the creature of Caesar, and not the lawful htir of David's throne. The meaning of the first part of the answer (ver. 326) is this : " Reassure thyself, thou who seekest to teriify me ; my present activity in no way threatens thy power ; 1 am not a Messiah such as he whose appearance thou dieadest ; some devils cast out, some cures accomplished, such is all my work in thy dumiuions. And to complete the assuring of thee, I promise thee thai it shall not be long ; to-day, to-morrow, and a day more ; then it will be at an end." These last words svmbolically express the idea of a very short time ; comp. Hos. 6 : 3. We may regard reAEiovfiuL either, with Bleek, as Ailic fuf. raid., or, what seems simpler, as a pres. mid. used for the fut. to designate what is immediately imminent. The term so near can be none otlier than that of His life ; comp, 336. Bleek and others give TeTieiovuat the active meaning : " I close [my ministry in Galilee]." But the v/ord T£?.etoi'/Ltai in this context is too solemn to suit this almost superfluous sense. The Alex, reading oTroreAu, 1 flnuh, does not so well correspond to the parallel term EKBdAlu, I caM. out. as the received reading emreAu, I work. It is probably owing to a retrospective influence of the word TeAeiovjint. Ver. 38. Short as the time is which is allowed to Jesus, it remains none the less true {7t'a7]v) that He will quietly pursue His present journey, and that no one will force Him to bting His progress and work hastily to an end. The f5ei, Irmtst, which refers to the decree of Heaven, justifies this mode of aotiniav) enrnre (Alex., according to Matthew). '>04- CO.MMEXTAUY OX ST. LUKE, out His plan to fulfilment. Some Jews saved shall become, in default of the nation as a whole, the instruments of the world's t-alvaliou. Jesus represents Himself, ver. 34, as a protector stretching His compassionate aims over the theocracy and its capi- tal, because He knows well that He akme can rescue them from the catastrophe by which they are threatened. It is, in another form, the idea of the parable of the tig- tree {veis. G-9). Now Israel rejects the protection which He offers. What more can Jesus do (ver. 35) ? Leave to Israel the care of its own defence, that is lo say — Jesus knows it well — give it up to a ruin which He alone could avert. Such is the mean- ing of the words, ^/f^w?' Jiouse is Uft unto you; henceforth it is given over to 3'Liur guardianship. Jesus frees Himself of the charge which His Father had confided to Him, the salvation of the theocracy. It is in its every feature the situation of the divine yhepherd in His last endeavor to save the flock of slaughter, Zach. 11 : 4-14. The application of the expression your hofise to tlie temple, in such a unity, must be felt to l)e much too special. The place in question is Canaan, the abode divinely granted to the people, and especially Jerusalem, the centre of the theocracy. Tlie authenticity of the wonl tp/jfioi, deaolate (ver. 35), appears more than doubtful Ijoth in Matthew and Luke. If this word were authentic, it would refer to the withdrawal of Jesis' visible presence ; camp. Ezek. 11, where the cloud rising from over the sauctuary passes eastward, and from that moment the temple is empty and desidale. But the government vfilv, "is left to you," and the Avant of sufficient authoiities, speak against this reading. Like a bird of prey hovering in the air, theenemj' is threatening the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jesus, who was shekel ing them under His wings as a hen her brood, willidraws, and they remain exposed, reduced thenceforth to defend themselves. The adversative form, hut I my unto you, is certainly preferable to tliat of ]\Ialthew, for Isay unto you. " I go awaj' ; but 1 declare to you, it will be for longer than you think ; that ni}' absence may be brought to an end, you yourselves, by the change of your sentiments in regard to me, will have to give the signal for my return." The words eui uv f/i>i, iintil it come to pass t/iat . . ., aie the true reading. Thismoial change will certainly (tus) come about, 1 ut when (ar) it is impossible to say. Some commentators (Paulus, Wieseler, etc.) think that the time here pointed to is Palm- day, on which Jesus received the homage of part of the people, and particularly of the Galileans, to whom these sayings had been addressed. " Ye shall not see me again, ye Galileans, until we meet together on the occasion of my entry into Jerusalem." But how poor and insiguificaut would this meaning be, after the previous sayings ! What bearing on the salvation of Israel had this separation of a few weeks ? Besides, it was not to the Galileans that Jesus was speaking it was to the representatives of the Pharisaic party (vers. 31-34). In Matthew's context, the interpretation of Wies- eler is still more manifestly excluded. The words which Jesus here puts into the mouth of converted Israel in the end of the days, are taken from Ps. 118 : 20. This cry of penitent Istael will bring the Messiah down again, as the sigh of Israel, humbled and waiting for consolation, had led Him to appear the first time (Isa. 64 . 1). The announcement of the future return of Jesus, brought about by the faith of the people in His Messiahship (6 koxon-evoi), thus forms the counterpart to that of His near departure, caused by the national unbelief (js^.eioviuai). How can any one fail to feel the appropriateness, the connection, the harmony of all the parts of this admir- able answer? How palpable, at least in this case, is the decisive value of Luke's short introduction for the understanding of the whole piece ! The important matter heie, CHAi'. \iv. : l-C. 3(ir> HS cvcrywhcu", is, above nil, tlie precise inrlii-sition of the interlocutors : " The same dny iheia cnmii certdin of (he I'hnriKceif, sixy'wg . . ." 3. Jesus at a Feaxi : 11 : 1-24. The following piece allows us to follow Jesus in His domestic life and familiar conversations. It is connected with the precedinj; hy the fact that it is with a Pliari.see Jesus has to do. "We are admitted to the entire scene: 1*/. Theenteiing into the hnise (vers. 1-6); 2(1. The sitting down at table (vers. 7-11) ; Zd Jesus conversing with Ills host about the choice of his guests (vets. 12-14 ; 4ih. His relating the parable of the great supper, occasioned by the exclama- tion of one of the guests (vers. 15-24). H' Itzmann, of course, regards this frame as being to a large extent invented bj' Luke to receive the detached sayings of Jesus, which he found placed side by side in A. This is to sujjpose in Luke as inueli genius as unscrupulousness Weizsiicker. starling from the idea that the contents of this jiart are syslematicallj'^ arranged and frecpiently altered to meet the practical iiueslious wliich were aijitaliug the apostolic church at the date of Luke's composition, alleges that the whole of this chapter re- lates to the agapiv of the jiiimitive C'liuich, and is intended to describe those feasts a.s emboiliments of brotherly love and pledges of the heavenly feasl ; and he concludes Ihciefrom, as from an established fact, the somewhat late origin of our Gospel. Where is the least trace of such an intention to be found ? Int. Vers. 1-6.* To accept an invitation to the house of a Pharisee, after the pre- vious scenes, was to do an act at once of coura;je and kindness. Th(; h.ist was one of the chief of his sect. There is no proof of the existence of a hieiarchy in thi.s party ; but one would naturally be formed by superiority of knowledge and talent. The interpretation of Grolius, who takes tuv ^apiaatuv as in apposition to tuv apxovTuv, is inadmissible. The guests it ia said, watched Jesus. Ver. 2 indi- cates the trap which had been laid for Him ; and l6ov, behold, marks the time when this unlooked-for snare is discovered to the eyes of Jesus. The picture is taken at the moment. The word d-oKpLdeir, answering (ver 3), alludes to the question im- plicitly contained in the sick man's presence : " Wilt thou heal, or wilt thou not heal ?" Jesus replies by a counter question, as at 6 : 9. The silence of His adversaries betrays their bad faith. The reading oj o?, ass, in the Sinaiticus and some mss. (ver 5), ari.ses no doubt from the connection with ^ov^, ox, or from the similar saying, 13 : 15. The true reading is vloz, son : "If thy son, or even thine ox only . . ." In this word son, as in the expression daughter of Abraham (13 : 16), there is revealed u deep feeling of tenderness for the sufferer. We cannot overlook a correspond- ence between the malady (dropsy) and the supposed accident (falling into a pit). Com p. 13 : 15, 16, the correspondence between the halter with which the ox is fas- tened to the stall, and the bond by which Satan holds the sufferer in subjection. Here again we find the perfect suit;d)leness, even in the external drapery, which characterizes the declarations of our Lord. In Matt. 12 : 11 this figure is applied to the curing of a man who has a withered hand. It is less happy, and is certainly inexact. * Ver. 3. !*. B. D. L.omit ei before e^eotlv, and, with several Mnn. and Vss., they add J? ot) after (jipanevnat (T. K.. Btpaneveiv). Ver. 5. 6 Mjj. 15 Mnn. Syr. Iipi^'-iq"', omit anoKpJjELq before Tpo5 avrovi. A. B. E. G. H. M. S. U. V. T. A. A. 130 Mnn. Syr. If"'!, read rto? instead of owr.which ». K. L. X. n. some Mnn. It"''i. Vg. read. The Mss. are divided between euTzeiHTat (T. R.) and ■neaetrai (Alex.) Ver. G. i*. I>. D. L. some Mnn. omit avru after avTu-oiipifjrjvai, 36G COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE. 2d. Vers. 7-11.* Here is the point at which the guests s^>t lb'Gi>scVL'* et tsihlc- The recommendation contained in thia passage is not, as has c"'"tea been thought, i counsel of worldly prudence. Holtzmann ascribes this meaning, if not to the Lord, at least to Luke. But the very term parable (ver. 7) and the adage of ver. 11 protest against this supposition, and admit of our giving to the saying no other than a relig- ious sense and a spiritual application ; comp. 18 : 14. In a winning and appropriate foim Jesus gives the guests a lesson in humility, in the deepest sense of the word. Every one ought in heart to take, and ever take again, the last place before God, or a? St. Paul says, Phil. 2 : 3, to regard others as better than Idmself. The judgment of God will perhaps be different ; but in this way we run no other risk than that of being exalted. 'KnEX'^^y fixing His attention on that habitual way of acting among the Pharisees (Luke 30 : 46). Evvald and Holtzmann darken counsel about the word wedding (ver, 8), which does not suit a simple repast like this. But Jesus in this verse is not speaking of the present repast, but of a supposed feast. The proper reading is avuTveae, not avaTTEaai—Wu^ verb has no middle — or avd-ireaav, which has only a few au- thorities, la the lowest place (ver. 10), because in the interval all the intermediate seats had been occupied. The expression, tJiou shall have glory, would be puerile, if it did not open up a glimpse of a heavenly reality. 3fZ. Ver. 12-14.f The company is sealed. Jesus, then observing that the guests in general belonged to the upper classes of society, addresses to His host a lesson on charity, which He clothes, like the preceding, in the graceful form of a recommen- dation of intelligent self-interest. The iit)txote, lest (ver. 12), carries a tone of liveli- ness and almost of pleasantry : "Beware of it; it is a misfortune to be avoided. For, once thou shalt have received human requital, it is all over with divine recompense." Jesus does nut mean to forbid our entertaining those whom we love. He means simply : in view of the life to come, thou canst do better still. 'Avdnrjpoi. those who are deprived of some one sense or limb, most frequently the blind or the lame ; here, where those two categories are specially mentioned, the maimed in general. In it- self, the expression resurrection of the just, ver. 14, does not necessarily imply a dis- tinction between two resurrections, the one of the just exclusively, the other general ; it might signify merely, when the just shall rise at the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom. But as Luke 20 : 35 evidently proves that this distinction was in the mind of Jesus,:}: it is natural to explain the term from this point of view (comp. 1 Cor. 15 : 23 ; 1 Thcss. 4 : 16 ; Pliil. 3 : 11 ; Rev. 20.) Atli. Vers. 15-24. The conversation which follows belongs to a later time in the feast. Jesus had been depicting the jusi seated at the Messiah's banquet, and receiv- ing a superabundant equivalent for the least works of love which they have performed here below. This saying awakes in the heart of one of the guests a sweet anticipa- tion of heavenly joys ; or perhaps he seizes it as an occasion for laying a snare for Jesus, and leading Him to utter some heresy on the subject. The severe tendency of the following parable might favor this second interpretation. In any case, the enumeration of ver. 21 (comp, ver. 13) proves the close connection between those two parts of the conversation. * Ver. 10. ». B. L. X. some Mnn., epei instead of etn-ij. m. A. B. L. X. 12 Mun. Syr. add Trm'Tuv before rwi' nvvavaKei/iEvuv. } Ver. 14. ii. 5 Mnn. It*'''''.. 6c instead of yap after avTaTTothBr/rysTat. X That this was in the mind of Jesu'; is ni)t evident to interpreters generally. In this, and in one or two oilier passages, the author is less clear than is usual with him legarding the events of the future. — J. H. CHAP. XIV. : 7-;i4. 3G7 Vers. 15-20.*— 'Apro:' v;/5 or yvu^rji, ver. 18). They have passed the word to one another. The true reason is evidently tlie antipathy which they feel to him who invites them ; comp. John 15 : 24 : " They have hated both me and my Father." Vers. 21-24.f In the report which the servant gives of his mission, we may hear, as Stier so well observes, the echo of the sorrowful lamentations uttered by Jesus over the hardening of the Jews during His long nights of prayer. The anger of the mas- ter {upyicOek) is the retaliation for the hatred which he discovers at the bottom of their refusals. The first .supplementary invitation which he commissions his servant to give, represents the appeal addressed by Jesus to the lowest classes of Jewish society, those who are called, 15 : 1, publicans and sinners. nXaTeiai, the larger streets, which widen out into squares. 'Pv/ini, the small cross streets. There is no going out yet from the city. The second supplementary invitation (vers. 23 and 23) represents the calling of the Gentiles ; for those to whom it is addressed are no longer inhabitants of the city. The love of God is great : it requires a multitude of guests ; it will not have a seat left empty. The number of the elect is, as it were, determined beforehand by the riches of divine glory, which cannot find a complete reflection without a certain number of human beings. The invitation will therefore be con- tinued, and consequently the history of our race prolonged, until that number be reached. Thus the divine decree is reconciled with human liberty. In comparison with the number called, there are undoubtedly few saved through the fault of the former ; b)it nevertheless, speaking absolutely, there are very many saved, ^payfinl, the hedges which enclo.se properties, and beneath which vagrants squat. The phrase, compel them to come in, applies to people who would like to enter, but are yet kept back by a false timidity. The servant is to push them, in a manner, into the house in »j',ite of their scruples. The object, therefore, is not to extinguish their liberty, but rather to restore them to it. For they would ; but they dare not. Asjer. 21 is the * Ver. 15. The ]Mnn. are divided between o? (T. R.) and oijtiS (Alex.) before ^ytTiii. Instead of aproi', some Mjj. (Bvz.) 130 ]\Inn. Syr"=°^, apiarov. Ver. K!. ». B. R. Syr'=''^, fToiet instead of eTroiT/cev. Ver. 17. »* B. L. K. It"'"!, omit Travra after e-^Ttv (or sintv) + Ver. 21. 9 Mjj. 12 Mnn. It. Vg. omit e/ceuos after 6ov/.o<;. Ver. 22. J*. B. D. L. R. Sy^*^"^, 0 instead of (j5 before e-tra^as. 3G8 COilMEJJTAKY OX ST. LUKE. text of the first part of Acts (1 : 12, conversion of the Jews), vers. 23 and 23 are the text of the second (13 to the end, conversion of the Gentiles), and indeed of the whole present econum}'. Weizsiicker accuses Luke of haviug added to the original parable this distinction between two new invitations, and that in favor of Paul's mission to the Gentiles. If this saying were the only one which the evangelists put into the lUDUth of Jesus regarding the calling of the Gentiles, this suspicion would be conceiv- able. But does not the passage 13 : 28-30 already express this idea? and is not this sayiug found in Matthew as well as in Luke ? Comp. also Matt. 24 : 14 ; John 10 : 16. According to several commentators, ver. 24 does not belong to the parable ; it is the application of it addressed by Jesus to all the guests (" 1 say unto you"). But the subject of the verb, 1 say,]S evidently still the host of the parable ; the pron. you designates the persons gathered round him at the time when he gives this order. Only the Solemnity with which Jesus undoubtedly passed His eyes over the whole assembly, while putting this terrible threat into the mouth of the master in the par- able, made ihem feel that at that very moment the scene described was actually pass- ing between Him and them. The parable of the great feast related Matt. 22 : 1-14 has great resemblances to this ; but it differs from it as remarkably. More generalized in the outset, it becomes toward the end more detailed, and takes even a somewhat complex character. It may be, as Bleek thinks, a combination of iwo parables originally distinct. This seems to be proved by certain touches, such as the royal dignity of the host, the destruction by his armies of the city inhabited by those first invited, and then everytlnng relating to the man who had come in without a wedding garment. Nothing, on the contrary, could be more simple and complete than the delineation of Luke. 4. A Warning ac/aimt hasty Professions ; 14 : 25-35. The journey resumes its course ; great crowds follow Jesus. There is consequently an attraction to His side. This appears in the plurals oxaoi, multitudes, the adjective tto/j.ol, and the imperfect of duration awerropevovro, were accompanying Rim. This brief introduction, as in similar cases, gives the key to the following discourse, which embraces : Is^. A warn- ing (vers. 26 and 27) ; Id. Two parables (vers. 28-32) , Zd. A conclusion, clothed in a new figure (vers. 83-35). Vers. 25-27.* " And there went great multitudes with Him ; and He turned, and said unto them, 26. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and i)rethren, and sisters, 3'ea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after mc, can- not be my disciple. " Seeing those crowds Jesus is aware that between Him and them there is a misunderstanding. The Gospel, rightly apprehentied, will not be the concern of the multitude. He lifts His voice to reveal this false situation : You are going up with me to Jerusalem, as if you were repairing to a feast. But do you know ^what it is for a man to join himself to my companj^ ? It is to abandon what is dearest and most vital (ver. 26). and to accept what is most painful — the cross (ver. 27). Coming to me (ver. 26) denotes outward attachment to Jesus ; heing my disciple, at the end of the verse, actual dependence on His person and spirit. That the former may be changed into the latter, and that the bond between Jesus and the professor may be durable, there must be effected in him a painful breach with everything which is * Ver. 27. This verse is omitted by M. R. V. and very many Mnu. (by liomoioteleU" ton). J*. B. L. Cop. omit kql before oa-ii. ( iiAi'. \iv. : '.•J-oO. 309 naturally dear to him. The word hate in this passage is often interpreted in the sense uf loving less. Uleek quotes examples, which are not without force. Thus, Gen. 29 : 30, 31. It is also the meaning of !Malthew's ])aiaphrase (10 : 87), 6 (i>i7S.^6t). In this twofold relation it is ihe emblem of the sharp aud austere savor of holiness, of the action of the gospel uu me ualuial life, the insipidity and frivolity of which are corrected by the Divine Spiiit. JS'o more beautiful s^jectacle in the moral world than this action of the gos- pel through tue iustuuuentality of the consistent Christian on the society around him. But it the Christian hunseli by his unfaithfulness destroys this holy power, no means wdl rest, re to him the savor which it was his mission to impart to the world. 'AfjTvOr/atTai might be taken impersonally : " If there is no more salt, wherewith shall men salt (things) ?" But Jesus is not heie describing '.he evil results of Christian uulaiihfuluess to the world or the gospel ; it is the professor himself who is con- ceiued (ver. oo : men cad it out). The subject of the verb is therefore, u^as, salt itself; comp. Mark D : 50 : kv tIvl aprvaere avru ; " wherewMth will ye season it?" Salt which has become savorless is 111 for nothing ; it cannot serve the soil as earth, nor pastuie as dung. It is only good to be cud out, says Luke ; trodden vnderfoot of men, says !Matl. 5 : 13. Salt was sometimes used to cover slippery ways (Erub. f. 104. 1 : i>pargunt salem in cliw ne nuteni Q)edes). A reserved attitude toward the gospel is therefore a less critical position than an open profession followed by declen- sion. In the moral as in the physical world, without previous heating there is no deadly chill. Jesus seems to say that the life of natuie may have its usefuluc«is in the kingdom of God, either in tlie form of mundane (laud) leVpectabilitj', or even as a life ci)mi)!etely coriupled and depraved (dung). In the first case, indeed, it is the soil wherein the geim of the higher life may be sown ; and in the second, it maj' at least call forth a moral reaction among those who feel indignation or dis^gust at the evil, and drive them to seek life from on high ; while the unfaithfulness of the Chris- tian disgusts men with the gospel itself. The expression : cast out (give over to per- dition, John 15 : G), forms the transition to the final call : He that hath ears . . . This discourse is the basis of the famous passage, Heb. 6 : 4-8. The commenta- tors wh,) have applied it to the rejection of the Jews have not sutticientiy considei-ed the coute.xt, and especially the introduction, ver. 25, which, notwithstanding IIollz- mann's contemptuous treatment, is, as we have just seen, the key of the whole piece. Matthew places the apoiihthesrm, vers. 34, 35, in that passage of the Sermon on the Mount where the grandeur of ^he Christian calling is described (5 : 13-16). Perhaps he was l^d to put "it theie by the analosy of the saying to the immediately following one : " Ye are tiie light of the world." INIark placs it, like Luke, toward the end of the r.aiileau ministrv (9 : 50) ; and such a warning is belter explained at a more adviineed ])criod. Be-si'des, like so many other general maxims, it may perfectly well have been uttered twice. 5. The Parables of Grace : chap. 15. This piece contains : 1st. A historical intro- duction (vers. 1 and 2) ; 2d. A pair of parables, like that of the previous chapter (vers. 3-10) ; and M. A great paral)le, which forms the summing up and climax of the two pieceding (vers. 11-32). The relation is like that between the three allegories, John 10 : 1-18. 1st. Vers. 1 and 2.* The Introduction.— U Weizsilker had sufficiently weighed the bearing of the analytical from ?)aav eyyiCovres, they were drawim/ near, which denotes a state of things more or less permanent, he would not have accused Luke (p. 139) of transforming ii'to the tvent of ? particular time a very common situation in the lif-^ * V.'-. 2. i^. B. D. L. add rf after oi. 372 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. cf Jesus. It is on the basis of this habitual state of thinifs that the point of time (aor. sIke, ver. 3) is marked off when Jesus related the following parables. Holtzmann finds nothing in this introduction but an invention of Lulce himself.. In any case, Luke places us once more, by this short historical introduction, at the point of view for understanding the wlioie of tlie foUowmg discourse. What drew those sinners to Jesus was llieir finding in Him not that righteousness, full of pride and contempt, with which the Pharisees assailed them, but a holiness which was associated with the tenderest luve. The publicans and sinners had broken with Levitical purity and Israelitish respectability ; the former by their business, the otliers by their life. They were outlaws in Israel. But were they tiually lost on that account ? Undoubtedly, the normal way of entering into union with God would liaro been through fidelity to tlie theocracy ; but tlie coming of the Saviour opened auotlier - to those who, by their guilt, had shut the first against them. And that Avas exactly the thing which had exasperated the zealots of Levitical observances. Rather than recognize in .lesus one who had uudei stood the merciful purpose of God, they pre- ferred to explain the compassionate welcome which He gave to sinners by His secret sympathy with sin. YlpajSi^x^'^'^'^'-f ^ receiee with welcome, refers to kindly relations in '"-eneral : avueaOteiv, to eat icith, to the decisive act in the manners of that time by which lie did nut fear to seal this connection. 2d. Vers. u-lO. The two parables of the loi>t sheep and of the lost drachma, as such pairs of parables always do, present the same idea, lait in two different aspects. The idea common to both is the solicitude of God for sinners ; the difference is, that in the first instance this solicitude arises from the compassion with ^k\i\ziov Tuv ayy., in the presence of the nvrjels, may be explained iu two ways : either by giving to the word Joy the meaning subject of joy — in that case, this saying refers directly to the joy of the angels themselves — or by referring the word ;tnpa to the joy of God which breaks forth in presence of the angels, and in which they par- ticipate. The first sense is the more natural. But those two images, borrowed from the animal and inanimate world, remain too far beneath their object. They do not furnish Jesus with the means of displaying the full riches of feeling which filled the heart of God toward the sinner, nor of un- veiling the sinner's inner history in the drama of conversion. For that, He needed an image borrowed from the domain of moral and sensitive nature, the sphere of human life. The word which sums up the first two parables is grace ; that which sums up the third is faith. Vers. 11-32. The Child lost avd found. This parable consists of two distinct de- scriptions, which form the counterpart of one another, that of the younger son (vers. 11-24), and that of the elder son (vers. 25-32). By the second. Jesus returns com- pletely, as we shall see, to the historical situation described vers. 1, 2, and the scene is closed. 376 COMMElsTAKY 02n" ST. LUKE. Vers. 11-24. The younger Son. This first part of the parable embraces four repre- sentations correspoudiug lo Ibe four pliases of the converted sinner's life : 1st. Bin (vers. 11-13) ; 2d. Misery (vers. 14-lG) ; od. Conversion (vers. 17-20a) ; Ath. Res- toration (vers. 20^-24). Vers, ll-lo.* Jesus discontinues the interrogative form used in the two previous cases : we have no more an argument ; we have a narrative, a real parable. The three persons compo-sing the family represent God and His people. In accordance with vers. 1, 2, the elder sou, the representative of the race, the prop of i\ni gem, and as such more deeply attached than tlie younger to the land of his household hearth, personifies the Israelites who were Levitically irreproachable, and especially the Pharisees. The younger, in whose case the family bond is weaker, and whom this very circumstance renders more open to the temptation of breaking with it, repre- sents those who have abandoned Jewish legalism, publicans and people of immoral lives. His demand for his goods is most probably to be explained by the fact that the elder received as his inheritance a double share of the patrimonial lauds, the yonna-ev members a single share (see at 12 : 13). The latter then desired that his father, anticipating the division, should give him the equivalent of his portion in money, an arrangement in virtue of which the entire domain, on the father's death, would come to the elder. Two things impel him to act thus : the air of the pater- nal home oppresses him, he feels the constraint ot his father's presence ; then the world without attracts him, he hopes to enjoy himself. But to realize his wishes, he needs two things — freedom and money. Here is the image of a heart swayed by licentious appetites ; God is the obstacle in its way, and freedom to do anything ap- pears to it as the condition ot happiness. Money ought not to be taken as a figure applied to the talents and graces which the sinner has received ; it simply represents here the povrer of satisfying one's tastes. In the father's consenting to the guilt}'- wish of his son, a very solemn thought is expressed, that of the sinner's abandon- ment to the desires of his own heart, ihe napa^tddvat raii ETTiOvuiaiS (Rom. 1 : 24, 2n, 28), the ceasing on the part of the Diviaj Spirit to strive against the inclinations of a spoiled heart, which can only be cured by the bitter experiences of sin. God gives such a man over to his folly. The use ■which the sinner makes of his sadly-acquired liberty is described in ver. 13. All those images of sin blended in many respects, so far as the sinners present were concerned, with actual facts. The far country to which the sou flies is the emblem of the state of a soul which has so strayed that the thought of God no longer even occurs to it. The complete dissipation of his goods represents the carrying out of man's liberty to its furthest limits. Maapav is not an adjective, but an adverb (ver. 20, 7 : 6, etc). Vers. 14-16. f The libeity of self-enjoyment is not unlimited, as the sinner would fain think ; it has limits of two kinds : the one pertainiu"- to the individual himself, such as satiety, remorse, the feeling of destitution, and abjectness resulting from vice (wJien lie had spent all) ; the other arising from certain unfavorable outward cii'cum- stances, here represented by the famine which occurs at this crisis, that is, domestic or public calamities which complete the subduing of the heart which has been already overwhelmed, and further, the absence of all divine consolation. Let those two causes of misery coincide, and wretchedness is at its height. Then happens what * Ver. 12. !!*<=. A. B. L., o 6e instead of nac. \ Ver. 14. !!^. A. B. D. L. 8 Mnn., WAypo^ instead of laxvpo';. Ver. 16. i^. B. D. L. R. some Mnn. Sy^'^"^ It"''''., x^P~°-°^^V^(ii- f" instead of yefuoac ttiv koiIiov nvrov am. ciiAi'. XV. : ll-*:o. 377 Jesus calls voTepe'taOai, to be in xcnnt, the ubsolutc void of a Iicart which has sacrificed everything for pleasure, aud which has nothing left but suffering. We can hardly avoid seeing, in the ignoble dependence into which this young Jew falls under a heatiieu master, an allusion to the position of the publicans who were engaged in the i service of the Roman power. But the general idea which corresponds to this touch is Ihat of tiie degrading dependence, in respect of the woild, to which the vicious man always finds himself reduced in the end. Ho sought pleasure, he finds pain ; he wished freedom, he gets bondage. The word iKoA/jfjr] has in it sometliing abject ; the unhappy wretch is a sort of appendage to a strange personality. To feed swine, the lust business for a Jew. Keparwu denotes a species of coarse beau, used in the East for fattening tiiose animals. At ver. IG, the Alex. Mjj. arc caught in the very act of purism ; men of delicate taste could not bear the gross expression, to ■jilltheMly icith . . . There was therefore substituted in the public reading the more genteel term, io satisfy himself with . . . ; and this correction has passed into the Alex, text. The act expressed by the received reading is that, not of relishing food, but merely of filling a void. The smallest details are to the lifeinthisportraiture. Dur- ing this time of famine, when the poor herdsman's allowance did not suffice to ap- pease his hunger, he was reduced to covet the coarse bean with which the herd was carefully fattened, w^hen he drove it home : the swine were in reality more piecious than he. They sold high, an image of the conlemi)l and neglect which the profligate experiences from that very world to which he has sacrificed the most sacred feelings. Vers. 17-20a.* This representation, which depicts the conversion of the sinner, includes two things, repentance (ver. 17) and faith (vers. 18-20«). The words, when he came to himself, ver. 17, denote a solemn moment in human life, that in which the heart, after a long period of dissipation, for the first time becomes self-collected. The heart is God's sanctuary. To come to ourselves is therefore to find God. Re- pentance is a change of feeling ; we find it fully depicted in the regret which the sinner feels for that from which he has fled (the father's house), and in that horror which fills him at that which he sought so ardently (the strange laud). As to the mercenaiies whom he envies, might they not represent those heathen proselytes who had a place, although a very inferior one (Ihe outer court), in the temple, and who might thus from afar lake part in the woiship ; advantages from which the publi- cans, so long as they kept to their profession, were debarred by theexcommunicalioa which fell on them. From this change of feeling there springs a resolution (ver. 18), which rests on a remnant of confidence in the goodness of his father ; this is the '-~dawn of faith. Did we not recollect that we are yet in the parable, the meaning of the words before thee would appear to blend with that of the pi'ecediug, against heaven. But in the image adoi)ted Ihe two expressions have a distinct meaning. Heaven is the avenger of all holy feelings when outraged, and particularly of filial devotion when trampled under foot. The young man sinned before his father at the time when, the latter beholding him with grief, he defied his last look, and obstinately turned his back on him. The possibility of an immediate and entire restoi-ation does not enter his mind. lie is ready to take the p(iSition of a servant in the house where he lived as a son, but where he shall have at least wherewith to satisfy his hunger. Here is portrayed that publican (described in chap. 18) who stood afar off, and dared * Ver. 17. i* B. L. some Mnn., fdr/ instead of f^rrev. A. B. P., nrpLfjaevovTai instead of -qjicnnov^Lv. 6 Mjj. some .Mnn. Syr. liP'<-'-'q»e, Vg. add wde to X>. B. L. R. X. It. Vg., (psperE instead of eveyKavTeS. Ver. 24. 9 Mjj. 30 Mnn. It. Vg. omit kul before «7ro/w?.(j? i]v. cHAi'. XV. : :iO-3i. '37 *J represent the sacrifice of Christ, is at once explained when we remember that we Imvc I here to do with a parable, and that expiation has no place in the relations between man and man. By the plural, let its be merry, the father himself takes his sliarc in ^ the feast (as in ver. 7). The two parallel clauses of vcr. 24 recall tlie two aspects in wliich sin was presented in the two previous parables ; he wan dead relates to the per- sonal luisL-ry of lliu sIuiict (the lost sheep) ; he wdn lod, to the loss fell by God Himself fthe lost drachma). The parable of the prodigal son coinbiucs those two pDints of view : the sun was lost, and tlie father had lost sumelhing. Willi the words, and tlicy hyau to be merri/, the piirable reaches the exact point at which things wero at the moment when Chiist uUered it (vers. 1 and 2). v Vers. 2.}-o2. 'The elder Son. This part embraces : l.st. The interview of the elder son with the servant (vers. 25-28(7) ; 2d. His interview with his father (vers. 286-o2). Jesus here shows the Pharisees their murmurings put in action, and constrains them to feel their gravity. Vers. 25-28rt.* TVhile the house is filled with mirth, the elder son is at work. Here is the image of the Phaiisee busied with his rites, while repentant sinneis are rejoicing in the serene sunshine of grace. Every free and joyous impulse is abhor- rent to the formal spirit of pharisaism. This repugnance is described in ver. 26. Rather than go straight into the house, the elder sou begins l)y gathering iufoimution from a servant ; he does not feel himself at home in the house (John 8 : 35). The ser- vant in his answer substitutes for the expressions of the father : he teas dead . . ., lost . . ., these simple words : he is coine safe and sound. This is the fact, without the father's moral appreciation, which it is not fitting in him to appropriate. Every- tbmg in the slightest details of the picture breathes the most exquisite delicacy. The refusal to enter corresponds to the discontent of the Pharisees, who do not under- stand being saved in common with the vicious. Vers. 28i-32.f This interview contains the full revelation of pharisaic feeling, and brings into view the contrast between it and the fatherly lieart of God. The procedure of Ihe father, who steps out to his sou and invites him to enter, is realized in the very conversation which Jesus, come from God, holds with them at the mo- ment. The answer of the son (vers. 29 and ;50) includes two accusations against his father : the one bears ou his way of acting toward himself (ver. 29), the other on his conduct in respect of his other son (ver. 30). The contrast is meimt to bring out the partiality of the father. The blind and innocent self-satisfaction which forms the lit art of Pharisaism could not be better depicted than in the words : " neither trans- gressed I at any lime thy commandment ;" and the servile and mercenary position of the legal Jew in the theocracy, than thus : " Lo ! these many years do 1 serve thee." Bengel makes the simple observation on these words : servus erai. What in reality was his fatherlo him ? A master ! He even counts the years of his hard servitude : Tliere are so many yrarx ! . . . Such is man's view of accomplishing good under the law : a labor painfully carried through, and which consequently merits payment. But by its very nature it is totally deprived of the delights which belong only to the * Ver. 26. Jvrov after Ttm^Mv, in 5 (not ?*). i"? rtnlv snoported by some IMnn. + Ver. 28. Tlip Mss. are divided betwpen tjOfAfi" (T. K.) ami T/O^Arfdi-v, and be- tween o ovv (T. T?.) and o Sf. (Alex.). Ver. 29. 7 ]\IjJ. add avrcw to rw narpt. Ver. 30. Instead of mv tindxov rov 6itfvtov. 6 Mij , rnv (iirF.vrov no6](OV. Ver. 32. Instead of avfZvdFv IT. "R.) »* B. L. R. A. Syr"'', f?7;^fi\ ». B. X. several Mna. It. omit ^ai, and A. B. D. L. R. X. rjv, before anoXaiXooi. 3bU L'OMMENTAUY ON ST. LUKE. sphere ot free love ; it has no other idea of them than that which it gets by seeing thoiii joys of the reconciled sinner, by which it is scandalized. The joy wnich is wanting to it is this kid to make merry witk its friends, which iias never been granted to it. With the hard and ill-paid labor of legal obedience he contrasts (ver. 30) the life of his brother, merry in siu, happier still, if possible, in the hour of his return aud pardon. The meaniug is, that in the eyes of pharisaism, as virtue is a task, sin is a pleasure ; and hence there ought to be a payment for the first, an equivalent of pain for the second. The father, by refusing to the one his just revvard, by adding in the case of the other joy to joy, the enjoyments of the paternal home to those of de- bauchery, lias shown his preference for the sinner aud his sympathy wilii siu. Thy son, says the elder sou, instead of : my brother . He would express at once the parti- ality of his father and his own dislike to the sinner. Do not those sayings which Jesus puts into the mouth of the righteous legalist, contain the keenest ciiticism of a state of soul wherein men discharge duty all the while abhorring it, and wherein while avoiding sin, they thirst after it? The particular ^etcx nopvcSv is a stroke of the pencil added to the picture of ver. 13 by the charitable hand of the elder brother. The father's answer meets perfectly the two accusations of his sou. Ver. 31 replies to ver. 39 ; ver. 32 to ver. 30. The father first clears himself from the charge of in- justice to the son who is speaking to him; and with what condescension! "My c\\\\(\.{TEHvoy)." This form of address has in it something more loving even than vie, son. Then he reminds him that his life with him might have been a feast all along. There was no occasion. Iheiefore, to make a special feast for him. And what good would a particular gift serve, when everything in the house was continually at his disposal. The meaning of tliis remarkable saying is, that nothing prevented the believing Israelite from already enjoying the sweets of divine communion — a fact proved by the Psalms ; cump. e.g. Ps. 23 and 63. St. Paul himself, who ordinarily presents the law as the instrument of condemnation, nevertheless derives the formula of grace from a saying of Moses (Rom. 10:6-8), proving that in his eyes grace is already in the law, through the pardon which accompanies sacrifice and the Holy Spirit granted to him who asks Him (Ps. 51 : 9-14) ; and that when he speaks of (iie law as he ordinarily does, it is after the manner of his adversaries, isolating the com- mandment from grace. In the same way as ver. 31 presents theocratic fidelity as a happiness, and not a task, so ver. 33 reveals sin as a misery, and not asanadvantiige. I'here was therefore ground for c lebrating a feast on the return of one who had just escaped frmn so great a misery, aud by his arrival had restored the life of the familv in its completeness. Thy brother, says the father ; it is the answer to the thy son of ver. 30. He reminds him of the claims of fraternal love. Here Jesus stops; He does not say what part the elder son took. It lay with the Pharisees themselves, I)y the conduct which Ihty would adopt, to decide this question and finish the nan alive. The Tubingen school (Zeller, Volkm'.r, Hilgenfeld, not Kostlin) agree in renaid- ing the elder son, nut as the phurisaic; party, but as the .lewish people in general ; the youngLT son, not as the publicans, but Gentile nations. "The elder son is un- mistakably the iniiige of Judaism, wiiich deems that it possesses special merit I)ecau*e of its fidelity to tlie one true God. The youneer son . . . i.'s the not less ea«ily recognized portrait of Gtnlile humanil}' given up to polytheism and immorality. Tiie discontent of the first, on seeing the reception granted to his brnther, lepre.'-enls tJie jealousy of the .Tews on acctmiil of the entranc ■ of the Gentiles into th" Ch'irrdi " (Hilgenfeld, "die Evangel.," p. 198). It would follow, then : 1. That this paiable accieiiil Ihe former, lliul of Ilie lustoiiciil siluation dcsciilied vers. 1 and '3. But. 1. Is it cuiici ivalilu liial the lyaiigili^l, who maiUed out his own pro- g;a.uiue I..r hirui-lf, 1 : 1-4. .-iiuuld lake theliluMty of treating his materials in .so fiee an. I easy a style '2. Have wo udI found in tliis de.-eiiption a multilurle of delicate aliusi./ns lo ttie liistor.ical surioundiniis amid which the paiable i.s reputed to have been uttered, and which would not lie applicable in the sense proposed (veis. lo, 17, etc.)? H. Hjw from this parable St. Paul miglit have extracted the doctrine of jusli- licalion by faith, is easy to understand. But that this onkr was inverted, that the paiai)le was invented as an atier-thuiight to give a Ixxly to the Pauline doctrine, is incom[)aLil)le with the absence of eveiy dogmatic clement m the exposition. Would n.)i liie names of repentance, faith, ju-tilicalion, antl the idea of expiation, have been infallibly iulrodiiced, if it had been the result of a di,gmiitic study contemporary with the ministry of Paul ? 4. We have seen lliat the descripi ion finds its perfect explana- tion, tliat there remains not a single obscure point in tlie light in ■which it is placed by Luke. It is therefore arbitrary to seek another setting for it. The prejudice which has led the Tiibiugen school lo this c(.nlia-texlual inteipietation is evitlent. Keim, while (iiscovering, like this school, Panlinism as tlie Ita.'-is (,f the parable (p. 80), think-* that here we have one of the passages wherein the author, witli the view of conciliating, more or less abjures his master, St. Paul. The evangelist dares not ■wholly disapprove the Judeo-Christianity which holds bj'' the conimaiidments ; he praises it even (ver. 31). He only demands that it shall aulliorize the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church ; and on this condition he lets its legal spirit pass. We shouUl thus have simply the juxtaposition of the two principles which contiicted witii one auuther in the apostolic churches. But, 1. In this attempt at conciliation, the elder son would be completel}' sacriticed to the younger ; for the latter is seated at table in the house, the former is wiihnut, and we remain in ignornnce as to whether he will re-enter. And this h\st would represent the apostolic Christianity which founded the Church ! 2. Adopting biblical premises, ver. '31 can easily be applied to the MosMic system faithfully observed, and that, as we have seen, according to the view of St. Paul himself. 3. It belonged to the method of progressive transition, which Jesus always observed, to seek to develope within the bosom of the ]\Iosaic dispensition, and without ever attacking it, the new principle wdiich was to succeed it. and the germ of which was already deposited in it. Jesus did not wish to sup- pi ess anything which He had not coriipletely replaced and sui passed. He therefore accepted the ancient system, while attaching to it the new. The facts pointed out by Keim aie fully explained by this situation. Holtzmann thinks that our parable, which is not found in IMalthew, may really be only an amplification of that of the two sons, which is found in tliat evangelist (Matt. 21 '28-80). Does not this supposition do too much honor to the alleged amplifier, whether Luke or any other ? 6. Tlie Two Parables on the use of EartUy Goods : chap. IG. Tliose two remaik- able passages are peculiar to Like, though taken, according to Holtzmann, from the common source A, from which Matthew also borrows. For what reason, on this hypothesis, has the latter omitted them ? The second especially (ver. 31 : Tltey have Moses and the prophets) was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of this Go.speL Ac- cording lo Weizsacker, the two parables have undergone ver}' grave modifications in the course of successive editions. In his view, the original thought of the parable of the unjust stew'ard was this : Beneficence, the means of justification for injustices committed by liim who shows it. In our Gospel, it is intended to promise to the Gen- tiles an entrance into the kingdom of God, as a recompense for their benefits toward the lawful heirs of the kinsidom. The second parable would also belong in origin to the tendency of Ebionite Judeo-Christianity ; it would transform into a descriptiou the idea of tlie four beatitudes and four maledictions, which i i Lukeo[)en the Sermon OD the Mount. Later, it became the representation of the rejection of the unbeliev- 382 COMMEXTARY ON ST. LUKE. ing Jews (the -wicked rich man and his brethren), and of the salvation of tlie Geuliles represented by Lazarus (probably a Gentile, according to ver. 21). We shall see if the interpretation justifies suppositions so violent. This piece contains : Ut. The parable of the unjust steward, with accompanying reflections (vers. 1-13) ; 2cl. Rfliectioiis forming an introduction to the paiable of the wicked licli man, and the parable itself (vers. 14-31). Those two portraits are evi- dently tlie cr.unterparts of one another. The idea common to both is that of the re- lation between the use made of earthly goods and man's future beyond tlie tomb. The steward represents the owner who is able to secure his future by a wise use of those transitory goods ; the wicked rich man, the owner who compromises his future by neglecting this just employment of them. 1st. Vers. 1 13. The Unjust Steward. Is there a connection between this lesson on riches and the preceding ? The formula e'Asys 6^ xai, and He said also (ver. 1), seems to indicate that there is. Olshausen supposes that the disciples {ver. 1) to whom the parable is addressed are publicans brouglit back to God, those recent converts of chap. 15, whom Jesus was exhorting to employ wisely the earthly goods which they had acquired unjustly. But the expression : to His disciples (ver. 1), refers naturally to the ordinary disciples of our Lord. In the sense of Olshausen, some epithet would require to have been added. The connection is rather in the keeping up of the con- trast between the life of faith and pharisaic righteousness. The two chief sins of the Pharisees were pride, with its fruit hypocrisy, and avarice (7er, 14). AVe see in the Sermon on the JNlount, which was directed against their false righteousness, how Jesus passes directly from the one of those sins to the other (Matf. G : 18, 10). This is precisdy what He does here. He had just been stigmatizing pharisaic pride in the person of the elder son. Now this disposition is ordinarily accompanied by that proud hardness which characterizes the wicked rich man, as the heart broken by the experiences of faith is naturally disposed to the liberal actions of the unjust steward. Hence the form : //^ said to them also. And first the parable : vers. 1-9.* In this portraiture, as in some others, Jesus does not scruple to use the example of the wicked for the purpose of stimulating His disciples. And in fact, in the midst of conduct morally blamable, the wicked often display remarkable qualities of activity, prudence, and perseverance, which may serve to humble and encourage believers. The parable of the unjust steward is the masterpiece of this sort of teaching. The rich man of ver. 1 is a great lord living in the capital, far from his lands, the administration of which he has committed to a factor. The latter is not a mere slave, as in 13 : 43 ; he is a freeman, and even occupying a somewhat high social position (ver. 3). He enjoys very large powers. He gathers in and sells the produce at his pleasure. Living himself on the revenue of the domain, it is his duty to transmit to his master the surplus of the income. Olshausen alleges that this master, in the view of Jpsus, represents the prince of this world, the devil, and that only thus can the eulogium be explained which he passes (ver. 8) on the conduct of his knavish servant. This explanation is incompatible with the deprivation of the steward pronounced by * Ver. 1. !^. B. D. L. R. omit avrov after na^r/rai. Ver. 3. 7 Mjj. omit 6ov after otHovouiai. i^. B. D. P., Svv?/ instead of 8vinj6T]. Ver. 4. !!>. B. D. some Mnn. Syr. add eh, and L. X. Itpi'^'-ique^ y^^ ^^^o before tt^S. Vers. 6, 7. ii. B. D. L.. ra xP<3r///«Tr6r instead of to ypani-ia. Ver. 9. 8 Mjj. some .Mnn. Syr^''''. It"''"!., enXinr) or eKXeiTtt] instead of sxXntijrE. which the T. R. reads with i^'* F. P. U. ciiAi'. \vi. : ]-];;. 383. the master, ver. 2, and which, in the view of our Lord, can only denote death. It is not Satan who disposes of hutuan life. Satan is not even the master of riches ; does not God .say, Ilag. 2:8: " The silver is mine, and the gold is mine V" Comp. Ps. 24 : 1. Finally, it is not to Satan, certainly, that we shall have to give account of onr adnunibtration of earthly goods ! Our Lord clearly gives out Himself as tlie per- sun represented by tlie master, vers. 8 and 9 : 'Hie Master commended . . .; and I also say xuito you. Again, could we admit that in ver. 12 the expression : faithful in that which is another 7nan's (>our master's), should signify : " faithful to that whicli the devil has committed to j'ou of his goods?" Meyer had modiJied this explanation of Olshausen : the master, according to him, is wealth personified, manunou. But how are we to attribute the personal part wiiich the master in the parable plays to this abstract being, wealth? The master can only represent God Himself, Him icho vtakiih poor and makcth rich, tcho bringcth low and liftdh vp. In relation to his neighbor, every man may be regarded as the proprietor of his goods ; but in relation to God, no one is more than a tenant. This gicat and simple thought, by destroying the right of property- relatively to God, gives it its true basis in the relation between man and man. Every man should respect the property of his neighbor, just because it is not the latter's propertj', but that of God, who has entrusteil it to him. In the leport made to the master about the delinquencies of his steward, we are to see the nnage of that perfect knowledge which God has of all human unfaithfulness. To waste the goods of Gcd, means, after having taken out of our revenue what is de- manded f jr our maintenance, instead of consecrating the remainder to the service cf God and of His cause, squandering it on our pleasure, or hoaiding it up fdr our- selves. Here wc have the judgment of Jesus on that manner of acting which appears to us so natural : it is to forget that we are but stewards, and to act as proprietors. The s;iyiug of the master to the steward (ver. 2) does not include a call to clear himself; it is a sentence of deprivation. His guilt seems thoroughly established. The account which he is summoned to render :j the inventory of the properly con- fided to him, to be transmitted to his successor. What corresponds to this depriva- tion is evidently the event by which God takes away from us the free disposal of the goods which He had entrusted to us here below, that is, death. The sentence of de- priv'ation pronounced beforehand denotes the awakening of the human conscience when it is penetrated by this voice of God : " Thou must die ; thou shalt give ac- count." ^amjdai is stronger than xaXeOai : " speaking with the tone of a master." In the phrase zirouto, ri may be taken as an exclamation : "How happens it that I hear this !" or interrogatively, with rovro in apposition : ' What do 1 hear of thee, to wit this?" The accusation which we should expect to follow is understood. The present 8vv>;i,\n some Alex., is that of the immediate future. The words : he said within himself, have some relation to those of 15 : 17 : when he came to himself. It is an act of recollection after a life jnissed in insensibility. The situation of the man is critical. Of the two courses which present themselves to his mind, the first, digging, and the .second, begging, are equally intolerable to him, the one physically, the othrr morally. All at once, after long reflection, he exclaims, as if striking his forehead : I have it ! "Eyvoov, 1 have come to S(e (ver. 4). He starts from the sentence as from a fact which is irrevocable : when I am put out. But has he not those goods, which he is soon to hand over to another, in his hands for some time yet ? May he not hasten to \ise them in such a way that he shall get advantage from them when he shall have them no more, by making sure, for example, of a refuge 384 COMMEXTAllY O.N ST. LLKE. for the time wLeu be shall be houseless? When man thinks seriously of his ap- proaching death, it is impossible for him not to bo alarjiied at that deprivation which awaits him, and at the t:tale of nakeilness which will follow. Happy if in th'.u hour he can take a firm resolution. For some time yet he has in liis hands the goods ot his divine Master, which death is about to wrest from him. Will it not be wisdom on his part so to use them during the brief moments when he has them 3'ct at his dis' posal, that they shall bear interest for him when they shall be his no more ? Tills steward, wlio will soon I>e homeless, knows people who have houses : " Let us then make friends of them ; and when I shall be turned to the street, more than • one house shall be open to receive me." The debtors, whom he calls to him with this view, are merchants who are in the habit of coming to get their supplies from him, getting credit probably till they have made their own sales, and making their payments afterward. The Heb. fjdzo'i, the bath, contains about sixt}' pints. The gift of fifty of those bdtlis migiit mount up to the sum of some thousands of francs. The Kopo?, corns (homer), contains ten epltahs ; and the value of twenty homers might rise to some hundreds of francs. The difference whicli the steward makes between the two gifts is remarkable ; it contains a proof of discernment. He knows his men as the saying is, and can calculate the degree of liberality "which he must show to each to gain a like result, that is to say, the hospitality he expects to receive from them until it be repaid. Jesus here describes alms in the most piquant form. Does a rich man, for example, tear up the bill of one of his pour debtors ? He only docs what the steward does here. For if all we have is God's, supposing we lend any- thing, it it out of His property that we have taken it ; and if we give it away, it is with Ilis goods {tlutt which is another's, ver. 12) that we are generous in so acting. Beneficence from this point of view appears as a sort of holy unfaithfulness. By means of it we prudently make for ourselves, like the steward, personal friends, while we use wealth which, strictly speaking, is that of our Master. But differently from the stewarJ, we do so holily, because we know that we are not acting without the knowledge and contrary to the will of the divine Owner, but that, on the other hand, we are entering into His purposes of love, and that He rejoices to see us thus using the goods which He has committed to us with that intention. This unfaithfulness is faithfulness (ver. 12). The commendation which the master gives the steward (ver. 8) is not absolute. It has a twofold limitation, first in the word r?/b ci^iHLaZ, " tlie unjust steward," an epithet which he must certainlj'' put in the master's mouth, and then in the explana- tory phrase : " because he had done wisely." The meaning of the commendation, then, is to this effect : " Undoubtedly a clever man ! It is only to be regretted that he has not shown as much probitj' as prudence." Thus, even though beneficence chiefl}' profits him who exercises it, God rejoices to see this virtue. And while He has no favor for the miser who hoards His goods, or for the egoist wlio squanders them. He approves the man who disposes of them wisely in view of his eternal future. Weizsiicker holds that the eulogium given bj' the master should be rejected from the parable. Had he understood it better, he would not have proposed this suppression, which would be a mutilation. It is with the second part of ver. 8 that the application begins. " Wisely: Yes, adds Jesus, it is quite true. For there is m.ore wisdom found among the children of this world in their mode of acting toward the children of the generation to which they belong, than among the children of light iu their conduct toward those who (11 A 1'. xvi. : l-l;]. 385 belong to theirs." Aioov ovro?, this age (worlil) ; the peridd of history anterior to the fomiug of liie kingdom of God. ^wS : the domain of tiie liiglier life iuto wliich Jesus iulkoduces 1H.< iliscipk"!>, and in which tlie hrighlue.ss of (iiviue wisdom leigns Bulii spiieies liiive Ihtir own popuhiliou, and every inliabitaiit of tlie one or the otlici is sunoiindetl liy a certain uuuiher of contemporaries like himself, who form his yevFa or generation. Those belonging (o the fiist spiieie use every means for Hair own interest, to strengthen the bonds which unite them to their contemporaries of the same stamp. But those of the second neglect this natural measure of prudence. Tliey f.^rget to use God's goods to form bunds of love to the couleniporaries who siiaie their character, and who might one day give Ihem a full recompense, whcji they themselves shall want everything and these shall have ubunduuce. Ver. 'J finishes the application. The words : and 1 oho sai/ unto yon, correspond to these : a)nl the Lord commended (ver. 8). As in chap. 15 Jesus had identified Himself with the Father who dwells in heaven, so in this saying He idenlifies Himself with the in- visible owner of all things : and I. Jesus means : Instead of hoarding up or enjoyinpf —a course which will proiit you notiung when, on the other side of the tomb, you •will find yourselves in your turn poor and destitute of everything— hasten to niak« for yourselves, with the goods of another (God's), personal friends (hxvroi?, to your- selves), who shall then be bound to you by gratitude, and share with you their well- being. By a course of beneficence make haste to transform iuto a bond of love the base metal of whicli death will soon deprive you. What the steward did in his sphere in relation to people of his own quality, see that you do in yours toward those who belong like you to the world to come. The Ale.K. reading IxXltii} {j-iai-ioovdi), would signify: " that when money shall fail you (by the event of death)." The T. R. : kxXiTtijrs, uhcn ye shall fail, refers to the cessation of life, embracing privation of everything of which it is made up. The fi lends, according to Meyer and Ewald, are the angels, who, affected by the alms of the beneficeut man, are attached to him, and assist him at the time of hi.s passing into eternity. But according to the parable, the friends can only be men who have been succored by him on the earth, poor here below, but possessing a share in the everlasting inheritance. What service can they render to the dying disciple? Here is perhaps the most diffirult question in the explanation of the parable. Love tcslitied and experienced cstablislies between beings a strict moral unity. This is clearly seen in the relation between Jesus and men. May not the disciple who reaches heaven without having gained here below the degree of development which is the condition of full communion with God, receive the increase of spiritual life, which is yet wanting to him, by means of tlu.se grateful spirits with whom he shared his lempoial goods here below ? (Corup. Rom. 15 : 27 and 1 Cor. 9 : 11.) Do we not already see on the earth the poor Christian, who is assisted by a humane, but in u riligious point of view defective, rich man, by his prayers, by the oveillowingof his gratitude, and the editic-ition which he aflords him, requiting his benefactor infinitely moi'e and belter than he receives from him V Almsgiving is thus found to be the mr.st prudent investment ; for the communication of love once established by its means, enables him who i)ractise»5 it to enjoj' provisionally the benefits of a spiritual state far superior to that which he has himself reached. A simdar thought is found in 14 : l;3, 14. But if this explanation seems to leave something to desire, we must fall back on sayings such as these : " He that hath pity upon the poor, lendelh unit) the Lord." " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 386 COMMENTAllY OX tiT. LIKE. done it unto me." It is Jesus, it is God Himself, "wlio become our debtors by the assistance v/hicli we grant to those who are the objects of their love. And would such friends be useless in the hour of our dissolution ? To receive is not to intro- duce. On the contrary, the first of these two terms assumes that admission is already adjudged. Faith, which alone opens heaven, is supposed in the hearers whom Jesus is addressing in the parable : they are disciples, ver. 1. Conversion, the fruit of failh, is er£ually implied, vers. 3 and 4. And since the disciple whom Jesus de- scribes has chosen believers as the special objects of his liberality, he must to a cer- tain degree be a l)eliever himself. The poetical expression eternal habitations (tents) is borrowed from patriarchal history. Tlie tents of Abraham and Isaac under the oaks of Mamre are transferred in thought to tlie life to come, which is represented under the image of a glorified Canaan. What is the future of poetry but the past idealized ? It is less natural to think, with Meyer, of the tents of Israel in the desert. We may here compare the TtoXXal f-iovai, the many viansujns, in the Father's house, John 14 : 3. There re- mains to be explained the phrase 6 i.icxi.ioovd.i r?/S dSixiai, the mammon of unrigld- fousness. The word jua/ioovdi is not, as has often been said, the name of an oriental divinity, the god of mone^'. It denotes, in Syriac and Phosniciau, money itself (see Bleek on Matt. 6 . 24). The Aramaic name is ]"|J3q, and, with the article, jsjj]»2J2. The epithet umigJdeous is taken by many commentators simply 1o mean, that the ac- quisition of fortune is most frequently tainted with sin ; according to Bleek and others, that sin readily attaches to the administration of it. But these are only acci- dental circumstances ; the context points to a more satisfactory explanation. The ear of Jesus must have been constantly offended with that sort of leckless laniruage in which men indulge without scruple : vii/ fortune, my lands, ^ny house. He who felt to the (juiok man's dependence on God, saw tliat there was a usurpation in this idea of ownership, a forgetfulness of liie true proprietor ; on hearing such language, He seemed to see the fanner plajdng the landlord. It is this sin, of which the natural man is profoundly unconscious, which He lays bare in this whole parable, and which He specially designates b}^ this expression the unrighteous Mammon. The two, riji u^LKiar, vers. 8 and 9, correspond exactly, and mutually explain one another. It is theiefore false to see in this epithet, with De Wette, the Tiibiugen School, Renan, etc., a condemnation of property as such. Man's sin does not consist in being, as one invested with earthly property, the steward of God, but in forgetting that he is so (parable following). There is no thought more fitted than that of this parable, on the one hand, to un- dermine the idea of merit belonging to almsgiving (what merit could be got out of that which is another's?), and on the other, to eucourage us in the practice of that virtue which assures us of friends and protectors for the grave moment of our pass- in;; into the world to come. What on the part of the steward was only wise unfaith- fiduess, becomes wise faithfulness in the servant of Jesus who acts on acquaintance with principle. It dare not be said that Jesus had wit ; but if one could be tempted tw use the expression at all, it would be here. Of the many explanations of this parable which have been proposed, Ave shall merely quote some of the most prominent. Schleiermaclier takes the master to be the Roman knights who farmed the taxes of Judiea, and sublet them to needy publi- cans ; the steward, to be the publicans whom Jesus exhorted to expend on their countrymen the goods of which they cleverly cheated those great foreigners. Henri CHAi'. XVI. : I(,)-i;i. 387 Bauer sees in the master the Israelilish authorities, uud in the unfaithful steward llio Judeo-Chrislians, who, without liouhliug tliiinselvis about theocratic prejudices, sliuuld strive to coniiuuuicale to the Genlik-s the beui-tils of the coveuaut. Accord- ing to Wcizsjicker in the original thoiigiit of tiie parable the steward represented a Roman magistiate. who, to the detriment of the Jews, had been ynilly of maiadmin- istration, but who thereafter strives to make amends by showing I hem gentleness and liberality. No womhr that from tins point of view the critic kuo\\s not what t.) make of the etdogiuni passed by the master on his steward ! But according to him, the sense and tlie im.ige were transformed, and the description became in the hands of Luke an encouragement to rich and unbelieving Jews to merit heaven by doing good to poor Christians. The arbitrary and forced character of those explanations is clear as the day, and they need no detailed refutation. We are happy that we can agree, al least for once, wiih Ililgeufeld, both in the general interpretation of the parable and in the explanation of the sayings which follow (" Die Evangel," p. IDO). Vers lO-lo.* " He that is faithfid in tiiat which is least, is faithful also in much ; and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much. 11. If therefore ye have niit been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust tliat which is true ? 12. And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, wiro shall give you that which is your own ? 13. No servant can serve two masters : for either he will hate the one, and love the other ; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Many regaid these re- tleclions as arbitrarily placed here by Luke. But whatever Bleek may say, is it not just the manner in wdiich we constitute ourselves proprietors of our earthly goods, whicii leads U!! to make a use of them which is contrary to their true destination? The following piece, therefore, derives its explanation from the parable, and is di- rectly connected with it. Ver. 12 (roi (i/*v.07p/a;) would even be unintelligible apart from it. Yer. 10 is a comparison borrowed from common life. From the expeiience expressed in the two parallel propositions of this verse, it follows that a master does not think of elevating to a higher position the servant who has abused his confidence in matters of less importance. Faithful toward the master, unjust toward men. The application of this rule of conduct to believers, vers. 11, 12. The vnrigfiteous mammon is God's money, which man unjustly takes as his own. Faithfulness would have implied, above all, the employment of those goods in the service of God ; but our deprivation once pronounced (death), it implies their employment in our interest rightly understood by means of beneficence. Through lack of this fidelity or wis- dom, we establish our own incapacity to administer better goods if they were confided to us ; therefore God will not commit them to us. Those goods are called to hhjfjivov, the true good, that which corresponds really to the idea of good. The contrast has misled several commentators to give to the word uthKo^ the meaning of deceitful. This is to confound the word d/i^Oii-oS with (i7r]fjiji (vemcioiis). The real good is that •which can in no case he changed to its opposite. It is not so with money, which is at best a provisional good, and may even be a source of evil. This is the application of 10a / ver. 12 is that of 10b. Earthly goods are called another's good, that is to say, a good which strictly belongs to another than ourselves (God). As it is fnitlifidhesa to God, so it \s justice to man, to di^p^-se of them with a view to our poor neighbor. Tliat which is our oicn denotes the good for which we are essentially fitted, which is * Yer. 12. B. L., to nfiETepov instead of to vfiiTepov. 388 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. tbe normal completion of our beinff, the Divine Spirit become our own spirit by entire assimilation, or in tlie words of Jesus, the kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world. Our Lord's thought is therefore this : God commits to man, during hia earthly sojourn in the state of probation, goods belonging to Him, which are of less value (earthly things) ; and the use, fathful or unfaithful, just or unjust, which we malie of these settles the question whether our true patrimony (the goods of the Spirit, of which tlie believer himself receives only the earnest liere below) shall or shall not be granted to him al)ove. Like a rich father, who should trust his son with a domain of little value, that he might be trained later in life to manage the whole of his inher- itance, thus putting his character to the proof, so God exposes external seeming goods of no value to the thousand abuses of our unskilful administration here below, that from the use which we make of them there may one day be determined for each of us whether we shall be put in possession, or whether we shall be deprived of our true eternal heritage— the good which corresponds to our inmost nature. The entire phi- losophj' of our terrestrial existence is contained in these words. Ver. 18, which closes this piece, is stdl connected with the image of the parable ; tlie steward had two masters, whose service he could not succeed iu reconciling, the owner of the revenue which he was managing, and mone,y, which he was woiship- piug. The two parallel propositions of this verse are usually regarded as identical in meaning and as differing only in the position assigned to each of the two masters suc' cessively as the objects of the two opposite feelings. But Bleek justly observes, that the absence of the article before evor in the second proposition seems to forbid our tak- ing this pronoun as tlie simple repetition of the preceding rm iva in the first ; he therefore gives it a more general sense, the one or tlie other of the two preceding, and places the whole difference between the two parallel propositions in the graduated meaning of the different verbs employed, Jiolding to being less strong tlian loving, and despising less strong than hating. Thus : " He will hate the one and love the other ; or at least, he will hold more either to the one or other of the two, which will neces- sarily lead him to neglect the service of the other." It makes no material difference. This veise, whatever the same iearned critic muy say, concludes this discourse per- fectly, and forms the transition to the following piece, in which we find a sincere worshipper of Jeliuvuh perishing because he has practically made money his God. Tlie place which this verse occupies in Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount (6 : 24) is also suitable, but somewhat uncertain, like that of the whole piece of which it forms part. M. Vers. 14-31. The Wicked Rich Man. The introduction (vers. 14-18) is com- posed of a series of sayings which at first sight appear to have no connection with one another. Holtzmann thinks that Luke collects here at random sayings scattered throughout the Logia, for which till now he had not found any prace. But there are only two leading ideas in this introduction ; the rejection of the Pharisees, and the permanence of the law. Now these are precisely the two ideas wh'ch are exhibited in - action in the following parable ; the one in the condemnation of the wicked rich man, that faithful Pharisee (" father Abraham," vers. 24, 27, 30) ; the other in the manner in which Abraham asserts, even in Hades, the imperishable value of the law and the prophets. The relation between these tv/o essential ideas of the introduction and of the parable is this ; the law on which the Pharisees staked their credit will neverthe- less be the instrument of thfir eternal condemnation This is exactly what Jesus says to the Jews, John 5 : 45 : " There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye cuAi'. XVI. : 1:;-1S. 389 trust." It must be confessed, however, that this introduction, vers. 14-18, has a very fragineulary chiiracter. It contains the elcmenls of a discourse, rather than the discourse itself. But this very fact provLS that St. Luke lias not taken the lilieriy of composing this iutroduction aibitiarily aud independently of his sources. W'liat hislurian would compose in such a manner? A discourse invented by ihe evanjiclist ^vould not have failed to pnsent an evident logical connection, as much as the dis- courses which Livy or Xcnophnn put into the mouth of their heroes. The very hrokenness sullices to prove that the discourse was really held, and existed i)reviously to this narrative. Vers. 14 and 15.* " The Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things ; and they derided Illm. 15. And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify your- selves before men ; but God knoweth your hearts : for that which is highly esteemed among men is at)oudnation in the sight of God." The last words of Jesus on the impossibility of combining the service of God and mammon, fell full on the heads of the Pharisees, those pretended servants of Jehovah, who nevertheless in their lives showed themselves such zealous worshippers of riches (Matt. G, transition between vers. 18, ID). Ilence their sneers {tHuvHrr/fji^eiv). The poverty of Jesus Himself was perhaps the theme of their derision : "It is easy to speak of money with such dis- dain . . . when one is destitute as thou art. " In Ilis answer (ver. 15), Jesus gives them to understand that the judgment of God is regulated by another standard than that of the men who are at their side. It is at the heart that God looks ; and the reign of a single passion, such as that avarice which devours them, suffices to render odious in His eyes that whole righteousness of outward observances which gains for them the favor of the world. The phrase : Te are they which jm^ttfy yourselves, signi- fies, " 3'our business is to pass yourselves off as righteous." The on, for, is ex- plained by the idea of condemnation, which here attaches to that of k'towledge : " God knows you [and rejects you], for . . ." 'Er dvOpamoi?, on the part of men, nuiy mean : amony men, or in the judgment of men. In connection with the idea of being highly esteemed, those two ideas are combined. Jesus means : " What men extol aud glorifj', consecpiently the and)itious, who, like you, by one means or another push themselves into the front rank, become an object of abomination to God. " For all glorification of man rests on falsehood. God alone is great and deserving to be praised. What had diiefly irritated the Pharisees in the preceding was the spiritual sense in which Jesus uiuierstood the law, unveiling under their airs of sanctity the stain of shameful avarice which defiled them. This idea affords the point of connection for what follows (vers. lG-18). Vers. lO-lS.f " The law aiul the prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom of Gcaus of forming those bonds of love which are our treasure in heaven (12 : 33, 34). To neglect this offer is to piocure for one's self an analogous contrast in the other life— a contrast which shall be capable of being sweetened for us no more than we have ourselves sweetened it in the life below. It would l)e hard to understand how, if wealth as such were the rich man's sin, the celestial banquet could be presided over by Abraham, the richest of the rich in Israel. As to Lazarus, the real cause of the welcome which he finds in the world to come is not his poverty, but that which is already pointed out by his name : God is my help. The scene from beyond the tomb. vers. 2.3-81, offers a contrast exactly corre- sponding to the terrc!«trial iscene. We di not attempt to distinguish in the represen- tation what should be taken in a figurative sense and what strictlj'. The realities of the spiritual world can only be expressed by figures ; but, as has been said, those figures are the figures of something. The colors are almost all borrowed from the palette of the Rabbins ; but the thought which clothes itself in those figures that it may become palpable, is, as we shall see, the oiigiual and personal thought of Jesus. 394 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Of the two interviews formiiig this scene, the first relates to the rich man's lot (vers. 2u-2Cj, the second to that of his brethren (vers. 27-31). f Vers. 23-26.* After the short sleep of death, what an awakening ! The idea of suflfeiing does not lie in the words ev tw tt5}7, which our versions render b}' : in hell. Scheol (litib.). Hacks (Gr.), iha Infcri or infernal regions (Lat.), simiily denote the abode of tlie dead, without distinguishing the different conditions which it may in- clude, in opposition to the land of the living. Paradise (23 : 43) as well as Gehenna (12 : 5) forms part of it. Hence, also, from the midst of his punishment the rich man can behold Abraham and Lazarus. The notion of pain is actually found only in the words : being in tormenis. On Abraham in the abode of the dead, comp. John 8 : 5G, where Jesus speaks without figure. The plural roL^ omit eii ce after a/inpri} (words taken, perhaps, from ver. 4 or from Matt. 18 : 15). Ver. 4. i^. B. D. L. X. some Mnn. Itpi«"q"% omit rrji vi^epnc. Instead of em ae. which T. R., with some Mnn., reads, 7 Mjj. read npos ae. 12 Mjj. 125 Mnn. It»"i. omit all gov- ernment. CUAP. XVII. : 1-G. 399 % times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to lliee, saying, I repent, Ihou kIuiU forgive him." Holiness and love meet together in this precept : holiness begins with rebuking ; then, when the rebuke has once been taken, love pardons. Tlic pardon to be granteil to our brethren has no other limit than their repenting, and the confession by which it is expressed. ^latlhew (18 : 15-20) places this precept in the same discourse as the preceding ; it piobabiy reteirtd also to the alteicaliou which had taken place belween llie dis- ciples on tiiat occasion. But there what gives rise to it is a chaiacterislic question of Peter, which Luke did not know ; otherwise he would not have omitted it ; comp. 12:41. where he carefully mentions a similar ([uestion put by the same aposiie. .Mark omits this precept about pardon ; but at the end of ihe same discourse we find this remarkable exhoMaliou (!J : 50) : " Have salt in yourselves (use severity toward yourselves ; comp. 5 : 4o-48), and have peace with one another" — a saying which has sulistiinliall}- the same mi'iuiing as our precept on the subject of pardon. What a proof bolii of the radical autbenticity of the sayings of Jesus and of the fragmentary mnuner in wluch tradition had preserved them, as well as of the diversity of the sources from which our evangelists derived them ! Vers. 5 and 6.* Fai/h. — " And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. 6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, je might sa}' unto this sycamine tree. Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in Ihe sea ; and it should obe}'' you." This request of the disciples must have been called forth b}' some manifestation of the extraordinar\' power of Je.sus, with which Luke was unacquainted. The literal force of the word which the disciples use, "Add to our faith," a:reserved one part of the conversation, Ihe other another. With a common written source, is I hat intelligible? As to the admonition regarding pardon, which in M:irk follows this exhortation to faith (11 : 24, 25), it sustains to the question of Peter (Matt. 18 : 21), and the exhortation in Luke (vers. 3, 4), a relation similar to that which we have just * Ver. 6. ». D. L. X. omit tuv-t]. 400 C0M.MEXTA11Y OX ST. LUKE. observed between Luke la : 41 and Mark 13 : 37. They are fragments of one whole, the grouping of whicii it is not difficult to restore. Vers. 7-10.* The Non-meritoriousness of Works. — "But which of you, hiiving a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat ? 8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken ; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? 9. Doth he thank that servant because he did the thiags that were commanded him ? I trow not. 10. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servauts : we have dune that which was our duty to do." This saying, which has no connection with what immediately precedes, does not the less admirably close this series of exhortations given by Jesus, which almost all relate to phaiisiusni ; it is peculiar to Luke. A slave returns m the evening, after having labored all day in the fields. Does the master give himself up to extraordinary demonstrations uf pleasure ? No ; everything goes on in the house according to the established order. From the work of the day, the servant simply passes to that cf the evening ; he dresses the viands, and serves at table as long (euS, or better still, ewS av) as his master pleases to eat and drink. And only then may he himself take his meal. So the most irreproachable of men umst say to himself that he has done nothing but pay his debt to God ; does not God on His side provide for all his wants ? From the standpoint of right, they are quits on both sides. The word axiieloi, unprofitable, here signifies : one loho has rendered no service {hti-yonA. what was due). This estimation of human work is true in the sphere of right where pharisaism plants itself, and it crushes this system in the dust by denying, along with all human merit, all obligation on God's part to recompense man ; and this estimate should remain that of every man when he values his work in the presence of God. But there is a sphere higher than that of right, that of love ; and in this latter another labor on man's part, that of joyful devo- tion, and another estimate on God's part, that of the love which is rejoiced by love. Jesus has described this other point of view, 12 : 36, 37. Holtzmann thmks it impos- sible that (his exhortation should have been addressed to the disciples (ver. 1). But is not the pharisaic tendency ever ready to spring up again in the hearts of believers? and does it not cling like a gnawing worm to fidelity itself? The words : 1 trow not, are mistakenly rejected by the Alex. Perhaps the oh 6oku has been confounded witli the ovTu which follows. How are we to explain the position of those four exhortations in our Gospel, and their juxtaposition, without any logical bond ? According to Holtzmann, f Luke is about to return to his great historical source, the proto-Mark, which he had left since 9 : 51, to work the collection of discourses, the Login, (comp. 18 : 15, where the narra- tive of Luke begins again to move parallel to that of the two others) ; and hence he inserts here by anticipatiim the two exhortations, vers. 1-4, which he borrows from this document (A) ; then he relates further (vers. 5-10) two sayings which he had for- gotten, and whicli he takes from the Login (A), whicii lie is about to quit. But, 1. Wiiy in this case sh'>uld he not have put these last m ^Ae /?r.s< ;;tee (which was the natural order, since all the preceding was taken from A), and the two first afterward * Ver. 7. !*. B. D. L. X. 15 Mnn. Vss. add avru after enn. Ver 9. 6 Mjj. It"'"!. omit Eizeivu after rfouAw. 17 Mjj. 130 Mrm. omit avru. ^ B. L. X. 6 Mnn. It»''"i. omit ov (hKu. Ver. 10. The mss. are divided between ucpeuofiEv and o(pFi?iOfiev. f " Already, 17 : 1-4, Luke attempts to return to A. ; then to finish, he gives, be- sides, several passages taken from A." (p. 156). CHAI'. XVI 1. . lO-li). -iOl (which was not less natuml, since Luke is about to return to A) ? Besides, 2. Has not tlie exegesis convinced us at every word tiiat Ijui to this jioiut related a series of exhortations given by .lesus, the occasion of which he was able to a certain extent to indicate ; but he found some in his sources which were mentioned without any historical iniiication. It is this remuaul scrap al the bottom of the portfolio, if I may so speak, which he delivers to us as it was, and without any introduction. Hence follow two consequences : 1. Luke's introductions in this part are not of his inventing. For why could not his ingenious mind have provided for these last exhortations as well as for ail the pre- ceding? A historical case like those of 11 : 1, 45, 12 : 13, 41, etc., was not diflicult t ) imagine. 2. There is no l)etter proof of the historical reality of the sayings of Jesus quoted in our Syn., than this fragmentary character which surprises us. Dis- courses which the discijiles had put into the mouth of their Master would not haVB presented this broken appearance. THIRD CYCLE. — CHAP. 17:11-19:27. The last Scenes of the Journey. This third section brings us to Bethany, to the gates of Jerusalem, and to the morning of Palm Day. It s/ems to mc evident that Luke, in ver. 11, intends simply to indicate the continuation of the journey begun 9 : 51, and not, as Wiessler will have it, the beginning of a different journey. In consequence of the multiplicity of events related, Luke reminds us from time to time of the general situation. It is in tin; course of this third section that his narrative rejoins that of the two other Syn. (18 •• 15 e( seq.), at the time when children are brouglit to Jesus that He may bless them. This event being expressly placed in Perea by ]Malthew and Mark, it is clear that the following events must have taken place at; the time when Jesus was about to cross the Jordan, or had just passed it. 1. The Ten Lepers : 17 : 11-19.— Vers. 11-19.* Ver. 11, even in its construction, reminds us of 9 : 51. The xn^ oitoS has here, as well as there, peculiar force. The caravans of Galilee took either the Samaritan route or the Perean. Jesus follows neither ; He makes one for Himself, the result of His deliberate wish, which is inter- mediate between the two — !i fact which seems to be expressed by the so marked re- suming of the subject (k«? avrdi). The phrase 6i(i /xeaov may signify in Greek : Avhile travelling through bpth of those provinces, or while passing between them. Olshau- sen takes the tirst sense : he alleges that from E[)hraim, whither Jesus retired after the resurrection of Lazarus (Jnhn 11 : 54), He visited Galilee once more, thus travers- ing from south to north, first Samaria, and then Galilee. Gess (p. 74) also regards this return from Ephraim to Capernaum as probable. f But the governed clause to Jerusalem would in this sense be real irony. The second sense is therefore the only * Ver. 11. J*. B. L. omit nvrov after TzopevenOai. ^. B. L., (ha fuaov instead of iha fiCTov. Ver. 12. !!i. L. some Mnn., virrivTrjaav in.stead of aTTrji'Trjaai^. The same Mjj. omit avTu. t Gess's reason is the scene of the didrachma. Matt. 17 : 24-27 ; for the collection for the temple was m;i(le in March. But in the year which preceded His death, Jesus may p:issii)ly not have paid till summer the tribute which was properly due in spring. Tlie form of the collector's question. Matt., ver. 24, sicms to suppose a pay- ment which was at once voluntary and in arrears. It is not therct'ore necessary, on this ground, to hold a return from Capernaum to Galilee immediately before the last Passover. 402 COMMENTAEY OlSf ST. LUKE. possible one : Jesus was passing along the confines of the two provinces. Tliis mean- ing is coulirmed by the absence of the article before the two proper names : iSaiiu.ria and Galike. He directed his steps from west to east, toward the Jordan, which He must cross to enter Perea — a fact which harmonizes, us we have seen, with Matt. 19 : 1, Mark 10 : 1, and even John 10 : 40-42. Luke probably recalls here this general situation in view of the following narrative, in which we find a Samaritan leper miu- giing with Jewish lepers. Community of suffering had, in their case, broken down the national barrier. Less bold than the leper of chap. 6, those unhappy men kept at a distance, according to the law, Lev. 13 : 40. The space which a leper was bound to keep between him and every other person is estimated by some at 4, by others at 100 cubits. Tlie cry whicii they uttered with one voice on perceiving Jesus, draws His attention to the pitiable sight. Without even telling them of their cure. He bids them go and give thanks for it. There is a dash, as it were, of triumphant joy in this unexpected order. As they go {h rCi virdysiv), they observe the first symptoms of the cure which has been wrought. Immediately one of them, seized with an irresist- ible emotion of gratitude, turns back, uttering loud cries of joy and adoration ; and arrived in the presence of Jesus, he prostrates himself at His feet in thanksgiving. The difference is to be observed between du^d^eiv, glorifying, applied to God, and EvxaiuoTslv, giving tliunks, applied to Jesus. As He recognizes him to be a Samari- tan, Jesus feels to the quick the difference between those simple hearts, within wliich there yet vibrates the natural feeling of gratitude, and Jewish liearts, iucrusled all over with pharisaic pride and ingratitude ; and immediately, no doubt, the lot of His gospel in the world is presented to His mind. But He contents Himself with biing- ing into view the present contrast. EvpibTjaav has not for its subject the participle vKoaTj)i\pavTEq, taken substantively, but u7J.ol undeistood. Bleek refers the last words : thy faith hath saved thee, to the physical cure which Jesus would confirm to the sufferer by leading him to develop that disposition of faith which has procured it for him. But have we not here rather a new blessing, of which Jesus gives special assurance to this leper ? The faith of which Jesus speaks is not merely tliat which brought him at the first, l)ut more still that which has brought him back. By this return he has sealed forev'er the previous transitory connection which his cure had formed between Jesus and him ; he recognizes His word as the instrument of the miracle ; he unites himself closely to the entire person of Him whose power only he had sought at the first. And thereby his physical cure is transformed into a moral cure, into salvation. Criticism suspects this narrative on account of its universalistic tendency. But if it had been invented with a didactic aim, would the lesson to be drawn from it have been so completely passed over in silence ? We must in this case also suspect the healmgof the Gentile centurion's servant in Matthew ; and that v.'ith more reason still, because Jesus insists on the general lesson to be derived from the event. 2. The Messiah's Coming : 17 : 20-18 : 8. — This piece embraces : \st. A question put by the Pharisees respecting the time of the appearance of the kingdom of God, and the answer of .Jesus (vers. 20, 21) ; 2d. A discourse addressed by Jesus to His disciples on the same subject (vers. 22-37) ; 'dd. The parable of the unjust judge, which applies the subject treated practically to believers (18 : 1-8). \st. Vers. 20 and 31.* The Spirituality of the Kingdom. — " And when He was de- * Ver. 21. !!i. B. L. omit l6ov before skel. CHAP. XVII. : 20-27. 403 mnnded of llic Pliurisecs when the kingdom of God should come, lie answered them, and said, Tlx* kingdom of God conielh not willi observation, '.il. Neither shall Ihey say, Lo here ! or, Lo there ! for, behold, llie kingdom of God is within you." ll is known with what impatience the Pharisees waited for the manifestations of the ]\Ies- siauic kingdom, ll is natural that they should desire to know the opuuon of Jesus on the subject. Besides, they would liave been glad to embarrass Hun in the matter, or lo drag from Him some heiesy. Their question rested on a purely external vie'.v of this divine kingdom ; His advent appeared to their mind as u g/eat and sudden dramatic act. In the gospel point of view, this expectation is certainly not altogether falt;e ; but humanity must be prepared for ihe new external and divine state of tilings by a spiritual vvoik wrought in the depths of llie heart ; and it is this internal adsent which Jesus thinks good to put first in relief before such interlocutors. The side of the truth whieli He thinks proper to set forth is, as iisual, that which is mistaken by the parties addressing Him. To the Pharisee Nicodemus, who came to Him with a nr(U7}nnaOni instead of aunni. Ver. 33. !*. B. D. R. 3 Mnn. omit avTTjv after a-jo? fjTj or nTo?e'7et. Ver. 34. All the Mjj., B. excepted. £is instead of o ?;;. Ver. 35. ^* 1 Mn. omit this verse. Ver. 30. This verse is wanting in all the Mjj., D. U. excepted, in several Mnn. Itr'"iq"e (f;,ken from Matthew). Ver. 37. E. G. H. 25 Mnn., nTufza instead of noma. i^. B. L. U. A. 30 Mnn. add kui after e««. S. B. L. Q., ezicwaxOrjooi'Tai instead of awaxOrjcoirai. 406 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. iu the house, let him not come down to take it away : and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 33. Remember Lot's wife. 33. Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his life, shall preserve it. 34. I tell you, iu that night there sliall be two men in one bed ; the one shall be taken> and the other shall be left. 35. Two women shall be grinding together ; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 3G, 37. And they answered and said \mto Him, Where, Lord ? And He said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, tliither will tlie eagles be gathered together." Here is the praclioal conclusion of the discourse. I Jesus describes that disi)osition of mind which, in this last crisis, sliall be the condi- tion of salvation. The Lord passes with His heaveoly retinue. He attracts all the inhabitants of the earth who are w'illing and ready to join Him ; but it transpires iu the twinkling of an eye. Whoever is not already loosened from earthly things, so as to haste away without hesitation, taking flight toward Him freely and joyously, remains behind. Thus precisely had Lot's wife perished wilh the goods, from which she could not part. Agreeably to His habitual method, .Jesus ciiaracterizes this dis- position of mind by a series of external acts, in which it is concretely realized. The Jievue de Theologie (passage quoted, p. 337) condemns Luke for here applying to the Parousia the counsel to flee, which has no meaning, except as applied to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (Matt. 24). This accusation is false, for there is no mention of fleeing from one part of the earth to another, but of rising from the earth to the Lord, as He passes and disappears : " Let him not come down (from the roof) ; but, forget- ting all that is in the house, let him be ready to follow the Lord !" So he who is in the fields is not to attempt to return home to carry upward witli him some object of value. The Lord is there ; if any one belongs to Him let him leave everything at once to accompany Him (Matt. 24 : 18 : the laborer should not even return to seek his dress, which he laid aside to work). This saying, especially in the form of Matthew, evidently referred to the Parousia, which shall come suddenly, and not to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, which will be preceded by an armed invasion and a long war.* Luke's context is therefore preferable to Matthew's. Ver. ^3. To save one' s life, by -3/ riveting it to some object with which it is identified, is the means of losing it, of being left behind with this perishing world ; to give one's life, by quittin;^ everything at once, is the only means of saving it, by laying hold of the Lord who is passing. See on 9 : 24. Jesus here substitutes for the phrase to save his life the word (uuyovEiv, literally, to give it birth alive. The word is that by wliich the LXX. express the Piel and Hiphil of nTI' ^^ ^^^^- Here it is having the natural life born again, that it may be reproduced in the form of spiritual, glorified, eternal life. The absolute sacritice of the natural life is the means of this transformation. Here is a word of unfathom- able depth and of daily application. At this lime a selection will take place (ver. 34) — a selection which will instan- taneously break all earthly relations, even the most intimate, and from which there will arise a new grouping of humanity in two new families or societies, the taki'ii and the left. Af'yw v/ilv, I fell yon, announces something weighty. Cleek thinks, that as the subject under discussion is the return of the Lord as judge, to betaken is to perish, to be left is to escape. But the middle napa?M/zi3dvecQai, to take to one's self, to * Our author here speaks with a confidence not shared by the bulk of commenta- tors, and puts a force into the reference to " the stuff," which is not necessarilv in it. Tlie destruction of Jerusalem foreshadows features of the judgment, and is not overlooked. — J. U. CHAP. XVII 1. : 1-8. 407 welcome as one's own, can only have a favorable mcanini; (John 14 : 3). And Si. Paul certainly understood the word iu this sense ; for it is probably not without X'cla- tioD to this saying tliat he teaches, 1 Thess. 4 : 17, the taking up into the air of the believers who are alive at the return of Christ ; it is the ascension of the disciples, as tiie complement of tiieir JLaster's. 'A(ptevni, to forsake, to leave behind, as 13 : So. The image of ver. o4 supposes that the Parousia takes place at night. Ver. 35. on the contrary, supposes it hapiiening during the day. It matters little. For one hemisphere it will be in the day ; for the other, at nlgiit. The idea remains tin; same : whether he is sleeping, or whether he is woikiug, man ougiit to be sullicieuliy disengaged to give himself over without duhiy to the Lord who draws him. Hand- mills were used among the ancients. When the nullstone was large, two persons turned it together. Ver. 3G, whicli is wanting in almost all the Mjj., is taken from the parallel passage iu Matthew. Thus the beings who shall have been most closely connected here below, shall, in the twinkling of an eye, be jjarted forever. . The apostle's question (ver. 37) is one of curiosity. Although Jesus had already answered it in ver. 24, He takes advantage of it to close the conversation by a declar- ation which applies it to the whole woild. The natural phenomenon, described by Job 39 : 30, is used by Jesus to symbolize the universality of the judgment pro- claimed. The carcass is humanity cntirelj' secular, and destitute of tlie life of God (vers. 2G-30 ; comp. 9 : GO, Zf< ?/i(2 (fcrtc? . . . ). The eagles represent punishmen; alighting on such a society. There is no allusion in this figure to the Roman stand- ards, for there is no reference iu the preceding discourse to the destruction of Jerusa- lem. Comp. also ]\Iatt. 24 : 28, where this saying applies exclusively to the Parousia. The eagle, properly so called, does not live in flocks, it is true, and does not feed on carrion. But ae-oS, as well as t^^. Pro v. 30 : 17, may (as Furrer shows, " Bedeut. der Bibl. Geogr. " p. 13) denote the great vulture {gyps fulvus), equal to the eagle in size and strength, which is seen in hundreds on the plain of Gennesareth. Some Fathers have applied the image of the body to Jesus glorified, and that of the eagles to the saints who shall accompany Hicn at His advent ! 3(f. 18 : 1-8.* The Widoto and tlie Unjust Judge. — This parable is peculiar to Luke. The formula e/eye <5^ Kai, "furthermore, bear this also," announces it as the con- clusion of the whole discourse 17 : 20, et seq. Weizsiicker (p. 139) and Holtzmann (p. 132) think that the introduction, ver. 1, gives this parable a commonplace appli- cation (the duty of perseverance in prayer), which does not belong to the original idea of this discourse (the imminence of the Parousia). But is there not a verj^ close corre- spondence between the duty of persevering prayer, and the danger which the Church runs of being overcome by the carnal slumber which has just been described in the preceding portraiture ? The Son of man has been rejected ; He has gone from view ; the masses are plunged in gross worldliness ; men of God are become as rare as iu Sodom. What is, then, the position of the Church ? That of a widow whose only w^eapon is incessant prayer. It is only by means of this intense concentration that faith will be preserved. But such is precisely the disposition which, Jesus fears, * Ver. 1. ». B. L. M. several Mun. It""i. omit nai after rfe. 15 Mjj. 60 Mnn. add ovrovS after ■rrpnaevxEa'iai. The M6S. are divided between ikkukelv ami eyKnKeiv. Ver. 3. The Mjj., A. excepted, omit rts after nke liorrowed from a Jewish document. Oiliers, like De Wette, Kce in it. on the contrary, the traces of a later perioii, when the Cliurcii liad hecfjme the victim of persecution. But, 1. This ailiged thirst for vengeance nowhere appears in (he te.\t. 2. Our passage is full of gentleness in compaiiscn with expressions of indignation used by Paul himself (liom. 2 : 4, 5, 8, U ; 1 Tliess. 3 : 15, IG ; 2 Tliess. 1 : 8). The spirit of this paiablc is therefore not in the least opposed to that of the Pauime Luke. '6. There is allusion, no doubt, to the abnoimal position of the Chin-oh between Christ's departure and His return, but not to persecution strictly so called. While Hilgenfeld affects to distinguish in this piece the originally Ebionite pas- pages (17 : 1-4, II-H) ; 18 : 1-8) from thti.se which are of Luke's cciiiposilion (17 ; 5-10, 20-37 ; 18 : 1-14), Yolkmar (" Evangel. INlarcions," p. 203) maintains that the arrantre- ment of the piece is systematic, and rests on the well known Pauline tiiad : love (17 : 1-i), faith (vers. 5-19), hope (ver. 30, et seg.). But it is easy to see how forced it is to apply any such scheme to those different accounts. 3. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican: 18 : 9-14.— Vers. 9-14.* This parable is peculiar to Luke. Who are those ra'ts, certain, to whom it is addressed ? They cannot be Pharisees. Luke would have named them, as at 16 : 14 ; and Jesus ■would not have presented to them as an example, in a parable, one of themselves, while designating him expressly in this character. Bleek thinks that they were disci- ples of Jesus. But Luke would have equally designated them (16 : 1). They were therefore probably members of the company following Jesus, who had not yet openly declared for Him, and who manifested a haughtj'' distance to certain sinners, known to be such, who were in the company with them ; comp. 19 : 7. The word araOeis, standing erect (ver. 11), indicates a posture of assurance, and even boldness (comp. standing afar off, ver. 13). Tlphi iavrfiv does not depend on araOeii : " standing aside, at a distance, from the vulgar" — it would have required KaO' lavrov (Meyer) — but on "irpocsTjvx^To : "he j)rayed, speaking thus to himself . . ." It was less a pra3'er in which he gave thanks to God, than a congratulation which he addressed to himself. True thanksgiving is always accompanied by a feeling of humiliation. The Pharisees fasted on the Monday and Thursday of every week. KrdaOat denotes the act of acquiring rather than that of possessing ; it therefore refers here to the produce of the fields (11 : 42). To strike the breast : an emblem of the stroke of death which the sinner feels that he has merited at the hand of God. The heart is struck, as the seat of per.sonal life and of sin. Af')w ?V'> (ver. 14) : " I tell you, strange as it may appear . , ." The idea of justification, that is to say, of a righteousness bestowed on the sinner by a divine sentence, l)clongs even to liie O. T. Comp. Gen. 15 : G ; Isa. 1 : 8, 53 : 11. Li the received reading t) tKelvoi, i) is governed by na/.7.ov, * Ver. 9. The mps. are divided between eiirev and ei~ev 6e koi. Ver. 11. Si. j^pUrique^ omit —poi FovToi'. Ver. 12. ii. B., arrnAFunTeytj instead of a-nthKnTu. Ver. 13. !!^. B. G. L. 5 3Inn. Syr"=""., o ih Te/.o^'rji instend of kqi o TF/.uni';. 8 Mjj. 15 Mnn. It. Vg. omit eii befnre ro cr-q^joi. Ver. 14. Instead of tj ekeivo'; (T. 11. with some Mnn.), 16 Mjj. and 150 Mnn. read t] yap eKsivog, and S^, B. L., Trap' ekelvov. 410 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. rather, understood. The suppression of the adverb rather serves to prevent the idea that tlie Pharisee also received his share of justitication. In the reading ?} ydp eicelvoS (more strongly supported than the others), ?} is explained in tlie same way, and ydp has as is often the case an interrogative value : " For think you that he (the Pharisee) could be justified?" This somewhat difficult turn of expression has occasioned the Alex, correction Trap' 'nKdvov. Our Lord loves to close His parables with axioms formally expiessing the fundamental laws of moral life : God will overthrow all self- exaliation ; but He will turn in love to all sincere humiliation. Undoubtedly if Luke's object was to point out in the ministry of Jesus the histori- cal fonndatiiins for St. Paul's teaching, this piece corresponds most exactly to his inteulitra. But no aigument can be d'rawn tlierefrom contrary to the truth of Uie nariative. For the idea of justification by faith is one of the axioms not only of the teaching of Jesus, but of that of the O. T. (comp. besides the passages quoted, Hab. 2 : 4). 4. The Children Irought to Jesus: 18 : 15-17.— Vers. 15-17.* It is here that Luke's narrative rejoins Matthew's (19 : 14) and Mark's (10 : 13), after having diverged from ihem at 9 : 51. Jesus is in Perea. Of his sojourn in this province Matthew and Mark have as yet related only one fact — the conversation with the Pharisees regarding divorce, summarily reproduced by Luke 16 : 13-19. By the phrase : even infants {kqI to. . . .), ver. 15, Luke would indicate that the consideration enjoyed hy Jesus had reached its height. Mothers brought him even their nurslings. The article before /3p£'^77 denotes the category. The apostles think that this is to abuse the goodness and time of their Master. Mark, who likes to depict moral impressions, describes the indignation felt by Jesus (i/yavuK-r/ae) on perceiving this feeling. Luke is less severe — the evangelist who is accused of abus- ing the Twelve. After calling back those little ones who were being sent away {avra) Jesus instructs His disciples in respect of them. Matthew, as usual, summarizes. There is in children a twofold receptivity, negative and positive, humility and confi- dence. By labor expended on ourselves, we are to return to those dispositions which are natural to the child. The pronoun tuv tolovtuv, of such, does not refer to other children, such as those present, but to all those who voluntarily put on the disposi- tions indicated. Jesus, according to Mark, clasped those children tenderly in His arms, and put his hands on them, blessing them. Matthew speaks only of the impo- sition of hands. These touching details are omitted by Luke. For what reason, if he knew them ? They agreed so well with the spirit of his Gospel ! Volkmar (" Die jGvangel," p. 487) explains this omission by the prosaic character of Luke (!). According to the same author, these little children represent the Gentiles saved by grace. Party dogmatics, even in this the simplest narrative of the Gospel ! 5. The Rich Young Man : vers. 18-30.— In the three Syn. this piece immediately follows the preceding (Matt. 19 : 16 ; Mark 10 : 17), Oral tradition had connected the two, perhaps because there existed between them a real chronological succession. Three parts : 1st. The conversation with the young man (vers. 18-2S) ; 2d. The con- versation which takes place in regard to him (vers. 24-37) ; 3d. The conversation of Jesus with the disciples regarding themselves (vers. 28-30). * Ver. 15. i^. B. D. G. L. some Mnn., e-^renpiuv instead of ensrifiijaav. Ver. 16. i^. B. D. G. L. 4 Mnn. Syr^'^''., TipoaeKaXEaaTo (or . . . /slto) avra ?,eyuv instead of 7rpo(7KaleGnu€Pni nvra elttev. CHAl". XVIIl. ; li)~-^3. 4iX 1st. Vers. 18-23.* The Jiic7i Toung Man.—Lvike gives this man the title apxuv, chief, which probably signifies here, president of the synagogue. Matthew and Mark simply say di. Later. 3latthevv calls him a young man (ver. 20). Ills arrival is given with dramatic effect by Mark ; lie came runnimj, and kneeled doicn before Him. lie sincerely de.slred salvatKm, and he imagmed that some generous action, some great sacrifice, would secure Ihls highest good ; and this hope supposes that ni:ui has power ot himself to do good ; that therefore he is radically good. Tliis is what is iiniilied in his apostrophe to Jesus : good master ; for it is the man in Ilim whom he llius salutes, knowing Ilim as yet in no other character. Jesus, by refusing this title in the false sense in which it is given Him, does not accuse Himself of sin. as has been alleged. If He had had a conscience burdened with some trespass, lie would have avowed it explicitly. But Jesus reminds him that all goodness in man, as in every creature whatsoever, must flow from God. This axiom is the very foundation of ilonotheism. Thereby He strikes directly at the j'oung man's fundamental error. So far as Jesus is concerned, the question of His i>ersonal goodness depends solely on the consideration whether His inward dependence on that God, the only good, is cc^mplete or partial. If it is complete, Jesus is good, but with a goodness Avhich is that of God Himself operating in Him. His answer does not touch this personal side of the question. In Matthew, at least according to the Alex, reading, which is prob- ably the true one, the word good is omitted in the joung man's address, and the answer of Jesus is conceived in these terms : " Wliy askest thou me about wliat is good? One only is good." Which may signify : " Good is being joined to God, the only good ;" or : " Good is fulfilling the commandments of God, the only good Being." These two explanations are botli unnatural. Even Bleek does not hesitate heie to prefer the form of Luke and Mark. That of Matthew is perhaps a modifica- tion arising from the fear of inferences hostile to the purity of Jesus, which might be drawn from the form of His answer, as it has been transmitted to us by the two other Syn. Jesus has just rectified the young man's radical mistake. Now He replies to his question. The work to be done is to love. Jesus quotes the second table, as beaiing on works of a more external and palpal)le kind, and consequently more like one of those which tlie young man expected to be mentioned. This answer of Jesus is ear- nest ; for to love is to live ' (See at 10 : 28 ) The onlj' question is how we can attain 1o it. But Jesus proceeds like a wise instructor. Far from ariesting on their way those who believe in theirown strength. He encourages them to prosecute it failhfully to the very end, knowing well that if they are sincere they shall by the hue die to the law (Gal. 2 : 19). As Gcss says : " To take the law in thorough earnest is the true way to come to .Tesus Christ." The young man's reply (ver. 21) testifies, undoubtedly, great moral ignorance, but also nolile sincerity. He knows not the spiritual meaning of the commandments, and thinks that he has really fulfilled them. Here occurs the inimitable stroke of Mark's pencil: "And Jesus, beholding him, loved him." "When critics wish to make out Mark to be the compiler of the two other evangelists, they are obliged to say, with De Welle, that Mark himself, inventing this amiable * Ver. 20. 10 :Mjj. 1~) Mnn. It»"'«. Vg. omit ffou after uj^npa. Ver. 21. ». A. B. L. 2 ^Inn., e6v/n^a instead of e6v7.ni;nuj]v. Ver. 22. !*. B. D. L. some Mnn. Syr. omit -avra after (iKoinai f5e. Ji. F. H. V. Several Mnn., on instead of eri. The Mss. are divided between Jt«(5o? and ''o? (taken from the parallels), and between ovpavu (T. R.J and cnipavoti (Alex.). Ver. 23. i*. B. L., eyfVTjOij instead of eyeiero. ■l\2 COMMENTAliY Oii ST. LUKE. answer, has ascribed to Jesus his own feelings. AVe see much rather in this saying, one of those strokes which reveal the source whence the narratives of Mark proceed, and which must have been one very near the person of Jesus. It was an aposlle wlio was following the impressions of Jesus as they depicted themselves in His counte- nance, and who cauglit as it passed the look of tenderness which He cast on this person so sincere and so innocent. This look of love was also a scrutinizing look (ifiSuipa'i avTU), Mark 5 : 31), by which Jesus discerned the good and bad qualities of the heart, and which diclaled to Him the following saying. The cJf, with UKovaai (■/er. 32), is adversative and progressive. It announces a new resolution taken by the Lord. He determines to call this man into the number of His permanent disciples. The real subslaiuteof His answer, indeed, is not the order to distribute his goods, but the call to follow Him. The giving away of his money is only the condition of enter- ing upon that new career which is open to him (see at 10 : 61, 12 : 33). In the pro- posal which He makes to him, Jesus observes the character which best corresponds to the desire expressed by the young man. He asked of Him some woik to do ; and Jesus points out one, and that decisive, which perfect] 3' corresponds to his object, inasmuch as it assures him of salvation. To disengage one's self from everything in order to follow Jesus conclusively — such is really salvation, life. The formal corre- spondence of this answer to the young man's thought appears in the expression. One thing thou lackest (Luke and Mark) ; and more clearly still in that of Matthew, If thou wilt he perfect, go . . . Undoubtedly, according to the view of Jesus, man cannot do more or better than fulfil the law (Matt. 5 : 17, 48). Only the law must be under- stood not in the letter, but in the spirit (Matt. 5). The perfection to which Jesus calls the young man is not the fulfilling of a law superior to the law strict!}^ so called, but the real fulfiljiug, iu opposition to that external, literal fulfilling whi h tlie young man already had (ver. 21). This one thing which he lacks is the spirit of the law, that is, love ready to give everything : this is the whole of the law (Luke 6). The words. Thou shalt have treasure in heaven, do not signif}' that this almsgiving will open heaven to him, but that, when he shall have entered into this abode, he will find there, as the result of his sacrifice, grateful beings, whose love shall be to him an in- exhaustible treasure (see at 16 : 9). The act, which is the real condition of entering heaven, is indicated bj' the last word, to wliich the whole converges, Folloio me. The mode of following .Tesus varies according to limes At that time, in order to be in- wardly attached to Him, it was necessary for a man to follow Him externally, and c.)nsequenlly to abandon his earthly position. At the present day, when Jesus lives no more in the body here below, the only condition is the spiritual one, but with all those moral conditions which flow from our relation to Him, according to each one's character and place. The sorrow which this answer occasions the ytmng man is ex- pressed b}' Mark in the most dramatic way : He heaved a deej) sigh, {nrvyvuna;). Tlie Gospel of the Hebrews thus described this scene : " Then the rich man began to scratch his head, for that was not to his mind. And the Lord said to him : How, then, canst thou s&y, I have kept the law ; for it is written in the law. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ; and lo ! many of thy breth'^en, children of Abialmm, live iu the gutter, and die of liunger, while thy table is loaded with good things, and nothing is .sent out to them ?"* Such is the wilting which some modern critics {eg. Baur) allege to be the original of our Matthew, and tiie parent of our synoptical literature ! * Quoted by Origen, in Matt. 19 : 19. ciiAi'. Will. : ::i4-oU. 4:13 2d. Vers. 24-27.* T/ic Conversation regarding the Rich Man. — It is not the fact of proprietorship which hinders the soul from taking its Uight to spiritual blessings ; it is I lit- feeliin; of secuiity wliich it inspires. So, in Mark, Jesus says, in c.xplauutiun of His tirs^t declaration : " How hard is it for (hem (hat truxt in riches to enter . . . !" The iShemiles denote the impossibility of a tiling by the image of a heavily laden camel arrivmg at a city gale which is low and narrow, and through which it cannot pass. Then, to give this image the i)i(iuant form which the Oriental proverb loves, tliis gate is transtoinied into the eye of a needle. Some commentators and copyists, nut understanding this ligurc, have changed Konn'^iOi, camel, into Ka/^uoi (the r/ was pronounced /). n ^ety unusual word, which does not occur even in tiic ancient le.\i cographers, and which, it is alleged, sometimes denotes ix ship's cable. In the re- ceived text {Tpv/ia?.iu'i i)a(pUh?), (xKpKhi is a correction borrowed from Mark and jMat- thew ; the true reading in Luke is Sehnrji, which also signifies 7icedle. Instead of the word TpvfiaXia, the Alex, read -pv-ijiia (ur rp?}^.i). The first form might come from Mark ; but it is more probable that it is the second which is taken from Matthew, the Gospel most generally used. Wc must therefore read in Luke, Tpi>//«/«2? /ieA(n7/?. To exclude the rich from salvation was, it seemed, to exclude all ; for if the most blessed among men can only be saved with dillicully, wliat will become of the rest'' Such appears to be the connection between vers. 25 and 20. De Wette joins them in a somewhat different way : " As every one more or less seeks riches, none there- fore can be saved." This connection is less natural. Jesus, according to ]Malthew and Mai k, at this point turns on His disciples a look full of earnestness (t/^ J/ tt/;as avroii, looking upon them) : " It is but too true ; but there is a sphere in which the impossible is possible, that of the divine operation (-npii -C) 6fw, with God.)" Thus Jesus in the twinkling of an eye lifts the mind of His hearers from human works, of which alone the young man was thinking, to that divine work of radical regeneration which proceeds from the One only good, and of which Jesus is alone the instru- ment. Comp. a similar and equally rapid gradation of ideas, John 3 : 2, 5. Which ■would have been better for this young man— to leave his goods to become the com- panijn in labor of the St. Peters and St. Johns, or to keep those possessions so soon to ba laid waste by the Rjman legions ? 3d. Vers. 28-30. f The Conversation regarding the Disciples.— There had been a day in the life of the disciples when a similar alternative had been put before them ; they had resolved it in a different way. What was to accrue to them from the course which they had taken ? Peter asks the question innocently, in the name of all. The form of bis inquiry in Matthew, Wiat shall ice have therefore? contains, more expressly tiiun that of Luke and iMark, the idea of an expected recompense. In Matthew, the Lord enters at once into Peter's thought, and makes a special promise to the Twelve, one of the grandest which He addressed to them. Then, in the parable of the laborers. He warns them against indulging pride, on the ground that they have been the xir^t to follow Ilim. it is difficult fully to harmonize this parable with the special promise * Yer. 24. 5*. B. L. 4 Mnn. omit TvfpilvTvov yevoiiEvov. B. L., eLanopevovTat instead oi. BiaeA^'ain-Tai. Ver. 2.1. S. 7 Mnn.. Kci/xi/ov instead of Ka/x7]7.ui>. ^. B. U. Tpv.udroi L. R. Tpv7TJiunToFvrf? i6t:aid Luke's Gospel as systematically hostile to the Twelve, lo explain the omi-^.'^ion'of a fact so unfavorable to two of the leading apostles. Volkmar (" Die Evangel." p. 501) has found the solution : J.uke wishes to avoid offending the Judeo-Christian party, which he desires lo gain over to Pauliiiism ! So, artful i^n what he says, more artful in his silence— such is Luke in the estimate of this school of crilicii?m ! 7. The Healing of Bartimeus : 18:35-43. — John's very exact narrative serves to complete the synoptical account. The soiourn of Jesus in Perca was inler- lunted by the call which led Jesus to Bethany to the help of Lazarus (John 11). Thence He proceeds to Ephraim, on the Saniarilan side, wheio He remained in retire- ment with His disciples (John 11 : 54). It was doubtless at this time that the third announcement of His Passion took place. On the approach of the feast of Passover, He went down the valley of the Jordan, rejoining at Jericho the Galilean caravans which arrived by way of Perea. He had resolved this lime lo enter Jerusalem with the greatest publicity, and to present Himself to the people and to the Sanhediim in Ihe character of a king. It was His hour, the hour of His manifestation, expected long ago by Mary (John 3 : 4), and which His brethren (John 7 : C-8) had thought to precipitate. Vers. 35-43.* Luke speaks of a blind man sitting by the wayside, whom Jesus cured as He came nigh to Jericho ; Mark gives this man's name, Bartimeus ; accord- ing to his account, it Tvas as Jesus went out of Jericho that He healed him ; finally, Matthew speaks of ttoo blind men, who were healed as Jesus departed from the city. The ihree accounts harmonize, as in so many cases, onlj'^ in the words of the dia- logue ; the tenor of the sufferer's prayer and of the reply of Jesus is almost identical in the three (ver. 38 and parallel). Of those three narratives, that of Mark is undoubt- edly the most exact and picturesijue ; and in the case of a real difference, it is to this evangelist that we must give the preference. It has been observed, however (Andrene Betceis des Glauhens, July and August, 1870), that Josephus and Eusebius dislin- gui.shed between the old and the new Jericho, and that the two blind men might have l)een found, the one as they went out of the one cit3^ the other at the entrance of the other. Or, indeed, it is not impossible that two cures took place on that day, the one on the occasion of their entrance into the citj', the other on their leaving it, which Matthew has combined ; Luke applying lo the one, following a tradition slightly altered, the special details which had ciiaractcrized the other. This double modifica- tion might have been the more easily introduced into the oral narrative, if Jesus, coming from Ephraim lo Jericho, entered the city, as is very probable, by the same road and by the same gate by which lie left it lo go to Jerusalem. If there were * Ver. 35. 5*. B. D. L. , r-niTuv instead of TKoaairuv. Ver. 38. A. E. K. n. 10 Mnn. omit Ij/tov. Ver. 3',). B. D. L. P. X. s .me Mnn., ciyricri instead of aiuTTTjae. Ver. 41. i<. B. D. L. X. omit '/.eyuv before rt. 41G COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. two blind men, they might then have been healed almost on the same spot. The name Bartimeus {son of 2'imeuti), which Miiik has preserved, comes either from the Greeli name Ti/xatoi, the honorable, or from the Aramaic, name, mmia, blind; blind, son of the blind (Hilzig, Keim). Mark adds : the blind inan. The term suggests the name by which he was known in the place. The address, son of David, is a form of undisguised Messianic worship. This utterance would suffice to show the state of men's minds ut thut time. The rebuke addressed to him by the members of the company (ver. 39) bas no bearing wliatever on the use of this title. It seems to them much rather that there is presumption c!i the part of a beggar in thus stopping the progress of so exulted a personage. The reading of the T. R, ciuTi'inri, is probably taken from the parallels. We must read, with the Al(^x. : trt/f/a?; (a term more rarely used). Nothing could be more natural than the sadden change which is effected in tlie conduct of the multitude, as soon as they observe the favorable disposition of Jesus ; they form so many inimitable char- acteristics preserved by Mark only. With a majesty truly royal, Jesus seems to open up to the beggar the treasures of divine jjower : " What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee ?"' and to give him, if we may so speak, carte blanche (5 : 41). In replying to the blind man's prayer, ver. 42, He says, thy faith, not, my power, to impress on him the value of that disposition, in view of the still more important spiritual miracle which remains to be wrought in him, and, hath saved thee, not, hath made thee whole ; although liis life was in no danger, to show him that in this cure there lies the beginning of his salvation, if he will keep up the bond of faith between him r.nd the Saviour's person. Jesus allows Bartimeus to give full scope to his grati- tude, and the crowd to express aloud their admiraiion aud joy. The time for cau- tious measures is past. Those feelings to which the multitude give themselves up are the broatli preceding that anticipation of Pentecost which is called Palm Day. tolJ-leiv relates to the power, alveiv to the goodness of God (3 ; 20). The unclenir.blo superiority of IVlark's narrative obliges Bleek to give up here, at least in pan, his untenable position of regarding Mark as the compiler of the two others, lie ucknowiedges, that even while using the narrative of the other two, he mucL have lu.d ia this case a separate and independent source. So far well : but is it possible that this source absolutely contained nothing more than this one narrative? lloltzmann, on the other hand, who regards the proto-Mark as the origin of the three Syn., finds it no less impossible to explain how Matthew and Luke could so completely tilter the hi-.torical side of the ar-count (the one : two blind men instead of ono ; the other : the healing l>efore entering Jericho rather than after, etc.), aud to tpoil t.t "svill its dramatic beauty, so well reproduced by Mark. And what signifies the cxpl:!nation given by Holtzinann of Luke's transposition of the miracle, and which is borrowed from Bleek : that Luke fias been led by the succeeding history of Zaccheus to place the healing before the entrance into Jericho ! Volkmar, who derives Luke from Maik, and Matthew from the two combined, alleges that Llark intended the blind man to be the type of the Gentiles who seek the Saviour (hence the namo Bartimeus ; Tiraeus comes, according to him, from Thima, the unclean) ; and the company who followed Him, and who wish to impose silence on the man, to be types of the Jud'.o Cliristians, who denied to the Gentiles access to the Messli-h of Israel. I^ Luke omits the most picturesque details, it is because of liis prosaic character. If he omits the name Bartimeus, it is because he is offended at finding: the Gentiles designated as impure beings. If he places the miracle before entering Jericho, it is because he distinguishes the healing of the man from that of his Paganism, which shall be tiiii<^ed after, and that in "the salvation granted to cu.vi'. Xi\. : I-IO. 417 Zaccheus.* Zacdieus, the pure, is the counterpart of Timeus, tJie unclean ("Die Evanjifl." pp. r>0;2-")0r)). Of its kind this is thu climax ! iSiuh is the game of lilde anil SI ck winch Iho evangelists ])la_ve(l with ihe C'hurclics on liie theme of the persou of Jesus ! Afu r this wo uetd give no other iJiools of this author's feagacit}'. y. Jesus at (he House of Zaccheus : 19 : 1-10.— Vers. 1-lO.f In I^Ialthew and :Maik the account of Jesus' entiy into Jerusalem inunedialely follows tiiat of the healioi^ of Bartimeus. Theie is a blank left by tlieui, for Jl'Sus stayed at Bethany, and there passed at least one night (John 12 : 1, ct seq.). This blank, according to Luke, is still more considerable. For before aniving at Bethany, Jesus slopped at Jericho, and there passed the night (vcr. 5). Luke's souice is original, and independent of the other two Syu. It was Aramaic, as is proved by the heaping up of Kui, the para- tactic form, as well as the expression ovdna-c Ku/.uv/iei'oi, veis. 1, 2. Comp. 1 : 01. The name Zaccheus, from -,^1, to be pure, proves the Jewish origin of the man. There must have been at Jericho one of the princii)al custom-houses, both on account of the exportation of the bahu whieh grew in that oasis, and which was sold in all countries of the world, and on account of the considerable traffic which took place on this road, by which lay the route from Perea to Judca and Egypt. Zaccheus was at the head of the office. The person of Jesus attracted his peculiar interest, no doubt because he had heard tell of the benevolence shown by this prophet to people of his class. Most certainly'- Ws kari (ver. 3) does not signify : tchich. of the members of the company He was (Bleek), but : what was His appearance. After having accom- panied the crowd for a little, without gaining his end, he outruns it. The sycamore is a tree with low horizontal branches, and cunsequcntly of easy ascent. 'E/cea?/?, for : 6l eKdvrji othi) (ver. 10). Was the attention of Jesus called to liis presence in the tree by the looks which the people directed Toward him 'I Did He, at the same time, hear His name pronounced in the crowd ? In this case, it is unnecessary to regard the address ot Jesus as the effect of supernatural knowl dge. There is something of pleasantness, and even of sprighlliuess, m the form : " Make haste and come down ; for to-day I must abide at thy house." The word must indi- cates that Jesus lias recognized in him, on account of this eager desire which he haj to sec him, the host whom His Fatiier has chosen for Him at Jericho. Here there is a lost sheep to be found. It is the same unwearied conviction of His mission as in meeting with the Samaritan Avoman. What absolute consecration to the divine work ! And what sovereign independence of human opinion ! In the multitude, which is yet swayed by pharisaic prejudices, there is general discontent. There is nothing to show that the disciples ate also included under the words : " They all murmured." The expression (jraOetS <5f, "but Zaccheus standing" (before the Lord, ver. 8). im- medialel}-- connects the following words of the publican with those popular murmurs. * It misht be thought that we are jesting. Here are the words : " The blind mendicautOf :Maik is cleft by Luke into two halves : («) The blind man as such, whom he places before the entrance of Jericho ; {h) the Pagan element in the blind man. which is placed after leaving Jericho (in Zacciieus). " t Ver. 2. D. G. 7 ]Mnu. Syr. ^Itf'''"i"°, Vg. omit Ku/ov/jeioi. ik. L. Syi"". omit ovToi between nat and 7]i>. B K. n. some "Mnn. It''''i. Vg. omit i/p. Ver. 4. The Mss. are divided between 7r/jof5prt/iwi/(T. U. and Alex.) and Tr^oTiVn^wp (Bvz and 25 Mnn.). !!*. B. L. add etr to before eurrponOev. Instead of <5i' eKavr]?, which T. K. reads with A. and 2 Mnn. only, all the others, eKeivrj';. Ver. o. i^. B. L. omit the words enhv avTnv Kai. Ver. 8. G. K. M. 11. several Man., Kvpiov instead of Ir/'^ovv. Ver. 9. ** • L. R. omit eanv after AfSpaafM. 418 COMMENTAllY OX tJT. LUKE. 2 ra(?£/s denotes a firm and dignified attitude, such as suits a man wliose honor is attacked. " He whom Thou hast thought good to choose as Thy host, is not, as is alleged, a being unworthy of Tliy choice." Did Zaccheus pronounce the words of ver. 8 at the time when Jesus had just come under his roof ? This is what we sliould be led to suppose at the first glance by the words • hut he stood; nevertheless, this movement on the part of Zaccheus would appear a little hasty, and the answer of Jesus : Salvation is come (ver. 9), proves that He had already sojourned for a time with His host. Was it, then, at the moment when Jesus was resuming His jouruty (Schleiermacher, Olshauseu) ? Vers. 11 aud 28 may support this supposition. But the word today (ver. 9), which recalls the to-day of ver. 5, places this dialogue on the very day of His arrival. The most suitable time appears to be that of the even- ing meal, while Jesus converses peacefully with His host and the numerous guests. Unless the terms of vers. 11 and 28 are immoderately pressed, they are nut opposed to this view. Most modern interpreters take the words of Zaccheus as a vow inspired by his gratitude for the grace wliich he has just experienced, 'hhv, behold, is taken to indi- cate a sudden resolution : " Take note of this resolution : From this moment I give . and I pledge myself to restore ..." But if the pres. 1 give mny ctr- taiuly apply to a gift whicli Zaccheus makes at the instant once for all, the pres. 1 restore fourfold seems rather to designate a rule of conduct already admitted and long piactised by him. It is unnatural to apply it to a measure which would relate only to some special cases of injustice to be repaired in the future. 'Uoii, behold, is in keeping with the unexpected revelation, so far as the public are concerned, in this rule of Zaccheus, till then unknown by all, and Avhich he now reveals, only to show the injustice of those murmurs with which the course of Jesus is met. " Thou hast not brought contempt on Thyself by acceptiag me as Thy host, publican though I am; and it is no ill-gotten gain with which I entertain Thee." In this sense, the araSEiS de, but he Stood, is fully intelligible. By the half of his goods, Zaccheus, of course, understands the half of his yearly income. In the case of a wrong done to a nei"-hbor, the law exacted, when restitution was voluntary, a fifth over and above the sum taken away (Num. 5 : 6, 7). Zaccheus went vastly further. Perhaps Ihe restitution which he imposed on himself was that forcibly exacted from the detectnl thief. In a profession like his, it was easy to commit involuntary injustices. Be- sides, Zaccheus had under his authority many employes for whom he could not answer. Jesus accepts this apology of Zaccheus, which indeed has its worth in reply to the murmurs of the crowd ; and without allowing the least meritorious value to those restitutions and those extraordinary almsgivings. He declares that Zaccheus is the object of divine grace as much as those can be who accuse him. His entrance into his house has brought salvation thither. Notwithstanding the words, "Jesus said unto him . . ." the words following are addressed not to Zaccheus, but to the entire assembly'. The Trpdi airuv, unto him, therefore signifies : with His eyes turned irpon him as the subject of His answer ; comp. 7 : 44. Jesus is the living salvati.jn. Received as He was into the house, He brought into it by His very presence this heavenly blessing. KaOoTi, agreeably to the fact that (for so much as), indicates the reason why Jesus can assert that Zaccheus is saved this day. But is this reason the fact that Zaccheus is a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh, and has pre- served this characteristic as much as any other Jew, notwithstanding his Rabbinical CHAP. XIX. : 11-27. 419 excommunication ? No ; Josiis could not make Uie possibility of salvation dependent on the naked characteristic of being u member of the Israelitish nation. Tliis idea ■would be iu conlrudiclion to His whole teaching, and to the very saying which con- cludes this verse. The term, son of Abraham , must therefore be taken in its spiritual sense : " Zacchcus is restored to this character which he had lost by his c.vcomniuni- cation. He possess( s it iu a still higher sense than that in Avhich he had lost it." Ter. 10. Loxt, so far as a son of Abraham according to tlic llesh ; hni found (lie, the same one, Kat uvto',), as a son of Abraham according to the spirit. Thus the maxim of ver 10 readily connects itself with ver. 9. According to Ililgenfeld (p. 20G), this piece is not in the least Pauline ; it belongs to the aucienl Ebionile source. Accoiding to Iloltzmann, on tlie cuutitiry (p. 2o4), it is entirely Luke's. It may be seen how critics agree with one another on questions of this sort 1 As concerns ourselves, we have established an Aramaic source. On the other liaud, we are at one with Iloltzmann in acknowledging the traces of Luke's style {KaOoTi, ver. 9 ; ?/?.iKia, ver. 3 ; eKt-iiTjS, ver. 4 ; (hayoYyvi^tiv, ver. ?). Hence wc conclude that Luke himself translated into Greek this account, which is taken from an Aramaic document. 9. T/ie Parable of the Pounds : 19 : 11-37.— Yer. 11. The Introduction.— ^^q have already observed iu the multitudes (14 : 25, 18 : 38, 19 : 1-3), and even in the dis- ciples (18 : 31 ; comp. with Matt. 20 : 20, et stq.), the traces of an excited state. Ver. 11 shows that it went on increasing as they approached Jerusalem. The profound cahnncss and self-possession of Jtsus contrasts with the agitation which is produced around Him. The words ukovovtuv avTdv, " as they heard these things," and nponOtli elTre, " He added, and spake," establish a close relation between the parable of the pounds and the preceding conversation. But we need not conclude therefrom that this x'arable was uttered as a continuation of the conversation. It may, indeed, have been so mcrel}' in respect of time (ver. 28). The relation indicated by the introduc- tion is purel^^ moral : the so strilcing coritrast between the conduct of Jesus toward Zaccheus, and the generally received ideas, was such that every one felt that a deci- sive crisis was near. The new was on the eve of appearing ; and this imminent revo- lution naturall}'' presented itself to the imagination of all in the form in which it had always been described to them. The word -napaxf-nifMa, immedlaltly, stands first in the proposition, because it expresses the thought against which the parable following is directed. The verb, avacpaiveaOai, to appear, answers well to the great spectacle for "which they were looking. That Luke himself deduced this introduction from the contents of the parable, as TV'eizsiicker supposes, is not impossible. But up to tliis point we have too often recognized the historical value of those short introductions, not to admit that Luke's source, from which he took the parable, contained some indication of the circumstances which had called it forth. Vers. 12-14.* The Probation. — A man of noble birth goes to ask from the sovereign of the country which he inhabits the government of his province. Before undertak- ing this journey, which must be a long one — for the sovereign dwells in a distant country — this man, concerned about the future administration of the slate after his return, puts to the proof the servants who have till now formed his own household, and whom he proposes afterward to make his oiBcers. For that purpose he con- fides to each of them a sum of money, to be turned to account in his absence. Hereby he will be able to estimate their fldLlity and capability, and to assign them in the new * Ver. 13. 8 Mjj. 20 Mun. Or. read ev u instead of tus. 420 COMMENTAKY OX ST. LUKE. State of things a place proportioned to the qualities of wliich they shall have given proof. Meanwhile the future sul)ject.s protest before the sovereign against the eleva- tion of their fellow-citizen. Some features in tliis picture seem borrowed from the political situation of the Holy Land. Josephus relates that on the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus, his son, wbom he had appointed his heir, repaired to Rome to request that Augustus would invest him in his father's dominions, hut that the Jews, wearied of this dynasty of adventurers, begged the emperor rather to convert their country into a Roman province. This case might the more readily occur to the mind of Jesus, as at that very Jericho where He was speaking there stood the magnificent palace which this Archelaus had huilt. The Avord evyeviji, of noble birth, evidently refers to the superhuman nature of Jesus. Ma«:puv is an adverb, as at 15 : 13. This far distance is the emblem of the long interval which, in the view of Jesus, was to separate His departure from His return. The expression, to receive a kingdom, includes the installation of Jesus in His heavenly power, as well as the preparation of His Messianic kingdom here below by the sending of the Holy Spirit and His work in the Church. A miiia, among the Hebrews, was worth about £6 sterling.* It is not, as in Matt. 25 : 14, all /i is goods, which the master distributes ; the sum, too, is much less considerable ; the talents of which Matthew speaks are each worth about £400. The idea is therefore different. In Luke, the money intrusted is simply a means of testing. In ]Matthew, the matter in question fs the aiiministration of the owner's fortune. The sums intrusted, being in Luke the same for all the servants, represent not gifts {xapla/LtaTn), which are very various, but the grace of salvation common to all believers (pardon and the Holy Spirit). The position of every believer in the future kingdom depends on the use which he makes of that giace here below. It is surprising to hear Jesus call this salvation an ehlxcnTov. a very little (ver. 17). "What an idea of future glory is given to us by this saying ! The Alex, reading, h u, ver, 13, assumes that Epxo/^ai has ihe meaning of travelling; while with euS it would siguify to arrive. The first reading implies that the lime during which the absence of Jesus lasts is a constant returning, which is perfectly in keeping with the biblical view. " I say unto you, that from f/m ), but before [His disciples], at their head. Comp. Mark 10 . 32 : " They were in the way going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus went before them, and they were amazed, and as they followed they were afraid." According to John, while the great body of the caravan pursued its way to Jerusa- lem, Jesus stopped at Bethany, where a feast was prepared for Him, and where He passed one or even two nights ; and it was after this stay that He solemnly entered the capital, where the rumor of His approach had already spread. These circum- stances fully explain the scene of Palm Day, which in the synoptical account comes * Ver. 29. Marclon omitted all the piece, vers. 29-46. i>. B. L. some Mnn. omit ftvrow after /ura^T/rwv. Ver. 30. J*. B. D. L. 3 Mnn. Or., /pyuv instead of emuv. B. D. L. add nai before Avaavrzc. Ver. 31. 6 Mjj. 3 Mnn. If^'i. Or. omit avTu after tpec-e. CHAP. XIX. : 28-44. 425 iipon us somewhat abruptly. Blcek finds n certain obscurity in Luke's expression : " When He came nigh to Bethpliage and Bethany ;'' for it is not known how llioso two lo(;alities are rehitetl. In Mark (11 : 1) the same dilhcuity (Matt. 21 : 1 does not speak of IJuthany). Add to this tliat the O. T novvliere speaks of a village called Ik'thphage, and that tradition, which indicates tiie site of Bethany so certain)}', says absolutely nothing about that of this hamlet. The Talmud alone mentions Bethpliage, and in such a way as to sliow that this locality was very near Jerusalem, and was even joined to the city. Belhphage is without the walls, it is said ; and the bread which is prepared in it is sacred, like that which is made in the city (Bab. Pe.sachim, 63. 2; ]Menachoth, 7. G, etc.) Lightfoot, Kenan, Caspari * have concluded from these passages that Belhphage was not a handet, but a district, the precinct of the'city extending eastward as far as the Mount of Olives, and even to Bethany. According to the Rabbins, Jerusalem was to the people what the camp had formerly been to Israel in the wilderness. And as at the great feasts the city could not contain all the pilgrims who came from a distance, and who should strictly have found an abode in the camp (the city), and there celebrated the feast, there was added, thej'^ say, to Jeru- salem, to make it sufficient, all this district situated on the side of ihe Mount of Olives, and which bore the name of Bctliphafje (place of figs). Bethany was the be- ginning of this district where the pilgrims encamped in a mass ; and perhaps its name came from Beth-Chani, place of booths (the merchants' tents set up in Ihe sight of this multitude) (Caspari, p. 163). Nothing could in this case be more exact than the mode of expression used by Luke and Mark : ichen he came to Belhphage (the sacred dis- trict) and to Bethany (the hamlet where this district began). 'V./.aiuv might be taken as the gen. plural of tlala, olice trees {ilaiuv). But in Josephus this word is the name of the mountain itself {i/Miuu, oUce wood) ; comp. also Acts 1 : 12. This is the most probable seu.se in our passage. At ver. 87 and 22 : 39, where Luke uses this word in the first sense, he indicates it by the art. tuv. The sending of the two disciples proves the deliberate intention of Jesus to give a certain solemnity to this scene. Till then He bad withdrawn from popular expres- sions of homage ; but once at least He wished to show Himself as King Messiah to His people (ver. 40). It was a last call addressed by Him to the population of Jeru- salem (ver. 42). This course, besides, could no longer compromise His work. He knew that in any case death awaited Him in the capital. John (12 : 14) says simply, Jesus found the young ass, without indicating in what w.ay. But the words which follow^ " The disciples remembered that they had done these things unto Ilim," ver. 16; allude to a doing on the part of the disciples which John himsell has not men- tioned. His account, therefore, far from contradicting that of the Syn., assumes it as true. The remark, whereon yet never man sat (ver. 30). is in keeping with the kingly and Messianic u.se which is about to be made of the animal. Comp Dent 21 3. Matthew not only mentions the colt, but also the ass. Accompanied by its mother, the animal, though not broken in, would go the more quietly What are Ave to think of the critics (Strauss. Volkmar) who allege that, according to Matthew's text, .Tesus mounted the two animals at once ! The ease with which .Tesus obtains the use of this l)east, which docs not belong to Him. is another trait of the royal great ne.ss wl:rch He tiiinks good to display on this occasion. OiVoj?, ver. 31 (Maik and Matthew, ei-Otw?), "Thus; and that will suffice." Luke and Mark do not cite tho * " Chfonol. geograph. Einleitung in das Lebeu Jesu," 1861), pp. 161 and 163. 42 C COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. prophecy of Zechariah. It was not necessary that every one should understand the symbolical meaning of this scene, and contrast the jieaceful bea.st with the warlike steeds of earthly conquerors. A new proof of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus, which must nut be confounded with omniscience ; comp. 22 : 10, 31-84 ; John 1 : 49, 4 : 17, etc. According to Mark, M'ho loves to describe details, the colt was tied to a door at a crosaioay (a/z^or5o5). It was no doubt the place where the little path leading to the house of the owners of the ass went off from the higliway ; or might it be the crossing of two roads, tliat which Jesus followed (going from east to west), and that which to the present day passes along the crest of the mountain (from north to south) ? The term Kvpios, Lord (ver. 34), shows the feeling of sovereignty with which Jesus acted. It is probable that He knew the owners. In substituting their gaiments for the cover which it would have been so easy to procure, the disciples wished to pay homage to Jesus — a fact brought out by the pron. kavruv (ver. 35). Comp. 2 Kings 9:13. 2d. Vers. 37^0.* TJie Entry.— From the moment that Jesus seats Himself on the colt. He becomes the visible centre of the assemblage, and the scene takes a char- acter more and more extraordinary. It is as if a breathing fiom above had all at once taken possession of this multitude. The sight of the city und temple which opens up at the moment contributes to this burst of joy and hope (ver. 37). The object of kyyU^o^Toi, coming nigh, is not TrpdS rfi KaraiSdasi (Trpof tt/v would be necessary) ; it is rather .lerusalem, the true goal of the journey. IlpoS r^ is a qualification of yp^avro : " at the descent, they began." From this elevated point, 300 feet above the terrace of the temple, which is itself raised about 140 feet above the level of the valley of the Cedron, an extensive view was had of the city and the whole plain which it com- mands, especially of th'j temple, which rose opposite, immediately above the valley. All those hearts recall at this moment the miracles which have distinguished the career of this extraordinary man ; they are aware that at the point to which things have come His entry into Jerusalem cannot fail to issue in a decisive revolution, although they form an utterly false idea of that catastrophe. John informs us that among all those miracles there was one especially which ex ■ cited the enthusiasm of the crowd ; that was the resurrection of Lazarus. Already on the previous evening very many pilgrims had come from Jerusalem to Bethany to see not only Jesus, but also Lazarus, who had been raised from the dead. This day the procession meets at everj^ step with new troops arriving from the city ; and these successive meetings call forth ever and again new bursts of joy. The acclamation, ver. 38, is taken in part from Ps. 118 : 25. This hymn belonged to the great Hallel, which was chanted at the end of the Paschal Supper as well as at the feast of Tabernacles. The people were accustomed to apply the expression, lie who cometh in the name of tlie Lord (in the Psalm, every faithful one who came to the feast), to the Messiah. Prob- ably the word (iaaiT^evi, king, is authentic in Luke ; and its omission in some Mss. arises from the texts of the LXX. and of Matthew. The expression, in the name of, is dependent not on blessed be, but on He who cometh : " the King who comes on the part of God as His representative." The peace in heaven is that of the reconciliation * Ver. 37. The Mm. are divided between rjp^avTo and ripiaTo. B. D., Travruv in- stead (if -nanijv. Ver. 38. Instead of o epx'>fj.£voc iSacUevi, which T R. reads, !** H. o i:i(ifji?.evs, D. A. some Mon. Il"''cked the lirst time, more especially in the Messianic attitude which He had taken up. Here, then, again John supplies what the others have omitted, and omits what they have sufflcienlly narrated. 3. The Question of the Sanhedrim: 30 : 1-8. — Vers. 1-8.* This account is sepa- rated from the preceding, in Mark and Matthew, by the brief mention of two events : in Mark 11 : 16, the prohibition of Jesus to carry vessels across the temple — the court was probably used as a thoroughfare (Bleek) ; in Matt. 21 : 14, et seq., the cures wrought in the temple, and the hosannas of the children. The authority which Jesus thus assumed in this sacred place was well suited to occasion the step taken by the Sanhedrim. If we follow Mark, it must have taken place on the day after the purifi- cation of the temple and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, and consequently on the Tuesday or Wednesday morning. Luke omits those events, which were unknown to liim, as well as the cursing of the barren fig-tree, which related specially to Israel. Since the evening before, the members of the Sanhedrim had been in consultation UiiTEiv of 19: 47 ) ; and their seeking had not been in vain. The}' liad succeeded in inventing a series of questions fitted to entangle Jesus, or in the end to extract ffom Him au answer which would compromise Him either with the people or with the Jewish or Gentile authorities. The question of ver. 3 is the first result of those con- * Ver. 1. 5*. B. D. L. Q. several Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. omit ekelvuv after ri/iEpcw. The Mss. are divided between apxi.e()tir (T. R., Alex.) and lepEis (Byz.). Ver. 2. ii* C. omit eLTTs tjjilv. J*" B. L. R. 2 Mnn. read elttov instead of F.tnE. Ver. 3. !^. B. L. K. 7 Mnn. omit eva before 7.nyov. Ver. 4. !!i. D. L. R. add to before luawov. Ver •5. it. C. D. Syr'="^ Itpi^rique^ Vg., CTi^veAoytCotTo instead of nwEAnytGai-To. 13 Mjj. .sev- eral Mnn. It*"i. omit ow after thnn. Ver. 6. it. B. D. L some ,Mnn., o >.ao-r. n-m instead of rra; o /.aoi. CHAP. XX. : 1-8. 431 claves. Ver. 1 cnum^-ratcs thi three classes of mcml)(TS ccmposini; the Sauliedrim ; it was therefore a fotinal clep|talion, comp. Jolia 1 : Itl, et aeq. Tlie ddem are men- tioned heie also (conip. 19 : 47) as seeouiiary personaj^cs, beslile the high |)riests and scii!)ea. Tiietiist pait of tlie tion relates ta tlie nature of Jesus' c •inini«.sif)n : is it d vine or human ? The seconil, to the intirinaUate agent through whom lie has received it. The Sanhedrim made sure that Jetus would claim a divine commission, and hoped to take advantage of this declaration to bring Jesus to its l)ar, and to sit ia judgment on the question. On the one hand, Jesus avoids this snare ; on the other. He avoids declining the universally recognized competency of the Sanhedrim. He replies in such a way as to force His adversaries themselves to declare their incom- petence. The cpieslion which He lays before them is not a skilful ninna'uvre ; it is diclated by the very nature of the i^ilualiou. Was it not through the insliumenlality of John the Baptist that Jesus had l)cen divmely accredited to the jieople ? Tiie ac- knowleilguicnt, therefore, of Jesus' authorily really depended on the acknowledgment of John's. The second alternative, r)/'H/t7i, includes the two possible cases, of iiim- self, orof some other human authority. The embarrassment of ills adversaries is expressed by the three Syn. in ways so different that it is impossible to derive the three forms from one and the same written source. This question has sufficed to disconcert them. They, the wise, the skUled, who affect to judge of everything in the theocracy — they shamefully decline a judgment in face of an event of such cajjital importance as was the appearing of John ! There is a blending of indignation iind contempt in \\w ncitlier do 1 ot ^ti?bandmen : 20 : 9-19.— This j)arable, in 3Iatthew, is pre- ceded by that of the two sons. If, as the terms of the latter suppose, it applies to the conduct of the chiefs toward John the Baptist, it is .'admirably placed before that of the husbandmen, which depicts the ctmduct of those same chiefs toward .lesus. Vers. 9-12.* We have just attested the accuracy of the introduction, and espe- cially that of the words to the people, ver. 9. Holtzmanu judges otherwise : " A par- * Ver. 9. Marcion omitted vers. 9-18. 19 Mjj. the most of the Men. lipie'iT", Vg. omit Tii after aiOpoj-o?, which T. R. reads, with A. some 'Mun Syr. Ver 10. !*. B. D. L. some Mnii. It"''i. omit ev befoie Kaepu. The Mss. are divided between Jwfftv (T. R., Byz.) and dunnv^ii' (xVIex.). Ver. 12. A. K. II. some Mnn. lipi-'isno, Vg., KaKtivov instead of Kai rovrov. 432 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. able inappropriately addressed to the people in Luke," says he. Is it possible to pro. nouuce a falser judgaient ? The vine deuotes the theocratic people, aud the husband- men the authorities who govern them. Luke speaks neither of the tower meant to receive the workmen's tools aud to guard the domain, which perhaps represents the kingly office ; nor of the wine-press, the means of turning the domain to account, whicii is perhaps the image of the priesthood (comp. Matthew aud Mark). The absence of the proprietor corresponds to that whole period of the O. T. which fol- lowed the great manifestations by which God founded the theocracy— the going out of Egypt, the giving of the law, and the settlement of Israel in Canaan. From that moment Israel should have offered to its God the fruits of a gratitude and fidelity pro- portioned to the favor which it had received from Him. The three servants succes- sively sent represent the successive groups of prophets, those divine messengers whose struggles and sufi'erings are described (Heb. 11) in such lively colors. There is a climax in the conduct of the husbandmen : ver. 10, the envoy is beaten ; ver. 11, beaten and shamefully abused ; ver. 12, wounded to death and cast out of the vine- yard. In this last touch, Jesus alludes to the fate of Zacharias (11 : 51), and probably also to that of John the Baptist. In Mark the climax is nearly the same : sdeipav {to beat), £KE(pa?,acu(ynv (here, to icound m the head), aniKTeaav {to kill). Mark speaks also of other messengers who underwent the same treatment ; it is perhaps this last description which should be applied to John the Baptist. Matthew speaks only of two sendiugs, but each embracing several individuals. Should we understand the two principal groups of prophets : Isaiah, with his surrounding of minor prophets, and Jeremiah with his ? The Hebraistic expression npuaiOeTo Treurjjai. (vers. 11 and 12) sh(jws that Luke is working on an Aramaic document. No similar expression occurs in Matthew and Mark. Vers. 13-16.* The master of the vineyard rouses himself in view of this obstinate and insolent rejection : What shall I do? And this deliberation leads him to a final measure : I will send my beloved son. This saying, put at that time by Jesus in the mouth of God, has a peculiar solemnity. There is His answer to the question : By what authority doest thmi these things? Here, as everywhere, the meaning of the title son transcends absolutely the notion of Messiah, or theocratic kmg, or any office whatever. The title expresses above all the notion of a personal relation to God as Father. The tlieocratic office flows from this relation. By this name, Jesus estab- lishes between the servants and Himself an immeasurable distance. This was implied already by the question, Wuit shall 1 do . . .? which suggests the divine dia- logue. Gen. 1 : 26, whereby the creation of inferior beings is separated from th:it of man. *I(tu5, properly, in a way agreeable to expectation; and hence, undoi/biedly (E. V. improperly, it may be). But does not God know beforehand the result of this hist experiment? True ; but this failure will not at all overturn His plan. Not only will the mission of this last messenger be successful with so7ne, but the resistance of the people as a whole, by bringing on their destruction, will open up the world to the free preaching of salvation by those few. The ignorance of the future which is ascribed to the master of the vineyard belongs to the figure. The idea represented by this detail is simply the reality of human liberty. * Ver. 13. i^. B. C. D. L. Q. some Mon. Syr"'. ItP'^''^^^, omit tdnvre? before svTpmT7j(7ov-ai. Ver. 14. A. K. n. 4 Mnn. ItP'^'i^S Su/^-oyiauvTo iusiead of (he?.nyiCni'To. ^. B. D. L. li. some Mnii.. ■!rpo( aA/T/Aoi.f instead of irpoi eavTovS. 6 Mjj. 12 Man. jipierique^ omit i5evTe btiforc anOKTElVCJ/ieV. CHAP. XX. : 13-19. 433 The deliberation of the husbaudiuen (ver. 14) is an allusion to that of the chiefs, ver. ;") {i\\n'A explained, 21 : 43 : " The kingdom of God shall be given to a nation {tOvet) bringing forth the fruits thereof." According to this, the point in question is not the substitution of the chiefs of the N. T. for those of the Old, but that of GealUa peoples for the chosen people. What would our critics say if the parts were exchanged, if Luke had expressed himself here as Matthew does, and Matthew as Luke ? JIatlhew puts the answer of ver. 16 in the mouth of the adversaries of Jesus, which on their part could only mean, " He shall destroy them, that is evident ; but what have we to do with thai ? Thy history is but an empty tale." Yet as it is said in ver. 19 that it was not till later that His adversaries under- stood the bearing of the parable, the narrative of Luke and Mark is more natuial. The connection between uKovaavrei and «7roi' is this ; " they had no sooner heard than, deprecating the owe?!, they said . . ." Vers. 17-19.* 'E///iAfi/iac, having beheld them, indicates the serious, even menacing expression which He then a.ssumed. The ^s is adversative : " Sucli a thing, you say will never happen ; but what meaning, then, do you give to this saying . . . ?" Whether in the context of Ps. 118 the stone rejected be the Jewi.sh people as a whole, in comparison with the great woi Id-powers, or (according to Bleek and others) the believing part of the people rejected by the unbelieving majority in both cases, the image of the stone despised by the builders applies indirectly to the Messiah, in whom alone Israel's mission to the world, and that of the believing part of the people to the whole, was realized. It is ever, at all stages of their history, the same law whose ap- plication is repeated. The ace. A/Qov is a case of attraction arising fiom the relative pron. which follows. This form is texlually taken from the LXX. (Ps. 118 : 22). The corner-stone is that which forms the junction between the two most conspicuous •walls, that which is laid with peculiar solemnity. A truth so stern as tlie sentence of ver. 18 required to be wrapped up in a biblical quotation. The words of Jesus recall Isa. 8 : 14, 1.5, and Dan. 2 : 44. In Isaiah, the Messiah is represented as a consecrated stone, against which many of the children of Israel shall he broken. Simeon (2 : 34) makes reference to this saying. Thesui)ject iu question is the Messiah in His humili- ation. A man's dashing hini'-elf against this stone laid on the earth means rejccling Him during the time of His humiliation. In the second part of the verse, wdiere this * Ver. 10. C. D. 15 Mnn. Syr. Iiri-'''T", Vg., r^Tj'ow instead of t^Jirnnav. 434 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. stuDe is represented as falling from the top of the building, the subject is the glorified Messiah crushing all earthly oppositions by the manifestations of His wrath. In Dun. 2 : 44 the word /uKfidv is also found MKfzijaei ndaa^ rile jSaaiAEiaS), strictl}' : to winnow, and hence to scatter to the wind. It is therefore dangerous to encounter this stone, eitlier by dashing against it while it is yet laid on the ground, as Israel is doing, or whether, when it shall be raised to the top of the building, men provoke it to fall on their own head, as the other nations shall one day do. A new deliberation among the rulers follows this terrible shock (ver. 19). But fear of the yteople restrains them. There is a correspondence between the two Kai before itfioiSj/Orjcfav and before e^yTTjaav. The two feelings, /e«;Y«5' and seeking (to put Him to death), struggle within their heart. The/ take the conntniatice, for : to accept men's persons), is fnuntl only in Luke. It would therefoie be himself, if he was copying Matthew or IMark, who had added it at his own hand — he who was writing for Greek readers ! 'OSui Geov, (he %cny of God, denotes the straight theocratic line traced out by the law, without re- gard to accomplished facts or political necessities. They think by their phrases to render it impr)ssible for Ilim to recoil. There was, in realit}'^ — and this is what formed the apparently insurmountable ditficulty of the question — a contradiction l)etween the pure theocratic standard and the actual state of things. The normal condition was the autonomy of God's people — normal because founded on the divine law, and as such, sacred in the eyes of Jesus. The actual state of things was the subjection of the Jews to the Romans — a providential situatitm, and as such, not less evidently willed by God. How was this contradiction to be got over '? Judas the Galilean, re- jecting the fact, had declared himself for the right ; he had perished. This was the fate to which the rulers wished to drive Jesus. And if He recoiled, if lie accepted the fact, was this not to deny the right, the legal standard, Moses, God Himself ? Isit latcfulfor vs {ver. 22)? They have a scruple of conscience! Jesus at once discerns the malicious plot w^hich is at tlie bottom of the question ; He feels that never Was a more dangerous snare laid for Him. But there is in the simplicity of the dove a skill which enables it to escape from the best laid string of the fowler. AVliat made the diliiculty of the question was the almost entire fusion of the two domains, the religious and political, in the Old Covenant. Jesus, therefore, has now to dis- tinguish those two spheres, which the course of Israelitish history has in fact sep- arated and even contrasted, so that He may not be drawn into applying to the one the absolute standard which belongs only to the other. Israel should depend onl3' on God, assuredly, but that in the religious domain. In the political sphere, God may be pleased to put it for a time in a state of dependence on a liuman power, as had for- merly happened in their times of captivity, as is the case at present in relation to C.-esar. Did not even the theocratic constitution itself distinguish between the tribute to be paid to the king and the dues to be paid to the priests and the lenii)le ? This legal distinction became only more precise and emphatic when the .sceptre fell into Gentile hands. What remained to be said was not God or Ca'sar, but rather, God cmd (.'.esar, * Herzog's " Encyclopedie," t. xiii. p. 291. 43G COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. each iu his own sphere. The Gentile money which passed current in Israel attested the providential fact of the establishment of the Roman dominion, and of the accept- ance of that state of things by the theocratic people. Vbicunque numisma rtf/is alicvjus ohtinet, Ulic incolce regem istum pro domino agnoscunt, says the famous Jewish doctor Maimonides (quoted by Bleek). The piece of Roman money which Jesus calls His adversaries to show, establishes by the image and inscription which it bears the existence of this foreign power iu the political and lower sphere of the thei.cratic life ; it is to this sphere that the payment of tribute belongs ; the debt should there- fore be discharged. But above this sphere there is that of the religious life -which has God for its object. This sphere is fully reserved by the answer of Jesus ; and He declares that all its obligations can be fulfilled, without iu the least doing violence to the duties of the other. He accepts with submission the actual condition, while reserving fidelity to Him who can re establish the normal condition as soon as it shall seem good to Him. Jesus Himself had never felt the least contradiction between those two orders of duties ; and it is simply from His own pure consciousness that He derives this admirable solution. The word dnoSore, render, implies the notion of moral duty toward Caesar, quite as much as toward God. De Wette is therefore certainly mistaken here in limiting the notion of obligation to the things which are God's, and applying merely the notion of utility to the things which are Caesar's. St. Paul understood the thought of Jesus better, when he wrote to the Romans (13 : 1 et seq.) " Be subject to the powers . . . not only from fear of punishment, but also for conscience' sake." Comp. 1 Tim. 2 -.1 et seq. ; 1 Pet, 2 : 13 et seq. Depend- ence on God does not exclude, but involves, not only many personal duties, but the various external and providential relations of dependence in which the Christian may find himself placed, even that of slavery (1 Cor. 7 : 22).-' As to theocratic indepen- dence, Jesus knew well that the way to regain it was not to violate the duty of sub- mission to Caesar by a revolutionary shaking off of his yoke, but to return to the faith- ful fulfilment of all duties toward God. To render to God what is God's, was the way for the people of God to obtain anew David instead of Cajsar as their Lord. Who could tind a word to condemn in this solution ? To the Pharisees, the Render unto Ccesar ; to the Herodians, the Render unto God. Each carries away his own les- son ; .Jesus alone issues triumphantly from the ordeal which was to have destroyed Him. 5. The Question oftlm Sadducees : 20 : 27-40. — We know positively from Josephus that the Sadducees denied at once the resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, and all retribution after death (Antiq. xviii. 1. 4 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14). It was not that they rejected either the O. T. iu general, or any of its parts. How, in that case, could they liave sat in the Sanhedrim, and tilled the priesthood ?f Prob- ably they did not find personal immortality taught clearly enough in the books of Moses ; and as to the prophetic books, they ascribed to them only secondary authority.:}: * [According to the interpretation, "use servitude rather." See Lange's Com- ment, on the passage. — Trans.] f There is wide difference of view on this matter. Some of the Fathers and many moderns hold that the Sadducees denied all but the Peulateuch. Otliers, like our author, reject this view. May not both be right ? They did not openly impugn any of the Old Testament, but the}' tacitly ignored what they did not like. Are thei-e no successors to them in this eclecticism ? — J. H. X Read on this subject the excellent treatise of M. Reuss, Herzog's " Encyclo pedie, ' ' t. xiii. p. 280 et seq. CHAP. XX. : 27-40. 437 Vers. 27-33.* Tlic Question.— The Sadducees, starting from the Leviratelaw given by Moses (Deut. 25 : 5), agreeably to a patriarchal usage (Gen. 38) whicli is slill allowed by many Eastern peoples, seek to cover with ridicule the idea of a resurrec- tion ; dyTiXeyovraS : icho oppose {avri), maintaining that {XEyuvreS). The whole statement vers. 21)-o3 has in it a touch of sarcasm. Vers. 34-40.t T/te Anstcer. — This answer is preceded in Matthew and IVIark hy a severe icbukc, whereby Jesus makes His questioners aware of the gross spiriluaj igno- rance involved in such a question as theirs. The answer of Jesus has also a sarcaslic chancier. Those accumulated verbs, yaue7v, eHyaj.iiZf.60at, especially with the frequentative yanidxeGOai or htyajiiidHsaOat, throw a shade of contempt over that •wiiole worldly train, above which the Sadducean mind is incapable of rising. Although from a moral point of view the aiaov jtu'XXoov, tlieiroiidtocome, has already begun with the coming of Chri.st, from a phj'sical point of view, the present world is prolonged till the resurrection of the body, which is to coincide witli the restitution of all things. The resurrection from the dead is very evidently, in tliis place, not the resurrection of the dead in general. What is referred to is a special i)rivik'ge granted only to the faithful {ichich shall be accounted worthy ; comp. 14 : 14 ; the resurrection of the just, and Phil. 3 : 11).^ The first/*;/', ver. 3fi, indicates a casual relation between the cessation of marriage, ver. 35, and that of death, ver. 3G. The object of marriage is to preserve the human species, to which otherwise death would soon put an eud ; and this constitution must last till the number of the elect whom God will gather in is completed. While ihe for makes the cessation of death to be the cause of the cessation of marriage, the particle oiirf, neither, brings out the analogy which exists between those two facts. The reading ov6s is less supported. .Jesus does not say (ver. 36) th.nt glorified men are angels — angels and men are of two different natures, the one cannot be transformed into the other — but that they are equal with the angels, and that in two res[)ects : no death, and no marriage. Jesus therefore ascribes a body to the angels, exempt from the difference of sex. This positive teaching iibout the existence and nature of angels is purposely addressed by Jesus to the Sadducees, because, according to Acts 23 : 8, this party denied the existence of those l)eings. Jesus calls the raised ones children of God, and explains the title by that of children of the resurrection. Men on the earth are sons of one another ; each of the raised ones is directly a child of God, because his body is an immediate work of divine omnipotence. It thus resembles that of the angels, whose body also proceeds directly from the power of the Creator — a fact which explains the name sons of God, hy which they are designated in the O. T. The Mosaic command could not therefore form an objection to the doctrine of the resurrection * Ver. 27. !*. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. Syr., leyovTei instead of avTileyovre^ . Ver. 28. »* B. L. P. some Mnn. Syr. lt»'ii. Vg., r] instead of a~nOiivTj. Ver. 30. !*. B. D L., Kai o 'hvrepoi instead of ico : eXaiiev o 6£vt. t. yvv. kui ovroi anEO. utekvo^. Ver. 31. 12 !Mjj. omit kui. before ov. Ver. 32. i^. B. D. L. some Mnn. Syr. omit -kuvtuv. Ver. 33. !*. D. G. L. some Mnn. Syr. It., earai instead of yiverat. f Ver. 34. i^. B. D. L. 2 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. omit aKOKpidei? (which is taken from the parallels), i^. B. L. 8 ]\Inn., ya/xiaKovrai. instead of FKyafu^ovTai. Ver. 36. A. B. D. L. P., ov(h instead of ov-e. Ver. 37. Marcion omitted vers. 37 and 38. X This view is not held l)y most commentators. The words do not recjuire it, and the question of Ihe Sadducees did not contemplate one class of the dead. They op- posed the idea of future life, retribution, and tiie raising of any from tbe dead. Why rep'y to them b}' a statement regarding one portion of the dead ? — J. H. 438 COAlME^'TAllY OK ST. LUKE. rightly understood. Jesus now takes the offensive, and proves by that very Moses whom they had been opposing to Him {Kai, even, before Muses), the indisputable truth of the doctrine (vers. '37 and 08). The scribes of the pharisaic party liad probalil}' often tried to discover such a proof ; but it was necessary to dig deeply in the mine to extract from it this diamond. In the phrase ettI tt'/c (iarov, eni denotes the place where the account of the bush is found. The choice of the word /litjvvu, to give to understand, shows that Jesus dis- tinguishes perfectly between an express declaration which does not exist, and an in- dication such as that which He proceeds to cite. He means simply, that if Moses had not had the idea of immortality, he would not have expressed himself as he does. When Moses put into the mouth of God the designation, God of Abraha?n, etc., many generations had passed since the three patriarchs lived here below ; and yet God still calls Himself their God. God cannot be the God of a being who does not exist. Therefore, in Him they live. Mark the absence of the article before the words vEKpuv and 1^(1)vtuv : a God of dead, of living beings. In Plato, it is their jiartici- pation In the idea which guarantees existence ; in the kingdom of God, it is their re- lation to God Himself. The dative avTU), to Him, implies a contrast to to us, to whom the dead are as though they were not. Their existence and activity are entirely con- centrated in their relation to God. All; not only the three patriarchs. The /w bears on the word living. " For they live, really dead though they are to us." This prompt and sublime answer filled with admiration the scribes who had so often sought this decisive word in Moses without finding it ; they cannot restrain themselves from testifying their joyful surprise. Aware from this time foith that every snare laid for Him will be the occasion for a glorious manifestation of His wis- dom, they give up this sort of attack (ver. 40). 6. The Question of Jesus : 20 : 41-44.— Vers. 41-44.* Matthew and Mark place here the question of a scribe on the great commandment of the law. This question •was suggested to the man, as we see from Mark 12 : 28. by the admiration which filled him at the answers which he had just heard. According to Matthew, he wished yet again to put the wisdom of Jesus to the proof {neipdC.uv avmv, Matt. 22 : 35). Either Luke did not know this narrative, or he omitted it because he had related one entirely similar, 10 : 25 et seq. At the close of this spiritual tournament, Jesus in His turn throws down a chal- lenge to His adversaries. Was it to give them difficulty for difficulty, entanglement for entanglement? No ; the similar question which He had put to them, ver. 4. has proved to us that Jesus was acting in a wholly different spirit. What, then, was His intention ? He had just announced His death, and pointed out the authors of it (par- able of the husbandmen). Now He was not ignorant what the charge would be which they would use against Him. He would be condemned as a blasphemer, and that for having called Himself the Son of God (John 5 : 18, 10 : 33 ; Matt. 26 : 65). And as He was not ignorant that before such a tribunal it would be impossible for Him to plead His cause in peace, He demonstrates beforehand, in presence of the whole people, and by the Old Testament, the divinity of the Messiah, thus sweeping away from the Old Testament standpoint itself the accusation of blasphemj' which was to form the pretext for His condemnation. The three Syn. have preserved, with slight differences, this remarkable saying, which, with Luke 10 :21, 22, and some * Ver. 41. A. K. M. n. 20 Mnn. add nvei after ?.eyov'7i. Ver. 42. ». B. L. R. some Mnn., avro; yap instead of Kai avToi. CHAP. XX. : 41-44. 4oD oilier passages, forms the bond of uuioii between tbu teaching of Jesus in those Gos- l)els, and all that is allirnicil of His ])ersou in lliat of Johu. If it is true that Jesus applied to Himself the title of David's Lord, with wiiicli this king addressed the ]\Ies- fciah in Ps. 110, the conseiousness of His divinity is implied in this title as certainly as in any declaration whatever of the fourth Gospel. According to Luke, it is to the scribes, according to Matthew (23:41), to \\w. Phaiisees, that the following (jueMliou is addressed. Mark names no one. Tlie three narratives differ likewise slightly in the form of (he question: "How say they?" (Luke) ; " How say the scribes ?" (Maik). In Matthew, Jesus declares to the Phari- sees at the same time the doctrine of the Davidic souship of the Messiah — very nat- ural diversities if thej' arise from a tradition which had taken various forma, but inexplicable if they are intentional, as they must be, supposing the use of one and the same written source. The Ale.x. read: "For he himself . . ;" that is to say: " there is room to put this question ; for . . ," The Bj'z. : " And (nevertheless) lie himself hath said . . ." Luke says : in the book of Psalmn ; j\Iallhew : hi/ (he Spirit; Maik : bi/ the Iloly Spirit. The non-Messianic explanations of Ps. 110 are liie masterpiece of rationalistic arbitrariness. They begin by giving to "T)"]^ the meaning : "addressed to David," instead of "composed by David," contiaiy to the uniform sense of the 7 auctoris in the titles of the Psalms, and that to make David the subject of the Psalm, which would be impossible if he were its author (Ewald). And as this interpretation turns out to be untenable, for David never wus a priest (ver. 4 : " Thou art a priest for ever"), they transfer the composition of the Psalm to the age of the Maccabees, and suppose it addressed by some autiior or other to Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maccabeus, of the priestl}^ race. This per- son, who never even bore the title of king, is the man whom an unknown flatterer is supposed, according to Hilzig, to celebrate as seated at Jehovah's right hand ! It is impossible to cast a glance at the contents of the Psalm without recognizing its di- rectly 3Iessianic bearing : 1. A Lord of David ; 2. Raised to Jehovah's Ihione, that is to say, to participation in omnipotence ; 3. Setting out from Zion on the conquest of the world, overthrowing the kings of the earth (ver. 4), judging the nations (ver. 5), and that by means of an army of priests clothed in their sacerdotal garments (ver. 3) ; 4. Himself at once a priest and a king, like Melchisedcc before Him. The law, by placing the kinglj' power in the tribe of Judah, and the priesthood in that of Le\i, had raised an insnrmouDtable barrier between those two offices. This separation David must often have felt with pain. Uzziah attempted to do away with it ; but he was immediately visited with punishment. It was reserved for the Messiah alone, at the close of the theocracy, to reproduce the sublime type of the King-Priest, pre- sented at the date of its origin in the person of Melchisedcc. Comp. on the future reunion of those two offices in the Messiah, the wonderful prophecy of Zecli. G : 9-1"). Ps. 110, besides its evidently prophetic bearing, possesses otherwise all the chaiac- teristics of David's compositions : a conciseness which is forcible and obscure ; brill- iancy and freshness in the images ; grandeur and richness of intuition. It was from the words : Sit thou at my nghl hand, that Jesus took His answer to the adjuration of the high priest in the judgment scene (Matt. 2G : G4) : " Henceforth .shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power." With what a look of severity, turned upon His adversaries at the verj^ moment when He quoted this Psalm before all the people, must He have accompanied this declaration of Jehovah to the Messiah : " until I make Thine eneoiies Thy footstool." 440 COMMEXTAKY ON ST. LUKE. To answer satisfactorily the question of ver. 44, put by Jesus, it was absolutely necessary to introduce the idea of the divinity of the Messiah, which is the soul of the entire Old Testament. Isaiah called the Hon born to us : Wonderful, mighty God (Lsa. 9 : 5). Micah had distinguished His historic birth at Bethlehem, and His pre- iiistoric birth from everlasting (5:3). Malachi had called the Messiah, " Adsuai coming to His temple" (3 : 1^. There was in the whole of the Old Testament, from the patriarchal theophanies down to the latest prophetic visions, a constant current toward the incarnation as the goal of all those i-evelations. The appearance of the Messiah presents itself more and more cleai'ly to the view of the prophets as the per- fect theophany, the fin;il coming of Jehovah. No doubt, since the exile, exclusive zeal for monotheism had diverted Jewish theology from this normal direction. This is the fact which Jesus sets before its representatives in that so profound argument of His, John 10 : 34-38. It was exactly in tiiis way that Rabbinical monotheism had become petrified and transformed into a dead theism. Jesus has taken up the broken thread of the living theology of the prophets. Such is the explanation of His present question. To resolve it, the scribes would have required to plunge again into the fresh current of the ancient theocratic aspirations : The descendant promised to David (2 Sam. 7 : 16) will be nothing less than Adonai coming to His temple (Mai. 3:1); to His human birth at Bethlehem there corresponds His eternal origm in God (Mic. 5:2): shell only is the reconciliation of the two titles son and Lord of David given to the person of the Messiah. The meaning and appropriateness of .Jesus' question appear to us equally man- ifest. It has been sought, however, to explain it otherwise. 1. Some tiiink that Jesus argue^, from the fact that Messiah is to be David's Lord, to prove that He cannot he his descendant. For it is incongruous, say they, that an ancestor should call his descendant his Lord. According to this meaning it must be admitted that Jesus Himself knew very well that He did not descend from David, although among the people they ignorantly gave Him the i'lWe son of Daind, because they took Him for the Messiah. The Christians, it is said, yielded at a later period to the popular .Jewish instinct ; and to satisfy it inve7ited the two genealogies which seem to establish the Davidic descent of Jesus (Schenkel). But, («) In this case, Jesus would have acted, as Keim observes, in a manner extremely imprudent, by Himself raising a question whicli more than any other might have prejudiced His standing with the people. " The character son of Darid could not be wanting to Him who thus publicly made it a subject of discussion"' (Keim). {h) It would not only be the forgers, the authors of the two genealogical documents preserved by Matthew and Luke, who had admitted and propagated this late error ; it would also mean the author of the Apocalypse (22 : 16 : "I am the root and offspring of David"). St. Paul himself would be guilty — he who should least of all have been inclined to make such a concession to the Judaizing party (Rom. 1:3: "of the seed of David accord- ing to the liesh ;" 2 Tim. 2 : 8 : " of the seed of David.") The whole Church must thus have connived at this falsehood, or given in to this error, and that despite of the express protestation of Jesus Himself in our passage, and without any attempt on the part of our Lord's adversaries to show up the error or falsehood of this assertion ! {c) The argument thus understood would prove far too much ; the rationalists them- selves should beware of ascribing to Jesus so gross a want of logic as it would imply. If it was dishonoring to David to call any one whatsoever of his descendants his Lord, why would it be less so for him to give this title to that descendant of Abra- ham who should be ihe Messiah ? Was not the family of David the noblest, the most illustrious of Israelitish lamilies? The reasoning of Jesus would logically end in proving that the Messiah could nit bv' an Israelite, or even a man ! (d) Jesus would thus have put Himself in contradiction to the whole Old Testament which represent- ed the Christ as being burn of the family of David (2 Sam. 7 ; Ps. 132 : 17 ; lsa. !) :5, 6). (e) Luke would also l)e in contradiction with himself, for he expressly makes ciiAi'. xx. : 41-44. 441 Jesns dei?cend from David (1 : 32. (ilt). (/) How, finally, conld Jesus have coulented Hinii^elf with prou-stiiii; so indiieclly :ii:;aiiist lliis ailiibule sjii of Duvid ascribed to iliin liy tlie nudlituiie, if lie liad known that He diil not. possess il ? '2. A(X'(ii(linu- to ]\I. Colani also, .Jesns means Uial Uie Messiah is not Um xoit of Btiiid, hut iu this |)urely ninial sense, thai He is not the heir of iiis teiDporal power ; liiat His kingdom is of a higher nature than David's earthly kingdom. T3iit, (a) It is ^vho]ly opposed to the simple and rational meaning of tiie term goii of Durid, not to )( fer it to sonship properly so called, hut to make it signify' a lempoial king like David, {b) It woidd he necessary to atlinit that the evangelist did not himself iindei- sland the meaning of this sayinii', or that he contiadicts himself — he -who puts into the mouth of tlie angel the declaiation. 1 : ;53 : " The Loid shall give unto Him tiie throne of Jlii^fiit/ur David" (comp. ver. (V.i). 3. Keim admits the natural meaning of the term Son. He places the notion of spiritual kingship not in liusteim. hut iu that of Dncid'fi Lord. "The physical descent of .lesus from David is of no moment ; His kingdom is not a lepeiition of David's. From the bosom of the heavenly glory to whieh He is niised, He beslows spiritual blessings on men. None, tiierefore, should lake olfeuce at His present poverty." But, {ti) If that is the whole problem, the problem vanishes ; for there is not the least dillieulty in adndtling that a descendant may be laised U) a height sur- passing that of his ancestor. There is no serious dillicuify, if the term Lord does not include the uoliou of a soiiMp superior to that wiiicli is' implied iu the title son of D(uid. (b) So thoroughly is this our Lord's view, that in ^laik the question put by Hun stands thus: "David calls Him his Lord; ho/n, then, is He his son?'' In Keim's sense, Jesus should have said : " David calls Him his son ; hoio, then, is He his Lord?" In the form of .Matthew (the Gospel to which Keim uniformly gives the preference, and to which alone he ascribes any real value), the true point of the ques- tion is still more clearly put : " Who.se son is'fle ?" The proi)lem is evidently, there- fore. Ihe Ha vidic sonship of Jesus, as an undeniable fact, and j-el apparently contra- dictory to another sonship implied in the term David's Lord. Finally, (r) U it was merely the spiritual natuie of His kingdom which Jesus meant to leach, as Colani and Keim allege in their two different interpretations, there were many simpler and clearer ways of doing so, than the ambiguous and complicated method which on their supposition He must have employed here. The question put by Jesus would be nothing but a play of wit, unworthy of Himself and of the solemnity of the occa- sion. 4. According to Volkmar, this whole piece is a pure invention of IMark, the prim- itive evangelist, who, by putting this question in the mouth of Jesns. skilfully answered this Rabbinical objection : Jesus did not present Himself to the world either as David's deseendaiit or as His glorious successor ; consequenti}' He cannot be the Messiah, for the O. T. makes Messiah the son of David. yUuk answered l)y Ihe mouth of Jesus : No ; it is impossible that the O. T. could have meant to make jNlessiah the son of David, for according to Ps. 110 the Messiah was to be his Lord. But, (a) It would follow therefrom, as Volkmar acknowlerlges, that in the time of Jesus none had regarded Him as the liescendant of David. Now the acclamations of the multitude on the day of Palms, the address of the woman of Canaan, that of Baitimeus, and all the other like passages, prove on the contrary, that the Davidic sonship of Jesus was a generally admitted fact, (h) How was' it that Ihesciibes never protested against the Messianic pretensions of Jesus, especially on the occasion of His trial before the Sanhedrim, if His attitude son of David had not been a notori- ous fact? (c) The Davidic descent of the family of Jesus was so well known that the Emperor Dimmit iau summoned the nephews of Jesus, the sons of Jude His biother, to Rome, under the designatiun of sons of David. {(I) St. Paul, in the year 59, positively leaches the Davidii; descent of Jesus (Rom. 1 : 3). And Mark, the /•*a?//i/?^ (according to Volkmar), denied to Jesus tiiis same sonsliip in 73 (the date, according to Volkmar, of .Mark's composition), by a reasonimr ad hoc / Still more, Luke him-self, that Paidine of the purest water, reproduces ^fark's express denial, withovit troubling himself about tlie positive teaching of Paul! Volkmar attemjits to elude the force of this argument by maintaining that Paul's saying in the Epi.-lle to the Romans is only a concession made by him to the Judeo-Chrisllau party ! To the objection taken from the genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3 : 23, et seq.), Volkmar auda- 442 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ciously replies that Luke mentions it only to set it aside (" um sie zu illudiren'"). And yet this same Luke, as we have seen, expressly asserts tliis sonship (1 : 33 and 69). \e) Let us add a last discover}'' of Yolkinar's : Matthew found it useful, in the interest of the Judeo-Cliristiau party, to accept in s[»ite of Mark the idea of the Davidic descent of Jesus as he found it contained in Luke (in that genealogical document wliich Luke had quoted only to set aside) ! Only, to glorify Jesus the more, he sul.isliluted rt^ hia owtihnnd. for the obscure branch of Nathan (Luke's genealogy), the roytd'aud much more glorious line of Solomon (Matthew's). Thus our sacred writers manipulate history to suit their interest or caprice ! Instead of the artless simplicity which moves us in their writings, we find in them device opposed to device and falsehood to falsehood ! Be it ours to stand aloof from such saturnalia of criticism ! Our interpretation, the only natural one in the context, is confirmed : (1) By those expressions in the Apocalypse : the root and offspring of David — expressions wliich correspond to those of Lord and son of this king ; (2) by Paul's twofold declaiatiou, '* mnde of tJte Heed of D(iml according to the flesh [David's srm], and declared to be the Son of God witii ])Ower since His resurrection, according to the spirit of holiness [David's Lord] ;" (o) by the silence of Jesus at the time of His condemnation. This question, put in the presence of all the people to the conscience of His judges, had answeied beforehand the accusation of blasphemy raised against Him. Such was the practical end which Jesus had in view, when with this question He dosed this decisive passage of arms. 7. The Warning against the Scribes: 20 : 45-47.— Vers. 45-47.* On the field of battle where the scribes have just been beaten, Jesus judges them. This short dis- course, like its parallel Mark 12 : 38-40, is the summary of the great discourse Matt. 23, wherein Jesus pronounced His woe on the scribes and Pharisees, and which may be called the judgment of the theocratic authorities. It is the prelude to the great eschatological discourse which follows (the judgment of Jerusalem, of the Church, and of the woild. Matt. 24 and 25). In the discourse Matt. 23, two different dis- courses are combined, of which the one is transmitted to us by Luke (11 : 37 et seq.), in a context which leaves nothing to be desired, and the other was really uttered at the time where we find it placed in the first Gospel. We have only an abridgment in Mark and Luke, either because it was found in this form in the documents from which they drew, or because, writing for Gentile readers, they deemed it unnecessary to transmit it to them in whole. QeAovtuv : who take their pleasure in. There are two ways of explaining the spoliations referred to in the words : devovring widows' Jiouses. Either they extorted considerable presents from pious women, under pretext of interceding for them — this sense would best agree with the sequel, especially with the reading npoaEvxouEvoi ; or what is more natural and piquant, by the ambiguity of the word eat up, Jesus alludes to the sumptuous feasts provided for them bj' those women, while they filled the office of directors of the conscience ; in both senses : the Tarluffes of the period. The word -npocpafTci, strictly pretext, signifies secondavih^ shoiD. The words greater damnation, include in an abridged form all the oiai, icoes! of Matthew. 8. The Widoio's Alms : 21 : 1-4. — Vers. l-4.f This piece is wanting in Matthew. "Why would he have rejected it, if, according to Holtzmann's view, he had before him the document from which the other two have taken it ? A(!Cording to Mark * Ver. 45. B. D. omit avrov after fiaOriraii. Ver. 47. D. P. R. some Mnn. Syr. J^pierique^ Vg., n pon evxouEVOi iustead of npoaEvxovrai. f Ver 2. 9 Mjj. several ]\Inn., nva koc instead of Kai -na. 9 INIjj. several Mnn. omit Kai. Ver. 4. !!*. B. L. X. 4 Mnn. Syr*^""". omit tov Qeov after <)upa. CHAP. XX. : 45-47 ; xxi. : 1-5. 443 (13 : 41^4), Jesus, probably worn out with the preceding scene, sat down. In the ccurt of the women there were placed, according to the Talrnud (tr. Schekalim, vi. 1, 5, 18), thirteen coffers with horn-shaped orifices ; whence their name rT'^ClI'* They were called }a,'ooi'A.«K(n, treasuries. This name in the sing, designated the locality as a whole where those coft'ers stood (John 8 : 20) ; Josephus, Aniici. xix. 6.1). This is perhaps the meaning in which the word is used in Maik (5:41): orei' against the treasury ; in Luke it is applied to the coffers themselves. Ae-rjv, mile : the smallest coin, probably the eighih part of the as, which was worth from six to eight centimes (fiom u halfpenny to three farthings). Two ?.eiTTd, therefore, corre- spond nearly to two centime pieces. Bengel tinely remarks on the tico : " one of Avhich she might have retained." Mark translates this expression into Roman money : " whicii make a farthing" — a slight detail unknown to Luke, and fitted to throw light on the question where the second Gospel was composed. In the sayings which Jesus addresses to His disciples, His object is to lead their minds to the true appreciation of human actions according to their quality, in opposition to the quan- lilative appreciation which forms the essence of Pharisaism. Such is the meaning of tile word : slie liath cast in more ; in reality, with those two mites she had cast in her heart. The proof {yap, ver. 4) is given in what follows : she hath cast in of her penni-y all that she had. 'Yareprjfia, deficiency, denotes what the woman liad as insufficient for her maintenance. " And of that too little, of that possession which in itself is already a delicieucy, she has kept nothing." The word voTtpnaii iu Mark denotes not what the woman had as insufficient (vaTeprjua), but her entire condition, as a state of con- tinued penury. What a contrast to the avarice for which the scribes and Pharisees are upbraided in the preceding piece ! This incident, witnessed by Jesus at such a time, resembles a flower which He comes upon all at once in the desert of official devotion, the sight and perfume of which make Him leap with joy. Such an example is the jusliticati(m of the beatitudes, Luke 6, as the preceding discourse jusliiies the ovai, woes, in the same passage. THIRD CYCLE.— CHAP. 21:5-38. TJie Pi'ophecy of the Destiniciion of Jei'usalem. This piece contains n question put by the disciples (vers. 5-7), the discourse of Jfsus in answer to their question (vers. 8-36), and a general view of the last days (vers. 37, 38). 1. The Question: vers. 5-7.*— To the preceding declaration, some of the hearers might have objected, that if only such gifts as the Avidow's had been made iu that holy place, those magnificent structures and those rich offerings would not have existed. It was doubtless some such reflection which gave lise to the following con- versation. This conversation took place, according to Matthew 24 : 1 and ]Maik 13 : 1, as .lesus left the ttmple, and on occasion of an observation made by His dis- ciples (Matthew), or by o)ie of them (Mark). According to IMatthew, this observation was certainly connected with the last words of the previous discourse (not related by- Mark and Luke), 23 : 38 : " Your house is left unto you [desolate]." How can it be * Ver. 5. ». A. D. X., avaee/iamr instead of ma^ij/jami: Ver. 6. D. L. ItP'"'l", omit a after ravra. ^ B. L. some Mun. add wrJt after ?udij or /u6ov. 444 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. asserted tliat three evauselists, copying the same documeut, or copying from one uuuLher, could differ in such a way '? In tlie answer of Jesus (ver. G;, die words, ravra u Qeupelre, these things ichich ye be- hold, may be taken interrogatively : " These are the things, are they, which ye are beholding?" Or we may take them as in apposition to aZ&oS, and the subject of iKfeOijaETcu, which is more categorical and solemn : " As to these things which ye be- hold . . . there shall not be left one stone upon another. " It was evening (Luke 5 : o7). at the moment perhaps when the setting sun was casting his last rays on the sacred edifice and the holy city. Several critics think that Luke places this discourse also in the temple. But this opinion does not agree eitlier with vers. 5 and 6, where the temple buildings are contemplated by the interlocutors, which supposes them to be at some distance from which they can view them as a whole, or with ver. 7, which conveys the notion of a private conversation between tlie disciples and the Master. According to iMark (13 : 8), Jesus was seated with I'eter, James, John, and Andrew, on the Mount of Olives, over against that wonderful scene. Here is one of those de- tails in which we recounize the recital of an eye-witness, probably Peter. Mattliew, while indicating the situation in a way similar to Mark, does not, any more than Luke, name the four disciples present. Luke and Matthew would certainly not have omitted such a circiunstance, if they had copied Mark ; as, on the contrary, Mark would not have added it at bis own hand, if he had compiled from the text of the other two. The form of the disciples' question, ver. 7, differs in Luke and ]\Iark, but tlie sense is the same : tlie question in both refers simply to the time of the destruction of the temple, and to the sign by which it siiall be announced. It is, no doubt, possible the disciples more or less confounded this catastrophe with the event of the Parousia ; bi;t the text does not say so. It is quite otherwise in Matthew ; according to him, the question bears expressly on those two points combined : tlie time of the destruction of the temple, and the sign of the coming of Christ. Luke and Matthew each give the following discourse in a manner which is in keeping with their mode of express- ing the question which gives rise to it. In Luke, this discourse contemplates exclu- sively the destruction of Jerusalem. If mention is made of the end of tlie woild (vers. 25-27), it is only in passing, and as the result of an association of ideas which will be easily explained. The Parousia in itself had been previously treated of by Luke in a special discourse called forth by a question of the Pharisees (chap. 17). On his side, Matthew combines in the following discourse the two subjects indicated in the question, as he has expressed it ; and he unites them in so intimate a way, that all attempts to separate them in the text, from Chrysostom to Ebrard and Meyer, have broken down. Comp. vers. 14 and 22, which can refer to nothing but the Parousia, while the succeeding and preceding context refer to the destruction of Jprusalem ; and on the other hand, ver. 34, which points to this latter event, while all that pre- cedes and follows this verse applies to tlie Parousia. The construction attempted by Gess is this : 1. From vers. 4-14, the general signs preceding the Parousia, that be- lievers may not be led to expect this event too soon ; 2. From vers. 15-28, tlie de- struction of the temple as a sign to be joined to those precursive signs ; 3. Vers. 29-31, the Parousia itself. But {n) this general order is far from natural. What has the destruction of the temple to do after the passage vers. 4-14, Avliieh (Gess acknow!- crlges) supposes it consummated long ago ? The piece (No. 2) on the destruction of Jerusalem is evidently out of place between the description of the signs of the I HAT. \\i. : ('»-T. 44."} Paroiisia (No. 1) and that of tlie Paroiisia itself (No. 3). (b) This division cannot be carried out into detail : ver. 23, which Goss is obliged to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, can apply only to the Parousia. And the " all these things" of ver. 34. which he restricts to the destruction of Jerusalem and the first preaching of the gos- pel to the Gentiles, as first signs of the Parousia, has evidently a much wider scope in the evautrelist's view. It must therefore be admitted, either that Jesus Himself confounded the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, and that those two events formed, in His judgment, one and the same catastropiie, or tiiat two distinct discourses uttered by Him ou two different occasions appear in Matthew united in one. Different expedients have been used to save the accuracy of Matthew's account, •without prejudice to the Saviour's infidlibility. It has been supposed that the de- scription of tlie Parousia, Matt. 34, refers exclusively to the invisible return of Jesus to destro\' Jerusalem. This explanation is incompatible with the text, especially vers. 29-31. It has also been alleged that in the prophetic perspective the final coming of the Messiah appeared to the view of Jesus as in immediate c.innection with His re- turn to judge Israel. But {a) this hypothesis docs not at all attain the end which its authors propose, that of saving our Lord's infallibility, {b) Jesus could not affirm liere whut He elsewhere declares that He does not know (Mark 13 : 32), the time of the Parousia. Even after His resurrection He still refuses to give an answer ou this l)oint. which is reserved by the Father in His own power (Acts 1 : 6, 7). (c) We can go fmtiier, and show that Jesus had a quite opposite view to that of the nearness of llis return. While He announces the destruction of Jerusalem as an event to be wit- nessed by the contemporary generation. He speaks of the Parousia as one which is possibly yet very remote. Consider the expression, EAevaovTcu iifiipai, days tcUl come (Luke 17 : 22). and the parable of the widow, the meaning of which is, that God will seem to the Church an uujust judge, who for a protracted time refuses to liear her, so that during this time of waiting the faith of many shall give way (18 : 1 et seq.) The Master is to return ; but perhaps it will nut be till the second, or the third watch, or even till the morning, that He will come (Mark 13 : 35 ; Luke 13 : 38). Tiie great distance at which the capital lies (Luke 10 : 12) can signify nothing else th:m the considerable space of time which will elapsrC between the departure of Jesiis and His return. In Matt. 25 : 5 the bridegroom tarries much longer than the bridal procession expected ; 24:48, the unfaithful servant strengthens liimself in his evil- doing by the reflection that his Lord delayeth His coming. Malt. 24 : 14, the gospel is to be preached in all the world and to all the Gentiles (Mark 16 : 15, to every creature) : and Matt. 26 : 13, Mary's act is to be published in the whole world before Jesus shall return. In fine, the gospel shall transform humanity not by a magical process, but by slow and profound working, like that of leaven in dough. The king- dom of God will grow on the earth like a tree which proceeds from an impercejitible seed, and which serves in its maturity to shelter the birds of heaven. And Jesus, who knew human nature so deeply, could have imagined that such a work could have been accomplished in less than forty years! Who can admit it? The confusion which prevails in this whole discouise, Matt. 24 (as well as in Mark 13), and wiiich distinguishes it from the two distinct discourses of Luke, nuist therefore be ascribed not to Jesus, but to the account which Matthew used as the basis of his recital. This confusion in Matthew is probably closely connected with the Judeo-Chiistian point of view, under the sway of which primitive tradition took its form. In the prophets, the drama of the last days, which closes theeschatological perspective, em- 446 COMMEISTTARY OX ST. LUKE. braces as two events nearly following one another, the judgment whereby Israel is purified by means of tlie Gentiles, and the punishment of tlie Gentiles by Jehovah. Preoccupied with this view, the hearers of Jesus easily ovei looked in His discourses certain transitions which reserved the interval betweeu those two events usually com- bined in the O. T. ; and that so much the more, as, on looking at it closely, the de- struction of Jerusalem is really the tirst act of the world's judgment and of the end of the days. The harvest of an early tree announces aad inaugurates the general harvest ; so the judgment of Jerusalem is the prelude and even the first act of the judgment of humanity. *rhe Jew has priority in judgment, because he had priority cf grace (conip. the two corresponding npuTov, Rom. 2 . 9, 10). With the judgment on Jerusalem, the hour of the world's judgment has really struck. The present epoch is due to a suspension of the judgment already begun — a suspension the aim of which is to make way for the time of grace which is to be granted to the Gentiles {naipol iQvo)v, the times of the Oentilea). The close combination of the destruction of Jerusa- lem witli the end of the world in Matthew, though containing an error in a chrono- logical point of view, rests on a moral idea which is profoundly true. Thus everything authorizes us to give the preference to Luke's account. 1. Mat- thew's constant habit of grouping together in one, materials belonging to different dis- courses ; 2. The precise historical situation which gave rise to the special discourse of chap. 17 on the coming of Christ, and which cannot be an invention of Luke ; 3. The established fact, that the confusion which marks the discourseof Matthew was foreign to the mind of Jesus ; 4. Finally, we have a positive witness to the accuracy of Luke ; that is Mark. For though his great eschatological discourse (chap. 13) presents the same confusion as that of Matthew in the question of the disciples Avhich calls it forth, it is completely at one with Luke, and, like him, mentions only one subject, the destruction of Jerusalem. Might ]\Iark have taken the form of his question from Luke, and that of the dis- course from Matthew, as Bleek alleges ? But the incongruity to which such a course would have je.l would be unworthy of a serious writer. Besides, the form of the question is not the same iu Mark as in Luke. Finally, the original details which we have pointed out in Mark, as well as those special and precise details with which his narrative abounds from the day of the entry into Jerusalem onwaid, do not admit of tbis supposition. No more can Luke have taken his question from Mark. He would have borrowed at the same time the details peculiar to Mark which he wants, and the form of the question is too well adapted in his Gospel to the contents of the discourse to admit of this supposition. It must therefore be concluded, that if in the compila- tion of tlie discourse Mark came under the influence of the tradition to which Mat- thew's form is due, the form of the question in his Gospel nevertheless remains as a very sti iking trace of the accuracy of Luke's account. The form of the question in Matthew must have been modified to suit the contents of the discourse ; and thus it is that it has lost its original unity and precision, which are preserved in the other two evangelists. 2. The Discourse : vers. 8-36. — The four points treated by Jesus are : Ist. The apparent signs, which must not be mistaken for true signs (vers. 8-19) ; 2c?. The true sign, and the destruction of Jerusalem which will immediately follow it, with the time of the Gentiles which will be connected with it (vers. 20-24) ; M. The Parnusia, which will bring this period to an end (vers. 25-27) ; iih. The practical application (vers. 28-36). ciiAi'. x.\i. : 8-11). 447 Vers. 8-19.* The Signs irhich are not such. — " But He sjiid, Take heed that j'c be not deceived ; fur many shall come in my name, saying, 1 am he, and the time draw- eth near. Go ye nut therefore after them. 9. And when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not territied ; for these things must tirst come to pass ; but the end conieth not so speedily. 10. Then said He unto them. Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11. And great cartluiuakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences, as well as great and terrible signs from heaven. 12. But above all, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, bringing you before kings and rulers for my name's sake. Vo. But it shall turn to j'ou for a testimony. 14. Settle it, there- fore, in your hearts, not to meditate before what j'e shall answer. 15. Fori will give you -A mouth and wisdom, which all j'our adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. 16. And ya shall be betrayed even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends ; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death ; 17. And ya shall be hated of all for my name's sake ; 18. And there shall not an hair of your head perish. 19. In your patience save ye your lives." The sign to which the question of the apostle refers is not indicated till vor. 20. The signs vers. 8-19 are enumerated solel}' to put believers on their guard against the decisive value which they might be led to ascribe to them. The vulgar are inclined to look on certain extraordinary events in nature or society as the evidences of some approaching catastrophe. ]\Iauy events of this kind will happen, Jesus means to say, but without your being warranted yet to con- clude that the great event is near, and so to take measures precipitately. The seduc- tion of which ^Matthew and Mark speak is that which shall be practiced by the false Messiahs. The meaning is probably the same in Luke (}«/')• Historj-, it is true, does not attest the presence of false Messiahs before the destruction of Jerusalem. And those who are most embarrassed by this fact are just our modern critics, who see in this discourse nothing but a prophecy ab eventu. They suppose that the author alludes to such men as Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian (Acts 21), Theudas, and others, prudentl)' described b}' Josephus as mere heads of parties, but who really put forth ^lessianic pretensions. This assertion is hard to prove. For our part, who see in this discourse a real prophecy, we think that Jesus meant to put believers on their guard against false teachers, such as Simon the magician, of whom there ma}^ have been a great number at this period, though he is the only one of whom profane his- tory speaks. The /jltj Tzroridijvai, not to let themselves be terrified (ver. 9), refers to the temptation to a premature emigration. Conip. the opposite ver. 21. Further, it must not be concluded from the political convulsions which shall shake the East that the destruction of Jerusalem is now near. Jesus had uttered in substance His whole thought in those few words ; and He m'ght have passed immediately to the conliast orav 6e, but when (ver. 20). Yet He develops the same idea more at length, vers. 10-19 Hence the words in which Luke expressly resumes his report • Then said he vnto them (ver. 10). This passage, vers. 10-19, might therefore have been luseited here by Luke as a fragment borrowed from * Ver. 8. ». B. D. L. X. 2 T^Inn. Vss. omit ovv. Ver. 11. ». B. L. place xai be- fore Mara ronoi'i. Ver. 12. i^. B. D. L. 3 Mnn., anayoitevoDi instead of ayofie- vovi. Ver. 14. The Mss. are divided between Of^^e and hEzs. between £?? rai nap. Biai (T. R.) and tv rati Map^iaii (Alex.). Ver. lo. ii. B. L. 5 Mnn., ayri6r?fyai rj arremeiv instead of ayrencEiv uude avrtdrrfvai. Ver. 18. Marcinn omitted this verse. Ver. 19. A. B. some Mnu. Syr. It. Vg., 7. D., Eaoirai. instead of ecrai. Ale.x. It. Vg., 7?,to^S instead of VXOvarj'iiT. R., liy/.). 452 COMMEKTAKY ON ST. LUKE. security, alarming symptoms Tvill all at once proclaim one of those universal revolu- tions through which our earth has more than once passed. Like a ship creaking in every tiraljer at the moment of its going to pieces, the globe which we inhabit (?} o'lKoviifi-tf), and our whole solar system, shall undeigouuusualcomiijotions. The mov- ing forces {(h^djiELi), legular in their action till then, sha 1 be as it were set free from their laws by an unknown power ; and at the end of this violent but short distress, the world shall see Him appear whose coming shall be like the lightning which shines from one end of heaven to the other (17 : 24). The cloud is heie, as almost every- where in Scripture, the symbol of judgment. The galhering of t-he elect, placed here by Matthew and Mark, is mentioned by St. Paul, 1 Thess. 4 : 1(7, 17, 2 Thess, 2 : 1, where the word emawayuyij reminds us of the EniavvdyEiv of the two evangelists. Is it not a proof of the falsity of that style of criticism which seeks to explain every differeace in text between the Syn. by ascribing to them opposite points of view? Ver. 27. It is not said that the Lord shall return to the earth to lemain there. This coming can be only a momentary appearance, destined to effect the resurrection of the faithful and the ascension of the entire Church (1 Cor. 15 : 23 ; Luke 17 : 31-35 ; 1 Thess. 4 : 16, 17). Vers. 28-3G.* The A])plication. — " When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads ; for your redemption draweth nigh. 29. And He spake to them a parable : Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees ; SO. When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at band. 31. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that tlie kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. 33. Heaven and earth shall pass away ; but my words shall not pass away. 34. But take heed to j'ourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35. For as a snare it shall come on all thein that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36. AVatch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." Jesus draws practical conclusions from the whole of the preceding discourse : 1. In respect of hope, vers. 28-33 ; 2. In respect of watch- fulness, vers. 34-36. Vers. 28-33. It might be thought that after this saying relative to the Parousia (vers. 26, 27), which is strictly speaking a digression, Jesus returns to the principal topic of this discourse, the destruction of Jerusalem. The expression : your deliver- ance, would then denote the emancipation of the Judeo- Christian Church by the de- struction of the persecuting Jewish power. The coming of the Mngdom of God, ver. 31, would refer to the propagation of the gospel among the Gentiles ; and ver. 32 : this generation shall not pass aicay, would thus indicate quite naturally the date of tlie destruction of Jerusalem. Yet the fact of the Parousia, once mentioned, is too solemn to be treated as a purely accessory idea. Hhckingdomof God seems, therefore, neces- sarily to denote here rather the final establis-hmentof the Messianic kingdom ; and the deliverance (ver. 28) should be applied to the definitive emancipation of the Church by the return of the Lord (the deliverance of the widow, 18 : 1-8). Of yourselves, ver. * Ver. 33. !!^ B. D. L. 3 Mnn., Trape'/.cvanvTai instead of ■:rape7Siuai (which is taken from IVIatthew and ]\Iark). Ver. 35. !*. B. D., (^e instead of ow. Ver. 36. J*. B. L. X. 7 Mnn., KaTiaxv(yJi~£ instead of Kara^iuOrjTe. 15 M.jj. omit ravra. (11 A I'. XXI. : x'S-ui;. 453 SO : " It is not necessary Ihut au oflicial proclumation announce to (lie inhabitants of llie world that siinmier is near !" It isaboutlhe niiddluof March that fruits begin to .show themselves ou the old branches of the spring tig-tree ; they reach matuiitv be- fore the shooting of the leaves. The lirst harvest is gathered iu June (Keim, iii. p. 206). Can ver. 03 refer still to the Parousia? But in that case, how are we to explain the exiiressiou : thin generation? Jerome understood by it the human species, Origen and Clu ysostom the Christian Chur(,'h. These explanations are now regarded as forced. That of Dorner and Riggeubach, who take it to mean the Jewish people (applying to their conversion the image of the fig-tree flourishing again, vers. 29, 30), is not much more natural. Iu this context, where we have to do with a chronolog- ical determination (" is nigh," ver. 31), the meaning of yeved must be temporal. Be- sides, we ha%'e the authentic commentary ou this saying in Luke 11 : 50, 51, where Jesus declares that it is the very generation which is to shed Ilis blood and that of His m(?ssengers, wiiich must suffer, besides, the punishment of all the innocent blood shed since that of Abel down to this last. It is not less false to give to this expres- sion, with the Tiibingen school, such an extension that it embraces a period of 70 j'ears (Hilgenfeld), or even of a century (Volkmar) : the duration of a man's life. It has not this meaning among the ancients. In Herod. (2. 142, 7. 171), Ileraclitus, and Thuc (1. 14), it denotes a space of from 30 to 40 j'ears. A century counts three gen- erations. The saj'ing of Irenteus respecting the composition ol the Apocalypse, wherein he declares " that this vision was seen not long before his epoch, almost within the time of our generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign," does not at all prove the contrary, as Volkmar alleges ; for Irenteus says expressly : cxeidi; almmt, well aware that he is extending the reach of the term generation beyond its ordinary applicatiou. Au impartial exegesis, therefore, leaves no doubt that this say- ing fixes the date of the near destruction of Jerusalem at least the third of a century after the ministry of Jesus. The meaning is : " The generation v/hich shall shed Ibis blood shall not pass away till God refj^uire it" (in opposition to all the blood of the ancients which has remained so long unavenged). JIuvto, all thi/igs, refers to all those events precursive of that cata.strophe which are enumerated vens. 8-19, and to the catastrophe itself (20-24). The position of this saying immediately after the preceding verses relative to the Parousia, seems to be in Luke a faint evidence of the influence exercised by that confusion which reigns throughout the whole dis'course as related by the other two Syn. There is nothing in that to surprise us. Would not the omis- siou of some word of transition, or the simple displacing of some sentence, sulfice to produce this effect ? And how many cases of simihir transpositions or omissions are to be met with in our Syn. ? But if this observation is well founded, it proves that the Gospel of Luke was not composed, anj' more than the other two, after the de- struction of Jerusalem. Heai-en and earth (ver. 33) are contrasted with those magnificent structures which His disciples would have Him to admire (ver. 5) : Here is a very dilTerent overthrow from that which thej'^ liad so much difficulty in believing. This universe, this temple made by the hand of God, passethaway ; one thing remains : the threats aud promises of the Master who is speaking to them. Vers. 34-36. Here, as in chap. 12, the life of the disciples is apparently to be pro- longed till the Parousia. The reason is, that that period is ever to remain the point ou which the btliever's heart should fix (12 • 36) ; and if, by all the geneiatious which 454 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. precede the last, this expectation is not realized in its visible form, it has its truth, nevertheless, in the fact of death, that constant individual returning of Jesus which prepares for His general and final advent. The warning ver. 34 refers to the danger of slumbering, arising from the state of the world in the last times, 17 :2G-30. On the last words of the verse, comp. 1 Thcss. 5 : 1-7. Ver. 35. The image is that of a net which all at once incloses a covey of birds peacefully settled in a field. To watch (ver. 36) is the emblem of constant expectation. With expectation prayer is naturally conjoined under tlie influence of that grave feeling which is produced by the imminence of the expected advent. The word cra^j/'/vai, tosUind uprirjlit, indicates the solemnity of the event. A diviue power will be needed, if we are not to sink before the Son of man in His glory, and be forced to exclaim : " Mountains, fall on us !" "With this discourse before it, the embarrassment of rationalism is great. Hov/ explain the announcement of tlie destruction of Jerusalem, if there aie no prophecies? that of the Parousia, if .Jesus is but a sinful man like ourselves (not to say, with Renau, a fanatic) ? Baur and Strauss say : Under the influence of Daniel's extrava- gant sayings, Jesus could easily predict His return ; but He could not announce the destruction of Jerusalem. Hase and Schenkel say : Jesus, as a good politician, might we 1 foresee and predict the liestruction of the temple, but (and this is also M. Colani's opniioii) itisiinp()ssit)le to m;.keafanatic of Him announcing Hisielurn. Each writer thus determines a prioj-ithe result of his criticism, according to his own dogmatic con- viction. It is perfectly useless to discuss the matter on such bases. Keim recognizes the indisputable historical realil}'' of the announcement of tiie destruction of Jerusalem, on the ground of Matt. 26 : GO (the false witnesses), and of Acts G -.11-14 (Stephen), and tlie truth of the promise of the Parousia as well , the .saying Mark 13 . 33 is a proof of it which cannot be evaded. Nevertheless, agreeing in part with M. Colani. he rc- gaids the disc (urse Matt. 24 as the composition of an author much later than the ministry of Jesus, who has improved upon some actual words of His. This apoca- lyptic poem, Jewish accordiug to Weizi-iicker, Judeo-Cliristian according to Colani and Keim, was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem. The following are our objections to tliis hj-potliesis : 1. It is not in this discourse only that Jesus announces the catastrophe of Israel, and appends the extraordinary assertion of His return. On the destruction of Jerusalem, read asain Matt. 21 : 44, Luke 19 : 42-44, Mark 11 : 14, 20, 12 : 9, etc. etc. ; and on the Parousia, Matt. 7 : 21-23, 19 : 28, 2o : 31-4G, 26 : G8, 64, Luke 9 : 26 and parall., 13 : 23-2T, etc. How could those numerous declarations which we flnd scattered over dilTereut parts of our Syn. Go~-pels, be all borrowed from Ibis alleged apocalyptic poem ? 2. How could a private composition have obtained such general authority, under the very eyes of the apos- tles or their first disciples, that it found admission into our three Syn. Gospels as an authentic saying of our Lord ? Was ever a pure poem transformed into an exact and solemn discourse, such as that expressly put by our three evangelists at this deter- minate historical time iuto the mouth of Jesus ? Such a hypothesis is nothing else than a stroke of desperation. Volkraar finds in this discourse, as everywhere, the result of the miserable in- trigues of tlie Christian parties. .John the aposile had published in 68 the great rev- erie of the Apocalypse. He still hoped for the preservation of the temple (Rev. 'il :1 et seq.), which proves that he had never heard his Master announce its destruc- tion. Five years later, in 73, ]\Iark composes another Apocalypse, intended to rectify the former. He elaborates it from the Pauline standpoint ; he rejects its loo precise dates, and the details which had been hazarded, but which the event had proved false ; the fixing, e.g., of the three years and a half which were to extend to the Parousia, a date for which he prudently substitutes the saying : " As to that daj'. even I myself know it not," etc. Such is the origin of the great eschatological discourse in the S3''n., the most ancient monument of which is Mark 13. But, 1. This alleged dog- matic contrast between the discourse Mark 13 and the Apocalypse exists only in the mind of V'llkmar ; the latter celebrates the conversion of the Gentiles with the same enthusiasm as the former foretells it. 2. The composition of the Apocalypse in 68 is ciiAr. x\i. : ;]t)-;?8. 455 an hypothesis, the falsehood of which we have, as we tliiuk, dcmoustraletl.* o. It is \itterly false that the Apocalypse teaches the preservation of the teni[>le of .lerusaleni. The clescri[)tii)U 11 : 1 ct te^ omit Kai E^u>no7.oyr)r!EV. CHAP. XXII. : 1-38. 409 moment when lie entered into hhn so as to take entire possession of his will (13 : 27). Aecorciing to tlie bihiical view, tliis intervenlion of Satan did not at all exclude the liberty of Judas. This diNci[jle, in joining the service of Jesus, had not taken care to deny his own life, as Jesus so often wrged His own to do. Jesus, instead of be- coiniug the end to his heart, had remained the means. And now, when he saw things terminal ing in a result entirely opposed to that with which he had ambitiously llat- tered himself, he wished at least to try to benefit by the false i)Ositiou into which he h;id put himself with his nation, and to use his advantages as a disciple in order to regain the favor of the rulers with whom he had bioken. The thirty' pieces of silver ceilainly playeii onl}' a secondary part in his treachery, although this part was real nolwithslanding ; for the e]iilhet thief (John 13 : G) is given to him with the view of pulling his habitual conduct in connection with this final act. Matthew and j\[ark insert here the narrative of the fe;:st at Bethany, though it must have taken place some days before (John). The reason for this inseition is an association of ideas aris- ing from the moral relation between these two paiticulars in which the avarice of Judas showed itself. The arpa-riyoi, captains (ver. 4), are the heads of the soldiery charged with keeping guard over the temple (Acts 4 : 1). There was a positive con- tract (///t-y C(>r('/<(n//t'(/, he promised). *A rep, not at a distance from the multitude, but without a multitude ; that is to say, without an}- flocking together produced by the occasion. This wholl}' unexpected olTer determined the Sanhediim to act before lather than after the feast. But in order to that, it was necessary to make hasto ; the last moment had come. II. The Last Supjier : 23 : 7-38.— We find ourselves here face to face with a diffi- culty which, since the second century of the Church, has ariested the attentive readers of the Scriptures. As it was on the 14th JN'isan, in the afternoon, that the Paschal lamb was sacrificed, that it might be eaten the evening of the same day, it has been customary to take the time designated by the woids, ver. 7, Then came the day of unleavened tread when the 2\issorer must be killed (comp. Matthew and Mark), as falling on the morning of that 14th day ; from which it would follow that the Supper, related ver. 14, et seq., took place the evening between the l-ilh and loth. This view seems to be confirmed by the parallels Matt. 26 : 17, Mark 14 : 12, where the disciples (not Jesus, as in Luke) take the initiative in the steps needed for the Supper If such was the fact, it appeared that the apostles could not have been occupied with the matter till the morning of the 14th. But thereby the explanation came into con- flict with John, who seems to say in a considerable number of passages that Jesus was crncified on the afternoon of the 14tli, at the time when they were slaying the lamb in the tempi*, which necessarily supposes that the last Supper of Jesus with His disciples took place the evening between the 13lh and 14th, the eve before that on which Israel celebrated the Paschal Supper, and not the evening between the 14th and loth. This seeming contradiction does not bear on the day of {\iQiceek on wiiich Jesus was crucified. Accordinu' to our four Gospels, this day wa*5 indisputably Friday. The difference relates merely to the day of the month, but on that very accnunt. also, to the relation between the last Supper of Jesus at which He instituted the tucharist, and the Paschal feast of that year. Many commentators— Wieseler, Hofmann, Lichfcnsttin. Tholuck, Riggenbach— think that they can identify the meaning of John's passages with the idea which at first sight appears to be that of the synopti(;al narrative ; Jesus, according to John as according to the Syn.. cele- brated His last Supper on the evening of the 14th, and instituted the Holy Supper 460 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. while celebrating Ihe Passover conjoinlly with the whole people. We have explained in our " Commentaire sur I'evangile de Jean" the reasons which appear to us to ren- der this soltil ion impossible.* The arguments advanced since then by the learned Catholic theologian Langen, and bj' the eminent philologist Biiumlein, have not changed our conviction. f The meaning which presents itself first to the mind on reading John's Gospel, is and remains the only possible one, exegetically speaking. But it may and should be asked in return, What is the true meaning of the synoptical Durrative, and its relation to John's account thus understood? Such is the point which we proceed to examine as we study more closely the text of Luke. The narrative of Luke embraces : 1. The preparation for the feast (vers. 7-13) ; 2. The feast itself (vers. 14-23) ; 3. The conversations which followed the feast (vers. 24-38.) 1. 17ie Preparations: vers. 7-13. t — There is a marked difference between the ^/.9f, came, of ver. 7, and the 7/y-yi(£, drew nigh, of ver. 1. The word dreic nigh placed us one or two days before the Passover ; the word came denotes the beginning of the day on which the lamb was killed, the 14th. Is this time, as is ordinarily supposed, the morning of the 14th ? But after the Jewish mode of reckoning, the 14lh began at even, about six o'clock. The whole night between the 13th and Mth, in our lan- guage, belonged to the I4tli. How, then, could the word came apply to a time when the entire first half of the day was already past ? The came of ver. 7 seems to us, therefore, to denote what in our language we should call the evening of the 13th (among the Jews the time of transition from the 13lh to the 14lh, from four to six o'clock). The expressions of Matthew and Mark, vvithout being so precise, do not necessarily lead to a differ; nt meaning. Indeed, the expression of Mark, ver. 12, does not signify, " at the time when they killed . . ." but " the day when they . . ." But may we place on the 13th, in the evening, the command of Jesus to His two disciples to prepare the feast for the morrow ? That is not only possible, but necessary. On the morning of the 14th it would have been too late to think of pro- * See at 13 : 1, 18 . 28, 19 : 14, and the special dissertation, t. ii. pp. 629-036. f Langen, " Die letzten Lebenstage Jesu," 1864 ; Baumlein, " Commentar liber das Epaugeiium Juhaunis," 1863. Both apply the exj^ression before the feast of Pass- over (John, 13 : 1), to the evening of the lllli, making the feast of Passover, projieily so called, begin on the morning of the IStli. Langen justifies this way of speaking by Deut. 16 : 6, where he translates : " At the rising of the sun (instead of at the going down of the sun) is the feast of the coming forth out of Egypt." This tians- lation is contrary to the analogy of Gen. 28 : 11, etc. The passage of Jnsephus wiiich he adds (Aniiii. iii. 10. 5) has as little force. We think that we have demnnstialcd Jiovv insufficient is Deut. 16 : 2 to justify that interpietation of John 18 : 28 which would reduce the meaning of the phrase, to eai the Passover, to the idea of eating Ihe unleavened bread and the sacrificial viands of the Paschal week. As to John 19 : 14, there is no doubt that, as Langen proves, the N. T. (Mark 15 -.42), tlie Talmud, and the Fathers use the term napaoKevij, preparation, to denote Friday as the weekly prep- aration for the Sabbath, and that, conye(jv), the upper room, which sometimes occupies a part of the terrace of the house. All furnished : provided with the necessary divans and tables (the tridi- nirm, in the shape of a horseshoe). Matthew (26 : 18) has preserved to us, in the message of Jesus to the master of the hcuse, a saying which deserves to be weighed : " My lime is at hand ; let me keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples." How does the first of those two prop- ositions form a ground for the request implied in the second ? Commentators have seen in the first an appeal to the owner's sensibilities : I am about to die ; grant mo this last service Ewald somewhat differently : Soon I shall be in uiy glory, and I shall be able to requite thee for this service. These explanations are far-fetched. We can explain the thought of Jesus, if those words express the necessity under which He finds Himself laid, by the nearness of His death, to anticipate the celebration of the Passover : " My death is near ; to-morrow it will be too late for me to keep the Passover ; let me celebrat.^ it at thy house [this evening] with my disciples." Ilocu in not the att. fut. (Bleek), but the present (Winer) : " Let me keep it immediately.'" It was a call to the owner instantly to prepare the room, and everything which was nec- essary for the feast. The two disciples were to make those preparations in conjunc- tion with the host. No doubt the lamb could not be slain in the temple ; but could Jesus, being excommunicated with all His adherents, and already even laid under sentence of arrest by the Sanhedrim (John 11 : 53-57), have had His lamb slain on the morrow in the legal form ? That is far from probable. Jesus is about to substitute the uew Passover for the old. How should He not have the right to free Himself from the letter of the ordinance ? all the more that, according to the original institu- tion, every father was required himself to slay the Paschal lamb In his dwelling. He freed Himself in like manner from the law as to the day. He is forced, indeed, to do so, if He wishes Hmiself to substitute the new feast for the old. The decision of the Sanhedrim to put Him to death before the feast (]\Iatt. 26 : 5), leaves Him no choice. This entire state of things agrees with the expression which John uses : dei-KVov yevofiivov, a svj)pe7' having taken place (13 : 3). 2. 27ie Sujyp&r : vers. 14-23. — There are three elements which form the material of this narrative in the three Syn. : 1st. The expression of the personal feelings of Jesus. AVith this Luke begins, and JMatthew and Mark close. 2d. The institution of the Holy Supper. It forms the centre of the narrative in the three Syn. od. Tho disclosure of the betrayal, and the indication ol the traitor. With this Luke ends, and 'Jalthew and Mark begin. It is easy to see how deeply the facts themselves were impressed on the memory of the witnesses, but how secondary the interest was which tradition attached to chronological order. The myth, on the contrary, would have created the whole of a piece, and the result would be wholly different. Luke's order appears preferable. It is natural for Jesus to begin by giving utterance to His per- s;)nal impressions, vers. 15-18. With the painful feeling of approaching separation there is connected, by an easily understood bond, the institution of the Holy Supper, that sign which is in a way to perpetuate Christ's visible presence in the midst of His own after His departure, vers. 19, 20. Finally, the view of the close communion condage. These were eaten after being dipped in a reddish sweat sauoe {Cliaroseth), made of almonds, nuts, tigs, and other fruits ; commemorating, it is said, by its color the hard labor of brick-making im- posed on the Israelites, and by its taste, the divine alleviations which Jehovah mingles with the miseries of His people. Second step : The father circulates a second cup, and then explains, probably in a more or less fixed liturgical form, tiie meaning of the feast, and of the rites by which it is distinguished. Third step : The father takes two unleavened loaves (cakes), breaks one of them, and places the pieces of it on the other. Then, uttering a thanksgiving, he takes one of the pieces, dips it in the sauce, and eats it, taking with it a piece of the Paschal Lamb, along with bit- ter herl)s. Each one follows his example. This is the feast properlj'- so called. The liimb forms the principal dish. The conversation is free. It closes with the distri- buliou of a third cup, called the cup of Messing, because it was accompanied with the giving of thanks by the father of the house. Fourth step : The father distributes a fourth cup ; then the Ilalld is sung (Ps. 113-118). Sometimes the father added a fifth cup, which w-as accomi)anied with the singing of the great Ilallel (Ps. 120-137 ; ac- cording to others, 13o-137 ; according to Delitzsch, Ps. 136).* Must it be held, with Langen, tiiat Jesus began by celebrating the entire Jewish ceremon}', in order to connect wiih it thereafter the Christian Holy Supper ; or did lie transform, as lie went along, the Jewish supper in such a way as to convert it into the sacred Supper of the X. T. ? This second viev/ seems to us the on]}-- tenable one. For, 1. It was during the course of the feast, eoOlovtuv avTuv (^lalthew and Mark), and not after the fea-st (as Luke says in speaking of the only cup), that the bread of the Holy Supper must have been distributed. 3. The singing of the hymn spoken of by Mark and ]Malthew can only be that of the Hallel, and it followed the institution of the Holy Supper. Int. Vers. 14-18.t Jesus opens the feast by communicating to the disciples His * This ritual is very variously described by those who have given attention to the subject. We have followed the account of Langen, p. 147 et seq, f Ver. 14. !** B. D. Vss. omit (JoxSe/ca. Ver. 16. 6 Mjj. omit ovKen. ». B. C. L. 5 ]Mnn. Vss., nvro insleafl of f^ avrov. Ver. 17. 6 iljj. 25 Mnu. add to before iroTTifjiov (taken from ver. 20). i*" B. C. L. M. 8 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg., etc eavTovi instead of eavToir. Ver. IS. 5 Mjj. 15 Mnn. omit otc. 6 Mjj. 15 Mnn. add ano tov vvi> after via. !*. B. F. L. 10 Mnn., ov instead of otuv. 464 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. present impressions. Tbis first step corresponds to the first of the Paschal feast. TJie hour (ver. 14) is that which He had iadicaled to His disciples, and which probably coincided with the usual hour of the sacred feast. According to the law (Ex. 13 : 17), the Passover should have been eaten standing. But custom had introduced a change in this particular. Some Rabbins pretend to justify this deviation, by sayiug tliat to stand is the posture of a slave ; that, once restored to liberty by the gumg forth from Egi'pt, Israel was called to eat sitting. The explanation is ingenious, but devised after the fact. The real reason was, that the feast had gradually taken larger pro- portions. There is in the first sayiug of Jesus, which Luke alone has preserved (ver. 15), a mixture of profound joy and sorrow. Jesus is glad that He can celebrate this holy feast once more, which He has determined by His own instrumenlalily to trans- form into a permanent memorial of His person and woik ; but on the other hand, it is His last Passover here below. ""ETviOvfxla eiTEOvfirjaa, a frequent form in the LXX., corresponding to the Hebrew construction of the inf. absolute with the finite verb. It is a sort of reduplication of the verbal idea. Jesus, no doubt, alludes to all the meas- ures which He has required to take to secure the joy of those quiet hours despite the treachery of His disciple. Could the expression this Pasfover possibly denote a feast at which the Paschal lamb was wanting, and which was only distmguish- ed from ordinary suppers by unleavened bread? ISuch is the view of Caspaii and Andreae, and the view which 1 myself maintained (" Comment, sur Jean," t. ii. p. 684) Indeed the number of lambs or kids might turn out to be in- sufficient, and strangers find themselves in the dilemma cither of celebrating the feast without a lamb, or not celebrating the Passover at all. Thus in " Misch- nah Pesachim" 10 there is express mention of a Paschal Supper without a lamb, and at which the unleavened bread is alone indispensable. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent us from holding that, as we have said, the two disciples prepared the lamb in a strictly private manner. It would be dillicuU to explain Luke's ex- pression, to eat this Passover, without the smallest reference to the lamb at this feast. By the future Passover in the kingdom of God (ver. 16) miglit be understood the Holy Supper as it is celebiated in the Church. But the expression, " 1 will not any more eat thereof until ..." and the parall. ver. 18, do not admit of this spirit ualistic interpretation. Jesus means to speak of a new banquet which shall take place after the consummation of all things. The Holy Supper is the bond of union between the Israelitish and typical Passover, which was reaching its goal, and the heavenly and divine feast, which was yet in the distant future. Does not the spiriiital salva- tion, of which the Supper is the memorial, form iu reality the transition from the ex- ternal deliverance of Israel to that salvation at once spiritual and eito-na? which awaits the glorified Church ? After this simple and touching introduction. Jesus, in conformity with the received custom, passed the first cup (ver. 17), accompanying it with a thanksgiving, in which He no doubt paraphrased freely the invocation uttered at the opening of the feast bv the father of the house, and which we have quoted above. Ae5a>fvoS, receiving], seems to indicate that He took the cup from the hands of one of the nttendanls who held it out to Him (after having filled it). The distribution (f5(n//ep. ■»i'hich has been so much insisted on, it was not uttered by Jesus, who must have sa'd in Aramaic, Ilnr/fjouschmi, " This here [behold] my body I" The exact meaning of Ihe notion of beinrj, whicli logically connects this subject with this altiibute, can only be determined b\' the context. Is the point in qiieslion an identity of substance, physical or spiritual, or n relation purely symbolical ? From the exegetical point of view, if what ^^•e have said above about the real point of comparison is well founded, it would be difficult to avoid the latter conclusion. It is confirmed by the meaning of the TovTo which follows : " Do this in remembrance of me." This pron. can denote nothing but the act of breaking, and thus precisely Ihe point which appeared to us the natural link of connection between the bread and the bod}'. The lust words, which * Ver, 20. ii. B. L. place Km ro norripiov before waavrw?. 466 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. contain the institution properly so called of a permanent rite, are wanting in Matthew and Mark. But the ceitilied faet of the regular celebration of the Holy Supper as a feast commemorating the death of .Jesus from the most primitive times of the Cluuch, supposes a command of .Jesus to this effect, and fully confirms the formula of Paul and Lulce. Jesus meant to preserve the Passover, but by renewing its meaning. Mat- thew and Mark preserved of the words of institution only that wliich referred to the new meaninr/ given to the ceremony. As to the conunand of Jesus, it had not been preserved in the liturgical formula, because it was implied in the very act of celebrat- ing the rile. A certain interval must have separated the second act of the institution from the first ; for Luke says : After they had supped (ver. 20), exactly as Paul. Jesus, accord- ing to custom, let conversation take free course for some time. After this free inter- val, He resumed the solenm attitude which He had taken in breaking the bread. So we explain the wa-^yrws, likewise. The word to ttuttjpiov, the cup, is the object of the two verbs /laJwy . . . e6ojKti> at ihe beginning of ver. 19. The art. ro is here added, because the cup is already known (ver. IT). This cup certainly corresponded to the third of the Paschal Feast, which bore the name of cup of blessing. So St. Paul calls it (1 Cor. ]0 : 16) : the cup of blessing [euloylai), whicli toe bless. In this expression of the apostle the word bless is repeated, because it is taken in two different senses. In the first instance, it refers to God, whom the Church, like the Isiaelitish family of old, blesses and adores ; in the second, to the cup which the Church consecrates, and Avhich by this religious act becomes to the conscience of believers the memorial of the blood of Jesus Christ. What this cup represents, according to the terms of Paul and Luke, is the new covenant between God and man, founded on the shedding of Jesus' blood. In Matthew and Mark, it is the blood itself. Jesus can hardly have placed the two forms in juxtaposition, as Langen supposes, who thinks that He said : " Drink ye all of this cup ; for it is the cup which contains my blood, the blood of the new covenant." Such a periphrasis is incompatible Avith the style proper to the institution of a rite, which has always something concise and monumental. There is thus room to choose between the form of Matthew and Mark and that of Paul and Luke. Now, is it uot probable that oral tradition and ecclesiastical custom would tend to make the second formula, relative to the wine, uniform with the first, which refei-s to the bread, rather than to diversify them V Hence it follows that the greatest historical probability is in favor of the form in which the two sayings of Jesus least resimble one another, that is to say, in favor of liiat of Paul and Luke. Every covenant among the ancients was sealed by some symbolic act. The new covenant, which on God's side rests on the free gift of salvaliou, and on man's side on its acceptance by faith, has henceforth, as its permanent symbol in the Cburch, this cup which Jesus holds out to His own, and which each of them freely takes and brings to his lips. The O. T. had also been founded on blood (Gen. 15 :8 et seq.). It had been renewed in Egj-pt by the same means (Ex. 13 : 22, 23, 24 : 8). The par- ticiple understood between diaB-qhri and h tu) ai/iari is the veibal idea taken from the subst. 6taO//K7] {Sian^e/xei'?]) : (he covenant [covenanted] in my blood. Baur, Volkinar, and K(;im think that it is Paul who has here introduced the idea of the new covenant. For it would never have entered into the thought of Judeo-Christianity thus to repii- tliale the old covenant, and proclaim a new one. Mark, even wlule copying Paul, designedly weakened this expression, they say, by rejecting the too offensive epithet raic. Luke, a bolder Pauliuist, restored it, thus reproducing Paul's complete for- < ii.M'. XXII. : 19, 20. 407 mula. And liow, we must ask, did Jesus express Himself? Was He incapable, He also, of risius to the idea of a neic covenant tlienceforlb substituted for the old V He iuoapable of doing what had already been done so i^randly six centuries before by a simple prophet (Jer. 31 : 31 etseq.) ! And when we think of it, is nut Mark's formula (which is probably also the text in Matthew), far from being weaker than that of Paul — is it not even more forcible? If the expression of ]\lark is translaicd : " This is my blood, that of the covenant," is not the very name covenant thereby refused to the old V And if it is translated : " This is the blood of my covenant," docs not tliis saying contrast the two covenants with one another as profoundly as is done by the epithet new in Paul and Luke ? The nou. abs. to tKxvriifievov, by rendering the idea of the shedding of the blood grammatically independent, serves to bring it more strongly into relief. This appen- dix, which is wanting in Paul, connects Luke's formula with that of the other two evangelists. Instead of for you, the latter say. /or many. It is the C^i^l. many, of Isa. 58:12, the C'^ZH CIH of Isa. 52:15, those many nations which aie to be sprinkled with the blood of the slain Messiah. Jesus contemplates them in spirit, those myriads of Jewish and Gentile believers who iu future ages shall press to the banquet which He is instituting. Paul here repeats the command : Do this . . . on which rests the permanent celebration of the rite. In this point, too. Luke's for- uuila corresponds uiore nearly to that of the Syu. than to his. If there is a passage in respect to which it is morally impossible to assert that the narrators — if they be regarded ever so little as seriously believing — aibilratily mniiitied the tenor of the savings of Jesus, it is this. How, then, are we to account for llie dilTerences which exist between the four forms? There must have existed from liie beginning, in the Judeo-Christian churches, a generally received liturgical fornuila for the celebration of the Holy tSupper. This is ceitainly what has been preserved to us i)y. Matthew and j\Iark. Only, the differences which exist between them prove that they have not used a written document, and that as little has the one copied tiie oIluT ; thus the command of .Jesus : " Drink ye all of it" (Matthew), which appears in Mark in Ihe form of a positive fact : " And they all drank of it ;" thus, acain. in Mark, the omission of the appendix : " for tlie remission of sins" (Matthew). We therefore find iu them what is suhstantialh' one and Ihe same tradition, but slightly m')rtitied by oral transtnissiou. The very different form of Paul and Luke obliges us to seek another original. This source is indicated by Paul himself : " I have received of the Lord that wlii-h also I delivered unto you" (1 Cor. 11 : 23). The expicj-^ion, 1 have received, udmW.'f- oi no view but that of a conununication which is personal to hir.i ; and the words, of (lie Lord, only of an immediate revelation from Jesus Him- self ( a true philologist will not object to the use. of utzo instead of Trapd). If Paul had had no other authority to allege than oral tradition emanating from the apostles, and known universally in the Church, the form used by him : " I have received (t;(i yap) of the Lord that which also 1 delivered unto you . . ." craild not be exoiuraled from the charge of deception. This (lircumslanco, as well as the difference between the two formuhe, decides in favor of the form of Paul and Luke. In tlie slight differ- ences which exist between them, we can, besides, trace the influence exercised on Luke by the traditional-liturgical form as it has been preserved to us by Matthew and Mark. As to St. .lohn, the deliberate omission which is imputed to him would have been useless at the time wlien he wrote ; still more in the second centiu'V, for the cer- emonj^ of the Holy Supper was then celebrated in all the churches of the world. A forger would havn taken care not to overthrow the authorit}^ of his narrative iu the minds of his readers hv such an omission. About the meaning of the Holy Supjjcr, we shall say only a few words. This cere mony seems to us to represent Ihe totality of salvatii>n ; the bi-ead, the conununica- tion of the life of Christ ; Ihe wine, the ir ft of par-don ; iu other words, according to Paul's language, suuctiticaiiou and justification. In instituting the rite, Jesus natu- 4G8 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. rally began with the bread ; for the shedding of the blood supposes the breaking of the vessel which contains it, the body. Bat us in tlie believer's obtaining of salvation it is by justificalion that we come into possession of the life of Christ, St. Paul, 1 Cor. lU : IG et seq., follows the opposite order, and begins with the cup, wliich lepresents Ibe first grace wiiich faith lays hold of, that of pardon. In the act itself there are rep- resented the two aspects of the work — the divine offer, and human acceptance. The side of human acceptance is clear to the consciousness ol the partaker. His business is simply, as Paul says, " to show the Lord's death," 1 Cor. 11 : 26. It is not so with tlie divine side ; it is unfathomable and mysterious : " The communion of the blood, and of the bodj' of Christ !" 1 Cor. 10 : 10. Here, therefore, we are called to apply the saying : " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law," Deut. 29: 2Si. We know already what we have to do to celebrate a true communion. We may leave to God the secret of what He gives us in a right communion. Is it necessary to go farther in search of the formula of union V 3(Z. Vers. 21-23.* " Only, behold, the hand of him thatbetrayethmeiswith me on the table. 22. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined : But woe unto that man by whom He is betrayed ! 23. And they began to inquire among them- selves which of them it was that should do this thing." As He follows the cup cir- culating among the disciples, the attention of Jesus is fixed on Judas. In the midst of those hearts, henceforth united by so close a bond, there is one who remains out- side of the conuuon salvation, and rushes upon destruction. This contrast wounds the heart of Jesus. TITitjv, excepting, announces precisely the exception Judas forms in this circle ; uhv, behold, points to the surprise which so unexpected a disclosure must produce in the disciples. If this form used by Luke is historically trustworthy, there can be no doubt that Judas took part in celebrating the Holy Supper. No doubt the narratives of Matthew and Mark do not favor this view ; but they do not ex- pressly contradict it, and we have already shown that the order in which Luke gives the three facts composing the narrative of the feast, is much more natural than theirs. Besides, John's order confirms that of Luke, if, as we think we have demonstrated (" Comment sur Jean," t. ii. p. 540 et seq.), the Holy Supper was instituted at the time indicated in 13 : 1, 2. Moreover, John's narrative shows that Jesus returned again and again during the feast to the treachery of Judas. As usual, tradition had com- bined those sayings uttered on the same .subject at different points of time, and it is in this summary form that they have passed into our Syn. The expression of Mat- thew : " dipping the hand into the dish with me," signifies in agcneral way (like that of Luke: "being with me on the table," and the parallels): " being my guest. " Jesus does not distress Himself about what is in store for Him ; He is not the snort of this traitor ; everything, so far as He is concerned, is divinely decreed (ver. 22). His life is not in the hands of a Judas. The Messiah ought to die. But He grieves over the crime and lot of him who uses his liberty to betray Him. The reading oti is less simple than Kal, and is hardly compatible with the fih. The Tzl'i^v, only (ver. 21) is contrasted with the idea of the divine decree in upiauivov. It serves the end of reserving the liberty and responsibility of Judas. The fact that every disciple, on hearing this saying, turned his thoughts upon himself, proves the consummate ability with which Judas had succeeded in concealing his feelings and plans. The urin kyu, Js it I? of the disciples in Matthew and Mark, finds its natural * Ver. 22. The mss. are divided between kui (T^ R., Byz.) and on (Alex.). (,11 A 1'. XXII. : :vU-:58. 409 place here. It has been thought improbable that Judas also put the question (Matt. 5 : 2')).* But when all the others were doing it, could he have avoided it without be- traying himself ? The (hou hiiM mid of Jesus denotes absolutely the same fact as John 13 : 20 ; " And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas Iscariot." This act itself was the reply which Matthew translates into the words : T/iou hast said. 3. 27ie Concci'satious After the Supper : vers. 24-38. — Tiie conversations which fol- low refer : \d To a dispute which arises at this moment between the apostles (vers. 24-30) 2rf. To the danger which awaits them at the close of this hour of peace (vers. 31-38). The washing of the feet in John corresponds to the first piece. The predic- tion of St. Peter's denial follows in his Gospel, as it does in Luke. According to Mat- thew and Mark, it was uttered a little later, after the singing of the hymn. It is ([uite evident that Luke is not dependent on the other Syn., but that he has sources of his own, the trustworthiness of which appears on comparison with John's narrative. Is^ Vers. 24-3U.f The cau.seof the dispute, mentioned by Luke only, cannot have been the question of precedence, as Langen thinks. The strife would have broken out sooner. The mention of the kingdom of God, vers. 10 and 18, might have given rise to it ; but the ko/, also, of Luke, suggests another view. By this word he connects the question ; Which is the greatest? with that which the disciples had just been put- ting to themselves, vcr. 23 : Which among its is he -who shall betray Him ? The ques- tion which was the worst among them led easily to the other, which was the best of all. The one was Iho counterpart of Ihe other. Whatever else may be true, we see by this uew example that Luke does not allow himself to mention a situation at his own hand of which he finds no indication in his documents. The ^okeI, appears [slionMl be accounted], refers to the judgment of men, till the time when God will settle the question. Comp. a similar dispute, 9 : 40 f^ seq. and paiall. "We are amazed at a dis- position so opposed to humility at such u time. But Jesus is no more irritated than He is discouraged. It is enough for Him to know that He has succeeded in planting in the heart of the apostles a pure principle which will finally carry the da}' over all forms of sm : " Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you," He says to them Himself, John 15 : 3. He therefore calmly continues the woik which He has l)egun. In human society, men reign by physical or intellectual force ; and eiiepyETrjc, benefactor, is the flattering title by which men do not blush to honor the harshest tyrants. In the new society which Jesus is instituting, he who has most is not to make his superiority felt in any other way than by the superabundance of his services toward the w^eakest and the most destitute. The example of Jesus in this respect is to remain as the rule. The term 6 vsurepoi, tJie younger (ver. 20), is par- allel to 6 SiaKovtjv, 7ie that doth serve, because among the Jews the humblest and hard- est labor was committed to the youngest members of the society (Acts 5 : 0, 10). If the saying of ver. 27 is not referred to the act of the feet-washing related John 13, we must apply the words : I am among you as lie that serveth, to the life of Jesus in general, or perhaps to the sacrifice which lie is now making of Himself (vers. 19 and 20). But in this way there is no accounting for the antithesis between: "he that sitteth at meat," and : " he that serveth." These expressions leave no doubt that the fact of the feet-washing was the occasion of this saj'ing. Luke did not know it ; and * Our author doubtless intended j\Iatt. 20 : 25.— J. H. f Ver. 20. ». B. D. L. T., ycrnnOo) instead of yeveaOu. Ver. 30. 8 Mjj. (Byz.) 80 Mun. omit ev ttj linaueia iwv. ^"^ D. X. 20 Mnn. Syr''"^ It»"i. add (5tjf5f\a before dpofuv (taken from Matthew). 10 Mjj., KaOTjaeaOs or KadrjaOe instead of KaOiaioOe. 470 COMilENTAliY ON ST. LUKE. he has confined himself to transmitting the discourse of Jesus as it was furnished to him by his document. After having thus contrasted the ideal of an altogether new greatness with the so different tendency of the natural heart, Jesus proceeds to satisfy what of truth there was in the aspiration of the disciples (vers. 28-30). The ii/it/S 6i, but ye, alludes to Judas, who had not 'persevered, and who, by his defection, deprived himself of tlie nuig- nihcent privilege promised vers. 29 and 30. Perhaps the traitor had not yet gone (uit, an 1 Jesus wished hereby to tell upon his heart. The TTeLpaafiol, temptations, of which Jesus speaks, are summed up in His rejection by His fellow-citizens. It was no small thing, on the part of the Eleven, to have persevered in their attachment to Jesus, de- spite the hatred and contempt of which he was the object, and the curses heaped upon Him by those rulers whom they were accustomed to respect. There is some- thing like a feeling of gratitude expressed in the saying of Jesus. Hence the fulness ■wilh which He displays the riches of Ihe promised reward. Ver. 29 refers to the approaching dispensation on the earth : ver. 30, to the heavenly future in which it shall issue. 'Ey(j, 7 (ver. 29), is in opposition to vfiElg, ye: " That is what ye have done for me ; this is what 1 do in ni}' turn {ku'l) for you." The verb oia-ridevat., to dispose, is applied to testamentary dispositions. Bleek takes the object of this verb to be the phrase which follows, that ye onay eat . . . (ver. 30) ; but there is too close a correspondence between appoint and hath appointed unto me, to admit of those two verbs having any but the same object, liaau.eiav, the kingdom .• " I appoint unto you the kingdom, as my Father hath appointed it unto me." This kingdom is here the power exercised by man on man by means of divine life and divine trulh. The truth and life which Jesus possessed shall come to dwell in them, and thereby they shall reign over all, as He Himself has reigned over them. Are not Peter, John, and Paul, at the present day, the rulers of the world 5 In substance, it is only another form of the thought expressed in John 13 : 20 : " Verily I say unto you, He that receivetii whomsoever I send, leceiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." Is this an example of the way in which certain sayings of Jesus are transformed and spiritualized, as it were, in the memory of John. without being altered from their original .sense ? At least the obscure connection of this sayiug in John wilh what precedes is fully explained by Luke's context. Ver. 30 might apply solely' to the part played by the apostles in the government of the primitive Church, and in the moral judgment of Israel then exercised by them. But the expression, to eat and drink at my table, passes beyond this meaning. For we cannot apply this expression to the Holy Supper, which was no special privilege of the apostles. The phrase, i7i my kingdom, should therefore be taken in the same sense as in vers. 16 and 18. With the table where He is now presiding Jesus con- trasts the royal banquet, the emblem of complete joy in the perfected kingdom of God. He likewise contrasts, in the words following, with the judgments which He and His shall soon undergo on the part of Israel, that which Isiael shall one day un- dergo on the part of the Twelve. According to 1 Cor. Q -.1 et seq, the Church shall judge the world, men and angels. In this judgment of the world by the representa- tives of Jesus Christ, the part allotted to the Twelve shall be Israel. Judgment here includes government, as so often in the O. T. Thrones are the emblem of power, as the table is of joy. If the traitor was yet present, must not such a promise made to his colleagues have been like the stroke of a dagger to his ambitious heart ! Here, as ■we think, should be placed the final scene which led to his departure (John 13 : 21-37J. (11 A p. XXII. : ;50-;3-k 471 It seems to us thai the Twelve uie not very (lisiulvanlasrennsly treated in this (lis- foiirse of Jesus reported b}' Luke ! * A saving entirely similar is found in Matt. 19 : 23, iu a different coute.xt. Tliat of l^ukc is its own jualiticution. 2.7. Vers. 31-oS. Jesus announces to Ilis disciples, tii si the moral danger wlii(h threatens them (vers. ol-;j4; ; then the end of the lime of temporal well-being and security which the^' had enjoyed under Ilis protection (vers. ;j5-oH). Vers. 31-34.t " And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan halh desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. C2. But I have prayed for thee, that t!iy faith fail not ; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy biethien. S',], 34." The warning ven 31 might be connected with ver. 28 : "Ye are they which have con- tinued with mc. " There would be a contrast : " Here is a tcmplalioa in which ve shall not continue." But the mention of Satan's pait, in respect of the disciples, seems to be suggested by the abrupt departure of Juda'?, in which Satan had i)layed a decisive part (John 13 : 37 : " And after the sop, Satan entered into him'"). The tempter is present ; he has gained the mastery of Judas ; he threatens the other dis- ciples also ; he is preparing to attack Jesus Himself. "The piince of this world comelh," says Jesus in John (14 :30). And the danger to each is in piopoiticn to the greater or less amount of alloy which his heart contains. This is the leason why Jesus more directly addresses Peter. B}- the address : Simon, twice repeated. He alludes to his natural character, and puts him on his guard against that presumption ■which is its dominant charactcii^tic. The t^ in £5?;r.7(jaro" includes the notion : of getting him drawn out of the bauds of God into his own. Wheat is purified by means of the sieve or fan ; aivul^u may apply to cither. Satan asks the right ol put- ting the Twelve to the proof ; and he takes upon himself, over against Gotl, as formeil}' in relation to Jol), to prove that at bottom the best among the disciples is l)ut a Judas. Jesus by no means says (ver. 82) that his pi aver has been refused. Rather it appears from the intercession of Jesus that it has been granted. Jesus only seeks to parry the consequences of the fall whicii thieatens them all, and which shall be esj)ecially perilous to Peter. Cunip. Matthew and Mark : " All ye shall be offended because of me this night." The faithlessness cf which they are about to be guilt_v, might have absolutely broken the bond formed between them and Him. That of Peter, in particular, might have cast him into the same despair which ruined Judas. But while the enemy was spying out the weak side of the ditciples to destroy thcra, Jesus was watching and praying lo parry tlie blow, or at lea'-l to prevent it from being mortal to any of them. Langen explains InLn-pfiliii in the sense of 2'"^' : "strengthen thj' brethren anew." But this meaning of i:T:ir7Tfjfnt instead of a-opvr/crj /it/ eiSevai fxe. X "What the "converted" and the " strengthening ' — not clearly intimated here— are, we niaj' infer from the facts. Peter does not experience a " second conversion" in any true sense of the phrase. He had turned away from his Lord for a time. He is turned back again by the Lord's grace and the use of liumg means. The expeii- 473 COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE. which covers the invisible world from our view. Although it has been preserved to us only by Luke, Hollzniaua acknowledges its authenticity. He ascribes it to a special tradition. That does not prevent him, however, from deriving tliis whole account from the common source, the proto-Mark. But vers. 35-38 are also peculiar to Luke, and show clearly that his source was different. Peter believes in his fidelity more tliaa in the word of Jesus. Jesus then announces to him his approaching fall. The name Peter leminds him of the height lo which Jesus had raised him. Three crowiucrs of the cock were distinguished ; the first between midnight and one o'clock, the second about three, the third between five and six. The third watch (from midnight to three o'clock), embraced between the first two, was also called aAeKTopo(puvia, eock-croio (Mark 13 : 35). The saying of Jesus in Luke, Matthew, and John would therefore signify : " To-day, before the second watch from nine o'clock to midnight have passed, thou shalt have denied mu thrice." But Mark says, certainly in a way at once more detailed and exact : " Be- fore the cock have crowed twice, thou shatl have denied me thrice." That is to say : before the end of the third watch, before three o'clock in the morning. The men- tion of those two Growings, the first of which should have already been a.warning to Peter, perhaps makes the gravity nf his sin the more conspicuous. Matthew and Mark place the prediction of the denial on the way to Gethsemane. But John con- firms the account of Luke, who places it in the supper room. We need not refute the opinion of Langen, who thinks that the denial was predicted twice. Vers. 35-38.* " And He said unto them. When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. 30. Then He said unto them. But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip. And he that hath no [sword], let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must j'^et be accomplished in me, and He was reckoned among the transgressors : for the things concerning me are coming to an end. . . . 38." Till then, the apostles, protected by the favor which Jesus enjoyed with the people, had led a comparatively easy life. But the last conflict between Him and the Jewish authorities was about to break out, and how could the apostles, during all the rest of their career, escape the hostile blows ? This is the thought which occu- pies our Lord's mind : He gives it a concrete form in the following figures. In ver. 35 He recalls lo mind their first mission (9 : 1, et seq.). We learn on this occasion the favorable issue which had been the result of that first proof of their faith. The his- torian had told us nothing of it, 9 : 6. The object of /z/) exuv is evidently fiaxaipav (not rrrjpav or jialavTiov) : " Let him who hath not [a sword], buy one." It heightens the previous warning. Not only can they no longer reckon on the kind hospitality which they enjoyed during the time of their Master's popularity, and not only must they prepare to be treated henceforth like ordinary travellers, paying their way, etc. ; but they shall even meet with open hostility. Disciples of a man treated as a iriale- ence he thus had of Satan's subtle malignity, and of human weakness, prepares him to utter and write words of warning and directtinn to his bretliren, on a momentous theme, on which Christians think too little. — J. H. * Ver. 35. Vers. 35-38 were omitted by Marcion. Ver. 36. Instead of elttev ow, ii- B. L. T. 4 Mnn. Syr. eittev 6e, i^* D. o 6e el-tev. Instead of Trcj/.TjaaTo), D. -rrcj/.i/oac, 8 Mjj. (Byz.) 115 Mnn. Ttul-naei ; and instead of nyopaaaru, 9 Mjj. (Byz.), the most of the .\Inn., nyoparyst. Ver. 37. 9 Mjj. (Alex.) 10 Mnn. omit eti after ort. !*. B. D. L. (.} T. , TO instead of m after an yep. ciiAi x\ii : 3r)-40. 473 factor, they slmll be Ihcmsdvea rt'gartlcd ns dangerous men ; llicy shall see thcm- 6el»es at war with llieir fellaw-countrymcn nud the whole world. C(tm|) Jolm 15 : 18-25, the piece of which this is. as il were, thcRuniinaiy and parallel. The sword is here, as in Malt. 10 : ;34, the emblem of avowed hosiilit}-. It is clear that in the mind of Him wiio said : '" I send you forth nn lambs among wolves," this weapon repieyents ihe power of holiness in contlict with the sin of the world — that sirord of the Spirit spoken of by Paul (E[)h. (i : 11). The unl ydp, ami in tntih, at the end of the verse, announces a second fact analogous to the former (and), and which at the same time serves to explain it {in truth). The tragical end of the ministry of Jesus is also approaching, and consequently no features of the prophetic description can be slow in being realized. The disciples seem to take literally the recommendation of Jesus, and even to be proud of their prudence. The words, It is enough, have been understood in this sense : " Let us say no more ; let us now break up ; events will explain to you my mind, which you do not understand." But is it not more natural to give to hnvdv iart this mournfully ironic sense : " Yes, for the use which jou shall have to make of armsof this kind, those two swords are enough." Here we must ])lace the last words of John 14 : " Rise ; let us go hence." The 8yn. have preserved only a few hints of the last discourses of Jesus (John 14 : 17). These were treasures which could not be transmitted to the Church in the way of oral tra- dition, and which, assuming hearers already formed in the school of Jesus like the apostles, were not fitted to form the matter of popular evangelization. ^ III. Gcthsemane : 22 : 39-4G. — The Lamb of God must be distinguished from typical victims by His free acceptance of death as the punishment of sin ; and hence there required to be in His life a decisive moment when, in the fulness of His con- sciousness and liberty, He should accept the punishment which He was to undergo. At Gethsemane Jesus did not drink the cup ; He consented to drink it. This point of time corresponds to that in which, with the same fulness and liberty, He refused in the wilderness universal sovereitrnty. There He rejected dominion over us without God ; here He accepts death for God and for us. Each evangelist has some special detail which attests the independence of his sources. Matthew exhibits specially the gradation of the agony and the progress toward acceptance. Mark has preserved to us this saying of primary importance : " Abba ! Father ! all things are possible unto Thee." Luke describes more specially the extraordinary ijhj'sical effects of this moral agon}'. His account is, besides, very much abridged. John omits the wkole scene, but not without expressly indicating its place (18 : 1). In the remarkable piece, 12 : 23-28, this evangelist had already unveiled the essence of the struggle which was beginning in the heart of Jesus ; and the passage proves sufHciently, in spite of Keim's peremptory assertions, that there is no dogmatic intention in the omission of the agony of Gethsemane. When the facts are sulliciently known, John conliues himself to communicating some saying of Jesus which enables us to understand their spirit. Thus it is that chap. 3 sheds light on the ordinance of Baptism, and chap. 6 on that of the Holy Supper.* Heb. 5 : 7-9 conlaias a very evident allusion to the ac- * They may "shed light," but -that they, when uttered, referred to these ordi- nances is not yet proved. Why say to Nicodemus, " Art thou a master," etc., if the Lord referred to a rite not yet Insiituled ? P>ut if uiir Lord ivferred to sucli passsiges :us E/.ek. 30 : 25, 2(5, the igniirance of ^; icodemus was inexcusable. Even so tlie whole of tiie conversation in John (i relates to tiie miracle of ibe munna, the words of the Jews drawing out those of our Lord. What force could there be in his repeated 4T1 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. count of Gethsemaue — a fact the more rcmarlfable, as that epistle is one of those ■whicl>, at the same time, most forcibly exhibit the divinity of Jesus. "Vers. 39-46.* The word came out (ver. oD) includes His leaving llie room and the city. The name, the Mount of Olives, which is used here by our lli^ee Syu., may des- ignate in a wide sense the slope and even the foot of the mount wliich begius imme- diately beyond the Cedron. This is the sense to which we are led by John's account, 18 : 1. The north-west angle of the incbsure, which is now pointed out as the garden of Gethsemane, is fifty paces from the bed of the torrent. Ver. 40. Jesus iuviies His disciples to prepare by prayer for the trial which threatens their tidelity, and of ■which He has already forewarned them (ver. Bl). The use of the word e'tae/fjelv, enter into, to signify to yield to, is easily understood, if we contrast this verb in thought with 6L£?.0elv, to pass through. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus has no sooner arrived than He announces to His disciples His intention to pray Himself. Then, withdrawing a little with Peter, James, and John, He tells them of the agony with which His soul is all at once seized, and leaves them, that He may pray alone. These successive moments are all united in Luke in the ciKEaTrdcOr], He teas with- drawn (ver. 41). There is in this term, notwithstanding Bleek's opinion, the idea of some violence to which He is subject ; He is drap.ged far from the disciples by anguish (Acts. 21 : 1). The expression, to the distance of about a stone's cast, is peculiar to Luke. Instead of kneeling down, Matthew says. He fell iipon Ilis face ; Majk, upon the ground. The terms of Jesus' prayer, ver. 43, differ in the three nar- ratives, and m such a way that it is impossible the evangelists could have so mod- ified them at their own hand. But the figure of the cup is common to all thiee ; it was indelibly impressed on traditijn. This cup which Jesus entreats God to cause to pass from before (-a/m) His lips, is the symbol of that terrible punishment the dread- ful and mournful picture of which is traced before Him at this moment by a skilful painter with extraordinary vividness. The painter is the same who in the wilder- ness, using a like illusion, passed before His view the magical scene of the glories be- longing to the Messianic kingdom. Mark's formula is distinguished by the invocation. " Abba ! Father ! all things are possible unto Thee," in which the translation 6 irarrip, Father, has been added by the evangelist for his Greek readers. It is a last appeal at once to the fatherly love and omnipotence of God. Jesus does not for a moment give up the worli of humun salvation ; He asks only if the cross is really the indispensable means of gaining this end. Cannot God in His unlimited power find another way of reconciliatinu ? Jesus thus required, even He, to obey without understanding, to walk by faith, rejoinders if the reference was to an ordinance of which the hearers conid know abso- lutely nothing— fir it had not yet been appomted V The assumption that these two chapters 1 elate to the sacraments of the Christian Church has done no little evil There is abundant reason for both communications in the known history and prophecy of the Old Testament. — J. H. * Ver. 89. 6 Mjj. some Mnn. omit avrov after fiaffijTai. Ver. 42. The Mss. are divided between TcaoeveyKsiv (T. R., Byz.), napevcyKaL {hAits..), and irap-veyKL (B. D. T. 25 Mnn.). Vers. 43, 44. These two verses, which T. K. reads, with !ii* '«=. D F. G. H. K. L. M. Q. Cr. X. A. the most of the Mnn. Syr. Ir. .Just. Ir. Dion. al. Ar. Chrvs. Eiis., are warning in i«' A. B. R. T. 3 Mnn. Sah. Cyr., in several Greek and La'lin Mss. quoted by Hilary, Epiph., Jer. They are markeJ with signs of doubt in E. S. V. A. n. 5 Mnn. i^. X. some Mnn. Vss. , Karajiaa'ovToc instead of K.aTa,iaLvovTe<^. Vtr. 45. All the Mjj. omit avrov after nuOrjTai. (11 A I', xxii. : ;);»-4(i. 475 ITcnce the expressions, Heb. 5:8, He learned obedience, and 12 : 2, apxriybHf.i avroii, ov av (ptXifCoo avroi f6riy (taken from the paiallels). f Marcion omitted this passage. Ver. 49. i*. B. L. T. X. some Mnn. omit avrw before nvfjis. Vet. 51. !S. B. L. R. T. 2 Mnn. omit avrov after asriov. 478 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. meaning is therefore either, " Let those men (the officers) go //'n/s/r/;- (the length of seiz- ing me)," or (which is more natural), " Stop there ; striiie no such second IiIdw ; this one is quite enougli." This act of violence, indeed, not only compromised the safety of Peter, but even the Lord's cause. Jesus was all but hindered therel)y fiom address- ing Pilate in tlie words so imjxirtant for His defence against tlie crime with which tlie .Jews charged Him (John 18 : ;30) : " My kiugdom is not of this world ; if my king- dom were of this world, then would m}' servants fight, that 1 should nut be delivered to the Jews. " Nothing less was needed than the immediate cure of Malchus to re- store the moral situation which had been injured by this trespass, and to enable Jesus to express Himself without the risk of being confounded by facts. This cure is relat- ed only by Luke ; Meyer therefore relegates it to the domain of myth. But if it had not taken place, it would be impossible to understand how Peter i.nd Jesus Himself had escaped from this complaint. Vers. 52 and 53.* Among those who came out, Luke nuniliers some of the chief priests. Yrhatevcr Meyer and Eleek may say, such men may surely, out of hatred or curiosity, liave accompanied the band charged with the arrest. Besides, is not the rebuke wliich follows addressed rather to rulers than to subordinates? As to the captains of the temple, see 22 : 4. As to the officers, comp. John 7 : 45 ; Acts 5 : 22-2G John speaks, besides, of the cohort, 18 : 3, 12 ; this word, especially when accompa- nied l)y the terra ;^:iAia/)xor, tribune, (ver. 12), and with tlie antithesis tuv 'lovdaiuv, can only, in spite of all Baumlein's objections, designate a detachment of the Roman cohort ; it was, as Langen remarks, an article of provincial legislation, that no airest should take place without the intervention of the Romans. The meaning of the rebuke of Jesus is this : " It was from cowardice that you did not arrest me in the full light of day." The other two Sj'n. carry forward their narrative, like Luke with lilut; only lh\s but is with them the necessity for the fulfilment of the prophecies, while with Luke it is the harmony between the character of the deed and that of the nocturnal hour. Darkness is favoral)le to crime ; for man needs to be concealed not only from others, but from himself, in order to sin. For this reason, night is the time when Satan puts forth all his power over humanity ; it is his hour. And hence, adds Jesus, it is also yours, for j'ou are his instruments in the work which you are doing ; comp. John 8 : 44, 14 : 30. Luke emits the fact of the apostles' flight which is related here by Matthew and Mark. Where is the malevolence which is ascribed to him against the Twelve? Mark also relates with great circumstantiality, the case of the young man who fled stripped of the linen cloth in which he was wrapped. As, according to Acts 12, the mother of Mark possessed a house in Jerusalem — as this house was the place where the Church gathered in times of persecution, and as it was therefore probably situated in a by-place — it is not impossible that it stood in tlie vale of Gethsemane, and that this young man was (as has long lieen supposed) Mark himself, drawn by the noise of the baud, and who has thus put his signature Jis modestly as possible in the corner of the evfingelical narrative which he composed. 2. The Judgment of Jesus : 22 : 54—23 : 25. 1st. The Ecclesiastical Trial : vers. 54-71. — This account contains three things : (1) St. Peter's denial (vers. 54-G';l) ; (2) The evil treatment practised by the Jews (vers. G3-fi5) ; (3) The sentence of death pronounced by the Sanhedrim (vers. 66-71). * Ver. 53. !!*. G. H. R. A. 50 Mnn., npoi avrov instead of e7r' avrov. The mss. are divided between eie/ri'/.v^ure (T. R., Byz.), e^Ti'/Zjare (Alex.), and eirjABsre. CHAP. xxu. : o--i-ri. -iT'j Luke places the sitting of the Sanhedrim at which Jesus wns condemued in the morning, when the day dawned (vcr. GG). This mmniiig silling is also mentioned by ^Mallhew (27 : 1, the morning was come) and Marli (lo : 1, ntniUjhtwai/ in the moniing). Bill, accouiiiig to those two evangelists, a previous silling had taken place at the house of Caiaphas during the night, of which ihcy give a detailed description (Matt. 20 . o7-GG ; Mark 14 : 5o-G4). And this even, according to John, had been preceded by a preparatory silling at the house of Annas, the fiilhcr-in-hiw of Caiaphas. John docs not relate either the second or the thiid silling, tliough he expressly indicates the place of the latter bj' tlie -pCiTov, 1^ : 13, and tiie notice, 18 : 24. This, then, is the order of events : Iniuiedialely on His arrest, between one and three o'clock, Jesus was led to the house of Annas, where u preliminary inquiry took place, intended to extract beforehand some saying which would serve as a text for Ilis- condemnation (John 18 : 19-23). This silling having terminated without any positive result, had not been taken up by tradition, and was omitted by the Syn. But John lelates it to complete the view of the trial of Jesus, and with regard to the account of Peter's de- nial, which he wishes to restore toils true light. During tliis examination, the mem- beis of the Sanliedrim had been called together in h;istc, in as huge numbers as possi- ble, to the house of the high priest. The sitting of this body which followed was that at which Jesus was condemned to dealh for having declared Himself to be the Son of God. It must have taken place about three o'clock in the morning. Mat- thew (26 : 59. ct seq.) and Mark (14 : 55, et seq.) have minutely described it. John lus emitted it, as sufficiently known through them. In the morning, at daybreak, the Saiihediim assembled anew, this lime in full muster, and in their ofScial hall near the temple. Tliis is the silling described by Luke, aod briefly indicated, as We have seen by Matthew and Mark. Two things rendered it necessary : (1) According to a Babbiiiical law, no sentence of death passed during the night was valiil.* To this formal reason there was probably added the circumstance that the sentence had not been passed in the official place. But especially (2) it was necessary to delibi;rate seriously on the ways and means by which to obtain from the Roman governor the confiriuation and execution of their sentence. The whole negotiation wilh Pilate which follows shows that the thing was far from easy, and betrays on the part of the Jews, as we have seen in our " Ctmmunt. sur I'cvang. de Jean," a stiategical plan compleiely marked out beforehand. It was no doubt at this morning sitting that the plan was discussed and adopted. Matthew also says, in speaking of this last silling (27 : 1), that they took counsel uare Cavaruaat avrov. about the uay of {jetting Ilim put to death. Then it was that Juilas came to restore his money to the Sanhedrim in the temple (tv ro vaC), IMatt. 27 : 5). Bleek admits only two sittings in all— the one preliminary, which was held at the house of Annas (John), and during which Peter's denial took place , the other oflicial, decisive, in which tlie whole Sanhedrim took part, ri'laled by the Syn., who errone- ously connect Peter's denial wilh it, and which is divided also erroneously liy Mat- thew and Maik into two distinct sillings. Langen, on the contrary, with many com- mentators, identifies the txaminalijn before Annas (John 18 : 13, 19-23) with the noctuinal sitting which is desciibed ia detail by Matthew and Maik. Against this * "Sanhwlrim." 9. 1. Langen olnccts tliat, according to this same passage, the pro- nouncing of si'iilence should have been deferred till the second day. But it was easier to elude this second law than the former. It was possible, for graver reasons, to decree urgenc-}'. 480 COMMEXTAltY OX ST. LLKE. explanation there are : 1. The entire difference between the matter of the two sit- tings ; in John, a simple exaniinatiun without judgment ; in Matthew and Maik, the express pronouncing of a capital sentence ; 2. Ver. 24 of John, " Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas" — a verse which, whatever may be made of it, implies iwo biltuigs, the one at the house of Annas, the other at the house of Caiaphas, in the same nigjjt. The opinion of Bleek would be moie allowable. But we should be authorized in ascribing to the first two Syu. the serious confusion, and then the false division, Aviiich BleeU imputes to them, only if the two sittings of the night and morning cuukl not be sufficiently accounted for. Now, we have just seen that it is quite otherwise. A minute particular which distinguishes them confirms Iheir historical reality ; in the night sitting there had been unanimity (Mark 14 : G4). T^iow, if Luke is net mis- taken in declariDg,'2.3 : 51, that Joseph of Aiimathea did not vote with the majoiity, we must conclude that he was not present at the night silting at the house of Caia- phas, but that he took pait only in that of the morning in the temple, whicli agrees with the fact that Matthew (27 : 1) expressly distinguishes the morning assembly 'as a plenary court, by the adjective Trdvrei, all. The two sittings are thus really dis- tinct. Luke has mentioned only tlie last, that of the morning, perhaps because it was only the sentence pronounced then for the second time which had legal force, and which therefore was the only one mentioned by his sources. (1.) Vers. 54-G2.* Peter's Denial. — The account of the evangelists presents insoluble difHoullies, if Annas and Caiaphas dwelt in different houses. Indeed, ac- cording to Matthew and Mark, who do not mention the ex;iminalion before Annas, it is at the house of Caiaphas that the denial must have taken place ; while according to John, who does not relate the silting at the house of Caiaphas, it is at the house of Annas that this scene must have occurred. But is it impossible, or even improbable, that Annas and Caiaphas his son-in-law occupied the sacerdotal palace in common ? Annas and Caiaphas, high priests, the one till the year 14, the other from the year 17, were so identified in popular opinion that Luke (3 : 2) mentions them as exercising one and the same pontificate in common — the one as titulary high priest, the other as high priest de facto. So Acts 4 : G : Annas the high priest and Caia}-Jias.\ But lliere is more than a possibility or a probability. There is a fact : in John 18 ; 15, the entrance of Peter into the palace where the denial took place is explained on the ground that John was known to the high priest, a title which in this context (vers. 13 and 24) can designate no other than Caiaphas ; and yet, according to ver. 12, it is the house of Annas which is in question. .How aie we to explain this account, if Annas and Caiaphas did not inhabit the same house ? There is caution in the way in which Luke expresses himself : " They led Him into the high priest's liouse /" he does * Ver. 54. 10 Mj.v 30 Mnn. It. Vir. omit avToi' after eia-qyayov. 7 Mjj. lOMnu., TT)v oiKiav instead of tov olkuv. Ver. 55. !!4. B. Jj. T., nepui-ijiavruv instead of ailiavrun, 7 Mjj. Iti''"'i"«, omit avrwi' after nvyKa(jLnnvrui>. B. L. T. 2 Mnn., //fffoS instead of ev iieau. Ver. 57. 9 Mjj. 40 Mnn. Syr. Iti''>^'W"e, (,„jj( avTou after ijpvijoaro. Ver. 58. 7 ]Mjj. 15 Mnn., eipT? instead of elttev. Ver. GO. !5>. D. It. Vg., tl Myeii instead nf 0 AEysii. All tiic Mjj. many Mnn. omit o before alturun. Ver. 61. i*. B. L. T. X. some Mnn., instead of tov /.oyov, rov pnuaro: (taken from Matthew and Mark). 8 Mjj. 25 Mnn. read atjjiEpov before anapvT]ai]. Ver. 62. 9 Mjj. 50 Mnn. Syr""', omii o Herpoi after f^fu. t In this passage, the name High Priest is used in XYm grnval sense whirh it his throughout the N. T., and Annas is named at the head of the list as president of tlie idanhedrim. fiiAi'. xxii. : r)4-(ir). 481 not say, to the house of Caiaphas (Matthew), or to the jwesence of the high priest (Miuk), hniio i\xii sacerdotal puloce, wlicre dwelt the two higii piiests closely uuited and related. A covered pateway {nv}(jt) led from without into li)e court where the fire was lighted (av'/.r'i). The first denial is relalml by John ia a wa}' to show that it look place during the appearance l. T. Syr. add xni before apiaixevoS. 484 COMMENTAKY OX ST. LU IvE. 18': SO, 31, previous governors had relaxed the rigor of public right on this point, and Pilate was the first who had confined Ihe Jews within their strict legal competency. Tiiere is a tiadition, quoted in the Talmud, that " forty years before the destruction of the temple (and so about the year thiity of our era), the right of pronouncing cap- ital sentences was taken from Israel " (Cant. 24. 2). Thus is explained the procedure of the Jews (ver. 1) who bring Jesus before Pilate. The other mo- tives by which it lias been sought to explain it, such as the desire to put the entire responsibility of this death on Pilate (Mosheim), or that of getting Jesus put to death by the Roman and specially cruel punishment of the cross (Chrysostom), or finally, that of not violating the quiet of the feast (Augus- tine), have been refuted by Langen(pp. 246-251). It cannot be decided with certainly whether Pilate at this time resided in the palace of Herod the Great, en the hill of Siou, or in the citadel Antonia, at the north-west of the temple. Tradition makes the Via Dolorosa begin at this latter spot. The complaint uttered bj' the Jews, ver. 2, was not the actual beginning of this long negotiation. John alone has preserved to Tis its true commencement (18 : 29-32). The Jews began very skilfully by trying to get Pilate to execute the sentence without having submitted it for his confirmation. The latter, more adroit than they, and eagerly profiting by the turn thus given to the case, declared to them that he was well pleased not to interfere in the mailer, and that lie left Jesus in their hand's, that is to say, within the limits of their competency (the execution of purely Jewish penalties — excommunication from the synagogue, scourging, etc.). But that did not come up to the reckoning of the Jews, who wished at any pi ice the death of Jesus. They must therefore abandon the exalted position which tiiey had altemptcd to take, and submit their sentence to be judged bj' Pilate. Here begins tlie second manoeuvre, the political accusation (Luke, ver. 2 ; comp. the three other accounts whicii are parallel). This charge was a notorious falsehood ; for Jesus had resolved in the affir:nalive the question whether tribute should be paid to Caesar, and had carefully abstained from everything which could excite a rising of the people. The semblance of truth which is required in every accusation was solely in the last words : lie. made Himself ihe Christ, a title which they maliciously explained by that of king. Thy began by giving to the name Christ a political color in the mouth of Jesus. Hence they conclude that He was bound to forbid the payment of tribute. If He did not actually do so, He should have done it logically. Therefore it was as if He had done it ; the crime may be justly imputed to Him. This trans- lation of the title Christ by that of kiiig before Pilate is especially remarkable, if we compare it with the transformation of the same title into that of Son of God before the Sanhedrim. The object of the one was to establish the accusation of rebellion, as that of the other was to prove the charge of blasphemy. There is a versatilit}^ in this hatred. The four narratives agree in the question which Pilate addresses to Jesus. We know from John that Jesus was in the prastorium, while the Jews took their stand in the open square ; Pilate went from them to Him, and from Him to them. The brief answer of Jesus : T hou say est it, its snrpT'isiug. But it appears from John that the word is only the summary of a conversation of some length between Jesus and Pilate — a conversation which oral tradition had not preserved. Pilate was intelligent enough to know what to think of the sudden zeal manifested by the San- hedrim for the Roman dominion in Palestine, and the conversation which he had with Jesus on this first head of accusation (John 18 : 33-38) resulted in convincing him that he had not to do Avilh a lival of Caest.r. He therefore declares to the Jews that CHAP, xxiii. : (i-lO. 485 lliL'ir nccusalinn is unfounded. But they insist {ver. 5), and luiviince ns a proof tho s.irt of popular moveun-nt of which Galilee was the starling-point (o pid/t f vor), nm\ whii-h spread quite receully to the veiy gates of Jerusalem (iui ude) — an allusion to the Palm Days. It is to the mention of this new charge that we may ajiply 3Iatt. 27 : 13 and Mark 15 : 3, 4, where there is indicated a lepetition of accusations wliich o'esus answered only hy silence. Luke also declares, ver. 5, dial tliey were the more fierce. A second expedient then presents itself to Pilate's mind : to consign the wliole matter to Herod, the sovereign of Galih^e (vers G-12). Vers. 6-12.* Luke alone relates this remarkal)le circumstance. By this step the CiBver Roman gained two ends at once. First he got rid of the business which was imposed on him, and then he took the first step ton aid a reconciliation with Ilerod (ver. 12). The cause of thrir quarrel had probably been some conflict of jurisdic- tion. In that case, was not the best means of soldering up the quarrel to concede to him a right of jurisdiction within the very city of Jerusalem? Herod had come to the capital, like Pilate, on account of tho feast ; ordinarily he lived in the old castle of the Asmonean kings, on the hill of Zion. Jesus was to him what a skilful juggler is to a seated court — an object of curiosity. But Jesus did not lend Himself to such a part ; He had neither woids nor miracles for a man so disposed, in whom, besides. He saw with horror the murderer of John the Baptist. Before this personage, a monstrous mi.xture of bloody levity and sombre sujievstilion. He maintained a silence which even the accusations of the Sauhediim (ver. 10) could not lead Him to break. Herod, wounded and humiliated, took vengeance on this conduct bj^ contempt. The expression, a gorgeous rohc (ver. 11), denotes not a purple garment, but a white man- tle, like that worn by Jewish kings and Roman grandees on high occasions.! We cannot see in this, with Riggenbach, a contemptuous allusion to the while robe of the hii;h priest. It was a parody of the royal claims uf Jesus, but at the same time an indirect declaration of Ilis innocence, at least in a political puint of view. The a-paTEVfiara, soldiers of Ilerod, can only mean his attendants, his body-guard, who were allowed to accompany him in the capital. Vers. 13-19. t Kot having succetded in this way, Pilate finds himself reduced to seek another expedient. Two present themselves to his mind: first, the ciTer to chastise .Jesus — that is to say, to scourge Him ; then the proposition to release Him as a pardoned malefactor, according to the custom of the feast. The pt-nnlly of scourg- ing strictly formed i>art of the punishment of crucifixion ; it was the imperative pre- liminary. Jerome saj's (in ^latt. 27) : Scie?i(hi))i est Plldtum romanis legibus minis- traise, qmbus sancitum erat ui qui crucifigerttur, priusjiagellis verberetur (Langen, p. * Ver. 6. ». B. L. T. omit Valu.ainv 'beXore ETvepurTjaev. Ver. 8. B. D. L. T., e$ iKnvuv xpovuv instead of e^ mavnv (T. R., Byz.) or e? ikuvov xpi^^''^ (4 Mjj. Syr. ItP'"- 'lue ) 8 Mjj. some ^Inn. Svr''"^ omit Tro/.la after aKoveiv. Ver. 11. !*. B. L. T. omit nvTov after nepii^a'/.uv. i4* L. R., ene/iipev insleadoi aveTieuH>ev. Ver. 12. i*. B. L. T., avTovi instead of eavrovf. + Langen, p 270, note (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii^. 1. 1 ; Tacitus, Hist. ii. 89). I Ver. 14. !!i. A.. L. A. some >Inn. omit kcit' before nvrov. Ver. 15. i^. B. K. L. M. T. n. several Mun., nvi-Euipev yap avrov Trpni iniox instead of av£Teui{'a jap vfia? TTuoi avrov, which T. R. reads, with 12 Mjj. the most of the Mnn. ItP'"i«i"''^ Vg. and Syr. (which substitutes avrov for v/iai). Ver. 17. A. B. K. L. T. FT. a Fold. Sah. omit this ver'-e. D. Syr^"^ place it after ver. 19. Ver. 18. i*. B. L. T. 2 Mnn., nveapayov instead of avrKpaiav. Ver. 19. B. L. T., (S/r/Oeti instead of jieS/rj/ievog. ». B. L. T. X., Ev rq v/aK7;v. 48G COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. 281). This previous punislimenl was often moital.* lu this case Pilate offered it to the Jews in place of ciucifixion, uot as the fiist act of that puuishrneut. He hoped that at the sight of this the more moderate would be salis^fied, and that the last act would not be demanded of him. But to secure the ceitainty of this meaus he com- bines it with the other. The time was come for releasing a state prisoner, as was common at the feast. He reckons on the numerous adherents of Jesus who had wel- comed Him with acclumaliuns on Palm Diiy, and whose voices, in spite of the rulers, would make themselves heard in demanding His release. At ver. 15, Tischeudorf prefers the Alex, reading : " For he sent him to us," in- stead of, " For I sent you to him." But this reading has arisen from an entire mis- understanding of the following phrase. It was translated, " And, lo ! nothing is done unto him (at Herod's court) to show that he has been judged worthy of death ;" while the Greek expression signifies, according to a well-known construction, " And, ]i) ! he is found to have done nothing (He, Jesus) which was worthy of death [in Herod's conviction as well as in mine]." The received reading is therefore indisput- ably the true one. Pilate declares aloud that the result of this whole series of in- quiries has been to establish the innocence of Jesus. But why in this case conclude, as he does {therefore, ver. 16), by offering to scourge Ilim, thereafter to release Him V It was already a denial of justice to send Jesus to Herod after having acknowledged His innocence ; it is a more flagrant one still to dec;ee against Him, without any alleged reason, the penalty of scourging. This first concession betrays his weakness, and gi/es liim over beforehand to his adversaries, who are more decided than he. If ver. 17 is aiUhentic, and if it is t'> be put here (see the critical note), the most natural conueclion between vers. 16 and 17 is this : " I will release him ; for I am even under obligation to release unto you a prisoner." Pilate affects to have no doubt that, when the liberation of a prisoner is offered to the people, they will claim Jesus. But if this verse is rejected as unauthentic, we must recognize in the aTxoKvnu, I icill release, ver. 16, a positive allusion to the custom of releasing a prisoner. At ver. 18, the Jews, understanding in a moment Pilate's idea, would reply lo him by pulling them- selves at his view-point. But this exphmation is somewhat forced, and the omission of ver. 17 may have arisen in the Alex, from confounding the two AN . . . which begin the two verses 17 and 18. In John, Pilate, while reminding the people of this custom, directly offers them the deliveiance of .lesus. Tliis was probably tlie real course of events. In Matthew, he puts the alternative between Jesus and Barah- has, which is less natural. In Mark, it is the people who, interrupting the deliberation relative to Jesus, all at once claim the liberation of a [uisoner, which is less natural still. The origin of the custom here mentioned is not known. It is far from prob- able that it was introduced by the Romans. Langen justly quotes against this sup- position the words of Pilate (John 18 : iJ9), '* Ye have a custom." Perhaps it was a memorial of the great national deliveran(.'e, of the escape from Egypt, which was cel- ebrated at the feast of Passover. The Romans, who took a pride in respecting the usages of conquered people s, had fallen in with this custom . But before Pilate had carried oilt the scourging, the people had already made their choice. This choice is presented, ver. 18, asuuimimous and spontaneous {■rzafj.-'ATj'Jei), while Matthew and Mark, more accurate on tiie point, ascribe it lo the pressure exercised by the rulers and their underlings, which harmonizes with John 19 ■ 6. * Cicero, in Flaccum, § 10. CHAP. XXIII. : 19-25. 487 Mark and Luke characterize Barabbas as one who had been guilty of murder in an insurrection ; lie was therefore a represenhilive of the same revolutionary spirit of whicli (he tSanhedtim were accusing Jesus. To give up Jesus to the cross, and to de- mand Barabbas, was to do at the same moment two significant acts. It was to repu- diate the spirit of sulimission and faith whicli had distinguished the whole work of Jesus, and which might have saved the people. It was at Die same time to let loose the spirit ot revolt which was to carry them to their destruction. The name Baiabbas comes from -^n ^^^ N2N* (^'"^ ^f H^f f'^ither). This name signifies, according to most, son of Abba, ot God. Iveim imderstauds son of the Rabbin, taken as spiritual father. The name Jesus, which is also given to this man in 4 Mnn. of ]\Iatthew, and whicli ■was found, according to tiie Fathers, in a considerable numlierof mss., was probably added to the name of Barabbas, with the desire to render the parallelism the more striking. Tiie liberation of Barabbas was a judicial act ; to carry it out, Pilate must ascend his judgment-seat. It was pnjbably at this moment that the message of his wife, of which Matthew speaks (ver. 19, '" When he was set down on the judgment-seat "), was transmitted to him. Vers. 2U-2o.* This manoeuvre having failed, Pilate returns to the expedient on which he reckons most : he will trj' to satisfy the anger of the most infuriated, and to excite the pity of those who are yet capable of this feeling, by a beginning of pun- ishment. The real contents of the declaration announced by the 7Tpoae0(JvTj(ye, he spake again to them, ver. 20, are not expressed till the end of ver. 22 : " I will therefore cliastise him, and lot him go." But Pilate is interinpted before having uttered his whole thought by the cries of the Jews, ver. 21 ; his answer, ver. 22, breathes indig- nation. Hy {\\e Tpirov , for tlie third ^i/ne, allusion is made to his two previous dec- larations, ver. 4 and vers. 14, 15. Tap btars on the idea of crucifixion, ver. 21 : " Crucify him ? For he has done . . . what evil?" But this indignation of Pilate is only an example of cowardice. "Why scourge Him whom he acknowledges to be innocent ? This first weakness is appreciated and immediately turned to ac- count by the Jews, f It is here, in Luke's account, that the scourging should be placed. John, who has left the most vivid recital of this scene, places it exactly at this moment. According to Matthew and Mark, the scoutging did not take place till after the sentence was pronounced, agreeably to custom, and as the first stage of crucifixion. Ver. 23 summarizes a whole series of negotiations, the various phases of which John alone has preserved to us (19 ; 1-12). Jesus, covered with blood, appears before the people. But the rulers and their partii^ans succeed in extinguishing the voice of pity in the multitude. Pilate, who reckoned on the effect of the spectacle, is shocked at this excess of cruelt}'. He authorizes them to carry out the crucifixion themselves at their own risk ; they decline. They understand that it is he who serves as their executioner. To gain him there remain yet two ways. All at once changing their tactics, they demand the death of Jesus as a blasphemer : " He made * Ver. 20. 6 Mjj. 2 Mnn. Vss., 8e instead of ovv. ». B. L. T. 2 Mnn. add avroi? after itpo6F.q)c..v7]6£v. Ver. 21. i*. B. D. F" Or., dravpov, 6ravpov, instead of 6r instead of 'Lifiuvo'i Tivoi KvprjvaLuv Epxofievov. Ver. 37. A. E. C. D. L. X. some Mnn. omit Kai after ai. ^. omits ai kui. Ver. 29. !!^. B. C. L. eOpEfau, D. s^eOptilmv, in- stead of eOriXaauv. Ver. 31. D. K. A. several Men. lti'i'^'-W"«, Vg., yevrjaETai instead of yevtjTai. CHAP, XXI ri. : J2f5-;}S. 4U1 24 : 14) ; it was the type of exclusion from l.uman society (Ileh 13) lol.n 10 • 17 u^to.u (Malt 8 . 38). But we are left iu ignorance of the motive which soon led . ? ," '""' ""^'-''-^^^ burden, or did Simon tes.ify his Mnn'thv ^^h ll.m rather loo loudly ; or was ihere here one of those abuses of „ il t^ y Tw r nit al '::f'r ; ', 'T'^ " ^'^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ '■""'«"- ? we cannot tell. ^ '. ^ e ^ Je usalcn (Acts 0 . 9). It ,s natural lo conclude from the words. ca».uu/ ant of the r;;: T.V lI'J" "'"■■"'"= ^-^ "^ ^"^^ ^^^^^^ ^^'^ ^^"^•■'^- 1^-- not the;;.f/r "ik Marl 1?^^^ -true, that he might merely have been taking a ad the Saviour, and that he soon entered into the Church with his family He afterward settled at Rome with his wife and two sons (Rem IG • 13) * ' \ ers 27-33 are peculiar to Luke. In ver. 27 we see popular feeling breakin-v out hrough the mouth of the women, not. as M. de Pressense thinks, tho.S. who had T compamed Jesus from Galilee, but inhabitants of Jerusalem. The sayin.s of Jo us testify to His entire self-forgetfulness; they contain an allusion to Hos To ■ 8 T i^' meaning of ver. 31 appears to be that indicated by Bleek : the green wood' is Jesus led to death as a rebel, notwithstanding His constant submission to the Gentile au hont.es ; the dry wood is the Jewish people, who. by their spi.it of revolt will Av.lh much stronger reason, bring down on themselves the sword of the Romans' The more contrary to nature it is that Jesus should die as a rebel, the more is'it in kuep.ng with the nature of things that Israel should perish for rebellion. Thus Jesus makes the people aware of the falsehood which ruled His condemnation, and the way m which God will take vengeance. No doubt, behind the human judirmenl which Visits the nation, there is found, as in all similar sayings (comp. Luke 3^: 0 etc ) the divme judgment reserved for each individual. This last reference is demanded bv the connection of vers. 30 and Bl.f The figure of the green wood and the dry is bor- rowed from Lzek. 21:3-8. The two malefactors were probably companions of l^arabbas. This accumulation of infamy on Jesus was owing perhaps to the hatred of the rulers. God brought out of it the glory of His Son. 2d Vers. 33-38.t Is the spot where Jesus was crucified that which is shown for su.t*iiT<''!'t '^'"^^Tr^ '^^ 1'"^? stronger than the facts warrant, though early tradition susta ns it. Alexander and Rufus" are named by Alark as known to his re- ir ,« and It is assumed that this is the Rufus of Rom. Ki': 13. R„t Cfl was a common t.iries X-.l^'fnT"'!'''' ""'^' '^^S^-'-*-''! '-■ Tradition in the fhiid an Ifou hTen nir^s ahva:ys found prominent places for names mentioned iu the sacred wrilings^.^ thinVJJlfnPwi'"^ philologist Peerlkaamp (in his " Tacit i Agricola," Levden 18(54) H m c ■ ''^'T'"^^ transpose ver. 31, putting it after ver. 27 : '• And th.-v Ian i n ed ^^^lilL^i:^^^''^- ^^^' ^'-^^ arbitrary transposi}i.!n"]s":::! n J m'^'"' '^/.i-^n ^^^^i. ■'' ^y""- S.vr. It. Vg., 7??.eov instead of cTT^Wov. Ver 34 ii" B ANords r,>n,u.uan- eA^.r,vcKoci Kat pcuacKOcS Kac e,ipacKOiS (taken from John). ' 493 COM.MI'A'l'Ain OX ST. Ll'Ki:. it at tlie present day, in the inclosure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre ? The queslioa does uot seem yet decided Though this place is now withiu the city iu- closure, it might not have Ijeen so then. The name place of the skull (skull, in He- brew nT'^'?^' i'l Aramaic STlT'JlT'Jli* from 77;; to roll) does not come from the skulls of the condemned which remained lymg there ; this would require the plural : the place of skulls ; besides, uuburied banes would not have been left there. The name is rather to be traced to the bare rounded form of the hill. Matthew and Mark relate here that Jesus refused the stupefying draught which was offered Him. According Xo Mark, it was aromatic wine ; according to Matthew, vinegar mingled with j^all.f Of the seven saymgs which Jesus uttered on the cross, the first three refer to the persons surrounding Him — His enemies, His companion in punishment, and those whom He Ijves most tenderly, His mother and His friend ; they are, as it were. His will. The three which follow : " My God, my God ... 1 tliirst ; it is fin- ished," refer to His sufYeiings and the work which is being finished ; the first two, t) the sufferings of His soul and of His body ; the third, to the result gained by this complete sacrifice. Finally, the seventh and last : " Father, into Thy hands . . . " is the cry of perfect confidence from His expiring heart in its utmost weakness. Three of those seven sayings, all three words of grace and failh, ate related by Luke, and by him only. The prayer of ver. 34 is wanting in some mss. This omission is probably the re- sult of accident ; for the oldest translations, as well as the great majority of mss., guarantee its authenticity ; and the appeal of the thief for the grace of Jesus, a few UDments later, cannot be well explained, except by the impression produced on him by tlie hearing of this filial invocation. The persons for whom this prayer is offered cannot be the Raman soldiers, who aie blindly executing the orders which they have received ; it is certainly the Jews, who, by rejecting and slaying their Messiah, are smiting themselves with a mortal blow (John 3:19). It is therefore literally true, that iti acting thus they know not what they do. The prayer of Jesus was granted in the forty years' respite during which they were permitted, before perishing, to hoar the apostolic preaching. The wrath of God might have been discharged upon them at the very moment. The casting of the lot for the garments of Jesus (ver. 34) belongs to the same class of derisive actions as those related ver. 3o it seq. By this act the prisoner became the sport of his executioners. The garment of the crudarii belonged to them, according to the Roman law. Ever}- cross was kept by a detachment of four soldiers, a Terp!i(5ioi> (Acts 13 : 4). The plural K^rjpovi, lots, is taken from the parallels. The lot was twice drawn, first for the division of the four nearly equal parts into which the g I inents of Jesus were divided (cloak, cap, girdle, sandals), then for His robe or uiuic, which was too valuable to be put into one of the four lots. The word Oeupeiv, beholding (ver. 35), does not seem to indicate a malevolent feeling ; it rather foims a contrast with what follows. The words oiiv avroli, with them, must be rejected from the text. The meaning of the term, the chosen of God, is, that the Christ is He on whose election rests that of the entire people. The mockeries of the soldiers apply to * It is from this word that the name Golgotha is generally derived (IVIatthew, Mark, J()hn). Kraft (" Topogr. Jcrus. " p. 158) has recently proposed another etymology : 73, Idll, and nyi^, death (comp. the place named Jer. 31 : 39). f The ancienl naturalist*, Di,")«norides and Galen, ascribe to incense and myrrh a stupefying influence (Langen, p. 303). (II. \ I', will.: ;!S-I(;. -I'.i;; Jewish royalty iu itsolf, more than to Jesus personally (John II) : o, 14, l.j). It has often heen Ihouijjht that the wine which the vsoldiers ollered to Jesus was that which Imd been prepared for themselves (o^os, a common wine) ; but the sponge and the rod of hyssop which are on the spot leave no doubt that it was intended to allay the sulTeriugs of the prisoners. It was perhaps the san>e draught which had been offered to them at the beginning of the crucifixion. The soldiers pretend to treat Jesus as ;i king, to whom the festive cup is presented. Thus this derisive homage is connected with the ironical inscriptiim (not in regard to Jesus, but iu regard to the pe(i|ilei placed on the cross (ver. 38). It is this connection of ideas which is expressed by the ijv 6i Kni, there alxo was. By this inscription, so humbling to the Jews, Pilate took vengeance for the degrading constraint to which they had subjected him by forcing him to execute an innocent man. The mention of the three languages is au interpo- lation taken from John. Sd. Vers. 3!)-4G.* Matthew and Mark ascribe the same jcstings to the two thieves. The partisans of harmony at any price think that they both began with biaspheniy, and that one of them afterward came to himself. In any case, it must be assuiiii d that ^Litthew and Mark did not know tjiis change of mind ; olherwiie, wliy should the}' not have mentioned it V But is it not more natural to hold thai they group in categories, and that they are ignorant of tlie particular fact related by LukeV How bad this thief been touched and convinced V Undoubtedly ho had been struck all at once with the contrast between the holiness which shone iu Jesus aiul his own crimes (vers. 40 and 41). Then the meekness with which Jesus let Himself be led to punish- ment, and especially His prayer for Ilis executioners, had taken liold of his con science and heart. The t\t\e Father, which Jesus gave to God at the very moment when God was treating Ilim in so cruel a manner, had revealed in Him a Being who Avas living in an intimate relation to Jehovah, and led him to feel His divine greatnes.s. His faith in the title King of the Jews, inscribed on His cross, was onlj'' the consc- qirence of such impressions. The words ovSi av, not even thoa (ver*. 40). which he ad- dresses to his companion, allude to the difference of moral situation which belongs to them both, aird the raiiers with whom he is joining ; " Thou who are not merel}', like them, a spectator of this punishment, but who art undergoing it thyself." It is not for him, who is on the eve of appearing before the divine tribunal, to act as the pro- fane. "Ort, because, refers to the idea contained in 00,6'?/ : " Thou at least oughtest to fear . . . ; for . . ." The prayer which he addresses to Jesus (ver. 4'2) is suggested to him b3' that failh in an rmlimited mercy which had been awaked in him by hearing the prayer of Jesus for Ilis executioners. It seems to me probable that the omission of the word Kipn, Lord, in the Alex., arises from the mistake of the copyist, who was giving the jjraj'er of the thief from memory, and that the transformation of the dative tu 'hjaov into * Ver. 80. B. L. ovxi, ^. C Syr"^"". It"''i. /.eyuv ovxi, instead of /.eyoi' ei. Ver. 40. i^. B. C. L. X., encri/iuv uvtu £ cnv instead of ev ry Hanueia nov. Ver. 44. B. C. Ij. add Ti(h/ })efnre unei. Ver. 4.'). ii. B. C. ('.') L., rov ip inv eu'/i-ovToi \nst^i{^^\ O^ k(u eaKrirmOr/ <> n'toi, which T. R. n^ads, with 17 Mjj. the most of the Mnn. Syr. l|pi«riq.w j^ j^ f L.. erixiof^n (U instead of kui eaxir/jrj. Ver. 4(). i*. A. B. C. K. M. P. Q. U. X. H. 20 Mnn. Just, Or., Trr/rjnrtOfwrtnnstead of ~apafj>iGoimi, which T. Ti. reads, with S^Mjj. several Mim. it. B. C. D.. tovto 6e instead of Km ravra, which T. K. reads, witli iJ "Mu., or Kui TOVTO, which K. M. P. IT. 1') Mnn. It"'"! read. 494 COMilENTAr.Y ox ST. LUKE. I the apostrophe {'Irjaov) was the effect of this omission. ,The touching cry, Rcmemhtr one! finds its explanation in that community of suffering which seems to him hence- forth to establish an indissoluble bond between Jesus and him. Jesus cannot forget him who shared His punishment. The expression, coming in Ilia kingdom, iv rij ,?affi/.«a (not /or His kingdom, ilS ti/v liaciTieiav), denotes His !Mcssiauic return wilh divine splendor and royal majesty some time after His death. He does not think of the possibility of the body of .Jesus being raised. In our Lord's answer, the word to day stands foremost, because Jesus wishes to contrast the nearness of the promised happiness with the remote future to which the prayer of the thief refers. Ta-day, before the setting of the sun which is shining on us. The word paradise seems to come from a Persian word signifying ^jar^. It is used in the form of CH^C (Eccles. 2:5; Song of Solomon, 4 : 13), to denote a royal garden. In the form -KapdSiLao^, it corresponds in the LXX. to the word p, garden (Gen. 3 : 8, 3 : 1). ,The earthly Eden once lost, this word paradise is applied to that part of Hades where the faithful are assembled ; and even in the last writings of the N. T. , the Epistles and the Apoca- Ij'pse, to a yet higher abode, that of the Lord and glorified believers, the third heaven, 3 Cor. 12 : 4 ; Rev. 2:7. It is paradise as part of Hades which is spoken of here. The extraordinary signs which accompanied the death of Jesus (vers. 44, 45) — the darkness, the rendmg of the veil of the temple, and according to Matthew, the earth- quake and the opening of several graves, are explained by the profound connection existing, on the one side between Christ and humanity, on the other between human- ity and nature. Chiist is the soul of humanity, as humanity is the soul of the ex- ternal world. We need not take the words, over all the earth, in an absolute sense. Comp. 21 : 23, where the expression £71-2 r?/? 77/S, a weaker one it is true, evidently refers to the Holy Laud only. The phenomenon in question here may and must have extended to the surrounding countries. The cause of this loss of light cannot have been an eclipse ; for this phenomenon is impossible at the time of full moon. It was perhaps connected with the earthquake with which it was accompanied ; or it may have resulted from an atmospheric or cosmical cause.* This diminution of the external light corresponded to the moral darkness which was felt by the heart of Jesus : My God, my God, tchy hast thou forsaken me? This moment, to wdiich St. Paul alludes (Gal. 3 : 13 : " He was made a curse for us"), was that at which the Paschal lamb was slain in the temple. It is difficult to decide between the two read- ings ver. 45 : " And the sun was darkened" (T. R.) ; " And the sun faihng." In any case, it is the cause of the phenomenon related ver. 44, mentioned too late. Luke omits the earthquake ; he had other sources. * Neander cites the fact (" Leben Jesu" p. 640) that Phlegon, author of a chronicle under the Emperor Adrian, speaks of an eclipse (V) of the sun as having taken place in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad (785a.u.c.), greater than all former eclipses, and that night came on at the sixth hour of the day, to such a degree that the stars were seen shining in the heavens. This date approximates to the prob- able year of the death of Jesus (783). M. Liais, a well known naturalist, relates that on the 11th of April, 1860, in the province of Pernambuco, while the sky was perfectly clear, the sun became suddenly dark about midday to such a degree that for some seconds it was possible to look at it. Tlie solar disk appeared surrounded with a ring having the colors of the rainbow, and quite near it there was seen a bright star, which "most have been Vemis. The phenomenon lasted for some min- utes. M. Liais attributes it to cosmical nebulae floating in space beyond our atmos- phere. A similar phenomenon must have occurred in the years 1106, 120y, 1547, and 1706 (" Revue germanique," 1860). 9 CHAP, xxirr. : ;J8-40. . 495 The rending of the veil, m|}ntioncd 1)}' the three Syn., should probahly be con- nected with this physical commotion. Is the veil referred to that which was at the entrance of tlie Holy Place, or that wliich concealed the Holy of Holies? As ihe second only had a typical sense, and alone bore, strictly speaking, tlic namo KnraireTaoun (Philo calls the other Kiilvnna *), it is more natural to think of the latter. The idea usually found in this symbolic event is this : The way to the throne of irraco is henceforlh open to all. But did not God rather mean to sliow thereby, that l.>,ni that time the temple was no longer His dwelling-place V As the high piiesL rent liii garment in view of any great offence, so God rends the veil which covers the placo where He, enters into conunuuion with His people ; that is to say, the Holy of Holies is no mure ; and if there is no Holy of Holies, then no Holy Place, and consequently no court, no altar, no valid sacriTices. The temple is profaned, and consetiueutly abolished by Gr.d Himself. The eflicacy of sacrifice has henceforlh passed to another blood, another altar, another priesthood. This is what Jesus had announced to the Jews in this form: Put me to death, and by the very deed ye shall destroy I he temple ! Jewish and Christian tradition has preserved the memory iif analogous events Avhich must have happened at this period. In the Judeo-Chrislian Gospel quoted by Jerome (ia Matt. 27 : ni), it was related that at the time of the eartlupiake a large beam lying above the gate of the temple snapped asunder. The Talmud says that forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem the gates of the temple opened of their own accord. Johanaa Ben Zacchai (]:m"' is ]:". Anna, with the name of Jchoruh prefixed) rebuked them, and said : Temple, wherefore dost thou open of thy- self? I see thereby that the end is near ; for it is written (Zech. 11 : 1), " Open thy doors, O Lebun;>n, that the lite may devour thy cedars." f At the time of the eclipse mentioned above, a great earthquake destroyed part of the city of Nice, in Bithynia.| This catastrophe may have been felt even in Palestine. Those phenomena, which are placed l)y Luke before the time of our Lord's death, are placed by JMalthew and Mark immediately after. Another proof of the difference of their sources. Here should come the two sayings mentioned by John : 1 third, and It isfiimhed. Perhaps the words : Yvlien lie had cried xcith a loud voice (ver. 4G), incluile the saying. It i.H finished, which immediately preceded the last breath. But the particip'e our/iaas has probably no other meaning than the verb eiTve : " Raising His voice He .'^aid." The words: Whtn Ue h(td cried icitli a loud voice, m Matthew and Mark, refer rather to the last saying uttered by Jesus according to Luke : Father, iido thy hands . . . The latter expresses what John has described in the form of an act : He gave up His spirit. The last saying is a quotation from Ps. 31. The fut. -TTapuOt/couui, I shall commit, in the received reading, is probably borrowed from the LXX. The fut. was uatuial in David's mouth, for death was yet at a distance ; he described the way m which he hoped one day to draw his last breath. But the present is alone in keeping with the actual circumstances of Jesus. At the moment wherj He is about to lose self -consciousness, and when the possession of His spirit escapes from Him, He con- fides it as a deposit to his Father. The word Father shows that His soul has recov- ered full serenity. Xot long ago He was struggling with the divine sovereignty and holiness (m)/ God, my God!). Now the darkness is gone ; He has recovered His light, His Father's face. It. is the first effect of the completion of redemption, the glorious prelude of the resurrection. * Neander, " Leben Jesu." p. 640. \ " Bab. Toma," 39. 2. t See Neander's " Leben Jesu," p. G40. 400 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. Keim does not accept as historical any of the seven sayings which .lesus is said to have uttered on the cross. The prayer for his exepuiionershas uo meaning eiUier in regard to the Genlile sjhliers, who were merely blind instruments, or in lespecL of the Jews, to whom He had just announced divine judgment. Besules, sileuce suits Jesus better than a forced and superhuman heroism. The story of the tiiiLf is ex- pl )ded by the facl that it was impossible for him to have known the inuucence and the future return of Jesus, and that Jesus should have promised him paratlis;', which is in the hand of the Father. The saying addressed to John and J\Iaiy is not histoii- <;ai ; for those two were not at the foot of the cioss (Syn ), and John never hud a h )iise to which to lake Mary. The prayer : My God, my (Joel, is only an impoilaliou of Ps. 32 into the account of the Passiun ; Jesus was loo original to borrow the expres- sion of His feelings from the O. T. The same reason disproves the aulhenticiiy cf llie last saying : Father, into Thy lianda, borrowed from Fs. 31. The It isjixii^hcd of Jolm is only the summary expression of the dogmatics already put by the author into the mouth of Jesus in His last discourses. The hisioiic truth is thus reduced to two cries of Jesus : one of pain, which John has translated, nnt without leasou, into i thirst ; and a last cry, Ihat of death. This silence of Jesus forms, according to Keim, the real greatness of His death. The prayer of Jesus and His threatening are not m»re C()atradictor5r than divine justice and human intercessioii. There is room iu liistorj'^ for the effects of both. The prophetic form in which Jpsus clothes the ex- pression of His thoughts takes nolhmg from their oiiginality. They spring frcmi ihe depths of His being, and meet with expressous which arefnmiliar to Him, and whicli He emplovs instinctively. John here, as throughout his Gospel, completes the syn- optics. We think we have shown how the prayer of the thief is psychologically pos- sible. It is doing too much honor to the primilive Church to ascribe to her the in- vention of such sayings. If she had invented, she would not have done so in a style so chaste, so concise, so holy ; once more compare the apocryphal accounts. THIRD CYCLE. — CHAP. 23:47-56. Close of ihe Account of the Passion. Vers. 47-49.* These verses describe the immediate effects of our Lord's death, first on the Roman centurion (ver. 47), then on the people (ver. 48), lastly on the fol- lowers of Jesus (ver, 49). Mark says of the centurion : When he smc. These words relate to the last cry of Jesus and to the event of His death. In Matthew and Luke this same expression refers to all the events which had just passed. Luke gives the Saying of this Gentile in Ihe simplest form : 27us was a righteous man; that is to say : He was no malefactor, as was supposed. But this homage implied something more ; for Jesus having given Himself out to be the Son of God, if He was a righteous man, must be more than that. Such is the meaning of the cenlui ion's exclamation in the narratives of Matthew and Mark. Twice on the cross Jesus had called God JLs Fatlbcr ; the centurion could therefore well express himself thus : He was really, as He alleged, the Son of God ! As the centurion's exclamation is an anticipation of the conversion of the Gentile world, so the consternation which takes possession of the Jews on witnessing the scene (ver. 48) anticipates the final penitence and conversion of this people (comp. Zech. 13 : 10-14.) The word Oeupla, that sight, alludes to the feeling of curiosity which had attracted the mtillilude. Among the acquaintance of Jesus spoken cf ver. 49 there must have been some of His apostles. This is the necessaiy inference from the word Travrer, all. 'Manpudev, * Ver. 47. ». B. D. L. R.. fdofnCfi^ instead of eSo^aaei'. Ver. 48. 7 Mjj. Syr., BeupijaavTEi instead of 6EupovvTe<;. J*. A.. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. omit savujn, Ver. 49. A. B. L. P. 3 Mnn., avru instead of avrov after yvutaroi,. S*. B. D. L. 10 Mnn. aid C'To before /iaKpo(/et>. t II Ai'. Will.: 4;-"t(I. .i;i;' afnr off, discoveis the fear which prevailed anions llicm. John and Mary Iiad come nearer Ihu cross (John 10 : HG, 27). Luke does not name till later any of the wonieii present. Matthew and ^laik here designate Mary ]\lagdaleue, of wiiom John also speaks ; Mary the mother of James and Joses, probably the same ■whom Jolin calls 31ary the wife of Cleopus, and aunt of Jisus ; with the mother of the sous of Zebedee, whom jNIark calls Salome, and whom John leaves unmenlioned, as lie does when membeis of his own family are iu question. TheSyu. do not speak of tlie molher of Jesus. We ought probably to take in its literal sense the words : " From that linur th;il disciple look her unto his own home" (John 19 .27). The heait of Mary was br;)ken on heaiing the deep)}' tender words which Jesus had spoken to her, and she wiilidti'W that same hour, so that she was not present at the end of the civicifixion. when the friends of Jesus and the other women came near. l^'iariiKeiGnv, they ntood, is opposed to v-iariiecpov, tlicy returned (ver. 48). While the people were leaving the cross, Ilis fiituds assembled in sight of Jesus. The words : hchuldiiaj l/iene tilings, lefer not only to the circumstances allendlng the death of Jesus, but also, and above all, to the departure of the territied multitude. This minute particular, taken f rt m the immediate impiession of the witnesses, betrays a source in close connection with the fact. Vers. 50-o4.* TIte Burial of Jesus. — According to John, the Jewish authorities requested Pilate to have the bodies removed befoie (he beginning of the next day, which was a Saitbatli of extiaordinary solemnity. For though Jesus and his compan- i )us in punishment were not yet dead, and though the law Dent. 21 : 22 did not heie apply literally, tluy might have died before the end of the day which was about to begin, and the day be polluted thereby all the more, because, it being a Babbalh, the bodies could not be removed. The crucifvagium, ordered by Pilate, was not meant tn put the condemned immediately to death, but only to make it cntain, which allowed of Iheir being taken fiom the cross. Thus is explained the wonder of Pilate, when Joseph of Aiimalhea informed him that Jesus was already dead (Mark 15 : 44). The seciet fiiends of our Loid show themselves at the time of Ills deepest di.-honor. Already the word finds fulfilment (2 Cor. 5 : 14) : " The love of Christ consliaineth us." Each evangelist chaiacleiizes Joseph in his own way. Luke: a counsellor good and just; he is the /ca/oS A^jnOo?, the Greek ideal. Mark : an hnnoiablo counsellor; the Roman ideal. Matthew: a lich man; is this net the Jewish ideal ? Luke, moreover, brings out the fact, that Joseph had not agreed to the sentence (f3or/.j?), nor to the odious plan {nfja^ei) by which Pdate's con- sent had been extorted. 'Api/nuOa'ta is the Greek form of the name of the town Jliunutluiim (1 Sam. 1 : 1), Samuel's birthplace, situated in Mount Ephraim, and con- sequently beyond Ihe natural limits of Judea. But since the time spoken of in 1 ]Vlacc. 11 : 34, it had been reckoned to this province ; hence the expiession : u city of the Jews. As to Josepli, he lived at Jerusalem ; for he had a sepulchre there. The received reading oS nai -npoaeStxeTo Kdi avTui, who aluo hitnself waited, is probably the * Ver. 51. !S^. B. C. D. L. If'-i., oS -npnoKUxfTo insteadof o? nnt Tri)oc£(hxeTo (F. some Mnn. S^r.) ; instcail of o? Km civtuc -pnoKhxero ((j ^Ijj. 15 Mun ) ; instead of o5 Kai -jmatdixtro kcu avroc (T. li., with 9 Mjj) ; instead of oi ~fi )c(de\tTO kol avroi (sev- eral Mrm. It""'!. Vg.). Ver. 5:5. 5*. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. II""m. Yg. omit avru after KdOeAuf. !*. B. C. D. ItP'^rique Vg., avTof instead of avro. ^. B. D. Ij. 8 Mnn., ovnu inslead of ovih-u Ver. 54. ii. B. C. L. 2 ]\lnn. lii'i>-'-'q<>«, Vg.. ■Kdpaaiifvrir instiad of -rripaoKevTi. l(j Mji the most of the Mnn. omit k(u before c(id3aToii, which is read by 54. B. C. L. s^me'Mnn. Svr. Iipi"iq"-=, Vg. 408 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. true one ; it has been variously modified, because the relation of the also MmseJf to the other friends of Jesus who were previously mentioned (ver. 49) was nut under- stood ; by the double Kai, Luke gives prominence to the believing chuiacter of Joseph, even when no one suspected it. Mai k (15 ■• 4G) informs us tliat the shroud in which the body was wrapped was bought at the same time by .Joseph. How could such a purchase be made if the day was Sabbatic, if it was the loth Xisan V Langen answers that Ex. 13:16 made a dilference, so far as the preparation of food was concerned, between the lolh i*sisan and the iSabbath properly so called, and that this dilference might have extended to other matters, to purchases for example ; that, besides, it was not necessary to paj"" on the same day. But the Talmud reverses this supposition. It expressly stipulates that wi)en the 14th Nisan fell on the Sabbath day, it was lawful on that day to make preparation for the morrow, the 15lh (" Mischna Pesachim," iii. 0 ei nl.), tbus sacri- ficmg the sacreduess of the Sabbath to that of the feast da}'. Could the latter have been less holy ! There is no ground for alleging that the authorization of Ex. 13 extended beyond the strict limits of the text. According to the Syn., the circumstance which determined the use of this sepul- chre was, that it belonged to Joseph. According to John, it was its nearness to the place of punishment, taken in connection with the approach of the Sabbath. But those two circumstances are so far from being in contradiction, that the one apart from the other would have no value. What influence could the ap- proach of the Sabbath have had in the choice of this rocky sepulchre, if it hud not belonged to one of the friends of Jesus? The Syn. do not speak of the part taken by Nicodemus in the burial of Jesus. This particular, omitted by tradition, has been restored by John. It is of no consequence whether we read in ver. 54, TTapaaKEvT/i or irapaaKev?/. The important point is, whether tliis name, which means preparation, denotes here the eve of the weekly Sabbath (Friday), or that of the Pass- over day (the 14th Nisan). Those who allege that Jesus was crucified on the loth take it in the first sense ; those who hold it to have been on the 14lh, in the secjud. The text in itself admits of both views. But in the context, how can it be held, we would ask with Caspari (p. 173), that the holiest day of the feast of the j^ear, the loth Nisan, was here designated, like any ordinary Friday, the preparation for the Sab- bath '{ No doubt ]Mark, in the parall., translates this word by •jrpoadfiiSaTov, day before Sabbath (15 : 43). But this expression may mean in a general way : the eve of Sab- bath or of any Sabbatic day whatever. And in the present case it must have ibis lat- ter sense, as appears from the i-si, because. Mark means to explain, by the Sabbatic character of the following day, why they made haste to bury the body : it was tlie pro-Sabbath. What meaning would this reason have had, if the very day on which they were acting had been a Sabbatic day V Matt. 37 : G3 offers an analogous expres- sion. In speaking of Saturday, the morrow after the death of .Jesus, Matthew says : * the next day, that followed the preparation." We have already called attention to this expression (" Comment, sur Jean," t. ii. p. 638). " If this Saturday," says Caspaii (p. 77), " had been an ordinary Sabbath, Matthew would nut have designated it in so strange a manner. The preparation in question must have had a character quite different from the preparation for the ordinary Sabbath. This preparation day must have been so called as a day of special preparation, as itself a feast day ; it must have been the 14th Nisan." The term Eni(puGKe, was beginning to shine, is figurative. It is taken from the natural day, and applied here to the civil day. CHAT, xxiii. : o4-5G. 499 Vers. t)~), 50.* Tlie embalming of Jesus having been done in hnste, the •women proposed to coniiilute it. This same evening, tlicicfore, tliry prepaietl the oilorifi r- ous herbs {(ipuuaTa) anil the perfumed oils (fvpa) ueeessary for the purpose ; and liic hour of the 8abbath being come, they rested. ()u( e more, vhat would be tlie mean- ing of this conduct if that very day had been Sabbatic, the loth Xi.van V Evidently it \vas j-et the 14th ; ami the loih, which was about to begin, was at once the weekly S;d)bath and the first Passover day, and so invested with double sacrcdness, as John icmurks (1!) : 31). ]\Iark says, somewhat diflferenlly (16 : 1), that the}' made their jueparations tcficn the t-ahbath wns past, that is to say, on the morrow in the evening. No doubt they had not been able to finish them completely ou the Friday before si.v o'clock afternoon. The «flt of the T. R. before ywalKtS, ver. S^, is evidently a cor- luption of a'l. It has been asked how, if Jesus predicted His resurrection, the women could have prepared to embalm ITis body. But we have seen the answer in tlie case of the converted thief : they expected a glorious reappearance of Jesus from luavfu after His death, but not the reviving of His body laid in the tomb. A feel- ing of pious and humble fidehty is expressed in the Ci)nduct of the women, as it is described by Luke in the touching words : " And they rested according to the coni- mandmeut." It was the last Sabbath of the old covenant. It was scrupulously re- spected. Conclusion regarding the Day of Jesus' Death. It follows from the exegesis of chaps. 2*3 and 2o, that according to the Syn., as well as accoiding to John, the day of Jesus' death was not the fiist and grcjit d:iv of tiie paschal feasl (ir)th Nisan), but the day befoie(ur preparation), the 14lh Ni an, wliicii that year was a Fiiday. and so. at the same time, \\\q prtparaiioa for the Sai)bath. Hence it follows also that the last feast of Jesus took place on the evening bttweeu the loth and 14lii, and not on the evening bttween the 14th and loHi, when the whole people celebrated the paschal feast. Such is the result to which wo are biought bv all the passages examined : 23 : 7-9, 10-15, 06 ; 23 : 20, 5:!, 54, 55, 50 ; Matt. 26 TS, 18 ; 27 : 02 ; Mark 14 : 2 ; 15 : 42, 40 ; so that, on the main ([ueslion, it appeals to us that cxi-gelically theie can be no doubt, seeing Ihat our four Gospel accounts piesent no leal dij^agreement. The fact, therefore, slandsas follows : On the 13lh, toward evening, Jesus sent the two disciidts most woilhy of His confidence to prepare the paschal feast ; in the opinion of all the lesl, tliis was with a view to the following; evening, when the national feast was to be celebrated. ]]ut Jesus knew that by tiiat time the hour would be -past for His celebrating Ihia last Passover. This same evcnin>:;, theiefoie, some houis after having sent llu; two disciples. He seated Himself at the table prepared by them and by ilie master of the li.iuse. There was in this a surprise for the apostles, which is probably referred to iiy Luke 22 : 15 : " With desiie 1 have desiied to eat this jKissover willi ymi befoie 1 siilfer." Aliove all, it was a surprise to Judas, who had resolved to tive Him up this same evening. This anticijialioii on the part of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath and of the wholtriaw (0 : 5), involved nothing less than the abrogation of the paschal feast and of the ancient covenant. This exegetical result at^rees fully with Jewish tradition. In " Bab. Sanhedr." 40. 1, it is expressly said (Caspari, p. 150) : " Jesus was executed on the eve of the Passover. A publi(! criei had proclaimed for seventy days that a man was lo lie stoned for having bewitched Israel and seduced it into schism ; lliat he wliohadany- ihmg to say for his justification should pres^ent himself and testify for him ; but no one appeared to justVy him. Tiien they crucified him on the evening [the evej cf the Pansocer {^^^^ Z^.J/'Z)-" This last expression can denote nothing but the evening * Ver. 55. Tns'ead of (h Km ywniKe?', which T. R. reads, with some Mun.. the !M.tJ. read either <5c -.vvatKei or ). 5. The last inslructions of Jesus (vers. 44-4!)). C. The ascension (vers. 50-53). 1. 2'he Women at the Sapulchre : vers. 1-7. — Vers. 1-7.* The women play the first, if not the principal, part in all those accounts ; a special duty called thcni to the tomb. They were, accordins: to ]\Iatt. 28 : 1, Marj' jVIagdalcue and the otlicr Mary (the aunt of Jesus) ; according to Mark (IG : 1), those same two, and Ssilome tlic mother of James and John ; according to Luke (ver. 10), the first two, alonu; willi the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (S : 3). John names only 3Iary Magdalene. But does not Mary herself allude to the presence of others when she says (ver. 2) : " "We know not where thej' luive laid Ilim "? If John names her so specially, it is becaiise he intends to give anew the account of the appearance which tradition had either omitted or generalized (Matthew), and which as, having taken place first, had a cer- tam impoitance. As to the time of the women's arrival, Luke says. Very early in the morning ; Matthew, b\^l aaPiSdruv, which signifies, not SabbatJi evening, but (like the phrases u^i fivaTT/pluv, pcractis mysieriis, oipi rpulKuv, after the Trojan war ; see Block) : after the Sabbath, in the night which followed. By the r?7 inKpucKovar/, Mat- thew expresses the fact that it was at the time of daybreak. Mark says, with a slight difference, which only proves the independence of his narrative (to ver. 8), At the rixing of the sun. The object of the women was, according to Matthew, to visit the sepulchre ; according to the other two, to embalm the bodj'. The fact of the resurrection itself is not described by any evangelist, no one having been present. Only the Risen One was seen. It is of Him that the evangel- ists bear witness. 3Iatthew is the one who goes furthest back. An earthquake, due to the action of an angel {yup), shakes and dislodges the stone ; the angel seats him- self upon it, and the guards take to flight. L^ndoubtedly, it cannot be denied that this account, even in its style (Ihe parallelism, ver. 3), has a poetic tinge. But some such fact is necessarily supposed by what follows. Otherwise, how would the sepulchre have been found open on the arrival of the women ? It is at this point that the other accounts begin. In John, j\lary Magdalene sees nothing except the stone wliich has been rolled away ; she runs instantly to apprise Peter and John. It ma}' be supposed that the other women did not accompany her, and tliat, having come near the sepulchre, they were witnesses of the appearance of the angel ; then, that they returned home. Not till after that did Mary Magdalene come back with Peter and .lohn (John 21 : 1-9). It might be supposed, indeed, that this whole account given by the Syn. regarding the appearance of the angel (Matthew and jSIark), or of the two angels (Luke), to the women, is at bottom nothing more than the fact of the appearance of the angels to Mary related by .John (20 : 11-13) and generalized by tra- dition. But vers. 22, 23 ot Luke are not favoralile to this view. Mar}' Magdalene, having seen the Lord immediately after the appearance of the angels, could not have related the first of those facts without also mentioning the second, which was far more important. ' In the angel's address, as reproduced by the Syn., everything differs, with the * The MSB. are divided between /5a(3fo5 (T. R, Byz.) and /Ja^fuS (Alex.), and be- tween fivTtixa (T. R.) and /ivTi/isiou (taken fiom the parall.). 5*. B. C. L. 2 Mnn. Jipieriqne^ Vg. omlt tlic wohIs k(u Ttvci (7VV avTaii. YnT. 4. !!>. B. C. D. L., anopeiafjai instead of (haKoptioOai. ^. B. D. It. Vg., ev eoOtjti aGrpanrovrsT] instead of ev eaOijceaiv noTpmrTovaaic. Ver. 5. The MS8. are divided between to npoau-w (T. R., Bj'z.) and TO TpoGcj-^ra (Alex.). 504r COMMENTAKY OX ST. LUKE. siugle exception of the words wbich are identical in all, He is not here. A coriimon document is inadmissible. lu Luke, the angel recalls to the memuiy of the women former promises of a resurre tiou. lu MattLew aud Maiii, he reminds them, wliile calling on them to remind the disciples, of tlie rendezvous which Jesus had appouiled for Ills own in Galilee before His death. Upodyei, He goeth before, like an invisible shepherd walking at the head of His visible flock. Already, indeed, before His death Jesus had shown His concern to reconstitute His Galilean Church, and that in Galilee itself (Mark 14 : 28 , Matt. 20 : 32) ; viids you, cannot apply to the apostles only to the exclusion of the women ; it embraces all the faithful. It is also certain that the last words, lliere ye sliall see Him, do not belong to the sayings of Jesus which the women are charged to report to the disciples. It is the angel himself who speaks, as is proved by the expression, Lo, 1 hare told you (Matthew) ; and more clearly still l)y the words, As He said iinto you (Mark). This gallieriug, which Jesus had in view even in Gethsemane, at the mument when He saw them ready to be scattered, nnd which forms the subject of the angel's message immediately after the resurrection, was intended to be the general reunion of all the faithful, who for the most part were natives of Galilee, and who formed the nucleus of the future Church of Jesus. After that, we shall not be surprised to hear St. Paul speak (1 Cor. 15) of an a.^sem- blage of more than 500 brethren, of whom the 120 Galileans of Pentecost were the elite (Acts 1 : 15, 2:7); comp. also the expression my brethren (John 20 : 17), which certainly includes more than the eleven apostles. There follows in Matthew an appearance of Jesus to the women just as they are leaving the tomb. It seems to mo that this appearance can be no odier than that which, according to .John, was granted to Mar}-- iMagdalene. Tradition had applied it to the women in geueral. Comp. the expressions. They embraced His feet (Matthew), with the words, Touch me not, in John ; Tell my brethren (IMatthew), with Go to my brethren and say unto them,, in John. Finally, it must be remarked that in the two accounts this appearance of Jesus immediately follows that of the angel. In Matthew's mind, does the promise. There shall they see me, exclude all appearance to the apostles previous to tbat which is here announced? If it is so, the contradiction between this declaration and the accounts of Luke and John is glaring. But even in Matthew, the expression, There [in Galilee] ye shall see me, ver. 7, is immediately followed by an appearance of Jesus to those women, and that in Judea (ver. 9) ; this fact proves clearly that we must not give such a negative force to Matthew's expression. What we have here is the affirmation of a solemn reunion which shall take place in Galilee, aud at which not only the apostles, but the women and all the faithful, shall be present. That docs not at all exclude special appearances granted to this or that one before the appear- ance here in question. The following was therefore the course of events ; Mary Magdalene comes to the sepulchre with other women. On seeing the stone rolled away, she runs to inform the disciples ; the other women remain ; perhaps others besides arrived a little later (Maik). The angel declares to them the resurrection, and they return. Mary Mag- dalene comes back with Peter and John ; then, having remained alone after their departure, she witnesses the first appearance of Jesus risen from the dead. 2. Visit of Peter to the Sepulchre : vers. 8-12.— Vers. 8-12.* As we have found the * Ver. 10. 13 Mjj. 45 Mnu. If'ii. omit at before Eltyov. Yer. 11. ii. B. D. L. Syr. Tipi'-rique^ _„ py^uara rnvrn instead of rn p-r^fuiTa avTuv. Ver. 12. This verse is en- tirely omitted by D :i 1) e 1 Fukl. Syr''^". It is found in 19 Mii. all the Mnn. Syr"". CHAT. XXIV. : 8-lG. oUo ncoount jjiv^en, John 20 : 14-18, in IVhiUhew's narrative of tlic appearance to Ihe wom- eu, so we recognize here the fact wliich is related more in detail in .lolin 20 : 1-10. Lidie says, ver. t), tiial on reluming from llie sepulchre Ihe women related what they had seen and heard, while, accordnig to Jlaik (ver. 8), they hx'pt ailciicc. This con- tradietiou is explained by the fact tiial the two sayings refer to two dilTercnt events : the first, to the account which IMary IMagdalene gives to Peter and John, and which led them to the sepulchre (Luke, vers. 12 and 22-2-1) — a report which soon spread among the apostles and all the disciples ; the other, to the first moments wliich fol- lowed the return of the other women, until, Iheir fears having ahated, they began to speak. But this contradiction in terms proves 'that at least up to ver. 8 Mark had not Luke before him. The al of the T. R., ver. 10, before iTisyov is indispensable. The omission of ver. 12 in the Cantab, and some copies of the Latin and Syriac trans- lations appeared so serious a matter to Tischendorf that he rejected this verse in his eighth edition. But if it were an interpolation taken from John, it would not have mentioned Peter onl}', but Peter and John (or (he other disciple). And the apparent contradiction would have been avoided between this verse and ver. 24, where it is not an apostle, Xmi certain of them (rifer), who ie()air to the sepulchre. The extreme caprice and carelessness which prevail throughout cod. D and the documents of the Itala which are connected with it are well known. The entire body of the other Mjj. and of the j\Inn., as well as most of the copies of the ancient translations, support the T. R. Some such historical fact as that mentioned in this verse is required by the declaration of the two disciples (ver, 24). Thei-e is, besides, a striking resem- blance between the account of John and that of Luke. The terms Trapanvipa'^, oOovi'a HEi'i-ieva, Ttpui eavrov aTrs/Osii^, are found in both. 3. T7ie Appearance on the icay to Emmans: vers. 13-32.— Vers. 13-82.* Here is one of the most admiral le pieces in Luke's Gospel. As John alone has preserved to us the account of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, so Luke alone has tiansmitte'd to us that of the appearance granted to the two disciples of Emmaus. The summary of this event in ^Lirk (16 : 12, 13) is evidently nothing more than an extract from Luke. Vers. 13-16. llie Ui&torical Introduction. — 'Idov, behold, prepares us for something unexpected. One of the two disciples was called Cleopas (ver. 18). This name is an abbreviation of Cleopatros, and not, like A'Aoj^raS (John 19 : 25), the reproduction of the Hebrew name "'J}'?"' which Luke always translates by \4X(paio? (0 : 15 ; Acts 1 : 13). This name, of Greek origin, leads to the supposition that this disciple was a proselyte come to the feast. As to the other, it has been thought (Theophylact, Lange) that it was Luke himself — first, because he is not named ; and next, becau.se of the peculiarly dramatic character of the narrative following (comp. especially ver. 32). Luke 1 : 2 proves nothing against this view. For the author distinguishes him- self in this passage, not from witnesses absolutely, but from those who were wit- nesses from the beginning ; and this contact for a moment did not give him the right to rank himself among the authors of the Gospel tradition. Jesus, by manifesting * Ver. 13. H. I. K. X. 11. some Mnn., eKarov eirjunv-a in.stead of e^TjKovra. Ver. 17. i^. A. (".') H. Le., Kai tarnbTinav OKv^jp(,)-oi iristeail of aai egte oKvOpunoL. Ver. 18. it. B. L. N. X.. ovojiaTL instead of u ovoun. All the 3Ijj., A. excepted, omit rv before Ifpovaa'/.Tjfi. Ver. 19. !!*. B. I. L., vn^dfinvov instead of I'd^upniov. Ver. 21. ii. D. B. li. add Kcu after aX/aye. i*. B. L. Syr. omit nr]iLfnw. Ver. 28 it. A. B. D. L. It"''i.. ■KiiooerroiT/nnTo instead of TTpo'^enoietTo. Ver. 29. it. B. L. some Mini. lt"''9. Vg. add f/(5// after kek/ikev. Ver. 32. it. B. D L. omit nai before «jS (kipoiyev. 50G COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Himself to these two men, accomplished for the first time what He had anuounced to the Greeks, who iisked to speak with Him in the temple : " If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me" (John 12 : 32, 38). Emmaus is not, as was held 1)3' Eusebius and Jerome, Ammaus (later Nicopolis), the modern Anwas, situated to the S.E. of Lydda ; for this town lies 180 furlongs from Jerusalem, more than double the distance mentioned by Luke, and such a distance is incompatible with our account (ver. 23). Caspar! (p. 2u7) has been led to the conviction previousl}'^ ex- pressed by Sepp, that this place is no other than the village Ammaus mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6), which Titus assigned to 8uU veterans of his army to found a colony. This place, stuated E.S.E. from Jerusalem, is called even at the present day KolonieJi, and is distant exactly G(J furlongs from Jerusalem. In Succa iv. 5, the Talmud says that there, at Mauza (with the article : Hama MaQza), they go to gather the green boughs for the feast of Tabernacles ; elsewhere it is said that " Mauza is Kolonieh." The reasoning, dv^ifveiv (ver. 15), bore, according to ver. 21, on the force of the promises of Jesus. The exparovyro, were liolden (ver. 16), is explained by the concurrence of two factors : the incredulity of the disciples regard- ing the bodily resurrection of Jesus (comp. ver. 25), and a mysterious change which had been wrought on the person of our Lord (comp. Mark 16 : 12 : kv kripoi luopqiy, and John 20 : 15, supposing Him to be the gardener . . .). Vers. 17-19a. Beginning of the Conversation. — Ver. 17. Jesus generally interrogates before instructing. As a good teacher, in order to be heard. He begins by causing his auditors to speak (.John 1 : 38). The Alex, reading at the end of ver. 17, allowed by Tischendorf (8lh ed.) : and stood sad, borders on the absurd. Ver. 18. Muvoi belongs to both verbs, napoi>ce'ii and ovk exvooi, together. They take Jesus for one of those numerous strangers who, like themselves, are temporarily sojourning at Jerusalem. An inhabitant of the city would not have failed to know these things ; and in their view, to know them was to be engrossed with them. Vers. 19^-24. Account of the Two Disciples. — Jesus has now brought them to the point where He wished, namely, to open up their heart to Him ; 6vv Ttddi rovroii (ver. 21), in spite of the extraordinary qualities described ver. 19. 'Aysi may be taken impersonally, iis in Latin, agit diem, for agitur dies. But it may also have Jesus for its subject, as in the phrase aysi dsHaroT' eroS, " he is in his tenth year." But along with those causes of discouragement, there are also grounds of hope. This opposition is indicated by dXXa uai, " But indeed there are also . . ." (ver. 22). Ver. 23. Aeyov6ai, oi Xeyov6iv, hearsay of a hearsay. This form shows how little faith they put in all those reports (comp. ver. 11). Ver. 24. Peter, then, was not the only one, as he seemed to be from ver. 12. Here is an example, among many others, ot the traps which are unintentionally laid for criticism by the simple and artless style of our sacred historians. On each occasion they say simpl}'- what the context calls for, omitting everything which goes beyond, but sometimes, as here, adding it themselves later (John 3 : 22 ; comp. with 4 : 2). The last words, Him tliey saw not, prove that the two disciples set out from Jerusalem between the return of the women and that f)f Peter and John, and even of Mary Magdalene. Vers. 25-27. The Teaching of Jesws.— The xal avroi, then He (ver. 25), shows that His turn has now come. They have said everything — they have opened their heart ; now it is for Him to fill it with new things. And first, in the way of rebuke (ver. 25). 'Avor/roi, fools, refers to the understanding ; ftpadeT?, slotc, to the heart. If they liad embraced the living God with more fervent faith, the fact nf the resur- ciiAi". xxiv. : 17-43. bOi reclion would not have been so strange to their hopes (20 : 37, 38). Next, in the way of instruction (vers. 20 and 27). Ver. 26 is the central word of this narrative. The explanation of the ethi, ought, was no doubt rather cxcgetical lliati dDgmatioal ; it lurni'd on the text presontcd h\' tlm prophecies (ver. 27). Jesus liad before Ilim a irranl licld, from the Protevangcliuni down to Mai. 4. In studying the Scriptures for Himself, lie liad found Himself in them everywhere (John 5 : ;]'J, 40). He had now only to let this light which tilled His heart ray forth from Him. The second ano (ver. 27) shows that the demonstration began anew with every prophet. Vers. 28-o2. Ilintorical Condumon. — "When Jesus made as if He would contimie His journey, it was not a ineie feint. He would have really gone, but for that sort of constraint which they exercised over Him. Every gift of God is an invitation to claim a greater {x^xpti' a%'Tl ^a'pzroS, John 1 : 10). But most men stop very ({uickly on this way : and thus they never reach the full blessing (2 Kings 13 : 14-19). The verb HavaxXidvyai, to sit down at table (ver. 30), applies to a common meal, aiul does not involve the idea of a Holy Supper. Acting as head of tlie family, Jesus takes the bread and gives thanks. The word dir/voixOf/dcxv, uere opened (ver. 31), is contrasted with the preceding, icere /widen, ver. 10. It indicates a divine operation, which de- stroys the effect of the causes referred to, ver. 16. No doubt the influence exercised on their heart by the preceding conversation and by the thanksgiving of Jesus, as well as the manner in which He broke and distributed the bread, had prepared them for this awaking of the inner sense. The sudden disappearance of Jesus has a supernatn- ral character. His body was already in course of glorification, and obeyed more freely than before the will of the spirit. Besides, it must be remembered that Jesus, sti icily speaking, teas already no more with them (ver. 44), and that the miracle consisted rather in His appearing than in Hi.-^ disappearing. The saying, so intimate in its char- acter, which is preserved ver. 32, in any case betrays u source close to the event itself ; tradition would not have invented such a saying. If we accept the view which recognizes Luke himself in the companion of Cleopas, vre shiiU find ourselves brought to this critical result, that each evangelist has left in a corner of his narrative a modest indication of his person : Matthew, in the pul)iican whom Jesus removes by a word from his previous occupations ; JNIark, in the young man who fiees, leaving his garment at Getlisemane ; Jolin, in the disciple designated as he whom Jesus loved ; Luke, iu the anonymous traveller of Emmaus. 4. TJie Appearance to the Apoatles : vers. 33-43. — Vers. 33-43.* The two travellers, immediately changing their intended route, return to Jerusalem, where they find the apostles assembled and full of joy. An appearance of Jesus to Peter had overcome :.;i the doubts left by the accoimts of the women. This appearance should probably be placed at the time when Peter returned home (ver. 12), after his visit to the tomb. Paul places it (1 Cor. 15) first of all. He omits Luke's first (the two going to Emmaus) and John's first (Mary Magdalene). For where a[)osto]ic testimony is in question as iu that chapter, unofficial witnesses, not chosen (Acts 1 : 2), are left out of account. Peter was nut at that time restored as an apostle (comp. John 21), but he received his * Ver. 33. !*. B. D., TjOpoiauivoVi instead of avvnOpoii/irvni';. Ver. 36. D. If'W, omit th(i words Kat /eyet avTutS eipijvi] viuv. Ver. 38. B. D. lip'^riq"*, ev rrj napim in- stead of fi' ra«5 Kapihaii;. Ver. 3!l. !*. D. Ir., capKuc instead of nnpKn. Ver. 40. This verse is omitted by D. Il""i. Syi'"'. Ver. 42. ». A. B. D. L. 11. Clement. Or. omit Kci n~o fie/.iaaiov KTjpiov, which is read by T. R. 12 Mjj. all the Mun. Syr. It"'"i. Justin, etc. 508 COMMENTAltY OX ST. LIKE. pardon as a believer. If traditiou had invented, would it not, above all, have imagined an appearance to John ? This account refers to Ibe same appearance as John 20 : 19-23. The two Gospels place it on the evening of the resurrection day. Tlie sudden appearance of Jesus, ver. ^6, indicated by the words, He stood in the midst of them, is evidently supernatural, like His disappearance (ver. 31). lis miracu- luus character is expressed still more precisely by John, The doors were shut. The salutation would be the same in both accounts : Peace be iinto you, were we not obliged to give the preference here to the text of the Cantab, and of some copies of the Mala, which rejects these words. The T. R. has piobably been interpolated from John. The term Ttvevjua (ver. 37) denotes the spirit of the dead returning with- out a body from Hades, and appearing in a visible form as umbra, cpdvra6ucx (Malt. 14 : 20). This impression naturally arose from tlie sudden and miraculous appear- ance of Jesus. The 8ia7.oyi6f.ioi, inward disputings, are contrasted with the simple acknowledgment of Him who stands before them. At ver. 39, Jesus asserts His identity : " That it is 1 myself," and then His corporeity : " Handle me, and see." The sight of His hands and feet proves those two propositions by the wounds, the marks of which they siill bear. Ver. 40 is wanting in D. It"'"'!. It might be sus- pected that it is taken from John 20 : 20, if in this latter passage, instead of His feet, there was not His side. In vers. 41-43, Jesus gives them a new proof of His cor- poreity by eating meats which they had to offer Him. Their very joy prevented them from believing in so great a happiness, and formed an obstacle to their faith. Strauss finds a contradiction between the act of eating and the notion of a glorified body. But the body of Jesus was in a transition state. Our Lord Himself says to Mary Magdalene, " I am not yet ascended . . . but I ascend" (John 20:17). On the one hand, then. He still had His terrestrial body. On the other, this body was al- ready raised to a higher condition. We have no exiDcrience to help us in forming a clear idea of this transition, any more than of its goal, the glorified body. Tlie omis- sion of the words, and of an honeycomb, in the Alex., is probably due to the confusion of the uai-vihioXx precedes with that which follows. This appearance of Jesus in the midst of the apostles, related by John and Luke, is also mentioned by Mark (16 : 14) and by Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 5). But John alone dis- tinguishes it from that which took place eight days after in similar circumstances, and at which the doubts of Thomas were overcome. And would it be too daring to suppose that, as the first of those appearances was meant to gather together the apns- tles whom Jesus wished to bring to Galilee, the second was inlended to complete this reunion, which was hindered by the obstinate resistance of Tliomas ; consequently, that it was the unbelief of this disciple whicli prevented the immediate return of the apostles to Galilee, and forced them to remain at Jerusalem during the whole pas(;hal week ! Jesus did not lead back the flock until He had the number completed : " Of those whom Thou gavest me none is lost." 5. The last Instructions : \evs,. Al^tAQ. — Vers. 44-49.* Mej^er, Bleek, and others * Ver. 44. i*. B. L. X. someMnn. ItP'oriquc^ yir.^ TrpoS avrovQ instead of avrot-. 8 Mjj. some Mnn. omit /zoy after /.nyoi. Ver. 46. !!*. B C. D. L. ltp''^"-'q'>% omit luu ovrcjc Set, after yeypawTaL. Ver. 47. i^. B. Syr^'^^''., /ifrai^oiav ftS 0(>faiv instead of /^eraro/ay nat. n(j)eatv. i>. B. C. L. N. X., ap^a/ievot instead of ap^n/xevoi-. Ver. 48. B. D. omit eare before /laprvpeS. Ver. 49. i». D. L. Syr^'^'\ ItP'«"q"^ Vg. omit uhv. J^" B. L X. A., e^arrnnre/J-u instead of airoareA'/.o). i*. B. C< D. L. Iipi^'Wu-^, Vg. omit lepovaaz-vM after ttoXil. ciiAi'. wiv. : i'A-i'J. r)0'.» think that all the sayinirs which follow were uttered tliia same evcniuj?, and that the asccn^inn itself must, according to Luke, have followed imniedialely, during the nijzlit or toward morning. Luke corrected himself later in the Acts, where, uccorditig to a moie exact tradition, he puts an interval of forty days between (he lesurrection and the ascension.* A circumstance which might be urged iu favor of this hypothesis is, that what Luke omits in the angel's message (ver. G) is precisely the conmiand to the disciples to return to Galilee. But, on the other hand : 1. May it not be supposed that Luke, having reached the end of the lirst part of his history, and having the inten- tion of lepealing those facts as the point of departure for his second, thought it enough to stale them in the most summary way ? 2. Is it probable that an author, when begmning the second part of a history, should modify most materially, without in the hast apprising his reader, the recital of facts with which he has closed his first? "Would it not have been simpler and more honest en the part of Luke to cor- rect tlie last page of his lirst volume, instead of confiimiug it implicit!)' as he does. Acts 1:1,2V '3. The tots, fhcn (ver. 45). may embrace an iinlttinile space of time. 4. Tills more general sense harmonizes with the fragmentary character of the repoit given of those last utterances : Kow He said unto them, ver. 44 : and He said unto th. m, ver. 40. This inexact form shows clearly that Luke abandons narrative strictly so called, to give as he closes the contents of the last sayings of Jesus, reserving to liimself to devel^^p later the histoiical account of those last daj^.s. 5. The author of our Gospel followed the same tradition as Paul (see the appearance to Peter, men- tioned only by Paul arid Luke). It is, moreover, impossil)le, considering his relations to that ai)ostle and to the churches of Gieece, that he was not acquainted wilh tlie first Epislle to the Coiinthians. Now, in this epistle a considerable interval is neces- sarily supposed between tlie resurrection and the ascension, first because it mentions an appearance of Jesus to more than 500 brethren, which cannot have taken place on the very day of the resurrection ; and next, because it expressly distinguishes two ap- pearances to the assembled apostles : the one undoubtedly that the account of which we have just been reading (1 Cor. 15 : G) ; the other, which must have taken place later (ver. 7). These facts, irreconcilable wilh the idea attributed by Meyer and others to Luke, belonged, as Paul himself tells us, 1 Cor. 15 : 1-3, to the teaching generalh' received in the Church, to the xapddodii. How could they have been unknown to such an investigator as Luke ? How could they have escaped him in his first book, and that to recur to him without his saying a word in the second ? Luke therefore here indicates summarily the substance of the different instrucUons given by Jesus between His resurrection and ascension all comprised in the words of the Acts : " After that He had given commandments unto the apostles" (Acts 1 : 2). Ver. 44 relates how Jesus recalled to them His previous predictions regarding Hi.-i death and resurrection, which fulfilled the prophecies of the O. T. Ovroi oi Xuyoi, an abridged phfase for ravzcx idriv oi Xuyoi : " These events which have just come to pass are those of which I told you in the discourses which you did not under- stand." The expression : while Iiras yet with you, is remarkable ; for it proves that in the mind of .Jesus, His separation from them was now consummated. He was with them only exceptionally ; His abode was elsewhere. The three terms ; Moaes, Prophets, Psalms, may denote the three parts of the O. T. among the Jews : the Peutu- * This, be it remembered, is not our author's idea, hut that of authors who.se view he proceeds to overthrow. He has a way of pulling himself in the place of Un opponent, for the moment. — J. IL 510 COMMENTAEY ON ST. LUKE. teucli ; the prophets, comprising, with the historical books (up to the exile), the pro- phetical books ; the Psalms, as representing the entire group of the hagiographa. Bleek rather thinks that Jesus mentions here only the books most essential from a prophetic point of view {nefjt e/uov). If it is once admitted that the division of the canon which we have indicated existed so early as the time of Jesus, the tirst mean- ing is the more natural. Jesus closes these explanations by an act of power for which they were meant to prepare. He opens the inner sense of His apostles, so that the Scriptures shall hence- forth cease to be to them a sealed book. This act is certainly the same as that de- scribed by John in the words (30 : 22) : " And He breathed ou them, saying. Receive yet he Holy Ghost." The only difference is, that John names the efficient cause, Luke the effect produced. The miracle is the same as that which Jesus shall one day work upon Israel collectively, when the "ceil shall be taken amay (2 Cor. 3 : 15, IG). At ver. 46 there begins a new resume — that of the discourses of the risen Jesus referring to the future, as the preceding bore ou the past of the kingdom of God. Knl elnsv, and He said to tliem again. So true is it that Luke here gives the summary of the instructions of Jesus during the forty days (Acts 1 : 3), that we find the par- allels of these verses scattered up and down in the discourses which the other Gospels give between the resurrection and ascension. The words : sliould he 'preached among allnations, recall Matt. 28 : 19 : " Go and teach all nations." and Mark 16 : 15 : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The words : preach ing repentance and remission of sins, recall John 20 : 23 : " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them." Yer. 46 forms the transition from the past to the future (ver. 47). 'On depends on : it was so, understood. The omisshm of kuI ovtuq fSsi, thus it behoved, by the Alex, cannot be justified ; it has arisen from negligence. Jesus declares two necessities : the one founded on prophecy {thus it is written), the other ou the very nature of things {it behoved). The Alex, reading : rei^entance unto pardon, instead of repentance and pardon, has no internal probability. It would be a Xihrase without analogy in the whole of the N. T. The partic. ap^afievov is a neut. impersonal accusativo, used as a gerund. The Alex, reading ap^ajuevoi. is a correction. Tlie thought that the kingdom of God must spread from Jerusalem belonged also to prophecy (Ps. 110 : 2, et al.) ; comp. Acts 1 : 8, where this idea is developed. To carry out this work of preaching, there must be men specially charged with it. These are the apostles (ver. 48). Hence the viitis, ye, heading the proposition. The tiiought of ver. 48 is found John 15 : 27 : that of ver. 49, John 15 : 26. A testimony so important can only be given worthily and effectively with divine aid (ver. 49). 'l6ov, behold, expresses the unforeseen character of this intervention of divine strength ; and f}u, /, is foremost as the correlative of viiel'i, ye (ver. 48) : " Ye. on the earth, give testimony ; and I, from heaven, give you power to do so." When the disciples shall feel the spirit of Pentecost, they shall know that it is the breath of 'Jesus glorified, and for what end it is imparted to them. In the phrase, the promise of the Father, the word promise denotes the thing promised. The Holy Spirit is the divine promise par excellence. It is in this supreme gift that all others are to terminate. And this aid is so indispensable to them, that they nmst beware of beginning the work before having received it. The command to tarry in the city is no wise incompatible with a return of the disciples to Galilee between the resurrection and ascension. Everything depends on the time when Jesus spoke this word ; it is nut specified in the context. According to Acts 1 : 4, it was on the day of His ascension that Jesus gave them CHAP. XXIV. : 43-4!>. 511 this command. The Alex, reject tbe word Jerusalem, ■which indued is not neces- sary after ver. 47. On the Resurrection of Jesus. I. The Fact of the Iiesuirectio7i.—The apostles bore witness to the resurrection of Jesus, and on this testimony founded the Churcli. Such is (lie indul)itai)le liistorit.iil fact. Yet more : they did not do this as impostors. Strauss acknowledges tliis. And Volkmar, in his mystical language, goes liu; length ot sajing : "It is one of the most certain facts in the history of humanity, I hat shortly after His death on the cross, Jesus appeared to the apostles, risen from the dead, however we may under- sianil the fact, wliicii is witliout analogy in history" (" die Evangel." p. Gi2). Let us seek the explanation of the fact Did Jesus return to life from a state of lethargj\ as Schleicrmaclier thought? Strauss has once for all executed justice on this hypothesis. It cannot even he main- titined without destroying the moial character of our Lord (comp. our " Comm. sur Jean," t. ii. p. GGO d seq.). Were those appearances of Jesus to the first believers only visions resulting from their exalted state of mind? Tiiis is the hypothesis which Stiauss, followed by nearly Jill modem rationalism, substitutes for that ot Bchleieimacher. This explanatioa breaks down before the following fads : 1. The apostles did not in llie least expect the body of Jesus to be restored to life. They confounded the resunection, as Weiz.^ficker says, with the Parousia. Now, such hallucinations would suppose, on the contrary, alively expectation of the bodily rea|tpearance of Jesus. 2. So far was the imagination of the di.cciples from cicating the sensible presence of .Icsus, that at llie lirst ihey did not recogui/.e Him (Maiy Magdalene, ilie two of EuiMiausy Jesus was certainly not to them an expected person, whose image was conceived in Iheir own soul. 3. We can imagine the possibility of a hiillucination in one person, but not in two, twelve, and tinally, tive hundred ! especially if it be remcmbeied that in the appear- ances descril)ed we have not to do with a simple luminous figure floating between htaven and earth, but with a i)erson performing positive acts and uttering exact state- ments, wliich were heard by tlie witnesses. Or is the truth of the different accounts to be suspected ? But they formed, from the beginning, during the lifetime of the ap((Stles and fiist witnesses, the substance of the public preaching, of the received tiadition (1 Cor. l."5). Thus we should be tliiown back -on tlie hypothesis of imposture. 4. The em()ty tomb and the disappearance of the body remain inexplicable. If, as the narratives allege, llie body remained in the hands of Jesus' friends, the testi- mony which they gave to its resurrection is an imposture, a hypothesis already dis- carded. If it remained in the hands of the Jews, how did they not by this mode of <'on- vietion overthrow the testimony of the apostles? Their mouths would have been closed much more effectually in Ih's way than by scourging them. We shall not enter into the discussion of all Strauss's expedients to escape from this dilemma. They betraj' tlie spirit of special pleading, and can only' appear to tlie iinprejudiced mind in the light of subterfuges.* But Strauss attempts to take the oflensive. Starling from Paul's euumetalion of the various appearances (1 Cor. 15), he reasons tliiis : Paul himself had a vision on the way to Damascus ; now he put all the appear- ances which the apostles had on the same platform; therefore tbey are all notliing but visions. This reasoning is a mere sophism. If Strauss means that Paul himself regarded the appearance which had coiiveited him as a simple vision, it is easy to le- fuie iiim. For what Paul wishes to demonstrate, 1 Cor. 15, is the l)odily resurrection of b(!lievers, which he cannot do by means of the appearances of Jesus, unless he re- gards them all as bodily, the one as well as the other. If Strauss means, on the con- tiary, that the Dama.scus appearance was really nothing eLse than a virion, though Paul took it as a reality, the conclusion which he draws from this mistake of Paul's, * In opposition to Struu.ss's supposition, that the body of Jesus was thrown to the dungiiill, we set this fact of public noloiiety in the time of St. Paul : " He was buried " (1 Cor. 15 : 3). 512 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. as to the meaning which must be given to all the others, has not the least logical value. Or, finally, could God have permitted the Spirit of the glorified Jesus, manifesting itself to the disciples, to produce effects in thetn i^imil:lr to those whicii a petccpiiun by the senses would have produced ? So Weiisse and Lotze think. Keini has also declared for this hypothesis in his " Life of Jesus. " * But, 1. Whatlhtn of the nar- ratives in which we see the Risen One seeking to demonstraie to I he apostles that He is not a pure spirit (Luke 24:37-40)? They aie pure inventiuns, audacious false- hoods. 2. As to this glorified Jesus, wIh) appeared spiritually to the apostles, did Pie or did He not mean to produce on them the imptession that He was present bodily ? If He did, this lieavenly Being was an impostor. If not, He must have been very unskilful in His manifestations. In botli cases, He is tlie author of the misuuder- standing whicli gave rise to the false testimony given involuntarily by the apostles 3. The empty tomb remains unexplained on this hypothesis, as well as on tl)e preced- ing. Keim has added nothing to what his predecessois have advanced to s.Jve this diliicuUy. In reality, there is but one sufHcient account to be given of the empty tomb : the tomb was found empty, because He who had been laid there Himself rose from it. T.> this opinion of Keim we may apply what holds of his explanation of miracles, and of his way of looking at the life of .lesus in genera! : it is too much or too little supernatural. It is not worth while combating tlie biblical accounts, when such enormous concessions are made to them ; to deny, for example, the miraculous birth, wlien we admit the absolute holiness of Christ, or the bodily resurrection, when we grant the reality of the appearances of the glorified Jesus. Keim for some time ascended the scale ; now he descends again. He could not stop theie. II. Tke Accounts of the Resurrection. — These accoums are in reality only reports regarding the aopearances of the Risen One. The most ancient and the most oflicial, if one may so speak, is that of Paul, 1 Cor. 15. It is the summary of the oral leach- ing received in the Church (ver. 2), of the tradition pioceeding from all the apostles together (vers. 11-15). Paul enumerates the six appearances, as t\)ilows : 1. To Cephas ; 2. To the Twelve ; 3. To the 500 ; 4. To James : 5. To the Twelve ; 6. To himself. "We easily make out in Luke, Nos. 1, 2, 5 in his Gospel (24 : 34, ver. 36 et seq., ver. 50 et seq.) ; No. 6 in the Acts. The appearance to James became food fur Ju leo Christian legends. It is elal)orated in the apocryphal books. There remains No. 3, the appearance to the 500. A strange and instructive fact ! No appeal ance of Jesus is better authenticated, more unassailable ; none was more public, and none produced in the Church so decisive an effect . . . and it is not mentioned, at least as such in any of our four Gospel accounts ! Huw should this fact put\ison our guard against the argumentum e silentio, of whicli the criticism of the present day maives so unbridled a use ! How it ought to show the complete ignorance in which we are still left, and probably shall ever be, of the circumstances which presided over the foima- tion of that oral tradition whicli has exercised so decisive an influence over our gospel historiography ! Luke could not be ignorant of this fact if he had read but once the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, conversed once on the subject with St. Paul . . . and he has not meutionel, nor even dropped a hint of it ! To bring down the com- position of Luke by half a century to explain this omission, serves no end. Fur the further the time is brou2;lit down, the nnre impossible is it that the author of the Gospel should not have known the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Matthew's account mentions only the two following appearances : 1. To the women at Jerusalem ; 2. To the Eleven, on a mountain of Galilee, where Jesus had appointed them to meet 11\m. (oi kra^aro Tropeveofjai). We at once recognize in No. 1 the appearance to Mary Magdalene, John 2U : 1-17. The second is that gather- ing which Jesus had convoked, according to Matthew and Mark, before His death ; then, immediately after the resurrection, either by the angel or by His own mouth (Matthew). But it is now only that Matthew tells us of the rendezvous appointed for the disciples on the mountain. This confirms the opinion which we had already reached, viz., that we have here to do with a call which was not addressed to the Eleven only, but to all believers, even to the v/omen. Jesus wished again to see all His brethren and to constitute His flock anew, which had been scattered by the death * Otherwise in his " Geschichtl. Christus." niAi". wiv. : 4o— J'.i. filJJ of the Shepherd. The choice of such a locality as that which Jesus had designated, conlirnis tlie oniu'lu«!ioii that y.vv have here to do with a minicrou^ reunion. VVe can- not lIuTtfoie doubt that it is llic assenilily of 500 f^poiicii (.1' by Paul, 1 Cor. 1.1. If i\latlhi'\v (li)es not expressly niention ninic- than the Eleven, it is because to tliem >viis addressed the coinniission given liy Jesus, " to ga and bapti/e all natinus.'' Tiie expression: " but some doubted," is also more easily expliiincd, if llie Eleven were not alone.* Matthew diii n(>t intend to relate the tirst appearances by which the apostles, whether individually or together, were led to believe (this was die object of the appearances v hich tuok place iU .lerusaleni, and which au; nientinned by I.uko and John), but that which, in kieping with the spiiit of his (}ospel, he wished to set in relief as the climav of his history — that, namely, to which he li;id niiule allusion from the Legiuning, and which may be called the Messiah's taking possession of the whole v.-orld. Maik'a account is original as far as ver. 8. At vcr. [) welind : 1. An entirely new beginning ; 2. From ver. H a cleaily marked dependence on Euke. After that, Iheie occur from ver. lo, and especially in ver. 17, some very original siiyings, whicli indi- cate an independent source. The composition of the vvoik thus .seenis to have been interrupted at ver. 8, and the hook to have remained tintinished. A sure proof of this is. that, the appearance of Jesus announced to the \\omen by the angel, ver. 7, is totally wanting, if, with the Sinait., the Vatic, and other authorities, the Gospel is closed at ver. 8. From ver. 9, a conclusion lias thus been added b> nuansof our Go.s. pel of Luke, which had appeared in the interval, and of some original materials pie- vlously collected with this view by the author (vers. 15, Ki, and especially 17, 18). III. IVie Accounts taken as a ^Vyi/de. — If, gathering those scattered accounts, we unite them in one, we find ten appeaiances. In the first thiee. Jesus ccmfoits jind raises, fur fie has to do with downcast hearts : lie comfoits ^lary ]\lagdidene, who seeks His lost body ; lie raises Peter after his fall ; lie rranimates the hope (.f the two going to Emmaus. Thereafter, in the following three, lie fst!d)lislies the fiiiili of His future witnesses in the decisive fact of His resuriection ■ He fulfils this mis- eion toward the api>stles in general, and t(>ward Thomas; and He nconslilules the apostulate by leturning to it its head. In the seventh and eighth app(aranc( s. He impresses on the anostolale that powerful niissionaiy imnul.se which lasts still, and He adds James to the disciples, specially with a view to the mission for Isi;iel. lu the last two, finalh', He completes the preceding commands by some special insli no- tions (not to leave Jerusalem, to wait for the Spiiit, etc.), and bids them His lust faie- well ; then, shortly afterward. He calls Paul specially with a view to the Gmtiles. This tinity, so profoundly' psychological, so holily organic, is not the wo>k of any of the evangeli.-ls, for its elements are scattered over the four accounts. The wisdom and love of Christ are its only authors. f IV. The Importance of the liesurrection. — This event is not merely intended to mark out Jesus as the Saviour ; it is salvation it elf, cnndtnuiati( n Knioved, death vanquished. "We weie perishing, contlemned ; Je.sus dies. His death saves us ; He is the first who enjoys salvation. He rises again ; then in Him we aie made to live again. Such au event is everything, includes everything, or it has no exislt ncc. G. Tlie Ascension : vers. 50-53. — The resurrection restored humanity in that one of its members who, by His ho'ylife and expiatory death, conquered our two enemies * If this expression is to bo applied to the Eleven themselves, ' t must be ex[>lained by the soujinary character of this account, in which the first doubts expiessed in the l)receding appearances are applied to this, the only one related. f See the remarkable development of this thought by M. (iess, in his new work, " Christi Zeugniss von seiner Person und seinem Work," 1870, p. VSo el serj. " This progression in the appearances of Jesus is so wisely graduated, that we are not at lib- ty to refer it to a purely subjective origin. Supposing they were all related by one and the same evangelist, it might doul/llcs'; he attempted tf> make him the author of so well ordered a plan. But as this arrangement results only from combining the first, the third, and the fourth Gospels . . . this explanation also is txcluded." Page 204. 514 COMMENTARY OX al. LLKE, — the law ■which condemned us ])ecause of sin, and death, which overtook us because of ihe condemnation of the law (1 Cor. 15 : 56). As this humanity is restored in the person of Christ by the fact of His resurrection, the ascension raises it to its full height ; it realizes its destination, which from the begiuuiug was to serve as a free instrument for the operations of the infinite God. Vers. 50-53.* The Ascension. — Luke alone, in his Gospel and in the Acts, has given us a detailed view of the scene which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. 15 : 7, and assumed throughout the whole N. T. Interpreters like Meyer thiDk themselves obliged to limit the ascension of Jesus to a purelj^ spiiitual elevation, and to admit no external visible fact in which this elevation was manifested. Luke's account was the production of a luter tradition. We shall examine this hypothesis at the close. The meaning of the ^-p/aye <^e, Then He led them, is simply this : "All these instructions finished, He led them . . ." This expression says absolutel^Miothing as to the time when the event took place. The term avva?u^6fievoc, having usuembled. Acts 1 : 4, proves that Jesus had specially convoked the apostles in order to take leave of them. 'EwS fis (T. R.), and still more decidedly twS rrpus (Alex.), signifies, nut as far as, but to about, in the direction and even to the neighborhood of . . . There is thus no contradiction to Acts 1 : 13.f Like the high priest when, coming forth from the temple, he blessed the people, Jesus comes forth from the invisible world once more, before altogether shutting Himself up within it, and gives His own a last benediction. Then, in the act of performing this deed of love, He is withdrawn to a distance from thern toward the top of the mountain, and His visible presence vanishes from their e5'es. The words kqI avEcbipero eli tov ovpavbv are omitted in the Sina'U., the Cantab., and some copies of the Kala. Could this phrase be the gloss of a copy- ist ? But a gloss would probably have been borrowed from the narrative of the Acts, and that book presents no analogous expression. Might not this omission rather be, like so many others, the result of negligence, perhaps of confounding the two Kal. ? We can hardly believe that Luke would have ."aid so curtly, Ee was parted from them, without adding how. The 'imperf ect avedi per o, lie teas carried up, forms a pictuie. It reminds us of the Oeupelv, hcliold, John G : G2. The Cantab, and some Mss. of the Itala omit (ver. 52) the word TrpoaKwrjaavrec, having icorshipped Ili)ii, perhaps In conse- quence of confounding avrai and avrov. The verb npuaKwelv, to prostrate otie' s self , in this context, can mean only the adoration which is paid to a divine being (Ps. 2 : 12). The joy of the disciples caused by this elevation of their Master, which is the pledge of the victory of His cause, fulfilled the word of Jesus : " If ^^e loved me, j'e would rejoice because I go to my Father" (.John 14 : 28). The point to be determined is, whether the more detailed account in Acts (the cloiid, the two glorified men who appear) is an amplification of the scene due to the pen of Luke, or whether the account in the Gospel was only a sketch which he proposed to complete at the begin- ning of his second treatise, of which this scene was to form the starting-point. If our explanation of vers. 44-49 is well founded, we cannot but incline to the second * Yer. 50. A. B. C. L. some Mnn. Syr^<=''. omit £,-w after avrovi. \k. B. C. D. L. 2 Mnn., £w5 7rpo9 instead of eu^ «5. Ver. 51. ii. D It""'', omit the words nai aveip^ps-o ci3 TOV ovpavoj. Ver. 52. D. It"''"!, omit Ihe words ■7:pocKvvj]iavTEi avrov. Ver. 53. D. It^'W. omit the words kul evAoyowreS. i^. B. C. L. omit aivovvrei Kai. ^. C. D. L. n. some Mnn. It"'"', omit niirjv. f See the interesting passage of M. Felix Bovet on the spot from which the ascen- sion took place, " Voyage en Tene-Sainle," p. 235, etseq. CHAP. XXIV. : 50-53. 515 view. And the more we recoguize up to this poiut iu Luke an author who writea couscieutiously aud fioni couvicliou, Ihu more sliall we feel obliged to reject the tirtit alternative. Tiie uuuieious omissions, vers. 5"3, 53, in the Cantab, and some mss. of the Itala cannot well be explained, except by the haste which the copyists seem to have made as they approached the end of their work. Or should the preference be given, as Ti.scheudorf gives it, to this abridged text, contrary to all the other authorities together? U a b, which read ulvouvrei without kuI ev/.oyoviTei ; ii. B. C. L., which read ev/.oyoCvTti without ahovfTei ku!, mutually condemn one another, and so conlirm the received reading, prai«iii(f and blessing God. Perhaps the omission iu Lolli cases arises trvMU confounding the two — vrcc. k'tvelv, to praise, refers to the person of God ; ev/.u}ea', to bless, to His benefits. The disciples do here what was done at the beginning by the shepherds (2 . 30). But what a way traversed, what a series of glorious beuelits between tlio-^se two acts of homage ! The last words, these iu particular : " They were continually in the temple," form the transition to the book of Acts. On the Ascension. At first the apostles regarded the ascension as only the last of those numerous dis- appeatauces wliicli they had witnessed during the forty days (a(pavToi h/ivem, ver. 31). Jesus regarded it as the elevation of His person, in the character of iSon of man, to that juopa/} Oeuv (Phil. 2 : G). that divine state which He had renounced when He came under the coudilions of human existence. Having reached the term of His earthly career. He had asked back Uis glory (John 17 : 5) ; the ascension was the answer to His prayer. Modern criticism objects to the realitj' of the ascension as an external fact, on the ground of the Copernican system, which excludes the belief tliat heaven is a particu- lar pla(;e situated above our heads and l)eyon(i the stars. Those who raise this objec- tion labor under a ver^" gross misunderstanding. According to the biblical view, the ascension is not the exchange of one [ilttce for another , it is a v\vdn^2.e of state, and this change is precisely the emancipation from all confinement within the limits of sj)ace, exaltation to omnipresence. The cloud was, as it were, the veil which cov- ered this transformation. The right hand of a God everywhere present cannot; designate u paiticilar place. Silting at the right hand of God mu;t also include omniscience, which is closely bound up with omnipresence, as well as omnipotence, of which the right hand of God is the natural symbol. The Apocalypse expresses in its figurative language the true meaning of the ascension, when it represents the glorified Son of manias the Lamb with seven horns (omnipotence) and seven eyes (omniscience). This divine niode of being does not exclude bodily existence in the case of Jesus. Comp., in Paul, the ao/mriKdi. bodily. Col. 2 : 9, aud the expression spiritual body applied to the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15 : 44. We cannot, from experi- ence, form an idea of this glorified bodily existence. But it may be conceived as a power of appearing sensibly and of external activity, operating at the pleasure of the will alone, and at every point of space. Another objection "is taken from the omission of this scene in the other biblical documents. But, 1. Paul expressly mentions an appearance to all the apostles, 1 Cor. 15 : 7. Placed at the clo.se of the whole series of previous appearances (among them that to the 500), and immediately before that which decided his own conversion, this ajipearance can f>nly be the one at the ascension as related by Luke. This fact is decisive ; for, according to vers. ?, and 11, it is the Tra/ta'iSootS, the general tradition of the churches, proceeding from the apnstles, which Paul sums up in this passage. 2. However Mark's mutiiaTed conclusion may be exii'ained, the words : " So then, after the Lord had thus spoken unto them. He was received tip into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God," supp ise some .sensilile fact or other, which served as a basis for fluch expressions. The sime holds of the innumerable declarations of the epistles (Paul, Peter, Hebrews, James), which speak of the heavenly glory of Jesus and of 516 COMMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. His sitting at the right hand of God. Doctrines, with tlie apostles, are never more Hum llie omniciitiiiy on fuels. Sucli expressions must have a historical substratum. 3. No doubt, Jolm does not relate ihe ascension. But can it be said that he does not mention it, wben this saying occurs in his Gispel (fi : G2) : " What and if ye shall see the Sou of man ascend up where He was before?" The term Otupeiv, stiictly to contemplate, and the pres. partic. dvai^aivovra, anceiidi/ig, forbid us to thinii of an event of a purely spiritual nature (comp. Baumlein, ad. h. I.). Why, then, does he not relate the historical scene of the ascension ? Because, as his starting-point was tul^eu after the baptism, which on this account he does not relate, his conclusion is placed before tlie ascension, which for this reasun lie leaves unrelated. The idea of his book was Ibe develoimient of faith in the minds of the apostles fnmi its birth to its cou- summatiou. Now their faith was born with the visit of .John and Andrew, chap. 1, after the baptism ; and it had received the seal of perfection in the profession of Thomas, chap. 20, before tlie ascension. That the evangelist did not think of relat- ing all the appearances which he knew, is proved positively by that on the shores of the Lake of Gennesaret, which is related after the close of the book (20 : 30, 31), and in an appendix (chap. 21) composed either by the author himself (at least as far as ver. 23), or based on a tradition emanating from him. He was therefore aware of this appearance, aad he had nat mentioned it in his Gospel, like Luke, who could not be ignorant of the appearance to the 500, and who has not mentioned it either in his Gospel or in Acts. Wliat reserve should such facts impose on criticism, however little gifted with caution ! 4. And the following must be very peculiaily boine in mind in judging of Matthew's narrative. It is no doubt strange to tind this evangel- ist relating (besides tlie appearance to the women, wiiich is intended merely to pre- pare for that following Ity the message which is given them) only a single appearance that vvhich took place on the mountain of Galilee where Jesus had appointed His dis- ciples, as well as the women and all the faithful, to meet Him, and where He gives the Eleven their commission. Tliis appearance cannot be any of those which Luke and John place in .Judea. It conies nearer by is locality to that which, according t,) John 21, took place in Galilee ; but it cannot be identified with i(, for tlie scene of the latter was the seasliore. As we have seen, it can oni}' be the appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul. The meeting on a mountain is in perfect keepmg with so numerous an assembly thougli Matthew mentions none but the Eleven, because the grand aim is that mission of world-wide evangelization wliich Jesus gives them that day. Matthew's intention was not, as we have alrearly seen, to mention all ilie dif- ferent appearances, either in .Judea or Galilee, by which Jesus had reawakened the jjersonal faith of the apostles, and concluded His earthly connection with them. His narrative had exclusively in view that solemn appearance in which Jesus declaied Himself the Lord of the universe, the sovereign of the nations, and had given the apostles their mission to conquer for Him the ends of the earih. So true is it that his narrative must terminate in this supreme fact, that Jesus announced it before His death (Matt. 26 : 32), and that, immediately after the resurrection, the angel and Jesus Himself spoke of it to the women (28 : 7-10). Indeed, this scene was, in the view of the author of the first Gospel, the real goal of the theocratic revelation, the climax of the ancient covenant. If the day of the ascension was the most important in respect of the x>ersonal development of Jesus (Luke), the day of His appearance on the moun- tain showed the accomplishment of the Messianic programme .sketched 1:1: " Jesus, tlie GJu'id, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It was the decisive day for the establisliment of the kingdom of God, which is jMatthew's great thought. Criticism is on a false tack when it assumes that every evangelist has said all that he could have said. With oral tradition spread and received in the Church, the gospel histori- ography did not require to observe such an anxious gait as is supposed. It was not greatly concerned to relate an appearance more or less. The essential thing was to affirm the resurrection itself. The contrast between the detailed official enumeration of Paul, 1 Cor. 15, aud each of our four Gospels, proves this to a demonstration. Especiall}' does it seem to us thoroughly illogical to doubt the fact of the ascension, as Meyer does, because of Matthew's silence, and not to extend this doubt to all the appearances in Judea, about which he is equally silent. The following passage from tlie letter of Barnabas has sometimes been used in evidence : '* We celebrate with joy that eighth day on which Jesus rose from the CHAP. XXIV. : 50-53. 617 dc'iul. and, after lmvin<: manifested ITiniself, ascended to heaven." The author, it is said, like Luke, places the asci^nsinu und Ihe lesurrecliou dix ihe same day. But it may he that m Ihis expression lie puts Ihein not on tlie .^ame day taken ahsolutely, Iml on the same day of the iOtck\ the (i(//it/i, Sunday (vvhi( li no d()ul)t would involve an erior as to ilie ascension). Or, indeeil, this siiyini^ may signify, according to John 20 : 17, whi(;h in that case it would reproduce, that the ascending of Jesus to heaven htgan with the resurrection, and on that very day. lu reality, fiom that lime Ih' iras nii'iiiorc wil/t His own, as He Himself says (Luke 24 : 44). He helonged to a higher sphere of e.xisleuee. He only iiiduijet'ted Jlunnelf here helow. He no longer lived here. lie inu uficeiiding, to use His own expression. According to this view, His resurrection and the begmning of His elevation (Kiu-Kat) tlierefore took place the {'ame day. The oipression": after liacin;/ maiiifcxicd Ihmxclf, would refer to the appearances whi(!h took place on the resurrection day, and after which He euleied into the celestial sphere. lu any case, the resurreelion once admitted as a real fact, the question is, bow Jesus left the earth. By stealth, without saying a word ? One fine day, without any warniug whatever, He ceased to reappear? Is this mode of acting compatible with His lender love for his own ? Or, indeed, according to M. de Bunsen, His body, exhausted by the last effort which His resurrection had cost Him (Jesus, according to this writer, was the auihor of this event by the energy of His will), succum.hed iu a missionaiv joiunev to Phcnicia, where He went to seek bclieveis among the Gen- tiles (John 10 : 17, iS ; comp. with ver. 16) ; and having died there unknown, Jesus was likewise buried ! But in this case. His body raised from the dead must have dilfcretl in no resi)ect from the body which He had had during His lite. _ And how are we to explain all the accounts, from which it aiipears that, between His resuriec- lion and ascension. His body was already under peculiar conditions, and iu course of glorification ? Tlie reality of such a fact as tliat related by Luke in his account of the asceusiou is therefore indubitable, both from the special standpoint of faitli la the resurrection, and from the standpoint of faith in general. The ascension is a postulate of faith. The ascension perfects iu the person of the Son of man God's design in regard to humanity. To make of sanctified believers a family of children of God, perfectly like that only Son who is the prototype of the whole race— such is God's plan. His eternal -aiwhEmQ (Rom. 8 : 28, 29), with a view to which He created the universe. As the plant is the unconscious agent of the life of nature, man was intended to become the free and intelligent organ of the holy life of the personal God. jSTow, to realize this plan, God thought good {ew^nKriae) to accomplish it first in one ; Eph. 2:6: " He bath raised us up in Christ, and made us sit in Him in the heavenly places ;" 1 : 10 : " According to the purpose which He had to gather together all things under ONE head, Christ ;" Heb. 2 : 10 : " Wishing to bring many sons to glory. He per- fected THE Capt.\in OP SALVATION." Such was, according to the divine plan, the first act of salvation. The second was to unite to this One individual believers, and thus to make them partakers of the divine state to which the Son of man had been raised (Rom. 8 : 29). This assimilation of the faithful to His Son God accomplished by means of two things, which are the necessary complement of the facts of the Gos- pel hi.-tory : Pentecost, whereby the Lord's moral being becomes that of the believer ; and the Parousia, whereby the external condition of the sanctified believer is raised to the same elevation as that of our glorified Lord. First holiness, then glory, for the body as for the head : the baptism of Jesus, which becomes ours by Pentecost ; the ascension of Jesus, which becomes ours by the Parousia. Thus it is that each Go.spel, and not only that which we have just been explain- ing, has the Acts for its second volume, and for its thiid the Apocalypse. CONCLUSION. From our exegetical studies we puss to the work of criticism, which will gather up the fruits. This will bear on four puints : 1. The characteristic features of our Gospel. II. Its composition (aim, time, place, author). III. Its sources, and its relation to the other two synoptics. IV. The beffinning of the Christian Church. The first chapter will establish the facts ; in the following two we shall ascend from these to their causes ; the aim of the fourth is to replace the question of gospel literature in its historical position. CHAPTER I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OP THE THIRD GOSPEL. We have to characterize this writing— 1«C. As a historical production ; 2d. As a religious work ; 3d. As a literary composition. I. — Historical Point of View. The distinctive features of Luke's narrative, viewed historiographically, appear to us to be : Fulness, accuracy, and continuity. A. In respect of quantity, this Gospel far surpasses the other 8yu. The entire matter contained in the three may be included in 172 sections.* Of this number, Luke has 127 sections, that is to say, three fourths of the whole, while Matthew i)re- seuts only 114, or two thirds, and Mark 84, or the half. This superiority in fulness which distinguishes Luke will appear still more, if we observe that, after cutting oif the fifty six sections which are common to the three accounts, and form as it were the indivisible inheritance of the Syn., then the eight- een which are common to Luke and Matthew alone, finally the five which he has in common with Mark, there remain as his own peculiar portion, forty-eight — that is to say, mure than a fourth of the whole materials, while Matthew has fur his own only t".venty-two, and Mark only five. Once more, it is to be remarked that those materials which exclusively belong to * There is necessarily much arbitrariness in the way of marking off those sec- tions, as well as in tlie way in which the parallelism between the three narratives is established, especially as concerns the discourses which are more or less common to Matthew and Luke. M. Reuss (" Gesch. der heil. iSchriFten N. T."), making the sec- tions larger, ot)iains only 124. This difference may affect considerably the figures, which indicate the comparative fulness of the three Gospels. COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 519 Luke are as important iis they are abundant. We have, for example, the narratives of tlie infancy ; those of the raising of the son of tlie widow of Nain, of the woman who was a sinner at the feet of Jesus, of tlie entertainment at the house of ]\lartha and Mar}', of the tears of Jesus over Jerusalem ; the parables of the good Samaritan, the lost sheep and the lost drachma, the i)rodigal son, tiie faithless steward, the wicked rich man, the unjust judge, the Pharisee and the publicau ; the prayer of Jesus for His executioners, Tlis conversation with the thief on the cross, the appear- ance to the two disciples going to Emmuus, the ascension. How diminished would the portrait be which remains to us of Jesus, and what an impoverishment of the knuwleiige which we have ot His teachings, if all these pieces, which are preserved by Luke alone, were wanting to us ! B. But, where history is concerned, abundance is of less importance than accu- racy. Is the wealth of Luke of good quality, and does his treasure not contain base coin? We believe that all sound exegesis of Luke's narrative will result in paying homage to his tidelity. Are the parts in question those which are peculiar to him— the accounts of the infancy (chaps. 1 and 2), the account of the journey (9 : 51 — 19 : 27) the view of the ascension (24 : 50-53) ? We have found the first confirmed, so far as the central fact— the miraculous birth— is concerned, by the absolute holiness of Christ, which is tlie unwavering testimony of His consciousness, and which involves a different origin in His case from ours ; and as to the details, by the purely Jewish character of the events and discourses — a character which would be inexplicable after tlie rupture between the Church and the synagogue. The supernatural in these ac- counts has, besides, nothing in common with the legendary marvels of the apocryphal books, nor even with the alread}^ altered traditions which appear in such authors as Papias and Justin, llie nearest successors of the apostles, on different points of tlie Gospel history. In studying carefully the account of the journey, we have found tliat all the improbabilities which are alleged against it vanish. It is not a straight journey to Jerusalem ; it is a slow and solemn itineration, all the incidents and adven- tures of which Jesus turns to account, in order to educate His disciples and evangel- ize the multitudes. He thus finds the opportunity of vi&iling a country wliich till then liad not enjoyed His ministry, the southern parts of Galilee, adjacent to Samaria, as well as Perea. Thereby an important blank in Hi* work in Israel is filled up. Fi- nally, the sketch of that prolonged journey to Jeiusalcm, without presenting exactly the same type as John's narrative, which divides this epoch into four distinct jour- neys (to tlie feast of Tabernacles, chap. 8 ; to the feast of Dedication, chap. 10 ; to Bethany, chap. 11 ; to the last Passover, chap. 12), yet resembles it so closely, that it is impossible not to take this circumstance as materially confirming' Luke's account. It is a first, though imperfect, rectification of the abrupt contrast lietweeu the Gali- lean ministry and the last sojourn at Jerusalem which characterizes the synoptical view ; it is the beginning of a return to the full historical truth restored by John.* We have found the account of the ascension not only confirmed by the apostolic * Sabatier (" Es.sai sur les sources de la vie de Jesus," pp 31 and 32 : " Luke, witliout seeking or intending it, but merely as the result of his new investigations, has destroyed the faciitious framework of the synoptical tradition, and has given us a glimpse of a new one, larger, without being less simple. Luke is far from having cleared away ever}' difliculty. . . . He had loo much light to be satisfied wilii following in the track of his predecessors ; he had not enongii to reach the full reality of the Gospel history. He thus serves admirably to form the transition between the first two Gospels and the fourth. " 520 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. view of the gloriflcatioa of Jesus which fills the epistles, by the last verses of Mark, and by the saying of Jesus, John 6 : G2, but also by the express testimony of Paul, 1 Cor. 15 : 7, to an appearance granted to all the apostles, which nuist have taken place between that granted to the 500 brethren and that on the way to Damascus. So far, then, from regarding those paits as arbitrary additions which Luke took tlie liberty of making to the Gospel history, we are bound to recognize them as real historical data, which serve to complete the beginning, middle, and end of our Lord's life. We think we have also established the almost uniform accuracy shown by Luke in distributing, under a multitude of different occasions, discourses which are grouped by Matthew in one whole ; we have recognized the same character of fidelity in the historical introductions which he almost always prefixes to those discourses. After having established, as we have done, the connection between the saying about the lilies of the field and the birds of the air and the parable of the foolish rich man (chap. 12), the similar relation between the figures used in the less(;n about prayer and the parable of the importunate friend (chap. 11) — who will prefer, historically speaking, the place assigned by Matthew to those two lessons in the Sermon on the Mount, where the images used lose the exquisite fitness which in Luke they derive from their connection with the narratives preceding them '^ What judicious critic, after feeling the breach of continuity which is produceci orf the Sermon on the Mount by the insertion of the Loid's Prayer (Matt. 6), will not prefer the characteristic scene which Luke has described of the circumstances in which this form of prayer was tauglit to the apostles (Luke 11 : 1, et seq.)t How can we doubt that the menacing farewe'l to the cities of Galilee was uttered at the time at which Luke has it (cha]). 10), immediately after his departure, 9 : 51, rather than in the middle of the Galilean ministry, where it is put by Matthew ? The same is true of the cases in which the sayings of Jesus can only be fully explained by the surroundings in which Luke places them; e.g.,\.\xQ answers of Jesus to the three aspirants after the kingdom of God (chap. 9) would be incomprehensible and hardly justifiable on the eve of a mere excursion to the other side of the sea (Matt. 8), while they find their full explanation at the time of a final departure (Luke). The introductions with which Luke prefaces those occasional teachings are not in favor with modern critics.* Yet Holtzmann acknowledges the historical truth of some — of those, for example, which introduce the Lord's Prayer and the lesson upon avarice (chap. 13). We have ourselves established the accuracy of a very large num- ber, and shown that they contain the key to the discourses which follow, and that commentators 'nave often erred from having neglected the indications which they contain (see ou 13 : 23, 14 : 25, 15 : 1, 2, 16 : 1, 14, 17 : 20, 18 : 1, 19 : 11). What con- firms the really historical character of those notices is, that there is a certain number of doctrinal teachings which want them, and which Luke is satisfied to set down without counectioa and without introduction after one another : bo with the four * Weizsacker is the author who abuses them most : " No value can be allowed to the historical introductions of Luke' (" Untersuch," p. 139). It is true that he is necessarily led to this estimate bj- his opinion regarding the general conformity nf t!ie great discourses of Matthew to the common apo'^tolic sources of Matthew and Luke, the Logia. If Matthew is, of the two evangelists, the one who faithfully reproduces this original, Luke must have arbitrarily dislocated the great bodies of discourse found in Mattlrew ; and in this case, the historical introductions must be his own invention. COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. 0^21 precepts, 17 : 1-10. Certainly, if be had allowed Iiimsclf to invent situations, it would not have bceu more difficult to imagine them for those sayings than for so many others. If final]}', we compare the paralU'l accounts of Luke and of the other two synop- tics, we find, both in the des^ciiptitin of facts and in the tenor of the sayings of Jesus, a very rcniaikable superiority on the part of Luke in respect of accuracy. We refer to the prayer of Jesus at the lime of His baptism, and before Ilis transligu- ration — the human factor, as it is, wliich leads to the divine interposition, and takes from it that abrupt character which it appears to have in the other accounts. In the temptation, the transposition of the last two acts of the struggle, in the transfigura- tion, the mention of the subject of the conversation of Jesus with Moses and Elias, throw great light on those scenes taken as a whole, "which in the other synoptics are much less clear (see the passages). We know that Luke is charged with grave historical errors. According to M. Renan (" Vie de Jesus," p. 39 et xeq.), certain declarations are " pushed to extiemity and rendered false ;" for example. 14 : 2G, where Luke says : " If any man hate not his father and mother," where Matthew is content with sajniig, " lie that loveth father or mother ??io?'6' than me." We refer to our exegesis of the passage. "He exaggerates tlie marvellous ;" for example, the appearance of the angel in Gelhsem- ane. As if ^Matthew and Mark did not relate a perfectly similar fact, which Luke omits, at the close of the account of the temptation ! " He commits chronolo"-ical errors;" for example, in regard to Quirinius and Lysanias. Luke appears to us right, so far as Lysanias is concerned ; and as to Quirinius, considering the point at which researches now stand, an impartial historian will hardly take the liberty of condemning him unconditionally. According to Keim, Luke is evidenllv wron"- in placing the visit to Nazareth at the opening of the Galilean ndnistry ; but has he not given us previously the descri[)tion of the general activity of Jesus in Galilee (4 : 14 and 1.5)? And is not the saying of ver. 23, which supposes a stay at Capernaum pre- vious to this visit, to be thus explained ? And, further, do not i\Ialt. 4 : 13 and John 2 : 12 contain indisputable proofs of a return on the part of Jesus to Nazaicth in the very earliest times of His Galilean ministry ? Accoidiug to the same author, Luke makes Nain in Galilee a city of Judea ; but this interpretation proceeds, as we have seen, from an entire misunderstanding of the context (see on 7 : 17). It is alleged, on the ground of 17 ; 11, that he did not- know the relative positions of Samaria and Galilee. We arc convinced that Luke is as far as possible from being guilty of so gross a mistake. According to IM. Snbatier (p. 29), there is a contradiction between the departure of Jesus by way of Samaria (9 : o2) and His arriving in Judea by Jericho (18 : 3.j) ; but even if the plan of Jesus had been to pass through Samaria, the refusal of the Samaritans to receive Him would have prevented Him from carrying it out. And had He, in spite of this, passed through Samaria, He might still have arrived by way of .Jericho ; for from the earliest times there has been a route from north to eouth on the right bank of the Jordan. Finally, he is charged with certain faults which he shaies with the other two synoptics. But either those mistakes have no real existence, as that which refers to the day of Jesus' death, or Luke does not share them — e.fj., that whi(;h leads Matthew and 3Iark to place John's imprisonment before the first return of Jesus to Galilee, or the charge of inaccuracy attaches to him in u less degree than to his colleagues, as in the case of the omission of the journeys of Jesus to Jerusalem. 522 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. There is a last observation to be made on the historical character of Luke's nar- rative. It occupies an intermediate position between the other three Gospels. It has a point in common with Matthew — the doctrinal teachings of .lesus ; it has also a point of contact wilh Mark — the sequence of the accounts, which is the same over a l.irge portion of the narrative ; it has likewise several features in common wilh John : the chief is, that considerable interval whicli in both of them divides the end of the Galilean ministry from the last sojourn at Jerusalem. Thereto must be added some special details, such as the visit to Martha and Mary, as well as the characteristics of those two women, which harmonize so well with the sketch of the family of Belhany drawn by John (chap. 11) ; next, the dispute of the disciples at the close of the Holy Supper, with the lessons of Jesus therewith connected — an account the connection of which with that of the feet-washing in John (chap. 13) is so striking. And thus, while remaining entirely independent of the other three, the Gospel of Luke is never- theless confirmed and supported simultaneously by them all. From all those facts established by exegesis, it follows that, if Luke's account has not, like that of John, the fulness and precision belonging to the narrative of an eye- witness, it nevertheless reaches ihe degree of fidelily which may be attained by a his- torian who draws his materials from those sources which are at once the purest and the nearest to the facts. 0. An important confirmatiun of the accuracy of Luke's account arises from the continuity, the well-marked liistorical progression, which characterizes it. If he is behind John in this respect, he is far superior to Matthew and Mark. • Though the author did not tell us iu his prologue, we should easily discover that his purpose is to depict the gradual development of the work of Chiistianity. lie takes his starting point at the -earliest origin of this work — the announcement of the forerunner's birth ; it is the first dawning of the new day which is rising on hu- manity. Then come the biifh and growth of the forerunner— the birth and growth of Jesus Himself. The physical and moral development of Jesus is doubly sketched, before and after His first visit to Jerusalem at the age of twelve ; a scene related only by Luke, and which forms the link of connection between the infancy of Jesus and His public ministry. With the baptism begins the development of His woik, the continuatirin of that of His person. From this point the narrative pursues two dis- tinct and parallel lines : on one side, the progress of the new work ; on the other, its violeni rupture with the old work, Judaism. The progress of the work is marked by its external increase. At first, Capernaum is its centre ; thence Jesus goes forth iu all directions (4 : 48, 44) : Nain to the west, Gergesa ti» tlie east, B;thsaida- Julias to the north ; then Capernaum ceases to l)e the centre of His excursions (8 : 1-3), and quitting those more northern countries entirely. He proceeds to evangelize southern Galilee and Perea, upon which He had not yet entered (9 : 51), and repairs by tiiis way to Jerusalem. Side by side with this external progress goes the moral development of the work itself. Surro mded at first by a certain number of 5^'^«ezje/".< (4 ; 38-42), Jesus soon calls some of them to become His permanent disciples and fellow- labjrers (5 : 1-11, 27, 28). A considerable time after, when the work has grown. He chooses twelve from the midst of this multitude of disciples, making tliem His more immediate followers, and calling them apostles. Such is the foundation of the new edifice. The time at length comes when they are no longer sulficient for the wauis of the work. Then seventy new evangelists are added to them. The death of Jesus suspends for some time the progress of the work ; but after His resurrection the COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 523 apostolfttc is reconstituted ; and soon the ascension, by placing the Muster on the throne, ,i!;ivcs Ilim the means of elevatinj? Ilis fellow-laborers to the full height of that mission which they have to carry out in His name. Is not the concatenation of the narrative faultless? And is not this exposition far superior as a histoiical work t.) the systematic juxtaposition of homoi^cueous masses in Matthew, or to the series ( t anecdotes chaiacteristic of Mark V The same gradation meets us in another line, that of the facts which mark lliC rupture between the new woik and Israel with its that " not one tittle of ihe law%\i^\\ fail." The true reason of that perdition which threatens the Pharisees, represented by the wicked rich man, is their not liearing ^^oses and the prophets. Even at the very close of Jesus' ministry, the women •who surround him, out of respect for the Sabbath, break off their preparations for 520 COMMENTAEY OiST ST. LUKE. embalminiif Ilis bodj' ; " and, it is expressly said, iJiey rested on the Sabbath day accord- ing to the commandment" (23 : 56). Finally, it is Jerusalem which is to be the start- iug-point of the new preaching ; it is in this city that the apostles are to wait for power from on high. It is in the temple that they abide continuilly, after the ascen- sion. The narrative closes in the temple, as it was in the temple that it opened (34 : 53). If Paul's conception is really antinomian, hostile to Judaism and the law, and if Luke wrote in the interest of this view, as is alleged by the Tubingen school, how are we to explain this second series of facts and doctrines,which is assuredly not less prominent in our Gospel than the first series ? Criticism here finds itself in a difficulty, which is botrayed by the diversity of explanations which it seeks to give of this fact. Volk- mar cuts the Gordian knot ; according to him, those Jewish elements have no exist- ence. The third Gospel is purely Pauline. That is easier to affirm than to demonstrate ; he is the only one of his school who has dared to maintain this assertion, overthrown as it is by the most^^bvious facts. Baur acknowledges the facts, and explains them by admitting a"iater rehandling of our Gospel. The first composition, the primitive Luke, being exclusively Pauline, Ebionite elements were introduced later by the anonymous author of our canonical Luke, and that with a conciliatory view. But Zeller has perfectly proved to his master that this hypothesis of a primitive Luke different from ours is incompatible with the uuity of tendency and style which pre- vails in our Gospel, and which extends even to the second part of the work, the book of Acts. The Jewish elements are not veneered on the narrative ; they belong to the substance of the history. And what explanation does Zeller himself propose ? The author, personally a decided Paulinist, was convinced that, to get the system of his master admitted by the Judeo-Christian party, they must not be offended. He there- fore thought it prudent to mix up in his treatise pieces of both classes, some Pauline, fitted to spread his own view ; others Judaic, fitted to flatter the taste of readers till now opposed to Paul's party. From this Machiavelian scheme the work of Luke proceeded, with its two radically contradictory currents.* But before having recourse to an explanation so improbable both morally and ra- tionally, as we shall find when we come to examine it more closely when treating of the aim of our Gospel, is it not fair to inquire whether there is not a more natural one contrasting less offensively with that character of sincerity and simplicity which strikes every reader of Luke's narrative ? Was not the Old Covenant with its legal forms the divinely-appointed preparation for the new ? Was not the new with its pure spirtuality the divinely-puq^osed goal of the old ? Had not Jeremiah already declared that the days were coming when God Himself would abolish the covenant which He had made at Sinai with the fathers of the nation, and when He would sub- stitute a New Covenant, the essential character of which would be, that the law should be written no longer on tables of stone, but on the heart ; no longer before us, but in us (31 : 31-34)'? This promise clearly established the fact that the Messianic era ■would be at once the abolition of the law in the letter, and its eternal fulfilment in * Overbeck, another savant of the same school, in his commentary on the Acts (a re-edition of De Wette's), combats in his turn the theory of Zeller, and finds in tiie work of Luke the product, not of an ecclesiastical scheme, but of Paulinism in its decadence (see chap. 2 of this Conclusion). As to Keim, he has recourse to the hypothesis of an Ebionite Gospel, which was the first material on which Luke, the disciple of Paul, wrought (see chap. 3). We see : Tot capita, tot aenms. C^MMEKTAKY OX ST. LUKE. 527 the spirit. And such is precisely tlic animating thought of the Gospel histor}', as it has been traced by Luke ; his narrative depicts Iho gradual substitution of the dispensa- tion of the spirit for that of the letter. The Mosaic economy is the starting-point of his history ; Jesus Himself begins under its government ; it is under this divine shel- ter that He grows, and Ilis work matures. Then the spirituality of the Gospel is formed and gradually developed in Ilis person and work, and getting rid by degrees of its tcm[)orary wrapping, ends by shining forth in all its brightness in the preach- ing and work of St. Paul. ]Mosaic economy and spirituality arc not therefore, as criticism would have it. two opposite currents which run parallel or dash against one another in Luke's woik. Between Ebionism and.Pauliuism there is no more contra- diction than between the blossom, under the protection of which the fruit forms, and that fruit itself, when it appears released from its rich covering. The substitution of fruit for llower is ihe result of an organic transformation ; it is the very end of vege- tation. Only the blossom docs not fade away in g, single day, an^' more than the fruit itse.f ripens m a single d:iy. Jesus declares in Luke, that when new wine is offered to one accustomed to drink old wine, he turns away from it at once ; for he says : The oldis better. Agreeably to this principle, God does not deal abruptly with Israel ; for this people, accustomed to the comparatively easy routine of ritualism, He pro- vided a transition period intended to raise it gradually from legal servility td the per- ilous but glorious libeify of pure spiritualliy. This period is that of the development of Jesus Himself and of His work. The letter of the law was scrupulously respected, because tlie Spiiit was not present to replace it ; this admirable and divine work is what the Gospel of Luke invites us to ccjntemplate : Jesus, as a minister of the cir- cumcmon (Rom. lo : 8), becoming the organ of the Spirit. And even after Pentecost, the Spirit still shows all needful deference to the letter of the divine law, and reaches its emancipaliou only in the way of rendering to it uniform homage; such is the scene set befoie us by the book of Acts in the conduct of the apostles, and especially in that of St. Paul. To explam therefore the two series of apparently heterngeneous pieces which we have indicated, we need neither Volkmar's audacious denial respect- ing the existence of one of them, nor lhesul)lile hypothesis of two different Paulinisms in Luke, the one more, the other less hostile to Judeo-Chrisliauity (Baur), nor the supposition of a shameless deception on the part of the forger who composed this writing (Zeller). It is as little necessary to ascribe to the author, with Overbeck, gross misunderstanding of the true system of his master Paul, or to allege, as Keim seems to do, that he clumsily placed in juxtaposition, and without being aware of it, two sorts of materials drawn from sources of opposite tendencies. All such explanations of a system driven to extremity vanish before the simple fact that the Ebionism and Paulinism of Luke belong both alike, as legitimate, necessary, successive elements, to the real history of Jesus and His apostles — the one as the inevitable point of de- parture, the other as the intended goal ; and that the period which separated the one fiom the other served only to replace the one gradually by the other. By giv- ing tho.se two principles place with equal fulness in his narrative, Luke, far from guiding two contradictory tendencies immorally or unskilfullj', has kept by the pure objectivity of history. Nothing proves this better than that very appearance of con- tradiction which he could brave, and which gives modern criticism so much to do. Let it be remarked that the truth of the so-called Pauline elements in Luke's Gos- pel is fully borne out by the presence of similar elements in the other two synoptics. Ritschl, in his beautiful work on the beginnings of the ancient Catholic Church, shows 5;2S COMMKXTAKV OX ST. LUKE. how the one saying of Jesus, preserved in Mark and Matthew as well as in Luke : " The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath," already implied the future abolition of the whole Mosaic law. The same is evidently true of the followiug (Malt. 15 and Mark 7) : " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ; but that which comelh out of the mouth, this defileth him." The whole Levitical law fell before this maxim logically carried out. We may also cite the saying. Matt. 8 : 11 : " 1 say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west ; ... but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out," though it is arbitrarily alleged that it was added later to the apos- tolic Matthew ; then that which announces the substitution of the Gentiles for Israel, in the parable of the husbandmen: "The kingdom shall be taken from you, and given to u nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (21 : 43), a saymg which Matthew alone has preserved to us ; finally, the command given to the apostles to go and bap- tize all nations (28 : 19), which necessarily belonged to the original Matthew : for, 1. The appearance with which it is connected is announced long before (Matt. 26 : 32) ; 2. Because it is the only one related in this Gospel, and therefore could not be want- ing in the original record ; 3. Because Jesus certainly did not appear to His disciples to say nothing to them. But the most decisive saying related by our three synoptics is the parable of the old garment and the piece of new cloth (see on this passage, 5 : 36) Paul has affirmed nothing more trenchant respecting the opposition between the law and the gospel. The fundamental principles of Paulinism, the abolition of the law, the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles, are not therefore any importation of Paul or Luke into the gospel of .Jesus. They belonged to the Master's teaching, though the time had not yet come for develDpiug all their consequences practically. This general question resolved, let us examine in detail the points which criticism still attempts to make good in regard to the subject under discussion. It is alleged that, under the influence of Paul's doctrine, Luke reaches a conception of the person of Christ which transcends that of the other two synoptics. " He softens the passages which had become embarrassing from the standpoint of a more exalted idea of the divinity of Jesus" (Kenan) ; for example, he omits Matt. 24 : 36, which ascribes tlie privilege of omniscience to the Father only. But did he do so intentionally ? Was he acquainted with this saying ? We have just seen another omission which he makes (p. 488) ; we shall meet with many more still, in which the proof of an opposite ten- dency might be quite as legitimately alleged. Is it not Luke who makes the centurion say, " Certainly this was a righteous man,'' while the other two represent him as say- ing, " This was the Son of God ?" What a feeble basis for the edifice of criticism do such differences present ! The great journey across the countries situated between Galilee and Samaria was invented, according to Baur, with the view of bringing into relief the non-Israelitish country of Samaria. Luke thus sought to justify Paul's work among the Gentiles. But would Luke labor at the same moment to overthrow what he is building up, by inventing the refusal of the Samaritans to receive .Jesus ? Besides, it is wholly untrue that Samaria is the scene of the journey related in this part. Was it then in Samaria that .Jesus conversed with a doctor of the law (10 : 25), that He dined with a Pharisee, that He came into conflict with a company of scribes (11 : 37-53), that He cured in the synagogue a daughter of Abraham (13 : 16), etc. etc. ? There is found, no doubt, among the ten lepers one who is of Samaritan origin (17 : 16) ; but if this circum- stance can lead us to suppose that the scene passes in Samaria, the presence of nine COMMEXTAKY OX ST. lA KE. 5;i9 Jewish lepers should make it appear nine times more probable that it transpires on Isiaelilislj territory. In the instructions given to the Twelve, Luke omits tlie saying, " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." Neither do we find the answer addressed to the Canaanitish woman, " 1 am not sunt but unto the Jost sheep of the house of Israel." But, as to tlie first, JMark omits it as well as Luke. Could this also arise tiom a dogmatic tendency? But how, in that case, should he relate the second as well as Matthew? The first then was simply Wiintiug in his pouice ; why not also in Luke's, which in this very narrative seems to have had the greatest couformily to that of Mark ? As to the second saying, it belongs not only lo a narrative, but to a whole cycle of narratives which is completely wanting in Luke (two whole chapters). Besides, does not Luke also omit the peculiarlv Pau- Ime saying, " Come unto nic, all ye who labor and are heavy laden, and ye shall find rest unto your souls ?" Could this also be a dogmatical omission? And as to the saying, " This gospel of the kingdom shall be pieached over all the earth," in con- nection with which floltznumn himself asks the Tubingen critics whether Luke passes it over in silence in a Pauline interest ! Those declarations were simply want- jug in his documents. Why not also those particularistic sayings ? Tliey would cer- tainly not have caused Luke more embarrassment than they did to ]\Ialthew, who sees in them no contradiction to the command which closes his Gospel, " Go and baptize all nations." It is evident that the prohibition addressed to the di.«ciples (Matt. 10) was only temporary, and applied only to the time during which Jesus as a rule leslricted Ilis spheie of action to Israel ; from the time that Ilis death and res- urrection released Him from Ilis national surroundings, all was changed. Luke has a grudge at the Twelve ; he seeks to depreciate them : such is the thesis which Baur has maintained, and which has made way in France. lie proves it by 8 • 53, 54, where he contrives lo make Luke say that the disciples laughed our Lord to scorn, and that He drove them from the apartment ; and yet the words, " know- ing that she was dead." clearly prove that the persons here spoken of were those who had witnessed the death of the young girl ; and ver. 51 excludes the view that lie put the disciples out, for He had just brought them within the house (see the exe- gesis). He proves it further by 9 : 83, where Luke says that Peter and the other two disciples were heavj- with sleep ; as if this remark were not intended to take off from the strangeness of Peter's saying which follows, and which is mentioned by the three evangelists. But the chief proof discovered by Baur of this hostile intention to the Twelve is his account of the sending of the seventy disciples, and the way in which Luke applies to this mission a considerable part of the instru(;tions given to the Twelve in Matt. 10. But if the sending of the seventy disciples were an invention of Luke, after thus bringing them on the scene, he would make them play a part in the sequel of the Gospel history, and especially in the first Christian missions related in the Acts, while from that moment he says not a word more about them ; the Twelve reniiiin after, as well as before that mission, the only important persons ; it is to them that Jesus gives the command to ])reach to the Gentiles (24 : 45 ct seq.) ; it is from them that everything proceeds in the book of Acts ; and when Philip and Stephen come on the scene. Luke does not designate them, as it would have been so ea.sy for him to do, as having belonged to the nundier of the seventy. Keim him- self acknowledges (p. 70) " that it is im[)ossibIe to ascribe the inventiun of this his- tory to Luke ;" and in proof of this he alleges the truly Jewish spirit of the saying 530 COMMENTAIIY OX ST. LUKE. with which Jesus receives the seventy on their return. So little was it suspected in the earliest times, even within the bosom of Judeo-Christian communities, that this narrative could be a Pauline invention, that it is frequently quoted in the " Clemen- tine Homilies." If, in narrating the sending of the Twelve, Luke did not quote all the instructions given by Matthew (chap. 10), the same omission takes place in Mark, who cannot, however, be suspected of an^^ anti-apostolic tendency ; this harmony proves that the omission is due to the sources of the two writers. If Luke had the intention of depreciating the Twelve, would he alone describe the solemn act of their election ? Would he place it at the close of a whole night of prayer (chap. 6) ? Would he mention the glorious promise of Jesus to make the apostles sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ? Yv'ould ho omit the assent which they all give in Matthew and Mark to the presumptuous declaration of Peter : lam ready to (jotcith Thee even unto death! Would he make no mention of their shameful flight at Gelhsemane, which is related by the other two? Would he ex- cuse their sleeping on that last evening by saying that the}* were sleeping /o/'so/tow / and tlieir unbelief on the day of resurrection, by saying that it vcasforjoy they could not believe (those details are peculiar to Luke) ? Luke does not speak of the ambi- tious request of Zebedee's two sons, and of the altercation wliich ensued with the other disciples ; he applies to the relation between the Jews and Gentiles that severe warning, the first part of which is addressed in Matthew to the Twelve : " and there are first which shall be last," and the second part of which : "and tiiere are last which shall be fiist," might so easily have been turned to the honor of Paul. If there is one of the synoptics who holds up to view the misunderstandings and moral de- fects of the apostles, and the frequent displeasure of Jesus with them, it is Mark, and not Luke. In respect to Peter, who it is alleged is peculiarly the object of Luke's antipathy, this evangelist certainly omits the saying so honoring to this apostle: "Thou art Peter," etc., as well as the narrative, Matt. 14 : 28-ol, in which Peter is privileged to walk on the waters by the side of our Loid. But he also omits in the former case that terrible rebuke which immediately follows : " Get thee behind me, Satan ; thou art an offence unto me." And what is the entire omission of this whole scene, com- pared with the conduct of Mark, who omits the first part favorable to Peter, and re- lates in detail the second, where he is so sternly nprimauded ! If it was honoring to Peter to walk on the waters, it was not very much so to sink the next moment, and to bring down oh himself the apostrophe ; " O thou of little faith !" The onission of this incident has therefore nothing suspicious about it. Is not the history of Peter's call related in Luke (chap, o) in a way still more glorious for hioi than in Matthew and Maik? Is he not presented, from beginning to end of this narrative, as the prin- cipal person, in a sense the only one (vers. 4, 10) ? Is it not he again who, in the first days of Jesus' ministry at Capernaum, plays the essential part (Luke 4 : o8-44 ?) On the eve of the death of Jesus, is it not he who is honored, along with John, with the mission of making ready the Passover, and that in Luke only ? Is not his denial related in Luke with much more reserve than in Matthew, where the imprecations of Peter upon himself are expressly mentioned? Is it not in Luke that Jesus dechrres that He has devoted to Peter a special prayer, and expects from him the sticngthening of all the other disciples (23 : 33) ? Is he not the first of the apostles to whom, accord- ing to Luke (83 : 34) as according to Paul (1 Cor. 15), the risen Jesus appears ? And despite all this, men dare to represent the third Gospel as a satire directed against tlie COMMENTAIIY OX ST. LUKE. 531 Twtlvo, niul against Peter in piirliriilar (llic ainnynious Saxon) ;* and M. Burnouf ventures to eliaraetcrizc it thus in the licnie dcs Deux Mondcs (December, ISGo) ; "Luke seeks to attenuate tlic jiulhorily of the Twelve . . . ; lio depreeialis Peter ; he takes from tlie Twelve the merit of having founded the religion of Chrisi, hy adding to them seventy envoys whose mission is contrary to the most authoritative Israeiilish usages." ]\I. Burnouf forgets to tell us what those usages are, and whetlur Je¥us held Himself always strictly bound to Jewish usages. On the other hand, Z-lier. the pronounced tlisciple of Baur, finds himself obliged to make this coufis- siou (" Aposlelgesch." p. 450) : " "We cannot .suppose in the case of Luke any real hostility to the Tweh'e, because he mentions circumntances omitted by ]\IatllRW himself which exalt them, and because he omits others which are to their discredit." Once more, in what is called the Jewish tendency of Luke, there is a point which has engaged the attention of criticism : we mean the partiality expressed by this Gos- pel for the poorer classes, its Ehionism (stiictly «o called) ! f " Luke's heres}'," as De Wette has it. It appears 1 : 5i], 6 : 20, 21, where the poor appiar to be saved, the rich condemned, as mch ; 13 : 33, 34 ; IG : 9, 23-25 ; 18 : 22-25, where salvation is connected with almsgiving and the sacrifice of earthly goods, damnation with the keeping of them. But, 1. We have seen that there is a temporary side in these pre- cepts ; see especially on 12 : 33, 34 ; 18 : 22-25. Does not Paul also (1 Cor. 7) rec- ommend to Christians not to jtossess, but " io possess as though they possessed not ?" 2. Poverty and riches by no moans produce those effects inevitably and without the concurrence of the will. Poverty dees not save ; it prepares for salvation by pro- ducing lowliness : wealth does not condenm ; it may lead to damnation, b}'^ harden- ing the heart iind producing forgetfulness of God and His law : such is the meaning of G : 21-25 when lightly understood : of IG : 29-31 ; of 18 : 27 (the salvation of the rich impossible with men, hui possible with, God) ; finally, of Ads 5 : 4, where the right of property in the case of Ananias and Sapphira is expressly reserved by Peter, and their punishment founded solely on their falsehood. 3. The alleged " heresy of Luke" is also that of Matthew and INlark (narrative of the rich young man), and con- seijuently of our Lord Himself. Let us rather recognize that he giving up of prop- erty appears in the teaching of Jesus, either as a measure arising from the necessity imposed on His disciples of accnrnpanyiug Him outwardly, or as a voluntary and optional offeiiiig of charity, applical)le to all times. If noAv, setting aside critical discussion, we .seek positively to characterize the re- ligious complexion of Luke's narrative, the fundamental tone appears to us to be, as Langc says (" Leben Jesu," i. p. 258 et seq.) : " the revelation cf divine mercy," or, belter still, according to Paul's literal expression (Tit. 3:4): the manifestation of divhie pJiilanthropij. To this characteristic there is a second corresponding one : Luke loves to exhibit in the human soul, in the very mid.=t of its fallen state, the presence of some ray of the divine image. He speaks of that honcKt and good lieurt, which receives the seed of the gospel as soon as it is .scattered on it ; he points to the good Samaritan per- forming instinctively tlie iJiinrjs contained in the laio (Rom. 2 : 14) ; in the case ef * Zeller himself says (" Aposlelgesch." p. 43G) : " In reality, there are not to be foimd in this Gf.spel any ol' the indirect attacks, insults, malevolent insinuations, and earca.snis against Jud»'0-Christianily and the Judeo-Christian apostles which the anony- mous Saxon seeks in it." + It is well known that this term arises frrm a Hebrew word signifying ;»2, 23, 2'3, the Hebrew coloring of which is much less j>roni)iuiced, anil which presented nothing or almost nothing; olTensive to Greek ears. It is not piobable that the}' proceed from an Aramaic docmneul, any more than that Luke comp'-.sed them freely. In the fust case they would contain more Hebraisms ; in the second, they would Ijo stili more completely free from them. It is therefdrc probable that tliuse passages were composed in Greelc by Lid, 'i6ov ydp, k?.e}E 6e (in the sense so often pointed out in our commentary), £jt' aAnOeiai, t§ ;;S ijfiefta: , KOTu idoi or to c'luOdc, or to eiOio/uvov, etc. f For example : nvO' uv, a?.?.' oMe, avTUa/i^uveTOai, eKKUKetv, napddeicoi, aaurug, avTairoiojia, oXveiv tov 6e6i>, arevi^eiv, ^layyiX/.eiv, dzcATtiCeiv, etc. 530 COMMEXTAllY 02f ST. LUKE. CHAPTER 11, THE COMPOSITION OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. > "We have before us in this chsipter the four following points : The aim of the Gospel, the time of its composition, the author to whom it is to be ascribed, the flace where he composed it. I — The, Aim. The common aim of our Gospels is to produce faith in Hini whom they describe as the Saviour of the world. But each of them pursues this aim in a partieular way : Matthew, by bringing the history of our Lord into connection with the Messianic prophecies of which it is the fulfilment ; Mark, by seeking to reproduce the unique splendor which rayed forth from His person ; John, by relating the most salient testi- monies and facts which led His disciples to recognize and adore Him as the Son of God. What is the means by which Luke wishes to gam the same end ? It was thought enough, even down to our own day, to answer that he had sought to trace the Gospel history as faithfully as possible with a view to believers among the Gentiles.* This solution is not precise enough for the authors of the critical school, which seeks party tendencies everywhere in our sacred writings. By combining with the study of the Gospel that of the Acts, the objects of which seemed more pro- nounced, they have come to the conclusion that the writings of Ijuke are nothing else than a disguised defence of the person and preaching of Paul, in opposition to the persons and teaching of the Twelve ; a history more or less fictitious intended to' gain fuvor for that apostle with the .Judeo-Christian party, which, down to the second cen- tury, remained obstinately hostile to him. Zeller, in particular, has developed this thesis in a work which might be called classic, if erudition and sagacitj' could stand for justice and impartiality. f MM. Reuss (§ 210) and Nicolas (p. 268) also ascribe to the Acts the aim of reconciling the Judeo-Christian and Pauline parties, but without accusmg the author of wilfully altering the facts. | It must indeed be confessed, especially if we take account of the narrative of tho Acts, that it is very difficult to believe that in writing this history the author had only the general intention of giving as complete and faithful a view of the facts as pos- sible. A more particular aim seems to show itself in the choice of the materials which he uses, as well as in the numerous omissions which he makes. Whence comes it that, of all the apostles, Peter and Paul are the only ones brought on the scene ? How are we to explain the marvellous parallelism between them established by the narra- tive V Whence the predilection of the author for everything relating to the person of * So Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), Eichhorn, Schleiermacher, De Wette; Bleek, stop short at this general definition. From this point of view, the Acts are simply re- garded as a history of the apostolic age or of the first missions. f Zeller (p. 3Gi^) calls the book of Acts " a treaty of peace proposed to the Judeo- Christians by a Paulinist, who wishes to purchase from them the acknowledgment of Gentile Christianity by a series of concessions made to .Tudaism." X M. Nicolas thus expresses the aim of the Acts : " To extiugui-sh the discussions of the two parlies, and lead them to forget tlieir old feuds by showing them that their founders . . . had labored with a full understanding with one another for the propagation of Chiislianity. COMMENTAUV ON ST. LUKE. 537 the latter ; the thrice repeated niirrative of his conversion, tliedetailed account of tlie varied phases of his trisil, tlie peeuliarly niurked notice of his rclalions to tlie Rimian mngistrates ? Wliy relate in delail llie founding of (lie churches of Greece, and not devole a line to that of. so iui[U)itaut a church as Alexandria (to which Paul remained a stranger) ? To what purpose the circumstantial recital of Paul's voyage to Rome V And why does the account of his arrival close the book so abruptly? Is not Over- beck right in saying that, in reality, " the suliject of the book is not the gospel, but the gospel preaclied by Paul." Even the lirst part, tnat which relates to Peter, seems to be only a preparation for the account of Paul's ministry. The author seems to say : Great as Peter was in his work in Israel, Paul was not one whit behind him in his among the Gentiles ; the extiaordiuary miracles and successes by which God accredited the former were repeated in no less a measure in the case of the other.* AVe do not think that the recent defenders of the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel and the Acts' (MayerholT, Baumgarten, Lekebusch) have succeeded alto.gether in parrying this blow. They have attempted to explain part of those facts, while udmitling that the theme of the Acts was solel}^ the propagation of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome ; but this very demonstration breaks down at several points, and especiall}' in the last chapter. For when Paul reaches this capital it is not he who brings the gospel to it ; rather it is the gospel which receives him there (28 : 15) : and in what follows, the founding of a church at Rome by Paul is not related. As Over- beck says, " The Acts relate, not how the gospel, but how Paul, reached Rome." "While fully recognizing that the purely historical aim is unsatisfactory, it seems to us that that which Zeller proposes is inadmissible. Not only, as Bleek oiiserves, must the coidl}' calculated deception, which would be inevitable in an author invent- ing a narrative with the view of forging history, appear absolutely improbable to every reader who gives himself up to the impression which so simple a compositioa produces ; but besides, how are we to set before our minds the result proposed to be gained in this way '^ Did the author mean, asks Overbeck, to influence the Judco- Christians to unite with Paul's party V But in that case it was a most unskilful expe- dient to set before them the conduct of the Jewish nation in the odious light in which it appears throughout the entire history of the Acts, from the persecutions against the apostles in the first chapters, down to the dark plots in which the Sanhedtiin itself does not shrink from taking part against the life of St. Paul. IL must, then, be by acting on his own part}', the Paulinists, that the author hoped to effect the fusion of the two camps. By presenting the picture of the harmonj' between Paul and the Twelve at Jerusalem (Acts 15), he proposed to bring the Paulinists of his time to con- cede to the Judeo-Christians, as Paul had formerly done to the apostles, the observ- ance of the Mosaic rites. But the Judeo-Chrislians themselves of that period no longer held to this concession. It appears from the " Clementine Homilies" that cir- cumcision was aVmndoned by this party. The author of the Acts, a zealous Paulinist, must tiien have asked his own to yield to tlicir adversaries more than the latter them- selves required ! Finally, what purpose, on Zeller's sup[)nsition. would be served by the entire transition part (chap. G-12) ? This elaborate enumeration of the circum- * It is known that Schneckenburger regarded this parallel between Peter and Paul as the principal thought and aim of the Acts (without thinking that the truth of -the narraiive was lliereli}' compromised). It is only as a ciiri/>si/)n \\ui\ we refer to the opiniiXi (if Aberle, who rcgarrls the Acts as a memoir prepared with a view to Paul's defence in his trial before the imperial tribunal. 538 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. stances -which went to pave the way for the free evangelization of the Gentile world mii^ht and should have its place in a truthful and sincere narrative of Ihe progress of the Christian work ; it was a digression in a romance intended to raise Paul to the level of Peter. The modified form given by MM. lieuss aud Nicohis to this con- ciliation-hj^pothesis has no force unless there is ascribed to the apostolic Judeo-Chris- tiauity and Paulinism a meaning aud importauce which, in our opinion, it never had (see chap. 4). What hj'pothesis does Overbeck substitute for that of Zeller, which he so well combats ? According to this critic, the author of the Acts does not think ef leconciling the two camps. It is the Pauline party alone which, working on its own account, here attempts by the pen of one of its members " to come to an under- standing with its past, its peculiar origin, and itsfirst founder, Paul " (p. xxi.). Such, after so much beating about, is the last word of Baur's school on the aim of the writ- ings of Luke. It is on the face of it a somewhat strange idea, that of a party com- posing a historical book to come to a clear understanding with its past. It is not, however, iuconceivable. But if tlie author really means to come to an understanding about tlie beginnings of his parly, it is because he knows those beginnings, and be- lieves in them. The past is to hini a definite quantity by whicli he measures the present. But in that case, how are we to explain the wilful falsifications of history in which, according to Overbeck himself, he indulged ? The miracles of St. Peter in the first part of the Acts are set down to the account of legend ; but those of Paul, in the second, were knowingly invented by the author. To restore the past at one's own caprice, is that to come to a clear understanding with it ? Much more, the author of the xVcts, not content with peopling the night of the past with imaginary events, went the length of putting hinis;lf " into systematic opposition" (p. xxxvi.) to what Paul says of himself in liis epistles. To contradict systematically, that is to say, know- ingly, the be.st authenticated documents proceeding from the founder of the party — such is the v/ay " to come to light regarding tlie person of that cliief " ! The Tubin- gen criticism has entangled itself in a cul-de-sac from which it cannot escape except by renouncing its first error, the opposition between the principles of Paul and those of the Twelve. We shall return to this question in our last chapter. The reperusal of the third Gospel is enough to convince any one that its author seriously pursues a historical aim. This appears from the numerous chronological, geographical, and other like notices of which his work is full (Quirinius, 2:2; the cycle of dates, 3:1; the age of Jesus, 5 : 23 ; the second-first Sabbath, 6:1; the details regarding the material support of Jesus and His apostles, 8 : 1-3 ; compare also 9 : 51, 13 : 22, 17 : 11, 21 : 37, 38, etc.). The narrative of the Acts is every- where strewn with similar remarks (on Bethany, 1 : 12 ; expulsion of the Jews by Claudius, 18 : 2 ; Gallio, 5 : 12 ; the money value of the books burned, 19 : I'J ; the .details of the disturbance at Ephesus, chap. 19 ; the fifty days between Passover and Pentecost, of which the narrative of the journey enables us to give an exact account, 20 : G — 21 : 16 ; the number of soldiers, cavalry and infantry, forming the escort, 23 : 23 ; the circumstantial account of the shipwreck, 27 ; Ihe nationality aud figure- head of the vessel which carries Paul to Kome, 28 • 11). The historical purpose of the narrative appears from the programme marked out in the prologue : to relate all things, from the tery first, in order, exactly (1 : 3). Yet it is certain, on Ihe other hand, that no more than the other evangelists does the author relate history merely as history — that is to say, to interest the reader and satisfy his curiosity. He evidently proposes to himself a more exalted aim. The COMMKNTAliY ON .ST. LLKK. 539 tone of bis narrative proves Ihis, and he tells us so himself. Ho has before his eyes a reader who is alread}' abreast of the essential points of the p:ospel verity, and wimni he wishes to furnish wilh the means of confirminsr the reality of the object of his faith (r/)p aa(t>u?.£iuv). It is with tin's view that he presents him with a full, exact, anO consecutive desciiptiou of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, " that he might [thus himself] verify the infallible certainty of those things wherein he has been in- structed." In what did those instructions received by Theophllus consist ? According to St. Paul (1 Cor. 15 : 3-o), the essential points of elementary instruction were these two : Christ dead for our sins, and risen tlie third day. In Rome 10 : G-10 the same apos- tle thus defines the object of faith, and the contents of the Christian profession : Christ descended for us into the abyss, and ascended for us to heaven ; comp also Horn. 4 : 23-35. Such is likewise the summary of Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost. Nevertheless, at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10), Peter already feels the need of preparing for the proclamation of those decisive saving truths by a rapid sketch of the ministry of Jesus. At Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13 : 23, 24), Paul goes back, like Peter, even to the ministry of John the Baptist. For there is in the mind of every man, face to face with an important historical event, the felt need not merely to ac- count for whiit it contains, but also for the way in wiiicli it has come about. And when the event has exercised, and continues ever to exercise, a deep influence on the lot of humanity, and on that of every individual, then the need of knowing its be- ginnings and development, its geneais, if I may so speak, takes forcible possession of every serious mind. And this desire is legitimate. The more value the event has, the more important is it for the conscience to defend itself from every illusion in regard to it. Such must have been the position of a large number of believing and cultured Greeks, of whom Tbeophilus was the representative. What mysteries must have appeared to such minds in those iinheard of events which form the goal of gos- pel histoiy : a man dying for the salvation of all other men ; a Jew raised to the con- dition of the Son of God, and to power over all things ; and that especially when those events were presented apart from their couneclian with those which had pre- ceded and prepared for them, having all the appearance of abrupt manifestati(;ns from heaven ! To how many objections must such doctrine have given rise ? It is not without reason that St. Paul speaks of the cross as, to tli" 6 rieks foolishness. Was il not important to supply a point of suppoit for such instructions, and in order to do that, to settle them on the solid basis of facts ? To relate in detail the beginning and middle of tiiis history, was not this to render the end of it more worthy of faith ? In dealing with such men as Tbeophilus, there was an urgent necessity for suppljing history as the basis of their catechetical training. No one could understand better than St. Paul the need for such a work, and we should not be sur])rised thnuizh it were to him that the initiative was due. It is true there existed already a considerable number of accounts of the ministry of Jesus ; but according to 1 : 3 (explained in contrast with vers. 1, 2), those works were only collections of anecdotes put together without connection and without criticism. Such compilations could not suffice to meet the want in question ; there was needed a his- tory properly so called, such as that which Luke announces in his programme. And if Paul among the helpers who surrounded him, had an evangelist distinguished for his gifts and culture— and we know from 2 Cor. 8 : 18, 19, that there was really one 540 COMMEXTAKl Vis ST. LUKE. of this description — how could he help casting his eyes on him, and encouraging him to uudeitake so excellent a work ? Such is the task which Luke has discharged. It is neiiher by adducing tlie prophecies, nor by the personal greatness of Jesus, nor by his declarations respecting His heavenly origin, that the author of tiie thiid Gospel has souglit to establish or strengthen ^he faith of his readers. It is by the consecu- tive exposition of that uuique history whose final events have become the holy ob- ject of faith. The beginning explains the middle, and the middle the end ; and from this illamiiiated close the light is reflected back on the events which have ltd to it. It is a wtll-compacted whole, in which the parts mutually support one another. Luke's Gospel is the only one which in this view presents us with the Gospel history. It is very truly, us it has been called, the Gospel of the development (M. Felix Bovct). The heavenly exiiltation of Jesus was, if one may so speak, the first stage in the march of Chiistian work. There was a second more advanced : the state of things which this work had reached at the time when the author wrote. The name of Christ preached throughout all the world, the Church founded in all the cities of the em- piie ; such was the astounding spectacle which this great epoch presented. Tliis re- sult was not, like the life of .Jesus, an object of faith to the Gentiles ; it was a fact of felt experience. It required to be, not demonstrated, but explained, and in some re- spects justified. How had the Church been founded, and how had it grown so rapidly? How had it become open to the Genliles? How were the people of Israel, from the midst of whom it had gone forth, themselves excluded from it ? How rec- oncile with this unexpected event God's faithfulness to His promises? Could the work of Christianity really be under those strange conditions a divine work? All these were questions which might justly be raised in the minds of believers from among the Gentiles, as is proved by the passage 9-11 of the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul studies this very problem with a view to the wants of ancient Gentiles (11 : 13). Only, while Paul tretits it from the standpoint of Christian speculation, and answers it by a Theodicee, the book of Acts labors to solve it iiistoricaily. The first part of this book exhibits the Church being born by the power of the Spirit of the glorified Christ, but coming into collision at its first step with official Judaism. The second part exhibits God preparinfj for the new progress which this work was to make through the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, and Israel at the same lime shedding the blood of Stephen, and the King of Israel slaying or disposed to slay the two chief apostles — in a word, the rebellion of Israel in tlie Holy Land. Tlie lust part, finally, represents the divine work embracing the Gentile world, and the ministry of Paul crowned with a success and with wonders equal at least to those which liad signalized the ministry of Peter — most certainly this parallelism, as Schneckenbuiger has observed, is before the mind of the author, while Judaism continues its opposi iuu in every city of the pagan world where Paul preaches, and at length consummates that opposition in the very lieart of the empire, in the capital of the world, by the conduct of the rulers of the Roman synagogue. Such is the end of the book. Is not the intention of such a writing clear? The narrative is a justification. But this justification is not, as has been unworthily thought, that of a man, St. Paul. Tlie aim of the Acts is more exalted. By its simple and consecutive statement of evLtil.«, iLis book purports to give the explanation and justification of the way in which that guat religious revolution was cariied through, which transferred the kingdom of God from the Jews io the Gentiles ; it is the apology of the divine work, that of God H'mself. God had left the Gentiles only for a time, the times of ignorance ; He had tempo- CUMMKNTAKY ON ST. IlKK. 541 rarily let themwalk in their own ways (Acts 17 : 30 ; 14 : 1(5). At tlie end of this time, Israel, first saved, was to become the iuslrument uf universal salvation, the apostle of Christ to all nations. But this glorious calling which the apostles so often held out to it was obstinately rejected, and the kingdom of God. instead of being established by it, was forced to pass aside from it. It was therefore not God who broke wllh His people; it was the people who broke with their God. Suclf is the fact which the book of Acts demonstrates historically. It is thus, in a waj', the counterpart of Gene- sis. The latter relates how the transition took place from primitive universalism to theocralic particularism, through God's covenant with Abraham. The Ads relate how God icturned from this temporary particularism to the conclusive luiiversalism, which was ever His real thought. But while simply describing the fact, the Acts ex- plain and justify the abnormal and unforeseen form in which it came about. The end common to Luke's two writings is therefore to strenglhen faith, by ex- hibiting the ])rinciple and phases of that renewal which his eye had just witnessed. Two great results had been successively effected befoie the eyes of his contempora- ries. In the person of Jesus, the world had received a Saviour and blaster ; this Sav- iour and Master had established His kingdom over humanitj'. The Gospel sets forth the first of those events ; the Acts the second. The Gospel has for its subject the invisible revolution, the substitution in the person of Jesus Himself of the dispensa- tion of the Spirit for the reign of the letter, the transforming of the relations of God to man, salvation, the principle of that historical revolution which was to follow. The Acts narrate the external revolution, the preaching of salvation with its conse- quences, the acceptance of the Gentiles, and their substitution in the place of Israel. Salvation and the Church, such are the two works of God on which the author meant to shed the light of the divine mind. The Ascension linked them together. The goal of the one, it was the foundation uf the other. Hence the narrative of the Ascension becomes the bond of the two writing.". The aim of the work, thus understood, ex- plains its beginning (tiie announcement of the forerunner's birth), its middle (the As- cension), and its end (Paul and the synagogue at Rome). II. — The J'ime of Componition. The very various opinions regarding the date of our Gospel (Introd. § 3) may be arranged in three groups. Tlie first class fix it before the destruction of Jerusalem, between 60 and 70 ; the second, between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the first century (Holtzmann, from 70 to 80 ; Keim, about 90) ; the third, Baur and his school, in the first part of the second century (Yolkmar, about 100 ; Hilgeufeld, Zeller, from 100 to 110 ; Baur, after 130>. The traditions which we have quoted (§ 3) and the facts which we have enumerated (§ 1) seem to us at once to set aside the dates of the third group, and to be unfavorable to the second. Tradition has preserved to us only one precise date, that given by Clement of Alexandria, when he places the com- position of Luke before that of Mark, and fixes the latter at the period of Peter's so- journ at Rome— that is to saJ^ in G4 (According to \Yieseler). or between 04 and 67 (according to others). Following this view, our Gospel must have been composed be- tween 60 and 67. The opinion of Irenneus is not, as is often said, opposed to this (§ 3). Let us examine the objections raised by criticism to this traditional date, "which would place the composition of our Gospel antecedently to the destruction of Jerusalem. 542 COMMEXTARY OX ST. LUKE. 1. The great uumber of gosjjel narratives already published before our Gos^pf 1, acc(*rding to the prologue, presupposes a somewhat advanced period of tlie apostolic age.* But "why might uot numerous attempts at compiling tradilious relative to the history of Jesus have been made during the first thirty years w^hich followed events so great? " Though the ait of writing had not j'et existed, it would have been in- vented for such a subject," says Lange. When, especially, the generation of the immediate witnesses of the life of our Saviour began to be cleared away by death, and when the apostles, His olRcial witnesses, left Palestine to go and preach to other nations, was it not inevitable that the gospel literature should appear to fill up this double void ? Now it was about the year GO, at the latest, that those circumstances emerged. 2. The work of Luke betrays a certain amount of cril icism, in regard to its sources, which leads to a date posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem. But from the time when the author had before him a certain number of works on the subject, it is evi- dent tliat he could not compose his narrative without estimating those sources critically ; that might be done at any period. All that was needed for it was leisure. 3. The influence of legend (Overbeck) is alleged in the writings of Luke, and a Pauliuism already in a stale of decadence (Reuss, so far as the Acts is concerned). But has the third Gospel presented to us a single description resembling that of the fire lighted in the Jordan at the time of the baptism, which .Justin relates ; or a single word which has any resemblance to the account of the marvellous vines of the mil- lennial kingdom, in Papias ; or a single scene amplified like that which is drawn by the Gospel of the Hebrews of the interview between .Jesus and the rich young man (see on the passage) ? Such are the traces of the influence of myth. Luke is entirely free from it. As to the weakening of the Pauline idea, we shall not be able to treat it thoroughly till chap. 4. We shall only say here, that so far from its being the fact that Luke gives us a Paulinism in a state of decline, it is Paul himself who, in the Acts, following the example of Jesus in the Gospel, agrees to realize Christian spiiit- uality only in the restricted measure in which it is practicable. Fidelity to principle does not pieventmenof God from exercising that prudence and charity which in prac- tice can take account of a given situation. 4. The siege of Jerusalem is described in the prophecy of .Jesus in so x)recise and detailed a form (19 : 43, 44 ; 21 : 20-24), in comparison with the compilations of Mat- thew and jVIark, that it is impossible to assert that Luke's account is not subsequent to the event. Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, that is certain. The witnesses who accused Him of this before the Sanhedrim did not invent what was ab- solutely false, and Stephen rested his statement on some such prophecy (Acts 6 : 14), Kow if .Jesus predicted this catastrophe as a prophet, there is no reason why He should not have prophetically announced some details of it. But if He predicted it simply through the force of His political insight. He could not but be aware also that this destruction implied a siege, and that the siege could not take place without Ihe means in use at the time (investment, trenches, etc.), and would be followed by all the well-known terrible consequences. Now nothing in the details given passes l.>eyond the measure of those general indications. 5. The final advent of our Lord, it is further said, stands in Mark and Matthew in * Keim : " Ei.e reiche Evangelien-Literatur zeigtdeii vorgerucktenBliithbestand des Christenthuins. " COMMKXTAUY OX ST. l.lKE. 543 immediate connection with the dcsl ruction of Jcrusnlem, while in Luke it is widely sppanited from it by the interval of the times of the Gentiles (21 : 24). In otlier i)as- sages, besides, liie idea of tl»e proximity of the Parousia is designedly effaced ; so I) : 27. where Luke makes Jesus say that some of the disciples present shall see, not " (he Son of man coming in Ills kingdom" (.Matthew), but sinii)!}' the I.iiif/doiii of God. This all proves that, at the period when Luke was writing, experience had already led the Church to give up the idea that the return of Christ would inunediately follow (el'OFui in ]\[atth('w) the destruction of Jerusalem. "W^e hold that the relation of im- mediate succession between the two events laid down by Matthew proves rhat his Gospel was composed before the destruction of Jerusalem ; but we cannot adurit, "what IS held by the entire body almost of modern critics, that the interval supposed by Luke between those two events proves the date of his Gospel to he after that catastrophe. We have alread}'- treated several points bearing on this question in our exegesis (pp. 44o, 44G). The decisive question here is how Jesus Christ Himself spoke on the subject. We think we have given indubitable evidence, from a very large number of His sayings, that in His view His advent was to be separated by a considerable period, not only from the time that He was speaking, but from the de- struction of Jerusalem, which, according to Him, was to happen during the lifetime of the contemporarj' generation. The bridegroom who delavs his coming; the jjor- ter who has to watch late or till midnight, or till cock-crow, or even till morning, Wiiiling for his master ; the parable of the leaven, which exhibits the gospel slow]}' and by a process wholly from within transforming the relations of human life, that gjspel which must be preached before His return throughout the whole world, while the apostles shall not even have had lime to announce it to all the cities of Israel be- fore the judgment of the nation, etc. etc. — all proves to us that Jesus Himself never confounded in one and the same catastrophe the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the pi'esent dispensation. Hence it follows, that if Jesus expressed His view on this subject, He must have spoken as Luke makes Him speak, and not as Matthew makes Him speak ; that consequently He must really have delivered two distinct dis- courses on those two subjects so entirely different in His ej'es, and not one merely in which He blended the two events in a single description (^latt. 24). Now this is pre- cisely what Luke says (see chap. 17, on the return of Christ, and chap. 21, on the de- struction of Jerusalem). If it is so, with what right can it be alleged that Luke could not recover the historical truth on this point as he has succeeded in doing on so many others, und that his essentially more accurate account of the sayings of Jesus is pro- duced only by a deliberate alteration of the documents which he had before him ? What ! Luke returned by the path of error or falsehood to historical truth ! Really criticism here exacts more from sound sense than it can bear. Besides, it is psycho- logically impossible that Luke should have indulged in manipulating at pleasure the sayings of that Being on whom his faith was fixed, whom he regarded as the Son of God. Again, in this respect ciiticism ascribes a procedure to him which sound sense rejects. The sayings of our Lord may have been involuntarily modified by tra- dition, and have come to the evangelists in different and more or less altered forms ; but we cannot allow that they invented or changed them deliberately. In what re- Bults are we landed if we take the opposite view ? It is asserted that some unknown poet put into the mouth of Jesus, about 68. the eschatological discour.se, ^lutt. 24; then, ten or twenty years after the destiuclion of Jerusalem. Luke not less knowinirly and deliberately transformed this diseouise to meet the exigencies of the case I But 544 ■ COMMENTARY OX ST. LLKE. we ask : if such were really the origin of our Lord's discourses, would they l)e wliat they are ? Would their general harmony, and the points so often observed at which they fit into one another, be what they are, especially in our synoptics ? In opposition to those reasons, whicli appear to us to be of little weight, the follow- ing are the proofs whicli the book itself furnishes, to the fact of its being composed before the destruction of Jerusalem : 1. The aim which, as we have seen, explains the Gospel and the Acts, coincides thoroughly with that of the great epistles of St. Paul, ebpecially of the Epistle to the Romans ; besides, the correspondences in detail between the third Gospel and that letter are so many and striking, that it is almost impossible to deny that the two writings proceeded from the same surroundings and at the same period. For they are evidently intended to meet the same practical wants.* The main fact here is, that Luke resolves historically precisely the same problem of the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles which Paul treats speculatively in the important passage, liom. 9-11. 2. The purity of the tradition, the freshness and simplicity of the narratives, and especially the appropriateness which Luke is able to restore to the sayings of Jesus, and which alone makes their full charm felt, do not admit of the view that this book was written at a considerable distance from the events, and that it was wholly outside the circle of the first witnesses. The destruction of Jerusalem had not yet burst over the Holy Land and scattered that Piimitive Cliristian Sociely, when such information was collected as that to which we owe records so vivid and pure. 3. The book of Acts, certainly written after the Gosptl, does not seem to have been composed after the destruction of Jerusalem. True, it has been alleged that 8 : 26 proves the contrary, but without the least foundation, as Overbeck acknowl- edges. The words: "Now it is desert," in this passuge, lefer not to the town of Gaza, but to the route pointed out by the angel, either to distinguish it from another more frequented way (Overbeck), or, as appears to us more natural, to explain the scene which is about to follow. How would it be possible for this writing, at least in its last lines, not to contain the least allusion to this catastrophe, nor even u word * In the first two chapters of Luke, Jesus is described as the son of David by Hte descent from Mary, and as the Son of God by His supernatural birth ; St. Paul begins the Epistle to tlie Romans with the words : " Made of the seed of David according lo the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God in virtue of the spirit of holiness." Luke's two writings, in their unity, demonstrate Israel's right of priority in regard to the kingdom ot God ; what else is this than the privilege of the npurou, first, expressly attributed to the Jews by St. Paul, Rom. 1 : 10 ? Jesus, in Luke, is circumcised on the eigliih day, and presented in the temple on the fortieth — two cer- emonii.'S which subject Him during His earthly life to the law ; Paul, as if ho were alluding to those facts related only by Luke, calls Jesus " a minister of the circum- cision" (Rum. 15 : 8), and speaks of llim, Gal. 4:4, " made of a woman, rjiade under the law." Luke, in the Acts, declares theuniveisalily of the divine revelation which preceded that of the Gospel : " God left not Himself without witness among the Gen- tiles ;" Paul, Rom. 1 : 19, 20, likewise declares the revtlatioo of the invisible God made to the Gentiles in the works of creation. Luke points to the Good Samaritan doing instinctively what neither the priest nor the Levite, though holders of the hiw, did ; Paul, Rom. 2 : 14-15, 26-27, speaks of the Gentiles who do by nature the things contained in the law, and who thereby shall condemn the Jew, who hears, but al the same time breaks that law. Luke speiiks of the times of ignorance, during which God suffered the nations to walk in their own ways ; Paul, of the forbearance which God showed in regard to past sins, during the time of His long-suffering (Rom. 3 : 25). It would be tedious to prolong this parallel. lOMMKNTAKY ON ST. LLKK. 545 toiicliing Ihe death of St. Paul, which must have preceded it by a few years? We have already discussed this quesliou (lulrod. p. 8 d veq.). We shall sum up by sa}'- iiig that if, ou tiie one liaiul. liie mculiuu of Ihe term of two years, in the last verses of tlie Acts, dearly assumes tliat a uew phase iu Paul's life had btirun after his cap- tivity, ou the other hand the complete silence of the author as to the end of the ai)osile's career proves that this phase had not yet terminated. The Acts must there- fuie have been wiitlen iu the interval between the end of Paul's first captivity at Rome (iu the sprmgof the year 64) and his martyrdom (about 07).* The Gospel nuist have been comj)osed a short time before. Again, it has been alleged that a considerable interval must have elapsed between the composition of those two writings ; because the tradition followed by Luke in the Ads, in regard to the ascension, differs from that which dictated the account of the event in the Gospel, and consequently supposes new information. We have proved iu cur exegesis that this hypothesis is erroneous. The account iu the Gospel is given summaril}', with the view of presenting in the subsequent work a more complete view of lire event. 4. We have explained in the Introduction, the influence which Luke exercised on the unauthentic f conclusion of 3Iark, by supposing that the first of those works ap- peared about the time wheu the composition of the second must have been interrupted (at the passage, Mark IG ; 8). We shall here lake a step further. If it is true, as seems to be the consequence of the exegesis, that Luke was not acquainted either with the Gospel of JIatthew or ]\Iark, it follows that he wrote shortly' after those two Gos- pels had ap[)eared ; otherwise he would not have failed to know works of such im- portance on tlio subject which he was treating. If therefore our exegetical result is established, we must concludejUiat the Gos[)el of Luke was composed almost simul- taneously with the other two sy'noptics. We shall examine the premises of this con- clusion more closely in chap. 3. Now, if it follows from the confounding of the two di.scourses on the destruction of Jerusalem and on the end of the world, in Matthew and Murk, that those writings are anterior to the first of those events, supposing that Luke did not know either the one or the other of them, he must share m this prioiity. It seems to us ou all these accounts that the composition of the Gospel and of the Acts must be placed between the years 64 and 67, as was indicated by tradition. 111.— The Aitthor. Here we start from a fact universally admitted, namely, the identity of Ihe author of the Gospel and of the Acts. This is one of the few points on which criticism is unanimous. Hollzmaon says (p. 374) : " It must now be admitted as indisputable, that the author of the third Gospel is one and the same person with the author of the Acts." ludeed, the identity of the style, the corres[)nudence of the plan, and the continuity of the narrative, do not admit of the least doubt in this respect, as Zeller also proves. Who is this author ? Tradition answers : Luke, Paul's fellow-laborer. If it goes * The words of Paul, Acts 20 : 25, do not prove that the Ads were written after Paul's death, as has been alleged. For Luke does not make Paul, any more than Jesus, speak according to his own fancy. \ It is to be borne in mind that there is wide difference of view, according to the estimate of authorities regarding this portion. Itmay prove clearly authentic — J. H. 54G COMMESTTAnY OX ST. LUKE. SO far as to ascribe to Paul himself a share in the composition, this is a later amp/i- fication which, as we have seen (Introd. p. 17), is foreign to the primitive statement. No other objections are raised against the truth of this traditional assertion, than the arguments alleged to prove the composition of our two writings in the second century, a time at whicli there could no longer be a fellow-laborer of St. Paul. Those argimients having been refuted, it only remains to bring forward from those two writings the positive reasons to be alleged in support of the indication furnished by tradition : 1. It appears from the prologue that the author was not one of the apostles, but one of their immediate disciples, "a Christian of the second apostolic generation" (Penan). This is implied in the words : "As they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses of these things." 3. This disciple was a Christian from among the Gentiles ; for, as Holtzmann observes, it is not probable that a Jewish Christian would have spoken of the elders of tlie Jews (7 :3), of a city of the Jews (23 : 51), etc., etc.) The position of John, in whom we find similar expressions, was entirely dilferent. In his case this form of expression is explained by reasons of a peculiar nature.) 3. This Greek Christian was a believer formed in the school of Paul. This is proved by that breath of broad universalism wbich inspires his two writings, and more paiticularly by the correspondence as to the institution of the Holy bupper in his account and Paul's. 4. He must even have been one of the apostle's fellow-laborers in the work cf evangelization, at least if he is speaking of himself in the passages where the first Ijersnn plural occurs in the book of Acts. And this explanation seems to be the only admissible one. If it is well founded, it fuither follows that the author cannot be one of the fellow laborers of Paul who are designated by name in the Acts, for he never speaks of himself except anonymously. 5. This apostolic helper must have l)een a man of letters. This is proved by the prologue prefixed to his work, the classic style of this piece, as well as of those pas- sages of the Acts which he composed independently of any document (the last parts of the book) ; finally, by the refined and delicate complexion of mind and the histori- cal talent which appear in his two writings. Now all those features belong signally to Luke. "We have seen (Introd. p. 11) : 1. Paul ranks Luke among the Christians of Greek origin. 2. He assigns him a distinguished jjlace within the circle of his disciples and fellow-laborers. 3. The title physician which he gives him leads us to ascribe to him a scientific and literary culture probably superior to that of the other apostolic helpers. Not only do the criteria indicated all apply to Luke, but they do not apply well to any other. Barnabas was of Jewish oiigin, for he was a Levite ; Silas also, for he belonged to the Primitive Church at Jerusalem. Timothy was a young Lycaonian, probably without culture, which explains the timid shrinking which seems to have characterized him as an evangelist (1 Cor. IG : 10, 11 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 6-8). Besides, all these are designated by name in the Acts. Luke only (with the exception of Titus) never appears by name. We see that the evidences borrijwed from Luke's writings harmonize with those furnished by the Epistles of Paul, and that both coincide with the traditional statement. Now, as it is not likely that the Primitive Church gave itself to the critical investigation which we have been making, this agreement be- tween the critical result and the historical testimony raises the fact of the authorship of St. Luke to the highest degree cf scientific cerlainty. COMMENTAKY ON ST. LUKE. 547 Moreover, all tlie autliois whose juili;nieiit liiis not l)ecii perverted by the pre- judices of llio Tul)iii.iien criticism are at one respecling llie person of the autiior. " It is iinpossihle," sa^'s Hollzniauii, " to unclerslaiid •why Luke should not he llie author of this Gospel." " The author of this Gospel," says M. Kenan (" Vie de Jesus," p. 16), " is certainly' the same as the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now the author of the Acts is a companion of St. Paul, a title which perfectly applies to Luke." Keim thus expresses himself (p. 81) : " There is no room to doubt that this writing was composed by the companion of Paul. At least it is inconiprehensil)le how by pure cruijeclurc a man should have been definitely singled out whose name 80 rarely appears in the epistles of the apostle." IV. — The Place of Composition. Some very unocrlain traditions place the composition (as we have seen, Introd. § o) at Alexandria (many .mss. Mun.), in Greece (Beotia and Achuia, Jerouic}, or at Rome. A modern critic, Kostliu, has proposed Asia Minor. We find little ground in the two writings for deciding between those different possi- bilities. The explanations appended to certain geographical names by no means prove, as some seem to tliink, that the author did not write in the country to which those localities belonged ; they only prove that he did not suppose those localities known to Theophilus or to his reailers in general. Thus it cannot be concluded, as lias been attempted from the exi)lanation respecting the cil}' of Philip[)i (Acts 16 : 12), that he did not write in Macedonia ; nor from those about Athens (17 : 21), that he did not write in Attica ; nor from those about tlie Fair Havens and Phenice (27 : 8-12), that he did not write in Crete ; and as little from explanations about localities in Palestine (Luke 1 : 2(5, 4 : 31, Nazareth, Capernaum, cities of Galilee ; 8 : 26, the country of the Gadarenes, opi)Osite Galilee ; 23 : 51, Arimathea, a city of the Jews ; 24 : 13, Emmaus, GO furlongs from Jerusalem ; Acts 1 : 12, the Mount of Olives, near Jeru- salem), that he did not write in Palestine. What those passages prove is that he did not write for the Christians of Palestine or Macedonia, or Attica or Crete, at least exclusively. Because of the absence of similar explanations regard- ing certain Sicilian and Italian localities (Acts 28 : 12, Syracuse ; ver. 13, Rheginm, Puteoli ; ver. 15, Appii Forum and the Three Taverns), it does not necessarily follow that he wrote in Sicily, in Italy, or in Rome, but only that he knew those localities to be familiar to his readers. It must be confessed, however, that from the country of his readers we may draw an inference in regard to the place of composition ; for it is natural to suppose that an author writes for the public with which he finds him- self immediately surrounded. The evidences which Zeller thinks he has discovered in favor of Rome as the place of composition cither depend on his explanation of the aim of Luke's writings, which has been proved false, or arc unsupported, for example, Avhen he alleges the interest whi(;h the author shows for this citj' by making the foundation of the Roman church by Paul the culminating point of his narrative. Now tlie fact is, as we have proved, that this last chapter of the Acts has an altogether different bearing. The reasons alleged by Kostliu and Overbeck in favor of Ephesus are not more conclusive. 1. It is asserted that Marcion, on his way from Asia Minor to Rome, brought thence Ijuke's Gospel. But by that time this writing was s[)read — this is proved by facts (In'rod. § 1), as well as the other two synoptics— throughout all the churches. Marcion did not introduce it into western Christendom ; he merely chose it among the received Gospels as the one which he could the most easily adapt to his 548 COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. system. ". The author of the Acts loves to describe the persons Tvho afterward played a part in Asia Minor. But .John, the chief personage of the church of Asia at the end of the first century, is wholly eclipsed in the Acts by Peter and Paul. 3. The Acts relate with predilection Paul's sojourn at Ephesus. True, but in such a way aa to place in relief Peter's ministry at Jerusalem, Paul's sojourn at Ephesus was the culminating point of his apostolate, as the times which followed Pentecost were the apogee of Peter's. Evidences so arbitrary cannot lay a foundation for any solid result. Once assured of the authoi's person, we should rather start from his history. Luke was at Rome with St. Paul from the spring of the j'ear 62 (Acts 28) ; he was still there when the epistles were sent to the Colossians and Philemon. But when the apostle wrote to the Philippians, about the end of 63 or beginning of 64, he had already left Borne, for Paul sends no greeting from him to this church, so well known to Luke. When, therefore, the two years' captivity of the apostle spoken of in the Acts came to a close, and consequently that captivity itself, he was no longer with the apostle. Some years later, when Paul, imprisoned rt Rome for the second time, sent from that city the Second Epistle to Timothy, Luke was again with him. Where did he reside in the interval? Probably in Greece, among those churches of Macedonia and Achaia, in whose service he had labored along with Paul, and in Achaia rather than Macedonia, seeing Paul does not salute him in the Epistle to the Philippians. Might it not then be at this period, and in this latter country, " in the countries of Achaia and Beotia," as Jerome says, that he composed his Gospel?* As to the Acts, he must have composed it somewhat later, probably at Rome beside Paul, shortly before his martyrdom in 67. The parchments which Paul asked Timothy to bring hitu from Asia, at the time when only Luke was with him, were perhaps docimients which were to be used in this work ; for example, the summaries of the admirable discourses at Aniioch, Athens, and Miletus, which are like jewels set in the narrative of the Acts. The w^ork was published when the head of the apostle fell under the sword. Hence the absence of all allusion to that event. The composition of the Acts, both in respect of place and date, would be nearly connected with that of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which Luke's writings have several other features of agreement which are highly remarkable, f * We went further in the development of this hypothesis in our first edition. We supposed Corinth, and even the house of Gaius, Paul's host in that city (Rom. 16 : 23), as the place of composition. M. G. Meyer has rightly observed in his review, that in this case there was no reason to hinder Luke from taking textually from First Corintiiians the account of the institution of the Holy Supper. We therefore with- draw those hypothetical details. f As to the situation, the author of this epistle (we should say Luke, if the reasons in favor of Barna!)as or Silas did not seem to us to preponderate) is about to set out from Italy with Timothy, just delivered from prison (after the martyrdom of Paul). For internal analogies compare the following passages : Luke 1:2, Heb. 2 : 8. " 2 : 16 " 1 : 6, 8, 10. "2:7, . . . . "2:14. " 2:40,52 " 2 : 17, etc. In Luke, the transformation of the In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Mosaic system into spiritual obedience. transformation of the Levitical cuUvs into a spiritual cnltns. In both, the idea of the human development of Jesus forming the foundation of the Chri.stoloi,^'. COMMESTAUY ON ST. LUKE. 54*J CHAPTER III. THE SOURCES OP LUKE, AND THE KELATION OP THE SYNOPTICS TO ONE ANOTHEU. We have reached the most, arduous, but not the least important part of our task. This domain is tiiat of h^'potbesis ; but as it is from the most remote and inaccessible muuulaiu legious that the rivers wliich fertilize and tlie torrents wbicii devastate roine down, so it is from the obscure regions into whieh we are about to enter that we get those widclj^ various and yet influential crilicisms on tlie value of tiie Gospel history, which find their way even to the people. We shall first lake up what con- cerns the third Gospel in particular ; then we shall extend our study to the other two syniiptics. For those three writings are of a piece, and every definitive judgment on the one involves a result gained in regard to the other two. I. — The Sources of Luke. Two questions present themselves : I. Is Luke dependent either on Matthew or Mark ? II. And if not, what were the true sources of this work ? I. We have throughout the whole of our commentary exhibited, in the narrative and style, those characteristics which seem to us to demonstiate Luke's entire indepen- dence in respect of Mark and Matthew. It only remains to recapitulate those proofs, while we apply them to refute the contrary hypotheses. A. As to Luke's iudependeuce in relation to MaWieio, we shall not rest our conclu- sion on the numerous narratives wiiich the first has more than the second. This fact •would prove only one thing : that if Matthew served as a source to Luke, he was not the only one, at least unless we hold, with Baur, that Lake invented whatever he contains more than Matthew — an assertion -which seems to us to be already sufficiently refuted. Neither shall we allege the many narratives of Matthew which are wanting in Luke ; for we are aware of the reasons which might lead the follower to omit cer- tain facts related hy his predecessor. But we appeal to the following facts : 1. Luke's /ifo/i is entirely independent of that of Matthew; for it appears to U3 superfluous, after the investigations which we have just carried through, again to re- fute the opinion of Keim, according to which Luke's plan is no other than that of Matthew spoiled. Wh.it appears to us above all inconceivable, is that in the account of the journey (from 9 : 51) Luke should not even have mentioned Perea, which Mat- thew expressly makes the theatre of the corresponding journey (19 : 1). Especially at the point where Luke's narrative rejoins Matthew's (18 : 15, comp. with Matt. 19 : 13). one would expect such an indication without fail. 2. The series of iiarrationa in Luke is wholly independent of that in ]\ratthew. Two or three analogous groups like those of the l>aptism and tempi ation, of the two Sabbatic scenes (Luke G -A ct scq. and parall.) of the aspirants to the kingdom of God (Luke 9 : 57 ct seq. and parall.). and of the various scenes belonging to the Gadara ex- cursion (Luke 8 : 22-5G). etc., are easily explained by the moral or chronological con- nection of the events, in virtue of which they formed one whole in tradition. Be- 550 COMMENTARY 0^ ST. LUKE. sides, these are not wanting features to prove, even in tliis respect, the independence of the two narratives. For example, the insertion of the accounts of tlie healing of the paralytic and of the calling of Matthew in ]\Iallhew's narrative of the Gadara ex- cursion, and Luke's adding of a third aspirant uuliuown to Matthew. 3. In the narrative parts comninn to both, the independence of Luke in the details of ilie accounts is obvious at every word. Tlie author who wrote Luke 1 : 2 could not have had before him ]\ralt. 1 : 2, unless he had the formal intention of con- tiadicliug him. So Keim supposes that Luke had a Matthew before him which did not yet contain tlie accounts of the infancy ! In the narrative of tlie temptation, would Luke take the liberty of inverting the order of the teraplaliuns, and of omitting the appearance of the augels ? "Would he suppose the rite of the confession of sins in his description of John's baptism ? In his account of the baptism would he mod- ify the terms of the divine utterance ? So in that of the transfiguration (see the exe- gesis). In the narrative of the calling of Matthew himself, would he change that apostle into an unknown person, named Levi ? Would he expressly refer to another Sabbath the second Sabbatic scene (6 : 6) which Matthew places on the same daj^ as the first (12 : 9) ? Would he mention a single demoniac at Gadara, a single blind mau at Jericho, in cases where Matthew mentions two? When borrowing the conversa- tion at Cesarea Philippi from Matthew, would he omit to indicate the locality where it took place? Or would he introduce into the text of his predecessor such puerile changes as the substitution of eiglit days for six, in the narrative of the transfigura- tion, etc., etc. ? We shall be told he used another source in those cases in which he had more confidence. This supposition, which we shall examine mure closely, would solve some of those enigmas indifferently, but not all. In particular, the omis- sions of details remain uuexphiined. 4. In reporting the sayings of Jesus, not to speak here of the dislocation of the great discourses, how could Luke alter so seriously the terms of such a document as the Lord's Prayer, or of a declaration so grave as that regarding the blasphemy again.st the Spirit, etc., etc.; and then, on the other hand, indulge in such petty changes as the transformation of the sheep fallen into the pit into an ox, or of the two sparrows which are sold for a farthing into five which are teold for two farthings ? How could he introduce into the middle of the Sermon on the Mount two sayings which seem to break its connection (6 : 39, 40), and which must be taken from two discourses, held in entirely different situations, according to Matt. (15 : 14, 10 : 25), where, besides, they have an altogether different application? Have we here again the fact of another document ? But, in conclusion, to what purpose does he use Matthew ? And would this preference for the other source go so far as to lead him to omit such sayings as these : " Come unto me . . ." which Matthew presented to him ? For who c^uld take in earnest the attempt to answer this proposed by Holtz- rnann (see pp. 310, 311) ? 5. The chief reason for which it is thought necessary to regard Matthew as one of Luke's sources, is the identical expressions and parts of phrases which occur both in the discourses and in the parallel narratives. But whence comes it that this resem blance is, as M. Nicolas says, intermittent, and that not only in the same narrative, but in the same paragraph and in the same phrase ? Did Luke slavishly' copy Mat- thew for a quarter of a line, and then in the next quarter write independently of him ? But this is child's pla3\ if the sense is the same ; it is still worse, if the change alters the sense. We know the answer which is again given here : he had not Mat- COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 651 tlicw onl3', but other documents as well before him ; he combines together those vari- ous texts. Behold our iiuthor, tlien, borrowing three words from one document, two from another, four from ii third, and that in every plirase from beginning to entl of his Gospel ? Who can admit the idea of such patcliworli ? Need \vu here reproduce the well-known jest of Schleiermaclier at Eichhorn's hypothesis (" Schr. d. Luk." p. C)? Is it not enough to say, with Lange, " The process of death to explain the work of life?" No; such mechanical inlaying could never have become that flowing, simple, and limpid narrative which we admire in our Gospel. Let tlie i)arable of the sower be reperused in a synopsis, comparing the two texts, and it will be felt that to maintain that tlie first of those texts is derived from the other, in wliole and in part, is not only to insult llie good faitli, but the good sense, of the second writer. 6. "Weiss has pointed out that a number of Maltliew's favorite expressions {fiaaikEia rHiV wpavHtv, evayye/.tov ri/S jSaaiTi^iai, napovnia, cvvri/ieca tov atIark mentions only one sufferer instead of the two spoken of by his model ? Klostermann's opinion, which makes jMatfhew's account the text on wliich jMark en- grafted the descriptive glosses which he received from Peter, likewise falls to the ground before the difficulties mentioned. Or was it Matthew v>ho vsed Mark ? But Matthew's method is wholly original and independent of Mark's. He loves to group homogeneous events round a prophetic text. This organic principle is in keeping with the fundamental view of his Gospel.* * After a general prophecy, given as the l)nsis of the entire narrative of the Gali- lean ministry (4 : 14-1()), there follow : 1. 'I'lie Sermon on the .Mount ; 2. A culleclion of deeds of power (chaps. 8 and D). grouped rrjiind the prnphec}- i f Isaiah, (piotcd 8 : 17 ; o. The instructions to the Twelve, chap. 10 ; 4. A collection of the utlejauces OoC COM-MEXTAUY OX ST. LUKE. It has nothing in common with the order followed by Mark. Then, in most cases, we should lie forced to tliiuk that he made it his business to spoil the narratives of his model ; so in the cure of the paralytic, in that of the blind man of Jericho, and par- ticularly in that of the lunatic sou. Wh}^ besides, omit tlie names of the four dis- ciples in the conversation of Jesus with the apostles on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13; 1 Why, in relating the preparation for the Passover, say, He sent His disciples, as if it was all of them, while his predecessor expressly said, two of His disciples? Why omit in the pra^'er of Gethsemane those beautiful words preserved by Mark, " Father, all things are possible unto Thee," etc., etc. In fine, it is impossible to conceive anything more capricious and less reverential than the part which we make the author of any one whatever of our synoptic Gospels play, with the hist iry and sayings of Jesus, supposing that he had before him the other two, or one of them. Such an explanation will only be allowable when we are brought absolutely to despair of finding any other. And even then it were better still to say, Non liquet. Fur this explanation involves a moral contradiction. Most of our present critics are so well aware of this, that they have recourse to middle terms. By common sources they seek to explain the relation between those three writings, or they combine this mode with the preceding. We have already described in our in- troduction the numerous systems of this kind which are proposed at the present day. C. TAeek derivesMiiilhGw and hukc from a GreeJc Gos})el, composed in Galilee. Tliis hypothesis appears to us as unfiuittul as those which derive them from one another. Take, for example, the I^ord's Prayer. A common text, whence the two evangelists derived the terms of this formulary which both have transmitted to us, is not less in- conceivable than the dr-riving of one of those reports from the ether, unless we ascribe to either of them an incredible degree of arbitrariness in regard to a most solemn ut- terance of the Master. And the same phenomenon reappears from beginning to end of our two Gospels ! Besides, the prologue of Luke protests against Bleek's explana- tion. Luke speaks of many Gospel narratives which were in existence at the time when he wrote. Bleek's hypothesis supposes only one. To escape from his diffi- culty, this critic reduces the many writings of which Luke speaks to simple revisions of that original Gospel ; but Luke evidently understood by those many writings not rehandlings of one and the same fundamental work, but different and independent compilations of apostolic tradition. The hypothesis most in favor in these last times is one which, recognizing the originality of Mark, places him at the head of the Gospel historiography, so far at least as the narrative part is concerned, but in an older form : the so-called p)'oto- Mark, the common source of our three synoptics. Moreover, a second source was used by Matthew and Luke : the collection of discourses, the Logia of Matthew. Holtz- mann has developed this hypothesis in a work which is one of the finest fruits of criti- cal research in our century. Let us examine those two hypotheses of the Logia and the 2)roto-^Iark. That there existed a collection of discourses written by the Apostle Matthew, which was one of the oldest Gospel documents, we have not the least doubt. The ground of our conviction is not so much the testimony of Papias, of which Gieseler rightly of wisdom (chaps. 11 and 12), grouped round the prophecy of Isaiah, quoted 12 : 17 ; ■6. The parables of the kingdom, chap. 13 ; 6. A series of excursions to tlie east, noith, and north-east, filling up the prophetic programme laid down as the basis of the Gal- ilean ministry. commi:ntauv ox st. llive. 557 says : '• Scparnted as this notice appears from ila context, it is difTicult to draw from it any certain conclusion ;" it is ratlier llie form of our lirst Gospel itself in wliich wc meet with great bodies of discourses distiibuled at certain points of the narrative, and which appear to have existed uk taich uutecedenlly to the work in which tliey are in- serted. It is dillicull to avoid tlie impression that those bodies of discourses original- ly formed one whole. Wei/.siicker has, with a master hand, as it appears to ua. traced the plan of this original .Matthew ((ip. Ia4-1HG). The apostolic treatise opened willi the Sermon on the Mount ; it was the invitation to enter into the kingdom, tlie foun- dation of llie cdiUcc. There followed as the second pait of the collection, llie dis- courses addressed to particular persons, such as the instructions given to the apostles (Matt. 10), the testimony regarding John the Baptist (Matt. 11), and the great apolo- getic discourse (.Matt. 12). Finally, tlie cschatological prophecy (Matt. 24 : 25) consti- tuted the third part ; it formed the climax of the collection, the delineation of the liopes of the Church. The other groups of instructions, the collection of parables (chap. 13), the discourse on the duties of the disciples to one another and on disci- phne (chap. 18), formed, according to Weizsiicker, an appendix coiresponding to cer- tain practical wants of the Church. We would introduce some modifications into this reconstruction of the Lof/'a as proposed by Weizsiicker.* But this matters li'tle to the question before us ; the main thing is that such a work existed, and very nearly as conceived by Weizsilclier. Iloltzmann thinks, on the contrary, that the sayings of Jesus rather appeared in the Logia in the form in which we lind them in Luke's nar- rative of the journey (9 : 18) ; it was the author of our first Gospel, according to him, who grouped them into systematic discourses. We shall begin by criticising this second view. 1. It seems to us impossible, as we have already remarked in opposition to Volkmar, that the author of a historical work, such as our canonical Matthew, took the liberty of gathering intoceitain largo masses sayings uttered in different circumstances, to form so-called discourses of which he might say they were uttered by Jesus at this or that time. 2. Holtzmann's liypotiiesis is opposed by the unanimous conviction of the Church, which from the beginning has attached the name of Matthew to our first Gospel. According to this view it would really be the Gospel of Luke which had preserved the Jj)f/iit. in their true form, and which ought to have inherited the name of the Apostle Matthew. B3' attaching to our first gospel the name of 3Iatthew, the Church has shown, on tlie contrary, that it was this work which was the depositary of the treasure bequeathed to the world by this apostle. 3. The strongcf^^l objection to the use of the l.orjia b}" our two evangelists is always, in our view, the wholly different terms in which the teachings of Jesus are conveyed in the two recensions. One (■op/<'.'< discourses if he believes in them ; one invents them if he does not. The supposed middle waj', three * Instead of making the collection of the parables an appendix, we should make it tlie centre of tlie work. The Logia of Matthew, that collection intended to repro- duce our Lord's teaching in its essential cjiaracteristics, opened, wc should say, with the exposition of the Tighteousnesn of the kingdom of heaven, in the Sermnn on the Mount. There followed the description of the dcvelopmciii of that kingdom, in the collecticm of the parables (3Iatt. I'd) ; finally, the great cschatological discourse, IVIatt. 24 and 25 announcing the consummation of the kingdom, was the rope-stone of Ihe edifice. Between those principal parts there were placed, like passages i)etw('i'ii the apartments properly so called, certain subordinate instructions, such as the discourse on John the Baptist, on the casting out of devils, and vu. discipline in the Chuich (.Matt. 11 : 12, and 18). 558 COMMENTARY 0]Sr ST. LUKE, words of copy, three words of invention, seems to us un impossibility. ^lo duuhl it miglit be asserted that each author combined with the use of the common source (the " Logia") that of different particular sources. But what an impossible procedure is that wliich we thereby reach ! Three words borrowed from the common souice, llu-ee from one or other of the special snurces, and this for the compoailion of every phrase ! Wliat a mosaic ! What an amalgam ! Can we, en the other hand, adopt the opinion of Weizsaclcer? Were the great discouists of the " Lcgia," as preserved intact by Matthew, the source at the same ti:ii3 of the teachings of Jesus, as reported by Luke? No. For: 1. We cannot admit that Luke at his own hand displaced Ihose great discourses. 2. This supposi- tion is rendeied untenable by all the proofs which our exegesis has supplied of the tiuth of the historical prefaces which introduce the declarations reported by Luke. It would be impossible to conceive a procedure more recklessly arbitrary than that which Weizsiicker ascribes to this author, when he makes him invent situations for discourses, discourses which he began by carving out of the "Logia" at pleasure. 3. This arbitrariness would reach its height in the invention of the narrative of the journey, 9 : 51-18 : 27. This journey, according to this view, was out and out a ticliou of the writer, intended to serve as a framework for all the materials which remained unused. What would be thought of a writer who should act in this way after having declared that he would seek to relate all things exactly and in order ? The work of the " Logia" then existed, and we think that it may be found entire in our first Gospel. But it is not thence that Luke has drawn our Lord's discourses. And this result is confirmed by Luke's own declaration, from which it appears that, among the gospel works which had preceded his own, he found none proceeding from an apostle. In regard to the second source, that from which the materials of the 7iarratwe com- mon to our three synoptics is said to have been derived, the proto-Mark, not only do we deny that our three synoptics can be explained by such a work, but we do not l)elieve that it ever existed. 1. Eusebius, who knew the work of Papias, some lines of which have given rise to the hypothesis of an original Mark, distinct from ours, never suspected such a difference ; so far as he was concerned, he had no hesitation in applying the testimony of Papias to our canonical Mark. 2. If there had existed a gospel treatise enjoying such authority that our first three evangelists took from it the framework' and the essential materials of their narrative, Luke certainly could not, as he does in his prologue, put the writings anterior to his own in one and the same category, and place them all a degree lower than the narrative which he pro- posed to write. He must have mentioned in a special manner a document of such importance. 3. Neither tiie special plan of each of our synoptics, nor the transpo- sitions of histories, nor the differences more or less considerable which appeared in the details of each narrative, can be satisfactorily explained on the supposition cf this unique and common source. Compare only the three accounts of the baptism of Jesus, or of the blind man of Jericho (see tire exegesis) I And as to the discourses, those at least which are derived from the proto-Mark, take a synopsis and attempt to explain the three texts by a common document, and the levity or puerility wiiich must be ascribed now to the one and again to the other of our three evangelists, to make them draw from one and the same document, will be fully apparent ! See, for example, the saying on the blasphemy of the Spirit (Luke 12 ; 10 and paral!.)- In most cases IToltzmann enumerates the differences, and he images that he has ex- COMMENTARY OX ST, LUKE. 559 plained llicm ! 4. The decisive^ argument seems to us lo be that v/liich is founded on the style of the three gospels. As Weiss suys, " A writing so haruioiiiously and vigorously composed as our first gospel cannot be an extract from another writnig." In no case could it proceed from a writing the literary stamp of ■which had the least resemblance to that of ^lark. And Luke? Once more, it ^You]d be he who had taken a fancy to introduce into the text of the proto-!Mark those so pronounced Ara- maisms which distinguish his gospel from the other two ! From this prolo-^Iark from which Matthew derived good Greek for Hebrews, Luke took Ikbraised Greek for Greeks ! The proto-Mark is a hypothesis which cannot be substantiated either in point of fact or in point of right ; fur were there really such a writing, it would nevertheless be incapable of diing the service for ciiticism which it expects from it, that is, supply the solution of the enigma of the synoptics. Besides, the last authors who have written en the subject, ^Veiss, Klostermami, Volkmar, though starting from the most opposite standpoints, agree in treating this writing, which Schieier- macber introduced into criticism, as a chimera. But what docs "Weiss do ? I'emainiug attached to the idea of a written source as the basis of our canonical gcspels, he ascribes to the original ]\Iatlhew tlie " Logia," the part which he refuses to the proto-jMaik. Oul}" he is thereby obliged to assign hi-^torical, and not merely didactic, contents to this writing. No doubt he does not regard it as a complete gospel ; he thinks that it contained neither the records of the infancy, nor those of the passion and resurrection. The book of the " Logia" began, according to him, with the baptism ; its contents were made up of detached narra- tives and discourses ; it closed with the account of the feast of Bethany. Thereat ter came Mark, who labored under the guidance of this apostolic Matthew, and first gave the gospel narrative its ctmiplete framework ; and those two writings, the " Logia ' and JSIark, became the common sources of our canonical Matthew and Luke But, 1. If Weiss justly complains that he cannot form a clear idea of the book of the " Logia" as it is represented by Iloltzmanu (a writing beginning with the testimony of Jesus regarding John the Baptist, and closing with a collection of parables), why not appl}- the same judgment to the apostolic Matthew of "Weiss ? What is a book beginning with the baptism and ending with the feast of Bethany, if it is not, to the letter, a writing without cither head or tail? 2. Would it not be strange if Mark, the work which tradition declares by the mouth of Papias to be destitute of histori- cal order, were precisely that which had furnished the type of the historical order followed by our synoptics ? 8. It follows from the prologue, 1 : 1-4, that when Luke wrote, he had not yet before him any work written by an apostle ; and, ac- cording to Weiss, he must have had the apostolic Matthew in his hands. 4. "While rendering all justice to the perspicacity and accuracy displayed by Weiss in the dis- cussion of texts one is nevertheless painfully afTected with the arbitrariness belonging t •> such a criticism. It ahvays comes in the end to this, to educe the dissimilar from the same. For this end it must be held, unless one is willing to throw himself into the system of wilful and deliberate alterations (Baur), that the acts and sayings of Jesus were an elastic material in the bands of the evangelists, a sort of India rubber which each of them stretched, lengthened, contracted, and shaped at pleasure. Will a supposition which is morally impossible ever lead to a satisfactory result ? The last step to be taken on this view was to assign to the " Logia" of 3Iatthew the totality of the gospel narrative ; this is what Klostermaua has done ; and so wc arc brouglit 560 COMMEXTAKY OX ST. LUKE. back to the hypothesis which malies our Matthew, or a writing perfectly similar, the priucipal source oi' the other two synoptics. HoKzinann consoles himself for the little agreement obtained by all this labor up till now, by saying that this immense labor, reaching nearly over a century, cannot remain without fruit. But on a mistaken route it is possible to perform prodiiiies of agility, to take marvellous leaps, to make forced marches, without advancing a step toward the goal, because the direction is perverse. Such appears to us to be the condition in which criticism has labored so energetically. Far, then, from seeking still to advance like Weiss* in this diiection, the time seems to us to have come for retracing our steps, la order to recover the way which Luke himself indicated, and which Gieseler brought to light. True, the attempt made by this eminent historian has not been followed ; but rather than turn away from it with disdain, criticism should have sought to supply what in it was defective. This is what we shall at- tempt to do. II. If, in the systems which we have passed in review, the difficulty is to reconcile the differences between our gospels with the use of common written sources, or with the dependence which they must be supposed to have on one another, the diffi cully for us will be to explain, without such dependence and without such a use, tiie resemblances which in so many respects make those three writings, as it were, one and the same work : resemblance in the plan (omission of the journeys to Jerusalem), resemblance in the sequence of the narratives (identical cj^cles) ; resemblance in the matter of the narratives ; resemblance sometimes even in details of style. To solve the problem, let us begin by ascending to the source of this river, with its three branches. After the foundation of the Church, on the day of Pentecost, it was necessary to labor to nourish those thousands of souls w'ho had entered into the new life. Among the means enumerated in the Acts which served to edify the new-born Church, the apostles' doctrine (3 : 43) stands in the first place. What does this term mean ? It could not sutfice to repeat daily to the same persons that proclamation of the death and resurrection of our Lord whereby Peter had founded the Church. It must soon have been necessary to go back on the narrative of Jesus' ministry. But the expres- sion, apostles' doctrine, shows that those opal narratives did not bear simply on the acts and miracles of Jesus, but also, and even specially, on His teacliings. Before Paul and John had set forth our Lord Himself as the essence of the Gospel, the apos- tles' doctrine could not well be anything else than the reproduction and application of the Master's discourses. One day, therefore, it was the Sermon on the Mount ; another, the discourse on the relations between believers (Matt. 18) ; a third, the es- chatological discourse, by means of which the community of the faithful was edified. It was repeated, and then commented on. With the exception of John, the Twelve probably never passed beyond this elementary sphere of Christian teaching. It was still within this that Peter moved in his instructions {^ifiaanaMaC) as he travelled, and at Rome, at the time of which Papias speaks, and when Mark, his interpreter, ac- companied him collecting his narratives. And was it not, indeed, with a view to this special task of " testifying what they had seen and heard," that Jesus had chosen and * " Das Marcus-Evangelium und seine syn. Parallelen," 1873. C'OM.MKNTAllV ON ST. LLKK. ."iCL formeil tlie Twelve ? Nor were they slow to abandon the other duties with which thoy were at first charged, sucli as the acrring of (he common tables, in order to devote llieniselves exclusively to this work (Acts G). The rich inaleiiala for those recitals (John 21 : 24, 25) must at an early period have become contracted and oonctntrated, both as regards the discourses and the facts. In resjKct to tiie latter, for each category' of miracles the attention was given pre- ferentially' to one or two peculiarly prominent examples. In respect to the discourses, as tliese were reproduced not in a historical interest, but with a view to the edification of believers, the apostolic exposition gradually fastened on some specially important points in the ministry of Jesus, such as those of the Sermon on the IMount, of the sending of the Twelve, of the announcement of the destruction of the temple, and to llie subjects which Jesus had treated of on those occasions, and with which they con- nected without scruple the most salient of the other teachings of Jesus of a kindred sort. It was a matter of salvation, not of chronology. They likewise became accustomed, in those daily instructions, to connect certain narratives with one another which had some intrinsic analogy as a bond of union (Sabbatic scenes, aspirants to the divine kingdom, groups of parables), or a real his- torical succession (the storm, the Gadarene demoniac, Jairus, etc.). Thus there were formed cycles of narratives more or less fixed which they were in the habit of relat- ing at one stretch ; some cycles united together became groups, traces of which we find in our synoptics, and which Ijachmann, in his interesting essay on the subject (" Suid. u. Critik. " 18oo), has called co?yvscuIa evnnf/elicce Jnstonw ; for example, the group of the Messianic advent (the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus) ; that of the first days of the ministry of Jesus (His teachings and miracles at Capernaum and the neighborhood) ; that of the first evangelistic jour- nej's, then of the more remote excursions ; that of the last days of IIis ministry in Galilee ; that of the journey through Perea ; thai of the sojourn at Jerusalem. The order of particular narratives within the cycle, or of cycles within the group, might easily be transposed ; a narrative could not so easily pass from one cycle to another, or a cycle from one group into another. In this process of natural and spontaneous elaboration, all in the interest of prac- tical wants, the treatment of the Gospel must have imperceptibly taken, even down to details of expression, a very fixed form. In the narrative parts, the holiness of the subject excluded all ornamentation and refinement. The form uf the narrative was simple, like thr.tof a garment which exactly fits the body. In such circumstances, the narrative of facts passed uninjured through various mouths ; it preserved the gen- eral stamp which it had received when it was first put into form by the competent witness. A little more liberty was allowed in regard to the historical framework ; but, in repeating the words of Jesus, which formed the prominent feature in every narrative, the received form was absolutely adhered to. The jewel remained un- changeable ; the frame varied more. The reproduction cf the discourses was more exposed to involuntary alterations. But precisely here the memory of the apostles had powerful helps ; above all, the striking original plastic character of the sayings of Jesus. There are discourses which one might hear ten times williout remcmbeiiug a single phrase verbally. There are others which leave a certain number of sentences indelibly impressed on the mind, and which ten hearers would repeat, many days after, almost identically. Everything depends on the way in which the thoughls are conceived and expressed. Formed within the depths of His soul, the words of Jesus 5G2 COMxMEXTAllY OX ST. LUKE. received under the government of a powerful concentration that settled, finished, per- fect impress by means of which they became stereotyped, as it were, on the minds df His heaters. Tliis sort of eloquence, besides, took possession of the whole man ; of conscience, by its moral tiulli ; of the understaudinir, by the precision of the idea ; of the heait, b}' the liveliness of feeling ; of the imagination, l)y the lichness of its col- oi ing ; and what the whole man has received, he retains easily and faithfully. Finally, I'.ie apostles were, convinced of the transcendent value of the things which they heard from His mouth ; Jes\is Himself did not allow thtm to forget it. They knew that lliey were called soon to proclaim from the house-tops what was said to them in th« car. They had not heard the warning in vain : " Take heed how ye hear." They conversed daily regarding all that they heard together ; and, even during the lifetime of their Master, a common tradition was forming among them. Th(.ise sentences standing out in such pure and marked relief graven upon them by frequent repe- tition, needed only an external call to be drawn forth from their mind in their native beauty, and to be produced almost as they had received them. Indeed, I cannot conceal my astonishment that so great a ditHeully should have been found in the fact that the sayings of tTesus are almost identically reproduced in our Gospels. The differences surprise me much more than the resemblances. The source of this fixed- ness is neither Luke copying Matthew, nor Matthew copying Luke. It is the power- ful spirit of a ^Master like Jesus taking possession of the minds of simple, calm, and teachable disciples like the apostles. This was precisely the result aimed at by that order of providence whereby His Father had brought to Him as disciples, not the scribes and the learned of the capital, but little children, new bottles, iabuke rciftm. In the first times, evangelization was carried forward in Aramaic, the language of the people and of the apostles. And the poverty of this language, both in syntactical forms aud in its vocabulary^ also contributed to the fixity of the form which tradition took. But there was, even at Jerusalem, a numerous Jewish population which spoke only Greek — the Hellenistic Jews. They possessed in the capital some hundreds of synagogues, where the Old Testament was kuown only in the translation of the LXX. From the time when the Church welcomed Jews of this class — and that was from its cradle, as is proved by the narrative Acts 6 — the need of reproducing in Greek the apostolic system of evangelization must have made itself imperiously felt. This work of translation was difficult and delicate, especially as regarded the sayings of Jesus. It was not done at random ; those of the apostles who knew Greek, such as Andrew, Philip (.John 12), and no doubt Matthew, did not fail to engage in it. There were especially certam expressions difficult to render, for which the corresponding Greek term required to be carefully selected. Once found and adopted, the Greek expres- sion became fixed and permanent ; so the words iirinvnioi (daily) in the Lord's Prayer, and TTTcpvyiov [jjinnade) in the narrative of the temptation — expressions which have been wrongly quoted to prove the mutual dependence of our Gospels on a common written source.* From this Greek mould into which the primitive tradition was cast, it could not but come forth with a more fixed character still than it already pos- sessed in Aramaic. It maintained itself, no doubt, for some time in this purely oral form, Aramaic and * Holtzmann also adduces, in opposition to me, the verb with its double augment aTTEnareaTdOT], used in the three synoptics. But the various reading u-dKaTenrd'.ij] '\-i found in the three texts, and usage might have consecrated this form with the double augment, as in some other verbs. COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKE. 6C3 Ciroik. Wl- ni!ij- npply to llic nposllcs and evangelists, the depositaries of this treas- ure, wliat Diotiysius of Ilulicariias.sus says of llie [loineric lof^ograpliers : " They ilis- liibuteil (heir narratives over nations ami eities, not always reproducing tlicni in tho same order, but always haviuii; iu view theoneconiniDn aim, toniakoknowu all tliose memorials, so far as they had been preserved, without addition and without loss." * I^asil the Great reports a similar fact : down to his time (four h century) the Cluirch possessed no written liturgy for the Iluly Supper — the sacramental prayers and fonnuhe were transmiltel by unwritten instruction.! And was not the immense store of Tadmudic traditions, which forms a whole library, conveyed for ages solely by oral tradition? IIow was the trausilicn made from oral evangelization to written compilation? The most natural conjc