YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1936

THE STANDAR!D SERIES.

A COMMENTARY

THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE

BY
F. GODET,
DOCTOB Am) PB07BSS0K OF TBEOI.OGT, KEUCHATEL.

TUANBLATBD FBOM TBE SECOND FBENCR EDITION BY
E . W. SHAL-DBRS Ksn M. D. OUSIK

WITH PREFACE AND NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY
JOHN HALL, D.D.

New York:
I. K. FUIsrK & OO.
1881.

Copyright, 1881,
By I. K. FUNK & CO.

Bepripted by special arrangement with T. * T, CLABK fEdinbnrgh Publishers),

PREFACE OP THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
The immediate occasion for the issue of a separate commentary on Luke's Gospel
is found in the fact that from it are taken the Sabbath-school lessons of the Inter
national uniform series for the former half of the year on which we are so soon to enter.
"When it is remembered how many millions of pupUs receive instruction according
to this widely-accepted arrangement, it wiU not seem unimportant that hundreds 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-deaying work ? Let us ask that He whose wurd they
employ as the educating spiritual, power, will make this work one of the forms in
which the blessing wUl come 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 in so many forms to increase the power of their
fellow-toUers by- printed and oral exposition 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 exegetical works. To bring
such within their easier reach is not unworthy of effort : their power for good as
religious educators is thus increased in this and in every other department of their
difficult but beneficent labors.
At flrst sight it might seem as if the commentary of M. Godet were too voluminous
and too comprehensive in its plan to be of use tu Sabbath-school teachers. But there
are considerations to be taken into account on the other side, {a) No one un
acquainted practically with this great agency of our time has any idea of the im
mense advance in bibUcal knowledge made during the past decade, in which uniform
ity of topic enabled publishing houses and societies to provide the best help for
teachers. (&) 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
empluy. (c) The ideaa of Paulus, Strauss, Renan and other authors of similar ten
dency are being diffusedj and are presented with more or less show of learning, and
especially of " culture'.' and " enlightenment," by many who do not have them from
the originals, and to many who never come in contact with the works as a whole,
but only in the unqualified eulogies which accompany their names when they are
being used against evangeUcal interpretation.
It is desirable in the highest degree that inteUigent Christians who are teachers of
others should know of an " antidote" to the " bane" of what Godet concisely calls
"criticism" throughout his work. This consideration will reconcUe any intelligent
reader who has learned to identify himself with the cause of the truth to many
portions of this commentary devoted to the exposure of the shallow, arbitrary, incon
sistent, and arrogant way in which Rationalism deals with Scripture. It is good for
such readers to understand that, though not themselves able to grapple with such

ly COMMENTARY OH" 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 little scholarship leads
away from inteUigent simple faith, more scholarship brings back to it. That Greek,
Latin, and Hebrew are quoted wUl not be an objection to the work, especiaUy 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 by attainments, to commend Professor Godot'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 Prance 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 nam6 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^
hie 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 avpied at
embodying in his work thuse devout reflections of which Scott, Matthew Henry, and —
in their own peculiar way — ^the commentaries edited by Lange, are depositories. He
has 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 dues 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 as they 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 argument is often subtle,
especially when dealing with the class of questions belonging to the harmony of the
Gospels, and the assumption of one original document from which the Synoptists
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 may be cited, like
the College of Rome in the days of the Emperor (p. 11), which had superrision
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-

COMMENTAKY OK ST. LUKE. • T
alism be well founded, then absolute agreement ought to mark its conclusions, and
perfect harmony should prevaU among its exponents. Professor Godet never shrinks
from showing how widely apart the very men go who allege that the whole thing is
so plain — so remote from the region of the mysterious and supernatural — that it must
appear at once to any enUghtened Intellect. (See for Illustration pp. 24r-26 ; 144,
145, etc.)
Nor is th« discussion — commonly thrown into the form ef notes— unreUeved by
occasional flashes of sarcasm and irony. We should infer from his book that Pro
fessor Godet adds to power of grouping, of ingenious and exact combination (see
pp. 43, 109), a certain quickness ot wit, only exercised here indeed when the provo
cation is undoubted. " Our evangelists," 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 chUdren" (p. 49), and the deputation
from John the Baptist (pp. 320-224) — flnd an appropriate vehicle in clear, vivacious,
and often eloquent language. See as illustration the amplification of the parabolic
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 analysis (see p. 147) and the detec
tion of nice evidences and apologetic considerations (as in pp. 57, 66, 101,
etc.) wiU often touch the mind of a reader as with a pleasant surprise. Nor is there
wanting a fine suggestiveness in many of his paragraphs, as when he calls demoniacal
possession the caricature of divine inspiration. How much of that awful antithesis
runs through revelation, as in the " mystery of godliness" and the " mystery of
iniquity," the Christ and the Antichrist! Satan is truly in many things the ape of
Deity. The power of keen analysis of Professor Godet, of which an Ulustration may be
seen on p. 147, wUl 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 Grospels. It may be thought, possibly, by some, that it is enough to over
throw views contradictory of one another, and of vital principles, and that one is
under no obUgation to provide a genesis of these inspired records. But so long as
men will ask after the Turn, within certain limits an answer will be attempted ; and
that 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 esteem of the Holy Scriptures ;" but of the Gospels this is em
phatically true, that '' the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy uf the doctrine,
the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is
to give glory to God), the full discovery made of the only way of man's salvation,
the many other incomparable exceUences, aud the entire perfection thereof," are
the arguments by which they " abundantly evidence themselves to be the 'Word of
God." It could hardly 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 Parousia,
which Greek wurd our continental friends are fond of using for the " coming" (Matt.
24 : 3 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 28). applied to Christ, are not formally stated ; but there are
intimations of their nature, as on p. 406, which would not satisfy a large portion of

VI COMMENTAEY OIT 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. 452, which appear to be at variance with those commonly
held by the advocates of two resurrections, divided by an interval more or less de
fined in their 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 fqr such an in
felicitous phrase as " chronological error" on p. 116. It must not be forgotten that,
as devout scientists may discuss the mode of producing our existing world without
questioning its divine origin, or ignoring 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 the Divine Teacher, given by inspiration of the Holy
Ghost. The mode of inspiration will probably remain a mystery ; but that limitation
in the matter of our knowledge will no more put it in doubt as a fact, in a candid
luind, than ignorance of the process it details will imply question of the regenera
tion by the Holy Ghost In both mysterious and gracious works 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, Klosterman, Holtzmann, and others,
we do not duubt that they will be read with interest by ministers. They whu love and
teach definite truth wUl be Vble to understand how an evangelical prophet may break
into sarcasm (as on p. 435) whUe giving articulate form to the designs of Christ's
enemies. They will appreciate such clear statement as they will flnd on pp. 435-6 ;
such points as that made- regarding the Sabbath at p. 450, and the treatment of the
current objection founded on the references to Annas and Caiaphas (p. 480). The
analysis of our Lord's use of John's baptism in his stiuggle with his truculent foes
is an admirable illustration of the author's power to place himself in the midst of the
conflict waged by the Truth incarnate against sacerdctalism and perverted and par
tisan zeal. One may hesitate to take the net cast un the other side, as pointing tu
the ingathering of the heathen, just as the conclusions suggested on p. 495 may be
left among the open questions without lessening admiration for the author's pains
taking ingenuity. Nor, fiually, can any attentive reader faU to notice the wealth
of allusion and the variety of sources whence light is made to shine on the sacred
pages ; as, for example (p. 563), in deaUng with the evangelist's. differences in forms
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 formulse were transmitted by unwritten tradition. "
It is with great satisfaction, then, that thepresent writer wishes God-speed, by this
prefatory note, to a volume wliich 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 many-
sided excellency and glory they are the fourfold presentation.
The work, it is hardly needful to say, 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 hoped that this
issue in popular form of one of the Messrs. Clark's publications— by which such
service 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 houae in America that has sought tu 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.
F'ifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New Tork,
December, 1880..

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
A YEAR and half has passed away — and how swiftly ! — since the publication of
this Commentary, aud already a second edition has become necessary. I bless the
Lord fur 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. I tender
my special thanks to the authors of those favorable reviews which have given effect
ual aid toward the attainment of this result.
Almost every page of this second edition bears the traces of corrections in the
form ot 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, 6 : 1), .has the
interpretation been modified. Besides that, I have made a number of additions
occasioned by the publication of two works, one of which I have very frequently
quoted, and the other as often controverted. I refer to M. Gess' book, " Sur la
Personne et I'CEuvre de Christ" (flrst part), and to " La Vie de J6sus" by M. Keim
(the last two volumes).
In a recent article of the " Protestantische 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 and rational way the origin of the three synoptical texts by means of common
written sources is successful. There is one fact especially which stUl waits lor
explanation — namely, the Aramaisms of Luke. These Aramaisms are met
with not only 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 paraUel passages nothing of a similar kind is to be found ! This
fact 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 sUght feeling of wounded self-
esteem ?
And now, may this Cnmmentary renew its course with the blessing of the Lord,
to whose serrice it is consecrated ; and may its second voyage be as prosperous and
short as the flrst ! F. G.
NEucHATEn, August, 1870.

EXTRACTS PROM THE PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
A Commentary on the Gospel of John remains an unfinished 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 Gespel 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.
Sabatier has well shown in his short but substantial " Essai 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 the 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 cnn-
flict between St. Paul and the other apustles of Jesus Christ. We must therefore en
deavor to place the results of a real and impartial BibUcal 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 I gratefully acknowledge its aid as absolutely indispensable,
I have adopted the received text as a basis in indicating the various readings ; but I
would express my 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 asked with what scientific or reUgious assumptions I have approached
this study of the third Gospel, I reply, "With these two only : that the authors of our
Gospels were men of good sense and good faith.
* The publishers intend, if these volumes on Luke meet with a favorable recep
tion, to bring out M. Godet's celebrated Commentary on John in an English dress.
Indeed, they would have followed the author's order of publication, but that they
waited to take advantage of a second edition, which is preparing for the press.—
Trans.

0 0]:*5"TENTS.

Ihtboduotion  1-32
Section I.— Traces of the Existence of the Third Gospel in the Primitive Church  1
Section II.— The Author  10
Section ni. — Composition of the Third Gospel  .'  18
Section IT.— Sources of the Third Gospel  21
Section V.— Preservation of the Third Gospel  23
The Title oi> the Gospel  32
Thb Prolositb, 1 : 1-4  33

FIRST PAET.
The Narratives of the Iotanot, 1 : 5-3 : 52  41-104
First Narrative : Announcement of the Birth of John the Baptist, 1 : 5-25  43
, Second Narrative : Announcement of the Birth ot Jesus, 1 : 26-38  53
Third Narrative : Mary's Visit to Elizabeth, 1 : 39-56  59
Fourth Narrative : Birth and Circumcision ot John the Baptist, 1 : 57-80  67
Fifth Narrative : Birth ot the Saviour, 2 : 1-20  73
Sixth Narrative : Circumcision and Presentation ot Jesus, 2 ; 21-40  84
Seventh Narrative : The Child Jesus at Jerusalem, 2 : 41-52  90
General ConBiderations on Chaps. 1 and 2  94

SECOND PAET.
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, 82  117
On the Baptism of Jesus  :  121
Third Narrative : The Genealogy of Jesus, 3 : 23-38  126
Fourth Narrative : The Temptation, 4 : 1-13  133
On the .Temptation  142

THIED PAET.
The MnasTRT op Jesus in Galilee, 4: 14-9 : 50  146-281
PirstCycle: Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum, 4 : 14-44  148
On the Miracles of Jesus  162
Second Cycle : From the Calling ot the First Disciples to the Choice of the Twelve,
5:1-6:11  163
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,
9:1-50.  252

X CONTENTS.
FOURTH PAET. PASE
The Jodbnbt from Galilee to JeHusalbm, 9:51-19: 27  283-423
First Cycle ; The Departure.from Galilee— First Days of the Journey, 9 : 61-13 : 21  288
Second Cycle : New Series of Incidents in the Journey, 13 : 22-17 : 10  359
Third Cycle: The Last Scenee in the Journey, 17:11-19:27  401

FIFTH PAET.
The Sojourn at Jerusalem, 19:28-21 : 38  424-456
Furst Cycle: The Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, 19 : 28-44  424
Second Cycle: The Eeign of Jesus in the Temple, 19: 45-21 :4  428
Third Cycle : The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, 21 ; 5-38  443

SIXTH PAET.,
The Passion, 22 and 23  457-501
FirstCycle: The Preparation for, the Passion, 23 : 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 PAET.
The Besubbection ANn Ascension, 24  502-517
Of the Eesnrrection of Jesus  511
Of the Asceiision  615

CONCLUSION.
Chap. I.— The Characteristics of the Third Gospel  518
Chap, n.— The Composition ot the Third Gospel  586
Chap, in.— The Sources of Luke, and the Eelation ot the Synoptics to one another  549
Chap. IV.— The Beginnings of the Church  567

INTKODUCTION.
Tee Introduction of a Biblical Commentary is not designed to solve the various
questions relating to the origin of the book under consideration. This solution
must be the result of the study of the book itself, and not be assumed beforehand.
The proper work of introduction is to prepa/re the way for^the study of the sacred
book ; it should propose questions, not solve them.
But there is one side of the labor of criticism which may, a.nd 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 pubUcatiun
and the sources of the work which is to engage our attention ; 3. The review of the
various opinions which have been entertained respecting the origin of this book, par
ticularly in modern times. Tbe first of these studies supplies exegetical and critical
labor with its starting-point ; the second determines its aim. The possession of these
two kinds of mformation 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 the existence of our Gospel, going back as far as possible iu
the history of the primitive Church.
n. The statements made by ancient writers as to the person of tlie author, and the
opinions current at the present day on this point.
III. The information furnished by tradition respecting the circumstances in which
thisimiting was composed (its readers, date, locality, design), as well as the different
views which criticism has taken of these various questions.
IV. The ideas which scholars have f onned.of the sources whence the author derived
the subject-matter of his narrations.
V. Lastly, the documents by means of which tJie text of this writing has been pre
served to us. I
An introduction of this kind is not complete without a conclusion in which the
questions thus raised flnd their solution. This conclusion should seek to combine
the facts estabUshed by tradition with the results obtained from exegesis.
SEC. I.  TBACES OP THE EXISTENCE OF THB THIRD GOSPEL IN THB PBIMITIVE
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 TheophUus
of Antioch (about 170) and Irenseus (about 180), and in the " Letter of the Churches
of Lyons and Vienne" (m 177) ; on the fact, amply verified by the testimony of
Clement of Alexandria, that the Gnostic Heracleon had pubUshed a commentary on
the Gospel of Luke as well as on the Gospel of John (between 175-195) ;* ou the
* See. for the fact, Grabe, " Spicilegium," sec. ii., t.- i. p. %',^^^J°l.}^X^^^''
Lipsius, " Die Zelt des Marcion und des Heracleon," in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschrift,
1867.

3 COMMENTAKY ON 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 thoae four
Gofpels admitted by all the churches under heaven, and that Eusebius places it amung
the homohgoumena of the new covenant. The only matter of importance here is to
investigate that obscure epoch, the flrst 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. Hebbsy. — Marcion, Oerdo, Basilides.
Marcion, a son of a bishop of Pontus, who was excommunicated by his own father,
taught at Rome from 140-170.* He proposed to purify the Gospel from the Jewish
elements which the twelve, by reason of their education and Israelitish prejudices,
had necessarily introduced intu it. In nrder 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 fur this' reason the Jewish law rested exclusively un
justice, while the Gospel was founded un 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 Paul)
and ten epistles of this apostle. But even in these writings he felt himself 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 this point, therefore, he found himself in conflict with
numerous texts of Paul and Luke. The greater part of the modiflcations uf Luke's
text which were exhibited, accurding to the statements of TertuUian 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 apustolic
writings used in the churches, and to compel criticism to assign to this writing both
ancient authnrity and a very early urigin. Now this is just what the rationalistic
school was not disposed to admit.f Consequently, Semler and Eichhorn in tbe past
century, and, with stiU 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 und des Heracleon," in HUgenf eld's " Zeitschr "
1867. ¦ '
f Hilgenfeld himself ppints out the purely dogmatic origin of this rationalistic
opinion : " This opinion," he says, " has misapprehended the true tendency of the
Gospel of Marcion, through a deaire to assign h the canonical text (to our Luke) the
moat recent date possible" (" Die Evangelien,"'p. 37).

COMMENTABY ON ST. LUKE. 3
mg of this more ancient wurk, accomplished in the second century in the sense of a
modified Paulinism. "We must do justice, however, to this critical school. No one
has labored more energetically to rectify this erroneous opinion, tentatively brought
forward by several of its adherents. Hilgenfeld, and above all Volkmar, have suc
cessfully combated it, and Ritschl has expressly withdrawn it (" Theol. Jahrb. X.," p.
538, et seq.) ; Bleek (" Einl. in. d. N. T.," p. 133 etaeq.) has given an able summary of
the whole discussion. "We shall only bring forward the following points, which seem
to us the most essential :
1. The greater part of the differences which must have distinguished the Gospel
of Marcion from our Luke are to be explained either as the result of his Gnostic
system, or as mere critical corrections. Thus, Marcion suppressed the first two
chapters on the birtJi of Jesus — a retrenchment which suited his Docetism ; also in
the passage Luke 13 : 38, " "When you shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all
the prophets in the kingdom of God," he read, " "When you shaU see tlie just enter into
the kingdom of heaven," which alone answered to his theory of the old covenant ;
in the same way also, fur the words of Jesus in Luke 16 : 17, " It is easier for heaven
and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, ' ' Marcion read, ' ' than that one tittle
uf the letter of my words shuuld faU." In both these instances, one must be bUnd not
to see that it was Marcion who modified the text of Luke to suit his system, and not
the reverse. Again, we read that the Gospel of Marcion began in this way : " 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) ; then came the narrative of the first sojourn at Capernaum, just as it is
related Luke 4 : 31 «i seq.; and after that. Only in the inverse order to that which
obtains in our Gospel, the narrative nf the visit to Nazareth, Luke 4 : 16 ei! aeq. Is it
nut clear that such a begintiing ceuld not belong to the primitive 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 : 33), as
Luke plices them, before the sujnurn at Capernaum ? The narrative of Marcion was
then the result uf a dogmatic and critical revisiun uf Luke 3 : 1, 4 : 31, 4 : 16 and 33.
3. It is i\ wefl-known fact that Marciun had falsified the Epistles uf Paul "Dy 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 evangelica.1 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 chuse this among .all the
Gospels which enter iuto the ecclesiastical cuUectiunas the une which he could most
readily adapt to his system.-* About 140, then, our Gospel already possessed full
authority, the result of a conviction uf its apostoUc origin.
¦* Zeller (in his " Apostelgeschichte") expresses himself thus : " We may admit as
proved and generally accepted, not unly that Marciun made use of an older Gospel,
but further, that he recomposed, modified, and often abridged it, and that this older
Gospel was essentially none other than our Luke." This restriction "essentially"
refers to certain passages, in which it appears to writers of the Tiibingen school that
Marcion's reading is more original than that of our canonical text. The latter,
according to Baur and Hilgenfeld, must have been introduced with a riew lo counter
act the use which the Gnostics made of the true text. Zeller, however (p. 13 et seq.),

4 OOMMENTAEY ON ST. LUKE.
Marcion did not create his system himself. Before him, Cerdo, according to Theo-
duret's account (" Haeret. fabulse," i. 24), proved bp the Gospels that the just God of
the old covenant and the good God of the new are different beings ; and he founded
this contrariety on the precepts uf the Sermnn on the Mount (Matt. 5 : 38-48 ; Luke
6 : 37-88). The Gospel of Luke must 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 praescriptiune hsereticnrum, " c. 51): "Solum
evangelium Luces, ¦nee iamen totum, recipit [Cerdo]." Seme years, then, before
Marcion, Cerdo sought to prove the opposition of the law to the Gospel by the written
Goapels, especiaUy by that of Luke.
Basilides, one of the most ancient known Gnostics, who is usually said to have
flourished at Alexandria about 130, assumed for himself and his son Isidore tbe title
of pupils uf the Apostle Matthias. The statement of Hippolytus is as follows :
" Basilides, with Isidore, his true sun and disciple, said that Matthias had transmitted
tu them orally some secret instructions which he had received from the mouth of the
Saviour in His private teaching."* This claim of BasUides implies the circulation
of the book of the Acts, in which alone there is any mentinn of the apustulate of
Matthias, and consequently of the Gospel of Luke, which was cumposed before the

2. The Fathers. — Justin, PSlyewrp, Clement of Bome.
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 nut in the hands of Justin, who wrote in this very city
some years later. Besides, the writings of Justin allow.of no duubt as tu this fact ;
and it is admitted at the present day by all the writers of that school, which makes
exclusive claims to be critical~\)j Zeller, Volkmar, and HUgenfeld.f 'With this
considerably reduces the number of thuse passages in which Maiciun is supposed to
have preserved the true reading, and thuse which he retains are far frum bearing the
marks uf proof. Thus, Luke 10 : 33, Marcion appears to have read oidrtj iyva, no
one hath knoien, instead of oiidei; yivuoKti, no one knuweth ; and because this reading
is fnuud in Justin, in the " Clementine HomUies," and in some of the Fathers, it is
inferred that our canonical text has been altered. But Justin himself also reads
yivaoKU (" Dial, c. Tryph." c. 100). There appears to be nothing more here than au
ancient variation. In the same passage, Marcion appears tu have placed the words
which refer to the knowledge of the Father by the Son before those which refer to
the knowledge of the Son by the Father — a reading which is also found in the
" Clementine HomiUes. " But here, again, this can only be a mere variation of reading
which it is easy to explain. It is oif such little dogmatic importance that Irenseus,
whu opposes it critically, himself quotes the passage twice in this form (" Tischend
ad Matth. 11 : 37").
* " S. Hippolyti Refutatignis umnium hseresium librurum decem quae super sunt"
(ed. Duncker et Schneidewin), L. rii. § ^0.
f " Justin's acquaintance with the Gospel of Luke is demonstrated by a series of
passages, of which some certainly, and others very probably, are citations from this
book'" (Zeller. " Apostelgeschichte," p. 26). On the subject of a passage from the
" Dialogue with Trypho," c. 49, Volkmar says : " Luke (3 : 16, 17) is quoted here,
flrst in common with Matthew, then, in preference to the latter, literally" (" Ursprung
unserer Ev." p. 157). " Justin is acquainted with our three synoptical Gospels, and
extracts them almost completely" (Ibid. p. 91). " Besides Matthew and Mark . . .
Justin also makes use of the Go^el of Luke" (Hilgenfeld, " Der Kanon," p, 35).

COMMENTABY ON ST. LUKE. 5
admission before us, we know what the assertions of M. Nicolas are worth, which
he does not scruple to lay before French readers, who have so little acquaintance
with questions of this nature — such an assertion, fur 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 even Justin Martyr, and analogous passages from our Gospels, without being
tempted to think that the cause must be very bad that can need, or that can be satis-
fled with such arguments. "* It appears that Messrs. Zeller, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar
are all implicated together in furbishing up these fallacious arguments in favor of
orthodoxy ! Here are some passages which prova unanswerably that Justin Martyr
used our third Gospel : Dial. c. 100, he quotes almust verbatim Luke 1 : 36-30.t ¦ 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 Apnl. i. 66, he refers to the institution of the Holy Supper
according to the text uf Luke. Dial. c. 103, he says : " In the memuirs which I say
were cumposed by His apostles, and by those that accumpanied them, [it is related]
that the sweat rnlled from Him in drops whUe He prayed," etc. (Luke 23 : 44). Ibid.,
Justin 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 cnmmit
my spirit," as taken frnm " The Memnirs nf the Apostles." i This prayer is only
recorded by Luke (33 : 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 thuse 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 a fortiori the
existence uf the Gospel at the same time. 'We may therefore adduce the following
passage from Polycarp, which we think can unly be explained as a quutatiuu frum
the Acts : Acts 3 : 24. Poltc. ad PhU. c. 1.
"Ov <S eeoS avearriaev, Xvaai ra5 o6lvai rov "Ov ^yeipev 6 Bebc Maai t&S difivaS rov
Oavdrov. g.Sov.
" 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 prnpositiun in the two writings, the choice of
the term Au'oas, and the strange expression ihe 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.§
* " Etudes critiques sur le N. T." p. 5.
t Reference to Justin Martyr's " Dialogues" (Clarke's edition), p. 325, wiU show
that w. 36-38 are quoted in the way in which one who wished to summarize would
reproduce. — J. H.
i So called in c. 100, when quoting from Matt. 4 : 9, 10.— J. H.
§ It is nut irnpussible, certainly, that the expression oSlvei was taken by both these
authors from Ps. 18 : 5, or from Ps. 116 : 3, where the LXX. translate by this term
the word ^ipi' which signifies at once bonds and pai'ns qf chUdMrth ; but there still
remains in the two propositions as a whole an unaccountable similarity.

b COMMBNTAEY ON ST. LUKE.
In the Epistle uf Clement of Rome there is an exhortation beginning with these
words : " Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, in which he taught equity and
generosity ;" then cnmes a passage in which the texts of Matthew and Luke in the
Sermun un the Muunt appear to be combined, but where, iu the opinion of Volkmar,*
the text uf Luke preduminates (6 : 31, 36-38). In this same letter the Acts are twice
qunted, flrst at c. 18, where mentinn is made uf a divine testimony respecting King
David, and there is an amalgamation of the twu fnllowing Old Testament pass
ages : 1 Sam. 13 : 14 and Ps. 89 : 31. Now a precisely similar fusion, or very
nearly so, is fnund in the bunk uf the Acts (13 : 23). How cuuld this almust identi
cal comhinatinn of two such distinct passages of the Old Testament have occurred
spontaneously to the two writers ?
1 Sam. 13 : 14. Ps, 89 : 30.
"The Lord hath sought him a man " J. hMve found Paind my servant ; with
after his own heart." my holy oil have I anointed him. "
^ , .^  _/
Acts 13 : 33.
" 7 have found David the son of Jesse, a ¦man after mine own hea/rt, which shall
fulfil aU my will." Clem. Fip. ad Oor. 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 euulgy which Clement addresses tn the
Corinthians (c. 2) : " Giving more willingly than receiving (jioklov diSov-fei ij \aii^
l3avovTeS),"—a repetition of the very words of Jesus cited by Paul, Acts 20 : 35 :
" It is more blessed to give than to receive {diSdvai fiaklov ti ?iaiilSdveiv)." No duubt
these are allusions rather than quotations properly so called. But we knnw that this
is the ordinary mode of quotation in the Fathers.
It is true that the Tiibingen school denies the authenticity of the Epistles of
Clement and Polycarp, and assigns them, the former tn the first quarter, and the
latter tn the second part, of the second century ; but the authentichy of the former
in particular is guaranteed by the most unexceptionable testimonies. Althnugh 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, nnt
from 135, as "Volkmar thinks, but at latest from the end of the first century. Accord
ing to Hase, it belongs to between 80 aud 90 ; according to Tischendorf, it dates from
69, or, less probably, frum 96. For our part, we should regard this last date as must
prnbable. In any case, we see that the -use nf Luke's writings in this letter centers a
very high antiquity on their diffusion and authnrity.
3. The PsBTJDBPiGRAPHiCAi Wbitings. — Testaments qf tlie Twelve Pat'riarchs.
Amnng the writings of Je-wish 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, whUe Luke's text furnishes the substance
of the developed thought" (" Urspr.," p. 138).

COMMENTABY ON ST. LUKE. 7
Jew, desirous uf bringing his feUnw-countrymen to the Christian faith. With this
view he represents the twelve sons of Jacob aa speaking on their death-beds, and
assigns to each of them a pruphetic discourse, in which they depict the future Int Of
their penple, and announce the blessings to be conferred by the gospel. Contrary tu
the opiniun uf M. Reuss, who places the cnmpusition of this wurk after the middle
of the secund century,* de Grnot and Langen think that it belnngs tu the end nf the
first ur the beginning nf the secnnd.f As this bnek alludes tn the first destructinn of
Jerusalem by the Romans in 70, but in no way refers to the second by Adrian in 135,
it must, it would seem, date from the interval between these two events. It contains
numerous quotations from Luke as well as from the other evangelists, but the fol
lowing passage is particularly important : " In the last days, said Benjamin tu his sonS'
there shall spring from my race a ruler accurding tn the Lnrd, who, after having heard
his voice, shaU spread a new light amung the heathen. He shall abide in the syna-
gngues of the heathen tn the end ef the ages, and shall be in the mouth of their chiefs
as a pleasant song. His work and his word shall be written in the holy books. He shall
be chosen of God for eternity. My 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 bonk of the Acts is here referred to as constituting part of
the cnllectinn of holy books {iv jBipX ali aylai:). This passage is thus the paraUel
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 flrst century, therefore, there were coUections of
apostoUc writings in the churches, the contents uf which we cannut exactly de
scribe : they varied, no doubt, in different churches, which were already regarded
equally with the Old Testament as holy ; and in these, the book of the Acts, and
consequently the (jospel uf Luke, fnund a place.
4. Bbblical Whitings. — John, Mark, Acts.
The whule Gnspel uf Juhn suppuses, as we think has been proved in our Com
mentary upon that book, the existence of our synoptics, and their propagation in the
Church. As to Luke in particular, 10 : 38-43 must be compared with John 11 and
13 : 1-8 ; then 24 : 1-13 and 36-49 with Jnhn 30 : 1-18 and 19-33, where Jnhn's nar
rative appears tu allude, snmetimes even in expressinn, tn Luke's.
The flrst distinct and indubitable trace nf the influence of Luke's Gospel on a
book of the New Testament is found in the conclusion of Mark (16 : 9-30). On the
one hand, we hope to prove that, until we come tn this fragment, the composition of
Mark is quite independent of Luke's narrative. On the nther hand, it is evident that
frnm this point the narrative nf Mark, untwithstanding some pecuUarities, is scarcely
* " Die Gesch. der heU. Schr. N. T.," § 257.
f De Groot, " Basilides," p. 37 ; Langen, " Das Judenthum in Palesti," 148.
X Hilgenfeld, with aU fairness, acknowledges this quotation in the Epistle of
Barnabas and the consequences deducible from it : " We meet with the first trace of
this appUcation [of the notion nf inspiration as in the writings of the Old Testament
to those of the apostles] at the close of the flrst century, in the so-called letter of
Barnabas, in which a sentence from the .Gospel is quoted as a passage of Scripture '
("DerKanun,"p. 10).

8 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
anything but an abridged reprnductiun of Luke's. It is, as it has been called, the most
elearliy marked style of extract. Compare verse 9& and Luke 8:2; verses 10, 11, and
Luke 24 : 10-13 ; verse 13 and Luke verses 13-33 ; verse 13, and Luke verses 33-35 ;
verse 14a aud Luke verses 36-43. It is possible also that John 30 : 1-17 may have
had some influence on verse 9(Js. As to the discourse verses 15-18, and the fragment
verses 19, 20, the author of this cnuclusiun must have taken these frnm materials of
his nwn. Nuw we knnw that this cnnclusion tn Mark, frnm 16 : 9, was wanting,
accurding to the statements of the Fathers, in a great many ancient mss. ; that it is hot
found at the present day in either uf the twu must ancient documents, the Sinaitic cr
Vatican ; that the earliest trace of it occurs in Irenseus ; and that an entirely differ
ent cnnclusinn, bearing, hnwever, much more 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 net frnm the hand of the authnr, still it is earlier than the
middle nf the secund century. Wemustalsu admit that nn considerable interval cuuld
have elapsed between the composition of the Gospel and the composition of this conclu
sion ; for the discourse, verse 15 et aeq. is too original to be a mere compilation :
further, it must have been drawn up from materials dating frum the time uf 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
compnsed this cunclusiun had fully entered intu the mind uf the author. The latter
must have been suddenly interrupted in his work ; for 16 : 8 could never have been
the intended cnnclusion nf his narrative. An appearance uf Jesus in Galilee is
annnunced (5 : 1-8), and the narrative cught to finish without giving an account of
this. Besides, verse 9 is quite a fresh beginning, for tliere is an evident break nf
connection between this verse and verse 8.
Frnm all these cunsideratinns, it fnllows that at verse 8 the work was suddenly
suspended, and that a short time after, a writer, who was still in the current nf the
author's thought, and who might have had the advantage of some materials prepared
by him, drew up this cnnclusinn. Nuw, if up tn 16 : 8 the Gospel uf Luke has exer
cised nn influence nn Mark's work, and if, on the contrary, from 16 : 9 there is a per
ceptible influence ef the former on the latter, there is only one inference to be drawn
—namely, that the Gospel nf Luke appeared in the 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 Gespel, it becomes important to know by what circumstance the author
of the second Gospel was interrupted in his work. The only probable explanation nf
this fact, as it appears to us, is the unexpected nutbreak cf Nero's persecution iu
August, 64, just the time when Mark was at Rome with Peter. At the request ef the
faithful belonging to this church, he had undertaken to write the narratives ef this
apostle, in other words, the composition nf our secnnd Gnspel. The persecutinn
which brnke out, and the -riolent death nf his master, probably forced him to take
precipitous flight frum the capital. It is only necessary to suppose that a copy of the
yet un^nished wurk remained iu the hands ef some Roman Christian, aud was
deposited in the archives of his church, tn explain hnw the Gospel at flrst got into
circulation iu its incomplete fnrm. When, a little while after, some pne set to woik to
complete it, the Gospel of Luke had appeared, and was consulted. The work
finished by help ef Luke's Gospel, was cupied and 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 terminus a qua of the publication nf Luke. On the uther hand, the writing

¦ COMMENTABY ON ST. LUKE. 9
of the conclusion of Mark must have preceded the publication, or at least the diffu
sion, nf the Gospel of Matthew. Otherwise the centinuator of Mark would certainly
have given it the preference, because its narrative bears an infinitely closer resem
blance than Luke's to the account he was completing. The composition of the
canonical conclusion of Mark would then be prior tu the diffusinn nf our Matthew,
and ccnsequently befnre the close of the first century, when this writing was already
clnthed with a divine authority equal to that of the Old Testament (p. 11). Now,
since the conclusion of Mark implies the existence of the Gospel nf Luke, we see tu
what a high antiquity these facts, when taken together, cblige us tn refer the cum-
positien of the latter.
The other biblical writing which presents a point ef connection with our Gospel is
the hook 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 sn suddenly with the mentinn of Paul's
captivity at Rume (spring 62 tu 64), 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 intentinn unly tu carry his stnry as far as
the apnstle's arrival at Rome. His book was nnt intended tu be a biography uf thu
apostles generally, nur nf Peter and Paul in particular ; it was the wurk that was
important to him, not the workmen. Nevertheless, when we ubserve the fulness uf
the narrative, especially in the latter parts nf the wurk ; when we see the author
relating the minutest details of the tempest and Paul's shipwreck (27), and mention
ing even the sign nf the ship which carried the apostle tn Italy (28 : 11) — " A ship nf
Alexandria, whose sign was Castor and Pollux") — it cannut be reasonably maintained
that it was a rigorous adherence to his plan which prevented his giving his readers
some details respecting the end uf tliis ministry, and the martyrdum uf his master.
Or might he have prupnsed tu make this the subject uf a third wurk ? Had he a mind
to cumpnse a trUogy, after the fashinn nf the Greek tragedians ? The idea nf a third
wurk might nn duubt be suggested to him afterward by subsequent events ; and this
appears tu be the sense uf certain nbscure -wnrds in the famnus fragment uf Muratnri.
But it is nut very prnbable that such an intentinn cuuld have determined his original
plan, and influenced the cumpusitinn nf his two furmer wurks. What matter cuuld
appear tu the authnr uf sufficient impcrtance tn be placed nn a level, as the subject nf
a TptVof Myoi, -with the cnntents nf the Gnspel or the Acts ? 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. The cnnclusinn. Acts 38 : 30 and 31, while resem
bling analngnus conclusions at the end of each narrative in the Gnspel and in the Acts,
has rather the effect of a closing period intentionally affixed to the entire book. We
are then, in fact, brought back to the idea that Paul's career was nnt yet finished
when the authnr uf the Acts terminated his narrative, and wrute the last twn verses
of chap. 38 ; since, were this not the case, fidelity te his plan wnuld in nn way have
prevented his giving sume details on a subject so interesting tu his readers. The
bunk of the Acts, therefore, dues nnt appear tn have been written very lung after the
time which fnrms the terminatinn of the narrative. This conclusion, if weU founded,
applies dfortiorito 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 apustnlic
authnrity implied in the diffusinn uf this wurk, and in the respect it enjuyed at this

10 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
period, oblige us to admit its existence as early as the beginning of this century. A
very' recent book cuuld not have been known and used thus simultaneously in the
Church and by the sects. The place which the Acts held in cnllectiuns of the sacred
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 little
further, to abuut 80-100. Lastly, the relations nf the third Gnspel tn Mark and the
Acts carry us tn an epuch still more remnte, even as far back as the period frum 64
to 80. An objection to this result has been found in the silence of Papias — a sUence
which Hilgenfeld has even thought an indication of positive rejection nn the part uf
this Father. But because Eusebius has only preserved the infurmatinn furnished by
Papias respecting the cumposition nf ilark aud Matthew — unly a few lines altegether
— it dues nut fnllnw that Papias did nut knnw Luke, or that, if he knew, he rejected
him. AU that can reasenably be inferred frum this silence is, that Eusebius had not
found anything of interest in Papias as to the origin of Luke's bouk. And what is
there surprising in that ? Matthew and Mark had commenced their narratives with
out giving the smallest detail respecting the composition cf their bnoks ; Luke, on
the contrary, in his preface, had told his readers all they needed to knnw. There was
nn traditinn, then, current nn this puint, and su Papais had found nothing new to
add tu the information given by the authnr.
We nught to say, in concluding this review, that we do not attach a decisive.
value to the facts we have just noticed, and that amung the results arrived at there
are several which we are quite aware are nnt indisputable.* Nevertheless, it has
appeared tu us that there were snme interesting cnncidences {jpointa de repere) which a
careful study of the subject should not overlook. The only fact which appears to us
absolutely decisive is the ecclesiastical and liturgical use uf our Gespel in the churches
in the middle of the second century, as it is estabUshed by Justin. If this book really
formed part of these " Memoirs of the Apostles," which he declared to the emperor
were pubUcly read every Sunday in the Christian assemblies, the apostolic antiquity
ef this book must have been a fact ef public nuturiety, and aU the more that it did
not bear the name of an apustle at the head of it.
SBC. II. — THE AOTHOB.
Under this title are included twu distinct questinns : I. What dn we knnw nf the
persen designated in the title as the author of our Gospel ? II. By what ecclesiastical
testimonies is the composition of this book traced to him, and what is their worth ?

The person named Lu'ke is only mentiened in certain passages of the New Testa
ment, and in sume few brief ecclesiastical traditions.
The biblical passages are : Col. 4 : 14, " Luke, the belnved physican, and Demas,
greet you ;" Philem. 34, " There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ
Jesus ; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-laborers ;" 2 Tim. 4 : 11.
" Only Luke is with me."
* We nught tn emphasize this reservation, in view nf some reviews in which we
have been blamed for dealing here too largely in hypothesis.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 11
These passages, cnnsidered in their cnntext, yield these results :
1. That Luke was a Christian of Pagan origin. This is pruved beyund duubt in
the first passage by the distinctien between the grnup nf Christians ut the eireamcimn
(verses 10, 11), and the fnUnwing group tn which Luke belnngs (verses 13-14). The
nbjection which has been taken tu this exegetical inference, nn the grnund uf an
Aramsean tincture uf style in many passages uf Luke, has, sn far as we can see, no
force. Accordingly, St. Luke wnuld be the only author, amnng thnse whu were
called to write the Scriptures, who was not ef Jewish origin.
2. The circumstance that his profession was that of a physician is not unimpor
tant ; for it implies that he must have possessed a certain amount ef scientific knowl
edge, and belonged to the class of educated men. There existed at Rome, in the
time nf the emperors, a medical supervision ; a superior college {Collegium archiatro-
rum) was charged with the duty of examining in every city those whu desired to
practise the healjng art. Newly admitted men were placed under the direction of
elder physicians ; their modes ef treatment were strictly scrutinized, and their mis
takes severely punished^ sometimes by taking away their diploma.* For these
reasons, Luke must have possessed an amount of scientific aud literary culture above
that of most ef the ether evangelists and apustles.
3. Luke was tlie fellow-laborer uf Paul in his missiun tu the heathen, a felluw-
labnrer greaMy beloved (Cul. 4 : 14) and faithful (3 Tim. 4 ; 9-12).
But here arises an impnrtant questiun. Does the connection which has just been
proved between Paul and Luke date, as Bleek thinks, unly from the apostle's sojourn
at Rome — a city in which Luke had long been estabUshed as a physician, and where
he had been converted by Paul ? Or had Luke already become the cnmpaniun of
the apostle before his arrival at Rome, and had he taken part in his missinnary tnils
in Greece or in Asia ? The snlution of this question depends on the way in which
we regard a certain number of passages in the Acts, in which the author passes all
at once from the third person, tJiey, te the form of the flrst person, we. If it is ad
mitted (1) that Luke is the author of the Acts (a question which we cannot yet deal
with), and (3) that the author, in thus expressing himself, wishes to intimate that at
certain times he shared the apostle's work, it is evident that our knowledge of his life
wUl be considerably enriched by these passages. It is only this second question that
we shall examine here.
The passages nf which we speak are three in number : 16 : 10-17 ; 30 : 5-31, 17 ;
37 : 1-38, 16. Here several suppnsitinns are pnssible : Either Luke, the authnr nf
the entire book, describes in the first person the scenes in which he was himself
present ; or the authnr, either Luke nr some Christian nf the first age, inserts in his
work such and such fragments nf a traveller's jnurnal kept by nne uf Paul's cnmpan-
inns — by Timnthy nr Silas, fur example ; nr, lastly, a fnrger uf later times, with a
-riew tn accredit his wurk and make it pass fur Luke's, tu whom he ventures to
attribute it, introduces into it snme fragments cf Luke, changing their substance and
remndelling their fnrm, but purposely allowing the first persnn tu stand in these por
tions. The first suppusitinn is the one that has been most generally admitted from
ancient times ; the second has been maintained by Schleiermacher and Bleek, who
attribute the jnurnal, whence these portions are taken tu Timothy ; alsn by Sch wan-
beck, whu makes it the wurk of Silas ; the third is the hypothesis defended by Zeller.
* Tholuck, "Die Glaubwurdigk, der ev. Gesch," p. 149 (accurding te Galen).

12 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
If the first explanation is the must ancient, it is because it is that which most
naturally occurs tu the mind. After the authnr, at the beginning nf his bunk, had
made use nf the flrst persen, "The former treatise ha/Be Imade, O TheophUus,''
would it not be evident to his readers that when, in the course of the narrative, he
came to say ice it was with the intention of indicating himself as a witness of the
facts related ? If he had borrowed these fragments frnm the jnurnal of another,
why did he net assimilate them in form to the rest of the narrative ? Surely it was
net difficult for such a writer as he was to change the flrst person into the third. It
is maintained that the author is an unskilled writer, who dees not know hew to work
up his materials ; but Zeller rightly replies Ihat the unity ef style, aim, and method
which prevaUs throughout the book of the Acts, proves, en the contrary, that the
author has made very skilful use ef the documents at his disposal. De Wette him
self, althnugh a suppurter uf Schleiermacher's theury, is nbliged tu acknowledge this.
And if this is se, it is impossible to explfiin hnw the authnr cuuld .have allowed this
we to stand. Besides, this explanation has to contend with other difficulties. If
this prunnun we emanates frnm the pen of Timothy, hnw is it that it dues not cume
in at the moment when Timnthy enters un the scene and jnins Paul and Silas?
Hnw is it, again, that it suddenly disappears, althnugh Timnthy cnntinues the jnumey
with Paul (from his departure from Philippi and during his entire stay in Achaia,
Acts 18 ; comp, with 1 and 3 Thess. 1:1)? Above all, hnw is it that this we is
resumed, 30 : 5, in a passage in which the writer whu thus designates himself is
expreasly opposed tn a number of persons, among wlwm figures Timothy ? Bleek tries
to draw out nf this difficulty by applying the prunnun o'vtoi, these, verse 5, simply to
the last twn uf the persons mentioned, Tychicus and Truphlmus. But every one
must feel that this is a forced explanation. As Zeller says, had this been the case, it
would have been necessary tn have said oiroi ol Mo, tliese two.
The same and even greater difficulties prevent our thinking of Silas, since,
according to the Epistles, after their stay at Corinth, this missionary no lunger
appears in cumpany with Paul, yet the we gnes nn tu the end of the Acts. As to the
opiniun of Zeller, it makes the authnr an impuslnr, whu determined tu assume the
mask uf Luke in nrder the more easily tu ubtain credence fur his histury. But
whence comes the unanimous tradition which attributes the Gospel and the Acts tn
Luke, wheu he is never nnce named in these wurks as their authur ? In order to
explain this fact, Zeller is ubliged to have recnurse In a fresh hypnthesis, that the
fnrger in the flrst instance h:id inscribed Luke's name at the head uf his wurk, and
that afterward, by sume unknnwn accident, the name was drupped, althnugh the
Church had fallen completely into the snare. Can a more improbable suppusitinn
be imagined ? The ancient explanation, which is that nf cummnn-sense, is, after all
these fruitless attempts, the unly nne scientiflcally admissible : the author of the Acts
employed the pronoun we in every case in which he himself was present at the scenes
described. To this exegetical conclusion only twn nbjectinns of any value have been offered :
1. The sudden character of the appearance and disappearance of the pronoun we in
the narrative. A companion ef Paul, it is said, would have indicated hnw it was he
happened tu be with the apustle, and why he left him. 3. Schleiermacher asks how
a new-cnmer, cunverted unly yesterday, cnuld have expressed himself with sn little
mudesty as : " immediately we endeavored . . .; the Lord had called -jts . . .»
(Acts 16 : 10). But how do we know that the author had net been for a long whUe

¦COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 13
connected with the apostle when he met with him at Troas (see Sec. 3) ? Besides,
was not Timothy himself also quite a recent convert ? That the writer does nut
explain the circumstances which led tn his meetings with Paul and his partings frum
lum, is in accurdance with that mudest reticence nbserved by the sacred writers when
ever they themselves are ccncerncd. They avnid, with a kind uf shame, whatever
might direct the attention of the reader to themselves. Obliged by fidelity tu truth
to indicate his presence wherever he furmed part of the missinnary cumpany, the
authur cnuld not dn this iu a mure natural and modest way than that which dispenses
with his naming himself.*
On the supposition that Luke is the authnr uf the Acts, we may supplement what
we knnw about him by the information supplied by those passages in which the we is
employed. At Troas, where he was when Paul, whom he had known perhaps lung
befnre (p. 21), arrived there, he jnined the three missiunarles, and passed, with them
intu Europe. He remained at Philippi, the flrst church fnunded un this cuntinent,
when persecutinn obliged his three cumpaninns tu leave the city. Fur the we ceases
frnm this mnment. Since this prunnun unly reappears when Paul again comes to
Philippi, at the end cf his third jnumey (20 : 5), it fnlluws that Luke remained
attached tu this church during the secnnd and third missinnary jnumey of the apustle,
and that then he rejuined him in nrder tn accnmpany him tu Jerusalem. And as the
we is cuntinued tn the end of the hunk (the interruptien, 31 : 17, 26 : 32, nnt being
really such), Luke must have remained in Palestine with the apustle during the time
of his imprisunment in Csesarea. This explains the expressinn (27 : 1) : " And when
it was determined we should sail intu Italy." Luke, theref nre, with Aristarchus
(26 : 2), was Paul's cnmpaniun in his journey to Rome. According to the Epistles,
from that time to the end, save during those tempurary absences when he was called
away in the service cf the gnspel, he faithfully shared Paul's sufferings and tuil.
Befnre leaving the dnmain nf Scripture, we must mention an ingenious conjecture,
due te Thiersch, which appears to us open to nn substantial ubjectinn. Frum these
wnrds, " Only Luke is with me" (3 Tim. 4 : 11), cumpared with what fnlluws almust
immediately (ver. 13), " Bring with thee the bunks, and especially the parchments,"
this writer has cencluded that at the time Paul thus wrute he was cccupied in seme
literary labnr fur which these manuscripts were required. In this case it must alsu
be admitted that Luke, whu was alune with him at the time, was nut unacquainted
with this labnr, if even it was nnt his nwn.
These results obtained. frum Scripture flt in without difficulty with a piece nf
infurmatinn supplied by the Fathers. Eusebius and Jerome f teU us that Luke was
* Bleek objects, further, that Luke is not mentioned in the Epistles tn the Thes-
salunians, the Curinthians, and the Philippians. But if Luke remained at PhUippi,
why shuuld he be mentioned in the letters tu the Thessalnuians, which were written
from Achaia a little later ? If be is nut named in the Epistles tn the Curnithians, he
appears at least tn be referred to as nne of the must eminent of the evangelists of
Greece, 3 Cor. 8 : 18 and 32 (though It is not certain that this passage refers to him).
And what necessity was there that he should be named in these letters ? As tu the
Epistle to the Philippians, at the time when Paul wrote it, it might very well happen
that Luke was neither at Rume nur PhUippi. Tu Bleek's uther ubjectinn, that the
authur of the Acts reckons according tu the Jewish calendar, which dues nut suit a
¦writer of heathen origin, Zeller rightly replies that " in the case of a cnmEaninn nf
Paul, this was just the unly natural mude nf recknuing."
t " Hist. Eccl. iii. 4 ; " De vir. illustr." c. 7.

14 1 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
originally from Antioch. Meyer and De Wette see in this nothing but an exegetical
cnnclusinn, drawn frnm Acts 13 : 1, where mentiun is made of une Lucius exercising
his ministry in the church at Antiuch. But this suppusitinn dues very little hnnnr to
the discernment uf these Fathers, since in this very passage Lucius is described as
originally from Gyrene in Africa. Besides, the name Lucius (from the rout lux,
hieere) has quite a different etymology frum Lucas, which is an abbreviatiun from
Lucanus (as SUas from Silvanus, etc.). If Luke had really found a home at Antioch,
we can understand the marked predilectiun with which the fnundatinn uf the church
in that city is related in the Acts. In the lines devcted tu this fact (11 : 30-34) there
is a spirit, animatinn, and freshness which reveal the cbarm of delightful recoUec-
tinns. And in this way we easily understand the manner in which the scene at
Truas is described (16 : 10). Paul and the Gnspel were nld acquaintances tn Luke
when he juined the apustle at Truas.
We cannut, on the other hand, allow any value tu the statement nf Origen and
Epiphanius, who reckon Luke in the number of the seventy disciples ; this opinion
is contrary tn the declaratinn nf Luke himself, 1 : 2. Cnuld Luke be, according to
the opinioii referred to by Theophylact, that one ef the two disciples of Emmaus
whose name is not recorded ? This opinion appears tu be a conjecture rather than a
tradition. The historian Nicephorus Kallistus (fourteenth century) makes Luke the
painter who transmitted tn the church the pnrtraits nf Jesus and His mother. This
infurmatinn rests, perhaps, as Bleek presumes, nn a cnnf usiun uf nur evangeUst with,
some ancient painter nf the game name.* We knew absolutely nothing certain respect
ing the latter part ef his life. The passage in Jerome, found in some eld editions of
the De viris, according to which Luke lived a celibate to the age uf eighty-four years,
is nut found in any ancient manuscript j it is an interpolation. Gregory Nazianzen
(Orat. in. Advers. Julian.) isthe flrst whu cnnfers un him the hnnnr nf martyrdum ;
Nicephnrus maintains that he was hanged en au elive-tree in Greece at the age of
eighty years. These are just so many legends, the origin of which we have no
means ef ascertaining. It appears, hnwever, that there was a widespread tradition
that he ended his days in Achaia. Fur there, accurding tn Jerome (De. vir. UI. c. 7),
the Emperur Cnnstantine snught fur his ashes tn transpurt them tn Cnnstantinnple.
Isidure maintains that they were bruught frnm.Bithynia.
Is this persnn really the authnr uf nur third Gnspel and nf the Acts ? We have tn
study the testimnnies un which, histnrically speaking, this upiniun rests.
II.
1. At the basis nf all the particular testimnnies we must place the general upiniun
uf the Cturch as expressed in its title, " accurding tu Luke." There was but nne cen-
victiun un this puint in the secund century, frum une extremity uf the Church tu the
ether, as we can still prove by the ancient versions in the Syriac and Latin tongues,
the Pesahito and the Italic. As to the meaning nf the prep. Kara, according to, in
this title, see the exegesis. We -wiU unly ubserve here, that if this prepnsitiun cnuld
bear the sense of "in the manner cf, after the example uf," in the case uf Matthew
and Juhn, whu were apustles, and therefure uriginal authnrs of an evangeUcal trar
* We can only cite as critical fancies the opinion ef Kohlreif, which ideutifles
Luke a&d Silas {Iua:us = silva), and that of Lange, who makes Luke the same person
as the Aristinn nf Papias {lucere = ppiareveiv).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 16
dition, this explanation becomes impossible when applied tn Mark and Luke, who,
since they never accompanied Jesus, could nnt assume the part nf creaturs nf a
special traditinn, but cnuld only be designated compilers.
2. The flrst special testimnny is implied in a passage. of Justin Martyr, whu, in
reference tn Jesus' sweat in Gethsemane, says : * "As that is related in the memnirs
{diro/ivtJiiove^u/iaTa), which I say were cnmpused by His apustles and by theu: cnm-
paniuns." It appears tn us indisputable (althnugh criticism, has snught other iuter-
pretatinns), that amnng thnse bunks which .lustin pnssessed, aud nf which he speaks
elsewhere as " the memoirs which »re called Gospels," there must have been, accord
ing to this passage, at least two Gospels emanating from apostles, and two proceeding
from coadjutors of the apostles. And as the incident to which this Father hera
alludes is only recorded in Luke, Justin regarded the authnr ef this book as. one of the
men who had accompanied the apustles.
3. In the fragment ascribed tu Muratnri, written abuut 180, and cnntaining the
traditinn nf the churches uf Italy respecting the bnuks nf the New Testament, we
read as fnllnws : " Thirdly, the bunk of the Gnspel accurding tu St. Luke. This
Luke, a physician, when Paul, after the ascensiun nf Christ, had received him amnng
his fuUuwers as a persnn zealnus fur righteuusness (juris studiosum), wrute in bis nwn
name and accurding tn his nwn judgment {ex opinione). Neither, again, had he him
self seen the Lnrd in the flesh. Carrying his narrative as far back as he could obtain
information {prout assequi potuif), he commenced with the birth ef John. " After
having spoken of the Gospel of Jnhn, the authur passes nn tu the Acts : " The Acts
nf all the Apnstles," he says, " are written in a single bunk. Luke has included in
it, fur the excellent TheuphUus, all that tunk place in his presence ; as alsn he clearly
pnints nut in a separate fnrm {semoie) nnt unly the suffering uf Peter, but further,
Paul's departure frum Rume fur Spain."
With the exceptinn of the name of Luke, which is derived from the tradition
received throughout the entire Church, this testimnny respecting the Gospel seems
tn us nothing more than a somewhat bold reprnductiun nf the cnntents cf Luke's
preface, cnmbined -with the infurmatinn supplied by Col. 4 : 14 as to his profession.
" In his own name :" that is to say, in nbedience tn an inward impulse, un his nwn
personal responsibility ; net in the name nf an apustle er a church ; an allusinn tn " It
hath appeared gnud tn me alsn" (1 : 3). " According tn his nwn judgment : " an allu
sinn tn the fact that his narrative was nnt that uf an eye-witness, but in accurdance
with the upiniun he had furmed nf the facts by help nf traditinn and his nwn re.
searches (1 : 2). " Neither again" had h,e himself seen : any mure than Mark, of whom
the author of the fragment had just spoken. The expressinn, "as ho could cbtain
information," refers tn what Luke says ef the care he had taken tn go back as far as
possible, and tn narrate events in the best order. The term juris studiosum (which
HUgenfeld suppuses tn be the translatinn uf roC SiKaiov iii?.aT^v , in the uriginal
Greek, which he admits) might also be translated, a man skiUed in questinns ef legal
right ; able, consequently, to make himself .useful tu Paul whenever he had to deal
with the Roman tribunals. But the term ^n^arrii rather favors the sense we
have given in our translation. If the passage relating tn the Acts has been accu
rately rendered intu Latin, ur if the text uf it has nnt been altered, we might infer
from it that Luke had narrated, in a third work {semote, separately), the subsequent
* "Dial. c. Tryph." c. 33.

16 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. '
history nf Peter and Paul. In any case, the whnle testimony is remarkable for its
very sobriety. It dees not show the slightest tendency, any mure than the preface
cf the evangelist himself, tn ascribe divine authority to this writing. On the cun-
trary, the human aspect nf the wurk cumes nut very strnngly in these expressions :
" in his nwn name, according tn his judgment, as far as he was able tn obtain informa
tion." Perhaps the author wished to contrast this entirely natural mode of composi
tion with the widely different origin ef the Gospel of John, which he describes
directly afterward.
4. At the same period, Irenseus expresses himself thus respecting the' third Gospel
(Adv. Haer. iii. 1) : " Luke, a companion of Paul, wrute in a bnnk the gospel preached
by the latter.". Irenseus quotes frum nur Gnspel mure than eighty times. This testi
mnny and the preceding are the flrst twn in which Luke is indicated by name as the
authur of this beuk.
5. TertuUian, in his book "Against Marciun" (iv. 3), expresses himself thus :
" Of the apostles, John and Matthew inspire our faith ; of the coadjutors of the
apostles, Luke and Mark cnnflrm it. " He reminds Marciun "that, nut unly in the
churches fnunded by the apnstles, but in all those which are united tu them by the
bond nf the Christian mystery, this Gnspel nf Luke has been received withcut cnn-
tradictinn {stare) from the moment nf its publicatinn, while the greater part are not
'even acquainted with that of Marcion." He says, lastly (Ibid. iv. 5), " that several
persons ef his time have been accustomed te attribute Luke's work tn Paul him
self, as well as Mark's tn !Peter." He neither prunounces fur nur against this
npininn. 6. Origen, in a passage cited by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 35), expressed himself thus :
" Thirdly, the Gnspel accurding tn Luke, cited apprnvingly {tiraivov/ievov) by Paul."
It appears frum the whule passage that he alludes, nn the nne hand, tn the expression
my Goapel, empleyed three times by Paul (Rum. 2 : 16 ; 16 : 35 ; 3 Tim. 1 : 8) ; on
the other, to the passage 3 Cor. 8 : 18, 19, which he applied to Luke.
7. Eusebius says (H. E. iii. 4) : " It is maintained that it is ef the Gespel accord
ing to Luke that Paul is accustomed to speak whenever he makes mention in his
writings nf Ms Gospel."
8. Jerume (De vir. iU. c. 7) alsn refers tn this npininn, but attributes it tu "sume
persuns" unly {quidam suapicantar).
We have three nbservatinns tn make nu these testimnnies.
1. If they are sumewhat late— it is only about a.d. 180 that Luke's name appears
— we must observe,' on the other hand, that they are nut the expressinn of the indi
vidual opinion of the writers in whose works they occur, but appear incidentally as
the expression of the ancient, unbroken, and undisputed conviction nf the entire
Church. These writers give expressinn tn the fact as a matter nf which nn cue was
ignurant. They wnuld nnt have dreamed nf annnuncing it, unless snme special cir
cumstance had called fur it. The ecclesiastical character, at nnce universal and he
reditary, cf these testimnnies, even when they date only from the secund century
enable us tn ascertain the cnnvictinn uf the flrst. In fact, what prevailed then was
not individual criticism, but traditinn. Clement uf Alexandria, after having qunted a
passage frnm the " Gnspel nf the Egyptians" (Strem. ui. p. 465), immediately adds :
' ' But we have not seen this passage in the f nur Guspels which have been transmitted
to us {Iv Tolc KapaSedofiivoi'; 7//uv riaaapaiv eiayyMoi;)." The Bishup Serapinn having
found, in the parish church of Rhndcs, in Cilicia, a so-called Gespel of Peter, contain-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 17
ing Gnostic sentiments, -wrote a letter te those whu made use of it, a portion of which
has been preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13, ed. Lcemmer), and it ends with these
words : " Knowing well that such writings have not been transmitted {in rd Toiavra
[i/ieudemypa^a] oi irapeTidlSo/iev)." The traditional origin ef the cnnvictinns nf the
Church respecting the urigin uf the sacred writings is the only explanation nf their
stability and universality. An npinion formed upon individual criticism could never
have had these characteristics. It is very remarkable that the tradition respecting
our Gospel is not disowned even by the ecclesiastical parties most opposed te Paul.
Irenseus (iii. 15) declares that the Ebionites made use of our Gospel, and we can prove
it ourselves by the quotatinns frnm the writings of Luke which we flnd in the " Clem
entine Homilies" (ix. 33 ; xix. 2). The plot even of this religious rumance is bur
rowed frnm the bnnk of the Acts. Now, in order that parties so opposed to each other,
as Marcion on the nne hand and the Ebiunites nn the nther, shuuld agree in making
use uf nur Gnspel, the cunviction nf its antiquity and authority must have been very
ancient and very flrmly estabUshed {stare, Tert.). There is another fact mure strik
ing still. The unly sect uf the secnnd century which appears tn have expressly
rejected the book of the Acts, that of the Severians, took no exceptinn tn 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 secnnd century and the apustnlic age is filled up by
fact. 2. It is impnrtant to ubserve the gradual change in the traditinn which manifests
itself during the cnurse nf the secund and third centuries. The nearer we apprnach
its uriginal sources, the mure seber the tradition. In the eyes of Justin, the authnr
nf nur Gnspel is simply a cnmpanion uf the apostles. In the fragment of Muratori
the same information reappears without ampliflcatinn. Strictly speaking, Irenseus
does not go beyond this ; only he already aims to establish a connection between the
writing of Luke and the preaching of Paul. TertuUian notices an npininn prevalent
in his time which gnes much farther— namely, that Paul himself was the authur nf
this Gnspel. Last uf aU, Origen distinctly declares that when Paul said my Gospel,
he meant the Gnspel nf Luke. This XJrngressiun is just what we want tu enable us
tn verify the real histurical character cf the traditinn in its primitive fnrm. If the
uriginal infurmatinn had been invented under the influence uf the apulngetic interest
which muulded the traditinn later un, .wnuld it nut have begun where it ended ?
3. The suppusitinn that the name of Luke, which has been affixed tn nur Gnspel,
was merely an hypnthesis nf the Fathers, gives nn explanatinn why they shuuld have
preferred a man sn seldum named as Luke, instead nf fixing their chnice un une of
those felluw-laburers nf the apostle that were better knuwn, such as Ti^iethy, Silas,
or I'itus, whom modern criticism has thought uf. The obscurity in which this per
sonage would be veiled, if his name did not figure at the head nf the writings which
are attributed tn him, is une uf the best guarantees nf the traditinn which declares
him the authnr uf them. We dn nnt see, then, what, in a histnric point of view,
could invalidate the fcrce nf the ecclesiastical testimnny nn this puint ; and we agree
with Hnltzmann (" Die synupt, Evang." p. 377), when he says that " this traditinn
is unly tn be rejected frum the puint where it prnceeds tu place the cumpusitinn uf
nur Gnspel under the guarantee uf Paul himself."
Three upininns have been put fnrth by mudern criticism un the question under
cnnsideratiun.

18 COMMENTIeY ON ST. LUKE.
1. An " annnymous Saxun," * whUe declaring that our Gospel is nothing but a
tissue uf falsehnuds, a pamphlet composed nut uf hatred nf Peter and the Twelve,
bnldly attributes it tu Paul himself.
2. Hilgenfeld, ZeUer, etc., think that this writing is the wnrk uf an unknnwn
Christian at the beginning of the second century.
3. Most admit, in conformity with the traditional opinion, that the author is the
Luke mentioned in Paul's Epistles. We only mention, to show that we have not for
gotten it, the npininn nf Mayerhuff, never adupted by any nne else, and which was
nnly the very Ingical cnnsequence nf Schleiermacher's un the pnrtinns in which we
nccurs in the bunk uf the Acts— namely, that nur Gnspel, as well as these portlnns,
shnuld be attributed to Timothy.
SEC. III.— COMPOSITION O^ THE THIRD GOSPEL.
We possess nuthing frnm traditinn but snme scanty and uncertain infurmatinn re
specting the urigin nf nur Gnspel.
I. As tn the time, the greater part ef the critics are wrong in making Irenaeus say
that Luke wrute after the death (nr the departure from Rome) uf Peter and Paul
{post hffrum, exeeasum, iii. 1). This is a false cnnclusinn drawn frnm the fact that
Irenseus speaks uf the Gnspel nf Luke after that uf Mark, tu which this chrunnlogi-
cal statement applies. The order in which this Father here speaks of the Gospels
and their urigin may be simply the nrder uf these benks in the cancn, and in nu way
ef the date of their cumpusitinn. We find in this same Irenseus (ui. 9, 10) the fnUnw
ing nrder : Matthew, Luke, Mark.
The nnly real traditiunal infurmatinn which we possess nn this pnint is that of
Clement nf Alexandria, whu states it as a fact transmitted by the presbyters whu
have succeeded each ether from the beginning (oto tuv avexaBev ¦rrpeal3vTep<jv), " that
the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first {izpoyeypd^Bai ruv cvayyeMuv
rd. nepiExovra rae yeveaXoyiai;)." Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14. According tn this, Matthew
and Luke were cnmpused before Mark. Further, since, according tn this very Clem
ent and these same authnrities, Mark must have been cnmpused at Rnme during
Peter's life, it fnlluws that, accurding tn the view embodied in this tradition, Luke
was compnsed prinr tn the death nf this apustle. The seber and uriginal form ef the
furmer nf these twu traditinns, the respectable authority on which it rests, the impos
sibility uf its having been deduced frnm an exegetical comhinatinn, seeing that there
is no logical connection between the criterion indicated (the presence of a genealogy)
and the date which is assigned tu it, seem te me tn cunfer a much higher value on
this ancient testimnny than mudern criticism generally accnrds tn it.
The reasons for which so early a date of composition is rejected are purely inter
nal. It is thought that the Gospel itself yields proofs ef a later date than would be
indicated by this tradition of Clement. Baur, who has fixed it the latest, places the
cnmpnsitiun after a.d. 130 ; Hilgenfeld, frnm 100 to 110 ; Zeller, at the commence
ment of the second century or earlier ; Volkmar, about 100 ; Keim, about 90. The
nther critics, Meyer, De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, whu cume nearer in general tn the tra
ditiunal upiniun, limit themselves to saying, after the faU nf Jerusalem ; Hnltzmann,
between 70 and 80, Thnluck, Guericke, Ebrard, befnre the fall nf Jerusalem. In the
* " Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ibre Verfasser und ihr Verhaltniss zu einander "
1st ed. 1845 ; 3d, 1853.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 19
cnncluding dissertatinn we shall weigh the exegetical reasons for and against these
different opinions. But it appears tu us, that the facts mentinned (Sec. 1) already
make it clear that every upiniun which places the cumpusitinn in the secnnd century
is histnrically untenable. The use which the cnntinuatur uf Mark and Clement uf
Rnme make nf nur Gnspel, and the use which this same Clement and the authnr nf
the " Testaments nf the Twelve Patriarchs" make nf the Acts, render sn late a date
nf cnmpusition quite irnpussible.
II. As te the place, we have nnly two hints, and we can form no critical judg
ment nf their value. Jerume (De vir. ill. c. 7) says : " Luke, a physician, whu cnm
pused his buuk in the countries nf Achaia and Bcentia. ' ' On the uther hand, in the
Peschito, the title nf nur Gnspel runs thus : " Gnspel nf Luke the Evangelist, which
he published and preached in Greek {quod protulit et evangelisavit grcece) in Alexandria
the Great." The twn statements are nnt necessarily cuntradictnry. Luke may have
cumpnsed his wurk in Greece and have published it in Alexandria, which was the
great centre uf the bnnk-wurld at that time.
Criticism cannut certainly feel itself buund hy such late and uncertain iufnrma-
• tinn. Hilgenfeld, whu un this puint differs least frnm traditinn, places the cumpusi-
tinn'in Achaia cr Macednuia ; KSstlin at Ephesus ; the majnrity at Rome or in Italy.
We shall discuss the question in concluding.
HI. The author himself announces his aim in his preface. He wrote with the
design ef completing the Christian instruction nf a man in high statinn, named The-
nphilus. This name cnuld nnt dennte a purely fictitious person, as Origen supposed,
who was inclined to apply it tn every Christian endnwed with spiritual pnwers.
Neither could the Jewish high priest Theophilus, ef whom Josephus speaks, be
intended (Antiq. xviii. 6. 3 ; xix. 6. 3), nor the Athenian nf this name mentinned by
Tacitus (Ann. ii. 55). The nnly traditiunal infurmatinn we pnssess about this person
is that fnund in the " Clementine Recngnitinns" (x. 71), abuut the middle nf the
secnnd century : " So that Thenphilus, whu was at the head of all the men in power
at the city (of Antioch), consecrated. Under the name of a church, the great basilica
(the palace) in which he resided. " * Accurding tn this, TheuphUus was a great lord
residing in the capital of Syria. We have already referred to the reasons which lead
us to think that Luke himself was originaUy from this city. Did he belong to the
household of Thenphilus ? Had he been his slave, and then his freedman ? Lobeck
has remarked that the termination aS was a contraction particularly frequent in the
names nf slaves.f Physicians appear tn have frequently helnnged tn the class of
slaves or freedmen. f If Luke, freed by Thenphilus, practised as a physician at
Antinch, and if he was bruught tn the faith at the time nf the fnunding nf the church
in that city, he might very weU have decided tn accnmpany the apustle in his mission.
In this case he would have rejoined him at Troas, just as he was about to pass over
into Eurupe ; and there wnuld no lunger be anything surprising in the prunnun we,
by which he assigns himself a place in the missinnary cumpany. On this- suppusi
tinn, alsn, we can understand why he shnuld have dedicated his wurk tn his nld friend
* "Ita ut Thenphilus, qui erat cunctis pntentibus in civitate subliminr, dumus
suse ingentem basilicam eccleslae nemine cnnsecraret. "
. f Wnlf's "Analecten, iii. 49 ;" cump. Thnluck, " Glaubwiird." p. 148.
i Quintilian, "Instit." vii. 3: Medicinam factitasse manumissum. Suet. Calig.
c. 8 : Mittucum en ex servis me is modicum. Comp. Cic. pro Cluentiu, c. 63 ; Seneca,
" De Beneficiis," iii. 34. See Hug, " Eml." ii. p. 134.

20 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
and patrun. This dedication does not mean, hnwever, that the bunk was intended
fur Thenphilus alune. Until the discovery of printing, the publicatinn of a work was
a very costly undertaking ; and authors were accustomed tn dedicate their wnrks' vo
snme high persnnage nf their acquaintance, whn cnuld prncure the wri-er an uppor-
tunity nf reading his pruductinn in sume select circle, and have the flrst cupies pre
pared at his own expense. In this way he opened to the authnr the rnad tn publicity.
Whuever was ubUgiug ennugh tn undertake this respunsibility was called the patronica
Ubri. Such, dnubtless, was the service which Thenphilus was asked to render to
Luke's wurk. In reality, Luke addressed himself, through the medium of this
persnn, to all that part of the church to which Theophilus belonged, tn the churches
of the Greek world, and, in a certain sense, te the entire Church.
The object he had in view, accurding tn the Fathers, was simply tn make knnwn
the histury nf Jesus, mure particularly tn converts frnm the heathen. Modern criti
cism bas fnund in the preface, and even in the narrative, indications ef a more
special design connected with the great movement uf ecclesiastical polemics which it
cunceives cccupied the flrst and second centuries. According tu Baur (" Marcus
Evang." p. 233, et seq.), the original Luke, nf which Marciun has preseived a faith-.
ful impressinn, was intended tn nppuse the Jewish Christianity uf the Twelve, as
represented by the Gnspel nf Matthew in its uriginal fnrm. The authnr snught tn
depreciate the apustles in nrder tu exalt Paul ; whUe uur cannnical Luke, which is a
later versinn uf this uriginal Luke, was directed rather against the unbelieving and
persecuting Judiasm. The furmer part nf this prupnsition has been reprnduced and
develuped in still strnnger terms by " the anunymuus Saxun," whn sees nuthing in
the third Gnspel but a bitter pamphlet uf the Apostle Paul against the Twelve, and
more especially against Peter. M. Burnouf has made himself the advocate of this
view in the lievae des Deux Mondea.* But even in the Tubingen school a protest
has been raised against what have been caUed the " exaggerations" ef Baur. Zeller
flnds no trace either in the Goapel or the Acts of this spirit of systematic depreciatinn
uf Peter and the Twelve. Accurding 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, he guards himself from directly oppnsing the Christianity nf the.
Twelve ; he simply places side by side with the views nf the Jewish-Christian apostles
those nf Paul, which he endeavnrs, as far as possible, tn exhibit as identical with the
furmer. That in this attempt at reconciliation real history is sacrificed, appears evi
dent tn 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
tn universalist passages suited tu the thought of Paul.
Volkmar cumbats this view. Nnwhere in uur Gnspel, nut even in the facts and
discnurses nf the first twn chapters, dees he discuver thnse particularist nr Ebiuuitish
elements, by means uf which, accurding tn Zeller, the authnr snught tn win the cunfl-
dence uf the Jewish-Christian party. In his judgment, the Gnspel nf Luke is purely
Pauline. In nppusition te that fiery manifestn nf apustnlic Jewish-Christianity, the
Apocalypse,f compnsed in a.d. 68, Mark, flve years afterward, published his Gnspel,
the earliest in pnint nf time, and written iu the sense of a moderate Paulinism ; later
stUl, Luke re-wrnte this bnnk, laying stiU greater emphasis nn the principles nf the
apnstle tn the GentUes. In all these suppnsitinns the idea is, that Jesus speaks in the
Gnspel, uot as He really spuke, but as it suits the evangeUst tn make Him speak.
* December, 1865. t See p. 35.— J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 21
All these opininns as tn the aim of Luke's wnrk are connected with the great
question, suggested by Baur, nf a fundamental difference nf view between Paul and
the Twelve, which is represented as the real starting-pnint of the develupment ef the
Church and nf the entire Christian literature. This questiun, with which that uf tbe
origin of the Guspels is nnw inseparably cunnected, will be discussed in our cnnclud
ing paragraphs. SEC IV. — SpUKCBS OF THE THIRD GOSPEL.
There is no room fur an inquiry intu the sources whence the author of a Gospel
derived his knowledge ef the facts which he transmits to us, except nu twn cnndi-
tinns : 1. That the evangelist is nut regarded as an eye«witness uf the facts related.
Now this is a character which the author of the third Gnspel expressly disclaims
(1 : 2). 3. That we are not governed by that false notion uf inspiration, according to
which the sacred histury was revealed and dictated tn the evangelists by the Holy
Spirit. As far as nur third Gospel is concerned, this idea is altogether excluded by
what the author says himself of the infurmatinn he had tn nbtain to qualify himself
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 complicated with another and more general question, as tn the relation
between our three synoptics. For many regard it as probable, and even certain, that
snme one uf nur Gospels served as a source of information to the writer whn cnm
pused annther nf them. It is not our intention te relate here the history ef the dis
cussion ef 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 ef the exegetical work we have
in hand, we shall here bring forward only two matters :
I. The elements of which criticism has availed itself in nrder tn snlve the problem.
n. The principal systems which it cunstructs at the present day by means uf these
elements. I.
The facturs which criticism has hithertn emplnyed fur the sulutiun uf the prublem
are f nur iu number :
1. Oral tradition {-irapadoaii), ur the repruduction of the apostolic testimony, as
they gave it wheu they founded the churches. This factor must have bome a very
essential part in determining the form of the evangelical historical writings from their
very commencement. Luke indicates its importance, 1 : 3. According to this
expression, " even as they delivered them untn us," this traditinn was the uriginal
snurce nf the ural or written narratives which were circulated in the churches. It
branched nut intu a thousand channels through the ministry nf the evangelists (Eph.
4 : 11 ; 3 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 nf the theury uf plenary inspiratinn would not regard this para
graph as a correct representation nf tlieir views. They would not regard the use uf
furegoing documents as incompatible wilh their views. — J. H.
f We refer nur readers tn the generally accurate accnunt nf M. Nicnias, " Etudes
Critiques sur le N. T." pp. 45-85.
X " Historisch-kritischer Versuch tlber die Entstehuug und die friihesten Schick-
sale der Schrifthchen Evangelien," Leipzig, 1818.

23 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
2. Separate writings or memoirs {aTcojivrjiMvevjiaTa) nn some feature or particular
part nf the Savinuf's life, nn a discnurse ur a miracle which an evangelist related,
and which he nr one uf his hearers put in writing that it might nut be fnrgotten ;
or, again, some private account preserved among their family papers by the persons
more immediately interested in the evangelical drama : we may regard our Gospel as
a collection 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 cuuld
discriminate, in the portiun 9, : 51 ; 19 : 48, traces uf twn distinct writings, the flrst nf
which wnuld be the jnurnal nf 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 nf the Passnver. The truth nf this secnnd means nf explanatinn might
be svippurted by the proper meaning of the wurd avaTa^aoQat, io arrange in order,
1 : 1, if nnly it were pruved that the arrangement implied by this wurd refers to the
documents, and not to the facts themselves.
Under thia 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 nf literary nr dogmatic patchwork which they find in it. Thus
KuinSl, following Marsh, regarded the portion 9 : 51 ; 18 : 14 as a more ancient
writing, containing a collection of the precepts of Jesus, to which he gave the name
of gnomonology. Hilgenfeld f also distinguishes from the narrative as a whole
which has the universalist character of the Christianity of St. Paul, certain passages
of Jewish-Christian tendency, which he regards as some very early materials, pro
ceeding from the apostolic Church itself. The entire jportiun 9 : 51 ; 19 : 38 rests.
according to him, on a more ancient writing which the author introduced into his
work, working it up afresh both in substance and form. Kostlin X thinks it may be
proved that there were some sources ef Judean origin, and others of Samaritan
origin, which furnished Luke with a knowledge of the facts of which 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 H0I3' Supper.g It is impossible to doubt that the
genealogical document 3 : 33, et 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, further, the existence of longer and fuller documents which
Luke might have used. Does he not speak himself, in Uis preface, nf writings that
were already numerous at the time he was writing (vroAAoi), which in respect of cnn
tents must have been of very much the same nature as his own, that is to say, veri
table Gospels ? He designates them by the name of Sifiyrjaii, a word -which has been
wrongly applied to detached writings of the kind that Schleiermacher admitted, and
which can only apply to a consecutive and mure nr less complete narrative. If such
works existed in great number, and were known te Luke, it is difficult to think 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
Beriin, 1S17.
\ "Die Evangelien," 1853.
X " Der Ursprung und die Compos, der syn. Evang." 1853.
S " Geschichte Jesu," t. i., Zurich, 1867.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 33
suppusitinn that they nn Innger exist, we can fnrm any idea nf them by means nf nur
Gnspel, fur the cnmpnsitiun nf which they supplied some materials. Keim thinks he
recegnizes, as a general basis nf Luke's wnrk, a Jewish-Christian Gespel, which must
have- been nearly related tu uur Matthew, very prnbably its direct descendant, but
distinguished frnm it by an unhealthy tendency to Ebionitism and Dualism. The
spirit nf this fundamental dncument wnuld betray itself all through Luke's work.
Ewald imagines a whole series of writings uf which Luke must have availed himself
— a Hebrew Gnspel by Philip the deacnn, a collection nf the discnurses ef Jesus by the
Apnstle Matthew, nf which Papias speaks, etc. (see further en). .Bleek,* reviving
in a new fnrm the hypothesis uf a primitive Gnspel (a manual composed, according
to Eichhnrn,,for the use nf evangelists, under apostolic sanction), admits, as a basis
nf nur Guspels uf Matthew and Luke, a Greek Gospel, written in Galilee by a believer,
who at certain times had himself accompanied Jesus. This e'srliest account of the
Saviour's life would mould all the subsequent evangelical narrations. The writings
of the TToXhoi, many (1 : 1), would be only variations uf it, and our three synoptics
merely different versions uf the same. Lastly, we know that many critics at the
present day find the principal source of Luke and the two other synoptics (at least of
the narrative part) in a supposed Gospel of Mark, older than our canonical Mark, and
te which they give the name of Proto-Mark (Reuss, RevUle, Holtzmann, etc.).f AU
these writings, anterior to that of Luke, and only known to us by the traces uf them
discovered in his work, 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 example, one of our two synoptics, or even both of them ?
This fourth means ef 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 Matthewflrst ; but he interposes Mark between Matthew and Luke.
Accurding tn Vnlkmar,§ Mark is the primary source ; from him proceeded Luke, and
Matthew frum bnth.
Tn sum up : Oral traditinn, detached writings, Guspels mure or less complete
now lust ; last nf all, one or nther of uur existing Gospels — such are the materials by
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 systems which actual criticism labors tn ccustruct nut uf these
varinus kinds uf materials. II-
1. We wiU cummence with the self-styled critical school nf Baur. The common
tendency of writers of this school is to represent the synoptics as deriving their con
tents frum each nther. In their view, the contents uf uur Guspels cannot be histori-
* " Einleitung in das N.T.,"1863; " Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten
Evangelien," 1869.
t Reuss, "Geschichte der heiUgen Schrifteri N. T." 3d ed. 1860; , R6 ville,
" Etudes critiques sur I'^vang. selon St. Matthieu," 1862 ; Holtzmann, " Die synopi
Ev." 1863.
X Baur, " Das Marcus-Evangelium," 1851.
§ Volkmar, " Die Evangelien," 1870.

34 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
cal, becauae they cnntain the inadmissible element of miracles.* Consequently they
regard our Gospels, not as real historical narratiuns, but as cumpositions of a poetical
or didactic character. The differences between them are nut in any way natural
divergences proceeding froin such undesigned modifications as tradition undergoes
in course ef ural transmission, nr frnm the diversity uf written sources, but result
from different dogmatic tendencies in the writers of the Gospels which they perfectly
reflect. Each evangeUst has reprnduced his matter with a free hand, modifying it in
accurdance with his personal views. In reality, then, nur Guspels are the reflectinn,
nut nf the ubject they describe, but cf 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 Pounder of the
gospel, which have been successively held in it. This common result of the school
appears in its most pronounced form in Baur and Volkmar, in a milder form in Kfist-
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. There was, first of all, a strictly legal and par
ticularist Matthew, reflecting the primitive Christianity of the Twelve, aud nf the
church of Jerasalem. From this original Matthew afterward proceeded nur canonical
Matthew, the narrative being recast in a universalist sense (between 130 an d 134)
In uppnsitiou to the original Matthew there appeared first a Luke, which -n'as alto
gether Pauline, or anti-legal ; this was the writing Marcion adopted, and from which
proceeded later on our canonical Xuke. The latter was the result of a revision
designed tn 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 entirely neutralized. For its matter, the latter is naturaUy dependent on the
other twu.
The " anonymous Saxon" -[ starts with the same general notion ; hut he seasons it
in a piquant fashion. According to him, our synoptics, with the exception nf Luke,
were indeed composed by the authors to whom the Church attributes tliem ; but they
intentionally misrepresented the facts. As to Ithe 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 ef 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 Jerusalem and the conversion of the
Gentiles. He flnds a proof of this gradual transformation in the numerous universal
ist passages of our canonical Matthew, which witness tn 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 PauUne direc
tion. It was an imitation of the Gospel of Matthew, but at the same time modified
by the ural tradition existing in the Church at Rome, which was derived frnm Peter ¦
* Hilgenfeld (" Die Evangelien," p. 530 : " The principal argument for the later
origin nf nur Guspels is always this fact, that they relate very many things abnut the
Ufe nf Jesus, which certainly cnuld nut have taken place as they narrate them."
f " Sendschreiben an Baur iiber die Abfassuugszeit des Lukas und der Svunoti-
ker," 1848, p. 26, cise?. ^

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 35
it dates from the period from 80-100. Hilgenfeld, therefore, does nnt recognize
Luke's influence anywhere in Mark, wbUe Baur discovers it everywhere. Luke pro
ceeds, according to him, from the two former ; he takes a fresh stc^) in the universal-
pst and Pauline direction. It was written before Marcion's time, from 100 to 110.
Thus, as this theologian himself remarks, " the formation of our canonical Gospels
was completely finished before the time when Baur makes it begin" (" Kanon," p.
173). Wilh this difference as to dates between the master and his disciple, there is
connected a more x^rofound difference still. Instead nf a sharp dogmatical contrast
which was graduaUy neutralized, Hilgenfeld admits a progressive development in the
very bosom of primitive Jewish Christianity.
With Baur, Mark came third ; with HUgenfeld, second ; therg was only wanted
further a theologian uf the same school who should assign him the flrst place ; aud
this is done at the present time by Volkmar, who follows the example of Storr in the
last century. According to him, that fiery manifesto of primitive Jewish Christian
ity, the Apucalypse, had about 68 declared implacable hostility against St. Paul,
representing him (chap, xiii.) as the false prophet of the last times, aud making the
churches founded by him, in comparison with the Jewish-Christian churches, a mere
plebs (chap. vii.). A moderate Paulinian took up the gauntlet and wrote (abnut 73),
as a reply nur second Gnspel, the oldest of all tho writings of this kind. It was a
didactic poem, on a historical basis,* designed to defend Paul and the right of the
Gentile churches. Beyond the Old Testament and the Epistles of Paul, the author
had no other sources than eral tradition, his Christian experience, the Apocalypse
which he opposed, and his creative genius. Somewhat later (about the year 100), a
Pauline believer. of the Church of Rome, who had travelled in Palestine, worked up
this book iuto a new form by the aid of some traditions which Ue had collected, and
hy Inserting in it flrst a genealogical document (Genealugus Hebrseorum), and then a
-writing of Essenist tendency (Evangelium pauperum). His aim was to win over to
Paulinism the Jewish-Christian part of the Church, which was still in a majority.
This was our Luke. Matthew is the result of a fusion of the two preceding -writings.
It is the manifesto of a moderate Jewish-Christian feeling, which desired to gather
all the heathen into the Church, 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-Matthew, the Logia, and a Proto-Mark, in Volkmar's judgment, are nothing
but empty critical fancies.
The third, second, and flrst place in succession having been assigned to Mark, no
new supposition seemed possible, al least from the same school. Nevertheless Kostlin
has rendered possible the impossible, by assigning to Mark all three positions at once.
This complicated construction is difficult to follow : The oldest evangelical recoul
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 proceed our canonical Matthew. These
different works are supposed tn have given birth to a Gospel of Peter, which closely
resembled the original Mark, but was still more Uke our actual Mark. After that
must have appeared Luke, to which all the preceding sources contributed ; and last
* " Die Evangelien," p. 461 ; " Eine selbstbewusste Lehrpoesie auf- historischen
Grunde. "

36 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nf all our actual Mark, which -wnuld be the result nf a revision ef the original Mark
by the help of the canonical Matthew and Luke. The principal waymarks uf the ruute
thus traversed aue these : Mark (I.) ; Matthew ; Mark (II. , or the Gospel of Peter) ;
Luke ; Mark (III.). We can only say that this hypothesis' is the death-blow of the
theory of the Tiibingen school, bs formerly Marsh's system was of the hypnthesis of
an nriginal Gospel. The complicated and artificial fnrm this hypnthesis is cumpeUed
to assume, by the difficulties which weigh upon its simpler fnrms, is its cnndemna-
tion. Thus, as Hilgenfeld 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 nbserverl 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 pseau 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
concejition ? 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 Church ? These are evident symptoms not only nf 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 irpuTov fsvdo';.
3. We will now enumerate the critical systems which have kept independent of
the Tubingen school.
If Bleek, who is at once the most discerning and judicinus critic of our day, is
in several respects the antipodes of Baur, he agrees with him on one point : the entire
dependence he attributes to Mark in relation to the two other synoptics. As has been
already mentioned, he makes Matthew and Luke proceed frum a Gospel written in
Greek by a Galilean believer, who was present at several scenes in the ministry of Jesus
in this province. Tliis is the reason why this book has given such great preponder
ance to the GaUlean work. The numerous works of which Lukespeaks (1 : 1) were aU
different versions of this, as well as our canonical Matthew and Luke. This impor
tant book, wilh all its offshoots, which preceded our synoptics, is lost ; these last, the
most complete and best accredited, have alone survived. This conception is simple
and clear. Whether it rendeis a sufficient account of the facts, remains to be seen.
Ritschl, in a remarkable article, has pronounced in favor of the absolute priority
of nur 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 ot
Matthew and Mark 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, Eeville, Holtzmann, agree in making t-wo writings, now lost, the 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. 37
thew, which was the source for those instructions of Jesus related in common by
Matthew and Luke. Our canonical Mark is a reproduction (enlarged according to
Reuss, abridged according to Holtzmann) of the former of these two writings. Its
author made no use of the "Logia." Matthew and Luke both proceeded from a
fusion of these two fundamental writings. Their authors inserted or distributed, in
the uutline sketch of the Proto-Mark, the sayings and discourses coUected in the
"Logia." But here arises a difficulty. If the sayings of Jesus, as Matthew and
Luke convey .them to us, are drawn from the same source, how does it happen that
Matthe-w 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 ef particular sayings ? Holtzmann decides iu favor of the flrst
alternative. According to this writer, we ought to aUow that the form of the
" Logia" was very nearly that presented by the teaching ef Jesus in the narrative of
travel, Luke 9 : 51, 19 : 38. Weizsacker, on the contrary, defends the second view,
and thinks that the long discourses of Matthew are more or less faithful reproduc
tions of the form uf the "Logia." This also isthe opinion of M. Re ville. 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 twn hypotheses uf the Prote-Mark and
the " Lngia" ; but he constructs upon 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 Aramsean language the salient facts of the life of Jesus, with short
historical explanatiens. 2. Matthew's "Lugia," 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 ot its coloring, and
differing 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- the
"Book of the Higher History." 5. Our canonical Matthe-sv, combining the
"Logia" of this apostle with all the other writings already named. 6, 7, and 8.
Three writings now lost, which Ewald describes as though he had them in his
hands : one of a familiar, tender character ; another somewhat brusque and abrupt ;
the third comprising the narratives uf the infancy (Lulce 1 and 3). Lastly, 9. Our
canonical Luke, composed by the aid of all the preceding (with the exception of our
Matthew), and wliich simply combines the materials furnished by the others. We
may add, 10. Our cannnical Mark, which with very slight modification is the repru
duction of No. 3. This construction certainly does not recommend itself by its
intrinsic evidence and simplicity. It may prove as fatal to the hj'pothesis oi a
Proto-Mark as was formerly that uf Marsh to the hypothesis uf a primitive Gnspel,
ur as that uf K6stlin,at the present day to the Tiibingen idea.
Lastly, we see a new mode nf explanatinn appearing, which seems destined to
replace for a time the theory, so stoutly maintained by and since Wilke, ot the prior
ity of Mark nr nf the Proto-Mark, whenever it has any considerable connection with

38 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
this last This opinion has been developed by Weiss in three very elaborate articles,*
in which he seeks to prove : 1. That the most ancient work was an apostolical Mat
thew, comprising the discourses, some longer and others shorter, with a large number
nf facts, but withnut any intention on the part of the author to write the entire history
of Jesus. 3. Thereupon appeared Mark, written by the aid of recollections which
the author had preserved nf the recitals of Peter. This was the flrst attempt to trace
the entire course of the ministry of Jesus. He included in this sketch all the sayings
of Jesus contained in the preceding work which could be adapted to his narrative.
3. The author nf our canonical Matthew made use of this work of Mark, rewrote it,
and supplemented it by the aid of the apostolical Matthew. 4. Luke also rewrote
the twu more ancient works, the apostolic Matthew and Mark, 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, which is the
basis of a recent work of Klostermann.f By a consecutive, detailed, delicate analysis
of the Gospel of Mark, this scholar proves that the author of this work composed it
on the basis of Matthew, enamelling the story with explanatory notes, the substance
of which evidently emanated from an eye-witness uf the ministry of Jesus, which
could have been none other than Peter ; in general, the additions refer to the relations
of Jesus •with His apostles. With Klostermann, as with Weiss, Matthew would be
the first and principal written source ; but with this difference (if we rightly under
stand), that with the former this Matthew 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 by means ef Mark. The
dependence 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 wUl
prove a precisely simUar dependence of Luke upon Mark> Thus it is clear, that in
proportion as criticism dispenses with the nypothesis of a Proto-Mark, it is compelled
to attribute to the primitive Matthew, which at the outset was to be nnly a cnllection
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 tu nur cannnical Matthew itself.
This question nf the origin 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 uur synoptics
are simply derived from one another, exhibits 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 proceed
from the caprice of the copyists, and the slight faith they placed in the story of their
predecessor.s) ; so does the other opinion, which looks for different sources, oral or
written, whence each writing proceeds, and which are adequate to account for their
niutual resemblances or differences, tend to re-establish their general credibUty, and
their genuineness as historical works.
'* In the " Studien und Kritiken," 1861 ; " Jahrbilcher fur Deutsche Theologie,"
1864 ; Ibid. 1865. Since then, Weiss has attempted to prove his theor.v by a detailed
exegesis of Mark.
f'Das Marcus-Evangelium," Gottingen, 1867.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

39

The following is a table of the opinions of which we have just given an account :
' L— SCHOOL OP TUEBINGEN.

Baur.

Hilgenfeld.

Matthew )
1 ^Mark.
Luke i

Matthew )
1 y Lnke.
Mark )

VOLKMAE.

KOESTLIN.
Mai-k 1
1 y Matthew.
Luke \
Mt
Mark(
rk(l.); Matthew ] »
II.) or Gospel of Peter Y -p
Lilke. J ^
II
.—INDEPENDENT SYSTEMS.
Ritschl.
Bleek.
Reuss, etc.
Mai-k 1
1 }¦ Luke.
Matthew (
Primitive Gospe]
Mark 0) Logia
MatthPiv ; Lnke
Mark (II.) ; Mattbew ; Lnk
Mark.
Ewald.
Weiss
Klostermann.
Gosp. of Phil. Logia ]
Matthew (I.)
Matthew 1
1 y Luke.
Mark \
Mark (I.) f-Luke.
1 1
Mark
Matthew. J
Matthew (
11.1; Luke.
The state of things which this table portrays is not certainly such as to lead us to
regard the question as solved, and the door closed against fresh attempts tn explain
the origin nf the synoptics, particularly the nrigin nf Luke, which is the final term of
the prublem. SBC. V. — ON THB PRBSEE VATION OF THB THIED GOSPEL.
Are we sure that we pnssess the book which we,are about to study as it came from
its author's hands ? Taken as a whole, yes. As guarantees of it, we have — 1. The
general agreement uf uur text with the most ancient versions, the Peaehito and the
Italic, which date from the second century, and with the three Egyptian translations
made at the beginning of the third ; 3. The general agreement of this text with the
quotations of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, Justin, Tatian, Irenasus,
Clement, TertuUian, Origen, etc. ; lastly, 3. The general uniformity of the manu
scripts in which the Greek text has been preserved. If any great changes had been
introduced into the text, there would inevitably have been much greater differences
among all these documents. These different tests prove that the third Gospel, just
as we have it, was already in existence in the churches of the second and third cen
turies. A text so universally diffused could only proceed from the text that was
received from the very first.
The manuscripts containing the text of the New Testament consist of majuscules,
or manuscripts written in uncial letters (until the tenth century), and of minuscules
er manuscripts written in small or cursive writing (from the tenth century). The
manuscripts known at the present day, containing the whole or part of the Gospels
number nearly 44 majuscules, and more than 500 minuscules. The former are, for
their antiquity and variety, the most important. Of this number, 19 contain the Gospel
30 COMMENTARY ON SI'. LUKE.
nf Luke mure nr less cemplete ; of 11 there nnly remain some fragments, or aeries
nf fragments : there are, in all, 30 documents prior to the tenth century.
Two of the fourth century :
1. The Binaiticua (S).
3. The Vaticanua (B.)
Five of the fifth century :
3. The Alexandrinua (A).
4. The God,ex Ephrmmi (C).
5. Twenty-eight palimpsest leaves (I).
6. Palimpsest fragments found at Wolfenbiittel (Q).
7. Different fragments, Greek with a Sahidic version, comprised in the Sahidic
coUeotinn of Wnide (T""). T'' denntes stmUar fragments nf the seventh
century.
Five of the sixth century :
' 8. The Cantabrigiensis (I)).
9. Fragments of a manuscript de luxe, written in letters of silver and gold (N).
10. The hymns nf Luke (chap. 1, 3), preserved in some psalters (0=). 0"""''
dennte similar portions nf the seventh and ninth centuries.
11. Fragments of a palimpsest of Loudon (R).
13. Fragments of Wolfenbuttel (P).
Five of the eighth century :
13. The Basiliensia (B).
14. A manuscript of Paris (L). »
15. Fragments of the Gospels, ot Paris and of Naples (W" ; W").
16. Fragment of Luke at St. Petersburg (0'').
17. The Zacynthiua, a palimpsest iimnuscript, found at Zante, comprising
the flrst eleven chapters ot Luke (S in Tischendorf, Z in our commen
tary).
Eight of the ninth century :
18. The Codex Boreeli{F).,
19. The Gyprius{K).
30. A manuscript of Paris (M).
31. A manuscript of Munich (X).
23. A manuscript nf Oxford (r).
23. The San Oallensia (A).
34. A manuscript of Oxford (A).
25. A manuscript found at Smyrna, and deposited at St. Petersburg (H).
Five uf the tenth century - '•
36, 37. The two Codd. of Seidel (G, H).
38. A manuscript of the 'Vatican (S).
39. A manuscript of Venice (U).
30. A manuscript of Moscow (V).
Adding together all the various readings which these documents contain, we flnd
from five to six thousand of tUem. But iu general they are of very secondary im
portance, and involve no change in the matter ot the Gospel histoty.
On a closer study of them, it is observed that certain manuscripts habitually go
together in opposition to others, and thus two principal forms uf the text are estab
lished — nue which is generally found in the most ancient majuscules, another which

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 31
is met with in the minuscules and in the less ancient 6f the majuscules. Some man
uscripts oscillate between these two forms.
As the text on which Erasmus formed the first edition of the New Testament in
Greek was that of certain minuscules in the Bale library, and this text has continued
tn form the basis ot subsequent editions, of which that of the Elzevirs uf 1633 is
the must generaUy diffused, it is evident that this, called the Received Text, is rather
that of the minuscules and less ancient majuscules than the text of the old majus
cules. This text is also called Byzantine, because it is probably the one which was
uniformly flxed in the churches uf the Greek Empire. Those ot our majuscules
which represent it are the following : E. P. G. H. R. M. S. U. V. r. A. n. This
form of the text is also called Asiatic.
Theoppesite form, which is found in the older majuscules, B. G. L. R. X. Z., appears
te ceme from Alexandria, where, in the first centuries ot the Church, manuscripts
were most largely produced. Por this reason this text takes the name of Alexandrine.
Some manuscripts, while ordinarily following the Alexandrine, differ from them
more or less frequently ; these are !*. A. D. A. The text uf S and ot D resembles, in
many instances, the ancient Latin translation, the Italic
A middle form between these two principal texts is found in the fragments
denoted by N. O. W. T. 6.
It is a constant question, which of the two texts, the Alexandrine or the Byzan
tine, reproduces with the greatest fidelity the text of the original document. ' It is a
question which, in our npininn, cannot be answered in a general way and a priori,
and which must be solved in each particular instance by exegetical skill.
ABBREVIATIONS.
The abbreviations we shall use are generally those which Tischendorf has adopted
in his eighth edition.
1. Fathers.
Just., Justin ; Ir., Irenseus ; Or., Origen, etc.
3. Versions.
Vss., versions.
It., the Italic, comprising the different Latin translations prior to Jerome's (from
the second century) ; a, b, c, etc. denote the different documents of the Italic ; a the
Vercellensia (4th c.) ; b the Veronensia (5th c.) ; c the Golbertiniia (11th c), etc.
Vg., the Vulgate, Jerome's translation (4th c.) ; Am., Puld., denote the principal
documents of this translation — the Amiatinua (6th c), the Fuldenais (id.), etc.
Syr., the Syriac translations. S3'r""'', the Paschito, Schaat's edition; Syr"", a
more ancient translation than the Peaehito, discovered and published by Cureton.
Syr. in brief (in our own use), these two united.
Coj)., the Coptic translation (3d c). '
3. Manuscripts.
Mss., the manuscripts ; Mjj., the majuscules ; Mnu., the minuscules.
The letter denoting a manuscript with the sign ¦* (S*, B*) denotes the original text
in opposition to corrections inserted in the text afterward. The small figures added
to this same letter (B', C, etc.) signify flrst, second correction. For the manuscript

33 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
!S, which is in a peculiar condition, !S", !*'' denote the most ancient corrections, made
by at least two different hands according to the text of different mss. from that from
which !* was coiiied, and 54' similar corrections, but made a little later (7th c), and
differing sometimes from each other S'"' 54'''). F", some quotations from the Gos
pels annotated in the margin uf the Coialinianus (H. nf the Epistles uf Paul).
4. Editions. ''
T. R., the received text, viz. the ed. Elzevir nf 1633, which is generally the repru
duction of the third ed. of Stephens ; 5 (Steph.) denotes the received text and that of
Stephens united, where they are identical ; S' (Steph. Elzev.), the received text alone,
in the rare instances in which these two texts differ.
THE TITLE OF THE GOSPEL.
The shortest form is found in 54. B. F. , Kara Aovkuv. The greater part of the
Mjj. read Evayyiliov Kara Aovicdv, The T. R., with some Mun. only, to naru Aovkuv
svayy. Some Mnn. , to Kara Aovkuv dytov evayy.
In the opinion of several scholars (Reuss. " Gesch. der heU. Schr. N. T." § 177),
the prep, kutu, according to, signifies not: composed by, but : drawn up according
to the conception of. . . . Thus this title, so far from affirming that our Gospel
was ctimposed by the person designated, would rather deny it. This sense does not
appear to us admissible. Not only may the preposition kutu apply to the writer him
self, as the following expressions prove : ij Kara Ma^iiaea ¦KevraTevxoi (the Pentateuch
according to Moses) in Epiphanius ; r; kuO' 'Hpodorov laropia (the histor}' according to
Herodotus) in Diodorus ; Marflaioc . . ypaipy ivapa6ovi to kut' avrdv evayye'Xiov (Mat
thew having but in writing the Gospel according to him) in Eusebius (H. Eccl. iii.
24) ; — but this preposition must have this sense iu our title. Por, 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. 3. Wilh respect to the third Gospel in particular, no other sense
is possible. Apustles 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 Jesu.s according tu 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 thu 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 tacts related, to the contents of tho books, to the
coming of Christ— this merciful message of God to mankind. The complement
understood after evayysXwv is Geoii ; comp. Rom 1 : 1. This good news, though one
in itself, is presented to tho world under four different aspects in these four narra
tives. The meaning then is, ' The good news of the coming of Christ, according to
the version of . . .-" It isthe evayyiTiwv reTpd/iopfov, the Gospel with four faces
ot which Irenseus sliU speaks toward the end of the second century, even after the
term Gospel had been already appUed by Justin to the written Guspels.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 33
PROLOGUE.
Chap. 1 : 1-4.
The first uf nur synoptic Gospels opens with a genealogy. This mode nf entering
upuu the subject transpnrts us intu a cempletely Jewish werld. This preamble is, as
it were, a cnntinualion of the genealogical registers of Genesis ; in the P'l^Xos
yeviaeas nf Matthew (1 : 1) we have again the Elle Theledoth of Moses.
How different Luke's prologue, and in what an entirely different atmosphere it
places- us from the flrst ! Not unly is it written in most classical Greek, but it
reminds us by its contents of the similar preambles of the most iUustrious Greek his
torians, especially those of Herodotus and Thucydides. The more thoroughly we
examine it, the more we find of that delicacy nf sentiment and refinement nf mind
which constitute the predominant traits of the Hellenic character. Baur, it is true,
thuught he discerned in it the wnrk uf a fnrger. Ewald, on the contrary, admires its
true simplicity, nnble modesty, and terse conciseness.* It appears to us, as to Holtz-
maun.f " that between these two opinions the choice is net difficult." The author
dues nnt seek tu put himself in the rank nf the Christian authnrities ; he places him
self mndestly among men of the second order. He feels it necessary to excuse the
boldness nf his enterprise, by refen-ing tn the numernus analogous attempts that have
preceded his own. He does not permit himself to undertake the work of writing a
Gospel history until he has furnished himself with all the aids fltted to enable him to
attain the lofty aim he sets before him. There is a striking contrast between his
frank and modest attitude and that of a forger. It excludes even the ambitious part
uf a secretary uf the Apostle Paul, which tradition has uot been slew te claim fcr the
author nf our Gospel.
This prolegue is nnt least interesting fur the infurmatinn it centaius respecting the
earliest attempts at writing • histories uf the Gnspel, Apart from these first lines of
Luke, we know absolutely nothing definite about the more ancient narratives of the
life of Jesus which preceded the composition of our Gospels. Therefore every
theory as to the origin of the synoptics, which is not constructed out of the materials
furnished 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 intp the idea,
method, and aim ot his work. He is far from being the first who has attempted to
handle this great subject (ver. 1). Numerous written narratives on the history of
Jesus are already in existence ; they all uf them rest un the eral narrations uf the
apostles (ver. 2). But while drawing also on this original source, Luke has collected
more particular information, in order tn supplement, select, ai^d properly arrange the
materials for which the Church is indebted to apustnlic traditinn. His aim, lastly, is
tn furnish his readers, by this cunnected accnunt of the facts, with the means of
establishing their certainty (ver. 4).
Vers. 1-4. " Since, as is known, many have undertaken to compose a narrative nf
the events which have been accomplished among us, (2) in conformity with that
which they have handed down to us who were eye-witnesses of them trom the begin
ning, and who became ministers of the word, (3) I have thought good alsn myself,
* " Jahrbiicher, " ii. p. 128. \ " Die Synnptischen Evangelien," p. 398.

34 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
after carefully informing myself of aU these facta frnm their ccmmencement, tn write
a consecutive accnunt uf them fer thee, must excellent Theophilus, (4) in order that
thou mightest know the immovable certainty of the instructions which thnu hast
received," ¦* This perind, truly Greek in its style, has been compnsed with particular
care. We du not flnd a style like it in all the New Testament, except at the end cf
the Acts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the thought of this prologue, it
cannot be better summed up than in these lines of Tholuck. "Although not an
immediate witness of the facts that took place, I have none the less undertaken, fol
lowing the example of many others, to publish an account of them according to the
infermation.I have gathered." f
The conjunction ijrei6i}irsp is found nowhere else in the New Testament ; it has a
certain solemnity. To the idea ef since {eirei), Si/ adds that of notoriety : " since, as
is well known ;" irep draws attention to the relation between the great number of
these writings and the importance of the events related : It is so (c5^), and it could not
be otherwise (jte/d). The relation between the ainae thus defined and the principal
verb, ! have thought 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
term ivexsip^aav, have undertaken, involves no blame ef the skill of these predecessors,
as several Fathers have thought ; the I have thought good also myself is sufficient to
exclude this supposition. This expression is suggested 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 elder writings is indicated by the term dvaTd^aaSai difiynaiv, to
aet in order a narrative. It is a question, as Thiersch X says, et an attempt at arrange
ment. Did this arrangement consist in tlie harmonizing ot a number of separate
writings into a single whole, so as to make a consecutive history of Ihem ? In this
case, we should have to admit that the writers of whom Luke speaks had already
found in the Church a number ef 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 wilh
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 rather te 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 amung t'he
sources on which Luke has drawn ? Certain extra-canonical Gospels, which criticism
¦* A literal translation of M. Godet's rendering of Luke's preface is given here,
tor the sake of harmonizing the text with the verbal comments which follow in the
next paragraph ; but, except when something turns on our author's rendering, the
passages commehted on will be giv^n in the words of the A. V. A close and happy
translation of the original Greek into French does not always admit of being repro
duced literally in English, and a free translation of a translation is of little service for
purposes of exegesis. — HS'ote by the Tranalator.
\ " Glaubwiirdigk. tier evang. Gesch." p. 143.
X " Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der
Neutestamenll. Schr." p. 164 (a work which we cannot loo strongly recommend to
beginners, although we Tre far from sharing all its views)

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 35
has sometimes regarded as prior to Luke's, may be thought of— that of the Hebrews,
fur example, in which Lessing was disposed to find the cnmmon source of nur three
synnptics ; nr that nf Marcinn, which Ritschl aud Baur regarded as the principal
dncument reprnduced b.y'Luke.* But dues nnt traditinn exhibit itself in these writ
ings in a fnrm already perceptibly altered, and very far removed frum the primitive
purity and freshness which characterize our canonical Gospels ? They are, then,
later than Luke.
Or does Luke allude tu our Gospels of Matthew and Mark? This is maintained
by those who think that Luke wrute after Matthew and Mark (Hug), ur nnly after
Matthew (Griesbach, etc.). But hnwever little Luke shared in the traditiunal
npininn which attributed the first Gnspel tn the Apnstle Mattbew, he could not speak
nf that writing as he speaks here ; fur he clearly npposes to the writers ef the tradi
tion (Ihe iTolAoi, ver. 1), the apostles who were the authors nf it. It may be affirmed,
frum 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 ot the "Logia"
(discourses of the Lord), which some attribute to Matthew, it certainly wnuld nut be
excluded by Luke's expressinns ; for the term diegesis denntes a recital, a histurical
narrative. Hug, in his desire to save his hypnthesis, according tn which Luke made
use nf Matthew, explained vers. 1 and 3 in this sense : " Many have undertaken tn
cempose written Gospels similar to those which the apostles bequeathed tu
us. . ." But this sense wnuld require (57roZa (/3t/3Aia) instead nf/ca9u5,f and has not
been accepted by any nne. As tn 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 nf an eye-witness, St. Peter. But stiU it may be questioned
whether Luke 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 uf Jesus.
Pur the rest, exegesis alune can determine whether Luke really had Mark befnre him
either in its present nr in a more ancient form. It appears probable, therefore, to
me, that the works tn which Luke alludes are writings really unknown and lost.
Their incompleteness condemned them tn exiincticn, in proportion as writings of
superior value, such as our synoptics; spread through the Church.
As tn whether Luke availed himself nf these writings, and in any way embndied
them in his own wnrk, he dues nnt infurm 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 importance of which he so deeply felt.
The subject of these narratives is set forth in expressions that have a touch of
solemnity : " the events which have been accomplished among us." lil'qpo^ope'iv is
a word analogous in composition and meaning to re^eafopelv {to baring to an end, to
maturity, 8 : 14). It signifies, when it refers to a fact, to bring it to complete
accomplishment (3 Tim. 4 : 5, to accomplish the ministry ; ver. 17, to accomplish [tn
finish rendering] the testimnny) ; and when it refers tu a persnn it means tn cause
him tn attain inward fulness [uf conviction], that is tn say, a cnnvictinn which leaves
no room for doubt (Rom. 4 : 31, 14 : 5 ; Heb. 10 : 33, etc.). With a substantive such
as TtpayiiaTa, the second sense is inadmissible. Nevertheless, it has been defended by
some of the Fathers, by some modern interpreters, as Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, and
* Ritschl has since withdrawn this assertion.
f Thiersch," Versuch," etc., p. 211.

36 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
by Meyer, who concludes from 3 Tim. 4 : 17 that Tt%ripo<^EiaQai may alsn be applied to
things in the sense nf being believed. But when Paul sa^s, " In nrder that the testi
mony might be accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear it, ' ' the last words
plainly show that accomplished signifies not fully believed, but fully rendered. This
term, which has more weight than the simple itlripovv, is designedly chosen here to
indicate that these events were not simple accidents, but accomplished a preconceived
plan ; the divine thought carried into executien was, as it were, a measure which
filled up itself. Doubtless, what has led many interpreters to prefer the sense of
fully believed, is the complement among us. This is said that the facts of the
Gospel were accomphshed net only in the presence of believers, but before the Jewish
people and the whole werld. This is true ;- but was not Jesus from the beginning
surrounded by a circle of disciples, chosen to be witnesses of His life ? It is with
this meaning that John says, 30 : 30, " Jesus did many other miracles in the presence
ef His disciples ;" and 1 : 14, " He dwelt among us (iv ijiuv), and we saw His glory"
—a sentence in which the last words Umit the us tn the circle cf believers. The mean
ing is the same here. In ver. 3 the sense uf the word ua is mure limited stQl. Here
ua denotes the Church with the apostles ; in ver. 3, the Church apart from the
apostles. Bleek extends the meaning of the word ua, in ver. 1, to the whole con-,
temporary generation, both within ami without the Church. But Luke, writing for
believers, could scarcely use u.s in such a general sense as this. In this expression,
" the events accomplished among us," did the author include also the contents ef the
book of the Acts, and did he intend the preface to apply tn the twu bnoks, so that
the Acts wnuld be just the secnnd volume nf the Gospel ? The words among us
would be more easily explained in this case, and the mention made of the apostles as
ministers of the word (ver. 2) might lead us to this supposition. It is not prnbable,
however, that Luke would have appUed tn the tacts related in the Acts the expressinns
¦napaSoaLi, tradition (ver. 3), and KaTrixri'^'.'i, inairucUon (ver. 4). The subject nt apos
tolical tradition and catechetical instruction could only be the history and teaching of
Jesus. It is impossible, therefore, to infer from this preface that when Luke wrote
his Gospel he had in view the composition of the book of the Acts.
Ver. 2. Tradiliun emanating from the apustles was the common source, according
to ver. 2, of all the flrst written narratives. The general accuracy of these accounts
follows from koSuS, in conformity with that which. This conjunction can only refer
to the principal thought of ver. 1, to compose a narrative, and not to the secondary
idea, Tce'rvTi.ripo^opriiikvav, as Olshausen thinks, who translates, " fully believed in con
formity with the account of the first witnesses." As the two substantives, aiTt^irrai
and iir^ipsTai, witnesses and miniaters, have each certain defining expressions which
especially belong to them (the first, av'' 'apxm , frmn ilie beginning, and the second,
yev6fievoi, become, and tov 'koyau, of tlie word), the most simple construction appears to
us to be to regard ol, ihe, aa a pronoun, aud make it the subject ef the proposition :
they (the men about to be pointed out). This subject is defined by the two foUowing
substantives, which are in apposition, and indicate the qualification in virtue of
which these men became the authors of the tradition. 1. Witnesses from the begin
ning. The word apxfi, beginning, in this context, can only refer to the commencement
of the ministry of Jesus, particularly tu His baptism, as the starting-point of those
things which have been accomplished among us. Comp. Acts 1 : 21, 22, for the
sense ; and fur the expressinn, John 15 : 27, 16 : 4. Olshausen would extend' the
application ot this title uf witnesses from the beginning to the witnesses of the birth

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 37
and infancy of Jesus. But the expression became miniaters of the word does not
allow ut Ibis application. 2. Ministers of the word ; become ministers, as the text
literally reads. This expression is in contrast with the preceding. These men began
afterward to be ministers of the word ; they only became such after Pentecost. It
was then that their part as witnesses was transformed into that of preachers. The
sense then is : " Those whn were witnesses frnm the cummencement, and whn after
ward became ministers nf the word. ' ' It virtipeTai, miniaters, is thus taken as a second
noun of appnsition with ol, parallel to the first, there is no longer any difficulty in
referring the complement rov ?.dyov, of the word, to vwripsTai, ministers, alone, and
taking this word in its ordinary sense ef preaching the Gnspel. This also dispnses of
the reason which induced certain Fathers (Origen, Athanaisus) to give the term word
the meaning of the eternal Word (John 1 : 1), which is very forced in this connec
tion. Only in this way could they make this complement depend simultaneously on
the twu substantives, witnesses and ministers. The same motive led Beza, Grotius,
and Bleek to understand the term word here in the sense in which it is frequently
taken — the thing related : " eye- witnesses and ministers of the Gospel history. " But
in passages where the term word bears this meaning, it is flxed by some defining ex
pression : thus, at ver. 4 by -the relative proposition and, in Acts 8 : 21, 15 : 6 (which
Bleek quotes), by a demonstrative pronoun.
With the third verse we reach the principal proposition. Luke places himself by
the Kajxal., myaelf also, in the same rank as his predecessors. He does not possess,
any more than they, a knowledge of the Gospel history as a witness ; he belongs to
the secnnd generatinn of the viieli, ua (ver. 2), which is dependent on the narratives
of the apostles. Some Italic mss. add here to mihi, et spiritui sancto (it has pleased me
and the Holy Spirit), a gloss taken from Acts 15 : 38, which clearlj'- shows in what
direction the tradition was gradually altered.
WhUe placing himself in the same rank as his predecessors, Luke nevertheless
claims a certain superiurity iu cumparison with them. Otherwise, why add to their
writings, which are already numerous (tto/IXoi), a fresh attempt ? This superiority is
the result of his nnt having cnnfined himself to collecting the apostolic traditions
current in the Church. Before proceeding to write, he obtained exact information,
by means ef which he was enabled to select, supplement, and arrange the materials
furnished by those oral narratives which his predecessors had contented themselves
with reproducing just as they were. The verb TrapaKoXovBelv, to follow step by step, is
not used here in the literal sense ; this sense would require TTdaLv to be taken as
masculine : all the apoatlea, and thus would lead to an egregiously false idea ; the
author could not have accompanied all the apostles ! The verb, therefore, must be
taken iu the figurative sense which it frequently has in the classics : to study any
thing point by point ; thus Demosth. de corona, 53 ; irapaKolovOTjKCii toIc Kpaypaaiv
utt' upxvi. Comp. 3 Tim. 3 : 10, where we see the transition from the purely literal
to the figurative meaning. The ¦kuvtu, all things, are the events related (ver. 1).
Luke might have put the participle in the accusative : ¦napaKo^.ovQ'riKOTa ; but then he
would only have indicated the succession ef the two actions — the acquisition of in
formation, and the composition which followed it. This is nut his thought. The
dative makes the information obtained a quality inherent in his person, which consti
tutes his qualification for the accomplishment of this great work.
Luke's information bore particularly on three points : 1. He sought first of all to
go back to the origin of the facts, to the very starting-point ot this rea chriatiana

38 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
which he desired to describe. This is expressed in the word avaSev, literally from
above, from the very beginning. The author compares himself te a traveller who
tries to discover the snurce of a river, in order that he may descend it agaiii and fel
low its entire course. The apostolic tradition, as current in the Ghurch, did net do
tliis ; it began with the ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism uf Jesus. It
is in this form that we find it set forth in the Gospel nf Mark, and summarized in
Peter's preaching at the house nf Cornelius, and in Paul's at Antioch in Pisidia
(Acts 10 : 37 et aeq,, 13 : 23 ct seq.). The author here alludes to the accounts contained
in the first twn chapters cf his Gnspel. 2. After having gnhe back to the commence- '
ment nf the Gnspel histury, he endeavured tn reprnduce as cempletely as possible its '
entire cnurse {¦n-uciv, all things, all the particular facts which it includes), Apustnlic
tradition probably had a more or less fragmentary character ; the apnstles nnt relating
every time the whole of the facts, but only those which best answered to the circum-.
stances in which they were preaching. This is expressly said of St. Peter nn the testi
mony of Papias, or nf the nld presbyter nn whum he relied : Trp&f t(Jc xp^'^"-^ eizoielro
TuS didaaKa?.lai (he chuse each time the facts appropriate to the needs nf his hearers).
Impnrtant omissions would easily result from this mode of evangelization. By this
word, iruaiv, all thinga, Luke probably alludes to that part of his Gospel (9 : 51, 18 : 14),
by which the tradition, as we have it set forth in our first two synoptics, is en
riched with a great number of facts and new discourses, aud with the account of a
long course of evangelization probably omitted, until Luke gave it, in the public nar
ration. 3. He sought to confer on the Gospel history that exactness and precision
which tradition naturally fails to have, after being handed about fur snme time from
mouth tn mouth. We knpw how quickly, in similar narratives, characteristic traits
are effaced, and the facts transposed. Diligent and scrupulous care is required after
ward to replace the stones of the edifice in their right position, and give them their
exact form aud sharpness of edge. Now the third Gnspel is distinguished, as we
shall see, by the cnnstant effort to trace the continued progressive development of the
work of Jesus, to show the connection of the facts, to place each discourse in its his
torical setting, and to exhibit its exact purport.
By means of this information bearing upon tho three points indicated, the author
hopes he shall be qualified to draw a consecutive picture, reproducing the actual
course of events : kuQe^q ypdipat, io write in order. It is impossible in this connection '
to understand the phrase in order in the sense of a systematic classification, as Ebrard
prefers ; here the term must stand for a chronological order. The term KaBc^ijs is not
found in the New Testament except in Luke.
Ver. 4. And bow, what is the aim of the work thus conceived ? To strengthen
the faith uf Theophilus and his readers in the reality of this extraordinary history.
On Theophilus, see the Introduction, sec. 3. The epithet KparicTos is applied several
times, in the writings of Luke, to high Roman officials, such as Felix and Pestus :
Acts 23 : 36, 24 : 3, 36 - 35. It is frequently met with in medals of the time. Luke
wishes to show his friend and patron that he is not unmindful of the exalted rank he
occupies. But in his opinion, one mention suffices. He does not deem it necessary
to repeat this somewhat ceremonious form at the beginning of the book of 'the Acts.
The work executed on the plan indicated is to give Theophilus the means of ascer.
taining and verifying {kTriyivumetv) the irrefragable certainty {da<pd?.£iav) of the
instruction which he had already received. The construction ef this last phrase has
been understood in three ways. The most complicated is to understand a second

COMMENTAR-i: ON ST. LUKK. 39
ircpl : rijv da<jid7>,Eiav ivspl tQv ISyav wepl (5v KarrixfiBrii ; the second and more simple,
adopted by Bleek, is to make Trept depend not on do^d^uav, but on KaTTixvOiK : tt/v
da^dXeiav tuv "Kdyav itepl &v Karr/xilBTii. But the example KaTTixvBrjaav vepi cov (Acts
21 : 21), which Bleek quotes, is not analogous ; for there the ubject of irepi is
personal: "they are infermed of thee." The simplest construction is this: Tr)v
do^dAfiav TTspJ r<Dv /Iffyuv oi)S /caT)7;i;)7S?7S, certitude touching the instruction which . . .
Comp. for this form KariixelaBal ti. Acts 28 : 35 ; Gal. 6 : 6. The term kuttixuv,
to cause a sound to penetrate into the ears, and thereby also a fact, an idea, into the
mind, may simplj' mean that intelligence of the great events of which Luke speaks
had reached Theophilus by public report (Acts 31 : 31; 24) ; or it may denote in
struction properly so called, as Bom. 2 : 18 ; Acts 18 : 25, Gal. 6:6; neither the
expressions nor the context appear to me lo offer sufficient reasons to decide which.
Perhaps the truth lies between these two extreme opinions. TheophUus might have
talked with Christian evangelists without receiving such catechetical instruction, in
the strict sense of the term, as was often given them wheu a church was founded
(Thiersch, "Versuch," p. 123 etaeq.); and then have applied to Luke with a view
to obtain through his labors something more complete. The Word dafd^.eiav, is
relegated to the end, to express with greater force the idea of the irrefragable cer
tainty of the facts of the Gospel.
It is a very nice question whether the term 2,dyoi, which we have translated
insiruciion, here refers solely to the historical contents of the Gospel, or also to the
religious meaning ef the tacts, as that comes out of the subsequent narrative. In the
former case, Luke would sinu)ly mean that the certainty of each particular fact was
established by its relation to the whole, which ceuld not well be invented. An extraor
dinary fact, which, presented separately, appears impossible, becomes natural and
rational when it takes its place in a well-certified sequence of facts to which it
belongs.* In strictness, this meaning might be sufficient. But when we try to
identify ourselves completely with the author's mind, do we nut see, in this instruc
tion of which he speaks, something more than a simple narrative of facts ? Does
not the passage in 1 Cor. 15 : 1-4 show that, in apostolic instruction, religious com
ment was inseparable trom the historical text ? Was it not with si vipw to faith that
facts were related in the preaching of the Gospel ? and does not faith, in order to
appropriate them, require an exposition of their moaning and importance ? The
instruction already received by Theophilus refers, then, without doubt to the Goapel
history, but not as isolated from its religious interpretation ; and since we have to do
here wilh a reader belonging to a circle of Christians of heathen origin, the significa
tion given to this history could be none other than that twofold principle of the uni
versality and free grace of salvation which constituted the substance of what Paul
called his Gospel. Luke's object, then, was to relate the Christian fact iu such a way
as to show that, from its very starting-point, the work and preaching of Jesus Him
self had had uo other meaning. This was the only way of making evangeUcal
* The CathuUc missionaries. Hue aud Gabet, in their " Travels in Tartary" (vol.
ii. p. 136), relate as follows: " We had adopted [in regard to the Buddhist priests
among whom they lived] an entirely historical mode of teaching. . . . Proper
names and precise dates made much more impression on them than the most logical
arguments. . '. . The close connection which they remarked in the history of
the Old and New Testaments was, in their view, a demonstration." Is nut that the
nade^TJi ypdfai Iva ktnyvCig . . . rj)v aafdXetavl

40 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
instruction, as formulated by St. Paul, rest on an immovable basis. As a conse
quence, this apostle ceased to appear an innovatur, and became the faithful expositor
of the teaching- of Jesus. To write a Gnspel with this view was tn introduce beneath
the vast ecclesiastical ediflce raised by Paul, the nnly fnundatinn which cuuld in the
end prevent it from falling. Fnr whatever there is iu the Church that dees net
emanate from Jesus, holds a usurped and consequently a transitory place. This
would be true even of the spiritualism ef St. Paul, if it did nut proceed from Jesus
Christ. Certainly it does not therefore follow, that the acts and words ef Jesus
-which Luke 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 a legitimate deduction from the work and
teaching 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 tendency from that which he desired to justify ; on the other, that the tendency
wliich be favors is inseparable from the cuurse 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 ef Israel," this is " A
Treatise on the right ot the heathen to share in the Messianic kingdom founded by
Jesus." In regard to the earliest writings 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 nf the ministry nf Jesus proceeded
was the oral testimony of the apostles — the Si&ax'n tuv diroardXav, which is spoken of
in Acts 3 : 43 a the daily food dispensed by them to the rising Church. 3, 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
by numerous authors at the same time. Nothing in the text of Luke authorizes us
to think, wilh Gieseler, that this was done only among the Greeks. Prom the earU
est times, the art of writing prevailed among the Jews ; children even were not igno
rant of it (Judg. 8 : 14). 3. In composing his Gospel Luke possessed the apostolic
tradition, not merely in the oral form in which it circulated iu the churches, but also
reduced to writing in a considerable number of these early works ; and these consti
tuted 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
the elements required for the solution of the problem of the origin ef our synoptics,
and of the composition of our Gospel in particular. We shall examine them fur this
purpose at the conclusion of the work.
* It is hardly needful to remind readers that the " universalist" of Godet is not a
denominational title, but a reference to the offer of the Gospel by Paul and others te
all men, as distinguished from the narrowness nf Judaizing teachers. — J. H.

FIRST PART.

THE NAERATIVES OF THE ESTFANOY.
CH.AP. 1 : 5, 2 : 52.
Both the first and the third Gospel open with a cycle of narratives relating tn the
birth and childhcnd nf Jesus. These narratives dn not appear to have formed part nf
the traditinn bequeathed tn the Church by the apustles (ver. 3). At least, neither the
Gospel of Mark, the dncument which appears to correspond most nearly with the type
of the primitive preaching, nor the eldest example we have of this early preaching,
Peter's discourse in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10 : 37-48), go further back than the
ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism ef Jesus. The reason, doubtless, for
this is, that edification was the sole aim uf apustnlic preaching. It was intended to
lay the foundation ef the faith ; and in order to do this, the apostles had nnly lo tes
tify concerning what they had themselves seen and heard during the time they had
been with Jesus (Juhn 15 ; 37 ; Acts 1 : 21, 22).
But these facts with which their preaching commenced supposed antecedent cir
cumstances. Actual events nf such an extranrdinary nature could not have happened
without preparation. This Jesus, whom Mark himself designates frnm the uutset (1 : 1)
as the Snn uf God, could not have fallen from heaven as a full-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 rents, while an nrdinary nbserver will be satisfied with seeing
its blnssum ; so amung believers, amnng the Greeks especially, there must have been
thnughtful minds — Luke and TheuphUus are representatives nf such — whn felt the
need nf supplying what the narratives nf the nfficial wilnesses uf the ministry of
Jesus were deficient in respecting the nrigin of this histnry.
The histurical interest itself awakened by faith must have tended tn dissipate the
nbscurity which envelcped tbe first appearance nf a being sn exceptional as He whu
was the subject nf the evangelical traditinn. In prcportion as the flrst enthusiasm uf
faith gave place, at the transition period between the flrst and the second generation
nt Christians, tn careful reflectinn, 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 this " Gospel of the Infancy" proceed neither from aposlplic tradition
(ver. 2), nur from any of the numerous writings to which allusion is made (ver. 1),
but that they are derived from special information which Luke had obtained. It is
to these two chapters especially that Luke aUudes in the third verse of the prologue
(oi'uSei', from ihe beginning).
A similar need must have been felt, probably at the same time, in the Jewish-
Christian world ; only it arose out ef another principle. There was no demand there

42 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
for the satisfaction of the historic sense. In those circles, interest in the Messianic
question prevailed over all others. They wanted to know whether from the begin
ning the child, as well as afterward the grown man, had not been divinely pointed
out as the Messiah. The flrst two chapters of St. Matthew are plainly intended to
meet this need.
In this way we obtain a natural explanation of the extension nf the Gnspel histury
to the first cominencement of the life qf Jesus, and just in those ' different directions
which are to be observed in our two Gospels.
But dues not this imply consequences somewhat unfavoi-able to the truth ef the
narratives comprised in these twu cycles, Luke 1-3 aud Matt. 1-2 ? It is admit
ted : 1. That these narratives of the inf ancy lack the guarantee ot apostolic testimony.
3. That the wants which we have pointed out might easily caU into activity the
Christian imagination, and, in the absence of positive history, seek their satisfaction
in legend. These narratives are actually regarded iu this light, not nnly by Strauss
or Baur, but even by such men as Meyer, Weizsacker, and Keim, who do not gener
ally avow themselves partisans ot the mythical interpretation. What in their view
renders these narratives suspicious is their poetical character, and the marvels with
which they abound (a great number ef angelic appearances and of prophetic songs)
the complete sUence of the other New Testament writings respecting the miraculous
birth (there is no mention of it in Paul, ur even in John) ; certain facts nf the subse
quent history (the unbelief of the brethren ot Jesus and of his own mother) which
appear incompatible with the miraculous circumstances of this birth ; contradictions
between Matthew and Luke on several important points ; and lastly, historical
errors in Luke's narrative, which may be proved by comparing it with the facts of
Jewish and Romau history.
We can' only examine these various reasons as we pursue .in detail the study ef
the text. As to the way in which the wants we have indicated were satisfied, we
would observe : 1. That it is natural to suppose, since the matter in question was
regarded as sacred both by the writers and the Church, that the more simple and
reverential process of historical investigation would be employed before having
recourse to fiction. It is only at a later stage, when the results obtained by this
means are no longer sufficient to satisfy curiosity and a corrupted faith, that inven
tion comes in to the aid of history. The apocryphal Gospels, which made their
appearance as early as the end of the flrst century, indicate tho time when this change
was in operation. Luke, if we may trust his preface, belongs to the first period, that
uf investigation. 3. It is evident that Luke himself, on the authority of information
which he had obtained, believed in the reality of the facts which he relates in his first
two chapters as firmly as in that uf all the lest uf the Gospel history. His narrative
bears numerous maiks of its strictly historical character : the course ef Abia, the city
of Galilee named Nazareth, the city ot the hill-country of Juda, where dwelt the
parents nf .John the Baptist, the census nt Cyrenius, the eighty-four years' widowhood
uf Anna the prophetess, the physical and moral growth of Jesus as a child and young
man, his return to Nazareth and settlement there — all these details leave us no room
to duubt the completely historical seuse which the author himself attached to these
narratives. If, then, this part lacks the' authority of apostolic testimony, it is guar
anteed by the religious cunvictions of the author, and by his personal assurance of
the value of the oral er written sources whence he derived his knowledge of these
facts.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 43
The Gospel of the Infancy in Luke comprises seven narratives :
1. The announcement of the birth of the forerunner, 1 : 5-35 ; 3. The announce
ment of the birth ef Jesus, 1 : 36-38 ; 3. The visit of Mary lo Elizabeth, 1 : 39-56.
These three narratives form the first cycle.
4. The birth nf the fererunner, 1 : 57-80 ; 5. The birth ef Jesus, 3 : 1-20 ; 6. The
circumcisinn and presentation of Jiesus, 2 : 31-40. These three narratives form a
second cycle.
7. The first journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, 2 : 41-53. This seventh narrative is.
as it were, the crown ef the two preceding cycles.
first NABEATrVE.— CHAP. 1 : 5-35.
Announcement of ilie Birth of John tlie Baptist.
The first words of the narrative bring us back from the midst uf Greece, whither
we were transported by the prologue, into a completely Jewish world. The very style
changes its character. Prom the fifth verse it is so saturated with Aramaisms that the
contrast with the four preceding verses resulting from it obliges us to admit, either that
the author artificially modifies his language in order tu adapt it tu his subject, and su
prnduces an imitation— a refinement of method scarcely probable — or that he is dealing
with ancient documents, the Aramaic coloring of which he endeavors to preserve as
faithfully as possible. This second supposition alone appears admissible. But it m-ay
assume two forms. Either the author simply copies a Greek document which already
had the Hebraistic character wilh which we are struck ; or the document iu his hands
is in the Aramean tongue, and he translates it into Greek. Bleek maintains the first
view. We shall examine, at the seventy-eighth verse of chap. 1, his principal proof.
¦ As all the most characteristic peculiarities of Luke's style are found in these two
chapters, the second altern-ative is bythis circumstance rendered more probable. But
in this case it is asked. Why Luke, translating from the Aramean, did not reproduce
his document in purer Greek, as he was perfectly competent to do ; comp. vers. 1-4.
And he is blamed for his servility as a translator. It is exactly as if M. de Baranle
were blamed for preserving with all possible fideUty, in his history of the Dukes nt
Burgundy, the style ef the ancient chronicles from which the contents of his narra
tive are drawn ;*or M. Augustin Thierry, for "' having kept as near as he possibly
could te the language ef the ancient historians."*- So far from deserving the blame
uf his critics, Luke has shewn himself a man uf exquisite taste, in that he has pre
served thruughuut his narrative all the flavur of the documents he uses, and has
availed himself uf the incomparable flexibility ot the Greek language te reproduce in
all their purity of substance ^nd fnrm, and give, as it were, a tracing of the precious
documents which had faUen into his hands.
This first narrative describes : 1. The trial of Zacharias and Elizabeth (vers. 5-7).
3. The premise ef deliverance (vers. 8-33). 3. The accomplishment of this promise
(vers. 23-25).
1. The Trial: vers. 5-7. f For 400 years direct communications between the Lord
and his pedple had ceased To the lengthened seed-time of the patriarchal. Mosaic,
* " Histoire de la Couquete d'Angleterre," etc., Introd. p. 9.
f Ver. 5. 54. B. C. D. L. X. Z. and some Mnn. , yvvri avru, instead of n yvvij avrov, the
reading of T. R. 15 Mjj. the Mnn. Syr. Itpi«"4"<i. Ver 6. 54. B. C. X.,'evavTtov, in
stead of evuKioi', the readingof T. R. 18 Mjj. the Mnn.

44 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
and prophetic periods, had succeeded a season of harvest, A fresh seed-time, the
second and last phase ef divine revelation, -was about to open ; this time God would
address Himself to the whole world. But when God begins a new work. He does not
scornfully break with the instrument by which the past work has been effected. As
it is from the seclusion of a convent that in the middle ages He will take the refcrmer
cf the Church, so it is from the. loins of an Israelitish priest that he now causes tu
come forth the man who is tn intrnduce the werld to the renovatien prepared fur it.
The temp'ie itself, the centre cf the thencracy, becomes the cradle ef the new cove
nant, of the worship in spirit and in truth. There is, then, a divine suitability in the
chuice both ef the acters and theatre of the scene which is about to take place.
The days ot Herod (ver. 5) designate the time of this prince's reign. This fact
agrees with Matt. 2 -.1 ei aeq, , where the birth of Jesus is also placed in the reign nf
Hered. It may be inferred from Matt. 3 : 19 that this birth happened quite at the
end nf this reign. According to Josephus, the death of Hered must have taken place
in the spriug of the year 750 u.c. Jesus, therefore, must have been born at latest in
749, or quite at the beginning of 750. It follows from this, that in the fifth century
cur era was fixed at least four years too late.
The title of King of Judea had been decreed tn Hernd by the Senate nn the
recommendatiun ut Antony and Octavius. The course of Abia was the eighteenth
nf the twenty-four courses or ephemerise into which, from David's time, the college
of priests had been divided (1 Chron. 34 : 10). Each of these classes did duty for
eight days, from orfe Sabbath fo another, ence every six months (3 Kings 11 : 9).
'Eorifiepia, properly daily service ; thence : in rotation, returning on a fixed day ;
thence : lastly, the group of persons subject to this rotation. As we know that the
day on which the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed was the niuth of the fifth month
of the year 833 u.c, that is to say, the 4th of August ef the year 70 uf our era ; and
as, according to the Talmud, it was the first ephemeria which was on duty that day,
we may reckon, calculating backward, that in the year which must have preceded that
in which .Tesus was burn, that is to say, probably in 748, the ephemeria of Abia was
on duly in the week from the 17th to the 33d of April, and in that from the 3d to the
9th of October. Therefore John the Baptist would be born nine mouths after one of
these two dales, aud Jesus six months later, consequently in the month of July, 749,
or in the month ot January, 750.* In this calculation, however, of the time ef year
to which the births uf John and Jesus shnuld be assigned, everything depends on the
determination of the year nf the birth nf Jesus. But this is a question which is not
yet decided wilh any certainty.
The Hebraistic coloring ef the style is seen particularly : 1st, in the expressinn
h Tali fifilpaic (¦'O'^S) ; 3dly, in the connection of prnpogilions by means nf the particle
Kai, instead of the Greek syntactical construction by means of relative prunouns and
conjunctions ; 3dly, in the emplo.yment of the verb eysvero in the sense of ifi^V The
subject ot eysvero is not, as is generally thought, the word iepe-oi, but rather the verb
Tjv, which must be understood in the three following prepositions (comp.^ ver. 8,
iyevcTo ^Aa;i;f). The Alex, reading, yvvij aiiT€>, which is more uncouth and Hebraistic
than i] yvvfi avrov, is probably the true reading. The term righteous (vef. 6) indicates
general conformity et conduct to the divine precepts ; this quality does nut abso
lutely exclude sin '(comp. vers. 18-30). It simply suppuses that the man humbly
* " Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopsis der vier Evang.'' pp. 141-145.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 45
acknuwledges his sin, strives tn make amends for it, and, aided from on high, strug
gles against it. The Byz. reading kvuTriov, in ihe presence, under the eyea of, appears
preferable to the Alexandrian reading havriov, in tlie face of, before. God and man
cannot be represented as being face to face in this passa.ge, where God's judgment on
man is in question (see at ver. 8). 'Evuinov answers tu ijo^, and expresses the inward
reality nf this righteuusness. The twu terms svTo?.ai and diKaiupara, commandments
and oi'dinanees, have been distinguished in different ways. The furmer appears to
us to ref er tn the mure general principles nf the meral law — tu the Decalogue, for
example ; the latter, to the multitude of particular Levitical nrdiuances. AtKuiupa
properly is, what God has declared righteous. As the expression before God brings
out the iuward truth of this righteousness, so the following, walking in , . , in
dicates its perfect fldelity in practice. The term blamelesa no more excludes sin
here than Phil. 3 : 6. The well-knuwn description in Rom. 7 explains the sense in
which this wnrd must be taken. The germ ef concupiscence may exist in the heart,
even under the cuvering nf the most complete external ubedience.
Ver. 7. In the heart nf this truly theocratic family, so worthy of the divine bless
ing,' a grievous want was felt. To have no children was a trial the more deeply felt
in Israel, that barrenness was regarded by the Jews as a mark of divine displeasure,
according to Gen. 3. KaBon does not signify because ihat exactly, but in accordance
with thia, thai. It is cue ef these terms which, in the New Testament, only occur
in Luke's writings (19 : 9, and four times in the Acts). If, therefore, as Bleek
thinks, Luke had found these narratives already composed in Greek, he must never
theless admit that he has modified their style. The last proposition cannot, it
appears, depend on kuBoti, aeeing that ; for it would ndtbe logical to say, " They had
no children . . seeing that they were both well stricken in years. " So, many
make these last words an independent sentence. The position, however, of the verb
. Tjaav at the end, tends rather to make this phrase depend on naBon, To do this, it
suffices to supply a thought : They had no children, and they retained but little hope
of having any, seeing that . " The expression -Trpo/Je/Sj^/cdTES iv rals Tiucpai;
avTdv is purely Hebraistic (Gen. 18 - 11, 34 : 1 ; Josh. 18 : 1 ; 1 Kings 1 : 1 — DiJO-iT
3. The promise of deliverance : vers. 8-33. ¦ This portion comprises : 1. vers. 8-17,
The promise itself ; 3. vers. 18-33, The manner in which it was received.
1. The narrative uf the premise includes . the appearance (vers. 8-13), and the
message (vers. 13-17), of the angel.
The appearance of the angel : vers. 8-13.-* The incense had to be offered, accord-
irig to the law (Ex. 30 : 7, 8), every morning and evening. There waa public prayer
three times a day : at nine in the morning (Acts 3 : 15 ?), at noon (Acts 10 : 9), and at
three in the afternoon (Acts 3 : 1, 10 : 30.) The first and last of these acts of public
prayer coincided with the offering of incense (Jos. Antiq. xiv. 4. 3). In the con
struction sysvero Oaxe, the subject of the first verb is the act indicated by the second.
'EvavTt, in the face of, before, is suitable here ; for the officiating priest enacts a part
in the front of the Divinity. The words, according to the custom of the priest's
offlce (ver. 8), may be referred either to the established rotation ef the courses
(ver. 8), or tu the use of the lot with a view to the assignment of each
* Ver. 8. The Mnn. vary between svavn and evavTwv. Ver. 10, 54. B. B. and 13
Mjj, put TOV ?,aov between v" aud ¦Kpoatvxop.evov ; whUe the T. R., with A. C. D. K,
n., put it before n'^.

46 COMMENTARY OJf ST. LUKE.
day's functions. In both cases, the extraordinary use uf the lut wnuld be wurthy of
mention. The reference of these words to what precedes appears to us mure natural ;
we regard them as a simple amplificatinu nf ev ry rd^ei: "the order nf his cuurse,
accurding tu the custum nf the priest's nfflce." On tho use of the let Oosterzee
rightly observes that it proceeded frum this, that nothing in the service nf the sanctu
ary was tn be lett to man's arbitrary decision. The function of oft'eriug incense,
which gave the priest the right to enter the holy place, was regarded as the most
honorable nf all. Further, according tu the Talmud, the jjriest who had obtained il
was not permitted to draw the lot a second time in the same week. E'Lae7iBuv, lia/Bing
entered ; there was the honor ! This fact was at the same time the condition ef the
whole scene that followed. And that is certainly the reason why this detail, which
is correctly understood by itself, is so particularly mentioned. Meyer and Bleek, nut
apprehending this design, find here an'inaccuracy uf expressinn, and maintain that
with the infinitive Bv/iidaai the author passes by anticipation from the notinn uf the
fact tn its historical realization. This is unnecessary ; slae?Suv is a pluperfect in
reference to Bv/zcdaai: "It fell to him to offer incense after having entered." The
term vads, temple, designates the buildings properly so called, in oppnsitinn tn' the
different cnurts ; and the ccmplement Kvpiov, of ihe Bord, expres.ses its character in
virtue uf which the Lord was about to manifest Himself in this house.
The 10th verse mentions a circumstance which brings out the solemnity of the
time, as the preceding circumstance brought out the .solemnity of the place. The
prayer ot the people assembled in the court accompanied the offering nf incense.
There was a clese connection between these two acts. The one was the typical, ideal,
and therefore perfectly purepfayer ; the other the real ijrayer, which was inevitably im
perfect and defiled. The former covered the latter with its sanctity ; the latter com
municated to the former its reaUty and life. Thus they were the complement of
each ether. Hence their obligator}'- simultaneousuess and their mutual connection
are forcibly expressed by the dative t§ upa. The reading which puts roO /mov be
tween vv and ¦Kpoaevxdpevov expresses better the essential idea of the proposition
contained in this participle.
Ver. 11. Here, wilh the appearance of the angel, begina the marvellous character
ef 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 neoe.isarily and unhesitatingly
reject, as flclitious this supernatural element, and at the same time everything else in
the Gospel of a similar character. But if Christiamty was au entirely new beginning
(Verny) in history, the second and fiual creation of man, it was natural that an inter
position un so grand a scale should be accompanied by a series of particular interposi
tions. It was even necessary. For how were the representatives uf the ancient
nrder 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 (3 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 nf the
place, by the sacredness cf the functien he was about to perform, by his lively sym
pathy with all this people whu were imploring Heaven for national deliverance, and,
last of all, by the experience uf his own domestic trial, the feeling of which was to be

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 47
painfully revived by the favor abnut tn be shnwn him. Under the influence of aU
these circunstances combined, that internal sense which puts man in contact wilh
the higher world was awakened in him. But the necessity of this inward predispo
sition in nu way pruves that the visien nf Zacharias was merely the result of a high
state ef mnral excitement. Several particulars in the narrative make this explanation
inadmissible, particularly these two : the difficulty with which Zacharias puts faith
in the promise made to him, and the physical chastisement which is inflicted on him
fer his unbelief. These facts, in anj' case, render a simple psychological explanation
impossible, aud oblige the denier of the objectivity of the appearance to throw him
self upon the mythical interpretation. The term dyyeloi Kvpiov, angel of ihe Bord, may
be regarded as a kind uf proper name, and wc may translate the angel of the Bord,
notwithstanding the absence of the article. But since, when once this personage is
introduced, the -wprd angel is preceded by the article (ver. 13), it is more natural to
translate here an angel. The entrance to the temple facing the east, Zacharias, ou
entering, had on his right the table of shew-bread, placed on the north side ; ou 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 ef the veil that hung between this
part et the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. The expression on ihe right aide of ilie
altar, must be explained according to the point of view of Zacharias : the angel stood,
therefore, between the altar and the shewbread table. The fear of Zacharias pro
ceeds from the consciousness of sin, which is immediately awakened in the human
mind when a supernatural manifestation puts it in direct contact with the divine
world. The expression 06/3oc- sTreTreaev is a Hebraism (Gen. 15 : 12). 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.
The message of the angel : vers. IS-H.-* " But the angel said unto him. Fear not,
Zacharias : for thy prayer is heard ; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son,
and thou shalt 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 strong drink ; and he shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16. And many nf the children of Israel shall
he turn to the Lord their God. 17. And hu shall go before him in the spirit and
power of Elias, to turn tho hearts of the fathers lo the children, and the disobedient
tu the wisdom of the just ; to make ready a people prep.ared 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 ef 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
Messiah. 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 in no way favorable to this
explanation, nor is that which follows (ver. IS"") ; for the sense nf the /cat is most cer
tainly Ibis : " And su thy wife Elizabeth . . ." Further, the two personal pro-
* Ver. 14. -Instead ot yevvriasi, which T. R. read's with G. X. r. and several Mnn.,
all the others read yeveaec. Ver. 17. B. G. L. V. : irpoas7i,svaETai, instead ot
¦npocKevaerai, the reading of T. B. with 15 Mjj., etc.

48 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nouns, cov and aol, " thy wife shall bear thee," as also the aoi, " thou shalt have (ver.
14), prove positively the entirely persunal character of the prayer and its answer.
The objection that, according to ver. 7, he cnuld no Innger expect tn have a child,
aud consequently could not pray with this design, exaggerates the meaning of this
wnrd. The phrase KaTislu ovopa is a Hebraism ; it signifies, preperly, tn call any one
by his name. The mime 'lud^wrji, John, is composed of nin^ ^''^^ IjH • 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 14lh 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 : Isl,
a son ; 2d, a son great before God ; 3d, the forerunner uf the Messiiih. 'Aya'KXiaai'i
expresses the transports which a livel.y emotion of joy produces. The beginning of
the fulfilment of this promise is related, vers. 64-66. The reading yeveaei is certainly
preferable to yewyaei, which is perhaps borrowed from the use of the verb yevvdv (ver.
13). The ardor of this private and public jny is justified in the 15th verse by the
eminent qualities which this child will possess {ydp). 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 from personal holiness and the moral authority accompanying it. The two
KUl following may be paraphrased by : and in fact. The child is ranked beforehand
among that class of speciaUy consecrated raen, whn may be called the hemes nf the
ocratic religion, the Nazariles. The ordinance respecting the kind of lite to be led
by these men is found in Num. 6 : 1-21. The vow of the Nazarite was either tem
porary or for lite. The Old Testament offers us two examples of this secund furm :
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 Ufe,
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). 2iKepa denotes all kinds of fermented drink extracted
frum fruit, except that derived from the grape. In place of this means of sensual
excitement, John will have a more hBalthful stimulant, the source of all pure exalta
tion, the fioly Spirit. The same contrast occurs in Eph. 5 : 18 : "Be not drunk
wilh wine . . . but be filled with the Spirit." And in his case this slate wUl
begin from his mother's womb : hi, even, is not put for ?/(!);, already/ this word
signifies, while he is yet in his mother's womb. The fact related (vers. 41-44) is thu
beginning of the accomplishment ef this promise, but it in no way exhausts its mean
ing. Vers. 16, 17. The miaaioti ot the chUd ; it is, described (ver. 16) iu a general and
abstract way : lie will bi-ing back, turn; this is the n-nyn of the Old Teatament. This
expression implies that the people are sunk in estrangement from God. The 17th
verse specifies and develops this mission. The pronoun avroi, he, brings out prom
inently the person ef John with a view to connect him with the peraon of the Lord,
who ia to foUow him {airov). The relation between these two personages thus set
forth is expressed by the two prepositions, irpd, before (in the verb), and hiiiriov, ujider
the eyes of; he who precedes walks under the eyes of him th^t comes after him. The

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 49
Alex, reading vpmie^.evaeTai has ne meaning. The pronoun avrov (before him) has
been referred by some directly to the person of the Messiah. An attempt is made to
justify this meaning, by saying that this personage is always present te the mind of
the IsraeUte when he says " he." But this meaning is evidently forced ; the pronoun
Ilim can only refer to the principal word of the preceding verse : ihe Bord their God.
The prophecy. (Mai. 3 : 1), of which this passage is an exact reproduction, explains
it : " Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ;
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger
ef the covenant, whom ye delight in." According to these words, therefore, in the
eyes ot the prophet the Messiah is no ether than Jehovah himself. For it is Jehovah
who speaks iu this prophecy. It is He who causes Himself to be preceded in his
appearance as the Messiah by a forerunner who receives (4:5) the name of Elijah,
and who is to prepare His way. It is He who, under the names of Adonai (the Lord)
and the angel of the covenant, comes to take possession ef His temple. Frum the
Old as well as the New Testament point of view, the coming of the Messiah is there
fore the supreme theophany.- Apart from this way of regarding them, the words of
Malachi and those ef the angel in our 17th verse are inexplicable. See an avTot very
similar to this in the strictly analogous passage, John 12 : 41 (comp. wilh Isa. 6).
It appears from several passages in the Guspels that the people, with their learned
men, expected, before the coming of the Messiah, a personal appearance of Elijah,
er of some ether prophet like him, prdftably both (John 1 : 21, 33 ; Matt. 16 : 14,
17 : 10, 27 : 47). -The angel spiritualizes this grossly literal hope : " Thy son shall
be another Elijah. The Spirit designates the divine breath in general , and the term
power, which is added to it, indicates the special character of the Spirit's influence
in John, as formerly in Elijah. The preposition iv, in, makes the Holy Spirit the
element into which the ministry of John is to strike its roots.
The picture of the effect produced b.T this ministry is also borrowed from
Malachi, who had said : " He shall turn the heart cf the fathers to the
children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I cume and smite
the earth with a curse." The LXX., and, after their example, many mudern
interpreters, have applied this descriptiun tn the re-establishment nf domestic
peace iu Israel. But nothing either in the ministry of EUjah or uf John the Baptist
had any special aim in this direction. Besides, such a result has ne direct connection
with the preparation for the work of the Messiah, and bears no proportion to the
threat which follows in the prophetic word : " Lest I come and smite the earth wilh
a curse." Lastly, the thought, "and the heart of the children to their fathers, "
taken in this sense, could not have substituted for it in the discourse of the angel,
"and the rebellious tu the wisdom ef the just," unless we suppose that in every
Israelitish family the chUdren are necessarily rebellious and their parents just. Some
explain it thus : " He wUI bring back to God all together, both the hearts of the
fathers and these ef the children ;" but this does violence to the expression employed.
Calvin and others give the word heart the sense of feeling : " He wiU bring back the
pious feeUng of the fathers [faithful tn God] to the present generation [the disobedient
chUdren], and turn the latter to the wisdom of the former." But can " tn turn their
hearts toward" mean " tn awaken dispositions in" ? For this sense £JS would have
been necessary instead of kiri {tIkvo) ; besides, we cannot give the verb iiriaTpETpat
such a different senae from i^maTpsifiEi in ver. 16. The true sense uf these words, it
seems tu me, may be gathered from other prophetic passages, such as these : Isa.

50 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
39 : 32, " Jacob shall no more be ashamed, neither shall his face wax pale, when he
seeth his chUdren become the work of my hands." Lxui. 16, "Doubtless Theu art
our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not ;
Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemed !" Abraham and Jacob in the place of
their resf, had blushed at the sight of their guilty descendants, and turned away their
faces from them ; but now they would turn again toward them with satisfaction in
consequence cf the change pruduced by the ministry of Juhn. The words of Jesus
(John 8 : 56), "Abraham rejoiced tn see my day, and he saw it, aud was glad,"
proves that there is a reality underlying these poetic images. Wilh this meaning the
modification introduced into the second member of the phrase is easily explained.
The children who -will turn toward their fathers (Malachi), are the Jews of the time
of the Messiah, the children of the obedient, who return to the wisdom of the pious
patriarchs (Luke). Is not this modification made with a view to enlarge the applica
tion ot this promise ? The expression, the rebellious, may, in fact, comprehend not
only the Jews, but also the heathen. The term uTreiOeii, rebellioua, is applied by Paul
(Rom. 11) to bolh equaUy. 'bpdvyati Slku'iuv, the wisdom of the just, denotes that
healthy appreciation cf things which is the privilege ot upright hearts. The preposi
tion of rest, iv, is juined to a verb of motion, cmaTpiipat, to express the fact that this
wisdom is a state in -which men remain when once they have entered it. It will be
John's mission, then, to reconstitute the mural unity of the people by restoring the
broken relation between the patriarchs andsti^^ir descendants. The withered branches
will be quickened intu new life by sap proceeding frum the trunk. Thia reatnration
nf the unity of the elect people wOl be their true preparation for the coming uf the
Messiah. Some interpreters have proposed tn make direiBelc the object cf hoi/tdaai,
and this last a secund infinitive of purpose, parallel to iwiarpeipai : " And tn prepare
by the wisdom nf the just, the rebellious, as a people made ready for the Lord." It
is thought that in this way a tautology is avoided between the two words f.-oifidaai, to
prepare, and KureaKevacj/xevov, made ready, dispoaed. But these two terms have distinct
meanings. The flrst bears on the relation of John to the people ; the secund on the
relation ef the people to the Messiah. John prepares the people in such a way that
they are disposed to receive the Messiah. Of course it is the ideal task of the fore
runner that is described here. In reality this plan will succeed only in su far as the
people shall consent to surrender themselves to the divine action. Is it prnbable
that after the ministry uf Jesus, when the unbelief of the people was already an
historical fact, a later writer would have thought of giving such an-uplimist coloring
to the discourse of the angel ?
2. Vers. 18-33 relate the manner in which the promise is received ; and first,
the ubjectinn of Zacharias (ver. 18) ; next, his punishment (vers. 19, 30) ; lastly, the
effect produced upon the people by this latter circumstance.
Vers. 18-20. "And Zacharias said unto the angel. Whereby shall I know this?
for 1 am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering,
said unto him, I am Gabriel that stand in the presence of God ; and am sent to speak
unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb,
and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because
theu believest not my wnrds, which shall be fulfilled in their seasnn." Abraham,
Gideon, and Hezekiah had asked for signs (Gen. 15 ; Judg. 6 ; 3 Kings 30) without
being blamed. God had of Himself granted one to Moses (Ex. 4), and offered one
to Ahaz (Isa. 7). Why, it this was lawful in all these cases, was it not so in this?

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 51
There is a maxim of human law which says, Siduofaeiunt idem, non eat idem. There
are different degrees of respunsibility, either accnrding tn the degree uf development
of the individual ur uf the age, nr accnrding tn the character of the divine manifesta
tion. God alone can determine these degrees. It appears from the 19th verse that
the appearance of the being who spoke to Zacharias ought ef itself to have been a
sufficient sign. In any case this difference from the similar accounts in the Old Tes
tament proves that our narrative was not artificially drawn up in imitation uf them.
The sign requested is designated by the preposition kutu, aceoi'ding to, aa the norm of
knowledge. The ydp, for, refers to this idea understood . I have need of such a sign.
Yet Zacharias prayed for this very thing which nuw, when prnmised by God, appeara
impossible tu him. It is an inconsistency, but one in keeping with the laws of our
moral nature. The narrative. Acts 13, in which we see the church of Jerusalem
praying for the deUverance ef Peter, and refusing to believe it when granted, presents
a similar case.
In order tu make Zacharias feel the serinusness ef his fault, the angel (ver. 19)
refers tn twu things : his dignity as a divine messenger, and the nature uf his mes
sage. 'Eyw, I, cuming first, brings his persnn intu pruminence. But he immediately
adds, that atand in ilie preaenee of God, tu show that it is not he who is offended,
but God who has sent him. The name Gabriel is composed of n^j and 7){< ; vir Dei,
the mighty messenger of God. The Bible knows of only two heavenly personages
who are invested with a name, Gabriel (Dan. 8 ; 16, 9 : 31) and-Michael (Dan. 10 : 13,
21 ; 13 : 1 ; Jude 9 ; Rev. 12 : 7). This latter uame (^N2''!3) signifies, whoia likeQod?
Here the critic asks sarcastically whether Hebrew is spoken in heaven ? But these
names are evidently symbolical ; they convey to us the character' and functions of
these personalities. When we speak to any one, it is naturally wilh a view to be
understood. WUon heaven communicates- with earth, it is nbliged to berrnw the
language of earth. According to the name given him, Gabriel is the mighty servant
ef Gud emplnyed to promote His work here below. It is in this capacity that he
appears to Daniel, when he comes to announce to him the restoration ot Jeruaalem ; it
is he also who promises Mary the birth of the Saviour. In all these circumstances he
appeara as the heavenly evangelist. The part of Gabriel is positive ; that of Michael
is negative. Michael is, as his name indicates, the destroyer of every one who dares
to equal, that is, to oppose God. Such is his misaion in Daniel, where he contends
against the powers hostile to Israel ; such also is it in Jude and in the Apocalypse,
where he fights, os the champion ef God, against Satan, the author of idolatry :
Gabriel buUds up, Michael overthrows. The former is the forerunner of Jehovah the
Saviour, the latter of Jehovah the Judge. Do not these two heavenly personages
remind us of the twu angels who accompanied Jehovah (Gen. 18) -when He came to
announce to Abraham, on the one hand, the birth of Isaac, and, on the other, the
destruction uf Sudom ? Biblical angelulngy makes mention ot nu nther persons
belonging tu the upper world. But this wise subriety did nut satisfy later Judaism ;
it knew besides an angel Uriel, who gives good counsel, and an angel Raphael, who
wurks budil.y cures. The Persian angelology is richer still. It reckons no less than
seven superiur spirits nr amschaspands. Hnw, then, can it be maintained that the
Jewish angelulngy ia a Persian impurtatiun ? Histury dues nut advance frnm the
complicated tn the simple. Besides, the narrative. Gen. 18, in which the twn
archangels appear, is prinr to the contact of Israel with the Persian religion. Lastly,
the idea represented by these twn personages is essentially Jewish. These twn

53 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
notions, nf a wurk of grace persnnified in Gabriel, and uf a wnrk uf judgment per
sonified in Michael, have their rents in the depths ef Jewish mnnntheism. The term
to stand before God indicates a permanent function (Isa. 6 : 3). This messenger is one
ef the servants of God nearest His throne. This superior dignity necessarily rests on
a higher degree of holiness. We may compare 1 Kings 17 : 1, where Elijah saya,
" The Lord before whom Island." Jesus expresses Himself in a similar manner
(Matt. 18) respecting the guardian angela of the litttle ones : " Their angels do always
behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Such a being deserves to be
taken at his word ; how much more when he is the bearer of a message Which is tu
fulfil the desires uf him to whum he ia sent, and answer his earnest supplicatiun (ver.
19'')! The chastisement inflicted un Zacharias (ver. 30) is at the same time tn serve as a
sign tu him. 'ISov, behold, indicates the unexpected character- uf this dispensatiun.
^luTnCif, not speaking, denntes simply the fact ; /^y dmd/uevos, n/)i being able io speak,
discleses its cause ; this silence will not be voluntary. O'invei, which, aa sueh, that is
to say, as beiug the wnrds uf such a being as I am. It may seem that with the future
ahall be fulfilled, the prepnsition iv is required, and not eis. ,But els indicates that
the performance of the premise will begin immediately in nrder to its completiun at
the appuinted time ; comp. Rom. 6 : 33, «s uyiaa/idv. Kaipos, tlieir season, refera not
only to the time {xpdvoi), but to the entire circumstances in which this fulfllment wiU
take place. There ia not a word in this speech nt the angel which is not at once
simple aud worthy ot the mouth into which it is put. It is not after this fashion that
man makes heaven speak when he is inventing ; only read the apocryphal writings !
Vers. 21 and 23. According tu the Talmud, the high priest did not remain long in
the holy nf hnlies nn the great day nf atunement. Much more would this be true of
the priest officiating daily in the holy place. The analytical form yv vpooHoKuv
depicts the lengthened expectation and uneasiness which began to take possession of
the people. The text indicates that the events which had just taken place was made
knuwn in twn ways : nn the nne hand, by the silence nf Zacharias ; on the other, by
signs by which he himself {av-rdi) indicated its uause. The analytical form yv 6iavevQv
denotes the frequent repetition of the same signs, and the imperfect Sie/ievev, he
remained dunib, depicts the increasing surprise produced by his continuing in this
state. 3. The accompliahmeni of the promiae : vers. 33-35. The subject ef iyevero, it came
io pasa, is all that follows te the end of ver. 35. Comp, a similar iyevero. Acts 9:3. The
active form ¦nspieKpvjisv iavryv, literaUy, she kepi herself concealed, expresses a more
energetic action than that designated by the middle ¦KepieKpinparo. Elizabeth isolated
herself intentionally, rendering herself invisible to her neighbors. Her conduct has
been explained in many ways. Origen and Ambrose thoui^ht that it was the reault
of a kind ot false modeaty. Paulus suppnsed that Elizabeth wished tn nbtain assur
ance nf the reality nf her happiness before speaking about it. According tn De
Wette, this retreat was nuthing mure than a precautinn for her health. It was dictated,
accurding tn Bleek and Oosterzee, by a desire for meditation and by sentiments et
humble gratitude. Of all these explanations, the last certainly appears the best. Bui
it in ne way accounts for the term for five months, so particularly mentioned.
Further, hew from this point of view are we to explain the singular expreasion, Thua
hath the Lord dealt with me ? The full meaning bf this word thus is necessarily
weakened by applying it in a general way to the greatness ef the blessing conferred

COMMENTAR'i' ON ST. Lti'ifE. 53
on Elizabeth, while this expression naturaUy establishes a connection between the
practice she pursues toward herself frum this time, and Gnd's method of dealing with
her What is this cnnnectiun ? Does she net mean, " I will treat myself as God has
treated my reproach. He has taken it away from me; I will therefore withdraw
myself frnm the sight nf men, so long aa I run any risk of still bearing it, when I am
in reality delivered frnm it ?" Restured by Gud, she feels that she nwes it tu heiaelf,
as well aa tn Him whn has hunured her in this way, tn expnse herself nu mure Iu the
scnrnful regards of men until she can appear befnre them evidently hnnoied by the
proofs of the divine fS,vnr. In this way the term five months, which she fixes for
her seclusion, becomes perfectly intelligible. For it ia after the fifth month that Ihe
couditiun nf a pregnant woman becomes apparent. Therefore it is not until then
that she can appear again in society, as what she really is, restored. In this coniiuct
and declaration there is a mixture ef womanly pride and humble gratitude which
makes them a very exquisite expression ef maternal feeling for one in such a posi
tion. We ahould like to know what later narrator would have invented such a deli
cate touch as this. But the authenticity uf this single detail implies the authenticity
of the whole ef the preceding narrative.* "Ort must be taken here in the sense ef
becauae; Elizabeth wants to justify whatever is unusual in the course of conduct she
has just adopted. 'E'rrctdev d<pe^.elv, " He has regarded me in a manner that takes
away ;" he has cast en me nne nf thnse efficacious lucks which, as the Psalmist says,
are deliverance itself. On barrenness as a reproach, comp. Gen. 30 : 33, where, after
the birth of her first-born, Rachel cries, " God has taken away my reproach."
This saying of Elizabeth's discleses all the humUiations which the pious Israelite
had endured from her neighbora during these long years ef barrenness. This alsn
comes out indirectly from ver. 36, in which the angel makes use of the expressinn,
" Her whn was called barren. " This epithet had become a kind of scbriquet for her
in the mouth of the people uf the place.
SECOND NARRATrVB. — CHAP. 1 : 26-38.
Announcement of the Birth of Jesus.
The birth of Jnhn the Baptist, like that nf Isaac, was due tn a higher pnwer ; but
it did nnt certainly transcend the limits uf the natural nrder. It is ntherwise wilh the
birth uf Jesus ; it has the character nf a creative act. In impurtance it cnnstitutes
the cnunterpart, nut uf the birth of Isaac, but of the appearance of the first man ;
Jesus is the second Adam. This birth ia the beginning of the world tu cume. If
this character nf the appearance nf Jesua be denied, the whole ef the subsequent nar
rative remains uninteUigible and inadmissible. Directly it is conceded, all the rest
accords wilh it.
But the creative character of this birth does nnt destroy the connectinn between the
old and the new era. We have just seen hnw, in the birth nf the greatest representa
tive uf the nld covenant, God remained faithful tn the thencratic past, by making the
Israelitish priesthnod the cradle of this chUd. He acts in the same way when tho
* For this beautiful explanation 1 am indebted to the friend to whom I have had
the joy of dedicating my commentary on Ihe Gospel uf John, and with whora I have
more than once read the Quspel of Luke, Professor Charles Prince, who now beholds
face lo face Him wbem we have sn el'teu contemplated together in the mirror uf His
word. Generally speaking, this commentary is as much his as mine.

54 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Head nf renewed humanity, the Lnrd nf the wurld tu cume, is tn make Hia appear
ance ; He causes Him tu cume fnrth as a scinn frnm the stuck nf the ancient rnyalty
nf Israel. Further, Gud has respect in this wurk tu the cenditiuna uf the human
past generally. WhUe creating in Him a new humanity. He is careful tu preserve
the link which unites Him tn the ancient humanity. Just as in the first crealien He
did nut create man'a bndy nut uf nuthing, but furmed it nut nf the dust nf the already
existing earth, nf which Adam was tn become tbe lord ; so, at the appearance uf the
second Adam, He did nut properly create His body ; He took it from the womb nt a
human mnther, so as tn maintain the organic connection which must exist between
the Head nf the new humanity and that natural humanity which it is His missinn to
raise to the height of His own stature.
This narrative records : 1. The appearance of the angel (vers. 26-39) ; 3. His
message (vers. 30-33) ; 3. The manner in which his message is received (ver. ,34-38).
1. The appearance qf the angel: vers. 36-29.'* From the temple the narrative
transports us to the bouse of a ynuug Israelitish woman. We leave the sphere of
official station tu enter inte the seclusinu nf private life. Mar3' prnbably was in
prayer. Her chamber is a sanctuary ; such, hanceforth, will be the true temple. The
date, the sixth month, refers to that given in ver. 24. It was the time when Eliza- ^
both had just left her retirement ; all that takes place in the visitation nf Mary is in
connection with this circumstance. The government vvb tc-u Beov, by God, or, as some
Alex, read, dird roii 6eov, on the pa/i't of God, indicates a difl'erence between this mes
sage and that in ver. 19. God interposes more directly ; it is a question here of His
nwn Snn. The received reading vivo, by, seems tn me fnr this reasnn mure iu accurd
ance with the spirit ef the context than the Alex, reading, which lays less emphasis
on the divine origin of the message.
The moat usual form of the name of the town in the documents is Nazareth : it is
admitted here by 'Tischendorf in his eighth edition. He accords, however, some
probability tu the furm Nazara, which is the reading Of 4 : 16 in the principal Alex
andrians. In Matt. 3 : 33, the mss. nnly vary between Nazareth and Nazaret. Keim,
in his " Histnry nf Jesus," has decided fur Nazara. He gives his leasnus, i. p. 319
et seq. : 1. The derived adjectives Na^upaZos, Na^apyvos are must readily explained
frnm this fnrm. 3. The fnrm Nazareth cnuld easily come from Nazara, as Ramath
from Rana (by the addition ef the Aramean article). The forms Nazareth and Naza
ret may alsn be explained as fnrms derived from that. 3. The phrase and Na^dpav,
in Eusebius, supposes the nominative Nazara. 4. It is the form preserved in the
existing Arabic name en-Nezirah. StUl it would be possible, even though the true
name was Naz-dra, that Luke might have been accustomed to ilse the form Nazareth ;
Tischendorf thinks that thia may be inferred from Acts 10 : 38, where 54. B. 0. D. E.
read Nazareth. The etymology of this name is probably ixj (whence the feminine
* Ver. 26. 54. B. L. W". and some Mnu., am instead of vn-o, which ia the read
ing ef T. R. with 16 Mjj. and almost all the Mnn. The mss, vary here between
NaCapeB (C. B. G. H. M. S. U. V. T. A. Rpiorique . j^ addition, 54. at 3 : 4, and B. at
2 :39, 51), Na(apa6 (A. A.), and Nafapcr (K. L. X. n and Z. at2 : 4) ; further, 54. B. Z.
read Na^apa at 4 : 16. Ver. 27. 64. B. F". L. and 32 Mnu. add after oikov, kui iraTpiai
(taken from 2 : 4). Ver.- 28. 54. B. L. W". and sume Mnn. umit the wurds EvUyyfievti
av ev yvvat^iv, which ia the reading of T. R. with 16 Mjj., almoat all the Mnn., Syr.
It. Vulg. Ver. 39. 54. B. D. L. X. and some Mnn. umit i6ovaa, which T. R. 'reads
after v ^e along with 15 Mjj., the nther Mnn., Syr. It, 54. B. D. L. X. and snme Mnn.
umit avTov after Aoyu.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 55
form ri"l!Jj), a shoot or scion ; this is the fnrm used in the Talmud. The Fathers
accnrdingly perceived in this name an allusinn tn the scinn nf David in the prephets.
Burckhardt the traveller explains it more simply hy the numerous shrubs which
clothe the ground. Hitzig has proposed another etymology ; n"lU1J. *''« guardian, the
name referring either to some pagan divinity, the protectress of the locality, as this
scholar thinks, nr, as Keim supposes, to the town itself, en account uf its cummand-
ing the defile nf the valley.
Nazareth, with a pepulatiun at the present day of 3000 Inhabitants, is about three
days' journey north ef Jerusalem, and about eight leagues west of Tiberias. It is
only a short distance from Tabor. It is reached from the valley ef Jezreel through a
mountain gnrge running frnm S. In N., and opening out intu a pleasant basin nf snme
twenty minutes in length by ten in width. A chain uf hUls shuts in the vaUey nn its
nnrthern side. Nazareth occupies its lower slopes, and rises in smiUng terraces
above the valley. From the summit of the ridge which incloses this basin nn the
nnrth there is a splendid view.* This valley was in Israel just what Israel was in
the midst nf the earth — a place at nnce secluded and npen, a sulitary retreat and a
high pest ef observation, inviting meditation and at the same time affording opper-
" tunity for far-reaching views in all directions, consequently admirably adapted for
an education of which God reserved to Himself the initiative, and which man could
not touch without spoiling it. The explanation, a town of Galilee, is evidently in
tended for Gentile readers ; it is added by the translator to the Jewish dncument that
lay befnre him.
Dn the wnrds, of the house of David, ver. 27, refer tn Juseph nr Mary 1 Gram
matically, it appears tn us that the fnrm nf the fuUowing sentence rather favurs the
furmer alternative. For if this clause applied, in the writer's mind, lo Mary, he
would have contiuned his narrative in this form; "and her name was . . ."
rather than in this : " and the young girl's name was . . " But does it follow
from this that Mary was not, in Luke'a opinion, a descendant ef David ? By no
means. Vers. 32 and 69 have no sense unlesa the author regarded Mary herself as
a daughter of thia king. See 3 : 23.
The term x^P""^" riva, to make any nne the object ef one's favor, is applied to
believers in general (Eph. 1 : 6). There is no thought here nf nut ward graces, as the
translatinn /mK of grace wnuld imply. The angel, having designated Mary bythis
expressinn as the special ubject nf divine faVnr, justifies this address by the wurds
which fellow : Tlie Bord with tliee. Supply ia, and not be ; it is not a wish. The
heavenly visitant speaks as nne kunwing hnw matters stund. The wnrds, " Blessed
art thnu amung wnmeu," are nnt genuine ; they are taken frnm ver. 43, where they
are nnt wanting in any document.
The impressinn made nn Mary, ver. 39, is nnt that nf fear ; it is a troubled feeling,
very natural in a young girl whn is suddenly made aware nf the unexpected presence
nf a strange persnn. The T. R. indicates twu causes uf trnuble : " And when she saw
him, she was troubled at his saying." By the emission of Idovaa, when ahe saw, the
Alexs. leave only one remaining. But this very simplification casts suspicion on
their reading. The two ancient 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 ef his presence. Tlorandi
* See Keim's fine description, " Gesch. Jesu," t. i. p. 331.

56 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
dennlfs propeily the origin (ttoO to and). But this term applies alsn to the contents
aud value, as is the case here. What waa ilie meaning, the import of . . . Having
thus prepaied Mary, the angel prnceeds with the message he has bruught.
3. The message nf the angel : vers. 30-33.* " And the angel said unto her, Pear
not, Maiy ; for thou hast found favor wilh God. 31. And, behold, theu shalt con
ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. 33. He
shall be gieat, and shall be called the Son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give
unto Him the throne of His father David : 33. Aud He shall reign over the house of
Jacob for ever ; and of His kingdom there shall be no end." By lung continuance,
Mary's trouble would have degenerated into fear. The angel prevents this painful
impression: " Fear net. " The term dpsi x'^P^'") tlu>u hast found favor, reproduces
the idea of icexapiTuiihy ; this expreasion belongs to the Greek of the LXX. The angel
proceeds to enumerate the striking proofs of this assertion, the marks of divine favur :
1st, a sou ; 2d, His name, a sign uf blessing ; 3d, His personal superiurity ; 4th, His
divine title ; lastly. His future and eternal sovereignty. 'IrfoiJ, behold, expresses the
unexpected character of the fact announced. 'lyaon^, Jesus, is the Greek form of
yi^yi, Jeschovah, which was gradually substituted for the older and fuller form yi^^n"'.
Jehoschovah, of which the meaning is, Jehovah saves. The same command is given
by the angel to Joseph, Matt. 1 ; 31, with this coniment : " For He shall save His
people fiom their sins." Criticism sees here the proof ef two different and contra
dictory traditions. But if Ihe reality of these two divine meaaagcs 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. 3. The
persunal quality of this sen : He shall be great — first nf all, in hnliness ; this is true
greatness in the judgment nf Heaven ; then, and as a consequence, in power and
influence, His title : Son uf the Highest. This title corresponds with His real nature.
For the expression, He aliall 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. Malt. 36 : 63 and John 1 : 50,
prove precisely the contrary - tbe first, because had the tille Son ef God signified
nothing more in the view of the Sanhedrim than that of Messiah, there would have
been nu blasphemy in assuming it, even falsely ; the second, because it would be idle
to put two titles together between which there was uo difference.-f On the uther
hand, the Tiinitarian sense should not tfe here applied to the term Son of God. The
notion of the pre-exislence of Jesus Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is quite foreign
le the context. Mary could not have comprehended it ; and en the suppusition that
she had comprehended or even caught a glimpse of it, so far from being sustained by
il in her wnrk as a ruother, she would ha've been rendered incapable of performing it
The notion here expressed by the title Son of God ia solely that of a peraonal and
mysterious relation between this child and the Divine Being. The angel explains
more clearly the meaning ef this term in ver. 35. L-dstly, the dignity and missiun of
this child : He is tn fulfil the offlce of Messiah. The expiessions are burrowed from
the pruphetic descripliuns, 8 Sara. 7 : 13, 13 ; Is^. 9 : 5-7. The throne uf David
should nnt be taken here aa the emblem of the throne of Gud, nur the hnuse of Jacob
* Ver. 30. D. alone reads papca inste.id of ftapia/i ; so at vers. 39, 56, and (with
C, at vers. 34, ,38, 46, 3 : 19, the mss. are divided between these two readings.
f See my " Conferences apologeliques," Gth conference; the divinity of JesuS
Christ, pp. 15-18.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 57
as a figurative designation of the Church. These expressions in the mouth of the
angel keep their natural and literal sense, It is, indeed, the theocratic royalty and
the Israelitish penple, neither more nor less, that are in question here ; Mary could
have understend these expressions in no ether way. It is true that, fnr the prnmise tn
be realized in this sense, Israel must have cunsented tn welcume Jesus as their Messiah.
In that case, the Iransfnrmed thencracy wnuld have npened its bnsnm tu the
heathen ; and the empire nf Israel wnuld have assumed, by the very fact nf this
ineorporatinn, the character nf a universal monarchy. The unbelief of Israel foiled
this plan, and subverted the regular cuurse nf histury ; sn that at the present day the
fulfilment nf these prumises is still pnstpnned tuthe future. But ia it likely, after the
failure uf the ministry nt Jesus amnng this penple, that abuut the beginning uf the
second century, when the fall nf Jerusalem had already taken place, any writer
wnuld have made an angel pruphesy what is expressed here ? This picture uf the
Messianic wurk cnuld have been pruduced at nn nther epuch than that tn -which this
narrative refers it — at the Iransitiun perind between the old and new covenants.
Besides, would it have been possible, at any later period, to reprnduce, with such
artless simplicity and freshness, the hnpes uf these early days ?
8. The manner in which the message was received . vers. 34-38.* " 34. Then
said Mary untn the angel, Hnw ahall this be, seeing I knnw nut a man ? 35. And the
angel answered and said untn her. The Hely Ghust shall come upon thee, and the
power ef the Highest ahall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy thing which
shall be bom nf thee shall be called the Sen uf God. 36. And, beheld, thy cousin
Elizabeth, she hath alsu cunceived a sen in her old age ; and this is the sixth month
with her, who waa called barren. 37. For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto me according to
thy word. And the angel departed frnm her." Mary's questiun dncs nnt express
duubt : it simply asks fnr an explanatinn, aud this very request implies faith. Her
questiun is the legitimate expressinn uf the astunishment nf a pure cnnscience. We
observe in the angel's reply the parallelism which among the Hebrews is alwaya the
expressinn nf exalted feeling and the mark of the puetic style. The angel tnuches
upun the must sacred nf mysteries, and his speech becomes a snng. Are the terms
come upon, overshadow, burrnwed, as Bleek thinks, frnm the image uf a bird cuver
ing her eggs nr brooding over her young ? Comp. Gen. 1:3. It appears to us rather
that these expressions allude to the cluud which cuvered the camp uf the Israelites in
the desert. In 9 : 34, as here, the evangelist describes the apprnach nf this myateri-
uus cluud by the term intaKid^eiv. The Hnly Ghust denntes here the divine pnwer,
the life-giving breath which calls intu develuped existence the germ nf a human per-
snnality slumbering in Mary's wnmb. This germ is the link which unites Jesus tn
human nature, and makers Him a member uf the race He cnmes tn save. Thus in
this birth the miracle nf the firat creatinn is repeated un a acale uf greater pnwer.
Twn elements cnncurred in the fnrmatinn uf man : a bndy taken frum the grnund,
and the divine breath. With these twu elements coireapund here the germ derived
frnm the wnmb nf Mary, and the Hnly Ghnat whn fertilizes it. The absnlute purity
* Ver. 34. Snme Mjj. Mnn. Vss. and Fathers add fioi te earai. Ver. 35. C. several
Mnn. it. add ck gov after yevva/ievov. Ver. 36. Instead ef avyyevyg, 9 Mjj. several
Mnn. read ovyyevii. Instead nf aweikyijivia, the reading nf T. R. with 16 Mjj., the
Mnn. Syr., 54. B. L. 1,., (!vvei'ky<liiv. 'Ver. 37. Instead nf ¦irapa tu 6ecj, 54. B. L. Z.,
jrapa tov Qeov.

58 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nf this birth results en the nne hand, frnm the perfect heUness of the divine principle
which is its efflcient cause ; on the other, frum the absence nf every impure mntinn
in her whn becnmes a mnther under the pnwer uf such a principle.
By the wnrd also {" therefure alao") the angel alludes tn his preceding wnrds :
He shall be called the Son of the Highest. We might paraphrase it : " And it is
precisely for this reason that I said te thee, that . . ." We have then here, frum
the mouth uf the angel himself, an authentic explanation of the term " Snn nf Gud"
in the furmer part nf hia message. After this explanatinn, Mary cnuld nnly under
stand the title in this sense : a human being ef whose existence God Himself is the
immediate author. It dnes nnt cunvey the idea ef pre-existence, but it implies more
than the term Messiah, which only refers tn Hia misaiun. The word ¦uipiarov, of ilie
Higheai, alsu refers tn the term vibi ifiarov. Son of ilie Higheat, ver. 33, and explains it.
Bleek, fuUuwing the Peschito, TertuUian, etc., makes aytoj' the predicate nf KXyByaErai,
and vidi Qeo'S in appnsilinn with uyiov. " Wherefure that which ahall be bnrn uf thee
shall be called holy. Son of God." But with the predicate holy, the verb should have
been, not " sAaK be called," but shall be. For lioly is not a title. Besides, the con
nection with ver. 33 will not allow any other predicate to 'he given to shallbe called
the Son of God. The subject of the pTirase ia therefore the complex term to yevvufievm
uyiov, ihe holy thing conceived in thee, and more especially ayiov, the holy ; thia adjec -
tive is taken as a substantive. As the adjective of yewu/iEvov, taken substantively, it
would of necessity be preceded by the article. The words ek aoi are a gloss. What
is the connection between this miraculous birth ef Jeaua and His perfect holiness?
The latter dues not necessarily result from the former. For holiness is a fact of vo
lition, not of nature. How could we assign any serious meaning to the moral strug
gles in the history of Jeaus — the temptation, for example — if His perfect holiness was
the necessary consequence ef His miraculous birth ? But it is not so. The miraculous
birth was only tbe negative condition of the spotless holiness uf Jesus. Entering intn
human Ufe in this way. He was placed in the normal condition ef man before his fall,
and put in a position to fulfil the career originally set before man, in which he was tn
advauce frum innocence to holiness. He was aimply freed .from the obstacle
which, nwing tn the way in which we arc born, hinders us from accomplishing this
task, but in order tu change this possibility into a reality, Jesus had to exert every
instant His own free will, and to devote Himself continually to the service ef good
and the fulfilment ef the task assigned Him, namely, "the keeping ef His Father's
commandment." Hia mira.culous birth, therefore, in no way prevented this conflict
from being real. It gave Him liberty not to sin, but did not take away from Him the
liberty of sinning.
Mary did not ask for a sign ; the angel gives her nne nf his nwn accnrd. This sign,
it is clear, is in clnse cnnnectiun with the prnmise just made tn her. When sho
behnlda in EUzabeth the realization nf this premised sign, her faith will be thoroughly
confirmed. 'Woti, behold, expresses its unexpectedness. Kai before aury, she also;
brings nut the analngy between the two facts thus brought together. Mary's being
related to Elizabeth in no way prnves, as Schleiermacher thuught,. that Mary did nnt
belung tn the tribe nf Judah. There was nn law tn nblige an Israelitish maiden tu
marry intn her nwn tribe ; * Mary's father, even if he was uf the tribe nf Judah, might
therefore have espoused a woman of the tribe of Levi. Cuuld it be from this passage
* Unless when land was possessed, and she desired te retain it. See Numb,
30 : 6-8.-J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 59
that Keim derives hia assertion, that the priestly origin ef Mary is indicated in Luke
(i. 334 ) ? The dative yypf in the T. R. is nnly fnund in snme mss. All the nther
ducuments have yypei, frnm the form yypoi.
In ver. 37 the angel refers the twu events thus annuunced tu tn the cemmun cause
which explains them bnth — the bnundless omnipotence of God. That is the ruck of
faith. 'AchfaTElv signifies, properly, to be paiverleaa. And Meyer maintains that this
must be its meaning here, and that firijia is tn be taken in its proper senae nf lom-d.
In that case we ahnuld have tn give the preference tn the Alex, reading tov Qeoii :
" Nu wnrd prnceeding frnm Gud shall remain pnwerless. " But this meaning is far
fetched. IlaptJ TOV Qeov cannet depend naturally either un ()yiia cr udwaryaEi. Malt.
17 : 30 prnves that the verb uSwaTelv alsn signifies, in the Helleniatic dialect, io be
¦impossible. The sense therefure is, "Nuthing shall be impnssible." I^apd tCj QeO,
with Ood, indicates the sphere in which alune this wnrd ia true. As thnugh the
angel aaid. The m^ossz'Weia nnt divine. ''Pyp.a, aa "in^, a thing, in an far aa annuunced.
In reference tn this cuncise viguruus expressinn nf biblical supernaturalism, Oosterzee
says : " The laws uf nature are not chains which the Divine Legislator has laid upen
Himself ; they are threads which He hulda in His hand, and which He shnrtens nr
lengthens at will."
Gnd's message by the muuth uf the angel was nut a cummand. The part Mary
had to fulfil made nu demands nn her. It unly remained, therefure, fnr Mary tu cun-
sent tu the ccnsequences uf the divine nffer. She gives thia consent in a word at once
aimple and sublime, which involved the most extraordinary act of faith that a woman
ever consented to accomplish. Mary accepts tbe sacrifice of that which is dearer te a
ynung maiden than her very life, and thereby becomes pre-eminently the heroine of
Israel, the ideal daughter ot Zion, the perfect type of human receptivity in regard te
the divine work. We see here what exquisite fruits the lengthened work of the Hnly
Spirit under the nld cnvenant had produced in true Israelites. The wurd Mot;, behold,
does not here express surprise, but rather the offer uf her entire being. Just as
Abraham, when he answers God with, "Behold, here. I am" (Gen. 33, Behold, 1),
Mary places herself at God's disposal. The evangelist shows bis tact in the choice of
the aorist yevoiro. The present would have signified, " Let it happen to me this very
instant !" The aorist leaves the choice uf the time tu God.
What exquisite delicacy this scene displays I Wliat simplicity and majesty
in the dialogue ! Not une word too man3^ not one too few. A narrative
so perfect could only have emanated from the holy sphere within which the
mystery was accomplished. A later origin would inevitably have betrayed itself by
some foreign element. Here the Protevangelium of James, which dates from the first
part of the second century : " Fear not, said the angel to Mary ; for thou hast found
grace 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 givea birth ? And the angel ef the
Lord said to her. No, not thus, Mary, for the power ef God . ." etc.
THIRD narrative.— CHAP. 1 : 39-56.
Mary's Visit io Elizabeth.
This narrative ia, aa it were, the aynthesis of the two preceding. These two
divinely favored women meet and pour forth their hearts.

60

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

1. Arrival uf Mary (vers. 39-41) ; 3. Elizabeth's salutatinn (vers. 42-45) ; 3. Snng
nf Mary (vers. 46-55). Ver. 56 fnrms the histurical cnnclusinn.
1. The arrival of Ma/ry ; vers. 39-41.* The terms arose and with haaie express a
lively eagerness. This visit met what was in fact a deep need nf Mary's snul. Since
the message uf the angel, Elizabeth had becume fnr her what a mnther is fnr her
daughter in the must impnrtant mument uf her life. The wnrds in those days cnm-
prise the time neceasary fnr making preparatinns fnr the journey. The distance tn be
traversed being fnur days' juurney, Mary cnuld nnt travel su far alune. The wurd 5
upeivy, the hill country, has snmetimes received quite a special meaning, making it a
kind nf prnper name, by which in pnpular language the mnuntainnus plateau tn the
south of Jerusalem was designated ; but no instance of a similar designation can be
given either frum the Old nr the New Testament. It appears tn me that in this
expreaainn, " a city nf ,Iuda in the mnuntain, " it is in nn way necessary tu give the
term mnuntain the force nf a prnper name. The cnntext makea it sufficiently clear
that it is the mnuntain qf Juda, in distinctien from the plain of Juda, that is meant.
Comp. Jnsh. 15 : 48, where y dpEivy ia emplnyed precisely in this way by the LXX.
Accnrding te Josh. 15 : 55, 31 : 16, there was in this country, to the south of
Hebron, a city of the name of Juilia or Juitlia ; and according to the second passage
(comp. ver. 13), this city was a priestly city.f From this several writers (Reland,
Winer, Rfenau) have concluded that the text of our Gospel has undergone an altera
tion, and that the word Juda is a corruption uf Juilia. But nu ms. suppurts this
cunjecture ; and there is nothing in the context to require it. On the contrary, it is
probable that, had Luke desired to indicate by name the city in which the parents ef
.lohn the Baptist lived, he would have done it snoner. The most important priestly
city of this country was Hebron, two leagues south of Belhlehem. And although,
subsequent to the exile, the priests no longer made.it a. rule te reside exclusively in
the towns that had been assigned to them at the beginning, it is very natural to Innk
fur the home ef Zacharias at Hebron, the more sp that rabbinical tradition in the
Talmud gives expreas testimony in favor ef this opinion. ^: Keim finds further support
for it on this ground, that in the context ¦RdTiii 'lovda can only signify the city of
Juda, that is to say, the principal priestly city in Juda. But wrongly ; the simplest
and most natural translation ia : a city of Juda.
The detail, slie entered into ihe Iiouse, serves to put the reader in sympathy with the
emotion ef Mary at the moment of her arrival. Wilh her first glance al Elizabeth
she recognizes the truth of the sign that had been given her by the angel, and at this
sight the premise she had her.=ie!f leceived acquires a startling reality. Often a very
little thing suffices to make a divine thuught, which had previously only been con
ceived as an idea, take distinct form and life within us. And the expression we have
used ia perhapa, in thia ease, more than a simple metaphor. It is not surprising that
the intense feeling produced in Mary by the sight of Elizabeth should have reacted
immediately on the latter. The unexpected arrival ot this young maiden at such a
sulemn mnment fur herself, the cnnnectiun which she instantly diviues between the
miraculnus blessing nf which she had just been the ubject nnd this rxlianrdiuary visit,
the affecting tunes nf the voice and holy elevation of this person, producing all the
* Ver. 40, 54 and sorae Mnn., add ev ayuUianei, after Bpc^oi (taken frnm ver. 44).
f Accnrding to Robinson, it is at the present day a village named Jutta. The ¦
name in Ihe LXX. is Ita,
X Olhnn, " Lexicon rabbinicum, " p. 324.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 61
impression of some celestial apparition, naturaUy predisposed her tn receive the illu-
minatiun nf the Spirit. The emetiun which possesses her is cummunicated te the
child whnse life is as yet nne with her nwn ; and at the sudden leaping nf this being,
whu she knows is compassed abuut by special blessing, the veil is rent. The Holy
Spirit", the prophetic Spirit of the old covenant, seizes her, and she salutes Mary as
the mdiher ef the Messiah.
3. The salutatinn uf Elizabeth: vera. 43-45.* " And she spake nut with a Inud
vnice, and said. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit nf thy
womb. 43. And whence is this to me, that the mother ef my Lord should cume tn
me? 44 Fnr, In, as sunn as the vnice cf thy salutatinn snunded in mine ears, the babe
leaped iu my wnmb fur jny. 45 And bleaaed ia she that believed . fur there shall be a
perfurmance cf thnse things which were tuld her frnm the Lord." The course of
Elizabeth's thought is this : flrst uf all, Mary and the sen nf Mary (ver.43) ; next Eliza
beth herself and her snn (vers. 43, 44) ; lastly, Mary and her happinesa. The char
acteriatic nf all true aotiun nf the Hnly Spirit is the annihilatiun uf the -prnper individ
uality nf the persen who is the instrument ef it, and the elevation ef his personal feel
ings to the height of the divine word. This is precisely the character of Elizabeth's
salutation ; we shall flnd it the same in the song of Zacharias. Thus the truth of this
wnrd, " Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost," is justified by this very fact. The
reading of some Alexandrians, dve^dyasv, would indicate a crj', instead of a simple
breaking forth into speech. The reading xpavyy of three nther Alex, would have the
same meaning. They both savnr uf exaggeratiun. In any case bnth could nnt be ad
mitted tugether. We may translate, "Blessed art thou," nr "Blessed be thnu."
The furmer translatinn is best ; fer exclamation is more in place here than a wish.
The superlative furm, bleaaed among, is nnt unknnwn tu classical Greek. The ex
pressinn, " the fruit nf thy wumb," appears tn imply the tact cf the incarnatinu was
already accnmplished ; su alsn dnes the expressinn, " the mnther nf my Lnrd" (ver. 43).
'Iva, in order ihat (ver. 43), may keep its nrdinary meaning : " What have I dune in
oi-der that this blessing might come to me ?" Thia 'iva is used' from the standpuint ef
the divine intention. Frum Mary and her Sen, her thuught glances tn herself and
her nwn child. In calling Mary " the mnther ef my Lord," she declares herself the
servant ef the Messiah, and cousequently of His mother alsn. Everything nf a sub
lime character springs frnm a deeper snurce than the understanding. The leaping nf
Juhn, a prelude nf the wnrk uf his life, belnngs tn the unfathnmable depths nf instinc
tive life. Elizabeth sees in it a sign cf the truth nf the presentiment she felt as snon
as she saw Mary.
At ver. 45 she reverts te Mary. The expression bleaaed is doubtless inspired
by the contemplation nf the calm happiness that irradiates the figure nf the ynung
mnther. "On cannut be taken here in the sense cf becailse ; fnr the wurd ¦KiaTeiaaaa,
she that believed, in nrder that it may have its full force, must not govern anything.
" Blessed is she that, at the critical mument, could exercise faith (the aorist) !" De
Wette, Bleek, Meyer, think that the propnsitinn which fnllnws shnuld depend nn
TTiffTcjiffacra ; " she who believed that the things, . , -wnuld have their accnmplish-
ment." The twn fnrmer, because aol wnuld be necessary in place uf a-bry ; the third,
I
¦* Ver. 43 54. C. F. several Mnn., read ave^oyaev, instead uf avtipuvyaev, which is the
reading uf T. R. with aU the rest. B. L. Z. and Origen (three times' read Kpavyy in
place of ^uvji.

62 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
because all that had been promised to Mary was already accomplished. But Eliza
beth's thought loses itself -in a kind of meditation, and her words, ceasing to be an
apostrophe to Mary, become a hymn ef faith. Thia accounts fur the use nf a pru
nnun nf the third persnn. As tn Meyer, he fnrgets that the accumplishment ia unlj'
just begun, and is far frnm being cnmpleted. The glnriflcatinn of the Messiah and of
Israel still remains tn be accemplished. Teleiuaii denntes this complete accnrflplish-
ment. But hnw cnuld Elizabeth speak nf the kind nf things which had been prem
ised tn Mary ? WhaJ had passed between the angel and Zacharias had enlightened
her respecting the simUar thinga that must have taken place between Heaven and
Mary. 3. The sung ut Mary : vers. 46-56. Elizabeth's salutatinn was tuU nf excitement
(she spake nut -with a Inud vnice), but Mary's hymn breathes a sentiment nf deep
inward repnse. Tlie greater happineas ia, the calmer it is. Su Luke aays aiuiply,
fire, she aaid. A majesty truly regal reigns thruughuut this canticle. Mary describes
flrst her actual impressiens (vers. 46-48a) ; thence she rises te the divine fact which ia
the cauae of them (vers. 48S-50) ; she next contemplates the development of the his
torical consequences contained in it (vera. 51-53) ; lastly, she celebrates the moral
necesaity of thia fact aa the accomplishment of God's ancient promises tu His people
(vers. 54 and 55). The tune nf the flrst strnphe has a sweet and calm snlernuity. It
becomes more animated iu the second, in which Mary contemplates the wurk nf the
Must High. It attains its full height and energy iu the third, as Mary cenletoplates
the immense revnlution of which this' wnrk is the beginning and cause. Her snng
drops down and returns tn its nest in the fourth, which ia, as it were, the amen nf the
canticle. This hymn is clesely allied te that ef the mother ut Samuel (1 Sam. 3), and
cnntains several sentences taken from the bunk of Psalms. Is it, as some have main
tained, destitute pf all originality on this account ? By no means. There is a very
marked difference between Hannah's sung of triumph and Mary's. While Mary cele
brates her happiness with deep humility and holy restraint, Hannah surrenders herself
completely te the feeling of persoual triumph ; with her very flrst words she breaks
forth intu cries of indignation against her enemies. As to the borrowed biblical
phrases, Mary gives to these consecrated words an entirely new meaning and a higher
application. Tho prophets frequently deal in this way with the words of their pred
ecessors. By this means these organs of the Spirit exhibit the continuity aud prog
ress of the divine work. Criticism asks whether Mary turned over the leaves ot
her Bible before she spoke. It forgets that every young Israelite knew by heart from
chUdhund the sungs uf Hannah, Deborah, and David ; that they sang them as they
went up tn the feasts at Jeruaalem ; and that the singing nf psalms -was the daily
accumpaniment nf the morning and evening sacrifice, as well as one nf the essential
nbservances cf the passover meal.
Vers. 46-55.* " And Mary said. My snul dnth magnify the Lord. 47. And my
* Ver. 46. Three mss. nf the Italic, a, b. 1., read Elizabeth instead nf Mary.
IrenfEus, at least in the Latin translation, follo-ws this reading ; and Origen (Latin
translation) speaks ef mss. in which it was found. Ver. 49. 54. B. D. L. read peya'Xa
instead of peyaleia, the reading ef T. R. with 33 Mjj. and all the Mnn. Ver. 50. B. C.
L. Z. read «5 yeveai KUL yereaS ; 54. F. M. O. and several Mnn., £(5 yeveac Kai yeveav,
ia place of sii yeveai yeveav, which is the reading of 13 Mjj. and most et the Mnn.
Ver. 51. 54°" E. F. H. 0". 0°. and some Mnn. read Siavoiai instead nf Siavoia. Ver.
55. C. P. M. O. 8. 60 Mnn. read eai aiavoi instead nf £(5 toi' aiava. Ver. 56. 54. B,
L. -Z, read uS instead ot mei. D, Itr''"*"", Or., omit it-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 63
spirit hath rejoiced in Gud my Savinhr. . 48fls. Fnr he hath regarded the low estate of
his handmaiden.
" 486. Fer, beheld, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49. Fnr
he that is mighty hath dune tn me great things ; and hnly is his name. 50. And his
mercy is nn them that fear him frum generation to generation.
" 51. He hath shewed strength with his arm ; he hath scattered the proud in the
imaginatinn nf their hearta. 53. He hath put dnwn the mighty frnm their seals, and
exalted them uf Inw degree. 53. He hath filled the hungry with good things, and
the rich he hath sent empty away.
" 54. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance ef his mercy.; 53. (As he
spake to our fathers), to Abraham, and to his seed for ever."
Vers. 46-48a. The contrast between the tone ot this canticle and Elizabeth's dis
course fnrbids the admissinn nf the reading ef sume Latin authorities which puts it in
the mouth uf the latter. It is, indeed, Mary's reply tn the cnngratulatinns nf Eliza
beth. Luke dees net say that Mary was filled with the Spirit (cump. ver. 41). At
this epech nf her life she dwelt habitually in a divine atmnsphere, while the inspira
tion uf Elizabeth was nnly momentary. Her first wnrd, pEya'A-uvei, magnifies, fully
expresses this state nf her snul. In what, indeed, dnes the magnifying nf the Divine
Being, censist, if nut in giving Him, by cnnstant adoratinn (the verb is in the present
tense), a larger place in une's nwn heart and in the hearts nf men ? The present,
magnifiea, is in cuntrast with the aorist, rejoiced, in the following sentence. Some
would give the aorist here the sense which this tense sometimes has in Greek, that et
a repetition nf the act. It is more natural, however, to regard it as an allusion to a
particular fact, which kindled in her a joy that waa altogether peculiar. The seat of
thia emotion waa her spirit — Trvev/ia, spirit. When the human spirit is referred te in
Scripture, the word indicates the deepest part ef our humanity, the point ot contact
between man and Gud. The soul is the actual centre of human life, the principle ef
individuality, and the seat ef these impressions which are of an esaentially personal
character. This snul communicates, through the two organs with -n'hich it is en
dowed, the spirit and the body, with two worlds — the one above, the uther below it—
with the divine world arid the world of nature. Thus, while the expression, "My
soul doth magnify," refers to the peraonal emotions ef Mary, to her feelinga as a
woman and a mother, all which find an outlet in adoration, these words, " My spirit
hath rejoiced," appear to indicate the moment when, in the profoundfest depths uf her
being, by the tnuch nf the Divine Spirit, the prnmise uf the angel was accumplished
in her. These twn sentences contain yet a third contrast : The Lord whom she mag
nifies ia the Master of the service tn which she is absolutely devoted ; the Saviour in
whom she has rejoiced is that merciful God who has made her feel His restoring
power, aud who in her person has just saved fallen humanity. Further, it ia this
divine compassion which she celebrates in the following words, ver. 48.- What did
He find in her which supplied sufficient grounds for auch a favor ? One thing alone
— her low estate. TaizEivaaii does not denote, as raireivdrys does, the moral dispo
sition of humility ; Mary dues nnt bnast nf her humility. It is rather, as tbe fnrm nf
the wurd indicates, an act nf which ahe had been the ubject, the humbling infiuence
under which she had been bruught by her sncial posititm, and by the whole circum
stances which had reduced her, a daughter ef kings, te the rank of the punreat nf the
daughters nf Israel. Perhaps the interval between the mnment of the incarnation,
denoted by the aorists hath rejoiced, liaih regarded, and that in which she thus cele-

64 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
brated it, was not very great. Was net that thrilling moment, when she entered the
house nf Zacharias, and beheld at a glance in the person ef Elizabeth the fulfilment
of the sign given her by the angel, the moment ef supreme divine manifsstatiun
tuward herself ? The expreasion, Belwld, henceforth, which commences the following
strnphe, thus becnmes full ef meaning.
Vers. 485-50. The greatness of her happiness appears in the renown which it will
bring her ; hence the ydp, for. The word behold 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 first the power. In call
ing God the Almighty, she appears to make direct allusion to the expression ot the
angel : thepower of ihe Higheat (ver. 35). Here is an act in which is diaplayed, as in
ne ether since the appearance of man, the creative power ef God. The received
reading /icyaXela answers better than the reading of some Alex. , iieyd'ka, to the em
phatic term rilN^DJ. which Luke doubtless read in his Hebrew decumeut(comp. Acts
2 : 11). But this umniputence is nut nf a purely physical character ; it is subservient
tn hnliness. This is the secnnd perfectinu which Mary celebrates. She felt herself,
in this marvellous wnrk, in immediate cunlact with supreme hnliness ; and she weU
knew that this perfectinu mure than any nther cnnstitutes the essence nf Gnd : His
name is holy. The name is the sign of au object in the mind which knows it. The
name of God therefore denotes, not the Divine Being, but the more or less adequate
reflection of Him in those intelligences which are in cotnmunion with Him. Hence
we see hew this name can be sanctified, rendered holy. The essential nature of Gnd
may be more clearly understood by His creatures, and more completely disengaged
from those clouds which have hithertn nbscured it in their minds. Thus Maty had
received, in the experience she had just passed thrnugh, a new revelatiun uf the holi
ness nf the Divine Being. This shnrt sentence is nnt dependent nn the on, becauae,
which gnverna the preceding. Fnr the kuI, and, which fnllnws, establishes a. clnse
cnnnectiun between it and ver. 50, which, if suburdinated tn ver. 49, wnuld be tnu
drawn nut. This feature nf hnliness which Mary su fnrcibly expresses, is, in fact,
that which distinguishes the incarnatinu frnm all the analngnus facts nf heathen my-
thnlngies. The third divine perfectinu celebrated by Mary is mercy (ver. 50). Mary has
already sung its praise in ver. 48 in relatinn tu herself. She speaks nf it here in a
mure general way. By them that fear God, she intends mure especially Zacharias and
Elizabeth, there present befnre her ; then all the members nf her penple whu share
with them this fundamental trait nf Jewish piety, and whn thus cnnstitute the true
Israel. The received reading e'lc yevEui ysveav, from generation to generation, is a
form of the superlative which is found in the expreasion to ilie age of ilie ages, the
meaning of which is " to the most remote generations." The two uther readings
mentinned in the critical nntes express cnntinuity rather than remeteness iu time.
These wnrds, " nn them that fear him," are the transitinn tn the third strnphe.
Fnr they implicitly cnntain the antithesis which comes out in the verses following.
Vers. 51-53. A much more strongly marked poetical parallelism characterizes this
strophe. Mary here describes wilh a thriU uf emotion, of which even her language
partakes, the great Messianic revolution, the commencement of which she was he-
holding at that very time. In the chuice God had made of two persuns nf such hum- '
ble cnnditinn in life as herself and her cuusin, she aaw at a glance the great principle
which wuuld regulate the impending renewal of all things. It is to be a complete

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 65
reversal of the human nutiona of greatness and meanness. The pour and the hungry
are evidently the Isiaeliles/(sarw£f God uf ver. 50. Such expressinns caunct apply to
Israel as a whule— tn the pruud Pharisees and rich Sadducees, fnr example. The line
nt demaicaiiun which she draws in these wurds passes, therefure, nut between the
Jews and Gentiles, but between the piuus Isiaelites and aU that exalt Ihemsel ves against
Gnd, whether in 6r beyond Israel. The pruud, the mighty, and the rich denote Heiud
and his court, the Pharisees aud the Sadduceea, as well aa the foreign nppiessors,
CsEsar and his armies, and all the pnwers nf heathendom. The aorists of these Ihiee
verses indicate, according te Bleek, the repetition of the act ; so he translates them
by the present. I rather think that to Mary's eyes the catastrophe presents ilstlt as
already consummated in the act which God had just accomplished. Does not thia
act contain the piinciple ef the rejection of all that is exalted in the world, and ot tho
choice of whatever in human estimation is brought low '! All these divine acts which
are about te feUew, one after another, will only be a further application uf the same
principle. They are virtually contained in that which Mary celebrates. Conse.
quently the aorists are preperly translated by the past. The first propesilion of ver-
51 applies to the righteous and wicked alike. Still the former of these two applica
tions predominates (ver, 50). The arm is the symbol of force. The expression mieiv
Kparoi, to make strength, is a Hebraism, ^ifi niyy (Ps- 118 ¦ 15). The LXX. translate
it by toleIv dvva/Mv. If it was Luke who trauslated the Hebrew document into Greek,
it is evident that he kept his version independent of the LXX. The favor God shows
to the righteous has its necessary counterpart in the nverthrnw ef the wicked. This
is the cunnectinn nf the secund prnpnsitinn. The expressinn ¦virspyijidvmi Siavoif,
proud in thought, answers tn n? "'T'^X (Ps. 76 : 6) ; the LXX. translate thia expression
by davvEToi rj Kapd'ia. The dative dtavoif defines the adjective : " the proud in
thuught, whn exalt themselves in their thnughts." Mary represents all theae as
furming an opposing host to men that fear God ; hence the expression acatter. Wilh
the reading diavoiac, inrepy<iiuvms is the epithet of the substantive, proud ilumghta.
This reading is evidently a mistake.
Ver. 53. From the mnral cuntrast between the prnud and the faithful, Mary passes
tn a contrast nf their sncial position, the mighty and thnse nf low degree. The former
are those who reign without that spirit of humility which is inspired by the fear of
Jehovah. The third antithesis (ver. 53), which is connected with the preceding, is
that ef suffering and prosperity. The hungry represent the class which toils for a
living — artisans, like Joseph and Mary ; the rich are men gorged with wealth, Israel
ites or heathen, who, in the use they make uf Gnd's gifts, entirely furget their de
pendence and respunsibility. The abundance which ia tu ccmpensatc the furmer cer
tainly cunsists — the cuntrast requires it — uf tempnral enjnyments. But since this
abundance is an effect nf the divine blessing, it implies, as its condition, the possession
of spiritual graces. Per, from the Old Testament point of view, prosperity is only a
snare, when it does not reat on the foundation of peace with Gud. And sn also, the
spoliation which is to befaU the rich is without doubt the loss uf their tempnral ad
vantages. But what makes this luss a real evil is, that it is the effect nf a divine
curse upun their pride.
- The poetic beauty of these three verses is heightened by a crossing of the membera
of Ihe three antitheses, which is substituted fnr the ordinary method ef symmetrical
parallelism. In the flrst contrast (ver. 51), the righteous occupy the first place, tho
proud the second ; in the second, on the contrary (ver. 52), the mighty occupy the

66 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
first place, sn as tn be in clnse cunnectinn with the proud of ver, 51, and the lowly
the second"; in the third (ver. 53), the hungry come flrst, jnining themselves with the
lowly ef ver. 52, and the rich form the secnnd member. The mind passes in this
way, as it were, nn the crest of a wave, frnm like tn like, and the taste is nut
offended, as it would have beeu by a symmetrical arrangement 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 the foundation of the whole Messianic work. If the preceding strophe un-
veUs to ua the future developments of this work, this sends us back to its beginning
in the remote past. Hals signifles here servant rather than son. It is an allusion to
the title of Israel, aervant of the Bord (Isa. 41 : 8). The Master sees His well-beloved
servant crushed beneath the burden which his pitiless oppressors have imposed, and
he takes it upon himself (middle lau^dvEoBai) ia order to comfort him {avri). This
term, larael, Ida servant, seems at first sight to apply to the whole people ; and doubt
less it is this exiDlanation that bas led several interpreters tu apply the expreasions,
proud, mighty, rich, in the preceding veraea, solely to foreign oppressors. If, as we
have seen, the latter explanation cannot be maintained, we must conclude that by
this Israel, the servant of God, Mary understands the God-fearing Israelites ot the
fiftieth verse, not as individuals, but as the true representatives of the nation itself.
The 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 correspond with the actual people. For her own part,
she already sees iu hope (aorist avTeAajSeTo) the normal Israel transformed into the
glorified Messianic nation. Would such a view as this have been possible when once
the national unbelief had apparently foiled all these Messianic hopes ? There is noth
ing here to hinder the infinitive ef the end, fivyaByvat, from preserving its proper
meaning. To remember his promises signifles, in order not to be unfaithful. Erasmus,
Calvin, and others regard the datives tu 'Kjipadji and tcD mvepiian as governed by A-
dXynE, in apposition with irphs rovs narepuQ: " As he spake to nur fathers, tu Abra
ham, and tu 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
meaning. Therefore we must make the proposition, as he apake io our fatliers, a
parenthesis intended to recall the divine faithfulness, and refer the datives, io Abra
ham and to hia seed, to the verb, .to remember hia mercy. It is the dative nf favor, to
remerriber towa/rd Abraham and , . , Por Abraham, as well as his race, enjoys
the mercy which is shown to the latter (comp. ver. 17). The words foi' ever quality
the idea, not to forget his mercy. Divine forgetfulness will never cause the favor
promised to Israel te cease. Would any poet h-ave ever put such words into the
mouth of Mary, when Jerusalem was in ruins and its people dispersed 1
Ver. 56. is a histurical conclusion. Did the departure nf Mary take place befnre
the birth nf Jnhn the Baptist ? We might suppose so from the particle dk and the aorist
ETzKyaBy (ver. 57), which very naturally imply a historical succession. But, un the
nther hand, it wnuld be hardly natural that Mary shnuld leave at a time when the
expected deliverance of Elizabeth was so near at hand. This verse, therefore, must
be regarded as a historical anticipation, such as is frequently found in Luke. Comp.
1 : 65, 3 : 19, 30, etc.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 67
FOURTH NARRATIVB. — CHAP. 1 : 57-80.
Birth and Circumcision of John tlie Baptist.
Here opens the secnnd cycle of the narratives of the infancy. This first narration
comprises — 1. The birth nf John (vers.- 57, 58) ; 3. The circumcisinn uf the child
^ (vers. 59-66) ; 3. The snng nf Zacharias, with a shnrt histurical cnnclusinn (vers.
67-80). 1. Birth nf Juhn : vers. 57 and 58. These verses are like -a pleasing picture ef Jew
ish home life. We see the neighbors and relations .arriving one after the otlier-pthe
former first, because they live nearest. Elizabeth, the happy mother, is the central
figure of the scene ; every one comes up to her in turn 'E.^ieyd'hyve fier' avryS, literally,
he had magnified with her, is a Hebraistic expression (^y 7~|jn ; comp. 1 Sam. 13 : 24
in the LXX.). This use of uerd, with, comss from the fact that man is in such cases
the material which concurs in the result of the divine action.
2. Circumcision of .lohn : vers. 59-66.* As an Israelitish child by its birth became
a member ef the human family, so by circumcision, on the cnrreapnnding day nf the
fnUnwing week, he was incorpnrated intn the covenant (Gen. 17) ; and it was the cus
tom on this occasion to give him his name. The subject ef y'ABov, came, is that of
the preceding verae. It haa beeu maintained that the text suggeata something miracu
lous in the agreement of Elizabeth and Zacharias ; as if, during the nine mnnths
which had just pasaed awaj^, the father had nnt made tn the mnther a hundred timea
ever the cnmmuuicatinn which he presently makes to all present (ver. 63) J HoV
many times already, especially during Mary's stay in tlieir house, must the names nf
John and Jesus have been mentioned ! It haa been inferred from the words, iliey
made signs to him (ver. 63), that Zacharias became deat as well as dumb. But the
case ef Zacharias cannot be assimilated to that of deaf mutes from their birth, in whom
dumbness ordinarily results from deafness. The -whole scene, on the contrary, im.
plies that Zacharias had heard everything. \The use ef the language of signs proceeds
simply from this, that we instinctively adopt this means of communication toward
those who can speak in no nther way.
Ver. 63. The word Ae'/wj' added tn eypaipev is a Hebraism (-)J3X7 '2T)^'), ^ Kings 10 ;
6), the meaning nf which is, " deciding the questien." The expreaainn, his name ia,
puints tn a higher authnrity which haa sn determined it ; and it is this circumstance,
rather than the agreement between tbe father and mnther— a fact an easily explained
— which aatunishea the persons present. Every une recaUs on this occasion the
strange events which had preceded the birth of the child.
Ver. 64. Zacharias, thus obedient, recovers his speech, of which his want of failh
had deprived him. The verb dvEd>xBy, waa opened, does not agree with the second
subject, the tongue, for which the verb waa loosed, taken from the preceding yerb,
must be supplied. In the words, he spake and praised God, naturally it is on the
word spake that the emphasis reata, in oppoaition to hia previous dumbness. The
last words are only an appendix serving to introduce the song which follows. We
must therefore refrain frum translating, -n'ith Ostervald, " He spake by praising
God." * Ver. 61. 54. A. B. C. L. A. A. Z. II. and some Mun. read e« ry^ avyyevEiaS, in place
ef cv 7)7 avyysveia, the reading of T. R., with 11 Mjj., the greater part of the Mnn.
Syr. It. Ver. 63. 54. B. D. F. G., avro in place of avrov. Ver. 65. 54* reads Sla ra
instead of diel kIeito Travra ra. Ver. 66. 54. B. C. D. L. It. Vg. add yap after mi,

68 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Ver. 65. At the sight of this miracle, surprise changes into fpar. And this im
pression spreads abroad, with the report of these facts, throughout all the country.
That is msre especially the seuse of the reading of 54, which, however, frum a critical
Ijoint of vievv, it is impossible to adopt. Ver. 6S. They not merely told, they laid to
hcait ; these were the flrst emotions of the Messianic era. The Alex, reading, kuI
ydp, for also the hand of the lord waa with him, although adopted by Tischendorf,
appears to us untenable. Whether, in fact, this/or be put in the mouth nf the nar-
ralnr, nr be assigned to the persons -who ask the preceding question, in either case
these words, the hand of ilie Biord was with him, must refer to all the circumstances
which have just beeu narrated, while, according to the natural sense of the imperfect
f/v, was, they apply to the entire childhood ef John the Baptist. This for has been
wrongly added, with a view of making this reflection the motive of the preceding
question. The T. R. is supported by not only the majority ef the Mjj., but raore
especially by the agreement of the Alexandrinus and ef the Peschito, which is always
a criterion wurthy ef attention. The develupment nf this child was effected with the
marked concurrence nt divine power. The hand, here aa usually, is the emblem of
force. These last wurds form the flrst of those resting-points which we shall often
meet with in the course of our Gospel, and which occur in the book ef the Acta. It
is a picture, drawn with a single stroke of the pen, of the entire childhcnd uf Jnhn
the Baptist. Cump. ver. 80, which describes, by a cnrrespnnding fnrmula, his yuuth.
3. The snng nf Zacharias : vers. 67-80. It might be suppnsed that Zacharias com
posed this soug in view of the religious and moral progress ef the child, or on the
occasion of some special event in which the divine power within him waa displayed
during the course of his childhood. We are led, however, to another supposition by
the connection between the first words of the song, Blessed be the Bord and the
expression which the evangelist has employed in ver. 64, " he spake, blessing God."
This song, which waa conqDosed in the priest's mind during the time of his silence,
broke solemnly from his lips the moment speech was restored tn him, as the metal
flows frnm the crucible in which it haa been melted the raoment that an nutlet is
made for it. At ver. 64 Luke ia contented to indicate the place nf the snng, in nrder
not to interrupt the narrative, and he has appended the snng itself tn his narrative, as
¦possessing a value independent of the time when it was uttered. We observe in the
hymn nf Zacharias the same nrder as in the salutation of Elizabeth. The theocratic
sentiment breaks forth first : Zacharias gives thanks fer the arrival of the times ef
the Messiah (vera. 68-75). Then hia paternal feeling comes out, as it were, in a pa
renthesis : the father expresses his joy at the glorious part assigned to hia son in thia ,
great work (vers. 76 and 77) ; lastly, thanks.giving for the Messianic salvation over-
fl-)ws and closes the song (vers. 78 and 79). The spiritual character of thia paasage
appeara even from this exposition. It is the work nf the Hnly Spirit alune tn subnr-
dinate even the legitimate emutions nf paternal affeclinn tn the thencratic sentiment.
1st. Vers. 67-75. Zacharias gives thanks first ut all fur the ccming nf the Messiah
(vers. 67-70) ; then fnr the deliverance which His presence is abnut tu prncure fnr
Israfl (vers. 71-75).
Vers. 67-75.* "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Hnly Ghust, and
* Ver. 70, 54. B. L. W". A. some Mnn. Or. omit rav after ayov. Ver. 74. 54. B.
L. W'. snme Mnn. Or. emit y/ioiv. Ver. 75. B. L., rats y/iepais, instead nf ras
ypepaS. 54 A. B. C. D. and 11 uther Mjj. 40 Mnn. Syr. It. emit t)?5 im/s, which is
the reading of T. R. with 7 M,jj. Or.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 69
prnphesied, saying, 68. Blessed be the Lnrd Gnd nf Israel ; fer He hath visited and
redeemed His people, 69. And hath raised up a horn of salvatinn for ua in the huuse
nf His servant David. 70. As He spake by the mouth uf His holy prophets, which
have been since the wurld began ; 71. That we shnuld be saved from our enemies,
and from the hand of all that hate us ; 73. To perform the mercy promised to our
fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, 73. The oath which He sware to our
father Abraham, 74. That He would grant unto ua, that we, beiug delivered out ef
the hand nf nur enemies, might serve Him withnut fear. 75. In hnliness and right
euusness befnre Him, all the days ut nur life."
The auriats, hath raiaed up, hath delivered, imply a kuuwledge un Zacharias' part
cf the fact uf the iucarnalinn. The term visited refers te the absence of God during
the four centuriea in which the prophetic voice had been silent and heaven shut. The
abstract expressiuns nf the sixty- eighth verse are fuUnwed in ver. 69 by nne mure cun-
crete. Zacharias is embnldened tn designate the Meaaiah Himself. He calls Him a
horn nf salvatinn. This image nf a hum is frequent in the Old Testament, where it
had been already applied te the Messiah : I 'wUl raise up a horn to David (Ps. 133 : 16).
The explanatinn must be fnund neither in the horns of the altar on which criminals
snught to lay hold, nor iu the hurna with which they ornamented their helmeta ;
the figure is taken from the horns uf the bull, in which the pnwer nf this animal
resides. It is a natural image amung an agricultural penple. The term yyeipe, liaih
raised up, is properly applied to an organic growth, like a hern. Just as the strength
of the animal is concentrated in its horn, so all the delivering power granted te the
family of David for the advantage ef the people will be concentrated in the Messiah.
This verse implies that Zacharias regarded Mary as a descendant of David. In ver.
70, Zacharias seta forth the greatnesa of thia appearing by referring te the numerous
and ancient promises of which-it is the subject. Whether wilh or without the article
TUV. uyiuv {lioly) must in any case be taken as an adjective ; aud it is unnecessary to
translate, of His saints of every age wlio have been prophets, which would imply
that aU the saints have prophesied. If tuv ia retained, the word aimply servea as a
point of support to the definitive term d-n-' aZdii'of. The epithet Iwly characterizes
the propheta as organs, not of a human and consequently profane word, but of a
divine revelation. Hnliness is the distinctive feature nf all that emanates from God.
We may judge, by the impression which the certain approach ef Christ'a advent
would make un us, ef the feeling which must have beeu produced iu the hearts uf
these penple by the thuught. The Messiah is there ; histury, long suspended, resumes
its march, aud tnuches ita geal.
In vers. 71-75, Zacharias descrihes the wurk nf this Messiah. The must uatural
explanatinn nf aurypiav, salvation, is tn regard this word as in appuaitinn wilh the
term lior/i of salvation (ver. 69). The nution of salvatinn is easUy substituted fnr that
uf a Savinur. The idea nf salvatinn, bruught nut in this first wurd, is exhibited in lis
full meaning in ver. 74. The twu terms, our enemies, and them thai hate ua, cannut be
altngether synnnymnus. The fnrmer denntes the fureign heathen uppreasura ; the
latter wuuld embrace alsu the native tyrants, Hernd and his party, su udinus tn true
Israelites. In granting this deliverance, Gud shews mercy (ver. 73), nnt unly tn the
living, but tn the dead, whu were waiting with the heartsickness nf deferred- hnpe fnr
the accumplishment uf the promis_ea. and especially nf the naths nf Gnd. On this
idea, see 1 : 17 ; fnr the infinitive fivyaByvat, ver. 54 ; fur the turn uf expressinn ¦koieIv
(lETu, ver. 58. "Op/cov (ver. 73) is iu appositinn wilh diaBtjKys. The accusative ia ucca-

'?0 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
sinned by the pronoun ov. This attraction is the more easily accounted for, that
pvdaBai is cnnstrued in the LXX. with the accusative and the genitive indifferently.
The infinitive io grant expresses the lung-expected end ef the develupment nf prnph-
ecy, a develepment which seems designed tu typify thia lung perind. The article
TOV characterizes the infinitive So'hvai aa the end deaired and determined frnm the
beginning. Grammatically, it depends un op/cov ; logically, un all that precedes. In
the foUowiug phrase, the relation nf fivaBevrag tn XurpeiJeiv shnuld be nbserved : after
having been delivered, io serve God : the end is perfect religinus service ; political
deliverance is unly a means tu it. Perfect wnrship requires uutward security. The
Messiah is abuut tn reigu ; nn Antiochus Epiphanes ur Pnmpey shall any mure prn-
fane the sanctu-j-ry ! We find here in all its purity the ideal salvatinn as it is
described iu the Old Testament, and as the son uf Zacharias himself understend it
tn the very last. Its leading feature is the indissoluble unien nf the twn deliverances,
the religious and the pelitical ; it was a gloriuus thencracy fnunded nn national holi
ness. Tbis prngramme prevented John the Baptiat frum identifying himself with
the courae ef the ministry nf Jesus. How, after the unbelief of Israel had created a
gulf between the expectation and the fants, could a later writer, attributing tu Zach
arias just what words he pleased, put into his muuth these fond hopes cf earlier
days? 'OaidryS, purity, and diKuioavvy, righteousneaa (ver. 75), have been distinguished in
several ways. Bleek and others refer the former nf these terms tn the inward
dispnsition, the latter to the outward conduct. But righteousness, in the Scriptures,
comprehends more than the outward act. Others apply the former to relations with
God, the latter tn relatiens with men. But righteousness alsn cnmprehends man's
relations wilh God. It apjDears to us rather that purity, oauSryS, is a negative qual
ity, the absence of stain ; and righteousness diKaioa-v-ny, a 'positive quality, the pres
ence nf all those religious and mnral virtues which render worship acceptable tn
God. Comi). Eph. 4 : 34. The authorities decide in favor of the excision of the
words rye i^ufjt, although the French translation cannot dispense with them. At the
time of the captivity, the prophet- priest Ezekiel contemplated, under the image of
a temple of perfect dimensions, the perfected theucrac.y (Ezek. 40 : 48). Here the
priest-prophet Zacharias contemplates the same ideal under the image nf an uninter
rupted and undefiled wursliip. The Hely Spirit adapts the form ot His revelations
to the habitual prepossessions of thnse who are to be the nrgans of them.
3d. Vers. 76, 77. From the height to which he has just att-ained, Zacharias allowa
hia glance to fall upon the little child at rest before him, and he assigns him his part
in the work which has begun. Ver 76 refers to him personally, ver. 77 to his
mission. Vers. 76 and 77.* " And thou, chUd, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,
fnr thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, 77. Tn give knowl
edge nf salvatinn unto Hia people by the remission of their sins."
The reading Kai av, and iliou, connects, by an easy transition, the forerunner with
the work ef the Messiah: The Alex, reading, Kai oO dl, but thou, brings out more
strongly, toe strongly, doubtless, this secondary personality ; it has againat it not
only the sixteen uther Mjj., but further, the Peschito, the Italic, Irenseus, and
* Ver. 76. 54. B. C. D. L. R. read eie after kui av. 54. B. Or., evaiziov instead nf
Trpo TTpoauTTov, Yet, 77. A. C, M. O. R. U., some Mnn., read j^^uf in.stend nf avruv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 71
Origen, and must therefure be rejected. The title ef prnphet ef the Highest simply
places John the Baptist in that choir of the prophets of whom Zacharias speaks in
ver. 70 ; later un, Jesus wiU assign him a higher place. In saying the Lnrd, Zach
arias can nnly be thinking of the Messiah. Thia is pruved by the irpd, before Him, in
irpoiropevay, and the avrov, Hia waya. But he ceuld not designate Him by this name,
unlesa, with Malachi, he recognized in His coming the appearing, nf Jehnvah (cump.
1 : 17, 13, 3 : 11). The aecend proposition ia a combination of the two propositions,
Isa. 40 : 3 {iroi/zdaat) and Mai. 3 : 1 {itpoTropEvay), prophecies which are alsn fnund
combined in Mark 1 ; 3, 3. The article tov before dovva'i, to give, indicatea a purpose.
This word, in fact, throws a vivid light nn the aim nf Jnhn the Baptist's ministry.
Why wasrthe ministry nf the Messiah preceded by that of annther divine messenger ?
Becauae the very nntiun nf salvatinn waa falsified in larael, and had to be corrected
before salvatinn cnuld be realized. A carnal and maUgnant patriutiam had taken
pussessinn nf the penple and their rulers, and the idea uf a pnlitical deliverance had
been substituted fnr that nf a mural salvation. If the notion of aalvation had uot been
reatored tu its scriptural purity befnre being realized by the Messiah, not only would
He have had tn emplny a large part nf the time assigned tn Him in accnmplishing this
indispensable task ; but further. He wnuld certainly have been accused cf inventing
a theury nf salvation to suit His impotence to ett'ect any nther. There was needed,
then, another person, divinely authorized, to remind the people that perdition con
sisted not in subjection to the Romans, but in divine condemnation ; and that salva
tion, therefore, was not tempnral emancipation, but the forgiveness nf sina. Tn im
plant nnce mure in the hearts nf the penple this nntiun nf salvatinn was indeed tn
prepare the way fnr Jesus, whn was tu acccmplish this salvatinn, and nn nther. The
last words, by tlie remiasion of tlieir sins, depend djrectly on the word aarypias,
aalvation : salviition by, that is to say, consisting in. The article r^s is omitted
before £v' d<jieaEi, as ia the case when the definitive forms, with the word on which it
depends, merely one and the same nntiun. The prenoun avruv refers to all the indi
viduals comprehended under the collective idea nf penple. The authnrities which read
^/iuv are insufficient. The wurds to Hia people shnw that Israel althnugh the xjeuple
nf Gnd, were blind tu the way of salvatinn. Jnhn the Baptist waa to show to this
people, who believed that all they needed waa political reatoration, that they were
not less guilty Ihan the heathen, and that they needed juat aa much divine pardon.
This waa preciaely the meaning of the baptism to which he invited the Jews.
3d, Vers. 78 and 79. After this epiaede, Zacharias returns to the principal sub
ject of his song, and, in an admirable closing picture, describes the glory of Messiah's
appearing, and of the salvation which He brings.
Vers. 78 and 79.* " Through the tender mercy of our Gud, whereby the dayspring
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 puurs dnwn
upun nur earth — the divine mercy. This idea is naturally connected with that nf
pardon (ver. 77), as is expreased by did with the accusative, which means properly
by reaaon of. The bowels in Scripture are the seat ef all the sympathetic emetiena.
IiirXdyxva anawers te C''Orn- The future iiriaKeTperai, will visit, in aome Alex., is
eridently a correction suggested hy the consideration that Christ waa not born at the
* Ver. 78. 54. B. L. , eTnaKEilierai. instead ef e-KEOKEipaTo.

72 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
time Zacharias was speaking. Yet even such instances as these do not disturb Ihe
faith of critics in the authority of Alexandrine mss. I
All the images in the picture portrayed in vers. 78, 79 appear tn be hnrrnwed
frnm the fuUnwing cnmparisun : A caravan misses its way and is lust in the desert ;
the unfnrtunate pilgrims, uvertakeu by night, are sitting dnwn in the midst nf this
fearful darkness, expecting death. All at unce a bright star rises in the horizrm and
lights up the plain ; the traveUers, taking cuurage at this sight, arise, and by this light
nf this star find the rnad which leads them tn the end nf their juurney. The substan
tive dvaroXy, the risirig, which by general cnnsent is here translated the dawn, has
two senses in the LXX. It ia emplnyed tn translate the nnun niOiJ. ii'anchi by which
Jeremiah and Zechariah designate the Messiah. This sense nt the wnrd dvaroXy ia
unknnwn in prufane Greek. The term is alsn uaed by the LXX. tn express the rising
nf a heavenly body — the rising of the moon, for instance ; comp. Isa. 60 : 19. Thia
aense agrees with the meaning ef the verb dvaTOkXeiv ; Isa. 60 : 1, " The glory of the .
Lord hath risen {dvaTera'KKEv) upon thee ;" Mai. 4:3, " The sun of righteousness
shall riie'{avaTe'ke'L)\x^on you." This is the meaning of the word avoroA^ in good
Greek. And it appears to us that this is its meaning here. It follows, indeed, frnm
the uae uf the verb liath visited us, which may very well be said of a star, but not of
a branch ; and the same remark applies tn the images that follow, to light and io
direct (ver. 79). Besides, the epithet /row on high agrees much better with the figure
ot a star than with that nf a plant that aprnuta. The regimen /rom on high dees not
certainly quite agree with the verb io rii^c. But the termfrom on high is suggested by
the idea uf visiting, which gnes before : it is from the bosom of divine mercy that this
star comes down, and it does not rise upon humanity until after it has descended and
been made man. Bleek doea net altogether reject this obvious meaning of dvaroXy ; but
he maintains that we should combine it with the senae ef branch, by auppoaing a play of
words turning upon the double image ef a sprouting branch and a rising alar ; and as
there is no Hebrew word which will bear this double meaning, he draws from this
passage the serious critical consequence, that this song, aud therefore all the others
contained in these two chapters, were originally written, not in Aramean, but in
Greek, which of course deprives them of their authenticity. But this whole ex
planation is simply a play of Bleek's imagination. There is nuthing in the text tn
indicate that the author intends any play upon wnrds here ; and, as we have seen,
nnne nf the images emplnyed are cempatible with the meaning of branch.
The expressinns nf ver. 79 are burrnwed from Isa. 9 : 1, 60 : 3. Darkness is the em
blem nf alienatinn frnm God, and of the spiritual ignorance that accompanies it. This
darkness is a shadow ef death, because it leads to perdition, just as the darkening of
sight in the dying is a prelude to the night of death. The term sit denotes a state of
exhaustion and despair. The sudden shining forth of the alar brings the whule
caravan cf travellera tn their feet (roils ¦TtSdas), and enables them te find their way.
The way of peace denotes the means et obtaining reconciliation wilh God, the chief
of all temporal and spiritual blessings. Elpijvy, peace, answers to Cl^li?'. a word by
which the Hebrew language designates the bountiful supply nf whatever answers tn
human need — full prosperity.
Ver. 80. The historical conclusion, ver. 80, corresponds with that in ver. 66. As"
the latter sketches with a stroke ef the pen the childhood uf Jnhn, so this gives a pic-'*
ture ef his youth, and carries us forward to the time when he began his ministry.
The term hegreio refers tu his physical development, and the expression following.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 73
waxed strong in spirit, to his spiritual development, that is to say, religious, moral,
and intellectual. The predominant feature ef this develepment was force, energy (he
grew strong in spirit.) Luke, doubtlesa, meana by this the power nf the will nver Ihe
instincta and inclinatinns nf the bndy. The apirit is here certainly that uf Jnhn him
self ; but when a man develups in a right way, it is nnly by cnmmuninn wilh the
Divine Spirit that his spirit unfnlds, as the fluwer nnly blnws when in cunlact with
the light. This spiritual develnpmeht nf Juhn waa due tn nu human influence. For
the child lived in the deserts. Probably the desert of Judea is meant here, an in
habited country. Whose deeply creviced soil affurds an nutlet tn several streams that
empty themselves intu the Dead Sea. Th|s cnuutrj', abnundiug in caves, has always
been the refuge nf anchnriles. In the time cf Juhn the Baptist there were probably
Essenian monasteries there ; for history says positively that these cenobites dwelt
upon both shores ef the Dead Sea. It has been inferred from this passage that John,
during his sojourn in the desert, visited these sages, and profited by their teaching.
This opiniun is altngether nppnsed tn the design ef the text, which ia to attribute lo
God alone the direction of the develupment uf the fnrerunuer. But mnre than this_
If Jnhn was taught by the Esaenea, it must be admitted that the unly thing their iu-
structiuna did fnr him waa tu lead him tn take entirely npposite views on all pnints.
The Essenes had rennunced every Messianic expectatinn ; the snul uf John's life and
ministry was the expectation of the Messiah and the preparation tor H's wurk. The
Essenes made matter the seat ef sin ; John, by his energetic calls to conversion,
shows plainly enough that he found it in the wUl. The Essenes withdrew from society,
and gave themselves up to mystic contemplation ; John, at the signal from on high,
threw himself boldly into the midst of the people, and to thu very last took a moat active
and courageoua part in the affairs of his cnuntry. If, after all, any similarities are
fnund between him and them, Jehu's uriginality is ton well established tu attribute
them tn imitatinn; such similarities arise frnm the attempt they buth made to effect
a reform in degenerate Judaism. The relation ef John tn the Easenea is very similar
to that nf Luther tu the mystics nf the middle ages. On the part nf the Essenes, as
uf the myatica, there is the human eft'urt which attests the need ; en the part uf John_
as well as of I-iuther, the divine -R'ork which satisfies it. The abstract plural in ihe
deserts provea that this observation is made with a moral and not a geographical aim.
The word avddei^tS; showing, denotes the instaUation ef a servant into his office, hia
official inatitution into his charge. The author of this act, unnamed but under
stood, is evidently God. It follows from 3 : 3, and from John 1 : 31-33, that a direct
communication frum on high, perhaps a theophany, such aa called Moaes from the
deaert, was the signal fer John to enter upen hia work. But we have no account of
this scene which took place between God and His messenger. Our evangelista only
relate what they kneV. PIPTH NARRATIVE. — CHAP. 3 : 1-20.
The Birth of the Saviour.
Henceforth there exists in the midst of corrupt humanity a pure Being, on whom
God's regard can rest with unmingled satisfaction. Uniting in this divine contem
plation, the celestial intelligences already see streaming from thia fire thoae waves of
light which will ultimately penetrate to the remotest bounds of the moral universe.
The new creation, the union of God with the sanctified creature, begins te find its ac-

'i'4 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
compl ishment in this Being, in order to extend from Him to the whole of mankind,
and to comprehend at last heaven itself, which is to be united with us dnder one and
the same head, and te adore one Lord .lesus Chriat as its Lord (Col. 1 : 20 ; Epb.
1:10; Phil. 3 : 9-11). Such is the point of view we must take in order te appreciate
the following narrative : 1. Jesus is born (vers. 1-7) ; 3. The angels celebrate this
birth (vers. 8-14) ; 3. The shepherds ascertain and publish it (vers. 15-30).
1. The Birth ef Jesus : vera. 1-7. And first a historical note : vers. 1 and 2.-*
The words in thoae days refer to the time which followed the birth of John the Bap-
list, aud give the remark in 1 : 80 au anticipatory character. Aoj'.uc denntes, in clas
sical' Greek, any edict cf a recngnized authnrity. The use nf the wnrd i^e/Selv, to
go forth, in the sense nf beiiig published, anawers tn the meaning ef }>>u"'. Dan. 9 : 2, 3.
The term dnoypatjiy, description, denntes amnng the Romans the inscription en an
official register nf the name, age, prufessinn, and fnrtune ef each head nf a family, and
ot the number nf his children, with a view tn the assessment nf a tax. The fiscal
taxatinn which followed waa more particularly indicated by the term anori/iyaiS. Criti-
ciam raises several objections against the truth Of the fact related in ver. 1 : 1st, No
historian uf the time mentions such a decree of Augustus. 2d, On the supposition
that Augustus had iaaued auch an edict, it would nut have been applicable tn the atates
ot Hernd in general, nur tn Judea in particular, since thia cnuntry was nnt reduced tg
a Roman prnvince until ten er eleven yeara later-^the year 6 of nur era. 3d, A Rnman
edict, executed within the atates nf Hernd, muat have been executed accnrding tn
Roman fnrms ; and accurding tn these, it wnuld have been in no way necessary for
Joseph to put in an appearance at Bethlehem ; fnr, accnrding tu Rnman law, regis
tration was made at the place of birth or residence, and not at the place where the
family originated. 4th, Even admitting the necessity nf removal in the case nf Jnseph,
thia obligation did nut extend tn Mary, whn, as a wnman, waa nnt liable tn registra-
tinn. In order to meet some of these difficulties. Hug has limited the meaning ef the
words, all ihe earth, to Palestine. But the connection of this expreasion with the
name Caesar Augustus will not allow of our accepting this explanation ; besides
which, it leaves several of the difficulties indicated uutouched. The reader who feels
any confidence in Luke's narrative, and who ia desiruns of solving its difficulties, wUl
find, we think, a solutiun resulting from the fnUnwing facts :
Frnm the cummencement nf his reign, Augustus always iiimed at a strnnger ceu-
tralizatinn nf the empire. Already, under Julius Cassar, there had been undertaken,
with a view tn a mnre exact assessment nf taxatinn, a great statistical wurk, a cem
plete survey nf the empire, deocriptio orbia. This wnrk, which nccupied thirty-two
years, was nnly finished under Augustus, f This prince never ceased tn labnr in the
same directiun. After his death, Tiberius caused tu be read in the Senate, in accurd
ance with instructinns cnntained in the will nf Augustus, a statistical dncument,
which applied net nnly tn the empire prnperly so called, but also tn the allied king.
dnms — a category tu which the states nt Herod belonged. This document, called
" Breviarium tutius imperii," was written entirely by Augustus' nwn hand.j: It gave
* Ver. 3. 54. B. D. omit y after avry. Instead nt a7Toypa<py -Kpory eyevETo, 54 * reads
attoypa^y Eyevero ¦Kparri. Instead nf Kvpyviov, A. Kypvvtov, B* Kvpeivov, B^. It. 'Vg.
Kvpivov (Cyrinn).
f See the recent wnrk nf Wieseler, " Beitrage zur richtigen Wiirdigung der
Evangelien," etc., 1869, p. 33.
X Tacitus Ann. i. 11 ; Suetenius, Octav. c. 37, 28, 101.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 75
" the number of the citizens and of aUies under arma, nf the fleets, nt the kingdnms,
nf the prnvinces, nf the tributes or taxes." The cnmpilatinn nf such a dncument as
this neceasarily suppuses a previuua statistical labnr, cumprehending nnt unly the em
pire prnper, but alao the allied states. And if Augustus had nrdered this wurk,
Herod, whose kingdom belonged to the number of regna reddita, could net have re
fused to take part in it. The silence of historians in regard to this fact proves simply
nothing against its reality. Wieseler gives a host of examples of similar emissions.
The great statistical work previously accomplished by Julius Caesar, and about which
no one can entertain a doubt, is not noticed by any historian of the time.* Joaephus,
in his " Jewish War," written before his " Antiquitiea, " when giving au account of
the government of Coponius, does not mentiun even the census of Quiriniua.f Then
it -must not be forgotten that one ut nur principal snurces fur the life uf Augustus,
Dinn Cassius, preaenta a blank for juat the years 748-750 u.c. Besides, this silence
is amply compensated fer by the positive information we find in later writers. Thus,
TertuUian mentions, as a well-known fact, " the census taken in Judea under Augus
tus by Sentius Saturnius," X that.ia tn say, frnm 744-748 u.c, and cnnsequenlly nnly a
shnrt time befnre the death nf Hered in 750. The accuunts of Cassindnrus and Suidas
leave nn dnubt as tn the great statistical labnrs accumplished by the nrders ef Au-
giistus.g The l-atter says expressly : " Cassar Augustus, having chusen twenty men
nf the greatest ability, sent them intn all the cnuntries uf the subject nations {tuv
vTiyKduv), and cauaed them tn make a registration {d-noypa(pds) of men and property
{tuvts dvBpu'iruv Kul ovaiuv)." These details are not furnished by Luke. And if the
task uf these commissioners specially referred, as Suidas says, to tlie subject nations,
the emission of all mention of this measure in the historians of the time is more easily
accounted fnr.
Surprise is expressed at an edict nf Augustus having reference tn the slates nf
Hernd. But Herod's independence was nnly relative. There is no muney knuwn tu
have been cuined in his name ; the silver coin circulating in his dominions waa
Roman. I From the time of the taking ef Jerusalem by Pompey, the Jews paid the Ro
mans a double tribute, a pell-tax and a laud-tax. 1[ Tacitus also speak of complaints
from Syria and Judea against the taxes which burdened them. Further, the Jews
had quite recently, according to Jnsephus, been obliged tn take individually an nath
nf nbedience tn the emperur (" Antiq." xvii. 3, 4). The application of a decree of Au
gustus te tho 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 instrumentality. Besides, it was the <:ustom ef the Bo-
mans, especially in their fiscal measures, always to act by means of the local authori
ties, and to conform as far as possible tn natiunal usages.** Augustus would not de
part from this method in regard tu Hernd, whu was generally an ubject uf favor.
And this nbservatien nverthruws annther q^jectinu, namely, that accnrding tu Roman
* Wieseler, in the work referred te, p. 51. t I'^i'^. p. 95.
X Sed et census constat acios sub Auguaie . . . in Judmi per Sentium Satur-
nium {Adv. Marc 19). The word constat appears to allude to public documenta ; aud
the detaU by Sentius Saturniua proves that his source ot information waa indepen
dent of Luke.
§ Wieseler, p. 53. I Ibid. p. 86. t Ibid. p. 73 and ful.
** Cump. nn this pnint the recent wnrks nf Huschke (" Ueber den Census der
Kaiserzeit") and nf Marquadt (" Handbuch der romischen Alterthiimer").

76 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
custum Jnseph wnuld nnt have tu preaent himaelf in the place where bis family
uriginated, since the census was taken at the place of residence. But Rnman usage
did nnt prevail here. In cenfnrmity with the remnant uf independence which Judea
still enjoyed, the census demanded by the emperor would certainly be executed ac
cording tu Jewish nrms. Th^se, dnubtless, were adapted tu the ancient censtitulion
nf tribes and famUies, the basis uf IsraeUtish nrganizatinn : thia mude was at nnce the
simplest, since the greater part cf the families still lived nn their hereditary pusses-
sinns, and the surest, inasmuch as families that had remnved wuuld be anxinus tn
strengthen a link nn which might depend questinns nf inheritance and uther rights
besides.* That which distinguished the census nf Quirinius, ten years later, frnm all
similar undertakings that had preceded it, waa just thia, that nn this uccasinn the
Rnman authnrity as such executed it, withnut the interventien nf the natiunal pnwer
and Jewish cuatnms. Then, accnrdingly, the penple keenly felt the reality nf their
subjectinn, and bruke intn revnlt. And hiatnry has preserved scarcely any record of
similar measures which preceded this eventful census.
As tu Mary, we may explain withnut any difficulty the reasnns which induced her
tn accnmpany Juseph. If, at ver. 5, we make the wnrds with Mary depend specially
nn the verb in order to be enrolled, the fact may be explained by the circumstance
that, accnrding tn Rnman law, wnmen amnng ccnquered natinna were aubject tn the
capitatinn tax. Ulpian expressly says this {De censibua) : " that in Syria (this term
cnmprehends Palestine) men are liable tn the capitatinn frnm their fuurteenth year,
wnmen frum their twelfth tn their sixtieth. " Perhaps women were sometimes sum-
mnned tu appear in persnu, in nrder that their age might be ascertained. Or, indeed,
we may suppuse that Mary was the sele representative nf nne nf the branches nf her
tribe, an heireas, which nbliged her tn appear in perann. Perhaps, alsu, by the in-
scriptinn nf her name she was anxious tu establish anew, in view nf her snn, her de
scent frnm the family nf David. But we may juin the wnrds iviih Mary tn the verb
went up. The mutives which wnuld induce Mary tn accnmpany Joseph in this juur
ney are ebviuus. If, in the whnle cnurae nf the Gnspel history, we never see the
least refiection cast on the reputation of Mary, although only six months bad elapsed
between her marriage and the birth of Jeaua, is not this circumstance explained by
the very fact of this journey, which pruvidentially remnved Jnseph and Mary frum
Nazareth fur a sufficient length nf time, just when the birth tunk place '? Mary must
have recngnized the finger ef God in the event which compelled Joseph to leave
heme, and have been anxious to accompany him.
But a much more serious difficulty than any of the preceding arises relative te ver.
3. If this verse ia tranalated, as it usually is, "This census, which was the first,
took place when Quirinius governed Syria," we must suppuse, nn accuunt cf what
precedes, that Quirinius filled this nffice befnre the death nf Hernd. But histnry
prnves that Quirinius did nut becume gnvernur nf Syria until the year 4, and that he
did nnt execute the enumeratiun which bears his name until the year 6 cf uur era,
after the depnsition 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 correcting
the text : Thendore de Beza by making ver. 3 an interpolation ; Michaelis by adding
the words jrpd r^s after iyevETo: "This enuraeratinn took place before that which
* Wieseler, pp. 66, 67.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 77
Quh-inius executed . . ."* These are conjectures without foundation. Again,
it has been proposed te give the vf ord -rpury, first, a meaning moreor lesa unusual.
And accordingly, seme translate this word as primua ia sometimes to be taken in
Latin, and as erat re.gularly in German: " This .census was executed only when
..." (prima aceedit cum, geachah erst ala). Such aLatinism is hardly admissi
ble. And besides, if the execution had not foUowed the decree immediately (as the
translation supposes), how could the decree have led to the removal of Joseph and the
birth nf Jesus at Bethlehem while Hered was still reigning ?
An interpretatinn nf the wnrd izpury which is scarcely less fnrced, has been adupted
by Thnluck, Ewald, Wieseler- (whn maintains and defends it at length in hia last
wurk), and PressensS (in his " Vie de Jesus"). Relying en Jehu 1 : 15, 7rpu?-oS /lov,
15:18, irpuTov v/iuv, they give tn Trpury the sense of -rrpoTepa, and explain irpun?
liyefiovevovTog as if it were ¦nporepov y yyeftoveveiv ; which results in the following
translation: " This enumeration took place before Quirinius . . ." They cite
from the LXX. Jer. 29 :3, ¦uoTepov i^sXBdvTog 'lexovtov, "after Jechonias waa gene
forth;" and from Plato, varepoi d^iKovro rijS iv MapaBuvi pdxyS yevo/iEvyS, "they
arrived after the battle of Marathon had taken place." But this accumulation of
two irregularities, the employment of the auperlative for the cnmparative, and nf the
cumparative adjective fnr the adverb, is net admiaaible in such a writer as Luke,
whnse style is generally perfectly lucid, especially if, with Wieseler, after having
given tn Trpury the sense nf a comparative, we want to keep, in addition, its superla
tive meaning :" This enumeration tnok place as a first une, and befnre that . . ."
This certainly gnes beyund all limits nf what is pnssible, whatever the high phUnlng-
ical authnrities may say fnr it, upun whuse suppurt this authnr thinks he can rely.j-
Anuther attempt at interpretatinn, prupnsed by Ebrard, sets nut frnm a distinction
hetween the meaning of aTroypdfEcdai (ver. 1) and of dnoypafy (ver. 2). The former of
these two interpretations may denote the registration, the second the pecuniary tax
ation which reaulted from it (the cm-oTi/jyaiS) ; and this difference of meaning would
be indicated by the prennun avry, which it wnuld be neceaaary tn read avry {ipaa),
and nnt avrrj {ea). " As tu the taxatinn itaelf (which fnllnwed the registratiun), it tunk
place nnly when Quirinius was . . ." But why, in this case, did nnt Luke em
plny, in the secnnd verse; annther wurd than d'iroypa<j>y, which evidently recalled the
a7voypd(j)Ea6at uf ver. 1 ? Kohler X acknnwledged that these two words should have an
identical meaning ; but, with Paulus, Lange, and othera, he thinks he can distinguish
between the publication of the decree (ver. 1) aud its execution (ver. 3), which only
took place ten years afterward, and, wilh this meaning, put the accent on iyevero:
" Caesar Augustus published a decree (ver. 1), and the registration decreed by him waa
executed (only) when Quirinius . . . " (ver. 2). But the difficulty is tn see hew this
decree, if it was nnt immediately enfurced, cnuld induce the remnval nf Joseph and
Mary. Kahler replies that the measure decreed began to be carried intu executien ;
but on accnunt nf the disturbances which it excited it was soon suspended, and that
it was only resumed and completely carried out {iyevsro) under Quirinius. This ex
planation is ingenious, but very artificial. And -further, it does not suit the context.
* For this senae it would be better to conjecture a reading irpd rijs as a substitute
for vpuTT], admitting at the same time the place which the laat word cccupies in the
text of 54 and D.
}MM. Cnrtius at Leipsic and SchBmann at Greifswald.
" Encyclopedie de Herzog," Art. " Schalzung."

78 COMMENTARY ON ST. LpKE.
Luke, after having positively denied the execution of the measure (ver. 2), would
relate afterward (ver. 3 and fl.), without the least explanation, a fact which has no
meaning, but on the supposition of the immediate execution of this decree !
There remain a number of attempted solutions which rely on hiatory rather than
philology. As far as the text is concerned, they may be classed with the ordinary
explanatinn which treats the wurda yjEpovevovroS Kvp^yviov as a genitive absnlute.
Several nf the ulder expusiturs, aa Casaubnu, Sanclemente, and mnre recently Hug
and Neander, starting with the fact that befnre Quirinius was gnvernur nf Syria he
tunk a cunaiderable part in the affairs ef the East (Tae. Ann.- in. 48), suppnsed that
he presided nver the census, uf which Luke here speaks, in the character uf an im-
perM cnmmissiuner. Luke, they think, applied tu this tempurary jurisdictinn the
term yyEjiovEveiv, which nrdinarily denotes the functiun uf a gnvernur in the pruper
senae nf the term. Zumpt even believed he cuuld prnve that Quirinius had been
twice gnvernur nf Syria,* in the pruper aenae ef the wnrd, and that it waa during the
fnrmer of these two administrations that he presided over the census mentinned by
Luke. Mommsen -I- also admits the fact of Ihe double administration nf Quirinius as
.governor of Syria. He relies particularly en a tumular inscription discovered in
1764, j: which, if it refers to Quirinius, would seem to say that this person had been
governor ef Syria on two occasions {iierum). But does this inscription really refer
to Quirinius ? And haa the term iierum all the force which is given te it ? Wieseler
clearly shews that these questions are not yet deterihined with any certainty. And
supposing even that this double administration nt Quirinius cnuld be pruved, the
fnrmer, which is the nne with which we are concerned here, cuuld nut have been, as
Zumpt aoknnwledgea, untU frum the end uf 750 tn 753 u.c. Nnw it is indisputable
that at this time Hernd had been dead seme mnnths (the spring nt 750), and ccnse
quently, accnrding tn the text ef Luke, Jesus was already born. One thing, how
ever, is certain — that Quirinius, a person honored with the emperor's entire confi
dence, took a cunsiderable part, thrnughoul this entire perind, in the affairs nf the
East, aud nf Syria in particular. And wc do not see what objection there is, from a
historical point ef view, to the hypothesis ot Gerlach,§ who thinks that, while Varus
was the political and military gnvernur of Syria (from 748), Quiriniua administered
its financial affairs, and that it was in the capacity uf quoestOr that he presided ever
the census which took place among the Jews at this time. Josephus (Antiq. xvi. 9.
1, 2, and BeU. Jud. i. 37. 2) designates these two magistrates, the praeses and the
quaestor, by the titles of liye/idveS and ryg 2vpiac itnoTaTovvTES. There is nothing,
then, to hinder our giving a somewhat more general meaning fo the verb yyEpove^veiv,
er supposing, we may add, that Luke attributed to Quirinius as governor a function
which he accomplished as quaestor. In thia case Quirinius would have already pre
sided over a first enumeration under Hered in 749, before directing the better knnwn
census which took place in 759 u.c, and which provoked the revolt of Judas the
GaUlean. |
* By the passage in 1'ac. iii. 48. " De Syria Rnmannrum provincia ab.Caesare
Augusto ad Titum Vespasianum," 1854, and " Ueber den Census des Quirinius,
Evang. Kirchenzeitung," 1865, No. 83.
•|- " Res gestae Divi AuguBti. Ex monuraento Ancyrano."
X Published in the last place by Mommsen, " De P. S. Quirinu titulo Tiburtine,"
1865. § "Romische Statthalterin Syrien," p. 33.
I This certainly is nnly a hypnthesis ; but we do not see what ground Keim haa
fer characterizing it as untenable (" Gesch. Jesu," t. i. p. 403).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 79
Those whn are nnt satisfied with any nf these attempts at explanatinn admit an
errer in Luke, but nnt all in the same sense. Meyer thinks that yye/j.ovEVEiv in Luke's
text must keep its nrdinary meaning, but that Luke, in emplnying this term here, cun-
fnunded the later enumeratiun nf the year 6 with that nver which this persnn presided
ten yeara earlier in the capacity nf imperial commissioner. Schleiermacher and Bleek
admit a greater error :, Luke muat have confounded a simple sacerdotal census, which
tnnk place in the latter part uf Hernd'a reign, with the famnus enumeratiun uf the
year 6. Strauss and Keim gn further still. In their view, the enumeratiun'uf vers.
1 and 3 is a pure inventien nf Luke's, either tn accnunt fnr the birth nf Jesus at Beth
lehem, as required by pnpular prejudice (Strauss), nr tu establish a significant parallel
between the birth nf Jesus and the cnmplete subjectinn cf the penple (Keim, p. 399).
But the text nf Luke is nf a too strictly histnrical and prosaic character tn furnish the
least auppnrt tn Keim's npininn. That of Strauss might apply tn a Gnapel like Mat
thew, which lays great stress nn the cunnectinn between the birth nf Jesus at Bethle
hem and Messianic prnphecy ; but it in nn way applies tu Luke's Gnspel, which dues
nnt cnntain the alightest allusinn tn the prnphecy. Schleiermacher's explanatinn is
a pure conjecture, and nne which borders on absurdity. That ot Meyer, which in
substance is very nearly the opininn nf Gerlach, would certainly be the must prnbable
nf all these upininns. Only there are twn facts which hardly allnw nf nur imputing
tn Luke a cehfusinn uf facts in this place. The first is, that, accurding tn Acts
5 : 37, he was well acquainted -with the later enumeration which occasioned the re
volt of Judas the Galilean, and which he calls, in an absnlute way, the enumeration.
Luke could not be ignorant that this revnlt took place nn the uccasinn of the defini
tive annexation nf .Tudea te the empire, and consequently at some distance of time
after the death of Herod.' Now, in our text, he places the enumeratinn nf which he
is speaking in the reign nf Hernd ! The secnnd fact is the perfect kuuwledge Luke
bad, accurding tu 33 : 6-9, nf the subsequeiit pnlitical separatinn between Judea and
GalUee. Nnw, the registratinn nf a Galilean in Judea suppoaea that the unity of the
Israelitish monarchy waa atill in existence. In the face of these two plain facta, it ia
not eaay to admit that there waa any confusion on hia part.
May we be permitted, after ao many opiniona have been broached, to propose a new
nne ? We have seen that the census which was carried cut by Quirinius in 759 u.c,
ten years after the birth nf Jesus, made a deep impressinn upon all the people, con
vincing them of their cnmplete pnlitical servitude. This census is called the enumer
atinn withnut any quallfieatinn, therefure (Acts 5 : 37) ; but itmightalanbe designated
the firat enumeratinn, inaamuch aa it was the first census executed by pagan authnrity ;
and it wnuld be in this sumewhat technical sense that the expression ^ a^oypaf?) npury
would here have te be taken. We should accentuate avry (as has been already pro-
pnsed) avTi}, which presents nn critical difficulty, since the ancient mss. have nn ac
cents, and understand the second verse thus : As tn the census itself called the first,
it took place under the government of Quirinius.* Luke would break off to remark
that, prior tu the well-knuwn enumeration whicli took place under Quirinius, and
which history had taken account of under the name nf the firat, there had really been
another, generally loat aight of, which was the very one here in question ; and thus
that it was not unadvisedly that he spoke of a census anterior te tho firat. In this
¦* We apell thia name Quiriniua (not Quirinus) in conformity with the authority et
all the documents, B. alone and some mss. uf the It. excepted.

80 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
way, first, the intentinn of this parenthesis is clear ; secnnd, the asyndeton hetween .
vers. 1 and 3 is explained quite in a natural way ; and third, the emission of the
article ii between ditoypaiiy and irpury, which has the effect of making y dtroypaipij
npdtry a Sort of proper name (like y iKLaToWlj irpury, devrepd), is completely justified.
Vers. 3-7.* The terms oUos and irarptd, house and family (ver. 4), have uot an in
variable meaning in the LXX. According lo the etymelogy aud the context, the
former appears to have here the wider meaning, and to deuote the entire counections
nf David, comprising hia brethren and their direct descendants. On this journey nf
Mary, see p. 76. The cnmjjjcment ¦with Mary appears tn us tu depend, nnt un the
verb anoypdfaaBai, io be enrolled, as Meyer, Bleek, etc., decide, but on the entire
phrase dvejiy dnoypdfaaBat, lie went up io be enrolled, and more especially on lie went
up. Per, as Wieseler observes, the important point for the context ia, that ahe went
up, nnt that she was enrnlled. And the wurds in appnsilinn, being great with child,
cnnnect themselves much better with the idea cf guing up than wilh that uf beiug en
rnlled. There is great delicacy in the received reading, which has also the best aup
pnrt critically, his eapouaed wife. The substantive indicates the character in which
Mary made the juurney ; the participle recalls thereat state nf things. The Alex., net
having perceived this shade ef thought, have wrongly omitted yvvaiKi. Frnm the last
prnpusition of ver. 7, in which <fidTvy, a manger, aeema uppnscd tn Kurdlvfta, an inn,
some interpretera have inferred that the former ef these twn words should here have
a wider aenae, and signify a stable. But this meaning is unexampled. We have
merely tn supply a thuught : " in the manger, because they were lodging in the stable
seeing that . . " The article t?; designates the manger as that belonging to the
stable. Tho Alex., therefore, have wrongly omitted it. Did this stable fnrm part nf
the hnstelry ? er was it, as all the apucryphal writings \ and Justin X allege, a cave near
tbe city 1 In the time cf Origen, § a gruttn was shnwn where the birth nf Jesua tnok
place. It was en this place that Helena, the mnther nf Cnnstantine, built a church ;
and it is prnbable that the Church MarisB de Praesepin is erected on the same site.
The text uf Luke wnuld nut be altngether incnmpatible with thia idea. But prnbably
it is unly a suppositinn, resulting en the one hand from the common cuatom in the
East of using caves fur alables, and un the uther from a mistaken application to the
Messiah of Isa. .33 : 16, " He shall dwell in a lofty cave, ' ' quoted by Justin. The expres
sion firat-boi'n naturally implies that the writer believed Mary had other children after
ward, otherwise there would be no just ground for the use ef this term. It may be
aaid that Luke employs it with a view to the account of the presentation of Jesus in
the temple as a first-born son (ver. 33 et seq.). But this connection is out of the queation
in. M att. 1 : 35. This expression proves that the composition of the narrative dates from
a time posterior to the birth of the brothers and aisters of Jesua. Thus was accnm
plished, in the nbscurity nf a stable, the fact which was tn change the face nf the
wnrld ; and Mary's wnrds (1 : 51), " He hath put down the mighty, and exalted the
lowly," were still further verified. " The weakness of Gnd is strnnger than men,"
saya St. Paul ; this principle prevails thruughnut aU this histnry, and constitutes its
peculiar character.
* Ver. 3. 54'. B. D. L. Z., savrov instead of idiav. Ver. 5. 54* A. D. some Mnn.
arroypadieaQai in place of ar.oypa^aoBai. 54. B. D. L. Z. aome Mnn. Syr. omit yvvaiKi.
Ver. 7. 64. A. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. omit y before ^arvy.
f Protevangelium ef Jamea, History ot Joseph, Goapel nf the Infancy. " Worka
uf Jualin," edit, ef Otto, t. i. p. 369, note.
X " Dial, c. Tryph." c, 78, § " Contra Celaum," i. 11.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 81
3. The appearing of the angels : vers. 8-14. " The Gospel is preached to the
poor." The tolluwing narrative cnntains the first applicatien nf this divine methnd.
Veis. 8 and 9 relate the appearing nf the angel tn the ahepherda ; vers. 10-13, his dis-
cnursB ; vers. 13 and 14, the sung nf the heavenly hust.
Vers. 8 and 9.* Amnng the Jews, the cccupatinn uf keepers nf sheep was held in
a sort nf cnntempt. Accurding tn the treatise " Sanhedrin," they were nut tu be ad
mitted as witnesses ; and accnrding tn the treatiae '¦ Aboda Zara," succor muat uot be
given to shepherds aud heathen. 'AypavXelv, properly, to make his oypof hia a^lily, his
field his abode. Columella (" De re rustica") describes theae aiXai as inclosures sur
rounded by high walls, snmetimes cuvered in, and snmetimes sub dio (upen tn the sky).
Aa it ia said in a passage in the Talmud that the flunks are kept in the open air during
the portiun of the year between the Passover and the early autumnal rains, it has been
inferred from thia narrative of the shepherds that Jeaus must have been born dur"
ing the summer. Wieseler, however, observes that this Talmudic determinatinu ef
the matter applies to the season passed by the flocks out en the steppes, far away
frnm human dwellings. The flncks in this case were nnt sn. In the expressinn
(pvXdaaetv ifvlaKus, the plural 0«/la/caS perhaps denntes that they watched in turns.
The genitive rf/S wKrdS must be taken adverbially : the watch, such as is kept by
night. 'hW (ver. 9) is umitted by the Alex, But it is prnbably authentic ; it de
picts the aurprise nf the shepherds. 'Ettcut)? dnes nut signify that the angel ateud
above them (comp. iinaTdaa, ver. 38). It is our survenir (te come unexpectedly).
We must translate, as in 1 : 11, an angel, not tlie angel. This is proved by the
article 6 at ver. 10 (see 1 : 13). By the glory of the Bord must be here understood, as
generally, the supernatural light with which God appears, whether peraonally nr by
Hia representativea.
Vers. 10-12. -f- The angel first annnuncea the favnrahle nature nf his message ;
fur at Hie sight nf anv supernatural appearance man's first feeling is fear, "Hns,
" which, inasmuch aa great, is intended fur the whole penple." Ver, 11, the mes
sage itself. By the title Saviour, in cunnectinn with the idea of joy (ver. 10), ia ex
pressed the pity angels feel at the sight of the miserable state of mankind. The tille
Ghriai, anointed, refers to the prophecies which announce this Person, and the long
expectation He cumes to satisfy. The title Bord indicatea that He ia the representa
tive uf the divine sovereignty. This latter title applies also to His relation to the
angels. The periphrasis, the city of David, hints that this child will be a second
David. Ver. 12, the sign by means uf which the shepherds may determine the truth
ot thia message. This sign has nothing divine about it but its contrast with human
glory. There could nut have been many nther children bnrn that night in Bethle
hem ; and amnng these, if there were any, nn uther certainly wnuld have a manger
fur its cradle.
Vera. 13 and 14.^: The trnup nf angels is.sues fnrth aU at nnce frnm the depths nf
that invisible wnrld which surrnunds ua nn every side. By their song they cume to
* Ver. 9. 54. B. L. Z. omit idov after Kai. 54". Z. If"''. Vg., eeov instead of Kvpiov
(secund). 54*. enE'/M/npEv avToiS instead ef ¦^repe'hau.TpEv avrovS.
f Ver. 13. B. Z. omit to before nyfteiov. 54* D. omit keihevov. 54"^ B. L. P. S. Z.
some Mnn. Syr. Iip'ei-ique Or. add Kai befnre keipevov (taken frum ver. 16). T. R.
reads ry before (farvy. with F^. K. nnly (taken frum ver. 16).
X Ver. 14. ItP'«''<!»'' Ir. Or., etc., umit ct befnre ai^epuTrotS. 54* A. P* D. It. Vg.
Ir. and Or. (in the Latin translatinn) read evSoKias in place uf evioKia.

82 COMMENTARY ON 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. eidoKlaS instead of the nom. EvdoKta, is
preferred in the modern exegesis : * " peace to the men of goodwill." In this case
the song divides itself into two parallel propositions, whether the words andonea^rih
be referred to that which precedes, " Glory to God in the highest places and on
earth ; peace to the men ef goodwill ;" er, which is certainly preferable, they be
connected with what fuUuws, " Glory to God in the highest places ; and on earth
peace to the men ot goodwill," In this second interpretation the parallelism is com
plete : the three ideas, peace, men, en earth, in the secnnd member, answer tn the
three ideaa, glury, God, in the highest placea, in the first. Men make their praise
ariae toward God in the heavens ; God makes His peace descend toward them nn the
earth. The gen, evdoKias, of goodwill, may refer tn the pinus dispusitiuns tnward
Gnd with which a part cf mankind are animated. But this interpretatinn is hardly
natural. EidoKta, from evdoKElv, to delight in, n j;Cn> denotes an entirely gracious
gondwUl, the initiative of which is in the subject whu feela it. This terms does not
suit the relation of man to God, but only that of God to man. Therefere, with this
reading, we must explain the words thus ; Peace en earth to the men who are the
objects of divine goudwili. But this use ef the genitive is singularly rude, and
almost barbarous ; the «i€)i(>/'^oo(Z-wzK, meaning those on whom goodwillrests, . . .
is a mede of expression without any example. We are thus brought back to the
reading ef the T. R,, present also in 14 Mjj., among which are L. and Z., which
generaUy agree with the Alex., the Coptic translation, of which the same may
be said, and the Peschito. With this reading, the song consists of three propositions,
ef which two are parallel, and the third forms a link between the two. In the flrst,
glory to Gnd m the highest places, the angels demand that,' from tbe lower regions
to which they have just come dnwn, frnm the bosom of humanity, praise shall arise,
which, ascending from heavens to heavens, siiall reach at last .the supreme sanc
tuary, tho highest places, and there glorifj' the divine perfections that shine forth in
this birth. The second, peace on earth, ia the counterpart of the flrat. While incit
ing men to praise, the angels invoke on them peace from God. This peace is such as
results from the reconciliation uf man with Gnd ; it contains the cause of the cessa
tion ef all war here below. These two propositions are of the nature of a deaire er
prayer. The verb understood is earu, let it bo. The third, which is nut connected
with the preceding by any particle, proclaims tbe fact which is the grnund nf this
twnfnld prayer. It the Ingical cnnnectiun were expressed, it wnuld be by the wnrd
for. This fact is the extraordinary favnr shnwn to men by Gnd, and which is dis
played in the gift He is bestuwing upon them at this very lime. The sense ia, " fnr
Gnd takes pleasure iu men. " In speaking thus, the angels seem to mean, God has
nut bestowed as much on us (Hob. 3 : 16). The idea of EvdoKia, goodwill, recalls the
first proposition, " Glory to God !" while the expression towards men reminds us of
the second, " Peace en earth !'' Fur the wurd e-udoKia, comp. Eph. 1 : 5 and Phil.
3 : 13. When the witnesses ef tbe blessing sing, how could they who are the objects
of it remain silent ?
3. The visit nf the shepherds : vers. 10-20. The angel had netified a sign to the
shepherds, and invited them tn ascertain its reality. This injunctinn they nbey.
* Prufessur, Gndet uses this phrase as he elsewhere uses " criticism," and here as
elsewhere contrnverts its conclusions. — J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 83
Vers. 15-20.* The T. R. exhibita in ver. 15 a singular expressinn: "And it
came tn pass, when the angela were gune away, . . . the men, the shepherds,
aaid ..." The impressinn nf the shepherds when, the angels having diaap-
peared, they fnund themaelves alune amung men, cnuld nut be better expressed.
The umiasinn nf the wurda /cat ol dvBpwn-oi in the Alex, ia nwing tn the atrangenesa nt
thia fnrm, the meaning of which they did nnt underatand. The Kai befnre ol
uvBpairoi ia duubtleaa the sign uf the apndOsis, like the Hebrew 1 ; but at the same
time it brings nut the clnse cnnnectiun between the diaappearance nf the angels and
the act uf the shepherds; as they addressed themaelvea tn the duty nf ubeying them.
The anrist eIttov nf the T. R. is certainly preferable to the imperf. iXdAow ef the
Alex., since it refers te an act immediately followed by a reault : " They said (not
iliey were saying) nne to another. Let us gn therefere. ' ' The term /iy/ia denntes, as
-inT ao often dees, a word in so far as accomplished (yEyovos). We see how the nrig
inal Aramaean fnrm ia carefully preserved even to the minutest details. 'Avd in
uvE'Spov expresses the discovery in succession nf the ebjects enumerated. ''&yv6piaav
ur dieyvupiaav (Alex.), ver. 17, may signify to verify ; in the fifteenth verse, however,
Eyvupiaav sigu'ifles to make known, and in ver. 17 it is the most natural meaning.
There is a gradation here : heaven had revealed ; and now, by the care of men, pub
licity goes en increasing. This seuse also puts the seventeenth verse in more direct
connection with what foUows. The compound diayvupi^eiv, io divulge, appears to ua
for thia reason to be preferred te the simple form (in the Alex.).
Vers. 18-20 describe the various impressions produced by -what had taken place.
In the eighteenth verse, a vague surprise in the greater part (all those who heard).
On the other hand {de), ver. 19, 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
them {avvTypelv) ; but thia first and indispensable effort ia closely connected with
the further and subordinate aim of comparing and combining these facts, in order to
discover the divine idea which explains and connects them. What a difference be
tween this theughtfulness and the superficial astonishment of the people arnund her I
There is mure in the joyful feelings and adoration ot the shepherds (ver. 20) than in
the impreaaiona of thnse whn aimply heard their atory, but leas than in Mary.
Ao^d^etv, to glorify, expresses the feeling ef the greatness ef the work ; alvElv, io
praiae, refera to the goodneaa diaplayed in it. Closely connected as they are, the two
participles heard and aeen can only refer to what took place in the presence ef 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 expreased by' the word aeen.
And the whole was a conflrmation of the angel' a message to them. They were con
vinced that they had not been the victims of an hallucinatinn. The reading vTvearpetpav
(they returned thence) is evidently tu be preferred tn the iU-suppnrted reading uf tho
T. R., ETTEOTpe^av (they returned tn their flocks).
Whence were these interesting details ct the impressinn made nn the ahepherda
and thnae whn liatened tn their stnry, and ef the feelings of Mary, obtained ? How
can any one regard them as a mere embeUishment of tlie author's imagination, or as
* Ver. 15. 54. B. L. Z. many Mnn. Syr»«''. Itpi"'i"% Vg. Or. omit kui oi avdpaTroi.
54. B. It""*., eXaTiovv instead of si-a-ov. Ver. 17. 54. B. D. L. Z., eyvupiaav instead of
dieyvopiaav. Ver. 20. Instead of E-Kearpe^iav, the reading of T. R. and a part of the
Mnn. . all the other documents, vrcEBTpEipav.

84 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the offspring of legend ? The Aramaean coloring of the narrative indicates an ancient
source. The oftener we read the nineteenth verae, the more aaaured we feel that
Mary waa the firat and real author of thia whnle narrative. Thia pure, aimple, and
private histnry was cnmpused by her, and preserved fnr a certain time in an ural
fnrm until snme nne cnmmitted it to writing, whose work fell into the hands of
Luke, and was reprnduced by him in Greek.

SIXTH NARRATIVB. — CHAP. 3 : 31-40.
Circumcision aiid Preaentation of Jesus.
This narrative cnmprises— 1. The circumcisinn nf Jesus (ver. 21) : 3. His presen-
tatinn in the teimple (vers. 22-38) ; 3. A historical conclusion (vers. 39, 40).
1. The circumcision : ver. 21. It waa under the Jewish form that Jesus was to
realize the ideal nf human existence. The thencracy was the surrnunding prepared
uf Gnd fur the develupment nf the Snn nf man. Sn tn His entrance intu lite by birth
succeeds, eight days after. His entrance intu the cnvenant by circumcisinn. " Born
of a woman, made under the law," says Sb. Paul, Gal. 4 : 4, tn exhibit the cunnection
between these twn facts. There ia a brevity in the accnunt cf the circumcision ef
Jesus which contrasts with the fuller account of the circumcision of Jnhn the Baptist
(chap. 1). This difference is natural ; the simply Jewish ceremony of circumcisinn
has an impurtance, in the Ufe nf the late^ representative nt the theocracy, which
doea not belong te it in tbe life of Jesua, who only entered inte the Jewiah form of
existence to pass through it.
Ver. 21.* The absence of the article before yftepai oktu is due to the determinative
tov ¦rvEpiTepslv aiirdv which toUows. In Hebrew the construct state (aubst. with com
plement) excludes the article. The false reading of the T. B., rd iraidiov instead of
a^iirdv, proceeds from the cause which has occasioned the greater part of the errors in
this text, the necessities of public reading. As the section tn be read began with this
verse, it was necessary to substitute the noun for the pronoun. Km, while marking
the apedosis, brings out the intimate connection between the circumcision and the
giving ef the name. This kuI ia almoat a tote, tlien,
2. The presentation : vers. 22-38. And first the sacrifice, vera. 22-24.f After
the circumciaion there were two nther rites tn ubserve. One cnncerned the mnther.
Levitically unclean fur eight days" after the birth uf a sun, and for fnurteen days
after that nf a daughter, the Israelitish mother, after a seclusion of thirty-three days
in the firat case, and of double this ti'me in the second, had te offer in the temple a
sacrifice uf purificaticn (Lev. 12). The other rite had reference tn the child ; when
it waa a flrst-bnrn, it had tn be redeemed by a sum nf muney trom consecration lo the
service ot God and the sanctuary. In fact, the tribe ot Levi bad been chosen for this
offlce simply to take the place of the flrst-born males ot all the families of Israel ; and
in order te keep aUve a feeling of His rights in the hearts ef the people, God had
flxed a ransom to be paia for every flrst-born male. It was five shekels, or, reckon-
* 54. A. B. and 11 Mjj. 100 Mnn. Ilpi^fii"" read avrov in place of to naidwv, the
readinsi; of T. R. wilh 6 Mjj. Syr"'.
f Ver. 22. Instead of awi/c. which is the reading of T. R. with only some Mnn.,
and of avTov, which is the reading of D. and 6 Mnh., aU the other authorities read
avruv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 85
ing the shekel at 3s. 4d.,* neariy 12s. (Ex. 13 : 2 ; Num. 8 : 16, 18 : 15). Vers. 23 and
23 refer to the ransom of the child ; ver. 24 to Mary's sacrifice. Airuv, their puri
fication, is certainly the true reading. This prenoun refers primarily te Mary, then
to Joseph, who is, as it were, invnlved in her uncleanness, and obliged to go up with
her. Every detaU ef the narrative is justifled with the greatest care in the three
verses by a legal prescription. The sacriflce for the mother (ver. 24) consisted prep
erly ef the offering of a lamb as a sin-offering. But when the family was poor, the
offering waa limited te a pair of pigeona or two turtle-dnvea (Lev. 13 : 8).
Frnm the twenty-fifth verse Simenn becnmes the centre of the picture : vera.
35-28 relate his cuming in ; vers. 39-33, his snng ; vers. 33-35, hia address tn the
parents. Vers. 35-38.1 In times of spiritual degeneracy, when an nfficial clergy nn Innger
cultivates anything but the fnrm nf religiun, its spirit retires amnng the ubscurer
members nf the religinus cnmmunity, and creates fur itself unufficial urgans, nften
frum the Inwest clasaes. Simenn and Anna are representatives uf this spnntanenus
priesthund. It has been cnnjectured that Simeon might be the rabbi of this name,
son nf the famnus Hillel, and father ef Gamaliel. But this Simeon, who became
president of the Sanhedrim in the year 13 of our era, could hardly be the one men
tioned by Luke, who at the birth of Jesus was already an old man. Further, this
cunjecture is scarcely cempatible with the religioua character of Luke's Simeon.
The name was one of the commonest in Israel. The term juat denotes positive qual
ities ; fearing God — A. V. devout (rfAa/J^s appears te be the true reading) — watch
fulness with regiird to evil. The separation of 'nvevpa from ayiov by the verb yv in
the greater part of the mss. gives prominence tu the idea of the adjective. An influ
ence rest ed upon him, and this influence was hely. Xpy/iari^Eiv, preperly, to do busi
neas ; thence, tn act officially, communicate a decision, give forth an oracle. The
reading Kvpwv haa neither probability nur authority ; nvpiov ia the genitive of posses
sion : the Christ whom Jehnvah gives and sends. There are critical mnments in Ufe,
wheu everything depends nn immediate submission to the impulse ef the Spirit. The
words iv TU ¦rrvEvpaTi, in spirit, or by the apirit, do not denote a state ef ecstasy, but a
higher impulse. A contradiction has been found between the term yovels, parenia,
and the preceding narrative ef the miraculous birth ; and Meyer finds in this fact a
proof that Luke avails himself here of a different document from that which be pre-
vinualy used. What criticiam ! The wnrd parents ia aimply uaed to indicate the
character in which Joseph and Mary appeared at this time in the temple and pre
sented the chUd. The nai of the twenty-eighth verse indicates the apedosis ; exactly
aa if the' circumatantial iv tu e'laayayEiv . . . formed a subnrdinate pruposition ;
this Kai, at the same time, brings out the clese connection between the act of the
parents whn preaent the child and that cf Simenn, Whn ia fnund there npening his
arms tn receive it. By the term receive, the text makes Simenn the true priest, whu
acts fnr the time nn behalf nf Gnd.
Vers. 29-32. " Lurd, nnw letteat Theu Thy servant depart in peace, according to
* Meylau, " Dictionnaire Biblique," p. 353.
X Ver. 35. 54* K. r. n. 10 Mnn. read EvcefiyS instead of evla^ys. Ayiov is placed
after yv by S. A. B. L. and 14 other Mjj. and almost all the Mnu., while the T. R.
places it before yv, with D. some Mnn. ttpiwii"", Syr. Ver. 26. Instead nf Ttpiv y, 54=.
B. and 4 Mjj., irpiv y av. ; 54* e., sus av. Instead nf Kvpiov, A b. c. Cup., nvpiov.
Ver. 28. 54. B. L. n. Il^'ii. Ir. emit avrov after ajKaXar^.

86 COMMENTARY ON ST. tVtt.
Thy wnrd : 30 Fnr mine eyes have seen Thy salvatinn, 31 Which Thnu hast prepared
befnre the face of all people ; 32 A light te lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy
people Israel."
The vivid insight and energetic cunciseneaa which characterize this snng remind
us nf the cemppsitiuns ef David. Simeon represents himself under the image ef a
sentinel whom his master has placed in an elevated position, and charged to look for
the appearance ef a star, and then announce it tu the wurld. He sees this lung-de
sired star ; he pruclaima its rising, and asks * tn be relieved uf the pust he has nccu
pied so long. In the same way, at the opening of .31schylus' " Agamemnon," when
the sentinel, aet tn watch for the appearing of the fire that is tn annnunce the taking
nf Troy, beholds at last the signal su impatiently expected, he sings at unce beth
the victory ef Greece and his own release. Beneath each cf these terms in ver. 39 is
fnund the figure which we have just indicated : vvv, now, that is tn say, at last, after
such lung waiting ! The wnrd diroXveiv, io release, diacliarge, cnntains the twn ideas
uf relieving a sentinel nn duty, and delivering frnm the burden uf life. These twn
ideas are mixed up tugether here, because fnr a lung time past Simenn's earthly ex
istence had been prulunged simply in view nf this special mandate. The term
dea-rroTa, lord, expresses Simenn's acknnwledgment nf Gnd's absolute right nver him.
'Py/j.d mv. Thy word, is an allusinn tn the wnrd -uf cummand which the cnmmander
gives tu the sentinel. The expressinn, in peace, answers tuthe wnrd now, with which
the snng begins. This snul, which fnr a lung time paat has been all expectatinn, haa
nuw fnund the aatisf actiun it desired, and can depart frnm earth in perfect peace.
Vers. 30 and 31 furm, as it were, a secund strnphe. Simenn is nnw free. Fur his
eyes have seen. The term aarypiov, which we can unly tranalate by aalvation, is
equivalent neither tn auryp. Saviour, nur tu aurypia, aalvation. This wnrd, the neuter
nf the adjective aurypiog, saving, denotes an apparatus fitted tn aave. Simenn aeea in
thia little chUd the meana nf deliverance which Gud is giving tn the wnrld. The
term prepare is cunnected with this sense of aurypiov : we make ready an apparatus.
This nntiun nf preparatinn may be applied tn the entire thencracy, by which Gnd had
fnr a lung time past been preparing fnr the appearance nf the Meaaiah. But it is
simpler te apply this term te the birth of the infant. The ccmplement, in the sight
of, must be explained in this case by an intermediate idea, " Thou hast prepared this
means for placing befure the eyes ef . . ." that is to say, in order that all may
have the advantage et it. It is a similar expression tn that nf Pa. 33 : 5, " Thnu hast
prepared a table befure me." Perhaps this expressinn; in the aight of all nations, is
cunnected with the fact that this scene tnnk place in the cuurt nf the Gentiles. The
universalism cnntained in these wurds, aU nations, in nn way gnes beyund the heri-
zuu uf the prophets, nf Isaiah in particular (Isa. 43 : 6, 60 : 3) ; it is perfectly appre-
priate in the mnuth nf a man like Simenn, tn whum the prophetic spirit is attributed.
The collective idea, all people, ia divided, in the third strophe, into its two essential
elements, the Gentiles and larael. From Genesis to Revelation this is the great dual
ism ef history, the contrast which determines its phases. The Gentiles are here
placed firat. Did Simeon already perceive that the salvatinn nf tbe Jewa cnuld. unly
\ be realized after the enlightenment nf tbe heathen, and by thia means ? We shall see
¦ what a prnfnund insight this nld man had intu the mnral cnnditinn nf the generatinn
* There dnes nut appear tn be any gnud reaseu fnr making the wurds now letiest a
prayer. The whule hymn is praise. He accepts this sight as sign nf his release ;
1,(110 thou ariletting, — J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE, 87
in which he lived. Guided by all that Isaiah had foretold respecting the future un
belief of Israel, he might have arrived at the conviction that hia people were about
to reject the Messiah (ver. 35). The idea of aalvation is presented under two different
aspects, according as it is applied to the heathen er to the Jews. Tu the first this
chUd brings light, tc the secnnd glury. The heathen, in fact, are sunk in ignurance.
In Isa. 25 : 7 they are represented as envelnped in a thick mist, and cnvered wilh
darkness. This cnvering ia taken away by the Measiah. The genitive iBvCiv may be
regarded as a gerutive uf the subject, the enlightenment which the heathen receive.
The heathen might also be made the ubject nf the enlightenment, the light whereby
the cnvering which keeps them in darkness is dune away, and they themselves are
bruught into opeu day. But this second sense is somewhat forced. While the
ignorant heathen receive in this child the light of divine revelation, of which they
have hitherto been deprived, the humiliated Jews are delivered by Him from their re
proach, and obtain the glory which was promised them. Springing from amnng ,
them, Jesus appears their crown in the eyes nf mankind. But this will be at the end, '
nnt at the cummencement ef the Messianic drama. In this song all ia nriginal, cun
cise, enigmatical even, aa the wurds nf an nracle. In theae brief pregnant aentences
is cnntained the substance nf the histury nf future ages. Neither the hackneyed in-
ventinna nf legend, nur any precnnceived dngmatic viewa, have any share in the cnm
pnsitiun nf this juyous lyric.
Vera. 33-35.* A carnal aatisfaction, full of delusive hopes, might easily have
taken possession of the hearts of these parents, especially of the mother's, un hearing
such words as these. But Simeon infuses inte his message the drop of bitterness
which no joy, net even holy joy, ever wants in a world of sin. Inatead of Joseph,
which is the reading of T. R., the Alex, read : hia fatlier. We should have thought
that the former of theae twn readinga was a dngmatic currectiun, but that at ver. 27
the T. R. itself reads the wurd yovsls, pa/renta. But the Alexandrian reading is sup-
pnrted by the fact that the ancient translatinns, the Peaehito and lialie, have it.
Strauss flnds semething strange in the wnnder nf Juseph and Mary. Did they nut
already knnw all this ? But in the flrat place, what Simenn has just said uf the part
this child wnuld sustain tnward the heathen gnes beynnd all that had hithertn been
tnld them. And then especially, they might well be aatnniahed tn hear an unknnwn
persnn, like Simenn, expreas himself abnut this child as a man cempletely initiated
into the secret of His high destiny.
In the expreaaion, he bleaaed ihem, ver. 34, the wnrd ihem refera snlely tn the
parents : the child is expressly distinguished frnm them {thia child). Simenn ad
dresses himself specially tu Mary, as if he had discerned that a peculiar tie united her
tn the child. 'Idov, behold, annnunces the revelatiun nf an unexpected truth. In Isa.
8 : 14 the Meaaiah is represented as a ruck nn which believers find refuge, but where-
nn the rebelUnus are brnken. Simenn, whnse pruphetic gift was develuped under the
influence uf the ancient nracles, simply reprnduces here this thuught. The wnrds, ia
set for, make it clear that this sifting, uf which the Messiah will be the uccasinn,
fnrms part nf the divine plan. The images nf a fall and a rising again are explained
by that emplnyed by Isaiah. The expressinn, signal of contradiction {a sign which
* Ver. 33. 54. B. D. L. snme Mnn., o ¦Kuryp avrov. kui y uyryp avrov, instead of
laae^ Kai y fiyryp avrov, which is^the reading nf T. R. with 13 Mjj., the greater part
nf the Mnn. Syr, It. Ver, 35. B. L. Z. nmit de after iov. 54* adds irovypoi after
iiaTioyiafwi,

88 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
shaU be spoken againat, A. V.), may be understnud in twn ways : either it is an ap
pearing about which men argue cuntradictnrily, ur it is a sign which excites cppu-
silinu directly it appears. Taken in the flrst sense, this expressinn wuuld reproduce
the ideas nf a fall and a rising again, and wnuld be a simple repetitinn uf that which
precedes ; in the secnnd sense, it wnuld merely recall the idea nf a fall, and wuuld
fnrm the transitinn tn what fnUnws. Will nut the general unbelief nf the natinn be
the cause nf the sad lut nf the Messiah, and nf the sufferings that will fill the heart nf
Hia mnther ? The aecund aenae is therefore preferable. The gradation kuX aov di
avTijS, thy own also, ver. 35, is in this way readily understood. The di ot the received
reading is well suited te the cnntext. " The uppnsitinn excited by thia child will gn
sn far, that thine nwn heart will be pierced by it. " It is natural tn refer what follows
to the grief ef Mary, wheu she shall behold the rejection and murder of her son.
Some such words as thuse nf Isaiah, " He was bruised fnr nur iniquities," and of
Zechariah, "They ahall leek un me whum they have pierced," had enlightened
Siinenn reapecting thia mystery. Bleek bas prupnsed annther explanatinn, which is
less natural, althnugh 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 miaaion. " But the image ef a swnrd must dennte snmething mnre violent than
simple doubt, 'ivxy, the soul, as the seat ef the psychical affections, and consequently
of maternal love. It has been thought that the following proposition, in order ihat
the thoughts of many . ceuld not be connected with that which immediately
precedes ; and for this reason some have tried tn treat it as a parenthesis, and connect
them order ihat vaith the idea. This iaaei . . (ver. 341. But this vielent cun-
structinn is altngether unnecessary. The hatred of which Jesus will lie the ubject
(ver. 34), and which will pierce the heart nf Mary with pnignant grief (ver. 35), wUl
bring nut thnse hnstile thnughts toward God which in this people lie hidden under a
veil of Pharisaical devotion. Simeon discerned, beneath the outward forms ef Jew
iah piety, their love ot 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 senae aa ia
aet fm: God dnes net will the evil ; but he wills that the evil, when present, shnuld
shnw itself : this is an indispensable cnnditinn tn ita being either healed nr cnn-
demned. TloXTiuv, of many, appeara tn be a prunuun, the ccmplement nf Kupdiuv {ilie _
hearta of many) rather than an adjective (of many hearta) ; cump. Rnm. 5 : 16. The
term diaXoyiojiol, thoughts, has uaually an unfavnrable aiguificatinu in the N. T. ; it
indicates the uneasy wnrking nf the understanding in the service uf a bad heart. The
epithet irovypoi, added by the Sinaiticus, is cnnsequenlly superfluuus. These wnrds
of Simenn breathe a cuncentrated indignatinn. Wc feel that this old man knows
more abuut the meral condition of the people and their rulers than he has a mind te
tell. Vers. 36-38.* Anna presents, in several respects, a contrast to Simeon. The
latter came iuto the temple impelled by the Spirit ; Anna lives there. Simeon has
* Ver. 37. 54. A. B. L. Z. It""?., eaS inatead of as. 54*, s^dopyKovra instead of'
oydoyKovra. The Alex, nmit avo rov lepov. Ver. 38. 9 Mjj. (Alex.) snme Mnn., Kat
avry ry, instead nf koi ouri? avry jy. A. B. D. L. X. Z. , to Qeu, instead nf to xvpia,
the reading nf T. R. wilh 14 Mjj. aU the Mnn. Syr. lipierique_ ^ g ^ s„mg i^^j^
jjpioriqiie^ Syr"''. Ir. nmit ev bfetween Xvrpuaiv and lEpovaaXyft, which js the reading nf
T. R., with 15 Mjj., the greater part nf the Mnn., etc,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 89
no desire but to die ; Anna seems tn recuver the vignr nf yuuth to celebrate the Mes
siah. The wurds y ovk dfiararo (ver. 37) might.be made the predicate nf ryv, aud the
twn avry which separate them, twn appnsitiuns nf 'Awa. But it is simpler te under
stand yv in the sense nf there was, nr there was there, and tu regard y ovk dtpiaTaTo as
an appendix intended tn bring back the narrative frnm the descriptiun uf Anna's per
snn tn the actual fact. Meyer, whn understands yv in the same way, begins a fresh
prnpnsitinn with the a^bry which immediately fellows, and assigns tn it avBopLoXoyElTo
fnr its verb (ver. 38). This cnnstructiun ia less natural, eapecially on account Of the
intermediate clauaes (ver. 37). Upoj^ePyKvla ev is a Hebraism (especially with izoXXals),
1 : 7. The moral purity of Anna is expressed by the term irapBev'ta, virginity, and by
the long duration of her widowhood. Do the 84 years date from her birth, er trom
the death of her husband '/ In the latter case, supposing that ahe was married at 15,
she would have been 106 years old. This sense is not impossible, and it mnre easily
accuunts perhaps fnr such a precise reckuning. Instead nf us, about, the Alex, read
ios, untn, a reading which appears preferable ; fur the restrictien abowl wnuld unly
be admissible wilh a round number— 80, for example. Did Anna go intn the
temple in the mnruing, tn spend the whule day there ? ur did she remain there dur
ing the night, spreading her pnur pallet semewhere in the cuurt ? Luke's expreasion
is compatible with either suppoaition, What he means is, that she was dead to the
outer world, and unly lived fnr the service nf Gnd. We cnuld not, with Tischendurf,
fnUnwing the Alex., erase nne nf the twu avry (ver. 38), Buth can be perfectly ac-
cnunted fur, and the emissinn is easily explained by the repetitinn uf the wurd.
'AvtI, in the cumpnund avBoixoXoyElro, might refer tu a kind nf antiphnny between
Anna and Simenn. But in the LXX. this compound verb corresponds simply to riTin
(Ps. 79 : 13) ; avri unly expresses, therefnre, the idea nf payment in acknnwledgment
which is inherent in an act nf thanksgiving (as in the French wnrd reconnaiaaance).
The Alex, reading ry Qe^, to God, is prnbably a currectiun, arising frnm the fact that
in the O. T. the verb dvBufioXoyEiaBat never governs anything but Gud. It is less
natural te regard the received reading as resulting from the pronoun avrov. 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., " thnse who were Innking
fnr the deliverance cf Jerusalem, " is evidently a mistaken imitation of the expression,
the conaolation of larael (ver. 25). The words, in Jeruaalem. naturally depend on the
participle, that looked for. The people were divided inte three parties. The Pharisees
expected an outward triumph from the Messiah ; the Sadduceea expected nothing ;
between them were the true faithful, who expected the conaolation, that ia, deliver
ance. It waa these last, who, according tn Ezekiel'a expressinn (chap. 9), cried fnr
all the abuminations ef Jerusalem, that were represented by Anna and Simenn ; and
it was amung these that Anna devcted herself tn the ministry nf an evangelist. If
Luke had snught, as is suppnsed, nccasinns fnr practising his muse, by inventing
persunages fur his hymns, and hymns fnr his persnnagea, how came he to emit here
te put a song into the mouth ef Anna, as a counterpart to Simenn's ?
3. Histurical cnnclusinn : vers! 39, 40.* It ia a characteristic feature uf Luke'a
narrative, and nne which is preaerved throughout, that he exhibits the various actors
* Ver. 39. Some Alex., ¦jravra inatead of aitavTa. Othera, Kara inatead nf
ra Kara. 54. B. Z., e-!!-EaTpEil>av instead of vn-EaTpE^'av. Ver. 40. 54. B. D. L. Itpi«'i9"»,
Vg. Or., nmit irvevpan after eKparaiovTo, which ia tlie reading nf T, R., with 14 Mjj.,
all the Mnn, Syr. It""'. 54% B. L., aofia instead nf aofias,

90 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
in the evangeUcal drama as observing a scrupulous fldelity to the law (1 : 6, 3 : 22-34,
33 : 56). It ia eaay also to underatand why Marcion, the opponent ef the law, felt
Obliged te mutilate thia writing in order te adapt it to his system. But what is less
conceivable is, that several critics should flnd in such a Gnspel the munument of a
tendency systematically oppoaed to Jewiah Christianity. The fact is, that in it the
law always holds the place which according to history it ought to occupy. It is un
der its safeguard that the transition from the old covenant to the new is gradually
effected. It is easy to perceive that ver. 39 haa a religious rather than a chronolog
ical reference. " They retarned to Nazareth only after having fulflUed every pre
scription nf the law, " Ver. 40 cnntains a shnrt sketch nf the childhund nf Jesua,
anawering tn the similar sketch, 1 : 66, nf that nf John the Baptist. It is probably
frnm this analngnus passage that the gloss irvEvpan, in apirit, has been derived. It is
wanting in the principal Alex, and Graeco-Latin documents. The expression He grew
refers te His physical development. The next words, He waxed atrong, are deflned
by the words being filled, or more literally, filling Himaelf ¦with wisdom; they refer to
1 His spiritual, intellectual, and rehgious development. The wisdom which formed
the leading feature of this development (in John the Baptist it was strength) com
prises, nn the nne hand, the knnwledge nf Gud ; nn the nther, a penetrating under
standing nf men and things frum a divine puint nf view. The image {filling Himself
appears tu be that of a veaael, which, while increasing in size, fills itself, and, by flU-
ing itself, enlarges so as to be continually holding mnre. It is plain that Luke re
gards the develupment, and cnnsequenlly the humanity, ef Jesus as a reality. Here
we have the normal growth of man from a physical and moral point of view. It was
accomplished for the first time on nur earth. Gud therefore regarded this child with
perfect satisfaction, because His creative idea was realized in Him. This is ex
pressed by the last clause of the verse. Xupts, the divine fa^uor. This -word contrasts
(with x^iP, the hand, 1 : 66. The accus. in' avro marks the energy with which the
grace nf Gnd rested on the chUd, penetrating His entire heing. This government
contrasts with that of 1 : 66, p.er' a^Orov, -which only expreaaes simple co-operation.
This description is partly taken from that of the young Samuel (1 Sam. 3 : 36) ; only
Luke emits here the idea of human favur, which he rcservea fur ver. 53, where he
describes the ynung man. Let any nne cnmpare thia descriptiun, in its exquiaite
subriety, with the narrativea cf the infancy nf Jesua in the apucryphal writings, and
he will feel hnw authentic the traditinn must have been frum which such a narrative
as this waa derived. SE-VBNTH NARRATIVE. — OH-AP. 2:41-53.
Ihe Child Jesus at Jerusalem.
The fuUnwing incident, the only one which the historian relates about the youth of
Jesus, is an instance of that wisdum which marked His develupment, Almust all
great men have seme story told about their childhood, in which their future destiny
is foreshadowed. Here -we have the first glimpse of the spiritual greatness Jesua ex
hibited in His ministry. Three facts : 1. The separation (vera. 41-45) ; 3. The re
union (vers. 46-50) ; 3. The residence at Nazareth (vers. 51, 53).
1. The separation : vers. 41-45.* The idea of fidelity tu tbe law ia pruminent
¦"¦ yer. 41. 54*, Eflof instead nf etoS, Ver. 43, 54. A. B. K. L. X. n., avaiSatvavrov

COMMENTARY ON ,ST. LUIvE. 9l
Also in this narrative. According to Ex. 33 : 17, Deut. 16 : 16, men were
to present themaelves at the sanctuary at the three feasts of Pasaover, Pentecogt; and
TAbernaclea. There waa no such obUgation fer women. But the schenl uf HiUel
required them tu make at least the Passnver pUgrimage. The term yovels, parents, is
found at ver. 41 in all the mss., even in those in which it dees net occur at vers. 37
and 43, which proves that in these passages it was not altered with any dogmatic de
sign. Ver. 43. It was at the age of twelve that the young Jew began to be re
sponsible for legal observances, and to receive religious instruction ; he became then
a sen of the law. The partic. pres. ef the Alex, reading, dvapawdvTuv, must be pre
ferred tu the anr. partic. cf the T. R., dva^dvrav. The present expreaaes a habit ;
the anr. is a currectiun suggested by the anr. partic. which fnllnws. The wnrds e'iq
'lepoadXvpa shnuld be erased, accurding tn the Alex, reading, which evidently deserves
the preference. It is a glnsa easily accuunted fnr. The wurds, after ilie custom of
the feaat, perhaps allude tn the custnm nf guing up in caravans. Jesua spent these
aeven days cf the feast in hnly delight. Every rite spuke a divine language to His
pure heart ; and His quick understanding gradually discuvered their typical meaning.
Thia serves tc explain the fnUnwing incident. An indicatinn nf wilful and deliberate
disnbedience has been fnund iu the term virifiEivEv, He abode. Nuthing cuuld be fur
ther from the histnrian's intentinn (ver. 51). Tbe nntiun nf perseverance contained in
this verb alludes simply te Jesus' love for the temple, and all that took place there.
It was ewing te this that, en the day fur leaving. He fnund Himself unintentieually
separated from the band ef children to which He belonged. When nnce left behind,
where was Hetn gn iu this strange city ? The home of a child ia the huuse ef his
father. Very naturally, therefore, Jesus sought His in the temple. There He un- .
derwent an experience resembling Jacob's (Gen. 38). In His solitude, He learned to
know God mnre famUiarly as His Father. Is nnt the freshness of a quite recent in-
tuitinn perceptible in His answer (ver. 49) ? The Alex, reading o'l ymels haa against
it, besides the Alex. A. and C, the Italic and Peaehito translations, It was nnly in
the evening, at the hnur nf encampment, when every family was gathered tugether
fnr the night, that the absence uf the child -waa perceived. When v/e think cf the
age nf Jesus, aud nf the unusual cunfidence which such a child must have enjuyed,
the cunduct nf His parents in this affair presents nuthing unaccountable. The par
tic. prea. aeeking Him (ver. 45) appears tn indicate that they searched for Him on the
read whUe returning.
2. The meeting : vers. 46-50.* As it is improbable that they had sought fer
Jesus fer two er thtee days without going to the temple, the three days must certainly
date from the time of separation. The first was occupied with the journey, the
second with the return, and the third with the meeting. Lightfoot, following the
Talmud, mentions three synagogues within the temple inclosure : one at the gate
of the court of the Gentiles ; another at the entrance of the court of the Israelites ; a
third in the famous peristyle liachcliat hagasith, in the S. E. part of the inner court, f
instead of avafiavrov. 54. B. D. L. snme Mnn. Syr"=\ omit eic IspoaoXvfia. Ver. 43.
54. B. D. L. some Mnn. read Ejvoaav oi yoveic avrov instead nf eyvu luoEip kui y fiyryp
avTov. Ver. 45. 54. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. omit avrov. 54°. B. C. D. L., ava^yrovvTE^
instead nf fj^rouvreS.
* Ver. 48. 54* B. (yrov/iEv instead nf E^yrovuEv. Ver. 49. 54* b. Syr"""-, ^yrEiTs in
stead nf e^ytEiTc,
f Hur. hebr. ad Luc. ii. 46 (after Sanhedr. xi. 3).

92 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
It waa there that tbe Rabbins explained the law. Deaire for instruction led Jestis
thither. The following narrative in no way attributes to Him the part nf a dnctnr.
In order tu find suppnrt fnr this sense in nppusitinn tn the text, sume critics have
.alleged the detail : aeaied in the midat of the doctors. The disciples, it is said,
listened arnund. This npininn has been refuted by Vitringa ; * and Paul's expres
sinn (Acts 22 : 3), seated at ihe feet of Gamaliel, wnuld be sufficient tn prnve the cnn-
trary. Nevertheless the expression, aeaied in the midst of tlie doctors, proves no
doubt that- the child -was for the time occupying a place uf honor. As the Rabbinical
method ef teaching was by questions — by proposing, for example, a problem taken
from the law — beth master and disciplea had an opportunity ef shewing their
sagacity. Jeaus had given aome remarkable anawer, ur put snme nriginal questinn ;
and, aa is the caae when a particularly intelligent pupU preaenta himaelf, He had at
tracted fnr the mnment all the interest nf His teachers. There is nuthing in the nar
rative, when rightly understnud, that savnrs in the least nf an aputhensis uf Jeaua.
The expreasinns, hearing them, and asking ihem questions, bear in a precisely nppnaite
directiun. Jnsephus, in his autobiography (c. i.), mentions a very similar fact re
specting his own youth. When he was only fourteen years nf age, the priests and
eminent men nf Jerusalem came tn questiun him nn tbe explanatinn nf the law. The
apocryphal writings make Jesus en this occasion a professor possessing emniscience.f
There we have the legend grafted on the fact so simply related by the evangelist.
2iiveCTt5, understanding, is the persoual quality nf -which the answers, diroKpiaeiS,
are the manifestations. The surprise of His parents proves that Jeaus habitually
observed a humble reserve. There is a slight tone ef reproach in the worda nf Mary.
She prnbably wiahed tn juatify heraelf fnr the apparent negligence nf which ahe was
guilty. Criticism ia surprised at the uneasiness expreaaed by Mary ; did she not
know who thia child waa ? Criticism reasons as if the human heart worked accord
ing to logic. To the indirect reproach of Mary, Jesus replies in such words as she
had never heard from Him before : Wherefore did ye seek me f He dees not mean,
" "Vou could very well leave me at Jerusalem." The Uteral translation is, "What
is it, that you sought me ?" And the implied answer is, " To seek for me thus waa
an inadvertence on your part. It ahould have occurred to you at ence that ^ou would
find mc here." The aequel explaina why. The phrase ti 6rj is found in Acts 5 : 9.
Ovk ydeiTE, did ye not know ? not, do ye not know ? The expression rd rov ¦Kurpd;
pov may, according to Greek usage, have either a local meaning, tlie house qf, or a
moral, the affaira of. The former sense is required by the idea of seeking ; and if,
nevertheless, we are dispused tn adopt the latter as wider, the fifst must be included
in it. " Where my Father's affairs are carried nn, there ynu are sure tn find me."
The expression my Father ia dictated to the child by the situation : a child is to be
fnund at his father'a. We may add that He cnuld nut, withnut impropriety, have
said God'a, instead nf my Fatlier's ; fnr this wuuld have been tn exhibit in a preten-
tinus and affected way the entirely religinus character nf His ordinary thoughts, and
* Synag. p. 167.
^ In the Gnspel nf Thnmas (belnnging tu the secnnd century ; knuwn tn Irenseus),
.Jesua, when nn the road tn Nazareth, returna nf Hia nwn accnrd tu Jerusalem ; the
doctors are stupefied with wonder at hearing Him solve the must difficult questinns
nf the law and the pruphecies. In an Arabic Gespel (ef later date than the preced
ing), Jesus instructs the astronomers in the myateriea of the celestial "spheres, and
reveals to the philosophers the secreta of metaphyaica.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 93
tn put Himaelf fnrward aa a little saint. Lastly, does not this expreaainn cnntain a
deUcate but deciaive reply tn Mary'a wurda. Thy Father and !f Any aUuainn tu the
Trinitarian relation muat, ot course, be excluded from the meaning of this saying.
But, en the other hand, can the simple notion of moral paternity suffice te express
its meaning ? Had not Jesus, during those days ef isolation, by meditating anew
upon the intimacy of His moral relatioua with'God, been brought lo regard Him as
the sole aulliur nf His existence ? And waa nnt this the cauae-nf the kind of shudder
which He felt at hearing from Mary's lips the word Thy father, to which He imme
diately replies with a certain ardor of expression, my Father f That Mary and Joseph
should net have been able to understand thia speech appears inexplicable to certain
critics — to Meyer, for instance, and to Strauss, whn infers frum this detail that Iho
whule stnry is untrue. But thia wnrd, my Father, waa the flrat revelatiun nf a re
latinn which surpassed all that Judaism had realized ; and the expression, " tn be
abnut tbe business" uf this Father, expressed the ideal nf a cempletely filial life, of
an existence entirely devuted tn Gnd and divine thinga, which perhaps at this very
•time had just arisen in the mind of Jesus, and which we cnuld nn mnre understand
than Mary and Jnseph, if the life uf Jesus had never cnme before us. It was unly by
the light Mary received afterward frum the ministry nt her Son, that she cuuld say
what is here expressed : that she did nnt underatand this saying at the time. Does
nut the original snurce nf this narrative discuver itself iu this remark ? Frum whom
else cuuld it emanate, but from Mary herself ?
3. The residence at Nazareth : vers. 51, 53.* From this mnment Jesus pussesses
within Him this ideal nf a life entirely devuted tn the kingdnm uf Gnd, which had
just flashed befure Hia eyes. Fur eighteen years He applied Himself in silence tu thp
busineas nf Hia earthly father at Nazareth, where He is called the carpenter (Mark
6 : 8). The analytical furm yv v^KoraaaoiievoS indicatea the permanence uf thia sub-
missinn ; and the prea. partic. mid., aubmiiiing Himself, its spuntaneuus and delib
erate character. In thia simple wurd, aubmiiiing Himaelf, Luke has summed up the
entire wurk nt Jesus until His baptism. But why did nnt Gnd permit the child tu
remain in the temple nf Jerusalem, which during the feaat-days had been His Eden ?
The answer is nut difficult. He muat inevitably have been thrown Inn early intu tbe
thenlngicn-pnlitical discussicus which agitated the capital ; and after having excited
the admiratiun uf the ductnrs. He would have provoked their hatred by His original
and independent turn of thought. If the spiritual atmosphere of Nazareth was heavy,
it was al least calm ; and the labors ef the workshop, in the retirement ef this peaceful
valley, under the eye of the father, was a more favorable sphere for the development
ef Jesus than the ritualism ef the temple and the Rabbinical discuaaions of Jeruaalem.
The remark at the end of ver. 51 is similar to that at ver. 19 ; only for the verb awry-
peiv, which denoted the grouping of a great number of circumstances, te coUect and
combine them, Luke substitutes here another compound diarypElv. This dia denotes
the permanence of the recollection, notwithstanding circumstances which might
have effaced it, particularly the inability to underatand recorded in ver. 50. She
carefidly kept iu her possession this profound saying as an unexplained mystery. The
fifty-second verse deacribes the youth of Jeaus, as the fortieth verse had depicted His
childhdnd ; and theae twn brief sketches currespund with the twn analngnus pictures
* Ver. 51. The mss. and Vas. are divided between Kai y lairyp and y de pyryp. 54-'<-
3. D. M. omit ravra. Ver. 53. 54. L. add ev ry, B. ev, before ao<fia. t>. L. Syr.
jjpieriqiic piacc yXiKiu beforc ao<pia.

94 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nf Juhn the Baptist (1 : 66, 80). Each uf these general remarks, if it stood alone
might be regarded, as Schleiermacher has suggested, as the close ef a small docu
ment. But their relation to each nther, and their perindical recurrence, demunstrate .
the unity nf nur writing. This fnrm is met with again in the bnnk nf the Acts.
'KXiiiia dees nnt here dennte age, which wnuld yield nn meaning at all, but height,
stature, just as 19 ; 3. This term embraces the entire physical develepment, all the
external advantages ; aoijiia, wisdom, refers to the intellectual and moral development.
'Vhe third term, favor with God and men, cora'pletes the uther twu. Over the persnn
ef this young man there was spread a charm at ence external and apiritual ; it pro
ceeded from the favor of Gnd, and cnnciliated tnward Him the favor of men. This
perfectly normal human being was the beginning of a reconciliation between heaven
and earth. The term wiadom refers rather to with God ; the word stature te with
men. The laat worda, with men, eatabliah a contraat between Jeaus and John the
Baptiat, whn at this very time waa growing up in the sulitude uf the desert ; and this
cuntrast is the prelude tu that which later nn was tn be exhibited in their respective
ministries. There is nu nntiun fnr the fnrgetfulness nr denial nf which thenlugy pays*
more dearly than that of a development in pure goodness. Thia poailive notion is de
rived by biblical Christianity from this verse. With it the humanity ef Jesus may
be accepted, as it is here presented by Luke, in all its reality.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON CHAPS. 1 AND 2.
It remains fnr us tu furm an estim-ate ut the histnrical value nf the accuunts cnn
tained in these two chapters.
I. Oharacteriaiics of the Narrative. — We have already nbserved that Luke
thcroughly believes that be is relating facta, and not giving poetical illustrations of
ideas. He declares that Ue only writes in accordance with the information he has
collected ; he writes with the design of convincing hia readers of the unquestionable
certainty of the things which he relates (1 : 3, 4) ; and in speaking thus, he has very
specially in view the contents of the first two chapters (comp. the dvudev, ver. 3). In
short, the very nature of these n-arratives admits of no other supposition (p. 43).
Was he himself the dupe ef false information ? Was he net in a much more favor
able pusitien than we are for estimating the value of the communications that were
made to him ? There are not two ways, we imagine, of replying to these preliminary
questinns. As tn the substance nf the narrative, we may distinguish between the
facts and the discnurses ur songs. The supernatural element in the facts only occurs
te an extent that may be called natural, when once the supernatural character ef the
appearance ef Jesua is admitted in a general way. If Mary waa te accept spontane
ously tho part to which she was called, it was necessary that she should be informed
nf it befnrehand. If angels really exist, and form a part ef the kingdnm nf Gfld, they
were interested as well aa men in the birth of Him who was to be the Head ef this
nrganizatinn, and reign nver the whnle mnral universe. It is nnt surprising, then,
that some manifestatiun nn their part shnuld accompany this event. That the pro
phetic Spirit might have at this epoch representatives in Israel, can nnly be disputed
by denying the existence and actiun nf this Spirit in the natinn at any time. From
the pnint nf view presented by the biblical premissea, the puasibility nf the facts re
lated ia then indisputable. In the details nf the histury, the supernatural is cnnfined

eOjlMfiNT-ARY On ST. ttJKfi. 9.J
Within the limits cf the strictest subriety and mnst perfect suitability, and differs
altngether in thia respect frnm the marvela nf the apucryphal writings.*
The discnurses ur hymns may appear tn have been a freer element, in the treat
ment uf which the imaginatinn uf the authnr might have allnwed itself larger scupe.
Shnuld nut these pnrtinns be regarded as suruewhat analngnus tu thuse discourses
which the ancient histurians so often put inte the mouth of their heroes, a product of
the individual nr cnllective Christian muse ? But we have proved that, in attributing
tn the angel, tu Mary, and tn Zacharias the language which he puts intu their
mnuths, the authur wnuld nf his nwy accnrd have made his characters false
prophets. They wnuld be sn many nracles post evenium contra evenium ! Never,
after the unbelief nf the penple had brought abnut a separatinn between the Syna
gogue and the Church, could the Christian muse have celebrated the gloriea uf the
Mesaianic future uf Israel, with auch accents nf artleaa joyous honp as prevaU in these
canticles (1 : 17, 54, 55, 74, and 75 ; 3:1, 33). The only words that could be sus
pected frnm this point of view are thnse which are put intn the muuth of Simeon.
For they suppose a more distinct view ef the future course ef things in Israel. But,
on the other hand, it ia precisely the hymn ef Simeon, and his addreaa to Mary,
which, by their originality, concisenesa, and energy, are most clearly marked with
the stamp of authenticity. We have certainly met with some expressinns nf a uni
versalist tendency in theae snnga (" gundwill toward men," 3 : 14 ; "a light ef the.
Gentiles," ver. 33); but theae alluslnna in nn way exceed the limits nf ancient
prnphecy, and they are net brought out in a sufficiently marked way tn indicate a
time when Jewish Christianity and PauUnism were already in open confiict. Thia
universalism is, in fact, that of the early days, simple, free, and exempt from all
polemical design. It ia the freah and normal unfnlding nf the fluwer in its calyx.
The opinion in closest conformity with the internal marks of the narrative, as well
as with the clearly expressed intention ef the writer, is therefure certainly that which
regards the facts and discnurses cnntained ih these twn chapters as histnrical.
II. Belaiion of the J^arratives of Clia/ps. 1 and 3 io the Contents of other parts of the
If. T. — The first point ef comparison is the narrative of the infancy in Matthew,
chaps. 1 and 3. It is confidently aaaerted that the twn accuunta are irrecnncilable.
We ask, flrat nf all, whether there are twn accuunts. Dnes what is called the^ narra
tive of Matthew reaUy deserve this name ? We find in the first two chapters ot Mat
thew five incidents of the infancy nf Christ, which, are mentinned snlely tn cnnnect
with them five pruphetic passages, and thus prnve the Messianic dignity nf Jesus, in
accurdance with the design uf this evangelist, 1:1: Jesus, the Christ. Is thia what
we should call a narrative ? Ia it nnt rather a didactic expusitinn ? Su little does the
* In additien tn the specimens already given, we add the following, taken from
the Gospel uf James (3d c.) : Zacharias is high priest ; he inquires nf God respecting
the lut nf the yuuthful Mary, brought up in the temple. Gnd Himaelf commands
that she shall be cunfided tu Juseph. The task nf embroidering fhe veil nt the tem
ple is devnlved upun Mary by lot. When she brings the wnrk, Elizabeth at the sight
ut her praises the mnther uf the Messiah, withnut Mary herself knowing why. After
ward it is John, more even than Jesus, who is the object of Hernd'a jealoua search.
Elizabeth flees to the desert with her child ; a rock opens to receive them ; a bright
light reveals the presence' of the angel who guards them. Herod questions Zacharias,
who is ignurant himself where hia child is. Zachariaa is then slain in the temple
court ; the carpets uf the temple cry nut ; a voice announces the avenger ; the bedy
of the martyr disappears ; nnly his blnnd is fnund changed intn stnne.

S6 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
author entertain the idea nf relating, that in chap. 1, while treating of the hirth nf
Jesua, he dnes net even mention Bethlehem ; he is wholly taken up with the connec
tion uf the fact nf which, he is speaking with the nracle, laa. 7. It is nnly after hav
ing finished this subject, when he cnmes tn speak of the visit of the magi, that he
mentions fer the first time, and as it were in pasaing (Jesus being born in Bethlehem)
this locaUty. . And with what object ? With a historical view ? Net at all. Simply
on account of the prophecy of Micah, which is tu be illustrated in the visit of the
magi, and in which the place ef the Mesaiah's birth was announced beforehand.
Apart from this prophecy, he would still less haye thuught nf mentinning Bethlehem
in the secnnd narrative than in the firat. And it ia this desultnry hiatnry, made up ef
iaolaled facts, referred to solely with an apologetic aim, that is to be employed to ¦
criticise and correct a complete narrative such as Luke's ! Is it nut clear that, be
tween twu accuunts nf such a different nature, there may easily be fnund blanks
which hypnthesis alune can fill up ? Twn incidents are cemmun tu Luke and Mat
thew : the birth nf Jesus at Bethlehem, and His educatinn at Nazareth. The histnri
cal truth nf the latter piece uf infurmatinn is nnt disputed. Instead nf this, it is
maintained that the furmer is a mere legendary inventiun nccasiuned by Mic. 5. But
were it au, the fact wnuld never occur in the traditinn entirely detached from the
prophetic word which would be the very soul of it. But Luke doea 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 hasis, three
differences are discernible in which seme find contradictions. ^
Firat. The account which Matthew gives of the appearance of an angel tn Jnseph,
in order te relieve his perplexity, is, it is said, incompatible with that ot 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 nf it tn Jnseph, and in that caae his duubts
wnuld have been impnssible. But all this is uncertain. Fnr, first, Mary may cer
tainly have tnld Juseph everything, either befnre nr after her return frnm Elizabeth ;
but in this caae, whatever cnnfldence Juseph had in her, nnthing cnuld prevent his
being fnr a mnment shaken by doubfrat hearing of a message and a fact se extraordi
nary: But it is possible alsoT-and this supposition appears to me more probable —
that Mary, judging it right in this affair to leave everything to God, whn immediately
directed it, held herself aa dead in regard to Juaeph. And, in this case, what might nnt
have been his anxiety when he thuught he saw Mary's cnnditinn ? On either uf these
twu pnssible suppusitiuns, a reasnn is fuund fur the -dppearance nf the angel tn Jnseph.
Second, It wuuld aeem, according tn Matthew, that at the time Jesus was bnrn,
His parenta were residing at Bethlehem, -and that this city waa their permanent
abude. Further, on their return from Egypt, when they resolved to go and live at
Nazareth, their decision was the result uf a divine interpnsitinn which aimed at the
fulfilment uf the prophecies (Matt. 3 : 33, 33). In Luke, un the cnntrary, the nrdinary
abude nt the parents appears tn be Nazareth. It is au exceptiunal circumstance, the
edict nf Augustus, that takes them tu Bethlehem. And ccnsequently, as scun as the
duties, which have called them to Judaea and detained them there, are accumpUshed,
they return tu Nazareth, withnut needing any special directiun (2 : 89). It is impnr
tant here tu remember the remark which we made nn the nature uf Matthew's narra
tive. In that evangelist, neither the mentinn nf the place nf birth nur ef the place
where Jesus was brought up is made as a matter uf histnry ; in buth cases it is sulely
a questiun nf proving the fulfllment uf a prnphecy. An accnunt nf this kind with-

rOMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 97
out doubt afflrma what it actually says, but it in no way denies what it dees not say ;
and it is impnssible tn derive frnm it a histnrical view sufficiently cnmplete, te
oppose it tu another and more detailed account that is decidedly historical. There ia
nothing, therefere, here to prevent our completing the information furnished by Mat
thew from that supplied by Luke, and regarding NazaretB" with the latter as the nat
ural abode of the parents nf Jesus. What fnlluws wUl cnmplete the snlution nf this
difficulty. Third. The incidents nf the visit nf the magi aud the flight intn Egypt, related by
Matthew, cannut be intercalated with Luke'a narrative, either befnre the presentaliun
uf the child in the temple — His parents wnuld nnt have beeu sn imprudent as tn take
Him hack te .Terusalem after that the visit ef the magi had drawn upon Him the jeal
ous untice of Hered ; and besides, there would not be, during the six weeks interven
ing between the birth and the presentaliun, the time necessary fnr the journey to
Egypt — nr after thia ceremnny ; fnr, accnrding to Luke 2 ; 39, the parents return di
rectly from Jerusalem tn Nazareth, wilhuut going again to Bethlehem, where never
theless they must have received the visit of the Diagi ; and according to Matthew him
self, Juseph, after the return frum Egypt, dues nnt return to Judaea, but gees imme
diately tn settle in Galilee. But nutwithatanding these reaaens, it is nnt impnssible tn
place the presentaliun at Jerusalem, either after ur befure the visit nf the magi. If
this had already taken place, Jnseph and Mary must have put their trust in Gnd's
care tn protect the child ; and the time is ne objection to this supposition, as Wieseler
has shewn. Fur frum Bethlehem tn Rhinncnlure, the flrst Egyptian tnwn, is nnly
three nr fnur days' juurney. Three weeks, then, wuuld, strictly speaking, suffice tn
gn and return. It ia^mnre natural,' however, to place the visit of the magi and the
juurney intn Egypt after the preaentation. We have nnly to suppuse that after this
ceremony Mary and Jnseph returned tu Bethlehem, a circumstance cf which Luke
was nOt aware, and which he has emitted. In the same way, in the Acts, he omits
Paul's jnumey intn Arabia after his cun versinn, and cumbines mtu nne the twu sn-
jnurns at Damascus separated by this juurney. This return tn Bethlehem, situated at
such a ahurt distance f rum J eruaalem, is tee natural to need to be particularly
accounted for. But it is complelely accounted for, if we suppose that, when Joseph
and Mary left Nazareth on account of the census, they did so with the intention of
settling at Bethlehem. Many reasons would induce them to this decisinn. It might
appear tn them mnre suitable that the child un whum such high promises rested ahnuld
be brought up at Belhlehem, the city nf His rnyal anceatnr, in the neighburhnod of
the capital, than in the remote hamlet of Nazareth. The deaire of being near Zacha
rias and Elizabeth would also attract them to Judaea. Laatly, they would thereby
avoid the calumnious judgments which the shnrt time that elapsed between their mar
riage and the birth nf the child cnuld nut have failed tn uccasinn had they dwelt at
Nazareth. Besides, even thuugh this had nnt been their nriginal plan, after Juseph
had been settled at Bethlehem fnr some weeks, and had fnund the means nf subsist
ence there, nuthing wnuld more naturally occur te his mind than the idea of settling
down at the place. In this way the interposition uf the angel is explained, whn in
Matthew induces him tc return tn Galilfce. Bleek inclines tn the npininn that the
arrival nf the magi preceded the presenlatinn, and that the juurney intn Egypt ful-
uwed it.- This suppnsilion is admissible alsu ; it alters nuthing nf impurtance in the
course nf things as presented in the preceding explanations, of which we give a
•sketch in the following recapitulation :

98 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
1. The angel annnunces tu Mary the hirth of Jesus (Luke 1). 3. Mary, after nr
withnut having spuken tn Juaeph, gnes tu Elizabeth (Luke 1). 3. After, her return,
Juseph faUs intn the state ef perplexity frnm which he is delivered by the message of
the angel (Matt. 1). 4. He takes Mary cstensibly fer his wife (Matt. 1). 5. Hernd'a
nrder, carrying nut the decree uf Augustus, leads them to Bethlehem (Luke 2). 6.
Jesus is bnrn (Matt. 1 ; Luke 3). 7. His parents present Him in the temple (Luke 2).
8. On their return tn Bethlehem, they receive the visit nf the magi and eacape intn
Egypt (Malt. 2), 9. Returned frnm Egypt, they give up tbe idea nf settUng at Beth
lehem, and determine nnce mere to fix their abode at Nazareth.
Only one condition is required in order to accept this ett'ort to harmonize the two
accounts — namely, the supposition that each writer was ignorant of the other's nar
rative. But this supposition is allowed by even the mnst decided adversaries nf,any
attempt at harmnny — auch, fnr inatance, as Keim, who, althnugh he believes that
Luke in composing his Gespel made use ef Matthew, is nevertheless of opinion that
the first two chapters ef Matthew's writing were not in existence at the time when
Luke availed himself ef it for the cnmpnsitiun uf his nwn.
If the sulutiun prupnsed dnes nnt satisfy the reader, and he thinks he must chnose
between the twn writings, it will certainly be mnre natural tu suspect the narrative
uf Matthew, because- it has nn pruper histnrical aim. But further, it will only be
right, in estimating the value of the facts related by this evangelist, to remember that
the more forced in seme cases appears the connection which he maintains between the
facts he mentions and the prophecies he applies to them, the lesa probable ia it that
the former were invented on the foundation of the latter. Such incidents as the
journey inte Egypt and the massacre of the children muat have been well-aacer-
tained facta before any one wnuld think nf finding a pruphetic announcement of
them in the worda of Hosea and Jeremiah, which the author quotes and applies to
them We pass on to ether parta 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 infancy. How ceuld the brethren ef Jesus, acquainted
with these prodigies, refuse to believe in their brother ? How could even
Mary herself share their unbelief ? (Mark 3 : 21, 31 et seq. ; Matt. 12 : 46 et seq. ;
Luke 8 ; 19 ei seq. ; comp. John 7 : 5.) In reply, it may be said that we de not know
how far Mary could communicate to her sons, at any rate before the time nf Jesua'
miniatry, these extranrdinary circumstances, which teuched nn very delicate matters
affecting herself. Besides, jealuuay and prejudice might eaaily cnunteract any im
pression produced by facta of which they had not been witnesses, and induce them
te think, notwithstanding, that Jeaua -was taking a wrong course. Did net Jnhn the
Baptist himself, althnugh he had given public testimnny tn Jesus, as nn nne would
venture to deny, feel his faith shaken iu view of the unexpected course which His
work took ? and did nnt thia cauae him tn be nffended in Hira ? (Matt. 11 : 6.) As
tn Mary, there is nothing to prove that she shared the unbeliet of her suns. If she
accnmpanies them when they gn tn Jesua, intending tn layhuld upun Him (Mark 3),
it is prnbably frnm a feeUng uf anxiety as tu what might take place, and from a de
sire te prevent the cnnflict ahe anticipates. Keim alleges the omission ot the narra
tives of the infancy in Mark and John. These two evangelists, it is true, make the
starting-point of their narrative nn this side nf these facts. Mark cpens his with the
ministry uf the forerunner, which he regards as the true commencement cf that of

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 99
Jesus.* But it does nnt follow from this that he denies all the prerinus circumstances
which he dues net relate. All that this proves is, that the original apostolic preaching,
Of which this Gospel is the simplest reproduction, went no further back ; and for this
manifest reason, that thia preaching was based on the tradition ot the apostles as eye
witnesses {airdiTTai, 1:3; Acts 1 : 21, 22 ; John 15 : 27), and that the personal testi
mony ef the apustles did not gn back as far as the early period of the life ef Jesus.
It is doubtless for the same reason that Paul, in hia enumeration of the testimonies tn
the resurrectinn nf Jesus, umits that of the wnmen, because he regards the testimnny
nf the apustles and nf the Church gathered about them as the unly suitable basis fur
the official insiructiun nf the Church. Jnhn cummences hia narrative at the hnur uf
the birth nf his nwn faith, which aimply prnvea that the deaign uf hia wnrk ia tn trace
the histury nf the development nf his nwn faith and nf that nf his fellnw-disciples.
All that nccurred previnus tn this time-^the baptiam nf Jesus, the temptatinn — he
leavea untold ; but he dnes nnt un that accuunt deny these facta, fnr he himself
alludes tn the baptiam nf Jesus.
Keim gnes further. He maintains that there are tn be fnund in the N. T. three
theuries as tu the urigin nf the persnn nf Christ, which are exclusive nf each nther :
First. That nf the purely natural birth ; this wuuld be the true view nf the apuatles
and primitive Church, which was held by the Ebiuuitish cnmmunilies (Clement.
Humil.). This being fuund insufficient tn explain auch a remarkable sequel aa the
life nf Jeaus, it must have been supplemented afterward by the legend uf the descent
uf the Hnly Spirit at the baptism. Second. That nf the miraculnus birth, held by
part nf the Jewish-Christian cnmmunities and the Nazarene churches, and proceeding
frnm an errnneuus Messianic applicatiun nf laa. 7. This theury is fuund in the Ges
pel of Luke and in Matt. 1 and 2. Third. The theory of the pre-existence of Jesus
as a divine being, originated in the Greek churches, nf which Paul aud Jnhn are the
principal representativea. Tn this we reply :
First. That it cannut be proved that the apnatnlic and primitive ductrine was that
nf the natural birth. Certain wurds are cited in prunf which are put by the evange
lists in the mnuth nf the penple : " Is nut this the carpenter's snn ?" (Matt. 13 ; 55 :
Luke 4 : 23 ; cump. Juhn 6 : 43) ; next the wurda uf the Apuatle Philip in Juhn ; " We
have fnund . . . Jeaus uf Nazareth, the aun uf Juseph" (Jnhn 1 : 45). The
absence ef all protest nn the part nf Jnhn against thia asaertinn uf PhUip'a is regarded
as a cnnfirmatinn nf the fact that he himself admitted its truth. But whn cnuld with
any reasnn be surprised that, nn the day after Jesus made the acquaintance nf His
firat disciplea, Philip shnuld atill be ignurant nf the miraculnus birth ? Was Jesus te
hasten te tell this fact to those who aaw Him for the firat time ? Was there nothing
more urgent to teach these young hearts juat opening to Hia influence ? "Who cannot
underatand why Jesus should allow the words of the people to pasa, without an
nouncing auch a fact as thia to theae cavilling, mocking Jews ? Jeaua teatffies before
all what He has seen with His Father by the inward senae, and not uutward facts
which He had frnm the faUible lipa nf nthers. Abuve all. He very well knew that
it was nut faith in His miraculnus birth that wuuld produce faith in Hia persnn ; nn
the cnntrary, that it was nnly faith in His persnn that wnuld.induce any nne tn admit
the miracle uf His birth. He saw that, tn put nut befure a hnstile and profane penple
* These wnrds, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Chriat, the Son of God (Mark
1 : 1), appear tn me tn be in Ingical appnsitinn with tbe subsequent accuunt nf the
ministry of Juhn (5 ; 4).

100 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
an assertion like this, which He cnuld not possibly prnve, wnuld only draw fnrth a
flnud uf cnarse ridicule, which wnuld fall directly nn that revered persnn whu was
mure cnncerned in this histnry even than Himself, and that withnut the least advan
tage tu the faith nf any une. Certainly thia was a case fnr the applicatiun nf the pre
cept. Cast not your pearls before s^wine, if ynu wnuld nOt have them turn again and
rend you. This ubservatinn alsn explains the silence uf the apustles nn this pnint in
the Acta uf the Apustles. They cnuld not have done anything mere iU-advised than
to rest the controversy between the Jews and Christ en such a ground. If John does
not rectify the statementa ef the people aud nf Philip, the reaaun is, that he wrote
fnr the Church already furmed and sufficiently instructed. His persunal cnnvictinn
appears frum the fnUnwing facts : He admitted the human birth, fnr he speaks several
times nf His mnther. At the same time he regarded natural birth as the means nf
the transmiasinn nf sin: "That which is burn nf the flesh is fiesh." And never
theless he regarded this Jesus, born uf a human mnther, as the Holy One of God, and
the bread that came down from heaven I Is it possible that he did net attribute an ex
ceptiunal character tu His birth ? As tn Mark, we dn nnt, with Bleek, rely upon the
name Son of Mary, which is given tn Jesus by the penple uf Nazareth (6:3); this
appellation in their mouth dees nnt im^jly a belief in the miraculnus birth. But in
the expressinn, Jesus 'Christ, the Son of Ood (1 : 1), the latter title certain impliea
mnre, in the authnr's mind, than the simple notion of Messiah ; this, in fact, was
already sufficiently expreaaed by the name Chriat. There can be no doubt, therefore,
that this term impliea in Mark a relation of mysterious Sonship between the person
ef Jesus and the Divine Being.* All these passages quoted by Keim only prove
what is self-apparent, that the notion of the natural birth uf Jesus was that of the
Jewish penple, and alsn nf the apnstles in the early days nf their faith, befnre they
received fuller infurmatinn. It is not at all surprising, therefere, that it remained
the idea of the Ebienitish churches, which never really broke wilh the Israelitish
past, but were ccntented In apply tn Jesus the popular nntiun nf the Jewish Measiah.
Keim alsu finds a trace uf this alleged primitive theury in the two genealogies con
tained in Luke and Matthew. According to him, these documenta imply, by their
very nature, that thoae who drew them up held the idea nf a natural birth. Fnr
what interest cnuld they have had in giving the genealugical tree nf Jnseph, unless
they had regarded him as the father nf the Messiah ? Further, in order tn make these
ducuments square with their new theury nf the miraculnus birth, the twn evangelists
have been ubliged tn subject them tn arbitrary revisiun, as ia aeen in the appendix
iSyS. . . Matt. 1 : 16, and in the parenthesis (if evouKeto, Luke 3 : 33. It is
very possible, indeed, that the uriginal documents, reproduced in Matt. 1 and Luke 3,
were of Jewish origin ; they were prnbably the same public registers ( deXroi dypdciai)
frnm which the histnrian Jnsephus asserts that his nwn genealegy was taken.f
It is perfectly ubvinus that auch documents cuuld cnntain nu indicatinn uf the mirac
ulnus birth uf Jeaus, it even tbey went down tn Him. But hnw cnuld this fact fur
nish a prunf nf the primitive npinion ef the Church about the birth of its Head ? It
is in theae genealogies, as revised and completed by Christian historians, that we must
seek the sentiments or the primitive Church respecting the person ef her Master.
And this is precisely what we flnd in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The former,
* If the Sinaiticus suppresses it, this is one ef the numberless omisaions, resulting
from the negligence ef the copyiat, with which this manuscript abounds.
t " Jos'. Vita," c. i.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 101
in demnnstrating, by the genealogy which he presents te us, the Davidic sunship nf
Jnseph, declares that, as regards Jesus, this same Jnseph sustains part uf the adup-
tive, legal father. The extract frum the public registers which the secund hands
dnwn is nnt annther editinn nf that nf Joseph, iu contradiction with the former ; it is
the genealogy of Levi, the father of Mary (see 1 : 33). In transmitting this document,
Luke is careful te observe that the opinion which made Jeaus the sun nf Juaeph waa
nnly a pnpnlar prejudice, and that the relatiunahip uf which he here indicates the
linka is the nnly real une. These are net, therefore, Jewish-Christian materials, aa
Keim maiutains, but purely Jewiah ; and the evangelists, when inserting them into i
their writings, have imprinted un them, each after his nwn manner, the Christian seal.
Keim relies further nn the silence cf Paul respecting the miraculnus birth. But ia
he really silent ? Can it be maintained that the expressinn. Rum. 1:3, "made uf
the seed uf David according to the flesh," waa intended by Paul to describe the entire
fact ef the human birth ef Jesus ? Is it not clear that the words, according to the
flesh, are a reatrictiun expressly designed tu indicate annther side tu thia fact, the
actiun nf annther factur, called in the fuUnwing clauae the spirit of holiness, by which
he explains the miracle uf the resurrectinn? The nntiun nf the miraculnus birth
appears equally indispensable tn explain the antithesis, 1 Cur. 15:47- "The first
man is nf .the earth, earthy ; the secnnd, frum heaven. " But whatever else he is, Paul
is a raan uf Ingical mind. Hnw then cnuld he affirm, nn the one hand, the hereditary
transmission of ain and death by natural generation, as he does in Rom. 5 : 13, and on
the ether the truly human birth uf Jesus (Gal. 4 : 4), whnm he regards as the Hnly
One, if, iu his view, the birth uf this extranrdinary man was nnt nf an excepticmal
character ? Only, as this fact cuuld nut, frum its very nature, becume the subject nf
apostolical teatimony, nur for that reason enter into general preaching, Paul doea not
include it among the elementa of the irapddoaiS whicli he enumeratea, 1 Cor. 15 -.1 et
seq. And it he dues nnt make any special dngmatic use nf it, it is because, as we
have nbserved, the miraculous birth is nnly the negative cnnditinn nf the hnliness uf
Jesus ; its pusitive cnnditinn is, and must be, his vnluntary nbedience ; cnnsequenlly
it is this that Paul particularly brings nut (Rum. 8 : 1-4). These reasnns apply to the
other didactic writings of the N. T.
Second. It is arbitrary tu maintain that the narrative nf the descent nf the Hnly
Spirit is nnly a later ccmplement nf the theury nf the natural birth. Is nut this nar
rative fnund in twu nf nur synnptics by the aide nf that nf the supernatural birth ?
And yet thia ia nnly a ccmplement of the theury uf the natural birth ! Further, in
all these synnptics alike, it is fnund clusely and nrganically cunnected with twn ether
facta, the miniatry ef John and the temptatinn, which prnvea that these three narra
tives furmed a very firmly cunnected cycle in the evangelical traditinn, and helnnged
to the very earliest preaching.
Third. The idea nf the pre-existence nf .lesus is in nn way a rival theury tu that
nf the miraculnus birth ; un the cnntrary, the fnrmer implies the latter as its necessary
element. It is the idea nf the natural birth which, if we think a little, appears in
compatible with that nf the incarnatinn. M. Secretan admirably says : " Man repre
sents the principle nf individuality, ufprngress ; wnman, thatnf tradition, generality,
species. The Savieur cuuld nut he the sun nf a particular man ; He behoved to be
the son of humanity, the Sen ef man. " *
* " La Raisen et le Ohristianisme," pp. 359 and 377.

102 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
jFourth.. So far frora there being in the N. T. writings traces of three opposite
theories on this point, the real state of the case is this : The disciples aet out, just as
the Jewish people did, with the idea uf an nrdinary birth ; it was the natural suppo
sitinn (Juhn 1 : 45). But as they came tn understand the prophetic testimnny, which
makea the Meaaiah the supreme manifestatiun uf Jehovah, and the testimnny ef Jesus
Himself, which constantly implies a divine background to His human existence, they
sunn ruae tn a knnwledge nf the Gud-man, whuae human existence waa preceded by
His divine existence. This atep was taken, in the consciousness ef the Church, a
quarter nf a century after the death ef .lesus. The Epistles ef Paul are evidence of it
(1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1 : 15-17 ; Phil. 3 : 6, 7). Lastly, the mede uf transitinn from the
divine existence to the human life, the fact nf the miraculous birth, entered a little
later intn the sphere uf the ecclesiastical wnrld, by means ef the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke, about thirty-five or forty years after the departure of the Saviour.
III. Connection between these Narratives and ihe Ohriatiaii Faith in general. — The
miraculoua birth ia immediately and closely connected with the perfect holiness ot
Christ, which is the basis ef the Chriatology ; so much so, that whoever denies the
former uf these miracles must necesaarUy be led tn deny the latter ; and whoever
accepts the aecond cannot fail to fall back on the first, which is indeed implied in it
As to the objection, that even if the biblical narrative of the miraculous birth is
accepted, it is impossible to explain how it was that sin was not communicated to
Jeaus through His mother, it has been already answered (p. 93). The miraculous
birth is equally inseparable from the fact of the incarnation. It is true that the flrst
may be admitted and the second rejected, but the reverse ia impoaaible. The neces
sity for an exceptional mode of birth results from the pre-existence (p. 160). But
here we confront the great objection to the miraculous birth : What becomes, from
this puint nf view, uf the real and proper humanity ef 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, de you admit the theories of Vogt respecting the
origin ot the human raoe ,? Do you make man proceed from the brute ? If not, 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 different from
ours. Do .you, on this ground, deny the full and real humanity of the flrat man?
But to deny the human character to the being from whom has proceeded by way of
generatinn, that is tu say, by the transmissinn nf his nwn nature, all that is called
man, wnuld be absurd. Identity nf nature is pnssible, therefere, notwithstanding a
difference in the mede nf urigin. Tn underatand thia fact cempletely, we need to
have a cnmplete insight intn the relatinn nf the individual te the species, which is the
most unfathomable secret of nature. But there is something here still mnre serinus.
Jesus is nnt nnly the cnntinuatur uf human nature as it already exists ; He is tbe
elect of Gud, by whnm it is tu be renewed and raised te its destined perfection. Iu
Him is accemplished the new creation, which is the true end of the old. This wurk
of a higher nature can unly take place in virtue uf a fresh and immediate cnntact cf
creative pnwer with human nature. Keim agrees with this up tn a certain pnint ;
fur while helding the paternal cuncurrence in the birth nf this extranrdinary man,
he admits a divine interpusitinn which prnfnundly influenced and cempletely sancti
fied the appearance of this Being.* This attempt at explanation is ap, homage
* " Gesch. Jesu," t, i. pp. 357, 358.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKfi. 103
rendered tu the incnmparable mnral greatness nf Jesus, and we think it leaves un-
tnuched the great ubject uf faith — Jesus Christ's dignity as the Savinur. But raust
we nut returt upun this explanatinn the ubjectinn which Keim brings against the two
notions of the pre-existence and the supernatural birth : " These are theories, not
facts established by any documents !" If it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge
that Jesua was a man specifically different from all nthers,* and if, in nrder tn explain
this phenumennu, it is indispensable tn stipulate, as Keim really does, for an excep
tional mode nf nrigin, then why nnt keep tn the pusitive statements uf nur Guspels,
which satisfy this demand, rather than throw uurselves upun pure speculatinn ?
IV. Origin of the Narratives of the Infancy.— The difference nf style, sn absnlute
and abrupt, between Luke's preface (1 : 1-4) and the fnUnwing narratives, leaves nn
rnnm fnr dnubt that from 1 : 5 the authur makes use nf ducuments uf which he scru-
pulnualy preaervea the very furm. What were these ducuments? Accurding tu
Schleiermacher, they were brief family recerds which the cumpiler uf the Gnspel
ccntented himaelf with cunnectiug tugether in auch a way aa tn fnrm a cnntinuuua
narrative. But the mn(^es nf cnncluainn, and the general views which appear aa
recurring tnpica, in which Schleiermacher sees the prunf nf his hypntheais, nn the
contrary upaet it. For theae brief aummaries, by their resemblance and cnrreapund-
ence, prnve a unity ef cempuaitinn in the entire narrative. Vnlkmar regards the
anurcea nf these narratives as aerae nriginally Jewish materials, intu which the authnr
haa infuaed his nwn Pauline feeling. Accnrding tn Keim, their snurce wnuld be the
great Ebiunitish writing which cnnstitutes, in hia upiniun, the nriginal trunk nf nur
Guspel, nn which the authnr set himself tn graft his Pauliniam. These twu suppn
sitinns cnme In the same thing. We are certainly atruck with the twnfnld character
nf these narratives ; there is a spirit ef profound and scrupulous fidelity to the law,
side by side with a not less marked universalist tendency. But are these really two
currents of contrary origin ? I think nut. The nld cnvenant already cnntained these
twn currents — nne strictly legal, the nther tn a great extent universalist. Universal
ism is even, prnperly apeaking, the primitive current ; legaliam waa unly added tn i^
afterward, if it is true that Abraham preceded Muses. The narratives cf the infancy
reflect simply and faithfully thia twnfnld character ; fur they exhibit tn us the nnrmal
transitinn from the nld tn the new cnvenant. If the su-called Pauline element had
been introduced intn it subsequently, it -wnuld have taken away much mnre nf the
uriginal tune, and wuuld nut appear nrganically united with it ; and if it were nnly
the product nf a party manoeuvre, its pnlemical character cnuld nnt have been an cem
pletely diaguiaed. These twn elements, as they preaent themaelvea in these narra
tivea, in nu way prnve, therefnre, twu snurces nf an nppusite religinus nature.
The true explanation nf the nrigin uf Luke'a and Matthew 'a narrative appears tu
me tn be fnund in the fnUnwing fact. In Matthew, Jnseph is the principal persnn
age. It is te him that the angel appears ; he comes te calm his perplexities ; it is to
him that the name of Jesua ia notified and explained. It the picture of the infancy
be represented, aa in a stereoscope, in a twofold form, in Matthew it is aeen en the
side of Joaeph ; in Luke, en the contrary, it is Mary whu assumes the principal part.
It is she who receives the visit of the angel ; to her is communicated the name ef the
chUd ; her private feelings are brought out in the narrative ; it is she who is promi
nent in the address uf Simenn and in the histury uf the search fer the child. The
picture is the same, but it is taken this time un Mary's side.
* " Gesch. Jesu," t. i. p. 359.

104 COMMENTARY OiT ST. LtTKB.
Frum this we can draw nu nther cunclusiun than that the twn cycles of narratives
emanate from two different centres. One of these was the circle of which Joseph
waa the centre, and which we may suppuse cnnsisted of Cleopas his brother, James
and Jude his sens, ef whum one waa the flrat bishup nf the flock at Jerusalem ; and
Simeon, a son ef Cleopas, the first successor of James. The narratives preserved
among these peraons might easily reach the ear of the author of the first Gespel, who
doubllesa Uved in the midat of this fiock ; and hia Gospel, which, far more than
Luke's, was the record et the official preaching, was designed to reproduce rather
that side ef the facts 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 wnuld have a much mnre private character,
and wnuld exhibit mure nf the inner meaning nf the external facts. Theae, duubtleaa,
are thnae which Luke has preserved, Hnw he succeeded in nbtaining access tn thia
snurce uf infurmatinn, tn which he prnbably alludes in the dvuBev (1 : 3), we du not
knew. But it is certain that the nature ef these narratives waa better suited to the
private character ef his work. Does not Luke give ua ,a gUmpse, as it were de-
aignedly, ot thia incomparable source of information in the remarks (2 : 19, and 50,
51) which, from any other point nf view, could hardly be anything else than a piece
nf charlatanism ?
We think that these two cycles cf narratives existed fnr a certain time— the nne as
a public traditinn, the uther as a family snuvenir, in a purely nral fnrm. The author
of the first Gnspel was dnubtless the first who drew up the fnrmer, adapting it tn the
didactic aim which he prupnsed tn himself in his wurk. The latter waa nriginally in
Aramsean, and under any circumatances ceuld only have been drawn up, as we have
shewn, after the terminatinn nf the ministry nf Jesus. It was in thia fnrm that Luke
fuund it. He translated it, and inserted it in his wnrk. The very sungs had been
faithfully preserved until then. Pur this there was nn need nf the stenngrapher. Mary's
heart had preserved all ; the writer himself testifies as much, and he uttera nu vain
wurds. The deeper feelings are, the mnre indelibly graven nn the snul are the thoughts
which embody them ; and the recoUection uf the peculiar expressiuns in which they
find utterance remains indissnlubly linked with the recOUectinn nf the thoughts them
selves. Every nne has verified thia experience in the graver muments nf his life.
Lastly, in the questiun which nnw nccupies nur attentiuu, let us nnt furget tn bear
in mind the impurtance which these narratives pnssessed in the view nf tbe twn writ
ers whu have handed them dnwn to ua. They wrote aeriously, because they were
believers, and wrote tn win the faith nf the wnrld.

SECOND PART.

THE ADVENT OF THE MESSIAH.
Chap. 3:1; 4 : 13.
For eighteen years Jesus lived unknown in the seclusiun uf Nazareth. His
fellew-tnwnsmen, recalling this perind nf His life, designate Him ihe carpenter (Mark
6 : 3). Juatin Martyr — deriving the fact, duubtleaa, frum traditinn— representa Jeaua
aa making plnugha and yukes, and teaching men righteuusness by these products nf
His peaceful'tniL* Beneath the veil nf this life uf humble tuil, an inward develupment
waa accumplished, which resulted in a state nf perfect receptivity fnr the measureless
communication nf the Divine Spirit. This result was attained just when Jesus
reached the climacteric nf human life, the age nf thirty, when bnth snul and budy
enjoy the highest degree of vitality, and are fitted tu becume the perfect organs uf a
higher inspiratinn. The f nrerunner then having given the signal, Jesus left His nb
scurity tu accumplish the task which had presented itself tu Him fnr the first time in
the temple, when He was twelve years nf age, as the ideal uf His life — the establish
ment ef the kingdora of God on the earth. Here begins the secnnd phase ef His ex
istence, during which He gave forth what He had received in the first.
Thia tranaitinn frora private lifete public activity is the subject nf the fnUnwing
part, which cnmprises fnur sectinns : 1. The ministry ef John the Baptist (3 : 1-20) ;
2, The baptism nf Jesua (vers. 21, 23) ; 3. The ge'nealngy (vers. 33-38) ; 4. The temp
tatinn (4 : 1-13). The cnrrespnnding part in the two nther synnptics embraces nnly
numbers 1, 3, and 4. We shall have no difficulty in perceiving the connectinn be-.
tween these three sections, and the reaaon which induced St. Luke to intercalate the
fourth. FIRST NARRATIVE. — CHAP. 3 : 1-30.
The Miniatry of John the Baptist.
We already know from 1 : 77 why the Messiah was to have a fererunner. A mis
taken notion of salvation had taken possession of Israel. It was necessary that a man
clothed with divine authority should restore it tn its purity befnre the Messiah labnred
tn accumplish it. Perhaps no mere stirring character is presented in sacred history
than that ef John the Baptist. The people are excited at his appearing ; their con
sciences are aroused ; multitudea flock to him. The entire nation is filled with
solemn expectation ; and just at the moment when this man has only to speak the
word to make himself the centre of this entire movement, he not only refrains from
saying this word, hut he pronuunces annther. He directs all tho eager glances that
* "Dial. c. Tryph." c. 88.

106 COilMENTARY ON ST. tUKtl.
were fixed upon himself to One coming after him, whose sandals he is net worthy to
carry. Then, as soon as his successor has appeared, he retires to the background,
and gives enthusiastic expressinn tn his jny at seeing himaelf eclipaed. Criticiam is
fertile in resources nf every kind ; but with this unexampled mnral phennmenun to
accnunt. fur, it will find it difficult tu give any satiafactnry explanatinn uf it, without
appealing tn snme factur nt a higher urder.
Luke begins by framing the fact which he is abnut to relate in a general uutline ef
the history nf the time (vers. 1 and 2). He next describes the persunal appearance et
John the Baptist (vers, 3-6) ;' he givea a summary of his preaching (vers. 7-18) ; and
he finishes with an auticipatnry accnunt nf his imprisonment (vers. 19, 20).
1. Vera, 1 aud 2.* In this concise description of the epoch at which John ap
peared, Luke begins with the largest sphere— that ef the empire. Then, by a natural
transitieu furnished by hia reference tn the representative uf imperial pnwer in Judaea,
he pasaes te the special dnmain uf the people of Israel ; and he shows us the Hnly
Land divided into four distinct states. After having thus described the political
situalioup he sketches in a word the ecclesiastical and reiigiuua poaititm, which brings
him to his subject. It cannot be denied that there is considerable skill in thia pre
amble. Among the evangelials, Luke is the true historian.
And flrst the empire. Augustus died on the 19th of August ef the year 767 u.c,
corresponding te the year 14 and 15 of our era. If Jesus was born in 749 or 750 tr.c,
He muat have been at this- time abuut eighteen yeara of age. At the death of
Augustus, Tiberius had already, for two years past, shared his Ihrone. The fifteenth
year nf his reign may ccnsequently be reckened, either from the time when he began
tn share the severeignty with Augustus, nr from the time when he began to reign
alone, upon the death of the latter. The Rnman historians generally date the reign
of Tiberius from the time when he began to reign alone. According to this mode ot
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 thirty-two to thirty-
three years of age, which would be opposed to tbe statement 3 : 23, according tu
which He was only thirty years eld at the time nf His baptism, tnward the end of
Jnhn's ministry. Accnrding to the nther mude nf reckunm.g, the fifteenth year ef the
reign of Tiberius would be the year nt Rome 779 tn 780, 26 tu 27 nf uur era. Jesus
wnuld be abuut twenty-nine years nld when Jnhn the Baptist appeared ; and suppos
ing that the public ministry nf the latter lasted aix mnnths nr a year. He wnuld be-
abuut thirty years of age when He received baptism from him. In this way
agreement ia eatabliahed between the two chronological data, 3 : 1 and 23. It has
long been maintained that this last mode of reckouing, as it is foreign to the Reman
writers, cuuld unly be attributed tu Luke tn meet the requirements nf harmnnists.
Wieseler, hnwever, has Just proved, by inscriptinns and medals, that it prevailed in
the East, and particularly at Antinch,-|- whence Luke appears originally tn have cnme,
and where he certainly resided fnr snme time.
* Ver. 1, 54'* umita Iroworeiac . . . Avaaviov (cunfuainn nf the twn ryg). Ver.
2. Instead uf aoxieoeov, which is the reading nf T. R. with snme Mnn. Itpie'W"', Vg.
all the Mjj., etc, read apxiepeus,
f " Beitrage zur richtigen Wiirdigung der Evangelien," etc., 1869, pp. 191-194.
As tn seeing, with him, in the terms Kalaao (instead nf Augustus) and yyepov'ia (in
atead qf uovaox'id) proofs of the co-regency of Tiberius, these are subtleties in which
it is impoaaible for us to follow thia scholar.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 107
The circle narrows. We return to the Hnly Land. The title nf Pnntius Pilate
was prnperly imTpoiroS, procurator. That nf yyEfiav helnnged tu the sujierinr, the
governor nf Syria. But as, in Judssa, the military cummand was joined tn the civil
authnrit}--, the prncuratnr had a right tn the title nf yyepov. Upnn the deprivatinn nt
Archelaus, snn uf Hernd, in the year 6 uf nur era, Judsea was united tu the empire.
It furmed, with Samaria and Idumea, nne nf the districts cf the province of Syria.
Pilate was its fifth governor. He arrived there in the year 26, ur snuner, in the
autumn uf the year 25 nf nur era ; thus, in any case, a very shnrt time befnre the
ministry nf Juhn the "Baptist. He remained in pnwer ten years.
Hernd, in his will, made a divisien nf his kingdnm. The flrat share was given tn
Archelaus, with the title nf ethnarch — an inferiur title tu that nf king, but superior tn
that uf tetrarcli. This share sunn pasaed tu the Rnmana. The secnnd, which cem-
prised Galilee and the PersSa, was that nf Hernd Antipas. The title ef tetrarcli, given
tn this prince, signifles properly sovereign of a fourth. It waa then employed as a
desiguatiun fnr dependent petty princes among whom had been shared (originallj'- in
fnurths *) certain territories previuusly united under a single sceptre. Herod Antipas
reigned fnr fnrty-twu years, until the year 39 uf our era. The entire ministry of nur
Lnrd was therefnre accnmplished in his rei.gn. The third share was Philip's, annther
snn nf Hernd, whu bad the same title as Antipas. It embraced Iturasa (Dschedur), a
cnuntry situated tn the suuth-east uf tbe Libanus, but net mentioned by Jnsephus
amung the states uf Philip, and in additinn, Trachnnitia and Batanaaa. Philip reigned
37 years, until the year 34 nf uur era. If the title uf tetrarch be taken in ita etymn-
Ingical sense, this term wnuld imply that Hered had made a fourth ahare of hia
states ; and this would naturally be that which Luke here deaiguatea by the name of
Abilene, and which he asai_gns to Lysanias. Abila was a tow'n situated to the north
west of Damascus, at the foot qf the Anti-Libanus. Half a century before the time
of which we are writing, there reigned iu this country a certain Lysanias, the son
and successor of Ptolemy king of Chalcis. This Lysanias waa assassinated thirty-six
years before our era by Antony, who gave a part ef hia dominions to Cleopatra, f
Hia heritage then paaaed intu varinus hands. Prufane histury mentiuns nu Lysanias
after that nne ; and Strauss is eager tn accuse Lu'kc nf having, by a gross error, made
Lysanias live and reign sixty years after his death. Keim forma an equally un
favorable eatimate of the statement of Luke.| But while we possess no pusitive prunf
establishing the existence uf a Lysanias pusteriur tn the one nf whom Josephus
speaks, we nught at least, befure accusing Luke nf such a serinus errur, tn take intn
cnnsideratiun the fclluwing facts : 1. The ancient Lysanias here the title ef king,
which Antnny had given him (Dien Cassius, xlix. 32), and nnt the very inferinr title
nf tetrarch. § 3. He nnly reigned frum fnur tu five years ; and it wnuld be difficult
to understand how, after such a short possession, a century afterward, had AbUene
even belonged tu him uf nld, it shnuld still have burne fur this snle reason, iu all the
histurians, the name nf Abilene nf Lysanias (Jns. Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, xix. 5. 1, etc. ;
Ptolem. V. 18). 3. A medal and an inscriptinn fnund by Pucucke|| mentinn a
* Wieseler, wnrk cited, p. 204. - o-
f Jns. " Antiq." xiv. 7. 4 ; " BSlL^r-ud." 1. 9. 2 ; " Antiq." xv. 4. 1, xiv. 13. 3.
i " In the third tetrarch, Lysaniis-'flf Abilene, Luke introduces a persnnage whn
did nnt exist" (" Gesch. Jeau," t. i.''^."ei8).
§ Nnt nne nt the numerous paasages cited by Keim (i. p. 619, nute) pruves the cnn
trary. j-flrW ri II " Murgenland," ii. 177.

108 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Lysanias tetrarch and high priest, titles which dn nut naturally apply tn the ancient
king Lysanias. Frum all these facts, therefure, it wnuld be reasunable tn cunclude,
with several interpreters, that there was a ynunger Lysanias — a descendant, dnubt
less, uf the preceding — whn pnssessed, nut, aa hia ancester did, the entire kingdom of
Chalcis, but simply the tetrarchate of Abilene. This natural supposition may at the
present day be asserted aa a fact.* Two inscriptions recently deciphered prove : 1.
That at the very time when Tiberius waa cn-regent with Augustus, there actually
existed a tetrarch Lysanias. Fnr it waa a freedman nf this Lyaaniaa, named Nym-
phseua {l^-vp<paioS . . . Avaaviov TErpdpxov dirEXEvBEpog), whu had" executed seme cun
siderable wnrks tu which nne nf theae inacriptinns refera (Bueckh's Cnrbus inscript:
Gr. Nn. 4521). 3. That this Lysanias was a descendant cf the ancient Lysanias. f
This may be inferred, with a probability verging on certainty, frum the terms nf the
nther inscription : " and tn the sons of Lysanias" (Ibid. No. 4533). Augustus took
pleasure in restoring to the children what hia rivals had formerly taken away from
their fathers. Thua the young Jamblichua, king ef Emeaa, received from him the
inheritance ef hia father of the aame narae, slain by Antony. In the same way, alao,
waa restored to Archelaus of Cappadocia a part Of Cilicia, which had formerly be
longed to his father of the same name. Why should not Augustus have done as
much fur the young Lysanias, whose ancestor had been slain and deprived ny An
tony ? That this country should be here considered by Luke as belonging te the
Holy Land, is explained, either by the fact that Abilene had been temporarily sub
ject to Herod — and it is something in favor of this supposition, that when Claudius
reatared to Agrippa I. all the duminiuna nf hia grandfather Hernd the Great, he alsn
gave -him AbUene X — or by thia, that the inhabitanta nf the cnimtriea held by the an
cient Lyaaniaa had beeu incorpnrated intu the theocracy by cir/;umciaiun a century
befnre Christ, and that the ancient Lysanias himself was burn nf a Jewiah mnther,
an AamunsEau, and thus far a Jew.§ This penple, therefnre, in a religinus pnint nf
view, formed part uf the hnly penple as well as the Idumoeans. The intentinn nf
Luke in describing the dismemberment nf the Hnly Land at thia perind, ia tn make
palpable the pnlitical dissnlutinn intn which the thencracy had fallen at the time
when He appeared whn waa tn eatabliah it in its true fnrm, by separating the eternal
kingdom from ita tempurary cnvering.
Luke passes tn the sphere ef religion (ver. 3). The true reading is doubtless the
sing. dpxiepeuS, ilie high priest Annas and Caiaphas. Hnw is this strange phraae to
be explained ? It cannot be accidental, or used wilhuut thought. The predecessor
of Pilate, Valerius Grains, had deposed, iu the year 14, the high priest Annas. Then,
during a period covering some years, four priestly rulers were chosen aud deposed iu
succession. Caiaphas, who had the title, waa son-in-law of Annaa, and had been ap
pointed by Gratus about the year 17 of qur era. He filled thia nfflce until 36. It is
pnsaihle that, in cnnfurmity with the law which made the high-priesthund an nfflce
for life, the nation continued to regard Annas, notwithatanding hia deprivation and
* Wieseler, work quoted, pp. 191 and 202-304.
X It does not follow from the expression ef Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 9), recapitu
lating the account of Josephus, that the young Lysanias was a son of Herod. We
may, and indeed, as it appears te me, we must, refer the title of adeX^poi, brethren,
only te Philip and Hered the younger, and not to Lysanias : " The hruthers Philip
and Herod the younger, with Lysanias, governed their tetrarchies. " The note in the
first edition muat be corrected accnrdingly.
X Jua. " Antiq." xix. 5. 1. § Wieseler, wnrk qunted, p. 304.

COMMBNTARTi: ON ST. LUKE. 109
the different electinns which fnUnwed this event, as the true high priest, while all
thnae puntiffs whu had fnllnwed him were nnly, in the eyes nf the best part nf the
penple, titular high priests. In this way Luke's expreaainn admita nf a very natural
explanatinn : " Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests," that is tn s-ay, the twu
high priesta — une by right, the nther in fact. This expression would have all the
better warrant, becauae, aa hiatury proves, Annas in reality continued, as before, to
hold the reins nf gnvernment. This was espeeially the case under the puntificate nf
Caiaphas, his sn'n-in-law. Jnhn indicates this state nf things in a striking way in
twn passages relating tn the trial nf Jesus, 18 ; 13 and 24 : " Aud they bnuud Jesus,
and led Him away tn Annas first ; fur' he waa father-in-law tu Caiaphas.
And'Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, the high prieat." Theae words furnish
in some sort a commentary on Luke's expression. These two persons constituted really
one and the same high priest. Add to this, as weare reminded by Wieseler, th-d,t the
higher admiuistration was then shared efflcially between two persons whom the Talmud
always designates as distinct— the.M-ast, who presided over the Sanhedrin, and had
the directiun uf public affairs ; and] > the high priest prnperly an called, whn waa at
the head nf the priests, and superintei^ded matters nf religiun. Nnw it is very prob
able that the nfflce nf nasi at that timendevnlved upnn Annaa. Weare led tn this
cnnclusinn by the pewerf ul influenqft fwhicU he exerted ; by the part which, accnrd
ing tn Juhn, he played in the tri^/e^fJi^suB;,;, and by the passage. Acts 4 : 6, where he
is fnund at the head nf the SaBihicdiiin withithe title nf aoxtepevS, while Caiaphas is
nnly mentinned after hira, as a simj*!^ piqtnbur nf this budy. Thia aeparatinn nf the
offlce intn twn functinna, whichvqujjitod, ibadiCOnstituled, in the regular way, the true
and cnmplete theocratic highTpBiegthQpd, iw^S ithe commencement of its dissolution.
And thia is what Luke intendSht,0iexpr,e8s,hy tl|iis gen. sing. dpxtspEoS. in appusitinn
with twn prnper names. It ir3rjiUst;a?iif|hCih^ written ; " under the high priest An-
nas-Caiaphas."- Disnrganizatii(i>i!r had ipeqetiiatpdi beneath the surface nf the pnlitical
sphere (ver. 1), tu the very hea*): of ithd i thepcraqy. What a frame for the picture of
the appearing nf the Resturer ! li.Theiexpfflegsiun, the word came to John (lit. came
upon), indicates a positive revelatvonjieithmrnhjuithenphany ur by visinn, similar tn
that which served as a basis fur the minjstiry flf|j|he ancient prophets : Moses, Ex. 3 ;
Isaiah, chap. 6 ; .Jeremiah, chap.; 1| ; ; iEzeki^U. ,(fhap. 1-3 ; comp. John 1 ; 33, and see
1 : 80. The wnrd in the wildernf^s, , -ep^pr^sly cnnnects thia purtiun with that laat
passage. . , ,,n ni yi' n
2. Vers. 3-6.* The counti-y ffftwjti Jprdan, in Luke, dnubtless denntes the arid
plains near the mouth of this river.,,. ^,h? name wilderness qf Judea, by which Mat
thew and Mark designate the scepq, OifiJiohn's ministry, appUes properly to the moun
tainous and broken country whicli,, fprips the western bnundary uf the plain nf the
Jurdan (tuward the muuth nf this ri-(ffir), and of the northern pari ot the basin of the
Dead Sea But as, according to,rthfi?n also, John was baptizing in Jordan, the wU
derness ef Judea must necessarily |hi>Te included m their view the lower course of the
river. As tu the rest, the exprfppinn,,:^ came into suppuses, especially if with the
Alex, we erase thu t^v, that Juhp ,dW 9pt remain statinnary, but went tn and fru in
the cnuntry. This hint uf the Syn., eapecially in the furm in which it cccurs in
* Ver. 3. A. B. L. Or. nmit ryv befnre nepixopov. Ver. 4. 54. B. D. L. A. snme
Mnn. Syr«»'. ItP'""i"% nmit Xeyovros. Ver. 5. B. D. Z. snme Mnn. It"'"!. Or, read
euSeiaS instead nf evBemv,

110 ' COMMENTARY ON ST. ttlKE.
Luke, agreea perfectly with John 10 : 40, where the Persea is pointed out as the prin
cipal theatre of John's ministry.
The rite of baptism, which consisted iuthe plunging of the body more or leas
completely into water, was not at this period in use among the Jews, neither for the
Jews themselves, for whom the law only prescribed lustrations, nor for proselytes
from paganism, to whom, according tu the testimony of history, baptism was not ap
plied untU after the fall ef Jerusalem: The very titie Baptist, given to John, suffi
ciently proves that it was he who introduced this rite. This follows also from John
1 : 25, where the deputation from the Sanhedrin asks him by what right he baptizes, if
he is neither the Messiah nur one nf the prnptets, which implies that this rite waa
introduced by him; and further, from Jnhn 3 : 26, wherethe disciplea nf Juhn make it
a charge against Jesus, that He adnpted a ceremnny nt which the institutinn, and ccn
sequently, accnrding tn them, the monepuly, helnnged tn their master. Baptism was
a hurailiating rite fur the Jews. It represented a complete puriflcatinn ; it was, aa
it were, a lustratiun carried tn the secnnd pnwer, which implied in him whu accepted
it nnt a few isnlated faults sn much as a radical defilement. Su Jesus calls it (John
3 : 6) a birth of water. "^ Already the promise of clean water, and of a fountain opened
for ain and uncleanness, in Ezekiel (36 : 25) and Zechariah (13 : 1), had the same mean
ing. The ccmplement psravoloi; , of repentance, indicatea the mnral act which was tn
accnmpany the uutward rite, and which gave it its value. This term indicatea a cnm
plete change of mind. The object of this new institution is sin, which appeara to the
baptized in a new light. According to Matthew and Mark, this change was ex
pressed by a pusitive act which accompanied the baptism, the cnnfessinn nf their sins'
{i^ouoXoyyaiS). Bapiism, like every divinely inatituted ceremnny, cnntained alau a
grace for him whn nbserved it with the desired dispusitinn. As Strauss puts it : it,
nn the part nf man, it was a declaratinn of the renunciation nf sin, un the part nf
Gnd it was a declaratinn nf the pardun of sins. The words for the pardon depend
grammatically nn the cnllective notion, baptism of repentance.
According to ver. 4, the forerunner of tho Messiah had a place in the prophetic
picture by the aide of the Messiah Himself. It ia very generally taken for granted
by modern interpreters, that the prophecy Isa. 40 : 1-11, applied by the three aynnptica
tn the times nf the Messiah aud tn Jnhn the Baptist, refers properly tn the return
from the exile, aud pictures the entrance uf .Jehovah intn the Hely Land at the head
uf His people. But ia this interpretation really in accordance with the text of the
prophet ? Throughout this entire passage of Isaiah the people are nowhere repre
sented as returning Jo their own country ; they are settled iu their cities ; it is God
who comes to them • " O Zion, get thee up iuto a high mnuntain . . . Lift up
thy voice with strength ! Say tu the cities of Judah, Behold your God !" (ver. 9).
So far are the people frora following in Jehovah's train, that, on the contrary, they
are invited by the divine messenger to prepare, in the country where they dwell, the
way by which Jehovah is to cnme tu them : " Prepare the way ef the Lord . . .
and His glory sha-U be revealed " (vers. 3 and 5). The desert to which the prophet
compares the moral condition nf the people is nnt that nf Syria, which had tu be
* There is, to say the least, no need to connect nur Lord's wnrds with Baptism,
when they have an adequate basis in the prophecies cf the Old Teatament. Ezek.
(86 : 25, 36) cunnects " clean water" and a " new heart," and in chap. 37 introduces
the quickening spirit. His baptism had not yet been formulated, but Nicodemus
nught to have known these things (Jnhn 3 : 10). — J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. Ill
crossed in returning from Babylon, a vaat plain in which there are neither mountains
to level nnr vaUeys tn fill up. It is rather the uncultivated and rocky hill-cnuntry
which surrnunds the very city uf Jerusalem, intn which Jehnvah is tn make His entry
as the Messiah. If, therefure, it is indeed the cuming uf Jehnvah as Messiah which
is promised in this passage (ver. 11, " He shall feed His fleck like a shepherd . .
He shall carry the lambs in His arms"), the herald whu invites the penple tn prepare
the way nf His Gnd is really the fererunner of the Messiah. The image is taken
from an oriental custom, according to which the visit cf a anvereign was preceded by
the arrival uf a cnurier, whu called un all the penple tu make ready the read by which
the monarch was to enter.*
The text is literally : A voice of one crying ! . . . There ia no flnishing verb ;
it ia an exclamation; The measenger is net named ; his person is ef su little cnnse^
quence that it is Just in his message. The words in the desert may, in Hebrew, as in
Greek, be 'taken either with what precedes : " cries in the desert," er with what fnl
lnws : " Prepare in the desert." It matters little : the nrder resnunds wherever it is
tn be executed. Must we be satialied with a general applicatiun uf the detaila uf the
picture? nr is it alluwable tn give a particular applicatiun tu them — tn refer, fur in
stance, the mnuntains that must be levelled tn the pride uf the Phariaeea ; the valleys
to be flUed up, to the moral and religious indifference of such as the Sadducees ; the
crooked places to be made straight, tn the frauda aud lying excuaea nf the publicans ;
and laatly, the rough places, to the sinful habits fnuud in all, even the best ? Hnw
ever thia may be, the general aim uf the quntation is te exhibit repentance as the soul
nf Juhn's baptism. It is probable that the plur. evBeias was early substituted for the
sing. EvBelav, to correspond with the plur ra nKo?ud. With this adj: 6d6v or ddo'v;
must be understood.
When once this moral change is accomplished, Jehovah will appear. Kai, and
then. The Hebrew text is : " All flesh shall see the glory ef God." The LXX. have
translated it : " The glory of the Lord shall he seen (by the Jews ?), and all fiesh
(including the heathen ?) shall see the salvation ef God. " This paraphrase, borrowed
from Isa. 53 : 10, proceeded perhaps from the repugnance which the translator felt to
attribute to the heathen the aight of the glory ef God, although he concedea to them
a share in the salvation. Thia term salvation ia preserved by Luke ; it suits the spirit
of his Gospel. Only the end ef the prophecy (vers. 5 and 6) ia cited by Luke. The
two other synoptics limit themselves to the first part ver. 4. It is remarkable that
all three should apply to the Hebrew text and te that ef the LXX. the same modifi
cation : TQf rpipovs avTo-v, His paths, instead of rds Tpiffov; tov Oeov ypuv, the paths of
our God. Thia fact has been used te prove the dependence uf two nf the synnptica
nn the third. But the prunf ia nnt valid. As Weizsacker -I- remarks, this was nne
nf the texts nf which frequent use was made in the preaching of the Messiah ; and it
waa custumary, in applying the pj^ssage tn the persnn uf the Messiah, tn qunte it in
this fnrm. If Luke had, in this sectinn, une nf the twn nther synnptics befcre him,
hnw cnuld he have umitted all that refers tu the dress and mude nf life nf the fnre-
runner ?
3. Vers. 7-17. The fuUnwing discnurse must nut be regarded as a particular
specimen cf the preaching, the substance uf which Luke has transmitted tu us. It is
* Luwth, " Isaiah," libers, v, Keppe, n. p, 307.
X " 'Unteratichungen, " p. 24, nute,

113 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
a summary of all the discourses ot John the Baptist during the period that preceded
the baptism ef Jeaua. The imperf., eAeyev, lie uaed to aay, clearly indicates Luke's
intention. This summary contains — 1. A call tn repentance, fnunded nn the impend.
ing Messianic judgment (vers. 7-9) ; 2. Special practical directinns fur each clasa uf
hearers (vers. 10-14) ; 8. The announcement nf the speedy appearance nf the Messiah
(vera. 15-17).
Vers. 7-9. " Then said he tu the multitude that came fnrth tu be baptized
nf him, O generatinn nf vipers, who hath warned ynu tu flee from the wrath tn
cnme ? 8. Bring fnrth, therefnre, fruits werthy ef repentance, and begin not to say
within yourselves. We have Abraham te nur father ; fur I say untn ynu, that
Gnd is able ut these stnnes tu raise up children untn Abraham. 9. And nnw alao
the axe is laid untn the rout nf the trees ; every tree therefore which bringeth not
forth gund fruit is hewn dnwn, aud cast intn the fire." What a stir wnuld be pro
duced at the present day by the preaching nf a man, whn, clnthed with the' authnrity
nf hnliness, shnuld proclaim with power the speedy coming ef the Lord, and His
impending judgment ! Such was the appearance ef Jnhn in Israel. The expressinn
thai camie forth (ver. 7) refers tn their leaving inhabited places tn gn intn the desert
(corap. vii. 24). Iu Matthew it is a number of Pharisees and Sadduceea that are
thua accosted. In that Gospel, the reference is tn a special case, as the anr. elitEv,
he aaid to ihem. shuws. But fnr all this it may have been, as Luke gives us tu un
derstand, a tuple on which John ordinarily expatiated to his hearers. The reproachful
address, generation of vipers, expreaaes at once their wickedness and craft. John
compares these multitudes who come to his baptism, because they regard it as a cere
mony that is te insure their admission intu the Mesaianic kingdom, to successive
broods ef serpents coming forth alive from the body of their dam. This severe term
ia nppnsed tn the title children nf Abraham, antl appears even tu allude tu annther
father, whum Jesus expreaaly names in annther place (Juhn 8 : 37-44). Keim nbserves,
with truth, that this figurative language uf Jnhn (comp. the following images, atonea,
trees) is altogether the language of the desert.* What excites such lively indignation
in the fererunner, is to see people trying to evade the duty of repentance by means
ef its sign, by bapiism performed as an opus operatum. In this deception he per-
ceivea the auggestion of a mnre cunning cnunaellnr than the heart ef man. "t^Kodei-
Kvvpi tn address advice tn the ear, tu suggeat. The chuice uf this term excludes
Meyer's sense : " Whn has reassured ynu, persuading ynu that ynur title children nf
Abraham wnuld preserve ynu from divine wrath ?" The wrath to come is the Mes
siah's judgmeut. The Jews made it fall snlely nii the heathen ; Jnhn makes it cume
dnwn nn the head nt the Jews themselves.
Therefore (ver. 8) refers tu the necessity uf a sincere repentance, resulting frnm
the questinn in ver. 7. The fruits worthy of repentance are net the Christian disposi
tions flowing from fahh ; they are those acts of justice, equity, and humanity, enu
merated vers. 10-14, the conscientious practice uf which leads a man tn failh (Acts
10 : 35). But Jnhn fears that the mnment their cnnscience begina tu be aruused, they
will immediately senthe it, by reminding themselves that they are children nf Abra
ham. VLy dpiyaBe, literally, " dn nut begin . . ." that is tn aay: "As snun as
my vnice awakens ynu, dn nnt set abuut saying . . ." The /.i^ do^yre, do not
* Winer, " Realwnrterbuch," nn Jerichn : " This place might have passed fnr a
paradiae, apart frnm the venumuua serpents fnund there." The trees alnng tbe
cnurse nf the Jnrdan.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 113
think, in Matthew, indicates an illusury claim. On the abuse uf this tille by the
Jews, see Jnhn 8 : 33-39, Rnm. 4 : 1, Jas. 3 : 31. It is tn the pnaterity uf Abraham,
dnubtless, that tbe promises are made, but the resuurcea uf Gnd are nnt limited.
Shnuld Israel prove wanting, with a wnrd He can create fur Himself a new penple.
In saying, of theae stones, Jnbu points with his finger to the stones of the desert er on
the river banks. This warning is too solemn tn be nnly an imaginary suppnaitlnn.
Juhn knew tbe prophecies ; he waa nnt ignurant that Mnaes and Isaiah had annnunced
the rejectinn nf Israel and the calling 'uf the GentUes. It is by this threatening pros
pect that he endeavnrs tu stir up the zeal nf his cuntemporaries. This wnrd cnn
tained in germ the whnle teaching uf St. Paul nn the contrast between the carnal
and the apiritual pnaterity nf Abraham develuped in Rem. 9 and Gal. 3. In Deu
teronomy the circumcisinn nf the flesh had already been simUarly ccntrasted wilh
the circumcisinn nf the heart (3(1 : 6).
In vers. 7 and 8 Israel is reminded uf the incerruptible holineaa nf the judgment
awaiting them; ver. 9 proclaims it at hand, "'itdy di Kai: "a^ndnow also." The
image is that of an orchard full nf fruit-trees. An invisible axe is laid at the trunk
uf every tree. This flgure is cnnuected with that nf the fruits (ver. 8). At the first
signal, the axe will bury itself in the trunks nf the barren trees ; it will cut them
dnwn tu the very runts. It is the emblem uf tlie Messianic judgment. It applies at
nnce tu the natinnal dnwnfall and the individual cundemnatinn, twu nutinns which
are nut yet distinct in the mind nf Juhn. This fulminating address cempletely irri
tated the rulers, whn had been willing at une time tu cume and hear him ; frum this
time they brnke all connection with John and his baptism, This explains the pas
sage (Luke 7 : 30) in which Jesus declares that the rulers ref used to be baptized. This
rejection of John's ministry by the official authorities is equally clear from Matt.
31 : 35 : " If we say. Of God ; he will say, Whj' then did ye nnt believe un him ?"
The prnceeding nf the Sanhedrim, Jnhn 1 : 19 e< seq., prnvea the aame thing.
¦ Vera. 10-14.* But what then, the penple aak, are these fruits of repentance
which should accnmpany baptism ? And, seized with the fear nf judgment, differ
ent claaaes nf hearers approach Juhn tu nbtain from him special directiuns, fitted tn
their particular sncial pnsitiun. It is the cnnfessional after preaching. This char
acteristic fragment is wanting in Matthew and Mark. Whence has Luke ubtained
it ? From sume nral ur written snurce. But this snurce cnuld nut, it is evident,
cnntain simply the flve verses which fnllnw ; it muat have been a narrative nf the
entire miniatry nt Jnhn. Luke therefnre puaaessed, un this ministry as a whule, a.
different ducument frnm the uther twn Syn. In thia way we can explain the marked
differencea uf detail which we have nbserved between his writing and Matthew's :
he says, instead uf he was saying, ver. 7 ; do not begin, instead nf think not, ver. 8.
The imperf., asked, signifies that those questions ef conscience were frequently
repeated (comp. iXeyev, ver. 7). To a similar question St. Peter replied (Acts 3 : 37)
very differently. This was because the kingdom ef Gud had cnme. The furerunner
* Ver. 10. Almust all the Mjj., ¦n:oiyaopEv instead nf noiyaopev, which ia the read
ing ef T. B., wilh G. K. U. and many Mnn. Ver. 11. 54. B. C. L. X. aume Mnn.,
e/.Eyev inatead nf Xeyei. Ver. 12. Almust all the Mjj., iroiyaupev instead nf ¦n-oiyaopEv,
which is the reading uf T. R., with G. U. and many Mnn. Ver. 13. 54* uiqils
EiTTEv vpoS avTOvS. Ver. 14. C. D. It"''"!., ETtypuryaav instead uf e-Kyporav. Aln^ust ^11
the Mjj., ¦Koiycopev instead uf ¦n-oiyaopsu, which A. G. K. V. and many Mnn. read.
54* H. 'Syr.,iiydEva befnre avKoiavryayTe, instead uf |U;?(5e, which T. R. with all the utftef
ducuments read,

114 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
cnntents himself wilh requiring the wnrks fltted to prepa/re his hearers — those works
of moral rectitude and benevolence which are iu cohformity with the law written in
the heart, and which attest the sincerity of the horror of evil professed in baptism,
and that earnest deaire after good which Jesus so often declares tn be the true prep
aratinn fnr faith (John 3 : 31). In vain dues hypocrisy give itself to the practice of
devotion ; it ia on mnral nbligatiun faithfully acknnwledged and practised that the
blessing depends which leads men tn salvatinn. There is snme heait^linn in the furm
noiyaupEv (deliberative subj.) ; the future iroiyaopev indicatea a decisinn taken. Ver.
13, Updaaeiv, exact; the meaning is, nu uvercharge ! Whn are the seldiers, ver. 14?
Certainly nut the Rnman soldiers of the garrison nf Judsea. Perhaps military in the
service nf Antipas king uf Galilee ; fnr they came also frnm this cnuntry tu Jnhn's
baptism. Mnre prnba bly armed men, acting as police in Judsea. Thua the term
avKofavTElv admita nf a natural interpretatinn. It aignifiea etymulngically thnae whn
dehnunced the expnrtera nf figa (nut nf Attica), and is applied generally tn thnse whn
play the infermer. AiaasiEv appears In be connected with the Latin word concutere,
whence comes also our word concussion, Thess are unjust extortions en the part of
subordinates. The reading of 54. H. Pesch., fiydiva, does not deserve the honor Tisch
endorf has accurded tu it nf admitting it intn his text. When all the penple shall in
this way have made ready the way nf the Lord, they will be that prepared people of
whom the angel spuke to Zachariaa (1 : 17), and the Lord wOl be able to bring salva
tion to them (3 : 6).
Vers. 15-17.* " And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in
their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or nut ; 16. John answered, saying
unto them all : I indeed baptize ynu with water ; but one mightier than I cometh,
the latehet of whose shoes I am nut worthy to unloose : He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost, and with fire : 17 Whnse fan is in His hand, and He will thernughly
purge His flunr, and will gather Ihe wheat intn His garner ; but the chaff He wiU
burn wilh fire unquenchable." This purtiun is cummun to the three Syn. But the
preamble, ver. 15, is peculiar tn Luke. It is a brief and striking sketch nf the gen
eral excitement and lively expectatinn awakened by Jnhn's ministry. The a'Kaaiv nf
the T. R. contains the idea nf a sulemn gathering ; but this scene is net the same as
that of John 1 : 19, et seq., which did not take place till after the baptism nf Jesus.
In his answer Juhn asserts twn things : first, that he is nnt the Messiah ; secnnd,
that the Messiah is fuUnwing him clnse at hand. The art o befnre 'laxvporepos denntes
this personage as expected. To unloose the sandals of the master when he came in
(Luke and Mark), or rather to bri-ng them to him {jSaardaai, Matt.) when he was dis
poaed to go out, was the duty nf the Inwest class nf slaves. Mark expresses its menial
character in a dramatic way ¦ Kiil>aq Xvaai, to stoop down and unloose. Each evangelist
has thus his nwn shade nf thuught. If nne of them had copied from the other, these
changes, which would be at once purposed and insignificant, would be puerile.
'iKavo; may be applied either to physical cr intellectual capacity, cr tn mnral dignity.
It is taken in the latter sense here. The prunnun avros brings nut prominently the
persenalily uf the Messiah. The prepnsitiun iv, which had nut been emplnyed befnre
ildan, is added befure ¦n-vevpari ; the Spirit cannut be treated as a aimple meana. One
* Ver. 16. 54. B. L., ¦rraaiv inatead of anaaiv. Ver. 17. 54* B. a. e. Heracleon,
dtoKaSapai instead of Kai diaKQBapiEi, which ia the reading nf T, R., with all the nther
Mjj. and all the Mnn. 54* B, e., awayayEiv inatead nf awa^ei, which all the nthers
read.

comMenIary on s'r. luke. 115
baptizes with water, but not with the Spirit. If the pardon granted in the liaptism of
water was net followed by the baptism of the Spirit, sin- would soon regain the upper
hand, and the pardon would be speedily annulled (Matt. 18 : 33-35). But let the
baptism of the Spirit be added to the baptism ot water, and then the pardon is con
firmed by the renewal of the heart and life. Almost all modern interpreters apply
the term^re to the consuming ardor ef the judgmeut, according to ver. 17, the fire
which is not quenched. But if there was such a marked cOntraat between the two
expreasiona Spirit and fwre, the prepoaition iv muat have been repeated before the
latter. Therefore there can only be a ahade ef difference between theae two terma.
The Spirit and fire both denote the same divine principle, but in two different rela
tions with humaij nature ; the firat, inasmuch as taking possession nf all in the nat
ural man that is fltted tn enter intn the kingdnm ef Gnd, and cunsecrating it tu this
end ; the secnnd — the image of fire is introduced nn accuunt nf its cuntrariness tn the
water nf baptism — inasmuch as cunsuming everything in the nld nature that is nut uf
harmony with the divine kingdom, and destined tn perish. The Spirit, in this latter
relatinn, is indeed the principle nf judgment, but nf an altngether internal judgment
It ia the fire symbnlized on the day nf Pentecnat. As tn the fire nf ver. 17, it is
expressly nppnsed tu that nf ver. 16 by the epithet uafSearov, which is not quenched.
Whnever refuses tn be baptized with the fire uf hnUness, wUl be expeaed tu the fire
nf wrath. Cump. a aimilar transitinn, but in an inverse sense, Mark 9 : 48, 49. Jnhn
had said, ahall baptize you (ver. 16). Since this you applied snlely tn the penitent it
cnntained the idea nf a sifting process guing nn amnng the penple. Thia sitting is
described in the seventeenth verae. The threshing-floor amnng the ancienta waa an
uncnvered place, where the cum, apread nut upon the hardened ground, waa trodden
by oxen, which were sumetimea yuked tn a aledge. The straw waa burned upnn the
sput ; the corn waa gathered intu the garner. This garner, in Juhn'a thuught, repre-
aents the Mesaianic kingdnm, the Church in fact, the earliest histurical fnrm uf this
kingdnm, intn which all believing Israelites will be gathered. Jewish presumptinn
made the line ef demarcation which separates the elect from the conderaned pass
between larael and the Gentilea ; John makes it pass acroaa the thencracy itself, nf
which the threshing-flour is the symbul. This is the fnrce nf the did in diuKuBapiEl,
Jesus expresses Himaelf in exactly the aame senae, Juhn 3 : 18, et aeq. The judgment
ef the natinn and nf the individual are here mingled together, as in ver. 9 ; behind the
national chastisement ef the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people, ia
placed in the background the judgment of individuals, under another dispenaation.
The readings diuKuBupai and avvayayelv, in order to purify, in order to gather, cannot
be admitted. They rather weaken the force of thia atriking passage ; the authnrity
nf 54. B. and nf the twu ducuments nf the Italic are nnt aufficieut ; laatly, the future
KaraKavdEi, which muat be in uppnsitinn tu a preceding future {ds), cnmes in tun
abruptly. The prunnun airoC, twice repeated ver. 17 {!Bis threshing-floor, His garner),
leavea ne doubt about the divine dignity which John attributed to the Messiah. The
theocracy belongs tu Jehnvah. Cump. the expressinn, Hia temple, Mai. 3 : 1.
4. Vers. 18-30.* — We find here nne nf thuse general surveys such as we have in
1 : 66, 80 ; 3 : 40, 53. Fur the third time the lut nf the furerunner becnmes the pre
lude tn that nf the Saviour. The expreasion many oilier thinga (ver. 18) cenfirms what
* Ver. 19. The T. R., with A. C. K. X. n. many Mnn. Syr., adds, befnre tov
adeX^av, iiXiK-Kov, which is umitted by 16 Mjj. 130 Mnn. It. 'Vg. (taken from "Mat
thew). "Ver. 30. 54* B. D. X. It*"i. nmit mi befure npoasByKe.

116 commentary on ST. LUKE.
was already indicated by the imperf. he uaed to say (ver. 7), that Luke unly intends to
give a summary nf Jnhn's preaching. The term Iw evangelized (a literal translation)
refers to the Mesaianic promises which his diacourses contained (vers. 16 and IT), and
the true translation uf thia verae appeara tn me tn be this : " while addresaing these
and many ether exhertatiena to the people, he announced to them the glad tidings."
Ver. 19. Hered Antipas, the sovereign of Galilee, is the person already mentioned
in ver. 1. The wnrd >^iXiTVKuv, rejected by impnrtant authorities, ia probably a gloss
derived from Matthew. The first husband ef Herodias waa called Herod. He has
nn nther name in Jnsephua. He lived aa a private individual at Jeruaalem. But per
hapa he alsn bnre the surname uf Philip, tn distinguish him frnm Hernd Antipaa.
The brother nf Antipas, whn was properly called Philip, is the tetrarch of Ituraea
(3 : 1). The ambitiuua Herodias had abanduned her husband tn ma'rry Antipas, who
fur love of her sent away his first wife, a daughter uf Aretaa king nf Arabia ; thia act
drew him intn a disastrnua war.
Luke's expressinn indicates cuncentrated indignatinn. In nrder to expreaa the
energy ef the inl ndaiv, we muat aay : to crown all . . The form uf the phrase
¦KpoaeByKE kuI KareKXEicE ia baaed nn a well-knuwn Hebraism, and provea that thia nar
rative nf Luke's is derived frnm an Aramaean dncument: Thia passage furnishes
annther prunf that Luke draws upnn an independent snurce ; he separates himself, in
fact, frum the twu uther synnptics, by mentinning the imprisonment nf Jnhn the
Baptist here, instead nf referring it te a later period, as Matthew and Mark do, syn
chronizing it with the return of Jesus into Galilee after His baptism (Matt. 4 : 13 ;
Mark 1 : 14). He thereby avoids the chronological errnr cnmmitted by the twu uther
Syn., and rectified by Juhn (3 : 34). This nutice is brought in here by anticipatiun,
as,the simUar nutices, 1 : 66& and 806. It is intended tn explain the sudden end nt
Jnhn's miniatry, and serves aa a stepping-slune tn the narrative 7 : 18, where Jnhn
aends frum his prisnn twn uf his disciples tn Jesus.
The fact uf Jnhn the Baptist's ministry is authenticated by the narrative nf
Jnsephua. This histnrian speaks nf it at snme length when describing the marriage
nt Hernd Antipas with Herodias. After relating the defeat ef Herod's army by
Aretas, the father ef his first wife, Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 5. 1, 3) continues thus :
"This disaster was attributed by many nf the Jews tu the displeasure uf God, who
amote Hered for the murder of John, surnamed the Baptist ; for Herod had put to
death this good man, whn exhurted the Jews tn the practice uf virtue, inviting them
tu cnme tn his baptiam, and bidding them act with justice tuward each ether, and
with piety toward God ; for their baptism wpuld please God if they did not use it te
justify themaelves frnm any sin they had uemmitted, but tu nbtain purity nf budy
after their snuls had been previuusly purified by rightenuaness. And when a great
multitude nf penple came tn hira, and were deeply mnved by his discnurses, Hernd.
fearing lest he might use his infiuence tn urge thera tu revnlt — fur he well knew that
they wuuld dn whatever he advised them — thuught that the best cuurse fur him tc
take was tn put hira tn death befnre he attempted anything uf the kind. Su he put
him in chains, and sent hira tn the castle nf Maohserus, and there put him tu death.
The Jews, therefnre, were cnnvinced that his army was destroyed as a punishment
fer thia murder, Gnd being incenaed against Hernd." This accnunt, whOe altogether
independent nf the evangelist's, cunfirms it in aU the essential pnints : the extranr
dinary appearance nf thia perann ef such remarkable sanctity ; the rite of baptism
introduced by him; his aurname, the Baptiat ; John's preteat againat the use et
baptiam as a mere opua operatum; hia energetic exhortationa ; tho general excite
ment ; the impriaonment and murder ot John ; and further, the criminal marriage of
Herod, related in what precedes. By the side ef theae easential points, common to
the two narratives, there are some secondary differences : " First. Joaephus makes no

COMMENTARY ON ST. lUKE. 117
mentiun of the Messianic element in the preaching nt John. But in this there is
nothing surp-ising. This silence proceeds from the same cause as that which he ob
serves respecting the person of Jesus. He who cuuld aUuw himself to apply the
Messianic prophHcies tu Vespasian, wnuld necessarily try tn avnid everything in cun-
tempnranenua histnry that had reference either tn the furerunner, aa auch, nr tn Jesus.
Weizsacker rightly nbserves that the narrative nf Jnsephus, sn far frnm invalidatiug
that nt Luke un this pnint, cunflima it. Pur it is evident that apart from its cun
nection with the expectatinn uf the Meaaiah, the bapiism uf John would nnl have
produced that general excitement which excited the feara nf Hernd, and which ia
pruved by the accnunt uf Jnsephus. Second. Accurding In Luke, the determining
cauae uf Jnhn's impriaonment was the resentment uf Hernd at the rebukes nf Ihe
Baptiat ; while, accnrding tn Juaephus, the motive fur this crime was the fear nf a
pnlitical nutbreak. But it ia easy tn conceive that the cause indicated by Luke wnuld
nnt be npenly avuwed, and that it was unknnwn in the political circles where Jnse
phua gathered his infurmatinn. Hernd a-nd his cnunsellurs put furward, aa ia usual
in such caaea, the reaaun nf atate. The previuua revults — thnae which immediately
fnllnwed the death nf Herud, and that which Judaa the Gaulnnile pruvuked — nnly
justifled tun well the fears which they affected tn feel. In any case, if, on account uf
this general agreement, we were willing to admit that une ef the two hiaturians made
uae nf the other, it is not^ Luke that we shnuld regard as the cnpyist ; fur the
Aramsean forms nf hia narrative indicate a snurce independent uf that uf Joaephus.
The higher nrigin nf thia ministry nf John is proved by the twu fuUnwing charac
teristics, which are inexplicable from a purely natural peiltt nf view : Firat, His cun
nection sn emphaticaUy annnunced, with the immediate appearance nf the Messiah ;
second. The abdicatinn uf .Jnhn, when at the height uf his pnpularity, in tavur of the
pnur Galilean, whn was as yet unknnwn tn all, Aa tu the eriginality nf .John's
baptism, the lustrations used in the uriental religinus, in Judaism itaelf, and partic
ulariy amnng the Easenea, haye been alleged against it. But thia uriginality cnn
sisted less in the uutward fnrm nf the rite, than — 1. In ita applicatiun In the whule
penple, thus prnnnunced defiled, and placed nn a level with the heathen ; and 3. In
the preparatnry relation established by the furerunner between this imperfect bapiism
and that final baptism which the Messiah was abnut tu cunfer.
We think it useful to give an example here of the way in which Holtzmann tries
tn explain the cumpusitinn nf nur Guspel :
1. Vera. 1-6 are bnrrn wed from source A. (the origiaal Mark) ; nnl.y Luke leaves
nut the detaUs respecting the ascetic life uf Juhn the Baptist, because he intends tn
give his discnurses at greater length ; he cumpensales fnr this nmissiun by adding the
chronological data (vers. 1 and 3), and by extending the quotation from the LXX.
(vers. 5 and 6) ! 3. Vers. 7-9 are also taken frum A., just as are the parallel verses
ia Matthew ; they were left nut by the authnr nf our canonical Mark, whns(j inten
tinn was tn give nnly an abdridgment nf the diacnuraes. 3. Vera. 10-14 are taken
frum a private snurce, peculiar tn Luke. Are we then tn auppnae that thia source
contained nnly theae fnur veraea, aince Luke haa depended nn other sources for all the
rest of hia maUer? 4. Vers. 15-17 are composed {a) of a sketch ot Luke's invention
(ver. 15) ; {b) of au extract from A., vers. 16, 17. 5. Vers. 18-30 have been compiled
en the basis nf a fragment uf A. , which is fnund in Mark 6 ; 17-39, a summary uf
which Lujje thuught shnuld be introduced here. Du we uot thus fall intn that pro
cess of manufacture which Schleiermacher ridiculed so happily in bis wurk nn the
cnmpusition nf Luke, a propos uf Eichhurn's hypntheais, a method which we thuught
had disappeared from criticism fur ever ?
SECOND NARRATIVE. — CHAP. 3 : 31, 32.
The Baptism of Jems.
The rel-'.tinn between Juhn and Jesus, as described by St. Luke, resembles that ef
twu stars fuUnwing each uther at a shnrt dialaoce, and bolh passing through a series
of similar circumstances. The announcement ef the appearing ot the une fnlluws close
upon that nf the appearing nf the other. It is the same with their twn births. This

118 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
relation repeats itself in the commencement ef their reapective miniatries ; and lastly,
in the catastrophes which terminate their lives. And yet, in the whole courae ef the
career of these two men, there was but one personal meeting — at the baptiam ef Jesus.
After thia mnment, when nne ef these stars rapidly crossed the orbit of the other,
they separated, each to follow the path that was marked out for him. It ia this
moment of their actual contact that tbe evangelist is about to describe.
Vers. 31 and 33.* This narrative ef the baptism is the aequel, not to vers. 18, 19
(the imprisonment of John), which are an anticipation, but to the pasaage, vers. 15-17,
which describes the expectation ef the people, and relates the Messianic prophecy of
John. The expression dvavra tov 7.abv, all the people, ver. 31, recalls the crowds
and popular feeling deacribed in ver. 15. But Meyer is evidently wrong in seeing in
these wurds, " When all the penple -were baptized," a prunf that all this crowd was
present at the baptism nf Jeaua. The term all tlie people, in such a cunnectinn, wuuld
be a strange exaggeration. Luke merely means to indicate the general agreement in
time between this mevement and the baptism nf Jesus ; and the expressinn he uses
need nnt in any way prevent nur thinking that Jesus was ^Inne, nr almnst alune, with
the furerunner, when the latter baptized Him. Further, it is highly prnbable that He
wuuld chunse a time when»the transactinn might take place in this manner. But
the turn nf expression, iv tQ (SairnaByvai, expresses mnre than the simultanenus-
ness uf the twu facts ; it places them in meral cunnectinn with each nther. In being
baptized, Jesus surrenders Himself te the mevement which at this time was drawing
all tlie people tnward Gud. Had He acted ntherwise, wnuld He nnt have brnken the
bund nf snlidarity which He had cnntracted, by circumcisinn, with Israel, and by the
incarnatinu, with all mankind ? Su far from being relaxed, this bund is tn be drawn
clnser, until at last it invnlve Him whn has entered intu it in the full parlicipatien ef
nur cundemnatinn and death. This relatinn uf the baptism uf the natinn tn that ut
Jesus explains alsn the singular turn nf expressinn which Luke makes use nf in men
tinning the fact nf the baptism. This act, which nne wuuld have thuught wuuld
have been the very pith nf the narrative, is indicated by means nt a simple participle,
and in quite an incidental way : " When all the penple were baptized, Jeaus alsn be
iug baptized, and praying . " Luke axjpears to mean that, granted the national
haptism, that nf Jesus follnws as a matter nf cnurse. It is tbe moral cnnsequence uf
tbe furmer. This turn nf thuught is nnt withnut its importance in explaining the fact
which we are nnw cnnsidering. Luke adds here a detail which is peculiar tn him,
and which serves tn place the miraculnus phenomena which fnllnw in their true light.
At the time when Jesus, having been baptized, -went up out uf the water. He was in.
prayer. The extranrdinary mauifestatinns abnut to be related thus become God's
answer to the prayer ef Jesus, in which the sighs of His people and of mankind found
utterance. The earth is thirsty for the rain nf heaven. The Spirit will descend on
Him who knows how to ask it effectually ; and it will be His nfflce tn impart it tn aU
the rest. If, afterward, we hear Him saying (11 : 9), " Ask, and it shall be given
ynu ; seek, and ye shall find ; kueck, and it shall be npened tn ynu," we knnw frum
what personal experience He derived this precept : at the Jordan He Himself first
asked and received, sought and found, knocked and it was npened to Him.
The heavenly manifestation. Luke assigns these miraculous facts tn the dnmain
* Ver. 23. 54. B. D. L., uc instead ef uoei. 54. B. D. L. Itpi"iq"», omit XEyovaav.
D. It""'. Justin, aud seme nther Fathera, read, vioq pov ei av, eyu ayp,Epov yeyevvyita
ae, EV aoi, etc.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 119
of ubjective reality : tlie lieavens opened, tlie Spirit descended. Mark makes them a
persunal intuitinn nf Jesus :* " And cuming up nut nf the water. He saw the heavens
opened, and the Spirit descending" (1 : 10). Matthew cnrrespends with Mark ; for
Bleek is altogether wrong in maintaining that this evangelist makes the whnle scene a
visinn of John the Baptist. The text dees net allnw nf the twu verbs. He went up
and He aaw, which fnUnw each nther sn clusely (Malt. 3 : 16), having twu different
subjects. Bleek alleges the narrative nf the feurlh Goapel, where alau the furerun
ner speaks merely cf what lie saw himaelf. But that is natural ; for in that passage
hia ubject was, nut to relate the fact, but simply tu justify the teatimony which he
had just borne. Fnr this purpuse he cuuld nnly mentinn what he had seen himself.
Nu inference can be drawn frnm thia aa tn the fact itself, and its relatinn In Jesus,
the nther witness. Speaking generally, the scene nf the baptism dues nnt fall within
the horizon of the fourth Goapel, which starts frora a point of time six weeks after
this event took place. Keim has nn better ground than this fur asserting that the
accuunts 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 reality of the baptiam. -f The true relation ef these accounts to each other is this :
Accordiug to the fourth Gospel, John saw ; according to the flrst and second, Jesus
aaw. Now, as two persuns can hardly be under au haUucination at the same time
and in the same manner, this double perception supposes a reality, and this reality is
affirmed by Luke : And ii came to pass, tliat . . .
The divine manifestation comprises three internal facts, and three correspnnding
sensible phenomena. The three fnrmer are the divine communication itaelf ; the
three latter are the manifestation ef this communication to the consciousness ef Jesus
and ef John. Jesus was a true man, cunsisting, that is, at unce uf body and soul.
In order, therefere, tu take cumplete pussessinn uf Him, Gnd had tn speak at unce tn
His nutward and inward sense. As tn Jnhn, he shared, as an official witness of the
spiritual fact, the sensible impression which accompanied this cummunication from on
high to the mind nf Jesus. The first phennmenun is tlie opening of ilie lieavens. WhUe
Jesus is praying, with His eyes fixed on high, the vault of heaven is rent before His
gaze, and His glance penetrates the abode of eternal light. The spiritual fact con
tained under this sensible phenomenon is the perfect understanding accorded to Jesua
of God'a plan in the work ef salvation. The treasures ef divine wisdom are opened
to Him, and He may thenceforth obtain at any hour the particular enlightenment He
may need. The meaning of this firet phenomenon is therefore perfect revelation.
Prom the measureless heights ef heaven above, thus laid open to His gaze, Jesus
seen descend a luminous appearance, having the form of a dove. This emblem is taken
from a natural symbolism. The fertilizing and persevering incubation of the dove
is an admirable type of the life giving energy whereby the Hnly Spirit develops iu
the human snul the germs nf a new Ufe. It is in this way that the new creation,
depnaited with all its pnwers in the auul nf Jeaus, ia tu extend itaelf around Him,
under the influence uf this creative principle (Gen. 1 : ^. By the urganic furm
which invests the luminnus ray, the Hnly Spirit is here presented in its absnlute
totality. At Pentecost the Hnly Spirit appears under the fnrm nf divided {diapepi^o-
* Pur the meaning nf the authnr in this sentence, see the close of the paragraph.
By itself it might be inisunderalund. — J. H.
t " Gesch. Jesu," t. i. p. 535.

120 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
)iEvai) tongues of fire, emblems of special gifts, cf particular x'^P'^M'^ra, shared
among the disciples. But in the baptism nf Jesus it is nnt a portiun only, it is the
fulnesa of the Spirit which is given. This idea cuuld nnly be expressed by a symbol
taken frnm urganic life. Jnhn the Baptist understund this emblem: " Pur Gnd giveth
nut," he says (Juhn 3 : 34), " the Spirit by measure untn Him." The vibration of the
luminoua ray un thu head nf Jesus, like the fluttering of the wings of a dove, denotes
the permanence of the gift. " I saw," says Juhn the Baptist (Jnhn 1 ; 32), " the
Spirit descending frnm heaven like a dnve, and ii abode upon Him," This luminnus
appearance, then, represents an inspiratinn which is neither partial aa that nf the
faithful, nnr inlermilteut aa that nf the propheta — perfect inapiration. The third
¦phennmenun, that nf the divine voice, represents a still mnre intimate and persunal
communicatinn. Nnthing is a mure direct emanatinn frnm the personal life than
speech, the vnice. The vnice uf Gnd resnunds in the ear and heart nt Jesus, and
reveals tn Him all that He ia tu Gnd — the Being meat tenderly belnved, belnved as a
father's only son ; and consequently all that He is called to be to the werld— the organ
of divine love lo raen. He whose mission it ia tn raise His brethren tu the dignity nf
snns. Accnrding tu Luke, and probably Mark alsn (in conformity with the reading
admitted by Tischendorf), the divine declaration is addressed io Jesus : " Thou art
my Son . . ,; in Tliee lam . , ." In Matthew it has the form ef a testimony
addressed lo a third party touching Jesus : " This ia my Son . . . in whom,
. . " The first form ia that in which God apoke to Jesua ; the second, that in
which John became conaoioua of the divine manifeatatien. This difference attests
that the two accounts are derived from different sources, and that the writings in
which they are preaerved are independent ef each other. What writer would have
deliberately changed tlie form uf a saying which he attributed to Gud Himself ? The
prounuu oi. Thou, as well as the predicate dyarryTos, with the article, the well-
beloved, invest thia fliial relation with a character that is altogether unique; cump.
10 : 33. From thia mnment .Jesus must have felt Himaelf the aupreme ubject ut the
love ef the infinite God. Tbe unspeakable blessedness wilh which such an assurance
could not fail tu fill Him was the source uf the witneaa He bnre concerning Himaelf
— a witness borne not for His nwn glury, but with a view tn reveal tn the wurld the
Inve wherewith God loves those tn whnm He imparts such a gift. Frum this ranment
dales the birlh uf that unique consciousness Jesus had ut Gnd as Hia own Father — the
rising nf that radiant aun which hencefnrth iUuminatea His lite, and which aince
Penlecnst haa riaen upon mankind. Just as, by the instrumentality of His Word and
Spirit, God communicates to believers, when the hour has come, the certainty nf
their adoptinn, sn answering both inwardly and outwardly the praj'er nf Jesus, He
raises Him in Hia human cnnaciuusnesa to a sense ef His dignity aa the nnly-begutten
Son. It is nn the strength nf this revelatiun that .Jnhn, whn shared it, says after
ward, " The Father loveth ihe Son. and halh given all thinga intn His hands" (Juhn
3 : 35). The absence of the title Christ in the divine salutatinn is remarkable. We
see that the principal fact in the develupment nf the cunscinusneaa uf Jeaua was nut
the feeling uf His Measiajiic dignity, but nt His clnse and persunal rtlatinu wilh God
(cump. already 3 : 49), and nf His divine urigin. On that alnne was based His cnn
victinn ef His Mesaianic niissinn. The religinus fact waa first ; the nfficial part was
nnly ita cnrnllary. M. Rfenan has reversed this relatinn, and it is the capital defect nf
his work. The qunlatinu nf the wnrds nf Ps. 2, " To-day have Jbegoiien Tliee,"
which Jijatin introduces intu the divine salutation, is nnly supported by D. and some

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 131
MSS. of the Italic. It cnntrasta with the simplicity cf the narrative. God does not
quote Himaelf textually in thia- way ! The Caniabrigienaia swarms with similar
interpnlationa which have nut the slighteat critical value. It ia easy tu understand
hnw this quutatiuu, affixed at e.n early period as a marginal gInss, shnuld have fnund
its way into the text nf sume ducuments ; but it wnuld be difficult tn accnunt fur its
suppression in such a large number uf nthers, had it nriginally furmed part nf the
text. Justin furnishes, besides, in this very narrative nf the bapiism, several apuc
ryphal additinns.
By meana nf a perfect revelatiun, Jesus cuntemplates the plan nf God.^ Perfect
inspiration gives Him strength te realize it. Frum the cnnsciuusness ef His dignity
as Son He derives the assurance of His being the aupreme ambaaaadur nf God, called
to accomplish this task. These were the positive conditiuns nf His ministry.
THE BAPTISM OP JESUS.
We shall examine — lat. The baptism itself,; ^d. The marvellous circumstances
which accompanied it ; Zd. The different accounts of this fact.
1st. The Meaning of ihe Baptiam. — Here twu clusely connected questions present
themselves : What was the object of Jesus in seeking baptism ? What took place
within Him when the rite was performed ?
To the former question Strauss boldly replies : the^ baptism of Jesus was an
avowal nn His part nf defilement, and a means nf nbtaining divine pardnn. This
explanatinn cuntradicts all the declaratinns nf jeaus respecting Himself. If there is
any nne feature that marks His life, and cempletely separates it from all nthers, it is
the entire absence uf remnrse and ef the need nf persunal fnrgiveness. Accnrding tn
Schleiermacher, Jesus desired tn indurae the preaching nf John, and nbtain frnm him
cnnaecratinn tn Hia Meaaianic ministry. But there had been nu relatinn indicated
befnrehand between the baptiam nf water and the miaainn nf the Messiah, nur waa
any auch knnn-n tu tbe penple ; and aince baptiam was generally understund as a cnn-
feaainn nf defilement, it wuuld rather appear incnmpatible with this supreme theo
cratic dignity. Weizsacker, Keim, and nthers see iu it a persunal engagement nu'the
part nf Jeaua tn cnnaecrale Himself tn the aervice cf holiness. This is just the pre
vinus npininn shnrn nf tbe Messianic nutinu, since these writers shrink frnm attribut
ing tn Jesus thus early, a flxed idea nf His Messianic dignity. It is certain that bap
tism was a vnw nf mnral purity nn the part nf him whn submitted tn it. But the
furm nf the rite implies nnt nnly the notion nf progress in hnliness, but alsn that nf
the remnval nf actual defllement ; which is incnmpatible wilh the idea which these
authnrs have themselves tnrmed.ut the person of .Jesua. Lange sees in this act the
indication of Jesus' guiltless participation in the collective defilement uf mankind, by
virtue nf the snlidarity nt the race, and a vnluntary engagement tu deUver Himaelf
up tu death fnr the salvation uf the wnrld. This idea cnntaina substantially the truth.
We wnuld express it thua : In presenting Himself for baptism, Jesus had tu make, as
nthera did, Hia i^opoXoyyaic, Hia cnnfeaainn nf sins.* Of what sins, if nut uf
thnse uf His penple and nf the wnrld in general ? He placed befnre John a atriking
picture of them, nnt with that pride and acurn with which the Jews spuke ef the sins
* Matthew (3 : 6) and Mark (1:7): " And they were baptized by hini. in Jordan,
confesaing tlieir sins. ' '

122 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
of the heathen, and the Pharisees of the sins of the publicans, but with the humble
and compassionate tones of an Isaiah (chap. 63),- a Daniel (chap. 9), or a Nehe
miah (chap. 9, when they confessed the miseries of their peuple, as if the burden
were their nwn. He cuuld nnt have gune dnwn intn the water after such an act uf
cnmmuninn with nur misery, unless resnlved to give Himself up entirely tu the wnrk
nf putting an end tn the reign nf sin. But He did nut cuntent Himself with making
a vuw. He prayed, the text tells us ; He besnught Gnd fnr all that He needed fnr the
accumplishment cf this great task, to take away tlie sin of the world. He asked fnr
wisdum, fnr spiritual strength, and particularly fur the sulutiun of the mystery which
family recurds, the Scriptures, and His nwn hnliness had created abuut His peraon.
We can understand how Jnhn, after hearing Him confess and pray thus, shnuld say,
" Behnld the Lamb nf Gud, which taketh away the sin nf the wnrld !" This is what
Jesiis did by presenting Himself fnr baptism.
What tnnk place within Hira during the perfurmance nf the rite ? Accnrding tn
Schleiermacher, nuthing at all. He knew that He was the Messiah, and, by virtue
uf His previnus develupment. He already possessed every quallfieatinn fnr His wnrk.
Jnhn, His furerunner, was merely apprised nf his vucatinn, and rendered capable nf
pruclaiming it. Weizsacker, Keim, and nthers admit snmething mere. Jesus became
at thia tirae conscious of Hia redemptive missiun. It was nn the banka nf the Jnrdan
that the grand resolve was formed ; there Jesus felt Himself at unce the man nf Gnd-
and the man nf Hia age ; there Jnhn ailently ahared in His sulemn vuw ; and there
the " Gnd wills it" snunded" thrnugh these twn elect snuls.* Lastly, Gess and several
nthers think they must admit, besidea a cummunicatinn uf atrength frnm abnve, the
gift nf the Hnly Spirit, but snlely as a spirit ofministi'y, iu view nf the charge He was
abnut tn fulfil. These ideas, althnugh just, are insufflcient, Tbe texts are clear. If
Jeaus waa revealed tn Jnhn, it was becauae He was revealed tn Himaelf ; and this
revelatiun cnuld nnt have taken place withnut being accumpanied by a new gift.
Thia gift cnuld nnt refer to Hia wnrk simply ; fnr in an existence auch as Hia, in
which all was spirit and life, it was impnsaible te make a mechanical separation be
tween work and life. The exercise of the functions ef His offlce was an emanation
frnm His lite, and in some respects the atmnsphere ef His very persenalily. His
entrance upnn the duties of Hia nfflce must therefnre have cuincided with an advance
in the develupment nf Hia persunal Ufe. Dnea nut^lbe pnwer nf giving imply pus
sessinn iu a different sense frnm that which holds when this pnwer ia as yet unexer
cised ? Further, nur ducuments, accepting the humauit.y of Jeaua ranre thuroughly
than our boldest thenlugians, nverstep tbe bounds at which they stop. Accnrding tu
them, Jesus really received, nnt certainly as Cerinthus, guing beynnd the limits nf
truth, taught, a heavenly Christ whn came and united, Himself In him fur a time, but
the Holy Spirit, in the full meaning uf the term, by which Jesus becarae the Lurd's
anninted, the Christ, the perfect man, the secnnd Adam, capable uf begetting a new
spiritual humanity. This spirit nn longer acted on Him simply, un Hia will, aa it had
dune frnm the beginning ; it became Hia proper nature, Hia persunal life. Nn-men-
tiun is ever made uf the action of the Holy Spirit en Jeaus during the course nf His
ministry. Jesus was mure and better than inspired. Through the spirit whnse life
becarae His life, Gnd waa in Hira, and He in Gnd. In order tu His being completely
glorified as man, there remained but nne thing mnre, that Hia -earthly exiatence be
* See tbe, fine paaaage in Keim's " Gesch. Jesu," t, i. pp. 543-549.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 123
transfnrmed intn the divine state. His transflguratinn -was the prelude tn this trans-
fnrraatinn. In the develupment uf Jesus, the baptiam is therefure the intermediate
pnint between the miraculnus birth and the ascenaiuu.
But objections are raised againat this biblical nntiun nf the baptism uf Jesus. Keim
maintains that, since Jesus already pnssessed the Spirit through the diviue influence
which sanctifled Hia birth. He cuuld not receive it in Hia baptiam. But wuuld he
deny that, if there is nne act in human life which ia free, it ia the acquisilinn of the
Spirit ? The Spirit'a influence is tun much nf the nature nf teUnwship tu fnrce itself
nn any one. It must be desired and snught in nrder tu be received ; and fnr it tn be
desired and aeught, it muat be in some measure knnwn. Jesua declarea (Jnhn 14 : 17),
" that the wnrld cannut receive the Hnly Spirit, because it aeeth Him nnt, neither
knuweth Him. " The pnaseaaiun uf the Spirit cannnt therefure be the slartiog-pnint
nf mnral life ; it can unly be the term uf a mure nr less lengthened develupment nf
the suul's life. The human snul was created as the betrothed nf the Spirit ; and fer
the marriage tn be cunaummated, the snul rauat have beheld her heavenly spuuse, and
learned tn Inve Him and accept Hira freely. This state cf energetic and active recep
tivity, the cnnditinn uf every Pentecnat, waa that uf Jeaus at His baptism. It was
the fBuit uf Hia previnus pure develupment, which had simply been rendered posaible
b/the interpnsitinn nf the Hnly Spirit in Hia birth (p. 58).
Again, it ia said that it lessens the mnral greatness nf Jesus tn substitute a sudden
and magical illuminatinn, like that nf the baptism, fnr that free acriuisitinn nf the
Spirit — that apuntanenus diacuvery and cunquest nf self which are due snlely tn per
sunal endeavur. But when Gnd gives a snul the inward assurance nf aduptinn, and
reveals tn it, aa tn Jeaua at Hia baptism, the Inve He has fnr it, dnes this gift exclude
previnus endeavur, mnral struggles, even anguish nften bnrdering nn deapair ? Nn ;
sn far frnm grace excluding human preparatnry labnr, it wnuld remain barren with
nut it, just aa the human labnr wnuld issue in nntbing apart frnm the divine gift.
Every schnnlmaster has nbserved marked stages in the dovelnpraent uf children —
crises in which past growth has fnund an end, and frum which an entirely new era
haa taken ita date. There ia nnthing, therefnre, nut nf harmnny with the laws uf
paychnlngy in this apparently abrupt leap which the baptiam makes in the life nf
Jesus. 2d The Miraculoua Circumstances, — Keim denies them altogether. Everything in
the baptism, accurding tu him, resnlves itself intn a heroic decisiun nn the part nf
Jesus tu undertake the salvatinn uf the wurld. He alleges : 1. The numernus differ
ences between the narratives, particularly between that nf Jnhn and thnse nf the
Syn. Thia ubjectinn reals nn misapprehensiuns (aee abnve). 2. The legendary char
acter ef the prodigies related. But here one of two things must be true. Either our
narratives ef the baptiam are the reproduction of the original evangelical tradition
circulated by the apostlea (1 : 3), and repeated during many years under their eyes ;
and in this case, how could they contain statements positively falae? Or these
accuunts are legends nf later inventiun ; but if ao, hnw is their all but literal agree
ment tn be accuunted fer, and the well-deflued and flxed type which they exhitiit ?
8. The internal struggles nf Jesus and the duubts nf Jnhn the Baptist, mentinned in
the subsequent histnry, are nnt recnncUable wilh this aupernatural revelatiun, which,
according tn these accuunts, bnth must have received at the time nf the baptism.
But it is impnssible tu instance a aingle atruggle in the miniatry nt Jesus respecting
the reality uf Hia missinn ; it is tn pervert the meaning uf the cnuversation at Csesarea

124 COMMENTARY ON ST.. LUKE.
Philippi (see 9 : 18, et seq.), and ef the prayer in Gethaemane, to find such a meaning
in them. And as to the doubts ef John the Baptist, they certainly did nnt respect
ihe origin nf the missiun uf Jesus, since it is tu nunc nther than Jesus Himself that
Jnhn applies fur their snlutinn, but snlely tn the nature nf thia missinn. The unns-
tentatiuus and peaceful prugresa uf the wnrk nf Jesus, His miracles purely nf mercy
(" having heard of the worka of Christ," Mait. 11 : 3). cnntrasted sn fnrcibly with the
terrible Messianic judgment which he had annnunced as imminent (3 : 9, 17), that he
waa led tu ask himaelf whether, in accurdance with a prevalent upiniun uf Jewish
thenlugy,* Jesus was nut the messenger uf grace, the instrument uf salvatinn ; while
annther, a aecond {etepoq. Malt. 11 : 3), tn cume after Him, wnuld be the agent nf
divine judgment, and the tempnral resturer uf the peuple purified frnm every currup-
tinn. Juhn'a duubt therefnre reapecta, nut the divinity uf Jesus' missinn, but the
exclusive character nf His Meaaianic dignity. 4. It is aaked why Jnhn, if he believed
in Jesua, did not frnm the hnur uf the bapiism immediately take his place amnng
Hia adherents ? But had he nnt a permanent duty tn fulfll in regard tn larael ? Was
he net tu continue tu act as a mediating agent between this penple and Jesus ? Tn
abandon his special pnsitiun, distinct as it was frnm that of Jesus, in order to rank
himself among His disciples, would have been to desert his official post, and to ceaae
to be a mediator for Israel between them and their King.
We cannut imagine fur a mnment, especially Innking at the matter frnm a Jewish
pnint nf view, according to which every hely mission proceeds from above, that Jesus
would determine to undertake the unheard-of task ef the salvation et the werld and
of the deatructinn nf sin and death, aud that Jehu could share this determination,' and
proclaim it in God's name a heavenly mission, without sume pusitive sign, snme sen
sible manifestation nf the divine will. Jesus, says Keim, is nnt a man uf viaiuns ; He
needs no such signs ; there isnn need nf a dnve between Gnd and Him. Has Keim,
then, furgntten tbe real humanity ef Jesus ? That there were no visions during the
course of His ministry, we cuncede ; there was nn room fur ecstasy in a man whnse
inward lite was hencefnrth that uf the Spirit Himaelf. But that there had been nnne
in Hia preceding life up tn the very threahnld nf thia new atate, is mere than any oue
can assert. Jesua lived over again, if we may venture to say se, the whole life of
humanity aud the whule life nf larael, au far as these twn lives were nf a nnrmal
character ; and Ibis waa hnw it waa that He an well understnud them. Why shnuld
nnt the preparatnry educational method of which God made such frequent uae under
the old cnvenant — the viainn — have had its place in His inward develupment, befnre
He reached, physicaUy and spiritually, the stature nf complete manhnnd ?
3cZ. The Narratives of ihe Baptiam. — Befure we prunnunce an npininn nn the nrigin
nf uur synnptical narratives, it is impnrtant tu cnmpare the apucryphal narratinns.
In the " Gnapel nf the Nazarenes," which Jerome had translated,! the mnther and
brethren uf Jesus invite Him tn gn and be baptized by Jnhn. He answers : " Wherein
have I sinned, and why shnuld I "gn tn be baptized by him — unless, perhaps, this
speech which I have just uttered be [a sin nf] ignurance?" Afterward, a heavenly
vnice addresses theae wurda tn Him : " My Son,, iu all the propheta I have waited for
Thy coming, in order to take my reat in Thee : for it is Theu whn aft my rest ;
Thnu art my flrst-bnrn Sun, and Thnu shalt reign eternally." In the Preaching of
* See my " Cnmmentary nn the Gospel of John," i. p, 311.
t "Adv. Pet. "iii. 1.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 123
Paul,* Jesus actually cunfesses His ains to Jnhn the Baptist, just as all the ethers.
In the Ebionitish recension of the Gospel of the Hebrewa, cited by Epiphanius. -f- a
great light surrounds the place where Jesus has just been baptized : then the plenti-
tude of the Holy Spirit enters into Jesus under the furm of a dove, and a divine voice
says tu Him, " Thou art my well-beloved Son ; en Thee I have beatowed my good
pleasure." It resumes : " To-day have I begotten Thee." In this Gnspel. alsn, the
dialuguB between Jesus and Juhn, which Matthew relates befure the baptism, is placed
after it. Jnhn, after having seen the miraculnus signs, says tn Jeaua, " Whn then art
Thnu?" The divine vnice replies, "This is my belnved Snn, nn whnm I have
hestnwed my gund pleasure." Jnhn falls at His feet, and says tn Him, "Baptize
me!" and Jesus answers him, " Ceaae frnm that." Juatin Martyr relatea,j: that
wheu Jeaus had gune duwn intn the water, a fire blazed up in the Jurdan ; next, that
when He came nut uf the water, the Hnly Spirit, like a dnve, deacended upon Him ;
lastly, that when He had ascended frum the river, the vnioe said tn Him, " Thnu art
my Snn ; fn-day have I begutten Thee." Whn caunct feel the difference between
prodigies nf this kind —between these theulugical and amplified discnurses attributed
tn Gud^ — and the hnly subriety uf nur biblical narratives ? The latter are the text ;
the apucryphal writings give the human paraphrase. The cumparisnn uf these twn
kinds of narrative pruves that the type nf the apustnlic traditinn has been preserved
pure as the impress nf a medal, in tbe cummun tenur of nur synnptical narratives.
As tn the difference between these narratives, they are nut withnut impurtance. The
principal differences are these : Matthew haa, nver and abnve the twn nthers, the
dialngue between Jesua and Juhn -which preceded tbe baptism, and which was unly
a cnntiuuatiun uf the act nf cnnfessinn which Jesus had just made. The Ebionite
Gnspel places-it after, becauae it did nnt understand this cnnnectiun. The prayer o'l
Jesus is peculiar te Luke, and he ditt'era frum the uther twn in the remarkable turn
nf the participle applied tn the fact uf the baptism nf Jesua, and in the mnre ubjective
fnrm in which the miraculnus facts are mentinned. Slark differs frnm the nthers nnly
in the fnrm nf certain phrases, and in the expressinn, " He saw the heavens upen."
Hnltzmann derives the accuunts cf Matthew and Luke from that of the alleged origi
nal Mark, which was very nearly an exacts fac-simUe of our canonical Mark. But
whence did the other twu derive what is peculiar te them ? Nut frnm their iraagina-
tinn, fnr an earnest writer dnes not treat a subject v/hich he regards as sacred in thia
way. Either, then, from a document or from tradition ? But this document er tra
dition could net, contain merely the detail pecuUar te each evangeliat ; the detail
impliea the cemplete narrative. If the evangeliat drew the detail from it, he moat
probably took from it the narrative also. Whence it aeems to us to follow, that at
the basis ef our Syn. we must place certain documents or eral narrations, emanating
frnm the primitive tradition (in this way their cummun general tenur is explained),
but differing in sume details, either because in the eral tradition the secondary feat-
u^es of the narrative naturally^ underwent some modification, or because the private
documents underwent sume altcratinns, nwing tn additiunal nral infurmatinn, or tu
writings which raight be accessible. I
* See " De rebaptismate, " in the wnrks uf C3'-prian. Grabe, " Spicil." t. i. p. 69.
t " Ha!r." XXX. 13. I " Dial, c. Tryph." c. 88 aud 103,

126 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

THIRD NARRATIVB.— 3 : 33-38
The Genealogy of Jeaus.
In the first Guspel the genealngy nf Jesus is placed at the very beginning nf the
narrative. Thia is easily explained. Frnm the pnint ef view indicated by theocratic
forma, acriptural antecedents, and, if we may so expreaa it, Jewish etiquette, the
Measiah was to be a descendant of David and Abraham (Matt. 1 : 1). This relation
ahip waa the sine qua non of His civil atatua. It ia not su easy to understand why
Luke thought he muat give the genealogy nf Jeaus, aud why he places it justrhere,
between the baptiam and the temptiilinn. Perhaps, if we bear in mind the obscurity
in which, tn the Greeka. the nrigin nf mankind was hidden, and the absurd fablea
current amung them about auiochthonie nationa, we shall see how interesting any
dncument wnuld be tn them, which, fnUnwing the track ef actual names, went back
to the first father of the race. Luke's intention -would thus be very nearly the same
as Paul's when he said at Athena (Acts 17 : 36), " Gud hath made uf une'blnud the
whnle human race " But from a strictly religinus puint nf view, this genealngy pns
sessed still greater impurtance. In carrying it back nnt unly, as Matthew dnes, as
tar as Abraham, but even to Adam, Luke lays the fnundatinn nf that universality uf
redemptinn which ia tn be nne nf the characteristic features uf the picture he is abnut
tu draw. In this way he places in clese and indissnluble connectinn the imperfect
image of God created in Adam, which reappears in every man, and Hia perfect image
realized in Christ, which is to be reproduced in all men.
But why does Luke place this document here? Hnltzmann replies (p. 113),
" becauae hithertn there had been nn suitable place fnr it. " This answer harmunizes
very well with the prucesa nf fabrication, by means uf which this scholar thinks the
cumpusitinn uf the Syn. may be accuunted for. But why did this particular place
appear mure suitable tu the evangelist than annther ? This is what has tn be
explained. Luke himself puts us en the right track by the first words uf ver. 33.
By givin.g prominence tn the persen uf Jesus in the use nf the prunnun avrds. He,
-v\-hich cpens the sentence, by the additinn nf the name Jeaus, and abuve all, by the
verb yv which separates this pronoun and this substantive, and sets them both iu
reiiet {" and Himself was. He, Jeaus . . ."), Luke indicatea this as the moment
when Jesua enters personally nn the scene tn cummence Hia prnper wnrk. With
the baptism, the nbscurity in which He has lived until nuw passes away ; He nnw
appears detaciied from the circle of persons whn have hithertn surrounded Him and
acted as Hia patrnna — namely. His parents and the furerunner. He hencefurlh
hecomes the He, the x)rincipal persenage nf the n.arrative. Thia ia the mnment which
very properly appeara tu the authnr mnst suitable fnr giving His genealngy. The
genealogy of Moses, iu the Exodus, is placed in the same way, not at the opening of
his biography, but at the moment -when he appears on the stage uf histury, -when he
prcsenla himself befnre Pharaoh "(6 : 14, ei aeq.). In crossing the "threshold ef this
new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance ever the period which thus reaches
its clnse, and sums it up in this dncument, which might- be called the mnrtuary regis
ter nf the earlier humanity.
There is further a difference nf fnrm between the twn genealngies. Matthew cnmes
duwn, while Luke ascends the stream cf generatinna, Perhapa thia difference nf
methnd depends un the difference nf religinus pnsitiun between the Jews and the
Greeks. The Jew, finding the basis of his thuught in a revelatiun, proceeds synthet-

firiP" COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 127
ically frnm cause tn effect ; the Greek, pnssesaing nnthing beynnd the fact, analyzea
it, that he may proceed frnm effect tn cauae. But thia difference dependa mere
probably still un another circumstance. Every ufflcial genealogical register must
present the descending fnrm ; for iudividuals are nnly inscribed in it as they are burn.
The ascending furm nf genealngy can nnly be that uf a private instrument, drawn
up from the public dncument wilh a view tn the particular individual whose name
serves as the starting-pnint nf the whnle list. It fnllnws that in Matthew we have
the exact copy uf the ufflcial register ; while Luke gives us a dncument extracted
from the public recurds, and cnmpiled with a view tn the persen wilh whom the
genealogy commences.
Ver. 33 is at once the transition and preamble ; vers. 34-38 cnntain the genealogy
itself. 1st. Ver. 33.* The exact translation ef this important and difflcult veise is
this: "And Himself, Jesus, waa [aged] about thirty years when He began [or, if
the term may be employed here, m'ade His debzii], being a son. as was believed, 'of
Joseph." The expreaainn io begin can nnly refer in thia pasaage In the entrance nf
Jeaus upnn His Meaaianic wnrk. Thia idea ia in direct connectiun wilh the cnntext
(baptiam, teraptation), and particularly with the firat words of the verae. Having
f ully become He, Jesus begins. We must take care uot lo connect dpxdpevos and yv
as parts of a single verb {waa beginning for began), Por i/v has a comptfement of its
own, of thirty yeara ; it therefore signifles here, was of the age of, Sorae have tried
to ma^e TpiaKovra ETuv depend on apxo/ievoS, He began Hia thirlieih year; and it ia
perhaps nwing tn this, interpretation that we find this participle placed firat in the
Alex. But for thia aenae, rpiaKoarov etovS wuuld have been neceaaary ; and the limita-
tinn about cannnt have reference tu the commencement of the year. (On the agreement
uf this chrnnnlngical fact with the dale, ver. 1, aee p. 106). We have already
observed that the age of thirty is that ef the greatest physical and psychical strength,
the uKiiy of natural life. It was the age at which, among the Jews, the Levites
entered upen their duties (Num. 4 : 3, 23), and when, among the Greeka, a ynung
man began tn take part in public affairs, f The participle uv, being, makea a strange
impreasicn, nut nnly because it is purely and aimply in juxlapnsilion with dpxupEvoS
{beginning, being), and depends on yv, the very verb uf which it is a part, but still
mnre because its cunnectinn wilh the latter verb cannot be explained by any nf the
three Ingical relatinna by which a piirticiple is cunnected with a completed verb,
when, becauae, or although. What relation of simultaneouaness, causality, or nppusi
tion, could there be between the filiation nf Jesus and the age at which He had
arrived ? 'This i;icnherence is a clear indicatinn that the evangelist has with aome
difficulty effected a soldering of two documents— that which he has hitherie followed,
and which for the moraent he abandons, and the genealogical register which he
wishes to insert in this place.
With the participle uv, being, there begins then a transition which we owe tn the
pen of Luke. Hnw far dnes it extend, and where Ones the genealugical regi.^ier
prnperly begin ? This is a nice and impnrtant questiun. We have nnly a hint fnr
¦* 54. B. L. X. sume Mnn. It"''"!. Or. place apxopsvog befcre uaei eruv rpiaKovra,
while "T. R., with all the rest uf the ducuments, place it after these words. 64. B. L.
some Mnn. read in thia order : uv vios uS Ei'opi^ero \oayiji, instead of up uf evo/iiCeto
vios Iuay<ti in T. R. and the other authorities. H. r. (not B.) some Mnn. add rov
befure laay(ti.
f See the two pasaages from Xennpbun (" Memnr." 1) and frnm Diunysius of
Halicarnassua (" Hist." iv. 6), cited by Wieseler, Beitrage, etc., pp. 165, 168.

128 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
its sulutiun. This is the absence nf the article -oD, the, befnre the name Joaeph. This
wnrd is fnund befnre all the names belnnging tn the genealngical series. In the
genealogy of Matthew, tbe article rov is put in the same way before each proper name,
which clearly proves that it waa the ordinary form in vogue in this kind uf dncument.
The twu MSS. H. and I. read, it ia true, tov befnre 'lacyi. But aince theae unimpur-
tant MSS. are unaupperted by their aUy the Vatican, tn which furmerly the same
reading was errnneeusly attributed (see Tischend. Sth ed.), this various reading has
no longer any weight. Ou the one hand, it is easily explained as an imitation of
the following terms of the genealogy; en the ether, we could not conceive ef the
suppression of the article in all the mnst ancient ducuments, if it had originally
belonged tn the text. This want nf the article puts the name Juaeph uutaide the
genealugical aeriea properly sn called, and assigns tn it a peculiar pnsitiun. We muat
cunclude frum it— 1st. That thia name belnnga rather tn the sentence introduced by
Luke ; 2d. That the genealugical dncument which he cnnaulled began with the name
nf Heli ; Sd. And cnnsequenlly, that this piece was nnt nriginally the genealngy nf
Jesus nr of Joaeph, but of Heli.
There is a second question to determine : whether we should prefer the Alexan
drine reading, " being a son, as it was helieved, of Joseph ;" or the Byzantine text,
" being, a* it was believed, a, sun uf Jnseph." There is iuteroal probability that the
cup'yists wuuld rather have been drawn tn cnnnect the wurda aon and Joseph, in nrder
tn restnre the phraae frequently empleyed in the Gospels, son of Joaeph, than to
separate them. Thia observation appeara to decide for the Alexandrine text.
It is et importance next to determine the exact meaning of the tov which precedea
each of the genealogical names. Thus far we have supposed this word to be the
article, and this is the natural interpretation. But we might give it the force of a
pronoun, he, the one, and translate : " -Joseph, lie [the sen] ef Heli ; Heli, he [the sen]
of Matthat," etc. Thus understood, the to-v would each time be in apposition with
the preceding name, and would have the following name fer its complement. But
this explanation cannot be maintained ; for — 1st. It cannet be appUed te the last term
TOV Oeov, in which roi is evidently an article ; 2d. Tlie recurrence of rdv in the gene
alogy ef Alallhew pruves that ihe article belonged to the terminology of these docu
ments ; Bd. The rov thua understood would imply an intention to dialinguish the
individual le which it refers from some other^erson bearing the same name, but not
having the same father, " Heli, ihe one nf Matthat [aud nut one of another father] ;"
which could not be the design of the genealngist. The tov is therefore undnubtedly
an article. But, admitting this, we may still hesitate between twn interpretatiuns ;
we may subordinate each genitive tn the preceding name, as ia crdinarUy dune :
" Heli, son nf Matthat, [which Matthat was a aon] nf Levi, [whicli Levi was a sun]
nt . . . ;" nr, as Wieseler prepnsed, we may co-ordinate all the genitives, sn
aa tn make each nf them depeud directly un the wnrd son placed at the head nf the
entire series: "Jesus, son nf Heli; [.Jesus, son] nf Matthat . . ." So that,
according tu the Jewish usage, which permitted a grandson to be called the son nf hia
grandfather, Jesus wnuld be caUed the sun uf each nt His ancestors in succession.
This interpretatinn wnuld nnt be, in itself, se fnrced as Bleek maintains. But never
thelesa the fnrmer is preferable, fer it alnne really expreaaes the nnlion ef a succession
of generations, which is the ruling idea ut every genealogy. The genitives in Luke
merely supply- the place of iyevvyae, as repeated in the original document, of -which
Matthew gives us the text. Beside's, we do not think that it wnuld be necessary tn

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 129
supply, between each link in the genealngical chain, the term viov, aon of, aa an appn
sitinn nf the preceding name. Each genitive is alsn tlie cnmplement nf the name
which precedes it. The idea uf filialiun resides in the grammatical case. We have
the genitive here in its essence.
There remains, lastly, the still mnre impnrtant questinn : On what does the geni
tive TOV 'HXi {of Heli) precisely depend ? On the name 'Iuay<j> which iramediately pre
cedes it? This wnuld be in cnnfurmity with the analngy nf all the nther genitives,
which, as we have just pruved, depeud each nn the preceding uame. Thua Heli
wuuld have been the father nf Juaeph, and the genealngy nf Luke, aa well aa thai of
Matthew, wuuld be the genealngy uf Jesus thrnugh Jnseph. In that case we should
have tn explain hnw the two ducuments cnuld be sn tutally different. But this view,
is incnmpatible with the absence uf the'article befure Joseph. If the name 'Iuaij:p had
been intended by Luke tn be the baais nf the entire genealugical series, it wnuld have
heen fixed and determined by the article with much greater reaaun certainly than the
names that f oUew. The genitive tov 'HXi, of Heli, dependa therefore not on Joseph,
but en the word son. This construction is not posaible, it is true, with the received
reading, in which the words aon and Joseph form a single phrase, son of Joaeph. The
wurd aon cannnt be separated frum the wnrd it immediately gnverna : Joaeph, tn
receive a secnnd and mnre distant cumplement. With thia reading, the unly thing
left tn us is tu make tov 'HXi depend nn the participle uv : " Jesua . . . being
. . . [bnrn] nf Heli." An antithesis might be fnund between the real fact {uv,
being) and the apparent {ivopiZsro, aa was thought) : " being, as was thuught, a snu nf
Juaeph, [in reality] bnrn uf Heli." But can the wurd uv signify bnth to be (in the
sense nf the verb substantive) and to be born of? Everything becnmes much mnre
aimple if we assume the Alex, reading, which on other grounds haa already appeared
te us the mere probable. The word aon, separated aa it ia from its first complement,
of Joseph, by the words aa was thought, may very well have a second, of Heli. The
first is unly nuticed in pasaing, and in nrder tn be denied in the very mention nf it :
" Sun, as was thuught, uf Jnseph." The nfficial infurmatinn being thus disavnwed,
Luke, by means uf the secnnd cnmplement, substitutes fur it the truth, of Heli ; and
this name he distinguishes, by meaus of the article, as the first link nf the genealngical
chain properly sn called. The text, therefnre, tn express the authnr's meaning
clearly, should he written thus : " being a son -.-as was thought, nf Joseph — of Heli,
nf Matthat . . ." Bleek has put the wnrds dig ivopi^ero intn a parenthesis, and
rightly ; nnly he shnuld have added tn them the wurd 'laayf.
This study uf the text in detail leads us in this way tu admit — 1. That the genea
logical register nf Luke is that nf Heli, the grandfather nf Jesus ; 2. That, this affili
ation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the docu
ment which he haa preserved fer us can be nothing elae in his view than the gene
alogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pasa
immediately from Jesus to His grandfather ? Ancient sentiment did net comport
with the mention of the mother aa the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man
waa the son of his father, not nf his mnther ; and amnng the Jewa the adage was :
" Genua mairis non nocatur genus" {" Baba bathra," 110, a). In lieu nf thia, it is not
uncommon to flnd in the O. T. the grandson called the sen of his grandfather.-*-
* Comp. for example, 1 Chron. 8 : 3 with Gen. 46 : 21 ; Ezra 5 : 1, 6 : 14, with
Zech. 1 : 1, 7 ; and in the N. T., Matt. 1 : 8 with 1 Chrnn. 4 : 11, 12— a passage in
which King Jnram is even recorded as having begotten the son ef his grandson.

130 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
If there were any circumstances in which this usage was applicable, wnuld nnt
the whnlly exceptiunal caae with which Luke waa dealing be auch ? There was
only one way of filling up the hiatua, resulting from the absence of the father,
between the grandfather and his grandson— namely, tu intrnduce the name uf the
presumed father, nuting at the same time the falseness uf this npininn. It is remark
able that, in the Talmud, Mary the mnther uf Jesus ia called ihe daughter of Heli
{" Cliagig." 77 : 4). From whence have Jewish achnlars derived this intuimatinn? If
frnm the text nf Luke, this proves that they understend it as we dn ; if they
received it from tradition, it confirms the truth 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 genealog.y nf Jnseph. The difficulties to be encuuntered in this direction
are these : 1. I'he abaence nf toS befnre the name 'loaji^, and before this name alnne,
is nnt accuunted fnr. 3. We are met by an all but insnluble cuntiadiclion between
the twn evangelists — the nne indicating Heli as the father nf Juseph, the nther Jacob
— which leads to two series of names wholly different. We might, it is true, have
recnurse te the following hypothesis proposed by Julius Africanus (third century) : f
Heli and Jacob were brothers ; one of them died without children ; the survivor, in
conformity wilh the law, married his widow, and the first-born of this union, Joseph,
was registered as a son of the deceased. In this way Joseph would have bad two
fathers — one real, the other legal. But this hypothesis is nut sufficient ; a second is
needed. For if Heli and Jacob were brothers, they must have had Ihe same father ;
and the two genealogies should coincide nn reaching the name ef the grandfather of
Joseph, which ia not the case. It ia supposed, theiefore, that tbey were brothers on
the mother's side only, which explains bnth the difference nf the fathers and that of
the entire genealogies. This superstructure of coincidences is not absolutely inad
missible, but nn nne can think it natural. We should be reduced, then, lo admit an
abaolule contradiction between the two evangelists. But can it be supposed that both
or either nf them could have been capable of fabricating such a regialer, heaping
name upon name quite arbitrarUy, and at the mere pleasure of their caprice ? 'W'ho
could credit a prnceeding sn absurd, and that in twn genealngies, one of which sets
out from Abraham, the venerated ancestor of the people, the other terminating in
God Himself I All these names must have heen taken from documenta. But ia it
possible in this case lo admit, in one or both ef these writers, an entire mistake?
3. It is not only with Matthew that Luke wnuld be in contradiction, but wilh him
self. He admits the miraculous birth (chap. 1 and 2). It is conceivable that, from
the theocratic puint nf view which Matthew takes, a certain interest might, even nn
this auppnaitinn, be assigned tn the genealogy nf Jnseph, as the aduptive, legal father
nf the Measiah. But that Luke, tn whnm thia ufflcial point ef view was altogether
fureign, shuuld have handed down with sn much care this aeries nf seventy-three
names, after having severed the chain at the first link, as he dues by the remark, as
it was tlwught ; that, further, he shnuld give himself the trouble, after this, to de
velop the entire series, and finish at last with God Himself ; this is a moral impos
sibility. What sensible man, Gfrorer has very prnperly asked (with a different de
sign, it is true), could take pleasure in drawing up such a list cf ancestnra, after hav
ing declared that tbe relatieuship ia destitute nf all reality ? Mudern criticism has,
laatuf all, been diiven tn the following hypothesia : Matthew and Luke each found a
genealogy ot Jesus written trom the Jewish-Christian standpoint ; they were both
different genealogies of Joseph ; for among this party (which was ne other than the
primitive Church) he was without hesitation regarded as the father nf Jesus. But at
the lime when these ducuments were published by the evangelists another theury
already prevailed, that nf the miraculnus birth, which theae twn authora embraced.
They published, therefnre, their ducuments, adapting them aa beat they could to the
* The relationship of Jeaus to the royal family is also affirmed by the Talmud
("Tr. Sanhedrim," 43).
t Eus. "Hist. Eccl."i. 7.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 131
new belief, just aa Luke does by his as it was thought, aud Matthew by the periphrasis
1 :.!'>_• , But, 1. We have pointed out that the opinion which attributes to the
primitive apostolic Churc-h the idea of the natural birth of Jesus reals upnn nn solid
fiiundation. 3. A writer who speaks nf apustnlic tradition as Luke speaka nf it, 1 : 3,
could not have kunwingly- put himself in nppnsitinn tn it nn a point ot this impur
tance. 3. If we advance uu claim en behalf of the sacred writers tu inspiratiun, we
pretest against whatever impeaches their gund sense. The first evangelist, M.
Reville maintains,* did not even perceive the incompatibUity between the theury nf
the miraculuus birth and his genealogical dncument. As to Luke, this sarae authnr
says : " The third perceives very clearly the contradiction ; neveilheless he writes his
history aa if it did not exist." In other worda, Mallhew ia mnre fnnliah than falae,
Luke more false than fooliah. Criticism which ia nbliged tn suppurt itaelf by attribut
ing lo the sacred writers absurd methods, auch as are fnund in un senaible writer, is
self-cnndemned. There is nnt the smallest prunf that the ducuments uaed by Mat
thew and Luke were ut Jewiah-Chiistian urigin. On the cnnlrary, it is very prnb
able, since the facts all gn to establish it, that they were simply copies ot the
official registers nf the public tables (see below), referring, one In Joseph, the uther
tn Heli, bnth ccnsequently nf Jewish nrigin. So far frum there being any grnund
to regard them as monumeuts nf a Christian cunception, differing from that of the
evangelista, it is these authors, ur thnse whn transmitted them tn tnem, who aet upon
them for the flrat lime the Christian seal, bj' adding to them the part which refers te
Jesus. 4. Lastly, after all, these two series of completely different names have in
any caae to be explained. Are they fictitious ? Who can maiutain thia, when writera
ao evidently in earnest are concerned ? Are they founded upon docuraenta ? How
then could they differ ao completely ? This ditficulty becomes greater still if it is
maintained that theae two diiferent genealngies ef JosexJh proceed from the same
ecclesiastical quarter — from the Jewish-Christian party.
But have we sufficient pronfs nf the existence of genealogical registers among the
Jewa at this epoch ? We have already referred tn the public tables {diXroi dyphaiai)
frnm -which .Tusephua had extracted- hia nwn genealngy : "I relate my genealogy aa
I find it recnrded in the public tablea. " f The aame Jnsephus, in his work, " Centra
Apinn" (i. 7), says: "From all the cnuntries in which nur priests are scattered
abroad, they send tn Jerusalem (in nrder tu have their children entered) documents
containing the names of their parenta and anceatora, and counteraigned by wit
nesses." What was done fnr the priestly families cnuld nnt fail tn have been dune
with regard to the royal family, frum which it was knnwn that the Messiah was tn
spring. The same cnnclusinn results alsn from the fnllnwiug facts. The famnus
Rabbi Hillel, whn lived in the time nf .Jesus, succeeded in proving, by means nf a
genealngical table in existence at Jerusalem,-that, althnugh a pnur mau, he was a
descendant nf David.J The line nf descent iu the dift'erent branches nt the royal
family waa so well knuwn that even at the end uf the first century of the Church the
grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, had to appear at Rume aa deacendanta
ef David, and undergo examination in the presence uf Domitian.g According tn
these facts, the existence nf twn genealugical documents relating, nne tn Juseph, the
nther tn Heli, and preaerved in their respective famUiea, nflera abanlutely nnthing at
all improbable.In cnmparing the twn narrativea uf the infancy, we have been led tn aasign them lo
twn different suurces : that uf Matthew appeared tn us tn emanate frnm the relations of
Joseph ; that nf Luke from the circle nf which Mary was the centre (p. 163). Some
thing similar nccurs again in regard tn the twu genealngies. That nf Matthew,
which bus Juseph in view, muat have proceeded from hia family ; that which Luke has
transmitted lo ua, being that nf Mary's father, muat have cnme frum this latter quarter.
But it is manifest that this difference cf pruductinn is cunnected with a mnral cause.
The meaning nf une nf the genealugiea ia certainly hereditary. Messianic ; tho mean
ing nf the uther is universal redemplien. Hence, iu the nne, the relatinnship ia
thrnugh Juaeph, the repreaent-ative nt the civU, natinnal, thencratic side ; in the other,
* " Hiatoire du Dngme de la Divinite de Jesus Chriat," p. 27.
\ Jns. " Vita," c. i. X " Bereschit rabba," 98,
^ Hegesippus, in Eusebius' " Hist. Eccl." iii. 19 and 80 (ed. Lcemmer),

132 ' COMMENTARY OK ST. LUKE.
the descent is through Mary, the organ nf the real human relatinnship. Was nnt
Jesus at nnce tc appear and to be the son of David ?— to appear such, through him
whom the people regarded as Hia father ; to be such, through her from whnm He
really derived His human exiatence ? The twn affiliaiiqns answered tn these twn re
quirements. Second. Vers. 34^38.* And first, vers. 34-37 : frnm Heli tu the captivity. In
this perind Luke menlinna 31 generatinns (up tn Neri) ; unly 19, if the varinus read
ing nf Africanus be admitted ; Matthew, 14. This last number is evidently tun small
fnr the length nf the perind. As Matthew umits in the perind nf the kinga fnur weU-
knuwn names nf the O. T., it ia prnbable that he takes the sarae cnurae here, either
thrnugh an invuluntary nmiaaiiin, nr for the sake uf keeping tn the number 14 (1 : 17).
This cumparison should make us appreciate the exactness nf Luke's register. But
hnw is it that the names Zurobabel and Salathiel uccur, cunnected with each ether
in the same way, in both the genealngies ? And hnw can Salathiel have Neri fur hia
father iu Luke, and in Matthew King Jechnniaa ? Shnuld theae names be regarded
aa standing fnr different persuns, as Wieseler thinks ? This is nut impossible. The
Zurobabel and the Salathiel nf Luke might be twn unknnwn persuns nf the ubacurer
branch nf the rnyal family descended frnm Nathan ; the Zurobabel and tbe Salathiel
nf Mallhew, the twn well-kunwn persuns nf the O. T. histnry, belnngin.g tu the reign
ing branch, tbe first a snn, the secnnd a grandsun nf King JechuniaS (1 Chrnn. 3 : 17);
Ezra 3:3; Hag. 1 : 1). This is the view which, after all, appears tu Bleek must prob
able. It is upen, hnwever, tn a serinus ubjectinn frnm the fact that these twu names,
in the twn lists, refer sn exactly tu the same period, since in both of them they are
very nearly half way between Jesus and David. If the identity of these persons in
the two genealogies is admitted, the explanation must be found in 2 Kings 24 : 13,
which proves that King Jechnniaa had nn snn at the time when he was carried intn
captivity. It ia scarcely prnbable that he had one while in prison, where he remained
shut up for thirty-eight years. He er they whom the passage 1 Chron. 3 : 17 assigns
to him (which, besidea, may be translated in ihree different waya) must be regarded
aa adopted snns nr as suns-in-law ; they wnuld be spuken nf aa suns, because they
wnuld be unwilling tn allnw the reigning branch nf the royal family tn becume ex
tinct. Salathiel, the first nf them, wnuld thus have aume uther father than Jechnnias ;
and this father wnuld be Neri, ef the Nathan branch, indicated by Luke. An alter
native hypothesia haa been proposed, fnunded nn the Levirale law. Neri, as a rel
ative uf Jechnniaa, might have married cue nf the wives uf the imprisnned king, in
nrder tn perpetuate the rnyal family ; and the son nf this uninn, Salathiel, wnuld have
been legally a son of Jechonias, but really a son of Neri. In any case, the numerous
differences that are found in the statements of our histurical bnuks at this perind
prove that tbe cataatrnphe nf the captivity brought cunsiderable cenfuainn intn the reg
isters nr family traditions. -f Rhesa and Abiud, put duwn, the nne by Luke, the ether
* We emit tbe numernus urthngraphica! variatinns cunnected with these pruper
names. Ver. 34. Jul. Afric. Eus. Ir. (prnbably) nmit the twn names Ma98ae and
Atvei. f Accnrding to 1 Chron. 3 : 16, 3 Chron. 36 : 10 (Heb. text), Zedekiah was son ef
Jeheiakim and brother nf Jehniachin ; but, accnrding te 3 Kings 24 : 17 and Jer.
37 ; 1, he waa sun ef Josiah and brother of Jeheiakim. According tn 1 Chrnn. 3 : 19,
Zornbahel was snn of Pedaiah and grandann nf Jeccniah, and consequently nephew
of Salathiel ; while, accnrding tn Ezra 3 : 3, Neh. 13 1, Hag. 1 : 1, he -was sun nf
Salathiel, etc.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 133
by Matthew, as snns nf Zurobabel, are nnt mentinned in tbe O. T., accnrding tu which
the snns nf this resturer nf Israel shuuld have been Meahullamand Hananiah (1 Chrnn.
3 : 19). Bleek ubaerves, that if the evangelists had fabricated their liats, they wnuld
naturally have made uae nf theae twn names that are f urniahed by the sacred text ;
therefnre they have fnUnwed their ducuments.
Vers. 28-31. Frnm the captivity tn David, 20 names. Matthew fur the same
, perind has nnly 14. But it is pruved by the O. T. that he umits fnur ; the number
20, in Luke, is a fresh prunf nf the accuracy cf his ducument. On Nathan, snn nf
David, cump. 3 Sara. 5 : 14, Zech. 12 : 12. The passage iu Zechariah prnves that this
branch was still flnuriahing after the return from the captivity. If Neri, the de
scendant nf Nathan, was the real father nf Salathiel, the adnpted snn nr sun-in-law nf
Jechnnias, we shnuld find here nnce mure the characteriatic uf the twn genealngies :
in Matthew, the legal, ufflcial pnint nf view ; in Luke, the real, human pnint nt view.
Vers. 32-34a. From David tn Abraham. The twn genealugiea agree with each
nther, and with the O. T.
Vers. 34d-38. Frum Abraham tn Adam. This part is pecuUar tn Luke. It ia
cnmpiled evidently frnm the O. T., and accnrding tn the text; nf the LXX., with
which it exactly cuincides. The n-ame Cainan, ver. 36, ia nnly fnund in the LXX.,
and ia wanting in the Heb. text (Gen. 10 : 24, 11 12). This must be a very ancient
variatinn. The wnrds, of God, with which it ends, are intended tn infurm us that it
is nut thruugh ignurance that the genealngist stnpa at Adam, but becauae he haa
reached the end uf the chain, perhapa alau tn remind us of the truth expressed by
Paul at Athens : " We are the nffspring uf God." The last wnrd nf the genealegy is
connected with its starting-point (vera. 23, 33). If man were not the offspring ef
God, the incarnatinn (ver. 33) wnuld be impnsaible. Gud cannot aay tn a man,
" Thnu art my belnved snn," save un this ground, that humanity itself is His issue
(ver. 38).* POUKTH NARRATIVE.- CHAP. 4:1-13.
Tlie Temptation.
Every free creature, endnwed with varinus faculties, must pass through a cnnflict,
in which it decides either tn use them fur its nwn gratiflcatinn, nr tn glnrify Gnd by
deveting them tu His service. The angels have passed thrnugh this trial ; the first
man underwent it ; Jesus, being truly human, did nnt escape it. Our Syn. are
unanimnus upon this point. Their testimony as to the time when this conflict took
place is ne less accordant. All three place it immediately after His baptism, at the
outset of His Messianic career. Thia date ia 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 Hia child
hood and early manhood must He have been exposed to thoae temptatiena which ad
dreaa themselves to the instincts of the natural life ! The lust of the flesh, the lust
of the eyes, and the pride of lite — these different forms ef sin, separately or with
united force, endeavored tn besiege His heart, subjugate His will, enslave His pnwers,
and invade this pure being as they had invaded the innncent Adam. But nn the bat-
* See the valuable applicatinns which Riggenbach makes nf these genealngies,
" Vie de Jesus," ninth lessen, at the commencement.

134 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
tie-field on which Adam had succumbed Jesus remained a victnr. The " conscience
without a scar," which He carried from tbe first part of His life iuto the second,
assures us nf this. The uew trial He is nnw tn undergn belongs tn a higher domain
— that nf the sjiiritual life. It un Innger respects the pnwers nf the natural man, but
His filial pnsitiun, and the supernatural powers just conferred upon Him at Hia bap
tism. The powers ef the Spirit are in themselves hely, but the history ef tbe church
ef Corinth shows how they may be profaned when used in tbe service of egotism and
self-love (1 Cer. 13-14). This ia that filthineaa nf the spirit (2_Cer. 7 : 1), which is
mnre subtle, and uften mnre pernicinus, than/ that nf the flesh. The divine powers
which Jesua had juat received had therefnre tn be aanctified in His experience, that
ia, te receive from Him, in His iumnst snul, their cunaecratiun tu the aervice nf God.
In nrder tn this, it was neceaaary that an uppurtunity tn apply thera either tu Hia nwn
uae or tn Gnd's aervice shuuld be uttered Him. His decisinn nn this critical uccasinn
wnuld determine forever the tendency and nature nf His Messianic wnrk. Christ nr
Antichrist waa the alternative term ef the two ways which were opening before Him.
This trial ia not therefore a repetition of that of Adam, the father of tbe old humanity;
it is the apecial trial nt the Head nf the new humanity. And it ia nnt simply a ques
tinn here, as in nur conflicts, whether a given individual shall form part uf the king
dnm nf Gud ; it is the very existence ef this kingdnm that is at slake. Its future
anvereign, sent to found it, struggles in cloae combat with the sovereign of the
hnatile realm.
This narrative cnmprises : lat. A general view (vers. 1, 3) ; 2d. The first temptatinn
(vers. 3, 4) ; Sd. The aecond (vers. 5-8) ; 4:th. The third (vers. 9-13) ; 5ih. An his
tnrical cnnclusinn (ver. 13).
First Vera. 1, 3.* By these wnrds, full of ihe Holy Ghost, this narrative is
bruught intn cjnse cnnnectiun with that nf the baptism. The genealogy is therefore
intercalated. While the other baptized persons, after the ceremnny. went away to
their nwn humes, Jesus betunk Himself intn sulitude. This He did nnt at Hia nwu
prompting, as Luke gives us lo understand, by the expressinn full of ihe Holy Ghost,
which prnves that the Spirit directed Him in this, aa in every ether step. The two
other evangelists explicitly say it. Matthew, He waa led up of the Spirit ; Mark, still
more forcibly. Immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderneaa. Perhaps the
human inclination ef Jesus would have been to return tn Galilee and begin at once to
teach. The Spirit detains Him ; and Mattbew, whn, in accordance with hia didactic
aim, in narrating- the fact explains ita object, saya expressly : " He waa led up nf the
Spirit . . . tn be templed." The cnmplement nf the verb returned vionid he:
from the Jordan (otto) into Galilee (eis). But this cninplex gnvernment is sn dis
tributed that the flrat part is fnund in ver. 1 (the drrb withnut the eIs, and the secnnd
in ver. 14 (the eIs withnut the dm). The explanatipn nf this construction ia, that the
temptation waa an interruption in the returu of Jesus from the Jordan into Galilee.
The Spirit detained Him in Judsa. The T. R. reads els, " led iuto the wilderneaa ;"
the Alex, 'ev, "led (carried hither and thither) in the wUderness. " We might sup
pose that thia secnnd reading was nnly the result nf the very natural reflectinn that,
Jnhn being already in the desert, Jesus had nnt to repair thither. But, nn the
uther hand, the received reading may eaaily have been impnrted intn Luke
* Ver. 1. 54. B. D. L. If^'i., ei ry epypa instead nf eis ryv Epypov, the reading ot
T. R. with 15 Mjj., ah the Mnn. Syr. Il""i. Vg. Ver. 3. The same omit varspo^e
(taken from Matthew.)

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 135
from the twn other Syn. And the prep, of rest {iv) in the Alex, better
accords with the imperf. yyETo, was led, which denotes a continuous aclinu. The ex
preaaion, waa led by, indicates that the severe exercises of snul which Jesus experienced
under the actiun nf the Spirit absnrbed Him in such a way that the use uf Hia
faculties iu regard to the external world was thereby suspended. In guing into the
deaert He was nut impelled by a deaire tn accumpliah any dtflnite ubject ; il waa
nnly, as it were, a cuver fur the state uf inlensemedilatiunin which He waa abaorbed.
Lost in cnntemplatinn nf Hia persunal relation tn God, the full consciousness et which
He had just attained, and et the cunaequent task it impesed upon Him in reference
tn Israel and the wnrld. His heart anught tn make theae recent revelatiuns wliully ita
nwn. If traditinn is tn be credited, the wilderness here spuken nf waa the mouutain-
uus and uninhabited cnuntry bnrdering on the road which ascends from Jericbu tn
Jerusalem. On the right cf this road, nnt far frnm Jerichn, there rises a limeslune
peak, exceedingly sharp and abrupt, which bears tbe name nf Quarantania. The
rucks which surround it are pierced by a number cf caves. This wnuld be the scene
uf the temptatinn. We are ignurant whether thia traditinn rests upnn any hiatnrical
fact. Thia Incality ia a continuatinn Of the desert of Judsea, where John abode.
The v7ords forty days may refer either to was led or to being tempted ; in sense both
come to the same thing, the two actinns being simultaneous. Accnrding tn Luke
and Mark, Jesus was incessantly besieged during thia whnle time. Suggestions ot a
very different nature fugm the hely thoughts which uaually occupied Him harassed
the working of His mind. Matthew dues nut mentiun this secret actiun nf the enemy,
whn -was preparing fnr the final crisis. Huw can it be maintained that nne nf these
fnrms uf the narrative has been burrowed frnm the other '/
The term devil, emplnyed by Luke and Matthew, cnmes from diafiaXXeiv, to spread
reporia, to alander. Mark empleys the wurd Satan (from "i^^?. f^o oppose ; Zech. 3:1,
3 ; Job 1 : 6, etc.). The first of these names ia taken from the relation of thia being
tn men ; the aecund from hia relatinna with Gnd.
The puaaibility nf the exiatence uf mural beings uf a different nature frnm that nf
man cannnt be denied i priori. New if these beings are free creatures, aubject tu a
law uf prubatiun, as little can it be denied that this prnbatinn might issue in a fall.
Lastly, since in every snciety nf mnral beinga there are eminent individuals whn, by
virtue nf their ascendency, become centres arnund which a bust nf inferinr individuals
grnup themaelves, this may alsn be the case in thiauuknuwn spiritual dnmain. Keim
hiraself saya : " "VVe regard this questien nf the exiatence nf an evil pnwer aa al
tngether an npen questinn fnr science." This questinn, which ia an npen nne frnm a
scientific pnint uf view, ia settled in the view uf faith by the testimnny nf the Saviour,
whn, in a ijassage in which there is nut the alightest trace nf accummudatinn tn
pnpular prejudice, Jnhn 8 : 44, delineates iu a few graphic touches the mural pnaition
nf Satan. In another paasage, Luke 33 : 31, " Satan hath deaired to have you, that
he may aitt you aa wheat ; but I have prayed fnr thee, that thy faith fail not," j'eaus
lifts the veil which hide^ from ua the sceues nf tbe invisible wurld ; the relation
which He maintains between the accuser Satan, and Himself the intercessor, implies
that in His eyes this persnnage is un less a persunal being than Himself. The part
sustained by this being iu the temptation nf Jesus is attested by the p'aaaage, Luke
11 : 31, 33. It waa necessary that the strung man, Satan, the prince nf this world,
shnuld be vanquished by hia adversary, the strnnger than he, in a persunal conflict,
for the latter to be able to set about spuiling the wurid, which ia Satan's strnnghuld.
Weizsacker and Keim * acknnwledge an allusinn in this paaaage tn Ihe fact nf the
temptatinn. It is thia victnry in single cumbat which makes the deliverance of every
captive cf Satan pnssible tn Jesua.
» " Untersuch " p. 330 ; " Gesch. Jesu," t. i. p. 570.

136 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Luke mentiuns Jesus' ahstinence from fund fnr six weeks as a fact which was nnly
the naturiil cnnsequence cf His being absnrbed in prnfnund meditation. Tu Him,
indeed, this whule time pasaed like a single huur ; He did nnt even feel the pangs nf
hunger. This fnllnws froin the words : " And when they were ended. He afterward
hungered." By the term vyarevaas, having fasted, Matthew appears to give this ab
stinence the character nf a deliberate ritual act, to make it such a fast as, amnng the
Jews, nrdinarily accumpanied certain seasnns devuted specially tn prayer. This
shade nf thuught is nut a cuntradictinn, but accnrds with the general character uf the
twn narratiuns, and becnmes a aignificant indicatinn nf their uriginality. The faals
nf Muses and Elijah, in similar circumstances, lasted the same time. In certain mur-
bid cenditiuna, which invnlve a mnre nr less entire abstinence frum fund, a perind uf
six weeks generally brings abnut a crisis, after which the demand fnr nnurishment is
renewed with extreme urgency. The exhausted body becnmes a prey tn a deathly
sinking. Such, dnubtless, was the cnnditinn uf Jesus ; He felt Himself dying. It
was the mument the tempter had waited fnr tn make his decisive assault.
Second. Vers. 3, 4.* First Temptatinn. — The text ut Luke is verj' snber : The
devil said to Him. The encnunter exhibited under this form may be explained as a
cunlact cf mind with mind ; but in Matthew the expresaion came io Him seems to
imply a bodily appearance. This, however, ia nut necessarUy ita meaning. This
term may be regarded as a symbolical expreaaion of the moral sensation experienced
by Jesua at the moment when He felt the attack of this spirit so alien from His own.
In this aense, the cuming tnnk place unly in the spiritual sphere. Since Scripture
dues nut mentinn any visible appearance nf Satan, and aa the angelnphauiea are facts
the perceptinn uf which always implies a cn-nperalinn uf the inner sense, the latter
interpretatinn is mure natural. The words, if thou art, express snmething very
different frnm a duubt ; this if has almnst the furce nf since : "If thnu art really, as
it seems . . ." Satan alludes tn Gnd's salutatinn at tho baptism. M. de Pres-
sense is wrung in paraphrasin.g the wnrds : " If thnu art the Messiah." Here, and
invariably, the name Son of Ood refers tn a persunal relatinn, nut tn au nfflce (see on
ver. 32). But what criminality wuuld there have been in the act suggested tn Jeaua 1
It haa been said that He waa nnt allnwed tn use His miraculnus pnwer fnr His nwn
benefit. Why nnt, if He was allnwed tn uae it fnr the benefit nf nthera ? The mnral
law dnea nnt command that nne ahnuld Inve hia neighbnr better than himaelf. It
haa been said that He wuuld have acted frum His nwn will, Gnd not having com
manded this miracle. But did God direct every act of Jesus by means of a positive
command ? Had not divine direction in Jesus a more spiritual character ? Satan's
addreaa and the anawer of Jesus put ua on the right track. In saying to Him, If
tlwu art the Son of Ood, Satan aeeks lo arouse in Hia heart the feeling nf Hia divine
greatnesa ; and wilh what object ': He wiahes by this means to make Him feel more
painfully the contrast between His actual destitution, consequent un His huraan cnn
ditinn, and the abundance tn which His divine nature seems tn give Him a right.
There waa indeed, eapecially after His baptism, au auurnaly in the pusition ut Jeaus.
On the one hand. He had been exalted to a distinct consciuusness ef Hia dignity as
the Snn nf Gnd ; while, en the nther, Hia condition as Son of man remained the
same. He continued this mode ef existence wholly simUar to ours, and wholly
¦* Ver. 4. 54. B. L. omit Xeyuv. 9 Mjj. 70 Mnn. Or. emit o before avBpo^koS. 54.
B. L. Cop. omit the words, aXX' etti ¦Kavn pypan Geou. which is the reading of "T. R.
with 15 Mjj., all the Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. (taken from Matthew).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 137
dependent, in which fnrm it waa His missiun tu realize here belnw the filial life.
Thence there neceaaarily resulted a cnnstant temptatinn tu elevate, by acts nf pnwer,
His miserable cnnditinn tn the height nf His cunacinus Sunahip. And this is the first
pnint of attack by which Satan aeeks tn maater Hia will, taking advantage fer thia
purpuse ef the utter exhaustiun in which he aeea Him sinking. Had Jesus yielded tu
this suggestinn. He wnuld have viulated the cenditinns nf th^ earthly existence tn
which, cut nf Inve tn us. He had submitted, denied His title as Snn nf man, in nrder
tu realize befure the time His cnnditinn as Snn nf Gnd, retracted in seme sort the act
ef His incarnation, and entered upon that false path which was afterward formulated
by docetism in a total er partial denial ef Christ come in the flesh. Such a cnurae
wuuld have made His humanity a mere appearance.
This is precisely what ia expreased in His answer. The wnrd nf hnly writ, Deut.
8 : 3, in which He clnthes His thuught, is admirably adapted, bnth in fnrm and sub
stance, te this purpose : man shallnot live by bread alone. This term, man, recalls to
Satan the form of existence which Jesus has accepted, and frnm which He cannnt
depart on Hia nwn respOnaibility. The nmissiun nt the article 6 befure uvBpoTtoS in
nine Mjj. gives this wnrd a generic sense which guits the cnntext. But Jesua, while
thus asserting His entire acceptance nf human nature, reminds Satan that man,
thnugh he be but man, ia nnt left withnut divine succur. The exiDerience of Israel
in the wilderneaa, to which Moaea' words refer, proves that the actinn nf divine
pnwer is nnt limited tn the nrdinary nnurishment nf bread. Gnd can suppnrt human
existence by nther material means, such as manna and quails ; He can even, if He
pleases, make ajuan Uve by the mere pnwer uf His will. This principle ia unly the
applicatiun nf a living mnnntheism tn the sphere nf physical Ufe. By pruclaiming
it in this particular instance, Jesus declarea that, in His career, nn physical neceasity
shall ever cumpel Him tu deny, iu the name nf Hia exalted Sunahip, the humble
mude nf existence He adnpted in making Himself man, until it shall please Gnd Him*
aelt tn tranafnrm His cnnditinn by rendering it suitable tn His essence as Snn uf Gnd.
Although Son, He will neverthelesa remain subject, subject unto the weaknesa even
nf death (Heb. 5 : 8). The wnrds, but by every word of God, are nmitled by Ihe Alex. ;
they are probably taken from Matthew. What reasnn cuuld there "have been fer
omitting them from the text of Luke? By their suppression, tbe answer ef Jesus
assumes that brief and categorical character which agrees with the situation. The
sending of the angels to minister tu Jesus, which Matthew and Mark mentinn at the
clese nf their narrative, pruves that the expectatinn uf Jesus was nnt disappeinted ;
Gnd sustained Him, as He had sustained EUjah in the desert in similar circum
stances (1 Kings 19).
The firat temptatinn refera tn the persnn nf Jeaua ; the aecund, tn Hia wnrk.
Third, Vera. ,5-8.* Secnnd Temptatinn. — The eccaainn nf thia fresh trial is nut
a physical senaatinn ; it ia an aapiratinn nf the auul. Man, created iu the image nf
God, aspires tu reign. This instinct, the directiun nf which is perverted by selfiah-
ness, ia nunc the less legitimate in its urigin. It received in Israel, thrnugh the divine
promises, a definite aim — the supremacy uf the elect penple nver all uthers ; and
* Ver. 5. 54. B. D. L. aume Mnn. umit o diaSoXoS. 54. B. L. lt»"i. nmit elS rcpoS
v^yXov, which ia the reading nf T. R. with 14 Mjj. the Mnn. Syr. It"'"!. Ver. 7. AU
the Mjj. read -jraaa inatead nf ¦kuvtu, the reading uf T. R. with unly aume Mnu. Ver.
8. B. D. L. Z. several Mnu. Syr. ItP'«"i°', Vg. nmit the words vi^aye o^Kiau pov
Saraua. Tap, in the T. R, , has in its favor nnly 'U. Wb. A. A.

138 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
a very precise fnrm— the Messianic hupe. The patrintism uf Jesus was kindled at
thia fire (13 : 34, 19 : 41) ; and He must have knuwn, frum what He had heard frnm
the muuth et God at His baptiam, that it was He who waa destined to realize this
magnificent expectation. It is this prospect, open before the gaze of Jesus, ef which
Satan avails hiraself- in trying to fascinate and seduce Him into a false way. The
-words the devil, and j,nto an high mountain, ver. 5, are omitted by the Alex. It might
be supposed that this omiaaion arises from the confusion of the two syllables ov which
leirainate the words a-iirdv'and ify?Mv. But is it not easier to believe there haa been
au iulerpolation frnm Matthew ? In thia case, the cnmplement understund tu taking
Him up, iu Luke, might dnubtless be, as in Matthew, a mnuntain. Still, where no
coraplemeut is expressed, it is mere natural to explain it as " taking Him into thu
air." It is not impossible that this difference between tbe two evangelists is con
nected with the different order in which they arrange the two laat temptations. In
Luke, Satan, after having taken Jesus up into the air, aet Him down on a pinnacle ot
the temple. This order ia natural. We are asked how Jesus could be given over in
this way te the disposal of Satan. Our reply ia : Since the Spirit led Him into the
wilderness in order that He might; be tempted, it is not surprising that He should be
given up for a time, body and soul, to the pnwer ot the tempter. It is nut said that
Jesus really saw all the kingdnms nf the earth, which wnuld be absurd ; but that
Satan shnwed thera tn Hira. This term may very well signify that he made them
appear befure the view nf .Jesus, in instantanenus successinn, by a diabulical phan-
tasmagnria. He had seen sn ,many great men succumb tu a similar mirage, that he
might well hupe tu prevail again by thia means. Tbe Jewish idea nf Satan's rule
nver thia visible wnrld, expressed in the wurda which twn nf the evangelials put into
hia muuth, may not be au deatitute nf fnundatinn as many think. Has nnt Jesus in-
dnrsed it, by calling this mysterieus being the prince of this world ? Might nnt Satan,
aa an archangel, have had aaaigned tu him nriginally as his dnmain the earth and the
sy,stem tu which it beluugs ? In this case, he uttered nn fulsehnud when he said, AU
this pnwer has been delivered untn me (ver. 6). The truth nf this assertinn appears
further frum thia very expressinn, in which he dees homage to the sovereignly of
Gud, and acknowledgea himaelf Hia vaasal. Neither is it necessary to see Impesture
in the wurds : And io lohomsoever I will, Igive it. Gud certainly leaves tn Satan a
certain use cf His suvereignty and pnwers ; he reigns nver the whnle extra-divine
sphere nf human lite, and has pnwer tn raise tn the pinnacle nf glury the man whom
he favurs. The majesty ut such language -was dnubtless sustained by splendnr ot
appearance nn the part nf him whn used it ; and if ever Satan put nn hia fnrm nf an
angel uf light (3 Cor. 11 : 14), it waa at thia mnment which decided hia empire. The
cnnditinn which he attaches tn the aurrender nf hia pnwer iutn the handa uf Jesus,
ver. 7, has uften been presented as a snare far tun cnarse fnr it ever tu have been laid
by such a crafty spirit. Wuuld not, indeed, the Inwest nf the laraelitea have rejected
such a prnpoaal with horrur ? But there is a little wnrd in the text tn be taken into
cunsideratien— oiii', therefore — which puts this cunditiun in logical connection with
the preceding wnrds. It is nnt as an individual, it is as the representative nf divine
authnrity nn this earth, that Satan here claims the hnmage uf Jesus. The act ot
prnstralinu, in the East, is practised tnward every lawful superiur, nnt in virtue of
his personal character, but out nf regard tn the purtiun nf divine pnwer nf which he
ia the depnsitary. Fur behind every pnwer ia ever seen the pnwer uf Gud, from
whom it emanates. As man, Jesus furmed part nf the dnmain intrusted tn Satan.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 139
As called to succeed him, it aeemed He cnuld only do it, in so far as Satan himaelf
should tranafer to Him the investiture of hia offlce. The worda, if thou wilt worship
me, are nut therefnre an appeal tn the ambitinn nf Jesus ; they express the cnnditinn
sine qua non laid dnwn by the ancient Master nf the wnrld tn the inatallalinn nt Jesua
in the Messianic sovereignty. In speaking thus, Satan deceived himaelf only in one
point; this was, that the kingdom which waa abnut tn cummence waa in any respect
a cuntinuatiun uf his nwn, ur depended nn a transmissinn nf pnwer frnm him. It
wnuld have been very different, dnubtless, had Jesus prupnsed tu realize such a cnn-
ceptinn nf the Messianic kingdum as fuund expression in the pnpular prejudice nf
His age. The Israelitish munarchy, thus understnud, wnuld really have been unly a
new aud transient furm uf the kingdnm uf Satan un thia earth — a kingdnm nf exter
nal fnrce, a kingdnm of this wnrld. But what Jesus afterward expressed in these
wurds, " I am a King ; tn this end was I bnrn, butmykingdnm is not ot this wurld"
(Juhn 18 : 37, 36), was already in His heart. His kingdnm was the beginning nf a
rule nf an entirely new nature ; nr, if this kiugdum had an antecedent, it was that
eatabliahed by Gud in Zinn (Pa. 3). Jesus had juat at thia very time been invested
with this at the hands uf the diviue delegate, John the Baptiat. Therefore He had
nothing to ask from Satan, and consequently no hnmage t»pay him. Thia refusal
• was a serinus matter. Jesus thereby rennunced all pnwer fnunded upon material
means and sncial institutinns. He brnke with the Meaaianic Jewish ideal under the re
ceived fnrm. He cnnfined Himself, in accnmplishing the cunquest nf the, wnrld, tu
spiritual actinn exerted upun snuls ; He cundemned Himself tn gain them nne by nne,
by the labnr nf cnnverainn and sanctiflcatinn — a gentle, unnatentatiuua progress, ccn-
temptible in the eyes nf the flesh, uf which the end, the visible reign, was nnly tn
appear after the lapse nf centuries. Further, such an answer was a declaratinn uf
war against Satan, and nn the mnst unfavnrabte conditions. Jesus cundemned Him
self tn struggle, unaided hy human pnwer, with an adversary having at his diapusal
all human pnwers ; tn march with ten tUnusand men against a king whn waa cuming
against Him With twenty thuusand (14 : 31). Death inevitably awaited Him in this
path. But He unhesitatingly accepted all this, that He might remain faithful tn Gnd,
from whnm alune He determined tn receive everything. Tn sender hnmage tn a be
ing whn had brnken with Gnd, wnuld be tn hnnnr him in his guilty uaurpatinn, tn
associate Himaelf with his rebellinn. This time again .Jesus cnnveys His refusal in a
paaaage et hely writ, Deut. 6 : 13 ; He thereby removes every appearance of answer
ing him en mere human authurity. The Hebrew text and the LXX. merely say :
" Thnu shalt fear the Lnrd, and thnu shalt serve Him." But it is ubvinus that thia
wnrd serve includes aduratinu, aud therefnre the act nf TrpooKWElv, falling down in wor
ship, by which it is expressed. The wnrds, Oei thee behind me, Satan, in Luke, are
taken frum Matthew ; sn is the /or in the next sentence. But iu thus determining le
establish His kingdnm withnut any aid frnm material fnrce, was nnt Jesua relying su
much the mnre nn a free uae uf the aupernatural pnwers with which He had just been
endowed, in nrder tu nvercnme, by great miraculnus efforts, the nbataclea and dangers
tn be encuuntered in the path He had chesen ? This is the point nn which Satan
puts Jesus tn a laat prunf. The third temptatinn then refers lu the use which He in
tends to make of divine power in the cnurae nf His Messianic career.
Fourth. Vers. 9-12.* Third Temptatinn. — This trial belnngs to a higher sphere
* Ver. 9, The o befnre viog in the T, R. is omitted in all the Mjj. and in 150 Mun.

140 ¦ COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
than that of physical or political life. It is of a purely religious character, and
touches the deepest and most sacred relatiens of Jesus wilh His Father. The dignity
of a son of Gud, with a view to which man was created, carries with it the free dis-
pnsal nf divine pnwer, and nf the mutivc fnrces nf the universe. Dnes nnt Gnd Himself
say tu His Child : " Snn, thnu art ever with me, and all that I have ia thine" f
(15:31). But in prnpurtiun as man is raised to this filial pusition, and gradually
reaches divine fellowship, there arises out of this state an ever-increasing danger—
that nf abuaing hia great privilege, by changing, as an indiscreet inferinr is templed
tn dn, thia fellnwship intn familiarity. Frum this giddy height tn which the grace ot
Gnd has raised him, man falls, therefnre, in an instant intn the deepest abyss — into a
presumptuous uae of God'a gifta and abuse ot Hia confidence. This pride is more
unpardonable than that called in Scripture the pride of life. The abuae ef God's
help is a mere aerioua offence than nut waiting fnr it in faith (first temptatinn), ur
than regarding it as insufflcient (aecund temptatinn). The higher aphere tu which
thia trial beluuga ia indicated by the scene of it — the moat sacred place, Jerusalem
{ilie holy city, as Matthew saya) and the temple. The term irrEp-vyiov tov Iepov, trans
lated ¦pinnacle of the temple, might denote the anterior extremity of the Une of meeting
of two inclined planea, -forming the roof of the sacred ediflce. BUt in thia case, vaoi
would have been required rather than iepov (aee 1 : 9). Probably, therefore, it ia some
part of the court that is meant — either Solomon's Perch, which was situated on the
eastern side of the temple platform, and commanded the gorge of the Kedron, or the
Royal Perch, built en the south side of thia platform, and from which, as Josephus
says, the eye looked down into an abysa. The word ¦KTEpvytov would denote the
coping of this peristyle. Such a position is a type of the sublime height to which
Satan sees Jesua raiaed, and whence he would have Him cast Himself down into an
abyss. *
The idea of this incomparable spiritual elevatien is expressed by these words : If
tlwu ari a Son of God. The Alex, rightly emit the art. before the word Son. For
it is a question here of the filial character, and not ef the personality of the Son.
" If thou art a beiug to whom it appertains te call God thy Father in a unique sense,
de net fear to do a da*ing deed, and give God au opportunity te show the particular
care He takes of thee." And as Satan had observed that Jesus had twice replied to
him by the word ef God, he tries in his turn to avail himself of this weapnn. He
applies here the promise (Ps. 91 :11, 12) by an d fortiori argument : " If God has
promised thus tu keep the righteuus, hnw much mnre His well-belnved Snu 1" The
quntaliun agrees with the text uf the LXX., with the exceptinn nf its nmitting the
wnrds in all thy ways, which Matthew alsn umits ; the latter umita, besidea, the pre
ceding wnrds, to keep thee. It has been thuught that this nmissiun was made by
Satan himaelf, whu wnuld suppress these wnrds with a view tn make the application
nf the passage mnre plausible, unduly generalizing the prnmise uf the Psalm, which,
accnrding tn the cuntext, applies tn the righteuus nnly in sn far as he walks in tbe
ways nf nbedience. This is very subtle. What -was the real bearing nf this temp
tation ? With God, pnwer ia always emplnyed in the service nf gnudness, nf love ;
this is the difference between God and Satan, between divine miracle and diaboUcal
snrcery. Nuw the devil in this instance aims at nothing lesa than making Jesus pass
frora one of these apheres to the ether, and thia in the name of that most sacred and
tender element in the relationahip between two beings that love each other— con
fidence. If Jesus succumbs tu the temptation by calUug nn the Almighty to deliver

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 141
Him from a peril into which He has not been thrown in the service ef goodness, He
puts God in the pnsitiun uf either refusing His .aid, and sn separating His cause f rurh
His nwn — a divurce between the Father and the Snn— ur nf setting free the exercise
ef His omnipotence, at least for a moment, from the cuntrul nf hnliness— a violation
,of His own nature. Either way, it would be all over with Jesus, and even, if we
dare so speak, with God.
Jesua characterizes the impious nature of this suggestion as tempting God, ver. 13.
This term signifles putting God to the alternative either of acting in a way nppnsed
tu His plans nr His nature, ur nf cnmprumising the existence nr safety nf a perann
clusely allied tn Him. It is cunfidence carried tn such preaumptinn, as tn becume
treasun against tbe divine majesty. It has sumetiraea been thuught that Satan wanted
tn induce Jesus tn establish His kingdnm by some miraculnus demnnstralinn, by snme
prodigy uf persunal display, which, accnmplished in the view of a multitude nf wur-
shippers assembled in the temple, wnuld have drawn tn Him the hnmage nf all larael.
But the narrative makes nn allusinn tu any effect tu be produced by this miracle. It
is a questinn here uf a whim rather than nf a calculatinn, nf divine fnrce placed at
the service nf caprice rather than nf a deliberate evil purpuse. Fnr the third time
Jesus burrnws the fnrm nf His reply frnm Scripture, aud, which ia remarkable, again
from Deulernnnmy (6 : 16). Tliia bnnk, which recorded the experience nf Israel dur
ing the fnrty yeara' sujnurn in the deaert, had perhaps been the special subject nf
Jesus' meditalinns during His nwn sujnurn in the wilderness. The plural, ye shall
not tempt, in the O. T. is changed by Jesus intu the singular, thou shall not tempt.
Did this change jirnceed from a dnuble meaning which Jesus designedly introduced
into this passage ? While applying it to Himself in His relation to God, He seema,
in fact, to apply it at the same time to Satau in relation tu Himself ; as if He meant
to say : Desist, therefore, now from tempting me, thy God.
Almost all interpreters at the present day disapprove the order foUowed by Luke,
and prefer Matthew's, who makea this laat temptatinn the secnnd. It aeems tn me,
that if the explanatinn we have juat given is just, there can be nn dnubt that Luke's
nrder is preferable. The man whu is nn Innger man, the Christ whu is nn Innger
Christ, the Sun whn is no Innger Sun — such are the three degrees of the temptation.*
The secnnd might appear the mnst exalted and dangerous tn men who had grown up
in the midst nf the thencracy ; and it is intelligible that the traditinn fnund in the
Jewish-Christian churches, the type nf which has been preserved in the first Gnspel,
shuuld have made this peculiarly Messianic temptatinn (the second in Luke) the
crowning effort of the conflict. But in reality it was not so ; the true nrder his
torically, in a mnral cnnflict, must be that which answers tn the mnral essence cf
things. Fifth. Ver. 13. Histurical Cunclusiun. — The expressinn izavra wsipaapdv dues nut
signify aU the temptatinn (this wnuld require oXov), but every kind nf temptation.
We have seen that the temptatinus mentinned refer, nne tn the persnn uf Jesus,
anuth^ tn the ^ature nf His wnrk, the third tn His uae nf the divine aid accurded tn
Him fur this wurk ; they are therefure very varied. Further, ccnnected as they are,
they fnrm a cumplete cycle ; and this is expressed in the term cwTsXiaas, having
finished, fulfilled. Nevertheless Luke annnuncea, in the cnnclusinn uf his narrative,
'* [M. Gudet is nnt as.perspicunus here as usual. The nriginal is: " L'hommu
qui n est plus humme, le Christ qui n'eat plus Christ, le Fiis qui n'oat plua Fila,
vnUa . . ."]

142 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the future return nf Satan tn subject Jesus tn a freah trial. If the wnrds uxpt Kaipov
signified, as they are nften translated, for a aeaaon, we might think that this future
teinplatien denotes in general the trials to which Jesus wnuld be expused during the
cnurse ef His ministry. But theae words signify, until a favorable time. Satan ex
pects, therefure, snme new oppurtunily, just such a special uccasinn as the prerinus
one. Thia cunflict, fnretnld so preciaely, can be nnne nther than that uf Gethsemane.
" This is the huur and power of darkness," said Jesus at that very tirae (22 : 53) ;
and a few moments before, according te Juhn (14 :30), He had said : " The prince
of thia world cometh." Satan then found a new means of acting en the soul of
Jesus, through the fear of suffering. Just aa in the deaert he thought he cnuld dazzle
this heart, that had had no experience ef life, wilh the eclat of success and the in-
tuxication ef delight ; so in Gethsemane he tried te make it swerve by the nightmare
uf punishment and the anguish of grief. These, indeed, are the two levers by which
he succeeds in throwing men out ef the path of ubedience.
Luke emits here the fact mentioned by Matthew and Mark, of the approach ot
angels to minister tu Jesus. It ia no dogmatic repugnance which makea him omit it,
for he mentiona an instance wholly similar, 33 : 43. Therefore he was ignorant ot
it ; and consequently he was not acquainted with the two other narrativea.
THE TEMPTATION.
We shall examine — 1st. The nature nf thia fact ; 2d. Its ubject ; Sd. The three
narratives. lat. Nature of the Temptation, — The ancients generally understund this accuunt
literally . They believed that the devil appeared tn Jeaua in a buddy furm, and actuaUy
carried Him away tu the mnuntain and tn the pinnacle cf the temple. But, tu say
nnthing nt the impussibility nf finding anywhere a mountain frnm which all the king
dnms uf the wnrld could be seen, the^BilJle does not mention a single visible appear
ance ef Satan ; and in the conflict of Gethsemane, which, according to I;uke, is a
renewal nf this, the presence nf tbe enemy is nut projected intn the wurld nf sense.
Have we tn dn then here, aa aume mnderna have thuught, witli a human tempter des
ignated metaphurically by the name Satan, in the sense in which Jesus addressed
Peter, " Get thee behind me, Satan," with an envoy from the Sandedrim, ex gr., who
had come to teat Him (Kuinoel), or wilh the deputation from the same body men
tioned in John 1 : 19, et seq., who, on their return from their interview with the fure
runner, met Jesua in the desert, and there besought His Messianic cn-nperatien, by
uffering Him tbe aid nf the Jewish authnrities (Lange) ? But it was net until after
Jesus bad already left the desert and rejoined John on the banks et the .Jordan, that
He was publicly pointed out by the latter aa the Messiah.* Up tu this time nn one
knew Him as such. Besidea, if this hypnthesis affurds a sufficient explanatinn nf the
secnnd temptatinn (in the nrder uf Luke), it will not explain either the first or the
third. Was this narrative, then, originally nothing more than a moral leaann cunveyed
in the fnrm nf a parable, in which Jesus inculcated nn His disciples aume moat im
portant maxims for their future ministry ? Never tn use their miraculuus pnwer for
their personal advantage, never to aaanciate with wicked men for the attainment of
good enda, never to perform a miracle in an nalenlatiuus spirit — these were the pre
cepts which Jesus had enjnined upon thera in a figurative manner, but whicfc they
tnnk literally (Schleiermacher, Schweizer, Bleek). But first, of all, is it conceivable-
that Jesua should have expreaaed Himself su awkwardly as to lead tn such a miatake?
Next, hnw cnuld He have spuken tu the apustles nf an external empire tn be fnunded
by them ? Further, the Mea.sianiu aspect, sn conspicuous in Ihe second temptation,
is complelely disguised in that one of the three maxiras which, according tn the ex-
* See my " Commentary en the Gospel of John," nn 1 : 29.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 143
planation of these theologians, ought to correspond wilh it. Baumgarten-Crusius,
in order tn meet this laat ubjectinn, applies the three maxima, nnt to that frnm which
the apuatles were tu abatain, but tn that which tbey muat net expect from Jeaus Him
self : " As Measiah, Jeaua meant tn s-ay, I shall nnt seek tn satisfy ynur sensual ap-
petities, yuur ambitinus aspiratiuns, nnr ynur thirst fur miracles." But all this kind
uf interpretatinn meets with an insurmnuntable nbatacle in Mark's narrative, where
mentinn ia made merely uf the sujnurn in the desert, and of the temptation in general,
withnut the three particular tests, that is, accnrding tn thia npininn, withnut the reaUy
significant purtiun uf the infurmatinn being even mentiuned. Accnrding tn thia, Mark
wuuld have Inat the kernel and retained unly the shell, nr, as Keim says, " kept the
fleah wMle rejecting the skeletnn." In transfurming the parable intn histnry, the
evangeUst wuuld have umitted precisely that which cnntained the idea nf the parable.
Usleri, whn had at une time adnpted the preceding view, was led by these difflculties
tn regard this narratiiw as a myth emanating frnm the Christian consciuusness ; and
Strauss tried tu explain the nrigin of thia legend by the Meaaianic nutinns current
amnng the Jews. But the latter has nnt succeeded in producing, from the Jewish
thenlugy, a aingle paasage earlier than the time nf Jesua in which the idea nf a per
sunal cunflict between the Meaaiah and Satan is expressed. As tn the Chrstian cnn
sciuusness, wuuld it have been capable cf creating complete in all its parts a narra
tive sn mysterinus and prufuund ? Lastly, the remarkably fixed place which thia
event nccupies in the three synuptica between the bajjlism nf Jesus and the ccm
mencement uf Hia miniatry proves that thia element of the evangelical history be
longs to the earliest form uf Christian insiructiun. It cnuld nut therefnre be the pro
duct nf-a later legendary creation.
Unless all these indications are delusive, the narrative of the temptation must cor
respond with a real fact in the life of the Saviour. But might it not be the descrip
tion of a purely moral struggle — of a struggle that was confined to the soul uf Jeaua ?
Might nnt the temptation be a viaiun occasioned by the stale of exaltation resulting
from a prolonged fast, in which the brilliant image nf the Jewish Messiah was pre
sented tn His imaginatinn under the mnst seductive fnrms ? (Eichbum, Paulus). Or
might nnt thia narrative be a condensed summary nf a lung series uf intense medita-
tinns, in which, after having npened Hia snul with tender sympathy tn all the aspira-
tinns nf His. age and penple, Jeaua had decidedly broken with them, aud determined,
with a full knnwledge nf tbe iaaue, tn become solely the Meaaiah ct God ? (Ullmann.)
In the firat caae, the heart whence came this carn-al dream cnuld nu Innger be the
heart nf the Huly One nf Gnd, and the perfectly pure life and cnnscience nf Jeaus
becume inexplicatjle. As tn the secnnd furm in which this npininn ia presented, it
cnntaina undnubtedly elementa nf truth. The laat twn templationa certainly cerre-
apond with the muat prevalent and ardent aapiratinns nf the Jewish people — the
expectation of a political Messiah and the thirst fur exlerual signs {aypela u'lteIv, 1
Cor. 1 : 33). 1. But how, from this point of view, is the first temptation tu be ex
plained? 3. Hnw cnuld the flgure nf a persunal tempter flnd its way into such a
picture ? Hnw did it becume its predominating feature, su as tn fnrm almnst the
entire picture in M.irk's narrative ? 3. Have we nnt the authentic comment of Jesus
Himaelf on this conflict in the passage 11 :31, 33, already referred tu (p. 135) ? In
describing thia victory nver tlie strong man by the man stronger ihan lie, and laying it
down as a cundition abaolutely indispenaable tn the apuiling nf the strnnghuld nf Uie
former, did nut Jesus allude tu a personal cnnflict between Himself and the prince ef
thia world, audi aa we find portrayed in the narrative of tbe trmptaliun? 'Fnr these
rea,5ons, Keim. while he recegnizes in the temptation, with Ullmann, a sublime fact
iu the moral life ef Jesus, an energetic determination ot His will by which He abso
lutely renounced any deviation whatever frum the divine will, notwithstanding the
iusufliciency uf human means, cnnfesses that he cannot refuse tn admit the pnssibil-
ity nt the existence and interpnsition uf the representative uf tbe puwera et evil.
Here we reach the only explanation which, iri our opinion, can accuunt for the
narrative ef the temptation. Aa there is a mutual contact of bodies, ao also, in a
hi.gher sphere than that of matter, there is an action and reaction of spirits on each
other. It was in this higher sphere to which Jeaua was raised, that He, tbe represen
tative of voluntary dependence and fllial love to God, met that spirit in whom the
autonomy of the creature flnds its most resolute representative, and in every way,
and notwithstanding all this spirit's craft, maintained bv conscientious choice His

144 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
own ruling principle. This victory decided the fate of mankind ; it heoame the
foundatiun ef tbe establiahment of God'a kingdnm upnn earth. This is the easential
significance nf this event. Aa tu the narrative in which this myaterinua acene has
heen diaclnsed tu us, it muat be juat a symbnlical picture, by means nf which Jeaus
endeavured tu make Hia diaciples understand a fact which, from its very nature,
cnuld nnly be fllly described in figurative language. Still we muat remember, that
Jeaus being really man, having His spirit united tn a bndy. He needed, quite as much
as we dn, sensible representatinns as a means nf apprehending spiritual facts. . Meta-
phnrical language waa aa' natural in His caae as incurs. In all probabUity, there
fnre, it was necessary, in nrder tn His fully entering intu tbe cnnflict between Him
self and the tempter, that it shuuld assume the scenic {plaatigue) fnim in which it has
been preserved tn us. While saying this, we dn nnt think that Jesus was transpnrtcd
bndily by Satan through the air. We believe that, had He been nbserved by any
apectatur while the temptatinn waa going on. He wnuld have appeared all thruugh it
mntinnless upun the snil uf the desert. But thuugh the cnnflict did nnt pass uut of
the apiritual aphere, it was nnne the less real, and the value uf thia victury waa not
less incalculable and decisive, Thia view, with acme slight shades nf difference, is
that advucated by Theudure uf Mnpsueatia in the ancient Church, hy snme uf the
Refurmera, and by several mudern cnmmentaturs (Olshausen, Neander, Ousterzee,
Presaenae, etc.).
But cuuld Jesua be reaUy tempted, if He was hnly ? cuuld He sin, if He was the
. Sun nf Gnd ? fail in Hia wnrk, if He waa the Redeemer appuinted by Gnd ? As a
hnly being. He cnuld be tempted, becauae a cunflict might ariae between sume legiti
mate bedtly want cr nnrmal desire nf the snul, and the divine will, which tnr Ihe time
fnrbade its satisfactinn. The Sun cnuld sin, since He had rennunced His divine
mude nf existence in the form of God (Phil. 3 : 6), in crder to enter intn a human
cunditiun altngether like nurs. The Redeemer mi.ght succumb, if the questien be
regarded from the standpuint nf His persunal liberty ; which is quite cunsistent wilh
Gnd being assured by His fnreknnw ledge that He wnuld stand flrm. This' fore-
knnwledge was nne nf the facturs nf His plan, precisely as the f ureknuwledge of Ihe
failh nf believers is une the elements nf His eternal TrpdBeaiS (Rnm. 8 : 30).
2d. Object of ilie Temptation. — Tbe temptation is the cnmplement nf the baptism.
It is the negative preparation of Jesus for His miniatry, as the baptism waa His
positive preparation. In Hia baptiam Jesus received impulse, calling, strength. By the
temptation He was made distinctly conscious of the errors tu be shunned, and the perils
tn be feared, un the right hand and nn the left. The temptatinn was the laat actcf His
mnral educatinn ; it gave Him an insight intn all the ways in which His Messianic
wnrk cnuld pnssibly be marred. If, from the very first step in Hia ardunus career,
Jeaus kept the path marked nut by Gud'a will withnut deviatinn, change, cr hesi
tancy, this bnld front and steadfast peraeverance are certainly due tn His experience
nf tbe temptatinn. All the wrong courses possible tn Him were thencefurth knuwn ;
all the rucks had been cbaerved ; aud it waa the enemy himaelf whn had rendered
Him this service. And it waa for this reasnn that Gnd apparently delivered Him
fnr a brief time intn his pnwer. This is just what Matthew's narrative expresses so
fnrcibly :" He was led up nf the Spirit . . . to Je fe??ipted" 'When He lett this
schnnl, Jesus distinctly understnud that, as respects His ¦person, nn act nf His ministry
was tn have any tendency tn lift it nut nf His human cnnditinn ; that, as tn His
wurk, it was tu be in nu way assimilated tu the actinn of the pnwers nt this world ;
and that in the employment ot divine puwer filial liberty was never tn becume caprice,
nut even under a pretext nf blind trust in the help nf Gud. And this prngramme was
carried nut. His material wants were supplied by the gifts nf charity (8 : 3), not by
miracles ; Hia mode of life was nothing else than a perpetual humUiation — a pro
longation, so to speak, of His incarnatinn. When laburiug tn establish His kingdnm.
He unhesitatingly refused the aid nf human pnwer — as, fnr instance, when the multi
tude wished tn make Him a king (Jnhn 6 : 15) ; and His ministry assumed the char
acter nf an exclusively spiritual cunqueat. He abstained, lastly, frura eVery miracle
which had nnt fur ita immediate deaign the revelation nf mural perfection, that is to
say, ef the glory of His Father (Luke 11 : 39). These supreme rules of the Messianiu
activity were all learned in that school of trial through which God caused Him to
pass in the desert.
Sd, The Narratives of ihe Temptation, — It has been maintained that, since Juhn

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 145
dues not relate the temptatinn, he de facto denies it. But, as we have already nbserved,
the star' ing- pnint nt hia narrative belnngs tu a later time. The narrative nf Mark
(1 ; 13, 13), is very summary indeed. It nccupies in aume reapecta a middle place
between the nther twu, appruaching Matthew'a in the preface and clnae (the minis-
tralinn uf the angels), aud Luke's in the extensiun nf the temptation tu fnrty days.
But it differs frnm bulb iu nmitting the three particular temptatiena, and by the addi
tinn nf the incident ut the wild beaata. Here ariaes, fur thnse whu maintain that one
nf our Gospels was the aource ef the other, nr nf bnth the nthera. the fuUnwing
dUemma : Either the uriginal narrative is Mark's, which the uther twu have ampli
fied (Meyer); nr Mark has given a summary of the twn others (Bleek). .There is yet
a third alternative, by which Holtzmann escapes this dilemma : There was an original
MarK, and its accuunt waa tranaferred in extenso intn Luke and Matthew, but
abridged by nur cannnical Mark. This last suppusitinn appears tn us inadmissible ;
fur if Matthew and Luke drew frnm the same written snurce, hnw did the strange
reversal in the nrder nf the twu temptations happen? Schleiermacher suppuses — and
mndern crtioism approves the suggestinn (Hultzmann, p. 313)— that Luke altered the
nrder nf Matthew in nrder not tn change the scene ae frequently, by making Jeaus
leave the desert (fnr the temple), and then return tn it (fnr tbe mnuntain). We really
wnnder hnw men can seriously put forward such puerilities. Lastly, if the three
evangelists drew from the same source, the Proto-Mark, whence is the mentinn nf
the wild beasts in nur cannnical Mark derived ? The evangelist cannnt have imagined
it withnut any authnrity ; aud it it was mentinned in the cummun snurce, it cnuld
nnt have been passed nver, aa Holtzmann admita (p. 70), by Luke and Matthew. The
explanatinn nf the latter critic being act aside, there remains the nriginal dUemma.
Have Matthew and Luke amplified Mark ? How then does it happen that they
coincide, not only in that part which they have in common with Mark, but quite as
much, and even mjre, in that which is wanting in Mark (the detail of the three temp
tatinus) ? How is it, again that Matthew cunflnes tbe temptatinn to the laat mnment,
in uppnaitieu tu the narrative uf Mark aud Luke ; that Luke omits the succor brought
to Jeaus bv the angels, contrary to the account ot Mark and Matthew ; and that
Lulje and Matthew, omit the delaU of the wild beasts, in opposition to their source,
the narrative of .Mark ? They amplify, and yet they abridge ! On the other hand, is
Mark a compiler from Matthew and Luke ? How, then, is it that he saya not a wurd
about the forty days' fast ? It is alleged that he desires to avnid lung discnuraea.
But this lengthened fast belongs tn the facts, nnt tn the words. Besides, whence
dues he get the fact about the -wil 1 beasts ? He abridges, and yet he amplifies I
All these difflculties which arise nut nf this hypulhesia, and which can nnly be
removed by aupposing that the evangelista used their authnrities in an incenceivably
arbitrary wa.y, disappear nf themselvea, if we admit, aa the common source of the
three narratives, an oral tradition which circulated in the Church, and reproduced,
more ur less exactly, the nriginal accuunt giveu by Jesus and traiismitted by tbe
apostles. Mark nnly wiahed tn give a brief accnunt, which was all that appeared tn
him neceaaary fnr ha readers. 'The preaching of Peter tu Corneliua (Acta 10 : 37, ei
seq.) furnishes an example of this raode ot condensing the traditional accnunta.
Mirk had perhaps heard the detail relative to the wild beasts frnm the mouth of
Peter himself. The special aim ef bia narrative is to show us in Jesus the holy
man raiaed tn his uriginal dignity, aa LnrJ nver nature (the wjld beasts), and the
friend nf heaven (the angels). Matthew has reproduced the apustnlic tradition, in tbe
form which it had specially taken in the' Jewish-Christian churches. Of thia we
have twu indicatiuns : I. The ritualistic character which ia given in thia narrative tu
the fasting uf Jeaua {having fasted) ; 3. The nrder et the last'two temptations, accurd
ing to which the peculiarly Meaaianic temptation ia exhibited aa the supreme and
decisive act ot the conflict. As to Luke, the substance of his narrative is tlie same
apostoUc tradition ; but he was enabled by certain written accounts, or means ef
information, to give sume details with greater exactness — tn resture, fer example, the
actual nrder nt the three temptations. "We find him here, aa uaual, mure cumplete
than Mark, and more exact, hiaturically speaking, than Matthew.
And nnw, Hia pnsitiun thus made clear, wilh Gnd fnr His sure ally, aud Satan
fur Hia declared adversary, Jeaus advances tu the fleld uf battle.

THIRD PART.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS IN GALILEE.
Chap. 4 : 14, 9 : 50.
The three Synnptics all cnnnect the narrative nf the GaHlsean miniatry with the
accnunt uf the temptatinn. But the narrationa nf Matthew and Mark have this pecu
liarity, that, accnrding tn them, the mutive fnr the return nf Jesua tn GaUlee must have
been the imprisunment nf Juhn the Baptist : " Nnw when Jesus had heard that
.Jnhn was cast intn prisnn. He dexmrted intn Galilee" (Matt. 4 : 13) ; " Nuw, after
that Juhn was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee" (Mark 1:14). As the temp
tation dues nnt appear te have been coincident with the apprehension cf John, the
question arises, Where did Jesus spend the more or less lengthened time that inter
vened between these two events, and -u'hat was He doing during the interval ? Thia
ia the first difflculty. There is another : How could the apprehension of John the
Baptist have induced Jesus tn return tn Galilee, tu the dominiuns uf this very Hered
w'ho was keeping John in prison ? Luke throws no light whatever on these two
questinns which arise nut uf the narrative nf the Syn., because he makes nn mentinn
in this place nf the impriaunment ef John, but simply connects the cummencement
uf the miniatry nf Jeaus with the victury He had just achieved in the deaert. It is
John who gives the solution nf these difflculties. Accnrding to him, there were two
returns of Jesus to Galilee, -which hia narrative dislin,:^-ui8hes with the greatest care.
The first tnnk place immediately after the baptism and the temptatinn (1 : 44). It was
then that He called snme ynung Galiloeans tn fnllnw Him, whn were attached tn the
furerunner, and shared his expect-atinn nf the Messiah. The secnnd is related ia
chap. 4:1; Jnhn connects it wilh the Pharisees' jealousy of John the Baptist, which
explains the account ef the first\two Syn. It appears, in fact, accurding tn him; that
some nf the Pharisees were party to the blnw which had struck Jnhn, and therefore
we can well understand that Jeaus -n'ould be mnre distrustful nf them than even ef
Herod.* That the Pharisees had a hand in John's imprisonment, is confirmed by
the expression delivered, which Matthew and Mark empluy. It waa they whn had
caused hira tn be seized and delivered up te Hered.
The two returns mentinned by John were separated by quite a number nf events :
the transfer uf Jeaua' place nt residence frnm Nazareth tn Capernaum ; His flrat
juurney tn Jerusalem tu attend the Passnver ; tbe interview with Nicudemus ; and a
period uf prulunged activity in Judisa, simultanenua with that nf Jnhn the Bapti-'l,
whn was still en jny ing his liberty (Juhn 3 : 13 ; 4 : 43). The second return tn Galilee,
* Bllumlein, " Cnmmeut. iiber das Evang. Jnh." p. 8.

commentary on ST. LUKE. 147
which terminated thia lung ministry in .Judaea, did nnt take place, accnrding tn 4 : 35,
until the mnuth nf December iu this same year, sn that at least twelve months elapaed
between it and the fnrmer. The Syn., relating, nnly a single return, must have
blended the twn intu nue. Only there is this difference between thera, that in Mal
lhew and Mark it ia rather the idea nt the secund which seema tn prednminale, since
they cnnnect it with Juhn's imprisunment ; whUe Luke brings uut mure the idea nf
the flrat, fnr he asanciates it with the temptatinn exclusively. The mingling cf theae
twn analngnus facts — really, hnwever, separated by almnat a year — must have taken
place previuusly in the ural traditinn, since it passed, thnugh nnt withnut snme
variatinns, intn nur three Syuuptics. The narrative nf Jnhn waa expressly designed
tu re-eatabliah this Inst diatinctinn (cump. Juhn 3 : 11, 3 : 24, 4 : 54). In thia way in
the SyiL the interval between theae twn returns tn Galilee disappeared, and the twn
residences in GalUee, which were separated trom each nther by this ministry in
Judsea, form in them one coutinueua whole. Further, it ia difflcult to determine in
which of the two to place the aeveral facta which the Syn. relate at the commence
ment of the GaHtean miniatry.
We muat not forget that the apostolic preaching, and the popular teaching given
in the churches, were directed nnt by any histurical interest, but with a view tn the
fnundatinn and cnnfirmation nf faith. Facts nf a similar nature were therefnre
grouped tugether in this teaching until they became cempletely inaeparable. We
ahall see, in the aame way, the different journeys to Jerusalem, fmjed by tradition
into a single pilgrimage, placed at the end of Jesus' ministry. Thus the great con
traat which prevails in the aynoptical narrative between Galilee and Jeruaalem is ex
plained. It was only when John, net depending on tradition, but drawing from his
own personal recollections, restored tu this histnry its varinus phases and natural
cunnectinns, that the cumplete picture nf the ministry of Jesus appeared before the
eyea of the Church.
But why did not Jeaua commence Hia activity in GalUee, aa, according to the
Syn., He would seem to have done. The anawer to thia queation is to be found in
.John 4 : 43-45. In that country, where He spent His youth, Jesua wnuld necessarily
expect tn meet, mnre than anywhere else, with certain prejudices cppnaed tn the
recognitinn of His Messianic dignity. " A prnphet hath nn hnnnr in hia nwn
cnuntry" (Jnhn 4 : 44). This is why He would nut uii^rtake His wnrk amnng His
Galilaean fellnw-cnuntrymen until after He had achieved snme success elsewhere.
The reputatinn which preceded His return wnuld serve tn prepare His way amnng
them (Jnhn 4 : 45), He had therefnre Galilee in view even during this early activity
in Judsea. He furesaw that this prnvince wnuld be the cradle of His Church ; fnr
the yuke nf Pharisaical and sacerdntal diispntism did nut press sn heavily nn it aa nn
the capital and its neighburhund. The chords of human feeling, paralyzed in Judsea
by false devotion, still vibrated in the hearts nf these mnuntaineers tn frank and stir
ring appeals, and their ignurance appeared tn Him a medium mnre eaaily penetrable
by light frnm abnve than the perverted enlightenment nf rabbinical science. Cump.
the remarkable pasaage, 10 ; 31.
It ia nut eaay tn make nut the plan uf thia part, fur it deacribea a cuntinunus prog
ress wilhuut any markfed breaks ; it is a picture nt the inward and uutward prugresa
nt the wnrk nf Jesua in Galilee. Ritachl ia nf npininn that the progress nf the atnry
is determined by the growing hnatiUty uf the adveraaries nf Jeaus ; and accnrdingly
he adnpts this divisiun : 4 . 16, 6 ; 11, absence nf cnnflict ; 6 : 13, 11 : 54, the hnstile

148 commentary on st. luke.
attitude assumed by the twn adversaries tuward each uther. But, lirst, the flrst
symptuma nf hnstility break nut befure 6 : 13 ; second, the passage 9 : 51, which is
paaaed nver by the divisiun nf Ritschl, ia evidently, in the view nf the authnr, nne nf
the principal cnnnecting links in the narrative ; third, the growing hatred nf the ad
versaries uf Jeaua is nnly an accident nf His wurk, and in nn way the gnverning
mutive nf its develupment. It is nut there, therefore, that we must seek the principle
nf the divisiun. The authnr appeara tn ua tn have marked nut a route fnr himself by
a aeries of facts, in which there is a gradatinn easily perceived. At first ,Jesus
preaches withnut any fnUnwing nf regular disciples ; sunn He calls abuut Him aome
nf the mnst attentive uf His hearers, tn make them His permanent diaciplea ; after a
certain time, when theae disciples had becume very numerous. He raises twelve nt
them tn the rank uf apnstles ; lastly, He intj-usts these twelve with their flrat mission,
and makes them Hia evangelists. This gradatinn in the pnsitiun nf His helpers
naturally cnrrespunds, first, with the internal progress nf His leaching ; second, with
the Incal extenainn nf Hia work ; third, with the increaaing hnstility nf tbe Jewa,
with whum Jesus breaks mnre and'mnre, in prnpurtiun as He gives urganic furm to
Hia nwn wnrk. It therefnre furnishes a meaaure of the entire mnvement. We are
guided by it tn the fuUnwing divisiun :
Firat Cycle, 4 : 14r-44, extending tu the call uf the firat disciples.
Second Cycle, 5 : 1, 6 : 11, to the nomination of the twelve.
Third Cycle, 6 : 12, 8 : 56, tu their firat missinn.
Pnurth Cycle, 9 : 1-50, tn the departureiof Jesua fnr Jerusalem.
At this pnint the wnrk nf Jesus in Galilee cnmes tn an end ; He bids adieu tn this
field nf labnr, and, setting His face tnward Jerusalem, He carries with Him into
Judsea the result of His previuua labura, His Galilsean Church.
PIEST CYCLE. —CHAP. 4 : 14-44.
Visits io Nazareth and io Capernaum.
The fclluwing narratives are grouped arnund twu names — Nazareth (vers. 14r-30)
and C-apernaum (vers. 31-44).
1. Visit to Nazareth : vera. 14^30. Thia portiun upens with a general glance at
the cummencement nf the ^tive labnrs nf Jesua in Galilee : 14, 15. Then, resting
nn J,his fnundatinn, but separable from it, as a particular example, we have the nar
rative nf His preaching at Nazareth : vers. 16-30.
!First. Vers. 14, 15. The 14th verse ia, aa we have ahuwn, the cnmplement of
ver 1 (see ver. 1) The verb, he returned, comprehends, accnrding tu what pre
cedes, the twn returna mentinned, Juhn 1 : 44 aud 4 : 1, and even a third, underatoud
between Jnhn 5 and 6. The wurds, m the power of ilie Spirit, dn nnt refer, as many
have thuught, tn an impulse frnm above, which urged Jesus tn return tn Galilee, but
tn His pnsseaainn nf the divine pnwers which He had received at His baptism, and
with which He was nnw abnut tu teach and act ; ccmp, filled with the Spirit,
ver. 1. Luke evidently means that he returned different from what he was when He
left. Was this supernatural pnwer of Jesus displayed snlely in His preaching, ur in
miracles alsn already wrought at this p&rind, though nut related by Luke ? Since the
miracle at Cana tunk place, according tn Jnhn, just at this lime, we incline tn the lat
ter meauing, which, cnnsidering the term employed, is alsu the raore natural. Iii
this way, what is said'cf His fame, which immediately spread through all the region

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 149
round abnut, is rcadUy explained. Preaching alnne wuuld scarcely have befen suffi
cient tn have brought abnut this result. Meyer brings in here the repurt nf tho
miraculnus incidents nf the baptism ; but these prnbably had nut been witnessed by
any nne save Jesus and Jnhn, and nn allusinn ia made te them subsequently. The
15th verae relates how, after His reputation had prepared the way fer Him, He came
Himself {avToo) ;. then how tbey all, after hearing Him, ratified the favorable judg
ment which Hia fame had brought reapecting Him (glorified of all). The synagogues,
in which Jeaus fulfilled His itinerant ministry, were places of assembly existing from
the return of the captivity, perhaps even earlier. (Bleek finds the proof ef an earlier
date in.Ps. 74 :8.) Wherever there was a somewhat numerous Jewish pnpulatinn,
even in heathen cnuntries, there were such places nf wnrship. They assembled in
them nn the Sabbath day, alau on the Munday and Tueaday, and nn cuurt and market
days. Any nne wishing tn speak signified his intentinn by rising (at least accnrding
tn this pasaage ; cump. also Acts 13 : 16). But as all teaching was fnunded nn the
Scriptures, tn speak was befure anything elae to read. The reading finiahed, he
taught, aitting duwn (Acts 13 : 16, Paul apeaka standing). Order -was maintained by
the dpxiavvdpuyoi, nr presidents uf the synagcgue. Vera. 14 and 15 furm the f eurth
definite statement in the accuunt uf the develupment nf the persnn and wurk uf Jesus ;
cump. 3 : 40, 53, and 3 : 33.
'Second. Vers. 16-30. Jesus did nnt hegin by preaching at Nazareth. In His
view, nn dnubt, the inhabitants nf this city stund in much the same relatinn tn the
penple nf the rest of Galilee as the inhabitants nf Galilee tn the rest nf the Jewish
penple ; He knew that in a certain sense His greatest difficulties wnuld be encnunter-,
ed there, and that it wuuld be prudent tn defer his visit until the time when His rep
utatinn, being already eatabliahed in the reat nf the cnuntry, wnuld help .tu cnunter
act the prejudice reaulting frnm His fnrmer lengthened cunnectinn with the penple
nf the place.
Vers. 16-19.* The Beading. — Ver. 16. Kaj. " And in these itinerancies He
came alsu." Juhn (3 : 13) and Matthew (4 : 13) refer tn this time the tranafer nf the
reaidence nf Jeaua (and alsn, accurding to Juhn, nf that nf Hia mnther and brethren)
fi-nm Nazareth tu Capernaum, which naturaUy implies a visit tu Nazareth. Besides,
Jnhn places the miracle at the marriage at Cana at the same time. Nnw, Cana be
ing such a very shnrt distance frum Nazareth, it wnuld have been an affectatinn nn
the part uf Jeaus tn he ataying ae near Hia native town, and not viait it. The wurda,
where He had been brought up, aaaign the mutive nf His proceeding. The expression,
according to His custom, cannet apply tn the shnrt time which had elapsed since His
return tn Galilee, unless, with Bleek, we regard it as an indicatinn that thia event is
of later date, which indeed is possible, but in no way necessary. It rather applies
• tu the perind uf His childhund and yuuth. This remark is iu clnse cnnnectiun with
the worda, where he had been brought up. Attendance at the synagogue was, as Keim
has weU brought out (t. i. p. 434), a most important instrument in the religious and
- * Ver. 16. T. R., with K. L. n. many Mnn., Nafapcr {s'—peO with 11 Mjj.) ; D.,
Nafnpcd; S. B.* Z. ¦iiai:apa ; A.., Nafcpar ; A., NafapaS. Ver. 17. A. B. L. Z. Syr.
read avoi^as instead nf avavrv^as, which is the reading nf 16 Mjj. Mun. B. It. Ver.
18. Twenty Mjj. read evayyEXiaaaffai instead nf evayyeXi^eaBai, which is the reading
nf T. R. with merely sume Mnn. Ver. 19. i>. B. D. L. Z. It. nmit the wurda
laaaaBai r. avvTerp. r. Kapdiav, which ia the reading uf T. R, with 15 Mjj., the greater
part uf the Mnn. Syr. --

150 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
intellectual development of Jesus. Children had access to this worship from the age
ot five nr six ; they were cnmpelled tn attend it when they reached thirteen (Keim, t.
i. p. 431). But it was nut snlely by means nf these Scripture lessens, heard regularly
in the synagogue several times a week, that Jeaus learned tn knnw the O. T. an weU.
There can be nu dnubt, as Keim says, that He pnssessed a cupy nf the sacred beck
Himself. Otherwise He wuuld nnt have knnwn hnw tn read, as He is abuut tn do
here. The received reading, having unrolled, ver. 17, is preferable tn the Alex, var,,
having opened. The sacred vnlumes were in the fnrm nf rectangular sheets, rolled
round a cylinder. By the expressinn. He found, Luke gives us tn understand that
Jesus, surrendering Himself tu guidance frura abnve, read at the place where the roll
npened nf itself. We cannnt then inter, as Bengel dnes, from the fact nf this pas
sage being read by the Jews nn the day nf atunement, that this feast was being nb
served nn that very day. Besides, the present cnurse nf the Haphtarnth, nr readings
frum the prophets, dates from a later perind.
This passage belnngs tn tbe aecund part of Isaiah (61 ; 1 etseq.). This long con
secutive prophecy is generally applied tn the return from the captivity. The only
term which would suggest this explanatinn in nur passage is alxpaXuroic, prnperly
priaonera of war, ver. 19. But this wnrd is used with a mnre general meaning. St.
Paul applies it tn his cumpaninns in wnrk and activity (Cul. 4,: 10). The term
TZTuxdS, poor, rather implies that the penple are settled in their nwn cnuntry. The re
markable expression, to proclaim the aceepia!ble year of the Bord, makes the real thought
of the prophet sufficiently clear. There waa in the life of the people of larael a year
nf grace, which mi,ght very naturaUy become a type of the Messianic era. This was
the year nf Jubilee, which returned every fifty yeara (Lev. 36). By means nf this
admirable inatitutinn, God had provided fur a perindical ancial restcratinn in Israel.
The Israelite whn had snld himself intn slavery regained his liberty ; families which
had alienated their patrimnny recnvered pussessinn ; a wide amnesty was granted to
persons imprisoned for debt — so many types of the work ef Him who was te restore
spiritual liberty to mankind, to free them from their guilt, and reatere tn them their
divine inheritance. Jeaua, therefure, cnuld nnt have received from Hia Father a text
mnre appropriate tu Hia preaent positiun — the inauguratien nf His Messianic min
istry amid the scenes of His previnus life.
The flrst wnrds, Tlie Spirit of ilie Bord ia upon me, are a paraphrase nf the term
n^WD, Meaaiah (Xpiards, Anuinted). .Jeaus, in reading these wnrds, cuuld nut but
apply them tn His recent bapiism. The expressinn tveKev ov cannnt signify here
wherefore: " The Spirit is upnn me ; wherefure Gnd hath anninted me ;" this wnuld
be cnntrary tn the meaning. The LXX. have used this cnnjunctinn tu translate 1j;,i,
which in the uriginal signifies, just as^t^X l^) because, a meaning which the Greek,
expressinn will alsn bear {on thia account thai, propterea quod!). On the first-day nf the
year ef Jubilee, the priests went all through the laud, announcing with sound of
trumpets the blessings brought by the opening year {jubilee, from "ini, to sound a
trumpet). It is to this proclamation of grace that the words, io announce good news In
the pool', undoubtedly allude. Lev. 25 : 6, 14, 35. The words, to Ileal tlie broken in
heart, which the Alex, reading omits, might have been introduced into the text from
the O. T. ; but, iu uur view, they form the almost indispensable basis ef the wnrd ot
Jesus, ver. 33. We must therefore retain them, and attribute their emission tn an
act nf negligence, occasioned by the long string of infinitives. The term Kyp^v^ai
aipeaii', lo procluiiii liberty, employed ver. 19, also alludes to the solemn proclamation

COMMENTARY ON ."iT. LUKE. Ijl
of the jubUee. This word df eaiv is found at almost every verse, in the LXX., in tho
statute enjoining this feast. Bleek himself observes that the formula "ITTI >5"!p,
which corresponds to thoae two Greek terms, is that which is employed in connection
with the jubilee ; but notwithstanding, this dees net prevent his applying the pass
age, according to the common prejudice, te the return from the captivity ! The
prisoners who recovered their freedom are amnestied malefactors as well aa slavea
set free at the beginning of this year ef grace. The image of the bUnd restored tn
sight dnea nnt, at the flrst glance, accnrd with that ut the jubilee ; but it dnes nnt
any better suit the flgure uf the return frum the captivity. And if thia tranalatinn of
the Hebrew text were accurate, we shnuld have in either caae tn allnw that the
prophet had departed from the general image with which he had started. But the
term in Isaiah (?i-ncx- prnperly bound) denntes captives, nnt blind peranns. The
expressinn nip HpE signifies, it is true, the npening nf the eyes, nut the npening nf a
prisnn. But the captives cuming fnrth frnm their dark dungenn are repreaented under
the flgure uf blind men suddenly restured tu sight. The wnrds, to set at liberty tliem
ihat are bi'uised, are taken from annther passage in Isaiah (58 : 6). Prnbably in
Luke's authnrity this passage waa already cnmbined with the furmer (as nften hap-
pena with Paul). The figurative sense of reBpavafievoi, pierced through, is required by
the verb to send a/way. The acceptable year ef the Lord is that in which He is
pleased tn shnw manland extranrdinary favurs. Several Fathers have inferred frum
this expressinn that the ministry nf Jesus unly lasted a single year. This is tn cun-
f nund the type and the antitype.
Vers. 30-33. The Preaching. — The descriptiun uf the assembly, ver. 30, is an dra
matic that it appeara tn have cume frnm an eye-witness. The sense nf ypiaro. He
began (ver. 31), is nnt that these were the.^rsi! words ot His discuurse ; this expressinn
describes the snlemnity nf the mnment when, in the midst nf a sUence resulting frum
universal attentiuu, the vnice of Jesus snunded thrnugh the synagegue. The last
wnrds nf the verse signify literally, " This wurd is accumplished in ynur cars ;" in
nther words, " This preaching to which you are now listening is itself the realization
of this prophecy." Such was the text of .Jesus' discourse. Luke, without going
into His treatment ef His theme (comp., for example. Matt. 11 : 38-30), passes (ver.
33) te the impression produced. It was generally favorable. The term bare witness
alludes to the favorable reports which had reached them ; they proved for themselves
that His fame was not exaggerated. 'EBavpa^ov signifles here, tliey were astonished
(John 7 : 31 ; Mark 6 : 6), rather than iliey admired. Otherwise the transition to
what fnllnws wnuld be tun abrupt. Sn the term gracious words describes rather the
matter of Jes.us' preaching — its descriptiun nf the wnrks uf divine grace— than the
impressinn received by Hia hearera. They were astunished at this enumeratiun of
marvels hithertn unheard nf. The werda, which proceeded forth out of His mouth,
express the fulneaa with which this prnclamatinn puured fnrth frnm His heart.
Twu cuuraea were here upen tu the inhabitants nf Nazareth : either tn surrender
themselves tu the divine instinct which, while they liatened tn this call, was drawing
them tn Jesus as the anninted nf whum Isaiah spake ; nr tn give place tn an intellec
tual suggestinn, alluw it tn suppress the emutinn nf the heart, and cause faith to
evapurate in criticism. They tunk the latter cnurse : la not this Joaeph' a son? An-
nnuncements of such impurtance appeared tn Ihem altngether nut nf place in the
mnuth nf this ynung mau, whnm they had knnwn from hia chUdhund. What a
cuntrast between the cnld reserve uf this questiun, and the enthusiasm -n'hich wel-

152 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
cumed Jesus everywhere else (glurifled of all, ver, 15) ! Fnr them this was just such
a critical mument as was tn uccur scun after fnr the inhabitants nf Jerusalem (Jnhn
3 : 13-33). Jesus sees at a glance the bearing nf this remark which went round
amnng His hearers : when the impressinn He has pruduced ends in a questinn uf
curiuaity, all is Inat ; and He tells them sn.
Vers. 33-37.* TheColloquy. — " And He said tn them, Ye will surely say untn me
thia proverb. Physician, heal thyself ; whatsnever we have heard dune in Capern-aum,
dn alsu here in thy cnuntry. 34. And He said, Verily 1 say untu ynu, Nu pruphet is
accepted in hia nwn cnuntry. 35. But I tell ynu nf a truth, many widnws were in
larael in the daya nf Elias, when the heaven waa abut up three years and six mnnths,
when great famine was threughnut all the land ; 36. But untn none uf them was
Eliaa aent, save unto Sarepta, a city nf Sidun, untu a wnman that was a widnw. 37.
And many lepers were in Israel in the time nf Eliseus the pruphet ; and nnne ef
them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." The meaning surely, which ¦kuvtus
uften has, wuuld be nf nn fnrce here ; it rather means wholly, nothing less than:"
" The questinn which ynu have just put tn me is nnly the firat aymptnm nf unbelief.
Frum surprise ynu will pass tn derisiun. Thus ynu will quickly arrive at the end nf
the path in which you have just taken the first step." The term TrapaPo'Ay, parable,
denotes any kind ef figurative discourse, whether a cemplete narrative or a short sen
tence, cnuched in an image, like proverbs. Jesus had just attributed to Himself,
applying Isaiah's wnrds, the nffice nf a resturer uf humanity. He had described the
varinus iUs from whicb His hearers were suffering, and directed their attention to
Himself as the physician sent to beal them. This is what the proverb cited refers tn.
(Cump. iarpos, a physician, with 'idaaaBai, io Ileal, ver. 18). Thus : " Tnu are guing
even tn turn tn ridicule what ynu have just heard, and tn say tn me, Thnu whn pre
tendest tu save humanity from its misery, begin by delivering thyself from thine
own." But, aa thua explained, the proverb does net appear te be in connection
with the following proposition. Several interpretera have proposed another explana
tion : " Before attempting to save mankind, raise thy native town from its obscurity,
and make it famous by miracles like those which theu must have wrought at
Capernaum. ' ' But it ia very fnrced tn explain the wurd thyself in the aenae nf thy
native town, Tbe cnnnectiun nf thia proverb with the fnUnwing wnrds is explained,
if we see in the latter a suggestinn Of ihe means by which Jesus may yet prevent the
cnntempt with which He is threatened iu Hia own cnuntry: " In nrder that we may
acknowledge you to be what you claim, the Savieur of the people, do here aome such
miracle as it is said thou hast done at Capernaum." This speech betrays an ironical
doubt respecting those marvellous thinga which were attributed to Him.
It appears from this passage, aa well as from Matt. 13 : 58 and Mark 6 : 5, that
Jesus performed no miracles at Nazareth. It is even said that " He could do no mir
acle there." It was a meral impossibility, as in other aimilar instances (Luke 11 : 16,
39 ; 33 : 35). It proceeded from the spirit in which the demand was made : it was
a miracle of oatentalion that waa required of Him (the third temptation in the deaert) ;
and it was what He cnuld nnt grant, withnut doing what ihe Fatlier had ¦not shown Him
* Ver. 23. !*. B. D. L. snme Mnn. read eig ryv instead nf ev ry. Ver. 24. Kafapvaovp
in !S. B. D. X. It. Vg. inatead nf Kanepvaovp which is the reading uf T. R. with 15
nther Mjj. the Mnn. and Vss. Very nearly the aame in the nther paasages. Ver.
37. The MSS. are divided between 'Siduviag (Alex.) and iiduvoS (T. R. Byz.). Marciun
prnbably placed this verse after 17 : 19.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 15o
(Jnhn 5 : 19, 30). The allusinn tn the miracles at Capernaum creates surprise,
because nnne nf them have been recnrded ; and mndern interpreters generally find in
these Wnrds a prunf uf the chrnnnlugical disurder which here prevails in Luke's nar
rative. He must have placed this visit-much tun sunn. This cnncluainn, hnwever,
is nnt su certain as it appears. The expressinn, in ilie power of ilie Spirit (ver. 14),
cnntains by implicatinn, as we have aeen, an indication nf miracles wrought in thnse
early days, and amnng these we must certainly rank the miracle at the marriage feast
at Cana (Jnhn 3). This miracle was fnllnwed by a residence at Capernaum (Jnhn
3 : 13), during which Jesus may have perfurmed snme miraculuus wnrks ; and it was
nnt tUl after that that He preached publicly at Nazareth. These early miracles have
been effaced by subsequent events, as that at Cana would have been, if Juhn had nnt
rescued it frnm nbliviun. If this is an, the twenty-third verae, which seema at flrst
sight nnt tn harmnnize with the previnus narrative, wnuld just pruve with what
fldelity Luke has preaerved the purpurt nf the anurces whence he drew .his infurma
tinn. Juhn in the same way .makes allusinn (2 : 23) tn miracles which he haa nnt
recorded. The prepusitinn els before the name Capernaum appears tn be the true
reading ; " dune at and in favor of Capern-aum. "
The ds (ver. 34) indicates cppusitinn. " Sn far frnm aeeking tn nbtain ynur cnn
fldence by a display nf miraclea, I ahall rather accept, as a prophet, the fate uf all the
prophets." The proverbial aaying here cited by Jesua ia fnund in the scene Matt. 13
and Mark 6, and, with acme sUght mudiflcatinn, in Juhn 4 : 44. Nnne have mnre
difficulty in discerning the exceptiunal character uf an extranrdinary man than thnse
whn have lung lived with him un terms uf familiarity. The di (ver. 35) is again uf
an adversative fnrce : If by ynur unbeUef ynu prevent my being yuur physician, there
are others whom you will not prevent me from healing. The expression verily
announces something important ; and it ia evident that the appUcation of the aaying,
ver. 34, in the mind of Jeaus, has a much wider reference than the instance befure
Him ; Nazareth becnmes, in His view, a type uf unbelieving Israel. This is proved
by the twn fuUnwing examples, which refer tn the relatinna nf larael with the heathen.
He apeaka nf a famine of three years and a half. Frura the expreaainns nf the O. T.,
during flieae yea/ra (1 Kings 17 : 1), and the third year (18 : 1), we can nnly in strict
ness infer a drought nf twn years and a half. But as this same figure, three years and
a Imlf, ia fuund in Jaa. 5 : 17, it was. prnbably a traditinn nf the Jewiah schnnla.
The reasuning wnuld be this : The famine muat have laated fur a certain time after
the drought. There wnuld be a desire alsn tn make nut the number which, ever aince
the persecutinn uf Antinchus Epiphanes, had beceme the emblem nf times nf natinnal
Calamity. The expressinn, all the land, denntes the land nf larael, with the knnwn
cuuntriea bnrdering upnn it. The Alex, reading liduvias, ihe territory of Sidon, may
be a currectinn derivecl frnm the LXX. The reading Xiduvo;, tiie city nf Sidun itaelf,
makes the capital the centre un which the surrounding cities depend. The sumewhat
incurrect use nf el py, except, is explained by the applicatiun nf this restrictien not tn
the special nntiun nf laraeliiish widuwhund, but tn the idea nf widowhood in general ;
the same remark applies tn ver. 27, Matt. 13 : 4, Gal. 1 : 19, and nther passages. The
secnnd example (ver. 37) is taken frnm 3 Kings 5 : 14. T^he paasage 3 Kinga 7 : 3
and sume nthers prnve hnw very prevalent leprosy was in Israel at this time. The
prnphecy cnntained in theae examplea is being ful filled tn this hnur : Israel is deprived
uf the wnrks uf grace and marvels nf healing which the Measiah wnrks amung the
Gentiles,

154 (.iOMMENTARY ON ST. .LUKE.
Vers. 38-30.* Conclusio7i.— The threat cnntained in these examples exasperates
them : " Thnu rejectest us : we reject thee," was their virtual reply. The term
iK0dXXEiv, to cast out, denntes that they set upnn Him with vinlence. Abnut fnrty
minutes distant from Nazareth, tn the suuth-east, they shnw awallnf ruck eighty feet
high, and (if we add tu it a secnnd declivity which is fnund a little belnw) abnUt 300
feet abnve the plain uf Esdraelun. It is there that traditinn places this scene. But
Rcbinsnn regards this traditinn aa nf nn great antiquity. Besides, it dues nnt agree
with the expressinn : on which the city waa buili. Nazareth spreads itself nut upon the
eastern face of a mountain, where there is a perpendicular wall nf ruck from 40 tn 50
feet high. This nearer Incality agrees better with the text. The uare cf the Alex.
reading signifies : so as to be able tn cast Him duwn. It was fnr that purpuse that
they tunk the trnuble nf guing up sn high. This reading ia preferable tn the T. R. ;
els TO, for ilie purpose of. The deliverance nf Jeaus was neither a miracle nnr an
escape ; He paaaed through the group nf these infuriated penple with a majesty which
nverawed them. The histury uffers sume similar incidents. We cannnt say, as une
critic dues : " In the absence nf any nther miracle. He lett them thia. "
The greater jiart cf mndern critica regard this scene as identical with that nf Matt:
13 and Mark 6, placed by theae evangelists at a much later perind. They rely, Isi,
On the expressinn nf surprise : Is not this the aon of Joseph ? -^nd , nn the proverbial
saying, ver. 34, which cnuld nnt have been repeated twice within a few mnnths ; 2d,
On the abaence nf miracles cummun tu the twn narratives ; Sd, On the wnrds nf ver.
33, which suppuse that Jesua had been labniing at Capernaum prinr tu this visit to
Nazareth. But huw in this case are the fnUnwing differences tn be explained ? 1.
In Matthew and Mark there is nnt a wnrd abuut the attempt tn put Jesus tn death.
All gnes nff peaceably tn the very end. 3. Where are certain cases nf healing recnrded
by Matthew (ver. 58) and Mark (ver. 5) tu be placed ? Befnre the preaching ? Thia
is scarcely cempatible with the wnrds put intu the muuth uf the inhabitanta nf Naz
areth (ver. 23, Luke). After the preaching ? Luke'a narrative abanlutely excludes
this suppusitinn. 3. Matthew and Mark place the visit -which they relate at the cul
minating pnint nf the Galiltean ministry and tnward its close, whUe Luke commences
his accnunt uf this ministry with tbe narrative which we have just been studying.
An attempt has been made tn explain this difference in twn ways : Luke may have
wished, in placing this narrative here, tn make us see the reaaun which induced Jesus
tn settle at Capernaum instead nf Nazareth (Bleek, Weizsacker) ; nr he may have
made this scene the npening nf Jesus' ministry, because it prefigurea the rejectinn uf
the Jewa and the aalvation ef the GentUea, w-hich ia the leading idea ef his book
(Holtzmann). But how is auch an arbitrary transpositinn tn be harmnnized with his
intentinn nt writing in oi'der, sn diatinctly proteased bj- Luke (1:4)? These difflculties
have nut yet been selved. Is it then impnssible, that after a firat attempt amnng His
fellnw citizena at the beginning nf His miniatry, Jesus shnuld have made a secnnd
later nn ? On the cnntrary, is it nnt quite natural that, befnre leaving Galilee fnrever
(and thus at the very time to which Matthew and Mark refer their account). He
should have addressed Himself once mnre te tbe heart of His fellow-countrymen,
and that, if He had again found it closed against Him, the shock would neverthelesa
have been leas vielent than at the first encounter ? Hnwever this may be, if the twn
narrativea refer tn the same event, as preaent crilicism decides, Luke's appears tn me
tn deaerve the preference, and fnr twn reaaun a : 1. The very dramatic and detailed
picture he haa drawn leaves nn rnnm fnr dnubting the accuracy and abanlute uriginal
ity nf the snurce whence he derived hia infurmatinn ; while the narratives nf Matthew
and Mark betray, by the. absence nf all distinctive features, their traditiunal urigin,
3. Jnhn (4 : 4) cites, at tlie beginning nf bis accuunt of the Oalilman ministry, the say-
¦ ing recnrded by the three ovangeliata aa tn tbe rejectinn which every prophet must
undergn frnm hia nwn penple. He quntes it as a maxim already previuusly annnunced,
* Ver. 39. 5*. B, D. L. snme Mnn., uare instead of eis to, •

COMMENTAKY ON ST. Lt:KE. 155
by Jeaus, and which had influenced from the flrst the cnurse of His ministry. Nnw,
as the three Syn. are agreed in referring this saying tn a visit at Nazareth, thia qunta-
tinn iu Jnhn clearly prnvea that the viait in queatinn tnnk place at the cummencement
(Luke), and nnt in the middle or at the end nf the Galilsean ministry (Matthew and
Mark). We are thus brought tn the cenclusiuns : 1. "That the visit related by Luke
is hiatnrical ; 3. That the recellectiun nf it waa lust tn traditinn, in cummnn with many
uther facta relating tn the beginning uf the miuiatry (marriage at Cana, etc.) ; 3. That
it was fnllnwed by annther toward the end uf the Galilsean miniatry, in the traditiunal
accnunt nf which aeveral incidents were introduced belnnging tu the furmer. As tn
the sujnurn at Capernaum„ implied in Luke 5 : 33, we have already seen that it is
included in the general descriptiun, ver. 15. Juhn 3 ; 13 prnves that frum the first
the attentiuu nf Jesus was drawn tn thia city as a suitable place in which tu reside.
His flrat diaciples lived near it. The synagcgue ut Capernaum muat then have been
uue nf the flrst in which He preached, and cnnsequenlly nne ef thnae mentinned in
ver. 15.
3. Residence at Capernaum, : vers. 31-44. Five sections : lat. A general survey
(vers. 31 and 33) ; 2d. The healing uf a demoniac (vers. 33-37) : Sd. That of Peter's
raother-in-law (vera. 38 and 39) ; 4:th. Varioua curea (vers. 40-42) ; 5th. Transitinn tn
the evangelization of Galilee generally.
Firat. Vers. 31 and 33. The term. He went down, refers to the situation of Caper
naum nn the sea-ahnre, in uppnaitiun tu that nf Nazareth un the high land. We have
tn du here with a permanent abude ; cump. Jnhn 3 : 13 and Matt. 4 : 13 {e^Bdv
KUTuKyaev e'lQ K.), as well as the term. Ilia own city (Matt. 9 : 1). The name Capernaum
nr Capharnaum (see critical nute, ver. 33) dnea nnt occur in the O. T. From thia it
would aeem that it waa net a very ancient place. The name may signify, town of
Nalium (alluding to the prophet of this name), nr (with more probability) town of
consolation. Tlie name, according to Joaephus, belonged properly tn a fnuntain ;* in
the unly paaaage in which he menlinna thia tnwn, he calls it KEfapvopy.j Until
lately, it waa very generally admitted that the site nf Cap'ernaum was marked by the
ruins uf Tell-Hum tuward the nnrthern end nf the lake nf Gennesareth, te the west nf
the embnuchure of the Jnrdan. Since Rubinsun's time, hnwever, several, and amnng
tbe reat M. Renan, have inclined to look fnr it farther anutb, in the rich plain where
stands at the present day the tnwn nf Khan-Minyeh, nf which Jnsephua has left us
such a fine descriptiun. Keim pronuunces Very decidedly in favur nf this latter
npininn, and suppurts it by reasnns nf great weight, j: Agriculture, fishing, and cera-
merce, favured by the rnad from Damascus to Ptulemais, which pasaed through nr
near Capernaum, had made it a flnurishing city. It was therefure the mnst impnrtant
town uf the nnrthern district nf the lake country. It was the Jewish, as Tiberias
was the heathen, capital nf Galilee (a aimilar relatinn tn that between Jeruaalem and
Cseaarea). The 31st and 33d verses fnrm the flfth resting-place nr general summary in the
narrative (see vers. 14, 15). The analytical fnrm yv diddaKuv indicates habit. In the
parallel place in Mark, the imperf. ididaoKev puts the act nf teaching in direct and
special cunnectinn with the fnUnwing fact. By the authority (i^ovaia) which charac
terized the wnrds uf Jeaus, Luke means, not the puwer empleyed in the healing nf
* " Bell. Jud." iii. 10, 8 : " Tn the mildneaa nf the climate ia added the .advan
tage uf a cupious spring, which the inhabitants call Capharnaum."
t Jus. " Vita," § 73.
X DeUtzch, in his little tractate, " Ein Tag in Capernaum," dnes nnt hesitate to
recngnizc in the great field nf ruins nf Tell-Hum tbe remains nf Capernaum.

156 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the demnniac (tn express this he wnuld rather have used dvvafus, force), but ^he cnm-
manding character which distinguished His teaching. Jesus ^did nut dissect texts,
like the Rabbis ; He laid dnwn truths which carried with thcm'their own evidence.
He spuke as a legislatur, nnt as a lawyer (Matt. 7 ; 28, 39). The fuUnwing incident
prnves tbe right He had tu teach in this way. It appears that it was with this 31st
verse that Marcinn cnmmenced his Gnspel, prefacing it with the fixing nf the date,
iii. 1 : "In the 15th year nf the gnvernment nf Tiberius, Jesus went dnwn into the
tewn of Galilee called Capernaum."'* The complement understood olweni down
was evidently : frnm heaven. As tn tbe visit tn Nazareth, Marcinn places it after the
acene which fulluwa ; this transpuaitinn was certainl}"- dictated by ver. 23.
Secnnd. Vers. 33-37. f Shnuld the pnssessed mentinned by the evangelists be re
garded aimply as persuns afflicted after the same manner as nur lunatics, whuae de
rangement was attributed by Jewiah and heathen auperatitinn to aupernatural in
fluence ? Or did Gnd really permit, at this extranrdinary epuch in histury, an ex
ceptiunal display nf diabulical pnwer ? Or, lastly, shnuld certain murbid cunditinns
nuw existing, which medical science attributes tn purely natural causes, either
physical ur psychical, be put dnwn, at the present day alsn, tn the actinn nf higher
causes? These are the three hypntheses which present themselves tn the mind.
Several nf the demnniacs healed by Jesus certainly exhibit symptums very like those
which are nbserved at the present day in these who are simply afflicted ; for example,
the epUeptic child, Luke 9 ; 37 e< seq., and parall. These strange conditions in every
case, therefore, -were l^sed on a real disorder, either physical nr physicu-psychical.
The evangelists are sn far frnm being ignnrant nf this, that they cnnstantly class the
demnniacs under the categnry nf the sick (vers. 40 and 41), never under that nf the
vicinus. The pnssessed have nnthing in cummnn wilh the children of the devil
(Juhn 8). Nevertheless these afflicted persuns are cnnatantly made a claas by them
selves. On what dues this distinctien rest ? On this leading fact, that thnse whn are
simply sick enjoy their uwn persunal cnnsciuusness, and are in pussessinn of their
nwn will ; while in the pnssessed thesei faculties are, as it were, cnnflacated tn a
fureign pnwer, with which the sick persnn identifies hiraself (ver. 34, 8 : 30). Hnw
is this peculiar symptum tn be explained ? Jusephus, under Hellenic influence,
thuught that it shnuld be attributed tn *be seuls nf wicked men whu came after death
seeking a dumicile in the living. X In the eyes nf the penple the strange guest was a
demim, a fallen angel. This latter upiniun Jesus muat have shared. Strictly speak
ing. His cuUuquiea with the demeniaca might be explained by an accummudatinn tn
pnpular prejudice, and the aentiments nf thuse who were thus afflicted ; but in His
private cenversatinns with His diaciples. He muat, whatever was true, have discluaed
His real theughta, and sought tn enlighten them. But He dees nnthing uf the kind ;
un the cnntrary. He gives the apostles and disciples powCr tn cast out devila (9 : 1),
and tn tread nn aU the power of ihe enemy (10 : 19). In Mark 9 : 39, He distinguiahes
a certain class nf derauns that can nnly be driven nut by prayer (and fasting ?). In
Luke 11 : 31) and parall. He explains the facility with which He casts nut demnns
by the personal victory which He had achieved over Satan at the beginning. He
therefore admitted the intervention of this being in these mysterieus conditions. If
* TertuUian, " Contra Marc," iv. 7.
X Ver. 33. ». B. L. V. Z. emit Xeyov. Ver. 85. ». B. D. L. V. Z. several Mnn. read
nTTo instead ot f '.
X "BeU. Jud." vii. 6. 3,

COMMKNTAIiV ON ST. LUKE. . 157
this is sn, is it nnt natural tn admit that He whu exercised nver this, as uver all uther
kinds uf maladies, such absnlute pnwer, best understnud its nature, and that there
fnre His viewa upuu the pnint shnuld determine nurs ?
Are there nut times when Gnd permits a superiur evil pnwer tn invade humanity ?
Just aa Gnd aent Jeaus at a perind in histury when mnral and sncial evil had reached
its culminating puint, did nnt He alau permit an extranrdinary manifeatatinn uf dia
bulical pnwer tn take place at the aame time ? By this means Jesus cuuld be pro
claimed externally and visibly as the cunquernr uf the enemy nf men, as He whn
came tu destroy the worka of the devil in the mnral senae nf the wnrd (1 Jnhn 3 : 8).
All tbe miraclea nf healing have a aimilar design. They arc signs by which Jeaua ia
revealed as the authnr nf apiritual deliverancea cnrrespnnding tu these physical cures.
An cbjectinn is fnund in the silence uf the fnurth Gospel ; but John in no way pro
fessed to relate all he knew. He saya himself, 30 30, 31. that there are besides many
miraclea, and different miracles {¦KoXXd Kac uXXu), which he doea net relate.
As to the present state ef things, it must not be compared with the times of Jesus.
Net only might the latter have been of an exceptional character ; but the beneficent
influence which the Gospel has exercised in resturing man tn himself, and bringing
his cnnscience under the pnwer nf the hnly and true Gnd, may have brought abnut a
cumplete change in the spiritual wurld. Lastly, apart frum all this, is there nnthing
mysterinus, from a scientific puint uf view, in certain cases nf mental derangement,
particularly in thuse cenditinns in which the will is, as it were, cuufiscated tn, and
paralyzed by, an unknnwn puwer ? And after deductinn has been made fer all thoae
forms of mental maladies which a discriminating analysis can explain by mnral and
physical relatinna, will nnt an impartial physician agree that there is a residuum nf
cases reapecting which he muat aay : Non liquet ?
Pnsaessinn is a caricature nf inspiratiun. The latter, attaching itself tn the mnral
essence cf a man, cunfirms him fnrever in the pussessinn nf his true self ; the fnrmer,
whUe prnfnundly nppnsed tn the nature nf the subject, takes advantage nf its state nf
murbid passivity, and leads tu the f urfeiture nf persunality. The nne is the higheat
wnrk uf Gud ; the nther nf the devil.
The questinn has been asked, Hnw cnuld a man in a state nf mental derangement,
and whn wnuld be regarded as unclean (ver. 33), be fnund in the synagugue? Per
haps his maladj"^ had nut brnken nut befure as it did at this mument — Luke says
literally : a man who had a spirit {an afflatus) of an unclean devil. In this expressinn,
which is nnly fuund in Rev. 16 : 14, the term spirit er a-fflaius denotes the influence
of the unclean devU, nf the being whn is the author nf it. The crisis which breaks
nut (ver. 34) results frnm the upposing action nf thnae twn pnwers which enter intn
cunfiict with each other — the influence uf the evil spirit, and that cf the persnn and
wurd uf Jesus. A huly pnwer nn snuner begins tn act in the aphere in which this
wretched creature lives, than the unclean puwer which has demininn nver him feels
its empire threatened. This idea is suggested by the cuntrast between the epithet
unclean applied tu the diabulical siiirit (ver. 33), and the addreaa : Thnu "art the Huly
One nf Gnd(ver. 34). Theexclamatinn eu, ah! (ver. 34) is properly the imperative nf
ido, let be ! It is a cry like that nf a criminal whn, when suddenly apprehended by
the pnlice, calls nut : Lunse me ! 1'hia ia alau what is meatit in this instance by the
expressinn, in frequent use amung the Jews with different applicatinns : What is
there between ua and thee? nf which the meaning here is : What have we tu cuntend
abnut ? What evil have we dune thee ? The plural we dnes nnt apply tn the devil

158 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
and tn the pnssessed, since the latter stUl identifles himself altogether with the
former. The deril speaka iu the name ef all the other spirits of his kind which have
succeeded in obtaining pusaeaainn nf a human being. The perditinn which he dreada
ia being sent into the abyss where such spirits await the judgment (8 : 31). This
abyss is the emptiness uf a creature that pnsaesses nn puint nf auppnrt uutside itself —
neither in Gud, as the faithful angels have, nur in the wnrld of sense, as sinful men
endnwed with a bndy have. In nrder tu remedy this inward destitutinn, they en
deavur tn unite themselves to snme human being, su as tu enter thrnugh this medium
intn cnntact with sensible realities. Whenever a Inss-uf this pnsitiun befalls them,
they faU back intu the abyss nf their empty self-dependence {vide siibjeeiiviie). The
term Holy One of God expresses the character in which this being recngnized his
deadly enemJ^ We cannnt be surpriaed that such hnmage shuuld be kltngether re
pugnant tn the feelinga uf Jesus. He did nnt acknnwledge it as the utterance nf an
individual whnse will is free, which is the nnly hnmage that can please Him ; and
He sees what uccasinn may be taken frnm such facts tn exhibit His wurk in a sus-
picinua light (11 : 15). He therefnre puts an end tn thia acene immediately by these
twu pereraptury wnrds (ver. 35) : Silence ! and Come out. By the wnrds e| avrm, of
him, Jesua fnrcibly diatinguishes between the twn beings thua far mingled tugether.
This divurce is the cnnditinn nf the cure. A terrible cunvulainn marks the deliver-
aucc uf the afflicted man. The turmentur dees nnt let gn his victim withnut subject
ing him to a final torture. The words, witlwut having done liimany hurt, reproduce
iu a striking raanner the irapression nf eye-witqesaes : they ran tnward the unhappy
man, expecting tn find him dead ; and tn their aurpriae, on lifting him up, they find
him perfectly restured.
We may imagine the feelings cf the cnngregatiun when they beheld such a scene
as this, in which the twu pnwers that dispute the empire uf mankind had in a sensi
ble manner just cnme intn cunflict. Vers. 36 and 37 describe this feeUng. Several
have applied the expressinn thia word (What a wnrd ia this ! A. V.) tn the cummand
nf Jesus which the devil had just nbeyed. But a reference tu ver. 33 nbUges us to
take the term word in its natural sense, the preaching ef Jesus in general. The
authority with which He taught (ver. 33) found ita guarantee in the authority backed
by power {dvvapis), with which He forced tbe devils themaelvea to render obedience.
The pnwer which Jesua exercises by Hia aimple wurd is nppnsed tu the prescriptinns
and pretences uf the exerciata ; His cures differ frum theirs, just as His teaching did
from that nt the scribes. In bnth cases He speaks as a master.
The accuunt nf this miracle i.s emitted by Matthew. It is fnund with snme slight
variatinns in Mark (1 ; 33 et aeq.). It is placed by him, as by Luke, at the beginning
cf this sujnurn nf Jesua at Capernaum. Instead nf j>hpav, having thrown him, Mark
saya, a^wapd^av, having tmm, violently convulsed him. Instead nf Wliat ¦word is this?
Mark makes the multitude say : 'What new dgctrine is thia ? — an expressinn which
agreea with the senae which we have given tn Aoyof in Luke. The meaning nf the
epithet new in the muuth nf the peuple might be rendered by tbe cummnn exclama-
tinn : Here ia snmething new ! Accnrding tn Bleek, Mark burrnwed his narrative
frnm Luke. But hnw very paltry and insignificant these changes wnuld seem ! Ac
curding tn Hnltzmann, the uriginal anurce was the primitive Mark (A.), the narrative
nf which has been reprnduced exactly by nur Mark ; while Luke has mndified it with
n- view tn exalt the miracle, by changing, fur example, liaving torn intn having
Ihroicn, and by adding un his nwu authnrity the details, with a loud voice, and with
out having done him any hurt. Hnltzmann cnngratulates hiinaelf, after this, nn
having made Luke's dependence un the Proto-Mark quite evident. But the simple

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKll. 159
tern> word, which in Luke (ver. 36) supplies the place nf Mark's emphatic expreaainn,
this new doctrine, cuntradicts this explanatinn. And if this miracle waa in the
primitive Mark, from which, accurding tn Hnltzmann, Matthew must alsn have
drawn his narrative, hnw came the latter tn nmit an incident se striking ? Hellz-
mann's answer is, that this evangeUat thought another example nf a aimilar
cure, that nf the demnniac at Gadara, the mure atriking ; and tu cumpenaate fnr the
nmiaainn nf the heaUng at Capernaum, he has put dnwn twn demnniacs, instead nf
nne, tu Gadara . ' . . ! Hnw can such a childish procedure be imputed tu a grave
histnrian ?
Third, Vera. 38 and 39.* Peter, accnrding tn nur narrative, seems tu have lived
at Capernaum. Accurding tu Juhn 1 : 45, he was nriginally nf Bethaaida. The twn
places were very near, and might have had a cnmmon synagogue ; Or, while origi
naUy belonging to the nne, Peter might have taken up his abnde at the ntlier. The
term ¦KEuBepd (pnt pyrpvla) provea that Peter waa married, which agrees with 1 Cur.
9:5. It is pnssible that frum this time Jesus tnnk up His abnde in Peter's hnuse. Matt,
17 : 24 et aeq. Accnrding tu Mark 1 : 39, His train nf disciples cnnsisted, nnt unly nf
Simnn and Andrew, but alsu uf James and Juhn. This already exiating aaanciatinn
suppuses a prinr cnnnectinn between Jeaua and these ynung fishermen, which is ex
plained in Jnhn 1. Luke dnes net name the cumpaninns Uf Jesus. We nnly see by
the wnrds, slie arose and ministered unto tliem (ver. 39), that He was nnt alnne. Tho
expressinn ¦jrvperds peyas dues not appear to be used here in the technical aense which
it has in ancient books ef medicine, where it denotes a particular kind ot fever. Iii
Luke, Jeaua bends down over the sick woman. This.waa a means of entering into
spiritual cummuificatinn with her ; cnmp. Peter's werda tn the impetent man (Acts
3:4): Book on me. In Matthew, He touches the sick wnman with Hia hand. This
actiun has the same design. In Mark, He takea her by the hand tn lift her up. Hnw
are theae variatinns tn be explained, if all three drew from the aame source, or it one
derived his account from the ether? Luke saya, literally. He rebuked ihe fever ; as
if He saw in the disease aome principle hoatile to man. This agrees with John 8 ; 44,
where the devil is called the murderer of man. It was doubtless at the time ef the
evening meal (ver. 40). The flrst use which tbe sick woman makes ot her recovered
strength was to serve up a repast fer her guests. Holtzmann flnds a proof in the
plur. aiiTols, " she served them," that Luke's narrative depends on Mark ; for thus
far Luke has nnly spoken of Jesus : He came down (ver. 31), He entered (ver. 38).
But this proof is weak. In the description ef the public scene, Luke would only
present the principal peraon, Jeaus : while in the account of the dumestic acene he
wnuld naturally mentinn alsn the nther persuns, since they had aU the same need nf
being waited upnn.
In Luke and Mark the pnsitiun nf this narrative is very nearly the same, with
raereljr this difference, that in the latter it fnUuws the calling nt the fnur disciples,
while in Luke it precedes it. In Matthew, on the cnntrary. it ia placed very much
later— after the Serrann nn the Muunt. Aa tn the detaila, Matthew is almnst
identical with Mark. Thus the twn evangelists which agree aa tn the time (Luke and
Mark) differ must as tu the details, and the twn which cume nearest tn each nther in
detaUs (Matthew and Mark) differ considerably as te time. How can this singular
relation be explained if they drew from common written sources, or if they copied
from each other ? Luke here emits Andrew, whura Mark mentiuns. Why sn, if he
cupied frnm the primitive Mark ? Had he any animnsity against Andrew ? Heltz-
Ver. 38. The mss. are divided between an-o and eK.

160 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
mann replies : Because he dnes nut speak nf Andrew in what fnllnws. As if, in
Mark himself, he was any the mnre mentiuned in the incidents that fnllnw !
Fourth. Vers. 40 and 41.* Here we have nne nf thnae perinds when the miracu
lnus puwer nf Jesus was mnst abundantly displayed. We shall meet again with sume
uf theae culminating puints in the course nf Hia miniatry. A similar rhythm is
fnund in the career nf the apnstles. Peter at Jerusalem (Acts 5 : 15, 16). and Paul at
Ephesus (19 : 11, 13), exercise their miraculnus pnwer tn a degree in which they ap
pear tn have exhibited it at nn nther time in their life ; it was at the same time the
culminating puint uf their ministry nf the wurd.
The memnry nf this reraarkable evening must have fixed itself indelibly in the
early traditinn ; fur the accnunt nf this time has been preaerved, in almost identical
terms, in nur three Syn. The sick came in crowds. The expreaainn, when the aun
waa setting, shuws that this time had been waited fnr. And that nnt ' ' because it
waa the cnnl hnur," as many have thuught, but because it was the end uf the Sab
bath, and carrying a sick persnn waa regarded aa wnrk (Jnhn 5 : 10). The whnle
city, as Mark, in hia aimple, natural, and sumewhat emphatic style, says, waa gather
ed tugether at the dunr. Accnrding tn uur narrative, Jesus made use un this uccasinn
nt the laying nn nf 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 detaU waa
found, and not this alone. This rite is a symbol nf any kind ef transmission,
whether of a gift or an offlce "(Moses and Joshua, Deut. 34 : 9), or, of a bleaaing (the
patriarchal blessings), or of a duty (the transfer to the Levites of the natural f unctiuns
nf the eldest anns in every f amil}^), nr nf guOt (the guilty Israelite laying his hands nn
the head nf the victim), nr uf the snund, vital strength enjuyed by the persen who
imparts it (curea). It. is not certainly that Jesus cnuld nnt have wnrked a cure by
His mere wurd, nr even by a simple act nf vnlitinn. But, in the first place, there is
snmething prufuundly human in this act uf laying the hand nn the head nf any nne
whnm une desires tn benefit. It is a gesture nf tenderness, a .sign nf beneficial cum
municatinn such as the heart craves. Then thia symbul might be mnraUy necessary.
Whenever Jesus avails Himself nf any material means tn wnrk a cure, whether it be
the snund uf Hia vnice, or clay made nf His spittle, His aim is tn establish in the fnrm
beat adapted tn the particular case, a persunal tie between the sick persun and Him
self ; fnr He desires nut nnly tn heal, but to effect a resturatiun tu Gnd, by creating
in the cnnaciuusnesa nf the sick a sense cf uninn with Himself the nrgan nf divine
grace in the midat nf mankind. This mural aim explains the variety nf the means
emplnyed. Had they been curative raeans — nf the nature nf magnetic passes, fnr
example — they cuuld nut have varied sn much. But aa they were addreased tn the
sick persnn's snul, Jeaua chuae them in such a way that Hia actinn was adapted tn ita
character nr pnsitiun. In tbe case uf a deat mute. He put His fingers intn hia ears ;
He anninted the eyes nf a blind man with Hia spittle, etc. In this way their healing
appeared as an emanatinn frnm His persnn, and attached them tn Him by an indis
snluble tie. Their restured life was felt tu be dependent nn His. The repetitinn nf
* Ver. 40. B. D. Q. .X. eirmOetS instead ef ettiBsiS. B. D. It. Syr. , EBepanEvev in-
iStead of sBepa'^evaev. Ver. 41. The MSS. are divided between Kpavya^ovra and
Kpa^ovra. The T. R., wilh 14 Mjj. almost all the Mnn. Syr., reads o XpiaroS before
0 vioS TOV 0EOV, contrary to !*. B. 0. D. F. L. R. X, Z. Iti<i'-'-ii"«, wliich nm-it it.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 161
the act nf laying nn uf hands in each case was with the same view. The sick persnn,
being thus visibly put intn a atate nf physical dependence, wnuld neceasarily in
fer his mnral dependence. The Alex, readings iiririBEii, laying on, iBEpdwEVE, He
healed, must be preferred. The aur. (in the T. R.) indicates the cnmpleted act, the
imperf. its indefinite cuntinuatiun : " Laying His hands nn each nf thera. He healed,
and kept un healing, as many as came fnr it."
The demnniacs are mentinned in ver. 41 amnng the sick, but as furming a class
by themselves. This agrees with what we have stated respecting their cnnditinn.
There must have been sume physicu-psychical disurganizatinu tn affurd access tu the
malign influence. The wnrds 6 Xptards are currectly emitted by tbe Alex. ; they have
been taken frnm the secnnd part uf the verse. Frum the fact that the multitude
translated the exclamatiun uf the devila. Thou ari tlie Son of God, intu thia. It is ilie
Chriat, we have ne right tu cunclude that the twu titlea were identical. By the fnrmer,
the devUs acknnwledged the divine character nf this man, whn made them feel sn
fnrcibly His suvereign puwer. The latter was the translatinn nf this hum-age intu
ordinary speech by the Jewish multitude. Was it the deaign cf the devil tu cum-
prnmise Jesus by stirring up a dangerous excitement in larael in His favnr, nr by
making it believed that there waa a bund nf cummnn interest between His cause and
theirs 5 It is mure natural tu regard this exclamatiun as an invuluntary homage, an
anticipation of that compulsory adoration which all creatures, even thoae which are
under the earth, aa St. Paul says (Phil. 3 : 10), shall one day render to Jesus. They
are befnre the representative nf Him befoi'e whom they tremble (Jas. 3 : 19). Jesus,
whn had rejected in the desert all cumplicity with their head, cnuld nnt think nf
deriving advantage from this impure hnmage.
Fifth. Vers. 43-44.* The mnre a servant uf Gnd exerts himself in nutward
activity, the mnre need there is that he shnuld renew his inward atrength by medita
tion. Jeaus alsn waa subject tn this law. Every murning He had tn nbtain afresh
whatever was needed fnr the day ; fnr He lived by the Father (Jnhn 6 : 57). He
went nut befnre day from Peter's hniise, where nn dnubt He was staying. Instead
of, A-nd when it waa day, Mark says. While it was still very dark {ewvxov Xiav). In
stead nf, the multitude aought Him, Mark says, Simon and they that were with him
foUowed, after Him . . . a'nd aaid unto Him, AU men aeek Thee. Instead nf ,
1 must preach, Mark makes Jesus say. Bet us go, that I may preach . . . etc.
These shades cf difference are easily explained, if the substance uf these narratives
was furnished by oral traditinn ; but they becume chUdish if they are drawn from
the same written snurce. Hnltzmann thinks that Luke generaUzes and nbacures the
narrative nf the primitive Mark. The third evangelist wnuld have labnred very use
lessly tu du that ! Bleek, succeeds nn better in explaining Mark by Luke, than Hnltz
mann Luke by Mark. If Mark listened tn the narratinns nf Peter, it is inteUigible
that he shnuld have added tn the traditiunal narrative the few striking features which
are peculiar to him, and particularly that which refers tn the part taken by Simnn nn
that day. As we read Mark 1 : 36, 37 we fancy we hear Peter telUng the stnry him
self, and saying : " And we fnund Hhn, and said tuHim, All men seek Thee. " These
special features, emitted hi the general traditinn, are wantmg in Luke. The wnrds
* Ver 43 S> B C. D. L. X. sume Mnn., airearaXyv instead of a^KEoraXpai. S. B.
L. snme Mnn.,eii-« t'toto instead ef «5 tovto. Ver. 44. ». B. D. Q., eiS rar awayuyas
instead ef ev raiS amayayan. ». B. C. L. Q. R., several Mnn., t^jS lovdaias, instead
of T)jf VaXiXaiaS,

162 (-ommeNtary on st. luke.
of Jesus, ver. 43, might be explained by a tacit opposition between the ideas of preach
ing and healifig. " If I stayed at Capernaum, I should soon have nothing else to
do but work cures, while I am sent that I may preach also." But in this caae the
verb evayyEXiaaaBai ahould commence the phraae. On the contrary, the emphaais is
on the words, io other cities . . . Jesus opposes to the idea of a stationary min
istry at Capernaum that of itinerant preaching. The term eiayyeXiaacBai, to teU
¦news, is very appropriate to express this idea. The message ceases te be news when
the preacher remains in the aame place. But in this expression ef Jesus there is,
besides, a contrast between Capernaum, the large city, to which Jesus in no way
desires to confine His care, and the smaller towns ef the vicinity, designated in Mark
by the characteristic term kop^kottoXelS, which are equally intrusted to Hia love. It
is difflcult to decide between the two readings, dirEardXyv, I have been sent in orde/f
to . . . and dnearaXpai, my mission is to . . . The second perhapa agrees
better with the context. A very similar various reading is found in the parallel
passage, Mark 1 : 38 {t^yXBov or i^sXyXyBd). Mark's term appears to allude te the in
carnation ; Luke's only refers tu the mission ef Jesua. The readings eis ris
avvayoyds and iv rals ovvayoyalg, ver. 44, recur in Mark 1 : 39. The former appears
lesa regular, which makea it more probable : Jesus carried the preaching into the
sj'nagngues. The absurd reading rys 'lovdaiac, which is fuund in the six principal
Alex., shuuld be a cautinn tu blind partisans uf this text.
THE MIRACLES OP JBSUS.
We shall here add a few thnughts nn the miracles nf Jesus in general. Pour
methuds are used tu get rid nf the miraculnus element in the Gnspel histnry : Ftrst.
The explanatinn caUed natural, which uphnlds the credibility nf the narrative, but
explaina the text in auch a way that its cnntents nffer nnthing extranrdinary. This
attempt has failed ; it is an expedient repudiated at tbe present day, ratienalistic
criticism nnly having recnurse tn it in cases where nther methnda are manifestly in
effectual. Second. "The mythical explanatinn, accnrding tu which the accnunts ot
the miracles wnuld be nwing tn reminiscences uf the miraculnus sturies nf the 0. T.—
the Messiah cnuld nnt du less than the propheta— nr wuuld be either the product of
spnntanenus creatinna nf the Christian cnnsciuusness, nr the accidental result ef cer
tain words er parables ef Jesus that were misunderstood (the resurrection ef Lazarus,
e.g., the result ef the passage Luke 16 : 31 ; the cursing nf the barren fig-tree, a trans
latinn intn fact nf the parable, Luke 13 : 6-9). But the simple, plain, histurical char
acter uf nur Gnspel narratives, sn free frnm all pnetical adornment and bombast, de
fends them against this auapicien. Besidea, several accnunts nf miracles are accom
panied by wnrds nf Jesus, which in such a caae wnuld Inae their meaijing, but which
are nevertheleas beynnd dnubt authentic. Fnr example, the discnurse. Matt. 12 : 26
et seq., where Jesua refutea the charge, laid againat Him by His adversaries, cf cast
ing nut devils by the prince nf the devila, wuuld have nn sense but nn the suppesition, .
fully cunceded by these adversariea, nf tbe reality nf His ciires nf the pnssessed. His
address tn the cities uf Galilee, Luke 10 : 13-15, implies the nuturinua and undiapiited
reality nf numeruua miraculuus facta in His ministry ; fnr we knnw nf nn exegesis
which cunsents tn give the term dwdpeis in this passage the purely mnral meaning which
M. Cnlani prupuses.* Tliird, The relative hypnthesis, accnrding tn which these facts
must be ascribed tn natural lawa as yet unknnwn. This waa the explanation ot
Schleiermacher ; in part alau it waa the explanatinn nf M. Renan • " The miraculous
is nnly the unexplained." It ia in cnnflict with twn inaurmnuntable difflculties ; 1.
* See nn this subject the flne chapter nf Hnltzmann, "Die Synupt Evaneelien "
§ 30; "Die Synnptischen Wunderberichte ;" and my lecture nn tbe " Miracles de
Jesus," second editinn, p. 11 et seq.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. -163
If certain cures may be explained after a faahiun, we may be perfectly sure that no
one wiU ever diacnver a natural law capable cf producing a multiplicatinn uf loaves
and nf cnnked fish, a reaurrectinn nf the dead, and abnve all, auch an event aa the
resurrectinn nf Jesus Himself. 3. We must, accnrding tn this explanatinn, attribute
to Jesus miracles nf scientific knnwledge quite as inexplicable as the miraclea ef
power which are now in question. Fourth. The paychological explanation. After
having get rid ef the miracles wrought on external nature (the multiplication of the
loaves and the stilling of the atorm) hj one ef the three methods indicated, Keim ad
mita a residuum ef extraordinary and indiaputable facts in the life of Jesus. These
are the cures wrought upon the sick and the poaaessed. Before him, M. Renan had
apoken of the influence exerted on suffering and nervous people by the contact of a
peraon nf finely urganized nature {une peraonne exquiae). Keim merely, in fact,
amplifies this expressinn. The unly real miracles in the histnry nf Jesus — the cures
— are tn be ascribed, accnrding tn him, tn mnral influence (ethicu-psychulngical, t. ii.
p. 162). We reply : 1. That the miracles wruught nn nature, which are set aside as
mythical, are attested in exactly the same manner as the cures which are admitted.
3. That Jesus wrought these curea with an abanlute certainty nf aucceas (" Nuw, in
nrder that ye may kriuw, I say untn thee . . ." " 1 will ; be thnu clean. " "Be
it untn thee as thnu wUt "), and that the effect produced was immediate. These twn
features are incnmpatible with the psychnlugical explanatinn. 3. That if Jesus had
knuwn that theae curea did nnt proceed frum an nrder nf thinga abnve nature, it ia in-
cnnceivable that He wnuld have uflered them aa Gnd's testimnny in His favur, and as
signs nf His Messianic dignity. Charlatanism, hnwever slight, is incnmpatible with
the meral character of Jeaua. On the possessed, see pp. 156-7.
Jewish legends themselves bear witneaa to the reality ef Jesus' miracles. "The
Son of Stada (a nickname appUed to Jesus in the Talmud) brought charms from Egypt
in an incision which he had made in his flesh." This is the accusation of the
Talmud" againat Him. Surely, .if the Jews had been able to deny His miracles, it
would have been a simpler thing to do than to explain them in this way. Lastly,
when we compare the miraclea of the Guspels with thnae attributed tn Him in the
apucryphal writings, we feel what a wide difference there is between traditinn and
legend. SECOND CVCLE.— CHAP. 5:1; 6 : 11.
F^om ilie Gall of the First Diaciplea to ihe Choice of ilie TweVee.
Up to this time Jesus has been preaching, accumpanied by a few friends, but with
nut furming abuut Him a circle uf permanent disciples. As His wurk grnwa. He feels
it neceasary tn give it a mnre definite fnrm. Tbe time has arrived when He deems it
wiae tn attach tn Himself, as regular disciples, thnse whnm the Father has given Him.
This new phase cuincides with that in which His wurk begins tu cnme intu cnnflict
with the established nrder nf things.
This cycle cnmprises six narratives : 1. The call of the flrst four disciples (5 : 11) ;
3 and 3. Twn cures nf the leper and the paralytic (5 : 13-14 and 15-36) ; 4. The caU nf
Leri, with the circumstances cunnected with it (5 : 37-39) ; 5 and 6. Twn cunflicta
relating tn the Sabbath (6 : 1-11).
1. The CaU of tlie Disei%)les: 5 : 1-11.— The cumpaninns nf Jesus, in the preced
ing scene, have nut yet been named by Luke (they besnught Him, 4 : 38 ; she min
istered untn them (4 : 39). Accnrding tn Mark (1 : 29), they were Peter, Andrew,
Jamea, and Jnhn. Theae axe the very fnur ynung men whnm we find in this nar
rative. They had lived up tu this time in the bnsnm nf their families, and cuntinued
their .nld occupations. But this state of things was nu lunger suitable tu the part
which .Tesus designed fur them. They were tn treasure up all His instructinns, be
the cnnstant witnesses nf His wurks, and receive from Him a daily lunral education,

164 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
In nrder tn this it was indispensable that they shnuld be cnntinually with Him. In
calling them tu leave their earthly nccupatinn, and assigning them in its place nne
that was whnlly spiritual, Jesus fnunded, prnperly speaking, the Christian ministry.
Pur this is precisely the line nf demarcatinn between the simple Christian and the
minister, that the fnrmer realizes the life nf faith in any earthly calling ; while the
latter, excused by his Master frnm any particular prufessinn, can devnte himself en
tirely tn the apiritual wnrk with which he is intrusted. Such is the new pnsitiun tn
which Jeaus raises theae ynung fiahermen. It is mure than simple faith, but less
than apustleship ; it is the ministry, the general fnundatinn nn which will be erected
the apustulate.
The call related here by Luke is certainly the same as that which is related, in a
mure abridged fnrm, by Matthew (4 : 18-23) and Mark (1 : 16-20). Fnr can any une
suppnse, with Ri,ggenbach, that Jesua twice addressed the same peranna in these
terma, " I will make ynu fishers nf men," and that they cnuld have twice left all in
crder tn fnllnw Him ? If the miraculous draught ef fishes ia emitted in Matthew and
Mark, it is because, as we have frequent prunf in the fnrmer, in the traditiunal nar
ratives, the whnle interest was centred in the wnrd uf Jesus, which was the snul nf
every incident. Mark has given cnmpleteness tn these narratives wherever he cnuld
avail himself nf Peter's accuunts. But here thia waa nnt the case, because, as many
facts gn tn prove, Peter aveided giving prominence tn himself iu his nwn narrations.
, Vers. 1-3.* Tlie General Situation. — This description furnishes a perfect frame to
the scene that foUnws. The wnrds, kuI avrds . . . He waa alao standing tliere,
indicate tbe incunvenient pnsitiun in which He was placed by the crowd cnllected at
this sput. The details in ver. 3 are intended tn explain the request which Jesus
makes tu the fishermen. The night fishing was at an end (ver. 5). And they had
nn intentinn nf beginning annther by daylight ; the seaann was nnt favnrahle. Mnre-
uver, they had washed their neta {dnenXwav is the true reading ; the imperf. in B. D.
ia a currectinn), and their beats were drawn up upnn the strand (^irTijTa). If the
fishermen had been ready tu fish, Jesua wnuld nnt have asked them tn render a service
which wnuld have interfered with their wurk. It is true that Matthew and Mark
represent Ihem as actually engaged in casting their neta. But theae twn evangelists
umit the miraculuus draught altngether, and take us tn the final mnment when Jeaua
says tn them : " I will make ynu fishers nf men." Jeaus makes a pulpit nf the beat
which his friends had just left, whence He casts the net cf the wnrd nver the crowd
which cnvers the abure. Then, desiring to attach hencefnrth theae ynung believera
tn Himaelf with a view tn Hia future wnrk. He determines to give them an emblem
they wUl never furget of tbe magnificent success that will attend the ministry fer the
love of which He invites them to forsake all ; and in order that it may be mere deeply
graven on their hearts, He takes this emblem from their daily calling.
Vers. 4-lOffi.f The Preparation. — In the imperative, launch out (ver. 4), Jesus
speaka aolely tn Peter, -as director uf the embarkatinn ; the nrder, let down, is ad
dressed tn aU. Peter, the head uf the present fishing, will nne day be head alsn nf
tbe missinn. Nnt having taken anything during the night, the mnst favnrahle time
•
* Ver. 1. S. A. B. L. X., kui ukoveiv instead nf rov . oKoiieiv. Ver. 3. B. D.,
EnXvvov, instead nf eirXwav ur aireirXwav, which is the reading uf all the nthers.
X Ver. 6. S. B. L. dupyaaETo, C. diEppyro, instead nf dieppyyvvro (nr diepyyvvro),
which is the reading nf T. R. and the rest. Ver. 8. !S. emits Kvpu. Ver. 9. B, D.
X., uv instead of y.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 165
for fishing, they had given up the idea of fishing in the day. Peter's reply, ao full of
docility, indicatea faith already exiating. " I should not think ef letting down the
net ; nevertheleas at Thy word . . ." He calis- 3 esns ei^iaTdTyg, -proverij Overaeer,
Maater. This word frequently occurs in Luke ; it is more general than pa,3/3t er
diddoKuXoS ; it refers te any kind of nversight. The miraculnus draught may be nnly
a miracle uf kuuwledge ; Jesus had a supernatural knnwledge uf a large shnal nf fish
tn be fnund in this place. There are numerous instances uf a similar abundance nf
fish appearing in an unexpected way.* Jesus may, hnwever, have wruught by His
nwn will what is frequently produced by physical circumstances. The imperf. , was
bi'eaking, ver. 6, indicates a beginning tn break, ur at least a danger nf it. The ar
rival nf their cumpaninns prevented this accident. The term peroxoi denntes merely
participatinn in the same empluyment. In Mattbew and Mark, Jnhn and James were
mending their nets. Luke cnntains nnthing nppnsed tn this. Meyer thinks Peter's
aatoniahment (ver. 8) incumprehenaible after aU the miraclea he had already seen.
But whenever divine puwer leaves the reginn nf the abstract, and cumes befnre nur
eyes in the sphere nf actual facts, dnes it nnt appear new ? Thus, in Peter's case, the
emutinn produced by the draught uf fishes effaces fcr the time every ether imprea-
ainn. 'E^XBe d^e ifiov. Go out [nf the bnat, and depart] from me. Peter here era-
plnya the mnre reiigiuua expreaainn Bord, which answers tn his actual feeling. The
wurd dvyp, a man, strongly individualizes the idea uf ainner. If the reading y be
preferred tn uv (Alex.), wc muat take the wnrd aypa, catch, in the- passive senae.
The term Koivovoi, associates (ver. 10), impliea mnre than fiiroxoi, cumpaninns (ver. 7) ;
it denutea aaanciatinn in a cummnn undertaking.
Vers. 10b, 11. f The Call. — In Matthew and Mark the call ia addressed tn the fnur
disciples present ; in Luke, in expreas terms, tn Peter nnly. It resulta, duubtleaa,
from what fnllnws that the call nt the nther disciples was implied (cnmp. launch out,
ver. 4), er that Jeaus extended it to them, perhapa by a geature. But hew can criti
cism, with thia paasage befnre them, which brings the perann uf Peter intn such prum
inence, while the uther twn Syn. dn nnt in any way, attribute tn uur evangelist an
intentinn tn underrate this apnstle ? X
The analytical form eay (oypov, thou ahalt be cq,iching, expreaaea the permanence
nf thia miaainn ; and the wurda, from henceforth, its altngether new character. Just
as the fisherman, by his superiur intelligence, makes the fish fall intn his snares, sn
the believer, restured tn Gnd and tn himself, may seize held uf the natural man, and
litt it up with himself tn Gnd.
* Tristram, " The Natural Histnry uf the Bible," p. 385 : " The thickness nf the
shnals nf fish in the lake uf Gennesareth is almust incredible tu any une whu has nut
witnesaed them. They uften cuver an area nf mure than an acre ; and when the flab
muve slewly fnrward in a mass, and are riaing nut uf tbe water, they are packed sn
clnse tugether that it appears as if a heavy rain was beating duwn un the surface nf
the water." A similar pbenumenon was nbserved snme years agu, and even in the
spring ef thia year, in several nf nur Swiss lakes. " At the end nf February, in the
lakes uf Cunatance and Wallentsadt, the flsh crowded tugether in auch large numbera
at certain placea by the banks, that the water was darkened by them. At a single
draught, 35 quintals ef different kinds of flsh were taken. ' ' —{Bund, 6th March, 1873. )
!Ver. 11. S. B. D. L., Tzavra instead ef airavra,
"Luke underrates Peter," says M. Burnouf, following M. de Bunsen, jun.,
Bevue dea Deux-Mondes, 1st December, 1865. Is it net time to have done with this
bitter and untruthful criticism, of which the " Anonymous Saxon" has given tho
meat notorious example, and which belonga to a phaae uf science nnw paaaed away ?

166 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
This whnle scene implies certain previnus relatiuns between Jesus and these young
men (ver. 5), whicb agrees with Luke's narrative ; fnr in the latter this incident ia
placed after the healing uf Peter's muther-in-law, when the newly called disciples
were preaent. We must gn farther back even than thia ; fcr huw cnuld Jeaus have
entered intn Peter's hnuse nn the Sabbath day (4 : 38), unless they had alread.y been
intimately acquainted ? Juhn's narrative easily explains all : Jesus had made the ac
quaintance nf Peter and his friends when they were with Jnhn the Baptist (Jnhn 1).
Aa fur Matthew and Mark, their narrative ha's just the fragmentary character that be
lnngs tn the traditiunal narrative. The facts are simply put intn juxtapnaitiun. Be
ynnd this, each writer fnlluws his nwn bent : xMatthew ia eager after the wnrds nf
Christ, which in his riew are the essential thing ; Mark dwells sumewhat mure nn the
circumstances ; Luke enriches the traditiunal narrative by the additinn uf an impnr
tant detail — the miraculuus fishing — ubtained from private sources ef information.
His narrative is su simple, and at the same time su picturesque, that its accuracy is
beyund suspiciun. Juhn dues nnt mentinn thia incident, because it was already suffi
ciently knnwn thrnugh the traditinn ; but, in accurdance with his methnd, he placea
befure ua the firat cummencement ef the cnnnectinn which terminated in thia reault.
Hnltzmann thinks that Luke's narrative is made up partly frnm that nf Mark and
Matthew, and partly frnm the accuunt nf the miraculnua fiahing related iu Jnhn 31.
It wnuld be well tn explain how, if this were the case, the thrice repealed reply ot
Peter, Thou knoweat that 1 love Thee, ceuld have been changed by Luke into the ex
clamation. Depart from ine! Is it not much mere simple te admit that, wheu Jeaua
deaired tn restnre Peter tn hia apustleship, after the denial. He began by placing him
in a similar situatinn tn that in which he waa when first called, in the presence nf
annther miraculnus draught nf fishes ; and that it was by awakening iu him the freah
impreaaiuns uf earlier days that He restured tu him his ministry ? Besides, in Jnhn
31, the wnrds, on the other side of the ship, seem tn allude tn the missinn tn the
heathen. The cnurse uf events therefere waa this : Jesua, after having attached te Himself
in Judsea theae few disciples of Jnhn the Baptist, tunk them back with Him intn
Galilee ; and as He wished Himself tn return tn Hia nwn family fnr a little whUo
(Jnhn 3 : 1-13 ; Matt. 4 : 13), He aent them back tn theirs, where they resumed their
furmer empluyments. In this way thnae early days passed away, spent in Caper
naum and the neighburhund, uf which Jnhn speaks (ow -KoXXds y/iepas), and which
Luke describes frnm 4 : 14. But when the time came fnr Him tn gn tu Jerusalem fnr
the feast nf the Paaauver (Jnhn 2 -.IS ei seq.), where Jeaus determined tn perfurmthe
snlemn act which was tn inaugurate His Meaaianic ministry (Jnhn 2 -.IS et aeq.), He
thuught that the huur had cume tn attach them tn Him altngether ; sn, separating
Himself finally from His family circle and early calling. He required the same
sacriflce frnm them. Por this they were sufficiently prepared by all their previnus
experiences ; they made it therefnre withnut hesitatien, and we find them frnm this
time cnnstantly with Him, bnth in the narrative uf Juhn (2 : 17, 4 : 2-8) and in the
Synnptics. 2. The Lepers : vers. 12-14.* In Mark'(l ; 40), as in Luke, the cure cf the lepers
tnnk place during a preaching tnur. Matthew cnnnects this miracle with the Serrann
nn the Muunt ; it ia aa He cnmes dnwn from the hill that Jesus meets and heals the
leper {8 -.1 et seq.). Thia latter detail is sn preciae that it is natural tn give Matthew
the preference here, rather than say, with Hnltzmann, that Matthew wanted tu fill up
the return frnm the mnuntain tn the city with it.
Leprosy was in every pnint uf view a mnst frightful malady. First. In its phy
sical aspects it was a whitish pustule, eating away the fleah, attacking member after
member, and at laat eating away the very bnnea ; it was attended with burning fever,
sleeplessness, and nightmare, withnut scarcely the slightest hupe uf cure. Such
were its physical characteristics ; it was a living death. Second. In the sncial pnint
of view, in cnnsequence uf the excessively cnntagious nature ef his malady, the leper
* Ver. 13. The mss. are divided between ei-!i»v and Xeyu'v (Alex.).

- COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ^ 16T
was separated from his family, and from intercourse with men,, and had no other
company than that nf ethers aa unhappy aS" himaelf. Lepers ordinarily lived in
bands, at a certain distance from human habitations (2 Kings 7:3; Luke 17 : 12).
Their food was deposited for them in convenient placea. They went with theh head
uncovered, and their chin wrapped up ; and on 'the approach of any persons whom
they met, they had to announce themselves as lepers. . Third. In the reUgious point
ef view, the leper was Levitically unclean, and conaequently excommunicate. His
malady was considered a direct chastisement from Gud. In the very rare caae nf a
cure, he was unly restured tn the thencratic community un an ufflcial declaratinn nf
the priest, and after uffering the sacriflce prescribed by the law (Lev. 13 and 14, and
the tract Nega'im in the Talmud).
The Greek expreasinn is : And behold, a man ! There is nnt a verb even. - His
apprnach waa nnt seen ; it haa all the effect nf an apparitiun. This dramatic furm
reproduces the impressinn made nn thnse whu witnesaed the acene ; in fact, it waa
nnly by a kind nf surprise, and as it were by stealth, that a leper cuuld have suc
ceeded in approaching su near. The cnnstructiun uf the 12th verse (''O' iyevETo
. . . Kol . . . Kul) is Hebraistic, and pruves an Aramsean dncument. There
is nnthing like it in . the ether Syn. ; the eye-witness discovers himself in every
feature of Luke's narrative. The diaeaaed man was full of leprosy — that is to aay,
his countenance was lividly white, as ia the caae when the malady has reached an ad
vanced stage. The unhappy mau looks for Jesus in the crowd, and liaving discovered
Him {iduv) he rushes tuward Him ; the mument he recegnizes Him, he ia at Hia feet.
Luke says, falling on his face; Mark, kneeling down; Matthew, lie worshipped.
Would net these variatiuns in terms be puerile if this were a case uf cnpying, nr nf a
derivatinn frum a cummnn snurce ? The dialngue is identical in the three narratives ;
it was expressed in the traditinn in a flxed furm, while the histurical detaUs were re
prnduced with greater freednm. All three evangelists aay cleanse instead nf lieal, un
accuunt nf the nntiun nf uncleannesa attached tn this malady. In the wurds, if Thou
wUt, Thou canst, there is at nnce deep anguish and great faith. Other sick persuns
had been cured — this tbe leper knew — hence hia faith ; but he waa prnbably
the first man afflicted with his particular malady that succeeded in reaching
.Tesus ahd entreating His aid — hence his anxiety. The elder rationalism used tu
explain this requeat in this way : " Thou canst, as Measiah, pronounce me clean."
According to this explanation, the diseased persen, already in the way of being cured
naturally, simply asked Jesus to verify the cure and pronounce him clean, in o-'.er
that he might be spared a costly and troublesome journey to Jerusalem. But i'jr the
erm KaBapi^eiv, io purify, comp. 7 ;-23, Matt. 10 : 8, where the simply declarative senae
is impossible ; and as to tbe context, Strauss has already shown that it comports
just as little with this feeble meaning. After the words, be iliou clean (pronounced
pure), these, and he waa cleanaed (pronounced pure), would be nothing but absurd
tautology. Mark, who takes pleasure in portraying the feelings of Jesua, expresses
the deep compassion with which He was moved by this spectacle {a^rrXayxviaBEis).
The three narratives concur in one detaU, which must have deeply impressed those
who saw it, and which, for this reason, was indelibly imprinted en the tradition : He
put forth His hand, and touched Mm. Leprosy was so contagious,* that this cour-
* It probably was regarded aa cuntaginus iu pnpiular apprebensinn, which wuuld
justify the remark in the text ; but the man whn was so cempletely covered with the

168 COMMElsrTARY OH ST. lUKE,
ageous act excited the liveliest emutinn in the crowd. Thruughnut the whule cnurse
nf His life, Jesus cnnfrnnted the tnuch nf uur impure nature in a simUar manner.
His answer is identical in the three narratives ; but the result is variuusly expressed.
Matthew says : hia leproay was cleansed, regarding it frnm a ceremunial puint of view.
Luke simply says : the leproay departed from Mm, Innking at it frnm a human pnint
nf view. Mark cumbines the twu fnrms. Thia is nne nf the paaaagea nn which they
rely whn make Mark a cumpiler frnm the nther twu ; but if Mark was anxinus tn ad
here sn slavishly tn the minutest expressinns nf his predecesscra, tu the pnint even nf re
producing them withnut any ubject, hew are we te explain the serinus and impnrtant
mudificatiuns which in su many nther cases he introduced intn their narratives, and
the cunsiderable umiaainna which he is cnntinually making nf the substance uf -n'hat
they relate ?_ The fact is, that there were twu sides tu this cure, as tn the malady it
self, the physical and the religinus ; and Mark cumbines them, while the nther twn
appear tn take nne nr the ether.
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. liuke and Matthew omit the
threat with which Jesua, according to Mark, accompanied .this injunction {ip/Spi-
pycdpEvos). What waa the intention ef Jesus ? Tbe cure' having been public, He
ceuld net prevent the report ef it from being apread abroad. Thia ia true ; but He
wanted te do all in Hia power to diminish its fame, and nnt give a useless impetus tn
the pnpular excitement produced by tbe repurt nf His miracles. Cnmp. Luke 8 : 56 ;
Matt. 9 : 30, 13 : 16 ; Mark 1 : 34, 3 : 13, 5 : 43, 7 : 36, 8 ; 36. All these passages furbid
uur seeking a particular cause fcr the prohibiliun He lays nn the leper ; such as a
fear that the priesta, having had nutice of hia cure before his reaching them, wnuld
ref uae te acknnwledge it ; ur that they wnuld prunnunce Jesus unclean fer liaving
touched him ; or that the aick man would loae tbe aerioua improsaions which he had
received ; or that he would aUow himaelf to be deterred from the duty of offering the
aacrifice. Jeaus said, " Shnw thyself," because the persnn is here the convincing
proof. In Luke we read, aecording to Moaes ... in Matthew, the gift which
Moaes ... in Mark, ihe ihinga which Moaea . . . Most puerile changes, if
they were deaigned ! What is the testimony contained in this aacrifice, and to whom
is it addreaaed ? According tn Bleek, the wnrd ihem wuuld refer tn the peuple, whu
are tn be apprised that every nne may hencefnrth renew his fnrmer relatiens with the
lepi- But ia not the term testimony ton weighty fur thia meaning ? Gerlach refers
the pronoun tliem to the priesta : in order that thnu, by thy cure, mayeat be a wit
neaa tu them nf my almightiness ; but according to the text, the testimony consists
net in the cure being verified, but in the sacrifice being offered. The word ihem does
indeed refer to the priests, who are all represented by the one who will verify the
cure ; but the testimony respects Jesus Himself, and His sentimenta in regard to the
law. In the Sermon on the Mount .Jesua repels the charge already preferred against
Him of despising the law (Matt. 5 ; 17 : " Think net that I am ceme te destroy the
law"). It is te His respect, therefere, for the Mosaic legislation, that thia offering
win testify te the priests. During Hia earthly career Jesus never dispensed His
people frum the nbligatiun tu nbey the prescriptiuns of the law ; and it is an error tn
disease that it cnuld find nn further range was clean, accurding tu Lev. 13 : 13. See
Smith's Diet, uf Bible, svb voce,— Tb..

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 169
regard Him as having, under certain circumstances, set aside the law of the Sabbath
as far as He Himself was cnncerned. He only transgressed the arbitrary enactments
with which Pharisaism had surrounded it. We see by these remarkable wurds that
Jesus had already becume an ubject uf suspiciun and serinus charges at Jerusalem.
This state uf things is explained by the narrative nf the fnurth Gnspel, where, from
the secund chapter, we 'see Jesus expused tn the animnsity nf thednminant party, and
accnrds tu 4 : 1. He is even ubliged tn leave Judsea in nrder that their unfavorable
impressinns may nnt be aggravated befnre the lime. In chap. 5, which describes a
fresh viait tn Jerusalem (fur the feaat nf Purim), the cunflict thua prepared breaks
fnrth with vinlence, and Jeaua is ubliged tn testify anlemnly His respect fnr thia
Muses, whn will be.the Jews' accuser, aud nut His (5 : 45-47). This is just the state
nf things with which the passage we are explaining agrees, as well as all the facts
which are the sequel uf it. Nutwithstanding apparent discrepancies between the
Syn. and Jnhn, a substantial similarity prevaUs between them, which pruves that buth
fnrms nf narrative reat nn a basis uf histnric reality.
The leper, accurding tn Mark, did nnt nbey the injunctinn nf Jeaua ; and thia dis
nbedience served tn increase that cnncnurse nf sick persuns which Jesus endeavured
tu lessen. This cure is a difflculty fur Keim. A purely mnral influence may calm a fever
(4 : 39), ur restnre a frenzied man tn his senses (4 : 31 et seq.) •, but it cannnt purify
vitiated blnnd, and cleanse a budy cuvered with puatulea. Keim here reanrta tn what
ia subatantially the explanatinn nf Paulua. The leper already cured simply desired tn
be prnnnunced clean by authnrized lips, that he might nnt have tn gu tn Jerusalem. It
must be acknnwledged, nn this view nf the matter, that the three narratives (Matthew
as well as Luke and Mark, whatever Keim may say abnut it) are cempletely falsifled
by the legend. Then hew came it to enter into the mind of this man tu substitute
Jesus fur a priest? Hnw cnuld Jesus have accepted such an nfflce? Having ac
cepted it, why shuuld He have sent the afflicted man tu Jeruaalem ? Further, fnr
what reasnn did He impuse sileiice upcm him, and euterce it with threata ? And what
curdd the man have had tn publiah abroad, nf sufflcient impurtance tn attract the
crowd nf peuple described Mark 1 : 45 ?
Hnltzmann (p. 433) cnucludea, from the wurds iii^aXsv and 'e^eXBuv, literally. He
cast him out, and having gone forth (Mark 1 : 43, 45), that accnrding tn Mark this cure
tnnk place in a hnuae, which agrees very well with the leper being prohibited frnm
making it knuwn ; and that cunsequently the nther twn Syn. are in errnr in making
it take iilace in public— Luke in a city, Matthew nn the rnad frum tbe mnuntain tn
Capernaum (8 : 1). He draws great exegetical inferences from this. But when it is
said in Mark (1 : 13) that the Spirit drove out {iKJidXXei) Jesus intn the wUderness, dnes
this mean nut uf a hnuse ? And as tn the verb i^epxEoBui, is it nnt frequently used in
a broad sense : te gn uut uf the midst ef that in which nne happens tn be (here : the
circle furmed arnund Jesus) ? Cump. Mark 6 : 34 (Matt. 14 : 14), 6 : 12 ; Jnhn 1 : 44,
etc. A leper wnuld hardly have been able tn make his way intn a huuse. Hia taking
them by aurpriae in the way he did cuuld acarcely have happened except in the npen
cnuntry ; and, as we have aeen, the prnhibitinn uf Jesus can easily be explained, tak
ing this view nf the incident. The critical ccnsequences nf Hnltzmann, therefore,
have ne substantial basis.
•
3. 2746 Paralytic : vers. 15-2Q.— First. A general descriptiun nf the state nf the
wnrk, vers. 15, 16 ; Second. The cure nf the paralytic, vers. 17-36. .
First Vers. 15 and 16.* While seeking tn calm the excitement produced by His
' mu-acles, Jesus endeavured alsn tu preserve His energies frum any spiritual deterinra-
I * S. B. C. D. L. sume Mnn. It. omit vir' avrov.

no COMMKKTAlti' ON ST. LUKE.
lion by devoting part of His time to meditation and prayer. As Son of man. He had,
in cummnn with us aU, tn draw frum Gud the strength He needed fnr His hours of
activity. Such touches as these in the narrative certainly do not look like an apotheosis
of Jesus, and they constitute a striking difference between the evangeUcal portrait
and the legendary caricature: This thoroughly nriginal detail suffices alsn tn prnve
the independence uf Luke's snurces cf infurmatinn. After" this general description
(the seventh), the narrative is resumed with a detached and special incident, given as
an example uf the state of things described.
Second. Vera. 17-19.* The Arrival.— Th.e completely Aramsean form of this pre
face (the Kai befnre airdf, the furm kui yaav . . . ol yaav, and especially the ex
pressinn yv As Th IdaBai) proves that Luke's account is nnt burrowed from either ot
the twn uther Synnptics. Thia was nne nf thnse sulemn hnurs nf which we have
annther instance in the evening at Capernaum (4 : 41, 43). The presence uf the Phari
sees and scribes frum Jerusalem is easily explained, if the cnnflict related Juhn 5 had
already taken place. The scribes did nut cnnstitute a theulugical ur pulitical party,
like the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were the prnfeaainnal lawyers. They were
designedly aaauciated with the Phariaeea sent tn Galilee tu watch Jeaua (ver. 31).
The narrative in the firat Guspel is extremely cuncise. Matthew dnes nut tell the
stury ; he is intent upnn his ubject, the wurd uf Jesus. Mark gives the same details
as Luke, but withnut the twn narrativea presenting une single term in cnmmon.
And yet they wurked nn the same dncument, nr une nn the text nf the nther I The
runf nf the hnuse cnuld be reached by a flight of steps outside buUt against the wall,
or by a ladder, nr even from the next huuse, fnr the hnuses frequently cummunicated
with each nther by the terraces. Dnes Luke's expressinn, did tov Kepdpuv, signify
simply by ihe roof— that is tn say, by the stairs which cnnducted frum the terrace to
the Inwer stnriea, nr dnwn nver the balustrade which surrounded the terrace ; or is
it just equivalent tn Mark's descriptiun : " they uncuvered the ceiling nf the place
where He was, and having made an npening, let duwn the pallet " ? This term,
through tlie tiles, wuuld be strange, if it was nut tn express an idea similar tn that of
Mark. Strauss ubjecta that auch an nperatinn as that nf raising the tiles cuuld not
have been eflected withnut danger tn thnse whu were belnw ; and he cnncludes from
this that the narrative is nnly a legend. But in any case, a legend wuuld have been
invented iu confurmity with the mede ef construction then adopted and known to
everybody. Jesua waa probably seated in a hall immediately beneath the terrace.f
Vers. -30 and 31.^: Tlie Offence.— The expressinn tlieir faith, in Luke, applies
evidently tn the perseverance nf the sick man and hia hearera, nntwithatauding the
nbataclea they encuuntered ; it is the same in Mark. In Matthew, whn haa nut men-
* Ver. 17. S. B. L. Z., avrov inatead nf avrovs. Ver. 19. All the Mjj. nmit iu>
befure noias.
X Delitszch represents the fact in thia way (" Ein Tag in Capernaum, ' ' pp. 40-46) ;
Twu bearers ascend the runf by a ladder, and by means nf curds tbey draw up by tbe
same way the aick man after thera, assisted by the nther twu bearers. In the middle |
nf the terrace was a square place upen in summer tn give light and air tn^he house,
but clnsed with tiles during the rainy seasnn. Having opened this passage, tlie
bearers let down the sick man into the large inner court immediately below, -where
Jesua was teaching near the cistern, fixed as usual in this court. The trap-stairs
which lead down frnm the terrace intn the hnuae wnuld have been tnu narrow for
their use, and wnuld nnt have taken them into the court, but into the apartments
which uverlnnked it frum all sides.
I Ver. 30 !*. B. L. X. nmit avru after eiwev,.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 171
tinned these nbstacles, but whu nevertheleas empluys the same terms, und seeing their
faith, this expression can only refer tn the simple factnf the paralytic's cuming. The
identical furm nf expressinn indicates a cummun snurce ; but at the same time, the
dift'erent aense put upnn the cummnn wurds by their entirely different reference tn
what precedes prnvea that this anurce was nnt written. The ural traditinn had
evidently sn sterentyped this fnrm nf expressinn that it is fuund in the narrative nf
Matthew, thnugh separated frnm the circumstances tn which it ia applied in the twu
nthera. Jeaus cnuld nut repel such an act nf faith. Seeing the peraevering cun
fidence uf the aick man, recugnizing in him nne uf thnse whum His Father draws to
Him (Juhn 6 : 44), He receives him with upen arms, by teUing him that he is fur-
given. The three salutatinns differ in uur Syn. : Man (Luke) ; My' son (Mark) ;
Take courage, my Son (Matthew). Which nf the evangeUsts was it that changed in this
arbitrary and aimless manner the wnrds nf Jesus as recnrded in his predecessur ? *
'A^eavrat is an Attic fnrm, either fur the present d^ievrai, nr rather fnr the pert.
dfeivrai. It is nnt impuaaible that, by apeaking in this way, Jesua intended tn throw
dnwn the gauntlet tn His inquisitura. They tunk it up. The scribea are put befnre
the Pharisees ; they were the experts. A blasphemy ! Hnw welcume tu them !
Nothing cnuld have snunded mnre agreeably in their ears. We will nut say, in re
gard tn this accusatinn, with many nrthndux interpreters, that, as Gnd, Jesus had a
right tn pardnn ; fur this wnuld be tn gn directly cnntrary tn the empluyment nf the
title Son of man, in virtue nf which Jeaus attributes tn Himself, in ver. 24, this pnwer.
But may nut Gnd delegate Hia gracinus authnrity tn a man whn dpserves His cun
fidence, and whu becnmes, fnr the great wurk uf salvatinn. His ambassadnr nn earth ?
This is the pnsitiun which Jesus takes. The nnly questinn is, whether this pretensinn
ia well fnunded ; and it is the demnnatratin'n nf this mural fact, already cnntained in
Hia previnus miracles, that He proceeds tu give in a striking fnrm tn His adversaries.
Vera. 22-24. f The Mirade. — The miraculnus "wnrk which ia tu fnllnw ia fur a
mnment deferred. Jesus, withnut having heard the wurds nf thdse abuut Him, under
stands their murmurs. His mind is, as it were, the mirror uf their thuughta. The
fnrm nf Hia reply is sn striking that the traditinn has jDreserved it tu the very letter ; ,
hence it is fnund in identical terms in all three narratives. The propnsitinn, that ye
may know, depends nn the fuUnwing cummand : I aay to thee . . The principal
and subnrdinate clauses having been separated by a mnment uf solemn silence, the
three accounts fill up thia interval with tbe parenthesis : He aaith to the pa/ralytic
This original and identical form must necessarily proceed from a ceraraon source,
oral nf written. It is no easier, certainly, tn pardun . than tu heal ; but it is much
easier tc cunvict a man nf impnsture whu falsely claims the puwer tn heal, than him
whn falsely arrngatea authurity tn pardnn. There is a slight irony in the way in
which Jesus gives expressinn. tn thia thuught. " Ynu think these are erapty wnrds
that I utter when I say. Thy sins are furgiven thee. See, then, whether the cem-
mand which I am abnut tn give is an empty wnrd." The miracle thus annnunced
acquires the value uf an impnsing demunatratinn. It will be aeen whether Jesus is
net really what He claims to be, the Ambaaaador of Gnd uu earth tn furgive aina.
Earth, where the pardnn is granted, ia nppnsed tn heaven, where He dwells frum
whnm it prnceeds.
* Our authnr means by this and many aimilar expreasinns, tu disprove the idea uf
the Gnspels being cupied from une annther. — J. H.
f The MSS, vary between irapaXeX-vfievo} and irapaXwiKu,

172 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
It is generally acknowledged at the present day, that the title Son of man, by
which Jeaus preferred tn deaignate Himself, is nnt simply an allusinn tn the sym
bnlical name in Dan. 7, but that it sprang spuntaneuusly frnm the depths uf Jesus'
nwn cnnsciuusness. Just as, in His title nf Son of God, Jesus included whatever He
was cunscinus uf being fur Gud, sn in that nf Son of man He cumprehended all He
felt He was fnr men. The term Son of man is generic, and denntes each representa
tive uf the human race (Ps. 8:5; Ezek. 37 : 3, 9, 11). With the art. {the^on uf man),
this expressinn cnntains the nntiun nf a superiurity in the equality. It designates
Jesus nut simply as man, but as the nnrmal man, the perfect representative uf the
race. If thia title alludes tn any passage uf the O. T., it must be tn the ancient
prnphecy, " The seed uf the wnman shall bruise the serpent's head " (Gen. 3 : 15).*
There is a tune 6f triumph in this expressinn, ver. 35 : He took up tliat wliereon he lay.
The astunishment nf the penple, ver. 26, is expressed differently in tbe three narra
tives : We never saw it on this fashion (Mark) ; They glorified Ood, which had given
such power unto men (Matthew). This remarkable expressinu, to men,, is duubtleaa
cunnected with Son of man. Whatever is given tn the nnrmal man, is in Him given
tn all. Matthew did nnt certainly add this expressinn on his nwn authnrity, any
mnre than the ethers arbitrarily emitted it. Their sources were different.
liapddo^a, strange things, in Luke, is fnund in Jnsephus' accnunt nf Jesus. By
the term to-day the multitude allude nnt nnly tn the miracle — they had seen nthers as
astnunding nn previuua days— but mnre particularly tn tbe divine prerogative uf par
dnn, sn magnificently demcnstrated by this miracle with which Jeaua had just cun
nected it. The dift'erent expressinns by which the crowd give utterance tu their sur
prise in the three Syn. might really have been nn the lips nf different wilnesses ot
this scene.
Keim, applying here the method indicated, pp. 162-3, thinks that the paralysis'
was nvercome by the moral excitement whicb tbe sick man underwent. Examples are
given nf impntent persuns whnse puwer uf mnvement has been restured by a mighty
internal shuck. Therefore it is just pnssible that the physical fact might be explained
, in this way. But the mnral fact, the absnlute asaurance cf Jeaus, the challenge im
plied in thia address, " In nrder that ye may knnw, . . .' arise and walk !"— a
speech the authenticity uf which is sn cempletely guaranteed by the three narratives
and by its evident uriginality — hnw is this tn be explained frum Keim's standpuint ?
Why, Jesus, in annnuncing su pnsitively a success su problematical, wnuld have laid
Himself upente be palpably cunfradicted by tbe fact I At the cummencement cf His
ministry He wnuld have based His title tn be the Son nf man. His authurity tu fur-
give sins, His missinn aa the Savinur, His entire spiritual wnrk, un the needle's puint
nf this hazardnus experiment ! If thia were the case, instead nf a divine demnnstra-
tinn (and this ia the meaning which Jeaus attaches tn the miracle), there wnuld be
nnthing mure in the fact th-an a furtunate cuiucidence.
4. Tlie Gall of Bevi : vers. 27-39. —This sectinn relatea : First. The call nt Leri ;
Second. The feast which fnllnwed, with the diacuurse cunnected with it ; Third. A
dnuble lesann arising uut nf a questinn abnut fasting.
¦* M. Gess, in his fine wurk, " Christ! Zeugniss vnn seiner Persnn und seinera
Work," 1870, understands by the Son of man. He whn repreaenta the dirine majesty
in a human fnrm. The idea in itself is true ; the nnrmal man is called tn share in the
divine estate, and tu becume the supreme manifestatiun nf Gnd. But the nntiun nf
divine majesty dnes nnt belong tn the term Son of man. It is cnntained in the term
Son of Ood. The twn titles are in antithetical cnnnectinn, and fnr this reasnn they
complete each ether.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 173
First Vers. 37 and 28.* The Gall.— This fact nccupies an impnrtant place in the
develupment nf the wnrk nf Jeaua, nnt unly as the cnmplement nf the call cf the first
disciples (ver. 1 et seq.), but especially as a cuntinuatiun nf the cnnflict already enter
ed intu with the nld nrder nf things.
The publicans uf the Gnspels are nrdinarily regarded as Jewish sub-coUecturs in the
service cf Rnme knights, tn whnm the tnlls nf Palestine had been let nut at Rome.
Wieseler, in his recent wurk,-]- ccrrecta this view. He prnvea, by an edict nf Cffiaar,
qunted in Juaephus (" Antiq." xiv. 10. 5), that the tnlls in Judsea were remitted direct
tu the Jewish nr heathen cuUecturs, withnut pasaing thruugh the hands uf the Roman
financiers. The publicans, especially siich as, like Matthew, were nf Jewish urigin,
were hated and despised by their fellnw-cnuntrymen mure even than the heathen
themselves. They were excummuuicated, and deprived nf the right uf tendering an
nath befnre the Jewiah authnrities. Their ccnduct, which was tun uften marked by
extnrtiun and fraud, generally justified the upprnbrium which public upininn caat
upnn them. Capernaum waa nn the road leading from Damaacua tu the Mediter
ranean, which terminated at Ptelemais (St. Jean d'Acre). It was the cnmmercial
highway from the interiur uf Asia. In this city, therefure, there must have been a
tax-nffice uf cunsiderable impurtance. This nfflce was probably situated niitside the
city, and near the sea. This explains the expressinn, He went oui (Luke) ; He went
forth in order to go io the sea-side (Mark). In tbe three Syn. this call immediately
fulluwa the healing uf the paralytic (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2 -.IS et seq.).
Jeaua must have had aume very impurtant reasnn fur calling a man from the class
nf the publicans tn juin the circle nf His diaciples ; fnr by this step He set Himaelf
at npen variance with the thencratic nutinna nf decurum. Was it His deliberate in
tentinn tn throw duwn the gauntlet tn the numernus Pharisees whn had cume from a
distance tn watch Hira, and tn shuw them hnw cempletely He set Himself above their
judgraent ? Or was it simply convenient te have among His disciples a man accus
tomed te the use ef the pen ? This is quite possible ; but there is something so abrupt,
so spnntanenus, and sn atrange in this call that it is impnssible tn duubt that Jeaus
spuke tn him in ubedience tu a direct impulse frum nn high. The higher nature uf
the call appeara alau in the decisinn and prumptnesa with which it was accepted.
Between Jesua and this man there muat have been, as it were, a flash nf divine sym
pathy. The relatinn between Jesus and His flrst apnstles was furmed in this way
(Juhn 1). The name Levi nnt nccurring in any cf the Uala nf apuatlea- it ia impna-
sible tn identify it with Lebbseus, which has a different meaning and etymnlngy— it
might be thuught that this Levi never helnnged tn the number nf the Twelve. But in
this case why shnuld his caU be su particulariy related ? Then the expressinn, having
left all, he followed Him (ver. 28), fnrbids uur thinking that Levi ever resumed his
prufeaainn as a tuU-cullectur, and puts him in the same rank aa the feur ulder dia
ciples (ver. 11). We muat therefnre Innk fnr him amung the apuatles. In the cata-
legue nf the flrst Gnapel (10 : 3), the Apnstle Matthew is caUed the pubUcan ; and in
the same Gnspel (9 : 9) the call nf Matthew the publican is related, with detaUs
identical with thnse nf uur narrative. Must we admit twu different but aimUar in
cidents ? This waa the auppnaitinn nf the Gneatic Heracleun and nf Clement nf
Alexandria. Sieffert, Ewald, and Keim prefer tu admit that nur flrst Gnspel applies
¦* Ver. 28. Th omss. vary between KaTaXnrov and KaraXemov, as well as between
aitavra and ¦wavra, yKoXovBei aud yKoXovBynev.
\ " Beitrilge zur richtigen Wurdigung der Evangelien," p. 78.

174 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. •
by mistake tn the apnstle and ulder publican Matthew, the caUing nf annther lesi
knnwn publican, whn shnuld be caUed Levi (Mark and Luke). This opinion naturally
implies that the first Gospel is unauthentic. But is it net much aimpler to suppoai
that the former name of this man was Levi, and that Jesus, perceiving the direoi
hand ef God in thia event, gave him the surname of Matthew, gift nf Gnd, just as
He gave Simnn, at His first meeting with him, the surname ef Peter ? * This name,
which Matthew habitually bnre in the Church, was naturally that under which he
figured afterward in the catalngues uf the apnstles. f Were Luke and Mark unaware
that the apnstle sn named was the publican whum they had designated by the name ei
Levi ? Or have they neglected tn mentinn this identity in their lists ef the apnstles,
because they have given these just as they fuund them in their ducuments ? We do
nnt knnw. We are cuntinually struck by seeing hnw the evangelical traditinn has
left in the shade the secundary persunages nf this great drama, iu order tn bestnw
exclusive attentinn nn the principal actur. 'EBedaaro dnes nnt signify merely He saw,
'but Re fixed His eyea upion Mm. This was the moment when snmething peculiar
and inexplicable tunk place between Jesus and the publican. The expressinn
KuBy fiervov ixl rb teXuvwv cannnt signify seated in the nfflce ; iiri or iv t^ te^uvi^ wnuld
be necessary. As the accusative" after (ttI, the wnrd toll might mean, seated at his
wurk nf tull-cnllecting ; but this sense uf teXuviov is unexampled. Might net the
Xjrep. £7rt have the senae here in which it ia aometimes empleyed in the claaaics— in
Herodotus, for example, when he aays cf Aristides that he kept em to avvidpiov in
front nf the place where the chiefs were assembled (8 : 79) ? Levi must have been
seated in front nf his nfflce, nbserring what was pasaing. Huw, indeed, if he had
been aeated in the nfflce, cnuld hia glance have met that of Jeaus ? Withnut even
re-entering, he fnllnws Him, fursaking all.
Second: Vera. 39-33. J The Feaat. — Accnrding tu Luke, the repast waa spread in
thetiuuae nf Levi ; the new disciple aeeks tn bring his nld friends and Jesua tugether.
It ia his firat miasinnary effurt. Meyer seea a cuntradictinn tn Matthew here. Mat
thew says, " as Jesus sat at meat in the hnuse" — an expressinn which, in his npinion,
can nnly mean the dwelling nf Jesus. He decides in favnr nf Matthew's narrative.
But (1) huw came the crowd nf publicans and peuple nf ill-fame at meat all at ence
in the house of Jesus? (3) Where is there ever any mention of the houae of Jesus?
(3) The repetition of Jesua' name at the end ef the verae (ver. 10 in Matthew) ex
cludes the'idea that the complement understood of the house is Jesus. As le Mark,
the pron. airov. Ilia house, refers to Levi ; this is proved (1) by the oppoaition nt airrov
tn the preceding avrdv, and (3) by the repetitinn nf the name 'lyaov in the fuUnwing
phrase. § The expreaainn in the houae, in Matthew, denntes therefnre the huuse,
wherever it was, in which the meal tnnk place, in uppnsitinn tn the uutside, where
the call, with the preaching that fnllnwed it, nccurred. As usual, Matthew passes
* Cnmp. the MarfiaTov Xsydpevov, Matt. 9 : 9, with Siuuv 6 XsydpEvo; Jltrpof , 10 : 2.
—Jnhn 1 : 43.
X In the npininn nf Gesenius, the narae Matthias is a cuntractinn uf the Hebre-ff
Mattathias, gift of God, but the upininn is nnt universally accepted. The cnnclusion,
hnwever, nf uur authur is generally received. — J. H.
X Part nf the mss. put oi.iaptaatoi befnre oi ypap/iuTEis avruv ; T. Ri, with the
nthers, oi ypapu. avruv befure oi ^apia. Avrov is umitted by S. D. P. X. anme Mnn.
It"'"!. ; T. R. umita ruv, with S. V. n. unly.
§ I am happy tu.find myaelf in accnrd here with Klnstermann in his fine and con-
scieutinus study nf the secund Guspel. (" Das Marcus-Evangelium," pp. 43, 44.)

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 175
rapidly nver the external circumstances uf the narrative ; it is the wurd nf Jesus in
which he is intereated. The repaat, dnubtless, tnnk place nn the gruund-flnnr, and
the apartment ur gallery in which the table was apread ceuld easUy be reached from
the street. WhUe Jesus was surrounded by Hia new friends. His adversaries at
tacked His diaciples. The T. R. places their scribea before tlie Pharisees. In thia
caae they would be the scribes of the place, or thnae uf the natinn. Neither mean
ing is very natural ; the nther reading, therefere, muat be preferred : the Phariaeea
and their scribea, the defendera ef strict obaervance, and the learned men aent with
them from Jerusalem as experts (vers. 17-31). The Sinait. and aome others have
omitted aiirijv, doubtlesa on accnunt nf the difflculty and apparent uaelessneas nf thia
prunnun. Eating tugether ia, in the East, as with us, the sign uf very clnse intimacy. Jesus,
therefnre, went beyund all the limits nf Jewish decurum in accepting the hnspitality
nf Matthew's hnuse, and in such cumpany. His justificatinn ia partly aerinus and
partly ironical. He seems tn cuncede tu the Pharisees that they are perfectly weU,
and cnncludes frnm this that fur them He, the physician, is useless ; se far the
irony. On the nther hand, it is certain that, speaking ritually, the Pharisees were
right accnrding tu the Levitical law, and that being sn, they wnuld enjuy the means
uf grace cffered by the cld cnvenant, nf which thuse whn have brnken with the
thencratic fnrms are deprived. In this senae the latter are really in a mnre aerinus
cnnditinn than the Pharisees, and mnre urgently need that aume nne ahould interest
himaelf in their aalvatiun ; thia is the serinus side uf the answer. This wnrd is like
a twu-edged swnrd : first nf all, it justifies Jesus frnm Hia adveraariea' pnint nf view,
and by an argument ad liominem; Ijjit, at the same time, it is calculated tn excite
aerinus duubts in their minds as tn whether this pnint nf view be altngether just, and
tn give them a glimpse nt au</lher, accurding tn which the difference that separates
them from the publicans has nut all the wurth which they attributed te it (see en
15 : 1-7). The wurda io repentance are wanting in Mafthew and Mark, accurding tu
the beat authnritiea ; the wnrds underatund in this case are : tn the kingdnm of Gndi
tn salvatinn. In Luke, where these wurds are authentic, they ccntinue the irony
which fnrms the substance nf this answer : cnme tn call io repentance juat peraons !
It is fnr the Phariaeea tu ask themselves, after this, whether, because they meet the
requirementa uf the temple, they satisfy the demands nf Gnd. The discussinn here
takes a new turn ; it assumes the character uf a cunversatiuu nn the use uf fasting in
the nld and new nrder uf things.
Third. Vers. 33-39. InairucUon concerning Fasting.
Vers. 33-35.* In Luke they are the same parties, particularly the scribea, whn
cuntinue the cunversatiuu, and whu allege, in favnr- nf the regular practice nf
fasting, the example nf the disciples of Juhn and nf the Pharisees. The scribes ex-
pres's themselves in this rnanner, because they themselves, as scribes, belung tn nn
party whatever. In Matthew it is the disciples nf Jnhn whu appear all at unce in the
midst nf thia scene, and inten-ngate Jesus in their uwn name and in that uf tbe
Pharisees. In Mark it is the diaciples nf Juhn and nf the Pharisees united whn put
the questiun. This difference might eaaily find ita way intn the nral traditinn, but it
* Ver. 33. !*» (?) B. L. X. nmit dian. Ver. 34. !** D. ItP'«'-i'!«», py dwavrai oi vwi
. . . vyoTEVaai (nr vyarEveiv) inatead uf py dvvaaBe rovS vmvS . . noiyaat
vyartvaai (nr vyarevetv). Ver. 35. !*. C. F. L. M. sume Mnu. Syr. ItPi«'-''<!'>«, nmit kui
before orav, 'The same (with the exception of C. L.) and A. place it before tote.

176 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
is inexplicable nn any nf the hypntheses which deduce the three texts from one and
the same written snurce, ur une uf them frum anuther. Mark says literally : Hie
disciples of John and the Phariaeea icere fasting ; aud we may understand ihat day.
Deveut persons in Israel fasted, in fact, twice a week (Luke 18 : 12), on Mondays and
Fridays, the days en which it was said that Moses went up Sinai (see Meyer on Matt.
6 ; 16) ; this particular day may have been one nr nther uf these twn days. But we
may also explain it : faated habituaUy. They were fasting peraons, addicted to relig
ious observances in which fasting held an important place. It is net easy to decide
between these two senses : with the first, there seems less reason for the questiun ;
with the secund, it cnnveys a much mnre serinus charge against Jesus, aince it refers
tn Hia habitual cunduct ; cnmp. 7 : 34, " Te say. He is a gluttnn and a winebibber
(an eater and a drinker)." The wurd diart, umitted by the Alex., appears tu have
been taken frnm Matthew and Mark.
Whether the disciples nf Jnhn were present nr nnt, it is tn their mude ef religious
reformation that our Lord's answer more especiaUy applies. As they du nnt appear
tu have cherisheclvery kindly feeUngs tnward Jesus (Jnhn 3 : 25, 36), it is very pos
sible that they were united nn this uccasinn with His avuwed adversaries (Matthew).
.Jeaua cnmparca the days of His preaenee nn the earth tn a nuptial feaat. The Old
Testament had represented the Messianic cuming nf Jehnvah by this figure. It
Juhn the Baptist had already uttered the wnrds repurted by Jnhn (3 : 39) : " He that
hath the bride is the bridegruum ; but the friend cf the bridegrnum, which standeth
and heareth hira, rejniceth greatly because of the bridegrnum's vnice : this my joy
therefnre is fulfilled " — what appropriateness there was in this figure by which He
replied tn His diaciples ! Perhaps the Pharisees jjuthurized a departure frnm the rule
respecting fasting during the nuptial weeks. In this case Jesus' reply wnuld becume
mnre striking still. Nvp(j>6v signifles the nuptial clumber, and nnt the bridegroom
{vvpftos), aa Martin, Ostervald, and Crampon translate. The true Greek term to in
dicate the nuptial friend would have been rrapavvp<pins ; John saya : (piXoS tov vvp^im.
The expressinn nf the Syn., aon of the nuptial cliamber, is a Hebraism (cump. son of
tbe kingdnm, nf wisdum, uf perditinn, etc.). The received reading, " Can ynu make
the marriage friends fast ?" (nutwithstanding the jny with which their hearta are
full), is preferable tn that uf the Sinait. and uf tho Groacu-Latin Cudd., "Can they
fast?" which is less fnrcible, aud which is taken frnm Matthew and Mark. In the
midst nf this feast nf publicans the heart nf Jesus ia nverflnwing with jny ; it ia one ot
the hours when His earthly life seema te His feeling like a marriage day. But sud
denly His countenance becomes overcast ; the shadnw of a painful viaion passes
across His brew : The days will come . . . aaid He in a aolemn tone. At the
close nf this nuptial week the ¦bridegrnum Hiraself will be suddenly sraitten and cut
nff ; then will ceme the time of fasting fer those who to-day are rejoicing ; there -will
be no necessity to enjoin it. In this striking and poetic answer Jesus evidently an-
nouncea His vielent death. The passive aor. cannot, as Bleek admits, be explained
otherwise. Thia verb and tense indicate a stroke nf vinlence, by which the subject
of the verb will be smitten (com.p. 1 Cor. 5 : 3). This saying is parallel to the words
found in John 2 : 19, " Destroy this temple ;" and 3 : 14, "-As Moses lifted up the
serpent, so must the Son ef man be lifted up." The fasting which Jesus here op-
puses tn the prescribed fasting practised in Israel is neither a state nf purely inward
grief, a mnral fast, in mnments nf spiritual depressinn, nnr, as Neander thuught, the
life nf privatinn and sacrifice tu which the apostles wnuld inevitably be expused after

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 177
the departure nf their Master ; it is indeed, accnrding tn the cnntext, fasting in the
prnper senae nf the term. Faating haa always been practised in the Church at certain
sulemn seasnns, but it ia nut a rite irapnsed un it from withnut, but the expression nf
a sentiment nf real grief. It prnceeds from the surrnw which the Church feela, in
the absence uf its Head, and is designed tn lend intensity tn its prayers, and tu
insure with greater certainty that assistance nf Jesus which alnne can supply the
place .«»f His visible presence (cnmp. Mark 9 : 39 (?) ; Acts 13 : 3, 3 ; 14 : 33). Thia re
markable aaying was preaerved with literal exactneaa in the traditinn ; accnrdingly
we find it in identical wnrds in the three Syn. It prnvea, firat, that from the earlieat
perind uf His ministry Jeaua regarded Himself as tbe Messiah ; next, that He
identified His cuming with that nf Jehnvah, the husband ef Israel and ef mankind
(Hos. 3 : 19) ; * lastly, that at that time He already foresaw and announced His vio
lent death. It is an error, therefere, to oppose, on these three points, the fourth
Guspel tu the uther three.
Vers. 36-39. Here we have the secund part nf the cenversatinn. The expressinn
iXeyE di Kai, and He aaid alao, indicatea its range. This expreaainn, which occura se
frequently in Luke, always indicates the point at which Jesus, after having treated
nf the particular subject befnre Him, rises tn a mnre general view which cummands
the whnle questinn. Thua, from this mument He makes the particular difference
reapecting faating subnrdinate tn- the general nppusitinn between the nld and new
nrder nf things — an idea which carries Him back tu the uccasinn uf the scene, the
call cf a publican.
''/er. 36.-|- First Parable, — The T. R. says : " Numanputteth a pieceof new cloth
unto an eld garment." The Alex. var. haa this : " No man, rending a piece from
a new garment, putteth it to an nld garment." In Matthew and Mark the new jjiece
is taken frnm any piece nf ninth ; in Luke, accnrding tntwn readings, it is cut nut nf
a whnle garment ; the Alex, reading nnly puta this in a sumewhat stronger fnrm.
The verb ax'iiei, renda (Alex, ax'oei, will rend), in the secund pruxjuaitinn, might have
the intransitive aense: "Otherwise the new [piece] maketh a rent [in the nld],"
which wnuld cnme tn the aame meaning aa the passage has in Matthew and Mark :
" The new piece taketh away a part oi the nld, and the rent is made wurse. But in
Luke the cuntext requires the active sense : " Otherwise it [the piece used tn patch
wilh] rendeth the new [garment]." This is the nnly sense admissible in the Alex.
reading, after the partic. o-;i:<Va5, rending, in the preceding propnsitinn. The received
reading equally requires it: fur. First, The secnnd incunvenience indicated, '" the
new agreeth nut with the nld," wuuld be tun slight tn be placed after that nf the
enlargement nf the rent. Second. The evident correlation between the two Kai,
lioth. . . and . . . contains the following idea : the two garments,
bnth the new and the nld, are spniled tugether ; the new, becauae it baa been
rent te patch the eld ; the old, because it is disfigured by a piece of different
clnth. Certainly it wnuld still be pnssible tn refer the expressinn, not agree,
not to the incongruity in appearance nf the twn ninths, but tn the strnnger and
more resisting quality of the new clnth —an inequality which wnuld have the effect
* See Geas, " Chriati Zeugniss," pp. 19, 20.
i Ver. 36. S. B. D. L. X. Z. several Mnn. Syr. It"'"!, nmit avo befnre ipanov, S.
B. D. L. Z. sume Mnn. add axiaas befnre e^ki^uXXei. S. B. C. D. L. X., axiaei,
Bvp^uvyasi, instead nf axiiei, avp(jiuvEi, !*, B. C. L. X. A. add ra em^Xypa befure tq
OTP tov KUtvOV,

178 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
f
of increaaing the rent. This would be the untoward reault intended in Matthew and
Mark. But the term avpe^ovelv, to harmonize, refers much more naturally te a contraat
in appearance between the two clotha. The futures, will rend, will agree, in the Alex.
reading, may be defended ; but are they not a correction proceeding frnm the uae nf
the future in the secnnd parable (wiM break, will be spilled, will periah, ver. 37) ? The
currectur, in this case, could nut have remembered that, in the case nf the wine and
the leathern bnttlea, the damage is nnly pruduced after a time, whUe in the gaiment
it is immediate. Tn sum up : in Matthew and Mark there is unly a single damage,
that which befalls the nld garment, the rent ef which is enlarged ; in Luke the dam
age is twofold : in one case affecting the new garment, which is cut inteto patch the
ether ; in the other, aft'ecting the eld garment, as iu Mattbew and Mark, but consist
ing in the patchwork appearance of the cloths, aud not in the enlargement of the
rent. In the application it is impossible net to connect this image nf the piece nf new
clnth -n'ith the aubject nf the previnus cunversatinn, the rite of fasting, while we ad
mit that Jesus generalizes the questinn. Muses had nnwhere prescribed munthly nr
weekly fasts. The unly perindical fast cumma^nded in the law was annual — that un
the day of atunement. The regular fasts, such aa thnae which the adveraaries of
Jesus wnuld have bad him impose en His disciples, were one of thuse Pharisaical in-
ventiuns which the .Jews called a liedge about the lOtW, and by which they anught to
cnmplete and maintain the legal system. Jnhn tbe Baptist himaelf had been unable
tn dn anything better than attach himaelf tn thia methnd. This is the patching-up
process which is indicated in Matthew and Mark, and which is opposed te the mode
uf actinn adnpted by Jesus — tbe tntal substitutinn nf a new fnr an nld garment. In
Luke the image is still mure full uf meaning : Jesus, alluding tn that new, uncnn-
strained, evangelical tasting, nf which He has spoken in ver. 34, and which He can
not at present require of His diaciplea, makea the general declaration that it is
neceaaary to wait for the new life before creating ita forms ; it is impoaaible to an
ticipate it by attempting to adapt to tbe legal syatem, under which His diaciples are as
yet living, the elementa ot the new state which He promises them. His mission is
not tn labnr tu rejiair and maintain an educatinnal institutinn, now decaying and
waxing old {iraXawCpevov kuI yypdoKov). He is nnt a patcher, as the Pharisees were,
nur a refurmer, like Jnhn the Baptist., Opua majua! It is a new garment that He
brings. Tn mix up the nld work with the new, would be to spoil the latter without
preserving the former. It wnuld be a vinlatinn nf the unity nf the spiritualism which
he was abnut tn inaugurate, and to introduce inte the legal system an offenaive med
ley. Would not the least particle ef evangelical freedom suffice to make every legal
obaervance fall into disuse ? Better 'flien let the eld garment remain aa it is, until the
time comea to substitute the new for it altogether, than try to patch it up with strips
taken from the latter ! As Lange says (" Leben Jesu," ii. p. 680) : " The work of
Jesus is tee good to use it in repairing the worn garment nf Pharisaical Judaisrii,
which cuuld never thereby be made into anything better than, the assuraed garb of a
beggar." This profound idea uf tbe mingling nf the new hnliness with the ancient
legalism cnmes uut mnre clearly frnm Luke's simile, and cannnt havebeen introduced
intn the wnrds nf Jesus by him. Neander thinka that the nld garment must be re
garded as the image nf the nld unregenerate nature nf the disciples, nn which Jesus
could nnt impnse the fnrms nf the new life. But the mural nature uf man cannnt be

COMMENTARY' ON ST. LUK'li:. 1^9
compared to a garment ; it is the man himself.* Geas appUes the image of the piece
of new clnth tu the asceticism nf Jnhn the Baptist. Thia meaning might auffice f nr
the form nf it in Matthew and Mark ; but it leavea Luke's fnrm nf it (a piece uf the
new garment) unexplained.
What a view nf His missinn thia wnrd uf Jeaus reveals '. What alufty cunceptinn
nf the wnrk He came to accomplish ! Prom what a height He looks down, not only
on the Pharisees, but en John himself, the great representative of the old covenant,
the greatest ef thnae bnrn nf women ! And all thia is expressed in the simplest, bnm'e-
Uest manner, thrown nff with the greatest f^cUity ! He speaks aa a being tn whnm
nnthing ia su natural aa the sublime. All .that has been caUe'd the system nf Paul, all
that this apnstle himself designates his gnapel — the deciaive cuntraat between the
twn cuvenants, the mutual exclusiveness of the systems of law and grace,'* of the
oldness of ilie leiier and the newness of the apirit (Rom. 7 : 6), thia inexorable dilemma :
" If by grace, then is it ne mere of worka ; if it be nf wnrks, then ia it nn mnre
.grace" (Rnm. 11 : 6), which cnnstitutes the substance nf the Epistles to the Romans
and the Gaiatiaus — all ia contained in this homely figure of a garment patched with a
piece ef cloth, or with part ef a new garment ! How can any one, after thia, main
tain that Jeaus was net conacieua from the beginning of the bearing of Hia work, as
well nf the task He had tu accumplish in regard tn the law, as nf His Messianic
dignity ? Hnw can any nne cuntend that tbe Twelve, tn whum we uwe the preserva-
tinn nf this parable, were unly narrow Jewish Christians, as prejudiced in favur nf
their law as the must extreme men nf the partv ? If they perceived the meaning nf
this saying alune, the part attributed tn them becnmes impnasible. And if they had
nu curaprehensien nt it, huw was it that they thuught it wurthy uf a place in the
teaching nf Jesus, which they handed duwn with such care tn the Church ?
Often, after having presented an idea by means ef a parable, from a feeling that
the figure emplnyed fails tu represent it cempletely, Jesus immediately adds a secnnd
parable, designed tn set fnrth anuther aspect nf the same idea. In this way are
termed what may be called the pairs ef parables, which are so often met with iu the
Goapels (the grain of mustard-seed and the leaven ; the treasure and the pearl ; the
unwiae buUder aind .the imprudent warrior ; the sower and the t-area). Following the
same method, .Jesus here adds to the parable of the piece nf clnth that nf the leathern
buttles. Vers. 37, 38. f The Second Parable.— The figure is taken frnm the Oriental custum
uf preserving liquids in leathern bottles, made generally of geat-skina. " No one,"
aays M. Pierntti, " travels in Palestine withnut having a leathern buttle fiUed with
water amnng his luggage. These buttles preserve the water fnr drinking, withnut
imparting any iU taste tn it; alau wine, nil, huney, and milk."j: In this parable
there ia evidently an advance nn the preceding, as we always find in the case uf
dnuble parables. This difference nf meaning, misapprehended by Neander and tbe
greater part uf interpreters, cnmes nut mure particularly frnm twn features : 1. The
uppnaitiun between the unity nf the garment in the flrst, and the plurality nf the but
tles in the secund ; 2. The fact that, since the new wine answers tn the new garment,
* .Eph. 4 : 23, 34, is a metaphnr, nnt a parable.
t Ver. -38. ». B. L. and sume Mnn. nmit the wurda, koi ap<foTEpoi awTypovvrai.
i "Macpelah," p. 78. The authnr gives a detailed descriptiun nf the way in
which these buttles are made.

180 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the new buttles must represent a different and entirely new idea. In fact, Jesus here
is nu Innger uppnsing the evangelical principle tn the legal principle, but the repre
sentatives cf the nne tu thuse uf the nther. Twu cumplaints were raised against
Jesus : First. His negligence nf the legal fnrms ; tn this accusatinn He haa just re
plied. Second. His cnntempt fur the representatives cf legaliam, and Hia aympathy
with thnae whn had thrown nff the theucratic diacipline. It ia tn this secnnd charge
that He nnw replies. Nnthing can be mere simple than our parable from thia point
of view. The new wine represents that living and healthy spirituality which flews
sn abundantly thruugh the teaching nf Jeaus ; and the bnttlea, the men whn are tu
becume the depusitaries ut this principle, and tn preserve it fer mankind. And
whom in larael will Jesus chunse te fulfll this part ? The old practitinners nf legal
nbaervance ? Pharisees puffed up with the idea ct their uwn merit 1 Rabbis jaded
with textual diacussiuns ? Such peranna have nuthing tn learn, nnthing tn receive
frnm Him ! If assuciated with His wurk, they cnuld nnt fail tu falsify it, by mixing
up with His instructinns the nld prejudices with which they are imbued ; nr even if
they shnuld yield their hearts fnr a mnment tn the Infty thuught nf Jesus, it wuuld
put all their religinus nutinns and routine devotinn tu the rout, juat as new and spark
ling wine bursts a wurn-nut leathern bettie. Where, then, shall He choose His future
instruments ? Among these who have neither merit nor wisdom of their nwn. He
needs fresh natures, snuls whuae nnly merit ia their receptivity, new men in the aense
nf the homo novua among the Bnmans, fair tablets nn which His hand may write the
characters nf divine truth, withnut cuming across the nld traces nf a false human wis-.
dura. " Gnd, I thank Thee, becauae Thou haat hidden these thinga frora the wise
and prudent, and haat revealed thera to these babea" (Luke 10:31). These babes
will aave the truth, and it wiU save them ; this is expressed by theae last words :
" and both, the wine and the bottlea, are preserved." These words are emitted in
Luke by some Alex. They are suspected of having been added from Matthew,
where they are net wanting in any document ; Meyer's conjecture, that they have
been suppressed, in accordance with Mark, is less probable.
It has been thuught that the nld buttles represent tbe unregenerate nature nf man,
and the new buttles, hearts renewed by the Gnapel. But Jeaus wnuld nnt have rep
reaented the deatructinn nf the nld cnrrupt nature by the Guspel as a result to be
dreaded ; and He wuuld scarcely have cumpared new hearta, the wurks uf His Holy
Spirit, tu bnttlea, the exiatence uf which precedes that nf the wine which they con
tain. Lange and Gess see in the nld bnttlea a figure nf the legal fnrms, in the new
buttles the image nf the evangelical fnrms. But Chriatian inatitutiuns are an ema
natinn nf the Christian apirit, whUe the buttles exist independently cf the wine with
which tbey are filled. And Jesus wnuld nut have attached equal impurtance tu the
preservatinn uf the wine and nf the buttles, as He dees in the words : " And buth are
preserved." It is a questiun, then, here uf the preservatinn nf the Gnspel, and of
the salvatinn nf the individuals whn are the depuaitariea uf it. Jesus returns here to
the fact which was the uccasinn nf the whnle scene, and which had called fnrth the
dissatisfactinn nf Hia adversariea, the call nf Levi the publican. It is this bnld act
which He justifies in tbe secnnd parable, after having vindicated, in the firat, the
principle un which it was based. A new system demands new persuns. This same
truth will be applied un a larger scale, when, thrnugh the laburs nf St. Paul, the
gnapel shall pasa frum the Jews tn the Gentiles, whn are the new meri in the kingdom
of Gnd.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. l81
Ver. 39.* The Ihird ParabU.^The thnrnugh uppnsitinn which Jesus has just es
tablished between the legal syatem and tbe evangelical system (flrat parable), then
between the representatives cf the nue and thnae nf the nther (secund parable) must
nnt lead the nrgans uf the new principles tu treat thuse uf the ancient nrder with
harshness. They must remeraber that it is nut easy tn pasa frnm a system, with
which nne has heen identifled frnm childhund, tn an entirely different principle of
life. Such men muat be allnwed time tn familiarize themaelves with the new princi
ple that is presented tn them ; and we must beware hnw we turn uur backs upnn
them, if they de not answer, as Levi the publican did, to the flrst call. The cunver-
sinn uf a publican may be sudden as lightning, but that cf a scrupulnus nbserver nf
the law will, as a rule, be a wurk nf prulunged effort. This figure, like that nf the
preceding parable, is takeu frnm the actual circumatances. Conversation follows a
meal ; the wine in the bottles circulates among the guests. With the figure of the
bottles, which contain the wine, is easily connected the idea uf tbe individuals whn
drink it. The new wine, hnwever superier may be ita quality, nwing tn its sharper
flavur, ia always repugnant tu the palate nf a man accustumed tu wine, the ruugh-
neaa nf which has been suftened by age. In the same way, it is natural that thuse
whn have lung rested in the wnrks uf the law, ahnuld .it firat take alarm — Jesus can
well understand it — at the principle nf pure spirituaUty. It is altngether an error in
the Alex. that, has erased here the word eiBeuS, immediately. The very idea ef the
parable is concentrated in this adverb. We must not judge auch people by their firat
impression. The antipathy -n'hich they experience at the first moment will perhaps
give place te a contrary feeling. We must give them time, aa Jesus did Nicodemua.
There ia a tone ef kindly humor in theae worda : for he saith, " Attempt to bring
over to goapel views these old foUuwers ef legal routine, and immediately they tell
you . " If, with the Alex, the positive xpv^rds i3 read : " the nld is mild,"
the repugnance fur the new wine is mnre strongly marked than if we read, with the
T. R., the cumparative : xPV<''''^'''^P°^, ¦milder ; fur iu thte flrat caae the antithesia im
plied ia : " The new is nnt mUd at all. " As the idea nf cumparisnn runs thrnugh tbe
entire phraae, the cnpyists were induced tn aubstitute the cnmparative fur the pusi'-
tive. The Alex, reading is therefnre preferable.
" It was a great mnment," as Geas truly says, " when Jesus proclaimed in a sin
gle breath these three things : the absnlute newness nf His Spirit, His dignity aa the
Huaband, and the nearneaa uf His viulent death." If the first parable cnntains the
germ nf Paul's ductrine, and the secnnd fureahaduws His wnrk amnng the Gentiles,
the third lays dnwn the principle whence He derived His mnde nf acting tnward His
fellnw-cnuntrymen ; making Himself all things tu all by subjecting Hiraself tu the
law, in nrder tn gain thera that were under the law (1 Cur. 9 : 19, 20). What gentle
ness, cnndescensinn, and charity breathe thrnugh this saying nf Jesus ! What sweet-
nesa, grace, and ax'propriateness characterize its furm ! Zeller wnuld have us believe
(" Apnstelgesch." p. 15) that Luke invented thia touching saying, and added it on his
own authurity, in nrder tn render the decided Paulinism cf the twu preceding par
ables acceptable to Jewish-Christian readers. But dnes he nnt see that in saying thia
he vanquishes himaelf by his nwn hand ? If the twn fnrmer parables are se Pauline,
that Luke thuught he muat suften dnwn their meaning by a cnirective uf his nwn in
ventien, hnw cnmes it tn pass that the twn nther Syn., the Gnspels which are in the
main Jewish-Christian, have transmitted them tn the Church, wilhuut the slightest
suftenmg dnwn ? Criticism snmetimes Inaes its clear-sightedness thrnugh excessive
* D. ItP'^-'iuo^ and probably Eusebius, umit thia verse. 5>. B. 0, L. nmit evBeus.
^. B. il. twn Mnn. Syr""''., xP''Ioto( instead nf ;t;p'/ffroTEpui\

182 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
sharpness. That the ultra-Pauline Marcinn shnuld have umitted this third parable is
perfeptly natural ; it pruves that he thnrnughly understund it, fur it carries with it
the cundemnatinn nf his system. But nn cnnsequence unfavnrable tu its authenticity
can be drawn frum this. The nmissiun nf this verse in D., and sume versinns, is nn
less easily explained by its nmissiun in the twn nther synnptics.
The independence cf Luke's text, and the uriginality nf its snurces, cnme nut
clearly from thia laat passage, which fnrms auch an excellent clnse tu this purtiun.
The difference which we have peinted nut in the purpurt of the flrat parable, a dif
ference which ia entirely in Luke's favnr, alsn attests the excellence nf the dncument
frnm which he has drawn. As te the ethers, they are no mere under nbligatiun tn
Luke than Luke is tn them ; wuuld they, nf their nwn accnrd, have made the teach
ing nf Jesus mure anti-legal than it waa ?
5. A Sa!bbath Scene : 6 : 1-5. — The twn Sabbath acenea which fuUuw, prnvnke, at
last, the nutbreak nf the cnnflict, which, as we have seen, haa lung been gathering
atrength. We have already nuted several symptums nf the hnstility which was be
ginning tu be entertained tnward Jesus : ver. 14 {fm' a teatimony unto them) ; ver. 21
(7je blaapliemeth) ; vers. 30-33 (the censure implied in bnth questinns). It is the ap
parent cuntempt uf Jesus fnr the urdinance cf the Sabbath, which in Luke as well as
in Jnhn (chaps. 5 and 9), alike in Galilee and iu Judsea, prnvukes the nutbreak uf this
latent Irritatinn, and an npen rupture between Jesus and the duminant party. Is
there nut snmething in this cemplete parallelism that abundantly compensates fnr the
superflcial differences between the synnptical narrative and Juhn'a ?
Vera. 1-5.* The term second-first is umitted by the Alex. But this nmissiun is
cundemned by Tischendurf himaelf. Matthew and Mark presented nnthing at all like
it, and they did nnt knnw what meaning tn give tn the wnrd, which is fnund nnwhere
elae in the whnle cumpaaa uf sacred and prufane literature. There are half a scere
explanatinns uf it. Chrysustum suppnsed that when twn festival and Sabbath daya
fnllnwed each nther, the flrst received the name of second-first : the first nf the two.
Thia meaning dnea nnt give a natural explanatinn nf the expreasinn. Wetstein and
Sturr say that the firat Sabbath nf the flrst, secund, and third muntha nf the year
were called first, secnnd, and third ; the secund-first Sabbath wnuld thus be the firat
Sabbath nf the second munth. This meaning, althnugh nnt very natural, is less
fnrced. ScaUger thuught that, aa they reckuned aeven Sabbatha from the 16th
Nisan, the secund day nf the Passnver feaat, tu Pentecnat, the secund-first Sabbath
dennted the first nf the seven Sabbaths : the first Sabbath after the aecond day ef the
Passover.' This explanation, received hy De Wette, Neander, aud ether moderns,
agrees very well with the season when the following scene must have taken place.
But the term dees not correspond naturally with the idea. Wieseler supposes that
the first Sabbath of each of the seven years which furmed a Sabbatic cycle waa called
flrst, secnnd, third Sabbath : thus the secund-first Sabbath wnuld dennte the fi/rsl
Sabbath nf the second year uf the septenary cycle. Thia explanatinn has been faver-
ably received by mudern exegesis. It appears tu ua, hnwever, leas prnbable than that
which Lnuis Cappel waa the first tn nffer : The civil year nf the Israelites cummenc-
ing in autumn, in the mnuth Tizri (abnut mid-September tu mid-Octuber), and the
ecclesiastical year in the munth Nisan (abnut mid-March tn mid-April), there were
* Ver. 1. !*. B. L. snme Mnn. Syr"""". It""'!, omit devTEporrpuro. Ver. 2. !». B. C,
L. X. sume Mnn. nmit avrois, Ver. 3. !*. B. D. L. X. Syr. nmit ovtes. 'V'er. 4. S.
D. K. n. snme Mnn. nmit eXm^e n-ai ; B. C. L. X. read Xaf^uv. Ver. 5. D. places
this verso after ver. 10. See at ver. 5 (the end.)

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 183
thus every year twu first Sabbaths : nne at the cummencement nf the civil year, nf
which the name wuuld have heen first-first ; the nther at the beginning nf the relig
inus year, which wnuld be called second-firat. This explanatinn is very simple in it
self, and the fnrm nf the Greek term favurs it : aecond flrst signifies naturaUy a first
dnubled or twice over {biaae). But there is yet anuther explanatinn which appears tu
us still mnre prnbable. Prupnsed by Selden,* it has been reprnduced quite lately by
Andreae in his excellent article un the day nf Jesua' death. -I- When the ubservera in
trusted with the duty nf ascertaining the appearance nf the new munn, with a view
tu fixing the first day nf the munth, did nut present themselves befnre the cummiasiun
nf the Sanhedrim aasembled tn receive their depnsitinn untU after the aacrifice, thia
day waa indeed declared the flrst nf the month, ur monthly {ad/SiSarcv irpurov, ¦ firat
Sabbath) ; but as the time nf uffering the sacrifice nf the new munn was passed, they
sanctified the fnllnwiug day, nr secnnd nf the munth {ad/S^arov devTEpo^KpuTov, aecond-
firat Sabbath), as -\^eU. This meaning perfectly agrees with the idea naturally ex
pressed by this term (a firat twice nver), and with the impressinn it gives nf haring
been taken frnm the aubtleties nf the Jewish calendar.
Bleek, ill-aatiafied with these varinus explanatinns, suppuses an interpnlatiun.
But why shnuld it have nccurred in Luke rather than in Matthew and Mark ? Meyer
thinks that a cnpyist had written in the margin irpan^, first, in nppnsitinn tn ETspt^, tlie
other (Sabbath), ver. 6 ; that the next cnpyist, wishing, in cnnsideratiun uf thu Sab
bath indicated 4 : 31, tu currect this glnss, wrote devrepu, aecond, in place nf irpuru,
first ; and that, lastly, frnm these twn glnaaea tugether came the wnrd aecond-firat,
which haa made ita way intu the text. What a tiaaue uf improbabilities ! Hnltzmann
thinks that Luke had written irporu, the firat, datin,g frnm the juurney recnrded in
4 : 44, and that in cnnsideratiun uf 4 ; 31 snme over-careful currectur added the
second ; whence uur reading. But is nut the interval which separates cur narrative
from 4 : 44 tun great fur Luke tn have emplnyed the wnrd firat in reference tn thia
juurney ? And what ubject cuuld he have had in expreaaing sn particularly this
quality cf first ? Lastly, hnw did the glnss uf this cnpyist find its way intn auch a
large number nf ducumenta? Weizsacker ("Unters." p. 59) cppnaea the twn firat Sab
baths mentiuned in 4 : 16, 33, tn the twn mentiuned here (vers. 1, 6), and thinks that
the name second-first means here the flrst of the second group. How can any one at
tribute such absurd trifling te a seribus writer I This strange term cannet have been
invented by Luke ; neither ceuld it have been introduced accidentally by the copjdsts.
Taken evidently from the Jewish vocabulary, it holds its place in Luke, aa a witness
attesting the eriginaUty and antiquity of hia sources uf information. Further, this
precise designation ef the Sabbath when the incident took place points te a narrator
who witnesaed the scene.
Prom Mark's expreasion ¦napairope'veaBai, to pass by the side of, it would seem tn
follow that Jesus was passing along the side of, and not, as Luke says, acroaa the
fleld {diairopeieaBai), But as Mark adds : through ihe corn, it is clear that he describes
two adjacent flelds, separated by a path. The act nf the disciples was expressly
authorized 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 waa to harvest, to grind, tn labnr !
It waa an infractinn uf the thirty-nipe articles which the Phariaees had framed intn
* " De annu cirili et calendarin veteris ecclesise judaicae. "
X In the jnurnal ; Beweia des Glaubena, September. 1870.

184 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
a Sabbatic cude. -i^axovres, rubbing out, is designedly put at the end uf the phrase :
this is the labnr ! Meyer, pressing the letter nf Mark's text, odov iroielv, io make a
way, maintains that the disciples were nut thinking nf eating, but simply wanted tn
make themselves a passage across the field by plucking the ears nf cnrn. Accnrding
tn him, the middle itoielaBai, nnt the active iroielv, wuuld have been necessary fur the
nrdinary sense. He translates, therefnre : they cleared a way by plucking {riX'/iovres)
the ears cf cnrn (Mark umits ipoxovres, rubbing them out). He cnncludes from this
that Mark alnne has preserved the exact form nf the incident, which has been altered
in the nther twn thruugh the influence uf the next example, which refers tn fund.
Hnltzmann takes advantage uf this idea tu suppnrt the hypnthesis nf a protn-Mark.
But, 1. What traveller wnuld ever think nf clearing a passage thrnugh a field nf
wheat by plucking ear after ear ? 2. If we were tn lay streas un the active iroielv, as
Meyer dues, it wuuld signify that the disciples made a rnad fnr the public, and nnt
fnr themselves alone ; fur in this case alao the middle wnuld be neceaaary ! The
urdinary aenae is therefnre the unly nne pnsaihle even in Mark, and the critical cen
clusiuns in favur nf the prutn-Mark are withnut fnundatinn. The Hebraistic fnrm nf
Luke's phraae {iyivero . . kui etiXXov) whicb ia nnt fnund in the other two,
proves that he has a particular document. As to who theae accusers were, comp.
5 : 17, 21 : 30-33. The word avrois, which the Alex, omits, has perhaps been added
on account of the plural that fnllows : 'Why do ye . . . ? It follnws from this in
cident that Jesus .passed a spring, and consequently a Passover also, in Galilee be
fore His passion. A remarkable coincidence also with the narrative ot John (6 : 4).
The illustration taken from 1 Sam. 31, cited in vers. 3 and 4, is very appropriately
chesen. Jesua would certainly have had no difflculty in showing that the act of the
diaciples, although oppoaed perhapa to the Phariaaic code, waa in perfect agreement
with the Moaaic commandment. But the discuasion, if placed en this ground, might
have degenerated into a mere caauiatical queation ; He therefore tranafers it to a
sphere in which He feela Himself master of thepusitinn. The cunduct nf David rests
upnn this principle, that in exceptiunal cases, when a mnral nbligatiun clashes with a
ceremunial law, the latter nught tn yield. And for this reason. The rite is a means,
but the mnral duty ia au end ; nnw, in case uf conflict, the end has priority over Ihe
meana. The -abaurdily uf Pharisaism is juat this, that it suburdinates the end tu the
means. It was the duty of the high prieat tn preserve tbe life nf David and his cum
paninns, having regard tu their missinn, even at the expense nf the ritual cnmmand-
ment ; fnr the rite exists fnr the thencracy, nnt the thencracy fur the rite. Besides,
Jesua means tn clinch the nail, tn ahuw His adversaries — and this is the sting nf His
reply — that when it is a questiun uf their nwn particular advantage (saving a head oi
cattle fur instance) they are ready ennugh tn act in a similar way, sacriflcing the rite
tn what they deem a higher interest (13 : 11 et seq.). De Wette understands aide in
the sense ot not even: " Dn ynu not even knew the history ef your great king?"
This sense wnuld cnme very near tu the sumewhat ironical turn cf Mark : " Have
ynu never read . . . — never ence, in the course of your profound biblical
studies ?" But it appeara mere simple to explain it aa Bleek doea : " Have you not
alsn read . . ? Dnes nnt this fact appear in yuur Bible aa well as the urdinance
nf the Sabbath ?" The detail : and to those wim were with him, is nut diatinctly ex
preased in the O. T. ; but -wtiatever Bleek may say, it is implied ; David wuuld not
have aaked fur flve Inavea fnr himaelf alnne. Jesus mentiuns it because He wishes to
institute a parallel between Hia apnstles and David's fnllnwers. The prnn. ovs does

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 185
nnt refer tu rols jiet' airov as in Matthew (the present i^ean dnes nnt permit nf it),
hut tu dpTovS, as the ubject uf (payelv ; El py is therefure taken here in its regular sense.
It is not so in Matthew, where ei py is used as in Luke 4 ; 26, 27. Mark gives the
name ef the high priest as Abiatbar, while according tu 1 Sam. it was Abimelech, his
snn (cump. 2 Sam. 8 : 17 ; 1 Chrun. 8 : 16), urhis father (accnrding tu Jnsephua, Antiq.
vi. 13. 6). The queatinn is nbscure. In Matthew, Jesus gives a secund instance cf
transgressinn nf the Sabbath, the labnr nf the priests in the temple on the Sabbath
day, in cunnectinn with the burnt-ufferings and uther religinus services. If the wurk
ut Gnd in the temple liberates man from the law uf the Sabbath rest, hew much mure
muat the service of Him who is Lord even ef the temple raise him tn the same
liberty !
The Cud. D. and nne Mn. here add the fnUnwing narrative : " The aame day,
Jesus, seeing a man whu was wnrking un the Sabbath, saith tn him : O man, if thnu
knuwest what thnu art doing, blessed art thou ; but if thou knowest not, thou art
cursed, and 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 probably the recOrd nf a real fact, while the furmer 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, whu never permitted Himself
the alighteat infractiuu nf a true cummandment nf Mnaes (whatever interpreters may
say about it), certainly wnuld nnt have authnrized this premature emancipatien in
any nne elae.
After having treated the queatinn frnm a legal pnint nf view, Jesus rises tn the
principle. Even had the apustles brnken the Sabbath rest, they wuuld not have
sinned ; fur the Sun nf man has the dispnsal nf the Sabbath, and they are iu His
service. We flnd again here the well-knuwn expressinn, kuI eXeyev, and He aaid to
them, the fnrce of which is (aee at ver. 36) : " Besides, I have snmething mure impnr
tant tn tell ynu." The Sabbath, as an educatinnal inatitution, ia nnly tu remain untU
the mnral develupment uf mankind, fnr the sake nf which it was instituted, is accum
plished. When this end is attained, the means naturally fall intn disuse. New, this
moment ia reached in the appearance of the Son ef man. The nnrmal representative
uf the race. He is Himself the realizatinn nf this end ; He is therefure raised abuve
the Sabbath as a means uf educatinn ; He may cnnsequenlly modify tho fnrm uf it,
and even, if He think fli, abeUsh it altngether. 'K.ai : even nf the Sabbath, this pecu
liar property nf Jehnvah ; with hnw much greater reasnn, nf all the rest nf the law I *
Huw can any une maintain, in the face nf such a saying as this, that Jesus nnly
assumed the part nf the Meaaiah after the cunveraatinn at Cassarea-PhUippi (9 : 18),
and when mnved tu du sn by Peter ?
Mark inserts befnre this declaratinn nne nf thnse shnrt and weighty sayings (he haa
preserved several nf them), which he cannnt have invented ur added ef his own
authority, and which the ether two Syn. would never have left out, had they made
* It is net without justification that Ritschl, in his fine work, " Entstehuug der
altkathol. Kirche," 2d ed., seta uut tn prnve from this paaaage, which ia cummnn tu
the three Syn., that the abnlitiun nf the law, tbe neceaaary cnnditinn nf Christian
universalism, ia nnt an idea impnrted intu -the reliaien nf Jeaus by Paul, but au in
tegral element nf the teaching nf Jeaua Himaelf. It belnnga tn that cummnn fuunda-
tiun nn which rest bnth the wurk nf Paul and that nf the Twelve ; this ja already
proved by the parable nf the twu garments (ver, 36),

186 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
use nf his bunk nr uf the dncument uf which he avaUed himself (the prntu-Mark) :
" The Sabbath is made fnr man, and nnt man fur the Sabbath. " Gnd did nnt create
man fnr the greater glury nf the Sabbath, but He urdained the Sabbath fnr the greater
welfare uf man. Cnnsequenlly, whenever the welfare uf man and the rest nf the
Sabbath happen tu clash, the Sabbath must yield. So tliat {uare, Mark 3 : 38) the
Snn uf man, inasmuch aa He ia head nf the race, haa a right tndispusenf this inatitu
tinn. Thia thuught, diatinctly expressed in Mark, is juat what we have had tn supply
in nrder tn explain the argument in Luke.
Are we authnrized tn infer frum this saying the immediate abnlitiun nf every Sab
batic institutinn in the Christian Church ? By nn means. Just as, in His declara
tinn, vers. 34, 35, Jesus annnunced nnt the abnlitiun nf fasting, but the substitutinn
uf a mure spiritual fur the legal fast, sn this saying reapecting the Sabbath fure-
shadnws impurtant mudificatiuns nf the furm nf this institutinn, but nnt its entire
abnlitiun. It will cease tn be a slavish nbaervance, as in Judaism, and will becnme
the satisfactinn nf an inward need. Its cnmplete abnlitiun will come tu pass only
when redeeraed mankind shall all have reached the perfect stature of the Sen nf man.
The principle : The Sabbath ia made for man, will retain a certain measure nf its
furce as loug as this earthly economy shall endure, for which the Sabbath was first
eatabliahed, aud to the nature of which it is so thoroughly fitted.
6. A Second- Sabbath Scene: 6 : 6-11.— Vers. 3-11.* Do Matthew and Mark place
the following incident on the aame day as the preceding ? It is impoaaible te say {vdXtv,
in Mark, does not refer to 3 : 33, but to 1 : 31). Luke says positively, on another
Sabbath. He has therefore His nwn snurce nf infurmatinn. This is cunfirmed by
tbe character nf the style, which cnntinues tu be decidedly Hebraistic {Kai . . .
Ku). . . . instead uf the relative prennun). The withering nf the hand denntes para
lysis resulting from the absence uf the vital juices, the cnnditinn which is cummunly
described aa atrophy. In Matthew, the questinn whether it is right tu heal nn the Sab
bath day is put tu the Lnrd by His adversaries, which, taken literally, would be
highly improbable. It is evident that Matthew, aa usual, cundenses the accuunt nf
tbe fact, and hastens tn the wnrds nf Jesus, which he relates at greater length than
the nthers. Hia adversaries, nu duubt, did put the questinn, but, as Luke and Mark
tell ua, aimply in iutentinn and by their lenka. They watch te aee hew He will act.
The present BEpanE-uEi, toliether He heals, in the Alex., would refer to the habit of
.Jesus, te His principle of conduct. Thia turn nf expressinn is tun far-fetched. The
spies want mure particularly tn ascertain what He will du nuw ; frum the fact they
will easily deduce the principle. The received reading BEpaneiaEi, wheilier He will
heal, must therefure be preferred. The Rabbis did nut alluw uf any medical treat
ment nn the Sabbath day, unless delay wnuld imperil life ; the strictest schnnl, that
nf Shammai, furbade even the cnnanlatiun uf the sick nn that day (Schabbat xii. 1).
Ver. 8. Jesus penetrates at a glance the secret spy system urganized against Him.
* Ver. 7. 14 Mjj. several Mnn. It. omit avrov after, de. N. A. D. L. II. :
BeparcEVEi instead uf BEpanevaEi. S* B. S. X. sume Mnn. Syr. It""'!. : Kuryyopeiv in
stead nf Kuryyopiav. Ver. 8. S. B. L. snme Mnn.: avdpi instead uf avdpuiru. Ver. 9.
!*. B. L. : eirepuTo instead nf EwEparyao. S. B. D. L. ItPi""'!"'! ; vpaS ei inatead nf vpaS
Tl, S. B. D. L. X. Syr»=''. Itpioriiue . anoXeaai instead nf airoKreivai, Ver. 10. 13
Mjj. : avTu inatead nf ra avBpoiru, which ia the reading nf T. R. with !S. D. L. X. It.
T. R. with K. n. several Mnn.: eiroiyaev ovrug ; 13 Mjj. 80 Mnn. umit ovtoS. i*. D.
X. several Mnn. It. e^ereivEv, 11 Mjj. several Mnn. Syr. It. umitwytj^s. 13Mjj. many
Mnn, read uS y a'/'/y, which T. R. with !!*, B, L. omit.

COMMENTARY OX aT. LUKE. 18^'
and seems tn take pleasure in giving the wnrk He is abnut tn perfurm the greatest
pubUcity pnsaihle. Cummanding the man tn place himself in the midst nt the as
sembly, He makes him the aubject nf a veritable theulugical demunatratinn. Mat
thew umits these dramatic details which Mark and Luke have transmitted te us.
Would he have omitted thera had he known them ? He could net have had the al
leged protn-Mark befnre him, unless it is suppnsed that the authnr nf nur cannnical
Mark added these details nn his nwn authurity. But in this case, hnw cumes Mark
tn cuincide with Luke, whn, accnrding tn this hypnthesis, had nut uur actual Mark
in his hands, hut simply the primitive Mark (the cemmun snurce nf our three Syn.) ?
Here plainly ia a labyrinth from which criticiam, having nnce entered on u, wrong
path, is unable to extricate itself. The akilfulneaa ef the question prupnsed by the
Lnrd (ver. 9) cunsists in its representing gund umitted as evil cnmmitted. The quea
tinn thus puts anawera itaelf ; fnr what Phariaee wniild- venture tn make the preroga
tive nf the Sabbath tn cnnsist in a permissiun tu turture and kill with impunity nn that
day ? This questinn is nne nf thnse marks of genius, nr rather nne ef those inspira
tion uf the heart, which enhance our kncwledge uf Jesus. By reasnn ut His cum-
passinn. He feels Himself respunsible fnr all the suffering -v\'hich He fails tu relieve.
But, it may be asked, cnuld He nut have put ntt' the cure until the next day ? Tn
this questiun He wuuld have given the same answer as any une uf ua : Tn-mnrrnw
belnngs tn Gnd ; nnly tn-day belnngs tn me. The present etteputo. Task you (Alex.),
is mure direct and aevere, and cnnaequently leaa suited the Lerd's frame ef mind at
this mnment, than the future nf the T. R. : i will ask you. Fer tho same reason,
we think, we must read, not ei, if, or iait, with the Alex., but ri, and make this word
net a cumplement : " I ask ynu what is alluwable," a furm in which the intentiunal
sharpness nf His address is suftened dnwn tnu much (aee the contrary caae, 7 ; 40),
but the subject uf e^eoti : " I aak ynu ; anawer me ' What is permitted, tn . . .
ur tn . . . fur in my pnsitiun I must dn nne nr the uther." Matthew places here
the illustratinn nf the sheep faUen intu 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 anawer to this queation. Thnse whn laid the snare are taken in it themselves.
Jesus then surveys His adversaries, ranged around Him, with a long and solemn gaze.
Thia atriking moment, omitted in Matthew, is noticed in Luke ; in Mai-k it is de
scribed in the most dramatic manner. We feel here how much Mark uwea tn snme
snurce nf infurmatinn clusely cunnected with the persun uf the Savinur ; Ue describes
the feeling nf snrrnwful indignatinn which eye-witnesses couid read in His glance :
"with anger, being grieved at the hardness nf their hearts." The command Jesua
gives the sick man tn stretch fnrth his hand, affurds rnnm fur surprise. Is it not pre
cisely what he was unable to do ? But, like every call addressed tn faith, this cum
mand cnntained a prnmise uf the strength necesaary tn accumplish it, provided the
will tn nbey was there. He must make the attempt, depending nn the wnrd nf Jesus
(ver. 5), and divine puwer will accnmpany the effurt. The word vyiys ia probably
taken from Matthew ;. it is omitted by six Mjj. It would be hazardous, perhapa, to
eraae also the words dis y 'o-XXy with the three Mjj. which emit them. It is here that
Cod. D. places the general proposition, ver. 5.
The Jewish-Christian Gnapel which Jerume had fnund amnng the Nazarenes re
lates in detail the prayer nf thia sick man : " I was a maaon, earning my livelihood
with my own hands ; I pray thee, Jeaus, te restore me to health, in order that I may
not with shame beg my bread." This is an instance nf huw amplificatinn and vui-

188 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
garity meet us directly we step beynnd the threshnld uf the cannnical Gnspels.
ApnstuUcal dignity has disappeared.
The wnrd dvoia (ver. H), properly madness, by which Luke expresses the effect
produced nn the adversaries nf Jeaus, denntes literally the absence nf voUq, nf the
pnwer tn discriminate the true from the false. They were fools through rage, Luke
means. In fact, passinn destroys a man's sense nf the gund and true. Matthew and
Mark nutice merely the external result, the pint which frnm this mnment was laid
against the life nf Jesus : " They tnnk cnunsel tn kill Him ;" Mark adds tn the Phari
sees, the Herodians. The furmer, in fact, cnuld take nn effectual meaaurea in Galilee
againat the persnn nf Jesua withnut the cuncurrence nf Herud ; and in nrder tn nbtain
this, it was necessary tn gain uver his cnunsellurs tn their plans. Why shnuld-they
nnt hupe tn induce thia king tn du tn Jesus what he had already dune tn John the
Baptist ?
Holtzmann thinks it may be proved, by the agreement nf certain wnrds nf Jesus
in the three narratives, that they must have had a cummun written snurce. As if
wurds su striking as these : I'he Son of mom ia Bord alao of the Sabbath day, cuuld nnt
be preaerved by nral traditinn ! The characteristic divergences which we have ub-
aerved at every line in the hiatnrical sketch uf the narrative, are incnmpatible, as we
have aeen, with the uae uf a cummnn document.
THmD CYCLE. — CHAP. 6 : 13-8 : 56.
!From the Election of the Twelve to their Firat Mission.
In the fnllowing sectinn we shall see the Galilean miniatry reach its zenith ; it be
gina wilh the inatitutinn nf the apnstnlate and the must impurtant uf Jesus' discnuraea
during Hia anjuurn in Galilee, the Sermnn nn the Muunt ; and it ends with a cycle nf
miracles that display the extranrdinary pnwer uf Jesus in all its grandeur (8 : 33-56).
The hnstility against Hira seems tn mnderate ; but it is sharpening its weapnns in
secret ; in a very little while it will break uut afresh.
This sectinn cnmprises eleven pnrtinns : Ist, the chnnsing of the Twelve, and the
Sermnn nn the Muunt (6 : 13-49) ; 2d, the healing nf the centurinn's servant
(7 : 1-10) ; Zd, the raising uf the widnw's snn ht Nain (7 : 11-17) ; Ath, the qutslinn uf
John the Baptist, and the discnurse nt -Jesus upnn it (7 : 18-35) ; 5tli, the wnman that
was a sinner at the feet nf Jesus (7 : 36-50) ; 6i/i, the wnmen whu ministered tn Jesus'
support (8 : 1-3) ; 7iA, the parable nf the snwer (8 : 4-18) ; %tli, the visit nf the mnther
and brethren nf Jesus (8 : 19-31) ; Qili, the stilling uf the sturm (8 : 33-35) ; IWIi, the
healing ef the demoniac of Gadara (8 : 36-39 ; llili, the raising of Ja'lrus'. daughter
(8 : 40-56).
1. The Choosing of ihe Twelve, and the Sermon on tlie Mount : 6 : 13-49. — Our affix
ing this title te thia purtiun implies twn thinga : Isi, that there is a close cnnnectinn
between the twu facta cnntained in this title ; 2d. that the discnurse, Luke 6 : 20-49,
is the same as that we read in Matt. 5-7. The truth uf the first suppusitinn, frnm
Luke'a pnint of view, appears from ver. 30, where he puts the discourse which fol
lows in close connection with the chnnsing nf the Twelve which he has just narrated.
The truth ut the secnnd is disputed by thuse whn think that in cnnsequence nf this
choice Jesus spoke two discourses — one on the summit uf the mnuntain, addreaaed
speciall.v tn Hia disciples — the second lower dnwn un level ground, addressed tn the
multitude ; the fnrmer, which was of a mure private character, being that nf Mat-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 189
thew ; the latter, ut a mure pnpular aim, that uf Luke.* Theyrely nn the differences
in substance and fnrm between the twn discnurses in nur twn Gnspels. In regard tu
the substance, the essential matter in the discuurse nf Matthe-w, the nppnsitinn be
tween the rightenuaness nf the Pharisees and the true righteuusness uf the kingdnm
uf heaven, is nut fuund at all in Luke. As tn the furm. in Matthew Jesus ascends
the mountain to preach it, whUe in Luke He comes down, after having spent the
night on the summit. Further, there He is seated {xaBiaavToS airou. Matt. 5:1); here
He appears to be standing {eary, Luke 6 : 17). Notwithstanding these reasons, we
cannot admit that there were two distinct discourses. They bolh begin in the same
way, with the beatitudes ; they beth treat ef the same aubject, the righteousneaa ut
the kingdnm nf Gud — with this shade nf difference, that the essence nf this rightenus-
neaa, in Matthew, is apiriluality ; in Luke, charity. They bnth have the sarae con-
clusinn, the parable uf the twn buildings. This resemblance in the plan ef the dis
course is- se great that it appears te us decidedly to take precedence of the second
ary differences. As te the differences of form, it should be observed that Luke's ex
pression, fjri rdrrov iredivov, literally, on a level place, denotes a flat place on the
mountain. Te denote the plain, Luke would have said, i-ir'l nediov. Luke's expres
sion is not, therefnre, cuntradictory tu Matthew's. The latter, as usual, giving a
summary narrative, tells us that Jesus preached this time on tbe mountain, in
nppusitinn tn the plain, the sea-side that is, where He uaually preached ; while Luke,
whu describes in detail all the circumstancea nf thia memorable day, begins bj' men
tinning the night which Jeaus spent alnne nn the aummit nf the mnuntain ; next he
tella hnw He descended tn a level place aituated un the mnuntain side, where He
stayed tn speak tu the peuple. This plateau waa stUl the mnuutain in Matthew's
sense. On the relatinn ef iary (Luke) to He sat down (Matthew), see en ver. 17.
In nrder tn understand the Sermnn en the Mount, it is necessary tn furm a currect
view nf the histnrical circumstances which were the uccasinn ut it ; fnr this sermnn
is something mnre than an impnrtant piece nf instructinn delivered by Jesus ; it is
.nne nf the decisive acts nt His miniatry. We have pninled nut in the preceding sec
tion the symptums nf a growing rupture between Jesus and the hierarchical party
(vers. 14, 17, 31-33 ; &:! aeq). The bold attitude which Jesus aaaumes tuward this
party, challenging ita hoatility by calling a publican, by emphasizing in His teaching
the antithesis betweeii the cld and new nrder nf things, and by npenly braving their
Sabbatarian prejudices — all this enables us tu aee that a crisis in the develupment nf
Hia work has arrived. It ia an exactly correapondiug state of things for Galilee tn
that which was bruught abuut in Judsea after the healing ef the impntent man nn the
Sabbath (Jnhn 5). The chnice uf the Twelve and the Sermnn en the Mount are the
result and the solution ef this critical situation. Up to this time Jesus had beenaalis-
fled with gathering converts about Him, calling some of them te accompany Him
habitually as diaciples. New He saw that tbe moment was come to give His work a
more deflnite form, and to organize His adherents. The hoatile army ia preparing
for the attack ; it ia time to concentrate Hia own forcea ; and conaequently He be
gins, if I may venture tn say sn, by drawing up His liat nf nfflcera. The chnnsing nf
the Twelve is the firat cnnatitutive act accnmplished by Jesus Christ. It ia the first
meaaure, and substantially (with the sacramenta) the nnly measure, nf nrganizatinn
* Lange, "Leben Jesu," buuk ii. pp. 567-570. St. Auguatine and the greater
part nf the Latin Fathers nf the Church buld that there were twn discnurses.

190 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
which He ever tnnk. It sufficed Him, since the cnllege of the Twelve, nnce cunsti-
tuted, was in its turn tu take what further measures might be required when the time
came fnr them. The number 13 was significant. Jesus set up in their persuns the
twelve patriarchs nf a new penple nf Gnd, a spiritual larael, that waa tn be substituted
fnr \he nld. Twelve new tribes were tn arise at their wnrd and fnrm the huly
humanity which Jesus came tu install in the earth. An act mnre expressly Messianic
it ia impnssible tn cnnceive ; and the criticism which maintains that it was unly at
Csesarea-Philippi, and at the instigatinn uf Peter, that Jesus decisively accepted the
part nf Messiah, must begin by effacing frnm histury the chnnsing of the Twelve,
wilh its manifeat aigniflcatiun. Further, this act is the beginning uf the di
vurce between Jesua and the ancient peuple of God. The Lord does not begin
40 frame a new Israel until He sees the necessity ef breaking with the
old. He has labored in vain to transform ; nothing nnw remains but tn substi
tute. Thia attentive crowd which surrnunds Him on the mountain is the nucleua et
the new people ; this diacourae which He addreaaea to them is the promulgation of
the new law by which they are te be governed ; this moment is the solemn inaugura
tion nf the penple uf Jesus Christ upun the earth — uf that penple which, by means ef
individual conversions, is eventually to absorb iuto itself all that belongs to God
among all other peoples. Hence this discourse has a decidedly inaugural character
— a character which, whatever Weizsacker * may say about it, belongs no less to its
form iu Luke than to its form in Matthew. In the latter, Jesus addresses Himself, if
you will, to the apostles, but as representing the entire new Israel. In Luke, He
rather speaks, if ynu will, tu tbe new Israel, but as persnnified in the persnn uf the
apnstles. In reality this makes nn difference. The diatinctinn between apuatlea and
believera ia nnwhere clearly asserted. Evgry believer is tu be the aalt of ihe earth,
ihe light of ihe world (Matthew) ; every apuatle ia tu be nne uf thnse poor, hungry,
ireeping, persecuted nnea uf which the new peuple is tu be cnmpused (Luke). Juat as,
at Sinai, Jehnvah makes no distinctinn between priests and penple, sn it ia Hia peuple,
with all the cnnatitutive elements nf their life, whuse appearance Jeaus haila, whuse
new character He portraya, and whnse future actinn nn the wurld He proclaims.
Further, He felt must deeply the impnrtiince nf this mnment, and prepared Himself
for it by a whole night of meditation and prayer. The expresaiona of Luke upen this
point (ver. 13) have, aa we ahall see, quite a apecial character.
The Sermon on the Mount occupies quite a different place in Matthew te that
which it holds in Luke. That evangeliat haa made it the npening nf the Galilean
miniatry, and he places it, therefnre, immediately after the call nf the fnur firat dia
ciples. Hiaturically speaking, thia pnaitinn ia a manifest anachronism. Hnw, at tbe\
very ccmmencement nf His wurki cnuld Jesus speak of persecutions fer His name, as'
He dees. Matt. 5 : 10, 11, or feel it necessary to justify Himself against the charge of
destroying tbe law (ver. 17). and to give a solemn warning te false disciples
(7 ; 31-33) ? The pnsitiun nt the Sermnn un the Muunt in Matthew ia unly tn be un-
deratnod frnm the systematic pnint uf view from which thia evangelist wrote. There
was nn better way in which the authnr cnuld shuw the Meaaianic dignity uf Jesus than
by npening the hiatory nf His ministry wilh this discuurse, in which waa laid dnwn
the basis nf that spiritual kingdnm which the Meaaiah came tn fnund. If the cnllec
tinn nf the discnurses cnmpused by Matthew, nf which Papias speaks, really existed,
* " Untersuchungen iiber die evang. Gesch." pp. 45 and 46, nute.

COMMENTARY OS ST. LUKE, 191
and served as a fnundatinn fnr nur Guspel, the pusitinn which this discourse occupies
in the latter is fully accuunted fnr.
As tn Mark, we can easily perceive the precise point in his sketch where the Ser
mon on the Mount should come in (3 : 13 et seq.). But the discourse itself Is wanting,
doubtless because it was no part ef his design to give it te his readers. Mark's nar
rative is neverthelesa important, in that it subatantiates that of Luke, and confirma
the significance attributed by this evangelist to the act of the choosing of the
Twelve. Tnis comparison with the two ether Syn. showa how well Luke under
stund the develupment nf the wurk uf Jesua, and the superiur chrnnnlngical akUl with
which he cnmpiled his narrative {koBe^; ypdipai, 1 : 3).
Geaa has replied tu nur nbjectinns againat tbe chrnnnlngical accuracy nf Matthew's
narrative {Bitter. Anzeiger nf Andreae, September, 1871) in the fuUnwing manner :
The mentiun of the persecutiuns might refer tu the fact mentinned Juhn 4 : 1, and
tu the fate uf Juhn the Baptist : the charge nf undermining the law had already been
made in Judsea (cnmp, Jnhn 5) ; the falae disciples might have been imitatnrs nf the
man whn wruught curea in the name ef Jeaus (Luke 9 : 49 ; Mark 9 : 38), although of
a leas pure character. And, in any case, the time of the discourse indicated by Luke
doea net differ aensibly from that at which Matthew places it. But neither the hea-
tUity which Jeaua had met with in Judsea, nor the accuaationa which had been laid
against Him there, could have induced Him te speak as He did in the Sermon on the
Mount, unless anme aimilar events, auch as thnse which St. Luke has already related,
had taken place in thia prnvince, and within the knnwledge nf the penple. It ia quite
pnsaihle that the facts related by Luke dn nnt prnve any very great interval between
the tirae tn which he assigns this diacnurae and the beginning nf the Galilean miniatry,
at which Matthew places it. But they serve at least as a preparatinn fnr it, and give
it just that hiatnrical fnundatinn which it needs, while in Matthew it nccurs ex
abrupto, and withnut any histnrical framewurk. The fact that the call uf Matthew
is placed in the first Gnspel (9 : 9) after the Sermnn nn the Muunt. which suppuses
this call already accnmplished (Luke Q :12 et seq.), wuuld be sufficient, if neceasary
tn shuw that this discnurse is detached, iu this Gnspel, frnm its true histurical
cnntext. 1st. Vers. 13-19. Choosing of ihe Twelve. — Ver. 13.* Luke bas already bruught
before us mure than nnce the need nf prayer, which sn uften drew Jesus away intu
sulitude (4 : 43, 5 : 6). But the expressinns he makes use uf here are intended tn can-y
special weight. Aiuvvktepeveiv, io pass the niglii in watching, is a wnrd rarely used
in Greek, and which in all the N. T. is nnly fuund here. The chnice uf this unusual
term, as well as the analytical furm (the imperf. with the participle), express the per
severing energy nf this vigil. The term irpoaevx^ tov Qeo-v, literally, prayer of Ood, is
alsn an unique expressinn in the N. T. It dues nnt dennte any special request, hut a
state uf rapt cnntemplatinn nf Gnd's presence, a prayer arising nut nf the muat prn
fnund cnmmuninn with Him. The develupment nf the wnrk nf Jesua having new
reached a critical pnint, during this night He laid it befnre Gnd, and tnnk cnunsel
with Him. The chnnsing nf the twelve apnstles was the fruit uf this lengthened
seasnn of prayer ; in that higher light in which Jesus stund, it appeared the unly
measure answering tn the exigencies nf the preaent situatinn. The reading i^eXBelv is
a currectinn of the Alexandrian puriata fur E^y?Sev, which, after iyevEro, nffended the
Greek ear.
Vers. 13-17fls.t In the executinn, aa in the chnice, of this impnrtant measure,
* i>, A. B. D. L., e^eXBeiv avTov instead ef ef^XSev.
t Ver. 14. S. B. D. K. L. A. n. 30 Mnn. Syr"''. It'"'!, read kqi before UkuBov.
at, B. D. L. Syr""". It""', read /cai before iiXnrnov. Ver. 15. The same, nr nearly

19^ COMMENTAR'i: Oit St. LtKfi.
Jesus nn dnubt submitted Himself tu divine directiun. His numerous disciples spent
the night nut far frora the mnuntain-tup tn which He withdrew. During this
lengthened cnmmuninn, He presented them all, nne by one, tn His father ; and Gnd's
finger pninted uut thnse tn whnm He was tn intrust the salvatinn ef the wnrld.
When at last all had been made perfectly clear, tnward murning He caUed them to
Him, and made the selection which had thus been prearranged. The Kai, also, indi
cates that the title proceeded from Jesus, as well as the commission. Schleiermacher
thought that this nomination waa made simply in reference tn the fnUnwing discuurse,
of which these twelve were tn be the nfficial hearers, and that the name apnstles (ver.
13, " whnm He alsn named apostles") might have been given them un snme nther
uccasinn, either previnus ur subsequent. The similar expressinn relative tu Peter,
ver. 14, might favnr this latter npininn. Nevertheless, it is natural tn suppuse that
He entitled them apnstles wheu He first diatinguiahed them from the rest of the dis
ciples, just as He gave Simon the surname Peter when He met him fer the first time
(John 1). And if these twelve men had been choaen to attend Jesus officially simply
nn this uccasinn, they wnuld nut be fnund the same in all the catalngues uf apnstles.
The fact nf thia chuice ia expreasly cunfirmed by Mark (3 ; 13, 14), and indirectly by
Juhn (6 : 70) : " Have nut I chnsen ynu twelve {e^eXE^dpyv) ?" The functiun nf the
apustles has nften been reduced tu that nf simple witnesses. But this very title nf
apuatlea, ur ambasaadura, expreaaea mnre, cnmp. 3 Cur. 5 : 20, " We are ambaasadurs
fnr Christ . . . and we beseech ynu tn be recnnciledtu Gud." When Jesus says,
" 1 pray fur them whn shall believe nn me thrnugh their wnrd," the expressinn their
word evidently embraces more than the simple narration of the facts about Jesus and
His works. The marked prominence which Luke, together with IVtark, gives to the
choosing nf the Twelve, is the best refutation of the unfair criticism which affects to
discover throughout his work indicatiuns nf a design tn depreciate them.
Accnrding tn Keim (t. ii. p. 805), the chnice nf the Twelve must have taken place
later nn, at the time uf their first missiun, 9:1 et seq. It is then, in fact, that Mat
thew gives the catalogue, 10 -.1 et seq. His idea is that Luke imagined this entire
scene nn the mnuntain in nrder tu refer the choosing ef the apostles te as early a
period as poaaible, and thua give a double and triple consecration te Iheir authority,
and that thus far Mark foUuwed hira. But Luke, he believes, went much further
stni. Wanting tu put seme discourse into the ni(mlh.ot Jesus on this occasion, he
availed himself for this purpose of part ef the Sermun nn the Mount, thuugh it was a
discuurse which had nnthing in cnmrann with the uccasinn. Mark, hnwever, rejected
this amplificatinn, but with the serinus defect uf nnt being able tu assign any adequate
reasin fnr tbe chnnsing nf the apustles at this tirae. Thus far Keim, But, 1. The
preface tn the accuunt nf the first apostolic mission in Matthew (10 : 1), " and having
called to Him the twelve diaciples. He gave them . . ." does away wilh the idea
of their having been chosen just at this time, and implies that this event had already
taken place. Accnrding tn .Matthew himself, the cnllege uf the Twelve is already in
existence ; Jeaua calls them tu aet them tn active service. 2. A scene described in
such snlemn terms as that nf Luke (Jeaua apending a night in prayer tn Gnd), cannnt
he au invention on hia part, conaiatently with the alightest pretensions tn gund faith.
3. The narrative nf Mark is an indisputable cnnfirmatinn uf Luke's ; fnr it is inde
pendent uf it, aa appeara from the way, sn cempletely his own, in which he defines
the object of choosing the apostles. 4. We have seen ho-w exactly Ibis measure was
adapted to that stage ot development which the work of Jesus had now reached. 5.
Does not rationalistic criticism condemn itself, by attributing to Luke here the entire
so : Kai before MarBaiov and IukoBov. Ver. 16. The same, or nearly so : Kai before
lovSav, 8. B, D. L,, loKaptuQ inatead of laKapiuTyv. S, B. L. It. omit xai after of.

COMMENTAKY ON ST. LUKE. 193
invention of a scene designed to confer the most aolemn conaecration on the apostolic
authority ef the Twelve, and by aasertjng elsewhere that this same Luke labors te
depreciate them (the Tiibingen school, and, to a certain extent, Keim himself ; see
un 9 ; 1) ?
The four catalogues of apostles (Matt. 10 : 2 e* aeq. ; Mark 3 : 16 «< seq. ; Luke 6 ;
and Acts 1 : 13) present three marks of resemblance : 1st. They contain the same
names, with the exception ot Jude the son ef James, fur whnm in Mark Thaddseus ia
substituted, and in Matthew Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddeus (accnrding tuthe received
reading), Thaddseus (accnrding tn S. B. ), Lebbaeus (accnrding tn D.). 2d. These
twelve are distributed in the fnur lists intn three groups nf fnur each, and nn indi
vidual nf either uf these groups is transferred tn anuther. We may cunclude frnm this
that the apuatclical cnllege cnnsisted nf three concentric circles, uf which the inner-
must was in the clnsest relations with Jesus. Sd. 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 intu pairs, at least (accnrding tn the
received reading, in Luke, and certainly in Matthew) fnr the laat? eight apnstles. In
the Acts, the first fnur apostles are connected with each other by Kat ; 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 wilh the Forerunner (John 1). At the first
glance, Jeaus had discerned that power of taking the lead, that promptness nf view
and actinn, which distinguished Peter. He pninted him nut at the time by the sur
name ri3, in Aramsean ^{2^3, Cephas (prnperly a maaa of rock), as he nn whnm He
wnuld fnund the edifice cf Hia 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
Church was erected in Israel and among the heathen (Acts 3 and 10). There is noth
ing in the text to indicate that this surname was given to Peter at this time. The
aor. ovdpaae indicates tbe act simply, without reference tn time. The xai merely
serves to express the identity nf the persnn (ver. 16). Andrew was nne uf the first
- believers. At the time when Jesus chuse the Twelve, he was nn dnubt appuinted at
the same time aa Peter ; but he gradually falls belnw .Jamea and Juhn, tn whnm he
appears tu have been inferinr ; he ia placed after them in Mark and in the Acts. The
nrder fnllnwed by Luke indicatea a very primitive snurce. Andrew is very nften
fuund assuciated with Philip (Jnhn 6 : 7-9', 13 : 21, 23). In their nrdinary life he
furmed the link between the first and the secnnd group, at the head uf which was
Philip. The secnnd pair nf the flrst group is fOrmed by the two snns nf Zebedee, James
and Jnhn. Mark supplies (3 : 17) a detaU respecting them which is full nf interest :
Jesus had surnamed them sons of thunder. This surname wnuld have been nffensive
had it expressed a fault ; it dennted, therefnre, rather the ardent zeal uf these two
brothers in the cause nt Jesus, and their exalted affeclinn fur Hia perann. Thia feel
ing which burned within their hearts, came fnrth in audden flashes like lightning from
the cluud. Juhn 1 ; 43 * contains a delicate trace of the caUing ef James ; this,
* Probably it ia ver. 41 that is meant. M. Godet, following the usual opinion that
the unnamed disciple of ver. 40 is John, the writer ef the Gospel, seema to understand
the next verse as intimating that Andrew found his brother Simon before John
found his brother James. Alford's view is, that both disciples (Juhn and Andrew)
went lu seek Simon, but that Andrew found him first.- Translator.

194 COMMENTARY ON KT. LUKE.
therefore, must have taken place while he waa with Jnhn the Baptist, immediately
after that nf his brother. James was the firat martyr frum the number nf the apnstles
(Acts 13). • This fact is nnly tu be explained by the great influence which he exerted
after Peritecnst. Juhn was the persunal friend uf Jesus, whn dnubtless felt Himself
better understund by him than by any nf the nthers. While the nther disciples were
especially impressed by His miracles, and stered up His moral teaching, Juhn, at
tracted rather by His persnn, treasured up in his heart thnse sayings in which Jeaus
unfulded Hia cnnacinuaneas nf Hiraself. Wieaeler haa tried tt) prnve that theae twn
broth era were flrat-cnuains of Jesus, by Salnme, their muther, whu wuuld have been
the sister nf the Virgin Mary. Cnmp. Matt. 37 : 5, 6, Mark 15 : 40, with Jnhn 19 : 25.
But this interpretatinn nf the passage in Juhn is hardly natural.
The secnnd quaterninn, which nn dnubt cumprised natures nf a secnnd nrder,
cnntained alsn twn pairs. The flrat consists, in all three Gospels, uf PhUip and Bar-
thnlnmew. In the Acts, Philip is assuciated with Thnmas. Philip was the fifth be
liever (Juhn 1) ; he was nriginally frnm Bethsaida, as were alsn the preceding fnur.
Jnhn 6 : 5 seems to show that Jesus was on terms of special cordiality with him. The
name Bartholomew signifles son of Tolmai ; it was therefore only a surname. It haa
long been supposed that the true name of this apostle was Nathanael. John 21 : 2,
where Nathan-^iel is named among a string of apostlea, proves unqueationably that he
waa one nf the Twelve. Since, accurding tn Juhn 1, he had been drawn tn Jesua by
PhUip, it is natural that he shuuld be assuciated with him in the catalngues nf the
apuatlea. Matthew and Thnmas fnrm the aecund pair uf the secnnd grnup in the three Syn.,
while in the Acta Matthew is assuciated with Barthulnmew. One remarkable circum
stance, all the mnre signiflcant that it might easily pass unperceived, ia thia, that
while in Mark and Luke Matthew ia placed first nf the pair, in nur first Gnspel he nc
cupies the secund place. Further, in this Guspel alsn, the epithet the publican is add
ed tn his name, which is wanting in the twu uthers. Are nnt these indicatiuns uf a
persunal participatinn, mure nr less direct, cf the Apnstle Matthew in the cnmpnsitiun
nf the flrst Gnspel ? Having been furmerly a tull-cnllectnr, Matthew muat have been
mnre accustumed tu the use nf the pen than his cnlleagues. It is net surprising,
therefore, that he should be the firat among them who felt called te put into writing
the history and instructions of Jesus. The account of his calling implies that he
possessed unusual energy, decisinn, and strength nf faith. Perhapa it waa fnr that
reasnn Jesus saw fit tn assnciate him with Thnmas, a man nf scruples and duubts.
The name nf the latter signifies a twin. The circumatances nf hia call are unknnwn.
He was dnubtless cunnected with Jesua first nf all as a simple disciple, aud then his
serinus character attracted the attention of the Master. If the incident 9 : 59, 60 was
not placed so lung after the Sermon en the Mount, we might be tempted with some
writers to. apply ittn Thnmas.
The third quaterninn cnntains the least striking characters in the number nf the
Twelve. All these men, hnwever, nnt excepting Judas Iscarint, have iiad their share
in the fulfilment ef the apostolic task, the transmission ef the hely figure ef the Christ
to the Church through all time. The stream of eral tradition was formed by the
affluents of all these snurces tugether. The last pair cnmprises here, as in the Acts,
James the sen uf Alphaeus, and Simnn the Zealnt. But the distribution is different in
the two other Syn. It has been generally aUowed since the fourth century that thia
James is the peraon so often mentinned, in the Acts and the Galatians, as the brother

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 195
of the Boi'd, tho first head nf the flunk at Jerusalem. This identity ia made cut, (1)
by applying tu him the paasage Mark 15 : 40, accnrding tn which his surname wuuld
have been ilie leas nr the younger (relatively tu James the snn uf Zebedee), and his
muther wnuld have been a Mary, whnm, accnrding tn Jnhn 19 : 35, we shuuld have
tu regard aa a slater (probably sister-in-law) uf the mnther nf Jeaua ; (3) by identify
ing the name nf his father Alphaeus with the name CInpas ("lO^n = ^XunaS), which
waa bnrne, accnrding tu Hegesippua, by a brother uf Juaeph ; (3) by taking tbe term
brother in the sense uf cnuain (nf the Lnrd). But this hypnthesis cannnt, in nur judg
ment, be maintained : (1) The wnrd ddEX<^dS, In-other, used as it ia by the side nf p'iJTyp,
mother (" the mnther and brethren of Jeaua"), can unly signify brotlier in the pruper
sense. The example uften cited. Gen. 13 : 8, when Abraham says tn Lut, " We are
brethren," is nnt parallel. (3) Jnhn says pnsitively (7 : 5) that the brethren nf Jesus
did nut believe nn Him, and this lung after the choice of tbe Twelve (Jnhn 6 : 70).
This is cunflrmed by Luke 8 : 19 et seq. ; cump. with Mark 3 : 30-35. One nf them
cnuld nnt, therefnre, be fnund amnng His apnstles. A cnmparisun uf all the passages
leads us tu distinguish, as is generally dune at the present day, three Jameses : the
first, the snn of Zebedee (ver. 14) ; the secnnd, the son uf Alphseus indicated here,
whum there is nnthing tn prevent nur identifying with James tbe less, the son uf
Clopas and Mary, and regarding him as the first-cousin nf Jesus ; the third, the
brother uf the Lurd, nnt a beUever befure the death nf Jesus, but afterward first
hlshnp cf the flunk at Jerusalem.
The surname Zeahi, given tn Simnn, is prnbably a translatinn nf the adj. kanna
(in the Talmud, kananit), zealous. If this be currect, this apustle helnnged tn that
fanatical party which bruught abnut the ruin nf the penple, by leading them intn
.war against the Rnmans. This sense cnrrespunds with the epithet TLavavirys, which
is applied tn him in the Byz. reading nf Matthew and Mark, cunfirmed here by the
authnrity uf the Sinait. Thia name is simply the Hebrew term, translated by Luke,
and HeUenized by Matthew and Mark. The reading Kavavalos in snme Alex, may
signify either Canaanite ur citizen of Cana. This secnnd etymnlngy is nut very
probable. The flrat wuuld be mnre an, if in Matt. 15 : 33 this wnrd, in the sense nf
Canaanite, were nnt written with an X inatead uf a K. Luke haa therefnre given the
precise meaning cf the Aramsean term emplnyed in the dncument nf which he availed
himself (Keim, t. ii. p. 819).
The last pah- cnmprises the twn Judes. There were in fact twn men uf this name
in the apustnlic cnUege, althnugh Matthew and Mark mentiun but une, Judas Iscarint.
This is very clear frnm Jnhn 14:33; "Judaa, nnt lacarint, aaith tn Him." The
names Lebbaeus and Thaddseus, in Matthew and Mark, are therefure surnames, de
rived, the fnrmer frum n^, heart, the latter either frnm "in. mamma, ur frnm "i-ny,
potena. The name Thaddai is nf frequent nccurrence in the» Talmud. These sur
names were probably the names by which they were usually designated in the
.Church. The genitive 'IukoBov must, accurding tu usage, aignify aon of Jamea; this
was tn distinguish this Judas frum tbe next. With the desire tu make this apustle
alsu a cuusin nf Jesus, the phrase has frequently been tranalated brother uf Jaraes,
that is to say, uf the snn uf Alphaeus, mentinned in ver. 15. But there is nu instance
of the genitive being used in this sense. In the 14th verse, Luke himself thuught
it necessary tu use the full expreasinn, rdv adeXfdv airov. And would not the
two other Syn., who jom Lebbseus immediately tn James, have indicated this
relatinnship ?

196 COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE.
As there was a tewn called Kerijeth in Judsea, it is probable that the name Iscariot
signifles a man of Kerijoth (at the present day Kuriut), toward the northern boundary
nf Judasa. The nbjections which De Wette has raised against this etymology are
without force. He prupuses, with Lightfnut, the etymnlngy ascara, stranguZation.
Hengstenberg prefers iach scheker, man of falaehood, frnm which it wnuld fnlluw that
this surname was given poat evenium. These etymnlngies are all the mnre untenable,
that in the fnurth Gnapel, accurding tn the mnst prnbable reading {'laKupiorov, 6 : 71
and elsewhere), this surname Iscarint must have been nriginally that uf the father nf
Judas. The character nf thia man appears tn have been cnld, reaerved, and calcula
ting. He waa au very reaerved that, with the exceptinn perhapa nf Jnhn, none of
the disciples guessed hia secret hatred. In the coolness of hia audacity, he ventured
tn cnpe with Jesus Himself (Juhn 13 : 4, 5). With what mutive did Jesus chnose a
man nf this character ? He had spuntaneuusly jnined himself, as did su many uthers,
tn the number nf His disciples ; there was therefnre a germ nf faith in him, and per
haps, at the uutset, an ardent zeal fnr the cause cf Jesus. But there alsu existed in
him, as in all the nthers, the selfish views and ambitinus aspiratiuns which were
almnst inseparable from the fnrm which the Messianic hupe had taken,, until Jesus
purified it from this allny. In tbe caae nf Judaa, aa uf all tbe nthera, it was a ques
tiun which cf the twn ccnflicting principles wuuld prevail in his heart : whether fail^,
and thruugh this the sanclifyiug pnwer nf the spirit uf Jeaus, or pride, and thereby
the unbelief which could not fail eventually tn teault frnm it. This was, fnr Judas,
a questinn uf mnral liberty. As fnr Jesus, He was buund tn subrait in respect tu
him, as in respect tn all the nthera, tn Gud'a plan. On tbe nne hand. He might cer
tainly hupe, by admitting Judaa intn the number uf His apuatlea, tn succeed in purify
ing his heart, whUe by setting him aside He might irritate him and estrange him fnr
ever. On the nther hand. He certainly saw through him sufficiently well tn perceive
the risk He ran in giving him a place in that inner circle which He was abnut tn fnrm
arnund His perann. We may suppnse, therefnre, that, during that lung night which
preceded the appnintment nf the Twelve, this was nne uf the questinns which en
gaged Hia deepest snlicitude ; and certainly it was nnt until the will nf His Father
became clearly manifest that He admitted this man into the rank of the Twelve, not
withstanding His presentiment ef the heavy cress He was preparing for Himself (John
6 : 64 and 71). Still, even Judas fulfilled his apostolic functiun ; his despairing Cry,
" I have betrayed the innncent blnnd !" is a testimnny which resnunds through the
ages as luudly as the preaching nf Peter at Penlecnst, nr aa the cry nf the blnnd uf
Jamea, the flrat martyr. The Kai, also, after 65 (ver. 16), umitted by sume authorities,
is perhaps taken frnm the twu nther Syn. If it is authentic, it is intended tn bring
nut mnre fnrcibly, thrnugh the identity nf the perann, the centradictinn between his
miaainn and the cnurae he tnnk.
Surrounded by the Twelve and the numeruua circle nf disciplea frnm which He
had chnsen them, Jeaus descends from the aummit nf the mountain. Having reachted
a level place un its slnpes, He atnps ; the crowd which waa waiting fnr Him tnward
the foot nf the mnuntain, ascends and gathera abnut Him. TdnoS iredivoS, a level
place nn an inclined plane. Thus the aUeged cuntradiction with the expression, the
mountain, in Matthew disappears (see above). The iary. He atood atill, in opposition
to having come down, does not in anyway denote the attitude of Jeaua during the dis
course. There Is therefore ne contradiction between this expression and Matthew's
Tmving sat down. What are we te say of the discovery of Baur, whn thinks that, by

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 197
EubstitutingA(3sw«^ come down, ver. 16, fnr Ha went up. Matt. 5 : 1, Luke intended tn
degrade the Sermun nn the Muunt ! *
Vers. 176-19. -I- We might make dx'ti^oSirXyBoS, tlie cr<md,the multitude, etc., so many
subjects nf EOT;? : "He stund sliU, 'alnng with the cruwd . . ." But it is mure
natural tn understand snme verb : " And there was with Him the crowd . . ."
In any case, even if, with the Alex., we nmit the Kai befnre iBepaTrevovTo, were healed
(ver. 18), we cnuld nnt think nf making these aubst. numinatives tn this laat verb ; fnr
the cruwd uf disciples, etc., was nnt cnmpused nf sick penple. Three classes of per
sons, therefnre, surrounded Jesus at this time ; nccasinnal hearers (the multitude come
tugether from all parts), the permanent disciplea (the crowd of disciples), and the '
apnstles. The flrat represent the penple in an far as they are called tu the kingdum
nf Gnd ; the secund, the Church ; the third, thfe rainislry in the Church. The term
crowd, tn dennte the secund, ia nut tnn atrong. Did nnt Jeaua take nut uf them, nnly
a little whUe after, aeventy diaciples (10 : 1) ? If, at the 18th verse, we read and be
fnre they were healed, the idea uf healing is nnly aCcesanry, and ia added by way nf
parenthesis ; but tbe prevailing idea is that nf gathering together : " Demnniacs alsn
were there ; and what is mnre, they were healed." If the and is umitted, the idea nf
healing alnne remaina, and we muat tranalate : " And the puaaessed even were
healed.'' With irapa^iou we must understand ;t:(jpas ; Tvpou and 2j(5uvo5 are cnmple-
ments. Ver. 19 describes the mighty wnrking nf miraculnus puwera which tnnk
place that day. It waa a time simitar tn that which has been described 4 : 40 et seq.,
but tu a far higher degree. 'laro depends un on, and has fnr its subject dvvapis.
2d. Vers. 30-39. The Sermon. — The aim, prevailing thought, and plan cf this dis
cuurse have been understnud in many different waya. The sulutiun uf theae questions
is rendered mnre difflcult by the difference between the twn accnunts given by Mat
thew and Luke. As tn its aim, Weizsacker regards the Sermnn nu the Mount as a
grand prnclamatinn nf the kingdnm uf God, addreased to the whole penple ; and it is
in Matthew's versinn that he finds the best suppnrt fur this view nf it. He acknuwl
edges, nevertheless, that the fact stated in the preface (5 : 1, 3 : " He taught them
[His disciplea], saying . . ") is not iu harmony with this design. Luke, accord
ing to hini, haa deviated further even than Matthew from ita original aim, by modify
ing the entire diacourse, to make it an address tn the diaciplea alnne. Ritschl and
Hnltzmann, nn the cnntrary, think that the diacnurae was addreased nriginally tn the
disciples alnne, and that Luke's versinn nf it has preaerved with greater accuracy ita
real tenur ; nnly the situatinn described vers. 17-19 wnuld nut, accnrding tu Hultz
mann, accnrd with its being addressed tu them. Keim reconciles all theae different
views by distinguishing two principal discnurses, nne addreased tn all the peuple,
abnut the time nf the Paaauver feaat, uf which we have fragmenta in Matt. 6 : 19-34,
7 : 7-11, 1-5, 34-37. Thia inaugural discuurse wnuld be nn the chief care uf human
life. The aecund la auppnaed te have been addressed somewhat later to the disciples
only, about; the time ef PentecOat. Matt. 5 ia a aummary of it. Thia would be a
word of -welcome addressed by Jesus to His disciplea, and an exposition uf the new
law as the fufilment nf the nld. As tn the criticism un the Pharisaical virtues. Malt.
6 : 1-18, it ia dnubtless clusely related, bnth in aubatance and time, tn the preceding
discnurse ; but it did not form part ef it.
* " Die Evangelien," p. 457.
f Ver. 17. !*. B. L. Syr'"', read icoXv; after oxXoS. Ver. 18. H. A. B. D. L. Q.
some Mnn. It. nmit kui befnre EBepanEvovTo.

198 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
The prevailing idea in Matthew is certainly an exposition of the new law in its
relations with the old. In Luke, the subject is simply the law of charity, aa the
foundation of the new order of things. Many critics deny that any agreement can
be found between these two aubjecta. According to Holtzmann, the 5lh chapter of
Matthew ahould be regarded as a separate diaaertatinn which the authnr of the flrst
Gespel introduced into the Sermon ; Keim thinks that Luke, as a disciple of Paul,
wanted to detach the new morality completely from the Old. The anonymous Saxon
even sets himself to prove that the Sermnn un the Muunt was transfnrmed by Luke
intu a cutting satire against — Saint Peter 1
As tu the plan nf Ihe discuurse, many attempts have been made tn systematize it.
Beck : (1) the ductrine uf happineaa (beatitudea) ; (3) that nf righteuusness (the cen
tral part in Matthew and Luke) ; (3) that uf wisdum (cnncluainn). Ouaterzee ; (l)the
salutatinn nf Inve (Luke, vers. 30-36) ; (3) the cummandment nf Inve (vers. 37-38) ;
(3) the impulse nf love (vers. 39-49). The beat division, regarding it in this abstract
way, and taking Matthew as a basis, is certainly that of Gess : (1) the happiness of
those who are fit to enter into the kingdom (Matt. 5 : 3-13) ; (3) the lefty vucatinn of
the disciples (Matt. 5 : 13-16) ; (3) the righteousness, superier te that of the Phari
sees, afjer which they must strive who would enter into the kingdom (5 : 17-6 : 34) ;
the recks oa which they run a risk uf striking (the dispusitinn tn judge, intemperate
proselytizing, being led away by falae propheta) ; next, the help againat these dan
gers, wilh the conclusiun (7 : 1-37).
The snlutinn nf these different queatinna, aa it aeems tu us, must be snught first nf
all in the pnsitiun nf affairs which gave rise tn the Sermnn un the Muunt. In nrder
tn see it reprnduced, as it were, befnre uur eyes, we have unly tn institute a cum
parisnn. Picture a leader nf nne nf thnse great sncial revnlutiuus, fnr which prep
aratinns seem making in nur day. At an appuinted hnur he presents himself, sur
rounded by his principal adherents, at sume public place ; tbe crowd gathers ; he
cummunicates hia plans tc them. He begins by indicating the class uf persuns to
which he specially addresses himself : you, pour working people, loaded with suf
fering and toil I and be displays tu their view the hupes nf the era which is abnut tn
dawn. Next, he proclaims the new principle which ia tn gnvern humanity in the
future : " The mutual service cf mankind ; justice, universal charity !" Lastly, he
pnints nut the sanctinn nf the law which he proclaims, the penalties that await thnse
whu vinlate it, and the rewards nf thnae whu faithfully keep it. Thia ia the cari
cature ; and by the aid nf its exaggeratinna, we are able te give some account nf the
features nf the nriginal mndel. What, in fact, dnes the Sermnn nn the Muunt cnn
tain ? Three things : 1st. An indicatinn cf tbe persuns tn whnm Jesus chiefly ad
dreaaed Himaelf, in order tn fnrm the new penple (Luke, vera. 30-36 ; Matt. 5 : 1-13) ;
2d. The prnclamatinn uf the fundamental principle ut the new auciety (Luke, vera.
37 : 45 ; Matt. 5 : 13-7 : 13) ; Sd. An anneuncement nf the judgment tn which the
membera nf the new kin.gdnm nf Gud wUl have tn aubmit (Luke, vera. 46-49 ; Matt.
7 : 13-37). In uther wnrds : the call, the declaratinn uf principles, and Jheir sanc
tinn. This is the nrder nf the discuurse. There ia nuthing artificial abnut thia plan.
It ia nnt a Ingical outline fnrcibly fitted tn the diacnurae ; it is the result nf the actual
pnaitinn njf the wnrk nf Jesus, just aa we have stated it. The discuurse itself explains
fer whom' it is intended. Jesus addresses the mass of the people present, as forming
the circle within whicb the new order ef things is to be realized, and at the aame time
the disciples and apoatles, by means of whom this revolution is to be brought about.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 199
Luke and Matthew, therefnre, are nut at variance in thia matter, either with each
uther nr with themselves. As tn the fundamental idea nf this discuurse, see ver. 27.
First part : vers. 30-36. Tlie Call.—Tlas, snlemn invitatinn deacribea : (Isi.) Thnae
whn are qualified tn becume members nf the nrder nf things inaugurated by Jesus
(vers. 30-33) ; (3d) Their adveraariea (vers. 34r-36). Matthew begins in the same way ;
but there are twu impnrtant differences between him and Luke : Isi. The latter has
nnly fnur beatitudea ; Matthew has eight (nnt seven ur nine, as is nften said). 2d.
Tn the fnur lieatitudea nf Luke are jnined fnur wnea, which are wanting in Matthew.
In Luke's form, Keim sees nnthing but an artificial cnnstruclinn. That wuuld nnt in
any case be the wnrk nf Luke, but nf his dncument. Fur if there ia any nne purtiun
which from its cnntenta shnuld be assigned In the primitive dncument (nf an Ebiunitish
cnlnr), evidently it is this. But the cuntext appears tn ua decisive in favnr nf Luke's
versinn. This caU deals with the cunditinns which qualify fnr entering intn the
liingdem. These are clearly indicated in the first fnur beatitudes nf Matthew ; but
the next fnur (mercy, purity uf heart, a peaceable spirit, and juy under persecutinn)
indicate the dispusitiuns by means uf which men will remain in the kingdum, and
ccnsequently their natural place is nnt in this call. It is nnly the eighth (Luke's
fnurth) which can belung here,^s a transitinn frnm the persecuted disciples tn the
persecutura, whn are the nbjects nf the fuUnwing wnea. Twu uf the laat fnur
beatitudes uf Matthew find their place very naturally in the bndy nf the discuurse.
As tn the wnes, they perfectly agree with the cnntext. After having proclaimed the
blessedness nf thnae whu are qualified tn enter, Jeaus annnunces the unhappineaa uf
thnae whn are animated by cnntrary diapusitiuna. Schleiermacher says : a harmless
additinn nf Luke's. But, aa we have just seen, Luke is here certainly nnly a cupyist.
A Gentile Christian wnuld nnt have dreamed nf identifying, as Judaism did, the twn
ideas of piety and pnverty ; nnr, nn the nther hand, riches and vinlence. De Welle
says : the flrst manifeatatinn uf the flxed (Ebiunitiah) idea nf Luke. But see 13 : 33,
16 : 37, and 18 : 18-30.
Vers. 20 aad 21. " And He lifted up His e.yesnn His disciples, and said. Blessed
be ye pnur : fur ynura is the kingdnm nt Gnd. 21. Blessed are ye that hunger new :
fnr ye shall be fiUed. Blessed are ye that weep nuw : fur ye shall laugh. " The dis
ciples are the cnnstant hearers nf Jesus, amung whom He bas just aasigned a distinct
place tn His apuatlea. Ijuke dnes nut say that Jesus snuke tu them alnne. He spuke
tu all the peuple, but re'garding them as the representatives of the new nrder nf things
which He waa abuut tu inatitute. In Matthew, avrovr, ver. 3 (He taught tliem), com
prises both tlie people a^nd ihe disciplea, ver. 1. This commencement of the Serijion
on the Muunt breathes a sentiment nf the deepest jny. In these disciples immedi
ately abuut Him, and in this multitude surrnunding Him in nrderly ranks, all eager
tn hear the wnrd nf Gud, Jesus behulds the flrst appearance uf the true Israel, the true
peuple nf the kingdnm. He surveys with deep joy this cnngregatiun which His
father has bruught tugether fnr Him, and begina tu speak. It muat have been a
peculiarly aulemn mument ; cnmp. the aimilar picture. Matt. 5 : 1, 3.
This aaaembly waa chiefly cumpuaed uf peranna belonging tn the punr and suffer
ing classes. Jeaus knew it ; He recugnizea in thia a higher will, and in His first
wnrds He dues hnmage tn this divine dispenaatinn. Ti-TuxoS, which we translate poor,
cnmes frum irroaa^p, io make one' s self little, to crouch, and cnnveys the idea nf humilia-
tinn rather than uf pnverty (ttev^S). TiEivovrei, ihe hungry (a wnrd cunnected wilh
irevys), denotes ri^ther those whnm pnverty condemns to a life nt tuil and privatinn.

•-JOO COMMENTARY OX ST. LUKIC.
Thia aecend term marks the tranaitinn tn the third, those who weep, amung whnm
muat be numbered all claases nf peranns whn are weighed dnwn by the trials nf life.
All thnse persuns whn, iu nrdinary language, arc called unhappy, Jesus salutes with
the epithet ftaKapiot, bleaaed. Thia wnrd answers tn the "'"lll^fr?, felicitates, nf the O. T.
(Ps. 1 : 1 and elsewhere). The idea is the same as in numernus pasaages in which the
pnur and despised are spuken uf as Gnd's chnsen ones, not because pnverty and suf
fering are in themselves a title tn His blessing, but they dispuse the snul tn thnse
meek and luwly dispusitiuns which qualify them tn receive it, just as, un the nther
hand, prosijerity and riches diapnae the heart tn be pruud and hard. In the very
cnmpnsitiun nf this cnngregatiun, Jesus seea a prunf nf thia factnf experience sn uften
expressed in the O. T. The jny which He feela at this sight arises frnm the mag
nificent promises which He can nffer tu such hearers.
The kingdnm nf Gnd is a state nf things in which the will cf Gnd reigns supreme.
This state is realized first nf all in the hearta nf meu, in the heart it may be nf a single
man, but speedily in the hearts nf a great number ; and eventually there wUl cnme a
day when, all rebellicus elements having been vanquished nr taken away, it wiU be
fuund in the hearta nf all. It ia an nrder nf things, therefnre, which, frnm being in
ward and individual, tends to becnme uutward and social, until at length it shall take
pnasesaiun uf the eutire dnmain nf human life, and appear aa a distinct epoch in hia
tnry. Since thia glnriuus state aa yet exists in a perfect manner unly in a higher
sphere, it is alsn called the kingdum nf heaven (the nrdinary term in Matthew). Luke
saya: ia— not ahallhe — yuurs ; which denntes partial present possession, and a right
to perfect future possession. But are men members ef this kingdom simply through
being poor and suffering ? The answer to thia queation ia te be found in what pre
cedes, and in such passages as Isa. 66 : 3 ; " Tn whnm will I Innk? saith the Lurd.
Tn him whn is pnur (ijj;) and nf a brnken spirit, and whn trembles at my wnrd." It
ia tn hearta which suffering has broken that Jeaus brings the blesaings nf the king
dnm. These blessings are primarily spiritual — pardun and hnliness. But uutward
blessings cannut fail tn fnllnw them ; and this notinn is alsu cnntained in the idea nt
a kingdnm of God, fer glory is the crown ef grace. The words uf 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 cnnnectinn uf ideas explains the beatitudea that fclluw. Ver.
31o : tempnral pnverty (being hungry) leads the snul tn the heed cf Gud and uf His
grace (Ps. 43 : 1) ; then uut nf the satisfactinn of this spiritual hunger and thirst
arises full nutward satisfactinn (being filled). Ver. 21b : with tears shed nver tem-
pural misf nrtunes, ia eaaily cunnected the muurning nf the snul fur ita ains ; the latter
draws dnwn the unspeakable cunsulatiuna nf divine luve, which eventually raise the
snul to the triumph of perfect joy. The terras KXaieiv, to sob, yEXq.v, io laugh, cannot
well be literally rendered here. They dennte a grief and jny which flnd uutward
demnnstralinn ; cnmp. Ps. 136 : 2, " Our muuth was flUed with laughter, ' ' and Paul's
KavxdaBai iv Qeip, to joy in Ood (Rnm. 5 : 11). The text nf Matthew presents here twu
impurtant differences : Is*. He empluys the third person instead nf the aecund :
" Bleased are the pnur, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ; they that mnurn, fur
they shall be cemfurted. " etc. Tho beatitudes, which in Luke are addreaaed directly
tn the hearera, are presented here under the furm uf general maxims and mural sen
tences. 2d. In Matthew, theae maxims have an exclusively spiritual meaning : " the
pnur in spirit, they whu hunger after righteuusness." Here interpretera are divided,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 201
Snme maintaining that Matthew has spiritualized the wurds nf Jesus ; nthers (as
Keim), that Luke, under the influence nf a prejudice against riches, has given tu
these blesaings a grossly tempnral meaning. Twu things appear evident to us : (1)
That the direct furm nf address in Luke, " Ye,'-' can alune be histurically accurate :
Jeaus was speaking tn His hearers, nnt discnursing befnre them. (2) That thia first
difference has led tn the secnnd ; having adnpted the third persun, and given the
beatitudes that Maschal fnrm sn uften fnund in the didactic parla nf the O. T. (Psalms,
Proverbs), Matthew was obliged tn bring nut expressly in the text nf the discuurse
thnse mnral aims which are inherent in the very persuns uf the punr whnm Jesua
addresses directly in Luke, and withnut which these; wurda, in thia abatract furm,
wnuld have been sumewhat tun unqualified. Huw cnuld une say, withnut quallfiea
tinn, Blessed" are tlie pnnr, tlie hungry ? Tempnral sufferings nf themselves cuuld nnt
be a pledge nf salvatinn. Ou the nther hand, the furm. Blessed are ye pnur, ye hungry,
iu Luke, renders all such explanatiun superflueua. Fnr .Jeaua, when .He spoke thus.
was addresaing particular cuncrete pnnr and afflicted, whnm He already recngnized
as His disciples, as believers, aud whum He regarded as the representatives ef that
new people which He was come te install in the earth. That they were such attentive
hearers aufflciently proved that they were of the number of theae in whom temporal
sufferings had awakened the need nf divine cnnsolation, that they helnnged tn thnae
labnring and heavy-laden snuls whnm He was sent tn lead tn rest (Matt. 11 : 29), and
that they hungered, nnt fur material bread nnly, but fnr the bread nf Ufe, fnr the wnrd
uf Gnd, fnr Gnd Himself. The quallfieatinn which Matthew was necessarUy
ubliged tu add, in nrder tn limit the applicatiun of the beatitudes, in the general fnrm
which he gives tn them, is in Liike then implied in this ye, which was nnly addressed
tn poor believera. Theae two differences between Mattbew and Luke are very sig
nificant. They seem to me te prove : (1) that the textof Luke is a more exact repurt
nf the discuurse than Matthew's ; (3) that Matthew's version waa nriginally made
with a didactic rather than a histnrical design, aud cunsequently that it furmed part
nf a cnllection of diacouraea in which the teaching nf Jesus waa aet fnrth wilhuut re
gard tn the particular circumstances under which He gave it, before it entered into
the historical framework in which we find it cnntained at the preaent day.
Vers. 23 and 23.* " Blessed are ye when men shall hale ynu, and when they
shall separate ynu frnm their cumpany, and shall reproach ynu, and caat nut ynur
name aa evil, fur the Snn nf man's sake. 23. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap fer
joy ; for, behold, your reward is great iu heaven : for in Uke manner did their fathers
unto the prophets." This fourth beatitude is complelely accounted for, in Luke,
by the scenes of violent hostility which had already taken place. It is not so well
accounted fer in Matthew, whu places the Sermun nn the Muunt at the opening nf
the ministry uf Jeaua. In IVCatlhew, thia saying, like the preceding, has the abstract
form of a mural maxim : " Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness
sake; for their^is the kingdnm nf heaven." But Jesus was certainly nnt giving
utterance here tn abstract principles uf Christian mnrality ; He apuke aa a living
man tn living men. Besides, Matthew himself pasaes, in the next verse, tu the furm
uf address adupted by Luke frnm the cummencement. The explanatnry adjunct, for
righteousness' sake, in Matthew, is tu be ascribed tn the same cause as the similar
* Ver. 23. All the Mjj., xf^pvre instead nf ;);°'P«'"^. tli6 reading nf T. R. with sume
Mnn. B. D. tj. X. Z. Syr""". It»''«., Kara ra avra instead ef Kara ravra.

302 COMMENTAllY ON ST. LUKE.
qualiflcatinns in the preceding beatitudes. By the pres. eote, " happy are ye,'' JesUS
transports His hearers directly into this immediate future. The term a<fiopl^Eiv, to
sepa/i'aie, refera tn exclusinn frura the synagugue (.Jnhn 9 : 22). The strange expres
sinn, caat out your name, is explained in very jejune fashinn, buth by Bleek, tn pro
nounce the name with disgust, and by De Wette and Meyer, te refuse altegether to
pronounce it. It refers rather to the expunging uf the name frnm the synagugue ruU
uf membership. There ia nnt, ou this account, any tautnlngy nf the preceding idea.
To aeparate, io insult, indicated acts nf unpremeditated vinlence ; to eraae the -name
ia a permanent measure taken with deliberatinn and cnnlness. Hovypov, evil, as an
epitume uf every kind uf wickedness. In their accnunts uf thia saying, this is the
nnly wnrd lett which Matthew and Luke have in cnmmon. Instead nf for the Son
of man's sake, Matthew says for my sake. The latter expressinn denute's attachment
tn the persnn nf Jesus ; the fnrmer failh in His Messianic character, as the perfect
representative cf humanity. On this pnint alsn Luke appears te me te have pre
served the true text ef this saying ; it is with His work that Jesus here wishes to con
nect the idea uf persecution. This idea nf submissinn tn, persecutinn alnng with,
and fur the sake nf, the Messiah, was sn fureign tn the Jewish point nf view that Jesus
feels He raust juatify it. The sufferings uf the adherents nf Jesus will nnly be a
cnntinualion nf the suffieriugs uf the prephets ef Jehovah. This is tbe great matter
of consolatiun that He uffers them. They will be, by their very sufferings, raised
tn the rank nf the old prophets ; the recumpense nf the Elijahs and Isaiahs will
becurae theirs. The reading kutH rii avrd, in the aame manner, appears preferable to
the received reading Kurd ravra, in thia manner. Td and avru have prnbably been
made intn nne wnrd. The imperf. kiroiovv (treated) indicates habit. The prunnun
avruv, their fathers, is dictated by the idea that the disciples belung already tu a new
nrder ef tbings. The word iheir serves as a tranaitinn tn the wnes which fnllnw,
addressed to the heads ef the existing order of things.
Vers. 24-36.* " But woe untn ynu that are rich 1 fnr ye have received ynur con-
snlatiun. 35. Wne untn ynu that are f uU ! fnr ye shall hunger. Wue untu ynu that
laugh nnw ! for ye shall mnurn and weep. 36. Wne untn ynu wheu all men shall
apeak well nf ynu ! fnr sn did their fathers tn the false prophets." Jesus here con
templates in apirit these adveraaries who were aharpening againat Him only just be
fore (ver. 11) tbe swnrd nf persecution : the rich ahd puwerful at Jerusalem, whuse
emiasaries aurruunded Him in Galilee. Perhaps at this very mnment He perceives
sume nf their spies in the nuter ranks uf the cungregatinn. Certainly it is nnt the
rich, as such, that He curses, any mere than He pronounced the poor aS such bleaaed.
A Nicodemua or a Joaeph of Arimathea will be welcomed with open arms aa readily
aa the poorest man in Israel. Jesus is dealing here with historical fact, not with
moral philosophy. He takea the fact aa it presented itself to Him at that time.
' AVere net the rich and powerful, as a class, already in open opposition to His mis
sion ? They were thus excluding themselves from the kingdum of Gnd. The faU of
Jerusalem fulfilled only too literally the maledictions to which Jeaus gave utterance
on that solemn day. The ir'Xyv, except, only, which we can only render by but (ver.
34), makes the persons here designated an exception as regards the preceding
* Ver. 85. 9 Mjj. sume Mnn. read vvv after epire'^XyapEvoi. !*. B. K. L. S. X. Z. and
seme Mnn. emit the second vpiv. Ver. 36. 20 Mjj. emit vpiv, which is the reading
of T. R. with B. A. nnly. 8 Mjj. 100 Mnn. nmit wavres. The mss. are divided be
tween Kara ravra (T. R.) and Kara ra avra.

OOM-MJiiNTARY ON ST. LUKE. 303
beatitudes. The term rich refers tu sncial pnsitiun, full tn mnde of living ; the ex
pression, you that laugh, describes a personal dispusitinn. All these nutward cun
ditinns are cnnsidered as assuciated with an avariciuus spirit, with injustice, prnud
self-satisf actinn, and a profane levity, which did indeed attach tn them at that time.
It was tn the Pharisees and Sadducees mnre particularly that these threatenings were
addressed. The wnrd vvv, now, which several mss. read in the first prupnaitinn, is a
faulty imitatiun uf the secund, where it is fuund in all the ducumenta. It ia in place
in tbe latter ; fnr the nntiun uf laughing cnntaina aumething mnre tranaient than that
nf being full. The expressinn an-Exsre, which, we have rendered hy ye have received,
signifies : ynu have taken and carried away everything ; all therefere is exhausted.
Comp. 16 : 25. The terms hunger, weeping, were literally realized in the great
national catastrophe which fnllnwed sunn after thia maledicticn ; but they alsu cnn
tain au aUusinn tn the privatinns and sufferings which await, after death, thnse whn
have fnund their happiness in this wurld. In ver. 26 it is mure particularly the
Pharisees and scribes, whn were sn generally hunured in Israel, that Jesua pnints nut
as cnnlinuing the wnrk nf the false prophets. These fnur wnes wuuld be incnmpatible
with the apiritual aense uf tbe terms ^oor, hungry, etc., in the beatitudes.
Tbe secund part nf the discuurse : vera. 27-45. The New Baw. — Here we have the
budy uf the diacnurae. Jesus proclaims the supreme law nf the new snciety. The
difference from Matthew cnmes nnt in a yet mnre striking manner in this part than in
the preceding. In the firat Gnapel, the principal idea is the uppnsitinn between legal
rightenusuesa and the new righteuusness which Jesus came tu establish. He Himaelf
annnunces the text of the diacourse in this saying (ver. 20) : " Except your right
eousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in ne case
enter into the kingdom of heaven." The law, in the greater nuraber of its statutes,
seemed at first sight only to require outward obaervance. But it was evident to every
true heart, that by these commandments the God ef holiness desired to lead Hia wor
shippers, not to hypucritical f unnaliam, but tn spiritual nbedience. The tenth cum
mandment made thia very clear, as far aa respected the decalugue. Israelitish teach
ing shnuld have labnred tn explain the law in this truly mnral sense, and tu have
carried the penple up frum the letter tu the spirit, as tbe prophets had endeavored to
do. Instead uf that, Pharisaism had taken pleasure in multiplying indefinitely legal
nbservances, and in regulating them with the minutest exactness, urging the letter nf
the precept tn such a degree as sometimes even tu make it cuntradict its spirit. It
had stifled mnrality under legalism. Cnmp. Matt. 15 : 1-20 and 23. In dealing with
thia crying abuae, Jesus breaks intu tbe heart nt the letter with a bnld hand, in nrder
tn set free its spirit, and displaying this in all its beauty, casts aside at nnce the letter,
which was nnly its imperfect envelnpe, and that Pharisaical righteuusness, which
rested nn nuthing else than an indeflnite amplificatinn nf the letter. Thus Jesus finds
the secret nf the abnlitiun nf the law in its very fulfilment. Paul understnud and de
veloped this better than anybndy. What, in fact, is the legislator's intentinn in im
pnsing the letter ? Nnt the letter, but the apirit. The letter, Uke the thick calyx
under the prutectinn nf which the fluwer, with ita delicate nrgans, is furmed, was
unly a means uf preserving and develnping ita inward me-aning nf gnndness, until the
time carae when it cnuld blnnm freely. This time had cnme. Jesus nn the mnun
tain proclaims it. And this is why this day is the cnunterpart nf the day nf Sinai.
He oppuses the letter nf the divine cnmmandment, understund as letter, tn the spirit
contained in it, and develups this cuntrast, Matt. 5, in a series uf antitheses sn strik-

204 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ing that it is impnssible tn duubt either their authenticity nr that they formed the
real substance, the centre of the Sermon on the Mount. Holtzmann will never suc
ceed in persuading any one tn the cnntrary ; his entire critical hypnthesis aa tn the
relatinna nf the Syn. will crumble away snuner than thia cnnvictinn. The cnnnec
tinn uf the discourse in Matthew is this : 1. Jesus discleses wherein the Pharisaical
righteousneaa faila, its want of inward truth (vers. 13-48). 3. He judges, by this
law, the three positive manifestations ef this boasted righteousness : almsgiving,
prayer, and fasting (6 : 1-18). 8. He attacks two of the must characteristic sins cf
Pharisaism . cnvetnusness and censorieusness (6 : 19-34 ; 7 : 1-5). . 4. Laatly there
corae varioua particular precepta nn prayer, cunversinn, false religinus teaching, etc.
(7 : 6-20). But between these precepta it ia nn Innger pnasible tn establish a perfectly
natural cnnnectinn. Such is the budy nf the Sermnn in Matthew : at the cummence
ment, an unbroken chain nf thuught ; then a connectinn which becnmes slighter and
slighter, until it ceases altngether, and tbe discnurse becnmes a simple cnllectinn cf
detached aayinga. But the fundamental idea is still the uppnsitinn between the fur-
malism nf the ancient righteuusness and the spirituality nf the new.
In Luke alsn, the subject uf the discuurse is tbe perfect law nf the new nrder of
things ; but this law is exhibited, net under ita abstract and polemical relatinn ot
spirituality, but under its concrete and positive forin of charity. The plan of this
part of the discourse, in Luke, ia as follows ; Isi. Jesus describes the practical mani
festations of the new principle (vers. 37-30) ; then, 2d. He gives concise expresaion
toil (ver. 31) ; Sd. He indicatea the distinctive characteristics of charity, by contrast
ing this virtue wilh certain natural analogous aentiments (vers. 32-35a) ; Ath. He sets
forth its model and source (vers. 355 and 36) ; 5tli. Lastly, He exhibits thia gratu
itous, disinterested luve aa the principle nf all snund judgment and salutary religious
teaching, contrasting in this respect the new miniatry, which He is establishing in the
earth in the presence of His diaciplea, wilh the eld, which, as embodied in the Phari
sees, is vanishing away (vers. 37-45).
At the flrst 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, te 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, between these two versions may
be accounted for by connecting the fully -developed aubject in Luke wilh the subject
of the last two ef the six antitheses, by which Jesus describes (Matt. 5) the contraat
between legal righteuusness and true righteousness. Jesus atlacks, vers. 38-48, the
Pharisaical commentary nn these twn precepts of the law : an eye for an eye . . .
aud, thou shalt love thy neighbor as ihyaelf. This cnmmentary, by applying the lex
talionis, which had enly been given as a rule fnr the judges ef Israel, tn private life,
and by deducing frnm the wnrd neighbor this cnnsequence : therefnre thnu mayest
hate him whn is nut thy neighbor, that is to say, the foreigner, or thine enemy, had
entirely falsified the meaning of the law on these two pointa. In oppnsitinn tn these
caricatures, Jesus sets fnrth, in Matthew, the inexhaustible and perfect grace of
charity, as eibibited tn man in the example uf his heavenly Benefactur ; then He pro
ceeds In identify this charity in man with the divine perfection itself : " Be ye per
fect [thrnugh charjty], as ynur Father which is in heaven is perfect." Nuw it is just
at this pnint that Luke begins tn appropriate the central part of the discourse. These
last twn antitheses, which terminate in Matthew in the Infty thuught (ver, 48) nf man

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 206
being elevated by luve tu the perfectinu nf Gud, furnish Luke with the leading idea
nf the discuurse as he presents it — namely, charity as the law cf the new lite. Its
theme is in this way mndified in fnrm, but it is nnt altered in substance. Fur if, as
St. Paul says. Rum. 13 : 10, " charity is the fulfiUing uf the law ; " if perfect
spirituality, cumplete Ukeness tu Gnd, cunsists in charity ; the fundamental agree
ment between these twn fnrms nf the Sermnn nn the Muunt is evident. Only Luke
has deemed it advisable tn nmit all that specially referred tu the ancient law and Ihe
cumments nf the Pharisees, and tn preserve nnly that which has a universal huraan
bearing, the cppusitinn between charity and than natural selfishness nf the human
iieart. The twn accuunts heing thus related, it fnlluws, that as regards the uriginal
structure uf the discuurse, in su far as this was determined by oppnsitinn tn Phari
saism, Matthew has preaerved it mnre cempletely than Luke. But though thia is se,
Matthew's discourse still contains many details net originally belonging to it, which
Luke has very properly assigned to entirely different places in ether parts of his
narrative. We flnd here once more the twn writers following their respective bent :
Matthew, having a didactic aim, exhibits in a general manner the teaching uf Jesus
on the righteuusness nf the kingdum, by including in thia uutline many sayings
spuken en nther nccasinns, but bearing un the same subject ; Luke, writing aa a
hiatorian, cunflnea himaelf mnre strictly tu the actual wurds wjiich Jesus uttered at
this time. Thua each uf them haa his uwn kind nf superiurity nver the nther.
1st. The manifestatinns nf charity : vers. 27-30. Tn describe the manifestatiena
cf thia new principle, which is hencefnrth tu sway the wnrld, was the mnst pup-alar
and effectual way nf introducing it intu the cunsciencea uf his hearera. Jeaua de
scribes, first uf all, charity in its active furm (vers, 27 and 28) ; then in its passive
furm nf endurance (vera. 29 and 30).
Vera. 27, 28.'* " But 1 say untn ynu which hear, Luve ynur enemies, dn gnud tu
them which hate juu. 28. Bless them that curse ynu, and pray fnr them which
despitefuUy use ynu." There is a break in the cnnnectinn between ver. 26 and ver.
27. De Wette and Meyer think that the link is tn be fnund in this thuught under
stund : " Nutwithstanding these curses which I prunnunce upnn the rich, yuur per-
secutnrs, I cnmmaud ynu nnt tu hate, but tn luve them." But in the versea that fnl
lnw, it ia nnt the rich particularly that are repreaented as the enemies whum His dis
ciples shnuld luve. The precept cf luve tn enemies is given in the mnst general
nianner. ' Rather is it the new law which Jesus annnuncea here, as in Matthew. The
link nf connection with what gees before is this : In the midat of thia hatred of
which ynu will be the ubjecta (ver. 22), it will be yuur duty tn realize in the wnrld
Ihe perfect law which I tn-day proclaim tn ynu. Thnluck, in hia " Explanatinn uf
the Sermnn nn the Muunt" (p. 498), takes exceptinn tn Luke fur giving theae precepts
a place here, where they have nn cnnnectiun ; but he thus shuws that he has failed
tn understand the structure uf this diacuurse in uur Guspel, as we have exhibited it.
In this fnrm uf expreasinn . But I say unto you which hear, there is an echn as it
were cf the antithesis uf Matthew :" Ye have heard . . . But I say untu yuu. "
By this expressiun, you which hear, Jeaua uppnaes the actual hearera surrounding
Him tn thnse imaginary hearers tn whnm the preceding wnea were addressed. We
* Ver. 28. The mss. are dirided between w/^as and vptv. All the Mjj. nmit /cat be
fure irpoaEvxeaBe, which is the reading nf T. R. with merely snme Mnn. The mss. are
divided between irepi and vnep.

206 COMMENTARY OlST ST. lUKE.
must cnnceive nf the wnrds, ver. 27 and ver. 28, as having been prnnnunced with
snme kind uf enthusiasm. These precepts uverflow with luve. Ynu have nnly to
meet every manifestatiun nf haired with a freah manifeatatinn of love. Love ! Love !
You can never love too much ! The terni love denotes the easence of the new
principle. Then come its manifeatations : firat, in acts {do good) ; then in words
(bless) ; lastly, the higheat manifestation, which is at once act and wnrd {pray for).
These manifestatinns nf Inve currespund with the exhibitions nf hatred by which they
are called fnrth : exdpa, hatred, the inward feeling ; piaelv, to hold in abhorrence, the
acts; Kurapaadai, to curse, the vrords. 'Eirypedi^Eiv (prnbably frnm £« and alpeoBai, to
rise againat, to thwart) cnrrespunds with intercessinn. Jeaus therefure here requirea
mnre than that which tn natural selfishness appears the highest virtue : nut tn render
evil fnr evil. He demands frum Hia disciples, accnrding tn the expressinn nf St.
Paul (Rum. 12 : 21), that they shall overcome eml with good ; Jesus cuuld nut yet re
veal the anurce whence Hia disciples were tn derive this entirely, new passinn, thia
divine charity which displays its riches nf fnrgiveness and salvatinn tnward a rebel
Unus wnrld at enmity with Gud (Rnm. 5 : 8-10). In the parallel passage in Matthew,
the twn intervening prupnaitiuns have probably been tranaferred frnm Luke.
Vers. 29 and 30.* Patient Charity.^" And untu him that amiteth thee nn the nne
cheek, offer alsu the other ; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid net to take
thy coat also. 30. Give to every man that aaketh uf thee ; and of him that taketh
away thy gnuda aak them nut again." — Paul alsu regards puKpoBvpelv, to be long-suf
fering, as nn a par wilh xP'l'''''^veaBai, to do good (Charity sufferelh lung, and is kind.
1 Cur. 13 : 4). The natural heart thinks it dues a great deal when it respects a
neighber's rights ; it dnes nnt rise tn the higher idea uf sacrificing its nwn. Jesus
here describes a charity which seems tu ignnre its nwn i ighta, and knnws nn bnunds
tn its self-sacrifice. He exhibits this sublime ideal in actual instances {lit. iu tbe must
cuncrete traits) and under the must paradnxical terms. In nrder tn explain these
difflcult worda, Olahausen maintained that they nnly applied tu the members uf the
kingdum nt Gud amung themselves, and nnt tu the relatiuns nf Christians with the
wnrld. But wnuld Jesus have entertained the suppusitinn nf strikers and thieves
amnng His nwn peuple? Again, it has been said that these precepts expressed nnth
ing mnre than an emphatic cnndemnatinn uf revenge (Calvin), that they were hyper-
beles (Zwingle), a pnrtrayal nf the general diapnaitinn which the Chriatian ia tu ex
emplify in each individual caae, accurding as regard fur Gnd's glury and his neigh-
bur's salvatinn may permit (Thnluck) ; which comea tn St. Augustine's' idea, that
these precepts cuncern the praparatio cordis rather than the opus quod in apertoflt.
Withnut denying that there is snme truth in all those explanatinns, we think that they
dn nut altngether grasp the idea. Jesua means that, as far as itself is cnncerned,
charity knnws nn limits tu its self-denial. If, therefnre, it ever puts a stup tu its
concessinns, it is in nn way because it feels its patience exhausted ; true charity is
infinite as Gnd Himself, whnse essence it is. Its limit, if it has any, ia nnt that which
its rights draw arnund it ; it is a limit like that which the beautiful deflnes fur itaelf,
proceeding from within. It ia in charity that the diaciple cf Jesus yields, when he
yields ; it ia in charity alsn that he resists, when he resists. Gliarity has no other
limit ihan Charity itself, that is tn say, it is bnundless. J^iayuv dnes nnt properly
mean, as it is nrdinarily translated, the clieek {¦n-apeid), but the jaw : the blnw given,
* Ver. 29- S- D., eiS ryv fur ein ryv, Ver. 30. iS. B, omit ru after iraim.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 207
therefnre, is nnt a slap, but a heavy blnw. Cunsequently it is an act nf vinlence,
rather than nf cuntempt, that is mecant. The disciple whn haa cempletely sacrificed
his persnn, naturally wUl nnt refuse his clnthes. Aa Ipdriov denotes the upper gar
ment, and xiruv the under garment nr tunic which ia wurn next the akin, it wnuld
seem that here alsu it is an act nf vinlence that ia meant, a theft perpetrated by main
fnrce ; the thief first snatches away the upper garment. Matthew presents the re
verse nrder: "He whn wuuld take away thy cnal, let him have thy clnak alsn."
Thia is because with him it is an affair uf legal process {if any man will sue thee at ihe
law). The creditur begina by puaaeasing himself nf the ceat, which ia leas valuable ;
then, if he is nnt sufficiently cumpenaated, he claima the under garment. This ju
ridical fnrm stands cnnuected in Matthew with the article cf the Mnsaic cude which
Jeaus has juat cited : an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Matthew, therefere, ap
pears to have preaerved the original words ef thia passage. But ia it poaaible te con
ceive, that if Luke had had Matthew'a writing before him, nr the dncument made
uae nf by the authnr uf this' Gnspel, he wnuld have aubatituted, nn hia nwn authority,
a tutally different thuught frum that nf his predecessur ?
Ver. 30. Anuther fnrm uf the same thuught. A Christian, sn far as he is cnn
cerned, wnuld neither refuse anything nnr claim anything back. It, therefnre, he
dues either une or the other, it ia always out of charity. This sentiment regulates hia
refuaals as well aa hia gifta, the maintenance as well aa the sacrifice of his rights.
2d. After having deacribed the applicationa ot the new principle, Jeaua gives a
formal enunciation uf it, ver. 31 . " And as ye wnuld that men shnuld dn to you, du
ye alau tu them likewise." The natural heart says, indeed, with the Rabbins:,
" What is disagreeable tn thyself, dn nnt dn tn thy neighbur. " But charity saya, by
the muuth uf Jesus : " Whatsoever thou desirest for thyself, that do to thy neighbor."
Treat thy neighbor in everything as thine ether self. It ia obvioua that Jesus only
means desires that are reasonable and really salutary. His disciples are regarded as
unable to form any others for themaelvea. Kai, and, may be rendered here by, in a
word. In Matthew this precept ia fnund in chap. 7, tnward the end nf the diacuurse,
between an exhertatinn tn prayer and a call tn cunversinn, cunsequently withnut any
natural cnnnectinn with what precedes and fnllnws. Nutwithstanding thia, Thnluck
prefers the pnaitinn which it haa in Matthew, ^e regarda this aaying as a summary
uf the whule diacuurse (p. 498). But is it nut manifest that it is mnre naturally cnn
uected wjth a series uf precepts nn charity, than with an exhertation tn prayer ?
Sd. The distinguishing characteristic nf charity, disinterestedness : vers. 33-35fls.*
" And if ye luve them which luve ynu, what thank have ye ? Per sinners alsn luve
thuse that luve them. 33. And it ye dn gnud tu them which de good to you, what
thank have ye ? Fer sinners also do even the same. 34. And it ye lend to these ef
whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye ? Fur sinners alsn lend tn sinners, tu
receive the same service. 35a. But Inve yuur enemies, and dn thera gnod, and lend,
without hoping for anything again. " Human love seeks an object which is congenial
tu itself, and frum whicb, in case uf need, it may nbtain anme return. There ia
alwaya anmewhat uf self-interest in it. The new luve which Jesus proclaims wUl be
cempletely gratuitous and diaintereated. For this reasnn it wUl be able tn embrace
even an ubject entirely nppnsed tu its uwn nature. Xapi; : the favur which cnmes
* "^er. 33. S* B. add yap between kui and euv. S. B. a. nmit yap after kui, Ver.
34. Instead of anoXaBeiv, which is the reading nt T. R. with 14 Mjj., !S. B. L. Z.
read Xapeiv, S. B. L. Z. lumit yap, Ver, 35, iS, Z. n. Syr., pydEva instead nf pydEv,

208 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
frnm Gud ; in Matthew : TirapiaB6v,what matter of recompense? 'XiroXapBdveiv rd laa
may signify, to withdraw the capital lent, nr indeed, to receive snme day the sama
aervice. The prepusitinn diro wnuld favnr the flrst sense. But the Alex, reading
renders thia prep, dnublful. The cuvert selfishness uf this cunduct cumes nut
better in the secnnd sense, unly tn lend tn thnse whn, it is hnped, will lend in
their turn. It is a shrewd calculatinn, selfishness in instinctive accord wilh the
law nf retaliation, utilitarianism coming forward tn reap the fruits cf moral
ity. What fine irony there is in this picture I What a criticism on natural
kindness ! The new principle of wholly disinterested charity comea out very clearly
on this dark background of ordinary benevolence. This paradoxical fnrm which
Jeaua gives Hia precepts effectually prevents all attempts nf a relaxed mnrality tn
weaken Ihem. 'RXyv (ver. 35) : " Thia false luve cast aside ; fur ynu, my disciples,
there nnly remains this." 'AirsXiri^Eiv means prnperly, to deapair. Meyer wnuld
apply this seuse here : " nnt despairing nf divine remuneration in the dispensation tn
cnme. " But huw can tho ubject cf the verb pydev, nothing, be harmnnized with this
meaning and tbe antithesis in ver. 34 ? The sense which the Syriac translatinn gives,
reading prnbably wilh sume mss. pydiva, no one, " causing nn one to despair by a
refusal," is grammatically inadmissible. The nnly alternative is In give the drdin
dKeAvi^Eiv the sense which thia prep, already haa in diroXa/SElv, hoping for nothing in
return from him whn aska uf you.
nil. The model and anurce of the charity which Jeaua haa juat depicted : vers. S5b
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 te the evil. 36. Be ye therefore
merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Having referred tn the luve which His
disciples are tu surpaaa, that nf man by nature a sinner, Jeaua ahuwa them what they
must aspire In reach — that divine luve which is the snurce nf all gratuitnus and
disinterested luve. The prnmise nf a reward is nn cuntradictinn tn the perfect dis
interestedness which Jesua has just made the essential characteristic uf luve. And,
in fact, tbe reward is nnt a payment nf a nature fureign tn tbe feeling rewarded, the
prize nf merit ', it is the feeling itself "brought to perfectinu, the full participation
in the life and glury nf Gnd, whn is luve ! Kai, and in fact. This diaintereated Inve,
whereby we becnme like Gud, raises us tn the glorious condition of His sons and
heirs, like Jeaus 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 aaying. If the ungrateful and the wicked are the object
of divine love, it ia because this love is compasainnate {o'tKr'ippov, ver. 36). In the
wicked man God sees the unhappy man. Matt. 5 : 45 gives this same idea in an en
tirely different form : " For He maketh His aun to riae on the evil and on the good,
and aendelh rain on the juat and on the unjust." Hew ceuld theae two forms have
been taken from tbe eame document ? If Luke had known this fine saying in Mat
thew, would he have auppreased it ? Matthew concludes this train of thuught by a
general maxim similar tn that in Luke 5 : 36 : "Be ye therefnre perfect, aa ynur
Father in heaven ia perfect." Theae twu different fnrms currespund exactly with
the difference in the bndy uf the diacourae in the two evangelials. Matthew speaks
of the inward righteouaness, the perfectinu (tn which une attains thrnugh charity) ;
Luke, nf charity (the easential element cf perfectinu ; cnmp. Cul. 3 ; 14).
* Ver, 36. ». B. D. L. Z. Itp'^w-' omit oi'J'. ». B, L. Z. omit aai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 309
Sth. Bove, ihe principle of all beneficent rnoral action on the woi'ld : vers. 37-45. —
The disciples nf Jeaus are nnt only called to practise what is gnud themselves ; they
are charged tn make it prevaU in the earth. They are, as Jesus says in Matthew,
immediately after the beatitudes, the hght of tlie world, ihe aalt of ihe earth. Nnw they
can nnly exercise this salutary influence thruugh love, which manifests itself in this
sphere alsn (cnmp. ver. 37), either by what it refrains frnm (vers. 37-43), nr by
actiun (vers. 43-45). Abuve all thinga, luve refrains frum judging.
Vers. 37 and 38.* " Aud judge nnt, and ye shall nnt be judged ; cundemn nnt,
and ye shall nnt be cundemned ; furgive, and ye shall be furgiven. 38. Give, and it
shall be given untn ynu ; gnud measure, preased dnwn, and ahaken tugether, and
running uver, ahall men give intn ynur bnaum ; fnr with the same measure that yc
mete withal, it shall be measured tn ynu again." There is nn reference here tu the
pardnn nf persunal nffences ; the reference ia tn charity, which, in a general way,
refusea tn judge. Jeaua evidently has in view in this paaaage the judgment which
the scribes and Phariaees aasumed the right tn exercise in Israel, and which their
harshness and ar'rngance rendered mnre injurinus than useful, as was seen in the
effect it produced nn the publicans and nther such persuns (5 : 30, 15 : 38-30). Kai
indicates the transitinn tu a new but analngnus subject : And furilier. Kpiveiv, to
judge, is nut equivalent tn condemn ; it means generally tn set une's self up as a judge
uf the meral worth of anuther. But since, wherever this dispusitinn prevails, judg-
ment is usually exercised in an unkindly spirit, the wnrd is certainly emplnyed here
in an unfavnrable sense. It is strengthened by the fnUnwing term : condemn, tn
cundemn pitilessly, and withnut taking intn accnunt any reasnns fnr furbearance.
'AiroXvetv, to absolve, dues nnt refer, therefure, tn the pardnn nf a persunal nffence ; it
is the anxiety uf luve tn flnd a neighbur innncent rather than guilty, tn excuse rather
than tn cundemn. The Lnrd does nnt furbid all mural judgraents nn the cunduct nf
uur neighbor ; this wnuld cnntradict many nther passages, fur example, 1 Cor. 5 : 13 :
" Dn nnt ye judge them that are within ?" The true judgraent, inspired by luve, is im
plied in ver. 43. What Jesus desires tu banish frum the auciety nf His disciples is the
judging spirit, the tendency tn place cur faculty uf mural appreciatinn at the service
uf natural malignity, nr mnre aimply atill, judging fnr the pleaaurenf judging. The
reward promiaed : not io be judged or condemned, to be aent away abaolved, may refer
either tu this wurld nr the uther, tn the cunduct nf men nr nf Gnd. The latter ia the
more natural meaning, it enf orcea itself in the next precept. It is probably from here
that the fifth beatitude in Matthew has been taken : "Blessed are the merciful ; fer
thoy shall obtain mercy. "
Wilh a disposition to absolve those that are accused is naturally connected that
of giving, that is tn say, nf rendering service tu all, even tn the greatest sinners.
This idea ia introduced here enly as an accessory to the other. There is some feel
ing in these successive imperatives, and a remarkable affluence nf exJDreaaien in the
prumiae. Snme nne has aaid : " Give with a full hand tu Gnd, and He will give
with a full hand tn ynu." The idea nf thia boundless liberality of God ia forcibly
expressed by the accumulation ef epithets. The meaaure, to which Jeaus alludes,
is one for solids {presaed, shaken together) ; the epithet, running over, is not at all ep-
* Ver. 87. A. C. A. It>"i., iva /ly instead ef kui m py. Ver. 38. ». B. D. L. Z.,
u yap perpu instead of to yap avru perpo. a, which is the reading of 1'. R. witli all the
Other MSS.

210 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
pnsed tn this. The expressinn, into your bosom, refers tn the fnrm of the oriental
garment, which allows of things being heaped together in the large pocket-shaped
feld above the girdle (Ruth 3 : 15). The plur. doaovaiv, tliey will give corresponds
to the French indet. pron. on ; it denotes the instruments uf divine munificence,
whuever they may be (13 : 30, 48). Thia precept ia fuund, in very nearly the same
terma, in Matt., 7:1 ei aeq., immediately fuUnwing an exhurtatinn tu confidence
in Providence, and before an invitatinn tn prayer — in a cnntext, therefnre, with
which it has nn cnnnectinn. In Luke, nn the cnntrary, all is clnsely cunnected.
Vers. 39 and 40. " And He spake a parable untn them. Can the blind lead the
blind ? Shall they nut bnth fall intn the ditch ? 40. The disciple is not abnve his
master: but every nne that is perfect shall be aa his master." Meyer, Bleek, and
Holtzmann can see no natural connectiun between this little parable and the preced
ing precept. The furm, He aaid to them alao, seems of itself to indicate an interrup
tien, and te betray the interpolation ot a passage foreign te the original context. Ia
not, however, the flgure of a blind man leading another man (ver. 39) evidently con
nected with that of the man whu, while he haa a beam in hia uwn eye, wants tu take
a straw nut nf his brother's eye (ver. 41) ? And whu can fail tn perceive the cnnnec
tinn between the idea cnntained in thia last illuatratiun and the precept which
precedea (vera. 37, 38) reapecting judgments ? A man's preauming tn currect his
neighbur, withnut currecting himself -is net this altogether characteristic of that
mania for judging ethers which Jesus has just forbidden ? The whole passage (vers.
37-43) is just, therefore, a piece nf cunaecutive inatructinn respecting judgments.
Jeaua cnntinues the cuntrast between that nnrmal and salutary judgmeut which He
expects from His disciples, in regard te the wnrld, based partly nn the love uf une's
neighbnr, and partly nn unsparing- judgment nf une's aelf , and that injurinus judgment
which the Phariaeea, severe tuward nthera, and altngether infatuated with themselves,
were exercising in the midst nf Jewish society. The snle result nf the ministry nf
the Pharisees was tu fit their diaciplea fer the same perdition as themselves ! Jesus
prays His disciples nnt tn repeat such achievements in the nrder uf things which He
ia abnut tn eatabliah. In Matt. 15 ; 14 and 33 : 15, 16 we have snme preciaely simUar
wurda addressed tu the Pharisees. We are nnt mistaken, therefnre, in uur applica
tion uf this figure. As tn the phrase. And He saiili to tliem also (ver. 39), cump. 6 : 5.
This break in the discuuraS repreaents a mument'a pauae tn collect His thnughts.
.Jesua seeks fnr an illustratinn that wiU impress His hearers wilh the deplnrable cun-
sequences nf passing judgment en ethers, when it is done after the fashion of the
Pharisees. 'Odyyelv, to point out tlie way, combines the two notions of correction and
instruction. The disciple, in se far as he is a disciple, not being able to excel his
master (ver. 40), it foUowa that the disciple ef a Pharisee will net be able at best to
do mere than equal his master ; that is to say, fall intu the same ditch with him.
Ver. 40 justifies this idea. Here we see -what wiU happen tn the whnle penple, if
they remain under the directiun nf the Pharisees. The further they advance in the
schnnl nf auch masters, the nearer they will cnme . . . tu perditinn. The pro
verbial saying, ver. Ada, is used in Matt. 10 : 34, 35 and Jnhn 15 : 30 in this senae :
The aervanta nf Jesua muat nnt expect tn be treated better than their Maater. In
Luke 33 : 37 and Jnhn 13 : 16 it is applied tn the humility which befits the aervant of
such a Master. It ia obvious that Jesus made varinus applicatinns cf these general
maxims. Whatever, then, mudern criticism may think, the cnntext uf Luke ia un-
exceptinnable. How can Weizsacker se diaregard thia connection as actually to

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 211
make ver. 39 the commencement of a new part, " the second section of the dis
course !" (p. 153).
Vers. 41 and 43. " And why beholdest thou the mete that is in thy brother's eye,
but perceiveat not the beam that is in thine own eye ? 43. Either how canst thou say
te thy brother. Brother, let me pull out the mete that is in thine eye, when thou thy
self beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Theu hypocrite, cast out first
the beam out ef thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote
that is in thy brother's eye." In order te be useful in correcting another, a man
must begin by correcting himself. Love, when sincere, never acts otherwise. Be
yond the limits ef this restraint, all judgment is the fruit ef preaumption and blind-
ness. Such was the judgment ef the Pharisees. The mote, the bit of straw which
has slipped into the eye, represents a defect ef secondary importance. A beam in the
eye is a ludicrous image which ridicule uaea tn describe a ridiculnus prnceeding — a
man's assuming, as the Pharisee did, tn direct the mnral educatinn nf his less vicinus
neighbnr, when he was himself saturated with avarice, pride, aud uther udinus rices.
Such a man is rightly termed a hypncrite ; fnr if it was hatred nf evil that inspired
his judgraent, wnuld he nnt begin by shuwing this feeling in an unsparing judgment
of hiraself ? Ordinarily, dtapx,efEis is understund in thia sense : Thnu wilt be able
to think io, to see to . . . But can jSXeirEiv, to aee, be uaed in this cnnnectinn in
an abstract aenae ? The cunnectinn between EKJiaXXE, take away, and dia^XeipeiS, tliou
shalt see, shnuld suffice tn pruve the cnntrary : " Take away the beam which takes
away thy sight, and then thnu shalt see clearly tu . . ." The verb (5ia/3/l£!r£jv, to
see through, tu see diatinctly, ia nnly fnund in this paaaage, and in its parallel in Mat
thew, in aU the N. T. This has been held tu pruve that the twu evangelists bnth
emplnyed the same Greek ducument. But characteristic expressinns such as these
dnubtless uriginated ia the first rendering nf tbe oral tradition intn the Greek tungue ;
precepts then tnnk a fixed fnrm, certain features uf which were preserved in the
preaching, and thence paaaed intn nur Syn.
In vers. 43-45, the idea uf teaching, which is perceptible in ver. 40, takea the
place altngether uf the idea nf judging, with which it ia clnsely cunnected.
Vers. 43-45.* " Fnr a gund tree bringeth nnt fnrth cnrrupt fruit ; neither dnth a
cnrrupt tree bring fnrth gund fruit. 44. Fur every tree is knnwn by his nwn fruit :
fnr nf thurns meu du nnt gather figs, nnr uf a bramble-bush gather tbey grapes."
In nrder that nur wnrds may have a gnud influence nn uur neighbnr, we must be gnud
nurselves. In this paasage, therefnre, the fruits nf the tree are neither the mnral
cunduct nf the individual whn teachea, nur his ductrines. They are the results uf
hia labnr in uthera. In vain will a pruud man preach humility, nr a selflab man
charity ; the injurinus influence nf example will paralyze the efforts uf their wurds.
The corrupt tree {aapirdv) is a tree infected with canker, whuse juices are incapable cf
producing palatable fruit. The cunnectinn between vera. 43 aud 44fls ia thia : " Thia
principle ia sn true, that every nne, withnut hesitatiun, infers the nature nf a tree
frnm its fruits. " In Palestine there are nften seen, behind hedges nf thurns and
brambles, flg-trees cempletely garlanded with the climbing tendrils nf vine branches. -1-
¦* Ver. 43. !». B. L. Z. aud several Mnn. add naXiv after ovde. Ver. 45. S. B,
nmit avTov after Kapdias, !». B. D. L. umit avBporroS after vovyaos. S. B. D. L. Z.
nmit the wnrds Byaavpov ryS Kupdias avrov.
f Kunrad Furrer, " die Bedeulung der bibUschen Geographic fiir die bibl. Exe-
gese," p. 34.

212 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Ver. 45 gives expression te the general principle on which the whole of the preceding
rests. A man's word is the moat direct communication of his being. If a man de
sires to reform others by his word, he must reform himself ; then his word will change
the world. Jesus Himaelf aucceeded in depositing a germ of goodness in the world
by His word alone, because He was a perfectly good man. It is fur His disciples tn
cuntinue His wnrk by this methnd, which is the antipudes nf that nf , the Pharisees.
An analngnus passage is fuund in Matthew, at the end nf the Sermnn nn the Meunt
(7 : 15-30). There Jesus is exhnrting His hearers to beware of false prophets, who
betray their real character by their evil fruits. Theae falae propheta may indeed be,
in this precept, aa in that nf Luke, the Pharisees (cnmp. nur ver. 26). But their
fruits are certainly, in Matthew, their mural cunduct, their pride, avarice, and hypoc
risy, and not, as in Luke, the effecta produced by their miniatry. On the other hand,
we flnd a paasage in Matthew (12 : 33-35) atUl more like ours. Aa it belnngs tn a
warping against blaapheming the Hely Ghost, the fruits ef the tree are evidently, as
in Luke, the words themselves, in so far aa they are good or bad in their nature and
in their effect on those who receive them. Prom this, is it not evident that this pas
sage IS the time parallel to ours, and that the passage which Mattbew has introduced
into tbe Sermon en the Mount ia an importation, eccaaioned probably by the employ
ment of the aame image (that nf the treea and their fruita) in buth ? Thua Jesus has
risen by degrees frnm the cunditiuns uf the Christian life (the beatitudea) tu the Ufe
itaelf ; firat uf all tn ita principle, then tn ita actinn nn the wnrld. He haa made His
renewed diaciples instruments fur the renewal nf humanity. It nnw nnly remains
tnr Him tu bring this inaugural diacnurae tn a clnae.
Third part nf the discuurse : vers. 46-49. The Sanction.— 'Kere we have the cnn
clusinn, and, su tu speak, the peruratinn nf the discnurse. The Lnrd en jnins His dis
ciples, fnr the sake nf their nwn welfare, tu put in practice the new principle uf cun
duct which He has just laid dnwn.
Ver. 46. " And why call ye me Lnrd, Lnrd, and dn nnt the things which I say."
This saying prnves that Jeaua waa already recngnized as Lurd by a large part nf
this multitude, but that even then He wuuld have been glad tn find in many nf these
whn saluted Him by this tille a mnre scrupulnus fidelity te. the law uf charity. This
warning is ccnnected, dnubtless, -n'ith the preceding cnntext, by this idea . " Dn not
be guilty, in the dispensation nnw cummencing, nf the samehypucrisy as the scribes
and Phariaeea have been guilty nf in that which ia cuming tn an end ; they render
hnmage tn Jehnvah, aud, at the same time, perpetually transgress His law. Dn not
deal with my word in this way." The same idea is found in Matthew, at the cor
responding place in the Sermon en the Meunt (7 : 31 ei seq.), but under that abstract
and sententious form already observed in the Beatitudea : " Not every one that saith
unto me : Lord, Lord," etc. In this' passage in Matthew, Jesus expressly claims to
be the Meaaiah and Supreme Judge. The same idea ia expressed in the Bord, Bord,
nf Luke. Vers. 47-49.* " Whusnever cnmeth tn me, and heareth my sayings, and dneth
them, I will shuw yuu tn whum he is like: 48. He is like a man which built au
huuse, and digged deep, aud laid the fnundatinn nn a ruck : and when the flnud arose,
the stream beat vehemently upon that huuse, and cnuld nnt shake it ; fnr it was
¦"¦ Ver. 48. 5^. B. L. Z., dia to kuXoS omodopyoBai avryv instead nf teQepeXiuto yap eiri
ryv iTETpav, which ia the reading uf T. R. with all the nther authnrities. Ver.
49. C. and sume Mnn. . oiKodopovn instead nf oiKodo/tyaavrf.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 213
fnunded upen a rock. 49". But he that heareth, ^nd doeth net, is like a man that,
without a foundation, built a house upen the earth ; against which the stream
did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell ; and the ruin ef that house was
great." The two evangelists coincide in this closing iUuatration. On the
shelving lands which surround the Lake of Gennesareth, there are snme
hills nn which the ruck is cuvered with nnly a thin layer nf earth {yy, Luke) ur
sand {dfipos, Matthew). A prudent man digs thrnugh this mnvable snil,
digs deep dnwn {iaKufs Kai iffdBwe), even intn the ruck, upnn and in which {iki with
the accusative) he lays the fnundatinn. Luke unly mentiuns nne cause nf destruc
tinn, the waterspnut {vX'yppvpd), that breaks un the summit uf the muuntain and
creates the turrents which carry away the layer uf earth and sand, and with it the
building that is nnt fnunded nn the ruck. Matthew adda the hurricane {dvepoi) that
nrdinarily accumpaniea theae great atmuspheric disturbances, and nverthruws the
building which the turrent undermines. Thuugh the differences between these twn
deacriptiens in Matthew and Luke are fnr the must part insignificant, they are tun
numernus tn suppnse that bnth cnuld have been taken frura Jhe sarae ducument. Tu
buUd un the earth is tn admit the Lurd's will merely inte the understanding, that
most superflcial aud impersonal part ef a man's self, while closing the conscience
against Him, and withholding the acquiescence ef the will, which ia the really per
sonal element within us. The trial of our apiritual building ia brought about by
temptation, persecution, and, last ef aU, by judgment. Its overthrow is accom
plished by unbelief here below, and by condemnation from above. The Alex, read
ing, because it had been well built (ver. 48), is to be preferred to that nf the T. R. , for it
was founded on a rock, which is taken frnm Matthew. A single lust auul is a great
ruin in the eyes uf Gnd. Jeaua, in clnaing his discuurse, leaves His hearers under
the impressinn uf this sulemn thuught. Each cf them, while liatening tn this last
wnrd, might think that he heard the crash- nf the falling edifice, and aay within
himself : This disaster will be mine if I pruve hypucritical ur incunsistent.
The Sermnn nn the Muunt, therefnre, aa Weizaacker haa clearly aeen, ia : the
inauguratien uf the new law. The nrder uf the discuurse, accurding tn the twO duc
uments, ia this : Jesua addreaaea His hearera as belnnging tu a class uf penple whn,
even accnrding tn the Old Testament, have the greatest need nf heavenly cnmpensa-
tinns. Treating them aa diaciples, either because they were already attached tu Him
aa auch, ur in their character aa vnluntary hearers. He regards this audience, bruught
tugether withnut previuua preparatinn, aa representing the new nrder uf things, and
promulgates befnre this new Israel the principle uf the perfect law. Then, aubati-
tuting His disciples fnr the ductnrs uf the ancient ecunumy. He puints uut td them
the snle cunditiun un which they will be able tn accumplish in the werld the glnriuus
wurk which He cunfides tu them. Lastly, He urges them, in the name nf all they
hnld mnst precinus, tu fulfil this cnnditinn by making their life agree with their pru
fessinn, in nrder that, when tested by the judgment, they may not ceme to ruin. In
what respect does this diacourse lack unity and regular progression ? How can
Weizsacker aay that these precepts, in Luke, are fnr the must part thrown tugether,
withnut cunnectinn, and detached from their natural cnntext ?* It is in Matthew
rather, as Weizsacker, amnng uthers, acknuwledges, that we find fureign elements
interwuven with the tissue nf the discuurse ; they are eaaily perceived, fur they
break the cunnectinn, and the aaanciatinn uf ideaa which has nccasiuned the inter
pnlatiun ia nbvinua. Thus, vers. 33-36, recunciUatiun {apropos nf hatred and mur
der) ; vers. 39, 30, a precept, which is fuund elsewhere in Matthew itself (18 : 8, 9) ;
* " Untersuchungen,'' p. 154.

214 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
vers. 31 and 32 (a passage which is found 10 : 3-9) ; 6 : 7-15, the Lord's Prayer, an
evident interruption in His treatment of the three principal Pharisaic virtues (alms,
vers. 2-4 ; prayer, vera. 5, 6 ; fasting, vera. 16-18) ; 6 : 24 (if net even 19) -34, a pas
sage on providence (in cunnectinn with the avarice uf the Phariaees) ; 7 : 6-11, aud 13,
14, precepts, simply juxtapnsited ; 7 : 15-20, a passage fur which 13 : 33-35 ahnuld
be substituted ; laatly, 7 : 22, 23, where allusinn is made tn facts which lie uut nf the
burizun nf that early perind. It is remarkable that these passages, whuse fureign
character is pruved by the cuntext nf Matthew, are the very paaaagea that are fnund
disperaed nver different placea in the Guspel uf Luke, where their appropriateness is
eaaily verified. The authnr nf the first Guspel cnuld nnt be blamed fur this cnmbi-
natinn uf heterngeneuus elements within nne and the same uutline, unless his cnmpi
latinn uf the discuurse had been made frnm the first with an histnrical aim. But if
we admit, as we are authnrized by the testimuny uf Papias tn admit, that this dis
cuurse belunged nriginally tn a cnllectinn uf discnurses cnmpiled with a didactic er
liturgical aim, and that the author wanted to give a somewhat complete exposition
of the new moral law preclairaed by Jeaua, there is nothing mere natural than this
agglomerating prucesa. It is evident that the authur fnund, in this way, a means ef
producing in his readers, just as any ether evangelist, the thrilling impresainn which
the wurd of .JeSus had made nn the hearts nf His hearers (Matt. 7 : 28, 29). The way
in which these twu versinns stand related tn each nther, will nnt allnw nf their being
deduced frnm a prutn-Mark as a cummnn snurce, accnrding tu Hnltzmann and
Weizsacker. And besides, hnw, in this caae, did it happen that this discuurse was
nihilted in nur cannnical Mark ? The species cf logophobia which they attribute to
him, in crder tn explain this fact, is incnmpatible with Mark 9 : 39-51, and 13.
A religinus party has made a party-banner nf this discuurse. Accnrding tn them,
thia diacnurae ia a summary uf the teaching cf Jeaus, whu merely spiritualized the
Muaaic law. But huw are we te harmonize with thia view the passages in which
.Tesus makea attachment to His persun the very centre cf the new rightenuaness
{for my sake. Matt. 5 : 11 ; fm' the aalce of the Son of man, Luke 6 : 32), and thnse in
which He annnunces Hiraself as the Final and Supreme Judge (Matt. 7 : 21-23,
cnmp. with Luke 6 : 46 : !jord, Bord !) ? The true view nf the religinus impOrt of
this discourse, ia that which Geaa has expreaaed in these well-weighed wnrds : " The
Sermun nn the Mnuut describes that earnest piety which nn one can cultivate with
nut an increasing feeling nf the need nf redemptinn, by means nf which the right
euusness required by auch piety may at laat be realized" (p. 6).
2. Tlie Centurion's Servant: 7:1-10- — This was the must atriking instance of
faith that Jesua had met with up te this time ; and what waa mure aateniahing, He
was indebted fnr this surprise tn a Gentile. Jeaus instantly perceives the deep sig
nificance nf this unexpected incident, and cautinusly indicates it in ver. 9, while in
Matt. 8 : 11, 13 it is expressed with lesa reserve. We should have expected the reverse,
according to the dngmatic prepussessinns which criticism imputes tn nur evangeUsts.
It ia ubliged, therefure, tu have recuurae te the hypetheaia uf subaequent interpolations. ;
This cure is connected, in Matthew as well as in Luke, with the ^Sermon en the
Mount. This resemblance in no way proves, as some think, a common written
source. For, 1. The two passages are separated in Matthew by the healing et the
leper, which Luke assigns te another time ; 3. The narratives of the two evangeUsts
¦ present very considerable differences of detail ; laatly, 3. There waa nothing to pre
vent certain groups of narrative, mere er 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 omiaaion difflcult tu accnunt fnr, if he cupied Matthew and
Luke (Bleek), and equally difflcult if, with them, he derived his narrative from an
original Mark (Ewald and Holtzmaim). Holtzmann (p. 78), with Ewald, thinks that
" if he cut out the Sermnn on the Mount, he might easily umit alsu the passage which
fulluwa, and which cpens a new sectinn." But nn uther nccasinns it is .asserted that

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 215
Mark purpnsely umits the diacnuraes, tn make rnnm fur facts. Nnw, are we nnt here
cnncerned with a fact ? Bleek dnea nut even attempt tn explain this nmiaainn.
Vers. l-6a.* Tlie Firat Deputation. — The Alex, reading ine'idy, aince assuredly, has
nn meaning. There is snmething snlemn in theae expressinns : i'KXyauaE, liad fulfilled,
and e'lS tuS uKods, in ilie ears of ihe people. The proclamation which had just taken
place is given as something complete. The circumatance that this miracle took place
just when Jesua returned to Capernaum, after thia discnurse, waa remembered in the
traditiunal accnunt, and has been faithfully preserved in nur twn evangelical narra
tives. The centuriun (ver. 2) was probably a Rnman snldier in the service uf Hernd ;
he waa a proselyte, and had even manifested special zeal nn behalf uf his new faith
(ver. 5). Instead nf dovXoi , a slave, Matthew says nals, a wnrd which may signify
either a son nr a servant, and" which Luke empluys in the latter aenae at ver. 7. Bleek
and Hnltzmann prefer the meaning son in Matthew, becauae ntherw'iae it wuuld be
neceaaary tu admit that the centiirinn had nnly nne slave." As if a man cnuld nnt
say : " My servant is sick," thuugh he had several servants ! The meaning servant
is mure prubable in Matthew, because it better explains the reluctance which the cen
turiun feels tn trnuble the Lnrd. If it had been his sen. he would doubtlesa have
been bolder. The malady must have been, accurding tu Matthew's descriptiun, ver.
6, acute rheumatism. And whatever criticiam may aay, this malady, when it affects
certain nrgans, tbe heart fur instance, may becnme murtal. The wnrds : wlio was
ve'ry dear io him, serve tu explain why a step su impnrtant as a deputatinn uf the eld-
era ahnuld have been taken. The latter are dnubtless the rulers nf the synagugue,
whuse duty it was tn maintain nrder in the cnngregatiun. They cnuld mnre easUy
explain tu Jesus the hunurable facts which made in favnr uf the centuriun, than he
cuuld himaelf.
Vers. 6J-8.t The Second Deputation.— The centuriun, frum his huuse, sees Jesus
approaching with His retinue nf disciples. The veneratinn wilh which this myateri
nua perann inapirea him makea him afraid even tu receive Him under hia runf ; he
sends, therefnre, a secnnd deputatinn. Strauss sees in thia a cuntradictinn nf his
furmer proceeding. But it was simply a deeper humUity and stronger faith that had
dictated this course. 'Ikuvoq here denotes moral worth, aa in 3 : 16 and elaewhere.
Faith vies with humUity in thia man. The expresaion e'nri Xdyu, aay in a word, aug-
gesta thia meana in preference to His coming in person. In Matthew's narrative all
these proceedings are united in a single act ; the centurion cnmes himself tn tell
Jesus nf the sickness, and tu the nffer nf Jesus tn viait his hnuse, returns the answer
which we find in Luke 5 : 8.J: Bleek regards the detaUs in Luke as an amplificatinn
cf the nriginal narrative ; nthers cunsider Matthew's accnunt an abridgment nf Luke's.
But hnw cnuld Luke exaggerate in this way the plain statement nf Matthew, nr Mat
thew mangle the descriptiun nf Luke ? Our evangelists were earnest believera. All
that traditinn had literally preaerved waa the characteriatic reply uf the centuriun (ver.
'8), and nur Lurd's expreaainn uf admiratiun (ver, 9). The histurical outline had been
* Ver. 1. A. B. C. X. n., e^n-eidy instead nf ercei de.
X Ver. '6. B. L. , eKarovrapxyS instead nf EKarovrapxaQ. !S* B. umit ^rpoS avrov.
Ver. 7. B. L., laByro instead ef laByoErai.
X What can be mnre natural than the repurting that aa said by une's self which
is said by an authnrized deputatinn, where the ubject uf the writer is tn cundense ?
This ia what Matthew has dune. " He dnes that which is dune, thnugh it be dune
by annther fnr him." See a parallel case in Matt. 20:20, cumpared with Mark
10 : 35.— J. H. i

216 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
created with greater freednm in the nral narratiun. This explains in a very natural
manner the differeuce between uur twu narrativea. Althnugh he was unly an nrdinary
man {dvBpunoS). and a man in a dependent pnaitinn, the centuriun had sume suburdi
nates through whnm he cuuld act withnut alwaya guing himself tn the place. Cnuld nut
Jesus, whn atnnd far abuve him in the hierarchy uf being, having the pnwers nf the
invisible werld at His diapnaal, make use, if He pleaaed, uf a similar pnwer? We
may cnmpare here Jesus' nwn wurds respecting the angels which ascend and descend
(Jnhn 1 : 53). Hnw are we tn explain the exiatence nf such faith in this man ? We
must bear in mind the wnrds nf ver. 3 : having heard of Jeaus. The fame uf the
miracles nf Jesua 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 tn that which the centuriun besnught — the cure nf the nubleman's
snn (Jnhn 4). Perhaps his knnwledge nf this miracle is the mnst natural mnde uf
explaining the faith implied in the mesaage which he addreaaea tn Jesus by the muuth
nf his friends. The expressinn, such faith, refers nnt tn the request fur a cure, but
fur a cure withnut the aid nf His budUy presence. It was, as it were, a paroxysm nf
faith 1
Vers. 9 and 10.*' The Cure. — The severe wnrds respecting the Jews, which in
Matthew Jesus adds tn the praise bestuwed nn the centurinn's faith, seem tn prnve
that Matthew makes use nf a different snurce nf infurmatinn from Luke's. These
wurds are fnund, in fact, in Luke in a tutally different cunnectinn (13 : 28), at a mnre
advanced perind, when they are certainly mnre appropriate.
Several ancient and mndern critics identify this cure with that nf the nubleman's
snn (Jnhn 4).' The differences, hnwever, are cunsiderable : f here we have a snldier
nf Gentile nrigin, there a cnurtier nf Jevvish nrigin ; here the place is Capernaum,
there Cana ; here we have a man whn in hia humility ia reluctant that Jeaua shuuld
enter his house, there a man who comes a lung way seeking Jesus that he may induce
Him tn gn with him tn his hnme ; lastly, and in our view thia difference ia most de
ciaive, here we have a Gentile given aa an example to all Israel, there a Jew, whoae
conduct furnishes occasion for Jesus to throw a certain amount of blame un all his
Galilean felluw-cuuntrymen. In truth, if these twn narratives referred tn the same
fact, the details nf the Guspel narratives wnuld nn Innger deserve the least credence.
Accurding tn Keira, the miracle is tu be explained, un the nne hand, by the faith of
the centuriun and the sick mau, which already cnntained certain healing virtues, and
un the nther, by the mnral pnwer nf the wurd nf Jesua, which wnrd waa aumething
between a wish and a ccmmapd, and cnmpleted tbe reaturatinn. But dnes nut this
ethicn-paychical mude nf actinn require the preaenee nf him whn effects a cure in this
wi^t^-T-Nuw thia presence is unmistakably excluded here in bnth narrativea by the
prayer jjfjhe centuriun, and by this wurd nf Jesus: so great faith! And what is
thia snmething between a wish and a cummand ?
3. Tke^Son of the Widow of Nain : 7 : 11-17. — The folluwing narrative is une of
those which clearly reveal our Lurd's tenderness of heart, and the puwer which
human grief exerted nver Hira. The histurical reality nf this fact has been nbjected
tu on the grnund that it is unly related by Luke. Criticism always reasnns aa if th^
evangeUsts were swayed by the same histnrical prepussessinns as itself. The life of
* Ver. 10. S. B. L. Itpi"'"i"», nmit aoBevovvra befnre dovXov.
X "This difference is well stated in the admirable wnrk nf Trench nn "The
Miracles," p. 127 (7th editinn)— a bunk which, with that nn " The Parables," readers
whn, like Sabbath-schnnl teachers, wish tn have the meaning nf the Gnspels, will find
ITiost valuable— J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 217
.lesus presented such a rich sture of miraculnus incidents that nn nne ever dreamed
of giving a cnmplete recnrd nf them. Jesus alludes tn miracles perfurmed at Chura-
zin, nnne uf which are related in cur Guspela. With a single exceptinn, we are
equally ignnrant uf all that were wrought at Bethsaida. It is very remarkable that,
amnng aU the miracles which are indicated summarily in nur Guspela (4 : 23, 40, 41,
6 : 18, 19 and parall., 7 : 31, etc. ; Jnhn 3 : 33, 4 : 45, 6 : 1, 30 : 30, 31 ', 35), nne nr twu
only uf each clasa are related in detail. It appears that the muat striking example nf
each class was chesen, and that from the first nn attempt was made tu preserve any
detailed accnunt ef the others. For edification, which was the sole aim ef the popu
lar preaching, this waa sufflcient. Ten cures of lepers wnuld say nn mnre tn faith
than nne. But it might happen that snme nf the numeruua miracles passed uver by
the traditinn, came, thruugh private snurces uf infurmatinn, tn the knnwledge uf nne
uf uur evangelists, and that he inserted them in hia wurk. Thus, under the categnry
nf resurrectinns, the raising nf Jairus' daughter had taken the fnremnst place in the
traditiun — it is fuund in the three Syn. — while nther facta nf the kind, auch as that
befnre us, had been left in the background, withnut, hnwever, being nn that accnunt
denied. ^
Vers. 11 and 12.* The Meeting. — The reading iv tu i^yS {%p6v<p), in the following
time, dnea nnt cnnnect this narrative sn clusely with the preceding as the reading ev
ry i^s {ypEp<f), the foUowing day. This is a reasnn fur preferring the fnrmer ; it is nnly
natural that the mnre precise shuuld be substituted fnr the leaa definite cnnnectiun.
Rubinaun fuund a hamlet named Neln tu the suuth-weat uf Capernaum, at the nnrth
ern f nnt nf the Uttle Hermun. It is in this Incality, murenver, that Euaebius and
Jerume place the city nf Nain. Jeaus wnuld nnly have tn make a day'a juurney tn
reach it from Capernaum. Juaephua (Bell. Jud. iv. 9. 4) mentiuns a city nf Nain,
situated nn the nther side nf Jnrdan, in the snuth part nf the Persea ; and Kostlin,
relying on the expresaiona in ver. 17, applied this name tn this tnwn in the immediate
neighburhund nf Judsea, and thuught that Luke's narrative must have cnme from a
Judaean snurce. But we shall aee that ver. 17 may be explained withnut having re
cnurse tu this suppusitinn, which is nut very natural The kuI 'idov, and behold, ex
presses snmething striking in the unexpected meeting uf the twn prucessinns — the
train which accumpanied the Prince cf Life, aud that which fcUuwed the victim nf
death. This aeems tn be expreaaed alau by the relatinn nf Uavoi in ver. 11 tn ikuvoc
in ver. 13. The first nf these wnrds has been umitted by many mss., becauae the ex
preaainn : his diseiplea, appeared tn refer tn the apuatlea alune. At ver. 13 the cnn
structiun ia Aramsean. The dative ry pyrpi expreases all the tenderness nf the re
latiunahip which had just been severed.
Vers. 13-15. t Tlie Mirade. — The expressinn : ihe Bord, is seldum met with in nur
Guspels except in Luke, and principally in the passages which are peculiar tu him :
10 : 1, 11 : 39, 13 : 43, 13 : 15, 17 : 5, 6, 18 : 6, 33 : 31, 61 (Bleek). The whnle circum
stances enumerated ver. 13 : an unly snn, a widuwed muther, and the public sympa
thy, enable us tn understand what it was that acted with such pnwer upnn the heart
nf Jesus. It seems that He cuuld nnt resist the silent appeal presented by this com-
* Vers. 11-14. Mjj. 70 Mnn. It""'!, read, ei> tu e^yg instead uf ev ry ef;?;, vphich is
the reading nf T. R. -with !*. C. D. K. M. S. n. many Mnn. Syr. It""'!. ». B. D. P.
L. Z. Syr"''. ItP>"W»o, nmit iKavoi. Ver. 13, 7 Mjj. add yv after avry. iS. B. L, Z,
add yv befnre avv avry.
f Ver. 13. The mss, vary between eir' avry and et' avryv.

318 COMMENTARY ON SI. LUKE.
hinatinn of circumatances. His heart is completely subdued by the sobs of the
mnther. Hence the wnrd, at nnce tender and authnritative : Weep not Prudence
perhaps wuuld have dictated that He shnuld nnt work such a striking miracle at this
time. But when pity speaks so loud {ianXayxviaBy), there is no longer any room for
prudence. Besidea, He feels Himself authorized te comfort. Per in this very meet
ing He recegnizea the wiU of His Father. Among the Jews the bier was not cov
ered ; it was a simple plank, with a somewhat raised edge. The bedy, wrapped in
its shroud, was therefore visible tn aU. Jeaua laya Hia hand un the bier, aa if tn
arrest this fugitive frum life. The bearers, atruck by the majesty nf this gesture,
which was at nnce natural and symbnlical, stepped. There is a matchless grandeur
in this oot /le'yu : " I say to thee, . . . to thee who aeemest no longer able to hear
the vnice nt the liviiig . . ." There is absnlutely nuthing in the text tu justify
the sarcasm uf Keim : " Faith in a fnrce which penetrates tn the dead, even thrnugh
the wund nf the bier, evidently belnngs tu the evangelist, but it is nut nurs." The
resurrectinn is in nn way attributed tn the tnuching nf the bier, but tn the cummand
nf Jesus. The interruptien ef the connectinn between the snul and the bndy in death,
as in sleep, is unly relative ; and as man's vuice aufflces to re-establish this cnnnectinn
in any nne whn is rapt in slumber, sn the wnrd nf the Lnrd has pnwer tn restnre this
interrupted cnnnectinn even in the dead. The advncates nf the natural interpretatinn
have maintained that the ynung man was unly in a lethargic sleep. But if this were
-sn, the miracle nf puwer wnuld nnly disappear to be replaced by a miracle uf knnwl
edge quite as incnmprehensible. Hew could Jesus know that this apparently dead
man was stUl living, and that the moment ef his awaking waa imminent ?* As seen
as the soul returned to animate the bedy, motion and speech indicated its presence.
Jesus certainly has acquired a right over the reauacitated man ; He asserts this right,
but simply tn enjuy the happipeaa nf reaturing tn the afflicted muther the treasure
which He has rescued frnm death. The expressinn : He gave him to hia mother, cnr
respunds tn this : He waa moved with compassion, ver. 13.
Vers. 16, 17. f Tlie Fffect produced. — On the feeling uf fear, see chap. 5:8. A
great prophet : a greater than Jnlyi the Baptist himself, a pruphet uf the flrst rank,
such as Elijah nr Muses. The secund expreaainn : God hath viaited ... is mnre
fnrcible still ; it suggests mure than it expresses. The expressinn : this saying, [this
rumor, A. V.], might be referred tn the tame nf the miracle which was immediately
spread abroad. But the wurda irepl airov, concerning Him, which depend, as in ver.
15, en Xdyos oiros, rather incline ua to refer thia expression tn the twn preceding ex-
clamatinns (ver. 16): " This manner nf thinking and speaking abnut Jesus spread
abroad," It is an indicatinn nf progress in the develupment uf the wurk uf Jesus.
In nrder tn explain into Judaa, Keim (1. p. 73) unceremnniuualy says : Luke juat
makes Nain a city nf Judsea. But tbe term 'e^rp^Ev, literally • went out, signifles the
very cnntrary ; it intimates that theae aayinga, after having filled Galilee (their flrst
sphere, understnud withnut expreas mentinn), this time passed beynnd this natural
* Zeller (" Apnstelgesch. " p. 177) replies with snme smartness tu this ancient
ratinnaliatic explanatinn. " In nrder tn admit it," he aays, " it muat be thuught cred
ible that, within the shnrt perind embraced by the evangelical and apnatnlic histury,
there tnnk place flve times over, thrice in the Gnspels and twice in the Acts, tliis
same circumstance, this same remarkable chance uf a lethargy, which, thnugh unper
ceived by these who were engaged about the dead, yields to the first wnrd of the di
vine messenger, and gives rise to a belief in a real resurrection."
f Ver, 16, A. B. C. L. Z,, yyepBy for eyyyeprai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 319
limit, and resounded as far as the country of Judsea, where they filled ev^ry mouth.
There is no necessity, therefore, to give the word Judaea here the unusual meaning of
the entire Holy Land, as Meyer and Bleek do. The reason why this detaU is added,
is net in any way what Kostlin's acute discernment aurmiaed in order to build upon
it the critical hypnthesis that the narrative is ef Judsean origin. These words are
intended to form the transition to the foUowing passage. John was in priaon in the
south of the Holy Land, in the neighburhund nf Judaea (in Peraea, in the castle nf
Machaerua, accnrding tn Jnsephus). The fame uf the wnrks uf Jeaua, therefure, nnly
reached him in his prisnn by passing thruugh Judsea. The wurda : and throughout
all the region round about, which refer especially tn the Persea, leave nu dnubt as tu
the intentinn nt this remark uf Luke. It fnrms the intrnducticn to the fnUnwing nar
rative. There is a difflculty peculiar tn this miracle, nwing tn the absence nf all mnral
receptivity in the subject uf it. Lazarus waa a believer ; in the case uf the daughter
nf Jairus, the faith nf the parents tn a certain extent aupplied the place nf her per
sunal faith. But here there is nnthing nf the kind. The nnly receptive element that
can be imagined is the ardent deaire nf life with which thia ynung man, the nnly aun
uf a widuwed mnther, had duublless yielded his last breath. And this, indeed, is
sufflcient. Fur it f nUnwa frnm thia, that Jesus did nnt diapnae nf him arbitrarily.
And aa tn faith, many facts pruve that net in any miracle ia it to be regarded aa a
dynamical factur, but nnly as a aimple mnral cunditiun related tn the spiritual aim
which Jeaus sets befnre Hunaelf in perfnrming the wnnderful wnrk.
Keim, fuUy sensible uf the incumpetency nf any psychnlngioal explanatinn tu
accnunt fnr such a miracle, has recnurse tn the mythical interpretatinn nf Strauaa in
hia firat " Life nf Jeaua." We are suppnsed tn have here an imitatinn uf the reaur
rectinn nf dead persuns in the Old Testament, particularly uf that wrought by Eliaha
at Shunem, which is nnly a shnrt league from Nain. These cnntinujil changes of
expedients, with a view to get rid of the miracles, are net calculated In recnmmend
ratinnalistic criticism. And we cannut furbear reminding nurselves here uf what
Baur urged with sn much fnrce against Strauss nn the subject nf tbe resurrectinn nf
Lazarus : that a myth that waa a creatinn nf the Christian cnnscinusness muat have
been generally diffused, and nut have been fuund in nnly nne oi our Gospels. Inven
tion by the author (and consequently imposture) er history, is the only alternative.
From the nmissiun nf this miracle in Matthew and Mark, the advncates nf the
upiniun that a prutn-Mark was the cummun snurce uf the Syn., conclude that this
narrative was wanting in the primitive document, and that Luke added it from special
sources. But if thia were enly a simple intercalation of Luke'a, his narrative would
coincide inimediately afterward with these of Mark and Matthew. Unfortunately
there is no auch coincidence. Matthew, after the cure of the centurion's servant,
relates the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, and a number of incidents which have
nothing in common with thuse which fuUnw in Luke. And. Mark, whu has already
omitted the preceding fact, althnugh it shnuld have been fuund, accnrding tn this
hypnthesis, in the prutn-Mark — fnr that is where Matthew must have taken it frnm
— does nut faU, after this nmissiun, intn the series nf facts related by Luke. After
the day nf the Sermnn nn the Muunt, he places a aeries uf incidents which have nn
cunnectinn with thnse that fuUuw in Luke. And yet the bnast ia made, that the
dependence nf the three Syn. un a priraitive Mark has been ahuwh tu demunatratinn !
As to Bleek, who makes Mark depend on the nther twn, he dues nut even attempt tu

220 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
explain hnw Mark, having Luke befure his eyes, emitted incidents of such impor
tance. 4.- The Deputation from John the Baptist : 7 : 18-35. — This incident, related only
by Matthew (chap. 11) and Luke, and by them differently placed, is in beth accounted
•fer in the aame manner. The fame of the works of Jesus reached even Jnhn. If
Luke dnes nnt expressly say, as Matthew dnes, that the furerunner was in priaun, it
is becauae, whatever Bleek may aay, this pusitinn nf affairs was sufficiently knnwn
frnm the remark, 3 : 19, 30. But hnw shnuld the fame uf the miracles nf Jesus, uf
tlie worka of tlie Ghriai (Matthew), awaken in his mind the dnubt which his questinn
appeara tn imply ? Strauas has malicinuSly expressed his surprise that nn manufac
turer uf cunjectures has as yet prnpuaed tu substitute in Matthew : ovk aKovaag, not
having heard, fur aKovaaS, ha/eing hea/rd. But this apparent cuntradictinn ia the very
key tu the whnle incident. Mnst assuredly Juhn dues net doubt whether Jesus is a
divine measenger, for he interrogatea Him. He doea not appear even to deny Him
all participation in the Messianic work: "John having heard in hia priaon of the
works of the Christ" (Matthew). What he cannut understand ia just thia, that theae
wnrks nf the Chriat are nnt accumpanied by the realizatinn nf aU the rest nf the Mes
sianic programrae which he had furmerly proclaimed himself, and especially by the
thencratic jjidgment. " His fan is in his hand . . . the axe is already laid at
the runt nf the treea. " Jesus in ne way recognizes it aa Hia duty te beceme the
Mesaiab-judge whom John had announced in such solemn terms, and whose expected
coming had se unsettled the people. On the contrary, He said : " I am ceme net to
judge, but te save" (John 3 : 17). This contrast between the form- of the Mesaianic
work aa it waa being accompliahed by Jeaus, and the picture which Jehu had drawn
of it himselt, leads him to inquire whether the Meaaianic work was te be divided
hetween two different persuns— the nne, Jesus, fnunding the kingdnm nf Gnd in the
heart by His wurd and by miracles uf beuevulence ; the uther cnmmissiuned tn ex
ecute the thencratic judgment, and, by acts nf pnwer tn build up nn the earth the
natinnal and sncial edifice uf the kingdum uf Gnd. This is the real meaning uf Jnhn's
questiun : " Shnuld we In&k fnr [nnt properly another, but] a different nne {eTepoviii
Matthew, and perhaps in Luke alsn) ?" We knnw in fact that several divine mes-
aengers were expected. Might not Jesus be that prnphet whnm snme distinguished
from the Chriat (9 : 19) ; Jnhn 1 : 30, 31, 35), but whnm uthers identified with Him
(Jnhn 6 : 14, 15) ? Duubtleaa, if thia waa the thuught uf the furerunner, it indicated
weakneaa uf faith, and Jeaua characterizea it aa such (is offended- in Him, ver. 33).
But there ia-nnthing improbable in it. Nnt withnut reasun had Juhn said cnncern-
ing himself : " He that is uf the earth speaketh as being nf the earth" (Jnhn 3 : 31) ;
and Jesus, that he was less than the least nf believers. Such alternatinns between
wnnderful exaltatinn and deep and sudden depressinn are characteristic nf all the men
nf the nld cnvenant ; Ufted fcr a mnment abnve themselvea, but nut aa yet inwardly
renewed, they aunn sank back tn their natural level. There is nn need, therefnre, te
have recuurae tn tbe hypntheais nf Chrysnatum, accepted by Calvin, Grotius, etc.,
that Juhn desired tu give hia disciples an uppurtunity tn cunvince themselves nf the
dignity nf Jesus, ur tn suppnse, with Hase, that Jnhn's design was tn stimulate Jesus,
and accelerate the progress nf His wnrk. These explanatinns dn nut ccrreapnnd
with either the letter nr the spirit nf the text.
This pnrtinn cnmprises : lat, the queation of John, and the reply uf Jeaua, vers.
18-33 ; 2d, the discourse of Jeaua upon the person and ministry of John, vers. 24r-35,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 221
Isi., Vers. 18-33 : The Question and the Beply.
Vers. 18 and 19.* The Question. — Thus far, accurding tu Hultzmann (pp. 185, 143),
Luke had fnllnwed the first nf his snurces, the prutn-Mark {A.) ; nnw he ifeaves it tn
make uae uf the aecund (nf which the authnr uf nur Matthew haa alau availed himself),
the Lngia nr diacnuraea nf Matthew (A). The expressiun : 6 ipxausvoS, He who cometh,
is taken frnm Malachi (8:1): " Behnld, He cnmeth, aaith the Lurd." The reading
ETEpov, which is certain in Matthew, ia prnbable in Luke. Thia prunnun, taken in
its strict meaning : a aecond, attributes tn Jesua in any case the nffice cf the Christ.
Vers. 30-33.-)- The Beply. — As Matthew does not mentiun the miracles which were
wrought, according to Luke, in the presence nf Jnhn's measengera, criticism has aus-
pected the latter nf having invented thia acene himself. This cnncluainn is logical if
it be admitted that he makes uae of Matthew, or ef the aame ducument aa Matthew.
But by what right are such charges preferred againat a hiatnrian whuse narrative
indicatea at every step the excellence nf his nwn infurmatinn, nr nf the snurces upun
which he drew ? Du we nnt see Matthew cnntinually abridging his hiatnrical uutline,
in nrder tu give the f uUeat pnssible repurt nf the wurds nf Jesua ? In the present
caae, dn nnt the wurds : " Gn, teU Jnhn what yedu see andhear," imply the histurical
fact which Matthew umits ? It ia preciaely because the word implied the fact, that
this- evangeliat thought he might content himself with the fnrmer. The derannstra-
tive furce uf Jesus' reply appears nnt only frum the miracles, but still mere from the
cunnectinn between these facts and the signs nf the Meaaiah, as fnretnld in the Old
Teatament (laa. 35 : 4, 5, 61 : 1 ei seq.). Jesus dnes nnt mentinn the cure nf demnni
acs, because, perhaps, nn mentinn is made nf them in the O. T. Neander and
Schweitzer take the wnrds : the dead are raiaed up, in a figurative sense. .Keim
thinks that the evangelials have taken all these miracles in the literal sense, but that
Jesus understnud them in the spiritual sense ; the penple, blinded by the Pharisees,
gain knnwledge ; the pubUcans (the lepers) are cleansed frnm their defilement, etc.
The wnrks nf the Christ ahnuld be understnud in the siime spiritual sense (his in-
atructinna and miasinnary effurts). But the spiritual fruits nf the ministry nf Jesus
are nnt facts which fall under the cngnizance uf the senses. " What ye dn aee and
hear" can nnly dennte bndily cures and resurrectinns, which they either witness ur
have related. The preaching uf the guspel is intentinnally placed at the end ; it is
the characteristic feature nf the Meaaianic wurk, as it was being accumpliahed by
Jesus, in uppnaitiun tn the Idea which Jnhn had fnrmed nf it. Jesus, at the same
time, thereby reminds His forerunner ot Isa. 61 : 1. These wurds furm tha transition
tn the warning nf the 33d verse : " Blessed is he whu shall nnt be nffended in me,"
whn shall nut ask fur any nther prunf than thnse nf my Messianic dignity ; whn shall
nnt, in the humble, gentle, and merciful progress nt my wnrk, despise the true char
acteristics ef the promised Christ ! Isaiah had said ef the Messiah (8 : 14) : " He ahall
be fer a atone of stumbling ; and many among them shall stumble and fall." It ia
thia solemn warning of which Jesus reminds buth Jnhn and his diaciples, as well aa the
peuple whn witnessed the scene ; aKavda7uCeaBai : to hurt one'a aelf by atumbling. To
what a height Jesua here anars abuve the greatest representative uf the past ! But,
* Ver. 19. B. L. R. Z. sume Mnn. It"""!. , Kvpwv instead uf lyaovv. S. B. L. R. X.
Z. 16 Mnn., erepov instead uf aXXov.
X Ver. 30. !S. B., aneareiXev inatead nf a-rrearaXKev. S. B. D. L. Z. 13 Mnn., erepov
instead uf aXXom, Ver. 31. !*. B. L. anme Mnn., eKEivy inatead uf avry. !S. L,, ypspa
inatead nf opa, Ver, 32. 5*- B. D. Z. omit o lyaovs.

222 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
at the same time, what sincerity is manifested by the sacred authnrs, whu dn nnt fear
tu exhibit in, the clearest light the infirmities nf their must illustrinus heroes !
2d. Vers. 34-35. The Diacourae of Jesua. — Jesus had a debt tu discharge. Juhn had
burne striking testimnny tn Him ; He avails Himself nf this uccasinn tu pay public
hnmage in His turn tn His furerunner. He wuuld nut alluw this uppurtunity tu pasa
withnut dning it, because there was a strict snlidarity between Jnhn's missinn and Hia
nwn. Thia discuurse uf Jeaus cuncerning Juhn ia, as it were, the' funeral uratinn nf
the latter ; for he waa put tu death aunn after. Jeaua begins by declaring the im
purtance nf Jnhn's appearing (vers. 34^38) ; he next speaka nf the influence exerted
by his miniatry (vera. 39, 30) ; lastly. He deacribea the cunduct of the peuple under
theae twn great divine calla — Jnhn's ministry and Hia nwn (vera. 31-35). The same
general nrder is fnund in Matt. 11 ; lat, vera. 7-11 ; 2d, vera. 13-15 ; Sd, vera. 16-30.
Vers. 34-28.* Ihe Importance of John's Appearing, — " And when the messengers
of Juhn were departed. He began tu speak untn the penple ccncerning Juhn : What
went ye nut intn the wilderness tu see ? A reed shaken with the wind ? 35. But
what went ye nut fnr tn aee ? A man clnthed in snft raiment ? Behnld, they which
are gnrgeeualy apparelled, and live delicatelJ^ are in kinga' cnurts. 36. But what
went ye uut fnr tu see ? A prophet ? Yea, I say untu yuu, and much mere than a
prophet. 27. This is he of whnm it ia written, Behnld, I send my measenger befnre
Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way befnre Thee. 38. Fnr I say untn you.
Among these that are burn nf wnmen, there is nut a greater [pruphet] than Jnhn the
Baptiat : but he that ia leaat in the kingdum uf God is greater than he." 'Ep^aro, He
began to, aa 4 : 21 ; this term intimates the snlemnity nf the discuurse which it intro
duces. The penple themselves, by crowding tu the baptism nf Jnhn, shnwed that
they recngnized him as an extranrdinary persun ; and they were right. Is the reed
shaken by the wind an emblem here uf mural instability ? The meaning in this case
wnuld be : " Yes, Jnhn ia'really as vaciUating aa a reed " (Ewald) ; or else : " Nn,
ynu muat nnt draw thia cnnclusinn from what haa just taken place" (Meyer, Nean
der, Bleek). But this reed shaken by the wind may be regarded aimply aa the em-;
blem nf snmething nf nrdinary, every-day nccurrence. " It was nut certainly tu be
hnld something which may be seen every day that ynu flucked tu the desert." The
verb i^eXBelv, to go out, expresses the great cnmmntiun caused by such a pilgrimage.
The pert. i^E'>>yXvBaTE signifies : " What impreasinn haVe ynu retained from what ynu
went tn aee " while the aur. (Alex.) wnuld aignify : " What mutive induced yuu to
gu . . ."¦ Tischendorf acknowledgea that the pert, is the true reading. The aor.
ia taken from Mattbew. The verb BEdaaaBai dependa un i^eXyXiBarE, and muat nut
be juined tn the fnUnwing prupnsitiun : they went uut in search nf a spectacle. This
expressinn reminds us of the saying ef Jesus (John 5 : 85) : " John waa a burning and
a shining light : and ye were wiUing for a season te rejoice in his light." In any case,
therefore, John is something great — the popular opinion is not deceived here. But
* Ver. 24. The mss. are divided between vpos rmi; o;i;aou5 and ravs oxXovs. Vers.
24 and 25. Instead of s^EXyXvBarE, which is the reading ef T. R. with 12 Mjj. and the
greater part of the Mnn., iS. A. B. D. L. X. and sume Mnn. read e^yXBare ; K. II. 30
Mnn., e^yXBere. Ver. 26. Just as vers. 24 and 25, except wilh A. K. II., which
here read s^eXyXvBare with T. R. Ver. 27. S. B. D. L. X. snme Mnn. It. nmit eyo
after idov. Ver. 28. B. Z., Xeya ; S. L. X., apyv Xeyu inatead uf Xeyo yap, which is
the reading nf T. R. with 13 Mjj. and the Mnn. !*. B. ^. L. M. X. Z. n. 35 Mnn.
Itpici-iqus^ nmit irpofyrys, which is the reading nf T. R. with 10 Mjj. It""«. Syr'"''. !*.
B. L. X. nmit rov 'BaTrnarov,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 323
'there are two kinds uf greatness — earthly greatneaa, and heavenly. Of which. is
Juhn's ? If it had been, Jesus cnntinues, nf an earthly nature, Jnhn wnuld nnt have
dwelt in a wilderness, but in a palace. Hia greatness, therefnre, was uf a divine
nrder. But, accnrding tn Jewish npininn, all greatnesa nf thia kind cunsists in a
prophetic mission. Hence the conclusion at which the people arrived respecting
John, which Jesus begina by confirming, " Yea, I aay unto you ;" and then going
beyond this, and more ihan a prophet. Is it not greater, indeed, to be the subject of
prediction than to predict — to figure, in the picture of the Messianic times, as a per
ann fureseen by the prophets, than une's self te held the prophetic glass ? This ia
why John ia more than a prophet : hia appearing ia a yeypufipEvov, an event written.
The quotation from Mai. 3 : 1 is found in the three Syn. ; in Matthew, in the par
allel passage (11 : 10) ; in Mark (1 : 3), at the opening of the Gospel, but with this
difference, that he omits the words, before Thee. On the iyo, ! (after Idov), the vari
ous readings do not permit us to pronounce. This general agreement is remarkable ;
fur the quntaliun is identical neither with the Hebrew text nnr with the LXX.
Neither Malachi nnr the LXX. have the wurds, before my face, in the proposition ;
but in the second, the former says, before me, and the latter, before my face. Fur
ther, the LXX. read i^airoariXXo instead ef diroareXXa, and epSXetlierai instead of
KaraoKEvdaei. 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 wuuld nut be decisive. Fur, 1. If
the cummnn snurce is the Prutn-Mark, hnw cnuld Mark himself place this quntatinn
in quite a different cnntext ? 8. If it is the Lngia, why dues Mark, inatead uf aimply
cnpying it, umit the vrords,befor6 Time? 3. It wuuld be just the same if Mark cupied
une uf the uther Syn. 4. Neither du these cupy Mark, which dnes nut cnntain the
Ssuourse. The cuincidences in the Syn. must therefere be explained in a different
way. The substitution in Luke and Matthew nf before Thee fnr before me (in Mala
chi), results frnm the way in which Jesus Himself had cited this pasaage. In the
prophet's view. He who waa sending, and He befnre whom the way waa to be pre
pared, were one and the aame peraon, Jehovah. Hence the before me in Malachi.
But for Jeaus, who, in speaking of Himaelf, never confounds Himaelf with the
Father, a distinction became necessary. It is not Jehovah whn speaks uf Himaelf,
but Jehnvah speaking tu Jeaus ; hence the fnrm before Thee. Frnm which evidence,
dnes it nnt fnllnvv frnm this quntatinn that, in the prophet's idea, aa well as in that uf
Jeaus, Meaaiah's appearing is the appearing nf Jehnvah ? (See Gess, pp. 39, 40.) Aa
tu the uther expressiuns in cummun, Weizsacker cnrrectly explains them by saying
that, since " this quntatinn helnnged tu the Messianic demnnstratinn in habitual use,"
it acquired in this way the flxed fnrm under which we flnd it in nur Syn.
The /or, ver. 38, refers tn the wnrds, of whom ii is written. The persnn whuse let
it has been to be mentioned alung with the Messiah, must be nf 'nn nrdinary distinc
tinn. The T. R., with the Byz. Mjj. reads : " I say untu ynu, that amnng them
which are bnrn nf vguman, there hath arisen nn greater prnphet than Jnhn the Bap
tist." The Alex, umit the wurd pruphet, and rightly ; fur there is tautnlngy. Is
nut every pruphet burn nf wnman ? The superiurity uf Juhn nver all nther thencratic
and human appearancea, refers nnt tu his persunal wurth, but tu his pnsitiun and
wnrk. Did his inward life surpass that uf Abraham, Elijah, etc. . . . ? Jesua
dnes nnt say it did. But his missinn is higher than theirs. And nevertheless, Jesus
adds, the ancient order of things and the new are separated by such a gulf, that the
least in the latter has a higher pnsitiun than .Jnbu himself. The weakest disciple has

224 COMMENT-ARY CN ST. LUKE.
a mnre spiritual intuitinn nf divine things than the furerunner. He enjoya in Jesus
the dignity ef a sun, whUe Juhn is unly a servant. The leaat believer is une with
this Snn whnm Jnhn annnuncea. It dues nnt fnllu-w frnm this, that this beUever is"
mnre faithful than Jnhn. , Juhn may be further advanced un his line, but nnne the
less fur that the line nf the believer is higher than his. There is an element of a
higher life in the nne, which is wanting in the nther. Thia reflection ia added by
Jesus not with a view to depreciate Jehu, but to explain and excuse the unatead-
fastness of his faith, the oKuvdaXi^eaBai (ver. 33). Several uf the ancients understood
by tlie least Jesus Christ, as being either John's junior, or, for the time, even leas
illustrious than he. The nnly way nf suppurting thia interpretatinn wnuld be tn re
fer the wnrds, in tlie kingdom of Ood, tn is greater, which is evidently fnrced. We
have given tu the cnmparative, lesa, a superlative meaning, leaat. Meyer, pressing the
idea uf the cnmparative, gives this explanatiun : "he whn, in the new era, has a
pnsitiun relatively lesa Infty than that which Jnhn had in the nld." This meaning ia
far-fetched ; Matt. 18 : 1 ahuwa ua hnw the senae nf the cnmparative becnmes super
lative : he -whn ia greater [than the nther] ; whence : the greatest nf all. Cump. also
Luke 9 : 48. This saying, the authenticity ef which is beyond suspiciun, shuws hnw
fully cunscinus Jesus was nf introducing a principle uf life superiur tn the mnst ex
alted element in Judaism.*
Vers. 29 and 30. Betrospective Survey of the Miniatry of John. — " And all the
peuple that heard 'Him, and the publicans, justifled Gcd, being baptized with the
baptism nf Jnhn. 30. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the cnunsel uf Gnd
against themaelvea [the Pharisees and scribes rendered Gnd's design vain in their
case. — M. Qodet's Trana,], being nut baptized nf him." These verses furm the
transitinn frnm the testimnny which Jesus has just bnrne tn Jnhn, tu the appUcatinn
which he desires te make to the persons present. He attributes to the ministry nf
Jnhn a twnfnld result : a general mnvement among the Inwer classes nf the peuple,
ver. 39 ; an npen nppnsitinn nn the part nf the rulers whn determine the fate nf the
natinn, ver. 30. Several interpreters (Knapp, Neander) have been led by the histnr
ical fnrm nf these verses tn regard them as a reflectinn nf the evangelist introduced
intu the discourse nt Jesua. But such a mentiun uf a fact interrupting a discnurse
wnuld be unexampled. In any case it wnuld be indicated, aud the resumptinn nf the
discuurse pninted nut in ver. 31 ; the fnrmula. And the Bord aaid, at the cummence
ment cf this verse, is not authentic. Had Jnhn been stiU at liberty, the wnrds all
tliat heard might, strictly speaking, have referred to a fact which had taken place at
that time, te a resulution which His hearers had fnrmed In gu and be baptized by
Juhn that very hnur. But Jnhn was nn longer baptizing (3 : 19, 30 ; Matt. 11 : 3).
These wurds are therefnre the cuntinuation uf the diacourse. The meaning of Jesus
is : Jnhn's greatness (38& is nnly a parenthesis) was thnrnughly underatund by the
penple ; fur a time they did humage tu hia missinn, while {de, ver. 30) the rulers
rejected him. And thua it is that, nutwithstanding the eagerneas nf the penpie in
seeking baptism from Jnhn, his ministry has neverthelesa turned nut a decided fail
ure, in regard tu the natinn as such, owing tn the uiDpuaitiun nf ita leaders. The nb-
* It is wurth cunaidering whether the element nf knnwledge be nnt that in which
the inferinrity uf the Baptiat lies. It was frnm defective knnwledge — even accnrding
tn nur authnr's lucid accnunt (p. 320)— that Jnhn's questinn was put. Nnr can it be
said, surely, that Jnhn was nnt a snn, in the same sense in which aU believers ar<i
children nf God.— J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 225
ject understood after all tliat lieard is John the Baptist and his preaching. To juatify
God ia to recogiuze and proclaim by word and deed the excellence ef Hia waya fer tbe
aalvation of men. The expresaion : they have annulled fw themaelves the divine decree,
signifles that, although man cannot foil God's plan fer the world, he may render it
vain for himself. On this conduct nf the rulers, see 3 : 7. The indirect reprnnf ad
dressed by Jesus tn the Pharisee Nicudemus (Jnhn 3 : 5) fnr having neglected the bap
tiam cf water, cuincides in a remarkable manner with this paaaage in Luke.
In place of theae two verses, we flnd in Matthew (11 : 13-15) a paaaage cnntaining
the fnllowing thnughts : The appearing nf Jnhn was the clnse uf the legal and pro
phetical dispensatien ; and the npening nf the Messianic kingdnm tnnk place immedi
ately after. Only, men must knnw hnw tn uae a hnly vinlence in nrder tn enter intn
it (vers. 12, 13). Jnhn was therefure the expected Elijah : Blessed is he whn un
derstands it (vers. 14, 13) ! These laat twn verses uccur again in Matt. 17 : 12, where
they are bruught in mure naturally ; it is prnbable that anme similarity in the ideas
led the cnmpiler tn place them here. As tu vera. 12 and 13, they are placed by Luke
in a whnlly different and very nbscure cnnnectiun, 16 : 16. Accnrding tu Hnltzmann,
it wnuld be Matthew whn faithfully reprnducea here the common source, the Logia ;
while Luke, not thinking the ceimection satisfactory, substifutes fnr thia pasaage
frnm the Lngia annther taken frnm the prutn-Mark, which Matthew introduces at
21 : 31, 32. Since, however, he was unwiUing to loae the passage umitted here, he
givea it annther place, in a very incumprehenaible cuntext, it ia true, but with a re
versal nf the nrder uf the twn veraea, in nrder tu make the cnnnectinn mnre intelligi
ble. Hnltzmann quite pridea himaelf nn thia explanatiun, aud exclaima : " All the
difficulties are snlved. . . . This example is very instructive as shuwing the way
in which such difflculties shuuld be treated " (pp. 143-5). The unly thing proved,
in nur npininn, is, that by attempting tn explain the nrigin uf the Syn. by such manip-
ulatinns we becnme lust in a labyrinth nf imprnbabilitiea. Luke, fursunth, tunk the
passage 5 : 13-15 (Matthew) away frnm ita cnntext, because the cnnnectinn did nnt ap
pear tn him satiafactnry, and inserted thia same paaaage in hia uwn Guspel, 16 : 16, in a
cnntext where it becnmes mnre unintelligible still I Is it net much mere natural tn
suppnse that Matthew's discourse was nriginally cnmpused fnr a cnllectinn nf Lugia,
in which it bnre the title, " On Jnhn the Baptist," and that the cumpiler cnllected
under this head all the wnrds knnwn to him which Jesus had uttered at different times
nn this aubject ? As tu Luke, he fnlluws his uwn suurces nf infurmatinn, which, as
he has tnld us, faithfully represent the nral traditinn, and which furnish evidence nf
their accuracy at every freah test.
Gess endeavura, it ia true, tn prove the superiurity uf Matthew's text. The violent
(Matt. 11 : 13) would be, accnrding to him, the messengers nf Jnhn the Baptiat, thus
designated nn accuunt cf the abruptness with which they had put their questinn tu
Jesua befnre all the penple. And Jeaus declared this zeal laudable in cnmparisun
with the indifference shnwn by the peuple (vera. 31-35). But, 1. Huw cnuld Jesus
say of the disciples of Juhn that they were furcing an entrance intn tbe kingdom,
whUe they frequently assumed a hnstile attitude tnward Him (Matt. 9 : 14 ; Jnhn
3 : 36) ? 2. There wuuld be nu prnpurtiun between the gravity uf thia aaying thus
understund, and that nf the declaratinns which precede and fuUuw it upun the end uf
the prophetic and the opening of the Messianic era.
Vers. 31-35.* The Application. — " Whereunto then shall I liken the men ef this
generation ? and to what are they like ? 33. They are like untn children sitting in
the market-place, and calling nne tn anuther, and saying. We have piped untu yuu,
and ye have nnt danced ; we have mnurned tu ynu, and ye have uut wept. 33. Pur
Jnhn the Baptist came neither eating bread nnr drinking wine, and ye say. He hath a
* Ver. 31. The T. R. at the cummencement nf the verse, with aume Mnn., enre
de 0 KvpioS. Ver. 33. Instead nf kui Xeyovaiv, !** B. read a XeyEi, D. L. aume Mnn.
X,EyovTES, !S. B. D. L. Z. nmit vpiv. Ver. 35. Snme Mjj. aeveral Mnn. nmit iravrov.
S. B. snme Mnn. It. place it befnre t<jv. iJ. reads Epyuv instead uf tekvov.

226 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
devil. 34. The Sun nf man is cnme eating and drinking, and ye say, Behnld a glut-
tnnnus man and a winebibber, a friend nf publicans and sinners. 85. But Wisduin
is justifled ef all her children. " Here it isnn lunger the ministry uf Jnhn simply
that is the subject. Jesus is expressing His judgment uf the cunduct nf the genera
tinn then living, with reapect tn the twu great divine measages with which it had just
been favcred. There is suiiething severe in the dnuble questinn uf ver. 31. Jesus
has a difflculty in finding a cumpariaun that will adequately set fnrth the senseless
cunduct which He haa witnessed. At last His mind fixes on an image which answers
tu His thuught. He recaUs a game at which the children nf His time were accus
tumed tn play, and in which perhaps He had Himself in His yuuth taken part uf an
evening, in the market-place nf Nazareth. This game bnre snme resemblance tn that
which we call a charade. The players divided themselves intn twn gi-nups, nf which
each une in turn cummences the repreaentatinn nf a acene in nrdinary life, while the
nther, taking up the acene thua begun, finiahea the repreaentatinn nf it. It ia nnt
therefure, aa with us, the mere guessing nf a wnrd ; but, in cunfnrmity with the
mnre dramatic character of the uriental genius, a paasing frnm the pusitinn nf specta-
tura tn that nf acturs, sn as tn finish the repreaentatinn cnmmenced by the players
whu imagined the scene. In thia caae twu atlempta are made alternatively, nne by each
nf the twu gruupa nf children {npoa(i)avovaiv dXXyXoiS, calling one to another, ver. 33) ;
but with equal want nf auccess. Each time the acturs whnse turn it is tn start the
game are fniled by the diaagreeable humur nt their cumpanluna, whuae part it ia tu
take up the representatinn and finish the scene. The flrst cumpany cumea playing a
dance tune ; the nthera, inatead nf rising and furming a dance, remain aeated and in
different. The latter, in their turn, indicate a scene cf muurning ; the uthers, instead
uf furming themselves intn a funeral prucessinn, asaume a weary, sullen attitude.
And thus, when the game is nver, each cumpany has reasnn tn cnmplain nf the nther,
and say : "We have . . . you have nnt." The general meaning is nbvious :
the actors, in buth caaea, represent the twn divine meaaengers jnined by the faithful
fnllnwers whn gathered abnut them from the first : Jnhn, with hia call tn repentance,
and hia train nf penitents ; Jesus, with His prumises uf grace, and attended by a
cumpany nf happy believers. But while the means they emplny are sn different, and
sn nppnsed even, that it seems that any man whn resists the nne must aubmit tn this
nther, mnral insensibility and a carping spirit have reached such a height in Israel
that they paralyze their effecta.* De Wette, Meyer, and Bleek give quite a different
applicatiun nf the figure. Accurding tn them, the cumpanj' which begins the game
representa the peuple, whn want tn make the divine messengers act accnrding tn their
fancy ; the ether company, which refuses to enter intn their humur, represents Juhn
and Jesus, whn persevere, withnut deviatinn, in the path Gnd has marked nut for
them. But in this case the blame in the parable ahnuld fall nut un the secnnd
* The figure, as explained by M, Gndet, wnuld rather illustrate a want nf sympa
thy between the disciples nf Juhn and thnse uf Jesua, than the waywardneas and in
difference nf the Jewiah penple tn Gnd's messengers. Surely the difficulty which the
cnmmentaturs find here arises from pressing the currespundence nf the flgure beynnd
the aingle pnint nf the iintuwardness ef the generation to which John and Jesus
preached. — Te. [The translator'a view of M. Gudet'a rendering dnea not appear to
be well fnunded. He ia surely right in his view nf frequent indeflniteness in the in-
truductnry wnrds — an indeflniteness belnnging tn the nature of the caae. " That re
minds me," says nne, and what he saya indicates the point nf contact, the thing sug
gesting and the thing suggested. — J. H.]

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 227
cumpany, which wnuld be justified in nut entering intn a part imfinsed upon them,
but nn the flrat, which triea tn exact a tyrannical cnrapulainn un the nther. Nuw it
is nnt au at all. It ia evident that thnae nn whnm the blame faUa are the dissatisfied
and peevish spectaturs, whn each time refuse tu enter intu the prupnsed game {and
ye say . . . and ye say . . . vers. 33, 34). Besidea, when did the penple
seek tn exert such arf influence en Juhn and Jesus as wnuld be indicated here ? Laatly,
there is an evident currespundence between the twu reproaches; "We have piped
. . . we have mnurned . . ." and the twu facts : " Jnhn came . . . The
Snn nf man is cume . . ." What has led these interpreters astray is the sume
what inaccurate fnrm in which the parable is introduced at ver. 32 : " This generatinn
ia like tn children calUng nne tn anuther." But in these preambles the cunnectinn
between the image and the idea is nften indicated in a cuncise and sumewhat inaccu
rate manner. Thus Matt. 8 : 24 : " The kingdum uf heaven is like untn a man which
snwed," and elsewhere. The meaning, therefere, of ver. 32 is simply thia : " The
conduct ef the present generation toward the measengera aent to it by Gnd is like
that which takes place amung children whu . . ." By the repetitinn nf "and
ye say" (vers. 33 and 34), Jesus translates, sn tn speak, intn wnrds, the refuaal uf the
penple tu enter intn the Aeling of hnly grief nr hnly jny with which Gnd wuuld im
press them.
But nutwithstanding this general resistance, divine wisdum finds, snme hearts
which npen tn ita different sulicitatinna, and which justify by their dncilily the cnn
trary methnda it adnpts. These Jesus calla the children of wiadom, accurding tn an
expressinn used in the bunk nf Prnyerbs. Kaj (ver. 35) : " And nevertheless." The
prepusitinn and, from, indicates that Gnd's justificatinn is derived from these same
men, that is tu say, frnm their repentance nn hearing the reprnnf and threatenings uf
Jnhn, and from' their faith, resembling a jnynua amen, in the prumises nf Jesua.
ndvrov, all : nnt nne nf theae children cf wisdum remain behind . . . all furce
their way intn the kingdnm. The term wiadom recaUa the wnrd counael (ver. 30) ;
the expressiun is justified, the juaiified nf ver. 29. This cunnectinn wUl nut alluw nf
the meaning being given tu ver. 35 which snme have prupnsed : " Divine wisdum
has been justified frnm the accuaatinna (aTrd) bruught againat it by its nwn children,
the.Tewa." This meaning ia alsn excluded by the wurd all, which wnuld cnntain
an inadmissible exaggeratiun (ver. 29).* Inatead nf tekvuv, children, !S reada epyuv,
worka: " Wiadnm haa derived ita juatfflcatinu frnm the excellent wurka which it
¦ prnduces in thnae whu aubmit tn it." But the epithet irdvruv, all, dnea nnt suit this
senae. The reading ipyuv is taken from the text of Matthew, in certain documenta
<i». B. Syr. Cop.). It would be more allowable in that Gespel, in which the word
irdvTov is omitted. But even then it is improbable.
This discnurse is une nf thuse which best shnw what Jesus was as a pnpular
* Hultzmann, fnllowing Hitzig, regards the wurd irdvruv, all, as added by Luke,
whu wrongly applied (as we have dune) this expressinn, children of ¦wisdom, tn be
Uevers. 'What wnnderful sagacity uur critica have ! Nut nnly du they knnw mure
than the evangelists did respecting the meaning nf the wnrds uf tbe Master, but they
have a mnre accurate knnwledge nf their exact terms ! Fnr Hnltzmann's sense iird
wnuld have been needed instead nf dud. It is unnecessary tu refute the upininn nf
Weizsacker and uthers, whn regard the queatinn nf Jnhn the Baptist aa the firat
sign nf a new-bum faith. This npininn gives the lie tn the scene nf the baptism, tu
the testimnnies nf John the Baptist and to the answer even nf Jesus (vers, 33 and
386).

228 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
speaker. The understanding is brought into play, and the curiosity stimulated by
the interrogative form (vers. 34, 36, and 31) ; and the imagination excited by lively
images, full o^charm (vers. 34, 35, and 33). Lastly, there is a striking apphcation
to the conscience : Jehu faUed through his austerity ; I shall fail through my gentle
ness ; neither under one form nor another will you obey God. Nevertheless there
are those whose conduct by condemning you justifies God. •
5. Tlie Qraiiiude of the Woman who was a Sinner: 7:36-50. — The foUowing
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 : aU.
Vers. 36-39.* The Offence. We are still in that epoch of transition, when the
rupture between our Lord and the Pharisees, althnugh already far advanced, was nnt
cnmplete. A member nf this party cnuld still invite Him without difflculty. It has
been suppnsed that this invitatinn waa given with a hnatile intentinn. But this
Phariaee'a nwn reflectinn, ver. 39, shuws his mural state. He waa heaitating be
tween the hnly impreaainn which Jeaua made upnn him, and the antipathy which his
caate felt againat Him. Jesus speaka tn him in a tune sn friendly and familiar that
it is difficult tu suppnae him animated by malevelent feelings. Further, ver. 43
prnves unanswerably that he had received snme spiritual fceneflt from Jesua, and
that he felt a certain amnunt uf gratitude tnward Him ; and ver. 47 says expressly
that he Inved Jesus, althnugh feebly. The entrance nf the -wnman that was a sinner
intu auch snciety was an act nf great cuurage, fnr she raight expect tu be ignumini-
nualy aent away. The pnwer nf a gratitude that knew nn buunda fur a priceless
beneflt which she had received from the Saviuur can alune explain her cunduct.
Ver. -42 shuws what this beneflt was. It was the pardnn nf her numernus and fearful
sins. Was it nu hearing Him preach, nr in a private interview, nr through one nf
thnse lunka uf Jesus, whicb fnr broken hearts were Uke a ray frum heaven . . . ?
She h-dd received frnm Him the jny nf salvatinn ; and the perfume which ahe brought
with her waa the emblem ef her ardent gratitude fnr thia unapeakable gift. If we
adept the Alex, reading, the sense is : "A woman whn was a sinner in that city,"
that is tn say, whn practised in that very city her shameful prufeasinn. The received
reading : " There waa in the city a wnman that was a sinner," is less harsh. 'Apap-
TuXdS a sinner, in the same superlative sense in which the Jews thuught they might
apply this epithet tu the GentUes (Gal. 2 : 15). Mipov denntes any kind nf ndnriferuus
vegetable essence, particularly that uf the myrtle. As it was the custnm when at
table tn recline upnn a cnuch, the-feet being directed backward, and withnut their
sandals, there waa nnthing tu prevent this wnman frnm cuming up tn Jesua and
anointing His feet. But juat when she waa preparing to pay Him thia homage, she
burst into tears at remembrance of her faults. Her tears streamed down upun the
Saviuur's feet, and having nn clnth tn wipe them, ahe promptly Innaed her hair, and
with that supplied its place. In nrder tu duly appreciate this act, we must remember
that amnng the Jewa it was une uf the greatest hunuliatinns fnr a wnman tn be seen
in pubUc with her hair dcwn.f The ris who (ver. 39), refers tu the name and family,
and the norairy, what, tn the character and cunduct.
* Ver. 36. !». B. D. L. Z. It""i. snme Mnn., rov oikov instead uf ryv oiKiav. S.
B. D. L. X. Z. snme Mnu. , KareKXiBy instead nf avEKXiBy. 'Ver. 37. !*. B. L. Z. It""'.
place ynq yv after yvvy, and nut after- ev tj? ttoXei, Ver. 88. S* A. D. L. X,, e^epaaaev
instead nf E^Epa^Ev.
X See my " Cummentaire sur I'Evangile de St, Jean," chap, xu, 3.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 229
Vers. 40-43.* The Parable,— li this man wanted a prunf uf the prophetic gift nf
Jesus, he received it instantly in the fnUnwing parable, which sn exactly meets his
thnughts and secret questinns. The fnrm uf the fuUnwing cunveraatinn is kindly,
famUiar, and even slightly humurnus. It is just the tunc uf the Sucratic irony.
The denarius was equivalent tu abnut three farthinga ; the larger nf the twn sums
amuunted, therefnre, tu abnut £16, the smaller tu 33s. The furmer represents the
ennrmnus amnunt nf sins tn which this sinful wnman pleaded guilty, and which Jesus
had pardnned ; the latter, the few infractinns nf the law fnr which the Pharisee
reproached himself, and from the burden nf which Jesus had alsn released him.
'OpfluS EKpivag : " thou hast rightly judged ; and in judging su rightly, thnu hast cun
demned thyself." It is the ndm dpBusoi Sucrates, when he had caught his interlucu-
tnr in his net. But that which establishes auch an immeasurable diatance between
Jeaus and the Greek sage is the way in which Jesus identifies Himself, bnth here
and in what fnlluws, with the nffended Gud whn pardnns and whn becnmes the
ubject nf the sinner's grateful luve.
-Vers. 44r47.t Tlie Application. — Jeaus fnlluws an urder the inverse nf that which
He had taken in the parable. In the latter He descends from the cause tn the effect,
frnm the debt remitted td the gratitude experienced. In the applicatiun, nn the cnn
trary. He ascends frum the effect tu the cause. Pur the effect is evident, and cnmes
under the nbservatien of the senses {pxiireis). Jesua describes it, vera. 44r-46, while
the cauae ia concealed (ver. 47), and can enly be got at by means of the iMnciple
which forms the substance ef the parable. During the first part ef the conversation
Jesus was turned toward Simon. He now turns toward the woman whom He is
about to make the subject ef His demonstration. Jesus had not complained of the
want nf respect and the impoliteness nf His hust, But He had nuticed them, and
felt them deeply. And nnw wbat a cnntrast He draws between the cnld and meas
ured welcume nf the Pharisee, whn appeared tn think that it waa hnnnr ennugh tn
admit Him tn hia table, and the luve shnwn by this wnman that, was a sinner 1 The
custumary bath for the feet had been emitted by the nne. while cupinus tears were
- shuwered upen His feet by the ut;her ; the usual kias with which the huat received
his guests Simnn had neglected, while the wnman had cuvered His feet with kisses ;
the precinus perfume with which it waa usual tu aunint an hunured guest nn a festive
day (Ps. 33 : 5) he had withheld, but she had mnre than made up fnr the nmissiun.
In fact, it is not Simon, it is she who has done Jesus the honors ef the house ! The
emission of rys ke^uXtj^ (ver. 44) in the Alex., " [the hairs] of her head," ia prnbably
the reault nf negligence. The wnrd perfectly suits the cnntext ; the head, as the
mnst nnble part nf the bndy, is nppnsed tn the feet nf Jeaua. The reading elayXdev,
" [ever since] she entered," fnund in nne Mn., has at first glance snmething taking
abnut it. But it has tun little suppnrt ; and the T. R., " ever since I entered," is in
reality preferable. Jesus thereby reminda Simnn nf the mnment when He came under
his runf, and when He had a right tn expect thnae marks uf respect and affectinn
which had been neglected. The wnman had fnllnwed Jesus sn clusely that she had
all but entered with Him ; there she was, the mnment He was set at the table, tn pay
Him hnmage. Frnm thia visible effect — the tntal difference between the luve nf the
* Ver. 43. S. B. L. Z. anme Mnn. Syr. umit eiivE.
X Ver. 44. rys Ke(j>aXys, Which ia the reading nf T. R. with 11 Mjj. after Bpi^iv, is
umitted by 11 Mjj. 35 Mnn. Syr"*. It., etc. Ver. 45. L* anme Mnn, It""', read
EtayXBev inatead nt etay'XBov. Ver. 47. !S*, enrov inatead nf Xeya,

230 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nne and the Inve nf the nther, Jesus ascends, ver. 47, tu its hidden cause — the differ
ence in the measure nf fnrgiveness accurded tu them respectively. Oi xapi-", where
fore ; prnperly, an account of which, that is tn say, uf this cuntrast between the
respective exhibitinns nf ynur gratitude (vers. 44r46). This cnnjunctinn is the in
verse nf the therefore in ver. 43, which led frnm the cause tc the fureseen effect. We
nlight make this wherefore bear upnn the principal idea," Her sins are furgiven her."
In that case we shuuld have tu regard the wnrds Xiyu aoi, I say unto thee, as an
inserted phraae, and the last prnpnsitinn aa an exegetical explanatinn nf this where
fore : " Wherefure I say untu thee, her many aina are furgiven, and that becauae she
luved much." But we may alsn make the wherefore bear directly un " I say untu
thee," and make all the rest uf the verae the cumplement nf thia verb : " Wherefure
I say untn thee, that her many aina are furgiven heV, because that . . ." The
latter is evidently the mnre aimple cnnstructiun. The reading, I said unto thee, ef !*,
would indicate that this truth was already contained in this parable. It has neither
authority nor probability. How shnuld we Understand the wurda, for slie loved much?
Is luve, accnrding tu Jeaus, the cause uf fnrgiveness ? Catbnlic interpreters, and
even many Protestants, underatand the wurds in thia sense : Gud fnrgivea ua much
when we luve much ; little, if we Inve little. But, 1. In thia caae there is ne cuhe-
rence whatever between the parable audita applicatiun. On this principle, Jesua ¦
shuuld net have asked, ver. 43, " Which of them will love Him most ?" but, " Which
then loved Him most ?" The remission ef the two debts ef such different amounts
would result from the different degreea of love in the two debtors ; while, en the con
trary, it is the difference between the debts remitted which prnduces the different
amnunt nf gratitude. 3. There wuuld be, if pnssible, a mnre striking inceherence
StUl between the flrst part nf the applicatiun, ver. 47a, and the secnnd, ver. 476 : " To
whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." Tu be Ingical, Jesus shuuld have
aaid preciaely the cnntrary : " Whn luves little, tu him little ia furgiven." 3. The
wurda. Thy faith hath, saved tliee (ver. 50), clearly ahuw what, in Jeaua' view, was the
priiiciple un which fnrgiveness was granted tu this wnman ; it waa faith, nut luve.
Wc muat nnt furget that on, becauae, frequently expreaaea, juat aa nur for dnea, net
the relation of the effect tn ita cause, but the relatinn (purely Ingical) nf the prunf tn
the thing proved. We may aay. It is light, fnr the sun is risen ; but we may alsn
say. The sun is risen, fnr [I say this because] it is light. Sn ih this passage the on,
becauae, for, may, and, accnrding tu what precedes and fulluwa, muat mean : " I say
untn thee that her many sins are furgiven, aa thou must infer from thia, that she luved
much." Thus all is unnaiatent, the applicatiun with the parable, this saying with the
wurds that fnlluw, and Jesus with Himself and with St. Paul. Ver. 475 cnntains the
uther side uf the applicatiun nf this same principle : the less fnrgiveness, the leaa luve.
This is addressed tn Simnn. But with delicacy nf feeling Jesus gives this severe
truth the furm nf a general propnsitinn, "He io wlwm . . . ;'' just as He alsu did
with Nicudemus, " Except a man be bnrn . . ." (Jnhn 3 : 3).
The thuught expressed in this ver. 47 raises twu difflculties : 1. May fnrgiveness
be unly partial ? Then there wnuld be men half-saved and half -lust I 3. Is it neces
sary tu have sinned deeply in nrder tn luve much ? The real furgiveneaa uf the leaat
ain certainly cnntaina in germ a cumplete salvatinn, but nnly in germ. If faith is
maintained and grows, thia fnrgiveness wiU gradually extend tu all the sins uf a man's
life, just aa they wiU then becnme mnre thnrnughly knnwn and acknnwledged. The
flrat fnrgiveness is the pledge uf all the rest. Iri the cnntrary case, the fnrgiveness

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 231
already granted wUl be withdrawn, just as represented in the parable nf the wicked
debtnr. Matt. 18 ; and the wnrk uf grace, instead uf becuming cnmplete, wiU prove
aburtive. All is transitinn here belnw, free tranaitinn, either tn perfect aalvatiun ur
tu cnmplete cnndemnatinn. Aa tn the great amnunt nf sin necesaary in nrder tn Inving
ranch, we need add nuthing tn what eachnt ua already has ; ills sufflcient tu eatimate
accurately what we have. Wh-at ia wanting tn the beat uf us, in nrder tu luve much,
ia nnt sin, but the knnwledge uf it.
Vers. 48-50. Conclusion. Bleek has inferred from ver. 48, thy sins areforgiven
thee, that untU this mnment the wnman had nnt ubtained furgiveneaa. This suppusi
tinn is excluded by all that precedes. Bleek fnrgets that a^eovrai ia a perfect indica
ting an actual atate resulting frnm an act accumpliahed at anme indeflnite time in the
past. Having regard tn the Pharisaical denials nf the persuns cumpnsing the assem
bly, and tn the duubts which might arise in the heart cf the sinning wuman herself,
Jesus renews tu her the assurance nf the divine fact ef which she had within her the
witness and warrant. This direct and peraonal declaration curreapunds with the
inward witness nf the Divine Spirit in nur uwn experience, after we have embraced
the promises uf the Wurd (Eph. 1 : 13). On the ubjectinn, ver. 49, cump. ver. 21.
Kai, even; besides all the uther extranrdinary things He dnes. Jesus cnntinues aa if
He had net heard, but all the whUe taking account of what was being said around
Him {slirs de, " but He said") . While addresaing the wnman He shuws the peuple
aasembled the flrm fnundatinn nn which her furgiveneaa reata. She haa the beneflt nf
thia decree : WhuSuever believeth ia aaved. Let her gn away, then, with her treaa-
ure, her peace, in spite cf aU their pharisaical murmurs I Eif slpyvyv, in peace, and
tu enjuy peace.
This beautiful narrative, preserved by Luke alune, cnntains the twn essential ele
ments nf what is called Pauliniam — the freeneas and univeraality uf aalvatiun. Dues
it fnllnw frum this that it was invented pusteriur tu Paul in nrder tn aet fnrth these
great principles ? It aimply prnves that it waa Luke's intentinn, aa he said at the
beginning (1 :4), tu shnw by his Gnspel, that the ductrine an clearly expressed and sn
earnestly preached by Paul was already cnntained in germ in all the acts and teaching
nf Jesua ; that ihe Gospel of Paul is nnthing but the applicatiun uf the principles
previuusly laid duwn by the Lurd Himselt.
A very simUar narrative tn this is fnund in the nther three Gnspels, but assigned
tn a much later time — tn the Passinn week. Mary, a sister nf Lazarus, anuints Jeaua
at a repaat which is given Him by the penple nf Bethany (Matt. 26 : 6, et seq. ¦ Mark
14 : 3, ei seq. ; Jnhn 12 : 1, ei seq.), A great number nf interpreters agree that this
incident ia the same as that we have juat been cnnsidering in Luke. They rely nn
the simUarity nf the act, un the circumstance that Luke dnes nnt relate the anninting
at Bethany ; and that, un the uther hand, the three nther evangelists dn nnt mentinn
this in GalUee ; and lastly, nn the fact that in buth cases the uwner nf the hnuse
where the repaat ia given beara the name uf Simnn (Luke 5 : 40 ; Matt. 26 : 6 ; Mark
14 : 3). Theae reasuna, duubtleaa, have their weight ; but they are nut decisive.
The act uf anniuting was assuciated with such a cummnn usage nn festive nccasinns
(Luke 5 : 46 ; Ps. 33 . 5), that there can be nn difficulty in suppnsing that it waa
repeated. The cauaea nf the nmissiun nf a narrative in nne nr twn uf the evangelists
are tun accidental fur ua tn be able tu base any aulid cnncluainn upun it. We need
nnly refer tu the umiasinn in Mattbew nf the healing uf the pnssessed at Capernaum,
and uf the healing nf the centurinn's servant in Mark, nmisaiuna which it ia impnssi
ble tu accuunt fur. As tu the name Simnn, it was an cummnn, that nut nf the small
number of persuns designated by name in the N, T., there are nn less than fifteen
Simons ! 'The reasons in favor of the difference of the two incidents are the follow-

232 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ing : Isi. The difference cf place — Galilee in Luke ; in the other three, Judaea. This
reason is of secondary value, it is true, becauae in chap. 10 Luke appeara to place
the visit ef Jesus to Martha and Mary in the midat of the Galilean ministry. 2d.
The difference of time. Sd. Tlie difference of persons : the woman that was a sinner,
in Luke, is a stranger in the hOuse ef the host (ver. 37, "a woman of ihe city"), and
Simon -himaelf regards her as such, and aa altogether unknown to Jeaus (ver. 39) ;
Mary, en the contrary, belongs tn a belnved family, which habitually received Jesus
under their runf . Besidea, we muat always feel a -repugnance tn identify Mary the
aiater nf Lazarua, as we knnw her in Jnhn 11 and Luke 10 : 38-43, with a wnman uf
ill fame. 4:ili. The muat impnrtant difference reapects what waa said : at Bethany, a
cunrplaint frnm Judas nn behalf uf the pnnr, and a reply frnm Jesus annnuncing Hia
approaching death ; in Galilee, the great evangelical declaratinn, that luve is the fruit
nf fnrgiveness, which is bestuwed nn the simple cunditiun nf faith. What agreement
can be diacnvered between these twu cnnversatiens ? We may cnnceive nf very cun
siderable altcratinns being made by traditinn in the histnrical framewurk nf a narra
tive. But by what marvellnus process cnuld une nf these twn cunversatinna have
been tranafurmed intn the nther ?
6. The Womenwho ministered to Jesua : 8 : 1-3. — By the side nf the high religinus
problems raised by the life nf Jesus, there ia a questinn, seldum cnnsidered, which
nevertheless pnsaesses snme interest : Hnw did Jesils find the means nf subsistence
during the twn nr three years that His miuiatry lasted ? He had given up His earthly
nccupatinn. He deliberately refrained frum using His miraculnus pnwer tn supply
His necessities. Further, -He waa nnt alnne ; He was cnnstantly accumpanied by
twelve men, whn had alau abanduned their trade, and whuae maintenance He had
taken nn Himself in calling them tn fnllnw Him. The wants nf this itinerant society
were met nut nf a cummnn purse (Jnhn 13 : 39) ; the aame anurce furnished their
alms tu the punr (Jnhn 13 : 6). But hnw waa this purse itself filled ? The problem
is partly, but nnt cempletely, explained by hnspitality. Had He nnt varinus needa,
of clnthing, etc. ? The true answer tn this questinn is furnished by thia passage,
which pusseases, therefnre, cunaiderable interest. Jesua said : " Seek firat the king
dum uf Gud, and uther thinga ahall be added untn yuu." He alau said : " There is
nnne that leavea father, muther, . . . hnuae, lands fer the kingdom of Gnd, who
dnea net find a hundred times more." He derived theae precepta from Hia daily
experience. The grateful love ef those whom He filled with His spiritual riches
provided for Hia temporal necessities, as well as for these of His disciples. Some
pinus wnmen spuntaneuusly rendered Him tbe services uf muther and aiatera.
This pasaage wnuld suffice tn prnve the exceUence uf Luke's snurces ; their urig
inality, fnr the nther evangelists furnish nn aimUar infurmatinn ; their exactness, fnr
whn wnuld have invented such simple and pusitive details, with the names and rank
nf these wnmen ? and their purity, fur what can be further remnved frnm false mar
vels and legendary fictinna than this perfectly natural and prusaic accuunt nf the
Lurd's means nf subsistence during the cnurse uf Hia ministry ?
Vers. 1-3.* Luke indicates thia time aa a distinctly marked epuch in the-uiinistry
nf the Lnrd. He ceases tn make Capernaum, His 'idia noXis, Hia own city (Matt. 9 : 1),
the centre nf His activity ; He adepts an altngether itinerant mnde nf life, and liter
ally has nn place where tn lay Hia head. It is this change in His mude nf living,
carried nut at this time, which induces Luke tu place here thia glimpse intn the means
* Ver. 3. Instead nf avru, which ia the reading nf T. R. with !». A. L. M. X. II.
several Mnn. It""i., avrois is read in 13 Mjj. 90 Mnn. Syr. It»"i. Or. Aug. The
MSS. vary between ek and ano.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 233
nf His material support. The aor. iyevero, ii came to paas (ver. 1), indicates a definite
time. The ruI before airoS, as the aign nf the apndusis, betrays an Aramaean snurce.
The imperf. diadeve. He went throughout, denntes a slnw .and cuntinunus mnde nf
travelling. The prepusitinn Kord expressea the particular care which He beatuwed
nn every place, whether large {eiiy) nr small {village). Everywhere Hp gave Himself
time tn stay. Tu the general idea nf a prnclamatinn, expreaaed by the verb KypvaaEiv,
to preach, the secund verb, to evangelise, tn annnunce the glad tidings nf the kingdum,
adds the idea uf a prnclamatinn uf grace as the prevaU ing character cf His teaching. '
The Twelve accumpanied Him. What a strange sight thia little band presented, pass
ing thrnugh the cities and cnuntry as a number nf members nf the heavenly kingdum,
entirely given up to the work of spreading and celebrating salvation 1 Had the
world ever seen anything like it ? Among the women who accumpanied this band,
filling the humble nffice nf servants, Luke makes special mentinn first nf Mary, sur
named Magdalene. This surname is probably derived frnm her being nriginally from
Magdala, a tnwn situated nn the wcstsrn shure nf the sea nf GaUlee (Matt. 15 : 39),
the situatinn nf which tn the nnrth uf Tiberias is still indicated at the present day by
a viUage named El-Megdil {the tower). The seven demnns (Mark 16 ; 9) dennte with
nut duubt the culminating puint nf her pussessinn, resulting frum a series nf attacks,
' each nf which had aggravated the evil (Luke 11 : 34^36). It is withnut the leaat
fnundatinn that traditinn identifiea Mary Magdalene with the penitent sinner uf chap.
7. Pussessinn, which is a disease (see 4 : 33), has been wrongly cnnfnunded with a
state nf mnral cnrruptinn. The surname, of Magdala, is intended tn distinguish this
Mary from all the uthers nf this name, mure particularly from her uf Bethany.
Chuza was probably intrusted with some nfflce in the hnusehuld uf Herod Antipas.
Might he not be that BaaiXiKoS, court lord, whose sou Jesus had healed (John 4), and
who had beUeved with all hia Iiouse ? We know nothing ef Susanua and the other
women. Alnves reminds ua that it was in the capacity of aervants that they accom
panied Him. AiaKcfveiv, to serve, here denotea pecuniary aaaistance, as Rom. 15 : 35,
and also the personal attentions which might be rendered by a mother or sisters (ver.
31). The reading of the T. R., air^, who served Him, may be a correction in accord
ance with Matt. 37 : 55, Mark 15 : 41 ; but the reading airalc, who served tliem, ia the
more probable one accnrding tn ver. 1 (the Twelve) and 4 : 39.
What a Meaaiah fur the eye nf flesh, this being living un the charity nf men ! But
what a Messiah fnr the sph'itual eye, this Snn nf Gnd living nn the luve nf thnae tu
whnm Hia nwn luve is giving life I What an interchange nf gnud nfflces between
heaven and earth gnes nn around His perann !
7. The Parable of the Sower : 8:4-18.— The preceding passage indicated a change
in the mnde of the Lurd's uutward life. The folluwing passage indicates a change in
Hia mnde nf teaching ; a crisis, therefnre, haa been reached. The aequel wUl make
us acquainted with its nature. Befnre this, Jesus had spuken a few parables
(5 : 36-39, 6 : 39, 47, et seq.). From nnw, and fnr a very lung time. He habitually makes
use of this methnd. The parable pnasesses the dnuble property nf making an indelible
impresainn uf the truth en the mind of him who is able te perceive it through the
flgure in which it is clothed, aud of veiling it from the ubservatinn nf the inattentive
nr indnlent hearer whuse mind makes nu effurt tn penetrate this cnvering. It is thus
admirably fltted fnr making a selectinn frnm the hearers. The term parable (frnm
irapa^aXXeiv, to place side by side) denntes a fnrm nf inatructinn iu which, by the side nf
the truth, is placed the' image which representa it. This is alsu the meaning of ^

234 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
irapoi/iia, a path by the side nf the high rnad. The parable bears a clnse resemblance
tn the fable ; but it differs frum it in twu respects, une nf substance, the ether of form.
While the fable refers ^n the relatiuns of men with nne annther, and to the mnral
laws which regulate these relatiuns, the parable deals with man's relatiuns with Gud,
and with the Infty principles by which they are gnvcrned. The luftier sphere in
which Ihe parable mnves determines the difference cf fnrm which distinguishes it
from the fable. The fable partakes cf a humornua character ; it ia quite alluwable,
therefure, in it tu make plants and animals speak. The aim nf the parable is tne
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 must not asaume a character contrary to their actual nature. The
parable waa the must natural mude nf teaching for Jeaus tn adnpt. Living in the
incessant cnntemplatinn nf the divine wurld, which lay npen tu His inward sense,
finding Himself at the same time alsu in cnnstant intercnurse with the external wnrld,
which He nbserved with intelligent and calm attentinn. He was necessarily led to
make conatant comparisons of these two spheres, and tn perceive the innumerable
analngies whicb exist between them.
The flrat parable He uttered that was fully wurked nut, appears tn have been this
nf the anwer. Matthew makes it the npening parable nf the large cnllectinn in chap.
13. Mark aasigns it a simUar place at the head nf a mnre limited cnllectinn, chap.
4. It is the nnly nne besides that nf the vine-dressers, a parable belnnging tn nur
Lurd's last days, which has been preserved in all the three Syn. In all three, the
general explanatinn, which Jesus gives His disciples nnce fnr all, as tn why He
empluys this fnrm uf teaching, is cunnected with the accnunt uf this parable. It
appears, therefure, that it was the flrst cnmplete similitude that He cffered them.
Murenver, it was the une which seems tn have struck the disciples the must, and
which was muat frequently tuld in the nral traditiun ; this explains its reproduction
by our three evangelists.
The following passage contains : 1st. The parable (vera. 4-8) ; 2d. The explana-
tiena given by Jeaua reapecting thia mode nf teaching (vera. 9 and 10) ; Sd. The expe-
sitinn nf the parable (vers. 11-15) ; Atli. A warning tn the apustles as tu the cnurse
tbey must pursue in regard tn truths which Jeaus teaches them in this way (vers.
16-18). 1st. Vers. 4-8.* The Pan'dble. — Matthew and Mark place thia parable after the
viait nf the muther and brethren nf Jeaua (Matt. 13 : 1 ; Mark 4 : 1). In Luke it
, immediately precedes the same narrative (ver. 19, et aeq.). This cnnnectinn may be
the result nf a real chrnnnlngical relatinn, ur nf a mural relatinn as well ; cnmp. ver.
15, " thnse whu keep the wurd and bring fnrth fruit," with ver. 31, " thnse whn hear
the wnrd nf Gnd and practise it." We inight make ruv iiziiropEvopevov, coming
together unto Him, the cnmplement uf dxXov, a multitude, by giving kuc the sense of
even. But this cnnstructiun is fnrced the twn genitives, are parallel. Luke's mean
ing is : " As a great multitude was gathered abnut Him, and as it was ccntinuaUy
increasin.g,' ewing tu fresh additinns, which were arriving mnre ur lesa frum every
city." This prefatury remark cuutains a great deal. Jesus gnes thrnugh the cnuntry
atupping at every place ; the Twelve are His immediate attendants ; the cities are
* Ver. 4. !*. some Mnn., avmvrot. Ver. 6. B. L. R. Z., KureneaEV instead cf
E-rreaev. "Ver. 8, Almost aU the Mjj, read ets instead ef Em, which is the readingof
T. R. with D. and some Mnn.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 235
emptied, so to speak ; their entire pnpulations accnmpany Him. We have evidently
reached a crisis. But the mnre the number uf His hearers increases, the mere clearly
Jeaus sees that the time has ceme to set some sifting process to work among them ;
if, on the one hand, it is neceasary to draw the spiritual inte closer attachment, on
the other, it ia ef 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 state nf things. It appears frnm Matthew and Mark that Jesus was
seated in a vessel nn the sea-shnre, and that from this kind uf pulpit He taught the
peuple whn stund upnn the banks. He cuuld therefnre easily discern the varinus
expressinns nf the persuns cumpnsing the multitude. The art. 6 befnre avEipov desig
nates that nne uf the servants whu has beeu intrusted with this wurk. Geaa puints
uut the .cuntrast between this snwer, whn cummences the wnrk nf establiahing the
kingdum nf Gnd by meana nf the Wurd alune, and the Messiah, as pictured by Jnhn
the Baptist, having Hia fan in His hand. Jesua divides His hearers intn fnur clasaea,
and cumparea them tu fnur kinds uf snil, nf which the surruunding cnuntry furnished
Him with Ulustratiuns at the very time He waa speaking. From the edge nf the
lake the snil rises very rapidly ; nnw, un such slnpes, it easily happens that tbe higher
purtiun uf a fleld has unly a thin layer uf muuld, while, guing dnwn tnward the plain, the
bed nf earth becnmes deeper. Hence the differences indicated. The first . sull
(by the wayside) is the part neareat the path which is freely used by passers-by. The
secnnd {on tlie rock, accnrding tn Luke ; in stony placea, in Matthew and Mark) dnes
nnt dennte, aa ia nften thuught, a snU full uf stnnes ; but, as is well expressed by
Luke, and cunfirmed by the explanatiun, becauae there waa no depth of earth (Matthew
and Mark), that purtiun uf the field where the ruck is nnly cnvered with a thin layer
nf earth. The third is a fertile snil, but already chuke-full uf the seeds nf thurns
and briers. There remains the good aoil (Mark and Matthew, KaXy). This laat land
is neither hard as the first, nnr thin aa the secund, nur unclean as the third ; it is snft,
deep, and free frum uther aeeda. The fnur prep, emplnyed by Luke well describe
these different relatiuns uf the seed with the snil : ^rapa, by the side ; ini, upon ; iv
psau, in tlie midst; eis, into {ini in the T. R., ver. 8, has nnly very insufflcient
authnrities). The fate nf the seed is determined by the nature uf the anil. On the first snil it
dues nnt even spring up. The fvev, having spi'ung up (vers. 6-8), is passed nver in
silence in the 5th verse.* Nnt having germinated, the aeed ia deatruyed by external
cauaea, the passers-by and the birds. Matthew and Mark mentiun nnly the latter.
On the secnnd snil the seed springs up ; but the runt, imraediately meeting with the
ruck, cannnt develnp itself in ijrnpnrtinn tu the stem, and, as sunn as tbe sun has
dried up the thin layer nf earth, the plant perishes. The seed un the third sell grows
intn ear ; but briers chuke it befnre the grain is fnrmed. Thus in the firat case there
are twn external causes cf destructinn ; in the secnnd, an external and an internal
cause ; in the third, a single cauae, and thia altngether internal. On the fnurth snil
the plant successfully accnmplishes the entire cycle nf vegetatinn. Luke nnly men
tiuns the highest degree ef fertility, a hundred-fold. Matthew and Mark speak ef
lesser degrees ¦/ Mark in an ascending, and Matthew in a descending order. Hnw
-puerile and unwnrthy nf earnest men these trifling variatiuns wnuld be, if the evan
gelists wnrked upnn a- cummnn ducument !
The Lurd invites the serinus attentinn nf the multitude te this result ; i<j>6vei. He
raiaea His voice [He cried, A.V.], these arc the wnrds which He emphasizes. He

236 , COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
endeavors to awaken that iiiiward sense fnr divine things, withnut which religinus
teaching is only an' empty snund. The design nf Jesus is, flrst uf all, tn shuw-that
He is nut deceived by the sight uf this crowd, which is apparently su attentive ; then
tn put His disciples nn their guard against the expectatiens. which such a large cnn
cnurse might create in their minds ; lastl.y, and mnre than all, tn warn His hearers nf
the perila which threatened the hnly impreaaiuns they were then experiencing.
2d, Vers. 9 and 10.* The Parables in general. — " And His disciples aaked Him,
aaying. What might this parable be ? 10. And He said, Untn ynu it ia given tn
knnw the myateriea ef tbe kingdom nf Gnd : but to others in parables ; that seeing
they might net see, and hearing they might not understand." The question ef the
disciples referred solely tn the meaning nf the preceding parable ; but Jesus takes
advantage nf it tn give them a general explanatiun uf this mnde nf teaching. It ia
the aame in Mark, whu nnly adda this detail : when they were alone with Him. In Mat
thew the questinn nf the disciples is altngether .general : " Wherefure speakest Thnu
ulitn them in parables ?" This furm nf the queation appeara to us less natural. The
reply nf Jesua is mure extended in Matthew. He quntes in extenso the prophecy uf
Isaiah (chap. 6) tn which Luke's text alludes, and which Mark incurpnrates intn the
discnurse nf Jesus. Bleek prufesaes tn flnd in the becauae nf Matthew (13: 13) a lesa
harsh thuught than the in order thai oi Mark and Luke. He is wrung ; the thuught
is absnlutely the aame. In both cases, Jesus distinctly declarea that the object nf
Hia parables is nnt tn make divine trutha intelligible to all, but tu veil them frum
thuse whn are indifferent tn them. And it ia fur thia very reaaun that He availa Him
self uf this mude uf teaching juat from this time. By such preaching as the Sermnn
un the Muunt He had accnmplished the first wurk nf His apiritual fishing ; He had
cast the net. Nnw begins the secnnd, the wnrk uf selectinn ; and this He accnm
plishes by means nf teaching in parables. As we have aeen, the parable pnsaesses the
dnuble property uf attracting anme, while it repela nthers. The veil which it throws
nver the truth becnmes transparent tn the attentive mind, while it remains impenetra
ble tn the careless. The upposition between these two resulta is expressed in Luke
by these words designedly placed at the beginning ef the phrase, io you and io othera.
It is the same in Matthew, to you and to thoae ; in Mark, more forcibly atill, to you
and io tlwae who are without. The pert, dedorai dees nnt refer tn any antecedent decree
(the anr. wuuld have been required), but tu the actual cnnditinn nf the disciples,
which renders them flt tn receive the revelatiun uf divine thinga. It ia the inward
drawing due tn divine teaching, nf which Jeaus speaks in Juhn 6. The term mystery,
in Scripture, denntes the plan nf salvatinn, in sn far as it can nnly be knnwn by man
thruugh a higher revelatiun (pveo, to initiate). Used in the plural ifhe mysieriei), it
denntes the different parts nf thia great whule. These are the heavenly things uf
which Jesus spuke tn Nicudemus (Jnhn 3 : 13), and which He cnntrasted with the
earilily things which He had preached at the cummencement. The verb understund
befnre 'ev irapafioXais is 'XaXelrai. But huw, when Gnd makes a revelatiun, can it be
His will nnt tn be understood, as Isaiah says (chap. 6), and aa ia repeated here by
Jesus ? That is nut, as Riggenbach says, either His first will nr His laat. It ia an
intermediate decree ; it is a chastisement. When the heart has failed tn npen tn the
flrst beams nf truth, the brighter beama which fnllnw, inatead uf enlightening, dazzle

Ver

Ver. 9. !*. B. D. L. R. Z. anme Mnn. Syr. Rp'"'!"", nmit XeyovTss befnre nf.
10. K. R. sume Mnn., uKovauaiv inatead uf c^wioaiv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 237
and bUnd it ; and this result is willed by Gnd ; it is a judgment. Since Pharanh
refuses tn humble himself under the flrst lessuns he receives, subsequent lesauna shall
harden him ; fur, if he is unwUling tn be cunverted himself, he must at leaat subaerve
the cunversinn nf uthers by the cunspicunusneas nf his punishment. The Jewish
penple themselves, in the time of Isaiah, were just in this pnaitinn. Gnd makes them
feel this by calling them, nnt my people, but thia people. Gud already sees that the
natinn is incapaWe uf fuMlUng the partef an apostle te the world which had departed
from Him. This part it shaU accumplish, nevertheleas ; nnly it shall nut be by iis
miasinnary actinn, but by its ruin. This ruin, therefnre, becnmes necessary ; and
because this ruin is necesaary (Matthew), er in order that it may take place (Mark and
Luke), Israel muat be hardened. A similar state ef thinga recurred at the period in
Jesus' ministry which we have new reached. larael rejected as a nation the light
which shune in Jesus ; and this light cuvered itself under the veU uf the parable. But
thruugh this veU it sent uut atiU mnre brilliant rays intn the hearta uf thnse whu, like
His disciples, had welcnmed with eagerness its flrst beams. The terms, see, hear,
refer tn the descriptiun iu the parable ; not seeing, and not under sicunding, tn its real
meaning. Sd. Vers. 11-15.* The Explanation of the Parable. — The expreaainn. Now the par
able is this (ver. 11), signifles that the essence nf the picture is nut in its nutward fnrth,
but in its idea. The puint uf resemblance between the wnrd and the seed is the
Uving pnwer cnntained in a vehicle which cunceals it. By the word Jeaua duubtleaa
meana primarily His uwn teaching, but He alsn cumprehenda in it any preaching
that faithfuUy representa Hia nwn. Amnng the multitude Jeaus discerned fnur kinds
nf expressiun : cuuntenances expreaaing thnughtlessness and indifference ; faces full
nf enthusiasm and delight ; nthers with a care- wurn, preoccupied expression ; and
lastly, expressions ef serene joy, indicating a full acceptance of the truth that was
being taught. In the explanation which follows, the word is sometimes identifled
with the new life which is to spring from it, aud the latter with the individuals them
selves, in whom it ia found. Thia accounta for the strange expressions ; those which
are aownby the wayside (ver. 13 ; comp. vers. 13, 14, 15) ; these have no root (ver. 13) ;
they are choked (ver. 14). The flrst class contains these who are whuUy insensible tn
religiun, whu are cnnscinus uf nn need, have nn fear uf cnndemnatinn, nn desire uf
salvatinn, and cunsequently nu affinity with the gnspel uf Christ. In. their case,
therefnre, the wnrd becnme^ a prey tu external agents nf destructinn. Only une
is mentiuned in the applicatien, the devil (Luke), Satan (Mark), ihe evil one (Matthew),
who empleys various meana of diverting their minds, in order to make them forget
what they have heard. Had not Jesus believed in the exiatence of Satan, He w6uld
never have spoken of him aa a reality anawering to the figure of the parable. OJ
aKoiovreg, who hear, muat be thus explained : " who hear, and nothing more." This
impUes Matthew's do not undlerstand.
The second are the superflcial but excitable natures, in whom imagination and
sensibility for the moment make up fer the absence ef moral feeling. They are
charmed with the novelty of the Goapel, and the opposition which it offers to received
ideas. In every awakening, such men form a considerable portion of the new con
verts. But in their case the word soon comes intn cnnflict vrith an internal hin-
* Ver. 13. !*. B. L. U. Z. snme Mnn., uKovaavTES instead uf uKovovres. Ver. 13.
K* D. F". X. , Tifv irerpav instead uf ryS nerpas.

238 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
drance : a heart of stone which the humUiatiun nf repentance and the love nf hnliness
have never bruken. Thus it flnds itself given nver tn external agents of destructinn,
such as temptation (Luke), tribulation, and persecution (Matthew and Mark) ; the
enmity nt the rulers, the rage nf the Pharisees, the .danger ef excnmmunicatiun, in a
wnrd, the necesaity of auffeiing in order to remain faithful. Those who have merely
aought for spiritual enjoyment in the Gnapel are therefere nvercnme. In ver. 13 the
verb elaiv must be understnud, and ol Srav must be made the predicate : are those who,
when . . . The ol at the end uf the verse is a develupment nf ovtoi, and signifies
who, aa auch.
The third are persons with a measure nf earneatneas, but their heart is divided ;
they aeek salvatinn and acknnwledge the value cf the gnspel, but they are bent also
upun their earthly welfare, and are not determined to sacriflce everything for the
truth. Theae persona are nften fnund at the present day amnng thnae whu are re
garded as real Cliriatians. Their wurldly-mindedness maintains its ground nutwith
atanding their aerinus interest in the gnapel, and tn the end hinders their cumplete
cunversinn. The miscarriage nf the seed here results frnm an inward cause, which
is bnth une and threefeld : cares (in the case nf thnae whu are in pnverty), riches (in
thnse whn are making their fnrtune), and the pleasures nf life (in thnse whn are
already rich). These persuns, like Ananias and Sapphira, have uvercurae the fear ef
peraecution, but, like them, they succumb to the inward nbatacle nf a divided heart.
Uopevdpevoi, go forth, deacribea the buatle nf an active life, cuming and gning iu the
tranaactinn nf business (3 Sam. 3 : 1). It is in this verse especially that the seed is
identifled with the new life in the believer. The fprm differs cempletely in the
three Syn.
In the fourth their apiritual wanta rule their Ufe. Their conscience is net asleep,
as in the flrst ; it is that, aud not, as in the case ef the second, imagination or sensibU-
ity, which rules the wUl ; it prevails ever the earthly interests which have away in
the third. These are the aouls deacribed b.y Paul in Rom. 7. 'Ev Kapdia and riv
Xoyov depend en the two verbs aKovaavreQ Karexovatv combined, which together denote
one and the same act : to hear and to keep, for such peraona, are the aame thing. The
term peraeverance refers to the numerous obstacles which the aeed haa had te over
come in order to ita full development ; comp. the kuB' vnopovyv ipyov dyuBov (Rem.
3 : 7). Jeaua was certainly thinking here of the disciples, and of the devoted women
who accompanied Him. Luke makes no mention eijhor in the parable er the ex
planation of the different degrees of fertility indicated by Matthew and Mark, and the
latter mention them here also in a contrary order.
We de not think that a single verse ef this explanation of the parable is compati
ble with the hypnthesis uf the empluyment nf a cummnn text by the evangelista, or
nf their having cupied frnm each nther ; at least it muat be admitted that they allnwed
themselves tn trifle, in a puerUe and prufane way, with the wnrds uf the Lnrd. The
cnnstant diversity nf the three texta ia, nn the nther hand, very naturally explained,
if their original snurce was the traditiunal teaching.
ith. Vers. 16-18.* Practical Conclusion, — " Nn man, when he hath lighted a can
dle, cnvereth it with a vessel, ur putteth it under a bed ; but setteth it un a candle
stick, that they which enter in may see the light. 1 7. Per nnthing ia secret that shaU
* Ver. 16. The mss. vary between eiri Xvxyias and em ryv Xvxviav (a reading de
rived frum Matthew and Mark, and frum 11:33). Ver. 17. 5*. B. L. Z., o m py
yvaaBy instead nf o ov yvoaByaerai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 239
not he made manifest ; neither anything hid that shall nnt be knnwn and cume
abroad. 18. Take heed therefnre hnw ye hear ; fnr whusnever hath, tu him shaU be
given ; and whusnever hath nut, frnm him shaU be taken even that which he seemeth
tu have." Bleek can perceive nn cunnectinn between these reflectiuns and the pre
ceding parable. But they are clusely cunnected with the similar reflectiuns in vers.
9 and 10. There is even a designed antithesis between the growth nf the light (ver.
16 and 17) and the increase uf the darkness (ver. 10). Jesus is speaking tn the dis
ciples. The wnrd which is translated candle denutea simply a lamp, juat a aaucer
filled vrith nil in which a wick ia placed — the mnde uf lighting muat used in the East.
It may therefnre be placed withnut any danger under auch a vessel as a bushel,
which serves at nnce fnr measure, table,|^and dish amnng the pnnr, ur under the divan
(KXivy), a bench furnished with cushiuns and raised frnm the flunr frnm une tn three
feet, nn which it is custumary tn rest while engaged in cunversatiuu ur at meals.
Beds prnperly sn called are nnt used in the East ; they generally lie en the ground,
on wraps and carpets.* The Ughted lamp might denote the apostles, whom Jesus
enlightens with a view te make them the teachers of the wnrld. Covering their light
wnuld be nut putting them intn a pnsitiun nf sufficient influence in regard tu uther
men ; and setting it on a candlestick wuuld signify, cnnferring nn them the apustnlic
office, in virtue of which they wUl become the light of the world. Theae who see
the light en entering the house would be their converta from the Jewa and hea
then. Ver. 17 would be an aUusiOn, as in 13 : 3, to that law according to which.
truth is to be fully revealed te the world by the apostolic preaching. Lastly, the
18th verse would refer tn that growth uf inward light which is the recumpense uf the
preacher fnr the faithfulness nf his labnrs. But it is just this last verse which upsets
the whule uf thia interpretatinn. Fnr, 1. With this meaning, Jesus ought tn have
said, nnt : Take heed how ye hear, but, how ye preach. 2. To have, in the aense of
the 18th verse, is nut certainly tu produce fruits in nthers, but tu pnssess the truth
one'a self. We must therefnre regard the term X'vxvos, the lamp, as denoting
the truth concerning the kingdom of Gud which Jesua unveila tn the apustles
in His parables. If He clnthes the truth in sensible images, it is nnt tu render
it uninteUigible {to put it under a bushel) ; nn th'fe cnntrary, in explaining
it tn them, as He has just dune, He places it nn the candleatick ; and they
are the persuns whn are Ulumlnated nn entering intn the hnuae. All wUl gradu
ally becnme clear tn them. WhUe the night thickena uver Israel nn accnunt uf
its unbelief, the disciples will advance intn even fuller light, until there is nnthing
left in the plan uf Gud {His mysteries, ver." 11) which is obscure or hidden (ver 17).
The heart nf Jesus is lifted up at this prospect. This accnunts fnr the pnetical
rhythm which always appears at such mnments. Here we see why it behnves the
diaciples tn hear with the greatest care ; it is in urder that they may really hnld what
He gives them, like the gnud snil which receives and fertUizes the aeed (ver. 18). He
alune whu aasimilates His teaching by an act uf living cnmprehensiun, whn really
hath (the nppnaite uf aeeing withnut seeing, ver. 10), can receive cnntinually mnre.
Acquisitinns are made nnly by means nf , and in prnpurtiun tn, what ia already pna-
sessed. The Spirit Himaelf unly makes clear what has been kept (Jnhn 14 : 36). If,
therefure, any nne amnng them cnntents Himself with hearing truth withnut ap
propriating it, by and by he wUl nbtain nuthing, and at laat even Inae everything.
* Felix Buret, " Vnyage en Terre-Sainte, " pp. 348 and 349.

240 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Mark (4 : 21-35) says : that which he hath ; Luke : that which lie thinketh he liath. It
comea te the aame thing ; fur, as tn what is heard withnut cumprehending it, it ia
equally true tu say that he hath (in a purely external sense), ur that he thinks he hath
(in the real sense uf the wnrd have). Cnmp. Luke 19 : 86. Thia very apuphthegm is
fuund several times in Matthew. It expresses une nf the prnfnundest laws nf the
mnral wnrld. , Baur and HUgenfeld thuught they fuund in the wnrd doKel, thinka he
hath, a cenaure nf Luke nn the haughty pretensinns nf the Twelve 1 Our evangelists
ceuld never have anticipated that they wnuld ever have such perverse interpreters.
Nuthing cnuld mnre effectuaUy aUay any undue elatinn which the sight nf these
multitudes might excite in the minds uf the disciples, than their being reminded in
this way nf their reapnnaibility. The similar reflectiuns in Mark (4 : 35) are tnu, differ
ent in fnrm tu have been drawn frnm the same snurce.
Mark gnes un to narrate the parable ef the ear uf cnrn, which he alnne recurds.
In Matthew there are six parables reapecting the kingdnm uf Gnd given alnng with
that uf the anwer. They fnrm an admirable whnle. After the fnundatinn nt the
kingdnm described in tbe parable ef the snwer, there fnllnws the mnde nf its develep
ment in that ef the tares ; then its power, presented under two aspects (extension and
transformation) — in those of the grain ot mustard seed and the leaven ; next, ita iur
comparable value in the parables of the treasure and the pearl ; laatly, ita conaum-
matien in that of the net. Ia thia ayatematic plan te be attributed to Jeaua ? I think
nut. He was tnn gnud a teacher tu relate in this way seven parables all in a breath.*
On the uther band, did He unly utter un this uccasinn the parable nf the anwer ? Cer
tainly nnt, fnr Matthew says reapecting thia very tirae (13 : 3) : " And He spake
many things untu them in parables," and Mark (4:3): "He taught them many
things in parables. " Prnbably, therefure, Jesus spuke nn this day, besidea the par
able nf the anwer, that uf the tarea (Matthew), and that nf the ear uf cnrn (Mark), the
imagea nf which are all taken from the aame aphere, and which immediately fuUnw
the firat, the nne in une Guspel, the nther in the uther. As tu the nther parables,
Matthew has united them with the preceding, in accurdance with bis cnnstant methnd
uf grouping the sayings nf nur Lnrd arnund a given aubject. Such different arrange
ments do not appear compatible with the use of the same written dncument.
8. Visit of the Mother and Brethren of Jesus .-8:19-31. —We shnuld have been i,gnu-
rant nf the real ubject nf this visit, unless, in this as in several uther cases, Mark's
narrative had ceme in tn supplement that nf tbe nther twu. Accnrding tn Mark, a
repurt had reached the brethren nf Jesus that He was in a state nf excitement bnrder
ing nn madneaa ; it waa just the echn nf thia accuaatinn nf the Phariseea : "He
caateth uut devUs by Beelzebub." Cnmp. Mark 3 : 31, 33. Hia brethren therefnre
came, intending tu lay hold on Him {Kparyaai airov, ver. 31), and take Him heme.
Matthew alao connects this ^viait (13:46) with the same accusation. In John, the
brethren of Jeaus are represented in a similar attitude in regard te Him (7:5): " His
brethren also did nut believe nn Him." As tu Mary, it is nut aaid that ahe shared the
aentiments nf her snns. But when she aaw them aet nut under the influence uf auch
feelings, she wnuld naturally desire tn be preaent at the painful acene which ahe an
ticipated wuuld take place. Perhaps alau, like Jnhn the Baptist, she was unable tn
explain tn herself the cuurse which her Sun's wnrk was taking, and was distracted
between cnntrary impressinns.
* I abide by this statement, untwithstanding the cnntrary assertinn uf Gess,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 241
Vers. 19-31.* The wnrd without (ver. 30) might be understond tn mean : " nut-
side the circle which surrounded Jeaua." But Mark expreasly mentiuns a hnuse in
which he was receiving hnspitality (ver. 30), and where a large cruwd wa» seated
around Him (vers. 33 and 34) : Are these brethren nf .Tesus ynunger snns nf .loseph
and Mary, or sons ef Joseph by a previous marriage ; or are they cousins of Jesus,
sons of Cleopaa (the brother ef Joaeph), who would be called his brethren, aa having
been brought up in the houae ef their uncle Joaeph ? We cannet discuss this ques
tien here. (See our " Commentai-y on the Gospel ef John," ii. 13). One thing is
certain, that the literal interpretation ef the word brother, placed, as it is here, by
the side of the word mother, is the most natural. The answer of Jesus signifles, not
that famUy ties are in His eyes of ne value (comp. John 19 : 36), but that they are
subordinate to a tie ef a higher and more durable nature. In those women who
accompanied Him, exercising over Him a mother's care (vers. 3 and 3), and in those
disciples who se faithfully associated themaelvea with Him in His work. He had
found a family which supplied the place of that which had deliberately forsaken
Him. And this new spiritual relationahip, eternal even as the God in whom it was
baaed, was it net superier in dignity to a relationship ef blood, which the least acci
dent might break ? In this aaying He expreases a tender and grateful affection for
these 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 eyes te God
alone. We see hew the descriptiun nf the actual circumstances, given by Mark,
enables us tn understand the apprupriateneaa ef thia aaying. This fact prnves that
Luke knew neither the narrative nf this evangelist, nnr that nf the alleged prutn-
Mark. Huw cuuld he in sheer wilfulness have neglected the light which such a nar
rative threw upen the whole scene ?
9. Tlie Stilling of the Sim-m : 8 : 33-35. — We ceme now to a series of narratives
which are found united together in the three Syn. (Matt, 8 : 18 ei seq. ; Mark 4 : 35
et aeq.) ; the storm, the demoniac, the daughter ef Jairus, together with the woman
afflicted with an iaaue of bleed. From the connection ef theae incidents in our three
Gospels, it has frequently been inferred that their authors made use ef 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 en the Meunt) from
that which it occupies in the other two ? And 2. Hew came Matthew to intercalate,
between the return of Jeaus and the account ef the da^ighter ef Jairus, two incidents
of the greatest importance — the healingof the paralytic {9 -.1 ei seq.), and the call of
Matthew — with the feast and the discourse which foUew it (ver. 9 et seq.), incidents
which in Mark and Luke occupy quite a different place ? The use of a written source
does nut accord with such Independent arrangement. It is a very simple explanation
to maintain that, in the traditional teaching, it was custumary tn relate these three
facts tugether, prnbably fnr the simple reasnn that they were chrnnnlngically
ccnnected, and that tn this natural cycle there were sumetimea added, as in
Matthew, nther incidents which did nnt belung hiaturically tn thia preciae time. That
which renders thia pnrtinn particularly reraarkable ia, that in it we behnld the mirac
ulnus pnwer nf Jeaus at ita full height : puwer uver the fnrces uf nature (the sturm) ;
nver the pnwers nf darkness (the demnniacs) ; lastly, uver death (the daughter nf
Jairus). * Ver. 30. ». B. D. L. A. Z. snme Mnn. Syr. It, omit Xeyovrov. Ver. 31. The
Alex, nmit avrov.

242 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Vers. 33-35.* Miracles uf this kind, while manifesting the original puwer of man
nver nature, are at the same time the prelude nf the regeneratinn of the visible wnrld
which is tn crown the mnral rennvatinn uf humanity (Rnm. 8). From Matthew's
narrative it might be inferred that this vnyage tunk place un the evening of the same
day nn which the Sermnn nn the Muunt was spuken. But, un the uther hand, tuo
many things tnnk place, accurding tn Matthew himself, fur the limits uf a single day.
Mark places this embarkatinn nn the evening uf the day nn which Jesus spuke the
parable ef the snwer ; thia nute-nf the time is much mnre prubable. Luke'a indica
tinn uf the time is mnre general : on one of these daya, but it dOes nnt invaUdate Mark's.
The ubject nf this excursinn waa tu preach the gnapel in the cnuntry situated nn the
uther side ef the sea, in accurdance with the plan drawn uut iu 8:1. Accnrding tn
Mark, the disciples' vessel was accumpanied by uther bnats. When they started, the
weather was calm, and Jesus, yielding tu fatigue, fell asleep. The pencil cf Mark
has preaerved this never-tn-be-fergotten picture : the Lord reclining eu the hinder
part ef the ahip, with His head upon a pillow that had been placed there by aerae
friendly hand. It often happena on lakes surrounded by mountains, that sudden and
violent atorma of wind deacend from the neighburing heighta, eapeciaUy tuward even
ing, after a warm day. This well-knuwn phennmenun ia deacribed by the wurd
KarejSy, came down, -j- In the expreaainn amenXypovvro, tliey were filled, there is a cun
fuainn nf the veaael with tliuae whum it carries. The term imaTdTa is peculiar tn
Luke ; Mark says diddaKoXE, Matthew KvpiE. Hnw ridiculnus theae variatiuns wnuld
be if aU three made uae uf the sarae dncument ! The 34th -verse describes nne nf the
sublimest scenes the earth has ever beheld : man, calmly cunfident in Gnd, by the
perfect uninn uf his will with that nf the Almighty, cnntrulling the wild fury nf the
blind fnrces nf nature. The term inEripyoE, rebv!ked, is an aUuainn tu the huatUe
character nf this pnwer in its present manifeatatinn. Jeaus speaka nnt unly tu the
wind, but tn the water ; f nr the agitatinn nf. the waveS {KX^iduv) cnntinues after the
hurricane is appeased.
In Mark and Luke, Jesus first nf all delivers Hia disciples frnm, danger, then He
speaka tn their heart. In Matthew, he firat upbraids them, and then stiUs the aturm.
This latter cnurae appeara leaa in accurdance with the wiadnm nf the Lurd. But why
did the apnstles deserve blame fer their want ef faith ? Ought they te have allowed
the tempest to follow its course, in the asaurance that with Jeaua with them they ran
no danger, or that in auy case lie would awake in time ? Or did Jesus expect that
one nf them, by an act nf prayer and cnmraanding faith, wnuld still the tempest?
It is mure natural tn suppnse that what He blames in them is the state uf trouble
and agitatinn in which He finds them nn awaking. When faith puaaeaaes the heart,
its prayer may be paaaiunate and urgent, but it will not be full of trouble. There ia
nothing surpriaing, whatever any one may say, in the exclamation attributed to these
who witnessed this scene (ver. 35) : first, because there were other persons there be
sides the apostlea (Mark 4 : 30) ; next, becauae such incidents, even when simUar
•* Ver. 34. S" X. r. aeveral Mnn. Syr'='¦^ ItP'^H"", omit emarara eiriarara. D.
reads kvpie Kvpie. 5>. E. P. G. H. snme Mnn. It"'"'., eiravaaro instead nf Eiravcavro,
K. A. n. aeveral Mnn. add pEyaXy tn yaXyvy (taken from the parallel passages).
X On these hurricanes, tn which the Lake cf Gennesareth is particularly expused,
cnrap. W. Thnmpsnn, " Tbe Land and the Bunk," Lundun, 1868, p. 375 (cited by M.
Furrer) : " Sierras nf wind rush wUdly thruugh the deep mnuntain gorges which
descend from the north and north-east, and are uot only violent, but sudden ; they
often take place when the weather is perfectly clear."

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 243
occurrences have been seen before, alwaya appear new ; lastly, because this was the
first time that the apnstles saw their Master cuntend with the blind fnrces cf nature.
Strauas maintains that this is a pure myth. Keim, in nppnsitinn tu him, alleges
the erident antiquity uf the narrative (the subUme majesty nf the picture nf Jesua,
the abaence nf aU uatentalinn frnm Hia wurda and actinna, and the simple expreaainn
nf wnnder nn the part nf the apectaturs). The narrative, therefure, muat have aerae
foundation in fact, in aome natural incident of water-travel, which has been idealized
in accurdance with auch wurds aa Ps. 107:33, et aeq., and the appeal te Jonah
(1:4-6) : " Awake, O sleeper." There, says criticism, you see hew this hiatory was
made. We ahould rather aay, hew the trick was dene.
10. The Healing of the Demoniac: 6:36-39. — This portion brings before us a
storm nu less difflcult tn atUl, and a yet mnre striking victnry. Luke and Mark men
tiun nnly nne demnniac ; Matthew apeaka cf twu. The hypnthesis uf a cummun
written snurce here encnunters a difflculty which is very hard fur -it tn surmuhnt.
But criticiam has expedienta tn meet all caaea : accurding tn Hnltzmann, Matthew,
whn had umitted the healing uf the demnniac al Capernaum, here repairs this nmis
siun," by grouping tbe possessed who had been neglected alung with this new case"
(p. 255). This is a sample nf what is called at the present day critical sagacity. Aa
if the evangelists had nn faith themselves in what they wrote with a view tn win the
faith nf nthers ! Why shuuld it be deemed impnssible fnr the twn maniacs tn have
lived tugether, and fer the healing nf unly nne uf the twu tn have presented the atriking
featurea mentiuned in the fuUnwing narrative ? Hnweverit waa, we have hei-e a preuf
uf the independence nf Matthew'a narratives un the une hand, and nf thnae nf Mark
and Luke nn the nther.
Vers. 36-29.* The Encounter. — There are three readinga uf the name uf the inhabi
tants, and unfurtunately they are alau fnund in bnth the uther Syn. Epiphaniua
mentiuns the fnllnwiug fnrms : Tepyeayvuv in Mark and Luke (but in it is prubable
that, in the case of Luke, we shnuld read Tspaayvdv in this Father) ; Tadapyvov in
Matthew {TepyEaaiav in sume manuscripts). It wnuld seem tn fnllnw frnm a passage
in Origen (" Ad. Jnh." t. vi. c. 24) that the must widely-diffused reading in his time
was Tepaayvov, that Tadapyvuv was nnly read in a small number nf manuscripts,
and that Tepyeayvuv was unly a cunjecture nf his uwn. He states that Gerasa is a city
nf Arabia, and that there is neither sea nnr lake near it ; that Gada/ra, a city of
Judsea, well knuwn fur its warm baths, has neither a deep-lying piece uf water with
steep banks in its neighburhund, nur is there any aea ; while, near the lake uf Tiberiaa
the remaina are tu be aeen nf a city called Gergeaa, near which there is a precipice
uverlnnking the aea, and at which the place ia still shnwn where the herd nf awine
cast themselves dnwn. The mss. are divided between these readings after the mnst
capricinus fashinn. The great majnrity uf the Mnu. in Matthew read Tepaayvov ; in
Mark and Luke TepyEayvdv. The Latin dncuraenta are almost all in favnr nf
Tepryeayvdv. Tischendurf (8th editinn) reads Tadapyvuv in Matthew, TEpaayvav in,
* Ver. 26. T. R., with A. R. r. A. A. and 10 nther Mjj. many Mnn. Syr., reads
Tadapyvuv. B. D. It. Vg., TEpaayvuv. S. L. X. Z. snme Mnn. Cup. Epiph.,
Tepyeaevov. Ver. 27. S. B. E. Z. some Mnn. nmit avra. . 1*. B. , sxov instead nf eixev.
S. B. L. Z. sume Mnn., kui xpavu mavov instead nf ek xpovav ikuvuv kui. Ver. 28. S.
B. L. X. Z. snme Mnn. Syr. It. umit kui befnre avuKpa^ag. Ver. 29. B. F. M. A. Z.,
irapyyyeiXe instead uf irapvyyeXXsv, which is the reading nf T. R. with 16 Mjj. aeveral
Mnn. Syr., etc. Ver. 29. The mss. vary between edeapeiTo and edeaiievero. The
MSS. vary between tov dai/xovoS and tov daipoviov.

244 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Mark, Tepyeayvuv m Luke. Bleek thinks that the primitive Gospel on which, in his
opinion, our three Syn. are based, readTspaayvuv, but that, owing tn the improbability
nf this reading, it was changed by certain cnpyists intn Tadapyvijv, and by Origen intn
TEpysayvov. Luuldng simply at the fact, this laat name appears In him tn agree with
it best. In fact, Gerasa was a large city situated at a cunaiderable distance tu the
snuth-eaat, nn the burders uf Arabia ; and the reading Tepaayvov can nnly be admitted
by auppnaing that the diatrict dependent nn thia city extended aa far as tn the sea of
GaUlee, which ia inadmissible, although Stephen of Byzantium calls Geraaa a city
of Dccapulia. Gadara ia nearer, beiug nnly a few leagues frnm the south-east end of
the aea of Galilee. Josephua calla it the metropnlia uf the Peraea ; Pliny reckuns it
amung the citiea uf Decapnlis. Its suburbs might extend as far as. the sea. But it ia
highly natural tn suppuse, that theae cities, being su well knnwn, the cnpyists sub
stituted their names fnr that uf Gergeaa, which was generally unknnwn-. It is a
cnnfirmatinn nf this view, that the existence nf a tnwn nf this name is attested nnt
nnly by Origen, Euaebiua, and Jerume, but by the recent discuvery nf ruins bearing
the name nf Gersa nr Klieraa, tuward the embnuchure nf the Wady Semakh. The
cnurse nf the walla ia atiU visible, according tu Thnmpann (p. 37-5). Thia traveller
alsn says, that " the sea ia so near the fent nf the mnuntain at this sput, that animals
having nnce gut fairly nn to the incline cuuld not help rolling down into the water"
(p. 377). Wilson {Athenceum, 1866, i. p. 438) states that this place answers all the
conditions ef the Bible narrative.* The true reading, therefore, would be TepyEayvdiv
er TepyEaaiav. Thia name so little known must have been altered first intn TEpaayvuv, .
which has seme resemblance to it, and then into Tadapyvuv. X
On the demoniacs, see 4 : 33. The 27th verse gives a description ot the demoniac,
which is afterward finished in the 29th. This flrat deacription (ver. 27) enly contains
that which preaented itself immediately to the observation of an eye-witness uf the
scene. The secnnd and fuller descriptinn (ver. 39) is accounted fnr by the cummand
nf Jeaus, which, tn be inteUigible, required a mure detailed statement nf the state ef
the poaaessed. This interruption, which is not fnund in'Mark, reflects very natu
rally the impressinn uf an eye-witness ; it demenstratea the independence nf the
reapective narrativea nf Matthew and Luke. The plural daipovia {demona), explained
afterward (ver. 30) by the afflicted man himself, refers duubtleaa tn the serinua nature
-and multiplicity cf the symptums — ^melanchuly, mania, vinlence, nccasiuned hf a
number nf relapses (see un 8 : 3 and 11 : 24-26). His refusing tu. wear cluthea er
remain in a hnuae is cunnected with that alienation frnm snciety which characterizea
such atates. The Alex, reading : " whu fur a lung whUe past had -wurn nu clnthes,"
is evidently an error. The nute nf time cannnt refer tu a circumstance altngether se
subordinate as that of clothing. The Levitical uncleanness of tbe tumbs insured to
this man the sulitude he snught. The sight nf Jeaus appears tn have produced an
extranrdinary impressinn upnn him. The hnly, calm, gentle majesty, lender cumpas-
sinn, and cunsciuus suvereignty which were expressed iu the aspect uf nur Lurd,
* We cite these twn authnrs frnm M. Kunrad Furrer : " Die Bedeutung der bibl.
Gengraphie," p. 19.
f M. Heer has recently prupnsed (" Der Kirchenfreund," 13th May, 1870), a view
which wnuld mure easily accuunt fnr the reading Geraaa fnund in the mss. by
Origen • The uriginal name uf the place Gergeaa, abbreviated intu Gersa, might be
altered in pnpular speech intu Geraaa, which it wnuld be necesaary nnt tu cunfuund
with the name nf the Arabian city.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. S45
awakened in him, by fnrce uf cuntrast, the humbling cnnscinusness uf his nwn state
nf mnral disurder. He felt himself at nnce attracted aud repelled by this man ; this
led tu a viulent criaia in him, which revealed itaelf flrst uf all in a cry. Then, like
snme ferocious beast submitting tu the puwer of hia subduer, he runs and kneels,
protesting all the while, in the name nf the spirit nf wtiich he ia atill the nrgan,
against the puwer which is exerted uver him. Luke says : irpoamirreiv, nut irpoaKvvelv
(Mark). The furmer term dues nnt implf any religinus feeling. On the expressinn :
'What liave Itodo with tliee ? see nn 4 : 24. The name Jesus is wanting in Matthew,
and it lunka atrange. Huw did he knnw thia name ? Perhaps he had heard Jesus
talked nf , and instinctively recngnized Him. Or perhaps there was a supernatural
knnwledge appertaining tn this extranrdinary stale. The expressinn : Son of the moat
high God is explained by the prevalence nf pulytheiam in thnae cuuntriea where there
was a large heathen pnpulatinn. Jnsephus calls Gadara a Greek dty. We muat nnt
infer frnm this that this man was a heathen.
In hia petitinn, ver. 38, the demnniac still identifies himself with the alien spirit
which hnlda him in his pnwer. The turment which he dreads ia being aent away into
the abyss (ver. 31) ; Matthew adds, before the time. The pnwer uf acting nn the wurld,
fnr beinga that are alienated frnm Gnd and muve unly within the vuid uf their uwn
subjectivity, is a tempurary snl'dce tn their unrest. Tn be deprived nf this pnwer is
fur them just what a return tu pripun is fur the captive. If we read napyyyetXe, -we
muat give ibia anr. the meaning nf a plus perfect : Pur He had comrhanded. But ms.
authurity is rather in favnr uf the imperf. wapyyEXXsv -. "Fnr He was commanding
him." This tenae indicates a cuntinunus actinn which dues nut immediately pro
duce its effect. The demen'a cry nf distresa. Torment me not, is called fnrth by the
strung and ccntinued pressure which the ccmmand nf Jesus put upnn him. This
imperf. cnrrespunds with Mark's eXe-ys ydp. We find in theae twu analngnus fnrms
the cummun type uf the traditiunal narration. The for, which follows, explains this
imperfect. The evil did nnt yield instantly, becauae it had taken tnn deep root.
SvvypirdKEi, it kept him in its possession. TioTiXols ;i;p6voj5 may aignify for a long time
past nr oftenti'siea. With the aecund aense, there wuuld be an aUuainn tn a scries nf
relapses, each nf which had aggravated the evU.
Vers. 30-33.* The Cure. — Tn thia prayer, in which the victim became involuntarily
the advucate nf hia turmentur, Jesus repUes by putting a questiun : He asks the afflicted
man his name. Fur what purpnse ? There ia nntbing sn suitable as a calm and
simple questiun tn bring a madman tn himaelf. Abnve all, there ia nu mnre natural
way nf awakening in a man whn ia beaide himaelf tbe cunacinuaneaa ef his own per
sonality, than to make him tell his own name. A man'a name becomea the expres
sion ef his character, and a summary ef the history of his life. New, the firat con
dition of any cure uf thia afflicted man was a return tu the distinct feeling nf his n-wn
persunality. There was at this time a wnrd which, mure than any nther, called up
the idea nf the reaiatless might nf the cunquernr under whnm Israel waa then auffer-
ing eppreasinn. Thia was the wnrd Leginn. The aeund nf this wnrd called up the
Shcught uf thnae victurinus armiea befnre which the whnle wurld buwed dnwn. Sn
it is by this term that this afflicted man deacribes the pnwer which oppreaaes him,
* Ver. 30. 5«. B. Syr**. It. omit Xeyov. Ver. 31. The mss. vary between irapeKaXovv
and irapEKaXet. Ver. S3. The MSS. vary between BoaKopEvy and ^ooKopEVov. &" B. C.
Ic Z. sume Mnn. Itpierique^ nap^KuXEoav instead uf irapEKaXovv.

346 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
and with which he stUl cunfnunds himself. The expreasinn, many demons, is ex
plained by the multiplicity and diversity nf the aymptoma (ver. 39). Tn this answer
the demnniac adda, in the name uf his tyrant, a fresh request. The demun under
stands that he muat releaae his prey ; but he dnes nnt want tU' enter furthwith into a
cunditiun in which cunlact with terrestrial realities wnuld be un Innger pnssible tn
him. In Mark there ia here fnund the strange expressinn : " nnt tn send them uut
nf the cnuntry," which may mean, to the deaert, where unclean but nnt captive spirits
were thought tu dwell, or intu the abyss, whence they went fnrth tu find a tempurary
abude upnn the earth. The sequel shuws that the secund meaning must be preferred.
Jesus makes nn anawer tu this requeat. Hia silence is nrdinarily regarded as signify
ing cnnsent. But the silence uf Jesua simply means that He insists nn the cummand
which He has just given. When He wiahes tn reply in the afflrmative — as, fur in-'^
stance, at the end uf ver. 32 — he dues sn distinctly. Thia explanatiun is cunflrmed
by Matthew, " If thuu cast us uut . . ." Their request tn enter intu the awine
nnly refers, therefure, tn the way by which they were suffered tu gn intn the abyss.
What is the explanatiun uf this requeat, and nf the permiasiun which Jeaus accurded
tn it ? As tn these evil spirits, we can understand that it might be pleaaant tn them,
befure Insing all pnwer nf actinn, tu find nne mnre upportunity nf dning an injury.
Jesus, nn his part, has in view a twnfnld result. The Jewish exurcists, in nrder te
assure their patients that they were cured, were accustumed to set a pitcher nf water
nr snme nther ubject in the apartment where the expulsinn tnnk place, which the
demun tunk care tn apset in guing uut. What they were accustumed tu dn as charla
tans, Jesus seea it gnud tn dn as a physician. The identificatinn nf the aick man With
hia demun had been a lung-existing fact cf cnnsciuusness (vera. 27 and 29). A de
ciaive aign nf the reality nf the departure nf the evil puwer was needed- tn give the
pnaaeased perfect assurance uf hia deliverance. Besidea this reasnn, there was prob
ably another. The thencratic feeling cf Jesus had been weunded by the sight of
theae immenae herds uf animals which the law declared unclean. Such an nccupa
tinn aa thia ahuwed huw cempletely the line of demarcation between Judaiam and
paganism waa obliterated in this country. Jeaus deaired, by a senaible judgment, to
reclaim the people, and prevent their being atiU mere unjudaized.
The influence exerted by the demons en the herd was in no senae a possession.
None but a meral being can be moraUy possessed. But we know that several species
of animals are accessible to coUective influences — that swine, in particular, readily
yield te panics of terror. The idea that it waa tbe demoniac himself who frightened
them, by throwing himself into the herd, is incompatible with the text. Mark,
whuae narrative ia always diatinguiahed by tbe exactness nf its details, says that the
number nf the swine was abnut twn thuusand. An item nf hia uwn inventiun, says
De Wette ; an appendix nf later traditiun, accnrding tu Bleek ; here we see the neces
sary cnnsequence cf the critical system, accurding tu which Mark is suppnsed to
have made use nf the text nf the uther twu, nr nf a dncument cummun tu them aU.
The number 2000 cannot serve tu prnve the individual pussessinn of the swine by
the demnns (legion, ver. 30), fur a leginn cumprised 4000 men. The questinn has been
aaked. Had Jeaus the right tn dispuse in thia way nf uther peuple 's property ? One
might as well ask whether Peter had the right tn dispuse uf the lives uf Ananias and
Sapphira I It is nne uf thnse cases in which the pnwer, by its very nature, guaran
tees the right.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 247
Vers. 34r-39.* TJie Effect produced.— 'First, un the penple nf the cnuntry ; next, on
the afflicted man. The ofvners nf the herd dwelt in the city and neighberhnnd.
They came to cunvince themselves with theu: nwn eyes nf the luss nf which they
had been informed by the herdsmen. On reaching the sput they beheld a, sight
which impressed them deeply. The demnniac was knnwn all thruugh the cnuntry,
and waa an ubject of universal terror. They found him calm and restored. So great
a miracle could not fail to reveal te them the power of God, and awaken their con
acience. Their fears were conflrmed by the account given them of the scene which
had juat occurred by peraons who were with Jesus, and had witnesaed it {ol 'idovrec,
ver. 36). These persons were not the herdsmen ; for the cure waa wrought at a con
siderable diatance from the place where the herd was feeding (Matt. 8 : 30). They
were the apostles and the people who bad passed over the aea with them (Mark 4 : 36).
The Kai, also, is undoubtedly authentic ; the latter account was supplementary to
that ef the herdsmen, which referred principally to the luss of the herd. The fear
of the inhabitants was doubtlesa ef a superatitiouS nature. But Jeaus did net wish
to force Himself upen thera, fer it was atill the season ef grace, and grace liraits it-
self te making its offers. He yielded to the request of the' inhabitanta, who, regard
ing Him aa a judge, dreaded further and atill more terrible chastisement at Hia hand.
He consents, therefore, to depart from them, but net without leaving them a wit
ness' of His grace in the persen of him who had become a living monument uf it. The
restured man, whn feels his mnral existence linked as it were tn the persnn nf Jesus,
begs tn be permitted tu accnmpany Him. Jesus was already in the ship, Mark tells
us. He dnes nnt cnnsent tn thia entreaty. In Galilee, where it was neceaaary tn
guard against increasing the pnpular excitement. He fnrbade thuse He healed publish
ing abroad their cure. But in thia remnte cnuntry, sn rarely visited by Him, and
which He was nbliged tu leave an abruptly. He needed a missinnary tu testify tu the
greatness nf the Messianic wnrk which Gnd was at this time accnmpliahing fnr His
penple. There is a flne cnntrast between the expreasinn nf Jeaus : " What Gnd halh
dune fnr thee," and that uf the man : " What Jesus had dune fnr him." Jesua re
fers all tu Gud ; but the afflicted man cnuld nut furget the instrument. The whole
uf the latter part nf the narrative is umitted in Matthew. Mark indicates the field uf
labnr uf this new apnstle as cnmprising nnt his nwn city merely, but the whnle uf the
Decapolis. Volkmar applies here his system of allegorical interpretatinn. This incident is
nuthing, accurding tu him, but the symbnlical representatinn uf the wurk nf Paul
amnng the Gentiles. The demnniac repreaents the heathen wnrld ; the chains with
which they tried tn bind him are legislative enactments, auch as thnse nf Lycurgus
and Sulun ; the swine, the nbacenities nf idnlatry ; the refusal nf Jesus tn yield tn the
deaire ef the reatored demoniac, when he wished to accompany Him, the obstacles
which Jewiah Christiana put in the way of the entrance of the converted heathen
into the Church ; the request that Jesus would withdraw, the irritation caused in
heathen countries by the success of Paul (the rint at Ephesus, ex. gr.). Keim is np-
pnaed tu this unlimited allegurizing, which burdera, indeed, en absurdity. He very
properly nbjects, that the demnniac is nnt even (aa is the caae with theCanaanitish
* Ver. 34. The mss. vary between yeyovos and yeyEvypevov. AtteXBovteS, in the
T. R., is nnly read in a few Mnn. Ver. 35. !** B., e^yXdev instead uf e^EXyXyBsi.
Ver. 36. S. B. C. D. L. P. X. sume Mnn. and Vss. nmit kui befnre oi tdovres. Ver.
37. The MSS. vary between yporyaav (Bj^z.) and vp<->'^v<'ev {Alex.). 5** L. P. X.,
Tepyeayvuv. B. C. D. It. Vg., Tepaayvov instead nf Tadapyvov, which is the reading
pf T. % with 14 Mjj, many Mnn. Syr.

248 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
wnman) spoken uf as a heathen ; that the precise IncaUty, su little knnwn, tn which
tjhe incident is referred, is a prunf nf its hiatinrical reality ; {hat the request tn Jesus tn
leave the cnuntry is a fact withnut any cnrrespnnding example, which dues nut Innk
like imitatinn, but has the very featurea nf truth. In ahurt, he nnly ubjects tu the
.episude nf the swine, which appears tn him tn be a legendary amplificatinn. But is«
it likely that the preachers cf the guspel wnuld have admitted intn their teaching an
incident sn remarkable, if it cuuld be cuntradicted by the pnpulatinn uf a whnle dis
trict, which is distinctly pninted nut ? If pnsaessinn is nnly, as Keim thinks, an
nrdinary malady, this cnnclusinn is certainly inevitable. But if there is any degree
nf reality attaching tu the mysterinus nutinu uf pussessinn, it wnuld be difflcult tu
determine a ¦pi'iori what might net result from such a state. The picture fnrms a
whnle, in which each incident implies all the rest. The request made tn Jesus 1;o
leave the cnuntry, in which Keim acknowledges a prunf nf authenticity, is nnly ex
plained by the luss uf the swine. Keim admits tun much nr tnn little. Either "V'ulk-
mar and his absurdities, ur the frank acceptance nf the narrative^this is the nnly
alternative (cnmp. Heer's flne wnrk, already referred tu, " Kirchenfreund," Nus. 10
and 11, 1870).
11. The Baising of Jairus' Daughter : 8 : 40-56. — In Mark and Luke, the fnUnw
ing incident fnllnws immediately un the return frnm the Decapnlis. Accnrding to
Luke, the multitude which He had left behind Him when He went away had nnt dis
persed ; they were expecting Him, aud received Him nn His landing. Accnrding to
Mark, it collected together again aa soon as His arrival was knnwn. In Matthew,
twu facts are interpused between His arrival and the resurrectinn uf Jairus' daughter
— the healing nf the paralytic ef Capernaum, and the calling of the Apostle Matthew.
As the publican's house was probably situated near the port, the aecond ef these
facts might certainly have happened immediately on His landing ; but, in any case,
the feast given b.y the publican ceuld not have taken place until the evening, and
after what occurred in the house of Jairus. But the same suppusitinn will nnt apply
tu the healing uf the paralytic, which -must be assigned te quite another time, as is
the case with Mark and Luke.
Vers. 40-42.* The Bequest. — The term dirodEXEoOai indicates a warm welcome.
Mark and Luke mention the age nf the ynung girl, which Matthew emits. The ch-
cumstance of her being an nnly daughter, added by Luke, mnre fully explains the
father's diatress. Criticiam, uf cnurae, dnes uut fail tn draw its nwn enncluaions
frum the same circumstance being fnund already in 7 : 13. As if an unly snn and an
nnly daughter cnuld nnt buth be fnund in Isr'ael ! Accnrding tn Mark and Luke, the
ynung girl was dying ; in Matthew she is already dead. Thia evangelist tella the
stnry here, as elsewhere, in a summary manner ; he cumbines in a single message the
arrival cf the father, and the subseqhent arrival nf the meaaenger annnuncing her
death. The pruceaa ia precisely aimilar tn that already nuticed in the accuunt uf the
healing nf the centurinn's servant. Matthew is intereated simply in the fact nf the
miracle and the wnrd uf Jesus.
Vers. 43-48. f The Interruption. — The prepusitinn 7rp6s, in npoaavaXuaaaa, expresses
the fact that, in additinn tn these leng sufferinga, she nnw fnund herself destitute of
* Ver. 40. S"". B. L. R. snme Mnn. Syr., ev dE tu instead nf syEvero de ev ra.
Ver. 43. C. D. P., nopEveaBai inatead uf vnuyEiv. C. L. U., avvEdXijSov fnr aweirviyov.
X Ver. 43. All the Mjj., tarpoig instead nf siS larpovs, which is the reading uf T.
Ri with snme Mnn. Ver. 45. The mss. vary between oi avv avra (Alex.) and oi pera
avrov (T. R. Byz.). !*. B. L. snme Mnn. nmit the wnrds kui Xeyei . . . pov.
Ver. 46. !*. B. L., E^EXyXvQviav instead nf e^eXBovguv. Ver. 47. 9 Mjj. Syr. It. Vg.
nmit avTo after anyyYEiXev, Ver, 48, j!^, B, D. L. Z. snme Miiq. and Vss. npiit Bapae^,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 249
resuurces. Mark expresses with a little mnre furce the injury which the physicians
had dune her. Hitzig and Hultzmann maintain that Luke, being a physician him
self, intentinnally tunes duwn these detaUs frnm the prntn-Marlt. We find nuthing
• here but Mark's characteristic amplificatinn. The malady frnm which this wnman
suffered rendered her Levitically unclean ; it was even, according to the law, a auffi-
cient justification for a divorce (Lev. 15 : 35 ; Deut. 34 : 1), Hence, ne 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 not altogether free from
superstition, fur she cunceived uf the miraculuus puwer uf Jesua aa acting in a purely
phyaical manner. The wurd Kpdairedov, which we tranalate by ihe hem (nf the gar
ment), denntes une nf the fnur tassels nr tufts nf scarlet wnuUen curd attached tn the
four corners of the outer rube, which were intended tn remind the Israelites nf their
law. Their name waa ziieit (Num. 15 : 38). As this rube, which was cf a rectangular
fnrm, was wurn like a wuman's shawl, twu nf the curnera being alluwed tn hang
down clnse tugether on the back, we see the fnrce nf the expressinn came behind.
Had it been, as is nrdinarily understnud, the Inwer hem nf the garment which ahe at
tempted tn tnuch, she could net have succeeded, en account ef the crowd which sur
rounded Jesus. This word Kpdanedov, according to Passow, comes trom Kepag and
iredav, the forward part of a plain ; or better, according to Schleusner, from KeKpapevov
EiS nedav, that which hangs down toward tlie ground. Beth Mark and Luke date the cure
from the moment that she touched. Matthew speaks of it aa taking place a little later,
and aa the effect uf Jeaus' wnrd. But this difference belungs, as we shall aee, tu Mat
thew's nmissiun nf the fnllnwiug details, and nnt tn any difference nf view as tn the
efflcient cauae uf the cure.
The difflculty abuut thia miracle ia, that it seema tn have been wruught uutside
the cunscinusneaa and will uf Jesus, and thus appears tn be nf a magical character.
In each uf Jesus' miracles there are, as it were, twn pules : the receptivity uf the
persun whn is the subject uf it, and the activity uf Him by whnm it is wrought. The
maximum uf actinn in nne nf theae facturs may currespund with the minimum nf
actinn in the nther. In the caae nf the impntent man at the puul nf Betheada, in
whnm it was necesaary tn excite even the deaire tu be cured, as well aa in the raiaing
nf the dead, the human receptivity waa reduced tn ita minimum. The aetirity nf the
Lnrd in theae caaea reached ita highest degree nf initiatiun and intensity. In the
present instance it is the reverse. The receptivity uf the wnman reaches such a de
gree nf energy that it snatchea, as it were, the cure frnm Jesus. The actiun nf Jeaua
is here cnnfined tn that willingness tn bleaa and save which always animated Him in
His relatiuns with men. He did nnt, hnwever, remain unccnscinus nf the virtue
which He had just put fnrth ; but He perceives that there ia a tincture nf auperstition
in the faith which had acted in thia way tnward Him ; and, as Riggenbach admirably
shuws (" Leben Jesu," p. 443), Hia design in what fulluwa is tn purify this incipient
faith. But in nrder tu dn this it is neceasary tn diacnver the authnr uf the deed.
There is nn reasnn fnr not attributing tn Jesus the ignurance implied in the questiun,
" Whn tnuched me ?" Anything like feigning ignurance iU cnrapnrts with the can-
dur uf Hia character. Peter shuws His uaual furwardneaa, and venturea tn remnn-
strate with Jesus. But, sn far frnm this detail impljdng any iU-will tnward thia
apnstle, Luke attributes the same fault to the nther apustles, and equaUy withnut any
ainiater desigil, since Mark dnea the same thing (ver. 31). .Jesus dees nut stup tn re
buke His disciples ; He pursues His inquiry ; nnly He now substitutes the assertinn,

350 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Somebody hath touched me, fnr the questinn, 'Wlut touched me? Further, He ne Innger
lays stress upun the persnn, but upun the act, in reply tn the ubservatinn of Peter,
which tended tu dehy it. The verb dipacBai, to fed about, denntes , a vnluntary, de
liberate tnuch, and nut merely an accidental cnntact. Mark adds that, while puttingt
this questinn. He cast around Him a scrutinizing glance. The reading e^eXyXvBvlav
(Alex.) signifies properly : " I feel myself in the cnnditinn nf a man from whom a
force has been withdrawn." This is somewhat artificial. The received reading,
k^eXBovaav, merely denotes the outgoing of a miraculous power, which is mere simple.
Jesus had been inwardly apprised of the influence which He had just exerted.
The joy of success gives the woman courage to acknowledge beth her act and
her malady ; but the words, before all the people, are designed to show how much this
avowal cost her. Luke aays trembling, to which Mark adds fearing ; she feels afraid
of having sinned against the Lord by acting without His knowledge. He reaaaures
her (ver. 48), and confirma her in the peaaesaion of the blessing which she had in
seme measure taken by stealth. Thia laat incident ia alao brought out by Mark (ver.
34). The intention ef Jesus, in the inquiry He had just instituted, appears more es
pecially in the words, Thy faith hath saved thee; thy faith, and net, as thuu wast
thinking, the material tnuch. Jesua thus assi.gns tn the mural sphere (in Luke and
Mark as well as in Matthew) the virtue which she referred sulely tu the physical
sphere. The wnrd Bdpaei, take courage, which is wanting in several Alex., is prnb
ably taken from Matthew. The term saved implies mure than the healing ef the
body. Her recovered health is a link which henceforth will attach her to Jesua as
the peraoniflcation ef aalvation ; and thia link is te her the beginning of salvation in
the full sense uf the term. The wnrds in Matthew, " And the wnman was healed
frum that same hnur," refer tu the time nccupied by the incident, taken altngether.
Eusebius says (H. E. vii. 18, ed. Lcemmer) that this wnman was a heathen and
dwelt at Paheas, near the snurce nf the Jnrdan, and that in his time her hnuse was
still shnwn, having at its entrance twn brass statues nn a stnne pedestal. One repre
sented a wnman nn her knees, with her hands held nut befnre her, in the attitude of
a suppliant ; the nther, a man standing with hia clnak thrown nver his shuulder, and
his hand extended tnward the wnman. Eusebius had been intn the hnuse himself,
and had seen this atatue, which represented, it was said, the features nf Jesus.
Vers. 49-56.* The Prayer granted.. — We may imagine hnw painful this delay had
been fur the father nf the chUd. The message, which just at thia mnment ia brought
te him, reduces him to despair. Matthew, in his very summary account, omits aU ¦
these features ef the story ; and interpreters, like De Wette, who maintain that this
Goapel waa the source ef the other twn, are nbliged tu regard the detaila in Mark and
Luke aa just an many embellishments nf their nwn inventiun ! The present marEve,
in the received reading, aignifles : " Only persevere, withnut fainting, in the faith
which thnu haat shnwn thus far." Sume Alex, read the anr. maTEvaov. "Only
exerciae faith ! Make a new effurt in view uf the unexpected difflculty which has
* Ver. 49. !*. B. L. X. Z. snme Mnn. nmit avru, !*. B. D., pyKen instead oi py. '
Ver. 50. 6 Mjj. anme Mnn. Syr. It. nmit Heyuv after avro. B. L. Z., irioTEvaov in
stead nf iriareve. Ver. 51. T. R., with D. V. snme Mnn., eiae?.Bav instead nf eXSuv. ...
The MSS. vary between nva and ovdeva. The mss. vary between Jaavvyv kui luKojiov
and loKoBov kui loavvyv (taken frum Mark). Ver. 53. 8 Mjj. snme Mnn. Syr. It., ov
yap instead nf ovk befnre aireBavEv. Ver. 54. !S. B. D. L. X. sume Mnn. and "V^ss.
omit eKjSaXav e^u navras kui, which is the reading nf T, R. with aU the rest (taken
from Mattbew), '

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 261
arisen." This secnnd meaning seems tn agree better with the pnsitiun uf p6vov, only,
befnre the verb. Perhaps the nther reading is taken frum Mark, where all the authnr
ities read niareve.
The reading nf the T. R., e'laeXBov, liaving entered, ver. 51, is nut nearly sn well
suppnrted as the readhig 'eXBCrv, having come. But with either reading there is a dis
tinctinn nbserved between the arrival {iXSdm) nr entrance {e'laeXBuv) intn the houae and
the entrance intu the chamber nf the sick girl, tn which the eiaeXBelv which fnllnws
refers : " He suffered nn man tn gn in." What nbligea ua tn give this sense tn this
inflhilive, is the mentinn nf the muther amnng the persuns excepted frum the- prn
hibitinn ; fur if here alsn entrance intn the huuae waa in queatinn, this wnuld suppnse
that the mnther had left it, which ia scarcely probable, when her daughter had nnly
just expired. Jesua' ubject in nnly admitting juat the indiapensable witnesses intn
the rnnm, was tn diminish as far as pnssible the fame uf the wnrk He was abnut tu
perfurm. As tu the three apuatlea, it was necessary that they shnuld be present, in
urder that they might be able afterward lu testify to what waa done.
The fnUnwing scene, vera. 53, 53, tnnk place at the entrance nf the sick chamber.
The irdvres, all, are the aervants, neighbura, relatiens, and professional mouriiera
{aiXyral, Matthew) assembled in the vestibule, who alao wanted tn make their way
intn the chamber. Olshausen, Neander, and nthers infer frum Jesus' wurds, that the
chUd was simply in a lethargy ; but this explanatinn is incnmpatible with the expres
siun e'ldores, knowing well, ver. 53. If this had been the idea uf the writer, he wnuld
have emplnyed the wurd doKovvref:, believing tliat . . . On the reat nf the verae,
see 7 : 14. By the wnrds, " She is nnt dead, but sleepeth,' ' Jesus meana that, in the
order nf thinga nver which He presides, death is death nu lunger, but assumes the
character nf a tempurary slumber (Jnhn 11 : 11, explained by ver. 14). Baur main
tains that Luke means, ver. 53, that the apeslles alsn juined in the laugh against
Jeaus, and that it is with this in view that the evangelist has chnsen the general term
all (ver. 53 ; Evang. p. 458). In this case it wnuld be necessary In include amung
the ndvreg the father and muther ! I The wurds, having put them all out, in the
T. • R., are a glnss derived frum Mark aud Matthew. It has arisen in this
way : Mark expressly mentiuns twn separate dismiaaala, nne nf the crowd and
nine apustlea at the entrance nf the hnuae, and annther nf the penple be
lnnging to the hnuse nnt admitted intn the chamber nf the dead (ver. 40) Aa
in Luke, the wurd enter (ver. 51) had been wrongly referred tn the flrst nf theae
acts, it waa thuught neceaaary tn raention here the second, at flrst in the margin, and
afterward in the text, in accordance with the parallel pasaages. The command tu
give the child aumething tu eat (ver. 55) is related by Luke alnne. It ahuwa the per
fect calmness ef the Lord when performing the moat -wonderful work. He acts like
a physician who haa just felt the pulae of hia patient, and givea instructions respect
ing his diet for the day. Mark, who is fond ef local coloring, has preserved the
Aramaean form of the words ef Jesus, alao the graphic detail, immediately the child
began to walk about. In these features uf the narrative we recugnize the accnunt nf
an eye-witness, in whnse cur the vnice uf Jeaua still snunda, and whu still sees the
child that had been brought tu life again mnving abnut. Matthew umits all details.
The fact itaelf simply is all that has any bearing nn the Messianic demnnstralinn,
which is his ubject. Thus each fulluwa hia uwn path whUe preaenting the cummnn
substratum nf fact as traditinn had preaerved it. On the prnhibitinn nf Jesus, ver,
56, see nn 5 : 14 and 8 : 39.

^52 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKIl.
Accnrding tn Vnlkmar, the wuman with an issue wnuld he nnly the persnnifica-
tinn nf the beUeving Jewa, in whnm their rabbis (the physicians uf ver. 43) had been
unable tu effect a mnral cure, but whnm Jeaua will save after having healed the
heathen (the return frnm Gadara) ; and the daughter nf Jairus represents the dead
Judiaam nf the synagugue, which the guspel alune can restnre tn life. Keim acknuwl
edges the insufflciency uf aymbnliam tu explain auch narrativea; He admits the cure
nf the wuman aa a fact, but maintains that she heraelf, by her faith, waa the snle
cnntributnr tnward it. In the reaurrectinn nf the daughter nf Jairua, he sees either a
myth, mudelled after the type nf the resurrectinn nf the Shunammite widnw's snn by
Elisha (a return tn Strauss), nr a natural awaking frura a lethargy (a return tn
Paulus). But is nnt the lucal cnlnring .quite as decided in this narrative as in that uf
the pnssessed uf Gadara, uf which Keim nu this ground maintains the histurical
truth ? And as tu an awakening frnm a lethargy, what has he tn reply tn Zeller ?
(See p. 318, nute.) I'OtTRTH CYCLE. — 9 : 1-50.
!BVom the !Mission of tlie Twelve to the Departure from Galilee. '
This cycle describes the clnae uf the Galilean miniatry. It embraces six narra
tinns : Isi. The miaainn nf the Twelve, and the impressinn made un Herod by the
public activity uf Jeaua (9 : 1-9). 2d. The multiplicatinn uf tbe leaves (vera. 10-17).
Sd. The first communication m-ddc by Jesus to His apostles respecting Hia approach
ing aufferinga (vers. 18-37). 'Uli. The transflguratinn (vers. 38-36). 5tli. The cure
nf the lunatic child (vers. 37-43flj). 6&. Sume circumstances which preceded the
departure frnm Galilee (vers. 43d tn 50).
1. Tlie Miaaion of ihe Twelve, and ihe Fears of Herod: 9 :l-9. — The missinn with
which the Twelve were intrusted marks a twnfnld advance in the wnrk nf Jeaus.
Prom the flrst Jesus had attached te Hiraself a great number of pious Jews as disciples
(a first example occurs, vers. 1-11 ; a second, ver. 37) ; from these He had chesen
twelve to form a permanent college of apostles (6 -. 13 et seq.). And now this last
title is te become a mere cemplete reality than it had hitherto been. Jesus sends
them forth te the people of Galilee, and puts them through their first apprenticeship
in their future mission, aa it were, under His own eyes. With this advance in their
poaition correaponda another belonging to the work itaelf. Fur six mnnths ^esus
devuted Himaelf almnat excluaively tn Galilee- The shores of the lake of Geunesaret,
the western plateau Decapolis itself en the eastern side, had all been visited by Him
in turn. Befnre this seasnn nf grace fur GaUlee cumes tn an end. He desires tn ad
dress une last sulemn appeal tn the cnnscience nf this penple nn whnm such length
ened evangelistic laburs have been spent ; and He dnes it by this missiun, which He
confides tu the Twelve, and which is, as it were, the close nf His uwn miniatry.
Mark alsn connects this portion with the preceding- cycle by introducing between the
twu the viait tu Nazareth (6 : 1-6), which, aa a laat appeal uf the Saviuur tu thia place,
sn dear tu his heart, perfectly agrees -with tbe pusitinn nf affairs at this time.
Matthew, chap. 10, alsn mentiuns this missinn nf the Twelve, cnnnecting with it
the catalngue nf apuatlea and a lung diacnurae un the apnstnlate, but he appeara to
place thia fact earlier than Luke. Keim (u. p. 308) thinks that Luke assigns it a
place in nearer cunnectinn with the misaiun nf the seventy disciples, in nrder that this
secnnd incident (a pure inventien ef Luke's) may be mere certain te eclipse the
fnrmer. In imputing tn Luke this Machiavellian design against the Twelve, Keim
fnrgets twn things ; 1. That, accnrding tn him, Luke invented the scene nf the elec
tion uf the Twelve (6) with the view nf conferring on their ministry a double and

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 253
triple consecration. After having had recourse to inventiun to exalt them, we are tn
suppnse that he nuw invents tn degrade them ! 3. That the three Syn. are agreed in
placing this missinn uf the Twelve just after the preceding cycle (the tempest,
Gadara, Jairus), and that as Matthew places this cycle, as well as the Sermun nn the
Muunt, which it clnsely fulluwa, earlier than Luke, the different pnaitinn which the
misaiun nf the Twelve nccupies in the une frnm that which it hulds in the uther,
results very naturally frum this fact. It ia to be ubserved that Mark, whuse account
of the sending fort'u ef the Twelve fully confirms that of Luke, is 'quite independent
of it, as is pruved by a number nf details which are peculiar tn him (6 : 7, two and
two; ver. 8, save one staff only ; ibid.,^Mioji two coats; ver. 13, ihey anointed with oil).
lat. Vers. 1, 3.* The Miasion. — There is. snmething greater than preaching — this
is tn make preachers ; there is snmething greater than perfnrming miraclea — this is
tn impart the pnwer tn perfurm them. It is this new stage -which the work of Jesus
here reaches. He labors tn raise His apnstles up to Hia nwn level. The expreaainn
avyKaXeadpevos, liaving caUed together, indicates a sulemn meeting ; it expreaaes mere
than the term wpoaKuXElaBai, to call io Him, used in Mark and Matthew. What would
Baur have said if the first expresaion had been found in Matthew and the second in
Luke, when throughout Luke's narrative as it is he, aeea an intention to depreciate
this scene in comparison with that which followa, 10 : 1, et seq. ?
In Jewish eatimation, the most dirine form ef power ia that of working miracles.
It is with this, therefore, that Jesus begins : dvvapis, the power ef execution ; i^ova'ia,
the authority which is the foundation ef it ; the demnns will therefnre owe them
obedience, and will nnt fail, in fact, tn render it. These twn terms are nppnsed tn
the anxinus and labnred practices of the exorcists. Ttavra : all the different maladies
coming under this head — melancholy, violence, mania, etc. . . . QEpavEVEiv, to
heal, depends neither on dvvapic nur e^ovaia, but nn eduKEv, He gave them ; there is nu
i^ovaia in regard tn diseases. Such vrill be their pnwer, their weapnn. But these
cures are nnt the end ; they are nnly the means designed tu lend suppurt tu their
message. The end is indicated in ver. 2. This is tu proclaim thruughuut Galilee
the cuming of the kingdnm nf Gud, and at the same time tn make the penple feel the
grave impurtance nf the preaent time. It ia a return tn the miniatry nf Jnhn the
Baptiat, and nf our Lurd'a at ita cummencement (Mark 1 : 15). This undertaking
waa within the puwer nf the Twelve. " Tn preach and tn heal" meana " tn preach
while heaUng. " Only imagine the messengers of the Lord at the present day travers
ing our country with the announcement of His second coming being at hand, and
confirming their message by miracles. What a sensation such a miaaion would pro
duce ! Accnrding tn Mark, the Lnrd aent them two and two, which recaUs their
distributinn intu pairs, Luke 6 : 13-15 ; Matt. 10 : 2-4.
2d. Vers. 3-5.t Their Instructions. — " And He said untn them. Take nnthing fnr
ynur jnumey, neither staves, nnr scrip, neither bread, neither muney ; neither have
twn cuats apiece. 4. And whatsnever hnuse ye enter iutn, there aljide and thence
-* Ver. 1. T. R., with E. P. H. U. several Mnn. It""'!., reaAspaByraS avrov after
dodeKa (taken frnm Matthew) ; 11 Mjj. 100 Mnn. Syr, umit theae wurda ; !». C* L.
X. A. Z. aume Mrm. I'""'!, substitute airaaroXovS fnr them. Ver. 3. B. Syr™' nmit
TovS aaOsvovvras ; Ut. A. D. L. X. read tovS aaBEveiS.
t Ver. 3. ». B. C* D. E* P. L. M. Z. several Mnn. Syr. It. Eus. read pa^dov
inatead nf pa^dovs, which is the reading nf T. B. with 10 Mjj. many Mnn., but which
appears taken frnm Matthew. !». B. C* F. L. Z. umit^ava. Ver. 4. Vg., accnrding
tn C, adds py after eKeiBev. Ver. 5. S. B. 0. D. L. X. Z. snme Mnn. It»"i. nmit
Kai.

264 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
depart. 5. And whnsoever wiU nnt receive ynu, when ye gu nut nf that city, shake
nff the very dual frnm your feet fnr a testimnny against them." Ver. 3 cnntains
instructinns fur their setting nut ; ver. 4 instructinns respecting their arrival and
stay ; ver. 5, inatructinna fnr leaving each place.
Ver. 3. The feeling nf cunfidence is the key tu the injunctinns nf this verte :
" Make nn preparatinns, such aa arecrdinarily made en the eve nf a juurney ; set nut
juat as yuu are. " Gud will provide fur all ynur wants." The reply nf the apustles,
22 : 35, prnves that this promise waa nut unfulflUed. Mydiv, nothing ia a general
negative, tu which the subsequent, pyre, neither . . . nnr . . . are subnrdi
nate. Mark, whu cummences with a simple py, naturally cnntinues with the negative
pyde, nor further. Each writer, thnugh expressing the same idea as the nther, has
hia uwn particular way nf dning it. Luke aaya, neither staff, nr, accnrding tu another
reading, neither aiavea ; Matthew is like Luke ; Mark, on the contrary, save one staff
only. The centradictinn in lerma cnuld not be greater, yet the agreement in idea is
perfect. Fnr aa far aa the sentiment is cencerned which Jesus wiahea tn express, it
is all nne tn say, "nuthing, nut even a staff" (Matthew and Luke), ur, "nuthing,
except it be simply (ur at mnst) a staff" (Mark). Ebrard makes the acute nbservatien
that in Aramsean Jesus prnbably said, nClO C^? ''Z- /'"' if ... a staff, an ellip
tical fnrm alsn much used in Hebrew, and which may be filled up in twn ways : For,
if you take a aiaff, this of itaelf is quite sufficient (Mark) ; nr, this of itself is too much
(Matthew and Luke). This saying nf Jesus might therefure be reprnduced in Greek
either in une way ur the nther. But in nn case cnuld theae twn oppnaite fnrms be
explained nn the hypnthesis uf a cummun written Greek snurce. Bleek, whn prefers
the expreasinn given in Matthew and Luke, dues nnt even attempt tu explain how
that in Mark cuuld have uriginated. It we read staves, accnrding tn a varinus read
ing fnund in Luke and Matthew, the plural must naturaUy be applied tn the two
apostles travelling together. Luke says. Do not have each {dvd, distributive) two
coats, that is to say, each a change of coat, beyond what you wear. As they were
not to have a travelling cloak {nypa), 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 twn cuats." The infinitive py ixeiv depends en eine : "He said
to them . . . not to have. -. . ."
As an unanawerable proof of an nppnaite tendency in Matthew and Luke, it is
usual tn cite the nmiaainn in this passage uf the prohibiliun wilh which in Matthew
this diacnurae cummences (10 :5) : " Gn nut intn tbe way nf tbe Gentilea, and into any
city ef the Samaritans enter ye nnt : but gu rather tn the lust aheep nf the huuse ef
Israel." But even iu Matthew this prnhibitinn is nut abanlute {rather) nnr permanenti
(28:19), " Gn and teach all nationa"). It was therefnre a restrictinn tempnrarily'
irapnsed upun the diaciples, in cunsideraliou uf the privilege accurded tu the Jewish
natiun nf being the cradle nf the wurk nf the Messiah, "with snme exceptiuna, for
which there were urgent reasons, Jesus Himself was generally governed by this rule.
He says, indeed, in reference lo Hia earthly ministry : " I am not sent save to the
lost sheep of the house nf Israel" (Matt. 15 : 24) ; nevertheless. He is not ignnrant
that it ia His miaaion tn seek and tu save all tliat which ia lost, and cnnsefiuently the
heathen. He affirms it in tbe Gospels nf Matthew and Mark, nn lesa Ihan in that of
Luke. Paul himself does homage tn this diviue fldelity, when he recalls the fact that
Jesua, during Hia earthly lite, cnnsented tn becnme a minister of the circumcision (Rom.
15 : 8). But, 1. What reasnn cuuld Luke have, in the circle fur which he waa writ
ing, tu refer le this restrictie* tempnrarily impnaed upun the Twelve fer the purpose
of thia particular misaion ? 2. Mark, no leas than Luke, omits these words in the
account he gives of this discourse, but the harmony of his leaning with that of the

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 255
first evangelist is nut suspected. 3. This laat circumstance makes it all but certain
that this detail had already been umitted in the suurces whence these twn evangelists
drew Iheir narratives, and must cempletely exculpate Luke from all anti- Jewish prej
udice in his reproductinn nf this diacnurae.
Ver. 4. On their arrival at a city, they were tn aettle dnwn in the flrst hnuse tn
which they ubtained access {eIs yv iv, into whatever houae), which, hnwever, waa nnt
tn exclude prudence and weU-aacertained infermatiun (Matthew) ; and, nnce seliled
in a huuse, they were tn keep tn it, and try tu make it the centre cf a divine wurk iu
that place. Tn accept the hnapitality nf aeveral families in successinn wnuld be- the
means nf creating rivalry. It wuuld therefore be frnm this h'uuse alsn, which waa
the flrst tn welcume them, that they wuuld have tn aet nutun leaving the place : " till
ye gn thence." The reading nf the Vulg. : " Go ¦not nut of this huuae," ia an errune-
nus currectinn. In the primitive churchea Christian wnrk waa cuncentrated ' in
certain hnusea, which cuntinued tu be centrea cf nperatinn (cump. the expressiun iu
Paul's epistles, " The church which is in his hnuse").
Ver. 5. The gospel doea not force itaelf upon men ; it is an elastic power, pene
trating wherever it flnds access, and retiring wherever it is repulaed. This was Jesus'
own mode of acting all through Hia ministry (8 : 37 ; John 3 : 22), The Jews were
accustumed, nn their return from heathen countries tn the Holy Land, to shake off
the dust frnm their feet at the frontier. Thia act symbnlized a breaking away frnm
aU juint-participation in the life of the idelatruua wnrld. The apnalles were tu act in
the same way^in reference tn any Jewish citiea which might reject in their persnn thu
kingdnm uf Gnd. Kai, even the dust. By this symbnlical act they relieved them
selves nf the burden nf all further respunsibility nn account nf the penple nf that city.
The expressinn, foj- a teatimony, with the ccmplement in' airo-vs, upon ihem, has
evidently reference tn the judgment tn cnme ; in Mark the complement airols,for
tliem, makes the testimnny an immediate appeal te their guilty consciences.
Sd. Ver. 6. 2he Result. — Aja, in diypxovro {tliey went through), has fer its comple
ment the country in general, and denotes the extent ef their mission. Karo', which
is distributive, expreaaea the accomplishment ef it in detail : " staying in every little
town. ',' Only Mark makes mention here of the use of nil in healing the sick— a re
markable circumstance, with which the precept, James 5 : 14, is prnbably cunnected.
In Matthew the diacnurae abaorbs the attention ef the historian to such a degree
that he does nnt say a wnrd, at the end uf chap. 10, abnut the executinn nf their
mission. This short address, giving the Twelve their instructions, is only the preamble in
Matthew (chap. 10) te a much mnre extended discuurse, in which Jesus addreaaOa the
apuatles respecting their future ministry in general. Under the influence nf his fixed
idea, Baur maintains that Luke purposely abridged the discourse in Matthew, in urder
lo diminish the impurtance uf the missinn uf the Twelve, and bripg nut in bnlder
leliet that nf the seventy disciples (Luke 10). " We see, ".he says, " that every wurd
here, ao tu speak, ia tuo much fur the evangelist" (" Evangel." p. 435). , But, 1. If
Luke had been animated by the jealous feeling with this crilicism imputes to him,
and so had allowed himaelf lo tamper wilh the hiatory, wnuld hi.' have. put the elec-
tinn nf the Twelve (chap. 6), as distinct frum their first misaion, intu such promi
nence, when Matthew appeara tn cunfuund theae twn eventa (10:1-4)? Wnuld he
mentinn sn expressly the success uf their missiun, aa he dnes, ver. 6, while Matthew
himself preaervea cnmplete silence upun this pnint ? It is furtunate for Luke that
their respective parts were not changed, as they might have been and very innocently,
BO far as he is cencerned. He wuuld have had to pay smartly for his omiasion in the

^56 COMMENTAR\' ON ST. LUKE.
hands of such critics 1 2. Mark (6 : 8-10) gives this discourse in exactly the same
furm as Luke, and nnt at aU after Matthew's manner ; he, hnwever, is nut suspected
of any antipathy tn the Twelve. It fnUuws from this, that Mark and Luke have
sunply given the discnurse as they fuund it, either in a cummun dncument (the
primitive Mark, accnrding tn Hultzmann), ur in ducuments nf a very similar charac
ter, tc which they had access. There is sufficient prunf, from a cnmparisun nf ver.
6 in Luke with ver. 13 in Mark, that nf these twn suppnsitinns the latter muat be
preferred. 3. We may add, lastly, that in the discuurse on ihe apostolate (Matt. 10) it
ia eaay tu recngnize the same characteristics already ubserved in the Sermun on the
Muunt. It is a cnmpnsitiun nf a didactic nature nn a deflnite subject, in which frag
ments uf very different discnurses, speaking chrunnluglcally, are cuUected intn a
single discnurse. "The instructinns it cnntains," Hnltzmann rightly nbserves (p.
183), " gn far beynnd the actual situatinn, and imply a much mnre advanced state nf
things. . . ." Bleek, Ewald, and Hilgenfeld alau recngnize the mnre evident
indicatiuns nf anticipatiun. We flnd the true plaoe fnr the greater part nf the paaaagea
grouped tugether in Matthew, under the heading, general inatructiona on theapoaiolate,
in Luke 12 and 21. Fnr all these reaaun s, we regard the accusatinn brought against
Luke respecting this discnurse as Scientiflcally untenable.
4:th. Vers. 7-9.* T/ie Fea/ra of Herod.— This passage in Matthew (ch. 14) ia aepa-
rated by several chaptera frnm the preceding narrative ; but it is cunnected with it
bnth chrnnnlngically and murally by Luke and Mark (6 : 14, ei seq.). It was, in fact,
the stir created by this missinn nf the Twelve which brought the fame of Jesus te
Herod's ears ("' for His name was spread abroad," Mark 6 ; 14). The idea nf this
prince, which Luke mentions, that Jesus might be Juhn risen frum the dead, is the
unly indicatinn which is tu be fnuud iu this evangeliat nf the murder uf the fure
runner. But fnr the exiatence uf this shnrt paasage in Luke it would have been laid
dnwn as a crhical axinm that Luke waa ignnrant nf the murder nf Juhn the Baptist !
The aaying, Eliaa ur nne nf the nld propheta, meant a great" deal — nnthing leas, in the
language nf that time, than the Messiah is at hand (Matt. 16 : 14 ; Jnhn 1 : 21, et seq,)
In Matthew and Mark the suppusitinn that Jesus is nunc nther than the furerunner
risen frnm the dead pruceeda frnm Hernd himaelf. In Luke thia apprebensinn is sug
gested tn him by pnpular rumur, which is certainly mnre natural. The repetitinn nf
iyu, !, is, aa Meyer aays, the echn uf an alai-med cnnscience. The remarkable detail,
which Luke alune has preserved, that Hernd snught tn have a private interview with
Jesus, indicates an uriginal snurce nf infurmatinn clusely cunnected with thia king.
Perhaps it reached Luke, cr the authnr uf the ducument nf which he availed him
selt, by means uf snme nne nf thuse persuns whnm Luke describes sn exactly, 8 : 3
and Acts 13 : 1, and whu belunged tn Hernd'a hnuaehnld.
2. Tlw Multiplication qf the Boavea : 9 : 10-17. — This narrative is the enly one in
the entire Galilean ministry which is common to the feur evangelists (Matt. 14 : 18,
et aeq. ; Mark 0 : 30, et aeq. ; John 6). It forms, therefore, an important mark ut
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 begina to disclose to His apostles the mystery of His approaching suf
ferings (Luke 9 : 18-27 ; Matt. 16 : 13-28 ; Mark 8 : 27-38) ; in John this miracle leads
to an important crisis in the wurk nf Jesus in Galilee, and the discuurse which fol
lowa alludea to tbe appruaching viulent death nf the Lnrd (6 : 53-56).
* Ver. 7. i*. B. C. D. L. Z. umit vn' avrov. The same and 10 Mnn., yyepBy inatead
ef Eyyysprai, Ver. 8. The Alex, ns instead of eiS. Ver. 9. !*. B. C. L. Z. omit evo
Jjefoie anEKEibaXiaa,

CO:\r:ME.VTARY ON ST. LUKE. 257
1st. Vers. 10, 11.* Tlie Occasion.— kccordingto Liike, the mntive which induced
Jesus tu withdraw intu a desert place was His desire fur mnre privacy with Hia dis
ciples that He might talk with them nt their experiences during their missiun. Mark
relates, with a slight difference, that His ubject waa tu secure them sume rest after
their laburs, there being such a multitude cnnstantly gning and cuming as tu leave
them nn leisure. Accnrding tn Matthew, it was the news nf the murder nf the fure
runner which led Jesua tn aeek aulitude with Hia diaciples ; which, hnwever, cnuld in
nn way imply that He snught in this way tn shield Himself frnm Herod's vinlence.
Fnr hnw cnuld He, if this were sn, have entered the very next day intn the dumininns
nf this suvereigu (Matt. 14 : 34 ; cnmp. with Mark and Juhn) ? All these facts prnve
the mutual independence uf the Syn. ; they are easily harmnnized, if we nnly suppuse
that the intelligence nf tbe murder nt Jnhn was cumraunicated tn Jesus by Hia apns
tles un their return from their missinn, that it made Him feel deeply the approach nf
His nwn end (nn the relatinn between these twn deaths, see Matt. 17 : 12), and that it
was while He was under these impreaaiuna that He deaired to aecure a season of retire
ment for His disciples, and an opportunity for more private intercourse with them.
The reading ef the T. R. : m a desert place of the city called Bethsaida, is the most
cemplete, but for this very reaaon the most doubtful, since it ia probably made up out
ef the others. The reading of the principal Alex., in a city called BetlisaUda, oimts
the notinn, sn impnrtant in this paasage, of a desert place, prnbably because it appeared.
incunsistent with the idea uf a eiiy, and specially uf Bethaaida, where Jesus was an
weU knnwn. The reading nf 5* and nf the Curetun Syriac tranalatinn, in a desert
place, is attractive fur its brevity. But whence came the mentiun uf Bethsaida in all
the nther variatinns ? Of the twu cuntradictnry nutinns, the desert and Bethsaida,
this reading sacriflces the prnper name, as the preceding had aacriflced the deaert. The
true reading, therefnre, appeara tn me tn be that which ia preserved in the Syriac ver
sion of Schaaf and in the Italic, in a desert place called Betlisaida. This reading retains
the two ideaa, the apparent inconaiatency ef which has led te all theae alterationa of
the text, but in a mnre cunciae and at the aame time mure currect fnrm than that nf
the received reading. It makea mentiun nut nf a city, but nf an inhabited cnuntry nn
the ahure nf the lake, bearing the name nf Bethaaida. If by this expressinn Luke had
intended tn dennte the city uf Bethsaida between Capernaum and Tiberias, nn the west-
' em side nf the lake, the cnuntry uf Peter, Andrew, and Philip, he would be in npen
cuntradiction tu Matthew, Mark, and Jnhn, whn place tbe multiplicatinn cf the luaves
nn the eastern aide, aince in all three Jeaua cruaaea tbe sea the next day tn return tu
Galilee {into the country of Gennesareth, Matt. 14 : 34 ; to Bethsaida, nn the western
shure, Mark 0 : 45 ;f to Capernaum, Jnhn 6 : 49). But in thia caae Luke wnuld cnn
tradict himself as well as -the nthers. Fur Bethsaida, near Capernaum, being situated
in the centre nf the sphere nf the activity uf .Tesus, hnw cnuld the Lnrd repair thither
with the intentinn uf finding a place nf retirement, a desert place ? The meaning nf
the name Bethsaida {fishing place) naturally leads ua tn suppuse that there were several
* Ver. 10. T. R. with 14 Mjj. aeveral Mnn., ronov Epypov noXeu; Ka7iovpEvyS
ByBaaida. S=». B. L. X. Z. (Tisch. 8th ed.), noXiv KaXovpevyv ^yBaaida, SjT'^''. It.
Vulg., Tonov epypov KuXavpevov BySaaida. !S* Syr""'., tottoi' epypov. Ver. 11. The
MSS. are divided between de^apEvoS and anode^apsvoS.
X It is really incredible that Klnstermann shuuld have been induced tn adnpt an
interpretatinn sn fnrced as that which cunnecta the wurda Trpds 'SyBaaiddv with the ful-
Inwing propnsitinn, by making them depend nn dnoXiay ; " until He had sent a-way
the penple tn Bethsaida 1"

368 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.\
fisheries alnng the lake nf this name. The term Bethsaida of Galilee, John 13 : 31,
cnnfirms this suppusitinn : fur this epithet must have served tn distinguish this Beth-.
saida frnm sume nther. Lastly, Jnsephus (Antiq. xvui. 3. 1 ; Bell. Jud. iii. 10. 7) and
Pliny (v. 15) expressly mentiun anuther Bethsaida, situated in Gauluuitis, at the nurth-
east extremity uf the sea uf GaUlee, near the embnuchure nf the Jnrdan. The tetrarch
Philip had built (prnbably in the vicinity uf a district uf this cnuntry called Belh-
sa'i'da), a city, which he had named, after a daughter uf Augustus, Bethsa'ida-J'M&s
the ruina ut which Pucucke believes he haa diacovered on a hill, the name of which
(Telui) seems te signify mountain of Julia (Morgenl. ii. p. 106).* There Jesus would
more easily find the solitude which He sought.
The term, insxupyoE, Se withdrew, does not inform us whether Jesus made the
journey on foot er by beat. Luke doubtlesa did net knew ; he confines himaelf to
reproducing his information. The three ether narrativea apprise us that the journey
was made by water, but that the crowds which, contrary te the intention of Jesus,
knew of His departure, set out to feUow Him ire^y, 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 tu Julias might be made as quickly by land as by aea.f The unexpected
arrival nf the people defeated the plan of Jesus. But He was tun deeply muved by
the luve shnwn fur Him by this multitude, like sheep without a ahepherd (Maik), te
give them anything but a tender welcume {de^dpevoS, Luke) ; and while these cru<vds
uf peuple were flecking up one after another (John 6 : 5), a loving thuught ripened in
His heart. Jnhn has diaclnaed it tn us (6 : 4). It was the time nf the Passnver. He
cnuld nnt visit Jerusalem with Hia disciples, nwing tu the virulent hatred nf which
He had becnme the ubject. In this unexpected gathering, resembling that uf the
natinn at Jerusalem, He discerns a signal frnm nn high, and determines tu celebrate
a feaat in the desert, as a compenaalinn fnr the Paaauver feast.
2d. Vera. 13-15. j: Tlie Preparations. — It was absnlutely impnssible tu find suffl
cient fnod in this place for such a multitude ; and Jesus feels Himself tn snme extent
respunsible fnr the circumstances. This miracle was net, therefnre, aa Keim main
tains, a purely nslentatiuus prodigy. But in nrder tu understand it thnrnughly, it must
-* Winer, " Realwnrterbuch."
f Kunrad Furrer, in the wurk cited, p. 34, maintains that Jnhn (in his view, the
romancing Pseudc-Juhn nf the secnnd century) places the multiplicatiun nf the loaves
very much mure tn tbe snuth, nppnaite Tiberias. The prunf nf this asaertinn ? John
6 : 33 : " Hnwbeit there came nther bnats frum Tiberias nigh untn the place where
they did eat bread. '| It appears, accnrding tn M. Furrer, Ihat a large lake can nnly
be traversed in the directinn nf ita width aud through the middle nf it I Pray, why
cnuld nut bnala, setting nut frum Tiberias, visit Bethsa'i'da-Julias, where it was un
derstnud that a great multitude had gune ? Cnmp. the accuunt which Jnsephus gives
uf the transpurt nf a bndy nf truups from Taricbese, at the anuthern extremity nf the
lake, tn Juliaa, and nf the transpurt nf Juaephus, wnunded, from Julias tn Tarichese
(Jns. Vita, § 73). Keim himself says : " The multitude, in nrder tn rejein Jeaus,
muat have made a juurney nf six leagues round the lake" (nn the hypnthesis nf
Furrer) ; and hnw could Jesus aay to His disciples, when He sent them away te the
ether side, after the multiplication of the loaves, that He shOuld very soon join them
(.Tehn 6 ; 17 ; Matt. 14 : 22 ; Mark 6 : 45) ?' It is on such grounds {auf iopographiaclie
Beweise gesMtzt) that the evangelist ,Tohn is made out te be an artist and romancer I
X Ver. 13. S, A. B. C. D. L. R. Z., nopevBEVTE; instead of anEXBovrsS. Ver. 14,
!*. L, It""i. Vg., <^E instead of yap, !*. B, C. D. L. R, Z., oaei ava instead ef ava.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 259
beluoked at from the point of view presented by John. In the Syn. it is the disciples
whn, as evening draws near, call the attentinn uf Jesus to the situatinn uf the peo
ple ; He answers them by inviting them to provide fnr the wanta uf the multitude
themselves. In Jnhn it is Jeaus whn takes the initiative, addressmg Himself specially
tn Philip ; then He cunfers with Andrew, whu haa succeeded in discovering a young
lad furnished with seme prnvisinns. It is nnt difflcult tn recuncile theae twu ac
cnunts ; but in the flrat we recugnize the blurred lines nf traditinn, in the aecund the
recnllectinns of an eye-witness full of freshness and accuracy. The two hundred
pennyworth of bread fnrms a remarkable mark nf agreement between the narrative ef
John and that of Mark. John does net depend nn Mark ; hia narrative ia distin
guished by tnn many marks uf uriginality. Neither has Mark cepied frura Jnhn ; he
wuuld nnt have effaced the strnngly -marked features nf the narrative nf the latter.
Frnm this cuiucidence in such a very insigniflcant detail we nbtain a remarkable cnn
firmatinn nf all thnse little characteristics by which Mark's narrative ia an nften dis
tinguished, and which De Wette, Bleek, and others regard as amplificatiuns.
Jesus has nn sunner ascertained that there are five leaves and twn fishes than He is
satisfied. He cummands them tu make the multitude sit duwn. Juat aa thnugh He
had said : I have what I want ; the meal is ready ; let them be seated I But He
takea care that this banquet ahall be cnnducted with an nrder wurthy uf the Gnd whu
givea it. Everything muat be calm and sulemn ; it is a kind nf passover meal. By
the help nf the apustles. He seats His guesta in rnwa nf flfty each (Matthew), nr in
dnuble rows uf fifty, by hundreds (Mark), This nrderly arrangement allnwed nf the
guests being easily cnunted. Mark describes in a dramatic manner the striking spec
tacle presented by these regularly-furmed cnmpanies, each cunaiating uf twu equal
ranks, and all arranged upnn the alnpe of the hill {avpndaia avpnama, npaaial npamai,
ver. 39, 40). The paaturea at that time were in all their sprmg aplendnr, and Juhn
and Mark nffer a freah cuiucidence here, in that they buth bring fnrward the beauty
uf this natural carpet {xdpros noXv^, Jnhn ; ;t;Aup5s x^proS, Mark ; Matthew says,
ol xop'^oi)- In cnnfurmity With uriental usage, accurding tu which wnmen and chil
dren must keep themselves apart, the men alnne {ol dvdpes, Jnhn 5 : 10) appear to be
seated in the nrder indicated. This explains why, accnrding tn the Syn. , they alune
were cnunled, as Luke says (ver. 14), alsu Mark (ver. 44), and, mure emphatically
StUl, Matthew (ver. 31, " withnut wnmen and chUdren").
Sd. Vers. 16, 17,* The Repast.— T!he prunuuncing uf a blessing by Jesus is an inci
dent preserved in all fnur narratives. It must have produced a special impressinn nn
aU the fnur witnesses. Each felt that this act contained the secret of the marvellous
power displayed on this occasion. To bless God fer a little is the way te obtain
much. 'In Mattbew and Mark, eiXdyyae, He blessed, is absolute ; the object uuder-
atood is God. Luke adda airovs, them (the food), a word which the Sinaiticus erases
(wrongly, it is clear), in accprdance with the two ether Syn. It is a kind ef sacra
mental consecration. John uses the word eixapwreiv, which is choaen, perhaps^ not
without reference to the name of the later paschal feaat (eucharist). The imperfect
kdidav in Luke and Mark is graphic : " He gave, and kept on giring." The mention
of the fragments indicates the cumplete aatiafactinn of their hunger. In Jnhn it is
Jesus whu nrders them tn be gathered up. This act must therefure be regarded as an
expressinn of fllial respect fnr the gift of the Father. The twelve baskets are men-
Ver. 16. 5t. X. Syr"'', umit avrovs.

260

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

tinned in all the fuur narratives. The baskets bekmged tu the furniture of a caravan.
Probably they were what; the apnstles had prorided themselvea with when they set
nut. The number nf the persuns fed is given by Matthew and Mark here. Luke
had mentiuned it already in the 14th verse, after the reply uf the disciples ; John a
little later (ver. 10), at the mument when the cnmpanies were being seated. What
unaccnuntable caprice, if these narratives were taken frnm each uther, nr even frnm
the same written snurce I
The criticism which sets out with the denial of the supernatural is compelled to
eraae thia fact frum the hiatnry of Jesus ; and this miracle cannnt, ih fact, be ex
plained by the " hidden fnrces nf apnntaneity," by the " charm which a perann nf
fine nrganizatinn exerciaes nver weak nerves.'' It is nnt pnaaible either to fall back,
with aume cnmmentatcra, nn the process nf vegetatinn, by auppnaing here au unuaual
acceleratiun nf it ; we have tn deal with bread, nut with cnrn ; with cnnked fish, nut
wilh living creatures. The fact is miraculnus, nr it is nnthing. M. Rfenan has
returned tn the ancient interpretatinn uf Paulus : Every nne tnnk hia little sture uf
pruviaiuna frum his wallet ; they lived nn very little. Keim cumbines with this ex
planatiun the mythical interpretatinn in twn ways— imitatinn of the O. T. (the
manna ; Elisha, 3 Kings 4 : 43), and the Christian idea of the multiplication ef the
Word, the food of the soul. With the explanation ef Paulus, it ia difflcult to con
ceive what could have excited the enthusiasm of the people to the point of making
them instantly resolve to proclaim Jesus as their King ! The mythical interpretation
has to contend with special difflcultiea. Four parallel and yet original narratives wonder
fully supplementing each other, a number of minute precise details quite incompati
ble with the nebulous character ef a myth (the five leaves and the two fishes, the 5000
persuns, the ranks nf fifty, and the cnmpanies uf a hundred, the twelve baskets) — all
these detaUs, preserved in fnur independent and yet harmnninus accuunts, indicate
either a real event ur a deliberate inventiun. But the hypnthesis nf inventiun, which
Baur sn freely applies tn the miracles recnrded in the fnurth Gnspel', flnds an inaur
mnuntable nbatacle here iu the accnunta nf the three nther evangeUats. Huw is criti
cism to get uut uf this hetwurk uf difflculties ? When it has exhausted its ingenuity,
it will end by laying dnwn its arras befure the huly aimpUcity nf thia narrative.
3. First Announcement of the Paaaion : 9 : 18-37. — Up tn the flrst multiplicatinn of
ihe Inavea, it is impnssible tn make nut any cuntinunus aynchrnniam between the
synnptics, as the fnUnwing table uf the series nf preceding incidents shews : ^

Matthew. Gadara.
The Paralytic.
Call of Matthew.
Ja'iruB.
The blind and dumb.
Mission of the Twelve.
Deputation of Jnhn Bapt.
Sabbatic scenes.
Accuaatinn (Beelzebub).
Mother and brethren of
Jesus.
The seven parables.
Nazareth.
Murder of John Baptist.
Desert and first multipli
cation.

Makk.
Accusation (Beelzebub).
Mother and brethren of
Jesus.
Parable of the sower.
Gadara. Jairus.
Nazareth.
Misaion of the Twelve.
Murder of John Baptist.
Desert and first multipli
catinn.

LUKB.
Parable ef the sower.
Mother and brethren of
Jesus. '

Gadara. Jairus.

Mission of the Twelve.

Desert and flrst multipli
cation.

Numbers might be thrown into a bag and takeu out again hap-hazard thrice over,
-withnut obtaining an order apparently more capricious and varied. Yet ef these

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

261

three narratives, one is suppnsed tn be cupied frnm the uther, ur tn have emanated
from the same written snurce !
Nevertheleas, tnward the end a certain parallelism begins tn shuw itself, first of
all between Mark and Luke (Gadara, Jairus, Mission nf the Twelve), then between
Matthew and Mark (Nazareth, murder uf Jnhn, desert and flrat mulliplicatinn).
Thia cunvergence nf the three narrativea intu nne and the same Une prnceeds frnm
this pnint, after a cunsiderable nmiaainn in Luke, and becnmea mnre decidedly marked,
untU it reachea Luke 9 : 50, as appears from the fnUnwing table :

Matthew.

Maek.

Luke.

Desert and first multiplica

As Matthew.

As Matthew

tinn.

Tempest (Peter eu the water).

Tempest (without Peter).

Wanting.

Purifying and clean fend.

As Matthew.

!d.

Canaanitish wnman.

Id.

,Id.

Secnnd multiplicatinn.

Id.

Id.

Sign from heaven (Decapnlis).

Id.

!d.

Leaven nf the Pharisees.

Id.

Id.

First anununcement ef the

Id.

As Matthew.

Passion.

Transfiguration.
Id.
Id.
Lunatic child.
Id.
Id.
Second announcement of the
!d.
Id.
Passion.
The Didrachma.
Wanting.
Wanting.
The example of the child.
As Matthew.
As Matthew.
Ecclesiastical DiscipUne.
Id.
Id.
Wanting.
Intolerance.
As Mark.
Forgiveness of offences.
Wanting.
Wanting.
How ia tbe large omiaaion to be explained which Luke's narrative exhibits from
the storm following the flrat multiplication to the laat anununcement nf the Paasirin,
cnrrespnnding tn twn whule chapters nf Matthew (14 ; 33-16 : 13) and nf Mark
(6 : 45-8 : 36) ? Hnw is the tujerably exact synchronism which shews itaelf from
this time between all three to be acceunted fur ? Meyer gives up all attempts tn ex
plain the nmissiun ; it was due tu an unknnwn chance. Reuaa (| 189) thinks that the
cupy uf Mark which Luke uaed presented an nmiaainn in this place. Bleek attrib
utes the nmiaainn tn the nriginal Greek Gnapel which Matthew and Luke made uae
nf ; Matthew, he suppuses, filled it up by means nf certain ducuments, and Mark
cupied Matthew. Hnltzmann (p. 333) cnntents himaelf with saying that Luke here
breaks the thread nf A. (primitive Mark), in nrder tn cnnnect with hia narrative the
pnrtinn which fulluwa ; but he saya nnthing that might aerve tu explain this strange
procedure. But the hypntheais upun which almnst all these attempted aulutinna reat
is that nf a cummnn original dncument, which, hnwever, ia cnntinually cuntradicted
by the numeruua differences buth in fnrm and matter which a single glance nf tbe eye
discnvers between Matthew and Mark. Then, with all this, the difficulty is unly re
mnved a step farther back. Fnr it becnmes neceasary tn explain the nmissinn in the
uriginal ducument. And whenever thia is dune aatisf actnrily, it will, be fnund neces
sary tn have recnurse tn the fuUnwing idea, which, fur nur nwn part, we apply
directly tn Luke. In the nriginal preaching uf the gnspel, particular incidents were
naturally grouped together in certain cycles ranre nr leaa fixed, determined sumetimes
by chrnnnlngical cnnnectinn (the call uf Matthew, the feast and the subsequent cun-
263 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
versations, the tempest, Gadara, and Ja'lrus), sometimes by the similarity of the syl
jects (the Sabbatic scenes, 6 : 1-11).* These cycles were first of all put in writihg,
with considerable freedom and variety, sometimea by the preachers fnr their nwh,use,
and in nther caaea by their hearers, whn were anxinus tu fix their recnllection of
them. The oldest writinga of which Luke speaks (1 : 1) were probably collations
more or lesa complete uf theae gruupa nf narratives {dvard^aadai di^yyyaiv). An^ what
in thia caae can be mnre readily imagined than the nmissinn nf une ur the other ef
these cycles in any nf theae coUecliona ? An accident uf thia kind ia sufficieiit tu ex-
^plain the great nmiaainn which we meet with in Luke. The cycle wanting in the
document he uaed extended a little farther than the second multiplication of the
loavea, while the following portions belong to a part of the Galilean miniatry, which,
from the beginning, had taken a more definite form in the preaching. This was
natural ; for the facts of which this subaequent seriea ia compoaed are closely con
nected by a double tie, beth chronological and moral. The aubject ia the approach
ing sufferings ef Jesus. The anneuncement ot them to the disciples is the aim- of the
following discourse ; and to strengthen their faith in view ef this everwhelmmg
thought is evidently the design of the transfiguration. The cure of the lunatic child,
which tunk place at the fnut uf the mnuntain, was assuciated with the transflguratinn
in the traditinn ; the secnnd anneuncement ef the Passion naturally fullewed the flrst,
and all the more since it took place during the return from Caesarea to Capernaum ;
which was the case also with certain manifestations of pride and intolerance of which
the apostles were tfien guilty, and the account uf which terminates this part. In the
traditiun, this natural cycle termed the cleae nf the GalUeai^ ministry. And this ex
plains hnw the series nf facta haa been preaerved in ahnnst identical urder in the three
narratives. The fuUnwing cunversatiuu, repurted alsn by Matthew (16 : 13 et seq.) and Mark
(8 : 37 et aeq.), refers to three points ; Is^ The Christ (vers. 18-30) ; 2d, The suffering
Christ (vers. 31 and 33) ; Sd. The disciples cf the suffering Christ (vers. 33-27).
Jesus lust nn time in returning tn His project nf seeking a season uf retirement, a
project which had been twice defeated, at Bethsaida-Julias, by the eagerneaa nf the
multitude tn fnllnw Him, and again in Tyre aud Sidun, where, nutwithstanding His
desire tn remain hid (Mark 7 : 34), His presence had been discuvered by the Canaanit
ish wuman, and afterward nuiaed abruad thrnugh the miracle which tuftk place.
After that He had returned tn tbe snuth, had visited a aecend time that Decapolis
which he had previuusly been nbliged to quit almnst as snun as He entered it. Then
He set nut again fnr the nnrth, this time directing His steps mnre eastward, tnward
the secluded vaUeys where the Jurdan rises at the fnut nf Hermen. The city nf
Cseaarea Philippi waa aituated there, inhabited by a peuple nf whom the greater part
were heathen (Jnsephus, Vita, § 13). Jesus might expect tn find in this secluded
cnuntry the sulitude which He had snught in vain in uther parts nf the Hnly Land.
He did not Visit the city itself, but remained in the hamleta which surround it (Mark),
or generally in thoae quarters (Matthew).
lat. Vers. 18-30. The Christ. — According to Mark, the following conversation
took place during the journey {iv ry ddip) ; Mark thus gives precision te the vaguer
indication of Matthew. The name of Cseaarea Philippi is wanting in Luke's narra-
* Por the working out of a similar idea, aee Lachmann's fine work, ' Stud. u.
Kritiken," 1835.

COMMENTA RY ON ST. LUKE. , 263'
tive. WUl criticism succeed in finding a dogmatic motive for this omiaaion ? In a
writer like Luke, who lovea to be preciae about placea (ver. 10) aud timea (ver. 28),
thia omiasion can enly be accounted for by ignorance ; therefere he poasesaed neither
Mark nor Matthew, nor the documenta from which theae last derived thia name.
The description of the moral situatinn belnngs, hnwever, tn Luke : Jeaus had juat
been alune praying. " Arbitrary and Ul-chcsen scenery," says Hultzmann (p. 334).
One wnuld like tn knnw the grounds nf this judgraent un the part ef the German
critic. Wnuld nnt Jesua, at the mnment uf disclnsing tu His disciples fnr the flrat
tirae the alarming prospect nf His approaching death, fnreseeing the impressinn which
thia cummunicatinn wnuld make upnn them, having regard alsu the manner in which
He must apeak tu them under such circumstances, be likely tu prepare Himself fcr
this impnrtant step by prayer,? Besides, it is prubable that the disciples tnnk part iu
His prayer. The imperfect cvvyaav , ihey were gathered together with Him, appears tn
indicate as much. And the term Kurapdvag {ddois understund), in solitude, in nn way
excludes the presence of the disciples, but simply that nf the penple. This appears
frum the antithesis, ver. 33 : " And He said In them aU," and especially from Mark
ver. 34 :" Having called the multitude." The expressinn, they were gathered together,
indicates snmething nf Impurtance. Jesua flrat nf all elicits from Hia disciples the
different upininns which they had gathered from tbe lips nf the penple during their
missinn. The object of this flrat queation is evidently tn prepare the way fur the
next (ver. 30). On the uijininns here enumerated, see ver. 8 and John 1 : 31. They
amount tu this : Men generally regard thee as one nf the furerunners nf the Messiah.
The questinn addressed tn the disciplea ia designed, firat nf all, tn make them dia
tinctly cunscinus nf the wide difference between the pnpular npininn and tbe cnnvic
tinn at which they have themaelvea arrived ; next, tn serve as a starting-pnint fnr the
fresh cummunicatinn which Jeaus is abnut tu make respecting the manner in which
the wnrk uf the Christ is tn be accumplished. The cnnfessinn of Peter is differently
expreased in the three narrativea : the Ghnat, the Son of the living God (Matthew) ; the
Christ (Mark) ; the Christ of God (Luke). The form in Luke helda a middle place be
tween the ether two. The genit. , of God, aignifles, as in the expression Bomb of
God, He who belongs to God, and whom God sends.
It has been inferred from this queation, that up to thia tirae Jeaua had not assumed
.His position as the Messiah among His diaciples, and that IIis determination tu
accept this character, dates frnm thia pnint ; that thia resnlutinn waa taken partly in
conceaaion to the popular idea, which required that Hia wnrk nt restnration shnuld
asaume this fnrm, and partly tu meet the expectatinn nt the disciples, which fuund
emphatic expressiun thrnugh the lips uf Peter, the meat impatient nf their number.
But, 1. The questiun in ver. 30 has nut the character uf a cnnceasinn ; nn the cun-
trary, Jesus thereby takes the initiative in the cuntessiun which it calls fcrth. 3. If
this view be maintained, all thuse previnus sayings and incidents in which Jesus gives
Hiraself uut tu be the Christ must be set aside aa unauthentic ; and there are such
not nnly in Juhn (1 : 39-41, 49-51 ; 3 : 14, 4 : 36), but in the Syn. (the election of
the Twelve aa heads ef a new larael ; the parallel which Jeaua inatitutes. Malt. 5,
between Himaelf and the lawgiver et Sin-ai : " You have beard that it hath been.
aaid . . . but I . . . ;" the title of bridegreera which He givea Himself,
Luke 5 : 30, and parallels). 'The resolution of Jeaus to assume the character ef the
Measiah, and to accompliah under thia natiunal furm Hia universal tasls as Savinur nf
the wnrld, was certainly matured within Hia snul frum the first day nf Hia public
activity. The acenea nf the baptism and temptation forbid any other supposition ;
hence the entire absence nf anything like feeling His way in the progress nf His
ministry. The impurt uf His question is therefure something very different. "The

264 COMMENTARY ON St. LUKE.
time had come fnr Him tu pass, if we maysn expreas it, tn a new chapter in His
teaching. He had hithertn, especially since He began tu teach in parables, directed
the attentinn nf Hia disciples tu the near apprnach nf the kingdnm nf Gnd. It -waa
nnw necessary tu turn 11 tuward Himaelf aa Head nf this kingdnm, and espec^4lly
tnward the future, whnlly unlnuked fnr by them, which awaited Him in this char
acter. They knew that He was the Christ ; they had yet tn learn hnw He waa tn be
it. But befure cummencing nn this new grnund. He is anxinus that they shnuld ex
press in a distinct declaratinn, the reault nf Hia instructinns and cf their uwn previnus
experiences. As an experienced teacher, befnre beginning the new leaann- He makea
them recapitulate the nld. With the different fnrms and vacillatinns uf npininn, as
well as the upen denials nf the rulers befure them, He wants tn hear from their nwn
lipa the expressinn nf their nwn warm and decided cnnvictinn. This established result
nf His previnus labnr will serve as a fnundatinn fnr the new labnr which the gravity
uf His situatinn urges Him tn undertake. The murder nf Jnhn the Baptist made Him
sensible that His nwn end was nut far nff ; the time, therefnre, was cnme tn subatitute
fur the brilliant fnrm nf the Christ, which as yet filled the minda cf His diaciples, the
muurnful image uf the Man uf surrnwa. Thus the facts which, as we have seen (p.
357), led Jesus tn seek retirement in the desert uf Bethsa'ida- Julias, that He might be
alnne with His disciples, f urniahed the mutives fnr the preaent cunversatinn.
We read in Jnhn, after the multiplicatinn nf the Inavea (chap. 6), nt a aimilar
cnnfessinn tn this, alsn made by Peter in the name uf the Twelve. Is it tn be sup.
pnsed, that at the same epuch twu such similar declaratinns shnuld have taken place ?
Wnuld Jeaua have called fnr une sn aunn after having heard the nther ? Ia it not
striking that, ewing to the nmiaainn in Luke, the accuunt nf this cnnfessinn, in his
narrative as in Juhn's fnllnws immediately upun that uf the multiplicatinn uf the
luaves ? Certainly the situatinn deacribed in the fnurth Gnspel is very different, In
cnnsequence cf a falling away which had juat been guing en amung His GaUlean
diaciples, Jeaua puta the questinn tn His apustles uf their leaving Him. But the
questinns which Jesua addreaaea tn them in the Syn. might eaaily have fuund a place
in the converaation ef which Juhn givea ua a mere uutline. At the flrst glance, it is
true, Juhn'a narrative dues nnt lead us tu suppnse such a Inng interval between the
multiplicatinn nf the luaves and this cunversatinn as is required fnr the jnumey from
Capernaum to Csesarea PhUippi. But the desertion of the Galilean disciples, which
had begun immediately, waa not completed in a day. It might have extended over
some time (John 6 : 66 : ek tovtov, from ihat time). Altegether the resemblance be
tween these two scenes appears te us te outweigh their dissimUarity.
Keim admirably saya ; "Wedn not know which we must think the greatest;
whether the spirit ef the diaciplea, who shatter the Mesaianic muuld, set aside the
judgment uf the priesta, rise abnve all the intervening degrees uf pnpular apprecia
tinn, and proclaim as Infty and divine that which is abased and downtrodden, be
cause tn their minds' eye it ia and remaina great and divine — Or thia perannality nf
Jeaua, which draws frnm these feeble disciples, nutwithstanding the pressure uf the
mnst nverwhelming experiences, su pure and Infty an expressiun of the effect pro
duced upon them by His whole life and ministry." Gess: " The sages of Caper
naum remained unmoved, the enthusiasm nf the penple was cnuled, un every side
.Tesus was threatened with the fate uf the Baptist ... it was then that the faith
nt His disciples shune nut aa genuine, and came fnrth frum the furnace cf trial as an
energetic cunvictinn nf truth."
2d. Vers. 31, 33.* Tlie Suffering Christ— The expressinn uf Luke," He straitlj
charged and cummanded them," is very energetic. The general reasnn fnr this pro-
hibitinn is fnund iu the fnUnwing anununcement nf the rejectinn uf the Messiah, as
is pruved by the participle e'lndiv, saying. They were tn keep frnm pruclaiming Him
npenly aa the Chriat, nn accnunt nf the centradictinn between the hnpes which this
title had awakened in the rainda nf the penple, and the way in which this nfflce was
* The MSS. vary between emeiv (T. B.) and Xeyeiv (Alex.). Ver. 32. The Mse.
vary between EyEpBnvai (T. R-) ^i^d ayaonii^iu.'

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 365
tu be Idealized in Him. But this threatening prnhibitinn had a mnre special nature,
which appears frnm Jnhn's narrative. It refera tn the recent attempt nf the penple,
after the multipUcatinn nf the luaves (Jnhn 6 : 14, 15), tn proclaim Him king, and the
effurts which Jesua was then nbliged tn make tn preaerve Hia disciples frnm this mis
taken enthusiasm, which might have serinusly cumprnmised His wnrk. It is the recnl-
lectiun uf thia critical mnment which induces Jesus tn use this severe language {inir-
ipyaas). It was nnly, after the idul uf the carnal Christ had been fnrever nailed tu
the cross, that the apustnlic preaching cnuld safely cunnect thia title Christ with the
name ct Jeaua. " See huw," as Riggenbach says (" Vie de Jesus," p. 318), " Jesus
was obliged in the very mnment uf self-revelatiuu tn veil Himaelf, when He had
lighted the fire tn cuver it again." Ae (ver. 31) ia adveraative : " Thnu sayest truly,
I am the Christ ; Jirf . . ." -Jfitsi, un accuunt uf the prophecies and uf the Divine
purpuse, nf which they are the expreaainn. The membera cumpnsing the Sanhedrim
cunsisted nf three classes uf members : the elders, ur presidents ef synagugues ; the
high priests, the heads nf twenty-fnur classes nf prieata ; and scribes, nr men learned
in the law. All three Syn. give here the enumeratinn uf these ufflcial classes. This
paraphrase of the technical name invests the anununcement nf the rejectinn with all
its impurtance. What a cemplete reveraal nf the disciples' Messianic ideas was this
rejectinn of Jesus by the very authnrities frnm whnm they expected the recugnitinn
and pruclamatinn uf the Measiah I 'AnodoKipaaByvai indicates deliberate rejectinn, after
previnus calculatinn. There was a cruahing cuntradictinn between this prospect and
the hnpes uf the disciples ; but, as Klnstermann truly says, the last wurds, " And He
shall rise again the third day," furnish the snlutinn nf it.
Strauss and Baur ccntented themselves with denying the details cf the predictinn
in which Jeaus fnretold His death. Vnlkmar and Hnlsfen at the present day refuse
tu alluw that He had any knnwledge nf this event befnre the last mnments, Accnrd
ing tn Hnlaten, He went tu Jerusalem full uf hupe, designing to preach there as well
as in Galilee, and cunfident, in case cf need, nf the interpnsitinn uf Gnd and nf the
swords nf His adherents. . . . The hnly Supper itself was nccasiuned simply by a
passing presentiment. . . . His terrible mistake tnnk Jesus by surprise at the last
mnraent. Keim (u. p. 556) acknuwledges that ft is impnssible tu deny the authenticity
uf the scene and cunversatinn at Csesarea PhUippi. Accnrding tn him, .Tesus cnuld
nut have failed tu have fureseen His viulent death lung befnre the catastrophe came.
This is proved by the bnld nppnsitinn uf St. Peter, alsn by such sayings as thnse
referring tn the bridegruum whu is tu be taken away, tn death as the way nf life
(Luke 9 : 33, 34), tn Jerusalem which kills the prophets ; lastly, by the reply tu the
twn snns nf Zebedee. We may add 9 : 31, 13 : 50 ; Jnhn 3 : 20, 3 : 14, 6 : 53, 13 : 7,
34 — wurds at nnce characteristic and inimitable. .A.nd as tn the details et this predic
tinn, have we nnt a number nf facts which leave nn rnnm fnr doubt as tn the auper
natural knnwledge nf Jesus (33 : 10-34 ; Juhn 1 : 49, 4 : 18, 6 : 64, etc.) ? What the
mndern critics mure generally dispute, is the annnuncement nf the resurrectinn. But
if Jeaua furesaw His death. He must have equally fureseen His reaurrectinn, as cer
tainly as a prnphet believing in the missinn nf Israel cuuld nnt annnunce the captivity
withnut also predicting the return. And who would ever have dreamed uf putting
intn the mouth of .Jesus the expresaion three daya and three nighta after the event,
when in actual fact the time spent in the tomb did not exceed one day and two
nights ? It is aaked how it came to paaa if Jeaua, had ao expreasly predicted Hia
reaurrection, that this event should have been auch an extraordinary surprise to his
apostles ? There we have a psychological problem, which the disciples themselves
found it difficult to explain. Comp. the remarks nf the evangelists, 5 : 45, 18 : 34,
and parallels, which can nnly have cume from the apuatlea. The explanatinn nf this
problem is perhaps this : the apnstles never thuught, befnre the facts had npened
"their eyes, that the expressions death and reaurrectinn used by Jesus shnuld be taken

266 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
literally. Their Master so commonly speke in figurative language that up te the
laat raoment they unly saw in the first term the expressiun uf a aad separatinn, a sud
den diaappearance ; and in the secund, nnly a sudden return, a glnriuus reappearing.
And even after the death nf Jesus, they in nu -way thuught they shuuld see Him
appear again in His nld form, and by the reatoration to life of the body laid in the
tomb. If they expected anything, it waa His return as a heavenly king (aee on
33 : 43). Luke haa omitted here the word of approval and the aevere reprimand which
Jesus, according tn Matthew, addressed tn Peter 'nn this uccasinn. It any nue is
determined tn see in this nmissiun uf Luke's a wilful suppressinn, the reault nf ill-
will tuward the Apnstle Peter, nr at least tnward the Jewish Chriatians (Keim), what
will he say uf Mark, whu, while umitting the wurds of praise, expreaaly refers to
thnae nf censure ?
We can quite underatand that the peuple cuuld nut yet bear the disclnsure nf a
suffering Messiah ; but Jesus might make them participate in it indirectly, by initia
ting them intu the practical ccnsequences ut thia fact fnr Hia true diaciplea. Tu de
acribe the mural crucifixinn nf Hia aervants vera. 33-37, waa tn give a cnmplete
revelatiun nf the spirituality nf the Mesaianic kingdum.
Sd. Vers. 23-37.* " And He said tn them all. If any man will cnme after me, let
him deny himselt, and take up hia cross daily, and fclluw me. 24. Fnr whusnever
will save his life shaU Inae it ; but whusnever will Inae his life fur my sake, the same
shall save it. 35. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole werld, and
lose himself, nr be cast away ? 36. Fnr whusnever shaU be ashamed nf me, and nf my
wnrds, uf him shall the Snn uf man be ashamed, when He shall cnme in His uwn
glury, and in His Father's and nf the huly angels. 37. But I tell yuu uf a truth,
there be seme standing here, which ahall nnt taste nf death, till they see the kingdom
nf Gud." The preceding cunveraatinn had taken place within the privacy nf the
apnatolic circle (ver. 18). The fnUnwing words are addressed tn all, that is tu aaj', to '
the multitude, which, while Jesus waa praying with His disciples, kept at a distance.
Accurding tn Mark, Jesus caUs them tn Him tn hear the instructinn which fnUuws.
Hnltzmann maintains that this tu all uf Luke must have been taken frum Mark. But
why cuuld nnt the same remark, if it resulted frnm an actual fact, be reprnduced in
twn different fnrms, in twn independent ducuments ? Jesus here represents all those
whn attach themselves tn Him under the figure nf a train uf crucified persuns, ver.
33. The anr. eXBeiv oi the T. R. means : make in general part nf my fnllowing ; and
the present epxeaBai in the Alex, i range themselvea about me at thia very moment
The flgure employed is that of a journey, .which agrees with their actual circum
stances as described by Mark ; iv r^ ddip. The man whn has made up' his mind to
set out en a journey, has first ef all to say fareweU ; here he has tn bid adieu tn his
nwn life, tu deny himself. Next there is luggage tn carry ; in thia caae it ia the
cross, the auflerings and reproach which never fail tu fall nn him whn pays a serinus
regard tn hnliness et life. By the word alpeiv, to take vp, le burden one's self with,
Jesus alludes.to the custom of making criminals carry their croaa tn the place cf
puniahment. Further, there ia in thia term the idea of a voluntary and cheerful
acceptance. Jesus aays his cross, that which is the result of a person's own character
and providential position. There is nothing arbitrary about it ; it is given from
* Ver. 33. The mss. vary between eXBeiv (T. R., Byz.) and Epxeadai (Alex.). S".
C. D. and 11 Mjj. 130 Mnn. Itpi«'iq"«, omit kuB' ypspav, which is the reading of T, R.
with S* A. B. K. L. M. R. Z. n. Syr, Vg. Ver. 36. D. Syr"'. If'"^. emit Xoyovf,
Yer, 37, iS, B, L. X., avrov instead of ads. l3 Mjj., otTive; instead of oi.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 267
above. The authenticity of the word daUy, which is wanting in seme mss., cannot
be doubted. Had it been a gloss, it would have been inserted in Matthew and Mark
as well. This voluntary crucifixion is carried en every day te a certain degree.
Lastly, after having taken farewell and shouldered his burden, he must set out on hia
journey. By what road ? By that which the steps ot hia Maater have marked out.
The chart ef the true disciple directs him to renounce every path of his own choos
ing, that he may put his feet into the print of his leader's footsteps. Thus, and not
by arbitrary mortfflcations actuated by self-will, is the death of self completely
accomplished. The term follow, therefore, does not expreas the same idea aa come
after me, at the beginning ol the verae ; the latter would denote outward adherence
to the followers ef Jesus. The other refers te practical fldelity in the fulfllment ef
the consequences nf this engagement.
The 34th verse demnnstrates {for) the necessity fnr the cruciflxinn described, ver.
23. Withnut this death tn self, man Inses himself (24fls) ; while by thia aacriflce he
saves himself (24J). We flnd here the paradnxical fnrm in which the Hebrew Maa-
chal luves tn cluthe itaelf. Either nf the twn ways bringa the just man tn the anti
pudes nf the puint tn which it seemed likely tn lead him. Thia prufuund saying, true
even fnr man in his innncence, is dnubly true when applied tn man as a sinner.
¦ivxy, the breath of life, denntes the snul, with its entire system uf instincts and natu
ral faculties. This psychical lite is unquestinnably gnud, but nnly as a pnint uf de
parture, and as a meaus ef acquiring a higher life. Te be anxious to aave it, te seek
te preserve it as it is, by doing nnthing but care fnr it, and seek the utmnst amnunt
uf selt-gratificatiuu, is a sure way nf Insing it fnrever ; fnr it is wanting tn give
stability to what in its essence is but tranaitury, and tn change a means intu an end.
Even iu the must favnrahle case, the natural life is nnly a transient fluwer, -w-hich
must sunn fade. That it may be preserved from dissolution, we must consent to
loae it, by surrendering it tn the mnrtifying and regenerating breath uf the Divine
Spirit, whn transforms it intn a higher \iie, and imparts tn it an eternal value. Tu
keep it, therefnre, is tn Inse beth it and the higher life intn which, as the bloaaom
into its fruit, it should have been tranafurmed, Tn lose it is tn gain it, first uf all,
under the higher furm nf spiritual life ; then, anme day, under the fnrm even uf
natural life, with all ita legitimate inatincts fully satisfied. Jesus says, " fur my
sake ;" and in Mark, " fnr my sake and the Ooapel'a." .It is, in fact, nnly as we
give nurselves tn Christ that we satisfy thia prufuund law uf human existence ; and
it is unly by the gnspel, received in faith, that we can cniitract thia personal relation
ship tn Chriat. Self perishes nnly when affixed tn the cross nf Jesus, and the divine
breath, which imparts the new life tn man, cumes tu him from Christ alnue. No
axinm was mure frequently repeated by .Tesus ; it is, aa it were, the aubstance uf hia
mural philnsnphy. In Luke 17 : 33 it is applied tu the time uf the Parousia ; it is
then, in fact, that it will be fully realized. In Jnhn 13 : 35 Jesus makes it the law
uf his nwn existence ; in Matt. 10 : 39 he applies it tn the apoatnlate.
Vers. 35-37 are the cnnfirmatinn {for) uf this Maaahal, and first nf all, vera. 35 and
36, nf the flrat prnpnaitinn. Jesus suppuses, ver. 35, the act uf saving one's own life,
accumplished with the mnst cnmplete success . . . amuunting tn a gain nf the
whule werld. But in this very moment the master ef this magniflcent domain flnds
himself condemned to perish ! What gain I To draw iu a lottery a gallery of pic
tures . . . and at the aame time te become blind ! The expressiun y OipioBelS, or
suffering loss, is difficult. In Matthew and Mark this wnrd, cnmpleted by <jivxyv.

268 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
cnrrespunds tn dnoXiaas in Luke ; but in Luke it must express a different idea. Wo
may understand with it either tlie world nr kavrdv, himaelf, " suffering the luss of this
wnrld already gained," ur (which is mure natural) "Insing himself altngether
(a TToAeaas), nr even merely suffering snme amall Inaa in his nwn persnn." It is not
necessary that the chastisement should amount to total perdition ; the smaUest injury
tu the human personality will be found te be a greater evil than all the advantages
accruing from the possession of the whole world.
The losing one's self [the leas of the personality] mentioned in ver. 35 consists, ac-
, cording te ver, 36 {for), iu being denied by Jeaua in the day ef hia glory. The ex
preaaion, to be aahamed of Jesus, might be applied te the Jews, because fear of their
rulers hindered them from declaring themaelves for him ; but in this context it is
more natural to apply it to disciples whoae fidelity gives way before ridicule or vio
lence. The Cantabrigiensis emits the word Xdyovs, which leads to the sense:
"ashamed ef me and mine." Thia reading would recommend itself if better
supported, and if the word Wyous (m?/ words) was net confirmed by the paraUel ex
pression ef Mark (8 : 35) : " fer my sake and tlw gospel's." The glory nf the royal
advent of Jesus will be, first, that of hia nwn persunal appearing ; next, the glury ot
God ; lastly, the glury nf the angels — all these aeveral glnries wiU be mingled to
gether in the inOumparable splendnr nf that great day (3 Thess. 1 • 7-10). " Thus,"
saya Gess, " tn be wurthy nf this man ia the new and paramuunt principle. This is
nn mere spiritualizatiun nf the Mnsaic law ; it is a revulutiun in the reUginus and
mnral intuitinna nf mankind."
Ver. 37 is the justificatinn nf tbe prnmise in ver. 346 (find hia life by Insing it), as
vers. 35 and 36 explained tbe threatening nf 34a. It fnrms in the three Syn. the cnn
clusinn nf this discuurse, and the tranaitinn tn the narrative nf the tranafiguratinn ;
but cuuld any nf the evangelials have applied tn such an exceptiunal and transitory
incident this expressinn : the coming of the kingdom of Chi-ist (Matthew), ur of God
(Mark and Luke) ? Meyer thinks that this saying can unly apply tn the Parnuaia, to
which the preceding verae referred, and which was believed tn be very near. But
cnuld Jesus have labnred under this miscunceptinn (see the refutatinn uf this npinion
at chap. 31) ? Or has the. meaning nf hia wurda been altered by traditinn ? The lat
ter view unly wuuld be tenable. Many, urging the difference between Matthew's
expreasinn (untU they ha-^e seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom) and that nf
Mark (" . . . the kingdom of Ood come with power") nr uf Luke (" . . . ihe
kingdom of Ood") think that the nntiun nf tbe Parousia has been designedly erased
from the text nf Matthew by the other twn, because they wrote after the fall uf Jeru
salem. Cnmp. alsn the relatiun between Matt. 34, where the cunfusinn nf the two
events appeara evident, and Luke 31, where it ia avuided. But, 1. It is lo
be ubaerved that this cunfusinn is fuund in Mark (13) exactly the same aa in
Matthew (34). New, if Mark had corrected Matthew fer the reaaon alleged in the
passage befoi'e us, how much mere would he have currected him in chap. 13, where
it is nnt a single isolated passage that is in queatinn, but where the subject nf the
Parousia ia the chief matter nf disccurse ! And it the fnrm nf expressinn in Mark is
nnt the result nf an intentiunal currectinn, but nf a simple difference in the mude of
transmission, why might it net be the same also with the very similar form that oc
cura in Luke ? 3. There ia a very marked diatinction beth in Mark and Luke, a aort
nf gradatinn and antithesis between this saying and the preceding — in Luke by
means uf the particle di, and further : " Apd I also say that this recumpense promised

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 269
tn the faithful cnnfessurs shaU be enjuyed by sume nf ynu befure ynu die ;" and in
Mark, in a still mnre striking manner, by the interruptinn nf the diacuurse and the
cummencement nf a new phrase : " And He aaid to tliem" (9 : 1). Su that the idea nf
the Parnuaia must be set aside as far as the texts uf Mark and Luke are cnncerned.
It may even be dnubled whether it is cnntained in Matthew's expreasinn ; cnmp.
Matt. 36 : 64 : " Henceforth [from nnw] ye shall see the Sun nf man coming in the
clnuds nf heaven." The expressinn henceforth dnes nnt permit nf uur thinking nf
the Parousia. But this aaying is very similar tn the nne befure us. Others apply
this prumise tu the fall uf Jerusalem, ur tn the establishment nf the kingdum nf Gnd
amnng the heathen, nr tu the descent nf the Hnly Spirit. But inaamuch as these
eventa were nutward facta, and all whn were cuntempnrary with them were wit
nesses uf them, we cannut by this reference explain nvis, some, which annnunces an
exceptiunal privilege. After all, ia the Lurd'a meaning su difficult tu apprehend ?
Seeing the kingdom of God, in his teaching, ia a spiritual fact, in accurdance with the
inward nature cf the kingdum itself ; cnmp. 17 : 21 : " The kingdnm nf Gnd is within
you" (see the explanatinn ui this passage). Fur tfiis reasnn, in urder tu enjuy this
sight, a new sense, and a new birth are needed ; Jnhn 3:3: " Except a man be bm'n
again, he cannut see the kingdnm uf Gnd. This thuught satisfacturUy explains the
'present prnmise as expressed in Luke and Mark. Tu explain Matthew's expressiun,
we must remember that the wnrk nf the Huly Spirit pre-eminently censista iu giving
ua a lively cnnvictinn nf the exaltatinn and heavenly glury nf Jeaus (Juhn 18 : 14).
The TiveS, some, are therefure all thuse then present whu shnuld receive the Huly Spirit
at Pentecnst, and behnld with their inward eye thnse wonderful works of God, which
Jesus calls his kingdnm, nr the kingdum uf Gud. In this way is explained the gra
datinn frnm ver. 26 tn ver. 27 in Mark and Luke : " Whnever shall give bis nwn Ufe
shaU find it again, nnt nnly at the end nf time, but even iu this life (at Pentecnst). " If
this explanatiun be inadmiaaible, it must be conceded that this premise is based en a
confusion of the fall of Jerusalem with the Parousia ; and this would be a proof that
our Gospel as well as Matthew's was written before that catastrophe. 'A!kyBds must
nut be cunnected with Xeyo : VerUy 1 say to you. It shuuld be placed befcre.the
verb, as the dpip> is in the twu nther Syn. ; and Luke mnre generally makes use cf
'en' dXyBe'ias (three times in the Guspel, twice in tbe Acts). It must, then, belung tn
s'laiv : " Tliere are-certainly a/mong you." The Alex, reading airov, here, must be pre
ferred tu the received reading, Side, which is taken frnm the nther Syn.
4. The Transfiguration : 9 : 28-36. — There is but une aUuainn tn this event in the
whnle nf the N. T. (2 Peter 1), which prnvea that it haa nn immediate cnnnectinn
with the wurk nf aalvatiun. On the nther hand, ita histnrical reality can nnly be
satisfacturUy estabUshed in su far aa we succeed in showing in a reasunable way its
Ijlace in the cnurse nf the life and develupment ef Jesus.* According to the deacrip
tion nf the tranafiguratinn given in the Syn. (Matt. 17 : 1, et seq. ; Mark 9 : 2, «< seq.),
we dialinguish three phases in this scene : 1st. The perannal glnrificatiun nf Jeaus
(vers. 28, 29) ; 2d. The appearing uf Muses and Elijah, and His cunversatinn with thera
(vera. 30-33) ; Sd. The interpuaitinn nf Gnd Himselt (vers. 34-36).
* Nn nne seems tn ua tu have apprehended the real and prnfnund meaning nf the
transflguratinn sn well aa Lange, in his admirable " Vie de J^sus," a bnnk the defects
nf which have unfurtunately been much mnre nuticed than its rare beauties. Keim
might have learned mure frnm him, eapecially in the atudy nf this incident.

370 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
lat. Vera. 38, 39.* The Glory of Jesus. — The three narratives shnw that there waa
an interval nf a week between the transflguratinn and the flrat annnuncement nf tbe
sufferinga uf Jesus, with this slight difference, that Matthew and Mark say six days
after, while Luke saya about eight days after. It ia a very simple explanatinn tn sup
pnse that Luke empluys a round number, aa indeed the limilatiuu diaei, about, indi
cates, while, the nthers give, frnm snme dncument, the exact figure. But this
explanatinn ia tnu aimple fer criticism. " Luke," saya Holtzmann, " affects tn be a
better chrnnolugist than the nthers." And fnr this reasnn, fursnnth, he subatitutes
eight fnr six nn hia nwn authnrity, and immediately, frnm sume qualm nf cnnscience,
currents himaelf by uaing the wurd about/ Tn auch puerlities is criticism driven by
the hypnthesis cf a cnmraun dncument. The Aramsean cunstructinna, which charac
terize the atyle uf Luke in this passage, and which are nut fnund in the twn nther
Syn. {iyivETo Kat dviPy, ver. 38 ; iyevero elnev, ver. 33), wnuld be sufflcient tu prove
that he fulluwa a different dncument frnm theira. The numinative ypkpai 6kt6, eight
days, is the subject nf an elliptical phrase which fnrms a parenthesis : " Abuut eight
days had passed away." It is nnt withnut design that Luke expressly adds, after
these aayinga. He thereby brings uut the mnral connectinn between this event and
the preceding cunversatinn. We might think, frnm the accuunt uf Matthew and
Mark, that in taking His disciplea tn the mnuntain, Jeaus intended tu be transflg-.
ured befnre them. Luke givea ua tn understand that He simply wished tu pray with
them. .Lange thinks, and it is prubable, that in cnnsequence uf the anneuncement nf
His approaching Bufferings, deep depression had taken pusaesainn nf the hearts uf the
Twelve. They had spent theae six daya, respecting which the sacred recurds pre
serve unbroken silence, in a glcumy stupur. Jesus was anxinus tu ruuse them nut of
a feeling which, to say the least, waa quite aa dangerous as the enthusiastic excite
ment which had fnllnwed the multiplication nf the loaves. And in urder to dn this
He had recuurse to prayer ; He suught tn strenglhen by this means thuse apnstles
especially whose moral state would determine the disposition nf their cnlleagues.
Knowing well by experience the influence a sojourn upen seme height has upon the
soul — how much more easily in such a place it collects ita thoughta and recovera
from depreaaion — He leads them away te a mountain. The art. rd denotes the moun
tain nearest to the level country where Jesus then was. According to a tradition, ot
which we can gather no positive traces earlier than the fourth century (Cyril of Je
rusalem, Jerome), the mountain in queation was Tabor, a lofty cone, situated two
leagues to the south-east of Nazareth. Perhaps the Gospel to the Hebrews presents
an elder trace ef thia opinion in the words which it attributes te Jesus : " Then my
mother, the Holy Spirit, took me up by a hair of my head, and carried me to the
high mountain ef Tabor. " But two circumstances are against the truth of this tradi
tion : 1. Tabnr is a Inng way nff Csesarea Philippi, where the previnus cunversatinn
tnnk place. Certainly, in the intervening six days Jesus cnuld have returned even
tn the neighburhund nf Tabnr. But wnuld nut Matthew and Mark, whu have nuticed
the juurney intn the nurthern cnuntry, have mentiuned this return? 2. The summit
nf Tabnr was at that time, as Robinsen has pruved, nccupied by a fnrtffledtnwn,
which wnuld scarcely agree with the tranquillity which Jeaua snught. We think,
therefore, that probably the chuice lies between Hermnn and Muunt Panias, frnm
* Ver. 28. S* B. H. Syr. It»"i. umit Kai befnre napaXa^ov. The mss. vary between
\uavvyv kui laKa(3ov and IukoBov kui loavvyv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 271
whuse snnwy summits, visible tu the admiring eye in aU the nnrthern parts nf the
Hnly Land, the snurces uf tne Jtjrdan are cuustantly fed.
The strengthening nf the faith uf the three principal apnstles waa the ubject,
therefere, of this mountain excuraion ; the glerificatiun ef Jesus was an anawer tu
prayer, and the means empluyed by Gnd tu bring abnut the desired result. The
cnnnectinn between the prayer nf Jesus and Hia transfiguration- is expressed in Luke
by the prepoaition kv, which denotea more than a mere aimultaneuusness (while He
prayed), and makes Hia prayer the cause ef this mysterious event. Elevated feeling
imparts to the cnuntenance and even tu the figure nf the entire man a diatinguiahed
appearance. The impulse cf true devutinn, the enthusiasm' uf adnratinn, illumine
him. And when, cnrrespnnding with this state nf snul, there is a pusitive revelatiun
nn the part nf Gnd, as in the case nf Muses nr nf Stephen, then, indeed, it may cnme
tn pass that the inward illuminatinn, penetrating, thrnugh the medium nf the snul,
even tn its external cnvering, the bndy, may produce in it a prelude, as it were, uf
its future glnriflcatinn. It was snme phennmenun uf this kind that was pruduced in
the persnn nf Jesus while He wa^raying. Luke describes its effects in the simplest
manner : " His cnuntenance became other." Hnw can Hultzmann maintain that in
him the visinn is "aesthetically amplified." His expressinn is much mure simple
than Mark's : " He was transfigured before them," or than that of Matthew, who to
theae words ef Mark adda, " and hia countenance shone as the aun." Thia luminous
appearance poaseased the body ef Jeaua in such intensity as te become perceptible
even through Hia garments. Even here the expression of Luke is very simple :
" His garments became white and shining," and contrasts with the strnnger expres
sinns nf Mark and Mattbew. The grandeur nf the recent miracles shews us that
Jesus at thia time had reached the zenith ef His powers. As everything in
His life was in perfect harmnny, thia perind muat have been that alau in which
He reached the perfectinu nf His inw-ard develupment. Having reached it, what
was His nnrmal future ? He cnuld nut advance ; He must net go back. From
this moment, therefere, earthly existence became too narrow a sphere fur this
perfected personality. There unly remained death ; but death is Ibe nffspring nf the
sinner, ur, as St. Paul says, ihe wagea qf sin (Rom. '6 : 33). For the sinless man tbe
issue ef life is not the sombre pasaage of the tomb ; rather is it the rnyal rnad nf a
glnriuus transfurmatinn. Had the hnur nf this glnriflcatinn atruck fur Jeaus ; and
waa His transflguratinn the beginning uf the heavenly renewal ? Thia is Lange 's
thuught ; it aumehnw brings this event within the range uf the understanding. Gesa
gives expresainn tn it in these wurda : " This event indicates the ripe preparation cf
Jesus fer immediate entrance upen eternity." Had not Jesus Himself voluntarily
suspended the change which was nn the pnint uf being wrought in Him, this mnment
wnuld have becnme the mument nf His ascensiun,
2d. Vers. 30-33. The Appearing of Moses and Elijah. — Nut nnly dn we snmetimes
see the eye uf the dying lighted up wilh celestial brightness, but we hear him cnn-
versing wilh the dear unes whn 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 et heavenly spirits to the earth has ne warrant either
in, the ordinary course of eventa er in the Old or New Teatament." Gess very
properly replies : ' ' Who can prove that the appearing of theae heroes ef the Old Cnve
nant was in centradictinn tn the laws of the upper werld ? We had far better confess

272 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nur ignurance nf thuse laws." Muses and Elijah are there, talking with Him. Luke
dnes nnt name them at flrst. He says two men. .This expressinn reflects the im
pressinn which must have been experienced by the eye-witnesses uf the scene. They
perceived, firat cf all, the preaenee uf twu persuna unknnwn ; it was only afterward
that they knew them by name. 'Idov, behold, expreaaes the suddenness of the appari-
tinn. The imperf., ihey were talking, proves that the .cenversatinn had already lasted
snme time when the disciples perceived the presence nf these strangers. OItives is
emphatic : who were no other tlwm . . . Mnaea and Elijah were the twu most
zealnus and puwerful servants nf Gnd under the Old Cnvenant. Murenver, bnth ot
them had a privileged end : Elijah, by his ascension, was preserved frum the un-
cluthing uf death ; there was snmething equally mysterinus in the death and disap
pearance cf Muses. Their appearing upnn the mnuntain is perhaps cunnected with
the exceptiunal character cf the end uf their earthly life. But huw, it is asked, did
the apnstles knnw them ? Perhaps Jesus addressed them by name in the cnurse of
the conversation, or indicated who they were in a way that admitted of nn mistake.
Or, indeed, is it nnt rather true that the glurifled Ijear upnn their fnrm the impress of
their individuality, their new name (Rev. 8 : 17) ? Cnuld we behnld St. Juhn ur St.
Paul in their heavenly glury fnr any length nf time withnut giving them their name ?
The design nf this appearing is nnly explained tu ua by Luke : " They talked,"
he says literally, " uf the departure which Jesus was abnut tn accumplish at Jerusa
lem." Huw cuuld certain thenlugians im-agine that Muses and Elijah came tn in
struct Jesus respecting Hia approaching sufferinga, when unly six days befnre He
had Hiuiself infurmed the Twelve abnut them ? It is rather the twu heavenly mes
sengers whn are learniiK; of Jesus, aa the apostles were six daya befnre, unless nne
imagines that they talked with Him nn a f nuting nf equality. In view uf that cross
which is about to be erected, Elijah learns tu know a glury superiur tu that uf being
taken up tn heaven — the glury uf renuuncing, thruugh luve, such an ascensiun, and
chnnsing rather a painful and ignuminiuus death. Muses cnmprehends that there is
a sublimer end than that nf dying, accnrding tn the fine expressinn which the Jewish
ductnrs apply tu hia death, " from the kiaa nf the Eternal ; and this is tn deUver up
une's snul tn the fire nf divine wrath. This interview, at the same time, gave a sanc
tinn, in the minds nf the disciples, tn an event frnm the prospect nf which nnly six
daya befnie they ahrank in terror. The term l^odog, going out, emplnyed by Luke, is
chnsen designedly ; fnr it cnntaina, at the same time, the ideaa buth nf death and
aacensinn. Aacensicn was as much the natural way fnr Jeaus as death is fnr us.- He
might ascend with the twn whu talked with Him. But to ascend now would be to
ascend without us. Down below, on the plain. He seea mankind cruahed beneath
the weight of sin and death. Shall He abandon them ? He cannet bring Himselt to
this. He cannot ascend unless He carry them with Him ; and in order to du this,
He nnw braves the nther iaaue, which He can nnly accumplish at Jeruaalem.
IlXypovv, tn aceompliah, denutes nut the finiahing nf life by dying (Bleek), but the
cnmpletinu nf death itaelf. In such a death there is a taak tn accompliah. The ex
preasion, at Jeruaalem, has deep tragedy in it ; at Jerusalem, that city which has the
monopoly nf the murder uf the prophets (13 : 33). This single wurd uf Luke's nn the
subject nf the cunveraatinn throws Ught upnn the acene, and we can appraise at its
true value the judgment nf the critica (Meyer, Hultzmann), whu regard it as nuthing
raure than the auppnaitinn uf later traditinn ? "
Further, it is thruugh Luke that we are able tn fnrm an idea, nf the true st^te of

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 273
the disciples during this scene. The imperf., they talked, ver. 30, has shnwn us that
the cunveraatinn had already lasted snme time when the disciples perceived the pres
ence nf the twn heavenly persunages. We must infer frum this that they were
asleep during the prayer nf Jeaus. This idea is cunfirmed by the plus-perfect liaav
jSEJSapypEvoi, they had been weighed down, ver. 32. They were in this cnnditinn during
the furmer part nf the interview, and they nnly came tn themselvea just as the cun
versatiuu was cuncluding. The term diaypyyopslv is uaed nnwhere else in the N. T.
In prufane Greek, where it is very little used, it signifies ; to keep awake. Meyer
wnuld give it thia meaning here : " peraevering in keeping themaelvea awake, nut
withatanding the drowsiness which uppressed them." This senae is nut inadmissi
ble ; nevertheless, the de, but, which denntes an oppuaitinn tu this state nf slumber,
rather inclines us tn think that this verb denutes their return tu self-cnnscinusness
thruugh {did) a mumentary state nf drowsiness. Perhaps we shnuld regard the chnice
¦ uf this unusual term as indicating a strange state, which many persuns have experi
enced, when the snul, after having sunk tn sleep in prayer, in cuming tn itself, nn
lunger finds itself in the midst nf earthly thinga, but feels raised tn a higher aphere,
in vvhich it receives impreaaiuns full nf unapeakable jny.
Ver. 33 alau enablea ua tu aee the true meaning uf Peter's wurds mentinned in the
three narratives. It was the mnment, Luke tells us, when the twu heavenly messen
gers were preparing tu part from the Lnrd. Peter, wishing tn detain them, ventures
tu speak. He uffers tu cunatruct a shelter, hcping thereby tn induce them tu prnlnng
their anjuurn here belnw ; aa if it were the fear cf apending the night in the open air
that obUged them tu withdraw I Thia enablea us tn underatand Luke'a remark (cump.
alau Mark) : not knowing what he aaid, Thia characteriatic speech waa aterentyped
in the traditinn, with thia trifling difference, that in Matthew Peter caUa Jesus Bord
{Kvpie), in Mark Maater (pa/3/3i), in Luke Maater {iniaTdra). And it is iraagined that
nur evangelists amused themselves by making these petty changes in a cummun text I
Zd. Vers. 34-36.* The Divine Voice. — Here we have the culminating puint nf this
scene. As the laat sigh uf the dying Chriatian is received by the Lnrd, whn cnmes fur
him (Jnhn 14 : 3 ; Acts 7 : 55, 56), an the presence uf Gud is manifested at the mn
ment uf the glnrificatiun uf Jeaua. The cluud la nn nrdinary cluud ; it is the veil in
which Gnd invests Himself when He appears here belnw. We meet with it in the
desert and at the inauguratinn nf the temple ; we shall meet with it again at the
ascensiun. Matthew calls it a bright cloud ; nevertheleas, he saya, with the twu uth
ers, that it uversha,dnwed this scene. His meaning is, that the brightness uf the cen
tral Ught pierced thrnugh the cluudy cnvering which cast its myaterinus ahaduW nn
the scene. If with the T. R. we read eKeivovc, only Jeaua, Mnaea, and EUjah were
envelnped in the cluud, and the fear felt by the disciples proceeded frum uneasiness
at being separated frnm their Maater. But if with the Alex, we read avrovS, all six
were envelnped in an instant by the cluud, and the fear which seized the apnstles was
caused by their vivid sense nf the divine nearness. The fnrmer meaning is mnre
natural ; fur the vnice cuming fnrth nut nf the cluud cuuld scarcely be addressed tn
any but persuns whu were themaelves uutside the cloud.
* Ver. 34. !*. B. L. seme Mnn., ensaKia^Ev instead of eneaKiaaev. !*. B. 0. L. seme
Mnn., eiaeXBeiv avrovS instead ef ekeivovS eioEXBEiv, which is tbe reading of T. R. with
the other Mjj. and the versions. Ver. 35. S. B. L. Z. Cop., o sKXeXeypevos instead ef
0 ayanyroc, which is the reading ef T. R. with 18 Mjj., the greater part of the Mnn.
Syr. It'"'i.

274 COMMENTARY ON ST.' LUKB.
The fnrm nf the divine declaratinn is very nearly the same in the three accnunts.
The Alex, reading in Luke : this ia my Elect, is preferable tn the received reading :
thia ia my beloved Son, which is taken either frum the twn nther nai-ralives, nr frnm
the divine salutatinn at the baptism. It is a questien here uf the elect in an absnlute
sense, in uppnsitinn tn servants, like Muses and Elijah, chnsen fur a special wnrk.
Cnmp. 23 : 35. The exhurtatinn : Hear Him, is the repetitinn uf that by which
Muses, Deut. 18 : 15, charged Israel tu welcume at snme future day the teaching uf
the Messiah. This laat wnrd indicates the design nf the whnle scene : " Hear Him,
whatever He may say to ynu : fnlluw in His path, wherever He may lead yuu. " We
have nnly tn call tn mind the wnrda uf Peter : " Be it far from' thee, Lnrd 1 this shall
nnt be untn Thee, " in the preceding conversation, to feel the true bearing ef this
divine admonition. We find here again the realization of a law which occurs
thruughnut the life nf Jesus ; it is this, that every act nf vnluntary humiliatiun nn the
part ot the Sun is met by a cnrrespnnding act uf glnrificatiun, uf which He ia the ub
ject, cnlhe part nf the Father. He gnea dnwn into' the waters nf the Jurdan, devnt-
ing Himaelf tn death ; Gnd addresses Him as His well-belnved Son. In Juhn 13, in
the midst uf the trnuble uf His soul. He renews His vnw tn be faithful untu death ;
a vnice frum heaven answera Him wilh the mnst magnificent prumiae fnr His filial
heart. Matthew mentiuns here the feeling uf fear which the nther twn mentiun earlier.
The word ; Jesua only, ver. 36, ia cnmmon to the three narratives. It is a forcible
expression uf the feeling uf thnse whn witneased the acene after the disappearing nf
the celealial viaitanta ; aee un 3 : 15. Dees it cnntain any allusinn tu the idea which
has been made the very soul ef the narrative : The law and the prophets paas away ;
Jesua and His word alone remain ? Tu me it appears dnublful. The silence kept at
first by the apuatlea is accnunted fnr in Matthew and Mark by a pnaitive cnmmaud of
Jesua. The Lerd's intention, doubtless, was tn prevent the carnal excitement which
the accnunt nt such a acene might produce in tbe 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 iu the account of the tranafiguration. The risen One
could not be a king nt this wnrld. Luke dnes not mentiun Jesus' prnhibitinn; he
had nn reaann fnr nmitting it, had lie knuwn nf it. The umiasinn of the fnllowing
cunversatinn 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 tor Gentile readers the conversation tu which it had given
rise. Besides, 1 : 17 already cnntained a sumraary uf what there was to be said on
this subject. Thia entire scene, then, in -each ef its phases, cunduced to tbe ubject
which Jesua had in riew — the strengthening uf the faith nf His nwn. In the first,
the contemplation nf Hia glury ; in the second, the sanction ef that way of sorrow
into which He was to enter and take them with Him ; in the third, the divine ap-
pro-val stamped on all His teaching : these were powerful supports fer the faith of
the three principal apostles, which, once confirmed, became, apart frnm wnrds, the
suppnrt nf the faith nf their weaker fellnw-disciples.
The nbjectinns tn thereality nf the transflguratinn are : 1. Its magical character
and uselessness : Why, asks Keim, shuuld there be a sign frnm heaven en this grand
scale, when Jesua always refused to grant any such prodigy ! But nowhere, per
haps, dees the sound reasonableness of the gospel cume nut mnre clearly than in this
narrative ; glorification is as much the normal termination ef a hely life, aa desithis

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 275
nf cnrrupt life. The design with which this manifeatatinn, which might have been
cnncealed frnm the disciples, was displayed tn them, appears frum its cunnectinn
with the previnus cunversatinn respecting the sufferings nf the Messiah. 3. The im
pussibility nf the reappearing nf beinga whn have lung been dead (aee un ver. 30).
3. A real appearing nf Elijah wuuld be an actual contradiclinn tn the fnUnwing cnn-
versatiun (in Matthew and Mark), in which Jesus denies the return uf this prnphet in
person, as expected by the rabbis and the penple. These are tbe argumenta nf Bleek
and Keim. But what Jesus denies i^ the fuUnwing converaatiun ia not a terapnrary
appearance, like that nf the tranafiguratinn, but Elijah'a return tu life en earth in
nrder tn fulfil a new miniatry, Thia is what Jnhn the Baptist had accumplished
(1 : 17). 4. The silence ut Jnhn, whu muat have cunceived uf the glury nf Jesus in a
mnre spiritual manner. Is it to be believed that this objection can be raiaed by the
aame critic who blames John fur the magical character nt the miracles which he
relatea, and denies their reality fnr thia reaann ? The tranafiguratiun, along with
many nther incidenta (the chuice nf the Twelve, the inatitutiun nf baptism and the
Lurd's Supper, etc.), is emitted by John for the simple reason that they were suffl-
ciently known through the Syn. , and did nut neceasarily enter into the plan of his
book. 5. " The artificial character of the narrative appeara from its resemblance to
certain narratives nt the O. T." (Keim). And yet thia very Keim disputes the reality
nf the appearing uf Mnses and Elijah, nn the ground that apparitions ut the dead are
nut warranted by the O. T. ! But huw is the existence cf nur three nairalives tn be
explained? Paulus reduces the whole te a natural incident. He supposes an inter
view nt Jesus with twn unknnwii friends with whnm He had made an appointment
on the mountain. The refleclioa nf the riaing nr aetting aun nn the snows nf Her
mnn, fnllnwed by a sudden clap ut thunder, nccasiuned all the rest. But who were
those secret friends more closely connected with Jesus than His most intimate apos
tles ? This explanation unly results in making this scene a get-up affair, and Jesua a
charlatan. It is abandoned at the preaent day. Weiaae, Strauss, and Keim regard-'
the transfiguration as nnthiiig but an inventiun uf mythical urigin, designed tu repre
sent the moral glury uf Jesus under images derived from the histnry uf Muses and
Elijah. But they can never explain hnw the Church created a picture so complete as
this uut uf fragments ut O. T. narrative. And huw cnuld a mythical narrative uccur
iu the midst uf such precise histnrical nntes nf time as thnse in which it is cnntained
in the three narratiuns (six ur eight days after the cunversatinn at Cseaarea, nn the une
hand ; the eve nf the cure uf the lunatic child, nn the nther) ? And Jesus' strict in
junctinn furbidding His apnstles tn publish an event which never tnnk place 1 We
must pass here, aa everywhere else, frnm the mythical theury tn the auppnaitinn nf
impnature. And Peter's abaurd speech=— wnuld the Church have been likely tu make
ita fuunder apeak after this fashiun? Lastly, nthers have regarded the >transfigura-
tinn simply as a dream nf Peter's. But did the twu nther apuatlea have the aame
dream at the aame time ? And wnuld Jeaus have attached auch impurtance tn a dis
ciple's dream as tu have strictly prohibited him frum relating it until after His reaur-
rectiun frnm the dead ? All these fruitless attempts prnve that the denial nf the fact
has alau its difflcultiea.
From innncence tn hulineaa, and frnm hnliness tu glury ; here we have the nnrmal
develupment uf human exiatence, ita royal path. The tranafiguratinn, at the culmi
nating pnint nf the lite nf Jesus, shuws that nnce at leaat thia ideal haa been realized
in the hiatury nf humanity.
Thia narrative is une uf thnae in which we can mnst clearly establish the urigi
nality and superior character cf Luke's aourccs ef information. Certainly, he has
neither derived his matter from Ihe twn nther evangelists, nnr frnm a dncument cum
mnn tu all three. This is evident frora theae twn expreaainns : eight daya after, and
the elect of God (ver. 28 and ver. 35). The details by which Luke determines fnr ua
the preciae ubject nf this scene, and the subject uf Jesus' cunveraatinn with Mnaea
and Elijah, as well aa the picture he gives uf tbe state nf the disciples, are such in
imitable tnuches, and are sn suggestive fur purpuses nf interpretatinn, that criticism
must rennunce its missinn as a search after historic truth, or else decide tn accnrd tu
Luke the pnsaessinn of independent sources nf information closely cunnected with
the fact.

276 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
The transflguratinn is the end and seal nf the GalUean ministry, and at the aame
time the npening nf the histnry uf the passinn in nur three Gnspels.
5. Tlie Cure of the Bunaiic Oliild : 9: 37-43as. — The fnUnwing narrative is clnsely
cunnected with the preceding in the three Syn. (Matt. 17 : 14, et aeq. ; Mark 9 : 14,
ei seq). There was a mural cnntrast which had helped traditinn tn keep the chrnnn
lngical thread. ,
Vera. 37-40.* The Request. — The aleep with which the disciples were nvercnme,
aa well as Peter's nffer tu Jesus, ver. 33, appear-tu us tu prove that the transflguratinn
had taken place eitiier in the evening nr during the night. Jeaus iand His three
cumpaninns came duwn frnm the mnuntain the next murning. A great multitude
awaited them. Nevertheless, accnrding tu Mark, the arrival nf Jesus excited a feeling
of aurpriae. This impressinn might be attributed tn a lingering reflectinn nf glury,
which still illumined His peraon. But a mure natural explanatiun nf it is the vielent
scene which had just taken place before all thia crowd, which gave a pecuhar oppur-
tuneneaa tn the arrival uf the Maater. Matthew umits all these details, and gnes
straight tu the fact. The symptums uf the malady, rigidity, fnaming, and cries,
shuw tn what kind nf physical disurder it belunged ; it was a species uf epilepsy.
But the 43d verse and the cenversatinn fnUnwing, in Matthew and Mark, pruve that
in the belief uf Jesus the disurder nf the nervnus system was either the cause nr the
effect nf a mental cnnditinn, nf the same kind aa theae of which we have already had
aeveral examples (4 : 33, et seq., 8 : 36, etseq.). According to Matthew, the attacks
were of a periodical character, and were cunnected with the phases nf the mnon
{aeXyvf.di;eTai). Mark adda three items tn the descriptinn nf the malady : dumbness
(in the expressiun dumb demon there is a cunfuainn nf the cause with the effect ;
cnmp. 8 : 13, 13, 14, 33, fur examples nf similar cunfusinn), grinding nf the teeth, and
wasting away. These are cummun symptums in epilepsy.
The disciples had fnund themaelvea pnwerless tn deal with a malady sn deep-
seated (it dated frura the ynung man's childhund, Mark 5 : 33) ; and the presence nf
certain acribes (see Mark), whn nn dnubt had nut spared their sarcasm either against
them nr their Master, had buth humiliated and exasperated them. The expectation
of the penple waa therefnre highly excited. What a cuntrast fnr Jesus between the
hnurs uf divine pe-ace which He had juat spent in cnmmuninn with heaven, and the
spectacle uf the distress uf this father, and of the varinus passinns which were raging
arnund him I
Vers. 41-43a. The Answer. — The severe exclamatiun nf Jesus : Faiihleaa andper-
verae generation, etc., has been applied tc the diaciples (Meyer) ; tn the scribea (Cal
vin) ; tn the father (Chrysustum, Grotius, Neander, De Wette) ; tn the penple (Ols
hausen). The father in Mark acknuwledges his unbelief ; the scribea were cempletely
under the power ef this disposition ; the people had been shaken by their influence ;
laatly, the diaciples — se in Matthew Jesus expressly tells them when the scene was
over — had been defeated in this case by their want of faith. All theae various
explanationa, therefore, may be maintained. And the expressioil, ysvia, generation,
tbe contemporary race, ia aufflciently wide to comprehend all the persons present.
After enjoying fellowship with celestial beings, Jesus suddenly flnds Himself in the
midst of a werld where unbelief prevails in all its various degrees. It is therefnre the
* Ver. 37. 5>. B. L. S. nmit ev befnre ry E^ys. Ver. 38. The mss. are divided -
between EniBXEfas and eniBXeipov. Ver. 39. !*. D. snme Mnn. It. Vg. add Kai pycati
befure kui anapaaaei (taken from Mark). -

COMMENTARY OK ST. LUKE. 277
-cnntrast, nut between nne man and annther, but between this entire humanity alien
ated frnm Gnd, in the midst of which He flnda Himself, and the inhabitants nf heaven
whnm He has just left, which wrings from Him this muurnful exclamatiun.
AiEarpappevy, perverse, an expreaainn burrnwed frum Deut. 33 .: 5. The twice repeated
queatinn, liow long . . . .' is alsn explained by the cnntrast tn the preceding scene. It
is nut an expressinn uf impatience. The acene nf the tranaflguratinn haa juat proved
that if Jesua ia still upnn the earth, it is by Hia own free will. The term suffer you,
implies as much. But He feels Himself a stranger in the midst nf this unbelief, and
He cannnt suppress a sigh fur the time when His fiUal and fraternal heart will be nu
Innger chilled at every mnment by exhibitinns nf feeUng uppnaed tu His muat cher
ished aapiratiuna. The hnly enjuyment uf the night befnre has, as it were, made
Him hnmesick. Ilpft? ipds, among you, in Luke and Mark, expresses a mnre active
relatinn than peB' ipuv, with you, in Matthew. The cummand : Bring thy son hither,
has aumething abrupt in it. Jeaus aeems anxinus tu shake nff the painful feeling
which pussesses Him ; cump. a similar expression, Jnhn 11 : 34.
There is a kind nf gradatinn in the three narratives. Matthew, withnut mentinn
ing the preceding attack, merely relates the cure ; the essential thing fnr him ia the
cunversation uf Jesus with Hia disciples which fnllnwed. In Luke, the narrative nf
the cure is preceded by a descriptinn nf the attack; Lastly, Mart?, in describing the
attack, relates the remarkable cunversatinn which Jesus had -with the father nf the
child. This cnnversatinn, which bears the highest marks nf authenticity, neither
allnws us to admit that Mark drew his accnunt frum either nf the uthers, nr that
they had his narrative, nr a narrative 'anything like his, in their pussessinn ; huw
cnuld Luke especiaUy have vuluntarily umitted such details ?
Wc shall nnt analyze here the dialngue in Mark in which Jesus suddenly changes
the questinn, whether He has pnwer tn heal, intn annther, whether His questiuner
has puwer tn believe ; after which, the latter, terrified at the reapnnaibility thrown
upun him by this turn being given tu the questiun, invnkes with anguish the pnwer
uf Jesus tu help his faith, which appears tu him nu better than unbelief. Nuthing
mnre prnfnund nr exquisite has cnme frnm the pen uf any evangeliat. It ia the very
phntngraphy uf the human and paternal heart. Anid we are tu suppnae that the uther
evangelists had this masterpiece nf Mark's befure their eyea, aud mutilated it ! We
find these twu incidenta in Luke mentinned alau in the raising ef the widow of Nain's,
sen : an only son (ver. 38) : and He gave him to his father (ver. 43). " They belong
te Luke's manner," says the critic. But ought not the uriginal and characteristic
details with which nur Gnspel is full tu inspire a little mere cnnfldence in his narra
tives ? The cunveraatinn which fnllnwed this miracle, and which Buke omits, is nne
nf the paaaagea in which the unbeUef nf the apuatles ia muat severely blamed. This
nmisaiun dnea nnt prnve, at any rate, that the aacred writer was animated with that
feeUng. nf Ul-wUl tnward the Twelve which criticiam imputes tu hiih.
6. The three last Incidents of Jems' Galilean Miniat/ry : 9 : 43J-50.
Is*. The Second Announcement of tlie Paasion : vera. 436-45.* — We may infer frnm
the twu nther Syn. (Matt. 17 : 33, 33 ; Mark 9 : 30-33), mure eapecially. frnm Mark,
that it was during the return from Cseaarea Philippi tn Capernaum that Jeaus had
this secund cnnversatinn with His disciples respecting His sufferings. Luke places
it in cnnnectiun with the state nf excitement intn which the minda uf thnae whu were
with Jeaus had been thruwn by the preceding miraclea. The Lnrd deairea tn aup-
preaa this dangerous excitement in the hearts cf His disciples. And we can under-
* Ver. 43. The mss. are divided .between enoiyaev (T. R.) and enoisi (Alex.).

278 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
stand, therefnre, why this time Jeaus makes nu mentiun uf the resurrection (cnmp.
9 : 33). By the prunnun vpels, you. He distinguishes the apnstles from the multi
tude : " Yuu whu nught tn knnw the real state nf things." The expressiun BeaBe eir
Td. d)Ta, literally, put this into your ears, is very fnrcible. " If even yuu dn nnt under
stand it, nevertheless impreaa it nn ynur memnry ; keep it aa a saying." The sayings
which the,y are thus tu preaerve, are thnae which are aummarized in this very 44th
verse, and nnt, as Meyer wnuld have us think, the enthusiastic utterances uf the
peuple tn .which allusinn is made in ver. 43. - The for which fnUuws is nnt nppnsed
tn this meaning, which is the nnly natural nne : "Remember these sayings ; for
incredible as they appear to you, they will nnt fail tn be realized." The term, be
delivered into the handa of men, refers tn the cnunsel nf Gud, and nnt tn the treachery
cf Judas. They can knnw very little nf the influence exercised by the will nn the
reasnn whu find a difflculty in the want uf underatanding ahuwn by the disciples (ver.
45). The prospect which Jesus put befure them was regarded with aversiun (Matt
5 : 33), and cunsequently they refused In pay any serious attention to it, ur even to
question Jesus about it (Mark 5 : 33). Nothing mnre fully accnrds with psycho
logical experience than this meral phenomenon indicated afresh by Luke. The
following narrative will prove ita reality. The iva, in order that, ver. 45, dnes not
signify simply, so thai. The idea.of purpose impUed in this conjunction refers to the
providential dispenaation which permitted this blindneas.
2d. The question. Which is the greatest? vers. 46-48.* — This incident, also must
belung, accurding tu Matthew aud Mark, tu the same time (Matt. 18 : 1, ei seq. ; Mark
9 : 33, et seq,), Accurding tn Mark, the dispute nn this questinn had taken place on
the road, during their return frnm Csesarea tn Capernaum. " Wbat were ye talking
abnut by tbe way?'' Jesus asked them after their arrival (ver. 33) ; and it was then
that the fnllnwing scene tnnk place in a hnuse, which, accnrding tn Matthew, was
probably Peter's. We have several other indicatiuns nf a serines dispute between
the disciplea happening abnut this time ; fnr example, that admunitinn preserved by
Mark at the end cf the discuurse spuken by Jesus nn this uccasinn (9 : 50) : " Have
salt in ynurselves, and be at peace amnng yuurselves ;" then there is the instruction
nf Jesus nn the cunduct tn be pursued in the case nf nffences between brethren. Matt,
18 : 15 : " If thy brother sin against thee . . . ;" lastly, the questien of Peter ;
' " How many timea am I tu furgive my brother ?" and the anawer nf Jesus, 18 : 21,
33. All these sayings belung tn the perind nf tbe return tu Capernaum, and are
indicatiens of a serinus altercation between the disciples. Accurding tn the highly
dramatic accuunt nf Mark, it is Jesus himself whn takes the initiative, aud whu ques
tinns them as tn the subject nf their dispute. Shame-stricken, like guilty chUdren, at
first they are silent ; they then make up their minda tu avnw what the queatinn was
abnut which they had quarreUed. Each had put fnrward his claima tu the flrat place,
aud depreciated thuse uf the rest. Peter had been the must eager, and, perhaps, the
must severely handled. We see hnw superflcial was the impression made on them by
the annnuncement nf their Master's sufferings. Jesus then seated Himaelf (Mark
5 : 35), and gathering the Twelve abuut Him, gave them the fnllnwing inatrucliori.
All theae circumstances are emitted by Matthew. In his cuncise way uf dealing
with facts, cnntrary tn all mural probabUity, he puts the questinn : Which of us is the
* Ver. 47. ». B. F. K. L. n. several Mnn. Syr. read Eidos instead uf idov. B. C.
D., •n-a((!(oj' instead uf naidtov, Ver. 48. S. B. C. L. X. Z. sume Mnn. ItP''"-''!"'', Eortv
instead uf Earai,

COMJllCNXAld' ON ST. LUKE. 279
greatest ? into the muuth uf the disciples whn address it tn Jesus. AU he regards as
impnrtant is the teaching given nn the uccasinn. Aa tn Luke, Bleek, preaaing the
wurda £1" airois, in them, suppuaes that, accnrding tn him, we have simply tn dn with
the thnughts which had arisen in the hearta uf the diaciplea (cnmp. ver. 47, ryqKapdias),
and nut with any outward quarrel. But the term e'layXBe, occurred, indicates a pnai
tive fact, just such aa that Mark su graphically describes ; and the expressiun in them,
or among them, applies tu the circle nf the disciples in the midst nf which this discus
sinn had taken place. Jesua takea a child, and makea him the subject nf His demnn
stratinn. It is a law nf heaven, that the feeblest creature here belnw shall enjuy the
largest measure nf heavenly help aud teuderness (Matt. 18 : 10). In cenfnrmity with
this law nf heaven Jesus avuws a peculiar intei'est in children, and cumraends them
tn the special care nf His nwn penple. Whuev'er entering intn His views receivea
them aa auch, receivea Hira. He receives Jeaua as the riches which have ceme to fill
the void of hia own exiatence, which in itaelf is se poor, and in Jesus, God, who, as a
consequence of the same principle, is the constant complement ef the existence of Jesus
(John 6 : 57). Consequently, for a man te devote himself from love to Jesus to the
aervice of the little unes, and sn make hiraself tlie least, is tn be nn the rnad tuward
possessing Gnd mnst cempletely, and becoming the greatest.
The meaning of Jesus' words in Matthew is somewhat different, at least as far as
concerns the firat part of the answer. Here Jesus lays duwn as the' measure nf true
greatness, nut a tender sympathy fur the little, but the feeling nf une's nwn littleness.
The chUd set in tbe midst is net preaented to the diaciples a,s one in whom they are
to interest themselves, but as an example nf the feeling with which they must them
selves be pnssessed. It is an invitatinn tn retum tn their infantine humUity aud
simplicity, rather than tn luve the little nnea. It ia nnly in the 5th verae that
Matthew paaaea from this idea, by a natural transitinn, tu that which is cnntained in
the answer nf Jesus as given by Luke and Mark. It ia prnbable that the firat part nf
the answer in Matthew is burrowed frnm annther scene, which we find nccurring later
in Mark (10 : 13-16) and Luke (18 : 15-17), as well as in Matthew himself (19 : 1.3-15) ;
this Gnapel cumbinea here, aa uaual, in a aingle discuurse elements belnnging tn
different nccasinns. Meyer thinks that in this expreaainn, receive in my name, the in
my name refera nnt tu the diapnaitinn uf hira whn receivea, but nf him whn ia received,
in au far as he preaenta himself aa a disciple cf Jeaus. But theae twn nutinna : preaent
ing une's self in the name nf Jeaus (cunsciuusly ur uncunscinualy), and being received
in this narae, cannnt be nppnsed une tu the nther. As snun as the welceme takes
place, nne becnmes united with the nther. The Alex, reading 'eari, is, ia mure spirit
ual than the Byz. iarai, shall be, which has an eachatnlngical meaning. It ia difflcult
tn decide between them.
Sd. The Disaeniing Diaciple : -rers. 49 and 50.* — Only in sume very rare caaea
dnes Jnhn play an active part in the Gnspel histnry. But he appears tu have been at
this time in a state nf great excitement ; cnmp. the incident which immediately fnl
lnws (9 : 54, et seq.), and anuther a little later (Matt. 30 : 30, et aeq.). He had nu
* Ver. 49. i*. B. L. X. A. Z. sume Mnn. read ct to in place nf em to {ev perhaps
taken from Mark). S. B. L. Z. It»"i!., ekoXvo^ev instead ef EKoXvaapEv. "Ver. 50. C.
D. P. L. M. Z. add avrov to py koXvete. They read kuB' vpov and vnEp vpov in !S='' B.
C. D. K. L. M. Z. n. several Mnn. It. Syr. ; kuB' vpov and vnep ypov in S* A. X.
A. some Mnn. ; and KaB' y/zuv and vnep ypov in T. R., according te !S=» E, F. G. H. S.
U. V. r. A. and moat of the Mnn.

"280 COMMEN'l'ARY ON ST. LUKE.
dnubt been nne nf the principal acturs in the incident related here by himself, and
which might very easily have had sume cunnectiun with the dispute which had just
been gning nn. The link uf cunnectinn is mure aimple than criticism imagines: The
impurtance which Jeaus had juat attributed to Hia name in the preceding answer,
makes Jnhn fear that he has violated by his rashneaa the majesty uf this august
name. When unce in the way uf "cnnfessinn, he feels that he must make a clean
breast nf it. Thia cunnectinn ia indicated by the terms dnoKpiBeis (Luke) and anEKpiOy
(Mark). This incident, placed here in clnse cnnnectiun with the preceding, helps ua
tn underatand snme parts nf the lengthened diacnurae. Matt. 18, which certainly
belungs tu thia perind. These little unes, whnm care must be takeu nnt tu uffend
(ver. 6), whnm the gund shepherd seeks tn save (vers. 11-13), and nf whum nut nne
by Gnd's will shall perish (ver. 14), are dnubtless beginners in the faith, such as he
was tuward whnm tbe apnstles had shnwn such intulerance. Thus it very uften hap
pens, that by bringing tugether separate atunea scattered abuut in uur three na,rra-
tivea, we succeed in recnristructing large pertiona of the edifice, and then, by joining
it to the Gnspel uf Jnhn, the entire building.
The fact here mentinned is particularly intereating. " We see," aa Meyer says,
" that even uutside the circle uf the permanent disciples uf .Tesus there were men in
whnm Hia wnrd and Hia wurka had called fnrth a higher and miraculnua pnwer ;
theae Sparka, which fell beynnd the circle nf Hia disciplea, had made flames burst
fnrth here and there away frnm the central fire." Waa it deairable tn extinguish
these fires ? It was a delicate queatinn. Such men, thnugh they had never lived in
the auciety uf Jesus, acquired a certain authurity, and might uae it tu diaseminate
error. With thia legitimate fear nn the part nf the Twelve there waa nn dnubt
mingled a reprehenaible feeling nf jealuuay. They nn Innger had the mnnnpnly ut the
wnrk nf Christ. Jesus instantly discerned thia taint nf evil in the cunduct which
they had juat puraued. In Luke, as in Mark, inatead nf the anr. EKoXvaapEv, we for
bade him, sume mss. read the imperf. sKuXvopEv : " We were furbidding him, and
thuught we were dning right ; were we deceived ?" Their nppnsitinn waa nnly tenta
tive, inasmuch aa Jeaua had nnt sanctinned it. This is the preferable reading.
The answer of .Tesua is full of broad and exalted feeling. The divine powers
which emanate from Him could net be completely contained in any visible society,
not even in that of the Twelve. The fact ef spiritual union with Him takes pre
cedence of social communion with the other disciples. Sn far frnm treating a man
whn makes use nf His name as an adversary, he must rather be regarded, even in his
isnlated pusitinn, as a useful auxiUary. Of the three readings nff ered by the Mas. in
ver. 50, aud which are alsn fnund in Mark {againat you— for you ; against you— for
ua ; against us— for us), it appears te me that we must prefer the first : " He who is
net against you, is for you. The authority of the Alex, mss., which read in thia way,
is confirmed by that uf the ancient versinns, the Italic and the Peschito, and stiU mnre
by the cuntext. The persnn nf Jesus is nut in fact invnlved in this cnnflict — is it not
in His name that the raan acts ? As a matter nf fact, it is the Twelve whu are cnn
cerned : "he fuHuwetb nnt with us;" this is the grievance (ver. 49). Itia quite
different in the siraUar and apparently cuntradictnry saying (Luke 11 : 33 ; Matt.
13 :30) : " He whn ia nnt with me, ia againat me." The difference between these two
declarations consists in this : in the second case, it is the personal hnnnr nf Jesus
which is at stake. He nppuses the expulainna nf demnns, which He effects, to those
oif the Jewiah exorcists. These latter appear to be laboring with Him against a com-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 281
men enemy, but really they are strengthening the enemy. In the application which
we might make ef these maxims at the present day, the former would apply to
brethren who, whUe separated from ua eccleaiastically, are fighting with us for the
cause of Christ ; while the latter would apply to men who, although belonging to the
same leligieus society aa ourselves, are sapping the foundations ef the gespel. We
should have the sense to regard the flrst as allies, although found in a different camp ;
the nthera as enemies, althnugh fnund in nur nwn camp.
Mark introduces between the twn parts nf this reply a remarkable saying, the
iinpnrt nf which is, that nn nne need fear that a man whn dues such wnrks in the
name uf Jesus wiU readily paas nver tu the ranks nf thUse whn speak evil nf Him,
that is tn say, uf thnse whn accuse Him uf casting nut devils by Beelzebub. After
having Invnked the name nf Jesus in wnrking a cure, tn bring such an accusatinn
against Jesus wuuld be tu accuse himself.
Nnwhere, perhaps, ia the fltting nf the Syn. nne intn the uther, albeit quite unde
signed, mure remarkable. In Matthew the wurda, withnut the uccaainn nf them (the
dispute between the disciples) ; in Luke the incident, with a brief saying having
reference tn it ; in Mark the incident, with seme very graphic and much mere cir
cumstantial details than in Luke, and a discourse which resembles in part that in
Matthew, but differs from both by omissions and additions which are equally impnr
tant. Ia nnt the mutual independence nf the three traditiunal narratives palpably
proved ?

FOURTH PART.

JOTJENEY FEOM GALILEE TO JEEUSALEM.

Chap. 9 : 51-19 : 38.
A GREAT cnntrast marks the synnptical narrative : that between the ministry in
GaUlee and the passinn week at Jerusalem. According tn Matthew (19 : 1-30 : 34)
and Mark (chap. 10), the shnrt juurney frum Capernaum tn Judea thrnugh Perea
fnrms the rapid transitinn between thnse twu parta nf the miniatry uf Jesus. Nuth
ing, either in the distance between the places, ur in the number uf the facts related,
wnuld lead us tn auppnae that this jnurhey lasted mnre than a few days. This will
appear frum the fnllnwing table :

Matthew.
Cunversation abnut divorce.
Presentation of the children.
The rich young man.
Parable of the laborers.
Third announcement of the
passion.
The request of Zebedee's sons.
Cure of the bUnd man ot Jericho.
Wanting. Id.

Mark.
Same as Matt.
Id. !d.
Wanting.
Same as Matt.
Id.Id.
Wanting. Id.

Luke.
Wanting.
Same as Matt.
Id.
Wanting.
Same as in Matt.
'Wanting.
Same aa Matt.
Zacchseus.
Parable of the
pounds.

The fnurth part of the Gospel of Luke, which begins at 9 : 51, givea us a very differ
ent idea of what transpired at that period. Here we flnd the description of a slow and
lengthened journey across the southern regions ef Galilee, which border on Samaria.
.Terusalem ia, and remains, the flxed goal of the journey (ver. 51, 13 : 22, 17 : 11,
etc.). But Jesus prnceeds nnly by shnrt stages, 'atupping at each Incality tn preach
the gnspel. Luke dnes nnt say what directiun He fnllnwed. But we may gather it
frnm the flrat fact related by him. At the flrst step which He ventures tn take with
His fnllnwers nn the Samaritan territnry. He is stupped shnrt by the Ul-will excited
against Him by natinnal prejudice ; sn that even if His intentinn had been tu repair
directly tn Jerusalem thruugh Samaria (which we dn nnt believe tn have been the
caae). He wnuld have been ubliged tn give up that intentinn, and turn eastward, in
order tu take the other route, that nf Perea. Jesus therefnre slnwly approached the
Jurdan, with the view nf crossing that river tn the snuth uf the lake Gennesaret,' and
nf cuntinuing His juurney thereafter through Perea. The inference thus drawn frum
the narrative uf Luke is pnsitively cnnfirmed by Matthew (19 : 1) and Mark (10 : 1),
beth nf whnm indicate the . Pereau route as that which Jesus fnllnwed after His de-

284 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.,
parture from Galilee. In this way the three synoptics coincide anew from Luke
18 : 15 onward ; and from the moment at which the narrative ef Luke rejuins the two
nthers, we have tn regard the facts related by him as having passed in Perea. This
slnw jnurneying, first from west tn east acrnas anuthern Galilee, then frnm nnrth to
snuth thruugh Perea, the deacriptinn nf which fills ten whule chapters, that ia tn say,
mure than a third nf Luke's narrative, fnrms in this Gnapel a real sectinn intermedi
ate between the twu nthers (the descriptinn nf the Galilean miniatry and that uf the
paasinn week) ; it is a third grnup uf narratives curresponding in importance to the
two others se abruptly brought into juxtaposition in Mark and Matthew, and which
softens the contrast between them.
But can we admit with certainty the historical reality nf this evangelistic juurney
in snuthern Galilee, which fnrms nne nf the characteristic features nf the third Gos
pel ? Many mndern critics refuae tn regard it as histnrical. They allege. :
1. The entire abaence nf any analuguua accuunt in Matthew and Mark. Matthew,
indeed, relates only twn sulitary facts (Matt. 8 : 19 et aeq. and 12 : 21 et aeq.) nf all
thnae which Luke deacribes in the ten chaptera cf which thia sectinn cunaiata, up to
the mnment when the three narratives again becnme parallel (Luke 18 : 14) ; Mark,
nut a aingle nne.
2. The viait nf Jesus tu Martha and Mary, which Luke puts in thia juurney
(10 : 38-42), can have taken place nnly in Judea, at Bethany ; likewiae the aaying,
13 : 34, 35, cannnt well have been uttered by Jeaua elaewhere than at Jeruaalem in
the temple (Matt. 23 : 37-39). Dn nnt these errors nf time and place caat a mure than
suspicinua light un the narrative uf the entire jnumey. M. Sabatier himaelf, who
thuroughly appreciates the impurtant bearing nf this narrative in Luke nn the har
mnny nf the fnur Gnspels, neverthelesa gnea the length nf saying : " We see with
huw raany cuntradictinns and material impnssibilities thia narrative abnunds." *
It has been attempted tn defend Luke, by alleging that he did nnt mean tn relate a
juurney, and that this sectinn was unly a coUectinn uf dnctrinal utterances arranged
in the nrder nf their subjects, and intended tn shnw the ma rvelleuS wisdum uf Jesus,
It is impnssible fnr us tn admit this explanatinn, with Luke's uwn wurda befnre us,
which expreaa and recall frum time tn time his intentinn nf describing a ccnsecutive
juurney : 9 : 51, " He "steadfastly set His face tu gn tn Jerusalem ;" 13 : 22, " He was
guing thrnugh the cities and villages . . . jnurneying tnward Jeruaalem ;" 17 : 11
(lit. trans.), " And it came tn pass, as He went tu Jerusalem, that He traversed the
cnuntry between Samaria and GaUlee."
Wieaeler, taking up an entirely nppnaite pnint uf view, finds in thnae three pas
aages the indicatiuns cf as many individual jnurneys, which he cnnnects with three
jnurneys tn Jerusalem placed by Jnhn almnst at the same epuch. It is hnped in this
way tn flnd the pnint uf suppnrt fnr Luke's narrative in the fnurth Gnspel, which is
wanting tu it in the twn first. The departure mentiuned 9 : 51 wuuld currespund
with the jnumey nf Jesus, Juhn 7 : 1-10 : 39 (feast uf Tabernacles and of Dedication),
a journey which terminates in a anjnurn in Perea (Jnhn 10 : 40 et seq,). The mention
nf a juurney 13 : 23 wuuld refer tn the juurney from Perea tu Bethany fnr tbe raising
nf Lazarus, Jnhn 11, after which Jeaus repairs tn Ephraim. Finally, the passage
17 : 11 wnuld currespund with the journey frum Ephraim tu Jeruaalem fur the last
Passnver (Juhn 11 : 55). It wnuld be necesaary tn admit that Jesus, after His
* " Essai sur leS Suurces de la Vie de Jesus," p. 39.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 285
Ephraim sojourn, made a last visit to GalUee, proceeding thither through Samaria
(Wieseler translates Luke 17:11 as in E. V., "through the midst of Samaria and
Galilee"), then that He returned tu Judea through Perea (Matt. 19 ; Mark 10).
We cannot allow that thia view haa the leaat probability. 1. Thoae three pas
sages in Luke plainly de not indicate, in hia mind at least, three dift'erent departures
and journeys. They are way-marks set up by the authur un the route uf Jesus, in
the accnunt nf this unique juurney, by which he recalls from time tn time the gen
eral situatinn described 9 : 51, nn accnunt uf the sluwness and length uf the progress.
2. The departure (9 : 51) tnnk place, as the sending nf the seventy disciples prnves,
with the greatest publicity ; it is nut therefure identical with the departure (Jnhn
7 -.1 et seq.), which tnnk place, aa it were, in aecret ; Jesus undnubtedly did nnt then
take with Him mure than nne nr twn uf Hia mnst intimate disciples. 3. The inter-
pretatinu which Wieseler gives nf 17 : 11 appears tu us inadmissible (see the passage).
It must therefnre be acknnwledged, nnt nnly that Luke meant in thuse ten chapters
tn relate a juurney, but that he meant tu relate nne, and nnly une.
Others think that he intended tu produce in the minds nf his readers the idea nf a
cuntinunus jnumey, but that this ia a framewurk uf fictinn which haa nu cnrreapnnd
ing reality. De Wette and Bleek auppnae that, after having finished his accuunt nf
the GaUlean ministry, Luke stUl pnsseaaed a hust nf impnrtant materials, withnut any
determinate IncaUUes nr dates, and that, rather than InSe them, he thuught gnud tu
insert them here, between the descriptinn nf the Galilean ministry and that nf the
passinn, while grouping them in the fnrm uf a recnrded jnumey. Hnltzmann takes
fur granted that thnse materiala were nuthing elae than the cnntents uf his secnnd
principal snurce, the Lugia nf Matthew, which Luke haa placed here, after emplny
ing up till this puint his first snurce, the nriginal Mark. Weizsacker, whn thinks,
nn the cnntrary, that the Lngia nf Matthew are almnat exactly reproduced in the
great gruupa nf diacnuraes which the first cnntains, sees in this fnurth part of Luke a
cnllectinn nf sayings derived by him frnm thuse great discnurses uf Matthew, and
arranged systematically with regard tu the principal questinns which were agitated in
the apostolic churches (the account ef the feast, 14 : 1-35, aUudinfe to the Agapae) ;
the discourses, 15 : 1-17 : 10, to questions relative to the admission of Gentiles, etc.).
Of course, according to those three points of view, the historical introductiona
with which Luke prefaces each of thoae teachings would be more or lesa his own in
vention. He deduces them himself from these teachings, as we might do at the present
day. As to the rest, Bleek expressly remarks that this view leavea entirely intact the
hiatnrical truth nf the sayings nf Jesus in themselvea. We ahall gather up in the
cnurse nf nur exegesis the data which can enlighten us nn the value nf thuse hypnth
eses ; but at the nutaet we muat nffer the fnllnwing nbaervatiuns : 1. Ih thus invent
ing an entire phaae nf the ministry nf Jeaus, Luke wnuld put himself in cuntradic
tinn tn the programme marked nut (1' : 1-4), where he afflrma that he has endeavured
tu reprnduce hiatnrical truth exactly. 2. What purpnse wnuld it serve knu-wingly tu
enrich the ministry nf Jeaus with a fictitinus phase ? Wnuld it nnt have been much
simpler tn distribute thuse different pieces alnng the cnurse uf the Galilean ministry ?
3. Dues a cunscientiuus histnrian play thus with the matter nf which he treats, espe
cially when that matter fnrms the ubject nf his religinus faith ? If Luke had reaUy
acted in this way, we shuuld require, with Baur, tu take a step further, and ascribe
tn this fictinn a mure serinua intentinn— that uf eatabliahing, by thnse prulnnged rela
tinna uf .Tesua tn the Samaritans, the Pauline universalism ? Thus it is that criti-

286 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. i
cism, Icgically carried nut in questinns relating tu the Gnspels, always lands us in
this dilemma — histurical truth nr dehberate impnature.
The histurical truth nf this juurney, as Luke describes it, appears tn us evident
frum the fnllnwing facts : 1. Lung nr shnrt, a juurney frum Galilee tu Judea through
Perea must have taken place ; su much is established by the narrativea nt Matthew
and Mark, and indirectly cnnfirmed by that nf Jnhn, when he mentiuns a snjuurn in
Perea precisely at the same epncU (10 : 40-42). 2. The duratinn uf this juurney must
have been much mure cunsiderable than appears from a hasty glance at the flrst two
synnptics. Hnw, in reality, are we tn flU the aix nr aeven mnnths which separated
the feast nf Tabernacles (Jnhn 7, munth nf Octnber) frnm that nf the Passnver, at
which Jesus died ? The few accnunts. Matt. 19 and 20 (Mark 10), cannnt cuver sueh
a gap. Scarcely is there wherewith tn fill up the space uf a week. Where, then,
did Jesus pass all that time ? And what did He dn ? It is usually answered, that
frnm the feast uf- Tabernacles tn that uf the Dedicatinn (December)" He remained in
Judea. That is nut pnsaihle. He muat have gune tn Jeruaalem in a aurt nf incognito
and by way nf aurpriae, in nrder tn appear unexpectedly in that city, and tu prevent
the pnlice measures which a mere lengthened sojourn in Judea -would have allowed
His enemies to take against Him. And after the violent scenes related John
7 : 1-10 : 21, He must have remained peacefully there for more than two whole
men-tha ! Such an idea is irreconcilable with the situation described John 6 : 1 and
7 : 1-13. Jesus therefore, immediately after rapidly executing that juurney, returned to
Galilee. This return, nn dnubt, is nnt mentinned ; but nu mure is that which fnl
lnwed Juhn 5. It is understnud, as a matter ul cnurse, that sn lung as a new scene
uf actinn is nnt indicated in the narrative, the nld une cnntinues. After the stay at
Jerusalem at the feaat nf Dedicatinn (Jnhn 10 : 33 et seq.), it is expressly aaid that
Jeaua sujuumed in Perea (vers. 40-43) ; there we have the flrst indicatinn apprising
us th-at the lung snjuurn in Galilee had cnme tu an end. Immediately, therefnre,
after the feast nf Tabernacles, Jesus returned tn Galilee, and it was then that He
deflnitely bade adieu tn that prnvince, and set uut, as we read Luke 9 : 51, tn ap
proach Jerusalem slnwly and while preaching the gnspel. Nnt nnly is such a jour
ney pnaaible, but it ia in a manner fnrced nn us by the necesaity cf providing cnn
tenta for that blank interval in the ministry of Jesus. 3. The indications which
Luke auppliea reapecting the scene nf this juurney have nnthing in them but what is
exceedingly prnbable. After His first visit tn Nazareth, Jesus settled at Capernaum ;
He made it His own eiiy (Matt. 9 : 1), and the centre uf His excursinns (Luke 4 : 31
et seq,). Very snun He cnnsiderably extended the radius cf His jnurneys nn the side
nf western Galilee (Nain 7 : 11). Then He quitted His Capernaum residence, and
cnmmenced a ministry purely itinerant {S :1 et seq,). Tu this perind belung His first
viait tn Decapnlis, tn the east nf the lake ef Gennesaret, and the multiplicatinn of th(j
loaves, to the north-east of that sea. Finally, we learn from Matthew and Mark
that Jeaus made two uther great excursiuns intu the nnrthern reginns — the one to the
north-west toward Phosnicia (Luke'a great lacuna), the nther tnward the nurth-east, to
the suurces nf the Jnrdan (Csesarea PhUippi, and the transfiguration). To accom
pUsh His misaion tuward Galilee there thus remained tn be viaited only the snuthern
parts nf this province on the side of Samaria.- What mnre natural, cunsequently,
than the directiun which He fnllnwed in this juurney, slnwly passing uver that snuth-
trn part of Galilee from west to east which He had not befure visited, and from

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ' 287
which He could make some excuraions among that Samaritan people, at whose hands
He had found so eager a welcome at the beginning of His ministry ?
Regarding the visit to Martha and Mary, and the saying 13 : 34, 35, we refer to
the explanation nf the passages. Perhaps the firat is a trace (unccnscinus nn the
part nf Luke) nf Jesus' shnrt sojnurn at Jerusalem at the feast nf Dedicatinn. In
any case, the narrative nf Luke is thus fnund tn fnrm the natural transition between
the aynoptical accounta and that nf Juhn. And if we du nnt find in Luke that mul
tiplicity cf jnurneys tu Jerusalem which fnrms the distinctive feature nf Jnhn's Gna
pel, we ahall at least meet with the intermediate type nf a miniatry^ a great part nf
which (the Galilean wnrk nnce finished) assumes the fnrm nf a prulnnged pilgrimage
in the directinn nf Jerusalem.
As tn the cnntents nf the ten chapters embraced in thia part nf Luke, they are
perfectly in keeping with the aituatinn. Jesus carries alnng with Him tn Judea all
the fnllnwing uf devuted believers which He has found in GaUlee, the nucleus nf His
future Church. Frum this band -will gn fnrth the army nf evangelists which, with
the apnstles at its head, wUl shnrtly enter upnn the cunquest nf the wnrld in His
name. Tu prepare them as they travel alnng fur this task — such is His cnnstant aim.
He prosecutes it directly in twn ways : by sending them nn a missinn befnre Him, as
furmerly He had sent the Twelve, and making them aerve, aa theae had dune, a flrat
apprenticeship tn their future wurk ; then, by bringing tu bear nn them the chief
part nf His instructinns respecting that emancipatien from the world and its goods
which waa to be the diatinctive character ef the life nf ,His servants, and thus gaining
them whnlly fnr the great task which He allnts tn them.*
What are the snurces nf Luke in this part which is pecuhar tn him ? Accnrding
tn Hnltzmann, Luke here gives us the cnntents nf Matthew's Lngia, excepting the in-
trnductinns, which he adds ur ampUflea. We shaU examine this whnle hypntheais
hereafter. Accnrding tn Schleiermacher, this narrative ia the result nf the cumbina-
tinn nf twn accuunts derived frnm the juurnals uf twn cumpanluna nf Jeaua, the une
uf whnm tunk part in the juurney at the feast uf Dedicatinn, the nther in that uf the
last Passnver. Thus he explains the exactneaa nf the detaila, and at the same time
the apparent inexactness with which a visit tn Bethany is fnund recnrded in the
midst nf a series nf acenea in Galilee. Accnrding tn this view, the ahurt intrnduc-
tinns placed as headings tn the diacnuraea are wurthy nf apecial cnnfldence. But
* We cannnt help recalUng here the admirable picture which Eusebius draws nf
the budy uf evangeUats whu, under Trajan, cuntinued the wnrk nf thnae whnm Jesus
had trained vrith so much care : " Alongside of him (Quadratua) there flouriahed at
that time many other auccessors ef the apoatlea, who, admirable diaciplea nf thnae
great men, reared the edifice nn the fnundatinns which they laid, cnnlinuing the
wurit nf preaching the gnspel, and scattering abundantly ever the whole earth the
wholeaome seed of the heavenly kingdom. Fer a very large number of Hia diaciples,
carried away by fervent love nf the truth which the divine wnrd had revealed tu
them, fulfilled the ccmmand nf the Savinur tu divide their gnuds amung the poor.
Then, taking leave nf their cnuntry, they flUed the nfflce uf evangeUsts, cnveting
eagerly tn preach Chriat, and tu carry the glad tidinga uf Gnd tn thuse whn had nnt
yet heard the wnrd uf faith. And after laying the fnundatinns nf the faith in anme
remnte and barbarnua cnuntries, establiahing paaturs aranng them, and cnnflding tn
them the care of thnae ynung aettlementa, withnut stopping Innger, tbey hasted nn tu
uther natinna, attended by the grace and virtue nf Gnd " (ed. Lcemmer, iii. 38).
Such were the spiritual chUdren nf thuse whum .Tesua had equipped nn this jnumey,
which snme have reckuned an inventiun nf Luke.

288- COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
how has this fusion nf the twn writings which has merged the two journeys into one
been brought about ? Luke cannot have produced it consciously ; it must have ex
iated in his sources. The difflculty is only removed a stage. How waa it possible
for the two accuunts nf different jnurneys tn be fused intn a unique whnle ? Aa far
aa we are cnncerned, all that we lielieve it pnaaible tn say regarding the snurce frnm
which Luke drew is, that the dncument muat have been either Aramaic, ur trans
lated frnm Aramaic. Tn be cnnvinced nf thia, we need nnly read the verse, 9 : 51,
which fnrms the heading nf the narrative.
If we were proceeding un 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 : 37). But
that divisien has nothiiig corresponding to it in the mind nf the authnr, whn prnba
bly knnws neither nf the twn uther cannnical accnunts. He himself divides his nar
rative intn three cycles by the three nbservatiuna with which he marks it nff : lat.
9 : 51-13 : 31 (9 : 51, tbe resnlutinn tn depart ; 2d. 13 : 33-17 : 10 (13 : 33, the directiun
uf the jnumey) ; Sd. 17 : 11-19 : 37 (17 : 11, the scene of the journey). Such, then,
will be our division. FIRST CYCLE.— CHAP. 9 : 51-13 : 31.
The Departure from Galilee. — First Period of tlie Journey.
1. Unfavorable Reception by the Sama/riiana: 9 : 51-56. — Ver. 51. Introduction.—
The style of this verse is peculiarly impressive and aolemn. The expressions iyevero
. . KUl iarypt^e npbaonov aryp'ifyiv betray an Aramaic original. The verb
avpnXypovoBai, to be fulffled, means here, as in Acts 3 : 1, the gradual filling up ef a
series of days which form a cnmplete perind, and extend tn a gnal determined befnre
hand ; cump. nXyaByvai, 3 : 31 , 23. The perind here is that nf the days uf the de
parting nf Jesus frnm this wurld ; it began with the flrst annnuncement nt His suf
ferings, and it had nnw reached nne gt its marked epnchs, the departure frnm Gali
lee. The gnal is the dvdXyifiS the perfecting oi Jesus ; this expressiun cumbines the
twn ideas uf His death and ascensiun. Thuse twn events, uf which the one is the
cnmplement nf the nther, fnrm tugether the cunsummatinn nf Hia return to the
Father ; cnmp. the same cnmbinatinn' uf ideas in iipuByvai and indyeiv, Jnhn 3 : 14,
8 : 28, 12 : 33, 13 : 3. Fnr the plural ypepai, Luke 1 ; 31, 33. Wieseler (in his Synopr
sia) formerly gave to dvdXyipiS the meaning of good reception : " When the time of the
favorable reception which He had found in Galilee waa coming to an end." But as
this meaning would evidently require some such deflnition as iv TaXiXaig,, he now un
derstands hy ypip. dvaX., " the days during which Jesus should have been received .
by men" (" Beitrage," etc., p. 137 et seq.). But bow can we give tea substantive the
meaning ef a verb in the conditional ? and besidea, comp. Acts 1 : 3, which flxes the
meaning ef dvdXy^is. On tbe ether hand, when Meyer concludes frnm the passage
in Acta that the ascenaien nnly ia here referred tn, he furgeta the difference of cnn
text. In Acta 1 thia meaning is evident, the death being already a past event ; but
hero it is difflcult tn believe that the twn events yet to cnme, by which the departure
cf Jesus tn heaven {dvdXy^n) was tn be cunsummated, are nnt cumprehended in this
wnrd. The prunnun airds, by emphasizing the subject, brings intn pruminence the
free and deliberate character uf this departure. On the kuI nf the apndnaia, see
pp. 83, 84. This Kai {and He alao) recalla the cuirespundeuce between the divine

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 289
decree implied in the term avpnXypova&ai, to be fulfilled, and the free wiU with
which Jesus cnnfnrms thereto. The phrase itpdaooitov 6trtpiZ,eiv cnrrespunds in the
LXX. tn QijE) ciD (Jer. 31 : 10) nr qijjj ^j-^ (Ezek. 6 : 3), dreasersa face vera (Oster
vald), tn give une's view an invariable directinn tnward an end. The expression sup
puses a fear tn be surmnunted, an energy tu be displayed. On the prepnsitinnal
¦ phrase to Jerusalem, cnmp. 9 : 31 and Mark 10 : 32 : " And they were in the way gn
ing up tn Jerusalem ; and Jesus went befure them : and as they fuUowed they were
afraid. " Tu start fnr Jerusalem is tn march tn His death ; Jesus knnws it ; the dis
ciples have a presentiment uf danger. This cnnflrms nur interpretatiun uf dvdXr;ij)iS.
Vers. 52-56.* Tlie Refuaal.— This tentative message nf Jesus dnes nnt prove, as
Meyer and Bleek think, that He had the intentinn nf penetrating farther into Sama
ria, and uf gning directly tn Jeruaalem in that way. He desired tn dn a wurk in the
nnrth uf that prorince, like that which had succeeded su admirably in the south
(Jnhn 4).
The sending uf messengers waa indiapenaable, nn accuunt uf the numerous ret
inue which accumpanied Him. The reading xoXzv (ver. 52), thuugh leaa suppnrted,
appears tn us preferable tn the reading Kupyv, which is probably taken frnm ver. 56.
In general, the Samaritans put nn nbatacle in the way uf Jews travelling through
their cnuntry. It was even by this route, accnrding tn Jnsephus, that the Galileans
usually went tu Jerusalem ; but Samaritan tnleratiun did nnt gu su far as tn offer
hnspitaUty. The aim nf Jesus was tn remnve the wall which fnr lung centuries had
separated the twn penples. The Hebraism, rd icpodaoKov xopevojuEvov (ver. 53),
D''37n CJD (Ex. 33 : 14 ; 2 Sam. 17 : 11), prnvea an Aramaic dncument. The cun
duct uf James and Juhn betrays a state nf exaltatinn, which was perhaps stiU due tn
the impressinn produced by the tranaflguratinn scene. TUe prupnsal which they
make tn Jesus seema tn be related te the recent appearance nf Elias. This remark
dnes nnt Inae its truth, even if the wnrds, as did Elias, which aeveral Alex, nmit, are
nnt authentic.
Perhapa thia additinn was meant tn extenuate the fault nf the disciples ; but it
may alsu have been left cut tn prevent the rebuke uf Jesus frnm faUing nn the pruph
et, nr becauae the Gnustics empluyed this paaaage against the authurity nf the O. T.
(TertuUian, Adv. Marc. iv. 23). The mnst natural auppnaitinn after aU ia, that the
passage is an explanatnry glnas. Ia the surname nf sons of thunder, given by Jesus tu
James and Juhn, tu be dated from this circumstance ? 'We think nnt. Jesus wnuld
nnt have perpetuated the memnry. nf a fault cnmmitted by His twu beluved disciplea.
The phraae. He turned (ver. 55), is explained by the fact that Jeaus was walking at
the head nf the cumpany. A great many Alex, and Byz. mss. agree in rejecting the
last wnrds nf this verse. And said, Te know not ; but the uldest versinns, the Itala
and Peschitn, cnnflrm its authenticity ; and it is prnbable that the cause of the emis
sion is nuthing else than the cnnfuunding nf the wnrds I<!AI EME with the fnllnwing
* Ver. 53. !S. r. A. 34 Mnn. It. Vg. read xoXiv instead nf xco/irfv. Ver. 54. K. B.
sume Mnn. nmit avrov after p-aBritai. &, B. L. Z. 2 Mnn. It"'"*. Syr"", nmit the
wnrds cos xat HXiai sitmridev. Ver. 55. ». A. B. C. E. G. H. L. S. V. X. A. Z. 64
Mnn. nmit the wnrds nai eiitsv ovk oiSars oiov itvev/iaroS edrs vpsiS, which are
fuund in D. P". K. M. U. T. A. U. the majnrity nf the Mnn. Syr. ltpi«"<!«e. Ver. 56.
The T. R. adds at the beginning uf the v(;rse :. o yf^p vioi rov avBpcoitov ovx rjXBe
ipvxaS avBpooTiaov aitoXedai aXXa 6oo6at, fnllnwing F". K. M. U. r. A. II. almn.'it
aU the Mnn. Syr. Itpi"i4'>», These words are umitted in the other 14 Mjj. 65 Mnn,
If'-i.

290 ' COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
KAI EHopE-uBri. They may be understund/ in three ways : either interrogatively,
" Know ye nnt what ia the new spiritual reign which I bring in, and uf which you
are tn be the instruments, that uf meekness?" nr afflrmatively, with tbe same sense,
" Ye knnw nnt yet . . ." The third meaning is much mnre aevere :" Ye knnw
nnt nf what spirit ynu are the instruments when speaking thus ; ynu think that ynu
are wnrking a miracle of faith in my service, but yuu are obeying a spirit aUen from
mine." This laat meaning, which ia that uf St. Augustine and of Calvin, is mure in
keeping with the expressinn iTtezipr;6Ev, He rebuked them.
The fnllnwing wurda (ver. 56), For tlie Son of man is not come to destroy men's Uvea,
but io aave tliem, are wanting in the same authnrities as the preceding, and in the
Cantabrigian besides. It is a glnss brought in from 19 ; 10 and Matt. 18 ; 11. In
these wnrds there are, besidea, numerous variatiuns, aa ia usual in interpnlated paa
aagea. Here, prnba.bly, we have the beginning uf thnse many alteratinns in the text
which are remarked ' in thia piece. The cnpyists, rendered distrustful by the first
glnas, aeem tu have taken the liberty uf making arbitrary currecticna in the rest of
the paaaage. The suspicion cf Gnustic iuterpnlatinns may have equally cnntributed
tn the same reault.
Jeaus uffered, but did nnt impnse Himself (8 : 37) ; He withdrew. Was the nther
village where He was received Jewish ur Samaritan ? Jewish, must prnbably ; nther
wise the difference nf treatment experienced in twn villages belnnging tn the same
penple wnuld have been mnre expressly emphasized.
3. The Three Diaciples: 9:57-62. — Twu uf these shnrt episndes are alsu con
nected in Matthew (chap. 8) ; but by him they are placed at the time when Jesus is
aetting out en Hia excursion into Decapolis. Meyer and Weizaacker prefer the aitua-
tien indicated by Mattlfcew. The aequel will show what we are to think of that
npininn. lat Vera. 57 and 58.* Luke says, a certain man; in Matthew it is a acribe.
Why this difference, if they fnUuw the same ducument ? The hnmage nf the man
breathed a blind cunfidence in hia nwn atrength. The answer uf Jesua ia a caU to
self-examinatinn. Tn fnllnw such a Maater whithersoever Hegoeih, mnre is needed
than a gund resolution ; he muat walk in the way uf self-ranrtfflcatinn (9 : 23).t The
wnrd KaradHTJvcodiS strictly denutea ahelter under f ullage, as uppused tn hulea in the
earth. Night by night Jesua received from the band nf His Father a reating-place,
which He knew not in the murning ; the beasts were better nff in respect cf cumfcrt. '
The name Son of man ia emplnyed with preciaion here tn bring nut the cnntrast
between the Lurd nf creatinn and His punreat subjects. This nffer and answer are
certainly put mnre naturally at the time nf final departure frum GaUlee, than at the
beginning nf a few hnurs' nr a few days' excursion, as in Matthew,
2d. Vers. 59, 60. :f Luke aays, another (individual) ; Matthew, another of Eis
The scribe had uffered himself ; thia latter ia addressed by Jesus. Luke
alune indicates the cnntraat which the aucceeding cunveraatinn explains. Here we
* Ver. 57. S. B. D. L. Z. some Mnn. It^"?. omit Hvpte.
X The following is M. Renan's commentary on this saying : " His vagrant life, at
flrst full of charms fnr him, began to weigh heavily on him" (" Vie de J6sus," 13th
ed. p. 337). Here certainly is one uflhe strangest liberties with the histury nf Jesus
which thia author has allnwed himaelf. The saying breathes, nn the cnntrary, the
must manly cuurage.
X Ver. 59. B, D. V. nmit xvpie.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 291
have no more a man of impulse, presumptuous and without self-distrust. On the
contrary, we have a character reflecting and wary even to excess. Jesus has more
cniffldence in him than in the fnrmer ; He stimulates instead nf currecting him.
Cnuld the answer which He gives him (ver. 60) be altngether justified in the aituatinn
which Matthew indicates, and if what waa cuntemplated waa nnly a ahurt expeditinn,
in which thia man withnut incunvenience ceuld have taken part ? In the poaition
indicated by Luke, the whole aapect of the matter changes. The Lord is setting out,
not again tn return ; will he whn remains behind at this decisive mnment ever rejnin
Him ? There are critical perinds in the mural life, when that whicb is nnt dune at
the mnment wUl never be dune. The Spirit blnws ; its actinn over, the ship will
never succeed in getting out nf purt. But, it is said, tn bury a lather is a sacred
duty ; Jeaus has nn right tn set aside auch a duty. But there may be conflicting
duties ; the law itself provided fur nne, iu cases analngnus tn that which is befure us.
The high priest and the Nazarites, er conaecrated ones, were net to pollute themselves
for the dead, were it even their father or mother (Lev. 31 : 11 ; Num. 6 ; 6, 7) ; that ia
to say, they could neither touch the body tu pay it the last duties, nnr enter the
hnuse where it lay (Num. 19 : 14), nnr take part in the funeral meal (Hns. 9 : 4). All
that Jesua dnea here ia tn apply the mural principle implicitly laid dnwn by the
law — tu wit, that in case ef conflict, spiritual duty takes precedence of the law ef
propriety. If his country be attacked, a citizen will leave his father's body to .run
to the frontier ; if his uwn life be threatened, the mnst devuted snn will take tn flight,
leaving tn uthers the care uf paying the last hunurs tn his father'a remains. Jesus
caUa upnn thia mau tn du fur the life nf his snul what every aen wuuld dn fnr that nf
hia budy. It muat be remembered that the pullutiun cnntracted by the presence nf
a dead bndy lasted seven days (Num. 19 : 11-33). Wbat wnuld have happened tn
this man during these aeven daya ? His impressinns wuiild have been chilled.
Already Jesus saw him plunged anew in the tide cf his nrdinary life, lust tu the king
dnm nf God. There waa needed in thia caae a decisinn Uke that which Jesus had
juat taken Himaelf (ver. 51). 'AiceXBcdv (atrictly, from the ajM) is uppnaed tn every
deaire uf delay ; the higher miaainn, the apiritual Nazariteahip, begina immediately.
Frnm the wurd dead, nn the dnuble meaning nf which the answer nf Jesua turua,
there is suggested the judgraent which He passed nn human nature befnre its re
newal by the guspel. This saying is parallel tn that nther, " If ye whn are evil
. . -" and tn Paul's declaratinn, " Te were dead in your sins . . ." (Eph. 3 :1).
The command, "Preach the kingdora of God," justifies, by the sublimity of the
object, the sacrifice demanded. -The Sid in didyyeXXE indicatea' diffusinn. The
miaainn uf the aeventy diaciples, which immediately fulluwa, sets thia ccmmand in its
true light. Jesus had a place fur this man tn fill in that army uf evangelista which He
purpuaed tn aend befnre Hira, and which at a later date waa tn labnr in changing the
aapect nf the wnrld. Everything in this scene ia explained by the aituatinn in which
Luke placea it. Clement uf Alexandria relatea (Strum. 3 : 4) that the name uf thia
man was Philip. In any case, it cnuld nnt have been the apuatle ef that name whn
had lung been fnllnwing Jesus (Juhn 6) ; but might it nnt be the deacnn PhUip, who
afterward played sn impnrtant a part as deacnn and evangelist in the primitive
Church ? If it is sn, we can underatand why Jeaus did nnt allnw auch a prize tu
eacape Him.
Sd. Vera. 61, 63. Thia third instance belungs unly tn Luke. It is, as it were, the
synthesis nf the twn nthera. Thia man nffera himself, like the first ; and yet he tem-

292 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
purizes like the secnnd. The wnrd ditordddsSBai, atrictly, to leave one's place in the
ranks, rather denntes here separatinn frnm the membera nf his hnuse, than renuncia-
tiun nf his gnuds (14 : 33). The prepuaitinn eiS, which fnllnws rozS, is better ex
plained by taking the prunnun in the maaculine senae. There are, in the anawer nf
Jesus, at nnce a call tn examine himself, and a summnns tu a mnre thnrnugh decisinn.
The figure is'that of a man whu, while engaged in labnr (anr. k-KiftaXoav), instead nf
keeping his eye on the furrow which he is drawing (pres. fiXiicoov), leeks behind at
some object which attracts his interest. He is only half at work, and half work only
will be the result. What will come of the divine work in the hands nf a man who
devotes himself tn it with a heart preuccupied with ether cares ? A heroic impulse,
without afterthought, is the condition nf Chriatian service. In the wurda, fU for tlie
kingdom of God, the twu ideas of self -discipline and uf wurk tn influence nthers are
net separated,' as indeed they form but one. This summons to entire renunciatinn is
much mnre naturally explained by the situatinn nf Luke than by that of Matthew.
Thnse three events had evidently been jnined tngether by traditinn, on accnunt uf
their hnmngeneuua nature, like the twn Sabbatic scenes, 6 : 1-11. They were ex
amples nf the discriminating wisdum with which Jesus treated the mnst diverse cases.
This group nf epiaudes was incnrpurated by the evangelists of the primitive Church
in either of the traditional cycles indifferently. Accordingly, In Matthew it takes its
place in the cycle of the Gadarene journey. Luke, mnre exact in his reaearches, has
undnubtedly reatured it tn its true histnrical situatinn. Fnr althnugh the three eventa
did nnt occur at the aame time, as might appear tn be the case it we were tn take hia
narrative literally, all the three nevertheleaa belung tn the same epuch, that of the
final departure frnm Galilee. Hnltzmann, whn will have it that Matthew and Luke
bnth burrowed this piece frnm the Lngia, is nbliged tu ask why Matthew has cut nfl
the third case ? His answer is : Matthew imagined that this third persnnage, was no
nther than the rich ynung man whuse hiatnry he reckuned un giving later, in the furm
in which he fnund it in the uther cummun anurce, the nriginal Mark. Luke had net
the aame perspicacity ; and hence he haa twice related the sarae fact in twn different
furma. But the rich ynung man had nu thuught nf asking Jesus tn be allnwed tn
fnllnw Him ; what filled his mind was the idea nf snme wnrk tn be dune which
wuuld aecure his salvatinn. The state uf snul and the cunversatinn are whnlly differ
ent. At all events, if the fact waa the same, it wnuld be mure natural tn aUnw that
it had taken twn different fnrms in the traditinn, and that Luke, nnt haring the same
suurces aa Matthew, reprnduced bnth withnut suspecting their identity.
3. 2lie Sending qf the Seventy Diaciples : 10:1-34. — Thnugh Jeaus proceeded alewly ,
frnm city tu city, and frnm village tu village. He had but little time tu devnte tn each
place. It was therefure nf great mument that He shnuld everywhere find His arrival
prepared fnr, minda awakened, hearts expectant nf His visit. This precautinn was
the mure impnrtant, because this first visit was tn be His last. Accnrdingly, as He
had sent the Twelve intn the nnrthern parts cf Galilee at the periud when He was
visiting them fur the last time. He nuw summnns a mure numerous bndy nf His
adherents tu execute a similar missiun in the snuthern reginns uf the province. They
thus serve under His eyes, in a manner, the apprenticeship tn their future calling.
The recital nf this missiun embracea — 1st, The Sending (vers. 1-16) ; %d. The Return
(vers. 17-24). The easential matter always is the discuurse uf Jesus, in which His
prufuundest emutinns find expreasinn.
Is*. Tlie Sending, vera. 1-16.— Ver. 1.* The Mission.— Ai^aSeiuvv/it, io put in
* Ver. 1. B. L. Z. Syr"', nmit Hcti. B. D. M. Syr""'. It"""!. Epiphaniua, Augus
tine, Recugnit. Clement. : el3Soj.iriKovTo Svo. B. K. n. snme Mnn. Syr., Svo Svo
instead uf Svo.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 293
view; and hence, to elect and install (1 : 80) ; here, to designate. The wnrd instituer
(Crampun) wuuld wrongly give "a permanent character tn this missinn. Schleier
macher and Meyer think that by the xai krepovs, otiiera alao, Luke alludes tn the
sending of the two measengera (9 : 53). But thnae twu envnys are nf tnn widely dif
ferent a nature tn admit nf being put nn the same funting, and the term dysdei^Ev
cnuld nnt be applied tn the fnrmer. The sulemn instructinns which fnlluvr leave nu
rnnm tn duubt, that by the otiiera alao, Luke alludes tn the sending nf the Twelve.
The term krepovS, othera, authnrizes the view that the Twelve were nnt cumpre
hended, in this secnnd missinn ; Jeaua kept them at this time by Hia side, with a view
tu their peculiar training fnr their future miniatry.
The naciUatiun which prevails in the mss. between the numbers aeventy and seventy-
two, and which is reprnduced in ver. 17, exists equally in several uther cases where
this number appears, e.g. the seventy or seventy-twn Alexandrine translaturs nf the
Old Testament. This is due tn the fact that the numbera 70 and 73 are bnth multi
ples uf numbers very frequently used in sacred symbolism — 7 times 10 and 6 times
12. The authorities are in favor of aeventy, the reading in particular ef the Sinaiiicus.
Does this number contain an aUusion to that of the members of the Sanhedrim (71,
including the president) — a number which appears in its turn to correspund with that
nf the 70 elders chnsen by Mnses (Num. 11 : 16-25) ? In thia caae it wnuld be, an tu
apeak, an anti-Sanhedrira which Jeaus ccnatituted, as, in naming the Twelve, He
had set over againat the twelve anna nf Jacnb twelve new apiritual patriarchs. But
there is annther explanatiun uf the number which seema tn ua mnre natural. The
Jewa held, agreeably tn Gen. 10, that the human race was made up nf 70 (nr 72)
penples, 14 descended frnm Japhet, 30 frum Ham, and 26 frnm Shem. This idea,
nnt uncummnn in the writinga nf later Judaiam, ia thus expressed in the " Clemen
tine Recngnitinns" (ii. 42) : " Gnd divided all the natinns uf the earth intu 72 parts."
If the chnice cf the Twelve, as it tnnk place at the beginning, had mnre particular
relatinn tn Christ's missiun tn Israel, the sending nf the aeventy, carried nut at a mure
advanced epuch, when the unbelief nf the penple waa aaauming a fixed fnrm,
annuunced and prepared fur the extensiun ef preaching thruughuut the whule earth.
Jesus sent them twu and twn ; the gifts nf the nne were tu cnmplete thnae nf the
uther. Besides, did nut the legal adage say. In the mouth of two or three witnesses
shall every word be established ? Lange translates ov ejneXAev, " where He shnuld
have cnme, " as if the end cf the visit made by the seventy had been tu make up fnr
that fur which Jesus had nnt time. This meaning is nppnsed tn the'text, and partic
ularly tu the wnrds before Him.
_ Vers. 3-16. The Discourse. — It falls intn twu parts : Inatructinna fnr the misaiun
(vers. 2-13), and warninga tn the citiea uf Galilee (vera. 13-16).
- The inatructinns first explain the reasnn nf this missinn (ver. 2) ; then the cunduct
to be observed nn setting nut and during the jnumey (vers. 3, 4), at the time nf arri
val (vers. 5, 6) ; during their snjuurn in the case cf a favnrahle receptinn (vers. 7-9) ;
flnally, un their departure in the case nf rejectinn (vers. 10-12).
Ver. 2.* " Therefnre said He untn them. The harvest truly is great, but the labnr-
era are few ; pray ye therefure the Lnrd nf the harveat, that He wnuld send fnrth
labnrera into His harvest." Matthew haa thia utterance in chap. 9, in preaenee cf
the Galilean multitudes, and as an intreductinn tu the sending uf the Twelve. Bleek
* Ver. 3. Instead of avv, &. B. C. D. L. Z. snme Mnn. It"''"!, read Ss.

294 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
himself acknowledges that it ia better placed by Luke. " The field is the wnrld,"
Jeaus had said in the parable nf the sewer. It is to this vast domain that the very
strong worda of thia verse naturally apply, recalling the smilar words, John 4 : 35 ;
" Lock nn the fields, fnr they are white already te harvest," uttered in Samaria, and
nn the threshnld, as it were, nf the Gentile wnrld. The sending uf the new laburers
is the fruit uf the prayers nf their predecessnrs. The prep, ex in 'exfidXXeiv, thruat
foi'th, may signify, fnrth frnm the Father's huuse, frnm heaven, whence real callings
issue ; cr, fnrth frnm the Hnly Land, whence the evangelizatiun nf the GentUes waa
tu proceed. FuUuwing un the idea nf prayer, the firat meaning is the mure natural.
Vers. 3, 4.* " Gn ynur ways ; behnld, I send yuu fnrth as lambs amung wnlves.
Carry neither purse, uur scrip, nur shues : and salute nn man by the way." They
are tn set uut just as they are, weak and utterly unprovided. The first characteristic
uf the messengers nf -lesus is cnnfldence. Jeaus, whu gives them their missinn {kyod
is certainly authentic), charges Himaelf with the taak nf defending them and nf pro
viding fur their wants. 'Tno8-ripara, change nf aandals ; this is proved by the verb
fiadrd^eiv, tn carry a burden. It ia difflcult tu understand the ubject nf the last
wurda. Are they meant tu indicate haste, as in 2 Kinga 4 : 29 ? But the juurney nf
Jesus Himaelf has nnthing hurried abnut it. Dnes He mean tu furbid them, as some
have thuught, tn aeek the favnr uf men ? But the wurds by tlie way wnuld be super
fluuus. Jesus rather means that they must travel like men absnrbed by one supreme
inteiest, which wiU nnt permit them to luse their time in idle ceremnnies. It is well
knuwn hnw cnmplicated and tedinus Eastern salutatinns are. The dumestic hearth is
the place where they are tn deliver their message. A tranquillity regins there which
ia appropriate tu su serinus a subject. 'Ihe fuUn-wing veraes readily fall in with this
idea. Vers. 5, 6.t "And intu whatsnever hnuse ye enter, first say. Peace be tn this
hnuse. And if the {a) snn nt peace be there, ynur peace shall rest upnn it : if nnt, it
shall tum tn ynu again." The prea. aidepxr/dBe (Byz.) expreases better than the anr.
(Alex.) that the entrance and the salutatinn are simultanenus. The prevaUing im
pulse, in the servant uf Chriat, is the desire nf cummunicating the peace with which
he himaelf is filled {his peace, ver. 6). If the article befure vidS — " the sun nf peace"
— were authentic (T. R.), it wnuld deaignate the individual as the ubject uf a special
divine decree, which is far-fetched. The phrase, son of peace, is a Hebraism. In
thia cnnnectiun it represents the nntiun nf peace as an actual fnrce which cumes tu
life in the individual. The reading nf the twu muat ancient mss., iitavaTCa'^deraf,
is regular (anr. paas. iTcdr/v). If nn snul is fuund there fitted tu receive the influence
nf the gnspel salutatinn, it will nnt nn that accunnt be withnut efficacy ; it -wUl return
with rednublcd fnrce, as it were, nn him whu uttered it.
Vers. 7-9. :|: " And in the same hnuse remain, eating and drinking such thinga
aa they give : fnr the labnrer is wurthy uf his hire. Go nut frum huuae tn hnuse.
8. And intn whatsnever city ye enter, and they receive ypu, eat such thinga as are set
befnre you : 9. And heal the sick thafare therein, and say unto them. The kingdom
" Ver. 3. S. A. B. omit syco after idov. Ver. 4. !*. B. D. L. Z. several Mnn. pif
inatead of pijds.
X Ver. 5. The mss. are divided between eidepxr/dBe (T. R.) and eiesXBifTs (Alex.).
Ver. 6. T. R. reada o before vioS, with !*. and some Mnn. only. S. B., sitavaTcai^de-
rai inatead uf sitavavcaveerai.
X Ver. 7. Edri ia omitted by J>. B. D. L. X. Z.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 295
of God is come high untn you." A favorable reception is supposed. Ths messen
ger ef Christ, regarding his entrance into that house above everything else aa a prov
idential event, is to fix his residence there during the enlire period et hia alay in that
place (see en 9 : 4). 'Ev a-vrij ry oixia, net " in the same hnuse," aa if it were iv
Txi a-vT^ oixia, but, " in that same house which he entered at flrat." They are, be
sides, tu regard themselves immediately as members uf the famUy, and te eat with
nut scruple the bread uf their heats. It ia the price ef their labor. They give mere
than they receive.
In ver. 8 Jesua applies the same principle to the whnle city which shall receive
them. Their arrival reaemblea a triumphal entrance : they are served with fund ;
the sick are brought tu them ; they speak pubUcly. It is a mistake tn find in the
wurds uf Paul, Hc^v rd icapariBepevov idBiere (1 Cur. 10 ; 27), an allusinn tn this
ver. 8 ; the ubject nf the twn sayings ia entirely different. .There is here nn queatinn
whatever as tn the cleanness nr uncleanness of the viands ; we are yet in a Jewiah
werld. The accus. government icp vpaS, untn {upon) you, expreaaea the efficacy nf
the message, its actinn upun the individuals cnncerned. Tbe pert. rjyyiKS indicates
that the apprnach cf the kingdnm nf God is thenceforth a fact. It is near ; the
presence of the messengers of the Messiah is the proe:^.
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 aay, 11. Even the very duat of your
city, which cleaveth en ua, we de wipe off -againat you : notwithstanding be ye sure
of this, that the kingdoni of God ia come nigh unto you. 12. But 1 say unto you,
that it ahaU be more tulerable in that day fnr Sudum than fur that city. " Thia prnc
lamatinn, and the aymbnlical act with which it cluaea, are snlemn events ; they will
play a part in the judgment of thuse pnpulatinns. Kai, this very dust. The dat.
vpiv, to you, expresses the idea, " we return it tn yuu, by shaking it from uur feet."
There is the breaking up nf every bund nf cunnectinn (see 9 : 5). tlXf^v indicates, as
it alwaya dnea, a reatrictiun : ' ' Further, we have nnthing else to announce te you,
excepting that . . ." In spite of the bad reception, which will undoubtedly pre
vent the visit of Jesus, thia time will nevertheless be to them the decisive epoch.
'E95' vp/aS, upon, you, in the T. R., is a gloaa taken from ver.' 9. That day may de
note the deatructieu of the Jewiah people by the Romans, er tbe last judgment. The
twn punishments, the une uf which is mere national, the other individual, are
blended together in this threatening ef the Lord, as in that of John the Baptiat (3 : 9).
Yet the idea of the last judgment seems tu be the prevailing une, frnm what fnllnws,
ver. 14.
This threatening, wherein the fuU gravity of the present time is revealed, and the
deep feeling expressed which Jesus had nf the supreme character uf His missinn,
leads the Lnrd tn cast a glance backward at the cnnduct ef the citiea whose prnba
tinn is nnw cnncluded, and whuse sentence is nu Innger in suspense. The memnry
uf the awful wurds which they are abuut tn hear will fnllnw the disciples un their
missiun, and will impress them with its vast impurtance.
Vers. 13-16. f " Wne untu thee, Churazin ! Wue untn thee, Bethsaida ! fur if the
* Ver. 10. !*. B. C. D. L. Z. snme Mnn., eideXBrfTe instead nf sidepxvdBe. Ver.
11. ». B. D. R. snme Mnn. Syr^"'. Itpi""?'", add eiS rovS noSaS after vpcov. S. B.
D. L. Z. sume Mun. Syr™'. Itpio'-i<!'", umit sip vpaS.
X Ver. 15. Instead uf if scoS ovpavov vipooBsida, which the T. R, reads, with 10
Mjj- almust aU the Mnn. Syr»=''. It""?., the reading ispif ewf rov ovpavov vipooBi^gy

296 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
mighty wnrks had been dune in Tyre and Sidun which have been dune in yuu, they
had a great whUe agn repented, sitting in sackclnth and ashes. 14. But it shall be
mnre tulerable fnr Tyre and Sidun at the judgment than fnr you. 15. And thnu,
Capernaum, which art exalted tn heaven, shalt be thruat dnwn tn heU. 16. He that
heareth ynu heareth me ; and he that despiaeth ynu despiaeth me ; and he that de-
apiseth me despiseth Him that sent me." The name uf Churazin is nut fnund either
in the O. T. nr in Jusephus. But Jewish traditinn mentiuns it frequently either under
tbe name nf Chnrazalm, as producing a cheese uf inferinr quality, or under that nt
Churaschin, as situated in Naphtali.*
Accurding tn Eusebius' (" Onumasticnn"), Churazin was situated 12 miles
(4 leagues) — Jerume says, certainly by mistake, in his translatinn, 3 miles— frnm
Capernaum. Thia situatinn curreapunds exactly with the ruins which stiU bear the
name uf Bir-Kirazeh, a little tu the nnrth uf Tel-Hum, if we place Capernaum in the
plain nf Genneaaret (p. 155). f We du nnt knew any nf the numeruua miracles
which this declaratinn implies. Of thnse at Bethaaida we knnw unly nne. On the
impnrtant cnnsequencea which thia fact haa fnr criticism, see p. 216. The interpre
tatinn which M. Cnlani has attempted tugive tn the word SvvdpeiS in thia paasage—
wnrks uf hnliness — will nut bear discussinn.
It is impnsaible tn render well intu English the image emplnyed by Jesus. The
twu cities persnnified are repreaented aa sitting clnthed in sackclnth, aud cuvered
with ashes. The ¦KX-ffv, excepUng, is related tu an idea which is understuud : " Tyre
and Sidun shaU alsu be fnund guUty ; nnly, they shaU be sn in a less degree than
ynu." The tune rises (ver. 15) as the mind uf Jesus turns tu the city which had
shared mnst richly in that effusinn nf grace nf which Galilee has just been the subject
— Capernaum. It was there that Jesus had fixed his reaidence ; He had made it the
new Jeruaalem, the cradle nf the kingdum nf Gud. It is difficult tn understand hnw
cummentatura cuuld have referred the wnrds, exalted io lieaven, tu the cnmmercial
pruaperity nf the city, and Stier tu its alleged situatinn nn a hill by the side nf the
lake ! This whnle discuurse uf Jesus mnves in the must elevated sphere. The pnint
in questinn is the privilege which Jesus bestuwed nn the city by making it Hia city
(Matt. 9 : 1). Nntwithstanding tbe authnrity nf Tischendurf, we unhesitatingly pre
fer the received reading 77 vipaoBsidaj " which' art exalted," tn that nt snme Alex.,
pi) vTpooBijd-y, "WUt thnu be exalted? Nn, thnu wilt cume dnwn . . ." The
meaning which this reading gives is tame and insipid. It haa arisen simply frnm the
fact that the final p nf Capernaum waa by mistake jnined tn the fnllnwing y, which,
thus becnme a p^, necessitated the change frnm -vipcoBeida tn vilxso^-r/Sig. This vari
atinn is alsu fuund in Matthew, where the mss. shuw annther besides, ^ vipcoBijS,
whicb givea the same meaning as the T. R. As Heaven is here the emblem of the
highest divine favurs, Hadea is that nf the deepest abasement. In the O. T. it is the
in !S. B. D. L. Z. Syr™'. It''"i. B. D. Syr""'. , xaraftrfdr; {thou shalt descend) instead
nf xaTafiilia6Bri6rf {thou shalt be cast down). The mss. are divided between ovpavov
and rov ovpavov, aSov and rov aSov.
* " Tr. Menachnth," ful. 85, 1 ; " Baba bathra," ful. 15, 1 (see Caspari, " Chrnn.
geugr. Einleitung in das Leben Jesu Chriati," p. 76).
X Cump. Van de Veli^e and Felix Bovet. The latter aaya : " They assure me at
Tiberiaa that there ia nu the mnuntain, at the distance uf a league and a half from
Tel-Hum, a ruin called Bir ( Well) Kereanun. This may probably be the Churazin nf
the Gnspel." " Vnyage en Terre-Sainle," p. 415.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 297
place cf silence, where all earthly activity ceaaea, where all human grandeur returns
tn ita nuthingnesa (Ezek. 31 and 32).
Matthew placea thia declaratinn in the middle uf the Galilean ministry, immedi
ately after the embasay sent by Juhn the Baptist. We can understand withnut diffl
culty the assuciatinn nf ideas which led the evangeliat tn cnnnect the nne nf thnse
pieces with the uther. The impenitence nf the penple in respect uf the furerunner
waa the prelude tn their unbelief in respect nf Jeaus. But dnea nnt the hiatnrical sit
uatinn indicated by Luke deserve the preference ? Is such a denunciatiun nut much
mere intelligible when the mission nf Jesus tn those cities was entirely finished ?
Luke adds a saying, ver. 16, which, by gning back un the thuught in the first part ul
the discuurse, brings cut its unity — the pusitinn taken up with respect tn the mes
sengers uf Jesus and their preaching, shall be equivalent tu a pnsitiun taken up with
reapect tu Jesus, nay, with respect tn Gnd Himself. What a grandeur, then, belnngs
tu the wnrk which He confides to them !
2d. Tlie Return : vers. 17-24. — Jesus had appointed a rendezvous fnr His disciples
at a fixed place. Frum the wurd vKEdrpeipav, they returned (ver. 17), it wnuld even
appear that the place waa that frnm which He had aent them. Did He await them
there, nr did He in the interval take anme uther directinn alnng with Hia apuatlea ?
The sequel wUl perhapa throw snme light nn this questiun. His intentinn certainly
was Himself tn viait alnng -with them all thnae lucalities in which they had preceded
Him (ver. 1). This very simple explanatinn sets aside all the improbabilities which
have been imputed tn this narrative. The return nf the disciples was signalized, first
uf all, by a cunversatinn uf Jesus with them abuut their missinn (vers. 17-20) ; then
by an nutburst, unique in the life uf the Saviuur, regarding the unexpected but mar- .
vellnua progress nf Hia wnrk (vera. 21-34).
Vers. 17-^30.* Tlie Joy qf the Diaciplea. — "And the seventy returned again with
jny, aaying, Lurd, even the devila are aubject untu us thrnugh Thy name. 18. And
He said untu them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. 19. Behnld, I give
untn ynu puwer tn tread nn serpenta and scurpiuns, and nver all the puwer uf the
enemy : and nuthing shall by any meana hurt ynu. 30. Only in this rejuice nut, that
the spirits are subject untn ynu ; but rejnice because yuur names are written in
heaven." The phrase, unth joy, expreaaea the tune uf the whnle piece. The jny nf
the diaciples becumea afterward that nf Jesus ; and then it bursts fnrth frnm Hia
heart exalted and purified (ver. 31, et aeq.). Cnnfideut in the prumiae nf their Master,
they had set themselvea tn heal the sick, and in this way they had snun cnme tu
attack the severest malady cf all — that uf pnasesaiun ; and they had succeeded. Their
surprise at thia unhnped-fur success is described, with the vivacity nf an entirely fresh
experience by the xai, "even the devils," and by the pres. vxardddErai, submit
themaelvea. The wnrd iBeodpovv, I was contemplating, denntes an intuitinn, nnt a
risiun. Jesus dnes nut appear tn have had visinna after that uf His baptism. The
twn acts which the imperfect I was contemplaUng ahuwa tu be simultanenus, arc evi
dently that infnrmal perception, and the triumphs nf the diaciples recnrded in ver.
17 : " WhUe yuu were expelling the suburdinates, I was seeing the master faU. " On
* Ver. 17. B. D. It""*, add Svo after epSopijxovra. Ver. 19. !*. B. C. L. X.
anme Mnn. Vss. and Fathers, SsSaoxa in place nf SiSoopi, which is the reading nf 15
Mjj. the mnst nf the Mnn. Syr Justin, Ir. Ver. 30. The yUarMor which the T. R.
reads after ;);az/3£r£ Se is suppnrted nnly by X. and sume Mnn, S. B. L. X.,
ByyEypartrat instead nf E'ypaqxr].

398 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the external scene, the representatives nn bnth aides were struggling ; in the inmost
consciuusness uf Jesus, it was the twn chiefs that were face tu face. The fall uf
Satan which He cuntemplates,. symbnUzes the cumplete destructinn nf his kingdum,
the gnal nf that wnrk which is inaugurated by the present successes nf the disciples ;'
Cnmp. Juhn 12 : 31. Nnw the grand wnrk of Satan on the earth, accnrding tn Scrip
ture, is idnlatry. Paganism throughout is nothing else than a diabolical enchantment.
It has been not unjustly called une possession en grands.'^ Satan sets himself up as
the ubject nf human adoratinn. As the ambitinus experience aatisfactinn in the
incense cf glury, sn he finds the aavnr nf the same in all thnse impure wurahips,
which are in reality addreased tu himself (1 Cur. 10 : 20). There remains never
theless a great difference between the scriptural view nf Paganism and the npinion
prevalent amnng the Jews, accnrding tn which every Pagan divinity waa a separate
demun. Hea/oen denntes here, like iv iicovpaviuzs, Eph. 6 : 12, the higher sphere
frum the'midat uf which Satan acts upun human cnnscinusness. To fall from hea/een,
is tn luse this state uf pnwer. The figure used by nur Lnrd thus represents the nver
thrnw nf idnlatry thruughnut the whule wnrld. The* anr. rtedovra, falling, denutes,
under the furm nf a single act, all the victuries nf the gnapel uver Paganiam from that
firat preaching uf the disciples duwn tu the final denouement nf the great drama (Rev.
12). The figure lightening admirably depicts a puwer nf dazzUng brilliance, which is
suddenly extinguished. This descriptinn uf the destructinn nf Paganiam, as the cer
tain gnal uf the wnrk begun by this missiun nf the disciplea, cunfirms the ¦universaiism
which we ascribed tn the number 70, tn the idea uf harvest, ver. 2, and in general to
thia whnle piece. Hnfmann refera the wnrd nf Jeaua, ver. 18, tu the devil'a nriginal
fall ; Lange, tn hia defeat in the wilderness. These explanatinns proceed from a
misunderstanding nf the cnntext.
Ver. 19. If we admit the Alex, reading, SiSooxa, J have given you, Jesus leads His
disciplea tn measure what they had nut at first apprehended — the full extent uf the
pnwer with which He has invested them ; and iSov, behold, relates tn the surprise
which ahnuld be raised in them by this revelatiun. He wnuld thus give them the key
tn tbe unheped-lnr successes which they have juat wun. The pres. SiSaopi in the T.
R. relatea tn the future. It denutea a new extenainn nf pnwers in view nf a wnrk
mure cunsiderable still than that which they have just accumpliahed, preciaely that
which Jesus haa deacribed symbnlically, ver. 18 ; aud iSov expresses the astunish
ment which they might well feel at the yet mnre elevated- perspective. Thua under-,
stood, the aentence ja much more aignificant. Serpenta and acorpiona are emblema ot
the physical evils by which Satan will seek to hurt the ambassadors of Jesus. . The
expression, all tlie power of the enemy, embracea aU the agencies of nature, of human
society, of thinga belonging to the apiritual order, which the prince of this werld can
uae te obatruct the work ef Jeaus. ''Etci ia dependent on i^ovdiav rather than on
nareiv (9 : 1). In the midat ef aU those diabolical instruraenta, the faithful 'servant
walks clothed with invulnerable armor ; not that he is not sometimes subjected to
their attacka, but the wounda which he receives cannot hurt him ao long as the Lord
has need ef his ministry (the viper at Malta, Peter's imprisonment by Herod, the
mesaenger of Satan which buffets Paul). The same thuught, with a slight difference
of expression, is fnund Mark 16 : 18 ; cump. alsn Ps. 91 : 13.
Ver. 20, Yet this victnry ever the fnrces cf the enemy wnuld be of no value to
* M. A. Nicnias.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 299
themselves, if it did nnt rest un their persunal salvatinn. Think uf Judas, and nf
thnae whu are spuken uf in Matt. 7 : 33, ei seq. / nXijv, only, reserves a truth mure
impnrtant than that which Jeaus haa just allnwed. The wnrd pdXXov, " rather
rejnice," which the T. R. reads, and which is fnund in the Sinait., weakens the
thuught of Jesua. There is nn limitatiun'tn the truth, that the mnst magnificent suc
cesses, the flnest ett'ects nf elnquence, temples flUed, cnnversinns byi thnusands^ are
nu real cause uf jny tn the aervant nf Jeaus, the instrument uf thnae wurka, except in
an far aa he is aaved himself. Frnm the perannal pnint nf view (which is that nf the
joy nf the diaciplea at the moment), thia grnund uf satisfactinn is and remains the unly
one. The flgure ef a heavenly register, in which the names of the elect are inscribed,
is common in the Old Testament (Ex. 33 : 33, 33 ; Isa. 4:3; Dan. 12 : 1). This
book is the type of the divine decree. But a name may be blotted out of it (Ex. 32 : 33 ;
Jer. 17 : 13 ; Ps. 69 : 29 ; Rev: 23 : 19) ; a fact which preserves human freedom.
Between the two readings, iyysypaitrai, is inscribed, and iypdcpr;, was written, it
is difflcult to decide.
Vers. 31-34. Ihe Joy of Jeauai — We rbach a point in the life nf the Saviuur, the
exceptiunal character uf which is expressly indicated by the flrst wnrds nf the narra
tive, in that same hour. Jesua has traced tu their gnal the linea uf which Hia diaciples
discern as yet nnly the begiiming. He haa seen in spirit the work ef Satan destroyed,.
the structure of the kingdom ef God raised on the earth. But by what hands ? By
the hands ef thoae ignorant flshermen, these simple rustics whom the powerful and
learned of Jerusalem call accursed rabble (John 7 : 49), " the vermin of the earth" (a
rabbinical expression). Perhapa Jeaua had often meditated en the problem : How
shall a work be able te succeed which dees nnt nbtain the aaaistance nf any nf the
men uf knnwledge and authurity in Israel ? The success nf the miaainn nf the seventy
has just brought Him the answer nf Gnd : it is by the meanest instruments that He
is tn accomplish the greatest ef His works. In this arrangement, sn cnntrary tu
human anticipaticns, Jesua recugnizea and adurea with an nverflnwing Jieart the
wisdum nf His Father.
Vers. 31, 33.* " In that same hnur Jesus rejniced in spirit, and said, I praise Thee,
O Father, Lnrd uf heaven and earth, that Thnu hast hid these thinga frum the wise
and prudent, and haat revealed them untu babes : even su. Father ; fur an it seeihed
gnud in Thy sight. 23. All thinga are delivered tn me uf my Father : and nn nne
knuweth whn the Sun ia, but the Father ; and whn the Father is, but the Snn, and
he tu whnm the Snn will reveal Him." The itvevpa, the spirit, which is here spu
ken nf , ia undnubtedly that uf Jeaua Himself, as an element nf Hia human Persnn
(1 Theaa. 5 : 23 ; Heb. 4 : 13 ; Rum. 1 : 9). The spirit, iu this sense, is in man the
bnundless capacity nf receiving the cemmunicatiuns nf the Divine Spirit, and cunse
quently the seat uf all thuse emutinns which have Gnd and the tbings uf Gnd fnr
their ubject (see un 1 : 47). We think it necessary tn read rm Tiyt-vpari as dat.
instr., and that the additinn nf ria dyio) ifhe holy) and nf the prep, kv in seme mss.
ariaea frnm the falae applicatiun nf this expressinn tu the Spirit uf Gud. 'AyaXXi-
adBat, to exult, denutes an inner transpurt, which takea place in the aame deep
* Ver. -31. The mss. are divided between bv too itvsvpart and rm itvEvpart.
» B D Z. Syr«". It*"', reject o Iijdovi after itvEvpari, and add ra? ayioo, -with 5
uther Mjj. aume Mnn. Syr-''. Ver. 33. 14 Mjj. the muat uf the Mnn. Syr'=K It"'''.
here add the wnrds, xai 6rpaq>EtS jcpoS rovS paBrjraS eiicev, which are emitted by
T. R. with ». B. D. L. M. Z. rt. snme Mnn. Syr«"^ ItP'^'i"".

300 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
reginns nf the snul uf Jesus as the nppusite emutinn expressed hy the kpfipipadBat,
io groan (Juhn 11 : 33). This puwerful influence nf external events nn the inner
being nf Jesus proves huw thurnughly in earnest the Gnspels take His humanity.
' Ei,opoXoysi6Bai, strictly, io declare, confess, cnrrespunds in the LXX. tn rnin> ^
praise. Here it expresses a jny ful and cunfident acquiescence in the ways uf God.
The words Father and Bord indicate, the former the special love of which Jesus feels
Himaelf tu be the ubject in the dispenaatinn which He celebrates, the latter the glnri
uus anvereignty in virtue uf which Gnd dispenaea with all human cunditinns uf suc
cess, and lunks fnr it nnly frnm His nwn pnwer. The clnse nf this verae has been
explained iu this way ; " that while Thnu haat hid . . . Thnu hast revealed . . ."
The giving uf thanks wuuld thus be limited tu the secund fact. Cnmp. a simUar
fnrm, laa. 50 : 3, Rum. 6 : 17. But we dnubt that thia is tn impair the depth nf nur
Lurd's thuught. Did nnt Gud, in the way in which He was guiding the wnrk nf
Jesua (in larael), wiah quite aa pnaitively the exclusion of the wiae as the cn-nperatinn
nf the ignnrant ? The mntive fur thia divine methnd is apparent frnm 1 Crir. 1 : 38-31,
in particular frnm vers. 39 and 31 : " that nn fleah "Shnuld glury ;" and, " that he
that glnrieth, let him glury in the Lurd." By this rejectinn the great are humbled,
and see that they are not needed fnr Gnd's wnrk. On the uther hand, the mean can
nnt bnast uf their cn-nperatinn, since it is evident that they have derived nnthing
frnm themaelves. We may cnmpare the saying nf Jeaus regarding the nld and the
new buttles (vers. 37, 38). The wise were nnt tn mingle the allny uf their uwn sci
ence with the divine wiadnm uf the gnspel. Jesus required instruments prepared ex
clusively in Hia nwn schnnl, and haring nu uther wiadnm than that which He had
cummunicated tu them frnm Hia Father (Juhn 17 : 8). When He tnnk a learned man
fnr an apuatle. He required, befnre emplnying him, tu break him aa it were, by the
experience cf his fully. Jeaua, in that hnur nf hnly juy, takes accuunt mure defl
nitely nf the excellence nf this divine procedure ; and it ia while cnntemplating its
firat effects that His heart exults and adnres. " L'fevenement capital de I'histuire du
mnnde, ' '* carried nut by peuple whn had scarcely a standing in the human race ! Cnmp.
Jnhn 9 : 39. The vai, " yea. Father," reasserta strnngly the acquieacence nf Jesus in
this paradnxical cuurse. Instead nf the num. d -rcariip. Father, it might be thnught
that he wuuld have used the vnc. ¦udrep, O Father I aa at the beginning uf the verse.
But the address dnea nut need tn be repeated. The num. has annther meaning : " It
is as a Father that Thnu art acting in thus directing my wurk." The on, for thai or
becauae, which fnllnws, is usuaUy referred tn an idea which is understond ; " yea, it
iasn, because . , ." But this ellipsis wnuld be tame. It wnuld be better in that
caae tn supply t^e nntiun uf a prayer : ' ' Yea, let it be and remain se, since . . .1"
But is it net more aimple to take on as depending en ki,opoXoyovpai: "yea,
assuredly, and in spite nf all, I praiae Thee, because that . . ." The phrase
E-vSonla 'ipitp. 6ov is a Hebraism {r\)7V ""JC? jiyT?, Ex. 38 : 38). Gess thus sums
up thelthnught nf this verae : " Tn pride uf knnwledge, blindneaa is the answer ; to
that simplicity of heart which wishes truth, revelation."
Ver. 33. The words. And He turned Him unto His disciples, which are read here
by several Mjj. , are in vain defended by Tischendorf and Meyer. They are not
authentic. Hew indeed could we understand this 6rpa<ps{s, having turned Hi^m^elf!
Turned, Meyer explains, turned from His Father, to whom He has been praying,
* Renan, " Vie de Jesus," p. 1.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 301
toward men. But -would the phrase turn Himself back be suitable iu this senae ? We
have here a gloss occasioned by the xar iSiav, privately, ef ver. 33. The wish has
to been to establish a difference between thia first revelation, made to the diaciplea in
general (ver. 33), and the fnllnwing, mure special atill, addreaaed tn snme nf them nnly
(ver. 23). Here we have nne nf the rare instances in which the T. R. (which rejects
the wurda) differs from the third editinn nf Steph.
The juyful nutburst nf ver. 21 is carried un withnut interruptinn intn ver. 23 ;
unly the flrst impresainn nf adnratinn gives way tn calm meditatinn. The experience
through which Jesus has just passed has transperted Him, as it were, intn the bnsnm
of His Father. He plunges into it, and His words become an echo ef the joys of Hia
eternal generation.
As in the' passage which precedes (ver. 21), and in that which follows (235), it is
.only knowledge which is spoken ef, the words, " All thinga are delivered to me of
my Father," are often taken as referring tn the pusaeaainn and cummunicatinn uf
religinus truths, nf the knnvvledge nf Gnd. But the wnrk accnmplished by the diaci
ples, nn uccasinn nf which J&ua uttered thnse sayings, was nut merely a wnrk uf
teaching— there was necessarily invnlved in it a display uf fnrce. Tn nverturn the
throne nf Satan nn the earth, and to put in its place the kingdnm nf Gnd, was a mis
sinn demanding a pnwer uf actinn. But this pnwer was clnsely connected with the
knowledge of God. To knew God means tu be initiated intu His plan ; means tu
think with Him, and ccnsequently tn wUl as He dnea. Nnw, tn will with Gnd, and
tn be self-cunaecrated tu Him as an instrument in His service, ia the secret nf partici
patinn in His umniputence. "The educatinn nf snuls," Gess rightly nbserves, "is
the greatest nf the wurka nf Omnipntence. " Everything in the univerae, accnrd
ingly, shnuld be aubnrdinate tn it. There is a strung resemblance between this say
ing cf Jeaua and that of John the Baptist (John 3 : 35) : " The Father loveth the Son,
and hath given all thinga inte Hia hand " — a declaration which ia immediately con
nected with the uther relative tn the teaching uf Jeaua : " He whnm Gnd hath sent
speaketh the wurds uf Gpd. ' '
The gift dennted by the anr. icapeSoBrj, are delivered to me, is the subject uf an
eternal decree ; but it is realized progressively in time, like everything which is aub
ject tn the cunditinns nf human develupment. The chief perinds in its realizatinn are
these three : The cuming nf Jesus intn the wurld, His entrance upun His Messianic
miniatry, and His resturatiun tn His divine state. Such are the steps by which the
new Maater tunk the place cf the uld (4 : 6), and waa raised tu Omuiputence. " De
livered," Geas well ubaervea, " either fur salvatinn nr fur judgment." The xa^, and,
which cnnnects the twn parta nf the verae, may be thua paraphraaed : and that, be
cause . . . The future cunquest nf the wnrld by Jesus and His disciplea rests nn
the relatiun which He sustaina tu Gnd, and with which He identifles His penple.
T'he perfect knnwledge nf Gud is, in the end, the sceptre cf the universe. Here there
is a remarkable difference in cnmpiling between Luke and Matthew : oijSEis iityi-
voo6xei, un nne recognizes, ur diacerns, says Matthew. Tn the idea uf kunwing, this
ETti (tn put the flnger upon) has the effect nf adding the idea nf cunflrming experi
mentally. The knnwledge in queatinn is nne de visu. Luke uses the simple verb
yivwdxEiv, to knmo, which is weaker and less precise ; but he makea up fnr this de
ficiency in the nntiun uf the verb by ampUfying ita regimen, " What ia the Father
. . . what is the Snn ;" that ia tn say, aU that Gnd is as a Father tn the man whn
has the happiness nf knuwing Him as a sun, and all that the name snn includes fur

302 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the man whn has the happinesa nf hearing it prnnnunced by the month of the Father
— all that the Father and Snn are the nne tu the uther. Perhaps Matthew's fnrm uf
expreaainn ia a shade mnre inteUectual nr didactic ; that nf Luke rather mnvea iu the
sphere nf feeling. Huw shnuld we explain the twu fnrms, each nf which is evidently
independent uf the uther? Jesus must have empleyed in Aramaic the verb j;-]i, to
know.* New j;'^i is construed either with the accusative er with one of the two prep-
ositiuns ^, in, or 71J;, upon. The construction with one or other of these preposi
tions adda aumething tu the nntiun uf the verb. Fnr example, Jfajy, to hear;
7 yDtt'/ lo liaten ; 3 yioii;, tn listen with acquieacence of Iieart. There is a aimilar
difference nf meaning between ^~p and 3 y-\i er ^y yii— a difference analogous to
that between the two expresaions, rem cognoaeere and cognoacere de re, to know (S thing
ahd to know of a thing. Thus, in the paasage in Job 37 : 16, where j;^i is construed
with 7j;, upon, the sense is net, "Knowest thou balancings ef the clouds?" — Job
cnuld nnt but have knnwn the fact which falls under nur eyes — but " Understandest
thuu the . . ?" Nnw if we suppnae that Jesus used the verb j;ii with nne nf
the prepnsitiuns 2 nr 7, the twu Greek fnrms may be explained as twn different at
tempts tn render the entire fulness nf the Aramaic expressinn ; that uf Matthew
strengthening the nntiun uf the simple verb by the prepuaitinn irti (recngnize) (which
wnuld currespund mure UteraUy with 75; j;"|i) ;-that nf Luke, by giving greater ful
neaa tn the idea nf the ubject, by means uf the paraphrase r/S idriv, what ia.X '
A remarkable example, 9 : 3, has already shewn how differences ef matter and
form in the reproduction of the words ot Jesus by nur evangelists are aumetimes ex
plained with the utmuat eaae by gning back tn the Hebrew nr Aramaic text, j: What
a preuf uf the authenticity uf thnae diacnuraes ! What a proof alsn nf the independ
ence nf nur aeveral Greek digests !
/That exclusive knowledge which the Father and Snn have nf une ftnuther is evi-
dentl.y nnt ihe cauae nf their paternal and filial relatinn ; nn the cnntrary, it is tlie effect
nf it. Jesus ia nnt the Son because He alnne perfectly knnws the Father, and is
fully knnwn nnly by Him ; but He knnws Him and is knnwn by Him in this
way nnly because He is the Son. In like manner, Gnd is nnt tlie Father because
He alnne knnws the Sun, and is knnwn nnly by Him ; but this dnuble knnwl
edge is the effect nf that paternal relatinn which He sustains tn the Snn. The article
befnre tbe twn subatantivea aerves tn raise this unique relatinn abnve the relative tem
pnral nrder nf things, and tn put it in the aphere nf the absnlute, in the very eaaence
uf the twn Beinga. Gnd did nnt becnme Father at an hnur marked un sume earthly
dial. If He ia a Father tn certain beinga bnrn in time, it is becauae He ia the Father
abanlutely — that is tn say, in relatinn tn a Being whn is nnt burn in time, and whn is
tnward Him the Son aa abanlutely. Such ia the explanatinn uf the difflcult verae, -
Eph. 3 : 15. Mark, whn haa nnt the paaaage, gives annther wherein the term the
* I uwe the fnllnwing nbservatiuna tn the kindneas nf M. Felix Buvet.
f In the passage quoted frnm Jub, the twn principal German translatinns present
a remarkable parallel. Do Wette: Weisstduum . . ? Ewald: Verstehsdu. . ?
Beth have thoroughly apprehended the aenae of the original expreasion ; each has
snught tn reproduce it in hia uwn way.
X Many nther similar examplea might be cited, e.g. Luke 6 : 30. If Jesus said D"JV
we can explain bnth the brief itrooxoioi Luke as a literal translatinn ad aensum (ac
cnrding tn the knnwn shade which the meaning nf ijy bears throughout the Old ;
Testament).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 303
Son is used in the aame absnlute sense, 13 : 83 : " But nf that day and that hnur knuw
eth no man, nn, nnt the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
After wnrds like these, we cannut admit any radical difference between the Jesus
nf the Synnptics and that nf Jnhn.* The existence uf the Snn belnnging tn the
essence of the Father, the pre-existence of the one ia implied in the eternity nf the
other. Immediate knnwledge nf the Father is the exclusive privUege of the Snn. But it
becnmes the pnrtinn uf believers as aunn as ^e initiates them intn the cnntents nf His
filial cnnscinusness, and cunsents tn share it with them. By this participation in the
consciousness of the Son (the work of the Holy Spirit), the believer in his turn at
tains tn the intuitive knnwledge nf the Father. Cnmp. Juhn 1 : 18, 14 : 6, 17 : 36.
With Gess, we nught tn remark the impurtance nf ihe prinrity given tn the knnwledge
ut the Snn by the Father nver that nf the Father by the Snn. Were the nrder inverted,
the gift nf all things, the rtapaSiSovat, wnuld have appeared tn reat nn the religinus
instructinn which Jesus had been giving tu men. The actual nrder makes it the cnn
sequence nf the unsearchable relatinn between Jeaus and the Father, in virtue uf
which He can be tn snuls everything that the Father Himself is tu them. This pas
sage (vera. 21, 22) is placed by Matthew, chap. 11, after the denunciaticn prnnnunced
nn the Galilean cities, and immediately fnllnwing nn the deputatinn nf Jnhn the Bap
tist. We cannnt ccmprehend thnse nf nur critics, Gess included, whu prefer this situa
tinn tn that uf Luke. Gess thinks that the disciplea (10 : 31) are cuntraated with the
unbelieving Galilean citiea. But the whnle paasage refers tn the diaciplea as insi^ru-
ments in Gnd's wurk ; and Jesus cnntrasta them nut with the ignurant Galileans, but
with the imae uf Jeruaalem. See Matthew even, ver. 35. As tu the fuUuwing sen
tence, ver. 33, Gess thinks tha* he can paraphrase it thus : " Nu man, not even John
the !Ba/piiM, 'knovieth the ^on . . . " in nrder thus tu cunnect il with the accnunt
uf the furerunner's embassy, which terms the preceding context in Matthew. But in
relation to the preceding verse the word no man! alludes not to Jnhn, but tn the wise
and learned uf Jerusalem, who pretended that they alone had the knowledge of God
(11 : 53). It is not difflcult, then, to perceive the superiority ot Luke's context ;
and we may prove here, as everywhere elae, the process of concatenation, in
* M. Reville haa found out a way of getting rid nf nur paaaage. Jesus, he wUl
have it, said nne day in a melanchuly tune : " Gnd alnne reads my heart tn its depths,
and I alnne alsn knnw Gnd." And thia "perfectly natural" thuught, "under the
infiuence nf a later thenlugy," tnnk the fnrm in which we find it here (" Hist, du
Dngme de la Div. de J. C." p. 17). M. Reville finda a cnnfirmatinn nf his hypnthe
sis in the fact that in their present furm the wurds strangely break the thread nf the
discnurse. We think that we have shnwn their relatinn tn the situatinn in general,
and tn the preceding cnntext in particular. And the searching study nf the relatinna
betweeii Luke's furm and that nf Matthew has led ua up tu a Hebrew fnrmula necea
sarily anterinr tn all " later thenlugy." One muat have an exegetical cnnscience uf
rare elasticity tn be able tn find rest by meana nf auch expedienta. M. Renan having
nu hupe nf evacuating the wnrds nf their real cnntenta, simply seta them dnwn aa a
later interpnlatiun : " Matt. 11 : 37 and Luke 10 : 33 repreaent in the ayneptic aystem
a late interpnlatiun in keeping with the type nf the Juhannine diacnuraea." But
what ! an interpnlatinn simultanenusly in the twn writinga? iiitwu different cuntexts?
in all the manuscripts and in all the versinns ? and with the differences which we
have established and explained by the Aramaic ? Let us take an example : The dux-
olngy interpnlated in Matthew (6 : 13), at the end nt the Lurd's prayer. It is wanting
in very many mss. and Vss., and ia nnt fnund in the parallel passage in Luke.
Such are the evidences nf a real interpolation.

?0i COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
virtue ef which we find different elements united together in Matt 11 : 7-30 by a
simple association ef ideas in the mind of the compiler.
With the last words ef ver. 33, and he to whom ihe Son mil reveal Him, the
thought of Jesus reverts te His disciples whn surruund Him, and in whnm there is
pruduced at thia very time the beginning of the prnmised Hluminatinn. He nnw ad
dreaaea Himself to. tlwm. The meditatinn of ver. 33 ia the transitinn between the
adnratinn uf ver. 31 and the cnngratulatiun which fnllnws.
Vers. 23 and 24,* " And He turned Him untn His disciples, and said privately,
Bleaaed are the eyes which see the thinga that ye see : 24. Fnr I tell ynu, that many
prophets and kinga have desired tn aee thnae things which ye see, and have nnt seen
them ; and tn hear thnae things which ye hear, and have nnt heard them." Elevated
as was the cunceptinn which the diaciples had nf the persnn and wurk nf Jesus, they
were far frum appreciating at its full value the fact nf His appearance, and the privi
lege nf being the agents uf such a Master. At. this sulemn hnur Jeaua aeeka tn npen
their eyea. But He cannut expreaa Himaelf publicly uu the aubject. It is, as it were,
in an undertune that He makes this revelatien tn them, vers. 23 and 24. This last
aentence admirably finishes the piece. We find it in Matthew, chap. 13, applied tn
the new mnde nf teaching which Jesus had just employed by making use ef the form
of parables. The expressiun, thoae things which ye aee, is incnmpatible with this
applicatiun, which ia thua swept away by the text nf Matthew himself. Luke here
umits the beautiful paaaage with which Matthew (11 : 28-30) clnses this diacuurse :
" Gome unto me . . ." If he had knuwn such wnrda, wuuld he have umitted
them ? Ia nnt this invitatinn in the mnst perfect harmniiy with the spirit nf his gns
pel ? Hultzmann, whu feels hnw much the theury nf the emplnyntent uf a cummnn
snurce is cnmprnmiaed by this nmissiun, endeavura tu explain it. He auppuses that
Luke, aa a gnud Pauliniat, must have taken nffence at the wnrd raiCEivdS, humble,
when applied tn Christ, as well as at the terms yolce and burden, which recalled the law
tnu strongly. And it is in face nf Luke 22 : 27, " 1 am amnng ynu aa he ihat aerveth
. . ." and nf 16 : 17, " It ia eaaier fnr heaven and earth tn paaa, than nne tittle uf
the law tu fail . . " that auch reasnns are advanced ! His extremity here drivea
Hullzraann tn uae nne uf thnse Tubingen processes which he himaelf cumbats
thruughuut his whnle bnnk.
Mndern criticism denies the histnrical character nf thia secnnd miaainn. It is
nuthing mure, Baur alleges, than an inventiun nf Luke tn Inwer the missiun nf the
Twelve, and tn exalt that nf Paul and bis assistants, uf whnm nur seventy are pro
vided as the precursurs. With what satisfactinn dues nut this Luke, whu is silent as
tn the effecta nf the sending nf the Twelve, deacribe these of the preaent miaaion !
He gnes the length nf applying tu the latter, and that designedly, part nf the inatruc
tinns which Jeaus had given (Matt. 10) in regard to the furmer I Besidea ,the nther
Gnspels nnwhere mentiun thnse seventy evangelista whnse missiun Luke is pleaaed tn
relate 1 Hnltzmann, whu likewiae denies the histnrical character nf the narrative,
dnes nnt, hnwever, ascribe tn Luke any deliberate fraud. The explanatiun nt the
matter is, accurding tn him, a purely Uterary une. Of the twn suurces which Mat
thew and Luke cunsulted, the fnrmer — that is, the uriginal Mark— recnrded the send
ing nf the Twelve with a few brief inatmctiuns, such aa we have fuund in Luke
9 : 1-6 and Mark 6 : 7-13 ; the aecund, the Logia, cnntained the full and detaUed dis-
ceurse ' which Jeaua must have delivered nn the uccasinn, as we read it Matt. 10.
The authnr nf nur first Guspel aaw that the diacuurse nf the Ijogia applied tn the aend-
ing nf the Twelve mentinned in the nriginal Mark, and attached it theretn. Luke
* Ver, 33. D. Syr™'. Itpi«>-ique_ yg" qj^j^ ^^j.' j^ja:^^

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 305
had nnt the same perspicacity. A,fter having related the mission nf the Twelve
(9 : 1-6) after the prutn-Mark, he fuund the great discuurse in the Logia ; and tn get
a suitable place fur it, he thuught that he muat create a situatinn at his nwn hand.
With this view, but withnut the leaat purpnae nf a dngmatic kind, he imagined a sec
nnd miaainn, that nf the seventy.
But if the nrigin nf thia narrative were as Baur auppusea, hnw shuuld nnly the
Twelve reappear later in the Gnapel nf Luke (17 : 5, 18 : 31), withnut ever a wurd
mure nf thnse seventy ? Hnw shuuld Luke in the Acta make nu mentlim nf thnae
latter ? Waa it nnt eaay and natural, after having invented them. In give them a part
tn play in the miaainn urganized under Paul's directinn ? An authnr dnes nnt lie in
gnud earnest, nnly to furget thereafter tn make uae uf hia fraud. We have fuund
that, as tn the missiun uf the Twelve, Luke says at least (9 : 10), " And the apnstles,
when they were returned, tuld Him, all that they had dune" (remark the oda,
stronger than the simple &) ; while Mattbew, after the discuurse, adds nut a single
wnrd abnut the mission and its results ! In shert, the narrative uf the sending nf the
seventy is sn far from being a Pauliniat inventiun, that in a wnrk uf the aecund cen
tury, proceeding frum the aect muat hnstile tu Paul, we find the fnUnwing passage
put in the mnuth nf Peter (" Recugnit. Clem.," i. 24) : " He first chuse ua twelve,
whnm He called apustles ; then He chuse seventy-twn nther disciples from amnng
the must- faithful." The uld histurians have undnubtedly been somewhat arbitrary
in numbering amnng thuse seventy many persnns whnm they designate aa having
furmed part nf them. But this falae applicatiun prnves nothing against the tact
itaelf ; nn the cnntrary, it attests the impresainn which the Church had of ita reality.
The upininn uf Hnltzmann wnuld charge tbe aacred histerianwith an arbitrariness
incnmpatible with the serinua luve uf hiatnrical truth which is expreaaed, accnrding
to Hnltzmann himaelf, in his intrnducticn. Besidea we shall see (17 : 1-10) hnw
entirely fureign such procedure was tn the mind nf Luke. When, finally, we cun
sider the internal perfectinu nf his whnle narrative, the admirable currespundence
between the emutinns nf uur Lnrd and the histurical event which gives rise to them.
have we not a sufflcient guarantee fnr the reality uf thia epiaude ? As the accuunt cf
the healing nf the lunatic child is the masterpiece cf Mark, this descriptinn nf the
sending uf 'the seventy diaciples ia the pearl nf Luke.
4. The Conversation with the Scribe, and the Parable of the Samaritan : 10 : 25-37.
— Jeaua alnwly cnntinues Hia juurney, atupping at each Incality. The mnst varied
scenes fnlluw nne annther withnut internal relatinn, and as circumstances bring them.
Weizaacker, starting from the assumptinn that this framewnrk is nnt histurical, has
set himself tn seek a ayatematic plan, and affecta tn find thruughuut an nrder accnrd
ing tn subjects. Thua he wnuld have the parable nf the gnud Samaritan cunnected
with the aending nf the aeventy by its ubject, which was originally tn pruve the right
nf the evangelists, tn whatever natienality they might belung. But where in the par
able is there tn be fnund the least trace uf currespundence between the wurk dune by
the gund Samaritan and the functien of the evangelists in the- apostolic church ?
Hnw cnuld the nriginal tendency faU tu cume uut at snme pnint uf the descriptinn ?
Hultzmann thinks that in what fnllnws Luke cnnjuins twn distinct accnunts — that nf
the acribe (vera. 35-28), which we find in Mark 12 : 38 and Matt. 33 : 35, and the par
able Of the good Samaritan'taken from the Lngia. The cunnectinn which nur Gnspel
establishes between the twn events (ver. 39) is nnthing else than a rather unskilful
cnmbinatinn nn the part nf Luke. But there is nn prunf that the scribe uf Luke ia the
same aa that spuken nf by Mark and Matthew. It is at Jerusalem, and in the days
which precede the passinn, that this latter appears ; and abuve all, aa Meyer acknuwl
edges, the matter nf discuasiun is entirely different. The acribe uf Jerusalem asks
Jesus which is the greatest cummandment. Hia is a theulugical questinn. That nf
Galilee, like the rich ynung man, desires Jesus tn pnint nut tn him the means uf aal
vation. His is a practical questinn. Was there but nne Rabbin in Israel whn cnuld

300 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
enter into discussion with Jesua on such subjects ? It is possible, no doubt, that some
external details belonging te nne nf thnse scenes gut mixed up in traditinn with the
narrative nf the nther. But the mnral cnntents furm the essential matter, and they
are tun diverse tu admit nf being identifled. As tn the cunnectiun which ver. 39
establishes between the interview and the parable which fnllnws, it is cnnfirmed by
the lesann which fluws frum the parable (vers. 36, 37), and abnut the authenticity cf
which there is nn duubt.
Vers. 35-38.* The Work which saves, — In Greece the ubject nf search is truth ; in
Israel it is salvatinn. Su this same queatinn is fnund again in the muuth nf the rich
ynung man. The expreaainn stood up ahnws that Jesus and the persnns whn aur
ruunded Him were seated. Several critics think this " scenery" (Hnltzmann) incun
sistent with the idea nf a juurney, as if we had nut tu dn here with a cuurse et
preaching, and as if Jesus must have been, during the weeks this juurney laats, cnn
stantly un His feet I The test tn which the scribe wished tn subject Jesus bnre either
un His nrthedexy er en His theological abUity. His question rests en the idea of the
merit of works. Strictly, on having done what work shall I certainly inherit . . .?
In the term io inherit there is an allusinn tn the pussessinn uf the land nf Canaan,
which the children uf Israel had received as a heritage frnm the hand nf Gud, and
which tn the Jewiah mind cuntinued tn be the type nf the Messianic blessednesa.
The questinn ul Jesus distinguishes between the cnntents {ri) and the text {itmS) nf
the law. It has been thnught that, while saying. How readest thou ? Jesus pninted
tn the phylactery attached tu the scribe's dress, and nn which passages nf the law
were written. But at ver. 38 we shnuld flnd thou haat well read, inatead uf thou hast
anawered right. And it cannnt be pruved that thnae twn pasaages were united nn the
phylacteries. The firat alnne appeara tn have figured nn them.
It ia nut wnnderful that the scribe instantly quntes the first part nf the summary
of the law, taken frum Dent. 6:5; fur the Jews were required tu repeat this aentence
murning and evening. As tn the secnnd, taken frnm Lev. 19 : 18, we may dnubt
whether he had the readiness nf mind tn juin it immediately with the first, and sn to
cnmpnae this magnificent reaumt nf the aubatance nf the law. In Mark 12 and Matt.
23 it ia Jeaus Himaelf whu unitea thuse twn utterances. It ia prnbable, aa Bleek
thinks, that Jesus guided the scribe by a few questinns tu furmulate this answer.
Ver. 36 haa all the appearance nf the npening nf a catechetical cnurae. The flrat part
nf the summary includes fnur terms ; in Hebrew there are nnly three — 3^, heart;
lyDJ- ^oul ; "nX!3. rnight. The LXX. alau have nnly three, but they translate 27.
he&ri, by Siavoia, mind ; and this is the wnrd which appears in Luke aa the fnurth
term. InMatthew there are three : Siavoiais the laat ; in Mark, fuur : dvvsdiS takes
the place uf Siavoia, and is put secnnd. kapSza, the Iieart, in Mark and Luke is
fnremnst ; it is the must general term : it denntes in Scripture the central /oc-ms from
which all the rays nf the mural life gn fnrth ; and that in their three principal direc
tinns — the puwera uf feeling, ur the affectinns, lyoj, the aoul, in tbe sense nf feeling ;
the active pnwers, the impulsive aapiratinns, "Iixo, the might, the will ; and the
inteUectual pnwers, analytical nr cnntemplative, Siavoioc, 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. J*. B. D. A. Z. seme Mnn. Il''"i. read, ev oXr) rrj fvxrf, ev oXif ri/
¦idxvEi, ev oX-Tj rri Siavoia, instead nf £| with the genitive.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 307 '
tinn of the prepnsition kv, in, fnr e/c, with (from), in the three last members. Mnral
Ufe proceeds from the heart, aad manifests itself withnut, in the three fnrms nf
activity indicated. The impulse Gndward prnceeds /ro??i the heart, and is realized in
the life through the affectinn, which feeds nn that supreme ubject ; through the wUl,
which cunsecrates itself actively tu the acccraplishment uf His wiU ; and through the
mind, which pursues the track uf His thnughts, in all His wnrks. The secund part
nf the aummary ia the curnllary nf the flrat, and cannnt be realized except in cnnnec
tinn with it. Nnthing but the reigning luve nf Gnd can an divest the individual nf
devutinn tn his uwn persun, that the egu nf his neighbnr shall rank in his eyes exactly
nn the same level as hia nwn. The pattern muat be luved abuve all, if the image in
nthers is tn appear tn us aa wurthy nf esteem and luve as in nurselves. Thus tu luve
is, aa Jesus says, the path tu life, er rather it ia life itaelf. God haa ne higher life
than that of love. The anawer of Jeaus is therefore not a simple accummudatinn tu
the legal pnint nf view. The wnrk which saves, cr salvatinn, is really Inving. The
gnspel dnes nut differ frnm the law in its aim ; it is distinguished from it unly by its
indicatinn uf meana and the curamunicatiun uf strength.
Vers. 39-37. The good Samanian. — Huw is auch luve tn be attained ? This wuuld
have been the questiun put by the scribe, had he been in the state uf snul which ,
Paul describes Rnm. 7, and which is the nurmaL preparatinn fnr faith. He wnuld
have cnnf essed his impntence, and repeated the questinn in a yet deeper senae than at
the beginning ef the interriew : What shall I dn ? What ahall I dn in nrder tn luve
thua ? But instead of that, feeling himself cundemned by the hnliness nf the law
which he has himselt fnrmally expressed, he takes advantage uf his ignurance, in
other words, of the nbacurity nf the letter uf the law, tn excuae himself fur nnt having
nbserved it : " What dnes the wnrd neighbur mean ? Hnw far dnea ita appUcatinn
reach?" Su lung as une dnes nut knnw exactly what this expressinn signifies, it is
quite impnssible, he means, tu fulfil the cummandment. Thus the remark nf Luke,
"willing to .;asii/^ himself," finda an explanatinn which ia perfectly natural. The
real aim nf the parable nf the gnud Samaritan is tn shnw the scribe that the answer
tu the theulugical questinn, which he thinks gnud tn prnpuse, is written by nature nn
every right heart, and that tn knnw, nnthing is needed but the will tn underatand it.
But Jeaua dnes nnt at all mean thereby that it is by his charitable dispusitinn, ur by
this sulitary, act nf kindness, that the Samaritan can nbtain salvatinn. We muat nut
furget that a tutally new queatinn, that nf the meaning nf the wurd neighbur, has in
tervened. It is tu the latter questinn that Jeaua repliea by the parable. He lets the
scribe underatand that this questiun, prupnsed by him as sn difficult, is resnlved by a
right heart, withnut its ever prupusing it at all. This ignnrant Samaritan naturally
{^¦uaei. Rum. 3 : 14) pnssessed the light which the Rabbins had nnt fnund, nr had
lust, in their theulugical lucubratiuns. Thus was cundemned the excuae which he
had dared tn advance. May we nnt suppnse it is frnm aayinga auch aa this that Paul
has derived his teachin.g regarding the law written in the heart, and regarding its
partial nbaervance by the Gentilea, Rnm. 2 : 14r-16 ?
Vera. 29-32.* The Priest and the Bevite. — Lightfnut haa pruved that the Rabbina
did nnt, in general, regard aa their neighbura thnse whn were nnt membera uf the
* Ver. 29. The mss. are divided between diKuiow (T. R.) and diKaioaai (Alex.).
Ver. 30. E. G. H. T. "V. A. A. several Mnn. If^i. Vg., e^edvauv inatead uf eKdvaavreS.
». B. D. L. Z. aume Mnn. nmit rvyxavovra. Ver. 32. S". B. L. X. Z. nmit yevopevoS.
i*. D, r. A, aeveral Mnn, Vss, read avrov after iduv.

308 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Jewiah natinn. Perhapa the subject affnrded matter fnr learned debates in their
schuols. The wnrd nXyaiov, being withnut article here, might be taken in strictness
as an adverb. It is simpler tn regard it as the weU-knnwn substantive d nXijaiov. The
Kai, and, introducing the answer, brings it intn relatiun with the preceding questinn
which called it fnrth. The wnrd inoXajSov, rejoining, which dnes nut uccur again in
the N. T., is put fnr the nrdinary term dnoKpiBei;, answering, tn give mnre gravity to
what follows. The mountainous, and fer the most part desert country, traversed by
the read from Jerusalem tu Jerichn, was far from aafe; Jerome {ad Jer em. 3 : 3) re
latea that in his time it was infested by hurdes nf Arabs. The distance between the
twn citiea ia aeven leaguea. The Kui, alao, befnre 'eKd-vaavTes, ver. 80, suppuses a first
act which is self-understnud, the relieving him uf hia purae. There is a aurt nf irony
in the kutu avyKvpiav, by chance. It is certainly nut by accident that the narrator
bringa thnse twn persunages nn the scene. The prepusitinn dvri in avrinapyXBE, he
paaaed by, might denute a curve made in an nppusite directinn ; but it is simpler to
understand it in the sense uf over against. In riew nf such a spectacle, they pasa un.
Cump. the antitheais npoaeXBov, lia/dng gone to him, ver. 34.
Vers. 33-35.* The Sama/ritan. — Fer the sake of contraat, Jesus chunaes a Samari
tan, a member nf that half Gentile peuple whn were separated from the Jews by an nld
natinnal hatred In the matter abuut which priesta are ignnrant, abuut which the
scribe is stUl disputing, this simple and right heart sees clearly at the flrst glance.
His neighbnr is the human being, whuever he may be, with whum Gud brings him
intu cnntact, and whn has need uf his help. The term ddevov, as he journeyed, con
veys |the idea that he might easily have thought hunself excused from the duty of
compasaion toward this stranger. In every detail of the picture, ver. 34, there
breathes the moat tender pity {ianXayxvioBy). Oil and wine always furmed part nf the
prnvisinn fur a juurney. We aee frnm what fnllnws that navdoxEiov signifies nnt a
simple caravansary, but a real inn, where penple were received ter payment. 'Ett/,
ver. 35, ahnuld be understnud as in Acts 3:1: Toward the mnrruw, that ia tn say, at
daybreak. The term 'e^eXBuv, when he departed, shuws that he was nnw nn burse-
back, ready tu gu. Twn pence are equal tn abnut Is. Ad. After having bruught the
wnunded man the length uf the hnstelry, he might have regarded himself aa dis
charged frum all reapnnsibility in regard tn him, and given him nver tn the care nf
his nwn cnuntrymen, saying: " He is yuur neighbnr rather than mine." But the
cnmpasainn which cnnatrained him tn begin, nbligea hun tn finish. What a master
piece is thia purtrait ! What a painter waa its authur, and what a narratur was he
whu has thus transmitted it tn us, undnubtedly in all its uriginal freshness ! '
Vers. 36, 37.t Tlie Moral.— The questien with which Jesus obligea the scribe to '
make application ef the parable may seem badly put. According to the theme 0/
discuasion : " Who ia my neighbor?" (ver. 39), it would aeem that He should have
asked : Whom, then, wilt theu regard as thy neighbor to guide thee to him, as the '
Samaritan was guided tn thy cumpatrint ? But aa the term neighbnr implies the idea
nf reciprocity, Jesus has the right nf reversing the expreaainna, and He dnea au nnt
withnut reaann. Is it nut mure effective tu aak : By whum shnuld I like tn be suc-
* Ver. 33. 5*. B. L. Z. 3 Mnn. nmit avrov after iduv. Ver. 35 S B D L X Z
snme Mnn. Syr. It. umit efcWuv. B. D. L. Z. snme Mnn. Syr<^°'. It'i'i.' nmit avru
after Einev.
X Ver. 36. S. B. L. Z. snme Mnn. Vas. nmit ovv after ns. Ver. 37. The mss vary
between ovv (T. R.) and de (Alex.) after eine, ' ^

COMMENTARY ON ST. tUKIl. 309
cored in distress ? than Whnm shuuld I assist in case nf distress ? Tu the flrst ques
tion, the reply is nut duubtfuL Self-regard cuming tn the aid nf cunacience, all will
answer : By everybudy. The scribe is quite alive tn thia. He cannut eacape, when
he is brought face to face with the questiun in this fnrm. Only, aa hia heart refusea
to pronuurice the wurd Samaritan with praiae, he paraphraaes the udinus name. On
the uae nf perd, ver. 37, see nn 1 : 58. In this flnal declaratinn, Jeaus cnntrasta the
doing uf the Samaritan w»h the vain caauiatry nf the Rabbina. But while saying. Do
thou likewise. He dnes nnt at all add, aa at ver. 38, and thou shalt live. Fnr benefi
cence dues nnt give life ur salvatinn. Were it even the cumplete fulfilment nf the
secnnd part of the sum of the law, we may nut furget the first part, the realizatinn nf
which, thnugh nnt less esaential tn salvatinn, may remain a strange thing tn the man
uf greateat beneficence. But what is certain is, that the man whn in hia ccnduct
cuntradicts the law nf'n&ture, is nn the way nppnsed tn that which leads to faith and
salvatinn (Jnhn 3 : 19-31).
The Fathers have dwelt with pleasure nn the aUegurical interpretatiun nf this para
ble : The weunded man representing humanity ; the brigands, the devil ; the priest
and Lerite, the law and the prophets. The Samaritan is Jesus Himself ; the nil and
wine, divine grace ; the ass, the bndy nf Christ ; the inn, the Church ; Jerusalem,
paradise ; the expected return nf the Samaritan, the final advent nf Christ. Thia
exegeais rivalled that nf the Gnnatica.
5. Martha and Mary : 10 ; 38-42.— Here ia nne nf the must exquisite scenes
which Gnspel traditiun has preserved tn us ; it haa been transmitted by Luke alnne.
What surprises us in the narrative is, the place which it occupies in the middle uf a
jnumey thrnugh Galilee. On the une hand,the expreaainn iv to nopeveoBai airovs, as
iliey went, indicates that we have a cuntinuatiun of the aame jnumey aa began at
9 : 51 ; nn the nther, the knnwledge which we have nf Martha and Mary, Juhn 11, dues
nnt admit nf a dnubt that the event transpired in Judea at Bethany, near Jerusalem.
Hengatenberg auppuses that Lazarus and his twn aiatera dwelt flrat in GaUlee, and
afterward came tn settle in Judea. But tbe interval between autumn and the fnllnw
ing spring is tnn shnrt tu allnw nf auch a change nf reaidence. In Jnhn 11 : 1, Beth
any is called the town of Ma/ry and her sister Martha, a phraae which assumes that
they had lived there fnr a length nf time. The explanatinn is therefnre a fnrced nne.
There is anpther mure natural. In Jnhn 10 there is indicated a shnrt visit nf Jeaus tn -
Judea in the muuth uf December uf that year, at the feast uf dedicatiun. Was nut
that then the time when the visit tnnk place which is here recnrded by Luke ? Jesus
must have interrupted His evangelistic journey tn go.tu Jerusalem, perhaps while the
seventy disciples were carrying nut their preparatnry miaainn. After that ahnrt ap
pearance in the capital. He returned tn put Himaelf at the head of the caravan, tn
visit the places -where the disciples had announced His coming. Luke himself cer
tainly did not know the place where thia acene tranapired {in a certain village) ; he
tranamits the fact tu us aa he fuund it in hia suurces, ur as he had received it by ural
traditinn, withnut mnre exact lucal indicatinn. Impurtance had been attached rather
tn the mnral teaching than tu the external circumstances. It is remarkable that the
scene nf the preceding parable is precisely the cnuntry between Jerichn and Jerusa
lem. Have we here a secnnd prunf nf a journey to Judea at that period ?
Here we must recall twn thinga : 1. That the nral traditiun frnm which nur writ
ten cumpUatinns (with the exceptinn uf that cf Jnhn) are derived, was fnrmed imme
diately after the ministry nf nur Lnrd, when the acturs in the Gnapel drama were yet

310 COMMEN'TARY ON ST. LUKE.
alive, and that it waa nbliged tn exerciae great discretinn in regard tn the persnns
whu figured in it, especially where wnmen were cuncerned ; hence the nmissinn uf
many prnper names, 3. That it is Juhn's Gnspel which has restured thnse names tu
the Gnapel histury ; but that at the time when Luke wrute, this snrt nf incognito still
cuntinued. Vers. 38-40.* Martlia's Gom/plaAnt — It is probably the indeflnite expressinn nf
Luke, into a certain village, which Jnhn means tu deflne by the wnrds : Bethany, tlie
town of Mary and her sister Martha, 11 : 1 ; as alau the wnrds uf Luke 5 : 39, which sat
at Jesus' feet, seem tu be alluded tn in thnse uthers : Bui Mary sat still in the lioitse,
11 : 30. The entire cnnduct of Martha and Mary, Jnhn 11, reprnduces in every par
ticular the charactera nf the twn aiatera aa they appear frum Luke 10. It haa been
suppnsed that Martha was the wife nf Simnn the Leper (Matt. 36 : 6 ; Mark 14 : 3),
and that her brother and sister had becurae inmates uf the hnuae. All thia is pure
hypntheais. If the twn wnrda y and Kai, " which alsn aat," really belung tn the text,
Luke givea ua tu understand that Mary began by serving as well as Martha ; but
that, having cnmpleted her task, she alsu sat tu listen, rightly cnnsidering that, with
such a guest, the essential thing was nut serving, but abnve all being herself served.
Jesus was seated with Hia feet stretched behind Him (7 : 38). It was therefure at
Hia feet behind Him that ahe tnnk her place, nut tn luse any uf Hia wurds. The
term nepiEcndro (loaa cumbered), ver. 40, denutes a distractiun at unce external and
mural. The wnrd iniardaa, came to Him, especiaUy with di adversative, but, indi
cates a sudden auapenainn nf her feverish activity ; at the sight uf Jesus and her sis
ter, whn was listening tn Him with gladness, Martha steps shert, takes up a bold at
titude, and addresses the latter, reproaching her for her aelfiahness, and Jeaus fer His
partiality, implied in the words, Doat Thou not care? Nevertheless, by the very
word which ahe usea, KureXme, liath left me (thia reading ia preferable to the imper
fect Kareleine), ahe acknowledgea that Mary up till then had taken part in aerving.
In the compound awavrOMu^dveaBai three ideaa are included — charging one's self with
a burden (the middle) for another {dvr'!), and sharing it with him (ffw).
¦ Vera. 41, 43. f Tlie Answer. — Jesus replies to the reproach of Martha by charging
her with exaggeration in the activity which she is putting forth. If she has so much
trouble, it is because she tvishes it. MEptpv^v, io be careful, refers to moral preoccu
pation ; Tvpfid^eaBai, to be troubled, to external agitatinn. The repetitinn nf Martha's
name in the answer uf Jesus is intended tn bring her back gently, but flrmly, frnm
her dissipatinn nf mind.- The expresainn in which .Tesus justifies His rebuke ia at
nnce aerinua and playful. Accurding tu the received reading. One tiling only is need
ful, the thnught might be : "A aingle diah ia aufflcient." But aa it was certainly nnt
a leasnn nn simplicity nf fund that Jeaua wiahed tn give here, we must in that caae
admit a dnuble reference, like that which ia au nften fnund in tho wurds nf Jeaus
(Jnhn 4 : 31-34) ; " A aingle kind nf nnurishment is sufflcient fnr the bndy, as nne
* Ver. 38. !*. B. L. Z. Syr™'., ev de to nopeveoBai instead nf eyevero de ev to
nopeveaBai. ^, C. L. Z., oiKiav instead nf omov, ,!S*. L. Z. urait avryS. B. umits eiS
. . . avryS. Ver. 39. ». L*. Z. umit y. D. It»"<i. omit kui after y. Instead of
napaKoQiaaaa (T. R.), 8. A. B. C. L. Z., napuKaBeaBeiaa, Instead ef Trapa, the aame,
TTpos. Inatead of lyaov, the aame, Kvpiov. Ver. 40. Instead nf KareXmev, 15 Mjj.
KareXemev. D. L. Z., emov inatead nf eitre,
X Ver. 41. ». B. L. It»""i. Vg., o rapios inatead oiolyaovs. !*. B. C. D. L., Bofyv0a^y
instead nf rvpffa^y, Ver. 43. !S. B. L. 3 Mnn., oXtyov de ean xpeia y evoS instead ef
tvoS (Je eoTi xpeia.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 311
only is necessary fnr the snul." This is prnbably the meaning nf the Alex, reading :
"There needs but little (fnr the budy), nr even but nne thing (fur the snul)." There
is aubtilty in thia reading ; tnn much perhapa. It haa against it 15 Mjj. the Peschitn
and a large number nf thO cupies nf the Itala. It' is aimpler tn hold that by the ex
preaainn one thing, Jesus meant tu designate apiritual nouriahment, the divine wurd,
but nnt withnut an allusinn tu the aimplicily in physical life which naturally resulta
frum the prepunderance given tn a higher intereat. The expreaainn dyaBI) pepis, that
good part, alludes tn the pnrtinn nf hnnnr at a feast. The prunnun ynS, which as
such, brings uut the relatiun between the excellence nf thia purtiun, and the impussi
bility nf ita being lust tn him whn has chuaen it,- and whn peraeveres in his chuice.
In this defence nf Mary's cunduct there ia included an invitatinn tn Martha tu imitate
her. at nnce. >
The twn aiatera have nften been regarded as representing twn equally legitimate
aspects nf the Chriatian life, inward devutinn and practical activity. But Martha
dnes nnt in the leaat repreaent external activity, auch as Jesus approves. Her very
distractiun prnves that the mutive uf her wnrk is nut pure, and that her self-irapnr-
tance as hnstess has a larger ahare in it than it nught. On the nther hand, Mary as
Uttle represents a morbid quietism, requiring to be iraplemented by the work et an
active life. Mary served as long as it appeared to her needful to de se. Thereafter
she understood alsn that, when we have the singular privilege uf welcuming a Jesus
under uur runf it ia infinitely ranre impnrtant tn aeek tn receive than tp give. Be-
-sides snme mnnths later (Juhn 13 :.3 et seq,) Mary clearly shewed that when action or
giving was required ahe waa second to none.
The Tiibingen school has discovered depths in this narrative unknown till it ap
peared. In the persen of Martha, Luke seeks te stigmatize Judaizing Chriatianity,
that nf legal wurka ; in the perann uf Mary he has exalted the Christianity nf Paul,
that uf justificatinn withnut wnrks and by faith alnne. What extranrdinary preju
dice muat prevail in a mind which can te auch a degree mistake the exquisite sim
plicity nf this stnry 1 Suppnsing that it really had such au nrigin, wnuld nnt this
dogmatic impurtatiun have infallibly discelnred buth the matter and fnrm nf the nar
rative V A time will cume when thnse judgments uf mudern criticiam will appear
like the wanderinga nf a diaeased imaginatinn.
6. Prayer : 11 : 1-13. — Cuntinuing stUl tn advance leisurely, the Lnrd remained
faithful tn His habit nf prayer. He was nnt satisfied with that cnnstant directinn nf
stral tuward Hia Father, tu which tbe meauing nf the cummand. Pray without ceas
ing, is nften reduced. There were in His life special times and positive acta nf
prayer. Thia ia proved by the fnUnwing wnrda : When He ceased praying. It was
after une nf thuse times, which nn dnubt had always snmething snlemn in them fur
thnae whu surrounded Him, that nne nf His diaciplea, profiting by tbe circumstance,
aaked Him tn give a mure apecial directury nn tbe aubject nf jfrayer. Hnltzmann is
just ennugh tn protest againat this' preface, ver. 1, being invnlved in the whnleaale re
jectinn which mudern criticiam viaita nn thnae shnrt intrnductinns uf Luke. He
finds a prunf bf its authenticity in the detail an preciaely atated : " Teach us tn pray,
as Juhn alsn taught his disciples. " It is, accurding tu him, une nf the cases in which
Ibe histurical situatinn waa expreaaly atated in tbe Lngia. The Lerd's Prayer, as
well aa the instructions abnut prayer which fnlluw, are placed by Matthew in the
cnurae nf the Sermnn on the Meunt (chap. 6 and 7). Gess thinka that thia model of
prayer may have been twice given forth. Why might nut a disciple, sume mnnths

312 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
after the Sermnn nn the Muunt. have put tu Jesus the request which led Him tn re
peat it ? Aud aa tn the cuntext in Matthew, Luke 20 : 47 pruves that much speaking
belunged as much tu the prayers nf the Phariaeea aa tn thnae nf the heatheiu That ia
true ; but the prqlixity tu which 'the Lurd'a prayer ia nppnsed in the Sermun un ftie
Muunt, aud by means nf which the wurshipper hnpes tu nbtain a hearing, has nnth
ing tu dn with that ustenlatinn befnre men which Jeaus stigmatizes in Matt. 6 aa
characterizing the righteuusness nf the Pharisees. And the repetitinn nf thia model
nf prayer, thnugh nnt impuaaible, is far from prnbable. What we have here, there
fure, ia nne nf thnse numerous elements, histurically alien tn the cnntext uf the Ser
mnn nn the Mnuut, which are fnund cnllected in this expusitinn nf the new right
euusness. The reflectiuns regarding prayer. Matt. 7, belung to a cuntext sn brnken,
that if the cunnectinns alleged by cnmmentaturs shnw tu a demnnstratinn what aaan
ciatinn nf ideas the compiler has fnllnwed in placing them here, they cannut prove
that Jesus cnuld ever have taught in such a manner. In Luke, nn the cnntrary, the
cunnectiun betweeu the different parts nf thia discnurse ia aa simple aa the uccasinn ia
natural. Here, again, we flnd the twn evangelists such as we have cnme tn knnw
them : Matthew teaches, Luke relates.
This accuunt embraces : Isi. The mndel uf Chriatian prayer (vers. 1^) ; 2d. An
encnuragement tn pray thus, fnunded un the certainty uf being heard (vers. 5-13).
1st. Vers. 1-4.* Tlie Model of Prayer. — " And it carae tu pass, that as He was
praying in a certain place, when He ceased, une nf His disciples said untn Him,
Lurd, teach ua tn pray, as Jnhn alsu taught his disciples. 2. And He aaid untu them,
When ye pray, say-. Father, hallnwed be thy name ; Thy kingdnm cume -; 3. Give
us day by day nur needful bread ; 4. And furgive us nut sins, fur we alsn furgive
every nne that ia indebted tn us ; and lead us nut intn temptatiun. " It was' the cua
tom amnng the Jewa tn pray regularly three timea a day. Jnhn had kept up the
practice, aa well as that nf fasting (ver. 33) ; and it was dnubtless with a view tn thia
daily exerciae that he had given a furm tn his disciplea. In the wurds, when ye pray,
say, the term npoaevxeoBai, to pray, denntes the state nf adnratinn, and the wurd say,
the pra.yer fnrmally expressed. It is evident that this urder, wlien ye pray, say, dues
nnt mean that the fnrmula was tn be slariahly repeated nn every uccaainn uf prayer ;
it waa the type which was tn give ita impreaainn tn every Chriatian prayer, but in a
free, varied, and spuntaneuus manner. The distinctive characteristic cf thia furmu-
lary is the -filial spirit, which appears frum the flrat in the invucation. Father ; then
in the ubject and urder uf tbe petitiuna. Of the five petitiuns which the Lnrd'a
Prayer includes in Luke, twu bear directly nn the cause uf Gnd — they stand at the
head ; three tn the wants nf man — they nccupy the secnnd place. This absnlute
* Ver. 1. S". A. snme Mnn. Syr""'. ItP'^'ius omit kui befnre laavvys. Ver. 3. The
wurds vpov ev rois ovpavoic are umitted by !*. B. L. sume Mnn. Tert. ; they are fnund
iu T. R., accurding lu 18 Mjj. almnst all the Mnn.. Syr. It. Ver. 3. Instead uf eXI^etu •
y jSaaiXEia aov, Gregnry nf Nyasa and Maximus Cunfeaaur aeera tn have read, eXBeto
ayiov nvevpa aov £(/>' ypas Kat KuBapiaaru ypas ; nthers tu have added tu the end nf the
petitinn an explanatinn like this : rour' eoti to nvEvpa ayiov. B. L. sum* Mnn. Syr°°'.
It"""i. Vg. Tert. Aug. nmit the wnrds yevySyru . . . yys, which are read by the T. R. '
with 19 Mjj. almnat aU the Mnn. Syr"='\ Itpiefiqoe ; Tert. {de Oratione) places them be
tween the first and secnnd petitiuns. Ver. 3. Instead nf ypov Marcinn appears to
have read aov. Ver. 4. S. B, L. some Mnn. Vg. Orig. CyrU. Tert. Aug. nmit the
wnrds aXX . . . novypov, which are fnund in the T. R, with X7 Mjj. almnst all the
Mnn. Syr. ItP''=''i"»,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 313
priority given to di-^ine intereats implies an emptying of ourselves, a heavenly love
and zeal which are not natural tn man, and which suppnse in us the heart nf a true
. chUd nf Gnd, nccupied abnve all thmga with the intereata nf hia heavenly Father.
After having thua furgntten himself, and becnme lust aa it were in Gnd, the Christian
cumea back tu himself ; but aa it is in Gud that'he finds himaelf agajn, he dues nnt
flnd himself alnne. IJe cniltemplates himself aa a member nf Gud'a family, aud says
thencefurth : we, and not I. The fraternal spirit^ecomes, in the second part ef his
prayer, the complement of the filial spirit which dictated the first ; intercession is
blended with peraonal supplication. The Lord's Prayer is thus nothing else than the
aummary of the law put into practice ; and this summary so realized in the secrecy
of the heart, wfll naturally pass thence into the entire life.
It appears certain from the mss. that in the text ef Luke the invocation ought to
be reduced te the aingle word Father. The following words, which art in heaven, are
a glosa taken from Matthew, but agreeable, no doubt, to the real tenor of our Lord'a
aaying. In this title Father there is expreaaed the double feeling of submission and
confidence. The name is found in the Old Testament enly in Isa. 63 : 16 (comp. Ps.
103 : 13), and is employed only in reference to the nation aa a whole. The pioua
Israelite felt himself the servant of Jehovah, nnt His child. The filial relatinnship
which the believer sustains tn Gnd rests nn the incarnatinn and revelatiun nf the Snn.
Luke 10 : 33 : " He tn whum the Snn will reveal Him. . . ." Cump, Jnhn 1 : 13.
The firat twu petitiuns relate, nnt tn the believer himaelf, nr the wnrld which aur-
rnunda him, but tn the hnnnr nf Gud ; it ia the chUd nf Gnd whn ia praying. Wet
stein has cnllected a large number cf passages similar tn thnse twn petitiuns, derived
frnm Jewish furmularies. The Old Testament itself is filled with like texts. But
the uriginality uf this first part nf the Lurd's Prayer is nnt in the wnrds ; it is in the
filial feeling which ia here expreaaed by means ut thnae already weU-knnwn terms.
The name of God denntes, nnt His essence ur His revelatiun as is uften said, but
rather the cunceptiun ef God, whatever it may be, which the worshipper bears in
hia consciousness — His refiection in the soul ef Hia creatures. Hence the fact that
this name dwells cempletely enly in One Being, in Him who is the adequate image
of God, and who alone knows Him perfectly ; that One of whom God says, Ex.
23 : 21, " My narae is in Him." Hence the fact that thia name can become holier
than it is — be hallowed, rendered holy. What unworthy conceptions of God and His
character stiU reign among men I The child of God prays Him to assert Hia holy
character effectually in the minds nf men, in urder that all irapure idnlatry, gross nr
refined, as well as all phariaaic fnrmalism, may fnrever cume tn an end, and that
every human being may jexclaim with the seraphim, in rapt adnratinn : Holy, holy,
holy ! (Isa. 6). The imper. anr. indicates a series ef acts by which this result shall be
brought about.
The holy image of God ence shining in glory within the depths of the heart, the
kingdom ef God can be eslabUahed there. For God needa enly to be well known in
order tn reign. The term kingdom pf God denutes an external and sncial atate uf
things, but nne which results from an inward and individual change. This petitinn
expresses the lunging uf the child nf Gud fnr that reconciled and sanctified humanity
within the bnsnm nf which the wUl uf the Father will be dune withnut uppnaitiun.
The aur. eX6eto, come, cnmprises the whnle series nf histnrical facts which will realize
this state nf things. The imperatives, which fnllnw nne anuther in the Lurd's Prayer
with fqj-cible brevity, express the certainty nf being heard,

314 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
The third petitinn, " Thy wUl be . . ." which is fuund in the T. R., fnUnw
ing several mss., ia certainly an impurtatiun from Matthew. It ia impoaaible to dis
cover any reason why so many mss. should have rejected it in Luke. In Matthew it
expreases the state ef things which will result from the estabUshment of the pngdom
nf Gnd nver humanity sn admirably, that there is nn reasnn fur doubting that it
belongs to the Lord's Prayer a,§ Jeaus uttered it. The poaition of this petition
between the two preceding in a pasaage of TertuUian, may arise either frum the fact
that it was variuusly interpnlated in Luke, nr from the fact that, in cnnsequence uf
tbe eschatulngical sense which was given tn the term kingdom of God, it was thnught
right tn clnse the first part uflhe prayer with the petitinn which related tn that ubject.
Ver. 3. Frnm the cause nf Gud, the wurshipper passes to the wanta nf Qtod's family.
The cunnectiun is this : ' ' And that we may be able nurselves tn take part in the
divine wnrk fnr whuae advancement we pray. Give ua, Furgive ua, ' ' etc. In urder
tn aerve Gnd, it ia first uf all necesaary that we live. The Fathers in general under
stnud the wurd bread in a spiritual senae : the bread of life (Juhn 6) ; but the literal
sense seems tn ua clearly tu fluw frnm the very general nature nf this prayer, which
demanda at leaat une petitinn relating tn the auppnrt uf nur preaent life. Jesus, whu
with His apnstles lived upnn the daily gifts uf His Father, understund by experience,
better perhaps than many thenlugians, the need which His diaciples wnuld have nf
such a prayer. Nn pnur man wUl hesitate abnut the sense which is tn be given tn
this petitinn. The wnrd kniovatos is unknuwn either in prufane or sacred Greek. It
appears, says'Origen, tn have been invented by the evangelists. It may be taken as
derived from eneiui, to be imminent, whence the participle y imovaa {ripipa), the coming
day (Prov. 27 : 1 ; Acts 7 : 26, et al.). We muat then translate : " Give us day by
day next day's bread." Thia waa certainly the meaning given tn the petitinn by the
Guspel uf the Hebrews, where this was rendered, accurding tu Jerome, by iniO Cfb
to-morrow's bread. Fnunding nn the same grammatical meaning nf iniovaios, Athan
asius explaina it : " The bread nf the wurld tu cnme." But thnse twn meanings, and
especially the secnnd, af-e pure refinements. The first is nut in keeping with Matt.
6 : 34 : " Take nu thnught fur the mnrruw ; fnr the mnrruw shall take thnught fnr
the things nf itaelf." Cump. Ex. 16 : 19, etseq. It ia therefnre better tn regard
iniovaio; aa a cnmpOund of the aubstantive oiaia, essence, existence, goods. No doubt
ini ordinarily loaes its i when it is compounded, with a word beginning with a vowel.
But there are numerous exceptions to the rule. Thus iniEiKyS, inlovpos (Homer),
iniopKElv, inierys (Pelybius). And in the case before us, there is a reaaon fer the
irregularity in the tacit contrast which exists between the word and the analogous
compound neptovaioS, superfluous. " Give us day by day bread sufflcient fnr nur
existence, nnt what is superfluuus." The expressinn, thus understund, exactly cnr-
reaponda to that ef Proverba (30 : 8), ipn Dn?. food convenient for me, literally, the
bread of my allowance, in which the term pn, siaiutum, is tacitly opposed te the
superfluity, nepwiaiov, which is secretly desired by the human heart ; and it ia thia
biblical expreasion ot which Jesua probably made use in Aramaic, and which should
serve te explain that ef our passage. It has been inferred, from the remarkable fact
that the two evangelista employ one aud the same Greek expreaaion, otherwiae alto
gether unknown, that one of the evangelists waa dependent en the other, or that buth
were dependent un a cummun Greek dncument. But the very impnrtant differences
which we observe in Luke and Matthew, between the twn editiuns uf the Lurd's
Pr.ayer, cnntain nne of the must deciaive retutatinns nf the twn hypnthesesr What

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 315
writer should have taken the Uberty wUf uUy and arbitrarily to intrnduce such mndi-
ficatiuns intn the text uf a fnrmulary* beginning with the wnrda : " When ye pray,
say . . ." ? The differences here, stUl mnre than anywhere else, must be invul
untary. It must therefure be admitted that this Greek term cummnn tn bnth was
chnsen tn translate the Aramaic expresainn, at the time when the primitive ural tradi
tinn waa reprnduced in Greek fur the numeruua Jews apeaking that language whn
dwelt in Jeruaalem and Palestine (Acta 6 : 1, e« seq. This translatinn, nnce fixed in
the oral traditinn, passed thence intn nur Guspela.
Instead ef day by day, Matthew aays aypepov, this day. Luke's expression, from its
very generality, does not answer so well tu the character nf real and present supplica
tiun. Matthew's fnrm is therefure tn be preferred. Besidea, Luke empluys the pres
ent didov, which, in cnnnectiun with the expressinn day by day, must deaignate the
permanent act : " Give ua constantly each day's bread." The anr. dos, in Matthew,
in cnnnectinn with the wnrd this day, deaignates the nne single and mumentary act,
which is preferable. What a reductiun nf human requirementa tn their minimum,
in the twn respects uf quaUty (bread) and uf quantity (sufflcient fer each day) !
Ver. 4. The deepest feeling of man, after that of his dependence for his very ex
istence, is that of hia guiltineaa ; and the firat condition to enable him tn act in the
way which is indicated by the firat petitinn, is his being relieved nf this burden by
pardnn. Fnr it ia nn pardun that the unien ef the snul with Gnd reata. Instead nf
the wnrd sins, Matthew in the first clauae usea d£its. Every neglect nf duty tn Gud
really cnnatitutea a debt requiring tn be discharged by a penalty. In the secund prup
nsitiun Luke saya : For we ouraehes also {airoi) ; Matthew : as we alao. . . . The
idea nf an imprecatinn un nuraelves, in the event nf nur refuaing pardun tn him whn
haa nffended us, might perhaps be fuund in the fnrm nf Matthew, but nnt in that uf
Luke. The latter dnes nnt even include the nntiun nf a cnnditinn ; it simply ex
presses a motive derived from the manner in which we uurselves act in nur humble
sphere. This mutive must undnubtedly be understnud in the same aenae as that uf
ver. 13 : " If ye then, bemg evU, knnw huw tn give gund gifts untn ynur chil
dren." " All evU as we are, we yet ourselves use the right nf grace which belnnga tn
ua, by remitting debts tn thnse whn are uur debtura ; hnw much mnre wilt nut Thuu,
Father, whn art gnudneaa itseU, use Thy right tnward us !" And this is probably
alau the aenae in which we shnuld underatand the as also nf Matthew. The nnly
difference ia, that what Luke alleges as a mntive (for alao), Matthew states aa a pnint
nf cumparisnn {aa also).
Luke's very abanlute expressinn, We forgive every one ihat is indebted to us, sup-
, puses the believer tu be nnw living in that, sphere uf charity which Jeaus came tu
create nn the earth, and the principle nf which was laid dnwn in the Sermnn nn the
Mnunt. The term uaed by Jeaus might be applied snlely tn material debts : " Furgive
ua uur sins, fnr we alsn in nur earthly relations relax nur rights tnward nur indigent
debtors." Sn we might explain Luke's use uf the wurd sins m the first clause, and
nf the term dfeiX-ovTi, debtor, in the secund. This delicate shade wuuld be Inst in Mat
thew's fnrm. It ia pnaaible, hnwever, that by the wnrda, every one that is indebted io
¦US, m Luke, we are tu understand nut unly debturs strictly an called, but every nne
* Dr. Alfurd reliea upnn the variatinna as prunf that thia waa nut a " aet furm
develuped fur Uturgical uaes" by nur Lurd. This is all the mure weighty a cunfirra-
atinn uf our authnr's view, as Dr. Alfnrd might be naturally wiUing tn fall in with
auch a view as 'Wurdswnrth's.— J, H.

316 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
whn has offended ua. The navri ia explained perhaps mnre easily in this wide sense
uf d(peiXovTt. This petitinn, which suppuses the Christian always penetrated tn the
last (dlay by day, ver. 3) by the cnnvictinn nf'his sins, has brought dnwn nn the
Lnrd's Prayer the disUke nf the Plymuuth brethren, whu regard it as a prayer pro
vided rather fnr a Jewish thari a Christian state. But cnmp. 1 Jnhn 1 : 9, which cer
tainly appliea tn believera : "Ifwe confess . . ." The absence of all allusinn tn
the aacrifice nf Jesus Chriat fnr the pardnn nf sins is a very striking prunf nf the en
tire authenticity of thia formula, buth in Luke and Matthew. If Luke in particular
had put intu it anything nf hia nwn, even the leaat, wnuld nnt sume expressinn bur
rowed frnm the thenlugy nt the Epistle tn the Rnmans have inevitably slipped from
his pen ? >
With the feeling Of his past treapaaaes there succeeds in the mind nf the Christian
that uf his weakneaa, and the fear nf uff'ending in the future. He therefnre passes
naturally frnm aina tu be furgiven tn ain tu be avuided. Fur he thnrnughly appre-
henda that sanctiflcatinn is the auperatructure tn be raised nn the fnundatinn uf par
dun. The wnrd tempi takes twn meanings in Scripture — tu put a free being in the
pnaitinn of deciding fur himself between gund and evil, nbedience and rebellinn ; it is
in this aenae that Gud tempta : " Gud did tempt Abraham" (Gen. 22 : 1) ; ur, tn im
pel inwardly tn evil, tu make ain appear in a, light su seducing that the frail and de
ceived being ends by yielding tn it ; thua it is that Satan tempts, and that, accnrding
tn Jas. 1 : 13, Gnd cannot tempt. What renders it difflcult tn understand this last peti
tinn ia, that neither uf the twn aenaea uf the wurd tempi appeara suitable here. If we
adnpt the good aenae, how are we to aak God to spare us experiences which may be
necessary for the development of our moral being, and fur the manifestatiun uf Hia
glnriuus pnwer in ua (Jas. 1:3)? If we accept the bad sense, is it nnt tu calumniate
Gnd, tn aak Him nnt tn du tnward us an act decidedly wicked, diabulical in itaelf ?
The snlutinn nf this prublem depends un uur settling the questien whn is the authur nf
the temptatinus anticipated. Nnw the secnnd part nf the prayer in Matthew, But
deliver us from the evil, leaves nn dnubt un this pnint. The authur nf the temptatiuns
tn which thia petitinn relatea ia not God, but Satan. The phraae (ivaai and, rescue
from, is a military term, denoting the deliverance of a prisoner who had fallen into
the hands of an enemy. The enemy is the evil one, who laya hia snarea in the way of
the faithful. These, conscious of the danger which they run, as weU as of their ig
norance and weakness, pray God to preserve them from the snares ef the adversary.
The word Ela<pEpEiv has been rendered, io expose to, or, to abandon io ; but these trans
lations do not convey the force of the Greek term, io impel into, to deliver over io, Gud
certainly dnes nnt impel tu evil ; but it is ennugh fur Him tn withdraw His hand that
we may flnd nurselves given nver tn the pnwer nf the enemy. It is the napadiddvai,
giving up, uf which Paul speaks (Rum. 1 : 34, 36-38), and by which ia manifeated Hia
wrath against the Gentilea. Thua He punishea ain, that nf pride in particular, by the
muat severe nf chastiseraenta, even ain itaelf. All that Gnd needa therein is nnt tn act,
nn mnre tn guard us ; and man, given uver tn himaelf, falls intn the pnwer uf the
enemy (3 Sam. 34 : 1, cump. with 1 Chron. 31 : 1). Such is the prnfnund cnnrictinn
nt the believer ; hence his prayer, " Let me dn nnthing thia day which wnuld fnrce
Thee fur a single mnment tu withdraw Thy hand, and tn give me uver tu nne nf the
an-ares which the evil une will plant in my way. Keep me in the sphere where Thy
hnly will reigns, and where the evil nne has nu access."* The secnnd clause, but
* This is what a piuus man used tn express in the fuUuwing terms, in which he

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 317
'US . . . is in Luke, an interpnlatiun derived from Matthew. Withnut this
terminatinn the prayer is nnt really clnsed as it nught tu be. Here, again, therefnre,
Matthew is mnre cnmplete than Luke. The dnxulugy with which we clese the Lnrd's
Prayer, is nut fnund in any ms. nf Luke, and is wanting ih the eldest copies of Mat
thew. It is an appendix due te the liturgical use of this formulary, and which has
been added in the text ef the flrst Gespel, the most commonly used in public reading.
The Lord'a Prayer, especially in the form given by Matthew, preaenta to ua a
cemplete whule, cempuaed nf twu ascending and tn anme extent parallel aeriea. We
think that we have establiahed — Is*. That it ia Luke whu has preserved tn us
must faithfully the situatinn in which this mndel prayer was taught, but that it
is Matthew whn has preserved the terms uf it mnst fully and exactly. There is nu
cuntradictinn, whatever M. Gess may think, between thnae twn reaul'ts. 2d. That the
twn digests can neither be derived the nne from the nther, nnr bnth ut them frum a
cummun ducument. Bleek himself is fnrced here tn admit a separate snurce fnr
each evangeUst. Hnw, indeed, with such a ducument, is it pnssible tn imagine the
capricinus umiaainna in which Luke muat have indulged, nr the arbitrary additinns
which Matthew muat have aUnwed himaelf ? Hnltzmann thinka that Matthew ampli-
fled the fnrmulary nf the Bogia reproduced by Luke, with the view uf raising the
number uf petitiuns tn the (sacred) number uf aeven. But {a) tbe divisiun intu seven
petitiuna is a fictinn ; it curreapunds neither with the evident symmetry ef the twu
parts uf the prayer, each cnmpused uf ihree petitiena, nur with the true meaning uf
the laat petitinn, which, cnntrary tn all reasnn, wnuld require tu be divided intu twn.
(6) The parts peculiar tu Matthew have perfect internal probabUity. It has been cnn
cluded frnm thnse differences that this fnrmulary waa nut yet in uae in the wnrship nf
the primitive Church. If this argument were valid, it wnuld 'apply alsu tn the fnr
mula instituting the hnly Supper, which is untenable. The fnrmula nf the Lnrd's
Prayer waa preserved at first, like all the rest nf the Gnapel histury, by meana uf ural
traditiun ; it thua remained expused tu seccadary raudiflcationa, and these pasaed
quite simply intu the flrst written digeata, frnm which nur synnptical writers have
drawn. 2d. Vers. 5-13. ihe Efficacy of P'ayer.—Aiter having declared tn His nwn the
esaential ubjects tn be prayed fur, Jeaua encnurages them thus tn pray by assuring
them nf the efflcacy nf the act. He provea this (1) by an example, that nf the indis
creet friend (vers. 5-8) ; (3) by cummun experience (vers. 9 and 10) ; (3) by the fa
therly gnndness nf Gnd (vers. 11-13).
Vers. 5-8.* This parable is peculiar tuLuke. Hultzmann says : " Taken frnm A."
But why in that case has Matthew emitted it, he who reproduces from A both the
preceding and following veraea (7 : 7-11) ? The form ot expression is broken after
ver. 7. It iaaaif the importuned friend were reflecting what he should do. Hia friend
ship hesitates. But a circumatance decidea him : the perseverance, carried even te
shameleasneaa {dvaideia), of his friend whn doea nnt deaiat from crying and knucking.
The cnnatructinn nf ver. 7 dnes nut harmnnize with that with which the parable had
opened (ver. .5). There were twn ways nf expressing the thuught : either tn say,
" TF%icft(2^2^»K shall have a friend, and shaU say tu him . . . and [if] the latter
shall answer . . . [wiU nnt persist unlU] . . . ;" nr tu say, " If one of you
paraphrased this petitinn : " If the Occasiun nf sinning presents itself, grant that the
desire may nnt be fnund in me : if the desire is there, grant that the nccasiun may
nnt present itself . "
* Ver. 5. A. D. K. M. P. R. II. several Mnn. ItP'»'-ii"» : Epei instead uf emy. Ver.
6. 14 Mjj. 100 Mun. Syr'"'', umit pov, which is read by the T. R. with !*. A. B. L. X.
must nf the Mnu. Syr"""-. It. "V'er. 8. Tbe mss. are divided between oaov (Alex.)
and oaov (Byz.).

318 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
, hath a friend, and sayeth tn him . . . and he answer him . . . [nevertheless]
1 say untn yuu . . . " Jesus begins with the flrst fnrm, which takes each hearer
mnre directly aside, and cnntinues (ver. 7) with the secnnd, which better suits su
lengthened a statement. The reading elny may be explained by the ein-y which fnllnws
ver. 7, as the reading kpel by the Futures which precede. The first has mure authnri
ties in ita favnr. The figure ef the three loaves ahnuld nut be interpreted allegurically ;
the meaning uf it ahnuld fnlluw frum the picture taken as a whnle. One nf the
Inavea ia fer the traveller ; the aecund for the huat, whn must seat himself at table
with him ; the third wDl be their reserve. The idea nf full sufflciency {oaov xp^Cei) is
the real applicatiun to be made of this detail.
Vera. 9 and 10.* " And I say unto yuu, Ask, and it shall be given yuu ; seek,
and ye ahall flnd ; knock, and it shall be opened untn ynu. 10. Fnr every une that
aaketh receiveth ; and he that aeeketh flndeth ; and tu him that knncketh it shall be
npened." Ver. 9 fnrmally expresses the applicatiun nf the preceding example; all
the figures appear tn be burrnwed from that example. That ia evident in the caae nf
knucking. The wnrd ask prnbably alludes tn the cries uf the friend in distress, and
the wnrd aeek tn hia effurts tu find the dunr in the night, nr in endeavnring tn upen it.
The gradatinn uf thnse figures includes the idea nf increaaing energy in the face uf
multiplying ubstacles. A precept this which Jesus had learned by His peraonal ex
perience (3 : 31, 33).
Ver. 10 cunfirms the exhurtatinn nf ver. 9 by daily experience. The future, it
shall be opened, which cnntrasta with the twn prfesents, receiveth, flndeth, ia uaed be
cauae in thia caae it is nut the aame individual whn perfnrma the twu successive acts,
aa in the furmer twn. The npening ef the dunr depends un the will nf annther per
aon. Hnw can we help admiring here the explanatiun affnrded by Luke, whn, by
the cnnnectinn which he establishes between this precept and the fureguing example,
sn happUy accounts fnr the chnice nf the figures uaed by nur Lurd, and brings intn
view their eutire appropriateness ? In Matthew, nn the cnntrary, this saying is fnund
placed in the midst nf a series nf precepts, at the end nf the Sermnn nn the Mnunt,
detached from the jparable which explains its figures ; it prnduces the effect nf a
petal torn from ita stalk, and lying on the apot where the wind haa let it faU. Who
could hesitate between the two narrativea ?
Vera. 11-13. f " If a aon shaU aak bread of any ef you that is a father, wiU he
give him a atone ? or if -he aak a flah, wUl he for a fish give him a serpent ? 13. Or
if he shall aak an egg, will he offer him a scorpion ? 13. If ye then, being evil, know
how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly
Father give the Huly Spirit tu them that ask Him !" Undnubtedly it snmetimes
happens in human relatiuns, that the maxim nf ver. 10 dues nut hold good. But in a
paternal and fllial relationship, auch aa that which was set before ua by the model
given at the beginning, aucceaa is certain. It is a Father to whom the believer
* Ver. 9. The mss. are divided here, as well aa at ver. 10. between avoixBynerat
aad avoiyyaerai (the aecond probabl.y taken from Matthew)
X Ver. 11. !S. D. L. X. 6 Mnn. 'Vg. Or., tiS inatead of nva. 11 Mjj. 50 Mnn. It.
Vg. read e^ before vpov. Or. Epiph. emito before vcos. 1*. L. 1 Mn. it""?. Vg. emit
o vioc AU the Mjj. read, before kui, ei instead of y, which the T. R. reads, with
some Mnn. only. "V'er. 13. i>. B. L. some Mnn., y kui instead of y kui eav. Ver. 13.
S. D. K. M. X. n. several Mun., ovte; instead ef vnapxovres. 0. U. seversd Mnn.
Vss. add vpov after naryp, !S. L. X. Syr. ItP'^iiiie, omit o befnre cf ovpavov. L. 8
Mnn. Vg., nvsvpa ayaGov instead uf nvtv^ua ayiov.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 319
prays ; and when praying tn Him in cnnfurmity with the mndel prescribed, he is
sure tu ask nnthing except these things which such a Father cannut refuse tn Hia
chUd, and instead nf which that Father wnuld nut give him nther things, either hurt
ful nr even less precinus. The end nf the piece thus brings us back tn the starting.
pnint : the title Fatlier given tn Gnd, and the fllial character nf him whn prays the
Lnrd's Prayer. Ae, then, relates tn the a fortiori, in the certainty which we have
just expreased. The reading uf snme Alex., ris . . . d v'lds or vld^, " 'What son
shall ask uf his father," wnuld appeal tn the feeling ef sunship amnng the hearers ;
the reading riva . . . ia clearly tn be preferred tn il, " What father ef whom his
sen ahall ask," by which Jeaus appeals to the heart of fathers in the assembly. The
three articles of food enumerated by Jesus appear at first aight to be choaen at ran
dom. But, aa M. Buvet * remarks, luaves, hard eggs, and fried fishea are precisely
the ordinary elements uf a traveller's fare in the East. Matthew umits the third ;
Luke has certainly nnt added it at his nwn hand. The currespundence between
bread and stnne, fish and serpent, egg and scorpion, appears at a glance. In the
teaching of Jesus all ia pictureaque, full ef apprupriateneaa, exquiaite even tn the
minuteat detaila. 'Enidtdovai, tn tranafer from hand to hand. Thia wurd, which is
nnt repeated in ver. 13, includes this thuught : " What Father will have the cnurage
tn put intu the hand . . . ?"
The cnnclusinn, ver. IS, ia drawn by a new argument d fortiori ; and the reaaun-
ing is still further atrengthened by the worda, ye being evil. The reading indpxovres,
" finding yourselves evil," aeema more in harmony with the ccmtext than dvres, being
(which ia taken from Matthew, where, the readinga do net vary). "Xndpxeiv denotea
the actual atate as the starting-point for the supposed activity. Bengel juatly eb.
serves : lUusire testirnoTmi/m die peceato originali. The reading of the Alex. , which
omits 6 before ef oipavov, would admit of the translation, will give from heaven. But
there is nn reaann in the cnntext which ceuld have led Luke to put thia construction
au prominently. From lieaven thus depends nn the wnrd i''o<A«)-, and the untranslat
able Greek fnrm can unly be explained by introducing the verbal notion of giving
between the substantive and its govemment : " The Father who giveth frora
heaven." Inatead of ilie Holy Spirit, Matthew aaya, good things; and De Wcttc ac-
cuaes Luke of having corrected him in a spiritualizing senae. He would thua have
done here exactly the oppoaite of that which has been imputed to him in respect tn
6 : 20 I Have we nnt then a cumplete ijreuf that Luke toek this whnle piece frnm a
snurce peculiar to himself ? As tn the intrinsic value nf the twn expreasinns, that nf
Matthew is simple and less didactic ; that uf Luke harmunizes better perhapa with
the elevated aphere cf the Lnrd's Prayer, which is the starting-pnint Uf the piece.
The use nf the simple daaei (instead nf inidoaei, ver. 12) arises frum the fact that the
idea dnes nut recur uf giving frnm hand tn hand.
We regard this piece aa nne nf thnae in which the uriginality and exceUence uf
Luke's snurces appear in their fuU Ught, althnugh we cunsider the cumparisnn nf
Matthew indispensable tn restnre the wnrds uf nur Lnrd in their entirety.
7. Ihe Blasphemy of the Phariaeea : 11 : 14-36.— We have already ubaerved (see nn
6 : 11) hnw remarkably cuincident in time are the accuaa«una called fnrth in GaUlee
by the healings nn the Sabbath, and thnse which are raised abnut the same periud at
Jerusalem by the healing uf the imputent man (Juhn 5). There is a similar curre-
* See the charming pasaage, " Vnyage en Terre-Sainte," p. 362, 6th ed.

320 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
spondence between the yet graver accusatinn uf cumplicity with Beelzebub, raised
against Jesua nn the uccasinn nf Hia healing demnniacs, and the charge brought
against Him at Jerusalem at the feaata uf Tabernaclea and nf the Dedicatinn :
" Thuu art a Samaritan, and hast a devil !" (Jnhn 8 : 48) ; " He hath a devil, and is
mad !" (10 : 20). Matthew (chap. 12) and Mark (chap. 3) place this accusatinn and
the answer nf Jesua much earlier, in the first part nf the Galilean ministry. The ac
cusatinn may and must have nften been repeated. The cumparison of John would
tell in favnr nf Luke'a narrative. Twu sayings which proceeded frnm the crowd
give rise tn the fuUnwing discnurse : the accuaatinn nf cumpUcity with Beelzebub
(ver. 15), and the demand fur a sign frnm heaven (ver. 16). It might seem at first
sight that these are twu sayings simply placed in juxtapusitinn ; but it ia nnt su.
The aecund ia intended to nffer Jeaua the means nf clearing Himself nf the terrible
charge invnlved in the first : " Work a miracle in the heavens, that sphere which is
exclusively divine, and we ahall then acknowledge that it is God who acts through
thee, and not Satan." This demand in appearance proceeds from a disposition
favnrahle tn Jesua ; but as thuse whu address Him reckun nn hia pnwerleaaness tu
raeet the demand, the result uf the test, in their view, will be a cundemnatinn with
nut appeal. Thnse last are therefure in reality the wurst intentinned, and it is in that
light that Luke's text represents them. Matthew ianlales the twn questinna, aud
simply puts in juxtapusitinn the twn discnuraea which reply tn them (12 : 22 et aeq.,
30 et aeq.) ; thua the significant cunnectiun which we have juat indicated disappeara.
It ia difflcult tn understand huw Hnltzmann and nther mederns can see nuthing in
this relatinn establiahed by Luke, but a apecimen cf hia " [arbitrary] manner nf jnin
ing tngether pieces which were detached in the Lngia (.Y). "
This piece includes : 1st. A atatement nf the facts which gave riae to the two fnl
lnwing diacnuraes (vers. 14-16) ; 2d. The firat diacnurae in reply tn the accusatinn uf
ver. 15 (vers. 17-26) ; Sd. An episude shuwing the deep impreaainn produced un the
penple by thia discuurse (vera. 27 and 28) ; 4*A. The secund discuurse in reply tn the
challenge thrown uut tn Jesus, ver. 16 (vers. 39-36).
lat Vers. 14-16.* 'Hv 'ek^uXXuv, He waa occupied in casting out. The wurd ko^6s
dull, may mean deaf ur dumb ; accnrding tn the eifd uf the verse, it here denutes
dumbness. On the expressinn dumb devil, see p. 376. Bleek justly cnncludes,
frum this term, that the dumbnesa was uf a paychical, nut an urganic nature. The
cnnatructinn EyivEro , . . t'XdXyasv betrays an Aramaic snurce. The accusatinn,
ver. 15, ia twice mentiuned by Matthew— 9 : 33, nn the uccaainn nf a deaf man pna-
sesaed, but withnut Jeaus replying tn it ; then 13 : 33, which ia the parallel passage tu
nurs ; here the peaaeaaed man ia dumb and blind. Shnuld nnt thnae twn miracles be
regarded as nnly nne and the same fact, the accnunt nf which was taken first (Matt. 9)
from the Lngia, secund (Matt. 13) frnm the prutn-Mark, as Hnltzmann appears tn
think, therein fnllnwing his system tu its natural ccnsequences ? But in that case we
shnuld have the result, that the Lngia, the cnllectinn of discourses, contained the fact
without the discourse, and that the proto-Mark, the strictly historical writing, con
tained the discourse without the tact— a atrange anomaly, it must be confessed ! In
Mark 3 this accusation ia connected with the step of the brethren of Jesus who come
* Ver. 14. Kat avro yv is wanting in S. B. L. 7 Mnn. Syr™'. A. C. L. X.
6 Mnn., EK^XyBEvroS instead of e^eXBovto^. D. It""'!, present this verse under a some
what different form. Ver. 15. A. D. K. M. X. II. 40 Mnn. read here a long appen
dix taken from Mark 3 : 33.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 821
to lay hold of Him, because they have heard say that He is beaide Himself, that He is
mad (3 : 31, on i^eary). This expresaion is nearly synonymous with that ef poaaeaaed
(John 10 : 30). According to this accusation, it was thus as one Himaelf poaaessed
by the prince of the devUs that Jesua had the power of expeUing inferior devils.
From this point of view, the ev, through, before the uame Beelzebub, has a more for
cible senae than appears at the first glance. It signifies net enly by the authority of,
but by Beelzebub himself dwelling personally in Jesus. This name given to Satan
appears in aU the documents of Luke, and in almost all those of Matthew, with the
termination bul ; and this is certainly the true reading. It is probable, however, that
the name is derived from the Heb. Baal-Zebvb, God of FUea, a divinity who, accord
ing to 3 Kings 1 et aeq., was worahipped at Ekren, a city of the Philistines, and whn
may be cumpared with the Zeis 'Anopvios of the Greeks. The invecalinn nf this gnd
waa dnubtless intended tn preaerve the cnuntry from' the scuurge nf flies. In cnn
tempt, the Jews applied this name tn Satan, while mudifying its last syllable su aa tn
make it aignify God of Dung {Baal-ZebuV). Such ia the explanatiun given by Light
fnut, Wetstein, Bleek, etc, Thuse whn raise this accuaatinu are, in Luke, sume nf
the nuriieruua peranna preaent ; in Matthew (9 : 34, 13 : 34), tlie Phariaeea ; in Mark
(3 : 33), scribes which came down from Jerusalem. Thia last indicatinn by Mark wnuld
harmnnize with the synchronism which we have eatabliahed in regard tu thia accusa
tion betweeu Luke and John.
The demand for a sign frnm heaven (ver. 16) is mentinned twice in Matt. , 13 : 38
and 16 : 1. It is nut impnsaible that it may have been repeated again and again
(cnmp. Juhn 6 : 30). It currespnnded with the ruling tendency nf the Israelitish mind,
the seeking fnr miracles, the aypeia u'iteIv (1 Cur. 1 : 22). We have already explained
its bearing in the present case. In Juhn it signifies mnre particularly, " Shnw thyself
superiur to Mnaea." In thnse different furma it waa ever the repetitinn nf the third
temptatinn {neipdiovres, tempting Him). Hnw, indeed, cnuld Jeaus avnid being
tempted tn accept this chaUenge, and an tu cunfuund by an act nf signal pnwer the
treacherous accusatinn which He fnund raised against Him !
2d. The First Discourse : vers. 17-26.— It is divided intn twu parts : Jesus refutes
this blasphemuus explanatiun of His cures (vera. 17-19) ; He givea their true explana
tinn (vers. 20-36).
Vers. 17-19. ' ' But He, knowing their thoughts, said unto them : Every kingdnm
dirided against itself ia brought tn desulatinn ; and nne huuse falls upun anuther.
18. If Satan alsn be divided against himself, hnw shall his kingdnm stand ? becauae
ye say that I caat nut devils through Beelzebub. 19. And if I by Beelzebub cast uut
devils, by whum du yuur snns cast them nut? therefnre shall they be yuur judges."
Iri vers. 17 and 18 Jesua appeals tn the cummnn-aenae nf His hearers ; it is far frnm
natural tn suppnse that the devU wnuld fight against himselt. It is true, it might be
rejuined that Satan drove nut his underlings, the better to accredit Him as his Mes
siah. Jesds does not seem tn have referred tn thia ubjectinn. In any caae, the
sequel wnuld anawer it ; the devil can remnve the diabulical spirit, but nnt replace
it by the Hnly Spirit. Aiavoypara, their thoughta, denutea the wicked anurce cnncealed
behind such wnrds (vers. 15 and 16). The wA-ds, ' ' And nne hnuse falls upnn
annther," appear to be in Luke the develupment nf the ipypovrai, ia brought to desola
tion : the ruin uf famUies, aa a cnnsequence nf civil discurd. In Matthew and Mark
they evidently include a new example, parallel tn the pijiceding une„ This senae is
also admissible in Luke, if we make the ubject inl oIkov depend, nut un ninrei, but

322 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
on diapepiaBeii .... " And likewiae a hnuse divided against a hnuse faUs." The
e'i di Kui, ver. 18, here aignifiea, and entirely so if . ... In the appendix, becauae
ye aay, there is revealed a deep feeling nf iudignatinn. This emphatic furm recalls
that nf Mark (3 : 30) : " Because they said, He halh an unclean spirit." The twn
analngnus terma nf expreaainn had becume fixed in the traditinn (cump. 5 : 34 and
parall. ; aee alau nn 13 : 18) ; but their furm ia aufflciently different tu prnve that the
une evangelist did nnt cupy frnm the other.
By this firat reply Jesua haa simply enlisted cummnn-sense nn His side. He nnw
thrusts deeper the keen edge nf His lugic, ver. 19. If the accusatinn raised againat
Him ia well-fuunded. His adveraaries must impute tu many nf the suns of Israel the
same cumpact with Satan. We knnw frum the N. T. and Jnsephua, that there were
at that time numeruua Jewiah exurcists whu made a business uf driving nut devila
fur muney (Acts 19:13: "Certain nf the vagabend . Jewa, exurciata . . ."
Cump. Juaephua, Antiq. 8 : 3. 5).* The Talmud alau apeaka nf thnae exurcists, whu
tnnk David, healing Saul by hia Sungs, as their patron, and Sulnmnn as the inventnr
nf their incantatiuns : " They take runts, fumigate tbe patient, administer tn him a
decnctinn, and the apirit vaniahea" (Tauch. f. 70, 1). Such are the persuns whnm
Jesua deaignated by the expreaainn, your aona. Several Fathera have thuught that
He meant Hia nwn apuatles, -whn also wrought like cures ; but the argument wnuld
have had nu value with Jews, fnr they wnuld nnt have hesitated tn apply tn the curea
wrought by the diaciples the explanatiun with which they had juat atigmatized
these of the Master. De Wette, Meyer, and Neander give te the word sons the mean-
, ing which it haa in the expreaaion sons of the prophets, that of diaciplea. But ia it
proved that thoae exorciats studied in the Rabbinical schools ? Ia it net simpler to
explain the term your sons in this senae : '' You own countrymen— your flesh and
blood — whom you do not think ef repudiating, but from whom, on the contrary, you
take glory when they perform wnrks nf pnwer similar tn mine ; they dn nut wnrk
signs in the heavens, and yet ynu du nut suspect their cures. They ahall cunfuund
ynu therefure befure the divine tribunal, by cnnvicting ynu nf having applied tn me
a judgment which ynu ahnuld with much strnnger reasnn have applied tn them.*'
In reality, what a cnntrast was there between the free and npen strife which Jesua
maintained with tbe malignant spirita whum He expelled, and the auspiciuus manipu-
latiuns in which thnse exurcists indulged ! betweeu the entire physical and mnral
resturatiun which His wnrd brought tn the sick whn were healed by Him, and the
* " I have seen nne nf my cnuntrymen, named Eleazar, whn in the presence et
Vespasian and his aona, captaina and aoldiers, delivered persona poaseaaed with
devila. The manner of hia cure was this : Bringing close to the nostrUs ef the pos
sessed man hia ring, under the bezel of which there waa inclosed one uf tbe runts pre
scribed by Sulnmnn, he made him smell it, and thua gradually he drew nut the
demun thruugh the nustrils. The man then fell un the grnund, and tbe exurciat cum
manded the demun tn return intn bim nu mure, uttering all the while the name nf
Snlninnn, and reciting the incantatinna which he curapnaed. Wiahiug tn cunvince
the byatandera uf the puwer which he exercised, and tu demunstrate it tn them,
Eleazar placed a little way nff a cup ur basin full uf water, and cummanded the
demun tn nverturn it as he went nu# uf the man, and thereby tn furnish prunf tn the
spectaturs that be had really quitted him. That having taken place, the knnwl
edge and wisdum nf Snlumnn were evident tn all." Cnmp. " Bell. Jud.," vii. 6. 3,
where the magical runt mentinned, a snrt nf rue {nyyavov), ia called Baara, frnm the
name nf the vaUey where it waa gathered with inflnite trouble, near the furtress nf
Machserus.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 323
half cures, generally fnUnwed by relapses, which they wrought ! Tn ascribe the
imperfect cures tu Gnd, and tu refer the perfect cures te the devil — what logic !
Vers. 30-36. After having by this new argumentum ad hominem refuted the sup
pesition ef His adveraaries, Jeaua givea the true explanation of His cures by contrast
ing the picture of one nf thnse expulainns which He wnrks (vers. 30-33) with that ef
a cure performed by the exorcists (vers. 33-36).
Vers. 30-33. " But it I with the finger of God caat out devils, no doubt the king
dom of God la come upon you. 31. When a strong man armed keepeth hia palace,
his goods are in peace. 33. But when a stronger than he ahall come upon hira'and
overcome him, he taketh from him all his armur wherein he trusted, and divideth
his spuils." Ver. 30 draws the cnnclusinn {di, now ; dpa, then) frnm the preceding
argumenta, and fnrms the transitinn tn the twn fnllnwing scenes. In this declaratinn
there is betrayed intense indignatinn : " Let them take heed ! The kingduni uf Gud,
fur which they are waiting, is already there withnut their suspecting it ; and it is upnn
it that their blasphemies fall. They imagine that it will cume with nuise aud tumult ;
and it has cnme mnre quickly than they thnught, and far ntherwise it has reached
them {e^Baaev). The cunstructinn 'ecji' ipdS, upon you, has 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 term finger of God is admirably in keeping with the
cnntext : the arm ia the natural aeat and emblem nf atrength ; and the finger, the
smallest part nf the arm, is the symbul uf tbe ease with which this puwer acts. Jesus
means, " Aa fur me, I have unly tn lift my finger tn make the devils leave their
prey." Theae victuries, sn eaaily wun, prnve that hencefnrth Satan has fnund hia
cunquernr, and that nnw Gnd begins really tu reign. This wnrd, full nf majesty,
unveils tn His adveraariea the grandeur of the wnrk which ia gning furward, and
what tragic' resulta are invnlved in the hnstile attitude whicb they are taking tnward
it. Instead nf by the finger of God, Matthew says by ihe Spirit of God ; aud Weiz
sacker, always in favur u^ the hypnthesis nf a common document, supposes that
Luke has deaignedly replaced it by another, because it seemed tn jiut Jeaua in
dependence nn the Holy Spirit. What may a man not prove with auch criticism ?
Is it net aimpler, with Bleek, te regard the figurative term ef Luke aa the original
form in the saying of Jeaus, which haa been replaced by tha abatract but radically
equivalent expreaaion ef Matthew ? Mark omits the two verses 19 and 20. Why
would he have done so, if he had had before his eyes the same dncument as the
ethers ? ,
Vers. 31 and 33 serve tn illustrate the thnught nf ver. 30 : the citadel nf Satan is
plundered ; the fact pruves that Satan ia vanquiahed, and that the kingdnm nf Gnd is
cume. A strung and vrell-armed warrier watches at the gate uf his furtress. Su
lung as he is in thia pnsitiun {otuv), all is tranquil {iv e'lpyvy) in his fastness ; his cap
tives remain chained, and hia buuty {aKvXa) is secure. The warrinr is Satan (the art.
d alludes tn a single and definite persunality) ; his castle is the wurld, which up till
nnw has been hia cnnfirmed property. Hia armer cnnaists uf thnae puwerful meana
nf influence which he wielda. His bnnty is, first nf all, accnrding tn the cnntext,
thnse pnssessed nnea, the palpable mnnuments nf his sway nver humanity ; and in a
wider sense, that humanity itaelf, which with mirth nr grnana beara the chaina uf
ain. But a warrinr superiur in strength haa appeared nn the wnrld'a stage ; and
frum that mnment all is changed. ''Endv, from the- time that, denntes the abrupt and
decisive character nf this succession to. power, in nppnsitinn to irav, aa long aa, which

324 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
suited the perind nf security. This atrnnger man is Jesus (the art. 6 also aUudes to
Hia definite perannality). He alnne can really plunder the citadel nf the prince uf
this wnrld. Why ? Because He alnne began by cenquering him in single cumbat.
This victnry in a persunal engagement was the preliminary cnnditinn nf His taking
pnsaessinn nf tbe earth. It cannnt be duubted that, as Keim and Weizsacker ac-
knuwledge, Jeaua is here thinking nf the scene uf His temptatinn. That spiritual tri
umph is the fnundatinn laid fnr the establishment nf the kingdnm nf Gud nn the
earth, and fur the deatructinn uf that nf Satau. Aa sunn as a man can tell the prince
cf this wnrld tn his face, " Thnu hast nnthing in me" (Juhn 14 : 30), the strnnger
man, the vanquisher of the strung man, ia cnme ; and the plundering nf hia huuse be
gins. This plundering cnnsista, flrst uf all, nf the healings nf the pnaaeased wrought by
.Teaus. Thua ia explained the ease with which He perfurms thuse acts by which He
rescues thnae unhappy nnea from malignant puwera, and restures them tu Gnd, In
themselves, and tu huraan snciety. All the figures nf this scene are evidently bur
rnwed from Isa. 49 : 34, 35, where Jehnvah Himself fills the part nf liberatnr, which
Jesua here aacribes tn Himaelf.
Vera. 33-36.* " He that is nnt with me is against me ; and he that gathereth nnt
with me scattereth. 34. When the unclean spirit is gune nut of a man, he walketh
thrnugh dry places, seeking rest ; and finding nnne, he saith, I will return untn my
hnuae whence I came uut. 35. And when he cnmeth, he findeth it swept and gar
nished. 36. Then gneth he, and taketh tu him seven uther spirits mnre wicked than
himaelf ; and they enter in, and dwell there : and the laat atate uf that man is wurse
than the flrat." The relatiun between ver. 33 and the versea which precede and fnl
luw has been thnught an nbscure by De Wette and Bleek that they give up the at
tempt te explain it. In itself the flgure ia clear. It ia that ef a troop which has
been dispersed by a victorious enemy, and which its captain seeks to rally, after hav
ing put the enemy to fiight ; but false allies hinder rather than promote the rallying.
Is it so difflcult tn underatand the cunnectiun of this figure with the context? The
dispersed army denotes humanity, which Satan has conquered ; the chief who ralUes
it is Jesus ; the seeming aUies, who have the appearance uf fighting fnr the same
cause as He dnes, but whn in reality scatter abroad with Satan, are the exurciata.
Nut having cunquered fur themaelves the chief nf the kingdum nf darkneaa, it ia nnly
in appearance that they can drive cut his underlings ; in reality, they serve nu end by
these alleged explnita, except tn atrengthen the previuua atate nf things, and tu keep
up the reign uf the ancient master nf the wnrld. Such is tbe nbjeet which the fnl
lnwing Ulustratinn gnes tn pruve. By the thrice-repeated ipav, me, nf ver. 33, there
is brought intu reiiet the decisive impurtance ef the part which Jesus plays in the
history ef humanity ; He is the impersonation nf the kingdum uf Gnd ; His appear
ance ia the advent uf a new pnwer. The wnrds aKopni^Eiv, to diaperse, and awdyeiv,
io gather together, are fnund united in the same sense as here, Jnhn 10 : 13-16.
The twn fnllnwing veraea serve tn illustrate the aaying nf ver. 33, as vers. 31 and
33 Ulustrated the declaratinn nt ver. 30. They are a snrt nf apnlogue pnetically de
scribing a cure wruught by the means which the exurcists emplny, aud the end uf
which is tu ahuw, that tn cnmbat Satan apart frnm Christ, his snle cunquernr, ia to
wurk fur him and against Gnd ; cump. the nppusite case, 9 : 49, 50. The exurcist
* Ver. 34. !*°. B. L. X. Z. snme Mnn. It""'!, read tote after EvpwKov. The mss.
are divided between EvpioKov and evpiaxov, and at ver. 25 between eXBov and eXdav.
Ver. 35- !S". 13. C. L. R. r. 13 Mun. It»"». read axoXa^ovra after evpioKei (taken from
Matthew). Ver. 36. The mss, are divided between eiaeXdovra and eXBovra.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 325
has plied his art j the impm-e spirit has let gu his prey, quitted his dwelling, which
\ fur the time has beceme intnlerable tu him. Bnt twn thinga are wanting tu the cure
\tn make it real and durable. First nf all, the enemy "has nnt been cunquered,
^buund ; he has unly been expeUed, and he is free tn take his cuurse nf the wurid,
perhaps tn return. Jesus, nn the nther hand, sent the malignant spirits tu their
i)risnn, the abyss whence they cnuld nu lunger cnme fnrth tiU the judgment (8 : 31,
4 : 34). Then the huuse vacated ia nnt nccupied by a new tenant, whn can bar the
eptrance nf it against the nld une. Jesus, nn the cnntrary, dnes nnt cuntent Himself
with expelling the demun ; He brmgs back the snul tu ita Gud ; He replaces the un
clean apirit by the Hnly Spirit. Aa a relapae after a cure nf this snrt is impnssible,
an ia it prnbable and imminent in the fnrmer caae. Every line nf the picture in
which Jesua representa this state uf things ia charged with irony. The spirit driven
out walks through dry places. Thia strange expressiun was probably burrowed frnm
the fnrraulaa uf exurcisra. The apirit waa relegated tu the deaert, the presumed
abode nf evil spirits (Tub. 8:3; Baruch 4 : 35). The reference was the aame in
the symbnUcal aending nf the gnat intn the wUderness fnr Azazel, the prince cf the
derila. But the malignant apirit, after roaming fnr a time, begins tn regret the luss uf his
uld abude ; would it nut! be, well, he asks hiraself, tn returu tn it ? He is su sure that
he needs nnly tn will it, that he exclaims with sarcastic gayety : I will retum unto my
house. At bottom he knowa very well that he haa uot ceaaed tu be the prnprietur uf
it ; a prnprietur ia unly dispussesaed in an far aa he ia replaced. Firat he determines
tu recunnnitre. Having cnme, he finda that the huuae ia diapusable {axoXd^ovra,
Matt.). He finds what is better atiU : the exurciat has wnrked with sn much success,
that the house has recnvered a mnst agreeable air nf propriety, nrder, and cnrafurt
aince his departure. Far, therefnre, frnm being clnsed againat the malignant spirit,
it ia unly better prepared tu receive him. Jeaus means thereby tn describe the reatn-
ratinn nf the physical and mental powers conferred by the half cures which He is
stigmatizing. Anew there ia a famous work of destruction to be accomplished —
Satan cares fur nn uther — but this time it is nnt tu be dune by halves. And therefure
there is need fnr reinfurcement. Besidea, it is a featival ; there is need nf friends.
The evil apirit gnes nff tn seek a number uf cumpaninns sufflcient tu finish the wurk
which had been interrupted. These du nut require a secund bidding, and the merry
crew throw themaelvea into their dwelling. This time, we may be sure, nnthing will
be wanting to the phyaical, intellectual, and mural destructinn uf the pnssessed.
Such was the state in which Jesus had fnund the Gergeaene demnniac (8 : 39), and
prnbably alsn Mary Magdalene (8 : 3). Thia explaina in thnse twu cases the wurds
Legion (8 : 30) and aeven devils (8 : 3), which are beth symbolical expresaions for a dea-
perate state rpsulting from one or more relapses. Nothing is clearer than this con
text, er more striking than this scene, in which it ia impoaaible for ua te dialinguish
fully between what belonga te the idea and what to the figure. Thus has Jesus suc
ceeded in retorting upuu the exurcists, sn highly extolled by His adversaries, the
reproach ef being auxiliaries of Satan, which they had dared to cast on Him. Need
. wc wonder at the enthusiasm which this discourse excited in the multitude, and at
the exclamatiun uf the wuman, in which thia feeling nf admiratiun finds utterance ?
3d;. Vers. 37, 38.* The Incident.—" And it came tu pass, as He spake these things,
* Ver. 38. The mss. are divided between pevovvye (T. R.) anrl uevovv (Alex.).
8 Mjj. 15 Mnn. It. nmit avrov after (jivXaaaovres.

336 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
a certain wnman uf the cumpany lifted up her vnice, and aaid untu Him, Blessed is
the wnmb that bare Thee, and the papa which Thnu haat aucked. 38. But He said,|
Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word nf Gnd, and keep it." Perhaps, like
Mary Magdalene, thia wnman had heraelf experienced the twn kinds nf healing which
Jeaua had been cuntrasting. In any case, living in a snciety -where sceues nf the kind
were pasaing frequently, she had nnt felt the same difficulty in apprehending the fig
ures as we, tn whnm they are sn atrange. Jeaua in His anawer neither denies nor
affirms the blessedness nf her whu gave Him birth. All depends en this, if ahe ahall
take rank in the class uf thnse whum alnne He declarea tn be bleaaed. The true
reading appears tn be pevovvye, pevovv. " There is undnubtedly a blessednesa ;" ye
(the reatricting particle aa always) :" at least fnr thuse whn . . ,"
Dnes nut this shnrt accnunt bear in itself the seal nf its histnrical reality ? It ia
altngether peculiar tu Luke, and suffices tu demunstrate the uriginality uf the snurce
from which this whnle piece waa derived. Fer thia incident could not poaaibly stand
as a narrative by itaelf ; il must have furmed part nf the accnunt uf the entire scene.
The allegnrical tableau, ver. 24 ei seq., iaaetby Matthew in an altngether different
place, and an aa tn give it a quite different appUcatinn (13 : 43 ct seq.). The wnrds
with which it cluaea, " Even sn shall it be alsn untn thia wicked generatinn," prove
that it is applied in that Gespel te the Jewiah people taken collectively. The old
form ef poaaeaainn waa the apirit nf idnlatry ; that nf the preaent, seven times worse,
ia the Rabbinical pride, the phariaaic formalism and hypocrisy, which have dominion
over the natinu in the midat nf ita munntheiatic zeal. The stroke which will fall
upun it will be seven times mure terrible than that with which it waa visited when it
was led intn captivity in Jeremiah's day. This application ia certainly grand and
felicitoua. But it forces us entirely tu separate this scene, vers. 34-36, as the first
Gnspel dnea, frnm the preceding, vers. 21, 22, which in Matthew as well as in Luke
can nnly refer tn the healing nf cases cf pussessinn ; and yet thnse twu scenes are in
disputably the pendants nf nne anuther. Geas underatanda the application of this
word in Matthew to the Jewiah people in a wholly different sense. The first cure,
according to him, was the enthusiastic impulse of the people in favnr nf Jesus in the
beginning uf His Galilean ministry ; the relapae referred tn the cnldneaa which had
fnllnwed, and which had nbliged Jeaua tn teach in parablea. But nnwhere does
Jesus make su marked an aUusinn tu that crisis, tn which prnbably the cnnscience ot
the penple waa nnt awakened. Wnuld it nnt be better in thia case tn apply the first
cure tn the puwerful effect produced by Juhn the Baptist ? " Ye were willing fnr a
seasnn," says Jesus Himselt, " tu rejnice in his light " (Jnhn 5 : 35). Anyhnw, what
leads Matthew tn cnnvert the secnnd acene intn a natinnal apulugue, instead uf leav
ing it wilh its demnnnlngical and individual applicatiun, is hia iiisertinn, immediately
befnre, nf the saying which relatea tu blasphemy against the Hnly Spirit — a aaying ,
which in Mark alsu fnlluws the acene nf the cnmbat between the strung man and the
atrnnger man. When, after su grave an utterance, Matthew returns tn the scene
(nmitled by Mark) nt the spirit recnvering pnsseaainn uf hia abanduned dwelling, he
muat necessarily give it a different bearing from that which it has in Luke. The
superiurity ef Luke'a accuunt cannnt appear duubtful tn the reader whn haa caught
the admirable cunnectinn nt thia discuurse, and the striking meaning nf all the fig
ures which Jeaus uses tn cnmpnae thuse twn scenes. As tu the true ¦pnsitiun uf the
saying abuut the blasphemy against the Huly Spirit, the questiun wUl be discussed
chap. 12.
4:th. Vers. 39-36. 27(6 Second Diacourse. — This is the answer nf Jeaus tn the de
mand which was addressed tn Him tp wnrk a miracle proceeding from heaven (ver.
16). Strauss dnes nnt think that Jesus cnuld have reverted tn su secundary a ques
tinn after the extremely grave charge with which -He had been aaaaUed. We have
already pninted nut the relatinn which exists between thnse twn subjects. The ipir-
acle proceeding from heaven was clairaed frnm .Tesus aa the cmly means He had of

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 327
cle&ring Himself from the suspicion of compUcity with Satan. In the first part of
His reply, Jesus speaks of the only sign nf the kind which shall be granted tn the
natinn (vera. 39-33) ; in the secund, nf the entire sufflciency nf thia sign in the case uf
every nne whu has the eye uf his snul upen tn behnld it (vers. 33-36).
Vers. 39-33.* The Sign from Heaven. — " And when the peuple thronged tngether.
He began tn aay, Thia is an evil generatinn : they seek a sign ; and there shall nn sign
be given it, but the sign nf Junas. 30. Fur aa Junas waa a sign untu the Ninevites,
su shall alsu the Sun uf man be tn this generatinn. 31. The queen nf the snuth shall
rise up in the judgment with the men nf this generatinn, and cundemn them : fnr
she came from the utmust parts uf the earth tn hear the wisdum uf Snlumnn ; and,
behnld, a greater than Snlumnn is here. 33. The men nf Nineveh shall rise up iu the
judgment with this generatinn, and shall cundemn it : fur they repented at the
preaching uf Junas ; and, beheld, a greater than Junas is here. ' ' During the pre
vinus scene, a cruwd, grovring mure and mure numeruua, had gathered ; and it is
before it than Jesus gives the fnllnwing testimony against the national unbelief. In
the novypd, wicked, there is an allusion to the diabolical spirit which had dictated the
call for a sign {neipdZavreS, ver. 16). The puint uf comparisun between Junas and
Jesus, accnrding In Luke, appears at first sight tn be uidy the fact uf their preaching,
while in Matt. 12 : 39, 40 it ia eridently the miraculuus deliverance nf the one and the
resurrection ef the other. M. Colani concludea from this difference that Matthew
haa materiaUzed the comparison which Jesus gave fnrth in a purely mnral sense
(Luke), f But it must nnt be furgntten that Jeaua saya in Luke, as well as in Matthew :
" The ^onoi man shall be {earai) a sign," by which He cannot denqte His present
preaching and appearance, the Put. necessarily referring tn an event yet tn cume —
an event which can be nu uther than the entirely exceptiunal miracle nf His resurrec
tinn. They ask nf Jesus a sign £{ oipavov, proceeding from lieaven, ver. 16. His res
urrectinn, in which nn human agency intervenes, and in which divine puwer appears
alnne, fully satisfies, and nnly satisfies, this demand. This is the feature which
Peter asserts in Acts 3 : 24, 33, 3 : 15, etc. : " God hath raised up Jesus." In Jnhn
3 : 19, Jesus replies tu a aimilar demand by annuimcing the same event. The thnught
in Luke and Matthew is therefere exactly the same: "It was as .one who had mi
raculously 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 my messengers) shall proclaim salvation to the men uf this generation."
Which of the twu texts is it which reproduces tbe answer nt uur Lnrd mnst exactly ?
But nur passage may be paraUel with Matt. 16 : 4, where the fnrm is that nf Luke.
As to the wnrds nf Matt. 13 : 39, 40, they must be authentic. Nu nne wuuld have
put intn the muuth uf Jesus the expresainn three days and three nights, when Jesus
had actuaUy remained iu the tnmb nnly nne day and twn nighta.
But huw shall this sign, and this preaching which will accnmpany it, be received ?
It is tn this new thnught that vers. 31 and 33 refer. Of the twu examples which
Jesua quntes, Matthew puts that nf the Ninevites first, that uf the Queen ef Sheba
secund. Luke reverses the nrder. Here again it is easy tn perceive the superiurity
nf Luke's text. 1. Matthew's urder has been determined by the natural tendency tn
* Ver. 39. 5 Mjj. repeat yevsa after avry, read ^vtei instead nf eni^yrei, and nmit the
wnrds rov npofyrwi (taken frum Matthew). Ver. 33. 13 Mjj. 80 Mun. Syr'"'". It. read
^ivevEirai inatead nf Nivevi.
X " Jeaus Chriat et les crnyances Messianiques, " etc., p. 111.

328 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
bring the example of the Ninevites into immediate proximity with what Jesus has been :
aaying nf Junas. 2. Luke's order presents an admirable gradatinn : whUe the wis
dum nf Sulnmnn sufficed tn attract the Queen nf Sheba frnm such a distance, Israel
demands that tn the infinitely higher wisdum nf Jesus there shnuld be added a sign
frnm heaven. This is serinus ennugh. But matters will be atill wnrae : while the
heathen uf Nineveh were cunverted by the vuice nf Junaa eacaped frum death, larael
at the eight nf Jesus raised frnm the dead, shall nnt be cunverted. Cnmp. as tn the
Queen ef the Snuth, 1 Kinga 10 -.1 et aeq. Seba aeema tn haVe been a part nf Arabia-
Felix, the mudern Yemen. 'EyepByaerai, ahall rise up frum her tnmb nn the day ot
the great awakening, at the same time aa the Jews {perd, with, nnt against), sn that the ;
blindness nf the latter shall appear in full light, cnntrasted with the earnestness and
dncility cf the heathen queen. The wnrd dvdpuv, "tbe men nf this generatiun,"
certainly indicates a cuntrast with her female sex. Indeed, this term dvdpeS, men,
dues nnt reappear in the fnllnwing example, where this generation is nnt cumpared
with a wuman. Perhaps the chnice nf the flrst instance was suggested tn Jeaus by
the incident which had juat taken place, vera. 27, 28. The wnrd 'avaaryaovrai, ver.
33, sliall riae up, denutea a mnre advanced degree nf life than eyEpByaovrai {ahall
awake).. Theae dead are nnt rising frum their tumbs, like tbe Queen nf Sheba ; they|
are already in their place befnre the tribunal as accusing witneaaes. Hnw dramatic
is everything in the speech nf Jeaus 1 and what variety is there in the smallest details
nf His deacriptinns 1 '
Vera. 33-36.* The Spiritual Bye. — " Nn man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth,
it in a secret place, neither under the bushel, but nn the candleatick, that they which
cnme in may see the light. 34. The light nf the bndy ia the eye : therefure when
thine eye ia single, thy whnle bndy alau is full nf light ; but when thine eye is evil,'
thy whule bndy is full nf darkness. 35. Take heed, therefnre, that the light which is
in thee be nnt darkneas. 36. If thy whnle bndy, therefure, be full nf light, havingi
nn part dark, the whnle ahall be full nf light, as when the bright shining nf a candle
duth give thee light." Chriat — such is tbe sign from heaven whnse light Gud will
diffuse nver tbe wurld. He ia the lamp which gives Ught tu the hnuse. ' Gud has
nnt lighted it tu aUu.w it tn be banished te an obscure corner ; He will put it oh a
candlestick, that it may shine before the eyes ef aU ; and thia He will dn by means
uf the reaurrectinn. Kpvnryv, a place uut uf view, under a bed, e.g. (8 : 16). T5ii
pddiov, nnt a buahel, but the buahel ; there ia but nne in the hnuse, which serves in
tum as a measure, a dish, nr a lantern.f But it is with this sign in relatinn tu uur
snul, as with a lamp relatively to our bndy, ver. 34. Tn the light which shines with
nut there must be a curresponding urgan in the individual fltted tu receive it, and
which is thus, as it were, the lamp within. On the . state uf this nrgan depends the
mnre ur less nf light which we receive frnm the external luminary, and which we
actuaUy enjuy. In the budy this nrgan, which by means nf the external light forms
the light nf the whnle bndy, the hand, the fnut, etc., ia the eye ; everything, there-
* Ver. 33. ». B. C. D. U. T, aeveral Mnn. Syr. It'"?, nmit de after ovdeig, Inatead')
nf Kpf irroj', which the T. R. reads, with snme Mun., all the nther documents read
Kpvnryv. The MSS. are divided between to <peyyoS (T. R.) and to <pus (Alex.), which
appeara tn be taken frnm 8 : 16. Ver. 34. 6 Alex, add cov after oijiBaXpos (the- first).
8. B. D. L. A. It. Vg. nmit ovv after orav. K. L. M. X. II. anme Mnn. It""?., earM
instead uf sanv. K. M. U. X. n. 50 Mnu. ltpi«"4i>e, add sarai after okoteivov. 'Ver.'
36. D. Syr"". ltpi»"i"», urait this verse.
X M. F. Buvet, " Vnyage en Terre-Sainte," p. 313.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 339
fore, depends on the state of this organ. Fer the soul it is— Jesus does not say what,
He leaves us to guess^the heart, Kapdla ; comp. Matt. 6 : 31 and 33. The understand
ing, the wUl, the whole spnitual being, is illuminated by the divine light which the
heart admita. With every motion in the way of righteousness there is a discharge of
light over the whole soul. 'AnXovS, single, and hence in this place — which is in its
original, normal state ; novypds, cori'upied, and hence diseased, in the meaning of the
phrase novypdis exeiv, to be ill. If the Jews were right in heart, they would see the
divine sign put befnre their eyea as eaaily aa the Queen uf the Snuth aud the Nine-
vitea perceived the leas brilliant sign placed befure them ; but their heart ia perverae :
that urgan is diseased ; and hence the aign shines, and wiU shine, in vain befnre their
view. The light withnut will nnt becnme light in tliem.
Ver. 35. It ia supremely impnrtant, therefnre, fnr every nne tn watch with the
greatest care nver the' state uf this precinua nrgan. If the eye ia nut enlightened,
what meniber uf the bndy wUl be an ? The fnut and hand will act in the darknesa uf
night. Sn with the faculties uf the snul when the heart is perverted frum gund.
Ver. 36. But what a cnntrast tu this cnndi1;inn is fnrmed by that uf a being whn upens
his heart fully tn the truth, his spiritual %ye te the brightness ef the lamp which has
been lighted by God Himaelf 1 To avoid the tautology which the two members of
the verse seem to present, we need nnly put the emphasis differently in the twu prup-
ositiuna ; in tbe firat un dXov, whole ; and in the secund un ^oreivdv, full of light,
cnnnecting this wnrd immediately with the fnllnwing as ita cnmmentary : full of light
as when . . . The very pnsitiun nf the wnrds fnrbida any nther grammatical ex
planatinn ; and it leads us tn this meaning : " When, through the fact cf the clear
ness uf thme eye, thy whule budy shall be penetrated with light, withnut there being
in thee the leaat trace nf darkness, then the phennmenun which will be wruught in
thee will resemble what takes place un thy bndy when it is placed in the rays nf a
luminnus fucus. " Jesua means, that frum the inward part nf a perfectly sanctified
man there raya f erth a splendnr which glnrifiea the external man, aa when he ia shune
upun from withnut. It ia glury aa the reault of hnliness. The phennmenun described
here by Jeaua is nc uther than that which waa realized in Himaelf un the uccaainn uf
Hia tranafiguratinn, and which He nnw appliea tu all believers. Paaaagea auch aa 3
Cer. 3 : 18 and Rom. 8 : 39 will always be the beat cnmmentary nn thia aublime dec
laratinn, which Luke alune has preserved tu us, and which furma su perfect a cunclu
siun tn this discuurse.
Bleek having missed the meaning nf this saying, and uf the piece generally,
accuses Luke ut having placed it here withnut ground, and prefers the setting which
it haa in Matthew, in the middle nf the Sermun un the Muunt, immediately after the
maxim : " 'Where ynur treasure is, there wiU ynur heart be alsu. " Undnubtedly this
cuntext nf Matthew proves, as we have recognized, that the eye ejE the soul, accord
ing to the view of Jesua, is the heart. But what disturbs the purity ef that organ is
not merely avarice, as would appear from the context of Matt. 6. It is sin in general,
perversity of heart hostile tn the light ; and thia mure general applicatien is precisely
that which we find in Luke. Thia pasaage haa been placed in the Sermon nn the
Muunt, like an many nthers, rather becauae nf the aaanciatinn uf ideaa than from hia-
turical reminiscence. The cuntext uf Luke, frnm 11 : 14 tn ver. 36, is withnut fault.
On the nne aide the accuaatiun and demand made by the enemies of Jesus, vers. 15,
16, nn the nther the enthusiastic exclamatiun uf the beUeving wuman, vers. 37, 38,
furnish Jesus with the starting-pnints fnr His twn cnntrasted descriptiuns— that uf
growing blindness which terminates in midnight darkness, and that nf gradual illutni-
nation which leads to perfect glory. We may, after this, estimate the justness of

330 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Ilcltzmann's judgment : "It is impoaaible to connect this passage about Ught, in a
simple and natural way, with the discourse respecting Jonas." r'
8. The Dinner at a Pharisee' a House : 11 : 37-13 : 13.— Agreeably te the connection
established by Luke himself (13 : 1), we join the two pieces 11 : 37^54 and 13 : 1-13
in one whule. Here, sn far aa Galilee is cnncerned, we have the culminating pnint
nf the atruggle between Jeaus and the pharisaic party. This period flnds its counter
part in Judea, in the scenes related John 8, 10. The background .uf the conflict
which nuw ensues is still the udinus accusatinn refuted in the previnus pasaage.
The actual aituatinn aasigned tn the repast is, accurding tn Hnltznianu, merely a fic
tinn, the idea nf which had been suggested tn Luke by the flgures uf vers. 39 and 40.
Is it nnt mure natural tn suppnse that the images cf vers. 39 and 40 were suggested
tn Jesus by the actual situatinn, which was that uf a repast ? It is true, a great many
uf the aayinga which cumpnse this discuurse are fnund placed by Matthe^ in a dif
ferent cunnectinn ; they fnrm part uf the great discuurse in which Jeaua d'ennunced
the divine maledictinn nn the scribes and Pharisees in the temple a few days before
Hia death (Matt. '33). But flrat it ia tn be remarked, that Hnltzmann givea aa Uttle
credit tn the place which thnae sayings nccupy in the cnmpnsitiun uf Matthew, as to
the " scenery" uf Luke. Then we have already fnund tun many examples uf the
pruceaa nf aggregatinn used inthe first Gnspel, tu have nur cunfidence ahaken thereby
in the narrative nf Luke. We ahall inquire, therefnre, with impartiality, as we pro
ceed, which nf the twu situatiuns ia that which best suits the wnrds nf Jesus.
This piece cnntains ; 1st. The rebukes addreaaed tu the Pharisees (vers. 37-44) ;
2d. Thnae addreaaed tu the scribes (vers. 45-54) ; Sd, The encnuragements given to
the disciples in face nf the animnsity tu which they are expused un the part nf thnse
enraged adveraariea (13 : 1-13).
1st. To the Pharisees: vers, 37-44.— Vers. 37 and 38.* Tlie Occasion,— This
Pharisee had probably been nne uf the hearers nf the previnus discuurse ; perhaps
tone uf the authnrs nf the accusatinn raiaed againat Jeaua. He had invited Jeaus along
with a certain number ef hia own colleagues (vers. 45 and 53), with the most malevo
lent intention. Thus ia explained the tone ef Jesua (ver 39, et seq.), which seme com
mentators have pronounced impolite (I). The reading ef aume Fathera and Vss,,
' ' He began to doubt (or te murmur, as diuKpivEoBai aometimes means in the LXX.),
and te say," is eridently a paraphrase. 'Apiarov, the merniug meal, as dElnvov, the
principal meal ef the day. The meaning of the expression EiaEXBi^v dvinEOEv is this :
He seated Himself without ceremony, as He was when He entered. The Pharisees
laid great atreaa nn the rite ef purification before meals (Mark 7 : 3-4 ; Matt. 15 ; 1-3) ;
and the Rabbins put the act of eating with unwashed hands in the sarae cate
gory as the ain of impurity. From the surprise ef His host, Jesus takes occasion to
stigmatize the false devotion ef the Pharisees ; He does net mince matters ; for after
what has just pasaed (ver. 15), war is openly declared. He denounces : lat The
hypocrisy nf the Pharisees (vers. 39-43) ; 2d. Their vainglurinus spirit (ver. 43 ; Sd.
The- evU influence which their false devutiun exerciaes nver the whnle penple ,
(ver. 44).
Vers. 39^3.-)- Their Hypocrisy.-" And the Lnrd said untu him, Nuw dn ye Phar-
* Ver. 38. Inatead nf idav eBavpaaev on, D. Syr"="'. ltpie''q"«, Vg. Tert. : yo^ara
diUKpivopevoS ev eavru Xeyeiv dian,
X Ver. 43. ^. B. L. 3 Mnn., napeivai instead nf a^ieva:.

COMMENTARY 01^ ST. LUKE. 331
«
isees make clean the uutside of the cup and the platter ; but ynur inward part is fidl
nf ravening and wickedness. 40. Ye fuels, did nnt He that made that which is with
out, make that which is within alau ? 41. Rather give alma uf auch thinga as are
withhi ; and, behnld, all things are clean unto yuu. 43. But wue untu ynu, Phari
sees 1 fur ye tithe mint and rue, and all manner nf herbs, and pass uver judgment
and the luve uf Gnd : these nught ye tu have dune, and nut tu leave the uther un-
dnne." God had appointed for His people certain washings, that they might culti
vate the sense of moral purity in His presence. And this is what the Pharisees have
brought the rite tn ; multiplying ita appUcationa at their pleaaure, they think them
aelvea excused thereby from the duty of heart puriflcatien. Was it poasible te go
more directly in opposition to the divine intention : to destroy the practice ef the
duty by their practicea, the end by the meana ? Meyer and Bleek translate vvv, 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 new ! There
you are, you Pharisees ! I take you in the act." If, in tbe second member ef tbe
verse, the term rd eaoBev, the inward pari, waa net aupplemented by ipuv, your
inward part, the most natural sense of the flrst member would be thua : " Ye make
clean the outaide nf the veasels in which ye serve up the repast tn ynur guests."
Bleek maintains this meaning fer the first prepusitinn, nutwithstanding the ipav in
the aecond, by joining this pron. to the two aubstantivea, dpnayys and navypias ; " But
the inaide [of the cups and plattera] ia full [of the products] uf your raveninga and
yoMr wickedness. " But 1. This cunnection of ipuv ia forced; 3. Ver. 40 dnea nut
admit nf this aense, fnr we must understand by Him wlio made both that which ia unili-
out and that which ia within, the putter whu made the plates, the geldsmith whn
fashinned the cups, which ia absurd. As in ver. 40 the <5 noiyaas. He that made, is
very evidently the Creatur, the inward part,' ver. 40 and ver. 39, can unly be that nf
man, the heart. We must therefnre alluw an eUipaia in ver. 39, such as frequently
uccurs in cumparisuns, and by which, fur the sake nf cnncisenesa, nne uf the twu
terms is suppressed in each member nf the cemparisun : " Like a hnst whu shnuld
aet befure his guests plates and cups perfectly cleansed uutside, [but full uf filth
inside], 39a, ye think tn please Gnd by presenting tn Him [ynur budies purified by
luatratiuns, but at the same time] yuur inward part full uf ravening and wickedneaa,
39J." The inwardpoH denutes the whnle mural side nf human life. 'Xpnayy, raven
ing — avarice carried nut in act ; novypia, wickedness — the inner cnrruptinn which is the
snurce uf it. Jesua aacends frum ain in act tn its first principle.
The apnatruphe, ye fools, ver. 40, ia then easUy underatund, aa weU as the argu
ment nn which it rests. Gud, whn made the bndy, raade the snul alsn ; the purifica
ticn uf the nne cannnt therefure, in His eyes, be a substitute fnr the nther. A well-
cleansed bndy wUl nnt render a pnlluted snul acceptable tu Him, any mnre than , a
brightly pnlished platter will render distasteful meat agreeable tn a guest ; fur God is
a apirit. This principle lays pbariaaism in the duat. Snme cummentatura have given
this verae anuther meaning, which Luther aeema tn adnpt : " The man whu has made
(pure) the uutside, has nnt thereby made (pure) the inside." But this meaning nf
noielv is inadmissible, and the oix heading the prnpnsitinn prnves that it is inte"rruga-
tive. .The meaning nf the parallel passage in Matt. 33 : 35, 36 is sumewhat different :
" The cnntents ef the cup and platter must be purified by fiUing them enly with
goods lawfully acquired ; in this way, the outside, should it even be indifferently
cleansed, wiU yet be aufflciently pure, " It is at bottom the same thought, but suffi-

332 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ciently modified in form, to prove that the change cannot be explained by the use of
nne and the same written snurce, but must arise from ural traditinn. Tn the rebuke
administered there succeeds the cnunsel, verl 41. We have translated n-^^v by rather.
The literal sensa, excepting, is thus explained : " All thuse absurdities swept away,
here is what alone remains." At first sight, this saying appears tn currespund with
the idea expreaaed in Matthew's text, rather than with the previnus saying in Luke,
Pur the expreasinn rd ivovra, that which is within, cannnt in this verse refer te the
inward part of man, but denntes undnubtedly the cnntents nf the cups and platters.
But it ia preciaely becauae rd ivovra, thai which ia within, is nut at all synnnymuua with
Eaudsv, the inward part, in the preceding cnntext, that Luke has emplnyed a different
expreasinn, Td ivovra, ihe contents nf the cupa and platters, denutes what remains in
thnae vesaela at the close uf the feast. The meaning is : " Du ynu wish, then, that
thnse meats and thnae wines shuuld nut be defiled, and shnuld nnt defile ynu ? Do not
think that it is enough fnr yuu carefuUy te wash your handa before eating ; there is a
surer meana : let aome poor man partake of them. It ia the apirit of love, O ye
Phariaeea, and not material luatralions, which will purify your banquets." KaJ 'idov,
and behold ; the result will be produced aaif by the magic. Ia it net selfishness which
is the real pollution in the eyes of God ? The dore, give, is opposed to dpnayy, raven
ing, ver. 39. This saying by no means includes the idea of the merit of works,
Could Jesus fall into pharisaism at the very moment when He was laying it in the
¦ dust ? Love, which gives value te the gift, excludes by its very nature that seeking
nf merit which is the essence nf pharisaism.
The dXXd, but, ver. 43, sets the cnnduct nf the Pharisees in uppnaitiun tn that
which haa been described ver. 41, in nrder tn cundemn them by a new cnntrast ; still,
hnwever, it is the antithesis between nbservances and mnral nbedience. Evety
Israelite was required tu pay the, tithe nf his incurae (Lev. 37 : 30 ; Num. 18 : 21).,
The Phariseea had extended this cummand tn the smallest pruductiuns in their gar
dens, such as mint, rue, and herbs, nf which the law had said nnthing. Matthew
mentiuns nther plants, anise and cummin (23 : 33). Cnuld it be cunceived that the ¦
nne writer cuuld have made sn frivnlnus a change nn the text uf the nther, nr on a
cemraon document ? In opposition to those pitiful returns, which are their own
invention, Jeaus sets the fundamental obligatiuns irapnsed by the law, which they
neglect withnut scruple. KpiaiS, judgment : here the discernment nf what is just,
the gnud sense nt the heart, including justice and equity (Sirach 33 : 34). Matthew
adds iXeoS and nians, mercy and faiih, and emits the luve nf Gnd, which Luke gives.
The twu virtues indicated by the latter currespend tn the twn parts uf the summary'
uf the law. The muderatien and -wisdum nf Jesus are cunspicunus iu the last words
nf the verse ; He will iu nu wise break the nld legal muuld, provided it is nnt kept at
the expense nf ita cnntenta. .
Ver. 43.* 'Vainglory. — " Wue unto you, Phariaees I for ye love the uppermost
seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets." The uppermoat seats in the
synagogues were reaerved fer the doctera. Thia rebuke ia found more fully devel
oped, 30 : 45-47.
Ver. 44. Contagioua !nfiuence. — " Woe unto you, acribea and Phariseea, hypo
crites ! fer ye are aa graves which appear nut, and the men that walk over them are
* Ver. 43. S. B. C. L. seme Mnn. Syr"'. ItP'o'-ins, omit ypappareis Kai >iapiaai.oi
vTzoKpirai, which the T. R. here adds with the other ducuments (taken from Matthew),

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 333
nnt aware uf them." Jesus by this flgure describes the mural fact which He else.
where designates as the leaven of the Phariseea. Accurding tu Num. 19 : 16, tn tnuch
a grave rendered a man unclean fur eight days, as did the tnuch nf a dead bndy.
Nnthing more eaay, then, than for one to defile himself by touching with his foot a
grave en a level with the ground, without even suspecting its existence. Such is
contact with the Phariseea ; men think they have to do with aainta : they yield them
aelvea up to their influence, and become infected with their spirit of pride and hypoc
risy, against which they were net put on their guard. In Matthew (33 : 37), the same
figure receives a somewhat different applicatien. A man looka wilh complacency at
a sepulchre well built and whitened, and admires it. But when, on reflection, he
saya ¦ Within there is nothing save rottenness, what a different impression does he
experience ! Such is the feeling which results from observing the Phariseea. That
the two texts should be borrowed from the same document, er taken the one from
the other, is quite aa incunceivable aa it ia eaay to underatand how nral traditiun
shnuld have given tn the same flgure thuse twn diff'erent applications.
2d. To the Scribes : vera. 45-54» — A remark made by a scribe givea a new turn tn
the cunversatinn. The Pharisees were nnly a religinus party ; but the scribea, the
experts in the law, furmed a prufessinn strictly an called. They were the learned,
the wise, whn discuvered nice prescriptiuns in the law, such as that alluded tn in ver.
43, and gave them uver fnr the nbaervance uf their piuus disciplea. The scribes
played the part nf clerical guides. The majnrity nf them seem tn have helnnged tn
the Pharisaic party ; fnr we meet with nu uthers in the N. T. But their nfficial dig
nity gave them a higher place in the thencracy than that nf a mere party. Hence the
exclamatiun nf him whn here interrupts Jeaua : " Thus aaying, Theu repreacheat ua,
ua scribes alau," which evidently conatitutea in hia eyea a much graver offence than
that of reproaching the Phariaeea. In Hia anawer Jeaus upbraids them nn three
grounds, as He had dnne the Pharisees : 1st. Religinus intellectualism (ver. 46) ;
2d. Persecuting 'fanaticism (vers. 47-51); Sd. The pernicinus influence which they
exerciaed nn the reiigiuua atate nf the penple (ver. 53). Ver. 53 and 54 describe
the end nf the feast.
Vers. 45 and -46.* lAteraliam. — " Then anawered une uf the lawyera, and aaid untu
him, Maater, thua aaying thnu repruacheat ua alau. 46. And He aaid, Wne untn ynu
alau, ye lawyers ! fnr ye lade men with burdens grievnus tn be bnrne, and ye ynur
selves tnuch nut the burdens with une uf ynur fingers. " There seema tn be nn eaaen-
tial difference between the terma vopiKdi, vopodiddaKaXos, and ypappareis. See ver.
53 ; and cnmp. ver. 53 -with Matt. 33 : 13. Yet there must be a shade nf difference at
least between the wurds ; accnrding to the etymnlngy, vopiKoS denutea the expert, the
casuist, whn discusses duubtful cases, the Musaic jurist, as Meyer aaya ; vopodtdda-
Ka,Xo(, the dnctnr, the prufessur whu givea public cr private cuuraea uf Musaic law ;
ypapparevi wnuld include in general all thnse whu are nccupied with the Scripturea,
either in the way nf thenretical teaching cr practical applicatiun.
Our Lnrd anawers the scribe, as He had answered the Pharisee, in three aentences
nf cnndemnatinn. The firat rebuke is the cnunterpart nf that which He had ad
dressed in the first place tn the latter, tn wit, literaliam ; this is the twin brother ef
fnrmalism. The paid scribes were infinitely leaa respectable than the generality cf
* Ver. 46. G. M. snme Mnn. ltpi"-'<i"«, Vg., evi nu daKrvXo instead uf evi, tov
daKTvXuv.

334 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the Pharisees. As to those minute prescriptions which they discovered daily in the
law, and which they recummended tn the zeal uf devutees, they had small regard for
them in their nwn practice. They seemed tn imagine that, an far as they were cnn
cerned, the knuwing dispensed with the dning. Such is the procedure characterized
by Jesus in ver. 46i Cnnstantly drawing the heaviest burdens frnm the law, they
bind them nn the ahuulders uf the simple. But as tn themselves, they make nut. the
slightest effurt tn lift them.
Vers. 47-51.* Persecuting Orthodoxy. — " Wne untn ynu ! fnr ye build the sepul
chres uf the prophets, and ynur fathers kiUed them. 48. Truly ye are witnesses that
ye alluw the deeds nf ynur fathers : fnr they indeed kUled them, and ye build thetf
sepulchrea. 49. Therefnre alsu said the wisdum nf Gnd, I wiU send them prophets
and apuatles, and sume nf them they shall slay and peraecute : 50. That the bluud of
all the prophets, which waa ahed frum the fnundatinn uf the wnrld, may be required
nf this generatinn ; 51. Frnm the bluud nf Abel, untn the bluud uf Zacharias, which
periahed between the altar and the temple : verily I say untu ynu, it ahall be required,
nf this generatinn." Head religion ia almoat alwaya connected with hatred nf living
piety, nr spiritual reUginu, and readily becnmes persecuting. All travellers, and par
ticularly Rubinaun, mentinn the remarkable temba, called tumba nf the prophets,
which are aeen in the environs nf Jerusalem. It was perhaps at that time that the
Jews were busied with thnse structures ; they thnught thereby te make amends for
the injustice of their fathera. By a buld turn, which translates the external act into
a thuught nppnsed tu its nstenaible ubject, but in accurdance with its real spirit,
Jesus says tn them : " Yuur fathera kiUed ; ye bury ; therefure ye cuntinue and fin
ish their wurk." In the received reading, paprvpelre, ye bear witness, signifies:
"When ye bury, ye give testimuny tn the reality uf the blnndahed cnmmitted by
yuur fathers." But the Alex, reading paprvpis eare, ye are wiinesses, is undnubtedly
preferable. It includes an allusiun tn the nfficial part played by witnessea in the
puniahment nf sinning (Deut. 17 : 7 ; Acts 7 : 58). It ia remarkable that the two
terma paprvS witness, and awEvdoKelv, io approve, are alau fuund united in the descrip- ,
tiun nf Stephen's martyrdum. They aeem tu have had a technical aignificance.
Thus : " Ye take the part nf witnesses and cunsummaturs uf yuur fathers' crimes."
The reading nf the Alex., which nmit airiiv rd pvypela, their graves, at the end nf ver.
48, -has a fnrcible cunciseneaa. Unfurtunately thnse mss. with the T. R. read airov;!
after dneKreivav ; and this regimen ef the flrst verb appeara to settle that ef the aec
ond. In cunnectinn with the cnnduct nf the Jewa tuward their propheta, whnm they-
slew, and hunured immediately after their death, the saying haa been rightly quoted :
sit licet divus, dum/modo non vivus. The parallel paasage in Matthew (33 : 39-31) has a
rather different sense : "Ye say. If we had been in tbe days of our fathera, we
would not have been partakera with them in the blend nf the propheta ; Wherefore
ye witneaa againat yuuraelves, that j'e are the children nf them which killed the
prophets." The uneness uf sentiment is here proved, nnt by the act uf building the
tumbs, but by the wnrd children. The twn fnrms shuw such a difference, that they
onuld nut proceed from une and the aame dncuraeut. That nf Luke appeara every
way preferable. In Matthew, the relatinn between the wnrds put by Jesus into the
mouth ef the Jews, ver. 30, and the buUding of the tombs, ver. 39, is not clear.
* Ver. 47. !**. C, kui oi inatead ef oi de. Ver. 48. !*. B. L., paprvpeS eare instead
of paprvpeire (takeu from Matthew). !». B. D. L. 11""^. o.mit avrov rd pvypEia after
oiKodopeire. 'Ver. 49. Marcion omitted vers. 49-51.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 335
&id TOVTO Kai : " And becauae the matter is really so, notwithstanding appearancea
to the contrary, the wisdom of God hath aaid." What dees Jesus understand by the
wisdom of God 1 Ewald, Bleek, etc., think that Jesus is here quoting a loat book,
which aasigned this aaying to the wiadom ef God, or which itaelf bore thia title.
Bleek suppoaes that the quotation from this book does not go further than te the vai,
ver. 51 ; the diacourae of Jeaua is resumed at the worda. Verily 1 say unto you. But,
1. The discourses uf Jesus present nn nther example nf an extra-canunical quntatinn ;
3. The term apostle, in what fulluwa, seems tu betray the language nf Jeaua Himself ;
3. The thnught nf vers. 50 and 51 is tnn prnfnund and mysteriuua tu be ascribed te
any human source whatever. Accurding tu Meyer, we have indeed a saying nf Jesus
here ; but aa it was repeated in nral traditiun, it had becnme a habit, uut uf reverence
fnr Jesus, tn qunte it in this fnrm : The wisdom of God (Jeaus) said, I send . . .
Cump. Matt. 33 : 34 ; I send {eyib dnoaTsX!Xo). Thia furm uf quntatinn was mistakenly
regarded by Luke as furming part of the discourse of Jesus. But Luke has not
made us familiar thus far with such blunders ; and the did tovto, on account of this—.
which falls so admirably into the context of Luke, and which ia found identically in
Matthew, where it haa, ao te apeak, ne meaning (aa Holtzmann acknowledgea, p. 338)
— ia a striking proof in favur nf the exactness cf the dncument from which Luke
draws. Baur thinks that by the wnrd, the imadom of God, Luke means tn designate
the Guspel uf Matthew, itself already received in the Church as Gnd's wurd at the
time when Luke wrote. But it must flrst be proved that Luke knew and used the
Gnspel nf Matthew. Our exegesis at every step haa pruved the cnntrary ; beaidea,
we have nn example nf an apustuiical author having quoted the writing of one of his
colleagues with such a formula of quotation. Neander and Geas think that here we
have a mere parentheaia inaerted by Luke, in which ,he reminda us in paasing ef a
saying which Jesua in point of fact did net utter till later (Matt. 33). An interpola
tion ef thia kind is far from natural. The solitary instance which could possibly be
cited (Luke 7 : 39, 30) seema tn ua mure than duubtful.
Olshausen aaaerts that Jeaua intenda an aUuainn tn the wurda (3 Chrun. 34 : 19) :
" He sent prophets tn them, tu bring them again untn Him ; but they wnuld nut re
ceive them." But the cunnectiun between thnse twn sa.yings is very indirect. I
think there is a mnre satiafactnry aulutiun. The buuk uf the O. T. which in the
primitive Church aa weU aa among the Jews, in common with the books ot Jesus
Sirach and Wisdom, bnre the name nf ao^ia, nr wiadom of God, was that nf Proverbs.'"
Nnw here is the passage which we find in that buuk (1 : 30-31) : " Wiadnm uttereth
her vnice in the streets, and crieth in the chief places uf cunccurse . . . Behuld,
I will pnur nut my Spirit upun ynu (LXX., 'epys nvoys fnjaiv), and I will make knnwn
my wurds untn ynu . . . But ye have set at nnught all my cnunsel, and wnuld
nnne nf my reprnnf. Therefore I will laugh at yuur calamity, I will muck when
ynur fear cnmeth .^. . (and I shall say). Let them eat nf the fruit nf their
wurks !" This is the passage which Jesua seems tn me tn qunte. Fur the breath nf
His Spirit, whum Gnd promises to send tu His penple tn instruct and reprove them,
Jesus substitutes the liring nrgans uf the Spirit— His apnstles, the new prophets ;
then He applies tu the Jews ef the day (ver. 49&) the sin of obstinate .resistance pro
claimed in the same passage ; finaUy (vers. 5^ 51), He paraphrases the idea of final
* Clemens Rom., Irenseus, Hegesippus call it y navdperos aoi^la ; Melite (accnrd
ing to the reading ii Kai, (Eus. iv. 33, ed, Laemm.) ao(pia. See Wieaeler, " Stud, und
Kritik," 1856, ].

336 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
punishment, which closes this prophecy. Tho parallelism seems to us to be com
plete, and justifies in the moat natural manner the use of the term, the wisdom qf God.
By the wnrds propheta and apoatles Jesus cnntrasta this new race of the Sphit's
agents, which is tn cuntinue the wurk nf the uld, whh the men of the dead letter,
with thnse scribes whnm He is nnw addressing. The lut which lies befnre them at
the hands nf the latter wiU be precisely the same as the prophets had tn meet at the
hands nt their fathers ; thua tn the sin nf the fathers there will be justly added that
nf the children, until the measure be fuU. It is a law nf the Divine gnvernment,
-vsTiich cnntrnls the lut uf sncieties aa well aa that uf individuals, that Gud dnes not
current a develupment unce cnmmenced by premature judgment. While atill warn
ing the ainner. He leavea his sin tu ripen ; and at the appuinted huur He strikes, not
fnr the present wickedness nnly, but fur all which preceded. The ccntinunus unity
nf the sin nf the fathera invelves their descendants, whu, while able tn change their
cunduct, persevere and gn aU the length nf the way npened up by the furmer. This
cnntinuatinn nn the part nf the children includes an implicit assent, in virtue of
which they becnme accnmplicea, respunsible fur the entire develupment. A decided
breaking away frum the path fnllnwed was the unly thing which cuuld avaU tn rid
them nf this terrible implicatinn in the entire guilt. Accnrding tn this law it is that
Jesus sees cuming nn the Israel round abuut Him the whnle sturm uf wrath which
has gathered from the turrents uf innnce.nt blnnd shed aince the beginning uf the hu
man race. Cnmp.^ the twn threatenings nf St. Paul, which Innk like a cnmmentary
nn this passage (Rnm. 3 : 3-5 ; 1 Theaa. 3 : 15, 16).
Jeaua quntea the first and last examplea uf martyrdums mentinned in the canoni
cal hiatory of the eld covenant. Zachariaa, the aon nf the high priest Jehniada, ac
cnrding tn 3 Chrnn. 34 : 30, was sinned in the temple cuurt by nrder uf King Joash.
As Chronicles probably fnrmed the last bnnk uf the Jewish cannn, this murder, the
laat related in the O. T., waa the natural cnunterpart tn that nf Abel. Jeaus evi
dently alludes tn the wnrds uf Genesis (4 : 10), " The vnice nf thy brother's blnnd cri
eth frum the grnund," and tu thnae nf the dying Zacharias, " The Lnrd Innk upon it,
and require it." Cnmp. EKCyryBy, ver. 50, and sKi^yryByaerai, ver. 51 (in Luke). It
Matthew calla Zachariaa the aon nf Barachias, it may be recuncUed with 3 Chrnn. 24
by auppnaing that Jehniada, whn muat then have been 130 yeara uf age, was his
grandfather, and that the name nf hia father Barachias is emitted because he had died
lung befnre. Anyhnw, if there was an errnr, it must be charged against the com
piler nf the first Gnspel (as is proved by the fnrm nf Luke), nut against Jesus.
Ver. 53 : Tlie Monopoly of Tlwology. — " Wue untu ynu, lawyers ! fnr ye have
taken away the key uf knnwledge : ye entered net 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 consequence of their fanatical attachment to
the letter. This last rebuke corresponds te the third which He had addressed to the
Phariaeea — the pernicioua influence exercised by them over the whole people. Jesus
repreaenta knowledge {yvdiaig) under the flgure of a temple, intu which the acribes
shnuld have led the peuple, but whuae gate they clnse,- and hnld the key with jealous
care. This l^nnwledge is net that of the goapel, a meaning vvhich would lead us out-"
side the domain of the scribes ; it is tj|e real living knowledge uf Gud, such aa might
already be fuund, at leaat tn a certain extent, in the 0. T. The key is the Scrip
turea, the interpretatiun uf which the scribes reserved excluaively tu themselves.
But their cummentaries, instead nf tearing aside the veil nf the letter, that their hear.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 337
ers might penetrate te the spirit, thickened it, un the cnntrary, as if tn prevent Israel
from behnlding the face nf the living Gnd whu revealed Himselt in the O. T., and
from cuming intn cnntact with Him. The pres. part, e'laepxdpevoi denutes thuse whu
wei-e ready tu rise tn this vital knnwledge, and whu nnly lacked the snund interpreta
tiun nf Scripture tu bring thera tu it.
Matthew, in a lung discuurse which he puts intn the mnuth uf Jesus in the temple
(chap. 33), haa cnmbined in nne cnmpact maaa tbe cnntenta uf thnse twu apustruphea
addressed tn the Phariaees and lawyers, which are sn nicely distinguished by Luke.
Jeaus certainly uttered in the temple, as Matthew relates, a viguruus discuurse
addressed tn the acribea and Phariaees. Luke himself (30 : 45-47) indicates the time,
and gives a summary nf it. But it cannnt be duubted that here, as in the Sermun nn
the Mnunt, the first Guspel has cnmbined many sayings uttered nn different ncca
sinns. The distributinn nf accuaatinna between the Phariaeea and lawyers, as we
find it in Luke, curreapunda perfectly tn the characters nf thnse twu classes. The
questinn nf the scribe (ver. 45) seems tn be indisputably authentic. Thus Luke shuws
himself here again the histnrian prnperly sn called.
Vers. 53 and 54.* Historical Gonclusion.-^These verses describe a scene uf vinlence,
perhaps unique, in the life nt Jesus. Numerous variatinns prnve the very early
alteratiun nf the text. Accnrding tn the reading uf the principal Alex., And wlien
He liad gone thence, this scene must have taken place after Jesus had left the Phari
see's hnuse ; but this reading aeema designed tu establish a clnser cnnnectiun with
what fnllnws (13 : 1, ei seq.), and prnduces the impressinn nf a glnss. On the nther
hand, the nmissinn nf the wnrda, and seeking, aud that they might accuse Him, in B.
L. (ver. 54), reudera the turn uf expreasinn mure simple and lively. The reading
dnoaropi^Eiv {to blunt) has nu meaning. We muat read dnoaTopari^Eiv, to utter, and
then io cauae to uiier.
Sd. To the Diaciplea : 13 : 1-13. — This viulent scene had fnund ita echn uutside ;
a cunaiderable cruwd had flucked tngether. Excited by the aniranaity uf their chiefs,
the multitude ahowed a diapuaitinu hnatile te Jesus and His disciples. Jesus feela the
need of turning to His own, and giring thera, in presence of all, thoae encouragements
which their aituation demands. Besidea, He haa uttered a word which rauat have
gene te their inmoat heart, some of you they wiU slay and persecute, and He feels the
need ef supplying some counterpoise. Thus ia explained the exhortation v^bich fol
lows, and which has for its object to raise their courage and give them boldness in
testifying. Muat not oue be very hard to pleaae, te challenge, as Holtzmann does,
the reality of a situation ao simple ?
Jesus encourages His apoatles : 1st. By the certainty of the success of their cause
(vers. 1-3) ; 2d. By the assurance which He gives them as to their persons (vers. 4-7) ;
3d!. By the promise of a glorious recompense, which He contraata with the punish
ment ef the timid, and of their adversaries (vers. 8-10) ; finally, By the assurance
ef powerful aid (vers. 11, 13).
Vers. 1-3 :f The Assured Succeaa of their Miniatry, and ilie Fall of iheir Adver-
* Ver, 53. !*. B. C. L. read kukeiBev e^eXBovroc avrov instead of XeyovroS . . .- avrovs.
L. S. V. A. several Mnn., anoaropt^eiv instead nf anoaropari^Eiv. 'Ver. 54. !*. X.
nmit avTov after evEdpevovTES. 15 Mjj. Syr. It.' read ^yrovvreS instead uf Kai (yrovvreS ;
5f. B. L. nmit these wnrds. !*. B. L: umit va Karyyopyaoaiv avrov.
\ Ver. 1. Instead nf ev oiS . . . oxXuv, D. Itr''"'l"°, Vg., noXXuv de oxXov avvnep-
lixovTuv kvkXu, Tert. Vg. omit nporov.

338 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKK.
sa/ries.—" In the mean tune, when there were gathered together an innumerable mul
titude uf peuple, insumuch that they trcde nne upnn anuther. He began tn say unto
His disciples first nf aU : Beware ye uf the leaven uf the Pharisees, which is hypoc
risy. 3. Fur there is nnthing cnvered that shall nnt be revealed ; neither hid, that
shaU nnt be knnwn. 3. Therefnre, whatsnever ye have spuken in darkness shaU.
be heard in the light ; and that which ye have spuken in the ear in clnsets
ahall be proclaimed upun the hnuse-tups. " The wurda iv ols, on which, establish a
clnse cnnnectinn between the fuUnwing scene and that which precedes. This gather;
iug, which ia furmed as in the previnus scene (11 : 39), is readily explained by the
general circumstancea — thuse uf a juurney. When Jesus had arrived at a viUage,
snme time was needed te make the population aware of it ; and sunn it flocked to
Him en maaae. "Hp^aro, He began, imparts a snlemn character tu the wnrds which
fnlluw. Jesus, after having apnken aeverely tn His adveraariea, nnw addresaes the
little cumpany nf His disciples, lust amung that immense thrung, in language fuU of
boldness. It is the cry onward, with the premise of victory. The words, to tlie dis- ,
ciplea, are thus the key te the discourse following. The wnrd npurov, before all, shnuld
evidently be cunnected with the verb which fulluwa, bewa/re ye. Cump. 9 : 61, 10 ; 5.
Meyer cuncludea, frnm the absence uf the article befure inoKpiaiS, that the leaven is
nnt hypucrisy itself, but a style uf teaching which has the character uf hypucrisy.
This is a very fnrced meaning. The abaence nf the article ia very cummnn before
terms which denute virtues and vicea. (Winer, " Gramm. dea N. T. Sprachidinms,"
§ 19, 1.) Leaven ia the emblem nf every active principle, gnud ur bad, which pos-
seaaes the pnwer uf aaaimilatinn. The devutinn nf the Phariseea had given a false
directiun tn the whnle nf Israelitish piety (vers. 39, 44). Thia warning may have
been repeated aeveral times (Mark 8 : 13 ; Matt. 16 : 6).
The di adversative ef ver. 3 determines the aense of the verse : " But all this
Pharisaic hypocrisy shall be unveiled. The irapure foundation of thia au vaunted
hulinesa ahall cnme fully tu the light, and then the whnle authnrity nf thnse^ masters
nf npininn ahall crumble away ; but, in place thereof {dvQ' uv, ver. 3), thnae whose
vnice cannnt nnw flnd a hearing, save within liraited and nbacure circles, shall become
the teachers nf the wnrld. " The Hillels and Gamaliels will give place tn new teach
ers, whn shall flU the wnrld wilh their ductrine, and these masters shall be Peter,
John, IV^tthew, here present ! This substitution of a new doctorate fer the old is
announced in like manner te Nicodemus (John 3 : 10, 11). Here, aa there, the poeti
cal rhythm of the paraUeliam indicates that elevation of feeling which ariaes from so
gre-dt and transporting a thought. Comp. the magniflcent apostrophe ef St. Paul, 1
Cor. 1 : 30 : " Where is the wise? Where is the scribe . . . ?" By St. Paul's
time the substitution had been fully effected. Tapelov, the larder (from reuvu) ; and
hence the locked chamber, the innermost apartment, in oppoaition to tbe public
room. The roofs of houses in tbe East are terraces, from which nne can apeak with
thnae whn are in the street. Thia ia the erablera nf the greatest pnssible publicity.
The mnuth nf tbe scribes shall be stopped, and the teaching of the poor diaciples ahall
be heard ever tbe whole universe. The apophthegms of vers. 3 and 3 may be applied
in many ways, and Jesus seems to have repeaited them often with varied applications,,'
Comp. 8 : 17. In the paraUel paaaage (Matt. 10 : 37), the matter in queation isthe'
teaching of Jeaua, not that ef the apuatlea ; and this saying appears in the fnrm of an
exhortation addressed to tbe latter : " What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in
light." Naturally the maxim which precedes (ver. 3 nf Luke) shuuld alsu receive ii

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 339
different applicatiun in Matthew (ver. 36) : " Everything that is true must cume tn
the light. Publiah, therefure, withnut fear whatsnever I have tuld yuu."
Vera. 4-7.* Peraonal Security. — " And I aay untn ynu, my frienda, Be nnt afraid
nf them that kUl the bndy, aud after that have nn mure that they can dn. 5. But I
will fnrewarn yuu whnm ye ahall fear ; fear Him which, after He hath killed, hath
power tu caat intn hell ; yea, I aay untn ynu, fear Him. 6. Are nnt five sparrows
snld fur two farthings ; and nnt nne uf them is furgntten befure Gnd ? 7. But even
the very hairs uf yuur head are all numbered. Fear net, therefure : ye are uf mure
value than many aparrnwa." The aucceas nf their cause ia certain. But what nf
their persunal future ? After 11 : 49 there was gnud cauae fnr snme disquiet un this
pnint. Here the heart nf Jesua suftens : the thuught uf the lut which snme uf them
wUl have tu undergn seems tu render His uwn mure dear tn Him. Hence the tender
fnrm nf address. To you, my friends. Certainly Luke did nnt invent this, wnrd ; and
if Matthew, in whnm it is nut fnund (10 : 38, et seq.), had uaed the same dncument aa
Luke, he wnuld nut have umitted it. Olahausen haa taken up the strange idea, that
by him whu can caat intn hell we are tu underatand, nut Gnd, but the devil, as if
Scripture taught ua tn fear the devil, and nnt rather tn resiat him tn hia face (1 Pet.
5 : 9 ; Jamea 4 : 7). The mss. are divided between the furma dnoKTEvvovTuv (Enlicn-
Duric, accurding tn Bleek), dnoKTEVovrov (a cnrruptinn nf the preceding), and
anoKTEivdvTuv (the regular furm). The term Gelieniia (hell) prnperly signifies valley of
Hinnom (?jfj -ij, Juab. 15 : 8, cnmp. 18 : 16 ; 3 Kinga 33 : 10 ; Jer. 7 : 31, etc.). It
was a fresh and pleaaant valley tn the snuth nf the hill uf Zinn, where were fnund in
early timea the king'a gardena. But aa it waa there that the wnrship uf Mnlnch was
celebrated under the idnlatrnus kings, Jusiah cunverted it intu a place fnr sewage.
The valley thus became the type, and ita name the designation, of hell. This aaying
nf Jeaus distinguiahea snul frum bndy as emphatically as modern spiritualiam can dn.
What are we tu think uf M. Renan, whn darea tn aaaert that Jeaus did nnt knnw the
exact distinctien between thnae twn elements nf nur being !
Jesus dues nnt promise His disciples that their life shall always be safe. But if
they perish, it will nnt be without the conaent ef an all-powerful Being, who ia called
their Father. The aayinga which follow expreas by the most forcible emblema the
idea of a providence which extends tu the smallest details uf human life. Tn make a
mnre appreciable sum, Luke speaks nf five birds nf the value nf abnut twu farthings.
Matthew, whu speaks uf twn birds unly, gives their value at nne farthing ; that ia, a
little dearer. Did five ceat prepnrtiunally a little leas than twu ? Can we imagine
nne nf the twu evangelista amusing himaelf by making such changea in the text cf
the nther, or in that nf a cummun dncument ! The expressinn before God is Hebrais
tic ; it meana that there ia nut une uf thnse small creatures which ia nut individually
preaent tu the view nf divine umniscience. The knnwledge nf Gud extends nut unly
tn nur persnns, but even tn the muat inaignificant parts nf uur being — tn thoae 140,-
000 hairs nf which we luse snme every day withnut paying the leaat attentinn. Nu
fear, then ; ye shall nnt fall withnut Gnd's ccnaent ; and if He cnnsent, it is because
it will be fnr Hia child'a gnud.
Vers. 8-10. -f Tlie Recompenae of faithful Diaciples, contrasted with the Punishrri^nt
* Ver. 4. 5 Mjj. 10 Mnn. read nepiaaav instead nf nepiaaorepov. Ver. 7. B. L. R.
It""*, nmit ouv after /i)/. 6 Mjj. 60 Mnn. "Vg. add vpsis after diatpepEre (taken frnm
Matthew). '
f Ver. 8. Si. D. read on after vpiv. Marcinn emitted tuv ayyeXav. Ver. 9. A. D.
i.. Q. n. 30 Mnn., epnpoa ev inatead ef the first Evamov (according to Matthew),

340, COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
of the Oowa/rdly, and with that of Adversaries.— " Alan I say untu ynu, Whnsoever ahaU
confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of
God. 9. But he that denieth me before men, shaU be denied before the angels ef
God. 10. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son ef man, it shall be for
given him ; but unto him that blasphemeth against the Hely Ghost, it ahall net be'
forgiven." The profesaien of the gospel may undoubtedly coat the disciples dear ;
but if they peraevere, it assures them of a magniflcent recompenae. Jeaua, when glo
rified, wUl requite them by declaring them His before the heavenly throng, for what
they did for Him by acknowledging Him iheir Bord below at the time ef His hu
miliation. The gnostic Heracleon remarked the force of the prep, iv with dpoXoyelv.
It expreaaea the reat of faith in Him who ia 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 Jesiis
does not say He will deny the renegade, as He 'said that He would confess the confess
or. The verb is here in the passive, as it te show tBat this rejection wiU be a self-
consummated act.
Ver. 10 glances at a danger more dreadful still than that of being rejected as a
tiraid disciple. This punishment may have an end. But the sin of which ver. 10
speaka ia forever unpardonable. This terrible threat naturally applies to the sitt of
the adversaries of Jeaus, to which His thought recurs in closing. They ain, not
through timidity, but through active malice. By the expreasion blaspheme against the
Holy Spirit Jesus alludea tn the accusatinn which bad given riae tn this whnle con
flict (11 : 15), and by -which the works ef that divine agent in the hearts of men
(comp. Matt. 13 : 38, " If I cast uut devils by the Spirit of God") had been ascribed
tu the apirit nf darkneaa. That was knnwingly and deliberately tn insult the holi
ness of the principle from which all gund in human life prnceeds. Tn shnw the
greatneaa nf thia crime ef high treaaon, Jeaua compares it -with an outrage committed
against His own peraon. He calla the latter a simple word Qioyov), an imprudent
word, not a blasphemy. To utter a wurd against the pnur and humble Snn uf man is
a sin which dues nut necessarily proceed frnm malice. Might it nnt be the pusition
uf a sincerely pinus Jew, whu was stiU ruled by prejudices with which be had been
imbued by his pharisaic educatinn, tn regard Jeaua nnt aa the expected Messiah, but
aa an enthuaiast, a viainuary, nr even an impnatur ? Such a ain reaemblea that uf the
wnman whn devuutly brought her centributinn tu the pile nf Huss, and at the sight
nf whnm the martyr exclaimed, Sancia simplieitas. Jesus is ready tn pardnn in this
wurld nr in the next every indignity uffered merely tn His persnn ; but an insult ;
uffered tn gnudnesa as such, and tn ita living principle in the heart nf humanity, the
Hnly Spirit, the impinus audacity nf putting the hulineaa nf Hia wurka tu the ac
cuunt uf the apirit nf evil — that ia what He calls blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and
what He declarea unpardnnable. The hiatory of larael haa fully pruved tbe truth ot
this threatening. This people perished net fer having nailed Jesus Christ to the
croaa. Otherwise Good Friday would have been the day of their judgraent, and God
would not have continued to offer them fer forty years the pardon et their criihe. It
was its rejection of the apostolic preaching, its obstinate reaiatance to the Spirit uf
Pentecost, which filled up the measure of Jerusalem'a sin. Aud it is with individ
uals as vrith that nation. The sin which ia forever unpardonable, is not the rejection
nf the truth, in cnnsequence cf a miaunderalanding, auch aa that uf sn many unbe
lievers whn cunfuund the gnspel with this or that false fnrm, which is nnthing better

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 341
than its caricature. It is hatred nf hulineaa aa such— a hatred which leads men to
make the gnspel a wnrk nf pride nr fraud, and tu ascribe it tn the spirit uf evU. This
is nut tu sin against Jesua persenally ; it is tu insult the divine principle which ac
tuated Him. It is hatred uf gnndness itself in its supreme manifestatiun.
The fnrm in which Matthew (13 : 31, 33) has preserved this warning differs cnn
siderably frum that of Luke ; and that nf Mark (3 : 38, 39) differs in its turn frum
that uf Matthew. It is whuUy incunceivable, that m a statement uf such gravity the
evangelista arbitrarily introduced changea intn a written text which they had befure
their eyea. On the cnntrary, we can easily understand hnw this saying, whUe circu
lating in the churches in the shape nf nral traditinn, assumed sumewhat different
fnrms. As tn the place assigned tu this declaratinn by the synnptica, that which Mat
thew and Mark give, unmediately after the accusatinn yphich called it fnrth, appears
at first aight preferable. Nevertheless, the cunnectinn which it haa in Luke's cuntext
with what precedea and what fnllnws, ia nnt difflcult tn apprehend. There is at nnce
a gradatinn in reapect nf the sin nf weakness mentinned ver. 9, and a cnntrast tu the
prumiae nf vers. 11 and 13, where this Hnly Spirit, the subject uf blaaphemy nn the
part nf the Phariaeea, is presented as the puwerful suppurt nf the persecuted disciples.
There is thus rnnm fnr duubt.
Vera. 11 and 13.* Tlie ^jd- " When they bring ynu unto the aynagogues,
and befnre magistrates and puwera, take ye nn thnught hnw nr what thing
ye shall answer, ur what ye shaU say : 13. Fer the Hely Ghost ahaU leach you
in the same hour what ye ought to say." Jesus seema te take pleasure iu
enumerating all the different kinds of powers whose hostility they shall have
to feel. 'S.vvayoyal, the Jewish tribunals, having a religious character ; dpxai.
Gentile authoritiea, purely civil, from provincial prefecta up to the emperor ;
i^ova'iai, any power whataeever. But let them net make preparation to plead !
Their anawer will be aupplied to them on the spot, both aa to ita form (ttuS,
how) and substance {ri, what). And their part will not be confined ..to defending
themaelves ; they will take the offenaive ; they will bear teatimony (n El-nyTE, wliat ye
shall say). In thia reapect, alao, everything shall be given them. Witness Peter and
Stephen before the Sanhedrim, St. Paul before Felix aud Festus ; they do nnt merely
defend their person ; they preach the gospel. Thus the Holy Spirit will se act in
them, that they shall only have to yield themselves to Hira as His mouthpiece. The
parallel passage occurs in Matthew in the instructinns given tn the Twelve (10 : 19,
30). The fnrm ia different enuugih tn prnve that the twn cumpilatiuna are nnt fnunded
nn the same text. Comp. also a similar thought (John 15 : 36, 37). This saying at
tests the reality of the psychological phenomenon of inspiratiun. Jeaua aaserta that
the spirit nf Gnd can sn cnmmunicate with the spirit cf man, that the latter shall be
nnly the organ of the fnrmer.
Hnltzmann aeea in all thnae sayings, 13 : 1-13, unly a cnmbinatinn nf materials
arbitrarily cunnected by Luke, and placed here in a fictitinus framework. A dis
cuurse specially addressed to the disciples seems tn him nut nf place in the midst nf
this cruwd (p. 94). Yet he cannnt help making an exceptinn ut vers. 1-3, which
may be regarded aa suitably spuken befure a large multitude. But if we admit ever
sn little the histnrical truth uf the atriking wnrds, / say unto you, you my friends (ver.
* Ver. 11. !*. B. L. X. snme Mnn. It""'!. Vg., eia^Epoaiv instead nf npoa^Epoaiv.
D. It""'!., (iepoaiv. St, D. R. snme' Mnn., eiS instead nf em. S. B. L. Q. R. X. sume
Mnn., pepipvyayrE inatead ot pepipvare. D. Syr. ItP'^'i"", umit y n.

342 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
4), we must acknnwledge that *they serve tn distinguish the disciples frnm nther per
suns present, and whn are nnt nf the aame mind.' The prumise addressed tu faithful
cnnfessurs (ver. 9) alau receives frnm the hnatile aurrnundiugs a quite pecuUar appro
priateness. The threat uf ver. 10 auppuses the presence nf adversaries whn have ca
lumniated Jbsus. In short, the annnuncement of persecutinna, and the prnmise nf
the Hnly Spirit's aid, vers. 11, 13, find a natural explanatiun if, at the very mnment,
the disciples were in a perilnus aituatinn. All the elementa nf thia diacuurse are thus
in perfect keeping with the hiatnrical frame in which it is set by Luke." And this
frame is only an invention nf the evangeliat ! ,
9. The Position of Man and of the Believer in relation to this World's Goods :
13 : 13-59. — The uccaainn nf this new discuurse is suppUed by an unexpected event,
and withnut any relatiun tu what had just happened. This piece embraces : 1st. A
histurical intruductinn (vera. 13, 14) ; 2d. A diacuurse addressed by Jesus tn the mul
titude nn the value nf earthly gnuds tu man in general (vers. 15-31) ; Sd. A disccurse,
which He addressea apecially tu the disciples, un the pnaitinn which their new faith
givea them in reapect uf thnae gnuda (vera. 33-40) ; 4:th. A still mnre apecial applica
tiun nf the same truth tn the apuatles (vera. 41-53) ; 5th. In clnsing, Jesua returna to
the penple, and gives them a last warning, based on the threatening character of pres
ent circumstancea (vera. 54-59).
1st. The Occasion : vera. 13 and 14.* — A man in the crowd proflta by a mument ef
silence to submit a matter to Jesus which lies heavily on his heart, and which proba
bly brought him tn the Lnrd's presence. Accnrding tn the civU law uf the Jews, the
eldest brother received a dnuble pnrtinn uf the inheritance, burdened with the ubUga-
tinn nf suppurting his mnther and unmarried siaters. As tn the ynunger members, it
wnuld appear from the parable'nf the prodigal sun that the single share nf the prop
erty which accrued tn them was sumetimea paid in muney. Thia man was perhaps
one uf thnae ynunger members, whn waa nut aatisfied with the sum aUutted tu him;
or who, after having spent it, still clairaed, under some pretext or ether, a part of the
patrimony. As on other similar occasions (the woman taken in adultery), Jesua 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 Himaelf in the place of the powers
that be. The anawer to the Hs, wlio ? is this : neither God nor men. The difference
between the judge and the pepiarys, him who divides, is that the first decides the
point ef law, and the second sees the sentence executed. The object uf Jeaua in this
jnumey being tn take advantage nf aU the providential circumatances which ceuld
net fail to arise, in order to instruct the people and His disciples. He immediately
usea thia to bring before the different claaaes et His hearera theae solemn truths which
are called forth in Hia mind by the unexpected event.
Holtzmann is obliged to acknowledge the reality of the fact mentioned in the in
troduction. He therefore allegea that in this special case the common source nf Mat
thew and Luke cnntained a hiatnrical preface, and that the latter has preserved it to
us, such as it was. We accept fnr Luke the humage rendered in thia caae tn his
fldelity. But, Isi. With what right can it be pretended that we have here aumething
exceptiunal ? 2d. Hnw can it be alleged that the uccasinn uf the fnllnwing discourse
waa expressly indicated in the Lugia, and that, nevertheleas, in the face nf this pre
cise datum, the authnr nf the first Gospel aUowed himself to distribute the discourse
as foUows : two fragments (vers, 83-31, and 33, 34) in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 6 : 35-33, 19-31) ; another fragment (vers. 51-53) in the installation discourse
* Ver. 14, !*. B. D. L. sorae Mnn. read Kpiryv instead of diKuaryv (perhaps foUow
ing Acta 7 : 37, 35, Tischendorf).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB, 343
to the Twelve (Matt. 10 : 34-36) ; finally, varinua passages in the great eschatnlpgical
discnurse (Matt. 34 and 35) ? AVeizsacker feels the impussibility nf such a procedure.
Accnrding tn him, Matthew has preserved tu us the furm uf the discourse exactly as
it appeared in the Logia. But > what does Luke in his tum do ? Drawing from those
great discourses of the Logia the materials which suit him, he forms a new one,
purely fanciful, at the head of which he aeta as the origin a historical anecdote nf his
own inventiun ! In what respect is this procedure better than that which Hnltzmann
ascribes tn Matthew ? Such are the psychnlugical munstrusities in nppusite directinns
tn which men are reduced by the hypnthesis nf a cummnn dncument.
2d. To ihe People : vers. 15-31.'* The Rich Fool—Upds avrois (" He aaid unto
them"), ver. 15, stands in nppusitinn tu His disciples, ver. 33. This alight detail cnn
firms the exactness uf Luke, fnr faith ia nowhere suppnsed in thnse tu whnm the ,
warning, vera. 15-31, is addressed. The twn imperatives take heed and beware might
be regarded as expreaaing nnly nne idea • " Have yuur eyea fully upen tn thia enemy,
avarice ;" but they maybe translated thua : " Take heed [tn this man] and beware."
Jesus wnuld set him aa an example befnre the aasembled peuple. The Greek term,
which we tranalate by coveiousneaa, denutes the desire uf having, much mure than
that uf keeping what we have. But the secnnd ia included in the flrat. Both reat on
a auperatitioua cenfldence in worldly gooda, which are instinctively identifled with
happiness. But tn enjey muney there ia a cnnditinn, viz., life, and this cnnditinn ia
nnt guaranteed by muney. Uepiaae'UEv, the aurplus uf what une has beyund what he
needs. The prep, iv may be paraphrased by though ur because: " Thnugh he has nr
becauae he haa superabundance, he haa nut fur all that aaaurance nf life." The two
aenses cnme nearly tn the same. We shnuld prnbably read ndayc, aU cnvetnusness,
instead uf ryS, cuvetnusneas in general : the deaire nf having in every ahape.
Ver. 16. The term parable may aigpify an example as well as an image ; when
the example is flctitinua it ia invented aa an image nf the abstract truth. This rich
farmer has a superabundance nf gnods sufficient for yeara ; but all in vain, hia super
fluity cannnt guarantee his life even till tn-mnrrnw. He speaks tn his soul {fHQ}), '
the seat of his affectinns, as if it belunged tu him (" my snul ;" cnmp. the fnur pm,
vers. 17 and 18) ; and yet he is abuut tn learn that this snul itself ia nnly lent him.
The wurda : " Gnd said untn him," express mnre than a decree ; they imply a warn
ing which he hears inwardly befure dying. The aubject nf d airovaiv (the present
designates the immediate future) ia neither murderers nnr angels ; it is the indeflnite
prnn. on, they, accnrding tn a very cummnn Aramaic fnrm ; cnmp. ver. 48 and 14 : 35
T%is night is the antithesis nf ¦many years, as required is that nf the expressinn, " my
snul." Ver. 31. AppUcatinn nf the Parable. The phrase laying up treasure for himaelf is
sufficiently explained by ver. 19. Rich toward God might signify, rich in spiritual
gnuds. But the prep, els, in relation io, is unfavnrable tu thia meaning. It is better
tu take it in the aenae of laying up a treaaure in the preaenee nf Gnd, in the aense of
the saying. He who giveth io ihe poor lendeih to the Bord. Tu becnme Gnd's creditor,
is tn have a treasure in Gnd ; cump. vers. 33, 34.
Sd. To the Disciples : vers. 33-40.— Disengagement from earthly gnuds. The fnl-
* Ver. 15. 13 Mjj. 40 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg., naay; instead nf r^f, which the T. R.
reads with 9 Byz. and the Mnn. 7 Mjj. (B.yz.) 60 Mnn., avro instead nf avrov after
ft))/. The MSS. are divided betweeu avrov (T. R.) and avra after vnapxovrav. Ver.
18. ». D. snme Mnn. Syr'=°^ ItpJ«ii»«, umit koi ra ayaBa pov. Ver, 30. 13 Mjj. (Alex.)
several Mnn., a^puv instead of aippov.

344 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Inwing exhortations suppose faith. The believer should renounce the pursuit of
earthly gends : 1. From a feeling of entire confidence as tn this life in hia heavenly
Father (vers. 33-34) ; 3. Prom hia prenccupatinn with apiritual goods, after which
exclusively he aspires, and because he is awaiting the return of the Master to whom
he has given himself (vers. 35-40).
Vers. 33-34.* Disengagement as resulting from confidence in the omnipntence
and fatherly gnudness of Gud. " And He said untu His diaciples, Therefere I say
unto you. Take no thought fer your Ufe, what ye ahall cat ; neither for the body,
what ye ahall put on. 33. The Ufe is more than meat, and the body ia more than rai
ment. 34. Consider the ravens : for they neither aow nor reap ; which neither have
sterehouae nor barn ; and God f eedeth them : hew much more are ye better than the
fowls?" The words unto His Diaciplea, ver. 33, are the key uf thia diacuurse ; it is
nnly tu believera that Jesus can speak as He proceeds tn dn. Nut nnly shuuld the
believer nnt aira at pnsaeaaing superabundance, he shnuld nnt even disquiet himaelf
abnut the neceaaariea nf life. Of the family nf Gud (ver. 34), Ihe diaciples nf Jesus
may reckun on the tender care uf this heavenly Master in whnse service they are
wnrking, and that in reapect uf f nnd as well as clnthing. Therefore : because this
false cunfidence in riches is fully. Ver. 33 fnrmally states the precept ; ver. 33 gives
its Ingical prunf ; ver. 34 illustrates it by an example taken frnm nature. The Ingical
prunf rests un an argument a fortiori : He whn gave the mure (the life, the body),
will yet more certainly give the leas (the nouriahment of the life, the clothing of the
bedy). In the example borrowed from nature, it is important to mark hew all the
figures emplnyed — anwing, reaping, sturehuuse, barn — are cunnected with the parable
uf the fnnliah rich man. All thuse labura, all thnse prnvisinns, in the midst uf which
the rich man died, the ravena knnw nnthing nf them ; and yet they live ! The wUl
nf Gnd is thus a surer guarantee nf existence than the pussessinn nf superabundance.
In the Sermnn nn the Mnunt, where Matthew has thnse sayings, they uccur apart
frnm aiiy cunnectinn with the parable uf the fnnlish rich man, cf whum there is nn
mentinn whatever. Again, a fluwer turn frnm its stalk (aee nn Luke 11 ; 5—10). It is
certainly nut Luke whu has cleverly imagined the striking cnnnectiun between thia
example and the preceding parable. It must therefure have existed in hia snurces.
But if thnae anurcea were the aame as thnse nf Matthew, the latter must then have had
such gross unskUfulnesa as tu break a cnnnectinn Hke this ! In the last wnrds, the
adverb /io/lAoj', jnined tn diaijiipeiv, which by itself signifles to be better, is a pleonasm
having the meaning : tu surpass in the highest degree. In cuntrast with diviue
puwer, Jeaua aeta huraan pnwerlessness, as proved by the audden death nf the rich
man, which cnmpletes the prunf uf tbe fully nf earthly cares.
Vers. 35-38. f " Which uf ynu, with taking thuught, can add tn his stature une
cubit ? 36. If ye then be nnt able tu du that thing which ia leaat, why take ye
thnught fnr the rest ? 37. Cunsider the Ulies hew they grew : they toU not, they
spin net ; and yet I say unto you, that Selomnn in all his glury waa nnt arrayed like
nne nf these. 38. If then Gnd ao clothe the graas, -which ia to-day in the field, and to
morrow ia caat into the even ; how much mnre ynu, O ye of little faith ?" Ver. 35
* Ver. 33. S. A. B. D. L. Q. 10 Mnn. Itpi«''i"e, omit vpav after fvxy. Ver. 33.
7 Mjj. 35 Mnn. Syr. If"*, add yap- after y.
X Ver. 35. !*. B. D. If"*, emit eva after tt^w. Ver. 36. !*. B. L. Q. T. some
Mnn.. ovde instead of ovre, Ver. 37. D. Syr™', has iruf ovte vyBEi ovte vijiuivei instead
of TTuS av^avEi ov Konia ovdE vyBEi. Ver. 28. B. D. L. T. , apijuE^Ei instead ef apfiEvvvai,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 345
expresses in a general way the idea nf the inefflcacy uf human cares. Mepipvuv, par
ticiple present : by meana uf disquieting une's self. ''aXiKia might refer to age ; we
should then require to take tt?;);''?, eubit, in a figurative senae (Ps. 39 : 6). But the
word seems to us to be connected with what is aaid about the growth of plants,
which is sometimes so rapid ; it ia therefore more natural to give ^XiKia its ordinary
aense uf stature. II^;i;u5, c'ubit, thua preserves its literal meaning. Plants which give
themselves nn care, yet make ennrmnus increaae, while ye by yuur anxieties du nnt
in the least hasten ynur growth. Vers. 35, 36 cnrreapend tn ver. 33. Yuur anxietiea
will nnt prncure fnr ynu an increaae cf atature ; hnw much leaa advantages uf higher
value ! The example which feUnwa, taken frum nature (ver. 37), curreapunds with
that uf ver. 34. After reading the delicinus piece nf M. P. Buvet (" Vnyage en
Terre-Sainte," p. 383), itia hard tn give up the idea that by the Uly of the fields we are
tu underatand the beautiful red anemnne {anemone coronaria) with wbich the mead-
nWs thruughnut aU Palestine are enamelled. Yet Jesus may pnssibly mean either the
magnificent white Uly {lilium eandidum), nr the splendid red lily {lilium rubrum),
which are fnund, thnugh mure rarely, in that cnuntry (Winer, Lexicnn, ad h. v.).
From want nf wund, uvena in the Eaat are fed with herba.
Vers. 39-34.* The Application, — " And aeek nnt ye what ye shall eat, ur what ye
shall drink, neither be ye nf duubtful raind. 30. Fnr aU these thinga dn the natinna
of the wnrld aeek after : and yuur Father knuweth that ye have need uf theae things.
31. But ratlfer see's, ye the kingdum uf Gnd ; and all theae things shall be added untn
yuu. 33. Fear nnt, little flunk ; fnr it is ynur Father's gnud pleaaure tu give yuu the
kingdum. 33. Sell that ye have, and give alma ; provide yuuraelves bags which wax
nnt uld, a treasure in the heavens that faileth nut, where nn thief appruacheth,
neither muth cnrrupteth. 34. Fnr where yuur treasure ia, there will yuur heart be
alau." With the carea which He leaves tn the men uf this wurld (vers. 39, 30) Jesus
cuntrasts the care which He recummends tn His nwn (vers. 31-34). f Kai (ver. 39) :
and cnnaequently. 'Xpeli, ye, might cuntraat men with the Inwer creatures cited as
examples, the ravens, the lilies. But accurding tn ver. 30, this prunnun rather aerves
tn diatinguiah the diaciples frnm men whu have nu faith, from the natinns nf this
wurld. Jesus thua deaiguatea nut nnly the heathen — in that case He wuuld have said
simply ihe nations — but alau the Jewa, whn, by refusing tn enter intu the jSaaiXeia,
cundemn themselves tu becnme a penple nf this wnrld Uke the rest, and remain nut-
side nf the true penple uf Gnd, tu whnm Jesus is here speaking {the little fiock, ver. 33).
UXyv (ver. 31) : " All this false seeking swept away, there remaina nnly une which
is wurthy uf yuu." " The kingdnm of God," aa always : that -state, flrst internal,
then social, in which the human will is nothing but the free agent of tho divine will.
All these things, to wit, food and clothing, shall be given over and abnve the kingdnm
which ye seek exclusively, as earthly blessings were given tn the ynung Sulnmnn
nver and abnve the wisdum which alnne he had asked. Kat : and nn this single cun
ditiun. Tldvra was easily emitted after raOra by a mistake ef sight (confusion ef the
two ra). Bleek acknowledges that this paaaage ia mere suitably put in Luke than by
Matthew in the Sermon on the Mnunt, /where the entire piece nn cnnfldence Is nnly
* Ver. 39. The mss. are divided between y n (T. R.) and kui n (Alex.). Ver. 31.
!*. B. D. L. It""'!., avrov instead uf tov Oeov (which ia perhaps taken frnm Matthew),
10 Mjj. 30 Mnn. Syr""'. It»"«. nmit navru
X Keim, vui, ii. p. 37.

346 COMMENTARY ON ST, LUKE.
very indirectly connected with the charge of cevetousness addressed to the Phari
sees. The expression little flock, ver. 33, corresponds with the critical position of the
small group of disciples in the midst of undecided or hostile myriads, ver. 1 ; it re
calls the you, my friends, ver. 4. Jesus here gives consolation to the believer for
times when the interests of the kingdom of God place him in a pnsitiun uf earthly
privatinn (Gess). The a fortiori argument uf ver. 33 is here, ver. 32, reprnduced in a
higher tphere : " Will nnt He whu has provided with sn much luve fnr ynur eternal
well-being provide mure certainly still fur ynur punr earthly maintenance ?" What
faithful aervant wnuld have tn disquiet himself abnut hia fund in the hnuse nf the
master fur whnm he wnrks day and night ? And when this master is a Father ! It
was from experience that Jesus spuke in auch a style.
From the duty uf being uncuncerned abnut the acquiaitinn uf riches, Jesus pasaes,
ver. 33, tn that nf their wise empluyment when they are pnssessed. This precept
cnnatitutea, accnrding tn De Wette, the great hereay nf Luke, ur, accurding tn Keim,
that nf hia Ebinnite dncument — salvatinn by the meritnrioua virtue ef voluntary pov
erty and almsgiving. But let us flrat remark that we have here to do with believers,
who aa auch already possess the kingdom (ver. 33), and de net require to merit it.
Then, v^henZesus says sell, give . . . is it a cummandment ? Is it nut the sense
rather : " Have nn tear ; unly dn sn ! If ynu dn, ynu will flnd it again." Finally,
fur a member uf the society nf believers at Ibis periud, was nnt the admipistratinn nf
earthly property a really difficult thing ? Waa nnt every diaciple mure ur leaa in the
pnsitiun uf Jesua Himaelf, whu, having nnce begun Hia ministry, had required tn
break nff His trade as a carpenter ? The giving away nf earthly gnnds is here pre
sented, flrst as a means nf persunal emancipatinn, that the giver might be able tu ac
cnmpany Jesus, and becnme nne nf the instruments uf His wnrk ; then as a gladseme
liberality prnceeding frnm luve, and fltted tu enrich uur heaven eternally. In all this
there is nuthing peculiar tn Luke, nur tn his alleged Ebinnite dncument. Cnmp. in
respect nf the flrst aspect, the histury uf the rich ynung man (in the three Syn.) ; and,
in respect tn the secnnd, the wnrd nf Jesus in Matthew : " Inaamuch aa ye have dnne
it untn nne uf the leaat ... ye have dnne it untu me," aud the whnle uf the
judgment scene (Matt. 35 : 31-46).
It must nut be furgntten that tbe kingdnm uf God at this period was identifled
with the persnn nf Jesus, and the snciety nf disciples whn accumpanied -Him.
Tn fnllnw Jesus (literally) in His peregri natinns was the nnly way uf pussessing this
treasure, and uf becuming flt tu spread it in cnnsequence. Then, as we have seen, it
was an army nnt merely nf believers, but nf evangeliata, th-at Jesus was nuw labnring
tn form. If they had remained attached to the anil of their earthly property, they
would have been incapable ef following and serving Him without looking backward
(9 : 63). The essential character ef such a precept alone is permanent. The form in
which Jeaua presented it arose frnm the preaent cunditiun uf the kingdom ef God.
The mode ef fulfllling it variea. There are timea when, to' disentangle himself and
practiae Christian love, the believer must give up everything ; there are other times
when, to secure real freedom and be the better able to give, he muat keep and admin-
iater. When Paul thua expreaaed the Christian duty, poaseasing aa though they poa- ¦
sessed not (1 Cor. 7 : 39), it ia evident that all he had in view was the disengaged and
charitable spirit ceraraended by Jeaua, and that he modified the tranaient fnrm which
this precept had asaumed. There is in the expreasinns of Jesus a snrt uf enthusiasjp

( COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 34'?
of disdain for those earthly treasures in which the natural man places his happineas :
" Get rid of thuse gnnds ; by giving them away, change them intn heavenly treas
ures, and ye shall have made a gnud bargain !" This is the being rich toward God
(ver. 31). Every gift made by human luve cnnstitutes in the eyes nf Gnd the imper-
sunatiun nf luve, a debt payable in heaven. Leve regards luve with affectinn, and
wiU find means tu requite it.
By this mude uf acting, the believer finda that he has a treasure in heaven. Nnw
it is a law nf psycholngy (ver. 34) that the heart fnUnws the treaaure ; an, your treas
ure nnce put in God, yuur heart wiU rise unceasingly tnward Him. This new atti
tude nf the believer, whu Uvea here belnw with the eye uf his heart turned heaven
ward, ia what Jeaus describes in the sequel. The heart, unce aet free frnm ita earthly
burden, wUl live nn the new attachment In which it ia given up, and un the expecta
tinn with which it is thus inspired (vera. 35-38).
Vers. 35-38.* The Parable of the Maater returning to his Houae. — " Let ynur luins
be girded abnut, and yuur lights burning ; 36. And ye ynurselvea like untu men that
wait fur their lnrd, when he wiU return frnm the wedding ; that, when he cnmeth
and knncketh, they may npen untn him immediately. 37. Bleaaed are thnae aervants
whnm the lnrd when he cnmeth shall flnd watching : verily I say imtu yuu, that he
shall gird himaelf, and make them tn sit dnwn tn meat, and will cnme fnrth and serve
them. 38. And if he shall cume in the aecend watch, or come in the third watch,
and find them so, blessed are those servants " Ver, 35. The long Oriental robe
requirea to be taken up, and the akirt fastened under the girdle, to allow freedom in
walking (17 : 8). If it is night, it is further required that one have a lighted lamp in
his hand, te walk quickly and aurely to hia destination. These two figures are se
thoroughly in keeping with the position of the servant apoken of in the following
veraes that we have no doubt about ver. 35 forming part ef the parable, vers. 36-38.
The faithful beUever is deacribed as a SSrvant waiting over night fur the arrival uf
hia master whn ia returning from a juurney. That there may be nn delay in npening
the dunr when he shall knuck, he keepa himself awake, up and ready tn run. The
lighted lamp ia at his hand ; he has even fund ready against the time ef hia return.
And it matters not though the return is delayed, delayed even to the morning ; he
does not yield tn fatigue, but persists in his waiting attitude. "Upeli, ye (ver. 36), ynur
whnle persnn, in uppusitinn tn the lighted lamps and girded luins: The wurd ydpoi,
marriage, might here have the sense nf banquet, -vvhich it sumetimes has (Esth. 3 : 18 ;
9 : 33 ; and perhaps Luke 14 : 8). It ia mnre natural tn keep the nrdinary aense, unly
nbserving that the marriage in question is nut that uf the master himself, but a
friend's, in which he is taking part. What dues the master du when received
in this way? Mnved by such fidelity, instead nf seating' himself at the table
prepared, he causes his devuted servants tu seat themaelves, and, girdhig
himself aa they were girded, he approaches them {napeXedw) tn serve them, and
presents them with the fund which they have prepared tnr him. And the Innger
delayed hia arrival ia, the livelier is his gratitude, the greater are the marks uf his sat
isfactinn. Amung the ancient Jewa, the night had unly three divisinns (Judg. 7 : 19) ;
* Ver. 38. Instead nf kui eav eXBy ev ry dEvrepa <pvXaKy, kui ev ry rpiry fvXuKy eXBy,
KUl Evpy ovroS, ». B. L. T". X. anme Mnn. Syr'"'' It»"«. read kuv ev ry devrepa kuv ev
TV rpiry ijivXaKy eAflj? kui evpy ovtoS. D. It»"i. Marciun, Kai eav eASj? ry eanepivy
(pvvaKy KUl evpyoEi ovrog noiyaai {sic fadentes) kui eav ry devrspa kui ry rpiry. 55'. B. D,
L. Syr=°'. nmit oj dovXoi befnre ekeivoi ; S* it»''«. Ir. nmit oi dovXoi ekeivoi.

348 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
later, probably after the Rnman subjugatinn, fnur were admitted : from 6 to d, from
9 tn midnight, frnm midnight tn 3, and frnm 3 tu 6 n'clnck. If, as cannnt be duubted,
the master's return represents the Parnuaia, this parable teaches that that event may
be lung delayed — much lunger than any une even uf the disciples imagined— and that
this delay will be the means nf testing their fldelity. The same thuught reappears in
the parable nf the ten virgins (Matt. 35 : 5), " While the bridegrenm tarried ;" and
again in that nf the talents (35 : 19), " After a lung time, the lnrd uf thnse servants
cnmeth.'; Jesus thus proclaimed His return, but nut the immediateness nf that
return. One hardly dares tu apply the prnmise included in this parable : The Lnrd in
His glury serving him whu has faithfully waited fnr and served Him here belnw I
There is an apparent cuntradictinn nf Luke 17 : 7-9. But in the latter passage Jesus
is expressing the feeling which shnuld animate the servant : " I am, after all that I
have dnne, biii an unprofitable aervant." Jesua wishes, in nppnsitinn tn phariaaism,
tn sweep away the legal idea nf merit. Here He is describing the feeling uf the
Maater himaelf ; we are in the sphere uf luve bnth nn the side nf the servant and of
the maater. The variatiuns nf ver. 38 dn nnt affect its general meaning.
The Parousia is a sweet and glnriuus event tn the servants nf Jesus (vers. 35-38).
But at the same time it is sulemn and awful : fnr He whn returna ia nnt nnly a well-
belnved Master, whn cumes tn requite everything which haa been given fur Him ; He
ia alau a thief whn takes away everything which shuuld nnt have been kept.
Vera. 39 and 40.* Parable of the Thief. — " And thia ye knnw, that if the gundman
nf the hnuae had knnwn what hnur the thief wnuld cume, he wnuld have watched,
and nnt have Buffered hia huuse tu be bruken thruugh. 40. Be ye therefure ready
alsu; fur the Son nf man cnmeth at an huur when ye think nnt." Viv6aKeTe,ye
know, ahnuld be taken as indie, rather than aa imper. ; this knnwledge is the basis nf
the exhurtatinn, ver. 40. The applicatiun shnuld be made aa fulluwa ; If the hnur nf
attack were knnwn,men wnuld nnt fail tn hnld themselves ready againat that hour ; and
therefure when it ia nut knnwn, as in this caae, the nnly way ia tn be alwaya ready.
The real place uf this saying is pnssibly that given tn it by Matthew (34 : 43-44) in
the eschatulngical discnurses ; Mark is here at une with him. Of aU the sayings nf
Jeaus, there ia nnt une whuse influence has made itself mnre felt in the writings of
the N. T. than thia (1 Theaa. 5 : 1, 3 ; 3 Pet. 3 : 10 ; Rev. 3 : 3, 16 ; 15) ; it had
awakened a deep echn in the heart nf the disciples. It indicatea the real meaning et
waiting for the aecend advent of Chriat. The Church haa hot the task of flxing
beforehand that unknown and unknowable time ; she has nothing else to dn, in vutue
nf her very ignurance, from which she nught nut tu wiah tn eacape, than tu remain
Invariably nn the watch. Thia attitude ia her security, her life, the principle uf her
virgin purity. This 'duty nf watching evidently embraces buth the disengagement
and the attachment which are cnmraanded in this discuurse.
Ath. To the Apoatlea: vers. 41-53. — Up tiU new, Jesus had been speaking tn all
believers ; frnm this pnint, nn uccasinn nf a questinn put by Peter, He addresses the
apustles in particular, and reminds them of the special responsibility which attaches
to them in the prospect ef their Maater'a return (vers. 41-48) ; then He gives vent to
the emotions which fill Hia heart in view of the moral revulutiun which He is about
to work on the earth (vers. 49-53).
* Ver. 39. S. D. Syr'"'. If"', omit eypyyopyaev av kui. Ver. 40. S. B. L. Q. some
Mun. It. omit ow after vpeis.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB, 349
Vers. 41-48.* The Parable of the Two Stewards.— The magnificence uf the
promise, ver. 37, has atruck Peter ; he asks himaelf if auch a recompense is intended
for all the subjects nf the Measiah, nr nught nnt rather tn be restricted tu thnae whn
abaU play the chief part in .Hia kingdum. If that is the meaning uf his questiun, ver.
41, it relates nut tn the parable nf the thief (vers. 39, 40), but tu that uf the Master's
return- (vers. 35-38), which wnuld cunfirm the impreaainn that vers. 39 and 40 are an
interpnlatinn in this discuurse, tn be ascribed either tn Luke ur tn the dncument from
which he burrnws. The questinn nf Peter recalls nne put by the same apustle. Matt.
19 : 37, which, sn far as the sense gnes, is exactly aimilar. Jeaua cnntinues His
teaching aa if He tnnk nn account (apa, then) oi Peter's questien ; but in reaUly He
givea auch a tum to the warning wbich follows about watchfulnesa, that it includes
the preciae answer to the question. For a similar form, comp. 19 ; 35, 36, John 14 : 31-38,
et al. All shall be recompensed for their fidelity, but thoae mere magnificently
than the reat who have been aet to watch over their brethren in the Maater's absence
(vers. 43-44) ; as, on the contrary, he who haa been in this higher poaition and
neglected hia duty, ahall be punished much raore severely than the servants of a less
exalted class (vera. 45-46). Finally, vers. 47, 48, the general principle 'on which this
judgment of the Church proceeds.
Jesus gives an interrogative form te the indirect answer which He makes to
Peter's question : " Whn then is the steward ... ?" Why this atyle uf expres
sion ? De Wette thinks that Jeaus speaks aa if He were seeking with emutinn amnng
His nwn fnr thia devOted aervant. Bleek fluds again here the furm nbserved, 11. : 5-8 :
" Whu is the steward whn, if hia master cnmes tn find him, shall nut be estab
lished by him ... ?" Neither uf the explanatinns ia very natural. Jesus puts
a real questinn ; He invites Peter tn seek that steward (it might tn be himself and
every apuatle). Matthew, by preserving (34 : 45-51) the interrogative fnrm, while
nmitting Peter's queatinn, which gave rise te it, suppUes a remarkable testimony to
the fidelity of Luke'a narrative. The atewm'da, although aiavea (ver. 45), were ser
vants of a higher rank. The BepanEta is the general body of domestics, the famuliiium
of the Latins. This term corresponds to the all in Peter'a queatinn, as the perann nf
the ruler tn the us in the aame queatinn. The fut. KaraarycEi, shall make, aeems tu in
dicate that the Church shall nutbe sn cnnstituted till after the departure nf the Mas
ter. Kaipds, the due season denntes the time fixed fnr the weekly nr daily distribu
tinn ; BiTopETpiov, their ratinns. There is a difference between the recumpense
prnmised, ver. 44, tn the faithful steward and that which waa pledged, ver.
37, te the watchful aervant. The latter was of a mure inward character.; it
waa the expressinn nf the Master's persunal attachment tu the faithful ser
vant whn had persnnally bestowed his care upnn him. The fnrmer is mure
glnriuus ; it ia a snrt nf nfficial recumpense fnr services rendered tu the hnuse :
the matter in questinn is a high gnvernment in the kingdnm nf glury, in recum
pense fnr labnrs tn which the faithful servant haa devuted himaelf in an influen
tial pnsitiun during the ecunumy nf grace. Thia relatinn ia indicated by the curre-
apundeuce nf the twn Karaar^yaEi, vers. 43 and 44. This saying seems tn assume that
the apnstnlate wiU be perpetuated tiU the return nf Christ ; and the figure emplnyed
* Ver. 43. 13 Mjj. aeveral Mnn. read o inatead uf kui befure tjipovipos, !** T".
jpioriqiie^ Yg_ j-ead, inatead nf KaraaryaEi, KarEaryaEV (taken frnm Matthew). D. L.
Q. X. nmit tov befnre didovai, Ver. 47. L. Syr. ItP'«"4»«, umit pydE noiyaac. i*. B.
T., y instead nf py^E.

350 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
does indisputably prnve that there wiU subsist in the Church to the very end a
ministry of the word establiahed by Christ. Of this the'apnstles were sn weU aware,
that when they were themaelves leaving the earth, they tnnk care tu establish minis
ters nf the wurd tn fiU their places in the Church. This ministry was a cnntinuatinn,
if nnt nf their whnle nffice, at least nf nne uf its raust indispensable f unctiuns, that nf
which Jeaua speaks in uur parable— the regular distributinn uf spiritual nnurishment
tn the flunk ; cnmp. the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Pet. 5. The theury which makes the
pastorate emanate from the Church aa ita representative is therefnre net biblical ; the
cffice is rather an emanatinn frum the apnatolate, and thus mediately an inatitutiun nf
lOaua Himself. Cnmp. Eph. 4 : 11 : "He gave aume as . . . pasturs and teach
ers." It is Jesus whn wUl have this ministry, whn has establiahed it by Hia manda
tories, whn procures fnr His Church in every age thnae whn have a misaiun tn fiU it,
and whn endnwa them fnr that end. Hence their weightier respnnsibiUty.
Vers. 45, 46 repreaent an apuatle nr an unfaithful minister under the image uf an
unprincipled steward. The cnnditinn uf fidelity being the cnnstant watching fnr the
Master's return, this servant, tn aet himaelf mnre at his ease in hia unfaithfulness,
puts the thought of that moment far off. So the minister ef Jeaua doea, who, in
place of watching for the Parouaia, substitutes the idea ef indefinite progress.*
What will beceme ef his practical fidelity, since it is the constant watching for the
Lord which ahould be its support ? Beating, eating, and drinking are figures,, like the
regular and conacientioua distribution (ver. 43). The ecclesiastical functiunariea de
acribed in thia piece are thnae whn, inatead ef dividing the word ef Christ to the
Church, impose on it their own, who tyrannize over souls instead of tending them,
and show themselvea so much the more jealous ef their rights the mure negligently
they discharge their dutiea. Aixoropetv, strictly, io cleave in two, denntes a puniah
ment which was really uaed amnng the natinns uf antiquity (Egyptians, Chaldeans,
Greeks, Rnmans ; cnmp. alsn 3 Sam. 13 : 31 ; 1 Chrnn. 30 : 3 ; Heb. 11 : 37). But
this literal meaning dnes nnt suit here, since we still hear nf a pnaitinn which this ser-
vant ia tn receive ; at least if we dn nnt admit with Bleek that in theae last wurds
Jeaus passes frum the figure tn the applicatiun. Is it nut mnre natural, even thnugh
we cannut cite examples uf the usage, tn understand the wurd in the sense uf the
Latin expressiun, flagellis diacindere, tn scuurge the b^ck with a rod (the : ahall be beat
en with mmvjj stripes, ver. 47) ?
The portion in questinn after this terrible punishment ia impriaunment, ur even the
extreme penalty nf the law — the cross, fcr example, which was always preceded by
acnurging. The wnrd dniaruv, "with ihe unbelievers," might support the explana
tinn given by Bleek ; but thnugh the applicatiun pierces the veil uf the parable, the\
strict sense is nnt altngether set aside : " thnse whu cannnt be trusted," strangers to '
the hnuse. Matthew says : ilie hypocrites, falae frienda (the Pharisees). A faithless
apustle will be nn better treated than an adversary. To have one's portion with is a
Hebraistic and Greek expressinn, which signifies io share the lot of . . .
Vers. 47 and 48. Tlie Principle. — " And that servant which knew his lurd's wiU,
and prepared nuthing, neither did accurding tn his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes. 48. But he that knew nnt, and did cummit things wurthy nf stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes. Fur untn whumanever much ia given, cf him shall much be
required ; and to whom meu have committed much, nf him they wUl ask the more."
* See on vv. 18, 19, closing paragraph. — J. H.

OOMME-NTARY ON St. ITIKE. ^61
Alung with the superiurity nf pusitinn described abnve, the apustles had received a
superiur degree uf knowledge ; it is tu this new advantage that ver. 47a refers. It is
cunnected with the preceding ; fur the higher the servant ia placed by hia master, the
fuller are the iustructiuna he receives frum him. The aame manner nf judging wiU
be extended tn this nther kind uf superiurity, Oatervald, underatanding iavrdv with
pf) kToiimaaS, translatea, "whn prepared nnt himaelf." This ellipsis ia inadmissible.
The meaning is, whoprepa/red not [what was neceaaary tn receive hia master accnrd
ing tu his wishes]. It is the antithesis nf vers. 35-37. The servant whnm the master
bas nut initiated su specially intn his intentinns ia nevertheleas respunsible to a certain
extent. Fnr he alsu haa a certain knnwledge nf his will ; cnmp. the applicatiun nf
thia same principle, Rnm. 3 : 13. Ver. 48J. The general maxim nn which the whnle
of the preceding reata. The twn parallel prupositiuns are nnt whnlly synnnymnus.
The passive 'eddBy, was given, simply denntes an assigned pnsitiun ; the middle fnrm,
napeQevTo, men have committed, indicates that the trust was taken by the master as his
nwn interest ; the figure is that nf a sum depnsited. Cnnaequently the first term is
properly appUed tu the apustnlic commission, and tn the authurity with which it is ac
cumpanied ; the secund, tn the higher light granted tu the apuatlea. What ia claimed
uf each is nnt fraita which dn nnt depend nn the labnrer, but devntedness tn wnrk.
Meyer thinks that the more signifles " more than had been cumraitted tn him." It is
mnre uatural tn understand : more than will be exacted from nthers whn have received
less. On the subject nf the verbs napeBevro and airyaovaiv, see ver. 30.
Mark has preaerved (13 : 37), at the clnse uf the parable uf the purler, which he
alnne haa, but which refera to the aame duty nf watchfulneaa aa the twn preceding
parables in Luke, thia final exhurtatinn: "What I say untn ynu, I say untn all.
Watch." This wurd cnrrespunds lu a striking manner tn the meaning nf Jesus' an
swer tn Peter in Luke : " All shnuld watch, for all shall ahare iu the Master's per
sunal requital (ver. 37) ; but very specially {nEpiaadrepov, ver. 48) ye, my apnstlea, whn
have tu expect either a greater recumpenae nr a aeverer punishment." On this sup-
pnaitinn, Luke relates the queatinn uf Peter and the indirect anawer uf Jeaua ; Mark,
a wnrd nf Jeaua which belunged te His direct answer. How is the relation between
the twn tu be explained ? Hnltzmann thinks that Luke uf himself imagined the quea
tinn nf Peter, fnunding on thia laat wnrd nf Jesus in Mark. He cannnt help cunfeaa-
ing, further, that thia interpnlatinn has been very skilfully managed by Luke.
Such procedure, in reality, wuuld be as ingeninus aa arbitrary ; it ia inadmissible.
The accnunt uf Luke, besides, flnda a cunflrmatinn in the text uf Matthew, in which
the interrogative fnrm nf the anawer uf Jeaus is preserved exactly as we find it in
Luke, and that thnugh Matthew has umitted Peter's queatinn, which alune explaina >
this fnrm. ' Weizsacker suppuses inversely that the questinn uf Peter in Luke was
burrowed by the latter frnm the interrogative furm nf the saying nf Jesus in Matt.
34 : 45 :" 'W'hu is then the faithful servant ... ?" But Mark's accnunt stands
tn defend that nf Luke againat this new accuaatinn. Fnr, aa we have seen, the laat
wurds nf the discnurse in Mark hadne meaning except in reference tn Peter's ques
tien reported by Luke. Luke's form cannot be derived from Mark without protest
from Matthew, nor from Matthew without Mark in his turn pretesting. We hs^ve
eridently, as it were, the pieces uf a wheelwnrk taken duwn ; each evangelist has
faithfully preserved tu us thnse nf them which au incumplcte traditinn had trans
mitted tn hira. Applied tn a written dncuraeut, this dividing wuuld fnrm a real
mutUatinn ; as the reault uf a circulating traditiun, it admits nf easy explanation.
After having thus fnUnwed the natural cnurse nf the cunversation, Jesus returns
to the thought from which it had started, the vanity of earthly goods. He shows
how this truth directly applies to the preaent situation (vers. 49-53).

S52 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Vers. 49 and 50.* The Character of the Immediate Future. — " 1 am cnme to send
fire un the earth ; and what will I if it be already kindled ? 50. But I have a bap
tism tn be baptized with ; and hnw am I straitened till it be accumplished !" " Is it
a time," said Eliaha tu the unfaithful Gehazi, " tu receive lands and cattle when the
hand nf Gnd ia upun larael," that ia tn aay, when Shalmaneser is at the gates nf
Saraaria ? Is it a time fur the believer tn give himself up tn the peaceable enjuyment
nf earthly gnnds wheu the great struggle is beginning ? The Church ia about tO be
burn ; Israel ia abnut tn perish, and the Hnly Land tn be given nver tn the Gentiles.
Such is the cunnectiun, tnn mnving tu be expressed by a logical particle, which ia
impUed by the remarkable aayndetun between vera. 48 and 49. nop ^dXXeiv, strictly,
io throw a firebrand. Jeaus feels that His presence is fur the earth the brand which is
tn aet everything un fire. " Every fruitful thing," aaya M. Renan, " is rich in vvars."
Jesus understund the fruitfulness uf His wurk. The expressiun I am come, which
Jesus frequently uses in the Syn., finds its unly natural explanatiun in His lips in the
cunscinusness which He had'of His pre-existence. The fire in questinn here is not
the fire cf the Holy Spirit, as snme nf the Fathers thuught. The sequel pruves
that it is the spiritual excitement produced in nppusite directiuns by the cuming nf
Jeaua, whefice will reault the diapepiapds, the division, deacribed frum ver. 51 nnward.
Twn humanitiea will hencefurlh be in conflict within the bnsnm nf every natinn, un
der every runf : this thnught prnfnundly mnves the heart nf the Prince nt peace.
Hence the brnken style nf the fnllnwing wnrds. The e'l may be taken in the sense nf
thai, which it uften has, and ri in the sense of how : " Hnw I wish that this flre were
already burning !" (Olshauaen, De Wette, Bleek). But thia meaning nf the twu
wnrda e'i and. ri, and especially uf tbe secnnd, ia nut very uatural. Accnrdingly Gro
tiua, Meyer, etc. , have been led tn admit twu prupusitinna — the nne terming a ques
tion, the other the answer : " And what will I ? Oh, that it enly were already kin
dled !" The. sense is radically the same. But the aecond prepoaition would come
loo abruptly aa an anawer to the preceding. Ewald recura to the idea of a aingle aen
tence, only he aeeka te give to BeXo a meaning which better juatifles the uae of el :
" And of what have I to complain if it be already kindled?" Thia aenae dnea nnt
dtfi'er much frnm that which appeara tn ua the muat natural : " What have I mure tu
aeek, aince it is already kindled ?" Thia aaying expreaaea a muurnful aatisfactinn
with the fact that this inevitable rending nf humanity is already beginning, as proved
by the event recnrded vera. 1-13. Jesus submits tu bring in war where He wished
tu eatabliah peace. But it muat be ; it is Hia missiun : " I am cume tn . . ."
Meantime this fire, which is already kindled, ia far yet frum burating intn a flame ;
in nrder tu that there is a cunditiun tn be fulfilled, tbe thnught uf which weighs
heavily un the heart of Jeaua : there needs the fact whicb, by manifesting the deadly
antagnnism between the wnrld and Gnd, ahall produce the division of which Jesus
speaks between mau and man ; there needs the cress. Withnut the crnsa, the cunfla-
gratinn lighted nn the earth by the preaenee nt Jesus wuuld very sunn be extin
guished, and the wurld wnuld speedUy fall back tn its undisturbed level ; hence ver.
50. The de is adversative : " But thnugh the flre ia already kindled, it needs, in
nrder that it may blaze fnrth, that . . ." The baptiam in queatinn here is the
same aa that uf which Jeaus speaks, Matt. 30 : 33 (at least if the expreaainns analn-
* Ver. 49. Instead nf eis, which the T. R. reads with 11 Mjj. (Byz.) and the
Mnn., 10 Mjj. (Alex.) 40 Mnu. read em. Ver. 50. The mss. are divided between ow
(T. R.) aud oTov (Alex.).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 353
gnus to these are authentic in that passage). Jesus certainly makes an allusinn tn
His baptism at the hands nf His furerunner, which included a cnnsecratiun tu death.
The figure ia aa fnlluws . Jeaus seea Hunself abuut tu be plunged intu a bath nf
flame, frnm which He shall cnme fnrth the lurch which ahall set the whule wnrld nn
flre. The Lnrd expieases with perfect candur the impressinn nf terror which is pro
duced in Him by the neceasity nf gning thrnugh thia furnace nf suffering,
SvvEXEoBai, io be closely pressed (straitened), snmetimes by the pnwer nf luve (3 Cur.
5 : 14) ; elaewhere, by that nf ccnflicting desires (Phil. 1 : 33) ; here, dnubtless, by
muurnful impatience tn have dnne with a painful task. He is under pressure tn
enter intn this suffering, because He is in haste tn get cut uf it. "A prelude nf
Gethsemane," says Gess in an admirable passage nn this diacourae.* Here, indeed,
we have the flrst crisis nf that agnny nf which we catch a secnnd indicatinn, Juhn
13 : 37 : " Now is my snul troubled, and what shall I say ?" and which is breathed
fnrth in all its intensity iu Gethsemane. Luke alnne has preserved tn us the memn-
rial uf this flrat revelatiun uf the inmnst feelings nf Jesus.
After this saying, which is a snrt nf parenthesis drawn fnrth by the impressinn,
produced un Him by the thuught in the preceding verse. He resumes at ver. 51 the
development of His declaratinn, ver. 49.
Vers. 51-53.t The Picture of the Future Just Declared. — " Suppnae ye that 1 am
cnme tn give peace un saith ? I tell ynu, nay ; but divisiun. 53. Fur from hence
fnrth there shall be flve in nne huuse divided, three againat twn, and twn against
three. 53. The father shall be divided against the sun, and the ann against the father ;
the mnther againat the daughter, and the daughter against the muther , the muther-
in-law against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her muther-in-
law." AoKslre, su^oae ye, is nu dnubt aimed at the illusinn with which the diaciples
flattered themaelves, yet hnping fur the establishment uf the Messianic kingdnm
withnut struggles nr sufferinga (19 : 11). Jeaus dnes nnt deny that peace shuuld be
the flnal result uf His wurk ; but certainly He denies that it will be its immediate
effect. The simplest snlutinn nf the phrase dXl' ^ ia tn take it as an abbreviatiun uf
oixl dXXo y : " Nuthing else than . . ." Vers. 53 and 53 describe the flre lighted
- by Jesus. By the preaching nf the disciples, the cunflagratinn spreads ; with their
arrival, it invades every family nne after anuther. But " the fifth cnmmandment
itself must give way tn a Innk directed tn Him . . . Undnubtedly it is Gud whn
haa fnrmed the natural bunda between men ; but Jeaus introduces a new principle,
hnlier than the bund of nature, tn unite men tn une anuther" (Geas, p. 33). Even
Hnltzmann observes that the five persnns indicated, ver. 52, are expressly enumera
ted, ver. 53 : father, snn, muther, daughter, daughter-in-law. Matthew (10 : 35)
has nut preaerved thia delicate tnuch ; are we tn think that Luke invented this nice
preciaiun, ur that Matthew, finding it in the cummnn ducument, has nbliterated it ?
Twn suppnsitinns equally improbable. 'Em indicates hnstility, and with mure
energy in the last twn members, where thia prep, ia construed with the ace. ; proba
bly because between muther-in-law and daughter-in-law religinus hnstiUty is strength
ened by previnus natural animnsity.
* Wnrk quoted, p. 79. " We cast uurselves in cnntemplatinn into the oppressed
snul of Jesus . . . intn His Paasinn befnre the Passinn" (ib.).
t Ver. 53. ii. B. D. L. T". U. sume Mnn. Vg., dtapepiaByaovTai instead nf
diapepiaByaeTai. Alex, sume Mnn., Bvyarcpa, pyrepa, instead of Bvyarpi, pyrpi.
Ut. B. D. L. omit avryc

354 COltMENTARY OST ST. LUKil!.
Bill. To the Multitudea : vers. 54-59. — After having annnunced and described the
rending, the first symptums nf which He already discerns, Jesus returns anew to the
multitude whum He sees plunged in security and impenitence ; He puints out to
thnse men, sn thurnughly earthly and self-aatiafied, the thunderbnlt which' is abuut tn
break nver their heads, and beseeches them tn anticipate the explnsinn nf the divine
wrath. Vers. 54-56.* The Signa of the Timea.—" And He said alsn tn the peuple, When ye
see a cluud rise uut nf the west, straightway ye say. There cnmeth a ahuwer ; and an
it is. 55. And when ye see the snuth wind blnw, ye aay. There will be heat ; and it
cnmeth tn paaa. 56. Ye hypncrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and uf the
earth ; but huw is it that ye do nnt discern thia time ?" ''BXeye di Kai, He aaid alao, ia,
aa we have already seen (i. p. 177), the fnrmula which Luke uses when Jeaua at the
clnae nf a dnctrinal discnurae adda a laat wnrd nf mure gravity, which raises the
questiun tn its full height, and is intended tn leave nn the mind nf the hearer an im
pressinn never tu be effaced : " Finally, I have a last wnrd tu address tu yuu." This
cnncluding idea la that uf the urgency nf cunversinn. Cnuntry peuple, in the matter
of weather, plume themselves un being gnud prophets, and in fact their prngnnstics
dn nnt mislead them : " Ye aay, ye say . . . and aa ye aay, it cumea tu paaa."
The rains in Palestine cnme frnm the Mediterranean (1 Kings 18 : 44) ; the auuth
wind, nn the cnntrary, the simuum blnwing from the deaert, bringa drought. Theae
peuple knuw it ; su their calculatinn is quickly made {eiBeoi) ; and, what ia mnre, it
ia currect {kui yiverac, twice repeated). Su it is, becauae all thia paases in the nrder nt
things in which they are interested : they give themselves tu discuver the future in
the present ; and as they will, they can. And this clear-sightedness with which man
is endnwed, they put nnt forth in the service uf a higher interest I A Juhn the Bap
tist, a Jesus appear, live and die, withnut their cnncluding that a sulemn huur for
them has struck ! This contradiction in their mode of acting ia what Jesua desig-
natea by the word hypocritea. What they want ia not the eye, it is the will to upe it.
The word KaipoS, the prqpitioua time, ia explained by the expreasion, 19 : 44, the time
of thy visitation. AoKipd^etv, to appreciate ihe importance. Matt. 16 : 1-3 ought not to
be regarded as parallel to our passage. The idea is wholly different. Only in Mat
thew our ver. 56 has been joined with a parable similar to that of Luke in pnint nf
fnrm, and that by an aaanciatinn nf ideas eaaily understuud.
Vers. 57-59.f The Urgency of Reconciliation to God. — " Yea, and why even ef
yourselves judge ye net what ia right ? 58. (For) While thou goest with thine adver
sary to the magistrate, aa thnu art in the way give diligence that thuu mayest be de
livered from him ; leal be hale thee tn the judge, and the judge deliver thee tn the
ufflcer, and the nfficer cast thee inte priaon. 59. I tell thee, thou ahalt not depart
thence till thou haat paid the very laat mite." A new example {ri di kui) ef what
they would' make haste tu du, if their gnnd-wUl equaUed their inteUigence. 'A^'
iavTov, of yourselves ; same meaning as the " at unce ye say" (ver 54). It shnuld be
su natural tu perform this duty that it nught nnt tu be necessary tu remind them nf
* Ver. 54. 6 Mjj. (Alex.) snme Mnn. nmit ryv. !*. B. L., em inatead nf o?ro.
Ver. 56. 6 Mjj. 40 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. put rov ovpavov befnre T)?S yyS. !». B. L. T".,
avK otdare doKipaCeiv inatead uf ov doKipuCere.
X Ver. 58. Snme Mjj., napudaaei instead nf napado (T. R. with 14 Mjj.) ; jiaXei ur
paXy instead uf jiaXXy (T. R. with anme Mnn.). Ver. 59. !». B. L., saS instead nf euS
ov. 5 Mjj., TO eaxarov instead of rov eaxarpv (14 Mjj.).

COMMBNTAEY ON ST. LUKE. 355
it. But, alas 1 inthe domain nf which Jesus is speaking they are net so quick to
draw conclusions as in that wherein they habitually muve. Their flnger needs tu be
put on things* To dmalov, what is just, denutes the right step tn be taken in the given
situatinn— tn wit, as the sequel shuws, recuncUiatinn tu God by cnnversinn. The fnl
lnwing parable (ver. 58) is presented in the furm uf an exhurtatinn, because the ap
plicatiun is blended with the flgure. The for (ver. 58) has this fnrce : " Why dust
nnt thnu act thus with Gud ? Fur it is what thnu wuuldst nut faU tn du with a
human adversary." We must avnid translating the e5s indyeiS, " when thnu guest "
(E. v.). 'Qs signifles " while thnu guest ;" it is explained by the in tlie way wliieh
fulluwa. It is befure arriving at the tribunal, whUe ynu are nn the way thither, that
yuu muat get recnnciled tu him whn accuaea yuu. Once befure the judge, justice
takes its cuurse. The impnrtant thing, therefnre, is tn anticipate that fatal term.
'Epyaaiav dovvai seems tn be a Latinism, operam dare. In the applicatiun, Gnd is at
unce adversary, judge? and ufflcer : the first by His hulineaa, the secnnd by His jus
tice, the third by His pnwer; Or ahnuld we underatand by the creditur, Gnd ; by the
judge, Jesus ; by the nfflcers, tbe angels (Matt. 13 : 41) ? WiU it ever be pnssible,
relatively tn Gud, tu pay the last mite ? Jesus dnes nnt enter intn the questinn, which
liea beyund the hnriznn nf the parable. Other paaaagea seem tn pruve that in His
view this term can never be reached (Mark 9 : 43-49). There is in the whnle paasage,
and especially in the Itell thee (ver. 59), the expressiun nf a perannal cnnscinusness
whnlly free frnm all need nf recnnciliatinn.
Matthew places this aaying -in the Sermnn un the Mnunt (v. 35, 36) ; he appliea it
tn the duty uf recnnciliation between men as the cunditiun uf man's recnnciliatinn tn
Gud. It cannnt be duubted that this saying, placed there by Matthew in virtue uf a
simple asauclatiun uf ideaa, finda its real cuntext in Luke, in the discuurse which is
sn perfectly linked tugether.
' 10. Conversation on two Fvents of the Day : 13 : 1-9. Luke dues nut say that the
fnUnwmg event tunk place Immediately after the preceding, but nnly. in a general
way, iv airip tQ Kuipu (ver. 1), in the same circumstances. The three fnllnwing aay
inga (vera. 1-3, 4, 5, 6-9) breathe the same engagedness uf mind as filled the preced
ing discnurses. The external situatinn alau ia the aame. Jesus is mnving slnwly on,
taking advantage nf every nccasiun which preaenta itself tu direct the hearta uf .men
tn things abuve. The necesaity uf cunversinn ia that nf which Jesus here reminds His
hearers ; in 13 : 54 et seq. He had rather preached its urgency.
1st. Vers. 1-3.* The Galileans masaaered by Pilate. Juaephus dues nnt mentinn the
event tn which the fnllnwing wurds relate. The Galileans were sumewhat restlesa ;
cunflicta with the Rnman garriann eaaily aruae. In the expreaainn, mingling their blood
with that of the aacrifice, there ia a certain pnetical emphasis which uften character
izes pnpular accuunta. The impf. napyaav aigniflea " they were there relating."
Jesus with Hia piercing eye immediately diacerna the prophetical significance nf the
fact. The carnage due tu Pilate's swnrd ia nnly the prelude tn that which will snun
be carried nut by the Rnman army thruughnut all the Hnly Land, and eapecially in
the temple, the last asylum nf the natinn. Was nut all that remained uf the Galilean
penple actuaUy assembled fnrty years later in the temple, expiating their natiunal im
penitence under the stroke of Titus ? The wnrd likewise (ver. 3) iflay therefnre be
* Ver. 3. 5>. B. D. L., ravra instead uf roiavra. Ver. 3. The MSS. are divided be
tween oaavTuS (T. R. , Byz.) and opoiog (Alex.) A. D. M. X. T. and several Mnn.,
peravoyayre instead of peravoyre.

356 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
taken literaUy. A serinus, individual, and national cnnversinn at the call of Jesus
cuuld alnne have prevented that catastrophe.
3d!. Vers. 4, 5.* TTie Persona buried by the Tower of Siloami. The disaster which has
been related recalls anuther te Hia mind, which He mentiona spontaneoualy, and
which He applies apecially to the inhabitants ef Jeruaalem. The aqueduct and pool
of Siloam are situated where the valley of Tyropeon, between Sion and Moriah, opens
inte that of Jehoahaphat. "Forty yeara later, the fall of the hnuaes nf the burning
capital justifled this warning nnt less strikingly. When a disaster cumea upnn an in
dividual, there ia a diapnsitinn amnng men tu seek the cause nf it in anme apecial
guiltineaa attaching tu the victim. Jeaua turna His hearera back tn human guilt in
general, and their nwn in particular ; and frnm that, which tu the phariaaic heart la
an uccaainn cf proud cnnfldence. He derives a mutive tu humiliatiun and cnnversinn,
an example uf wbat waa caUed, 13 : 57, judging what is right.
Sd. "Vera. 6-9. f The Time of Grace. Here again we have'the fnrmula sXeyede,
which annnuncea the true and flnal wurd nn the situatinn. (See at 13 : 54.) A vine
yard fnrms an excellent anil for fruit-trees. As usually, the flg-tree representa Israel.
Gnd is the uwner, Jesus the vine-dresser whn intercedes. 'Ivari (yevyrai). To what
end ? Kai, moreover ; nnt nnly ia it useleaa itaelf, but it alau renders the ground uae-
less. Bengel, Wieaeler, Weizsacker find an allusinn in the three yeara tn the perind
uf the ministry uf Jeaua which waa already paaaed, and sn draw from this parable
chrnnnlngical cenclusiuns. Altngether withnut reasnn ; fnr auch detaila ought tn
be explained by their relatinn tu the general figure uf the parable nf which they fnrm
a part, and nnt by circumatances whnlly fureign tu the descriptinn. In the figure
chnsen by Jesua, three years are the time nf a full trial, at the end nf -vj^hich the in
ference uf incurable sterility may be drawn. Thnse three years, therefure, represent
the time uf grace granted tn larael ; and the laat year, added at the request nf the
gardener, the fnrty yeara' reapite between the Friday nf the cruciflxinn and the de
structinn nf Jerusalem, which were nwing tu that prayer uf Jeaua : " Father, forgive
them." The mss. have the twu furma Konpia, from Konpiov, and Konpiav, frum Konpia.
The prupnaitinn kuv pev . . . ia elliptical, as nften in classical Greek ; we must
understand kuXos exei. The Alex., b.y placing elc to peXXov befure e'i di pyye, pro
bably wished tn escape this eUipsis : " If it bear fruit, let it be fnr the future [Uve]."
The extranrdinary pains uf the gardener hestnwed nn this sickly tree represent the
marvels nf luve which Jesua shall diaplay in Hia death and reaurrectinn, then at Pen
tecnst and by means uf the apustnlic preaching, in urder tn rescue the penple frnm
their impenitence. This parable gives Israel tu knnw that its life is nnly a respite,
and that this respite is nearing its end. Perhaps Paul makes an allusinn tn this say
ing when he adrannishes Gentile Christians, the branches nf the wUd ulive, saying tu
them, inel Kul ai EKKorryaij (Rum. 11 : 33).
Hultzmann acknuwledges the histnrical truth uf the introduclinn, ver. 1.. He as
cribes it tu the Bogia, like everything which he flnds true in the intrnductinna nf
Luke. But if this piece was in A., nf which Matthew made use, huw haa he umitted
it altngether ?
* Ver. 4. The mss. are divided between ovroi (T. R.) and avroi (Alex). Ev befnre
lepovaaXyp ia umitted by B. D. L. Z. Ver. 5. The mss. are divided between opoias
and oaavraS ; between peravoyrE and peravoayyTE.
X Ver. 7. ». B. D. L. T". sume Mnn. Syr^"'. It. Vg. add af ov after rpia sry. Ver.
9. S. B. L, T". 3 Mnn. place eiS to peXXov befure ei de pyye.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 357
11. The Progress of the Kingdom : 13 : 10-31. During this jnumey, as thruughnut
His whnle ministry, Jesus did nnt fail tn frequent the synagugues un the Sabbath
days. The present narrative introduces us tu nne nf thuse scenes. Perhaps the
feeling , which led Luke tu place it here, was that nf the 'cnntrast between Israel,
which was hasting tu destructinn, and the Church, which was already growing. A
glnriuus deed, which teUa strnngly nn the multitude (vers. 10-17), leads Jesus tn de
scribe in twn parables'the pnwer nf the kingdum nf Gnd (vers. 18-31).
Is*. Vers.10-17.* The Healing of the palsied Woman. And flrst the miracle, vers.
10-13. This wuman was cempletely bent, and her cnnditinn was cunnected wilh a
psychical weakness, which iu turn arose frnm a higher cauae, by which the will uf
tbe sufferer waa buund. This atate of thinga is deacribed by the phraae : a spirit of
infirmity. Jesus flrst nf aU heals the psychical malady : Hum a/rt loosed. AeXvoBai,
the perfect : it is an accumplished fact. The wiU nf the sufferer thrnugh faith
draws frnm this declaratinn the strength which it lacked. At the same time, by the
laying nn nf His hands, Jesus restures the budUy nrganism tu the cuntrul uf the
emancipated wiU ; and the cure is cumplete.
The cunversatinn, vers. 14r-17. It was the Sabbath. The ruler nf the synagegue
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). QepaneveaBe, come to get yourselves healed. Jeaua takes up the challenge.
The plural hypocrites is certainly the true reading (comp. the plural adversariea, ver.
17). Jesus puts on trial the whole party of whom this man is the representative. The
severity ot His apostrophe is juatifled by the comparison which follows (vers. 15 and
16) between the freedom which they take with the Sabbath law, when their own in
terests, even the most tririal, are involved, and the extreme rigor with which they
apply it, when the question relates to their neighbor's interests, even the gravest, aa
well as to their estimate of the conduct of Jesua. The three contraata between ox
(or ass) and daughter of Abralia/m, between stall and Satan, and between the two
bonda, material and spiritual, tobe unloosed, are obvious at a glance. .The 1-ast touch :
eighteen yeara, in which the profoundest pity ia 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 yeara' infirmity (ver. 11) and the three yeara' aterilit.y
(ver. 7) ! Not content with aacribing to Luke this first puerUity, he imputes to him a
second still greater : that which has led Luke tu place at ver. 18 the parable uf the
grain nf mustard seed, ia that it is burrnwed frum the vegetable kingdnm, like that nf
the fig-tree (vers. 7-9) ! !
Thia an nervuua reply bringa the admiratiun uf the peuple tu a height, and shula
the muuth nf His adversaries. Jeaus then, rising tn the general idea, uf which this
deed is nnly a particular applicatiun, tu wit, the power uf the kingdum uf Gnd de
velups it in two parables fitted tu present this truth in its twn chief aspects ; the twn
are, the mustard seed (vers. 18, 19) and the leaven (vers. 30, 31).
2d. Vers. 18-31. 2he Tioo Parables.— The kingdnm nf Gnd has twu kinds nf
pnwer : the puwer nf extension, by which it gradually embraces all natinns ; the
* Ver. 11. !S. B. L. T". X. snme Mnn. Itpi«''<i»=, Vg. nmit yv after yvvy. Ver. 14. The
MSS. are divided between ev ravrais (T. R.) and ev avrai; (Alex.). ¦ Ver. 15. Snme
Mjj. and Mnn. Syr., o lyaovS instead nf o Kvpio;. 17 Mjj. 80 Mnn. It. Vg., vnoKpirai
instead nf vnoKpira, which the T. R. reads with D. V. X. the must nf the Mnn. Syr.

358 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
pnwer of transformation, by which it graduaUy regenerates the whole of human life.
The natural symbol of the first is a seed which acquires in a shnrt time an increase
out of all prnpurtiun tu its nriginal smallness ; that nf the secnnd, a fermenting ele
ment, materially very incnnslderable, but capable nf exercising its assimilating rirtue
over a large mass. Thnse twn parables fnrm part nf the cuUectiun, Matt. 43 : 31,
et seq. ; the first nnly ia fnund Mark 4 : 30, 31.
Vers. 18 and 19.* Again the fnrmula eXeys <Je'(nr oHm, as anme Alex. read). The
twu questinns nf ver. 18 express the activity nf mind which seeks in nature the anal
ogies which it needs. The first : " Tn what is Uke . . .," affirms the existence
nf the emblem suught ; the secnnd : " Tn -jphat shaU I liken . . .," has the dis
cuvery nf it in view. Mark likewiae introduces thia parable with twn queatinns ; but
they differ bnth in substance aud fnrm frum thnse uf Luke. Traditinn had indeed
preserved the memnry nf this style uf apeaking ; unly it had mndified the tenur nf
the queatinna. We muat certainly reject with the Alex., in the text bnth nf Luke
and Matthew the epithet great, applied tn tree. Jesus dnes nnt mean tn cuntrast a
great tree with a amall une, but a tree tn vegetablea in general. The mustard-plant in
the Eaat dnes nnt rise beyund the height uf nne nf nur small fruit-trees. But the excep
tiunal thing is, that a plant like mustard, which belnngs tu the class nf garden herbs,
and the grain nf which is exceedingly small, puts fnrth a wuudy stalk adnrned with
branches, and becnmes a veritable tree. It is thua the atriking type cf the disprupnr-
tinn which prevaila between the amallness of the kingdum uf Gud at its cnmmence-
ment, when it is yet enclnsed in the persun uf Jesus, and its flnal expansiun, when it
shall embrace all penples. The fnrm nf the parable is shnrter and simpler in Luke
than in the nther twn.
Vers. 30 and 31. f Jesus anew seeks an image (ver. 30) tnpnrtray the pnwer nf the
kingdum nf Gud as a principle nf mnral transfurmatinn." There is here, as in aU the
pairs nf parables, a secnnd aspect nf the same truth ; cnmp. 5 : 36-38 ; 15 : 3-10 ;
Matt. 13 : 44^6 ; John 10 : 1-10. We even find in Luke 15 and John 10 a third
parable completing the ether twn. Leaven is the erablera uf every mural principle.
gund ur bad, pussessing m seme degree *a pnwer nf fermentatinn and assimilatinn ;
cnmp. Gal. 5 : 9. The ihree measures shnuld be explained, Uke the three years (ver.
7), by the figure taken as a whnle. It was the quantity nrdinarily emplnyed fur a
batch. They have been underatund aa dennting the three branches cf the human
race, Shemites, Japhethites, and Hamitea ; cr, indeed, Greeks, Jews, and Samaritans
(Theud. nf Mnpsuestia) ; nr, again, uf the heart, snul, and spirit (Auguatine). Such
reveries are nnw unthnught nf. The idea is, that the apiritual life enclnsed in the
Gospel muat penetrate the whole of human Ufe, the indiridual, thereby the family,
and through the latter, snciety
Thuse twn parables furm the mnst entire contrast te the picture which the Jewish
imagination had formed of the establishment ef the Measiah's kingdom. One wave
of the magic wand was to accomplish everything in the twinkling of an eye. In
nppnsitinn tn this superficial notion, Jeaua aets the idea of a moral development which
works by spiritual meana and takea account ef human freedom, conaequently sluw
and progressive. Huw can it be maintained, in view uf such sayings, that He
* Ver. 18. !*. B. L. snme Mnn. ItP"«"<i»o, yg,, ow instead uf de after eXeyev. Ver.
19. ». B. D. L. T". Syr'"'. It''"i. nmit peya after devdpov.
X Ver. 30. The Alex. It. Vg. add kui befure naXiv. Ver, 31. The mss. are
divided between evEKpvipEv (T. R.) and cKpvijiev (Alex.).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 359
ijelieved in the immediate neameas of His return ? The place which thnse twu par
ables occupy in the great cnllectinn Matt. 13 is evidflhtly the result of a systematic
arrangement ; there they have the effect of two flowers in a herbarium. Luke has
restured them to their natural situation. His accuunt ia at once independent of and
superior to that of Matthew ; Mark accords with Matthew.
SBCOiSTD CYCLE.— 13 : 33 ; 17 : 10.
A NeiB Series of Bieidents in the Journey.
Ver. 33 servea as an introduction to thia whole cycle. Jeaua slowly continues His
journey of evangeUzatien {dieiropevEro, He proceeded through the country), stopping at
every city, and even at every vUlage {Kurd, distributive), taking advantage of every
nccasiun which presents itself tn instruct buth thuse whn accnmpany Him and the
penple cf the place, nnly pursuing in the main a general directiun tnward Jerusalem
{diSdaKov; noiovpevos). Nnthing cuuld be mnre natural than this remark, which is-
fnunded un the general intruductinn, 9 : 51, and in keeping with the analngnus fnrms
used in cases of summing up and transitinn, which we have observed thruughnut this
Gnspel 1. The Rejection of Israel, and the Admission of the Gentiles : 13 : 33-30. An un-
fureaeen queatinn caUs furth a new flash. It was probably evoked by a saying nf
Jesus, which appeared npposed to the privUeges of Israel, that is to say, to its national
participation in the Mesaianic blesaedness.
Vera. 33-37.* " Then one said unto Him, Lord are there few that be saved?
And He said unto them. 34. Strive te enter in at the strait gate : for many, I say
unto you, -will seek to enter in, and ahall net be able. 35. When once the Maater of
the house is risen up, and shut to the doer, and ye begin to stand without, and to
knuck at the duor, saying Lurd, Lnrd, upen untn us, and He ahall anawer and say
untn ynu, I knnw yuu nut whence ye are : 26. Then shall ye begin tu say. We have
eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thuu hast taught in nur streets. 37. But He
shall say, I tell ynu, I knuw ynu npt whence ye are ; depart from me, all ye werkera
nf iniquity." The queatinn nf ver. 33 was tn a certain extent a matter nf curinsity.
In such cases Jesua immediately gives a practical turn tu Hia anawer. Cump. 13 : 41,
Jnhn 3 : 3 ; and hence Luke says (ver. 33) -. "He said io them." Jesus gives nu
direct anawer tu the man ; He addreaaea a warning tn the penple nn the eccaainn nf
Hia questiun. The Meaaianic kingdum ia represented under the figure nf a palace,
intn which men dn nut enter, aa might appear natural, by a magnificent purtal, but
by a narrow gate, Inw, and scarcely visible, a mere pnstern. Thnae invited refuse tn
paaa in thereby ; then it ia clnsed, and they in vain suppUcate the master nf the hnuse
tu re-upen it ; it remains clnsed, and they are, and cuntinue, excluded. The applica
tiun is blended, tu a certain extent, as in 13 : 58, 59, with the flgure. 'kyovi^EoBai, to
strive, refera in the parable tn the difflculty nf paasing thrnugh the narrow npening ;
in the applicatiun, tn the humiUationa of penitence, the struggles uf cnnversinn. The
strait gate represents attachment tn the lowly Messiah ; the magnificent gateway by
which the Jews would have wiahed to enter, would represent, if it were mentinned,
the appearance nf the glnriuus Messiah whnm they expected. 1 declare unto you,
* Ver. 34. ». B. D. L. 3 Mnn. It'"'., Bvpas instead nf wvAj^s. Ver. 25. ii. B. L.
Haiiq Yg' read Kvpie nnly nnce. Ver. 36. The mss., ap^eaBe ur apiyaBe. Ver. 37.
B T" X^ov instead nf X^eyo. ». Vsa. nmit thia wnrd. B. L. R. T". umit vpas.

360 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
saya Jesua ; They will think it incredible that sn great a number of Jews, with the
ardent deaire tn have part in that kingdnm, shuuld nut succeed in entermg it. The
wurd no7^Xoi, many, prnvea the cnnnectinn between this discuurse and the questien nf
ver. 33. Only Jeaus dnes nnt say whether there will be few nr many saved ; He
cunflnes Himself tn saying that there will be many lust. This ia the nne impurtant
matter fnr practical and individual applicatiun. It is perfectly cunsistent with this
truth that there ahnuld be many saved. The meaiung nf the expresainn, will seek io
enter in, ver. 34, ia explained at ver. 25 by the cries which are uttered, and the knuck-
inga at the gate ; and the meaning nf the wnrds, but shall not be able, ver. 34, is
explained by vers. 26 and 27, which deacribe the f utUity nf thnse effurts.
It is nut pnssible tn cunnect the a^' oi, when once, wilh the preceding phrase ; the
periud wuuld drag intnlerably. The principal prupnaitinn un which thia cnnjunctinn
depends muat therefure be suught in what fulluwa. This might be ku). dp^EoBe (nnt
dpiyaBe), ver. 355: "When nnce the Master has risen ... ye shall begin, on
your side {koi), . . . ;" nr kui dnoKpiBelS kpel at the end uf the same ver. 35:
" He, on His sidle {kui), shall answer and say . . . ;" or, flnally, and must nat
urally uf all, the apndusis may be placed, aswe have put it in cur translatinn, at ver.
36, in the wurds : rdre ap^ecBe : then ye alwll begin. The wurd then favurs this cnn
structiun. The decisive act cf the Master in rising frum His seat tn shut the dour
symbnlizes the fact that cunversinn and pardnn are nn Icmger pnssible {dij>' oi, when
once). What mnment is this ? Is it that nf the rejectinn and dispersinn uf Israel ?
Nu : fur the Jews did nut then begin tn cry and tn knuck accurding tu the descrip.
tinn nf ver. 35. IS it the time nf the Paruusia, when the great Messianic festival shall
open ? No ; fur the Jewa then liv iug shaU be cen verted and received intn the palace.
The wnrda, when ye ahall see (ver. 38), atrikingly recall a aimilar feature in the parable
uf the wicked rich man, that in which thia unhappy one is represented in Hades cnn-
templating frnm afar the happineas nf Lazarus in Abraham's bnsnm. We are thereby
led tn apply what fnllnws ("when ye shall see Abraham . . " ver. 33) tuthe
judgment which Jeaua pronuunces at preaent un the unbelieving Jews, excluding them
in the life tn cnme frum aU participatinn in the blessings of salvatinn. Gess : " The
hnuse where Jesus waits can be nu nther than heaven ; it is the snuls nf the dead whn
remind hira, ver. 36, nf the relatiuns which He had with them nn the earth." This
ver. 36 indicates tbe tendency tu rest salvatinn un certain external reUginus advan
tages : " Thnu wast nne nf nuraelvea ; we cannnt periah." Ia there in the wnrds, /
know not whence ye are {yer. 37), an allusinn tu the falae cunfidence which the Jews
put in their natural deacent frum Abraham ?
Vera. 38-30.* " There shall be weeping and gnaahing nf teeth, when ye shall aee
Abrahara, and Isaac, and Jacnb, and all the prophets in the kingdnm nf Gud, and
yuii ynurselvea thruat uut. 39. And they shall cnme from the eaat, and from the
west, and from the nnrth, and frum the auuth, and shall ait dnwn in the kingdum nf
Gnd. 30. And, behnld, there are laat which ahall be flrst, and there are first which
ahall be laat." Wailinga expreas despair, gnashings nf teeth rage. The snula uf the
cundemned nscUlate between thnse twn feelings. The article befure the twu subatan
tivea has the furce uf aetting aside all fnrmer aimilar impressinns aa cnmparatively in-
sign'ificant. Messianic blessedneas ia represented in ver. 38, according te a figure
* Ver. 38. Marcion aubstituted for the enumeration, ver. 38 : navras tovs dmaiavS,
and omitted vers. 39 and 30.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 361
familiar among the Jews (14 : 15), under the image nf a banquet presided nver by the
patriarcha. Frnm ver. 39 it fnllnws that the believing Gentiles are admitted as well
as the faithful pnaterity of Abraham. Thua there are really many persuns aaved.
The wurds and behold (ver. 30) refer to the surprise pruduced by this entire reversal
cf pnsitiun. The last here are nut thnse whn, within the cunflnes uf the kingdnm,
occupy the last place ; they arc, as the cuntext prnvea, thnse whn are excluded frnm
it ; they are in the last place, absolutely speaking. The flrat are all the saved. The
flrst prnpnsitinn evidently applies tu the Gentiles whu are admitted (ver. 39), the sec
ond to the Jews who are rejected (vers. 37 and 38).
Sayings simUar to those of vera. 35-37 are found in Matt. 7, at the end of the Ser
mon nn the Mnunt, alau in 35 : 10-13 and 30. There ia nuthing tn prevent us frnm
regarding them as uttered nn a different uccaaien. These nf ver. 38 and 39 appear in
Matt. 8 : 11, 13, immediately after the cure Uf the centurinn's ann. But they are nut
su well accuunted fnr there as in the cnntext nf Luke. The apuphthegm nf ver. 30
fnrms (Matt. 19 : 30 and 20 : 16) the preface and the cnnclusinn nf the parable uf the
laburers called at different hnurs. In this cnntext, the last whn becume thefi/rst are
manifestly the laburers whn, haring cnme later, find themaelvea privUeged tn repeive
the same hire ; the first whu becnme the last are thnse whn, having wrought frnm the
beginning nf the day, are thereby treated less advantageuusly. Is this sense natural ?
Is nut the applicatiun nf thnse expressinns in Luke tu the rejected Jews and admitted
Gentiles mnre simple ? The Epistles tn the Galatians and tn the Rnmans are the nnly
true cnmmentary nn this piece, and un the sayinga nf vers. 38 and 39 in particular.
Nnw, as the histnrical truth nf the whnle passage is certified by the parallel nf Mat
thew, we have a clear prunf that the gospel uf Paul nn way differed in substance
frum that of Jesus and the Twelve.
3. The Farewell to the Theocracy : 13 : 31-35. When the heart is full uf snme une
feeling, everything which tella upun it frnm withnut calls fnrth the expreaainn nf it.
Aud Bu, at the time when the mind uf Jesua ia specially nccupied abnut the future uf
His peuple, it is nnt surpriaing that thia feeling cumea tu light with every circum
atance which supervenes. There ia therefnre nn reasnn why thia perfectly natural
fact should be taken tn prnve a ayatematic arrangement nriginating with Luke.
Vers. 31-33.* "The aame day there came certain nf the Pharisees, saying untn
Him, Get thee nut, and depart hence ; fnr Hernd will kiU thee. 33. And He said
untu them, Gu ye and tell that fnx, Behnld, I cast nut devils, and I du cures tn-day
and tn-mnrrnw, and the third day I shaU be perfected. 33. Nevertheless, I must
walk tn-day, and tn-mnrrnw, aud the day fnllnwing ; fnr it cannnt be that a prnphet
perish nut uf Jerusalem." We cannnt help being surprised at seeing the Pharisees
interesting themselves in the safety nf Jesus, and we are naturally led tu suapect a
feint, if nnt a aecret understanding with Herud. Already at a much earlier date
Mark (3 : 6) had shnwed us the Herodians and Pharisees plntting tngether. Is nnt
aumething uf the same kind nuw repeated ? Hernd, Ion whuae cnnacience there
already weighed the murder uf a prnphet, waa nut anxinua tu cnmmit annther crime
of the aame snrt ; but nn mnre did he wish tn see this public activity nf Jesus, nf
which his dumininns had been fnr aume time the theatre, and the pnpular excitement
which accumpanied it, indefinitely prulunged. As tn the Phariaees, it waa naturiil that
* Ver. 31. 7 Mjj. (Alex.) 15 Mnn., opa inatead uf ypepa. Ver. 33. S. B. L. 2 Mnn.,
anoreXo inatead ot eniTeXu. B. snme Mnn. Vss. add ypepa after rpiry. Ver. 33. Si.
D. A. sume Mnn., epxopEvy instead nf Exopevy.

362 COMMENTARY 01<f ST. LUKE.
they shnuld seek tn draw Jesus tn Judea, where He wuuld fall mure directly Under
the puwer uf the Sanhedrim. It had been agreed, therefnre, tn bring this lengthened
juurney tn an end by terrifying Jesus. He penetrates their intrigue ; and hence He
addresses His reply tu Herud Himaelf, making the Pharisees at the same time Hia
message-bearers, as they had been the king's message-bearers tn him. " I see well
on whuae part ynu cnme. Gu and answer Hernd . . ." Thus alan the epithet
fox, which He applies tn thia prince, finds ita explanatinn. Instead nf issuing a cum
mand, as becnmes a king, he degrades himaelf tn play the part uf an intriguer. Nnt
daring tu ahnw the teeth uf the linn, he uses the tricks nf the fnx. Fault has been
fnund with Jesus fur speaking with sn Uttle respect nf the prince uf His penple. But
it muat be remembered that Hernd was the creature uf Caesar, and nnt the lawful heir
nf David's throne.
The meaning nf the flrat part nf the answer (ver. 335) is this : " Reaaaure thyself,
thuu whn seekest tu terrify me ; my present activity in nn way threatens thy puwer ;
I am nnt a Meaaiah auch aa he whuse appearance thnu dreadest ; snme devila cast nut,
snme cures accumplished, such is all my wurk in thy dumininns. And tn cnmplete
the aasuring ut thee, I prnmiae thee that it shall nnt be lung ; tn-day, tn-morruw, and
a day mnre ; then it will be at an end." These last wnrds aymbulically expreaa the
idea nf a very ahnrt time ; cnmp. Hns. 6 : 3. We may regard reXeiovpai either, with
Bleek, as Attic fut. raid., ur, what aeema simpler, as a pres. mid. used fur the fut. to
designate what is immediately imminent. The term su near can be nnne nther than
that nf His life ; cnmp. 336. Bleek and nthers give reXeiovaai the active meaning :
." I clnae [my miniatry in GaUlee]." But the wurd reXeiovpai in thia cnntext is too
solemn to suit this almost superfluous sense. The Alex, reading dnoreXu, 1 finish,
dees nut su well currespund tn the paraUel term EKJidXXu, ! caat out, as the received
reading iniTeXu, 1 work. It ia probably nwing tn a retrospective influence nf the wurd
TEXEiovpai. Ver. 33. Shnrt as the time is which is allnwed to Jesua, it remaina nnne the less
true (tt/I^i') tbat He will quietly pursue Hia present juurney, and that nu une will
furce Him tu bring His progress and wnrk hastily tn an end. The del, !muat, which
refera tn the decree nf Heaven, juatifles this mede ef acting. HopeveaBui, to travel,
the emblem ef life and action ; thia word is opposed to reXeiovpai, which designates
the time at which the journeying ends. T^ ixopivy {the day following), ver. 33, corre
sponds to r-y rpiry {ilie third day), ver. 33 ; Jesus means : " I have only three days ;
^ut I have them, and no one wUl cut them abort." Wieseler takea the three days
literally, and thinka that at the time when Jesua thus spoke He was but three days'
journey from Bethany, whither he was repairing. It would be difficult to reduce so
weighty a saying to greater poverty nf meaning. Bleek, whn dues nut succeed in
cvercuming the difficulty nf this enigmatical utterance, prupnses tn suppress in ver
33 the wnrds aypepov /cat aipiov Kai as a very nld interpnlatinn. Nn dncument sup
purts this suppusitinn, which wnuld have the effect nf mutilating nne nf the mnst
striking declaratinns nf nur Lnrd.
The last wurds nf ver. 33 are the answer nf Jesus tn the Pharisees. They, tnn,
may reassure themselves ; their prey will nut escape them. Jeruaalem has the mnn
npnly of kiUing the prophets, and nn this highest uccaainn the city will nnt be de
prived uf its right; The wnrd ivdixerui, it is possible, cnntaina, like the entire aaying,
a scathing irony : " It is nut auitable ; it wuuld be cnntrary to use and went, and, in
a manner, tn theucratic decurum, if such a prnphet as I shnuld perish elsewhere thau

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 363
in Jerusalem I" Ne doubt Juhn the Baptist had perished away from that city. But
such ironies must nnt be taken in the strict letter. Jerusalem cnuld nut let her privi
lege be twice taken frnm her in an shnrt a tirae ! The relatinn indicated by ort, /or,
is this : " I knnw that the time which is at my dispnaal in favnr uf Galilee wiU nut be
cut shnrt by my death ; for I am net te die elaewhere than at Jerusalem . . ,"
According to Holtzmann, thia pasaage, peculiar te Luke and taken from A, was omit
ted by Matthew becauae of its obscurity. Muat he not have omitted many others for
the aame reaaon ?
Already, vers. 4, 5, on occasion ef an event which more particularly concerned
the GalUeans, the mind of Jesus had been directed towar^ Jerusalem. Now the
thought ef this capital, beceme, aa it were, the executioner ef the prephets, takes pos
session of His heart. Hia grief breaks forth ; the prelude to the tears of Palm-day.
Vers. 34 and 35.* " 0 Jeruaalem, Jeruaalem, which kiUest the prephets, and
stonest them that are sent unto thee ; hew often would I have gathered thy chUdren
together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye, would not !
35. Behold, your house is left unto you. But I say unto you, ye shall nnt aee me
until the time cnme when ye shall say, Bleaaed ia He that cnmeth in the name nf the
Lnrd." It is aurprising at first sight tn finfl such an apnatruphe tu Jerusalem in the
heart uf Galilee. But were nut the Pharisees whum Jesua had befnre Him the repre
sentatives nf that capital ? Cnmp. 5 : 17 : " There were Phariaees and ductnrs uf the
law sitting by, which were cume nut nf every tnwn nf Galilee, aud Judea, and Jeru
salem. " Had He nnt been setting their minds at rest as such? Such an apnstrnphe
tn Jeruaalem, regarded frnm a distance, has snmething abnut it mure tnuching than
if He had already been within its waUs. In Matt. 33 : 37 it is placed, during his an
juurn at Jeruaalem, nn une uf the days preceding the Paasinn, and at the pnint when
Jesus leavea the temple fur the last time. This aituatinn ia grand aud tragic ; but is
it not probable that this placing ef the paaaage was due to the certainly tun narrow
applicatiun (see belnw) nf the expresainn your houae (ver. 35) tu the temple ? The
wnrds thy children have been applied by Baur nnt tn the inhabitants nf Jerusalem
nnly, but tn all Israelites, Galileans included ; and he denies, cnnsequenlly, that this
saying cnuld serve tn prove the cnncluainn which has uften been drawn from it, viz.
that the narrative uf the Syn. implies the numernus sujuurns at Jeruaalem which are
related by Jnhn. But the relatinn nf ver. 34 tn the latter part nf ver. 33 cnmpels ua
tu restrict the meaning nf the wurd tn the inhabitants nf Jerusalem ; ita nnly admiaai
ble senae alsu in Luke 19 : 44 ; and, taken by itself, its nnly natural sense. Only, it
is aaaumed that the fate nf the pnpulatinn nf the capital invnlvea in it that nf the
uther inhabitanta nf the cnuntry.
The cnntrast betweeu I would . . . and ye would not prnvea the sad privUege
which man pnssesaea nf reaiating the mnst earneat drawings uf grace. As to Jesua,
while mournfully asserting the futUity of Hia ett'orts to save His people. He does nnt
the less peraevere in His wnrk ; fnr He knnws that, if it has nnt the result that it
might and ahnuld have, it will have anuther, in which Gud will nntwithstanding carry
* Ver. 34. The mss. are divided between ryv voaaiuv (Alex, and T. R.) and ra
voaaia (Byz. Syr. ItP'«"i'"'). Ver. 35. T. R. adds epypog after oikos vpuv, with D. E. G.
H. M. U. X. A. the meat uf the Mnn. Syr. Itpi-'-'i"''. AU the Mjj., Xeyo de (S. L.
vrithnut de) instead uf apyv de Aeyu, which T. R. reads with several Mnn. 6 Mjj. nmit
on. The mss. are divided between «wf (nr euS av) y^y (nr y^ei) oti emyrs (T. R.) and
£u5 (ur Eut av) EinvTE (Alex., accnrding tn Matthew).

364 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
nut His plan tn fulfilment. Snme Jews saved shall becnme, in default nf the natiun
as a whnle, the instruments of the world's salvatinn. Jesus repreaents Himself, ver,
34, as a prntectur stretching His cumpassinuate arms nver the thencracy and its capi
tal, because He knnws well that He alnne can rescue them frnm the catastrophe by
which they are threatened. It is, in annther fnrm, the idea uf the parable nf the fig-
tree (vera. 6-9). Nuw Israel rejects the protection which He uffers. What mnre can
Jesua du (ver. 35) ? Leave tu Israel the care nf its nwn defence, that is tn say-^Jesus
knnws it well— give it up tn a ruin which He alnne cnuld avert. Such is the mean
ing- nf the wurds, your liouse ia left unto you ; hencefurlh it is given uver tn ynur
guardianship. Jesua frees Himself nf the charge which His Father had cunfided tn
Him, the aalvatiun nf the thencracy. It is in ita every feature the situatinn nf the
divine Shepherd in His last endeavur tn save the flunk nf slaughter, Zach. 11 : 4-14.
The applicatiun nf the expresainn your houae tn the temple, in such a unity, must be
felt tu be much tun special. The place in questinn is Canaan, the abude divinely
granted tu the peuple, and especially Jeruaalem, the centre ef the theocracy. The
authenticity nf the wnrd ipypos, deaolate {ver. 35), appears mure than dnublful bnth in
Matthew and Luke. If this wnrd were authentic, it wuuld refer tu the withdrawal
nf Jeaus' visible presence ; cnmp. Ezek. 11, where the cluud rising frnm uver the
sanctuary passes eastward, and frum that mnment the temple is empty and deaulate.
But the government vpiv, " is left tu you," and the want of aufflcient authnrities,
speak againat thia reading.
Like a bird nf prey hnvering in the air, the enemy is threatening the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. Jesua, who was sheltering them under His winga aa a hen her brood,
withdraws, and they reraain expused, reduced thencefurth tn defend themselves.
The adversative fnrm, but I say unto you, ia certainly preferable tu that uf Matthew,
for I aay unto you. " I gn away ; but I declare to you, it will be fnr lunger- than you
think ; that my absence may be brought tu an end, you youraelves, by the change of
your aentiments in regard to me, will have to give the signal for my return. " The
words Sus dv y^y, until it come to paaa that . . ., are the true reading. Thia moral
change will certainly {ias) come about, but when {uv) it ia impoaaible te aay. Seme
commentators (Paulus, Wieseler, etc.) think that the time here pointed tn is Palm-
day, un which Jesus received the humage nf part nf the penple, and particularly uf the
GalUeans, tn whnm these sayings had been addressed. " Ye shall nut aee me again,
ye GaUleans, until we meet tugether nn the nccasiun nf my entry iutn Jerusalem."
But how punr and inaignificant wnuld thia meaning be, after the previuua sayings 1
What bearing nn the salvatinn nf larael had this separatinn nf a few weeks ? Besides,
it was not tn the Galileans that Jesus was speaking it waa tu the representatives nf
the Pharisaic party (vers. 31-34). In Matthew'a cnntext, the interpretatiun of Wiea
eler is atUl mnre manifeatly excluded. The wnrds which Jeaus here puta intn the
mouth uf converted larael in the end of the days, are taken from Ps. 118 ; 36. This
cry of penitent Israel will bring the Messiah down again, as the sigh of Israel,
humbled and waiting for consolatiun, had led Him to appear the first time (Isa. 64 :
1). The announcement of the future return nf Jesus, brought abuut by the faith nf
the peuple in His Messiahship {6 epx<^t^evoS), thua furma the cnunterpart tn that nf His
near departure, caused by the natinnal unbelief {reXeiovpai), Huw can auy nne fail to
feel the appropriateness, the connection, the harmony of all the parts of thia admir
able answer? How palpable, at leaat in thia case, is the deciaive value ef Luke'a abort
introduction fer the understanding ef the whole piece I The important matter here.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 365
as everywhere, is, abo-?« aU, the preciae indication of the interlocutors : ' ' The same
d&y there came certain of the Phariseea, saying . . ,"
3. Jesus at a Feast : 14 : 1-34. Tbe fnllnwing piece allnws ua tn fnUuw Jesus in
His dumestic life aud famUiar cenversatinns. It is cunnected with the preceding by
the fact that it is with a Pharisee Jesus has .tn dn. We are admitted tu the entire
scene : Is*. The entering inte the house (vers. 1-6) ; 3d The aitting duwn at table
(vera. 7-11) ; 3a!. Jeaua cunveraing with His hust abuut the chnice nt his guests (vers.
13-14 ; ith. His relating the parable nf the great supper, nccasiuned by the exclama
tiun nf nne nf the guests (vera. 15-34).
Holtzmann, nf cnurse, regards thia frame aa being tn a large extent invented by
Luke tn receive the detached aayinga uf Jeaua, which he fnund placed side by side in
A. This is tu suppuse in Luke as much genius aa unscrupulnusness. Weizaacker,
starting frnm the idea that the cnntents nf thia part are aystematically arranged and
frequently altered tu meet the practical questinna which were agitating the apnatnlic
church at the date nf Luke's cnmpnsitiun, alleges that the whnle uf this chapter re
lates tu the agapcB nf the primitive Church, and is intended te describe those feaata as
embodiments of brotherly love and pledgea uf the heavenly feast ; and he cuncludea
therefrom, aa frnm an eatabliahed fact, the amjuewhat late origin uf uur Gnapel.
Where ia the least trace nf such an intentinn tu be fnuud ?
1st. Vera. 1-6.* Tu accept an invitatinn tn the houae nf a Pharisee, after the pre
vinus scenes, was tu dn an act at nnce uf cnurage and kindness. The hust was une
nf the chief of his sect. There is nn prunf uf the existence nf a hierarchy in this
party ; but nne wnuld naturally be fnrmed by superiurity of knowledge and talent.
The interpretation of Grotius, whu takes ruv <iapiaaiov as in apposition te ™v
dpxdvruv, is inadmissible. The gueata it is aaid, watched Jeaua. Ver. 3 indi
catea the trap which had been laid fer Him ; and 'idov, beliold, marka the time when
this unlooked-for snare is discovered te the eyes of Jesus. The picture is taken at
the moment. The wurd dnoKpiBeii;, answering (ver, 3), aUudes tn the questiun im
plicitly cnntained in the sick man's presence: "Wilt theu heal, er wilt theu not
heal ?" Jesus replies by acounler question, as at 6 : 9. The alienee of His adveraariea
betrays their bad faith. The reading ovoS, aaa, in tbe Sinaiticua and anme mss. (ver 5),
ariaea nu dnubt frum the cnnnectinn with ^ovc, ox, ur frum the simUar saying, 13 :
15. The true reading is Di(?5, SOM .-" If thy sun, ur even thine ux nnly . . ." In
this wnrd son, as m the expreasinn daughter of Abraham (13 : 16), there is revealed a
deep feeling nf tenderness fnr the sufferer. We cannut uverluuk a currespund
ence between the malady (dropsy) and the auppnaed accident (faUing intu a pit).
Cnmp. 13 : 15, 16, the currespundence between the halter with which the ux is fas
tened tn the staU, and the bund by which Satan holds the sufferer in subjectinn.
Here again we find the perfect suitableneaa, even in tbe external drapery, which
characterizes the declarations of our Lord. In Matt. 13 : 11 this figure is applied te
the curing ef a man who has a withered hand. It is less happy, and is certainly
inexact. * Ver 3 !* B D L.omit ei before e^eanv, and, with several Mnn. and Vss., they
add y ov after Bepanevaai (T. R., Bepanmeiv), Ver. 5. 6 Mjj. 15 Mnn. Syr. ItP'="4"»,
omit anoKpiBEi; before npoS avrovS. A. B. E. G. H. M. S. U. V. V. A. A. 130 Mnn.
Syr. It""', read vioS instead ef oxor, which !*. K. L. X. n. some Mnn. If'"!. Vg. read.
The MSS. are divided between epneaeirai (T. R.) and neaenai (Alex.) Ver. 6. S. B,
D. L. seme Mnn. emit avru after avranoKpiByvai,

366 COMMENTARY ON ST. LtTKifi.
2d. Vers. 7-11.* Here ia the puint at which the guests sesft themselves at table.
The recnmmendatinn cnntained in this passage is nnt, as haa nften been thnught, a
cnunsel uf wnrldly prudence. Hultzmann ascribes this meaning, if nnt tn the Lurd,
at least tn Luke. But the very term parable {ver. 7) and the adage of ver. 11 protest
against this suppusitinn, and admit nf nur giving tn the saying nu nther than a relig
inus sense and a spiritual applicatiun ; cump. 18 : 14. In a winning and appropriate
fnrm Jesua gives the gueata a leasnn in humility, in the deepest aenae uf the wnrd.
Every une nught in heart tu take, and ever take again, the laat place befure Gnd, or as
St. Paul says, PhU. 3 : 3, tu regard others as better than himself. The judgment of
God will perhaps be different ; but in this way we run no other risk than that of
being exalted. 'Eire^fuK, fixing His attention nn that habitual way nf acting amung the
Pharisees (Luke 30 : 46). Ewald and Hultzmann darken cuunsel abnut the wnrd
wedding (ver. 8), which dnea nnt auit a simple repast like this. But Jesus in thia verse
is nnt apeaking uf the preaent repast, but nf a auppused feaat. The prnper reading is
dvdnEOE, nnt avdnEsai — thia verb haa nn middle — ur dvdneoov, which has only a few au
thnrities. In the lowest place (ver. 10), because in the interval all the intermediate seats
had been nccupied. The expressinn, thou shalt have glory, wnuld be puerile, if it did
nnt npen up a glimpse nf a heavenly reality.
Sd. Ver. 13-1 4.t The cumpany ia aeaied. Jesua, then nbserving that the guests in
general belunged tu the upper claaaes uf snciety, addresaes tn His huat a lessen on
charity, which He clothes, like t'he preceding, in the graceful form of a recommen
dation nf inteUigent self-interest. The pynore, lest (ver. 13), carries a tune nf Uveli-
neas and almnst nf pleasantry : "Beware uf it; it is a misturtune tn be avuided. Fur,
nnce thnu shalt have received human requital, it is all uver with divine recumpense."
.Tesus dues nut mean tn furbid nur entertaining thnse whum we luve. He meana
simply : in view nf the Ufe tn cnme, thnu canst dn better still. 'Avdnypoi, thuse who
are deprived of seme one sense or limb, most frequently the blind or the lame ; here,
where those two categories are specially raentioned, the maimed in general. In it
self, the expression resurrection of the just, ver. 14, doea not necessarily imply a dis-
tinctioil between two reaurrectiona, the one ef the juat excluaively, the ether general ;
it might signify merely, when the just shall riae at the inauguratien of the Messianic
kingdom. But as Luke 20 : 35 evidently proves that this distinctinn was in the mind
nf Jesua, f it is natural tn explain the term frum this pnint uf view (cnmp. 1 Cur. 15 :
33 ; 1 Theaa. 4 : 16 ; PhU. 3 : 11 ; Rev. 30.)
4:th. Vera. 15-34. The cunversatinn which fnUnws belungs tu a later time in the
feast. Jesua had been depicting the just aeated at the Measiah's banquet, and receiv
ing a superabundant equivalent fnr the leaat wurks uf Inve which they have perfurmed
here beluw. This aaying awakes in the heart nf une uf the gueata a aweet anticipa-
tinn uf heavenly jnys ; ur perhaps he seizes it as an nccasiun fnr laying a snare fur
Jesus, and leading Him tu utter aume hereay un the aubject. The severe tendency
uf the fnllnwing parable might favnr thia secnnd interpretatiun. In any caae, the
enumeratiun nf ver. 31 (cnmp. ver. 13) prnves the clnae cunnectinn between thuse twu
parts nf the cunveraatinn.
* Ver. 10. S. B. L. X. snme Mnn., epei inatead uf emy, ». A. B. L. X. 13 Mun.
Syr. add navruv befure rov avvavaKeipaiov.
X Ver. 14. !*. 5 Mnn. It»"«.. de instead nf yap after avranodoByaerai.
X That this waa in the mind nf Jeaua is nut evident tu interpreters generaUy. In
thia, and in nne ur twu nther passages, the author is less clear than is usual with him
regarding the events nf the future.— J. H.

COMMEN'TARY ON ST. LUKE. 367
"Vers. 15-30.*— 'Aprov ipayeaBai (fut. uf ijidyo) merely signifies, tn be admitted to the
heavenly feast. There is nu allusinn in the expressiun tn the excellence uf the meats
which ShaU furm this repast (ver. 1). Jesus replies, " Yes, blessed ; and therefure
beware nf rejecting the blessedness at the very mnment when thnu art extnUing ita
greatness." Such is the applicatiun nf the fnllnwing parable. The wnrd iro^l^loiis,
signiflcant of numerous gueata, ver. 16, ia sufficiently justified when applied to the
Jewish people alnne ; fur this invitatinn includes all divine, advances, at all perinds
nf the thencracy. The last caU given tn the guests (ver. 17) relates tu the ministries
uf Jnhn the Baptist and uf Jesua Himself. It cannot be proved that it waa uaual tu
send a mesaage at the last moment ; but the hour was cem.e, and nobudy appeared.
This tnuch brings nut the ill-wiU nf thnae invited ; there waa nn puaaibUity uf their
forgetting. The expreasinn, all things are ready, describes the glnriuus freeneas of
salvation. The excuaes put forth by the invited, vers. 18-30, are not in earnest ; for,
warned aa they were long befnrehand, they cuuld have chnsen annther day fur their
different nccupatinna. The chnice made, which is at the bnttum nf thuae refusals,
betrays itself in the unifurmity uf their answers. It is like a refrain {and pidc, under
stand : ^uvyS ur yvopys, ver. 18). They have passed the wurd tu une anuther. The
true reasnn ia eridently the antipathy which they feel^tn him whn invitea them ; cnmp.
Jnhn 15 : 34 : " They have hated buth me and my Father. "
Vers. 31-24.f In the repurt which the servant gives nf his missinn, we may hear,
as Stier sn well nbserves, the eche nf the snrrnwful lamentatinns uttered by Jesus nver
the hardening nf the Jews during His lung nights nf prayer. The anger nf the mas
ter {bpyiaBeit) is the retaliatinn fur the hatred which he discnvers at the bnttum uf
their refuaals. The first supplementary invitatinn which he cummissiuns his servant
tn give, repreaents the appeal addressed by Jesus tn the Inwest classes nf Jewish
snciety, thnse whn are called, 15 : 1, publicans and sinners. JlXarelai, the larger
streets, which widen nut intn squares. 'Pvpai, the smaU cross streets. There is nu
guing nut yet from the city. The second supplementary invitation (vera. 33 and 33)
represents the calling of the Gentiles ; for those tn whnm it ia addressed are nu lunger
inhabitants nf the city. The luve nf Gnd ia great : it requirea a multitude nf gueats ;
it will nnt have a seat left empty. The number nf the elect is, as it were, determined
befurehand by the riches nf divine glury, which cannnt find a cpmplete reflectinn
withnut a certain number nf human bemgs. The invitatinn will therefnre be cun
tinued, and cnnaequently the histnry uf uur race prulnnged, until that number be
reached. Thus the divine decree ia recnnciled wilh huraan liberty. In cnmparisun
with the number caUed, there are undoubtedly few saved through the fault of the
fnrmer ; but nevertheless, speaking absnlutely, there are very many saved, ^puypoi,
the hedges which enclnse properties, and beneath which vagrants aquat. The phrase,
ampel ihem io come in, applies tn penple whn wnuld like tu enter, but are yet kept
back by a false timidity. The servant is tu push them, in a manner, intn the hnuse
in spite of their scruples. The ubject, therefnre, is nut tu extinguish their liberty, but
rather tn restnre them tn it. Fur they wuuld ; but they dare nut. As ver. 31 is the
* Ver 15 The- Mnn. are divided between oS (T. R.) and oaris (Alex.) befure
ipayerai. Instead uf aprov, seme Mjj. (Byz.) '130 Mnn. Syr=°'., apiarov. Ver. 16. ».
B. R. Syr=°'., snotei inatead uf enoiyasv, Ver. 17. S* B. L. R. If^'i. umit navra
after E:rTiv (ur Eiaiv), .,„ iv tj -r. t
f Ver. 21. 9 Mjj. 12 Mnn. It. Vg. nmit ekeivoS after dovXoS, Ver. 33, ». a, i). i,.
R, Syr''°',, 0 instead nf uS befnre enera^as,

368 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
text of the first part of Acts (1 : 13, conversion of the Jews), vers. 33 and 33 are the
text of the second (13 to the end, conversion of the Gentiles), and indeed of the whole
present economy. Weizsacker accuses Luke of having added to the original parable
this distinction between two new inritations, and that in favor of Paul's mission to
the Gentiles. If this saying were the only one which the evangelists put into the
muuth of Jesua regarding the calling of the Gentiles, this suspicion wnuld be cnnceiv-
iible. But dees not the passage 13 : 38-30 already expreas thia idea ? and is net this
saying found in Matthew as well as in Luke ? Comp. alsn Matt. 24 : 14 ; Jnhn
10 : 16. Accnrding tn several cnmmentaturs, ver. 24 dues nnt belung tu the parable ;
it isthe appUcatinn nf it addressed by Jesus tu all the guests (" I say untn yuu").
But the subject nf the verb, 1 sa/y, is evidently still the hust nf the parable ; the prnn.
you deaiguatea the persuns gathered round him at the time when he gives this nrder.
Only the anlemnity with -which Jeaus undnubtedly paaaed Hia eyes over the whnle
assembly, while putting this terrible threat intn the mnuth uf the master in the par
able, made them feel that at that very mnment the scene described waa actually pass
ing between Him and them. /
The parable nf the great feaat related Matt. 22 : 1-14 has great resemblances tn
this ; but it differs frnm it as remarkably. Mnre generalized in the nutaet, it becnmes
tuward the end mnre detailed, and takes even a anmewhat cumplex character. It may
be, aa Bleek thinks, a cnmbinatinn uf twu parables nriginally distinct. This seems tn
be pruved by certain tnuches, such as the rnyal dignity nf the hust, the destructinn
by his armies nf the city inhabited by thnse first invited, and then everything relating
tn the man whu had cume in withnut a wedding garment. Nnthing, nn the cnntrary,
cnuld be mnre simple and cnmplete than the delineatinn of Luke.
4. A Warning againat haaty Profeasiona ; 14 : 35-35. The journey resumes its
course ; great crowds follow Jeaus. There is conaequently an attraction to Hia side.
This appeara in the plurals oxXdi, multitudea, the adjective noXXoi, and the imperfect
of duration avvEnopevovro, were accompanying Him. Thia brief introduction, aa in
similar caaes, gives the key to the following discourse, which embraces : IsS. A warn
ing (vera. 36 and 37) ; 2d. Two parables (vers. 38-33) ; Sd. A conclusion, clothed in
a new figure (vers. 33-35). ,
Vera. 35-37.* " And there went great multitudea with Him ; and He turned, and
said unto them, 36. If any man come to me, and hate net his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and aiatera, yea, and hia own life alao, he cannot be
my disciple. 37. And whusnever duth nnt bear his croas, and cume after me, can
nnt be my disciple." Seeing thnse crowds Jeaus is aware that between Him and
them there ia a miaunderalanding. The Gnapel, rightly apprehended, wiU nnt be the
cuncern nf the multitude. . He lifts His vnice tn reveal this false situatinn : Yuu are
guing up with me tu Jerusalem, as if yuu were repairing tn a feaat. But dn ynu know
what it is for a man to join himaelf to my company ? It is to abandon what is dearest
and moat vital (ver. 36), and to accept what ia most painful — the cross (ver. 37).
Coming io me {ver. 36) denotes outward attachment tu Jeaus ; being my disciple, at the
end uf the verse, actual dependence un His persnn and spirit. That the fnrmer may
be changed intu the latter, and that the bund between Jesus and the prufeaanr may be
durable, there must be eflected in him a painful breach with everything which is
* Ver. 37. This verse ia emitted by M. R. T, and very many Mnn. (by IwmovMe/m-
ton). !St. B. L, Cup. nmit kui befure oanS,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 369
naturally dear tn him. The wnrd hate in thia passage is uften interpreted in the senae
uf loving less. Bleek quntes examplea, which are not without force. Thua, Gen.
39 : 30, 31. It is also the meaning of Matthew's paraphrase (10 : 87), 6 ijiiXav . . .
inip epi. Yet it is aimpler to keep the natural sense uf the wurd hate, if it nffera an
admissible appli^satinn. And thia we find when we admit that Jesus is here regard
ing the well-belnved unes whum He enumerates as representatives nf nur natural life,
that life, strictly and radically selfish, which separates us frnm Gnd. Hence He
adds : Tea, and his own life also ; this wurd fnrms the key tu the understanding uf the
wnrd liats. At bnttum, nur own life is the nnly thijig tn be hated. Everything else
is tn be hated unly in an far as it partakes nf this principle nf ain and death. Accurd
ing tu Deut. 31 : 18-31, when a man ahuwed himaelf determinedly -riciuua nr impinus,
his father and mnther were tn be the first tn take up stnnes tu stnne him. Jeaua in
this place nnly spiritualizes thia precept. The worda : Tea, and his own life also,
thus remove from thia hatred every notion of ain, and allow us to see in it nnthing
but an aversiun of a purely moral kind.
There are net only affectinns tu be sacrificed, bnnda tn be bruken ; there are auffer-
ings tn be undergune in the fnllnwing of Jesus. The emblem nf those pnaitive evils
is the cross, that puniahment the must humiUating and painful uf aU, which had been
introduced intn Israel since the Rnman subjugatinn. Withnut supplying an oiK be
fnre ipxETui, we might translate: ""Whusnever dnth nnt bear . . . and whn
nevertheless cometh after me . . ." But this interpretatiun is far frnm natural.
Thnse well-disposed crowds whn were fnllnwing Jesus withnut real cunversinn had
never imagined anything like thia. Jesua aets befnre their very eyes these twn indis
pensable cunditinns uf true failh by twn parables (ver. 38-33).
Vers. 38-30.* The Improvident Builder. Building here is the image nf the Christian
life, regarded in its pusitive aspect : the fnundatinn and develupment uf the wurk nf
Gud in the heart and life- nf the believer. The tnwer, a lofty edifice which strikes
the eye frnm afar, represents a mnde nf Uving distinguished from tbe cummnn, and
attracting general attentinn. New prnfeasnrs nften regard with cnmplacency what
distinguishes them outwardly from the wurld. But building ousts aumething ; and
the wnrk unce begun must be finished, under penalty nf being expnaed tn public ridi
cule. One shnuld therefnre have first made his estimatea, and accepted the inroad upen
his capital which wUl result from such an undertaking. His capital is his own life,
which he is called to spend, and te spend whoUy in the service of his sanctification.
The wurk nf Gud is nut serinusly puraued, unless a man is daily sacrfficing sume part
uf that which cunatitutes the natural fnrtune uf the human heart, particulariy the
aftectiuna, which are sn deep, referred tn, ver. 36. Befnre, therefure, any nne puts
himself fnrward as a prufessur, it is all impnrtant that he shuuld have calculated thia
future expenditure, and thuroughly made up his mind nut tn recnil frnm any uf thuse
sacriflces which fidelity will entail. Sitiing clown and counting arc emblems cf the seri
nus acts nf recnllectinn and meditatinn which shnuld precede a true prufeaainn. Thia
was preciaely what Jeaus had dnne in the wilderness. But what happens when this
cnnditinn is neglected ? After having energetically prnnnunced himaelf, the new pru
fessur recuils step by atep from the ccnsequences nf the pusitinn which he has taken
up. He steps shnrt in the sacriflce uf his natural life ; and this incnnsiatency pru-
* Ver. 38. B'. D. L. R. It»"i. umit to, and the aame with 13 uther Mjj. 50 Mnn.
read sjc instead nf npoS befnre anapnopov. T. R., ra npo^ anapriapov, with F. V. X,
n, many Mim.

370 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
vnkes the cnntempt and ridicule of the world, which sunn discovers that he whu had
separated himself frnm it with so much parade, is after all but nne of its nwn. Nuth
ing injures the gnapel like thnse, relapses, the urdinary leaulta nf hasty prufessinn.
Vers. 31, 33.* The Improvident Wa/rrior. Here we have an emblem nf the Chris
tian life, regarded un its negative nr pnlemical side. The Christian is a king, but a
king engaged in a struggle, and a struggle with an enemy materiaUy stronger than
himself. Therefnre, befure defying him with a declaratinn nf war by the upen pru
fessinn nf the gnspel, a man must have taken cnunsel with himself, and become
assured that he is wilUng to accept the extreme conaequences ef thia position, even
to the giving up nf hia life if demahded ; this cnnditinn is expressed ver. 37. • Wnuld
nut a little natiun like the Swiss bring duwn ridicule nn itself by declaring war with
France, if it were nnt determined tn die nnbly nn the fleld nf battle ? Wnuld nnt
Luther have acted Uke a funl wheu he affixed his theses to the church door, or burned
the Papal buU, had he net first made the sacrifice of his life in the inner court of his
heart ? It is heroical tn engage in a struggle fnr a juat and holy cause, but on nne
cnnditinn : that ia, that we have accepted death befnrehand as the end uf the way ;
ntherwise this declaratinn nf war is nnthing but rudumnntade. The wurds : whether
he is able, have a alight tnuch nf irony ; able tn cunquer, and, aa under such cenditiuna
that is impnssible, tu die in the unequal struggle. Ver. 33 haa. been regarded either
as a call tn us tn take account nf nur weakneaa, that we may ask the help nf God
(Olshausen), or a summons promptly to seek leconciUation with Gnd (Gerl-ach). Buth
interpretatiuns are untenable, because the hnstile king chaUehged by the declaratinn
nf war is nut Gnd, but the pnnce nt ttis wnrld. It is therefure much rather a warn
ing which Jesus gives tn thnse whn prufess discipleship, but whn have nnt decided tn
risk everything, tu make their submissinn as early as pnasible tu the wurld and ita
prince. Better avnid celebrating a Palm-day than end after such a demunatratinn
with a Gund Friday 1 Rather remain an hennrable man, unknnwn religiuualy, than
becnme what ia aadder in the wnrld, anincunaiatent Christian. A warning, therefure, .
to thnae whn fnrmed the attendants nf Jesus, tn make their peace apeedUy with the
Sanhedrim, if they are nnt reaulved to fnllnw their new Maater tn the cress ! JesuS
drew thia precept alsn from His uwn experience. He had made hia reckuning" in
the wUderness with the prince nf this wnrld, and with life, befnre beginning Hia wnrk
publicly. Geaa rightly aays : " Thnse twn parables shnw with what seriuusneas/eaus
had Himself prepared for death. "
Vers. 33-35. t The Applieaiion of those two Pa/rables, wilh a new Figure confirming
it.—" Sn likewise, whusnever he be uf yuu that fursaketh nnt aU that he hath, he
cannnt be my disciple; 34. Salt is gund : but if the salt have lust his savnr, where
with shaU it be seasuned ? 35. It is neither fit fur the land, nnr yet fnr the dunghill ;
but men caat it nut. He that hath eara tn hear, let him hear. Here is the summing
up nf the warning which was intended tn calm the unreflecting enthusiaam uf thnae
multitudes. The expresainn : forsaketh all thai he hath, natural life, aa well aa aU the
affetitinns and aU the gnuda fitted tu satisfy it, sums up the twn cunditinns indicated
ve'rs. 36 (the giving up nf enjuyment) and 37 (the acceptance nf the crnsa). Salt (ver.
34) currecta the taatelessness uf certain substances, and preaervea nthers frum currup-
* Ver. 31. ». B. Itpienqno^ |3o!;^roff£raunstead nf PovXeverai. The MSS. are divided
between anavryaai (T. R.) and vnavryaai (Alex.).
t Ver. 34. ». B. L. X. snme Mnn. add ow after kuXqv. ». B. D. L. X. 8 Mnn.
Jtplcriqne^ pOV de KUl in8te£(d nf EUV de.

COMMENTAfet Ot ST. ItJKB. 371
tinn ; the marvellous efficacy of this agent on materials subjected to its quickening
energy is a good thing, and even good to observe {KaXdv). In this twnfnld relatinn it
ia the emblem nf the sharp and austere aavnr nf hulinesa, nf the action uf the guspel
nn the natural Ufe, the insipidity and frivnUty of which are currected by the Divine
Spirit. Nu mnre beautiful spectacle in the mural wnrld than thia actiun cf the gus
pel thrnugh the instrumentality nf the cunsistent Christian un the snciety arnund him.
But if the Chriatian himself by his unfaithfulness destroys this hnly pnwer, nu means
wdl restore tn him the saver which it was his mission to impart to the world.
'AprvByaerai might be taken impersonally : " If there is numnre salt, wherewith shall
men salt (things) ?" But Jesus is nnt here describmg the evil results nf Christian
unfaithfulness tn the world or the gnspel ; it is the prufessur himself whn is cnn
cerned (ver. 35 : men cast it out). The subject uf the verb is therefnre, aXaS, salt
itself; cump. Mark 9 : 50 : iv rivi dprvaere aird ; " wherewith will ye aeaann it?"
Salt which has becnme saverless is fit fnr nnthing ; it cannnt serve the anil as earth,
nnr pasture aa dung. It is nnly gnud tn be caat out, aays Luke ; trodden underfoot of
men, says Matt. 5 : 13. Salt was snmetimes used tu cuver slippery ways (Erub. f.
104. 1 : Sparguni salem in clivo ne nuient (pedes). A reserved attitude tuward the
gnspel is therefnre a less critical pnsitiun than an npen prufessinn fnUnwed by deelen-
sinn. In the mnral aa in the physical wnrld, withnut previnus heating there is no
deadly chiU. Jesus seems tn say that ihe life nf nature may have its usefulness in
the kingdnm uf Gud, either in the fnrm uf mundane (land) respectability, nr even as
a life cempletely ccrrupted and depraved (dung). In the flrst case, indeed, it is the
suU wherein the germ uf the higher life may be snwn ; and in the secnnd, it may at
least, call fnrth a mural reaction among these whn feel indignatinn nr disgust at the
evU, and drive them tn seek life from nn high ; whUe the unfaithfulness nf the Chris
tian disgusts men with the gespel itself. The expression : caat out (give over te per
dition, John 15 : 6), forms the transition to the flnal call : He that hath ears . . .
This discnurse is the basis nf the famnus passage, Heb. 6 : 4r-8. The cnmmenta
turs whu have applied it tn the rejectinn nf the Jews have nnt sufficiently cnnsidered
the cnntext, and especially the intreductinn, ver. 35, which, nntwithstanding Hnltz
mann's cunlemptunus treatment, is, as we have just seen, the key nf the whule piece.
Matthew places the apuphthegm, vers. 34, 35, in that passage nf the Sermnn on the
Muunt where the grandeur uf the Christian caUing is deacribed (5 : 13-16). Perhaps
he was led tn put it there by the analngy nf the saying tn the immediately fnllnwing
one : " Ye are the light nf the wurld." Mark places it, like Luke, tnward the end
nf the GaUlean ministry (9 : 50) ; and such a warning ia better explained at a mure
advanced periud. Beaides, like su many nther general maxhns, it may perfectly well
have been uttered twice.
5. The Parablea of Grace : chap. 15. This piece cnntains : 1st A histnrical intru
ductinn (vers. 1 and 3) ; 2d. A pair nf parables, lik'e that uf the previnus chapter
(vers. 3-10) ; and 'Sd. A great parable, which fnrms the summing up and cUmax ul
the twn preceding (vers. 11-33). The relatinn is like that hetween the three allegnries,
Jnhn 10 : 1-18.
Ist. Vera. 1 and 3.* The Introduction.— It Weizaaker had sufficiently weighed the
bearmg nf the analytical from yaav iyyii;ovreS, they were drawing ¦near, which denotes
a state of things mure nr less permanent, he wuuld nnt have accused Luke (p. 139) nf
transforming into the event of a particular time a very commnn situation in the life
* Ver. a. S. B. D. L. add re after ot.

373 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nf Jeaus. It is un the basis nt this habitual state nf things that the pnint nf time (aur.
Eine, ver. 3) is marked nff when Jesus related the fnllnwing parables. Hnltzmann
flnds nuthing in this intruductinn but an inventiun nf Luke himself.. In any case,
Luke places us nnce mnre, by this shnrt histnrical intruductinn, at the pnint uf
view fnr understanding the whnle uf the fnllnwing discuurse. What drew thnse
sinners tn Jesus was their flnding in Him nnt that righteuusness, full nf pride and
cnntempt, with which the Pharisees asaaUed them, but a hulinesa which waa
aasuciated with the tenderest Inve. The publicans and sinnera had brnken with
Levitical purity and Israelitish respectabUity ; the fnrmer by their business, the
nthera by their life. They were uutlaws in Israel. But were they flnally Inat un that
accnunt ? Undnubtedly, the nnrmal way uf entering intn uninn with Gnd wnuld have
been thrnugh fldelity tn the thencracy ; but the cuming uf the Savinur npened annther
tu thnae whu, by their guilt, had shut the flrat against them. And that waa exactly
the thing which had exasperated the zealets nf Levitical nbservances. Rather than
recngnize in Jeaua nne whu had underatood the merciful purpose of God, they pre
ferred to explain the cumpaaaiunate welcume which He gave tn sinners by His secret
sympathy with sin. TipoadixEaBai, to receive with welcome, refera tn kindly relatinna
in general : avveaBieiv, to eat with, tu the deciaive act in the manners nf that time by
which He did nut fear to seal thia cnnnectinn.
2d. Vera. 3-10. The twn parables nf the lost sheep and nf the lost drachma, aa such
pairs nf parablea alwaya dn, present the same idea, but in twn different aspects. The
idea cummun tu bnth is the snlicitude uf Gud fnr sinners ; the difference is, that in
the flrat instance thia aulicitude arises frnm the cumpassiun with which their misery
inapirea Him, in the aecund frum the value which He attachea tu their persuna. The
twu deacriptinns are intended tn shuw that the cunduct nf Jesus tnward thuae deapised
beings cnrrespunds in all reapects tu that cumpaaaiunate sulicitude, and su tu justify
the instrument nf divine luve. If Gnd cannnt be accused nf secret sympathy with
sin, hnw cnuld Jesus possibly be so when carrying Hia purpose into execution ?
Vers. 3-7.* The Boat Sheep. God seeks sinners because the sinner is a miserable
being deserving pity : such is the meaning nf this deacriptinn. The parable is put
in the furm uf a queatinn. In pnint oi fact, it ia at nnce an argumentum ad hominem
and an argument a fortiori : " What du ye yuuraelves in such a case ? And beaides,
the case ia like : a aheep, a man !" Which of you ? " There is nnt a single une nf
ynu whn accuse me here whn dnes nnt act exactly like me in similar circumstances."
'AvBponoc, man, is tactily contrasted with God (ver. 7). The hundred sheep represent
the totality of the theocratic people ; the lost sheep, that portion of the people which
has broken with legal ordinances, and so lives under the impulse nf ita nwn pasaiuna ;
the ninety and nine, the majnrity which has remained nutwardly faithful tn the law.
'Epypos, which we tranalate wUder¬ness simply denntes iu the East uncultivated plains,
pasturage, in uppnaitiun tn tilled flelda. It ia the natural reaurt nf sheep, but withnut
the nntiun nf danger and barrenneaa which we cnnnect with the idea nf wilderness.
Thia place where the flunk feeda repreaenta the mere er less normal atate nf the faith
ful Jewa, in which the aoul is kept near tn Gnd under the shelter nf cummandmenta
and wnrahip. The shepherd leaves them there : there have unly tu walk faithfully in
the way marked uut fur them ; they will be infallibly led nn tn a higher atate (Jnhn
3 : 31, 5 ; 46, 6 : 45, 7 : 17). While waiting, their mnral pnsitiun is safe ennugh to
* Ver. 4. 6 Mjj. several Mnn. add ov after eo;.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 373
alluw the Savinur to conaecrate Himself mure apecially tn the auuls nf thnse whn,
having brnken with the cnvenant and ita meana nf grace, are expnaed tu the muat im
minent dangera. The anxiety nf the shepherd tu recuver a strayed sheep has mure
than persunal interest fer its motive. One sheep in a hundred is a lesa uf tnn small
impurtance, and in any caae uut uf prnpurtiun tn the pains which he takes. The
mntive which animates him is cnmpaasiun. Is therej in reality, a creature in the ani
mal wurld mure tn be pitied than a strayed aheep ? It ia deatitute beth ef the inatinct
neceaaary te flnd its way, and nf every weapnn nf self-defence. It is a prey tn any
beaat. which may meet it ; it deaervea, aa nn nther being in nature, the name otioai.
The cumpaaainn uf the shepherd appeara : 1. In his preaeverance : he seeks it until
(ver. 4) ; 3. In his tender care : he layeih it on his shoulders; 3. In the Joy with which
he takes his burden {inir'iByaiv xaipov), a juy such that he wishes tu ahare it with
thnae whn aurrnund him, and that he reckuna nn receiving their cnngratulatinns
(ver. 6).
Every tnuch in this exquisite picture finds its appUcatinn by meana nf the aituatinn
described, vers. 1 and 3. The search fnr the sheep curreapunds with the act which
the Pharisees blamed : He receiveth sinners, and eateth with them ; the finding, tn that
mnraent uf unapeakable jny, when Jesua sees une nf thuse Inat auuls reluming tu
Gnd ; the tenderneaa with which the ahepherd carries his sheep, tn the care which
divine grace will hencefnrth take nf the snul thua recnvered fnr Gud ; the jny nf the
shepherd, tu that which Jeaua, that which Gnd Himaelf, feels in the aalvatiun nf sin
ners ; the cnngratulatinns uf friends and neighburs, tn the thanksgivings and praises
nf glnrified men ahd angels. It is tn be remarked that the shepherd dnea nnt carry
back the sheep tn the pasture, but tu his nwn dwelling. By this tnuch, "Jeaua un
dnubtedly givea us tn understand, that the sinners whum He has cnme tu save are
tranapurted by Him intu an nrder nf thinga auperinr tn that nf the thencracy tu which
they furmerly belunged — intu the cnmmuninn uf heaven repreaented by the shepherd's
huuse (ver. 7). i
Ver. 7 cnntains the applicatiun nf the deacriptinn, ur mnre exactly, the cnnclusinn
nf the argument : " If pity leads yuu tn ahuw such tenderneaa tu a sheep, am I wrong
in shuwing it tn lust snuls ? I aay unto yuu, that what I feel and du ia what Gud
Himself feels and wiahea ; and what uffenda yuu here beluw nn the earth ia what
cauaes rejuicing in the heavena. It is fnr ynu tu judge from thia cnntraat, whether,
while ynu have nn need perhapa tn change ynur life, ynu du not need a change uf
heart I" The wurds : there sliall be more joy, are frequently explained anthropopathi-
eally ; the recuvery nf a lust ubject gives us in the flrst mnment a livelier juy than
anything which we pnssess withnut previuua luss. If we fnund this feature in the
parable, the explanatiun might be diacuaaed. But it meets us in the application, and
we cannot see hnw such a sentiment cnuld be absnlutely ascribed tn Gnd. We have
just seen that the state uf the recnvered sinner is really superiur tn that nf the believ
ing Israelite. The latter, withnut having tn charge himself with gross disurders
{pETavoelv, to repent, in the sense nf thuse tn whnm Jesus is speaking), haa never
theless une decisive step more tn take, in urder that hia salvatiun may be cun
summated, and that Gnd may rejnice fully un his accnunt ; that ia, tn recngnize his
inward ain. tn embrace the Savinur, and tn be changed in iieart. Till then bia regu
lated walk within the bnaum uf the ancient cnvenant ia only prnviaiunal, like the
whule uf that cnvenant itaelf. It may eaaily happen that, like the Phariaees,
such a man shnuld end by rejecting real salvatiun, and su perishing. Huw shnuld

374 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
heaven rejbice nver a state sn imperfect, with a jny like that which is awakened
amung ita inhabitanta by the sight uf a sinner really saved ? It is evident that in this
saying we must take the v/ord just (as well as the wurd repent) in the aense given tu
it by the interlncutnrs nf Jesua, that relative meanins? which we have already fnund,
vera. 31, 33 : the juat, Levitically and theucratically speaking. This righteuusneaa is
nnthing ; it is the directest way tn cunduct tn true righteuusneas ; but un cnnditinn
that a man dues nnt rest in it. It thus affurds a certain nccasiun fur jny in heaven —
this is implied in the cnmparative, joy more than . . . — but less ju.v, hnwever,
than the salvatinn nf a aingle auul fully realized. That is already evident from the
cnntrast establiahed by this verse between the jny uf heaven and the discuntent uf the
Pharisees nn uccasinn nf the same event (ver. 1). The I aay unto you has here, as
everywhere, a special anlemnity. Jeaua apeaka nf heavenly things as a witness (Jnhn
3 : 11) and as an interpreter nf the thnughts nf Gnd. The wnrds in lieaven embrace
Gud and the beings whu surround Him, thuse whu are represented in the parable by
tlie friends and ¦neighbors. The cnnjunctinn y auppuses a puXXo-D which is net ex
preaaed. This form ia explained by the blending ef two ideas : " there is jny" (hence
the abaence nf pdXXov), " there ia yet ¦more than . . ."(and hence the ^). This
fnrm delicately expreases the idea indicated abnve, that there is alsu a certain satisfac
tinn in heaven nn accnunt uf the righteuusness uf sincere Israelites. Hnw can nne
help being struck with the manner in which Jesus, bnth in this parable and the two
fnllnwing, identifles Hia feelinga and conduct abaolutely with the feelinga and the
actiun nf Gnd Himaelf ? The shepherd seeking, the wuman finding, the father wel
cuming — ia it nut in Hia perann that Gnd accnmpl'ishes all thnse divine wnrks?
This parable is placed by Mattbew in the great diacnurae uf chap. 18, and — Blee'k
cannut help acknnwledging — becauae nf an aaanciatinn nf ideaa belnnging purely tn
the evangelist himself. Indeed, the applicatiun which he makea cf the Inat aheep tn
the little ones (vera. 1-6 and 10 ; ver. 11 is an interpnlatiun) is certainly nut in keeping
with the nriginal aenae nf thia parable. The nriginal reference uf this deacriptinn tn
Inst sinners, aa Hultzmann aays in the same cnnnectinn, has heen preaerved In; Buke.
But hnw in thia caae are we tn explain hnw Matthew haa wrested the parable frum
its nriginal meaning it he cupied the same dncument aa Luke (A, accnrding tn Hultz
mann) ? Besides, how comes it that Matthew omits the fnllnwing parable, that nf the
drachma, which Luke, accnrding tn this critic, takes, as well as the preceding, frum
the cummun dncument ?
Vers. 8-10.* The Boat Drachma. The anxiety cf the wuman tu find her lust piece
uf muney certainly dues nnt proceed frura a feeling nf pity ; it is self-interest which
leads her tu act. She had painfuUy earned it, and had kept it in reserve fnr snme
important purpnse ; it ia a real luss tn her. Here is divine luve pnrtrayed frum an en
tirely different side. The sinner is nut unly, in the eyes nf Gud, a suffering being,
like the sheep nn whum He takea pity ; he is a precinus being, created in Hia image,
tu whum He haa assigned a part in the accumpliahmcnt nf His plans. A Inst man is
a blank in His treasury. Is nut this side nt divine luve, rightly understond, still mure
striking than the preceding ?
The general features, as well as the minutest details, uf the descriptiuns are fltted tu
.bring intn prominence this idea nf the value which Gnd attaches tu a lust snul. Gene
ral features : 1. The idea uf loss (ver. 8a) ; 3. The peraevering ca/re which the woman
* Ver. 8. S. B. L. X. 10 Mnn., euS ov instead cf cue orov. Ver. 9. 6 Mjj. 35 Mnn.,
ovyKuXei instead nf avyKuXeirai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 375
expends in seeking the drachma (ver. 85) ; 3. Her overflowing joy when she haa fnund
it (ver. 9). Details : The wuman has labnriuusly earned this small sum, aud aaved it
nnly'at the oust uf many privatinna, and fur snme urgent necesaity. Jeaua leavea nut
the •«! ipdv, of you, nf ver. 4. Perhapa there were nnne but men in tbe throng, ur if
otherwise, He was addressing them nnly. Fur the number 100, ver, 4, He substitutes
the number 10 ; the luss nf nne in 10 is mure serinus than nf nne in 100. The drachma
was wurth abuut eight pence. It was the price nf a full day's wurk. Cump. Matt.
30 : 3, where the master agrees with the laburers fnr a penny (a sum nearly equivalent
to eight pence) a day, and Rev. 6 : 6. With what minute paina are the effurts uf this
wnman described, and what a charming interiur is the picture uf her peraevering
search ! She lights her lamp ; fur in the East the apartment has nn nther light than
that which is admitted by the dunr ; she remuves every article nf furniture, and
sweeps the mnst dusty curners. Such is tbe image uf God cuming dnwn in the per
snn nt Jesua intn the cumpany nf the Inwest aranng sinners, fnllnwing them tn the
very dens ef the theocracy, with the light uf divine truth. The figure nf the sheep
referred rather tn the publicans ; and that uf the drachma appliea rather tu the secnnd
class mentinned in ver. 1, the dpuproXoi, beings plunged in vice.
In depicting the jny uf the wuraan (ver. 9), Luke substitutes the Middle
ovyKaXelrui, she calleth to heraelf, fnr the Active avyKuXel, she calleth, ver. 6 ; the Alex.
have ill-adviaedly nbliterated this shade. It is nnt, as in the preceding par&ble, the
ubject Inat which prufita by the flnding ; it ia the wnman heraelf, whn had lust some
thing nf her uwn ; and su she claims tn be cungratulated /or herself ; hence the Mid
dle. This shade cf expressinn reflects the entire difference nf meaning between the
twu parables. It is the same wilh anuther sUght mudificatiun. Instead nf the ex
preaainn nf ver. 6 : " Fnr I have fnund my aheep which was lost { to dnoXoXds)," the
wnman aays here : "the piece which I had loat {yv dnuXeau)" ; tbe firat phrase
turned attentinn tn the sheep and its diatreaa ; the secund attracts uur intereat tu the
wuman, diacunaulate abnut her Inaa. What grandeur belnnga tn the picture nf thia
humble rejuicing which the punr wnman celebratea with her neighbura, when it
becnmes the transparency thruugh which we get a glimpae cf God Himaelf, rejoicing
with His elect and His angela over the salvation uf a single ainner, even the chief !
The 'evumov tuv dyy,, in the preaenee of the angela, may be explained in twn ways :
either by giving tn the wnrd joy the meaning subject of joy — in that caae, thia, aaying
refers directly tn the jny uf the angela themselves — ur by referring the wurd x^P^ tn
the jny of God which breaks furth in presence nf the angela, and in which they par
ticipate. The firat sense is the mure natural.
But thuse twu Imagea, burrowed frnm the animal and inanimate wnrld, remain ten
far beneath their object. They do not furnish Jesus with the means of displaying
the fuU riches of feeling which filled the heart of God toward the ainner, nor of un
veiling the sinner's inner history in the drama of conversion. For that, He needed an
image borrowed frnm the dnmain uf mural and sensitive nature, the sphere uf human
life. The wnrd which sums up the flrst twn parables ia grace ; that which sums up
the third ia faith.
Vers. 11-33. The Child loat and found. This parable cunsists nf twn distinct de
scriptiuns, which form the cnunterpart uf une annther, that nf the yiranger sun (vers.
11-34), and that nf the elder snn (vera. 35-33). By the aecund„ Jesus returns cem
pletely, as we shall see, te the histnrical situatinn described vers. 1, 3, and the scene
is clnsed.

376 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Vers. 11-34. The younger Son. This flrst part of the parable embraces four repre-
aentatinna cnrrespnnding tn the fuur phases of the cunverted sinner's life : lat. Sin
(vers. 11-13) ; 2d. Misery (vers. 14-16) ; Sd. Cunversion (vers. 17-20a) ; ^th', Res
turatiun (vers. 306-34).
Vera. 11-13.* Jeaus discuntinues the interrogative fnrm used in the two previnus
caaea : we have nn mure an argument ; we have a narrative, a real parable. The
three peranns cnmpnsing the family represent Gnd and His penple. 'In accurdance
with vers. 1, -3, the elder sun, the representative uf the race, the prop uf the gens, and
as such mnre deeply attached than the ynunger tn the land uf his hnusehuld hearth,
persunifles the Israelites whn were Levitically irreproachable, and especially the
Phariseea. The ynunger, in whoae case the family bund ia weaker, and whnm this
very circumstance rendera mnre npen tu the temptatiun nf breaking with it, repre
aenta thnae whu have abanduned Jewiah legaUam, publicans and penple nf immnral
lives. His demand fur hia gnuda ia muat prnbably tu be explained by the fact that
the elder received aa his inheritance a dnuble share of the patrimnnial lands, the
ynunger members a single share (see at 13 : 13). The latter then desired that his
father, anticipating the divisiun, shuuld give him the equivalent cf his pnrtiun iu
muney, an arrangement in virtue uf which the entire dnmain, nn the father's death,
wnuld cnme tu the elder. Twn things impel him tn act thua : the air nf the pater
nal hnme nppreases him, he feela the cunstraint ni his father'a presence ; then the
wnrld withnut attracts him, he hnpes tn enjuy himself. But tn realize hia wiahes, he
needs twn thinga — freednm and muney. Here is the image nf a heart swayed by
Ucentinus appetites ; Gud ia the nbatacle in ita way, and freednm tn dn anything ap
pears tn it as the cunditiun uf happineaa. Muney nught nnt tu be taken aa a flgure
applied te the talenta and gracea which the ainner has received ; it simply represents
here the pnwer nf satisfying une's tastes. In the father's cunsenting tn the guilty
wiah nf hia snn, a very snlemn thnught is expressed, that nf the sinner's abandnn-
ment tn the desires nf his nwn heart, the napadiddvai rals iniBvpiais (Rnm. 1 : 34, 36,
38), the ceasing nn the part nf the Divine Spirit tn strive against the inclinatinns nf 'a
spnUed heart, which can nnly be cured by the bitter experiencea uf ain. Gud gives
such a man nver tu hia fully. The use which the sinner makea uf his aadly-acquired
liberty ia described in ver. 13. All thnse images uf sin blended in many respects, sn
far as the sinners present were cnncerned, with actual facts. The far country to
which the snn flies is the emblem nf the state nf a auul which has au atrayed that the
thnught nf Gud nn lunger even nccurs tn it. The cnmplete diaaipatinn uf his gnnds
repreaenta the carrying uut uf man'a liberty to ita furthest Ihnits. Ma/cptiv is nut an
adjective, but an adverb (ver. 30, 7 : 6, etc).
Vers. 14^16.t The Ubeity uf self-enjnyment is nnt unlimited, as the sinner wnuld
fain think ; it has limits uf twu kinds ; the une pertaining tu the Individual himselt,
such aa aatiety, reraerse, the feeling nf deatitutinn, and abjectness reaulting, frum vice
{when he had spent all) ; the uther arising frnm certain unfavorable outward circum
stancea, here represented by the famine which occurs at this crisis, that is, domestic
er public calamitiea which complete the aubduing nf the heart which haa been already
overwhelmed, and further, the absence of all divine cnnsulatiun. Let thuse twu
causes nf misery cuincide, and wretchedness is at its height. Then happens what
* Ver. 13, !*=. A. B. L., o de instead nf xai.
X Ver. 14. S. A. B. D. L. 3 Mnn., «o-,i:wpa instead of taxvpoS. Ver. 16. S. B. D. L.
R, snme Mnn. Syr™'. It»"'!., xopraaByvai ek instead nf yepiaai ryv KoiXiav avroo ano.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 377
Jesus calls varepslaBai, to be in want, the abanlute vuid uf a heart which has sacrificed
everything fnr pleasure, and which has nnthing left but. suffering. We can hardly
avnid seeing, in the ignnble dependence intn which this ynung Jew falls under a
heathen master, an aUusinn tn the pnsitiun nf the publicana whn were engaged in the
service nf the Rnman pnwer. But the general idea which cnrrespunds tn this tnuch
is that nf the degrading dependence, in respect nt the wurld, tn which the , vicinus
man always finds himself reduced in the end. He suught pleasure, he finds pain ; he
wished freednm, he gets bondage. The word 'EKoXXyBy haa in it aomething abject ;
the unhappy wretch is a aort of appendage te a atrange persunality. To feed swine,
the last busineas fur a Jew. Kepdnov denutea a species uf cuarae bean, uaed in the
East fur fattening thuae animals. At ver. 16, the Alex. Mjj. are caught in the very
act nf purism ; men uf delicate taste cuuld nnt bear the gross expressinn, io fill the belly
with . . . There waa therefure substituted iu the public reading the mnre genteel
term, to satisfy himaelf with . . ; and this currectiun has paaaed intu the Alex.
text. The act expreased by the received reading ia that, nnt nf reliahing fund, but
merely nf filling a vuid. The amalleat detaila are tn the life in thia pertraiture. Dur
ing this time nf famine, when the pnur herdsraan's allnwance did nut suffice tn ap
pease his hunger, he was reduced tn cnvet the cnarse bean with which the herd was
carefully fattened, when he drove it hume : the swine were in reality mure precinus
than he. They snld high, an image nf the cnntempt and neglect which the profligate
experiences frum that very wurld tn which he has sacrificed the mnst sacred feeUngs.
Vers. 17-30a.* This representatinn, which depicts the cnnversinn nf the sinner,
includes twn thinga, repentance (ver. 17) and faith (vera. 18-30cf). The wOrds, when
lie came to himaelf, ver. 17, dennte a aolemn mnment in human life, that in which
the heart, after a lung periud nf diaaipatinn, for the first time becomes self-collected.
The heart is Gnd's sanctuary. Tn come tn nurselves is therefnre tn find Gnd. Re
pentance is a change nf feeling ; we find it fully depicted in the regret which the
sinner feels fur that frnm which he has fled (the father's huuse), and in that hnrror
which fills him at that which he snught su ardently (the strange land). As tn the
mercenaries whnm he envies, might they nut repreaent thnse heathen prnaelytes whn
had a place, althnugh a very inferinr nne (the nuter cuurt), in the temple, and whn
might thus frnm afar take part in the wnrship ; advantages frnm which the publi
cana, an lung aa they kept tn their prufessinn, were debarred by the excnmmunicatiun
which feU nn them. Frnm this change nf feeling there springs a resnlutinn (ver. 18),
which rests nn a remnant uf cunfidence in the gnndness uf his father ; this is the
dawn^uf faith. Did we nut recnUect that we are yet in the parable, the meaning nf
the wurds before thee wuuld appear tn blend with that nf the preceding, against
lieaven. But in the image adnpted the twu expressinns have a distinct meaning.
Heaven ia the avenger of all hnly feelinga when nutraged, and particularly nf ffiial
devotinn when trampled under fnut. The ynung man ainned befure hia father at the
time when, the latter behnlding him with grief, he defied hia last Innk, and nbstinately
turned his back nn him. The pussibility nf an immediate and entire reaturatinn dnea
nnt enter his mind. He is ready tn take the pusitinn nf a aervant in the hnuse where
he lived as a snn, but where he shall have at least wherewith tn aatiafy hfi hunger.
Here is pnrtrayed that publican (described in chap. 18) whn atnnd afar nff, and dared
* Ver. 17. S. B. L. snme Mnn., e^ instead nf emev. A, B. P., nepiaaevovrai
instead nf nepiaaevovaiv. 6 Mjj. sume Mnn. Syr. ltpie'-'"i>"=, Vg. add ode to Xipo, Ver,
J9. 16 Mjj. 40 Mnn, ItP''"'W°«, nmit nai befure ovKen,

378 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nut even raise his eyes to Gnd. But the essential fact is, that the reselution once
taken, he carries it out. Here is faith in its fulneaa, actually arising, going to God.
Faith is net a thought or a desire ; it is an act which bringa two Uving beings intn
persunal cnntact. What an impressinn muat have been produced nn the publicans
preaent by thia faithful picture uf their paat and present experiencea ! But' huw much
deeper atill the emutinn which awaha them when they hear Jeaus unveUing, in the
sequel, the feelings and cnnduct nf Gnd Himself tnward them !
Vers. 306-34.* Free pardnn, eutire restnratien, the jnys uf aduptinn— such are the
cnntents uf these verSea. The heart uf Gnd nverflnwa in the sayings nf Jesus. Every
wurd vibrates with emetiun, at nnce the tenderest and the hnliest. The father seems
never tn have given up waiting fnr his snn ; perceiving him from afar, he runs tu
meet him. Gud discerns the faniest aigh after gund which breaks fnrth in a wander
er's heart ; and frnm the mnment thia heart takea a step tnward Hira, He takes ten tu
meet it, striving tu shuw it something uf His luve. This histnry waa exemplified at
the very mnment as between the publicaus present and Gud, whn was drawing near
tn them in Jeaus. There is a wide difference between the cnnfessinn uttered by the
prodigal aun, ver. 31, and that which had been extracted from hira by the extremity
uf hia miaery (ver?. 18, 19). The latter was a cry cf despair ; but nuw his distress is
nver. It ia therefnre the cry nf repentant luve. The terma are the aame : Iltave
sinned ; but hew differentia the accent. Luther felt it prufuundly ; the diacuvery uf
the difference between the repentance nf fear and that nf luve waa the true principle
uf the Refurmatinn. He cannut cnme tn the end ; the very assurance nf pardnn pre
vents him from finishing and aaying, make me as . . ., accurding tu hia first pur
pnae. The Alex, have nnt understund this nmissinn, and have mistakenly added here
the last wurds uf ver. 19.
Pardnn invnlves reaturatinn. Nn humbling nuvitiate ; nn passing thruugh inferior
positions. The restoration is as complete as the repentance was sincere and the faith
profound. In all those tnuches — the shnes, the rube, the signet ring (the mark nf the
free man, fitted tn express an independent will) — a snund exegesis shnuld limit itaelf
tn finding the exiDreasiun uf the fulness uf resturatiun tn the filial standing ; nnly
hurailetic applicatiun may allnw itself tn gu ffirther, thnugh even it ahnuld beware ot
falling intn a play nf wit, aa when Jerume and Olshausen see in the rube the right
euusness nf Christ, in the ring the seal nf the Holy Spirit, in the sbnea the pnwer of
walking in the ways ef God. Others have found in tbe servants tbe image of the
Hely Spirit or of pastors ! The Alex, reject rrjv before dtoX^riv, and that justly.
There is a gradation : flrat a robe, in opposition te nakedness ; then, and even tlvi best
because he who has descended lowest, if he rise again, should mount up highest. In
the phrase, the failed calf, ver. 33, the article should be observed. On every farra
there ia alwaya the calf which ia fattening for feast daya. . Jesus knows rural cus
toms. Augustine and Jerome flnd in this calf an indication of the sacrifice of Chriat !
According to the lout enaemble of tbe picture, which ahould be our standard in inter
preting all the apecial details, this emblem represents all that is meat excellent and
aweet in ^e communications of divine grace. The absence nf every feature fitted to
* Ver. 31. 7 Mjj. sume Mnn. It. Vg. nmit kui before ovketi. !*. B. D. U. X. 30
Mnn. add, after vioq aov, noiyaov ps uS Eva rov piaBiov aov, Ver. 33. iS. B. L. X. It
Vg. addraxv (D., Ta;t:euS) befnre E^EvEyKure, 7 Mjj. (Alex.) nmit ryv heiore aroXyti,
Ver. 33. ». B. L. R. X. It. Vg., ^Epcre inatead uf EveyKavr^S. Ver. 24. 9 Mjj. 30
Mnn. It. Vg. nmit kul befnre anoXuXoS yv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 37^
represent the sacriflce nf Christ, is at nnce explained when we remember that we have
here to du with a parable, and that expiatinn has nu place in the relatiuns between
man and man. By the plural, let us be men-y, the father himself takes his share in
the feast (as in ver. 7). The twn paraUel clauaes nf ver. 34 recaU the twn aapects ih
which sin was presented in the twn previnus parables ; he was dead relates tn the per
sunal misery nf the sinner (the lust sheep) ; he was lost, tu the Inaa felt by Gnd Himself
(tbe lust drachma). The parable nf the prodigal ann cumbines thuse twu puints uf
view ¦ the sun was lust, and the father had lust something. With the wurda, and ihey
began io be mer-ry, the parable reachea the exact puint at which things were at the
mument when Christ uttered it (vers. 1 aud 3).
Vers. 35-33. Tlie elder Son. Thia part embraces : Isi. The interview nf the elder
sun with the servant (vers. 35-38a) ; 2d. His interview with his father (vers. 385-33).
Jesua here ahuwa the Phariaeea their murmurings put in actiun, and cunstrSina them
tu feel their gravity.
Vera. 35-38a.* While the hnuae is flUed with mirth, the elder sun is at wurk.
Here is the image ef the Pharisee busied with his rites, while repentant sinnera are
rejuicing in the aerene sunahine nf grace. Every free and jnynua impulse is abhnr-
rent tn the fnrmal spirit uf pharisaism. This repugnance is deacribed in ver. 36.
Rather than gu alraight into the hnuae, the elder ann begins by gathering infermatiun
from a aervant ; he dnes net feel himself at home in the house (John 8 : 35). The ser
vant in his answer substitutes fer tbe expreasiona of the father : he was dead . . .,
lost . . ., these sim.ple v^ords: he is come safe and sound. This is the fact, without
the father's moral appreciation, which it is not -fltting in him to appropriate. Every
thing in the shghtest detaUs ef the picture breathes the most exquisite delicacy.
The refuaal tn enter curreapunda tu the discuntent nf the Pharisees, whu du nnt under
stand being saved in cummun with the vicious.
Vera. 385-33. f This interview cnntains the full revelatiun nf pharisaic feeling,
and brings intn view the cnntraat between it and the fatherly heart nf Gnd. The
procedure nf the father, whn atepa nut tn his sun and invites him tn enter, ia realized
in the very cnnversatinn w^ich Jeaus, cnme from God, hnlda with them at the mn
ment. The answer uf the aun (vers. 39 and 30) includes twu accusatiuns against hia
father : the une beara un his way nf acting tnward himself (ver. 39), the nther on his
cnnduct in respect nf his nther sun (ver. 30), The cuntrast is meant tu bring nut the
partiality nf the father. The blind and innncent self-satisfactien which fnrms the
heart nf pharisaism cuuld nnt be better depicted than in the wurds : " neither trans
gressed I at any time thy cummandment ;" and the aervUe and mercenary pnaitinn nf
the legal Jew in the thencracy, than thus : " Lu ! theae ni^y years do 1 serve tliee."
Bengel makes the simple ubservatinn nn these wurds : servus erat What in -reality
was his father tn hira ? A master I He even cnunts the years nf his hard servitude :
There are so many years .' . . . Such is man's view nf accnmplishing gund under
the law : a labnr painfuUy carried thrnugh, and which cnnaequently merits payment.
But by its very nature it is tutally deprived nf the delights which belong only te the
* Ver. 36. Avrov after itaiScov, in ; (nut 5«). ia only suppnrted by aoinh Mnn.
t "Ver. 38. The mss. are divided between r/BsXsv (T. R.) and r/BsXridEv, and be
tween o cnjv (T. R.) and o Se (Alex.). Ver. 39. 7 Mjj. add avrov te na narpi.
Ver 30. Instead ef rov podjov rov direvrov, 6 Mjj., rov dirsvrov podxov. Ver.
33. Instead of avsZi?dEv (T. R.), S* B. L. R. A. Sy^»»^ eZvdEv. ». B. X. several
Mnn, It. omit xai, and A. B. D. L. R. X. ijv, before aitoXooXcaS.

380 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
sphere ot free leve ; it has no other idea of them than that which it gets by seeing
these joys of the reconciled ainner, by which it is scandalized. The joy which is
wanting te it ia this kid to make merry with iis frienda, which has never been granted
tn it. With the hard and ill-paid labnr uf legal nbedience he cnntrasts (ver. 30) the life of
his brother, merry in sin, happier stUl, if pnssible, in the hnur uf his return and
pardnn. The meaning is, that in the eyea nf pharisaism, as virtue is a task, sin is a
pleasure ; and hence there nught tn be a payment fnr the first, an equivalent nf pain
fnr the secnnd. The father, by refusing tn the nne his juat reward, by adding in the
caae uf the nther jny tu jny, the enjnyments uf the paternal hnme tn thuse uf de
bauchery, has shnwn his preference fnr the ainner and hia aympathy with ain. Thy
aon, saya the elder ann, instead nf : my brother. He wuuld express at unce the parti
ality nf tis father and his nwn dislike tn the sinner. Du nnt thuse sayinga which Jesus
puta intu the mnuth nf the righteuua legaliat, cuntain the keenest criticism uf a state
nf snul wherein men discbarge duty all the whUe abhurring it, and wherein while
avuiding sin, they thirst after it ? The particular iiEzd rcopv^v is a stroke nf the
pencil added tn the picture nf ver. 13 by the charitable hand uf the elder brother.
The father'a answer meets perfectly the twn accusatiuns nf his aun. Ver. 31 repUes
tu ver. 39 ; ver. 33 tu ver. 30. The father firat cleara himaelf from the charge nf in-
justice tn tbe snn whn is speaking tn him; and with what cundescenainn ! "My
child {rexvov)," This, fnrm nf address has in it snmething mnre Inving even than
VIE, son. Then he reminds him that bis life with him might have been a feast all
alung. There was nu uccasinn, therefnre, tn make a special feast fur him. And what
gnud wnuld a particular gift serve, when everything in the hnuse was cnntinually at
his dispnsal. The meaning uf this remarkable aaying is, that nnthing prevented the
believing Israelite frora alr'eady enjuying the sweets uf divine cemmuninn— a fact
proved by the Paalma ; cump. e.g. Pa. 23 and 63. St. Paul himaelf, whn nrdinarily
preaenta the law aa the instrument uf cnndemnatinn, nevertheless derives the fnrmula
nf grace from a saying nf Muses (Rnm. 10 : 6-8), proving that in his eyes grace is
already in the law, through the pardnn which accompanies sacrifice and the Holy
Spirit granted to him whu aaka Him (Pa. 51 : 9-14) ; and 'that when he apeaka ef the
law aa he ordinarily doea, it ia after the manner of his adveraaries, isolating the com
mandment frora grace. In the same way as ver. 31 presents theocratic fideUty as a
happineas, and not a task, so ver. 33 reveals sin as a misery, and net aa an advantage.
There was therefore ground for cslebrating a feast on the return of one who had just
escaped from an great a miaery, and by hia arrival had restored the life nf the family
in its cnmpleteness. Tliy brother, says the father ; it is the answer tu the thy aon ot
ver. 3Q. He reminds him of the claims uf fraternal leve. Here Jesus stops ; He
does not say what part the elder sen took. It lay with the Pharisees themselves, by
the conduct which they would adopt, te decide this questien and finish the narrative.
The Tubingen school (ZeUer, Volkmar, HUgenfeld, not KostUn) agree in regard
ing the elder son, net as the pharisaic party, but aa the Jewiah peuple in general ;
the younger sen, not as tbe publicans, but GentUe nations. " The elder son is un
mistakably the image nf Judaism, which deems that it pussesses special merit because
uf ita fidelity tu the nne true Gud. The ynunger aun . . . is the uut lesa easily
recngnized purtrait uf Gentile humanity given up tu pulytheism and immurality.
The diacuntent ef the firat, on seeing the reception granted to his brother, represents
the jealousy of the Jews on accuunt uf the entrance nf tbe Gentiles intn the Church "
(Hilgenfeld, " die Evangel.," p. 198). It wnuld foUnw, then : 1. That this parable

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 381
had been invented and put intu the muuth nf Jesus by Luke, wilh the view cf sup
purting the system nf his master Paul ; 3. That tn thia inventiun he had added a sec
ond, intended to accredit the former, that uf the histurical aituatinn deacribed vers. 1
and 3. But, 1. Is it cnnceivable that the evangelist, whn marked uut his nwn pro
gramme fur himself, 1 : 1-4, shuuld take the liberty nf treating his materials in sn free
and easy a atyle 3. Have we nnt fnund in thia descriptinn a multitude uf delicate
allusiuns tn the histnrical surroundings amid which the parable is reputed tn have
been uttered, and which wnuld nut be applicable in the sense prupnsed (vers. 15, 17,
etc.) ? 3. Hnw frum this parable St. Paul might have extracted the doctrine of justi
fication by faith, is easy to understand. But that this order was inverted, that the
parable was invented as an after-thought to give a body to the Pauline doctrine, is
incompatible with the abaence ef every dngmatic element in the expnaitiun. Wnuld
nnt the names uf repentance, faith, justiflcatiun, and the idea uf expiatinn, have been
infallibly introduced, if it had been the reault nf a dngmatic study cnnlempurary with
the ministry nf Paul ? 4. We have seen that the deacriptinn finda ita perfect explana
tinn, that there remaina nnl a aingle nbacure pnint in the light in which it ia placed by
Luke. It ia therefure arbitrary tn aeek anuther setting fur it. The prejudice which
has led the Tiibingen achnnl tn thia cnntra-texlual interpretatiun is evident. Keim,
while discnvering, like this schnnl, Paulinisin «s the basis nf the parable (p. 80),
thiuks that here we have une uf the pasaages wherein the anther, with the view of
concniating, mere er leaa abjulea his master, St. Paul. The evangelist darea not
wholly diaapprove the JudeO-Christianity which helda by the commandments ; he
praises it even (ver. 31). He only demanda that it shall authorize the entrance of the
Gentilea intu the Church ; and nn thia cnnditinn he lets its legal spirit pass. We
shnuld thus have. aimply the juxtapnaitiun nt the twn principlea which conflicted with
one another in the apustnlic churches. But, 1. In this attempt at cunciliatinn, the
elder snn wnuld be cempletely sacrificed to the younger ; fer the latter is seated at
table in the house, the former is without, and we remain in ignorance as te whether
he wiir re-enter. And this last would represent the apostolic Chiiatiiinity which
founded the Church ! 3. Adopting bibUcal premises, ver. 31 can easily be applied to
the Moaaic ayatem faithfully obaerved, and that, aa we have seen, according to the
view of St. Paul hiraself. 3. It belonged te the method ef progressive transition,
which Jesus always observed, to seek tu develnpe within tbe bosom of the Mosaic
dispensatien, and without ever attacking it, the new principle which waa to aucceed
it, and the germ nf which waa already depnaited in it. Jeaus did nut wish tu sup
press anything which He had nnt completely replaced and surpassed. He therefore
accepted the ancient system, while attaching to it the new. The facta pointed out by
Keim are fully explained by thia situatinn.
Hnltzmann thinks that nur parable, which is nut fnund in Matthew, may reaUy be
unly an amplificatinn nf that nf the twu snns, which is fnund in that evangelist (Matt.
31 : 28-30). Dnea nnt this suppusitinn dn tnn much hnnnr tn the alleged amplifier,
whether Luke ur any nther ?
6. The Two Parablea on the uae of Earthly Goods : chap. 16. Thnse twn remark
able passages are pecuUar tn Luke, thnugh taken, accnrding tn Hnltzmann, frnm the
cummnn snurce A, frnm which Matthew alsu bnrruwa. Fnr what reasnn, nn thia
hypothesis, has the latter omitted them ? The aecend eapecially (ver. 31 : They have
Moses and the prophets) was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of thia Gospel. Ac-
cordin.g te Weizsacker, the two parablea have undergone very grave modifications in
the course of succeaaive editiena. In his view, the original thought ef the parable ef
the unjust steward was thia : Beneficence, tbe meana et justification fur injustices
cnmmitted by him whu shnws it. In uur Gnapel, it ia intended tn prnmiae tn the Gen
tiles an entrance intn the kingdnm uf Gud, as a recumpense fnr their benefits tuward
the lawful heirs uf the kingdnm. The aecund parable wnuld alan belung in urigin tn
the tendency nf Ebinnite Judeu-Christianity ; it wuuld transfurm intn a deacriptinn
the idea nf the fnur beatitudes and four maledictinna, which in Luke upen the Sermnn
on the Mnunt. Later, it became the representatinn uf the rejectinn uf the unbeliev-

382 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ing Jews (the wicked rich man and his brethren), and of the salvation of the Gentiles
repreaented by Lazarus (probably a Gentile, accnrding tu ver. 31). We shall aee if
the interpretatiun juatiflea suppnsitinns su viulent.
This piece cnntains : 1st. The parable uf the unjust steward, with accnmpanying
reflectiuns (vers. 1-13) ; 2d. Reflectiuns furming an intruductinn tn the parable of the
wicked rich man, and the parable itself (vers. 14-31). Thuse twu pnrtraits are evi
dently the cuunterparts uf nne annther. The idea cnmrann tn buth is that nf the re
latinn between the use made nf earthly gnuds and man's future beyund the tnmb.
The steward represents the uwner whu is able tn secure his future by a wise use of
these transitory gooda ; the wicked rich man, the owner who comprnmises his future
by neglecting this just empluyment nf them.
1st. Vers. 1-13. The Unjust Steward, Is there a cnnnectiun between thia leasnn
nn riches and tbe preceding ? The iormula eXeye Si xai, and He said alao (ver. 1),
seems tn indicate that there is. Olshausen auppnaea that the diaciples (ver. 1) tn whnm
tlie parable ia addreased are publicans brought back tn God, thnae recent cunverts nf
chap. 15, whnm .Tesua was exhnrting tn emplny wisely the earthly gnuda which they
had acquired un juatly. But the expreaainn ; to Hia disciplea (ver. 1), refers naturally
tu the urdinary diaciples uf uur Lord. In tbe sense nf Olshausen, anme epithet wuuld
require tn have been added. The cnnnectiun is rather in the keeping up nf the cun
trast between the Ufe nf faith and phariaaic rightenuaneaa. The twu chief sins nf the
Phariaees were pride, with its fruit hypucrisy, and avarice (ver. 14). We see in the
Sermnn nn the Meunt, which waa directed, againat their falae righteeuaneaa, how
Jesus passes directly from the cue of theae sina te the other (Matt. 6 : 18, 19). This
is precisely what He does here. He had just been stigmatizing pharisaic pride in the
persen ef the elder sou. New this disposition is ordinarily accompanied by that
prnud hardnesa which characterizea the wicked rich man, aa the heart brnken by the
experiencea cf faith ia naturally diapuaed tn the liberal actinns cf the unjust steward.
Hence the fnrm : He said io ihem also.
And flrst the parable : vers. 1-9.* In this purtraiture, aa in anme nthers, Jesus
dnes nut scruple to use the example of the wicked for the purpose nf stimulating His
disciples. And in fact, in the midst uf cnnduct morally blaraable, the wicked uften
display remarkable qualities ef activity, prudence, and perseverance, which may
serve to humble and encourage believers. The parable of the unjuat ateward ia 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
administratinn uf which he has cnmmitted tn a factur. The latter ia nnt a mere alave,
as in 13 : 42 ; he ia a freeman, and even nccupying a anmewhat high ancial pnaitinn.;
(ver. 3). He enjuys very large pnwers. He gathers in and sells the produce at his
pleasure. Living himself nn the revenue nf the dnmain, il is his duly tn transmit to
his master the surplus uf the incume. Olshausen alleges that this master, in the view
nf Jeaus, represents the prince nf this wnrld, the devU, and tbat nnly thua can the
eulngium be explained which he paases (ver. 8) un the cunduct nf hia knavish servant.
Thia explanatiun is incurapatible with the deprivatiun of the steward pronounced by
* Ver. 1. S. B. D. L. R. omit avrov after paBrfvaS. Ver. 3. 7 Mjj. omit dov
after oiuovopiaS. 5>. B. D. P. , Svvr; instead ef Svvijd?^. Ver, 4. !S. B D aome
Mnn. Syr. add ek, and L. X. ItP'^'ive, Vg., aito before rr/S. Vera. 6, 7. S. B. D.
1,., ra ypa/jpc^^'^'^usteadoi ro ypappa. Ver. 9. 8 Mjj. aome Mnn. Syr»='''. It'"'!.,
ExXiitij or ExXsiTtT/ instead of EnXmrfTE, which the 'T. R. reada with ^¦"^ F. P.' U.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 383
the master, ver. 3, and which, in the view of our Lord, can enly denote death. It ia
net Satan who disposes of human life. Satan is net even the master ef riches ; does
net God say. Hag. 3:8: " The silver is mine, and the geld is mine ?" Comp. Ps.
34 : 1. Finally, it ia not to Satan, certainly, that we shall have te give account of
our administration of earthly goods I Our Lord clearly gives out Himself as the per
son represented by the master, vers. 8 and 9 : The Maater commended ... .; and I also
say unto you. Again, coidd we admit that in ver. 13 the expression : faithful in that
which is anotlier man's (your master's), should signify : " faithful to that which the
devil has committed to ypu ef hia gooda ?" Meyer had modifled thia explanation of
Olahauaen : the maater, according to him, ia wealth peraonified, mammon. But hew
are we to attribute the personal part which the master in the parable plays to this
abstract being, wealth ? The master can nnly represent God Himself, Him who
maketh pool' and maketh rich, who bringeth low and lifieth up. In relation to his
neighbor, every man may be regarded as the proprietor of hia gooda ; but in relation
to Gnd, nn nne ia mnre than a tenant. Thia great and aimple thuught, by destrnyiiig
the right nf property- relatively tn Gnd, gives it its true basis in the relatinn between
raan and man. Every man shuuld respect the property, uf hia neighbur, juat because
it is nut the latter'a property, but that nf Gud, whn haa entrusted it tn him. In the
repert made tn the master abnut the delinquencies nf hia steward, we are tn see the
image nt that perfect knnwledge which Gud has nf all human unfaithfulness. Tn
waste the gnnds nf Gnd, means, after having taken nut uf nur revenue what ia de
manded fnr nur maintenance, inatead nf cunsecrating the remainder tn the aervice
cf Gnd and uf Hia cauae, squandering it nn nur pleasure, nr hnarding it up lor nur
selves. Here we have the judgment nf Jesus nn that manner nf acting which appeara
to us su natural : it ia tu furget that we are but atewarda, and tn act as pruprieturs.
The aaying nf the maater tn the ateward (ver, 3) dnea net include a call te clear
himself ; it ia a aentence ef deprivation. His guilt seems thoroughly established.
The account which he is sumraoned to render is the inventory ef the property con
fided te him, tu be transraitted te his successor. What corresponds to this depriva
tion is evidently the event by which God takea away from us the free disposal of the
goods which He had entmsted te us here below, tbat ia, death. The sentence of de
privation pronounced beforehand denotes the awakening of the human conacience
when it ia penetrated by this voice of God : ' ' Thou muat die ; thnu ahalt give ac
cnunt." $covijdaS ia atrnnger than xaXsdaS : " speaking with tbe tnne nf a raaater."
In the phrase rirovro, ri raay be taken as an exclaraatiun : "Hnw happens it
that I hear this !" ur interrogatively, with rovro in appusitiun : ' What dn 1 hear nf
thee, to wit this ?" The accusatinn which we shuuld expect tn fnlluw ia understnud.
The present Svvx), in anrae Alex. , ia tbat nf the immediate future.
The wurds : lie said 'within himself, have snme relatinn tu thnse uf 15 : 17 : wlien he
. came to himself. It ia an act nf recelloction after a life paaaed in inaensibility. The
situation nf the man is critical. Of the twn cnursea which preaent themaelves te his
mind, tbe first, digging, and the second, begging, are equally intolerable to him, the
nne physically, the nther murally. All at nnce, after lung refiectieu, he exclaims, -as
if striking his furehead : I have it 1 "Eyvoov! Iliave come to see (ver. 4). He starts
from the aentence aa from a fact which ia irrevocable : when I am put out. But haa he
not theae goods, whicb he is seen te hand overto another, in his hands for some time
yet ? May he net hasten to use them in such a way that he shall get advantage from
them when he -shall have them no more' by making sure, fo» example, of a refuge

384 * COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
for the time when he shall be houseless ? When man thinks seriously of his ap
proaching death, it ia impossible fer him not to be alarmed at that deprivatinn which
awaits him, and at the atate uf nakedness which wUl fnllnw. Happy if in that hnur
he can lake a flrm resnlutinn. Fnr snme time yet he has in his hands the gnnds nf
his divine Master, which death ia abnut tu wrest from him. WiU it not be wisdom
on his part ao to use them during the brief moments when he has them yet at his dis
posal, that they shall bear interest for him when they shall be his no more ?
Thia steward, who will seen be homeless, knowa people who have houses : " Let
ua then make frienda of them ; and when I shall be turned tn the street, mure than
nne hnuse shall be npen tn receive me." The debturs, whum he calls tu him with
this view, are merchants whu are in the habit uf cuming tu get their auppliea from
him, getting credit prnbably tiU they have made their nwu sales, and making their
payments afterward. The Heb. fidroS, the bath, cnntains abnut sixty pints. The
gift nf fifty nf thnae batlia might mount up tn the sum uf anme thnuaands nf francs.
The xopoS, corns (hnmer), contains ten epliaha; and the value uf twenty homera might
rise tn snme hundreds nf francs. The difference which the steward makes between
the twn gifts is remarkable ; it cnntains a prunf nf discernment. He knnws his men
aa the saying is, and can calculate the degree nf liberality which he muat shuw tn
each tn gain a like result, that is tn say, the hnspitality he expects tn receive frnm
them until it be repaid. Jesus here describes alms in the mnst piquant fnrm. Dues
a rich man, fnr example, tear up the bill nf une nf his pnur debturs ? He nnly dnes
what the steward dnes here. Fur if all we have ia Gud'a, auppnaing we lend any
thing, it it uut uf His property that we have taken it ; and if we give it away, it ia
with Hia gnuda {that which ia another'a, ver. 13) that we are generous in su acting.
Beneficence from this point of view appears as a sort of hely unfaithfulness. By
means ef it we prudently make fer ourselves, like the steward, personal friends, whUe
we uae wealth which, atrictly apeaking, ia that cf nur Maater. But differently frnm
the steward, we dn sn holily, because we knnw that we are net acting withnut the
knuw'ledge and cnntrary tn the will ef the divine Owner, but that, en the other hand,
we are entering into Hia purpoaea ef love, and tbat He rejoicea te see us thua uaing
the gooda which He has committed to us with that intention. This unfaithfulness is
faithfulness (ver. 13).
The commendation which the master givea the steward (ver. 8) ia net absolute.
It has a twofold limitation, firat in the word rijs dSixias, " the unjust steward," an
epithet which he must certainly put in the master's mouth, and then in the explana
tnry phrase : " because he had dnne wisely." The meaning nf the cummendatinn,
then, ia tn thia effect : " Undnubtedly a clever man ! It ia nnly tn be regretted that
he haa nut shnwn aa much probity aa prudence." Thus, even thuugh beneficence
chiefly proflta him whn exerciaes it, Gnd rejuicea tn see this virtue. And while He
has nn favnr fur the miaer whn huarda Hia gnnds, nr fnr the egniat whn aquanders
them. He apprnvea the man whu diapuses nf them wisely in view uf his eternal future.
Weizaacker hulds that the eulogium given by the maater ahnuld be rejected frnm the
parable. Had he underatnud it better, he wnuld nnt have prupnsed thia suppressinn,
which wnuld be a mutilatinn.
It is with the secnnd part nf ver. 8 that the applicatien begins. " WiaeVy: Yes,
adds Jesus, it is quite true. For there is mere wisdom found among the children nf
this wurld in their mnde nf acting toward the children nf the generatinn tn which
they belung, than amnng the chUdren of light in their conduct toward those who

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 385
belung to theirs.'' Atmv olroS, thia age (worid) ; the period nf histnry anterinr tu
the cuming uf the kingdom nf Gnd. iwS -. the dnmain nf the higher life into which
Jesua introducea His disciplea, and in which the brightness nf divine wiadnm reigns
Bnth spheres have their nwn pnpulatinn, and every inhabitant uf the nne ur the nther
is surrounded by a certain number uf cuntempuraries like himaelf, whu fnrm his
yevsd nr generatiun. Thnse belnnging tu the flrst sphere use every means fnr their
nwn intereat, tn atrengthen the bunds which unite them tn their cnnlempnrariea ef
the same stamp. But thuse ,uf the secnnd neglect thia natural measure nf prudence.
They furget tn uae Gnd's gunda tn fnrm bnnda uf luve tn the contemporaries whn
ahare their character, aud whu might nne day give them a full recompenae, when
they themaelves ahall want everything and theae shall have abundance. Ver. 9
flniahes the application. The worda : and I alao say unto you, correapond te these :
and the Bord commended (ver. 8). As in chap. 15 Jesus had identifled Himself with
the Father who dwells in heaven, so in this aaying He identifiea Himself with the in
visible owner of all things : and I. Jeaua meana : Instead of hoarding up or enjoying
— a courae which will profit you nothing when, en the other side of the tomb, you
win find yourselves in your turn poor and destitute of everything— hasten to make
for yourselves, with the goods ef anothei (God's), personal friends {savroiS, to your-
aelvea), who shall then be bound to you by gratitude, and share with you their well-
being. By a course ef beneficence make haste te transform inte a bond of love tho
base metal of which death will sunn deprive yuu. What the steward did in hia aphere
in relatiun tu penple uf his nwn quality, aee that yuu dn in yuurs tnward thnae whn
belung like ynu tn the wurld tu cnme. The Alex, reading kxXiicrj {papoovas), wnuld
aignify: " that when mnney shall faU ynu (by the event nf death)." The T. R. :
'ExXiTirjrE, when ye shall fail, refers tn the cessatinn nf life, embracing privatinn nf
everything nf which it is made up.
The frienda, accnrding tn Meyer and Ewald, are the angela, whu, affected by the
alma cf the beneficent man, are attached tn him, and aaaist him at the tirae nf his
passing intu eternity. But accnrding tu the parable, the frienda can nnly be men
whu have been succured by him un the earth, punr here belnw, but puaaeasing a share
in the everlasting inheritance. What aervice can they render tn the dying diaciple ?
Here ia perhapa the mnst difficult queatinn in the explanatinn nf the parable. Luve
testified and experienced establishes between beings a strict mural unity. This is
clearly seen in the relatinn between Jesus and men. May nnt the disciple whn
reaches heaven withnut having gained here beluw the degree nf develupment which
is the cnnditinn uf full cnmmuninn with Gnd, receive the increaae cf apiritual life,
which ia yet wanting to him, by means ef those grateful spirits with whom he shared
hia temporal goods here below ? (Comp, Rom. 15 : 37 aud 1 Cor. 9 : 11.) De we not
already aee en the earth the poor Chriatian, who ia asaiated by a humane, but in a
religious point ef view defective, rich man, by hia prayera, by the overflowing of his
gratitude, and the ediflcation which he affords him, requiting his benefactor infinitely
more and better than he receives from hira ? Almsgiving is thus found to be the most
prudent investment ; fer the cummunicatinn nf Inve nnce established by its meana,
enablea him whn practises it tu enjuy pruvisinnally the benefits nf a spiritual atate far
auperinr tn that which he has himaelf reached. A aimUar thnught ia fnund in 14 : 13,
14. But if this explanatinn seems to leave snmething tu desire, we must fall back nu
sayings such as these : " He that hath pity upnn the pnnr, lendeih untn the Lnrd."
" Inasmuch as ye have dune it unto une of the least uf these my brethren, ye have

386 . COMMENTARY ON ST. LtlKE.
dune it unto me." It is Jesus, it is God Himself, who become our debtors by the
assistance which we grant tu thuae whu are the ubjecta nf their luve. And wnuld
such friends be useleaa in the. hnur nf nur disaulutinn ? Tu receive la nnt tu intrn
duce. On the cnntrary, the first nf these twu terms aaaumes that admission is already
adjudged. Faith, which alnne upens heaven, is supposed in the hearers whnm Jesua
ia addreasing in the parable : they are diaciplea, ver. 1. Cnnverainn, the fruit nf
faith, is equaUy implied, vers. 3 and 4. And since the disciple whnm Jesus de
scribes has chnsen believers as the apecial nbjects nf his liberality, he must tn a cer
tain degree be a believer himaelf.
The pnetical expreaainn eternal habitations (tents) is burrowed from patriarchal
histnry. The tenta uf Abraham and laaac under the uaks uf Mamre are transferred
in thnught tu the life tu cume, which is represented under the image uf a glurifled
Canaan. What is the future nf pnetry but the past idealized ? It is less natural tn
think, with Meyer, uf the tents nf larael in the deaert. We may here cnmpare the
itoXXai povai, the many mansions, in the Father's huuse, Jnhn 14 : 3. There re
maina tn be explained the phraae o ftapoavaS rijs dStxiaS, tlie mammon of unright
eousness. The wurd papoovds ia nnt, as has nften been aaid, the name uf an nriental
divinity, the gnd nf mnney. It denutes, in Syriac and Phoenician, mnney itself (see
Bleek nn Matt. 6 ; 34). The Araraaic name is I^qq, and, with the article, {{j'lQO.
The epithet unrighteous is taken by many cemmentatnra simply tn mean, that the ac-
qui-sltinn nf fnrtune is must frequently tainted with ain ; accnrding tu Bleek and
nthera, that ain readily attaches tn the administratinn nf it. But these are only acci
dental circumstancea ; the cnntext pnints tn a mnre aatiafactury explanatinn. The
ear nf Jeaus must have been cnnstantly nffended with that snrt uf reckleaa language
in which men indulge withnut scruple : my fnrtune, my lauds, my huuse. He whu
felt tn the quick man'a dependence on God, saw that there was a usurpation in thia
idea ot ownership, a fnrgelfulnesa nf t'ne true prnprietur ; nn hearing such language.
He seemed tu aee the farmer playing the landlnrd. It ia thia sin, nf which the natural
man ia prnfnundly uncunaciuua, which He lays bare in this whule parable, and which
He apecially deaiguatea by this expreaaiun the unrighleuua Mammnn. The twn, ryS
ddiKiag, vers. 8 and 9, currespund exactly, and mutually explain nne anuther. It is
therefnre false tu see in this epithet, with De Wette, the Tubingen Schnnl, R§nan,
etc., a cundeninatinu uf pruperty as such. Man'a sin dues nnt cunsiat in being, aa
nne inveated with earthly property, the ateward nf Gnd, but in furgetting that he ia su
(parable fuUuwing).
There is nu thuught mure fltted than that nf thia parable, nn the une hand, tn un
dermine the idea nf merit belnnging lu almagiving (what merit cnuld be gut uut uf
that which ia annther's ?), and un the uther, tn eucnurage ua in the practice uf that
virtue which asaurea us nf friends and prutecturs fur the grave mnment nf nur pass
ing intn the wnrld to cume. What un the part uf the steward was unly wise unfaith
fulness, becnmes wiae faithfulneaa in the servant uf Jesua whn acts nn acquaintance
with principle. It dare not be aaid that Jesus had wit ; but if une could be tempted
te use the expresaion at all, it wouljj be here.
Of the many explanatiuna uf this parable w»hich have been prupnsed, we shall
merely qunte snme nf the muat prominent. Schleiermacher takes tbe master tc be
the Rnman knights whn farmed the taxes nf .Tudasa, and sublet them tn needy publi
cans ; the steward, tn be the publicana whnm Jeaua exhurted tn expend nn their
cnuntrymen the gnnds uf which they cleverly cheated thuae great fnreigners. Heuri

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 387
Bauer sees in the master the Israelitish authuritiea, and in the unfaithful steward the
Juden-Christians, whn, withnut trnuWing themselves abuut thencratic prejudices,
shnuld strive tn cnmmunicate tu the Gentilea the beneflts uf the cnvenant. Accurd
ing tu Weizsacker in the nriginal thnught uf the parable the ateward represented a
Rnman magiatrate, whn, tn the detriment ef the Jewa, had been guUty ef maladmin
istration, but who thereafter atrives te make amends by ahewing them gentleness and
liberality. Nn wnnder that frum this pnint nf view the critic knnws nnt what tn
make nf the eulngium passed by the master nn his steward ! But accurding tu him,
the senae and the image were transfnrmed, and the deacriptinn became in the hands nf
Luke an encnuragement tn rich and unbelieving Jews tu merit heaven by dning gnud
tn pnnr Christians. The arbitrary and fnrced character nf thnse explanatinns is clear
aa the day, and they need nn detailed refutatinn. We are happy that we can agree,
at leaat fnr nnce, wilh Hilgenfeld, bnth in the general interpretatiun uf the parable
and in the explanatiun nf the aayinga which fnllnw (" Die Evangel," p. 199).
Vera. 10-13.* " He that ia faithful in that which ia leaat, is faithful alau in much ;
aud he that ia unjuat in the leaat, ia unjust alsn in much, 11. If therefnre ye have
nnt been faithful in the unrightenus maramnn, whu will cummit tn ynur trust that
which is true ? 13. .^d it ye have nut been faithful in that which is another man's,
who shall give you that which ia your own ? 13. Nu servant can aerve twn masters :
fnr either he wUl hate the nne, and luve the uther ; ur else he will hnld In tbe nne,
and despise the nther. Ye cannot aerve God and mararaon. " Many regard these re
flections as arbitrarily placed here by Luke. But whatever Bleek may aay, ia it not
ju^ the manner in which we constitute ourselves proprietors ef our earthly gooda,
which leads us to make a uae ef them which is contrary to their true deatinatien ?
The following piece, therefore, derivea its explanation trom the parable, and is di
rectly connected with it. Ver. 13 {ru dXXorpiu) would even be unintelligible apart
from it. Ver. 10 is a comparison borrowed frum cummnn life. From the experience
expressed in the twn parallel prupnaitiuns nf thia verse, it fnlluws that a master dues
nut think nf elevating tn a higher puaitiun the aervant whn haa abuaed hia cnnfldence
in mattera nf less impertance. Faithful tnward the raaster, unjuat tnward men.
The applicatiun nf thia i-ule nf cunduct tn believers, vers. 11, 13. The unrighteous
mammon is God's muney, which man unjustly takes as his own. Faithfulness wuuld
have implied, abuve all, the empluyment uf thuse gnnds iu the service uf Gud ; but
uur deprivatinn unce prnnnunced (deathj, it implies their empluyment in nur interest
rightly understund by means uf beneficence. Thrnugh lack ct this fidelity nr wis
dum, we estabUah nur nwn incapacity tu adminiater better gnuda if they were cunfided
tn us ; therefure Gnd will nnt cnmmit thera tn us. Thnse gnods are called rd dXyBivdv,
the ti-ue good, that which corresponds really to the idea of gond. The cnntrast bas
misled several cnmmentaturs tu give tn the wnrd udiK0(; tbe meaning nf deceitful.
This is tu cunfnund the wurd aXyBtvoS with aAf^Si?? {veracious). The real good is that
which can in no case be changed te its opposite. It is net so with money, which is at
best a provisional good, and may even be a source ef evil. This is the applicatien of
10a ; ver. 13 is that nf 105. Earthly gnuda are called annther'a good, that ia tn aay, a
gnud which strictly belungs tn annther than ourselvea (Gnd). As it is faithfulneaa tu
Gnd, suiit ia justice to man, to dispose of them with a view to our poor neighbor.
That which is our own denutes the gnud fur which we are essentially fitted, which is
* Ver. 13. B. L., to yperepov instead" of tq vperepov.

388 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the nnrmal cumpletinn uf nur being, the Divine Spirit become our own spirit by entire
assimilatinn, ur in the wurds nf Jesus, tlie kingdom prepared for ¦us from tlie foundation
of the world. Our Lnrd'a thnught ia therefure this : Gud cummits tn man, during his
earthly snjuuru in the atate nf prubatiun, gunda belnnging tn Him, which are nf leaa .
value (earthly thinga) ; and the uae, fathful nr unfaithful, just nr unjuat, which we
•make of these aettlea the question whether our true patrimnny (the gnuds nf the Spirit, /
nf which the believer himself receives unly the earnest here belnw) shall nr shall nut/
be granted tu him abnve. Like a rich father, whn shnuld trust his sun with a dnmain/
uf little value, that he might be trained later in life tn manage the whnle uf his inher-j
itanee, thua putting hia character tu the pruuf, sn Gud expnaea external aeeming gnnds
uf nu value tn the thnuaand abuses uf nur unskilful administratinn here belnw, that /
from the use which we make nf them there may nne day be determined fur each nf/
us whether we shall be put in pussessinn, ur whether we shall be deprived uf uur true
eternal heritage — the gnud which cnrreapends tu uur inmnst nature. The entire phi-
Inanphy nf nur terrestrial existence ia cnntained in theae wurda.
Ver. 13, which clnses this piece, is still connected wilh the image nf the parable
the steward had two masters, whnse service he cnuld nnt aucceed in recuhcUlDg, the
uwner nf the revenue which he was managing, and muney, which he was wnrship
ping. The twi> parallel prupusitinns nf this verse are usuaUy regarded aa identical in
meaning and aa differing nnly in the pnaitinn aaaigned tu each nf the twu masters suc-\
cessively as the ubjecta nf the twn nppnaite feelinga. But Bleek juatly ubaerves, that
the abaence uf the article befcre '^vog in the secnnd prnpnaitinn seems tu furbid nur tak
ing this pronoun aa the 'simple repetitinn nf the preceding rto iva in the firat; he
therefnre gives it a mure general senae, the one or ilie other nf the twn preceding, and
placea the whule differeuce between the twu parallel prupnaitiuns in the graduated
meaning nf the different verbs emplnyed, holding io being leas strung than loving, and
(^sspj'sm^' less strong than hating. Thua: " He will hate the une and luve the uther ;
ur at least, he will hnld mnre either tn the nne ur nther nf the twn, which will necea
aarily lead him tn neglect the service uf the uther. " It makea nn material difference.
Thia verae, whatever the aame learned critic may say, cnncludes this discnurae per
fectly, and furma the tranaitinn tn the fnllnwing piece, in which we find a sincere
wnrabipper nf Jehuvah periahing because he haa practically made mnney his Gn^.
The place which thia verse cccupies in Matthew in the Sermnn nn the Mnunt (6 : 34)
is alan suitable, but sumewhat uncertain, like that nf the whnle piece cf which it
furma part. ,
2d. Vera. 14-31. Tlie Wicked Rich Man. The introduction (vers. 14-18) ia cnm-
pnaed nt a series uf sayinga which at flrst sight appear tn have nn cunnectiun with
nne anuther. Holtzmann thinka that Luke cellects here at randum sayinga scattered
threughnut the Bogia, for which till now he had net found any pace. But there are
only two leading ideas in this, introduction ; the rejection nf the Pharisees, and the
permanence nf the law. Nnw these are precisely the twn ideas which are exhibited in
actinn in the fnllnwing parable ; the une in the cnndemnatinn nf the wicked rich man,
tbat faithful Pharisee (" father Abraham," vers. 34, 37, 30) ; the nther in the manner
in which Abraham aaserts, even in Hades, the imperishable value nf the law and the
prophets. The relatinn between these twu essential ideas nf the intruductinn and uf
the parable is thia ; the law nn which the Pharisees staked their credit will neverthe
less be the instrument nf their eternal cnndemnatinn. This is exactly wbat .leans aays
tn the .Tewa, Juhn 5 : 45 : " There is nne that accuseth ynu, even Mnses, in whum ye

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 389
trust." It must be ccnfessed, hnwever, that this intruductinn, vers. 14-18, has a
very fragmentary character. Il cnntaina the elements nf a discnurae, rather than the
discuurse itself. But thia very fact prnvea that St. Luke has nut taken the liberty
nf cumpnsing this intruductinn arbitrarily aud independently uf hia auurcea. What
hiaturian wuuld cnmpnae in such a manner ? A discuurse invented by thO evangelist
wnuld nut have faUed tn preaent an evident Ingical cunnectinn, as much aa the dis
cnurses which Livy nr Xennphnn put intn the mnuth nf their heroes. The very
brukenness suffices tu prnve that the discuurse was reaUy held, and existed previuusly
tu this narrative.
Vers. 14 and 15. * " The Pharisees alsu, whn were cuvetnus, heard all these things ;
and they derided Him. 15. And He aaid untn them. Ye are they which juatify ynur
selvea befure men ; but Gnd knuweth ynur hearts : fur that which is highly esteemed
amnng men is abnminatinn in the aight uf Gud." The laat words nf Jesus nn the
impussibility nf combining the service cf Gnd and mammnn, fell full nn the heads nf
the Pharisees, thnse pretended servants nf Jehnvah, whn nevertheleaa in their lives
shnwed themselves such zealnus wurshippers nf riches (Matt. 6, transitinn between
vers. 18, 19). Hence their sneers {iuuvxrripiZ,Eiv). The pnverty nf Jesus Himself
waa perhaps the theme nf their deriainn : " It ia eaay tn speak of money with such dis
dain . ., when nne is destitute as theu art." In His answer (ver. 15), Jeaua gives
them to underatand that the judgment ef Gud ia regulated by anuther standard than
that nf the men whn are at their aide. It ia at the heart that Gnd lunka ; and the
reign uf a single passinn, such as that avarice which devours them, sufficea te render
odieua in His eyea that whole righteousness of outward observances which gains for
them the favur uf the werld. The phrase : Te are ihey which justify youraelves, signi
fies, "ynur business ia tu paaa ynurselvea nff aa righteuua." The on, foi', ia ex
plained by the idea cf cnndemnatinn, which here attaches tu that uf knowledge : " Gnd
knnws ynu [and rejects ynu], fnr . . ." 'Ev dvBpooiCoiS, on the part of men, may
mean : among meu, nr in the judgment of men. In cunnectinn with the idea nf being
highly esteemed, thnae twu ideaa are cnmbined. Jeaua means : ' ' What men extnl
and glnrify, cunsequently the ambitinus, whu, like yuu, by nne means nr anuther
push themselves intu the front rank, becnme an ubject nf abnminatinn tn Gud. " Fnr
all glnrificatinn nf man rests on falsehood. God alone ia great and deaerving to be

What had chiefly irritated the Phariaeea in tbe preceding was the spiritual sense
in which Jeaua understood the law, unveiling under their airs of sanctity the stain of
shameful avarice which defiled them. Thia idea affords the point ef connection for
what follows (vera. 16-18).
Vers. 16-18.t " The law aud the prophets were until John : since that time the
kingdom of Gnd is preached, and every man preaseth inte it. 17. But it is easier fur
heaven and earth tn pass, than fnr nne tittle nf the law tn faU. 18. Whusnever
putteth away hia wife, and marrieth annther, cummitteth adultery : and whuanever
marrieth her that is put away from her huaband committeth adultery." But, adda
Jeaus (ver. 16), a new era is beginning, and with it ynur usurped dumininn cumea to
an end. Since the time of .Tehn, that law and those prophets which ynu have made
* Ver. 14. K. B. D. L. R. 3 Mnn. Syr'?!". It. omit xai befure oi $aptdaioi. Ver.
15. 11 Mjj. 70 Mnn. nmit edriv after &eov.
X Ver.' 16. !». B. L. R. X. anme Mnn., pEXP' instead nf eooS befnre looavvov.
Ver. 18. B. D. L, snme Mnn. It. Vg. urait icaS iietween xai and o.

390 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ynur pedestal in larael are replaced by a new dispensatiun. Tu the religinus aristnc-
racy which ynu had aucceeded in fnunding there fellnwa a kingdnm nf Gud equally
open to every man {itdS) ; all have access to it aa well aa you ! BidZedBai ahould not
be taken in the passive aense, as Hilgenfeld would have it : " Every man is con
strained by the goapel," but aa a middle, in the sense of to Ms*e», tu throw them
selvea. There is, aa it were, a denae crowd preaaing thrnugh the gate which is nuw
upen, and every une, even the Inwest uf the publicans, is free tu enter. Recall here
the parables uf chap. 15. But while this repentant crowd penetrates into the king
dum (7 : 39), the Pharisees and scribes remain withnut, like the elder snn in the pre
ceding parable. Let them beware, hnwever ! That legal system nn which they have
fnunded their throne in Israel is abnut tu crumble tn pieces (ver. 16) ; while the law
itself, which they vinlate at the very mnment they make it their bnast, shaU remain
aa the eternal expressiun uf diviue hulinesa and aa the dreadful standard by which
they ahaU be judged (ver. 17). The Ss ia adveraative : but. It indicates the cuntrast
between the end uf the legal econumy and the permanence nf the law. This cnntrast
reminds us nf the antitheses nf Matt. 5 nf which this aaying is a snrt uf aummary :
" Ye have heard that it was aaid . . .; but I say untn ynu . . ." Jesus nnly
abnlishes the law by fulfilling it andcunfirming it spiritually. Kspaia, diminutive nt
xipaS, horn, denutea the sinaU linea ur honks nf the Hebrew letters. The least ele
ment nf divine hnliness which the law cnntains baa mnre reality and durability than
the whule visible universe.
The twn verses, 16 and 17, are put by Matthew iu the diacuurse nf Jesus regarding
Juhn the Baptist, 11 : 13, 13, inversely in pnint nf nrder. We can easily, understand
hnw the mentinn nf John the Baptist, ver. 16, led Matthew tu insert this saying in
the discnurae which Jeaua prnnnunced nn Hia furerunner. We have seen that in
that same discuurse, as given by Luke (chap. 7), this declaratinn was with great
advantage replaced by a somewhat different saying, vers. 39, 30 ; and if, aa Bleek
nwns (i. p. 454, et seq.), Luke decidedly deserves the preference as tn the tenur ef the
wnrda, it will dnubtleas be tbe same as tu the place which he assigns them ; fnr it is
in-general nu this secnnd pnint that his superiurity appeara.
Ver. 18. Nnt unly in apite nf the abnlitiun nf the legal fnrm will the law cnutinue
in its subatance ; but it this subatance even cnmes tn be mndified in the new ecnn-
nmy, it will be in the directiun nf still greater severity. Jesus gives as an example
the law nf divurce. This same idea meets us, Matt. : 31, 33 ; it tallies fully wilh
the meaning nf tbe declaration. Matt. 19 : 3, el seq., Mark 10 : 3, et seq., which was
uttered in this same journey, and almost at the aame period. Jesus explains to the
same class nf hearers as in uur paasage, tu the Pharisees namely, that if Mnses authnr
ized divurce, merely cunfining himself te guard it by some restrictiuns, there was a
fursaking fnr a time nf the true mnral pnint nf view already proclaimed Gen. 2, and
which He, Jesus, came to re-establish iu its purity. Luke and Matthew do not
speak nf the case nf vnluntary separatinn nn the part uf the woma,n referred tu by
Mark (10 : 13) and Paul (1 Cur. 7 : 10, 11). And Paul dnes nnt expressly interdict
the divurced man, as Mark dnes, frnm cuntracting a secnnd marriage. Thnse shades
in such a precept cannet be voluntary ; they represent natural variations due to tra
dition (Syn.) or to the nature of the context (Paul). The parallels qunted leave no
dnubt aa tu the real cnnnectinn nf ver. 18 with ver. 17. The asyndeton between thnae
twu verses is explained by the fragmentary character uf Luke's repurt. What
remains tu us uf this discnurae reaembles the peaks nf a mnuntain chain, the base ef

COMMENTARY ON ST, LUKE. 391
which is cnncealed frnm view, and must be recunatructed by reflectinn. As tu the
cnmpiler, he has evidently refrained frnm flUing up at his nwn hand the blanks in his
dncument. The disjuinted character nf this accnunt has been turned intn an accusa
tinn against him ; but it nught rather tn be regarded as a prunf uf his cnnscientinus
fidelity. Dnes the cnntext, aa we have just established it, leave anything tn be desired ?
Haa Hnltzmann grnund fnr regarding this piece as a cnllectinn uf sentences thrown
tngether at randum ? Or ia it necessary, in urder tn justify ver. 18, tn regard it, with
Schleiermacher, as an alluainn tn the divurce uf Hernd Antipas frnm the daughter nf
Aretaa, and his unlawful marriage with Herodias — a crime which the scribea and
Phariaeea had nut the cnurage tu condemn like John tbe Baptist ? Or, finally, must
we, with Olshausen, take the idea ef divorce in a spiritual sense, and apply it te the
emancipation of believers from the yoke ef the law, agreeably to Rom. 7 : 1, e< aeq. t
No ; the explanation which we have given, as well as the authenticity of the cnntext,
appear tn be sufficiently established by the parallels qunted (Matt. 5 : 18, 19 and 31,
33, 19 : 3, et seq. ; Mark 10 : 3, et seq.).
The saying nf ver. 17, proclaiming the eternal duration of the law, has appeared
tn aume critics incnmpatible with the Pauline character nf Luke'a Gespel. Hilgen
feld alleges that the canonical text of Luke is falsified, and that the true original form
of this passage, as weU as ef many others, has been preserved by Marcion, whn
reads: "It is easier fnr heaven and earth tn pass, than nne tittie of my aayinga to
fail." But, 1. The manifest incnmpatibility nf nur cannnical text with Marcinn'a
syatem rendera it, nn the cnntrary, very prnbable that it waa Marcinn whu in thia
case, as in sn many nthers, accummudated the text tn hia dngmatic pnint nf view.
3. Cuuld Jesua have applied the wurd tittle tu His uwn sayings befnre they had been
expressed iu writing ? 3. The parallel. Matt. 5 : 18, prnves that the expressinn in ita
nriginal meaning really applied tu the law. If auch waa the primary applicatiun in
the mind nt- Jesus, wnuld it nnt be extremely surpriaing if, after an earUer Luke had
departed frnm it, the mure mndern Luke ahnuld have reverted tn it ? Besides, this
auppOaitinn, cumbated by Zeller, ia withdrawn by Vnlkmar, whn firat gave it furth
(" Die Evangel.," p. 481). Zeller, hnwever, auppnaea that tbe evangelist, feeling the
anti-Pauline tendency nf this saying, designedly inclnsed it between twn nthers,
intended tn shnw tbe reader that it was npt tu be taken in its literal sense. But
wnuld it nnt have been far simpler tn umit it altngether ? And dnes nnt an much
artifice cnntraat with the aimplicily uf nur Gnspels ?
Accnrding tu the Talmud, Tract. Gittin (ix. 10), Hillel, the grandfather uf Gama
liel, the man whnm nur muderns wnuld adnpt as the maater uf Jeaus Christ, taught
that the husband ia entitled tn put away hia wife when she burns bia dinner.* We
can understand hnw, in view uf such phariaaic teachings, Jesus felt the need nf pro
testing, nnt nnly by affirming the maintenance nf mnral nbligatiun as cnntained in the
law, but even by annnuncing that the new ductrine wnuld in this reapect exceed the
severity nt the nld, and wnuld cuncluaively raiae the mnral nbligatiun tn the height nf
the ideal. The declaratinn nf Jeaua, ver. 17, abnut the maintenance nf the law, ia,
besides, perfectly at nne with St. Paul's view (1 Cur. 7 : 19) : " The keeping nf the
cumraandrnents nf Gnd is everything;" cnmp. Bum. 3:13: "As many as have
sinned under the law, shaU be judged by the law."
On the baaia nf this intruductinn, annnuncing tn the Pharisees the end nf their
paraded shnw uf righteuusneaa and the advent ef real helinesa, there riaea by way
of example the following parable. To the words of ver. 15, thdtwliich ia highly esteemed
among men, there correaponda the representation uf the sumptunus and brilliant life nf
tbe rich man ; tu the predicate, ia an abomination in the sight of God (same verse) the
descriptiun nf hia punishment in Hades ; tu the declaratinn nf ver. 17 regarding the
permanence uf the law, the reply uf Abraham : ihey have Moaea and the propheta.
* " Jesus und Hillel," 1867, by Delitzach, p. 37, where an anawer ia given tu the
forced interpretatinn which mudern Jews give uf this saying.

393 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Vers. 19-31. The Parable of ilie Wicked Rich Man.— It is cumpnsed uf two princi
pal scenes, which curreapund su exactly wilh one another, that in their correspond
ence we muat seek the very idea of the parable ; these are, the scene nn the earth
(vers. 19-33), and that in Hades (vers. 33-31).
The terrestrial scene, vers. 19-33.* It embraces fnur pnrtraitures which, taken
two and twn, fnrm cnunterparts nf une annther ; the Ufe nf the rich man, ver. 19,
and that uf the pnur man, vera. 30, 31 ; then tiie death nf the furmer, ver. 23a, and
that nf the latter, ver. 336. The description ef the rich man'a life preaents two prom
inent featurea : the magnificence ef his dreaa — rtopqivpa, the upper dress, a woollen
garment dyed purple, and (ivddoS, the under garment, a tunic of fine linen ; next,
the aumptuouaneaa ef hia habitual style of living — a splendid banquet daily. Thia
deacription of the life of the rich of that day applied tu the Jews as well as tn the
Gentiles. Nay, amung the fnrmer, whn sumetimea regarded wealth as a sign nf di
vine blessing, the enjnyments nf that privileged atate muat have beep indulged with
an much the less acruple ; su the Pharisees in particular seem tn have dnne (30 : 46,
47). After tbe rich man, whn first claims attentinn, nur eyea are carried tu the un
happy man laid at the entrance uf his hnuae, vera. 30 and 31. The Greek name
Lazarua dnes nut cnme, as snme have thnught, frnm !i0-ezer, no lielp, but frum !Ejl^ezer,
God hel/pa ; whence the furm Eleazar, abbreviated by tbe Rabbins intn Beazar ; and
hence Lazarus. This narae, accurding tn Jnhn 11, was coramnn amung the Jews.
Aa this is the nnly case in which Jeaua deaiguatea une nf the peraunagea of a parable
by hia name, this peculiarity must have a significance in the account. It is intended,
doubtless, as the name so often was among the Jews, to describe the character of him
who bears it. By this name, then, Jesus makea thia personage the representation
ef that claas of the Israelitish people which formed the oijposite extreme of phariaa-
iam — poor ones whose confidence was in God alone, the Aniim of the O. T., the
pious indigent.
The gateway at the entrance of which he was laid is that which conducts in East
ern houaea from the outaide te the firat court. The word ilSePXyro, waa thrown, ex
presses the heedlessness with which he was laid down there and abandoned to the
care ef those who were constantly going and coming about this great houae. The
crumba denote the remaina of the meal wbich the servants would sometimes throw tn
him, but which were nut ennugh tu satisfy him. The nmissinn nf tbe wnrda ruv
ipiXiuv by snme Alex, arises frnm the cunfusinn nf the twn rdiv by an ancient cnpyist ;
theae wnrds are wrongly rejected by Tischendurf ; they are tn be preaerved aa the
cnunterpart nf the drop of water, ver. 34. The nakedneaa nf the pnur man contraats
with the rich man's elaborate toilet, as these crumbs do with his banquets. The
worda dXXd xai, moreover, which indicate a higher degree ef endurance, forbid us
to regard the feature of the doga licking the aores of Lazama as an aUeviatien nf his
miseries. Beaidea, thia animal is never repreaented in the Bible, nnr amnng the Ori-
ontala in general, in a favnrahle light. The licking nf the pnnr man'a unbandaged
wnunds by thnae unclean animala as they pasaed, is the last stroke ef the picture of
his nakedneaa and forsakenness,
Te the contrast between the two lives there seen succeeds 'that between the two
deaths, ver. 23, which introduces the contrast between the two states in the life to
* Ver. 30. ». B. D. L. X. omit ?^v after riS and o? before E/3EfiX?fro. Ver. 31.
ii. B. L. It""i. omit rcnv Tpixioar.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 393
come. Lazarus dies first, exhausted by privations and sufferings. That very moment
he flnds in the heavenly wnrld the sympathy which was refused tn him here belnw.
In Jewish theology, the angela are charged with receiving the souls ef pious
Israelites, and transporting them te that portion of Hades which ia reserved for them.
Abraha/m's bosom, a figure also common among the Rabbins, denotes either intimate
communion in general (John 1 : 18), er mere specially the place of honor at a feast
(John 13 : 33) ; this is naturally aaaigned to the newly-arrived stranger, all the mere
that his earthly sufferings demand a rich compensation. Abraham presides at the
feast until the Messiah comes to take the first place, and the feast of the kingdom
begins (13 : 25). Meyer concludes, from the fact that the interment ef Lazarus is net
mentioned, and from the object a-urdv, him, that he waa transported bedy and soul
te Abraham's bosom. But so early as in the Targum of Canticles, we find the dis-
tinctiou between bedy and soul ; " The righteous whose sOula are carried by angela
to paradise." The pronoun a'lirov thus designates only his true self, the soul. The
burial of Lazarua ia not mentioned, for it took place without ceremony, or perhaps ¦
net at all. The body, claimed by ne one, was thrown to the dunghill. The con
trast to the rich man ia evident. Ne angels to tranaport hia soul ; but for hia body,
on the contrary, a splendid funeral prncesainn.
What is the crime in tbe life nf thia rich man which accnunts fnr the terrible
cnnditinn described in the fuUuwing scene ? From the fact that it is nut mentinned,
the cnncluainn has been drawn that it must be simply his riches. The Tiibingen
school says : he is cundemned as being rich, and Lazarus is saved as being pnnr.
And M. Renan thinks that the parable shnuld be entitled, not the parable of the
wicked rich man, but merely uf the rich man. Here, it is said, we meet again with
the Ebinnite heresy nf Luke (De Wette), But huw has it escaped ubservatinn, that
it nn crime prnperly se called is laid to the charge uf the rich man, his misdeed ia
nevertheleas clearly Indicated ; and it is nu nther than the very existence nf this punr
man laid at his gate in deatitutinn, without any relief being brought te his wants. •
Such is the corpus delicti. The crime of the life described ver. 19, is tbe fact referred
to 'vers. 20 and 21. Every social contrast, between the more and the leaa, either in re
spect of fnrtune, nr atrength, nr acquirement, or even piety, is permitted and willed
by God enly with a view te its being neutralized by man's free agency. This is a
task assigned from on high, the means ef forming those bunds uf Inve which are uur
treasure.in heaven (12 : 33, 34). Tu neglect this offer is tn prncure fnr une's aelf an
analngnus cnntraat in the uther life.— a cuntraat which ahall be capable cf being
sweetened fnr us nn mnre than we have nuraelvea aweetened it in the Ufe beluw. It
wuuld be hard tn underatand hnw, if wealth aa such were the rich man's ain, the
celestial banquet cnuld be presided nver by Abraham, the richest nf tbe rich in Israel.
As tu Lazarua, the real cause uf the welcume which he finds in the wurid tu cnme ia
nnt his pnverty, but that which is already pninted uut by his name : God is my
help. The scene- from beynnd the tnmb, vera. 33-31, uffers a cnntraat exactly cnrre
apnnding tu the terrestrial acene. We dn nut attempt tu distinguish in the represen
tatinn what shnuld be taken in a figurative sense and what strictly. The reaUties nf
the spiritual wnrld can nnly be expressed by figures ; but, as has been said, thnse
figures are the flgurea nf aumething. The cnlnrs are almnst aU burrnwed from the
palette nf the Rabbina ; but the thnught which clnthes itaelf in these figures that it
may beceme palpable, is, aa we shaU aee, the original and personal thought ef Jeaua.

394 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Of the two interviews forming thia scene, the first relates tn the rich man's lot (vers.
33-36), the secnnd to that ef hia brethren (vera. 37-31).
Vers, 33-36.* After the short sleep of death, what an awakening ! The idea of
suffering does not lie in the words iv riS aSy, which our veraiona render by : in hell.
Scheol (Heb.), Hadea (Gr.), the Inferi or infernal regions (Lat.), simply dennte the
abnde nf the dead, withnut diatinguiahing the different cunditinns which it may in
clude, in uppnaitiun tn the land ot the living. Paradise (33 : 43) as well aa Gehenna
(13 : 5) fnrms part nf it. Hence, alan, from the midat uf hia punishment the rich man
can behnld Abraham and Lazarus. The nntiun nf pain is actually fuund nnly in the
wnrds : being in torments. On Abrahara in the abnde ef the dead, cnmp. Juhn 8 : 56,
where Jeaua speaks withnut figure. The plural rdts xoXitoii, aubatituted fur the sin
gular (ver. 33), denntes fulness ; a whnle reginn is meant where a cumpany is gathered
tngether. The situatinn, ver. 34 et aeq., is very similar tn that nf the dialngues nf the
dead fnund in the ancients, and particularly in the Rabbins. ioav-rjdaS, eaUing in a
loud voice, cnrrespunds tu paxpoBev, afar off, ver. 33. Nnthing mure aevere fnr thnse
Phariseea, whn made a genealngical tree the fnundatinn nf their salvatinn, than this
addreaa put intn tbe mnuth nf the pnnr cundemned man . Father Abraham! " All
the circumcised are safe, ''' said the Rabbins ; therefnre, was nut circumcised equiva
lent tn ann of Abraham ? In thia situatinn, there ariaes in the mind uf the rich man
a thought which had never occuired to hira while he waa en tbe earth, namely, that
the contrast bet-?i'een abundance and destitution may have its utiUty for him whn is
in want. He expreaaea hia diacuvery with a siraplicity in which sbaraelesaneaa dis
putes the palm with innncence. The gen. vSaroS with /Sditrsiv : tn drop water ;
this expresainn denntes water falling drop by drop frum the finger which haa been
immeraed in it ; it thus correaponda to the word crumba, ver. 31.
On flame, cnrap. Mark 9 : 43-48, 49. Lustful deairea, infiamed and fed by bnund^
lesa gratiflcatinn, change intn turture fnr the auul aa aunn as it ia deprived uf the ex-
, ternal nbjects which currespund tn them, and frnm the body by which it cnmmuni-
catea with thera. The addreaa : my aon, in the mnuth nf Abraham, is mure pnignant
still than that nf Father Abraha/m in that nf the rich man. Abraham acknuwledges
the reality nf the civil state appealed tn, and yet thia man is and remains in Gehenna I
The wnrd remember is the central une nf the parable ; fur it furma the bund between
the twn scenes, that nf the earth and that nf Hades. "Recall the cnntrast which
thnu didst leave unbroken nn the earth . . . and thnu ahalt understand that the
present cnrrespnnding cnntraat cannnt be alleviated withnut injustice. Thnii haat let
the time pass fur making Lazams thy friend (16 ; 8, 9) ; he can nnw dn nnthing fnr
thee." In diCEXaftei, thou receivedai, there is, as in the dizixEiv, Matt. 6 : 3, 5, 16,
the notinn nf receiving by appropriating greedily fnr tbe purpnse nf enjuyment. The
selfish apprnpriatiun uf gunds was nnt tempered in him by tbe free munificence uf
love. He thought enly of draining tu the very bnttnm the cup uf pleasure which was
at hia lipa. The same idea is expressed by the prennun dov added tn dyoBd, " thy
gnud thinga ;" thia quallfieatinn is nnt added tu xaxd, in the aecund clauae ; Abra
ham aays simply : "' evil things." Gnd trains the human snul by jnys and by sur-
rnws. The educatinn nt every snul demands a certain sum nf buth. Thia thnught
* Ver. 35. 7 Mjj. 30 Mnn. Vsa. nmit dv after aiteXa/SES. Inatead nt oSe (T. R.
with sorae Mnn.), all the docurrienta : mSe, Ver. 36. !S. B. L. ItP'^'iine, er instead ut
Eiti befure nadi. Instead nf EvrsvBsv (T. R. with K. n. some Mnn.), aU the docu-
luenl.'^, evBev, ^, B, D, emit oi before ekezBev.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 395
fnrms the fnundation of ver. 35. It refers exclusively to the pedagogical ecunumy
here belnw or in the wnrld abuve. The wnrds comforted and tormented are nnt the
equivalents nf saved and damned, abanlutely taken. Nnthing cuuld be final amnng
the membera nf the ancient cnvenant till they had been brought intu cnntact with
Jesua Christ.* " The gespel," saya St. Peter (1 Ep. 4 : 6), " was preached to them
that ure dead, that they might be [capable of being] judged." The knowledge of
Jesua Chriat ia the condition ou which the pronouncing ef the final aentence on every
soul is based. The huur nf this judgment has nnt yet struck fer the rich man. Cun
sequently this verae neither teachea aalvatiun by pnverty nnr damnatinn by riches ;
wSe, here, which is read by all tbe Mjj., is preferable tn oSs, he. Here is uppnaed
tu : in his lifetime.
Ver. 36. But even auppnaing that anme cnnceasinn might be made, in respect of
justice, there is anuther reaaun -which cuts nff all hupe — the impussibility nf the thing.
The Rkbbins represent the twn parts uf Hadea aa aeparated by a wall ; Jeaus here
subatitutes a gulf, a figure which agreea better with the entire deacriptinn. It ia the
emblem nf Gud'a inflexible decree. Only frum the fact that this gulf cannnt be
creased at present, it dnea nnt fnllnw that it may nnt be sn nne day by means nf a
bridge uffered tu repentant Jews (cnmp. Matt. 13 : 33). -f The nmissiun uf oi befure
kxEiBsv, by the Alex., identifles thnse whu pass with thnse whn repass.
Vers. 37-31.:f The Second Conversation. — The rich man acquiesces sn far as his
nwn persnn is cencerned. But he intercedes for his brethren still in life. And again
it is Lazarus who must busy himself on their behalf ! What ia the thought contained
in this conclusion ? Starting from the standpoint that the idea of the parable is the
condemnation of wealth, De Wette, the Tiibingen schnnl, and Weizaiicker himself
flnd this last part entirely nut nf keeping with the rest ef the description. For it is
their impenitence face tn face with the law and the prophets which expusea the flve
brethren tn danger, aud nnt their being rich men. They allege therefure that Luke
at his uwn hand has added this cnnclusinn, with the view nf transfurming a ductrine
which waa nriginally Ebinnite and Juden- Chriatian intu nne anti-Jndaic nr Pauline.
The rich man, whu, in the uriginal meaning ef the sirailitude, siraply represented
riches, becomea in this conclusion the type nf Jewish unbelief in respect nf the resur
rectinn nf Jesua. 'W'eizaacker guea the length nf regarding Lazarua as the repreaent-
ative cf the Gentiles deapiaed by the Jewa. Thia laat idea is incurapatible with the
Jewish name Lazarus, as well aa with tbe place awarded tu hira in Abraham's bnsnm,
the gathering place nf pinua Jewa. As to the rich man, frnm the beginning he rep
resents nut the rich in general, but the rich man hardened by well-being, the Pharisee,
whnse heart, puffed up with pride, ia clnaed tu sympathy wilh the auffering. This
appears frnm the expreasiona : Father Abraham, my son, vera. 34, 35, which are aa it
were the muttu uf Israelitiah furmaUsm (Matt. 3 : 7-9 ; Jnhn 8 : 39). This cnnclusion
is thus nothing elae than the practical applicatien of the parable, which, instead ef
being presented to his hearers in the form ef an abatract lessen, is given as the cen-
* This generalization is based on an interpretation of 1 Pet. 4 : 6, determined by
cnnnecting it with chap. 3 : 19, 30. But this cnnnectinn is nut certain, nur ia there
anything like agreement as tu the meaning nf either text. — J. H.
f Our authnr, in quutingthis verse in this cnnnectiun, is uppused tu the weightiest
authnrities. The wurds "in this wurld (age) ur tbe wnrld tu cnme, " are cnrrectly
taken by De Wette, Alford, etc., aa equivalent te never. — J. H,
X Ver, 39. ii. B. L. nmit avrm after XsyEi nr Xeyst Se.

396 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
tinuatinn nf the scene itself. It is exactly the same in the parable nf the prodigal
sun, in which the elder ann exhibits the Phariaeea wilh their murmuringa, and the
divine anawer. The firat purtrait, vera. 19-31, depicted the sin nf the rich man ; the
secund, vers. 33-36, hia punishment. In this appendix: Jeaua unveils tn His hearers
the cauae nf this miaery, the abaence uf psrdvoia, repentance, and fur thnae who
wiahed te profit by the warning, the meana uf preventing the lut which threatena
thera at the mument nf their death : taking tn heart Mnaes and the prophets very
differently frnm what they have ever dnne. There must pasa within thera what tnnk
place iu the prodigal ann, the figure nf the publicans (15 : 17 : he came io himaelf), and
in the steward, the type nf the new believers (16 : 3 : lie aaid within himaelf) : that act
nf sulemn self-examinatinn in which the heart ia brnken at the thnught nf its sins,
and which impresses an entirely new directinn nn the life, and un the empluyment nf
earthly gnnds in particular. Tn reject this cnnclusinn is therefure tn break the arrnw-
puiut shut by the hand nf Jesus at the cnnsciences uf His hearera.
Ver. 37. The five brethren cannnt represent the rich cf this wurld in general, and
as little the Jewa whu remained unbelieving in reapect cf Jeaus Chriat. They are
Jews living in a privileged, brilliant cnnditinn, like that nf the rich map — the Phari
sees, whnm thia man repreaented ; this relatinn is the idea expreaaed by the image nf
the kinahip which connecta thera. Some have imagined that those five brethren are
the flve sens ef the high priest Annas. Would Jeaus have condescended to auch per
sonalities ? The forms of address : fatlier, ver. 37, father Abraha/m, ver. 30, continue
te deflne the meaning nf this principal persnnage very clearly. Aia uaprvpedBat,
ver. 38, dnes nut aignify unly • tn declare, but tn testify in such a way that the truth
pierces thrnugh the wrappings nf a hardened cnnscience {Sid). In putting this re
quest intu the rich raan's muuth, Jeaua undnubtedy alludes tn that thirst fnr mhacles,
fur extranrdinary and palpable manifestatinns, which He never faUed tn meet amnng
His adversariea, and which He refused tn satisfy. Such demands charge wilh in
sufficiency the means of repentance which God had all along placed in Israel. Some
cnmmentaturs, unable tn alluw any gnud feeling in nne damned, have attributed this
prayer nf the rich man tn a aelflah aim. Accnrding tn them, he dreaded the time
when hia nwn sufferinga wnuld be aggravated by seeing thuse nf his brethren. But
wnuld nut even this fear still suppuse in him a remnant ef leve ? And why represent
him as deatitute ef all human feeling ? He is net yet, we have seen, damned in the
absolute sense ef the word. If we must seek a selflsh alley in this prayer, it can only
be the desire lo excuse himself, by giving it to be understood, that if he had been
sufficiently warned he would not have been where he is.
Abraham teaches all hia sons by hia reply, ver. 39, with what earnestneaa they should
henceforth liaten to the reading of that law and thoae prophets, the latter of which
they had, up tUl now, heard or even studied in vain (John 5 : 38, 89). The subject
haa nothing to do with unbelief regarding Jesua ; the situation ot thia aaying ia purely
Jewiah. The rich man inaista. His anawer, ISFay, fatlier Abraham, ver, 30, depicts
the Rabbinical spirit of disputation and pharisaic effrontery. Repentance would pro
duce, he f uUy acknowledges, a life whoUy different from his own (such aa it has been
described, ver. 19) ; but the law without miracles would not suffice to produce this
state of mind. Jesua unveils, ver. 31, the cumplete iUusiun belunging tn this idea nf
cunversinn by means nf great miraculuus interpusitiuns. He whum the law and the
prophets bring nut tn the cnnvictinn nf his sins, will be aa Uttle led te it by the sight
even of one raised from the dead. After the flrst emutinn nf astunishment and ter-

COMMENTARY ON S'X. LUKE. 397
ror, criticism wiU awake saying, HaUucinalinn ! ahd carnal security, shaken fur a
mnment, will reaaaert itaelf. Jeaus nut having shnwed Himself, and nnt having
preached tu the Jews after Hia resurrectinn, this saying cannot be an invention ef
Luke borrowed from that event.
Such is the terrible answer ef Jesus to the derision of His adversaries, the proud
and covetous Pharisees, ver. 14. He ahowa them then- portrait, the likeneaa of their
preaent life, and their let after death. Now they know what they are in the eyes of
God (19-31), and what awaits them (33-35) ; they know also the real cauae of their
near perdition, and the only meana which can yet avert it (37-31).
From this study it follows : 1. That aU the indications of the preface (vers. 14r-18)
are entirely justified ; in particular, that the $aptddioi {tlie Phamaeea), ver. 14, is the
real key ef the parable. 3. That there reigns throughout this description a perfect
unity of idea, and that the context furniahea ne well-founded reason fer distinguiahing
between an original parable and a later rehandUng. 3. That the piece aa a whole,
in aU its details, are in direct correspondence wilh the historical situation in which
Jeaus was teaching, and flnd their natural explanation without any need of having re
cnurse tu the later circumstances uf apustnlic times. 4. That thia paaaage furniahea
nn pruuf uf an Ebinnite dncuraeut anterinr tu uur Gnapel, and furming nne nf the
eaaential materiala emplnyed by the anther. Hilgenfeld says (" Die Evangel." p. 103) :
" Nowlwre does our Gespel allow ua te diatinguiah so clearly the original writing of
which it ia the anti- Jewish and Pauline handling." Nowhere so clearly ! This pas
sage proving nothing, it followa that the othera prove leas than nothing.
This character, not anti- Jewish, but certainly anti-pharisaic, belongs equally to the
whole series of pieces which we have just surveyed (cnmp. 11 : 37-13 : 12) ; then (after
an interruptinn), 13 : 10-31, 14 : 1, 5 : 2, 16 : 14. The parable nf the unfaithful ateward
is alan cunnected with this aeriea by the law nf cnntrast. Here then, is the time uf
the must intenae struggle between Jesus and pharisaism, in Galilee, like the cuntem-
puranenus perind, Jnhn 7-10, in Judea.
7. Various Sayings : 17 : 1-10. — This piece cnntains fnur brief lessuns, placed here
withnut intruductinn, and between which it ia impuaaible tu eatabliah a cunnection.
Olshausen and Meyer have attempted tu cunnect them with cue annther and with
what precedes. The offence, vers. 1 and 3, accnrding tn them, is either that which the
rich man gave tn hia brethren, er that which the Phariaees gave te weak believera, by
preventing them from declaring themaelvea fur Christ. But hnw is the expression,
one of these Uttle ones (Ver. 3), applicable tn the rich man's brethren ? And in the sec
nnd aense, shnuld nnt the warning be addressed tn the adveraaries rather than unto the
disdples (ver. 1) ? The teaching regarding pa/rdon (vers. 3, 4) is taken to refer tu the
arrogant harahneaa uf the Phariseea, whu did nnt allnw the publicana tn appropriate
the pardun nf sins (the nffence, vera. 1, 3) ; er rancur ia regarded aa une nf thnae
nffencea nf which we muat beware ; nr, finally, a climax ia suppnsed : it is nut ennugh
nut tn dn evil tu nthers (vera. 1, 3) ; we Shnuld alan pardnn the evil which they dn tn
ua (vers. 3 and 4). Theae cunnectinns, mnre nr leas ingeninua, are artificial ; they are
like thnae by which une aucceeds in tagging tngether given rhymes. The petitinn uf
the apustles (vera. 5 and 6) is held tn flnd its uccasinn in the feeling nf their pnwer
leaaness tu pardun. But in this sense, Jeaus shnuld have spuken in His reply, nut nf
the faith which wnrks external miracles, but uf that which wnrks by luve. Lastly,
the ductrine taught uf the nun-merituriuusnesa nf wurks (vera. 7-10) ia alleged tu be
introduced by this idea, that the greateat miracles wrought by faith cunfer nn merit
nn raan. But huw cnuld miracles cf faith be deacribed aa SiaraxBdvra, things com
manded ? De Wette is therefnre right in declining tn find a connection between these
different aayinga. Let ua add that aeveral of them are placed by Matthew and Mark

398 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
in histnrical circumstances, where they have their entire appropriateness. We shaU
be able tn state the critical result when we cume tn sum up.
Vers. 1 and 3.* Offences. — " Then said He untn the disciples. It is impnssible but
that nffences (scandals) will cnme : but wne untn him thrnugh whnm they cume ! 3.
It were better fnr him that a millstnne were hanged abuut his neck, and he cast intu
the sea, than that he shuuld uffend nne nf these little unes. Take heed tn ynur
selves." The fnrmula Biits Se, then aaid He (anr.), has nnt the same weight as the
eXsye Se, He waa aaying to them, the significance nf which in Luke we have uften
remarked. It ia the aimple histnrical fact. 'AvExSexrov, inadmissible. The abaence
nf nffences is a suppuaitiun which cannnt be admitted in tbe sinful atate in which the
wurld ia plunged. The determining particle rov ia authentic. The fnrm, {the)
ntfencea {red), deuntea the enlire categnry nf facta nf this kind. The reading uvXod
ovixdS, a millatnne mnved by an asa, is undnubtedly burrowed frum Matthew ; we
must adupt, with the Alex., X/BoS pvXinoS, a mUlstene nf smaller dimensinns, mnved
by the hand (ver. 85). The puniahraent tn which ver. 3 alludea was usual amnng
many ancient penples, and is, sn still in the East. The reading nf aeveral cupies nf
the Itala, which is alsn fnund in Marcinn, " It were better fur him that he had
never been bum, nr that a stnne . . ." arises, nn dnubt, from an ancient glnas
taken from Matt. 36 : 34. Thia ia cnnfirmed by the fact that Clemena Rnmanus
curabinea in his 1 Cur. 46 the twu passages. Matt. 18 : 6, 7 (parallel tu nurs) and Matt.
26 ; 34. The little unes are beginners in the faith. The final warning. Take heed
. is nccasiuned, nn the nue hand, by the extreme facilit3'- uf causing nffence
(ver. 1) ; nu the nther, by the terrible danger tn which it expusea him whu causes it
(ver. 3). The lust snul, like an eternal burden, is buund to him whu haa dragged it
intu evil, and in turn draga him intn the abyaa.
The same warning ia fnund Matt. 18 : 6 and Mark 9 : 43. The nffence which gave
rise tu it may be in this cnntext, either that which the diaciples had given nne annther
in the strife which bad taken place between them, nr that which they had cauaed to
the man in whom faith had juat dawned (one of these little ones), and who waa mani
festing it by curing the possessed. Luke evidently did not knuw this cnnnectiun ;
fnr he wuuld nnt have faUed tn indicate it — he whn aeeka nut histnrical situatiuns
wilh su much care. Had he nut, besides, himself mentinned thnse twu facts
(9 : 46-50), and might he nnt have cunnected this admunitinn with them as Mark
dues ? Luke, therefnre, did not possess this original Mark, which Holtzmann regards
aa one of hia principal snurces ; otherwise he would not have detached this saying
frora the fact wliich gave rise te it. But the account given by Matthew and Mark
pruves the truth uf Luke'a intruductinn, " He aaid untu the diaciplea," and the accu
racy nf the dncument frum which he derived this precept.
Vers. 3 and 4.f The Pardon of Treapaaaea, — " If thy brother treapaas against thee,
rebuke him ; and if he repent, furgive bim. 4. And it he trespass againat thee aeven
* Ver. 1. 9 Mjj. 25 Mnn. Vaa. emit avrov after paBijras, T. R., with sumo
Mnn., nnly umits rov befure dxavSaXa, S. B. D. L. anme Mnu. It"'''!., nXifv ovai
inatead nf ovai Ss, Ver. 3. ItP's'ii'"', ei ovx EyEvv?;Br/ r/ XiBoS . . . Marcinn
appeara tn have read thus ; Clem. Rnm. perhaps. !S. B. D. L. 30 Mnn. It. Vg., XiBoS
pvXixoS inatead nf pvXoS ovixoS.
X Ver. 3. 5 Mjj. sume Mnn. Vss. omit de after euv. !*. A. B. L. ItP'""i°'', nmit eiS
ae after apapry (wnrds taken, perhaps, frnm ver. 4 ur frnm Matt. 18 : 15). Ver. -4. !».
B. D. L. X. aume Mnn. Itpionque^ omit ryS ypepac. Inatead uf Eni oe, which T. R.,
with sumo Mnn., reads, 7 Mjj. read npoS ae. 13 Mjj. 135 Mun. It"''-!, nmit all gnv
ernment.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 399
times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again te thee, saying, I repent, thnu
shalt furgive him." Hulineaa and luve meet tngether in this precept : hulineaa begina
with rebuking ; then, when the rebuke has nnce been taken, luve pardnns. , The
pardun tn be granted tu nur brethren has- nn nther limit than their repenting, and the
cnnfessinn by which it is expressed.
Matthew (18 : 15-33) places this precept in the same discuurse as the preceding ;
it prnbably referred alau tu the altercatiuu which had taken place between the dis
ciples un that nccaaiun. But there what givea rise tn it is a characteristic questinn uf
Peter, which Luke did nut knnw ; ntherwise he wuuld nnt have umitted it ; cnmp.
13 : 41, where he carefully mentiuns a similar queatinn put by the same apnstle.
Mark umita thia precept abnut pardnn ; but at the end nf the aame discourse we find
this remarkable exhertation (9 : 50) : " Have salt iu yourselves (use severity tuward
ynurselves ; cnmp. 5 ; 43-48), and have peace with nne annther" — a saying which has
subatantially the same meaning as nur precept un the subject uf pardnn. 'What a
prunf bnth nf the radical authenticity nf the sayinga nf Jesus and uf the fragmentary
manner in which traditinn had preserved them, aa weU as uf the diveraity nf the
suurces from which nur evangelista derived them 1
Vers. 5 and 6.* Faith. — " And the; apnstles said untn the Lnrd, Increase nur faith.
6. And the Lnrd said, If ye had faith aa a grain uf muatard aeed, yc might say untn
this sycamine tree. Be thnu plucked up by the runt, and be thnu planted in the sea ;
and it shnuld nbey ynu." This request uf the diaciples must have been called fnrth
by anme manifeatatiun uf the extranrdinary puwer nf Jesus, with which Luke was
unacquainted. The literal furce nf the wnrd which tbe disciples use, "Add tn nur
faith," assumes that they think they have snme. Jesus does net deny it; but He
reduces this having te the feeblest imaginable quantity, since the araallest organic
bedy ia too large as an emblem of it. The only real power in the univerae ia the
divine wUl. The human will, which has discovered the aecret ef blending with this
force of forces, is raised, in rirtue of this union, tu umniputence ; and frnm the time
it becnmes cunscinus nf this privilege, it acts withnut ubstructinn, even in the
domain nf nature, it the kingdnm nf Gnd su requires. Perhaps the sycamine tn
which Jeaus points is, in Hia view, the emblem ef tbe kingdom ef God, and the aea
(here the shore, the pure sand) that nf the heathen wurld, that, till nnw, barren suil
in which, by tbe faith and the prayers nf the disciplea, the divine work ia henceforth
to be planted and to prosper.
Matthew twice presents a saying aimilar tu that nf ver. 6, and bnth timea in a
deflnite situatinn ; firat, after the healing uf the lunatic snn, and in cnntrast tn the
apustles' lack nf faith (17 : 30, 31). Only in the twn cases it ia a mountain which is
tu be cast intn the sea. Mark, whn iu narrating the cursing nf the fig-tree ahuwa
himaelf t&e mnst accurately infurmed, there reproduces thia parable alrauat in the
same way aa Matthew ; unly he prefaces it with the wurds, " Have faith in Gud,"
and cunnecta with it an exhurtatinn tu pardqn aa the cnnditinn uf prayer being heard.
Nn duubt, nwing tu the proverbial character uf this aaying, it may have been fre
quently repeated. But there ia a very remarkable dnvetailing between Luke and the
twu uthera, Mark eapecially. Du nnt the wnrda nf Jesua in Mark, Have faith in God
and -. . . perfectly explain the prayer nf the apuatles in Luke, increase OMr/flSj'i/t.?
Here, as at 13 : 41 (cump. with Mark 13 ; 37), the une evangelist haa preaerved nne
part uf the cunversatinn, the uther annther. With a cummun written suurce, ia that
intelligible? As tn the admunitinn regarding pardun, which in Mark fnllnws this
exhurtatinn tn faith (11 : 34, 35), it suatains tn the queatinn uf Peter (Matt. 18 : 31),
and the exhurtatinn in Luke (vers. 3, 4), a relatinn similar tu that which we have juat
* Ver. 6. !*, D. L. X, umit ravTy.

400 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
nbserved between Luke 13 : 41 and Mark 13 : 37. They are fragmenta nf nne whule,
the grouping nf which it is nnt difflcult tu restore.
Vers. 7-10.* The Non-meritoriouaneaa of Works, — "But which nf yuu, having a
servant plnwing ur feeding cattle, wiU say untn him by and by, when he is cnme
frnm the fleld, Gn and sit dnwn tu meat ? ^8. And will uut rather say untn him. Make
ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and
drunken ; and afterward thnu ahalt eat and drink ? 9. Duth he thank that aervant
because he did the thinga that were cummanded him ? I truw nnt. 10. So likewiae
ye, when ye ahall have done all thoae thinga which are commanded you, say. We are
unprofitable servants : we have done that which was nur duty tn dn." This saying,
which has nn cnnnectinn with what immediately precedea, dnea nnt the less admirably
clnae thia series uf exhurtatinna given by Jesua, which almnst all relate tn pharisaism ;
it is peculiar tn Luke. A alave returns in the evening, after having labnred all day
in the flelds. Dnea the master give himself up tu extranrdinary demunstratinns uf
pleasure ? Nu ; everything gnes nn in the hnuae accnrding tn the established nrder.
Frnm the wnrk nf the day, the servant aimply passes tn that uf the evening ; he
dresses the viands, and serves at table as lung {iuS, nr better still, euS dv) as his maater
pleases tn eat and drink. And nnly theu may he himself take his meal. Su the moat
irreproachable of men muat say to himself that be has done nothing but pay his debt
te God ; doea not God on Hia aide provide for all his wanta ? From the atandpoint
of right, they are qui-ta en beth aidea. The word dxpelos, unprofitable, here signifles :
one who haa rendered no service (beyond what was due). This estimation of human
work is true in the aphere of right where phariaaiam plants itself, and it crushes this
syatem 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 et God. But there is a sphere higher than that of right,
that of love ; and in thia latter another labor on man'a part, that of joyful devo
tion, and another eatimate on God'a part, that of the leve which ia rejoiced by love.
Jeaua haa deacribed thia other point of view, 18 : 36, 37. Holtzmann thinka it impoa
sible that thia exhortation ahould have been addreaaed to the diaciples (ver. 1). But
ia not the pharisaic tendency ever ready te spring up again in the hearts of believers ?
and dees it net cling like a gnawing worra to fldelity itself ? The worda : I trow not,
are mistakenly rejected by the AJex. Perhaps the oi doKcj haa been confounded with
the oiro which feUows.
How are -we tu explain the puaitiun nf thuae fnur exhurtatiuns in nur Gnapel, and
their juxtapnaitiun, withnut any Ingical bund ? A-Ccnrding tu Hultzmann, f Luke is
abnut tu return tu liia great hiatnrical snurce, the prutn-Mark, which he had left aince
9 : 51, tn wurk the cnllectinn uf diacnuraes, the Bogia (cump. 18 : 15, where the naria-
tive uf Luke begins again tu muve parallel tn that nf the twn uthers) ; and hence he
inserta here by anticipation the twn exhortationa, vera. 1-4, which he borrowa from
this document (A) ; then he relatea further (vera. 5-10) two aayings which he had for
gotten, and which he takes from the Bogia (A), which he ia about te quit. But, 1.
Why in this caae should he nnt have put these last m the first place {vrhich was tiie
natural order, since all the preceding was taken from A), and tbe two first afterward
¦< Ver. 7. S. B. D. L. X. 15 Mnn. Vss. add avru after epei. Ver. 9. 6 Mjj. It»»i. '
omit EKEivu after dovXu. 17 Mjj. ISO Mnn. omit avru, S. B. L. X. 6 Mnn. It""''.
omit ov doKu, Ver. 10. The mss. are divideil between ofEiXopev and oipEiXopev.
X " Already, 17 : 1-4, Lnke atlerapls tn return tn A. ; then tn finish, he gives, be
sides, several passages taken frura A," (p. 156).

COMMENTAKY ON ST. LUKE. 401
(which was nnt less natural, since Luke is abnut tu return tu A) ? Besides, ^. Haa
nut the exegeais cnnvinced us at every wnrd that Luke certainly did nnt take all thnse
sayings from the same written anurce aa Mark and Matthew ? IThe nnly explanatinn
which can be given uf the fragmentary character nf thia piece appears tn us tu be the
fnllnwing : Luke had up tu this pnint related a aeriea nf exhurtatiuns given by Jeaua,
the uccasinn nf which he waa able tn a certain extent tn indicate ; but he fuund snme
in his anurces which were mentinned withnut any histurical indicatinn. It is this
remnant scrap at the bnttum uf the pnrtfuliu, if I may sn speak, which he delivers tu
ua aa it waa, and withnut any intruductinn. Hence fnUnw twu cunaequencea : 1.
Luke'a intrnductinna in thia part are nnt nf hia inventing. Pur why cuuld nut hia
ingeninus mind have pru-vided fnr theae laat exhurtatinna aa well aa fur all the pre
ceding? A bistnrical caae like thuae uf 11 : 1, 45, 12 : 13, 41, etc., waa nnt difficult
tn imagine. 2. There is nu better pruuf nf the histnrical reality uf the sayings nf
Jesus qunted in nur Syn., than this fragmentary character which surprises us. Dis
cnurses which the disciples had put intu the mnuth nf their Maater wuuld nnt have
presented this broken appearance.
' ' THIED CYCLE. — CHAP. 17 : 11-19 : 37.
Tlie laat Scenes of ilie Journey.
This third sectinn brings ua tu Bethany, tu the galea uf Jerusalem, and tu the
mnruing nf Palm Day. It seems tu me evident that Luke, in ver. 11, intends simply
tu indicate tbe cuhtinuatinn nf the jnumey begun 9 : 51, and nnt, as Wiessler wUl have
it, the beginning uf a different juurney. In cnnsequence uf the multiplicity uf events
related, Luke reminds us frum time tu tirae uf the general situatiun. It is in the
cuurse nf this third sectinn that his narrative rejuins that uf the twu nther Syn. (18 : 15
' ei seq!), at the time when children are brought tn Jesus that He may bless them.
This event being expreaaly placed in Perea by Matthew and Mark, it ia clear that the
fnllnwing eventa muat have taken place at the time when Jesus was abuut tn cross
the Jurdan, or had just pasaed it.
1. The Ten Bepers : 17 : 11-19. —Vera. 11-19.* Ver. 11, even in ita conatri/ction,
reminda ua uf 9 : 51. The koI airoi haa here, aa well as there, peculiar furce. The
caravans nf Galilee tunk either the Samaritan route ur the Perean. Jesus fnllnws
neither ; He makes nne fur Himaelf, the reault uf His deliberate wish, which ia inter
mediate between the twn — a fact which seems tn be expressed by the sn marked re-
auining nf the aubject {kui airbs). The phrase did pecov may signify in Greek i while
travelUng thruugh bnth nf thnae prurincea, ur while passing between them. Olshau
sen takes the firat seuse : he alleges that frum Ephraim, whither Jesus retired after
the reaurrectinn uf Lazarua (Juhn 11 : 54), He visited Galilee nnce mnre, thus travers
ing frum snuth tn nnrth, first Samaria, and then GaUlee. Geaa (p. 74) alan regards
this return from Ephraim tn Capernaum aa probable, f But the guverned clauae to
Jerusalem wnuld in this sense be real irony. The secnnd senae ia therefere the enly
* Ver. 11. !*. B. L. omit avrov after nopeveaBai. S. B. L., dia peaov inatead nf dia
PEaov. Ver. 13. iS. L. aume Mnn., vnyvryaav inatead nf anyvryaav. The same Mjj.
Omit avro.
X Gess's reasnn is the scene nf the didrachma. Matt. 17 : 34-37 ; fnr the cnllectinn
fur the temple was made* in March. But in the year which preceded His death,
Jesus may pnssibly nnt have paid till summer the tribute which waa properly due in
spring. The fnrm of the cnllectnr's questinn. Matt., ver. 34, aeema to suppuse a pay
ment which was at nnce vnluntary and in arrears. It is nut therefure necesaary, uu
thia grnund, tu hnld a return frnm Capernaum tn Galilee immediately befnre the last
Passnver,

403 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
pnssible une : Jesus was passing alung the cunflnes uf the twn prnvinces. This mean
ing is conflrmed by the absence of the article befnre the twn proper names : Samaria
a'nd Galilee. He directed his steps frnm west tn east, tnward the Jnrdan, which He
must cross tu enter Perea-^a fact which harmunizes, as we have seen, with Matt.
19 : 1, Mark 10 : 1, and even Juhn 10 : 40-43. Luke probably recalls here this general
situatinn in view ef the foUowing narrative, in which we flnd a Samaritan leper min
gling with Jewish lepers. Community nf suffering had, in their caae, bruken duwn
the natinnal barrier. Less bnld than the leper nf chap. 6, thnae unhappy men kept at
a distance, accnrding tu the law. Lev. 13 : 46. The space which a leper waa buund'
tn keep between him and every other persnn ia estimated by snme at 4, by nthers at
100 cubits. The cry which they uttered with nne vnice un perceiving Jesus, draws
His attentiuu tu the pitiable sight. Withuut even telling them uf their cure. He bids
them gu and give thanka fur it. There is a dash, as it were, nf triumphant jny in
this unexpected nrder. Aa they go {iv ru indyeiv), they ubserve the first symptoma of
the cure which haa been wrought. Immediately one ef them, seized -with an irresist
ible emotion nf gratitude, turns back, uttering leud cries nf jny and adnratinn ; and
arrived in the presence of Jeaua, he prostrates himself at His feet in thanksgiving.
The difference ia to be observed between doidi^Eiv, glorifying, applied to God, and^
eixapioTElv; giving thanka, applied to Jeaua. Aa He recognizes him to be a Samari
tan, Jeaus feels te tbe quick the differeuce between those simple hearts, within which
there yet vibrates the natural feeling of gratitude, and Jewish hearts, incrusted aU
over with pharisaic pride and ingratitude ; and immediately, nn duubt, the lut nf His
guspel in the wurld is presented tu His mind. But He cnntenta Himaelf with bring
ing intu view the preaent cnntraat. EipeByaav haa nnt fur its subject the participle
inoarpEtjiavrE;, taken aubatantively, but dXXoi underatund. Bleek refers the last
wutds : thy faiih hath saved thee, tn the physical cure which Jesus wnuld cunfirm tn
the sufferer by leading him tn develnp that dispnsition nf faith which has procured
it fur him. But have we nnt here rather a new blessing, nf which Jesua gives special
assurance tu this leper? The faith nf which- Jesus speaka ia nnt merely that which
brought him at the firat, but raure stOl that which has brought him back. By this
retum be has sealed fnrever the previnus tranaitury cnnnectiun which- his cure had
furraed between Jeaua and him ; he recognizes Hia wnrd as the instrument uf the
miracle ; he unites himself clnsely tn the entire perann uf Him whnse pnwer nnly he
had snught at the first. And thereby his phyaical cure is transfnrmed intu a mnral
cure, intu salvatiun.
Criticiam auapecta thia narrative nn accuunt nf its univeraaliatic tendency. But
if it had been invented with a didactic aim, would the lesaon te be drawn from it
have been so completely passed over in silence ? We must in this case also suapect
tbe healingof the Gentile centurion's servant in Matthew ; and that with more reason
still, because Jesua insists on the general lesaon tu be derived frnm the event.
3. Tlie Messiah's Coming : 17 : 30-18 : 8. — Thia piece embracea ; 1st. A queatinn
put by tbe Phariaees reapecting the time of the appearance ef the kingdom of God,
and the anawer of Jesus (vers. 30, 31) ; 2d. A discourse addressed by Jesus to His
disciples on the same aubject (vera. 33-37) ; Sd. The paratle of the unjust judge,
which applies the subject treated practically te believers (18 : 1-8).
Isi. Vers. 30 and 31.* The Spirituality of tlie Kingdom.—" And when He was de-
* Ver. 31. !S. B. L. omit idov before enei.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 403
manded nf the Pharisees when the kingdnm nf Gnd ahnuld cnme. He anawered them,
a,nd said, Tbe kingdnm nf Gud cnmeth nut with ubaervatiun. 31. Neither ahall they -
say, Lu here ! or, Lu there ! fur, behnld, the kingdum uf Gud ia within yuu." It is
knuwn with what impatience the Phariseea waited fur the manifeatatinns uf the Mea
aianic kingdnm. It ia natural that they ahnuld deaire tn knuw the upininn nf Jesus
un the [Subject. Besides, they wuuld have been glad tu embarrass Him in the matter, .
nr tn drag frnm Him snme heresy. Their questinn rested un a purely external view
nt this divine kingdum ; His advent appeared to their mind aa a gieat and sudden
dramatic act. In the gnapel puint nf view, this expectatinn is certainly nut altngether
falae ; but humanity must be prepared fnr the new external and divine state nf things
by a spiritual wuij^ wrought in the depths nf the heart ; and it is this internal advent
wMch Jesus thiuks gnud tn put first in relief befnre such interlncutnrs. The side uf
the truth which He thinka prnper tu set furth ia, as usual, tbat which is mistaken by
the parties addressing Him. Tu the Pharisee Nicudemus, whu came tn Him with a
questinn analngnus tu that which His confreres are nnw putting, Jesus replies exactly
in the aame way. The expreaainn : perd naparypyoEus, in auch a way aato be obaerved,
relates tn the Qbservatinn uf nbjects falling under the senaea. The present spxETui,
cometh, is that nf the idea. Nuw, aince the kingdom ia not established in a visible
manner, it might happen that it ahnuld be present withnut men suspecting it (11 : 30).
And thia is exactly the caae (11 : 30 : has surpriaed you).
Bo here, Id there — these wurds expreaa the impreasinn nf thnse whu think they see
it cuming ; Jesus puts in uppusitinn tu them His uwn behold. This last relates tu
the aurpriae which shuuld be felt by Hia hearers nn learning that the kingdnm is
already present. The wnrds ivroi -viimv are explained by almnat aU mndern inter-
' pretera in the sense uf , in the midat of you. Philnlugically this meaning is pnssible ;
it may be harmnnized with the ydp. But the verb tdriv wnuld in this case necessa
rily require tn be put befure the regimen ; fnr this verb ia wnuld have the emphasis,
" it is really present. " The idea among you vrould be secundary. II the regimen
hvroS -vpmv has the emphasis (and its place prnves that it has), it can unly be because
these wnrds cnntain the reaann introduced by for. They ahnuld therefnre aerve tn
prnve that the kingdnm uf Gud may have cume withuut ita cuming being remarked ;
and thia is what fnllnws frnm its internal, spiritual nature. The meaning nf this
regimen ia therefnre, ¦wUhin you. Beaidea, the prep, kvrds, within, always includes
a cuntraat tn the idea mthout If, therefnre, we give tu it here the meaning uf among,
we muat stUl suppuse an understnod contrast, that between the Jews as people
within, and tbe GentUes as people without. There is nothing in the context giving
rise tn such an antithesis. In giving tc ivrdS tbe meaning within, we are led back
tu the idea expreaaed in the anawer of Jesus tu Nicudemus : " Except a man be bnrn
again, he cannut see the kingdnm nf Gnd," which cnnfirms uur explanatiun. ^Edri
ia, like i'pxsrai, the preaent nf essence.
2d. Vers. 22-37. The Coming of the Kingdom.— To the Pharisees Jesus declared
what they did not knnw, the apiritual essence uf the kingdnm. But Jesus did nnt
mean te deny the external and final appearing uf a divine slate nf things. Tn de
velnp this nther side nf the truth. He turns tn Hia diaciples, because it ia nnly tu
thnae whn pnssess snmething nf Hia apiritual life that He can speak profitably uf Hia
future return. Thus it ia that the treatment nf the same subject is mndified, accurd
ing tu the character nf thuse whnm Jeaus addresses. Besides, the abstract idea nf
the coming ef the kingdnm is nnw presented aa the reappearing uf Jeaua Himaelf.

404 COMMBNTAttY ON ST. LUKE.
The truth could nnly be expnunded in this aspect tn believers. We may see with
what juatice the Revue de Theologie alleges : " The first twn veraes (vera. 20, 21) are in
cuntradictinn tn the rest, and have nn cnnnectinn with what fnlluws !" (1867, p. 386).
The discuurse nf Jesus bears nn three puints : lat. When and huw will Jesus re
appear (vers. 23-35) ? 2d, What wUl be the state uf the wurid then (vers. 36-30) ?
Sd, What will be the mural cunditiun nf aalvatiun in that laat crisis (vers. 31-37) ?
Vers. 32-25.* " And He aaid untn the diaciples. The days will cnme when ye shall
desire tn aee nne nf the daya uf the Sun uf man, and ye ahall nnt aee it. 23. And
they shall say tu ynu. See here ! nr, see there I gn nnt after them, nnr fnlluw them.
24. -Fur aa the lightning, that lighteneth uut nf the nne part under heaven, ahineth
untn the uther part under heaven ; su ahall alsn the Sun uf man be in His day. 35,
But first must He suffer many things, and be rejected nf thia generatinn." The
cnurse nf thnught is this : The kingdum, in the sense understnud by the Pharisees,
will nnt cume immediately (ver. 33) ; and when it shall cnme, nu uncertainty wiU be
felt abnut His appearing (vers. 33, 34). Ver. 35 returna tu the idea nf ver. 33.
'Hpepai (ver. 33), daya, lung day^s, during which there will be time tn aigh fur the
visible presence uf the Master. Cnmp. 5 : 35. The deaire to aee one qf ihe daya of ihe
Son of man may refer either tn the painful regret nf the Church when ahe recalla the
happiness enjuyed by her while He was present nn the earth, nr tn her impatient
waiting fur snme manifestatiun frum nn high annnuncing that the day is at length
near. Substantially, the firat meaning leads tn the secnud, as regret dnes tu desire ;
but the secnnd idea is the duminant one, accnrding tu the cuntext. When the
apuatlea nr their auccessnrs shall have pasaed a lung time nn the earth in the absence
nf their Lnrd, when they shall be at the end nf their preaching and their apulngetic
demunstratinns, and when around them scepticism, materialism, pantheism, and
deism shall more and mnre gain the ascendency, then there shall be fnrmed in their
snula an ardent lunging fnr that Lurd who keepa silence and remains hid ; they wiU
call fer some divine manifestation, a single one {ixiav), like that ef the eld days, lo
refresh their hearts and aualain the fainting Church. But to tbe end, the task wUl
be to walk by faith (ovk oipEdBs, ye shall not see). Need we be astunished if in auch
circumatancea the faith of the great majnrity vergea to extinction (18 : 8) ?
With this heightening ef expectation among beUevera there wUl correapond the
seducing appeals ef falsehnnd (ver. 33). Literally taken, this verse is in cuntradic
tinn tu ver. 31. But ver. 21 related tn the apiritual kingdnm, whuae cuming cannot
be obaerved or proclaimed, while the aubject now in queation is the risible kingdom,
the appearing of which shaU be falsely announced. 'Why shall these announcements
be neceaaarily falae ? Ver. 34 gives the explanatinn. Geaa exhibits the appUcation of
this teaching, nn the nne hand, tu the fully uf the Rumanists whn wiU have nn Church
withnut a visible head, and, na the ether, te that of Protestant aectariea who expect
the appearing ef the kingdom of Gnd tn-day in Paleatine, tu-murrnw in Ruasia, etc.
Ver. 34, The Lurd's cuming will be universal and instantanenus. Men dn nnt run
here nr there tn aee a flaah uf lightning : it shines simultanenusly nn all puints uf the ,
hnriznn. Su the Lnrd will appear at the same mnment tn the view nf all living. His
appearances as the Risen One in the upper rnnm, when clnsed, are the prelude nf this
laat advent. But if He ia tu return. He muat gu away, gu away persecuted. This
* Ver. 33. S. B^ L., iSov exei befnre iSov coSe. 5 Mjj. umit 77 befure iSov. S.
M., ^ai iSov. Ver. 34. AU tbe Mjj., D. excepted, emit xai aiter edrai. B. D.
It""i- umit EV rij-r/pspa avrov.

COMMEilTARY ON ST. LUKB. 405
is the subject nf ver. 35. This generation can designate nn nther than the Jewish
cuntempuraries uf the Messiah. A aeparatinn is abuut tn supervene bet-ween Israel
and its nuw present Messiah. And this rejectinn nf the Messiah by His uwn penple
wUl be the signal fur the invisibUity nf His kingdum. Cnmp. the antithesis 13 : 35
(the faith of larael bringing back the Messiah frnm heaven). Huw lung will this ab
normal state laat ? Jeaua Himaelf knows net. But He declares that this epoch of
Hia inviaibility wUl terminate in an entirely materialistic state ef things, vers. 36-30,
which wUl be brought to an end suddenly by His advent.
Vers. 26-30.* " And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of
the Sou of man. 37. 'They did eat, they drank, they married, and were given in mar
riage, until tbe day that Nee entered intO the ark ; and the flood came, and destroyed
them all. 38. Likewise also, as it was in the days nf Lut ; they did eat, they drank,
they buught, they snld, tbey planted, they buUded ; 39. But the same day that Lot
went uut nf Sudum it rained fire and brimatnne from heaven, and deatroyed them all.
30. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." While be
lievera sigh with growing ardor for the return of their Lord, carnal security more or
lesa complete takea poaaession of the race. It ia an epech like those which have pre
ceded all the great? cataatrophea of history. The business of earthly life ia earned
through with regularity ; but religinus feeling gradually diaappears frum the heart nf
men whn have becnme secularized. The daya qf Noe dennte the 130 years during
which the ark was a-building, ^E^syc/pil^ovro strictly means, were given in marriage,
that is tn aay, ynung daughters by their parents. The finite verba rjdBiov, etcivov
(ver. 38), E/Sps^E (ver. 39), are in appnsitinn tn eysvaro, and, as such, are still depend
ent un coS. The apudnais duea nnt uccur till ver. 30. This fnrm ia analngoua tn the
Hebrew cnnatructinn which we have sn uften nbserved in Luke {iyevero, with a finite
verb fnr ita aubject). "Efipe^E ia generally regarded aa active : Gnd caused it io rain.
Cnmp. Gen. 19 : 34, xai xxlpioS £/3psisv (Matt. 5 : 45). But as in thia caae the ax
oijpavov wuuld be plennaatic, and aa Bpexco is fuund in Pulybius and the later
Greek authnrs in a neuter aenae, it ia mure natural tn adnpt this aense here, by which
we at the same time preserve the parallelism between dviaXEdsv (subject, itvp xai
Bezov) and the ditcoXEdEv, ver. 37 (subject, xaraxXvdpdS). The wnrd ccitoxaXvx-
rerai suppuses that Jesus is preaent, but that a veil cunceals His perann from the
view nf the wnrld. All at unce the veU is lifted, and the glnrified Lurd is visible tn
all. Thia term nccura again in the same sense, 1 Cur. 1:7; 3 Theaa. 1 : 7 ; 1 Pet.
1:7; and perhaps 1 Cur. 3 : 13. The pnint nf cumpariaun between this event and
the examples qunted is the surprise caused in the bnsnm uf security. Matt. 24 : 37-39
cnntaina a paasage parallel tu vera. 26, 27 (the example nf Nue). The idea is the
aame ; but the terms are su different that they furbid us to assume that the twu
editiuna proceed from the same text.
Vers. 31-37.f " In that day, he which shall be upun the hnusetnp, and his stuff
* Ver. 27. The mss. are divided between E^syapiZovro (T. R.) and syapiZovro
(Alex.). Ver. 28. &. B. L. R. X., xaBooS instead nf xaicoi. Ver. 30. The mss. are
divided between xara ravra (T. R. ) and xara ra avra.
X Ver. 32. B. L. If^i., nEpmoiyaaoBai instead uf aoaui. Ver: 33. S. B. D. R. 3
Mnn. nmit avryv after anoX.say nr anoXEaei. Ver. 34. All the Mjj., B. excepted, eiS
inatead nf o eiS. Ver. 35. S* 1 Mn. nmit this verse. Ver. 36. "This verse is wanting
in all the Mjj., D. U. excepted, in aeveral Mnn. ItP'"''i"" (taken frnm Matthew).
Ver. 37. E. G. H. 25 Mnn. , nropa inatead nf aupa. S. B. L. U. A. 30 Mnn. add koi
after eKei, !*. B. L. Q., enta-ovaxByaovTat instead uf awaxByaovrai,

406 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
in the huuse, let him nut cnme duwn tn take it away : and he that is in the fleld, le
him Ukewise not return back. 33. Remember Lot's wife. 33. Whosoever shall seel
to save his life, shall lose it ; and whosoever shaU lose his life, shall preserve it. 34
I tell you, in that night there shaU be two men in one bed ; the one shaU be taken
and the ether shaU be left. 85. Two women shaU be grinding together ; the on(
shall be taken, and the nther left. 36, 37. And they answered and said untn Him,
Where,, Lurd ? And He said untn them, Wheresnever the budy is, thither wUl the
eagles be gathered tngether." Here is the practical cunclusiun of the discuurse,
Jesua deacribes that dispusitinn uf mind which, in this last crisis, shall be the cundi
tion of salvation. The Lord passes with His heavenly retinvie. He attracts all the
inhabitants of the earth who are wiUing and ready tn juin Him ; but it transpires in
the twinkling of an eye. Whuever is nnt already luusened frum earthly things, sn aa
to haste away withuut hesitatiun, taking flight tuward Him freely and jnyuusly,
remains behind. Thus preciaely had Lut'a wife perished with tlie gnnds, frum which
she ceuld nnt part. Agreeably tu His habitual methnd, Jesua characterizes this dia
pnsitinn uf mind by a aeriea uf external acts, in which it is cuncretely realized. The
Reime de ThSologie (passage qunted, p. 337) cundemna Luke fur here applying tu the
Parousia the cnunsel tn flee, which has nn meaning, except aa applied tu the destruc
tinn uf Jeruaalem (Matt. 34). Thia accuaatinn is falae, fnr there ia nn mention of
fleeing tiom une part uf the earth tu annther, but nf rising from the earth tu the Lurd,
as He passes and disappears : " Let hira nnt curae dnwn (frnm the runf) ; but, forget
ting all that is in the Iiouse, let him be ready tn fnUnw the Lnrd I" Sn he whu is in
the flelds is nnt tu attempt tn return hume tn carry upward with him aume ubject of
value. The Lord is there ; if any nne belnngs tu Him let him leave everything at
nnce tn accnmpany Him (Matt. 34 : 18 : the labnrer ahnuld nut even return tn seek his
dress, which he laid aside tn wurk). This saying, especially in the form uf Matthew,
evidently referred tn the Paruusia, which shall cnme suddenly, and nut tu the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, which will be preceded by an armed invasinn and a lung war.*
Luke's cuntext is therefnre preferable tn Matthew's. Ver. 33. To save one's life, by
riveting it tn snme object with which it is identified, is the means uf Insing it, of being
left behind with this perishing wnrld ; to give one's life, by quitting everything at
once, is the nnly means uf saving it, by laying hnld nf the Lnrd whn is passing. See
on 9 : 24. Jesus here substitutes for the phrase to aave hia life the word ^ooyovetv,
literally, to give it birth alive. The word is that by which the LXX. expreas the Piel
and Hiphil of ,-|i|-|> *^ ^*^- Here it ia having the natural life bnrn again, that it may
be reproduced in the fnrm of spiritual, glnrified, eternal life. The abanlute sacrifice
of the natural life is the meana of this transformation. Here is a word of unfathom
able depth and nf daily application.
At thia time a selectinn will take place (ver. 34) — a aelectiun which will instan-
tauenusly break all earthly relatiuns, even the mnst intimate, and frum which there
will arise a new grouping nf humanity in twu new families nr sncieties, the taken and
the fo/?. Aeya iptv, ! tell you, annnunces snmething weighty. Bleek thinks, that as
the subject under discussinn is the return uf the Lnrd as judge, tn be taken is to
perish, to be left is to escape. But the middle napaXappdveoBai, to take to one's adf, to
* Our authnr here speaks with a confidence nnt shared by the bulk nf cummenta-
tnrs, and puts a fnrce intn ihe reference tn " the stuff," which is nut neceasarily in it.
The deatructinn nf Jeruaalem fureshadnws features uf the judgment, aud is not
uverlnnked. — J. H.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 407
welcome as one's own, can only have a favorable meaning (John 14 : 3). And St.
Paul certainly understood the word in this sense ; tor it is probably nnt without rela
tion to this saying that he teaches, 1 Thess. 4 : 17, the taking up into the air of the
believera whn are alive at the return nf Christ ; it is the aacenainn of the disciples, as
the complement of their Master's. 'A(^ievai, to forsake, to leave behind, as 13 : 35.
The image ef ver. 34 supposes that the Parousia takes place at night. Ver. 35, on
the contrary, aupposes it happening during the day. It matters little. For une
hemisphere it wUl be in the day ; fer the other, at night. The idea remains the
same : whether he is sleeping, or whether he is working, man ought to be sufficiently
disengaged tu give himself nver withnut delay tn the Lord whn draws him. Hand-
miUa were uaed amung the ancienta. When the millatnne waa large, twn persnns
turned it tugether. Ver. 36, which ia wanting in almnst all the Mjj., is taken frum
the parallel pasaage in Matthew. Thus the beings whn shall have been most closely
connected here beluw, shall, in the twinkling uf an eye, be parted fnrever.
The apnstle'a queatinn (ver. 37) is une nf curinsity. Althnugh Jeaua had already
anawered it in ver. 34, He takea advantage nf it tn clnse the cnnversatinn by a declar
atinn which applies it tn the whnle wnrld. The natural phennmenun, described by
Jub 39 : 30, ia uaed by Jesus tu symbulize the universality nf the judgment pro
claimed. The carcass ia humanity entirely secular, and destitute nf the life of Gnd
(vers. 26-30 ; cnmp. 9 : 60, ifi* <Ae (fooei . . . ). The eagles represent punishment
alighting un such a snciety. There is nu allusinn in thia figure to the Rnman stand
ards, fur there is nu reference in the preceding discnurae tn the destructinn nf Jerusa
lem. Cnmp. alsn Matt. 34 : 38, where this saying applies excluaively tn the Parousia.
The eagle, properly su caUed, does net live in flocks, it is true, and does nut feed on
carrinn. But deros, as well as -yi^y Prov. 30 : 17, may (as Furrer shnws, " Bedeut.
der Bibl. Geugr." p. 13) dennte the great vulture {gyps fulvus), equal to the eagle in
size and strength, which is seen in hundreds nn the plain uf Gennesareth. Snme
Fathera have applied the image nf the budy tu Jesus glnrified, and that of the eagles
tu the sainta whu shall acccmpany Him at His advent !
Zd. 18 : 1-8.* The Widow and the Unjust Judge. — This parable is peculiar tn Luke.
The fnrmula iXeye di Kai, " furthermnre, hear this alsu," annnunces it as the cnn
clusinn nf the whnle discnurse 17 : 30, et seq. Weizsacker (p. 139) and Hultzmann
(p. 133) think that the intruductinn, ver. 1, gives this parable a, cummnnplace appli
catiun (the duty uf perseverance in prayer), which dues nnt belung tu the nriginal idea
nf this discnurae (the imminence uf the Paruusia). But is there nut a very clOse curre-
apundence between the duty uf peraevering prayer, and the danger which the Church
runa of being nvercnme by the carnal slumber which has just been described iu the
preceding purtraiture ? The Son nf man has been rejected ; He has gune frnm view ;
the masses are plunged in gross wnrldUness ; men nf Gnd are becnme aa rare aa in
Sudum. What is, then, the pnsitiun nf the Church ? That nf a widnw whnse only
weapnn is incessant prayer. It is nnly by means uf this intense cuncentratinn that
faith will be preserved. But auch is precisely the dispositiun which, Jesus fears,
* Ver. 1. S. B. L. M. several Mnn. Ifi'i. omit kui after de. 15 Mjj. 60 Mnn. add
avTovS after npoaevxeoBai. The MSS. are divided between iKKUKeiv and syKaxEiv. Ver.
3. The Mjj., A. excepted, nmit nS after de. Ver. 4, The mss. are divided between
yBeXyaev (T. R.) and yBeXEV (Alex.). S. B. L. X. Itpi«'«"", ovde avBponov instead of
KUl avBponov ovk. Ver. 7. 5*. B. L. Q., avro instead of npoS avrov. !*. A. B. D, L. Q.
X- n. 3 Mnn., puKpoBvpei instead of paKpoBvpav,

408 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
may not be found even in the Church at His retum. The parable is therefore placed
here most appropriately, and the introduction is in perfect keeping with its firat
iutention. Cnmp. 31 : 34-36, where we find the same ideas in currespundence— -the
danger uf being spirituaUy nvercharged in the last times, and the duly nf unceasing
vigilance and prayer. 'EKKaKelv, io relax, tu let gu, nnt tn hnld determinedly tu une's
rights, like the widow.
There lies at the fnundatinn of this parable, as in thnse nf the indiscreet friend
and the lust sheep (11 and 15), an argument d fortiori: " Were Gnd like this judge.
He wnuld nnt resist the Church's believing prayer ; hnw much less, being what He
is !" The cnnditinn nf the Church after the Lnrd's departure is like that nf a widow,
and nf a widnw deprived nf her rights. The Lnrd haa acquired fnr Hia nwu glurinua
prerngativea, which have net yet passed into the domain of facts, and the enjoyment
of which, if they esteem them at their just value, they should claim without ceasing.
'EKdiKElv (ver. 3) ; to deliver («) by a judicial aentence {diKy). Thia term doea not
therefere include the notion ef vengeance, but that of justice to be rendered to the>
oppressed. If inamd^Etv, to disfigure the face, be taken in tbe weakened aense of
importuning, it will be necessary to understand e'lS reXoS, to the end: "Lest ahe
importune me to the end (indefinitely )T' But Meyer prefers keeping the strict senae,
beth of the verb and ef e'lS teXoq (at laat) :, " Lest she come at lasttn strike me." The
participle ipxopivy, coming to me, decides ih favor of this second meaning. There is
in this saying a touch of pleasantry. Ver 6. "Hear: fer there ia a lesson tobe
drawn even from this impious language." Ver. 7. The continual crying of the elect
recalls the ardent desire of believera to aee one of the days of the Son of man, 17 : 33.
The elect are those whom God has drawn by the calling uf Jesus frum the bosoiji of
lost humanity, agreeably tu the eternal plan nf salvatinn. If we read puKpoBvpel
(Alex.), we must give this prupnsitiun the interrogative meaning : " Will He net do
right . . . and will He be slow in their behalf, that is tn say, tn punish thnse who
oppress them ?" But the senae which must thus be given tn 'en' airois ia nut natural.
It is much better, therefure, tu read : paKpoBvpov, the meaning uf which ia (with/cai) :
" Thnugh He restrain His anger un accuunt uf His [uppressed] elect." Gnd suffers
with them (Saul, Saul, why persecuteat thnu me ?) ; and therefnre Jesus can say of
God, that He restrains Himself on their account. If, then. He does not interpose
immediately to deliver them, it is net from indifference ; it is frora long-suffering to
their oppresaurs. Cnmp. 3 Pet. 3:9. It ia nnwhere said that the object uf the un-
ceaaing cry of the elect is the punishment oi their adversaries, which wnuld nnt be in
keeping with the flgure nf the parable ; it is their nwn deliverance, by their being put
in pussessinn of the heritage tn which they are entitled. But Gnd, it is true, cannot
grant this petitinn withuut breaking the pnwer nf thuse whn stand in the way uf this
act nf justice. It is tn thia aspect nf His answer tbat allusiun is made by the
poKpoBvpeiv. 'Ev rdxei, speedily, dnes nnt at all mean that the limit nf divine furbearance is near,
which would be inconsistent with the leng interval of time announced in the words,
days win come . . . (17 : 33). The word rather signifles, that the hearing once
given, the deliverance will be accemplished with small delay, in the twinkling uf an
eye ; ccmp. Rum. 16 : 30 (where, tun, we shnuld tranalate nnt shnrtly, but very
quickly). Wi'yv : " I am nut afraid uf the Judge failing in His duty. The enly thing
which makes me anxious is this, lest the widow fail in hers." T^v nianv ¦ not some
faith in general, but the faith — that special faith ot which the widow's is an image,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 409
which, in spite of the judge's obstinate sUence and long apparent indifference, perse
veres in claiming its right. On the earih, in opposition to the Son Of man who cnmes
again frum heaven. We must here remember the sad picture nf the state cf hvimanity
at this epuch (17 : 26-30). Is it nnt tn such a state nf things that Jesus alsn makes
allusiun, Matt. 35 : 5 : " And they all slumbered and slept" ?
Hilgenfeld and uthers flnd in this parable a thirat fnr vengeance, which coire-
spnnds rather with the furinus zeal nf the Apucalypse than the true Pauline feeling ef
Luke. This passage must therefore be " one of those most ancient parts of nur
Guspel" which Luke burrnwed frnm a Jewish dncument. Others, like De 'W'ette, see
in it, nn the cnntrary, the traces uf a later perind, when the Church had becnme the
victun nf persecutinn. But, 1. This alleged thirst fnr vengeance nnwhere- appears in
the text. 3. Our passage ia full nf gentleness in cumpariaun with expreasinns nf
indignatinn uaed by Paul himaelf (I?nm. 3 : 4, 5, 8, 9 ; 1 Theaa, 3 : 15, 16 ; 2 Thess.
1 : 8). The spirit uf thia jjarable ia therefnre nut in the Jeast nppnsed tn that of the
Pauline Luke. 3. There ia allusiun, nu duubt, tn the abnnrmal position of the
Church between Christ's departure and His return, but not to persecution atrictly se
called. WhUe Hilgenfeld affects to distinguish in this piece the originaUy Ebionite pas
sages (17 : 1-4, 11-19 ; 18 : 1-8) from those which areet Luke's composition (17 ; 5-10,
20-37 ; 18 : 1-14), Volkmar (" Evangel. Marcions," p. 203) maintains that the arrange
ment ot the piece ia systematic, and reals en the well-known Pauline triad : love
(17 : 1-4), faith (vers. 5-19), liope (ver. 30, ei seq.). But it is easy to see how forced it
is to apply any such scheme to thoae different accounts.
3. Uie Parable of the Phariaee and the Publican : 18 : 9-14. — ^Vers. 9-14.* This
parable is peculiar to Luke. Whn are thnse nvis, certain, tn whnm it is addressed ?
They cannnt be Pharisees. Luke wuuld have named them, as at 16 : 14 ; and Jesus
wnuld nnt have presented tu them aa au example, in a parable, une uf themselves,
while designating him expressly in this character. Bleek thinks that they were disci
ples nf Jesua. But Luke wnuld have equally designated them (16 : 1). They were
therefnre prnbably members nf the cumpany fnllnwing Jesus, who had nnt yet npenly
declared fur Him, and whn manifested a haughty distance to certain sinners, known
to be such, who were in the company with them ; comp. 19 : 7. The word araBeis,
standing erect (ver. 11), indicates a posture of aaaurance, and even boldness (comp.
standing afar off, ver. 13). Tlpbs iavrdv doea nut depend nn araBeis : " standing
aside, at a distance, frum the vulgar"— it wnuld have required kuB' iavrdv (Meyjer)—
but nn npoayvxETo : "he prayed, apeaking thus tn himself . . ." It was lesa a
prayer in which he gave thanka tn Gnd, than a cnngratulatiun which he addressed to
himself. True thanksgiving is always accompanied by a feeUng of humiliation.
The Pharisees fasted nn the Munday and "Thursday nf every week. KTao6a« denntes
the act nf acquiring rather than that cf pussessing ; it therefnre refers here tu the
produce of the flelda (11 : 42). Tn strike the breast : an emblem nt the stroke nf death
which the sinner feels that he has merited at the hand ut Gud. The heart is struck,
as the seat nf persunal life and ef sin. Aiyo iplv (ver. 14) : "I tell you, strange as it
may appear . . ." The idea oi jusiifieaiion, that is to say, of a righteousness
bestowed en the sinner by a divine sentence, belonga even to the O. T. Comp. Gen,
15 : 6 ; laa. 1 : 8, 53 : 11. In the received reading ^ kKslvoS, y is governed by paXXov,
* Ver. 9. The mss. are divided between emev and emev dE kui. Ver. 11. 8*.
jtpiBriqu«_ Qjjjjt „pg^ eavTov. Ver. 13. !*. B., anodeKarevo instead of anodeKara. Ver.
13. 5*. B. G. L. 5 Mnn. 8yr'=""., o de reAuv^s inatead of koi o rsXuvyc. 8 Mjj. 15
Mnn. It. Vg. omit eis before ro cTf/BoS. Ver. 14. Instead uf y ekeivos (T. R. with
snine Mnn.), 16 Mji. and 150 Mnn. read y yap eKeivor, and 1*. B. L., irap' eKeivav.

410 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
rather, understood; The suppression of the adverb rather serves to prevent tho idea
that the Pharisee also received his share of justiflcation. In the reading y ydp ekeIvoS
(more strongly supported than the others), y is explained in the same way, and ydp
has as is often the case an interrogative value :' " Fer think you that he (the Pharisee)
could be justifled 1" This somewhat difficult turn of expressinn has nccasiuned the
Alex, currectinn nap' EKeivav. Our Lnrd luves tu clnse His parables with axinms
fnrmally expressing the fundamental laws of moral life : Gud will nverthrow aU self-
exaltatinn ; but He wiU tum in luve. to all sincere humiliatiun.
Undnubtedly if Luke's object was tu pnint nut in the ministry nf Jesus the histori
cal fnundatinns fur St. Paul's teaching, this piece corresponds most exactly to hia
intentinn. But nn argument can be drawn therefrom cnnlrary tn the truth nf the
narrative. Fnr the idea nf justiflcation by faith is nne of the axinms nut nnly nf the
teaching of Jesus, but of that of the O. T. (comp. beaidea the passages quoted, Hab.
3:4). 4. The Children brought 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 them at 9 : 51. Jeaua ia in Perea. Of his sojourn in this province
Matthew and Mark have as yet related only nne fact — the cnnversatinn with the
Phariaees regarding divurce, summarily reprnduced by Luke 16 : 13-19.
By the phrase : even infants {kuI rd . . .), ver. 15, Luke wnuld indicate that
the cnnsideratiun enjuyed by Jesus had reached its height. Methers brought him
even their nurslings. The article befnre /Jpe^i/ denutea the categnry. The apnstles
think that this is tn abuse thegnndneaa and time nf their Maater. Mark, whn Ukes .
tu depict mural impresainns, describes tbe indignatinn felt hy Jesus {yyavaKryae) ou
perceiving this feeling. Luke is leaa severe — the evangeUst whn is accused of abus
ing the Twelve. After calling back thnse little unes whn were being sent away {airaj
Jesus instructs His diaciples in respect ot them. Matthew, as usual, summarizes.
There is in children a twofold receptivity, negative and positive, humility and cenfl
dence. By labnr expended uu nurselves, we are tu return tu thuae dispusitiuns which
are natural to the child. The prunnun tuv roiodrav, qf sv,ch, dnes nnt refer tn nther
children, such as thnse present, but tu all thnae whn vuluntarily put un the dispusi?
tinns indicated. Jesus, accnrding to Mark, clasped thuse children tenderly in His
arms, and put his hands on them, blessing them. Matthe-W speaks only uf the impo
sition uf hands. Theae tnuching detaUs are emitted by Luke. Fur what reaann, if
he knew them ? They agreed sn well with the spirit nf his Guspel 1 Vnlkmar (" Die
Evangel." p. 487) explains this nmissinn by the prosaic character cf Luke (1).
According tn the same authur, theae little chUdren repreaent the Gentilea saved by
grace. Party dngmatics, even in this the simplest narrative nt the Gnspel I
5. The Rich Toung Man : vers. 18-30. — In the three Syn. this piece immediately
follnws the preceding (Matt. 19 : 16 ; Mark 10 : 17). Oral traditinn had cunnected
the twn, perhaps because there existed between them a real chronological succession.
Three parts : 1st The conversation with the young man (vers. 18-33) ; 3d!. The con
versation which takes place in regard to him (vers. 24r-37) ; Sd. The conversation of
Jesus with the disciples regarding themselves (vers. 38-30).
* Ver. 15. !*. B. D. G. L. some Mnn., eiren/juv instead of EnEnpyaav. Ver. 16. S.
B. D. G. L. 4 Mnn. Syr'*., npoaEKaXeaaTo {or . . . Xeito) avra Xejov instead of
npooKuXeaapEvoS avra emtv.

COMMENTARY ON St. LtJKE. 4H
1st Vers. 18-33.* Tlie Rich Toung Man.— Luke gives this man the title apxav^
ehitf, which prnbably signifles here, president el the synagegue. Matthew and Mark
sinlply say els. Later, Matthew caUs him a ynung man (ver. 30). His arrival is
given with dramatic effect by Mark : He came running, and kneeled down before Him.
He sincerely deshed salvatiun, and he imagined that sume generous actinn, snme
great sacrifice, wnuld secure this highest gund ; and this hupe suppuses that man has
pnwer nf himself tn dn gund ; that therefnre he is radically gnud. This is what is
implied in hia apnatruphe tu Jesus : gund master ; fur it is the man in Him whnm he
thus salutes, knnwmg Him as yet in nn nther character. Jesus, by refusing this title
in the false sense m which it ia given Him, dnes nnt accuse Himself of sin, as has
been aUeged. If He had had a conscience burdened with seme trespass. He wuuld
have avowed it explicitly. But Jeaus reminds him that aU gnudnesa in man, as in
every creature whatsnever, must fluw frnm Gud. This axium is the very fnundatinn
of Mnnntheism. Thereby He strikes du-ectly at the ynung map's fundamental error.
So far as Jesus is cencerned, the questien of His personal goodness depends solely on
the consideration whether His inward dependence oh that God, the only good, is
complete er partial. If it is complete, Jesus ia good, but with a goodness which is
that nf Gud Himaelf nperating in Him. Hia anawer dues nnt tnuch this persnnal side
uf the questiun. In Matthew, at least accnrding to the Alex, reading, which is prnb
ably the true une, the wnrd gnud is umitted in the ynung man's address, and the
anawer nf Jesua is cnnceived in theae terms : " Why aakest thnu me abnut what is
gnud? One nnly ia gund." Which may signify : " Gnud is being jnined tn Gnd,
the nnly gund ;" ur : " Gund is fulfllling the cummandments nf Gud, the nnly gnod
Being." These twn explanatinns are bnth unnatural. Even Bleek dnes nut hesitate
here tn prefer the fnrm uf Luke and Mark. That nf Matthew is perhaps a mudiflca
tinn arising frum the fear nf inferences hnstile tn the purity nf Jeaua, which might be
drawn frnm the fnrm uf Hia answer, as it has been transmitted tn us by the two
uther Syn.
Jesua haa just rectified the ynuug man's radical mistake. Nuw He replies to his
questiun. The wnrk tn be dune is tn luve. Jesus quntes the secund table, as bearing
un wurka uf a mnre external and palpable kind, and cunsequently mnre like nne nf
thuse which the ynung man expected tu be mentiuned. Thia anawer nf Jesua is ear
nest ; fur tn luve ia tu live I (See at 10 : 38. ) The unly questinn ia hnw we can attain
tn it. But Jeaus prnceeds Uke a wise instructur. Far from arresting nn their way
thnse whn believe in their nwn strength. He encnurages them tu prosecute it faithfully
tu the very end, knuwing well that if they are sincere they shall by the law die to the
law (Gal. 3 : 19). Aa Geaa saya : " Tn take the law in thnrnugh earnest is the true way
tn cnme tn .leans Chriat." The ynung man's reply (ver. 31) testifies, unduubtedly,
great mnral ignurance, but alsu nnble sincerity. He knnws nnt the spiritual meaning
of the cummandments, and thinks that he haa really fulflUed them. Here uccurs the
inimitable stroke nf Mark's pencil: "And Jesua, behnlding hipi, loved him."
When critics wish tc make nut Mark tu be the cnmpiler of the twn nther evangelists,
they are obUged tu say, with De Wette, that Mark himself, inventing this amiable
* Ver. 30. 10 Mjj. 35 Mnn. It""'!. Vg. umit aov after .uyrepa. Ver. 31. ». A. B.
L. 2 Mnn., eipvXa^a instead nf eivXa^apyv. Ver. 23. i*. B. D. L. sume Mnn. Syr. nmit
TouTa after oKovaas dE. i>. F. H. V. aeveral Mnn., on instead nf sn. The mss. are
dirided between diados and doS (taken frum the parallels), and between ovpava (T. R.)
and ovpavoiS (Alex.). Ver. 33. !*. B. L., syevyBy instead of cyevero.

4ia COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
answer, has ascribed tn Jesus his own feelings. We see much rather in this saying,
nne nf thnse strokes which reveal the anurce whence the narratives nf Mark proceed,
and which must have been cue very near the persnn nf Jesus. It waa an apostle whu
was fuUnwing the impressinns nf Jesus as they depicted themselves in His cnunte
nance, and whn caught as it passed the Innk of tenderness which He caat un this
perann su sincere and su innncent. This Innk nf luve was alan a scrutinizing lock
{ip^Xeipas aitip, Mark 5 : 31), by which Jeaus discerned the gnud and bad qualities uf
the heart, and which dictated tu Him the fnllnwing saying. The de, with uKovaaS
(ver. 22), is adversative and prugresaive. It annnuncea a new resnlutinn taken by the
Lurd. He determines tn call thia man intn the number nf Hia permanent disciplea.
The real aubstance nf His answer, indeed, is nnt the nrder tu distribute his gnuds, but
the call tn fnllnw Him. The giving away nf hia mnney is unly the cunditiun uf pnler-
ing upun that new career which is npen tn him (see at 10 : 61, 13 : 33). In the pro
posal which He makea to him, Jeaus observes the character which beat corresponds
to the desire expressed by the young man. He asked of Him snme wnrk tn dn ;
and Jesus puints nut une, and that decisive, which perfectly cnrrespunds tu his ubject,
inasmuch as it assures him uf salvatiun. Tu disengage nne's self frum everything in
order tn fnllnw Jesus cnnclusively — such ia really aalvatiun, life. The fnrmal curre
spundence nf this anawer tn the ynung man's thnught appears in the expressinn. One
thing tlwu lackesi (Luke and Mark) ; and ranre clearly still in that ef Matthew, If iliou
wilt be perfect, go . . . Undnubtedly, accurding tu the view nf Jesus, man cannnt
du mnre or better than fulfil the laW'(Matt. 5 : 17, 48). Only the law muat be under
stund nut in the letter, but in the spirit (Matt. 5). The perfectinn tn which Jesua
calls the ynung man is nut the fulfilling uf a law superior tn the law strictly an called,
but the real fulfilling, in uppnaitiun tu that external, literal fulfilling which the ynung
man already had (ver. 31). This nne thing which he lacka is the spirit nf the law,
that is, luve ready tn give everything): thia ia the whnle nf the law (Luke 6). The
wurda. Thou shalt have treasure in heaven, dn nut aignify tbat thia almagiving wUl
upen heaven tu him, but that, when he shall have entered intu thia abnde, he vvUl find
there, aa the result nf hia aacrifice, grateful beinga, whuse luve shall be tu him an in-
exhauatible treaaure (aee at 16 : 9). The act, which ia the i:eal cunditiun nf entering
heaven, ia indicated by the last word, tn which the whnle cunvergea. Follow me. The
mnde uf fnllnwing Jeaus varies accnrding tn times. At that time, in nrder tn be in
wardly attached te Him, it waa necesaary for a man to ieUow Him externally, and
consequently to abandun his earthly puaitiun. At the preaent day, when Jeaua Uvea
nn mnre in the bndy here belnw, the unly cnnditinn ia the apiritual une, but with aU
thnse mnral cunditiuna which fluw from uur relatinn tu Him, accurding tn each cue's
character and place. The surrnw which this anawer nccasinna the ynung man is ex
pressed by Mark in the mnst dramatic way : He heaved a deep sigh {arvyvdaai). The
Gospel nf the Hebrews thus deacribed thia scene: "Then the rich man began to
scratch his head, fur that was nnt tu hia mind. And the Lurd said tn him : Hnw,
then, canst thnu say, I have kept the law ; fnr it ia written in the law, Thnu shalt
luve thy neighbnr as thyself ; and lu I many uf thy brethren, children nf Abraham,
live in the gutter, and die nf hunger, while thy table is leaded with gund things, and
nnthing is sent nut tu them ?"* Such is the writing which snme mndern critica {e.g.
Baur) allege tn be the nriginal nf nur Matthew, and the parent of our synnptical
literature ! * Quoted by Origen, in Matt. 19 ; 194

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 413
2d. Vers. 24-37.* The Conversation regarding the Rich Man. — ^It is not the fact of
proprietorship which hindera the soul from taking its flight to spiritual blessings ; it
is the feeling of security which it inspires. So, in Mark, Jeaua saya, in explanation
of His firat declaration : " How hard ia it for iliem thai truat in riches teenier . . . !"
The Shemites denote the impoaaibility of a thing by the image uf a heavUy laden
camel arriving at a city gate which is Inw and narrow, and through which it cannut
pass. Then, tn give this image the piquant fnrm which the Oriental proverb Invea,
this gate is transfnrmed intu the eye nf a needle. Snme cemmentaturs and cnpyists,
nut understanding this flgure, have changed KapyXoS, camel, intu KupiXoS (the y was
prnnnunced (), a very unusual wnrd, which dnes nnt uccur even in tbe ancient lexi-
cugraphers, and which, it is alleged, snmetimes denntes a ship's cable. In the re
ceived text (TpvpaXiaS fia^idos), (laipidoS is a currectinn burrowed from Mark and Mat
thew ; the true reading in Luke is BeXdvyS, which also signifies needle. Instead of the
word TpvpaXia, the Alex, read rpinypa (or rpypa). The first fnrm might cnme frnm
Mark ; but it is mnre prnbable that it is the secnnd which is taken from Matthew,
the Gnspel mnst generally used. We muat therefure read in Luke, rpvpaXids (3fWvi?5.
Tn exclude the rich from salvatiun was, it seemed. In exclude all ; fur if the mnst
blessed amnng men can only be saved with difficulty, what will become of the reat ?
Such appears te be the connection between vers. 25 and 36. De Wette joins them
in a aomewhat different way : " Aa every one mnre nr leaa aeeks riches, nnne there:
fnre can be saved." This cunnectinn is leas natural. Jeaus, accurding tn Matthew
and Mark, at this pnint turns nn His diaciplea a Innk full nf earneatneas {ipBXiijias
airois, looking upon them) : ." It is but tnu true ; but there is a aphere in which the
impnsaible is pnaaible, that nf the divine nperatinn {napd t^ Oetji, with God.)" Thus
Jesus in the twinkjing uf an eye lifts the mind uf Hia hearers from human wnrks, nf
which alnne the ynung man was thinking, tn that divine wurk nf radical regeneratinn
which proceeds frnm the One nnly gund, and nf which Jesus ia alnne the inatru
ment. Cnmp. a similar aud equally rapid gradatinn nf ideaa, Juhn 3:3,5. Which
wnuld have been better fur this ynung man — tn leave his gnuds tn becume the cnm
paniun in labnr uf the St. Peters and St. Jehna, nr tn keep thnae pnaaessinns sn sunn
tu be laid waste by the Rnman legiuns ?
Sd. Vers. 38-30.t The Converaation regarding ihe Disciples. — There had been a day
in the life uf the diaciples when a similar alternative had been puftefore them ; they
had resolved it in a different way. What waa to accrue to them from the course which
they had taken ? Peter aaka the queation innocently, in the name of all. The form nf
hia inquiry in Matthew, What shall we have ilierefwe? cnntaina, mnre expressly than
that nf Luke and Mark, the idea uf an expected recumpense. In Matthew, the Lnrd
enters at nnce intn Peter's thnught, and makea a special prnmise tu the Twelve, une of
the grandest which He addreaaed tn them. Then, in the parable nf the labnrera, He
warns them agaiust indulging pride, uH the ground that they have been the flrijt tn
fnUuw Him. It is difflcult fully tn harmnnize thia parable with the special promise
* Ver. 34. 5t. B. L. 4 Mnn. nmit nepiXvnov yevopevov. B. L., EianopEvovrai instead
of EWEXEvaovrai. "Ver. 35. S. 7 Mnn., KapiXov inatead uf KupyXov. !». B. D. rpyparoS,
L. R. Tpvnyparos, instead nf rpvpaXias. S. B. D. L. 8 Mnn., jSeXovyS instead of
pa^idos. A. D. M. P. 30 Mnn. Syr'^"'. itP''"*"", Vg., dieXBeiv inatead nf eioeXBeiv.
X Ver. 38. 8'^ .B. D. L. anme Mnn. ItP'"'«i«», a<fiEVTES idia instead uf afyKupev navra
KUl. Ver. 30. ». b! L. 3 Mnn., <?s ovxi instead nf oS av. B. D. M. 10 Mnn., Xafly in._
stead uf anoXaBy.

414 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
which precedes it, withnut hnlding that the prnmise was cunditional, and was net to
be fulfilled, except in sn far as they did nnt abandnn themselves to the spirit of pride
combated' in the parable, which savors of refinement. As, therefore, Luke placea
this same prnmise in a whnlly different setting, 33 : 38-30, a cnntext with which it
perfectly agrees, it is prnbable that Matthew placed it here thrnugh an aaanciatinn uf
ideas which admits nf easy explanatinn. Accnrding tn Luke and Mark, the premise
by which Jesus answered Peter is such as to apply to all believers ; and it behoved
to be so, if Jesus did not wish to favor the feeUng nf self-exaltatiun which breathed
in the questinn nf the apnstle. There is even in the fnrm. There ia no man
that . . . (Mark and Luke), the express intentinn tn give to thia prnmise the
widest pnssible applicatiun. All the relatinna ef natural life find their analngies in
the bunds furmed by cnmmunity nf faith. Hence there ariaea fur the believer a cum-
pensatinn fur.the painful rupture nf fleshly ties, which Jesua knew su well by expe
rience (8 : 19-31 ; cump. with 8 : 1-3) ; and every true believer can, Uke Him, speak
nf fathers and muthera, brethren and children, who fnrm his new spiritual family.
Luke and Mark speak, besidea, of houaea ; Matthew, nf lands. The cnmmuninn uf
Chriatian luve in reality procures fur each believer the enjuyment nf every aurt uf
gnnd belnuging tn his brethren ; yet, tn prevent His disciples frnm supposing that it
is an earthly paradise tu which He is inviting them. He adds in Mark, with perse
cutions. Matthew and Luke had asauredly nu dngmatic reasnn fur nmitting this impnr
tant currectiun, if they had knnwn it. Luke likewiae umita here the maxim, " Many
that are first shall be last, etc. . . . " with which this piece clnses in Mark, and
which in Matthew introduces the parable nf the laburers.
The cummun snurce nf the three Syn. cannut be the protn-Mark, as Hnltz
mann wUl have it, unless we hnld it to be at their uwn hand that Luke ascribes to
this rich man the title, ruler uf the synagogue, and that Matthew calls him a yeunjg
man. As tn Luke's Ebinnite tendency, criticism is buund tu acknnwledge, with this
piece befnre it, that if salvatinn by vnluntary pnverty ia really taught in uur Gnspel,
it ia nnt leas decidedly sn by the nther twu Syn. that it is a hereay, cnnaequently,
nnt nf Luke, but nf Jeaus — nr rather, a snund exegesis can find nu auch thing in the
dnctrines which nur three evangelists agree in putting in the Master's mnuth.
6. 2%« TTiird Announcement of the Paasion: 18 : 31-34.— Vers. 31-34. Twice
already Jesus had annnunced tu His disciples His approaching sufferinga (9 : 18, ei
seq., 43, ei seq.) ; yet, aa proved by the request ef the two suns nf Zebedee (Matt.
30 : 30 ; Mark 10 : 35), their hupea cnnatantly turned tuward an earthly kingdnm. In
renewing the annnuncement uf Hia Paasinn, Jeaua labnrs tu abate the nffence which
this event wUl uccasinn, and even tu cnnvert it intu a support fur their faith, when at
a later date they shall cnmpare this catastrophe with the sayings by which He pre
pared them fur it (Juhn 13 : 19). Mark prefaces this third annnuncement by a
remarkable intruductinn (10 : 33). Jesus walks befcre them nn the rnad ; they fol-
Inw, astunished and alarmed. Thia picture reminds us nf the expreasinn. He aet His
face steadfastly (Luke 9 : 51), as well as uf the sayings nf the disciples and uf Thnmas
(Jnhn 11 : 8, 16). What substantial harmnny under this diversity of form I In
general, Luke does net quote propheciea ; he does so here once for aU, and, as it
were, in the mass. The dative, t^ vif>, may be made dependent nn yeypappevdf
" written fnr the Son of man," as the sketch uf His cnurse ; ur TeXtaByaerai, " shall
be accumplished in respect tu the Sun nf man, " in His persun. The f rst cnnstruction
is simpler. The fnrm of the fut. passive used by Luke denotes passive abandonment
to suffering mnre forcibly than the active futures uaed by Matthew and Mark. The

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. il5
kmd of death is not mdicated in Luke and Mark se positively as in Matthew (oTowpu-
aai) ; nevertheless the details in this third announcement are mnre precise and mure
dramatic than in the preceding. See at 9 : 45. On ver. 34 Riggenbach justly
nbserves : " Tnward everything which is contrary tn natural desh-e, there is produced
in the heart a blindness which nothing but a miracle can heaJ."
As ver. 34 haa no parallel in the other two Syn. , Holtzmann thinks that Luke makes
this reflection a substitute for the account of the request preferred by Zebedee's sons,
which is found here in the narratives of Matthew and Mark. But dees nnt a perfectly
similar reflectinn uccur in the sequel nf the aecund annnuncement of the Passinn
(9 : 45), where nu auch mtentinn is admissible ? It is difflcult fnr thnse who regard
Luke a Guspel as aystematically hnstile tn the Twelve, tn explain the nmissinn of a
fact so unfavnrable tn twn nf the leading apnstles. Vnlkmar (" Die Evangel." p.
501) has fnund the snlution : Luke wishes to avoid offending the Judeo-Christian
party, which he desires to gain over to Paulinism ! So, artful in what he says, more
artful in his sUence— such is Luke iu the estimate of this scheol of criticism !
7. The Healing qf Bartimeua : 1&; 35-43. — John's very exact narrative serves
to cemplete the synoptical account. The sojourn of Jesus in Perea was inter
rupted by the caU which led Jesus tn Bethany to the help ot Lazarus (Jnhn 11).
Thence He prnceeds tu Ephraim, nn the Samaritan side, where He remained in retire
ment with His disciples (Juhn 11 : 54). It waa dnubtless at this time that the third
¦ annnuncement nf Hia Paasinn tnnk place. On the apprnach of the feaat of Paaaover,
He went down the valley nf the Jnrdan, lejnining at Jerichn the Galilean caravans
which arrived by way of Perea. He had resnlved this time tu enter Jerusalem with
the greatest publicity, and tu present Himself tu the penple and tn the Sanhedrim in
the character nf a king. It waa Hia hour, the hnur of His manifestatiun, expected
long agu by Mary (Jnhn 2 : 4), and which His brethren (Jnhn 7 : 6-8) had thuught tn
precipitate. Vers. 35-43.* Luke speaks nf a Mind man sitting by the wayside, whnm Jesus
cured aa He came nigh tn Jerichn ; Mark gives thia man's name, Ba/riimeus ; accnrd
ing tn hia accnunt, it waa aa Jeaus went out nf Jerichn that He healed him ; flnally,
Matthew speaks nf two blind men, whu were healed as Jesus departed from the city.
The three accuunts harmnnize, as in sn many cases, nnly in the wnrds of the dia
lngue ; the tenur nf the sufferer's prayer and ef the reply uf Jeaua ia almnst identical
' in the three (ver. 38 and parallel). Of thnse three narratives, that of Mark is undoubt
edly the most exact and pictureaque ; and in the caae of a real difference, it is to this
evangelist that we muat give the preference. It has been observed, however (Andres
Beweis des Olaubens, July and August, 1870), that Josephus and Eusebius distin
guished between the old and the new Jericho, and that the two blind men might have
been found, the one aa they went out nf the nne city, the uther at the entrance of the
other. Or, indeed, it is net impossible that two cures tnnk place en that day, the une
nn the uccaaien of their entrance into the city, the nther nn their leaving it, which
Matthew has combined ; Luke applying to the one, following a tradition slightly
altered, the special details which had characterized the other. This double modiflca-
tion might have been the more easily introduced into the oral narrative, if Jesus,
coming frum Ephraim to Jericho, entered the city, as is very prubable, by the same
road and by the same gate by which He left it to go to Jerusalem. If there were
* Ver. 35. !*. B. D. L., enairuv inatead nf npoaairuv. Ver. 38. A. E. K. n. 10
Mnn. nmit lyaav. 'Ver. 39. B. D. L. P. X. some .Mnn., aiyyaii instead uf aiunyae,
Ver. 41. is. B. D. L. X. nmit Xeyav before n.

416 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
two blmd men, they might then have been healed almost on the same spot. The
name Bartimeiis {aon of Timeua), which Mark has preserved, cnmes either from the
Greek name TipaioS, the hrnioroible, ur from the Aramaic, sarnie, sarnia, blind; bUnd,
sen of the bUnd (Hitzig, Keun). Mark adds : the blind man. The term suggests the
name by which he was knnwn in the place.
The address, son of Bavid, is a furm of undisguised Messianic worship. This
utterance would suffice to show the state nf men'a minds at that time. The rebuke
addressed tn him by the members of the company (ver. 39) has no bearing whatever
on the use of this title. It seems tn them much rather tbat there is presumptinn vn.
the part of a beggar in thus stepping the progress of so exalted a personage. The
readingof the T. R., <jionya% is prnbably taken from the parallels. We must read,
with the Alex. : aiyyaij (a term mnre rarely uaed). Nnthing cuuld be mure natural
than the sudden change which is effected in the cnnduct uf the multitude, aa snun as
they observe the favorable dispusitinn of Jesus ; they furm sn many inimitable char
acteristics preserved by Mark nnly. With a majesty truly royal, Jesus seems to
open up to the beggar the treaaurea of divine power : " What wilt thou that I ehaU
do unto thee ?" and tn give him, if we may sn speak, carte blanche (5 -: 41).
In replying to the blind man's prayer, ver. 43, He saya, thy faith, nut, my power,
tn impress nn him the value nf that dispusitinn, in view nf the stiU mnre impnrtant
spiritual miracle which remains tn be wruught in him, and, hath saved thee, nnl, hatk
made thee whole ; althnugh his life was in nn danger, tu shnw him that in thia cure
there lies the beginning cf hia salvatinn, if he will keep up the bund nf faith between
him tincl tho Saviuur's perann. Jesus allnws Bartimeus tn give full scupe tn his grati
tude, and tho crowd tu express alnud their admiratiun and jny. The time fnr cau-
tinus measures is past. Those feelings tn which the multitude give themselves up are
the broath preceding that anticipatiun of Pentecnst which is called Palm Day.
M^i^eiv relates to the pnwer, alvelv tu the goodness of God (2 : 30).

The imdeuiablo superiority of Mark's narrative obliges Bleek to give up here, at
least in part, his untenable position of regarding Mark as the compiler of the two
others. Ilo acknowledges, that even while using the narrative of the nther two, he
must have hcd in this case a separate and independent source. So far well ; but is it
possible that this snurce absnlutely cnntained nothing mnre than this nne narrative ?
Ilollzniann, nn the nther hand, whn regarda the prutn-Mark as the origin of the
three Syn., flnds it no lesa impoasible to explain hnw Matthew and Luke cnuld so
completely alter the historical side of the accuunt (the nne ; twn blind men instead
of ono ; the other : the healing befnre entering Jerichn rather than after, etc.), and
tn spoil at will its dramatic beauty, an well reproduced by Mark. And what aigniflea
the explanatinn given by Hultzmann of Luke's transpusitinn uf the miracle, and
which is burrowed frnm Bleek : tbat Luke has been led by the succeeding histnry of
Zaccheus to place the healing before the entrance into Jericho 1
Volkmar,' who derives Luke from Mark, and Matthew from the two combined,
alleges that Hark intended the blind man to be the type ef the Gentiles who seek the
Saviour (hence the name Bartimeus ; Timeua cnmes, accnrding tn him, frnm Thima,
the undean) ; and the cumpany whu fnllnwed Him, and whn wish tn impnse alienee
on the man, to be types of the Judoo-Christians, whn denied tu the Gentilea access to
the Messiah of Israel. If Luke emits the moat picturesque details, it is becauae of
his prcsaic character. If he omits the name Bartimeus, it is because he is nffended
at finding the Gentiles designated as impure beings. If he places the miracle before
entering Jericho, it is because he distinguiahes the healing uf the man frum that of
his Paganism, which shall l» placed after, and that in the salvation granted to

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 417
Zaccheus.* Zaccheus, the pure, is the cnunterpart uf Timeus, ihe unclean ("Die
Evangel." pp. 503-505). Of its kind this is the cliinax ! Such is the game of hide
and seek which the evangeUsts played with the Churches nn the tbeme nf the persnn
nf Jesus ! After thia we need give nu other proofs of this author's sagacity.
8. Jeaua at the House of Zaccheus: 19 :1-10. — Vers. l-lO.f In Matthew and Mark
the account of Jeaua' entry inte Jerusalem immediately follnws that of the healing nf
Bartimeus. There ia a blank left by them, fur Jeaua stayed at Bethan.v, and there
passed at leaat one night (Jnhn 12 : 1, et seq.). Thia blank, according tu Luke, is still
more cunsiderable. Fnr befnre arriving at Bethany, Jesus stupped at Jerichn, and
there passed the night (ver. 5). Luke's snurce is original, and independent of the
nther twn Syn. It was Aramaic, as is proved by the heaping up of Kai, the para-
tactic form, aa well as the expreaaion dvdpari KuXovpevoS, vers. 1, 3. Cnmp. 1 : 61.
The name Zaccheua, from "i^i, io be ¦pure, prnves the Jewish nrigin nf the man.
There must have been at Jerichn une of the principal custum-hnuses, both on account
of the exportation of the balm which grew in that oasis, and which was sold in all
countries ef the world, and on account ef the considerable traffic which took place
on this read, by which lay the route from Perea to Judea and Egypt. Zaccheus
was at the head of the nfflce. The persnn uf Jesua attracted his peculiar interest, nn
doubt because he had heard tell nf the beuevulence shnwn by thia prnphet tn peuple
of his class. Must certainly r'lS 'eari (ver. 3) dnes nnt signify : which nf the members
nf the cumpany He was (Bleek), but : what waa Hia appearance. After having accum
panied the crowd fnr a little, withnut gaining his end, he nutruns it.
The sycamnre ia a tree wilh Inw hnrizuntal branchea, and cunaequently of easy
ascent. 'EKeivys, fnr : di' eKeivyS odov (ver. 19). Waa the attentinn nf Jesua called
to his presence in the tree by the lunks which the peuple directed tnward him ?
Did He, at the same time, hear His name prnnnunced in the cruwd ? In this case, it
is mmecesaary tn regard the address nf Jeaua aa the effect uf supernatural knuwMge.
There is snmething nf pleasantness, and even nf sprightliness, in the fnrm : " Make
haate and cnme dnwn ; fur tn-day I must abide at thy hnuae." The wurd muat indi
cates that Jesus haa recngnized in him, en account of this eager desire which he has
to see him, the bust whnm His Father haa chuaen fur Him at Jerichn.- Here there is
a lust sheep tu be fnund. It is tbe same unwearied cunvictinn cf His missiun as in
meeting -with the Samaritan wnman. What absnlute cnnsecratiun to the divine wurk !
And what suvereign independence nf human opininn I In the multitude, which is
yet swayed by pharisaic prejudices, there is general discuntent. There ia nnthing tn
ahuw that the diaciplea are alan included under the wurds : " They all murmured."
The expreaaiun araBeis de, " but Zaccheus standing" (befure the Lurd, ver. 8), im
mediately cnnnects the fnllnwing wnrds nf the pubUcan with thuse pnpular murmurs.
* It might be thuught that we are jesting. Here are the wurds : " The blind
mendicant nf Mark is cleft by Luke intn twn halves : {a) The blind man as such,
whum he places befure the entrance nf Jerichn ; (6) the Pagan element in the blind
man, which is placed after leaving .Teriche (in Zaccheus)."
t Ver. 2. D. G. 7 Mnn. Syr. Itpi«i-'q"», 'Vg. nmit naXovpevos. !*. L. Syr°»'. omit
ovToS between kui and yv. B K. n. anme Mnn. It""*. Vg. nmit yv. Ver. 4. The
MSS. are divided between npodpapuv (T. R. and Alex.) and npoadpapov (Byz. and 25
Mnn.). S. B. L. add «tf to befure epnpaaBev. Inatead uf di' exsivys, which T. R. rOads
with A. and 3 Mnn. unly, aU the uthers, exeivys. Ver. 5. K. B. L. nmit the wnrda
eidev avrov kui. Ver. 8. G. K. M. H. several Mun., nvpiov instead nf l^qaovv. Yer^ 9,
S* L. R. nmit eanv after A^paan,

418. COMMENTARY ON ST. LUlttl.
Srafl«iS denntes a firm and dignified attitude, such as suits a man whnse hnnnr is
attacked. " He whnm Thuu hast thought gnud to chunse aa Thy hnst, is nnt, as is
alleged, a being unworthy of Thy choice." Did Zaccheus pronounce the words of
ver. 8 at the time when Jeaua had just come under his roof ? This is what we should
he led te suppose at the first glance by the words ; but lie stood; neverthelesa, this
movement en the part of Zaccheus would appear a little hasty, and the answer of
Jesus : Salvation is oome (ver. 9), proves that He had already sojourned for a time
with His heat. Was it, then, at the moment when Jesus was resuming His jouruey
(Schleiermacher, Olshausen) ? Vers. 11 and 28 may support thia suppusitinn. But
the wurd to-day (ver. 9), which recalls the to-day uf ver. 5, places this dialngue nn
the very day nf His arrival. The mnst suitable time appears tu be that nf the even
ing meal, whUe Jesus ccnverses peacefully with His hust and the numerous guests.
Unless the terms nf vers. 11 and 28 are immnderately pressed, they are nut nppnsed
tn this view.
Mnst mudern interpreters take the wurds nf Zaccheus as a vuw inspired by hia
gratitude fnr the grace which he has just experienced. 'Idov, behold, is taken tn indi
cate a sudden resnlutinn : " Take nute of thia resnlutinn : Frnm thia mnment I give
. . . and I pledge myself tn reature . . ." But if the pres. I give may (x,r-
tainly apply to a gift which Zaccheus makes at the iuatant nnce for aU, the jn-es. I
restore fourfold seema rather tu designate a rule uf cunduct already admitted and long
practised by him. It is unnatural tn apply it tn a measure which wnuld relate unly
-to snme special cases nf injustice tn be repaired in the future. 'Idai, behold, is in
keeping wilh the unexpected revelatiun, su far as the public are cuncerned, in this
rule of Zaccheus, till then unknuwn by all, and which he nnw reveals, nnly tn shnw
the injustice nf thnse murmurs with which the cnurse uf Jesus is met. " Thnu hast
not brought cuntempt on Thyself by accepting me aa Thy heat, publican thnugh I
am; and it isnn ill-gntten gain with which I entertain Thee." In this sense, the
arttSelS Se,. but he stood, is f uUy intelligible. By the half nf his gnuds, Zaccheus, of
course, understands the half ef his yearly incume. In the caae uf a wrung done to a
neighbor, the law exacted, when reatitution was voluntary, a fifth over and above
the sum taken away (Num. 5 : 6, 7). Zaccheus went vastly further. Perhapa the
restitution which he imposed on himself was that forcibly exacted from the detected
thief. In a professiun like his, it was easy to commit involuntary injustices. Be
sides, Zaccheus had under his authnrity many empluy 6s fnr whum he cuuld not
answer. Jesus accepts this apnlcgy nf Zaccheua, which indeed has its wurth in reply tn the
murmurs uf the crowd ; and withnut alluwing the least meriturinus value tu those
restitutinns and thnse extranrdinary almagiviugs. He declares that Zaccheua is the
ubject uf divine grace as much as thnse can be whu accuse him. Hia entrance into
his hnuse haa bruught salvatiun thither. Nutwithstanding the wnrds, "Jesus said
untn him . . " the wnrds fnllnwing are addressed nut tn Zaccheus, but tn the
entire assembly. The npds airdv, unto him, therefure signifles : with His eyes turned
upnn him as the subject uf His answer ; cump. 7 : 44, Jesus ia the living salvation.
Received as He was intu the huuse. He brought intn it by His very presence this
heavenly blessing. KaBon, agreeably to the fact thai (fur sn much as), indicates the
reasnn why Jesus can assert that Zaccheus is aaved thia day. But is this reasnn the
fact that Zaccheus is a descendant of Abraham accnrding tn the fleah, and has pre
served this characteriatic as much aa any nther Jew, .nntwithstanding hia Rabbinical

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 419
excnmmunicatiun ? Nn ; Jesus cuuld nnt make the pussibiUty uf salvatiun dependent
nn the naked characteristic nf being a member of the Israelitish natinn. This idea
wuuld be in cuntradictinn tu His whnle teaching, and tu the very saying which cun-
cludes this verse. The term, son cf Abraham,, muat therefnre be taken in its spiritual
sense : " Zaccheus ia reatured tn this character which he had Inat by his excemmuni-
catinn. He pussesses it in a still higher senae than that in which he had lust it."
Ver. 10. Bost, su ikr as a sun nf Abraham accnrding tn the flesh ; \mt found (lie, the
same nne, /cai airdi), as a snn uf Abraham accnrding tn the spirit. Thus the maxim
nf ver. 10 readily cnnnects j|self with ver. 9.
Accnrding tn HUgenfeld (p. 206), this piece is nut in the least Pauline ; it belnngs
tn the ancient Ebinnite snurce. Accnrding tu Hnltzmann, nn the cnntrary (p. 234), it
is entirely Luke's. It may be aeen huw critica agree with nne annther on questinns .
of this sort I As cuncerns nuraelves, we have established an Aramaic snurce. On
the nther hand, we are at nne with Hnltzmann in acknnwledging the traces of Luke's
style {koSoti, ver. 9 ; yXucia, ver. 3 ; CKeivyS, ver. 4 ; diayoyyv^eiv, ver. 7). Hence we
conclude that Luke himself translated into Greek this accuunt, which is taken frnm
an Aramaic dncument.
9. The Parable of the Pouncls: 19 -.11-217. — Ver. 11. The Introduction. — We have
already observed in the multitudes (14 : 25, 18 : 38, 19 : 1-3), and even in the dis
ciples (18 : 31 ; cnmp. with Matt 20 : 30, ei seq,), the traces cf an excited state. Ver.
11 shuws that it went nn increasing as they approached Jerusalem. The profound
calmness and aelf-pnsseaainn of Jesus cnntrasta wilh the agitation which ia produced
around Him. The wnrda dKovdvrov airuv, " as they heard these things,'' and npoaBels
eine, " He added, and spake," establish a clnse relatinn between the parable nf the
punnds and the preceding cnnversatinn. But we need not cunclude therefrom that
this parable was uttered as a continuation uf the cunversation. It may, indeed, have
been sn merely in respect nf time (ver. 38). The relatiun indicated by the intrnduc-
tiun ia purely mural : the su atriking cnntraat between the cunduct nf Jeaus tnward
Zaccheus, and the generally received ideas, waa such that every nne felt that a deci
aive crisia was near. The new was un the eve uf appearing ; and this imminent revn-
lutinn naturally preaented itself to the imaginatinn of all in the furm in which it had
always been described tn them. The wnrd napaxpypa, im/mediately, stands flrst in the
prnpnsitinn, because it expresses the thnught against which the parable fnllnwing is
directed. The verb, dva^aiveoBai, to appear, anawera well tn the great spectacle for
which they were Innking. That Luke himaelf deduced thia introduction frnm the
cnntenta uf the parable, as WeizaScker auppuses, is nnt impnssible. But up to this
pnint we have tnn nften recngnized the hiatnrical value of thnse shnrt intrnductinns,
nnt tn admit that Luke's anurce, from which he tcuk the parable, cnntained snme
indication nf the circumstances which had called it fnrth.
Vers. 13-14.* The Probaiion.—A man of noble birth gees to ask from the sovereign
nf the cnuntry which he inhabits the gnvernment of bia province. Before undertak
ing this journey, which must be a Inng une — fer the suvereign dwells in a distant
cnuntry — this man, cuncerned abuut the future administration ef the state after his
return, puts to the pruuf the servants whu have till nuw fnrmed his own hnusebold,
and whnm he prupnses afterward tn make his nfflcers. Fur that purpuse he con
fides tn each nf them a sum of money, to be tumed to account in his absence. Hereby
he wUl be able to estimate their fldelity and capabiUty, and to assign them in the new
* Ver. 13. 8 Mjj. 30 Mnn, Or. read ev a instead of eoS.

430 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
state nf things a place prnpurtiuned tn the qualities nf which they shall have given
proof. Meanwhile the future subjects protest before the sovereign against the eleva
tion of their feUow-citizen. Seme features in this picture seem burrnwed from the
pnlitical situatinn uf the Huly Land. Jnsephus relates that un the death uf Hernd the
Great, Archelaus, his snn, whnm he had appuinted his heir, repaired tu Rnme to
request that Augustus wnuld invest him in his father's dumininns, but that the Jews,
wearied of this dynasty nf adventurers, begged the emperor rather tu cnnvert their
cnuntry intu a Rnman province. This case might the mere readily uccur tu the mind
nf Jesus, as at that very Jerichn where He was speaking there stund the magnificent
palace which this Archelaus had buUt. The wnrd siyevys, of noble birth, evidently
refers tn the superhuman nature uf Jesus. Ma/cpav is an adverb, as at 15 : 13. This
far distance is the emblem cf the lung interval which, in the view cf Jesua, was te
separate His departure frum His returu.
The expressiun, to receive a kingdom, includes the installatinn nf Jeaua iu Hia
heavenly pnwer, aa well aa the preparatinn nf Hia Measianic kingdum here belnw
by the sending nf the Huly Spirit and His wurk iu the Church. A mina, amnng the
Hebrews, was wurth abnut £6 sterling.* It ia nnt, aa in Matt. 25 : 14, aU hia goods,
which the master diatributea ; the aum, tun, is much less cunsiderable ; the talenta of
which Matthew apeaka are each worth about £400. The idea ia therefere different.
In Luke, the money iutruated is simply a means of testing. In Matthew, the matter
in questien is the adminiatration of the owner'a fortune. The sums intrusted, being
in Luke the same fnr all the servants, repreaent nut gifts {xapiapara), which are very
varinus, bnt the grace nf salvatinn cnmrann tu all believers (pardun and the Huly
Spirit). The pusitinn of every believer in the future kingdom depends nn the use
which he makes nf that grace here belnw. It is surpriaing tn hear Jesus call this
salvatinn an iXdxtarov, a very little (ver. 17). What an ideauf future glury is given to
us by thia saying ! The Alex, reading, iv ip, ver. 13, aasumea that ipxopai has the
meaning nf travelling; while with toS it wnuld aignify i!o arme. The first reading
implies that the time during which the absence of Jesus laata ia a constant returning,
which is perfectly in keeping with the biblical view. " I say unto you, that from
iAis to'me ye shall see the Snn nf man sitting nu the throne . . . and coming in the
clouds of heaven," Matt. 26 : 64. The aacenainn is the first step in His return here
belnw. Ver. 14 describes the resistance nf thfe Jewa tn the Messianic severeignty ot
Jesus, and that during aU the time which separates His firat frnm Hia secund cuming.
Vers. 15-19.f The Faithful Servants. — Frnm ver. 15 nnward Jeaus depicts what
will happen at the Paruusia. Every aervant will share in the pnwer nf hia master,
nuw become king, in a degree prnpurtiuned tn his activity during the time nf hia pru
batiun (the reign nf grace). While the means nf actinn had been the same, the
results differ ; the amnunt nf pnwer cnmmitted tn each will therefnre alsn differ in
the same prnpurtiun. It is entirely ntherwise in Matthew. The sums comraitted
were different ; the results are equal in an far as they are prnpnrtinned tn the aums
received ; there ia therefnre here equality nf faithfulness and equal teslimnn.y nf aatis
factinn. Everything in Matthew's representatinn turns nn the persunal relation of
the servants to their master, whnse fnrtune (ver. 14, his gnods) they are commissioned
, * Keii, " Handb. der Bibl. ArchSologie," vol. ii. p. 144.
X Ver. 15. S. B. D. L. sorae Mnn. Or., deduKei instead of eduKev. S. B. D. L,
gyjour Or., TL dienpaypare-oaavTO instead of Tig ri dienpayparevaaro. Ver. 17, B, D. 3
Mnn, Or., evye instead nf ev,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE, 431
to administer and increase, and who rejoices equally in the active fidelity ef all ;
whUe in Luke the one puint in question is tu settle the position of the servants in the
econumy of glory which is opening, and consequently te determine the proportion of
faithfulness diaplayed during the time of labor and probation which haa just closed.
The ten, the five citiea (vers. 17 and 19), repreaent moral beings in a lower atate ef
develepment, but whom the glorified faithful are commissioned to raiae te their divine
destination. Vers. 30-37.* Of the other seven servants there is no mention ; they fall either
into the category' of the preceding, er inte thatof the following. The ground en
which the latter explains his inactivity is net a mere pretext. His language is
too plain-spoken not to be sincere. He is a beUever who haa net found the atate of
grace offered by Jesus so brUUant as he hoped— a legal Christian, whu has nut tasted
grace, and knnws nuthing nf the gnapel but its severe mnrality. It seems tc him
that the Lord gives very little tn exact an much. With such a feeling, the least pns
sible only will be dnne. Gnd ahuidd be satisfied with us if we abstain frnm dning ill,
from squandering nur talent. Such wuuld have been the language nf a Judas dis
satisfied with the pnverty nf Christ's spiritual kingdnm. In Matthew, the unfaithful
servant is offended nnt at the insufficiency uf the master's gifts in general, but at the
inferinrity uf thnse given tu himself, in cumparisnn with those of his associates.
This is a Judas embittered at the sight of the higher position assigned to Peter or
John. The master's answer (ver. 33) is an argumentum ad hominem : The more thou
knowest that I am austere, the more shouldest thnu have endeavured tn satisfy me 1
The Christian whu lacks the sweet experience nf grace nught to be the must anxinus
nf laburers. The fear Of dning Ul is nn reasnn fnr dning nnthing, especially when
there are means of actinn, the uae nf which cnvers nur entire respunsibility. What
dues Jesus mean by the banker ? Cnuld it be thnse Christian assuciatinns tn which
every believer may intrust the resuurces which he cannnt use himself ? It seems tu
ua that Jesus by this image wnuld rather represent the divine umniputence uf which
we may avail uurselves by prayer, withnut thereby expnsing the cause nf Christ tn any
risk. Of him who has nnt wurked the Lnrd wUl ask. Hast thnu at leaat prayed ?
The dispensatiun nf glury changes in the case cf such a servant intn an eternity of
Inas and shame. The huly wnrks which he might have wrought here belnw, alnng
with the pnwers by which he might have accumplished them, are cnmmitted tu the
servant whu has shnwn himself the must active. Thia ur that Pagan pnpulatinn, fnr
example, which might have been evangelized by the ynung Christian whn remained
un the earth the slave nf selflsh ease, shaU be cnmmitted in the future dispensation tn
the devoted missinnary whn has uaed hia puwera here belnw in the service ct Jeaus.
At ver. 36, the same fnrm nf address as at 13 : 41, 43, The Lnrd cnntinues as if nu
nbservatinn had been interpused, replying all the whUe, nevertheless, tu the ubjectinn
which has been started. There is a law, in virtue nf which every grace actively
appropriated increases nur receptivity fnr higher graces, 'whUe all grace rejected di-
minishes our aptitude for receiring new graces. From this lawef moral life it follows,
* Ver. 30. »". B. D. L. R. 3 Mnn., o erepoS inatead of erepoS. Ver, 33. 9 Mjj.
nmit de after Xeyei. Ver. 33. All the Mjj. (except K. nmit ryv befnre rpane^av. Ver.
26. S. B. L. 7 Mnn. nmit yap after Xeyo. !*. B. L. 7 Mnn. nmit an' aurou after
apByasrat. 'Ver. 27. The Mss. are divided between ekeivovs (T. R., Byz.) and tovtovs
(Alex.).' K. B. P. L. R. snme Mqu. Syr. add avrovs after Ka^^aaipaiaTe..

432 COMMENTARY ON ST. LDKE;
that gradually all graces must be cencentrated in faithful wurkers, and be withdrawn
from negligent servants. Chap. 8 : 18, Jesus said, lliat which lie seemeth to have ;
here he says, That he hath. The twn expressinns are true. We have a grace which
is bestuwed nn us ; but if we dn nut assimilate it actively, we dn nut really pnssess
it ; we imagine we have it.
Ver. 37 (cnmp. ver. 14) represents the Messiah's reckoning with the Jewish penple^
as vers. 15-36 repreaent His reckuning with the Church. JlXyv, only: " Alter judg
ing the aervants, there remains unly une thing." This punishment uf the Jews in
cludes, alnng with the destructinn nf Jerusalem, the state nf rejectinn in which they
are plunged till the Lurd'a return.
The ruling idea nf this parable in Luke ia therefure that uf a time nf probation
between the departure and the return of the Lord, neceasary to prepare the sentence
which shall fix the position ef every one iu the atate ef thinga fnllnwing the Parnuaia.
Hence fulluwa the impussibUity nt tbat immediate appearing nf the kingdnm uf Gnd
which filled the minds uf the crowd now accompanying Jesus to Jerusalem. Luke's-
parable thua forma, aa Holtzmann acknowledgea, a cemplete whole ; and whatever
the same learned critic may say, it muat be confessed that the introduction, ver. 11,
indicates its true bearing— a fact confirming the idea that this introduction belonged
to Luke's sources, and proceeded from accurate tradition.
The relation between this parable and that of the talents in Matthew is difflcult to
determine. Strauaa haa alleged that Luke's waa a combination of that of the hus
bandmen (Luke 30) and tbat nf the talents (Matt. 35). But the internal harmnny of
Luke's deacription, which Hnltzmann acknuwledges, dues nut admit uf this suppo
sitinn. Meyer regards it aa a rehandling uf the parable nf the talents in Matthew.
The actinn is undnubtedly simUar, but, aswe have seen, the thuught is radically differ
ent. 'The aim nf Matthew'a parable aeema tn be tn encuurage thnse whu have re
ceived less, by promising them the same apprnbatinn from the Master if they are
equally faithful, and by putting them un their guard against the temptatiun uf mak
ing their inferinrity a mntive tn spiritual indifference, and a pretext fur idleness. We
have seen that the idea nf the parable in Luke is quite different. It must therefore
be admitted that there were two parables uttered, but tbat their images were burrowed
from very similar fields uf life. The analngy betweeu the twn deacriptinns may
perhaps have caused the impurtatiun ut snme detaila from the nne intu the uther {e.g.,
the dialngue between the maater and the unfaithful aervant).
Here we have reached the end nf that juurney, the accnunt uf which begins 9 ; 51.
Jesua flrst traversed the countries lying aouth from the eld acene of His activity, then
the border regiona ef Samaria and Galilee, flnally Perea ; He haa thua ceme te the
gates ef Jerusalem. From the moral point uf view. His wurk also has reached a new
stage. On the une baud, the enthusiasm nf the penple is at its height, and all believ
ing Galilee, the nucleus nf His future Church in larael, accumpaniea Him tn furm
His retinue when He ahall make Hia kingly entry intu His capital ; un the nther. He
has cempletely broken with the pharisaic party, and Hia separation from the nation
as such, swayed by the pharisaic apirit, is consummated. He muat die ; fur tn let
Him live wnuld, nn the part uf the Sanhedrim, be tn abdicate.
We have nnt fnllnwed step by step Keim's criticism nn this last part of the jour
ney. It is the masterpiece of arbitrarlneas. Whatever dees nut aquare with the
prupurtinna of Jesua as settled befnrehand by the learned critic, is eliminated fur one
reasun ur anuther. Thnse reasnns are fuund withuut difflculty when sought. After
Jnhn, Luke is the moat abuaed. For Matthew's two bhnd men he substitutes one,

COltMEKTAllY OST ST. LUKE. 423
because he thinks right to reproduce the nther in the fnrm of the persnn of Zaccheus.
Timeus {the impure) becnmea Zaccheus {the pure), the impure pure ! Mark replaces
the secund by Timeus, the father (alsu blind) nf Bartimeus ! Keim here reaches the
height nf Vnlkmar. ']?he blindneaa is uvercurae by the pnwer nf enthuaiaam which
waa reigning at the mnment, and which, by exalting the furce nf the vital nervnus
fluid, renpens the clnsed eyes tempuraiily ur lastingly ! Luke in-vents, in the de
spised persnn of Zaccheus, a counterpart to proud Jerusalem, which knmos not the
day of her visitation (19 : 43). It is true that this laat expressinn nf Jesus, as well as
His tears over Jerusalem, with which it is connected, is invented, as much as the
history of Zaccheus. The twn counterparts are imaginary !

FIFTH PART.

SOJOUEN AT JEKUSALEM.

Chap. 19 : 38-31 : 38.
This part includes three principal events : I. The entry nf Jesus into Jerusalem
(19 : 38-44). II. The exercise ef His Messianic sovereignty in the temple-
(19 : 45-31 : 4). III. The prnphecy nf the destructinn ef Jerusalem and of the Jewish
people (31 : 5-38). The relation between these three events is easily understood. The
flrst is the final appeal of Jesus to Hia people ; with the secnnd there is cunnected the
decisive rejectinn nf Israel ; the third is, as it were, the pronouncmg of the sentence
which falls ou this refusal.

FIRST CYCLE. — CHAP. 19 1 38-44.
The Fniry of Jesus into Jerusalem.
This narrative embracea : lat The preparations for the entry (vers. 38-36) ; 2(2.
The joy of the disciples and of the multitude on coming in sight of Jerusalem (vers.
38-40) ; Sd. The tears of Jeaus at the aame instant (vers. 41-44).
1st. Vers. 38-36.* The Preparations for the Bntry.— The connection indicated
by the words, while thus speaking. He went, is rather moral than of time : " while
speaking thus [ef the unbeUef of larael], He nevertheleas continued His journey (im
perf. knopevero) to Jerusalem." 'EpnpoaBev signifies not inad^mnce{e'iS rd npoaBev), but
before [His disciples], at their head. Comp. Mark 10 : 33 : " They were in the wa/
gning up tu Jerusalem ; and Jesus went before them, and they were amazed, and as
they followed they were afraid."
According te Juhn, while the great bndy of the caravan pursued its way to Jerusa
lem, Jesus stepped at Bethany, where a feast was prepared fur Him, and where He
passed one er even two nights ; and it was after this stay that He solemnly entered
the capital, -n-here 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. 39. Marcion omitted aU the piece, vers. 39-46. Si. B. L. some Mnn. omit
avrov after /ioSiyruv. Ver. 30. S. B. D. L. 3 Mnn. Or., AEyuvinsteadof einov. B. D. ,
L. add KUl beforc Xvcavrs!. Ver. 31. 6 Mjj. S Man. Il»"i. Or. omit avru after epem, '.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 435
upon us somewhat abruptly. Bleek finds a certain obscurity in Luke's expressiun :
" When He came nigh tu Bethphage and Bethany ;" fnr it is nnt knnwn hnw thnse
twu localities are related. In Mark (11 : 1) the same difflculty (Matt. 31 : 1 does net
speak of Bethany). Add to this that the 0. T, nnwhere speaks nf a village called
Bethphage, and that traditinn, which indicates the site nf Bethany sn certainly, says
absnlutely nothing about that of this hamlet. The Talmud alone mentions Bethphage,
and in such a way as to show that this Incality was very near Jerusalem, and was
even juined tn the city. Bethphage is withuut the walls, it is said ; and the bread
which is prepared in it is sacred, like that which is made in the city (Bab. Pesachim,
63. 3 ; Menachoth, 7. 6, etc.)- , Lightfnut, Rfeuan, Caspari * have cnncluded frum
these passagea that Bethphage was nnt a hamlet, but a district, the precinct cf the city
extending eastward as far as the Mount ef Olives, and even lu Bethany. Accurding
tn the Rabbins, Jerusalem was tn the penple what the camp had formerly been tn
Israel in the wilderness. And aa at the great feaats the city cnuld nut cnntain all the
pilgrims who came from a distance, and whu shuuld strictly have found an abnde in
the cam/p (the city), and there celebrated the feast, there was added, they say, tn Jeru
salem, to make it sufficient, all this district situated un the side nf the Mnunt nf
Olives, and which bnre the name ot !Beihphage {place of figa). Bethany was the be
ginning of this district where the pilgrims encamped iu amasa ; and perhaps its name
came frum Beth-Chani, place ofbootlis (the metchants' tents set up in the sight nf thia
multitude) (Caspari, p. 163). Nuthing cnuld in this case be mnre exact than, the mude
of expression used by Luke and Mark : when he ca/me to Bethphage (the sacred dis
trict) and to Bethany (the hamlet where this district began). 'EXaiov might be taken
as the gen. plural of 'eXaia, olive trees {eXaiav). But in Josephua this word is the name
of the mountain itaelf {eXaiov, olive wood) ; comp. also Acts 1 : 13. This is the meat
probable sense in our passage. At ver. 37 and 33 : 39, where Luke uses this word in
the first sense, he indicates it by the art. tuv.
The sending of the two disciples prnves the deliberate intentinn nf Jesus tn give a
certain snlemnity tn this scene. Till then He had withdrawn from pnpular expres
sions of homage ; but once at least He wiahed to show Himaelf as King Messiah to
His penple (ver. 40). It was a last call addressed by Him tu the pnpulatinn uf Jeru
salem (ver. 43). This cnurse, besides, cnuld nn Innger cnmprnmise Hia v?urk. He
knew that in any case death awaited Him in the capital. Juhn (12 : 14) aays simply,
Jesus fnund the young ass, withuut indicating in what way. But the wurda which
fnllnw, " The disciples reniembered that they had dune these things untn Him," ver.
16, allude to a doing nn the part nf the disciples which Jnhn himseli has nnt men
tioned. His accnunt, therefnre. far frum contradicting that uf the Syn., assumes it
as true. The remark, whereon yet never man sat (ver. 30), is in keeping with the
kingly and Messianic use which is abnut tu be made ef the animal. Comp, Deut
31 : 3. Matthew nnt nnly mentiuns the cult, but alan the asa. Accumpanied by its
mother, the animal, though nut broken in, wnuld gn the more quietly What are we
tu think of the critics (Strauss, Vnlkmar) whn allege that, accnrding tn Matthew's
text, Jesus muunted the twn anhnals at nnce ! The ease with which Jesus cbtains
the use nt this beast, which does nnt belung tu Him, is anuther trait nf the rnyal great
ness which He thinks gnnd tu display nn this nccasiun.' OiroS, ver. 31 (Mark and
Matthew, eiQea?), " Thus ; and that will suffice."- Luke and Mark du nnt cite the
* " Chronol. geograph. Einleitung in das Leben Jesu," 1869, pp. 161 and 163,

436 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
prophecy nf Zechariah. It was uot necessary that every one should understand the
symbolical meaning nf this scene, and cnntrast the peaceful beast with^ the warlike
steeds nf earthly cnnquerurs. A new prunf nf the supernatural knnwledge nf Jesus,
which must nut be cnnfnunded with umniscience ; cnmp. 33 : 10, 31-34 ; Jnhn 1 : 49,
4 : 17, etc. Accnrding tn Mark, whu Inves tu describe details, the cult was tied tn a
dunr at a croaaway {ap<iiodoS). It was nn duubt the place where the httle path leading
to the huuae nf the nwners nf the ass went nff from the highway ; ur might it be the
crossing nf twu roads, that which Jesus fulluwed (gning frnm eaat tn west), and that
which tu the preaent day paaaea alnng the crest uf the mnuntain (from nnrth to south),?
The term Kiipios, Bord (ver. 34), shows the feeling of severeignty with which Jesus
acted. It is probable that He knew the owners. In substituting their garments for
the cover which it would have been so easy to procure, the disciples wished tn pay
hnmage tn Jesus — a fact bruught uut by the prnn. iavrdiv (ver. 35). Cump. 3 Kings
9:13. 2d. Vers. 37-40.* The Entry. — From the mument that Jeaua seats Himaelf on
the colt. He becomes the visible centre of the assemblage, and the scene takes a char
acter mere and more extraordinary. It is as if a breathing from above had all at once
taken possession of this multitude. The aight of the city und temple which upens up
at the mument cuntributes tu this burst nf jny and hupe (ver. 37). The object of
iyyil^ovTos, coming' nigh, is not npbs Ty Kara/Sdasi {npdc ryv would be necessary) ; it is
rather Jerusalem, the true geal ef the journey. Ilpas t^ ia a qualification of yp^avro :
" at the descent, they began." From thia elevated point, 300 feet above the terrace
nf the temple, which is itself raised abuut 140 feet abuve the level ut the valley nf the
Cedrun, an extensive view was had nf the city and the whule plain which it cnm-
manda, eapecially uf the'temple, which ruae oppusite, immediately abnve the valley.
All thnse hearts recall at this mnraent the miracles which have diatinguished the
career nf thia extraordinary man ; they are aware that at the point to which things
have ceme Hia entry into Jeruaalem cannot faU te issue in a decisive revolution,-
although they form au utterly false idea of that catastrophe.
John informs ua that among all thuae miraclea there was nne especially which ex
cited the enthusiasm uf the crowd ; that was the resurrectinn uf Lazarus. Already
nn the previnus evening very many pilgrims had cume from Jerusalem tn Bethany to
see nnt unly Jeaus, but alsn Lazarus, whn had been raised from the dead. This day
the prncesainn meets at every step with new truups arriving frnm the city ; and these
succeaaive meetinga call fnrth ever and again new bursts uf juy. The acclamatinn, ver,
88, ia takeu in part from Ps. 118 : 35. This hymn belunged tn the great Hallel, which
was chanted at the end uf the Paschal Supper as well as at the feast uf Taberiraclesi
The peuple were accuatumed tu apply the expreasinn. He who cometh in the name of ih^
Bord (in the Psalra, every faithful une whn came tn the feast), tu the Messiah. Prob
ably the wnrd PuoiXevS, king, is authentic in Luke ; and its umiasinn in snme mss,
arises from the texta nf the LXX. and uf Matthew. The expressinn, in the name of,
is dependent nnt un blessed be, but nn He who cometh : " the King whu cumes nn the
part nf Gud as His repreaentative." The peace in heaven is that nf the recuncUiation
* Ver. 37. The mss. are divided hetvreen yp^avro and i/pfaro, B. D., Travruv in
stead nf naouv. Ver. 38. Instead nf o epxopevos BaaiXsvS, which T. R. reada, S* H.
0 BaaiXevS, D. A. snme Mnn. It'"!, o epxopevos. Ver. 40. Ji. B. L. omit avroic. Hi. B.
L., Kpa^ovaiv instead ot KeKpa^ovrai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 437
which the Messiah comes te effect betweeu God and the earth. Luke emits the word
Hosanna, which his readers ef Gentile origin would not have understood.
The fact related vers. 39 and 40 belongs to Luke alone. Pharisees had mingled
-with the groups, to spy out what was passing. Aware that their authority is slipping
from them (John 13, : 19), they had reccurae to Jesus Himself, begging "Hira te keep
order in Hia crowd of followers. They are disgusted at seeing that, not content with
setting Himself up as a prophet. He dares publicly to accept Messianic homage. The
saying, Rebuke thy disciplea, -was doubtless accompanied with an irritated and anxinus
Innk tnward the citadel nf Antunia, the residence of the Rnman garriann. Thia Innk
seemed to say : " Seest thnu nnt . . .? Are nut the Rnmans there ? Wilt thnu
destroy us?" The answer ef Jeaus has a terrible majesty : " If I should silence all
these mouths, yoli would hear the aame acclamations proceeding from the ground !
So impossible is it that an appearance like this ahould net be, once at least, saluted en
the earth aa it deserves to be I" The terma used appear to -have been proverbial
(Hab. 3 ; 11). Seme have referred the term, the stones, to the walls ef the temple,
and nf the hnuses nf Jerusalem, which, as they fell in ruins forty years after, ren
dered hnmage tn the kingly glury nf Jesua ; but thia meaning is far-fetched. The
fnrm of the Paulo-peat future {KeKpd^ovrai) is frequently used by the LXX., but,
as here, without having the special signification which is attached to it in classical
Greek. The grammatical reduplicatinn simply expressea the repetitinn uf the cry uf
thnse inanimate objects : " It will be impnssible tn reduce thnse atunea tn silence, if
nnce they shall begin tn cry." The simple future in the Alex, is a currectinn.
"• Sd. Vers. 41-44.* The Bamentations of Jesus. — Jesus has reached the edge cf the
plateau {d>( 'yyyiam) ; the huly city lies befnre His view (idi)v ttjv noXiv). What a day
wnuld it be fnr it, if the bandage fell frum its eyes 1 But what has just passed be
tween Him and the Pharisees preaent has awakened ia Hij heart the cunvictinn nf the
insurmnuntable resistance which He is abnut to meet. Then Jesus, seized, and, aa it
were, wrong by the cnntrast between what is and what night be, breaks nut intn
subs. 'EKXavBEv, nut iddKpvaev ; we have tu dn with lamentatinns, with subbings, nut
with tears. The wnrds even thou mark a contrast between the pnpulatinn nf Jeru
salem and that multitude nf believers frnm Galilee and abroad which furmed His reti
nue. Wuuld the inhabitants nf Jerusalem but assnciate themselves with this Mes
aianic festival, their capital wnuld be saved 1 Frnm that very day wnuld date the
glury nf Jerusalem, as well as that nf .its King. The twu wurda Kuiye and aov, omit
ted by the Alex., have great importance. " Katye, at least in thia day, thy laat day."
This nne day which remains tn it wuuld sufflce tn secure its pardun fnr all the un
belief nf the city, and even fnr aU the blnnd uf the prophets furmerly shed within ita
walla ! Duea nut thia wnrd at least auppnae prerinus residences nf Jesua at Jerusalem ?
Soij, added tn yuipa {thy day), alludes tn the days, nuw past, nf Capernaum, Bethsaida,
and Churazin. Jesus dnes nut knuck indefinitely at the dunr uf a heart ur uf a
penple. In the worda, the things which belong to thy peace, Jesus thinks at unce nf the
individual salvatinn nf the inhabitants and nf the preservatinn of the entire city. By
submitting to the suvereignty nf Jesus, Israel wnuld have been preserved frum the
* Ver. 41. The mss. are divided between en' avry (T. R., Byz.) and Eit' avryv
(Alex.). Ver. 43, 5*. B. L. Or., ei eyvac ev ry ypepa ravry Kat av instead of ei eyvoS
Kai av KUiye ev ry yuepa aov ravry. S. B. L. umit aov after eipyvyv. Ver. 43. ». C.
L., ¦napeplSaXovaiv instead nf nepifiaXavaiv. Ver. 44. The MSS, are divided between cm
XiBa {T. R.) and em XiBov.

438 COMMENTARY OK ST. LTTKB.
spirit of carnal exaltatinn which led tn its ruin. The apndusis of. Oh if . . , is
understnud, as at 13 ; 9. By the vvv de, but now, Jeaus reverts frnm this ideal salva
tiun which He has been cnntemplating tu the aad reality. We must beware uf taking,
with aome cnmmentaturs, aa the subject nf sKpvBy, are hid, the whnle nf the follow
ing clause : " it ia concealed from thine eyes that . , ," The senteuce thus read
would drag intolerably.
Instead of the days of deliverance and glory, the image of which has just passed be
fore His mind, Jesus sees others approaching, which fill His soul with aadnesa (vers.
43 and 44). Mudern criticism agrees in asserting that this deacription of the destruction
uf Jerusalem in Luke includes particulars so precise, that it cnuld nnly have been
given ab eveniu. It therefnre cnncludes cuufidently frnm this passage that our Gospel
was composed after thia catastrophe. But in thia caae we muat refuse to allow Jesua
any supernatural knnwledge, and relegate tu the dnmain nf myth or impnsture all the
facts nf evangelical histury in which it is implied, e.g., the announcement of Peter's
denial, an well attested by the fnur Gnspels. Beaidea, if it cannut be denied that the
destructinn uf Jerusalem was fureseen and anuuunced by Jesus, as is implied in His
fnreseeing the siege, ia it nnt evident that all the particulara nf the following descrip
tinn muat have presented themselves spnntauenusly tn His mind ? We knnw well
linw Jeaus luves tn individuaUze His idea by giving the mnst cuncrete details of ita
realizatinn. Cump. chap. 17. XdpaJ, a paliaade cf stakea filled in with branches and
earth, and generally strengthened by a ditch, behind which the besiegers sheltered
themselves. Such a rampart was really constructed by Titus. The Jews bumed it
in a sally ; it was replaced by a wall. In the LXX. idaipi^etv signifles, to dash on the
ground. But in good Greek it signifles, to bring clown to the level of flie ground. The
last senae suits better here, for it applies both to the hnuses levelled with the ground '
and to the slaughtered inhabitants. Jeaus, like the Zechariah of the O. T. (Zech. 11)
and the Zacharias ef the New (Luke 1 : 68), repreaents His coming as the last visit of
God tn Hia peuple. The wurd Katpds, the favorable time, shnws that this risit nf God
la this day reaching ita cloae.
This accuunt is nne nf the gems nf nur Gnapel. After thuae arreating details,
Luke dnea nnt even mentinn the entry intn the city. The whnle interest fnr him lies
in the eventa which precede. Mark (11 : 11) and Matthew (31 : 10) proceed nther-
wiae. The latter seta himaelf tn paint the emutiuu with which the whnle city was
seized. JMark (11 : 11) describes in a remarkable way the impreaainns of Jeaus on
the evening ef the day. Accounts su different cannut be derived from the same
written snurce. SECOND CYCLE. — CHAP. 19 : 45-31 : 4.
The Reign of Jesus in the Temple.
From this mnment Jeaua estabUshes Himaelf as a anvereign in Hia Father'a
house. He there discharges the functions nut nnly nf a prophet, but nf a legislator,
and judge ; fnr aome days the theucratic authnrities seem tn abdicate their pnwers
into His handa. These are the days uf the Messiah's suvereignty in Hia temple (Mai.
3 : 1, 3).
This sectinn cnntains the fnllowing facta : Jeaus driving cut the sellers
(19 : 45-48) ; Hia anawer tu an ufflcial queatinn nf the Sanhedrim regarding His com
petence (30 ; 1-8) ; Hia announcing their deprivation of authority (30 ; 9-19) ; Hia

COMMENTARY ON St. tUKE. 439
escape from the snares laid fnr Him by the Phariaees and Sadducees (30 : 30-36 and
37-40) ; His putting tn them a question respecting the person ef the Messiah
(30 : 41-44) ; His guarding the penple against thnse seducers (30 : 45-47) ; His setting
up, in uppnsitinn tu their false system ef mnral appreciatinn, the true standard nf
divine judgment (31 : 1-4).
1. Expulsion qfthe Sellers : 19 : 45-48. Vers. 45-48.* Withnut Mark's narrative
we shuuld think that the expulsinn nf the sellers tnnk place un the day uf the entry
into Jerusalem. But from that evangelist, whuae accnunt ia here peculiarly exact, we
learn that the entry did not take place till toward the cloae ef the day, and that en
that evening the Lurd did nothing but give Himself up to the cnntemplatinn nf the
temple. It was on the mnrruw, when He returned frum Bethany, that He purified
this place frnm the prnfanatinns which were publicly cumraitted in it. If Matthew
and Luke had had befnre them the accuunt uf the nriginal Mark, huw and why would
they have altered it thus ? Hnltzmann suppuses that Matthew intended by this trans
pusitinn tn connect the Hosanna nf the children (related immediately afterward) with
the !Hosanna of the multitude. The futility nf this reasnn ia ubvinua. And why
and hnw shnuld Luke, whu duea nnt'relate the Hosanna nf the children, introduce
the same change into the cnramun dncument, and that without having known Mat
thew's narrative ! The entry of Jeaus into Jeruaalem toek place either en Sunday
(" Comment, aur I'evang. de Jean," t. ii. pp. 371-373) or on the Monday ; it would
therefere be Monday or Tuesday morning when He drove out the sellers. Stalls
(nrjn) l^^d been aet up in the court of the Gentiles. There were sold the animals
required as sacrifices ; there pilgrims, who carae from all countrlea of the world,
fnund the cuius of the cnuntry which they needed. There is nuthing tu prnve that
this exchange had tn du with the didrachma which was paid fer the temple.f The
wnrds koI dyopdCovTaS, and them that bought, are perhaps burrowed from the ether
two Syn. But they may alsn have been umitted, in cnnsequence nf cnnfuunding the
twn endings vraS. The saying nf Jesus is taken frnm Isa. 56 : 7 and Jer. 7 : 11.
Luke dnes nut, like Mark, qunte the first paasage tn the end : " My huuae shall be
called a hnuse nf prayer iroeri rols i6veai,for aU peoples." These last wnrds, hnw
ever, agreed perfectly with the spirit nf his Gnspel. He has nnt therefnre burrowed
this quntatinn frnm Mark. The apprupriateneaa nf thia quntatinn frnm laaiah ia the
mure striking, becauae it was in the cnurt nf the Gentilea that thnae prnfanatinns
were passing. Israel was depriving the Gentiles of the place which Jehnvah had
puBitively reserved fur them in His hnuse (1 Kings 8 : 41-43). By the desiguatiun,
a den qf thieves, Jesus alludea tn the decepticns which were ccnnected with thnae dif
ferent bargainings, and eapecially with the business uf the exchangers. If larael in
a apirit nf hnliness had jnined with Jesua in this procedure, the act wnuld have ceased
tu have a simply typical value ; it wuuld have becnme the real inauguratinn nf the
Messianic kingdum.
Vers. 47 and 48 are nf the nature uf a summary ; the kuB' ypipav, daily, and the
imperfects, they aought, etc., prove that Luke dnes nnt affect tu give a cnmplete
accnunt uf theae last days. The wnrda, the chief of the people, are added aa an appen
dix tn the subject nf the verb aougld. They probably dennte the chiefs cf the ayna-
* Ver. 45. S. B. C. L. 13 Mnn. Or. umit ev avru after nuXmvras. ». B. L. 3 Mnn.
Or. nmit kui ayopaiovraS. Ver. 46. !*. umits ean. B. L. R. 9 Mnn. Or. add kui eotui
befnre o oikoS, and reject eanv.
X As we had suppnaed in nur " Cnmment. sur I'evang. de Jean," t. i. p. 376.

430 COMMElj'TARY ON ST. LUKE.
gogue representing the people, who, with the priests and scribes, formed the Sanhe
drim. This singular construction arises from the fact that the real instigators of hos
tilities against Jesus were the priests and scribes ; the chief ef the people enly yielded
tu thia preasure. Thia i&ea forma the transition from ver. 47 to ver. 48. The people
formed the support of Jesus against the theocratic authorities. Certainly, it He had
thought of eslabhshing an earthly kingdom, now would have been the time. The
pasaage Mark 11 : 18 ia the parallel of those two verses. But neither of the two
accounts can proceed from the other.
Should this event be regarded as identical with the similar one which .lohn places
at the beginning of Jesus' miniatry, 3 : 13, et aeq. ? Thia aeema to have been the gen
erally received opinion in Origen's time (in Jeh. T. x. 15). As the Syn. relate none
but thia laat reaidence at Jerusalem, it would be very natural for thera tu introduce
here different eventa which properly belunged tn previuua reaidences. See, neverthe
leaa, in cur " Cnmment. sur I'evang. de Jean," t. i. p. 391, the reasnns which make
it prnbable that the twn events are different. Here we shall add twu remarks : 1.
Mark'a narrative muat rest nn the detailed accuunt uf an eye-witneaa. Cump. those
minute particulara : "And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple ;ynd
when He had looked round about upon all ihinga, and now the eoeniide waa come. He
went nut untn Bethany with the Twelve" (11 : 11) ; " And wnuld nnt suffer that
any man ahnuld carry any veaael thrnugh the temple" (ver. 16). Theae are such de
tails as are nut invented ; it was nnt traditiun that had preaerved them (see Luke and
Matthew). They proceed, therefnre, frnm an eye-witness. Huw in this case can we
questinn Mark's narrative, and cnnaequently that nf the three Syn. ? 3. If Jeaua was
returning fnr the flrat time after the lapse nf twu years (Jnhn 3) tn the feast ef Pass
over, which mure than any nther gave uccasinn tn thuse scandala (Bleek nn Matt.
31 : 13), He cnuld nut but be rnuaed anew againat the abuses which He had checked
the flrst time, mnre especially in the Messianic attitude which He had taken up.
Here, then, again John supplies what the others have umitted, and umits what they
have sufflciently narrated.
3. The Question qf the Sanliedrim : 30 : 1-8. — Vers. 1-8.* This accnunt is sepa
rated frnm the preceding, in Mark and Matthew, by the brief mentiun uf twu events :
in Mark 11 : 16, the prnhibitinn nf Jesus tn carry vessels across the temple — the court
was probably used as a thoroughfare (Bleek) ; in Matt. 31 : 14, et seq., the cures
wrought in the temple, and the huaannas nf the children. The authnrity which Jesus
thus assumed in this aacred place waa well suited tu nccasiun the step taken by the
Sanhedrim. If we fnllnw Mark, it must have taken place nn the day after the purifl
catinn nf the temple and the cursing uf the barren flg-tree, and cunsequently na the
Tuesday nr Wednesday murning. Luke umits thuse events, which were unknown
tu him, as well as the cursing uf the barren fig-tree, which related specially tn Israel.
Since the evening befnre, the members ef the Sanhedrim had been in cnnsultation
{Zyreiv uf 19: 47 ) ; and their seeking had nnt been in vain. They had succeeded in
inventing a series nf questinna fitted tn entangle Jeaus, nr in the end tn extract from
Him au answer which wnuld cnmprnmise Him either with the peuple ur with the
Jewish nr Gentile authnrities. The questinn nf ver. 3 is the first result nf thnse con-
* Ver. 1. IS. B. D. L. Q. several Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. umit ekelvuv after ypepuv.
The MSS. are divided between apxiepeig (T. R., Alex.) and lEpEiS (Byz.). Ver. 2. S*.
C. nmit erne ypiv. S" B. L. R. 2 Mnn. read Einov instead of emE. Ver. 8. K. B. L.
R. 7 Mnn. omit eva before 'Xoyov. Ver. 4. 5>. D. L. R. add to before laavvov. Ver
5. !S. C. D. Syr™'. Itpio'iqoe^ Vg., avveXoyilfivro instead oi avvEXoyiaavro . 13 Mjj. sev
eral Mnn. It""', emit ovv after duiri. Ver. 6. S. B. D. L. some Mnn., o XaoS airaS.
instead ef naS o Xaos.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 431
claves. Ver. 1 enumerates the three classes ef members composing the Sanhedrim ;
it was therefnre a fnrmal deputatinn, cump. Juhn 1 : 19, et seq. The elders are men-
tinned here alsu (cnmp. 19 : 47) as secundary persunages, beside the high priests and
scribes. The flrst part ef the questinn relates tu the nature nf Jeaus' cummissiun :
,is it divine nr human ? The secnnd, tn the intermediate agent thrnugh whum He has
received it. The Sanhedrim made sure that Jesus wnuld claim a divine cummiasiun,
and hnped tn take advantage of this declaratinn tn bring Jesus tu its bar, and tn sit in
judgment un the questiun. On the une hand, Jesus avuids this snare ; uu the nther.
He avuids declining the universally recnguized cnmpetency of the Sanhedrim. He
replibs in such a way as to force His adversaries themselves tn declare their incnm-
petence. The questiun which He lays befure them is nnt a skilful manoeuvre ; it is
dictated by the very natm-e nf the aituatinn. Was it nnt thrnugh the instrumentality
of John the Baptist that Jesus had been divinely accredited to the people ? The ac
knowledgment, therefnre, nf Jesus' authurity really depended nn the acknnwledgment
nf Jnhn's. The secnud alternative, qf men, includes the two pnssible cases, nf him
self, or of snme other human authurity. The embarrassment nf His adversaries is
expressed by the three Syn. in ways su different that it is impnssible to derive the
three fnrms frum nne and the same written suurce. This questien has sufflced tn
discnucert them. They, the wise, the skilled, whn affect tn judge nf everything in
the thencracy— they shamefully decline a judgment in face uf an event nf such capital
importance aa waa the appearing of John ! There is a blending of indignation and
contempt in the neither do loi Jesus (ver. 6). But that answer which He refuses
them, they who have refused Him theira. He goes nn to give immediately after in the
fnllnwing parable. Only it is to the whde people that He will address it {npbs rdv Xadv,
ver. 9), as a snlemn protestatinn againat the hypucritical cunduct nf their chiefs.
Why did Luke umit the cursing uf the barren fig-tree ? He waa well aware,
answers Vnlkmar, that it was simply an idea represented by Mark in the form uf a
fact ; and he reatured tn it it true character by preaenting it, 13 : 6-9, in the form of a
parable. Sn the descriptinn nf Gud'a patience tnward Israel, the barren fig-tree (13 : 6-9),
la nne and the same lesann with the cursing nf that same fig-tree ! Why' dnes
Matthew make the cursing of the flg-tree and the cnnversatinn of Jeaus with His dis
ciplea nn that uccaainn fall at the same periud and nn the aame day— twn facts which
are separated in Markby a whnle day ? Hnltzmann anawers : On reading (Mark
11 : 12) the flrst half of this accnunt, Matthew determined tu leave it uut. But un
cuming to the secund half (Mark 5 : 30), he tnnk the resnlutinn tu inaert it ; nnly he
combined them in one. So, when. the evangeliat was composing hia narrative, he
read for the flrst time the document cuntaining the history which he was relating I
In riew of such admirable discoveries, is there not reason to say : Risum teneatia ?
3. The Parable of the Husbandmen : 30 : 9-19.— This parable, in Matthew, is pre
ceded by that ef the two sons. If, as the terms of the latter suppose, it applies to
the conduct of the chiefs tnward Jnhn the Baptist, it is admirably placed befnre that
of the husbandmen, which depicts the conduct nf thnse same chiefs tnward Jeaus.
Vers. 9-13.* We have just attested the accuracy of the introduction, and espe
cially that of the wnrds to ihe people, ver. 9. Hnltzmann judges otherwise : " A par-
* Ver. 9. Marcinn umitted vers. 9-18. 19 Mjj. the must ut the Mnn. ItP'-'W"",
Vg. nmit Tis after avBpunos, which T. R. reads, -with A. sume Mnu. Syr. Ver. 10.
S. B. D. L. sume Mnu. It""', nmit ev befnre Kuipo. The mss. are divided between
Saaiv (T. R., Byz.) and doaovaiv (Alex.). Ver. 13. A, K, n, snme Mun. ItP'""*™
Vg., KUKetvov instead of Kai tovtov.

432 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
able ina/ppropriately addressed to the people in Luke," says he. Is it pnssible to pro-
nnunce a falser judgment ? The vine denntes the theucratic people, and the huabaud-
men the authnrities whu gnvern them. Luke speaks neither nf the tower meant to
receive the workmen's tools and to guard the domain, which perhaps represents the
kingly office ; nor of the wine-press, the meaus of turning the domain to account,
which is perhaps the image of the priesthood (comp. Matthew and Mark). The
abaence of the proprietor correaponda to that whole period of the O. T. which fol
lowed the great manifestatiena by which God founded the theocracy — the going out
ef Egypt, the giving ef the law, and the aettlement of Israel in Canaan. Prom that
rUoment Israel should have offered to its God the fruits ot a gratitude and fidelity pro
portioned te the favor which it had received from Him. The three servants succes
sively aent represent the successive groups of prephets, those divine messengers
whose struggles and suft'erings are described (Heb. 11) iu such lively cnlnrs. There
is a climax in the cunduct cf the husbandmen : ver. 10, the euvuy is beaten ; ver. 11,
beaten and shamefully abused ; ver. 13, wnunded tu death and cast nut nf the vine
yard. In this last tnuch, Jesus alludes tn the fate uf Zacharias (11 : 51), and probably
also te that ef John the Baptist. In Mark the climax is nearly the same : ideipav {to
beat), iKe(jtaXaioaav (here, to wound in the head), aneKTEivav {to kill). Mark speaka also
ef other meaaengers who underwent the same treatment ; it is perhaps this last
description which should be applied to John the Baptiat. Matthew speaks only ot
two aendinga, but each embracing several individuals. Should we understand the
two principal groups ef prophets : Isaiali, with his surrounding ef minor prophets,
and Jeremiah with his ? The Hebraistic expression npoaiBeTo nepfai (vers. 11 and 13)
shuws that Luke is working un an Aramaic ducument. No similar expressiun nccurs
in Matthew and Mark. •
Vers. 13-16.* The master nf the vineyard rouses himself in view of this obstinate
and insulent rejectinn ; What shaU Ido? And this deliberatinn leads him to a flnal
measure : IvyiR send my beloved son. This saying, put at that time by Jesus in the
mouth nf Gnd, has a peculiar snlemnity. There ia His answer tn the questiun : Bu
what auilwrity doest thou these things ? Here, as everywhere, the meaning ef the title
sun transcends absnlutely the nntiun nf Messiah, or theucratic king, cr any offlce
whatever. The title expresses abnve all the nntiun nf a personal relation to God as
Father. The theocratic offlce flows from this relation. By this name, Jesus estab
lishes between the servants and Himself au immeasurable distance. This was implied
already by the queation. What shall I do . . . ? which suggests the divine dia
logue. Gen. 1 : 36, whereby the creation of inferinr beings ia separated frum that ot
raan. 'laas, properly, in a way agreeable io expectation ; aud hence, undoubtedly (E.
V. improperly, it may be). But duea nnt Gnd knuw befnrehand the result of this last
experiment ? True ; but this failure will nut at all nverturn His plan. Not only will
the mission ef this last measenger be succeaaful with some, but the resistance of tbe
peuple as a whnle, by bringing nn their deatructinn, will npen up the wnrld to the
free preaching nf salvatinn by thuse few. The ignorance nf the future which is
ascribed tu the maater nf the vineyard belnngs tn the flgure. The idea represented by
thia detail ia aimply the reality uf human liberty.
* Ver. 13. ». B. C. D. L. Q. snme Mnn. Syr=". ItP'«"'°», omit idovreS before
evrpanyaovrai. Ver. 14. A. K. II. 4 Mnn. ItP'erique^ dieXoyiaaVTo instead nf dieXoft^miro,
!». B. D. L. R. snme Mnn., npoc aXXyXovc instead of ^rpos eavrovs. 6 Mjj. 12 Mw,
Jjplerlque^ UlUit deVTf befurC a^l^OKTElVOpeV,

COMMENTART OIT ST. LUKB. 433
The deUberation of the husbandmen (ver. 14) is an aUusion to that of the chiefs,
ver. 5 {dieXoyi^ovTo or — aavro ; comp. with avvEXoytoavTo). Jesus unveils before all the
people the pluts of their chiefs, and the real cause of the hatred with which they
fellow Him. These men have made the theocracy their property (John 11 : 48 : our
place our ¦nation) ; and this power, which till now they have turned to their advantage,
they cannot bring themselvea to give up into the hands of the Son, who comes to
claim it iu His Father's name. At ver. 15 Jeaus describes wilh the most striking
calmness the crime which they are preparing to commit en His person, and from
which He makes not the slightest effort tn escape. Is the act nf casting out of ilie
vineyard, which precedes the murder, intended tn repreaent the excnmmunicatiun
already prnnnunced un Jesus and His adherents (Jnhn 9 : 33) ? In Mark the murder
precedes ; theu the dead bndy is thrown nut. The punishment annnunced in ver. 16
might, accnrding tn Luke and Mark, apply only to the theucratic authnritiea, and nnt
tu the entire penple. The aXXoi, the other huabaudmen, wnuld in thia caae designate
tbe apustles aud their auccessnrs. But the sense appears to be different accurding tu
Matthew. Here the wnrd io others is thus explained, 31 : 43 : " The kingdnm nf Gud
shall be given tn a nation {eBvsi) bringing fnrth the fruits therenf." Accnrding tn this,
the pnint in queatinn is nut the substitutinn nf the chiefs nf the N. T. fnr thuae nf the
Old, but that nf Qentiie peoples fnr the chnsen penple. What wnuld nur critics say
if the parts were exchanged, if Luke had expressed himself here as Matthew dnes,
and Matthew as Luke ? Matthew puts the answer nf ver. 16 in the mnuth of the
adversaries nf Jeaus, which un their part cuuld unly mean, " He ahall deatrny thera,
that ia evident ; but what have we tn do with that ? Thy histury is but an erapty
tale." Tet as it is said in ver. 19 that it was nut till later that Hia adversaries under
atund the bearing of the parable, the narrative nf Luke and Mark is mnre natural.
The cnnnectiun between aKovaavTes and einov is this : " they had no snnner heard
than, deprecating the om<?i, they said . . ."
Vers. 17-19.* 'EppXeipac, hamng beheld them,, indicatea the serinus, even menacing
expresainn which He then assumed. The di is adversative : " Such a thing, yen say
wUl never happen ; but what meanlDg, then, dn yuu give tn this saying . . .?"
Whether in the cuntext nf Ps. 118 the sUme rejected be the Jewish peuple as a whnle,
in cnmparisun with the great wnrld-puwers, nr (accnrding tn Bleek and nthers) the
believing part nf the peuple rejected by the unbelieving majnrity in buth cases, the
image uf the stnne despised by the buUders appliea indirectly tn the Messiah, in whom
alone Israel's misaion to the world, and that of the believing part of tbe people to the
whole, was realized. It ia ever, at all stages of their history, the same law whose ap
plication is repeated. The ace. Ai'flov is a caae of attraclion ariaing from the relative
prnn. which follows. This form is textually taken from the LXX. (Ps. 118 : 22).
The corner-stnne is that which forms the junctinn between the twn mnst cunspicuoua
walls, that which is laid with peculiar solemnity. A truth ao stern aa the sentence of
ver. 18 required tn be wrapped up in a biblical quntatinn. The wnrds nf Jesus recall
Isa. 8 : 14, 15, and Dan. 3 : 44. In Isaiah, the Messiah ia repreaented aa a cunsecrated
stnne, against which many nf the children of Israel shall be brnken. Simenn (2 : 34)
makes reference tn this saying. The subject in questinn is the Messiah in His humili
ation. A man's dashing himself against this stune laid un the earth meana rejecting
Hun during the time nf Hia hvuniliatiun. In the aecund part of the verse, where this
* Ver. 19. C. D. 15 Mnn, Syr. Itp'«'i'°», Vg., elyravv instead of e^yryaav.

434 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
stone is represented as falling frum the tup of the building, the subject is the glorified
Messiah^crushiug all earthly oppusitinns by the manifestatinns uf His wrath. In
Dan. 2 : 44 the word XiKpg,v is alsn fnund XiKpyaei ndaac rdg fiaaiXeiaS), strictly : to
winnow, and hence tn scatter to the wind. It is therefore dangerous to encounter this
stone, either by dashing agaiust 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 nwn head, as the other natinna ahall nne day dn. A new deliberatinn amnng
the rulers follows this terrible shock (wer. 19). But fear of the people restrains them.
There is a currespundence between the twn Kai befure i<j>o/3y6yaav and befnre il^yriiaav.
The twn feelings, fearing and seeking (tu put Hira tn death), struggle within their
heart. The /or at the end uf the verae beara nn the first prnpnsitinn ; and the np6s
airovs signifies, with a view to them (ver. 9, 19 : 9). In Matthew there nccurs here
the parable nf the great supper. It is hardly prnbable that Jeaus heaped up at nne
time ae many flgurea of the same kind. The association ef ideas which led the
evangeliat to inaert the parable here is sufficiently obvioua.
4. Tlie Question of the Phariaees : 20 : 20-26. — The official question ,of the Sanhe
drim aerved only to prepare a triumph for Jeaus. From thia time forth the different
parties make attempta on Him separately, and that by meana of captious questions
adroitly prepared.
Vers. 30-36.* The introduction to this narrative presents in our three Syn. (Matt
33 : 15 ; Mark 13 : 13) aerae marked ahadea of meaning. The aimpleat form ia that of
Luke. The prieata and acribea (ver. 19) auborn certain partiea, who, affecting a acru
ple of conscience (" feigning themaelves just men"), interrogate Jesus as tu whether
it is lawful tn pay tribute tn Gentile authnritiea. The snare was this : Did Jesus
answer in the afflrmative ? It was a meana of deatrnying Hia influence with the
peuple by stigmatizing His Messianic pretenaiuns. Did He reply in the negative 1
He fell aa a rebel intn the hands nf the Rnman gnvernur, whn wnuld make shnrt work
with Hira. This is brought out in ver. 30 by the emphatic accumulation ef the terms
opOT. iiovaia, military power and judicial authority. Once given uver tn that power,
Jesus would be in gnud hands, and the Sanhedrim wuuld have numnre cuncem about
the favnr with which the penple surrounded Him. Adyov and airov uught buth to be
taken, notwithstanding Bleek'a scruples, aa imraediately dependent nn imXd^mirai :
" Tn take Him by aurprise, and to catch a word from Him by aurpriae." Accord
ing lo Mark and Matthew, the Phariaeea in this caae united with Ihe Herodiana. Bleek
thinka that the bend of unien between the one party, fanatical zealets for national
independence, and the other, devoted partisans of Herod's throne, waa common an
tipathy te foreign dnminatinn. The preaenee uf the Herodians was intended te en-
cnurage Jeaua tn anawer in the negative, and sn tn put Himself in cnnflict with Pilate.
But the attitude nf the Herodiana tnward the Rnman puwer waa tutally different from
Bleek's view uf it. The Hernds had rather planted themaelves in Israel aa the vas
sals of CsBsar. The Herodians, says M. Reuas, " were the Jews who had taken the
* Ver. 30. C. K. r. 35 Mnn., Xoyov ; D., tov Xoyov ; L., XoyovS instead nf Xoymn
S, B. C. D. L., oarE inatead uf etc to, Ver. 33. S. A. B. L. 6 Mnn., ypaS inatead of
ypiv. Ver. 33. !*. B. L. 6 Mnn. nmit rt /if neipa^ere. Ver. 34. 7 Mjj. 30 Mnn,, dEi^are
instead nf cntdet^arE. iS. C. L. 50 Mnn. add oi de edei^av kui emev after dyvapiov (taken
frum the parall.). !*. B. L. Syr'"'., oi de inatead nf anoKpiBevres dE. Ver. 35. S. B. L.
7 Mnn., npoS avTovS ipatead uf avroiS, Ver. 36, !». B, L., rov pyparoS iuatead uf avrani
oyparo^.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LtjKE. 435
side of the family of Hernd against the patriots, " that istnsay, againat the Phariaeea.*
We have therefor^ here, what so often occurs in history, a' coalition of two hnatile
parties, with the view nf crushing a third, dangerous to bnth. In Galilee , we have
already aeen a similar cnmbinatinn (Mark 3:6; Luke 13 : 31, 33). There was a per
fectly gund reasun fnr it in this case. If the anawer nf Jesus required tu be de-
nuunced tn the penple, this taak wnuld fall tn the Phariaees, whn stund well with the
multitude. If, on the cnntrary, it was necessary tn gn to Pilate, the Herodians wnuld
take this part, sn disagreeable tn the Pharisees. According to Matthew (ver. 16), the
heada of the pharisaic party took care to keep aloof. They attacked Him first through
aome of their diaciples. In reality, their aUiance with the Herodiana compromised
those well-known defenders of national independence.
The address of the emissaries ia variously rendered in our three Gospels. 'OpStoS :
without deviating from the alraight line. Ae'yetv and SiSddxeiv, io say and to teach,
differ as pronouncing on a questien and stating the grounds of the decision. The
Hebraistic phraae Xapfidvstv npodaaicov, which must have been a frightful barba
rism to Greek ears {to take the countenance, fer : to accept men's persons), is found enly
in Luke. It would therefore be himselt, if he waa copying Matthew er Mark, who
had added it at his own hand — he whn was writing fur Greek readers ! 'OSdS Qeov,
the way of God, denntes the straight thencratic line traced nut by the law, withnut re
gard to accumplished facts cr pnlitical necessities. They think by their phrases tn
render it impussible fur Him tu recnil. There waa, in reality — and thia ia what furmed
the apparently inaurmnuntable difflculty nf the queatinn — a cuntradictinn between the
pure thencratic standard and the actual state nf things. The nnrmal cnnditinn was
the autunumy of Gnd's peuple — nnrmal because fnunded nn the divine law, and as
such, sacred iu the eyea nf Jeaus. The actual state of things waa the subjectinn nf
the Jewa tn the Rnmana — a providential aituatinn, and as such, nnt - less evidently
-willed by Gnd. Hnw waa this cuntradictinn tn be gut over ? Judaa the Galilean, re
jecting the fact, had declared himself fnr the right ; he had perished. This was the
fate tu which the rulers wished tc drive Jesus. And if He recniled, if He accepted
the fact, was this nnt to deny the right, the legal standard. Muses, Gud Himself ?
Isit lawful for us (ver. 33) ? They have a scruple nf cnnscieuce ! Jesus at ence
discerns the malicieus pint which is at the bnttum uf the questinn ; He feels that
never was a mnre dangerous snare laid fnr Him. But there is in the simplicity of the
dnve a skill which enables it tu escape from the beat laid string uf the fnwler. What
made the difflculty of the queatinn waa the almnat entire fuainn uf the twn dumains,
the religious and political, in the Old Covenant. Jesus, therefore, has new to dis
tinguish these two spheres, which the cnurse uf Israelitish history haa in fact sep
arated and even cuntraated, sn that He raay nnt be drawn intn applying to the une the
absnlute standard which belongs only tu the other. larael ahnuld depend unly un
God, aaauredly, but that in the religious domain. In the pelitical sphere, God may be
pleased to put it for a time in a state of dependence on a human power, as had for
merly happened in their times of captirity, aa ia the case at present in relation to Cseaar.
Did not even the theocratic constitution itself distinguish between the tribute to be
paid to the king and the duea to be paid to the prieata and the temple ? This legal
diatinction became only mure precise and emphatic when the sceptre fell intu Gentile
hands. What remained to be said was nnt Gnd or Caesar, but rather, Gnd and Caesar,
* Herzng's " Encyclupedie, " t. xiii. p. 391.

436 COMMENTARY ON ST. LtlKE.
each in his own sphere. The Gentile mnney which passed current in Israel attested
the providential fact of the establishment of the Roman dominion, and nf the accept
ance uf that state of things by the thencratic peuple. Vbieunque numisma regis
alicujus obtinet, illic incolce regem istum pro d.omim> agnoseunt, says the famous Jewiah
doctor Maimonides (quoted by Bleek). The piece of Reman mouey which Jesua
calls His adversaries to ahow, eatabliabea by the image and inscription which it bears
the existence nf this fureign pnwer in the pulitical and Inwer sphere of the theocratic
lite ; it ia to thia aphere that the payment of tribute belongs ; the debt should there
fore be diacharged. But above thia sphere there is that of the religious life which
haa God for its object. This sphere is fully reserved by the answer of Jesus ; and
He declares that all its obligations can be fulflUed, without in the leaat doing violence
te the duties uf the nther. He accepta with submiaainn the actual cnnditinn, while
reaerviiig fldelity to Him who can re-establish the normal cunditiun aa snun as it shall
seem gnnd tn Him. Jeaua Himself had never felt the least cuntradictinn between
thuse two nrdera nf duties ; and it is simply from His own pure consciousness that
He derives this admirable solution. The word drcdSorE, render, implies the notion
of mnral duty toward Caesar, quite aa much as toward God. De Wette ia therefore
certainly mistaken here in limiting the notion nf nbligatiun tu the things which are
Gnd's, and applying merely the nutinu nf utility tn the things which are Cassar's.
St. Paul understnud the thuught nf Jeaus better, when he wrute tn the Rnmans (13 :1
etaeq.) " Be aubject tn the pnwers . . . nut only frnm fear nf punishment, but
alsu fur cnnscience' sake." Cnmp. 1 Tim. 2:1 et seq. ; 1 Pet. 2 -.IS ei seq. Depend
ence un God does not exclude, but involves, not enly many personal duties, but the
various external and providential relatiens ef dependence in which the Christian may
find himaelf placed, even thatof alavery (1 Cor. 7 : 33).* Aa to thencratic indepen
dence, Jesus knew well that the way tn regain it waa nnt tn vinlate the duty nf sub
missinn tu Caesar by a revulutiunary shaking nff nf his yuke, but tn return tn the faith
ful fulfilment nf all dutiea tnward Gnd. To render tn Gnd what is Gnd's, was the
way fnr the penple nf Gnd tn nbtain anew David instead nf Caesar aa their Lord.
Who could flnd a wurd tn cundemn in thia snlutinn ? Tu the Pharisees, the Render
unto Cceaa/r ; to the Herodians, the Render unto God. Each carries away his uwn les-
sun ; Jesus alnne issues triumphantly from the urdeal which was tu have destroyed Him.
5. The Question of the Sadd^uceea : 30 : 37-40. — We knuw pnsitively from Jusephus
that the Sadducees denied at once the reaurrection ef the bedy, the immortaUty of the
soul, and all retribution after death (Antiq. xviii. 1. 4 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 14). It was
net that they rejected either the 0. T. in general, or any of its parts. Huw, in
that caae, cuuld they have aat in the Sanhedrim, and flUed the .priestheud ? f Prob
ably they did nnt flnd perannal immnrtality taught clearly ennugh in the bnuks of
Mnaes ; and as tn the prophetic bonks, they ascribed tn them nnly secundary
authurity.t * [Accnrding tn the interpretation, "use servitude rather." See Lange's Com
ment, nn the paasage. — Tkans.]
-I- There ia wide difference nf riew nu thia matter. Snme nf the Fathera and many
muderns hnld that the Sadducees denied all but the Pentateuch. Others, like our
authnr, reject this view. May nut bnth be right ? They did nnt openly impugn any
nf the Old Testament, but they tacitly ignored what they did not Uke. Are there no
successora to them in this eclecticism 1 — J. H.
X Read en this subject the excellent treatise ef M. Reuas, Herzog's " Encyclo
pedie," t. xiii. p. 389 ei aeq.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE, 437
Vers. 37-33.* The QuMion.—The Sadducees, starting frnm the Levirale law given
by Muses (Deut. 25 : 5), agreeably to a patriarchal usage (Gen. 38) which ia atill
alluwed by many Eastern penples, aeek tn cuver with ridicule the idea uf a reaurrec
tion ; avriXdyovrsS : who oppoae {dvri), maintaining tlwt {Xeyovrsi). The whole
statement vers. 39-33 haa in it a touch of"Sarca8m.
Vers. 34-40.t T^ Answer. — Thia answer is preceded in Matthew and Mark by a
severe rebuke, whereby Jesus makes His questioners aware of the gross spiritual igno
rance involved in such a question as theirs. The answer ef Jeaua haa alao a aarcastic
character. Those accumulated -verbs, yapeXv, ixyapiZEdBai, especially with the
frequentative yapidxEdBai er kxyapidxsdBai, throw a shade of contempt ever that
whole worldly train, above which the Sadducean mind ia incapable ef riaing.
Althnugh frnm a mnral pnint uf vvevj the aiciv psXXoov , the world to come, haa already
begun with the cuming nf Chriat, frum a physical pnint nf view, the preaent wnrld ia
prolonged till the reaurrectinn of the bedy, which is to cuincide with the lealitutinn
of aU things. The resurrection frum the dead is very evidently, in thia place, nnt the
resurrectinn of the dead in general. What is referred to is a special privUege granted
only to the faithful {which shall be accounted worthy ; comp. 14 : 14 ; the resurrection
of the just, and PhiL 3 : 11). j:
The flrst /or, ver. 36, indicates a casual relatinn between the cessatinn uf marriage,
ver. 35, and that uf death, ver. 36. The ubject uf marriage is tn preserve the human
species, tn which ntherwise death wnuld snun put an end ; and this cunstitutinn muat
laat tiU the number nf the elect whum Gud will gather in is cnmpleted. While the
for makea the ceaaatinn of death tn be the cause nf the c^satinn nf marriage, the
¦paxticle OVTE, ndther, brings uut the analngy which exists between thuae twn facts.
The reading obde is leaa auppnrted. Jesus dnea nut aay (ver. 36) that glnrified men are
angels — angels and men are of twn different natures, the nne cannnt be transfnrmed
intn the nther — but that they are equal with the angels, and that in twu respects : nn
death, and nn marriage. Jesus therefnre ascribes a bndy tn the angels, exempt frnm
the difference nf sex. This pusitive teaching abuut the existence and nature nf angels
is purpnsely addreaaed by Jeaus tu the Sadduceea, becauae, accurding tn Acta 33 : 8,
this parly denied the exiatence uf thuae beings. Jesus calla the raiaed cues phUdren
of Ood, and explains the title by that nf children of tlie reaurrection. Men on the earth
are anns nf nne annther ; each uf the raised nnea ia directly a child nf Gnd, because
his body is an immediate work of divine omnipotence. It thus resembles that ef the
angels, whoae body also proceeds directly frnm the pnwer nf the Creatur — a fact which
explains the name sons of God, by which they are designated in the O. T. The Musaic
cummand cnuld nnt therefore fnrm an ubjectinn tn the ductrine uf the reaurrectinn
* Vet. 27. !*. B. C. D. L. snme Mnn. Syr., XeyovrES instead nf avnXeryorvTE:;. Ver.
38. !*' B. L. P. snme Mnn. Syr. If"'. Vg., y instead nf anoBavy. Ver. 30. !*. B. D.
L., Kai 0 devrepoS instead uf ko ; eXapEV o devr. t. -yvv. kui ovtoS otteS. utekvoc Ver. 31.
12 Mjj. nmit kui befure ov. Ver. 33. S. B. D. L. aume Mnn. Syr. umit navrov. Ver.
33. S. D. G. L. some Mnu. Syr. It., earai instead nf yiverai,
X Ver. 34. !*. B. D. L. 3 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg. nmit anoKpiBeis (which is taken from
the parallels). ». B. L. 8 Mnn., yapiaKovrai instead nf EKyapi^ovrai. Ver. 36. A. B.
D. L. P., ovde instead nf ovte. Ver. 37. Marciun nmitled vers. 37 and 38.
X This riew is nnt held by mnst cnmmentaturs. The wurds dn nut require it, and
the queatinn nf the Sadducees did nnt cnntemplate nne clasa nf the dead. They np
posed the idea of future Ufe, retributinn, aud the raiaing uf any frum the dead. Why
reply to them by a statement regarding nne pnrtinn nf the dead ?— J. H.

438 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
rightly understnud. Jesus nuw takes the nffensive, and proves by that very Moaes
whura the.y had been uppnsing tn Him (/cat, even, befnre Muses), the indisputable truth
of the ductrine (vers. 87 arid 38). The scribes nf the pharisaic party had prnbably
uften tried tu discuver such a prunf ; but it was necessary tn dig deeply in the mme to
extract frnm it this diamOnd.
In the phrase im t:?;- pdrov, 'Eni denotea the place where the accnunt uf the bush is
fnund. The chnice nf the wnrd pyvvo, to give to understand, shuws that Jesus dis
tinguiahes perfectly between an expreaa declaratinn which dnes nnt exist, and an in
dicatinn such as that which He prnceeds tu cite. He means simply, that if Mnaes
had nnt had the idea nf immnrtality, he would nnt have expreaaed himself as he dnes.
When Mnses put intu the muuth nf Gnd the designation, God of Abraham, etc.,
many generatinns bad passed since the three patriarchs lived here beluw ; and yet
Gnd StiU caUs Himself their Gnd. Gnd cannut be the Gnd uf a being whu dnes net
exist. Therefore, in Him they live. Mark the abaence of the article befure the
wnrds vEKpdv and ^uvruv -, a God of dead, of living beinga. In Platn, it is their partici
patinn in the idea which guarantees existence ; in the kingdnm nf Gnd, it is their re
latinn tn Gud Himaelf. The dative avru, to Him, impliea a cuntrast tu io ¦us, tu whnm
the dead are aa thnugh they were nnt. Their existence and activity are entirely cen
centrated iU their relatinn tn Gnd. All; nnt nnly the three patriarchs. The /or bears
nn the wnrd living. " Fur they live, really dead thnugh they are tn us. "
This prompt and sublime answer filled with admiratiun the scribes whu had so
often suught this decisive wurd in Mnses vyithuut finding it ; they cannut restrain
themselvea frum teatifyln^ their juyful aurpriae. Aware from this time fnrth that
every snare laid fnr Him wiU be the nccasiun fnr a glnriuus manifestatiun nf His wis
dum, they give up thia snrt nf attack (ver. 40).
6. The Queation of Jeaus : 30 : 41-44.— Vers. 41-44.* Matthew and Mark place
here the questinn nf a acribe uu the great commandment nf the law. Thia queation
waa suggested tn the man, as we aee frnm Mark 13 : 38, by the admiratiun which
filled him at the answers which he had just heard. Accurding tu Matthew, he vrished
yet again tn put the wisdum nf Jesua to the prunf {neipd^av avrdv. Matt. 32 : 35).
Either Luke did nnt knnw thia narrative, ur be umitted it becauae he had related one
entirely aimilar, 10 : 35 et aeq,
At the close of this spiritual tournament, Jesus in Hia turn throws down a chal
lenge to Hia adversaries. Waa it to give them difflculty for difflculty, entanglement
for entanglement ? No ; the aimilar questien which He had put te them, ver.- 4, has
proved to ua tbat Jesus was acting in a wholly different spirit. What, then, was His
intention ? He bad just announced His death, and pointed out the authors of it (par
able ef the husbandmen). Now He was nut ignnrant what the charge wuuld be
which they wuuld use against Him. He wuuld be cundemned as a blasphemer, and
that fnr having caUed Himself the Son qf God (Jnhn 5 : 18, 10 : 33 ; Matt. 36 : 65).
And as He was nut ignnrant that befnre such a tribunal it wuuld be impnsaible for
Him tn plead His cauae in peace, He demonatrates befurehand, in preaenee uf the
whnle penple, and by the Old Testament, the divinity nf the Messiah, thua sweeping
away from the Old Testament atandpnint itaelf the accusatinn uf blasphemy which
was tu furm the pretext fnr His cnndemnatinn. The three Syn. have preserved, -with
slight differences, this remarkable aaying, which, with Luke 10:31, 32, and some
* Ver. 41. A. K. M. n. 20 Mnn. add riveS after Xeyovai. Ver. 42. 1*. B. L. B.
snme Mnn., avroc yap inatead nf kui uvtos.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 439
other passages, forms the bond nf uninn between the teaching nf Jeaua in thuse Gus
pels, and aU that is affirmed uf His peraun in that nf Juhn. If it is true that Jeaus
applied to Himself the title of David's Bord, with which thia king addressed the Mes
siah in Ps. 110, the cnnsciuusness nf His divinity ia implied in this title as certaiidy as
in any declaratinn whatever of the fnurth Gnsi)el.
Accnrding tn Luke, it is tn the scribes, accurding tn Matthew (33 : 41), tn the
Pharisees, that the fnUnwing questinn is addressed. Mark names nn nne. The three
narratives differ Ukewise slightly in the furm nf the queatinn: "Hnw say theyV"
(Luke) ; " How say the scribes ?" (Mark). In Matthew, Jesus declarea tn the Phari
sees at the aame time the ductrine cf the Davidic sunship uf the Meaaiah — very nat
ural diversities if they arise from a traditiun which had taken varinus fnrms, but
inexplicable It they are intentinnal, as they must be, suppnsing the uae uf nne and the
same written suurce. The Alex, read : " Fnr he himself . . "¦ ;" that ia tu say :
" there is rnnm to put this questinn ; fur . ." The Byz. ; " And (neverthelesa)
he himself hath said . . ." Luke says : in the book of Paalms ; Matthew : by tlie
Spirit ; Mark : by ilie Holy Spirit. The unn-Messianic explanatinns nf Ps. 110 are
the masterpiece nf ratinnalistic arbitrarineaa. They begin by gi-ving tn "11"?
tbe meaning : "addressed to David," instead of "cnmpused by David," cnntrary
to the unifnrm sense nf the 7 auetoris in the titles of the Psalms, and that tn make
David the subject nf the Paalm, which wnuld be impnasible if he were its authur
(Ewald). And as this interpretatinn turns uut tu be untenable, fnr David never was
a priest (ver. 4 : " Thuu art a priest fer ever"), they transfer the cnmpnsitiun uf the
Psalm to the age of the Maccabees, and suppose it addressed by some author er
other to Junathan, the brother uf Judas Maccabeus; of the priestly race. This per
snn, whn never even bnre the title of king, is the man whum an unknuwn flatterer is
supposed, accurding tn Hitzig, tn celebrate as seated at Jehovah's right hand ! It is
impossible to cast a glance at the contents of the Paahn' withnut recugnizing its di
rectly Messianic bearing : 1. A Lnrd uf David ; 3. Raiaed tn Jehnvah's throne, that
is tu say, to participation in omnipotence ; 3. Settmg uut frnm Zinn un the cunquest
of the world, nverthro-wing the kings nf the earth (ver. 4), judging the natinna (ver. 5),
and that by means nf an army nf prieats clnthed in their sacerdotal garmenta (ver. 3) ;
4. Himself at nnce a priest and a king, Uke Melchisedec befnre Him. The law, by
placmg the kingly pnwer in the tribe of Judah, and the prieathnud in'that uf Levi,
had raised an insurmountable barrier betweeu thuse twn nffices. Thia aeparatinn
Darid must nften have felt with pain. Dzziah attempted to du away with it ; but he
was immediately visited with punishment. It was reserved fur the Messiah alune, at
the clnse of the theocracy, tu reproduce the sublime type nf the King-Priest, pre
sented at tte date of its origin in the person of Melchisedec. Comp. en the future
reuninn of thuse twn offices in the Messiah, the wnnderful prnphecy uf Zech. 6 : 9-15.
Ps. 110, besidea its evidently pruphetic bearing, pnsaesses ntherwise all the charac
teristics of Darid's cnmpnsitinns : a cnncisenesa which ia fnrcible and nbacure ; brill
iancy and freshness in the images ; grandeur and richness nf intuitinn. It waa frum
the wnrds : Sit thou at my right hand, that Jesus tnnk His answer tn the adjuratinn
nf the high priest in the judgment scene (Matt. 36 : 64) : " Hencefnrth ahall ye see the
Son of man sitting un the right hand of pnwer." With what a Innk nf aeventy,
tumed upun His adversaries at the very mnment when He qunted thia Psalm befnre
all the peuple, muat He have accumpanied thia declaratinn uf Jehuvah tuthe Messiah :
" untu I make Thine enemies Thy fnntatunl. "

440 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
¦ Tn answer satiaf actnrily the question nf ver. 44, put by Jesus, it was absolutely
necessary tn introduce the idea nf the divinity of the Messiah, which is the soul uf
the entire Old Testament. Isaiah called the Sun burn tn ua : Wonderful, mighty God
(Isa. 9 : 5). Micah had distinguished His histnric birth at Bethlehem, and His pre-
histuric birth from everlasting (5 : 3). Malachi had called the Messiah, " Adsnai
cuming tn His temple" (3 : 1). There was in the whnle of the Old Testament, from
the patriarchal theophanies down tn the latest prophetic visions, a cnnstant current
tnward the incarnatinn as the gnal nf all thnse revelatiuns. The appearance nf the
Messiah presents itself mure and mnre clearly tn the view of the prophets as the per
fect theuphany, the flnal cuming nf Jehnvah. No dnubt, since the exile, exclusive
zeal fnr munutheisra had diverted Jewish thenlugy from this nnrmal directinn. This
is the fact whjch Jesus seta befnre ita representatives in that ao prof ound argument uf
Hia, Jnhn 10 : 34r-38. It waa exactly in this way that Rabbinical mnnntheism had
becnme petrified and transfnrmed intu a dead theism. Jeaus has taken up the broken
thread nf the living thenlugy nf the prophets. Such is the explanatinn nf His preaent
questiun. Tu resulve it, the acribes wnuld have required tn plunge again intn the
freah current uf the ancient thencratic aspiraticma : The descendant promised tu David
(3 Sam. 7 : 16) will be nnthing less than Adunai cuming tu His temple (Mai. 3 : 1) ; to
His human birth at Bethlehem there cnrrespunds His eternal urigin in Gnd (Mic. 5:3):
such only is the recenciliatiun uf the twn titles aon and Iiord of David given to the
person nf the Messiah.
The meaning and appropriateness nf Jesus' question appear to ns equally man
ifest. It has beeu sought, however, tu explain it ntherwise.
1. Snme think that Jesus arguea, frnm the fact that Messiah is tn be David's
Bord, tn pruve that He cannut be his descendant. Fnr it is inccngrunus, aay they,
that an anceatnr shnuld call hia deacendant hia Lurd. Accurding tn this meaning it
must be adraitted that Jeau^ Himaelf knew very well that He did nut descend from
David, although among the people they ignorantly gave Him the title son ofBa/eid,
because they tunk Him fur the Messiah. The Christians, it is said, yielded at a later
perind tn the pnpular Jewish instinct ; and to satisfy it invented the twu genealngies
which aeem tn eatabliah the Davidic deacent nf Jesus (Schenkel). But, {a) In this
case, Jesus wnuld have acted, as Keim ubaerves, in a manner extremely imprudent,
by Himaelf raising a queatinn which ranre than any nther might have prejudiced His
atanding with the peuple. ' ' The character so»i of Bavid cnuld nut be wanting tu Him
whu thus publicly made it a aubject uf discussinn" (Keim). (J) It wnuld nut nnly
be the furgera, the authnrs nf the twn genealogical ducuments preaerved by Matthew
and Luke, whu had admitted and propagated this late error ; it wnuld alao mean the
authnr nf the Apncalypae (33 : 16 : " fam the rout and offspring ot David"). St,
Paul himself wnuld be guilty — he whn shuuld least nf all have been inclined tn make
such a cunceaainn tn the Judaizing party (Rnm. 1:3: "of the seed of David accord
ing to the fleah ;" 3 Tim. 3 : 8 : " of the seed of Darid. ") The whole Church must
thus have connived at this falaehood, er given in te this error, and that despite of the
expreaa proteatation of Jesus Himself in our passage, and without any attempt on
the part of nur Lnrd's adversaries tu shuw up the error ur falsehnnd of this assertion I
(c) "The argument thus understood would prove far toe much ; the rationaUata them
selvea ahould beware ef aacribing to Jesus so groaa a want ef logic aa it wnuld imply.
If it was diahunnring tn David tn call any one whatanever of hia descendants his
Lurd, why wnuld it be lesa an fur him tn give thia title tn that descendant of Abra
ham .who shnuld be the Messiah ? Was not the family nf David the noblest, the moat
illustrious of laraeUtiah famiUea ? The reasoning of Jesus would logically end in
proving that the Meaaiah ceuld not be an laraelite, or even a man ! {d) Jesus would
thua have put Himaelf in contradiction to the whnle Old Teatament which represent
ed the Chriat as being burn uf the family ef David (3 Sam.' 7 ; Ps. 133 : 17 ; Isa,
9 : 5, 6). (e) Luke would also be in contradiction with himself, for he expressly makes

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 441
Jesus descend from David (1 : 33, 69). (/) Huw, flnaUy, cnuld Jesus have ccntented,
Himself with protesting sn indirectly against thia attribute ann nf David ascribed tu
Him by the multitude, if He had knnwn that He did nut pnaaesa it ?
2. Accnrding to M. Cnlani alan, Jesus meana that the Messiah is nut the son qf
Bavid, but in this purely mnral senae, that He is nnt the heir uf hia tempnral pnwer ;
that His kingdnm ia ef a higher nature than David'a earthly kingdnm. But, (as) It is
whully opposed to the aimple and ratiunal meaning nf the term son of Bavid,, nnt tn
refer it tn sunship properly an called, but tn make it signify a tempnral king like
David, {b) It wuuld be necessary to admit that the evangeUst did not himself under
stand the meaning nf this saying, ur that he centradicta himaelf— he whn puts intn
the muuth nf the angel the declaratinn, 1 : 33 : " The Lnrd shall give untn Him the
throne nf His father David" (cump. ver. 69).
3. Keim admits the natural meaning nf the term Son. He places the nntiun of
spiritual kingship nnt in this terra, but in that nf David's Ijyrd. ' ' The physical
descent nf Jeaua frnm David is uf nn mnment ; His kingdum is nut a repetitinn nf
David'a. Frnm the bnsnm uf the heavenly glury tu which He is raised. He bestuws
spiritual blessings nn men. Nnne, therefere, should take offence at His present
poverty."" But, {a) If that is the whole problem, the problem vaniahea ; fer there is
not the leaat difflculty in admitting that a descendant may be raiaed to a height sur-
•passing that uf hia ancester. There is no serious difflculty, if the term Lord does not
include the notinn nf a sonship superiur tn that which is implied in the title son of
David, {b) So thoroughly is this our Lerd's view, that in Mark the question put by
Him atands thus: "David caUs Him hia Lord ; how, then, is He his aon?" In
Keim's sense, Jesus should have aaid : " David calls Him hia aen ; how, then, is He
his Bord?" In the form of Matthew (the Goapel to which Keim uniformly givea the
preference, and tn which alune he aacribea any real value), the true pnint of the ques
tion is still raore clearly put : " Whose sen is He ?" The problem is evidently, there
fore, the Davidic sonship nf Jeaus, as an undeniable fact, and' yet apparently cuntra
dictnry to another sonship implied in the term David's Lurd. Finally, (c) If it was
merely the spiritual nature uf Hia kingdnm which Jeaus meant tn teach, aa Cnlani
and Keim allege in their twn different interpretatiuna, there were many simpler and
clearer ways uf doing an, than the ambigunus and cnmplicated methnd which on
their suppusitinn He muat have emplnyed here. The queatinn put by Jeaua wnuld
be nothmg but a play of wit, unwnrthy nf Himself and nf the snlemnity of the ncca
siun. 4. According to Volkmar, this whole piece is a pure invention of Markj the prim
itive evangelist, who, by putting this question in the mouth of Jesus, skilfully
answered this Rabbinical ubjectinn : Jesus did nnt present Himself tn the wnrld
either as David's descendant ur as His glnriuus successur ; cuiisequently He cannnt
be the Messiab, fnr the O. T. makes Messiah the snn uf David. Mark answered by
the mnuth nf Jeaus : Nn ; it is impnsaible that the O. T. cnuld have meant tn make
Messiah the snu nf Darid, fur according tu Pa. 110 the Meaaiah was tn be his Lurd.
But, {a) It wnuld fnllnw therefrom, as Vnlkmar acknnwledgea, that in the time nf
Jeaus nnne Iiad regarded Him as the descendant nf David. Nuw the acclaraatiuns uf
the multitude nn the day nf Palms, the address nf the wuman nf Canaan, that nf
Bartimeus, and all the nther like passages, pruv'e un the cnntrary, that the Davidic
sunship nf Jesus -was a generally admitted fact. (6) Huw was it that the scribes
never protested againat the Messianic pretenainna uf Jeaus, eapecially on the occasion
nf His trial befnre the Sanhedrim, if Hia attitude ann nf David had nnt been a nuturi-
nus fact? (c) The Davidic descent nf the family nf Jesua was an well knnwn that
the Emperur Domitian summuned the nephewa nf Jeaus, the suns nf Jude His
brother, tn Rume, under the desighatiun uf snna uf David, {d) St. Paul, in the year
59, pnsitively teaches the Davidic descent nf Jesus (Rnm. 1 : 3). And Mark, the
Pauline (accurding tn Vnlkmar), denied tu Jesua thia same annahip in 73 (the date,
accnrding tn VuUSnar, nf Mark's cnmpnsitiun), by a reasuning ad hoc! Still*mure,
Luke himself, that Pauline nf the purest water, reprnduces Mark'a express denial,
withnut troubling himself abnut the pusitive teaching nf Paul I Vnlkmar attempts
tn elude the fnrce cf thia argument by maintaining that Paul's aaying in the Epistle
to the Rnmana is unly a cnnceaaion made by him tn the Juden-Christlan party ! 'Tn
tbe ubjectinn taken from the genealngy uf Jeaus (Luke 3 ; 33, et seq.), Volkmar auda-

442 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
ciously repUes that Luke mentions' it nnly tu set it aside (" um sie eu ilhidiren"). And
yet thia aame Luke, as we have seen, expressly asserts this sunship, (1 : 38 and 69).
(e) Let us add a last discuvery nf Vnlkmar's ; Matthew fnund it useful, in the interest
nf the Juden-Chriatian party, tn accept in apite nf Mark the idea of the Davidic
descent of Jesus aa he fnund it cnntained in Luke (in that genealngical dncuihent
which Luke had qunted enly tu 'aet aaide)! Only, tu glorify Jesus the more, he
substituted at his own hand, for the nbscure branch nf Nathan (Luke's genealngy),
the rnyal' and much more glnriuus line nf Sulnmnn (Matthew's).
Thua nur sacred writers manipulate histnry tu auit their interest nr caprice !
Instead nf the artless siraplicity which moves us in their writings, we flnd in them
device opposed to device and falsehood te falsehood 1 Be it ours to atand aloof
from sueh saturnalia of criticism !
Our interpretation, the only natural one in the context, is conflrmed : (1) By those
expresaions in the Apucalypse : the root and offering nf David— expressinns which
currespund tu thnse uf Bord and son oi this king ; (3) by Paul's twnfnld declaratinn,
" made of ihe seed of David accnrding tn the flesh [David's snn], and declared tn be
the Sun nf Gnd with pnwer since His resurrection, according tn the apirit uf hulinesa
[David'a Lnrd] ;" (3) by the alienee nt .leaua at the time of Hia cundemnaliOn. This
queatinn, put in the preaenee uf all the penple tn the cnnscience uf His judges, had
anawered befnrehand the accusatinn uf blasphemy raised against Him. Such was
the practical end which Jeaua had in view, when with this questinn He clnsed this
decisive passage uf arms.
7. Tlie Warning against tlie Scribea: 30 : 45-47. — Vers. 45-47.* On the fleld of
battle where the scribes have just been beaten, Jeaua judgea them. This short dis
course, like its paraUel Mark 13 : 38-40, is the summary of the great diacourae Matt
33, wherein Jesua pronounced His woe on the scribes and Pharisees, and which may
be called the judgraent of the theocratic authorities. It ia the prelude to the great
eschatelogical diacourae which followa (the judgment et Jerusalem, of the Church,
and of the werld. Matt. 34 and 35): In the discourse Matt. 33, two different dis
courses are combined, of which the one is transmitted to ua by Luke (11 : 37 et aeq.),
in a context which leavea nothing tn be deaired, and the nther was really uttered at
the time where we flnd it placed in the flrst Gnspel. We have unly an abridgment
in Mark and Luke, either because it was fnund in thia fnrm in the dncuraenta from
which they drew, nr becauae, writing fur GentUe readers, they deemed it unnecessary
tc tranamit it tu them in whnle. GeXovtov -. whn take their pleaaure lu. There are
twu waya nf explaining the apnliatinns referred tn in the wnrds : devouring widows'
lumaea. Either they exturted cunaiderable preaenta frnm piuua wnmen, under pretext
uf interceding fnr them — this sense wuuld best agree with the aequel, especially with
the reading npoaevxdpevoi ; nr what ia mnre natural and piquant, by the ambiguity of
the wurd eat up, Jesua alludea tu ttfe aumptunus feaata provided fur them by these
women, while they flUed the offlce of directera of the cnnacience ; in bnth aenses :
the Tartuffea nf the periud. The wnrd npd(^uais, atrictly pretext, aigniflea secnndarily,
show. The wnrda greater damnation, include in an abridged furm all the oval, woes!
oi Matthew. 8. The Widow' a Alms : 31 : 1-4.— Vera. 1-4. f This piece is wanting in Matthew.
Why wnuld he have rejected it, if, accnrding tn Hnltzmann's view, he had befure
bim the dncument from which the nther twn have taken it ? Accnrding tn Mark
* Ver. 45. B. D. umit avrov after paByruis. Ver. 47. D. P. R. snme Mnn. Syr.
ItP'"''!"", Vg. , npoBEVxopEVoi instead nf npdaEVxovrai.
X Ver. 3. 9 Mjj. several Mnn., nva kui instead uf Kai nva. 9 Mjj. several Man,
omit KUl, Ver, 4. S. B. L. X. 4 Mnn, Syr'"', umit rav Qeov after dopa.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 443
(12 : 41^44), Jesus, prnbably wurn nut with the preceding scene, sat dnwn. In the
cuurt of the women there were placed, according te the Talmud (tr, Schekalim, vi.
1, 5, 13), thirteen coffers with horn-shaped oriflces ; whence their name miDlli''
They were called ya(o^vXdKia, treasuries. This name in the sing, designated the
locality as a whole where thoae coffers stood (John 8 :-30) ; Josephua, Antiq. xix. 6. 1).
This is perhaps the meaning in which the word is used in Mark (5 : 41) : ova'
against tlie treaailry ; in Luke it is appUed te the coffers themselvea. Aenrdv, mite :
the smaUest coin, probably the eighth part ef the as, which waa worth from six te
eight centimes (from a halfpenny tn three farthings). Twn XEnrd, therefure, curre
spund nearly tn twn centime piecea. Bengel flnely remarka nn the two : " nne et
which she might have retained." Mark translatea thia expreasion inte Roman
money : " which make a farthing" — a slight detail unknown te Luke, and fitted to
throw light on the questinn where the secnnd Gnspel was cumpuaed. In the sayings
which Jeaua addreaaea tn Hia disciplea, Hia ubject ia tu lead their minds tn the true
appreciatinn nf human actinns accurding tu their quality, in nppnsitinn tu the quan
titative appreciatinn which furma the eaaence ut pharisaiam. Such ia the meaning uf
the wnrd : slie hath caat in more ; in reality, with thnae twn mitea ahe had cast in her
heart. The prunf {ydp, ver. 4) ia given in what fnllnws : she hath cast in of her penury
all thai she had. "TaTspy/ia, deficiency, denntes what the wuman had as insufflcient fnr
her maintenance. " And uf that tnn little, nf that poaaeaainn which in itself is already
a deficiency, she has kept nnthing." The wnrd iaTspyais in Mark denntes nut what
the wuman had aa inaufflcient {iorepypa), but her entire cnnditinn, aa a atate uf cun
tinued penury. What a cnntraat tn the avarice fnr which the acribes and Phariaees
are upbraided in the preceding piece ! This incident, witneaaed by Jesua at such a
time, resembles a fluwer which He cnmes upun all 'at unce in the deaert of offleial
devutinn, the sight and perfume of whicb make Him leap with jny. Such an
example is the justiflcatiun uf the beatitudea, Luke 6, as the precedmg discnurse
juatifles the oiai, woes, in the aame paasage.
THIBD CYCLE.- CHAP. 31 : 5-88.
The 'Prophecy of the Deatruciion of Jeruaalem.
This piece containa a queatinn put by the diaciples (vers. 5-7), the discuurse nf
Jesus in answer to their questinn (vers. 8-36), and a general view uf the last days
(vers. 37, 38).
1. The Question : vers. 5-7.*— Tn the preceding declaratinn, snme uf the hearers
might have nbjected, that if nnly such gifts as the widnw's had been raade in that
huly place, thuse magniflcent structures and thuae rich offerings wnuld nnt have
exiated. It was duubtleaa sume such reflectinn which gave riae tn the fnllowing cun
versation. This cnnversatinn tnnk place, accnrding tn Matthew 34 : 1 and Mark
13 : 1, as Jeaua left the temple, and nn nccasiun uf an nbservatien made by Hia dia
ei/^ (Matthew), er by one of them (Mark). According to Matthew, this observation
was certainly connected with the laat worda ef the previous diacourae (net related by
Mark and Luke), 33 : 38 : " Your house is left unto you [desolate]." Hnw can it be
* Ver 5 » A. D. X., avaBepaaiv instead nf avaBypaaiv. Ver. 6. D. L. ItPi"i9°«,
nmit a after ravra. ». B. L. snme Mnn. add ods after XiBo ur XiBov,

444 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
aaaerted that three evangelists, copying the same document, or copying from one
anuther, cnuld differ in such a way ?
In the answer nf Jesua (ver. 6), the wurds, ravra d Beapelre, these things which ye be
hold, maybe taken interrogatively : " These are the things, are they, which ye are
behnlding ?" Or we may take them as in appnsitinn tn XiBos, and the subject cf
d<i>EByaeTai, which is murc categurical and snlemn : " As tu these things which ye be
huld . . . there shall nnt be left nne stune upun anuther. " It was evening (Luke
5 : 37), at the mnment perhaps when the setting sun was casting his last rays en the
sacred ediflce and the holy city. Several critics think that Luke placea thia discourse
also in the temple. But thia opinion dnea nnt agree either wilh vera. 5 ahd 6, where
the temple buildings are cuntemplated by the interlncutnra, which auppuaea them to
be at aume diatance frnm which they can view them aa a whnle, ur with ver. 7, which
cunveya the nntiun nf a private cnnversatinn between the diaciples and the Master.
Accnrding tn Mark (13 : 3), Jesus was seated with Peter, Jamea, Juhn, and Andrew,
nn the Muunt nf Olives, nver against that wnnderful scene. Here is one of these de
taUs in which we recognize the recital nf an eye-witness, prnbably Peter. Matthew,
while indicating the aituatinn in a way similar tn Mark, dnes nnt, any more than
Luke, name the four disciples present Luke and Matthew would certainly not have
omitted such a circumstance, if they had copied Mark ; as, en the contrary, Mark
would net have added it at his own hand, if he had compiled from the text of the
other twn.
The fnrm nf the disciples' questiun, ver. 7, differs in Luke and Mark, but the sense
is the same : the questinn in bnth refers simply tu the time uf the destructinn nf the
temple, and tn the aign by which it shaU be annuunced. It is, nn dnubt, pnaaible the
disciples mure nr less cnnfnunded this catastrophe with the event nf the Parousia ; but
the text dnea nut say sn. It ia quite utherwiae in Matthew ; accurding to him, the
questinn beara expressly un thuae twn pnints cumbined : the time nf the destructinn
nf the temple, and the sign nf tbe cuming nf Christ. Luke and Matthew each give
the fnllnwing discourse in a manner which is in keeping with their mode ef express
ing the questinn which gives rise tu it. In Luke, this discourse contemplates exclu
sively the destruction ef Jerusalem. If mention ia made of the end ef the world (vers.
35-37), it is enl.y in passing, and as the result of an association of ideaa which wiU be
easily explained. Tbe Parousia in itself had been previuusly treated nf by Luke in
a special discuurse called fcrth by a queatinn of the Phariaeea (chap. 17). On his
side, Matthew combinea in the foUowing discnurae the twu aubjecta indicated in the
queatinn, aa he haa expressed it ; and he unites them in sn intimate a way, that aU
attempts tu aeparate thera in the text, frnm Chryanatum tu Ebrard and Meyer, have
brnken dnwn. Cnrap. vera. 14 and 33, which can refer tn nnthing but the Parousia,
while the aucceeding and preceding cnntext refer tu the deatructinn nf Jeruaalem ;
and nn the uther hand, ver. 34, which puints tn this latter event, while all that pre
cedes and fnllnws this verse appliea tu the Parnuaia. The cnnstructiun attempted by
Gesa ia this : 1. Frnm vers. 4-14, the general signs preceding the Parnuaia, that be
lievers may nut be led tn expect this event too aoon ; 3. From vera. 15-38, the de
atruciion ef the temple as a sign to be joined to those precuraive signs ; 3. Vers.
39-31, the Parouaia itself. But {a) this general order ia far from natural. What has
the deatructinn nf the temple tu du after the paasage vera. 4-14, which (Gess acknowl
edgea) auppnaea it cunauramated leng agu ? The piece (Nn. 3) un the deatructinn of
Jeruaalem ia evidently out of place between the deacription of the signs ot the

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 445
Parousia (No. 1) and that of the Parousia itself (No. 3). (J) This divisiun cannnt be
carried out intn detail : ver. 33, which Gess is nbliged tn refer tn the destructiqn uf
Jeruaalem, can apply only tu the Parnuaia. And the " all theae things" of ver. 34,
which he reatricts tu the destructinn nf Jeruaalem and the first preaching uf the gus
pel tn the Crentiles, as flrst signa uf the Parousia, has evidently a much wider scupe
in the evangelist's view. It must therefure be admitted, either that Jesua Himself
cnnfnunded the destructinn nf Jerusalem and the end nf the wurld, and that thnse twn
events fnrmed, in Hia judgment, nne and the aame catastrophe, nr that twn distinct
discourses uttered by Him nn twn different nccasinns appear in Matthew united in
nne. Different expedients have been used tu save the accuracy nf Matthew's accnunt,
withnut prejudice tn the Saviuur's infallibility. It haa been auppnaed that the de
scription of the Paruusia, Matt. 34, refera excluaively tn the invisible return uf Jesua
tu destroy Jerusalem. This explanatinn is incnmpatible with the text, especially vers.
39-31. It has alsn been alleged that in the pruphetic perspective the flnal coming of
the Messiah appeared to the view of Jesua as in immediate connection with Hia re
tum to judge Israel. But {a) thia hypetheaia doea not at all attain the end which ita
authora propoae, that of aaving nur Lnrd's infaUibUity. (J) Jeaus cnuld nnt affirm
here what He elsewhere declares that He dnes nnt knnw (Mark 13 : 33), the lime nf
the Parnuaia. Even after Hia reaurrectinn He atill refuses tn give an answer nn this
pnint, which is reaerved by the Father in Hia nwn pnwer (Acta 1 : 6, 7). (c) We can
gn further, and shnw that Jeaus had a quite nppnaite view tu that uf the nearness uf
His return. WhUe He annnunces the destructinn uf Jerusalem as an event tu be wit
nessed by tbe cuntempnrary generatiun. He speaks uf the Paruusia as une -which is
pnssibly yet very remute. Cunsider the expressinn, iXEvaovrai ypipai, clays will come
(Luke 17 : 32), and the parable nt the widnw, the meaning nf which is, that God wHl
aeem tn the Church an unjuat judge, whn fnr a protracted time refuaea tn hear her,
sn that during thia time uf waiting the faith uf many ahall give way (18 : 1 et seq.).
The Maater is tn retum ; but perhaps it wUl not be tUl the aecund, nr the third
watch, or even tiU the morning, that He wiU come (Mark 13 : 35 ; Luke 13 : 38).
The great diatance at which the capital Ues (Luke 19 : 13) can signify nothing elae
than the conaiderable apace ef time which wUl elapse between the departure ef Jeaus
and Hia return. In Matt. 35 : 5 the bridegroom tarriea much longer than the bridal
procession expected ; 34:48, the unfaithful servant strengthens himself in his evU-
doing by the reflection that his Lord delayeth His coming. Matt. 34 : 14, the gospel
ia to be preached in aU the worid and to aU the Gentiles (Mark 16 : 15, to every
creature) ; and Matt. 36 : 13, Mary's act is to be published in the whole world before
.lesus shaU return. In fine, the gnapel shaU transfurm humanity nut by a magical
prucesa, but by slnw and prufuund wnrking, like that uf leaven in duugh. The king
dum ufGud will grow nn the earth like a tree which prnceeds frum an imperceptible
seed, and which serves in its maturity tu shelter the birda nf heaven. And Jeaus,
whn knew human nature su deeply, cuuld have imagined that such a wnrk .could have
been accemplished in less thau forty years! Whn can admit it? The cnnfusien
which prevaUa in this whole diacourae. Malt. 34 (as weU aa in Mark 13), and which
diatinguishes it from the twn distinct discnurses nf Luke, must therefure be ascribed
nnt tn Jesus, but tn the accnunt which Matthew uaed as the basis uf hia recital.
This cunfusinn in Matthew is probably clusely connected with the Judeo-Christian
pnint of view, under the sway nf which primitive traditiun tnnk ita fnrm. In the
prophets, the drama nf the last days, whicb closes the eschatulngical perspective, em-

446 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
braces as two events nearly fuUnwing one another, the judgment whereby Israel is
purified by means uf the Gentiles, and the punishment of the Gentiles by Jehuvah.
Preuccupied with this view, the hearers uf Jesus easily uverlnnked in His discuurses
certain transitiuna which reserved the interval between thnse twu events usually cnm
bined in the O, T. ; and that su much the mnre, as, un Innking at it closely, the de-
struclien of Jerusalem is really the flrst act of the world's judgment and of the end
of the days. The harvest nf an early tree annnunces and inaugurates the general
harveat ; sn the judgment nf Jerusalem is the prelude and even the flrst act nf the
judgment uf humanity. *rhe Jew has prinrity in judgment, because he had prinrity
of grace (cnmp. the two corresponding nporov, Rom. 3 : 9, 10). With the judgment
nn Jerusalem, the huur nf the wnrld'a judgment has reaUy struck. Thepresent epuch
is due tn a suapensinn uf the judgment already begun — a auspension the aim uf which
ia In make way fnr the time nf grace which ia tu be granted tn the Gentilea {Kaipol
eBvov, tlie times of the Gentilea). The clnse cnmbinatinn nf the destructinn nf Jeruaa
lem with the end uf the wurld in Matthew, thnugh cnntaining an error in a chrnnn
lngical pnint nf view, reata nn a mural idea which is prnfnundly true.
Thus everything authnrizes us tn give the preference tn Luke's accnunt. 1. Mat
thew's cnnstant habit nf grouping tngether in une, materials belnnging tn different dia
cnuraea ; 3. The preciae histurical situatinn which gave riae tn the special diacuurse cf
chap. 17 nn the cuming uf Christ, and which cannut be an inventiun uf Luke ; 3. The
eatablished fact, that the cunfusinn which marks the discuurse nf Matthew waa fureign
tn the mind uf Jeaua ; 4. FinaUy, we have a pnaitive witness tn the accuracy nf Luke ;
that is Mark. Fnr thnugh his great eschatelogical discourse (chap. 13) presents the
aame confusion aa that ef Matthew in the question of the diaciples which calls it
forth, it is cempletely at one with Luke, and, like him, mentions nnly nne subject,
the destructinn nf Jerusalem.
Might Mark have taken the furm uf his questinn from Luke, and that of the dia
cnurae frora Matthew, as Bleek alleges ? But the incungruity tn which such a cuurse
wnuld have led wuuld be unwnrthy nf a aerinua writer. Besides, the fnrm uf the
questiun is nnt the same in Mark as in Luke. Finally, the original detaUs which we
have pninted nut in Mark, as well aa thnae apecial and preciae detaUa with which his
narrative abnunds frnm the day nf the entry intn Jerusalera nnward, dn nut admit nf
this suppusitinn. Nu mnre can Luke have taken his queatinn from Mark. He wnuld
have burrowed at the aame tirae the detaila peculiar tn Mark which he wants, and the
fnrm nf the queatinn is tun well adapted in his Gnspel tu the cnntents uf the discnurse
tn admit uf this supposition. It must therefere be cnncluded, that if in the cnmpUa-
tinn nf the discourse Mark came under the influence of the tradition to which Mat
thew's form is due, the form ef the questien in his Gespel nevertheless remains as a
very atriking trace ef the accuracy of Luke's account. The form ef the queation in
Matthew must have been modifled te auit the contents of the diacourae ; and thus it
is that it has loat ita original unity and precision, which are preserved in the other two
evangelista. 3. The Diacourae : vers. 8-36. — The four pointa treated by Jesus are : 1st. The
apparent signs, which muat net he-mistaken fer true signs (vers. 8-19) ; 2d. The true
sign, and the destruction of Jemsalem which will immediately fellow it, with the
time of the Gentilea which will be connected with it (vers. 80-34) ; Sd. The Parousia,
which will bring this period to an end (vers, 35-37) ; ith. The practical application
(vers. 28-36). ..._..

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 447
Vers. 8-19.* The Signs which are not such.—" But He said. Take heed that ye be
nut deceived ; fur many shall cnme in my name, saying, 1 am he, and the time draw
eth near. Gn ye nut therefnre after them. 9. And when ye shaU hear nf wars and
cummntinns, be nut terrifled ; fur these things muat firat cnme tn pass ; but the end
cometh not so speedily. 10. Then said He untu them, Natinn shall rise against
natinn, and kingdnm against kingdnm. 11. Alid great earthquakes shall be in divers
places, and famines, and peatilencea, aa well as great and terrible signs frnm heaven.
13; But abnve all, they' shall lay their hands nn ynu, and persecute ynu, delivering
ynu up tn the synagugues, and intn prisuns, bringing yuu befnre kinga and rulera fur
my name's sake. 13. But it shall turn tu ynu fnr a testimnny. 14. Settle it, there
fure, in yuur hearts, nut tn meditate befnre what ye ahall answer. 15. Pur I wiU give
ynu a mnuth and wisdum, which all yuur adversariea ahall not be able to gainsay nor
reaist. 16. And ye shall be betrayed even by parenia, and brethren, and kinaf elks, and
friends ; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death ; 17. And ye shall be hated
of all for my name's sake ; 18. And there ahall not an hair ef your head periah. 19.
In your patience aave ye your lives. " The sign to which the question of the apostle
refers is net indicated till ver. 30. The aigna vers. 8-19 are enumerated solely tn put
believera nn their guard against the deciaive value which they might be led tn aacribe
tn them. The vulgar are inclined tn Innk nn certain extranrdinary eventa in nature
nr snciety aa the evidences nf sume appruaching catastrophe. Many events nf this
kmd will happen, Jesus means tu say, but withnut ynur being warranted yet tu cun
clude that the great event is near, and sn tn take measures precipitately. The aeduc-
tinn uf which Matthew and Mark speak ia tbat which ahall be practiced by the falae
Messiahs. The meaning is prnbably the same in Luke {ydp). Histnry, it is true, dnes
nnt attest the preaenee uf falae Measiaha befnre the destructinn nf Jeru,salem. And
thnae whu are mnat embarrassed by this fact are just nur mndern critics, whu see in
this discnurse nnthing but a prnphecy ab eveniu. They suppnae that the authur
aUudes tu such men as Judaa the Galilean, the Egyptian (Acta 31), Theudas, and
nthers, prudently described by Juaephua aa mere heads ef parties, but whu really put
furth Messianic pretenainna. Thia aaaertinn is hard tu prnve. Fur uur part, whu aee in
this discuurse a real prophecy, we think that Jesus meant te put believers en their
guard against false teachers, such as Simon the magician, ot whom there may have
been a great number at this period, though he is the only one ef whom profane his
tory speaks. "The pi) moyByvai, not io let themselves be terrified (ver. 9), refers to the
temptation tu a premature emigratiun. Cump. the nppusite ver. 31. Further, it
must nnt be cnncluded frnm the pulitical cnnvulsinns which shall shake the East that
the destructinn nf Jerusalem is nuw near.
Jesus had uttered in substance His whnle thnught in thuse few wnrds ; and He
might have passed immediately tn the cuntrast firav de, but when (ver. 30). Yet He
develups the aame idea mure at length, vera. 10-19 Hence the wurda in which Luke
expresaly reaumes his repurt ; Then aaid he unto them (ver. 10). Thia passage, vers.
10-19, might therefore have been inserted here by Luke as a fragment burrnwed from
* Ver. 8. 1*. B. D. L. X. 3 Mnn. Vss. nmit ovv. Ver. 11. N. B. L. place xai be
fore xara roitovS. Ver. 13. 5*. B. D. L. 3 Mnn., aitayopsvovS instead nf ayops-
vovS. Ver. 14. The mss. are divided between BsdBs and Sere, between siS raS xap.
SiaS (T. R.) and ev raiS xapSiaiS (Alex.). Ver. 15. !*. B. L. 5 Mnn., avrtdrijvai r/
avrsfiieiv instead uf avrsnteiv ovSe avridrr)vai. Vet. 18. Marcinn omitted this
verae. Ver. 19. A. B. sume Mnn. Syr. It. Vg., xrrjdsdBs instead uf xrijdadBa.

448 COMMEKTARY ON Si:. LUKE.
a separate document differing from the source whence he took the rest nf.the dis
ccurse. We should nut take the wnrds iXeyev airoti as a parenthetical propnsitinn,
and cnnnect rdre with iyepByaerai -. " Then said He untu them. One natinn shall riae;"
Accurding tu the analngy of Luke'a atyle, we shuuld rather translate : " Then said
He untn them, One natinn . . ." When tu great pulitical cummntinns there are
added certain physical phennmena, the imaginatinn is carried away, and the people
becnme prophets. Jesua puts the Church uf Palestiue nn its guard against this ten
dency (ver. 11). It is well knnwn that the times which preceded the destruction ot
Jerusalem were signalized in the East by many calamities, particularly by a dreadful
famine which tnnk place under Claudius, and by the earthquake which destroyed
Landicea, Hierapnlis, etc, in 67 nr 68,* By the signs fromheavenvre are tu underatand
meteurs, auroras, ecUpses, etc., phennmena tn which the vulgar readily attach a pro
phetic significance.
One of thnse events which cuntribute mnst tn inflame fanaticism in a religinus
cnmmunity is persecutinn ; thus are cunnected vers. 13 and 13. Thnse which are
annnunced will arise either frnm the Jews {aynagoguea), like that marked by the
martyrdums nf Stephen and James, nr frnm the Gentiles {]cings and rulers), like that
tn which Paul was expused in Palestine, nr that raised by Nern at Rnme. Iu the
phrase, before all these, the npd {before) refers tn the impurtance nf thia aign, nut tn its
time. Meyer deniea that irpd can have this meaning ; but Passuw'a dictinnary cites a
hnst nf examples fer it. It is, beaidea, the enly meaning which auita the context. If
npd here signifies before, why net speak ef the persecutions before the preceding signs ?
What Jesus means by this word is, that aranng all thnae signs, this is the nne which
raight mnst easUy thruw Hia disciplea nut nf the calm attitude in which they uught to
persevere. We have tranalated the passive dyopevovs by the active {bi'inging). Itia
hardly poasible te render the passive form into English. Holtzmann thinks that Luke
here traces after the event, though iu the form ef prophecy, the picture ef those
persecutions to which St. Paul was exposed. Can we suppuse an evangelist, to
whnm Jesus is the ubject uf faith, allntvinghimself deliberately thus tuput wurda into
His muuth after his fancy ? Bleek applies the wurd teatiinony (ver. 13) tu that which
will accrue tn the apnstles frnm this pruuf nf their fidelity. It ia mure natural, hav
ing in view the cunnectinn with vers. 14 and 15 {therefore, ver. 14), tn understand by
it what they shall themaelvea render nn uccasinn nf their persecutinn. This idea falls
back again into the Be not terrified ; " All that wiU enly end in giving you the oppor
tunity of glorifying me !" It ia the same with vers. 14 and 15, the object of which
is to inspire them with the most entire tranquility of soul in the carrying out nf their
miaainn. Jesua chargea Himaelf with every thing : kyii doaa, iwiUgive. The mnuth
ia here the emblem of the perfect ease with which they shall becume the nrgans nf the
wisdum uf Jesus, withuut the leaat preparatinn. The term avremEiv, gainsay, refers
tn the fact that their adversariea ahall find it impnasible tn make any valid reply to
the defence uf the disciplea ; the wnrd resist, tn the pnwerlessness tu answer when the
disciples, aaauming the nflenaive, shall attack them with the swnrd nf the gnspel. In
the Alex, reading, which placea avTiaryvai first, we must explain y in the senae of or
even. Tn ufflcial persecutinn there shall be added the sufferings nf dumestic enmity. The
=" " The Annals nf Tacitua and the Antiquitiea nf Juaephus prnve famines, earth
quakes, etc., in the tunes nf Claudiua and Nero and uf the Je-wish war" (Strauss,
" Leben Jesu fur d. d. Vulk," p. 338). "

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKfi. 449
name of Jesus wUl opeu up a gulf betweeu them and their nearest. Ver. 17 is almnat
identical with Juhn 15 : 31. But even in that case there will be nu grnund fnr dis
quiet. The time will not yet have cume for them tn quit the accuraed city and land.
Ver. 18 : "There ahall not an hair nf yuur head periah," seems tu cnntradict the
clnae of ver. 16 : " some of you shall perish." Thia contradiction ia explained by
the general poiut of riew frnm which we explain this piece : There shall, indeed, be
aume individual believers who shall perish in the persecution, but the Christian cnm
munity uf Palestine as a whnle shall escape the extermination which will overtake
the J|ewish people. Their condition is indicated in ver. 19, where this piece is
resumed. It is one of patience, that is tn say, peaceful waiting fnr the dirine aignal,
without being drawn aside either by the appeals ef a false patrintism nr by persecu
tinn, nr by falae signa and anti-Christian seductinns. The fut. KrijaeaBe in A. B. is
probably a cnrrection of the anr. KTyaaaBe (T. R.). The imper. signifles : " Embrace
the means which seem the way tu luse everything . . . and ye shaU save ynur
selves." KToo8at does nut mean to poaaesa (Ostervald), but to acquire. The wnrd
suggests that nf Jeremiah, I ¦wiU give thee thy life for a prey. And nnw at length
cnmes the cnntrast : the time when it wUl be necessary tn leave the passive attitude
fnr that nf actiun {orav de, but when, ver. 30).
Vers. 20-24.* The True Sign, and ilie Cataatroplie. — " But when ye shaU see
Jerusalem compassed with armies, then knuw that the desulatinn therenf is nigh. 31-
Then let them which are iu Judea flee tn the mnuntains ; and let them -vf hich are iu
the city depart cut ; and let uut them that are in the fields enter thereinto. 33. Fnr
these be the days of vengeance, that all thinga which are written may be fulfilled. 33.
But wue unto them that are with child, and tu them that give suck, in thuse daya ;
fur there shaU be great distress in the land, and wrath upun this penple. 24. And
they shaU faU by the edge nf the swnrd, and shaU be led away captive intn all
natinna ; and Jerusalem shaU be trudden dnwn uf the GentUes, until the timea uf the
GentUes be fulfilled." Here is the direct anawer tn the disciples' questiun : " When
. . . and with what sign ?" Jesus up tiU nnw has been warning believers nnt to
give way to hasty measures. Now He guards them, on the contrary, against the
iUusions of fanatical Jews, who to the end wUl cherish the belief that God wiU not
faU to save Jerusalem by a muacle. "By no meana, anawers Jesus : be assured in
that hour that all is over, and that destruction is near and, irrevocable." The sign
mdicated by Luke is the investment ef Jerasalem by a hostile army. We see nothing
tn hmder ua from regarding this sign as identical in sense with that annnunced by
Matthew and Mark m Daniel's wnrds (m the LXX.): the abomination of deaolation
atanding in the holy place. Why nnt understand thereby the GentUe standards planted
on the sacred suU which surrounds the hnly city ? Luke has substituted fur the
nbscure prophetic expressinn a term mure inteUigible tu Gentiles, It has nften beeij
cnncluded from this substitution, that Luke had mndified the furm of Jesus' saymg
under the influence of the event itself, and that cunaequently he bad written after the
destructinn of Jerusalem. But if Jesus reaUy predicted, as we have nn duubt He did,
the taking nf Jerusalem, the substitutinn of Luke's term fur the synunym nf Daniel
might have beeu made before the event as easily as after. Keim sees in the expreasinn
of the other Syn. the announcement of a simple profanation of the temple, Uke that
* Ver. 31. Marciun umitted vers. 31 and 33. Ver. 33. 11 Mjj. 30 Mnn. It. Vg.
umit EV befnre tcj Xao, which T. ft. reads, with-9 Mjj.

450 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
of Antiuchua Epiphanes — a predictinn which, accnrding tn him, was nnt fulfilled.
But in thia caae we muat establish a cuntradictinn between this threat and that of the
entire destruction nf the temple (Matt. ver. 6 ; Mark, ver. 3), which is purely arbitrary.
Thia utterance preserved the church nf Paleatine frum the infatuatinu which,
from the beginning uf the war, seized upun the whnle Jewiah natinn. Remembering
the warning nf Jeaua uf the approach of the Rnman armiea, the Christians nf Judea
fled tu Pella beynnd Jnrdan, and thus escaped the catastrophe (Eus. " Hist. Eccl."
iii. 5, ed. LEemmer). They applied the expressinn, the mountains (ver. 31), tu the
mnuntainnus plateaus nf Gilead. Ver. 31. "Let thnse whu dwell in the capital not
remain there, and let those whn dwell in the cnuntry nnt take refuge in it." The
inhabitants uf the cnuntry ordinarily seek their safety behind the walls uf the capital
But in thia caae, thia is the very pnint nn which the whule vinlence nf the sturm will
break. Ver. 33 gives the reasnn nf this dispensatiun. Cump. 11 : 50, 51. Ver. 33
exhibita the difficulty nf flight iu auch circumatances. Luke here eraits the saying of
Matthew abnut the impnasibUity nf flight on ihe Sabbath, which had nn direct appli
catiun tu Gentilea. The land shuuld be taken in the reatricted aenae which we give
the word, the country. St. Paul seema te allude te the expresaion, wrath upon this
people, in Rom. 3 : 5-8 and 1 Thesa. 3 : 16. Ver. 34. A million of Jewa periahed in
thia war ; 97,000 were led captive tu Egypt and the uther provinces nf the empire
(Jnsephua). The term narovpevy, trodden, denutea mnre than taking puaaessinn ; it is
the uppressinn aud cnntempt -which fnllnw cunqueat ; cnmp. Rev. 11 : 3. This
unnatural atate nf thinga will last till the end nf the times of ilie Gentilea. What means
thia expressinn peculiar to Luke 1 Accurding tn Meyer and Bleek, nnthing mnre than :
the tirae nf Gentile duraininn uver Jeruaalem. But wuuld it nnt be a tautnlugy tu say :
Jeruaalem shall be trodden dnwn by the GentUes until the tirae uf Gentile dumininn
cume tn an end ? Then the plural Kuipoi, the timea, is nnt sufficiently accuunted fer on
thia view. Neither ia the choice uf the term Kuipds, the oppoi'iuhiiy, inatead uf XP^<">^>
a certain apace nf time. In the paasage 19 : 44, the time of larael, Kaipds denntes the
seasnn when Gnd visits this penple with the ufler nf salvatiun. Accnrding tn this
analngy, the times of the Gentiles shnuld designate the whule periud during which God
shall approach with His grace the Gentiles who have been hithertn strangers to His
kingdom. Comp. 3 Cer. 6 . 3, the expressions Kaipd^ deKrb^, ypepa aorypia;. The
plural Kaipoi, the times, corresponds with the plural ihe nations ; the Gentile peoples
are called une after anuther ; hence there arises iu thia nne epuch a plurality ot

Modern criticism accuaea Luke ef having introduced intu the diacnurae of Jeaus at
his nwn hand thia , impnrtant idea, wbich la wanting in Mark and Matthew (Holtz
mann, p. 406). This supposition, indeed, ia inevitable, if his work is founded on
thnse twu writings ur un the ducuments from which they are drawn, the prete-Mark
or the Bogia, e.g. But if this aaying ia not found in the other twn Syn,, the thnught
which it expresses ia very clearly impUed. De they net both speak nf the preaching
nf the guspel tu all Gentile penples (Matt. 34 : 14), and uf a baptism tu be brought to
every creature (Mark 16 : 15 ; Matt. 38 : 19) ? Such a wnrk demands time. Geaa refers
alsn to Mark 13 : 9, Matt. 31 : 43, and 22 : 18, where Jesus declares that the kingdom
of God will pass for a time tn the Gentiles, and that they wUl bring fnrth the fruits
therenf, and where He describes tbe invitation which shall be addressed to them with .
thia view by the aervanta ef the Master (parable nf the marriage supper). All this
wnrk necessarily aupposes a special perind in . his1,nry. Can Jeaus have thuught of
thia periud as before the destractinn nf. Jeruaalem ? We have already proved the falsity
ut thia asaertien. When, therefure, in Luke Jesus inserta the timea of the Gentiles

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 451
between the destructicu of Jerusalem and the Parousia, He says nnthing but what is
implied in His utterances qunted by the nther twu Syn., necessary in itself, and cun
sequently in keeping with His real thnught. That establiahed, is it nut very arbitrary
tn aSect suapiciun nf Luke'a saying in which this idea ia pnsitively expressed ? Thia
era nf the GentUes was a nntiun fureign tu tbe O. T. Fur, iu the prophetic view, the
end nf the thencracy always coincided with that of the present world. We can thus
understand hew, in the, reproduction nf Jesus' sayinga within the bnsnm uf the
Juden-Christian Church, this nntiun, uncunnected with anything in their paat views,
cnuld be effaced, and disappear from that nral proclamation of the goapel which
determined the form of our two flrat S.vn. In posaeaaion of mere exact writteu
documenta, Luke here, aa in ao many otlier cases, reatored the sayings ef Jesua to
their true form. If Jesus, who flxed so exactly the time of the deatruciion of Jerusalent
("this generation shall not pass till . . ."), declared fn the same discourse that
He did not Himself know tlie day of His coming (Mark 13 : 33), it must infaUibly have
been because He placed a longisr or shorter interval between thoae two events — an
interval which is precisely the 'period of the Gentilea. Is not this explanation mere
probable than tbat which, contrary to all paychological poaaibility, aacribes to Luke
80 strange a license * aa that b% deliberately putting into hia Master's mouth aayinga
which He never uttered ?
Vers. 35-37. -j- The Parousia. — "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the
moon, and iu the stars ; and in the earth distress of nations with perplexity ; the sea
and the waves roaring ; 36. Men'a hearts failing them for fear, and fer looking after
thoae things which are coming on the earth ; for thepoweraof heaven sh-allbe ahaken.
27. Aud then shall they aee the Son of man coraing in a cloud with power and great
glory." We have found that the main aubject of thia discourse waa the deatruciion
of the temple of Jerusalem. But hew could our Lord close the treatment of this sub
ject, and the mention of the epoch of the GeutiWs which was tu fnllnw thia catas
trophe,' without terminating by indicating the Parousia, the limit of the prophetic
perspective ? The mention which He made in passing of this last event, which waa
to cenaummate the judgment of the world begun by the former, doubtleas contributed
to the combination of the two subjects, and to the confounding ef the twu discnurses
in traditinn. The intermediate idea, therefnre, between vers, 24 aud 25 is thia :
" And when thnse times uf the perind nf grace granted tu the Gentiles shall be at an
end, then there shall be . . . ;" then fulluwa the summary description of the
Parousia. Thoae two judgments, that of the theocracy and that ef the world, which
Luke separates by the times ef the Gentiles, are clesely connected in Matthew by the
evfisas, immediately, ver. 29, and by the words foUowing : after the tribulation of thoae
daya, which cannot well refer to anything elae than the great tribulation mentiuned
ver. 21, that is to aay, tu the deatructinn nf Jeruaalem (vers. 15-20). In fact, the
Paruusia is mentinned here by Matthew (ver. 27) only to condemn befnrehand the
lying revelatiuns nf false prophets (vers. 33-36) as tn the fnrm nf that event. In Mark
there is the same cnnnectiun as in Matthew, thuugh anmewhat less abanlute, between
the deatructiun uf Jeraaalem and the Parnuaia (" iu thnae daya," but withnut the
immediately of Matthew). The three writers' cumpUatinns are, it is easily seen, inde-^
pendent nf one annther.
Jesus described, 17 : 26-30 and 18 : 8, tbe state nf wnrldUness intn which snciety
and the Church itself wnuld sink in the last timea. In the midat nf Ihia carnal
* Holtzmann, on occasiun nf the piece vers. 35-36, aaya, in speaking ef Luke :
" Nnch weiter geht die Licenz . . ."(p. 237).
X Ver. 35. S. B. D., Eoovrat instead n( ei^rai, Alex:. It, Vg-, n°^^ instead nf
yxovays (T, B., Byz.).

453 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
security, alarming symptoms wiU 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 timber at the moment of its going to pieces, the globe which we inhabit {y
o'lKovpivy), and uur whnle selar system, shall undergo unusual commotions. The mov
ing forcea {dwdpEis), regular in their action till then, shall be as it were set free from
their lawa by an unknown power ; and at the end of this -riolent but shnrt distreas,
the wurld ahall aee Him appear whnse cuming ahall be like the lightning which shines
frnm une end uf heaven tu the nther (17 : 34). The cluud is here, as almust every
where in Scripture, the aymbul uf judgment. The gathering nf the elect, placed here
by Matthew aud Mark, is mentinned by St. Paul, 1 Theas. 4 : 16", 17, 3 Thess. 2 : 1,
where the wurd 'Enwwayoyy reminda ua nf the iiriavvdyEiv of the twn evangelists. Is
it nut a pruuf uf the falsity nf that style nf criticism which seeks to explain every
differeuce in text between the Syn. by ascribing tn them opposite points of view ?
Ver. 37. It is not said that the Lord shall retum to the earth to remain there. This
coming can be nnly a mumentary appearance, destined tn effect the resurrectinn uf the
faithful and the ascensiun nf the entire Ghurch (1 Cur. 15 : 33 ; Luke 17 : 31-35 ; 1
Thess. 4 : 16, 17).
Vers. 28-36.* The Applieaiion. — " When these things begin tn cume to pass,
then Innk up, and lift up ynur heads ; fur yuur redemptinn draweth nigh. 39. And
He spake tn them a parable : Behnld the flg-tree, and all the trees ; 80. When they
nnw shunt furth, ye aee and knuw nf ynur nwn selves that summer is nuw nigh at
hand. 31. Su likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, knnw ye that the
kingdnm nf Gud ia nigh at hand. 33. Verily I say untn ynu. This generatiun shall
nut paaa away tUl all be fulflUed. 33. Heaven and earth shall pass away ; but my
wnrda shall nnt pass away. 34. But take heed tn ynurselves, lest at any time your
hearts be nvercharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares nf this life, and so
that day cnme upnn yuu unawares. 35. Fnr as a snare it shall cume nn all them that
dwell nn the face nf the whule earth. 36. Watch ye, therefore, and pray alwaya, that
ye may be accnunted wurthy tu escape all these things that shall cume tn paaa, and to
stand befure the Snn uf man. ' ' Jeaus draws practical cuncluaiuns frnm the whole ot
the preceding diacourae : 1. In reapect nf hupe, vera. 38-33 ; 3. In reapect uf watch
fulness, vers. 34-36.
Vers. 38-33. It might be thnught that after this saying relative tn the Parousia
(vers. 36, 37), which is atrictly apeaking a digression, Jeaus returns tn the principal
tuple nf this diacnurae, the destructinn nf Jerusalem. The expresainn : your deUver
ance, wnuld then denute the emancipatinn nf the Juden-Christian Church by the de
structinn nf the persecuting Jewish pnwer. The cuming uf the kingdom of Ood, ver.
31, wnuld refer tn the prnpagatinn nf the gnspel amung the GentUes ; and ver. 33:
thia generation ahall not paaa away, wnuld thus indicate quite naturally the date nt the
deatructiun nf Jeruaalem. Yet the fact of the Parnuaia, nnce mentinned, is tun anlemn
tn be treated as a purely acceaanry idea. Thekingdomof God seems, therefure, neces
sarily tu denute here rather the flnal establishment nf the Messianic kingdnm ; and tU
deliverance (ver. 38) shnuld be appUed tn the definitive emancipatinn uf the Church by
the return uf the Lnrd (the deUverance uf the widnw, 18 : 1-8). Qf youraelves, ver.
* Ver. 33. !*. B. D. L. 3 Mnn., napEXevaovrai inatead nf napeXBoai (which is taken
frum Matthew and Mark). Ver. 35. ». B. D., de instead nf ow, Ver. 36. »• B. L.
X. 7 Mun., KUTiaxvayrE inatead nf Ka-a^iuByrE. 15 Mjj. nmit ravra.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 453
30 : " It is nnt necessary that an nfficial prnclaraatinn announce to the inhabitants nf
the wnrld that aummer is near ! " It is abnut the middle nf March that fruits begin tu
shnw themselves nn the nld branches nf the spring fig-tree ; they reach maturity be
fore the shooting nf the leavea. The first harvest ia gathered in "June (Keimj in. p.
306). Can ver. 83 refer atiU tn the Parnuaia ? But in that case, hnw are we tn explain
the expreaainn : this generation ? Jerome underatund by it the human speciea, Origen
and Chrysnatum the Chriatian Church. Theae explanatinns are nnw regarded aa
fnrced. That nf Durner and Riggenbach, whn take it tn mean the Jewish penple
(applying tu their cunversiun the image nf the fig-tree finuriahing again, vers. 39, 30),
ia nut much mnre natural. In this cnntext, where we have tu dn with a chrnnnlng
ical determinatinn (" is nigh," ver. 31), the meaning nf yeved must be temporal. Be
sides, we have the authentic cnmmentary un this aaying iu Luke 11 : 50, 51, where
Jeaua declares that it ia the very generatinn which is tn shed His blnnd aud that nf
Hia meaaengers, which muat suffer, besides, the punishment cf all the innncent blnnd
shed since that nf Abel dnwn tn this laat. It ia nnt less false tn give tn this expres
siun, with the Tubingen achnnl, such an extensicn that it embraces a period of 70
years (Hilgenfeld), or even of a century (Volkmar) : the duration of a man's life. It
has nut this meaning amnng the ancients. In Herod. (3. 143, 7. 171), Heraclitus, and
Thuc. (1. 14), it denotes a space of from 30 to 40 yeara. A century counts three gen
erations. The saying of Irenseus respecting the compoaition of the Apocalypse,
wherein he declares " that this vision waa aeen nnt lung befnre his epuch, almust
within the time nf nur generatiun, tuward the end nf Dnmitian's reign," dues nnt at
all prnve the contrary, as Volkmar allegea ; for Irenaeus says expressly : axeddv,
almoat, well aware that he ia extending the reach nf the term generation beynnd its
nrdinary appUcatinn. An impartial exegesis, therefnre, leaves nu dnubt that this aay
ing fixes the date nf the near destructinn nf Jerusalem at least the third nf a century
after the miniatry nf Jeaua. The meaning is : " The generatiun which shall ahed this
blnnd shall nut paas away till Gnd require it" (in uppnsitinn to all the blnnd nf the
ancients which haa remained an lung unavenged). Jldvra, all things, refers tu all thuse
events procursive nf that catastrophe which are enumerated vers. 8-19, and tu the
catastrophe itself (20-34). The pnsitiun nf this saying immediately after the preceding
veraes relative tu the Parousia, seems tn be in Luke a faint evidence of the influence
exercised by that cunfusinn which reigns threughnut the whule discourse as related
by the ether two Syn. There is nothing in that to surprise us. Would not the emis
sion of some word of tranaition, or the aimple diaplacing of aome sentence, suffice te
produce thia effect ? And how many cases of similar transpositions or omissions are
to be met with in our Syn. ? But if this obaervation is well founded, it proves that
the Goapel ef Luke was not composed, any more than the other twn, after the de
structinn uf Jerusalem.
Heaven and- earth (ver. 33) are cnntrasted with thuse magnificent structures which
Hia diaciples wnuld have Him tn admire (ver. 5) : Here is a very different nverthrnw
frum that which they had sn much difflculty in believing. This universe, this temple
made by the hand cf Gnd, passeth away ; nne thing remaina : the threata aud prumises
nf the Master whu is speaking tn them.
Vers. 34^36. Here, as in chap. 13, the life uf the disciples is apparently tu be pro
longed till the Paruusia. The reasnn is, that that perind is ever tn reraain the puint
nn which the believer's heart shuuld fix (13 - 36) ; and it, by all the generatinns which

454 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
s
precede the last, this expectatiun is nnt realized in its visible fnrm, it has its truth,
.nevertheless, in the fact uf death, that cnnstant individual returning nf Jeaua which
preparea fnr Hia general and final advent. The warning ver. 34 refers tn the danger
of slumbering, arising from the atate uf tbe wnrld in the laat timea, 17 : 26-30. On
the laat wurds nf the verse, cnrap. 1 Thess. 5 : 1-7. Ver. 35. The image is that of
a net which all at nnce incluses a envoy nf birds peacefully settled in a field. To watch
(ver. 36) is the emblem nf constant expectatinn. With expectatinn prayer is naturally
cnnjnined under the influence uf that grave feeling which is produced by the
fmminence uf the expected advent. The wurd araByvai, to stand upright, indicates the
solemnity nf the event. A divine pnwer will be needed, if we are nnt tn sink befnre
the Sun uf man in Hia glury, and be fnrced tn exclaim : " Mnuntains, fall nn us !"
With thia discuurse befnre it, the embarrassment of ratinnaliam is great. How
explain the annnuncement uf the deatructinn uf Jeruaalem, if there are nu prophecies?
that uf the Paruusia, if Jesua is but a sinful man Uke nuraelvea (nnt tn say, with
R6nan, a fanatic) ? Baur and Strauss aay : Under the influence nf Daniel's extrava
gant aayinga, Jeaua cnuld eaaily predict His retum ; but He cnuld nnt annnunce the
destructinn uf Jerusalem. Hase and Schenkel aay : Jesus, as agnndpnlitician, might
well fnresee and predict the deatruciion uf thetemple, but (and this is alsn M. Cnlani's
npininn) it ia impnssible tn make a fanatic nf Him annnuncing His return. Each writer
thus determines a priori the result cf hia criticism, according tn hia nwn dngmatic con-
victinn. It is perfectly useless tn discuaa the matter nn auch bases, Keim recugnizea
the indiaputable histnrical reality nf the annnuncement uf the deatructiun uf Jerusalem, '
nn the ground nf Matt. 36 : 60 (the falae wilnesses), aud nf Acts 6 : 11-14 (Stephen),
and the truth nf the prnmise nf the Paruusia as well , the saying Mark 13 ; 33 is a proof
nf it which cannut be evaded. Nevertheless, agreeing in part with M. Colani, he re
gards the discnurae Matt. 34 aa the cumposition uf an authnr much later than the
ministry uf Jesua, whu has improved upnn sume actual words of Hia. This apocar
lyptic poem, Jewiah according to Weizsacker, Judeo-Christian according to Colani
and Keim, was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalera.
The following are our objections to thia hj'potheais : 1. It ia not in this diacourse
only that Jesus announces the catastrophe of Israel, and appends the extraordinary
asaertion of His return. On the destruction of Jerusalera, read a.gain Matt. 31 : 44,
Luke 19 : 43-44, Mark 11 : 14, 30, 13 : 9, etc. etc. ; and on the Parousia, Matt 7 : 31-23,
19 : 28, 35 : 31-46, 36 : 63, 64, Luke 9 : 36 and parall., 13 : 23-37, etc. How could
(hose numeroua declarationa which we find scattered over different parta nf uur Syn.
Guspela, be aU burrowed from thia alleged apucalyptic pnem ? 2. Huw cnuld aprivate
curapnsilinn have ubtained such general authnrity, under the very eyes nf the apos
tles ur their first disciples, that it fnund admiaainn intu uur three Syn. Guapels as an
authentic aaying nf nur Lurd ? Was ever a pure pnera tranafurmed intu an exact and
solemn diacnurae, auch as tbat expressly put by nur three evangeUsts at thia deter
minate histurical tirae intn the mnuth uf Jesus ? Such a hypnthesis is nuthing else
than a stroke uf desperatinn.
Vnlkmar finds in this discnurse, as everywhere, the result uf the miserable in-
Iriguea uf the Chriatian parties. Jnhn the apnstle had published in 68 the great ref-
erie nf the Apucalypse. He still hnped fnr the preservatinn nt the temple (Rev.
31 -.1 et seq.), which prnvea that he had never heard hia Master annnunce its destruc
tion. Five years later, in 73, Mark cumpuaes another Apncalypae, intended tn rectify
the furmer. He elaburates it frum the Pauline standpuint ; he rejects its tun precise
dates, and the details which had been hazarded, but which the event had pruved false ;
the fixing, e.g., nf the three years and a half which were tu extend te the Paruusia, a
date for which he prudently substitutea the aaying : " As tn that day, even I myself
knnw it not," etc. Such is the nrigin nf the great eschatulngical diacourae in the
Syn., the mnat ancient munument nf which is Mark 13. But, 1. This aUeged dog
matic cnntrast between tbe discourse Mark 13 and'- tbe Apocalypse exiata only in the
mind of Vnlkmar ; the latter celebrates the cnnverainn nf the Gentilea with the same
-enthusiasm as the former foretells it, 3. The cunjipusitinn nf the Apucalypse in 68 is -

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 455
an hypnthesis, the falsehnnd uf which we have, aa we think, demonstrated.* 3; It is
utterly false th^t the Apocalypse teachea the preservation of tbe temple ef Jerusalem.
The descriptinn 11 -.1 et seq., if it is tn be reacued frnm absurdity, must necessarily
be taken in a figurative senae, aa we have alan demunstrated.-j- 4. Certainly the pnet
ical repreaentatinns nf the Apncalypae were nnt the nriginal nf the simple, cunciae,
prosaic expreasinns nf the discuurse cf Jesus in the Syn. ; it was these, un the cnn
trary, which served aa a canvaa fur the rich dellneatinns nf the Apncalypae. Ia it nut
evident that the literal terma war, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, in the mnuth nf
¦Teaua (Luke 21 : 9-11 and parall.), are amplified and develuped intn the fui-m uf cnm
plete -viaiuns in the apucalyptic seals {war, in Rev. 6 : 3, 4 ; famine, in vers. 5:6;
pestilence, in vera. 7, 8 ; earthquake, in vers. 12-17 ; cump. alsu the persecutions fnre
tnld Luke 5 : 16, 17, with Rev. 6 : 9-11, and tbe falae Christs and prophets predicted
Matt. 24 : 34, with Rev. 13) ? The in verae procedure, the return frura the elaborate te
the simple, from the Apecal.ypse te the Gospels, is in its very nature inadmissible.
The compositinn nf Jesus' discuurse in the Syn. is therefnre anterinr tu that nf the
Apucalypse, and nnt the reverse. 5. The hiatnrical declaratinn nf Jesus in Mark :
" Of that day knuweth nn man, nut even the Sun, " is cunfirmed by Matt. 34 : 36 and
Mark 13 : 35. It resulta from the very cnntenta nf this marvellnus aaying. Whn
wuuld have thuught, at the tirae, when the cnnvictinn nf the Lnrd'a divinity was mak
ing way with su much force in the Church, and when Jesua waa represented in this
very discourse as the universal Judge, ef putting into Hia mouth a aaying which
seemed te bring Him down to the level of other human beings ? Such a saying raust
have rested on the moat authentic tradition. 6. We have proved the mutual inde
pendence of the three synoptical accounts. The origin of this discourse of Jesus
was therefure, nu duubt, apnstulical traditiun circulating in the Church, agreeably tn
Luke 1:1, 3.
Jesus then called Himself, and consequently either knew or believed Himself to
be, the future judge of the Church and the werld. In the former caae. He must be
aomething mnre than a sinful man — He can be enly tbe God-man ; in the latt er. He
ia only a fool carried away with pride. In vain will MM. Colani, Volkmar, and Keim
attempt to eacape from thia dilemma. Genuine historical criticism and an impartial
exegeaia will always raise it anew, and allow no other choice than between the Christ
of the Church and the clever charmer of M. R6nan.
What conclusion shnuld be drawn from this discourse as to the date when our
Syn., and Luke in particular, were composed? De Wette has iustly cencluded,
from the close cunnection which this disceurse, as we have it in Matthew, fixes be
tween the destructinn nf Jeruaalem and the Paruusia, tbat this Gnspel must have been
cumpnsed befure the furmer uf thnse twn events. And, in truth, it requires all
Vnlkmar's audacity tn attempt tn prove the cnntrary by means nf that very eiBiuS,
immediately (24 : 29), which su directly, as we have seen, connects the second event
with the first. But if this conclusion is well founded in regard to the first Guspel, it
is nnt less applicable tu the secnnd, which in this respect ia in exactly the same cir
cumstances as the first. As to Luke, it has often been inferred from the well-
marked distinction kept up between the twn subjects and the twn diacnuraes (Parnu
aia, chap. 17 ; destruction nf Jerusalem chap. 21), that he wrote after the deatructiun
nf Jerusalem, when the interval between the twu events waa histurically eatablished.
Ratiunal as this cnncluainn may appear at first sight, it is nevertheless unfuunded.
Pur, 1. Luke himself, as we have seen at ver. 33, is nnt whully exempt from the cun
fuainn which prevaUs in the uther twn. 3. If Jesus in His nwn judgment distinctly
separated thnse twn eventa, why might He nnt have spuken nf them Himaelf in twn
separate discnurses ; and why might nnt Luke, in thia case as in many uthers, have
simply repruduced the histurical fact frnm mnre exact nriginals (1 : 3, 4) ?
3. General 'View of ihe Situation : vers. 37, 38.^;- The preceding discuurse Was
dehvered by Jesus nn the Tuesday ur Wednesday evening. Luke here characterizes
our Lnrd's mude uf living during the last daya nf Hia lite. AvXi^EaBai -. tn pass the
* " Bulletin Th^ulngique, " 1865, pp. 336-349. t lb. p. 343.
X Ver. 38. 4 Mnn. add at tbe end uf.thia verse, kui anyXBov eKuaro^ eiS tov oikov
avrov, then the narrative Juhn 8 : 1-11.

456 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
night in the npen air. The use of the e'is arises frum the idea nf mntion cnntained in
E^epxd/ievoS (Bleek). 4 Mnn. place here, after ver. 38, the accuunt uf the wnman
taken in adultery, which in a large number nf ducuments is fnund Juhn 7 : 53-8 : 11.
We can only see in thia piece, in Luke aa well aa in Juhn, an interpnlatinn duubtleaa
owing tn sume marginal, nute taken by a cnpyist from the Gnspel uf the Hebrews,
and which iu sume mss. had fnuud its way intu the text of the Gnspel. As tn the
reat, this narrative wnuld stand much better in Luke than in Jnhn. It has a clnae
bund uf cunnectinn with the cnntenta uf chap. 30 (the anares laid fnr Jeaus). And
an event nf this kind may have actually nccurred iu the twn nr three days which are
summarily described in vers. 37 and 38.

SIXTH PART.

THE PASSION.
CHAPS. 22 AHD 23.
The Sarinur had taken up a truly rnyal attitude in the temple. Now this shnrt
anticipatiun nf His kingdnm, the nnrmal blnssuming nf His prophetic activity, ia
over ; and limiting Himaelf tn a ailence and paasivity which have earned fur thia
perind the name uf the Passinn, He exerciaes that terrestrial priesthund which waa to
be the tranaitiun from His pruphetic miniatry tn His celestial anvereignty.
We find in the fnurth Gespel (chap. 12) a acene which muat have nccurred nn une
of the daya referred tu by Luke 21 : 37, 38, the discuurse which Jesus uttered in the
temple in answer tu the questinn nf sume Greek proselytes whn had desired tn cun-
verse with Him, and the divine mauifestatinn which tnnk place nn that uccasinn.
Then it is said, " And He departed, and did hide Himself from them" (ver. 36).
Thia departure cnuld nnt be that nf Matt. 24 : 1 (paraU. Luke 21 : 5). The' acene
which precedea differs too widely. It tnnk place, therefure, nne nr twu days later ;
and this auppusitinn agrees with the meaning nf the laat twu versea uf chap. 31, which
furbid us tn beUeve that after the eschatulngical diacnurae Jesus did nnt reappear in
the temple. Thus, if we place the entry intu Jeruaalem un Sunday afternnun, the
puriflcatinn nf the temple nu Munday (Mark), the captinus questinna put tn Him nn
Tueaday, and the prnphecy respecting the deatructiun uf Jerusalem nn the evening nf
that day, the temple acene related Juhn 13 may have nccurred nn Wedneaday ; in
which caae, Jesus would pass the last day, Thursday, in His retreat at Bethany with
His disciples. It it is alleged, with Bleek, that the entry un Palm Day tunk place nn
Munday, each ct the events mentiuned is put back a day ; and the temple acene fall
ing in this caae un Thursday, Jeaua muat, nn the cnntrary, have pasaed thia laat day,
like all the rest, at Jerusalem. Whatever Keim may aay, whn allegea twu days uf
cnmplete retirement, Wednesday and Thursday, everything cnnsidered, we regard
the secund suppusitinn as the simplest.
The narrative uf the Passinn cnmprehends : I. The preparatinn fnr the Passinn
/(32 : 1-46). II. The Passinn (23 : 47 ; 33 : 46). III. The events fnUuwmg the Passinn
(23 : 47-56). FIRST CYCLE.— CHAP. 33 : 1^6.
The Preparation for the Passion.
This cycle cnmprehends the three fnllnwing events : Judas preparing fur the
Passinn by seUing Jeaus ; Jesus preparing Hia disciples fur it at His last supper ; Hia
preparing Himself fur it by prayer in Gethsemane.

458 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
I. The Treachery of Judas : 33 : 1-6.*— Vers. 1-6. The resolution of the Sanhedriin
was taken. The only questien for it henceforth waa that of the how{TdnoS, ver, 3). Its
perplexity arose from the extraordinary favor which Jesus enjuyed with the peuple,
particularly with the cruwds whu had cnme frnm Galilee and frnm abroad ; the rulers
feared a pnpular riaing nn the part nf thnae numeruua frienda whu had cnme frnm a
distance with Him, and of whum they did nut feel themaelves the masters, as they
did uf the pnpulatinn uf Jerusalem. Su, accnrding tu Matthew and Mark, they said
in their cunclavea, " Nnt during the feaat," which may signify either before, ere the
multitudes are fully assembled, cr after, when they shall have departed, and they
shall be again masters uf the field. But it was in exact keeping with the divine plan
that Jeaus shuuld die during the feast {iv t§ iopry) ; and the perfidy uf Judas, the means
which the rulers thnught they cnuld use tn attain their end, was that nf which Gnd
made use tn attain His.
It appeara frnm Matt. 36 : 3 and Mark 14 : 1 that it waa Wedneaday when the
negutiatiun between Judaa aud the Sanhedrim tnnk place. Luke and Mark omit the ,
werda ef Jesus (Matthew), " In two daya ia the Passover . . ." But these two
days appear in Mark in the form ef the narrative. The word Passover, to naaxa, from
nCD ' ''I Araraaic xnOD. aignifles a pasaing, and commemorates the manner in
which the laraelitea were spared in Egypt when the Almighty paaaed ever their
heusea, sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, without slaying their first-born. This
name, whicb originally denoted the lamb, was applied later to the Supper itaelf, then
to the entire feast. The Passover was celebrated in the first month, called Ifisan,
from the 15th ef the raonth, the day of full moon, to the 31at. Thia seasun cnrre
spunds tu the end nf March and beginning uf April. The feast npened nn the evening
which clnsed the 14th and began the 15th, with the Paschal Supper. Originally
every father, in virtue uf the prieathnud belunging tn every laraeUte, sacrificed his
lamb himself at his nwn huuse. But since the Paaauver celebrated by Jusiah, the
laraba were sacrificed in the temple, and with the help nf the priests. This act tnnk
place nn the afternnun nf the 14th, frnm three tn six n'clnck. Snme hnurs after the
Supper began, which was prulnnged far intn the night This Supper npened the
feast nf unleavened bread {idprr) ™v d^vpov, ver. 1) which, accnrding tn the law,
lasted the seven fnllnwing days. The firat and laat (15th and 31st) were sabbatic.
The intermediate daya were nnt hallnwed by actsnf wnrship and sacrifices ; work was
lawful. Aa Jnsephua expreasly says that the feast nf unleavened bread lasted eight
days, agreeing with nur Syn., whu make it begin nn the 14th (ver. 7 ; Malt. 36 ; 17 ;
Mark 14 : 13), and nnt un tbe 15th, we must cunclude that in practice the use of
unleavened bread had been gradually extended to the 14th. Tu the preaent day, it is
nn the night between the 13th and 14th that aU leaven is remnved frum laraelitish
houaea. Luke, ver. 3, aacribes the cnnduct ef Judas to a Satanic influence. He goes the
length of saying that Satan entered into him. He meaus te remark here, in a general
way, the intervention of that auperier agent in this extraordinary crime ; while John,
seeking te characterize its various degrees, more exactly distinguiahes the time when
Satan put into the heart ef Judas the flrst thought ef it (comp. 13 : 3), and the
* Ver. 3. A. B. D. L. X., KuXovpevarv inatead of En iKaXovpEvov. Ver. 4. 0. P. 10
Mnn. Syr. Itpi«"q»e, add kui roiS ypapparEvaiv after toiS apxiEpEvaiv C P 9 Mnn
Syr^t. add rov upov after arparyyois. Ver. 5. The MSS. are divided' between
apyvpiov and apyvpia. Ver. 6. »* C. ItPi«'iq"», omit kui elopoXoyyaev

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 459
moment when he entered into him sn as tn take entire pussessinn nf his wiU (13 : 37).
Accurding tu the biblical view, thia interventinn uf Satan did nnt at aU exclude the
liberty nf Judaa. Thia disciple, in jnining the service ef Jesus, had net taken care
to deny his own life, as Jesus so often urged His own tn dn. Jesus, instead nf be
cuming the end tn his heart, had remained the meana. And nnw, when he saw things
terminating in a result entirely uppused tn that with which he had ambitinusly flat
tered himself, he wished at least tu try tu beneflt by the false pusitinn intn which he
had put himself with his natinn, and tu use his advantages aa a disciple in crder tu
regain the favnr nf the rulers with whnm he had broken. The thirty pieces nf silver
certainly played nnly a secundary part in his treachery, althnugh this part waa real
notwithatanding ; fur the epithet thief (Jnhn 13 : 6) is given tn him with the view uf
putting hia habitual cunduct in cnnnectinn with this flnal act. Matthew and Mark
insert here the narrative nf tbe feaat at Bethany, thnugh it muat have taken place
sume days befnre (Jnhn). The reasun fnr this insertion is an asaocia-tiun uf ideaa aris
ing from the mural relatiun between theae twn paiticulai-a in which the avarice uf
Judas shnwed itaelf. The arparyyoi, captaina (ver. 4), are the heada nf the suldiery
charged with keeping guard ever the temple (Acts 4 : 1). There waa a positive enn-
tract {they covenanted, he promiaed). 'Arep, nnt at a distance from the multitude, but
without a multitude ; that is tn say, withnut any flucking tugether produced by the
nccasiun. This whuUy unexpected cffer determined the Sanhedrim In act before
rather than after the feast. But in crder tu that, it was necessary tu make haste ; the
last mument had cnme.
II. The Bast Swpper : 33 : 7-38. — We flnd nurselves here face tu face with a diffl
culty which, since the aecund century cf the Church, has arreated the attentive
readers nf the Scripturea. As it waa nn the 14th Niaan, in the afternnun. that the
Paschal lamb was sacriflced, that it might be eaten the evening of the aame day, it
has been custemary tn take the time designated by the wnrda, ver. 7, Then came the
day qf unleavened bread when ihe Paaaover muat be killed (cump. Matthew and Mark),
aa faUing nn the murning nf that 14th day ; frnm which it would follow that the
Supper, related ver. 14, et aeq. , took place the evening between the 14th and 15th.
This view aeema to be conflrmed by thei paraUela Matt. 36 : 17, Mark 14 : 13, where the
disciplea (net Jesus, as in Luke) take the initiative in the steps needed for the Supper
If such was the fact, it appeared that the apostles ceuld not have been occupied with
the matter tUl the morning of the 14th. But thereby the explanation came intn cnn
flict with Jnhn, whn seema te say in a considerable number ef passages that Jeaus
was crucified on the afternoon ef the 14th, at the time when they were slaying the
lamb in the temple, which neceaaarily aupposes that the last Supper of Jesus with
His disciplea took place the evening between the 13th and 14th, the eve before that
on which Israel celebrated the Paschal Supper, and not the evening between the 14th
and 15th. This aeeming contradiction doea not bear on the day of the week en which
Jesus was crucified. According to our feur Gospels, thia day was indisputably
Friday. The difference relates merely te the day ef the month, but en that very
account, alsn, tu the relatinn between the last Supper nf Jesus at which He instituted
the Eucharist, and the Paschal feast of that year. Many commentators— Wieseler,
Hofmann, Lichtenstein, Tholuck, Riggenbach— think that they can identify the
meaning ef John's paaaagea with the idea which at flrst aight appeara te be that of
the aynoptical narrative ; Jesua, according te John aa according to the Syn., cele-
hrated His last Supper on tbe evening of the 14th, and instituted the Holy Supper

460 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
while celebrating the Passover conjointly with the whole people. We have explained
in nur " Cummentaire sur I'evangile de Jeau" the reasnns which appear tn us tu ren
der this snlutinn impuaaible.* The argumenta advanced since then by the learned
Cathnlic thenlngian Langen, and by the eminent philnlugist BSumlein, have nut
changed nur cnnvictinn. f The meaning which presents itself first tn tbe mind un
reading Jnhn's Gnapel, ia and remaina the nnly pnaaible nne, exegetically speaking.
But it may and ahnuld be asked in return. What is the true meaning of the synnptical
narrative, and its relatinn tn Jnhn's accnunt thus underatund ? Such is the pnint
which we proceed tu examine aa we study mure clnsely the text nf Luke.
The narrative uf Luke embraces : 1. The preparatinn fur the feast (vers. 7-13) ; 2.
The feast itself (vera. 14r-33) ; 3. The cunveraatiuns which fnllnwed the feast (vers.
34.-38.) 1. The Preparationa : vers. 7-13.t — There is a marked difference between the
f/XBe, came, nf ver. 7, and the yyyi^s, drew nigh, uf ver. 1. The wnrd drew nigh placed
us une ur twu days befnre the Paaauver ; the wurd came denutea the beginning uf the
day un which the lamb waa killed, the 14th. Is this time, as ia nrdinarily auppused,
the morning nf the 14th ? But after the Jewish mnde nf reckuning, the 14th began
at even, abnut six n'clnck. The whnle night betweeu the 13th and 14th, in our lan
guage, belonged to the I4th. Hew, then, could the word came apply to a time when
the entire firat half ef the day waa already past ? The carnie of ver. 7 seems to us,
therefere, to denote what in, uur language we ahnuld call the evening nf the 13th
(amnng the Jews the time uf transitinn frum the 13th tu the 14th, frum fnur tn six
o'clock). The expreaainns nf Matthew and Mark, withuut being su precise, dn nut
necessarily lead tu a different meaning. Indeed, the expresainn nf Mark, ver. 13,
dnes nnt aignify, " at the time when they kUled . . ." but " the day when they
. . ." But may we place on the 13th, in the evening, the command ef Jeaua to
Hia two disciples te prepare the feaat for the mnrruw ? That ia nut nnly pnaaible, but
necessary. On the murning nf the 14th it wnuld have been tnn late tn think uf prn-
* See at 13 : 1, 18 : 38, 19 : 14, and the special diaaertatinn, t. ii. pp. 639-636.
X Langen, " Die letzten Lebenatage Jeau, " 1864 ; Baumlein, " Cumm en tar liber das
Evangelium Juhannia," 1863. Buth apply the expreaaiun before ihe feast of Pasa
over (,Inhn, 13 : 1), tn the evening nf the 14th, making the feaat nf Paaauver, prnperly
an called, be.gin nn the murning uf the 15th. Langen juatffies this way nf speaking
by Deut. 16 : 6, where be translates : "At the i-iaing uf the sun (instead nf at the
going down nf the sun) ia the feaat nf the cnming furth nut uf Egypt." This trans
latinn is contrary to the analogy of Gen. 38 : 11, etc. The passage ef Josephus which
he adds (Anti{{. iii. 10. 5) haa aa little fnrce. We think that we have demnnatrated
hnw insufflcient is Deut. 16 : 3 tn justify that interpretatinn nf Jnhn 18 : 38 which
wuuld reduce the meaning nf the phraae, to eat the Paaaover, tu the idea nf eating the
unleavened bread and the aacrificial vianda nf the Paschal week. As tn Jnhn 19 : 14,
there ia nu duubt that, aa Langen prnvea, the N. T. (Mark 15 -. 43), the Talmud, and
the Fathers uae the term napaoKEvy, preparation, tu denote Fi'iday as the weekly prep
aratinn fur the Sabbath, and that, cunsequently, in certain cnntexta the expreaainn
napaoKEvy rov ndaxa, prepa/ration of the Paaaover, might aignify the Friday of the .Pasa
over week. But thia meaning ia excluded in John : lat. By the ambiguity which the
expreasion must have presented tu tbe mind uf his Greek readers ; 2d. By the fact
that nu reader uf the Gnspel cnuld be ignnrant that the narrative lay in the Paachal
week. X Ver. 7. B. C. D. L. nmit ev befnre y, Ver. 10. !*. B. C. L., eiS yv inatead uf ov
ur ow Eav. Ver. 13. Inatead uf uvoyEov (T. R. with X. r.), 4 Mjj. avayaiov, the
others avayaiov: ». L. X., kukei inatead uf ekei. Ver, 13. !*. B, C. D. L,, eipyKei
inatead uf EipyKev.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 461
curing an apartment for that very evening. Strauss fully acknowledges this : * "In
conaequence of the flecking nf pilgrima from a distance, it was ot course difflcult, and
even impossible tu flnd nn the mnruing nf the flrst day nf the feast (tbe 14th), fnr the
very evening, a rnnm nnt yet taken up." Placea were then taken at least a day in
advance. Clement nf Alexandria, nn thia accnunt, givea the iSth the name nf
npoEToipaaia, pro-preparation. The 14th was the preparation, because un that day the
lamb waa killed ; the 13th, the pro-preparation, becauae, aa Clement aaya, on that day
they consecrated the unleavened bread and took all the other steps necessary for the
Paschal feast.f Hence it follows, that the questien put by Matthew and Mark intu
the muuth uf the disciplea, " Where wUt Thuu that we prepare the Paaauver ?" must
likewise be placed nn the evening nf the 13th, which fnr the Jewa waa already paaa-
ing into the 14th. It matters little, therefure, sn far aa thia queatinn is cuncerned,
whether the initiative be ascribed tn Jesus (Luke) nr tn the disciples (Matthew and
Mark). As tn the rest, nn this puint the narrative nf Luke is evidently the mnst pre
cise and exact, fnr he alsu, ver, 9, relates the questien nf the disciples, but replacing
it in its true puaitiun. Luke alune menlinna the namea nt the twu apuatles chnsen.
He must have burrowed this detail frnm a private suurce —at least if he did net invent
it ! In any case, the fact would net agree very well with hia alleged habitual animos
ity agaiust St. Peter, j: Jeaua muat have had au object in apecially chnnaing thnae
twn disciples. We shall see, in fact, that thia waa a cnnfldential miaainn, which
cuuld be trusted tn nnne but Hia surest and must intimate friends. If it was between
fnur and six n'clnck in the evening, the apnstlea had yet time tu execute their cum
miasiun befnre night, whether they had pasaed the day in the city, and Jesus left thera
tn dn it when He Himaelf waa atarting fnr Bethany with the purpnae nf returning later
tn Jerusalem, or whether He had pasaed the whole ef thia last day at Bethany, and
sent them from the latter place.
Why doea Jeaus not deacribe te them more plainly (vera. 10-13) the heat whom He
has in view ? There .is but one .answei He wishes the bouse where He reckons en
celebrating the feaat to remain unknown te those who aurround Him at the time when
He gives this order. Thia is why, instead of describing it. He gives the aign indi
cated. Jeaua knew the projects ef Judaa ; the whole narrative ef the feaat which
foUows proves this ; and He wished, by acting in this way, to escape from the hin
drances which the treachery ef His disciple might have put in His way in the use
which He desired to make of this last evening. The aign indicated, a man drawing
water from a fountain, ia not su accidental as it appears. On the evening nf the 13th,
before the stars appeared in the lieavens, every father, accnrding tn Jewish custnm, had
tn repair to the fnuntain tu draw pure water with which tu knead the unleavened
bread. It was, in fact, a rite which was carried thruugh tu the wurds : " This is the
water nf unleavened bread." Then a lurch was lighted, and during snme fnllnwing
part nf the night the hnuse was visited, and searched in every curner, tn put away
the smallest vestige nf leaven. There is thus a clnaer relatiun than appeara between
the aign and its meaning. Here ia a new pruuf nf the aupernatural knnwledge uf
* " Leben Jeau fiir d. d. Vulk," p. 533.
f " On this day (the 13th) tnnk place the cnnsecratiun ef the unleavened bread
and the pro-preparation uf the feast." (Fragment nf hia buuk, Trepi roti 57a(T;i;a, pre
aerved in the " Chrunicnn Paschale.")
X So small a thing does not trouble Baur ! Here, according to him, we have a
malicious nutice from Luke/ whu wiahea tn indicate thnse twn chiefs nf the Twelve aa
the representatives uf ancient Judaism (!).

462 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Jesps. The fact is omitted in Matthew. As usual, this evangelist abridges the narra
tive ef facts. Probably Jesus knew the master of the house mentioned ver. 11, and
had a,lready aaked this service ef him conditionally (ver. 13). 'Avdyaiav (in the Attic
form, 'avuyEuv), the upper room, which sometimes occupies a part of the terrace ef the
house. All. furnished : provided with the necessary divans and tables (the tridi-
niv.m, in the shape ot a horseshoe).
Matthew (36 : 18) has preserved to us, iu the message of Jesus to the maater of the
hnuae, a saying which deaervea tn be weighed : " My time ia at hand ; let me keep
the Passnver at thy huuse with my disciples." Hnw dnes the flrst uf thnse twn prop-
usitinns furm a grnund fnr the request implied iu the secnnd ? Cnmmentaturs have
seen in the flrst an appeal tn the uwner's sensibilities : I am abuut tu die ; grant me
this laat aervice . Ewald sumewhat differently : Sunn I ahall be in my glury, and I
ahall be able tu requite thee fur thia aervice. These explanatinns are far-fetched. We
can explain the thuught nf Jesus, if thnse wurds expreaa the necessity under which
He flnds Himself laid, by the nearness nf His death, to anticipate the celebration of
the Passover : " My deatii is near ; to-morrow it will be toe late for me to keep the
Pasaover ; let me celebrate it at thy house [this evening] with my disciples." Ilotti is
not the att. fut. (Bleek), but the present (Winer) : " \At me keep it immediately." It
was a call tu the uwner instantly tn prepare the rnnm, and everything which was nec
essary fnr the feast. The twn disciples were tc make thuse preparatinns in cnnjunc
tinn with the hnst. Nu duubt the lamb cuuld nnt be slain in the temple ; but cnuld
Jesus, being excummuuicated with all His adherents, aud already even laid under
aentence ef arreat by the Sanhedrim (John 11 : 53-57), have had Hia lamb alain on the
morrow in the legal form ? That ia far from probable. Jesus is about to substitute
the new Passover for the old. How should He net have the right to free Himaelf
from the letter of the ordinance ? all the mere that, according to the original inatitu
tion, every father waa required himaelf to alay the Paschal lamb in his dwelling.
He freed Himaelf in like manner from the law aa tu the dlay. He is fnrced, indeed,
tn dn su, if He wiahes Himself te substitute the new feast fer the old. The decisinn
nf the Sanhedrim tu put Him tn death before the feast (Matt. 36 : 5), leaves Him nn
chnice. Thia entire atate nf things agrees with the expressiun which Jnhn uaes :
dEinvov yEvopivov, a supper having taken place (13 : 3).
3. The Supper : vers. 14-33. — There are three elements which fnrm the material
uf this narrative in the three Syn. : lat. The expreaainn nf the persnnal feelinga nf
Jeaua. With this Luke begins, and Matthew and Mark clnse. 2d. The institutinn
nf the Hnly Supper. It fnrms the centre nf the narrative in the three Syn. Sd. The
disclnsure nf the betrayal, and the indicatinn nf the trailer. With this Luke ends, and
Matthew and Mark begin. It is easy to aee hew deeply the facta themaelvea were
impreaaed on the memory ef the witneaaes, but how secundary the intereat waa which
traditiun attached te chronulugical nrder. The myth, nn the cnntrary, wuuld have
created the whule n^ a piece, and the result wuuld be whnlly different. Luke's urder
appears preferable. It is natural fnr Jesus tu begin by giving utterance tn His per
snnal impreaaiuna, vers. 15-18. With the painful feeling of approaching separatinn
there is connected, by an easily understood bund, the institutinn nf the Hnly Supper,
that sign which is in a way tu perpetuate Christ's visible presence in the midst uf
His nwn after His departure, vers. 19, 30. Finally, the view nf the clnae cnmmuninn
cuntracted by this snlemn act between the disciples causes the feeling uf the cnntrast
between them and Judaa, sn agnnizing tn Him, tu break furth intn expressinn. Such

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 463
is the connection of the third part. It ia far from probable, as it seems to us, that
Jesus began by speaking nf this laat subject (Matthew and Marii). John emits the first
two elementa. The first waa nut easential tu his narrative. The aecund,. the inatitu
tinn nf the Huly Supper, was sufficiently well knnwn from tradition. We have, in
our " Commentaire sur I'evangile de Jean," placed this latter event at the time in
dicated by 13 : 3 in that Gospel {delnvov ytvopivov). The feet- washing which .followed
neoesaarily coincides with the indication ef the traitor in Luke, and with the subse
quent conversation, ver. 34 et aeq. ; aud the twu accnunts thus meet in the cnmrann
pnint, the predictinn nf Peter's denial (Luke, ver. 31 ; Jnhn, ver. 38).
As in what fnllnws there are repeated alluslnna tu the rilea uf the Paschal Supper,
we muat rapidly trace the outlines of that Supper as it was celebrated in our Saviour's
time. First step : After prayer, the father of.the house sent round a cup full of wine
(according tn uthers, each cue had his cup), with this invocation : ' ' Bleaaed be Theu,
O Lord our God, King of the world, whu haat created the fruit uf the vine !" Next
there were passed frnm une tn anuther the bitter herbs (a aurt ef aalad), which re
caUed to mind the aufferings of the Egyptian bondage. These were eaten after being
dipped in a reddish sweet aauce {Clia/roaeih), made of almonds, nuta, figa, and ether
fruits ; cemmemurating, it- ia aaid, by its culur the hard labnr uf brick-making im
pnaed nu'the Israelites, and by its taste, the divine aUeviatinns which Jehnvah
mingles with the miseries nf His peuple. Secund step : The father circulates a
aecnnd cup, and then explaina, prnbably in a mnre nr lesa fixed liturgical furm, the
meaning uf the feast, and nf the rites by which it is distinguished. Third step : The
father takea twn unleavened Inavea (cakea), breaks one nf them, and places the pieces
uf it nn the nther. Then, uttering a thanksgiving, he takea nne nf the pieces, dips it
in the sauce, and eats it, taking with it a piece nf the Paaqhal Lamb, alnng, with bit
ter herba. Each nne fnlluws his example. Thia ia the feaat iirnperly sn called. The
lamb fnrms the principal diah. The cunveraatinn is free. It cluaea with the diatri-
butinn nf a third cup, called the cup of blessing, becauae it waa accumpanied with the
giving nf thanks by the father nf the hnuse. Fnurth step : The father diatributea a
fnurth cup ; then the Hallel is sung (Ps. 113-118). Sometimes the father added a fifth
cup, which was accumpanied with the singing nf the great Hallel (Ps. 130-137 ; ac
curding tn uthers, 135-137 ; according to Delitzach, Pa. 13§),,?f
Muat it be held, with Langen, that Jeaus began by celebrating the entire Jewiah
ceremony, in order tn connect with it thereafter the Chriatian Hnly Supper ; nr did
He trtinsform, as He went alnng, the Jewiah supper in such a way as tu cnnvert it
intn the sacred Supper uf the N. T. ? This second view seema tn ua the nnly tenable
une. Fur, 1. It waa during the cnurae nf the feast, 'EoBtovrov airuv (Matthew and
Mark), and nnt after the feaat (aa Luke says in speaking nf the unly cup), that the
bread uf thjeHuly Supper must have been distributed. 3. The singing nf the hymn
spuken nf by Mark and Matthew can nnly be that uf the Hallel, and it followed the
inatitutinn of the Hnly Supper.
1st. Vers. 14^18. t Jesua npena the feaat by cummunicating tn the disciples His
* This ritual is very varinusly described by thuse whn have given attentinn tu the
subject. We have fulluwed the accuunt nf Langen, p. 147 et seq.
\ Ver. 14. S* B. D. Vss. nmit dodeKa. Ver. 16. 6 Mjj. umit ovketi. !*. B. C. L.
5 Mnn. Vss., avro instead nf fl avrov. Ver. 17. 6 Mjj. 35 Mnn. aidd to befnre
irorypiov (taken frnm ver. 20). 8*° B. C. L. M. 8 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg., Eig Eavrovs instead
of EavToig. Ver. 18. 5 Mjj. 15 Mnn. omit on. 6 Mjj. 15 Mnn, add avro rov vvv after
5rm, !*, B. F. L. 10 Mnn., ov inatead ef otov.

464 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
present impressinns. This flrst step cnrrespunds tn the flrst of the Paschal feast. The
hour (ver. 14) is that which He had indicated tu His disciples, and which probably
cuincided with the usual hnur nf the sacred feast. According to the law (Ex. 13 : 17),
the Passnver shnuld have been eaten standing. But cuatnm had introduced a change
in thia particular. Sume Rabbina pretend to juatify this deviation, by saying that te
stand is the posture of a slave ; that, once restored to liberty by the going fnrth frnm
Egypt, larael was called tu eat sitting. The explanatinn is ingenious, but devised
after the fact. The real reasun was, that the feast had gradually takeu larger pro
portions. There is in the flrst saying of Jesus, which Luke alone has preserved (ver.
15), a mixture uf prnfnund joy and surrnw. Jesus is glad that He can celebrate this
huly feast nnce mure, which He has determined by His nwn iusttumentality tu trans
furm intn a permanent memurial uf His .perann and wnrk ; but nn the nther hand, it
is Hia last Paaauver here beluw. 'EmBvpig. ineB'vpyaa, a frequent fnrm in the LXX.,
cnrrespnnding tn the Hebrew cnnatructinn nf the inf. absnlute with the finite verb. It
is a snrt nf reduplicatinn nf the verbal idea. Jesua, nu duubt, aUudes tn aU the meaa-
ures which He haa required tn take tu secure the juy uf thnae quiet hnurs deapite
the treachery ef Hia diaciple. Could the expression this Pasaover poaaibly denote a
feaat at which the Paachal lamb was wanting, and which was only distinguish
ed from ordinary auppera by unleavened bread ? Such ia the view ef Caapari
and Andreae, and the view which I myaelf maintained (" Comment, aur Jean,"
t. ii. p. 634). Indeed the number of lambs ur kids might turn nut tn be in
sufflcient, and strangers flnd themselvea iu the dUemma either nf celebrating
the feaat withnut a lamb, nr nnt celebrating the Paaauver at all. Thus in " Miach-
nah Peaachim" 10 there is express mentiun nf a Paschal Supper without a lamb,
and at which the unleavehed bread is alnne indispenaable. Nevertheleaa, there is ,
nnthing to prevent ua from hnlding that, aa we have said, the twn disciples prepared
the lamb in a strictly private manner. It wnuld be difficult tn explain Luke's ex
pressinn, to eat thia Pasaover, withuut the smallest reference tu the lamb at this feast.
By the future Passnver in the kingdnm uf Gud (ver. 16) might be understnud the
Hnly Supper as it is celebrated in the Church. But the exprtAsion, " I wiU nnt any
mnre eat therenf until . . " and the paraU. ver. 18, dn nnt admit nf thia apirit-
ualiatic interpretation. JeaUa raeans to speak ef a new banquet -which shaU take place
after the conaurara alien of all things. The Holy Supper is the bend of unien 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 apiriiuol salva
tion, nf which the Supper is the memurial, fnrm in reality the transitinn frnm the ex
ternal deliverance uf Israel tn that salvatinn at nnce apiritual and external which
awaits the glnrified Church ?
After this simple and tnuching introduction, Jesus, in conformity with the' received
custom, pasaed the firat cup (ver. 17), accompanying it with a thankagiring, in which
He no doubt paraphraaed freely the invocation uttered at the opening of the feaat by
the father of the houae, and which we have quoted abnve. AE^dpevoS, receiving,
seema tn indicate that He tnuk the cup frnm the hands nf nne uf the attendants whn
held it nut tn Him (after having filled it). The distributinn {diapepiaare) may have
taken place in twn waya, either by each drinking frnm the cummun cup, nr by their
all emptying the wine nf that cup intn their nwn. The Greek term wnuld suit better
thia aecnnd view. Did Je-aus Himself drink ? The prnn. iavrotc, among ymiraehea,
might aeem unfavnrable tu thia idea ; yet the wnrds, I will not drink until . , ,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 465
speak in favor of the affirmative. Was it nut, besides, a sign nf communion from
which Jesus could hardly think nf refraining nn such an occasiun ? The expc^issinn
fruit of the vine, ver. 18, was an echn uf the terms uf the ritual Paschal prayer. In
the muuth uf Jesua, it expreased the feeling nf cuntrast between the present terrestrial
system, and the glnrified creation which was to spring frnm the paiingenesia (Matt.
19 : 38 ; cnmp. Rnm. 8 .SI et seq.). The phraae, I will ¦not drink, cnrrespunds to the
I^wUl not any moi'e eat nf ver. 16. But there ia a gradatinn. Ver. 16 means, This is
my last Passnver, the last year of my life ; ver. 18, This is my last Supper, my last
day. These wnrds are the text frnm which Paul haa taken the commentary, till He
come (1 Cor. 11 : 36). They are probably also the ground into which waa wrought the
famous traditiun uf Papias regarding the fabuluus vines of the millennial reign. In
this example, the difference becnmes palpable between the subriety nf the traditiun
preserved in uur Gnspels, and the legendary exuberance nf that nf the times which
foUowed. Ver. 39 of Matthew and 35 nf Mark reproduce Luke's saying in a sume
what different fnrm, aud nne which lends itself stUl better tn the amplificatinn which
we find in Papias.
2d. Vers. 19, 30.* The time when the Hnly Supper was instituted seems tn us tu
currespund tu the secnnd and third steps nf the Paachal feast taken together. With
the explanation which the head ef the house gave of themeaning nf the ceremnny,
Jeaua cunnected that which He had tu give regarding the substitutinn of Hia person
for the Paachal lamb as the means ot salvatinn, and regarding the difference between
the twn deliverances. And when the time came at which the father tnnk the un
leavened cakea and cunaecrated them by thanksgivi^ tn make them, alnng with the
lamb, the memurial nf the deUverance from Egypt, Jesus alsn tnnk the bread, and by
a similar cnnsecratiun, made it the memurial uf tbat salvatiun which He was about to
procure for us. In the expression. This is my body^ the suppnsed relatinn between the
body and the bread should net be sought in their substance. The appendix : givenfor
you, in Luke ; broken for you, in Paul (1 Cor. 11 :,34), indicates the true point of cor
respondence. No dnubt, in Paul, this participle might be a glnsa. But an interpnla
tiun wnidd have been taken from Luke ; they wnuld nnt have invented this Hapax-
kgomenon KXopevov. Are we nnt accuatumed tn the arbitrary nr purely negligent
emiaainns nf the Alex, text ? I think, therefnre, that thia participle nf Paul, as weU
as the given uf Luke, are in the Greek text the necessary paraphrase of the Uteral
Aramaic fnrm. Thia is my body for you, a fnrm which the Greek ear could aa little bear
aa uura. The idea ef this KXapevov is, in any case, taken from the preceding sKXaae,
and determines the meaning ot the formula. This is my body. As to the word is,
which haa been ae much inaiated on, it waa not uttered by Jeaua, who muat have
said in Aramaic, Eaggouschmi, " Thia here [beheld] my body I" The exact meaning
of the notion of being, which logically connects thia aubject with this attribute, can
only be determined by the context. Is the point in question an identity of substance,
physical or spiritual, or a relation purely symbnlical ? From the exegetical pnint nf
view, it what we have said above about the real puint uf cnmparisun is well fnunded,
it wnuld be difficult tn avnid the latter conclusion. It is confirmed by the meaning ;of
the TOVTO which fulluwa : " Dn thia in remerabrance ef me." Thia prnn. can dennte
nothing but the act ef breaking, and thus-precisely the point which appeared tn us the
natural Unk nf cnnnectinn between the bread and the bndy. The last wurds, which
* Ver, 30. !*. B. L. place Kai to norypiov befcre aaavroS.

466 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
contain the institutinn properly sn caUed ot a permanent rite, are wanting in Matthew
andtMark. But the certified fact nf the regular celebratinn nf the Hnly Supper as a
feaat tummemuratihg the death nf Jeaus from the mnat primitive timea nf the Church,
suppuses a cummand nf Jeaua tn thia effect, and fuUy cnnfirms the fnrmula nf Paul
and Luke. Jesus meant tn preaerve the Paaauver, but by renewing ita meauing. Mat
thew and Mark preserved of the words of institutinn nnly that which referred tn the
new mikaning given tn the ceremnny. As tu the command nf Jesus, it had nnt been
preaerved in the liturgical fnrmula, becauae it waa implied in the very act uf celebrat
ing the rite.
A certain interval must have aeparated the secnnd act cf the institutinn frnm the
first ; fnr Luke aaya : After they had supped (ver. 20), exactly as Paul. Jeaus, accnrd
ing tn custum, let cnnversatinn take free cnurse fur snme time. After this free inter
val. He resumed the snlemn attitude which He had taken in breaking the bread. Sn
we explain the tbaavrus, likewiae. The wurd to norypiov, the cup, is the ubject uf the
twn verbs Xa^ov . . . edoKev at the beginning nf ver. 19. The art. rd is here added,
because the cup is already knnwn (ver. 17). This cup certainly currespnnded tn the
third uf the Paachal Feast, which bnre the name nf cup qf bleaaing. Sn St. Paul calls
it (1 Cnr. 10 : 16) : ihe cup of bleaaing {eiXoyius), which we bleaa: In this expressiun uf
the apustle the wnrd bless is repeated, because it ia taken in twn different senaea. In
the first instance, it refers tn Gud, whura the Church, like the laraelitish family of
old, blBsaea and adores ; in the aecond, to the cup which tbe Church consecrates, and
which by this religinus act becnmes tu the cnnacience nf believera the memurial nf
the blnnd nf Jeaus Christ. Wh^ this cup 'represents, accnrding tu the terma uf Paul
and Luke, is the' new covenant between Gnd and man, fnunded nn the shedding uf
Jeaus' blnnd. In Matthew and Mark; it is the blood itaelf. Jeaus can hardly have
placed the twn furma iii juxtapusitinn, aa Langen auppnaea, whn thinks that He said :
" Drink ye all nf this cup ; fnr it is the cup which cnntains my bluud, tbe bluud nf
the new cnvenant." Such a periphrasis is incnmpatible with the style prnper tu the
institutinn of a rite, which haa always aomething cunciae and munumeutal. There is
thus rnnm tn choose between the form ef Matthew and Mark and that of Paul and
Luke. New, ia it not prObable that oral tradition and ecclesiastical cuatom would
tend te make the second formula, relative te the wine, uniform with the first, which
refera to the bread, rather than tu diveraity them ? Hence it follows that the greateat
hiatoriCal probability ia in favor of the form in which the two aayinga of Jesua least
resemble one another, that is to say, in favor of that of Paul and Luke.
Every covenant among the ancients was sealed by seme symbolic act. The new
covenant, which nn Gnd's side rests nn the free gift uf salvatiun, and un man's side en
its acceptance by faith, has henceforth, as its permanent symbol in the Church, thia
cup which Jesua holds out to Hia nwn, and which each cf them freely takea and
bringa tu hia Ups. The O. T. had alsu been fnunded nn blnnd (Gen. 15 : 8 et aeq!).
It had been renewed in Eg3'pt by the aame means (Ex. 13 : 33, 23, 34 : 8). The par
ticiple understend between diaByny and 'ev tC> a'lpari is the verbal idea taken from the
subst. diaByKy {diariBepivy) : the covenant [cuvenanted] in my blood. Baur, Vnlkmar, and
Keim think that it is Paul whn haa here introduced the idea of the new covenant
Fer it would never have entered inte the thought ef Judee-Chriatianity thus tn repu
diate the nld covenant, and proclaim a new nne. Mark, even while copying Paul,
designedly weakened thia expreasion, they say, by rejecting the tnn nffensive epithet
new, Luke, a bnlder Paulinist, restured it, thus reproducing Paul's cumplete fur-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 467
rtula. And how, we muat ask, did Jeaus express Himself ? Was He incapable. He
alsu, nf rising tu the idea nf a new covenant thencefurth substituted fur the nld 'I He
incapable nf dning what had already been dnne sn grandly six centuries befnre by a
simple prnphet (Jer. 31 : 31 et aeq.) ! And when we think nf it, is nut Mark's furmula
(which is probably alsn the text in Matthew), far. from being weaker than that uf
Paul— is it nut even mure fnrcible ? If the expressiun nf Mark is translated : " This
is my bluud,- that nf the cnvenant," is nnt the very name cnvenant thereby refused to
the uld ? And If it is translated : " This is the blond nf my cnvenant," dnes nnt this;
saying cuntrast the twu cuvenants with nne annther aa prufuundly aa ia dune by the;
epithet new in Paul and Luke 1
The nun. abs. to iKxwdpevov, by rendering the idea nf the shedding uf the bluudl
grammatically independent, serves tn bring it mure strnngly intn relief. This appen
dix, which is wanting in Paul, cnnnects Luke's fnrmula with that nf the nther two
evangelists. Instead nf for you, the latter say, foi- many. It is the Qi2~l, many, ot
Isa. 53 : 13, the Di^i Qiij nf Isa. 53 : 15, thoae many nations which are tn be
sprinkled with the bluud nf the- slain Messiah. Jesus cnntemplates them in spirit,
thoae myriads cf Jewish and Gentile believers whn in future ages shall press tu the
banquet which He is instituting. Paul here repeats the cnmmaud : Do this . . .
nn which rests the permanent celebratinn nf the rite. In this pnint, tun, Luke's for
mula corresponds more nearly to that of the Syn. than to his.
If there is a passage in reapect to which it ia morally impoaaible to aaaert that the
narrators — if they be regarded ever ao little aa seriously believing — arbitrarily modified
the tenor ef the sayinga of Jesua, it ia thia. How, then, are we to account for the
differences which exist between the four forma ? There 'must have existed from the
beginning, in the Judeo-Christian churches, a generally received liturgical formula
for the celebration uf the Hnly Supper. This is certainly what has been preserved tn
us by Matthew and Mark. Only, the differences which exist between them prove that
they have net uaed a written dncuijaent, and tbat as little has the cue^ cupied the
other ; thua the command of Jesus : " Drink ye all nf it" (Matthew), which appears
in Mark in the furm of a positive fact : " And they all drank ef it ;" thus, again, in
Mark, the emissinn nf the appendix: "fnr the remissinu nf ains" (Matthew). Wc
therefnre find in them what is substantially nne and the sarae traditinn, but slightly
mndified by ural transmissinn. The very different fnrm uf Paul aud Luke nbUges us
to seek annther nriginal. Thia snurce ia indicated by Paul himaelf : " I have received
nf the Lurd that which alan I delivered untn ynu" (1 Cur. 11 : 33). _ The expreasinn,
I have received, admita nf nn view but that nf a cummunicatinn which is perannal to
him ; and the wnrda, of the Bord, unly nf an immediate revelatiun from Jeaua Him
self ( a true philulngisf will nnt ubject tn the use nf dno instead nf napd). If Paul had
had nu nther authnrity tn allege than ural traditinn emanating frnm the apnstles, and
knnwn universally in the Church, the furm used by him : " I have received {iyH ydp)
ot the Lnrd that which alau I delivered untn ynu . . ." cuuld nnt be exnneraled
trom the charge nf deceptinn. Thia circumstance, as well as the difference between
the twu furmulae, decides in favnr nf the fnrm nf Paul and Luke. In the slight differ
ences which exist between them, we can, besides, trace the influence exercised nn
Luke by the traditiunal -Uturgical fnrm aa it has been preaerved tn ua by Matthew and
Mark. As tu St. Juhn, the deliberate nmiaainn which is imputed tn him wnuld have
been uaeleaa at the time when he wrote ; still mure in the secund'century, fnr the cer
emnny of the Hnly Supper waa then celebrated in aU the churches nf the wnrld. A
fnrger wuuld have taken care nut tn nverthrnw the authnrity uf his narrative in the
minds nf his readera by such an craiaaiun.
Abuut the meaning nf the Hnly Supper, we ahall say nnly a few wurds. Thia cere
mnny seema to ua tn repreaent the tutality nf aalvatiun ; the bread, the cummunica
tinn cf the life nf Chriat ; the wine, the gift nf pardnn ; in nther wurda, accnrding tn
Paul's language, sanctiflcatinn and justiflcatiun. In inatituting the rite, Jesus natu-

468 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
rally began with the bread ; for the shedding ef the blood supposes the breaking of the
vessel which cnntains it, the budy. But as in the believer's nbtaining of salvatinn it
is by justiflcatiun that we cnme intn pussessinn nf the life uf Christ, St. Paul, 1 Cur.
10 : 16 et seq., fnllnwa the nppusite nrder, and begins with the cup, which represents
the flrat grace which faith lays hnld nt, that nf pardnn. In the act itself there are rep
reaented the twn aspects nf the wnrk — the divine nffer, and human acceptance. The
side nf human acceptance is clear tn the cunscinusness nf the partaker. His busineas
ia aimply, as Paul says, " tn shnw the Lnrd's death," 1 Cnr. 11 :36. It is nnt sn
with the dirine side ; it is unfathnmable and mysterinus : " The cnmmuninn nf the
blnnd, and nf the budy nf Christ !" 1 Cur. 10 : 16. Here, therefnre, we are called tu
apply the saying : " The secret things belung untu the Lurd uur Gnd, but thnse thinga
which are revealed belung untn us aud tu nur chUdren fnrever, that we may dn all
the wnrda nf this law," Deut. 39 : 39. We knuw already what we have tn du to
celebrate a true cummuniun. We may leave tn Gnd the secret nf what He givea ua
in a right cemmuninn. Is it necessary tn gu farther in search nf the fnrmula nf
uninn V
Sd. Vers. 31-33.* " Only, behuld, the hand uf him that betrayeth me is with me un
the table. 33. Aud truly the Snn nf man gneth as it was determined : But wne unto
that man by whnm He ia betrayed ! 33. And they began tn inquire amnng them
selvea which of them it waa that shuuld du this thing." As He fnllnws the cup cir
culating amnng the diaciplea, the attentinn uf Jesus is fixed nn Judaa. In the midat
uf thuae hearts, hencefnrth united by su clnse a bund, there ia cue whu remaina uut
side uf the cnmrann salvatinn, and rushes upnn deatructiun. Thia cuntraat wnunds the
heart of Jeaua. UXyv, excepting, annnunces preciaely the exceptinn Judas fnrms in
this circle ; Mow, behold, puints to the surprise which sn unexpected a disclnsure must
produce in the disciplea. If thia furm used by Luke is histnrically truatwurthy,
there can be nn duubt that Judas tnnk part in celebrating the Hnly Supper. No dnubt
the narratives nf Matthew and Mark du nut favnr this view ; but they du nnt ex
pressly cnntradict it, and we have already shewn that the order in which Luke givea
the three facts composing the narrative ef the feast, ia much mere natural than theirs.
Besides, Jehu's order confirma that of Luke, if, aa we think we have demonstrated
(" Comment aur Jean," t. ii. p. 540 et seq.), the Holy Supper was instituted at the time
indicated in 13 : 1, 3. Moreover, John's narrative shows that Jeaus returned again
and again during the feast to the treachery of Judas. As uaual, 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 a general way (like that
of Luke: "being vrith me on the table," and the paraUela): " being my gueat. "
Jeaua doea not diatreas Himaelf about what ia in atore for Him ; He is not the sport
of this traitor ; everything, so far as He is cencerned, is divinely decreed (ver. 22).
His life is net in the hands of a Judas. The Messiah ought to die. But He grieves
over the crime and lot uf him whn usea hia Uberty to betray Him.
The reading on ia leas simple thau ku'i, and is hardly compatible -with the piv.
The ff/l)?!', only (ver. 21) is contraated with the idea ef the divine decree in dpiauivov.
It serves the end ef reserring the liberty and responsibility of Judas. The fact that
every diaciple, nn hearing this saying, turned his thnughts upnn himselt, prnves the
cunaummate abUity with which Judas had succeeded in concealing his feelings and
plans. The pyn iyu. Is it I? oi the diaciples in Matthew and Mark, finds its natural
* Ver. 23. The mss. are divided between kui (T. R., Byz.) and on (Alex.).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 469
place here. It has been thought improbable that Judas alsn put the questiun (Matt.
5 : 25).* But when alhthe uthers were dning it, cnuld he have avuided it withnut be
traying himself ? The thou hast said of Jesus denutea abanlutely the same fact as John
13 : 26 ; " And when He had dipped the sop. He gave it to Judas Iscariot." This
act itself was the reply which Matthew translates intu the wnrds : Thou hast said.
3. Tlie Conversations After tlie Supper : vers. 24-38.— The cnnVersatinns which fnl
lnw refer : Isi. Tn a dispute which arises at this mument between the apustlea (vera.
24-30) ; 2d. Tn the danger which awaits them at the cleae of this hour nf peace (vers.
31-38). The washing nf the feet in Jnhn cnrrespunds tn the first piece. The predic
tinn nf St. Peter's denial fnUuws in his Gospel, as it duea in Luke. Accnrding tn Mat
thew and Mark, it waa uttered a little later, after the singing uf the hymn. It is quite
evident that Luke ia nut dependent on the uther Syn. , but that he has anurcea nf his
uwn, the trustwurthiness nf which appears nn cnmparisun with Jnhn's narrative.
1st. Vers. 34-30.f The cauae uf the dispute, mentiuned by Luke nnly, cannnt have
beeu the queatinn of precedence, as Langen thinks. The strife wuuld have brnken
nut snnner. The mentinn nf the kingdum ef God, vera. 16 and 18, might have given
rise to it ; but the Kai, also, ef Luke, auggesta annther view. By thia wnrd he cunnecta
the queatinn ; Which is the greatest ? with that which the diaciplea had juat been put
ting to themselves, ver. 33 : Which among ¦us is he who aliall betray Him ? The ques
tinn which was the wurst amung them led easily tu the nther, which was the best ef
all. The one was the counterpart of the other. Whatever else may be true, we see by
this new example that Luke does not allnw himaelf tn mentiun a situatinn at hia nwn
hand of which he flnds nu indicatiuu in his ducuments. The doKsl, appears [ahnuld
be accounted], refers tn the judgment of men, till the time when Gnd will settle the
questinn. Cump. a similar dispute, 9 : 46 et seq. and parall. We' are amazed at a dis
pnsition sn uppused tn humiUty at such a time. But Jesua is nu mure irritated thau
He is discuuraged. It is ennugh fnr Him tn knnw that He haa succeeded in planting
in the heart nf the apustles a pure principle which will finally carry the day uver all
furma nf sm : " Now ye are clean through the wnrd which I have spuken untn yuu,"
He aaya tu them Himaelf, John. 15 : 3. He therefnre calmly cnntinues the wnrk
which He has begun. In human snciety, men reign by physical nr inteUectual fnrce ;
and eiepysryg, benefactor, is the flattering title by which men du nnt blush tu hnnnr
the harahest tyrants. In the new auciety which Jesus is instituting, he whn has must
ia nnt to make hia superiurity felt in any other way than by the superabundance of
his services toward the weakest and the mnat deatitute. The example ef Jeaua in this
respect is tn remain aa the rule. The term, d vsurEpoS, the younger (ver. 36), is par
aUel tn 6 diuKovov, he that doth serve, because amung the Jewa the humblest and hard
est labnr waa cnmmitted tu the ynungest members nf the snciety (Acts 5 : 6, 10). If
the saying ef ver. 27 is not referred tn the act of the feet-waahing related John 13,
we muat apply the words : lam among you aa Ee that aerveth, to the Ufe of Jesus in
general, or perhaps to the sacrifice which He is now making ef Himself (vers. 19 and
30). But in this way there is no accounting for tbe antithesis between: "he that
siiteth at meat," and : " he that aerveth." These expressions leave ne doubt that tbe
fact of the feet- washing was the occasion of this saying. Luke did not know it ; and
* Oiir authnr dnubtless intended Matt. 36 : 25.— J. H.
X Ver. 26. ». B. D. L. T., yiveaBa mstead nf yeveoBo. Ver. 30. 8 Mjj. (Byz.) 80
Mnn. nmit ev tt? paaiXeia pov. J*" D. X. 30 Mnn. Syr^"'. lt»"«. add dodeKa befure
flpovuv (taken from Matthew). J-O Mjj., KuByaeaBe nr KadyaBe instead of KaBiaeaBe.

470 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
he haa cnnfined himaelf tn transmitting the discnurse uf Jesus as it was furnished tn
him by hia dncument.
After having thua cnntrasted the ideal nf an altngether new greatness with the an
different tendency uf the natural heart, Jeaus proceeds tn satisfy what uf truth there
was in the aapiratinn nf the diaciplea (vers. 38-30). The ipeis di, but ye, alludes to
Judaa, whu had nnt persevered, and whu, by hia defectinn, deprived himself uf the mag
niflcent privilege promiaed vers. 39 and 30. Perhaps the traitur had nnt yet gone nut,
and Jesus wiahed hereby tn tell upuu his heart. The ¦rtEipaapo'i, temptationa, ot which
Jeaua speaka, are summed up in Hia rejectinn by His felluw-citizens. It was nesmaU
thing, en the part of the Eleven, te have persevered in their attachment to Jeaua, de
spite the hatred and contempt of wbich he was the object, and the curses heaped
upon Him by those rulers whom they were accustomed to reapect. There ia aome
thing like a feeling of gratitude expreaaed in the aaying of Jesua. Hence the fulness
with which He diaplaya the richea of the premised reward. Ver. 39 refers to the
approaching dispenaation on the earth : ver. 30, te the heavenly future in which it
shall iaaue. 'Eyo, I {ver. 39), is in opposition to ipelc, ye: "That is what ye have
done for me ; this is what I de in my turn {kui) fer you." The verb oiandivat, to
diapoae, is applied to testamentary dispositions. Bleek takes the object of this verb to
be the phrase which followa, that ye may eat . . . (ver. 30) ; but there ia too cloae
a correspondence between appoint and liath appointed unto me, to admit of those two
verbs having any but the sarae object, ^aatXeiav, the kingdam .¦ " I appoint untn ynu
the kingdnm, as my Father hath appuinted it untn me." This kingclom ia here the
pnwer exercised by man un man by meana nf divine life aud divine truth. The truth
and life which Jesua pnsseaaed ahall cnme tu dwell in them, and thereby they shall
reign nver all, as He Himself has reigned nver them. Are nnt Peter, Jnhn, and Paul,
at the present day, the rulera nf the wnrld 1 In aubstance, it is unly anuther fnrm nf
the thuught expressed in Juhn 13 : 30 : " Verily I aay untu ynu. He that receiveth
whumanever I aend, receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that aent
me." Ia this an example ef the way in which certain sayinga of Jeaua are transformed
and spiritualized, as it were, in the memory ef J ehu, without being altered from their
original sense ? At least the obscure connection of this saying in John -with what
precedes is fully explained by Luke's cnntext.
Ver. 30 might apply sulely tn the part played by the apuatles in tbe gnvernment nf
the primitive Church, and in the mural judgraent uf larael then exerciaed by them.
But the expresainn, to eat and d/rink at my table, paaaea beyund this meaning. Fur we
cannut apply this expressinn tn the Holy Supper, which was nu special privUege uf
the apnstles. The phrase, in my kingdom, shnuld therefnre be taken in the same
sense as in vers. 16 and 18. With the table where He is nnw presiding Jeaua. cen-
traata the rnyal banquet, the emblem nf cnmplete jny in the perfected kingdum nf
Gnd. He likewiae cuntraats, in the wurda fuUuwing, with the judgments which He
and His shall aunn undergn nn the part nf larael, that which larael ahaU une day un
dergn un the part nf the Twelve. Accnrding tn 1 Cur. 6 : 1 e< seq, the Church ahaU
judge the wurld, men and angela. In this judgment of the wnrld by the representa
tives of Jesus Christ, the part allntted tn the Twelve shall be Israel. Judgment here
includes gnvernment, aa an nften in the O. T. Thronea are the emblem ef puwer, as
the table is nf juy. If the traitur waa yet preaent, muat nnt auch a prnmise made to
his cnlleagues have been like the stroke nf a dagger tu his ambitinus heart I Here, aa
we think, shnuld be placed the flnal scene which led to his departure (Juhn 13 : 31-37).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE, 471
It seems to us that the Twelve are- nnt very diaadvantageously treated in this dis
cnurse nf Jesus repurted by Luke ! * A saymg entirely similar ia fuund in Matt.
19 : 38, in a dLGferent context. That ef Luke ia Us own juatiflcatinu.
2d. Vers. 31-38. Jesus annnunces tn His disciples, first the meral danger which,
threatens them (vers. 31-34) ; then the end ef the time ef temporal well-being and
security which they had enjoyed under His protection (vers. 35-38).
Vera. 31-34. f "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired
to have you, that he may- aift you aa wheat. 33. But I have prayed fer thee, that thy
faith faU net ; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 33, 34. ' ' The
warning ver. 31 might be connected with ver, 38 : "Ye are they which have con
tinued with me." There would be a contrast : " Here ia a temptation in which ye
sbaU not continue." But the mention of Satan'a part, in respect of the diaciplea,
seema to be auggested by the abrupt departure of Judas, in which Satan had played
a decisive part (John 13 : 37 : " And after the sop, Satau entered into hira"). T'he
tempter is present ; he has gained the mastery of Judas ; he threatens the ether dis
ciples also ; he is preparing to attack Jeaua Himaelf. " The prince of thia world
cometh," says Jesus iu John (14 : 30). And the danger to each is in, proportion tn the
greater or lesa amnunt ef alley which his heart contains. Thia ia the reason why
Jesus mere directly addressea Peter. By the address : Simon, twice repeated. He
aUudes to his natural character, and puts him on hia guard against that presumption
which ia its dominant characteriatic. The ii in i^yryaaTo includea the nntiun : nf
getting him drawn nut of the .hands uf Gnd intn his nwn. Wheat is purified by
means of the sieve or fan ; aivid^o may apply tu either. Satan asks the right uf put
ting the Twelve tu the prunf ; and he takes upun himself, uver against Gnd, as
furmerly in relatinn tn Jub, tn pruve that at bnttum the best amnng the diaciplea is
but a Judas. Jeaus- by nn means saya (ver. 33) that his prayer has been refused.
Rather it appears from the intercessinn nf Jesus tbat it haa been granted. Jeaus nnly
aeeks tn parry tbe cnnsequencea nf the fall which threatena them all, and which shall
be especially perilous to Peter. Comp. Matthew and Mark : "All ye shall be
nffended because of me thia nighl. " The faithleaaneaa nf which they are abnut tu be
guilty, might have absnlutely bruken tbe bund furmed between them and Him.
That nf Peter, in particular, might have cast him intu the same deapair which ruined
Judas. But whUe the enemy waa apying nut the weak side uf the diaciplea tu deatrny
them, Jeaus was watching and praying lu parry the blnw, ur at least tn prevent it
frnm being murtal tu any uf them. Langen explains intarpeipis in the aenae nf yii^;
"strengthen thy brethren anew." But this meaning uf iniaTpi(pEiv ia unknnwn in
Greek, and the ndrs diatinguishes the nntiun nf the participle precisely frnm that uf
the principal verb.j: This saying nf Jesus is une uf thnse which lift the curtain
* The authnr means by this that the idea nf Luke having written his Gnspel with
the riew of belittling the Twelve— which he combats, of cnurse, thrnughnut^is absurd
in the light of this recnrd. — J. H.
t Ver. 31. B. L. T. umit the wnrds Eine dE o Kvpio(. Ver. 33. The mss. are
dirided between sKXemy and EKXiny, and between arypi^ov and arypiaov. Ver. 34.
Instead nf npiv y, 5*. B. L. T. 4 Mnn. read euS, K. M. X. n. 15 Mnn. euS ov, D. eoS
orov. !*. B. L. T. sume Mnn. , pE anapvyay eidevai instead uf anapvyay py sidsvai pE.
X What the " cnnverted" and the " strengthening"— nut clearly intimated here—
are, we may infer frnm the facts. Peter dnes nnt experience a " aecnnd cnnversinn"
in any trae aenae nf the phrase. He had turned away frnm hia Lurd fnr a tirae. He
ia turned back again by the Lnrd's grace and the use nf fitting meana. The experi-

472 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
which cnvers the invisible wurld frnm nur view. Although it has been preserved to
us only by Luke, Hnltzmann acknnwledges itS' authenticity. He ascribes it to a
speciaL tradition. That dees not prevent him, however, from deriving this whole
account from the common source, the proto-Mark. But vers. 35-38 are also peculiar
to Luke, and ahow clearly that hia aource was different.
Peter believea in his fldelity more thau iu the word of Jesus. Jesus then
announces to him his appruaching fall. The name Peier reminds him of the height
tu which Jeaus had raiaed him. Three crnwings uf the cuck-were distinguished ; the
first between midnight and nne n'clnck, the secnnd abuut three, the third between five
and six. The third watch (from midnight tn three o'clock), embraced between the
firat two, was also called 'aXeKropo^ovia, cock-crow (Mark 13 : 35). The saying of
Jeaua in Luke, Matthew, and John would therefore signify: "To-day, befnre the
secnnd watch frnm nine n'clnck tn midnight have paaaed, thou shalt have denied me
thrice." But Mark aays, certainly in a way at unce mure detailed and exact : " Be
fnre the cnck have crowed twice, thou ahatl have denied me thrice." That is te aay :
befnre the end ut the third watch, before three e'clock in the morning. The men
tiun nf thnae twn cruwinga, the firat nf which shnuld have already been a, warning tn
Peter, perhapa makea the gravity nf hia ain the mure cnnspicunus. Matthew and
Mark place the predictinn nf the denial nn the way tn Gethaemane. But Juhn cnn
flrma the accuunt uf Liike, whu placea it in the aupper rnnm. We need nut refute
the npininn nf Langen, whu thinks that the denial was predicted twice.
Vera. 35-38.* " And He aaid untn them, When I sent ynu withnut purae and acrip
and ahnes, lacked ye anything ? And they aaid. Nothing. 36. Then He said unto
them. But new, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise hia scrip. And he
that hath ne [aword], let him sell hia garment, and buy one. 37. Fori say unto
ynu, that this that ia written must yet be accumplished in me, and He waa reckuned
amnng the Iransgressnrs : fnr the things cuncerning me are cnming tn an end. . . .
38." TiU then, the apnstlea, protected by the favnr wbich Jesus enjuyed with the
penple, had led a cnmparatively easy life. But the last cunflict between Him and
the Jewiah authnrities was abnut tn break out, and huw cuuld the apustles, during all
the rest nf their career, escape the hnstile blnwa ? Thia is the thuught which cccu
pies nur Lnrd's mind : He gives it a cuncrete furm in the fuUnwing flgures. In ver.
35 He recalls tn mind their first raiasinn (9 : 1, e< acq.). We learn nn this nccasien the
favorable issue whichhad been the result of that first proof nf their faith. The his
tnrian had tnld ua nnthing uf it, 9 : 6. The ubject nf pi) ixov is evidently paxatpav
(nnt nypav nr llaXavriov) : " Let hira whn hath nnt [a swnrd], buy one." It heightena
the previuua warning. Nnt nnly can they nn Innger reckun nn the kind hnapitality
which they enjuyed during the tirae nf their Master's pnpularity, and nnt unly must
they prepare tn be treated hencefnrth like nrdinary traveUers, paying their way, etc.';
but they shaU even meet with npen hustiUty. Disciples of a man treated as a ¦male-
ence he thus had nf Satan's subtle malignity, and uf human weaknesa, prepares him
tn utter and write wnrda nf warning and directinn tn hia brethren, nn a mumentnus
theme, nu which Christiana think tnn Uttle. — J. H.
* Ver. 35. Vers. 35-38 were umitted by Marciun. Ver. 36. Instead nt smev ow,
S" B. L. T. 4 Mnn. Syr. einev dE, »* D. o ds einev. Instead nf naXyaaro, D. noXyaai,
8 Mjj. (Byz.) 115 Mnn. nuXyaei ; and instead nf ayopaaara, 9 Mjj. (Byz.), the must nf
the Mnn., ayopaaei. Ver. 37. 9 Mjj. (Alex.) 10 Mnn. omit en after on, !». B. D. L.
Q- T,, TO instead nf ra after /ca yap.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 473
factor, they shall be themselves regarded as dangerous men ; they shaU aee them
selves at war with their felluw-cuuntrymen and the whnle wurld. Cnmp. Jnhn
15 : 18-25, the piece nf which this is,as it were, the summary and paraUeL The awurd
is here, aa in Matt. 10 : 34, the emblem nf avuwed hnstility. It is clear that in the
mind uf Him whn said : " I send ynu fnrth as lamba amnng wnlves," thia weapnn
represents the pnwer uf hnliness in cunfiict with the sin nf the wOrld— that sword of
the Spirit spoken nf by Paul (Eph. 6 : 17). The kuI ydp, andin truth, at the end of the
verse, annnunces a secnnd fact analngnus tn the fnrmer (arad), and which at the same
time serves • tu explain it {in truth). The tragical end uf the ministry nf Jesus ia alao
approou>hing, and ccnsequently nn features nf the pruphetic descriptinn can be
slew in being realized. The disciples seem to take literally the recommendation
of Jesus, and even to be proud ef their prudence. The words. It is enough,
have been understood in thia aenae : " Let ua aay no more ; let us now break
up ; events will explain te you my mind, which you do not understand." But ia it
not mnre natural tn give tn ikuvov iart this mnurnfuUy ironic senae : " Yea, for the
use which you shall have te make of arma of this kind, these two swords are enough. "
Here we must place the last words ef John 14 : " Rise ; let us go hence." The Syn.
have preserved only a few hints nf the laat diacnuraea nf Jeaua (Jnhn 14 : 17). Theae
were treasures which ceuld not be transmitted to the Church in the way nf nral tra
ditinn, and which, assuming hearers already formed in the scheol of Jesus Uke the
apoatlea, were not fitted to form the matter ef popular evangelization.
III. Gethsemane : 22 : 39-46. — The Lamb ef God muat be diatinguished from
typical victims by His free acceptance ef death aa the puniahment of ain ; and hence
there required to be in Hia life a decisive moment when, in the fulness of Hia con-
sciuusaess and liberty. He should aecept the puniahment which He was tu undergn.
At Gethaemane Jesus did net drink the cup ; He consented to drink it. This point
of time corresponds to that in which, with the same fulness aud liberty, He refused
in the wilderness univeraal aovereignty. There He rejected dominion over us -without
God ; here He accepts death fer God and for ua. Each eifangeliat has aume special
detail which attests the independence cf his anurcea. Matthew exhibita apecially the
gradatinn nf the agnny an.d the prugreaa tnward acceptance. Mark haa preserved tn
us this saying nf primary importance : " Abba ! Father ! aU things are pnaaible untn
Thee." Luke deacribes mnre apecially the extraordinary physical effects ef this
moral agony. His account is, beaidea, very much abridged. John oraita the whole,
scene, but not without expressly indicating ita place (18 : 1). In the reraarkable piece,
13 : 23-28, this evangeliat had already unveiled the eaaence of the struggle which was
beginning in the heart of Jesus ; and the passage pruves sufficiently, ih apite nf Keim's
pereraptury assertiuns, that there ia nn dngmatic intentinn in the nmissinn nf the
agnny nf Gethsemane. When the facts are sufflciently known, John cunflnea himself
tn cummunicating sume saying nf Jesus which enables us tu understand their spirit.
Thus it is that chap. 3 sheda light nn the urdinance uf Baptism, and chap. 6 nn
that uf the Hnly Supper.-* Heb. 5 : 7-9 cnntains a very evident aUuainn tn the ac-
* They may " shed Ught," but that they, when uttered, referred tu thesenrdi-
nancea is nnt yet proved. Why say tn Nicudemus, " Art thuu a maater," etc., if the
Lnrd referred tn a rite nnt yet instituted ? But-if uur Lnrd referred tn auch paaaages
as Ezek. 36 : 25, 26, the ignurance nf Nicudemus was inexcusable. Even au the whule
nf the cnnversatinn in Juhn 6 relatea tu the miracle nf the manna, the wOrda of the
Jews drawing out these of our Lord. What force could there be iu his repeated

474 COMMENTARY ON SX. LUKE.
ceunt of Gethsemane— a fact the mnre remarkable, as that epistle is one of those
which, at the same time, must fnrcibly exhibit the dirinity of Jesus.
Vers. 39-46.* The wnrd came out (ver. 39) includes His leaving the room and the
city. The name, the Mount of OUves, which is used here by our three Syn., may des
ignate in a wide senae the slope and even the foot of the mount which begins imme
diately beyond the Cedrnn. This is the senae tn which we are led by Jnhn's account,
18 : 1. The north-west angle of the inclusure, which is nnw pnuited nut as the garden
uf Gethsemane, is flfty paces frum the bed nf the turrent. Ver. 40. Jesus invites
His diaciplea tu prepare by prayer fnr the trial which threatens their fldelity, and cf
which He has already furewaraed them (ver. 31). Thp use uf the wnrd e'laeXBsiv,
enter into, tu signify to yield to, is easily understund, if we cnntrast this verb in
thnught with diEXBelv, tu paaa through. In Matthew and Mark, Jesua has nn snnner
arrived than He annnuncea tn His diaciples His intentinn tn pray Himself. Then,
withdrawing a little with Peter, Jamea, and Jnhn, He teUs them nf the agnny with
which His snul is all at unce seized, and leavea them, that He may pray alnne.
Theae successive mnments are all united in Luke in the dneandcBy, Ee was with
drawn (ver. 41). There is in this term, nntwithstanding Bleek's opiniun, the
idea nf snme vinlence tn which He ia aubject ; He ia dragged far frum the disciples
by anguish (Acts. 21 : 1). The expressinn, tn the distance of about a stone's eaat, is
peculiar tu Luke. Instead uf kneeling down, Matthew says. He fell upon His face ;
Mark, upon the ground. The terms of Jesus' prayer, ver. 43, differ in the three nar
rativea, and in such a way that it is impussible the evangeUsts could have su mod
ifled thera at their nwn hand. But the figure nf the cup is cummun tn all three ; it
waa indelibly impreaaed nn traditinn. 'This cup which Jesus entreats Gnd tu cauae to
paaa frum befnre {napd) His lips, is the symbul uf that terrible punishment the dread
ful and muurnful picture ef which is traced before Him at this moment by a skilful
painter with extraordinary vividness. The painter is the same who in the wUder
ness, using a Uke Ulusion, passed before His view the magical scene of the glories be
longing to the Meaaianic Jsingdem.
Mark's formula ia distinguished by the invocation, " Abba I Father ! aU things
are possible unto Thee," in which the translation o naryp, Father, has been added by
the evangeUst fur 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 work of human
salvation ; He asks only if the cross is really the indispensable means of gaining this
end. Cannet God in His unlimited power flnd anuther way of recnnciliatinn?
Jesus thus required, even He, tn nbey withnut understanding, to walk by faith.
rejuinders if the reference was tn an urdinance nf which the hearers could knnw abso
lutely nuthing — fur it had nnt yet been appuinted ? The assumption that these twu
chapters relate tu the sacraments nf the Christian Church has done nu little evil-
There is abundant reasnn fur buth cummunications in the known histnry and
prnphecy of the Old Testaraent. — J. H.
* Ver. 39, 6 Mjj. anme Mnn. nmit avrov after padyrai. Ver. 43. The mss. are
dividedhet'ween napEveyKeiv (T. R., Byz.), napEVEyKai{Mex.), and n-apeveyict (B. D. T. 35
Mnn.). Vera. 43, 44. These twu verses, which T. R. reads, with »* '^ D. F. G. H.
K. L. M. Q. 0. X. A. the mnst nf the Mnu. ^r. It. Juat. Ir. Dinn. al. Ar. Chrys.
Eus., are wanting in !*» A. B. R. T. 3 Mnu. Sab. Cyr,, in several Greek and Latin
MSB. qunted by HUary, Epiph., Jer. They are marked with signa nf doubt in E. S.
V. A. n. 5 Mnn. Si. X. sume Mnn; Vss., Kara^aivovro; instead uf Kara^aivovTeS, Ver.
45, All the Mjj. umit auroi; after paByraS.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. ' 475
Hence tflfe expressions, Heb. ,5 : 8, He learned obedienci, and 13 : 3, dpxyyhs t^s
nioTeuS, He who leads the way (the initiatur) of faith. Yet thia prayer dnes nnt imply
the least feeUng nf revnlt ; fnr Jesus is ready tn accept the Father's answer, what
ever it may be. What if nature rises within Him against this punishment ? this re
pugnance is legitimate. It was nnt with the view nf suffering thus that man re
ceived frnm God a bndy aud a snul. This resistance nf natural instinct tn the wUl
nf the Spirit — that is tw say, tu the cunscinusness of a misaiun — ia exactly what makea
it pnssible fnr nature tu becnme a real victim, an uffering in earnest. Su lung aa the
vnioe uf nature ia at nne with that nf Gnd, it may be aaked, Wliere is tlie viciimfor Ihe
burnt-offering ? Sacrifice begins where cnnflict begins. But, at the same time, the
hnliness nf Jesus emerges pure aud even perfected frnm this atruggle. Under the
mnst violent pressure, the will nf nature did nut fur a single mnment escape from
the law nf the Spirit, and ended after a time nf struggle in being entirely absnrbed in
it. Luke, like Mark, gives enly the first prayer, and cunflnes himself tn indicating
the ethers summarily, .while Matthew introducea ua more profoundly to the progres
sive ateps iu the submissiun of Jesus (ver. 43). Huw much mere really human do uur
Gnspels make Jesus than nur nrdinary dngmatics I It is nnt thus that the wurk nf in
vention wnuld have beeu carried nut by a traditiun which aimed at deifying Jesus.
The appearance of the angel, ver. 43, is mentiuned nnly by Luke. Nu dnubt
this verse is wanting in sume Alex. But it is fnund in 13 Mjj. and in the twn uldeat
translations (Itala and Peschitn), and this particular is cited an early aa the aecnnd
century by Juatin and Irenseus. It is nnt very prnbaljle that it wuuld have beeu
added. It is mure sn that, under the influence nf the Nicene ductrine nf the Trinity,
it was omitted nn the pretext that it waa nut fnund either in Matthew ur Mark. Bleek,
while fuUy acknnwledging the authenticity nf the verse, thinks that thia particular
was wanting in the primitive Gnspel, and that it was introduced by Luke nn the faith
of a later traditiun. Schleiermacher suppuaea the existence nf a pnetical writing in
which the mnral suffering nf the Savinur waa celebrated, and from which the twn
vers. 43 and 44 were takeu. But traditiun, pnetry, and myths tend rather tn glnrify
their hero thau to. impair -hia hnnnr. The difficulty which orthnduxy flnda in ac
counting for such particulars makes it hard tn suppnse that it waa their inventnr.
This appearance was nnt unly intended tu bring apiritual cunsnlatinn tu Jesus, but
physical assistance stiU mure, as in the wUderness. The saying uttered by Him an
instant befnre was nn flgure uf rheturic : ' ' My auul is exceeding snrrnwful even unto
death." As when in the wUderness under the pressure uf famine. He felt himself
dying. The presence of this heavenly being sends a vivifying breath uver Him. A
, divine refreshing pervades Him, budy and auul ; and it is thua unly that He receivea
atrength tn ccntinue to the laat the struggle tu the phyaical vinlence uf which He was
nn the very pnint uf giving way. Ver. 44 shnws tn what phyaical prnstratinn Jeaus
was reduced. This verae is omitted ou the one hand, and aupperted en the other, by
the aame authnrities aa the preceding. Is this umiasinn the reault nf the preceding, er
perhaps the cnnsequence nf cnnfuunding the twn Kai at the beginning nf vets. 44 and
45 ? In either case, there appears te have been here again emission rather than inter
polation. The intensity of the struggle becomes ao great that it iasues in a sort of
beginning of physical dissolution. , The words, as it were drops, express mere than a
simple comparisun between the density ef the sweat and that of blood. The words
denote that the sweat itself resembled blnnd. Phennmena nf frequent occurrence
demonstrate how immediately the blood, the seatnf life, is under the empire of meral

476 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
impressions. Dnes nut a feeling of shame cause the blood to rise to the fftce ? .Cases
are known in which the blood, violently agitated by grief, ends by penetrating
through the vessels which inclose it, and driven outward, escapes with the sweat
through the transpiratery glands.* The reading Kara^aivovroS, in il and seme docu
ments of the Itala, though admitted by Tischendurf, has nn internal probabUity.
The participle cught tn qualify the principal substantive rather than the cnmplement.
The disciples themselves might eaaily remark thia appearance when Jeaus awnke them,
fnr the full munn was lighting up the garden. They might alsn hear the flrst wurds
of Jesus' prayer, fnr they did nut fall asleep immediately, but nnly, as at the tranaflg
uratinn (9 : 33), when His prayer waa prulnnged. Jeaua had previnusly experienced
anme symptums precuraive nf a atruggle Uke tu this (13 : 49, 50 ; Juhn 13 : 37). But
this time the anguish ia auch that it ia impnssible nnt to recngnize the interventinn of
a supernatural agent. Satan had juat invaded the circle uf the Twelve by taking pns-
sesaion of the heart of Judaa. He was about te sift aU the other disciplea. Jesus
Himself at this time waa aubjected to his actiun : " Thia is the pnwer nf darkness,"
says He, ver. 53. In the wnrds which close his account of the temptation (4 : 13),
Luke had expreaaly declared, "He departed from Him till a favorable miaon," the
returu of the tempter at a fixed cunjuncture.
Vera. 45 and 46. Luke unites the , three awakings in nne. Then he seeks to
explain this mysterinus slumber which masters the disciples, and he dues su in the
way mnst favnrahle tn them. The cause was nut indifference, but rather the prnstra
tinn nf grief. It is well knnwn that deep grief, especially after a periud of long and
keen tenaiun, dispnses tn slumber through aheer exhauatinn. Nnthing cnuld be mnre
oppnsed than this explanatinn tu the hnstile feelings tuward the disciples which are
ascribed tn Luke, and all the mnre that this particular is entirely peculiar to him.
Ver. 46. Jesus rises from this struggle delivered from Eis fear, as says the epistle tn
the Hebrews ; that is tu say, in pussessinn uf the prufuund calm which perfect sub
mission gives tu the auul. The puniahment haa nnt changed its nature, it is true ;
but the impressinn which the expectatinn nf the cross prnduces un Jesua is nu lunger
the same. He has given Himself up whully ; He has dnne what He Himself pro
claimed befure passing the Cedrun : " Fur their sakes I Sanctify myself" (Jnhn
17 : 19) The acceptance nf the sacriflce enables Him to feel befnrehand the rest be
lnnging tn the cumpletinn uf the aacriflce. Hencefnrth He walks with a firm step to
meet that cross the sight nf which an instant befcre made Him stagger.

SECOND CYCLE.- CHAP. 33 : 47—33 : 46.
, The Passion. '
The death of Jeaua ia nut simply, in the eyea nf the evangeUsts, and according to
the sayings which they put inte His mouth, the historical result of the conflict which
arose between Him and the theocratic authorities. What happena to Him is that
which haa been determined (33 : 33). Thua it must be (Matt. 36 : 54). He Himaelf
sought for a time to struggle against thia mysterious necessity by having recourse te
that infinite possibility which is inaeparable from divine liberty (Mark 14 : 36). But
the burden has fallen en Him with all ita weight, and He ia now charged with it. He
* See Langen, pp. 818-314.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 477
dies /or the remiasion of the sins of the world (Matt. 26 : 28). The dngmatic system nf
the apostles cnntains substantiaUy nnthing mnre. Only it is natural that in the Epistles
the diviue plan shnuld be mure prominent ; in the Guapels, the actiun nf the human
factors. The twn puinta nf view cumplete nne anuther : Gnd acts by means nf hia
tury, and histury is the realizatinn nf the divine thnught.
This cycle embraces the accounts nf the arrest uf Jeaus (33 : 47-53) ; nt His twn
fnld trial, ecclesiastical and civil (ver. 54 : 33, 35) ; nf His cruciflxinn (vers. 36-46).
1. The Arrest of Jesus: 33 : 47-53.— Three thinga are included in this piece : Isi!.
The kiss of Judas (vera. 47 and 48) ; 2d. The diaciples' attempt at defence (vers.
49-51) ; Sd. The rebuke which Jesua adminiatera tn thnse whn cume tu take Him
(vers. 53 and 53).
Vers. 47 and 48.* The sign which Judas had arranged with the band had fnr its
object tu prevent Jesus from escaping ahnuld nne nt His disciples be seized in His
stead. In the chnice nf the aign in itaelf, aa Langen remarks, there was un reflnement
nf hypucrisy. The kiss was the usual fnrm nf salutatinn, especiaUy between disciples
and their master. The ubject nf this salutatinn is nnt mentiuned by Luke ; it was
understnud. We see from Jnhn that the fearleaa attitude nf Jesus, whn advanced
spuntaneuusly iu front uf the band, rendered this signal superfluuus and almnat
ridiculnus. "The saying uf Jesus tn Judas, ver. 48, is sumewhat differently repro
duced in Matthew ; it is umitted iu Mark. In memnry uf thia kias, the primitive
Church suppressed the ceremnny of the brotherly kiss en Gnnd Friday. The snle
ubject nf the scene which fnlluws in Juhn (the 1 a/m He uf Jesus, with its ccnse
quences) was tn prevent a diaciple from being arrested at the aame time.
Vers. 49-51. t The Syn. name neither the disciple whn strikes, nnr the servant
struck. Jnhn gives the names ef beth. So long as the Sanhedrim yet enjoyed its
authority, prudence forbade the giving nf Peter'a name here in the nral narrative.
But after his death and the deatructinn uf Jeruaalem, Jnhn was nu Innger reatrained
by the aame feara. Aa tn the name uf Malchus, it was unly preserved in the memnry
nf that disciple whn, well knnwn in tbe huuse nf the high priest, knew the man per
snnally. What are we tu think uf the authnr uf the fnurth Guspel, if these pruper
names were mere fictinns ? Accnrding tn ver. 49, the diaciple whn struck acted in
the name nf aU Q.dovTES . . . elnoi, shall we smite ?). This particular, peculiar tn
Luke, extenuates Peter's guilt. Juhn saya, -with Luke: "tbe right ear." This
minute cuincidence shnws that the detaUs peculiar tn Luke are neither legendary nur
the iuventiuna of his nwn imaginatinn. The wurda idre iuS tovtov aupply in Luke
the place ef a lung and impnrtant answer nf Jesus in Matthew. Shuuld this ccm
mand be appUed tu the nfficers : " Let me gutu this man" (Paulus) ; nr " tu the sput
where this man ia ?" Bnt thia wnuld have required eare /ie, "letmegn." Or ahnuld
we underatand it, with De Wette, Riggenbach : " Leave me yet fur a mument" ?
The ius, tin, duea nut lead very naturally tu this sense. Beaides, the dnoKpiBeiS, answer
ing, shnws that the wnrds nf Jeans are cunnected with the act nf the diaciple rather
thau with the arrival nf the nfficers. It is nnt tUl ver. 53 that Jesus turns tn thnae whu
have arrived {npds roif napayevopivms). Here He ia addreasing the apuatles. The
* Ver. 47. 13 Mjj. 15 Mnn, nmit Se after en. All the Mjj., avrovS (3, avroii)
inatead nf avroo-y. D. E. H. X. 60 Mnn. Syi'"''. It'"'', add after avrov, rovro yap
drjpsiov SeScoxEi avroiS, ov av cpiXrjdai avroS sdriv (taken from the paraUela).
t Marcinn umitted this paaaage. Ver. 49. S. B. L. T. X. sume Mnn. umit avroo
before xvpie. Ver. 51. J*. B. L. R. T. 3 Mnn. omit avrov after ooriov.

478 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE,
meaning is therefore either, " Let the^e men (the officers) go thus far (the length of seiz
ing me)," ur (which is mere natural), " Stop there ; strike no such second blow ; this
one ia quite enough." Thia act of violence, indeed, not only compromised the safety
nf Peter, but even the Lnrd's cause. Jeaua waa aU but hindered thereby from address
ing Pilate in the wnrda an impnrtant fnr His defence against the crime with which the
Jewa charged Him (Juhn 18 : 36) : " My kingdum is, nnt nf this world ; if my king
dum were uf thia wnrld, then wuuld my servauts fight, that I shnuld not be delivered
tu the Jewa." Nuthing leas was needed than the immediate cure of Malchus tu re
sture the meral situation which had been injured by this trespass, and te enable Jesus
to expreas Himself without the risk ef being confounded by facts. This cure is relat
ed enly by Luke ; Meyer therefore relegates it to the domain ef myth. But if it had
not taken place, it would be impossible to understand how Peter and Jeaus Himaelf
had escaped from this complaint.
Vers. 53 and 53.* Among these who came nut, Luke numbers snme of the chief
prieata. Whatever Meyer and Bleek ma.y aay, auch men may aurely, out of hatred or
curiosity, have accompanied the band charged with the arrest. Besides, is not the
rebuke which fnlluws addreaaed rather tn rulers than tn suburdinates ? As to the
captains of the temple, see 33 : 4. As tn the officers, cnrap: Jnhn 7 : 45 ; Acts 5 : 22-26
Jnhn speaks, beaides, nf the cohort, 18 : 3, 13 ; this wnrd, especially when accompa
nied by the term ;t;j/l(ap,i;of , tribune, (ver. 13), and with the antithesis rOrv 'lovdaiov, can
only, in spite ef all Baumlein's objectiona, deaignate a detachment of the Roman
cohort : it was, aa Langen remarka, an article ef provincial legislation, that ne arrest
should take place without the intervention of the Remana. The meaning of the
rebuke ef Jeaua ia thia : " It waa from cowardice that you did not arrest me in the
full light nt day." The nther twn Syn. carry fnrward their narrative, like Luke with
a but; nnly this but is with them the necessity fnr the fulfilment uf the prophecies,
whUe with Luke it is the harmnny between the character nf the deed arid that nf the
nuctumal huur. Darkness is favnrahle tu crime ; fur mau needs tu be cnncealed nnt
nnly frnm nthers, but frnm himself, in urder tu sin. Pur thia reasnn, night is the
tirae when Satan puts fnrth all his pnwer uver humanity ; it is his hnur. And hence,
adds Jesus, it is alsu yuurs, fnr ynu are his instruments in the wnrk which ynu are
dning ; cump. Jnhn 8 : 44, 14 : 30. Luke umita the fact uf the apnstles' flight which
is related here by Matthew and Mark. Where is the malevnlence whibh is ascribed
tn him against the Twelve ? Mark alsu relates wilh great circumstantiality, the case
nf the, ynung man whn fled stripped uf the linen cleth in which he was wrapped.
As, accurding tn Acts 13, the muther uf Mark pnaaeased a hnuae in Jeruaalem — aa
this huuse was the place where the Church gatliered iu times ef persecutinn, and as
it was therefure probably situated in a by -place — it is nnt impuaaible that it atnnd in
the vale nf Gethsemane, and that this ynung man was (as haa lung been suppnsed)
Mark himself, drawn by the nuiae nf the band, and whn haa thua put his signature
as mndestly as pnssible in the curner nf the evangelical narrative which he cnmpused.
3. The Judgment of Jeaua : 33 : 54—33 : 35.
lat. The Eceleaiaaiical Trial: vera. 54r-71. — Thia accnunt cnntains three things : (1)
St. Peter's denial (vera. 54-63) ; (3) The evU treatment practised by the Jews (vers.
63-65) ; (3) The aentence nf death prnnnunced by the Sanhedrim (vers. 66-71).
* Ver. 53. S. G. II. R. A. 50 Mnn., npoS avrov inatead nf en' avrov. The MSS, are
divided between E^sXyXvBure (T. R., Byz,), e^yXBare (Alex.), aud eSyXBcre.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 479
Luke places the sitting ef the Sanhedrim at which Jesua was cundemned in the
mnrning, when the day dlawned (ver. 66). Thia mnrning aitting ia alan mentiuned by
Matthew (37 : 1, the moming waa come) and Mark (15 : 1, straightway in the morning).
But, accurding to thnse twn evangelists, a previnus sitting had taken place at the
huuse of Caiaphas during the night, ef which they give a detailed deacriptinn (Matt.
36 ; 57-96 ; Mark 14 : 53-64). And thia even, accnrding tn Jnhn, had been preceded
by a preparatnry sitting at the hnuae uf Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. Jnhn
dnes nut relate either the secund ur the third aitting, thnugh he expreasly indicates the
place nf the latter by the nporov, 18 : 13, and the nutice, 18 : 34. Thia, then, ia the
order uf events : Immediately nn His arrest, between nne aud three n'clnck, Jesus
was led tn the hnuse nf Annas, where a preliminary inquiry tnnk place, intended tu
extract befurehand snme saying which wnuld serve as a text fnr Hia- cnndemnatinn
(Juhn 18 : 19-23). Thia aitting having terminated withuut any pusitive reault, had nut
been taken up by traditiun, and waa umitted by the Syn. But Jnhn relates it to
cumplete the view of the trial of Jeaua, and with regard to the accnunt uf Peter's de
nial, which he wishea tn reature tu its true light. During thia examinatinn, the mem
bera uf the Sanhedrim had been called tugether in h-aate, in as largQ numbers as pnssi
ble, tu the hnuse nf the high prieat. . The aitting nf this bndy which fulluwed was
that at which Jeaua was cundemned tu death fnr having declared Himself tn be the
Snn of Gnd. It must have taken place abnut three n'clnck in the moming. Mat
thew (36 : 59, et seq.) and Mark (14 : 55, et seq.) have minutely described it. Jnhn has
omitted it, as sufflciently knnwn thrnugh them. In the mnrning, at daybreak, the
Sanhedrim assembled anew, this time inf uU muster, and in their ufflcial hall near the
temple. This is the sitting described by Luke, and briefly indicated, as we have
seen, by Matthew and Mark. Twn thinga rendered it necessary : (1) Accnrding tu a
Rabbinical law, no sentence of death pasaed during the night was valid.* Tn this
fnrmal reason there was probably added the circumstance that the aentence had nnt
been passed lu the ufflcial place. But eapecially (3) it waa neceaaary tu deliberate
serinusly nn the ways and meana by which tu nbtain frnm the Ruman gnvernur the
cnuflrmatinn aud executinn cf their sentence. The whnle negutiatiun with Pilate
which fnUuws shows that the thing was far frnm eaay, and betrays un the part uf the
Jews, as we have seen in nur " Cnmment. sur l'§vang. de Jean," a strategical plan
cempletely marked nut befnrehand. It waa nu duubt at thia mnrning sitting that the
plan was discussed and adnpted. Matthew alsu says, in speaking nf this last sitting
(37 : 1), that they tunk cuunsel oore Ba-iaroaai airdv, about the way of getting Him pui
to death. Then it was that Judas came tu resture his mnney tu the Sanhedrim in ihe
temple {h r^va^. Matt. 37 : 5).
Bleek admits only twn sittings in all — the une preliminary, which was held at the
huiise nf Annas (Jnhn), and during which Peter's denial tnuk place ; the other offleial,
decisive, in which the whole Sanhedrim toek part, related by the Syn., who errone
ously connect Peter's denial vyilh it, and which is divided also erroneously by Mat
thew and Mark intn twu diatinct sittinga. Langen, un the cnntrary, with many cnm
mentaturs, identifles the examinatinn befnre Annaa (Jnhn 18 : 13, 19-33) with the
nocturnal sitting which is described in detail by Matthew and Mark. Against this
* " Sanhedrim, " 9. 1. Langen ebjects that, according te this same paaaage, the pro
nouncing of sentence ahould have beeu deferred tiU the aecond day. But it was
easier to elude this second law than the former. It was possible, for graver reasons,
to decree urgency.

480 . COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
I
explanation there are : 1. The entire difference between the matter nf the tw* sit
tings ; in Juhn, a simple examinatiun withuut judgment ; in Matthew and Mar^, the
express prnnnuncing nf a capital sentence ; 3. Ver. 34 nf Jnhn, " Annas sent Jesus
buund tn Caiaphas" — a verae which.whatever may be made uf it, implies twu sittings,
the uue at the hnuse nf Annas, the nther at the hnuse nf Caiaphas, in the same night.
The upiniun uf , Bleek wuuld be mure alluwable.' But we shnuld be authprized in
ascribing tu the flrst twn Syn. the serinus cunfusinn, and then the false divisien,
which Bleek imputes to them, only if the two sittings of the night aud morning could
not he sufflciently accounted for. Nuw, we have just seen that it is quite/otherwise.
A minute particular which distinguishes them cenflrma their historical /reaUty ; in
the night sitting there had been unanimity (Mark 14 : 64). Now, if Luke fe not mis
taken in declaring, 33 ; 51, that Joseph ef Arimathea did not vote with the majority,
we must conclude that he waa not present at the night sitting at the houae uf Caia-
phaa, but that he tnnk part nnly in that uf the murning in the temple, which agrees
with the fact that Matthew (37 : 1) expressly distinguiahes the murnina asaembly
aa a plenary cnurt, by the adjective ndvrei, all. The twn aittings are thui really dia
tinct. Luke haa mentioned only the last, that ef the morning, perhaps beoauae it waa
enly the sentence pronounced then for the aecond time which had legal force, and
which therefore waa the enly one mentioned by his sources. /
(1.) Vers. 54-63.* Peter'a Benial. — The account nf the evangelists presents
insnluble difflculties, if Annaa and Caiaphas dwelt in different hnuaes. [ Indeed, ac
curding tu Matthew and Mark, whu du nnt mentinn the examinatinn befure Annas,
it is at the huuae uf Caiaphas that the denial must have taken place ; wh le accurding
tu Jnhn, whn dnes nut relate the sitting at the hnuse nf Caiaphas, it is at the hnuse nf
Annas that this scene muat have nccurred. But is it impussible, nr ever improbable,
that Annas and Caiaphas his sun-in-law nccupied the sacerdntal palace n cummnn ?
Annaa and Caiaphaa, high priests, the une till the year 14, the uther from the year 17,
were su identifled in pnpular npininn that Luke (3 : 3) menlinna them la exercising
nne and the aame puntiflcate in cummnn — the nne aa titulary high priest, the nther aa
high prieat de facto. Su Acts 4:6: Annaa the high prieat and Oaia/plias\ But there
is mure than a pussibiUty nr a probability. There is a fact : in Juhn 18 : 15, the
entrance nf Peter intn the palace where the denial tnuk iilace is explained nn the
grnund that Jnhn was knnwn tn the high priest, a title which in«this context (vers.
13 and 34) can designate ne nther thau Caiaphaa ; and yet, accnrding to Ver. 12, it is
the house uf Annaa which is in queatinn. Huw are we tn explain this [accnunt, if
Annas and Caiaphas did nut inhabit the same huuse ? There is cautinn iu|the way in
which Luke expressea himself : " They led Him into the Idgh priests hous^;" he dnes
I
* Ver. 54. 10 Mjj. 30 Mnn. It. Vg. nmit uvtov after eiayyayov. 7 Mjj., 10 MUn.,
ryv oiKiav inatead nf tov oikov. Ver. 55. !*. B. L. T., nepiaipavruv inatead )f aijuiVTov.
7 Mjj. Itpie'>«»«, umit avrov after ovyKuBiaavrov. B. L. T. 3 Mnn., pEooS instead nf
EV peai^. Ver. 57. 9 Mjj. 40 Mun. Syr. ItP'"'*"', nmit avrov after ypvyaaro Ver. 58.
7 Mjj. 15 Mnu., e(^)? instead uf Einev. Ver. 60. ». D. It. Vg., n Xeyeis instead of
o XeyeiS. AU the Mjj. many Mnu. emit o before aXeKTOp. Ver. 61. ». I . L. T. X.
some Mun., inatead of tov Xoyov, rov pyparot (taken from Matthew and Marl;). 8 Mjj.
35 Mun. read aypepov before anapvyay. Ver. 63. 9 Mjj. 50 Mnn. Syr", omit o
rterpoS after efu.
-j- In this paaaage, the name High Priest is used in the general sense which it has
throughout the N. T., and Annas is named at the head of the list as president of the
Sanhedrim. ~

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 481
not say, to the house of Caiaphas (Matthew), or to the presence of the high priest
(Maik), but to the sacerdotal palace, where dwelt the two high priests clesely united
and lelated.
A covered gateway {nvX^v) led from without into the court where the flre waa
lighted {aiXy). The flrst denial ia related by John in a way to show that it took place
during the appearance before Annas. Comp. the repetition 18 : 18 and 35, wbich ia
indirecUy intended to show that the denial waa aimultaneoua~ with that flrat sitting.
The other two deuials being placed by John after the sitting, took place- conse
quently between the appearance at the house of Annas and the sitting pf the Sanhe
drim at the house of Caiaphas. After his flrat sin, Peter, humbled, and, as it were,
afraid of himself, had withdrawn to the gateway {nvXov, Matthew), ur tn the outer court
{npoa^iXujn, Mark), situated before the gateway. There, though mure secluded, he ia
the nbjec: of petty persecutinn nn the part uf the pdrteress whu had let him in (Mark),
nf auuther female servant (Matthew), nf another individual (^repos, Luke), nf the
bystanders in general {einov, they said, Jnhn). The accusatinn began probably with the
purteress, who kuew his intimate cnnnectiun with Jnbu ; she betrayed him tn anuther
aervant ; and the latter pninted him nut tn the dumeatica. Finally, abnut ai^ hnur
later (Luke), a kinsraan nf Malchua (John) recognizes him, aud engagea him in a cun
veraatinn. Peter'a answer makes him knnwn as a Galilean, and cnnaequently as a
diaciple of Jesua. And the third denial takea place ; the cnck cruwa (Matthew, Luke,
Jnhn) fur tte secnnd time (Mark). Then Peter, awaking as from a dream, at the
mument wheu he lifts hia head, meeta the eye of Jesua (Luke). How ceuld the Lord
be there ? It was. the time when, after the examination before Annas; they were
leading Him to the sitting of the Sanhedrim before Caiaphas. He was just crossing
the court wlich divided the two sets of apartments ; and this is what John means to
express by introducing here the remark, 18 : 34 : " Now Annas had sent Him bound
to Caiaphas " We can understand the prufuund effect pruduced upnn the diaciple
by the aight of his Master bmmd, and the Innk which He gave him in pasaing. Mark
omita this particular ; Peter waa nnt Ukely tn relate it in hia preaching. Mark merely
aays : intfScMv iKXaie (the imperfect), liuri'ying forth, he wept, went nu weeping with
nut ceasing The other Gnspels simply use the anr. he wept. Then it waa that he
waa preaerijed from despair and ita cunsequences by the interceasinn uf hia Maater :
" I have piayed f nr thee . . ." The anawer tn the prayer nf Jeaua was given
partly by this Inok — a Innk nf pardun as well as nf rebuke, which raised the pnnr dis
ciple, while breaking his heart with cnutritinn. It was thereby that Gnd sustained
his faith, md prevented him from falling intn a state similar tn that uf Judas.
We retnguize in the three Syn. accuunta the characteriatic cf traditinnal narrative
in their canbining the three denials in a aingle deacriptinn ; it waa the anopvypdvEvpa,
the recital, of the denial. John, aa an eye-witness, has given the histnrical fact its
natural irisiuna. But nntwithstanding their cummnn type, each Syn. accnunt has
alsu its ddicate shades and special features, rendering it impnsaible to derive it frnm
the aame jvritten anurce aa the nther twn. Matthew is the writer whu best exhibits
the gradstinn of the three denials (as in Gethsemane that of the three prayers of
Jesus). (2;) Vers. 63-65.* The evU treatment mentiuned here is the same as that related
* Vei. 63. 7 Mjj. snme Mun. It. Vg., avrov instead nf roi' Iifdovv. Ver. 64. !*.
B. K. L, M. T. n., iteptxaXvil>avrsS avrov instead uf nepix. avr. ervitrov avr. r.
Ttpod. xxt. 7 Mjj. umit avrov after aitr/pGoroov.

483

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

I perann
lis mnuth
an that uf

by Matthew and Mark, and placed by them after the sitting nf the Sanhedrim ^the
huuae nf Caiaphas. It is the parody nf the prophetic knnwledge of Jesus, the ri^cule
nf the Jewa. We shaU afterward see the derisiun uf the Gentiles.
(3.) Vers. 66-71.-* The Morning Sitting.— It is impussible tn determine tc/ what
extent the Sanhedrim required tn repeat iu .their murning sitting what had passed in
the night une. But we are juatifled in alluwing that surae detaUs nf the nne -were ap
plied tn the nther by traditinU aud by nur evangeUats. There was nothmgln itself
baaphemnua in une caUing hiraaelf the Christ. This claim, even if it waa ^ISe, was
nut an nutrage nn the hunnr uf Gud. If the aaaertinns nf Jeaus regarding ]
appeared in the judgment nf the Jewa tn be blasphemy, it was becauae in^
the title Son of God alwaya aignifled aumething else and snmething mure j
Measiah, and becauae the latter waa in His lips nnly^ a cnrnUary frum the tnjmer. In
prnpurtiun tn the care with which Jeaus in Hia ministry had avuided miking His
Messiahship the subject nf His public declaratinns, He had pnintedly designated
Himself as the Son of God.' Hence, in the sitting described by Matthew jlnd Mark,
the high priest, when putting tn Him the questinn : " Art thnu the Chrnt?" takes
care to add : "the Snn nf Gud ?" well knuwing that the first asaertinn caiunt be the
fnundatinn nf a capital charge, unlesa it be again completed and explaina! as it had
always been in the teaching of Jesus by the second. The question oflver. 67, in
Luke, was airaply, on the part of the high prieat, the introduction to the i xamination
(corap. ver. 70). But Jeaus, wishing to hasten a decision which He mew to be
already taken, boldly and apontaneoualy paaaea in His anawer beyond th s atrict con-
tenta ef the question, and declares Himself net only the Messiah, but t the same
time the Son nf man sharing the divine glury. The particle ei (ver. 67) n ay be taken
interrogatively: "Art thnu the Christ? Tell us sn in that caae." Bt; it ia mnre
natural tn make it directly dependent un sine: " TeW us if thou art . . ." De
Wette has criticised the answer here ascribed tn Jesus (vers. 67 and 68). The secund
alternative : If I aak you, appears tn him nut nf place in the mnuth oJ an accuaed
peraun. , It is nnt su. Here ia the puaitiun, as brought nut by the anaw6 • of Jesua :
" I cannut address ynu either as judges whum I ara seeking tn cnnvince, 'nr ynu are
already deterraiued tn put nn faith in my declaratinns, nnr as disciples ivhnm I am
endeavnring tn instruct, fur ynu wnuld nnt enter intu a fair discussinn with me."
Had he nut questinned them nnce and again previnusly un the nrigin nf Jnhn's bap
tism, and nn the meauing nf Pa. 110 ? And they had ateadily mainlainedl k prudent
ailence ! Jesua f oreaees the same reault, if He ahould now enter into discu sion with
thera. The last words -...y dnoXvayTE, nor let me go, are perplexing, becaise, while
graramatically connected with the second alternative, they refer in sens i to both.
Either, with the Alex., they must be rejected, er they must be takeu as i climax :
" Nor far leaa still will ye let me go."
Ver. 69. Jeaua Himaelf thus furniahes the Jewa with the held which hey seek.
The name Son of Man, which He uaea as mnst directly cunnected with that nf Christ
(ver. 67), is qualified by a descriptinn implying that He who bears this titfc partici
pates in the divine atate. Thereby the trial became singularly shnrteneo. There
waa nn nccasiun searchingly tn examine the right uf Jesus tn the title nf Chiat. The
* Ver. 66. !*. B. D. K. T. 25 Mnn. Or., aitvyayov instead of avijydvov. !*.
B. L. T., siitov inatead nf stite. Ver. 68. i*. B. L. T. nmit xai after sav Si !*. B.
L. T. nmit the wnrds poir; aitoXvdrjrs, Ver. 69. 7 Mjj. ItP'"''"", Vg. addrfe after

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 483
claim tn diviue glory cnntained ii^this assertion of Jesua is immediately formulated
by the tribunal in the title Son qf God. It only remains te have the blaaphemy artic
ulately stated by the culprit Himaelf. Hence the cnllective questinn, ver. 70. The
fnrm : ye say tliat 1 am, thou sayest it, is nut uaed in Greek ; but it ia frequently used
in Rab'iinical language.* By auch an answer the party accepta as Hia own affirma
tion, the whnle cnntents nf the questinn put tn Him. Sn far, therefure, from this'
questinn proving, as is persistently afflrmed, that the name Son of God is equivalent
in the vitw nf the Jews, or in that nf Jesua, tn the name Chriat, the evident prugreaa
frum the tjieatinn nf ver. 67 tu that uf ver. 70, bruught abnut by the decided answer
nf Jeaus, -ser. 69, clearly prnvea the difference between the twn terma. Aa tn the
difference between the night sitting and that nf the mnrning, it waa nnt cnnaiderable.
In the aecond, the stepa were nnly mure aummary, and led mnre quickly tn Ihe end.
All that waa necesaary waa tn ratify nfficially what had been dune during- the night.
Aa Keim saya, " the Sanhedrim had nnt tn discuaa ; they had merely te approve and
confirm the decision come to over-night." In the upiniun uf thuae whn allege that
Jesus was crucified nn the afternnun nf the 15th, and nnt uf the 14tb, tbe arreat nf
Jeaua, and';he three judicial aessiena which foUowed, took place in the night between
the- 14th aid 15th, and ae en the sabbatic hely day. Ia that admissible ? Langen
remarks thst on the 15th Nisan food nlight be prepared, which was forbidden on a
Sabbath (Ej. 13 : 16). But there ia ne proof that this exception extended to other
acts of ordhary life (arrests, judgments, punishraents, etc.). He seeks, further, to
prove that vhat was forbidden en a sabbatic day was net to pronounce a sentence,
but merely b ¦write and execute it. Now, he says, there ia no proof that the sentence
of Jesus was written ; and it waa Roman auldicra, nut subject tu the law, by whum
it was execited. These replies are ingeninua ; but after all, the ubjectinn taken
from the geieral aabbatic character nf the 15th Nisan remains in all its furce.
2d. TheOivil J^udgment : 33 : 1-35. — Here we have the descriptinn, nn the nne
hand, ul theseries nf manceuvres used by the Jewa tu nbtain' frura Pilate the executien
of the sentmce, and nn the nther, nf the seriea uf PUate'a expedienta, nr cuunter-
manoeuvres.tn get rid nf the caae which waa fnrced un him. He knew that it was
nut nf envythat the chiefs amung the Jewa were delivering Jeaua nver tn him (Matt.
37 : 18 ; Mak 15 : 10), and he felt repugnance at lending hia puwer tn a judicial mur
der. Besidis, he felt a secret fear abnut Jesua. Cnmp. Juhn 19 : 8, where it ia
aaid : " Vten Pilate therefere heard that saying (' He made Himaelf the Snn nf
Gnd'), he raa the mnre afraid ;" and the queatinn, ver. 9 : 'Whence art tliou?—a
questinn Thich cannut refer tn the earthly birthplace ef Jesua— that was already
known te lim (Luke 33 : 6), and which can only signify in the context : From heaven
ur from efrth ? The message ef his wife (Matt. 27 : 19) raust have contributed to in
crease thesuperstitious fears which he felt.
Vers. :-5.t Smce Judea had been reduced to a Roman province, on the deposition
nf Archelus, in the year seven of our era, the Jewiah authnritiea had lust the jus
gladii, wheh the Rnmans always reaerved tn themselves inthe prnvinces incnrpurated
with the mpire. Perhaps, as Langen cnncludes, with snme probability, frnm Jnhn
* A «ry simUar assenting afflrmatiun ia cnmrann in Engliah-speaking snciety.
" Se ynumay say" is a strung indursement nf aumething already uttered.— J. H.
+ Ver 1. AU the Mjj., yyayov inatead uf yyayev (T. R.). Ver. 2. 10 Mjj. 60 Mnn.
Syr. It. 7"g. add jy/zwv after eSvos. ». B. L. T. Syr. ItP'»"i"«, Vg., add m befure
XEyovra, Ver, 5, ». B. L, T, Syr, add Kai befure ap^apEvoS,

484

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

18 : 30, 31, previnus governnrs had relaxed the rigur nf public right on this point,
PUate waa the firat who bad confined the Jews within their strict legal competeyby.
There is a traditinn, qunted in the Talmud,- that " fnrty years before the destructinn
nf the temple (and su abuut the year thirty of nur era), the right nf prunuuncine/cap-
ital sentences was taken frnm larael " (Cant. 24. 2). Thus ia explainei the
procedure nf the Jews (ver. 1) whu bring Jeaua befure PUate. The uthtf mu
tives by which it haa been auught to explain it, auch as the desire » put
the entire respunsibility nf this death nn PUate (Musheim), nr that uf/getting
Jesus put tn death by the Rnman and specially cruel punishment nf tie crnsa
(Chrysustum), ur finally, that nf nut viulating the quiet nf the feast (Augus
tine), have been refuted by Langen (pp. 346-351). It cannnt be decided witE certainty
whether Pilate at this, time resided in the palace of Hered the Great, en tbfl hill ef
Sion, nr in the citadel Antunia, at the nurth-weat nf the temple. Traditiun uukea the
Via Dnlnrnsa begin at this latter sput. The cnmplaint uttered by the Jews ver. 3,
waa nut the actual beginning uf this lung negutiatiun. Juhn alune haa preiprved tn
ua ita true cummencement (18 : 39-33). The Jews began very akilfuUy byitrying tn
get Pilate tu execute tbe aentence withuut having submitted it fur his conlrmaticn.
The latter, mnre adroit than they, and eagerly pruflting by the turn thua gven tn the
caae, declared tu thera that he waa well pleaaed nut tn interfere in the nitter, and
that he left Jeaua in their hands, that ia tn say, within the limits nf their c mpetency
(the execution ef purely Jewiah penaltiea — excommunication from the_ i magogue,
scourging, etc.). But that did nut cnme uptn the reckuning uf the Jews, v [in -wished
at any price the death nf Jeaua. They must therefnre abandnn the exalti 1 poaition
which they had attempted te take, and submit their aentence to be judgec by Pilate.
Here begins tbe second manoeuvre, the political accusation (Luke, ver. 2 ; comp.
the three other accounta which are parallel). This charge was a nuturinua alaehund ;
fnr Jeaua had resnlved in the afflrmative the questinn whether tribute shoi Id be paid
tn Csesar, and had carefuUy abstained frnm everything which cnuld excite i rising uf
the peuple. The semblance of truth which is required in every accusation ras solely
in the last words : He made Himself tlie Christ, a title which the.v malicioualj explained
by that ef king. They began by giving tu the name Chriat a pelitical c( ur in the
mnuth nt Jeaua. Hence they cunclude that He was buund tn furbid the p yment uf
tribute. If He did nnt actually dn ru. He ahnuld have dnne it Ingically. Therefure
it was aa if He had dune it ; the crime may be justly imputed tu Him. "Ibis trana
latinn nf the title Christ by that nf king befnre Pilate is especiaUy remarkane, if we
cnmpare it with the transfurmatinn uf the same title intn tbat nf Son of Gd befnre
the Sanhedrim. The ubject nf the nne was tn eatabliah the accusatinn nf rbellinn,
as that nf the nther was tn prnve the charge nf blaaphemy. There ia a veralility in
this hatred. The fuur narratives agree in the questinn which Pilate add ssses tn
Jesua. We knnw from Juhn tbat Jesua was in the prseturium, whUe the J( vs tnuk
their atand in the npen square ; Pilate went frum them tn Him, and frum "lira tn
them. The brief answer uf Jeaus : Thouaayeatii, is surprising. But it appei -a f rura
Jnhn that the wurd is nnly the summary nf a cnnversatinn nf anme length etween
Jesua and Pilate — a unnveraatinn which nral traditiun had nnt preaerved. Pilte was
intelligent ennugh tn knnw what tn think nf the sudden zeal manifested by tie San
hedrim fnr the Rnman duraininn iu Palestine, and tbe conversation which he hii with
Jeaua on this flrst head of accusation (Jnhn 18 : 33-38) resulted in cunvincijg him
that he had not tn dn with a rival nf Csesar. He therefure declares to the Je-fe that

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 485
their accusatinn is unfuunded. But jliey insist (ver. 5), and advance as a proof the
aurt nf pnpular minvement nf which GalUee waa the starting-pnint {ap^dpevog), and
which spread quite recently tn the very gates nf Jerusalem {ios dide) — an aUuainn tn
the Palm Daya. It is tn the mentinn nf thia new charge that we may apply Matt.
37 : 13 and Mark 15 : 3, 4, where there is indicated a repetitinn nf accusatiuns which
Jesus answered nnly by ailence. Luke alau declarea, ver. 5, thai they were the more
fierce. A aecend expedient then preaenta itaelf tn Pilate's mind : tu cnnsign the
whnle matter tu Herud, the suvereign nf GaUlee (vera. 6-13).
Vera. 6-13.* Luke alnne relates this reraarkable circurastance. By this step the
clever Rnman gained twu ends at unce. First he gut rid of the business which waa
irapnsed nn him, and then he tnnk the flrst step tnward a recunciUatiun with Hernd
(ver. 13). Tbe cause of their quarrel had probably been seme conflict uf juriadic-
tien. In that caae, was not the best means pf soldering up the quarrel te concede to
him a right nf jurisdictinn within the very city nf Jerusalem ? Hernd had come tu
the capital, Uke Pilate, nn accnunt nf the feast ; nrdinarily he Uved in the nld castle
uf the Aamnnean kinga, un the hUl nf Zinn. Jeaus was tn him what a skUf ul juggler '
ia tn a aeated cnurt — an ubject nf curinsity. But Jesus did nnt lend Himself tn such
a part ; He had neither wnrds nnr miracles fnr a man sn dispused, in whum, besidea.
He aaw with hnrror the murderer nf Jnhn the Baptiat. Befnre thia perannage, a
munstrnua mixture nf blnndy levity and aurabre superstitinn. He maintained a silence
which even the accusations of the Sanhedrim {yer. 10) could net lead Him tu break.
Herud, wnunded and humiliated, tnnk vengeance un this cnnduct by cnntempt. The
expressiun, a gorgeous robe (ver. 11), denutes nnt a purple garment, but a white man
tle, like that wurn by Jewiah kinga and Rnman grandeea nn high nccaaiuns.t We
cannnt aee in this, with Riggenbach, a cuntemptunus aUuainn tu the white rube nf the
high prieat. It waa a parody nf the rnyal claims of Jesus, but at the aame time an
indirect declaratinn uf Hia innncence, at leaat in a pnlitical puint nf view. The
crparevpara, aoldiers nf Hernd, can unly mean hia attendanta, his bndy-guard, whn
were allnwed tn accurapany him in the capital.
Vers. 13-19. X Nut having succeeded in this way, PUate flnda himself reduced
tn seek another expedient. Twu preaent themselves tu his mind : flrat, the nffer to
chaatiae Jesus— that is to say, te scourge Him ; then the prnpositiun tn releaae Him as
a pardnned malefactnr, accnrding to the custnm uf the feast. The penalty nf scuurg-
ing strictly fnrmed part nf the puniahment nf crucifixinn ; it was the imperative pre
liminary. Jerome says (in Matt. 27) : Sciendum est Pilaium romanis legibus ¦ minis-
traaae, quibus saneitum erat ut qui crueifigeretur, prius flagellis verbereiur (Langen, p.
* Ver. 6. ».B. L. T. nmit TaXiXaiav befnre enEporyaEv. Ver. 8. B. D. L. T., e^
iKavovxpovov instead uf ef ikuvov (T. R., Byz.) nr ef iKavov xpovov (4 Mjj. Syr. ItP'"'-
'1°',) 8 Mjj. sume Mnn. Syr°''^ nmit noXXa after ukoveiv. Ver. 11. S*. B. L. T.
nmit avTov after nepi?aXov. S* L. R., enspipEv instea^oiavEnEpfsv. Ver. 12. ». B. L.
T., avrmiS instead of eavrovS.
X Langen, p. 370, note (Josephus, BeU. Jud. ii. 1. 1 ; Tacitus, Hist. li. 89)„
X Ver. 14. S. A. L. A. aerae Mnn. emit kut' before avrov. Ver. 15. S. B. K. L.
M T n aeveral Mnn., avEnep'fev yap avrov npoS ypa; inatead ef aveneptpa yap vpaS
npos 'avTov, which T. R. reada, with 12 Mjj. the most of tbe Mnn. ItP'«"'!"«, Vg. and
Syr (which subatitutes avrov fer vpas). Ver. 17. A. B. K. L. T. n. a Puld. Sah.
omit this verse. D. Syr=". place it after ver. 19. Ver. 18. !*. B. L. T. 2 Mnn.,
avEKpayov instead ef aveKpa^av. Ver. 19. B. L. T., pXyBetS instead of ^eiSXypEvoi. ».
B, L, T. X., EV ry fvXuKy instead of eif ifrnXuKyv.

486 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
281). This previnus punishment was nften murtal.* In this case Pilate offered it 19
the Jews in place uf crucifixinn, uut as the first act of that puniahment. He hoped
that at the aight nf thia the muie mnderate wnuld be satisfied, and that the last act
wnuld nut be demanded nf him. But tn secure the certainty nf this means he cum
bines it with the nther. The time was cnme fer releasing a state prisnner, as waa
cnmrann at the feast. He reckuns nn the numernus adherents nf Jesus whn had wel
cnmed Him with acclaraatiuns nh Palm Day, and whnse vuices, in spite nf the rulers,
wnuld make themselves heard in demanding His release.
At ver. 15, Tischendurf prefers the Alex, reading : " Fnr he sent him tn us," in
stead uf, " Fnr I sent ynu tq him." But this reading has arisen frnm an entire mis-
uuderstanding qf the fnllnwing phrase. It was translated, " And, lu 1 nuthing is dnne
untn him (at Hernd'a court) tu shnw that he haa been judged wurthy nf death;"
while the Greek expressinn signifles, according to a well-knuwn construction, " And,
lo ! he is found to have dOne nothing (He, Jeaus) which was werthy of death [iu
Herod's conviction as well aa in mine]." The received reading is therefore indiapu^
ably the true one. PUate declares aloud that the result ef this whole series of in
quiries haa been to establish the innncence uf Jesus. But why in this caae cunclude,
aa he dues {therefore, ver. 16), by uffering tn scuurge Him, thereafter tn release Him?
It was already a denial uf juatice tu send Jeaua tn Herud after having acknnwledged
His innncence ; it is a mure flagrant une still tu decree against Him, withuut auy
alleged reasun, the penalty nf scuurging. This first cnnceasinn betraya hia weakneaa,
and givea him nver befurehand tn hia adveraariea, whu are mure decided than he. If
ver. 17 ia authentic, and if it is tu be put here (aee the critical nnte), the mnat natural
cunnectiun between vers. 16 and 17 is this : " I will release him ; fnr I am even under
nbligatiun tn release untu ynu a prisnner. " PUate affects tn have nn du'abt that,, when
the liberatinn nf a prisnner is uffered tn the peuple, they will claira Jesus. But if
this verse is rejected as unauthentic, we must recngnize in the dnoXvau, I will release,
ver. 16, a pusitive allusiun tn tbe custum nf releasing a prisnner. At ver. 18, the
Jews, underatanding in a mnment PUate'a idea, wuuld reply tu him by putting them
selves at his view-pnint. But this explanatiun is anmewhat fnrced, and the nmissinn
nf ver. 17 may have arisen in the AleX. frnm cnnfuunding the twn AN . . .
which begin the twn verses 17 and 18. In Juhn, PUate, while reminding the penple
uf this custnm, directly uffers thera the deliverance nf Jeaua. Thia waa prnbably the
real cnurae nf eventa. In Matthew, he puts the alternative between Jesus and Barab-
bas, which is less natural. In Mark, it is the penple whn, interrupting the deliberatinn
relative tu Jesus, all at unce claira the liberatien ef a prisoner, which ia less natural
StiU. The origin ef the custom here mentinned ia nnt knnwn. It is far from prob
able that it was introduced by the Romans. Langen justly quotes against this sup
position the words nf Pilate (Juhn 18 : 39), " Ye have a custum." Perhaps it waa a
memurial uf the great natiunal deliverance, uf the escape frnm Egypt, which was cel
ebrated at the feast of Paaaover. The Romans, whn tnnk a pride in respecting the
uaagea nf cunquered peuplea, had fallen in wilh this cuatnm .
But befnre Pilate had carried cut the acnurging, the penple had already made their
chnice. Thia chnice ia presented, ver. 18, aa unanimnus and spnntanenus {napnXyBei),
while Matthew and Mark, mnre accurate un the pnint, ascribe it tn the pressure
exercised by the rulers and their underlings, which harmunizes with .luhn 19:6,
* Cicero, in Flaccum, § 10.

COMMENTARY ON" ST. LUKE. '487
Mark and Luke characterize Barabbaa as une whn had been guilty of murder iu an
insurrection ; he was therefnre a representative cf the aame revulutiunary spirit nf
which the Sanhedrim were accusing Jesus. Tu give up Jesus tu the cross, and tn de
mand Barabbas, was tn du at the same mument twu significant act^. It was te repu
diate the spirit of submission and faith which had diatinguiahed the whole work ef
Jeaua, and which might have saved the people. It waa at the same time te let leeae
the apirit ef revolt which waa te carry them te their deatructieu. The name Barabbas
comes from -^n and X3N (*<"* ^f the father). This name signifies, according to most,
aon of Abba, nf Gnd. Keim understands sun nf the Rabbin, taken as spiritual father.
The name Jeaus, which is alsu given tu this man in 4 Mnn. nf Matthew, and which
was fnuud, according to the Fathers,- in a considerable number nf mss., waa probably
added tn the name nf Barabbaa, with the deaire tu render the parallelism the mure
atriking. The liberatinn of Barabbas was a judicial act ; tn carry it uut, Pilate must ascend
hia judgment-seat. It was probably at this mument that the mesaage nf hia wife, nf
which Matthew speaks (ver. 19, " When he was set duwn nn the judgment-seat "),
was transmitted to him.
Vers. 20-25.* This manoeuvre having failed, Pilate returna tn the expedient nn
which he reckuns most : he will try to satisfy the anger of the mnst infuriated, and
tn excite the pity uf thuse whn are yet capable nf thia feeling, by a beginning nf pun
iahment. The real contents ef the declaration announced by the npoae^uvyae, he spake
again to them, ver. 20, are not expreased till the -end of ver. 33 : "I will therefore
chastise him, and let hira go. " But Pilate la interrupted before having uttered his
whole thought by the criea of the Jews, ver. 31 ; his answer, ver. 33, breathes indig
nation. By the rpirov, for the ihird time, allusiun is made tn his twn previnus dec
laratinns, ver. 4 and vers. 14, 15. Tdp bears nn the idea ef crucifixion, ver. 21 :
"Crucify him? For he has dnne . . . whatevU?" But this indignatinn nf
Pilate is enly an example of cnwardice. Why scuurge Him whnm he acknnwledges
tn be innncent ? This first weakneaa ia appreciated and immediately turned tn ac
count by the Jewa. f It is here, in Luke's accnunt, that the acnurging shnuld be
placed. ,Tnhn, who has left the most vivid recital of this acene, places it exactly at
this moment According te Matthew and Mark, the scourging did not take place till
after the senteuce waa pronounced, agreeably to custom, and as the first stage eft
cracifixion. Ver. 23 summarizes a whole aeries ef negotiations, the varioua phases ef
which John alone has preserved to us (19 : 1-13). Jesus, covered with blood, appears
before the people. But the rulers and their partisans succeed in extinguiabing the
voice of pity in the multitude. Pilate, who reckoned un the effect nf the apectacle,
is shncked at this excess nf cruelty. He authnrizes them tn carry cut the crucifixinn
themselves at their nwn risk ; they decline. They understand that it is he whu
serves as their executicner. To gain him there reraain yet twn ways. AU at unce
changing their tactics, they deraand the death nf Jesus as a blasphemer : " He made
* Ver. 30. 6 Mjj. 3 Mnn. Vsa., Si inatead nf ovv. ». B. L. T. 3 Mnn. add
avrotS after xpoeEq}&.vijdEv. Ver. 31. ». B. D. F" Or., dravpov, dravpov, Inatead
nf dravpaodov, dravpoodov. Ver. 33. ». B. L- 130 Mnn. ItP'»"«"«, nmit xai roov
apxiEftEoov after avroov. Ver. 35. 16 Mjj. many Mnn. nmit avroiS after aiCEXvdev
Se. X In the " Scripture Characters" nf the late Dr. Candliah, uf Edinburgh, three
chapters nf singularly clear analysis are devuted tu PUate. They well deserve study.
-J. H.

488 , COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
himself the Son of God." But en hearing this accusation, PUate shows himself still
less disposed to condemn Jesus, whnse persen had already inspired him with a mys
terious fear. The Jews then determine tu empluy the weapnn which they had kept
tu the last, prnbably as the must ignoble in their uwn eyes, that ef persunal intimida-
tinn. They threaten him with an accusatinn befnre the emperur, as having taken a
rebel under his protecticn. Pilate knnws hnw ready Tiberius will be tu welcume such
a charge. On hearing this threat, he understands at nnce, that if he wishes tu save
hia place and life, he haa nn alternative but tu yield. It ia at this puint that the fnur
narratives again unite. Pilate fur the secnnd time ascends the judgment-seat, which
waa set up in a raiaed place in the npen aquare aituated befnre the prseturium. He
waahea his hands (Matthew), and again declining all participatinn in the judicial mur
der which is abuut tu be cnmmitted, he delivers Jeaus uver tn His enemies.
, Ver. 35 nf Luke is the unly passage uf this narrative where the feelings nf the his-
turian break through the objectivity ef the narrative. The details repeated here (ver.
19) regarding the character ef Barabbas bring into prominence all that is odious iu
the choice of Israel ; and the words, he delivered Him to their •will, all the cowardice
of the judge who thus declines to act aa the protectur uf innncence. Matthew and
Mark here narrate ,the abuae which Jesus had tn suffer frnm the Rnman snldiera ; it <
ia the acene related Jnhn 19 : 1-3, and which ahnuld be placed befnre the scuurging.
The scene nf it, accnrding tn Mark, waa the inner cnurt nf the prseturium, which
agreea wilh Jnhn. It waa lesa the muckeiy nf Jeaus Himself than uf the Jewish
Messiah in His perann.
3. The Crueifiicion of Jesus : 33 : 36-46.— Jnhn indicates, as the time when Pilate
prnnnunced sentence, the sixth hnur ; Mark, as the huur at which Jesus waa crucified,
the third. Accnrding tn the nrdinary rande nf reckuning time amnng the ancienta
(atarting frnm six n'clnck in the mnrning), it wuuld be midday with the first, nine
n'clnck in the murning with the secnnd. The cuntradictinn aeema flagrant : Jeaus
cnhdemued at nunn, accnrding tn Jnhn, and crucified at nine accurding tn Mark !
Langen brings new arguments tu siippurt an attempt at harmnny which has nften
been made — that Jnhn reckuned the hnurs aa we dn, that ia tn say, atarting from
midnight. The sixth hnur wnuld then be with him six u'clock in the morning,
which would harmonize a Uttle better with Mark'a date, the interval between aix and
nine o'clock being employed in preparationa for the crucifixion.* But is it probable
that Jehu adnpted a mude nf reckuning different frum that which waa generaUy in
use, and that withuut in the least appriaing his readers ? f We incline rather tn
* Langen reata his argument nn three passages, une frOm the " Natural History"
of Phny the elder (ii. 70), the second from the Letters of Pliny the younger (iii. 5),
the third from the Acts of Polycarp' s martyrdum (c. 7), proving that at the beginning
of the Christian era our present mode ef reckoning (starting from midnight and mid
day) was already known. The third pasaage really poasesaea great force ; and it is
the more important, becauae it proceeda from the very country in which Jnhn wrote.
_ X We uwe tu M. Andr6 Cherbuliez, nf Geneva, and M. de Ruugemnnt, whn aent
It tu ua, an intereating contributinn un thia questinn, taken frnm the " Sacred Dis
cnuraea" nf .aElius Aristides, a Greek auphiat nf the aecnnd century, a cnnlempurary
nf Pnlycarp, whnm he may have met in the streets nf Smyrna. In the first bunk
Gnd Cummands him in a dream tn take a cnld bath ; it is winter ; and as the mnst
suitable hnur he chooaes the sixth, undoubtedly because it is the warmest. Then ad-
dressing__his friend Bassus, who keeps hira waiting, he says tn him, pninting tn the
pillars, Seeat thnu ? the shadnw is already turning. " There ia nu duubt, therefnre,
that the sixth huur with him denutes midday, and nut six n'clnck murning ur evening!

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 489
hnld with Lange, in his " Life uf Jesus," that Mark dated the beginning nf the pun
ishment from the time nf the scuurging, which legaUy fnrmed its first act. In this
Mark fnllnwed an npininn which naturaUy arose frum the cnnnectinn in which scuurg
ing was nrdinarily practised. It is Jnhn whu, by his mure exact knowledge of the
whole course of the trial, has placed this part nf the punishment nf Jesus at its true
Ijirae and in its true light The scuurging, in Pilate's view, was nut the beginning nf
the crucifixinn, but rather a means nf preventing it. Thua it is that Mark haa ante
dated the crucifixinn by the whnle interval which divided the acene nf the Ecce homo
from the prnnnuncing uf the aentence and its executinn. It is absnlutely impna.?ible
tu suppnse that the whnle lung and cnmplicated negutiatiun between the Jews and
PUate tunk place between the last sitting nf the Sanhedrim (which was held aa aoon
aa it waa day, Luke 22 : 66) and six n'clnck in the mnrning. See my " Cumment. sur
Jean," u. pp. 606 and 607.
The punishment uf crucifixion was inuse among several ancient peoples (Persians,
Assyrians, Egyptians, Indians, Scythians, Greeks). Among the Romans, it was
used nnly fur slaves {aervile aupplieium, Hurace), and fur the greateat criminals
(aaaassins, brigands, rebels). It was abolished by Cnnstantine. The scuurging tnnk
place either befnre setting uut, nr nn the way tn the cross (Liv. xxxiU. 36). Accurding
to Plutarch* every criminal cariied his nwn cross. There was bnrne before him nr
hung round his neck a white plate, un which his crime was indicated (iitulua, aavig,
'airia). The punishment took place, aa a rule, beyond inhabited houaea, f near a road,
that the largest possible number of people might witness it. The Talmud of Jeru
salem relates that before crucifixion there was offered to the prisoner a stupefying
draught, which compassionate people, generally ladies of Jerusalem, prepared at
their own cost.:|: The cross consisted of two pieces, the one perpendicular {aiaiieu-
lum), the other horizontal {antenna). N*early at the middle nf the first was fixed a.
pin nf wood nr burn {¦nypa,^ aedile), nn which the prisnner rested aa un hnreeback.H
Otherwiae the weight -v\-niUd have turn the hands and left the bndy tn faU. They
began nrdinarily by aetting up and fixing the cruaa (Cic. Verr. v. 66 ; Jns. " Bell.
Jud." vii. 6. 4) ; then by meana uf curds the bndy was raised tn the height uf the
antenna, and the naila driven intu the handa. ' The cundemned perann was rarely
nailed tu the cross while it was yet lying un the ground, tn be afterward raised.
The cruaa dnea nnt seem tn have been very high. Langen thinks that it was twice
the height nf a man : that is the maximum ; and it is probable that generally it was
nut sn high. The rod nf byssup nn which the spunge waa held uut tn Jesus cuuld
nut be mure than two ur three feet in length. As tu the feet, Paulua, Lilcke, Winer,
and others have mnre nr less pnsitively denied that they were nailed. They appeal
tn Jnhn 30 : 35. But wuuld it nnt have been singular pedantry nn the part uf
Thnmas tn speak here uf the hules iti the feet ? He enumerates the wnunds, which
were immediately within reach uf his hand. It is the same wheu Jesua apeaks tn
Thnmas, ver. 27. Then they allege the fact that the Empress Helena, after having
* " De aerS Numinis vindictS," c. 9.
t Plautus, " MUfis gluriusus," ii. 4. 6 : extra portwm.
X " Bab. Sanh." f. 43. 1 : "A grain nf frankincense in a cup nf wine ; ut turbare-
tur ^"-Ms inteUeetus."
§ Ir. "Adv. Hier."ii. 42.
I Justin Martyr, "Dial." 91 : Ef d> 'enoixovvrai ol aravpopevoi. Irenseus, "Adv.
Hser." u. 43. TertuUian, " Cunt. Marc." iu. 18.

490 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
discuvered the true cross, sent tu her snn the naUs which had been fastened in the
handa nf Christ.* But it is nnt said that she sent tn him aU that she had found. The
cnntrary rather appears frnm the tenur of the narrative (aee Meyer, ad Matt. 37 : 35).
Hug, Meyer, Langen have pruved beynnd duubt, by a series of quotations from
Xennphnn, Plautua, Lucian, Justin, TertuUian, etc., that the custnm was tn nail the
feet alan ; and Luke 34 : 39 (written withnut the leaat reference tn the prophecy of
Ps. 22) admits uf nu dnubt that this practice was fnllnwed in the case nf Jesus. Pur
hnw cnuld Hia feet have aerved aa a prnuf nf Hia identity {dn airbs kyo) utherwiae
than by the wnunda the mark nf which they bnre ? The amall beard {auppedaneum),
on which the repreaentations nf the crucifixion uaually make the feet uf nur Lnrd
real, is a later inventiun, rendered in a way necessary by the suppressinn of the sedile
in thnse pictures. The feet were nailed either the une abnve the nther by meana nf a
single nail, which wnuld explain the epithet rpiayXoS, three-nailed, given tn the cross
by Ncnnus, in his versified parajihrase uf Juhn'a Guspel (4th century), er the une
beside the uther, which .generaUy demanded feur nails in all, as Plautus f seema tu
aay, but might alan be executed with three, if we suppnae the uae uf a nail in the
fnrm nf a huraeahne having twn pnints. Was the snle uf the fnut suppnrted nn the
wund by means nf a very full bend nf the knee, nr was the leg in its whnle length
laid tn the cruaa, sn that the feet preaerved their natural pusitinn ? Such details prnb
ably varied at the caprice nf the executinner. The crucified usually lived twelve
hours, sometimes even tUl the second er third day. The fever which seen set iu
produced a burning thirst. The increasing infiammation of the wounds in the back,
handa, and feet ; the congeation of the blood in the head, lungs, aud heart ; the awell-
ing ef every vein, an indescribable oppression, racking pains in the head ; the stiff-
neaa of the limba, caused by the unnatural position of the bedy — these all united to
make the punishraent, in the language ef Cicero (in " Verr." v. 64), erudeliasimum
ieierrimumque aupplieium.
From the beginning Jesus had foreseen that auch would be the end of His life.
He had announced it to Nicodemus (John 3 ; 14), to the Jews (12 : 32), and once and
again to Hia disciples. It was the foresight of this which had caused His agony in
Gethaemane. No kind of death was so fitted to strike the imagination. For this
very reason, no other was so well fitted to realize the end which God proposed in the
death of Christ. The object was, as St. Paul aays (Rem. 3), tu give tn the sinful
wnrld a cnmplete demnnstratinn {evdei^is) nf the righteuusueaa nf Gnd (vers. 25, 36).
By ita cruelty, a death uf this aurt curreapunda tu the udiuusneaa nf sin ; by its dura
tinn, it leavea the crucified nne time te recognize fully the right ef God ; laatly, ita
dramatic character produces an impreasion, never te be effaced, en the conaciencA>f
the spectator. Of all known punishments, it was the croaa which muat be that ef
the Lamb nf Gnd.
We divide this piece intu three parta : the way tn the cruaa (vera. 26-32) ; the
crucifixion (vera. 33-38) ; the tirae paaaed on the cross (39-46).
lat Vers. 26-32. f The punishment required tn be infficted uutside the city (Lev.
* Sucrates, " Hist. Eccl." i. 17. f " Mnstell." 2 : 1. 13.
X Ver. 26. S. B. C. D. L. X. anrae Mnn., 'Zipuva nva Kvpyvaiov epxopevov inatead
nf ^ipovoS TivoS Kvpyvaiov epxopevov. Ver. 3'i'. A. B. C. D. L. X. snme Mnn. nmit
KUl after ai, S. umits ai kui. Ver. 39. !*. B. C. L. e9pei/'av, D. s^EBpefav, in
stead nf EOyXaaav. Ver. 31. D. K. A. several Mnn. ltpio'iq"», Vg., yevyaErai inatead
nt yEvyrai.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 491
34 : 14) ; it was the type uf exclusinn from human snciety (Heb. 13). Jnhn 19 : 17
Infnrms us that Jesus went uut nf the city bearing His cross Himself, accnrding tn
custnm (Matt. 18 : 38). But we are left in ignnrance uf the mntive which aunn led
the Rnman snldiers charged with the executinn tn lay hnld nf Simnn nf Cyrene fnr
this nfflce. Did Jeaus faint under the burden, nr did Simnn testify his sympathy
with Him rather tnu Inudly ; ur was there here nne nf thuse abuses of military power
which are readUy indulged in the case of a foreigner ? We cannot teU. Cyrene, the
capital of Libya, had a numerous Jewish population, many of whom came to settle at
Jerusalem (Acts 6 : 9). It is natural to conclude from the words, coming out of the
country, that he was returning to the city after his work. It was uot thereforie a
hely day. Langen answers, it is true, that he might merely have been taking a
walk ! Mark 15 : 21 proves that this event became a bond of union between Simon
and the Saviuur,, and that he sunn entered intn the Church with his famUy. He
afterward settled at Rnme with his wife and twu snns (Rnm. 16 : 13).*
Vera. 37-32 are pecuUar tn Luke. In ver. 27 we see pnpular feeling breaking nut
thruugh the mnuth of the wnmen, nut, as M. de Pressense thinks, thuse who had ac
cumpanied Jeaus from Galilee, but inhabitants uf Jeruaalem. The aayings uf Jesus
testify tu His entire self-fnrgetfulneas ; they cnntain an alluainn tn Hua. 10 : 8. The_
meauing nf ver. 31 appears tn be that indicated by Bleek : the green wood ia Jesus
led to death as a xebel, juotwithatauding Hia conatant submiaaion to,-the GeutUe
authorities ; the dry -s^wJd ia the Jewiah people, who, by their apirit ors^evolt;r^^Ul,
with much strnnger reasnn, bring duwn nn themselves the swnrd nf theUnmansr^
The mure cnntrary tn nature it ia that Jesus shnuld die as a rebel, the mnre is it in
keeping with the nature ef things that Israel should perish for rebellion. Thua Jesus
makes the people aware of the falsehood which ruled Hia condemnation, and the way
in which God wiU take vengeance. No doubt, behind the human judgment which
visits the nation, there is found, as in all similar sayinga (comp. Luke 3 : 9, etc.), the
divine judgment reserved for each individual. Thia last reference is demanded by
the coanection ef vers. 30 and 31. f The figure ef the green wend and the dry is bur
rowed frnm Ezek. 21 : 3-8. The twn malefactnrs were probably cnmpauiuns nf
Barabbas. This accumulatinn nf infamy nn Jesua was nwing perhaps tn the hatred
nf the rulers. Gnd brought uut uf it the glury uf His Snn.
2d. Vers. 33-38. t Is the sput where Jeaus was crucified that -which is shown for
* This statement is a little stronger than the facts warrant, thuugh early traditinn
sustains it. " Alexander and Rufua" are named by Mark as knnwn tn his readers,
and it is assumed that this ia the Rufus nf Rnm. 16 : 13. But Rufus was a cummnn
name, and his mnther unly is referred tu. Traditiun in the third and fnurth cen
turies always fnuud prominent places fnr names mentinned in the sacred writinga. —
J. H. t The Dutch phUolngiat Peerlkaamp (in his " Taciti Agricnla," Leyden, 1864)
thinks that we must transpuse ver. 31, putting it after ver. 27 : " And they lamented
Him, saying : If they dn these thinga," etc. But thia arbitrary transpusitinn is nnt
demanded by anything in the text;
X Ver. 33. 5 Mjj. 5 Mnn. Syr. It. Vg., yXBov inatead uf anyXBov. Ver. 34. S» B.
D. 2 Mnn. It»"i. umit the wnrds o de lyaovs . . . ¦noiovaiv. Theae wurds are fnund
in 20 Mjj. the muat nf the Mnn. Syr. Itpi«"9ne, Ir. Hum. Clement, Acta Pilati, etc.
A. X. several Mnn. It""'. Vg., xXypovc instead nf KXypov (which seeras tn be taken
frum the paraUels of the hXX.). Ver. 35. 7 Mjj. 6 Mnn. Vaa. umit aw avrois after
01 apxovTES. Ver. 36. S. B. L., evenai^av inatead of EVEnai^ov, S. A. B. C. L. nmit
KUl befnre o^oi . Ver. 38. K. B. L. nmit yeypappevy. »¦''' B. C. h, Syr""', umit the
wnrds ypappaaiv eXXyviKotS Kai popamoi'p Kai efipaiKOiS (taken frnm Juhn).

492 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
, it at the present day, in the inclusure nf the Church uf the Hnly Sepulchre ? The
questiun dnes nnt seem yet decided. Thnugh this place is nuw within the city in-
cluaurc,.it might nnt have been sn then. The name place of the skull (skull, in He
brew n/37J' i'l Aramaic J>?ri737j.* from "j^j to roll) dnea nnt cnme from the skulls nf
the cundemned which remained lying there ; thia wuuld require the plural : the place
uf akuUs ; beaides, unburied bunes wuuld nut have been left there. The name is
rather tn be traced tn the bare rounded fnrm nf the hill. Matthew and Mark relate
here that Jesua ref uaed the stupefying draught which was uffered Him. Accnrding tn
Mark, it was aromatic wine ; accnrding tu Matthew, vinegar mingled vvith gaU.f
Of the seven sayinga which Jeaua uttered nn the crnsa, the first three refer tn the
persnns surrnunding Him — His enemiea, Hia cnmpaniun in punishment, and thuae
whum He loves mnat tenderly, Hia mnther and Hia friend ; they are, aa it were. His
wiU. The three which fnUnw : " My Gud, my Gnd ... I thirst ; it is fin
iahed," refer tn His sufferings and the wnrk which is being finished ; the flrst twu,
to the sufferinga nf Hia snul and nf Hia budy ; the third, tu the result gained by thia
cnmplete aacrifice. FinaUy, the aeventh and last : " Father, intn Thy handa ..."
is the cry nf perfect confidence from His expiring heart in its utmnst weakness.
Three nf thnse seven sayings, all three wnrda nf grace and faith, are related by Luke,
and by him nnly.
The prayer nf'ver. 34 is wanting in sume mss. This omission is probably the re
ault uf accident ; fnr the uldeat translatinns, as well as the great majnrity uf mss.,
guarantee its authenticity ; and the appeal nf the thief fur the grace uf Jesus, a few
muments later, cannnt be well explained, except by the impressinn pruduced nn him
by the hearing nf thia filial invncatiun. The peranna fur whum this prayer is uffered
cannnt be the Rnman snldiers, whn are bUndly executing the orders which they have
received ; it is certainly the Jews, whn, by rejecting and slaying their Messiah, are
smiting themaelves with a murtal blnw (Jnhn 2 : 19). It is therefnre literally true,
that in acting thus they know not what they do. The prayer cf Jesus was granted in
the fnrty years' reapite during which they were permitted, befnre perishing, tu hear
the apnatnlic preaching. The wrath nf Gnd might have been diacharged upun them
at the very mnment.
The casting nf the lut fur the garments nf .lesus (ver. 34) belnngs tn the same class
nf derisive actinna aa thuae related ver. 35 et aeq. By this act the prisnner liecame the
spurt nf his executinners. The garment nf the cruciarii belunged tu them, accurding
tn the Ruman law. Every cress waa kept by a detachment of four snldiers, a
TETpddiov (Acts 12 : 4). The plural KXypovS, lola, is taken frum the paraUels. The let
was twice drawn, first fnr the divisiun nf the fnur nearly equal parts intn which the
g irraents nf Jesus were divided (cloak, cap, girdle, sandalsi), then fnr His rube nr
luuic, which was tnn valuable tn be put intu nne nf the fnur Ints. The wnrd BeopeIv,
beholding (ver. 35), dnes nnt seem tu Indicate a malevnlent feeling ; it rather fnrms a
contrast with what fnllnws. The wurds avv airois, with ihem, muat be rejected from
the text. The meaning uf the term, tlw choaen of God, is, that the Christ ia He nn
whuae electinn rests that uf the entire penple. The mnckeries of the soldiers apply to
* It ia from this word that the name Golgotha is generally derived (Matthew
Mark, John)^ Kraft (" Topogr. Jerus." p. 158) has recently proposed another
etymology : 73, hill, and nyiv death (comp. the place named Jer. 31 : 39).
X The ancient naturalists, Dioscorides and Galen, ascribe to incense aud myrrh a
stupefying influence (Langen, p.302).

' COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 493
Jewish royalty in itself, more thau to Jesus personaUy (John 19 : 5, 14, 15). It haa
often been thought that the wine which the aoldiers offered tu Jeaus was that which
had been prepared fnr themaelvea {d^os, a cummnn wine) ; but the apunge and the rod
nf hyasnp which are uu the spet leave nn dnubt that it was intended tn aUay the
sufferings nf the prianners. It waa perhaps the same draught which had been cffered
tn them at the beginning uf the crucifixion. The soldiers pretend te treat .lesua as a
king, to whnm the festive cup ia preaented. Thua thia deriaive hnmage ia cunnected
with the ironical inscription (not in regard to Jeaua, but in regard tu the peuple)
placed un thetrnaa (ver. 38). It ia this cunnectinn uf ideas which is expressed by the
yv di Kai, there alao waa. By this inscriptinn, su humbUng tu the Jews, PUate toek
vengeance for the degrading constraint to which they had subjected him by forcing
hira te execute an innocent man. The mention of the three languages is an interpo
lation taken from Jnhn.
Sd. Vers. 39-46.* Matthew and Mark ascribe the same jeatinga tn the two thieves.
The partiaana nf harmnny at any price think that they buth began with blaaphemy,
and that nne nf them afterward came tn himself. In any case, it must be assumed
that Matthew and Mark did nut knnw this change uf mind ; ntherwise, why shnuld
they nnt have mentinned it V But is it nnt mnre natural tn hnld that they grnup in
categnries, and that they are ignnrant nf the particular fact related by Luke ? Hnw
had this thief been tnuched and cnnvinced ? Unduubtedly he had been struck aU at
nnce with the cnntraat between the hnliness which ahune in Jesus and his uwn crimes
(vers. 40 and 41). Then the meekness with which Jesus let Himself be led te punish
ment, and especially His prayer for Hia executionera, had takeii hold ef his cen-
scieuce and heart. The title Father, which Jesua gave to God at the very moment
when God waa treating Him in ao cruel a manner, had revealed in Him a Being who
was living in an intimate relation te Jehoyah, and led him to feel Hia divine greatneaa.
His faith in the title King ef the Jewa, inscribed en His cross, was enly the conae
quence of auch impreasiona. The words oidi av, not even thou (ver. 40), which he ad
dresses to his companion, allude to the difference of moral aituation which belonga to
them beth, a'nd the raUera wilh whom he ia joining : " Thou who are not raerelj^, like
them, a spectator of thia punishment, but whn art undergning it thyself." It is n(jt
fur him, whn is nn the eve nf appearing befure the divine tribunal, tu act aa the pro
fane. "On, becauae, refers tn the idea cnntained in folSy ; " Thnu at leaat uught eat tn
fear . . . ; fnr . . ."
The prayer which he addreasea tn Jeaus (ver. 43) ia suggeated tu hira by that failh
in an unlimited mercy which had been awaked in hira by hearing the prayer nf Jesus
fnr Hia executinners. It seema tn me prubable that the nmisaiun nf the wnrd Kvpie,
Bord, in the Alex., arises from the mistake nf the cnpyist, whn was giving the prayer
of the thief from memory, and that the transformation of the dative ru 'lyaov inte
* Ver. 39. B. L. ovxt, i*. C. Syr"". It""'. Xeyu-i> ovxi, instead ef Xeyov ei, Ver.
40 !* B C L X eninpav avru eipy instead uf enETipa dvru Xeyuv, Ver. 43. S>. B. C.
L.', lyaov (vncative) instead nf ru lyam. ». B. C. D. L. M. 3 Mnn. urait KvpiE. B. L.
It»"i. EiS TTfv fSaaiXsiuv aov inatead nf ev ry iiaaiXeia aov. Ver. 44. B. 0. L. add ydy
befnre uaei Ver 45 i* B. C. (?) L., rou yXiao EKXmovroS insteaA ot kui EoKonaBy o
nXioS which T R. reads, with 17 Mjj. the muat nf the Mnn. Syr. ItP'^'i"'. !*. B. C.
L., eaxicBy de instead nf kui eaxioBy. Ver. 46. !*. A. B. C. K. M. P. Q. U. X. n 30
Mnn Just. Or napariBepai instead nf napaByaopai, which T. R. reada, with 8 M],].
aeveral Mnn » B. C. D., tovto de instead nf kui ravra, which T. R. reads, with 13
Mjj., or /cat toi;to, which K. M. P. n. 10 Mnn. If''^ read.

494 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
the apnstrnphe {'lyaov) waa the effect nf this nmisaiun. The tnuching cry. Remember
me ! finds ita explanatinn in that curamunity nf auffering which seema tn him hence-
furth tu establish an indissnluble bund between Jesus and him. Jesua cannnt furget
him whn shared Hia punishment. The expresainn, coming in Eis kingdom, iv ry
jlaaiXeif {not for Hia kingdum, t'lS rf/v jSaaiXeiav), denntes Hia Meaaianic return with
divine splendnr and rnyal majesty snme time after His death. He dees net think of
the possibUity of the body nf Jesus being raised. In uur Lnrd's answer, the wnrd to
day stands furumuat, becauae Jeaua wiahea tn cnntrast the nearness Oi the prnmised
happinesa with the remnte future tu Which the prayer uf the thief refers. To-day,
befure the setting uf the sun which ia shining un us. The wurd paradiae aeema tu
cnme frnm a Peraian wnrd signifying pai'k. It ia used in the fnrm nf DTlD (Ecclea.
3:5; Snng uf Snlumnn, 4 : 13), tn denute a royal garden. In the fnrm napadeiaoQ, it
curreapunda iu the LXX. tn the wnrd p, garden (Gen. 3 : 8, 3 : 1). '.The earthly Eden
nnce lust, this wnrd paradiae is appUed tu that part nf Hades where the faithful are
assembled ; and even in the laat writings nf the N. T., the Epiatlea and the Apnca
lypae, te a yet higher abode, that uf the Lnrd and glnrified believers, the third heaven,
3 Cnr. 13 : 4 ; Rev. 3:7. It is paradise as part uf Hades which is spuken uf here.
The extranrdinary signa which accompanied the death of Jeaus (vera. 44, 45) — the
darkneaa, the rending ef the veil of the temple, and according to Matthew, the earth
quake and the opening ef aeveral graves, are explained by the profound connection
existing, en the one side between Christ and humanity, on the other between human
ity and nature. Christ is the soul ef huraanity, as humanity is the snul nf the ex
ternal wurld. We need nnt take the wurds, over all the earth, in an absnlute sense.
Cnmp. 31 : 33, where the expressinn em ryS yyS, a weaker nne it is true, evidently
refers tn the Huly Land nnly. The phennmenun in questiup here may and must
have extended tu the surrounding cuuntriea. The cauae cf thia Inaa nf light cannnt
have been an eclipse ; for thia phenomenon is impossible at the time ef full moon.
It was perhapa connected with the earthquake with which it waa accompanied ; or
it may have resulted from an atmospheric or cosmical cauae.* This diminution of
the external light correaponded to the moral darkness which waa felt by the heart ef
.Jeaus : My God, my God, why haat thou foraaken me ? This raoment, tn which St.
Paul alludes (Gal. 3 : 13 : " He was made a curae fur ua"), was that at which the
Paschal lamb was slain in the temple. It is difficult tn decide between the twn read
ings ver. 45 : " And the sun was darkened" (T. R.) ; " And the sun faiUng." In
any case, it is the cause nf the phenumenon related ver. 44, mentioned too late.
Luke emits the earthquake ; he had other sourcea.
* Neander cites the fact (" Leben Jeau" p. 640) that Phlegnn, author of a
chronicle under the' Emperur Adrian, apeaka nf an eclipae (V) uf the sun aa having
taken place in the fnurth year nf the 303d Olympiad (785 a. u.c), greater than all
furmer eclipaes, and that night came on at the sixth hour of the day, tn such a degree
that the stars were seen shining in the heavens. This date approximates to the prob
able year nf the death nf Jesus (783). M. Liaia, a weU-knnwn naturalist, relatea
that nn the 11th uf April, 1860, in the province nf Pernambucu, while the aky waa
perfectly clear, the aun became auddenly dark abnut midday tu such a degree that
fur snme secunds it was pnssible tn lunk at it. The aular diak appeared surrounded
with a ring having the culnra ut'the ralnbnw, and quite near it there waa seen a
bright star, which rauat have been Veuua. The phennmenun laated fnr aume min-
utea. M. Liais attributea it tn cnsmical nebulae flnating in space beyund nur atmns
phere. A aimilar phenuraenun must have nccurred in the years 1106, 1308, 1547,
and 1706 (" Revue gerraanique," 1860).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 495
The rending uf the veil, mentinned by the three Syn., ahnuld probably be cun
nected with this physical cnmmntiun. Is the veil referred tn that which was at the
entrance nf the Hnly Place, ur that which' concealed the Holy of Holies ? As the
second only had a typical aenae, and alone bore, strictly apeaking, the narae
KUTaneraapa (PhUe calla the ether KdXvppa *), it ia more natural to think uf the latter.
The idea usually fnund in this symbnlic event is thia : The way tn the throne uf grace
ia hencefnrth upen tn all. But did nnt Gnd rather mean tn ahnw thereby, that frnm
that time the temple was nu lunger His dwelUng-place ? As the high prieat rent his
garment in view of any great offence, se God rends the veil which covers the place
where He enters inte communion with His people ; that is to say, the Huly uf HnUes
is nn mure ; and if there ia nu Holy nf Huliea, then nn Hnly Place, and cunaequently
nn cnurt, nn altar, nn valid aacriflcea. The temple ia profaned, and cnnaequently
abnlished by Gnd Himself. The efficacy nf sacrifice has hencefnrth passed tu annther
bluud, annther altar, anuther prieathnud. Thia ia what Jesus- had annuunced to the
Jews in thia fnrm : Put me tu death, and by the very deed ye shaU destroy the
temple ! Jewish and Christian tradition has preserved the memnry uf analngnus
events which must have happened at this periud. In the Juden-Christian Gnspel
qunted by Jerome (in Matt. 37 : 51), it waa related that at the time nf the earthquake
a large beam lying abuve the gate uf the temple snapped asunder. The Talmud says
that fnrty years befnre the destructinn uf Jerusalem the gates uf the temple npened
of their nwn accnrd. Juhanan Ben Zacchal (pni^ is 1 jn> Anna, with the uame nf
Jehovah prefixed) rebuked them, and said : Temple, wherefure duat thnu npen nf thy
self ? I see thereby that the end ia near ; fur it is written (Zech. 11 : 1), " Open thy
duurs, O Lebanun, that the fire may devnur thy cedars." f At the time nf the eclipse
mentinned abnve, a great earthquake destroyed part nf the city uf Nice, in Bithynia.^:
Thia catastrophe may have been felt even in Palestiue. Thuse phennmena, which
are placed by Luke befure the time nf our Lurd's death, are placed by Matthew and
Mark immediately after. Annther prnuf nf the difference cf their snurces.
Here shuuld cnme the twn sayings mentinned by ,Inhn : I thirst, and It iafinialied.
Perhaps the wnrds : Wlien He had cried with a loud voice (ver. 46), include the aaying.
It isfmiahed, which immediately preceded the laat breath. But the participle pavyoas
has probably nu nther meaning thau the verb eine : ' ' Raising His vuice He said. ' ' The
wnrds : JWIitn He had ci'ied with a loud voice, in Matthew and Mark, refer rather tn
the last saying uttered by Jesus accurding to Luke : Father, into thy hands . . .
The latter expresses what Jnhn has described in the fnrm uf an act : He gave up His
spirit. The last saying is a quntatinn frnm Pa. 31. The iut.^apuByaouai, ! aliall
commit, in the received reading, is prnbably hnrrnwed from the LXX. The fut. was
natural in David's muuth, fnr death was yet at a diatance ; he deacribed the way in
which he hnped nne' day tu draw his last breath. But the present is alnne m keeping
with the actual circumstances nf Jesus. At the mnment when He is abnut tn luse
self-cnnscinusness, and when the pussessinn nf His apirit oacapea frnm Him, He cuu-
fidea it as a depnsit tu his Father. The wnrd Father shnws that His auul has recnv
ered fuU serenity. Nnt lung agu He was struggling with the divine suvereignty and
hnliness {my God, my God!). Nnw the darkness is gune ; He has recnvered Hia light,
His Father's face. It is the first effect cf the cumpletinn uf redemptinn, the glorious
prelude of the resurrectinn.
* Neander, " Leben Jesu," p. 640. X " Bab. Tema," 39. 8.
X See Neauder's " Leben Jesu," p. 640.

496 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
Keim does net accept as histnrical any of the seven sayings which Jesus issaid to
have uttered on the cross. The prayer fur his executinners has nu meaning either in
regard tu the GentUe suldiers, who were merely blind instruments, or in respect nf
the Jews, tn whnm He had juat annnunced divine judgment. Besides, sUeuce suits
Jesus better thanka fnrced aud superhuman herniam. The atury uf the thief is ex-
pluded by the fact that it was impussible fur him tu have knnwn the innncence aud
the future retum nf Jesua, and that Jesua shuuld have promised him paradiae, which
is iu the hand uf the Father. The saying addressed tn Juhn and Mary is nnt hiatnri
cal ; fnr thnae twu were nnt at the fnut nf tbe cress (Syn.), and Jnhn never had a
hnuse tn which te take Mary. The prayer : My God, my God, ia nnly an impurtatiun
uf Ps. 33 iutn the accnunt nf the Paaainn ; Jeaua waa tnn uriginal tn burrow the expres
ainn nf Hia feelinga frnm the O. T. The aame reaaun diaprnves the authenticity ot
the laat aaying : Father, into Thy liands, burrowed frum Pa. 31. The It iafinialied nf ¦
Jnhn is nnly the suraraary expreasinn uf the dugraatica already put by the authnr intn
the mnuth nf Jeaus in His last discourses. The historic truth ia thus reduced to two
cries of Jeaua : one of pain, which John has translated, not without leason, into I
thirst; and a last cry, that of death. This silence of Jeaus forms, according to Keim,
the real greatness ef His death. The prayer ef Jeaua and His threatening are not
more cuntradictory than divLue juatice and human interceaaien. There is room iu
history for the effects ef beth. The prophetfc form in which Jesua clothes the ex
pression ef Hia theughta takes nothing from their originality. They spring from the
depths ef His being, and meet with expressoua which are famUiar tn Him, and which
He emplnya instinctively. John here, aa throughout bis Gospel, completes the ayn-
eptica. We think we have ahown how the prayer of the thief is psychologically pos
sible. It is doing too much honor to the primitive Chufch to ascribe te her tbe in
vention of such sayings. If ahe had invented, ahe would uot have done so iu a style
so chaste, so concise, so holy ; once mere compare the apocryphal accounts.
THIRD CYCLE. — CHAP. 33:47-56.
Cloae of the Account of ihe Paaaion.
Vers. 47-49.* These versea describe the immediate effects uf nur Lurd's death,
first uu the Rnman centuriun (ver. 47), then nn the penple (ver. 48), lastly nn the fnl
lnwers nf Jesus (ver. 49). Mark says uf the centuriun : When he saw. These wurds
relate tn the last cry uf Jesus and tu the event nf His death. In Mattbew and Luke
this same expresainn refera tn all the events which had just passed. Luke gives the
saying nf this Gentile in the simplest fnrm : Thia waa a righteoua man ; that is tu say ;
He was nu malefactnr, as was suppnsed. But thia hnmage implied snmething mure ;
fur Jeaus haring given Himaelf nut tn be the Sun uf Gnd, if He was a rightenua man,
must be more than Aat. Such ia the meauing ef the centurinn'a exclamatiun in the
narratives nf Matthew and Mark. Twice un the cross Jesus had called Gud Eis
Father ; the centuriun cnuld therefnre well express himself thus : He waa really, aa
He alleged, the Snn uf Gud I As the centurinn's exclamatiun is an anticipatiun uf
the cunversinn nf the GentUe wnrld, sn the cnusternatinn which takes pussessinn nf the
Jews un witnessing the scene (yer. 48) anticipates the final penitence and cnnversinn
nf this penple (cump. Zech. 13 : 10-14.) The wnrd Beopia, that sight, alludes to the
feeling nf curiuaity which had attracted the multitude.
Amnng the acquaintance nf Jesus spuken nf ver. 49 there must have beeu snme uf
Hia apuatlea. This is the necessary inference trom the wnrd navrsc, all. 'M.oKpdBev,
* Ver. 47, ». B. D. L. R., edoia^ev instead nf Edo^aaev. Ver. 48. 7 Mjj. Syr.,
BEopyaavTES instead nf BEopovvrsS. S. A. B. C. D. L. sume Mnn. omit eavrav. Ver!
49. A. B. L. P. 3 Mnn., avru instead of avrov after yvaaroi. S, B. D. L. 10 Mnn. add
ano before puKpoBEv.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 497
afoA' off, discovers the fear which prevaUed among them. John and Mary had cnme
nearer the cross (Jnhn 19 : 36, 37). Luke dues nut name tUl later any pf the women
present. Matthew and Maik here designate Mary Magdalene, nf whnm Jnhn alsn
apeaks ; Mary the mnther nf James and Juses, prnbably the same whnm Juhn calla
Mary the wife uf Clenpas, and auntuf Jeaua ; wilh the mnther uf the suns nf Zebedee,
whnm Mark caUa Salome, and whom John leaves unmentioned, as he dees when
members of hia own f amUy are in queation. The Syn. do not speak of the mother of
Jeaua. We ought probably to take in ita Uteral aenae the worda : " From that hour
that diaciple toek her unto his own home" (John 19 : 37). The heart ef Mary waa
broken en hearing the deeply tender words which Jesua had spoken to her, and she
withdrew that aame hour, ao that ahe was not present at ths end of the crucifixion,
when the friends of Jesus and the ether women came near. 'EiaryKewav, they stood, is
opposed tn iniarpEipov, they retumed (ver. 48). While the penple were leaving the
cress, Hia frienda aasembled in aight nf Jeaus. The wnrds : beholding these things,
refer net nnly tn the circumstances attending the death uf Jesus, but alsn, and abnve
aU, tn the departure nf the terrified multitude. This minute particular, taken from
the immediate impressinn uf the witnesses, betrays a snurce in clnse cnnnectiun with
the fact.
Vers, 50-54.* The Burial of Jesus. — Accurding tu Jnhn, the Jewish authnrities
requested PUate tn have the budies remnved befnre the beginning nf the next day,
which waa a Sabbath cf extranrdinary anlemnity. Pur thnugh Jeaua and hia cumpan
inns iu puniahment were nut yet dead, and thnugh the law Deut. 31 : 32 did nnt here
apply literaUy, they might have died befure the end nf the day which waa abnut tn
begin, and the day be pnlluted thereby all the mure, becauae, it being a Sabbath, the
bediea could nut be remnved. The crucifragium, nrdered by Pilate, was nnt meant
tn put the cnndemned immediately tu death, but niUy tu make it certain, which
alluwed nf their being taken frnm the croaa. Thus is explained the wonder nf Pilate,
when Juaeph ef Arimathea informed him that Jeaua waa already dead (Mark 15 : 44).
The aecret friends of our Lord ahow themaelvea at the time of Hia deepest dishonor.
Already the word finds fulfilment (3 Cur. 5 : 14) : " The luve nf Christ cunstraineth
ua." Each evangelist characterizes Juseph in his uwn way. Luke: a cuunsellur
gnud aud just ; he is the KuXhs KfyuBds, the Greek ideal. Mark : an hennrable
cuunsellur ; the Rnman ideal. Matthew : a rich man ; is this net the Jewish
ideal? Luke, moreover, brings out the fact, that Joseph had not agreed
to the aentence i^avXy), nor td the odious plan {npd^ei) by which Pilate's cnn
sent had been exturted. 'ApipaBula ia the Greek fnrm nf the name of the tnwn
Ramailiaim (1 Sam. 1 : 1), Samuel'a birthplace, aituated in Mnunt Ephraim, and cun
aequently beynnd the natural Umita nf Judea. But since the time spoken of in 1
Mace. 11 : 34, it bad been reckened to this province ; hence the expression : a city of
tlw Jews. As to Joseph, he lived at Jerusalem ; for he had a sepulchre there. The
received reading oS /cai 7rpo(7edE;t;eTo koX airdS, who alao himaelf waited, is probably the
* Ver. 51. S. B. C. D. L. It'^-«., oS npocedexero instead ef oS Kai npoaedEXETo {T.
seme Mnn. Syr.) ; instead of oS kui avroc npoasdEXETo (6 Mjj. 15 Mnn.) ; instead of os
KUl npoasdExETO kui avroc (T. R., with 9 Mjj.) ; instead of oS npoaedExero kui avroS (sev
eral Mnn. It""'!. Vg.). Ver. 53. S. B. C. D. L. some Mnn. It»"i. Vg. emit avro after
KoBeXov. ». B. C. D. ItP'"'«'", Vg., avrov instead ef avro. !*. B. D. L. 3 Mnn., mnu
instead nf ovdenu, Ver. 54. !*. B. C. L. 3 Mnn. ItP'"'?""', Vg., ¦napaoKevyg inatead nf
napaoKEvy. 16 Mjj. the muat nf the Mnn. urait Kai befnre aap^arov, which is read by
iS. B. C. L. snme Mun. Syr, Rp""'!"', Vg.

498 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
true nne ; it has been variously modified, because the relation of the also himsdf to
the other friends of Jesus whn were previuusly mentinned (ver. 49) was nnt under
stnud ; by the dnuble Kofi, Luke gives prominence tu the believing character of
Joseph, even when no one suspected it.
Mark (15 : 46) informs ua that the shroud iu which the bndy was w;-apped was
buught at the same time by Juaeph. Huw cuuld such a purchase be made if the day
waa Sabbatic, if it waa the 15th Nisan ? Langen answers that Ex. 12 : 16 made a
difference, sn far as the preparatinn uf fund was cnncerned, between the 15th Nisan
and the Sabbath prnperly su called, and that this difference might have extended tn
nther matters, tn purchases for example ; that, besides, it was nut necessary tu pay
nn the same day. But the Talmud reverses thia auppnaitinn. It expressly stipulates
that when the 14th Nisan fell nn the Sabbath day, it waa lawful nn that day tn make
preparatinn fur the mnrruw, the 15th (" Miachna Peaachim," iii. 6 et al.), thus sacri
flcing the aacredneaa nf the Sabbath tu that nf the feaat day. Cnuld the latter have
been leaa hnly ! There ia nu ground fur alleging that the authurizatiun uf Ex. 12
extended beynnd the strict limits nf the text.
Accnrding tn the Syn., the circumstance which determined the use uf this sepul
chre was, that it belunged tn Juseph. According to John, it waa ita nearneaa to the
place of punishment, taken in connection with the approach ef tbe Sabbath. But
those two circumstances are su far frum being in ,cnntradictinn, that the nne
apart frnm the nther wuuld have nn value. What influence cnuld the ap
proach nf the Sabbath have had in the chnice nf this rucky sepulchre, if it had
nut belunged tn nne nf the friends nf Jesua ? The Syn. dn nut apeak nf the part
taken by Nicudemua iu the burial nf Jeaus. Thia particular, omitted by tradition,
haa beeu restored by John. It is pf nn cunaequence whether we read in ver. 54,
napaoKmyS or napaoKEvy. The impnrtant pnint is, whether thia name, which means
preparation, denntes here the eve nf the weekly Sabbath (Friday), nr that nf the Paaa
uver day (the 14th Niaan). Thuse whn allege that Jesus was crucifled nn the 15th
take it in the first sense ; thnse whu huld it tu have been nn the 14th, in the aecnnd.
The text in itaelf admits uf bnth views. But in the cuntext, huw can it be held, we
wnuld ask with Caapari (p. 172), that the hnlieat day nf the feaat nf the year, the 15th
Nisan, was here designated, like any nrdinary Friday, the preparatinn fur the Sab
bath ? Nu duubt Mark, in the parall. , translatea thia wnrd by npoaajSparov, day before
Sabbath (15 : 42). But thia expreasinn may mean in a general way : tbe eve uf Sab
bath or of any Sabbatic day whatever. And in the present case it must have this lat
ter sense, aa appeara from the inEi, becauae. Mark meana to explain, by the Sabbatic
character of the following day, why they made haate to bury the body ; it was the
pro-Sabbath. What meaning would thia reaaon have had, if the very day un which
they were acting had been a Sabbatic day ? Matt. 27 : 63 uffers an analngnus exprea
sinn. In speaking nf Saturday, the mnrruw after the death nf Jesus, Matthew says :
' the next day, that fnUnwed the preparatinn. " We have already called attentinn tu
this expreaainn (" Cnmment. sur Jean," t. ii. p. 688). " If this Saturday," says Caspari
(p. 77), " had been an urdinary Sabbath, Matthew wnuld nnt have designated it in an
strange a manner. The preparatinn in questiun muat have had a character quite
different frnm the preparatinn fur the nrdinary Sabbath. Thia preparatinn day muat
have been sn caUed as a day nf apecial preparatinn, as its'elf a feast day ; it must have
been the 14th Nisan." The term ini^uaKE, waa beginning to shine, is figurative. It is
taken frnm the natural day, and appUed here tn the civil day.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 499
Vers. 35, 56.* The embalming nf Jesus having been dnne iu haste, the wnmen
prupnsed tu cnmplete it. This same evening, therefnre, they prepared the ednrifer-
ous herbs {dpupara) and the perfumed nUs (pvpa) neceasary fnr the purpoae ; and the
hour of the Sabbath being come, they reated. Once more, what would be the mean
ing of this conduct if that very day had beeu Sabbatic, the 15th Nisan ? Evidently it
was yet the 14th ; and the 15th, which waa abuut tn begin, waa at nnce the weekly
Sabbath amd the first Paaauver day, and an invested with dnuble sacrednesa, as John
remarks (19 : 31). Mark aays, sumewhat differently (16 : 1), that they raade theu
preparatinns when the Sabbath was past, that is tu aay, nn the murrnw in the evening.
Nn dnubt they had nut been able tu finish them cempletely en the Friday before aix
o'clock afternnun. The /cat nf the T. R. befnre yvvalKeS, ver. 55, is evidently a cnr
ruptinn of ai. It has been asked hnw, if Jesus predicted Hia reaurrectinn, the
wnmen cuuld have prepared tu embalm Hia bndy. But we have aeen the anawer in
the case uf the converted thief : they expected a glorious reappearance ef Jesua from
heaven after Hia death, but net the reviving ef His bedy laid iu the tomb. A feel
ing nf pinus and humble fidehty is expressed in tbe conduct of the women, aa it is
described by Luke in the touching words : " And they rested according to the com
mandment." It was the last Sabbath ef the old covenant. It was scrupulously re
spected. Conclusion regarding the Day of Jeaus' Death.
It foUews from the exegesis nf chaps. 33 and 33, that accurding tn the Syn., as
well as according to John, the day of Jesus' death was net the first and great da.y of
the paschal feast (15th Niaan), but the day before (or ¦preparation), the 14th Nisan,
which that year was a Friday, and su, at the same time, the preparation fnr the
Sabbath. Hence it fnUnws alau that the last feast uf Jeaua tnuk place un the
evening betweeu the 13th and 14th, and nnt nn the evening between the 14th
and 15th, wheu the whnle penple celebrated the paachal feaat. Such ia the reault tn
which we are brought by all the paasages examined : 33 : 7-9, 10-15, 66 ; 33 : 36,
53, 54, 55, 56 ; Matt. 36 : 5, 18 ; 37 : 63 ; Mark 14 : 3 ; 15 : 42, 46 ; se that, en the
main queation, it appears to us that exegetically there can be no doubt, aeeing tbat
our feur Gespel accounts present no real disagreement. The fact, therefore, atanda aa
followa : On the 13th, toward evening, Jesus sent the two diaciples moat worthy of
His confidence to prepare tbe paschal feaat ; in the opinion of all the rest, thia was
with a riew te the following evening, when the national feast waa to be celebrated.
But Jesua kuew that by that time the hour would be paat fer His celebrating thia
laat Paaaover. This aame evening, therefere, seme houra after having aent the twu
disciplea. He seated Himself at the table prepared by them and by the master uf the
hnuse. There was in this a aurprise fur the apustles, which ia prnbably referred tu by
Luke 33 : 15 : " With desire I have deaired tn eat thia paaauver with ynu befnre I
auffer." Abuve aU, it was a surprise tn Judas, whn had resnlved tn give Him up
this same evening. This anticipatiun nn the part nf Jesua, the Lnrd uf the Sabbath
and uf the whnle law (6 : 5), invnlved nnthing less than the abrngatinn nf the paschal
feaat and uf the ancient cnvenant.
This exegetical reault agreea fully with Jewiah traditiun. , In "Bab. Sanhedr."
43, 1, it is expreaaly said (Caspari, p. 156) : " Jesus waa executed nn the eve nf the
Passnver. A public crier had proclaimed fnr seventy daya that a man waa tu be
atnued fur having bewitched Israel and seduced it intu schiam ; that he whn had any
thing to say for his justification shnuld preaent himself and teatify fur him ; but nu
one appeared tu juatify him. Then they crucified him en the evening [the eve] of the
Pas8o»e>* (HDD n'lj?^)-" This laat expresaion can dennte nuthing but the evening
* Ver. 55. Instead nf de kui ywaiKES, which T. R. reads, with snme Mnu., the Mjj,
read either ds yvvaiKeS nr de ai ywaiKeS.

500 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
preceding the Passover, as ri3Tyn ,3"iy. evening of the Sabbath, never denntes any
thing but Friday evening. This view seems alan tn be that which prevailed in the
Church in the mnat ancient times, as we see frnm Clement nf Alexandria, whn lived
when primitive traditiun was nut yet effaced, and whn professes withuut hesitatiun
the same npininn. It is, murenver, in keeping with the admirable syrabnlism which
is the character ef all God's works. Jesus dies on the afternoon of the 14th,, at the
very raoment wheu the paschal lamb waa slain in the temple. He reals in the tomb
on the 15th Nisan, a day doubly Sabbatic that year, as being -Saturday and the flrat
day of the feaat. Thia day nf rest, su exceptiunaUy snlemn, divides the first creatinn,
which is terminatiug, frura the aecnnd, which is beginning. Jesus rises nn the mnr
ruw, 16th Niaan, the very day nn which there waa uffered in the temple the flrat
sheaf cut in the year, the first fruita nf the harvest. Ia it nnt tu thia symbnliam that
St. Paul himaelf alludea in the twu paaaagea : " Christ, our Paaaover, is sacriflced fnr
us" (1 Cur. 5:7); and, " Every one in his own urder ; Christ, the firat fruita ; after
ward they that are Hia, at Hia cnming" (1 Cnr. 15 : 33) ? It is prubable, alsu, that
if St. Paul had regarded the night nn which Jeaua instituted the Hnly Supper as the
aame nu which Israel celebrated the Passnver, he wnuld nut have deaignated it
Simply (1 Cur. 11 : 33) as that on which our Bord was betrayed.
'The nnly further queatinn which may yet appear duubtful, ia whether the cum-
pilers nf nur three ayntlptic narratives had a clear view nf the real cnurae nf events.
They have faithfuUy preaerved to us the facts and sayings which help us te make it
nut ; but is there nnt anme cunfusinn in their minda ? Waa nnt thia last feast uf
Chriat, which had all the features nf an ordinary paachal feast, and in which He had
instituted the supper aa the cnunterpart of the laraelitish rite, cnnfnunded in the
traditinnal accnunta with the natiunal paschal feast ? And has nnt thia cunfusinn ex
erciaed a certain influence un the accuunt nf the Syn. ? Thia, at leaat, ia the differ
ence which exiats between them and Jnhn : they relate simply, withuut cuncerning
themaelves abuut the difference between thia "last supper and the Israelitish paachal
feast ; while Jnhn, whn sees this cunfuainn gaining ground, expreaaly emphaaizes
the distinction between the twn.*
Aa tu the bearing uf thia queatinn un the paschal cuntrnveray nf the secund cen
tury, and un the authenticity nf the Guspel cf John, it may be explained in two
ways : Either the event celebrated by the Aaiatics waa, as ia natural, tlie death ef
Christ (Steitz), and not the fact of ihe inatitution of the Supper (Baur), and hence it
would fellow, in entire harmony with the fourth Goapel, that they regarded the 14th,
and not the 15th, aa the day ef the cruciflxien (thia ia the explanation which we have
advocated in the " Comment, sur Jean") ; or it may be maintained, aa ia dene by M.
E. Schiirer (whose dissertation en this question f leaves little to be desired), that the
Asiatic rite was determined neither by tbe day nn which the Hnly Supper was insti
tuted, nnr even by that nu which Christ died, but sulely hy the desire nf keeping up
in the churches uf Asia, fur tbe Hnly Easter Supper, the day on which tlie law or
dained the paaelial feaat to be celebrated. In thia caae, the Asiatic rite neither contra
dicted nor cenfirmedi John's narrative ; it had no connection with it.
From this determinatinu nf the day nf the munth on which Jesus died, it remains
fur ua tu draw a cnncluainn regarding the year nf that event. The result ubtained is,
tbat in that year the 13th Nisan, the preparatinn fnr the Passnver and the day uf the
crucifixinn, fell nn a Friday, and the day nf the Passnver, 14th Niaan, un a Saturday.
Nuw, it fnUnwa frum the calculatinns nf Wurm (Bengel's " Archiv." 1816. ii.), and uf
Ouderaann, Prufessur uf Astrnnnray at Utrecht (" Revue de th6nl." 1863, p. 331),
vvhoae resulta differ only by a few minutes, that in the years from 38 to 86 of our era,
in one uf which the death uf Jesus muat have fallen, the day nf the Paaauver, 15th
Nisan, was a Saturday nnly in 30 and 84 (783 aud 787 a.u.c.).^: If, then, Jesus was
* We have the satisfactinn nf finding nurselves at nne in this view with Krummel
in the Bitteraturblati nf Darmstadt, February, 1868, with M. C. Baggeaen (" Der
Apuatel Jnhannes, sein Leben und seine Schriften," 1869), and (in substance) with
Caapari. -f " De cnntrnveraiis paachalibua sec. pust. Chr. n. aeculu exurtia," Leipzig, 1869.
I Snmetimes Wurm's calculatinn is cited tu an nppusite effect, But it rnust nnt
be furgntten that he dates, as we dn, frum midnight, instead nf making the days begin

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 501
burn (p. 136) at the end nf 749 nr the beginning of 750 A.tr.c, 3-4 years before
our eia ; if He was baptized in the course ot His 30lh year (Luke 3 : 33) : it His
ministry lasted abnut 3} years (.Inhn) ; if, finally, Hia death tnnk place, aa all the
evangelists attest, at the feast nf Passnver : this Passu ver must have been that uf the
'year 30 nf nur era (783 a. u.c). The result ef astrouomical calculation thus cnnfirms
the Gnspel statements, especiaUy thnae uf Jnhn. And we can fix the date uf Christ's
death nn Friday the 14th Nisan (7th April) nf the year 30.*
aa the Jews did, at sunaet. Thia circumstance exercisea a deciaive influence in this
caae (Caspari, p. 1^. \
* Caapari places the baptism of Jeaua as we dn, in 38, and His death in 30. Keim :
the beginning nf His miniatry, in the spring uf 34 ; the death uf John the Baptiat, in
the autumn nf 34 ; the death nf Jesua, at the Paaauver nf 35. Hitzig : the death nf
Jesua, in 36.

SEYENTH PAET.

THE EESUEEECTION AND ASCENSION.
Chap. 34.
It ia in this part of the Gnapel narrative that the fnur accnunta diverge must. As
frienda, whu fur a tirae have travelled tngether, disperse at the end nf the juurney lu
take each the way which brings hira te hia own home, ao in thia laat part, the peculiar
object of each evangeli.st exercisea an influence en his narrative yet more maiked than
befnre. Luke, whn wiahea tn describe the gradual growth nf Christian wuik frnm
Nazareth tn Rome, prepares, in those last atalementa nf his Gnapel, fnr the deacrip
tinn nf the apustnlic preaching and of the fouudiug ef the Church, which he ia abnut
tu trace in the Acta. Matthew, whose purpose ia tn pruve the Measianic claims oi
Jeaus, cluaea hia demunatratinn by narrating the must sulemn appearance cf the risen
Jesus, when He raade knnwn tn the Church His elevaliun tn universal suvereignty,
and installed the apuatlea in their missinn as cunquercrs uf the wurld. Juhn, whn
relates the histnry nf the development nf failh in the fuunders nf the gespel, side by
side with that nf increduUty in Israel, clnses his narrative with the appearance wliic?'
led to the profession ef Tliumaa, and which cunsummated the triumph nf faith nver
unbelief in the apestnlic circle. It ia vain tn mutilate the cnncluainn nf Mark's wurk.
We find here again the characteristic feature nf his narrative. He had, abuve all, ex
hibited the puwerful activity of our Bord aa a divine evangeliat : the last wnrds- nf his
accnunt, 16 : 19, 30, shnw us Jesus glurifled, slUl cu-nperaling from heaven wilh
Hia apoatles.
Each evangelist knows well the pnint at which he aims, and hence the reaaun that
the narratives diverge mere as they reach the cnnclusitm. The special differences in
the accuunts nf the resurrectinn are partly the effect nf this principal divergence. Of
the fuur accounta, the two extremes are that of Matthew, which puta the whole stress
nn the great GaUlean appearance, and that uf Luke, which relates nnly the appear
ancea in Judea. The uther twu are, aa it were, middle terma. Mark (at leaat from
16 : 9) is dependent on the former two, and oscillates between them. John really
uuites them by relating, like Luke, the appearances at Jerusalem, while mentioning
alao, like Matthew, a reraaikable appearance in Galilee. If, indeed, chap. 31 waa not
composed by John, it certainly proceeda from a tradition emanating from thia apustle.
The fact of appearances having taken place both in Judea and Galilee ia also con
firmed indirectly by Paul, as we shall see.
The account of Luke contains . 1. The visit of the women to the tomb (vers. 1-7)
3. Peter'a viait to the tomb (vera. 8-13). 3. The appearance to the two diaciplea on
the way to Emmaus (vers. 13-33). 4. The appearance tn the diaciples on the evening

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 503
of the resurrectinn day (vers. 33-43). 5. The last instructinns of Jesua (vers. 44^49).
6. The ascensiun (vers. 50-53).
1. Tlie Women at ihe Sqyulchre; vers. 1-7. — Vers. 1-7.* The wnmen play the firat,
if nnt the principal, part in aU thnse accnunts ; a special duly called them to the
tomb. Tbey were, according to Matt. 38 : 1, Mary Magdalene and the ether Mary
(the aunt ef Jesus) ; accnrding tn Mark (16 : 1), thuse same twn, and Salnme the
mother nf James and Jnhn ; according to Luke (ver. 10), the first two, along with
the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (8 : 3). John names unly Mary Magdalene. But
does nnt Mary heraelf allude tu the presence uf nthera when she says (ver. 3) : " We
knuw nut where they have laid Him "1 If Juhn names her su apecially, it la becauae
he intends tn give anew the accuunt uf the appearance which traditiun bad either
omitted or generalized (Matthew), and which as, having taken place first, had a cer
tain impurtance. As tn the time nf the women's arrival, Luke aaya. Very early in
tlie morning ; Matthew, dijii aa^pdrov, which signifies, not Sdbbaili evening, but (like
the phraaea dipi pvarypiov, peraciis mysteriis, dfi rpolKov, after the Trojan war ; see
Bleek) : after ihe Sabbath, iii the night which followed. By the ry 'eni^oaKovari, Mat
thew expreaaes the fact that it was at the lime uf daybreak. Mark saya, with a slight
difference, which only proves the independence of his narrative (lo ver. 8), At the
rising of the sun. The object of the women -waa, according to Matthew, te viait the
sepulchre ; accurding tn the uther twu, tu embalra the bedy.
The fact cf the resurrection itself is not described by any evangelist, ne one
having been present. Only the Risen One was aeen. It is of Him that the evangel
ista bear witness-. Matthew is the one whu gnes furthest back. An earthquake, due
te the action ef an angel {ydp), ahakea and dialodges the stone ; the angel seats him
self upon it, and the guards take to flight. Undoubtedly, it cannot be denied that
this account, even in its style (the parallelism, ver. 3), bas a pnelic tinge. But some
such faj:t is neceaaarily supposed by what fellows. Otherwise, how would the
sepulchre have been found oijen on tbe arrival of the women V It is at thia point that
the other accounta begin. In John, Mary Magdalene seea nothing except the atone
which has been rolled away ; she runa instantly lo apprise Peter and .lohn. It may
be supposed that the ether women did nnt accnmpany her, and that, having cnme
near the sepulchre, they were witnesses nf the appearance of the angel ; then, that
they returned home. Net till after that did Mary Magdalene come back with Peter
and John (John 31 : 1-9). It might be supposed, indeed, that this whole accnunt
given by the Syn. regarding the appearance nf the angel (Mattbew and Mark\ nr uf
-the twn angels (Luke), tn the wnmen, ia at bnttnm nothing more than the fact cf the
appearance nf the angels tn Mary related by John (30 : 11-13) and generalized by tra
ditiun. But vera. 33, 33 ot Luke are nnt favnrahle to thia view. Mary Magdalene,
having aeen the Lurd immediately after the appearance cf the angel's, could not have
related the flrst of thnse facts without alau mentinning the secund, which was far
mnre impurtant.
In the angel's addreaa, aa reproduced by the Syn., everything differs, with the
* The MSS. are divided betweeu /3re9co5 (T. R., Byz.) and PuBeos (Alex.), and be
tween pvypa (T. R.) and pvypeiov (taken from the parall.). !». B. C. L. 3 Mna.'
Itpieriqn«_ -y-g^ omit tlic words Kni tiveS cvv avraiS. Ver. 4. 8. B. C. D. L., anopsiaBai
instead of dianopnoBai. is. B. D. II. Vg., ev EoByri aarpanrovay instead of ev eaByaeaiv
aarpanrovaaic, Ver. 5. The MSS. are divided between to npoaonov (T. R., Byz.) add
TO TrpoffuTTa (Alex.).

504 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
sihgle exceptinn nf the wnrds which are identical in all. He is not liere. A common
d,5curaeut ia inadmissible. In Luke, the angel recalla to the memory ef the women
former proraises uf a lesurre lion. In Malthew and Mark, he reminds thera, whUe
calling nn them lu remind the diaciplea, cf the reudezvnus which Jesua had appuinted
ter Hia uwn in Galilee befure Hia death. 'Rpodyei, He goeth befoi'e, like au invisible
shepherd walking at the head nf Hia viaible flunk. Already, indeed, befnre His death
Jeaua had shnwn His cuncern tn recnnslitule Hia Galilean Church, and that in Galilee
itaelf (Mark 14 : 38 ; Matt. 26 : 33) ; ipds you, cannut apply tu the apnstles nnly tn the
exclusion nf the wnmen ; it embraces all the faithful. It is alsu certain- that the last
werda. There ye sliall see Him, dn nnt belung lu the sayings uf Jesus which the wonien
are charged lu repurt tu the disciples. It ia tbe angel himaelf whn apeaka, as is
proved by the expressinn. Bo, 1 have told you (Malthew) ; and mnre clearly still by
the wurds, As He said unto you (Mark). Thia gathering, which Jesus had in view
even in Gethsemane, at the mument when He saw them ready tu be scattered, and
which terms the aubject of the augel'a message immediately after tbe resurrection,
waa intended te be the general reunion ef all the faithful, whn for the most part
-were natives nf Galilee, and whn furmed tbe nucleua nf the future Church uf Jesus.
After that, we shall net be surprised tn hear St. Paul speak (1 Cor. 15) uf an assera
blage ef more than 500 brethren, ef whom the 130 GaUleans of Pentecnat were the
elite (Acts 1 : 15, 3 : 7) ; cump. alsn tbe expressinn my brethren (John 30 : 17), which
certainly includes mere than the eleven apostles. There follows in Malthew an
appearance of Jesua to the women just as they are leaving the tomb. It seems to mo
that thia aijpearance can be uo ether than that which, accnrding tu John, was granted
to Mary Magdalene. Tradition had applied it tn the wemen in general. Cnmp. the
expressinns, Tliey embraced His feet (Matthew), with the wnrds. Touch me not, in
Jnhn ; Tell my brethren (Matthew), wilh Go io my brethren and say unto them, in
Jnhn. Finally, it must be remarked that in the twn accounta thia appearance of
Jeaua immediately fulluwa that nf the angel. In Matthew's mind, does the premise,
Tliere shall iliey see me, exclude all appearance tu the apnstles previnus tn that which
is here annuunced ? If it is sn, the cuntradiction between this declaration and the
accounts nf Luke and Jnhn is glaring. But even in Malthew, tbe expreaaion, There
[in Galilee] ye shall see me,'ver. 7, ia immediately fnUnwed by an appearance ef Jesus
tu Ihnse women, and that in Judea (ver. 9) ; this fact prnves clearly that we must
nnt give such a negative furce to Matthew's expression. What we have here is the
affirmation ef a solemn reuninn which shall take place in GaUlee, and at which not
nnly the apoatles, but the wnmen and all the faithful, shiiU be present. That dues
nnt at all exclude apecial appearancea granted to this nr that une befnre the appear
ance here in questiun.
The fuUuwing waa therefure the cnurae nf eventa : Mary Magdalene cumes tn the
sepulchre with nther wnmen. On seeing the stnne rolled away, she runs In inform
Ihe disciples ; Ihe nther wcraen reraain ; perhaps ethers besides arrived a litUe later
(Mark). The angel declares tn thera the resurrectinn, and they return. Mary Mag
dalene cumes back with Peter and Juhn ; then, having remained alone after their
departure, ahe witneaaea the flrst appearance nf Jesus risen frnm the dead.
3. Visit of Peier to the Sepulchre : vers. 8-13.— Vers. 8-13.* As we have fnund the
* Ver. 10. 13 Mjj. 45 Mnn. It'i'i. nmit at befure eXiyov. Ver. 11. ». B. D. L.
Syr. llpie'iqu", ra pypara ravra instead nf ra pypara avruv. Ver. 13. This verse is en-
lu-ely omitted hy D a b e 1 Puld. Syr''"'. It ia fnund in 19 Mjj. aU the Mun. Syi="'.
Syi"i>- Il»"i. S<ih. Cup.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 505
I
account given, John 30 : 14^18, in Matthew'a narrative ef the appearance to the -yvom-
en, sn we recngnize here the fact which ia related mure in detail in Jnhn 30 : 1-10.
Luke saya, ver. 9, that nn retui ning from the sepulchre the wnmen related what Ihey
had seen and heard, while, accurding tn Maik (ver. 8), they kepi silence. Thia con-
Iradictinn ia explained by the fact that the twn ^sayinga refer tn twn different events :
the flrst, tu the account which Mary Magdalene gives to Peter and John, and which
led them to the aepulchre (Luke, vera. 13 and 23-34) — a report which annn spread
aranng the apnstles and all the disciplea ; tbe ether, te the firat momenta which fol
lowed the return ef the ether women, untU, their fears having abated, they began lo
speak. But thia contradiction in terras proves that at leaat up to ver. 8 Mark had
not Luke before hira. The ui of the T. R., ver. 10, before iXsyov ia indispensable.
The omiaaion of ver. 13 in the Cantab, and some copies of the Latin and Syriac trans;-
latiens appeared so aerioua a matter to Tischeudorf , that he rejected this verse in his
eighth edition. But if it were an interpolation taken frora John, it would not have
mentiened Peter enly, but Peter and John (or the other diaciple). And the apparent
cuntradiction would have beeu avoided between thia verae and ver. 34, where it is not
an apnstle, hut certain of ihem {rivei), viiio re\jair tu the sepulchre. The extreme
caprice and carelessness which prevail threughnut cud. D and the documents of Uie
Itala wbich are connected with it are well known. The entire bndy nf the nther Mjj.
and uf tbe Mnn., aa well aa mnat nf the cupiea nf the ancient translatinns, suppnit
Ihe T. R. Some such hiatnrical fact as that mentiuned in ibis verse ia required by
Ihe declaralinu uf the twn disciplea (ver. 34). There ia, beaides, a striking resem
blance between the account uf John and that uf Luke. The terras napax-vipaS ,
oBovia KEtpEva, rcpds iavrdv diceXBeiy, are fnund in bulb.
3., Tlie Appearance on ihe way io Emmaus: vers. 13-33.-:- Vers. 13-33.* Here is
nne uf tbe ranst adraira! le pieces in Luke's Guspel. As Jnhn alnne has preserved tu
lis the account of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, sn Luke alune has tiansrailled
lu us that nf the appearance granted tu the twu disciples of Emraaus. The sumraary
of Ihia event in Mark (16 : 12, 13) ia evidently nothing raure than an extract frum Luke.
Vers. 13-16. The Historical Biiroduclion. — 'ISo-v, beliold, preparea us for sumelhing
unexpecled. One of the two disciples was called Cleopaa {ver, 18). This name is au
abbreviation ef Cleepatros, and not, Uke ICXwrcaS (John 19 : 35), the reproduction of
Ihe Hebrew name iC7n> which Luke always traualales by 'AXcpaioS (6 : 15 ; Acts
1 : 13). This narae, nf Greek nrigin, leads tn the auppnaitinn that this disciple was a
proselyte ceme lo the feaat. As to the other, it has been thought (Theophylact,
Lange) that it was Luke hiraself — first, because he is not named ; and next, because
of the peculiarly draraatic character of the narrative following (comp. especially ver.
33). Luke 1 : 3 proves nothing against this view. For the author distinguislies him
self in thia paaaage, not frora witneases abaolutely, but from theae who were wit
neaaes from the beginning ; and this cnntact fnr a mnment did nnt give bim -the right ¦
tn rank himself amnng the authnrs nf the Gnspel traditiun. Jeaua, by manifesting
* Ver. 13. !*. I. K. N. IT. aome Mnn., ekutov e^yKovra instead of E^yKovra. Ver.
17. 8. A. ('/) B. Le. , kui EoraByaav oKvBpunoi instead uf kui eote oKvBpunoi. Ver. 18.
S. B. L. N. X.. ovopnri instead nf o ovoua. All the Mjj., A. excepted, nmit ev befnre
JepovaaXypT Ver. 19. i>. B. I. L., vaCupyvov instead nt va^upaiuv. Ver. 31. S. D. B.
Ij. add KUl after aXXayE. 8. B. L. Syr. nmit aypEpov, Ver. 38 !*. A. B. D. L. It"''"!.,
¦^imaenoiyaaro instead nf nponE-noiEirn. Vcr. 39. i>. B. L. snme Mnn. It"''4. Vg. add
ydy after kekXikev, Ver. 32. !S. B. IJ. L. urait kui befure us diyvoiysv.

506 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE,
Himaelf tn theae twn men, accompliahed fnr the firat time what He had annnunced to
the Greeka, whn aaked tu speak with Him in the temple : "It I be lifted up frnm the
earth, I will draw all men untn me" (Juhn 13 : 33, 33). Emmaus is nnt, aa was held
Thy Euaebiua and Jerome, Ammaua (later Nicupnlis), the mndern Anwaa, aituated tn
the S.E. nf Lydda ; fur this tnwn liea 180 furlnnga frnm Jeruaalem, more . than
,deuble the diatance mentiuned by LuRe, and auch a diatance is incompatible with our
account (ver. 33). Caapari (p. 3u7) haa been led tn the cnnvictinn previnusly ex
preaaed by Sepp, that thia place ia nn uther than the vUlage Ammaus mentioned by
Josephus (Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6), which Tilua aaaigned to 8uU veteran.^ of hia army to
found a colony. Thia place, atuated E.S.E. frora Jerusalem, is called even at the
present day Kolonieli, and is distant exactly 60 furlongs from Jeruaalera. In Succa
iv. 5, the Talmud saya that there, at Maiiza (wilh the article : Hama Maiiza), they go
tn gather the green bnugha fnr the feaat nf Tabernacles ; elaewhere it ia said that
^'Maiiza is Kolnnieh." The reasoning, dv^r/rElv {ver. 15), bnre, according lover.
21, on the force ef the promiaea of Jeaua. The ixparovvro, were holden (ver. 16), is
explained by the concurrence nf twn factura : the incredulity nf the diaciples regard
ing the bndily reaurrectien uf Jeaua (cump. ver. 35), and a myateriuua change which
^d been wruught nn the persnn uf nur Lurd (cnrap. Mark 16 : 13 : iv erspa popcp^^
and Jnhn 30 : 15, aupposing Him to be ihe gardener . . .).
Vera. 17-19a. Beginning of llie Conversation. — Ver. 17. Jesua generaUy interrogatea
befure instructing. As a good teacher, in order to be heard. He begins by causing
his auditors tn speak (Jnhn 1 : 38). The Alex, reading at the end nf ver. 17, allowed
by Tischendurf (8th ed.) : and stood sad, burders nn Ihc absurd. Ver. 18. Is/ldvoi
belnnga tn buth verbs, itapoixeiS and o-ux i'yvGoS, tugether. They take Jesua fer
one nf thuse nuraeruus strangers whu, like Ihemaelves, are tempnrarily aujnurniug at
Jeruaalem. An inhabitant nf the city wuuld nut have failed tu knnw these Ih'ings ;
and in their view, tu knnw them waa tu be engrnased with them.
Vers. 19&^34. Account of ilie Two Disciples. — Jeaua bas nnw brought thera tu the
pnint where He wiahed, naraely, tu npen up their heart tn Him ; dvv nadt rovroiS
(ver. 31), in apite uf the extranrdinary qualities described ver. 19. 'Ayet may be
taken impersonally, aa in Latin, agii diem, fnr agitur diea. But it may alan have
Jeaua fur its subject, as in the phrase ayet SExarov eroS, " he ia in his tenth year."
But alnng with thnae cauaea nf diacuuragement, there are alsn grounds nf hnpe. This
oppusitiuu' ia indicated by dXXci xai, " But indeed there are alsu . . ." (ver. 33).
Ver. 23. Aiyovdai, oi Xeyovdiv, hearsay uf a hearsay. This furm shnws huW Uttle
faith they put in all thuse repurts (cnmp. ver. 11). Ver. 24. Peter, then, waa nut Iho
only uue, aa he aeemed tn be from ver. 13. Here is an example, among many nther^l
of the traps which are unintentinnally laid for criticism by the simple and artless
style uf nur sacred histurians. On each occaaion they say simply what tffe context
calls for, emitting everything which gnes beyond, but sumetimea, aa here, adding it
themselves later (Jnbu 3 : 33 ; cnmp. wilh 4 : 3). The last worda. Him ihey saw not,
prnve that the twn diaciples aet nut frora Jerusalem between the return nf the wnmen
and that nf Peter and Juhn, and even uf Mary Magdalene.
Vera. 35-37. The Teaching of Jesus.— The xai avroS, then Ee (ver. 35), shnwa
that His turn has nnw cnme. They have aaid everything — they have npened their
heart ; now it ia fnr Him tn fill it with new thinga. And first, in the way nf rebuke
(ver. 35). Avoj^roi, fools, refers tn the underatanding ; /SpaSeTS, alow, tu the heart.
If they had embraced the living Gud wilh mnre fervent faith, the fact nf the reaur-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 507
rection would net have been se strange to their hopes (30 : 37, 38). Next, in the way
pf instruction (vera. 36 and 27). Ver. 26 is the central word of this narrative. The
explanation of the idet, ought, waa no dnubt rather exegetical than dogmatical ; it
turned nn the text presented by the prophecies (ver. 27). Jeaus had befnre Him a
grand field, frnm the Prutevangelium dnwn tu Mai. 4. In studying the Scriptures
for Himselt, He had fnund Hiraself in them everywhere (John 5 : 39, 40). He had
nuw nnly tn let this light which filled His heart ray forth from Hiiu. The secnnd
dxo (ver. 37) ahnws that the demnnstration began anew with every prnphet. '
Vers. 38-33. Historical Conclusion. — When Jesus made as if He wnuld cuntinuo
His journey, it was nut a inete feint. He wuuld have really gune, but fur that aurt nf
cnnalraint which they exerciaed nver Him. Every gift nf Gud ia an invitation to
claim a greater {xccpiv avri xdptroS, John 1 : 16). But moat men stop very quickly
on this way : and Ihua they never reach the full bleaaing (3 Kinga 13 : 14-19). The
v6rb xaraxXiB^vai, td sit down at table (ver. 30), appliea to a cemraon meal, and does
hot invoWe tbe idea of a Huly Supper. Acting aa head of the family, Jesus lakes the
bread and givea thanka. The word SiijvoixQifdav, were opened (ver. 31), ia contrasted
wilh the preceding, were holden, ver. 16. It indicates a divine operation, wbich de
stroys the effect of the causes referred to, ver. 16. No doubt the influence exercised
on their heart by the preceding cnnversatinn and by the tbankagiving uf Jesua, aa well
aa tbe manner in which He broke and distributed the bread, had prepared thera fur
Jhis awaking uf the inuer sense. The sudden disappearance cf Jesus has a supernatu-
ral character. His bndy was already in cnurse cf glnriflcatinn, aud nbeyed raere fieely
than before Ihe wUl of Ihe apirit. Beaides, it in^at be remembered that Jesus, strictly
speaking, waa alread.v no more with them (ver. 44), and that the miracle consisted
rather in His appearing than in His disappearing. The aaying, so intimate in its char
acter, which is preserved ver. 33, in any case betrays a auurce clnse tn the event itself ;
traditinn wuuld nut have invented such a saying. "
If we accept the view which recognizes Luke himself in tbe companion of Cleopas,
we shall find ourselves brought tn thia critical reault, that each evangelist lias left in
a curner uf his narrative a mcdeat indication uf his persnn : Malthew, iu the publican
whura Jesus remuves by a wnrd frnm bis previous occupations ; Mark, in the young
man who fleea, leaving hia garment at Gethsemane ; John, in the disciple deaignated
aa he whnm Jeaua luved ; Luke, iu the anunymnua traveller nf Emmaus.
4. Tlie Appecirance to ihe Apoatles : vers. 33-43.— Vers. 33-43.* The twu travellera,
immediately changing their intended route, return tu Jerusalem, where Ihey find the
apuatlea assemblpd and full nf joy. An appearance uf Jesus tn Peter had nvercnme
all tho duubts left by the accnunts nf tbe wnmen. Thia appearance ahould probably
be placed at the time when Peter returned hume (ver. 13), after hia visit tu the tnmb.
Paul places it (1 Cnr. 15) first nf aU. HeumUs Luke's first- (the twu guing tuEmmauaJ
and .Tuhn'a firat (Mary Magdalene). Fnr where apnatnlic teatimnny ia in questiun as in
that chapter, unufficial witnessea, nnt choaen (Acts 1 : 3), are left nut uf account.
Peter was nut at that time reatured aa an apnatle (cnmp. Jnhn 31), but he received his
* Ver. 33. S. B. D., yBpoiaplvovs instead nf avvyBpoinpevovs. Ver. 36. D. Il'"s,
omit the wnrds kui XeyEi avroiS Eipyvy vpiv. Ver. 38. B, D. lipi«fiq»«, ev ry Kapdia in
stead uf EV TuiS KupdiaiS. Ver. 39. S. D. Ir., aap/caf instead nf napKu, Ver. 40. This
verse is nmitled by D. It''"i..S.yr«". Ver. 42. ». A. B. D. L. n. Clement. Or. nmit
KUl ano peXiaaiov Kypiov, which is read by T. R. 13 Mjj. aU the Mnn. Syr. It""i.
Justin, etc.

508 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE:
pfirdun aa a believer. It traditinn liad invented, would it net, above all, have
imagined an appearance to Jnhn? This account refera tn tbe aame appeaiance as
Jnhn 20 : 19-33. The twn Gus])els place it uu the evening uf the resurrectinn day.
The sudden appearance nt Jcsus, ver. 36, indicated by the wnrds. He stood in ihe
midst of ihem, is evidently supernatural, like His diaappearance (ver. 31). Its miracu-
luus character is expressed still more preciaely by John, The doors were shut. The
aalutatiun wnuld be the aame in both accnunta : Peace be unto you, were we nut
obliged tn give the preference here tn the text uf the Cantab, and uf snrae cupies nf
the Itala, which rejects the.«ie wnrds. The T. R. has prnbably been interpnlated
from Jnbu. The term rersvpa (ver. 37) denntes tlie spirit oi the dead returning with
out a budy frnm Hades, and appearing in a viaible fnrm as umbra, q>civradua (Matt.
14 : 36). This impressinn naturally^ arose frum tho sudden and miraculuus appear
ance nf Jesus. The SiaXoyidpoi, inward disputiiigs, are cnntrasted with the simple
acknnwledgment nf Him whu stands befure them. At ver. 39, Jesus asserts His
identity : " That it is I myaelf," and then His curpureity : " Handle me, and see."
Thesigbt nf Hia hauda and feet pruves those two propositions by the wounda, the
marka of which tliey atill bear. Ver. 40 is wanting in D. It»""i. It might be sus
pected that it is taken frum .Inhn 30 : 30, it in this latter passage, instead nf Hia feet,
there was nnt Hia aide. In vers. 41-43, Jeaua givea thera a new prunf ut His cur
pureity by eating meats which they had tu nffer Him. Their very joy prevented them
frnm believing in au great a happineaa, and furraed- an ubstacle tn their failh. Strauss
finda a contradiclinn between the act of eating and the nntiun nf a glnrified bndy.
But the body nf Jeaua was in a tranaition atate. Our Lord Himself aaya to Mary
Magdalene, " I ain not yet ascended . . . bull aacend" (John 30 : 17). On the
one, hand, then, He still had Hia terrestrial budy. On the uther, this bndy waa al
ready raised tn a higher cnnditinn. We have nu experience tn help us iu furming a
clear idea ef thia tranaitinn, any mure than nf ita gnal, the glnrified budy. The nuiis-
aion nf the wnrds, and of a,n honeycomb, in the Alex., ia prnbably due tn the cunfuainn
nf the xor/ which precedes with that which fnUnws.
This appearance nf Jeaus in the midst uf the apostles, related by Jnhn and Luke,
is alsn mentioned by Mark (16 : 14) and by Paul (1 Cor. 15 ; 5). But Jnhn alnne dis
tinguishes it frura that which tnnk place eight daya after in airailar circumatances,
and at which the duubts nf Thnmas were nvercnme. And wuuld it be tou daring In
suppuse that, as Ihe firat nf these appearancea was meant to gather together the apua
tles whom Jeaus wished to bring to GalUee, the second was intended to curaplele this
reunion, which was hindered by the obatinate resistance of Thoraas ; consequently,
that it was the unbelief of this disciple which prevented the immediate returu nf the
apnstles tn Galilee, and fnrced thera to reraain at Jerusalem during tbe whole paschal
week I Jesus did not lead back the fluck until He had the number completed : " Of
those whnm Thnu gavest me none ia lost."
5. The laat Inatructiona : vers. 44r-49.— Vers. 44-49.* Meyer, Bleek, and nthera
-* Ver. 44. !*. B. L. X. snrae Mun. lip'oriqim^ Yg^ n-pos avrov^ instead nf avroiS. 8
Mjj. some Mnn. omit pov after Xoyoi. Ver. 4fl. S«. B C. D. L. lt.p'"'-ii»», nmit /cai mrur
del after ysypnnrai. Ver. 47. !*. B. Syr"''., ^uerai/ojat' f/.S a^etJiv instead ef /ieraromi'
KUl afsai)'. S. B. C. L. N. X., ap^apevoi instead of apinpEvov. Ver. 48. B. D. emit
Eare befnre puprvpss. Ver. 49. S. D. L. Syr''"' ItP'^ii"", V,g. nmit idov. Ut' B. L. X.
A., E^unniTTEX.Xu instead uf anoarE/.Xu. - !*. B. C. D, L. Iipi"iquo^ y^ „mi|. jcpovaaXyp
after noXti.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 509
think that all the sayings which fnllnw were uttered thia same evening, and that tbe
ascensiun itself must, accnrding tuLuko, have fulluwed immediately, duriug the night
nr tuward mnrning., Luke currected hiraaelf 4uler in Ihe Acts, where, according to
a more exact tradition, he puts an interval of forty days between the resurrection and
the ascension.* A circumstance which might be urged in favnr nf this hypnth'eaia is,
that what Luke omits in the angel's message (ver. 6) is precisely the coramand to the
diaciples tn return to Galilee. But, on the other hand : 1. May it nut be supposed that
Luke, having reached the end of the first part uf his history, and having the inten-
lion uf repealing Ihnse facts as the puint nf departure fur his secnnd, thnught it
ennugh tn slate them in the most summary way 1 3. Is it prnbable tbat an authur,
when beginning the second part ef a history, should modify most materially^ without
in the least apprising his reader, the recital of facta with which he has closed his
firat ? Would it nut have been simpler and mere honest on the pait ef Luke lo cor
rect the last page ef hia firat volume, inatead cf confiiraing it implicitly aa he docs.
Acts 1 : 1, 3 ? 3. The roVf, then (ver. 45), may embrace an indefinite apace of lime.
4. Thia raore general seuse harmonizes with the fragraenUiry character of theiepert
given of those laat utlerancea : Now lie aaid unto them, ver. 44 : and He said unto
ihtin, ver. 46. Thia inexact form showa clearly that Luke abandons uarralive strictly
an caUed, tn give as he clnses the contents of the last sayin.gs nf Jesus, reserving tn
hiraself tn develop later the bistniical account of those last days. 5. The author of
nur Gospel foUnwed the same traditinn aa Paul (see the appearance tu Peter, men
tioned nnly by Paul and Luke). It is, ninreover, impussible, considering bis relatioua
In Ihat apnatle and tn tbe churches cf Greece, that he was not acquainted wilh the
first Epistle In the Curinthians. Nnw, in this epistle a considerable interval is neces
sarily supposed between the resurrectinn and the ascension, first because il mentions
an appearance ef Jesus to more than 500 brethren, which cannot have taken place on
Ihe verytlay of the resurrection ; and 'next, because it expressly distinguishes two ap
pearances tu the asserabled apostles ; the one undoubtedly that the account nt which
we have just been reading (1 Cnr. 15 : 6) ; the nther, which must have taken place
later (ver. 7). These facta, irreconcilable wilh the idea altribuled by Meyer and
uthers tn Luke, belonged, aa Paul himself tells us, 1 Onr. 15 • 1-3, tn the teaching
generally received in Ihe Church, tn Ihc xapdSodiS. Hnw cuuld they have been
unknnwn tu such an in vestigatur as Luke? Huw cnuld they have escaped hira in
his first bnnk, aud that tn recur tn him withnut his saying a wurd in the secund?
Luke therefere here indicates summarily the substance of the different inslruclions
given by Jesus between IIis resurrection and ascension all comprised in Ihe wnrds of
the Acta : " -'i.fler that He had given commandments unto the apostles" (Acts 1 : 2).
Ver. 44 relates hnw Jesus recalled tn them Hia previuua prediclinna regarding His
death and reaurrectinn, wbich fulfilled the liropbecies uf the O. T. Oiiroi oi Xoyoi,
an abridged phrase for ravra idriv oi Xdyoi : " These events which have just come
to paaa are those of which I told you in the discnuraea whicb you did not under
stand." The expreaaion : while Iioasyei with you, ia remarkable ; fnr it provea that
in the mind uf Jeaus, His separation frum them waa nnw cnnsuramaled. He was
with them nnly exceptiunaUy ; His abnde was elsewhere. The three terms ; Moses,
Prophets, Paalma, may dennte the three parts of Ihe O. T. amnng the Jews : the Pcnla-
* This, be it remembered, is nnt nur authnr's idea, but that nf autburs whnse view
he prnceeds 10 nverthrnw. He has a way of pulling himself iu the place nf an
oppnnent, fur the moment. — J. H.

5;10 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
te.uch ; the propheta, compriaing, with the historical bunks (up to the exile), the pro
phetical bnuka ; the Psalraa,' as representing the entire grnup nf the hagingrapha. .
Bleek rather thinks that Jesus mentiuns here nnly the bnuks mnst essential from a
prnphetic pnint uf view (rrep! ipov). If it is nnce admitted that the divisiun uf the
cannn which we have indicated exiated ao early aa the time ef Jeaus, thu first mean
ing is tbe more natural.
Jesus closes these explanations by an act ef power for which they were meaut to
prepare. He upeua the inuer sense ut His apnstles, sn Ihat the Scripturea shall heuCe-
furlh ceaae tn be tn them a aeaied bouk. This act ia certainly the sarae as that de-:,
scribed by John in the words (30 : 33) : " And He breathed eu thera, saying, Receive
yet he Holy Ghoat." The enly differeuce is, that John naraea the efflcient cauae, Luke
liie effect produced. The rairacle ia the same aa that which Jeaus shall une day wurk,
upun larael cuUectivcly, when ilie ¦ceil shall be taken away (3 Cnr. 3 : 15, 16). ,
At ver. 46 there begina a new resume— that oi Ihe discnurses uf the risen Jesus
referring tn the future, as the preceding bnre nu the paat nf tbe kingdom of Gnd.
Kai ElnEv, and He said io them again. Sn true is it that Luke here gives the summary
of the instructinns uf Jesua during the forty daya (A.cts 1 . 3), that we find the par--
allela of theae versea acattered up and duwn in the diacouraea which the other Gospels
give between the resurrection and ascension. The wurds : ahould be preached among'
aUnationa, recall Matt. 38 : 19 : " Go and leach .all ualions." and Mark 16 : 15 : " Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gaspel tn every creature." The wurds : preach'
ing repentance and remission of sins, recall John 30 : 33 : " Whoaeaoever sins yeremit,
tbey are remilted unto thera." Ver. 46 torras the transition frora the past In the
future (ver. 47). 'On depends un : it waa ao, understnod. The nmissiun nf kuX ovto^
edsi, thua ii behoved, by the Alex, cannnt be justified ; it baa ariaen from negligence.
Jesus declares twn necessities : the nne fnunded nn prnphecy {ihua ii ia written), the
other on the very nature nf Ihinga {it behoved), . The Alex. readin,g : repentance unto
pardon, inatead pf repentance and pardon, has nn internal probability. It wnuld be a
phrase without antilogy in the wholo uf tbe N. T. The paitic, dp^dpevov is a neut\
iraperaonal accusal ivo, used aa a gerund. The Alex, reading ap^dpevoi ia a correction.
The thought that the kingdom nf God must spread frora Jeiusalem belonged also to
prophecy (Ps. 110 : 2, ei al,) ; cnmp. Acts 1 : 8, where Ibis ideals develuped.
Tu carry uut this- work of preaching, there must be men specially charged with it.
Theae are the apoatlea (ver. 48). Hence the vpels, ye, heading the pruposition. The
thought ef ver. 48 is found John 15 : 27 : that of ver. 49, John 15 : 26. A testimony 30
impurtant can nnly be given worthily and effectively with divine ^'d (ver. 49). 'I<5ot),
belioli^, expreaaea the unforeseen character of Ihia interventinn nf divine atrength ; and
iyo, !, ia fnremnst as the correlative nf ipels, yc (ver. 48) : " Ye, nn the earth, give;
testimnny ; and I, frum heaven, give ynu pnwer tn dn an." When the disciplea ahall
feel the spirit ef Pentecost, they ahall know that it ia the breath ef Jesus glorified,
and fer what end it ia impaited to them. In the phrase, the promise of the Father,
the wurd promiae denotes the thiii.g promised. The Holy Spirit is tbe divine promise
par exceUence. It is in this supreme gift that all others are lo terminate. And this
aid ia ao indiapenaable to them, that they raust beware of beginning the work befure
hairing received it. The coramand to taii'y in ihe city ia no wiae incompatible with a
return uf the diaciplea to GaUlee between the resurrection and ascension. Everything
dependa on the lime when Jeaua spuke this wnrd ; it is nut specified in the context.
According to Acts 1 : 4, it was on the day of Hia ascensiun that Jesus gave them

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 511
-(Ills cnmmaud. The Alex, reject the wnrd Jemsalem, which indeed is not neces- '
sary after ver. 47. '
On the Reaui'rection of Jesus.
I. 37(6 Fact qfthe Resurreciion.— The apnstles bure witness tn the resurrectinn nf
Jesus, and nn thia testimnny fnunded the Church. Such ia the indubitable bistnrical
fact. Yet mure : they did nnt du thia aa impostnrs. Strauss acknowledges this.
And Volkmar, in his mystical language, goes the length ot aaying : " It is one of
the moat certain facts in the history of huraanity, that shortly atler Hia death on the
croas, Jeaiis appeared to the apoatles, risen from the dead, hnwever we may under
stand the fact, which ia withnut analugy iu histnry" (" die Evangel." p. 613). Lot
us seek the explanatiun nf the fact
Did Jesus return lu life frnm a stale of lethargy, aa Schleiermacher thuught ?
Strauss has ence fur all execulted justice uu this hypnthesis. It cannnt even be main-
taiued without destroying the muial character cf uur Lnrd (corap. uur " Coium. sur
Jean," t. ii. p. 660 ei seq.).
Were thuse appearances cf Jesua tn the firat believers nnly visions reaulting frnin.
their exalted stale nf mind ? Thia is the hypnlhesis whicb Stiauss, fuUowed by nearly i
allmndein raliunalism, substitutea fur that nt Schleiei macher. 'This explanation'
breaks duwn befure the fnllnwing facts : ,
1. The apoatles did nut in the leaat expect the bndy nf Jesus tn be reatured In life.-
They cnnfnunded Ihe resurrection, as Weizsacker aaya, with the Paruusia. Nnw.
such haUucinaticns wnuld auppoae, en thecuutrary, a lively expectatinn of the bodily
reappearance nf Jeaua.
3. Sn far waa the imagination of the disciples from creating Ibe sensible presence
of Jesus, Ihat at the first Ihey did not recognize Him (Mary Magdalene, the two of ¦
Emmaus), Jesus was certainly uot to Ihem an expected person, whose image was,
conceived in their own aoul.
3. We can imagine the posaibility of a hallucinatinn in nne perann, but nnt in twn, '
twelve, and finally, five bundled ! especiaUy if it be remembered that in the appear
ances described we have nnt tu do with a simple luminnus figure fiuating betweeu
heaven and earth, hut with a persen performing positive acta aud uttering exact slatc-
Uienta, which were heard by the witnesses. Or is the truth of the different accuuuts
to be suspected? But they forraed, from the beginning, duringthe lifetime ef the
apoatles and firat wilnesses, the substance of the public preaching, of the received'
tradition (1 Cur. 15). Thua we ahnuld be thrown back on the hypothesia of imposture.
4. The erapty tomb and the dipappearance of the body reraain inexplicable. If,
as the narrativea allege, the body remained in the hands of Jeaua' friends, the testi
mony which they gave te its resurreclinu ia an imposluie, a hypolhesia already dis
carded. If it reraained in the handa uf the Jews, hew did Ihey net by this mude nf con-
victinn nverthrnw the lealimuny ut the apostlea? Their meulhs wuuld have been
closed much mure effectually in this way than by acnurging them. We shall not
enter intu Ihe diacussiuu uf all Strauss's expedients lu escape from Ibis dilemma.
They betray the spirit uf apecial pleading, and can unly appear tn the unprejudiced
mind in tbe light nf subterfuges.* But Strauss attempts tn take the offensive.
Starting frnui Paul's enuraeratinn of the varinus appearancea (1 Cur. 15), he reasuna
thus : Paul hiraself had a viainn on the way to Daraaacua ; new he put all the appear
ances which Ihe apostles had un the same platfurm ; therefnre they are all nuthing
but visinns. This reaauning is a mere suphism. If Strauas meana Ihat Paul himself
regarded the appearance which bad cunverted him aa a aimple visinn, it is eaay tu re
fute hira. Fur what Paul wishea In demunstrate, 1 Cur. 15, is the bndily reaurrectinn
nf believers, whicb he cannnt dn by means ot the appearances of Jesus, unlesa he re
gards Ihem all aa bodily, the one as well aa the uther. If Slrausa means, on the cun-
fi-ary, that the Daraaacua appearance waa really nothing else than a vision, though"
Paul took it as a reaUty, the conclusion which he draws frnm thia mistake nf Paul's, '
* In oppoaition to Strauss's auppoaitinn, that the body of Jeaua waa thrown tu the
dunsfhill, we set this fact of public nototiety in the tirae of St. Paul: "He was
buried " (1 Cor. 15 : 3).

513 ¦ COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
as tu Ibe meaning which must be given te all the others, ,has not the least logical
value. Or, finally, could God have permitted the Spirit ef the glorified Jeaua, manifesting
itself to the disciples, to produce effecta iu them aimilar to thoae which a perception
by the aenses would have produced ? So Weisse and Lntze think. Keim baa alan
declared for this hypetheaia in his " Lite nf Jeaua." * But, 1. What then nf the nar
ratives in which we see the Risen One aeekiug tn demunstrate tu the apnstlea that He
is nnt a pure spirit (Luke 34:37-40)? They are pure jnventinns, audaciqua falae-
hnods. 3. Aa tu this glnrified Jesua, whu appeared apiritually tn the apnstlea,.did He
or did He uut mean to prnduce nn ihem the impresainn that He waa preaent bodily?
If He did, thia heavenly Being was an impnatur. If nut. He muat have/been very
unskilful iu Hia mauiteatatiuna. In beth caaes. He ia the authnr uf the miaunde'r-
standing which gave rise to the false testimuny given iuvnlunlarily by tl/e apoatlea,
3. The empty tnmb remaina unexplained nn this hypulhesis, as well as nu'the preced
ing. Keim haa added nuthing to what his predeceaanrs have advanced In solve this
difflculty. Iu reality, there is but one sufBcient account to be given oPthe empty
torab : the torab waa found empty, because He whn had been laid there Hiraself reae
from it. Tu thia npinion nf Keira we may apply what hulds nf hia explaualinn uf
miraclea, aud uf hia way nf Innking at the life nf Jesua in general : it is tnn much or
tuo little aupernatural. It is nnt wurth while cnmbaliug the biblical accounta, when
such enormius concessions are made to Ihera ; lo deny, fer exaraple, |lie miraculous
birlh, when we adrait the absolute holiness ot Christ, or the bodily resurreciion,
when we grant the reality ef the appearances of the glorified Jesus. Keira for some
time ascended tbe acale ; nuw he deacenda again. lie could net stojVthere.
IL The Accounts of the Reaurrection. — These accounts are in rcapty only reports
regarding the appearances nf tho Risen Oue. The mnst ancient and/the must ufticial,,
if one raay so speak, is that ef Paul, 1 Cor. 15. It is the sumraary of the nral teach
ing received in the Church (ver. 2), uf the traditinn proceeding from all the apuatles
together (vers. 11-15). Paul enumeratea the aix appeal ances, ia fuUuws : 1. Tu
Cephaa ; 2. To the Twelve ; 3. Tu the 500 ; 4. Tu Jamea : 5. Tu flie Twelve ; 6. Tu
Ifimself. We eaaily raake nut in Luke, Nua. 1, 2, 5 in hia Gnspel (24 : 34, ver. 36 et
,':eq., ver. 50 et aeq.) ; Nn. 6 iu the Acta. The appearance tu Jamta became fund fof
JuJeo Christian legends. It is elabnrated in the apocryphal booka. There remaina
No. 3, the appearanoB tn the 500. A strange and instructive faJt ! Nn appearance
nf .lesus is better authenticated, ranre unassailable ; nnne -was raore public, and none
pruduced in the Church su deciaive an effect . . . aud it is not, mentiened, at least
as such in any uf uur fnur Gospel accuunts ! Huw shnuld this fact put us en our guard
against the argumentum i aileniio, of which the criticiam of.the present day makes an
uubridled a uae ! Huw it nught tn ahnw the cumplete ignuranc/in which we are aliU
left, and prnbably shall ever he, nf the circumatancea which presided ever the forma
tion nf that ural traditinn which haa exerciaed. sn decisive an infljience nver uur guspel
hi.stnringraphy I Luke ceuld not be ignorant of this fact if he liad read but once the
1st Epistle to the Corinthian?, conversed once on the subject With St. Paul . . .
.and he has not meutioned, nor even dropped a hint nf it ! Tu bring duwn the cnm
pnsitiun uf Luke by half a century In explain this nmissinn, serv^ea nn end. Fer the
further the time is brought down, the ranre irapossible is it tha^ the author of the
Gospel should not have known the 1st Epistle to the Oerinlbians.l
Matthew's account mentions only the two folluwing appesirances : 1. Te the
wnmeu at Jerusalem ; 3. Tn the Eleven, un a mountain of Galilee, where .lesua had
appointed them to meet Him {oi ird^aro nope'veaBat). We at unct recognize in No.
1 the appearance tn Mary Magdalene, Jnhn 30 : 1-17. The securjc' ' '
iug which Jesua had convoked, according te Matthew and Mark,

d ia that gather-
_ , lefoi-e His death ;
then, immediately' after the resurrectinn, either by the augel nr b ' Hia uwn ranuth

(Malthew). But it ia nnw nnly Ibat Mattbew tells ua nf Ilie rendez 'ous appointed fer
the disciples en the raountain. This confirma the opinion whicl we had already
reached, viz., that we have here to do with a call whiuh was not addressed to the
Eleven only, but to all believera, even tn tbe v/nracn. Jeaua wialnd .again tn see all
Hia brethren, and tu cnnstitute Hia flock anew, whichhad beeu scat ered by the death
* Otherwise in his " Geachichll. Cbristus.'

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 513
of the Shepherd. The choice ef such a locaUty as that which Jesus had designated,
confirms the conclusion tbat we have here lo do wilh a numerous reunion. We can
not therefore doubt that it is the assembly ef 500 spoken uf by Paul, 1 Cnr. 15. If
Matthew dnea nnt expressly, mentinn mnre than tbe Eleven, it ia becauae tn them
waa addressed the ceramissinn given by Jesus, " tu go and baptize all natinns." The
expression : " but sorae doubled," is alsu mure easily explained, if the Eleven were
nnt alone.* Mallhew did nnt intend In relate the flrst appearances by which the
apustles, whether individually ur tugether, were led tn believe (this waa the object nf
the appearances -phich tunk place at Jerusalem, and whicb are mentioned by Luke
and Jnhn), but that which, in keeping with the spirit nf his Gnapel, be wiahed lu set
iu relief as the climax uf his histnry— that, namely, tn which he had made allusiun
frnpi the beginning, and which may be called tbe Messiah's taking pnsaessinn nf the
whole world.
Mark'a accnunt is nriginal as far as ver. 8. At ver. 9 we find : 1. An entirely new
beginningj; 3. From ver. 8 a clearly marked dependence nn Luke. After that, there
uccur frum ver. 15, and especially in ver. 17, snme very nriginal sayinga, which indi
cate an inoependent anurce. Tbe cnrapositiun uf the wnik thua aeems tu have been
interrqptcd at ver. 8, and the bnuktu have remained unfinished. A sure prnuf uf
this is, that the appearance nf Jesus announced lu the wnmen by the angel,' ver. 7, is
tntally wanting,- if, with the Sinai't., the Vatic, and ether authnrities, the Gnspel ia
closed at ver. 8. From ver. 9, accnoluainnhaatbusbeen added by'meansof our Gos.
pel of Luke, vhich had appeared in the interval, aud cf sorae uriginal materials jDre-
rinualy cnllectsd with thia view by the aulher (vers. 15, 16, and especially 17, 18).
III. The Accounts taken aa a Whole, — It, gathering thnae acattered accounta, we
unite them in tne, we find ten appearances. In the first three. Jesus comforts and
raises, fnr He bis tn dn with dn-svncast hearts : He ccmfnits Mary Magdalene, whn
seeks His lest body ; He raises Peter after his'fall ; He reaniraates the hope uf the
twn guing tu Enmaus. Thereafter, in Ihe fuUuwing three, He establishes the failh
ut His future witnesses in the decisive fact uf His resurrectinn ; He fulfils Ibis mis
sinn tuward the apustlea in general, and toward Thuraaa ; and He rcconslilutea the-
apiiatolate by retii-ning to it its head. In the aeventh and eighth appearancea, He
impreaaes en the leuslolate that powerful missionary impulse whicb lasts still, and
He adds Jamea to the disciples, specially with a view le the raission for Israel. In
the last two, finall;, He completes the preceding commands by some apecial instiuc-
tiona (nut tn leave Verusalera, to wait fur tbe Spirit, etc.), and bids them Hislast fare
well ; then, shnrtly afterward. He caUa Paul apecially wilh a view tu the Gentilea.
This unity, sn prnftundly psychulogical, sc hnlily urganic, is nut the wnrk cf any nf
the evangeliata, :'or its elementa are acattered uver the feur accnunta. The wiadnm
and love of Chrst are its nnly autbnra.f
IV. The hnioriance of ihe Reaurrection, — Thia event ia nut merely intended In-
mark uut Jesus aa tbe Saviuur; itia aalvatiun it' elf, condemnaliun remnved, death.
vanquiahed. ^e were perishing, cnndemned : Jesus dies. His death saves us ; He-
is the first whn mjoys salvatinn. He riaea again ; then in Him we are made tn live
again. Such aneveut ia everything, includes everything, ur it haa nn existence.
6. The Aacenion : vera. 50-53.— The resurrectinn restured humanity in that nne
nf its members vhn, by His huly life and expiatury death, cunquered nur twn enemies-
* If this expession is tn be applied tn the Eleven themselvea, it must be explained
by the sunimarycharaoler nf this accnunl, in whicb tbe firat duubts expressed in the
preceding appeaances are applied lu this, tbe nnly nne related.
t See" the renarkable develnpment of Ibis thought by M. Gess, in hia new work,
" Chriati Zeugniia von aeiner Person und seinem Work," 1870, p. 193 ei aeq, " This-
prugression iu tlB appearancea nf Jeaua ia an wiaely graduated, tnat we are nnt at lib
ty tn refer it tn i purely subjective nrigin. Suppnsing they were all related by one
and tbe aame ev.ngeliat, it niight doubtless be attempted to make hira the author of
so well ordered i plan. But aa thia arrangement reaulta only from combining the-
first, the third, aid the fourth Goapels . . . this explanation also is excluded."
Page 304.

514

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

— the law -which condemned ua becauae nf sin, and death, which nvertook us because
cf the cnndemnatinn ef tho law (1 Cer. 15 : 56). As thia humanity- is restored in the
person of Christ by the fact of Hia resurreciion, the ascension raiaes it to its frill
height ; it realizes ita destination, which from the beginning was to serve as a free
instrument fer the operationa of the infinite Gnd. ''
Vera. 50-53.* The Ascension. — Luke alnne, in his Gnspel and in the Act^ has
given ua a detailed view uf the scene which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. 15 : 7; aud
assumed threughnut the whule N. T. Interpreters like Meyer think Iheraselves
ubliged tn limit the ascensiun uf Jesus to a purely spiritual elevation, and to admit
ne external visible fact in -which thia elevaliun waa manifeated. Luke's account waa
the pruductinn nf a later traditiun. We shall examine thia hypnthesis at the cluse.
The meaning uf the i^yyaye di, Tlien He led iliem, is airaply this : "All these
instructinns finished. Ho led them . . ." Thia expression aaya abanlutely nnthing
as tu the lime when the event tunk place. The term avvaXi^dpEvoc, hailing isaembled.
Acta 1 : 4, prnvea tbat Jesua had specially convoked the apostles in order le/ake leave
of thera. "EuS eis (T. R.), and still raore decidedly SoS npds (Alex.), signifies, nut as
/ar as, but tu abnut," in the directinn and even tn the neighbnrhondnf . / . There
is thus nn cuntradictinn tn Acta 1 : ]3.f Like the high prieat when, comiug fnrth
frum the temple, he blessed the peuple, Jesua cemea furth frum the inrisible wnrld
nnce mure, befnre altngether shutting Hiraself up within it, and gives His nwn a laat
benediction. Then, in the act of performing thia deed nf love. He ia ™thdrawn tn a
distance frum thern Inward the tup uf the mountain, and Hia visible praseuce vaniahes
frnm their eyea. The wurda kui uve^speto eis rbv ovpavov are umilted/in the Sinmt.,
the Cantab., and some copies nf the Jiala. Cnuld this phrase be tbe glnss nf a cupy
ist ? But a gloss wuuld probably have been burrowed frura the narraive nf the Acts,
and that bnnk presents nn analngnus expressiun. Might nnt this nrraasinn rather be,
like sn many nthera, the result ut negligence, perhaps uf cnnfuunding the twn Kai ?
We can hardly believe that Luke wnuld have said sn curtly. He waspar ted from ihem,
withuut adding huw. Tho imperfect ave^e'pero. He was carried upjidrms a picture.
It reminds us nf the fletjpeji', beliold, Jnhn 0 : 63. The Cantab, and snne mss. uf tho
Uala umit (ver. 53) the wurd Trpoa/cui'^aavref , having worshipped liimjpe haps in cnnse
quence of conf nunding avrai aud airdv. The verb npocKvvelv, ioprfsiri te one's self, in
thia cnntext, can mean nnly tbe adnration which is paid to a divine bei i,
The joy of tbe disciples caused by this elevation of their Master, whic

ig (Ps. 3 : 13).
is the pledge
of the victory of His cause, fulfilled the wurd nt Jesus : " If ye Invec me, ye wnuld
rejnice because I gn tn my Father" (Juhn 14 : 38). The pnint tn be letermlned is,
whether the mure detaUed accnunt in Acta (the cluud, the twu glnried men who
whether the
at the begin-
iug-pnint. It
te the second

appear) ia an amplification of the acene due to the pen of Luke,
account in Ibe Gospel was only a sketch which he proposed to comple
ning of his second treatise, of which this scene was to form the stai
our explanation uf vers. 44^49 is well founded, we cannot but inclin

* Ver. 50. A. B. C. L. aome Mnn. Syr"'*, urait efu after ai.rou's. fe. B. C. D. L
a Mnu., ecjS TrpoS instead nf eac eiS: Ver. 51. t*. D. Ifi'i. omit thewnr 3 koi aveikepero
EiS rov ovpavov. Ver. 53. D. It»'"i. nmit the wurds npoaKvvyaavreS ai ov. Ver. 63
D. It""'), nmit the wnrda koi evXayovvreS. K. B. C. L. omit aivovvreS ko ». C. D Xi
n. sorae Mnu. It"""!, nmit apyv.
X See the interesting pasaage nf M. Felix Buvet nn the spot from w iuh the ascen-
Bion tnok place, " Voyage en Terre-Sainle," p. 335, etseq. \

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 515
^iew. And the more we recognize up to this point in Luke an author Who writes
conscientiously and from conviction, the raore shall we feel obliged to reject the first
alternative. The numeroua oraissions, vers. 53, 53, in the Cantab, and seme mss.
of the liala cannot well be explained, except by the haste which the copyists seem
t-o have made aa they approached the end of their work. Or ahould the preference
be giren, aa Tiachendurf givea it, to thia abridged text, cnntrary ^n all the nther
aulhniitiea tngether ? Dab, which read a'lvovvres withuut /cai eiXoyovvreS ; ^. B. C.
L., which read eiX-oyovvreS withuut aivoivreS Kai, mutually cundemn one annther, and
sn cnnflim the received reading, praising and blessing God. Perhaps Ihc^^oraissinn iu
bnth casis arisses from cnnfuunding tbe twn — vrec. A'lvelv, to praise, refers tn the
perann nf Gnd ; eiXoyElv, io bleas, tn Hia benefita. The disciples dn here -what was
dnne at ths beginning by the shepherds (3 : 20). But what a way traveraed, what a
series of jlorioua benefits between those two acts ef homage 1 The last werda, theae
iu particUar : "They were continually in the temple," form the transition to the.
iMJok of Alls. On ihe Ascension.
At flrst tlE apoatlea regarded the aacensicn aa enly the last ef these numerous dis-,
appearances vhich they had witnessed during the furty days (a^avros iyivEro, ver.
81). Jesus rejarded it as the elevatien ef His person, in the character of Son of man,
te that poppy B-.ov (Phil. 3 : 6), that divine stale which He had renounced when He
carae imder tb>. conditiuns nf human exiatence. Having reached the term uf Hia
earthly career. He had aaked back Hia glory {John 17 : 5) ; the ascension waa the
answer tn His payer.
Mndern critiiiam ubjecta tu the reality nf the ascension as an external fact, on the
ground ef the Cjpernican syatem, which excludea the belief that heaven is a particu
lar place situateoabove our heada and beyond Ihe atars. Those who raise this objec
tion labor under a very gross misunderstanding. According tn tbe biblical view,
the ascensiun is ml the exchange uf one place fer another , il is a change of sto/e, and
this change ia prajisely the emancipatinn froih*all confinement within the limits of
space, exaltation b uranipresence. The cluud was, as it were, the veil which cnv
ered this trausfuimatiun. The right band uf a Gud everywhere present caunut
designate a paiticUar place. Silting at the right hand uf Gnd must alsn include
umniscience, whicii is clnsely bnuud up wHh omnipresence, aa well aa crauipolence,
nf which the ri?hthand uf Gud is the natural aymbol. The Apocalypse expresses in
ita figurative liuguage the true meaning ef the aseensinn, when it represents Ihe
glnrified Snn o man as the Lamb with seven hums (urauipntencc) and seven eyea
(umniscience). Thia divine mode nf being dnea uot exclude bodUy existence in the
case nf Jesus. Comp., in Paul, tbe aapariKds, bodily, Cul. 3 : 9, aud the expression
spiritualbody aiplied tu the second Adam, 1 Cor. 15 : 44. We cannot, from experi
ence, ferra an -lea of this glorified bedUy exiatence. But it may be conceived as a
pnwer of appering senaibly and uf external activity, operating at the pleasure uf the
will alnne, andat every pnint nf space.
Annther ubictinn ia takeu from the nmiaainn uf thia scene in the other biblical
documents. Hi, 1. Paul expressly raenlinns an appearance tn all the apostles, 1
Cnr. 15 : 7. Riced at the clese et the whole series nf previnus appearances (among
them that lo th500), and immediately before tbat Which decided hia own conversion,
thia appearancecan nnly be the une al tbe aacension aa related by Luke. This fact is
deciaive ; for, ccording to vers. 3 and 11, it is the napddoais, tbe general traditinn uf
the churches, ruceeding frnm the apostles, which Paul auma up in thia passage. 3.
HnwBver Maris rauliiated cencluaion raay le explained, the worda : " So then, after
the Lord had tua spoken untu thera. He waa received up into lieaven, and sat en the
right hand of led," suppose anme aenaihle fact ur nther, which aerved as a basis fur
such expresaioa. The same bulds uf the innuraerable declarations uf tbe episllea
(Paul, Peter, lebrews, Jamea), which apeak nf the heavenly glury ut Jesus and of

516

COMMENTAKY ON ST. LUKE.

His aitting at the right hand of Gnd. Doctrines, with tbe apoatles, are never more
than the commeulaiy ou facts. Such expresaions must have a historical substratum.
3. No dnubt, Jnlin dues net relate the ascension. But can it be said that he dnesnut
menliou il, when this saying nccurs in his Goapel (6 : 63) : " What aud if ye stiaU
see the Sun nf man ascend up where He was befnre ?" 'The term BeopeIv, stricl/y io
contemplate, and the pres. partic. dvajlaivovra, aacending, forbid ua tu think uf anivent
nf a purely spiritual nature (cnmp. Baumlein, ad. Ii. I.). Why, then, doea ie nnt
relate the histnrical scene nf the aacensinn ? Becauae, aa bia starting-pnint was takeu
after the bapiism, which nn thia accnunt he dnes not relate, his cnnclusion is/placed
before the ascensien, which fnr this reaaon be leavea unrelated. The idea nf Ka bunk
was the develnpment nf faith in the minds nf the apostlea frum its birth tn^ta cun-
aummaliun. Now their faith waa burn with the visit nf Juhn and Andrew chap. 1,
after the baptism ; and it had received the seal nf perfectinn in the pruessinn nf
Thnmas, chap. 30, befnre the ascensien. That the evangelist did not thint of relat
ing all the appearances whicli he knew, is proved pnsitively by that nn lhe,febnres uf
the Lake uf Gennesaret, whicb ia related after the cluse uf the bnnk (30 : 3y, 31), aud
iu an appendix (chap. 31) cnmpused either by the authur himself (at leaii as far as
ver. 33), nr baaed nn a traditinn emanating frnm him. Ho was therefnre ayare nf this
appearance, and he had not mentiuned it in hia Gnspel, like Luke, whn muld not be
ignnrant nf the appearance tn the 500, and who haa nut mentinned it Zither in his
Gnspel nr in Acts. What reserve shuuld such ¦ facts impnse un criliciAn, hnwever
little gifted with cautinn ! 4.' And the fnllowing must be very peculisily borne in
mind in judging uf Mallhew' s narrative. It is nu dnubt strange tu findJthia evangel
ist relating (besidea the appearance tn the wnmen, which is intended nerely tu pre
pare fnr that fnllowing by the message which ia given them) nnly aain/le appearance
that which tnnk place nn the mountain uf GalUee where Jesus had appinleri His dis
ciples, as well aa the women and all the faithful, tn meet Him, and Ivhere He givea
¦the Eleven their uummission. This appearance cannet be any ef tlyse whicli Luke
aud John place in Judaa. It cumea nearer by lis locality tn that -Miicb, according
ito John 31, took place in GaUlee ; but it cannot be identified with it/for the scene of
>lhe latter was the sea-shore. As we have seen, it can only be the iPpearauce tn the
500 mentinned by Paul. The meeting un a muuntain is in perfec/keeping with sn
numerous an assembly though Matthew menlinna nunc but the Efven, because the
grand aim is that raissinn uf wurld-wjde evangeUzatien which Jesw gives thera that
day. Matthew's intention waa not, aa we have already aeen, tn mntion all the dif
ferent appearancea, either in Judea or Galilee, by which Jesus hal Reawakened the
persnnal faith nf the ajinstles, and cuncluded His earthly conneeliqp- -^^ith thera. His
-narrative had exclusively in view that anlemn appearance in whphtTesus declared
Himself the Lurd uf the universe, the anvereign nt the nalinns,)ani had given the
:aposlles their missiun tu cunquer fur Him the ends cf the earth. Si Irueis it that
llis narrative must terminate in this supreme fact, that Jesus annntmcd it befnre Hia
¦death (Matt. 26 : 32), and that, imraediately after the resurrectinn, thengel and Jesus
Hiraself spuke nf it tn the wnmen (28 : 7-10). Indeed, this scene was in tbe view nf
'the author nf the first Gnspel, the real gnal nf the theucratic revelaliur the climax nf
the ancient cnvenant. If the day nf tbe aacensinn was Ihe moat impu.ant in respect
nf the personal development nf Jesua (Luke), tbe day uf Hia appearanc un the muun
tain ahuwed the accnmplishinent nf tbe Mesaianic prngrarame skelchedL : 1 : " Jeaus,
the Christ, the snu nf David, the sun nf Abraham," Il was the deciire day fur the
eatablishmeut uf the kingdnm uf God, which is Matthew's great Iheuiit. Criticism
is nn a false tack when it asaumea that every evangelist has said a] that he cnuld
have said. Wilh ural tradition spread and received in the Church, tin gnspel histuri-
ugraphy did nut require tn ubserve such an anxinus gait as is suppust . It was nnt
greatly cuncerned tn relate an appearance more or lesa. The essenti thing was lo
affirm the resurrection itself. The coiitrast between the detailed ufflc:l enumCTaliun
of Paul, 1 Cor. 15, and each nf our fnur Gospels, provea thia tn a Einnustration.
Especially dnes it aeem tn us thnrnughly illugical tn ddubt the fact uflhe a,scensinn,
as Meyer does, because nf Matthew's ailence, and nnt tn extend thia ( ubt tn all the
iippearancea in Judea, abnut which he is equally ailent.
The fnllnwing paasage from the letter uf Barnabas has snraelimef been used iu
evidence : " We celebrate with jny that eighth day un which Jesus use frum Ihe

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 517
dead, and, after having manifested Hiraself, ascended tn heaven. " The authnr, it is
said, like Luke, placea Ihe ascension and the resurrection on the same day. But it
may be that in this expression he puta them, not un the same day taken absnlutely,
but en the same day of the wteh, the eighth, Sunday (which ne duubt would invnlve
an errnr as tu the ascensiun). Or, indeed, thia saying may signify ,_ according In
.lohn 30 : 17, which in that case it would reproduce, that the ascending nf Jesua In
heaven began with the resurreoliou, and un that very day: Iu reality, from that time
He was no moi-e with His uwn, as He Himself says (Luke 34 : 44). He belonged tu a
higher sphere nf existence. He only manifested Himself here beluw. He nu longer
lived here. He waa ascending, tn use His uwn expression. Accnrding lu this view,
Hia resurrectinn and the beginning nf His elevation (/cai./cai) therefnre tnok place the
same day. The expression : after hamng manifested Himself, would re'fer to the
appearances whicb tnnk place nn the resurrection day, aud after which He entered
inte the celestial sphere.
In any case, the reaurrectinn once admitted as a real fact, Ibe queation is, how
Jeaus left the earth. By stealth, without aayiug a wurd ? One 'fine day, without any
warning whatever. He ceased tn reappear ? Is thia mode of acting co'mpatible with
His lender love for hia own ? Or, indeed, according to M. de Bunsen, His body,
exhausted by tbe last effurt which Hfa resurrection had oust Him (Jesus, according
tn lhls_ writer, was tbe auibnr ef this event by the energy of Hia will), succumbed in
a misaionary journey to Phenicia, where He -n'ent tn seek believers amoD,g the Gen
tiles (John 10 : 17, 18 ; comp. wilh ver. 16) ; and having died there unknown, Jesus
-was likewise buried ' But in this case. His body raised frum the dead must have
differed in nn respect from the body which He had had during His lite. And how
arc we lo explain all the accounts, frnm wbich it appears that, between His resurrec
tion and ascensiun. His body waa already under peculiar conditions, and in cnurse
uf glorifioatinn ? The reality of such a fact as' tbat j elated by Luke in bia account of
the ascension is therefore indubitable, bolh from the special standpuint of .faith in
the resurrec-tien, and from the standpuint uf faith in general. The ascensieu is a
pustulate uf faith.
The ascensien perfects in tbe person of the Son of raan Gud'a desigu in regard tn
humanity. To make of aanctified believers a fasnily ef children of Gud, ijerfeclly
like that only Son -who ia the prototype ef the whule race — such is Gcd's plan. His
eternal npoBeai; (Rom. B : 38, 29), with a view to whicli He created the universe. As
the plant is the uncnnsciuua agent of the life nt nature, man was iutended tn becnme
the fiee and intelligent organ nf lbs hnly life nf the persnnal Gnd. Nnw, tn realize
this plan, Gnd thought gnud {EidoKyae) tn accompUsh it first in ojtb ; Eph. 3:6:
" He hath raised ua up in CnmsT, and made us sit in IIim in the heavenly places ;"
1 : 10 : " According to the purpuse which He had In gather tngether all tbings under
UNE head, Christ ;" Heb. 3:10: " Wishing tn bring many sons lo glory. He per
fected TUE C.\PTAiN op salvation." SiicU was, according lo the divine plan, the
first act of salvation. The second was tn unite to this One individual beUevers, and
thus to make them partakers of the divine state to which the Son of man had been
raised (Rnra. 8 : 39). This assiuiilatinn nf the f,iithful tu His Sun Gnd accninplisbed
by means of two things, which are Ihc necessary complement of the facts of tbe Ges
pel historj' : Pentecost, whereby the Lord's moral being becomes thaluf the beUever ;
"and the Parousia, whereby the external condition of the sanctified believer is raised
tn the same elevation as that ef our glorified Lord. First holiness, then glory, for the
body aa for the head : the baptism ef Jesua, which becomea nurs by Penlecuat ; the
ascensiun uf Jesus, wbich becomes oura by tbe Parousia.
Thug it ia thai each Gospel, aud not only Ihat which we have just been explain-
iug, bus the .\cls for its secund volume, and fur its thiid the Apucalypse.

CONCLUSION.

From our exegetical studies we passtn the wnrk nf criticism, which wiU gather up
the fruits. This wiU bear nn fuur points :
I. The cbaracterislic features of our Gespel.
II. Its composition (aim, time, place, aulher).
III. Its sources, and ita relatiun tn the nther two synnptics.
IV. The beginning nf the Christian Church.
The first chapter wiU establish the facts; in the folluwing twu we shall ascend
frum these tn their cauaea ; the aim nf the fnurth ia tn replace the questinn nf guspel
literature in ita hiatnrical puaitiun. CHAPTER L
THE CHAKACTEmSTICS OF THE THIRD iSOSPEL.
We have tn characterize this writing— ls«. Aa a hiatnrical production ; 2d. As a
religious work ; Sd. Aa a literary composition.
' I. — Hiaiorical Point of View.
The distinctive features nf Luke's narrative, viewed histuringraphicaUy, appear tc
ua tn be : Fulness, accuracy, and centiuuily.
A. In respect nf quantity, this Gnapel far surpasses the other Syn. The enlire
matter cnntained in ahe three may be included in 173 sectinns.* Of thia number,
Luke haa 137 sections, that is tn aay, three fnurths nf Ihe whnle, while Matthew jire-
senta unly 114, ur twn thirda, and Mark 84, nr the half.
This superiority in fulnesa which dial inguiahea Lnke will appear atUl more, if we
obaerve that, after cutting off the fifty- aix sectiona which are cnmrann tn the three
accounta, and forra aa it were the indivisible inheritance nf the Syn., theu the eight
een which are coramon to Luke and Malthew alone, finaUy the flve which he haa in
common with Mark, there remain as hia own peculiar portion, forty-eight — that is tn
say, umre than a fnurth nf tho whnle materials, while Matthew haa fur hia nwn nnly
twenty-twn, and Mark nnly five.
Once mnre, it ia tn be remarked that thnae materials which exclusively belong to
* There is necessarUy much arbitrariness in the way ef marking off those sec
tions, aa well aa in the way in which the parallelism between the three narrativea is
establiahed, eapeciaUy as concerns the diacnuraes which are mnre ur leaa cummnn tn
Matthew and Luke. M. Reuss (" Gesch. der heil. Schriflen N. T."), making the aec-
tiuns larger, ubtaina nnly 134. Thia difference may affect cnnsiderably the figurea,
which indicate the comparative fulnesa nf the three Gnspels.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 519
Luke are as impnrtant aa they are abundant. We have, fnr example, the narratives
of tbe infancy ; thnse nf the raising nf the snn ef the widnw nf Nain, nt the wuraan
whn waa a siuuer at the feet nf Jesua, uf the eutertainment at the hnuse nf Martha
and Mary, nf the tears nf Jeaua uver Jeruaalera ; the parablea nf the gund Saraaritan,
the lust sheep and the lust- drachraa, the prodigal snn, the faithless steward, the
wicked rich man, the unjust judge, the Pharia&e antl the publican; the prayer nf
Jeaua fnr His executiunera. His cnnversatinn with the thief nn the cruaa, the appear
ance tn the twn diaciplea gning tu Emmaus, the aacenaion. How diminiahed wuuld
the portrait be which remains te ua of Jesus, and what an irapoverisbraent ef the
knowledge which we have ut His teachings, if all these piecea, which are preserved
by Luke alone, were wanting te us 1
B. But, where hiatory is concerned, abundance is of leaa importance than accu
racy. Ia the wealth of Luke uf gnnd quality, and dnea his treaaure net cuntain baae
cniu? We believe that,aU anund exegesis nf Luke's narrative wiU reault in paying
hnmage tn bia fidelity. Are the parta in questiun thnse which are pecuUar tn him — the
accuunts uf the infancy (chayia. 1 and 3), the accnunt uf the juurney (9 : 51—19 ': 37)
the view uf the ascensiun (34 : 50-53) ? We have fnund the first confirmed, sn far as
the central fact— the miraculnus birth — is cnncerned, by the absnlute holiness nf
Christ, wbich is the unwavering testimuny uf His cunsciouaneaa, and which involves
a different origin in His caae from ours ; and as to the details, by the purely Jewiah
character of the eventa and diacourses — a character wbich would be inexplicable after
the rupture between the Church and the synagogue. The aupernatural iu theae ac
cnunta has, besidea, nuthing in cnmrann wilh the legendary raarvels nf the apucryphal
bnuks, nnr even with the already altered traditinns which appear iu auch authors as
Papiaa and Justin, tbe neareat successora nt the apostles, on different pnints nf the
Gnapel histury. lu studying carefully the accnunt uf the juurney, we have fuund
that all the imprubabililies which are aUeged against it vanish. It is nnt a straight
journey tu Jeruaalem ; it is a slnw and anlemn itineratinn, all the incidenta and adven
tures cf which Jesus turna tn accnunt, in urder tn educate Hia disciples aud evangel
ize the multitudes. He thus finda the uppurtunity uf viaUing a cnuntry which till then
had nnt enjuyed Hia miniatry, the snuthern parta ef GalUee, adjacent to Samaria, as
well aa Perea. Thereby an iraporiant blank in His work in Israel is filled up. Fi
nally, the sketch of that prolonged journey to Jerusalem, without preaenting exactly
the aame type as John's narrative, which divides this epech into four distinct jour
neys (to the feast ef Tabernacles, chaj? 8 ; te the feast of Dedication, chap. 10 ; tn
Bethany, chap. 11 ; tn the last Passnver, chap. 13), yet resembles it su clnsely, that it
is impossible nnt to take this circumstance as materially confirming Luke'a account.
It is a first, though imperfect, rectification uf the abrupt cuntrast betweeu the Gali
lean miniatry and the laat snjourn at Jeruaalem which characterizes the synoptical
view ; it is tha beginning of a return to the full histnrical truth reatured by John.*
We have found the accouut ef the aacension not enly confirmed by the apoatolie
* Sabatier (" Essai aur les sourcea de la vie de Jesua," pp 31 and 33 : " Luke,
without aeeking er intending it, but merely as the result ef his new inveatigaliena,
haa destroyed the factitiuus framewurk uf the synnptical traditinn, and has given ua
a glimpse uf a new nne, larger, withuut being less simple. Luke is far from having
cleared away every difflculty. ... He had tun much light tu be satisfied with
fnllnwing in the track of his predecesaura ; he had nnt ennugh In reach tho fuUreality
nf the Guapel histnry. He thus aerves admirably tn fnrm the transitinn betweeu the
first two Gnspels aud the fnurth. "

520 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
vie-R" nf the glnrification nf Jesus which fiUa the epiatlea, by the last verses ef Mark,
and by the saying nf Jesus, Jnhn 6 : 63, but alsn by the express testimuny nf Paul, 1
Cnr. 15 : 7, tn an appearance granted tn all the apoatlea, which must have taken place
between tbat granted te the 500 brethren and that en the way tn Damascus.
Sn far, then, frnm regarding thnse parts as arbitrary additinns which Luke tunk
the liberty of* making tn the Gospel histnry, we are buund tn recugnize them as real
histurical data, which serve tu cumplete the beginning, middle, and end n^nur Lurd's
life. We think we have alsn established the almnst unifnrm accuracy shnwn by Luke
in distributing, under a multitude uf different nccasinns, discnuraea which are
grouped by Matthew in nne whole ; we have recognized the same character of fidelity
in the liistorical inlroduclinns which he almost alwaya prefixea tu thuse discnurses.
After having established, aa we have dnne, the connection between the aaying abnut
the liliea nf the field and the birda uf the air and the parable nf Ihe fnnliah rich man
(chap. 13), the simUar relatinn between the figures used in the les'aun abnut prayer
and tbe parable ef the impnrtunate friend (chap. 11) — whu will prefer, hiaturically
speaking, the place assigned by Malthew tn thuse twu lessuna in the Sermon nn the
Mnunt, where the images used lose the exquisite fitness which in Luke they derive
frura their connection with the narrativea preceding them '^ What judicioua critic,
after feeling the breach of continuity whicli is produced nrf the Sermnn en tbe Mount
by the insertinn nf the Loid's Prayer (Matt. 0), wUl nut prefer the characteristic scene
which Luke baa described of tbe circumstances in which this form uf prayer was
taught to the apeatlcs (Luke 11 : 1, et seq.)1 How can we duubt that the menacing
fareweU tn the cities nf Galilee waa uttered at tbe lime at which Luke haa it (chap.
10), immediately atler his departure, 9 : 51, rather than in the middle nf the Galilean
ministry, where il is put by Mattbew? The same is line nf the caaea in which Ihe
aayings nf Jeaua can only bo fully explained by the aurrnundinga in which Luke
placea them ; e.g., the answers cf Jesus In the three aspirants after the kingdum of
God (chap. 9) would be incomprehenaible and hardly justifiable un the eve ef a mere
excursinn tn the nther aide of tho sea (Malt. 8), while they find their full explanation
at the time of a final departure (Luke).
The introductiona with which Luke prefacea those occasional teachinga are nnt in
favor with modern critics.* Tet Hultzmann acknuwledges tho histnrical truth of
some — of those, for example, whicb introduce the Lord's Prayer and the lesson upon
avarice (chap. 13). We have ourselves ealablislied the accuracy ef a very large num
ber, and shown that they contain the key tn the discourses whicli foUew, and that
cnmmentators "nave nften erred frnm having neglected the indicatiuns which tbey
contain (see uu 13 : 33, 14 : 35, 15 : 1, 3, 16 : 1, 14, 17 : 30, 18 : 1, 19 : 11). What con-
fip-ms the really historical character of thnse nutices ia, that there is a certain number
cf doctrinal teacliinga which want them, and which Luke is satisfied tn set dnwn
wilhuut cunnectinn and withnut intruductinn after nne anuther : sn with the fuur
* Weizsacker ia the authnr whn abuses them most : " Nu value can be aUowed to
the hiatnrical iutrnductiuns nf Luke" ("Untersuch," p. 139). It is true that he ia
neceasarily led tu thia estimate by hia upiniun regarding the general cunformity ef
the great diacouraea of Matthew to tho common apostolic aources ef Matthew and
Luke, tbe Logia. If Matthew ia, nf the twn evangelists, the une, whn faithfully
reproduces this urigiual, Luke must have arbitrarily dislucaled the great bodies uf
diacnurae fuund in Matthew ; and in thia caae, the histurical intrnductinns muat be
his nwn inventiun.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 531
precepta, 17 : 1-10. Cerlainly, if he had allnwed himaelf tn invent situatinna, it
wnuld nnt have been more difficult to imagine them fur thuae aayings than fnr su
many nthers.
If finally, we cnmpare the parallel accnunta nf Luke and nf the nlher twn synnp
tics, we find, beth in the descriptinn of facta and in the tenur uf the sayinga uf
.leans, a very remarkable superiurity nn the part uf Luke in reapect uf accuracy.
We refer tn the prayer nf Jesua at the time uf His baptiam, and befnre Hia Iransfigu-
ratinn — the huraan factor, as it ia, which leada tn the divine interpesitiun, and takea
frnm it that abrupt character whicli it appears tn have in the uther accuunta. In the
temptatiun, the transpnailion nf the laat two acta nf the struggle, in the transfigura
tion, the mentiun nf the subject nf the cnnversatinn nf Jesus with Mnses and Elias,
throw great light un thnse acenea takeu aa a whole, which in the other aynoptics are
much less clear (see the passages).
We know that Luke is charged with grave historical errors. Accnrding tn M.
Renan (" Vie de J6sus," p. 39 et aeq.), certain declarations are " pushed lo extremity
and rendered false ;" fur example, 14 : 36, where Luke says : " If any man hate not
hia father and mother," where Matthew is content wilh saying, "He that loveth
father nr mother OTore than me." We refer tn uur exegesis ef the passage. "He
exaggerates the marveUous ;" for example, the appearance nf the angel iu Gethsem
ane. As if Mattbew and Mark did nut relate a perfectly similar fact, which Luke
umits, at the close ef tbe account uf the temptation I " He cummits chronological
errors;" fnr example, in regard tn Quirinius and Lyaaniaa. Luke appears tn us
right, sn far as Lyaaniaa ia cnncerned ; and aa tu Quiriniua, cnnsidering the point at
which researches now stand, an impartial historian will hardly take the liberty uf
cnndemning liim uncnnditinnally. Accnrding tn Keim, Luke is evidently wrong in
placing the visit tn Nazareth at the npening uf tbe Galilean ministry ; but has he uot
given ua previnusly the deacription nf the general activity uf Jeaua in Galilee (4 : 14
aud 15) ? haA is nnt the saying ef ver. 33, which supposes a stay at Capernaum pre
vious In this viait, tn be thus explained ? And, further, dn nnt Matt. 4 : 13 and Juhn
3 : 13 cuntaiu. indiaputable prunfa of a return nn the part nf Jesus tn Nazareth in the
very earliest timea nf His Galilean ministry ? Accnrding tu the same aulhur, Luke
makea Naiu in Galilee a city nf Judea ) but this interpretation proceeds, as wo have
aeen, frum an entire miaunderalanding of the context (see ou 7 : 17). It ia alleged, on
the ground uf 17 : 11, tbat he did not- know the relative positions of Samaria and
GalUee. We arc convinced that Luke is as far aa possible from being guUly of sn
gros.s a Mistake. According tn M. Sabatier (p. 29), there is a cnntradiclinn between
the departure nf Jesua by way nf Samaria (9 : 52) and His arriving in Judea by Jerichn
(18 : 35) ; but even if Ihe plan nf Jeaus had been tn pass through Samaria, the refusal
of the Samaritans tn receive Him wnuld have prevented Him frum carrying il uut.
And had Ho, in spile nf this, pasaed thrnugh Samaria, He might aliU have arrived by
way Of .lerichu ; fnr frnm the earliest timea there has been a route from nnrth tn
aouth nn tbe right bank nf the Jurdan. Finally, he is charged with certain faults
which he shares wilh the nther twn aynnplics. But either those mistakes have nn
real existence, as that which refers tn the day nf Jesus' death, nr Luke dues nnt share
tliem  e.g., that which leads Matthew and Mark tn place Jnhn's impriaunment befnre
the first return nf Jeaus tn GaUlee, nr the charge uf inaccuracy attaches to him 'in a
less degree than to his cnlleagues, as in the case of the omission ef tho journeys nf
Jesus tu Jerusalem.

522 ' COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
There is a last obaervation to be made un the historical character of Luke's nar
rative. It occupiea an intermediate pnaitinn between the nther three Gnspels. It
haa a pnint in common with Matthew — Ihe doctrinal teachinga of Jesus ; it has also a
point nf cnntact wilh Mark — the sequence nf the accounts, which is the same ever a
large portion ef the narrative ; it has Ukewise several features in cemmpu wilh Juhn :
the chief is, that conaiderable interval which in both ef them dividea the end of the
Galilean miniatry from the last sujnurn at Jerusalem. Thereto must be added some
special details, such as the visit to Martha and Mary, as well as the characteristics of
thoae twn wnmen, which harmnnize au well with the sketch nf the family uf Bethany
drawn by Juhn (chap. 11) ; next, the diapute nf the disciplea at the clnse nf the Hnly
Supper, with the lessuna nf .leaua Iherewilh connected — an account the connectiun nf
which with that nf the feet-waahing in Jnhn (chap. 13) is so striking. And thua,
while remaining entirely independent ef the other three, the Guspel nf Luke is never
theless cunfirmed and suppnrled aimullaneoualy by Ihem all.
Frora all thoae facta established by exegesis, it follows that, if Luke'a accuunt haa
not, like that of John, the fulness aud precision belonging to the narrative ef an eye-
witneaa, it nevertheleaa reaches the degree et fidelity which may be attained by a hia
turian whn drawa hia materials frnm thnse anurces which are at once the purest and
the nearest to the facts.
O. An impnrtant cnnfirmatinn uf the accuracy uf Luke's account arises from the
continuity, the well-marked historical progression, whicli characterizes it. If he is
behind John in this respect, he is far superior to Mallhew and Mark.
Though the authnr did nut tell us in his prologue, we shnuld easily discuver that
his purpoae ia tn depict the gradual develupment nf the wnrk nf Christianity. He
takes his starting pnint at the-cariiest nrigin nf thia wurk— the annuuncement uf the
furerunner'a birlh ; it ia the first dawning uf the new day which ia rising nn hu
manity. Then cnme the birth and growth nf the furerunner- tho birlh aud grnwlli nf
Jesus Himself. The physical and mnral development nf Jesus is duuhly sketched,
befure and after His first visit tn Jerusalem at the age nf twelve ; a scene related
nnly hy Luke, and which fnrms thelink nf cunnectinn between the infancy of Jesua
and Hia public ministry. With the baptism begins tbe development of His work, the
continuation of that ef His person. From this pnint the narrative pursues twu dis
tinct and paraUel linea : un une side, the prugreaa nf the new wnrk ; nn the uther. ila
viulent rupture with the nld wnrk, Judaism. The prugreaa of the work ia marked by
ita external increaae. At firat, Capernaum is ita centre ; thence .leans gnea furth in
all directious (4 : 43, 44) : Nain tn the west, Gergesa tu the eaat, Bethsaida- Julias tn
the nnrth ; then Capernaum ceases tn be the centre nf His excursions (8 : 1-3), and
quitting thnse more nnrthern cuuntriea entirely. He prnceeds tn evangelize snuthern
Galilee and Perea, upnn which He had nut yet entered (9 : 51), and repairs by this way
tu Jerusalem. Side by side with this external progress gnea the mnral develnpment
nf the wurk itself. Surrniinded at firat by a certain nuraber nf believers (4 : 38-43),
Jeaus snun calls snrae of them tn become His permanent disciples and fellnw-
lal^urers (5 : 1-11, 37, 38). A cnnaiderable tirae after, wheu the wurk haa grown. He
chunaes twelve frnra the midat nf this multitude uf diaciplea, making them His mure
iraraediate fnllnwers, and calling thera apostles. Such is the foundation of the new
edifice. The time at length comea when they are no longer sutHcient for the wants
of the wurk. Then seventy new evangelists are added In them. The death nf Jeaus
suspends for some time tho progresa nf the wurk ; but after His reaurrectinn the

COMMENTARY ON STy LUKE. 523
apostolate is reconstituted ; and aoon the ascensien, by placing the Master oij the
throne, gives Him tbe meana uf elevating His fellew-laburers tn the full height nf
thai miaainn which they have tn carry nut in Hia name. Is nnt the cuncatenation ef
tho narrative faullleaa ? And is not thia expoaitiun far auperinr aa a histnrical wurk
tn tbe systematic juxlaposilinn uf humngeueuua maaaea in Matthew, nr tn the series
uf anecdules characteristic of Mark ? The same gradation meets ua in annther line,
that of the facta wbich maijf the rupture between the new wnrk and larael with ita
ufflcial repreaeutativea. First it is the inhabitants cf Nazareth, whu refuse tn recognize
ua the Meaaiah their fnrmer fellnw-tnwnsman (chap. 4)'; afterward it is the scribes
whu have cnme from Jerusalem, whu deny His right In pardon ains, accuse Him of
breaking the Sabbath (chap. 5 and 6), and, nn seeing His miracles and hearing His
answers, becnme almnst mad wilh rage (6 : 11) ; it ia Jeaua whn annnuncea His near
rejectinn by the Sanhedrim (9 : 33), and the dealh which awaita Him at Jerusalem
(ver. 31) ; it is tbe wue prnnnunced nn the cities nf Galilee (chap. 10) and nn that
whnle generatieu which shall nne day be condemned by the queen nf the snuth and
tbe Ninevites ; then we have the divine wne uttered at a feast face tn face with the
Phariaees and scribes, and the viulent acene which fcUnws thia conflict (chapa. 11 and
12) ; tbe expreas annnuncement nf tlie rejectinn nf Israel and nf the desnlalion of the
cnuntry, especially nf Jerusalera (chap. 13) ; the judgment and crucifixinn nf Jesua
breaking Ihe last link between Messiah and His peuple ; tbe resurrectinn and ascen
siun emancipating His persen from aU national connections, and completely apiritual-
izing Hia kingdora. Thua, in the end, the work begun at Belhlehem ia traced tn its
climax, both in its internal devolnpraeut and its external emahoipation.
It is with the jiew of exhibiting this steady progress of the divine work in the twn
respects indicated, that Ibe author marks off his narrative from the beginning by a
series uf geneial remarka, which serve aa resting-places by the vvay, and wbich de
scribe at each stage the preaent pnaitinn nf the wnrk. Theae brief representatinns,
which serve. beth as summaries and puints nf nutlnnk, are always distinguished by the
uae of the deacriplive tense (the imperfect) ; the resuming uf the histury is indicated
by the reappearance nf the narrative tense (the anr.). The fuUowiug are the chief
paaaagea of thia kind : 1 : 80, 3 : 40, 53, 3 : 18, 4 : 15, 37, 44, 5 : 15, 16, 8 : 1, 9 : 51,
13 : 33, 17 : 11, 19 : 38, 47, 48, 31 : 37, 38, 34 : 53 (a last word, which closes tbe Gospel,
ahd preparea for the narrative of the Acts). If thoae expressinns are mere and mnre
distant in prnpurtiun as the narrative advances from the starting-puint, it is because
the further the journey proceeds, Ibe less eaay is it to measure ita prugreaa.
What cnmpletes the prnuf that thia characteriatic uf cnntinuity is not accidental iu
Luke's narrative, is the fact tbat exactly the same feature meets us in the bnnk nf
Acta. Here Luke describes the birth und growth nf the Church, precisely aa he de
scribed in his Guapel the birlh and growth nf the perann and wnrk nf Jesus. The
narrative takes its cnurse from Jerusalem tn Antioch and from Antioch to Rome, aa
in tbe Gospel it proceeded from Bethlehem tn Capernaum and from Capernaum tu
Jeruaalem. And it ia nnt nnly in tbe line of the prugreaa uf tbe wnrk that the Acts
continue the Gnspel ; it ia alsn alnng that uf the breach nf the kingdnm nf Gud with
the peuple nf larael. The rejectinn nt the apnatnlic testimnny aud the peraeculiuu nf
the Twelve by the Sanhedrim ; the rejectinn nf Stephen's preaching, hia martyrdom,
and the dispersinn nf the Church which results from it ; the martyrdom nf Jaraes
(chap. 13) ; the unifnrra repetitinn nf the contumacinua cnnduct nf larael in every
city uf the wnrld where Paul ia careful tn preach Aral in the synagngiio ; the machiu-

524 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
atiujis nf the Jo-n's against him en occasion nf his arrest at Jerusalem, frnm which be
escapes only by the impartial iuterpositinn nf the Roman authnrities ; and finally, in
the clnsing scene (chap. 38), the decisive rejectinn ef the Gospel by tbe Jewish com
munity at Rnme, the heart nf the empire : such are the steps ef that ever-grnwing
separation between the Church and the aynagnguo, nf which this last scene fnrms as it
were the finishing stroke.
It is interesting tn nbserve tbat the series nf general expreaainna which marka nff
the line nf progress in the Goapel is continued in the Acts ; it is the same course
which is foUowed : 1 : 14, 3 : 43^7, 4 : 33-34, 5 : 13, 13, 43, 0 : 7, 8 : 4, 5, 9 : 31,
13 : 34, 13 : ,53, 19 : 20, 34 : 26, 37, 38 : 30, ,31 (the last wnrd, whicb is the cnnclusinn
nf the narrative). The periodical recurrence nf those expressions would sufiice to
prove that one and the same hand corapnaed bnth the Guspel and the Acts ; fur this
furm is fnund nowhere else in IheN. T.
By all these features we recognize tbe superierity nt Luke's narrative as a histnr-
' ical work. Mallhew groups tugether doctrinal teachings in the form ef great dis
courses ; he ia a preacher. Maik narrates -events as tbey uccur tn his mind ; he is a
chronicler. Luke reprnduces the external aud internal development of tho events ;
he is the historian jirnperly su called. Let it be remarked that the three character
istics which we have nbserved in his narrative currespond exactly tn the three main
terms ef bis programme (1 : 3) ; fulness, to the word ndniv {all ihinga) ; accuracy, tn
the wurd dspi.(3us {exactly) ; and continuity, to the word KuBE^yt: {in order). It is there
fure wilh a full cuusciousness uf his meUiud that Luke thus carried cut bis wnrk.
He traced a prngrauimo fnr himself, and followed it faithfully.
II. — Religioua Point of View.
It is nn thia puint that modem criticisra has raised the mnst serious discuasiona.
The Tubingen scbuol, in particular, has endeavured to pruve tbat uur third Gnspel,
instead of being composed purely aud simply in the service nf hiatnrical truth, was
written in the interest nf a ijarticular tendency — that ef the Chriatianity nf Paul,
which was entirely different from primitive and apnatnlic Christianity.
There is an unmistakable affinity nf a remarkable kind between the cnntenta uf
Luke and what the Apostle Paul in his epialles frequently calls hia Gospel, that is tu
say, the doctriue of the universality and. entire fieenesa of the aalvalion nffered lu man
without any legal condilieu. At the beginning the angela celebrate the gund-will nf
God to (all) men. Simeon foreshadnwa the breach between the Messiah and the ma
jnrity ef His people. Luke alnne foUows nut the quntatinn nf Isaiah relative tn the
ministry uf John the Baptist, including the wnrds : " And all fleah shall soo the sal-
valinn of Gud." lie traces the genealogy back tn Adam. The ministry uf .Tesus upens
with Hia visit to Nazareth, wliich fnrms an express prelude tn the unbelief nf Israel. ^
The paralytic und the wnman whn -was a sinner nbtain pardnn hy faiih alone. The
aending of the seventy evangelists prefigures tbe evangelization of all ualions. The
part played by the Saraarilau in the parable exhibils the superiority ef Uuif people's
moral disposition to that of the Israelites, 'fhe four parables of the lost sheep and
the lost drachma, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican, are the doctrine
of Paul exhibited in action. That of the marriage supper (chap. 14) adds to the call
ing of sinners in Israel (ver. 31) tliat of the Gentiles (vers, 33 and 33). The teaching
regarding the unprofitable servant (17 ; 7-10) tear-s up the rightcou-suess uf works !iy

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 525
the rnota. The gratitude of the leprous Siimaritau, compared with the ingratitude of
tlie nine Jewish lepers, again exhibits the favorable dispesitinn nf this people, whn
are strangers tu the theucracy. Sal vatinn abides in the hnuse of Zaccheus the publican
frnm tbe muuient he has believed. The fnrm uf the inslilulion nf the Huly Supper
is almnst identical wilh that uf Paul, 1 Cor. 11. The sayings uf Jeaua on the crnsa
related by Luke— His prayer fur Hia executionera. Ilia prumise tu the thief, and Hia
laat invncatiun tn His Father- are all three wnrds nf grace and failh. The appear
ancea uf the riaen Jesus correspond almust point fnr pnint tn the enumeratiun nf
Paul, 1 Cor. 15. The curaraand uf Jeaus In the apnalles tu " preach repentance aud
the remiasieu nf sina to all r,aiiona," ia as it were the prugramrae ef that apostle's
work ; and the scene which cloaea the Gospel, that of Jesus leaving Hia own in the
act ef blessing Ihem, admirably represents its spirit.
Thia asserablage ef characteristic features belonging exclusively to Luke admits of
no duubt that a apecial relatiun existed between the writing ef this evangeUat aud the
miniatry ef St. Paul ; and that granted, we cau hardly help finding a hint ef Ihia rela
tion in the dedication addreased to Theophilus, ne doubt a Christian moulded by
Paul'a teaching : ' ' That thnu mighteat knnw the certainty uf thuae things wherein
thuu haat been inatructed" (aee p. 39).
But thisandisputable fact seems tn he npposed by another not less evident— the
presence in thia aame Gnspel nf a large number nf elements whnlly Jewish in their
nature, nr what is called at the present day the Ebioniam cf Luke.
This aame histnrian, sn partial tu Paul'a' uni versaliam, makes the new wurk begin
in the sanctuary ef the ancient covenant, iu the huly place nf the temple nf Jeruaa
lera. The peraona called tu take part in it are recommended to thia divine privilege by
their irreproachable fidelity to all legal observancea (1 : 6-15). The Mesaiah whu is
about tn be born shaU ascend the throne of David hia fatlier ; His kingdum shall be Ibe
restured houae of Jacob (vers. 33, 33) ; and tbe salvatinn which He will bring tu His
penple shall have for ita culminating puint larael's perfect celebration nf wnrship freed
frura their eneniiea (vera. 74, 75). Jesus Himself is subject from the uutset tu all legal
obligatinna ; He is circuracised and preaented in tbe temple on Ihe days aud with all
the rites prescribed, and His parents do not return tn their bouse, it is expressly said,
" till they had perfumied all things according to the law ef the Lord." At the agein-
dicated by theocratic custom. He ia brought fnr tbe firat lime tn the feast nf Passnver,
where, according te the narrative, " Hia parents went every year." As the condition
of participating in the Measiah'a kingdom, tbe people receive from the mnuth of John
the Baptist merely the appnintment nf certain wurka nf righteuusness and beneficence
tu be practised. If, in His rainislry, .Teaua bas ne acruple in vinlaling the addilinna
wilh which the ductnrs had surrounded the law aa with a bed.ge-tnr example, in
Hia Sabbatic miracles-He nevertheless remains subject to the Mnsaic ordiuauce even
in the matter nf the Sabbath. He aends tbe healed leper tn offer sacrifice at Jerusa
lem, as a teatimony nf His reverence fnr Mnses. Eternal Ufe cnnsista, accnrding tn
Him, in fulfllling the sum (10 : 36-38) er tbe commandmcnta of the law (18 : 18-30).
In tbe caae of the woman whom He curea un the Sabbath day. He luves tn assert her
title as a daughUr of Abraham (13 : 16). He guea the length even ot affirming
(16 : 17) that " not one tiUle, of the law ahall faU." The true reasnn nf that perditinn
which threatens the Phariaeea, represented by the wicked rich man, ia their nnt
hearing Mosea and the pi'opheta. Even at the very clnae nf Jeaua' rainislry, the woraen
whu surround him, out nf respect fur the Sabbath, break nff their preparatinns fur

526 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
embalmin,g Hia bndy ; " and, it ia expressly said, tliey reated on the Sabbath day accord
ing to ihe commandment" (33 : 56). FinaUy, it is Jeruaalera which is lu be the start
ing-puint ef the new preaching ; it is in this city that the apoatlea are tn wait fur
pnwer from nn high. It ia in the temple that they abide cnntinually, af Ier Ihe ascen
sion. The narralive clnses in the temple, as il was in the temple that it npened
(34 : 53).
If Paul's cenceptinn is really antinomian, hnalllc tn Judaiam and the law, and if
Luke wrote in the intereat nt this view, aa is alleged by the Tubingen schnnl, how are we
to explain this second series uf facts and dnctrines, which is assuredly not less prominent
in our Guspel than the first series ? Criticism here finds itself iu a difflculty, which is
betrayed by tho diversity nf explanatinns which it seeks tn give uf thia fact. Volk
mar cuts tbe Gordian knot, ; afccording tn him, those Jewish elements have no exist
ence. The third Gospel is purely Pauline. Tbat ia easier to affirm than lo demunstrate ;
he is the enly one ef his school whn has dared to maintain this assertinn, uverlhruwu
as it is by the most-obvinus facts. Baur acknowledges the facts, and explains them
by admitliug aiater rehandUng ef pur Gospel. The first compoaitiou, the primitive
Luke, being exclusively Pauline, Ebinnite elementa were iutrnduoed later hy the
annnymnuj authnr nf nur cannnical Luke, and that with a cnnciliatury view. But
Zeller haa perfectly proved tn his master that thia hypntheais uf a primitive Lulfc
different frnm nurs ia incompatible with the unity nf tendency and style wbich pre
vails in nur Gnapel, and which extends even lu the secund part nf the wnrk, the bnnk
nf Acts. The Jewish elements are uut veneered nn Ihe narrative ; they belung tn the
substance nf the histnry. And what explanation dnes Zeller himself prnpuse ? The
authur, persnnally a decided Paulinist, was cnnvinced tbat, tn get the system nf his
master admitted by the Juden-Christian party, they must nnt be nffended. He there
fure thought it prudent to mix up in his treatise piecea uf both claases, sorae PauUne,
fitted to spread his nwn view ; nthera Judaic, fitted tn flatter the taste nf readers till
nnw npi^nsed tu Paul's party. From this Machiavelian scheme the wnrk nf Luko
proceeded, with its twu radically cuntradictory currents. '''
But befnre having reccurae tn an explaualinn su improbable bnth murally and rsi-
tinnally, aa we shall find wheu we cnme tn examine it' mnre clnsely when treating nf
the aim nf nur Gospel, is it not fair tn inquire whether there is uut a mure natural nne
cnntraaling less nffensively with that character nf sincerity and siraplicity which
strikes every reader nf Luke's narralive ? Was not the Old Cnvenant wilh its legal
furras the divinel.y-appuinted preparatinn fnr the new? Was nnt the new with ita
pure apirtuality the divinely-purpoacd goal of the eld ? Had not Jeremiah already
declared that the days were comiug when God Himself would abolish the covenant
which He had made at Sinai with the fathers of the natiun, and when He would sub
stitute a I^eiD Covenant, tho eaaential character of which wnuld be, tbat the law ahnuld
be wrilleu no Innger nn tablea nf stnne, but nn Ihe heart ; nn Innger befnre us, but in
ua (31 : 31-34) ? This prumiae clearly eatablished the fact that the Meaaianic era
wuuld be at nnce the abnlitiun nf the law iu the letter, and ita eternal fulfilment in
* Overbeck, annther savant of the aame achnnl, in hia commentary nn the Acts (a
re-editiun nf De Wetle'a), cumbats in his turn the theury uf Zeller, and finds in the
wnrk ef Luke the pruduct, nnt nf an ecclesiastical acheme. but ef Paulinism in its
decadence (see chap. 3 of this Cnnclusion). As tn Keim, be has recuurae tu the
hypothesis nf an Ebinnite Gospel, which was the first material on which Luke, the
disciple ef Paul, wrought (ace chap. 3). We see : Tot capita, toi aensus.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LTJKE, 527
the spirit. And such Is preciaely the anipiating thought ef the Goapel hiatory, aa it has
been traced by Luke ; his narralive depicts ihe gradual aubstitution ef tbe dispensa
tion ef the spirit for that of the letter. The Mosaic econo.my is the atarting-point of
his histnry ; Jesus Himself begins under its gnvernment ; it is under this divine ahel
ter that He grnwa, and Hia work maturea. Then the spirituality uf the Gnapel ia
furmed and gradually develuped iu His persnn and wnrk,, and getting rid by degreea
nf its tempurary wrapping, enda by shining furth in all its brighlneaa in the preach
ing and wurk uf St. Paul. Moaaic ecunomy and spirituality are nnt therefnre, as
crilicism wuuld have it, twn nppusite currents which run paraUel ur dash against nnu
annther in Luke's wurk. Between Ebiunism and PauUnism there is nn mnre cuntra
diction than between the blnssum, under the pretectiun nf which the fruit forms, and
that fruit itaelf, when it appeara releaaed frnm ita rich cnvering. The substitutinn nf
fruit fnr fluwer ia the result nf an urganic trauafnrmalion ; it is the very end uf vege
tation. Only the bluaaum duea nnt fade away in a single day, any mure Ihan the fruit
itself ripens in a single day. Jesus declares in Luke, that when new wine is cffered
tn cue accustumed tn drink uld wine, he turna away frum il at nnce ; fnr he aays :
The old is better. Agreeably tn this principle, Gnd dnes nut deal abruptly with Israel ;
fur this penple, accustumed to the cumparalively easy ruutine nf ritualisra. He pro
vided a transitinn periud intended tn raise it gradually frnm legal servility tu the per
ilnus but glurinua liberty ef pure spirituality. This period is tbat of the develoiiment
uf Jesus Himself and nf His wnrk. The letter of the law waa acrupulously respected,
because tbe Spirit waa not present to replace" it ; this admirable and divine wurk is
what the Gnspel uf Luke invites ua to contemplate : Jesus, as a minister of the cir
cumcision (Rom. 15 : 8), becuming the nrgan uf the Spirit. And even after Penlecuat,
the Spirit still ahnws all needful deference tn the letter nf the divine law, and reachea
its emancipatinn only in the way ot rendering tu it unifnrm hnmage; such is the
scene set befnre us by the bnnk nf Acts in Ibe cunduct uf the apnallea, and especiaUy
in that nf St. Paul. Tu explain therefure the twu series uf apparently heterngeneuus
pieces which -we have indicated, we need neither Vnlkmar's audacinua denial respect
ing the exiatence nf nne nf them,nnr tbeaubtile hypntheais nf twn different Paulinisms
in Luke, the nne mnre, the nther leaa hustUe tn Judeu-Christianity (Baur), nnr the
suppusitinn nf a shameless deception en tbe part ef the forger who composed this
writing (Zeller). It is as little necessary tn aacribe tn tbe aulhur, with Overbeck, gross
misunderstanding uf the ti'ue system uf hia master Paul, er In allege, aa Keim aeema
to du, that he clumaily placed in juxtapnaitiun, and withnut being aware nf it, twu
suits nf materials drawn frnm snurces nf nppnaite tendenciea. All auch explanatinns
nf a ayatem driven tn extremity vanish befure the simple fact that the Ebiunism and
Paulinism nf Luke belung bnth alike, as legUimate, necessary, succeaaive elements,
tn the real histnry nf Jesua and Hia apnalles— tbe nne as the inevitable puint nf de
parture, the nther aa the intended goal ; and tbat the perind which aeparated the
nue from the other aerved nnly tn replace the nne graduaUy by the nther. By giv
ing thnae twu principlea place, with equal fulnesa in hia narralive, Luke, far frnm
guiding twu cnntradictnrv tendencies immurally nr unskUfuUy, has kept by the pure
objectivity nf histury. Nuthing prnvea thia better than that very appearance uf cun
tradictinn which he could brave, and which givea modern criticism ao much to dn.
Let it be remarked that the tmth of the so-called Pauline elements in Luke'a Goa
pel is fuUy bome out by the presence of similar elements iu the other two synoptics.
Ritschl in his beautiful work on the beginnings of the ancient C.ithnlic Church, shuws

528 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
huw the nne saying nf Jesus, preserved in Mark and Mallhew as well aa in Luke :
" The Sun nf man ia Lord alan uf the Sabba-:h," already implied the future aboUtinn
uf the whole Mosaic law. The aame is evidently true uf the fuUuwing (Matt. 15 and
Mark 7) : " Not that which gneth intn the mouth defileth a man ; but that which cnmeth
uut nf the mouth, this defileth him." The whole Levitical law fell before thia maxim
logically carried uut. We may alan cite the saying. Matt. .8 : 11 : "I aay untu ynu, that
many shall come from the eaat and west ; . . . but the children nf the kingdnm
shall be cast nut," thnugh it is arbitrarily alleged that it was added later to the apus
tnlic Matthew ; then that which annnuncea the aubstitutinn nf the Gentilea fur Israel,
in the parable nf the husbandraen : " The kingdum ahall be taken from yuu, and
given tn a natinn bringing forth the fruits thereof" (31 : 43), a aaying which Matthew
alone haa preaerved tu ua ; finally, the cnmmaud given tu the apoatles to gu and bap
tize all nations (38 : 19), which necssaarUy belunged tn the uriginal Matthew : fur, 1.
The appearance with which it ia cunnected ia anuouuced leng before (Matt. 36 : 33) ;
3. Because it is the only one related in this Gospel, and therefore ceuld nut be want
ing in the original record ; 3. Because Jesua certainly did not appear to Hia diaciplea
tn say nothing to them. But the most decisive saying related by uur three synnptics
is the parable nf the nld garment and the piece nf new clnth (aee un thia paaaage,
5 : 36) Paul has afflrmed nothing more trenchant respecting the uppnaitiun between
the law and the guspel.
The fundamental principles of Pauliniam, the abolitinn nf the law, the rejection
nf larael and the calli.ng nf the GentUea, are nnt therefnre any impurtatiun nf Paul ur
Luke iutn tbe goapel nf Jeaua. They belunged tu the Master's teaching, thnugh the
tiihe had not yet cnme fur developing all their consequences practically.
This general queation resolved, let ua examine in detail the pqinta which criticiam
atUl atlempta lo make good in regard tn tbe subject under discussinn. It is alleged
that, under the influence uf Paul's dnctrine, Luke reaches a concepticn nf the perann
nf Christ which transcenda that uf the nther twu aynuptica. " He suftens the passages
which had becnme embarrasaing frnm the atandpoint nf a mi>re exalttd idea ef the
divinity ef Jesua" (R6nan) ; for example, he omita Malt. 34 : 36, which aacribea the
privilege ef omniscience tn the Father nnly. But did he de so intentinnally ? Was
he acquainted with this aaying ? We have just aeen anuther nmissiun which he makes .
(p. 488) ; we sbaU meet with many mere sliU, iu which the prunf nf an nppusilo ten
dency might be quite aa legitimately alleged. Ia it nnt Luke whn makea the centurion
say, " Certainly this waa a righteous man," while the other two represent him aa aay
ing, " This was tbe Son of God ?" What a feeble basis for the edifice ef crilicism du
such differences preaent !
The great journey across the cnuntries situated between Galilee and Saraaria was
invented, accnrding tu Baur, with the view of bringing into relief the non-Israelilish
country of Samaria. Luke thus sought tu justify Paul's work among the Gentiles.
But wuuld Luke labnr at the same moment to overthrew what he is buildiu"- up by
inventing tbe refusal uf the Samaritans to receive Jeaus ? Besidea, it is wholly untrue
that Saraaria ia the scene of the journey related in this part. Waa it then in Samaria
that Jesus conversed with a dectoq of the law (10 : 35), that He dined wilh a Pharisee,
that He carae intn cnnflict with a cumpany uf scribea (11 : 37-53), that He cured iii
the aynagogue a daughter of Abraham (13 : 16), etc. etc. ? There is found, nn duubt
among thetenlepera nne whn is nf Samaritan nrigin (17 : 16) ; but if this circum-
etauce can load us tu suppuse that the scene passes in Samaria, the presence uf nine

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 529
Jewish lepers shnuld make it appear nine times more prnbable tbat it transpires nu
laraelitiah territory.
In the instructinns given tn the Twelve, Luke umita the saying; " Gunot iutu the
way nf the GentUes, and intn any city nf the Samaritans enter ye net." Neither du
we find the answer addreased tu the Canaanitish wuman, " I am nnt sent but untn the
Juat aheep uf the hnuse nf larael." But, as tn the first, Mark umits it as well as Luke.
Cuuld this alsn arise trum a dngmatic tendency ? But huw, in that case, shnuld he
relate the secund as well as Matthew ? The first then was siraply wanting in his
snurce ; why nut alsu in Luke's, which in this very narrative seems to have had the
greatest cohforraily to Ihat of Mark ? As to the secnnd aaying, it belnnga not only
lu a narrative, but tu a whnle cycle nf narratives which ia complelely wanting in
Luke (twu whole chapters). Besides, doea nnt Luke alau emit the peculiarly Pau
line aaying, " Come unto mo, all ye who labor and are heavy laden, and ye shall find
reat untn ynur snuls ?" Cuuld thia alan be a dogmatical omission ? And as tu the
saying, " This gnapelnf the kingdum shall be preached ever all the earth," in con
nectiun with which Hnltzmann himself asks the Tubingen critics whether Luke
passes it nver iu silence in a PauUne interest ! Those declarations were simply want
ing in hia ducuments. Why nut alsn thnse parlicularislic aayings ? They wnuld cer
tainly nnt have caused Luke more embarrassment than they did to Matthew, whu
Bees in them nu centradictinn tn the cummand which, closes his Gospel, " Go and
baptize all nations." It is evident that the prnhibitinn addressed tn the disciples
(Matt. 10) was nnly tempurary, and applied nnly tn the time during which Jesus as a
rule restricted His sphere nf action to Israel ; frum the lime Ihal His death and res
urrection released Him frora His national surroundings, all waa changed.
Luke has a grudge at the Twelve ; he aeeka to depreciate Ihem : such is the thesis
which Baur has maintained, and which has made way in France. He proves it by
8 : 53, 54, Where be contrives to make Luke say that the disciples laughed our Lord
tn acurn, and that He drove them from the apartment ; and yet the werda, " know
ing that ahe was dead." clearly prove that the persons here spoken uf were those who
had witnessed the dealh of the ynung girl ; aud ver. 51 excludes the view that He
put the disciples cut, fnr He had just brought them within the hnuse (see the exe
gesis). He proves it further by 9 : 33, where Luke says that Peter and the nther twn
disciples were heavy with sleep ; as if this remark were not intended tn take nff frum
the straUgeneas uf Peter'a saying which fnlluws, and wbich is mentinned by the three
evangelists. But tbe chief pruot discovered by Baur of Ibis hostile intentinn to the
Twelve is hia account nf the sending nf the seventy disciples, and the way in which
Luke applies tu this missinn a cunsiderable part ef the instru<;lions given to the
Twelve iu Matt. 10. But if the sending nf the seventy diaciplea were an inventiun of
Luke, after thus bringing them nn the scene, he would make them play a part iu the
sequel nf the Gnspel histury, and especially in the first Chriatian miaainna related in
the Acta, while from that moment he saya not a wurd more about them ; the Twelve
remain after, aa well as befero that missinn, the nnly impnrtant persons ; it is tn
thera that Jesus gives the command In i)reach lo the Gentiles (34 : 45 et seq.) ; it ia
frnm them that everything proceeds in the bnnk of Acts ; and when Philip and
Stephen come nn the scene, Luke doea not deaignate them, as it -wuuld have been su
easy fnr him tn du, as having helnnged tn the number nf the seventy. Keim him
self acknnwledges (p. 76) " that it is impnssible tn ascribe the inventiun nf this his
tnry tu Luke ;" and in prnuf nf this he alleges the truly Jewish spirit uf the saying

530 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE,
wilh which Jesua receives the'aeventy en their retum. So little was it auspected in
the earliest limea, even within the bnsnm of Juden-Christian cnmmunities, Ihat this
narrative cnuld be a Pauline invention, that it is frequently quoted in the " Clemen
tine Homilies." If, in narrating the sending nf tbe Twelve, Luke did nnt qunte all
the instructinua given by Matthew (chap. 10), the same nmisaiun takes place in Mark,
whn cannnt, hnwever, be suspected uf any anli-apustnlic tendency ; this harmony
provea that the umisssinn la due tn the anurcea nf the twn writers.
If Luke had the intentinn nf depreciating the Twelve, wnuld he alone deacribe the
anlemn act nf their electinn 1 Wnuld he place it at the clnse uf a whnle night uf
prayer (chap. 6) ? Wuuld he mentinn the glnriuus prnmise nf Jeaua tn make the
apostles sit un thronea judging the twelve tribea nf larael ? Wuuld he nmit the aaaent
which they all give in Matthew and Mark tn the presumptunus declaratinn nf Peter :
Jam ready io go with Thee even unto death ? Wnuld he make nn meutinn nf their
shameful flight at Gethaemane, which ia related by the other twu? Wnuld he ex
cuae their sleeping nn that last evening by saying that they were sleeping /o?- sorrow;
and their unbelief nh the day nf resurrectinn, by saying that it -was for joy they cnuld
nnt believe (thuse details are pecuUar te Luke) ? Luke does not speak nf the ambi
tinus requeat ef Zebedee's two sons, and of the altercation which ensued with the
ether disciples ; he applies to the relation between the Jewa and Gentiles that aevere
warning, the first part nf which is addressed iu Matthew tn the Twelve : " and there
are first which shall be last," and the second part of which : " and there are last
-which shall be first," might so easily have been turned to the hunnr nf Paul. If there
is nne ef the synnptics who holds up to view the misunderstandings and melal de
fects of the apustles, and thu frequent diapleaaure nf Jeaua with them, it ia Mark, and
nut Luke.
In reapect tn Peter, whu it is aUeged ia peculiarly the ubject nf Luke'a anfipathy,
thia evangeliat certainly umita the. aaying su liunnring tn thia apnatle : " Thnu art
Peter," etc., aa well aa the narrative. Malt. 14 : 38-31, in whichPeter is privileged to
walk nn the watera by the side nf nur Lnrd. But he alsn umits in tbe fnrmer case
that terrible rebuke which immediately fuUuws : " Get thee behind me, Satan ; thnu
art an nffence untu me." And what ia the enlire nmiaainn nf thia whule acene, com
pared wilh the conduct ef Mark, who emits the flrst part favnrahle tu Peter, and re
lates in detail tbe second, where he is ao sternly ri primanded ! If it waa honoring to
Peter tu walk nn the waters, it was nut very much su tn sink the next meinent, and
tn bring dnwn nn himaelf the apnatruphe : " O Ihuu uf little faith !" The nmissinn
of thia incident haa therefnre nnthing auspiciuua about it. Ia nnt the hiatnry uf Peter'a
call related in Luke (chap, o) in a way still mnre gleriuua fnr him than in Mattbew
and Mark ? Is he nnt preaented, frnra beginning tn end nf thia narrative, as the prin
cipal persnn, in a senae the unly une (vers. 4, 10) 1 Is it nut he again whu, in the first
daya uf Jeaua' ministry ut Capernaum, plays Ihe essential part (Luke 4 : 38-44 ?)
On the eve uf the dealh of Jesua, is it net he who is honored, alnng with Juhn, with
tlie missiun nf making ready Ihe Passnver, aud thai in Luke unly ? Ia nnt his denial
related in Luke wilh much mure reaerve thau in, Matthew, where the imprecatiena of
Peter upon hiraself are expressly mentioned? Is it net in Luke that Jesus declares
that He haa devoted to Peter a apecial prayer, and expecta from him the atrengthening
nf all the nther disciplea (33 : 33) ? Is he nnt Ihe first nf the apustles tn whnm, accnrd
ing tn Luke (33 : 34) as accnrding tn Paul (1 Cur. 15), the risen Jesua appeara ? And
despite all thia, men dare tn repreaent the third Gnapel as a satire directed against the

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 531
Twelve, and against Peter iu particular (the anonymous Siixen) ;* and M. Burnouf
venturea In characterize it thua in the Revue des Deux Mondes (December, 1865) :
" Luke seeks to attenuate the authnrity uf the Twelve . . . ; he depreciates
Peter ; be takes from the Twelve the merit ef having founded the religion of Christ,
by adding to them aeventy envoya whnae misaion is contrary te the moat authoritative
Israelitish uaagea." M. Burnouf forgets to tell us what thoae usages are, and whelhjir
Jesus held Himaelf always strictly bound te Jewiah uaagea. On the other hand,
Zeller, the pronounced disciple ef Baur, finds himself obliged te make this cnnfea-
sinn (" Apustelgesch. " p. 450) : " We cannut suppuse in the caae nf Luke any real
hnstility tn the Twelve, becauae he menlinna circumstancea emitted by Mallhew
himself which exalt them, and because he omita othera which are to their diacredit."
Once mnre, in what ia called the Jewiah tendency ef Luke, there is a poiut which
haa engaged the attention ef criticiam : we mean the partiality expressed by this Gos
pel fnr the punrer classes, its FJbionism (strictly se called) !f " Luke's hereay," aa
De Wette haa it. It appeara 1 ; 53, 6 : 30, 31, where the poor appear te be saved,
the rich condemned, as auch; 13 ; 33, 34 ; 16 : 9, 33-25 ; 18 : 23-25, where aalvatiun
is cunnected with almsgiving and the sacrifice of earthly gnuds, damnatinn with the
keeping uf them. But, 1. We have seen tbat there is a lemptuary side- in these pre
cepts ; see especiaUy nn 13 : 33, 34 ; 18 : 33-35. Doea not Paul alsu (1 Cur. 7) rec-
ummend to Cbrislians nnt tn pnssess, but " topoaaeaa aa though they pnssessed nnt ?"
2. Pnverty and riches by nu means prnduce thnse effects inevitably and withnut
the cuncurrence nf the will. Pnverty dees nnt save ; it prepares fur aalvatiun by pro
ducing Inwliness : wealth dnes nnt cundemn ; it raay lead tn damnatinn, by harden
ing the heart a-nd producing fnrgetfulness uf Gnd and His law : such is the meaning
nf 6 : 31-35 when rightly understood : ef 16 : 39-31 ; ef 18 : 37 (tbe salvatiun nf the
rich impnasible with men, but poasible with God) ; finally, nf Ada 5 : 4, where the right
nf property in the caae ef Ananias and Sapphira is expressly reserved by Peter, and
their punishraent founded solely en their falsehnnd. ' 3. The alleged " heresy uf
Luke" ia alau that nf Matthew and Mark (narralive ef Ihe rich ynung raan), and con
sequently ef our Lord Hiraaelf. Let ua rather recognize that he giving up nf prop
erty appeara in tbe leaching nf Jesus, either as a measure arising frnm the necesaity
irapuaed'nn His diaciples uf accnrapanying Him nutwardly, ur as a vuluntaiy and
oplinnal uffering uf charity, applicable tn all tiraes.
If nnw, setting aaide critical diacuaainn, we aeek pnsitively tn characterize the re
liginus cumplexinn nf Luke'a narrative, the fundamental lone appears tn us tu be, as
Lange says (" Leben Jesu," i. p. 358 et seq,) : " the revelatien of divine raercy," er,
better atill, according to Paul'a literal expression (Tit. 3:4): the manifestation, of
divi^ne philanthropy.
Tn thia characteriatic there is a aecund curreapunding nne : Luke luves tu exhibit
in the human snul, in the very midst ef its fallen state, the presence of some ray of
the divine iraage. He speaks uf that honest and good Iieart, which receives the seed
of the gnspel as sunn as it ia scattered on it ; he pnints tn the gnod Saraarilau per-
furming instinctively the things contained in the law (Rom. 3 : 14) ; iu the case uf
* ZeUer hiraaelf saya (" Apustelgesch. " p. 436) : " In reality, there are nnt tu be
found in this Gospel any nf the indirect attacks, insults, malevolent insinuations, and
sarcasms against Judeo-Christianity and the Judeo-Christian apostlea which the anony
mous Saxon seeks in it." . .
X It is well known that thia term arises from a Hebrew word signifying poor.

532 COMMENT.^.RY ON ST. LUKE.
Zaccheua he indicates the manifestation ef natural probity and beneficence, as he will
du in tbe book of Acts, in respect te Coruelius and several ethers, especially snme nf
the Roman magistrates with whom Paul haa tn du. Therein we recognize the Greek
ideal nf the KaXoS KfyaBoS.
Wilh tbe first nf thuse twn characteristics there ia undoubtedly connected that
univeraalism of grace su uften peinted out in Luke ; wilh Ihe second, perhaps, the
easential character which he unfolds in the persnn uf Christ : humanity wnrking out
in Him ita pure and normal development ; the child, the young man growing in
grace and wiadom as He grows in stature ; the man comes nut in His emotion at the
aight of a mother bereaved ef her sou, ef His native country on the eve of ruin, of
His execulioners who are striking theraselves whUe they atrike Him, nf a thief whu
humbles himaelf. We underatand the whule : it ia ilie Son of man, burn an infant,
but through all the stages uf life and dealh becoming the High Prieat nf His brethren,
whum He leavea in the act nf blessing them. Sn that this histnry is summed up in
twu features : divine cumpassion stooping dnwn to man ; human aspirations entering
intu perfect uninn wilh Gnd in the persnn nf Him whu is tu bring back all uthers tn
Gnd. With such a histnry befnre us, what narrow unwnrthy particularistic tendency
cnuld pnssibly exiat iu the writer whn understund and worked upen it ? Such an nb
jeet impuaes nbjectivity uu the hiaturian.*
III. — Hterary Point of View.
A. The first feature whicli distinguishes Luke'a wurk in thia reapect is the pres
ence nf apiologue, written in a Greek style nf perfect purily, and in which the author
.givea account of the origin of his book. We have already shown (p. 33) what
is the necessary inference from this fact, which has no analogy eUher in Matthew or
Mark, or even in Jnhn, and which would suffice tn demonstrate the Hellenic origin
nf the authnr, and the high degree nf classical culture which prevailed in the circle,
with a view tn which he wrote.
B. The chief queation which haa been raiaed in regard to the literary character of
Luke's composition is whether it belongs to the class of collectanea, simple corapila-
tinna, ur whether in all its detaila it nbserves a ccnsecutive plan. It is -well knnwn
that Schleierraacher tnnk the first view. Our Guspel is in hia eyes an aggregate Of
pieces separately cumpuaed and put tngether by a later cnmpiler. In Ewald's upin
iun alsn the authnr ia nnly a cnllector. Hnltzmann himaelf (article nn tbe Acta, in the
" Bible Dictionary" published by Schenkel) calls nur Gnapel " a cnmpilatiun withnut
any well-defined plan ;" he extends the same judgment tn the Acts. This npininn is
cumbated by several critics. Hilgenfeld speaks nf " the artistic unity" uf Luke's
narrative. ZeUer acknnwledgea " that a rigurnua plan prevaila thruughuut the enlire
¦* This cnnclusinn is admitted by twu uf the mnst diatinguiahed repreaentatives nf
mudern crilicism. Hnllzmann (p. 401) : "Juat aa the must ancient derannstrable
Gnspel dncument, the "Lngia," waa written withuut 'the least regard tn any dng
matic interest ... so the third Gospel, the most extensive work of the synop
tic literature, betrays the tendency of its authnr nnly in its arrangement and chuice
of materials, and in alight modifications which bear only un tbe fnrm uf delineatinn."
Reuss. (sec. 309) : " We shall be nearer the truth if we assert that it was in nn party
interest, but by means ef a disinterested histnrical investigatinn, that the materiids
nf thia narrative were cnllected."

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUK:^. S33
wnrk" (Guspel and Acta). M. Renan sees in it " a wurk written throughnut by the
same band, and with the must perfect unity. " We adhere fully tu this second view.
We have already pninted uut that nne aingle idea inspirea the whnle narrative, and
has determined the chnice ef its materiala, namely, that nf the develnpment uf the
Christian wurk (1 : 1), from the twnfnld standpuint nf its urganic growth and of its
breach with the Israelitish people. Once in possession of this idea, we easily cum-
prehend the cnurse nf the narrative. The flrat twu chapters uf the Gnspel are an in
truductinn, in which Luke gives the preparatinn fnr the new wnrk in that pure Being
placed by Gud in the bnsnm uf humanity. The wnrk itself begins with the baptism nf
Jeaus in chap. 3. It cnmprises three parts : 1. The Galilean miniatry ; Jesus drawa tu
Hira the elements nf His future Church, and lays dnwn in the apnstnlate the principle
nf its nrganizatinn. 3. The jnumey frnm GalUee tn Judea ; this is a transitinn perind :
the wurk extends nutwardly while it is strengthened spiritually ; but the hnstUity nf
the ufflcial representatives nf the natinn, the scribes and Pharisees, lighted up already
in the previnus perind, gnes un increaaing. 3. The snjuurn at Jerusalem : the cross
vinlently breaks the laat link between larael and its King. But the resurrectinn and
aacenainn, freeing Jeaua frnm every natiunal relatinn, aud raiaing Hira to a free and
glurinua exiatence, suited tn the nature nf tbe Snn nf Gnd (Rum. 1 : 3, 4), make Him
in the wnrds uf Peter, the lord of all (Acts 10 : 36). The IsraeUtish Meaaiah by birth.
He becnmes by Hia death and ascensiun the King uf the univerae. From that time fnrth
His peuple is the hum-an race. The aacenainn, which forms the climax of the Goapel
history, ia at the aame time the starting-pnint for the histnry of the Acts. " On the
nne side we ascend tn thia aummit ; un the nther we deacend frum it."* Hence the
dnulile narratiun nf the fact. It belnnga, indeed, tn bnth writinga — to the one as ita
cru-^vn, tn the uther as its baaia. Thia repetitinn dnea nut ariae, aa a, auperficial criti
cism suppuaes, frnm the juxtapusitinn nf twn different traditinns regarding that event.f
What sensible writer wnuld adnpt such a cuurse ? The ascensiun is the bond which
jnins tngether the twn aapects of the divine wnrk — tbat in whicli Jesua riaea frnm
the manger tu the throne, and that in which, frnm the throne nn high. He acta upnn
humanity, creating, preaerving, and extending the Church. It forms part of the
histnry nf Jeaus and nf that nf the Church.
Betweeii the wnrk which is wrought in Jesus and that wrought in the Church,
and which is described in Acts, there is a curreapnndence which ia exhibited by the
paraUeliam ef plan in the two books. After an introduction which describes the cera-
rauuity of believera as already fnrmed, thnugh yet unknnwn (Acta 1, cump. with Luke
1 and 3), Pentecnatintruducesitun the theatre nf hiatnry, as His baptiam called Jesus
tn His public activity. 1. Here begins, chap. 3, the first part uf the narrative, which
extends tn the end nf chap. 5 ; it relate's, first, the f uunding uf the church of Jerusalem,
the mnther and mndel uf all uthers ;, then the nbatinate reaiatance which the preaching
nt the apnstles met with frnm the Jewiah authnrities and the maas of the natiun. 3.
The secnnd part, perhaps the mnst remarkable in many respects, delineates, like the
second part nf the Gnspel, a transitinn periud. It extends to the end of chap. 13.
The authnr has cnllected and enumerated in this piece the whnle series of providential •f
* M. F61ix Buvet.
X Auy mnre than ib the case nf the dnuble narrative uf the creation nf man in Geur
esis (chaps. 1 and 2). Man is deacribed, chap. 1, aa the gnal nf the development uf na
ture ; chap. 3, aa the basis nf the develupment uf histnry. Nature rises to him ; his
tory goes forth from him.

534 COMMEitTARY ON ST. LUKE.
events by which the way was paved for transferring the kingdom of God from the
Jews to the GentUes, the subject of the third part. First, there is the ministry of
Stephen, who dies for having said "that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy the temple,
and ahaU change the customs which Moses delivered" (6 : 14). There is the ministry
of PhUip (chap. 8), who makes the flrst breach en the GentUe world by the conver
sion of the SamarUans, in which Peter and John themselvea cnme tu take part. There
ia, by the hand uf the same PhiUp, the baptism nf a man whu was dnubly excluded
from the ancient cnvenant as a GentUe and as a eunuch (Deut. 33 : 1). There is the
cnnversinn nf Saul, whn is tn be the principal instrument uf the wurk abuut tn begin,
the peraecutur but the successur cf Stephen. There is through the ministry of Peter
the baptiam of the Gentile Cornelius and hia family, iu consequence of the vision by
which God taught that apostle that the waU of separation raised by the law between
Israel and the Gentilea was thenceforth broken down. There is, as an effect of the
diaperaion of the church of Jerusalem, the foundation of the church of Antinch, the
first church of heathendom, the point from which Paul will take hia cnurse tn the
heathen wurld, his perraanent basis nf uperatinns, the Jerusalem nf the Gentile world.
Those six events, apparently accidental, but all cunverging tu the same end, are
chosen aud grouped by the author with iucomparaole skill, to show, as it were, te
the eye the ways in which the divine wiadom prepared for the approaching work, thu
conversion of heathendom. Chap. 13 concludes thia part. It relates the martyrdom
of James, the attempted martyrdom of Peter, and the sudden death of their persecu
tor, the last great representative of the Jewiah nation, Herod Agrippa — persecuting
Israel struck dead iu tbe peraon of its last monarch. 3. The third part relates the
foundation of the Church amnng the Gentiles by St. Paul's three jnurneys. His im
prisonment at Jerusalem at the close of those three misaionary tours, aud the sur
rounding circumstances, form a sort of counterpart to the story nf the Passion iu the
Gospel. It is the last act in the rejection of the Gespel by Israel, to which the con
duct of the elders of the Roman syna.gegue toward Paul (chap. 38) puts the finishing
stroke. What could be grander er clearer than this plan ? We have yet to wait for
a history of the Refurmatinn, giving us, within the space of a hundred pages, as
complete and preciae a view of that great religinus revolution as that which Luke haa
left us in the Acta, ef the yet prefounder revolution by which Gnd transferred His
kingdnm from the Jewa tn the Gentilea.
0. If the plan nf Luke is admirable frum the cnntrulUng unity tu w'hich he aub-
ordiuates sn great a variety nf materials, the style of the Guapel and of the Acts pre
sents a similar phennmenun. On the nne hand it is a striking medley. To the pru-
lugue uf classic Greek, classic bnth in cunstructinn and vncabulary, there succeed nar
ratives nf the infancy, written in a style whicb is rather a decalque * from the Ara
maic thau true Greek. It is quite clear that the authnr, after writing the prolngue in
his nwn style, here uses au Aramaic dncument nr a translatinn from the Aramaic.
We shall nut repeat the prnnfs of this fact which we have given in our exegesis ; in
a measure they extend to the whnle Guspel. As tu the questinn whether it is Luke^
himself whn has translated it into Greek, or whether he used a record already traus
lated, we shall answer it immediately. Fnr the present, we repeat that the proof
which Bleek fluds to support the second view in the expression dvaroXij ef i^ovs, i. 78,
* The name for the copy of a picture traced on transparent paper placed nver the
original. — Tb. _

COMMENTARY ON ST>. LUKE. 636
is Without the least value (see the exegesis). Finally, besides the prologue written in
pure Greek, and the parts which follow, all saturated with Aramaisms, we find other
parts, such aa chap. 14 : 7-15 : 33, 22, 23, the Hebrew coloring of which ia much less
pronounced, and which presented nothing or almoat nothing offensive to Greek ears.
It ia not probable that they proceed f rum au Aramaic dncument, any mure than that
Luke cumpnsed them freely. In the flrst caae they would ceutain mure Hebraisms ;
iu the aecend, they wnuld be stUl more cumpletely free frnm them. It is therefure
probable that thuse passages were cumpnsed in Greek by Luke er his predecessor, not
from an Aramaic document, but from an eral traditiun in that language.
The same variety nf atyle reappears in the -A.cts. The flrst parts uf thia bunk be
tray au Aramaic snurce in every line. This character gradually disappears, aud the
last parta nf the bnnk, in which the authur relates the acenes in which he seems to
have been peraenaUy preaent, are written in aa pure Greek as the prolngue nf the
Gnspel. On the nther hand, and nntwithstanding this medley, the style nf Liike has in
raany respects the seal cf a well-marked unity. Not enly is hia vocabulary every
where more extensive than that nf the nther evangelials, as mightjbe expeOted frum a
writer familiar with claasic Greek ; fnr example, he displays in a far higher degree
the facility with which the Greek language indefinitely multipliea its stock of verba,
by compounding the aimple nnea with prepusitinns and otherwise ; but he haa alsn
certain expreasinns which exclusively belung tu him, ur whicb he uaes with marked
predilectiun, and which are scattered uniformly over all parts of his two writings,
even those which are most evidently translated from the Aramaic. And this is the
proof that Luke in those pieces did not make use of a translation already made, but
was himself the translator.-*
There are alao certain correspondences alleged in vocabulary and syntax between
Luke'a style and that of Paul. Holtzmann enumerates about 200 expressions or
phrases commou to thoae two authora, and more or leaa foreign tu all the uther N. T.
writers, f The anunymnua Saxun has takeu a,dvautage nf this fact in suppurt of his
hypnthesis, accnrding tn which Paul himaelf was the author of the third Gospel.
But this proof is far from satisfactory ; the phenomenon is explained, on the one
hand, by the fact that Paul and Luke are the only two -writers of the N. T. who were
educated amid classical surroundings ; on the other, by the personal relations which
they kept up ao long with one another ; at leaat, if we are te truat the traditinn which
aacribea the Guspel tn Luke (see chap. ii. uf thia Cnnclusinn).
The study which we have nuw made nf the diatinctive characteristics ef Luke's
Quspel supplies us with the necessary data for reaching the conclusions for which
we have tn inquire regarding the urigiu nf this cnmpnaitiun.
* Zeller haa devuted twu prnfnund easays tu this element exclusively belunging tn
Luke in his twn narratives, the nne in the " Thenl. Jahrb." 1843, p. 467 etseq., the
uther in his "Apnstelgesch." p. 390 et aeq. He enumerates 139 expreaainns used
preferentially, and 134 terms and phraaea uaed exclusively, ijr almnat excluaively, by
Luke in the two works. The following are examples selected at random :
avp^dXXeiv, nepiXapneiv, and ethers like them ; dvdXy^iS, d vfiaroS, ip(^oPoQ, evrpopoS,
napaxpypa, if)??, KuBe^yS, ivdniov, etc. ; koI airdS, di Kai (gradation), tovto dn, ri dn, to
befure a pinpusitiun which serves as a aubatantive, kuBoti, pi-v oiv, ku). ydp, 'tdoi ydp,
iXeye di (in the seuse sn uften pninted nut in nur commentary), e;r' dXyBelas, e^ys
ypepag, Kurd. eBoS or to e'loBdc, or rd eiBiapevov, etc.
t For example : avB' £>v, dXX' aide, uvriXap^dvEcBat, iKKUKEiv, napddeiaoS, aadro^,
dvrairodapa, u'iveIv r$v 0e6v, drevi^eiv, diayyeXXeiv, dn^Xni^siv, etc.

536 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
CHAPTER IL
THE COMPOSITION OF THE THIRD GOSPEL.
We have before us in this chapter the four following points : The aim of the
Gospel, the time of its composition, the author to whnm it is tn be ascribed, the place
where he cnmpused it. I — The Aim,.
The cemmun aim of nur Guspels is tn produce faith in HinJ whnm they describe
as the Saviour of the world. But each of them pursues this aim in a particular way :
Matthew, by bringing the history of our Lord into connection with the Messianic
prophecies of which it is the fulfilment ; Mark, by seeking te reproduce the unique
splendor which rayed forth from His peraon ; John, by relating the moat salient teati-
monies and facts which led His disciples to recognize and adore Him as the Son of
God. What is thecneans by which Luke wishea tn gain the same end ?
It was thnught ennugh, even dnwn tu nur nwn day, tn answer that he had suught
tu trace the Gnspel histnry as faithfully as pnssible with a view tn believers amnpg the
Gentiles.* This sulutiun is nut precise ennugh fur the authnrs nf the critical schnnl,
which seeks party tendenciea everywhere in uur sacred writinga. By cnmbining with
the atudy nf the Gnspel that of the Acts, the objects of which aeerhed mure prn
nnunced, they have cnme tn the concluainn that the writinga uf Luke are nnthing elae
than a disguised defence ef the persen and preaching nf Paul, in uppnaitiun tn the
persons and teaching of the Twelve ; a histury mnre nr less fictitinus intended to' gain
favor for that apnstle with the Juden-Christian party, which, dnwn tn the secund cen
tury, remained nbstinately hnstile tn him. ZeUer, in particular, has develuped thia
thesis in a wurk which might be called classic, if erudition and sagacity could atand
for justice aud impartiality, f MM. Reuss (§ 210) and Nicnias (p. 268) alsu ascribe tn
the Acts the aim nf recnnciling the Juden-Christian and Pauline partiea, but withnut
accuaing the authur nf wUfuUy altering the facts, |
It muat indeed be cunfeased, eapecially if we take account uf the narrative uf the
Acta, that it ia very difflcult tn beUeve that in writing this hiatnry the authnr had nnly
the general intentinn nf giving as cnmplete and faithful a view nf the facts as pns
sible. A mure particular aim seems tu shnw itself in the chnice nf the materials which
he uses, as well as in the numerous umissinns which he makes. Whence cumea it
that, of all the apnstles, Peter and Paul are tbe nnly nnea brought on the scene ? HuW
are we tu explain the marvellnus paralleUsra between them established by the narra
tive ? Whence the predilection ef the author for everything relating to the persun of
* Sn Origen (Eua. H. E. vi. 25), Eichhurn, Schleiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, stup
shnrt at thia general definilinn. Frnm thia pnint nf view, the Acts are aimply re
garded aa a hiatnry uf the apnatnlic age nr uf the firat miaainna.
X Zeller (p. 863) calls the buuk nf Acts " a treaty nf peace propnsed to the Judeu-
Christiana by a PauUnist, whu wiahea tu purchase frora them the acknowledgment of
Gentile Christianity by a aeries ot coucesaions made tn .ludaiara."
X M. Nicnlaa thua expresses the aim nf the Acts : " Tn extinguish the diacussiuns
of the two parties, and lead them to forget their old feuds by showing them that their
fuundera . . .. had labured with a full understanding with one another for the
propagation of Chriatianity,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 637
the latter ; the thrice repeated narrative cf his cnnversinn, the detailed account of the
varied phases of his trial, the peculiarly marked nutice uf his relatinna tu the Ruman
magiatrates ? Wby relate in detail the fnunding nf the churches uf Greece, and nnt
devnte a line tn that nf au ii^purtant a church aa Alexandria (tn which Paul remained
a stranger) ? Tu what purpnae the circumatantial recital of Paul's voyage to Rome ?
And why does the account of his arrival cloae the book so abruptly ? Is not Over
beck right in aaying that, in reality, " the subject of the bonk ia nut the gnapel, but
the guspel preached by Paul." Even the first part, that which relates tn Peter, seems
tn be unly a preparatinn fur the acceunt nf Paul's ministry. The authnr seems tn
aay : Great as Peter waa in his wnrk in larael, Paul was nnt nue whit behind him in
his amnng the Gentilea ; the extranrdinary miraclea and aucceaaes by which Gnd
accredited the former were repeated iu ne leaa a measure in the case of the other.*
We do not think that the recent defenders ef the historical trustworthiness of the
Gospel and the Acts' (Mayerhoff, Baumgarten, Lekebuach) have aucceeded altngether
in parrying this blnw. They have attempted to explain part uf thnse facts, while
admitting that the theme ef the Acts was aolely the propagation of the gospel from
Jerusalem tn Rume ; but this very demnnstratinn breaks duwn at several pnints, and
especiaUy in the last chapter. Fnr when Paul reaches thia capital it ia nut he whu
brings the gnspel tn it ; rather it is the gnspel which receivea him there (38 : 15) ; and
iu what InUuws, the fnunding nf a church at Rnme by Paul ia nnt related. Aa Over
beck says, " The Acts relate, nut hnw the gnspel, but hnw Paul, reached Rnme."
While fully recugnizing that the purely histnrical aim is unsatisfactory, it seems
to us that that which Zeller proposes is inadmissible. Npt nnly, as Bleek nbserves,
must the culdly calculated deceptinn, which would be inevitable iu an author invent
ing a narrative with the view ef forging history, appear absolutely improbable tu
every reader whn gives himself up tn the impressinn which sn simple a cumpusitinn
prnduces ; but besidea, huw are we tu set befnre uur minds the result prupnsed tn be
gained in this way ? Did the authur mean, asks Overbeck, tn influence the Juden-
Christians to unite with Paul's party ? But in that case it waa a must unakUful expe
dient tu set befnre them the conduct of the Jewish nation in the udinus light in which
it appears thruughnut the entire histnry nf the Acts, frnm the persecutinna against the
rfpuatles iu the first chapters, dnwn tu the dark pints in which the Sanhedrim itself
dnea nnt shrink from taking part agamat the life uf St. Paul. It must, then, be by
acting nn his nwn party, the Pauliniats, that the authnr hnped tu effect the fusiun nf
the twu camps. By preaenting the picture nf the harmuny between Paul and the
Twelve at .Terusalem (Acts 15), be propnsed tu bring the PauUnista nf his time tn con
cede tn the .Tuden-Christians, as Paul had furmerly dnne tu the apuatlea, the nbaerv
ance uf the Musaic rites. Bul the Juden- Chriatians themaelves nf that periud nn
lunger held tu this cuncessinn. It appeara frum the " Clementine Hnmilies" that cir
cumcisinn was abanduned by this party. The authnr uf the Acta, a zealnus PauUnist,
must then have asked his own to yield to their adversaries mnre than the latter them
selves required ! Finally, what purpnse, nn Zeller'a auppusitinn, wuuld be served by
the eutire transitinn part (chap. 6-13) ? This elabnrate enumeration of the circum-
* It ia knnwn that Schneckenburger regarded this paraUel betweeu Peter aud Paul
as the principal thought and aim of the Acts (without thinking that the truth of the
narrative waa thereby compromised). It ia only as a curioaum that we refer to the
opininu nf Aberie, whn regards the Acta aa a memuir prepared with ^ vjew tu Paul's
defence in his trial befnre the imperial tribunal.

538 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Stances which went to pave the way fnr the free evangelizatiun uf the Gentile wnrld
might and shnuld have its place in a tmthf ul aud sincere narrative cf the progress uf
the Christian wurk ; it waa a digresainu in a romance intended tn raise Paul tn the
level nf Peter. The mndified fnrm given by MM. Reuss and Nicnias to this con-
cUiation-hypotheaia haa no force unless there is ascribed tu the apustnlic Judeu-Chris
tianity and Pauliniam a meaning aud irapnrtance which, in nur upininn, it never had
(see chap. 4). What hypnthesis dnes Overbeck substitute fnr that nf Zeller, which
he so well combats ? According to this critic, the author of the Acts dnes nnt think
of reccnciUng the twu camps. ' It ia the Pauline party alune which, wnrking nn its
uwn accnunt, here attempts by the pen nf nne ef ita membera " tn cnme tu au under
standing with ita paat, its peculiar nrigin, aud its first fuunder, Paul " (p. xxi.). Such,
after sn much beating abnut, is the laat wurd nf Baur'a schnnl un the aim nf the writ
ings uf Luke. It is nn the face of it a sumewhat strange idea, that of a party com
posing a historical book to ceme to a clear understanding with its pEist. It is not,
however, inconceivable. But if the author reaUy means to come to an understanding
about the beginnings ef his party, it is because he knows those beginnings, and be
lieves in them. The past is te him a deflnite quantity by which he measures the
present. But iu that case, how are we tn explain the wilful falsificatiuns nf histnry in
which, according to Overbeck himself, he indulged ? The miracles of St. Peter in the
flrst part nf the Acts are set duwn tn the accnunt uf legend ; but thuse uf Paul, in the
second, were knowingly invented by the author. Tu restnre the paat at nne's nwn
caprice, is that te come to a clear understanding with it ? Much mere, tbe author of
the Acts, not content -with peopling the night nf the past with imaginary events, went
the length cf putting himself " intn systematic opposition" (p. xxx*i.) tn what Paul
says of himself in his epistles. Tn cuntradict systematically, that is tn aay, knnw
ingly, the best authenticated ducuments prnceeding frnm the fuunder uf the party —
such is the way " to come lo light regarding the persen ef that chief " ! • The Tiibin
gen criticism haa entangled itself in a cul-de-aaa from which it cannot eacape except
by renouncing its first error, the oppuaitinn between the principles nf Paul and thnae
nf the Twelve. We shaU return tu this queatinn in uur laat chapter.
The reperuaal uf the third Goapel ia enuugh tu cnnvince any une that its authur
seriously pursuea a hiatorical aim. This appears from the numerous chronological,
geographical, and other like notices ef which his wnrk is full (Quirinius, 2:3; the
cycle cf dates, 3 : 1 ; the age nf Jeaua, 5 : 33 ; the second-first Sabbath, 6:1; the
details regarding the material auppnrt nf Jesus and His apnstlea, 8 : 1-3 ; cnmpare
alau 9 : 51, 13 : 33, 17 : 11, 31 : 37, 38; etc.). The narrative cf the Acta is every
where strewn with similar remarks (un Bethany, 1 : 13 ; expulsiun uf the Jewa by
Claudiua, 18 : 3 ; Gallin, 5 : 13 ; the mnney value uf the bnuka burned, 19 : 19 ; the
detaUs nf the disturbance at Ephesus, chap. 19 ; the flfty days betweeu Paaauver and
Pentecnst, uf which the narrative uf the jnumey enables ua tu give an exact accnunt,
30 : 6—31 : 16 ; the number nf snldiers, cavalry and infantry, furming the escort,
33 : 33 ; the circumstantial account of the shipwreck, 37 ; the natienality and figure
head of the vessel which carries Paul tu Rnme, 38 ; 11). The histnrical purpnse of
the narrative appears frnm the programme marked nut in the prolngue : tn relate all
thinga, from ihe very flrat, in order, exactly (1 : 3).
Tet it is certain, nn the uther hand, that nn mure than the nther evangelists dnes
the authur relate histury merely as histury— that is tn say, tu interest tbe reader and
satisfy bis cqrjnsity, He evidently prupnses tn himself a mnre exalted aim. The

COMMENTARY ON S'r. LUKE. 539
tone of his narrative proves this, and be tells us ao himself. He has before his eyes
a reader who is already abreast of the esaential points of the gospel verity, and whom
he wishes to furnish vrith the means of confirming the reality of the object of hia
faith {rijv da<pdXeiav). It ia with this -view that he preaents him with a full, exact, and
cunaecutive descriptinn uf the life and ministry of Jesus Chriat, " that he might
[thus himselt] verify the infallible certainty uf thnse things wherein he has been in
structed." In what did thnae inatructinna received by TheuphUus cnnsist ? Accurding tu St.
Paul (1 Cur. 15 : 3-5), the esaential puints of elementary inatructinn were theae twu :
Chriat dead for our sins, and risen tlie thi/rd day. In Rume 10 : 6-10 the same apns
tle thus defines the ubject of faith, and the cnntenta uf the Christian prufessinn :
Christ descended fur us intu the abyss, and ascended fur us tn heaven ; cnmp, alsn
Rnm. 4 : 33-35. Such is likewiae the summary cf Peter's preaching un the day of
Pentecost. Nevertheless, at the hnuse nf Cnmeliua (Acts 10), Peter already feela the need uf
preparing fur the prnclamatinn nf thnse decisive aaving trutha by a rapid sketch of
the miniatry of Jeaus. At Antioch nf Piaidia (Acta 13 : 33, 34), Paul gnes back, like
Peter, even tn the ministry nf Jnhn the Baptist. Fur there ia in the mind nf every
man, face tn face with an impnrtant hiatnrical event, the felt need nnt merely tn ac
cnunt fnr whRt it cnntains, but alau fur the way in which it haa cume abuut. And
when the event has exercised, and cnntinues ever tu exercise, a deep influence on the
lot of humaiuty, and on that of every individual, then the need of knowing" its be
ginnings aud development, ^ts geneais, if 1 may so speak, takes forcible possession of
every serious mind. And this desire is legitimate. The mere value the event has,
the mere important is it fur the cnnscience tn defend itself frnm every Ulusiun in
regard tn it. Such must have been the pnaitinn uf a large number nf beUeving and
cultured Greeks, uf whnm TheuphUus waa the representative. What mysteries must
have appeared tu such minds in thnse unheard of events which fnrm tbe gnal uf gua
pel histnry : a man dying fur the aalvatiun uf aU other men ; a Jew raiaed tn the cnn
ditinn nf the Snn nf Gnd, and tn puwer uver all tbings ; and that especially when
thnae events were preaented apart from their cunnectinn with thuse which had pre
ceded and prepared fnr them, having all the appearance nf abmpt manifeatatinns
frum heaven ! Tn hnw many nbjections muat auch ductrine have given rise ? It ia
nnt withnut reaann that St. Paul speaks nf the cross aa, to th' Greeks foolishness. Was
it nnt impnrtant tu supply a pnint nf suppurt fur auch inatructiona, and in urder tn do
that, tn settle them on the snlid baaia of facta ? Tn relate in detaU the beginning and
middle nf thia history, was nnt this tn render the end nf it mnre wurthy nf faUh ? In
' dealing with such men as Theophilus, there was an urgent necessity for supplying
history as the basis of their catechetical training.
Ne une ceuld understand better than St. Paul the need for such a work, and we
shnuld nnt be surpriaed thnugh it were tu him that the Initiative was due. It is true
there exiated already a cnnaiderable number cf accounts of the ministry of Jesus ;
but according to 1 : 3 (explained in contrast with vera. 1, 3), thoae works were only
coUections of anecdotes put together -without connection and without criticism. Such
compilations could not sulHce to meet the want in question ; there was needed a his
tory properly so caUed, such as that which Luke aunounces in his programme. And
if Paul among the helpers who surrounded hira, had au evangelist diatinguiahed for
his gifts and culture—and we know from 3 Cor. 8 : 18, 19, that there was really one

540 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
of this description — how could he help casting his eyes on him, and encouraging him
to uudcrtake so exceUent a work ? Such ia the task which Luke has discharged. It
ia neither by adducing the prophecies, nor by the personal greatness of Jesus, nor by
his declarations respecting His heavenly origin, that the author of the third Gospel
has aeught to establish or strengthen the faith of his readers. It is by the consecu
tive exposition of that unique history whose flnal events have become the holy ob
ject of faith. The beginning explains the middle, and the middle the end ; and from
this illuminated close the light is reflected back on the events which have led to it.
It is a well-compacted whole, iu which Ihe parts mutually support one another.
Luke's Gospel is the^unly nne which in this view presents us with the Gnapel histury.
It is very truly, as it has been called, the Gospel nf the devdopmeni (M. Felix Buvet).
The heavenly exaltatinn nf Jesus was, if nne may so speak, the first stage iu the
march nf Chriatian wnrk. There was a secund mnre advanced : the state nf things
which this wnrk had reached at the time when the authur wrote. The name ef Christ
preached throughout all the wnrld, the Church fnunded in all the cities uf the em
pire ; such was the astounding spectacle which this great epoch presented.* This re
sult was net, like the lite of Jesus, an object of faith tu the Gentiles ; it was a fact ef
felt experience. It required te be, net demonstrated, but explained, and in some re
spects justified. How had the Church been founded, and how had it grown au
rapidly ? Huw had it beceme open to the GentUes ? Hew were the people nf Israel,
from the midst uf whum it had gune fnrth, themselves excluded frnm it ? Hnw rec-
nncile with this unexpected event Gnd's faithfulness tn Hia promiaea ? Cuuld the
wurk uf Chriatianity really be under thuae strange cunditinns a divine wnrk ? All
these were questinns which might justly be raised in the minds nf believers frnm
amung the Gentilea, aa is pruved by the paaaage 9-11 nf the Epiatle tu the Rnmans,
where Paul studiea thia very problem with a view tn the wants uf ancient Gentilea
(It : 13). Only, while Paul treats it frnm the standpuint nf Christian speculatinn,
and answers it by a Theodicee, the bouk nf Acts labnrs to snlve it histnrically. The
first part nf this bunk exhibita the Church being boi-n by the pnwer nf the Spirit nf
the glnrified Christ, but cnming intn culUsinn at ita first step with ufflcial Judaism.
The second part exhibits God pre^paring for the new progress which this work was to
make through the preaching ef the gospel to the GentUes, and Israel at the aame time
shedding the blood of- Stephen, and the King ef Israel slaying nr dispused tu slay the
twu chief apnstles— in a wnrd, the rebeUinn nf larael in the Hnly Land. The laat
part, finaUy, repreaents the divine wnrk embracing the Gentile wurld, and the ministry
nf Paul crowned with a success and with wnndera equal at least tu thuse which had
signalized the ministry uf Peter— must certainly this paralleUsra, as Schneckenburger
haa obaerved, ia befure the mind uf the authnr, while Judaiam cnntinues ita nppnaUinn
in every city cf the pagan wurld where Paul preaches, and at length cunsuraraates
that uppnaitiun in the very heart uf the empire, in the capital cf the wnrld, by the
cnnduct uf the rulera uf the Rnman synagugue. Such is the end nf the bunk.' Is not
the intention of such a writing clear ? The narrative ia a juatificatinn. But thia
justificatinn is nnt, as haa been unwurthUy thuught, that nf a man, St. Paul. T^he aim
uf the Acts is mure exalted. By its simple and consecutive statement of events, this
bnnk purpurts tn give the explanatiun and justificatinn uf the way in which that great
religinus revulutiun was carried thrnugh, which transferred the kingdnm uf Gnd from
the Jews tn the Gentiles ; it ia the apnlngy nf the divine wurk, that nf Gud Himaelf.
God had left the Gentiles unly fnr a time, ihe times of ignorance ; He had tempn-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 641
rarily let them walk in tlieir own waya (Acts 17 : 30 ; 14 : 16). At the end of this time,
Israel, first saved, was tn becnme the inatrument uf universal salvatiun, the apustle nf
Chriat tu aU natiuns. But this glurinus caUing which the apnstles su uften held nut tu
it was obstinately rejected, and the kingdum uf Gud, instead of being eatablished by
it, was forced tn pass aside frnm it. It was therefnre nnt Gnd whn bruke with Hia
penple ; it was the penple whu brnke with their Gud. Such is the fact which the
book of Acts demonstrates historically. It ia thua, in a way, the counterpart of Gene
sis. The latter relates hnw the transitinn tunk place from primitive universaUsm tu
thencratic particularism, thrnugh Gnd's cuvenant with Abraham. The Acts relate
how God returned from this temporary particularism tu the cnnclusive universalism,
which was ever His real thuught. But while simply describing the fact, the Acts ex
plain and justify the abnnrmal and unfnreseen fnrm in which it carae abnut.
The end curamun tn Luke's twu writings is therefnre tu strengthen faith, by ex
hibiting the principle and phases uf that renewal which his eye had just witnessed.
Twu great results had been successively effected befnre the eyea nf his cnntempora-
riea. In the persnn nf Jesus, the wurld had received a Savinur and Maater ; thia Sav
inur and Maater had eatabUshed Hia kingdnm nver humanity. The Gnapel aets fnrth
the flrst uf thnse events ; the Acts the secnnd. The Gnspel has fnr its aubject the
inviaible revulutiun, the substitutinn in the persnn nf Jesus Himself nf the dispensa
tiun nf the Spirit fnr the reign uf the letter, the transfurming uf the relatinna nf Gnd
tu man, salvatiun, the principle nf that histnrical revelutinn whicli was tn fnUnw.
The Acts narrate the external revelutinn, the preaching nf aalvatiun with its cunse
quences, the acceptance of the Gentiles, and their subatitution in the place nf larael.
Salvatinn and the Church, such are the twn wurks of Gnd nn which the authnr meant
to ahed the light nf the divine mind. Tli,e Aacensinn linked them tugether. The gnal
nf the nne, it was the fnundatinn uf the nlher. Hence the narrative nf the Ascensiun
becnmes the bnnd nf the twu writinga. The aim nf the wnrk, thua underatund. ex
plaina its beginning (the annuuncement nf the furerunner's birth), its middle (the As
cension), aud its end (Paul and the synagugue at Rnme).
II. — The Time of tiompoaition.
The very varinus upininns regarding the date nf nur Gnspel (Intrnd. § 3) raay he
arranged in three groups. The flrst class fix it befnre the destruction of Jerusalem,
hetween 60 and 70 ; the second, between the deatruciion of Jerusalem and the end of
the flrst century (Holtzmann, from 70 to 80 ; Keim, about 90) ; the third, Baur and
his school, in the flrst patt of the second century (Volkmar, about 100 ; Hilgenfeld,
ZeUer, from 100 to 110 ; Baur, after 130). The traditinns which we have qunted (§ 3)
and the facts which we have enumerated (§ 1) seem te us at nnce tn set aside the dates
nf the third grnup, and tn be unfavnrable to the secnnd. Traditiun has preserved tn us
nnly one precise date, that given by Clement nf Alexandria, when he places the cem
puaitinn nf Luke befnre that nf Mark, and fixes the latter at the perind of Peter's au-
jnum at Rume— that is tn say, in 64 (Accnrding to Wieaeler), nr between 64 and 67
(accnrding tn nthers). FuUnwing this view, nur Gnspel raust have been cumpnsed be
tween 60 and 67. The npininn nf Irenseus is nnt, as is nften said, uppused tu this
(§ 3). Let us examine the nbjectinns raised by criticism tn thia traditinnal date,
which wuuld place the composition of uur Guapel antecedently tn the destructinn of
Jemsalem.

542 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB.
1. The great number uf gnspel narratives already pubUshed before our Gospel,
accnrding tn the prologue, presupposes a somewhat advanced period nf the apostuUc
age."" But why might nnt numerous attempts at cnmpiUng traditinns relative tn the
histury of Jeaua have been made during the first thirty years which fnllnwed events
su great? " Thuugh the art uf writing had nnt yet existed, it wnuld have been in
vented fur auch a subject," says Lange. When, especiaUy, the generatinn of the
immediate witneaaes nf the life nf nur Saviuur began tn be cleared away by death,
and when the apostles. His ufflcial witneaaes, left Palestine to go and preach to othor
nations, was it not inevitable that the gospel literature should appear to fill up this
double void ? Now it was about the year 60, at the latest, that those circumstances
emerged. 3. The work ef Luke betrays a certain amnunt uffcriticism, in regard tn its snurces,
which leads tn a date pusteriur tu the destructinn uf Jerusalem. But frum the time
when the authnr had befnre hira a certain nuraber of works en the subject, it is evi
dent that he could not compose his narrative withnut estimating thnae snurces
critically ; that might be dnne at any perind. All that -was needed fnr it was leisure.
3. The influence nf legend (Overbeck) is alleged in the writings nf Luke, and a
Paulinism already in a state nf decadence (Reusa, an far as the Acts ia cnncerned).
But has the third Guspel presented tn us a single descriptinn resembUng that nf tbe
fire lighted in the Jnrdan at the time nf the baptiam, which .Tustin 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 nf the Hebrewa uf the interview between Jesus aud the rich ynung man
(see nu the passage) ? Such are the traces nf the influence cf myth. Luke is entirely
free frnm it. As tu the weakening nf the Pauline idea, we shall nnt be able tn treat
it thnrnughly till chap. 4. We shall nnly say here, that sn far frum its being the fact
that Luke gives us a PauUnism in a atate nf decline, it is Paul himself who, in the
Acts, fnllnwing the example nf Jesus in the Guspel, agreea tu realize Chriatian spirit
uality nnly in the restricted measure in which it is practicable. Fidelity tn principle
dues nut prevent men nf Gnd from exercising that prudence and charity which in prac
tice can take acceunt ef a given situation.
4. The siege of Jerusalem ia deacnbed in the prnphecy nf Jesus in sn precise and
detailed a fnrm (19 : 43, 44 ; 31 : 30-^4), in cumpariaun with the cumpilatiuns nf Mat
thew and Mark, that it is impuaaible tn aaaert that Luke's accnunt is nnt subaequent
tu the event. Jesus piredicted the destructinn cf Jerusalem, that is certain. The
witneaaea whu accused Him cf this befnre the Sanhedrim did nut invent what was ab
snlutely false, and Stephen rested his statement nn snme such prnphecy (Acts 6 : 14),
Nuw if Jesus predicted this cataatrnphe aa a prnphet. there ia nn reaann why He
shnuld nnt have prnpheticaUy annnunced snme detaUs uf it. But if He predicted it
aimply thrnugh the fnrce nf Hia pnlitical inaight. He cuuld nnt but be aware alan that
thia destructinn implied a aiege, and that the aiege cuuld nnt take place withnut the
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 beyond
the meaaure nf thnse general indicatiuns.
5. The final advent uf uur Lnrd, it is further said, atands in Mark and Matthew in
* Keim : " Eiae reiche Evangelien -Literatur zeigtden vnrgeruckten Bliithbestand
dea Christenthums. ' '

COMMENTARY ON ST. LOKE. ' 543
immediate connection with the destruction of Jerusalem, whUe in Luke it is widely
separated frum it by the interval uf the timea of ihe Gentilea (31 : 24). In other pas
sages, besides, the idea of the proximity of the Parousia is designedly effaced ; so
9 : 37, where Luke makes Jesua say that seme of the disciples present shall see, uot
" the Son of man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew), but simply the kingdom, 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 immediately fellow
I {eiBius in Matthew) the destruction of Jerusalem. We huld that the relation of im-
I mediate succession between the two events laid down by Matthew proves that his
Gospel was composed before the destruction of Jerusalem ; but we cannot admit,
what is held by the entire body almost of modern critics, that the interval supposed
by Luke between thoae two eventa proves the date nf hia Guapel tn be after that
catastrophe. We have already treated aeveral puints bearing nn this queation in nur
exegeais (pp. 445, 446). The deciaive queatinn here is huw Jesus Christ Himaelf
spuke un the aubject. We think we have given indubitable evidence, frum a very
large number nf His sayinga, that in His view His advent was tn be separated by a
cunsiderable perind, nut unly frnm the time that He was speaking, but from the de
structinn uf Jerusalem, which, according tn Him, was tn happen during the lifetime
nf the cuntempnrary generatiun. The bridegrnum whn delays hia cnming ; the pur
ler whn has tu watch late ur tUI midnight, ur till cnck-crnw, nr even till mnrning,
waiting fnr his master ; the parable nf the leaven, which exhibits the gnspel slnwly
and by a pruceaa whully from within tranafurming the relatiuns of human life, that
guspel which must be preached befure His return throughnut the whule wurld, while
the apuatles shall nnt even have had time tn annnunce it tn all the citiea of Israel be
fore the judgment of the nation, etc. etc. — all proves to ua that Jesus Himaelf never
confounded in one and the same catastrophe the destruction of .Terusalem and the end
of the present dispensatien. Hence it f eUowa, that if Jesus expressed His view on
this subject. He muat have apoken as Luke makes Him speak, and not as Matthew
makes Him speak ; that conaequently He must really have delivered two distinct dis
courses on those two aubjecta ao entirely different in His eyes, and net one merely in
which He blended the two events in a single description (Matt. 34). Now this is pre
cisely what Luke says (see chap. 17, on the retum of Christ, and chap. 31, 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 en an many
others, and that his essentially mnre accurate accuunt nf the aayinga nf Jeaua is pro
duced only by a dehberate alteratiun of the ducumenta which he had befnre him 1
What ! Luke returned by the path nf error nr falaehnnd tn histnrical truth ! Really
criticism here exacts mere from snund sense than it can bear. Beaides, it ia paychn-
IngicaUy impnssible that Luke shnuld have indulged in manipulating at pleasure the
sayings of that Being nn whnm his faith was fixed, whum he regarded as the Sen of
God. Again, in this respect criticism ascribes a procedure to him which sound
sense rejects. The sayings of our Lord may have been involuntarily modified by tra
ditiun, aud have cnme tu the evangelists in different and mnre nr lesa altered fnrms ;
but we cannnt allnw that they invented nr changed them deliberately. In what re
sults are we landed if we take the uppuaite view ? It is asserted that snme unknnwn
pnet put intu the mnuth uf Jesua, abnut 68, the eschatulngical diacourae, Matt. 24 ;
then, ten ur twenty years after the destructinn nf Jerusalem, Luke nnt less knnwingly
and deliberately transformed this discnurae tu meet the exigencies uf the caae ! But

544 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
we ask : if auch were really the origin of our Lord's diacourses, would they he what
they are ? Would their general harmony, aud the pointa ao often ubaerved at which
they fit intu une anuther, be what they are, eapeciaUy in nur aynnplics ?
In nppusitinn tu thuse reasnns, which appear to us to be nf little weight, the fnllnw
ing are the prnnfs which the bnnk itself furnishes, tn the fact nf its being cnmpused
befnre the destructinn nf Jerusalem : 1. The aim which, as we have seen, explains
the Gnspel and the Acta, cuincidea thnrnughly with that uf the great epiatlea of St.
Paul, especially ef the Epistle to the Remana ; beaidea, the correspondences in detaU
between the third Gespel and that letter are so many and striking, that it is almost
impossible te deny that the two writings proceeded from the same surroundings and at
the same period. Per they are evidently intended to meet the same practical wanta.*
The main fact here is, that Luke resolves historically preciaely the aame problem of
the rejection of Israel and the calling ef the Gentiles which Paul treats speculatively
in the important pasaage, Rom. 9-11.
3. The purity nf the traditiun, the freshness and simplicity ef the narratives, and
especiaUy the appropriateness which Luke ia able to restnre tn the aayings ef Jesus,
and which alnne makes their full charm felt, dn nnt admit nf the view that thia bnpk
waa written at a cnnaiderable distance frnm the events, and that it waa whnlly uutside
the circle nf the first witnesses. The destructinn uf Jerusalem had nnt yet burst nver
the Hnly Land and scattered that Primitive Chriatian Snciety, when such infurmatinn
waa cnllected aa that tn which we uwe records so vivid and pure.
3. The book of Acta, certainly written after the Gospel, does not seem to have
been composed after the destruction of Jerusalein. True, it has been alleged that
8 : 26 proves the contrary, but without the least foundation, as Overbeck acknowl
edges. The words: " New it is desert, "iu this passage, ref er net to the town ef
Gaza, but to the route pointed out by the angel, either to distinguish it from annther
mnre frequented way (Overbeck), nr, as appears tu us mure natural, tn explain the
scene which is abnut tn fnlluw. Hnw wnuld it be pnssible fnr this writing, at least
in its last lines, nnt tn cnntain the least allusinn tu this catastrophe, nur even a wnrd
* In the first two chapters nf Luke, Jesus is described as the snn nf David bv
His descent from Mary, and as the Snn nf Gnd by His supernatural birth ; St. Paul
begins the Epistle tn the Rnmans with the wnrds : " Made uf the seed uf David
accnrding tu the flesh, and declared tn be the Snn nf Gud in virtue uf the spirit nf
hnliness." Luke's twn writings, in their unity, demunstrate Israel's right nf prinrity
in regard tn the kingdnm ni Gud ; what else is this than the privilege nf the npdiTov,
firat, expressly attributed tn the Jews by St. Paul, Rnm. 1 : 16 ? Jesus, in Luke, is
circurncised en the eighth day, and presented in the temple on the fortieth — two cer
emonies which subject Him duriug His earthly life tn the law ; Paul, as if he were
aUuding tu thnae facts related nnly by Luke, calla Jesus " a minister of the circum
cisinn" (Rum. 15 : 8), and speaks ef Him, Gal. 4:4, " made of a woman, made under
the law." Luke, iu the Aets, declares the universality ef the divine revelation which
preceded that uf the Guapel : " Gud left nnt Himself withnut witness amnng the Gen
tiles ;" Paul, Rnm. 1 : 19, 20, Ukewise declarea the revelatiun uf the inviaible God
made to the Gentiles in the works of creation. Luke pnints tn the Gund Samaritan
dning instinctively what neither the priest nur the Levite, thuugh hnlders uf the law
did ; Paul, Rum. 3 : 14-15, 36-37, speaks nf the Gentiles whn du by nature the things
cnntained in the law, and whu thereby ahall ccndemn the Jew, whn hears, but at the
same time breaks that law. Luke speaks nf the times nf ignnrance, during which
Gnd suffered the natiuns tu walk in their nwn ways ; Paul, of the furbearance which
Gnd ahuwed in regard tn paat sina, during the time nf His lung-suffering (Rnm. 3 ; 35)
It would be tedinus tu prulnng thia parallel.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 545
touching the death of St. Paul, which must have preceded it by a few years ? We
have already diacuaaed thia question (Introd. p. 8 ei aeq.). We shall sum -up by say
ing that if, on the one hand, the mention of the term uf twu years, iu the last verses
of the Acts, clearly assumes that a new phase in Paul's life had begun after his cap
tivity, on the other hand the cemplete silence ef the author as tu the end of the
apnstle's career prnves that this phase had nut yet terminated. The Acts must tl^^re-
fure have been written in the interval between the end nf Paul's flrst captivity at
Rnme (in the spring of the year 64) and his martyrdom (abnut 67).* The Gnspel must
have been compoaed a short time befnre.
Again, it has been alleged that a cunsiderable interval must have elapsed between
the cumpusitinn nf thuse twu writings ; because the traditinn fuUowed by Luke in the
Acts, in regard tn the ascensiun, differs from that which dictated the account of the
event in the Gospel, and conaequently auppeaea new information. We have proved
in uur exegeaia that this hjrpcthesis is erreneuua. The accnunt in the Gnapel is given
summarily, with the view uf preaenting iu the subsequent work a more complete
view of the event.
4. We have explained in the Introduction, the influence which Luke exercised on
the unauthentic f conclusion ef Mark, by supposing that the firat ef these works ap
peared about the time when the composition of the secnnd must have been interrupted
(at the passage, Mark 16 : 8). We shall here take a step further. If it is true, as
seems tu be the cunaequence of the exegesis, that Luke was not acquainted either with
the Gospel of Matthew or Mark, it foUows that he wrote shortly after those two Gos
pels had appeared ; utherwiae he wnuld nut have faUed tu knnw wurks of such im
purtance un the subject which he was treating. If therefore our exegetical result is
establiahed, we muat conclude tbat the Gespel of Luke waa compoaed almost simul-
t.aneeualy with the other two synoptics. We shall examine the premises of this con
clusion more closely in chap. 3. Now, if it followa from the confounding of the two
diacourses on the destruction of Jerusalem and on the end of the world, iu Matthew
and Mark, that those writings are anterior to the flrst uf thnae events, suppnsing that
Luke did nnt know either the nne ur the nther nf them, he must share iu this priority.
It aeems tn us nn aU these accnunts that the cumpusitinn nf the Gospel and of the
Acts must be placed between the years 64 and 67, as was indicated by tradition.
III. --r7i« Authm:
Here we start from a fact universally admitted, namely, the identity of the authqr
of the Gospel and of the Acts. This is one of the few points on which criticism is
unanimous. Holtzmann aays (p. 374) ; " It muat now be admitted as indisputable,
that the author of the third Gospel is one and the aame peraon with the author of the
Acts." Indeed, the identity of the style, the correspondence of the plan, and the
continuity of the narrative, do not admit of the least doubt iu this respect, as ZeUer
also proves.
Who is this authnr ? Traditiun answers ; Luke, Paul's feUnw-labnrer. If it gnes
* The wnrds nf Paul, Acts 30 : 35, dn nnt prnve that the Acts were written after
Paul's death, as haa been alleged. Pur Luke dnes not make Paul, any more thau
Jeaus, speak according to hia nwn fancy.
+ It is tu be bnrne in mind that there is wide difference ef view, according tn the
estimate nf authorities, regarding this pnrtinn. It may pruve clearly authentic- J, II.

546 COMMENTARY On ST. LtKi;.
su far as tu ascribe tu Paul himaelf a share in the cnmpnaitiun, thia ia a later amp/1-
ficatinn which, aa we have seen (Introd. p. 17), is fureign tn the primitive atatement.
Nn nther nbjections are raised against the truth ef this traditional asaertion, than
the argumenta aUeged to prove the composition of our two writings in the aecond
century, a time at which there could ne longer be a f ellow-labnrer nf St. Paul. Thnae
arguments having been refuted, it enly remains tn bring furward frum thuse twu
Writings the pusitive reasnns tn be alleged in suppurt of the indicatinn furnished by
traditinn :
1. It appears frnm the prologue that the authnr was nut one uf the apustles, but
nne nf their immediate disciples, " a Christian nf the secund apustnlic generatinn"
(Rinan). This ia implied in the wurda : " As they delivered them untu us,/which
frnm the beginning were eye-witnesses uf these things." ,
3. This disciple was a Christian from amung the GentUes ; for, as Hnltzmann
nbserves, it is uut prubable that a Jewish Chriatian wnuld have spuken nf the elders
of the Jews (7 : 3), uf a city of the Jews (33 : 51), etc. , etc. ) The position nf Juhn, in
whnm we find sunUar expreasinns, was entirely different. In his case thia f qrm uf
expressinn is explained by reasnns of a peculiar nature.)
3. This Greek Christian was a believer formed iu the school ef Paul. 'This ia
proved by that breath of broad universalism wbich inspires his two writinga, and
more particularly by the currespundence aa tn the institutinn nf the Hnly Sipper in
his accnunt and Paul's.
4. He must even have been nne nf the apuatle's fellnw -labnrera in the wnrk nf
evangelizatiun, at leaat if he ia speaking nf himself in the passages where the flrat
persnn plural uccurs in the bnnk nf Acts. And this explanation seems to be the only
.admissible one. If it is well founded, it further fellows that the author cannet be
one ef the fellow laborers of Paul who are designated by name in the Acts, for he
never speaks nf himaelf except anunymnualy.
5. This apustnlic helper must have been a man of letters. . This ia proved by the
prolngue prefixed tn his work, the clasaic style of thia piece, aa well aa nf thnse paa
sages nf the Acta which he cnmpused independently of any document (the last parts
of the bunk) ; finally, by the refined and delicate complexion of mind and the histori
cal talent which appear in his two writings.
Now all thoae featurea belong signaUy te Luke. We have aeen (Introd. p. 11) :
1. Paul ranks Luke among the Christians of Greek urigin. 3. He assigns him
a distinguished place within the circle nf his disciples aud felluw-laburers. 3. The
title physician which he gives him leada us tu aacribe tu him a scientific and literary
culture probably superior to that of the ether apustnlic helpers.
Nut unly dn the criteria indicated all apply to Luke, but they do not apply well lu
any uther. Barnabas was nf Jewiah nrigin, fnr he was a Levite ; Silas alsn, fur he
belunged tn the Primitive Church at Jerusalem. Timnthy waa a ynung Lycaunian,
prnbably withuut culture, which explains the timid shrinking which seems te have
characterized him as an evangelist (1 Cer. 16 : 10, 11 ; 3 Tim. 1 : 6-8). Besidea, aU
theae are deaignated by name in the Acts. Luke only (with the exceptinn of Titus)
never appears by name. We aee that the evidencea burruwed from Luke'a writings
harmnnize with thnse furnished by the Epistles uf Paul, and that buth cuincide with
the traditiunal statement. Nnw, as it is nnt 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
nf St. Luke tn the highest degree nf scientific certainty.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 547
Moreover, all the authors whose judgment has not been perverted by the pre
judices ef the Tubingen criticism are at one respecting the person of the author. " It
is impossible," says Holtzmann, " to understand why Luke should not be the author
of this Gespel." " The author of this Gospel," says M. Renan (" Vie de Jesua," 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 thua expreases himaelf (p. 81) : " There ia no room to doubt that this
writing was composed by the companion of Paul. At least it is incomprehensible
how by pure conjecture a mau shuuld have been definitely singled out whose name
so larely appears in the epistles of the apostle."
IV. — The Place of Composition.
Some very uncertain traditions place the composition (as we have seen, Introd.
§ 3) at Alexandria (many mss. Mnn.), in Greece (Beutia and Achaia, Jerome), or at
Rnme. A mudern critic, KSstlin, has prupnsed Asia Minnr.
We flnd little ground in the twn writings f uf deciding between those different possi
biUties. The explanations appended to certain gengraphical names by nu means prnve,
as some seem to think, that the author did not write in the country to which those
localities belonged ; they only prove that he did net suppose thoae localities known to
TheophUus or to his readera in general. Thus it cannot be concluded, as has been
attempted from the explanation reapecting the city of PhUippi (Acts 16 : 13), that he
did not write in Macedonia ; nor from thoae about Athens (17 ; 21), that he did not
-write in Attica ; nor from thuse abuut the Fair Havens and Phenice (27 : 8-12), that
he did nut write in Crete ; and as little frnra explanatinns abnut lucalities in Palestine
(Luke 1 : 26, 4 : 31, Nazareth, Capernaum, cities cf Galilee ; 8 : 26, the cnuntry nf
the Gadarenes, nppusite Galilee ; 33 : 51, Arimathea, a city nf the Jews ; 34 : 13,
Emmaus, 60 furlcngs frum Jerusalem ; Acts 1 : 13, the Mnunt nf Olives, near Jeru
salem), that he did nnt write in Palestine. What thuse paasages prnve is
that he did nnt write fnr the Christians nf Paleatine ur Macednuia, or Attica
or Crete, at least exclusively. Because nf the absence nf aimilar explanatinns regard
ing certain Sicilian and Italian lucalities (Acts 38 : 13, Syracuse ; ver. 13, Rhegium,
Puteuli ; ver. 15, Appii Furum and the Three Taverns), it dnes put necessarUy fellow
that he -wrote in SicUy, in Italy, nr iu Rume, but unly that- he knew thnse localities
to be famiUar to his readers. It must be confessed, however, that from the cnuntry
of his readers we may draw an inference in regard to the place ef 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 ef Rome as the place
of compesitien either depend on hia explanation of the aim of Luke'a writings, which
has been proved false, or are unsupported, for example, when he aUeges the interest
which the author showa fer this city by making the foundation of the Roman church
by Paul the culminating point of his narrative. Now the fact is, as we have proved,
that thia last chapter of the Acts has an altegether different bearing.
The reasons alleged by KSatlin and Overbeck in favor of Ephesus are net more
conclusive. 1. It ia aaaerted that Marcion, nn his way from Asia Minnr tu Rome,
brought thence Luke's Gospel. But by that ,time this writing waa apread— this is
proved by facts (Introd. § 1), aa well aa the other two synoptics— throughout all the
churches. Marcion did not introduce it into western Christeudom ; he merely choae
it among tbe received Goapels aa the one which he could the mnst easUy adapt tn his

648' COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKEj
system. 3. The author of the Acts Inves te describe the persons who afterward played
a part in Asia Minor. But .lohn, 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 Jclate with predUection Paul's sojourn at Ephesus. True, but in such a way as
to place in relief Peter's ministry at Jerusalem. Paul's sojourn at Ephesus was the
culminating point nf his apnstolate, as the times which fulluwed Pentecnst were tly)
apngee of Peter's.
Evidences su arbitrary cannnt lay a fnundatinn fnr any snlid result. Once assured
of the author's persun, we shnuld rather start frum his hiatory. Luke waa at Rume
with St. Paul frum the spring nf the year 63 (Acts 38) ; he was atill there when the
epistles were sent to the Colossians and Philemon. But when the apostle wroie to
the Philippians, about the end nf 63 nr beginning nf 64, he had already left Rume, fnr
Paul sends nn greeting frnm him tn this church, so weU known to Luke. When,
therefore, the twn years' captivity nf the apnatle apnken of in the Acts camej- tn a
clnse, and cunsequently that captivity itself, he was nn Innger with the apnstle.
Snme years later, when Paul, imprisnned at Rnme fnr the secund time, sent frum fhat
city the Secund Epistle tn Timnthy, Luke was again with him. Where did he reside
in the interval ? Prnbably in Greece, amnng thnse churchea of Macedunia /and
Achaia, in whnae service he had labored along with Paul, and in Achaia rather thau
Macedunia, seeing Paul does nnt salute him in the Epiatle tu the Philippians. Might
it nnt then be at this periud, aud in thia latter cnuntry, " in the cnuntries uf .AJchaia
and Beotia, ' ' as .Jerome aays, that he composed his Gospel ? * Aa to the Acja, he
muat have compoaed it somewhat later, probably at Rome beaide Paul, shortly before
his martyrdom in C7. The parchments which Paul asked Timothy to bring him
from Asia, at the time when only Luke was with hira, were perhaps documents
which were to be uaed in thia work ; for example, the summaries of the admirable '
diacouraea at Antinch, Athena, and MUetua, which are Uke jewela set in the narrative
of the Acts. The wurk waa publiahed when the head nf the apustle fell under the
.swnrd. Hence the absence uf all allusiun tu that event. The cumpusitinn uf the
Acts, bnth in respect nf place and date, wnuld be nearly cunnected with that nf the
Epistle tn the Hebrews, with which Luke's writings have several other features of
agreement whicli are highly remarkable, f
* We went further in the development of thia hypetheais in our first edition. We
supposed Corinth, and even the houae of Gaiua, Paul's host in that city (Rom.
16 : 33), aa the place of compoaition. M. G, Meyer haa rightly observed in hia review,
that in thia caae there waa nu reaaun tu hinder Luke frnm taking textuaUy frum Firat
Cnrinthiana the account of the inatitution of tbe Huly Supper. We therefure with
draw thnae hyputhetical details.
f Aa tu the situatinn, the authnr uf this epistle (we shnuld say Luke, if the reasuna
in favur uf Barnabas nr Silas did nnt seem tn ua tn prepunderate) is abuut tu set nut
frum Italy with Timnthy, juat delivered frum priaun (after the martyrdom of Paul).
For internal analogies compare the foUowing passagea :
Luke 1:3,  Heb. 3 : 3.
"3:16  " 1:6,8,10.
"3:7  "3-14
" 3:40, .53  " 2 : 17, etc.
In Luke, the tranaformatiou ef the In the Epiatle to the Hebrewa, the
Mosaic ayatem intn spiritual ubedience. transfnrraatinn nf the Levitical cvltus
intu a spiritual culius.
In buth, the idea nf tho human develnpment ef Jesus forming tbe foundation of
the Christulngy.

' COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE'. 549
CHAPTER III.
THE SOURCES OF LUKE, AND THE RELATION OF THB SYNOPTICS TO ONE ANOTHER.
We have reached the most arduous, but net the least important part of our task.
Thia domain is that of hypothesis ; but as it is from the mOst remote and inaccessible
mountain regions that the rivers which fertilize and tbe torrents which devastate
come down, so it ia from the obscure regions into which we are about to enter that
we get thoae widely varinus and yet influential criticiams un the value uf the Gospel
history, which flnd their way even tn the penple. We shall flrat lake up what cun-
cerna the third Gnspel in particular ; then we shall extend uur study tn the nther twn
synnptics. Fur thnse three writings are nf a piece, and every deflnitive judgment un
the one involves a reault gained in regard to the other twu.
I. — The Sources of Buke.
Twn questinna preaent themaelves :
I. Is Luke dependent either un Matthew nr Mark ?
IL Aud if nnt, what were the true suurces nf thia wnrk ?
L
We have threughnut the whule of our cnmmentary exhibited, in the narrative and
style, thuse characteristics which seem tn us tn demunstrate Luke's entire indepen
dence in reapect nf Mark and Matthew. It nnly remaina tu recapitulate thnae prnnfs,
while we apply them tu refute the cnntrary hypntheaee.
A. As tn Luke's independence in relation to Matthew, we shall nnt rest our cnnclu
ainn nn the numeroua narrativea which the flrat has mnre than the aecnnd. Thia fact
would prove nnly one thing : that if Matthew served aa a auurce tn Luke, he was nnt
the nnly one, at least unless we hnld, with Baur, that Luke invented whatever he
cnntains mnre than Matthew — an assertion which seems tn us tu be already sufflciently
refuted. Neither shall we allege the many narratives nf Mattbew which are wanting
in Luke ; fur we are aware uf the reasnns which niight lead the fnllnwer tu nmit cer
tain facts related by his predecessur. But we appeal tn the fnllnwing facts :
1. Luke's plan ia entirely independent nf that uf Matthew ; fur it appears tn us
superfluuus, after the investigatiens which we have just carried thrnugh, again tn re
fute the upiniun nf Keira, accnrding tn which Luke's plan is nn nther than that nf
Matthew spoiled. What appears tn us abuve all incunceivable, ia that in the acceunt
of the journey (from 9 : 51) Luke should not even have mentioned Perea, which Mat
thew expressly makea the theatre of the corresponding journey (19 : 1). EapeciaUy
at the point where Luke'a narrative rejoina Matthew'a (18 : 15, comp. with Matt.
19 : 13), one would expect such an indication without faU.
2. The series of narrations in Luke ia wholly independent of tbat in Matthew.
Two or three analogoua groupa like thoae of the baptiam and temptation, of the two
Sabbatic scenes (Luke 6 -.1 ei seq. and parall.) of the aapiranta to the kingdom of God
(Luke 9 : 57 «* .*s(?. and parall.). and of the various scenes belonging to the Gadara ex
cursinn (Luke 8 : 32-56), etc., are eaaily explained by the mnr.il nr chronological con
nection of the eventa, iu virtue of which they foi-med oue whole in tradition. Be-

650 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
sides, these are not wanting features to prove, even in this respect, the independence
nf the two narratives. Pur example, the insertinn uf the accuunts nf tbe healing nf
the paralytic and uf the caUing cf Matthew in Matthew's narrative cf the Gadara ex
cursinn, and Luke's adding nf a third aspirant unknnwn tu Matthew.
3. In the narrative parts cummnn tn bnth, the independence nf Luke in the
details of the accounts is ubvinus at every wnrd. The authnr whn wrote Luke 1 : 3
cuuld nnt have had befure him Matt. 1 : 3, unless he had the fnrmal intentinn uf cun-
tradicting him. Sn Keim suppuses that Luke had a Matthew befnre him which did
not yet cuntain the accuunts nf the infancy ! In the narrative cf the temptatinn,
wnuld Luke take the liberty nf inverting the nrder uf the temptatiuns, and uf umitting
the appearance of the augels ? Would he suppose the rite of the confession of sins
iu his deacription of John's baptism ? In his account of the baptiam would he mod
ify the terma of the divine utterance ? So in that ef the transfiguration (see the exe
gesis). In the narrative of the caUing of Matthew himself, would he change that
apostle into an unknown peraon, named Levi ? Wnuld he expressly refer tn anuther
Sabbath the secnnd Sabbatic scene (6 : 6) which Matthew places en the same day as
the flrst (13 : 9) ? Wnuld he mentiun a single demnniac at Gadara, a single bUnd mau
at Jerichn, in cases where Matthew mentiuns twu ? When burrowing the cenversa
tinn at Cesarea PhUippi frnm Matthew, wuuld he nmit tn indicate the locaUty where
it took place ? Or would he intrnduce intu the text nf hia predeceasnr auch puerile
changes as the aubstitutinn nf eight days fnr six, in the narrative nf the tranafigura
tinn, etc., etc. ? We ahall be told he uaed another aource in those cases in which he
had more confidence. This suppoaition, which we shall examine more closely,
would solve some of thnse enigmas Indiffereqtly, but nnt all. In particular, the umis
sinns nf details remain unexplained.
4. In repurting the sayings nt Jesus, nut tn apeak here uf the dislncatinn nf the
great discnuraea, how could Luke alter sn serinusly the terms Of auch a dncument aa
the Lnrd's Prayer, ur nf a declaration sn grave as that regarding the blasphemy
against the Spirit, etc., etc.; and then, nn the nther hand, indulge in such petty
changes as tbe transfurmatinn nf tbe sheep faUen intn tbe pit intu an ux, ur nf the twn
sparrows which are snld fur a farthing intn flve which are snld fnr twn farthings ?
Huw cnuld he introduce intn the middle nf the Sermnn nn the Mnunt twn sayings
which seera tn break its cnnnectiun (6 : 39, 40), and which muat be taken frum twn
diacnuraes, held in entirely different situatiuns, according to Matt. (15 : 14, 10 : 35),
where, besides, they have an altogether different applicatien ? Have we here again
the fact ef another document? But, in conclusion, to what purpose does he uae
Matthew ? And would thia preference for the ether source go so far as to lead him
to omit such sayings as these : " Come untn me . . ." which Matthew preaented
tn him ? Fnr whn could take in earneat the attempt tn answer this prupnsed by Hultz
mann (aee pp. 310, 311) ?
5. The chief reasnn fur which it is thuught necessary tn regard Matthew as nne nf
Luke'a snurces, is the identical expreaainna aud parta nf phraaea which uccur beth in
the diacourses and in the paraUel narratives. But whence comes it that this resem
blance ia, as M. Nicolas saya, intermittent, and that nnt nnly in the aame narrative,
but in the aame paragraph and in the same phraae ? Did Luke alaviahly copy Mat
tbew for a quarter of aline, and then in. the next quarter write independently nf
him ? But thia ia child's play, if the sense'is the aame ; it ia atiU wurse, if the change
alters the sense. We knnw the answer which is again given here : he had not Mat-

COilMENTARY On ST. LUKE. 551
thew nnly, but nther ducuments as well befure him ; he combines together those vari
ous texts. Behold our author, then, borre-wing three words from one document, two
from annther, fuur from a tlurd, and that iu every phrase from beginning tn end nf
his Gnspel ? Whn can admit the idea uf such patchwork ? Need we here reproduce
the well-known jest of Schleiermacher at Eichhern's hypothesis (" Schr. d. Luk." p.
6) ? Is it nnt ennugh to say, with Lange, " The process ef death to explain the work
of life?" No; such mechanical inlaying ceuld never have beceme that flowing,
simple, and limpid narrative which we admire in our Gespel. Let the parable of the
soWer be reperused in a synopaia, comparing the two texts, and it wUl be felt that to
maintain that the firat of those texta is derived from the other, in whnle and in part,
is nnt unly to inault the gund faith, but the gnud aenae, uf the secnnd writer.
6. Weiss has pninted nut that a number nf Matthew's favurite expressiuns
(fiaaiXeia ruv oipavov, eiayyiXiov ryS j3aaiXEiaS, napovaia, avvreXeia TOv a'l&vog,
aeXyvid^eaBai, iv EKcivcp ru Kuipu, etc.) are cumpletely fureign tn Luke. If he had
cupied Matthew's text, hnw cuuld nne ur uther nf thnse terma have failed nnw and
again tn eacape from hia pen ?
7. Luke's Guspel abnunds in Aramaizing furma, nut unly in the paaaages peculiar
tn himself, but alau in thuse tu which Matthew has parallels. And, strange tn say,
thnse Aramaisms are -whully wanting in the text uf the latter. We find, on the cnn
trary, a pure, native, vignrous Greek. To suppnse, therefnre, that Matthew was
Luke's principal snurce, is tn believe that the latter, himself a Greek, aud writing fur
Greeks, had arbitrarily f nisted his fureign Aramaic phrases intn the style nf his prede-
ceaanr. Who can imagine auch an annmaly : the Hebrew writer writing gund Greek
fur Hebrews, and the Greek writer cramming his Greek text with Aramaisms fur
Greeks I *
B. Luke's independence in relation to Mark appeara tn ua evident frnm the fnUnw
ing facts :
1. Luke's plan is certainly nnt burrnwed frora Mark, whu haa nn nther plan than
the knnwn cuntraat between the GalUean ministry and the sujnurn at Jeruaalem, and
whuse narrative is cnmpused, besides, nf detached scenes. That which Klnstermann
discnvers appears tn ua tn be due rather to the critic than tu the evangelist. The unity
nf Mark's wnrk lies elsewhere ; it is fuund in the peraun nf Jesua Himself, whuse
greatness fnrms the cummnn basis of all thnse varied scenes, and in the impressinn of
* The phennmenen is found on the largest scale. Let the folluwing parallels be
cumpared :
Luke. Matthew.
5:1: iyevETO . . . koX airo^ yv . . , Kai 4 ; 18 : nEpmaruv di elde,
eide.
5 : 12 ; 5 : 17, 18 : Kaiiyev ... Kat 8 : 1 ; 9 : 1, 3 ; 13 : 9.
airds ijv . , , Kai yaav . . . ; 6 : 1.
8 ¦ 33 ¦ KOl iyevero . . . kui airdS ... 8 : 18 : 'iddiv di kKiXevaev.
9 : 18, 38, 37, 57. 16 : 13 ; 17 : 1, 14; 8 : 19.
11 : 14; 18 : 85; 19 : 39. 13 : 33; 30 : 39; 21 : 1.
34 : 4, 15, 30, 51.
30 : 11 : KOl npoaeOero nipipai erepov 31 : 36 : ndXiv uniaTEiXev aXXovS.
(ver. 13) ; cnmp. 3 : 20.
20 : 21 : XapjSdvEiv npdaunov. 33 : 16 : elf npoaunov pXeneiv.
Other Hebraistic forms in Luke: ad^^arov dEVTEponpurov, 6:1; pEyaXweiv perd,
1 : 58 ; the kui . . . /cat . . . ; 34 : 23-35, etc.

553 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
admiration which it inspires. Therein there is nuthing resembling the progressive de
velnpment which cnmes tn light in Luke's wurk.
3. Nn dnubt as tn the series nf events, especially at the beginning, there is a
greater agreement between Mark and Luke thau betweeu Luke and Matthew ; but
nut withnut transpiuaitiuna much mure difflcult tu explain, un the auppusitinn that
Mark was used by Luke, than is the analngy in surae series, withnut any depend
ence on Luke's part.
, 3. There is in Luke a mure impnrtant umiasinn than that nf sume particular ac
cuunta ; there is the nmissinn nf the whnle cycle, Mark 6 : 45-8 : 36 (Matt. 14' : 33-16 : 13).
Huw ia such a suppreasiun cnnceivable, if Luke, whu nevertheless aimed at being
curaplele {ndaiv, 1 : 3), makes use of Mark ? It haa been suppnaed that there was a
gap in the cupy of Mark which he poaaeaaed ; can this reply aufflce ?
4. The aame difference, besides, meets us in regard to the special detaUs of the
narratives, and in regard to the style of uur Lurd's discuurses, as between Luke and
Matthew. If Luke cupies Mark, why dues he put the healing nf the blind man at
.Terichn at the departure nf Jesus, while Mark puts it at His entrance ? Why dues
he nmit the name nf Bartimeua, and the picturesque detaila of Mark's description ?
What purpnae cnuld it aerve tn mutilate at will auch dramatic accnunta aa that cf the
healing cf the lunatic aun ? By what caprice substitute for the wnrda of Mark :
" Save a ataff enly," theae apparently contradictory ones : " Nothing, not even a
staff " ? And when Luke clearly places the expulsion of the buyers and sellers frnm
the temple, un the mnrruw after Pahn-day, why put it nn that same day? Dnes
Luke make s^iurt nf histnry, and uf the Master's wnrds ?
5. Of the very many Hebraisms which we have pninted uut in Luke, nnly a very
few are fuund in Mark. Once mnre, then, Luke made the medley ! He, the authnr
nf Greek urigin, whn cnuld write classic Greek, overlnadlng his atyle with Hebraisms
which he dees not flnd in hia model I
6. FinaUy, we call attention to the mixture of alaviah dependence and affected
uriginality which wuuld characterize the text of Luke, if he really reproduced the
text of Mark. Is net Gieseler right in saying : " And despite such affectation, thia
work bears a seal of simplicity and of the absence of pretence, which strjkes every
reader !" Another source has been spoken of as uaed besides Mark. So we are
brought back to that manufacturing of phrases of which we have already spoken.
The supposition has been given forth that Luke used the previous writing entirely
from memory. But hew could this memory be at once so tenacious as to reproduce
the minutest expresaiona ef the original text ; and, on the other hand, au treacherous
aa aometimea to alter tbe facta so aerioualy ? Here there would be an intermitting of
memory more difficult still tn explain than the intermittence nf the style tu suppnrt
which thia bypntheaia is resnrted tn.
We cunclude that neither Matthew nur Mark, in their preaent fnrm at least, flgured
aranng the auurcea nf Luke. Such, besides, ia the cnnclusinn which we might have
drawn from his prulngue. The manner in which he cnntrasts the no/,Xol {many),
cnrapilers nf previnus writinga, with the apnstles and eye-witnesses uf the events, fnr
bids us to rank the Apnstle Matthew amnng the furmer ; an that if he ahared the re
ceived opinion which aacribed tn Matthew the firat Gnapel, he cannnt have ranked
this bunk amnng the writings uf which he speaks. It wnuld certainly nnt be easier tn
raaintain that, in a heap with sn many ephemeral writings, he referred tn auch an im
pnrtant wnrk as tbat nf Mark, which from the first times the Church (wilness Papias,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 553
Clement, Irenseua) aignaUzed and regarded as nne of the most precioua documents re
garding the ministry of Jesus. II.
Those two writings being set aaide, what then are the aources from which Luke
has drawn ?
Criticiam has sought to determine the sources of Luke, either frum certain charac
teristics nf his style, ur frnm the religious tendenciea nf certain parta, cr frura the
Incalillea which fnrm the scene uf bis narrative.
1. Prnceeding from the first puint uf view, Schleiermacher, as is well knnwn, brnke
up uur Gnspel intn a certain number uf detached narratives, which the hand ef the
conapiler had combined in such a way as tu fnrm them intu a cunsecutivc histnry.
The phrases ef transition which we have indicated thruughuut nur Gnspel are in hia
eyes the cnnclusinns of thuse shnrt writings ; they dn nnt belung, accurding tn him,
tn the general cnmpiler. This hypnthesis cannnt be maintained : a. Because those
forms have too much resemblance nut tu be frum the same hand. Besides, they reap
pear in the narrative nf the Acts. b. The unity of style and plan provea that the
evangeUst waa not a mere collector. The author, nn dnubt, puaaessed written materiala ;
but he used them in auch a way aa tn wurk thera intn a hnmngeneuua whnle. Aa tn the
twn accnunts nf jnurneys which Schleiermacher thinks have been amalgamated in une
in the piece 9 : 51-19 : 37, sec at p. 387.
3. We have already spuken nf the great Juden-Chriatian Gnspel, in which
Keim flnds the substance nf the greater part uf Luke's Gnspel. But as
there is nu necesaity fnr regarding Luke's narrative aa swayed by uppnaing
religious currenta, Keim's hypetheaia faUa tn the grnund with the fact nn which it
was based. According to Hilgenfeld, the author consulted a third document besides
Matthew and Mark, that which ia reproduced in a mndified fnrm in the jnurnal
(9 : 51-19 : 37). But if this piece fnrmed one whole by itaelf, whence comes it that,
at the point where Luke's account rejoins that of Matthew and Mark (18 : 15), we
find not the least sign of the end nf the interpnlated piece ? Hilgenfeld ascribes an
altngether peculiar character tn this piece — the austerity nf the Christian life ; and a
special aim— tu narrate the fnrraatiun of a circle nf diaciplea whuae wnrk, pasaing be
yund the Jewiah dnmain, waa tn fnrm a prelude tn that uf Paul. But thia aim enters
intn the progressive mnvement uf the whule bnnk, and the firat characteristic referred
tn belnnga tn the eutire teaching cf Jesua (the rich ynuug man).
3. Knatliu thinks he can maintain a suurce specially Judean fur the events Which
are said tn have pasaed in Judea, and fur thnse nf which Samaria was the theatre, ur
in which the Samaritan people play a part— a Samaritan source. Keim regards this
latter, the basis of the account uf the juurney (9 : 51-18 : 37), as nne and the same
wnrk with the dncument which furnishes the account given in the Acts uf the cun
versiun nf a Samaritan pnpulatinn (Acts 8). Aa v/eU might we speak of an Abyfflinian
aource for the narrative uf the nnble belnnging tn the cnurt nf Candace, etc. Aa if it
were necesaary tu bring Incal intereat intn the cumpusitinn nf auch a histnry ! Fur a
simUar reaann, Bleek takes Galilee aa the place of the composition of his nriginal Gna-'
pel— the principal auurce nf Matthew and Luke. The prepunderance cf the Galilean
ministry, aud the nmissinn nf the jnurneys tu Jerusalem, in this fundamental writing,
arise frnm a predilectiun uf a Incal nature. This hypnthesis is as unsatiafactury.
The mure elevated the sphere nf a narrative is, the less prnbable is it that the place nf

554 co.mMejTt.ary ox st. luke.
its origin determined its horizuu. This is nnt the time tn nccupy ourselves -with
other alleged snurces nf Luke, to the suppositinn nf which criticism has been led by
the mysterious relation which unitea uur three aynuptica, expressly the primitive
Matthew (ur Lngia) and the prntu-Mark. Thia questiun wUl uccur when we cnme tn
atudy the relatinna between the synnptics.
Fur nuraelves, the fnUnwing is all th^t we cunclude frnm uur exegetical study :
Isi. We have established a snurce nf purely Jewish nrigin : the genealngical dncu
ment 3 : 33 ei seq, (aee the exegesis). 2d, From 1 : 5 we have fnund nuraelvea face to
face with an acceunt of a wheUy Judeo-Christian character, both in subatance, see
ing it rendera with incomparable frtahness the impressions nf the first acturs in the
Gnspel drama ; and ih furm, fur the style leavea nn dnubt as tn the language in
which it waa written. This piece (chaps. 1 and 3), the Aramaic character of which
Luke has preserved in Greek as faithfully aa posaible, may have been a detached ac
count preserved in the family of Jesua, ur have belunged to a mere considerable
whole, one of the works spoken ef by Luke. The other parts of the Gespel, aU ef
which, except the account ef the Passion, betray an Araraaic basis, must have ema
nated also from the Judeo-Chriatian Church. We shall probably never know
whether those piecea were taken from different writings er borrowed from one and
the same work. Sd, The parts in which this Hebrew character is leaa perceptible,
in matter and form, have probably been compoaed in 'Greek nn the baais of oral nar
rativea, public er private. Thus the acceunt of the Passinn, iu which we shall flnd
certain classical turns ef expreaainn (33 : 13, npovnypxov ; 5 : 15, iari nenpaypivov airu ;
5 : 18, napnXyBei), if it ia nnt the wnrk nf L.uke himself, might be takeu from une uf the
Guspels antecedent tn Luke, cnmpused in Greek. A.tli. The narrative uf the institu
tinn nf the Hnly" Supper is certainly ef Pauline origin ; comp. 1 Cer. 11. Was this
source written ? Waa it, perhapa, the 1st Epistle to the Corinthiana ? In thia latter
caae, Luke must have quoted from memory, as seen frnm the differences between the
twn fnrms. Or was it purely nral ? Luke, having uften celebrated the Hnly Supper
with Paul (Acta 30), might have retained in his memnry mnre ur leaa literaUy the
furmula whicli the apnatle uaed nn thnse nccasinns. Such is all that we think can be
advanced with any probability, proceeding upnn the study uf the Gospel.
II. — The Relaiioiu and Origin of tlie Synoptics.
We shall first examine the systems which are at present current ; thereafter, we
shall state nur nwn view.

A. Must critics are nuw agreed nn this pnint, that Matthew and Mark were not de
pendent on Buke. Nu dnubt, Bleelj traces back Mark tu Matthew and Buke; and,
accnrding tn Vnlkmar, Matthew was burrnwed from Buke and Mark. But thuse upin-
, inns du nnt enjuy anything like general acceptance. Bleek's must plausible argument
is that which he derives from certain phrases of Mark, in which the text of the otlier
two seems to be corabined. But if Mark was such a clese copyiat aa tn place aide by
side twu phraaea identical in raeaning, that he might net loae a word or part ef a
phraae belonging tn the text nf hia predecessnrs, hnw, un the other hand, wuuld he
reject immense pieces frum their wurks, nr modify it in an serinus a way as be nften
does ? Tbe phennmenun wbich has misled Bleek, and snrae nthera befnre him, arises

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 555
simply frnm that anmewhat wurdy atyle uf amplificatinn which characterizes Mark,
and which appears thruughnut his whule narrative. As tn Vnlkmar's npininn, it con
tradicts two obvious facts : the viguruus uriginality nf Matthew's style, and the brev
ity nf hia narrativea in comparison with Luke's. As an example, let the history of
the centurion at Capernaum be taken, in which, fnr all the steps adnpted by him tju
avoid approaching Jeaua persnnally, aud,£ven tu prevent ]|is cnming under hia ruuf
(in Luke), Matthew aubatitutes the wnrds, " He carae untu Him, beaeeching Him ;"
nr the hiatnry nf the paralytic, in which Matthew wnuld be made tn burrow frnm
Luke the wnrds, " And aeeing their faith," after having suppressed aU the circum
stances tu which this expression refers ! AU thia proves nothing, I know, to a man
like Vnlkmar, whn thinks that the evangelists manipulate their materials accurding tu
their caprice. Hnw could the flrat evangeliat have arbitrarily created hia great dis
cnuraea by meana nf the teachings ef Jesus acattered throughout Luke ? Such pro
cedure ia aa inadmiaaible aa the dislocation which others ascribe to Luke.
B. Luke being disposed of, the only possible question regarding the origin of Mark
and Matthew is this, Boea the one de/pend on the other ? The general plan in both is
very similar) the contraat between the Galilean miniatry and the sujnurn at Jerusa
lem). Between thuse two parts there is also found in both writings a very brief ac
count of the journey through Perea. The order of the narratives is almnst identical
frnm the conversation at Cesarea PhUippi ; there are more considerable differences in
the first part ef the GalUean ministry, but the cause of them may be ascribed tp the
manner in which the Serrann nn the Mnunt, umitted by Mark, is prefixed tn it in
Mattbew. Finally, at every mument we meet with idehtical er similar phrases in both
Gospels. But, on the other hand, if Mavk used Matthew, whence cnmes it that, besidea thuse
identical phrases, we have cuntinual differencea which, un the suppuaitiun uf a text
being befnre him, asaume by their very insignficance an intnlerable character nf tuy-
ing and affectatinn uf nriginality ? Whence come those differences in reapect of mat
ter, partly mutUatiens, partly amplifications, sometimes insoluble or apparent contra
dictions? As when Mark makes Jesus say, " Nothing, sa»e sandals;" where Mat
thew says, " Take nothing, not even sandala." So when, in the narrative of the ex-
pulaion of the sellers from the temple, and in that of the barren fig-tree, Mark places
those events en a different day frnm that nn which they transpired accnrding tu Mat
thew. Su in the accnunt nf the calling nf Matthew, where Mark, nn this suppuaitiun,
substitutea fur the peraun nf the apuatle an unknuwn perannage named Levi, withnut
making the alighteat allusinn tn the narae uf Matthew, which the flrst Gnapel gives tu
this pubUcan ; then, in the cures ut tbe demumac, and nf the blind man nf Jerichn, in
which Mark mentiuns nnly nne sufferer inatead nf the twu spykeu nf by his mndel ?
Klnstermann's upininn, which makes Matthew's accuunt the text un which Mark en.
grafted the descriptive glnsaea which he received frnm Peter, likewise faUs tn the
grnund befure the difflcultiea mentioned.
Or was it Matthew who uaed Mark ? But Matthew'a method is wholly original and
independent of Mark's. He luves tn group humugenenus events round a prophetic
text. This crganic principle is in keeping with the fundamental view nf his Gnspel.*
* After a general prnphecy, given as tbe basis uf the entire narrative nf the Gali
lean ministry (4 : 14il6), there fnlluw : 1. The Sermon on the Mount ; 3. A collection
of deeds of power (chaps. 8 and 9), grouped round the prnphecy nf laaiah, qunted
8 : 17 ; 3. The instructinns tu the Twelve, chap. 10 ; 4. AcnUectinn of the utterances

556 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
It has nuthing in cnramun with the nrder fnllnwed hy Mark. Then, in most cases,
we shuuld be fnrced tn think that he made it his businesa tn spnil the narratives of his
mndel ; an in the cure nf the paralytic, in that uf the blind man of Jericho, and par
ticularly in that nf the lunatic sun. Why, beaides, omit the names of the fnur dis
ciplea in the cnnversatinn nf Jesus with the apnstles nn the Mnunt nf Olives (Mark 13) ?
Why, in relating the pre^ratinn fnr the Passnver, say. He sent His diaciples, as if it
was aU uf them, -vs'hUe his predecessur expressly said, ^wo uf His disciples? Why
urait in the prayer nf Gethsemane thnse beautiful wnrds preserved by Mark,
" Father, all things are pnaaible untn Thee," etc., etc.
In flne, it ia impuaaible tu cnnceive anything mnre capricious and less reverential
than the part which we make the author of any one whatever of our synoptic Gospels
play, with the history and aayinga of Jeaua, supposing that he had before him the
other twn, ur une nf them. Such an explanatinn wUl nnly be alluwable when we are
bruught absnlutely tn despair nf flnding any uther. And even then it were better stiU
tu say, !Non liquet. Fur this explanatiun invnlves a mural cuntradictinn. Moat nf nur
present critica are an well aware nf thia, that they have recnurse to middle tenna.
By cemmun snurcea they seek tu explain the relatiun between thuse three writings, nr
they cnrabine thia mnde with the preceding. We have already deacribed in uur in-
trnductiun the numernus systems nf this kind which are proposed at the present day.
C. Bleek derives Matthew and Luke /rom a (yj'eeifc (?0S2>eZ, composed in Galilee. This
hypothesia appeara tn us as unfruitful as thuae which derive them frnm nne annther.
Take, fnr example, tbe liurd's Prayer. A cummnn text, whence the twn evangelists
derived the terras nf this fnrraulary which bnth have transmitted tn us, ia nnt leaa in
cunceivable than the deriving nf une nf thnse repurts from the nther, unless we ascribe
tn either nf them an incredible degree nf arbitrariness in regard tn a mnst snlemn ut
terance nf the Maater. And the same phennmenun reappears frum beginning tu end
of nur twn Goapels ! Besidea, the prolngue of Luke proteats against Bleek's explana
tion. Luke speaks ef many Gespel narratives which were in existence at the time
when he wrote. Bleek'a hypntheaia auppnaea nnly nne. Tn escape from hia diffl
culty, this critic reduces the many writings of which Luke speaks to simple revisions
of that original Gospel ; but Luke evidently understood by thnse many writings nnt
rebandlings nf nne and the same fundamental wnrk, but different and independent
cumpUatinns nf apnstulic tradition.
The hypothesis most in favor in these last times is one which, receguizing the
originality ef Mark, placea him at the head ef the Goapel hiatoriography, sn far at
least as the narrative part is cnncerned, but in an elder forin : the socaUed ¦proto-
Mark, tlie common aource of -our ihree synopiica. Murenver, a secnnd anurce waa uaed
by Matthew and Luke : the' collection of diacouraea, the Bogia nf Matthew. Hnltz
mann haa develeped thia hypnthesis in a wnrk which is nne nf the finest fruits nf criti
cal research in nur century. Let ua examine thnse twn hypntheses nf the Bogia and
the pioto-Ma/i'k,
That there exiated a cnllectinn nf discnurses written by the -\pustle Mattbew, which
was one of the oldeat Gospel documents, we have uot the least doubt. The ground
of our conviction ia net se much the testimony of Papiaa, of which Gieseler rightly
of wisdom (chaps. 11 and 13), grouped round the prophecy of Isaiah, quoted 13 : 17 ;
5- The parablea of the kingdum, chap. 13 ; 6. A aeries of excursions tuthe eaat, nnrth.
and nurth-east, filling up the prophetic progr.imme laid- dnwn as the basis of Ihe Gal
ilean ministry.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 55'7
Says : '• Separated as this notice appears from its context, it is difficult to draw from
it any certain conclusion ;" it is rather the form of our first Gospel itself in which we
meet with great bodies of diacourses distributed at certain points of the narrative, and
which appear to have existed aa sueh antecedently to the work in which they are m-
serted. It is difflcult to avoid the impreaaien that thoae bodies of diacourses original
ly formed une whule. Weizaacker haa, with a maater hand, aa it appeara tn ua, traced
the plan nf this nriginal Matthew (pp. 184-186). The apuatnUc treatiae npened with
the Sermun nn the Mnuut ; it waa the invitatinn tu enter mtn the kingdnm, the fnun
dation uf the edifice. There foUnwed aa the secnnd part nf the cnllectinn, the dis
cnurses addressed tn particular persnns, such as the instructinns given tu the apostles
(Matt. 10); the testimony regarding Jnhn the Baptist (Matt. 11), and the great apuln
getic discnurse (Matt. 13). Finally, the cschatolngical prnphecy (Matt. 34 : 35) cnnsti
tuted the thud part ; it formed the cUraax nf -the cnllectinn, the delineatinn nf the
hopes nf the Church. The other groups nf instructions, the cnllection of parables
(chap. 13), the diacuurse nn the dutiea nf the diaciplea to uue annther and un disci
pline (chap. 18), termed, accnrding te Weizaiicker, an appendix cerreapending to cer
tain practical wanta of the Church. We would introduce seme modifications inte this
reconstruction of the Bogia aa prupased by Weizsacker.* But this matters little tn
the questinn befure ua ; the main thing is that such a wnrk exiated, aud very nearly
as cnnceived by Weizaacker. Holtzraann thinks, on the contrary, that the sayings of
Jesua rather appeared in the Bogia in the form in which we find them in Luke'a nar
rative of the journey (9 : 18) ; it was the authur uf nur first Gnspel, accurding tu hun,
whu grouped them intu systematic discnurses.
We ahall begin by criticising this aecond view. 1. It seems to us impussible, as
we have already remarked in eppnaitinn tu Vnlkmar, that the authnr nf a histurical
wurk, such aa cur cannnical Matthew, tunk the liberty nf gathering intn certain large
masses aayiugs uttered iu different circumatancea, to form so-called diacnuraes nf
which he might say they were uttered by Jeaus at this nr that time. 3. Hnltzmann's
hypnthesis is uppused by the unanimnus cunvictinn uf the Church, which from the
beginning haa attached the name ef Matthe-w tn uur firat Gnspel. Accnrding tn this
view it wnuld really be the Guapel nf Luke which had preaerved the Bogia in
their true furm, aud which cught tn have inherited the name nf the Apuatle Matthew.
By attaching tc uur firat gnspel the name nf Matthew, the Church haa shnwn, un the
cnntrary, that it was this wnrk which waa the depuaitary uf the treaaure bequeathed
tn the wnrld by this apnstle. 3. The strongest ubjectinn tu the use nf the Bogia
by nur two evangelists is always, in uur view, the whully different terms in- which
the teachings of Jesus are conveyed in the two recenaioua. One copies diacourses if he
believes in them ; one invents them if he dnes nnl. The suppnaed middle way, three
* Inatead of making the cnllectinn nf the parables an appendix, we shuuld make
it the centre nf the wnrk. The Bogia oi Matthew, that collection intended to repro
duce our Lord's teaching in its easential characteristics, npened, we shnuld say, with
the expusitinn of the righteousness uf the kingdnm nf heaven, in the Sermnn un the
Mnunt. There fulluwed the deacriptinn of the development nf that kingdum, in the
coUectiou uf the parables (Matt. 13) ; flnally, the great eachatnlngical discnurae. Matt.
34 and 35, annnuncing the conawmmation nf the kingdum, was the cupe-atune uf the
ediflce. Between those principal parts there were placed, like pasaages between the
apartments properly su called, certain subnrdinate instructions, such as the discourse
nn Jnhn the Baptist, nn the casting nut of devils, and on discipline in the Church
(Matt. 11 : 13, and 18).

558 COMMENTARY Olt ST. LPKB.
words of copy, three words of invention, seems to us au impossibility. No doubt it
might be asserted that each author combined with the uae of the common aource (the
" Logia") that ef different particular aources. But what an impoasible procedure is
that which we thereby reach ! Three words borrowed frora the common aource,
three from one or ether ef the apecial snurces, aud this fnr the cumpusitinn nf every
phrase ! What a mnsaic I What an amalgam !
Can we, nn the uther hand, adnpt the npininn of Weizsacker ? 'Were the great
discourses of the " Logia," aa preaerved intact by Matthew, the source at the same
time of the teachinga of Jesua, as reported by Luke? No. For: 1. We caunut
admit that Luke at hia nwn hand diaplaced thnse great discnuraea. i. Thia auppnai
tinn is rendered untenable by all the prunfa which our exegesis has suppUed of the
truth of the historical prefaces which introduce the declarationa repurted by Luke. It
wnuld be impnssible tn conceive a procedure more recklessly arbitrary than that
which Weizsacker ascribes to this author, when he makes him invent situationa for
diacouraea, discourses which he began by carvin.g out ef the "Logia" at pleasure.
3. Thia arbitrarineaa would reach its height in the invention of the narrative of the
journey, 9 : 51-18 : 27. Thia journey, according to this view, was out and nut a
fictinn cf the writer, intended tn aerve aa a framewnrk fnr all the materials which
remained unused. What wnuld be thnught nf a writer whu shnuld act in this way
after having declared that he wnuld aeek tn relate all thinga exactly and in nrder ?
The wnrk nf the " Lngia" then existed, and we think that it may be fnund entire
in nur flrst Gnapel. But it is nnt thence that Luke has drawn nur Lnrd's discnurses.
And thia reault ia cunfirmed by Luke's nwn declaratinn, frnm which it appeara that,
among the gespel works which ha.d preceded his own, he found nnne proceeding
frura au apustle.
In regard tn the secund snurce, that frnm which the materials nf the narrative com
mon tu nur three aynuptica is said tu have been derived, the prntu-Mark, nut unly dn
we deny that nur three synuptics can be explained by such a wurk, but- we du nnt
beUeve that it ever existed. 1. Euaebius, whn knew the wurk nf Papias, aume Jines of
which have given riae to the hypntheaia nf an nriginal Mark, diatinct frnm nurs,
never suspected auch a difference ; su far as he was concerned, he had no hesitation
in applying the testimony nf Papias tu nur cannnical Mark. 2. If there had existed
a gospel treatiae enjoying such authority that our first three evangelists took from it
the framework and the eaaential materiala nf their narrative, Luke certainly cnuld
nnt, aa he dues in his prulugue, put the writings anterinr tn his nwn in nne and the
same categury, and place them all a degree Inwer than the narrative which he pru-
pnaed tu write. He muat have mentiuned in a apecial manner a document nf auch
impurtance. 3. Neither the special plan cf each nf uur synnptica, nur the transpu-
sitiuns nf hiaturies, nnr the differences mnre nr lesa cnnaiderable which appeared in
the detaila nf each narrative, can be aatiaf actnrily explained nn the auppnaitinn of this
unique and common aource. Compare only the three accnunts uf the baptiam uf
Jeaua, ur nf the blind man nf Jericho (aee the exegesis) 1 And as te the diacouraea,
theae at leaat which are derived from the proto-Mark, take a aynopaia and attempt tn
explain the three texts by a common document, and the levity nr puerUity which
must be aacribed nnw tn the nne and again tn the nther uf our three evangeliata, tu
make them dra-w from nne and the aame dncument, wiU be fully apparent ! See, fur
example, the saying nn the blasphemy nf the Spirit (Luke 12 : 10 and parall.). In
mnst cases Holtzmann enumerates the differences, and he images that he has ex-

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 559
plained them ! 4. The decisive argument seems tn us tn be that v/hich is fnunded
nn the style uf the three gnspels. Aa Weiss says, " A writing sn harmuniously and
vigorously composed as our first goapel cannot be an extract from another writing."
In no case could it proceed from a writing the literary stamp of which had the least
resemblance tn that nf Mark. And Luke ? ' Once mnre, it wnuld be he whn had
taken a fancy tn introduce mto the text nf the prntu-Mark thnae an prnnuunced Ara
maisms which distinguish his gnspel from the nther twn ! Frnm thia prntu-Mark
frum which Matthew derived gund Greek fur Hebrews, Luke tunk Hebraiaed Greek
fur Greeks ! The proto-Mark is a hypnthesia which cannot be aubstantiated either in
point of fact or in point of right ; fur were there really such a writing, it wnuld
nevertheless be incapable of doing the service fur criticism which.it expects from it,
that is, supply the solution of the enigma nf the synuptics. Besides, the laat authnrs
whn have written nn the subject, Weiaa, Kloatermann, Volkmar, though starting
from the most opposite standpoints, agree in treating thia writing, which Schleier
macher introduced inte criticism, as a chimera.
But what dnes Weiss dn ? Remaining attached tn the idea uf a written auurce as
the baais nf uur cannnical gnspels, he aacribea tn the nriginal Matthew the " Lugia,"
the part which he refuaes te the prutn-Mark. Only he is thereby nbliged tn assign
historical, and nnt merely didactic, cnntents tn this writing. Nu duubt he dues nut
regard it aa a cumplete guspel ; he thinks that it cnntained neither the recurds uf the
infancy, nnr thuse uf the paaainn and resurrectinn. The bnnk nf the " Lngia" began,
accnrding tn him, with the baptism ; its cnntents were made up uf detached narra
tives and discnurses ; it clnsed with the acceunt of the feast ef Bethany, Thereafter
carae Mark, who labored under the guidance of this apostoUc Matthew, and first
gave the gospel narrative its complete framework ; and those two writinga, the
" Logia" and Mark, became the cummun snurces nf nur canonical Matthew and Luke
But, 1. If Weiss juatly complains that he cannot form a clear idea of the book of the
" Logia" as it is represented by Holtzmann (a writing beginning 'with the testimony
of Jesua regarding John the Baptiat, and closing with a collection of parables), why
not apply the sarae judgment to the apoatolie Matthew of Weiaa ? What ia a book
beginning with the baptism and ending wilh the feaat of Bethany, if it is net, to the
letter, a writing without either head er tail ? 3; Would it not be strange if Mark,
the work which tradition declareaxby the mouth of Papias te be destitute nf histnri
cal urder, were precisely that which had furnished the type of the histurical urder
fnUnwed by uur synoptics ? 3. It fulluwa frnm the prulugue, 1 : 1-4, that when
Luke wrote, he had nut yet befnre him any wurk written by an apnstle ; and, ac
cnrding tn Weisa, he must have had the apostolic Matthe-w in hia hands, 4. While
rendering all juatice to the perspicacity and accuracy diaplayed by Weiaa in the dia-
cuasien ef texts one ia nevertheless painfully affected with the arbitrarineaa belonging to
auch a criticiam. It alwaya comes in the end to this, to educe the diaaimilar from the
same. For thia end it must be held, unlesa one is willing to threw himaelf into the
system of wilful and deliberate alterationa (Baur), that the acts and sayings of Jesua
were an elastic material in the hands of the evangeUats, a aort of India rubber which
each nf them atretched, lengthened, cuntracted, and shaped at pleasure. Will a
suppnsitinn which is murally impuaaible ever lead tn a satisfactory result ? The last
atep to be taken on this view was to assign te the " Logia" nf Matthew the totality
pf the gospel narrative ; this is what Klostermann has done ; and so we are brought

560 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
back to the hypnthesis which makes our Matthew, nr a writing perfectly simUar, the
principal auurce uf the nther twu synoptica.
Hellzmann consoles himself for the Uttle agreement obtained by all this labor up
till now, by saying that this immenae labor, reaching nearly over a century, cannnt
remain wilhuut fruit. But nn a mistaken ruute it is pnssible tn perfurm prodigies uf
agility, tu take marveUuus leaps, tu make fnrced marches, withuut advancing a step
tnward the gnal, because the directinn is perverae. Such appears tn ua tn be the
cunditiun in which criticism haa labnred sn energetically. Far, then, frnm seeking
StiU to advance like Weiss* in this directinn, the time seems tu us tn have cnme fnr
retracing nur steps, in urder to recuver the way which Luke himself indicated, and
which Gieseler bruught tn light. True, the attempt made by this eminent histnrian
has nnt been fnllnwed ; but rather than turn away from it with disdain, criticism
ahnuld have auught tn supply what in it waa defective. This is what we shaU at
tempt tn dn. IL
If, in the systems which we -have passed in review, the difflculty is tn reconcUe
the differences between our gospels with the use of commnn written suurcea, or with
the dependence which they muat be suppoaed to have nn une annther, the difficulty
fnr us will be tn explain, withuut such dependence and withnut such a use, the
reaemblancea which in so many respects make thoae three writings, as it were, one
and the aame work : reaemblance in the plan (omission nf the jnurneys tn Jerusalem);
resemblance in the sequence uf the narratives (identical cycles) ; resemblance in the
matter ef the narratives ; reaemblance aometimea even in details ef style. To solve
the problem, let us begin by ascending to the source of this river, with its three
branchea. After the fnundatinn uf the Church, un the day uf Pentecnst, it -was neceasary tn
labnr tn unuriah thuse thuusands nf snula whu had entered intu the new life. Amung
the meana enumerated in the Acts which served tu edify the new-bum Church, the
apoatlea' doctrine (3 : 43) stands in the first place. What dnes this term mean ? It
cnuld nut suffice tu repeat daily tu the same peranns that prnclamatinn nf the death
and reaurrectinn nf nur Lurd whereby Peter had fnunded the Church. It must sunn
have been necessary tu gn back nn the narrative cf Jesus' ministry. But the exprea
aiun, apuatlea' doctrine, shuws that thnae nral narratives did nnt bear simply nu the
acts and miracles of Jesus, but also, and even speciaUy, on His teachings. Before
Paul and John had set fnrth nur Lurd Himself aa the essence uf the Guspel, the apns
tles' ductrine cnuld nnt well be anything else than the reproductinn and applicatiun
nf the Maater's discourses. One day, therefore, it was the Sermon on the Meunt ;
annther, the discuurse on the relations between believers (Matt. 18) ; a third, the es
chatulngical diacuurse, by means uf which the cnmmunity nf the faithful was edified.
It waa repeated, and then cnmmented un. With tbe exceptinn of John, the Twelve
probably never paaaed beyond this elementary aphere of Christian teaching. It waa
StUl within thia that Peter moved in hia inatructiona {didaaKuXiai) as he travelled, and
at Rome, at the time of which Papias speaka, and when Mark, hia interpreter, ac
companied him collecting his narrativea. And waa it net, indeed, with a view tn thia
special task of " teatify ing what they had seen and heard, i' that Jesua had chnsen and
* " Daa Marcua-Evangelium und seine ayn. ParaUelen," 1873,

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.

561

fnrmed the Twelve ? Nnr were they sluw tn abandnn the nther duties with which
they were at flrst charged, such as the serving of tlie common tables, in order to devote
themselves exclusively to this work (Acts 6).
The rich materials for those recitals (John 31 : 34, 35) must at an early period have
beceme contracted and concentrated, bnth as regards the discuurses and the facts.
In respect te the latter, fer each category of miracles the attentinn was giveu pre
ferentially tu nne or two peculiarly prominent examples. In respect to the discourses,
as these were reproduced not in a historical interest, but with a view to the edification
of believers, the apoatolie expoaition gradually fastened en some specially important
puints in the ministry nf Jeaus, such as thnae uf the Sermnn un the Mnunt, of the
sending of the Twelve, of the annnuncement of the destruction of the temple, and tn
the subjects which Jesus had treated ef on these nccasinns, and with which they con
nected without scruple the most salient of the other teachings of Jesus uf a kindred
aurt. It was a matter nf salvatiun, nut nf chrnnnlngy.
They likewise became accustomed, in these daily instructions, tn connect certain
narratives with one anuther which had snme intrinsic analngy as a bund uf uninn
(Sabbatic scenes, aspirants tn the divine kingdnm, gruupa uf parablea), ur a real hia
tnrical successinn (the sturm, the Gadarene demnniac, Jairus, etc.). Thus there were
formed cycles of narratives mnre nr less fixed which they were in the habit uf relat
ing at une stretch ; snme cycles united tngether became groups, traces nf which we
find in nur synnptics, and which Lachmann, in his interesting essay nn the subject
(" Stud. u. Critik." 1835), has called corpuscula evangelicce hiatorim ; fnr example, the
group nf the Messianic advent (the ministry cf Jnhn the Baptist, the baptism and
temptatinn nf Jesua) ; that nf the flrat daya uf the ministry of Jesus (His teachings
and miracles at Capernaum and the neighburhnnd) ; thatnf the first evangelistic jnur
neys, then nf the mnre remute excurainns ; that nf the laat daya ef His ministry in
GaUlee ; that of the journey through Perea ; that nf the anjnurn at Jerusalem. The
nrder nf particular narratives within the cycle, or of cycles within the group, might
eaaUy be transpoaed ; a narrative could not so easily paaa from one cycle to annther,
nr a cycle frum une group intu anuther. •
In this process nf natural and spnntanenus elaburatiun, all in the interest nf prac
tical wants, the treatment uf the Gnspel must have imperceptibly taken, even dnwn
tu details of expressinn, a very fixed furm. In the narrative parts, the hnUness nf the
subject excluded all nrnamentatinn and refinement. The fnrm uf the narrative was
simple, Uke that of a garment which exactly fits the bndy. In auch circumstances,
the narrative nf facts passed uninjured thrnugh varinus mnuths ; it preserved the gen
eral stamp which it had received when it waa first put intn fnrm by the cnmpetent
witness. A little mure Uberty was aUnwed in regard tn the histnrical franiewerk ;
but, in repeating the worda ef Jesua, which formed the prominent feature in every
narrative, the received form was abaolutely adhered tn. The jewel reraained un
changeable ; the frame varied mnre. The reprnductiun cf the discnurses was mure
expnaed tu invuluntary alteratiuna. But preciaely here the memnry nf the apustlea
had puwerful helpa ; abuve aU, the striking nriginal plastic character nf the sayings
uf Jesus. There are discourses which one might hear ten timea without remembering
a sino-le phrase verbally. There are others which leave a certain number of sentences
indeUbly impressed on the mind, and which ten hearera would repeat, many days
after, almost identically. Everything depends on the way in which the thoughts are
conceived and expressed. Forrned within the depths of His soul, the words of Jesus

663 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
received .under the government nf a powerful concentratiun that settled, finished, per
fect impreaa by means of which they became sterentyped, as it were, nn the minds of
His hearers. This snrt uf eluquence, besides, tuuk pusaeasiun nf the whule man ; uf
cunacience, by its mural truth ; uf the underatanding, by the precisinn nf the idea ; uf
the heart, by the liveliness uf feeUng ; uf the imaginatinn, by the richneas ef its cel-
nnng ; and what the whnle man haa received, he retains easUy and faithfully. Finally,
the apuatlea were cnnvinced uf the transcendent value nf the things which they heard
frnm His muuth ; Jeaua Himaelf did nut alluw them tu furget it. They knew that
they were called sunn tu proclaim from the hnuse-tups what waa aaid tu them in the
ear. They had nnt heard the warning in vain : " Take heed hew ye hear." They
cnnveraed daUy regarding all that they heard tugether ; and, even during the lifetime
uf their Master, a cummun traditiun waa furming amung them. ThOse sentencea
atanding out in such pure aud marked reUef graven upon thera by frequent repe
tition, needed only an external call to be drawn forth from their mind in their native
beauty, and to be produced alraoat aa they had received them. Indeed, I cannot
conceal my aatoniahment that ao great a difficulty should have been found in the fact
that the sayings nt Jesus are almnat identically reprnduced in nur Guspels. The
differencea aurpriae me much mere than the resemblancea. The suurce uf thia fixed-
ness is neither Luke cnpying Matthew, nur Matthew cnpying Luke. II, is the puwer
ful spirit nf a Maater like Jeaua taking pussesainn uf the minds nf aimple, calm, and
teachable disciples Uke the apoatlea. This was preciaely the result aimed at by that
order of providence whereby His Father had brought te Him as disciplea, not the
scribes and the learned of the capital, but little cMldren, new bottlea, tabulce rasm.
In the first times, evangelization waa carried forward in Araraaic, the language of
the people and of the apostles. And the poverty ef this language, both in syntactical
terras and in its vocabulary, also contributed to the fixity of the fnrm which traditiun
tunk. But there was, even at Jemsalem, a numernus Jewiah pnpulatinn which apuke
unly Greek — the HeUenistic Jewa. They pnssessed in the capital snme hundreds nf
synagugues, where the Old Testament was knnwn nnly in the translatinn nf the LXX.
Frgm the time when the Church welcnmed Jewa nf this class — and that was from its
cradle, as is proved by the narrative Acts 6 — the need of reproducing- in Greek the
apnatnlic ayatem cf evangelizatiun muat have made itself imperinusly felt. This wnrk
uf translatinn was difflcult and delicate, especially as regarded the sayings nf Jesus.
It was nut dune at randum ; thnse nf the apnstles whn knew Greek, such as Andrew,
Philip (Jnhn 13), and nu duu'bt Matthew, did nnt faU tn engage in it. There were
especially certain expressions difficult to render, for which the corresponding Greek
term required tn be carefully selected. Once fnund and adnpted, the Greek expres
ainn became fixed and permanent ; an the wnrds inirniaios {daily) in the Lnrd's Prayer,
and nTEpvyiov {pinnacle) iu the narrative nf the temptatiun — expreaainna which have
been wrongly qunted tu prnve the mutual dependence ot nur Gnspels nn a cnmrann
written snurce.* From this Greek muuld intu which the primitive traditiun was
caat, it cuuld nnt but come forth with a more fixed character atUl than it already poa
seased in Aramaic.
It maintained itself, no doubt, for some tirae in this purely oral form, Aramaic and
* Holtzmann also adduces, in opposition to me, the verb with its double augment
anEKUTEcrdBy, used in the three aynoptics. But the varioua reading dnoKarEordBy ia
fnund in the three texta, and uaage might have cunsecrated this fnrm with the dnuble
augment, aa in anme nther verba.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 663
Greek. We may apply tu the apustles and evangeUsts, the depositaries of this treas
ure, what Dionysius ef Halicarnassua says of the Homeric logngraphers : " They dis
tributed their narratives nver natinns and citiea, nut always reproducing them in the
same order, but always having in view the nne cnmmon aim, tn make knnwn all thnae
memorials, su far as they had been preaerved, without additinn and withnut luss." *
Basil the Great repurts a simUar fact : duwn tu his time (fnurth century) the Church
pnssessed nu written liturgy fnr the Huly Supper — the sacramental prayers and
fnrmulse were transmitted by unwritten in8tructinn.f And was nut the immense store
uf Talraudic traditiuns, which fnrms a whnle Ubrary, cunveyed fer ages solely by
oral tradition ?
How was the transition made from oral evangelization to written compilation ?
The most natural conjecture, adopted by men like Schleiermacher, Neander, and
even Bleek, is that they began by writing, nnt a Gnapel— that wuuld have appeared
tun great an undertaking — but detached descriptinna and diacouraea. It was a hear
ers who deaired to preserve accurately what he had heard, an evangeliat whn snught
to reproduce his message muie faithfully. At a time when bunks uf pruphecy were
cnmpused under the names nf all the ancient Israelitish persunages (Ennch, Eadras,
etc.), when cnllectiuns nf apucryphal letters were palmed nff en the ancient Greek
phUusuphera — a Heraclitus, fnr example X — whu wuuld be astunished tu flnd that,
amnng the fellow-labprera and hearers of the apostles, there were some who set them
selves to put in writing certain acts and certain discourses of the man whose life and
death were movin.g the world ? These first compositions might have been written in
Aramaic and in Greek, at Jerusalem, Antioch, or any nther of the lettered cities
where the Gnspel fluuriahed.
Thnae adversai-ia, nr detached accounts taken frnm the histury uf Jesus, were
aunn gathered intu cuUectiona more or less cumplete. Such were prnbably the writ
ings uf the noX7ioi mentinned in Luke's prulngue. They were nnt urganic wnrks, all
the parts nf which were regulated by one idea, like nur Guspels, aud sn.they are Inst
—they were accidental corapilatiena, simple coUections of anecdntes nr discnurses ;
but thnse works had their impurtance as a second stage inthe development of Gospel
historiography, and a tranaition to the higher atage. Thua were collected the
materials which were afterward elaborated by the authors of our synoptic Gospels.
In oral tradition thus formed, and then iu those firat compilationa and coUections
of anecdotes, do we nut pusaess a basis firm ennugh un the une hand, and elaatfc
ennugh nn the nther, tn explain- the reaemblance aa well as the diversity which pre
vails between uur three synnptics ; and, in fine, tn resulve that cumplicated problem
which defies every attempt at solutiun by sn unyielding an expedient as that of a writ
ten mndel ?
1. Tbe must atriking feature uf resemblance in the general plan, the nmisaiun nf
the jnurneys tu Jerusalem, ia explained, nut perhaps fully, but at leaat mnre eaaily,
in the way which we propnae than in any other. Oral traditiun becuming condensed
in the form of detached narrativea, and afterward grouped in cycles, the journeys tu
Jerusalem, which did net lend themselves so easUy to the end of popular evangeUza
tien aa the varied scenes aud very simple discouraea of the GaUlean ministry, were
* " Judic. de Thucyd." U. p. 138, edit. Sylburg (quoted by Gieaeler). '
X "DeSpir. Sanct."c. 37.
X Bemays, " Die HeracUtischen Brief e" (three uf which, according tu this critic,
belung tn the flrst century cf our era).

564 COJlMEitlARY ON ST. LUKE.
neglectfid. The matter took shape without them ; and so much the more, because
they did not enter into any nf the groups which were fnrmed. When the traditinn
was cnmpiled, this element in it waa wanting, and the gap was nut filled up tUl later,
when the narrative nf au eye-witness (Jnhn) gave a new delineatinn of the miniatry of
Jesus in a raanner completely independent nf the traditiunal elaburatiun.
3. If our narratives have such a traditinnal origin as we have indicated, we can
easUy explain bnth the identical series nf accnunts which we snmetimes meet in uur
synuptica, and the transpusitinn nf particular accuunts.
3. The resemblances in the substauce nf the narratives are explained quite natu
rally by the nbjeCtivity nf the facts which left ita atamp un the recital ; and the differ
ences, by the involuntary medifl'cations due tu oral reproduction and tu the multi-
Ijlicity of written cnmpends. There ia nne thing eapeciaUy which is naturaUy
accuunted fur in this way. We have again and again remarked, especially in the
accnunts nf miracles, the cnntrast which ubtaina between the diveraity uf the hiatnri
cal framewurk in the three synuptica, and the aameness nf the sayings uf Jesus during
the cnurse nf the actiun. This contrast is inexplicable" if the writings are aerived
from one another or trom a written source. It is easily understood from nur view ;
the style nf the aayiugs nf Jesus had becume mure rigidly flxed in traditiunal narra
tiun than the external details uf the Gnspel scenes.
There remain the resemblances cf style between the three writings — the identical
clauses, the cummnn expressinns, the syntactical furma nr grararaatical analugiea.
If ural traditinn became fnrmed and fnrmulated, as we have said, if it was early cum-
pUed in a fragmentary way, if thnse cumpUatinns were used by the authnrs nf uur
Guapela, thnae resemblances nn Innger present anything inexplicable, and the differ
ence which alternate with them at every instant no longer require to be explained by
forced expedients. The two phenomena, which are cuntradictory on every uther
hypnthesis, cnme intn juxtapnaitiun, and harmnnize naturally.
Starting from this general pnint nf view, let us aeek tu trace the apecial nrigin nf
each nf nur three synnptica. The traditiuns argee in aacribing tu Matthew the firat
Gnspel cnmpilatiun which proceeded from an apuatle. It waa, accurding tu Irenseua,
" at the time when Peter and Paul were tngether fnunding the Church at Rume"
(from 63-64), nr, according to Eusebius, " wheu Matthew was preparing tn gn tn
preach te other nations" (after 60), that this apostle took pen in hand. This approx
imate date (60-64) ia cunflrmed by the warning, in the fnrm nf a parentheaia, which
we find inserted by the evangelist in the eachatnlngical discnurae nf Jesus (34 : 1,5).
Our Lurd declares tn the disciples the sign by which the Christians of Judea shall
recugnize the tirae fer fleeing from the Holy Land ; and Matthew adds here this
remarkable nota bene: "Whoso readeth, let hira understand." * This parenthesis
containa the proof that, when this diacourae was cnmpiled, the Juden-Christian
believers had nnt yet retired beynnd the Jurdan, as they did abnut the year 66. What
was the writing nf Matthew ? Was it a cnmplete Gnapel ? The reaanna which we
have indicated rather lead us think that the apoatle had compiled in Aramaic the
great bodies ef discourses containing the ductrine uf Jesus, aa it had been put intn
fnrm by traditiun, with a view tu the edification nf the fincka in Palestine. It is
thuse bndies uf diacnuraes which are the characteristic feature nf uur first Gnspel ; it
* This warning is nnt cunnected with the quntatinn frum Daniel, and fnrms nn
part nt the discnurae uf Jesus ; this appears frnm Mark (where the quntatinn frum
Daniel is unauthentic).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 565
is round this durainant element tbat the bnnk appears tn be urganized all through.
The narrative partis an additinn tn this uriginal theme. It was net cumpnsed in
Hebrew ; the style dnea nnt admit nf thia suppusitinn. Ita date ia a little later than
that nf the apnstnUc writing. Fur the presbyter, a native uf Palestine, whn' instmcted
Papias remembered -a, tirae when, in the churches ef Judea, they had no Greek
translation ef the "Discuurses of Jesus" (the Logia), and when every evangelist
reproduced thera in Greek viva voce, as he could. What hand compoaed this historical
narrative, in the framework of which the whole contents of the Logia have been skil
fully distributed ? Is it nut raust natural tn suppnse tbat nne nf Matthew's disciples
whUe reproducing his Lngia in Greek, set them in a complete narrative of the life of
Jesua, and burrowed the latter from tbe traditinnal recital in auch fnrm aa he had fre
quently heard it frnm the ranuth nf that apnatle ? This traditinn had taken, in the
handa uf Matthew, that reraarkably summary and conciae character which we hav6
BO often observed in tbe flrst Gospel. Pur bis aim was nnt tu describe the scenes, but
merely to demonstrate by facts the thesis tn which hia apostoUc activity aeems to
have been devoted : Jesua ia THE CHRIST. The Lugia seems alsn tn have been
arranged with a view tu thia thesis. Jeaua the legialator, Matt. 5-7 ; the king, chap.
13 ; the judge, chap. 24, 25 ; conaequently THE MESSIAH. Cnmp. Matt. 1:1. '
Mark, according to traditiun, wrote duriug, nr ahnrtly after, Peter's sejnurn at
Rume, abnut 64 ; cnnsequenlly almnst at the same time aa Matthew: Su, like Mat
thew, he recerds in the eachatnlngical discourae the warning which it waa cqatumary
in Palestine tu add tu the aayings nf Jesus regarding the flight beyund the Jurdan
(13 : 14). The materiala nf his Guspel muat have been burrowed, according to tradi
tion, from the accounta of Peter, whom Mark accompanied on hia travela. Accord
ingly, he could not have used our first Guapel, which waa nut yet in existence, nor
even the Logia, which could not yet have reached him. Huw, then, are we to
explain the very special cnunections which it is easy to establish between his writing
and the first Gospel ? We have seen that this latter writing has preserved to us
essentially the great didactic compositions whicb are the fruit of Matthew's labor,
but set in a ctmaecutive narrative. From whom did this narrative proceed ? In
directly from Matthew, no duubt ; but in the first place frnra Peter, whnae influence
had certainly prepnnderated in the formation of the apoatolie tradition in all that
concerned the facta of our Lord's ministry. The unly difference between the first
twu Gnspels therefure is, that while the nue gives us the apustnlic aystem nf evangeliza
tiun in the sumraary arid systematic fnrm tu which it had been reduced by the labnrs
uf Matthew, the uther preaents it tn us in all ita primitive freabneaa, fulneaa, and aim
plicily, as it had beeu heard from the lips uf Peter, with the additinn nf nne ur twn uf
the great discnuraea (chaps. 3 and 13) due tn tbe labnrs uf Matthew (chapa. 13 and 34),
and with which Mark had long been acquainted aa a hearer of the Paleatinian
preaching.* The special differencea between the two compilations are explained by
the variable element which is always inevitable in oral evangelizatiun, f It may thus
* If Mark knew thuae discnuraea an well, he muat have been acquainted with the
Sermnn nn the Mnunt. Its place even is clearly indicated in hia narrative (between
vers. 19 and 30 of chap. 3). The nnly reaann fnr hia omitting this diacnurae must
have been, that it did uut flt in sufflciently tn the plan nf his Gnapel, intended, as it
was, fnr Gentile readera.
f We can understand Ihe series uf evidences by which Klnstermann haa been led
to regard the text nf Mark as merely that nf Matthew enriched with schnlia due to
the narratives of Peter. But what ia tu be made of the series of uppnsing evidences
which we have sn often enumerated ?

666 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
be cnncluded that the flrat Guapel cnntains the wnrk nf Matthtw, completed by tho
traditinn which emanated from Peter ; and the second, the tradition of Peter, com
pleted by meana of seme parts of Matthew's work.
Luke, according to the tradition and evidencea which we have collected, must
have composed hia history in Greece at the same time when Matthew was compUing
hia Lugia in Palestine, and Mark the narratives ef Peter at Rome. If so, it is per
fectly clear that he did not know aud use these writiuga ; and this ia what ex
egeaia deraonstrates. From what sources, then, haa he drawn ? He haa worked-^as
appeara from our atudy of hia book — on written documenta, moatly Aramaic. But
how are we to explain the obvious connection in certain parts between those docu
menta and the text of the other twn Syn. ? It is enuugh tn repeat that thuse ducu
ments, at least thnae which related tu the ministry nf Jeaua frum Hia baptiam nn
ward, were cumpilatiuna uf that aame aijeatnlic tradition which forms the basis of
our first two Gospels. The relationship between our three Guapela ia thus explained.
The Aramaic language, in which the mnst nf Luke's decumeuts were written, leads
tu the suppuaitiun that they dated, Uke thnae frnm which the same authur cumpnsed
the flrat part uf the Acts, frum the earliest tiraes nf apustnlic evangelizatiun. At that
perind the didactic expoaition of Jeaua' doctrine waa prnbably nut yet cuncentrated
and grouped, aa it waa later, abnut sume great puinta of time and snme deflnite sub
jects. Traditinn preserved many mnre traces cf the varinus circumstances which had
furnished our Lord with a text for His instructiona. Hence those precioua introduc
tions uf Luke, and that exquisite apprupriateneaa which lenda a new charm to the
diacnuraea which he haa preserved tn ua. Aa to the general concatenation nf the Gkis-
pel eventa which we admire in Luke, he nwes it undnubtedly tn special infurmatinn.
It is uf such suurcea cf infurmation'that he speaks in his prulngue, aud which en
abled him tn recunatruct that broken chain uf which traditiun had preserved only the
rings. Thus it ia that we underatand the relatiuns and origin uf the synnptics. Is this
explanatinn chargeable with compromising the Gospel history, by making its accu
racy depend on a mode ef transmiaaion so untmatwurthy aa traditiun? Yea, if the
perind at which we are led tn fix the cnmpilatiun nf thnae nral accounts was much
more advanced. But from 60 te 65, tradition waa stiU under the control nf thnse whu
had contributed to form it, and nf a whnle generatinn cuntempurary with the facts
related (1 Cor. 15 : 6, written in 58). In those circumstances, alterationa might affect
the surface, nnt the aubstance ef the history.
I would take the Uberty of closing this important subject with an apologetic re
mark. There ia perhapa no more decisive proof of the authenticity uf the aayings uf
Jesus than the different furma in which they are trauamitted tn us by Matthew and
Luke. An artificially cumpnsed discuurse, like thnse which Livy puts intn the ranuth
nf his heroes, ia une utterance ; but the di.icouraes of Jesus, as they are presented In
us by the twn evangeUsts, are bruken and fragmentary. Murenver, thuse simUar
materials, wbich appear in bnth in entirely different cnntexta, must neceaaarily be
mure ancient than thnae somewhat artificial whnles in which we new find them.
Thoae identical materiala put tn use iu different cunstructinna muat have belonged la
an ulder edifice, cf which they are merely the debris.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LLTKE. 507
CHAPTER IV.
the beginnings of the church.
To get rid nf the Mnsaic revelatiun, raliunalism has assumed an uriginal cnntrfist
between Elnhiara and .Tehuvisra, and suught tn make the histnry uf Israel the pro
gressive snlutinn nf this antagnniam ; and in the aame way, tu reduce the appearing
of Chriatianity to the level uf natural eventa, the Tubingen achool has set up a contrast
between apoatolie Judeo-Cbriatianity and the Christianity ef Paul— a contraat the grad
ual solution of which is made to explain the course of hiatury during the first twn
centuries. Reusa and Nicnias, withnut altngether sharing, especially the first, in this
pnint nf view, nevertheleas retain the idea nf a cunfiict between the twu frac-
tinns nf the Church, prufuund ennugh tu lead the authur uf the Acts tu the
belief that he rauat seek tu diaguiae it by a very inaccurate expusitinn nf the
views and cnnduct nf hia maater Paul. But if we cannet credit thia writer in re
gard tn things in which he tnnk part, huw are we tn fnund nn hia narrative when he
describes much ulder eventa, auch as thuse which are cnntained in his Gnapel ? The
impurtance nf the queatinn ia nbvinua. Let us attempt, beture clnsing, tn thruw Ught
upnn it. '
Tu prnve the antagnnism in questinn, the Tubingen schnnl in the flrst place ad
vances the different tendencies which are said tn be ubservable in the Guspels. But
it ia remarkable that, tu demunstrate this cnnflict nf tendencies, Baur was forced tu
give up the attempt of dealing with known quantities; our canonical Guspela, and tn
have recuurae tu the auppnaitinn uf previuua writings uf a much more pronounced
dogmatic character, which formed the fnundatinn bnth nf uur Matthew and nf nur
Luke, tn wit, a primitive Matthew, excluaively legal aud particularistic, and a primi
tive Luke, abanlutely univeraalistic and antinomian. Thua they begin by ascribing
tp our Gnspels an exclusive tendency ; then, not flnding it in the books as we have
them, they make them over again accnrding tu the precnnceived idea which they have
formed nf tbem. Such is the vicinua circle in which thia criticiam mnves. The
hypetheaia uf an autinomian * prole-Luke haa been completely refuted within the
Tubingen achool itself ; we may therefore leave that suppoaition aside. There re
maina enly the prutu-Matthew. Thia is the laat plank tn which Hilgenfeld atiU clings.
He discovers the elementa of the primitive Matthew in the fragments which remain
to us of the Gnspel nf tl;e Hebrews. He aUeges a natural and gradual tranafnrmatinn
nf thia writing in the direction of univeraaliara (the product being our canopical Mat
thew) ; afterward Mark, and then Luke, continued and completed the tranafermation
of the Goapel hiatory into pure Pauliniam. But thia conatructien is net lesa arbitrary
than that of Baur. The Gospel of tbe Hebrewa, aa we have seen, has all the charac
teristics ef an amplified and derived work, and canunt be the baaia nf nur Matthew.
Even Vnlkmar treats this Judaizing prutn-Matthew aa a chimera, nn less than the
antinemian prutu-Luke. And what nf himself? He charges nur three synnptics
with being Pauliniat writinga, the anle Judaizing antagnnist tn which is . . . the
Apucalypse. The wurk uf Jnhn, auch, accnrding to Volkmar, ia the true type nf
legal Juden-Chriatiauity, the dncument uf which Baur aeeka in vain in the primitive
* Our author usea this word, like some others, nnt in ita mudern, but its exact.
senae : the sense uf uppnaitiun tn the Musaic ritual. — J. H.

568 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
Matthew, which is invented by himself tu meet the exigency nf the case. But what ! we
ask Vnlkmar, can you regard as strictly legal a writing which 'caUs the Jewish people
the synagogue ef Satan (Rev. 3 : 9), and which celebrates wilh enthusiaam and in the
most brilliant colors the entrance into heaven ef innumerable converts ef every nation,
and tribe, and people, and tongue, who were nntnrinusly the fruita uf the labnrs nf
the Apnatle Paul ; which proclaims alnud the doctrine nf the divinity nf Jesus-Mea-
siah, that perpetual blasphemy tn the ears nf the Jewa ; and which, inatead nf deriv
ing aalvatiun frum circumciaien and wurka, makes it descend frnm the throne of Gnd
aud uf the Lamb, nf pure grace thrnugh faith in the blond nf the Lamb, withnut any
legal cnuditinn whatever? Such Juden-Chriatianity, aaauredly, ia a Pauliniam nf
pretty atrong quality. And the apnstle uf the Gentilea would have asked nnthing bet
ter than tu aee it admitted by all his adversaries. He would very quickly have laid
dnwn his arms.*
Baur further aUeges the authentic epistles nf Paul (Ihe fuur great ones), eapecially
the aecend chapter of Galatiana. The fnllnwing are the cnntenta nf the passage.
Paul gives an accuunt cf a private cnnference (xar' 'idiav dd) which he had with thnse
uflhe apnstles whn enjuyed the highest cnnsideratiun (roZs doKovai), in which he slated
tn them {dvEBipyv) his mnde nf preaching amnng the Gentiles — a methnd which they
sn fully approved, that Titus, an uncircumcised GentUe, was immediately welcnmed
and treated at Jerusalem as a member nf the Church (ver. 33). And if he held out
ill this caae, though circumciaiuH was in his v|ew merely an external rite, and mnraUy
indifferent (1 Cur. 7 : 18, 19), it was nnt frum ubstinacy, but because ot false brethren
unawares broughtin {did di rods nupsiauKTovS ipEvdudEX(povs) whn claimed the right to
impose it, and who thus gave tn thia matter the character ef a queatinn nf principle
(vers. 4, 5). Then, frura thuse intruded falae brethren, Paul returna tu the apoatlea,
whom he cnntraats with them (an-d di rd>v doKovvrav), and whn, that ia, the apuatles,
added no new condition to his statement {oidiv npoaaviBEvro, referring tu the dvEBipyv,
ver. 3), but recngnized in hira the man called tn labnr specially amung the GentUes,
as in Peter the man specially charged with the apnstolate tn the Jewa ; and un this
baais they assnciated themaelvea with him and his wnrk, by giving him the right hand
of fellnwship (vers. 6-10). That there was any shade nf difference between him and-
the Twelve, Paul duea nut say ; we may conclude it, however, from this diviainn nf
labnr in whiuh tbe cunfe -ence terminated. But that thia shade was an oppnsitinn nf
principle, and that the Twelve were radically at nne wilh the false brethren brought
in, as Baur seeks tu pruve, is what the passage itself absnlutely denies. The cnntrary
alsn appears from the secnnd fact related by Paul in thia chapter — his cnntentinn with
Peter at Antinch. For when Peter ceasea all at nnce tn mingle and eat with the
Christians frnm aranng the GentUes, fer what dees Paul rebuke him ? Fur nnt walk
ing uprightly, fur acting hypncrilically, that is tn aay, fnr being unfaithful tn his real
cunviction, whicli evidently aaaumes that Peter has the same convictinn aa Paul iiira-
self. And this is a pasaage which is tu prnve, accnrding tn Baur, the eppnaitinn uf
* Chap. 3 : 39 is alleged, where a wnman is spuken nf whu teaches to eat meats
sacrificed tn jduls, and tu coramit impurity — a wnman whn, it is said, repreaents the
ductrine uf Paul. But In leach tn eat meata offered in sacrifice is te stiraulate tn the
eating nf thera aa such, that is tu say, basely and wickedly uutraging the scruples ot
the weak, ur even wilh the view of escaping snme disagreeable cnnsequence, such aa
persecutinn, making profeasion nf paganism. Nnw Paul, 1 Cnr. 10, prescribes ex-
aclly the opposite line of conduct ; and as to impurity, we have 1 Cor. 6. It is liber-
tiuiam and nnt Pauliniam which ia here stigmatized. ,

COMMENTA&Y ON ST. LUKE. 569
principle between P.aul and Peter. That here again there is a shade nf difference hn-
plied between Paul and Peter, and even between Peter and James (" befnre thkt cer
tain came from Jamea"), I am not concerned tu deny. But nu uppnaitiun nf princi
ple betweeu Peter and Paul ia compatible with thia account. Baur has further sought
to rest hia view un the enumeratinn nf the parties termed at Corinth. According to
1 Cnr. 1 : 13, there were beUevers in this city whn called themselves snme uf Paul,
snme nf Apnllns, snme nf Cephas, uthers nf Christ. Baur reasuna thus : Aa the first
twn partiea differed nnly by a ahade, it muat have been the same wilh the latter twu ;
and aa it appears frnm 2 Cnr. 10 : 7, 11 : 22, tbat thuae whn called themselvea nf
Chriat were ardent Judaizera whn wiahed In impnse the law un the Gentiles, the aame
cnnvictinn shnuld be ascribed to those nf Peter, and consequently to Peter hiraaelf.
But the very preciae enumeration of Paul obliges us, en the contrary, to ascribe In
each nf tbe fnur parties mentinned a diatinct atandpnint ; and if, aa appears from 2
Cur., thuae whn are Christ'a are really Judaizera, enemiea uf Paul, the cnntrast be
tween them and thnae uf Cephas proves precisely that Peter and his party were nnt
cnnfnunded with them ; which cnrrespunds with the cnntrast eatabliahed in Gal. 3
between the false brethren brought in and the apnstlea, eapecially Peter. The epiatlea
of St. Paul, therefore, do not in the least identify the Twelve with the Judaizera who
opposed Paul ; consequently Ihey exclude the idea nf any uppnaitiun uf principle be
tween apnatnlic Chriatianity and that uf Paul.
What, then, tn -cunclude, waa tbe real slate uf thinga V Behind Juden-Chriatianity
and the Chriatianity uf the Gentiles there is Christ, the anurce whence everything in
the Church prnceeds. This is the unity tu which we must ascend. During His
earthly life, Jesus persnnally kept the law ; He even declared that He did nnt cnme
to abolish, but tn fulfil it. On the nther hand. He dnes nnt scruple te call Himself
the Bord of the Sabbath, to prenuunco as murally null all the Levitical ordinances re
garding the distinction ef clean and unclean meats (Malt. 15), to compare fasting and
the whole legal system te a worn-out garment, which He ia careful not to patch, be
cauae He comes rather to aubalitule a new one in its place. He predicted the destruc
tion nf the temple, an event which invnlved the abnlitiun nf the whnle cererannial sys
tem. Thus, frnm the exaraple and doctrine nf Jesus twu oppusite conclusions might
be drawn, -the one in favor of maintaining, the ether of abolishing, the Mosaic law.
It was one nf thuse questinns which was tn be snlved by the dispensatiun nf the Spirit
(.Inhn 16 : 13, 13). After Pentecnst, the Twelve naturally persevered in the line nf
cunduct traced by the Lnrd's example ; and huw ntherwise cnuld they have fulfilled
their missinn tn Israel ? Yet, nver against the growing ubduracy uf the natiun,
Stephen begins tu emphasize the latent spirituaUty nf the Guspel. There fnlluw the
fnundatinn nf the church cf Antinch and the first missiun tn the Gentiles. Cnuld the
thnught be entertained nf subjecting thnse multitudea nf baptized Gentilea tu the sys
tem nf the law? The apostles had not yet had the uppOrluuity nf prunuuncing nu
this puint. Fnr themselvea, and fer the cunverts amnng the Jewa, they kept up the
Mnsaic rites as a natinnal institutinn which muat cuntinue till Gud Himself shuuld
free them frum its yuke by sume pusitive manifeatatinn nr by the return nf the Mes
siah ; but as to tlie Gentilea, they prnbably never thnught nf imposing it upun them.
The questinn had nn sooner occurred, than God enlightened them by the vision of
'Peter (Acts 10). But they were not absolute masters at Jeruaalem. There there were
many prieats and elders nf the Phariaeea (Acta 6 : 7, 15 : 5) whn professed faith in Jesus
Chriat, and who, from the neight of their rabbinical science and theological erhdition,

570 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
regarded the apnstles with a snrt ut diadain. On the nne hand, they were pleaaed
with the prnpagatinn nf the guapel amnng the Gentilea ; the Gud uf Israel waa thereby
becnming the Gnd uf the Gentiles, and the whule wnrld was accepting the meral suv
ereignty uf the chUdren of Abraham. But, in order that the end might be fully at
tained, and their ambition satisfied, it was of course necesaary that the new convert*
ahould be incorporated with Israel, and that with baptiam they should receive circum
ciaion. Only on this conditinn was the wideapread prnaelytism of Paul acceptable to
them. " If I preach circumcision," aaya Paul, alluding to this claaa, " the offence of
the cross is ceased " (Gal. 5 : 11). That is to aay, if only I granted them circumcision,
they would concede tn rae even tho cross. It is easy to underatand why Paul caUs
thera falae brethren, intrudera intn the Church.
There were thus really twu distinct caraps among the Christians nf Jewish urigin,
accnrding tc the bunk nf Acts aa well as accurding tn Paul himselt : thnse whn made
circumcisinn in the case of Gentile converta a condition of aalvation ; and those whn
while preserving it in the caae nf themaelves and their children aa a natinnal nbaerv
ance, exempted the Gentiles frnm its nbligatiun (ccmp. especially Acts 6 : 7, 11 : 3.
15 : 1-5, 34, with U : 18, 32, 25 ; 15 : 10, 11, 19-2T; with Gal. 23). Thia last passage,
whicli Baur has used tu prove that the narrative nf the Acts waa a pure romance, nn
the cnntrary cnnfirms the cnntenta nf Luke's account at every point. At the public
assembly deacribed by Luke, te which Paul alludes when relating the private cnnfer
ence {kut' 'idiav de. Gal. 2 : 2) which he had with the apnstles, it waa decided : Is^.
That cunverts frnm amnng the Gentilea were nnt at all subject tn circumciaion and
the law ; 2d. Th-at the .stetes qiio waa maintained for Juden-Cbrisliana (un nne exacted
the cnntrary) : 3d. That, tu facUitate uninn between the twu different elements nf
which the Church was cumpuaed, the Gentilea shuuld accept certain restrictiuns nn
their liberty, by abstaining frum varinus uaagea which were peculiarly repugnant tu
Jewish natinnal feeling. These restrictiuns are nnwhere presented aa a matter cf aal
vatiun ; the wnrds, " Ye shall de well," prnve that all that ia intended is a simple
cuunsel,* but une tbe nbservance nf which is nevertheless indiapensable {indvayKsS) fnr
the uninn nf tbe twn parties. Thus presented, they cnuld perfectly well be accepted
by Paul, whn, in case nf necesaity, wnuld have admitted, accnrding tn Gal. 2, even
the chcumcisinn nf Tilua, if it bad been demanded nf him nn this understanding.
But there remained in practice difficulties which certainly were nnt fureseen, and
wbich were net lung in appearing. Fur Palestine, where the Judeu-Chriatiana fnrmed
churches free frnm every Gentile element, the cumprnmiae nf Jeruaalem waa sufflcient.
But where, as at Antioch, the Church was mixed, compoaed nf Jewish cldera and
Gentile elders, huw fettered did the daily relatiuns still remain between parties, the
one nf whnm ijrnfeaaed tu remain atrictly faithful tn legal nbaervances, whUe the
nthera pnlluted themselves every instant in the eyes uf the fnrmer by cnntact with
unclean nbjects and the use nf meats prepared withuut any regard tu Levitical pre
scriptiuns ! Hnw, in such circumatancea, waa it pnssible tu celebrate feasta in com
mon ; the Agapse, for example, which preceded the Holy Supper ? When Peter ar
rived at Antinch, he waa nbliged in decide and tn trace fnr himaelf hia line uf cnu-
-* Zeller attempts tn translate eJ npa^ere by : " Ye ahall be aaved." Theae wnrds
can unly aignify, " ye shall dn weU," nr " it shaU gn weU with yuu." As tn the term
nopveia, we think that it is tn be taken in its natural sense, and that this vice is here
brought intn prominence in so atrange a way, because, in the eyes uf au many Gen
tiles, it pnased fur a thing aa indifferent as eating aud drinking (1 Cur. 6 : 13, 13).

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE. 571
duct. If he remained UteraUy faithful tu the letter nf the compremiae of Jeruaalem,
there was au end tu the unity of the Church in that city where the gnapel waa flnur
ishing. His heart carried him. He decided for the oppoaite view. He aet himaelf to
Uve with the GentUea, and to eat aa they did (Gal. 3 : 14). But thereupon there
arrived emiaaaries from Jamea, the man who, in the great assembly, had proposed
the compromise. They demonstrated tn Peter that, according to the terms of this ar
rangement, he was in fault, because, as a Jew, he should not dispense with the ob
servance of the law ; Barnabas himself had nothing to answer. They submitted, and
-withdrew from intercourse with the Gentiles. The fact was, that the compromise
had not anticipated the caae of mixed churches, in which the two elements could
imite only on one cunditiun : that Jewish Christians on their side ahnuld rennunce part
of their legal observancea. We can eaaily understand, even frnm this pnint uf view,
why St. Paul, in his letters, did nut msist nn this decree, which left sn grave a prac
tical difficulty untnuched.
There prevaUed, therefere, nut two pnints nf view, as Baur aUeges, but fnur at
¦ least : ls<. That of the ultra-legalists, the Judaitiers prnperly sn called, whn perpet
uated the law as a principle in the gnspel. 2d. That nf the Twelve and nf the mnd
erate Juden-Christians, whn personally observed the law as an obligatory ordinance,
but not at all as a condition of salvation, for in that case they could not have released
the Gentiles from it. Among them there existed two shades : that of Peter, whn
thnught he might subnrdinate obedience tn the law in mixed churches tn uninn with
the Gentile party ; and that nf James, whn wiahed tn maintain the nbaervance nf law
even iu thia caae, and at the expense cf uninn. Sd. Paul's pnint uf view, accnrding
to which the keeping of the law was a matter moraUy indifferent, and consequently
nptinnal, even in the case of Judeo- Christians, according to the principle which he ex
preaaea : " To them that are under the law, as under the law ; tn them tbat are withuut
the law, as withnut law ; all things tn all men, that I might save the mure' ' (1 Cur.
9 : 20, 21). ith. PinaUy, an ulira-Pauli'ne party, which is cumbated by the Apnc
alypae and by Paul himaelf (1 Cnr. 8 and 10 ; Rnm. 14), which ridiculed the acruples
cf the weafe, and tuuk pleasure in braving the dangers nf idnlatrnus wnrship, and
thus came tu excuse the must impure excesses (1 Cur. 6 ; Rev. 2 : 20). The twn ex
treme pnints nf view differed in principle frnm the intermediate unes. But the latter
differed nnly nn a questinn uf ceremunial nbservance in which, as was recngnized on
beth sides, salvation waa not involved. We may put the differeuce in thia form :
the cunacience uf Paul derived this emancipatinn frnm the law frnm the first cnming
of Christ, whUe tbe Twelve expected it nnly at His secnnd coming.
What has this state nf thinga, su nicely shaded, in cemraon with the flagrant anti
thesia tu which Baur attempts tn reduce this whnle hiatury ? Aa if in auch mural rev-
olutiuns there was nut alwaya a multitude uf intermediate viewa between the ex
tremes ! Let the time nf the Refnrraatinn be cnnsidered : what a aeriea nf view-puintg
frnm Luther, and then Melancthnn un tu the ultra-aplritualists (the Schwanngeister),
withnut reckuning all the ahadea in the twn campa cathnlic and philnauphical 1
But after having establiahed, in nppnsitinn tn Baur, the general truatwurthiness of
the deacriptinn given by the authnr of the Acts, must we abandun Luke tu the criti
cisms uf Reusa and Nicolaa, leaving him charged by the firat wilh inatancea ef " con
ciliatory reticence," and by the second " with a well-marked desire to bring the views
of St. Paul inte harmony with thoae of the Judaizing [apostlea] ?" The ground for
those charges ia especiaUy the account Acta 31. Jamea declarea to Paul, who has just

573 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUIiE.
I
arrived at J eruaalem, that he haa been calumniated tn the Juden-Christians of Palestine,
having it said nf him that he seeks everywhere tu lead his Jewish cunverts ioforsa!ke
Moses ; and tu prnve the falsehnnd nf thia accuaatinn, Paul agrees tu carry uut the
Nazarite vnw in the temple wilh fnur Juden-Christians. But in what ia thia cunduct,
which the author of the Acts ascribes tu Paul, cnntrary tu the apnstle'a principles aa
he lays them dnwn in his epialles ? Did Paul ever in any place act the fanatical de-
Btrnyer nf the legal ecunumy ? Can a case be cited in which he anught tu prevail nn
a Jewiah Christian nut tn circumcise his children'? He resulutely refused tn aUnw the
yuke uf the law tn be impesed en the Gentiles ; but did he ever aeek tu make a Jew
throw it nff ? At Antinch, even, wnuld he have censured Peter aa he dnes, if the latter
had nut previuusly adupted an entirely different mudenf acting Gal. (3 : 14-18) ? Did
nut Paul himself practiae the principle : io tliem who are under the law, as under the
law ? He cuuld therefure in gnnd earnest, as Luke relates, seek tn prove tn the Juden-
Christians uf Palestine that he was mnved by nu feeling uf hostiUty tu the law, and
that he was far from teaching the Jews scattered nver Gentile lands tu abjure tbe law '
¦ind foi'sake Moaea.
The fundamental error nf that whnle view which we are cnmbaliug, is its miatak-
ing more ur less the puwerful unity which Ues at the fnundatinn nf the Church. What
would be said of a hiatorian who shuuld allege that the Refnrraatinn proceeded from
the cnnflict between tbe Lutheran Church and the Ref urmed, and whn ahnuld uverluuk
the essential unity wbich was anterior to that divisinn ? Is it nut cummitting the
same error tn make tbe Church proceed frnm a recnnciliatinn nf Juden-Chriatianity
with Paulinism ? But have nnt thuse twn currents, suppnsing them tn be as different
as is alleged, a cummnn source which men affect tu lay aside — namely, Jesus Christ ?
Is this queatinn nf the law, nn which division took place, the grand question of the
N. T. ? Is not its place aecondary in compariaon with that of faith in Chriat ? Was
it not accidentally, and en occasion of the practical reaUzation of the poatulatea of
faith, that the queatinn nf the law emerged ? And hew then could the antagnniam
which manifested itself en thia head be the starting-pnint uf the new creatinn ? Baur,
in nrder tn escape the true starting-pnint, cunceives an nriginal antagnnism between
twn extreme tendencies, wbich graduaUy approximated, and ended, in virtue nf re
ciprocal concessions, by uniting and forming the great Catholic Church at the end of
the aecond century. We shall oppose history to history, or rather history tn ro
mance, and we shall aay : In Chriat the Spirit remained enveloped in the form nf the
letter. The Church waa fnunded ; within its bnsnm a tendency cuntinued fnr a time
tu keep up the 'iter by the side nf the Spirit ; the nther waa already prepared tn aac
rifice the letter tn the free unfnlding nf the Spirit. But tbey were at une nn this
pnint, that fnr buth life waa nnly in the Spirit. Frnm bnth aidea there went nff ex
treme parties, as always happena, Judaizera tn the right, Antinnmians tuthe left ; nn
the nne hand, Nazarite and Ebinnite ceraraunitiea landing in the Clementine Homi
lies, which anught tu cnmbine Paul and Simnn .Magus in nne and the sarae persnn ;
un the nther, the Antinnmiau exaggeratinna nf the an-called Epiatle uf Bamabaa, and
even nf that tn Dingnetua, terminating at length in Marciun, whn believed the Gnd
nf tbe J e wish law tn be a different une frnm that nf the gnspel. Between thnse ex
tremes the Church, mnre and mure united frnm the time that the deatruciion of Jeru-^
aalem had levelled every ceremonial difference between Judeo- Christians and GentUes,
continued its march ; and while casting forth from its bosom Ebioniam on the une
side, and Marcinnism nn the uther, it closed ita ranka under the flre of peraecution.

COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKB. 573
and became the-'great Ghurch, as it is already named by Celsus. Let the documents
be studied impartially, and it wiU be aeen whether thia picture is nnt mure true tu fact
than thatnf Baur.*
And what place, flnaUy, dn nur fnur Gnspels nccupy in this whule ? They dn nnt
repreaent fuur different epocha or four distinct partiea. They each represent eno of
the sides nf Christ'a glury unveiled tu une nf the apnstlea.
The huur nf revelatiun tn which the aecond Gespel belonga ia previoua to the death
and resurrectinn nf Jesua ; it is the enlightenment nf St. Peter, as indicated by Jeaus
Hiraself, when, fuUuwing up the apustle's prufessinn : ' ' Thnu art the Christ, the Snn nf
Gnd," He answers, " Flesh and bluud have nut revealed it untu thee, but my Father
which ia in heaven." The divine greatneaa cf Jeans, as it was displayed during the
cnurse nf Hia earthly Ufe— such ia the idea which fiUa, penetratea, and inapirea the
Goapel of Mark.
'The time when that inapiration waa bum which gave rise tn the flrst Gnspel came
later ; it nccura in the interval between the reaurrectien and ascenaien. It is the time
thua deacribed by Luke (34 ; 45) : " Then opened He their underatanding, that they
might underatand the Scriptures. " Christ, the fulfllment ef the law and of prophecy
— such ia the diacovery which the apirit made tu the apnstles in that huur uf illumina
tinn ; the thencratic past stund uut befnre them in the light ef the present, the present
in the light ef the past. This is the view which impeUed Matthew to take tbe pen,
and dictated the writing which bears his name.
The inspiring breath of the third Gespel dates from the times which foUowed
Pentecost. St. Paul marka thia decisive moment with emetiun, when he says tu the
Galatians (1 ; 15, 16 : " When it pleased God, whn aeparated me from my mother's
wnmb . . . tn reveal His Sun Jesus Christ in me, that I might preuch Him
amnng the Gentiles." Chriat, tlie Iwpe of glon'y tn the Gentiles as well as tn the Jews ;
Christ, the Sun nf Gud given tn the wurld, aud nut merely tbe sen nf David granted
tn Israel — such was the view cuntemplated by Paul during thnse three days in
which, while his eyes were clnsed tn the light nf this wnrld, his snul npened te a
higher Ught. This light with which St. Paul was illuminated passed into the wurk
of Luke ; thence it rays fnrth cnnstantly within the Church.
The let nf Jnhn fell tu him last ; it was the must sublime. "The spirit shall
glnrify me," Jesus had said ; " He ahall bring all thinga tn ynur remembrance what
snever I have said untu ynu, and He will ahnw ynu things tn come." Here was mnre
than the wurk uf a day ur an hnur ; it was the wnrk nf a whnle life. In its prulnnged
medilatiuns, his prnfnund and self-cuUected heart pasaed in review the sayinga which
had gone fnrth frnm tbe mnuth uf that Maater un whnse bnaum he had reated and
diacnvered in them the deepest mystery nf the faith, the eternal divinity nf the Son uf
man, the Word made flesh, Gud in Christ, Christ in ua, we thrnugh Christ in Gnd ;
such, in three wnrds, are the cnntents nf Juhn's writings, especiaUy nf his Gnspel.
'* M. Reuss attaches great impurtance tn the hnspitaUty which Paul meets with in
the Ruman Church (Phil. 1), and tn the almnst cumplete abandnnment which he has
tu eudure a little later (3 Tim. 4). But the flrst paaaage merely furnishea the prnuf
that the event which Paul had fnr a lung tirae been expecting (Rem. 16 : 17-30) — the
arrival of the Judaitera at Rome— had taken place. As to the aecond event, it
cannot (if the 3d Epiatle to Timothy is authentic, as we believe it to be, with M.
Reuss) have taken place till a second captivity, and after the persecution of Nero had
temporarily disperaed the Roman Church. It proves no antipathy whatever on the
pail of thia Church to the apnstle.

574 COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.
This view uf the relatinn between Gud, Chriat, and believers, laid de-v^n in the fuurth
Guspel, is alnnu capable nf raising the Church tn its full height.
In thuse fnur rays there is cnntained all the glury of Christ. What He was in His
visible presence, what He is in relatinn tn the theucratic past, what He is in relatinn
tn the religinus future nf the whnle wurld, what He is in regard tu the eternal uninn
of every man with the infinite principle ef things— such is the discovery -which the
Church has before her in those four writings. Were she to deprive herself of one of
them, she would only impair the honor of her Head, and impoverish herself. May
the Church therefore rather be the focus within which thoae four rays perpetually
converge, and in which they again become one, as they were one originally in the
life of the Head t

THE END.

Tl<e Worid's Oi*ea-te$t Sook$ foi* 10 to 3^ Cents.

Unless distinctly stated otherwise, every book in tiiis Series is given wholly unabridgeti.
Bemembez the page of the . Stansabd Sbbixs books is large; the
letter press being 7 by 10 inches. The size of the type, length of line
and space between the Unes, are exactly the same as this paiagzaph.
The paper and the press work are esoellent. W^ avoid the small
type, miserable press work and poor paper so common in cheap
bonks and so hurtful to the eyesight.
With " Class M " we have begun several classes, whieh are in octavo form — ^half tlie su
JBst deeeribed. - Books of tlie Standard Series no-w Ready :

CliASS A-MISCEI.I.ANEOUS.
This class is now complete. It contains 15 volumes. The last volume contains a title p^e and iadex of the
¦tire fifteen. The books of each class are paged consecutively, the same as a single book. The 15 volumes of
Class "A'* are now substantially bound in cloth in a single volume. The price of these 15 volumes bound sep
arately ia Manila is $2.52; stoutly bound in cloth, $3.50. Tketeprices include postage. The former price of
these x5 books iras $X9.i5. This illustrates the immense saving to book buyers by our plan.
Without omittmg a single line or in any way abbreviating* we are enabled to supply the 15 volumes of Class
" A," (many of them large expensive books) in good readable typtt, in a single coniuem'enily shaped volume e^
•t^opa^es.. The following facts show how this is possible; Hughes' " ManUness of Christ" was issued by a Boston
House as a 20o-page$i.oobook; this hook made but j 6 pagesin cur ^andard Series* The "Imitation of
Christ"^ is usuaUy issued as a 350-page book and is sold at from one to two dollars; it made but about 40 pages in
our Series, &c. Padding is an art muck practiced in ike kigk-prieed 600k trade. The above will show how we
«an bind 15 volumes in one, and yet not make this one volume inconveniently large.
Any number of the Standard Series can be ordered separately.
R£M£MBER, no classes save Class **A," and Class " D" containing Knight's History, are cloth bound
The sii^le books of the Series can be easily preserved and when a class is complete tiiose who wish the books.
bound in cloth can easily have this done by any bookbinder in their town.
BOOKS IN CLASS A-STANDARD SERIES.
John Ploughm^i's Talk ; or. Plain Advioe for Plain People— By Rev. Charles
H. Spurgeon; (Usual Price, 90 cents.) Also, On the Choice of Books — No. 1.
By Thomas Carlyle. (Usual Price, 50 cents.) Both, in one, for 12 cents.
The Yimous book entitled, "John Ploi^bman's Talk," by Spurgeon, the great London preachar, is writtoi in
m semi-humorous vein, but every word is a grain of gold, 'it has bad an immense sale in England, amouoting to
aore than 300,000 copies, and is quoted everywhere.
Uanliness of Christ — ^No. 2. By Thomas Hughes, author of " Tom Brown's School-
Days," etc. A new and very popular book. (Usual price, $1.) Price, 10 cents.
Of the Imitation of Chris-t— Wo. 5. By Thomas k Kempis. A new translation.
(Usual price, $1.) Price, 15 cents.
Ifhe Life of Christ— Hos. 6 and 7. By Canon Farrar. Without Notes. The Con
tents and the Comprehensive Index in full. Issued in two parts. (Usual price, $2.50.)
Price per part, 25 cents.
This is the most popular " Life of drist" which has been written since the Go^da were closed. Neacljr
1110,000 copies have been sold. It should be in every family.
l^e and Work of St. Paul— If os. 9 and 10. By Canon Farrar. Without note«i
Contents and comprehensive index complete. Issued in two parts. (Former price, $6.00.)
Price, per part, 25 cents.
From the Boston Congrigalionalist : " We think that few will deny this to be probably the most mteresdng
Ufc of Paul ever published." _  ,. „ , „
Self Culture: Intellectual, Physical and Moral— Wo. 11. By John Stuakt
BlACKIE. Professor in the University of Edinburgh. (Usual price, $1.) This is a veiy
valuable book. Price, 10 cents.
letters to Workmen and Iiaborera—Fors Clavigara— Wos. 20 aud 21. Bjr
John Ruskin. (Usual price, $2.00.) Issued in two parts. Price, per part, 15 cents.
Of Ruskin, says Charlotte Broatfi: " Mr. Ruskin seems to mi one of the few genuine writers, as dii li»
aaished from bookmakers, of this age. He writes like a consecrated priest of the Abstrart and the Ideal."
Hike vimr plan of pubUtting Standard Botta at apuMf low rata with Ihe Seaiiie and other librmrim, ell,—
MbK. UXIiOB, DJ>., New Tork.

Yourpum tofiimtA ihe most vtluable hoolit, meh ae hittoriet, scientific worJce, etc., atprieet withm the readk
ef the people, ihoAd raise s«>« to the disnitii of piibUe bene/aetort. The bett literattrre in itt eheapettjorm it vhet
miriimet demand.— B,wr. D. 0. Htiohes, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Mister Horn and His Friends; or. Givers and Giving.— Wo. 32. By Mark
Guy Pearse, author of "Daniel Quorm and His Religious NotiotA" etc. . Illus
trated. (Usual price, jSi.oo.) Price, 15 cents.
Tilts book is written in a masterly style, and is designed to promote systematic giving in the church. It should
fce placed in the hands of every church member.
John Ploughman's Pictures; or. More of His Plain Talk for Plain People.
— Wo. 40. By Charles H. Spurgeon. Illustrated. Price, 15 cents.
This IS a new book by Spurgeon, after the style of his celebifated "John Ploughman's Talk,*' which has had
immense sales in this country and in England. It is exceedingly humorous and instructive. Each of the thirty-
nine short chapters is illustrated by a quaint, apt picture. The humor aud homely wisdom of this book should'
carry it into every househdld. ,
Pnlpit Table Talk— Wo. 41. By Rev. Edward B. Ramsay, Dean of Edinburgh..
A most refreshing book. (Usual price, $i.oo.) Price, lo cents.
The Bible and the Wewspaper.— Wo. 42. By Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon. A
new book by this world-renowned preacher. Showing how Spurgeon makes the newspa
per help him preach. (Usual price, Jjl.oo.) Price, 15 cents.
lAOon; or. Many Things in Few Words— Addressed to Those Who Think,
— Wo. 43. By Rev. C. C. Colton, M. A. (Usual price, ^i.2j.) Price, 20 cents.
BOOKS Iir CLASS B-CRITICISM— Standard
Series.
Macaulay's Essays— Wo. 3. " Milton," " Dryden," "Bunyan," "History," "Samuel
Johnson," (two essays), " Athenian Orators," and " Montgomery's Poems." (Usual
price, ;Si.) Price, 15 cents.
The essays on Milton, Bunyan and Johnson are included in the Chautauqua Series.
Carlyle's Essays— Wo. 8. "Goethe," " Bums," " Luther's Psalm," "Schiller," "Me
moirs ofMirabeau," "Death of Goethe." (Usual price, Si.) Price, 20 cents.
Calamities of Authors — Wo. 27. Including some Inquiries respecting their Moral
and Literary Characters. By I. D'Iseaeli, author of "Curiosities of Literature.''
Price, 20 cents.
BOOKS IN CLASS C—POETRIT— Standard Series,
Iiight of Asia; or. The Great Ben^nciation— Wo. 4. Being the Life and Teach
ing of Gautama, Prince of India and Founder of Buddhism, as told in verse by an In
dian Buddhist By Edwin Arnold. This is a new and very remarkable poem.
(Usual price, $1.50.) Price, 15 cents.
From Oliver Wendell ffolmes.— Its tone is so lofty that there is nothing with which to compare it but
the New Testament.
Idyls of the King— Wo. 22. By Alfred Tennyson. Price, 20 cents.
BOOKS IN CLASS D— HISTORY— Standard Series.
The Popular History of England— Wos. 12-19. A History of Society and Govem
ment, from the Earliest Period to Our Times. By Charles Knight. All the Notes,
Appendix, Extensive Tables of Contents, and Comprehensive Index Included; Price of
the History, in eight parts, bound in heavy card manila, and printed on fine paper and in
large type, 35 cents each. The same, bound handsomely in two large volumes, cl»th, $3.75.
In one large volume, Sheep, $4.00; in two volumes, Sheep, SS-oo. In French Imitation
of Morocco, one large volume, $4.50; the same in two volumes, ^^5. 50.
REMEMBER.— Ihkt this edition oi Knight's Histoev is not a hastily and imperfectly printed o ne, like
Many cheap books on the market. There is a cheap edition of Knight now before the public, in a single volume
•f which eight entire chatters are left out of the table of contents, and many important errors are in th e text.
Nor have we chei^ened the work by using thin, cheap paper, and printing from " second-hand " worn electro
types. We have printed it from new type, set up mhoU]/ for this work, and use the same quality of paper that
we use m other books of our Standard Series. No American reprint can compare with this edition.
Said Lord Bbougham : " Nothing has ever appeared superior, if anything has been published equal, to the
account of the state of commerce, govemment and society, at difierent periods."
'¦ The best history of England for the general reader is Knight's Papular History, For a single history
which may serve for constant uae and reference in the library, or for frea aent reading, it is to be preferred to
every other."— AoaA /".Tr/CT-, D.D., LL. D:
Tou have itrackvf on a happy idea in your " Standard Series." This is just the tkingtomeet apratina
war. t among students, and I have no doubt but that you wiUjfind hearty co-operation and God-speed frmn all the
eoUege professors and school teachers OU over the land. I i«tll pmyfer anything in this line you witt mail to me
undreeomiHendthemtottudentt.—W.U.'VY'r^ »»• ¥>^ p^ofiuianr HinsUab Litentnre. State Affri<mltnr«f
Oolltge, Amea, Iowa.

^< want Oe publie to Know and meatrage thtse enterpriting ptibUsheri in their efforts tofiirtiithtk* tery M(
•reaeUng at the eheapett price, Thete are even elegantls/ gotten up, and when ieund together in volianet, wiUtta
•nopnt/Ecenf treattiry of truly standard Uterature.— CBXwrux IincELLioxHCEB, Kew York.

BOOKS IN CLASS E—BIOGRAPHT— Standard
Series.
Sowland Hill : His Life, Anecdotes, and Pulpit Sayings— Wo. 23. By Rev.
V. J. Charlesworth, with introduction by Charles H. Spurgeon. Price, 15 cents.
This is the first American reprint of this interesting and valuable book. It is very popular in England.
Alfred the Great — Wo„ 25, By Thomas Hughes, author of "Tom Brown's School-
Days," "Tom Brown at Oxford." etc. (Usual price, $1.50.) Price, 20 cents.
It is as entertaining as a novel both in contents and style.
The Salon of Madame Weoker — Wo. 28. Taken from documents among the ar
chives of Coppet. CoUected and edited by her great-grandson, Othbnin D'HAuaaoij-
VTTiTiH. Volum I. (Containing Parts I. and II. cf *h- Original. ) Translated from
the French for the Standard Series, by Maes Stuabt Smith, Price, 15 cents.
The Same.— Volume II. (Containing Parts III. and JV.) Wo. 38. , Price, 15 cents.
This remarkable book has created much interestin France, when :: has been just issued. Tkis translaiton
is ike Ursi published t r America. Madame Ne ker, one of the most famous women of any age, was the motherof
Che celebrated Madame de Stael. Her house was the resort oJ ne ...c -X distinguished writers of the time. This
volume is rich with the conversation and correspondence of these great men, never before published.
Joan of Arc, — Wo, 36, By Alphonse De Lamartine. Price, 10 cents.
The Hermits,— Wo. 39, By Charles Kingsley.. (Usual price, $1.75.) Pricei5cents.
A very excellent and deservedly popular book, as are all the writings of Canon Kingsley. None of his
books are more readable and instructive.
John Calvin, — ^Wo. 47. By M. Guizot, member of the Institute of France. (Usua
price, J 1. 00.) Price, 15 cents.
BOOKS IN GLASS F— SGIENCE-Standard Series.
Town Geology- Wo. 24. By Charles Kingsley, the celebrated Canon of Chester,
(Usual price, ;?l.SO.) Prige, iJ cents.
TTiis book is written in Canon Kingsley's inimitable style. It treats of: I. The Soil of the Field. II. The
Pebbles in the Street. HI. The Stones in the Wall. IV. The Coal in the Fire. V. The Lime in the Mortar
VI. The Slate on the Roof.
Ethics of the Dust ; or, The Elements of Crystallization— Wo. 29. By John
Ruskin, author ot " Modem Painters," etc. (Usual price, jfi.so.) Price, 15 cents.
This is science made so simple, a child can imderstand. It has all the wondtous beauty and strength ok
fityle for wlw^ Ruskin is so &mous. Parents, .place this book in the hands of your children!
Frondes Agrestes; or, Beadmgs In Buskin's "Modern Painters"— Wo. 36.
(Usual price $1.25.) Price 15 cents.
The following are the contents: Principles of Art; Power and Office of Imagination TheSky; Streams
and Sea ; Mountains : Stones ; Plants and Flowers ; Education ; Moralities.
Books in Class G— Travel— Standard Series.
Outdoor Iiife in Europe. — ^Wo. 26. Sketches of men and manners, people and plaices,
diuing two summers abroad. By Rev. Edward P. Thwing, Author of " Handbook of
Illustrations." This is anew book, illustrated. Price, 20 cents.
betters From a Citizen of the World to His Friends in the East ; or,
Europe Through the Eyes of a Chinese Philosopher.— Wo. 44. Bf
Oliver Goldsmith. (Usual price, $1.00.) Price, 20 cts.
America Hevisited, — Wo. 45. By George Augustus Sala. Price, 20 cents.
This book will interest and instruct thousands of Americans who wish to see themselves as others see then.
Class H— Greek and Roman Classics.
ffbe Orations of Demosthenes- Wos, 33 and 34- Translated by Thomas Lb-
LAND, Complete in two parts. Uusual price, $1.50. Price, per part, 20 cents.
Vhe Thoughts of the Emperor Marcus Atirelius Antoninua— Wo. 37-
TiansUted by George Long. (Usual price, $1.50.) Price, 15 cents.
'¦ The noblest product of Paganism."— iV. Te. Trihune.
** As a treatise on Ethics it deserves praise less only th^ the Sermon on the Mount."— ^A« Stuart Milt.
*< The English reader will find in his (Long's) Viei^on the best means of becoming asquainted with the
pjBlstaad noblestbook of antiquity."— Gi»K>« i^arrar. <
Ymtrptantigooi.deeiieaijigeod. The present pubUciUtste for reading is diseated. tiUatti, <te.— A. 0.
irasBKn">> D.D., New York.

OUR RECENT PUBUCATIONS,

SENT ON RECEIPT OF PRICE, POSTAGE FREE.

BiblicAl History and Biograpby; A
Digest of. Being an Introduction to the Study of
the Old Testament Scriptures. By Rev. James
Gamer, xamo, cloth, 454 pp  $1 50
Cliristifi.n Sociolog^y. By Dr. Stuckenberg.
i3ino> cloth, 382 pp., heavy tinted paper  $1 50
Oomplete Prea«h.er, Tbe— rA Sermonic Mag
azine. Nearly one hundred sermons in full, by many
ef the greatest preachers in this and other countries
inthe various doiomination^. 3 vols., 8vo., cloth.
Each (i 50, or, per set  • .$4 00
Connection of Sacretl History. Events
relative to the Restoration and Ruin of the Jewish
Nation. By Jas. Garner. i2m0i cloth, 499 pp. $1 50
Clergymen's and. Students' Healtli ; or,
The True way to Enjoy Life. By W. M. Cornell,
M.D. xsmo, cloth, 360 pp  $1 00
I>ale on tbe Ten Commandments. i2mo,
258 pp., heavy paper covers  50
Drill Book in Tocal Cnltnre and Ges
ture. By Prof. E. P. Thwing. Fifth edition.
i2mo, manila, 115 pp  25
Fulton's Replies to Beecber, Farrar
and Ingersoll on Hell. Three Sermons.
1 vol., 8vo, paper, 38 pp  10
e^ilead ; or. The Vision of AU-Souls' Hospital. An
Allegory. By Rev. J. Hyatt Smith, Member of
Congress elect. x2mo, 360 pp  $1 00
Crodet's Comnnentary on Lake. Combined
with P. and H, Monthly, Paper  $2 50
In cloth  $3 00
Handbook ot IUustrations. By Rev. £. P.
Thwing, First series. Third edition  25
Second series, iust issued  25
Home Altar. By Dr. Deems. New Edition. Cloth,
i2mo, aSipp  75
Bomllist, Tbe. By Dav. I Thomas, D.D. Vol.
XII. Editor's series. i2mo, cleth, 368 pp., heavy
tinted paper  $1 25
Honiiletic Bncyclopeedia of Illustra*.
tions in Ttieology and Morals. A Hand
book of Practical Divinity, and a Commentary on
Holy Scripture. By Rev. R. A. Bertram. Royal
cloth, 8yo, 892 pp  $3 75
Bovr to Pay Cburcb I>ebts. By Sylvanus
Stall. It is the only book on this subject, x2mo, aSo
pp., tinted paper  jz 50

Methodist Plans. Plans of One Hundred antf
Sixty-six Sermons. ByRev. Wm. Stevens, izmoi
cloth, 288 pp  $1 5«
Metropolitan Pnlpit, Tbe. Containing care
fully prepared Condensations of Leading Sermons,
and much other Homiletic matter. Vol. I. Royal
Svo, cloth, 206 pp  $1 $0
Metropolitan Pnlpit and Honkiletic
Montbly. Vol. 11. Enlarged. Royal Svo, cloth
3S8PP  3J1 75
Per set, vols, I and II, (the two above vols.). . . .$4 00
National Freacber, Tbe. 40 vols. Bound in
eighteen handsome vols. Net price  $40 00
Outlines of Sermons ; or. Miracles and Parables
of the Old Tesument. By a Londan Minister.
i2mo, 427 pp  $2 00
Freacber and Homiletic Montbly. A
Magazine of Sermons, and other matter of Homiletic
interest and instruction. (Subscription price, $2.50
per year ; single numbers, 25 cents.) Vol. HI, Svo,
cloth, 724 pp  $3 00
Same as above. Vol. IV, row ready. Svo, cloth,
7=S pp  J3 00
Pastor's Pocket Directory for System
atic Visitation. By Rev. Lewis O, Thompson,
Folds so as to be easily carried in the pocket. ... 15 .
Standard Hymns ; or Half Dime Hymn Book,
with History of Authors, each  06
In lots of 50, or more, each  05
Stems and Tvrigs ; or. Sermon Framework. Be
ing Notes of over two hundred Sermons. By^Rev,
R. A. Griffin. i2mo, cloth, 362 pp  ..-.{x 25
Same as above. Second Series  ^i 25
Tbese Sayings of Mine. By Jos, Parker, D,D.
Svo, cloth, heavy paper  ,jji 50
Tbings New and Old. A Storehouse of Illus-
tratioDs, Apologues, Adages, with their several ap
plications ; collected from the writings and sayings
of the learned in all ages. By John Spencer. To
which is added, •' A Treasury of Similes, " by Robert
Cawdray. Royal Svo, cloth, over i.ioo pp. . . .^ 00
Young's Bible Concordance. 410, 1,000 pp.,
heavypaper. Revised edition. Cloth  $365
Sheep, $4,40. Fr. Im. of morocco  *. g^

THE PREACHER AND HOMILETIC M0NTHL7.
Godet's Great Commentary on Luke, a Christmas Present
to Each Subscriber.
The very great value and popularity of this Magazine is illustrated by the fact that
it now has a circulation among the clergy of more than double that of any other homi
letic periodical in the world.
Our facilities and experience are continually increasing, and hence the Monthlt
with each number is growing in value. Dr. Deems expresses the opinion of many thou
sand clergymen when he says: "Each number seems to contain more that I must read."
Why no Clergyman can afford not to take it
1. Each number contains a great store of living thoughts.
2. Every article is prepared specially for clergymen, and by the most successftll
preachers in the land.
3. It is undenominational and thoroughly evangelical in the widest and best sense
of the terms.
4. The suggestion of themes and texts for treatment, and living issues to bo
handled in the pulpit, will get and keep the preacher out of ruts.
6. It is almost universally endorsed by the religious press and the theological
seminaries of the land. (See what presidents of colleges and theological seminaries say
of it, ou the fourth page.)
6. This Monthly utterly condemns plagiarism, while it enables preachers to know,
as they ought to know, what their brethren in all denominations are thinliing and talk
ing about. It is fooUsh, childish for clergymen to pretend that they do not need to
study the thinking and the experience of one another. As Spurgeon well says: "It
seems odd that certain men, who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to Uiem-
selves, should think so little of what He reveals to others."
7. In the Sermonic Department every considerable denomination and section of the
country is represented, nor is it confined to this country. It gives a photograph of the
pulpit of Christendom . Among the contributors to the other departments: The "Ex
pository," ^'Sermonic Criticism," "Exchanging Views,"' etc., are Drs. Crosby, Wm. M,
Taylor, Deems, Cuyler, Pentecost, Corey, Peck, and many others of our most prominent
clergymen. 8. Each number contains many exegeses of difficult texts, criticisms of various
readings, eiS., etc., embracing the results of the latest scholarship. It will render un
necessary the purchase of scores of books.
9. Bev. Lewis O. Thompson, author of " The Prayer-Meeting and Its Improve
ment," prepares for each number analyses of the Uniform Prayer-Meeting Topics
adopted by hundreds of clergymen for next year. The effort is to concentrate the ex
perience of clergymen in different denominations and throughout the country, on the
great work of improving the prayer-meeting service.
10. In each number, under the editorial supervision of Kev. Prof. E. P. Thwing, we
have a department giving the freshest and best illustrations; also "Helpful Data in
Current Literature." This same contributor supplies valuable papers on Vocal Culture.
11. Kev. D. C. Hughes, in each number, homUetically treats the International S. S.
Lessons, iiis is wholly different from any other treatment pubUshed, and is designed
to be suggestive to clergymen. ,
12. Spdbgbon's Nbw Lectubbs. In the December number we have commenced the
pubUcation of Spurgeon's New Lectures to his Students. These lectures we shaU pub-
ush in f uU. They have never been repubUshed in America. This book alone sells for
aeexlj the price of the Monthly for a year. ^
18. The advertising pages of the MoMTaxiY contain each month the announcements
VK cor cheap Stastdabd Seeies pubUcations. The money saved on these wonderfolly
> books alone wiU pay many times the price of the Monthly.

VOICES OF COffltMKNDATION OKH THE StONTHIiT FROM THB THKOIiOaiCAI*
SKMIIV ARIES AND COliLEGES*
' i*roiD A. A. Kemdrick, D.D., Pres. Shurtleff College (Baptist), Upper Alton, 111.—*' I have examined yotif
Monthly with interest, and must give my candid opinion in its favor. Itstems to me admirably adapted to ele*
vate the standard of sermon-making among our ministers, and representing, as it does, all denominations, it fur
nishes a coUection of sermons such as can be found nowhere else."
From M. Meiersmith, D.D. , Prof, of Homiletics, etc., ^ind Sec'y of Faculty, Philadelphia Div. School
(Prot. Epis. ) Phila., Pa. — ' ' I think you are furnishing students and clergymen with a more useful work than any
published in Englaad, and one much better for this country of thought and driving work. "
From J. PACKA.RD, D.D., Dean of Thealogical Seminary (Prot. Epis,), Theological Seminary, P. O., Va.— t
"I am pleased with the plan of the work, and from the characterof the writers for it, I hope that it will mee
with the success it well deserves."
From Thos. O. Summers, D.D.,LL.D., Dean of Theological Faculty of the Vanderbilt University, Nash
ville, Tenn. — ** I have been for years acquainted with your Monthly, Will be pleased to keep it on file for our
tiieoiogical students."
From "Students," San Francisco Theological Seminary (Presb.)— '' An excellent magazine.*'
From Charles H. Corey, D.D., Pres. Richmond Institute (Baptist). — " I can truly say that it excels any
thing of the kind with which I am acquainted."
From David D. Demarest, D.D., Prof, of Pastoral Theological and Sacred Rhetoric in the The«logicaI Sem
inary (Reformed), at New Brunswick, N. J. — "I myself look forward with interest to the arrival of each new
number of your periodical. It must be of great service to all minilsters w^o use it properly. Its chief attraction
t« me is in the practical portion that follows the sermons."
From E. V. Gerhart, D.D,, Pres. Theological Seminary (Reformed) LaDcaster, Pa, — "I have taken occa
sion to commend your periodical to my brethren in the ministry. It l:, in my opinion, conducted with abdity
and sound judgment, and cannot but be read with interest and profit by clergymen."
From Samuel Sprecher, D.D., LL.D., Pres. of the Wittenberg Theological Seminary (Lutheran), Spring
field, Ohio. — "I have read The Preacher and Homiletic Monthly wilh great pleasure and profit. It is a
work of great homiletic value, well adapted to the promotion of homiletic culture, and especially valuable to
young ministers and theological students."
From Rev. Jacob Conzett, Pres. German Thfcological Seminary (Presb.), Dubuque, Iowa. — " I think it is a
very valuable magazine. The articles are all short, just what is wanted. They are sure to be read with
pleasure.'* From B. Craven, D.D., LL.D., Pres. Trinity College {Meth. Epis.), Trinity, N. C— " Am convinced thatit
is the best and most opportune publication I have seen. It is a storehouse of valuable information, full oi fresh
useful, effective thought. I am delighted with it."
From H. W. Everest, D D., Pres. Eureka College (Christian), Eureka, 111. — "Preachers need to hear one
another, and to keep up their professional studies. Your Monthly is a great help in supplying this need."
Frora R.Dunn, D.D., Prof, of Theology in Hillsdale College (Prot. Epis.), Hillsdale, Mich.— " Enclosed
please find $ lo.oo for five copies of your Monthly for one year. I am very much pleased with mis work, because
it does not seem to aim at the representation of the pulpits and theologies of Christendom, so much as the presen
tation of sound doctrine and solid truth, with such homiletical forms and suggestion^ as to give a </i?»^/f value tc
its pages. May heaven guide you in your great \/ork."
From E. L. Kurd, DD., Pres. Blackburn University (Presb.), CarlinviUe, 111.— ""With g.eat pleasure I send
for The Preacher and Homiletic Monthly for our reading-room in the Univer=-tv. lijs a valuable, or rather
an invaluable, addition to our homiletic thought and thinking."
Contents of the December ZVumber of "The Preacher and Homiletio

Monthly.'

SERMONIC— God and Caesar, by Edmond Bersier, D.D. Paris.
Translated by S. F. Scovel, D.D .
Exaltation of Character, byj. P.Newman, D.D.
What Must We Do to be Saved? A Reply to Col.
Robert Ingersoll, by David Swing, D.D.
A New Job— -A Parable for the Atheistic Physi
cists, by Rev. John Waugh.
The Impulse of Missionary Zeal, by R. S. Storrs,
D.D
Authoritjr in Religion, by Rev. T. K. Beecher.
The Good Shepherd, by Rev. H. M. Gallaher,
LL.D.
Looking UntoJestB, hy Rev. William Hull,
Evangelizing, and not Ritualizing, the Supreme
Work ofthe Gospel Preacher, by Rev. U. R.
Thomas.
Children's Service —
Keeping the Heart, by Rev. J. Q.^Adams.
LECTURES TO MY STUDENTS, Second Series,
by Re-* . Charles H. Spurgeon .
PRAYER-MEETING SERVICE, by Rev. Lewis
O. Thompson.
TOPICS FOR PRAYER-MEETINGS FOR
1881.
LIGHT ON IMPORTANT TEXTS, Paper No.
6^ by Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D.
STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION,
No. 12, by Rev. D. C. Hughes, A.M.
Subscription price per year, $2.50.
post-paid, on receipt of 25 cents.

BROTHERLY TALKS WITH YOUNG MIN
ISTERS, Paper No. 10, by Theodore L. Cuyler,
D.D.
THE INTERNATIONAL S. S. LESSONS—
Homiletically Considered, by Ref. D. C
Hughes.
SERMONIC CRITICISM.
Texts of Doubtful Authority. — Keep Close to
the People. — Clerical Candidating. — What
Preachers Should Avoid. — Misused Words.
PREACHERS EXCHANGING VIEWS.
Tbe Play-Element.— The Clergyman's Ink Bot
tle — A correction. — Paste for Desk or the Scrap-
Book. — An Appeal for Old Religious Newspa
pers for the Utah Missions. — Sermon Card. —A ¦
Pastoral Letter to Converts,— Pure Litera
ture—A Note from R. M. Patterson, D.D.—
"Why I Ought to Go To Church."
THE PRIZE TOPICAL SERMON— THE RE
PORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
QUERSES AND ANSWERS.
ILLUSTRATIONS AND SIMILES.
THEMES AND TEXTS OF RECENT LEAD
ING SERMONS.
SUGGESTIVE THEMES FOR SERMONS.
NOTICES OF BOOKS OF HOMILETIC
VALUE, by J. Stanford Holme, D.D.
December number sent as a sample copy,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 4898