Skip to main content

Full text of "A commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke"

See other formats 


■I    ■ 

■  ■ 


i'-*. 
■ 


m 


■ 


■ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/commentaryongosp02godeuoft 


L 


Commentaries  on  tfjc  Bible 


PUBLISHED  BY 


T.   &    T.    CLARK,    38    GEORGE    STREET, 

EDINBURGH. 


The  Pentateuch. 

Calmn  (on  the  last  Four  Books  of), 
4  Vols.  Svo,  24s. 

Gerlach,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Keil   and    Delitzsch,  3  kVols.  8vo, 
Sis.  6d. 

M 'Donald,  2  Vols.,  Sis. 
Genesis. 

Calvin,  2  Vols.  8vo,  lis. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 

Dods,  Cr.  8vo,  2s. 

Delitzsch.    (in  preparation.) 
Exodus. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 

Mi  kihy,  1  Vol  Svo,  9s. 
Leviticus. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 
Numbers  and  Deuteronomy. 

Lange.  /  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 
Joshua. 

Calvin,  1  Vol.  Svo,  6s. 

Douglas,  Cr.  Svo,  Is.  6<L 
Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth. 

Ki  ii.  /  Vol.  Svo,  10.*. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Judges. 

lglas,  Cr.Svo,  Is.  3d. 

Paterson  (Bible  Class  Primer),  Gd. 
Samuel. 

:i,  /  Vol.8vo,10s.  6d. 

I.ange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Kings. 

■ .  /  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Chronicles. 

Mri-.i-iiv.  Or.  >™.  /, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

>,  15s. 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther. 

Kml,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  Si. 
Esther. 

OabsklJ  vol8vo,10$.6d.  (Inthe  press.) 
Job. 

Delitzsch,  2  Vols.  Svo,  tls. 

Lanoe,  1  Vol  Imp.  8v„. 
Psalms. 

Dbutzsch,  3  Vols.  8vo,  31s.  Gd. 

HnaSTKHBKRG,  3  Vols.  Svo,  33s. 
W.  Svo,  15s. 

Muepht,  1  Vol.  8vo,  Its. 


Dhjiuoh,  t  Vols.  Svo,  21s. 
Proverbs,   Ecclesisstes,    and    Song    of 
Solomon. 

Svo,  15s. 


liii. 


Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes. 

Delitzsch,  1  Vol.  Svo,  10s.  Gd. 
Ecclesiastes. 

J I  KNGSTKNBERG,  1   Vol.  8VO,  9s. 

Isaiah. 

Alexander,  2  Vols.  8vo,  17s. 
Calvin,  4  Vols.  8vo,  24s. 
Delitzsch,  2  Vols.  Svo,  21s. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Urwick  (chap.  Hi.  v.  13-chap. 
12),  8vo,  6s. 

Jeremiah  and  Lamentations. 

Calvin,  5  Vols,  fro,  80s. 

Keil,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 
EzekieL 

Calvin,  $  Vols.  Sro,  12s. 

Fairbairn,  1  Vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Hengstenberg,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Keil,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Ezekiel  and  Daniel. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 
Daniel. 

Calvin,  2  Vols.  Svo,  12s. 

]  1 1  NGSTENBERG,  1   Vol.  8w,  Its. 

i.,  1  Vol  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Hosea. 

Calvin,  /  ]',>!.  Svo,  6s. 
Joel,  Amos,  and  Obadiah. 

Oaja 
Jonah,  Micah,  and  Nahum. 

Calvin,  /   I 
Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi. 
•     Dods,  Cr.  Svo,  2s. 
Zechariah  and  Malachi. 

.  '>$. 
Minor  Prophets. 

Kin-,  2  Vols.  Svo,  21s. 

I .  w.i  .  .   I ■  ■'.  Imp.  Svo,  15s. 
The  Apocrypha. 

Lange,  Svo,  15s. 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  etc. 

(Ahte-Nicenk  Library),  1  Vol  Svo, 
Mk 
Synoptical  Evangelists. 

I  Vols,  Svo,  18$. 
Gospels  and  Acts. 

Olhhaubkn,  4  Vols.  8vo,  42s. 
Matthew. 

W*h 
Meter,  2  Vols.  8vo,  tls, 
Matthew  and  Mark. 

.k,  3  Vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke. 

ElDDLE  AND  ScHAFF,  1  Vol.  Imp.  SvO, 

12s.  6d.    (Illustrated.) 
Mark. 

Lindsay,  Cr.  8vo,  2s.  6d. 
Mark  and  Luke. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Meyer,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Luke. 

Gooet,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Lange,  2  Vols.  8vo,  18s. 
Lindsay,  Cr.  8vo,  Part  I,  2s.  ;  Part 
II.,  Is.  3d. 
John. 

Besser,  2  Vols.  Cr.  8vo,  12s. 
Calvin,  2  Vols.  8vo,  12s. 
Godet,  3  Vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 
Hengstenberg,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s.,  and  in 

2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Luthardt,  3  Vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 
Meyer,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
THOLUCK,|i  Vol.  8vo,  9s. 

John  and  Acts. 

MlLLIGAN,MoULTON,HoWSON,  S  PENCE, 

1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  12s.  6d.  (Illustrated.) 
Acts. 

Baumgarten,  3  Vols.  8vo,  27s. 
Calvin,  2  Vols.  8vo,  12s. 
Gloag,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Lindsay,  2  Vols.  Cr.  8vo,  Is.  6d.  each. 
Meyer,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Eomans. 

Brown,  Cr.  8vo,  2s. 
Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Forbes,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Godet,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Meyer,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Olshausen,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Philippi,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Tholuck,  2  Vols.  Fcap.  8vo,  8s. 
Eomans  to  Philemon. 

SCHAFF,     ElDDLE,      BrOWN,      LlJMBY, 

Dods,   Plumptre,   Dykjss,  1    Vol. 
Imp.  8vo,  12s.  6d.    (Illustrated.) 
Corinthians. 

Godet,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 

Meyer,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Olshausen,  1  Vol.  8vo,  9s. 
Galatians. 

Macgregor,  Cr.  8vo,  Is.  6d. 

Meyer,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Galatians  and  Ephesians. 

Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  and 
Colossians. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 


Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Colossians. 
Eadie,    3    Vols.   8vo,   18s.   nett   (or, 
separately,  10s.  6d.  each). 
Ephesians  and  Philemon. 

Meyer,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Philippians. 

Hutchison,  1  Vol.  8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Philippians  and  Colossians. 

Meyer,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Philippians,  Colossians,  &  Thessalonians. 

Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Philippians,  Titus,  1st  Timothy. 
Olshausen,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Philippians  and  James. 

Neander,  1  Vol.  Cr.  8vo,  3s. 
Thessalonians. 

Lunemann,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Hutchison,  1  Vol.  8vo,  9s. 
Thessalonians,  Timothy,  Titus,  Phile- 
mon, and  Hebrews. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  Philemon. 

Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Hebrews. 

Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Davidson,  Cr.  8vo,  2s.  6d. 
Delitzsch,  2  Vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Lunemann,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Owen,  7  Vols.  42s.  net. 
Patterson,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s-  6d. 
Steward,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Hebrews  to  Eevelation. 

Angus,     Gloag,     S  almond,     Pope, 
Milligan,  1  Vol,  Imp.  8vo,  12s.  6d. 
(Illustrated.) 
James. 

Adam,  1  Vol,  8vo,  9s. 
Stier,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
James  and  John. 

Huther,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
James,  Peter,  John,  Jude. 
Calvin,  1  Vol.  8vo,  6s. 
Gloag,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
Peter  (First). 

Johnstone.    {In  the  press.) 
Peter  and  Jude. 

Huther,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
John. 

Ebrard,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Morgan,  1  Vol.  8vo,  9s. 
Eevelation. 

Lange,  1  Vol.  Imp.  8vo,  15s. 
The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

Fairbairn,  Cr.  8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Huther,  1  Vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
The  Apocalypse. 

Gebhardt,  1  Vol,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Glasgow,  1  Vol.  8vo,  14s. 


Full  Catalogues  free  on  application. 


A   COMMENTARY 


O.H 


THE   GOSPEL   OF   ST.   LUKE. 


BY 


F.  GODET, 

DOCTOR    AND    PROFESSOB    OF    THEOLOGY,     NEUCHATEL. 


VOLUME      SECOND. 
TRANSLATED   FROM  THE  SECOND   FRENCH   EDITION   B7 

M.    D.    CUSIN. 


1  -ul   Kill     I  DITIOM. 


EDINBUrr.H: 

T.  &  T.   CLAKK,  38  GEOKGE  STREET. 

1889. 


JAN  25 1968 

^SfTY  OF  TO^ 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

TO  THE  SECOND  VOLUME. 


FOURTH  PART. 

FAG* 

The  Journey  from  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  ix.  51-xix.  27,   .  .  1 

First  Cycle  :  The  Departure  from  Galilee. — First  Days  of  the  Journey, 

ix.  51-xiii.  21,       .......  9 

Second  Cycle :   New  Series  of  Incidents  in  the  Journey,   xiii.   22- 

xvii  10,     .  .  .  .  .  .  .123 

Third  Cycle  :  The  Last  Scenes  in  the  Journey,  xvii.  11-xix.  27,         .         190 


FIFTH  PART. 

The  Sojourn  at  Jerusalem,  xix.  28-xxi.  88,  ...  226 

First  Cycle  :  The  Entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  xix.  28-44,  .  226 

Second  Cycle  :  The  Reign  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  xix.  45-xxi.  4,      .  233 
Third    Cycle :    The    Prophecy    of    the    Destruction    of   Jem- 

xxi.  5-38,  ........  256 


SIXTH  PART. 

The  Passion,  xxii.  and  xxin., .           .....  277 

First  Cycle  :  The  Preparation  for  the  Passion,  xxii.  1-46,       .  278 

8econd  Cycle  :  The  Passion,  xxii.  47-xxiii.  46,  308 

Third  Cycle  :  Close  of  the  History  of  the  Passion,  xxiii.  47-56,  339 

Conclusion  regarding  the  Day  of  Christ's  Death,  344 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 


SEVENTH  PART. 

PAGE 

The  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  xxiv.,       ....        347 

Of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,    ......        361 

Of  the  Ascension,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .367 


CONCLUSION. 

Chap.    i. — The  Characteristics  of  the  Third  Gospel,       .  .  .  372 

Chap.  XL — The  Composition  of  the  Third  Gospel,  .  .  .  401 

Chap.  hi. — The  Sources  of  Luke,  and  the  Relation  of  the  Synoptics 

to  one  another,       .......  422 

Chap,  iv.— The  Beginnings  of  the  Church.         ..."  450 


COMMENTARY  ON  ST.  LUKE, 


FOUETII  PAET. 


JOURNEY  FROM  GALILEE  TO  JERUSALEM. 


Ciiap.  ix.  51-xix.  27. 


A  GREAT  contrast  marks  the  synoptical  narrative :  that 
between  the  ministry  in  Galilee,  and  the  passion  week 
at  Jerusalem.  According  to  Matthew  (xix.  1-xx.  34)  and 
Mark  (chap,  x.),  the  short  journey  from  Capernaum  to  Judca 
through  Perea  forms  the  rapid  transition  between  those  two 
parts  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  Nothing,  either  in  the  dis- 
tance between  the  places,  or  in  the  number  of  the  facts  re- 
1,  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  this  journey  lasted  more 
than  a  few  days.     This  will  appear  from  the  following  table  : 


Matth  f.w. 
Conversation  about  divoi 

•ion  of  the  children. 

Tli<-  rich  young  man. 

ible  of  the  labou 

Third  announcement  of  the 

passion. 

The  request  of  Zebedee's  sons. 

Cure  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho. 

Wanting, 


Mai:k. 
H  Matt. 

Id. 
Wanting. 
E 

ft 

hi. 
Wanting. 
Id.  ' 


LUKF. 

Wanting. 

Same  M  Matt. 

1,1. 

Wanting. 

Same  as  in 

Wanting. 
Same  as  Mutt. 
Eaod 

bli  af  the 
pounds. 


!  urth  pot  of  tlie  Gospel  of  Luke,  winch  begins  at  ix.  51, 

gives  us  a  very  different  idea  of  what  tantpived  at  that  period. 

PS  Bud  the  description  of  a  slow  and  lengthened  journey 
across  the  sout'  of  Galilee,  whieh  border  on  Samaria. 

den  i\  Slid  lemsisi,  the  fixed  gQ*J  of  the  journey  (ver, 
!  1.  Bt&),      Bill  Jesus  proceed <  Olllj 

VQT..    1|  A 


2  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

stages,  stopping  at  each  locality  to  preach  the  gospel.  Luke 
does  not  say  what  direction  He  followed.  But  we  may  gather 
it  from  the  first  fact  related  by  him.  At  the  first  step  which 
He  ventures  to  take  with  His  followers  on  the  Samaritan 
territory,  He  is  stopped  short  by  the  ill-will  excited  against 
Him  by  national  prejudice ;  so  that  even  if  His  intention  had 
been  to  repair  directly  to  Jerusalem  through  Samaria  (which 
we  do  not  believe  to  have  been  the  case),  He  would  have 
been  obliged  to  give  up  that  intention,  and  turn  eastward,  in 
order  to  take  the  other  route,  that  of  Perea.  Jesus  therefore 
slowly  approached  the  Jordan,  with  the  view  of  crossing  that 
river  to  the  south  of  the  lake  Gennesaret,  and  of  continuing 
His  journey  thereafter  through  Perea.  The  inference  thus 
drawn  from  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  positively  confirmed  by 
Matthew  (xix.  1)  and  Mark  (x.  1),  both  of  whom  indicate  the 
Perean  route  as  that  which  Jesus  followed  after  His  departure 
from  Galilee.  In  this  way  the  three  synoptics  coincide  anew 
from  Luke  xviii.  15  onwards;  and  from  the  moment  at  which 
the  narrative  of  Luke  rejoins  the  two  others,  we  have  to  regard 
the  facts  related  by  him  as  having  passed  in  Perea.  This 
slow  journeying,  first  from  west  to  east  across  southern 
Galilee,  then  from  north  to  south  through  Perea,  the  descrip- 
tion of  which  fills  ten  whole  chapters,  that  is  to  say,  more 
than  a  third  of  Luke's  narrative,  forms  in  this  Gospel  a  real 
section  intermediate  between  the  two  others  (the  description 
of  the  Galilean  ministry  and  that  of  the  passion  week)  ;  it  is 
a  third  group  of  narratives  corresponding  in  importance  to 
the  two  others  so  abruptly  brought  into  juxtaposition  in  Mark 
and  Matthew,  and  which  softens  the  contrast  between  them. 

But  can  we  admit  with  certainty  the  historical  reality  of 
this  evangelistic  journey  in  southern  Galilee,  which  forms  one 
of  the  characteristic  features  of  the  third  Gospel?  Many 
modern  critics  refuse  to  regard  it  as  historical.     They  allege : 

1.  The  entire  absence  of  any  analogous  account  in  Matthew 
and  Mark.  Matthew,  indeed,  relates  only  two  solitary  facts 
(Matt.  viii.  19  et  seq.  and  xii.  21  et  seq.)  of  all  those  which 
Luke  describes  in  the  ten  chapters  of  which  this  section  con- 
sists, up  to  the  moment  when  the  three  narratives  again 
become  parallel  (Luke  xviii.  14) ;  Mark,  not  a  single  one. 

2,  The  visit  of  Jesus  to  Martha  and  Mary,  which  Luke 


CHAP.  IX.  51-XIX.  27.  3 

puts  in  this  Journey  (x.  38-42),  can  have  taken  place  only 
in  Judea,  at  Bethany;  likewise  the  saying,  xiii.  34,  oo,  can- 
not well  have  been  uttered  by  Jesus  elsewhere  than  at  Jerri* 
m  in  the  temple  (Matt,  xxiil  37-39).  Do  not  these 
errors  of  time  and  place  cast  a  more  than  suspicious  light  on 
the  narrative  of  the  entira  journey  ?  M.  Sabatier  himself, 
who  thoroughly  appreciates  the  important  bearing  of  this 
narrative  in  Luke  on  the  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels,  never- 
theless goes  the  length  of  saying :  *  We  see  with  how  many 
contradictions  and  material  impossibilities  this  narrative 
abounds."  ' 

It  lias  been  attempted  to  defend  Luke,  by  alleging  that 
he  did  not  mean  to  relate  a  journey,  and  that  this  section 
only  a  collection  of  doctrinal  utterances  arranged  in  the 
order  of  their  subjects,  and  intended  to  show  the  marvellous 
lorn  of  Jesus.     It  is  impossible  for  us  to  admit  this  ex- 
planation, with  Luke's  own  words  before  us,  which  expi 
and  recall  from  time  to  time  his  intention  of  describing  a 
consecutive  journey:  ix.  51,  "He  stedfastly  set  His  face  to 
>>/i;"   xiii.  22, ''He  was  going  through  the  cities 
.   .   .  journeying  tov:anl  Jerusalem;"  xvii.  11  (lit. 
«.);  "And  it  came  to  pass,  as  He  went  to  Jerusalem,  that 
lay  between  Samaria  and  Galilee." 
•,  taking  up  an  entirely  opposite  point  of  view, 
finds  in  those  three  passages  the  indications  of  as  many  indi- 
ial  journeys,  which  he  connects  with  three,  journeys 
ISSlem  placed  by  John  almost  at  the  same  epoch,      ! 
in   this  way  to    lind    the   point  of  support  for  LoJ 
re  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  which  is  wanting  to  it  in  tin- 
two  first.     13m  departure  mentioned  ix.  51  would  correspond 
with  the  journey  of  Jesus,  John  vii  l-x.  89  (let  ber- 

nacles  u  journey  which  terminates  in  a 

sojourn   in    !  John   x.  40  et  seep).      The  B) 

2  would  refer  to  the  journey  from  r 

.  John  •  which 

nally,  ti  vii.   1 1 

;  crarney  from  Bphraim  to  J< 

I    -sover  (John 

to  a 

1  Bssai  iur 


4  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

visit  to  Galilee,  proceeding  thither  through  Samaria  (AVieseler 
translates  Luke  xvii.  11  as  in  E.  V.,  "  through  the  nidst  of 
Samaria  and  Galilee"),  then  that  He  returned  to  Judea 
through  Perea  (Matt.  xix. ;  Mark  x.). 

We  cannot  allow  that  this  view  has  the  least  probability. 
— 1.  Those  three  passages  in  Luke  plainly  do  -not  indicate, 
in  his  mind  at  least,  three  different  departures  and  journeys. 
They  are  way-marks  set  up  by  the  author  on  the  route  of 
Jesus,  in  the  account  of  this  unique  journey,  by  which  he 
recalls  from  time  to  time  tke  general  situation  described  ix. 
51,  on  account  of  the  slowness  and  length  of  the  progress. — 
2.  The  departure  (ix.  51)  took  place,  as  the  sending  of  the 
seventy  disciples  proves,  with  the  greatest  publicity ;  it  is  not 
therefore  identical  with  the  departure  (John  vii.  1  et  seq.), 
which  took  place,  as  it  were,  in  secret ;  Jesus  undoubtedly  did 
not  then  take  with  Him  more  than  one  or  two  of  His  most 
intimate  disciples.  —  3.  The  interpretation  which  "Wieseler 
gives  of  xvii.  11  appears  to  us  inadmissible  (see  the  passage). 
—  It  must  therefore  be  acknowledged,  not  only  that  Luke 
meant  in  those  ten  chapters  to  relate  a  journey,  but  that  he 
meant  to  relate  one,  and  only  one. 

Others  think  that  he  intended  to  produce  in  the  minds  of 
his  readers  the  idea  of  a  continuous  journey,  but  that  this  is 
a  framework  of  fiction  which  has  no  corresponding  reality. 
De  Wette  and  Bleek  suppose  that,  after  having  finished  his 
account  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  Luke  still  possessed  a  host 
oi  important  materials,  without  any  determinate  localities  or 
dates,  and  that,  rather  than  lose  them,  he  thought  good  to 
insert  them  here,  between  the  description  of  the  Galilean 
ministry  and  that  of  the  passion,  while  grouping  them  in  the 
form  of  a  recorded  journey.  Holtzmann  takes  for  granted 
that  those  materials  were  nothing  else  than  the  contents  of 
his  second  principal  source,  the  Logia  of  Matthew,  which 
Luke  has  placed  here,  after  employing  up  till  this  point  his 
first  source,  the  original  Mark.  Weizsacker,  who  thinks,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  Logia  of  Matthew  are  almost  exactly 
reproduced  in  the  great  groups  of  discourses  which  the  first 
contains,  sees  in  this  fourth  part  of  Luke  a  collection  of  say- 
ings derived  by  him  from  those  great  discourses  of  Matthew, 
and   arranged    systematically  with   regard    to    the   principal 


CHAP.  IX.  jl-XIX.  27.  5 

questions  -which  were  agitated  in  the  apostolic  churches  (the 
account  of  the  feast,  xiv.  1-35,  alluding  to  the  Agapoe ;  the 
discourses,  xv.  1-xvii.  10,  to  questions  relative  to  the  admis- 
sion of  Gentiles,  etc.). 

Of  course,  according  to  those  three  points  of  view,  the 
historical  introductions  with  which  Luke  prefaces  each  of 
those  teachings  would  he  more  or  less  his  own  invention. 
He  deduces  them  himself  from  those  teachings,  as  we  might 
do  at  the  present  day.  As  to  the  rest,  Bleek  expressly 
remarks  that  this  view  leaves  entirely  intact  the  historical 
truth  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  themselves.  We  shall  gather 
up  in  the  course  of  our  exegesis  the  data  which  can  enlighten 
us  on  the  value  of  those  hypotheses;  but  at  the  outset  we 
must  offer  the  following  observations  : — 1.  In  thus  inventing 
an  entire  phase  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  Dike  would  put 
himself  in  contradiction  to  the  programme  marked  out  (i.  1-4), 
where  he  affirms  that  lie  has  endeavoured  to  reproduce  his- 
torical truth  exactly.  —  2.  "What  purpose  would  it  serve 
knowingly  to  enrich  the  ministry  of  Jesus  with  a  fictitious 
phase  ?     Would  it  not  have  been  much  simpler  to  distribute 

W  different  pieces  along  the  course  of  the  Galilean  minis!  I 
— 3.  Does  a  conscientious  historian  play  thus  with  the  matter 
of  which  he  treats,  especially  when  that  matter  forms  the  ol  j 
of  his  religious  faith  ? — If  Luke  had   really  acted  in  tl. 
we   should   require,  with    Ikiur,  to  take   a  step  further,  and 
ascribe  to  this  fiction  a  more  serious  intention — that  of  estab- 
lishing, by  those  prolonged  relations  of  Jesus   to   the  Samari- 
tans,  the  Pauline   univei>alism  ?      Thus  it   is   that   eritieism, 

ally    carried    out   in   questions   relating   to    the   G 
always  lands   us  in  this  dilemma — historical  truth  or  delibe- 
rate imposture. 

lorical   truth   of  this  journey,  as   Luke  es  it, 

•    from  the   following  facts  : — 1.   Long  or 

i  journey  from  Galilee  to  Judos  through  Peres  must 
place;  bo  much  is  established  by  the  i 

!  Mark,  and  ind  nlirined   by  that  of  John, 
ami  in    I  at  the  f 

epoch  (x*  40-42). — 2.  Tfco  dt  I  this  jounu 

have  been  m  from  a  1 

glance  at  the   first   two  II 


6  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

fill  the  six  or  seven  months  which  separated  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  (John  vii.,  month  of  October)  from  that  of  the 
Passover,  at  which  Jesus  died  ?  The  few  accounts,  Matt, 
xix.  and  xx.  (Mark  x.),  cannot  cover  such  a  gap.  Scarcely  is 
there  wherewith  to  fill  up  the  space  of  a  week.  Where,  then, 
did  Jesus  pass  all  that  time  ?  And  what  did  He  do  %  It  is 
usually  answered,  that  from  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  that 
of  the  Dedication  (December)  He  remained  in  Judea.  That 
is  not  possible.  He  must  have  gone  to  Jerusalem  in  a  sort 
of  incognito  and  by  way  of  surprise,  in  order  to  appear  unex- 
pectedly in  that  city,  and  to  prevent  the  police  measures 
which  a  more  lengthened  sojourn  in  Judea  would  have  allowed 
His  enemies  to  take  against  Him.  And  after  the  violent 
scenes  related  John  vii.  1-x.  21,  He  must  have  remained 
peacefully  there  for  more  than  two  whole  months  !  Such  an 
idea  is  irreconcilable  with  the  situation  described  John  vi.  1 
and  vii.  1-13. 

Jesus  therefore,  immediately  after  rapidly  executing  that 
journey,  returned  to  Galilee.  This  return,  no  doubt,  is  not 
mentioned  ;  but  no  more  is  that  which  followed  John  v.  It 
is  understood,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  so  long  as  a  new 
scene  of  action  is  not  indicated  in  the  narrative,  the  old  one 
continues.  After  the  stay  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedi- 
cation (John  x.  22  et  seq.),  it  is  expressly  said  that  Jesus 
sojourned  in  Perea  (vers.  40-42) :  there  we  have  the  first  indi- 
cation apprising  us  that  the  long  sojourn  in  Galilee  had  come 
to  an  end.  Immediately,  therefore,  after  the  feast  of  -Taber- 
nacles, Jesus  returned  to  Galilee,  and  it  was  then  that  He 
definitely  bade  adieu  to  that  province,  and  set  out,  as  we  read 
Luke  ix.  51,  to  approach  Jerusalem  slowly  and  while  preaching 
the  gospel.  Not  only  is  such  a  journey  possible,  but  it  is  in 
a  manner  forced  on  us  by  the  necessity  of  providing  contents 
for  that  blank  interval  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus. — 3.  The 
indications  which  Luke  supplies  respecting  the  scene  of  this 
journey  have  nothing  in  them  but  what  is  exceedingly  pro- 
bable. After  His  first  visit  to  Nazareth,  Jesus  settled  at 
Capernaum  ;  He  made  it  His  oiun  city  (Matt.  ix.  1),  and  the 
centre  of  His  excursions  (Luke  iv.  31  et  seq.).  Very  soon 
He  considerably  extended  the  radius  of  His  journeys  on  the 
side  of  western  Galilee    (Nam,  vii.    11).     Then   He   quitted 


CHAP.  IX.  51-XIX.  27.  7 

iTis  Capernaum  residence,  and  commenced  a  ministry  purely 
itinerant  (viii.  1  et  seq.).  To  this  period  belong  His  first  visit 
to  Decapolis,  to  the  east  of  the  lake  of  Gennesavet,  and  the 
multiplication  of  the  loaves,  to  the  north-east  of  that  sea. 
Finally,  we  learn  from  Matthew  and  Mark  that  Jesus  made 
two  other  great  excursions  into  the  northern  regions,  —  the 
one  to  the  north-west  toward  Phoenicia  (Luke's  great  lacuna), 
the  other  toward  the  north-east,  to  the  sources  of  the  Jordan 
(Csesarea  Philippi,  and  the  transfiguration).  To  accomplish 
\\:<  mission  toward  Galilee  there  thus  remained  to  be  visited 
only  the  southern  parts  of  this  province  on  the  side  of  Samaria. 
"What  more  natural,  consequently,  than   the   direction  which 

followed  in  this  journey,  slowly  passing  over  that  southern 
part  of  Galilee  from  west  to  east  which  He  had  not  before 
visited,  and  from  which  He  could  make  some  excursions 
among  that  Samaritan  people  at  whose  hands  He  had  found 
so  eager  a  welcome  at  the  beginning  of  His  ministry  ? 

irding  the  visit  to  Martha  and   Mary,  and  the  saying 
SiiL    1)4,   35,   we  refer  to   the  explanation  of  the  passages. 

haps  the  first  is  a  trace  (unconscious  on  the  part  of  Luke) 
of  Jesus'  short  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  Dedication, 
In  any  case,  the  narrative  of  Luke  is  thus  found  to  form  the 
>ition  between  the  synoptical  accounts  and  that  of 
JuIiil  And  if  wc  do  not  find  in  Luke  that  multiplicity  of 
:  neys  to  Jerusalem  which  forms  the  distinctive  feature  of 
John's  Gospel,  we  shall  at  least  meet  with  the  intermediate 

•  of  a  ministry,  a  great  part  of  which  (the  Galilean  work 
tinished)  assumes  the  form  of  a  prolonged  pilgrimage  in 
the  direction  of  J* 

to  the  contents  of  the  ten  chapters  embraced  in  this 
part  of  Luke,  they  arc  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  situation. 
Jesus  carries  along  with   Him  to  Jndea  all  the  followia 
devoted  believers  which  He  lias  found   in  Galilee,  the  nucleus 

of  1!  Prom  this  band  will  go  forth  tl 

of  <  .  with  the  apostles  at  its  head,  will  ihortij 

enter   upon  nqnett   of  the   world   in  His  name.     To 

r  this  task, — such  is  1 1  in 

1:     prosecutes  it  directly  in  two  ways:  by 

sen  m  on  a  i   before  Him,  as  formerly  lie  had 

I  the  twelve,  and  making  them  serve,  as  i  M»a 


8  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

first  apprenticeship  to  their  future  work;  then,  by  bringing 
to  bear  on  them  the  chief  part  of  His  instructions  respecting 
that  emancipation  from  the  world  and  its  goods  which  was  to 
be  the  distinctive  character  of  the  life  of  His  servants,  and 
thus  gaining  them  wholly  for  the  great  task  which  He  allots 
to  them.1 

What  are  the  sources  of  Luke  in  this  part  which  is  peculiar 
to  him  ?  According  to  Holtzmann,  Luke  here  gives  us  the 
contents  of  Matthew's  Zogia,  excepting  the  introductions, 
which  he  adds  or  amplifies.  We  shall  examine  this  whole 
hypothesis  hereafter.  According  to  Schleiermacher,  this  nar- 
rative is  the  result  of  the  combination  of  two  accounts  derived 
from  the  journals  of  two  companions  of  Jesus,  the  one  of 
whom  took  part  in  the  journey  at  the  feast  of  Dedication,  the 
ether  in  that  of  the  last  Passover.  Thus  he  explains  the 
exactness  of  the  details,  and  at  the  same  time  the  apparent 
inexactness  with  which  a  visit  to  Bethany  is  found  recorded 
in  the  midst  of  a  series  of  scenes  in  Galilee.  According  to 
this  view,  the  short  introductions  placed  as  headings  to  the 
discourses  are  worthy  of  special  confidence. — But  how  has 
this  fusion  of  the  two  writings  which  has  merged  the  two 
journeys  into  one  been  brought  about  ?  Luke  cannot  have 
produced  it  consciously  ;  it  must  have  existed  in  his  sources. 
The  difficulty  is  only  removed  a  stage.  How  was  it  possible 
for  the  two  accounts  of  different  journeys  to  be  fused  into  a 

1  We  cannot  help  recalling  here  the  admirable  picture  which  Eusebius  draws 
of  the  body  of  evangelists  who,  under  Trajan,  continued  the  work  of  those 
whom  Jesus  had  trained  with  so  much  care  :  "Alongside  of  him  (Quadratus) 
there  flourished  at  that  time  many  other  successors  of  the  apostles,  who,  ad- 
mirable disciples  of  those  great  men,  reared  the  edifice  on  the  foundations  which 
they  laid,  continuing  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and  scattering  abun- 
dantly over  the  whole  earth  the  wholesome  seed  of  the  heavenly  kingdom.  For 
a  very  large  number  of  His  disciples,  carried  away  by  fervent  love  of  the  truth 
which  the  divine  word  had  revealed  to  them,  fulfilled  the  command  of  the 
Saviour  to  divide  their  goods  among  the  poor.  Then,  taking  leave  of  their 
country,  they  filled  the  office  of  evangelists,  coveting  eagerly  to  preach  Christ, 
and  to  carry  the  glad  tidings  of  God  to  those  who  had  not  yet  heard  the  word 
of  faith.  And  after  laying  the  foundations  of  the  faith  in  some  remote  and 
barbarous  countries,  establishing  pastors  among  them,  and  confiding  to  them 
the  care  of  those  young  settlements,  without  stopping  longer,  they  hasted  on  to 
other  nations,  attended  by  the  grace  and  virtue  of  God  "  (ed.  Lcemmer,  iii.  38). 
Such  were  the  spiritual  children  of  those  whom  Jesus  had  equipped  on  this 
journey,  which  some  have  reckoned  an  invention  of  Luke. 


CHAP.  IX.  51.  9 

unique  whole  ?  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  all  that  we 
believe  it  possible  to  say  regarding  the  source  from  which 
Luke  drew  is,  that  the  document  must  have  been  either 
Aramaic,  or  translated  from  Aramaic.  To  be  convinced  of 
this,  we  need  only  read  the  verse,  ix.  51,  which  forms  the 
heading  of  the  narrative. 

If  we  were  proceeding  on  the  relation  of  Luke  to  the  two 
other  synoptics,  we  should  divide  this  part  into  two  cycles, 
— that  in  which  Luke  moves  alone  (ix.  51-xviii.  14),  and 
that  in  which  he  moves  parallel  to  them  (xviii.  15-xix.  27). 
But  that  division  has  nothing  corresponding  to  it  in  the  mind 
of  the  author,  who  probably  knows  neither  of  the  two  other 
canonical  accounts.  He  himself  divides  his  narrative  into 
three  cycles  by  the  three  observations  with  which  he  marks 
it  off:  1st.  ix  51-xiii.  21  (ix.  51,  the  resolution  to  depart)  ; 
2d.  xiii.  22-xvii.  10  (xiii.  22,  the  direction  of  the  journey); 
Zd.  xvii.  11-xix.  27  (xvii.  11,  the  scene  of  the  journey).  Such, 
then,  will  be  our  division. 


FIRST  CYCLE. CIIAr.  IX.  ol-XIII.  21. 

Tlic  Departure  from  Galilee. — First  Period  of  the  Journey. 

1.   Unfavourable  n  hy  the  Samaritu  '  6. — 

Ver.  51.  Introduction. — The  style  of  this  verse  is  peculiarly 
impressive    and    solemn.       The    expressions    cytW0  •  •  •  <•*& 

€GTi)pi%e  TTpuawTTov  GTrjpi&iv  lxti;i v  an  Aramaic  original   The 

■  >  avfiirXrjpouadai,  to  be  fulfill  d,  means  here,  as  in  Acts  ii.  1, 
;ual  filling  up  of  a  series  of  days  which  form  a  com- 
nriod,  and  extend  t<>  a  goal  determined  beforehand; 

comp.  ir\r]a6P]vai,  ii.  21,  22.      The  period   here  is  that  of  (lie 

i  of  the  departing  of  Jesus  from  this  world;  il 

wit:  t  annoni  ;   His  sufferings,  and  it  had  now 

reached  one  of  its  marked  epochs,  th  n   from  I 

The  goal  is  the  avakr)^^,  tin  res- 

sion   combines   the   two   ideas   of  His  (hath    and   ascension. 
Those  two  events,  of  which  tin-  one  is  the  001 
otli'  (nation  of  li 

her ;  comp.   the  same  combination  of  ideas  in  infral 


1  0  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

and  virdyeiv,  John  iii.  14,  viii.  28,  xii.  32,  xiii.  3.  For  the 
plural  7)ixepai,  Luke  i.  21,  22. — Wieseler  (in  his  Synopsis) 
formerly  gave  to  avaXr]^^  the  meaning  of  good  reception : 
"  When  the  time  of  the  favourable  reception  which  He  had 
found  in  Galilee  was  coming  to  an  end."  But  as  this  meaning 
would  evidently  require  some  such  definition  as  iv  TaXikalq, 
he  now  understands  by  rjfJLep.  avaX.,  "  the  days  during  which 
Jesus  should  have  been  received  by  men"  (Beitrage,  etc.,  p. 
127  et  seq.).  But  how  can  we  give  to  a  substantive  the 
meaning  of  a  verb  in  the  conditional  ?  and  besides,  comp. 
Acts  i.  2,  which  fixes  the  meaning  of  avakrjtyis.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  Meyer  concludes  from  the  passage  in  Acts 
that  the  ascension  only  is  here  referred  to,  he  forgets  the 
difference  of  context.  In  Acts  i.  this  meaning  is  evident, 
the  death  being  already  a  past  event ;  but  here  it  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  the  two  events  yet  to  come,  by  which  the 
departure  of  Jesus  to  heaven  (avak7)^n<;)  was  to  be  consum- 
mated, are  not  comprehended  in  this  word. — The  pronoun 
avros,  by  emphasizing  the  subject,  brings  into  prominence  the 
free  and  deliberate  character  of  this  departure.  On  the  teal  of 
the  apodosis,  see  vol.  i.  pp.  133,  136.  This  teat  (and  He  also) 
recalls  the  correspondence  between  the  divine  decree  implied 
in  the  term  avinrKrjpova-Qai,  to  be  fulfilled,  and  the  free  will 
with  which  Jesus  conforms  thereto.  The  phrase  irpoawirov 
crT7)pi£eiv  corresponds  in  the  LXX.  to  D%3B  DID  (Jer.  xxi.  10) 
or  D"»:a  jn:  (Ezek.  vi.  2),  dresser  sa  face  vers  (Ostervald),  to  give 
one's  view  an  invariable  direction  towards  an  end.  The  ex- 
pression supposes  a  fear  to  be  surmounted,  an  energy  to  be 
displayed. — On  the  prepositional  phrase  to  Jerusalem,  comp. 
ix.  3 1  and  Mark  x.  3  2  :  "  And  they  were  in  the  way  going 
up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  Jesus  went  before  them  :  and  as  they 
followed  they  were  afraid."  To  start  for  Jerusalem  is  to 
march  to  His  death ;  Jesus  knows  it ;  the  disciples  have  a 
presentiment  of  danger.  This  confirms  our  interpretation  of 
avakri'^rt,^. 

Vers.    52-5  6.1    Tlie  Refusal. — This  tentative   message   of 

1  Ver.  52.  X.  r.  A.  24  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  read  waXiv  instead  of  x*fmt.— Ver.  54. 
N.  B.  some  Mnn.  omit  xvtov  after  ftafarat. — N.  B.  L.  Z.  2  Mnn.  ItaHi.  Syr0"1",  omit 
the  words  «,-  *»  nx,xS  nrwnw.— Ver.  55.  K-  A.  B.  C.  E.  G.  H.  L.  S.  V.  X.  a.  Z.  64 
Mnn.  omit  the  words  xat  a<rtv  oux  eitixn  oiav  <wiv(jt.a.ro$  i<rn  sptiif,  which  are  found 


CIIAr.  IX.  52-00.  11 

Jesus  does  not  prove,  as  Meyer  and  I>leek  think,  that  He 
had  the  intention  of  penetrating  farther  into  Samaria,  and  of 
;ly  to  Jerusalem  in  that  way.  He  desired  to  do 
u  work  in  the  north  of  that  province,  like  that  which  had 
succeeded  so  admirably  in  the  south  (John  iv.). 

The  sending  of  messengers  was  indispensable,  on  account 
of  the  numerous  retinue  which  accompanied  Him.  The 
reading  irokiv  (ver.  52),  though  less  supported,  appears  to 
us  preferable  to  the  reading  Kcofirjv,  which  is  probably  taken 
from  ver.  5G. — In  general,  the  Samaritans  put  no  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  Jews  travelling  through  their  country.  It  was 
even  by  this  route,  according  to  Josephus,  that  the  Galileans 
usually  went  to  Jerusalem ;  but  Samaritan  toleration  did  not 
go  so  far  as  to  offer  hospitality.  The  aim  of  Jesus  was  to 
remove  the  wall  which  for  long  centuries  had  separated  the 
two  peoples. — The  Hebraism,  to  irpoo-coirov  iropevo^ievov  (ver. 
53),  iron  D*»  (Ex.  xxxiiL   14;    2   Sam.  xvii.  11),  proves  an 

maic  document. — The  conduct  of  James  and  John  betrays 
a  state  of  exaltation,  which  was  perhaps  still  due  to  the 
impression  produced  by  the  transfiguration  scene.  The  pro- 
posal which  they  make  to  Jesus  seems  to  be  related  to  the 
recent  appearance  of  Elias.  This  remark  does  not  lose 
truth,  even  if  the  words,  as  did  Elias,  which  several  Alex. 
omit,  are  not  authentic. 

j  laps  this  addition  was  meant  to  extenuate  the  fault  of 
the  disciples ;  but  it  may  also  have  been  left  out  to  | 
the  rebuke  of  Jesus  from  falling  on  the  prophet,  or  because 

Gnostics  employed  this  passage  against  the  authority  of 

0.  T.  QYitullian,  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  23).     The  most  natural 
supposition  after  all  is,  that  the  passage  is  an  expittiaJ 
gloss. — Is  the  surname  of  sons  of  Ihumkr,  given  by  Jesus  to 

M   and   John,  to  be  dated  fr<>m   this   ciiv  B  I      W« 

nk  not.  <mld  not  ha\  way  of 

a  fault  Committed  by  His  two  beloved  di  ciplcs. — The  phrase, 
He  turned  (y  is   explained  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  was 

walking  at  the  head   of  the   company.—  many  A] 

D .  r.  a.  n  ity  of  the  Mnn.   Syr.   Itl**P»  — Ver.  56. 

The  T.  It.  adds  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  :  •  ymp  mnj  csa  **tf*vv  mm  nXti 

<f  tutfmwn  MnXmN  «xa.«  »r«,  following  V".  K.  M.  tT.  P,  v  ir.  almost  all 

I:m.  Syr.  If1"1^.     These  words  are  omitted  in  I  .1  Mij.  65 

IfN 


12  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

and  Byz.  mss.  agree  in  rejecting  the  last  words  of  this  verse, 
And  said,  Ye  know  not;  but  the  oldest  versions,  the  Iiala 
and  Peschito,  confirm  its  authenticity ;  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  cause  of  the  omission  is  nothing  else  than  the  confounding 
of  the  words  KAI  EME  with  the  following  KAI  Ellopevdrf. 
They  may  be  understood  in  three  ways  :  either  interrogatively, 
"  Know  ye  not  what  is  the  new  spiritual  reign  which  I 
bring  in,  and  of  which  you  are  to  be  the  instruments,  that  of 
meekness  ? M — or  affirmatively,  with  the  same  sense,  "  Ye 
know  not  yet  ..."  The  third  meaning  is  much  more 
severe :  "  Ye  know  not  of  what  spirit  you  are  the  instruments 
when  speaking  thus ;  you  think  that  you  are  working  a 
miracle  of  faith  in  my  service,  but  you  are  obeying  a  spirit 
alien  from  mine."  This  last  meaning,  which  is  that  of  St. 
Augustine  and  of  Calvin,  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  ex- 
pression iireriprja-ev,  He  rebuked  them. 

The  following  words  (ver.  56),  For  the  Son  of  man  is  not 
come  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,  are  wanting  in  the 
same  authorities  as  the  preceding,  and  in  the  Cantabrigian 
besides.  It  is  a  gloss  brought  in  from  xix.  10  and  Matt. 
xviii.  11.  In  these  words  there  are,  besides,  numerous  varia- 
tions, as  is  usual  in  interpolated  passages.  Here,  probably,  we 
have  the  beginning  of  those  many  alterations  in  the  text 
which  are  remarked  in  this  piece.  The  copyists,  rendered 
distrustful  by  the  first  gloss,  seem  to  have  taken  the  liberty 
of  making  arbitrary  corrections  in  the  rest  of  the  passage. 
The  suspicion  of  Gnostic  interpolations  may  have  equally 
contributed  to  the  same  result. 

Jesus  offered,  but  did  not  impose  Himself  (viii.  3  7) ;  He 
withdrew.  Was  the  other  village  where  He  was  received 
Jewish  or  Samaritan  ?  Jewish,  most  probably ;  otherwise 
the  difference  of  treatment  experienced  in  two  villages  be- 
longing to  the  same  people  would  have  been  more  expressly 
emphasized. 

2.  The  Three  Disciples:  ix.  57-62. — Two  of  these  short 
episodes  are  also  connected  in  Matthew  (chap,  viii.) ;  but  by 
him  they  are  placed  at  the  time  when  Jesus  is  setting  out  on 
His  excursion  into  Decapolis.  Meyer  and  Weizsacker  prefer 
the  situation  indicated  by  Matthew.  The  sequel  will  show 
what  we  are  to  think  of  that  opinion. 


CHAP.  IX.  57-CO.  1  i 

1st.  Vers.  57  and  5S.1 — Luke  says,  a  certain  man;  in 
Matthew  it  is  a  scribe.  Why  this  difference,  if  they  follow  the 
same  document  ? — The  homage  of  the  man  breathed  a  blind 
confidence  in  his  own  strength.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  a  call 
to  self-examination.  To  follow  such  a  Master  wk  Hi her soever 
He  goeth,  more  is  needed  than  a  good  resolution;  he  must 
walk  in  the  way  of  self-mortification  (ix.  23).2  The  word 
Karacna]vcD(Ti<;  strictly  denotes  shelter  under  foliage,  as  opposed 
to  holes  in  the  earth.  Night  by  night  Jesus  received  from 
the  hand  of  His  Father  a  resting-place,  which  He  knew  not 
in  the  morning ;  the  beasts  were  better  off'  in  respect  of 
comfort.  The  name  Son  oj  man  is  employed  with  precision 
here  to  bring  out  the  contrast  between  the  Lord  of  creation 
and  His  poorest  subjects. — This  offer  and  answer  are  certainly 
put  more  naturally  at  the  time  of  final  departure  from 
Galilee,  than  at  the  beginning  of  a  few  hours'  or  a  few  days' 
excursion,  as  in  Matthew. 

Vers.  59,  CO." — Luke  says,  anotlver  (individual); 
Matthew,  another  of  His  d%scipU$. — The  scribe  had  offered 
If ;  this  latter  is  addressed  by  Jesus.  Luke  alone 
indicates  the  contrast  which  the  succeeding  eonYereation 
explains.  Here  we  have  no  more  a  man  of  impure,  pit- 
sumptuous  and  without  self-distrust.  On  the  contrary,  we 
have  a  character  reflecting  and  wary  even  to  excess.  Jesus 
has  more  confidence  in  him  than  in  the  former  ;  He  simulates 
instead  of  correcting  him. — Could  the  answer  which  He 
him  (ver.  60)  be  altogether  justified  in  the  situation  which 
Matthew  indicates,  and  if  what  Mas  contemplated  was  only 
Litton,  in  which  this  man  without  inconvenient •«• 
could   have  taken   parti      In  the  position  indicated   by  Luke, 

pact   of  the    mutter  changes.      The    Lord  i 
ting    out,    not    again   to   return  ;  will    he    who    remains   be- 
hind at  this  decisive  moment  erer  rejoin    Ilini  I     There  are 
critical  periods  in  the  moral  life,  when  that  which  i 

M    B    D.  L  /    MOM  Mnn.  It»'"i.  omit  u**. 
MB'f  comm 

life,  at  first  full  of  eWoM  fat  Ma,  began  to  v.m-Ii  heavily  oa  Mm" 
Jinun,  13th  -  ly  is  one  of  the  strangest  li 

tory  of  Jcsns  I  IuiumII.     Th«  saying 

breathes,  8  >st  manly  ennrage. 

»  Ver.  M,    li.   \V   V. 


14  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

at  the  moment  will  never  be  done.  The  Spirit  blows ;  its 
action  over,  the  ship  will  never  succeed  in  getting  out  of 
port.  But,  it  is  said,  to  bury  a  father  is  a  sacred  duty; 
Jesus  has  no  right  to  set  aside  such  a  duty.  But  there  may 
be  conflicting  duties;  the  law  itself  provided  for  one,  in 
cases  analogous  to  that  which  is  before  us.  The  high  priest 
and  the  Nazarites,  or  consecrated  ones,  were  not  to  pollute 
themselves  for  the  dead,  were  it  even  their  father  or  mother 
(Lev.  xxi.  11 ;  Num.  vi.  6,  7)  ;  that  is  to  say,  they  could 
neither  touch  the  body  to  pay  it  the  last  duties,  nor  enter  the 
house  where  it  lay  (Num.  xix.  14),  nor  take  part  in  the 
funeral  meal  (Hos.  ix.  4).  All  that  Jesus  does  here  is  to 
apply  the  moral  principle  implicitly  laid  down  by  the  law, — 
to  wit,  that  in  case  of  conflict,  spiritual  duty  takes  precedence 
of  the  law  of  propriety.  If  his  country  be  attacked,  a  citizen 
will  leave  his  father's  body  to  run  to  the  frontier ;  if  his  own 
life  be  threatened,  the  most  devoted  son  will  take  to  flight, 
leaving  to  others  the  care  of  paying  the  last  honours  to  his 
father's  remains.  Jesus  calls  upon  this  man  to  do  for  the  life 
of  his  soul  what  every  son  would  do  for  that  of  his  body.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  pollution  contracted  by  the 
presence  of  a  dead  body  lasted  seven  days  (Num.  xix.  11-22). 
What  would  have  happened  to  this  man  during  these  seven 
days  ?  His  impressions  would  have  been  chilled.  Already 
Jesus  saw  him  plunged  anew  in  the  tide  of  his  ordinary  life, 
lost  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  There  was  needed  in  this  case 
a  decision  like  that  which  Jesus  had  just  taken  Himself 
(ver.  51).  'A7re\d(ov  (strictly,  from  the  spot)  is  opposed  to 
every  desire  of  delay;  the  higher  mission,  the  spiritual 
Nazariteship,  begins  immediately.  From  the  word  dead,  on 
the  double  meaning  of  which  the  answer  of  Jesus  turns,  there 
is  suggested  the  judgment  which  He  passed  on  human  nature 
before  its  renewal  by  the  gospel.  This  saying  is  parallel  to 
that  other,  "  If  yc  ivho  are  exit  .  .  . ,"  and  to  Paul's  declara- 
tion, w  Ye  were  dead  in  your  sins  ..."  (Eph.  ii.  1\  The 
command,  "  Preach  the  kingdom  of  God"  justifies,  by  the 
sublimity  of  the  object,  the  sacrifice  demanded.  The  Bid  in 
SicvyyeWe  indicates  diffusion.  The  mission  of  the  seventy 
disciples,  which  immediately  follows,  sets  this  command  in 
its  true  light.     Jesus  had  a  place  for  this  man  to  fill  in  that 


CHAP.  IX.  61,  C2.  15 

army  of  evangelists  -which  He  purposed  to  send  before  Him, 
and  which  at  a  later  date  was  to  labour  in  changing  the 
aspect  of  the  world.  Everything  in  this  scene  is  explained 
by  the  situation  in  which  Luke  places  it. —  Clement  of 
xandria  relates  (Strom,  iii.  4)  that  the  name  of  this  man 
!  Philip.  In  any  case,  it  could  not  have  been  the  apostle 
<>f  that  name  who  had  long  been  following  Jesus  (John  vi.) ; 
but  might  it  not  be  the  deacon  Philip,  who  afterwards  played 
so  important  a  part  as  deacon  and  evangelist  in  the  primitive 
Church  ?  If  it  is  so,  we  can  understand  why  Jesus  did  not 
allow  such  a  prize  to  escape  Him. 

Vers.  Gl,  62. — This  third  instance  belongs  only  to 
Luke.  It  is,  as  it  were,  the  synthesis  of  the  two  others.  This 
man  offers  himself,  like  the  first ;  and  yet  he  temporizes  like 
the  second.  The  word  airoTdcraecrOav,  strictly,  to  leave  one's 
place  in  the  ranis,  rather  denotes  here  separation  from  the 
members  of  his  house,  than  renunciation  of  his  goods  (xiv.  33). 
The  preposition  efc,  which  follows  rok,  is  better  explained  by 
dflg  the  pronoun  in  the  masculine  sense. — There  are,  in  the 
answer  of  Jesus,  at  once  a  call  to  examine  himself,  and  a 
summons  to  a  more  thorough  decision.  The  figure  is  that  of 
a  man  who,  while  engaged  in  labour  (aor.  eiri^dkuiv),  inst 
of  keeping  his  eye  on  the  furrow  which  he  is  drawing  (\: 
fiXewayv),   looks   behind    at    some    object   which   attr. 

past      He  ifl   <»nly  half  at  work,  and  half  work  only  will 
be  the  result.     What  will   come  of  the  divi. 
hands  of  a  man  who  devotes  himself  to  it  with  a  heart  | 

occupied  with  other  cares  1     A  henie  impulse,  withon 
the  condition  of  Christian  service, — In  thi 

fit  j  "i7t  of  Goo \  the  two  ideas  oi  self-discipline  and 

.  to  inil  not  separated,  as  ind 

IlUfl  summons  to  entire  reiiuueiatimi  is  mueli 
more  naturally  i  ;    by  the   .situation   of   Luke   than  by 

that 

an  joined  tradi- 

• 
i.  l-l  l.    Tip 
:  which  Jetna  treated  the  moat  diverse  cases.    T 
wasincoi  ists  of  the  primitn 

in  either  of  tb  ntly.     A<  y,  in 


1 6  THE  GOSPEL  OP  LUKE. 

Matthew  it  takes  its  place  in  the  cycle  of  the  Gadarene  journey. 
Luke,  more  exact  in  his  researches,  has  undoubtedly  restored  it  to 
its  true  historical  situation.  For  although  the  three  events  did  not 
occur  at  the  same  time,  as  might  appear  to  be  the  case  it*  we  were 
to  take  his  narrative  literally,  all  the  three  nevertheless  belong  to 
the  same  epoch,  that  of  the  final  departure  from  Galilee.  Holtz- 
mann,  who  will  have  it  that  Matthew  and  Luke  both  borrowed  this 
piece  from  the  Logia,  is  obliged  to  ask  why  Matthew  has  cut  oft  the 
third  case  1  His  answer  is  :  Matthew  imagined  that  this  third  per- 
sonage was  no  other  than  the  rich  young  man  whose  history  he 
reckoned  on  giving  later,  in  the  form  in  which  he  found  it  in  the 
other  common  source,  the  original  Mark.  Luke  had  not  the  same 
j)erspicacity ;  and  hence  he  has  twice  related  the  same  fact  in  two 
different  forms.  But  the  rich  young  man  had  no  thought  of  asking 
Jesus  to  be  allowed  to  follow  Him ;  what  filled  his  mind  was  the 
idea  of  some  work  to  be  done  which  would  secure  his  salvation. 
The  state  of  soul  and  the  conversation  are  wholly  different.  At  all 
events,  if  the  fact  was  the  same,  it  would  be  more  natural  to  allow 
that  it  had  taken  two  different  forms  in  the  tradition,  and  that  Luke, 
not  having  the  same  sources  as  Matthew,  reproduced  both  without 
suspecting  their  identity. 

3.  TJie  Sending  of  the  Seventy  Disciples:  x.  1-24. — 
Though  Jesus  proceeded  slowly  from  city  to  city,  and  from 
village  to  village,  He  had  but  little  time  to  devote  to  each 
place.  It  was  therefore  of  great  moment  that  He  should 
everywhere  find  His  arrival  prepared  for,  minds  awakened, 
hearts  expectant  of  His  visit.  This  precaution  was  the  more 
important,  because  this  first  visit  was  to  be  His  last.  Accord- 
ingly, as  He  had  sent  the  Twelve  into  the  northern  parts  of 
Galilee  at  the  period  when  He  was  visiting  them  for  the 
last  time,  He  now  summons  a  more  numerous  body  of  His 
adherents  to  execute  a  similar  mission  in  the  southern  regions 
of  the  province.  They  thus  serve  under  His  eyes,  in  a  manner, 
the  apprenticeship  to  their  future  calling.  The  recital  of  this 
mission  embraces — 1st,  The  Sending  (vers.  1-16)  ;  2d,  The 
Eeturn  (vers.  17-24).  The  essential  matter  always  is  the 
discourse  of  Jesus,  in  which  His  profoundest  emotions  find 
expression. 

1st.  The  Sending,  vers.  1-16. — Ver.  I.1  Tlie  Mission. — 'Ava- 
vei/cvv/M,  to  put  in  vieiv  ;  and  hence,  to  elect  and  install  (i.  8  0) ; 

1  Ver.  1.  B.  L.  Z.  Syr"*,  omit  *«/.— B.  D.  M.  Syi*ur.  It"1'*.  Epiplianius,  Angus- 
tine,  Iiecognit.  Clement. :  ifiipnxovro  *Bvo. — B.  K.  n.  some  Mnn.  Syr.,  %vt  lv$ 
instead  of  lua. 


ciiAr.  x.  1.  17 

here,  to  designate.  The  word  instituer  (Crampon)  would 
wrongly  give  a  permanent  character  to  this  mission.  Schleier- 
macher  and  Meyer  think  that  by  the  koX  erepovs,  others  atso, 
Luke  alludes  to  the  sending  of  the  two  messengers  (ix.  52). 
But  those  two  envoys  are  of  too  widely  different  a  nature 
to  admit  of  being  put  on  the  same  footing,  and  the  term 
dveSeigev  could  not  be  applied  to  the  former.  The  solemn 
instructions  which  follow  leave  no  room  to  doubt,  that  by  the 
others  also,  Luke  alludes  to  the  sending  of  the  Twelve.  The 
term  iripov*;,  others,  authorizes  the  view  that  the  Twelve  were 
not  comprehended  in  this  second  mission ;  Jesus  kept  them 
at  this  time  by  His  side,  with  a  view  to  their  peculiar  training 
for  their  future  ministry. 

The  oscillation  which  prevails  in  the  MSS.  between  the 
numbers  seventy  and  seventy-two,  and  which  is  reproduced  in 
ver.  1 7,  exists  equally  in  several  other  cases  where  this  number 
appears,  e.g.  the  seventy  or  seventy-two  Alexandrine  transla- 
tors of  the  Old  Testament.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  tin; 
numbers  70  and  72  are  both  multiples  of  numbers  very 
frequently  used  in  sacred  symbolism — 7  times  10  and  6  tii.. 
ll'.  The  authorities  are  in  favour  of  seventy,  the  reading  in 
particular  of  the  Sinaiticus.  Does  this  number  contain  an 
allusion  to  that  of  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  (71,  includ- 
ing the  president), — a  number  which  appears  in  its  turn  to 
correspond  with  that  of  the  70  elders  chosen  by  Moses  (Num. 
xi.  10-25)?  In  this  case  it  would  be,  so  to  speak,  an  anti- 
Sanhedrim  which  Jesus  constituted,  as,  in  naming  the  Twelve, 
He  had  set  over  against  the  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  twelve  BOW 
spiritual  patriarchs.  But  there  is  another  explanation  of  the 
number  which  seems  to  us  more  natural.  The  Jews  held, 
agreeably  to  Gen.  x.,  that  the  human  made  up  of  7»> 

(or  72)  peoples,   14  descended  from  Japhet,  80   from   Ham, 
and  26  from  Sliem.     This  idea,  not  uncommon  in  the  wiiti; 
of  later  •'  .  ii  tlm  i  d  in  the  OL  mm  I 

(J  (ii.  42):  "Cod  divided  all   the  nations  of  the  earth    into 

kn     If  the  choice  of  the  Twelve,  as  it  t  a  at 

beginning,  had  more  particular  relation  to  Christ's  mission 
to  Israel,  the  sen  the  seventy,  carried  out  at  a  more 

adv  och,  when  the  unbelief  of  1  asassun. 

a  iixed  form,   announced   and   prepared   for  the  extension   of 
VOL.  IL  B 


18  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

preaching  throughout  the  whole  earth. — Jesus  sent  them  two 
and  two ;  the  gifts  of  the  one  were  to  complete  those  of  the 
other.  Besides,  did  not  the  legal  adage  say,  In  the  mouth  or 
tivo  or  three  witnesses  shall  every  word  he  established  1 — Lange 
translates  ov  e/ieXkev,  "  where  He  should  have  come,"  as  if  the 
end  of  the  visit  made  by  the  seventy  had  been  to  make  up  for 
that  for  which  Jesus  had  not  time.  This  meaning  is  opposed 
to  the  text,  and  particularly  to  the  words  before  Him. 

Vers.  2-16.  The  Discourse. — It  falls  into  two  parts:  In- 
structions for  the  mission  (vers.  2-12),  and  warnings  to  the 
cities  of  Galilee  (vers.  13-16). 

The  instructions  first  explain  the  reason  of  this  mission 
(ver.  2) ;  then  the  conduct  to  be  observed  on  setting  out  and 
during  the  journey  (vers.  3,  4),  at  the  time  of  arrival  (vers. 
5,  6) ;  during  their  sojourn  in  the  case  of  a  favourable  recep- 
tion (vers.  7-9) ;  finally,  on  their  departure  in  the  case  oi 
rejection  (vers.  10-12). 

Ver.  2.1 — "  Therefore  said  He  ttnto  them,  The  harvest  truly 
is  great,  but  the  labourers  are  few  ;  pray  ye  therefore  the  Lord  oj 
the  harvest,  that  He  ivould  send  forth  labourers  into  His  harvest!' 
Matthew  has  this  utterance  in  chap,  ix.,  in  presence  of  the 
Galilean  multitudes,  and  as  an  introduction  to  the  sending  of 
the  Twelve.  Bleek  himself  acknowledges  that  it  is  better 
placed  by  Luke.  "  The  field  is  the  world"  Jesus  had  said  in 
the  parable  of  the  sower.  It  is  to  this  vast  domain  that  the 
very  strong  words  of  this  verse  naturally  apply,  recalling  the 
similar  words,  John  iv.  35  :  "Look  on  the  fields,  for  they  are 
white  already  to  harvest"  uttered  in  Samaria,  and  on  the 
threshold,  as  it  were,  of  the  Gentile  world.  The  sending  of 
the  new  labourers  is  the  fruit  of  the  prayers  of  their  prede- 
cessors. The  prep,  i/c  in  eKpaXkeuv,  thrust  forth,  may  signify, 
forth  from  the  Father's  house,  from  heaven,  whence  real  call- 
ings issue ;  or,  forth  from  the  Holy  Land,  whence  the  evange- 
lization of  the  Gentiles  was  to  proceed.  Following  on  the 
idea  of  prayer,  the  first  meaning  is  the  more  natural. 

Vers.  3,  4.2 — "  Go  your  ivays ;  behold,  I  send  you,  forth  as 
lambs  among  wolves.      Carry  neither  purse,  nor  scrip,  nor  shoes : 

1  Ver.  2.  Instead  of  ow,  tf.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  ItaH«i.  read  h. 
s  Ver.  3.  N.  A.  B.  omit  %yu  after  Sov. — Ver.  4.  55.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  several  Mnn.. 
/as*  instead  of  fiyih. 


cn.vr.  x.  5,  6.  19 

and  salute  no  man  by  the  way"  They  arc  to  set  out  just  as 
they  are,  weak  aud  utterly  unprovided.  The  first  characteristic 
of  the  messengers  of  Jesus  is  confidence.  Jesus,  who  gii 
them  their  mission  (iyco  is  certainly  authentic),  charges  Him- 
self with  the  task  of  defending  them  and  of  providing  for  their 
wants. — 'T-jTohjuaTa,  change  of  sandals ;  this  is  proved  by  the 

I  >  /3aaTci£eiv,  to  carry  a  burden. — It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  object  of  the  last  wTords.  Are  they  meant  to  indicate 
haste,  as  in  2  Kings  iv.  29  ?  But  the  journey  of  Jesus  Him- 
self has  nothing  hurried  about  it.  Does  He  mean  to  forbid 
them,  as  some  have  thought,  to  seek  the  favour  of  men  ?  But 
the  words  by  the  way  would  be  superfluous.  Jesus  rather 
meanfl  that  they  must  travel  like  men  absorbed  by  one  supreme 
interest,  which  will  not  permit  them  to  lose  their  time  in  idle 
ceremonies.  It  is  well  known  how  complicated  and  tedious 
eastern  salutations  are.  The  domestic  hearth  is  the  place  where 
they  are  to  deliver  their  message.  A  tranquillity  reigns  there 
which  is  appropriate  to  so  serious  a  subject     The  following 

966  readily  fall  is  with  this  idea. 

Vers.   5,  6.1  "  And  into  whatsoever  house  ye  enter,  first  say, 
c  be  to  this  Jiouse.     And  if  tlw  (a)  son  of  peace  be  th 
your  veacc  shall  rest  iqion  it:  if  not,  it  sliall  titrn  to  you  again.' 
— The  pres.  ela-ep^vade  (Byz.)  expresses  better  than  the  aor. 
(Alex.)   that  the  entrance  and  the  salutation  are  simultam ffl 
vailing  impulse,  in  the  servant  of  Christ,  is  the  de 
of  communicating  the  peace  with  which  he  himself  is  filled 
(his  peace,  ver.    6).  —  If  the  article  before    u/ck —  "  the  son 
of  peace" — were  authentic  (T.  It.),  it  would  designate   the 
individual  as  the  object  of  a  special  divine  decree,  which 

fetched.  The  phrase,  son  of  jxacc,  is  a  Hebraism.  In  thlfl 
connection  it  represe;  notion  of  peace  as  an  actual  fog 

which  comes  to  life  in  the  individual.    The  reading  of  the 

-t  ancient  MSS.,  liravaira^G^Tai,  is  regular  (aor.  pass. 

:'iv . — If  no  soul  i>  found  there  fitted  to  leoarve  the  in 

nee  of  ti  il  will  not  on  that  account 

be  without  efficacy  ;  it  will  return  with  redoubled  force,  as  it 
,  on  him  who  ottered  it. 

he  Mas.  arc  divided  between  MffygpffA  (T.  R.)  ind  i<ra/*n  (Alex.).— 
M  iily.     X  r..,ie«»«c«MiT«, 


20  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  7-9.1  "And  in  the  same  house  remain,  eating  and 
drinking  such  things  as  they  give :  for  the  labourer  is  worthy  of 
his  hire.  Go  not  from  house  to  house.  8  And  into  whatsoever 
city  ye  enter,  and  they  receive  you,  eat  such  things  as  are  set  be- 
fore you :  9  And  heal  the  sick  that  are  therein,  and  say  unto 
them,  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  yoiC — A  favour- 
able reception  is  supposed.  The  messenger  of  Christ,  regard- 
ing his  entrance  into  that  house  above  everything  else  as  a 
providential  event,  is  to  fix  his  residence  there  during  the 
entire  period  of  his  stay  in  that  place  (see  on  ix.  4).  'Ev  amy 
rg  ol/cia,  not  "in  the  same  house,"  as  if  it  were  iv  rg  avrfj 
oIkicl,  but,  "  in  that  same  house  which  he  entered  at  first." 
They  are,  besides,  to  regard  themselves  immediately  as  members 
of  the  family,  and  to  eat  without  scruple  the  bread  of  their 
hosts.  It  is  the  price  of  their  labour.  They  give  more  than 
they  receive. 

In  ver.  8  Jesus  applies  the  same  principle  to  the  whole 
city  which  shall  receive  them.  Their  arrival  resembles  a 
triumphal  entrance  :  they  are  served  with  food  ;  the  sick  are 
brought  to  them;  they  speak  publicly.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
find  in  the  words  of  Paul,  Hav  to  irapanOeiievov  iadiere 
(1  Cor.  x.  27),  an  allusion  to  this  ver.  8  ;  the  object  of  the 
two  sayings  is  entirely  different.  There  is  here  no  question 
whatever  as  to  the  cleanness  or  uncleanness  of  the  viands ; 
we  are  yet  in  a  Jewish  world. — The  accus.  government  e<£' 
vyita?,  unto  {upon)  you,  expresses  the  efficacy  of  the  message,  its 
action  upon  the  individuals  concerned.  The  perf.  rjyyuce 
indicates  that  the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  thence- 
forth a  fact.  It  is  near ;  the  presence  of  the  messengers  of 
the  Messiah  is  the  proof. 

Vers.  10-12.2  "  But  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter,  and  they 
receive  you  not,  go  your  ways  out  into  the  streets  of  the  same, 
and  say,  11  Even  the  very  dust  of  your  city,  which  cleaveth  on 
us,  we  do  ivipe  off  against  you :  notwithstanding  be  ye  sure  of 
this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you.  12  But 
I  say  unto  you,  that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  in  that  day  for 

1  Ver.  7.  E<rr<  is  omitted  by  X.  B.  D.  L.  X.  Z. 

2  Ver.  10.  tf.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.,  mrixhrs  instead  of  u<rif>%v<r0;.— 
Ver.  11.  X.  B.  D.  R.  some  Mnn.  Syicur.  ItPleri<iu*,  add  in  rov;  to^x;  after  «//*&/>.— 
N.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Syicur.  ItPlerii"e,  omit  up  w**f. 


CUAP.  X.  1.1-18.  21 

Sodom  than  for  that  city."  This  proclamation,  and  the 
symbolical  act  with  which  it  closes,  are  solemn  events ;  they 
will  play  a  part  in  the  judgment  of  those  populations. — Kat, 
this  very  dust.  The  dat.  vp.lv,  to  you,  expresses  the  idea,  "  we 
return  it  to  you,  by  shaking  it  from  our  feet."  There  is  the 
breaking  up  of  every  bond  of  connection  (see  ix.  5). — IIXijv 
indicates,  as  it  always  does,  a  restriction :  "  Further,  we  have 
nothing  else  to  announce  to  you,  excepting  that  .  .  ."  In  spite 
of  the  bad  reception,  which  will  undoubtedly  prevent  the  visit 
of  Jesus,  this  time  will  nevertheless  be  to  them  the  decisive 
epoch. — 'E(f>  vfids,  upon  you,  in  the  T.  E.,  is  a  gloss  taken 
from  ver.  9. — That  day  may  denote  the  destruction  of  the 
Jewish  people  by  the  Romans,  or  the  last  judgment.  The 
two  punishments,  the  one  of  which  is  more  national,  the  other 
individual,  are  blended  together  in  this  threatening  of  the 
Lord,  as  in  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (iii.  9).  Yet  the  idea  of 
the  last  judgment  seems  to  be  the  prevailing  one,  from  what 
follows,  ver.  14. 

This  threatening,  wherein  the  full  gravity  of  the  present 
time  is  revealed,  and  the  deep  feeling  expressed  which  Jesus 
had  of  the  supreme  character  of  His  mission,  leads  the  Lord 
to  cast  a  glance  backward  at  the  conduct  of  the  cities  whose 
probation  is  now  concluded,  and  whose  sentence  is  no  1 
in  suspense.  The  memory  of  the  awful  words  which  they  are 
about  to  hear  will  follow  the  disciples  on  their  mission,  and 
will  impress  them  with  its  vast  importance. 

.  L3-16.1  "  Woe  unto  tic;  Choramnl   Woe  iinto  thee, 
Bcilisaida  !  for  if  tlte  mighty  w<  done  in  Tyr 

Sidon  which  have  been  done  in  you,  they  had  '  while  ago 

'  d,  sitting  tuhtt     14  But  it  shall  be 

more  t  >i  at.  the  judgment  than  for  you. 

Id    And  (huu,  Caji  I  to  heaven,  shalt  be 

'  down  to  lull.     1G   lie  tlr 

tU  despiseth  yon  d  ;   and  he  that  despiseth  me 

despiseth  J.  ia  not 

I    |    tm   *vf*»v  v^mturm,  \\\\\A\   tllC  T.  It.    reads,    1 
Mjj.  almost  all  tlr  '  h.    It»lu«.,  I  '  i»  f*n  t*t  *»•  »*fm*»v  »^«/>«r« 

in  X.  R  i      )',   D  m******  (d  ifcatd) 

instead  of  ««t«/J<(S«#/u#h  ((■  t  dawn).      The  Mst.  are  divided 

between  «»,•«»•»  nnd  r*»  »»f***v,  «)«*  and  r$»  «)»*. 


22  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

found  either  in  the  0.  T.  or  in  Josephus.  But  Jewish  tradi- 
tion mentions  it  frequently,  either  under  the  name  of  Chora- 
zaim,  as  producing  a  cheese  of  inferior  quality,  or  under  that 
of  Choraschin,  as  situated  in  Naphtali} 

According  to  Eusebius  {Onomasticon),  Chorazin  was  situated 
12  miles  (4  leagues) — Jerome  says,  certainly  by  mistake,  in 
his  translation,  2  miles — from  Capernaum.  This  situation 
corresponds  exactly  with  the  ruins  which  still  bear  the  name 
of  Bir-Kirdzeh,  a  little  to  the  north  of  Tel-Hum,  if  we  place 
Capernaum  in  the  plain  of  Gennesaret  (vol.  i.  p.  242).2 — We 
do  not  know  any  of  the  numerous  miracles  which  this  de- 
claration implies.  Of  those  at  Bethsaida  we  know  only  one. 
On  the  important  consequences  which  this  fact  has  for  criti- 
cism, see  vol.  i.  p.  339.  The  interpretation  which  M.  Colani 
has  attempted  to  give  to  the  word  hwdfxei^  in  this  passage — 
works  of  holiness — will  not  bear  discussion. 

It  is  impossible  to  render  well  into  English  the  image 
employed  by  Jesus.  The  two  cities  personified  are  repre- 
sented as  sitting  clothed  in  sackcloth,  and  covered  with 
ashes. — The  ir\r)v,  excepting,  is  related  to  an  idea  which  is 
understood :  "  Tyre  and  Sidon  shall  also  be  found  guilty  :  only, 
they  shall  be  so  in  a  less  degree  than  you." — The  tone  rises 
(ver.  15)  as  the  mind  of  Jesus  turns  to  the  city  which  had 
shared  most  richly  in  that  effusion  of  grace  of  which  Galilee 
has  just  been  the  subject — Capernaum.  It  was  there  that 
Jesus  had  fixed  His  residence ;  He  had  made  it  the  new 
Jerusalem,  the  cradle  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  commentators  could  have  referred  the 
words,  exalted  to  heaven,  to  the  commercial  prosperity  of  the 
city,  and  Stier  to  its  alleged  situation  on  a  hill  by  the  side  oi* 
the  lake  !  This  whole  discourse  of  Jesus  moves  in  the  most 
elevated  sphere.  The  point  in  question  is  the  privilege  which 
Jesus  bestowed  on  the  city  by  making  it  His  city  (Matt.  ix.  1). 
Notwithstanding  the  authority  of  Tischendorf,  we  unhesitat- 
ingly  prefer   the  received  reading   rj   v^rwOeiaa,   "  ivhich   art 

1  TV.  Menachoth,  fol.  85,  1 ;  Baba  ballira,  fol.  15,  1  (see  Caspari,  Chron.  geogr. 
Ehileiiung  hi  das  Leben  Jesu  Christi,  p.  7G). 

2  Comp.  Van  de  Velde  and  Felix  Bovet.  The  latter  says  :  "They  assure  me 
at  Tiberias  that  there  is  on  the  mountain,  at  the  distance  of  a  league  and  a  half 
from  Tel-Hum,  a  ruin  called  Bir  ( Well)  Keresoun.  This  may  probably  be  the 
Chorazin  of  the  Gospel." — Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,  p.  415. 


CHAP.  X.  17-24.  23 

to  that  of  some  Alex.,  fiyj  vyfrcod/jarj,  "  Wilt  Uiou  be 
No,  thou  wilt  come  down  .  .  ."  The  meaning  which 
this  reading  gives  is  tame  and  insipid.  It  has  arisen  simply 
from  the  fact  that  the  final  fi  oWapcrnainii  was  by  mistake  joined 
to  the  following  ?;.  which,  thus  become  a  /*?;,  necessitated  the 
change  from  injrcodeiaa  to  v-tycodjjo-y.  This  variation  is  also  found 
in  Matthew,  where  the  mss.  show  another  besides,  ^  {rty-udr)?, 
which  gives  the  same  meaning  as  the  T.  R — As  Heaven  is 
here  the  emblem  of  the  highest  divine  favours,  Hades  is  that 
si  the  deepest  abasement.  In  the  O.  T.  it  is  the  place  ot 
-ilence,  where  all  earthly  activity  ceases,  where  all  human 
grandeur  returns  to  its  nothingness  (Ezek.  xxxi  and  xxxii.). 

Matthew  places  this  declaration  in  the  middle  of  the 
Galilean  ministry,  immediately  after  the  embassy  sent  by 
John  the  Baptist.  We  can  understand  without  difficulty  the 
association  of  ideas  which  led  the  evangelist  to  connect  the 

of  those  pieces  with  the  other.  The  impenitence  of  the 
people  in  respect  of  the  forerunner  was  the  prelude  to  their 

•lief  in  respect  of  Jesus.  But  does  not  the  historical 
situation  indicated  by  Luke  deserve  the  preference  ?  Is  sudi 
a  denunciation  not  much  more  intelligible  when  the  mission 
of  Jesus  to  those  cities  was  entirely  finished  ?  Luke  adds 
a  sa  .  10,  which,  by  going  back  on  the  thought 

first  part  of  the  discourse,  brings  out  its  unity, — the  position 
taken  up  with  respect  to  the  messengers  of  Jesus  and  their 
preaching,  shall  be  equivalent  to  a  position  taken  up  with 
respect  to  Jesus,  nay,  with  respect  to  God  Himself.     What  a 

l'leur,  then,  belongs  to   the  work   which    he  confides  to 

- :  vers.   17—2  1 . — Ji  appointed  a 

pies  at  a  fixed  place,      from  the  word 

uTriaTpofrav,  famed    'ver.    17),   it   would    even    ;i]<: 

tha'  it  from  which    he   had  sent  them.      hid 

it  them   there,  or  did    Be    in    the   interval  take   MM 

tg  with  I    The  sequel  will 

perhaps  throw  some  Light  on  this  question.     Bis  intent 
certainly   was   Himself  to  visit  along  with   then   all   those 
loca1  which  they  had  preceded  him  (ver.  1).     'I 

very    simple   explanation   sets,    aside   all   the   impiobftbflil 
which  have  been  imputed  to  this  ni  — The  return  of 


24  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  disciples  was  signalized,  first  of  all,  by  a  conversation  of 
Jesus  with  them  about  their  mission  (vers.  17-20);  then  by 
an  outburst,  unique  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour,  regarding 
the  unexpected  but  marvellous  progress  of  His  work  (vers. 
21-24). 

Vers.  17-20.1  The  Joy  of  the  Disciples. — "And  the  seventy 
returned  again  vjith  joy,  saying,  Lord,  even  the  devils  are  subject 
unto  us  through  Thy  name.  18  And  He  said  unto  them,  I 
beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from  heaven.  1 9  Behold,  I  give 
unto  you  power  to  tread  on  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over  all 
the  power  of  the  enemy :  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means  hurt 
you.  20  Only  in  this  rejoice  not,  that  the  spirits  are  subject 
unto  you ;  but  rejoice  because  your  names  are  written  in  heaven" 
The  phrase,  ivith  joy,  expresses  the  tone  of  the  whole  piece. 
The  joy  of  the  disciples  becomes  afterwards  that  of  Jesus ; 
and  then  it  bursts  forth  from  His  heart  exalted  and  purified 
(ver.  21  et  seq.).  Confident  in  the  promise  of  their  Master, 
they  had  set  themselves  to  heal  the  sick,  and  in  this  way 
they  had  soon  come  to  attack  the  severest  malady  of  all — that 
of  possession ;  and  they  had  succeeded.  Their  surprise  at 
this  unhoped-for  success  is  described,  with  the  vivacity  of  an 
entirely  fresh  experience,  by  the  /cat,  "  even  the  devils,"  and 
by  the  pres.  vTroTdaaeraL,  submit  themselves.  —  The  word 
iOecopouu,  I  was  contemplating,  denotes  an  intuition,  not  a 
vision.  Jesus  does  not  appear  to  have  had  visions  after  that 
of  His  baptism.  The  two  acts  which  the  imperfect  /  was 
contemplating  shows  to  be  simultaneous,  are  evidently  that 
informal  perception,  and  the  triumphs  of  the  disciples  recorded 
in  ver.  17:  "While  you  were  expelling  the  subordinates,  I 
was  seeing  the  master  fall."  On  the  external  scene,  the  re- 
presentatives on  both  sides  were  struggling;  in  the  inmost 
consciousness  of  Jesus,  it  was  the  two  chiefs  that  were  face 
to  face.  The  fall  of  Satan,  which  He  contemplates,  symbolizes 
the  complete  destruction  of  his  kingdom,  the  goal  of  that 
work  which  is  inaugurated  by  the  present  successes  of  the 

1  Ver.  17.  B.  D.  It*"«.  add  *»«  after  tfih/nzow*.—  Ver.  19.  tf.  B.  C.  L.  X. 
gome  Mnn.  Vss.  and  Fathers,  I-.ouko,  in  place  of  Itiapi,  which  is  the  reading  of 
15  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syr.  Justin,  Ir. — Ver.  20.  The  pakkov  which  the 
T.  R.  reads  after  xu'PiTl  ^  is  supported  only  by  X.  and  some  Mnn. — S.  B.  L.  X., 

tyysypxXTtu  instead  Of  vypotQ*. 


chap.  x.  19.  2T> 

disciples ;  comp.  John  xii.  31.  Now  the  grand  work  of  Satan 
on  the  earth,  according  to  Scripture,  is  idolatry.  Paganism 
throughout  is  nothing  else  than  a  diabolical  enchantment. 
It  has  been  not  unjustly  called  "  une  possession  en  grandc"1 
Satan  sets  himself  up  as  the  object  ot  human  adoration.  As 
the  ambitious  experience  satisfaction  in  the  incense  of  glory, 
so  he  finds  the  savour  of  the  same  in  all  those  impure  wor- 
ships, which  are  in  reality  addressed  to  himself  (1  Cor.  x.  20). 
There  remains  nevertheless  a  great  difference  between  the 
scriptural  view  of  paganism  and  the  opinion  prevalent  among 
the  Jews,  according  to  which  every  pagan  divinity  was  a 
separate  demon.  Heaven  denotes  here,  like  iv  iirovpaviois,  Eph. 
vi.  12,  the  higher  sphere  from  the  midst  of  which  Satan  acts 
upon  human  consciousness.  To  fall  from  lieavcn,  is  to  lose 
this  state  of  power.  The  figure  used  by  our  Lord  thus  repre- 
sents the  overthrow  of  idolatry  throughout  the  whole  world. 
The  aor.  ireaovra,  falling,  denotes,  under  the  form  of  a  single 
act,  all  the  victories  of  the  gospel  over  paganism  from  that 
first  preaching  of  the  disciples  down  to  the  final  dhum 
of  the  great  drama  (Rev.  xii.).  The  figure  lightning  admirably 
s  a  power  of  dazzling  brilliance,  which  is  suddenly 
extinguished.  This  description  of  the  destruction  of  paganism. 
as  the  certain  goal  of  the  work  begun  by  this  mission  of  the 
disciples,  confirms  the  vnircrsalism  wh:  '.  cd  to  the 

number  70,  to  the  idea  of  hai  P.  2,  and  in  general  to 

this  whole  piece  llnfmann  refers  the  word  of  Jesus,  wr.  IS, 
to  the  devil's  original  fall  ;  Lunge,  to  his  defeat  in  the  wilder- 
ness. These  explanations  proceed  from  a  misumler. standing 
of  the  context. 

1  '.'.   Jf  we  admit  the  Alex,  reading  MsKBf,  I J 

ilis  diseipJas  to  mot  sure  what  they  hid  not 
prehended — the  full  extent  of  the  power  with  which 

5  invested  then  ;   and  IBou,  b>/«>!,/  ;<»  the  Surprise 

which  should  I  I  in  them  by  this  revelation.     He  would 

thus  |  v  to  the  unhoped-for  successes  i 

they  have  just  won.      !  .  Bi&opi  in  the  T.  EL  i .dates  to 

ton.      It  d«- notes  a  new  extension  of  ]    wen  in  view  of 
rk  more  con  il   than   that   winch 

just  accompli  \y   thai   which  desus  has  described 

1  If.  A.  Nicolas 


26  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

symbolically,  ver.  18  ;  and  l&ov  expresses  the  astonishment 
which  they  might  well  feel  at  the  yet  more  elevated  perspec- 
tive. Thus  understood,  the  sentence  is  much  more  significant. 
Serpents  and  scorpions  are  emblems  of  the  physical  evils  by 
which  Satan  will  seek  to  hurt  the  ambassadors  of  Jesus.  The 
expression,  all  the  power  of  the  enemy,  embraces  all  the  agencies 
of  nature,  of  human  society,  of  things  belonging  to  the  spiritual 
order,  which  the  prince  of  this  world  can  use  to  obstruct  the 
work  of  Jesus. — 'Ewi  is  dependent  on  i^ovalav  rather  than 
on  irarelv  (ix.  1).  In  the  midst  of  all  those  diabolical  instru- 
ments, the  faithful  servant  walks  clothed  with  invulnerable 
armour ;  not  that  he  is  not  sometimes  subjected  to  their 
attacks,  but  the  wounds  which  he  receives  cannot  hurt  him  so 
long  as  the  Lord  has  need  of  his  ministry  (the  viper  at  Malta, 
Peter's  imprisonment  by  Herod,  the  messenger  of  Satan  which 
buffets  Paul).  The  same  thought,  with  a  slight  difference  of 
expression,  is  found  Mark  xvi.  18  ;  comp.  also  Ps.  xci.  13. 

Ver.  20.  Yet  this  victory  over  the  forces  of  the  enemy 
would  be  of  no  value  to  themselves,  if  it  did  not  rest  on  their 
personal  salvation.  Think  of  Judas,  and  of  those  who  are 
spoken  of  in  Matt.  vii.  2  2  et  seq. !  —  TlXrjv,  only,  reserves  a 
truth  more  important  than  that  which  Jesus  has  just  allowed. 
The  word  fiaWov,  "rather  rejoice,"  which  the  T.  E.  reads, 
and  which  is  found  in  the  Sinait,  weakens  the  thought  of 
Jesus.  There  is  no  limitation  to  the  truth,  that  the  most 
magnificent  successes,  the  finest  effects  of  eloquence,  temples 
filled,  conversions  by  thousands,  are  no  real  cause  of  joy  to  the 
servant  of  Jesus,  the  instrument  of  those  works,  except  in  so 
far  as  he  is  saved  himself.  From  the  personal  point  of  view 
(which  is  that  of  the  joy  of  the  disciples  at  the  moment),  this 
ground  of  satisfaction  is  and  remains  the  only  one. — The 
figure  of  a  heavenly  register,  in  which  the  names  of  the  elect 
are  inscribed,  is  common  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ex.  xxxii. 
32,  33;  Isa.  iv.  3  ;  Dan.  xii.  1).  This  book  is  the  type  of 
the  divine  decree.  But  a  name  may  be  blotted  out  of  it  (Ex. 
xxxii.  33;  Jer.  xvii.  13;  Ps.  lxix.  29;  Eev.  xxii.  19);  a 
fact  which  preserves  human  freedom.  Between  the  two  read- 
ings, iyyeypairrai,  is  inscribed,  and  iypdtfir},  ivas  written,  it  is 
difficult  to  decide. 

Vers.  21-24.   The  Joy  of  Jesus. — We  reach  a  point  in  the 


chap.  x.  21,  27 

life  of  the  Saviour,  the  exceptional  character  of  which  is 
expressly  indicated  by  the  first  words  of  the  narrative,  in  that 
same  hour.  Jesus  has  traced  to  their  goal  the  lines  of  which 
His  disciples  discern  as  yet  only  the  beginning.  He  has  seen 
in  spirit  the  work  of  Satan  destroyed,  the  structure  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  raised  on  the  earth.  But  by  what  hands  ? 
By  the  hands  of  those  ignorant  fishermen,  those  simple  rustics 
whom  the  powerful  and  learned  of  Jerusalem  call  accursed 
rabble  (John  vii.  49),  "the  vermin  ot  the  earth"  (a  rabbini- 
cal expression).  Perhaps  Jesus  had  often  meditated  on  the 
problem  :  How  shall  a  work  be  able  to  succeed  which  does  not 

D  the  assistance  of  any  of  the  men  of  knowledge  and 
authority  in  Israel  ?  The  success  of  the  mission  of  the  seventy 
has  just  brought  Him  the  answer  of  God :  it  is  by  the  meanest 
instruments  that  He  is  to  accomplish  the  greatest  of  His  works. 
In  this  arrangement,  so  contrary  to  human  anticipations,  Jesus 
recognises  and  adores  with  an  overflowing  heart  the  wisdom  of 
II:-  Father. 

51,  22.1  In  th«t  same  hour  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit,  and 

I  praise  Tliec,  0  Father ,  Lord  of  ,'  '■.  that 

Thou  hast  hid  and  prudent,  and  hast 

•  d  them  r  ".  Fxth'  r  ;  for  so  it  seemed  good 

in  Tliy  sight,  things  arc  dt 

arid  no  one  In  o  tlic  Son  is,  but  the  Father;  an< 

•  is,  but  tlie  Son,  and  lie  to  whom  the  Son  will 
The  Trvevfia,  tiu  spirit,  which  is  here  spoken  of,  is 
undoubtedly  that  of  Jesus  Himself,  as   an   element  of   \Y\< 
human   Person    (1    Tliess.   v.    23;  Heb.   iv.    12;  Horn.   i.    V 
The  spirit,  in  this  sense,  is  in   man  the  boundless  capacity  of 
receiving  the  communications  of  tin-  Divine  Spirit,  Bad  conse- 

ly  the  seat  of  all   those   emotions  which   1.         I      1   and 
of  God  for  their  object  (see  on  i.  47).     We  think 

••ssary  to  read  ry  7rpev/iaTC  as  d"  and  that  the 

iud  of  th 
arises  from  the  false  application  of  t  ssion  to  the  S 

^ffl».  an  divided  1>  tvrccn  «»  rm  wuvumn  and  **  mym — 
S.  B,  I>    V.   Syr"*.  It*1'1  rtvt  after  r*tt/ft*T;  nn<)  n<M  r* 

1 1  M.i.i-  ti 

Itou>.  horc  a  '  If,  dm  rrf*tut  9fH  r*vt  ^uirrm.%    . 

byT.  N    B.  I»    L  M    /,.  r.  I  Itf'-H- 


28  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  God.  'AyaWiaaOai,  to  exult,  denotes  an  inner  transport, 
which  takes  place  in  the  same  deep  regions  of  the  soul  of 
Jesus  as  the  opposite  emotion  expressed  by  the  ififipcfjLacrdai, 
to  groan  (John  xi.  3  3).  This  powerful  influence  of  external 
events  on  the  inner  being  of  Jesus  proves  how  thoroughly  in 
earnest  the  Gospels  take  His  humanity.  'EgofioXoyeladai, 
strictly,  to  declare,  confess,  corresponds  in  the  LXX.  to  min, 
to  praise.  Here  it  expresses  a  joyful  and  confident  acquies- 
cence in  the  ways  of  God. — The  words  Father  and  Lord  indi- 
cate, the  former  the  special  love  of  which  Jesus  feels  Himself 
to  be  the  object  in  the  dispensation  which  He  celebrates,  the 
latter  the  glorious  sovereignty  in  virtue  of  which  God  dis- 
penses with  all  human  conditions  of  success,  and  looks  for  it 
only  from  His  own  power.  The  close  of  this  verse  has  been 
explained  in  this  way :  "  that  ivhilst  Thou  hast  hid  .  .  .,  Thou 
hast  revealed  .  .  ."  The  giving  of  thanks  would  thus  be 
limited  to  the  second  fact.  Comp.  a  similar  form,  Isa.  1.  2, 
Rom.  vif  1 7.  But  we  doubt  that  this  is  to  impair  the  depth 
of  our  Lord's  thought.  Did  not  God,  in  the  way  in  which  He 
was  guiding  the  work  of  Jesus  (in  Israel),  wish  quite  as  posi- 
tively the  exclusion  of  the  wise  as  the  co-operation  of  the 
ignorant  ?  The  motive  for  this  divine  method  is  apparent 
from  1  Cor.  i.  23-31,  in  particular  from  vers.  29  and  31: 
"  that  no  flesh  shoidd  glory ; "  and,  "  that  he  that  glorieth,  let 
him  glory  in  the  Lord."  By  this  rejection  the  great  are 
humbled,  and  see  that  they  are  not  needed  for  God's  work. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  mean  cannot  boast  of  their  co-opera- 
tion, since  it  is  evident  that  they  have  derived  nothing  from 
themselves.  We  may  compare  the  saying  of  Jesus  regarding 
the  old  and  the  new  bottles  (v.  37,  38).  The  wise  were  not  to 
mingle  the  alloy  of  their  own  science  with  the  divine  wisdom 
of  the  gospel.  Jesus  required  instruments  prepared  exclusively 
in  His  own  school,  and  having  no  other  wisdom  than  that 
which  He  had  communicated  to  them  from  His  Father  (John 
xvii.  8).  When  He  took  a  learned  man  for  an  apostle,  He 
required,  before  employing  him,  to  break  him,  as  it  were,  by 
the  experience  of  his  folly.  Jesus,  in  that  hour  of  holy  joy, 
takes  account  more  definitely  of  the  excellence  of  this  divine 
procedure ;  and  it  is  while  contemplating  its  first  effects  that 
His  heart  exults  and  adores.     "  L'evenement  capital  de  This- 


CHAP.  X.  22.  29 

toire  du  monde,"1  carried  out  by  people  who  had  scarcely  a 
standing  in  the  human  race!  Comp.  John  ix.  39. — The  vai% 
"  yea,  Father,"  reasserts  strongly  the  acquiescence  of  Jesus  in 
this  paradoxical  course.  Instead  of  the  nom.  6  irari)p,  Father, 
it  might  be  thought  that  He  would  have  used  the  voc.  irdrep, 
O  Father !  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.  But  the  address 
does  not  need  to  be  repeated.  The  nom.  has  another  mean- 
ing :  "  It  is  as  a  Father  that  Thou  art  acting  in  thus  directing 
my  work." — The  on,  for  that  or  because,  which  follows,  is 
usually  referred  to  an  idea  which  is  understood  :  "  yea,  it  is  so, 
because  .  .  ."  But  this  ellipsis  would  be  tame.  It  would  be 
better  in  that  case  to  supply  the  notion  of  a  prayer :  "  Yea, 
let  it  be  and  remain  so,  since  .  .  . !"  But  is  it  not  more  simple 
to  take  on  as  depending  on  egofioXoyovfiat, :  "yea,  assuredly,  and 
in  spite  of  all,  /  praise  Thee,  because  that  ..."  The  phrase 
evBoKia  €fjL7rp.  aov  is  a  Hebraism  (rorp  *yeb  |t5h?,  Ex.  xxviii.  38). 
— Gess  thus  sums  up  the  thought  of  this  verse  :  "  To  pride  of 
knowledge,  blindness  is  the  answer;  to  that  simplicity  of 
heart  which  wishes  truth,  revelation." 

-.  The  words,  And  lie  turned  Him  unto  His  disciples, 
which  are  read  here  by  several  Mjj.,  are  in  vain  defended  by 
Tischendorf  and  Meyer.  They  are  not  authentic.  How  indeed 
could  we  understand  this  orpafek,  hating  to.  isclf? 

Turned,  Meyer  explains,  turned  from  His  Father,  to  whom  He 
has  been  praying,  towards  men.  But  would  the  phrase  turn. 
Himself  bach  be  suitable  in  tins  sense  ?  We  have  here  a  gloss 
occasioned  by  the  tear  IBiav,  privately,  of  ver.  23.  The  wish 
has  been  to  establish  a  difference  between  this  first  revelation, 
made  to  the  disciples  in  general  (ver.  22),  and  the  following, 
more  special  still,  addressed  to  some  of  them  only 
Here  we  have  one  of  the   I  kanoes  in  which  the  T.  1!. 

f which  rejects  the  words)  cliilVi.s  from  the  third  edition  of 
Steph. 

joyful  outburst  of  ver.   21  is  carried  on  without  inter- 
ruption into  \  only  tli'  npteeaioa   of  adoration 
gives    way    to    /aim    meditation.      The    e 
which  Jesus  has  just  passed  has  transported  II 
into  the  boson i         If      latlin.     He  plunges  in  1  II:* 

become  an  echo  of  the  joys  of  His  eternal  genera: 

'  Hman,  \1*  dt  J6tm*,  \.  1. 


o  U  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

As  in  the  passage  which  precedes  (ver.  21),  and  in  that 
which  follows  (22&),  it  is  only  knowledge  which  is  spoken  of, 
the  words,  "  All  things  are  delivered  to  me  of  my  Father"  are 
often  taken  as  referring  to  the  possession  and  communication 
of  religious  truths,  of  the  knowledge  of  God.  But  the  work 
accomplished  by  the  disciples,  on  occasion  of  which  Jesus 
uttered  those  sayings,  was  not  merely  a  work  of  teaching — 
there  was  necessarily  involved  in  it  a  display  of  force.  To 
overturn  the  throne  of  Satan  on  the  earth,  and  to  put  in  its 
place  the  kingdom  of  God,  was  a  mission  demanding  a  power 
of  action.  But  this  power  was  closely  connected  with  the 
knowledge  of  God.  To  know  God  means  to  be  initiated  into 
His  plan ;  means  to  think  with  Him,  and  consequently  to  will 
as  He  does.  jSTow,  to  will  with  God,  and  to  be  self-consecrated 
to  Him  as  an  instrument  in  His  service,  is  the  secret  of  par- 
ticipation in  His  omnipotence.  "  The  education  of  souls,"  Gess 
rightly  observes,  "  is  the  greatest  of  the  works  of  Omnipotence." 
Everything  in  the  universe,  accordingly,  should  be  subordinate 
to  it.  There  is  a  strong  resemblance  between  this  saying  of 
Jesus  and  that  of  John  the  Baptist  (John  iii.  35):  "The 
Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  His 
hand," — a  declaration  which  is  immediately  connected  with 
the  other  relative  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus :  "  He  whom  God 
hath  sent  speaketh  the  ivords  of  God." 

The  gift  denoted  by  the  aor.  rrrapeBodrj,  are  delivered  to  me, 
is  the  subject  of  an  eternal  decree;  but  it  is  realized  pro- 
gressively in  time,  like  everything  which  is  subject  to  the 
conditions  of  human  development.  The  chief  periods  in  its 
realization  are  these  three :  The  coming  of  Jesus  into  the 
world,  His  entrance  upon  His  Messianic  ministry,  and  His 
restoration  to  His  divine  state.  Such  are  the  steps  by  which 
the  new  Master  took  the  place  of  the  old  (iv.  6),  and  was 
raised  to  Omnipotence.  "  Delivered"  Gess  well  observes, 
"  either  for  salvation  or  for  judgment."  The  tcai,  and,  which 
connects  the  two  parts  of  the  verse,  may  be  thus  paraphrased : 
and  that,  lecause  .  .  .  The  future  conquest  of  the  world  by 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  rests  on  the  relation  which  He  sustains 
to  God,  and  with  which  He  identifies  His  people.  The  per- 
fect knowledge  of  God  is,  in  the  end,  the  sceptre  of  the 
universe. — Here  there  is  a  remarkable  difference  in  compiling 


cn.vr.  x.  22.  31 

between  Luke  and  Matthew :  ovBei?  eiriyivcoo-icei,  no  one  recog- 
01  discerns,  says  Matthew.  To  the  idea  of  knowing,  this 
e7ri  (to  put  the  finger  upon)  has  the  effect  of  adding  the  idea 
of  confirming  experimentally.  The  knowledge  in  question  is 
one  dc  vim.  Luke  uses  the  simple  verb  ^ivwcncuv,  to  know, 
which  is  weaker  and  less  precise ;  but  he  makes  up  for  this 
deficiency  in  the  notion  of  the  verb  by  amplifying  its  regimen, 
"  What  is  the  Father  .  .  .,  what  is  the  Son;"  that  is  to  say,  all 
tliat  God  is  as  a  Father  to  the  man  who  has  the  happiness  of 
knowing  Him  as  a  son,  and  all  that  the  name  son  includes  for 
the  man  who  has  the  happiness  of  hearing  it  pronounced  by 
the  mouth  of  the  Rather, — all  that  the  Father  and  Son  «.< 

i  the  other.  Perhaps  Matthew's  form  of  expression  is  a 
shade  more  intellectual  or  didactic ;  that  of  Luke  rather  moves 
in  the  sphere  of  feeling.  How  should  we  explain  the  two 
forms,  each  of  which  is  evidently  independent  of  the  other  I 
.lesus  must  have  employed  in  Aramaic  the  verb  JH\  to  know.1 
>T  is  construed  either  with  the  accusative  or  with  one 
of  the  two  prepositions  2,  in,  or  by,  iqjon.  The  construction 
with  one  or  other  of  these  prepositions  adds  something  to  the 
notion  of  the   verb,      For  example,  VQ&,  to  hear;   S  T- 

to  listen  :  lln-re  is  a 

similar  di;.  l  meaning  between  >T  and  3  J,T  or  by  ]H\ — 

a  differenee  analogous  to  that  between  the  r  sions, 

crc  and  cognosccre  dc  re,  to  kno\.  and  to 

of  a  thing.     Thus,  in  I.  tgfl  in   Job  xxxvii.  1G, 

o  yr  is  construed  with  by,  vpun,  tip-  n«>t,  "  K\ 

thou  balai.  f  the   clouds?" — Job  could   not   but   have 

the  i'act  which  falls  under  our  eyes, — but 

tat  Jesoj  used  tip 

W  with  one  of  the  prepositions  2  ovb,  the  two 

I   aa  two  different  aJ  at  the 

fulness  of  the 

notion  of  the  aim] 

cognise)  (which  would  « 

lea  of 
the  object,  by  means  of  the  paraphraifl  ¥&  tour. 

•  !    we  the  following  observations  to  the  kindness  of  M.  Felix  Bovet. 
1  In  the  passage  quoted  fiom  Job,  the  two  ]  »ni  pre- 

sent a  remarkable  parallel     I  kd  du  urn  .  .  .?  >  aildu 


32  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

A  remarkable  example,  ix.  3,  has  already  shown  how  differ- 
ences of  matter  and  form  in  the  reproduction  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  by  our  evangelists  are  sometimes  explained  with 
the  utmost  ease  by  going  back  to  the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic 
text.1  What  a  proof  ot  the  authenticity  of  those  discourses  ! 
What  a  proof  also  of  the  independence  of  our  several  Greek 
Digests ! 

That  exclusive  knowledge  which  the  Father  and  Son  have 
of  one  another  is  evidently  not  the  cause  of  their  paternal  and 
filial  relation  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  effect  of  it.  Jesus  is 
not  the  Son  because  He  alone  perfectly  knows  the  Father, 
and  is  fully  known  only  by  Him ;  but  He  knows  Him  and 
is  known  by  Him  in  this  way  only  because  He  is  the  Son. 
In  like  manner,  God  is  not  the  Father  because  He  alone  knows 
the  Son,  and  is  known  only  by  Him ;  but  this  double  know- 
ledge is  the  effect  of  that  paternal  relation  which  He  sustains 
to  the  Son. — The  article  before  the  two  substantives  serves  to 
raise  this  unique  relation  above  the  relative  temporal  order  of 
things,  and  to  put  it  in  the  sphere  of  the  absolute,  in  the  very 
essence  of  the  two  Beings.  God  did  not  become  Father  at  an 
hour  marked  on  some  earthly  dial.  If  He  is  a  Father  to 
certain  beings  born  in  time,  it  is  because  He  is  the  Father 
absolutely, — that  is  to  say,  in  relation  to  a  Being  who  is  not 
born  in  time,  and  who  is  toward  Him  the  Son  as  absolutely. 
Such  is  the  explanation  of  the  difficult  verse,  Eph.  iii.  15. 
Mark,  who  has  not  the  passage,  gives  another  wherein  the 
term  the  Son  is  used  in  the  same  absolute  sense,  xiii.  32  : 
"  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.'' 
After  words  like  these,  we  cannot  admit  any  radical  difference 
between  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics  and  that  of  John.2     The 

du  .  .  .  ?     Both  have  thoroughly  apprehended  the  sense  of  the  original  expression ; 
each  has  sought  to  reproduce  it  in  his  own  way. 

1  Many  other  similar  examples  might  be  cited,  e.g.  Luke  vi.  20.  If  Jesus 
said  D^y,  we  can  explain  both  the  brief  -x-rux,0'1  of  Luke  as  a  literal  translation 
ad  sensum  (according  to  the  known  shade  which  the  meaning  of  "OJJ  bears 
throughout  the  Old  Testament). 

2  M.  Eeville  has  found  out  a  way  of  getting  rid  of  our  passage.  Jesus,  he  will 
have  it,  said  one  day  in  a  melancholy  tone  :  "  God  alone  reads  my  heart  to  its 
depths,  and  I  alone  also  know  God."  And  this  "  perfectly  natural"  thought, 
"under  the  influence  of  a  later  theology,"  took  the  form  in  which  we  find  it 
**ue  {Hist,  du  Dogme  de  la  Div.  de  J.  C.  p.  17).     M.  Eeville  finds  a  confirma- 


chap.  x.  22.  33 

existence  of  the  Son  belonging  to  the  essence  of  the  Father, 
the  pre-existence  of  the  one  is  implied  in  the  eternity  of  the 
other. 

Immediate  knowledge  of  the  Father  is  the  exclusive  privi- 
lege of  the  Son.  But  it  becomes  the  portion  of  believers  as 
soon  as  He  initiates  them  into  the  contents  of  His  filial  con- 
sciousness, and  consents  to  share  it  with  them.  By  this 
participation  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Son  (the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit),  the  believer  in  his  turn  attains  to  the  intuitive 
knowledge  of  the  Father.  Comp.  John  i.  18,  xiv.  6,  xvii.  20. 
With  Gess,  we  ought  to  remark  the  importance  of  the  priority 
given  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  by  the  Father  over  that  of 
the  Father  by  the  Son.  Were  the  order  inverted,  the  gift  of 
all  things,  the  irapahihovav,  would  have  appeared  to  rest  on 
the  religious  instruction  which  Jesus  had  been  giving  to  men. 
The  actual  order  makes  it  the  consequence  of  the  unsearch- 
able relation  between  Jesus  and  the  Father,  in  virtue  of  which 
He  can  be  to  souls  everything  that  the  Father  Himself  is  to 
them. — This  passage  (vers.  21,  22)  is  placed  by  Matthew, 
chap,  xi.,  after  the  denunciation  pronounced  on  the  Galilean 
cities,  and  immediately  following  on  the  deputation  of  John 
the  Baptist.  We  cannot  comprehend  those  of  our  crit 
Gess  included,  who  prefer  this  situation  to  that  of  Lukv 
Gess  thinks  that  the  disciples  (x.  21)  are  contrasted  with 
nnbelieving  Galilean  cities.  But  1 1 1*3  whole  passage  refers  to 
the  disciples  as  instruments  in   <  v£Il\  and  Jesus  con- 

trasts them  not  with  the  ignorant  Qalileana\  hut  with  the  wise 

"f  Lis  hypothesis  in  the  fact  that  in  t  •  I  form  the  wonb  |( 

break  the  thread  of  the  discourse.     WV  think  that  we  have  shown  their  relation 

M  tituation  in  general,  ami  to  the  p:  !  ir.     Ami 

the  searching  study  of  the  rtlffHtWI  I  fom  ami  that  of  Ma- 

nas led  us  up  to  a  Hebrew  formula  necessarily  anterior  to  all  "  I  >gy." 

One  must  have  an  ex>  not  of  rare  llaatidty  to  be  able  to  find 

»y  means  of  such  expedients  —M.  Kenan  bavin  g  I  evacuating  the  words 

I  «ir  real  contents,  simply  sets  them  down  as  a  later  interpolation  :  **  Matt. 
sent  in   ti  system  a  late  interpolation  in 

tag  with  the  type  of  tlio  .lohannine  discourses."     But  what!  an  interpola- 
imultaueously  in  the  two  wlMagl  ?  Ifl  two  difltmt  contexts!  in  all  the 
manuscripts  and  iu  all  the  versions  T  and  with  the  differences  which  we  1 
established  and  explained   bf  thl   Armni<  '     Let  us  take  an  exam 
doxology  inteqwlated  in  Matth.  Lof  the  Lord's  prayer 

is  want  many  Mss.  and  Vss.,  and  is  not  found  in  the  parallel 

ike.     Such  are  the  evidences  of  a  real  interpolation. 
VOL.  II. 


34  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  Jerusalem.  See  Matthew  even,  ver.  25.  As  to  the  fol- 
lowing sentence,  ver.  22,  Gess  thinks  that  he  can  paraphrase 
it  thus :  "  No  man,  not  even  John  the  Baptist,  knoweth  the 
Son  .  .  . ,"  in  order  thus  to  connect  it  with  the  account  of 
the  forerunner's  embassy,  which  forms  the  preceding  context 
in  Matthew.  But  in  relation  to  the  preceding  verse  the  word 
no  man  alludes  not  to  John,  but  to  the  wise  and  learned  of 
Jeiusalem,  who  pretended  that  they  alone  had  the  knowledge 
of  God  (xi.  52).  It  is  not  difficult,  then,  to  perceive  the 
superiority  of  Luke's  context:  and  we  may  prove  here,  as 
everywhere  else,  the  process  of  concatenation,  in  virtue  of 
which  we  find  different  elements  united  together  in  Matt.  xi. 
7-30  by  a  simple  association  of  ideas  in  the  mind  of  the 
compiler. 

With  the  last  words  of  ver.  22,  and  he  to  whom  the  So?i 
will  reveal  Him,  the  thought  of  Jesus  reverts  to  His  disciples 
who  surround  Him,  and  in  whom  there  is  produced  at  this 
very  time  the  beginning  of  the  promised  illumination.  He 
now  addresses  Himself  to  them.  The  meditation  of  ver.  22  is 
the  transition  between  the  adoration  of  ver.  21  and  the  con- 
gratulation which  follows. 

Vers.  23  and  24.1  "And  He  turned  Him  unto  His  disciples, 
and  said  privately,  Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  that 
ye  see:  24  For  I  tell  you,  that  many  prophets  and  kings  have 
desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not  seen  them  ; 
and  to  hear  those  things  vihich  ye  hear,  and  have  not  heard 
them"  Elevated  as  was  the  conception  which  the  disciples 
had  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus,  they  were  far  from 
appreciating  at  its  full  value  the  fact  of  His  appearance,  and 
the  privilege  of  being  the  agents  of  such  a  Master.  At  this 
solemn  hour  Jesus  seeks  to  open  their  eyes.  But  He  cannot 
express  Himself  publicly  on  the  subject.  It  is,  as  it  were,  in 
an  undertone  that  He  makes  this  revelation  to  them,  vers.  23 
and  24.  This  last  sentence  admirably  finishes  the  piece. 
We  find  it  in  Matthew,  chap,  xiii.,  applied  to  the  new  mode 
of  teaching  which  Jesus  had  just  employed  by  making  use  of 
the  form  of  parables.  The  expression,  those  things  ivhich  ye  see, 
is  incompatible  with  this  application,  which  is  thus  swept 
away  by  the  text  of  Matthew  himself. — Luke  here  omits  the 

1  Ver.  23.  D.  Syrcur.  ftp1"***  yg%  omit  kk.t  &m. 


CHAP.  X.  28,  24. 

beautiful  passage  with  which  Matthew  (xi.  28-30)  closes  this 
discourse :  "  Come  unto  mc  .  .  "  If  he  had  known  such 
words,  would  he  have  omitted  them  ?  Is  not  this  invitation 
in  the  most  perfect  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  his  Gospel  ? 
Holtzmann,  who  feels  how  much  the  theory  of  the  employ- 
ment of  a  common  source  is  compromised  by  this  omission, 
endeavours  to  explain  it.  He  supposes  that  Luke,  as  a  good 
Paulinist,  must  have  taken  offence  at  the  word  raireLvos, 
humble,  when  applied  to  Christ,  as  well  as  at  the  terms  yolcc 
and  burden,  which  recalled  the  Law  too  strongly.  And  it  is 
in  face  of  Luke  xxii.  27,  "I  am  among  you  as  he  that 
■th  .  .  .,"  and  of  xvi.  17,  "It  is  easier  for  heaven  and 
earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail  .  .  .,"  that 
such  reasons  are  advanced !  His  extremity  here  drives  Holtz- 
mann to  use  one  of  those  Tubingen  processes  which  he  himself 
combats  throughout  Ins  whole  book. 


Modern  criticism  denies  the  historical  character  of  this  second 
a.     It  is  nothing  more,  Baur  alleges,  than  an  invention  of 
Luke  to  lower  the  mission  of  the  Twelve,  and  to  exalt  that  oi 
and  his  assistants,  of  whom  our  seventy  are  provided  as  th 

With  what  satisfaction  does  not  this  Luke,  who  is  suenl 
as  to  the  effect-  tiding  of  the  Twelve,  d  those  <»i  th.' 

presen*  I     He  gi  ogth  of  applying  to  the  latfc 

designedly,  part  of  th-  which  Jesus  had 

•  \  to  the  funnel-:     Besides,  tin-  other  Gospels 
nowhere  mention  those  seventy  evangel ists  whose  mission  I. 
pleased  to  relate!     Holtzmann,  who  likewise  denial  tin 

tar  of  tli  ive,  does  not,  how<  ihe  to  Luk 

rate  fraud.    The  •  on  oi  th  Doording  to 

purely  literary  one.    <  >f  the  two  soura  a  which  Ifattb 

consulted,  the  former — that  is,  the  original  -Marls 

the  sending  of  the  Twelve  with  a  few  brief  instructions,  such  as  we 

have  found  in   Luk.-  i\\  l-<>  and   Mark  vi.   7-l.">;  the  second,  the 

Ijygia,  contained  the  foil  and  detailed  Jam  must 

have  d  "ii  the  occasion,  as  we  read  il  M  Ihe  author 

of  our  first  Gospel  saw  that  the  discourse  oi  the  Login  applied  to 

ending  oi  mentioned  in  the  original  Man 

attach-  Lake  had  not  the  sai 

having  mission  oi 

ourse  in  the  Logia;  and  to  get  a  suit- 
must  create  a  situation  at  his 
own  hand.     With  *  hout   the  least   purpose  of  a 

dogm  second  i 

his  narrative  were  as  Baur  suppose 


36  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

should  only  the  Twelve  reappear  later  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (xvii. 
5,  xviii.  31),  without  ever  a  word  more  of  those  seventy]  How 
should  Luke  in  the  Acts  make  no  mention  of  those  latter  1  Was  it 
not  easy  and  natural,  after  having  invented  them,  to  give  them  a 
part  to  play  in  the  mission  organized  under  Paul's  direction  ?  An 
author  does  not  lie  in  good  earnest,  only  to  forget  thereafter  to 
make  use  of  his  fraud.  We  have  found  that,  as  to  the  mission  of 
the  Twelve,  Luke  says  at  least  (ix.  10),  "  And  the  apostles,  when 
they  were  returned,  told  Him  all  that  they  had  done  "  (remark  the 
oo-a,  stronger  than  the  simple  a) ;  while  Matthew,  after  the  discourse, 
adds  not  a  single  word  about  the  mission  and  its  results  !  In  short, 
the  narrative  of  the  sending  of  the  seventy  is  so  far  from  being  a 
Paulinist  invention,  that  in  a  work  of  the  second  century,  proceeding 
from  the  sect  most  hostile  to  Paul,  we  find  the  following  passage 
put  in  the  mouth  of  Peter  (Recognit.  Clem.  i.  24)  :  "He  first  chose 
us  twelve,  whom  He  called  apostles ;  then  He  chose  seventy-two 
other  disciples  from  among  the  most  faithful."  The  old  historians 
have  undoubtedly  been  somewhat  arbitrary  in  numbering  among 
those  seventy  many  persons  whom  they  designate  as  having  formed 
part  of  them.  But  this  false  application  proves  nothing  against  the 
fact  itself;  on  the  contrary,  it  attests  the  impression  which  the 
Church  had  of  its  reality. 

The  opinion  of  Holtzmann  would  charge  the  sacred  historian  with 
an  arbitrariness  incompatible  with  the  serious  love  of  historical  truth 
which  is  expressed,  according  to  Holtzmann  himself,  in  his  intro- 
duction. Besides,  we  shall  see  (xvii.  1-10)  how  entirely  foreign 
such  procedure  was  to  the  mind  of  Luke.  When,  finally,  we  con- 
sider the  internal  perfection  of  his  whole  narrative,  the  admirable 
correspondence  between  the  emotions  of  our  Lord  and  the  historical 
event  which  gives  rise  to  them,  have  we  not  a  sufficient  guarantee 
for  the  reality  of  this  episode  ?  As  the  account  of  the  healing  of 
the  lunatic  child  is  the  masterpiece  of  Mark,  this  description  of  the 
sending  of  the  seventy  disciples  is  the  pearl  of  Luke. 

4.  The  Conversation  with  the  Scribe,  and  the  Parable  of  the 
Samaritan:  x.  25-37. — Jesus  slowly  continues  His  journey, 
stopping  at  each  locality.  The  most  varied  scenes  follow  one 
another  without  internal  relation,  and  as  circumstances  bring 
them.  Weizsacker,  starting  from  the  assumption  that  this 
framework  is  not  historical,  has  set  himself  to  seek  a  sys- 
tematic plan,  and  affects  to  find  throughout  an  order  according 
to  subjects.  Thus  he  would  have  the  parable  of  the  good 
Samaritan  connected  with  the  sending  of  the  seventy  by  its 
object,  which  was  originally  to  prove  the  right  of  the  evangelists, 
to  whatever  nationality  they  might  belong.  But  where  in  the 
parable  is  there  to  be  found  the  least  trace  of  correspondence 
between  the  work  done  by  the  good   Samaritan,  and    the 


CIIAr.  X.  20-28.  37 

function  of  the  evangelists  in  the  apostolic  church  ?  How 
could  the  original  tendency  fail  to  come  out  at  some  point  of 
the  description  ?  Holtzmann  thinks  that  in  what  follows 
Luke  conjoins  two  distinct  accounts — that  of  the  scribe  (vers. 
18),  which  we  find  in  Mark  xii.  28  and  Matt.  xxii.  35, 
and  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  taken  from  the  Logia. 
The  connection  which  our  Gospel  establishes  between  the  two 
events  (ver.  29)  is  nothing  else  than  a  rather  unskilful  com- 
bination on  the  part  of  Luke.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  the 
scribe  of  Luke  is  the  same  as  that  spoken  of  by  Mark  and 
Matthew.  It  is  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  days  which  precede 
the  passion,  that  this  latter  appears ;  and  above  all,  as  Meyer 
acknowledges,  the  matter  of  discussion  is  entirely  different. 
The  scribe  of  Jerusalem  asks  Jesus  which  is  the  greatest  com- 
mandment. His  is  a  theological  question.  That  of  Galilee, 
like  the  rich  young  man,  desires  Jesus  to  point  out  to  him 
the  means  of  salvation.  His  is  a  practical  question.  Will 
there  but  one  Rabbin  in  Israel  who  could  enter  into  discussion 
with  Jesus  on  such  subjects  ?  It  is  possible,  no  doubt,  that 
some  external  details  belonging  to  one  of  those  scenes  got 
mixed  up  in  tradition  with  the  narrative  of  the  other.  Bat 
the  moral  contents  form  the  essential  matter,  and  they  are  too 
diverse  to  admit  of  being  identified.  Al  t<>  the  connection 
which  ver.  29  establishes  between  the  interview  and  the 
parable  which  follows,  it  is  confirmed  by  the  LettOfi  which 
flows  from  the  parable  (vers.  36,  37),  and  about  the  authen- 
ticity of  which  there  is  no  doubt. 

&  2 5-2 8. 1  Ti  which  saves. — In  Greece  the  objeel 

of  search  is  truth  ;  in  Israel   it   is  salvation.     So  this 
question  is  found   again   in  the  mouth  of  the  rich  JOOSg  nian. 
— The  expression  stood  up  shows  that  rsons 

who  surrounded    Him  wen;  seated.      Several  critics  think  this 
"scenery"  (Holtzmann)  inconsistent  with  th  '  ftjOCUMJ, 

as  if  we  bed  not  to  do  here,  with  a  course  of  pteechio 
as   if   JeRM    Unit   have   been,  during   the  w.rk>    this  jo 
lasts,  constantly  on  His  feet  I — The  test  to  which  the  scribe 
wished  to  subject  Jesus  bore  either  on  His  orthodoxy  or  on 
1  ability.     His  question  rests  on  the  idea  of  the 

DM  Hint  It,rt*.  rend,  i»«X*  m^i/vn,  •»  »Xn  ■ 
»»  At  -«i  2/«m<«,  instead  of  i| 


38  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

merit  of  works.  Strictly,  on  having  done  what  work  shall  I 
certainly  inherit  .  .  .  ?  In  the  term  to  inherit  there  is  an 
allusion  to  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  the 
children  of  Israel  had  received  as  a  heritage  from  the  hand  of 
God,  and  which  to  the  Jewish  mind  continued  to  be  the  type 
of  the  Messianic  blessedness.  The  question  of  Jesus  distin- 
guishes between  the  contents  (ji)  and  the  text  (ttw?)  of  the 
law.  It  has  been  thought  that,  while  saying,  How  readest 
thou  ?  Jesus  pointed  to  the  phylactery  attached  to  the  scribe's 
dress,  and  on  which  passages  of  the  law  were  written.  But 
at  ver.  28  we  should  find  thou  hast  well  read,  instead  of  thou 
hast  answered  right.  And  it  cannot  be  proved  that  those  two 
passages  were  united  on  the  phylacteries.  The  first  alone 
appears  to  have  figured  on  them. 

It  is  not  wonderful  that  the  scribe  instantly  quotes  the  first 
part  of  the  summary  of  the  law,  taken  from  Deut.  vi.  5  ;  for 
the  Jews  were  required  to  repeat  this  sentence  morning  and 
evening.  As  to  the  second,  taken  from  Lev.  xix.  18,  we  may 
doubt  whether  he  had  the  readiness  of  mind  to  join  it  imme- 
diately with  the  first,  and  so  to  compose  this  magnificent 
resume  of  the  substance  of  the  law.  In  Mark  xii.  and  Matt, 
xxii.  it  is  Jesus  Himself  who  unites  those  two  utterances.  It 
is  probable,  as  Bleek  thinks,  that  Jesus  guided  the  scribe  by 
a  few  questions  to  formulate  this  answer.  Ver.  2  6  has  all  the 
appearance  of  the  opening  of  a  catechetical  course. — The  first 
part  of  the  summary  includes  four  terms ;  in  Hebrew  there 
are  only  three — J?,  heart ;  B>a:i,  soid ;  "iikd,  might.  The  LXX. 
also  have  only  three,  but  they  translate  n?,  heart,  by  hiavola, 
mind ;  and  this  is  the  word  which  appears  in  Luke  as  the 
fourth  term.  In  Matthew  there  are  three :  htavola  is  the 
last ;  in  Mark,  four :  avveais  takes  the  place  of  Siavola,  and 
is  put  second.  KapBla,  the  heart,  in  Mark  and  Luke  is  fore- 
most ;  it  is  the  most  general  term  :  it  denotes  in  Scripture  the 
central  focus  from  which  all  the  rays  of  the  moral  life  go 
forth ;  and  that  in  their  three  principal  directions — the 
powers  of  feeling,  or  the  affections,  D>23,  the  soid,  in  the  sense 
of  feeling ;  the  active  powers,  the  impulsive  aspirations,  Tine, 
the  might,  the  will ;  and  the  intellectual  powers,  analytical  or 
contemplative,  Stavota,  mind.  The  difference  between  the 
heart,  which  resembles  the   trunk,  and  the  three  branches, 


CHAP.  X.  29-87.  30 

feeling,  will,  .and  understanding,  is  emphatically  marked,  in 
the  Alex,  variation,  by  the  substitution  of  the  preposition  ev, 
in,  for  ire,  with  (from),  in  the  three  last  members.  Moral  life 
proceeds  from  the  heart,  and  manifests  itself  without,  in 
the  three  forms  of  activity  indicated.  The  impulse  Godward 
proceeds  from  the  heart,  and  is  realized  in  the  life  through  the 
ion,  which  feeds  on  that  supreme  object;  through  the  will, 
which  consecrates  itself  actively  to  the  accomplishment  of  His 
will ;  and  through  the  mind,  which  pursues  the  track  of  His 
thoughts,  in  all  His  works. — The  second  part  of  the  summary 
is  the  corollary  of  the  first,  and  cannot  be  realized  except  in 
connection  with  it.  Nothing  but  the  reigning  love  of  God 
can  so  divest  the  individual  of  devotion  to  his  own  person,  that. 
the  ego  of  his  neighbour  shall  rank  in  his  eyes  exactly  on  the 
same  level  as  his  own.  The  pattern  must  be  loved  above  all.  if 
the  image  in  others  is  to  appear  to  us  as  worthy  of  esteem  and 
love  as  in  ourselves. — Thus  to  love  is,  as  Jesus  says,  th< 
to  life,  or  rather  it  is  life  itself.  God  has  no  higher  life  than 
that  of  love.  The  answer  of  Jesus  is  therefore  not  a  simple 
accommodation  to  the  legal  point  of  view.  The  work  which 
saves,  or  salvation,  is  really  loving.  The  gospel  does  not 
from  the  law  in  its  aim  ;  it  is  distinguished  from  it  only 
indication  of  means  and  the  communication  of  str< 
n,  29-37.  T/ie  good  Samaritan. — How  is  such  1< 
be  attained?     This  would  haw  ion  put 

I  he  been  in  the  state  of  soul  which  Paul  de- 
Rom,  vii.,  and   which  is  the    normal  preparation    for  faith. 
He  would  have  confessed  his  im]  and   repoatod  the 

question  in  a  yet  deeper  sense  than  at  the  beginning  of  the 
interview:  What  shall   1  dot     What  shall  I  do  in  order  to 

I — But  instead  of  that,  feeling  himself  condemned  by 

•  liness   of  the   law  which    he    DOS    hi:  :ii;illy   ex- 

pressed, he  takes  B  the*  words, 

i  excuse  himself  for 
not  having  observed  it:  does   the  word   neighbour 

mean?     II  does  its  ap]  reach?"     ft 

one  does  not  know  exactly  what  this  expression  .  it  is 

quite  impossible,  he  means,  to  fulfil  the  commandment     Thus 
:    Luke,  "willing  '  f;i   hiniM-lf."    finds    an 

hich  is  peri'  —The  real  aim  of  the 


40  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  is  to  show  the  scribe  that  the 
answer  to  the  theological  question,  which  he  thinks  good  to 
propose,  is  written  by  nature  on  every  right  heart,  and  that 
to  know,  nothing  is  needed  but  the  will  to  understand  it.  But 
Jesus  does  not  at  all  mean  thereby  that  it  is  by  his  charitable 
disposition,  or  by  this  solitary  act  of  kindness,  that  the  Samari- 
tan can  obtain  salvation.  We  must  not  forget  that  a  totally 
new  question,  that  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  neighbour, 
has  intervened.  It  is  to  the  latter  question  that  Jesus  replies 
by  the  parable.  He  lets  the  scribe  understand  that  this  ques- 
tion, proposed  by  him  as  so  difficult,  is  resolved  by  a  right 
heart,  without  its  ever  proposing  it  at  all.  This  ignorant 
Samaritan  naturally  (cpvaec,  Eom.  ii.  14)  possessed  the  light 
which  the  Eabbins  had  not  found,  or  had  lost,  in  their  theological 
lucubrations.  Thus  was  condemned  the  excuse  which  he  had 
dared  to  advance. — May  we  not  suppose  it  is  from  sayings 
such  as  this  that  Paul  has  derived  his  teaching  regarding  the 
law  written  in  the  heart,  and  regardiug  its  partial  observance 
by  the  Gentiles,  Eom.  ii.  14-16  ? 

Vers.  29-32.1  The  Priest  and  the  Zeviie. — Lightfoot  has 
proved  that  the  Eabbins  did  not,  in  general,  regard  as  their 
neighbours  those  who  were  not  members  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
Perhaps  the  subject  afforded  matter  for  learned  debates  in 
their  schools.  The  word  ttX^giov,  being  without  article  here, 
might  be  taken  in  strictness  as  an  adverb.  It  is  simpler  to 
regard  it  as  the  well-known  substantive  6  ifXrqaiov.  The 
/cat,  and,  introducing  the  answer,  brings  it  into  relation  with 
the  preceding  question  which  called  it  forth.  The  word  biro- 
Xaficbv,  rejoining,  which  does  not  occur  again  in  the  N.  T.,  is 
put  for  the  ordinary  term  cnroKpiOek,  answering,  to  give  more 
gravity  to  what  follows.  The  mountainous,  and  for  the  most 
part  desert  country,  traversed  by  the  road  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho,  was  far  from  safe.  Jerome  (ad  Jerem.  iii.  2)  relates 
that  in  his  time  it  was  infested  by  hordes  of  Arabs.  The  dis- 
tance between  the  two  cities  is  seven  leagues.  The  icai,  also, 
before  iichvo-avTe$,  ver.  30,  supposes  a  first  act  which  is  self- 

1  Ver.  29.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  tixxieuv  (T.  R.)  and  ^ixxiutrxi  (Alex.). 
—Ver.  30.  E.  G.  H.  T.  V.  a.  a.  several  Mnn.  Itali(i.  Vg.,  i%i6u<rx>  instead  of 
txtiuo-etvrii. — X.  B.  D.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  omit  ruy-^avovra,. — Ver.  32.  tfc.  B.  L. 
X.  Z.  omit  ytvofjuitf. — n.  D.  r.  a.  several  Mnn.  Vss.  read  aurov  after  <$«». 


CHAT.  X.  33-3o.  41 

understood,  the  relieving  him  of  his  purse. — There  is  a  sort  of 
irony  in  the  Kara  air/tcvpiav,  by  elmncc.  It  is  certainly  not 
by  accident  that  the  narrator  brings  those  two  personages  on 
the  scene. — The  preposition  uvtL  in  avrnrapijkQe,  he  pas* 
might  denote  a  curve  made  in  an  opposite  direction ;  but  it  is 
simpler  to  understand  it  in  the  sense  of  over  against.  In  view 
of  such  a  spectacle,  they  pass  on.  Comp.  the  antithesis  irpocr- 
eXOcov,  having  gone  to  him,  ver.  34. 

3,  33-35.1  Tlie  Samaritan. — For  the  sake  of  contrast, 
Jesus  chooses  a  Samaritan,  a  member  of  that  half  Gentile 
people  who  were  separated  from  the  Jews  by  an  old  national 
hatred.  In  the  matter  about  which  priests  are  ignorant,  about, 
which  the  scribe  is  still  disputing,  this  simple  and  right  heart 
sees  clearly  at  the  first  glance.  His  neighbour  is  the  human 
being,  whoever  he  may  be,  with  whom  God  brings  him  into 
contact,  and  who  has  need  of  his  help.  The  term  oSevcov,  as 
he  journeyed,  conveys  the  idea  that  he  might  easily  have 
thought  himself  excused  from  the  duty  of  compassion  toward 
this  stranger. — In  every  detail  of  the  picture,  ver.  34,  there 
breathes  the  most  tender  pity  (ia-TrXayxviaOrj). — Oil  and  wine 
ft  formed  part  of  the  provision  for  a  journey. — We  see 
from  what  follows  that  iravSoxelov  signifies  not  a  simple 
ry,  but  a  real  inn,  where  people  wete  leoeived  in- 
payment 'Eire,  ver.  V>~>,  should  be  understood 
1  :  Toward  the  morrow,  that  is  to  say,  at  daybreak.  Tin 
iljcXOcov,  wlicn  lie  departed,  shows  that  lie  was  now  on  horse- 
back, ready  to  go.  Two  pence  are  equal  to  about  Is.  4d.— 
bavin  *  the  wounded  man  the  length  of  the  ho 

he  might  have  regarded  himself  as  discharged  from  all  respon- 
sibility in  regard  to  him,  and  given  him   OVei  to  the  C 
his  own  countrymen,  saying:  "He  is  your  neighbour  mthei 
than  mine/1     But  the  compassion  which  constrained  him  to 
begin,  obliges  him  to  finish, — What  I  mas©  is  this  por- 

trait!    What  a  painter  was  its  author,  and  what  a  n;i 
was  he  who  has  thus  transmitted   it  to  us,  undoubtedly  in  all 
its  original  ireshnessl 

L  7..  ?.  Mnn.  omit.i-  1 1  *  —  Ver.  35.  S   I:   I ».  I 

-yr.  It.  omit  .{a/*».  —  R  1).  L  Z.  some  Mnn.  */!•»•  H*w*»  °mU 
mitrm  after  »i«-|t. 


42  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  36,  37.1  The  Moral. — The  question  with  which  Jesus 
obliges  the  scribe  to  make  application  of  the  parable  may  seem 
badly  put.  According  to  the  theme  of  discussion :  "  Who  is 
my  neighbour  ?"  (ver.  29),  it  would  seem  that  He  should  have 
asked:  Whom,  then,  wilt  thou  regard,  as  thy  neighbour  to 
guide  thee  to  him,  as  the  Samaritan  was  guided  to  thy  com- 
patriot ?  But  as  the  term  neighbour  implies  the  idea  of 
reciprocity,  Jesus  has  the  right  of  reversing  the  expressions, 
and  He  does  so  not  without  reason.  Is  it  not  more  effective 
to  ask :  By  whom  should  I  like  to  be  succoured  in  distress  ? 
than :  Whom  should  I  assist  in  case  of  distress  ?  To  the  first 
question,  the  reply  is  not  doubtful.  Self-regard  coming  to  the 
aid  of  conscience,  all  will  answer:  By  everybody.  The  scribe 
is  quite  alive  to  this.  He  cannot  escape,  when  he  is  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  question  in  this  form.  Only,  as  his 
heart  refuses  to  pronounce  the  word  Samaritan  with  praise, 
he  paraphrases  the  odious  name.  On  the  use  of  fierd,  ver.  3  7, 
see  on  i.  58. — In  this  final  declaration,  Jesus  contrasts  the 
doing  of  the  Samaritan  with  the  vain  casuistry  of  the  Babbins. 
But  while  saying,  Do  thou  likewise,  He  does  not  at  all  add,  aa 
at  ver.  28,  and  thou  shalt  live.  For  beneficence  does  not 
give  life  or  salvation.  Were  it  even  the  complete  fulfilment 
of  the  second  part  of  the  sum  of  the  law,  we  may  not  forget 
the  first  part,  the  realization  of  which,  though  not  less  essen- 
tial to  salvation,  may  remain  a  strange  thing  to  the  man  of 
greatest  beneficence.  But  what  is  certain  is,  that  the  man 
who  in  his  conduct  contradicts  the  law  of  nature,  is  on  the 
way  opposed  to  that  which  leads  to  faith  and  salvation  (John 
iii.  19-21). 

The  Fathers  have  dwelt  with  pleasure  on  the  allegorical 
interpretation  of  this  parable :  The  wounded  man  representing 
humanity ;  the  brigands,  the  devil ;  the  priest  and  Levite,  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  The  Samaritan  is  Jesus  Himself ;  the 
oil  and  wine,  divine  grace ;  the  ass,  the  body  of  Christ ;  the  inn, 
the  Church ;  Jerusalem,  paradise ;  the  expected  return  of  the 
Samaritan,  the  final  advent  of  Christ.  This  exegesis  rivalled 
that  of  the  Gnostics. 

5.  Martha  and  Mary:   x.   38-42. — Here   is  one   of  the 

1  Ver.  36.  tf.  B.  L.  Z.  some  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  om  after  rig. — Ver.  37.  The  Mas. 
Vary  between  ow  (T.  R.)  and  h  (Alex.)  after  wr%. 


CHAP.  X.  38-42.  43 

most  exquisite  scenes  which  Gospel  tradition  has  preserved 
to  us ;  it  has  been  transmitted  by  Luke  alone.     What  sur- 
prises us  in  the  narrative  is,  the  place  which  it  occupies  in 
the  middle  of  a  journey  through  Galilee.     On  the  one  baud, 
the  expression  eV  too  iropeveaOac  avrovs,  as  they  went,  indi- 
cates that  we  have  a  continuation  of  the  same  journey  as 
at  ix.    51 ;    on  the  other,  the    knowledge   which   we 
of  Martha  and  Mary,  John  xi,  does  not  admit  of  a 
doubt  that  the   event  transpired  in  Judea  at  Bethany,  near 
Jerusalem.     Hengstenberg  supposes  that  Lazarus  and  his  two 
sisters  dwelt  first  in  Galilee,  and  afterwards  came  to  settle  in 
Judea.     But  the  interval  between  autumn  and  the  following 
spring  is  too  short  to  allow  of  such  a  change  of  residence.    In 
John  xi.  1,  Bethany  is  called  the  town  of  Mary  and  kef 
Martha,  a  phrase  which  assumes  that  they  had  lived  there  for 
a  length  of  time.     The  explanation  is  therefore  a  forced  one. 
There  is  another  more  natural.     In  John  x.  there  is  indicated 
a  short  visit  of  Jesus  to  Judea  in  the  month  of  December  of 
at  the  feast  of  dedication.     Was  not  that  then   the 
time  when  the  visit  took  place  which  is  here  recorded   by 
Luke  ?     Jesus  must  have  interrupted  His  evangelistic  journey 
to  go  to  Jerusalem,  perhaps  while  the  seventy  diflcipli  B  W6W 
carrying   out   their  preparatory  mission.     After   that   short 
B  in  the  capital,  He  returned  to  put  Himself  at  the 
head  of  the  caravan,  to  visit  the  places  where  the  disciple 
announced  His  coming.      Luke  himself  certainly  did  not  know 
ice  where  this  scene  transpired  (in  a  certain  village) ;  he 
fact  to  us  as  he  found  it  in  his  sources,  or  as  he 
it  by  oral   tradition,  Without  more   exact  local 
indication.     Importance  had  been  attached  rat  In  ft  to  the  moral 
than  to  the  external   ci re u instances.     It  is  remark- 
scene  of  the  preceding  parable  is  precisely  the 
•  en  Jericho  and  Jem  alem.      Have    we    hen   I 
second  proof  of  a  journey  to  fades  at  thai  period? 

e  we  must  recall  two  things:   1.  That    the  oral  tradi- 

which  our  written    compilations  (with  the  exception 

of  John)  are  derived,  was  formed  immediately  after  the 

ry  of  our  Lord,  when  the  actors  in   the  (i. 

were  yet  alive,  and  that  it  was  obliged  to  exercise  grea 

cretion  in  regard  to  the  person^  who  Bgnted  In  it,  especially 


44  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

where  women  were  concerned ;  hence  the  omission  of  many 
proper  names.  2.  That  it  is  John's  Gospel  which  has  restored 
those  names  to  the  Gospel  history ;  but  that  at  the  time  when 
Luke  wrote,  this  sort  of  incognito  still  continued. 

Vers.  38-40.1  Martha's  Complaint. — It  is  probably  the 
indefinite  expression  of  Luke,  into  a  certain  village,  which 
John  means  to  define  by  the  words  :  Bethany,  the  town  of  Mary 
and  her  sister  Martha,  xi.  1 ;  as  also  the  words  of  Luke  ver. 
39,  which  sat  at  Jesus'  feet,  seem  to  be  alluded  to  in  those  others  : 
But  Mary  sat  still  in  the  house,  xi.  20.  The  entire  conduct  ot 
Martha  and  Mary,  John  xi.,  reproduces  in  every  particular  the 
characters  of  the  two  sisters  as  they  appear  from  Luke  x. — It 
has  been  supposed  that  Martha  was  the  wife  of  Simon  the 
Leper  (Matt.  xxvi.  6  ;  Mark  xiv.  3),  and  that  her  brother  and 
sister  had  become  inmates  of  the  house.  All  this  is  pure 
hypothesis. — If  the  two  words  rj  and  icaL  "  which  also  sat"  really 
belong  to  the  text,  Luke  gives  us  to  understand  that  Mary  began 
by  serving  as  well  as  Martha ;  but  that,  having  completed  hei 
task,  she  also  sat  to  listen,  rightly  considering  that,  with  suck 
a  guest,  the  essential  thing  was  not  serving,  but  above  all  being 
herself  served. — Jesus  was  seated  with  His  feet  stretched 
behind  Him  (vii.  38). — It  was  therefore  at  His  feet  behind 
Him  that  she  took  her  place,  not  to  lose  any  of  His  words. 
The  term  irepteairaTo  (was  cumbered),  ver.  40,  denotes  a  dis- 
traction at  once  external  and  moral.  The  word  dirco-rao-a, 
came  to  Him,  especially  with  Be  adversative,  but,  indicates  a 
sudden  suspension  of  her  feverish  activity ;  at  the  sight  of 
Jesus  and  her  sister,  who  was  listening  to  Him  with  gladness, 
Martha  stops  short,  takes  up  a  bold  attitude,  and  addressee" 
the  latter,  reproaching  her  for  her  selfishness,  and  Jesus  for 
His  partiality,  implied  in  the  words,  Dost  Thou  not  care? 
Nevertheless,  by  the  very  word  which  she  uses,  KareXnre,  hath 
left  me  (this  reading  is  preferable  to  the  imperfect  /careXenre), 
she  acknowledges  that  Mary  up  till  then  had  taken  part  in 
serving.      In  the  compound  awavrcXafjifidveaOai,  three  ideas 

1  Ver.  38.  tf.  B.  L.  Z.  Syrenr.,  iv  J»  ru  <ropivttr6ai  instead  of  tytttro  h  h  ru  -rtptv- 
196*1. — K-  C.  L.  Z.,  otxiav  instead  of  onto*. — ft*  L.  Z.  omit  «.ums. — B.  omits  us 
.  .  .  uurns. — Ver.  39.  tf.  L\  Z.  omit  n. — D.  Itali<J.  omit  x*i  after  n. — Instead  of 
<raf>ctxa0i(rxffa    (T.  R.),    X.  A.  B.  C.  L.  Z.,    ■xu.pu.xa.h<rhi<Ta.. — Instead  of  <r«/>«,    the 

saine,  ffot. — Instead  of  in<rou,  the  same,  xvpiov.  — Ver.  40.  Instead  of  x^nt^m, 
15  Mjj.  «ariXuri».— D.  L.  Z.,  uv$t  instead  of  um. 


CHAP.  X.  41,  42.  45 

are  included, — charging  oneself  with  a  burden  (the  middle) 
fur  another  (ami),  and  sharing  it  with  him  (avv). 

Vera  41,  42. l  TJic  Answer. — Jesus  replies  to  the  reproach 
ol  Maltha  by  charging  her  with  exaggeration  in  the  activity 
which  she  is  putting  forth.  If  she  has  so  much  trouble,  it  is 
LS6  she  wishes  it.  Mepi^ivav,  to  be  careful,  refers  to  moral 
preoccupation  ;  rvpfid&crOai,  to  be  troubled,  to  external  agita- 
tion. The  repetition  of  Martha's  name  in  the  answer  of  Jesus 
is  intended  to  bring  her  back  gently,  but  firmly,  from  her 
dissipation  of  mind.  The  expression  in  which  Jesus  justifies 
His  rebuke  is  at  once  serious  and  playful.  According  to  the 
received  reading,  One  thing  only  is  needful,  the  thought  might 
be :  "A  single  dish  is  sufficient."  But  as  it  was  certainly  not 
a  lesson  on  simplicity  of  food  that  Jesus  wished  to  give  hi -w, 
we  must  in  that  case  admit  a  double  reference,  like  that  which 
is  so  often  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus  (John  iv.  31-34)  :  "  A 
single  kind  of  nourishment  is  sufiicient  for  the  body,  as  one 
only  is  necessary  for  the  soul."  This  is  probably  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Alex,  reading  :  "  There  meed*  but  little  (for  the 
body),  or  even  but  one  thing  (for  the  soul)."  There  is  subtilty 
in  this  reading;  too  much  perhaps.  It  has  ■gainst  it  15 
Mjj.,  the  PeschitOj  and  a  large  number  of  the  oopiss  of  the 
Itala.  It  is  simpler  to  hold  that,  by  the  expression 
Jesus  meant  to  designate  spiritual  nourishment,  the  divine 

but  not  without  an  allusion  to  the  .simplicity  in  pli 
rhich  IiatOially  results  from   the   preponderance  given  to 
hex  interest.      The  expression  dyadij  fiepis,  that  gooi? 
alludes  to  the  portion  of  lnmour  at  a  feast.     The  pronoun  rrns, 

which  as  swh,  brings  ont  the  relation  I  the  rnrooHflSMm 

of  this  portion,  and  the  impossibility  of  its  being  lost  to  him 
who  has  chosen  it,  and  who  PeiSOTSflSS  in  his  choice.      In  this 
loot    thei  luded  an   invitation  to 

Ifarthi  to  imitate  her  at  01 

The  two  sisters  have  often  been  regarded  as  represent  Kng 
two  equally  legitimate  aspects  of  the  Christian  life,  inward 

devotion  and  practical  activity.      But  Martha  does  not  in  tin* 
least  i  :  vity,  such  as  Jesus  approves.      Mr 

41.  N.  T.    I.  I  .  Urn*.— ft.  n.  c.  D.  L, 

ad  ol  *»p&mZfi. — Vcr.  42.  K    I     I.    |  Mnn.,  tktym  ?i  irr<  jpM  *  i»« 
iartcxi  of  •»♦<  Si  %tr.  x/$m 


46  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

very  distraction  proves  that  the  motive  of  her  work  is  not 
pure,  and  that  her  self-importance  as  hostess  has  a  larger  share 
in  it  than  it  ought.  On  the  other  hand,  Mary  as  little  repre- 
sents a  morbid  quietism,  requiring  to  be  implemented  by  the 
work  of  an  active  life.  Mary  served  as  long  as  it  appeared 
to  her  needful  to  do  so.  Thereafter  she  understood  also  that, 
when  we  have  the  singular  privilege  of  welcoming  a  Jesus 
under  our  roof,  it  is  infinitely  more  important  to  seek  to  receive 
than  to  give.  Besides,  some  months  later  (John  xii.  3  et  seq.), 
Mary  clearly  showed  that  when  action  or  giving  was  required, 
she  was  second  to  none. 

The  Tubingen  school  has  discovered  depths  in  this  narrative 
unknown  till  it  appeared.  In  the  person  of  Martha,  Luke  seeks  to 
stigmatize  Judaizing  Christianity,  that  of  legal  works  ;  in  the  person 
of  Mary  he  has  exalted  the  Christianity  of  Paul,  that  of  justification 
without  works  and  by  faith  alone.  What  extraordinary  prejudice 
must  prevail  in  a  mind  which  can  to  such  a  degree  mistake  the 
exquisite  simplicity  of  this  story! — Supposing  that  it  really  had 
such  an  origin,  would  not  this  dogmatic  importation  have  infallibly 
discoloured  both  the  matter  and  form  of  the  narrative  1  A  time 
will  come  when  those  judgments  of  modern  criticism  will  appear 
like  the  wanderings  of  a  diseased  imagination. 

6.  Prayer :  xi.  1-13. — Continuing  still  to  advance  leisurely, 
the  Lord  remained  faithful  to  His  habit  of  prayer.  He  was 
not  satisfied  with  that  constant  direction  of  soul  toward  His 
Father,  to  which  the  meaning  of  the  command,  Pray  without 
ceasing,  is  often  reduced.  There  were  in  His  life  special  times 
and  positive  acts  of  prayer.  This  is  proved  by  the  following 
words :  When  He  ceased  graying.  It  was  after  one  of  those 
times,  which  no  doubt  had  always  something  solemn  in  them 
for  those  who  surrounded  Him,  that  one  oi  His  disciples, 
profiting  by  the  circumstance,  asked  Him  to  give  a  more 
special  directory  on  the  subject  of  prayer.  Holtzmann  is  just 
enough  to  protest  against  this  preface,  ver.  1,  being  involved 
in  the  wholesale  rejection  which  modern  criticism  visits  on 
those  short  introductions  of  Luke.  He  finds  a  proof  of  its 
authenticity  in  the  detail  so  precisely  stated :  "  Teach  us  to 
pray,  as  John  also  taught  his  disciples"  It  is,  according  to 
him,  one  of  the  cases  in  which  the  historical  situation  was 
expressly  stated  in  the  Logia. — The  Lord's  Prayer,  as  well  as 
the   instructions  about  prayer  which  follow,   are  placed   by 


CHAP.  XI.  1-4.  47 

Matthew  in  the  course  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (chap.  vi. 
and  vii.).  Gess  thinks  that  this  model  of  prayer  may  have 
been  twice  given  forth.  Why  might  not  a  disciple,  some 
months  after  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  have  put  to  Jesus  the 
request  which  led  Him  to  repeat  it  ?  And  as  to  the  context  in 
Matthew,  Luke  xx.  47  proves  that  much  speaking  belonged 
as  much  to  the  prayers  of  the  Pharisees  as  to  those  of  the 
heathen.  That  is  true  ;  but  the  prolixity  to  which  the  Lord's 
prayer  is  opposed  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  by  means 
of  which  the  worshipper  hopes  to  obtain  a  hearing,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  that  ostentation  before  men  which  Jesus  stigmatizes 
in  Matt.  vi.  as  characterizing  the  righteousness  of  the  Phari- 
sees. And  the  repetition  of  this  model  of  prayer,  though  not 
impossible,  is  far  from  probable.  What  we  have  here,  there- 
fore, is  one  of  those  numerous  elements,  historically  alien  to  the 
context  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  are  found  collected 
in  this  exposition  of  the  new  righteousness.  The  reflections 
regarding  prayer,  Matt,  vii.,  belong  to  a  context  so  broken, 
that  if  the  connections  alleged  by  commentators  show  to  a 
demonstration  what  association  of  ideas  the  compiler  has 
followed  in  placing  them  here,  they  cannot  prove  that  J I 
could  ever  have  taught  in  such  a  maimer.  In  Luke,  on  the 
contrary,  the  connection  between  the  different  parts  of  this 
discourse  is  as  simple  as  the  occasion  is  natural.     Here,  again, 

two  evangelists  such  as  we  have  come  to  ki 
them  :  Matthew  teaches,  Luke  relates. 

I  account  embraces:   1st.  The  model  of  Christian  pi 
(vers.  1-4);  2d.  An  encouragement  to  pray  thus,  founded  on 
the  certainty  of  1»<  vd  (vers.  5-13). 

1st.  Vers.   1-4.1   Th>  w. — "And  it  caw 

.  1.  K*.  A.  some  Mnn.  Syr*".   Up™**  omit  mm  before  I*«»»«f.- 
The  words  mpm  n  r»n  «vpm*ni  arc  omitted  by  K-  R    L  Mnn.  T- I - 

found  in  T.  K.,  according  to  18  Mjj.  almost  all  Mm  Mnn.  Syr.  I  In- 

stead of  txiirm  n  $m*iXuM  cou,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  Maxiraus  Confessor  seem  to 
have  read,  tXJtr*  «yi«»  tihi««  r»v  tp*  *fi*t  ««<  Km.tmfi0m.rtt  n/tmt ;  others  to  I 
added  to  the  end  of  the  petition  n  :  r»ur  tm  «-«  niyi 

my nt. — B.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr*"'  Tert.  Aug.  omit  the  words  >!»*/«»•# 

-,  it,  which  are  read  by  tho  T.  R.  with  18  Mjj.  almost  all  the  Mnn.  Syr"*. 
IxFmv" ;  Tert  (de  Oralione)  places  them  between  the  first  and  second  petitions. 
— V.r        Instead  of  **-r  Marcion  appears  to  have  read  w. — Ver.  4.   K.  I 
tome  Mnn.  Vg.  Orig.  Cyril.  Tert  A\.  •  words  mx> 

are  found  in  the  T.  IL  with  17  Mjj.  almost  all  the  Man.  Syr.  l***~ 


48  THE  GOSPEL  OP  LUKE. 

piss,  that  as  He  ivas  praying  in  a  certain  place,  when  He  ceased, 
one  of  His  disciples  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  teach  us  to  pray,  as 
John  also  taught  his  disciples.  2  And  He  said  unto  them, 
When  ye  pray,  say,  Father,  hallowed  he  thy  name ;  Tliy  king- 
dom come ;  3  Give  us  day  hy  day  our  needful  oread  ;  4  And 
forgive  us  our  sins,  for  we  also  forgive  every  one  that  is  indebted 
to  us  ;  and  lead  us  not  into  temptation."  It  was  the  custom 
among  the  Jews  to  pray  regularly  three  times  a  day.  John 
had  kept  up  the  practice,  as  well  as  that  of  fasting  (v.  33) ; 
and  it  was  doubtless  with  a  view  to  this  daily  exercise  that 
he  had  given  a  form  to  his  disciples. — In  the  words,  when  ye 
pray,  say,  the  term  irpoaev^ea-Qai,  to  pray,  denotes  the  state 
of  adoration,  and  the  word  say,  the  prayer  formally  expressed. 
— It  is  evident  that  this  order,  when  ye  pray,  say,  does  not 
mean  that  the  formula  was  to  be  slavishly  repeated  on  every 
occasion  of  prayer;  it  was  the  type  which  was  to  give  its 
impression  to  every  Christian  prayer,  but  in  a  free,  varied,  and 
spontaneous  manner.  The  distinctive  characteristic  of  this 
formulary  is  the  filial  spirit,  which  appears  from  the  first  in 
the  invocation,  Father ;  then  in  the  object  and  order  of  the 
petitions.  Of  the  five  petitions  which  the  Lord's  Prayer 
includes  in  Luke,  two  bear  directly  on  the  cause  of  God — they 
stand  at  the  head ;  three  to  the  wants  of  man — they  occupy 
the  second  place.  This  absolute  priority  given  to  divine 
interests  implies  an  emptying  of  ourselves,  a  heavenly  love 
and  zeal  which  are  not  natural  to  man,  and  which  suppose  in 
us  the  heart  of  a  true  child  of  God,  occupied  above  all  things 
with  the  interests  of  his  heavenly  Father.  After  having  thus 
forgotten  himself,  and  become  lost  as  it  were  in  God,  the 
Christian  comes  back  to  himself ;  but  as  it  is  in  God  that  he 
finds  himself  again,  he  does  not  find  himself  alone.  He  con- 
templates  himself  as  a  member  of  God's  family,  and  says 
thenceforth :  we,  and  not  /.  The  fraternal  spirit  becomes,  in 
the  second  part  of  his  prayer,  the  complement  of  the  filial 
spirit  which  dictated  the  first;  intercession  is  blended  with 
personal  supplication.  The  Lord's  Prayer  is  thus  nothing  else 
than  the  summary  of  the  law  put  into  practice ;  and  this 
summary  so  realized  in  the  secrecy  of  the  heart,  will  naturally 
pass  thence  into  the  entire  life. 

It  appears  certain  from  the  mss.  that  in  the  text  of  Luko 


chap.  xi.  i-i.  49 

the  invocation  ought  to  be  reduced  to  the  single  word  Father. 
The  following  words,  which  art  in  heaven,  are  a  gloss  taken 
from  Matthew,  but  agreeable,  no  doubt,  to  the  real  tenor  of  our 
Lord's  saying.  In  this  title  Father  there  is  expressed  the 
double  feeling  of  submission  and  confidence.  The  name  is 
found  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  Isa.  lxiii.  16  (comp.  Ps. 
ciii  IS),  and  is  employed  only  in  reference  to  the  nation  as 
hole.  The  pious  Israelite  felt  himself  the  servant  of 
Jehovah,  not  His  child.  The  filial  relationship  which  the 
believer  sustains  to  God  rests  on  the  incarnation  and  revelation 
of  the  Son.  Luke  x.  22  :  "He  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal 
.  .  .  .  "  Comp.  John  i.  1 2. 
The  first  two  petitions  relate,  not  to  the  believer  himself,  or 
the  world  which  surrounds  him,  but  to  the  honour  of  God ;  it 
is  the  child  of  God  who  is  praying.  Wetstein  has  collected  a 
large  number  of  passages  similar  to  those  two  petitions,  derived 
from  Jewish  formularies.  The  Old  Testament  itself  is  filled 
with  like  texts.  But  the  originality  of  this  first  part  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer  is  not  in  the  words ;  it  is  in  the  filial  feeling 
which  is  here  expressed  by  means  of  those  already  well-known 
terms. — The  name  of  God  denotes,  not  His  essence  or  11 
revelation,  as  is  often  said,  but  rather  the  conception  of  God, 
whatever  it  may  be,  which  the  w<  shipper  bears  in  his  con- 
sciousness— His  reflection  in  the  soul  of  His  creatures.  Hence 
the  fact  that  tins  name  dwells  completely  only  in  One  I 
in  Him  who  is  the  adequate  Image  of  God,  and  who  alono 
knows  Him  perfectly;  that  One  of  whom  God  says,  Ex.  xxiii. 
11.     M  Jfim,"     Hence  the  fact  that  this  n. 

ome   holier   than    it    is  —  be  hallowed,    rendered    holv. 
What  unworthy  oonoeptionf  of  God  and  1 1  is  character  still  n 

lnld  of  God  prayi  Him  to  assert  His  holy 

illy  in   the  minds  of  men,  in  order  thai 

gross  or  refined,  at  well  as  all   pharisaic  for- 

;  ever  come  to  an  wry  human 

nay   exclaim   with    the   seraphim,    in    rapt  adoration: 

!  (Isa.  vi.)     The  Imper.  Am\  indicates  a  series 

ill  be  brought  about. 

The  holy  image  of  God  once  shining  in  glory  within  the 

ths  of  the  heart,  the  kingdom  of  God  can  be  established 

For  God  needs  only  to  be  well   known  in  ord< ; 
VOL.  il  i> 


50  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

reign.  The  term  kingdom  of  God  denotes  an  external  and 
social  state  of  things,  bnt  one  which  results  from  an  inward 
and  individual  change.  This  petition  expresses  the  longing  of 
the  child  of  God  for  that  reconciled  and  sanctified  humanity 
within  the  bosom  of  which  the  will  of  the  Father  will  be  done 
without  opposition.  The  aor.  ekOeToa,  come,  comprises  the 
whole  series  of  historical  facts  which  will  realize  this  state  of 
things.  The  imperatives,  which  follow  one  another  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer  with  forcible  brevity,  express  the  certainty  of 
being  heard. 

The  third  petition,  "  Thy  will  be  .  .  .,"  which  is  found 
in  the  T.  R,  following  several  mss.,  is  certainly  an  impor- 
tation from  Matthew.  It  is  impossible  to  discover  any 
reason  why  so  many  mss.  should  have  rejected  it  in  Luke. 
In  Matthew  it  expresses  the  state  of  things  which  will  result 
from  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  humanity 
so  admirably,  that  there  is  no  reason  for  doubting  that  it 
belongs  to  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  Jesus  uttered  it.  The  posi- 
tion of  this  petition  between  the  two  preceding  in  a  passage 
of  Tertullian,  may  arise  either  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
variously  interpolated  in  Luke,  or  from  the  fact  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  eschatological  sense  which  was  given  to  the 
term  kingdom  of  God,  it  was  thought  right  to  close  the  first 
part  of  the  prayer  with  the  petition  which  related  to  that 
object. 

Ver.  3.  From  the  cause  of  God,  the  worshipper  passes  to 
the  wants  of  God's  family.  The  connection  is  this :  "  And 
that  we  may  be  able  ourselves  to  take  part  in  the  divine  work 
for  whose  advancement  we  pray,  Give  us,  Forgive  us,"  etc. — In 
order  to  serve  God,  it  is  first  of  all  necessary  that  we  live. 
The  Fathers  in  general  understood  the  word  bread  in  a  spiritual 
sense :  the  bread  of  life  (John  vi.)  ;  but  the  literal  sense 
seems  to  us  clearly  to  flow  from  the  very  general  nature  of 
this  prayer,  which  demands  at  least  one  petition  relating  to 
the  support  of  our  present  life.  Jesus,  who  with  His  apostles 
lived  upon  the  daily  gifts  of  His  Father,  understood  by  ex- 
perience, better  perhaps  than  many  theologians,  the  need 
which  His  disciples  would  have  of  such  a  prayer.  No  poor 
man  will  hesitate  about  the  sense  which  is  to  be  given  to  this 
petition. — The  word  eiriovaio^  is  unknown  either  in  profane 


CHAP.  XI.  3.  51 

or  sacred  Greek.     It  appears,  says  Origen,  to  have  been  in- 
vented by  the  evangelists.     It  may  be  taken  as  derived  from 
€TT€ifii,  to  be  imminent,  whence  the  participle  rj  incovaa  (r/fiepa), 
the  coining  day  (Pro v.  xxvii.   1 ;  Acts  vii.   26,  ct  al).     We 
must  then  translate :  u  Give  us  day  by  day  next  days  bread." 
This  was  certainly  the  meaning  given  to  the  petition  by  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  where  this  was  rendered,  according  to 
Jerome,  by  -mo  urb,  to-morrow's  bread.    Founding  on  the  same 
grammatical   meaning   of  iirtovaio*;,  Athanasius   explains  it: 
*  The  bread  of  the  world  to  come."     But  those  two  meanings, 
and  especially  the  second,  are  pure  refinements.     The  first  is 
not  in  keeping  with  Matt.  vi.   34  :    "  Take  no  thought  for 
the  morrow ;  for  the  morroiv  shall  take  thought  for  tJic  things  of 
itself."     Comp.  Ex.  xvi.  19  et  seq.     It  is  therefore  better  to 
regard   einovato<;   as   a   compound   of  the  substantive   ovala, 
,'cc,  existence,  goods.     No  doubt  eiri  ordinarily  loses  its  i 
when  it  is  compounded  with  a  word  beginning  with  a  vowel. 
there  are  numerous  exceptions  to  the  rule.     Thus  JmeMnfa 
tiriovpo*;  (Homer),  iiriopiteiv,  eV^er???  (Polybius).     And  in  t In- 
case before  us,  there  is  a  reason  for  the  irregularity  in  the 
tacit  contrast  which  exists  between  the  word  and  the  analogous 
compound    irepiovaios,    superfluous.      "  Give   us   day  by  day 
id  sufficient  for  our  existence,  not  what  is  superfluous."     Tin- 
ression,  thus  understood,  exactly  corresponds  to  that  of 
verbs   (xxx.   8),  >pn  orb,  food  convenient  for  me,  literally, 
id  of  my  allowance,  in  which  the  term  pn,  statutum,  is 
itly  opposed  to  the  superfluity,  izepioxxnov ,  which  is  seer- 
desired  by  the  human  heart ;  and  it  is  this  biblical  expression 
of  which  Jesus  probably  made  use  in  Aramaic,  and  \\hi< h 
should  oem  to  explain  that  of  cur  passage.     It  has  been 
inferred,  from  the  remarkable   fact  that  the  two  evangelists 
employ  one  and  the  same  Greek  expression,  otherwise  alto- 
tliat  one  of  tin-  evangelists  was  dependent  on 
the  other,  or  that  both  were  dependent  on  a  common  Greek 
document.       EM  the  very  important  differences   which  we 
observe  in   Luke  and  Matthew,  between  the  two  editions  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  contain  one  of  the  most  decisive  refutations 
'theses.      What  writer  would    fa  ive  taken  tin- 
liberty  wilfully  and  arbitrarily  to  introduce  such  modifications 
into   the    text    of   a   formulary    beginning    with    the    words: 


52  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE, 

■  When  ye  pray,  say  .  .  ."  ?  The  differences  here,  still  more 
than  anywhere  else,  must  be  involuntary.  It  must  therefore 
be  admitted  that  this  Greek  term  common  to  both  was  chosen 
to  translate  the  Aramaic  expression,  at  the  time  when  the 
primitive  oral  tradition  was  reproduced  in  Greek  for  the 
numerous  Jews  speaking  that  language  who  dwelt  in  Jeru- 
salem and  Palestine  (Acts  vi.  1  et  seq.).  This  translation, 
once  fixed  in  the  oral  tradition,  passed  thence  into  our 
Gospels. 

Instead  of  day  by  day,  Matthew  says  atffjLepov,  this  day. 
Luke's  expression,  from  its  very  generality,  does  not  answer 
so  well  to  the  character  of  real  and  present  supplication. 
Matthew's  form  is  therefore  to  be  preferred.  Besides,  Luke 
employs  the  present  BIBov,  which,  in  connection  with  the 
expression  day  by  day,  must  designate  the  permanent  act: 
"  Give  us  constantly  each  days  bread."  The  aor.  So?,  in 
Matthew,  in  connection  with  the  word  this  clay,  designates 
the  one  single  and  momentary  act,  which  is  preferable. — 
What  a  reduction  of  human  requirements  to  their  minimum, 
in  the  two  respects  of  quality  (bread)  and  of  quantity  (suffi- 
cient for  each  day) ! 

Ver.  4.  The  deepest  feeling  of  man,  after  that  of  his  de- 
pendence for  his  very  existence,  is  that  of  his  guiltiness ;  and 
the  first  condition  to  enable  him  to  act  in  the  way  which  is 
indicated  by  the  first  petition,  is  his  being  relieved  of  this 
burden  by  pardon.  For  it  is  on  pardon  that  the  union  of 
the  soul  with  God  rests.  Instead  of  the  word  sins,  Matthew 
in  the  first  clause  uses  debts.  Every  neglect  of  duty  to  God 
really  constitutes  a  debt  requiring  to  be  discharged  by  a 
penalty.  —  In  the  second  proposition  Luke  says :  For  toe 
ourselves  cdso  (avroi)  ;  Matthew :  as  ive  also  .  .  .  The  idea 
of  an  imprecation  on  ourselves,  in  the  event  of  our  refusing 
pardon  to  him  who  has  offended  us,  might  perhaps  be  found 
in  the  form  of  Matthew,  but  not  in  that  of  Luke.  The  latter 
does  not  even  include  the  notion  of  a  condition;  it  simply 
expresses  a  motive  derived  from  the  manner  in  which  we 
ourselves  act  in  our  humble  sphere.  This  motive  must  un- 
doubtedly be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as  that  of  ver.  1 3  : 
"  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  hoiv  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children  .  .  ."     *  All  evil  as  we  are,  we  yet  ourselves  use  the 


en  a  p.  xi.  4.  53 

right  of  grace  which  belongs  to  us,  by  remitting  debts  to  those 
who  are  our  debtors ;  how  much  more  wilt  not  Thou,  Father, 
who  art  goodness  itself,  use  Thy  right  toward  us  ! "  And  this 
is  probably  also  the  sense  in  which  we  should  understand  the 
as  also  of  Matthew.  The  only  difference  is,  that  what  Luke 
alleges  as  a  motive  (for  also),  Matthew  states  as  a  point  of 
comparison  (as  also). 

Luke's  very  absolute  expression,  We  forgive  every  one  that 
is  indebted  to  its,  supposes  the  believer  to  be  now  living  in 
that  sphere  of  charity  which  Jesus  came  to  create  on  the 
earth,  and  the  principle  of  which  was  laid  down  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  The  term  used  by  Jesus  might  be  applied 
solely  to  material  debts :  "  Forgive  us  our  sins,  for  we  also 
in  our  earthly  relations  relax  our  rights  toward  our  indigent 
debtors  "  So  we  might  explain  Luke's  use  of  the  word  sins 
in  the  first  clause,  and  of  the  term  ofclXoim,  debtor,  in  the 
second.  This  delicate  shade  would  be  lost  in  Matthew's 
form.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  by  the  words,  every  one 
that  is  indebted  to  us,  in  Luke,  we  are  to  understand  not  only 
debtors  strictly  so  called,  but  every  one  who  has  offended  us. 
The  7ravrl  is   explained   perhaps   more   easily   in   this  wide 

N  of  6<f>€i\ovri. — This  petition,  which  supposes  the  Christian 

ays  penetrated  to  the  last  (day  by  day,  ver.  3)  by  the 
conviction  of  his  sins,  has  brought  down  on  the  Lord's  Prayer 
the  dislike  of  the    Plymouth   Brethren,  who  regard  it  as  a 

ver  provided  rather  for  a  Jewish  than  a  Christian  state. 

*   comp.  1  John  i.  9,  which  certainly  applies  to  believers: 

confess  .  .  ." — The   absence   of  all    allusion  to  the 

sacrifice  of  Jesus   Christ  for  the   pardon   of  sins  is  a  very 

proof  of  the  entile  authenticity  of  this  formula,  both 

1  Matthew.      If  Luke  in  particular  had  put  into  it 

ihing  of  his  own,  even   the  least,  would  not  some  expres- 
sion borrowed  from  the  theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
ly  slipped  from  his  pen  ? 
bh  the  feeling  of  his  past  trespasses  there  succeeds  in 
mind  oi  n  thai  "f  bis  weakness,  and  the  fear 

of  offending  in  the  future.  He  therefore  passes  naturally 
from   sins    to    be   forgiven   to    sin    t<»   be   avoided     Fox 

loughly  apprehends  t:  .lieatinn  is  the  supers' 

to  be  raised  on  the  Gpmndatkm  of  pardon.     Tin 


54  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

takes  two  meanings  in  Scripture — to  put  a  free  being  in 
the  position  of  deciding  for  himself  between  good  and  evil, 
obedience  and  rebellion ;  it  is  in  this  sense  that  God  tempts : 
"  God  did  tempt  Abraham "  (Gen.  xxii.  1) ;  or,  to  impel  in- 
wardly to  evil,  to  make  sin  appear  in  a  light  so  seducing,  that 
the  frail  and  deceived  being  ends  by  yielding  to  it ;  thus  it  is 
that  Satan  tempts,  and  that,  according  to  Jas.  i.  13,  God 
cannot  tempt.  "What  renders  it  difficult  to  understand  this 
last  petition  is,  that  neither  of  the  two  senses  of  the  word 
tempt  appears  suitable  here.  If  we  adopt  the  good  sense,  how 
are  we  to  ask  God  to  spare  us  experiences  which  may  be 
necessary  for  the  development  of  our  moral  being,  and  for  the 
manifestation  of  His  glorious  power  in  us  (Jas.  i.  3)  ?  If  we 
accept  the  bad  sense,  is  it  not  to  calumniate  God,  to  ask  Him 
not  to  do  towards  us  an  act  decidedly  wicked,  diabolical  in 
itself  ?  The  solution  of  this  problem  depends  on  our  settling 
the  question  who  is  the  author  of  the  temptations  antici- 
pated. Now  the  second  part  of  the  prayer  in  Matthew, 
But  deliver  us  from  the  evil,  leaves  no  doubt  on  this  point. 
The  author  of  the  temptations  to  which  this  petition  relates 
is  not  God,  but  Satan.  The  phrase  pvaai  airo,  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  lays  his  snares  in  the  way  of  the  faithful. 
These,  conscious  of  the  danger  which  they  run,  as  well  as  of 
their  ignorance  and  weakness,  pray  God  to  preserve  them 
from  the  snares  of  the  adversary.  The  word  elafyepeiv  has 
been  rendered,  to  expose  to,  or,  to  abandon  to ;  but  these 
translations  do  not  convey  the  force  of  the  Greek  term,  to 
impel  into,  to  deliver  over  to.  God  certainly  does  not  impel 
to  evil ;  but  it  is  enough  for  Him  to  withdraw  His  hand  that 
we  may  find  ourselves  given  over  to  the  power  of  the  enemy. 
It  is  the  irapahihovai,  giving  up,  of  which  Paul  speaks  (Eom. 
i.  24,  26-28),  and  by  which  is  manifested  His  wrath  against 
the  Gentiles.  Thus  He  punishes  sin,  that  of  pride  in  par- 
ticular, by  the  most  severe  of  chastisements,  even  sin  itself 
All  that  God  needs  thereto  is  not  to  act,  no  more  to  guard  us ; 
and  man,  given  over  to  himself,  falls  into  the  power  of  the 
enemy  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  comp.  with  1  Chron.  xxi.  1).  Such 
is  the  profound  conviction  of  the  believer ;  hence  his  prayer, 


CHAP.  XI.  4.  55 

*  Let  me  do  nothing  this  day  which  would  force  Thee  for  a 
single  moment  to  withdraw  Thy  hand,  and  to  give  me  over  to 
one  of  the  snares  which  the  evil  one  will  plant  in  my  way. 
Keep  me  in  the  sphere  where  Thy  holy  will  reigns,  and  where 
the  evil  one  has  no  access."1 — The  second  clause,  hit  dc! 
us  .  .  .,  is,  in  Luke,  an  interpolation  derived  from  Matthew. 
Without  this  termination  the  prayer  is  not  really  closed  as  it 
ought  to  be.  Here  again,  therefore,  Matthew  is  more  com- 
plete than  Luke. — The  doxology,  with  which  we  close  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  is  not  found  in  any  MS.  of  Luke,  and  is  wanting 
in  the  oldest  copies  of  Matthew.  It  is  an  appendix  due  to 
the  liturgical  use  of  this  formulary,  and  which  has  been  added 
in  the  text  of  the  first  Gospel,  the  most  commonly  used  in 
public  reading. 

The  Lord's  Prayer,  especially  in  the  form  given  by  Matthew, 
presents  to  us  a  complete  whole,  composed  of  two  ascending  and 
to  some  extent  parallel  series. — We  think  that  we  have  established 
— Is/.  That  it  is  Luke  who  has  preserved  to  us  most  faithfully  the 
tion  id  which  this  model  prayer  was  taught,  but  that  it  is 
Matthew  who  h.i  'I  the  terms  of  it  most  fully  and  exactly, 

re  is  no  contradiction,  whatever  M.  Gesa  may  think,  betwi 

•  •results.     %£.  That  tl.  an  neither  be  derived 

one  from  the  other,  nor  both  of  them  from  a  common  document. 

Blcek  himself  is  forced  here  to  admit  a  separate  source  for  each 

How,  indeed,  with  such  a  document,  is  it  possible 
imau  omissions  in  which  Luke  must  have  indole 

Iditions  which   Matthew  must    haw  allowed   him- 
self?     Holtzniann  thinks  that  Matthew  amplified  the  formulary  of 
reduced  by  Luke,  with  the  view  of  raising  the  Dumber 
•  ns  to  the  (sacred)  number  of  seven.     But  (a)  the  division 
into  seven  petitions  is  a  fiction ;  it  corresponds  neither  with  the 
of  the  tWO  parts  of  the  prayer,  each  eomp<»-<d  of 
ring  of  the  last  petition,  which, 
contrary  to  all  reason,  would  require  to  bo  divided  into  two.     (6) 
ts  peculiar  to  Matthew  ha\  I    internal   probability, 

as  been  concluded  from  those  differences  that  this  formulary 
was  not  yet  in  use  in  the  worship  of  the  primitive  Church.  If  this 
argu  re  valid,  it  would  apply  also  to  the  formula  instital 

the  holy  Supper,  which  is  untenable.     Tin-  formula  of  the  L 
Prayer  was  preser  ke  all  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  history, 

by  means  of  oral  tradition  ;  it  thus  remained  exposed  to  secomi 

l  is  what  a  pious  man  used  to  express  in  the  followin  B  which 

lie  paraphrased  thi*  petition  :  "  If  the  occ ■  riing  presents  itself,  grani 

that  the  desire  may  not  be  found  ill  M  desire  is  there,  gran: 

oecani 


56  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

modifications,  and  these  passed  quite  simply  into  the  first  written 
digests,  from  which  our  synoptical  writers  have  drawn. 

2d.  Vers.  5-13.  The  Efficacy  of  Prayer. — After  having 
declared  to  His  own  the  essential  objects  to  be  prayed  for, 
Jesus  encourages  them  thus  to  pray  by  assuring  them  of  the 
efficacy  of  the  act.  He  proves  this  (1)  by  an  example,  that 
of  the  indiscreet  friend  (vers.  5-8) ;  (2)  by  common  experi- 
ence (vers.  9  and  10) ;  (3)  by  the  fatherly  goodness  of  God 
(vers.  11-13). 

Vers.  5-8.1  This  parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  Holtzmann 
says  :  "  Taken  from  A?  But  why  in  that  case  has  Matthew 
omitted  it,  he  who  reproduces  from  A  both  the  preceding  and 
following  verses  (vii.  7-11)? — The  form  of  expression  is 
broken  after  ver.  7.  It  is  as  if  the  importuned  friend  were 
reflecting  what  he  should  do.  His  friendship  hesitates.  But 
a  circumstance  decides  him  :  the  perseverance,  carried  even  to 
shamelessness  (avcuSeta),  of  his  friend  who  does  not  desist  from 
crying  and  knocking.  The  construction  of  ver.  7  does  not 
Harmonize  with  that  with  which  the  parable  had  opened  (ver. 
5).  There  were  two  ways  of  expressing  the  thought :  either 
to  say,  "  WJiich  of  you  shall  have  a  friend,  and  shall  say  to 
him  .  .  .  and  [if]  the  latter  shall  answer  .  .  .  [will  not  persist 
until]  .  .  . ; "  or  to  say,  "  If  one  of  you  hath  a  friend,  and 
sayeth  to  him  .  .  .  and  he  answer  him  .  .  .  [nevertheless]  I 
say  unto  you  ..."  Jesus  begins  with  the  first  form,  which 
takes  each  hearer  more  directly  aside,  and  continues  (ver.  7) 
with  the  second,  which  better  suits  so  lengthened  a  statement. 
The  reading  elirrj  may  be  explained  by  the  elirr)  which  follows 
ver.  7,  as  the  reading  ipel  by  the  Futures  which  precede. 
The  first  has  more  authorities  in  its  favour.  The  figure  of 
the  three  loaves  should  not  be  interpreted  allegorically  ;  the 
meaning  of  it  should  follow  from  the  picture  taken  as  a  whole. 
One  of  the  loaves  is  for  the  traveller ;  the  second  for  the  host, 
who  must  seat  himself  at  table  with  him ;  the  third  will  be 
their  reserve.  The  idea  of  full  sufficiency  (Screw  XPV&1)  ** 
the  real  application  to  be  made  of  this  detail 

1  Ver.  5.  A.  D.  K.  M.  P.  R.  n.  several  Mnn.  ItPJe"iue  ;  ifu  instead  of  £<«•»?.— 
Yer.  6.  14  Mjj.  100  Mnn.  Syr**,  omit  pov,  which  is  read  by  the  T.  R.  with 
«.  A.  B.  L.  X.  most  of  the  Mnn.  Syrcar.  It.— Ver.  8.  The  Mss.  are  divided  be- 
tween a<ruv  (Alex.)  and  o<rt>v  (Byz.). 


CIIAT.  XI.  9-13.  57 

Vers.  9  and  10.1  "And  I  say  imto  you,  Ask,  and  it  shall  be 
given  you;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find;  knock,  and  it  shall  he 
opened  v.nto  you.  10.  For  every  one  tliat  asketh  reccivclh ;  and 
lie  that  scekcth  findcth ;  and  to  him  that  knockcth  it  shall  be 
opened."  Yer.  9  formally  expresses  the  application  of  the 
preceding  example ;  all  the  figures  appear  to  be  borrowed 
from  that  example.  That  is  evident  in  the  case  of  knocking. 
The  word  ask  probably  alludes  to  the  cries  of  the  friend  in 
distress,  and  the  word  seek  to  his  efforts  to  find  the  door  in 
the  night,  or  in  endeavouring  to  open  it.  The  gradation  of  those 
figures  includes  the  idea  of  increasing  energy  in  the  face  of 
multiplying  obstacles. — A  precept  this  which  Jesus  had  learned 
by  His  personal  experience  (iii.  21,  22). 

10  confirms  the  exhortation  of  ver.  9  by  daily  ex- 
perience. The  Future,  it  shall  be  opened,  which  contrasts  with 
the  two  Presents,  rcccivcth,  findcth,  is  used  because  in  this  case 
it  is  not  the  same  individual  who  performs  the  two  successive 
acts,  as  in  the  former  two.  The  opening  of  the  door  depends 
on  the  will  of  another  person. — How  can  we  help  admiring 
lanation  afforded  by  Luke,  who,  by  the  connection 
which  he  establishes  between  this  precept  and  the  foregoing 
example,  so  happily  accounts  for  the  choice  of  the  figures 
used  by  our  Lord,  and  brings  into  view  their  entire  appro- 
priateness ?  In  Matthew,  on  the  contrary,  this  saying  is 
found  placed  in  the  midst  of  a  series  of  precepts,  at  the  end 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  detached  from  the  parable  which 
explains  its  figures  ;  it  produces  the  effect  of  a  petal  torn 
from  its  stalk,  and  lying  on  the  spot  where  the  wind  has  let 
it  fall.      Who  could  hesitate  between  the  two  narratives  ? 

Vers.  11-13.2  "  If  a  son  sliall  ask  bread  of  any  of  yov 
is  a  father,  will  he  give  him  a  stone  ?  or  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will 
he  for  a  fish  give  him  a  serpent  ?      12.   Or  if  he  sliall  ask  an 

!"<1  lier«\  .-is  wdl  as  at  MR  10,  between  m*n%tnrirmi 

•kD(l  «»•<;  "ira,     thl  MC  IB<]   J'roluUy  t.llvUl  fl"lll   M;ittlu-w). 

L  X.  <-,  Mnn.  Vg.  Or.,  r,t  Instead  of  r,»«.  — 11  Mjj.  SO  Mnn. 
It.  Vg.  read  if  before  spew.— Or.  Kj.ij.h.  omit  *  before  vi*f.     N.  L.  1   Mn.  lt,n,. 
..mit  •  MM*— All  l>eforc  ««<,  u  instead  of  w,  which  the  T.  1: 

reads,  with  sole  —  V.  r.  18,  pt,  1;    \..  some  Mnn.,  *  mm  inatcn.l  pf 

*  «««  •«».  I.il  Mlill.,  <»n(  Instead  Of  MflMgeMTS* 

— C.  U.  several  Mnn  -r«r^.  — N    !  H*"****,  omit  • 

before  ig  •»/«»».— L.  8  Mnn.  Vg.,  ywyi  «y«/«»  instead  of  *»>*/*«  «>,#». 


58  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

egg,  will  he  offer  him  a  scorpion  ?  13.  If  ye  then,  Icing  evil, 
knoiv  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how  much  more 
shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask 
Him  /"  Undoubtedly  it  sometimes  happens  in  human  rela- 
tions, that  the  maxim  of  ver.  1 0  does  not  hold  good.  But  in 
a  paternal  and  filial  relationship,  such  as  that  which  was  set 
before  us  by  the  model  given  at  the  beginning,  success  is 
certain.  It  is  a  Father  to  whom  the  believer  prays ;  and  when 
praying  to  Him  in  conformity  with  the  model  prescribed,  he 
is  sure  to  ask  nothing  except  those  things  which  such  a 
Father  cannot  refuse  to  His  child,  and  instead  of  which  that 
Father  would  not  give  him  other  things,  either  hurtful  or  even 
less  precious.  The  end  of  the  piece  thus  brings  us  back  to 
the  starting-point :  the  title  Father  given  to  God,  and  the 
filial  character  of  him  who  prays  the  Lord's  Prayer.  Ae,  then, 
relates  to  the  a  fortiori,  in  the  certainty  which  we  have  just 
expressed.  The  reading  of  some  Alex.,  Tt?  . . .  o  wo?  or  vlo% 
"  Wliat  son  shall  ask  of  his  father,"  would  appeal  to  the  feeling 
of  sonship  among  the  hearers  ;  the  reading  rlva ...  is  clearly 
to  be  preferred  to  it,  "  What  father  of  whom  his  son  shall 
ask,"  by  which  Jesus  appeals  to  the  heart  of  fathers  in  the 
assembly. — The  three  articles  of  food  enumerated  by  Jesus 
appear  at  first  sight  to  be  chosen  at  random.  But,  as  M. 
Bovet1  remarks,  loaves,  hard  eggs,  and  fried  fishes,  are  pre- 
cisely the  ordinary  elements  of  a  traveller's  fare  in  the  East. 
Matthew  omits  the  third ;  Luke  has  certainly  not  added  it  at 
his  own  hand.  The  correspondence  between  bread  and  stone, 
fish  and  serpent,  egg  and  scorpion,  appears  at  a  glance.  In 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  all  is  picturesque,  full  of  appropriate- 
ness, exquisite  even  to  the  minutest  details. — ' ' EttlSlSovcu,  to 
transfer  from  hand  to  hand.  This  word,  which  is  not  repeated 
in  ver.  13,  includes  this  thought :  "  What  father  will  have  the 
courage  to  put  into  the  hand  .  .  .  ?  " 

The  conclusion,  ver.  13,  is  drawn  by  a  new  argument  a 
fortiori  ;  and  the  reasoning  is  still  further  strengthened  by  the 
words,  ye  heing  evil.  The  reading  virdp^ovre^,  "finding  your- 
selves evil,"  seems  more  in  harmony  with  the  context  than 
ovt6$,  heing  (which  is  taken  from  Matthew,  where  the  readings 
do  not  vary),  ^Tirdp^iv  denotes  the  actual  state  as  the 
1  See  the  charming  passage,  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,  p.  362,  Cth  ed. 


chap.  xi.  u-zn.  59 

starting-point  for  the  supposed  activity. — Bengel  justly  ob- 
serves :  Illustrc  testimonium  de  peccato  originali. — The  reading 
of  the  Alex.,  which  omits  o  before  e'f  ovpavov,  would  admit  of 
the  translation,  will  give  from  heaven.  But  there  is  no  reason 
in  the  context  which  could  have  led  Luke  to  put  this  con- 
struction so  prominently.  From  heaven  thus  depends  on  the 
word  Father,  and  the  untranslateable  Greek  form  can  only  be 
explained  by  introducing  the  verbal  notion  of  giving  between 
the  substantive  and  its  government :  "  The  Father  who  giveth 
from  heaven." — Instead  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Matthew  says, 
good  things ;  and  De  \Vette  accuses  Luke  of  having  corrected 
him  in  a  spiritualizing  sense.  He  would  thus  have  done  here 
exactly  the  opposite  of  that  which  has  been  imputed  to  him 
in  respect  to  vi.  20  !  Have  we  not  then  a  complete  proof 
that  Luke  took  this  whole  piece  from  a  source  peculiar  to 
himself  ?  As  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  two  expressions, 
that  of  Matthew  is  simple  and  less  didactic;  that  of  Luke 
harmonizes  better  perhaps  with  the  elevated  sphere  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  which  is  the  starting-point  of  the  piece.  The 
use  of  the  simple  Bwaet,  (instead  of  eirihcoaei,  vet,  12)  ar: 
from  the  fact  that  the  idea  does  not  recur  of  giving  from  hand 
to  hand. 

We  regard  this  piece  as  one  of  those  in  which  the  originality  and 
excellence  of  Luke's  sources  appear  in  their  full  Hght,  although  ire 
con-  ion  of  Matthew  indispensable  to  restore  the 

words  of  our  Lord  in  their  entirety. 

7.   TJir  Blasphemy  of  the  Pharisees:  xi.  14-36. — We  ha  v. 
already  observed  (see  on  vi.  11)  how  remarkably  coincident 
in  time  are  the  accusations   called  forth  in  Cialilee  by  tlir 
lings  on  the  Sabbath,  and  those  which  are  raised  about 
same  period  at  Jerusalem  by  the  healing  of  the  impotent 
v.).     There  is  a  similar  correspondence  between 
yet  graver  accusation  of  complicity  with  BeeLnbttb 
against  Jesus  on  the  occasion  of  His  healing  denmiaee, end 
charge  brought  against  Him  at  Jerusalem  at  the  foftstfl  of 
Tabernacles  and  of  the  Dedication*  "  Tliou  art  a  Sa„ 
and  hast  a  dev<  \)  ;  "  11  /    '/  <l  is 

mad!"  (x.   20).     Matthew  i.)  and   M  rk   [ohtp,  iii.) 

e  this  accusation  and  the  resoi  mui  r,  in 

the  first  part  of  I  ministry.      The  accusation   H 


60  THE  GOSrEL  OF  LUKE. 

and  must  Lave  often  been  repeated.  The  comparison  of  John 
would  tell  in  favour  of  Luke's  narrative.  Two  sayings  which 
proceeded  from  the  crowd  give  rise  to  the  following  discourse : 
the  accusation  of  complicity  with  Beelzebub  (ver.  15),  and 
the  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (ver.  16).  It  might 
seem  at  first  sight  that  these  are  two  sayings  simply  placed 
in  juxtaposition;  but  it  is  not  so.  The  second  is  intended 
to  offer  Jesus  the  means  of  clearing  Himself  of  the  terrible 
charge  involved  in  the  first :  "  Work  a  miracle  in  the  heavens, 
that  sphere  which  is  exclusively  divine,  and  we  shall  then 
acknowledge  that  it  is  God  who  acts  through  thee,  and  not 
Satan."  This  demand  in  appearance  proceeds  from  a  dis- 
position favourable  to  Jesus ;  but  as  those  who  address  Him 
reckon  on  His  powerlessness  to  meet  the  demand,  the  result 
of  the  test,  in  their  view,  will  be  a  condemnation  without 
appeal.  Those  last  are  therefore  in  reality  the  worst  inten- 
tioned,  and  it  is  in  that  light  that  Luke's  text  represents 
them.  Matthew  isolates  the  two  questions,  and  simply  puts 
in  juxtaposition  the  two  discourses  which  reply  to  them 
(xii.  22  et  seq.,  38  et  seq.) ;  thus  the  significant  connection 
which  we  have  just  indicated  disappears.  It  is  difficult  to 
understand  how  Holtzmann  and  other  moderns  can  see  nothing 
in  this  relation  established  by  Luke,  but  a  specimen  of  his 
"  [arbitrary]  manner  of  joining  together  pieces  which  were 
detached  in  the  Logia  (A)" 

This  piece  includes :  1st.  A  statement  of  the  facts  which 
gave  rise  to  the  two  following  discourses  (vers.  1 4-1 6) ; 
2d.  The  first  discourse  in  reply  to  the  accusation  of  ver.  15 
(vers.  17-26);  3d.  An  episode  showing  the  deep  impression 
produced  on  the  people  by  this  discourse  (vers.  27  and  28); 
4th.  The  second  discourse  in  reply  to  the  challenge  thrown 
out  to  Jesus,  ver.  16  (vers.  29-36). 

1st.  Vers.  14-1 6. ? — *HV  eicftuXkodv,  Tie  was  occupied  in 
easting  out.  The  word  tcoocfros,  dull,  may  mean  deaf  or  dumb; 
according  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  it  here  denotes  dumbness. 
On   the  expression   dumh  devil,  see  vol.   i.  p.  434.      Bleek 

1  Ver.  14.  K«<  avro  -At  is  wanting  in  N.  B.  L.  7  Mnn.  S3rrcur. — A.  C.  L.  X. 
6  Mnn.,  iKfcXrJ-vros  instead  of  i\i\6o*ro;.  D.  Ita'iq.  present  this  verse  under  a 
somewhat  different  form. — Ver.  15.  A.  D.  K.  M.  X.  n.  40  Mnn.  read  here  a 
long  appendix  taken  from  Mark  iii.  23. 


CHAP.  XI.  14-16.  CI 

justly  concludes  from  this  term,  that  the  dumbness  was  of  a 
psychical,  not  an  organic  nature. — The  construction  iyiveTo  .  .  . 
i\d\T](T€i>  betrays  an  Aramaic  source.  The  accusation,  vcr.  l.'>, 
is  twice  mentioned  by  Matthew:  ix.  32,  on  the  occasion  of 
a  deaf  man  possessed,  but  without  Jesus  replying  to  it ;  then 
xii.  22,  which  is  the  parallel  passage  to  ours;  here  the 
possessed  man  is  dumb  and  blind.  Should  not  those  two 
miracles  be  regarded  as  only  one  and  the  same  fact,  the 
account  of  which  was  taken  first  (Matt,  ix.)  from  the  Logic, 
second  (Matt,  xii.)  from  the  proto-Mark,  as  Holtzmann  appears 
to  think,  therein  following  his  system  to  its  natural  con- 
sequences ?  But  in  that  case  we  should  have  the  result,  that 
the  Logia,  the  collection  of  discourses,  contained  the  fact 
without  the  discourse,  and  that  the  proto-Mark,  the  strictly 
historical  writing,  contained  the  discourse  without  the  fact, — 
a  strange  anomaly,  it  must  be  confessed  !  In  Mark  iii.  this 
accusation  is  connected  with  the  step  of  the  brethren  of 
Jesus  who  come  to  lay  hold  of  Him,  because  they  have  lu  aid 
say  that  He  is  beside  Himself,  that  He  is  mad  (iii.  21,  ore 
i^earrj).  This  expression  is  nearly  synonymous  with  that  of 
possessed  (John  x.  20).  According  to  this  accusation,  it  was 
thus  as  one  Himself  possessed  by  the  prince  of  the  devils  that 
Jesus  had  the  power  of  expelling  inferior  devils.  From  this 
point  of  view,  the  iv,  through,  before  the  name  Beelzebub, 
has  a  more  forcible  sense  than  appears  at  the  first  glance. 
It  signifies  not  only  by  the  authority  of,  but  by  Beelzebub 

If  dwelling  personally  in  Jesus. — This  name  given  to 
Satan  appears  in  all  the  documents  of  Luke,  and  in  almost 
all  those  of  Matthew,  with  the  termination  hU;   and  this  is 

idy  the  true  reading.      It  is  probable,  however,  that  the 
is  derived  from  the  Heb.  Baal-Zcbub,  God  of  Flics,  a 

:  v  who,  aooordisg  tO   2  Kings  i.  et  wq.|  was  woi>hij.]>ed 

ion,  a  city  of  the  Philistines,  and  who  may  D6  00811] 
with  the  Zeik  ' Airo^vlo^  of  the  Uree!  tan  of  this 

god  was  doubtless  intended  to  the  country  from  the 

scourge  of  flies.  In  contempt,  the  .!<  mt  applied  this  Dame  to 
Satan,  while  modifying  its  last   lyUablfl   so  as  to  mal 

v  Ood  of  Dung  {Baol-Zcfod).  Sueh  bl  tli.  explanation 
given  by  Lightfoot,  Wetst  >  k,  eto. — Those  who  raise 

this  accusation  are,  in  Luke,  some  of  the  numerous  persons 


62  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

present;  in  Matthew  (ix.  34,  xii.  24),  the  Pharisees;  in  Mark 
(iii.  22),  scribes  which  came  down  from  Jerusalem.  This  last 
indication  by  Mark  would  harmonize  with  the  synchronism 
which  we  have  established  in  regard  to  this  accusation  be- 
tween Luke  and  John. 

The  demand  for  a  sign  from  heaven  (ver.  16)  is  mentioned 
twice  in  Matt.  xii.  38  and  xvi.  1.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
it  may  have  been  repeated  again  and  again  (comp.  John  vi.  30). 
It  corresponded  with  the  ruling  tendency  of  the  Israelitish 
mind,  the  seeking  for  miracles,  the  crrj/jLela  alrecv  (1  Cor.  i.  22). 
We  have  already  explained  its  bearing  in  the  present  case. 
In  John  it  signifies  more  particularly,  "  Show  thyself  superior 
to  Moses."  In  those  different  forms  it  was  ever  the  repetition 
of  the  third  temptation  (ireLpd^ovre^,  tempting  Him).  How, 
indeed,  could  Jesus  avoid  being  tempted  to  accept  this  chal- 
lenge, and  so  to  confound  by  an  act  of  signal  power  the 
treacherous  accusation  which  He  found  raised  against  Him ! 

2d.  The  First  Discourse :  vers.  17-26. — It  is  divided  into 
two  parts :  Jesus  refutes  this  blasphemous  explanation  of  His 
cures  (vers.  17-19);  He  gives  their  true  explanation  (veps. 
20-26). 

Vers.  17-19. — "But  He,  knowing  their  thoughts,  said  unto 
them :  Every  kingdom  divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  deso- 
lation ;  and  one  house  falls  upon  another.  18.  If  Satan  also 
be  divided  against  himself,  how  shall  his  kingdom  stand  ?  because 
ye  say  that  I  cast  out  devils  through  Beelzebub.  1 9.  And  if  I 
by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them 
out?  therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges" — In  vers.  17  and 
1 8  Jesus  appeals  to  the  common  sense  of  His  hearers ;  it  is 
far  from  natural  to  suppose  that  the  devil  would  fight  against 
himself.  It  is  true,  it  might  be  rejoined  that  Satan  drove 
out  his  underlings,  the  better  to  accredit  Him  as  his  Messiah. 
Jesus  does  not  seem  to  have  referred  to  this  objection.  In 
any  case,  the  sequel  would  answer  it ;  the  devil  can  remove 
the  diabolical  spirit,  but  not  replace  it  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Aiavorifiara,  their  thoughts,  denotes  the  wicked  source  con- 
cealed behind  such  words  (vers.  15  and  16).  The  words, 
"  And  one  house  falls  upon  another"  appear  to  be  in  Luke  the 
development  of  the  ipvfiovrac,  is  brought  to  desolation:  the 
ruin    of  families,  as    a    consequence    of   civil  discord.      In 


CHAP.  xi.  n-19.  G3 

Matthew  and  Mark  they  evidently  include  a  new  example, 
parallel  to  the  preceding  one.  This  sense  is  also  admissible 
in  Luke,  if  we  make  the  object  iirl  oltcov  depend,  not  on 
irumet,    but    on    Btaiiepicrdeis  .   .  .  :    *  And    likewise    a   house 

\>led  against  a  house  falls." — The  el  Bk  icat,  ver.  18,  here 
signifies,  and  entirely  so  if  .  .  .  In  the  appendix,  because  ye 
say,  there  is  revealed  a  deep  feeling  of  indignation.  This 
emphatic  form  recalls  that  of  Mark  (iii.  30):  "  Because  the// 
said,  He  hath  an  unclean  spirit."  The  two  analogous  terms 
of  expression  had  become  fixed  in  the  tradition  (comp.ver.24 
and  parall. ;  see  also  on  xiii.  18) ;  but  their  form  is  sufficiently 
different  to  prove  that  the  one  evangelist  did  not  copy  from 
the  other. 

By  this  first  reply  Jesus  has  simply  enlisted  common  sense 
on  His  side.  He  now  thrusts  deeper  the  keen  edge  of  His 
logic,  ver.  19.  If  the  accusation  raised  against  Him  is  well- 
founded.  His  adversaries  must  impute  to  many  of  the  sons  of 

tel  the  same  compact  with  Satan.  We  know  from  the 
K  T.  and  Josephus,  that  there  were  at  that  time  numerous 
Jewish  exorcists  who  made  a  business  of  driving  out  devils 
for  money   (Acts  xix.    13:    "Certain  of  rbond  t/ 

ttttrfl  .  .  ."  Comp.  Josephus,  Antiq.  viii.  2.  5  l).  The 
Talmud  also  speaks  of  those  exo:  lio  took  David,  heal- 

ing Saul  by  his  songs,  as  their  patron,  and  S< .lumen  as  the 
inventor  of  their  incantations :  M  Tliey  take  roots,  fumigate 
the  patient,  administer  to  him  a  decoction,  ami  the  spirit 
vanishes"  (Tauch.  f.  70,  1).      Such  are  the  persons  whom 

1  "  I  have  seen  one  of  my  countrymen,  named  Klcozar,  who  in  the  pusem  « 
of  Vespasian  and  his  sons,  captains  and  red  persons  possessed 

cure  was  this  ;   I  lose  to  the  nostrils  of 

|  ossessed  man  his  ring,  under  the  bezel  of  which  there  was  enclosed  one  of 

I  >ots  prescri'i  I  >mon,  he  made  him  smell  it,  and  thus  gradually  he 

drew  out  the  demon  through  the  nostrils.     Ti  i  fell  on  the  ground. 

and  the  exorcist  command'  MB  to  return  into  him  n<»  n.  g  all 

bile  the  name  of  Solomo:  ting  tin    incantations 

posed.    Wishing  to  the  bystanders  ot  i  which  ho  exercised, 

and  to  demonstrate  i:  BetBtt  placed  I  little  way  off  a  cup  or  basin  full 

of  water,  and  commanded  the  demon  to  overturn  it  as  he  went  out  of  the  man, 
and  thereby  to  furnish  proof  to  the  spectators  that  he  had  really  quitted  1 
having  taken  place,  the  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  Solomon  were  evid 
to  all."    Comp  vii.  6.  3,  wher<  *1  root  mentioned,  a  aort 

Li  (Wy«M»),  is  called  Ran,  valley  where  it  was 

h  infinite  trouble,  near  the  fortress  of  Machcrua. 


64  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Jesus  designated  by  the  expression,  your  sons.  Several 
Fathers  have  thought  that  He  meant  His  own  apostles,  who 
also  wrought  like  cures ;  but  the  argument  would  have  had  no 
value  with  Jews,  for  they  would  not  have  hesitated  to  apply 
to  the  cures  wrought  by  the  disciples  the  explanation  with 
which  they  had  just  stigmatized  those  of  the  Master.  De 
Wette,  Meyer,  and  Neander  give  to  the  word  sons  the  meaning 
which  it  has  in  the  expression  sons  of  the  prophets,  that  of 
disciples.  But  is  it  proved  that  those  exorcists  studied  in 
the  Eabbinical  schools  ?  Is  it  not  simpler  to  explain  the 
term  your  sons  in  this  sense  :  "  Your  own  countrymen, — your 
flesh  and  blood, — whom  you  do  not  think  of  repudiating,  but 
from  whom,  on  the  contrary,  you  take  glory  when  they  perform 
works  of  power  similar  to  mine ;  they  do  not  work  signs  in 
the  heavens,  and  yet  you  do  not  suspect  their  cures.  They 
shall  confound  you  therefore  before  the  divine  tribunal,  by 
convicting  you  of  having  applied  to  me  a  judgment  which 
you  should  with  much  stronger  reason  have  applied  to  them." 
In  reality,  what  a  contrast  was  there  between  the  free  and 
open  strife  which  Jesus  maintained  with  the  malignant  spirits 
whom  He  expelled,  and  the  suspicious  manipulations  in  which 
those  exorcists  indulged !  between  the  entire  physical  and 
moral  restoration  which  His  word  brought  to  the  sick  who 
were  healed  by  Him,  and  the  half  cures,  generally  followed 
by  relapses,  which  they  wrought !  To  ascribe  the  imperfect 
cures  to  God,  and  to  refer  the  perfect  cures  to  the  devil — 
what  logic ! 

Vers.  20-26.  After  having  by  this  new  argumentum  ad 
hominem  refuted  the  supposition  of  His  adversaries,  Jesus 
gives  the  true  explanation  of  His  cures  by  contrasting  the 
picture  of  one  of  those  expulsions  which  He  works  (vers. 
20-22)  with  that  of  a  cure  performed  by  the  exorcists 
(vers.  23-26). 

Vers.  20-22. — "But  if  I  with  the  finger  of  God  cast  out 
devils,  no  doxibt  the  "kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon  you.  21.  When 
a  strong  man  armed  Icccpcth  his  palace,  his  goods  are  in  peace. 
22.  But  when  a  stronger  than  he  shall  come  upon  him  and 
overcome  him,  lie  taJceth  from  him  all  his  armour  wherein 
he  trusted,  and  divideth  his  spoils.,,  Ver.  20  draws  the  con- 
clusion (Si,  now ;  apa,  then)  from  the  preceding  arguments, 


CHAP.  XI.  21,22.  65 

and  forms  the  transition  to  the  two  following  scenes.  In 
this  declaration  there  is  betrayed  intense  indignation :  "  Let 
them  take  heed !  The  kingdom  of  God,  for  which  they  are 
waiting,  is  already  there  without  their  suspecting  it ;  and  it  is 
upon  it  that  their  blasphemies  falL  They  imagine  that  it 
will  come  with  noise  and  tumult;  and  it  has  come  more 
quickly  than  they  thought,  and  far  otherwise  it  has  reached 
them  (ecpdaaev).  The  construction  e<£'  v/xa?,  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  context :  the  arm  is  the  natural  seat  and  emblem  of 
strength ;  and  the  finger,  the  smallest  part  of  the  arm,  is  the 
symbol  of  the  ease  with  which  this  power  acts.  Jesus  means, 
"  As  for  me,  I  have  only  to  lift  my  finger  to  make  the  devils 
leave  their  prey."  These  victories,  so  easily  won,  prove  that 
henceforth  Satan  has  found  his  conqueror,  and  that  now  God 
begins  really  to  reign.  This  word,  full  of  majesty,  unveils  to 
His  adversaries  the  grandeur  of  the  work  which  is  going 
forward,  and  what  tragic  results  are  involved  in  the  hostile 
attitude  which  they  are  taking  towards  it.  Instead  of  by 
tJie  finger  of  God,  Matthew  says  by  tlw  Spirit  of  God ;  and 
Weizsacker,  always  in  favour  of  the  hypothesis  of  a  common 
document,  supposes  that  Luke  has  designedly  replaced  it  by 
another,  because  it  seemed  to  put  Jesus  in  dependence  on  the 
Holy  Spirit.  What  may  a  man  not  prove  with  such  criticism  ? 
Is  it  not  simpler,  with  Bleek,  to  regard  the  figurative  term  of 
Luke  as  the  original  form  in  the  saying  of  Jesus,  which  has 
been  replaced  by  the  abstract  but  radically  equivalent  expres- 
sion of  Matthew? — Mark  omits  the  two  verses  19  and  20. 
Why  would  he  have  done  so,  if  hi  fore  his  eyes 

the  same  document  as  the  others  ? 

Vers.  21  and  22  serve  to  illustrate  the  thought  of 
20:  the  citadel  of  Satan  (fl  plundered;  the  fart  proves  that 
Satan  is  vanquished,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  came. 
I  tong  and  well-armed  warrior  watches  at  the  gate  of  his 
fortress.  So  long  as  he  is  in  this  position  (ortiv),  all  is 
tranquil    (eV   elpqvrj)    in    his   fastness ;    his 

booty  (cicvXa)  is  secure.     The  warn 
(the  art.  o  alludes  to  a  single  and  definite  personality) ; 

VOL  II.  1 


66  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

his  castle  is  the  world,  which  up  till  now  has  been  his  con- 
firmed property.  His  armour  consists  of  those  powerful 
means  of  influence  which  he  wields.  His  booty  is,  first  of  all, 
according  to  the  context,  those  possessed  ones,  the  palpable 
monuments  of  his  sway  over  humanity ;  and  in  a  wider 
sense,  that  humanity  itself,  which  with  mirth  or  groans  bears 
the  chains  of  sin.  But  a  warrior  superior  in  strength  has 
appeared  on  the  world's  stage ;  and  from  that  moment  all  is 
changed.  yEirdv,  from  the  time  that,  denotes  the  abrupt  and 
decisive  character  of  this  succession  to  power,  in  opposition 
to  orav,  as  long  as,  which  suited  the  period  of  security.  This 
stronger  man  is  Jesus  (the  art.  6  also  alludes  to  His  definite 
personality).  He  alone  can  really  plunder  the  citadel  of  the 
prince  of  this  world.  Why  ?  Because  He  alone  began  by 
conquering  him  in  single  combat.  This  victory  in  a  personal 
engagement  was  the  preliminary  condition  of  His  taking 
possession  of  the  earth.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that,  as  Keim 
and  Weizsacker  acknowledge,  Jesus  is  here  thinking  of  the 
scene  of  His  temptation.  That  spiritual  triumph  is  the 
foundation  laid  for  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
on  the  earth,  and  for  the  destruction  of  that  of  Satan.  As 
soon  as  a  man  can  tell  the  prince  of  this  world  to  his 
face,  "  Thou  hast  nothing  in  me "  (John  xiv.  3  0),  the 
stronger  man,  the  vanquisher  of  the  strong  man,  is  come ;  and 
the  plundering  of  his  house  begins.  This  plundering  consists, 
first  of  all,  of  the  healings  of  the  possessed  wrought  by  Jesus. 
Thus  is  explained  the  ease  with  which  He  performs  those  acts 
by  which  He  rescues  those  unhappy  ones  from  malignant 
powers,  and  restores  them  to  God,  to  themselves,  and  to 
human  society.  All  the  figures  of  this  scene  are  evidently 
borrowed  from  Isa.  xlix.  24,  25,  where  Jehovah  Himself  fills 
the  part  of  liberator,  which  Jesus  here  ascribes  to  Himself. 

Vers.  2  3-2  6. *  "He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me;  and 
he  that  gathereth  not  with  me  scattereth.  24.  When  the  unclean 
spirit  is  gone  out  of  a  man,  he  walheth  through  dry  places,  seek- 

1  Ver.  24.  Kc.  B.  L.  X.  Z.  some  Mnn.  It8"*,  read  <ron  after  iupurxov.— The 
Mss.  are  divided  between  ivpitrxov  and  tvpurxm,  and  at  ver.  25  between  i\6ov  and 
»x^»».— Ver.  25.  Kc.  B.  C.  L.  R.  r.  12  Mnn.  It*11*,  read  cxoXalovra.  after 
tvpiirxu  (taken  from  Matthew). — Ver.  26.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  urixlora 
and  oJmtk. 


CHAP.  XI.  23-26. 

ing  rest ;  and  finding  none,  lie  saith,  I  wilt  return  unto   . 

house  whence  I  came  out.      25.  And  when  lie  cometh,  h 

it  swept  and  garnished.      26.   Tlien  goeth  lit,  and  taheth  to  i 

B  other  spirits  more  wicked  tlian  himself;  and  ting  i 
and  dwell  there :  and  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  tJ 
the  first y — The  relation  between  ver.  23  and  the  verses  which 
precede  and  follow  has  been  thought  so  obscure  by  De  Wette 
and  Bleek,  that  they  give  up  the  attempt  to  explain  it.      In 

If  the  figure  is  clear.     It  is  that  of  a  troop  which  has  been 
dispersed  by  a  victorious  enemy,  and  which  its  captain  seeks 
to  rally,  after  having  put  the  enemy  to  flight;  bat  false  all 
hinder  rather  than  promote  the  rallying.     Is  it  so  difficult  to 
understand  the  connection  of  tL  with  the  context*: 

The  dispersed  army  denotes  humanity,  which  Satan  has  c 

red;  the  cliief  who  rallies  it  is  Jesus;  the  seeming  allies, 
who  have  the  appearance  of  lighting  for  the  same  cause  as 
does,  but  who  in  reality  scatter  abroad  with  Satan,  are 
the    exorcists.       Not    having  conquered   for  themsel 

■■f  of  the   kingdom   of  darkness,  it  is  only  in  appear;.: 
that  they  can  drive  out  his  underlings;  ii  y  serve 

no  end  by  those  alleged  exploits,  except  to  strengthen   the 
-  state  of  thi 

:ent  master  of  the  world.     Such  is  the  object  which 
following   illustration  goes  to  prove.     By  the   ihriee -. 
cfiov,  me,  of  ver.  23,  there  is  brought  into  reli 
importance  of  the  part  which  Jem  plays  in  tl.  y  of 

humani:  Nation  of  the  kingdom  of  (i 

Mearance  is  the  advent  of  a  new   power.     The 
aKOfyjrt^eip,  se,  and   trw&yew,   to  gather 

bond  touted  in  the  same  sense  as  here,  John  i 

i  following  verses  serve  to  illustrate  i  Bg  of 

ver.  23,  as  vers.  21  and  22  illustrated  ti 
20.     They  are  a  sort  of  apologue  poetically  <i<     ribiug  a  I 
wrought  by  the  means  whioh  tin*  exorcists  employ, 

I  of  which   is  to  show,  thai    10  « 
Christ,  his  sole  conqueror,  is  to  WOtk   for  him   and  against 
God;  comp.  the  opposite  case,  ix.  49,  50.     The  exorcist  has 

d  his  art;  the  impure  spirit  has  let  go  his  prey, 
his  dwelling,  wl  the  t in.«*  has  become  intolerable 

I.      But  two  things  ling  to  the  cure  to  nial. 


68  THE  GOSFEL  OF  LUKE. 

real  and  durable.  First  of  all,  the  enemy  has  not  "been 
conquered,  bound;  he  has  only  been  expelled,  and  he  is  free 
to  take  his  course  of  the  world,  perhaps  to  return.  Jesus,  on 
the  other  hand,  sent  the  malignant  spirits  to  their  prison,  the 
abyss  whence  they  could  no  longer  come  forth  till  the  judg- 
ment (viii.  31,  iv.  34).  Then  the  house  vacated  is  not 
occupied  by  a  new  tenant,  who  can  bar  the  entrance  of  it 
against  the  old  one.  Jesus,  on  the  contrary,  does  not  content 
Himself  with  expelling  the  demon ;  He  brings  back  the  soul 
to  its  God ;  He  replaces  the  unclean  spirit  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  As  a  relapse  after  a  cure  of  this  sort  is  impossible, 
so  is  it  probable  and  imminent  in  the  former  case.  Every 
line  of  the  picture  in  which  Jesus  represents  this  state  of 
things  is  charged  with  irony.  The  spirit  driven  out  walks 
through  dry  places.  This  strange  expression  was  probably 
borrowed  from  the  formulas  of  exorcism.  The  spirit  was 
relegated  to  the  desert,  the  presumed  abode  of  evil  spirits 
(Tob.  viii.  3;  Baruch  iv.  35).  The  reference  was  the  same 
in  the  symbolical  sending  of  the  goat  into  the  wilderness  for 
Azazel,  the  prince  of  the  devils. 

But  the  malignant  spirit,  after  roaming  for  a  time,  begins 
to  regret  the  loss  of  his  old  abode ;  would  it  not  be  well,  he 
asks  himself,  to  return  to  it  ?  He  is  so  sure  that  he  needs 
only  to  will  it,  that  he  exclaims  with  sarcastic  gaiety  :  I  will 
return  unto  my  Jwuse.  At  bottom  he  knows  very  well  that 
he  has  not  ceased  to  be  the  proprietor  of  it ;  a  proprietor  is 
only  dispossessed  in  so  far  as  he  is  replaced.  First  he  deter- 
mines to  reconnoitre.  Having  come,  he  finds  that  the  house 
is  disposable  (axoXd&vTa,  Matt.).  He  finds  what  is  better 
still :  the  exorcist  has  worked  with  so  much  success,  that  the 
house  has  recovered  a  most  agreeable  air  of  propriety,  order, 
and  comfort  since  his  departure.  Far,  therefore,  from  being 
closed  against  the  malignant  spirit,  it  is  only  better  prepared 
to  receive  him.  Jesus  means  thereby  to  describe  the  restora- 
tion of  the  physical  and  mental  powers  conferred  by  the  half 
cures  which  He  is  stigmatizing.  Anew  there  is  a  famous 
work  of  destruction  to  be  accomplished — Satan  cares  for  no 
other — but  this  time  it  is  not  to  be  done  by  halves.  And 
therefore  there  is  need  for  reinforcement.  Besides,  it  is  a 
festival ;  .there  is  need  of  friends.     The  evil  spirit  goes  off  to 


CHAP.  XI.  27,  28.  69 

seek  a  number  of  companions  sufficient  to  finish  the  work 
which  had  been  interrupted.  These  do  not  require  a  second 
bidding,  and  the  merry  crew  throw  themselves  into  their 
dwelling.  This  time,  we  may  be  sure,  nothing  will  be  want- 
ing to  the  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  destruction  of  the 
possessed.  Such  was  the  state  in  which  Jesus  had  found 
the  Gergesene  demoniac  (viii.  29),  and  probably  also  Mary 
Magdalene  (viii  2).  This  explains  in  those  two  cases  the 
words  Legion  (viii.  30)  and  seven  devils  (viii.  2),  which  arc 
both  symbolical  expressions  for  a  desperate  state  resulting 
from  one  or  more  relapses. — Nothing  is  clearer  than  this 
context,  or  more  striking  than  this  scene,  in  which  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  distinguish  fully  between  what  belongs 
to  the  idea  and  what  to  the  figure.  Thus  has  Jesus  suec<  ! 
in  retorting  upon  the  exorcists,  so  highly  extolled  by  His 
adversaries,  the  reproach  of  being  auxiliaries  of  Satan,  which 
they  had  dared  to  cast  on  Him.  Need  we  wonder  at  the 
enthusiasm  which  this  discourse  excited  in  the  multitude,  and 
at  the  exclamation  of  the  woman,  in  which  this  feeling  of 
admiration  finds  utterance  ? 

Zd.  Vers.  27,  28.1  TJie  Incident. — "And  it  came  to  pass,  as 
He  spake  these  things,  a  certain  woman  of  the  comj> 
up  her  voice,  and  said  unto  Him,  Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare 
Thee,  and  the  paps  which  Thou  hast  '  Hi  said, 

Yea,  rather,  blessed  are  they  thai  hmr  the  word  of  God,  an" 
it."     Perhaps,  like  Mary  Magdalene,  this  woman   had   herself 
experienced  the  two  kinds  of  healing  which  Jesus  had  been 
contrasting.     In  any  case,  living  in  a  socict  scenes  of 

the  kind  were  [uently,  she  had  not  felt  the  same 

«:       ;lty  in  apprehending  the  figures  as  we,  to  whom  lb 

■  r  neither  <h  :  :Mirms  the 

blessedness  of  her  i  Him  birth.    All  depends  on  this,  if 

she  shall  take  rank  in  the  class  of  those  whomalon     II        elates 

to  be  blessed.    The  true  reading  appears  to  be  /uvovvye,  ficvovv. 

undoubtedly  I  blessedness;"  ye  (the  restricting 

cle  as  always):  "at  least  for  those  who  .  .  ." 

Does  not  rt  account  bear  in  itself  the  seal  of  its  historical 

reality  ]     [til  altogether  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  suffices  to  demou- 

iH-ttrrrn  ftfvryi  (T.  R.)  and  fum 
S  Mjj.  U  Mnn.  It.  anil  M 


70  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

strate  the  originality  of  the  source  from  which  this  whole  piece 
derived.  For  this  incident  could  not  possibly  stand  as  a  narrative  by 
itself ;  it  must  have  formed  part  of  the  account  of  the  entire  scene. 
The  allegorical  tableau,  ver.  24  et  seq.,  is  set  by  Matthew  in  an 
altogether  different  place,  and  so  as  to  give  it  a  quite  different  ap- 
plication (xii.  43  et  seq.).  The  words  with  which  it  closes,  "  Even 
so  shall  it  be  also  unto  this  wicked  generation"  prove  that  it  is  applied 
in  that  Gospel  to  the  Jewish  people  taken  collectively.  The  old 
form  of  possession  was  the  spirit  of  idolatry ;  that  of  the  present, 
seven  times  worse,  is  the  Eabbinical  pride,  the  pharisaic  formalism 
and  hypocrisy,  which  have  dominion  over  the  nation  in  the  midst 
of  its  monotheistic  zeal.  The  stroke  which  will  fall  upon  it  will  be 
seven  times  more  terrible  than  that  with  which  it  was  visited  when 
it  was  led  into  captivity  in  Jeremiah's  day.  This  application  is 
certainly  grand  and  felicitous.  t  But  it  forces  us  entirely  to  separate 
this  scene,  vers.  24-26,  as  the  first  Gospel  does,  from  the  preceding, 
vers.  21,  22,  which  in  Matthew  as  well  as  in  Luke  can  only  refer 
to  the  healing  of  cases  of  possession ;  and  yet  those  two  scenes  are 
indisputably  the  pendants  of  one  another.  Gess  understands  the 
application  of  this  word  in  Matthew  to  the  Jewish  people  in  a 
wholly  different  sense.  The  first  cure,  according  to  him,  was  the 
enthusiastic  impulse  of  the  people  in  favour  of  Jesus  in  the  beginning 
of  His  Galilean  ministry ;  the  relapse  referred  to  the  coldness  which 
had  followed,  and  which  had  obliged  Jesus  to  teach  in  parables. 
But  nowhere  does  Jesus  make  so  marked  an  allusion  to  that  crisis, 
to  which  probably  the  conscience  of  the  people  was  not  awakened. 
Would  it  not  be  better  in  this  case  to  apply  the  first  cure  to  the 
powerful  effect  produced  by  John  the  Baptist  %  "  Ye  were  willing  for 
a  season,"  says  Jesus  Himself,  "  to  rejoice  in  his  light "  (John  v.  35). 
Anyhow,  what  leads  Matthew  to  convert  the  second  scene  into  a 
national  apologue,  instead  of  leaving  it  with  its  demonological  and 
individual  application,  is  his  insertion,  immediately  before,  of  the 
saying  which  relates  to  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit, — a  saying 
which  in  Mark  also  follows  the  scene  of  the  combat  between  the 
strong  man  and  the  stronger  man.  When,  after  so  grave  an  utterance, 
Matthew  returns  to  the  scene  (omitted  by  Mark)  of  the  spirit 
recovering  possession  of  his  abandoned  dwelling,  he  must  necessarily 
give  it  a  different  bearing  from  that  which  it  has  in  Luke.  The 
superiority  of  Luke's  account  cannot  appear  doubtful  to  the  reader 
who  has  caught  the  admirable  connection  of  this  discourse,  and  the 
striking  meaning  of  all  the  figures  which  Jesus  uses  to  compose 
those  two  scenes.  As  to  the  true  position  of  the  saying  about  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  question  will  be  discussed 
chap.  xii. 

4&h.  Vers.  29-36.  The  Second  Discourse. — This  is  the  answer 
of  Jesus  to  the  demand  which  was  addressed  to  Him  to  work 
a  miracle  proceeding  from  heaven  (ver.  16).  Strauss  does 
not  think  that  Jesus  could  have  reverted  to  so  secondary  a 


CHAr.XL  29-32.  71 

question  after  the  extremely  grave  charge  with  which  He  had 
been  assailed.  We  have  already  pointed  out  the  relation 
which  exists  between  those  two  subjects.  The  miracle  pro- 
ceeding from  heaven  was  claimed  from   Jesus  as  the  only 

ft  He  had  of  clearing  Himself  from  the  suspicion  of  com- 
plicity  with  Satan.  In  the  first  part  of  His  reply,  Jesus 
speaks  of  the  only  sign  of  the  kind  which  shall  be  granted  to 
the  nation  (vers.  29-32)  ;  in  the  second,  of  the  entire  suffi- 
ciency of  this  sign  in  the  case  of  every  one  who  has  the  eye 
of  his  soul  open  to  behold  it  (vers.  33-36). 

r&    29-32.1    TJic  Sign  from  Heaven. — "And  when  the 
*   ranged    together,   He   leg  an    to  say,    This  is    an  evil 

>fion:  they  seek  a  sign;  ami  there  slwXl  no  sign  he 
it,  hut  the  sign  of  Jonas.      30.  For  as  Jonas  was  a  sign  unto 
tlie  K  m  sliall  also  the  Son  of  man  he  to  tJiis  genera- 

tion.     31.   TJie  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment 

five  men  of  this  generation,  and  condemn  tlicm:  for  she 
came  from  the  utmost  parts  of  (he  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon;  and,  hehold,  a  greater  tJian  Solomon  is  here.  32. 
The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  Hiis 
genera  d  shall  condemn  it:  for  they  repent 

preaching  of  Jonas  ;  and,  hehold,  a  greater  tlvan  Jonas  is  here.1* 
— During  the  previous  scene,  a  crowd,  growing  more  and  DUN 

KHif,  had  d  ;  and  it  is  before  it  that  Jesus  gives 

the  following  testimony  against  the  national  unbelief.  In  the 
vrovwpt  ',  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  diabolical 

which  had  dictated  the  call  for  a  sign  (ireipd^ome^ 

point  of  comparison  between  Jonas  and  Jesus,  according 
to  Luke,  appears  at  first  sight  to  be  only  the  fact  of  their 
preaching,   while    in   Matt,    xii.    :59,   40   it  is   evidently  the 

nkms  deliverance  of  the  one  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
'  '    !  mi  oonclndei  ftooo  II 
has  material!!  imperiaao  which  Jesus  gave  forth  in  i 

>ral  sense  (Luke).3    But  it  must  not  be  forgotten 

Jesus  says  in  Luke,  as  well  as  in  Matthew :  "  The  Son 

m  shall  be  (Zarai)  a  sign,"  l»y  which  He  cannot  denote 

.  29.  5  Mjj.  repeat  yi»i«  after  «»r*,  rend  lr.ru  Imtwd  of  trt^ru,  and 
the  worth  *»u  *f$nr$v  (taken  from  Matthew).—  Ver.  32.  12  Mjj.  80 
8yi**.  It  read  Smvurmt  instead  of  Xmm. 
3  Jemts  Cfirisl  el  U$ croyances Mcukmiquet,  etc.,  p.  111. 


72  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

His  present  preaching  and  appearance,  the  Fut.  necessarily 
referring  to  an  event  yet  to  come, — an  event  which  can  be  no 
other  than  the  entirely  exceptional  miracle  of  His  resurrection. 
They  ask  of  Jesus  a  sign  e'f  ovpavov,  proceeding  from  heaven, 
ver.  16.  His  resurrection,  in  which  no  human  agency  inter- 
venes, and  in  which  divine  power  appears  alone,  fully  satisfies, 
and  only  satisfies,  this  demand.  This  is  the  feature  which 
Peter  asserts  in  Acts  ii.  24,  32,  iii.  15,  etc. :  "  God  hath 
raised  up  Jesus."  In  John  ii.  19,  Jesus  replies  to  a  similar 
demand  by  announcing  the  same  event.  The  thought  in  Luke 
and  Matthew  is  therefore  exactly  the  same  :  "  It  was  as  one 
who  had  miraculously  escaped  from  death  that  Jonas  pre- 
sented himself  before  the  Ninevites,  summoning  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  of  this  generation."  Which  of  the  two  texts  is  it 
which  reproduces  the  answer  of  our  Lord  most  exactly  ?  But 
our  passage  may  be  parallel  with  Matt.  xvi.  4,  where  the  form 
is  that  of  Luke.  As  to  the  words  of  Matt.  xii.  39,  40,  they 
must  be  authentic.  No  one  would  have  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Jesus  the  expression,  three  days  and  three  nights,  when 
Jesus  had  actually  remained  in  the  tomb  only  one  day  and 
two  nights. 

But  how  shall  this  sign,  and  this  preaching  which  will 
accompany  it,  be  received  ?  It  is  to  this  new  thought  that 
vers.  31  and  32  refer.  Of  the  two  examples  which  Jesus 
quotes,  Matthew  puts  that  of  the  Ninevites  first,  that  of  the 
queen  of  Sheba  second.  Luke  reverses  the  order.  Here 
again  it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  superiority  of  Luke's  text 
1.  Matthew's  order  has  been  determined  by  the  natural 
tendency  to  bring  the  example  of  the  Ninevites  into  immediate 
proximity  with  what  Jesus  has  been  saying  of  Jonas.  2. 
Luke's  order  presents  an  admirable  gradation :  while  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon  sufficed  to  attract  the  queen  of  Sheba 
from  such  a  distance,  Israel  demands  that  to  the  infinitely 
^Kigher  wisdom  of  Jesus  there  should  be  added  a  sign  from 
heaven.  This  is  serious  enough.  But  matters  will  be  still 
worse  :  while  the  heathen  of  Nineveh  were  converted  by  the 
voice  of  Jonas  escaped  from  death,  Israel,  at  the  sight  of 
Jesus  raised  from  the  dead,  shall  not  be  converted. — Comp. 


CHAP.  XI.  33-30.  73 

as  to  the  Queen  of  the  South,  1  Kings  x.  1  et  seq.  Seba  seems 
to  have  been  a  part  of  Arabia-Felix,  the  modern  Yemen. 
'Eyepdrjaerac,  shall  i*ise  up  from  her  tomb  on  the  day  of  the 

it  awakening,  at  the  same  time  as  the  Jews  (jierd,  with, 
not  against),  so  that  the  blindness  of  the  latter  shall  appear 
in  full  light,  contrasted  with  the  earnestness  and  docility  of 
the  heathen  queen.  The  word  av&pcop,  "  the  men  of  this  gene- 
ration," certainly  indicates  a  contrast  with  her  female  sex. 
Indeed,  this  term  av&pes,  men,  does  not  reappear  in  the  fol- 
lowing example,  where  this  generation  is  not  compared  with  a 
woman.  Perhaps  the  choice  of  the  first  instance  was  sug- 
gested to  Jesus  by  the  incident  which  had  just  taken  place, 
vers.  27,  28. — The  word  dvaarijaovrat,  ver.  32,  shall  rise  up, 
denotes  a  more  advanced  degree  of  life  than  iyepdija-omat 
(sJiall  awake).  These  dead  are  not  rising  from  their  tombs, 
like  the  queen  of  Sheba;  they  are  already  in  their  place 
before  the  tribunal  as  accusing  witnesses.  How  dramatic  is 
everything  in  the  speech  of  Jesus  2  and  what  variety  is  there 
in  the  smallest  details  of  His  descriptions  ! 

Vers.  33-3G.1  The  Spiritual  Eye. — "  No  man,  when  he  hath 
lighted  a  candle,  putlcth  it  in  a  secret  place,  neither  under  the 
bushel,  but  on  tlie  eandhstwl;,  that  they  which  come  in  may  see 
the  light.  34.  Hie  light  of  tlie  body  is  t/ie  eye  :  therefore  when 
thine  eye  is  single,  thy  whole  body  also  is  full  of  light ;  but  when 
thine  eye  is  evil,  thy  whole  body  is  full  of  darkness.  35.  Take 
heed,  therefore,  that  the  light  which  is  in  thee  be  not  darkness. 
If  thy  wlwle  body,  therefore,  be  full  of  light,  having  no  part 
dark,  the  whole  shall  be  full  of  light,  04  wlcn  (hi  bright  shining 
of  a  candle  doth  give  thtt  light" — Christ, — such  is  the.  sign 
from  heaven  whose  light  God  will  ditl'use  over  the  world. 
imp  which  givei  li^ht  to  the  house.  God  has  not 
lighted  it  to  allow  it  to  be  banished  to  an  obscure  corner ;  He 
will  put  it  on  a  iok,  that  it  may  shine  before  the  eyes 

of  all;  and  this    II-    will   do  by  means  of  the  resurrection. 

r.  33.  K.  B.  C.  D.  U.  r.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  If1",  omit  h  after  «Im*     In- 
stead  Of  apvit*,  i    i:.  reads,  with  some  Mnn.,  all  tin-  otlMrdoOH 

lead  Mfuwmt. — The  Mas.  a;  between  «-•  ftyyt  (T.  R.) and  »•  f*t  (A 

which  appcara  to  be  token  from  viil  16. — Ver.  34.  6  Alex.  add  wm  after  •ftm\pn 
-K.  U.  I>.  '•/»  after  •*•«».-  i  soma 

..  It**.,  xtrm,  instead  of  i#™.— K.  If.  U.  X.  II.  60  Mnn.  Itr;***~,  add  „r.. 
alur  r«.Tu»...— Ver.  36.  D.  8yr~.  If**",  omit  thia 


74  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Kpv7TTi]vf  a  place  out  of  view,  under  a  bed,  e.g.  (viii.  16). 
Tbv  /jLoSiov,  not  a  bushel,  but  the  bushel ;  there  is  but  one  in 
the  house,  which  serves  in  turn  as  a  measure,  a  dish,  or  a 
lantern.1 — But  it  is  with  this  sign  in  relation  to  our  soul,  as 
with  a  lamp  relatively  to  our  body,  ver.  34.  To  the  light 
which  shines  without  there  must  be  a  corresponding  organ  in 
the  individual  fitted  to  receive  it,  and  which  is  thus,  as  it 
were,  the  lamp  within.  On  the  state  of  this  organ  depends 
the  more  or  less  of  light  which  we  receive  from  the  external 
luminary,  and  which  we  actually  enjoy.  In  the  body  this 
organ,  which  by  means  of  the  external  light  forms  the  light 
of  the  whole  body,  the  hand,  the  foot,  etc.,  is  the  eye ;  every- 
thing, therefore,  depends  on  the  state  of  this  organ.  For  the 
soul  it  is — Jesus  does  not  say  what,  He  leaves  us  to  guess — 
the  heart, /capita ;  comp.  Matt.  vi.  21  and  22.  The  under- 
standing, the  will,  the  whole  spiritual  being,  is  illuminated  by 
the  divine  light  which  the  heart  admits.  With  every  motion 
in  the  way  of  righteousness  there  is  a  discharge  of  light  over 
the  whole  soul.  'AttXovs,  single,  and  hence  in  this  place, — 
which  is  in  its  original,  normal  state ;  Trovrjpos,  corrupted,  and 
hence  diseased,  in  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  irovripm  e^iv 
to  he  ill.  If  the  Jews  were  right  in  heart,  they  would  see  the 
divine  sign  put  before  their  eyes  as  easily  as  the  Queen  of 
the  South  and  the  Ninevites  perceived  the  less  brilliant  sign 
placed  before  them  j  but  their  heart  is  perverse :  that  organ 
is  diseased ;  and  hence  the  sign  shines,  and  will  shine,  in  vain 
before  their  view.  The  light  without  will  not  become  light 
in  them. 

Ver.  35.  It  is  supremely  important,  therefore,  for  every 
one  to  watch  with  the  greatest  care  over  the  state  of  this 
precious  organ.  If  the  eye  is  not  enlightened,  what  member 
of  the  body  will  be  so  ?  The  foot  and  hand  will  act  in  the 
darkness  of  night.  So  with  the  faculties  of  the  soul  when 
the  heart  is  perverted  from  good. — Ver.  36.  But  what  a 
contrast  to  this  condition  is  formed  by  that  of  a  being  who 
opens  his  heart  fully  to  the  truth,  his  spiritual  eye  to  the 
brightness  of  the  lamp  which  has  been  lighted  by  God  Him- 
self !  To  avoid  the  tautology  which  the  two  members  of  the 
verse  seem  to  present,  we  need  only  put  the  emphasis  diffe- 

1  M.  F.  Bovet,  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,  p.  312. 


CTIAP.  XI.  35. 

rently  in  the  two  propositions :  in  the  first  on  b\ovt  whole ;  and 
in  the  second  on  fytoreivov,  full  of  light,  connecting  this  word 
immediately  with  the  following  as  its  commentary :  full  of 
h'jht  as  when  .  .  .  The  very  position  of  the  words  forbids 
any  other  grammatical  explanation ;  and  it  leads  us  to  this 
Ding :  n  When,  through  the  fact  of  the  clearness  of  thine 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  penetrated  with  light,  without 
there  being  in  thee  the  least  trace  of  darkness,  then  the 
phenomenon  which  will  be  wrought  in  thee  will  resemble 
what  takes  place  on  thy  body  when  it  is  placed  in  the  rays 
of  a  luminous  focus."  Jesus  means,  that  from  the  inward 
part  of  a  perfectly  sanctified  man  there  rays  forth  a  splendour 
which  glorifies  the  external  man,  as  when  he  is  shone  upon 
from  without.  It  is  glory  as  the  result  of  holiness.  The 
phenomenon  described  here  by  Jesus  is  no  other  than  thai 
which  was  realized  m  Himself  on  the  occasion  of  His  tra 
figuration,  and  which  He  now  applies  to  all  believers.  Pass;: 
such  as  2  Cor.  iii.  18  and  Bom.  viii.  2'»  will  always  be  the 
commentary  on  this  suhlime  declaration,  which  Luke 
06  has  preserved  to  us,  and  which  forms  so  perfect  a  C 
elusion  to  this  discourse. 

<1  the  meaning  of  this  saving,  and  of  the  piece 
Luke  of  having  placed  it  here  without  £r<>i 
itthew,  in  the  middle  of 
mon  on  the  Mount.  imumdi./  •  Where  J 

there  will  your  heart  he  alao."      Undoubtedly  this 

context  of  Matthew  proves,  as  e  of 

the  soul,  according  t<>   the  view  of  J  Uut  what 

n-hs  the  parity  of  tin-  it  merely  avarice,  as  would 

appear  from  the  eonteii  It  is  sin  in  general,  perversity 

of  1  ad  this  more  general  application  is 

j    that  which  we  find  in   Luke.     This  passage  has  been 

i!i  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  like  so  many  others,  raJ 

because  of  the  association  of  ideal  than  from  I  .iscence. 

14  to  ver.  36,  is  without  fault.     On 
the  one  side  d  ami  d« mand  made  l»y  the  enemies  of 

is,  vers.  15,  16,  on  the  other  the  enthusiastic  exclaim 

,\  28,  furnish  Jesus  with  th«-  start 
-  two  contrasted  di  , — that  of  growing  bli 

ness  which  terminates  in  midnight  darkm-»,  and  thai  <d  gradual 
illun  ieh  leads  to  perfect  glory.      Wo  may,  after  this, 

estii  justness  nanus  judgment        It  is  impossuhh 

to  connect  this  passage  about  light,  in  a  simple  way, 

with  the  discourse  respecting  Jonas." 


76  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

8.  The  Dinner  at  a  Pharisees  House:  xi.  37-xii.  12. — 
Agreeably  to  the  connection  established  by  Luke  himself 
(xii.  1),  we  join  the  two  pieces  xi.  37-54  and  xii.  1-12  in 
one  whole.  Here,  so  far  as  Galilee  is  concerned,  we  have  the 
culminating  point  of  the  struggle  between  Jesus  and  the 
pharisaic  party.  This  period  finds  its  counterpart  in  Judea, 
in  the  scenes  related  John  viii.-x.  The  background  of  the 
conflict  which  now  ensues,  is  still  the  odious  accusation  re- 
futed in  the  previous  passage.  The  actual  situation  assigned 
to  the  repast  is,  according  to  Holtzmann,  merely  a  fiction,  the 
idea  of  which  had  been  suggested  to  Luke  by  the  figures  of 
vers.  39  and  40.  Is  it  not  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
images  of  vers.  39  and  40  were  suggested  to  Jesus  by  the 
actual  situation,  which  was  that  of  a  repast  ?  It  is  true,  a 
great  many  of  the  sayings  which  compose  this  discourse  are 
found  placed  by  Matthew  in  a  different  connection ;  they 
form  part  of  the  great  discourse  in  which  Jesus  denounced 
the  divine  malediction  on  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  in  the 
temple  a  few  days  before  His  death  (Matt,  xxiii.).  But  first 
it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  Holtzmann  gives  as  little  credit  to 
the  place  which  those  sayings  occupy  in  the  composition  of 
Matthew,  as  to  the  "  scenery "  of  Luke.  Then  we  have 
already  found  too  many  examples  of  the  process  of  aggrega- 
tion used  in  the  first  Gospel,  to  have  our  confidence  shaken 
thereby  in  the  narrative  of  Luke.  We  shall  inquire,  there- 
fore, with  impartiality,  as  we  proceed,  which  of  the  two 
situations  is  that  which  best  suits  the  words  of  Jesus. 

This  piece  contains :  1st.  The  rebukes  addressed  to  the 
Pharisees  (vers.  37-44) ;  2d.  Those  addressed  to  the  scribes 
(vers.  45-54) ;  3d.  The  encouragements  given  to  the  disciples 
in  face  of  the  animosity  to  which  they  are  exposed  on  the 
part  of  those  enraged  adversaries  (xii.  1-12). 

Is*.  To  the  Pharisees:  vers.  37-44. — Vers.  37  and  38.1 
The  Occasion. — This  Pharisee  had  probably  been  one  of  the 
hearers  of  the  previous  discourse ;  perhaps  one  of  the  authors 
of  the  accusation  raised  against  Jesus.  He  had  invited  Jesus 
along  with  a  certain  number  of  his  own  colleagues  (vers. 
45  and  53),  with  the  most  malevolent  intention.     Thus  is 

1  Yer.  38.  Instead  of  <3«i>  ifcv/c«rti>  «t>,  D.  Syr0".  ItPlerh»u%  Vg.  Tert.  :  «fg«*» 

2i*xpniep.ivo;  iv  iauru  /.lynv  iian. 


CHAP.  XI.  39-42.  ft 

explained  the  tone  of  Jesus  (ver.  39  et  seq.),  which  some 
commentators  have  pronounced  impolite  (!).  The  reading 
of  some  lathers  and  Vss.,  "He  began  to  doubt  (or  to  murmur, 
as  huncpiveaBai  sometimes  means  in  the  LXX.),  and  to  say," 
is  evidently  a  paraphrase. — "Apio-rov,  the  morning  meal,  as 
heiirvov,  the  principal  meal  of  the  day.  The  meaning  of  the 
expression  elaeXdwv  aveirecev  is  this :  He  seated  Himself 
without  ceremony,  as  He  was  when  He  entered.  The 
Pharisees  laid  great  stress  on  the  rite  of  purification  before 
meals  (Mark  vii.  2-4 ;  Matt.  xv.  1-3) ;  and  the  Rabbins  put 
the  act  of  eating  with  unwashed  hands  in  the  same  category 
as  the  sin  of  impurity.  From  the  surprise  of  His  host,  Jesus 
takes  occasion  to  stigmatize  the  false  devotion  of  the  Pharisees  ; 
He  does  not  mince  matters ;  for  after  what  has  just  passed 
(ver.  15),  war  is  openly  declared.  He  denounces:  1st.  The 
hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees  (vers.  39-42);  2d.  Their  vain- 
glorious spirit  (ver.  43)  ;  3d.  The  evil  influence  which  their 
false  devotion  exercises  over  the  whole  people  (ver.  44). 

>.  39-42.1  Their  Hypocrisy. — "And  tlie  Lord  said  unto 
him,  Now  do  yc  Pharisees  make  deem  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the 
platter ;  hut  your  in<  /   is  fell  of  ravening  and  wicked- 

ness. 40.  Yc  fools,  did  nut  He  that  made  that  which  is  without, 
make  tliat  which  is  within  also?     41.  Rati  alms  of  suclt 

things  as  arc  wit  :<uld,  all  things  arc  clean  unto  you. 

42.  But  woe  unto  you,  l'i  !  for  yc  tithe  mint  and  rue, 

I  all   manner  of  herbs,  ami  pom  OVST  judgment  and  the  love 
of  God:  tluse  ought  ye  to  have  done,  and  not  to  leave  the  oth,  r 

' — God  had  appointed  for  His  people  certain  washings, 
that  they   might   cultivate  the  sense  of  moral   purity  in  Hi- 
presence.      And  this  is  what  tin;    Pharisees  have  brought  the 
rite   to;  multiplying    fa   applications   at  their  pleasure,   t 
think   themselves   excused    thereby    from    the    duty   of  h 
pur  Was  it  possible  to  go  more  directly   in  opposi- 

intention:   to   destroy   the    |  •   of  the 

duty  by  UK  :«  e.-,,  the  end    by  the    means  1      Meyer  and 

ranslate  vvv,  now,  in  the  sense  of  tim. \\  "  Things  have 

now  come  to  such  a  pass  with  you  ..."     It  is  more  natural 

to  give  it  the  logical  sense  which   il  often   hat:  "Well   now! 

you  Pha:  you   in  the  act"      Vt 

»  Ver.  42.  «•.  B.  L.  2  Mnn.,  wmftmm  instead  of  «fM* 


73  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

in  the  second  member  of  the  verse,  the  term  to  eacoOev,  the 
inward  part,  was  not  supplemented  by  vfiwv,  your  inward 
part,  the  most  natural  sense  of  the  first  member  would  be  this  : 
"  Ye  make  clean  the  outside  of  the  vessels  in  which  ye  serve 
up  the  repast  to  your  guests."  Bleek  maintains  this  mean- 
ing for  the  first  proposition,  notwithstanding  the  v/mov  in  the 
second,  by  joining  this  pron.  to  the  two  substantives  apTray^ 
and  Trovrjplas :  "  But  the  inside  [of  the  cups  and  platters]  is 
full  [of  the  products]  of  your  ravenings  and  your  wickedness." 
But,  1.  This  connection  of  v/jlcov  is  forced;  2.  Yer.  40  does 
not  admit  of  this  sense,  for  we  must  understand  by  Him  who 
made  ooth  that  which  is  ivithout  and  that  vjhich  is  within,  the 
potter  who  made  the  plates,  the  goldsmith  who  fashioned  the 
cups,  which  is  absurd.  As  in  ver.  40  the  6  iroirjcra^,  He  that 
made,  is  very  evidently  the  Creator,  the  inward  part,  ver.  40 
and  ver.  39,  can  only  be  that  of  man,  the  heart.  We  must 
therefore  allow  an  ellipsis  in  ver.  39,  such  as  frequently 
occurs  in  comparisons,  and  by  which,  for  the  sake  of  concise^ 
ness,  one  of  the  two  terms  is  suppressed  in  each  member  of 
the  comparison :  "  Like  a  host  who  should  set  before  his 
guests  plates  and  cups  perfectly  cleansed  outside,  [but  full  of 
filth  inside],  39<x,  ye  think  to  please  God  by  presenting  to 
Him  [your  bodies  purified  by  lustrations,  but  at  the  same 
time]  your  inward  part  full  of  ravening  and  wickedness,  39&." 
The  inward  part  denotes  the  whole  moral  side  of  human  life. 
*Apira<yri,  ravening — avarice  carried  out  in  act ;  irovrjpia, 
wielcedness — the  inner  corruption  which  is  the  source  of  it. 
Jesus  ascends  from  sin  in  act  to  its  first  principle. 

The  apostrophe,  ye  fools,  ver.  40,  is  then  easily  understood, 
as  well  as  the  argument  on  which  it  rests.  God,  who  made 
the  body,  made  the  soul  also;  the  purification  of  the  one 
cannot  therefore,  in  His  eyes,  be  a  substitute  for  the  other. 
A  well-cleansed  body  will  not  render  a  polluted  soul  acceptable 
to  Him,  any  more  than  a  brightly  polished  platter  will  render 
distasteful  meat  agreeable  to  a  guest;  for  God  is  a  spirit 
This  principle  lays  pharisaism  in  the  dust.  Some  commen- 
tators have  given  this  verse  another  meaning,  which  Luther 
seems  to  adopt :  "  The  man  who  has  made  (pure)  the  outside, 
has  not  thereby  made  (pure)  the  inside."  But  this  meaning 
of  iroielv  is  inadmissible,  and  the  ovx  heading  the  proposition 


CHAP.  XI.  39-42.  73 

proves  that  it  is  interrogative. — The  meaning  of  the  parallel 
passage  in  Matt,  xxiii.  25,  26  is  somewhat  different:  "The 
contents  of  the  cup  and  platter  must  be  purified  by  filling 
them  only  with  goods  lawfully  acquired;  in  this  way,  the 
outside,  should  it  even  be  indifferently  cleansed,  will  yet  be 
sufficiently  pure."  It  is  at  bottom  the  same  thought,  but 
sufficiently  modified  in  form,  to  prove  that  the  change  cannot 
be  explained  by  the  use  of  one  and  the  same  written  source, 
but  must  arise  from  oral  tradition. — To  the  rebuke  admini- 
stered there  succeeds  the  counsel,  ver.  41.  We  have  trans- 
lated 7r\t]v  by  rather.  The  literal  sense,  excepting,  is  thus 
explained :  "  All  those  absurdities  swept  away,  here  is 
alone  remains"  At  first  sight,  this  saying  appears  to  corre- 
spond with  the  idea  expressed  in  Matthew's  text,  rather  than 
with  the  previous  saying  in  Luke.  For  the  expression  ra  evopra, 
that  which  is  within,  cannot  in  this  verse  refer  to  the  inward 
part  of  man,  but  denotes  undoubtedly  the  contents  of  the 
cups  and  platters.  But  it  is  precisely  because  ra  evovra,  that 
which  is  withi/t,  is  not  at  all  synonymous  with  eacoOt; 
inward  j^art,  in  the  preceding  context,  that  Luke  has  employed 
a  different  expression.  Ta  evovra,  thr  contents  of  the  cup- 
platters,  denotes  what  remains  in  those  vessels  at  the  close  of 
the  feast.  The  meaning  is :  "  Do  you  wish,  then,  that  those 
meats  and  those  wines  should  not  be  defiled,  and  should  not 
you  ?  Do  not  think  that  it  is  enough  for  you  carefully 
to  wash  your  hands  before  eating ;  there  is  a  surer  means  : 
let  some  poor  man  partake  of  them.  It  is  the  spirit  of  love, 
0  ye  Pharisees,  and  not  material  lustrations,  which  will 
purify  your  banquets."  Kal  IBov,  and  behold  ;  the  resul: 
be  produced  as  if  by  magic.  Is  it  not  selfishness  which  is 
the  real  pollution  in  the  eyes  of  God?  The  horc,  give,  is 
opposed  to  aprrayri,  ravci  .   39. — This  saying  by  no 

means  includes  the  idea  of  the  merit  of  works.     Could  Jesus 
fall  into  pharisaism  at  the  very  moment  when  1!< 
it  in  the  dust?     Love,  whicli  gives  value  to  the  gift,  excludes 
by  its  very  nature  that  seeking  of  merit  which  is  the  essence 
of  pharisaism. 

a\\d,  but,  ver.  42,  sets  the  conduct  of  the  rharisee* 
in  opposition  to  that  which  has  been  described  ver.  11  m 
order  to  condemn  them  by  a  new  contrast ;  still,  however,  it 


80  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

is  the  antithesis  between  observances  and  moral  obedience. 
Every  Israelite  was  required  to  pay  the  tithe  of  his  income 
(Lev.  xxvii.  30;  Num.  xviii.  21).  The  Pharisees  had  ex- 
tended this  command  to  the  smallest  productions  in  their 
gardens,  such  as  mint,  rue,  and  herbs,  of  which  the  law  had  said 
nothing.  Matthew  mentions  other  plants,  anise  and  cummin 
(xxiii.  23).  Could  it  be  conceived  that  the  one  writer  could 
have  made  so  frivolous  a  change  on  the  text  of  the  other,  or 
on  a  common  document  ? — In  opposition  to  those  pitiful 
returns,  which  are  their  own  invention,  Jesus  sets  the  funda- 
mental obligations  imposed  by  the  law,  which  they  neglect 
without  scruple.  Kptats,  judgment;  here  the  discernment 
of  what  is  just,  the  good  sense  of  the  heart,  including  justice 
and  equity  (Sirach  xxxiii.  34).  Matthew  adds  e\eo?  and 
Tr/o-rt?,  mercy  and  faith,  and  omits  the  love  of  God,  which 
Luke  gives.  The  two  virtues  indicated  by  the  latter  corre- 
spond to  the  two  parts  of  the  summary  of  the  law. — The 
moderation  and  wisdom  of  Jesus  are  conspicuous  in  the  laet 
words  of  the  verse ;  He  will  in  no  wise  break  the  old  legal 
mould,  provided  it  is  not  kept  at  the  expense  of  its  contents. 

Ver.  43.1  Vainglory. — "  Woe  unto  you,  Pharisees!  for  yz 
love  the  uppermost  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the 
markets." — The  uppermost  seats  in  the  synagogues  were 
reserved  for  the  doctors.  This  rebuke  is  found  more  fully 
developed,  xx.  45-47. 

Ver.  44.  Contagious  Influence. — "  Woe  itnto  you,  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  hypocrites !  for  ye  are  as  graves  which  appear  not, 
and  the  men  that  ivalk  over  them  are  not  aivare  of  them." — 
Jesus  by  this  figure  describes  the  moral  fact  which  He  else- 
where designates  as  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees.  According 
to  Num.  xix.  16,  to  touch  a  grave  rendered  a  man  unclean 
for  seven  days,  as  did  the  touch  of  a  dead  body.  Nothing 
more  easy,  then,  than  for  one  to  defile  himself  by  touching 
with  his  foot  a  grave  on  a  level  with  the  ground,  without 
even  suspecting  its  existence.  Such  is  contact  with  the 
Pharisees ;  men  think  they  have  to  do  with  saints :  they 
yield  themselves  up  to  their  influence,  and  become  infected 

1  Ver.  43.  tf .  B.  C.  L.  soma  Mnn.  Syrcur.  ItPleriiue,  omit  y/>*^«r£/?  ko.i  Qxpircim 
v-roKfirai,  which  the  T.  R.  here  adds  with  the  other  documents  (taken  from 
Matthew). 


char  xi.  45,  m,  81 

with  their  spirit  of  pride  and  hypocrisy,  against  which  they 
were  not  put  on  their  guard.  In  Matthew  (xxiii.  2  7),  the  same 
figure  receives  a  somewhat  different  application.  A  man  looks 
with  complacency  at  a  sepulchre  well  built  and  whitened, 
and  admires  it.  But  when,  on  reflection,  he  says:  "Within 
there  is  nothing  save  rottenness,  what  a  different  impression 
does  he  experience !  Such  is  the  feeling  which  results  from 
observing  the  Pharisees. — That  the  two  texts  should  be 
borrowed  from  the  same  document,  or  taken  the  one  from  the 
other,  is  quite  as  inconceivable  as  it  is  easy  to  understand 
how  oral  tradition  should  have  given  to  the  same  figure  those 
two  different  applications. 

To  the  Scribes  :  vers.  45-54.  A  remark  made  by  a 
scribe  gives  a  new  turn  to  the  conversation.  The  Pharisees 
were  only  a  religious  party  ;  but  the  scribes,  the  experts  in 
the  law,  formed  a  profession  strictly  so  called.  They 
the  learned,  the  wise,  who  discovered  nice  prescriptions  in  the 
law,  such  as  that  alluded  to  in  ver.  42,  and  gave  them  over 
for  the  observance  of  their  pious  disciples.  The  scribes 
played  the  part  of  clerical  guides.  The  majority  of  them 
seem  to  have  belonged  to  the  pharisaic  party  ;  for  we  meet 
with  no  others  in  the  N.  T.  But  their  official  dignity  gave 
them  a  higher  place  in  the  theocracy  than  that  of  a 

Hence  the  exclamation  of  him  who  here  interrupts 
Jesus :  "  Thus   saying,  Thou  reproachest  us,  us  scribes  also," 
which  evidently  constitutes  in  his  eves  a  much  graver  ot 
than  that  of  reproaching  th  s.      In   Hi  Jesus 

:hem  on  three  grounds,  as  He  had  done  th«*  Pharisees: 
1st.  Religious  intellectual  ism  (ver.  46);  2d.  Persecuting  fanati- 
cism (vers.  47-51) ;  3d,  The  pernicious  influence  which  they 
exercised  on  the  religions  state  of  the  people  (ver.  52). — 
Vers.  53  and  54  describe  the  end  of  the  feast 

Vers.  45  and  46.1  Literalism. — "  Then  answered  one  of the 
lawyers,  and  said  unto  him,  Master,  thus  saying  thou  rc- 
proachest  us  also.  46.  And  He  said,  Woe  unto  you  also,  ys 
lawyers  !  for  ye  lade  men  with  burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  and 
ye  yourselves  touch  not  tJie  burdens  with  one  of  your  fingers." — 
e  seems  to  be  no  essential  difference  between  the  terms 

■  Ver.  46.  G.  M.  some  Mnn.  It*™*",  Vg.,  m  r«  UmHkm  instead  of 

II.  I 


82  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

vojuico*;,  vo/jLoSiSdcrtcaXos,  and  rypa/jLfjLarevs.  See  ver.  53  ;  and 
comp.  ver.  52  with  Matt,  xxiii.  13.  Yet  there  must  he  a 
shade  of  difference  at  least  between  the  words ;  according  to 
the  etymology,  vofAi/cos  denotes  the  expert,  the  casuist,  who 
discusses  doubtful  cases,  the  Mosaic  jurist,  as  Meyer  says ; 
vo/jboBiBdaKa\o<;,  the  doctor,  the  professor  who  gives  public  or 
private  courses  of  Mosaic  law ;  ^pafifxarev^  would  include  in 
general  all  those  who  are  occupied  with  the  Scriptures,  either 
in  the  way  of  theoretical  teaching  or  practical  application. 

Our  Lord  answers  the  scribe,  as  He  had  answered  the 
Pharisee,  in  three  sentences  of  condemnation.  The  first 
rebuke  is  the  counterpart  of  that  which  He  had  addressed  in 
the  first  place  to  the  latter,  to  wit,  literalism ;  this  is  the 
twin  brother  of  formalism.  The  paid  scribes  were  infinitely 
less  respectable  than  the  generality  of  the  Pharisees.  As  to 
those  minute  prescriptions  which  they  discovered  daily  in  the 
law,  and  which  they  recommended  to  the  zeal  of  devotees, 
they  had  small  regard  for  them  in  their  own  practice.  They 
seemed  to  imagine  that,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  the 
knowing  dispensed  with  the  doing.  Such  is  the  procedure 
characterized  by  Jesus  in  ver.  46.  Constantly  drawing  the 
heaviest  burdens  from  the  law,  they  bind  them  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  simple.  But  as  to  themselves,  the}'  make 
not  the  slightest  effort  to  lift  them. 

Vers.  47-51.1  Persecuting  Orthodoxy. — "  Woe  unto  you!  for 
ye  bicild  the  sepulchres  of  the  prophets,  and  your  fathers  hilled 
them.  48.  Tmdy  ye  are  witnesses  that  ye  allow  the  deeds  of 
your  fathers:  for  they  indeed  hilled  them,  and  ye  build  their 
sepidchres.  49.  Therefore  also  said  the  wisdom  of  God,  I  will 
send  them  prophets  and  apostles,  and  some  of  them  they  shall 
slay  and  persecute:  50.  That  the  blood  of  all  the  prophets, 
which  was  shed  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  may  be  re- 
quired of  this  generation  ;  51.  From  the  blood  of  Abel,  unto  the 
blood  of  Zacharias,  which  perished  between  the  altar  and  the 
temple :  verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  required  of  this 
generation."  Head  religion  is  almost  always  connected  with 
hatred  of  living  piety,  or  spiritual  religion,  and  readily  becomes 

1  Ver.  47.  K*.  C,  xut  oi  instead  of oi  h. — Ver.  48.  K.  B.  L.,  pxprupi;  urn  instead 
of  paprvpurB  (taken  from  Matthew). — X.  B.  D.  L.  ltUUq.  omit  avru»  ru  un*>u.» 
after  otKohtfjbun. — Ver.  49.  Marcion  omitted  vers.  40-51. 


cn.vr.  xi.  47-51  83 

persecuting. — All  travellers,  and  particularly  Robinson,  men- 
tion the  remarkable  tombs,  called  tombs  of  the  prophets,  which 
are  seen  in  the  environs  of  Jerusalem.      It  was  perhaps  at 

i  me  that  the  Jews  were  busied  with  those  structures; 

thought  thereby  to  make  amends  for  the  injustice  of 
their  fathers.  By  a  bold  turn,  wThich  translates  the  external 
act  into  a  thought  opposed  to  its  ostensible  object,  but  in 
accordance  with  its  real  spirit,  Jesus  says  to  them :  "  Your 
fathers  killed ;  ye  bury ;  therefore  ye  continue  and  finish 
their  work."      In  the  received  reading,   fiaprvpelre,  ye  bear 

W,  signifies :  "  When  ye  bury,  ye  give  testimony  to  the 
reality  of  the  bloodshed  committed  by  your  fathers."  But  the 
Alex,  reading  fidprvpis  icrre,  ye  are  witnesses,  is  undoubtedly 
preferable.  It  includes  an  allusion  to  the  official  part  played 
by  witnesses  in  the  punishment  of  stoning  (Deut  xvii.  7  ; 
Acts  viL  58).     It  is  remarkable  that  the  two  terms  fuipTvs, 

»,  and  o-vvevBotcelv,  to  approve,  are  also  found  united  in 
the  description  of  Stephen's  martyrdom.  They  seem  to  have 
had  a  technical  significance.  Thus:  "Ye  take  the  pi 
witnesses  and  consummators  of  your  fathers'  crimes."  The 
reading  of  the  Alex.,  which  omit  avriav  ra  /ivvfieia,  their  graces, 
48,  has  a  forcible  conciseness.  Unfortun- 
ately those  MSS.  with  the  T.  E.  read  avroik  after  airterimm; 
and  this  regimen  of  the  first  vei  irs  to  settle  that  of  the 

second. — In  connection  with  the  conduct  of  the  .li-ws  toward 
their  prophets,  whom   they  slew,  and  honoured  immediately 
th,  the  saying  has  been  rightly  quoted:  sit  licet 
divus,  dummodo  non  vivus. — The  parallel  passage  in  Ma: 

L  29-31)  has  a  rather  different  sense  :  "  Ye  say,  If  we 
had  been  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  would  not  have  been 
partakers  with  them  in  the  blood  of  the  prophets ;  Wherefore  ye 
witness  against  yourselves,  tliat  ye  are  the  children  of  them  which 
killed  the  prophets."  The  oneness  of  sentiment  is  here  proved, 
not  by  the  act  of  build  i  tombs,   but  by  the  word 

n.     The  two  forms  show  such  a  difference,  thai 
could  not  proceed  from  one  and  the  same  document      That  of 

appears  every  way  preferable.     In  Matthew,  the  relation 
he  words  Jesus  into  the  mouth  of  the  Jews, 

•  0,  and  the  building  of  the  tombs,  vcr.  29,  is  not  clear. 
Jm  Toirro  /cat:  "And  because  the  matter  is  really  ao,  not- 


84  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

withstanding  appearances  to  the  contrary,  the  wisdom  of  God 
hath  said."  What  does  Jesus  understand  hy  the  wisdom  of 
God  ?  Ewald,  Bleek,  etc.,  think  that  Jesus  is  here  quoting  a 
lost  book,  which  assigned  this  saying  to  the  wisdom  of  God, 
or  which  itself  bore  this  title.  Bleek  supposes  that  the 
quotation  from  this  book  does  not  go  further  than  to  the  val, 
ver.  5 1 ;  the  discourse  of  Jesus  is  resumed  at  the  words, 
Verily  I  say  unto  you.  But,  1.  The  discourses  of  Jesus 
present  no  other  example  of  an  extra-canonical  quotation; 
2.  The  term  apostle,  in  what  follows,  seems  to  betray  the 
language  of  Jesus  Himself;  3.  The  thought  of  vers.  50  and 
51  is  too  profound  and  mysterious  to  be  ascribed  to  any 
human  source  whatever.  According  to  Meyer,  we  have 
indeed  a  saying  of  Jesus  here;  but  as  it  was  repeated  in 
oral  tradition,  it  had  become  a  habit,  out  of  reverence  for 
Jesus,  to  quote  it  in  this  form :  The  wisdom  of  God  (Jesus) 
said,  I  send  .  .  .  Comp.  Matt,  xxiii.  34  :  /  send  (iyw 
airo<7TeXKw).  This  form  of  quotation  was  mistakenly  re- 
garded by  Luke  as  forming  part  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus. 
But  Luke  has  not  made  us  familiar  thus  far  with  such 
blunders ;  and  the  hia  tovto,  on  account  of  this, — which  falls 
so  admirably  into  the  context  of  Luke,  and  which  is  found 
identically  in  Matthew,  where  it  has,  so  to  speak,  no  meaning 
(as  Holtzmann  acknowledges,  p.  228), — is  a  striking  proof  in 
favour  of  the  exactness  of  the  document  from  which  Luke 
draws.  Baur  thinks  that  by  the  word,  the  wisdom  of  God, 
Luke  means  to  designate  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  itself  already 
received  in  the  Church  as  God's  word  at  the  time  when  Lake 
wrote.  But  it  must  first  be  proved  that  Luke  knew  and 
used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  Our  exegesis  at  every  step  has 
proved  the  contrary;  besides,  we  have  no  example  of  an 
apostolical  author  having  quoted  the  writing  of  one  of  his 
colleagues  with  such  a  formula  of  quotation.  Neander  and 
Gess  think  that  here  we  have  a  mere  parenthesis  inserted  by 
Luke,  in  which  he  reminds  us  in  passing  of  a  saying  which 
Jesus  in  point  of  fact  did  not  utter  till  later  (Matt,  xxiii.). 
An  interpolation  of  this  kind  is  far  from  natural.  The  solitary 
instance  which  could  possibly  be  cited  (Luke  vii.  29,  30) 
seems  to  us  more  than  doubtful. 

Olshausen  asserts  that  Jesus  intends  an  allusion  to  the 


CIIAr.  XL  47-51.  85 

words  (2  Cliron.  xxiv.  19):  "He  sent  prophets  to  them,  to  bring 
them  again  unto  Him;  but  they  would  not  receive  them."  But 
the  connection  between  those  two  sayings  is  very  indirect. 
I  think  there  is  a  more  satisfactory  solution.  The  book  of 
the  0.  T.  which  in  the  primitive  Church  as  well  as  among 
the  Jews,  in  common  with  the  books  of  Jesus  Sirach  and 
Wisdom,  bore  the  name  of  aotpla,  or  wisdom  of  God,  was 
that  of  Proverbs.1  Now  here  is  the  passage  which  we  find 
in  that  book  (i.  20-31):  "  Wisdom  uttereth  her  voice  in  the 
streets,  and  cricth  in  the  chief  places  of  concourse  .  .  .  Behold, 
I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  you  (LXX.,  e/x%  m/ofy  pfjo-iv), 
and  I  will  make  known  my  words  unto  you  .  .  .  But  ye  have 
set  at  nought  all  my  counsel,  and  would  none  of  my  reproof 
Therefore  I  icill  laugh  at  your  calamity,  I  will  mock  when 
your  fear  comcth  .  .  .  (and  I  shall  say),  Let  them  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  their  works!"  This  is  the  passage  which  Jesus 
seems  to  me  to  quote.  For  the  breath  of  His  Spirit,  whom 
God  promises  to  send  to  His  people  to  instruct  and  reprove 
them,  Jesus  substitutes  the  living  organs  of  the  Spirit — His 
apostles,  the  new  prophets ;  then  He  applies  to  the  Jews  of 
the  day  (ver.  49&)  the  sin  of  obstinate  resistance  proclaimed 
in  the  same  passage;  finally  (vers.  50,  51),  He  paraphrases 
the  idea  of  final  punishment,  which  closes  this  prophecy. 
The  parallelism  seems  to  us  to  be  complete,  and  justifies  in 
the  most  natural  manner  the  use  of  the  term,  tlie  wisdom  of 
God.  By  the  words  proplicts  and  apostles  Jesus  contrasts  this 
new  race  of  the  Spirit's  agents,  which  is  to  continue  the 
work  of  the  old,  with  the  men  of  the  dead  letter,  with  those 
scribes  whom  He  is  now  addressing.  The  lot  which  lies 
before  them  at  the  hands  of  the  latter,  will  he  precisely  the 
same  as  the  prophets  had  to  meet  at  the  hands  of  their 
fathers  ;  thus  to  the  sin  of  the  fathers  there  will  be  justly 
added  that  of  the  children,  until  the  measure  be  full.  It  is 
a  law  of  the  Divine  government*  which  controls  the  lot  of 
societies  as  well  as  that  of  individual-,  t hat  God  does  not 
correct  a  development  once  commenced  by  premature  judg- 
ment     While  still  waning  the  sinner,  He  leaves  his  sin  to 

1  Clement  Rom.,  Irensens,  Hegeaippus  call  it  4  wmifkwn  "Q'<* ;  M»-lito  | 
ing  to  tlm  mdfog  n  *«<',  Eua.  fa  33,  ed.  Lamm.)  rtf'm.     See  Wie»clur,  Slud. 
undKritiL  185'',  1. 


86  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

ripen;  and  at  the  appointed  hour  He  strikes,  not  for  the 
present  wickedness  only,  but  for  all  which  preceded.  The 
continuous  unity  of  the  sin  of  the  fathers  involves  their 
descendants,  who,  while  able  to  change  their  conduct,  per- 
severe and  go  all  the  length  of  the  way  opened  up  by  the 
former.  This  continuation  on  the  part  of  the  children  in- 
cludes an  implicit  assent,  in  virtue  of  which  they  become 
accomplices,  responsible  for  the  entire  development.  A  decided 
breaking  away  from  the  path  followed  was  the  only  thing 
which  could  avail  to  rid  them  of  this  terrible  implication  in 
the  entire  guilt.  According  to  this  law  it  is  that  Jesus  sees 
coming  on  the  Israel  round  about  Him  the  whole  storm  of 
wrath  which  has  gathered  from  the  torrents  of  innocent 
blood  shed  since  the  beginning  of  the  human  race.  Comp. 
the  two  threatenings  of  St.  Paul,  which  look  like  a  com- 
mentary on  this  passage  (Eom.  ii.  3-5  ;   1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16). 

Jesus  quotes  the  first  and  last  examples  of  martyrdoms 
mentioned  in  the  canonical  history  of  the  old  covenant. 
Zacharias,  the  son  of  the  high  priest  Jehoiada,  according  to 
2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  was  stoned  in  the  temple  court  by  order 
of  King  Joash.  As  Chronicles  probably  formed  the  last  book 
of  the  Jewish  canon,  this  murder,  the  last  related  in  the 
0.  T.,  was  the  natural  counterpart  to  that  of  Abel.  Jesus 
evidently  alludes  to  the  words  of  Genesis  (iv.  1 0),  "  The  voice 
of  thy  or  other's  Mood  crieth  from  the  ground"  and  to  those  of 
the  dying  Zacharias,  "  The  Lord  look  upon  it,  and  require  it." 
Comp.  ifctyTwdr},  ver.  50,  and  itc&TwOrjo-eTai,,  ver.  51  (in 
Luke).  If  Matthew  calls  Zacharias  the  son  of  Barachias,  it 
may  be  reconciled  with  2  Chron.  xxiv.  by  supposing  that 
Jehoiada,  who  must  then  have  been  130  years  of  age,  was 
his  grandfather,  and  that  the  name  of  his  father  Barachias  is 
omitted  because  he  had  died  long  before.  Anyhow,  if  there 
was  an  error,  it  must  be  charged  against  the  compiler  of  the 
first  Gospel  (as  is  proved  by  the  form  of  Luke),  not  against 
Jesus. 

Ver.  52 :  The  Monopoly  of  Theology. — "  Woe  unto  youy 
lawyers  I  for  ye  have  taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge:  ye 
entered  not  in  yourselves,  and  them  that  were  entering  in  ye 
hindered?  The  religious  despotism  with  which  Jesus  in  the 
third  place  charges  the  scribes,  is  a  natural  consequence  of 


CITAr.  XI.  53,54.  87 

their  fanatical  attachment  to  the  letter.  This  last  rebuke 
corresponds  to  the  third  which  He  had  addressed  to  the 
Pharisees — the  pernicious  influence  exercised  by  them  over 
the  whole  people.  Jesus  represents  knowledge  (yv&a-isi)  under 
the  figure  of  a  temple,  into  which  the  scribes  should  have  led 
the  people,  but  whose  gate  they  close,  and  hold  the  key  with 
jealous  care.  This  knowledge  is  not  that  of  the  gospel,  a 
meaning  which  would  lead  us  outside  the  domain  of  the 
scribes ;  it  is  the  real  living  knowledge  of  God,  such  as  might 
already  be  found,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  0.  T. 
The  Jccij  is  the  Scriptures,  the  interpretation  of  which  the 
scribes  reserved  exclusively  to  themselves.  But  their  com- 
mentaries, instead  of  tearing  aside  the  veil  of  the  letter,  that 
their  hearers  might  penetrate  to  the  spirit,  thickened  it,  on 
the  contrary,  as  if  to  prevent  Israel  from  beholding  the  face 
of  the  living  God  who  revealed  Himself  in  the  0.  T.,  and 
from  coming  into  contact  with  Him.  The  pres.  part,  elaep^o- 
pevoi  denotes  those  who  were  ready  to  rise  to  this  vital 
knowledge,  and  who  only  lacked  the  sound  interpretation  of 
Scripture  to  bring  them  to  it. 

tthew,  in  a  long  discourse  which  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  in  the  temple  (chap,  xxiii.),  has  combined  in 
one  compact  mass  the  contents  of  those  two  apostrop1: 
addressed  to  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers,  which  are  so  nicely 
distinguished  by  Luke.  Jesus  certainly  uttered  in  the  temple, 
as  Matthew  relates,  a  vigorous  discourse  addressed  to  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees.  Luke  himself  (xx.  45-47)  indicates 
the  time,  and  gives  a  summary  of  it.  But  it  cannot  be 
doubud  that  here,  as  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
first  Gospel  has  combined  many  sayings  uttered  on  different 
occasions.      The    distribution    of    accusations    between    the 

irisees  and  lawyers,  as  we  find  it  in  Luke,  corresponds 
perfectly  to  the  oha  meters  of  those  two  classes.    The  question 

the  scribe  (ver.  45)  seems  to  be  indisputably  authentic. 
Thus  Luke  shows  himself  here  again  tin-  historian  properly 
so  called. 

Vers.  53  and  5  1  :'    Jfidorical  Conclusion. — These  verses 

1  Ver  C.  L.*read  *«Wi?  *\oJtir>>t  *vr$v  instcml  of  Xtytrr      .   .   . 

m*T»vt.—L.  s.  V.  s.  Mven]  lion.,  o-rrer-jxt^w,  Instatd  of  «c#rT#>»« *<£««»• — 
Vtr.   61.    "  it  *vt»*  after  i»i^i*#»Tif.  — 15  Mjj.  Syr.   It.  read  C*T«y»n* 


88  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

describe  a  scene  of  violence,  perhaps  unique,  in  the  life  of 
Jesus.  Numerous  variations  prove  the  very  early  alteration 
of  the  text.  According  to  the  reading  of  the  principal  Alex., 
And  when  He  had  gone  thence,  this  scene  must  have  taken 
place  after  Jesus  had  left  the  Pharisee's  house  ;  but  this 
reading  seems  designed  to  establish  a  closer  connection  with 
what  follows  (xii.  1  et  seq.),  and  produces  the  impression  of 
a  gloss.  On  the  other  hand,  the  omission  of  the  words,  and 
seeking,  and  that  they  might  accuse  Him,  in  B.  L.  (ver.  54), 
renders  the  turn  of  expression  more  simple  and  lively.  The 
reading  airodTo/Jbl^eiv  {to  blunt)  has  no  meaning.  We  must 
read  aTroaTOfjLart&v,  to  utter,  and  then  to  cause  to  utter. 

3d.  To  the  Disciples:  xii.  1-12. — This  violent  scene  had 
found  its  echo  outside;  a  considerable  crowd  had  nocked 
together.  Excited  by  the  animosity  of  their  chiefs,  the 
multitude  showed  a  disposition  hostile  to  Jesus  and  His 
disciples.  Jesus  feels  the  need  of  turning  to  His  own,  and 
giving  them,  in  presence  of  all,  those  encouragements  which 
their  situation  demands.  Besides,  He  has  uttered  a  word 
which  must  have  gone  to  their  inmost  heart,  some  of  you  they 
will  slay  and  persecute,  and  He  feels  the  need  of  supplying 
some  counterpoise.  Thus  is  explained  the  exhortation  which 
follows,  and  which  has  for  its  object  to  raise  their  courage 
and  give  them  boldness  in  testifying.  Must  not  one  be  very 
hard  to  please,  to  challenge,  as  Holtzmann  does,  the  reality  of 
a  situation  so  simple  ? 

Jesus  encourages  His  apostles :  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  contrasts 
with  the  punishment  of  the  timid,  and  of  their  adversaries 
(vers.  8-10) ;  finally,  By  the  assurance  of  powerful  aid  (vers. 
11,  12). 

Vers.  1-3  i1  TJie  assured  Success  of  their  Ministry,  and  the 
Fall  of  their  Adversaries. — "  In  the  meantime,  when  there  were 
gathered  together  an  innumerable  multitude  of  people,  insomuch 

instead  of  xai  Xnreuvrtt ;  N.  B.  L.  omit  these  words. — tf.  B.  L.  omit   vet,  xetm- 

yopntrMtrt*  aurev. 

1  Ver.  1.  Instead  of  $»  on  .  .  .  »^x«y,  D.   ItPleriiu%  Vg.,  <rt\x*v  h  »^iw 
ruvvr-pi-frovruv  xvxXu. — Tert.  Vg.  omit  -xfunoi. 


CHAP.  XII.  1-3.  89 

that  they  trode  one  vpon  another,  He  began  to  say  unto  His 
disci pies  first  of  all :  Beware  ye  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees, 
which  is  hypocrisy.  2.  For  there  is  nothing  covered  that  shall 
not  be  revealed ;  neither  hid,  that  shall  not  be  known.  3.  Titer e- 
fore,  whatsoever  ye  have  spoken  in  darkness  shall  be  heard  in  the 
light ;  and  that  which  ye  have  spoken  in  the  ear  in  closets  shall 
be  proclaimed  upon  the  house-tops."  The  words  iv  oh,  on  which, 
establish  a  close  connection  between  the  following  scene  and 
that  which  precedes.  This  gathering,  which  is  formed  as  in 
the  previous  scene  (xi.  29),  is  readily  explained  by  the 
general  circumstances — those  of  a  journey.  When  Jesus  had 
arrived  at  a  village,  some  time  was  needed  to  make  the 
population  aware  of  it ;  and  soon  it  flocked  to  Him  en  masse. 
"Hpi;aTo,  He  began,  imparts  a  solemn  character  to  the  words 
which  follow.  Jesus,  after  having  spoken  severely  to  His 
adversaries,  now  addresses  the  little  company  of  His  disciples, 
lost  among  that  immense  throng,  in  language  full  of  boldness. 
It  is  the  cry  onwards,  with  the  promise  of  victory.  The 
words,  to  the  disciples,  are  thus  the  key  to  the  discourse 
following.  The  word  irpcarov,  before  all,  should  evidently  be 
connected  with  the  verb  which  follows,  beware  ye.  Comp. 
ix.  61,  x.  5. — Meyer  concludes,  from  the  absence  of  the 
article  before  inrotcpio-i*;,  that  the  leaven  is  not  hypocrisy 
itself,  but  a  style  of  teaching  which  has  the  character  of 
hypocrisy.  This  is  a  very  forced  meaning.  The  absence  of 
the  article  is  very  common  before  terms  which  denote  virtues 
and  vices.  (Winer,  Gramm.  des  K.  T.  Sprarh  idioms,  §  19.  1.) 
Leaven  is  the  emblem  of  every  active  principle,  good  or  bad, 
which  possesses  the  power  of  assimilation.  The  devotion  of 
Bee  had  given  a  false  direction  to  the  whole  of 
I  ;  h  piety  (vers.  39,  44).     This  warning  may  have  been 

repeated  several  times  (Mark  viii.  16  ;  Matt  xvi.  G). 

The  Be  adversative  of  ver.  2  determines  the  sense  of  the 
verse:  "  I»ut  all  th  aio  hypocrisy  shall  be  omrefled 

The  impure  foundation  of  this  so  Moiled  holiness  shall  come 
fully    to   the    li.L'ht,   and    then    the    wlnuV    authority    of   those 

>ters  of  opinion  shall  crumble  away;  but,  in  place  thereof 
(ui>ff  a>v,  ver.  3),  those  whose  voice  cannot  now  find  a  heai 
save   within   limited   and   obscure   circles,  shall   become  the 
teachers  of  tl  Id."     The  Hflleli  and  Gamaliels  will  give 


90  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

place  to  new  teachers,  who  shall  fill  the  world  with  their 
doctrine,  and  those  masters  shall  be  Peter,  John,  Matthew, 
here  present !  This  substitution  of  a  new  doctorate  for  the 
old  is  announced  in  like  manner  to  Mcodemus  (John  iii.  10, 
11).  Here,  as  there,  the  poetical  rhythm  of  the  parallelism 
indicates  that  elevation  of  feeling  which  arises  from  so  great 
and  transporting  a  thought.  Comp.  the  magnificent  apostrophe 
of  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  20  :  «  Where  is  the  wise  ?  WJiere  is  the 
scribe  .  .  .  ?"  By  St.  Paul's  time  the  substitutiou  had  been 
fully  effected. — Tafieiov,  the  larder  (from  t6/jlv(o)  ;  and  hence 
the  locked  chamber,  the  innermost  apartment,  in  opposition 
to  the  public  room. — The  roofs  of  houses  in  the  East  are 
terraces,  from  which  one  can  speak  with  those  who  are  in  the 
street.  This  is  the  emblem  of  the  greatest  possible  publicity. 
The  mouth  of  the  scribes  shall  be  stopped,  and  the  teaching 
of  the  poor  disciples  shall  be  heard  over  the  whole  universe. 
The  apophthegms  of  vers.  2  and  3  may  be  applied  in  many 
ways,  and  Jesus  seems  to  have  repeated  them  often  with 
varied  applications.  Comp.  viii.  1 7.  In  the  parallel  passage 
(Matt.  x.  2  7),  the  matter  in  question  is  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
not  that  of  the  apostles ;  and  this  saying  appears  in  the  form 
of  an  exhortation  addressed  to  the  latter :  "  Wliat  I  tell  you, 
in  darkness,  that  speak  ye  in  light."  Naturally  the  maxim 
which  precedes  (ver.  2  of  Luke)  should  also  receive  a  different 
application  in  Matthew  (ver.  26):  "  Everything  that  is  true 
must  come  to  the  light.  Publish,  therefore,  without  fear 
whatsoever  I  have  told  you." 

Vers.  4-7.1  Personal  Security. — "  And  I  say  unto  you,  my 
friends,  Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that 
ham  no  more  that  they  can  do.  5.  But  I  will  forewarn  you 
whom  ye  shall  fear ;  fear  Him  which,  after  He  hath  killed, 
hath  power  to  cast  into  hell :  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  fear  Him. 
6.  Are  not  five  sparrows  sold  for  two  farthings  ;  and  not  one  of 
them  is  forgotten  before  God?  7.  But  even  the  very  hairs  of 
your  head  are  all  numbered.  Fear  not,  therefore:  ye  are  of 
more  value  than  many  sparrows." — The  success  of  their  cause 
is  certain.     But  what  of  their  personal  future  ?     After  xi.  49 

1  Ver.  4.  5  Mjj.  10  Mnn.  read  vtpurtrov  instead  of  tipKroonpov. — Ver.  7.  B.  L.  R. 
ItRli<i.  omit  ouv  after  f&v. — 6  Mjj.  60  Mnn.  Vg.  add  v/xus  after  happsrs  (taken  from 
Matthew). 


CHAP.  XII.  4-7.  91 

there  was  good  cause  for  some  disquiet  on  this  point.  Here 
the  heart  of  Jesus  softens :  the  thought  of  the  lot  which  some 
of  them  will  have  to  undergo  seems  to  render  His  own  more 
dear  to  Him.  Hence  the  tender  form  of  address,  To  you,  my 
friends.     Certainly  Luke  did  not  invent  this  word  ;   and  if 

ithew,  in  whom  it  is  not  found  (x.  28  et  seq.),  had  used 
the  same  document  as  Luke,  he  would  not  have  omitted  it. 
Olshausen  has  taken  up  the  strange  idea,  that  by  him  who 
can  cast  into  hell  we  are  to  understand,  not  God,  but  the 
devil,  as  if  Scripture  taught  us  to  fear  the  devil,  and  not 
rather  to  resist  him  to  his  face  (1  Pet.  v.  9  ;  James  iv.  7). — 
The  mss.  are  divided  between  the  forms  airoicTevvovTwv  (Eolico- 
Doric,  according  to  Bleek),  airoKT^vovrrav  (a  corruption  of  the 
preceding),  and  airoicTeivovTodv  (the  regular  form).  The  term 
Gehenna  (hell)  properly  signifies  valley  of  Hinnom  (D3H  % 
Josh.  xv.  8,  comp.  xviii.  16  ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  10  ;  Jer.  viL  31, 
etc.).  It  was  a  fresh  and  pleasant  valley  to  the  south  of  the 
hill   of  Zion,  where   were   found   in   early  times   the  kn 

lens.     But  as  it  was  there  that  the  worship  of  Moloch 

celebrated  under  the  idolatrous  kings,  Josiah  converted  it 

into  a  place  for  sewage.     The  valley  thus  became  the  type, 

and  its  name  the  designation,  of  lull.     Tin's  Baying  of  .1. 

dist;  9    soul    from    body    as    emphatically    afl    modern 

itualism  can  do.      What  are  we  to  think  of  M.  Renan, 
who  dares  to  assert  that  Jesus  did  not  know  the  exact  < 
tinction  between  those  two  elements  of  our  being  ! 

Jesus  does  not  promise  His  disciples  that  their  life  shall 
always  be  safe.  But  if  they  perish,  it  will  not  be  without  the 
consent  of  an  all-powcriul  Being,  who  is  called  shea  Bather. 
The  sayings  which  follow  express  by  the  most  forcible  embl- 

idea  of  a  providence  which  extends  to  flu  smallest  del 
of  human  life. — To  n  iore  appreciable  sum.  Luke  speaks 

value  of  about  two  farthings.     Matthew, 
who   speaks   of    two    birds    only,   gives    their    value    at   one 

bing;  that  is,  a  little  dearer.  Did  live  cost  proportional  1\ 
a  little  less  than  two?  Can  we  imagine  one  of  the  two 
evangelists  amusing  himself  by  making  such  changes  in  t la- 
text  of  the  other,  or  in  that  of  a  common  document!  Th« 
expression  brforc   G< ■■'   i     II •'■:  e  is 

not  one  of  those  small  creatures  which  is  not  individually 


92  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

present  to  the  view  of  divine  omniscience.  The  knowledge 
of  God  extends  not  only  to  our  persons,  but  even  to  the  most 
insignificant  parts  of  our  being, — to  those  140,000  hairs  of 
which  we  lose  some  every  day  without  paying  the  least 
attention.  No  fear,  then ;  ye  shall  not  fall  without  God's 
consent ;  and  if  He  consent,  it  is  because  it  will  be  for  His 
child's  good. 

Vers.  8-10.1  Tlie  Recompense  of  faithful  Disciples,  contrasted 
with  the  Punishment  of  the  Cowardly,  and  with  that  of  Adver- 
saries.— "  Also  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  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,  shall  be  denied 
before  the  angels  of  God.  10.  And  whosoever  shall  speak  a 
word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him  ;  but  unto 
him  that  blasphemeth  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be 
forgiven."  The  profession  of  the  gospel  may  undoubtedly 
cost  the  disciples  dear ;  but  if  they  persevere,  it  assures  them 
of  a  magnificent  recompense.  Jesus,  when  glorified,  will 
requite  them  by  declaring  them  His  before  the  heavenly 
throng,  for  what  they  did  for  Him  by  acknowledging  Him 
their  Lord  below  at  the  time  of  His  humiliation.  The 
gnostic  Heracleon  remarked  the  force  of  the  prep,  iv  with 
ofiokoyelv.  It  expresses  the  rest  of  faith  in  Him  who  is  con- 
fessed. Ver.  9  guards  the  disciples  against  the  danger  of 
denial.  This  warning  was  by  no  means  out  of  place  at  the 
time  when  they  were  surrounded  by  furious  enemies.  It  is 
to  be  remarked  that  Jesus  does  not  say  He  will  deny  the 
renegade,  as  He  said  that  He  would  confess  the  confessor. 
The  verb  is  here  in  the  passive,  as  if  to  show  that  this  rejec- 
tion will  be  a  self-consummated  act. 

Ver.  10  glances  at  a  danger  more  dreadful  still  than  that 
of  being  rejected  as  a  timid  disciple.  This  punishment  may 
have  an  end.  But  the  sin  of  which  ver.  1 0  speaks  is  for  ever 
unpardonable.  This  terrible  threat  naturally  applies  to  the 
sin  of  the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  to  which  His  thought  recurs 
in  closing.  They  sin,  not  through  timidity,  but  through  active 
malice.     By  the  expression  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit 

1  Ver.  8.  N.  D.  read  an  after  vfciv. — Marcion  omitted  vuv  uyyiXuv. — Ver.  9. 
A.  D.  K.  Q.  n.  20  Mini.,  tftTpoirhv  instead  of  the  first  u>u*io*  (according  to 
Matthew). 


CHAP.  XII.  8-10.  US 

Jesus  alludes  to  the  accusation  which  had  given  rise  to  this 
whole  conflict  (xi.  1 5),  and  by  which  the  works  of  that  divine 
agent  in  the  hearts  of  men  (comp.  Matt,  xil  28,  "  If  I  cast 
out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God ")  had  been  ascribed  to  the 
spirit  of  darkness.  That  was  knowingly  and  deliberately  to 
insult  the  holiness  of  the  principle  from  which  all  good  in 
human  life  proceeds.  To  show  the  greatness  of  this  crime  of 
high  treason,  Jesus  compares  it  with  an  outrage  committed 
against  His  own  person.  He  calls  the  latter  a  simple  word 
(\6yov),  an  imprudent  word,  not  a  Uasphcmy.  To  utter  a 
word  against  the  poor  and  humble  Son  of  man  is  a  sin  which 
does  not  necessarily  proceed  from  malice.  Might  it  not  be 
the  position  of  a  sincerely  pious  Jew,  who  was  still  ruled  by 
prejudices  with  which  he  had  been  imbued  by  his  pharisaic 
education,  to  regard  Jesus  not  as  the  expected  Messiah,  but 
as  an  enthusiast,  a  visionary,  or  even  an  impostor  ?  Such  a 
sin  resembles  that  of  the  woman  who  devoutly  brought  her 
contribution  to  the  pile  of  Huss,  and  at  the  sight  of  whom 
the  martyr  exclaimed,  Saiicta  simplicitas.  Jesus  is  ready  to 
pardon  in  this  world  or  in  the  next  every  indignity  offered 
merely  to  His  person  ;  but  an  insult  offered  to  goodness  as 
such,  and  to  its  living  principle  in  the  heart  of  humanity,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  impious  audacity  of  putting  the  holiness  of 

I  orks  to  the  account  of  the  spirit  of  evil, — that  is  what 
He  calls  Masplicminfj  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  what  He  declares 
unpardonable.  The  history  of  Israel  has  fully  proved  the 
troth  of  this  threatening.    This  people  perished  not  for  having 

I  Jesus  Christ  to  the  cross.  Otherwise  Good  Friday 
would  have  been  the  day  oi  their  judgment,  and  God  would 
not  have  continued  to  offer  them  for  forty  years  the  pardon 
I  its  rejection  of  the  apostolic  preaching, 
to  resistance  to  the  Spirit  of  Pentecost,  which  filled 
up  the  measure  of  Jerusalem's  sin.  And  it  is  with  individuals 
as  with  that  nation.       i  which  is  tot  ever  unpardonable, 

is  not  the  rejection  of  tin;  truth,  in  consequence  of  a  mis- 
understanding, such  as  that  of  so  many  unbelievers  who 
confound  the  gospel  with  tins  or  that  false  form,  which  is 
nothing  better  than  its  caricature.  It  is  hatred  of  holiness  as 
such, — a  hatred  which  leads  men  to  make  the  gospel  a  work 
of  pride  or  fraud,  and  to  ascribe  it  to  the  spirit  of  cviL     This 


94  TIIE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

is  not  to  sin  against  Jesus  personally ;  it  is  to  insult  the 
divine  principle  which  actuated  Him.  It  is  hatred  of  good- 
ness itself  in  its  supreme  manifestation. 

The  form  in  which  Matthew  (xii.  31,  32)  has  preserved  this 
warning  differs  considerably  from  that  of  Luke ;  and  that  of 
Mark  (iii.  28,  29)  differs  in  its  turn  from  that  of  Matthew. 
It  is  wholly  inconceivable,  that  in  a  statement  of  such  gravity 
the  evangelists  arbitrarily  introduced  changes  into  a  written 
text  which  they  had  before  their  eyes.  On  the  contrary,  we 
can  easily  understand  how  this  saying,  while  circulating  in 
the  churches  in  the  shape  of  oral  tradition,  assumed  somewhat 
different  forms.  As  to  the  place  assigned  to  this  declaration 
by  the  synoptics,  that  which  Matthew  and  Mark  give,  imme- 
diately after  the  accusation  which  called  it  forth,  appears  at 
first  sight  preferable.  Nevertheless,  the  connection  which  it 
has  in  Luke's  context  with  what  precedes  and  what  follows, 
is  not  difficult  to  apprehend.  There  is  at  once  a  gradation  in 
respect  of  the  sin  of  weakness  mentioned  ver.  9,  and  a  contrast 
to  the  promise  of  vers.  11  and  12,  where  this  Holy  Spirit, 
the  subject  of  blasphemy  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees,  is  pre- 
sented as  the  powerful  support  of  the  persecuted  disciples 
There  is  thus  room  for  doubt. 

Vers.  11  and  12.1  The  Aid. — "  When  they  bring  you  unto 
the  synagogues,  and  before  magistrates  and  powers,  take  ye  no 
thought  how  or  what  thing  ye  shall  answer,  or  ivliat  ye  shall 
say :  12.  For  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you  in  the  same  hour 
what  ye  ought  to  say"  —  Jesus  seems  to  take  pleasure  in 
enumerating  all  the  different  kinds  of  powers  whose  hostility 
they  shall  have  to  feel. — Hvvaycoyat,  the  Jewish  tribunals, 
having  a  religious  character ;  apyal,  Gentile  authorities,  purely 
civil,  from  provincial  prefects  up  to  the  emperor ;  i^ovaiao, 
any  power  whatsoever.  But  let  them  not  make  preparation 
to  plead  !  Their  answer  will  be  supplied  to  them  on  the 
spot,  both  as  to  its  form  (prm,  how)  and  substance  (rl,  what). 
And  their  part  will  not  be  confined  to  defending  themselves  j 
they  will  take  the  offensive  ;  they  will  bear  testimony  (t« 
eXirr)Te,  what  ye  shall  say).     In  this  respect,  also,  everything 

1  Ver.  11.  tf.  B.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  It^K  Vg.,  utrtptputrtv  instead  of  Tpotr<p<pa<riv. 
D.  It""*.,  Qspunv.—&.  D.  R.  some  Mnn.,  us  instead  of  nr*.— * K.  B.  L.  Q.  R.  X. 
some  Mnn.,  fnpi/Avnanri  instead  of  (ttpipmn. — D.  Syr.  ItPleriiue,  omit  »  «. 


CHAP.  XII.  13-59.  95 

shall  be  given  them.  Witness  Peter  and  Stephen  before  the 
Sanhedrim,  St.  Paul  before  Felix  and  Eestus ;  they  do  not 
merely  defend  their  person ;  they  preach  the  gospel.  Thus 
the  Holy  Spirit  will  so  act  in  them,  that  they  shall  only  have 
to  yield  themselves  to  Him  as  His  mouthpiece.  The  parallel 
passage  occurs  in  Matthew  in  the  instructions  given  to  the 
Twelve  (x.  19,  20).  The  form  is  different  enough  to  prove 
that  the  two  compilations  are  not  founded  on  the  same  text. 
Comp.  also  a  similar  thought  (John  xv.  26,  27). — This  saying 
attests  the  reality  of  the  psychological  phenomenon  of  inspira- 
tion. Jesus  asserts  that  the  Spirit  of  God  can  so  communicate 
with  the  spirit  of  man,  that  the  latter  shall  be  only  the  organ 
of  the  former. 

Holtzmann  sees  in  all  those  sayings,  xii.  1-12,  only  a  combination 
of  materials  arbitrarily  connected  by  Luke,  and  placed  here  in  a 
fictitious  framework.     A  discourse  specially  addressed  to  the  dis- 
ciples seems  to  him  out  of  place  in  the  midst  of  this  crowd  (p.  151). 
be  cannot  help  making  an  exception  of  vers.  1-3,  which  may 
■  led  as  suitably  spoken  before  a  large  multitude.     But  it 
admit  ever  so  little  the  historical  truth  of  the  striking  words,  I  say 
unto  you,  you  my  friends  (ver.  4),  we  must  acknowledge  that  they 
•  •  to  distinguish  the  disciples  from  other  persons  present,  and 
who  are  not  of  the  same  mind.     The  promise  addressed  to  faithful 
confessors  (ver.  9)  also  receives  from  the  hostile  surround  in  _ 
quite  peculiar  appropriateness.     The  threat  of  ver.  10  supposes  the 
•nee  of  adversaries  who  have  calumniated  Jesus.     In  short,  the 
announcement  <>i'  persecutions,  :m<l  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
aid,  vera.  11,  12,  find  a  natural  explanation  if,  at  the  very  moment, 
in  a  perilous  situation.     All  the  elements  of  Una 
perfect  b  ith  the  historical fram 

which  it  is  set  by  Luke.  And  this  frame  is  only  an  invention  of  Uk& 
evangelist ! 

9.    The  Position  of  Man  and  of  the  Believer  in  relation  to 
Goods:   xii   13-59. — The  occasion  of  this  new 
ourse  is  supplied  by  an  unexpected  event,  and  without 
any  rein"  happened    This  piece  embraces: 

1st.    A  i]    introduction   (vers.    13,  14);    2d.  A  dis- 

course addressed  by  Jesus  to  th  mK    an  the  value  of 

earthly  goods  to  man  in  general  (vers.  15-21) ;  3d.  A  dis- 
course, which  He  addresses  specially  to  the  disciples,  on  the 
position  which  thei i  hres  them   in  I    pect  of  those 

goods  (vers.  22-40) ;  4/  11  more  special  application  of 

the  same  truth  to  the  apostles  (vers.  41-53)  ;    •//     In  i  lo 


96  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE.  v 

Jesus  returns  to  the  people,  and  gives  them  a  last  warning, 
based  on  the  threatening  character  of  present  circumstances 
(vers.  54-59). 

1st  TJie  Occasion:  vers.  13  and  14.1 — A  man  in  the  crowd 
profits  by  a  moment  of  silence  to  submit  a  matter  to  Jesus 
which  lies  heavily  on  his  heart,  and  which  probably  brought 
him  to  the  Lord's  presence.  According  to  the  civil  law  of  the 
Jews,  the  eldest  brother  received  a  double  portion  of  the  in- 
heritance, burdened  with  the  obligation  of  supporting  his 
mother  and  unmarried  sisters.  As  to  the  younger  members, 
it  would  appear  from  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  that  the 
single  share  of  the  property  which  accrued  to  them  was  some- 
times paid  in  money.  This  man  was  perhaps  one  of  those 
younger  members,  who  was  not  satisfied  with  the  sum  allotted 
to  him,  or  who,  after  having  spent  it,  still  claimed,  under  some 
pretext  or  other,  a  part  of  the  patrimony.  As  on  other 
similar  occasions  (the  woman  taken  in  adultery),  Jesus  abso- 
lutely refuses  to  go  out  of  His  purely  spiritual  domain,  or  to 
do  anything  which  might  give  Him  the  appearance  of  wishing 
to  put  Himself  in  the  place  of  the  powers  that  be.  The 
answer  to  the  rfc,  who  ?  is  this  :  neither  God  nor  men. — The 
difference  between  the  judge  and  the  fiepiarrj^,  him  who 
divides,  is  that  the  first  decides  the  point  of  law,  and  the 
second  sees  the  sentence  executed. — The  object  of  Jesus  in 
this  journey  being  to  take  advantage  of  all  the  providential 
circumstances  which  could  not  fail  to  arise,  in  order  to  instruct 
the  people  and  His  disciples,  He  immediately  uses  this  to  bring 
before  the  different  classes  of  His  hearers  those  solemn  truths 
which  are  called  forth  in  His  mind  by  the  unexpected  event. 

Holtzmann  is  obliged  to  acknowledge  the  reality  of  the  fact 
mentioned  in  the  introduction.  He  therefore  alleges,  that  in  this 
special  case  the  common  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke  contained  a 
historical  preface,  and  that  the  latter  has  preserved  it  to  us,  such  as 
it  was.  We  accept  for  Luke  the  homage  rendered  in  this  case  to 
his  fidelity.  But,  1st  With  what  right  can  it  be  pretended  that  we 
have  here  something  exceptional  %  2d.  How  can  it  be  alleged  that 
the  occasion  of  the  following  discourse  was  expressly  indicated  in 
the  Logia,  and  that,  nevertheless,  in  the  face  of  this  precise  datum, 
the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  allowed  himself  to  distribute  the 

1  Ver.  14.  X.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  read  Kfimv  instead  of  hteurmv  (perhaps  fol- 
lowing Acts  vii.  27,  35,  Tischendorf). 


cn\r.  xir.  13-ji.  97 

discourse  as  follows  :  two  fragments  (vers.  22-31,  and  33,  34)  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  vi.  25-33,  19-21)  j  another  frag- 
ment (vers.  51-53)  in  the  installation  discourse  to  the  Twelve  (Matt. 
x.  54-36)  ;  finally,  various  passages  in  the  great  eschatological 
discourse  (Matt.  xxiv.  and  xxv.)1  Weizsacker  feels  the  impossi- 
bility of  such  a  procedure.  According  to  him,  Matthew  has  pre- 
served to  us  the  form  of  the  discourse  exactly  as  it  appeared  in  the 
Bat  what  does  Luke  in  his  turn  do  1  Drawing  from  those 
:  discourses  of  the  Logia  the  materials  which  suit  him,  he  forms 
a  new  one,  purely  fanciful,  at  the  head  of  which  he  sets  as  the  origin 
a  historical  anecdote  of  his  own  invention  !  In  what  respect  is  this 
procedure  better  than  that  which  Holtzmann  ascribes  to  Matthew? 
Such  are  the  psychological  monstrosities  in  opposite  directions  to 
which  men  are  reduced  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  document. 

To  the  People:  vers.  15-21.1  The  Rich  Fool — JTpo? 
avrovs  ("He  said  unto  tliem"),  ver.  15,  stands  in  opposition 
to  Hu  disciples,  ver.  22.  This  slight  detail  confirms  the 
exactness  of  Luke,  for  faith  is  nowhere  supposed  in  those  to 
whom  the  warning,  vers.  15-21,  is  addressed.  The  two 
imperatives  take  heed  and  beware  might  be  regarded  as  ex- 
pressing only  one  idea:  "Have  your  eyes  fully  open  to  this 
enemy,  avarice;"  but  they  may  be  translated  thus:  "Tak 
heed  [to  this  man]  and  beware."  Jesus  would  set  him  as  an 
inple  before  the  assembled  people.  The  Greek  term,  which 
we  translate  by  covctousness,  denotes  the  desire  of  having, 
much  more  than  that  of  keeping  what  we  have.  But  the 
second  is  included  in  the  first.  Both  rest  on  a  superstitious 
confidence  in  worldly  goods,  which  arc  instinctively  identified 
with  happiness.  But  to  enjoy  money  there  is  a  condition, 
life,  and  this  condition  is  not  guaranteed  by  money. — 
Ilepiaaeveiv,  the  surplus  of  what   one  has  beyond   what  he 

i     ■  prep.  eV  may  be  paraphrased  by  tlwugh  or  becav 
"  Tlwutjh  lie  lias  or  became  lie  has  superabundance,  he  has  not 
for  all  that  assurance  of  life."     The  two  senses  come  nearly 
to  the  same.     Wo  ihoold  probably  read  Trdarj^,  all  covetous- 
ness,  instead  of  t?}?,  covetousness  in  ' .    the  desire  of 

taring  in  liape. 

r.  11     V     .   -rarri  iBftMd  of  mt,  which  tlio 
!:.  read*  with  9  By*.  nn<l  the  Mini.-  7  M  60  Mini.,  «vt*  inst< .. 

mvrtv  aftrr  $>"•—  The  Mm.  are  divided  between  m»r$u  (T.  R.)  and  «*t* 
*t*,y„t.  M   I>.  tome  Mnn.  Syr*"'.  It*,"*,»tt%  omit  mm  m  «?«#«  pm 

—Ver.  CO.     13  Mjj.  (Alex.)  several  Mnn.,  «•>*»  instead  of  «*f#». 
VOL>  IL  O 


98  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Ver.  16.  The  term  parable  may  signify  an  example  as  well 
as  an  image ;  when  the  example  is  fictitious,  it  is  invented  as 
an  image  of  the  abstract  truth. — This  rich  farmer  has  a  super- 
abundance of  goods  sufficient  for  years ;  but  all  in  vain,  his 
superfluity  cannot  guarantee  his  life  even  till  to-morrow. — 
He  speaks  to  his  soul  (B>BJ),  the  seat  of  his  affections,  as  if  it 
belonged  to  him  ^  my  soul;"  comp.  the  four  pod,  vers.  17 
and  18);  and  yet  he  is  about  to  learn  that  this  soul  itself  is 
only  lent  him. — The  words :  "  God  said  unto  him"  express 
more  than  a  decree ;  they  imply  a  warning  which  he  hears 
inwardly  before  dying.  The  subject  of  airauTovaiv  (the 
present  designates  the  immediate  future)  is  neither  murderers 
nor  angels ;  it  is  the  indefinite  pron.  on,  they,  according  to  a 
very  common  Aramaic  form;  comp.  ver.  48  and  xiv.  35. 
This  night  is  the  antithesis  of  many  years,  as  required  is  that 
of  the  expression  "  my  soul." 

Ver.  21.  Application  of  the  parable.  The  phrase  laying  up 
treasure  for  himself  is  sufficiently  explained  by  ver.  19. — Rich 
toward  God  might  signify,  rich  in  spiritual  goods.  But  the 
prep.  eU,  in  relation  to,  is  unfavourable  to  this  meaning.  It 
is  better  to  take  it  in  the  sense  of  laying  up  a  treasure  in  the 
presence  of  God,  in  the  sense  of  the  saying,  He  who  giveth  to  the 
poor  lendeth  to  the  Lord.  To  become  God's  creditor,  is  to  have 
a  treasure  in  God;  comp.  vers.  33,  34. 

3d.  To  the  Disciples:  vers.  22-40.  Disengagement  from 
earthly  goods.  —  The  following  exhortations  suppose  faith. 
The  believer  should  renounce  the  pursuit  of  earthly  goods : 
1.  From  a  feeling  of  entire  confidence  as  to  this  life  in  his 
heavenly  Father  (vers.  22-34)  ;  2.  From  his  preoccupation 
with  spiritual  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.  22-24.1  Disengagement  as  resulting  from  confidence 
in  the  omnipotence  and  fatherly  goodness  of  God. — "  And  He 
said  unto  His  disciples,  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  Take  no 
thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat ;  neither  for  the  body, 
what  ye  shall  put  on.  23.  The  life  is  more  than  meat,  and  the 
body  is  more  than  raiment.     24.  Consider  the  ravens :  for  they 

1  Ver.  22.  K.  A.  B.  D.  L.  Q.  10  Mnn.  ItPlerii«e,  omit  upm  after  *»£«.—  Ver. 
23.  7  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  Syr.  Itali<a.  add  y»f  after  n. 


CHA1\  XII.  sshm  99 

neither  sow  nor  reap ;  which  neitlier  Jiave  storehouse  nor  bam ; 
and  God  fcedcth  them :  how  much  more  are  ye  letter  than  the 

! "  The  words  unto  His  disciples,  ver.  22,  are  the  key  of 
this  discourse ;  it  is  only  to  believers  that  Jesus  can  speak  as 
He  proceeds  to  do.  Not  only  should  the  believer  not  aim  at 
possessing  superabundance,  he  should  not  even  disquiet  him- 
self about  the  necessaries  of  life.  Of  the  family  of  God 
(ver.  34),  the  disciples  of  Jesus  may  reckon  on  the  tender  care 
of  this  heavenly  Master  in  whose  service  they  are  working, 
md  that  in  respect  of  food  as  well  as  clothing. — Tlierefore : 
because  this  false  confidence  in  riches  is  folly.  Ver.  22 
formally  states  the  precept;  ver.  23   gives  its  logical  proof; 

24  illustrates  it  by  an  example  taken  from  nature.     The 

d  proof  rests  on  an  argument  a  fortiori:  He  who  gave 
the  more  (the  life,  the  body),  will  yet  more  certainly  give  the 
less  (the  nourishment  of  the  life,  the  clothing  of  the  body). 
In  the  example  borrowed  from  nature,  it  is  important  to  mark 

all   the    figures    employed — sowing,  reaping,    storehouse, 

— are  connected  with  the  parable  of  the  foolish  rich  man. 
All  those  labours,  all  those  provisions,  in  the  midst  of  which 

Ich  man  died,  the  ravens  know  nothing  of  them ;  and  yet 
they  live  !  The  will  of  God  is  thus  a  surer  guarantee  of 
existence  than  the  possession  of  superabundance.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  Matthew  has  those  sayings, 
they  occur  apart  from  any  connection  with   the  ]>aval>le  of  i\w 

h   rich   man,  of  whom   there   is   no  mention  whatever. 

,  a  flower  torn  from  its  stalk  (see  on  Luke  xi.  r>-10). 

certainly  not  Luke  who  has  cleverly  imagined  the  strik- 
ing connection  between  this  example  and  the  preceding 
parable.      It  must  therefore  ham  sources.     But 

if  those  sources  were  the  same  as  those  of  Matthew,  the  latter 
must  then  have  had  si  i  kiltulness  as  to  break  a 

tion  like  this  ! — In  the  last  words,  the  adverb  juiWov, 
joined  to  huufxpeiv,  which  by  itself  signifies  to  be  bettor,  is  a 
pleonasm  having  the  meaning:   to  surpass    in   the   highest 
degree. — In  contrast  with   divine   power  Jesus  sets  human 
i  by  the  sudd,  n  death  «»f  the  rieh  man, 
h  completes  the  proof  of  the  folly  of  earthly  cares. 
Ver  /  thought,  can  add 

D.  If1*,  omit  ir«  after  **•"»-  ycr.  26.  K.  B.  L.  Q.  T.  some 


100  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

to  his  stature  one  cubit  ?  26.  If  ye  then  be  not  able  to  do  thai 
thing  which  is  least,  why  take  ye  thought  for  the  rest?  27. 
Consider  the  lilies  how  they  grow :  they  toil  not,  they  spin  not ; 
and  yet  I  say  unto  you,  that  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  was  not 
arrayed  like  one  of  these.  28.  If  then  God  so  clothe  the  grass, 
which  is  to-day  in  the  field,  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven  ; 
how  much  more  you,  0  ye  of  little  faith  ?  "  Ver.  2  5  expresses 
in  a  general  way  the  idea  of  the  inefficacy  of  human  cares. 
Meptfxvoiyv,  participle  present :  by  means  of  disquieting  one- 
self. 'HXiicla  might  refer  to  age ;  we  should  then  require  to 
take  irrrxvs,  cubit,  in  a  figurative  sense  (Ps.  xxxix.  6).  But 
the  word  seems  to  us  to  be  connected  with  what  is  said  about 
the  growth  of  plants,  which  is  sometimes  so  rapid ;  it  is  there- 
fore more  natural  to  give  rfkiida  its  ordinary  sense  of  stature. 
Ilrjxvs,  cubit,  thus  preserves  its  literal  meaning.  Plants 
which  give  themselves  no  care,  yet  make  enormous  increase, 
while  ye  by  your  anxieties  do  not  in  the  least  hasten  your 
growth.  Vers.  25,  26  correspond  to  ver.  23.  Your  anxieties 
will  not  procure  for  you  an  increase  of  stature  ;  how  much 
less  advantages  of  higher  value !  The  example  which  follows, 
taken  from  nature  (ver.  27),  corresponds  with  that  of  ver. 
24.  —  After  reading  the  delicious  piece  of  M.  F.  Bovet 
(Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,  p.  383),  it  is  hard  to  give  up 
the  idea  that  by  the  lily  of  the  fields  we  are  to  understand 
the  beautiful  red  anemone  (anemone  coronarid)  with  which 
the  meadows  throughout  all  Palestine  are  enamelled.  Yet 
Jesus  may  possibly  mean  either  the  magnificent  white  lily 
(lilium  candidum),  or  the  splendid  red  lily  (lilium  rubrum), 
which  are  found,  though  more  rarely,  in  that  country  (Winer, 
Lexicon,  ad  h.  v.). — From  want  of  wood,  ovens  in  the  East 
are  fed  with  herbs. 

Vers.  29— 3 4.1  The  Application. — "And  seek  not  ye  what  ye 
shall  eat,  or  vjhat  ye  shall  drink,  neither  be  ye  of  doubtful  mind. 
3  0.  For  all  these  things  do  the  nations  of  the  world  seek  after  : 
and  your  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need  of  these  things. 

Mnn.,  evh  instead  of  evrs. — Ver.  27.  D.  Syr0"*,  has  <r*>;  oun  vnfoi  ovn  utpxtm  in- 
stead of  ir us  avletvu  eu  xotiu  evh  vvki. — Ver.  28.  B.  D.  L.  T.,  uftfn^u  instead  of 

MfiQizvvvri. 

1  Ver.  29.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  v  r$  (T.  R.)  and  xai  n  (Alex.). — Ver. 
31 .  N.  B.  D.  L.  Itali(J. ,  kutov  instead  of  rou  e<ov  (which  is  perhaps  taken  from 
Matthew).— 10  Mjj.  30  Mnn.  Syrcur.  Ita1i<>.  omit  *-*vr«. 


CHAP.  XII.  29-34.  101 

31.  But  rather  seek  ye  the  kingdom  of  God;  and  all  these 
things  shall  be  added  unto  you.  32.  Fear  not,  little  flock ;  for 
it  is  your  Fathers  good  pleasure  to  give  you.  the  kingdom.  33. 
Sell  that  ye  have,  and  gicc  alms;  provide  yourselves  bags  which 
not  old,  a  treasure  in  the  heavens  that  faileth  not,  where  no 
thief  approacheth,  neither  moth  corrupteth.      34.  For  where  your 

'sure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also" — With  the  cares 
winch  He  leaves  to  the  men  of  this  world  (vers.  29,  30) 
Jesus  contrasts  the  care  which  He  recommends  to  His  own 
(vers.  31— 3  4).1 — KaC  (ver.   29)  :  and  consequently. — 'TfieU, 

might  contrast  men  with  the  lower  creatures  cited  as 
examples,  the  ravens,  the  lilies.  But  according  to  ver.  30, 
this  pronoun  rather  serves  to  distinguish  the  disciples  from 
men  who  have  no  faith,  from  the  nations  of  this  world.  Jesus 
thus  designates  not  only  the  heathen, — in  that  case  He  would 
have  said  simply  the  nations, — but  also  the  Jews,  who,  by 
refusing  to  enter  into  the  fiaatXela,  condemn  themselves  to 
become  a  people  of  this  world  like  the  rest,  and  remain  out- 
side of  the  true  people  of  God,  to  whom  Jesus  is  here  speaking 
[thr  little  flock,  ver.  :)2). 

n\i)v  (ver.  31):  "All  this  false  seeking  swept  away,  there 

UNftf  only  one  which  is  worthy  of  you."  "The  kingdom  of 
God,"  as  always :  that  state,  first  internal,  then  social,  in  which 
the  human  will  is  nothing  but  the  free  agent  of  the  divine 
will.  All  these  things,  to  wit,  food  and  clothing,  shall  be 
ren  over  and  above  the  kingdom  which  ye  seek  exclusively, 
as  earthly  blessings  were  given  to  the  young  Solomon  over 
and  he  wisdom  which  alone  he  had  ttked      Kai:  and 

on  this   -ingle  condition.  —  llama  was  easily  omitted  alter 
ravra  by  a  mistake  of  sight  (confusion  of  the  two  ra).     Bleek 
it  this   passage  is  more  suitably  put  in   Luke 
than   by   Matthew   in  the   Sermon   on   the   Mount,  when*  the 

ire  piece  DO  r.mtidcnce  is  only  very  indirectly  connected 
with  the  charge  Of  covetousness  a<l<  to  the  Pharisees. 

The  expression  little  fl<«i\  ver.  82,  OOTrtWpOlldil  with  the 
critical  position  of  the  small  group  in  the  midst 

of  i  d  or  hostile  d  mi.  1 ;  it  recalls  the  you,  my 

friends,  ver.  4.     Jesus  here  gives  consolation  to  the  belli 
for  times  whin  the  intends  of  the  kingdom  o!  Qod  place 

i,  vol.  ii.  ! 


102  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

him  in  a  position  of  earthly  privation  (Gess).  The  a  fortiori 
argument  of  ver.  23  is  here,  ver.  32,  reproduced  in  a  higher 
sphere :  "  Will  not  He  who  has  provided  with  so  much  love 
for  your  eternal  well-being,  provide  more  certainly  still  for 
your  poor  earthly  maintenance  ? "  What  faithful  servant 
would  have  to  disquiet  himself  about  his  food  in  the  house  of 
the  master  for  whom  he  works  day  and  night  ?  And  when 
this  master  is  a  Father !  It  was  from  experience  that  Jesus 
spoke  in  such  a  style. 

From  the  duty  of  being  unconcerned  about  the  acquisition 
of  riches,  Jesus  passes,  ver.  33,  to  that  of  their  wise  employ- 
ment when  they  are  possessed.  This  precept  constitutes, 
according  to  De  Wette,  the  great  heresy  of  Luke,  or,  according 
to  Keim,  that  of  his  Ebionite  document — salvation  by  the 
meritorious  virtue  of  voluntary  poverty  and  almsgiving.  But 
let  us  first  remark,  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  believers, 
who  as  such  already  possess  the  kingdom  (ver.  32),  and  do 
not  require  to  merit  it.  Then,  when  Jesus  says  sell,  give  .  .  ., 
is  it  a  commandment  ?  Is  it  not  the  sense  rather :  "  Have 
no  fear ;  only  do  so !  If  you  do,  you  will  find  it  again." 
Finally,  for  a  member  of  the  society  of  believers  at  this 
period,  was  not  the  administration  of  earthly  property  a  really 
difficult  thing  ?  Was  not  every  disciple  more  or  less  in  the 
position  of  Jesus  Himself,  who,  having  once  begun  His 
ministry,  had  required  to  break  off  His  trade  as  a  carpenter  ? 
The  giving  away  of  earthly  goods  is  here  presented,  first  as  a 
means  of  personal  emancipation,  that  the  giver  might  be  able 
to  accompany  Jesus,  and  become  one  of  the  instruments  of 
His  work ;  then  as  a  gladsome  liberality  proceeding  from 
love,  and  fitted  to  enrich  our  heaven  eternally.  In  all  this 
there  is  nothing  peculiar  to  Luke,  nor  to  his  alleged  Ebionite 
document.  Comp.  in  respect  of  the  first  aspect,  the  history 
of  the  rich  young  man  (in  the  three  Syn.) ;  and,  in  respect 
to  the  second,  the  word  of  Jesus  in  Matthew :  "  Inasmuch 
as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  .  .  .  ye  have  done  it 
unto  me"  and  the  whole  of  the  judgment  scene  (Matt.  xxv. 
31-46). 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  kingdom  of  God  at  this 
period  was  identified  with  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  the 
society  of  disciples  who  accompanied  Him.     To  follow  Jesus 


CIIAr.  XII.  35-38.  103 

(literally)  in  His  peregrinations  was  the  only  way  of  pos- 
sessing this  treasure,  and  of  becoming  fit  to  spr  ad  it  in 
consequence.  Then,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  an  army  not 
merely  of  believers,  but  of  evangelists,  that  Jesus  was  now 
labouring  to  form.  If  they  had  remained  attached  to  the  soil 
of  their  earthly  property,  they  would  have  been  incapable  of 
fallowing  and  serving  Him  without  looking  backwards  (ix.  62). 
The  essential  character  of  such  a  precept  alone  is  permanent. 

form  in  winch  Jesus  presented  it  arose  from  the  present 
condition  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  mode  of  fulfilling  it 
varies.     There   are  times  when,  to  disentangle   himself  and 

tise  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  must  keep  and  administer.  When 
Paul  thus  expressed  the  Christian  duty,  2>osscssing  as  though 
>  possessed  not  (1  Cor.  vii.  30),  it  is  evident  that  all  he  had 
in  view  was  the  disengaged  and  charitable  spirit  commended 
by  Jesus,  and  that  he  modified  the  transient  form  which  this 
precept  had  assumed.  There  is  in  the  expressions  of  Jesus  a 
sort  of  enthusiasm  of  disdain  for  those  earthly  treasures  in 
which  the  natural  man  places  his  happiness :  "  Get  rid  of 
those  goods ;  by  giving  them  away,  change  them  into  heavenly 
B,  and  ye  shall  have  made  a  good  bargain  !''  This  is 
the   h. ;  toward  God  (ver.  21).     Every  gift  made  by 

human  low  constitutes  in  the  eyes  of  God  the  impersonation 
of  love,  a  debt  payable  in  heaven.  Love  regards  love  with 
affection,  and  will  find  means  to  requite  it. 

By  this   mode  of  acting,  the  believer  finds  that  he  has  a 

ure  in  heaven*     Now  it  is  a  law  of  psychology  (ver.  34) 

t li: ; *  follows  the  treasure;  so,  your  tn.iMire  once 

pal   in    God,  your  heart   will   rise  unceasingly  toward    Him. 

This  new  attitude  of  the  believer,  who  lives  here  below  with 

heart   turned    heavenwards,   is   what   Jesus 

ribes  in  the  sequel.     Tin-   lea  it,  once  set  free  from  its 

earthly  burden,  will  live  on  the  mam  attachment  t<>  which  it 

D    up,  and  on  the  e.v  D   with  which   it   is  thus 

red,  vers.  35-38. 
B.  35-38.'    Tii-   Parable  of  the  Master  returning  to  his 

38.    Instead  Of  ««<  MM   %Xtn   i»   rn  iivrtpm  Qv>.**rtt   ««<   M  rn  Tfirti  $*>.*** 

mm  ;ufn  tmrnit  N.  B.  I~  T*.  X.  sonic  Mnn.  Syr**   It*1*,  read  mm  M  m  3irry« 


104  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

House. — "  Let  your  loins  be  girded  about,  and  your  lights  burn' 
ing ;  36.  And  ye  yourselves  like  unto  men  that  wait  for  their 
lord,  when  he  will  return  from  the  wedding ;  that,  when  he 
cometh  and  knocketh,  they  may  open  unto  him  immediately. 
37.  Blessed  are  those  servants  whom  the  lord  when  he  cometh 
shall  find  watching :  verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  he  shall  gird 
himself,  and  make  them  to  sit  down  to  meat,  and  will  come 
forth  and  serve  them.  38.  And  if  he  shall  come  in  the  second 
watch,  or  come  in  the  third  watch,  and  find  them  so,  blessed  are 
those  servants!' — Ver.  35.  The  long  oriental  robe  requires  to 
be  taken  up,  and  the  skirt  fastened  under  the  girdle,  to  allow 
freedom  in  walking  (xvii.  8).  If  it  is  night,  it  is  further 
required  that  one  have  a  lighted  lamp  in  his  hand,  to  walk 
quickly  and  surely  to  his  destination.  Those  two  figures  are 
so  thoroughly  in  keeping  with  the  position  of  the  servant 
spoken  of  in  the  following  verses,  that  we  have  no  doubt 
about  ver.  35  forming  part  of  the  parable,  vers.  36-38.  The 
faithful  believer  is  described  as  a  servant  waiting  over  night 
for  the  arrival  of  his  master,  who  is  returning  from  a  journey. 
That  there  may  be  no  delay  in  opening  the  door  when  he 
shall  knock,  he  keeps  himself  awake,  up  and  ready  to  run. 
The  lighted  lamp  is  at  his  hand;  he  has  even  food  ready 
against  the  time  of  his  return.  And  it  matters  not  though 
the  return  is  delayed,  delayed  even  to  the  morning ;  he  does 
not  yield  to  fatigue,  but  persists  in  his  waiting  attitude. — 
rT/*et?,  ye  (ver.  36),  your  whole  person,  in  opposition  to  the 
lighted  lamps  and  girded  loins.  The  word  ^aixot,  marriage, 
might  here  have  the  sense  of  banquet,  which  it  sometimes  has 
(Esth.  ii.  18,  ix.  22;  and  perhaps  Luke  xiv.  8).  It  is  more 
natural  to  keep  the  ordinary  sense,  only  observing  that  the 
marriage  in  question  is  not  that  of  the  master  himself,  but  a 
friend's,  in  which  he  is  taking  part.  What  does  the  master 
do  when  received  in  this  way  ?  Moved  by  such  fidelity, 
instead  of  seating  himself  at  the  table  prepared,  he  causes  his 
devoted  servants  to  seat  themselves,  and,  girding  himself  as  they 
were  girded,  he  approaches  them  {irapekOoov)  to  serve  them,  and 

xetv  iv  rti   Tfirn   QvXuxv)   i'/Jv\  xai  supn   evrus.      D.  It*li(*.  Marcion,    xttt   ietv   i\6n   rn 
wrtfiivv)   <pvXa.xn  xttt   ivptiffii   ovrus   Totnaat  (sic  facieiltes)   xttt   tctv   <rtj  ^ivnpa  xai  rn 

Tpirrt. — Na.  B.  D.  L.  Syr00',  omit  et  1ou\»i  before  ixuvot ;  N*  Itali<».  Ir.  omit  m 

"hcv'/.oi  ixuvtt. 


CHAP.  XII.  39,  40.  105 

presents  them  with  the  food  which  they  have  prepared  for 
him.  And  the  longer  delayed  kis  arrival  is,  the  livelier  is 
his  gratiuuk'.  the  greater  are  the  marks  of  his  satisfaction. 
Among  the  ancient  Jews,  the  night  had  only  three  divisions 
(Judg.  vii.  19);  later,  probably  after  the  Eoman  subjugation, 
four  were  admitted :  from  G  to  9,  from  9  to  midnight,  from 
midnight  to  3,  and  from  3  to  6  o'clock.  If,  as  cannot  be 
doubted,  the  master's  return  represents  the  Parousia,  this 
parable  teaches  that  that  event  may  be  long  delayed, — much 
longer  than  any  one  even  of  the  disciples  imagined, — and 
that  this  delay  will  be  the  means  of  testing  their  fidelity. 
The  same  thought  reappears  in  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins 
(Matt.  xxv.  5),  "  While  the  bridegroom  tarried;"  and  again  in 
that  of  the  talents  (xxv.  1 9),  "  After  a  long  time,  the  lord  of 
those  servants  comcth."  Jesus  thus  proclaimed  His  return,  but 
not  the  immediateness  of  that  return. — One  hardly  dares  to 
apply  the  promise  included  in  this  parable :  The  Lord  in  His 
glory  serving  him  who  has  faithfully  waited  for  and  served 
Him  here  below !  There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  of 
Luke  xvii.  7-9.  But  in  the  latter  passage  Jesus  is  expressing 
the  feeling  which  should  animate  the  servant:  "/  am,  after 
all  that  I  have  done,  but  an  unprofitable  servant."  Jesus 
wishes,  in  opposition  to  pharisaism,  to  sweep  away  the 
idea  of  merit.  Here  He  is  describing  the  feeling  of  the 
master  himself;  we  are  in  the  sphere  of  love  both  on  the  side 
of  the  servant  and  of  the  master. — The  variations  of  ver.  3k 
do  not  affect  its  general  meaning. 

The  Parousia  is  a  sweet  and  glorious  event  to  the  servant- 

-38).      But  at  the  same  time  it  is  solemn 

and  awful:  for  He  who  returns  is  not  only  a  well-beloved 

Master,  who  comes  to  requite  everything  which   has   been 

linn  .  He  is  also  a  thief  who  takes  aw  j  thing 

h  Bhoilld  B0t  have  been  K 

Vers.    39    an. I    40. !     j  of  the    Thief— "And  /his    i/r. 

know,  tliat  if  the  goodman  of  the  house  liad  known  what  hour 
the  th  nnt,  he   I  and  not  have 

is  house  to  be  broken  through.     40.  Be  y< 
rtady  also;  for  the  Son  of  man  comcth  at  an  hovr  \a 

!  \>r   M,   R   D.  Syi«'.  It**,  omit  iWyqi  «»  ««i.— Ver.  40.  K.  &  L.  C,l 
•onto  Mnn.  It.  omit  m%  after  i 


106  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

think  not.91 — TcvaxTKeTe,  ye  know,  should  be  taken  as  indie 
rather  than  as  imper. ;  this  knowledge  is  the  basis  of  the 
exhortation,  ver.  40.  The  application  should  be  made  as 
follows :  If  the  hour  of  attack  were  known,  men  would  not 
fail  to  hold  themselves  ready  against  that  hour ;  and  therefore 
when  it  is  not  known,  as  in  this  case,  the  only  way  is  to  be 
always  ready. — The  real  place  of  this  saying  is  possibly  that 
given  to  it  by  Matthew  (xxiv.  42-44)  in  the  eschatological 
discourses ;  Mark  is  here  at  one  with  him. — Of  all  the  sayings 
of  Jesus,  there  is  not  one  whose  influence  has  made  itself 
more  felt  in  the  writings  of  the  N.  T.  than  this  (1  Thess.  v. 
1,  2 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10  ;  Eev.  iii.  3,  xvi.  15) ;  it  had  awakened 
a  deep  echo  in  the  heart  of  the  disciples.  It  indicates  the 
real  meaning  of  waiting  for  the  second  advent  of  Christ. 
The  Church  has  not  the  task  of  fixing  beforehand  that  un- 
known and  unknowable  time ;  she  has  nothing  else  to  do,  in 
virtue  of  her  very  ignorance,  from  which  she  ought  not  to 
wish  to  escape,  than  to  remain  invariably  on  the  watch. 
This  attitude  is  her  security,  her  life,  the  principle  of  her 
virgin  purity.  This  duty  of  watching  evidently  embraces 
both  the  disengagement  and  the  attachment  which  are  com- 
manded in  this  discourse. 

4dh.  To  the  Apostles:  vers.  41-53. — Up  till  now,  Jesus 
liad  been  speaking  to  all  believers;  from  this  point,  on 
occasion  of  a  question  put  by  Peter,  He  addresses  the  apostles 
in  particular,  and  reminds  them  of  the  special  responsibility 
which  attaches  to  them  in  the  prospect  of  their  Master's 
return  (vers.  41—48) ;  then  He  gives  vent  to  the  emotions 
which  fill  His  heart  in  view  of  the  moral  revolution  which 
He  is  about  to  work  on  the  earth  (vers.  49-53). 

Vers.  41-48.1  The  Parable  of  the  Two  Stewards. — The 
magnificence  of  the  promise,  ver.  37,  has  struck  Peter;  he 
asks  himself  if  such  a  recompense  is  intended  for  all  the 
subjects  of  the  Messiah,  or  ought  not  rather  to  be  restricted 
to  those  who  shall  play  the  chief  part  in  His  kingdom.  If 
that  is  the  meaning  of  his  question,  ver.  41,  it  relates  not  to 

1  Ver.  42.  13  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  read  o  instead  of  »ai  "before  Qpovipas. — N*  T*. 
ItPleriiue,  Vg.  read,  instead  of  xara<r<r>j<rs/,  xxrt<rrn<nv  (taken  from  Matthew). — 
D.  L.  Q.  X.  omit  rov  before  lihovai.  — Ver.  47.  L.  Syr.  ItPleri<iue,  omit  prdi  *ow<r*s. 
K.  B.  T.,  v  instead  of  pafc. 


CHAP.   XII.  41-48.  107 

the  parable  of  the  thief  (vers.  39,  40),  but  to  that  of  the 

•ers    return    (vers.    35-38),  which    would    confirm    the 

impression  that  vers.  39  and  40  are  an  interpolation  in  this 

discourse,  to  be  ascribed  either  to  Luke  or  to  the  document 

from  which  he  borrows.     The  question  of  Peter  recalls  one 

put  by  the  same  apostle,  Matt.  xix.  27,  which,  so  far  as  the 

sense  goes,  is  exactly  similar. — Jesus  continues  His  teaching 

as  if  He  took  no  account  (apa,  then)  of  Peters  question ;  but 

in  reality  lie  gives  such  a  turn  to  the  warning  which  follows 

about  watchfulness,  that  it  includes  the  precise  answer  to  the 

question.      For  a  similar  form,  comp.  xix.  25,  26,  John  xiv. 

21-23,  et  al. — All  shall  be  recompensed  for  their  fidelity,  but 

those  more  magnificently  than  the  rest  who  have  been  set 

to  watch  over  their  brethren  in  the  Master's  absence  (vers. 

42-44) ;  as,  on  the  contrary,  he  who  has  been  in  this  higher 

position  and  neglected  his  duty,  shall  be  punished  much  more 

rely  than  the  servants  of  a  less  exalted  class  (vers.  45-46). 

Finally,  vers.  47,  48,  the  general  principle  on  which  this 

tnent  of  the  Church  proceeds. 

Jesus  gives   an  interrogative  form  to  the  indirect  answer 

which   He   makes   to   Peter's   question :    "  Who   then   is  the 

Reward  .  .  ./"     Why  this  style  of  expression?     De  Wette 

thinks  that  Jesus  speaks  as  if  lie  were  seeking  with  emotion 

among    Ili>  own  for  this  devoted  servant.     Bleek  finds  again 

the  form  observed,  xi.  5-8:  "Who  is  the  steward  wlm, 

if  his  master  comes  to  find  him,  shall  not  be  established  by 

liim  .  .  .?"      Neither  of  the  explanations  is  very  natural. 

us  puts  a  real  question;  Ho   invites   Peter  to  seek  that 

!  'it  oojgbft  to  be  hiiiiH'lf  and  every  apostle).     Matthew, 

by  v.   45-51)  the   interrogative  form,  while 

omitting  Peter's  question,  whirl:  rise  to  it,  supplies  a 

testimony  to  the  fidelity  of  Luke's   narrative. — 

The  stewards,  although  slaves  (ver.  45),  were  servants  of  a 

The  Oepaireia  is  the  l«ii<  ral  body  of  domestics, 

tli.'  famvlitium  of  the    Lit  ins.      This  turn  <  mi. -ponds  to  the 

s  question,  as  the  person  of  the  ruler  to  the  vs  in 

the  sair  ."ii.      'I'h.'   tut.  KaraaTy'jaei,  thail  make,  s.  i 

n<  h  shall  not  be  so  constituted  till 
after  the  departure  of  the  Master.  Kaipb<;,  the  due  season, 
denotes  the  time  fixed  for  the  \\v.  kly  01  dailj   di  nibution; 


108  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

crirojjL6Tpt,ovt  their  rations. — There  is  a  difference  between  the 
recompense  promised,  ver.  44,  to  the  faithful  steward  and 
that  which  was  pledged,  ver.  37,  to  the  watchful  servant. 
The  latter  was  of  a  more  inward  character ;  it  was  the  ex- 
pression of  the  master's  personal  attachment  to  the  faithful 
servant  who  had  personally  bestowed  his  care  upon  him. 
The  former  is  more  glorious ;  it  is  a  sort  of  official  recom- 
pense for  services  rendered  to  the  house :  the  matter  in 
question  is  a  high  government  in  the  kingdom  of  glory,  in 
recompense  for  labours  to  which  the  faithful  servant  has 
devoted  himself  in  an  influential  position  during  the  economy 
of  grace.  This  relation  is  indicated  by  the  correspondence  of 
the  two  Karaar^aet,  vers.  42  and  44. — This  saying  seems  to 
assume  that  the  apostolate  will  be  perpetuated  till  the  return 
of  Christ ;  and  the  figure  employed  does  indisputably  prove 
that  there  will  subsist  in  the  Church  to  the  very  end  a 
ministry  of  the  word  established  by  Christ.  Of  this  the 
apostles  were  so  well  aware,  that  when  they  were  themselves 
leaving  the  earth,  they  took  care  to  establish  ministers  of  the 
word  to  fill  their  places  in  the  Church.  This  ministry  was  a 
continuation,  if  not  of  their  whole  office,  at  least  of  one  of  its 
most  indispensable  functions,  that  of  which  Jesus  speaks  in 
our  parable — the  regular  distribution  of  spiritual  nourishment 
to  the  flock ;  comp.  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  1  Pet.  v.  The 
theory  which  makes  the  pastorate  emanate  from  the  Church 
as  its  representative,  is  therefore  not  biblical;  the  office  is 
rather  an  emanation  from  the  apostolate,  and  thus  mediately 
an  institution  of  Jesus  Himself.  Comp.  Eph.  iv.  11:  "  He 
gave  some  as  .  .  .  pastors  and  teachers."  It  is  Jesus  who  will 
have  this  ministry,  who  has  established  it  by  His  mandatories, 
who  procures  for  His  Church  in  every  age  those  who  have  a 
mission  to  fill  it,  and  who  endows  them  for  that  end.  Hence 
their  weightier  responsibility. 

Vers.  45,  46  represent  an  apostle  or  an  unfaithful  minister 
under  the  image  of  an  unprincipled  steward. — The  condition 
of  fidelity  being  the  constant  watching  for  the  master's  return, 
this  servant,  to  set  himself  more  at  his  ease  in  his  unfaithful- 
ness, puts  the  thought  of  that  moment  far  off.  So  the  minister 
of  Jesus  does,  who,  in  place  of  watching  for  the  Parousia, 
substitutes  the  idea  of  indefinite  progress.     What  will  become 


Cn.VP.  XII.  47,  48.  109 

of  his  practical  fidelity,  since  it  is  the  constant  watching  for 
the  Lord  which  should  be  its  support  ?  Beating,  eating,  and 
drinking  are  figures,  like  the  regular  and  conscientious  distri- 
bution (ver.  42).  The  ecclesiastical  functionaries  described  in 
this  piece  are  those  who,  instead  of  dividing  the  word  of  Christ 
to  the  Church,  impose  on  it  their  own,  who  tyrannize  over 
souls  instead  of  tending  them,  and  show  themselves  so  much 
the  more  jealous  of  their  rights  the  more  negligently  they  dis- 
charge their  duties.  ALyoTo^ielv,  strictly,  to  cleave  in  two, 
denotes  a  punishment  which  was  really  used  among  the 
nations  of  antiquity  (Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Greeks,  Romans  ; 
comp.  also  2  Sam.  xii.  31 ;  1  Chron.  xx.  3;  Heb.  xi.  37). 
But  this  literal  meaning  does  not  suit  here,  since  we  still  hear 
of  a  position  winch  this  servant  is  to  receive, — at  least  if  we 
do  not  admit  with  Bleek  that  in  these  last  words  Jesus  passes 
from  the  figure  to  the  application.  Is  it  not  more  natural, 
even  though  we  cannot  cite  examples  of  the  usage,  to  under- 
stand the  word  in  the  sense  of  the  Latin  expression,  jlagellis 
discindere,  to  scourge  the  back  with  a  rod  (the  :  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes,  ver.  4V)  ? 

Tlie  portion  in  question  after  this  terrible  punishment  is 
imprisonment,  or  even  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law, — tin 
cross,  for  example,  which  was  always  preceded  by  scourging, 
word  u7riaro)v,  ''with  the  unbclicnrs"  might  support  the 
explanation  given  by  Lleek  ;  but  though  the  application  pierces 
the  veil  of  the  parable,  the  strict  sense  is  not  altogether  set 
aside  :  "  those  who  cannot  be  trusted,"  strangers  to  the  house. 
Matthew  says :  the  hypocrites,  false  friends  (the  Pharisees). 
A  faithless  apostle  will  be  no  better  treated  khan  an  advexi 

— To  have  ones  portion  with  is  a  Hebraistic  and  CJreek  ezpa 
sion,  which  signifies  to  share  the  lot  of .  .  . 

Vers.  47  and  48.   TL    I         pfa — "  And  that  servo, if 
knew  his  lords  will,  and  prepared  nothing,  m  vOu  f  did  aceoro 
to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten  v;ith  many  iiripes.      4S.   But  he  that 
knew  not,  and  did  commit  things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be 
beaten  with  few  stripes.     For  unto  whommooor  much  is  gi 
of  him  shall  be  much  r  and  to  whoh 

mitttd  mvrh,  of  ••  more." — Along  with  tin- 

superiority  of  position  described  above,  the  apostles  had  re- 
ceived  a  super  to    fchJl    new 


110  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

advantage  that  ver.  47a  refers.  It  is  connected  with  the 
preceding ;  for  the  higher  the  servant  is  placed  by  his  master, 
the  fuller  are  the  instructions  he  receives  from  him.  The 
same  manner  of  judging  will  be  extended  to  this  other  kind 
of  superiority.  Ostervald,  understanding  iavrov  with  firj  erot- 
fido-as,  translates,  "  who  prepared  not  himself."  This  ellipsis 
is  inadmissible.  The  meaning  is,  who  prepared  not  [what  was 
necessary  to  receive  his  master  according  to  his  wishes].  It 
is  the  antithesis  of  vers.  35-37. — The  servant  whom  the 
master  has  not  initiated  so  specially  into  his  intentions  is 
nevertheless  responsible  to  a  certain  extent.  For  he  also  has 
a  certain  knowledge  of  his  will ;  comp.  the  application  of  this 
same  principle,  Eom.  ii.  12. — Ver.  48&.  The  general  maxim 
on  which  the  whole  of  the  preceding  rests.  The  two  parallel 
propositions  are  not  wholly  synonymous.  The  passive  iSoOrj, 
was  given,  simply  denotes  an  assigned  position ;  the  middle 
form,  vrapedevro,  men  have  committed,  indicates  that  the  trust 
was  taken  by  the  master  as  his  own  interest ;  the  figure  is 
that  of  a  sum  deposited.  Consequently  the  first  term  is 
properly  applied  to  the  apostolic  commission,  and  to  the 
authority  with  which  it  is  accompanied ;  the  second,  to  the 
higher  light  granted  to  the  apostles. — What  is  claimed  of 
each  is  not  fruits  which  do  not  depend  on  the  labourer,  but 
devotedness  to  work.  Meyer  thinks  that  the  more  signifies 
"  more  than  had  been  committed  to  him."  It  is  more  natural 
to  understand:  more  than  will  be  exacted  from  others  who 
have  received  less. — On  the  subject  of  the  verbs  nrapedevjo 
and  alrrjcrovaiv,  see  ver.  20. 

Mark  has  preserved  (xiii.  37),  at  the  close  of  the  parable  of  the 
porter,  which  he  alone  has,  but  which  refers  to  the  same  duty  of 
watchfulness  as  the  two  preceding  parables  in  Luke,  this  final  ex- 
hortation :  "  What  I  say  unto  you,  I  say  unto  all,  Watch."  This  word 
corresponds  in  a  striking  manner  to  the  meaning  of  Jesus'  answer 
to  Peter  in  Luke  :  "  All  should  watch,  for  all  shall  share  in  the 
Master's  personal  requital  (ver.  37);  but  very  specially  (Kepia- 
o-orepov,  ver.  48)  ye,  my  apostles,  who  have  to  expect  either  a 
greater  recompense  or  a  severer  punishment."  On  this  supposition, 
Luke  relates  the  question  of  Peter  and  the  indirect  answer  of  Jesus ; 
Mark,  a  word  of  Jesus  which  belonged  to  His  direct  answer.  How 
is  the  relation  between  the  two  to  be  explained  1  Holtzmann  thinks 
that  Luke  of  himself  imagined  the  question  of  Peter,  founding  on 
this  last  word  of  Jesus  in  Mark.  He  cannot  help  confessing,  further, 


CHAP.  XII.  49,  50.  Ill 

that  this  interpolation  has  been  very  skilfully  managed  by  Luke. 
Such  procedure,  in  reality,  would  be  as  ingenious  as  arbitrary  ;  it  is 
inadmissible.  The  account  of  Luke,  besides,  finds  a  confirmation  in 
the  text  of  Matthew,  in  which  the  interrogative  form  of  the  answer 
of  Jesus  is  preserved  exactly  as  we  find  it  in  Luke,  and  that  though 
Mattlu ,'W  has  omitted  Peter's  question,  which  alone  explains  this 
form.  Weizsiicker  supposes  inversely  that  the  question  of  Peter  in 
Luke  was  borrowed  by  the  latter  from  the  interrogative  form  of 
the  saying  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  xxiv.  45  :  "  Who  is  then  tlie  faithful 
servant  .  .  .  ?"  But  Mark's  account  stands  to  defend  that  of  Luke 
inst  this  new  accusation.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  the  last  words 
of  the  discourse  in  Mark  had  no  meaning  except  in  reference  to 
Peter's  question  reported  by  Luke.  Luke's  form  cannot  be  derived 
from  Mark  without  protest  from  Matthew,  nor  from  Matthew 
without  Mark  in  his  turn  protesting.  We  have  evidently,  as  it 
.  the  pieces  of  a  wheel  work  taken  down  ;  each  evangelist  has 
faithfully  preserved  to  us  those  of  them  which  an  incomplete  tradi- 
tion had  transmitted  to  him.  Applied  to  a  written  document,  this 
dividing  would  form  a  real  mutilation ;  as  the  result  of  a  circulating 
tradition,  it  admits  of  easy  explanation. 

After  having  thus  followed  the  natural  course  of  the  con- 
versation, Jesus  returns  to  the  thought  from  which  it  had 
started,  the  vanity  of  earthly  goods.  He  shows  how  this 
truth  directly  applies  to  the  present  situation  (vers.  49-53). 

Vers.  40  and  50.1  Tlic  CJiaracter  of  the  immediate  Future. 
— "  /  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth ;  and  what  will  I  if  it 
be  c  d  ?     50.  But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  bapf 

hoio  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  f" — "  Is 

I  time,"  said  Elisha  to  the  unfaithful  Gehazi,  "to  receive 
lands  and  cattle  when  the  hand  of  God  is  upon  Israel,"  that 
is  to  say,  when  Shalmaneser  is  at  the  gates  of  Samaria  ?  Is 
it  a  time  for  the  believer  to  give  himself  up  to  the  peaceable 
enjoyment  of  earthly  goods  when  tin;  great  Straggle  is  begin- 
ning ?  The  Church  is  about  to  be  born  ;  Israel  is  about  to 
perish,  and  the  Holy  Land  to  be  given  over  to  the  Gentiles. 
Such  is  the  connection,  too  moving  to  be  expressed  by  a 
logical  particle,  which  ifl  implied  by  the  remarkable  <> 
between  vers.  48  and  49.  Tlvp  fiakXeiv,  strictly,  to  throw  a 
firebrand.  Jesus  feels  that  II  pit  >ence  is  for  the  earth  the 
brand  which  is   to  set  everything  on    fire.      "  Kvery  lVuittul 

1  Ver.  49.  Instead  of  ut,  which  the  T.  R.  reads  with  11  Mjj.  (Hvz.) 
Mnti.,  M  n,  -Va.  GO.  The  Mss.  are  divided  be- 

tarn  p  (T.  ]:  |  nd  ). 


112  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

thing,"  says  M.  Kenan,  u  is  rich  in  wars."  Jesus  understood 
the  fruitfulness  of  His  work.  The  expression  I  am  come, 
which  Jesus  frequently  uses  in  the  Syn.,  finds  its  only  natural 
explanation  in  His  lips  in  the  consciousness  which  He  had  of 
His  pre-existence.  The  fire  in  question  here  is  not  the  fire  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  some  of  the  Fathers  thought.  The  sequel 
proves  that  it  is  the  spiritual  excitement  produced  in  opposite 
directions  by  the  coming  of  Jesus,  whence  will  result  the 
Siafiepio-fjLos,  the  division,  described  from  ver.  51  onwards. 
Two  humanities  will  henceforth  be  in  conflict  within  the 
bosom  of  every  nation,  under  every  roof :  this  thought  pro- 
foundly moves  the  heart  of  the  Prince  of  peace.  Hence  the 
broken  style  of  the  following  words.  The  el  may  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  that,  which  it  often  has,  and  rl  in  the  sense  of 
hoiv :  "  Row  I  wish  that  this  fire  were  already  burning  ! " 
(Olshausen,  De  Wette,  Bleek.)  But  this  meaning  of  the  two 
words  el  and  rl,  and  especially  of  the  second,  is  not  very 
natural.  Accordingly  Grotius,  Meyer,  etc.,  have  been  led  to 
admit  two  propositions, — the  one  forming  a  question,  the 
other  the  answer :  ,f  And  what  will  I  ?  Oh  that  it  only 
were  already  kindled  ! "  The  sense  is  radically  the  same. 
But  the  second  proposition  would  come  too  abruptly  as  an 
answer  to  the  preceding.  Ewald  recurs  to  the  idea  of  a  single 
sentence,  only  he  seeks  to  give  to  Oekw  a  meaning  which 
better  justifies  the  use  of  el :  "  And  of  what  have  I  to  com- 
plain if  it  be  already  kindled  ? "  This  sense  does  not  differ 
much  from  that  which  appears  to  us  the  most  natural :  "  What 
have  I  more  to  seek,  since  it  is  already  kindled  ?"  This  saying 
expresses  a  mournful  satisfaction  with  the  fact  that  this  in- 
evitable rending  of  humanity  is  already  beginning,  as  proved 
by  the  event  recorded  vers.  1-12.  Jesus  submits  to  bring  in 
war  where  He  wished  to  establish  peace.  But  it  must  be  ;  it 
is  His  mission :  "  /  am  come  to  .  .  ." 

Meantime  this  fire,  which  is  already  kindled,  is  far  yet  from 
bursting  into  a  flame  ;  in  order  to  that  there  is  a  condition  to 
be  fulfilled,  the  thought  of  which  weighs  heavily  on  the  heart 
of  Jesus:  there  needs  the  fact  which,  by  manifesting  the 
deadly  antagonism  between  the  world  and  God,  shall  produce 
the  division  of  which  Jesus  speaks  between  man  and  man ; 
there  needs  the  cross.     Without  the  cross,  the  conflagration 


ciur.  xn.  6i-j3.  113 

lighted  on  the  earth  by  the  presence  of  Jesus  would  very  soon 
be  extinguished,  and  the  world  would  speedily  fall  back  to  its 
undisturbed  level ;  hence  ver.  5  0.  The  Be  is  adversative  : 
"  But  though  the  fire  is  already  kindled,  it  needs,  in  order 
that  it  may  blaze  forth,  that  .  .  "  The  baptism  in  question 
here  is  the  same  as  that  of  which  Jesus  speaks,  Matt.  xx.  22 
(at  least  if  the  expressions  analogous  to  these  are  authentic 
in  that  passage).  Jesus  certainly  makes  an  allusion  to  His 
baptism  at  the  hands  of  His  forerunner,  which  included  a 
consecration  to  death.  The  figure  is  as  follows  :  Jesus  sees 
Himself  about  to  be  plunged  into  a  bath  of  flame,  from  which 
He  shall  come  forth  the  torch  which  shall  set  the  whole  world 
on  fire. — The  Lord  expresses  with  perfect  candour  the  im- 
pression of  terror  which  is  produced  in  Him  by  the  necessity 
of  going  through  this  furnace  of  suffering.  Swexeo-dai,  to  be 
closely  pressed  (straitened),  sometimes  by  the  power  of  love 
(2  Cor.  v.  14) ;  elsewhere,  by  that  of  conflicting  desires  (Phil, 
i  23)  ;  here,  doubtless,  by  mournful  impatience  to  have  done 
with  a  painful  task.  He  is  under  pressure  to  enter  into  this 
suffering,  because  He  is  in  haste  to  get  out  of  it.  "  A  prelude 
of  Gethsemane,"  says  Gess  in  an  admirable  passage  on  this 
discourse.1  Here,  indeed,  we  have  the  first  crisis  of  that 
agony  of  which  we  catch  a  second  indication,  John  xii.  27  : 
"  Now  is  my  soul  troubled,  and  what  shall  I  say  V  and  which 
is  breathed  fortli  in  all  its  intensity  in  Gethsemane.  Luke 
alone  has  preserved  to  us  the  memorial  of  this  first  revelation 
of  the  inmost  feelings  of  Jesus. 

After  this   saying,  which  is  a  sort  of  parenthesis  drawn 
fortli  by  the  impression  produced  on  Him   by  the  thought  in 
the  preceding  verse,  He  resumes  at  ver.  51  the  develop: 
Ol   II       :     I  -it  ion,  ver.  49. 

\  51-53.*  The  Picture  of  the  Future  just  declared. — 
"Suppose  ye  that  I  am  come  to  give  peace  on  earth ? 
you,  /  |  division.     52.  For  from  henceforth  tlicrc  sliall 

be  five  in  one  hous  threr.  ngainM  two,  and  two  against 

rk  quoted,  p.  70.     "We  cast  ourselves  in  contemplation  into  the  op- 
preaed  soul  of  Jesus,  .   .  .  Esto  Hit  FmsSoj  Passion"  (to.). 

r.  53.    K.   B.   I».   I<    T".  U.  some  Mnn.  Vg.,  ImfHprtnnfrn  instead  of 

*tMutf,rtvriT*,.—  AlcX.  some  Mlin.,  trymrif*,   ftr.rfm,   instead  of  tvym.Tf>,  ftnrf,. — 

mit  ww» 
VOL.  II.  M 


114  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

three.  53.  The  father  shall  he  divided  against  the  son,  and  the 
son  against  the  father  ;  the  mother  against  the  daughter,  and  the 
daughter  against  the  mother;  the  mother-in-law  against  her 
daughter-in-law,  and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother- 
in-law!' — AoKeire,  suppose  ye,  is  no  doubt  aimed  at  the  illusion 
with  which  the  disciples  flattered  themselves,  yet  hoping  for 
the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  without  struggles 
or  sufferings  (xix.  11).  Jesus  does  not  deny  that  peace 
should  be  the  final  result  of  His  work;  but  certainly  He 
denies  that  it  will  be  its  immediate  effect. — The  simplest 
solution  of  the  phrase  a\\y  77  is  to  take  it  as  an  abbreviation 
of  ov'xl  aXko  r\\  "Nothing  else  than  .  .  ." — Vers.  52  and  53 
describe  the  fire  lighted  by  Jesus.  By  the  preaching  of  the 
disciples,  the  conflagration  spreads ;  with  their  arrival,  it 
invades  every  family  one  after  another.  But  "  the  fifth  com- 
mandment itself  must  give  way  to  a  look  directed  to  Him.  .  .  . 
Undoubtedly  it  is  God  who  has  formed  the  natural  bonds  be- 
tween men ;  but  Jesus  introduces  a  new  principle,  holier  than 
the  bond  of  nature,  to  unite  men  to  one  another  "  (Gess,  p.  2  2). 
— Even  Holtzmann  observes  that  the  five  persons  indicated, 
ver.  52,  are  expressly  enumerated,  ver.  53  :  father,  son, 
mother,  daughter,  daughter-in-law.  Matthew  (x.  35)  has  not 
preserved  this  delicate  touch ;  are  we  to  think  that  Luke 
invented  this  nice  precision,  or  that  Matthew,  finding  it  in 
the  common  document,  has  obliterated  it  ?  Two  suppositions 
equally  improbable. — *Eiri  indicates  hostility,  and  with  more 
energy  in  the  last  two  members,  where  this  prep,  is  construed 
with  the  ace. ;  probably  because  between  mother-in-law  and 
daughter-in-law  religious  hostility  is  strengthened  by  previous 
natural  animosity. 

5th.  To  the  Multitudes:  vers.  54-59. — After  having  an- 
nounced and  described  the  rending,  the  first  symptoms  of 
which  He  already  discerns,  Jesus  returns  anew  to  the  multi- 
tude whom  He  sees  plunged  in  security  and  impenitence ; 
He  points  out  to  those  men,  so  thoroughly  earthly  and  self- 
satisfied,  the  thunderbolt  which  is  about  to  break  over  their 
heads,  and  beseeches  them  to  anticipate  the  explosion  of  the 
divine  wrath. 

Vers.  54-56.1  TJie  Signs  of  the  Times. — "And  Re  said  also 

1  Ver.  54.  6  Mjj.  (Alex.)  some  Mnn.  omit  rnv. — X.  B.  L.,  nn  instead  of  «*■#. 


CHAP.  XII.  57-59.  115 

to  the  people,  When  yc  see  a  cloud  rise  out  of  tlic  west,  straight- 
way yc  say,  Tlicre  comcth  a  shower ;  and  so  it  is.  55.  And 
when  ye  see  the  south  wind  How,  ye  say,  Tliere  will  he  heat; 
and  it  cometh  to  pass.  56.  Ye  hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the 
face  of  the  sky  and  of  the  earth ;  hut  how  is  it  that  ye  do  not 
discern  this  time  ?  " — "E\eye  Se  icai,  He  said  also,  is,  as  we  have 
already  seen  (i.  p.  276),  the  formula  which  Luke  uses  when 
Jesus  at  the  close  of  a  doctrinal  discourse  adds  a  last  word 
of  more  gravity,  which  raises  the  question  to  its  full  height, 
and  is  intended  to  leave  on  the  mind  of  the  hearer  an  im- 
pression never  to  be  effaced :  "Finally,  I  have  a  last  word  to 
address  to  you."  This  concluding  idea  is  that  of  the  urgency 
of  conversion.  Country  people,  in  the  matter  of  weather,  plume 
themselves  on  being  good  prophets,  and  in  fact  their  prog- 
nostics do  not  mislead  them :  "  Ye  say,  ye  say  .  .  .,  and  as  ye 
say,  it  comes  to  pass."  The  rains  in  Palestine  come  from  the 
Mediterranean  (1  Kings  xviil  44) ;  the  south  wind,  on  the 
contrary,  the  simoom  blowing  from  the  desert,  brings  drought. 
These  people  know  it ;  so  their  calculation  is  quickly  made 
(evOew) ;  and  what  is  more,  it  is  correct  (/cat  yiverai,  twice 
repeated).  So  it  is,  because  all  this  passes  in  the  order  of 
things  in  which  they  are  interested :  they  give  themselves  to 
discover  the  future  in  the  present;  and  as  they  will,  they 
can.     And  this  clear-sightedness  with  which  man  is  endowed, 

y  put  not  forth  in  the  service  of  a  higher  interest !  A 
John  the  Baptist,  a  Jesus  appear,  live  and  die,  without  their 
concluding  that  a  solemn  hour  for  them  has  struck ! — This 
contradiction  in  their  mode  of  acting  is  what  Jesus  designates 
by  the  word  hypocrites.  What  they  want  is  not  the  eye,  it  is 
will  to  use  it.  The  word  /caipos,  the  propitious  time,  is 
explained  by  the  expression,  xix.  44,  the  time  of  thy  visitation. 
AoKi^d^eiv,    to    appreciate    the   importance. — Matt.    xvi.    1-?' 

^lit  not  to  be  regarded  as  parallel  to  our  passage.     The 

a  is  wholly  different.  Only  in  Matthew  our  ver.  56  has 
been  Joined  with  a  parable  similar  to  that  of  Luke  in  point  of 
i.  and  that  by  an  association  of  ideas  easily  understood. 

Vers.  5  7-5  9. '    TJic    Urgency  of  Reconciliation   to    God.— 

ft,  6  Mjj.  40  Mm  Vg.  put  r*w  ispaew  before  *nt  yur.— N 

L.  '!'».,  !v«  «/)«ti  it*if**%ur  instead  of  *v  3#*i/*«£in. 

58.  Some  Mjj.,  r</cWu  instead  of  wmf*U  (T.  K.  with  14  Mjj.) ;  fimku 


1 1  0  THE  GOSPEL  0?  LUKE. 

"  Yea,  and  ivliy  even  of  yourselves  judge  ye  not  what  is  right  ? 

58.  (For)  While  thou  goest  with  thine  adversary  to  the  magis- 
trate, as  thou  art  in  the  way  give  diligence  that  thou  maycst  he 
delivered  from  him ;  lest  he  hale  thee  to  the  judge,  and  the  judge 
deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  the  officer  cast  thee  into  prison. 

59.  i"  tell  thee,  thou  shalt  not  depart  thence  till  thou  hast 
paid  the  very  last  mite" — A  new  example  (ri  Be  ical)  of  what 
they  would  make  haste  to  do,  if  their  good- will  equalled  their 
intelligence.  *A<\>  eavrcov,  of  yourselves ;  same  meaning  as  the 
"at  once  ye  say"  (ver.  54).  It  should  be  so  natural  to 
perform  this  duty,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  remind 
them  of  it.  But  alas  !  in  the  domain  of  which  Jesus  is 
speaking,  they  are  not  so  quick  to  draw  conclusions  as  in  that 
wherein  they  habitually  move.  Their  finger  needs  to  be  put 
on  things.  To  Sifcalov,  what  is  just,  denotes  the  right  step  to 
be  taken  in  the  given  situation,  to  wit,  as  the  sequel  shows, 
reconciliation  to  God  by  conversion. — The  following  parable 
(ver.  58)  is  presented  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation,  because 
the  application  is  blended  with  the  figure.  The  for  (ver.  58) 
has  this  force:  "Why  dost  not  thou  act  thus  with  God? 
For  it  is  what  thou  wouldst  not  fail  to  do  with  a  human 
adversary."  We  must  avoid  translating  the  eu?  i>7rdyei,<;,  "  when 
thou  goest "  (E.  V.).  f/2?  signifies  "  whilst  thou  goest ; "  it  is 
explained  by  the  in  the  way  which  follows.  It  is  before 
arriving  at  the  tribunal,  while  you  are  on  the  way  thither, 
that  you  must  get  reconciled  to  him  who  accuses  you.  Once 
before  the  judge,  justice  takes  its  course.  The  important 
thing,  therefore,  is  to  anticipate  that  fatal  term.  'Epyaaiav 
Sovvai  seems  to  be  a  Latinism,  operam  dare.  In  the  applica- 
tion, God  is  at  once  adversary,  judge,  and  officer :  the  first  by 
His  holiness,  the  second  by  His  justice,  the  third  by  His 
power.  Or  should  we  understand  by  the  creditor,  God ;  by 
the  judge,  Jesus ;  by  the  officers,  the  angels  (Matt.  xiii.  41)  ? 
Will  it  ever  be  possible,  relatively  to  God,  to  pay  the  last 
mite  ?  Jesus  does  not  enter  into  the  question,  which  lies 
beyond  the  horizon  of  the  parable.  Other  passages  seem  to 
prove  that  in  His  view  this  term  can  never  be  reached  (Mark 
ix.  42-49).     There  is  in  the  whole  passage,  and  especially  in 

or  /3aX«  instead  of  /3«xx»»  (T.  R.  with  some  Mnn.).— Ver.  59.  N.  B.  L.,  i*»;  instead 
©f  u*%  tv. — 5  Mjj.,  ro  tr%xr$*  instead  of  t«»  ir£«T«»  (14  M.ij.). 


CHAP.  XIII.  1-3.  117 

the  /  tell  iltcc  (ver.  59),  the  expression  of  a  personal  conscious- 
ness wholly  free  from  all  need  of  reconciliation. 

Matthew  places  this  saying  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(v.    25,    26)  ;    he   applies   it   to   the   duty   of   reconciliation 

n  men  as  the  condition  of  man's  reconciliation  to  God. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  this  saying,  placed  there  by  Matthew 
in  virtue  of  a  simple  association  of  ideas,  finds  its  real  con- 
text in  Luke,  in  the  discourse  which  is  so  perfectly  linked 
together. 

10.  Conversation  on  two  Events  of  the  Day:  xiii.  1-9. — 
Luke  does  not  say  that  the  following  event  took  place  im- 
mediately after  the  preceding,  but  only  in  a  general  way,  iv 
avT<p  tu>  tcaipu)  (ver.  1),  in  the  same  circumstances.  The 
three  following  sayings  (vers.  1-3,  4,  5,  6-9)  breathe  the 
same  engagedness  of  mind  as  filled  the  preceding  discourses. 
The  external  situation  also  is  the  same.  Jesus  is  moving 
slowly  on,  taking  advantage  of  every  occasion  which  presents 
itself  to  direct  the  hearts  of  men  to  things  above. — The 
necessity  of  conversion  is  that  of  which  Jesus  here  reminds 
His  hearers;  in  xil  54  et  seq.  He  had  rather  preached  its 
urgency. 

1st.  Vers.  1— 3.1  The  Galileans  massacred  by  Pilate. — 
Josephus  does  not  mention  the  event  to  which  the  following 
words  relate.  The  Galileans  were  somewhat  restless ;  conflicts 
with  the  Roman  garrison  easily  arose.  In  the  expression, 
mingling  their  blood  with  that  of  the  sacrifice,  there  is  a  certain 
poetical  emphasis  which  often  characterizes  popular  accounts. 
— The  imp£  7rapy<rav  signifies  "  they  were  there  relating." 
Jesus  with   His  piercing  eye  immediately  discerns  the  pro- 

al  siirniiicance  of  the  fact.  The  carnage  due  to  Pilate's 
sword  is  only  the  prelude  to  that  which  will  soon  be  carried 
out  by  the  Bomao  army  throughout  nil  the  Holy  Land,  and 
especially  in  the  temple,  tin  \mt  asylum  of  the  nation.  Was 
not  all  that  remained  of  the  Galilean  people  actually  assembled 
forty  years  later  in  the   temple,  expiating  their  national  im- 

nce   under  the   stroke   of  Titus?     The  word   likewise 

3)   may  taken    literally.      A  seriou 

1  Ver.  2.    M  f  r;mvrm.—\oT.  3.  T)w  MiM.  m  dltiW 

between  MNWWi  (T.  I:  .  I'.yz.)  and  jUmt  (Alex.).— A.  I>.  M    X.  r.  a  ml  several 

Mnn.,  u(r«i,„r„Ti  instead  of  ^ir«.»«r. 


118  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE, 

dividual,  and  national  conversion  at  the  call  of  Jesus  could 
alone  have  prevented  that  catastrophe. 

2d.  Vers.  4,  5.1  The  Persons  buried  by  the  Tower  of  Siloam, 
— The  disaster  which  has  been  related  recalls  another  to  His 
mind,  which  He  mentions  spontaneously,  and  which  He 
applies  specially  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  The  aque- 
duct and  pool  of  Siloam  are  situated  where  the  valley  of 
Tyropeon,  between  Sion  and  Moriah,  opens  into  that  of 
Jehoshaphat. — Forty  years  later,  the  fall  of  the  houses  of  the 
burning  capital  justified  this  warning  not  less  strikingly. — 
When  a  disaster  comes  upon  an  individual,  there  is  a  dis- 
position among  men  to  seek  the  cause  of  it  in  some  special 
guiltiness  attaching  to  the  victim.  Jesus  turns  his  hearers 
back  to  human  guilt  in  general,  and  their  own  in  particular ; 
and  from  that,  which  to  the  pharisaic  heart  is  an  occasion  of 
proud  confidence,  He  derives  a  motive  to  humiliation  and 
conversion,  an  example  of  what  was  called,  xii.  57,  judging 
what  is  right. 

Zd.  Vers.  6-9.2  The  Time  of  Grace. — Here  again  we  have 
the  formula  6X676  Be,  which  announces  the  true  and  final 
word  on  the  situation.  (See  at  xii.  54.) — A  vineyard  forms 
an  excellent  soil  for  fruit  trees.  As  usually,  the  fig-tree  repre- 
sents Israel.  God  is  the  owner,  Jesus  the  vine-dresser  who 
intercedes. — 'Ivart  {^hrjTai),  To  what  end?  Kai,  moreover; 
not  only  is  it  useless  itself,  but  it  also  renders  the  ground 
useless.  Bengel,  Wieseler,  Weizsacker  find  an  allusion  in  the 
three  years  to  the  period  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  which  was 
already  past,  and  so  draw  from  this  parable  chronological 
conclusions.  Altogether  without  reason ;  for  such  details 
ought  to  be  explained  by  their  relation  to  the  general  figure 
of  the  parable  of  which  they  form  a  part,  and  not  by  circum- 
stances wholly  foreign  to  the  description.  In  the  figure 
chosen  by  Jesus,  three  years  are  the  time  of  a  full  trial,  at 
the  end  of  which  the  inference  of  incurable  sterility  may  be 
drawn.     Those  three  years,  therefore,  represent  the  time  of 

1  Ver.  4.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  evroi  (T.  R.)  and  ttvret  (Alex.).  E» 
before  ltpov<ra\np.  is  omitted  by  B.  D.  L.  Z. — Ver.  5.  The  Mss.  are  divided 
between  opoius  and  utruvrus ;  between  ptravwrt  and  f&iruvon<rt)rt. 

2  Ver.  7.  X.  B.  D.  L.  TV.  some  Mnn.  Syrcur.  It.  Vg.  add  a<p'  ou  after  rpia  «<r» 
—Ver.  9.  K.  B.  L.  Tw.  2  Mnn.  place  ut  to  ^sAXov  before  u  h  i^nyt. 


CHAP.  XIIL  10-17.  119 

grace  granted  to  Israel;  and  the  last  year,  added  at  the 
request  of  the  gardener,  the  forty  years'  respite  between  the 
Friday  of  the  crucifixion  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
which  were  owing  to  that  prayer  of  Jesus :  "  Father,  forgive 
them." — The  mss.  have  the  two  forms  Koirpta,  from  icoirpiov, 
and  KOTTpiav,  from  icoirpla.  The  proposition  kclv  fj,ev  ...  is 
elliptical,  as  often  in  classical  Greek ;  we  must  understand 
tcaXm  ex€i.  The  Alex.,  by  placing  efe  to  fieWov  before  el  oe 
wye,  probably  wished  to  escape  this  ellipsis:  "If  it  bear 
fruit,  let  it  for  the  future  [live]."  The  extraordinary  pains  of 
the  gardener  bestowed  on  this  sickly  tree  represent  the 
marvels  of  love  which  Jesus  shall  display  in  His  death  and 
resurrection,  then  at  Pentecost  and  by  means  of  the  apostolic 
preaching,  in  order  to  rescue  the  people  from  their  impenitence. 
This  parable  gives  Israel  to  know  that  its  life  is  only  a  respite, 
and  that  this  respite  is  nearing  its  end.  Perhaps  Paul  makes 
an  allusion  to  this  saying  when  he  admonishes  Gentile 
Christians,  the  branches  of  the  wild  olive,  saying  to  them,  iirel 
koX  gv  eKKoir^arj  (Rom.  xi.  22). 

Holtzmann  acknowledges  the  historical  truth  of  the  introduction, 
ver.  1.  He  ascribes  it  to  the  Logia,  like  everything  which  he  finds 
true  in  the  introductions  of  Luke.  But  if  this  piece  was  in  A.,  of 
which  Matthew  made  use,  how  has  he  omitted  it  altogether  ? 

11.  The  Progress  of  the  Kingdom:  xiii.  10-21. — During 
journey,  as  throughout  His  whole  ministry,  Jesus  did  not 
fail  to  frequent  the  synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  days.  The 
present  narrative  introduces  us  to  one  of  those  scenes.  Perhaps 
the  feeling  which  led  Luke  to  place  it  here,  was  that  of  the 
contrast  between  Israel,  which  was  hasting  to  destruction, 
and  the  Church,  which  was  already  grafting — A  glorious 
deed,  which  tells  strongly  on  the  multitude  (vers.  10-17), 
leads  Jesus  to  describe  in  two  parables  the  power  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  (vers.  18-21). 

1st.  Vers.  10-1 7.1  77  li  <j  of  the  palsied  Woman. — Ami 
first  the  miracle,  vers.  10-13.     This  woman  was  completely 

*Ver.  11.  K.  B.  L  T".  X.  MM  Mnn.   |f***»,  Vg.  omit  » All  j  i»-Jftfc 

14.  The  Mas.  are  divided  between  i»  wtuttmn  (T.  R.)  and  »»  *vt*,(  (Alex.).— Ver. 

15.  Some  Mjj.  nnd  Mini.  Syr.,  $  Uf«u$  instead  of  •  MWMf.—- 17  Mjj.  80  Mnn.  It. 
Vg.t  9*mf$r*4  instead  of  nm/ww,  whi  I:,  read*  with  D.  V.  X.  the 

Mnn.  8vt. 


120  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

bent,  and  her  condition  was  connected  with  a  psychical  weak- 
ness, which  in  turn  arose  from  a  higher  cause,  by  which  the 
will  of  the  sufferer  was  bound.  This  state  of  things  is 
described  by  the  phrase :  a  spirit  of  infirmity.  Jesus  first  of 
all  heals  the  psychical  malady :  Thou  art  loosed.  Ae\va6cu, 
the  perfect :  it  is  an  accomplished  fact.  The  will  of  the 
sufferer  through  faith  draws  from  this  declaration  the  strength 
which  it  lacked.  At  the  same  time,  by  the  laying  on  of  His 
hands,  Jesus  restores  the  bodily  organism  to  the  control  of  the 
emancipated  will ;  and  the  cure  is  complete. 

The  conversation,  vers.  14-17.  It  was  the  Sabbath.  The 
ruler  of  the  synagogue  imagines  that  he  should  apply  to  Jesus 
the  Eabbinical  regulation  for  practising  physicians.  Only,  not 
daring  to  attack  Him,  he  addresses  his  discourse  to  the  people 
(ver.  14).  QepaireveaOe,  come  to  get  yourselves  healed. — 
Jesus  takes  up  the  challenge.  The  plural  hypocrites  is  cer- 
tainly the  true  reading  (comp.  the  plural  adversaries,  ver.  17). 
Jesus  puts  on  trial  the  whole  party  of  whom  this  man  is  the 
representative.  The  severity  of  His  apostrophe  is  justified  by 
the  comparison  which  follows  (vers.  15  and  16)  between  the 
freedom  which  they  take  with  the  Sabbath  law,  when  their 
own  interests,  even  the  most  trivial,  are  involved,  and  the 
extreme  rigour  with  which  they  apply  it,  when  the  question 
relates  to  their  neighbour's  interests,  even  the  gravest,  as  well 
as  to  their  estimate  of  the  conduct  of  Jesus.  The  three 
contrasts  between  ox  (or  ass)  and  daughter  of  Abraliam, 
between  stall  and  Satan,  and  between  the  two  bonds,  material 
and  spiritual,  to  be  unloosed,  are  obvious  at  a  glance.  The 
last  touch:  eighteen  years,  in  which  the  profoundest  pity  is 
expressed,  admirably  closes  the  answer. 

Holtzmann  thinks  that  what  has  led  Luke  to  place  this  account 
here,  is  the  connection  between  the  eighteen  years'  infirmity  (ver. 
11)  and  the  three  years'  sterility  (ver.  7)!  Not  content  with 
ascribing  to  Luke  this  first  puerility,  h3  imputes  to  him  a  second 
still  greater:  that  which  has  led  Luke  to  place  at  ver.  18  the 
parable  of  the  grain  of  mustard  seed,  is  that  it  is  borrowed  from  the 
vegetable  kingdom,  like  that  of  the  fig-tree  (vers.  7-9)  !  ! 

This  so  nervous  reply  brings  the  admiration  of  the  people 
to  a  height,  and  shuts  the  mouth  of  His  adversaries.  Jesus 
then,  rising  to  the  general  idea,  of  which  this  deed  is  only  a 
particular  application,  to  wit,  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of 


CHAP.  XIII.  18,  19.  121 

God,  developes  it  in  two  parables  fitted  to  present  tins  truth 
in  its  two  chief  aspects ;  the  two  are,  the  mustard  seed  (vers. 
18,  19)  and  the  haven  (vers.  20,  21). 

ra  18-21.  The  Two  Parables. — The  kingdom  of  God 
has  two  kinds  of  power :  the  power  of  extension,  by  which  it 

.  lually  embraces  all  nations ;  the  power  of  transformation, 
by  which  it  gradually  regenerates  the  whole  of  human  life. 
The  natural  symbol  of  the  first  is  a  seed  which  acquires  in  a 
short  time  an  increase  out  of  all  proportion  to  its  original 
smallness  ;  that  of  the  second,  a  fermenting  element,  materially 
very  inconsiderable,  but  capable  of  exercising  its  assimilating 
virtue  over  a  large  mass.  Those  two  parables  form  part  of 
the  collection,  Matt.  xiii.  3 1  et  seq. ;  the  first  only  is  found 
Mark  iv.  30,  31. 

Vers.  18  and  19.1  Again  the  formula  eXeye  Be  (or  ovv,  as 
some  Alex.  read). — The  two  questions  of  ver.  18  express  the 
activity  of  mind  which  seeks  in  nature  the  analogies  which  it 
needs.  The  first :  "  To  what  is  like  .  .  .,"  affirms  the  exist- 
ence of  the  emblem  sought ;  the  second :  *  To  what  shall  I 
liken  .  .  .,"  has  the  discovery  of  it  in  view.  Mark  likewise 
introduces  this  parable  with  two  questions;  but  they  differ 
both  in  substance  and  form  from  those  of  Luke.  Tradition 
had  indeed  preserved  the  memory  of  this  style  of  speaking ; 
only  it  had  modified  the  tenor  of  the  questions.  We  must 
certainly  reject  with  the  Alex.,  in  the  text  both  of  Luke  and 
Matthew,  the  epithet  great  applied  to  tree.  Jesus  does  not 
mean  to  contrast  a  great  tree  with  a  small  one.  but  a  tree  to 
vegetables  in  general.  The  mustard  plant  in  the  East  does 
not  rise  beyond  the  height  of  one  of  our  small  fruit  trees. 
But  the  exceptional  thing  is,  that  a  plant  like  mustard,  which 
belongs  to  the  class  of  gaiden  hectej  and  the  grain  of  which 
is  exceedingly  small,  puts  forth  a  woody  stalk  adorned  with 
branches,  and  becomes  a  veritable  tree.  It  is  thus  the  striking 
type  of  roportiun  which   prevails  between  the  sniall- 

ness  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  its  commencement,  when  it  is 
yet  enclosed  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  its  final  expansion, 
when  it  shall  embrace  all  poopVn  The  form  of  the  parable 
is  shorter  and  nmplet  in  Luke  than  in  the  other  two. 

l  -    ft  I'..  L.  *omo  Mnn.  Iti*»V«,  Vg.,  m  Inrtmd  <>f  2.  af:  r  a^.r.— 
Ver.  19.  N.  15.  I).  L  T-.  Syr-*.  IfK  omit^i>«  after  )<»>,.». 


122  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  20  and  21.1  Jesus  anew  seeks  an  image  (ver.  20) 
to  portray  the  power  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  principle 
of  moral  transformation.  There  is  here,  as  in  all  the  pairs 
of  parables,  a  second  aspect  of  the  same  truth ;  comp.  v. 
36-38,  xv.  3-10,  Matt.  xiii.  44-46,  John  x.  1-10.  We 
even  find  in  Luke  xv.  and  John  x.  a  third  parable  completing 
the  other  two.  Leaven  is  the  emblem  of  every  moral  principle, 
good  or  bad,  possessing  in  some  degree  a  power  of  fermenta- 
tion and  assimilation ;  comp.  Gal.  v.  9. — The  three  measures 
should  be  explained,  like  the  three  years  (ver.  7),  by  the  figure 
taken  as  a  whole.  It  was  the  quantity  ordinarily  employed 
for  a  batch.  They  have  been  understood  as  denoting  the 
three  branches  of  the  human  race,  Shemites,  Japhethites,  and 
Hamites  ;  or,  indeed,  Greeks,  Jews,  and  Samaritans  (Theod.  of 
Mopsuestia);  or,  again,  of  the  heart,  soul,  and  spirit  (Augustine). 
Such  reveries  are  now  unthought  of.  The  idea  is,  that  the 
spiritual  life  enclosed  in  the  gospel  must  penetrate  the  whole 
of  human  life,  the  individual,  thereby  the  family,  and  through 
the  latter,  society. 

Those  two  parables  form  the  most  entire  contrast  to  the 
picture  which  the  Jewish  imagination  had  formed  of  the 
establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  One  wave  of  the 
magic  wand  was  to  accomplish  everything  in  the  twinkling 
of  an  eye.  In  opposition  to  this  superficial  notion,  Jesus 
sets  the  idea  of  a  moral  development  which  works  by  spiritual 
means  and  takes  account  of  human  freedom,  consequently 
slow  and  progressive.  How  can  it  be  maintained/  in  view  of 
such  sayings,  that  He  believed  in  the  immediate  nearness  of 
His  return  ? — The  place  which  those  two  parables  occupy  in 
the  great  collection  Matt,  xiii.,  is  evidently  the  result  of  a 
systematic  arrangement ;  there  they  have  the  effect  of  two 
flowers  in  a  herbarium.  Luke  has  restored  them  to  their 
natural  situation.  His  account  is  at  once  independent  of  and 
superior  to  that  of  Matthew ;  Mark  accords  with  Matthew. 

1  Ver.  20.  The  Alex.  It.  Vg.  add  xxi  before  *x\tv. — Ver.  21.  The  Mss.  are 
divided  between  tvtKpv^tv  (T.  R.)  and  iKpw^tv  (Alex.). 


CHAP,  XIII.  -23-27.  123 

SECOND  CYCLE. XIII.  22 -XVII.  10. 

A  new  Scries  of  Incidents  in  the  Journey. 

Ver.  22  serves  as  an  introduction  to  this  whole  cycle. 
Jesus  slowly  continues  His  journey  of  evangelization  (&e7ro- 
pevero,  He  proceeded  through  the  country),  stopping  at  every 
city,  and  even  at  every  village  {Kara,  distributive),  taking 
advantage  of  every  occasion  which  presents  itself  to  instruct 
both  those  who  accompany  Him  and  the  people  of  the  place, 
only  pursuing  in  the  main  a  general  direction  toward  Jerusalem 
(jSi&dcT/ccov,  7roiovfjL€vo<;).  Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
this  remark,  which  is  founded  on  the  general  introduction, 
ix.  51,  and  in  keeping  with  the  analogous  forms  used  in 
cases  of  summing  up  and  transition,  which  we  have  observed 
throughout  this  Gospel 

1.  Hie  Rejection  of  Israel,  and  tlve  Admission  of  the  Gentiles: 
xiii.  23-30.  An  unforeseen  question  calls  forth  a  new  flash. 
It  was  probably  evoked  by  a  saying  of  Jesus,  which  appeared 
opposed  to  the  privileges  of  Israel,  that  is  to  say,  to  its  national 
participation  in  the  Messianic  blessedness. 

Vers.  23— 2 7.1  "Then  one  said  unto  Him,  Lord,  are  (km 
few  tlvat  be  saved?     And  He  said  unto  tliem,     24.  Strive  to 

r  in  at  tlie  strait  gate:  for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  M 
to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  he  able.     25.    Wlien  once  th     " 
he  house  is  risen  up,  and  shut  to  the  door,  and  ye  begin  to 
d  witlwut,  and  to  knock  at  the  door,  saying,  Lord,  Lord, 
open  unto  us,  and  He  shall  answer  and  say  unto  you,  I  knoir 
you  not  v:hcnce  ye  are:   26.   Then  shall  ye  begin  to  say,    We 
V  eaten  and  drunk  in  Thy  presence,  and  Thou,  hast  taught  in 
streets.      27.  But  He  sliall  say,  I  tell  you,  I  know  you  not 
nee  ye  are;  depart  from  me,  all  ye  worlcers  of  iniqwty" — 
i».stion  of  ver.   23   was  to  a  certain  <  \t<  u;  r  of 

curiosity.      I  cases  Jesus  immrdiatrlv  gives  a  practical 

turn  to   His  answer.      Comp.  xii  42,  John  iii.  3;  and  hence 
Luke  says  (ver.  23)  :  "  He  said  t<>  ives  no  dii 

answer  to  the  in         |       addresses  a  warning  to  the  people  ou 

21    N    B  ..  It*H,  tvfmt  Instead  of  wv\*t.  K&t 

It*"*.  Vg.  read  *uf,t  only  once.— Ver.  26.  The  Mss.,  «^ir/i  or  «fgnr/i.— Ver.  27. 
H.  T"..  >.!>•,,  instead  of  A i y*.     K.  Via.  omit  thU  word.— li.  L  R.  1".  « ■mit  */*«#. 


124  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  occasion  of  his  question. — The  Messianic  kingdom  is  re- 
presented under  the  figure  of  a  palace,  into  which  men  do 
not  enter,  as  might  appear  natural,  by  a  magnificent  portal, 
but  by  a  narrow  gate,  low,  and  scarcely  visible,  a  mere  postern. 
Those  invited  refuse  to  pass  in  thereby ;  then  it  is  closed,  and 
they  in  vain  supplicate  the  master  of  the  house  to  re-open  it ; 
it  remains  closed,  and  they  are,  and  continue,  excluded.  The 
application  is  blended,  to  a  certain  extent,  as  in  xii.  58,  59, 
with  the  figure.  'Aycovl&aOcu,  to  strive,  refers  in  the  parable 
to  the  difficulty  of  passing  through  the  narrow  opening ;  in 
the  application,  to  the  humiliations  of  penitence,  the  struggles 
of  conversion.  The  strait  gate  represents  attachment  to  the 
lowly  Messiah ;  the  magnificent  gateway  by  which  the  Jews 
would  have  wished  to  enter,  would  represent,  if  it  were  men- 
tioned, the  appearance  of  the  glorious  Messiah  whom  they 
expected,  I  declare  unto  you,  says  Jesus  :  They  will  think  it 
incredible  that  so  great  a  number  of  Jews,  with  the  ardent 
desire  to  have  part  in  that  kingdom,  should  not  succeed  in 
entering  it.  The  word  ttoXKol,  many,  proves  the  connection 
between  this  discourse  and  the  question  of  ver.  23.  Only 
Jesus  does  not  say  whether  there  will  be  few  or  many  saved ; 
He  confines  Himself  to  saying  that  there  will  be  many  lost. 
This  is  the  one  important  matter  for  practical  and  individual 
application.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  this  truth  that 
there  should  be  many  saved.  The  meaning  of  the  expression, 
will  seek  to  enter  in,  ver.  24,  is  explained  at  ver.  25  by  the 
ories  which  are  uttered,  and  the  knockings  at  the  gate ;  and 
the  meaning  of  the  words,  hut  shall  not  be  able,  ver.  24,  is 
explained  by  vers.  26  and  27,  which  describe  the  futility  of 
those  efforts. 

It  is  not  possible  to  connect  the  a<f>  ov,  when  once,  with  the 
preceding  phrase;  the  period  would  drag  intolerably.  The 
principal  proposition  on  which  this  conjunction  depends  must 
therefore  be  sought  in  what  follows.  This  might  be  icai 
ap%eade  (not  ap^aOe),  ver.  25&:  "When  once  the  Master  has 
risen  ...  ye  shall  begin,  on  your  side  {teal),  .  .  . ; "  or  tcai 
uiTOKpLOels  ipel  at  the  end  of  the  same  ver.  25:"  He,  on  His 
side  (teat),  shall  answer  and  say  .  .  . ; "  or,  finally,  and  most 
naturally  of  all,  the  apodosis  may  be  placed,  as  we  have  put  it 
in  our  translation,  at  ver.   26,  in  the  words:  totc  ap^eade: 


CIIAI\  XIII.  28-33.  125 

then  ye  shall  begin.  The  word  then  favours  this  construction. 
The  decisive  act  of  the  Master  in  rising  from  His  seat  to  shut 
the  door  symbolizes  the  fact  that  conversion  and  pardon  are 
no  longer  possible  (a<f  ov,  when  once).  What  moment  is  this  ? 
Is  it  that  of  the  rejection  and  dispersion  of  Israel  ?  No  ;  for 
the  Jews  did  not  then  begin  to  cry  and  to  knock  according  to 
the  description  of  ver.  25.  Is  it  the  time  of  the  Parousia, 
when  the  great  Messianic  festival  shall  open  ?  No ;  for  the 
.kws  then  living  shall  be  converted  and  received  into  the 
palace.  The  wTords,  when  ye  shall  see  (ver.  28),  strikingly 
recall  a  similar  feature  in  the  parable  of  the  wicked  rich  man, 
— that  in  which  this  unhappy  one  is  represented  in  Hades 
contemplating  from  afar  the  happiness  of  Lazarus  in  Abraham's 
bosom.  We  are  thereby  led  to  apply  what  follows  ("  when 
ye  shall  see  Abraham  .  .  . ,"  ver.  28)  to  the  judgment  which 
Jesus  pronounces  at  present  on  the  unbelieving  Jews,  ex- 
cluding them  in  the  life  to  come  from  all  participation  in  the 
blessings  of  salvation.  Gess  :  "  The  house  where  Jesus  waits 
can  be  no  other  than  heaven  ;  it  is  the  souls  of  the  dead  who 
remind  Him,  ver.  26,  of  the  relations  which  He  had  with 
them  on  the  earth." — This  ver.  26  indicates  the  tendency  to 
rest  salvation  on  certain  external  religious  advantages :  "  Thou 
wast  one  of  ourselves;  we  cannot  perish."  Is  there  in  thi- 
rds, /  J: now  not  whence  ye  are  (ver.  27),  an  allusion  to  the 
false  confidence  which  the  Jews  put  in  their  natural  descent 
from  Abraham  ? 

r&   28-30.1   "There  shall   he  weeping  and  gnashing  of 

m  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all 

the  prophets  in  the  Idngdom  of  God,  and  you  your  rust 

out.      29.  And  they  shall  come  from  the  cast,  and  from  the 

wot,  and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down 

Jom  of  God.      30.  And,  behold,  //tax  arc  last  which 

shall  be  first,  and  there  arc  first  wih  irh  shall  be  last." — Wailings 

pMMlhingn  of  teeth  rage.     The  souls  of  the 

lemned  oscillate  between  those  two  feelings.     The  article 

re   the  two   substantives   lias  the   force  of  setting  aside 

all  former  similar  impressions  as  comparatively  insignificant; 

Messianic  blessedness  is  represented  in  ver.   28,  according  to 

1  Ver.  28.  Marcion  substituted  for  the  enumeration,  ver.  28  :  wmtrmt  r$i*  )<««<«*, 
and  omitted  vera.  29  and  30. 


126  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

a  figure  familiar  among  the  Jews  (xiv.  15),  under  the  image 
of  a  banquet  presided  over  by  the  patriarchs.  From  ver.  29 
it  follows  that  the  believing  Gentiles  are  admitted  as  well  aa 
the  faithful  posterity  of  Abraham.  Thus  there  are  really 
many  persons  saved. — The  words  and  lehold  (ver.  30)  refer 
to  the  surprise  produced  by  this  entire  reversal  of  position. 
The  last  here  are  not  those  who,  within  the  confines  of  the 
kingdom,  occupy  the  last  place ;  they  are,  as  the  context 
proves,  those  who  are  excluded  from  it ;  they  are  in  the  last 
place,  absolutely  speaking.  The  first  are  all  the  saved.  The 
first  proposition  evidently  applies  to  the  Gentiles  who  are 
admitted  (ver.  29),  the  second  to  the  Jews  who  are  rejected 
(vers.  27  and  28). 

Sayings  similar  to  those  of  vers.  25-27  are  found  in  Matt. 
vii.,  at  the  end  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  also  in  xxv. 
10-12  and  30.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  regard- 
ing them  as  uttered  on  a  different  occasion.  Those  of  ver.  2  8 
and  29  appear  in  Matt.  viii.  11,  12,  immediately  after  the 
cure  of  the  centurion's  son.  But  they  are  not  so  well 
accounted  for  there  as  in  the  context  of  Luke.  The  apoph- 
thegm of  ver.  30  forms  (Matt.  xix.  30  and  xx.  16)  the 
preface  and  the  conclusion  of  the  parable  of  the  labourers 
called  at  different  hours.  In  this  context,  the  last  who  become 
the  first  are  manifestly  the  labourers  who,  having  come  later, 
find  themselves  privileged  to  receive  the  same  hire ;  the  first 
who  become  the  last  are  those  who,  having  wrought  from  the 
beginning  of  the  day,  are  thereby  treated  less  advantageously. 
Is  this  sense  natural  ?  Is  not  the  application  of  those  ex- 
pressions in  Luke  to  the  rejected  Jews  and  admitted  Gentiles 
more  simple? — The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  to  the 
Eomans  are  the  only  true  commentary  on  this  piece,  and  on 
the  sayings  of  vers.  28  and  29  in  particular.  Now,  as  the 
historical  truth  of  the  whole  passage  is  certified  by  the  parallel 
of  Matthew,  we  have  a  clear  proof  that  the  gospel  of  Paul  no 
way  differed  in  substance  from  that  of  Jesus  and  the  Twelve. 

2.  The  Farewell  to  the  Theocracy :  xiii.  31-35. — When  the 
heart  is  full  of  some  one  feeling,  everything  which  tells  upon 
it  from  without  calls  forth  the  expression  of  it.  And  so,  at 
the  time  when  the  mind  of  Jesus  is  specially  occupied  about 
the  future  of  His  people,  it  is  not  surprising  that  this  feeling 


QBAF.  XIII.  01-31  127 

comes  to  light  with  every  circumstance  which  supervenes. 
There  is  therefore  no  reason  why  this  perfectly  natural  fact 
should  be  taken  to  prove  a  systematic  arrangement  originating 
with  Luke. 

Vers.    31-33.1  "  The  same   day  there  came  certain  of  the 
Pharisees,  saying  unto  Him,  Get  thee  out,  and  depart  hence ; 
od  v:'dl  kill  thee.      32.  And  He  said  unto  them,  Go 
ye  and  tell  tluxt  fox,  Belwld,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  I  do  cures 
to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  tJie  third  day  I  shall  he  perfected. 
33.  Nevertheless,  I  must  walk  to-day,  and  to-morrow,  and  the 
'tog;  for  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of 
//*." — We  cannot  help  being  surprised  at  seeing  the 
Tharisees  interesting  themselves  in  the  safety  of  Jesus,  and 
we  are  naturally  led  to  suspect  a  feint,  if  not  a  secret  under- 
standing with  Herod.     Already  at  a  much  earlier  date  Mark 
(iii.  6)  had  showed  us  the  Herodians  and  Pharisees  plotting 
together.     Is  not  something  of  the  same  kind  now  repeated  ? 
Herod,  on  whose  conscience  there  already  weighed  the  murder 
of  a  prophet,  was  not  anxious  to  commit  another  crime  of  the 
same  sort ;  but  no  more  did  he  wish  to  see  this  public  activity 
of  Jesus,  of  which  his  dominions  had  been  for  some  time  the 
and  the  popular  excitement  which  accompanied  it, 
inu<  prolonged.      As  to  the  Tharisees,  it  was  natural 

that  they  should  seek  to  draw  Jesus  to  Judea,  where  He 
would  fall  more  directly  under  the  power  of  the  Sanhedrim. 
It  had  been  agreed,  therefore,  to  bring  this  lengthened  journe\ 
to  an  end  by  terrifying  Jesus.     He  penetrates  their  intrigue  ; 

I  hence  He  addresses  His  reply  to  Herod  himst  11,  inaK 
the  Pharisees  at  the  same  tinn  icrs,  as  the\ 

had  been  the  kind's  bearers  to  Him.     "I  see  well  on 

whose  part  you  conn-.  Go  end  answer  Herod  .  .  ."  Thus 
also  the  epithet  fox,  which  He  applies  to  this  prime,  finds  its 

filiation.     Instead  of  issuing   a  eonnnand.  as   becomes  a 
king,  he  degrad-  11    to   play   the  part  of  an  intiiguer. 

Not  daring  to  show  the  teeth  of  the  linn,  he  uses  the  tricks 
of  t  Fault  has  been   found  with  Jesus  for  speak 

ii  so  little  respect  of  the  prince  of  His  people.     But  it 

(Alex.)  15  Mnn.,  aya  instead  of  «*».—  Vcr.  32.  H.  B.  L.  S 
Mnn.,  «t#tiX*  -r.Tik*. — B.  sonn    Mnn.  Vss.  add  n/nf*  after  «?<*■ 

Ver.  S3.  K.  D.  a.  Home  Mnn.,  qqppM*  instead  of  mM"»» 


128  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

must  be  remembered  that  Herod  was  the  creature  of  Caesar, 
and  not  the  lawful  heir  of  David's  throne. 

The  meaning  of  the  first  part  of  the  answer  (ver.  32&)  is 
this  :  "  Beassure  thyself,  thou  who  seekest  to  terrify  me  ;  my 
present  activity  in  no  way  threatens  thy  power ;  I  am  not  a 
Messiah  such  as  he  whose  appearance  thou  dreadest ;  some 
devils  cast  out,  some  cures  accomplished,  such  is  all  my  work 
in  thy  dominions.  And  to  complete  the  assuring  of  thee,  I 
promise  thee  that  it  shall  not  be  long :  to-day,  to-morrow,  and 
a  day  more  ;  then  it  will  be  at  an  end."  These  last  words 
symbolically  express  the  idea  of  a  very  short  time  ;  comp. 
Hos.  vi.  2.  We  may  regard  reXeiov/jiai,  either,  with  Bleek,  as 
Attic  fut.  mid.,  or,  what  seems  simpler,  as  a  pres.  mid.  used  for 
the  fut.  to  designate  what  is  immediately  imminent.  The 
term  so  near  can  be  none  other  than  that  of  His  life ;  comp. 
33&.  Bleek  and  others  give  reXeiovfAat,  the  active  meaning  : 
"  I  close  [my  ministry  in  Galilee]."  But  the  word  TeXetoOfiai 
in  this  context  is  too  solemn  to  suit  this  almost  superfluous 
sense. — The  Alex,  reading  aTroreXco,  I  finish,  does  not  so  well 
correspond  to  the  parallel  term  iicfiaXkw,  I  cast  out,  as  the 
received  reading  iimekw,  I  work.  It  is  probably  owing  to  a 
retrospective  influence  of  the  word  reXecov/jLcu. 

Ver.  33.  Short  as  the  time  is  which  is  allowed  to  Jesus,  it 
remains  none  the  less  true  (ifkriv)  that  He  will  quietly  pursue 
His  present  journey,  and  that  no  one  will  force  Him  to  bring 
His  progress  and  work  hastily  to  an  end.  The  Bel,  I  must, 
which  refers  to  the  decree  of  Heaven,  justifies  this  mode  of 
acting.  Ilopevecrdai,  to  travel,  the  emblem  of  life  and  action ; 
this  word  is  opposed  to  Tekeiovjiai,  which  designates  the  time 
at  which  the  journeying  ends.  Tfj  i^ofjuivrj  (the  day  folloiving), 
ver.  33,  corresponds  to  rfj  rplrrj  (the  third  day),  ver.  32  ; 
Jesus  means  :  *  I  have  only  three  days ;  but  /  have  them, 
and  no  one  will  cut  them  short."  Wiesekr  takes  the  three 
days  literally,  and  thinks  that  at  the  time  when  Jesus  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  of  meaning.  Bleek,  who  does  not 
succeed  in  overcoming  the  difficulty  of  this  enigmatical  utter- 
ance, proposes  to  suppress  in  ver.  33  the  words  anj/iepov  koi 
avpiov  fcai  as  a  very  old  interpolation.     No  document  supports 


CHAP.  XIII.  3-5,  35.  129 

this  supposition,  which  would  have  the  effect  of  mutilating 
one  of  the  most  striking  declarations  of  our  Lord. 

The  last  words  of  ver.  33  are  the  answer  of  Jesus  to  the 
Pharisees.  Tliey,  too,  may  reassure  themselves ;  their  prey 
will  not  escape  them.  Jerusalem  has  the  monopoly  of 
killing  the  prophets,  and  on  this  highest  occasion  the  city 
will  not  be  deprived  of  its  right.  The  word  ivhe-^rav,  **  *5 
possible,  contains,  like  the  entire  saying,  a  scathing  irony  :  "  It 
is  not  suitable ;  it  would  be  contrary  to  use  and  wont,  and,  in 
a  manner,  to  theocratic  decorum,  if  such  a  prophet  as  I  should 
perish  elsewhere  than  in  Jerusalem!"  No  doubt  John  the 
Baptist  had  perished  away  from  that  city.  But  such  ironies 
must  not  be  taken  in  the  strict  letter.  Jerusalem  could  not 
let  her  privilege  be  twice  taken  from  her  in  so  short  a  time  ! 
The  relation  indicated  by  on,  for,  is  this  :  "  I  know  that  the 
time  which  is  at  my  disposal  in  favour  of  Galilee  will  not  be 
cut  short  by  my  death ;  for  I  am  not  to  die  elsewhere  than 
at  Jerusalem  .  .  ." — According  to  Holtzmann,  this  passage, 
peculiar  to  Luke  and  taken  from  A,  was  omitted  by  Matthew 
because  of  its  obscurity.  Must  he  not  have  omitted  many 
others  for  the  same  reason  ? 

Already,  vers.  4,  5,  on  occasion  of  an  event  which  more  par- 
ticularly concerned  the  Galileans,  the  mind  of  Jesus  had  been 
cted  toward  Jerusalem.  Now  the  thought  of  this  capital 
become,  as  it  were,  the  executioner  of  the  prophets,  takes  pos- 
session of  His  heart.  His  grief  breaks  forth  ;  the  prelude  to 
the  tears  of  Film-day. 

.   34  and  oT).1  "0  J  .  which  / 

and  ston  that  arc  sent  unto  thee ;  how  often 

\as  a  hen  doth  gatlu  r 

her  brood  tinder  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not!     35.  J'eholJ. 

your  house  is  left  unto  you.     Ih't  I  say  vn/o  you,  ye  shall  not 

see  me  until  (hi  Hme  '11  say,  Blessed  is  J/r  fh"f 

th  in  the  name  of  fkt  I<>r<l" — It  is  surprising,  at   first 

btj  to  find  such  to  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem  in  the  heart  of 

Uss.  are  di  -.veen  *m  *trr,mi  (Alex,  and  T.  R.)  and 

'rrm  (Byz.  Syr.  It*1"*")..-''.  umh  «"<"»,  with 

M.  I*.  X.  ±.  the  most  of  t1      '  r.  It »«•*•»»•.—  All  the  Mjj.,  laf« 

'     M    I     without  )i)  instead  of  *?n>  h  Xtfm,  which  T.  R.  rends  with  several 

Mnn.— 6  Mjj.  omit  »n.—  The  Mm.  nre  divided  between  t*t  (or  i«r  «»)  *(n  (or  *Cn) 

run  (Alex.,  according  to  M  <:h  I ). 
II.  I 


130  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Galilee.  But  were  not  the  Pharisees  whom  Jesus  had  before 
Him  the  representatives  of  that  capital  ?  Comp.  v.  17: 
"  There  were  Pharisees  and  doctors  of  the  law  sitting  by, 
which  were  come  out  of  every  town  of  Galilee,  and  Judea, 
and  Jerusalem."  Had  He  not  been  setting  their  minds  at 
rest  as  such  ?  Such  an  apostrophe  to  Jerusalem,  regarded 
from  a  distance,  has  something  about  it  more  touching  than 
if  He  had  already  been  within  its  walls.  In  Matt,  xxiii.  3  7 
it  is  placed,  during  His  sojourn  afc  Jerusalem,  on  one  of  the 
days  preceding  the  Passion,  and  at  the  point  when  Jesus 
leaves  the  temple  for  the  last  time.  This  situation  is  grand 
and  tragic ;  but  is  it  not  probable  that  this  placing  of  the 
passage  was  due  to  the  certainly  too  narrow  application  (see 
below)  of  the  expression  your  house  (ver.  35)  to  the  temple  ? 
— The  words  thy  children  have  been  applied  by  Baur  not 
to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  only,  but  to  all  Israelites, 
Galileans  included ;  and  he  denies,  consequently,  that  this 
saying  could  serve  to  prove  the  conclusion  which  has  often 
been  drawn  from  it,  viz.  that  the  narrative  of  the  Syn.  implies 
the  numerous  sojourns  at  Jerusalem  which  are  related  by 
John.  But  the  relation  of  ver.  34  to  the  latter  part  of  ver. 
33  compels  us  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  the  word  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem ;  its  only  admissible  sense  also  in 
Luke  xix.  44;  and,  taken  by  itself,  its  only  natural  sense. 
Only,  it  is  assumed  that  the  fate  of  the  population  of  the 
capital  involves  in  it  that  of  the  other  inhabitants  of  the 
country. 

The  contrast  between  I  would  .  .  .  and  ye  would  not,  proves 
the  sad  privilege  which  man  possesses  of  resisting  the  most 
earnest  drawings  of  grace.  As  to  Jesus,  while  mournfully 
asserting  the  futility  of  His  efforts  to  save  His  people,  He 
does  not  the  less  persevere  in  His  work ;  for  He  knows  that, 
if  it  has  not  the  result  that  it  might  and  should  have,  it  will 
have  another,  in  which  God  will  notwithstanding  carry  out 
His  plan  to  fulfilment.  Some  Jews  saved  shall  become,  in 
default  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  the  instruments  of  the 
world's  salvation. — Jesus  represents  Himself,  ver.  34,  as  a 
protector  stretching  His  compassionate  arms  over  the  theo- 
cracy and  its  capital,  because  He  knows  well  that  He  alone 
can  rescue  them  from  the   catastrophe  by  which  they  are 


CHAP.  XIII.  34,  35.  131 

threatened.  It  is,  in  another  form,  the  idea  of  the  parable  of 
the  fig-tree  (vers.  6-9).  Now  Israel  rejects  the  protection 
Which  He  offers.  What  more  can  Jesus  do  (ver.  35)  ? 
Leave  to  Israel  the  care  of  its  own  defence,  that  is  to  say, — 
Jesus  knows  it  well, — give  it  up  to  a  ruin  which  He  alone 
could  avert.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  words,  your  house  is 
left  unto  you;  henceforth  it  is  given  over  to  your  guardian- 
ship. Jesus  frees  Himself  of  the  charge  which  His  Father 
had  confided  to  Him,  the  salvation  of  the  theocracy.  It  is  in 
its  every  feature  the  situation  of  the  divine  Shepherd  in  His 
last  endeavour  to  save  the  flock  of  slaughter,  Zach.  xi.  4-14. 
The  application  of  the  expression  your  house  to  the  temple,  in 
such  a  unity,  must  be  felt  to  be  much  too  special.  The  place 
in  question  is  Canaan,  the  abode  divinely  granted  to  the 
people,  and  especially  Jerusalem,  the  centre  of  the  theocracy. 
The  authenticity  of  the  word  epTjfios,  desolate  (ver.  35),  appears 
more  than  doubtful  both  in  Matthew  and  Luke.     If  this  word 

re  authentic,  it  would  refer  to  the  withdrawal  of  Jesus' 

Lhle  presence;  comp.  Ezek.  xi,  where  the  cloud  rising  from 

over  the  sanctuary  passes  eastward,  and  from  that  moment 

the  temple  is  empty  and  desolate.     But  the  government  vfuv, 

left  to  you,"  and  the  want  of  suilicient  authorities,  speak 

against  this  i 

Like  a  bird  of  prey  hovering  in  the  air,  the   enemy  is 
thr<  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.     Jesus,  who  was 

ing  them  under  His  wings  as  a  hen  her  brood,  with- 
draws, and  they  remain  exposed,  reduced  thenceforth  to 
defend  themselves.  The  adversative  form,  hut  I  say  unto  you, 
is  certainly  preferable  to  that  of  Matthew,  for 

re  to  you,  it  will  be  for  longer  than 
you  think  ;  that  my  absence  may  be  brought  to  an  end,  you 
yourselves,  by  th  e  of  your  sentiments  in  regard  to  me, 

will  have  to  give  the  signal  for  my  return."     The  words  ca>9 

'l&J,  until  it  come  to  pass  that  .  .  .,  are  the  true  reading. 

!  moral  change  will  certainly  (&>?)  come  about,  but  when 
(dp)  it  is  impossible  to  say.      Some  commentators   (Paulus, 
•seler,  etc.)  think  that  the  time    line    pointed   to  is    Tabu- 
on  which   Jesus   r<  homage   of  part  of 
people,  and                                        Jileans,    t<>   whom   these 
saying  had  been  addict             Ye  shall  n<  ;  see  me  again,  ye 


132  the  gospel  or  luke. 

Galileans,  until  we  meet  together  on  the  occasion  of  my  entry 
into  Jerusalem."  But  how  poor  and  insignificant  would  this 
meaning  be,  after  the  previous  sayings  !  What  bearing  on 
the  salvation  of  Israel  had  this  separation  of  a  few  weeks  ? 
Besides,  it  was  not  to  the  Galileans  that  Jesus  was  speaking ; 
it  was  to  the  representatives  of  the  pharisaic  party  (vers. 
31-34).  In  Matthew's  context,  the  interpretation  of  Wieseler 
is  still  more  manifestly  excluded. — The  words  which  Jesus 
here  puts  into  the  mouth  of  converted  Israel  in  the  end  of 
the  days,  are  taken  from  Ps.  cxviii.  26.  This  cry  of  penitent 
Israel  will  bring  the  Messiah  down  again,  as  the  sigh  of  Israel, 
humbled  and  waiting  for  consolation,  had  led  Him  to  appear 
the  first  time  (Isa.  lxiv.  1).  The  announcement  of  the  future 
return  of  Jesus,  brought  about  by  the  faith  of  the  people  in 
His  Messiahship  (o  ipftofievos),  thus  forms  the  counterpart  to 
that  of  His  near  departure,  caused  by  the  national  unbelief 
(rekeiovfiai). — How  can  any  one  fail  to  feel  the  appropriate- 
ness, the  connection,  the  harmony  of  all  the  parts  of  this 
admirable  answer  ?  How  palpable,  at  least  in  this  case,  is 
the  decisive  value  of  Luke's  short  introduction  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  whole  piece  !  The  important  matter  here,  as 
everywhere,  is,  above  all,  the  precise  indication  of  the  inter- 
locutors :  "  The  same  day  there  came  certain  of  the  Pharisees, 
saying  .  .  ." 

3.  Jesus  at  a  Feast:  xiv.  1-24. — The  following  piece 
allows  us  to  follow  Jesus  in  His  domestic  life  and  familiar 
conversations.  It  is  connected  with  the  preceding  by  the 
fact  that  it  is  with  a  Pharisee  Jesus  has  to  do.  We  are 
admitted  to  the  entire  scene :  1st.  The  entering  into  the 
house  (vers.  1-6) ;  2d.  The  sitting  down  at  table  (vers.  7-11)  ; 
3d.  Jesus  conversing  with  His  host  about  the  choice  of  his 
guests  (vers.  12-14);  4th.  His  relating  the  parable  of  the 
great  supper,  occasioned  by  the  exclamation  of  one  of  the 
guests  (vers.  15-24). 

Holtzmann,  of  course,  regards  this  frame  as  being  to  a  large 
extent  invented  by  Luke  to  receive  the  detached  sayings  of  Jesus, 
which  he  found  placed  side  by  side  in  A.  This  is  to  suppose  in  Luke 
as  much  genius  as  unscrupulousness.  Weizsacker,  starting  from  the 
idea  that  the  contents  of  this  part  are  systematically  arranged  and 
frequently  altered  to  meet  the  practical  questions  which  were 
agitating  the  apostolic  Church  at  the  date  of  Luke's  composition, 


ciur.  xiv.  1-6.  loS 

alleges  that  the  whole  of  this  chapter  relates  to  the  agapa  of  the 
primitive  Church,  and  is  intended  to  describe  those  feasts  as  embodi- 
ments of  brotherly  love  and  pledges  of  the  heavenly  feast ;  and  he 
concludes  therefrom,  as  from  an  established  fact,  the  somewhat  late 
origin  of  our  Gospel.  Where  is  the  least  trace  of  such  an  intention 
to  be  found  ? 

1st.  Vers.  1-G.1 — To  accept  an  invitation  to  the  house  of  a 
Pharisee,  after  the  previous  scenes,  was  to  do  an  act  at  once 
of  courage  and  kindness.  The  host  was  one  of  the  chief  of 
his  sect.  There  is  no  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  hierarchy  in 
this  party ;  but  one  would  naturally  be  formed  by  superiority 
of  knowledge  and  talent.  The  interpretation  of  Grotius,  who 
takes  raw  $apiaai'a)v  as  in  apposition  to  rfov  ap^ovraiv,  is 
inadmissible.  The  guests,  it  is  said,  watched  Jesus.  Ver.  2 
indicates  the  trap  which  had  been  laid  for  Him ;  and  IBov, 
behold,  marks  the  time  when  this  unlooked-for  snare  is  dis- 
covered to  the  eyes  of  Jesus.  The  picture  is  taken  at  the 
moment.  The  word  airoicpidei<;,  ansvKring  (ver.  3),  alludes  to 
question  implicitly  contained  in  the  sick  man's  presence: 
■  Wilt  thou  heal,  or  wilt  thou  not  heal  ? "  Jesus  replies  by 
a  counter  question,  as  at  vi.  9.  The  silence  of  His  adver- 
saries betrays  their  bad  faith.  The  reading  ovos,  ass,  in  the 
Sinaiticus  and  some  mss.  (ver.  5),  arises  no  doubt  from  the 
connection  with  ySof)?,  ox,  or  from  the  similar  saying,  xiii.  15. 
The  true  reading  is  t/to?,  son:  "If  thy  son,  or  even  thine  ox 
only  .  .  ."  In  this  word  son,  as  in  the  expression  il(iu;/htcr  of 
m  (xiii.  1G),  there  is  revealed  a  deep  feeling  of  tender- 

l  for  the  sufferer.  We  cannot  overlook  a  correspondence 
between  the  malady  (dropsy)  and  the  supposed  accident  (fall- 
ing into  a  pit).  Comp.  xiii.  15,  16,  the  correspondence 
beV  •  ith  which  the  ox  is  fastened  t<>  the  stall, 

and  the  bond  by  which  Satan  holdfl  the  suit'erer  in  subjection. 
Here   ig  Bud    the   perfect  suitableness,  even   in  the 

external  drapery,  which  <  |m   the   declinations  of  our 

Lord.      In  Matt.  xii.  1  1   this  figure   is  applied   to   the   em 

».  L  0BU  U  btfon  i£irT/»,  mi'l,  with  several  Mnn.  nnd  Va*.t 
idd  «  0»  after  hfmtnmmt  (T.  It.,  tt^mwivnt).— -Ver.  5.  6  Mjj.  lf>  Mnn 
It*"*",  omit  «,.„,,/,„  before  WfH  mvT$u(.—  A     B,  I    0.   I!     M  I       \      I      .v  A. 

180  V  IfH  read  »«.r  instead  of  •».,,  whn  h  N.  K.  L  \.  n.  tome  Mnn. 

It**'.  Vg.  read.— The  Mm.  are  divided  between  pntfimu  fP,  ELI  and  mttmm 
(Alex.). — Ver.  6.  It  15.  D.  L.  vome  Mnn.  omit  «*r*  after  «rr«r««/i/«»««. 


134  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  a  man  who  has  a  withered  hand.  It  is  less  happy,  and  is 
certainly  inexact. 

2d  Vers.  7—1 1.1 — Here  is  the  point  at  which  the  guests 
seat  themselves  at  table.  The  recommendation  contained  in 
this  passage  is  not,  as  has  often  been  thought,  a  counsel  of 
worldly  prudence.  Holtzmann  ascribes  this  meaning,  if  not 
to  the  Lord,  at  least  to  Luke.  But  the  very  term  parable 
(ver.  7)  and  the  adage  of  ver.  11  protest  against  this  supposi- 
tion, and  admit  of  our  giving  to  the  saying  no  other  than  a 
religious  sense  and  a  spiritual  application;  comp.  xviii.  14. 
In  a  winning  and  appropriate  form  Jesus  gives  the  guests  a 
lesson  in  humility,  in  the  deepest  sense  of  the  word.  Every 
one  ought  in  heart  to  take,  and  ever  take  again,  the  last  place 
before  God,  or  as  St.  Paul  says,  Phil.  ii.  3,  to  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.  'Eirexcov,  fixing  His  attention  on  that  habitual 
way  of  acting  among  the  Pharisees  (Luke  xx.  46).  Ewald 
and  Holtzmann  darken  counsel  about  the  word  wedding  (ver. 
8),  which  does  not  suit  a  simple  repast  like  this.  But  Jesus 
in  this  verse  is  not  speaking  of  the  present  repast,  but  of  a 
supposed  feast. — The  proper  reading  is  avaireve,  not  avairecrai 
— this  verb  has  no  middle — or  avdireaov,  which  has  only  a 
few  authorities. — In  the  lowest  place  (ver.  10),  because  in  the 
interval  all  the  intermediate  seats  had  been  occupied.  The 
expression,  thou  shalt  have  glory,  would  be  puerile,  if  it  did 
not  open  up  a  glimpse  of  a  heavenly  reality. 

3d  Vers.  12-14.2 — The  company  is  seated.  Jesus,  then 
observing  that  the  guests  in  general  belonged  to  the  upper 
classes  of  society,  addresses  to  His  host  a  lesson  on  charity, 
which  He  clothes,  like  the  preceding,  in  the  graceful  form  of  a 
recommendation  of  intelligent  self-interest.  The  //^VoTe,  lest 
(ver.  12),  carries  a  tone  of  liveliness  and  almost  of  pleasantry: 
"  Beware  of  it ;  it  is  a  misfortune  to  be  avoided.  For,  once 
thou  shalt  have  received  human  requital,  it  is  all  over  with 
divine  recompense."  Jesus  does  not  mean  to  forbid  our 
entertaining  those  whom  we   love.      He  means  simply:  in 

1  Ver    10.  K.  B.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.,  epu  instead  of  uw.—  S.  A.  B.  L.  X.  12 

Mnn.  Syr.  add  vrxvruv  before  tuv  <rvvuvxxup.$vuv. 

2  Ver.  14.  X.  5  Mnn.  It:ili*.,  5»  instead  of  yap  after  avrxxadofarirai. 


ciur.  xiv.  15-20.  135 

view  of  the  life  to  come,  thou  canst  do  better  still. — 'Ava- 
Trrjpoi,  those  who  are  deprived  of  some  one  sense  or  limb, 
most  frequently  the  blind  or  the  lame ;  here,  where  those  two 
categories  are  specially  mentioned,  the  maimed  in  general. — 
In  itself,  the  expression  resurrection  of  tJw  just,  ver.  14,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  distinction  between  two  resurrections, 
the  one  of  the  just  exclusively,  the  other  general ;  it  might 

lify  merely,  when  the  just  shall  rise  at  the  inauguration 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  But  as  Luke  xx.  35  evidently 
proves  that  this  distinction  was  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  it  is 
natural  to  explain  the  term  from  this  point  of  view  (comp. 
1  Oat.  xv.  23;  1  Thess.  iv.  16;  Phil.  iii.  11;  Eev.  xx.). 

4th.  Vers.  15-24. — The  conversation  which  follows  be- 
longs to  a  later  time  in  the  feast.  Jesus  had  been  depicting 
the  just  seated  at  the  Messiah's  banquet,  and  receiving  a 
superabundant  equivalent  for  the  least  works  of  love  which 
they  have  performed  here  below.  This  saying  awakes  in  the 
heart  of  one  of  the  guests  a  sweet  anticipation  of  heavenly 
joys ;  or  perhaps  he  seizes  it  as  an  occasion  for  laying  a  snare 
for  Jesus,  and  leading  Him  to  utter  some  heresy  on  the 
subject     The  severe  tendency  of  the  following  parable  might 

<ur  this  second  interpretation.  In  any  case,  the  enumera- 
tion of  ver.  21  (comp.  ver.  13)  proves  the  close  connection 
between  those  two  parts  of  the  con  vers  it  inn. 

a.    15-20.1 — "Aprov   <j)uye(T0ai    (fut.    of  faiya))    merely 

,  to  be  admitted  to  the  heavenly  feast.     There  is  n<> 

illusion   in   the  expression  to  the  excellence   of  the   meats 

which   shall  form   this   repast  (ver.  1). — Jesus  replies,  "Yes, 

:   and  therefoie  Ihw.uv  of  rejecting   the,  blessedness  at 

tli'-    vi-rv    moment    when    thou   art   extolling   its    greatness." 

Su< t]  application  of  the  following  parable;     The  word 

iroXkovs,  significant  of  numerous  guests,  ver.  16,  is  sufficiently 

I  when  applied   to  the  Jewish  people  alone;  for  this 

itation  ii  <11  divine  advances,  at   all    periodf   of  the 

>cracy.  The  last  call  given  to  the  guests  (ver.  1 7)  relates 
to  {'  tries  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  Jesus  Him 

Mrin.  are  divided  between  •%  (T.  R.)  and  •mt  (Alex.)  before 
f«>ir«/.  — Instead  of  tfrn,  tom«  |  180  Mini.  Syr™'.,  «^rr#r.— Ver.  16. 

Syr"".,  ««™«  imtead  of  •«•«<*#».—  Ver.  17.  «#  B.  L.  K.  I** 

wmtrm.  after  irr<»  (or  M 


136  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

It  cannot  be  proved  that  it  was  usual  to  send  a  message 
at  the  last  moment;  but  the  hour  was  come,  and  nobody- 
appeared.  This  touch  brings  out  the  ill-will  of  those  invited ; 
there  was  no  possibility  of  their  forgetting.  The  expression, 
all  things  are  ready,  describes  the  glorious  freeness  of  salvation. 
— The  excuses  put  forth  by  the  invited,  vers.  18-20,  are  not 
in  earnest;  for.  warned  as  they  were  long  beforehand,  they 
could  have  chosen  another  day  for  their  different  occupations. 
The  choice  made,  which  is  at  the  bottom  of  those  refusals, 
betrays  itself  in  the  uniformity  of  their  answers.  It  is  like  a 
refrain  (awo  /was,  understand:  <f)0)vrj$  or  yvco/xr]^,  ver.  18). 
They  have  passed  the  word  to  one  another.  The  true  reason 
is  evidently  the  antipathy  which  they  feel  to  him  who  invites 
them ;  comp.  John  xv.  24:  "  They  have  hated  loth  me  and  my 
Father" 

Vers.  21-24.1 — In  the  report  which  the  servant  gives  of 
his  mission,  we  may  hear,  as  Stier  so  well  observes,  the  echo 
of  the  sorrowful  lamentations  uttered  by  Jesus  over  the 
hardening  of  the  Jews  during  His  long  nights  of  prayer. 
The  anger  of  the  master  {pp^iaOei^)  is  the  retaliation  for  the 
hatred  which  he  discovers  at  the  bottom  of  their  refusals. — 
The  first  supplementary  invitation  which  he  commissions  his 
servant  to  give,  represents  the  appeal  addressed  by  Jesus  to 
the  lowest  classes  of  Jewish  society,  those  who  are  called, 
xv.  1,  publicans  and  sinners.  TlXareiai,  the  larger  streets, 
which  widen  out  into  squares.  'Pv/xai,,  the  small  cross 
streets.  There  is  no  going  out  yet  from  the  city. — The 
second  supplementary  invitation  (vers.  22  and  23)  represents 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles ;  for  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed 
are  no  longer  inhabitants  of  the  city.  The  love  of  God  is 
great :  it  requires  a  multitude  of  guests ;  it  will  not  have  a 
seat  left  empty.  The  number  of  the  elect  is,  as  it  were, 
determined  beforehand  by  the  riches  of  divine  glory,  which 
cannot  find  a  complete  reflection  without  a  certain  number  of 
human  beings.  The  invitation  will  therefore  be  continued, 
and  consequently  the  history  of  our  race  prolonged,  until  that 
number  be  reached.  Thus  the  divine  decree  is  reconciled 
with  human  liberty.     In  comparison  with  the  number  called, 

1  Ver.  21.  9  Mjj.  12  Man.  It.  Vg.  omit  txum  after  hvket. — Ver.  22.  S.  B. 

D.  L.  R.  Syr0"1".,  <  instead  of  us  before  scrsra^a,-. 


ciiAr.  xiv.  n-Mi  137 

there  are  undoubtedly  few  saved  tlirough  the  fault  of  the 
former ;  but  nevertheless,  speaking  absolutely,  there  are  very 
many  saved,  <Ppay/j,ol,  the  hedges  which  enclose  properties, 
and  beneath  which  vagrants  squat.  The  phrase,  compel  them 
to  come  in,  applies  to  people  who  would  like  to  enter,  but  are 
yet  kept  back  by  a  false  timidity.  The  servant  is  to  push 
them,  in  a  manner,  into  the  house  in  spite  of  tluir  scruples. 
The  object,  therefore,  is  not  to  extinguish  their  liberty,  but 
rather  to  restore  them  to  it.  For  they  would ;  but  they  dare 
not. — As  ver.  21  is  the  text  of  the  first  part  of  Acts  (i.-xii., 
conversion  of  the  Jews),  vers.  22  and  23  are  the  text  of  the 
second  (xiii.  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  invitations,  and  that  in  favour  of  Paul's 
mission  to  the  Gentiles.  If  this  saying  were  the  only  one 
which  the  evangelists  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  regarding 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  this  suspicion  would  be  conceiv- 
able. But  does  not  the  passage  xiii.  28-30  already  express 
this  idea  ?  and  is  not  this  saying  found  in  Matthew  as  well 
as  in  Luke?  Com  p.  also  Matt.  xxiv.  14;  John  x.  1G. — 
According  to  several  commentators,  wr.  24  does  not  belong 
to  the  parable;  it  ii  the  application  of  it  addressed  by  Jesus 
to  all  the  guests  ("  /  say  unto  yon  ").  But  the  subject  of  the 
verb,  /  say,  is  evidently  still  the  host  of  the  parable ;  the 
s  the  persons  gathered  round  him  at  the 
time  when  he  gives  this  order.  Only  the  solemnity  with 
which  Jesus  undoubtedly  passed  His  eyes  over  the  whole 
assembly,  while  putting  this  terrible  threat  into  the  mouth  of 
the  master  in  the  parable,  made  them  feel  that  at  that  very 
cene  described  was  actually  passing  bet 
1  them. 

able  of  the  great  feast  related  Miatt   xxii.   1-14 
has  great  lamiiplilantui  to  this;    but   it  differs  from  it  as 

kably.      More    generalized    in    the    outset,   it    becomes 
toward  the  end  more  detailed,  and  takes  even  a  somewhat 
eomplei  character.     It  may  be,  as  Bleek  thinks,  a  combination 
of  two  parables  originally  distinct.     This  seems  to  be  i 
by  certain  touches,  such  at  the  royal  dignity  of  the  host,  the 

iction  by  his  armies  of  the  city  inhabited  by  thoat 


138  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

invited,  and  then  everything  relating  to  the  man  who  had 
come  in  without  a  wedding  garment.  Nothing,  on  the  con- 
trary, could  be  more  simple  and  complete  than  the  delineation 
of  Luke. 

4.  A  Warning  against  hasty  Professions:  xiv.  25-35. — 
The  journey  resumes  its  course  ;  great  crowds  follow  Jesus. 
There  is  consequently  an  attraction  to  His  side.  This  appears 
in  the  plurals  o^Xol,  multitudes,  the  adjective  iroXKol,  and 
the  imperfect  of  duration  avveiropevovTo,  were  accompanying 
Him.  This  brief  introduction,  as  in  similar  cases,  gives  the 
key  to  the  following  discourse,  which  embraces :  1st.  A  warn- 
ing (vers.  26  and  27);  2d.  Two  parables  (vers.  28-32);  3d. 
A  conclusion,  clothed  in  a  new  figure  (vers.  33-35). 

Vers.  25-27.1  "And  there  went  great  multitudes  with  Him: 
and  He  turned,  and  said  unto  them,  26.  If  any  man  come  to 
me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children, 
and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be 
my  disciple.  2  7.  And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come 
after  me,  cannot  be  my  disciple." — Seeing  those  crowds,  Jesus  is 
aware  that  between  Him  and  them  there  is  a  misunderstanding. 
The  gospel,  rightly  apprehended,  will  not  be  the  concern  of  the 
multitude.  He  lifts  His  voice  to  reveal  this  false  situation : 
You  are  going  up  with  me  to  Jerusalem,  as  if  you  were  repair- 
ing to  a  feast.  But  do  you  know  what  it  is  for  a  man  to  join 
himself  to  my  company  ?  It  is  to  abandon  what  is  dearest 
and  most  vital  (ver.  26),  and  to  accept  what  is  most  painful — 
the  cross  (ver.  27). — Coming  to  me  (ver.  26)  denotes  outward 
attachment  to  Jesus ;  being  my  disciple,  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
actual  dependence  on  His  person  and  Spirit.  That  the  former 
may  be  changed  into  the  latter,  and  that  the  bond  between 
Jesus  and  the  professor  may  be  durable,  there  must  be  effected 
in  him  a  painful  breach  with  everything  which  is  naturally 
dear  to  him.  The  word  hate  in  this  passage  is  often  inter- 
preted in  the  sense  of  loving  less.  Bleek  quotes  examples, 
which  are  not  without  force.  Thus,  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31.  It 
is  also  the  meaning  of  Matthew's  paraphrase  (x.  3  7),  6  (j)i\cov 
...  virep  ifzi  Yet  it  is  simpler  to  keep  the  natural  sense  of  the 
word  hate,  if  it  offers  an  admissible  application.     And  this 

1  Ver.  27.  This  verse  is  omitted  by  M.  E.  r.  and  very  many  Mnn.  (by  homoio- 
teleuton). — X.  B.  L.  Cop.  omit  x.ut  before  «#•*»#. 


CIIAI\  XIV.  28-30.  139 

we  find  when  we  admit  that  Jesus  is  here  regarding  the  well- 
beloved  ones  whom  He  enumerates  as  representatives  of  our 
natural  life,  that  life,  strictly  and  radically  selfish,  which 
separates  us  from  God.      Hence  He  adds :   Yea,  and  his  ovn 

<dso ;  this  word  forms  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  the 
word  hate.  At  bottom,  our  own  life  is  the  only  thing  to  be 
hated.  Everything  else  is  to  be  hated  only  in  so  far  as  it 
partakes  of  this  principle  of  sin  and  death.  According  to 
Deut.  xxi.  18-21,  when  a  man  showed  himself  determinedly 
vicious  or  impious,  his  father  and  mother  were  to  be  the  first 
to  take  up  stones  to  stone  him.  Jesus  in  this  place  only 
spiritualizes  this  precept.  The  words :  Yea,  and  his  own  life 
also,  thus  remove  from  this  hatred  every  notion  of  sin,  and 
allow  us  to  see  in  it  nothing  but  an  aversion  of  a  purely 
moral  kind. 

There  are  not  only  affections  to  be  sacrificed,  bonds  to  be 
broken ;  there  are  sufferings  to  be  undergone  in  the  following 
of  Jesus.  The  emblem  of  those  positive  evils  is  the  cross,  that 
punishment  the  most  humiliating  and  painful  of  all,  which 
had  been  introduced  into  Israel  since  the  Roman  subjugation. 
— Without  supplying  an  ovk  before  epxerai,  we  might  translate : 
"  Whosoever  doth  not  bear  .  .  .  ,  and  wlw  nevertheless  comet h 
.  .  .  ."  But  this  interpretation  is  far  from  natural — 
Those  well-disposed  crowds  who  were  following  Jesus  without 

I  conversion  had  never  imagined  anything  like  this.  Jesus 
sets  before  their  very  eyes  these  two  indispensable  conditions 
of  true  faith  by  two  parables  (vers.  28-32). 

I,  28-30.1   The  Improvident  J,  -Building  here  is 

the  image  of  the  Christian  life,  regarded  in  its  positive  aspect : 
foundation  and  development  of  the  work  of  God  in  tin- 
heart  and  life  of  the  believer.     The  tower,  a  lofty  edifioe  which 
aye  from  afar,  represents  a  mode  of  bring  distin- 
guished from  the  common,  and  attracting  general  attention. 

IT  professors  often  regard  with  complacency   what    diMin- 

cdly   from   the  world.     But  building  costs 

something;  and  the  work  on  iinisln ■«],  under 

penalty  of  being  exposed  to  public    ridicule.     One    should 

28    B.  !  «.  omit  t«,  and  the  same  with  13  other  Mjj.  50 

Mnn.  read  m  instead  of  «y#*  before  —wyrup— .   T.  K.,  r«  wf»%  *wmfTt*n$*t  with 
ii.  many  Mnn. 


140  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

therefore  have  first  made  his  estimates,  and  accepted  the 
inroad  upon  his  capital  which  will  result  from  such  an  under- 
taking. His  capital  is  his  own  life,  which  he  is  called  to 
spend,  and  to  spend  wholly  in  the  service  of  his  sanctification. 
The  work  of  God  is  not  seriously  pursued,  unless  a  man  is 
daily  sacrificing  some  part  of  that  which  constitutes  the  natural 
fortune  of  the  human  heart,  particularly  the  affections,  which 
are  so  deep,  referred  to,  ver.  26.  Before,  therefore,  any  one 
puts  himself  forward  as  a  professor,  it  is  all  important  that  he 
should  have  calculated  this  future  expenditure,  and  thoroughly 
made  up  his  mind  not  to  recoil  from  any  of  those  sacrifices 
which  fidelity  will  entail.  Sitting  down  and  counting  are 
emblems  of  the  serious  acts  of  recollection  and  meditation 
which  should  precede  a  true  profession.  This  was  precisely 
what  Jesus  had  done  in  the  wilderness.  But  what  happens 
when  this  condition  is  neglected  ?  After  having  energetically 
pronounced  himself,  the  new  professor  recoils  step  by  step 
from  the  consequences  of  the  position  which  he  has  taken  up. 
He  stops  short  in  the  sacrifice  of  his  natural  life ;  and  this 
inconsistency  provokes  the  contempt  and  ridicule  of  the  world, 
which  soon  discovers  that  he  who  had  separated  himself  from 
it  with  so  much  parade,  is  after  all  but  one  of  its  own. 
^Nothing  injures  the  gospel  like  those  relapses,  the  ordinary 
results  of  hasty  profession. 

Vers.  31,  32.1  TJie  Improvident  Warrior. — Here  we  have 
an  emblem  of  the  Christian  life,  regarded  on  its  negative  or 
polemical  side.  The  Christian  is  a  king,  but  a  king  engaged 
in  a  struggle,  and  a  struggle  with  an  enemy  materially  stronger 
than  himself.  Therefore,  before  defying  him  with  a  declara- 
tion of  war  by  the  open  profession  of  the  gospel,  a  man  must 
have  taken  counsel  with  himself,  and  become  assured  that  he 
is  willing  to  accept  the  extreme  consequences  of  this  position, 
even  to  the  giving  up  of  his  life  if  demanded ;  this  condition 
is  expressed  ver.  27.  Would  not  a  little  nation  like  the  Swiss 
bring  down  ridicule  on  itself  by  declaring  war  with  France,  if 
it  were  not  determined  to  die  nobly  on  the  field  of  battle  ? 
Would  not  Luther  have  acted  like  a  fool  when  he  affixed  his 
theses  to  the  church  door,  or  burned  the  Papal  bull,  had  he 

1  Ver.  31.  X.  B.  ItP,eri,»ue,  £ov\iv<nr*i  instead  of  favXiviw.  —  The  Mss.    are 
divided  between  axuvrvrai  (T.  E.)  and  vruvrmrui  (Alex.). 


CHAT.  XIV.  Bfr-3&  141 

not  first  made  the  sacrifice  of  his  life  in  the  inner  court  of  his 
heart  ?  It  is  heroical  to  engage  in  a  struggle  for  a  just  and 
holy  cause,  but  on  one  condition  :  that  is,  that  we  have  accepted 
death  beforehand  as  the  end  of  the  way ;  otherwise  this 
I  ation  of  war  is  nothing  but  rodomontade.  The  words  : 
u-hdhcr  lie  is  able,  have  a  slight  touch  of  irony  ;  able  to  conquer, 
and,  as  under  such  conditions  that  is  impossible,  to  die  in  the 
unequal  struggle.  Ver.  32  has  been  regarded  either  as  a  call 
to  us  to  take  account  of  our  weakness,  that  we  may  ask  the 
help  of  God  (Olshausen),  or  a  summons  promptly  to  seek 
reconciliation  with  God  (Gerlach).  Both  interpretations  are 
untenable,  because  the  hostile  king  challenged  by  the  declara- 
tion of  war  is  not  God,  but  the  prince  of  this  world.  It  is 
therefore  much  rather  a  warning  which  Jesus  gives  to  those 
who  profess  discipleship,  but  who  have  not  decided  to  risk 
everything,  to  make  their  submission  as  early  as  possible 
to  the  world  and  its  prince.  Better  avoid  celebrating  a 
Talin-day  than  end  after  such  a  demonstration  with  a  Good 
Friday  !  Rather  remain  an  honourable  man,  unknown  reli- 
giously, than  become  what  is  udder  in  the  world,  an  incon- 
m.  A  warning,  therefore,  to  those  who  formed 
the  attendants  of  Jesus,  to  make  their  peace  speedily  witli  the 
Sanhedrim,  if  they  are  not  resolved  to  follow  their  new 
Master  to  the  cross!  Jesus  drew  this  precept  also  from 
His  own  experience.  He  had  made  his  reckoning  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  prince  of  this  world,  and  with  life,  before 
:.  II.  work  publicly.  Gess  rightly  says  :  "  Those  two 
parables  show  with  what  seriousness  Jesus  had  Himself  pre- 
pared  for  death. 

Vers.  3 3-3  5. l   The  Application  of  those  two  Parables,  with  u 
new  Figure  confirming  it. — "  So  likewise,  wlwsoexer  lie  be  of  you 
>rsakeih  not  all  tliat  lie  hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.     34. 
Salt  is  good:  but  if  tlie  salt  lun  wkt  r<  uritl 

it  be  seasoned?  35.  It  is  ncit/ier  fit  for  the  land,  nor  yet  for 
the  dunghill ;  but  men  cast  it  out.  He  tlcat  hath  ears  to  licar, 
let  him  hear" — Here  is  the  summing  Dp  of  tlic  warning  which 
was  intended  to  calm  the  unreflecting  enthusiasm  of  those 
multitudes.     The  expression  :  fonahtA  nil  that  hi  hath,  Ml 

It   B    I     X.  wme  Mnn.  add  m  after  ««x.,.-K.   I).  D.I 
Mau.  It******,  mi  «i  Mi  instead  aj  ■«>  It 


142  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

life,  as  well  as  all  the  affections  and  all  the  goods  fitted  to 
satisfy  it,  sums  up  the  two  conditions  indicated  vers.  26  (the 
giving  up  of  enjoyment)  and  2  7  (the  acceptance  of  the  cross). 
Salt  (ver.  34)  corrects  the  tastelessness  of  certain  substances, 
and  preserves  others  from  corruption ;  the  marvellous  efficacy 
of  this  agent  on  materials  subjected  to  its  quickening  energy 
is  a  good  thing,  and  even  good  to  observe  (koXov).  In  this 
twofold  relation,  it  is  the  emblem  of  the  sharp  and  austere 
savour  of  holiness,  of  the  action  of  the  gospel  on  the  natural 
life,  the  insipidity  and  frivolity  of  which  are  corrected  by  the 
Divine  Spirit.  No  more  beautiful  spectacle  in  the  moral 
world  than  this  action  of  the  gospel  through  the  instrumentality 
of  the  consistent  Christian  on  the  society  around  him.  But  if 
the  Christian  himself  by  his  unfaithfulness  destroys  this  holy 
power,  no  means  will  restore  to  him  the  savour  which  it  was 
his  mission  to  impart  to  the  world.  '  ApTvdrjo-ercu  might  be 
taken  impersonally:  "If  there  is  no  more  salt,  wherewith 
shall  men  salt  (things)  ? "  But  Jesus  is  not  here  describing 
the  evil  results  of  Christian  unfaithfulness  to  the  world  or  the 
gospel ;  it  is  the  professor  himself  who  is  concerned  (ver.  3  5  : 
men  cast  it  out).  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  therefore,  a\as, 
salt  itself ;  comp.  Mark  ix.  50:  iv  rivi  aprvaere  avro  ;  "  where- 
with will  ye  season  ikf  "  Salt  which  has  become  savourless 
is  fit  for  nothing ;  it  cannot  serve  the  soil  as  earth,  nor  pasture 
as  dung.  It  is  only  good  to  be  cast  out,  says  Luke ;  trodden 
underfoot  of  men,  says  Matt.  v.  1 3.  Salt  was  sometimes  used 
to  cover  slippery  ways  (Erub.  f.  104.  1  :  Spargunt  salcm 
in  clivo  ne  nutent  (pedes).  A  reserved  attitude  towards  the 
gospel  is  therefore  a  less  critical  position  than  an  open  profes- 
sion followed  by  declension.  In  the  moral  as  in  the  physical 
world,  without  previous  heating  there  is  no  deadly  chill. 
Jesus  seems  to  say  that  the  life  of  nature  may  have  its  use- 
fulness in  the  kingdom  of  God,  either  in  the  form  of  mundane 
(land)  respectability,  or  even  as  a  life  completely  corrupted 
and  depraved  (dung).  In  the  first  case,  indeed,  it  is  the  soil 
wherein  the  germ  of  the  higher  life  may  be  sown ;  and  in  the 
second,  it  may  at  least  call  forth  a  moral  reaction  among  those 
who  feel  indignation  or  disgust  at  the  evil,  and  drive  them  to 
seek  life  from  on  high;  while  the  unfaithfulness  of  the 
Christian  disgusts  men  with  the  gospel  itself.     The  expression  : 


CHAP.  XV.  1,  2.  14j 

en*'  out  (give  over  to  perdition,  John  xv.  6),  forms  the  transi- 
tion to  the  final  call :  He  that  hath  ears  .... 

This  discourse  is  the  basis  of  the  famous  passage,  Heb.  vi.  4-8. 

The  commentators  who  have  applied  it  to  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 

not  sufficiently  considered   the   context,  and  especially  the 

introduction,  ver.    25,  which,   notwithstanding  Holtzmann's   con- 

temptacms  treatment,  is,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  key  of  the  whole 

'  itthew  places  the  apophthegm,  vers.  34,  35,  in  that  passage 

of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  where  the  grandeur  of  the  Christian 

calli:  scribed  (v.   13-1G).      Perhaps  he  was  led  to  put  it 

there  by  the  analogy  of  the  saying  to  the  immediately  following 

one:  M  1'    are  tlie  light  of  the  tuorhl."     Mark  places  it,  like  Luke, 

rds  the  end  of  the   Galilean  ministry  (ix.    50) ;   and  such  a 

warning  is  better  explained  at  a  more  advanced  period.     Besides, 

like  so  many  other  general  maxims,  it  may  perfectly  well  have  heen 

uttered  twice. 

5.   The  Parables  of  Grace :  chap.  xv. — This  piece  contains  I 

A  historical  introduction   (vers.  1  and   2) ;  2d.  A  pair  of 

] »aiables,  like  that  of  the  previous  chapter  (vers.  3—10);  and 

A  great  parable,  which  forms  the  summing  up  and  climax 

of  the  two  preceding  (vers.  11-32).     The  relation  is  like  that 

between  the  three  allegories,  John  x.  1-18. 

B.  1  and  2.1   The  Introduction. — If  Weizsiicker  had 

sufficiently  weighed  the  bearing  of  the  analytical  form  rjaav 

tyytfoi/Tes,  (hey  were  drawing  near,  which  denotes  a  state  of 

things  more  or  less  permanent,  he  would  not  have  accused 

Luke  (p.  139)  of  transforming  into  the  event  of  a  particular 

time  a  very  common  situation  in  the  life  of  Jesus.     It  is  on 

ifl  of  this  habitual  state  of  things  that  the  point  of  time 

faor.  ern-e,  ver.  3)  is  marked  off  when  Jesus  related  the   f«>l- 

|0WiQg  parables.       Ilnltzmann    fndt   nothing  in  this,  intrnduc- 

i   but  an  invention  of  Luke  himself.      h\  any  case,  Luke 

es  us  once  more,  by  this  ihoct  historh  al   introduction,  at 

the  jM.int  of  view  for  understanding  t lie  whole  of  the  follov 

discourse. — What  drew   those   sinners  to  Jesus    was    their 

ling   in    Him    not  that    righteousness,  full  of   pride 

ith    which    the     Pharisees    assailed    them,   fat   a 

linen  which  was  associated  with  the  tenderest  love.     The 

publicans  and  sinners  had  broken  with   U  vitieal   purity  and 

respectal  he   former  by  their  business. 

life      I  i,  Emm  in  Israel.     But  were 

1  Ver.  2.  N.  1  I  >.  I. .  .  il 


.1.44  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

they  finally  lost  on  that  account  ?  Undoubtedly,  the  normal 
way  of  entering  into  union  with  God  would  have  been  through 
fidelity  to  the  theocracy ;  but  the  coming  of  the  Saviour 
opened  another  to  those  who,  by  their  guilt,  had  shut  the  first 
against  them.  And  that  was  exactly  the  thing  which  had 
exasperated  the  zealots  of  Levitical  observances.  Eather  than 
recognise  in  Jesus  one  who  had  understood  the  merciful  pur- 
pose of  God,  they  preferred  to  explain  the  compassionate 
welcome  which  He  gave  to  sinners  by  His  secret  sympathy 
with  sin.  UpooSe-xeaOat,  to  receive  with  ivelcome,  refers  to 
kindly  relations  in  general ;  avvecrOiew,  to  eat  with,  to  the 
decisive  act  in  the  manners  of  that  time  by  which  He  did  not 
fear  to  seal  this  connection. 

2d.  Vers.  3-10.  The  two  parables  of  the  lost  sheep  and  of 
the  lost  drachma,  as  such  pairs  of  parables  always  do,  present 
the  same  idea,  but  in  two  different  aspects.  The  idea  com- 
mon to  both  is  the  solicitude  of  God  for  sinners ;  the  difference 
is,  that  in  the  first  instance  this  solicitude  arises  from  the 
compassion  with  which  their  misery  inspires  Him,  in  the  second 
from  the  value  which  He  attaches  to  their  persons.  The  two 
descriptions  are  intended  to  show  that  the  conduct  of  Jesus 
toward  those  despised  beings  corresponds  in  all  respects  to 
that  compassionate  solicitude,  and  so  to  justify  the  instrument 
of  divine  love.  If  God  cannot  be  accused  of  secret  sympathy 
with  sin,  how  could  Jesus  possibly  be  so  when  carrying  His 
purpose  into  execution  ? 

Vers.  3-7.1  The  Lost  Sheep. — God  seeks  sinners,  because  the 
sinner  is  a  miserable  being  deserving  pity  :  such  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  description.  The  parable  is  put  in  the  form  of  a 
question.  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  at  once  an  argumentum 
ad  hominem  and  an  argument  a  fortiori :  "  What  do  ye  your- 
selves in  such  a  case  ?  And  besides,  the  case  is  like :  a  sheep, 
a  man  ! " —  Which  of  you  ?  "  There  is  not  a  single  one  of 
you  who  accuse  me  here  who  does  not  act  exactly  like  me 
in  similar  circumstances."  "AvOpcoiros,  man,  is  tacitly  con- 
trasted 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  of  its  own  passions ;  the  ninety  and 
1  Ver.  4.  6  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  add  ov  after  tus. 


CHAP.  xv.  3-7.  145 

nine,  the  majority  which  has  remained  outwardly  faithful  to 
the  law.  "Eprifios,  which  we  translate  u-ildcrness,  simply 
denotes  in  the  East  uncultivated  plains,  pasturage,  in  opposi- 
tion to  tilled  fields.  It  is  the  natural  resort  of  sheep,  but 
without  the  notion  of  danger  and  barrenness,  which  we  connect 
with  the  idea  of  wilderness.  This  place  where  the  flock  feeds 
represents  the  more  or  less  normal  state  of  the  faithful  Jews, 
in  which  the  soul  is  kept  near  to  God  under  the  shelter 
of  commandments  and  worship.  The  shepherd  leaves  them 
there :  they  have  only  to  walk  faithfully  in  the  way  marked 
out  for  them  ;  they  will  be  infallibly  led  on  to  a  higher  state 
(John  iii.  21,  v.  46,  vi.  45,  vii.  17).  While  waiting,  their 
moral  position  is  safe  enough  to  allow  the  Saviour  to  conse- 
be  Himself  more  specially  to  the  souls  of  those  who,  having 
broken  with  the  covenant  and  its  means  of  grace,  are  exposed 
to  the  most  imminent  dangers.  The  anxiety  of  the  shepherd 
to  recover  a  strayed  sheep  has  more  than  personal  interest  for 
its  motive.  One  sheep  in  a  hundred  is  a  loss  of  too  small 
importance,  and  in  any  case  out  of  proportion  to  the  pains 
•which  he  takes.  The  motive  which  animates  him  is  com- 
passion. Is  there,  in  reality,  a  creature  in  the  animal  world 
more  to  be  pitied  than  a  strayed  sheep?  It  is  destitute  both 
ct  necessary  to  find  Lfefl  way,  and  of  every  weapon 
of  self-defence.  It  is  a  prey  to  any  beast  which  may  meet 
it;  it  deserves,  as  no  other  being  in  nature,  the  name  of  I 
The  compassion  of  the  shepherd  i  1.    In  his  penfsver> 

ance  :  he  seeks  it  until  (ver.  4) ;  2.  In  his  tender  care :  he 

th  it  on  Ju's  shoulders;  3.  In  the  ./'"//  with  which  he  tel 
his   burden  {IttltLQ^giv  ^aipwv),  a  joy  such   that  he  wishes 
to  share  it  with  those  who  surround  liim,  and  that  he  reckons 
on  leoeiving  their  congratulations  (ver.  6). 

in  thifl  l  •    pictQXe  finds    its   application 

by  means  of  the  situation  described,  mis.  1  and  2.  The 
search   for   I  p    corresponds  with   the   act    which    the 

Pharisees  1 'lamed  :  ][<  ne$ivetk  lumen,  tmd  eatetM  with  them  ; 
the  finding,  to  thai  women!  of  unspeakable  joy,  when  Jesus 
sees  one  of  those  lost  souls  returning  to  God;  the  tender- 
ness with  which  the  shepherd  carries  his  sheep,  to  the  care 
which  divine  grace   will   henceforth    <'l<e   of  the   soul    thus 

joy  of  i  herd,  to  that   wl 

VOL.  II.  K 


146  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Jesus,  that  which  God  Himself,  feels  in  the  salvation  of 
sinners ;  the  congratulations  of  friends  and  neighbours,  to  the 
thanksgivings  and  praises  of  glorified  men  and  angels.  It  is 
to  be  remarked  that  the  shepherd  does  not  carry  back  the 
sheep  to  the  pasture,  but  to  his  own  dwelling.  By  this  touch, 
Jesus  undoubtedly  gives  us  to  understand,  that  the  sinners 
whom  He  has  come  to  save  are  transported  by  Him  into  an 
order  of  things  superior  to  that  of  the  theocracy  to  which 
they  formerly  belonged — into  the  communion  of  heaven  repre- 
sented by  the  shepherd's  house  (ver.  7). 

Ver.  7  contains  the  application  of  the  description,  or  more 
exactly,  the  conclusion  of  the  argument :  "  If  pity  leads  you 
to  show  such  tenderness  to  a  sheep,  am  I  wrong  in  showing 
it  to  lost  souls  ?  I  say  unto  you,  that  what  I  feel  and  do  is 
what  God  Himself  feels  and  wishes  ;  and  what  offends  you 
here  below  on  the  earth  is  what  causes  rejoicing  in  the 
heavens.  It  is  for  you  to  judge  from  this  contrast,  whether, 
while  you  have  no  need  perhaps  to  change  your  life,  you  do 
not  need  a  change  of  heart ! " — The  words  :  there  shall  he  more 
joy,  are  frequently  explained  anthropopathically :  the  recovery 
of  a  lost  object  gives  us  in  the  first  moment  a  livelier  joy 
than  anything  which  we  possess  without  previous  loss.  If 
we  found  this  feature  in  the  parable,  the  explanation  might 
be  discussed.  But  it  meets  us  in  the  application,  and  we 
cannot  see  how  such  a  sentiment  could  be  absolutely  ascribed 
to  God.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  state  of  the  recovered 
sinner  is  really  superior  to  that  of  the  believing  Israelite. 
The  latter,  without  having  to  charge  himself  with  gross  dis- 
orders (fjLeravoelv,  to  repent,  in  the  sense  of  those  to  whom 
Jesus  is  speaking),  has  nevertheless  one  decisive  step  more  to 
take,  in  order  that  his  salvation  may  be  consummated,  and 
that  God  may  rejoice  fully  on  his  account ;  that  is,  to  recog- 
nise his  inward  sin,  to  embrace  the  Saviour,  and  to  be  changed 
in  heart.  Till  then  his  regulated  walk  within  the  bosom  of 
the  ancient  covenant  is  only  provisional,  like  the  whole  of 
that  covenant  itself.  It  may  easily  happen  that,  like  the 
Pharisees,  such  a  man  should  end  by  rejecting  real  salvation, 
and  so  perishing.  How  should  heaven  rejoice  over  a  state 
so  imperfect,  with  a  joy  like  that  which  is  awakened  among 
its  inhabitants  by  the  sight  of  a  sinner  really  saved  'i     It  ia 


CHIP.  xv.  7.  147 

evident  that  in  this  saying  we  must  take  the  word  just  (as 
well  as  the  word  repent)  in  the  sense  given  to  it  by  the 
interlocutors  of  Jesus,  that  relative  meaning  which  we  have 
found,  v.  3 1 , 3  2 :  the  just,  Levitically  and  theocratically 
speaking.  This  righteousness  is  nothing ;  it  is  the  directest 
conduct  to  true  righteousness;  but  on  condition  that 
a  man  does  not  rest  in  it.  It  thus  affords  a  certain  occasion 
for  joy  in  heaven, — this  is  implied  in  the  comparative,  joy  more 

...  , — but  less  joy,  however,  than  the  salvation  of  a  single 
soul  fully  realized.  That  is  already  evident  from  the  contrast 
established  by  this  verse  between  the  joy  of  heaven  and  the 
discontent  of  the  Pharisees  on  occasion  of  the  same  event 
(ver.  1).  The  /  say  unto  you  h$s  here,  as  everywhere,  a 
special  solemnity.  Jesus  speaks  of  heavenly  things  as  a 
witness  (John  iii.  11)  and  as  an  interpreter  of  the  thoughts 
of  God.  The  words  in  Jieavcn  embrace  God  and  the  beii 
who  surround  Him,  those  who  are  represented  in  the  parable 
by  tlie  friends  and  neighbours.  The  conjunction  rj  supposes  a 
fidWou  which  is  not  expressed.  This  form  is  explained  by 
the  blending  of  two  ideas:  "there  is  joy"  (hence  the  absence 
naXXov),  "  there  is   yet  more   than  ..."    (and   hence  the 

This  form  delicately  expresses  the  idea  indicated  above, 

that  there  is  also  a  certain  satisfaction  in  heaven  on  account 

of  the  righteousness  of  sincere  Israelites. — How  can  one  help 

•  i  nek  with  the   manner  in   which  Jesus,  both  in  this 

tble   and  the  two   following,  identifies   His    feelings  and 

conduct  absolutely  with  the  feelings  and  the  action   of  God 

Himself  ?      The   shepherd   seeking,  the   woman    fading,  the 

father  welcoming, — is  it  not  in  His  person  that  God  accom- 

s  all  those  divine  works  ? 

placed  by  Matthew  in  the  gre.  <•  of  chap. 

i,  and — Bleak  <annot  help  acknowl  .<<•  of  an  asso- 

;  n  ot  ideal  belonging  purely  to  the  evangelic  himself     Indeed, 

the  application  which  he  makes  of  the  lost  sheep  to  the  little  ones 

ra.  1-6  and  10;  ver.  11  is  an  interpolation)  is  certainly  not  in 

keeping  with  sense  of  this  parable.     The  original  re- 

icc  of  tl  ion  to  lost  sinners,  as  Holtzmann  say«  in  the 

same  connection,  has  been  preserved  by  Luke.     But  how  in 

are  we  to  explain  is  wrested  the  pai 

1  the  same  do.  nii: 
Besides,  how  comes  it  that  Matthew  omits 
following  parable,  that  of  the  drachma,  I  I  ke,  accoi 


143  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

to  this  critic,  takes,  as  well  as  the  preceding,  from  the  common 
document  % 

Vers.  8-1 0.1  The  Lost  Drachma. — The  anxiety  of  the  woman 
to  find  her  lost  piece  of  money  certainly  does  not  proceed 
from  a  feeling  of  pity ;  it  is  self-interest  which  leads  her  to 
act.  She  had  painfully  earned  it,  and  had  kept  it  in  reserve 
for  some  important  purpose ;  it  is  a  real  loss  to  her.  Here  is 
divine  love  portrayed  from  an  entirely  different  side.  The 
sinner  is  not  only,  in  the  eyes  of  God,  a  suffering  being,  like 
the  sheep  on  whom  He  takes  pity ;  he  is  a  precious  being, 
created  in  His  image,  to  whom  He  has  assigned  a  part  in  the 
accomplishment  of  His  plans.  A  lost  man  is  a  blank  in  His 
treasury.  Is  not  this  side,  of  divine  love,  rightly  understood, 
still  more  striking  than  the  preceding  ? 

The  general  features,  as  well  as  the  minutest  details,  of  the 
description  are  fitted  to  bring  into  prominence  this  idea  of 
the  value  which  God  attaches  to  a  lost  soul.  General  features  : 
1.  The  idea  of  loss  (ver.  8  a) ;  2.  The  persevering  care  which 
the  woman  expends  in  seeking  the  drachma  (ver.  8b) ;  3. 
Her  overflowing  joy  when  she  has  found  it  (ver.  9). — Details: 
The  woman  has  laboriously  earned  this  small  sum,  and  saved 
it  only  at  the  cost  of  many  privations,  and  for  some  urgent 
necessity.  Jesus  leaves  out  the  e£  v/jlwv,  of  you,  of  ver.  4. 
Perhaps  there  were  none  but  men  in  the  throng,  or  if  other- 
wise, He  was  addressing  them  only.  For  the  number  100, 
ver.  4,  He  substitutes  the  number  1 0  ;  the  loss  of  one  in  1 0 
is  more  serious  than  of  one  in  100. — The  drachma  was  worth 
about  eightpence.  It  was  the  price  of  a  full  day's  work. 
Comp.  Matt.  xx.  2,  where  the  master  agrees  with  the  labourers 
for  a  penny  (a  sum  nearly  equivalent  to  eightpence)  a  day,  and 
Eev.  vi.  6. — With  what  minute  pains  are  the  efforts  of  this 
woman  described,  and  what  a  charming  interior  is  the  picture 
of  her  persevering  search  !  She  lights  her  lamp ;  for  in  the 
East  the  apartment  has  no  other  light  than  that  which  is 
admitted  by  the  door;  she  removes  every  article  of  furniture, 
and  sweeps  the  most  dusty  corners.  Such  is  the  image  of 
God  coming  down  in  the  person  of  Jesus  into  the  company 
of   the    lowest  among  sinners,    following  them   to  the  very 

1  Ver.  8.  X.  ?».  L.  X.  10  Mnn.,  t«*  »v  instead  of  tut  or»».- Ver.  9.  6  Mjj.  25 

Mnn.,  9vyxK7.it  instead  of  <Tvyx«.\uTou. 


CHAP.  XV.  11-32.  149 

dens  of  the  theocracy,  with  the  light  of  divine  truth.  The 
figure  of  the  sheep  referred  rather  to  the  publicans ;  that  of 
the  drachma  applies  rather  to  the  second  class  mentioned  in 
ver.  1,  the  dfiaprcoXoi,  beings  plunged  in  vice. 

In  depicting  the  joy  of  the  woman  (ver.  9),  Luke  substi- 
tute Middle  avyfcaXetTai,  she  callcth  to  herself,  for  the 
ive  (rvytcakei,  she  callcth,  ver.  6  ;  the  Alex,  have  ill-ad visedly 
obliterated  this  shade.  It  is  not,  as  in  the  preceding  parable, 
the  object  lost  which  profits  by  the  finding ;  it  is  the  woman 
herself,  who  had  lost  something  of  her  own ;  and  so  she  claims 
to  be  congratulated  for  herself;  hence  the  Middle.  This 
shade  of  expression  reflects  the  entire  difference  of  meaning 
between  the  two  parables.  It  is  the  same  with  another 
slight  modification.  Instead  of  the  expression  of  ver.  6  : 
"  For  I  have  found  my  sheep  which  was  lost  (to  cnro\cc\6<;)" 
the  woman  says  here  :  "  the  piece  which  1  had  lost  (fjv  dw<o- 
Xeaa) " ;  the  first  phrase  turned  attention  to  the  sheep  and 
its  distress ;  the  second  attracts  our  interest  to  the  woman, 
disconsolate  about  her  loss. — What  grandeur  belongs  to  the 
picture  of  this  I  nimble  rejoicing  which  the  poor  woman 
celebrates  with  her  neighbours,  when  it  becomes  the  trans- 
■ncy  through  which  we  get  a  glimpse  of  God  Himself, 
rejoicing  with  His  elect  and  His  angels  over  the  salvation  of 
a  single  sinner,  even  the  chief!  The  ivdmiov  rwv  dyy.,  in  the 
presence  of  i:  .  may  be  explained  in  two  ways :  either 
by  giving  to  the  word  joy  the  IBfltnilig  mhj^d  °fjoy> — in  that 
case,  this  saying  refers  directly  to  the  joy  of  the  angels  them- 
es,— or  by  referring  the  word  xaP"  to  ^he  J°y  °f  G0(? 
which  breaks  forth  Ml  presence  of  the  angels,  and  in  which 
they  participate.     The  first  sense  is  the  more  natural 

DROWed    from  the-   animal   and    in- 
anifl  lid,   remain    too    far   beneath    their   object.      They 

did  not  furnish  Jesus  with  the  means  of  displaying  the  full 
riehes  of  feeling  which  filled  the  heart  of  God  toward  the 
aer,  nor  of  unveiling  the  sinner's  inner  history  in  t he 
drama  of  conversion.  Pot  that,  He  needed  an  image  borrowed 
from  tli  n    of   mor.d   and   s«n^itive   nature,  the  sphere 

•I  human  life.      I  1  which  sums  up  the  first  two  parables 

op  the  third  Ka ./ 

(ft    11-32.    TJu    Child    lost   and  fovnd.—  This    parable 


150  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

consists  of  two  distinct  descriptions,  which  form  the  counter- 
part of  one  another,  that  of  the  younger  son  (vers.  11-24), 
and  that  of  the  elder  son  (vers.  25-32).  By  the  second, 
Jesus  returns  completely,  as  we  shall  see,  to  the  historical 
situation  described  vers.  1,  2,  and  the  scene  is  closed. 

Vers.  11-24.  The  younger  Son. — This  first  part  of  the 
parable  embraces  four  representations  corresponding  to  the 
four  phases  of  the  converted  sinner's  life  :  1st.  Sin  (vers. 
11-13);  2d.  Misery  (vers.  14-16);  3d.  Conversion  (vers. 
l7-20a);  Mh.  Eestoration  (vers.  206-24). 

Vers.  11-13.1 — Jesus  discontinues  the  interrogative  form 
used  in  the  two  previous  cases  :  we  have  no  more  an  argument ; 
we  have  a  narrative,  a  real  parable.  The  three  persons 
composing  the  family  represent  God  and  His  people.  In 
accordance  with  vers.  1,  2,  the  elder  son,  the  representative  of 
the  race,  the  prop  of  the  gens,  and  as  such  more  deeply 
attached  than  the  younger  to  the  land  of  his  household 
hearth,  personifies  the  Israelites  who  were  Levitically  irre- 
proachable, and  especially  the  Pharisees.  The  younger,  in 
whose  case  the  family  bond  is  weaker,  and  whom  this  very 
circumstance  renders  more  open  to  the  temptation  of  breaking 
with  it,  represents  those  who  have  abandoned  Jewish  legalism, 
publicans  and  people  of  immoral  lives.  His  demand  for  his 
goods  is  most  probably  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
elder  received  as  his  inheritance  a  double  share  of  the  patri- 
monial lands,  the  younger  members  a  single  share  (see  at 
xii.  13).  The  latter  then  desired  that  his  father,  anticipating 
the  division,  should  give  him  the  equivalent  of  his  portion  in 
money,  an  arrangement  in  virtue  of  which  the  entire  domain. 
on  the  father's  death,  would  come  to  the  elder.  Two  things 
impel  him  to  act  thus :  the  air  of  the  paternal  home  oppresses 
him,  he  feels  the  constraint  of  his  father's  presence ;  then  the 
world  without  attracts  him,  he  hopes  to  enjoy  himself.  But  to 
realize  his  wishes,  he  needs  two  things — freedom  and  money. 
Here  is  the  image  of  a  heart  swayed  by  licentious  appetites ; 
God  is  the  obstacle  in  its  way,  and  freedom  to  do  anything 
appears  to  it  as  the  condition  of  happiness.  Money  ought 
not  to  be  taken  as  a  figure  applied  to  the  talents  and  graces 
which  the  sinner  has  received ;  it  simply  represents  here  the 

1  Ver.  12.  Kc  A.  B.  L.,  o  h  instead  of  *mk 


CHAP.  XV.  H-16.  151 

power  of  satisfying  one's  tastes. — In  the  father's  consenting 
to  the  guilty  wish  of  his  son,  a  very  solemn  thought  is  ex- 
pressed, that  of  the  sinner's  abandonment  to  the  desires  of  his 

D  heart,  the  irapahihovac  rats  eTriOvfiiats  (Rom.  i.  24,  26, 
28),  the  ceasing  on  the  part  of  the  Divine  Spirit  to  strive 

inst  the  inclinations  of  a  spoiled  heart,  which  can  only  be 
cured  by  the  bitter  experiences  of  sin.  God  gives  such  a 
man  over  to  his  folly.  The  use  which  the  sinner  makes  of 
his  sadly-acquired  liberty  is  described  in  ver.  13.  All  those 
images  of  sin  blended  in  many  respects,  so  far  as  the  sinners 
present  were  concerned,  with  actual  facts.  The  far  country  to 
which  the  son  flies  is  the  emblem  of  the  state  of  a  soul  which 
has  so  strayed,  that  the  thought  of  God  no  longer  even  occurs 
to  it.  The  complete  dissipation  of  his  goods  represents  the 
carrying  out  of  man's  liberty  to  its  furthest  limits.  Maicpdv 
is  not  an  adjective,  but  an  adverb  (ver.  20,  vii.  6,  etc.). 

Vers.  14-1G.1 — The  liberty  of  self-enjoyment  is  not  un- 
limited, as  the  sinner  would  fain  think ;  it  has  limits  of  two 
kinds  :  the  one  pertaining  to  the  individual  himself,  such 
as  satiety,  remorse,  the  feeling  of  destitution  and  abjectness 
resulting  from  vice  (wlwn  he  Jiad  spent  all) ;  the  other  arising 
from  certain  unfavourable  outward  circumstances,  here  re] 
sented  by  the  famine  which  occurs  at  this   crisis,  that    i-, 

icstic  or  public  calamities  which  complete  the  subduing  of 
the  heart  which  lias  been  already  overwhelmed,  and  further, 
the  absence  of  all  divine  consolation.  Let  those  two  causes 
of  misery  coincide,  and  wretchedness  is  at  its  height.  Then 
ens  what  Jesus  calls  vcrrepelcrdai,  to  be  in  want,  the 
absolute  void  of  a  heart  which  has  sacrificed  everything  for 
pleasure,  and  which  has  nothing  left  hut   Buffering      W«   can 

Uy  avoid  seeing,  in  the  ignoble  dependence  into  which 

under  a  heathen  master,  an   allusion  to 

the  position  of  the  publicans  who  were  engaged  in  the  service 

But  the  gei  "  which  corresponds 

to  this  touch  is  that  of  the  degrading  dei»«  n<l<  n<  <•.  in  j-pect 

of  the  world,  to  which  the  vicious  man  always  finds  himself 

taped  in   •  He  son-lit  pl«-a>uiv,  lie  finds  pain ;  he 

1  Ver.  14.  K.  A.  B.  !  ,  ,  t,X9fm  inttead  of  ^^».- Ver.  16.  N    H. 

D.  L.  R.  some  Mllli.  Syi**.   It,;,«.,  gyf*##«MU   •>  f  ywnrmt   f*»   M 


152  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

wished  freedom,  he  gets  bondage.  The  word  iicoWyOrj  has 
in  it  something  abject;  the  unhappy  wretch  is  a  sort  of 
appendage  to  a  strange  personality.  To  feed  sivine,  the  last 
business  for  a  Jew.  Kepdriov  denotes  a  species  of  coarse 
bean,  used  in  the  East  for  fattening  those  animals.  At  ver. 
16,  the  Alex.  Mjj.  are  caught  in  the  very  act  of  purism;  men 
of  delicate  taste  could  not  bear  the  gross  expression,  to  fill  the 
belly  with  .  .  .  There  was  therefore  substituted  in  the  public 
reading  the  more  genteel  term,  to  satisfy  liimself  with  .  .  . ; 
and  this  correction  has  passed  into  the  Alex.  text.  The  act 
expressed  by  the  received  reading  is  that,  not  of  relishing 
food,  but  merely  of  filling  a  void.  The  smallest  details  are 
to  the  life  in  this  portraiture. — During  this  time  of  famine, 
when  the  poor  herdsman's  allowance  did  not  suffice  to  appease 
his  hunger,  he  was  reduced  to  covet  the  coarse  bean  with 
which  the  herd  was  carefully  fattened,  when  he  drove  it 
home :  the  swine  were  in  reality  more  precious  than  he. 
They  sold  high,  an  image  of  the  contempt  and  neglect  which 
the  profligate  experiences  from  that  very  world  to  which  he 
has  sacrificed  the  most  sacred  feelings. 

Vers.  17- 2  Oft.1  This  representation,  which  depicts  the  con- 
version of  the  sinner,  includes  two  things,  repentance  (ver.  1 7) 
and  faith  (vers.  18-20 a). — The  words,  when  he  came  to  him- 
self ver.  17,  denote  a  solemn  moment  in  human  life,  that  in 
which  the  heart,  after  a  long  period  of  dissipation,  for  the 
first  time  becomes  self-collected.  The  heart  is  God's  sanctuary. 
To  come  to  ourselves  is  therefore  to  find  God.  Repentance 
is  a  change  of  feeling ;  we  find  it  fully  depicted  in  the  regret 
which  the  sinner  feels  for  that  from  which  he  has  fled  (the 
father's  house),  and  in  that  horror  which  fills  him  at  that 
which  he  sought  so  ardently  (the  strange  land).  As  to  the 
mercenaries  whom  he  envies,  might  they  not  represent  those 
heathen  proselytes  who  had  a  place,  although  a  very  inferior 
one  (the  outer  court),  in  the  temple,  and  who  might  thus  from 
afar  take  part  in  the  worship ;  advantages  from  which  the 
publicans,  so  long  as  they  kept  to  their  profession,  were 
debarred  by  the  excommunication  which  fell  on  them. — From 

1  Ver.  17.  K.  B.  L.  some  Mun.,  ttpv  instead  of  */<*-«». — A.  B.  P.,  -npiffinvovTxi 
instead  of  ^riftaaivova^. — G  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  ItPleriiue,  Vg.  add  *3s  to  Xttuu. — 
Ver.  19.  1G  Mjj.  40  Mnn.  ItPleri<iue,  omit  »m  before  own. 


CIIAr.  XV.  20-21.  15.°» 

this  change  of  feeling  there  springs  a  resolution  (ver.  18), 
which  rests  on  a  remnant  of  confidence  in  the  goodness  of  his 
father ;  this  is  the  dawn  of  faith.  Did  we  not  recollect  that 
we  are  yet  in  the  parable,  the  meaning  of  the  words  before 
thee  would  appear  to  blend  with  that  of  the  preceding,  against 
But  in  the  image  adopted  the  two  expressions  have 
a  distinct  meaning.  Heaven  is  the  avenger  of  all  holy  feel- 
ings when  outraged,  and  particularly  of  filial  devotion  when 
trampled  under  foot.  The  young  man  sinned  before  his  father 
at  the  time  when,  the  latter  beholding  him  with  grief,  he 
defied  his  last  look,  and  obstinately  turned  his  back  on  him. — 
The  possibility  of  an  immediate  and  entire  restoration  does 
not  enter  his  mind.  He  is  ready  to  take  the  position  of  a 
servant  in  the  house  where  he  lived  as  a  son,  but  where  he 
shall  have  at  least  wherewith  to  satisfy  his  hunger.  Here  is 
portrayed  that  publican  (described  in  chap,  xviii.)  who  stood 
afar  off,  and  dared  not  even  raise  his  eyes  to  God.  But  the 
essential  fact  is,  that  the  resolution  once  taken,  he  carries  it 
out.  Here  is  faith  in  its  fulness,  actually  arising,  going  to 
God.  Faith  is  not  a  thought  or  a  desire  ;  it  is  an  act  which 
wo  living  beings  into  personal  contact. — What  an 
impression  must  have  been  produced  on  the  publicans  present 
by  this  faithful  picture  of  their  past  and  present  experiences! 
But  how  much  deeper  still  the  emotion  which  awaits  them 
when  they  hear  Jesus  unveiling,  in  the  sequel,  the  feelings 
and  conduct  of  God  Himself  toward  them  I 

I,  206-24.1  Free  pardon,  entire  restoration,  the  joys  of 
adoption, — such  arc  th«  contents  of  the  The  heart  ol 

God  overflows  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus.  Every  word  vibratee 
with  emotion,  at  once  the  tenderest  and  the  holiest.  The 
father  seems  never  to  have  given  up  waiting  for  his  son; 
perceiving  him  from  afar,  he  runs  to  meet  him.  God  discerns 
the  faintest  si.  good  which  luvaks  forth  in  a  wanderer's 

heart;  and  from  the  moment  this   hear!  a  step  toward 

Hi  in,  II  a  to  meet  it,  striving  to  show  it  somethinc, 

1  Ver.  21.  7  Mjj.  aomc  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  x«,  Wforo  •*«•«.-  N   B.  D.  U.  X. 
SO  Mnn.  add,  after  m*  r«*,  ntmmj/m  *t  m  r«*  pt*tmm  wa  -Vet.  22.  N 

Vg.   add  rmx*  (IX,  *>«£<»()  riymmrt.  —  7  I .)   omit    mi 

before  rr«X«r. — Ver.  23.   K.   I  Iv   Vg.,  fyin  instoml  ol   iny«« 

Ver.  24.  9  Mjj.  30  Mnn.  It    \  %.  omit  **<  1..  fore  MWJUnJU*  •». 


154  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE, 

of  His  love.  This  history  was  exemplified  at  the  very 
moment  as  between  the  publicans  present  and  God,  who  was 
drawing  near  to  them  in  Jesus.  There  is  a  wide  difference 
between  the  confession  uttered  by  the  prodigal  son,  ver.  21, 
and  that  which  had  been  extracted  from  him  by  the  extremity 
of  his  misery  (vers.  18,  19).  The  latter  was  a  cry  of  despair; 
but  now  his  distress  is  over.  It  is  therefore  the  cry  of 
repentant  love.  The  terms  are  the  same:  /  have  sinned; 
but  how  different  is  the  accent !  Luther  felt  it  profoundly ; 
the  discovery  of  the  difference  between  the  repentance  of  fear 
and  that  of  love  was  the  true  principle  of  the  Eeformation. — 
He  cannot  come  to  the  end;  the  very  assurance  of  pardon 
prevents  him  from  finishing  and  saying,  make  me  as  .  .  ., 
according  to  his  first  purpose.  The  Alex,  have  not  understood 
this  omission,  and  have  mistakenly  added  here  the  last  words 
of  ver.  19. 

Pardon  involves  restoration.  No  humbling  novitiate ;  no 
passing  through  inferior  positions.  The  restoration  is  as  com- 
plete as  the  repentance  was  sincere  and  the  faith  profound. 
In  all  those  touches — the  shoes,  the  robe,  the  signet  ring  (the 
mark  of  the  free  man,  fitted  to  express  an  independent  will) — a 
sound  exegesis  should  limit  itself  to  finding  the  expression  of 
the  fulness  of  restoration  to  the  filial  standing ;  only  homiletic 
application  may  allow  itself  to  go  further,  though  even  it 
should  beware  of  falling  into  a  play  of  wit,  as  when  Jerome 
and  Olshausen  see  in  the  robe  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  in 
the  ring  the  seal  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  shoes  the  power  of 
walking  in  the  ways  of  God.  Others  have  found  in  the 
servants  the  image  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  of  pastors !  The 
Alex,  reject  rrjv  before  aToXrjv,  and  that  justly.  There  is  a 
gradation :  first  a  robe,  in  opposition  to  nakedness ;  then,  and 
even  the  best,  because  he  who  has  descended  lowest,  if  he  rise 
again,  should  mount  up  highest.  In  the  phrase,  the  fatted 
calf,  ver.  23,  the  article  should  be  observed.  On  every  farm 
there  is  always  the  calf  which  is  fattening  for  feast  days. 
Jesus  knows  rural  customs.  Augustine  and  Jerome  find  in 
this  calf  an  indication  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ !  According 
to  the  tout  ensemble  of  the  picture,  which  should  be  our 
standard  in  interpreting  all  the  special  details,  this  emblem 
represents  all  that  is  most  excellent  and  sweet  in  the  com- 


CHAP.  XV.   Ift-Sfc  155 

munications  of  divine  urace.  The  absence  of  every  feature 
fitted  to  represent  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  is  at  once  explained 
when  we  remember  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  parable, 
and  that  expiation  has  no  place  in  the  relations  between  man 
Had  man.  By  the  plural,  let  us  be  merry,  the  father  himself 
h&B  share  in  the  feast  (as  in  ver.  7).  The  two  parallel 
clauses  of  ver.  24  recall  the  two  aspects  in  which  sin  was 
presented  in  the  two  previous  parables ;  lie  ivas  dead  relates 
to  the  personal  misery  of  the  sinner  (the  lost  sheep) ;  he  vias 
to  the  loss  felt  by  God  Himself  (the  lost  drachma).  The 
parable  of  the  prodigal  son  combines  those  two  points  of 
view :  the  son  was  lost,  and  the  father  had  lost  something. 
With  the  words,  and  they  began  to  be  merry,  the  parable 
reaches  the  exact  point  at  which  things  were  at  the  moment 
when  Christ  uttered  it  (vers.  1  and  2). 

Vers.  25-32.  The  elder  Son, — This  part  embraces  :  1st.  The 
interview  of  the  elder  son  with  the  servant  (vers.  25-28a); 
His  interview  with  his  father  (vers.  286-32).  Jesus  here 
she  iiarisees  their  munimrings  put  in  action,  and  con- 

strains them  to  feel  their  gravity. 

Vers.  25-2 8a.1  While  the  house  is  filled  with  mirth,  the 
elder  son  is  at  work.  Here  is  the  image  of  the  Pharisee  tattled 
witli  his  rites,  while  repentant  sinners  are  rejoicing  in  the 
serene  sunshine  of  grace.  Every  free  and  joyous  impulse  is 
abhorrent  to  the  formal  spirit  of  pharisaism.  This  repugnance 
is  described  in  ver.  26.  Rather  than  go  straight  into  the 
house,  the  elder  son  begins  by  gathering  information  from  a 
servant;  he  does  not  feel  himself  at  hot*  in  the  house  (John 
viii.  35).  The  servant  in  his  answer  substitutes  for  the  ex- 
pressions of  the  lather  :  ///  was  dead  .  .  .,  lost  .  .  .,  these  staple 
words:  he  is  come  safe  and  sound.  This  is  the  fact,  without 
bar's  moral  appreciation,  which  »l   fitting  in  him 

Sreiything  in  thl  slightest  details  of  the 
pict  most  exquisite  delicacy.     The  refusal  to 

enter  corresponds  to  the  discontent  of  the  Pharisees,  who  do 
not  understand  being  saved  in  common  with  the  vicious. 

Vers.  286-32.*  This  interview  contains  bite  lull  i 

:.  26.   Avr»y  aftrr  »«<**»,  in  r  (n  I  by  MOM  Mnn. 

Mn.  are  •!  and  *Ax«r 

between  •  •«»  (T.  R.)  and  •  )i  (Alex.).— Ver.  29.  7  Mjj.  add  mrnm  to  f*  r«r*. 


156  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  pliarisaic  feeling,  and  brings  into  view  the  contrast  between 
it  and  the  fatherly  heart  of  God.  The  procedure  of  the  father, 
who  steps  out  to  his  son  and  invites  him  to  enter,  is  realized 
in  the  very  conversation  which  Jesus,  come  from  God,  holds 
with  them  at  the  moment.  The  answer  of  the  son  (vers.  29 
and  30)  includes  two  accusations  against  his  father:  the  one 
bears  on  his  way  of  acting  toward  himself  (ver.  29),  the  other 
on  his  conduct  in  respect  of  his  other  son  (ver.  30).  The  con- 
trast is  meant  to  bring  out  the  partiality  of  the  father.  The 
blind  and  innocent  self-satisfaction  which  forms  the  heart  of 
pharisaism  could  not  be  better  depicted  than  in  the  words : 
"neither  transgressed  I  at  any  time  thy  commandment;"  and 
the  servile  and  mercenary  position  of  the  legal  Jew  in  the 
theocracy,  than  thus  :  "  Lo !  these  many  years  do  I  serve  thee." 
Bengel  makes  the  simple  observation  on  these  words  :  servus 
erat.  What  in  reality  was  his  father  to  him  ?  A  master  !  He 
even  counts  the  years  of  his  hard  servitude :  Tliere  are  so 
many  years  !  .  .  .  Such  is  man's  view  of  accomplishing  good 
under  the  law :  a  labour  painfully  carried  through,  and  which 
consequently  merits  payment.  But  by  its  very  nature  it  is 
totally  deprived  of  the  delights  which  belong  only  to  the 
sphere  of  free  love ;  it  has  no  other  idea  of  them  than  that 
which  it  gets  by  seeing  those  joys  of  the  reconciled  sinner,  by 
which  it  is  scandalized.  The  joy  which  is  wanting  to  it  is  this 
hid  to  make  merry  with  its  friends,  which  has  never  been 
granted  to  it. 

With  the  hard  and  ill-paid  labour  of  legal  obedience  he  con« 
trasts  (ver.  30)  the  life  of  his  brother,  merry  in  sin,  happier 
still,  if  possible,  in  the  hour  of  his  return  and  pardon.  The 
meaning  is,  that  in  the  eyes  of  pharisaism,  as  virtue  is  a  task, 
sin  is  a  pleasure ;  and  hence  there  ought  to  be  a  payment  foi 
the  first,  an  equivalent  of  pain  for  the  second.  The  father,  by 
refusing  to  the  one  his  just  reward,  by  adding  in  the  case  of 
the  other  joy  to  joy,  the  enjoyments  of  the  paternal  home  to 
those  of  debauchery,  has  shown  his  preference  for  the  sinner 
and  his  sympathy  with  sin.  Thy  son,  says  the  elder  son, 
instead  of:  my  orother.     He  would  express  at  once  the  par- 

— Ver.  30.  Instead  of  rov  (Jt.t><r%ov  <rav  trinvrev,  6  Mjj.,  tov  fftrsurov  ftctrxov. — Ver.  32. 
Instead  of  wi^™  (T.  R.)>  K*  B.  L.  R.  a.  Syr8ch,  il«<nv.— K.  B.  X.  several 
Mnn.  It.  omit  xxt,  and  A.  B.  D.  L.  R.  X.  >jv,  before  a.voXuXeot, 


CIIAr.  XV.  -28-32.  157 

tiality  of  his  father  and  his  own  dislike  to  the  sinner.  Do 
not  those  sayings  which  Jesus  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
righteous  legalist,  contain  the  keenest  criticism  of  a  state  of 
soul  wherein  men  discharge  duty  all  the  while  abhorring  it, 
and  wherein,  while  avoiding  sin,  they  thirst  after  it  ?  The 
particular  fjuera  iropvuv  is  a  stroke  of  the  pencil  added  to  the 
picture  of  ver.  1 3  by  the  charitable  hand  of  the  elder  brother. 
The  father's  answer  meets  perfectly  the  two  accusations  of 
his  son.  Ver.  31  replies  to  ver.  29;  ver.  32  to  ver.  30. 
The  father  first  clears  himself  from  the  charge  of  injustice  to 
the  son  who  is  speaking  to  him ;  and  with  wrhat  condescen- 
sion !  "  My  child  (re/cvov)."  This  form  of  address  has  in  it 
something  more  loving  even  than  vie,  son.  Then  lie  reminds 
him  that  his  life  with  him  might  have  been  a  feast  all  along. 
There  was  no  occasion,  therefore,  to  make  a  special  feast  for 
him.  And  what  good  would  a  particular  gift  serve,  when 
everything  in  the  house  was  continually  at  his  disposal  ?  The 
meaning  of  this  remarkable  saying  is,  that  nothing  prevented 
the  believing  Israelite  from  already  enjoying  the  sweets  of 
divine  communion, — a  fact  proved  by  the  Psalms;  comp.  e.g. 

\xiii.  and  Ixiii.  St.  Paul  himself,  who  ordinarily  presents 
the  law  as  the  instrument  of  condemnation,  nevertheless 
derives  the  formula  of  grace  from  a  saying  of  Moses  (Iiom. 
x.  6-8),  proving  that  in  his  eyes  grace  is  already  in  the  la 
through  the  pardon  which  accompanies  sacrifice  and  the  Holy 
ranted  to  him  who  asks  Bim  (Ps.  li.  9-14);  and  that 
when  he  speaks  of  the  law  as  he  ordinarily  does,  it  is  after 
the  manner  of  his  adversaries,  isolating  the  commandment 
from  grace.     In  the  same  way  as  ver.  31   presents  theocr; 

lity  as  a  happineasj  and  not  a  task,  so  ver.  32  reveals  sin 
as  a  misery,  and  not  as  an  advantage.  There  was  therefore 
ground  for  celebrating  a  feast  on  the  return  of  one  who  had 
just  escaped  bom  a  misery,  and  by  its  arrival  had 

bored  the  life  of  the  family  in  its  completeness.  Thy 
brother,  say-  it  is  the  answer  to  the  thy  son  of 

ver.  30.  He  reminds4  him  of  the  claims  of  fraternal  love. 
Here  Jesus  stops ;  He  does  not  say  what  pari  the  elder  son 
took.      I  Pharisees  themselves,  by  the  conduct. 

ich  they  would  adopt,  to  decide  this  question  and  finish  the 
narrative 


158  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

The  Tubingen  school  (Zeller,  Volkmar,  Hilgenfeld,  not  Kostlin) 
agree  in  regarding  the  elder  son,  not  as  the  pharisaic  party,  but  as 
the  Jewish  people  in  general ;  the  younger  son,  not  as  the  publicans, 
but  Gentile  nations.  "  The  elder  son  is  unmistakeably  the  image  of 
Judaism,  which  deems  that  it  possesses  special  merit  because  of  its 
fidelity  to  the  one  true  God.  The  younger  son  ...  is  the  not  less 
easily  recognised  portrait  of  Gentile  humanity  given  up  to  poly- 
theism and  immorality.  The  discontent  of  the  first,  on  seeing  the 
reception  granted  to  his  brother,  represents  the  jealousy  of  the  Jews 
on  account  of  the  entrance  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church  "  (Hil- 
genfeld, die  Evangel,  p.  198).  It  would  follow,  then :  1.  that  this 
parable  had  been  invented  and  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  by  Luke, 
with  the  view  of  supporting  the  system  of  his  master,  Paul  j  2.  that 
to  this  invention  he  had  added  a  second,  intended  to  accredit  the 
former,  that  of  the  historical  situation  described  vers.  1  and  2. 
But,  1.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  evangelist,  who  marked  out  his 
own  programme  for  himself,  i.  1-4,  should  take  the  liberty  of  treat- 
ing his  materials  in  so  free  and  easy  a  style  1  2.  Have  we  not 
found  in  this  description  a  multitude  of  delicate  allusions  to  the 
historical  surroundings  amid  which  the  parable  is  reputed  to  have 
been  uttered,  and  which  would  not  be  applicable  in  the  sense  pro- 
posed (vers.  15,  17,  etc.)  ?  3.  How  from  this  parable  St.  Paul 
might  have  extracted  the  doctrine  of  justification  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  doc- 
trine, is  incompatible  with  the  absence  of  every  dogmatic  element 
in  the  exposition.  Would  not  the  names  of  repentance,  faith,  justi- 
fication, and  the  idea  of  expiation,  have  been  infallibly  introduced, 
if  it  had  been  the  result  of  a  dogmatic  study  contemporary  with  the 
ministry  of  Paul  1  4.  We  have  seen  that  the  description  finds  its 
perfect  explanation,  that  there  remains  not  a  single  obscure  point  in 
the  light  in  which  it  is  placed  by  Luke.  It  is  therefore  arbitrary  to 
seek  another  setting  for  it.  The  prejudice  which  has  led  the  Tubingen 
school  to  this  contra-textual  interpretation  is  evident. — Keim,  while 
discovering,  like  this  school,  Paulinism  as  the  basis  of  the  parable 
(p.  80),  thinks  that  here  we  have  one  of  the  passages  wherein  the 
author,  with  the  view  of  conciliating,  more  or  less  abjures  his  master, 
St.  Paul.  The  evangelist  dares  not  wholly  disapprove  the  Jucleo- 
Christianity  which  holds  by  the  commandments  ;  he  praises  it  even 
(ver.  31).  He  only  demands  that  it  shall  authorize  the  entrance  of 
the  Gentiles  into  the  Church  ;  and  on  this  condition  he  lets  its  legal 
spirit  pass.  We  should  thus  have  simply  the  juxtaposition  of  the 
two  principles  which  conflicted  with  one  another  in  the  apostolic 
churches.  But,  1.  In  this  attempt  at  conciliation,  the  elder  son 
would  be  completely  sacrificed  to  the  younger ;  for  the  latter  is 
seated  at  table  in  the  house,  the  former  is  without,  and  we  remain 
in  ignorance  as  to  whether  he  will  re-enter.  And  this  last  would 
represent  the  apostolic  Christianity  which  founded  the  Church ! 
2.  Adopting  biblical  premises,  ver.  31  can  easily  be  applied  to  the 
Mosaic  system  faithfully  observed,  and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  accord- 


CHAR  XVI.  150 

ing  to  the  view  of  St.  Paul  himself.     3.  It  belonged  to  the  method 

^ressive  transition,  which  Jesus  always  observed,  to  seek  to 
develops  within  the  bosom  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  without 

Lttackmg  it,  the  new  principle  which  was  to  succeed  it.  and 
the  germ  of  which  was  already  deposited  in  it.  Jesus  did  not  wish 
to  suppress  anything  which  He  had  not  completely  replaced  and 
surpassed.     He  therefore  accepted  the  ancient  system,  while  attach- 

i  it  the  new.  The  facts  pointed  out  by  Keim  are  fully  ex- 
plained by  this  situation. 

Holtzmann  thinks  that  our  parable,  which  is  not  found  in  Mat- 
thew, may  really  be  only  an  amplification  of  that  of  the  two  sons, 
which  is  found  in  that  evangelist  (Matt.  xxi.  28-30).     Does  not 

apposition  do  too  much  honour  to  the  alleged  amplifier, 
whether  Luke  or  any  other? 

6.  The  Two  Parables  on  the  use  of  Earthly  Goods:  chap.  xvi. 
— Those  two  remarkable  passages  are  peculiar  to  Luke,  though 
taken,  according  to  Holtzmann,  from  the  common  source  A, 
from  which  Matthew  also  borrows.     For  what  reason,  on  this 
diesis,  has  the  latter  omitted  them?     The  second   espe- 
3 1 :   Tlicy  liavc  Moses  and  tlie  propJicts)  was  perfectly 
in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  this  Gospel.     According  to  V 
sucker,  the  two  parables  have  undergone  very  grave  modifica- 
tions in  the  course  of  successive  editions.     In  his  view,  the 
ual  thought  of  the  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  was 
Beneficence,  the  means  of  justiiication  fox  injustices 
him  who  shows  it.     In  our  Gospel,  it  is  int< 
to  promise  to  the  Gentiles  an  entrance  into  the  kill 
God,  as  a  recompense  for  their  benefit!  toward  the  lawful 
Of  the  kingdom.      The  second  p arable  would  also  belong 
in  origin  to  the  tendency  of  Ebionitc  du<leo-(  'hri.-tianity  ;  it 
would  on  into  a  descript  idea  of  the  four  1 

tudes  and  lour  maledictions,  which  in  Luke  open  the  Sermon 
Mount,  Later,  it  became  the  representation  of  the 
rejection  of  the  imbeliering  dews  (the  wicked  rich  man  and 
his  brethren),  and  of  the  salvation  of  the  GennUM  i 
by  Lazarus  (probably  a  Gentile,  according  to  ver.  21).  We 
shall  see  il  the  interpretation  justifies  suppositious  so  vi< 

piece  co  1st.  The  parable  of  the  unjust  steward, 

accompanying  reflections  (vers.  1-13) ;  2d.  Bella 
ing  an    introduction  to   the  parable  of  the   wicked 
man,  and  the  parable  itself  (vers.  1 4-3 1).     Those  two  poi 
aie  evidently  the    counterparts  of   one   another.     The    idea 


160  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

common  to  both  is  that  of  the  relation  between  the  use  made 
of  earthly  goods  and  man's  future  beyond  the  tomb.  The 
steward  represents  the  owner  who  is  able  to  secure  his  future 
by  a  wise  use  of  those  transitory  goods ;  the  wicked  rich  man, 
the  owner  who  compromises  his  future  by  neglecting  this  just 
employment  of  them. 

1st.  Vers.  1-13.  The  Unjust  Steward. — Is  there  a  connec- 
tion between  this  lesson  on  riches  and  the  preceding  ?  The 
formula  eXe7e  he  kcli,  and  He  said  also  (ver.  1),  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  there  is.  Olshausen  supposes  that  the  disciples 
(ver.  1)  to  whom  the  parable  is  addressed  are  publicans 
brought  back  to  God,  those  recent  converts  of  chap,  xv.,  whom 
Jesus  was  exhorting  to  employ  wisely  the  earthly  goods  which 
they  had  acquired  unjustly.  But  the  expression  :  to  His  dis- 
ciples (ver.  1),  refers  naturally  to  the  ordinary  disciples  of  our 
Lord.  In  the  sense  of  Olshausen,  some  epithet  would  require 
to  have  been  added.  The  connection  is  rather  in  the  keeping 
up  of  the  contrast  between  the  life  of  faith  and  pharisaic 
righteousness.  The  two  chief  sins  of  the  Pharisees  were  pride, 
with  its  fruit  hypocrisy,  and  avarice  (ver.  14).  We  see  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  was  directed  against  their  false 
righteousness,  how  Jesus  passes  directly  from  the  one  of  those 
sins  to  the  other  (Matt.  vi.  18,  19).  This  is  precisely  what 
He  does  here.  He  had  just  been  stigmatizing  pharisaic  pride 
in  the  person  of  the  elder  son.  Now  this  disposition  is  ordi- 
narily accompanied  by  that  proud  hardness  which  characterizes 
the  wicked  rich  man,  as  the  heart  broken  by  the  experiences 
of  faith  is  naturally  disposed  to  the  liberal  actions  of  the 
unjust  steward.     Hence  the  form  :  He  said  to  them  also. 

And  first  the  parable :  vers.  1-9. 1 — In  this  portraiture,  as 
in  some  others,  Jesus  does  not  scruple  to  use  the  example  of 
the  wicked  for  the  purpose  of  stimulating  His  disciples.  And 
in  fact,  in  the  midst  of  conduct  morally  blamable,  the  wicked 
often  display  remarkable  qualities  of  activity,  prudence,  and 
perseverance,   which   may  serve  to    humble    and    encourage 

1  Ver.  1.  N.  B.  D.  L.  R.  omit  xvtou  after  patxra;. — Ver.  2.  7  Mjj.  omit  ct» 
alter  oixovoptxs. — &  B.  D.  P.,  2i/v»  instead  of  'hvvwn. — Ver.  4.  X.  B.  D.  some 
Mnn.Syr.add«*,aiidL.X  ItPleii<*ue,  Vg.,  «<r«>  before  r^?.— Vers.  6,  7.  tf.B.D.L., 
to.  ypxfAfjt.tt.Ta  instead  of  to  ypa.fifj.x. — Ver.  9.  8  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Syrsch.  Itali«-, 
ixXi-r*  or  iKXtiwn  instead  of  tnXtTurt,  which  the  T.  R.  reads  with  N*-'8  F.  P.  U. 


chap.  xvi.  i-p.  161 

believer?.     The  parable  of  the  unjust  steward  is  the  master- 
piece of  this  sort  of  teaching. 

The  rich  man  of  ver.  1  is  a  great  lord  living  in  the  capital, 
far  from  his  lands,  the  administration  of  which  he  has  com- 
mitted to  a  factor.  The  latter  is  not  a  mere  slave,  as  in  xii. 
4l(  ;  he  is  a  freeman,  and  even  occupying  a  somewhat  high 
social  position  (ver.  3).  He  enjoys  very  large  powers.  He 
gathers  in  and  sells  the  produce  at  his  pleasure.  Living 
himself  on  the  revenue  of  the  domain,  it  is  his  duty  to  trans- 
mit to  his  master  the  surplus  of  the  income.  Olshausen 
alleges  that  this  master,  in  the  view  of  Jesus,  represents  the 
prince  of  this  world,  the  devil,  and  that  only  thus  can  the 
eulogium  be  explained  which  he  passes  (ver.  8)  on  the  conduct 
of  his  knavish  servant.  This  explanation  is  incompatible 
with  the  deprivation  of  the  steward  pronounced  by  the  master, 
ver.  2,  and  which,  in  the  view  of  our  Lord,  can  only  denote 
death.  It  is  not  Satan  who  disposes  of  human  life.  Satan  is 
not  even  the  master  of  riches  ;  does  not  God  say,  Hag.  ii.  8 : 
"  TV  riher  u  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine"  ?  Comp.  Ps.  xxiv.  1. 
Finally,  it  is  not  to  Satan,  certainly,  that  we  shall  have  to 

account  of  our  administration  of  earthly  goods  !  Our 
Lord  clearly  gives  out  Himself  as  the  person  represented  by 
the  master,  vers.  8  and  9  :  The  master  commended  .  .  . ;  and  I 
also  say  unto  yon.  Again,  could  we  admit  that  in  ver.  IS  tin* 
expression:  faithful  in  that  wkfck  M  anotlur  mans  (your 
master  s),  should  signify :  "  faithful  to  that  which  the  devil 
has  committed  to  you  of  his  goods "  ?  Meyer  has  modified 
this  explanation  of  Olshausen  :  the  master,  according  to  him, 
is  wealth  personified,  mammon.  But  how  are  we  to  attribute 
the  personal  part  which  the  master  in  the  parable  plays  to  this 
abstract  being,  wealth  '.  The  matter  can  only  represent  God 
Himself,  Him  who  maheth  poor  and  niuLrth  rich,  who  bringeth 
low  a  In  relation  to  his  neighbour,  every  man 

may  b  lad  as  the  proprietor  of  hil  goodl ;  but  in  relation 

to  God,  no  one  is  more  than  a  tenant.     This  great  and  simple 

iit.  by  destroying  the  right  of  property  relatively  to  God, 
ie  basis  in  the  relation  between  man  and  man 
Every  man  should  respect   the  property  of  Ml  neighboui 
because  it  is  not  the  latter*!  property,  but  that  of  God.  who  has 

-ted  it  to  him.     In  the  report    made  to  the  master  about 
II.  L 


162  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  delinquencies  of  his  steward,  we  are  to  see  the  image  of 
that  perfect  knowledge  which  God  has  of  all  human  unfaith- 
fulness. To  waste  the  goods  of  God,  means,  after  having  taken 
out  of  our  revenue  what  is  demanded  for  our  maintenance, 
instead  of  consecrating  the  remainder  to  the  service  of  God 
and  of  His  cause,  squandering  it  on  our  pleasure,  or  hoarding 
it  up  for  ourselves.  Here  we  have  the  judgment  of  Jesus  on 
that  manner  of  acting  which  appears  to  us  so  natural :  it  is  to 
forget  that  we  are  but  stewards,  and  to  act  as  proprietors. 

The  saying  of  the  master  to  the  steward  (ver.  2)  does  not 
include  a  call  to  clear  himself ;  it  is  a  sentence  of  deprivation. 
His  guilt  seems  thoroughly  established.  The  account  which 
he  is  summoned  to  render  is  the  inventory  of  the  property 
confided  to  him,  to  be  transmitted  to  his  successor.  What 
corresponds  to  this  deprivation  is  evidently  the  event  by  which 
God  takes  away  from  us  the  free  disposal  of  the  goods  which 
He  had  entrusted  to  us  here  below,  that  is,  death.  The 
sentence  of  deprivation  pronounced  beforehand  denotes  the 
awakening  of  the  human  conscience  when  it  is  penetrated  by 
this  voice  of  God  :  "  Thou  must  die ;  thou  shalt  give  account." 
$(Dvrj(Ta<;  is  stronger  than  /caXicras :  "  speaking  with  the  tone 
of  a  master."  In  the  phrase  tL  tovto,  ri  may  be  taken  as  an 
exclamation  :  "  How  happens  it  that  I  hear  this  ! "  or  interro- 
gatively, with  tovto  in  apposition :  "  What  do  I  hear  of  thee, 
to  wit  this?"  The  accusation  which  we  should  expect  to 
follow  is  understood. — The  present  Svvy,  in  some  Alex.,  is  that 
of  the  immediate  future. 

The  words :  he  said  within  himself,  have  some  relation  to 
those  of  xv.  17  :  when  he  came  to  himself.  It  is  an  act  of 
recollection  after  a  life  passed  in  insensibility.  The  situation 
of  the  man  is  critical.  Of  the  two  courses  which  present 
themselves  to  his  mind,  the  first,  digging,  and  the  second, 
begging,  are  equally  intolerable  to  him,  the  one  physically, 
the  other  morally.  All  at  once,  after  long  reflection,  he  ex- 
claims, as  if  striking  his  forehead:  I  have  it!  "Eyvav,  I 
have  come  to  see  (ver.  4).  He  starts  from  the  sentence  as  from 
a  fact  which  is  irrevocable  :  when  I  am  put  out.  But  has  he 
not  those  goods,  which  he  is  soon  to  hand  over  to  another,  in 
his  hands  for  some  time  yet  ?  May  he  not  hasten  to  use 
them  in  such  a  way  that  he  shall  get  advantage  from  them 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-9.  163 

when  he  shall  have  them  no  more,  by  making  sure,  for 
example,  of  a  refuge  for  the  time  when  he  shall  be  houseless  ? 
When  man  thinks  seriously  of  his  approaching  death,  it  is 
•  for  him  not  to  be  alarmed  at  that  deprivation 
which  awaits  him,  and  at  the  state  of  nakedness  which  will 
follow.  Happy  if  in  that  hour  he  can  take  a  firm  resolution. 
For  some  time  yet  he  has  in  his  hands  the  goods  of  his  divine 
Master,  which  death  is  about  to  wrest  from  him.  Will  it 
not  be  wisdom  on  his  part  so  to  use  them  during  the 
brief  moments  when  he  has  them  yet  at  his  disposal,  that 
they  shall  bear  interest  for  him  when  they  shall  be  his  no 
more  ? 

This  steward,  who  will  soon  be  homeless,  knows  people  who 
have  houses  :  "  Let  us  then  make  friends  of  them  ;  and  when 
I  shall  be  turned  to  the  street,  more  than  one  house  shall  be 
open  to  receive  me."  The  debtors,  whom  he  calls  to  him  with 
.  iew,  are  merchants  who  are  in  the  habit  of  coming  to  get 
their  supplies  from  him,  getting  credit  probably  till  they  havd 
made  their  own  sales,  and  making  their  paymei 
The  Heb.  ^uto?,  the  lath,  contains  about  60  pints.  Th 
of  50  of  those  batJis  might  mount  up  to  the  sum  of  some 
thousands  of  francs.  The  Kopos,  cones  (homer),  contains  10 
■;  and  the  value  of  20  homers  might  rise  to  some 
hund reds  of  francs.  The  difference  which  the  steward  D 
between  the  two  gifts  is  remarkable  ;  it  contains  a  proof  of 
discernment.  He  knows  his  men,  as  the  Baying  is,  and  can 
calculate  the  degree  of  liberality  which  he  must  show  to  each 
lit,  that  is  to  say,  the  hospitality  he  expects 
to  receive  from  them  until  it  be  repaid.     J«  describes 

alms  in  the  most  piquant  form.     Does  a  rich  man;  far  example, 
•he  bill  of  one  of  his   poor  debtor         II. ■   only  does 
steward  does  here.      For  if  all  we  have 
supposing  we  1  thing,  it  is  out  of  // 

have  taken  it  j  and  it  we  give  it  away,  it  is  with  ///*•  goods 
which  is  another's,  ver.   12)  that  we  are  generous 

in  this  point  of  view  appears  as  a  sort 
!i faithfulness.     By  means  of  it  we  prudently  make 
urselves,  lik«- tin*  stev.  onal  friends,  while  wi 

b  which,    tiietly  speaking,  is  that  of  our  M 

m  the  steward  we  do  so  holih/,  because  we  h 


164  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

that  we  are  not  acting  without  the  knowledge  and  contrary  to 
the  will  of  the  divine  Owner,  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
are  entering  into  His  purposes  of  love,  and  that  he  rejoices  to 
see  us  thus  using  the  goods  which  he  has  committed  to  us 
with  that  intention.  This  unfaithfulness  is  faithfulness  (ver. 
12). 

The  commendation  which  the  master  gives  the  steward 
(ver.  8)  is  not  absolute.  It  has  a  twofold  limitation,  first  in 
the  word  tt}?  dSt/cta?,  "  the  unjust  steward,"  an  epithet  which 
he  must  certainly  put  in  the  master's  mouth,  and  then  in  the 
explanatory  phrase :  "  because  he  had  done  wisely"  The 
meaning  of  the  commendation,  then,  is  to  this  effect :  "  Un- 
doubtedly a  clever  man !  It  is  only  to  be  regretted  that  he 
has  not  shown  as  much  probity  as  prudence."  Thus,  even 
though  beneficence  chiefly  profits  him  who  exercises  it,  God 
rejoices  to  see  this  virtue.  And  while  He  has  no  favour  for 
the  miser  who  hoards  His  goods,  or  for  the  egoist  who 
squanders  them,  He  approves  the  man  who  disposes  of  them 
wisely  in  view  of  his  eternal  future.  Weizsacker  holds  that 
the  eulogium  given  by  the  master  should  be  rejected  from  the 
parable.  Had  he  understood  it  better,  he  would  not  have 
proposed  this  suppression,  which  would  be  a  mutilation. 

It  is  with  the  second  part  of  ver.  8  that  the  application 
begins.  "  Wisely  :  Yes,  adds  Jesus,  it  is  quite  true.  For  there 
is  more  wisdom  found  among  the  children  of  this  world  in 
their  mode  of  acting  toward  the  children  of  the  generation 
to  which  they  belong,  than  among  the  children  of  light  in 
their  conduct  toward  those  who  belong  to  theirs."  Alcov 
outo?,  this  age  (world) ;  the  period  of  history  anterior  to  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  £&>?:  the  domain  of  the 
higher  life  into  which  Jesus  introduces  His  disciples,  and  in 
which  the  brightness  of  divine  wisdom  reigns.  Both  spheres 
have  their  own  population,  and  every  inhabitant  of  the  one  or 
the  other  is  surrounded  by  a  certain  number  of  contemporaries 
like  himself,  who  form  his  yeved  or  generation.  Those  belong- 
ing to  the  first  sphere  use  every  means  for  their  own  interest, 
to  strengthen  the  bonds  which  unite  them  to  their  con- 
temporaries of  the  same  stamp.  But  those  of  the  second 
neglect  this  natural  measure  of  prudence.  They  forget  to  use 
God's  goods  to  form  bonds  of  love  to  the  contemporaries  who 


ciiAr.  xvi.  i-p.  165 

share  their  character,  and  who  might  one  day  give  them  a 
full  recompense,  when  they  themselves  shall  want  everything 
and  these  shall  have  abundance.  Ver.  9  finishes  the  applica- 
tion. The  words :  and  I  also  say  unto  you,  correspond  to 
these :  and  the  Lord  commended  (ver.  8).  As  in  chap.  xv. 
Jesus  had  identified  Himself  with  the  Father  who  dwells  in 
n,  so  in  this  saying  He  identifies  Himself  with  the 
ihle  owner  of  all  things:  and  I.  Jesus  means:  Instead 
of  hoarding  up  or  enjoying, — a  course  which  will  profit  you 
nothing  when,  on  the  other  side  of  the  tomb,  you  will  find  your- 
selves in  your  turn  poor  and  destitute  of  everything, — hasten 
to  make  for  yourselves,  with  the  goods  of  another  (God's), 
personal  friends  (eavroh,  to  yourselves),  who  shall  then  be  hound 
to  you  by  gratitude,  and  share  with  you  their  well-being! 
By  a  course  of  beneficence,  make  haste  to  transform  into  a 
bond  of  love  the  base  metal  of  which  death  will  soon  deprive 
you.  What  the  steward  did  in  his  sphere  in  relation  to  people 
of  his  own  quality,  see  that  you  do  in  yours  toward  those  who 
belong  like  you  to  the  world  to  come.  The  Alex  reading,  €k\itttj 
(fuj^iwva\),  would  signify:  "that  when  money  shall  fail  you 
(by  the  event  of  death)."  The  T.  R. :  €k\i7T7]t€.  when  yr  shall 
fail,  refers  to  the  cessation  of  life,  embracing  privation  of 
everything  of  which  it  is  made  up. 

according  to  Meyer  and  Ewald,  are  the  an 

who,  affected  by  the  alms  of  the  beneficent  man,  are  attached 

to  him,  and  assist  him  at  the  time  of  his  passing  into  eternity. 

But  according  to  the  parable,  the  friends  can   only  he  men 

who  have   been   succoured   by  him  on   the   Stlth,   poor   here 

■ .  but  possessing  a  share  in  the  everlasting  inheritance. 

service  can  they  render  to  tin-  dying  disciple!      Bere 

i  the  most  difficult  question  in  the  explanation  of 

the  parable.      Love  testified  and  experienced  establish 

1  strict  moral   unity.      'Phis   is   clearly  sem    in 
the  relation  1  •  and   nun.      May  not  the  dl 

who  reaches  heaven   without  having  gained   here  below  th*» 

•    of  development  which  La  the  condition  of  full 
inunion  with  God,  receive  tin-  rmrnajfl  of  spiritual  life,  which 
is  yet  wanting  to  him,  by  means  of  those  grateful  sprit 
whom  he  ahafl  temp., ml   goodi   hm   h<-low?     (( 

27  and  1  Cor  b    1  1         Do  Wi   not  already  see  on 


166  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  earth  the  poor  Christian,  who  is  assisted  by  a  humane, 
but  in  a  religious  point  of  view  defective,  rich  man,  by  his 
prayers,  by  the  overflowing  of  his  gratitude,  and  the  edification 
which  he  affords  him,  requiting  his  benefactor  infinitely  more 
and  better  than  he  receives  from  him  %  Almsgiving  is  thus 
found  to  be  the  most  prudent  investment ;  for  the  communi- 
cation of  love  once  established  by  its  means,  enables  him  who 
practises  it  to  enjoy  provisionally  the  benefits  of  a  spiritual 
state  far  superior  to  that  which  he  has  himself  reached.  A 
similar  thought  is  found  in  xiv.  13,  14.  But  if  this  explana- 
tion seems  to  leave  something  to  desire,  we  must  fall  back  on 
sayings  such  as  these  :  "  He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor,  lenaleth 
unto  the  Lord."  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the 
least  of  these  my  "brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me."  It  is 
Jesus,  it  is  God  Himself,  who  become  our  debtors  by  the 
assistance  which  we  grant  to  those  who  are  the  objects  of 
their  love.  And  would  such  friends  be  useless  in  the  hour  of 
our  dissolution  ?  To  receive  is  not  to  introduce.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  first  of  these  two  terms  assumes  that  admission  is 
already  adjudged.  Faith,  which  alone  opens  heaven,  is  sup- 
posed in  the  hearers  whom  Jesus  is  addressing  in  the  parable : 
they  are  disciples,  ver.  1.  Conversion,  the  fruit  of  faith,  is 
equally  implied,  vers.  3  and  4.  And  since  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  describes  has  chosen  believers  as  the  special  objects  of 
his  liberality,  he  must  to  a  certain  degree  be  a  believer 
himself. 

The  poetical  expression  eternal  habitations  (tents)  is  bor- 
rowed from  patriarchal  history.  The  tents  of  Abraham  and 
Isaac  under  the  oaks  of  Mamre  are  transferred  in  thought  to 
the  life  to  come,  which  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a 
glorified  Canaan.  What  is  the  future  of  poetry  but  the  past 
idealized  ?  It  is  less  natural  to  think,  with  Meyer,  of  the 
tents  of  Israel  in  the  desert.  We  may  here  compare  the 
7ro\Xal  fjboval,  the  many  mansions,  in  the  Father's  house, 
John  xiv.  3. — There  remains  to  be  explained  the  phrase  o 
/jLaficovas  rrjs  a$LK,ia<$,  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness.  The 
word  fAa/jLcovas  is  not,  as  has  often  been  said,  the  name  of  an 
oriental  divinity,  the  god  of  money.  It  denotes,  in  Syriac 
and  Phoenician,  money  itself  (see  Bleek  on  Matt.  vi.  24). 
The  Aramaic  name  is  J1DD,  and,  with  the  article,  &01BD.     The 


CHAP.  XVL  1-9.  167 

epithet  unrighteous  is  taken  by  many  commentators  simply  to 
mean,  that  the  acquisition  of  fortune  is  most  frequently  tainted 
with   sin;   according  to  Bleek  and  others,  that  sin  readily 

hee  to  the  administration  of  it.  But  these  are  only 
accidental  circumstances ;  the  context  points  to  a  more 
ictory  explanation.  The  ear  of  Jesus  must  have  been 
mtly  offended  with  that  sort  of  reckless  language  in 
which  men  indulge  without  scruple :  my  fortune,  my  lands, 
mi/  house.  He  who  felt  to  the  quick  man's  dependence  on 
God,  saw  that  there  was  a  usurpation  in  this  idea  of  owner- 
ship, a  forgetfulness  of  the  true  proprietor ;  on  hearing  such 
language,  He  seemed  to  see  the  farmer  playing  the  landlord. 
It  is  this  sin,  of  which  the  natural  man  is  profoundly  uncon- 
scious, which  He  lays  bare  in  this  whole  parable,  and  which 
He  specially  designates  by  this  expression,  the  v 
mammon.  The  two  t?)?  aBc/clas,  vers.  8  and  9,  correspond 
exactly,  and  mutually  explain  one  another.  It  is  therefore 
false  to  see  in  this  epithet,  with  De  Wette,  the  Tubingen 
School,   Renan,   etc.,  a    condemnation   of   property   as 

sin  does  not  consist  in  being,  as  one  invested  with 
earthly  property,  the  steward  of  God,  but  in  forgetting  that 
he  is  so  (parable  following). 

re  is  no  thought  more  fitted  than  that  of  this  parable, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  undermine  the  idea  of  merit  belonging  to 
ifing  (what  merit  could  be  got  out  of  that  which  Kb 
another  s  ?),  and  on  the  other,  to  encourage  us  in  the  practice 
6f  that  virtue  which  assures  us  of  friends  and  protectors  for 
the  grave  moment  of  our  into  the  world  to  come. 

•    on  the  part  of  the  steward  was  only  wise  unfaithful 
ness,  becomes  wise  faithfulness  in  the  servant  of  Jesus  who 
acts  on  acquaintance    with    principle.     It  dare  not  be   said 
had  wit;  but  if  one  could  be  tempted  to  use  the 
expression  at  all,  it  would  be  here. 

Of  the  many  explanations  of  this  parahle  which  have  been 
proposed,  we  shall  merely  quote  some  <>l  the  most  prominent 
ichertnk  rtobeth"  Ronm  knights  who 

fumed  the  taxes  of  Judaa.and  rabid  them  t<>  needy  publicans; 
the  steward,  to  be  the  publicans  whom  Jesus  exhorted  to 
expend  on  their  countrymen  the  goods  of  which  they  cleverly 
cheated  those  great  foreigners.      Henri   Bauer  sees  in   tin: 


168  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

master  the  Israelitisli  authorities,  and  in  the  unfaithful  steward 
the  Judeo-Christians,  who,  without  troubling  themselves  about 
theocratic  prejudices,  should  strive  to  communicate  to  the 
Gentiles  the  benefits  of  the  covenant.  According  to  Weiz- 
sacker,  in  the  original  thought  of  the  parable  the  steward 
represented  a  Eoman  magistrate,  who,  to  the  detriment  of  the 
Jews,  had  been  guilty  of  maladministration,  but  who  there- 
after strives  to  make  amends  by  showing  them  gentleness  and 
liberality.  No  wonder  that  from  this  point  of  view  the  critic 
knows  not  what  to  make  of  the  eulogium  passed  by  the  master 
on  his  steward !  But  according  to  him,  the  sense  and  the 
image  were  transformed,  and  the  description  became  in  the 
hands  of  Luke  an  encouragement  to  rich  and  unbelieving 
Jews  to  merit  heaven  by  doing  good  to  poor  Christians.  The 
arbitrary  and  forced  character  of  those  explanations  is  clear 
as  the  day,  and  they  need  no  detailed  refutation.  We  are 
happy  that  we  can  agree,  at  least  for  once,  with  Hilgenfeld, 
both  in  the  general  interpretation  of  the  parable  and  in  the 
explanation  of  the  sayings  which  follow  {Die  Evomgel,  p.  1 9  9). 
Vers.  10-13.1  "He  that  is  faithful  in  that  which  is  least, 
is  faithful  also  in  much;  and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least, 
is  unjust  also  in  much.  11.  If  therefore  ye  have  not  heen 
faithful  in  the  tenrighteous  mammon,  who  will  commit  to  your 
trust  that  which  is  true?  12.  And  if  ye  have  not  heen  faithful 
in  that  which  is  another  mans,  who  shall  give  you  that  ivhich  is 
your  own?  13.  No  servant  can  serve  two  masters:  for  either 
he  will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other ;  or  else  he  will  hold 
to  the  one,  and  despise  the  otJier.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and 
mammon." — Many  regard  these  reflections  as  arbitrarily  placed 
here  by  Luke.  But  whatever  Bleek  may  say,  is  it  not  just 
the  manner  in  which  we  constitute  ourselves  proprietors  of 
our  earthly  goods,  which  leads  us  to  make  a  use  of  them 
which  is  contrary  to  their  true  destination  ?  The  following 
piece,  therefore,  derives  its  explanation  from  the  parable,  and 
is  directly  connected  with  it.  Ver.  12  (tg3  dWorpla))  would 
even  be  unintelligible  apart  from  it. — Ver.  1 0  is  a  comparison 
borrowed  from  common  life.  From  the  experience  expressed 
m  the  two  parallel  propositions  of  this  verse,  it  follows  that  a 
master  does  not  think  of  elevating  to  a  higher  position  the 

1  Ver.  12.  B.  L.,  ro  r/xinpav  instead  of  ro  vfurifov. 


chap.  xvi.  10-13.  169 

servant  who   has  abused  his  confidence  in  matters   of  less 
importance.     Faithful  toward  the  master,  unjust  toward  men. 

The  application  of  this  rule  of  conduct  to  believers,  \ 
11,  12.     The  unrighteous  mammon  is   God's  money,  which 
man   unjustly  takes   as  his  own.      Faithfulness  would   have 
implied,  above   all,  the   employment   of  those  goods   in  the 

I  ice  of  God ;  but  our  deprivation  once  pronounced  (death), 
it  implies  their  employment  in  our  interest  rightly  under- 
stood by  means  of  beneficence.  Through  lack  of  this  fidelity 
or  wisdom,  we  establish  our  own  incapacity  to  administer 
better  goods  if  they  were  confided  to  us ;  therefore  God  will 
not  commit  them  to  us.  Those  goods  are  called  to  aXrjdivop, 
the  true  good,  that  which  corresponds  really  to  the  idea  of 
good.  The  contrast  has  misled  several  commentators  to  give 
to  the  word  ahiicos  the  meaning  of  deceitful.  This  is  to  con- 
found the  word  aXrjdivos  with  aXrjd^  (veracious).  The  real 
good  is  that  which  can  in  no  case  be  changed  to  its  opposite. 
It  is  not  so  with  money,  which  is  at  best  a  provisional  good, 
and  may  even  be  a  source  of  evil.  This  is  the  application 
of  10d  ;  ver.  12  is  that  of  10b.  Karthly  goods  are  called 
another's  good,  that  is  to  say,  a  good  which  strictly  belongs  to 
another  than  ourselves  (God).     As  it  is  faithfulness  to  God, 

t  is  justice  to  man,  to  dispose  of  them  with  a  view  to  our 
poor  neighbour.  That  which  is  our  own  denotes  the  good  for 
which  we  are  essentially  fitted,  which  is  the  normal  com- 
pletion of  our  being,  the  I>ivine  Spirit  become  our  own  spirit 
by  entire  assimilation,  or  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  the  kingdom 
prepared  for  us  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Our  Lord's 
though:  fore   this:   God    commits   to  man,  during  hit 

earthly  sojourn   in  the  state  of  probation,  goods  belonging  to 
Iliin,  which   are   of  less  value  (earthly  things)  ;  and   the 

hful  or  unfaithful,  just  or  unjust,  which  we  make  of  these 
settles  the  question  whether  OUI  true  patrimony  (the  goods  of 
the  Spirit,  of  which  the  believer  himself  receives  only  tho 
earnest  here  below)  shall  or  shall  Dflt  be  granted  to  him 
above.  Like  a  ri< ih  father,  who  should  trust  his  son  with  I 
domain  of  little  value,  that  he  might  he  trained  later  in  life 
to  manage   the   whole  of   his   inheritance,  thus    putting 

>f,  so  God  exposes  external  seeming  goods 
of  no  value  to  the  thousand  abuses  of  our  unskilful  ad  mini- 


170  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

stration  here  below,  that  from  the  use  which  we  make  of  them 
there  may  one  day  be  determined  for  each  of  us  whether  we 
shall  be  put  in  possession,  or  whether  we  shall  be  deprived  of 
our  true  eternal  heritage, — the  good  which  corresponds  to 
our  inmost  nature.  The  entire  philosophy  of  our  terrestial 
existence  is  contained  in  these  words. 

Ver.  13,  which  closes  this  piece,  is  still  connected  with  the 
image  of  the  parable  :  the  steward  had  tvio  masters,  whose 
service  he  could  not  succeed  in  reconciling,  the  owner  of  the 
revenue  which  he  was  managing,  and  money,  which  he  was 
worshipping. — The  two  parallel  propositions  of  this  verse  are 
usually  regarded  as  identical  in  meaning,  and  as  differing 
only  in  the  position  assigned  to  each  of  the  two  masters 
successively  as  the  objects  of  the  two  opposite  feelings.  But 
Bleek  justly  observes,  that  the  absence  of  the  article  before 
fVo?  in  the  second  proposition  seems  to  forbid  our  taking 
this  pronoun  as  the  simple  repetition  of  the  preceding  tov  eva 
in  the  first;  he  therefore  gives  it  a  more  general  sense,  the 
one  or  the  other  of  the  two  preceding,  and  places  the  whole 
difference  between  the  two  parallel  propositions  in  the 
graduated  meaning  of  the  different  verbs  employed,  holding  to 
being  less  strong  than  loving,  and  despising  less  strong  than 
hating.  Thus :  "  He  will  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other ; 
or  at  least,  he  will  hold  more  either  to  the  one  or  other 
of  the  two,  which  will  necessarily  lead  him  to  neglect  the 
service  of  the  other." — It  makes  no  material  difference. — This 
verse,  whatever  the  same  learned  critic  may  say,  concludes 
this  discourse  perfectly,  and  forms  the  transition  to  the 
following  piece,  in  which  we  find  a  sincere  worshipper  of 
Jehovah  perishing  because  he  has  practically  made  money 
his  God.  The  place  which  this  verse  occupies  in  Matthew 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  (vi.  24)  is  also  suitable,  but 
somewhat  uncertain,  like  that  of  the  whole  piece  of  which  it 
forms  part. 

2d,  Vers.  14-31.  The  Wicked  Rich  Man. — TJie  introduction 
(vers.  14-18)  is  composed  of  a  series  of  sayings  which  at  first 
sight  appear  to  have  no  connection  with  one  another.  Holtz- 
mann  thinks  that  Luke  collects  here  at  random  sayings  scattered 
throughout  the  Logia,  for  which  till  now  he  had  not  found  any 
place.     But  there  are  only  two  leading  ideas  in  this  introduc- 


CHAP.  XVI.  11,  15.  171 

tion:  the  rejection  of  the  Pharisees,  and  the  permanence  of 
the  law.  Now  these  are  precisely  the  two  ideas  which  are 
exhibited  in  action  in  the  following  parable :  the  one  in  the 
condemnation  of  the  wicked  rich  man,  that  faithful  Pharisee 
(t' father  AbraJuim,"  vers.  24,  27,  30)  ;  the  other  in  the  manner 
in  which  Abraham  asserts,  even  in  Hades,  the  imperishable 
value  of  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  relation  between 
these  two  essential  ideas  of  the  introduction  and  of  the  parable 
is  this :  the  law  on  which  the  Pharisees  staked  their  credit 
will  nevertheless  be  the  instrument  of  their  eternal  condemna- 
tion.    This  is  exactly  what  Jesus  says  to  the  Jews,  John  v. 

:  "  There  is  one  that  accusdh  you,  even  Moses,  in  whom  ye 

4?  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  this  introduction, 
vers.  14-18,  has  a  very  fragmentary  character.  It  contains 
the  elements  of  a  discourse,  rather  than  the  discourse  itself. 
But  this  very  fact  proves  that  St.  Luke  has  not  taken  the 
liberty  of  composing  this  introduction  arbitrarily  ami  inde- 
pendently of  his  sources.  What  historian  would  compose  in 
such  a  manner  ?  A  discourse  invented  by  the  evangelist  would 
not  have  failed  to  present  an  evident  logical  connection,  as 
much  as  the  discourses  which  Livy  or  Xenophon  put  into 
the  mouth  of  their  heroes.  The  very  brokenness  suffices  to 
prove  that  the  discourse  was  really  held,  and  exist 
viously  to  this  narrative. 

ra  14  and  15.1  u  The  Pharisees  also,  who  were  covetous, 
heard  all  these  things ;  and  tiny  derided  J  fun.  15.  And  He 
said  unto  them,  Ye  are  they  which  justify  yourselves  before  men  ; 

God  knoweth  your  for  that  wh  ghly  esteemed 

among  men  is  abomination  in  the  tight  of  God" — The  last  words 
of  Jesus  on  the  impossibility  of  combining  the  service  of  God 
and  mammon,  fell  full  on  the  heads  of  the  Pharisees,  those 
pretended  servants  of  Jehovah,  who  nevertheless  in  their  lives 
showed  tin tam -Iv.  1  inch  zealous  worshippers  of  riches  (Matt. 

transition  between  tern  18, 19).   Henoe  their  sneers  (4*/*u«- 
T7)p%€iv).     The  poverty  of  Jesus  Himself  was  perhaps 

me  of  their  derision  :    '  It  is  easy  to  speak  of 
such  i  .  .  .  when  one  if  destitute  as  thou  art."      In   I 

answer  (ver.   15),  Jesus  gives    them  to  understand  that  the 

14.  K.  B.  D.  L.  R.  3  Mnti.  Syi**.  It  omit  mm  before  «  #«^u*.—  Var. 
15.  11  Mjj.  70  Mini,  omit  irr*  •Iter  •»•». 


172  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

judgment  of  God  is  regulated  by  another  standard  than  that 
of  the  men  who  are  at  their  side.  It  is  at  the  heart  that  God 
looks ;  and  the  reign  of  a  single  passion,  such  as  that  avarice 
which  devours  them,  suffices  to  render  odious  in  His  eyes  that 
whole  righteousness  of  outward  observances  which  gains  for 
them  the  favour  of  the  world.  The  phrase  :  Ye  are  they  which 
justify  yourselves,  signifies,  "  your  business  is  to  pass  yourselves 
off  as  righteous."  The  on,  for,  is  explained  by  the  idea  of 
condemnation,  which  here  attaches  to  that  of  knowledge :  "  God 
knows  you  [and  rejects  you],  for ..."  'Ev  avOpatirots,  on  the 
'part  of  men,  may  mean :  among  men,  or  in  the  judgment  of 
men.  In  connection  with  the  idea  of  being  highly  esteemed, 
those  two  ideas  are  combined.  Jesus  means  :  "  What  men 
extol  and  glorify,  consequently  the  ambitious,  who,  like  you,  by 
one  means  or  another  push  themselves  into  the  front  rank, 
become  an  object  of  abomination  to  God."  For  all  glorifica- 
tion of  man  rests  on  falsehood.  God  alone  is  great  and  deserv- 
ing to  be  praised. 

What  had  chiefly  irritated  the  Pharisees  in  the  preceding 
was  the  spiritual  sense  in  which  Jesus  understood  the  law, 
unveiling  under  their  airs  of  sanctity  the  stain  of  shameful 
avarice  which  defiled  them.  This  idea  affords  the  point  of 
connection  for  what  follows  (vers.  16-18). 

Vers.  16-18.1  "  TJie  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John: 
since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man 
presseth  into  it.  17.  But  it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to 
pass,  than  for  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail.  18.  Whosoever 
puttethaway  his  wife,  and  marrielh  another,  committeth  adultery: 
and  whosoever  marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  from  her  husband 
committeth  adultery." — But,  adds  Jesus  (ver.  16),  a  new  era  is 
beginning,  and  with  it  your  usurped  dominion  comes  to  an 
end.  Since  the  time  of  John,  that  law  and  those  prophets 
which  you  have  made  your  pedestal  in  Israel  are  replaced  by 
a  new  dispensation.  To  the  religious  aristocracy  which  you 
had  succeeded  in  founding  there  follows  a  kingdom  of  God 
equally  open  to  every  man  (7ra?) ;  all  have  access  to  it  as  well 
as  you  !  Bui^eadai  should  not  be  taken  in  the  passive  sense, 
as  Hilgenfeld  would  have  it :  "  Every  man  is  constrained  by 

1  Ver.  16.  tf.  B.  L.  R.  X.  some  Mnn.,  fct^pi  instead  of  sa>s  before  \u%n»v. — 
Ver.  18.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  It.  Ver.  omit  <za;  between  xxt  and  •. 


CHAP.  XVI.  18.  1  7:'. 

the  gospel,"  but  as  a  middle,  in  the  sense  of  to  hasten,  to 
throw  themselves.  There  is,  as  it  were,  a  dense  crowd  pressing 
through  the  gate  which  is  now  open,  and  every  one,  even  the 
lowest  of  the  publicans,  is  free  to  enter.  Recall  here  the 
parables  of  chap.  xv.  Bat  while  this  repentant  crowd  pene- 
trates into  the  kingdom  (vii.  29),  the  Pharisees  and  scribes 
remain  without,  like  the  elder  son  in  the  preceding  parable. 
Let  them  beware,  however  !  That  legal  system  on  which  they 
have  founded  their  throne  in  Israel  is  about  to  crumble  to 
pieces  (ver.  16);  while  the  law  itself,  which  they  violate  at 
the  very  moment  they  make  it  their  boast,  shall  remain  as  the 
eternal  expression  of  divine  holiness,  and  as  the  dreadful 
standard  by  which  they  shall  be  judged  (ver.  17).  The  Be  is 
adversative :  but.  It  indicates  the  contrast  between  the  end 
of  the  legal  economy  and  the  permanence  of  the  law.  Thi^ 
contrast  reminds  us  of  the  antitheses  of  Matt,  v.,  of  which  this 
saying  is  a  sort  of  summary  :  "  Yc  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
.  .  .  ;  hut  I  say  unto  you ..."  Jesus  only  abolishes  the  law 
by  fulfilling  it  and  confirming  it  spiritually. — Kepaia,  diminu- 
tive of  tcepas,  horn,  denotes  the  small  lines  or  hooks  of  tin1 
rew  letters.  The  least  element  of  divine  holiness  which 
the  law  contains  has  more  reality  and  durability  than  tin- 
whole  visible  universe. 

The  two  verses,  1G  and  17,  are  put  by  Matthew  in  the 
discourse  of  Jesus  regarding  John  tin-  Baptist,  xi.  12,  13, 
inversely  in  point  of  order.  We  can  easily  understand  l 
the  mention  of  John  the  Baptist,  ver.  16,  led  Matthew  to 
insert  this  Baying  in  the  discourse  which  Jesus  ptOOOOnoed 
on  His  forerunner.  \Y.>  have  seen  that  in  that  same  diaOOUl 
as  given  by  Luke  (chap,  vii.),  this  d<  wai  with  j^reat 

advantage  replaced  by  a  somewhat  different  Hying  vers. 
30;  and  if,  as  Bleek  owns  (i.  j».    :  -eq.),  Duke  deoidedlj 

deserves  the  preference  as  to  the  tenor  of  the  words,  it  will 
doubtless  be  the  same  as  to  the  place  which  he  assigns  them  . 
for  it  is  in  general  on  this  second  point  that  his  superi< 
appears. 

18.  Not  only  in  spite  of  the  abolition  of  the  legal  him 
will  the  law  continue  in  its  substance  ;  but  if  this  subst I 
even  comes  to  be  modified  in  the  new  economy,  it  will  be  in 
the  direction    of  still   greater  sevnity       .!.  s  as  an 


174  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

example  the  law  of  divorce.  This  same  idea  meets  us,  Matt. 
v.  31,  32 ;  it  tallies  fully  with  the  meaning  of  the  declaration, 
Matt.  xix.  3  et  seq.,  Mark  x.  2  et  seq.,  which  was  uttered  in 
this  same  journey,  and  almost  at  the  same  period.  Jesus 
explains  to  the  same  class  of  hearers  as  in  our  passage,  to 
the  Pharisees  namely,  that  if  Moses  authorized  divorce,  merely 
confining  himself  to  guard  it  by  some  restrictions,  there  was 
a  forsaking  for  a  time  of  the  true  moral  point  of  view  already 
proclaimed  Gen.  ii.,  and  which  He,  Jesus,  came  to  re-estab- 
lish in  its  purity.  Luke  and  Matthew  do  not  speak  of  the 
case  of  voluntary  separation  on  the  part  of  the  woman  referred 
to  by  Mark  (x.  12)  and  Paul  (1  Cor.  vii.  10,  11).  And  Paul 
does  not  expressly  interdict  the  divorced  man,  as  Mark  does, 
from  contracting  a  second  marriage.  Those  shades  in  such  a 
precept  cannot  be  voluntary  ;  they  represent  natural  variations 
due  to  tradition  (Syn.)  or  to  the  nature  of  the  context  (Paul). 
— The  parallels  quoted  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  real  connec- 
tion of  ver.  1 8  with  ver.  1 7.  The  asyndeton  between  those 
two  verses  is  explained  by  the  fragmentary  character  of  Luke's 
report.  What  remains  to  us  of  this  discourse  resembles  the 
peaks  of  a  mountain  chain,  the  base  of  which  is  concealed  from 
view,  and  must  be  reconstructed  by  reflection.  As  to  the 
compiler,  he  has  evidently  refrained  from  filling  up  at  his  own 
hand  the  blanks  in  his  document.  The  disjointed  character  of 
this  account  has  been  turned  into  an  accusation  against  him ; 
but  it  ought  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  his  conscien- 
tious fidelity. 

Does  the  context,  as  we  have  just  established  it,  leave  anything 
to  be  desired  1  Has  Holtzmann  ground  for  regarding  this  piece  as  a 
collection  of  sentences  thrown  together  at  random  1  Or  is  it  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  justify  ver.  18,  to  regard  it,  with  Schleiermacher, 
as  an  allusion  to  the  divorce  of  Herod  Antipas  from  the  daughter  of 
Aretas,  and  his  unlawful  marriage  with  Herodias, — a  crime  which 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  had  not  the  courage  to  condemn  like  John 
the  Baptist  1  Or,  finally,  must  we,  with  Olshausen,  take  the  idea 
of  divorce  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  apply  it  to  the  emancipation  of 
believers  from  the  yoke  of  the  law,  agreeably  to  Kom.  vii.  1  et  seq.  1 
No ;  the  explanation  which  we  have  given,  as  well  as  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  context,  appear  to  be  sufficiently  established  by  the 
parallels  quoted  (Matt.  v.  18,  19  and  31,  32,  xix.  3  et  seq. ;  Mark 
x.  2  et  seq.). 

The  saying  of  ver.  17,  proclaiming  the  eternal  duration  of  the  law, 


CHAP.  XVI.  18.  175 

has  appeared  to  some  critics  incompatible  with  the  Pauline  character 
of  Luke's  Gospel.  Hilgenfeld  alleges  that  the  canonical  text  of  Luke 
is  falsified,  and  that  the  true  original  form  of  this  passage,  as  well 
as  of  many  others,  has  been  preserved  by  Marcion,  who  reads  :  "  It 
is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  my  aminos 
to  fail."  But,  1.  The  manifest  incompatibility  of  our  canonical 
text  with  Marcion's  system  renders  it,  on  the  contrary,  very  probable 
that  it  was  Marcion  who  in  this  case,  as  in  so  many  others,  accom- 
(1  the  text  to  his  dogmatic  point  of  view.  2.  Could  Jesus 
have  applied  the  word  tittle  to  His  own  sayings  before  they  had  been 

ised  in  writing  ?  3.  The  parallel,  Matt.  v.  18,  proves  that  the 
expression  in  its  original  meaning  really  applied  to  the  law.  If 
such  was  the  primary  application  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  would  it  not 

remery  surprising  if,  after  an  earlier  Luke  had  departed  from 
it,  the  more  modern  Luke  should  have  reverted  to  it  ?  Besides,  this 
supposition,  combated  by  Zeller,  is  withdrawn  by  Volkmar,  who 
first  gave  it  forth  (Die  Evangel,  p.  481).  Zeller,  however,  supposes 
that  the  evangelist,  feeling  the  anti-Pauline  tendency  of  this  saying, 
designedly  enclosed  it  between  two  others,  intended  to  show  the 
reader  that  it  was  not  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense.  But  would 
it  not  have  been  far  simpler  to  omit  it  altogether  ?  And  does  not 
so  much  artifice  contrast  with  the  simplicity  of  our  Gospels  % 

According  to  the  Talmud,  Tract.  Gittin  (ix.  10),  Hillel,  the  grand- 

of  Gamaliel,  the  man  whom  our  moderns  would  adopt  as  the 

master  of  Jesus  Christ,  taught  that  the  husband  is  entitled  to  put 

away  his  wife  when  she  burns  his  dinner.1     We  can  understand 

how,  in  view  of  such  pharisaic  teachings,  Jesus  felt  the  need  of  pro- 

.;,  not  only  by  affirming  the  maintenance  of  moral  obli 
tuned  in  the  law,  but  even  by  announcing  that  the  new 
doctrine  would  in  this  respect  exceed  the  severity  of  the  old,  and 
Would  conclusively  raise  the  moral  obligation  to  the  height  of  the 
ideaL  The  declaration  of  Jesus,  ver.  1 7,  about  the  maintenance  of 
the  law,  is,  besides,  perfectly  at  one  with  St.  Paul's  view  (1  (<>r.  vii. 
19)  :  "The  keeping  of  the  commandments  of  God  is  everything;" 
comp.  Rom.  ii.  12:  "  As  many  as  have  sinned  under  the  law,  shall 
be  judged  by  the  law." 

On  the  basis  of  this  introduction,  announcing  to  the  Phari- 
seee  the  end  of  their  paraded  show  of  righteousness  and  the 
advent  of  real  holiness,  there  rises  by  way  of  example  the 
foil. wing  parable.      To  the  words  of  ver.  15,  that  whicJi  is 
i  esteemed  amo  then  corresponds  the  representation 

of  the  ramptturai  and  brilliant  life  of  the  rich  man  ;  to  the 
predicate,  is  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  Ood  (same  verse), 
the  description  of  his  pun;  lunent  in  Hades;  tothedccla 

1  Jems  und  Hifol,  1867,  by  Delitzsch,  p.  27,  where  an  answer  i»  given  to  the 
forged  interpretation  which  modern  Jews  give  of  this  saying. 


176  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  ver.  1 7  regarding  the  permanence  of  the  law,  the  reply  of 
Abraham  :  they  have  Moses  and  the  prophets. 

Vers.  19-31.  The  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Rich  Man. — It  is 
composed  of  two  principal  scenes,  which  correspond  so  exactly 
with  one  another,  that  in  their  correspondence  we  must  seek 
the  very  idea  of  the  parable ;  these  are,  the  scene  on  the  earth 
(vers.  19-22),  and  that  in  Hades  (vers.  23-31). 

The  terrestrial  scene,  vers.  19-22.1  It  embraces  four  por- 
traitures which,  taken  two  and  two,  form  counterparts  of  one 
another:  the  life  of  the  rich  man,  ver.  19,  and  that  of  the 
poor  man,  vers.  20,  21 ;  then  the  death  of  the  former,  ver. 
22a,  and  that  of  the  latter,  ver.  221.  The  description  of  the 
rich  man's  life  presents  two  prominent  features :  the  magnifi- 
cence of  his  dress, — iropfyvpa,  the  upper  dress,  a  woollen 
garment  dyed  purple,  and  fivo-aos,  the  under  garment,  a  tunic 
of  fine  linen ;  next,  the  sum$,tuousness  of  his  habitual  style  of 
living, — a  splendid  banquet  daily.  This  description  of  the  life 
of  the  rich  of  that  day  applied  to  the  Jews  as  well  as  to  the 
Gentiles.  Nay,  among  the  former,  who  sometimes  regarded 
wealth  as  a  sign  of  divine  blessing,  the  enjoyments  of  that 
privileged  state  must  have  been  indulged  with  so  much  the  less 
scruple ;  so  the  Pharisees  in  particular  seem  to  have  done 
(xx.  46,  47). — After  the  rich  man,  who  first  claims  attention, 
our  eyes  are  carried  to  the  unhappy  man  laid  at  the  entrance 
of  his  house,  vers.  20  and  21.  The  Greek  name  Lazarus  does 
not  come,  as  some  have  thought,  from  Lo-ezer,  no  help,  but 
from  El-ezer,  God  helps ;  whence  the  form  Eleazar,  abbreviated 
by  the  Eabbins  into  Leazar ;  and  hence  Lazarus.  This  name, 
according  to  John  xi.,  was  common  among  the  Jews.  As  this 
is  the  only  case  in  which  Jesus  designates  one  of  the  personages 
of  a  parable  by  his  name,  this  peculiarity  must  have  a  signifi- 
cance 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  makes  this  personage 
the  representation  of  that  class  of  the  Israelitish  people  which 
formed  the  opposite  extreme  of  pharisaism — poor  ones  whose 
confidence  was  in  God  alone,  the  Aniim  of  the  0.  T.,  the  pious 
indigent. 

1  Ver.  20.  K.  B.  D.  L.  X.  omit  »»»  after  rt$  and  o$  before  tptfiXnri.—Vev.  21. 
K.  K  L.  It*"*,  omit  ruv  ^/#<*>. 


CHAP.  XVI.  19-22.  177 

The  gateway  at  the  entrance  of  which  he  was  laid  is  that 
which  conducts  in  Eastern  houses  from  the  outside  to  the  first 
court.  The  word  ifiefiXrjTo,  u-as  thrown,  expresses  the  heed- 
lessness with  which  he  was  laid  down  there  and  abandoned  to 
the  care  of  those  who  were  constantly  going  and  coming  about 
this  great  house. — The  crumbs  denote  the  remains  of  the  meal 
which  the  servants  would  sometimes  throw  to  him,  but  which 
were  not  enough  to  satisfy  him.  The  omission  of  the  words  rSiv 
•4fiyjL(av  DV  some  Alex,  arises  from  the  confusion  of  the  two 
tcov  by  an  ancient  copyist ;  these  words  are  wrongly  rejected 
by  Tischendorf ;  they  are  to  be  preserved  as  the  counterpart 
of  the  drop  of  water,  ver.  24.  The  nakedness  of  the  poor  man 
contrasts  with  the  rich  man's  elaborate  toilet,  as  those  crumbs 
do  with  his  banquets.  The  words  a\\a  teal,  inoreovcr,  which 
indicate  a  higher  degree  of  endurance,  forbid  us  to  regard  the 
feature  of  the  dogs  licking  the  sores  of  Lazarus  as  an  allevia- 
tion of  his  miseries.  Besides,  this  animal  is  never  represented 
in  the  Bible,  nor  among  the  Orientals  in  general,  in  a  favour- 
able light.  The  licking  of  the  poor  man's  unbandaged  wounds 
by  those  unclean  animals  as  they  passed,  is  the  last  stroke  of 
the  picture  of  his  nakedness  and  forsakenness. 

To  the  contrast  1  the  two  lives  there  soon  sun 

that  between  the  two  deaths,  ver.  22,  which  introduces  the 
contrast  between  the  two  states  in  the  life  to  come,  fiiftwilt 
dies  i;  ousted  by  privations  and  sulh -rings.     That  very 

moment  he  finds  in  the  heavenly  world  the  sympathy  which 
was  refused  to  him  here  below.  In  Jewish  theology,  the 
angels  are  I  with  receiving  tin- souls  of  pioufl  Lnaelitee, 

and  transporting  them  to  that  portion  of  Hades  which  II 
reserved  for  them.  Abraham's  bosom,  a  figure  alio  enmmmi 
among  the  Rahbins,  denotes  dither  intimate  emnmunion  in 
general  (Job n  i.  IS),  or  more  specially  the  place  of  bottom  li 
a  feast  (John  xiii.  23)  ;  this  is  naturally  assigned  t<>  the  newly 
arrivt  r,  all  the  mON  that  hll  earthly  sull.-rings  demand 

a  rich  compensation.     Abraham  presides  at  the  feast  until  the 
Messiah  comes  to  take  the  first  place,  and  the  feast  oi   the 
!om  begins  (xiii.  25).     Meyer  concludes,  from  the  fact 
he  interment  of  Laza  >ned,  and  from  the 

object  axrrov,  \  l  he  was  transported  body  and  soul  to 

Abraham's  bosom.     But  so  ea:  D  the  Tarrpa 

VOL.  II.  m 


178  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

tides,  we  find  the  distinction  between  body  and  soul :  "  The 
righteous  whose  souls  are  carried  by  angels  to  paradise."  The 
pronoun  aviov  thus  designates  only  his  true  self,  the  soul. — 
The  burial  of  Lazarus  is  not  mentioned,  for  it  took  place  with- 
out ceremony,  or  perhaps  not  at  all.  The  body,  claimed  by 
no  one,  was  thrown  to  the  dunghill.  The  contrast  to  the  rich 
man  is  evident.  No  angels  to  transport  his  soul ;  but  for  his 
body,  on  the  contrary,  a  splendid  funeral  procession. 

What  is  the  crime  in  the  life  of  this  rich  man  which 
accounts  for  the  terrible  condition  described  in  the  following 
scene  ?  From  the  fact  that  it  is  not  mentioned,  the  conclusion 
has  been  drawn  that  it  must  be  simply  his  riches.  The 
Tubingen  School  says :  he  is  condemned  as  being  rich,  and 
Lazarus  is  saved  as  being  poor.  And  M.  Eenan  thinks  that 
the  parable  should  be  entitled,  not  the  parable  of  the  wicked 
rich  man,  but  merely  of  the  rich  man.  Here,  it  is  said,  we 
meet  again  with  the  Ebionite  heresy  of  Luke  (De  Wette). 
But  how  has  it  escaped  observation,  that  if  no  crime  properly 
so  called  is  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  rich  man,  his  misdeed  is 
nevertheless  clearly  indicated  ?  and  it  is  no  other  than  the  very 
existence  of  this  poor  man  laid  at  his  gate  in  destitution, 
without  any  relief  being  brought  to  his  wants.  Such  is  the 
corpus  delicti.  The  crime  of  the  life  described  ver.  19,  is  the 
fact  referred  to  vers.  20  and  21.  Every  social  contrast 
between  the  more  and  the  less,  either  in  respect  of  fortune, 
or  strength,  or  acquirement,  or  even  piety,  is  permitted  and 
willed  by  God  only  with  a  view  to  its  being  neutralized  by 
man's  free  agency.  This  is  a  task  assigned  from  on  high,  the 
means  of  forming  those  bonds  of  love  which  are  our  treasure 
in  heaven  (xii.  33,  34).  To  neglect  this  offer  is  to  procure 
for  oneself  an  analogous  contrast  in  the  other  life, — a  contrast 
which  shall  be  capable  of  being  sweetened  for  us  no  more  than 
we  have  ourselves  sweetened  it  in  the  life  below. — It  would 
be  hard  to  understand  how,  if  wealth  as  such  were  the  rich 
man's  sin,  the  celestial  banquet  could  be  presided  over  by 
Abraham,  the  richest  of  the  rich  in  Israel.  As  to  Lazarus,  the 
real  cause  of  the  welcome  which  he  finds  in  the  world  to  come 
is  not  his  poverty,  but  that  which  is  already  pointed  out  by 
his  name  :  God  is  my  help. 

The  scene  from  beyond  the  tomb,  vers.  23-31,  offers  a  con- 


CIIAr.  XVL  23-28.  1  i  9 

trast  exactly  corresponding  to  the  terrestrial  scene.  We  do 
not  attempt  to  distinguish  in  the  representation  what  should 
be  taken  in  a  figurative  sense  and  what  strictly.  The  realities 
of  the  spiritual  world  can  only  be  expressed  by  figures ;  but, 
as  has  been  said,  those  figures  are  the  figures  of  something. 
The  colours  are  almost  all  borrowed  from  the  palette  of  the 
Rabbins  ;  but  the  thought  which  clothes  itself  in  those  figures 
that  it  may  become  palpable,  is,  as  we  shall  see,  the  original 
and  personal  thought  of  Jesus. — Of  the  two  interviews  forming 
this  scene,  the  first  relates  to  the  rich  man's  lot  (vers.  23-26), 
the  second  to  that  of  his  brethren  (vers.  27-31). 

ra  2  3-2  6. l  After  the  short  sleep  of  death,  what  an 
awakening  !  The  idea  of  suffering  does  not  lie  in  the  words  eV 
to)  aBy,  which  our  versions  render  by :  in  hell.  Schcol  (Heb.), 
Hades  (Gr.),  the  Tnferi  or  infernal  regions  (Lat),  simply  denote 
the  abode  of  the  dead,  without  distinguishing  the  different 
conditions  which  it  may  include,  in  opposition  to  the 
of  the  liciii'j.  Paradise  (xxiii.  43)  as  well  as  Gehenna  (xii  5) 
forms  part  of  it.  Hence,  also,  from  the  midst  of  his  punish- 
ment the  rich  man  can  behold  Abraham  and  Lazarus.  The 
notion  of  pain  is  actually  found  only  in  the  words :  being  in 
torments. — On  Abraham  in  the  abode  of  the  dead,  comp.  John 
viil  56,  where  Jesus  speaks  without  figure. — The  plural  roU 
koXttois,  substituted  for  the  singular  (ver.  22),  denotes  ful- 
ness ;  a  whole  region  is  meant  where  a  company  is  gathered 
together. — The  situation,  ver.   24  et  seq.,  is  very  .similar  to 

>i'  the  dialogues  of  the  dead  found  in  the  ancients,  and 
particularly  in  the  Rabbins.  Qcovrjaas,  calling  in  a  loud  voice, 
corresponds  to  paicpodev,  afar  off,  ver.  23.  Nothing  more 
severe  for  those  Pharisees,  who  made  a  genealogical  tree  the 
foundation  of  their  salvation,  than  this  address  put  into  the 
mouth  of  the  poor  condemned  man  :  Fatlur  Abraham  !  "  All 
the  circumcised  are  safe,"  said  the  Rabbins ;  therefore,  was  not 
luivalent  to  son  of  Al.ialiam  I     In  this  situation, 

arises  in  the  mind  of  tin i  I  i<  h  man  a  thought  which  hid 
i    occurred  to  him  wlnl.    h,    was  on  the  earth,  namely, 

7  Mjj.  80  Mnn.  Vas.  omit  r»  after  ««-iX«fli».— Instead  of  •)> 
with  tome   Mnn.),    all  the  documenta :  a*.—  Vn.  '26.    K.  B.  L.  It*1****    » 
instead  of  in  before  ***,.— Instead  of  iHiefo  h  K.  n.  some  Mnn.),  all 

M    B    IV  OOrit  «  before  •«•«/«». 


180  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

that  the  contrast  between  abundance  and  destitution  may  have 
its  utility  for  him  who  is  in  want.  He  expresses  his  dis- 
covery with  a  simplicity  in  which  shamelessness  disputes  the 
palm  with  innocence.  The  gen.  t/Saro?  with  fiaTrreiv  :  to  drop 
water;  this  expression  denotes  water  falling  drop  by  drop 
from  the  finger  which  has  been  immersed  in  it ;  it  thus  cor- 
responds to  the  word  crumbs,  ver.  21. 

On  flame,  comp.  Mark  ix.  43-48,  49.  Lustful  desires, 
inflamed  and  fed  by  boundless  gratification,  change  into  torture 
for  the  soul  as  soon  as  it  is  deprived  of  the  external  objects 
which  correspond  to  them,  and  from  the  body  by  which  it 
communicates  with  them. — The  address  :  my  son,  in  the  mouth 
of  Abraham,  is  more  poignant  still  than  that  of:  Father 
Abraham  in  that  of  the  rich  man.  Abraham  acknowledges 
the  reality  of  the  civil  state  appealed  to,  and  yet  this  man  is 
and  remains  in  Gehenna  ! — The  word  remember  is  the  central 
one  of  the  parable  ;  for  it  forms  the  bond  between  the  two 
scenes,  that  of  the  earth  and  that  of  Hades.  "  Eecall  the  con- 
trast which  thou  didst  leave  unbroken  on  the  earth  .  .  .,  and 
thou  shalt  understand  that  the  present  corresponding  contrast 
cannot  be  alleviated  without  injustice.  Thou  hast  let  the 
time  pass  for  making  Lazarus  thy  friend  (xvi.  8,  9)  ;  he  can 
now  do  nothing  for  thee."  In  a7reXa/3e?,  thou  receivedst,  there 
is,  as  in  the  airk^eiv,  Matt.  vi.  2,  5,  16,  the  notion  of  receiv- 
ing by  appropriating  greedily  for  the  purpose  of  enjoyment. 
The  selfish  appropriation  of  goods  was  not  tempered  in  him 
by  the  free  munificence  of  love.  He  thought  only  of  draining 
to  the  very  bottom  the  cup  of  pleasure  which  was  at  his  lips. 
The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  pronoun  gov  added  to 
dyaOd,  "  thy  good  things  ;"  this  qualification  is  not  added  to 
tca/cd,  in  the  second  clause ;  Abraham  says  simply :  "  evil 
things."  God  trains  the  human  soul  by  joys  and  by  sorrows. 
The  education  of  every  soul  demands  a  certain  sum  of  both. 
This  thought  forms  the  foundation  of  ver.  25.  It  refers 
exclusively  to  the  pedagogical  economy  here  below  or  in  the 
world  above.  The  words  comforted  and  tormented  are  not  the 
equivalents  of  saved  and  damned,  absolutely  taken.  Nothing 
could  be  final  among  the  members  of  the  ancient  covenant  till 
they  had  been  brought  into  contact  with  Jesus  Christ.  "  The 
gospel,"  says  St.  Peter  (1  Ep.  iv.  6),  "  was  preached  to  them 


CIIAI\  XVI.  27-31.  181 

that  are  dead,  that  they  might  be  [capable  of  being]  judged." 
The  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  condition  on  which  the 
pronouncing  of  the  final  sentence  on  every  soul  is  based.  The 
hour  of  this  judgment  has  not  yet  struck  for  the  rich  man. 
Consequently  this  verse  neither  teaches  salvation  by  poverty 
nor  damnation  by  riches  ;  &>8e,  here,  which  is  read  by  all  the  Mjj., 
is  preferable  to  oSe,  he.     Here  is  opposed  to  :  in  his  lifetime. 

Ver.  20.  But  even  supposing  that  some  concession  might 
be  made  in  respect  of  justice,  there  is  another  reason  which 
cuts  off  all  hope  —  the  impossibility  of  the  thing.  The 
Eabbins  represent  the  two  parts  of  Hades  as  separated  by  a 
widl ;  Jesus  here  substitutes  a  gulf,  a  figure  which  agrees 
better  with  the  entire  description.  It  is  the  emblem  of  God's 
inflexible  decree.  Only  from  the  fact  that  this  gulf  cannot  be 
crossed  at  present,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  may  not  be  so  one 
day  by  means  of  a  bridge  offered  to  repentant  Jews  (comp. 
Matt.  xii.  32).  The  omission  of  ol  before  e/ceWev,  by  the  Alex., 
identifies  those  who  pass  with  those  who  repass. 

ra    27-31.1    The  second  Conversation. — The  rich    man 
acquiesces  so  far  as  his  own  person  is  concerned.     But  he 
intercedes   for  his   brethren  still   in  life.     And  again   it   is 
:  is  who  must  busy  himself  on  their  behalf! — What  is 
bought  contained  in  this  conclusion  ?      Starting  from  the 
[point  that  the  idea  of  the  parable  is  the  condemnation  of 
wealth,  De  Wette,  tin*  Tubingen  School,  and  Weizsiieker  him- 
self find  this  last  put  entirely  out  of  keeping  with  the  rest  of 
the  description.      For  it  is  their  impenitence  face  to  face  with 
til--  Im  ami  the  prophets  which  exposes  the  live   brethren  to 
danger,  and  not  their  being  rich  men.      Thee  allege,  therefore, 
•   at  his  own    hand  lias  added   this  conclusion,  with 

of  transforming  a  doctrine  whi  originally 

ml  Judeo-Christiun  into  one  anti-Judaic  or  Pauline. 

\  in  the  original  mowing  of  the  similitude, 

simply  represented  riches,  becomes  in  this  conclusion  the  type 

t    in    nspect  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

acker  goes  the  length  of  regarding  Lazarus  as  the  repre- 

eentat  les  despised  by  the  Jews.     This  last  idea 

l?  Incompatible  with  I  izarus,  as  well  as 

with  the   place  awatded  to  him  in  Abraham's  bosom,  the 

1  Ver.  29.  It  B  ^i/r*  after  ktyt,  or  ktyu  U. 


182  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

gathering  place  of  pious  Jews.  As  to  the  rich  man,  from  the 
"beginning  he  represents  not  the  rich  in  general,  but  the  rich 
man  hardened  by  well-being,  the  Pharisee,  whose  heart,  puffed 
up  with  pride,  is  closed  to  sympathy  with  the  suffering.  This 
appears  from  the  expressions :  Father  Abraham,  my  son,  vers. 
24,  25,  which  are  as  it  were  the  motto  of  Israelitish  formalism 
(Matt.  iii.  7-9 ;  John  viii.  39).  This  conclusion  is  thus 
nothing  else  than  the  practical  application  of  the  parable,  which, 
instead  of  being  presented  to  his  hearers  in  the  form  of  an 
abstract  lesson,  is  given  as  the  continuation  of  the  scene  itself. 
It  is  exactly  the  same  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  in 
which  the  elder  son  exhibits  the  Pharisees  with  their  murmur- 
ings,  and  the  divine  answer.  The  first  portrait,  vers.  19-21, 
depicted  the  sin  of  the  rich  man  ;  the  second,  vers.  2  2-2  6,  his 
punishment.  In  this  appendix  Jesus  unveils  to  His  hearers 
the  cause  of  this  misery,  the  absence  of  [lerdvoia,  repentance, 
and  for  those  who  wished  to  profit  by  the  warning,  the  means 
of  preventing  the  lot  which  threatens  them  at  the  moment  of 
their  death :  taking  to  heart  Moses  and  the  prophets  very  dif- 
ferently from  what  they  have  ever  done.  There  must  pass 
within  them  what  took  place  in  the  prodigal  son,  the  figure  of 
the  publicans  (xv.  17:  he  came  to  himself),  and  in  the  steward, 
the  type  of  the  new  believers  (xvi.  3  :  he  said  within  himself)  : 
that  act  of  solemn  self-examination  in  which  the  heart  is  broken 
at  the  thought  of  its  sins,  and  which  impresses  an  entirely 
new  direction  on  the  life,  and  on  the  employment  of  earthly 
goods  in  particular.  To  reject  this  conclusion  is  therefore  to 
break  the  arrow-point  shot  by  the  hand  of  Jesus  at  the  con- 
sciences of  His  hearers. 

Ver.  27.  The  five  brethren  cannot  represent  the  rich  of  this 
world  in  general,  and  as  little  the  Jews  who  remained  unbe- 
lieving in  respect  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  are  Jews  living  in  a 
privileged,  brilliant  condition,  like  that  of  the  rich  man — the 
Pharisees,  whom  this  man  represented;  this  relation  is  the 
idea  expressed  by  the  image  of  the  kinship  which  connects 
them.  Some  have  imagined  that  those  five  brethren  are 
the  five  sons  of  the  high  priest  Annas.  Would  Jesus  have 
condescended  to  such  personalities  ?  The  forms  of  address : 
father,  ver.  27,  father  Abraham,  ver.  30,  continue  to  define 
the  meaning  of  this  principal  personage  very  clearly.     Aia- 


CHAP.  XVI.  28,  29.  183 

fiapTvpeaQat,  ver.  28,  does  not  signify  only:  to  declare,  but  to 
testify  in  such  a  way  that  the  truth  pierces  through  the 
wrappings  of  a  hardened  conscience  (Bid).  In  putting  this 
request  into  the  rich  man's  mouth,  Jesus  undoubtedly  alludes 
to  that  thirst  for  miracles,  for  extraordinary  and  palpable 
manifestations,  which  He  never  failed  to  meet  among  His 
adversaries,  and  which  He  refused  to  satisfy.  Such  demands 
charge  with  insufficiency  the  means  of  repentance  which  God 
had  all  along  placed  in  Israel.  Some  commentators,  unable 
to  allow  any  good  feeling  in  one  damned,  have  attributed  this 
prayer  of  the  rich  man  to  a  selfish  aim.  According  to  them, 
he  dreaded  the  time  when  his  own  sufferings  would  be  aggra- 
vated by  seeing  those  of  his  brethren.  But  would  not  even 
this  fear  still  suppose  in  him  a  remnant  of  love  ?  And  why 
represent  him  as  destitute  of  all  human  feeling  ?  He  is  not 
yet,  we  have  seen,  danincd  in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  word. 
If  we  must  seek  a  selfish  alloy  in  this  prayer,  it  can  only  be 
the  desire  to  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  his  sons  by  his  reply,  ver.  29,  with 
what  earnestness  they  should  henceforth  listen  to  the  reading 
of  that  law  and  those  prophets,  the  latter  of  which  they  had. 
up  till  now,  heard  or  even  studied  in  vain  (John  v.  38,  39). 
The  subject  has  nothing  to  do  with  unbelief  regarding  Jesus; 
the  situation  of  this  saying  is  purely  Jewish. — The  rich  man 
insists.     His  answer,  Nay,  father  AbraJiam,  ver.   30,  depicts 

I  ibbinicaJ  spirit  of  (Y  :i  and  pharisaic  effrontery. 

•itance  would  produce,  he  fully  acknowledges,  a  life  wholly 
diffident  from  his  own  (such  as  it  has  been  described,  ver.  19) ; 
but  che  law  without  miracle  would  imt  sulliee  to  produce  this 
— Jesus  unveils,  ver.  31,  the  complete  illusion 
belonging  to  this  idea  oi  conversion  by  means  of  great  mi 
I  interposition  El  Whom  (he  law  and  thr  prophets  bring 

not  to  the  conviction  of  his   sins,  will  he  as  little  led  to  it  by 

igfit  even  of  one  raised  bxxn   the  dead.     After  the  first 

<»n  of  astonishment  and    terror,  criticism  wfll   awake  say- 

Elallucinal  mil  security,  Shaken  for  a  moment, 

will  reassert  r  ired   Him  .  ' 

not  having  pn  io  Jews  ail   i   lis  resurrection,  thia 


184  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

saying  cannot  be  an  invention  of  Luke  borrowed  from  that 
event. 

Such  is  the  terrible  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  derision  of  His 
adversaries,  the  proud  and  covetous  Pharisees,  ver.  14.  He 
shows  them  their  portrait,  the  likeness  of  their  present  life, 
and  their  lot  after  death.  Now  they  know  what  they  are  in 
the  eyes  of  God  (19-21),  and  what  awaits  them  (23-35) ;  they 
know  also  the  real  cause  of  their  near  perdition,  and  the  only 
means  which  can  yet  avert  it  (27-31). 

From  this  study  it  follows :  1.  That  all  the  indications  of  the 
preface  (vers.  14-18)  are  entirely  justified ;  in  particular,  that  the 
QapLaaioL  (the  Pharisees),  ver.  14,  is  the  real  key  of  the  parable.  2. 
That  there  reigns  throughout  this  description  a  perfect  unity  of 
idea,  and  that  the  context  furnishes  no  well-founded  reason  for 
distinguishing  between  an  original  parable  and  a  later  re-handling. 
3.  That  the  piece  as  a  whole,  and  all  its  details,  are  in  direct  corre- 
spondence with  the  historical  situation  in  which  Jesus  was  teaching, 
and  find  their  natural  explanation  without  any  need  of  having 
recourse  to  the  later  circumstances  of  apostolic  times.  4.  That  this 
passage  furnishes  no  proof  of  an  Ebionite  document  anterior  to  our 
Gospel,  and  forming  one  of  the  essential  materials  employed  by  the 
author.  Hilgenfeld  says  (Die  Evangel,  p.  102) :  "Nowhere  does  our 
Gospel  allow  us  to  distinguish  so  clearly  the  original  writing  of 
which  it  is  the  anti- Jewish  and  Pauline  handling."  Nowhere  so 
clearly !  This  passage  proving  nothing,  it  follows  that  the  others 
prove  less  than  nothing. 

This  character,  not  anti-Jewish,  but  certainly  anti-pharisaic, 
belongs  equally  to  the  whole  series  of  pieces  which  we  have  just 
surveyed  (comp.  xi.  37-xii.  12)  ;  then  (after  an  interruption),  xiii. 
10-31,  xiv.  1,  xv.  2,  xvi.  14.  The  parable  of  the  unfaithful 
steward  is  also  connected  with  this  series  by  the  law  of  contrast. 
Here,  then,  is  the  time  of  the  most  intense  struggle  between  Jesus 
and  pharisaism  in  Galilee,  like  the  contemporaneous  period,  John 
vii.-x.,  in  Judaea. 

7.  Various  Sayings:  xvii.  1-10. — This  piece  contains 
four  brief  lessons,  placed  here  without  introduction,  and  be- 
tween which  it  is  impossible  to  establish  a  connection. 
Olshausen  and  Meyer  have  attempted  to  connect  them  with 
one  another  and  with  what  precedes.  The  offence,  vers.  1 
and  2,  according  to  them,  is  either  that  which  the  rich  man 
gave  to  his  brethren,  or  that  which  the  Pharisees  gave  to  weak 
believers,  by  preventing  them  from  declaring  themselves  for 
Christ.  But  how  is  the  expression,  one  of  these  little  ones 
(ver.  2),  applicable  to  the  rich  man's  brethren  ?     And  in  the 


CHAP.  XVII.  1,  2.  186 

second  sense,  should  not  the  warning  be  addressed  to  the 
adversaries  rather  than  unto  tlie  disciples  (ver.  1)  ? — The  teach- 
ing regarding  pardon  (vers.  3,  4)  is  taken  to  refer  to  the 
arrogant  harshness  of  the  Pharisees,  who  did  not  allow  the 
publicans  to  appropriate  the  pardon  of  sins  (the  offence,  vers. 
1,  2) ;  or  rancour  is  regarded  as  one  of  those  offences  of 
which  we  must  beware ;  or,  finally,  a   climax  is   supposed : 

not  enough  not  to  do  evil  to  others  (vers.  1,2);  we 
should  also  pardon  the  evil  which  they  do  to  us  (vers.  3 
and  4).  These  connections,  more  or  less  ingenious,  are  arti- 
ficial ;  they  are  like  those  by  which  one  succeeds  in  tagging 
together  given  rhymes. — The  petition  of  the  apostles  (vers. 
5  and  6)  is  held  to  find  its  occasion  in  the  feeling  of  their 
powerlessness  to  pardon.  But  in  this  sense,  Jesus  should  have 
spoken  in  His  reply,  not  of  the  faith  which  works  external 
miracles,  but  of  that  which  works  by  love.  Lastly,  the 
doctrine  taught  of  the  non-meritoriousness  of  works  (vers. 
7-10)    is  alleged  to   be   introduced   by  this   idea,   that   the 

>t  miracles  wrought  by  faith  confer  no  merit  on  man. 

But  how  could  miracles  of  faith  be  described  as  BiaraxOema, 

/      a  commanded? — De  Wette  is  therefore  right  in  declining 

to  find  a  connection  between  those  difiei  ings.      Let  us 

add  that  several  of  them  are  placed  by  Matthew    and  Mark 

torical  circumstances,  where  they  have  their  nit  ire  appro- 
priateness.     We  shall  be  able  to  state  the  critical  result  when 
ome  to  sum  up. 
Vers.  1  and  2.1  Offences. — "  Tkm  MitZ  He  vnto  the  disciples, 
It  is  impossible  hut  tin  it   ojjenos  (scandals)  will  come:   but  woe 
unto  1  "ill  vlumi  they  come  I     2.  It  were  letter  fu r 

that  a  millstone  were  lianged  about  his  neck,  and  lie  cast  into  the 

an  that  lie  should  offend  one  of  these  little  ones.      Take 

heed  to  yourselvesy — The   formula   €l7re  ti,  then  said  He  (aor.), 

has  not  the  sa:  bt  as  the  eXeye  Be,  11   wu  saying  to 

the  significance  of  which   in    Lake  we   have  often  remarked. 

•iit.al    fact. — ' AvetchetcTov,    inadmissible. 

1.  9  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  Van.  omit  *vr$v after  ^*«/i»T«r— T.  \\.,  with  sonic  Mnn., 
««»<«>«.  — N    I',    I».   L   MM   Mnn,  If"''.,  wx*t  mm  in- 
stead of  tumi  h.~  "*••,    n  it/*  iym*/*  *>  >J$(  .  .  .      Marcion  appeal*  tc 

hare  read  thus;  Clem.  Ron  s  M  Mnn.    I 

'»t  instead  of  ft*ku  #»<».* 


186  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

The  absence  of  offences  is  a  supposition  which  cannot  be 
admitted  in  the  sinful  state  in  which  the  world  is  plunged. 
The  determining  particle  rov  is  authentic. — The  form,  (the) 
offences  (to),  denotes  the  entire  category  of  facts  of  this  kind. 
The  reading  fivXo?  ovikos,  a  millstone  moved  by  an  ass,  is 
undoubtedly  borrowed  from  Matthew;  we  must  adopt,  with 
the  Alex.,  \idos  fivKi/cos,  a  millstone  of  smaller  dimensions, 
moved  by  the  hand  (ver.  35). — The  punishment  to  which 
ver.  2  alludes  was  usual  among  many  ancient  peoples,  and  is 
so  still  in  the  East.  The  reading  of  several  copies  of  the 
Itala,  which  is  also  found  in  Marcion,  "  It  were  better  for  him 
that  he  had  never  been  born,  or  that  a  stone  .  .  .,"  arises,  no 
doubt,  from  an  ancient  gloss  taken  from  Matt.  xxvi.  24. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Clemens  Eomanus  combines 
in  his  1  Cor.  46  the  two  passages,  Matt,  xviii.  6,  7  (parallel 
to  ours)  and  Matt.  xxvi.  24. — The  little  ones  are  beginners  in 
the  faith. — The  final  warning,  Take  heed  .  .  .,  is  occasioned,  on 
the  one  hand,  by  the  extreme  facility  of  causing  offence  (ver.  1); 
on  the  other,  by  the  terrible  danger  to  which  it  exposes  him 
who  causes  it  (ver.  2).  The  lost  soul,  like  an  eternal  burden, 
is  bound  to  him  who  has  dragged  it  into  evil,  and  in  turn 
drags  him  into  the  abyss. 

The  same  warning  is  found  Matt,  xviii.  6  and  Mark  ix.  42. 
The  offence  which  gave  rise  to  it  may  be  in  this  context,  either  that 
which  the  disciples  had  given  one  another  in  the  strife  which  had 
taken  place  between  them,  or  that  which  they  had  caused  to  the 
man  in  whom  faith  had  just  dawned  (one  of  these  little  ones),  and  who 
was  manifesting  it  by  curing  the  possessed.  Luke  evidently  did 
not  know  this  connection ;  for  he  would  not  have  failed  to  indicate 
it, — he  who  seeks  out  historical  situations  with  so  much  care.  Had 
he  not,  besides,  himself  mentioned  those  two  facts  (ix.  46-50),  and 
might  he  not  have  connected  this  admonition  with  them  as  Mark 
does  1  Luke,  therefore,  did  not  possess  this  original  Mark,  which 
Holtzmann  regards  as  one  of  his  principal  sources ;  otherwise  he 
would  not  have  detached  this  saying  from  the  fact  which  gave  rise 
to  it.  But  the  account  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark  proves  the 
truth  of  Luke's  introduction,  " He  said  unto  the  disciples"  and  the 
accuracy  of  the  document  from  which  he  derived  this  precept. 

Vers.  3  and  4.1  The  Pardon  of  Trespasses. — "  If  thy  brother 

1  Yer.  3.  5  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  h  after  s«>.—  N.  A.  B.  L.  ItPler,«ue,  omit 
us  e-t  after  apapm  (words  taken,  perhaps,  from  ver.  4  or  from  Matt,  xviii.  15). — 
Ver.  4.  &  B.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  ItPleriiue,  omit  rtis  tipipxs. — Instead  of  i*n  n, 


CHAP.  XVII.  5,  6,  187 

trespass  against  thee,  rebulce  him ;  and  if  he  repent,  for  give  him. 
4.  And  if  he  trespass  against  thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and 
r  m  in  a  day  turn  again  to  thee,  saying,  I  repent,  thou 

shalt  forgive  him," — Holiness  and  love  meet  together  in  this 
precept :  holiness  begins  with  rebuking ;  then,  when  the  rebuke 
has  once  been  taken,  love  pardons.  The  pardon  to  be  granted 
to  our  brethren  has  no  other  limit  than  their  repenting,  and 
the  confession  by  which  it  is  expressed. 

Matthew  (xviil  15-22)  places  this  precept  in  the  same  discourse 
as  the  preceding ;  it  probably  referred  also  to  the  altercation  which 
had  taken  place  between  the  disciples  on  that  occasion.  But  there 
what  gives  rise  to  it  is  a  characteristic  question  of  Peter,  which 
Luke  did  not  know;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  omitted  it; 
comp.  xii.  41,  where  he  carefully  mentions  a  similar  question  put  by 
the  same  apostle.  Mark  omits  this  precept  about  pardon  ;  but  at 
the  end  of  the  same  discourse  we  find  this  remarkable  exhorta- 
tion (ix  50):  "Have  salt  in  yourselves  (use  severity  toward  your- 
:  c<  imp.  vers.  43  '  have  peace  with  one  another" — a  saying 

which  has  substantially  the  same  meaning  as  our  precept  on  the 
subject  of  pardon.  What  a  proof  both  of  the  radical  authenticity 
<>f  Jesus  and  of  the  fragmentary  manner  in  which 
tradition  had  preserved  them,  M  well  as  of  the  diversity  of  the 
sources  from  which  our  evangelists  derived  them  I 

Vers.    5   and   6.1  Faith. — "And  the  <■  '>  the 

Increase  our  faith.     6.  And  tJie  Lord  said,  If  ye  liad 
n  of  mustard  seed,  ye  might  say  unto  this  sycamine 
tree,  Be  tlimi  plucked  up  by  the  root,  and  be  thou  \  'm  the 

sea;  and  it  slwuld  obey  you'.' — This  request  of  the  di 
must  have  been  called  forth  by  some  manifestation  of  tin 
ordinary  power  of  Jesus,  with  which  Luke  was  unacquainted. 
— The  literal  force  of  tin*  word  which  the.  disciples  use,  "Add 
to  our  faith,"  assumes  that  they  think  tin  -y  have  soma     Jesus 
does  not  deny  it;  but  He  reduces  this  having  to  tl 
imaginable  quantity,  since  the  smallest  organic  body  is  too 
large  as  an  emblem  of  it. — The  only  real  power  in  th 
is  the  divine  will.     The  human  will,  which  -vend  the 

secret  of  blending  with  this  force  of  forces,  is  raised,  in 
of  this  union,  to  omnipotence;  and  from  the  time  it  becomes 
conscious  of  this  privilege,  it  acts  without  obstruction,  even  En 

:  .  with  some  Mnn.,  nodi,  7  Mjj.  md  *ft  m.    12  Mjj.  125  Mm. 
omit  all  government. 
1  Vcr.  6.  «.  D.  L.  X.  omit  «•••*». 


188  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  domain  of  nature,  if  the  kingdom  of  God  so  requires. 
Perhaps  the  sycamine  to  which  Jesus  points  is,  in  His  view, 
the  emblem  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  sea  (here  the  shore, 
the  pure  sand)  that  of  the  heathen  world,  that,  till  now,  barren 
soil  in  which,  by  the  faith  and  the  prayers  of  the  disciples, 
the  divine  work  is  henceforth  to  be  planted  and  to  prosper. 

Matthew  twice  presents  a  saying  similar  to  that  of  ver.  6,  and 
both  times  in  a  definite  situation ;  first,  after  the  healing  of  the 
lunatic  son,  and  in  contrast  to  the  apostles'  lack  of  faith  (xvii. 
20,  21).  Only  in  the  two  cases  it  is  a  mountain  which  is  to  be  cast 
into  the  sea.  Mark,  who  in  narrating  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree 
shows  himself  the  most  accurately  informed,  there  reproduces  this 
parable  almost  in  the  same  way  as  Matthew ;  only  he  prefaces  it 
with  the  words,  " Have  faith  in  God"  and  connects  with  it  an 
exhortation  to  pardon  as  the  condition  of  prayer  being  heard.  No 
doubt,  owing  to  the  proverbial  character  of  this  saying,  it  may  have 
been  frequently  repeated.  But  there  is  a  very  remarkable  dovetail- 
ing between  Luke  and  the  two  others,  Mark  especially.  Do  not  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  Mark,  Have  faith  in  God  and  .  .  .,  perfectly  explain 
the  prayer  of  the  apostles  in  Luke,  Increase  our  faith?  Here,  as  at 
xii.  41  (comp.  with  Mark  xiii.  37),  the  one  evangelist  has  preserved 
one  part  of  the  conversation,  the  other  another.  With  a  common 
written  source,  is  that  intelligible  1  As  to  the  admonition  regarding 
pardon,  which  in  Mark  follows  this  exhortation  to  faith  (xi.  24,  25), 
it  sustains  to  the  question  of  Peter  (Matt,  xviii.  21),  and  the  exhorta- 
tion in  Luke  (vers.  3,  4),  a  relation  similar  to  that  which  we  have 
just  observed  between  Luke  xii.  41  and  Mark  xiii.  37.  They  are 
fragments  of  one  whole,  the  grouping  of  which  it  is  not  difficult  to 
restore. 

Vers.  7-1 0.1  The  Non-meritoriousness  of  Works. — "But  which 
of  you,  having  a  servant  glowing  or  feeding  cattle,  will  say  unto 
him  by  and  by,  when  he  is  come  from  the  field,  Go  and  sit  down 
to  meat  ?  8.  And  will  not  rather  say  unto  him,  Make  ready 
wherewith  I  may  sup,  and  gird  thyself,  and  serve  me,  till  I  have 
eaten  and  drunken ;  and  afterward  thou  shalt  eat  and  drink  ? 
9.  Doth  he  thank  that  servant  because  he  did  the  things  that  luere 
commanded  him?  I  trow  not.  10.  So  likewise  ye,  when  ye 
shall  have  done  all  those  things  which  are  commanded  you,  say, 
We  are  unprofitable  servants :  we  have  done  that  which  was  our 
duty  to  do." — This  saying,  which  has  no  connection  with  what 

1  Ver.  7.  tf.  B.  D.  L.  X.  15  Mnn.  Vss.  add  aura,  after  tpu.—Yer.  9.  6  Mjj. 
It*11"!,  omit  ixuvu  after  1ov\v. — 17  Mjj.  130  Mnn.  omit  aura. — N.  B.  L.  X.  6 
Mnn.  It*ui.  omit  eu  2axv. — Ver.  10.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  u<pnX«/Atv  and 

tftl). Cf4.lt. 


ciur.  xvir.  7-10.  139 

immediately  precedes,  does  not  the  less  admirably  close  this 
series  of  exhortations  given  by  Jesus,  which  almost  all  relate 
to  pharisaism  ;  it  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  A  slave  returns  in  the 
evening,  after  having  laboured  all  day  in  the  fields.  Does 
the  master  give  himself  up  to  extraordinary  demonstrations  of 
pleasure  ?  No ;  everything  goes  on  in  the  house  according 
to  the  established  order.  From  the  work  of  the  day,  the 
Entrant  simply  passes  to  that  of  the  evening ;  he  dresses  the 
viands,  and  serves  at  table  as  long  (ecu?,  or  better  still,  e<w?  av) 
as  his  master  pleases  to  eat  and  drink.  And  only  then  may 
he  himself  take  his  meal.  So  the  most  irreproachable  of 
men  must  say  to  himself  that  he  has  done  nothing  but  pay 
his  debt  to  God ;  does  not  God  on  His  side  provide  for  all 
his  wants  ?  From  the  standpoint  of  right,  they  are  quits  on 
both  sides.  The  word  axpelos,  unprofitable,  here  signifies :  one 
who  has  rendered  no  service  (beyond  what  was  due).  This  esti- 
mation of  human  work  is  true  in  the  sphere  of  right  when 
pharisaism  plants  itself,  and  it  crushes  this  system  in  the  dust 
by  denying,  along  witli  all  human  merit,  all  obligation  on  God's 
part  to  recompense  man  ;  and  this  estimate  should  remain 
that  of  every  man  when  he  values  his  work  in  the  presence 
of  God  But  there  is  a  sphere  higher  than  that  of  right,  that 
of  love ;  and  in  this  latter  another  labour  on  man's  part,  that  of 
joyful  devotion,  and  another  estimate  on  God's  part,  that  of 
the  love  which  is  rejoiced  by  love.  Jesus  has  described  this 
other  point  of  view,  xii.  36,  37.  Holtzmann  thinks  it  impos- 
sible that  this  exhortation  should  have  been  addressed  to  the 
to  (ver.  1).  But  is  not  the  pharisaic  tendency  ever 
ready  to  spring  up  again  in  the  hearts  of  believers  ?  and  does  it 
not  cling  like  a  gnawing  worm  to  fidelity  itself  ?  The  words : 
!  ■■  mistakenly  rejected  by  the  Alex    Pexhape  the 

ov  Sotcat  has  been  confounded  with  the  oxrno  which  follows. 

.  are  we  to  explain  the  position  of  those  four  exhortationi 

in  our  Gospel,  end  their  juxtaposition,  without  any  logical  bond  T 

ling  to  Holtzmann,1  Luke  is  about  to  return  to  his  great 

historical  source,  the  proto  Mark,  which  be  had  hit  since  ix.  51  to 

of  discourses,  the  Logia  (ootnn.  win   15,  when 

the  narrative  of  Luke  begins  again  to  move  parallel  to  that  of  the 

two  others);  and  hence  he  inserts  here  by  anticipation  the  two 

1  "  II  mil  j.  on   1    f,  Like  attempts  to  return  to  A. ;  then  to  finish,  he  girts, 

besides,  several  passages  taken  fi  156). 


190  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

exhortations,  vers.  1-4,  which  he  borrows  from  this  document  (A) ; 
then  he  relates  further  (vers.  5-10)  two  sayings  which  he  had 
forgotten,  and  which  he  takes  from  the  Logia  (A),  which  he  is  about 
to  quit.  But,  1.  Why  in  this  case  should  he  not  have  put  these 
last  in  the  first  place  (which  was  the  natural  order,  since  all  the  pre- 
ceding was  taken  from  A),  and  the  two  first  afterwards  (which  was 
not  less  natural,  since  Luke  is  about  to  return  to  A)  %  Besides,  2. 
Has  not  the  exegesis  convinced  us  at  every  word  that  Luke  certainly 
did  not  take  all  those  sayings  from  the  same  written  source  as  Mark 
and  Matthew  %  The  only  explanation  which  can  be  given  of  the 
fragmentary  character  of  this  piece  appears  to  us  to  be  the  following : 
Luke  had  up  to  this  point  related  a  series  of  exhortations  given  by 
Jesus,  the  occasion  of  which  he  was  able  to  a  certain  extent  to  indi- 
cate )  but  he  found  some  in  his  sources  which  were  mentioned  with- 
out any  historical  indication.  It  is  this  remnant  scrap  at  the  bottom 
of  the  portfolio,  if  I  may  so  speak,  which  he  delivers  to  us  as  it  was, 
and  without  any  introduction.  Hence  follow  two  consequences : 
1.  Luke's  introductions  in  this  part  are  not  of  his  inventing.  For 
why  could  not  his  ingenious  mind  have  provided  for  these  last 
exhortations  as  well  as  for  all  the  preceding  1  A  historical  case 
like  those  of  xi.  1,  45,  xii.  13,  41,  etc.,  was  not  difficult  to 
imagine.  2.  There  is  no  better  proof  of  the  historical  reality  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  quoted  in  our  Syn.,  than  this  fragmentary  character 
which  surprises  us.  Discourses  which  the  disciples  had  put  into 
the  mouth  of  their  Master  would  not  have  presented  this  broken 
appearance. 


THIRD  CYCLE. CHAP.  XVII.  11-XIX.  27. 

The  Last  Scenes  of  the  Journey. 

This  third  section  brings  us  to  Bethany,  to  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem,  and  to  the  morning  of  Palm  Day.  It  seems  to 
me  evident  that  Luke,  in  ver.  11,  intends  simply  to  indicate 
the  continuation  of  the  journey  begun  ix.  51,  and  not,  as 
Wieseler  will  have  it,  the  beginning  of  a  different  journey. 
In  consequence  of  the  multiplicity  of  events  related,  Luke 
reminds  us  from  time  to  time  of  the  general  situation.  It  is 
in  the  course  of  this  third  section  that  his  narrative  rejoins 
that  of  the  two  other  Syn.  (xviii.  15  et  seq.),  at  the  time 
when  children  are  brought  to  Jesus  that  He  may  bless  them. 
This  event  being  expressly  placed  in  Persea  by  Matthew  and 
Mark,  it  is  clear  that  the  following  events  must  have  taken 
place  at  the  time  when  Jesus  was  about  to  cross  the  Jordan, 
or  had  just  passed  it. 


CHAP.  XVII.  11-19.  191 

1.  The  Ten  Lepers:  xvii.  11-19. — Vers.  11-19.1  Ver.  11, 
even  in  its  construction,  reminds  us  of  ix.  51.  The  ko\  avro? 
has  here,  as  well  as  there,  peculiar  force.  The  caravans  of 
Galilee  took  either  the  Samaritan  route  or  the  Pera3an.  Jesus 
follows  neither;  He  makes  one  for  Himself,  the  result  of  in- 
deliberate wish,  which  is  intermediate  between  the  two, — a  fact 
which  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the  so  marked  resuming  of 
the  subject  (icai  auro?). — The  phrase  hva  fieaov  may  signify 
in  Greek :  while  travelling  through  both  of  those  provinces,  or 
while  passing  between  them.  Olshausen  takes  the  first  sense : 
he  alleges  that  from  Ephraim,  whither  Jesus  retired  after  the 

.rrection  of  Lazarus  (John  xi.  54),  He  visited  Galilee  once 
more,  thus  traversing  from  south  to  north,  first  Samaria,  and 
then  Galilee.  Gess  (p.  74)  also  regards  this  return  from 
Ephraim  to  Capernaum  as  probable.2     But  the  governed  clause 

Jerusalem  would  in  this  sense  be  real  irony.  The  second 
sense  is  therefore  the  only  possible  one:  Jesus  was  passing 
along  the  confines  of  the  two  provinces.  This  meaning  is 
confirmed  by  the  absence  of  the  article  before  the  two  proper 

ae3:  Samaria  and  Galilee.  He  directed  His  steps  from 
west  to  east,  toward  the  Jordan,  which  He  must  cross  to  en 

let  which  harmonizes,  as  we  have  seen,  with  Matt. 
xix.  1,  Mark  x.  1,  and  even  John  x.  40-42. — Luke  probably 
recalls  here  this  general  situation  in  view  of  the  following 
narrative,  in  which  we  find  a  Samaritan  leper  mingling  v, 
Jewish  lepers.  Community  of  sutlerin^  had,  in  their  case, 
broken  down  the  national  barrier. — Less  bold  than  the  L  | 
of  chap,  v.,  those  unhappy  men  kept  at  a  distance,  according 
to  the  law,  Lev.  xiii.  4G.  The  space  which  a  leper  was  bound 
to  keep  between  him  and  e\  r  person  is  estimated  by 

8ome  at  4,  by  others  at  100  cubits.     The  cry  which   tin -y 
attend  with  one  voice  on  per.  'esus,  draws  His  attention 

•Ver.    11     M  mit  «t/r#»  after  «r#/iwr/«i. — K.  B.   L.,  3<«  pir«»  instead  of 

l»m  ftit*v.—  Vcr.  12.  K.  L  someMnn.,  iMru»Tn#«»  instead  of  mwnttnrmt. — The  same 
Mjj.  omit  mvrm. 

•  Oeas's  reason  is  the  scene  of  the  didrachma,  Matt   xvii.   24-27  ;  for  the 

collection  for  the  temple  was  made  in  March.     But  in  the  year  which  preceded 

leath,  Jesus  may  possibly  not  have  paid  till  summer  the  tribute  which  was 

rly  due  in  spring.   The  form  of  the  collector's  question,  Matt.  vcr.  24,  seems 

ippose  a  payment  which  waa  at  once  voluntary  and  in  arrears.     It  is  not 

necessary,  on  this  ground,  to  hold  a  return  from  Capernaum  to  Galilee 

ly  before  the  last  Passover. 


192  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

to  the  pitiable  sight.  Without  even  telling  them  of  their 
cure,  He  bids  them  go  and  give  thanks  for  it.  There  is  a 
dash,  as  it  were,  of  triumphant  joy  in  this  unexpected  order. 
As  they  go  (eV  to>  virwyew),  they  observe  the  first  symptoms 
of  the  cure  which  has  been  wrought.  Immediately  one  of 
them,  seized  with  an  irresistible  emotion  of  gratitude,  turns 
back,  uttering  aloud  cries  of  joy  and  adoration ;  and  arrived 
in  the  presence  of  Jesus,  he  prostrates  himself  at  His  feet  in 
thanksgiving.  The  difference  is  to  be  observed  between 
So^d^eip,  glorifying,  applied  to  God,  and  ev-^apiarelv,  giving 
thanks,  applied  to  Jesus.  As  He  recognises  him  to  be  a 
Samaritan,  Jesus  feels  to  the  quick  the  difference  between 
those  simple  hearts,  within  which  there  yet  vibrates  the 
natural  feeling  of  gratitude,  and  Jewish  hearts,  encrusted  all 
over  with  pharisaic  pride  and  ingratitude ;  and  immediately, 
no  doubt,  the  lot  of  His  gospel  in  the  world  is  presented  to 
His  mind.  But  He  contents  Himself  with  bringing  into 
view  the  present  contrast. — Evpedrjaav  has  not  for  its  subject 
the  participle  vTroaTpeyjravTes,  taken  substantively,  but  aWoi 
understood.  Bleek  refers  the  last  words  :  thy  faith  hath  saved 
thee,  to  the  physical  cure  which  Jesus  would  confirm  to  the 
sufferer  by  leading  him  to  develope  that  disposition  of  faith 
which  has  procured  it  for  him.  But  have  we  not  here  rather 
a  new  blessing,  of  which  Jesus  gives  special  assurance  to  this 
leper  ?  The  faith  of  which  Jesus  speaks  is  not  merely  that 
which  brought  him  at  the  first,  but  more  still  that  which  has 
brought  him  back.  By  this  return  he  has  sealed  for  ever  the 
previous  transitory  connection  which  his  cure  had  formed 
between  Jesus  and  him ;  he  recognises  His  word  as  the  instru- 
ment of  the  miracle ;  he  unites  himself  closely  to  the  entire 
person  of  Him  whose  power  only  he  had  sought  at  the  first. 
And  thereby  his  physical  cure  is  transformed  into  a  moral 
cure,  into  salvation. 

Criticism  suspects  this  narrative  on  account  of  its  universalistic 
tendency.  But  if  it  had  been  invented  with  a  didactic  aim,  would 
the  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  it  have  been  so  completely  passed  over 
in  silence'*  We  must  in  this  case  also  suspect  the  healing  of  the 
Gentile  centurion's  servant  in  Matthew ;  and  that  with  more  reason 
still,  because  Jesus  insists  on  the  general  lesson  to  be  derived  from 
the  event. 


CHAP,  xvii.  :o,  21.  103 

2.  TIlc  MuriaKs  Coming:  xvii.  20-xviii.  8. — This  piece 
embraces :  1st.  A  question  put  by  the  Pharisees  respecting 
the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
answer  of  Jesus  (vers.  20,  21);  2^7.  A  discourse  addressed 
by  Jesus  to  His  disciples  on  the  same  subject  (vers.  22-37) ; 

he  parable  of  the  unjust  judge,  which  applies  the  subject 
treated  practically  to  believers  (xviii.  1-8). 

1st.  Vers.  20  and  21.1  The  Spirituality  of  the  Kingdom. — 
"  And  tohen  He  was  demanded  of  the  Pharisees  when  the  king- 
dom of  God  sJioidd  come,  He  answered  them,  and  said,  TJie  king- 
dom of  God  cometh  not  with  observation.  21.  Neither  shall 
they  say,  Lo  here  !  or,  Lo  there  !  for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  within  yoxC — It  is  known  with  what  impatience  the  Phari- 
sees waited  for  the  manifestations  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 
It  is  natural  that  they  should  desire  to  know  the  opinion  of 
Jesus  on  the  subject.  Besides,  they  would  have  been  glad 
to  embarrass  Him  in  the  matter,  or  to  drag  from  Him  some 
heresy.     Their  question  rested  on  a  purely  external  view  of 

•ivine  kingdom  ;  His  advent  appeared  to  their  mind  as  a 
great  and  sudden  dramatic  act.  In  the  gospel  point  of  vi.w. 
this  expectation  is  certainly  not  altogether  false  ;  but  humanity 
must  be  prepared  for  the  new  external  and  divine  state  of 

I  by  a  spiritual  work  wrought  in  the  depths  of  the  1 
and  it  is  this  internal  advent  which  Jesus  thinks  good  to  put 

n  relief  before  such  interlocutors.  The  side  of  the  truth 
which  He  thinks  proper  to  set  forth  is,  as  usual,  that  which 
is  mistaken  by  the  parties  addressing  Him.  To  the  Pharisee 
Nicodemus,  who  came  to  Ilini  with  a  question  analogous  to 

rhich  His  confrhru  are  now  putting,  Jesus  replies  exactly 
in  the  same  way.  The  expression  :  pera  TrapaTnpijaem,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  be  observed,  relates  to  the  observation  of 
objects  (ailing  under  the  senses.     The  present  Jfpgrrat,  cometh, 

idea.     Now,  since  the  kingdom  Ke  not  estaM 
in  a  fieihle  manner,  it  might  happen  that  it  should  be  present 
without  men  suspecting  it  (xi.  2 0).     And   this  Is  exactly  the 
case  (xi.  20  :  has  surprised  you). 

here  Jo  there, — these  words  express  the  impression  of  those 
who  think  they  see  it  oondllg;  -lesus  puts  in  opposJtiOB  to 
them  His  own  behold.     This  last  relates  to  the  surprise  whieh 

1  Ver.  21.  K.  li.  L.  omit  <)»*  before  ... 

II.  * 


194  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

should  be  felt  by  His  bearers  on  learning  that  the  kingdom  is 
already  present.  The  words  eWo?  vfi&v  are  explained  by 
almost  all  modern  interpreters  in  the  sense  of,  in  the  midst  of 
you.  Philologically  this  meaning  is  possible ;  it  may  be 
harmonized  with  the  yap.  But  the  verb  eariv  would  in  this 
case  necessarily  require  to  be  put  before  the  regimen ;  for  this 
verb  is  would  have  the  emphasis,  "  it  is  really  present."  The 
idea  among  you  would  be  secondary.  If  the  regimen  ivrbs 
vfjL&v  has  the  emphasis  (and  its  place  proves  that  it  has),  it 
can  only  be  because  these  words  contain  the  reason  introduced 
by  for.  They  should  therefore  serve  to  prove  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  may  have  come  without  its  coming  being  remarked ; 
and  this  is  what  follows  from  its  internal,  spiritual  nature. 
The  meaning  of  this  regimen  is  therefore,  within  yon.  Besides, 
the  prep,  ivrog,  within,  always  includes  a  contrast  to  the  idea 
without.  If,  therefore,  we  give  to  it  here  the  meaning  of 
among,  we  must  still  suppose  an  understood  contrast,  that 
between  the  Jews  as  people  within,  and  the  Gentiles  as 
people  without  There  is  nothing  in  the  context  giving  rise 
to  such  an  antithesis.  In  giving  to  eWo?  the  meaning  within, 
we  are  led  back  to  the  idea  expressed  in  the  answer  of  Jesus 
to  Nicodemus :  "  Except  a  man  be  horn  again,  he  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God,"  which  confirms  our  explanation.  'Earl 
is,  like  epyzrai,  the  present  of  essence. 

2d.  Vers.  22-37.  The  Coming  of  the  Kingdom. — To  the 
Pharisees  Jesus  declared  what  they  did  not  know,  the  spiritual 
essence  of  the  kingdom.  But  Jesus  did  not  mean  to  deny  the 
external  and  final  appearing  of  a  divine  state  of  things.  To 
develope  this  other  side  of  the  truth,  He  turns  to  His  disciples, 
because  it  is  only  to  those  who  possess  something  of  His 
spiritual  life  that  He  can  speak  profitably  of  His  future  return. 
Thus  it  is  that  the  treatment  of  the  same  subject  is  modified, 
according  to  the  character  of  those  whom  Jesus  addresses. 
Besides,  the  abstract  idea  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  is 
now  presented ;  as  the  reappearing  of  Jesus  Himself.  The 
truth  could  only  be  expounded  in  this  aspect  to  believers. 
We  may  see  with  what  justice  the  Revue  de  Theologie  alleges : 
"  The  first  two  verses  (vers.  20,  21)  are  in  contradiction  to  the 
rest,  and  have  no  connection  with  what  follows!"  (1867,  p. 
386.) 


CHAP.  XVII.  -22-25.  105 

The  discourse  of  Jesus  bears  on  three  points :  1st.  "When 
and  how  will  Jesus  reappear  (vers.  22-25)  ?  2d.  What  will 
be  the  state  of  the  world  then  (vers.  26-30)?  Zd.  What 
will  be  the  moral  condition  of  salvation  in  that  last  crisis 
(vers.  31-37)? 

Vers.  22-25.1  "And  He  said  unto  tlie  disciples,  Hie  days  will 
come  when  yc  shall  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  ye  shall  not  see  it.  23.  And  they  shall  say  to  you, 
See  here  !  or,  see  there  !  go  not  after  them,  nor  follow  them.  2  | . 
For  as  the  lightning,  that  lightcneth  out  of  the  one  part  U 
heaven,  shineth  unto  the  other  part  under  heaven  ;  so  shall  also 
the  Son  of  man  be  in  His  day.  25.  But  first  must  He  suffer 
many  things,  and  be  rejected  of  this  generation." — The  course 
of  thought  is  this:  The  kingdom,  in  the  sense  understood 
by  the  Pharisees,  will  not  come  immediately  (ver.  22);  and 
when  it  shall  come,  no  uncertainty  will  be  felt  about  His 
appearing  (vers.  23,  2-i).  Ver.  25  returns  to  the  idea  of 
find  ! 

'Hiiepat  (ver.  22),  days,  long  days,  during  which  there  will 
be  time  to  sigh  for  the  visible  presence  of  the  Master.  Comp. 
v.  35.  The  desire  to  see  one  of  the  days  of  tJie  Son  of  man 
may  refer  either  to  the  painful  regret  of  the  Church  when  she 
recalls  the  happiness  enjoyed  by  her  while  He  was  present 
on  the  earth,  or  to  her  impatient  waiting  for  some  manifesta- 
tion from  on  high  announcing  that  the  day  is  at  lei 
Substantially,  the  first  mean  in  ie  second,  as  I 

does  to  desire;    but  the  second  idea  is  the   dominant   one, 
according  to  the  context.     When  the  apostles  or  their  succes- 
sors shall  have  passed  a  long  time  on  the  earth  in  the  absence 
of  their  Lord,  when  they  shall  be  at  the  end  ol 
ing  and  their  apologetic  demonstrations,  . 
them   scepticism,  lism,    pa:  and    dr 

more  and  more  gain   the   ascendency,  tli  ill   be 

formed  in  their  souls  an  ardent  longing  for  that  Lord  who 
keeps  silence  and  remains  hid  ;  they  will  <  all  for  some  divim, 
Testation,  a  single  one  (filav),  li  of  the  old  days,  to 

refresh  their  hearts  and  sustain  the  fainting  Church.     But 

.28.  K.  B*  L.,  ihv  mii  before  thv  «)t.    5  Mjj.  omit  *  Wforo  ,h*. 
wm  .)#».— Ttr.  24.  AJ1  the  Mjj .,  I  .,  omit  mm  aftor  irr«,.—  K  1 

omit  i*  rn  ynfm  <vr*f. 


196  TJIE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

to  the  end,  the  task  will  be  to  walk  by  faith  (ovk  o^ecrdet 
ye  shall  not  see).  Need  we  be  astonished  if  in  such  circum- 
stances the  faith  of  the  great  majority  verges  to  extinction 
(xviii.  8)  ? 

With  this  heightening  of  expectation  among  believers  there 
will  correspond  the  seducing  appeals  of  falsehood  (ver.  23). 
Literally  taken,  this  verse  is  in  contradiction  to  ver.  21.  But 
ver.  21  related  to  the  spiritual  kingdom,  whose  coming  cannot 
be  observed  or  proclaimed,  while  the  subject  now  in  question 
is  the  visible  kingdom,  the  appearing  of  which  shall  be  falsely 
announced.  Why  shall  those  announcements  be  necessarily 
false  ?  Ver.  24  gives  the  explanation. — Gess  exhibits  the 
application  of  this  teaching,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  folly  of 
the  Romanists  who  will  have  no  Church  without  a  visible  head, 
and,  on  the  other,  to  that  of  Protestant  sectaries  who  expect 
the  appearing  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to-day  in  Palestine,  to- 
morrow in  Russia,  etc. 

Ver.  24.  The  Lord's  coming  will  be  universal  and  instan- 
taneous. Men  do  not  run  here  or  there  to  see  a  flash  of 
lightning :  it  shines  simultaneously  on  all  points  of  the  horizon. 
So  the  Lord  will  appear  at  the  same  moment  to  the  view  of 
all  living.  His  appearances  as  the  Risen  One  in  the  upper 
room,  when  closed,  are  the  prelude  of  this  last  advent.  But 
if  He  is  to  return,  He  must  go  away,  go  away  persecuted. 
This  is  the  subject  of  ver.  25. — This  generation  can  designate 
no  other  than  the  Jewish  contemporaries  of  the  Messiah.  A 
separation  is  about  to  supervene  between  Israel  and  its  now 
present  Messiah.  And  this  rejection  of  the  Messiah  by  His  own 
people  will  be  the  signal  for  the  invisibility  of  His  kingdom. 
Comp.  the  antithesis  xiii.  3  5  (the  faith  of  Israel  bringing  back 
the  Messiah  from  heaven).  How  long  will  this  abnormal  state 
last  ?  Jesus  Himself  knows  not. — But  He  declares  that  this 
epoch  of  His  invisibility  will  terminate  in  an  entirely  mate- 
rialistic state  of  things,  vers.  26-30,  which  will  be  brought  to 
an  end  suddenly  by  His  advent. 

Vers.  26-30.1  "  And  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  Noe,  so  shall 
it  be  also  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man.     27.   They  did  eat, 

1  Ver.  27.  The  Mas.  are  divided  between  s£sya^/2>T«  (T.  R.)  and  lyxfcfovrt 
(Alex.).— Ver.  28.  N.  B.  L.  R.  X.,  **$**  instead  of  *«/  *,-.—  Ver.  30.  The  Msa. 
are  divided  between  **t*  ravr*  (T.  R. )  and  *«t«  r«  « v-a.. 


ClIAr.  XVII.  25-30.  107 

they  drank,  they  mai-ricd,  and  were  given  in  marriage,  until  the 
day  that  Xoc  entered  into  the  ark  ;  and  the  flood  came,  and  de- 
stroyed them  all.  28.  Likewise  also,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of 
Lot ;  they  did  eat,  they  drank,  they  bought,  they  sold,  tlicy  planted, 
they  builded  ;  29.  But  the  same  day  that  Lot  went  out  of  Sodom 
it  rained  fire  and  brimstone  from  heaven,  and  destroyed  tJiem  all. 
30.  Even  thus  sJmll  it  be  in  the  day  when  the  Son  of  man  is 
revealed y — While  believers  sigh  with  growing  ardour  for  the 
return  of  their  Lord,  carnal  security  more  or  less  complete 
takes  possession  of  the  race.  It  is  an  epoch  like  those  which 
have  preceded  all  the  great  catastrophes  of  history.  The 
business  of  earthly  life  is  carried  through  with  regularity ;  but 
religious  feeling  gradually  disappears  from  the  heart  of  men 
who  have  become  secularized.  The  days  of  Noe  denote  the 
120  years  during  which  the  ark  was  a-building.  'Egeyapi. 
foirro  strictly  means,  were  given  in  marriage,  that  is  to  say, 
young  daughters  by  their  parents.  The  finite  verbs  yjarOiov, 
hnvov  (ver.  28),  eftpege  (ver.  29),  are  in  apposition  to  iyevero, 
and,  as  such,  are  still  dependent  on  <u?.  The  apodosis  does  not 
occur  till  ver.  30.  This  form  is  analogous  to  the  Hebrew 
construction  which  we  have  so  often  observed  in  Luke  (eye- 
vero,  with  a  finite  verb  for  its  subject).     "Efipe^e  is  generally 

led  as  active:  God  caused  it  to  rain.     Comp.  (Ion.  xix. 
24,  teal  xvpio<;  ePpcfcv  ..  45).     But  as  in  this  c;i 

utt  ovpavov  would  be  pleonastic,  and  as  /3pex<»>  is  found  in 
Polybius  and  the  later  Greek  authors  in  ft  neuter  sense,  it  is 
more  natural  to  adopt  this  sense  here,  by  which  we  at  the 
same  I  -erve  the  parallel:  -  en  aircoXecrev  (subject, 

irvp  Ka\  Oelov)  and  the  dirwXeaev,  ver.  27  (subject,  KarateXva- 
fio?). — The  word   airoKaXinrrerai,   supposes  that  Jesus   is   yw- 

Imt  that  a  veil  conce;  «-rson  from  the  view  of  the 

All  at  once  the  veil  II  lifted,  and  fchfl  glorified  Laid  is 

visible  to  all.  :n  occurs  again  in  the  same  sense,  1  Cor. 

i.  7  ;   2  Thess.  i.  7  ;   1  Pet  i.  7  ;  and    |  1    Cor.   iii.   1  & 

point  of  comparison  between  t  and  the  examples 

quoted  is  the  surprise  caused  in  the  bosom  of  security. — 
Matt.  xxiv.  37-39  contains  a  passn  lei  to  vers.  ft< 

pie  of  Noe).     The  idea  i    the  same;  but  the 
are  so  different,  that  they  forbid  us  to  assume  that   the  two 
editions  proceed  from  the  same  text 


198  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  31-37.1  "  In  that  day,  lie,  which  shall  he  upon  the 
housetop,  and  his  stuff  in  the  house,  let  him  not  come  down  to 
take  it  away :  and  he  that  is  in  the  field,  let  him  likewise  not 
return  hack.  32.  Bemember  Lot's  wife.  33.  Whosoever  shall 
seek  to  save  his  life,  shall  lose  it ;  and  whosoever  shall  lose  his 
life,  shall  preserve  it.  34.  I  tell  you,  in  that  night  there  shall 
he  two  men  in  one  led  ;  the  one  shall  he  taken,  and  the  other  shall 
he  left.  35.  Two  women  shall  he  grinding  together ;  the  one 
shall  he  taken,  and  the  other  left.  36,  37.  And  they  answered 
and  said  unto  Him,  Where,  Lord  ?  And  He  said  unto  them, 
Wheresoever  the  body  is,  thither  will  the  eagles  he  gathered  toge- 
ther."— Here  is  the  practical  conclusion  of  the  discourse.  Jesus 
describes  that  disposition  of  mind  which,  in  this  last  crisis, 
shall  be  the  condition  of  salvation.  The  Lord  passes  with 
His  heavenly  retinue.  He  attracts  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  who  are  willing  and  ready  to  join  Him ;  but  it  tran- 
spires in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  Whoever  is  not  already 
loosened  from  earthly  things,  so  as  to  haste  away  without 
hesitation,  taking  flight  toward  Him  freely  and  joyously,  re- 
mains behind.  Thus  precisely  had  Lot's  wife  perished  with 
the  goods,  from  which  she  could  not  part.  Agreeably  to  His 
habitual  method,  Jesus  characterizes  this  disposition  of  mind 
by  a  series  of  external  acts,  in  which  it  is  concretely  realized. 
The  Revue  de  Theologie  (passage  quoted,  p.  337)  condemns  Luke 
for  here  applying  to  the  Parousia  the  counsel  to  flee,  winch 
has  no  meaning,  except  as  applied  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem (Matt.  xxiv.).  This  accusation  is  false,  for  there  is  no 
mention  of  fleeing  from  one  part  of  the  earth  to  another,  but 
of  rising  from  the  earth  to  the  Lord,  as  He  passes  and  dis- 
appears :  "  Let  him  not  come  down  (from  the  roof) ;  but,  for- 
getting all  that  is  in  the  house,  let  him  be  ready  to  follow  the 
Lord !"  So  he  who  is  in  the  fields  is  not  to  attempt  to  return 
home  to  carry  upwards  with  him  some  object  of  value.  The 
Lord  is  there ;  if  any  one  belongs  to  Him,  let  him  leave  every- 

1  Ver.  32.  B.  L.  ItBli<J.,  ttfiteiynrocaSui  instead  of  <r<u<rxi. — Ver.  33.  K.  B.  D.  R. 
8  Mnn.  omit  uvmv  after  ua-oXte-Ti  or  ccroXuru. — Ver.  34.  All  the  Mjj.,  B.  excepted, 
m  instead  of  a  us. — Ver.  35.  X*  1  Mn.  omit  this  verse. — Ver.  36.  This  verse  is 
wanting  in  all  the  Mjj.,  D.  U.  excepted,  in  several  Mnn.  ItPlerliue  (taken  from 
Matthew).— Ver.  37.  E.  G.  H.  25  Mnn.,  *r*/tet  instead  of  <r*^«.—  X.  B.  L.  U.  A. 
30  Mnn.  add  xxi  after  txti. — K.  B.  L.  Q.,  frnTuvx%0v<rovTai  instead  of  ffvvx%6nfa*- 


CHAP.  XVII.  31-.7.  193 

tiring  at  once  to  accompany  Him  (Matt.  xxiv.  1 8  :  the  labourer 
should  not  even  return  to  seek  his  dress,  which  he  laid  aside  to 
work).  This  saying,  especially  in  the  form  of  Matthew,  evidently 
referred  to  the  Tarousia,  which  shall  come  suddenly,  and  not  to 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  will  be  preceded  by  an 
armed  invasion  and  a  long  war.  Luke's  context  is  therefore 
preferable  to  Matthew's.  —  Ver.  23.  To  save  one's  life,  by 
ng  it  to  some  object  with  which  it  is  identified,  is  the 
means  of  losing  it,  of  being  left  behind  with  this  perishing 
world ;  to  give  ones  life,  by  quitting  everything  at  once,  is  the 
only  means  of  saving  it,  by  laying  hold  of  the  Lord  who  is 
passing.  See  on  ix.  24.  Jesus  here  substitutes  for  the  phrase 
to  save  his  life,  the  word  faoyopelv,  literally,  to  give  it  birth 
The  word  is  that  by  which  the  LXX.  express  the  Piel 
Iiphil  of  rvn,  to  live.  Here  it  is  having  the  natural  life 
born  again,  that  it  may  be  reproduced  in  the  form  of  spiritual, 
glorified,  eternal  life.  The  absolute  sacrifice  of  the  natural 
life  is  the  means  of  this  transformation.  Here  is  a  word  of 
unfathomable  depth  and  of  daily  application. 

At  this  time  a  selection  will  take  place  (ver.  34), — a  selection 
which  will  instantaneously  break  all  earthly  relations,  even  the 
most  intimate,  and  from  which  there  will  arise  a  new  group- 
ing of  humanity  in  t  families  or  societies,  t 
and   the  left     Atya)  vy.lv,  I  tell  you,  announces  something 
y.      Bleek  thinks,  that  as  the  subject  under  discussion 
return  of  the  Lord  as  judge,  to  be  taken  is 
to  be  left  is  to  escape.      But  tl.  >  Trapa\afipdvcaOai,  to 
take  to  one's  self ,  to  welcome  as  one's  own,  <  m  only  have  a 
meaning  (John  xiv.  3).     And  St.  Paul  certainly 
Good   the  word  in   this  sense ;   for  it  is  probably  not 
it  relation  to  this  saying  that  he  teaches,  1  Thess.  iv. 
up  into  the  air  of  the  believers  who  are  alive 
hrist;  it  is  the  ascension  ciples,  as 
the  complement  of  their  Master's.     'AcpUvai,  to  forsa 
leave  behind,  as  xiii.  35.     The  image  of  ver.  34  supposes 
Iarousia  takes  place  at  night.     Ver.  35,  on  the  con- 
supposes  it  happening  doting                 It  mattea  little. 
For  one  hemisphere  it  will  be  in  the  day  ;  for  the  other,  as 

he  idea  remains  the  same:  whether  he  is  sle< 
or  whether  he  is  -  ,  man  ought  to  be  sufficiently  dis- 


200  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

engaged  to  give  himself  over  without  delay  to  the  Lord  who 
draws  him. — Handmills  were  used  among  the  ancients.  When 
the  millstone  was  large,  two  persons  turned  it  together. — Ver. 
36,  which  is  wanting  in  almost  all  the  Mjj.,  is  taken  from  the 
parallel  passage  in  Matthew. — Thus  the  beings  who  shall 
have  "been  most  closely  connected  here  below,  shall,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  be  parted  for  ever. 

The  apostle's  question  (ver.  37)  is  one  of  curiosity.  Al- 
though Jesus  had  already  answered  it  in  ver.  24,  He  takes 
advantage  of  it  to  close  the  conversation  by  a  declaration  which 
applies  it  to  the  whole  world.  The  natural  phenomenon,  de- 
scribed by  Job  xxxix.  30,  is  used  by  Jesus  to  symbolize  the 
universality  of  the  judgment  proclaimed.  The  carcase  is 
humanity  entirely  secular,  and  destitute  of  the  life  of  God 
(vers.  26-30;  comp.  ix.  60,  Let  the  dead  .  .  .).  The  eagles 
represent  punishment  alighting  on  such  a  society.  There  is 
no  allusion  in  this  figure  to  the  Eoman  standards,  for  there  is 
no  reference  in  the  preceding  discourse  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Comp.  also  Matt.  xxiv.  28,  where  this  saying 
applies  exclusively  to  the  Parousia.  The  eagle,  properly  so 
called,  does  not  live  in  flocks,  it  is  true,  and  does  not  feed  on 
carrion.  But  aeTo?,  as  well  as  "«w,  Prov.  xxx.  17,  may  (as 
Purrer  shows,  Bedeut.  der  Bill.  Geogr.  p.  13)  denote  the  great 
vulture  (gyps  fuhus),  equal  to  the  eagle  in  size  and  strength, 
which  is  seen  in  hundreds  on  the  plain  of  Gennesareth.  Some 
Pathers  have  applied  the  image  of  the  body  to  Jesus  glorified, 
and  that  of  the  eagles  to  the  saints  who  shall  accompany  Him 
at  His  advent ! 

3d.  xviii.  1-8.1  The  Widow  and  the  Unjust  Judge. — This 
parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  The  formula  eXeye  Be  teal, 
"  Furthermore,  hear  this  also,"  announces  it  as  the  conclusion 
of  the  whole  discourse  xvii.  20  et  seq. — Weizsacker  (p.  139) 
and  Holtzmann  (p.  132)  think  that  the  introduction,  ver.  1, 
gives  this  parable  a  commonplace  application  (the  duty  of 
perseverance  in  prayer),  which  does  not  belong  to  the  original 

1  Ver.  1.  K.  B.  L.  M.  several  Mnn.  It*11*,  omit  *«/  after  K— 15  Mjj.  60  Mnn. 
add  avrevf  after  <Tpo<riv%i<r0eci. — The  Mss.  are  divided  between  txxetxuv  and  tyxx- 
xhv.—  Ver.  3.  The  Mjj.,  A.  excepted,  omit  r«*  after  h. — Ver.  4.  The  Mss.  are 
divided  between  nfoxttrtv  (T.  R.)  and  «*tXi>  (Alex.).— K.  B.  L.  X.  ItP,eri<i«  »vh 
uyffpwrov  instead  of  x«.i  avfywrti  ovx. — Ver.  7.  X.  B.  L.  Q.,  avrat  instead  of  **«« 
•*«•«». — K.  A.  B.  D.  L.  Q.  X.  EL  3  Mnn.,  fjt,%xfotv(Au  instead  of  p*Kp*ft>p,e*r. 


chap.  xvm.  1-8.  201 

idea  of  this  discourse  (the  imminence  of  the  Parousia).  But 
is  there  not  a  very  close  correspondence  between  the  duty  of 
persevering  prayer,  and  the  danger  which  the  Churcli  runs  of 
being  overcome  by  the  carnal  slumber  which  has  just  been 
described  in  the  preceding  portraiture  ?  The  Son  of  man  has 
been  rejected ;  He  has  gone  from  view  j  the  masses  are  plunged 
in  gross  worldliness ;  men  of  God  are  become  as  rare  as  in 
Sodom.  What  is,  then,  the  position  of  the  Church  ?  That  of 
■  widow  whose  only  weapon  is  incessant  prayer.  It  is  only 
by  means  of  this  intense  concentration  that  faith  will  be  pre- 
served. But  such  is  precisely  the  disposition  which,  Jesus 
fears,  may  not  be  found  even  in  the  Church  at  His  return. 
The  parable  is  therefore  placed  here  most  appropriately,  and 
the  introduction  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  its  first  intention. 
Comp.  xxi.  34-36,  where  we  find  the  same  ideas  in  corre- 
spondence— the  danger  of  being  spiritually  overcharged  in  the 
last  times,  and  the  duty  of  unceasing  vigilance  and  prayer. 
'Etctcatcelv,  to  relax,  to  let  go,  not  to  hold  determinedly  to  one's 
rights,  like  the  widow. 

There  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this  parable,  as  in  those  of 
the  indiscreet  friend  and  the  lost  sheep  (xi.  and  xv.),  an  argu- 
ment a  fortiori:  "Were  God  like  this  judge,  He  would  not 
tiering  prayer;  how  much  less,  being 
what  He  is  !  "  The  condition  of  the  Church  after  the  Lord's 
departure  is  like  that  of  a  widow,  and  of  a  widow  depni 
her  rights.      The   Lord   has   acquired  for  Hil   own  gti 

res,  which  have  not  yet  passed  into  the  domain  of 
iacts,  and  the  enjoyment  of  which,  if  they  esteem  them  at 
just  value,  they  should  claim  without  ceasing.  'EtcSifeelv 
S)  :  to  deliver  (itc)  by  a  judicial  sentence  (Buctj).  This 
term  does  not  therefore  include  the  notion  of  vengeanoe,  but 
that  of  justice  to  be  rendered  to  the  oppressed. — If  uwanrufftti', 
to  disfigure  the  face,  be  taken  in  the  weakened  sense  of  impor- 
tuning, it  will  be  necessary  to  understand  cl<t  reXov,  to  the  end : 
"Lest  she  |  end   (indefinitely;." 

Meyer  prefers  keeiin^  the  strict  sense,  both  of  the  verb  and 
of  ah  Tt'Xo?  (at  last  i  "  Lest  she  come  at  last  to  strike  me." 
The  participle  cpxofjUvrj,  comiwj  to  me,  decides  in  favour  of 
this  second  mean  here  is  in   this  saying  a  touch  of 

pleasantry. — Ver.  6.  "  Hca  re  is  a  lesson  to  be  drawn 


202  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LTJKE. 

even  from  this  impious  language.*' — Ver.  7.  Tlie  continual 
crying  of  the  elect  recalls  the  ardent  desire  of  believers  to  see 
one  of  the  days  of  the  Son  of  man,  xvii.  22. — The  elect  are 
those  whom  God  has  drawn  by  the  calling  of  Jesus  from  the 
bosom  of  lost  humanity,  agreeably  to  the  eternal  plan  of 
salvation. — If  we  read  fjiaKpoOvfjLeZ  (Alex.),  we  must  give  this 
proposition  the  interrogative  meaning :  "  Will  He  not  do  right 
.  .  .,  and  will  He  oe  slow  in  their  behalf,  that  is  to  say,  to 
punish  those  who  oppress  them  ?"  But  the  sense  which  must 
thus  be  given  to  eir  avrols  is  not  natural.  It  is  much  better, 
therefore,  to  read  :  fiaKpodv^wv,  the  meaning  of  which  is  (with 
KaC)  :  "  Though  He  restrain  His  anger  on  account  of  His 
[oppressed]  elect."  God  suffers  with  them  (Saul,  Saul,  why 
persecutest  thou  me  ?) ;  and  therefore  Jesus  can  say  of  God, 
that  He  restrains  Himself  on  their  account.  If,  then,  He  does 
not  interpose  immediately  to  deliver  them,  it  is  not  from 
indifference ;  it  is  from  long-suffering  to  their  oppressors. 
Comp.  2  Pet.  iii.  9.  It  is  nowhere  said  that  the  object  of  the 
unceasing  cry  of  the  elect  is  the  punishment  of  their  adver- 
saries, which  would  not  be  in  keeping  with  the  figure  of  the 
parable ;  it  is  their  own  deliverance  by  their  being  put  in 
possession  of  the  heritage  to  which  they  are  entitled.  But 
God,  it  is  true,  cannot  grant  this  petition  without  breaking 
the  power  of  those  who  stand  in  the  way  of  this  act  of  justice. 
It  is  to  this  aspect  of  His  answer  that  allusion  is  made  by 
the  fiafcpodvfjLelv. 

'Ev  tcl^u,  speedily,  does  not  at  all  mean  that  the  limit  of 
divine  forbearance  is  near,  which  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  long  interval  of  time  announced  in  the  words,  days  vnll 
come  .  .  .  (xvii.  22).  The  word  rather  signifies,  that  the 
hearing  once  given,  the  deliverance  will  be  accomplished 
with  small  delay,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye ;  comp.  Bom. 
xvi.  20  (where,  too,  we  should  translate  not  shortly,  but  very 
quickly).  IlXrjv  :  "  I  am  not  afraid  of  the  Judge  failing  in 
His  duty.  The  only  thing  which  makes  me  anxious  is  this, 
lest  the  widow  fail  in  hers." — Trjv  ttlo-tlv  :  not  some  faith  in 
general,  but  the  faith, — that  special  faith  of  which  the  widow's 
is  an  image,  which,  in  spite  of  the  judge's  obstinate  silence 
and  long  apparent  indifference,  perseveres  in  claiming  its  right. 
— ■ -On  the  earth,  in  opposition  to  the  Son  of  man  who  comes 


CHAP.  XVIII.  9-11.  203 

again  from  heavea — TVe  must  here  remember  the  sad  picture 
of  the  state  of  humanity  at  this  epoch  (xviL  26-30).  Is  it 
not  to  such  a  state  of  things  that  Jesus  also  makes  allusion, 
:.  xxv.  5  :  "And  they  all  slumbered  and  slept  ?  " 

Hilgenfeld  and  others  find  in  this  parable  a  thirst  for  vengeance, 
which  corresponds  rather  with  the  furious  zeal  of  the  Apocalypse 
than  the  true  Pauline  feeling  of  Luke.  This  passage  must  there- 
fore be  "  one  of  those  most  ancient  parts  of  our  Gospel n  which  Luke 
borrowed  from  a  Jewish  document.  Others,  like  De  Wette,  see  in 
it,  on  the  contrary,  the  traces  of  a  later  period,  when  the  Church 
had  become  the  victim  of  persecution.  But,  1.  This  alleged  thirst 
for  vengeance  nowhere  appears  in  the  text.  2.  Our  passage  is  full 
of  gentleness  in  comparison  with  expressions  of  indignation  used  by 
Paul  himself  (Rom.  ii.  4,  5,  8,  9 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16 ;  2  Thess.  i.  8). 
The  spirit  of  this  parable  is  therefore  not  in  the  least  opposed  to 
that  of  the  Pauline  Luke.  3.  There  is  allusion,  no  doubt,  to  the 
abnormal  position  of  the  Church  between  Christ's  departure  and 
turn,  but  not  to  persecution  strictly  so  called. 

While  Hilgenfeld  affects  to  distinguish  in  this  piece  the  originally 
Ebionite  passages  (xvii.  1-4,  11-19;  xviii.  1-8)  from  those  which 
are  of  Luke's  composition  (xvii.  5-10,  20-37;  xviii.  9-14),  Volkmar 
(Evangel.  Marcions,  p.  203)  maintains  that  the  arrangement  of  the 
piece  is  systematic,  and  rests  on  the  well-known  Pauline  triad  :  love 
(xvii.  1-4),  faith  (vers.  5-19),  liope  (ver.  20  et  seq.).  But  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  forced  it  is  to  apply  any  such  scheme  to  those  different 
accounts. 

3.    The  Parable  of  isee   and  the  Publican:  xviii. 

9-14. — Vers.  9-14.1  This  parable  is  peculiar  to  Luke.  AYho 
are  those  wWt,  certain,  to  whom  it  is  addressed  ?  They 
cannot  be  Pharisees.  Luke  would  have  named  them,  as  at 
xvi.  14;  and  Jesus  would  not  have  presented  to  them  as  an 
example,  in  a  parable,  one  of  thei  while  designating 

-sly  in  this  character.     Bleek  thinks  tl  were 

disciples  of  Jesus.     But  Luke  would  have  equal  lv  d 

^xvi.  1).     They  were  therefore  probably  members  of  the 

company  following  Jesus,  who  had  not  yet  openly  deoJ 

Km,  and  who  manifested  a  haughty  distance  to  certain 

.nown  to  be  such,  who  were  in  the  oompsqy  with 

;  comp.  xix.  7. — The  word  oratfet?,  standing  erect  (ver. 

.  9.  The  Mas.  are  di\  rw  3i  *«*.— Ver.  11.  It 

It»t**p»  omjt  Xfti  tmyTtt — Vi  i  X    B.,  •tr*)i««rii/«  instead  of  «e«)i««r«. — 

M  Syr*".,  #)i  tiX*.  f  urn  $  ra»»«r. 

It.  Vtf.  omit  m  before  r#  #r*/«r. — Ver.  14.  Instead  of  n  •«■<»». 
with  some  Man.),  16  Mjj.  and  160  Mnn.  read  *  ymf  mum,  and  N  B.  1- ,  *  v 


204  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

1 1),  indicates  a  posture  of  assurance,  and  even  boldness  (comp 
standing  afar  off,  ver.  13). —  Upo?  iavrov  does  not  depend 
on  GTaQefc :  "  standing  aside,  at  a  distance,  from  the  vulgar," 
— it  would  have  required  tca&  kavrov  (Meyer), — but  on  irpoa- 
V^X6T0  :  "  he  prayed,  speaking  thus  to  himself .  .  ."  It  was 
less  a  prayer  in  which  he  gave  thanks  to  God,  than  a  con- 
gratulation which  he  addressed  to  himself.  True  thanksgiving 
is  always  accompanied  by  a  feeling  of  humiliation.  The 
Pharisees  fasted  on  the  Monday  and  Thursday  of  every  week. 
KraaOat  denotes  the  act  of  acquiring  rather  than  that  of  pos- 
sessing ;  it  therefore  refers  here  to  the  produce  of  the  fields 
(xi.  42). — To  strike  the  breast :  an  emblem  of  the  stroke  of 
death  which  the  sinner  feels  that  he  has  merited  at  the  hand 
of  God.  The  heart  is  struck,  as  the  seat  of  personal  life  and  of 
sin. —  Aeya>  vplv  (ver.  14)  :  "I  tell  you,  strange  as  it  may 
appear  ..."  —  The  idea  of  justification,  that  is  to  say,  of  a 
righteousness  bestowed  on  the  sinner  by  a  divine  sentence, 
belongs  even  to  the  0.  T.  Comp.  Gen.  xv.  6 ;  Isa.  1.  8, 
liii.  11. — In  the  received  reading  rj  e'/eewo?,  rj  is  governed  by 
fiaXKov,  rather,  understood.  The  suppression  of  the  adverb 
rather  serves  to  prevent  the  idea  that  the  Pharisee  also  re- 
ceived his  share  of  justification.  In  the  reading  rj  yap  eicelvoi 
(more  strongly  supported  than  the  others),  fj  is  explained  in 
the  same  way,  and  yap  has,  as  is  often  the  case,  an  interroga- 
tive value :  "  For  think  you  that  he  (the  Pharisee)  could  be 
justified?"  This  somewhat  difficult  turn  of  expression  has 
occasioned  the  Alex,  correction  Trap*  iiceivov. — Our  Lord  loves  to 
close  His  parables  with  axioms  formally  expressing  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  moral  life  :  God  will  overthrow  all  self-exalta- 
tion ;  but  He  will  turn  in  love  to  all  sincere  humiliation. 

Undoubtedly,  if  Luke's  object  was  to  point  out  in  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  the  historical  foundations  for  St.  Paul's  teaching,  this  piece 
corresponds  most  exactly  to  his  intention.  But  no  argument  can 
be  drawn  therefrom  contrary  to  the  truth  of  the  narrative.  For 
the  idea  of  justification  by  faith  is  one  of  the  axioms  not  only  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  but  of  that  of  the  0.  T.  (comp.  besides  the 
passages  quoted,  Hab.  ii.  4). 

4.  TJie  Children  brought  to  Jesus:  xviii.  1 5-1 7. — Vers.  15-1 7.1 

1  Ver.  15.  K.  B.  D.  G.  L.  some  Mnn.,  friripuv  instead  of  nrtriftttra*. — Ver. 
16.  K.  B.  D.  G.  L.  4  Mnn.  Syr**.,  irfurtKxXt0-xr$  (or  .  .  .  Xttro)  murm  Aiy«! 
instead  of  irpotrxotXieetfttves  aura  uriv, 


CHAP.  xvni.  is-30.  205 

It  is  here  that  Luke's  narrative  rejoins  Matthew's  (xix.  13) 
and  Mark's  (x.  13),  after  having  diverged  from  them  at  ix. 
51.  Jesus  is  in  Peraea.  Of  his  sojourn  in  this  province 
Matthew  and  Mark  have  as  yet  related  only  one  fact — the 
conversation  with  the  Pharisees  regarding  divorce,  summarily 
reproduced  by  Luke,  xvi.  13-19. 

By  the  phrase  :  even  infants  (teal  to,  .  .  .),  ver.  1 5,  Luke 
would  indicate  that  the  consideration  enjoyed  by  Jesus  had 
reached  its  height.  Mothers  brought  him  even  their  nurslings. 
The  article  before  fipicj)?)  denotes  the  category. — The  apostles 
think  that  this  is  to  abuse  the  goodness  and  time  of  their 
Master.  Mark,  who  likes  to  depict  moral  impressions,  describes 
the  indignation  felt  by  Jesus  (rjyavd/crrjere)  on  perceiving  this 
feeling.  Luke  is  less  severe, — the  evangelist  who  is  accused  of 
abusing  the  Twelve.  After  calling  back  those  little  ones  who 
were  being  sent  away  (avrd),  Jesus  instructs  His  disciples  in 
respect  of  them.  Matthew,  as  usual,  summarizes. — There  is 
in  children  a  twofold  receptivity,  negative  and  positive,  humi- 
lity and  confidence.  By  labour  expended  on  ourselves,  we  are 
to  return  to  those  dispositions  which  are  natural  to  the  child. 
The  pronoun  t<ov  toloutwv,  of  such,  does  not  refer  to  other 
children,  such  as  those  present,  but  to  all  those  who  voluntarily 
put  on  the  dispositions  indicated.  Jesus,  according  to  Mark, 
clasped  those  children  tenderly  in  His  arms,  and  put  His 
hands  on  them,  blessing  them.  Matthew  speaks  only  of  the 
imposition  of  hands.  These  touching  details  are  omitted  by 
Luke.  For  what  reason,  if  he  knew  them  ?  They  agreed  so 
weD  with  the  spirit  of  his  Gospel !  Volkmar  (Die  Evangel. 
p.  487)  explains  this  omission  by  the  prosaic  character  of 
Luke  (!).  According  to  the  same  author,  these  little  children 
represent  the  Gentiles  saved  by  grace.  Party  dogmatics,  even 
in  this  the  simplest  narrative  of  the  Gospel ! 

5.  The  Rich  Yoxuuj  Man:  vers.  18-30. — In  the  three  Syn. 
this  piece  immediately  follows  the  preceding  (Matt.  xix.  10; 
I  x.  17).  Oral  tradition  had  connected  the  two,  perhaps 
because  there  existed  between  them  a  real  chronological  suc- 
cession.— Three  parts:  1st.  The  oumattion  with  the  young 
man  (vers.  18-23);  2d.  The  conversation  which  takes  place 
in  regard  to  him  (vers.  24-27) ;  3d,  The  conversation  of  Jesus 
with  the  disciples  regarding  themselves  (vers.  28-30). 


206  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

1st.  Vers.  18-23.1  Hie  Rich  Young  Man. — Luke  gives  this 
man  the  title  apywv,  chief,  which  probably  signifies  here,  pre- 
sident of  the  synagogue.  Matthew  and  Mark  simply  say  eh. 
Later,  Matthew  calls  him  a  young  man  (ver.  20).  His  arrival 
is  given  with  dramatic  effect  by  Mark :  He  came  running,  and 
kneeled  down  before  Him. — He  sincerely  desired  salvation,  and 
he  imagined  that  some  generous  action,  some  great  sacrifice, 
would  secure  this  highest  good ;  and  this  hope  supposes  that 
man  has  power  of  himself  to  do  good ;  that  therefore  he  is 
radically  good.  This  is  what  is  implied  in  his  apostrophe  to 
Jesus :  Good  Master ;  for  it  is  the  man  in  Him  whom  he  thus 
salutes,  knowing  Him  as  yet  in  no  other  character.  Jesus,  by 
refusing  this  title  in  the  false  sense  in  which  it  is  given  Him, 
does  not  accuse  Himself  of  sin,  as  has  been  alleged.  If  He 
had  had  a  conscience  burdened  with  some  trespass,  He  would 
have  avowed  it  explicitly.  But  Jesus  reminds  him  that  all 
goodness  in  man,  as  in  every  creature  whatsoever,  must  flow 
from  God.  This  axiom  is  the  very  foundation  of  Monotheism. 
Thereby  He  strikes  directly  at  the  young  man's  fundamental 
error.  So  far  as  Jesus  is  concerned,  the  question  of  His  per- 
sonal goodness  depends  solely  on  the  consideration  whether 
His  inward  dependence  on  that  God,  the  only  Good,  is  com- 
plete or  partial.  If  it  is  complete,  Jesus  is  good,  but  with  a 
goodness  which  is  that  of  God  Himself  operating  in  Him. 
His  answer  does  not  touch  this  personal  side  of  the  question. 
In  Matthew,  at  least  according  to  the  Alex,  reading,  which  is 
probably  the  true  one,  the  word  good  is  omitted  in  the  young 
man's  address,  and  the  answer  of  Jesus  is  conceived  in  these 
terms :  "  Why  askest  thou  me  about  what  is  good  ?  One  only 
is  good"  Which  may  signify :  "  Good  is  being  joined  to  God, 
the  only  Good ;"  or :  "  Good  is  fulfilling  the  commandments 
of  God,  the  only  good  Being."  These  two  explanations  are 
both  unnatural.  Even  Bleek  does  not  hesitate  here  to  prefer 
the  form  of  Luke  and  Mark.  That  of  Matthew  is  perhaps  a 
modification  arising  from  the  fear  of  inferences  hostile  to  the 

1  Ver.  20.  lOMjj.  25  Mini.  It*"*.  Vg.  omit  vev  after  pnrtpx.—  Yer.  21.  X.  A.  B. 
L.  2  Mnn.,  itpv\a.\a,  instead  of  £fyXa|ar^»jv. — Ver.  22.  K.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr. 
omit  Txura,  after  axtvo-as  it. — K.  F.  H.  V.  several  Mnn.,  en  instead  of  in. — 
The  Mss.  are  divided  between  hades  and  hs  (taken  from  the  parallels),  and  be- 
tween aupxvu  (T.  E.)  and  ovp<tvan  (Alex.). — Ver.  23.  K.  B.  L.,  tym6*  instead  of 
tytvtr«. 


CIIAr.  XVIII.  18-23.  207 

purity  of  Jesus,  which  might  be  drawn  from  the  form  of  His 
answer,  as  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  the  two  other 
Syn. 

Jesus  has  just  rectified  the  young  man's  radical  mistake. 
Now  He  replies  to  his  question.  The  work  to  be  done  is  to 
love.  Jesus  quotes  the  second  table,  as  bearing  on  works  of 
a  more  external  and  palpable  kind,  and  consequently  more 
like  one  of  those  which  the  young  man  expected  to  be 
mentioned.  This  answer  of  Jesus  is  earnest ;  for  to  love  is 
to  live  !  (See  at  x.  28.)  The  only  question  is  how  we  can 
attain  to  it.  But  Jesus  proceeds  like  a  wise  instructor.  Far 
from  arresting  on  their  way  those  who  believe  in  their  own 
strength,  He  encourages  them  to  prosecute  it  faithfully  to  the 
very  end,  knowing  well  that  if  they  are  sincere  they  shall  by 
the  law  die  to  the  law  (Gal.  ii.  1 9).  As  Gess  says :  "  To  take 
the  law  in  thorough  earnest  is  the  true  way  to  come  to 
Jesus  Christ." — The  young  man's  reply  (ver.  21)  testifies, 
undoubtedly,  great  moral  ignorance,  but  also  noble  sincerity. 
He  knows  not  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  commandments, 
and  thinks  that  he  has  really  fulfilled  them.  Here  occurs 
the  inimitable  stroke  of  Mark's  pencil:  "And  Jesus,  beholding 
him,  loved  him."  When  critics  wish  to  make  out  Mark  to  be 
the  compiler  of  the  two  other  evangelists,  they  are  obliged  to 
say,  with  l)e  Wette,  that  Mark  himself,  inventing  this  amiable 
answer,  has  ascribed  to  Jesus  his  own  feelings.  We  see 
much  rather  in  this  saying,  one  of  those  strokes  which  reveal 
the  source  whence  the  narratives  of  Mark  proceed,  and  which 
must  have  been  one  very  near  the  person  of  Jesus.  It  was 
an  apostle  who  was  following  the  impressions  of  Jesus  as 
they  depicted  themselves  in  His  countenance,  and  who  caught 
as  it  passed  the  look  of  tenderness  which  He  cast  on  this 
person  so  sincere  and  so  innocent. — This  look  of  love  was 
also  a  scrutinizing  look  (i/j,^\iylra<;  avrw,  Murk  x.  21),  by 
i  Jesus  discerned  the  good  and  bad  qualities  of  the 
heart,  and  which  (Rotated  to  Him  the  following  Baying.  Ttie 
he,  with  dtcovaas  (ver.  22),  is  adversative  and  progressive.  It 
announces  a  new  resolution  taken  by  the  Lord.  He  deter- 
to  call  this  man  into  the  number  of  His  permanent 
oles.  The  real  substance  of  His  answer,  inoV 
ite  to  distribute  his  goods,  but  the  call  to  follow  Hint 


203  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

The  giving  away  of  his  money  is  only  the  condition  of 
entering  upon  that  new  career  which  is  open  to  him  (see  at 
ix.61,  xii.  33).  In  the  proposal  which  He  makes  to  him, 
Jesus  observes  the  character  which  best  corresponds  to  the 
desire  expressed  by  the  young  man.  He  asked  of  Him  some 
work  to  do  ;  and  Jesus  points  out  one,  and  that  decisive,  which 
perfectly  corresponds  to  his  object,  inasmuch  as  it  assures 
him  of  salvation.  To  disengage  oneself  from  everything  in 
order  to  follow  Jesus  conclusively, — such  is  really  salvation, 
life.  The  formal  correspondence  of  this  answer  to  the  young 
man's  thought  appears  in  the  expression,  One  tiling  thou 
lackest  (Luke  and  Mark) ;  and  more  clearly  still  in  that  of 
Matthew,  If  thou  wilt  he  perfect,  go  .  .  .  Undoubtedly, 
according  to  the  view  of  Jesus,  man  cannot  do  more  or  better 
than  fulfil  the  law  (Matt.  v.  17,  48).  Only  the  law  must 
be  understood  not  in  the  letter,  but  in  the  spirit  (Matt.  v.). 
The  perfection  to  which  Jesus  calls  the  young  man  is  not 
the  fulfilling  of  a  law  superior  to  the  law  strictly  so  called, 
but  the  real  fulfilling,  in  opposition  to  that  external,  literal 
fulfilling  which  the  young  man  already  had  (ver.  21).  This 
one  thing  which  he  lacks  is  the  spirit  of  the  law,  that  is. 
love  ready  to  give  everything :  this  is  the  whole  of  the  law 
(Luke  vi.).  The  words,  Thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven, 
do  not  signify  that  this  almsgiving  will  open  heaven  to  him, 
but  that,  when  he  shall  have  entered  into  this  abode,  he  will 
find  there,  as  the  result  of  his  sacrifice,  grateful  beings,  whose 
love  shall  be  to  him  an  inexhaustible  treasure  (see  at  xvi.  9). 
The  act,  which  is  the  real  condition  of  entering  heaven,  is 
indicated  by  the  last  word,  to  which  the  whole  converges, 
Follow  me.  The  mode  of  following  Jesus  varies  according  to 
times.  At  that  time,  in  order  to  be  inwardly  attached  to 
Him,  it  was  necessary  for  a  man  to  follow  Him  externally, 
and  consequently  to  abandon  his  earthly  position.  At  the 
present  day,  when  Jesus  lives  no  more  in  the  body  here 
below,  the  only  condition  is  the  spiritual  one,  but  with  all 
those  moral  conditions  which  flow  from  our  relation  to  Him, 
according  to  each  one's  character  and  place. — The  sorrow 
which  this  answer  occasions  the  young  man  is  expressed 
by  Mark  in  the  most  dramatic  way :  He  heaved  a  deep  sigh 
(<TTvyvd<ra<;).     The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  thus  described  this 


ciiAr.  xviii.  2i-27.  209 

scene  •  "  Then  the  rich  man  began  to  scratch  his  head,  for 
that  was  not  to  his  mind.  And  the  Lord  said  to  him :  How, 
then,  canst  thou  say,  I  have  kept  the  law ;  for  it  is  written  in 
the  law,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself ;  and  lo ! 
many  of  thy  brethren,  children  of  Abraham,  live  in  the  gutter, 
and  die  of  hunger,  while  thy  table  is  loaded  with  good  things, 
and  nothing  is  sent  out  to  them?"1  Such  is  the  writing 
which  some  modern  critics  {e.g.  Baur)  allege  to  be  the  original 
of  our  Matthew,  and  the  parent  of  our  synoptical  literature ! 

Vers.  24-27.2  Tlie  Conversation  regarding  the  Rich  Man. 
— It  is  not  the  fact  of  proprietorship  which  hinders  the  soul 
from  taking  its  flight  to  spiritual  blessings ;  it  is  the  feeling 
of  security  which  it  inspires.  So,  in  Mark,  Jesus  says,  in 
explanation  of  His  first  declaration :  "  How  hard  is  it  for 
them  that  trust  in  riches  to  enter  .  .  . !"  The  Shemites  denote 
the  impossibility  of  a  thing  by  the  image  of  a  heavily-laden 
camel  arriving  at  a  city  gate  which  is  low  and  narrow,  and 
through  which  it  cannot  pass.  Then,  to  give  this  image  the 
piquant  form  which  the  Oriental  proverb  loves,  this  gate  is 
transformed  into  the  eye  of  a  needle.  Some  commentators 
and  copyists,  not  understanding  this  figure,  have  changed 
K<ifi7]\o<;,  camel,  into  /cduiXo?  (the  rj  was  pronounced  i),  a  very 
unusual  word,  which  does  not  occur  even  in  the  ancient 
lexicographers,  and  which,  it  is  alleged,  sometimes  denotes  a 
La  In  the  received  text  (rpvpaXca<;  pa(f)i$o<;),  pa<f)i$o<; 
is  a  correction  borrowed  from  Mark  and  Matthew ;  the  true 
Ing  in  Luke  is  fieXowj*;,  which  also  signifies  needle.  In- 
stead of  the  word  rpvpaXia,  the  Alex.  read  rpirrrvpui  (or 
rpr/fia).  The  first  form  might  come  from  Mark;  but  it  is 
more  probable  that  it  is  the  second  which  is  taken  from 
Gospel  most  generally  used.  Wc  must  there- 
fore read  in  Luke,  rpvpLaXias  fieXovrjs. 

To  exclude    the   rich    from    salvation   w.is,  it  seemed,  to 
exclude  all  ;  for  it'  the  '    bieMed  among  men  can  only  bt 

with   difficulty,  what  will  become  of  the  rest?     Such 

1  Quoted  by  Origcn,  r  be  It. 

:.  24.    K.   B.  L.   4  Mnn.  omit  <ryjXv<r«f  fmtfumt,    B.   L»,  »r«^i»i»fii 
instead  of  MnXMtfwtw. — Vcr.  25.    8.   7  Mnn.,  *«/*<*#»  instead  of  x«p*x». — 

I).     TfnffTif,      L.      R.      TfVTrtftMTt:.  of     TfV/tuXlUf.—  K.     B.     D.     L. 

.  $tX$m  instead  of  pffc».«-JL  D.  M.  I\  20  Mnn.  Syr*".  It***-,  Vg., 
ImJJm  instead  of  uro 

VOL.  II.  0 


210  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

appears  to  be  the  connection  between  vers.  25  and  26.  De 
Wette  joins  them  in  a  somewhat  different  way :  "  As  every 
one  more  or  less  seeks  riches,  none  therefore  can  be  saved." 
This  connection  is  less  natural. — Jesus,  according  to  Matthew 
and  Mark,  at  this  point  turns  on  His  disciples  a  look  full  of 
earnestness  (ififiXtyas  avroh,  looking  upon  them)  :  "  It  is  but 
too  true ;  but  there  is  a  sphere  in  which  the  impossible  is 
possible,  that  of  the  divine  operation  (irapa  to  @ea>,  w&h 
God)."  Thus  Jesus  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  lifts  the 
mind  of  His  hearers  from  human  works,  of  which  alone  the 
young  man  was  thinking,  to  that  divine  work  of  radical 
regeneration  which  proceeds  from  the  One  only  good,  and  of 
which  Jesus  is  alone  the  instrument.  Comp.  a  similar  and 
equally  rapid  gradation  of  ideas,  John  iii.  2,  5. — Which 
would  have  been  better  for  this  young  man — to  leave  his 
goods  to  become  the  companion  in  labour  of  the  St.  Peters 
and  St.  Johns,  or  to  keep  those  possessions  so  soon  to  be  laid 
waste  by  the  Eoman  legions  ? 

3d.  Vers.  28-30.1  The  Conversation  regarding  the  Disciples. 
— There  had  been  a  day  in  the  life  of  the  disciples  when  a 
similar  alternative  had  been  put  before  them ;  they  had  re- 
solved it  in  a  different  way.  What  was  to  accrue  to  them 
from  the  course  which  they  had  taken?  Peter  asks  the 
question  innocently,  in  the  name  of  all.  The  form  of  his 
inquiry  in  Matthew,  What  shall  we  have  therefore?  contains, 
more  expressly  than  that  of  Luke  and  Mark,  the  idea  of  an 
expected  recompense.  In  Matthew,  the  Lord  enters  at  once 
into  Peter's  thought,  and  makes  a  special  promise  to  the 
Twelve,  one  of  the  grandest  which  He  addressed  to  them. 
Then,  in  the  parable  of  the  labourers,  He  warns  them  against 
indulging  pride,  on  the  ground  that  they  have  been  the  first 
to  follow  Him.  It  is  difficult  fully  to  harmonize  this  parable 
with  the  special  promise  which  precedes  it,  without  holding 
that  the  promise  was  conditional,  and  was  not  to  be  fulfilled, 
except  in  so  far  as  they  did  not  abandon  themselves  to  the 
spirit  of  pride  combated  in  the  parable,  which  savours  of 
refinement.     As,  therefore,  Luke  places  this  same  promise  in 

1  Ver.  28.  tf«  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  ItP,eriiue,  etfsvrts  tha,  instead  of  aftm*fu% 
vrcevra.  zai. — Ver.  30.   X.  B.   L.  3  Mnn.,  cj  tv%i  instead  of  es  ev. — B.  D.  M. 

10  Mnn.,  \*$*  instead  of  uTroXu&n. 


CHAP.  XVIII.  31-34.  211 

a  wholly  different  setting,  xxii.  28-30,  a  context  with  which 
it  perfectly  agrees,  it  is  probable  that  Matthew  placed  it  here 
through  an  association  of  ideas  wThich  admits  of  easy  explana- 
tion. According  to  Luke  and  Mark,  the  promise  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  favour  the 
feeling  of  self- exaltation  which  breathed  in  the  question  of 
the  apostle.  There  is  even  in  the  form,  There  is  no  man 
.  .  (Mark  and  Luke),  the  express  intention  to  give  to 
•romise  the  widest  possible  application. — All  the  relations 
of  natural  life  find  their  analogies  in  the  bonds  formed  by 
community  of  faith.  Hence  there  arises  for  the  believer  a 
compensation  for  the  painful  rupture  of  fleshly  ties,  which 
Jesus  knew  so  well  by  experience  (viii.  19-21 ;  comp.  with 
viii.  1-3) ;  and  every  true  believer  can,  like  Him,  speak  of 
fathers  and  mothers,  brethren  and  children,  who  form  his  new 
spiritual  family.  Luke  and  Mark  speak,  besides,  of  houses ; 
Matthew,  of  lands.  The  communion  of  Christian  love  in 
y  procures  for  each  believer  the  enjoyment  of  every 
sort  of  good  belonging  to  his  brethren ;  yet,  to  prevent  His 
disciples  from  supposing  that  it  is  an  earthly  paradise  to 
which  He  is  inviting  them,  He  adds  in  Mark,  with  persecu- 
tions. Matthew  and  Luke  had  assuredly  no  dogmatic  reason 
for  omitting  this  important  correction,  if  they  had  known  it. 
— Luke  likewise  omits  here  the  maxim,  "Many  that  arc  fust 
shall  be  last,  etc.  .  .  .,"  with  which  this  piece  closes  in  Mark, 
and  which  in  Matthew  introduces  the  parable  of  the  labourers. 

The  common  source  of  the  three  Syn.  cannot  be  the  proto-Mark, 
as  Holtzmann  will  have  it,  un].  re  hold  it  to  be  at  their  own 
hand  that  Luke  ascribes  to  this  rich  man  the  title,  ruler  qf  the 
synagogue,  and  that  Matthew  calls  him  man.     As  to  Luke's 

Ebionite  tendency,  criticism  is  bound  to  acknowledge,  with  this 
piece  before  it.  that  if  salvation  by  voluntary  poverty  is  really 
taught  in  our  Gospel,  it  is  not  less  decidedly  so  by  the  other  two 
Syn. ;  that  it  is  a  heresy,  consequently,  not  of  Luke,  hut  of  Jesus, 
— or  rather,  a  sound  exegesis  can  find  no  such  thing  in  the  doctrines 
which  our  three  evangelists  agree  in  putting  in  the  Master's  mouth. 

6.   Thx  Jliird  Announcement  of  the  Passion:  xviii.  31-34. 
— Vers.  31-34.  Twice  already  Jesus  had  announced  to  His 
les  His  approaching  sufferings  (ix.  18  et  seq.,  43  et  seq.); 
yet,  as  proved  by  the  request  oi  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  [1 


212  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

xx.  20;  Mark  x.  35),  their  hopes  constantly  turned  towards 
an  earthly  kingdom.  In  renewing  the  announcement  of  His 
Passion,  Jesus  labours  to  abate  the  offence  which  this  event 
will  occasion,  and  even  to  convert  it  into  a  support  for  their 
faith,  when  at  a  later  date  they  shall  compare  this  catastrophe 
with  the  sayings  by  which  He  prepared  them  for  it  (John 
xiii.  19).  Mark  prefaces  this  third  announcement  by  a 
remarkable  introduction  (x.  32).  Jesus  walks  before  them 
on  the  road ;  they  follow,  astonished  and  alarmed.  This 
picture  reminds  us  of  the  expression,  He  set  His  face  steadfastly 
(Luke  ix.  51),  as  well  as  of  the  sayings  of  the  disciples  and 
of  Thomas  (John  xi.  8,  16).  What  substantial  harmony 
under  this  diversity  of  form !  In  general,  Luke  does  not 
quote  prophecies ;  he  does  so  here  once  for  all,  and,  as  it  were, 
in  the  mass.  The  dative  tw  vim  may  be  made  dependent  on 
yeypafjLfjLeva,  "written  for  the  S071  of  man"  as  the  sketch  of 
His  course ;  or  reXeaO^o-erat,  "  shall  be  accomplished  in 
respect  to  the  Son  of  man"  in  His  person.  The  first  con- 
struction is  simpler.  The  form  of  the  fut.  passive  used  by 
Luke  denotes  passive  abandonment  to  suffering  more  forcibly 
than  the  active  futures  used  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  The 
kind  of  death  is  not  indicated  in  Luke  and  Mark  so  positively 
as  in  Matthew  (aTavpwaai)  ;  nevertheless  the  details  in  this 
third  announcement  are  more  precise  and  more  dramatic  than 
in  the  preceding.  See  at  ix.  45.  On  ver.  34  Eiggenbach 
justly  observes :  "  Toward  everything  which  is  contrary  to 
natural  desire,  there  is  produced  in  the  heart  a  blindness 
which  nothing  but  a  miracle  can  heal." 

As  ver.  34  has  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  does  not  a  perfectly 
similar  reflection  occur  in  the  sequel  of  the  second  announcement 
of  the  Passion  (ix.  45),  where  no  such  intention  is  admissible  1  It 
is  difficult  for  those  who  regard  Luke's  Gospel  as  systematically 
hostile  to  the  Twelve,  to  explain  the  omission  of  a  fact  so  unfavour- 
able to  two  of  the  leading  apostles.  Volkmar  (Die  Evangel,  p.  501) 
has  found  the  solution  :  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  silence, — such  is  Luke  in 
the  estimate  of  this  school  of  criticism  ! 

7.   The  Healing  of  Bartwieus :  xviii.  35-43. — John's  very 


CIIAI\   XYIYI.  35-43.  213 

exact  narrative  serves  to  complete  the  synoptical  account. 
The  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  Pera^a  was  interrupted  by  the  call 
which  led  Jesus  to  Bethany  to  the  help  of  Lazarus  (John  xi.). 
Thence  He  proceeds  to  Ephraini,  on  the  Samaritan  side, 
where  He  remained  in  retirement  with  His  disciples  (John  xi. 
54).  It  was  doubtless  at  this  time  that  the  third  announce- 
ment of  His  Passion  took  place.      On  the  approach   of  the 

it  of  Passover,  He  went  down  the  valley  of  the  Jordan, 
rejoining  at  Jericho  the  Galilean  caravans  which  arrived  by 
way  of  Persea  He  had  resolved  this  time  to  enter  Jerusalem 
with  the  greatest  publicity,  and  to  present  Himself  to  the 
people  and  to  the  Sanhedrim  in  the  character  of  a  king.     It 

-  Hi*  hour,  the  hour  of  His  manifestation,  expected  long 
ago  by  Mary  (John  ii.  4),  and  which  His  brethren  (John  vii. 
6-8)  had  thought  to  precipitate. 

i.  3 5-43. l  Luke  speaks  of  a  blind  man  sitting  by  the 
wayside,  whom  Jesus  cured  as  He  came  nigh  to  Jericho ; 
k  gives  this  man's  name,  Bartimcus ;  according  to  his 
account,  it  was  as  Jesus  icent  out  of  Jericho  that  He  healed 
him  ;  finally,  Matthew  speaks  of  two  blind  men,  who  were 
healed  as  Jesus  departed  from  the  city.  The  three  accounts 
harmonize,  as  in  so  many  cases,  only  in  the  words  of  the 
dialogue  ;  the  tenor  of  the  sufferer's  prayer  and  of  the  reply  of 
Jesus  is  almost  identical  in  the  three  (ver.  38  and  parallel). 
Of  those  three  narratives,  that  of  Mark  is  undoubtedly  the 
most  exact  and  picturesque  ;  and  in  the  case  of  a  real  differ- 
ence, it  is  to  this  evangelist  that  we  must  give  the  preference. 
It  1.  i   observed,  however  (Andrea?  B  dial  Ulnuhens, 

July  and  August  1870),  that  Josephus  and  Kusebius  distin- 
.   the  old   and  the  new  Jericho,  and  that  the 

i  blind  men  might  have  been  found,  the  oik-  m  they  went 

out  of  the  one  city,  the  other  at  the  entrance  of  the  other.     Or, 

indeed,  it  is  not  impossible  that  two  aotm  took  place  on  that 

day,  the  one  on  the  occasion  of  then  entrance  into  the  city, 

Othei  00  their  leaving  it,  which    Matthew  lias   combined  ; 

ke  applying  tO  the  one,  following  a  tradition  slightly  tit  I 
b  bad  d  /ed  the  other.    T 

:     35.    K.  B.  D.  L.,    it«#t*»  Tf,mir*f.—  Ver.    88,    A.    I'     K.    II 

10  Mnn.  omit  Irr.t/.  — V.  i     £9,    \\     |».    I,,    |\    X.  gome  Mnn.,  nynr*  Uistcad  of 
MNftPl  -  Vci.  41.   K.  B.  IV  J*.  X.  omit  >«>»•>  be  lore  n. 


214  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

double  modification  might  have  "been  the  more  easily  introduced 
into  the  oral  narrative,  if  Jesus,  coming  from  Ephraim  to 
Jericho,  entered  the  city,  as  is  very  probable,  by  the  same  road 
and  by  the  same  gat©  by  which  He  left  it  to  go  to  Jerusalem. 
If  there  were  two  blind  men,  they  might  then  have  been 
healed  almost  on  the  same  spot. — The  name  Bartimeus  {son  of 
Timeus),  which  Mark  has  preserved,  comes  either  from  the 
Greek  name  Ti^alo?,  the  honourable,  or  from  the  Aramaic, 
same,  samia,  Hind  ;  blind,  son  of  the  blind  (Hitzig,  Keim). 
Mark  adds :  the  blind  man.  The  term  suggests  the  name  by 
which  he  was  known  in  the  place. 

The  address,  son  of  David,  is  a  form  of  undisguised  Messianic 
worship.  This  utterance  would  suffice  to  show  the  state  of 
men's  minds  at  that  time.  The  rebuke  addressed  to  him  by 
+he  members  of  the  company  (ver.  39)  has  no  bearing  what- 
ever on  the  use  of  this  title.  It  seems  to  them  much  rather 
that  there  is  presumption  on  the  part  of  a  beggar  in  thus 
stopping  the  progress  of  so  exalted  a  personage. — The  reading 
of  the  T.  E.,  aMOTrrjcrr),  is  probably  taken  from  the  parallels. 
We  must  read,  with  the  Alex. :  o-iyrjar)  (a  term  more  rarely 
used). — Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  the  sudden 
change  which  is  effected  in  the  conduct  of  the  multitude,  as 
soon  as  they  observe  the  favourable  disposition  of  Jesus ;  they 
form  so  many  inimitable  characteristics  preserved  by  Mark 
only.  With  a  majesty  truly  royal,  Jesus  seems  to  open  up  to 
the  beggar  the  treasures  of  divine  power :  *  What  wilt  thou 
that  I  shall  do  unto  thee  ? "  and  to  give  him,  if  we  may  so 
speak,  carte  blanche  (ver.  41). 

In  replying  to  the  blind  man's  prayer,  ver.  42,  He  says,  thy 
faith,  not,  my  power,  to  impress  on  him  the  value  of  that 
disposition,  in  view  of  the  still  more  important  spiritual 
miracle  which  remains  to  be  wrought  in  him,  and,  hath  saved 
thee,  not,  hath  made  thee  whole ;  although  his  life  was  in  no 
danger,  to  show  him  that  in  this  cure  there  lies  the  beginning 
of  his  salvation,  if  he  will  keep  up  the  bond  of  faith  between 
him  and  the  Saviour's  person.  Jesus  allows  Bartimeus  to  give 
full  scope  to  his  gratitude,  and  the  crowd  to  express  aloud 
their  admiration  and  joy.  The  time  for  cautious  measures  is 
past.  Those  feelings  to  which  the  multitude  give  themselves 
up  are  the  breath  preceding  that  anticipation  of  Pentecost 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-10.  215 

which  is  called  Palm  Day.     Ao%a%eiv  relates  to  the  power, 
alvuv  to  the  goodness  of  God  (ii.  20). 

The  undeniable  superiority  of  Mark's  narrative  obliges  Bleek  to 
up  here,  at  least  in  part,  his  untenable  position  of  regarding 
Mark  as  the  compiler  of  the  two  others.  He  acknowledges,  that 
i  while  using  the  narrative  of  the  other  two,  he  must  have  had 
in  this  case  a  separate  and  independent  source.  So  far  well ;  but 
is  it  possible  that  this  source  absolutely  contained  nothing  more 
than  this  one  narrative  1 

Holtzmann,  on  the  other  hand,  who  regards  the  proto-Mark  as 
the  origin  of  the  three  Syn.,  finds  it  no  less  impossible  to  explain 
howr  Matthew  and  Luke  could  so  completely  alter  the  historical  side 
of  the  account  (the  one  :  two  blind  men  instead  of  one ;  the  other  : 
the  healing  before  entering  Jericho  rather  than  after,  etc.),  and  to 
spoil  at  will  its  dramatic  beauty,  so  well  reproduced  by  Mark. 
And  what  signifies  the  explanation  given  by  Holtzmann  of  Luke's 
transposition  of  the  miracle,  and  which  is  borrowed  from  Bleek; 
that  Luke  has  been  led  by  the  succeeding  history  of  Zaccheus  to 
place  the  healing  before  the  entrance  into  Jericho  ! 

Volkmar,  who  derives  Luke  from  Mark,  and  Matthew  from  the 

two  combined,  alleges  that  Mark  intended  the  blind  man  to  be  the 

type  of  the  Gentiles  who  seek  the  Saviour  (hence  the  name  Barti- 

meus;  Timeus  comes,  according  to  him,  from  Thima,  tJie  undean)  ; 

the  company  who  followed  Him,  and  who  wish  to  impose  silence 

he  man,  to  be  types  of  the  Judeo-Christinns,  who  denied  to  the 

Gentiles  access  to  the  Messiah  of  Israel.      If  Luke  omits  the  most 

picturesque  details,  it  is  because  of  his  prosaic  character.     If  he  omits 

name  Bartimeus,  it  is  because  he  is  offended  at  finding  the 

fd  as  impure  beings.     If  he  places  the  miraok 

be/or  Jericho,  it  is  because  he  diatmffoiahea  (he  healing  of 

nan  from  that  of  his  paganism,  which  shall  be  placed  after,  and 

that  in  the  salvation  granted  to  Zaccheus.1     Zaccheus,  tlie  pure,  is 

the  counterpart  of  Timeus,  the  unclean  (  get  pp.  502-505). 

the  climax  !      Such   is  the  game  of 
wliirh  the  evangelists  played  with  the  Clmicheson  the  theme  of  the 
person  of  Jesus !    After  this  we  need  give  no  other  proofs  ot  this 
author's  sagacity. 

8.  Jesus    at    the    House    of  Baodum:   xix.    1-10. — Vers. 
1-10.*  In  M  nd  Mark,  the  account  of  Jesus'  entry  i 

no  are  jesting.     Here  are  the  words:  "Tin- Mind 

'  irk  is  cleft  by  Luke  Into  two  halm:  (a)  The  blind  man  u  rachj 

whom  he  place*  bef<  tnaoe  of  Jericho  ;  (f>)  the  lent  to  the 

Mind  man,  which  i«<  pkood  after  lonvii  is)." 

.  2.  I).  G.  ■**»  Vg.  omit  s«*«vpi»«f.— K.L.  Syir 

•*r»t  between  *««  and   «».— B.    K.    n.  aome   Mnn.  It*1".  Vg.  omit  *».— Ver.  4. 

Me*,  aredi  -;.V«^«»  (T.  R,  end  Alex.)  and  wp#pmm{\ 

and  25  Mnn.).     X    !'-    L  add  i>$  t» before  tn*f»c  IV  mtmmt  whicli 


216  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Jerusalem  immediately  follows  that  of  the  healing  of  Barti- 
meus.  There  is  a  blank  left  by  them,  for  Jesus  stayed  at 
Bethany,  and  there  passed  at  least  one  night  (John  xii.  1  et 
seq.).  This  blank,  according  to  Luke,  is  still  more  considerable. 
For  before  arriving  at  Bethany,  Jesus  stopped  at  Jericho,  and 
there  passed  the  night  (ver.  5).  Luke's  source  is  original, 
and  independent  of  the  other  two  Syn.  It  was  Aramaic,  as 
is  proved  by  the  heaping  up  of  ical,  the  paratactic  form,  as 
well  as  the  expression  ovo/juan  /caXovfievos,  vers.  1,  2.  Comp. 
i.  61. — The  name  Zaccheus,  from  *pT,  to  be  pure,  proves  the 
Jewish  origin  of  the  man. — There  must  have  been  at  Jericho 
one  of  the  principal  custom-houses,  both  on  account  of  the 
exportation  of  the  balm  which  grew  in  that  oasis,  and  which 
was  sold  in  all  countries  of  the  world,  and  on  account  of  the 
considerable  traffic  which  took  place  on  this  road,  by  which  lay 
the  route  from  Persea  to  Judaea  and  Egypt.  Zaccheus  was  at 
the  head  of  the  office.  The  person  of  Jesus  attracted  his 
peculiar  interest,  no  doubt  because  he  had  heard  tell  of  the 
benevolence  shown  by  this  Prophet  to  people  of  his  class. 
Most  certainly  Tt9  icrrl  (ver.  3)  does  not  signify :  which  of  the 
members  of  the  company  He  was  (Bleek),  but :  what  was  His 
appearance.  After  having  accompanied  the  crowd  for  a  little, 
without  gaining  his  end,  he  outruns  it. 

The  sycamore  is  a  tree  with  low  horizontal  branches,  and 
consequently  of  easy  assent.  '-E/ce/i^?,  for :  St  eice(vr}<>  6Sov  (ver. 
19).  Was  the  attention  of  Jesus  called  to  his  presence  in  the 
tree  by  the  looks  which  the  people  directed  toward  him  ?  Did 
He,  at  the  same  time,  hear  His  name  pronounced  in  the  crowd  ? 
In  this  case,  it  is  unnecessary  to  regard  the  address  of  Jesus 
as  the  effect  of  supernatural  knowledge.  There  is  something 
of  pleasantness,  and  even  of  sprightliness,  in  the  form :  "  Make 
haste  and  come  down;  for  to-day  I  must  abide  at  thy  house!' 
The  word  must  indicates  that  Jesus  has  recognised  in  him,  on 
account  of  this  eager  desire  which  he  has  to  see  him,  the  host 
whom  His  Father  has  chosen  for  Him  at  Jericho.  Here  there 
is  a  lost  sheep  to  be  found.  It  is  the  same  unwearied  convic- 
tion of  His  mission  as  in  meeting  with  the  Samaritan  woman. 

T.  It.  reads  with  A.  and  2  linn,  only,  all  the  others,  ixuvr.s. — Ver.  5.  X.  B.  L. 
omit  the  words  ttiiv  uvroi  xui. — Ver.  8.  G.  K.  M.  n.  several  Mnn.,  xupiov  instead 
of  Uffcw. — Ver.  9.  N*  L.  R.  omit  tent  after  Afyxxp,. 


ciiAr.  xix.  1-10.  217 

What  absolute  consecration  to  the  divine  work  !  And  what 
sovereign  independence  of  human  opinion  !  In  the  multitude, 
which  is  yet  swayed  by  pharisaic  prejudices,  there  is  general 
discontent,  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  disciples  are 
also  included  under  the  words  :  "  They  all  murmured."  The 
expression  aradeU  Be,  "hut  Zaccheus  standing"  (before  the 
Lord,  ver.  8),  immediately  connects  the  following  words  of  the 
publican  with  those  popular  murmurs.  XraOels  denotes  a 
firm  and  dignified  attitude,  such  as  suits  a  man  whose  honour 
is  attacked.  "  He  whom  Thou  hast  thought  good  to  choose  as 
Thy  host,  is  not,  as  is  alleged,  a  being  unworthy  of  Thy  choice." 
Did  Zaccheus  pronounce  the  words  of  ver.  8  at  the  time  when 
Jesus  had  just  come  under  his  roof?  This  is  what  we  should 
be  led  to  suppose  at  the  first  glance  by  the  words :  hut  he 
stood ;  nevertheless,  this  movement  on  the  part  of  Zaccheus 
would  appear  a  little  hasty,  and  the  answer  of  Jesus  :  Salvation 
is  come  (ver.  9),  proves  that  He  had  already  sojourned  for  a 
time  with  His  host.  Was  it,  then,  at  the  moment  when  Jesus 
was  resuming  His  journey  (Schleiermacher,  Olshausen)  ? 
ES,  11  and  28  may  support  this  supposition.  But  the 
word  to-day  (ver.  9),  which  recalls  the  to-day  of  ver.  5,  places 
this  dialogue  on  the  very  day  of  His  arrival.  The  most  suitable 
time  appears  to  be  that  of  the  evening  meal,  while  Jesus 
converses  peacefully  with  His  host  and  the  numerous  guests. 
Unless  the  terms  of  vers.  11  and  28  are  immoderately  pressed, 
they  are  not  opposed  to  this  view. 

t  modern  interpreters  take  the  words  of  Zaccheus  as  a 
vow  inspired  by  hifl  gratitude  for  the  grace  which  he  has  just 
rienced.  'IBov,  behold,  is  taken  to  indicate  a  sudden 
resolution  :  M  Take  note  of  this  resolution  :  From  this  moment 
I  give  .  .  . ,  and  I  pledge  myself  to  restore  .  .  ."  But  if  the 
pres.  /  jive  may  certainly  apply  to  a  gift  which  Zaccheus 
makes  at  the  instant  once  for  all,  the  pres.  7*  restore  fourfold 
seems  rather  to  designate  a  rule  of  conduct  already  admitted 
and  long  practised  by  him.  It  is  unnatural  to  Apply  it  to  a 
measure  which  would  relate  only  to  some  special  cases  of 
injustice  to  be  repaired  in  the  future.  'Ihov,  behold,  is  in 
ping  with  n,  so  far  as  the  public  are 

concerned,  in  this  role  of  Zaccheus,  till   then  unknown  by  all, 
and  which  he  now  reveals,  only  to  show  the  injustice  of  tl. 


218  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

murmurs  with  which  the  course  of  Jesus  is  met.  "  Thou  hast 
not  brought  contempt  on  Thyself  by  accepting  me  as  Thy  host, 
publican  though  I  am  ;  and  it  is  no  ill-gotten  gain  with  which 
I  entertain  Thee."  In  this  sense,  the  vraOeh  Se,  but  he  stood, 
is  fully  intelligible.  By  the  half  of  his  goods,  Zaccheus,  of 
course,  understands  the  half  of  his  yearly  income.  In  the 
case  of  a  wrong  done  to  a  neighbour,  the  law  exacted,  when 
restitution  was  voluntary,  a  fifth  over  and  above  the  sum 
taken  away  (Num.  v.  6,  7).  Zaccheus  went  vastly  further. 
Perhaps  the  restitution  which  he  imposed  on  himself  was  that 
forcibly  exacted  from  the  detected  thief.  In  a  profession  like 
his,  it  was  easy  to  commit  involuntary  injustices.  Besides, 
Zaccheus  had  under  his  authority  many  employes  for  whom 
he  could  not  answer. 

Jesus  accepts  this  apology  of  Zaccheus,  which  indeed  has 
its  worth  in  reply  to  the  murmurs  of  the  crowd ;  and  without 
allowing  the  least  meritorious  value  to  those  restitutions  and 
those  extraordinary  almsgivings,  He  declares  that  Zaccheus  is 
the  object  of  divine  grace  as  much  as  those  can  be  who  accuse 
him.  His  entrance  into  his  house  has  brought  salvation 
thither.  Notwithstanding  the  words,  "Jesus  said  unto  him . . ." 
the  words  following  are  addressed  not  to  Zaccheus,  but  to  the 
entire  assembly.  The  irph^  avrov,  unto  him,  therefore  signifies  : 
with  His  eyes  turned  upon  him  as  the  subject  of  His  answer ; 
comp.  vii.  44.  Jesus  is  the  living  salvation.  Beceived  as 
He  was  into  the  house,  He  brought  into  it  by  His  very  pre- 
sence this  heavenly  blessing.  Radon,  agreeably  to  the  fact  that 
(for  so  much  as),  indicates  the  reason  why  Jesus  can  assert 
that  Zaccheus  is  saved  this  day.  But  is  this  reason  the  fact 
that  Zaccheus  is  a  descendant  of  Abraham  according  to  the 
flesh,  and  has  preserved  this  characteristic  as  much  as  any 
other  Jew,  notwithstanding  his  Babbinical  excommunication  \ 
No ;  Jesus  could  not  make  the  possibility  of  salvation  depen- 
dent on  the  naked  characteristic  of  being  a  member  of  the 
Israelitish  nation.  This  idea  would  be  in  contradiction  to  His 
whole  teaching,  and  to  the  very  saying  which  concludes  this 
verse.  The  term,  son  oj  Abraham,  must  therefore  be  taken  in 
its  spiritual  sense  :  "  Zaccheus  is  restored  to  this  character 
which  he  had  lost  by  his  excommunication.  He  possesses  it 
in  a  still  higher  sense  than  that  in  which  he  had  lost  it." — 


CHAP.  XIX.  11-27.  21(J 

Ver.  10.  Lost,  so  far  as  a  son  of  Abraham  according  to  the 
flesh ;  but  found  (he,  the  same  one,  teal  avros;),  as  a  son  of 
Abraham  according  to  the  spirit.  Thus  the  maxim  of  ver.  1 0 
readily  connects  itself  with  ver.  9. 

According  to  Hilgenfeld  (p.  206),  this  piece  is  not  in  the  least 
Pauline ;  it  belongs  to  the  ancient  Ebionite  source.  According  to 
Holtzmann,  on  the  contrary  (p.  234),  it  is  entirely  Luke's.  It  may 
be  seen  how  critics  agree  with  one  another  on  questions  of  this  sort  ! 
As  concerns  ourselves,  we  have  established  an  Aramaic  source.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  are  at  one  with  Holtzmann  in  acknowledging  the 
traces  of  Luke's  style  (*a0oTi,  ver.  9  ;  rjXiKia,  ver.  3  ;  iKtivrjq,  ver.  4  ; 
Siayoyyv&Lv,  ver.  7).  Hence  we  conclude  that  Luke  himself  trans- 
lated into  Greek  this  account,  which  is  taken  from  an  Aramaic 
document. 

9.  Tlie  Parable  of  the  Pounds:  xix.  11-27. — Ver.  11. 
The  Introduction. — We  have  already  observed  in  the  multi- 
tudes (xiv.  25,  xviii.  39,  xix.  1-3),  and  even  in  the  disciples 
(xviii.  31 ;  comp.  with  Matt.  xx.    20   et  seq.),  the  traces  of 

.<  ited  state.     Ver.  11   shows  that  it  went  on  increasing 

as  they  approached  Jerusalem.     The  profound  calmness  and 

Belf-possession  ot  Jesus  contrasts  with  the  agitation  which  is 

ed  around  Him. — The  words  aKovovreov  avroov,  "  as  the?/ 

heard  thrse  tJi digs"  and  irpoaOel^  elire,  "11  .id  spalr,'' 

'ish  a  close  relation  between  the  parable  of  the  pounds 
and  the  preceding  conversation.  But  we  need  not  conclude 
therefrom  that  this  parable  was  uttered  as  a  continuation  ot  tin 
conversation.  It  may,  indeed,  have  been  so  merely  in  respect 
of  time  (ver.  28).  The  relation  indicated  by  the  introduction 
is  purely  moral:  the  so  striking  contrast  between  the  conduct 
of  Jesus  toward  Zaccheus,  and  the  generally  n  reived  idei 
such  that  every  one  felt  that  a  decisive  crisis  was  near.  The 
new  was  on  the  eve  of  appe: i ii jilt  :  and  this  imminent  revolu- 
tion naturally  presented  itself  to  the  imagination  of  all  in 
the  form  in   which   it  had   always  been  described  to  them 

vord  Trapaxpij/ia,  immediaf< ///,  stands  first  in  the  pi 
tion,  because  it  expresses  the    thought   against   which    the 
parable   follow  directed.       The   verb   avafyalvtcrO r 

appear,  answers  well  to  the  great  spectacle  for  which  they  were 
looking.-  ke  bin  sed  this  in' . 

the  contents  of  the  parable,  as  AN  ■  r  supposes,  i 

impossible.     But  up  to  this  point  we  have  too  ol 


220  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

nised  the  historical  value  of  those  short  introductions,  not  to 
admit  that  Luke's  source,  from  which  he  took  the  parable, 
contained  some  indication  of  the  circumstances  which  had 
called  it  forth. 

Vers.  12-14.1  The  Probation. — A  man  of  noble  birth  goes 
to  ask  from  the  sovereign  of  the  country  which  he  inhabits 
the  government  of  his  province.  Before  undertaking  this 
journey,  which  must  be  a  long  one, — for  the  sovereign  dwells 
in  a  distant  country, — this  man,  concerned  about  the  future 
administration  of  the  state  after  his  return,  puts  to  the  proof 
the  servants  who  have  till  now  formed  his  own  household,  and 
whom  he  proposes  afterwards  to  make  his  officers.  For  that 
purpose,  he  confides  to  each  of  them  a  sum  of  money,  to  be 
turned  to  account  in  his  absence.  Hereby  he  will  be  able  to 
estimate  their  fidelity  and  capability,  and  to  assign  them  in 
the  new  state  of  things  a  place  proportioned  to  the  qualities 
of  which  they  shall  have  given  proof.  Meanwhile  the  future 
subjects  protest  before  the  sovereign  against  the  elevation 
of  their  fellow-citizen.  Some  features  in  this  picture  seem 
borrowed  from  the  political  situation  of  the  Holy  Land 
Josephus  relates  that  on  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  Arche- 
laus,  his  son,  whom  he  had  appointed  his  heir,  repaired  to 
Borne  to  request  that  Augustus  would  invest  him  in  his 
father's  dominions,  but  that  the  Jews,  wearied  of  this  dynasty 
of  adventurers,  begged  the  emperor  rather  to  convert  their 
country  into  a  Eoman  province.  This  case  might  the  more 
readily  occur  to  the  mind  of  Jesus,  as  at  that  very  Jericho 
where  He  was  speaking  there  stood  the  magnificent  palace 
which  this  Archelaus  had  built. — The  word  evyev^,  of  noble 
birth,  evidently  refers  to  the  superhuman  nature  of  Jesus. — 
Ma/cpdv  is  an  adverb,  as  at  xv.  13.  This  far  distance  is  the 
emblem  of  the  long  interval  which,  in  the  view  of  Jesus,  was 
to  separate  His  departure  from  His  return. 

The  expression,  to  receive  a  kingdom,  includes  the  installa- 
tion ol  Jesus  in  His  heavenly  power,  as  well  as  the  prepara- 
tion of  His  Messianic  kingdom  here  below  by  the  sending 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  His  work  in  the  Church. — A  mina, 
among  the  Hebrews,  was   worth  about  £6   sterling.2     It  is 

1  Ver.  13.  8  Mjj.  20  Mnn.  Or.  read  tv  u  instead  of  tut. 
8  Keil,  Handb.  der  Bibl.  Archdologie,  vol.  ii.  p.  144. 


CHAP.  XIX.  15-19.  221 

not  M  in  Matt  xxv.  14,  all  his  goods  which  the  master  dis- 
tributes ;  the  sum,  too,  is  much  less  considerable  ;  the  talents 
of  which  Matthew  speaks  are  each  worth  about  £400.  The 
idea  is  therefore  different.  In  Luke,  the  money  entrusted  is 
simply  a  means  of  testing.  In  Matthew,  the  matter  in  ques- 
tion is  the  administration  of  the  owner's  fortune.  The  sums 
t-nt rusted,  being  in  Luke  the  same  for  all  the  servants,  repre- 
sent not  gifts  {^apLcr^aTa),  which  are  very  various,  but  the  grace 
of  salvation  common  to  all  believers  (pardon  and  the  Holy 
Spirit).  The  position  of  every  believer  in  the  future  kingdom 
depends  on  the  use  which  he  makes  of  that  grace  here  below. 
It  is  surprising  to  hear  Jesus  call  this  salvation  an  ikdxiarov, 
a  very  little  (ver.  17).  What  an  idea  of  future  glory  is  given 
to  us  by  this  saying!  The  Alex,  reading  iv  w,  ver.  13, 
assumes  that  epxopai  has  the  meaning  of  travelling;  while 
with  6w?  it  would  signify  to  arrive.  The  first  reading  implies 
that  the  time  during  which  the  absence  of  Jesus  lasts  is  a 
constant  n  turning,  which  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the 
biblical  view.  "  I  say  unto  you,  that  from  this  time  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  throne  .  .  .,  and  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven"  Matt  xxvi.  64.  The  ascension  is  the 
first  step  in  His  return  here  below.  Ver.  14  describes  the 
resistance  of  the  Jews  to  the  Messianic  sovereignty  of  Jesi 
and  that  during  all  the  time  which  separates  His  first  from 
second  comii 

Vers.  15-19.1  The  faithful  Servants. — From  ver.  15  onwards 
Jesus  depicts  what  will  happen  at  the  I'arousia.  Every  ser- 
vant will  share  in  the  power  of  his  master,  now  become  king, 
degree  proportioned  to  his  activity  during  the  time  of  his 
probation  (the  reign  of  grace).  While  the  means  of  action 
had  been  the  same,  the  results  differ;  the  amount  of  pow 

Emitted  to  each  will  therefore  also  differ  in  the    aine  pro- 
portion.    It  is  entirely  otherwise  in  Matthew.     The  sums 
mitted  were  different;  the  results  are  equal  in  so  far  as 
are  proportioned  to  the  sums  received;  there  is 

alitv  of*  faithfulness  and  <  «pial  testimony  of  sat 
faction.     Everything  in  Mat  tin  us  representation  turns  on  t 

M  \\.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Or.,  )•)»»•<  instead  of  i)*»i».— K.  B.  D.  !  . 
Syr**.  Or.,n  S<»r^«>«/«rit,r«»T#  instead  of  th  n  )«ir^«>/u«rt»r«r«. — Ver.  17.  li.  1 1 
S  Mnn  Or.,  i»yi  instead  of  «».  ■ 


222  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

personal  relation  of  the  servants  to  their  master,  whose  fortune 
(ver.  14,  his  goods)  they  are  commissioned  to  administer  and 
increase,  and  who  rejoices  equally  in  the  active  fidelity  of  all ; 
while  in  Luke  the  one  point  in  question  is  to  settle  the  posi- 
tion of  the  servants  in  the  economy  of  glory  which  is  opening, 
and  consequently  to  determine  the  proportion  of  faithfulness 
displayed  during  the  time  of  labour  and  probation  which  has 
just  closed. — The  ten,  the  five  cities  (vers.  17  and  19),  repre- 
sent moral  beings  in  a  lower  state  of  development,  but  whom 
the  glorified  faithful  are  commissioned  to  raise  to  their  divine 
destination. 

Vers.  20-27.1  Of  the  other  seven  servants  there  is  no  men- 
tion ;  they  fall  either  into  the  category  of  the  preceding,  or 
into  that  of  the  following.  The  ground  on  which  the  latter 
explains  his  inactivity  is  not  a  mere  pretext.  His  language 
is  too  plain-spoken  not  to  be  sincere.  He  is  a  believer  who 
has  not  found  the  state  of  grace  offered  by  Jesus  so  brilliant 
as  he  hoped, — a  legal  Christian,  who  has  not  tasted  grace,  and 
knows  nothing  of  the  gospel  but  its  severe  morality.  It  seems 
to  him  that  the  Lord  gives  very  little  to  exact  so  mnch.  With 
such  a  feeling,  the  least  possible  only  will  be  done.  God 
should  be  satisfied  with  us  if  we  abstain  from  doing  ill,  from 
squandering  our  talent.  Such  would  have  been  the  language 
of  a  Judas  dissatisfied  with  the  poverty  of  Christ's  spiritual 
kingdom.  In  Matthew,  the  unfaithful  servant  is  offended  not 
at  the  insufficiency  of  the  master's  gifts  in  general,  but  at  the 
inferiority  of  those  given  to  himself,  in  comparison  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.  22)  is  an  argumentum  ad  Tiomi- 
nem :  The  more  thou  knowest  that  I  am  austere,  the  more 
shouldest  thou  have  endeavoured  to  satisfy  me  !  The  Chris- 
tian who  lacks  the  sweet  experience  of  grace  ought  to  be  the 
most  anxious  of  labourers.  The  fear  of  doing  ill  is  no  reason 
for  doing  nothing,  especially  when  there  are  means  of  action, 

1  Ver.  20.  K<\  B.  D.  L.  R.  2  Mnn.,  o  tnpos  instead  of  irtpos.  —Ver.  22.  9  Mjj. 
emit  h  after  \iyu. — Ver.  23.  All  the  Mjj.  except  K.  omit  rtiv  before  rp^av. 
—Ver.  26.  K.  B.  L.  7  Mnn.  omit  yap  after  Xiyu.—  N.  B.  L.  7  Mnn.  omit  «*r' 
K-jrcv  after  a.p6r,<nru.i. — Ver.  27.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  txuvov;  (T.  R., 
Byz.)  and  toutous  (Alex.).—  tf.  B.  F.  L.  R.   some  Mnn.  Syr.  add  avrous  after 

x.u,Tx<r$u.%u,rt. 


CHAP.  XIX  20-27.  223 

the  use  of  which  covers  our  entire  responsibility.  What  does 
Jesus  mean  by  the  banker?  Could  it  be  those  Christian 
associations  to  which  every  believer  may  entrust  the  resources 
which  he  cannot  use  himself?  It  seems  to  us  that  Jesus  by 
uuld  rather  represent  the  divine  omnipotence  of 
which  we  may  avail  ourselves  by  prayer,  without  thereby 
exposing  the  cause  of  Christ  to  any  risk.  Of  him  who  has 
not  worked  the  Lord  will  ask,  Hast  thou  at  least  prayed  ? — 
The  dispensation  of  glory  changes  in  the  case  of  such  a  ser- 
vant into  an  eternity  of  loss  and  shame.  The  holy  works 
which  he  might  have  wrought  here  below,  along  with  the 

ors  by  which  he  might  have  accomplished  them,  are  com- 
mitted to  the  servant  who  has  shown  himself  the  most  active. 
This  or  that  pagan  population,  for  example,  which  might  have 
been  evangelized  by  the  young  Christian  who  remained  on  the 
earth  the  slave  of  selfish  ease,  shall  be  committed  in  the 
future  dispensation  to  the  devoted  missionary  who  has  used 
his  powers  here  below  in  the  service  of  Jesus. — At  ver.  2G, 
the  same  form  of  address  as  at  xii.  41,  42.  The  Lord  con- 
tinues as  if  no  observation  had  been  interposed,  replying  all 
the  while,  nevertheless,  to  the  objection  which  has  h 
started.  There  is  a  law,  in  virtue  of  which  every  grace 
actively  appropriated  increases  our  receptivity  for  higher 
graces,  while  all  grace  rejected  diminishes  our  aptitude  for 
receiving  new  graces.  From  this  law  of  moral  life  it  lull- 
that  gradually  all  graces  must  be  concentrated  in  faithful 
workers,  and  be  withdrawn  from  negligent  servants.  Chap, 
viii.  18,  Jesus  said,  That  which  he  scemcth  to  have;  here  he 
Bays,  That  he  luxtli.  The  two  expressions  are  true.  We  have 
a  grace  which  is  bestowed  on  us ;  but  if  we  do  not  assimilate 
it  m  we  do  not  really  possess  it;  we  ima-ine  we  have  it. 

Ver.  27  (comp.  ver.  14)  represents  the  Messiah's  reck< 
witli  the  Jewish  people,  as  vers.  15-2G  n  reckon- 

ing broth.     IlXijv,  unhf :   "  Atha  judging  the  ser- 

vants, Uure  remains  only  one  thing."     This   punishment  of 
les.  along  with   the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 

state  of  in  which  they  are  plunged  till  the  Lord's 

in. 
The  ruling  idea  of  this  paral.le  in  Luke  is  therefore  that  of 
a  time  of  probation  1  tli«    departure  and  the  return  of 


224  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  Lord,  necessary  to  prepaie  the  sentence  which  shall  fix  ths 
position  of  every  one  in  the  state  of  things  following  the 
Parousia.  Hence  follows  the  impossibility  of  that  immediate 
appearing  of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  filled  the  minds  of 
the  crowd  now  accompanying  Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  Luke's 
parable  thus  forms,  as  Holtzmann  acknowledges,  a  complete 
whole  ;  and  whatever  the  same  learned  critic  may  say,  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  introduction,  ver.  11,  indicates  its  true 
bearing, — a  fact  confirming  the  idea  that  this  introduction  be- 
longed to  Luke's  sources,  and  proceeded  from  accurate  tradition. 

The  relation  between  this  parable  and  that  of  the  talents  in 
Matthew  is  difficult  to  determine.  Strauss  has  alleged  that  Luke's 
was  a  combination  of  that  of  the  husbandmen  (Luke  xx. )  and  that 
of  the  talents  (Matt.  xxv.).  But  the  internal  harmony  of  Luke's 
description,  which  Holtzmann  acknowledges,  does  not  admit  of  this 
supposition.  Meyer  regards  it  as  a  re-handling  of  the  parable  of  the 
talents  in  Matthew.  The  action  is  undoubtedly  similar,  but,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  thought  is  radically  different.  The  aim  of  Matthew's 
parable  seems  to  be  to  encourage  those  who  have  received  less,  by 
promising  them  the  same  approbation  from  the  Master  if  they  are 
equally  faithful,  and  by  putting  them  on  their  guard  against  the 
temptation  of  making  their  inferiority  a  motive  to  spiritual  indiffer- 
ence, and  a  pretext  for  idleness.  We  have  seen  that  the  idea  of  the 
parable  in  Luke  is  quite  different.  It  must  therefore  be  admitted 
that  there  were  two  parables  uttered,  but  that  their  images  were 
borrowed  from  very  similar  fields  of  life.  The  analogy  between  the 
two  descriptions  may  perhaps  have  caused  the  importation  of  some 
details  from  the  one  into  the  other  (e.g.  the  dialogue  between  the 
master  and  the  unfaithful  servant). 

Here  we  have  reached  the  end  of  that  journey,  the  account 
of  which  begins  ix.  51.  Jesus  first  traversed  the  countries 
lying  south  from  the  old  scene  of  His  activity,  then  the  border 
regions  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  finally  Persea ;  He  has  thus 
come  to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem.  From  the  moral  point  of 
view,  His  work  also  has  reached  a  new  stage.  On  the  one 
hand,  the  enthusiasm  of  the  people  is  at  its  height,  and  all 
believing  Galilee,  the  nucleus  of  His  future  Church  in  Israel, 
accompanies  Him  to  form  His  retinue  when  He  shall  make 
His  kingly  entry  into  His  capital ;  on  the  other,  He  has  com- 
pletely broken  with  the  pharisaic  party,  and  His  separation 
from  the  nation  as  such,  swayed  by  the  pharisaic  spirit,  i3 
consummated.  He  must  die ;  for  to  let  Him  live  would,  on 
the  part  of  the  Sanhedrim,  be  to  abdicate. 


CHAP.  XIX.  20-27.  225 

W«  have  not  followed  step  by  step  Keim's  criticism  on  this  last 
part  of  the  journey.  It  is  the  masterpiece  of  arbitrariness.  What- 
ever does  not  square  with  the  proportions  of  Jesus  as  settled  before- 
hand by  the  learned  critic,  is  eliminated  for  one  reason  or  another. 
Those  reasons  are  found  without  difficulty  when  sought.  After 
John,  Luke  is  the  most  abused.  For  Matthew's  two  blind  men  he 
substitutes  one,  because  he  thinks  right  to  reproduce  the  other  in 
the  form  of  the  person  of  Zaccheus.  Timeus  (the  impure)  becomes 
Zaccheus  (tlie  pure),  the  impure  pure  !  Mark  replaces  the  second  by 
Timeus,  the  father  (also  blind)  of  Bartimeus !  Keim  here  reaches 
the  height  of  Yolkmar. — The  blindness  is  overcome  by  the  power  of 
enthusiasm  which  was  reigning  at  the  moment,  and  which,  by 
exalting  the  force  of  the  vital  nervous  fluid,  reopens  the  closed  eyes 
temporarily  or  lastingly  !  Luke  invents,  in  the  despised  person  of 
Zaccheus,  a  counterpart  to  proud  Jerusalem,  which  knows  not  the  day 
of  her  visitation  (xix.  42).  It  is  true  that  this  last  expression  of 
Jesus,  as  well  as  His  tears  over  Jerusalem,  with  which  it  is  con- 
nected, is  invented,  as  much  as  the  history  of  Zaccheus.  The  two 
counterparts  are  imaginary ! 


FIFTH    PART. 


SOJOUKN    AT    JEEUSALEM. 
Chap.  xix.  28-xxi.  38. 

THIS  part  includes  three  principal  events :  I.  The  entry  oi 
Jesus  into  Jerusalem  (xix.  28-44).  II.  The  exercise 
of  His  Messianic  sovereignty  in  the  temple  (xix.  45-xxi.  4). 
III.  The  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the 
Jewish  people  (xxi.  5-38). — The  relation  between  these  three 
events  is  easily  understood.  The  first  is  the  final  appeal  of 
Jesus  to  His  people;  with  the  second  there  is  connected  the 
decisive  rejection  of  Israel ;  the  third  is,  as  it  were,  the  pro- 
nouncing of  the  sentence  which  falls  on  this  refusal, 

FIRST  CYCLE. CHAP.  XIX.  28-44. 

The  Entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem. 

This  narrative  embraces:  1st  The  preparations  for  the 
entry  (vers.  28-36) ;  2d.  The  joy  of  the  disciples  and  of  the 
multitude  on  coming  in  sight  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  37-40)  ;  3d 
The  tears  of  Jesus  at  the  same  instant  (vers.  41-44). 

1st.  Vers.  28-36.1  The  Preparations  for  the  Entry. — The 
connection  indicated  by  the  words,  while  thus  speaking,  He 
went,  is  rather  moral  than  of  time  :  "  while  speaking  thus  [of 
the  unbelief  of  Israel],  He  nevertheless  continued  His  journey 

1  Ver.  29.  Marcion  omitted  all  the  piece,  vers.  29-46. — tf.  B.  L.  some  Mim. 
omit  aurou  after  pufaruv. — Ver.  30.  N.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.  Or.,  *.iyw»  instead  of 
««r»v.—  B.  D.  L.  add  *«<  before  a.vr«m*.— Ver.  31.  6  Mjj.  3  Mnn.  Itali<«.  Or. 
omit  xvru  after  tpun. 

226 


CHAP.  XIX.  28-36.  227 

(imperf.  iiropevero)  to  Jerusalem."  "E^irpoa-dev  signifies  not 
in  advance  (eh  to  irpocrdev),  but  before  [His  disciples],  at  their 
head.  Comp.  Mark  x.  32  :  "  Tlicy  vjere  in  the  way  going  up 
to  Jerusalem  ;  and  Jesus  went  before  tliem,  and  they  were  amazed, 
is  they  followed  they  were  afraid." 
According  to  John,  while  the  great  body  of  the  caravan 
pursued  its  way  to  Jerusalem,  Jesus  stopped  at  Bethany, 
where  a  feast  was  prepared  for  Him,  and  where  He  passed 
one  or  even  two  nights ;  and  it  was  after  this  stay  that 
He  solemnly  entered  the  capital,  where  the  rumour  of  His 
approach    had    already   spread.      These    circumstances    fully 

lain  the  scene  of  Palm  Day,  which  in  the  synoptical 
account  comes  upon  us  somewhat  abruptly.     Bleek  finds  a 

ain  obscurity  in  Luke's  expression :  "  When  He  came  nigh 
to  Bethphage  and  Bethany ;  "  for  it  is  not  known  how  those 
two  localities  are  related.  In  Mark  (xi.  1)  the  same  difficulty 
(Matt.  xxL  1  does  not  speak  of  Bethany).  Add  to  this  that 
the  0.  T.  nowhere  speaks  of  a  village  called  Bethphage,  and 
that  tradition,  which  indicates  the  site  of  Bethany  so  certainly, 

I  absolutely  nothing  about  that  of  this  hamlet.  The 
Talmud  alone  mentions  Bethphage,  and  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  that  this  locality  was  very  near  Jerusalem,  and  was 
even  joined  to  the  city.  Bethphage  is  without  the  walls,  it 
is  said  ;  and  the  bread  which  is  prepared  in  it  is  sat  red,  like 
that   which    is    made    in   the   city    (Bab.   Pcsachn,      68;    2  ; 

idchoth,  7.  G,  etc.).  Lightfoot,  Kenan,  Caspari1  have  con- 
cluded from  these  passages  that  Bethphage  was  not  a  hamlet, 
but  a  district,  the  precinct  of  the  city  extending  eastward  as 
far  as  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  even  to  Bethany.  According 
rusalem  was  to  the  people  what  tlie  tamp 
had  formerly  been  to  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  And  as  at  the 
great  feasts  the  city  could  not  contain  all  the  pilgiimi  who 
came  from  a  distance,  and  who  should  strictly  have  found  an 
abode  in  tlic  cawj>  (the  city),  and  there  celebrated   the  feast, 

re  was  added,  they  say,  to  Jerusalem,  to  make  it  suil'n -imi, 
rict  situated  on   the  ride  of  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
and  which  bore  the  name  of  Bdhphagi  (pUict  <>/'  fig*)*    Beth 
was  the  beginning  of  tin    district  where  the  pilgrims  encamped 

I  mass;  and  perhaps  itl  okne  oame  from  face 

ronol.  geOffi  itwig  in  das  Lrbcn  Jciu,  1869,  pp.  161  and  162. 


22S  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  booths  (the  merchants'  tents  set  up  in  the  sight  of  this 
multitude)  (Caspari,  p.  163).  Nothing  could  in  this  case  be 
more  exact  than  the  mode  of  expression  used  by  Luke  and 
Mark :  when  He  came  to  Bethphage  (the  sacred  district)  and  to 
Bethany  (the  hamlet  where  this  district  began).  —  'EXacwv 
might  be  taken  as  the  gen.  plural  of  i\aia,  olive  trees  (i\ai<ov). 
But  in  Josephus  this  word  is  the  name  of  the  mountain  itself 
(ikatdov,  olive  wood)  ;  comp.  also  Acts  i.  12.  This  is  the  most 
probable  sense  in  our  passage.  At  ver.  37  and  xxii.  39, 
where  Luke  uses  this  word  in  the  first  sense,  he  indicates  it 
by  the  art.  t&v. 

The  sending  of  the  two  disciples  proves  the  deliberate 
intention  of  Jesus  to  give  a  certain  solemnity  to  this  scene. 
Till  then  He  had  withdrawn  from  popular  expressions  of 
homage ;  but  once  at  least  He  wished  to  show  Himself  as 
King  Messiah  to  His  people  (ver.  40).  It  was  a  last  call 
addressed  by  Him  to  the  population  of  Jerusalem  (ver.  42). 
This  course,  besides,  could  no  longer  compromise  His  work. 
He  knew  that  in  any  case  death  awaited  Him  in  the  capital. 
— John  (xii.  14)  says  simply,  Jesus  found  the  young  ass, 
without  indicating  in  what  way.  But  the  words  which  follow, 
"  The  disciples  remembered  that  they  had  done  these  things 
unto  Him,"  ver.  16,  allude  to  a  doing  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples  which  John  himself  has  not  mentioned.  His  account, 
therefore,  far  from  contradicting  that  of  the  Syn.,  assumes  it  as 
true. — The  remark,  whereon  yet  never  man  sat  (ver.  30),  is  in 
keeping  with  the  kingly  and  Messianic  use  which  is  about  to 
be  made  of  the  animal.  Comp.  Deut.  xxi.  3.  Matthew  not 
only  mentions  the  colt,  but  also  the  ass.  Accompanied  by 
its  mother,  the  animal,  though  not  broken  in,  would  go  the 
more  quietly.  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  critics  (Strauss, 
Volkmar)  who  allege  that,  according  to  Matthew's  text,  Jesus 
mounted  the  two  animals  at  once!  —  The  ease  with  which 
Jesus  obtains  the  use  of  this  beast,  which  does  not  belong  to 
Him,  is  another  trait  of  the  royal  greatness  which  He  thinks 
good  to  display  on  this  occasion. — Out&)?,  ver.  31  (Mark  and 
Matthew,  evOicos),  "  thus ;  and  that  will  suffice."  Luke  and 
Mark  do  not  cite  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah.  It  was  not 
necessary  that  every  one  should  understand  the  symbolical 
meaning  of  this  scene,  and  contrast  the  peaceful  beast  with 


CHAP.  XIX.  37-10.  229 

the  warlike  steeds  of  earthly  conquerors. — A  new  proof  of  the 
supernatural  knowledge  of  Jesus,  which  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  omniscience;  comp.  xxii.  10,  31-34;  John  i. 
49,  iv.  17,  etc.  According  to  Mark,  who  loves  to  describe 
details,  the  colt  was  tied  to  a  door  at  a  crossivay  (a/i</>o8o?). 
It  was  no  doubt  the  place  where  the  little  path  leading  to 
the  house  of  the  owners  of  the  ass  went  off  from  the  highway  • 
or  might  it  be  the  crossing  of  two  roads,  that  which  Jesus 
followed  (going  from  east  to  west),  and  that  which  to  the 
present  day  passes  along  the  crest  of  the  mountain  (from 
north  to  south)  ? — The  term  Kvpios,  Lord  (ver.  34),  shows  the 
feeling  of  sovereignty  with  which  Jesus  acted.  It  is  probable 
that  He  knew  the  owners.  In  substituting  their  garments 
for  the  cover  which  it  would  have  been  so  easy  to  pro- 
cure, the  disciples  wished  to  pay  homage  to  Jesus, — a  fact 
brought  out  by  the  pron.  eavrwv  (ver.  35).  Comp.  2  Kings 
ix.  13. 

2d.  Vers.  37-40.1  The  Entry, — From  the  moment  that 
Jesus  seats  Himself  on  the  colt,  He  becomes  the  visible  centre 
of  the  assemblage,  and  the  scene  takes  a  character  more  and 
more  extraordinary.  It  is  as  if  a  breathing  from  above  had 
all  at  once  taken  possession  of  this  multitude.  The  sight  of 
the  city  and  temple  which  opens  up  at  the  moment  con- 
tributes to  this  burst  of  joy  and  hope  (ver.  37).  The  object 
of  iyyl%ovTo<;,  coming  nigh,  is  not  Trpbs  ttj  Kajaftaaei  {irpb^ 
r/jv  would  be  necessary) ;  it  is  rather  Jerusalem,  the  true  goal 
of  the  journey.  IT/>o?  rfj  is  a  qualification  of  rjp^avro :  "  at 
in."  From  this  elevated  point,  300  feet 
above  the  terrace  of  the  temple,  which  is  itself  raised  about 
140  feet  above  the  level  of  the  valley  of  the  Cedron,  an 
extensive  view  was  had  of  the  city  and  the  whole  plain 
which  it  commands,  especially  of  the  temple,  which  rose 
[lately  above  the  valley.  All  those  hearts 
recall  at  this  moment  the  miracles  which  have  distinguished 
the  career  of  this  extraordinary  man  ;  they  are  aware  that  at 
the  point  to  which  things  have  come  His  BDtry  into  Jerusalem 

37.  Tho  Mn.  are  dl  r-\<^r»  and  r,f\%r».— B.  D.t  rwiy 

id  of  «r«r*».  — Y  tcad  of  «  tfxvm  /3«r«Xn/(,  wlii.  li  '!'.  K.  reads, 

N*  "   •  frmnXiut,  D.  A.  tome  Mnn.  It"n<'.  ♦  t?x*r*»(—  Ver.  40.  K.  15.  L.  omi' 

.       il    L.,  «/a;«i/r<»  instead  Of  si«fc;«»r«4. 


230  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

cannot  fail  to  issue  in  a  decisive  revolution,  although  they 
form  an  utterly  false  idea  of  that  catastrophe. 

John  informs  us  that  among  all  those  miracles  there  was 
one  especially  which  excited  the  enthusiasm  of  the  crowd  ; 
that  was  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  Already  on  the  previous 
evening  very  many  pilgrims  had  come  from  Jerusalem  to 
Bethany  to  see  not  only  Jesus,  but  also  Lazarus,  who  had 
been  raised  from  the  dead.  This  day  the  procession  meets  at 
every  step  with  new  troops  arriving  from,  the  city ;  and  these 
successive  meetings  call  forth  ever  and  again  new  bursts  of 
joy. — The  acclamation,  ver.  38,  is  taken  in  part  from  Ps. 
cxviii.  25.  This  hymn  belonged  to  the  great  Hallel,  which 
was  chanted  at  the  end  of  the  Paschal  Supper  as  well  as  at 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles.  The  people  were  accustomed  to 
apply  the  expression,  He  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
(in  the  Psalm,  every  faithful  one  who  came  to  the  feast),  to 
the  Messiah.  Probably  the  word  ftaaiXevs,  Icing,  is  authentic 
in  Luke  ;  and  its  omission  in  some  mss.  arises  from  the  texts 
of  the  LXX.  and  of  Matthew. — The  expression,  in  the  name  of, 
is  dependent  not  on  Messed  be,  but  on  He  who  cometh :  "  the 
King  who  comes  on  the  part  of  God  as  His  representative." 
The  'peace  in  heaven  is  that  of  the  reconciliation  which  the 
Messiah  comes  to  effect  between  God  and  the  earth.  Luke 
omits  the  word  Hosanna,  which  his  readers  of  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  xii.  19),  they  had  recourse  to  Jesus  Himself,  begging 
Him  to  keep  order  in  His  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  disciples,  was  doubtless  accompanied 
with  an  irritated  and  anxious  look  towards  the  citadel  of 
Antonia,  the  residence  of  the  Ptoman  garrison.  This  look 
seemed  to  say :  *■  Seest  thou  not  .  .  .  ?  Are  not  the  Eomans 
there  ?  Wilt  thou  destroy  us  ? "  The  answer  of  Jesus  has  a 
terrible  majesty :  "  If  I  should  silence  all  those  mouths,  you 
would  hear  the  same  acclamations  proceeding  from  the 
ground  »     So  impossible  is  it  that   an  appearance  like  this 


chap.  xix.  ii-u.  231 

should  not  be,  once  at  least,  saluted  on  the  earth  as  it  deserves 
to  be  ! "  —  The  terms  used  appear  to  have  been  proverbial 
(I  Tab.  ii.  11).  Some  have  referred  the  term,  the  stones,  to  the 
walls  of  the  temple,  and  of  the  houses  of  Jerusalem,  which,  as 
they  fell  in  ruins  forty  years  after,  rendered  homage  to  the 
kingly  glory  of  Jesus  ;  but  tins  meaning  is  far-fetched.  The 
form  of  the  raulo-post  future  (tcetcpdgovTcu)  is  frequently  used 
1  'V  the  LXX.,  but,  as  here,  without  having  the  special  signi- 
fication which  is  attached  to  it  in  classical  Greek.  The 
grammatical  reduplication  simply  expresses  the  repetition  of 
the  cry  of  those  inanimate  objects  :  "  It  will  be  impossible  to 
reduce  those  stones  to  silence,  if  once  they  shall  begin  to  cry." 
The  simple  future  in  the  Alex,  is  a  correction. 

3d.  Vers.  41-44.1  TJie  Lamentations  of  Jesus. — Jesus  has 
reached  the  edge  of  the  plateau  (a>?  ijyytaev) ;  the  holy  city 
lies  before  His  view  (IBojv  ryv  irokiv).  What  a  day  would  it 
be  for  it,  if  the  bandage  fell  from  its  eyes  !  But  what  has 
just  passed  between  Him  and  the  Pharisees  present  has 
awakened  in  His  heart  the  conviction  of  the  insurmountable 
resistance  which  He  is  about  to  meet.  Then  Jesus,  seized, 
and,  as  it  were,  wrung  by  the  contrast  between  what  is  and 
what  might  be,  breaks  out  into  sobs.  "Eickavaev,  not  i$d- 
xpvaev ;  we  have  to  do  with  lamentations,  with  sobbings,  not 
with  tears.  The  words  even  thou  mark  a  contrast  between 
the  population  of  Jerusalem  and  that  multitude  of  believers 
Galilee  and  abroad  which  formed  His  retinue.  Would 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  but  associate  themselves  with 
this  Messianic  festival,  their  capital  would  be  saved  !  From 
that  very  day  would  date  the  glory  of  Jerusalem,  as  well  ai 
that  of  its  Xing. — The  two  words  tcaiye  and  gov,  omitted  by 
the  Alex.,  have  great  importance.  "  Kaiye,  at  least  in  this  day, 
iv."  This  one  day  which  remains  to  it  would  suffice 
to  secure  its  pardon  for  all  the  unbelief  of  the  city,  and  even 
for  all  the  blood  of  the  prophets  formerly  shed  within  its 
walls  !     Does  not  this  word  at  least  suppose  previous  resi- 

41.  The  Mm.  m  r  mm,  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  ir  Mffc* 

— Vex.  42.  It  B  '  ty*«f  i»  rn  tiftif*  nrmvm  xxi  *u  instead  of  u 

%y**t  mu  rv  umtyi  •»  rn  ifttf*  pw  rmvrn. — K-  B.  L.  omit  w  after  iotmp. — V 
K.  C.  L.,  wmpt+mlm™  instead  of  wtpHuXtvm.  —  Yer.  44.  The  Mas.  are  divi •!-  <l 
between  in  kit*  (i\  ]!.)  and  Ml  X//#t. 


232  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

dences  of  Jesus  at  Jerusalem  ?  Hod,  added  to  rjixepa  (thy 
day),  alludes  to  the  days,  now  past,  of  Capernaum,  Bethsaida, 
and  Chorazin.  Jesus  does  not  knock  indefinitely  at  the  door 
of  a  heart  or  of  a  people. — In  the  words,  the  things  which 
belong  to  thy  peace,  Jesus  thinks  at  once  of  the  individual 
salvation  of  the  inhabitants  and  of  the  preservation  of  the 
entire  city.  By  submitting  to  the  sovereignty  of  Jesus,  Israel 
would  have  been  preserved  from  the  spirit  of  carnal  exaltation 
which  led  to  its  ruin. — The  apodosis  of,  Oh  if .  .  .,  is  under- 
stood, as  at  xiii.  9. — By  the  vvv  hk,  but  now,  Jesus  reverts 
from  this  ideal  salvation  which  He  has  been  contemplating  to 
the  sad  reality.  We  must  beware  of  taking,  with  some  com- 
mentators, as  the  subject  of  ifcpvfir},  are  hid,  the  whole  of  the 
following  clause :  *  it  is  concealed  from  thine  eyes  that  .  .  ." 
The  sentence  thus  read  would  drag  intolerably. 

Instead  of  the  days  of  deliverance  and  glory,  the  image  of 
which  has  just  passed  before  His  mind,  Jesus  sees  others 
approaching,  which  fill  His  soul  with  sadness  (vers.  43  and 
44).  Modern  criticism  agrees  in  asserting  that  this  descrip- 
tion of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  Luke  includes  particu- 
lars so  precise,  that  it  could  only  have  been  given  ab  eventu. 
It  therefore  concludes  confidently  from  this  passage  that  our 
Gospel  was  composed  after  this  catastrophe.  But  in  this  case 
we  must  refuse  to  allow  Jesus  any  supernatural  knowledge, 
and  relegate  to  the  domain  of  myth  or  imposture  all  the  facts 
of  evangelical  history  in  which  it  is  implied,  e.g.  the  announce- 
ment of  Peter's  denial,  so  well  attested  by  the  four  Gospels. 
Besides,  if  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem was  foreseen  and  announced  by  Jesus,  as  is  implied  in 
His  foreseeing  the  siege,  is  it  not  evident  that  all  the  particu- 
lars of  the  following  description  must  have  presented  them- 
selves spontaneously  to  His  mind  ?  We  know  well  how 
Jesus  loves  to  individualize  His  idea  by  giving  the  most 
concrete  details  of  its  realization.  Comp.  chap.  xvii. — Xdpag, 
a  palisade  of  stakes  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  burned  it  in  a  sally  ;  it  was  replaced  by 
a  wall.  —  In  the  LXX.  i$a<f>%€iv  signifies,  to  dash  on  the 
ground.     But  in  goud  Greek  it  signifies,  to  bring  down  to  the 


CHAP.  XIX.  13-48.  233 

level  of  the  ground.  The  last  sense  suits  better  here,  for  it 
applies  both  to  the  houses  levelled  with  the  ground  and  to 
the  slaughtered  inhabitants.  Jesus,  like  the  Zechariah  of  the 
O.  T.  (Zech.  xi.)  and  the  Zacharias  of  the  New  (Luke  L  68), 
-cuts  His  coming  as  the  last  visit  of  God  to  His  people. 
— The  word  Katpos,  the  favourable  time,  shows  that  this  visit 
of  God  is  this  day  reaching  its  close. 

This  account  is  one  of  the  gems  of  our  Gospel.  After  those 
arresting  details,  Luke  does  not  even  mention  the  entry  into 
the  city.  The  whole  interest  for  him  lies  in  the  events  which 
precede.  Mark  (xi.  11)  and  Matthew  (xxi.  10)  proceed 
otherwise.  The  latter  sets  himself  to  paint  the  emotion  with 
which  the  whole  city  was  seized.  Mark  (xi.  11)  describes  in 
a  remarkable  way  the  impressions  of  Jesus  on  the  evening  of 
the  day.  Accounts  so  different  cannot  be  derived  from  the 
6ame  written  source. 

SECOND    CYCLE. CHAP.   XIX.    45- XXI.    4» 

Tlic  Reign  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple. 

From  this  moment,  Jesus  establishes  Himself  as  a  sovereign 

in  His  Father's  house  ;  He  there  discharges  the  functions  not 

only  of  a  prophet,  but  of  a  legislator  and  judge ;  for  some 

the  theocratic  authorities  seem  to  abdicate  their  powers 

into  His  hands. — These  are  the  days  of  the  Messiah's  sove- 

v  in  His  temple  (Mai.  iii.  1,  2). 

This  section  contains  the  following  facts  :  Jesus  driving  out 

the  sellers  (xix.  45-48) ;  His  answer  to  an  official  question 

of  tin;  Sanhedrim   residing  His  competence   (xx.  1-8);    Hi 

announcing  their  deprivation  of  authority    (xx.   9-19);    Hi; 

•  from    the   snares   laid    for   Him   by  the   Pharisees   and 

Sadducees  (xx.  20-26  and  27-40);  His  putting  to  them  a 

question  respecting  the  person  of  the  Messiah  (xx.  41-44); 

His  guarding  the  people  against   those  seducers  (xx.  45-47); 

His  setting  up,  in  oppo  ition  to  their  false  system  of  moral 

iation,  t;  hud  of  divine  judgment  (xxi.  1-4). 

1.  Expulsion  of  tkt  Sellers:  xix.  45-48. — Vers.  45-48.1 

:  Ver  C.  L.  13  Mnn.  Or.  omit  i»  «vr«  tlbtt  wmkmtwm$. — K.  IV  L. 

mm  *y^mX**rm(.—  Ver.  46.   N.  omiU  irr*.     11.  L.  I:. 
Or.  add  mm  tr?*i  before  •  *«»/,  cu  \em. 


234  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Without  Mark's  narrative,  we  should  think  that  the  expulsion 
of  the  sellers  took  place  on  the  day  of  the  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem. But  from  that  evangelist,  whose  account  is  here 
peculiarly  exact,  we  learn  that  the  entry  did  not  take  place 
till  towards  the  close  of  the  day,  and  that  on  that  evening  the 
Lord  did  nothing  but  give  Himself  up  to  the  contemplation  of 
the  temple.  It  was  on  the  morrow,  when  He  returned  from 
Bethany,  that  He  purified  this  place  from  the  profanations 
which  were  publicly  committed  in  it.  If  Matthew  and  Luke 
had  had  before  them  the  account  of  the  original  Mark,  how 
and  why  would  they  have  altered  it  thus  ?  Holtzmann  sup- 
poses that  Matthew  intended  by  this  transposition  to  connect 
the  Hosanna  of  the  children  (related  immediately  afterwards) 
with  the  Hosanna  of  the  multitude.  The  futility  of  this 
reason  is  obvious.  And  why  and  how  should  Luke,  who  does 
not  relate  the  Hosanna  of  the  children,  introduce  the  same 
change  into  the  common  document,  and  that  without  having 
known  Matthew's  narrative ! — The  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jeru- 
salem took  place  either  on  Sunday  {Comment  sur.  Vevang.  de 
Jean,  t.  ii.  pp.  371—373)  or  on  the  Monday;  it  would  there- 
fore be  Monday  or  Tuesday  morning  when  He  drove  out  the 
sellers. — Stalls  (nvon)  had  been  set  up  in  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles.  There  were  sold  the  animals  required  as  sacrifices ; 
there  pilgrims,  who  came  from  all  countries  of  the  world,  found 
the  coins  of  the  country  which  they  needed.  There  is  nothing 
to  prove  that  this  exchange  had  to  do  with  the  didrachma 
which  was  paid  for  the  temple.1  The  words  teal  ayopd^ovras, 
and  them  that  bought,  are  perhaps  borrowed  from  the  other  two 
Syn.  But  they  may  also  have  been  omitted,  in  consequence 
of  confounding  the  two  endings  vras. — The  saying  of  Jesus  is 
taken  from  Isa.  lvi.  7  and  Jer.  vii.  11.  Luke  does  not,  like 
Mark,  quote  the  first  passage  to  the  end :  "  My  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  iraat  Tot?  Wveai,  for  all  'peoples? 
Those  last  words,  however,  agreed  perfectly  with  the  spirit  of 
his  Gospel.  He  has  not  therefore  borrowed  this  quotation 
from  Mark. — The  appropriateness  of  this  quotation  from 
Isaiah  is  the  more  striking,  because  it  was  in  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles  that  those  profanations  were  passing.  Israel  was 
depriving  the  Gentiles  of  the  place  which  Jehovah  had  posi- 
1  As  we  had  supposed  in  our  Comment,  sur  V6vang.  de  Jean,  t.  i.  p.  376. 


CILVr.  XIX.  47,48.  235 

lively  reserved  for  them  in  His  house  (1  Kings  viii.  41-43). 
Ly  the  designation,  a  den  of  thieves,  Jesus  alludes  to  the  de- 
ceptions which  were  connected  with  those  different  bargain- 
ings, and  especially  with  the  business  of  the  exchangers. — If 
Israel  in  a  spirit  of  holiness  had  joined  with  Jesus  in  this 
procedure,  the  act  would  have  ceased  to  have  a  simply  typical 
value ;  it  would   have  become  the  real  inauguration  of  the 
>ianic  kingdom. 
Vers.  47  and  48  are  of  the  nature  of  a  summary;  the  kcl& 
fjfiepav,  daily,  and  the  imperfects,  they  sought,  etc.,  prove  that 
Luke  does  not  affect  to  give  a  complete  account  of  these  last 
days.     The  words,  the  chief  of  the  people,  are  added  as  an 
appendix  to  the  subject  of  the  verb  sought.     They  probably 
denote  the  chiefs  of  the  synagogue  representing  the  people, 
who,   with  the   priests   and  scribes,   formed   the   Sanhedrim. 
This  singular  construction  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  real 
instigators  of  hostilities  against  Jesus  were  the  priests  and 
\ ;  the  chief  of  the  people  only  yielded  to  this  pressure. 
This  idea  forms  the  transition  from  ver.  47  to  ver.  48.     The 
people  formed  the  support  of   Jesus  against  the  theocratic 
authorities.      Certainly,  if  He  had  thought  of  establishing  an 
earthly  kingdom,  now  would  have  been  the  time.     The 
Mark  xi.  18  is  the  parallel  of  those  two  verses.      P. 
ter  of  the  two  accounts  can  proceed  from  the  other. 

Should  this  event  be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  similar  one 
which  John  places  at  the  1>«  ginning  of  Jesus'  ministry,  ii.  13  et  seq.  1 
This  seems  t<>  have  been  the  generally  received  opinion  in  Oi 
time  (in  Joh.  T.  x.  !  the  Syn.  relate  none  hut  this  last  resi- 

dence at  Jerusalem,  it  would  be  very  natural  for  them  to  introduce 
here  different  events  which    properly   belonged  to  previous  resi- 
dences.   See,  nevertheless,  in  our  Conn  Vevang.  de  Jean,  t,  i. 
ons  which  make  it  probable  thai  the  two  events  are 
at      Here  ire  shall  add  two  remarks:   1.  Mark's  narrative 
must  rest  on  the  detailed  account  of  an  eye-witness.     Comp.  those 
minute  particulars :  "And  Jesus  entered  into  Jerusalem,  and  into 
/•'  had  looked  round  about  upon  all  things,  and 
now  the  eventide  was  conn,  JI<-  went    <>ut    onto   ftflthani  with  the 
ill);  "  And  would  m                       //y  man  slumld  carry 
thi  temple"  (ver.  16).     These  are  such  details  as 
are  not  invented  ;  it  was  not  tradition  that  had  preserved  them  (see 
Luke  i                          They  proceed,  th<  iefor<  .  from  an  eye-witness. 
a  this  case  can  we  question  .M.nk  BseqtMBiljl 
that  of  the  three  Syn.  ?     2.  If  Jesus  was  returning  for  the  first  time 


236  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

after  the  lapse  of  two  years  (John  ii.)  to  the  feast  of  Passover,  which 
more  than  any  other  gave  occasion  to  those  scandals  (Bleek  on 
Matt.  xxi.  12),  He  could  not  but  be  roused  anew  against  the  abuses 
which  He  had  checked  the  first  time,  more  especially  in  the  Mes- 
sianic attitude  which  He  had  taken  up.  Here,  then,  again  John 
supplies  what  the  others  have  omitted,  and  omits  what  they  have 
sufficiently  narrated. 

2.  The  Question  of  the  Sanhedrim:  xx.  1—8. — Vers.  1— 8.1 
This  account  is  separated  from  the  preceding,  in  Mark  and 
Matthew,  by  the  brief  mention  of  two  events  :  in  Mark  xi.  1 6, 
the  prohibition  of  Jesus  to  carry  vessels  across  the  temple, — 
the  court  was  probably  used  as  a  thoroughfare  (Bleek)  ;  in 
Matt.  xxi.  14  et  seq.,  the  cures  wrought  in  the  temple,  and 
the  hosannas  of  the  children.  The  authority  which  Jesus 
thus  assumed  in  this  sacred  place  was  well  suited  to  occasion 
the  step  taken  by  the  Sanhedrim.  If  we  follow  Mark,  it 
must  have  taken  place  on  the  day  after  the  purification  of 
the  temple  and  the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  and  con- 
sequently on  the  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  morning.  Luke 
omits  those  events,  which  were  unknown  to  him,  as  well  as 
the  cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree,  which  related  specially  to 
Israel. 

Since  the  evening  before,  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim 
had  been  in  consultation  (&t€lv  of  xix.  47) ;  and  their  seeking 
had  not  been  in  vain.  They  had  succeeded  in  inventing  a 
series  of  questions  fitted  to  entangle  Jesus,  or  in  the  end  to 
extract  from  Him  an  answer  which  would  compromise  Him 
either  with  the  people  or  with  the  Jewish  or  Gentile  autho- 
rities. The  question  of  ver.  2  is  the  first  result  of  those 
conclaves.  Ver.  1  enumerates  the  three  classes  of  members 
composing  the  Sanhedrim ;  it  was  therefore  a  formal  deputa- 
tion, comp.  John  i.  19  et  seq.  The  elders  are  mentioned  here 
also  (comp.  xix.  47)  as  secondary  personages,  beside  the  high 
priests  and  scribes.  The  first  part  of  the  question  relates  to 
the  nature  of  Jesus'  commission :  is  it  divine   or    human  ? 

1  Ver.  1.  tf.  B.  D.  L.  Q.  several  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.  omit  ixtivew  after  vutpeov. 
The  Mss.  are  divided  between  ap^npu;  (T.  E.,  Alex.)  and  npn;  (Byz.). — Ver.  2. 
N*  C.  omit  uTi  npiv.  Ka  B.  L.  E.  2  Mnn.  read  uxov  instead  of  (/«. — Ver.  3. 
N.  B.  L.  E.  7  Mnn.  omit  tv*  before  Xoyov. — Ver.  4.  tf.  D.  L.  R.  add  to  before 
luewov.—  Ver.  5.  tf.  C.  D.  Syrcur.  ItPle»iue,  Vg.,  o-unXoy&vro  instead  of  <rvnkt>yi- 
ruvre. — 13  Mjj.  several  Mnn.  It*"*,  omit  ew  after  $/«-*. — Ver.  6.  K.  B.  D.  L. 
some  Mnn.,  »  Xuog  kt«;  instead  of  -rat  o  ?.k»i. 


chap.  xx.  1-8.  237 

The  second,  to  the  intermediate  agent  through  whom  He  has 
received  it.  The  Sanhedrim  made  sure  that  Jesus  would 
claim  a  divine  commission,  and  hoped  to  take  advantage  of 
this  declaration  to  bring  Jesus  to  its  bar,  and  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  question.  On  the  one  hand,  Jesus  avoids  this 
.snare ;  on  the  other,  He  avoids  declining  the  universally  re- 
cognised competency  of  the  Sanhedrim.  He  replies  in  such  a 
way  as  to  force  His  adversaries  themselves  to  declare  their 
incompetence. — The  question  which  He  la}rs  before  them  is 
not  a  skilful  manoeuvre ;  it  is  dictated  by  the  very  nature  of 
the  situation.  Was  it  not  through  the  instrumentality  of 
John  the  Baptist  that  Jesus  had  been  divinely  accredited  to 
the  people  ?  The  acknowledgment,  therefore,  of  Jesus'  autho- 
rity really  depended  on  the  acknowledgment  of  John's.  The 
second  alternative,  of  men,  includes  the  two  possible  cases,  of 
himself,  or  of  some  other  human  authority. — The  embarrass- 
ment of  His  adversaries  is  expressed  by  the  three  Syn.  in 
ways  so  different,  that  it  is  impossible  to  derive  the  three 
forms  from  one  aud  the  same  written  source.  This  question 
has  sufficed  to  disconcert  them.  They,  the  wise,  the  skilled, 
who  affect  to  judge  of  everything  in  the  theocracy, — they  shame- 
fully decline  a  judgment  in  face  of  an  event  of  such  capital 
importance  as  was  the  appearing  of  John  !  There  is  a  blend- 
of  indignation  and  contempt  in  the  neither  do  I  of  Jesus 
(ver.  8).  But  that  answer  which  He  refuses  them,  they  who 
have  refused  Him  theirs,  He  goes  on  to  give  immediately 
after  in  the  following  parable.  Only  it  is  to  the  wlwle 
'people  that  He  will  address  it  (77730?  top  \aov,  ver.  9),  as  a 
solemn  pfOtoetatiou  against  the  hypocritical  conduct  of  their 

Why  did  Lake  omii  the  coning  of  the  barren  fig  tree  1    He  was 
is  Volkmar,  1 1  limply  an  idea  represent  ad 

in  the  form  of  I  fact;  and  he  restored  to  it  its  true  cha- 
racter by  presenting  it,  xiii.  G-0,  in  the  form  of  a  parable.     So  the 
description  of  God's  patience  toward  Israel,  the  barren  fig-tree  (xiii. 
md  the  same  lesson  with  the  MflMf  tit  that  same  fig- 
Why  does  Matthew  make  the  cursing  <>f  th<'  Bg  tree,  and  the 
conversation  of  Jesus  with  Hi    di  1  iplef  OS  that  occasion,  fall  at  the 
M  period  and  on  the  same  day, — two  facts  which  are  separated  in 
Mark  by  a  whole  day?    Holtamann  answers:  <>n  roadinf  (Mark 
LS)1  balfof  thii  account,  Matthew  determined  to  leave 

imtngto  the  atoond  hall  I  M  ■»,  he  took  the 


238  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

resolution  to  insert  it ;  only  he  combined  them  in  one.  So,  when 
the  evangelist  was  composing  his  narrative,  he  read  for  the  first 
time  the  document  containing  the  history  which  he  was  relating ! 
In  view  of  such  admirable  discoveries,  is  there  not  reason  to  say  : 
Jiisum  teneatis  ? 

3.  The  Parable  of  the  Husbandmen:  xx.  9-19. — This 
parable,  in  Matthew,  is  preceded  by  that  of  the  two  sons.  If, 
as  the  terms  of  the  latter  suppose,  it  applies  to  the  conduct  of 
the  chiefs  toward  John  the  Baptist,  it  is  admirably  placed 
before  that  of  the  husbandmen,  which  depicts  the  conduct  of 
those  same  chiefs  toward  Jesus. 

Vers.  9-1 2.1  We  have  just  attested  the  accuracy  of  the 
introduction,  and  especially  that  of  the  words  to  the  people, 
ver.  9.  Holtzmann  judges  otherwise:  "A  parable  inappro- 
priately addressed  to  the  people  in  Luke,"  says  he.  Is  it 
possible  to  pronounce  a  falser  judgment  ?  The  vine  denotes 
the  theocratic  people,  and  the  husbandmen  the  authorities 
who  govern  them.  Luke  speaks  neither  of  the  toiver  meant 
to  receive  the  workmen's  tools  and  to  guard  the  domain,  which 
perhaps  represents  the  kingly  office ;  nor  of  the  wine-press,  the 
means  of  turning  the  domain  to  account,  which  is  perhaps  the 
image  of  the  priesthood  (comp.  Matthew  and  Mark).  The 
absence  of  the  proprietor  corresponds  to  that  whole  period  of 
the  0.  T.  which  followed  the  great  manifestations  by  which 
God  founded  the  theocracy — the  going  out  of  Egypt,  the  giving 
of  the  law,  and  the  settlement  of  Israel  in  Canaan.  From 
that  moment  Israel  should  have  offered  to  its  God  the  fruits 
of  a  gratitude  and  fidelity  proportioned  to  the  favour  which  it 
had  received  from  Him.  The  three  servants  successively  sent 
represent  the  successive  groups  of  prophets,  those  divine 
messengers  whose  struggles  and  sufferings  are  described  (Heb. 
xi.)  in  such  lively  colours.  There  is  a  climax  in  the  conduct 
of  the  husbandmen:  ver.  10,  the  envoy  is  beaten ;  ver.  11, 
beaten  and  shamefully  abused ;  ver.  12,  wounded  to  death  and 
cast  out  of  the  vineyard.     In  this  last  touch,  Jesus  alludes  to 

1  Ver.  9.  Marcion  omitted  vers.  9-18.— 19  Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  ItH«*«"% 
Vg.  omit  rts  after  uv0pviros,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  A.  some  Mnn.  Syr. — Ver.  10. 
N.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  It*"**,  omit  «v  "before  xuipu. — The  Mss.  are  divided  be- 
tween W/v  (T.  E.,  Byz.)  and  Woy<m  (Alex.).— Ver.  12.  A.  K.  n.  some  Mnn. 

ItPlerique^  yg  ^  KKKUV0V  instead  of  xeti  rouror. 


chap.  xx.  13-I6.  239 

the  fate  of  Zacharias  (xi.  51),  and  probably  also  to  that  of 
John  the  Baptist,  In  Mark,  the  climax  is  nearly  the  same : 
eheipav  (to  beat),  iicetyaXaiwGav  (here,  to  wound  in  the  head), 
aireKreivav  (to  kill).  Mark  speaks  also  of  other  messengers 
who  underwent  the  same  treatment ;  it  is  perhaps  this  last 
description  which  should  be  applied  to  John  the  Baptist. 
Matthew  speaks  only  of  two  sendings,  but  each  embracing 
several  individuals.  Should  we  understand  the  two  principal 
groups  of  prophets :  Isaiah,  with  his  surrounding  of  minor 
prophets,  and  Jeremiah  with  his  ?  The  Hebraistic  expression 
Tpoai0€To  izk^ai  (vers.  11  and  12)  shows  that  Luke  is  work- 
ing on  an  Aramaic  document  No  similar  expression  occurs  in 
Matthew  and  Mark. 

Vers.  13-16.1  The  master  of  the  vineyard  rouses  himself 
in  view  of  this  obstinate  and  insolent  rejection :  What  slwll  I 
do  ?     And  this  deliberation  leads  him  to  a  final  measure :  / 

'  send  my  beloved  son.  This  saying,  put  at  that  time  by 
Jesus  in  the  mouth  of  God,  has  a  peculiar  solemnity.  There 
is  His  answer  to  the  question:  By  what  authority  doest  thou 
these  things? — Here,  as  everywhere,  the  meaning  of  the  title 
son  transcends  absolutely  the  notion  of  Messiah,  or  theocratic 
king,  or  any  office  whatever.  The  title  expresses  above  all  the 
notion  of  a  personal  relation  to  God  as  Father.  The  theo- 
cratic office  flows  from  this  relation.  By  this  name,  Jesus 
establishes  between  the  servants  and  Himself  an  iiniHflmffll* 
able  distance.  This  was  implied  already  by  the  question,  What 
shall  I  do  .  .  .?  which  suggests  the  divine  dialogue,  Gen.  i.  26, 
whereby  the  creation  of  inferior  beings  is  separated  from  that 
of  man.  "Iaax;,  properly,  in  a  way  agreeable  to  expectation ; 
and  hence,  undoubt>  V.  improperly,  it  may  be).     But 

does  not  God  know  beforehand  the  result  of  this  last  ezp 
ment  ?     True ;  but  this  failure  will  not  at  all  overturn  His 
plan.     Not  only  will  the  mission  of  this  last  messenger  be 
successful  with  some,  but  the  resistance  of  the  people  as  a 
whole,  by  hi  a  their  destruction,  will  open  up  the  world 

to  the  free  preaching  of  salvation  by  those  few.     The  ignorance 

!        M    I    0,  D.  L.  Q.  some  Mnn.  Syi*".  \w*«*»,  omit  <*«.nf  beiore 
iif^Tn«»Ti(.- Vor.  14.  A.  K.  n.   4  Mnn.  ItP,w,i*»,  ImXifumr*  instead  of  In- 

-«t#.— K-  B,   D.    '  i.,    wp$  *X\*\$vc  insto.'ifl    of  *(*(  MMffNVi  — 

•  Mjj.  M  Mnn.    1' »  "">".  .,],,;!  Sri/ri  MtolMMflMym. 


240  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  the  future  which  is  ascribed  to  the  master  of  the  vineyard 
belongs  to  the  figure.  The  idea  represented  by  this  detail  is 
simply  the  reality  of  human  liberty. 

The  deliberation  of  the  husbandmen  (ver.  14)  is  an  allu- 
sion to  that  of  the  chiefs,  ver.  5  (Siekoyt&vTo  or  — cravro ;  comp. 
with  o-vveXoylc-avTo).  Jesus  unveils  before  all  the  people  the 
plots  of  their  chiefs,  and  the  real  cause  of  the  hatred  with 
which  they  follow  Him.  These  men  have  made  the  theocracy 
their  property  (John  xi.  48  :  our  place,  our  nation) ;  and  this 
power,  which  till  now  they  have  turned  to  their  advantage, 
they  cannot  bring  themselves  to  give  up  into  the  hands  of  the 
Son,  who  comes  to  claim  it  in  His  Father's  name. — At  ver.  15, 
Jesus  describes  with  the  most  striking  calmness  the  crime 
which  they  are  preparing  to  commit  on  His  person,  and  from 
which  He  makes  not  the  slightest  effort  to  escape.  Is  the  act 
of  casting  out  of  the  vineyard,  which  precedes  the  murder,  in- 
tended to  represent  the  excommunication  already  pronounced 
on  Jesus  and  His  adherents  (John  ix.  22)  ?  In  Mark  the 
murder  precedes;  then  the  dead  body  is  thrown  out. — The 
punishment  announced  in  ver.  16  might,  according  to  Luke 
and  Mark,  apply  only  to  the  theocratic  authorities,  and  not  to 
the  entire  people.  The  aWoi,  the  other  husbandmen,  would 
in  this  case  desigiiate  the  apostles  and  their  successors.  But 
the  sense  appears  to  be  different  according  to  Matthew.  Here 
the  word  to  others  is  thus  explained,  xxi.  43  :  "  The  kingdom 
of  God  shall  be  given  to  a  nation  (edvei)  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof."  According  to  this,  the  point  in  question  is 
not  the  substitution  of  the  chiefs  of  the  K  T.  for  those  of  the 
Old,  but  that  of  Gentile  peoples  for  the  chosen  people.  What 
would  our  critics  say  if  the  parts  were  exchanged,  if  Luke  had 
expressed  himself  here  as  Matthew  does,  and  Matthew  as 
Luke  ?  Matthew  puts  the  answer  of  ver.  16  in  the  mouth  of 
the  adversaries  of  Jesus,  which  on  their  part  could  only  mean, 
"  He  shall  destroy  them,  that  is  evident ;  but  what  have  we  to 
do  with  that  ?  Thy  history  is  but  an  empty  tale."  Yet,  as  it  is 
said  in  ver.  19  that  it  was  not  till  later  that  His  adversaries 
understood  the  bearing  of  the  parable,  the  narrative  of  Luke 
and  Mark  is  more  natural.  The  connection  between  atcov- 
<ravT€<;  and  elirov  is  this :  "  they  had  no  sooner  heard  than, 
deprecating  the  omen,  they  said  .  .  ." 


cii.vp.  xx.  i:-io.  241 

Vers.  1V-19.1  yEiif3\tya<;y  having  beheld  them,  indicates  the 
serious,  even  menacing  expression  which  He  then  assumed. 
The  Be  is  adversative :  "  Such  a  thing,  you  say,  will  never 
happen ;  but  what  meaning,  then,  do  you  give  to  this  say- 
iii"  .  .  .  ? "     Whether  in  the  context  of  Ps.   cxviii.  the  stone 

ted  be  the  Jewish  people  as  a  whole,  in  comparison  with 
the  great  world-powers,  or  (according  to  Bleek  and  others)  the 
believing  part  of  the  people  rejected  by  the  unbelieving  majo- 
rity in  both  cases,  the  image  of  the  stone  despised  by  the 
builders  applies  indirectly  to  the  Messiah,  in  whom  alone 
Israel's  mission  to  the  world,  and  that  of  the  believing  part  of 
the  people  to  the  whole,  was  realized.  It  is  ever,  at  all  stages 
of  their  history,  the  same  law  whose  application  is  repeated. — 
The  ace.  \idov  is  a  case  of  attraction  arising  from  the  relative 
pron.  which  follows.  This  form  is  textually  taken  from  the 
I. XX.  (Ps.  cxviii.  22).  The  corner-stone  is  that  which  forms 
the  junction  between  the  two  most  conspicuous  walls,  that 
which  is  laid  with  peculiar  solemnity. — A  truth  so  stern  as 
the  sentence  of  ver.  18  required  to  be  wrapped  up  in  a  bibli- 
cal quotation.  The  words  of  Jesus  recall  Isa.  viii.  14,  15, 
and  Dan.  ii.  44.     In  Isaiah,  the  Messiah  is  represented  as  a 

-ecrated  stone,  against  which  many  of  the  children  of  Israel 
.-hall  be  broken.  Simeon  (ii.  34)  makes  reference  to  this 
The  subject  in  question  is  the  Messiah  in  His 
humiliation.  A  man's  flashing  himself  against  this  stone  laid 
on  the  earth  means  rejecting  Him  during  the  time  of  His 
humiliation.      In  the  second  part  of  the  verse,  where  this  stone 

;epresented  as  falling  from  the  top  of  the  building,  the  sub- 
he  glorified  Messiah  crushing  all  earthly  oppositions 
by  the  manifestations  of  His  wrath.  In  Dan.  ii.  44  the  word 
\iKfidv  is  also  found  (Xucfiqaei  iraca^  ra?  /SatrtXeui?),  strictly : 
'•,  and   hence  to  scatter  to  the  wind.     It  is  therefore 

serous  to  encounter  this  stone,  either  by  dashing  against  it 
while  it  is  yet  laid  on  the  mound,  as  Israel  is  doing,  or 
whethei  ;t   shall  be  n  the  top  of  the  building 

men  pr<A<»ke  it  to  I all  on  their  own  head,  as  the  other  nations 

11  one  day  do. — A  the  roleu  follows 

m  terrible  shock  (ver.  1  0).  P>ut  fear  of  the  people  restrains 
re  is  a  cow  ipondeno  n  the  two  xai  b«  d 

1  Vrr.  19,  ,    Vg.,  i^T»y»inj.tradof  i^nr.r. 

VOL.  II.  V! 


242  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

icpofirjOrjo-av  and  before  i^rrjaav.  The  two  feelings,  fearing 
and  seeking  (to  put  Him  to  death),  struggle  within  their  heart. 
The  for  at  the  end  of  the  verse  bears  on  the  first  proposition ; 
and  the  Trpbs  civtovs  signifies,  with  a  view  to  them  (ver.  9,  xix.  9). 
— In  Matthew  there  occurs  here  the  parable  of  the  great 
supper.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  Jesus  heaped  up  at  one 
time  so  many  figures  of  the  same  kind.  The  association  of 
ideas  which  led  the  evangelist  to  insert  the  parable  here  is 
sufficiently  obvious. 

4.  The  Question  of  the  Pharisees :  xx.  20-26. — The  official 
question  of  the  Sanhedrim  served  only  to  prepare  a  triumph 
for  Jesus.  From  this  time  forth  the  different  parties  make 
attempts  on  Him  separately,  and  that  by  means  of  captious 
questions  adroitly  prepared. 

Vers.  20— 26.1  The  introduction  to  this  narrative  presents 
in  our  three  Syn.  (Matt.  xxii.  1 5  ;  Mark  xii.  1 3)  some  marked 
shades  of  meaning.  The  simplest  form  is  that  of  Luke.  The 
priests  and  scribes  (ver.  19)  suborn  certain  parties,  who, 
affecting  a  scruple  of  conscience  ("feigning  themselves  just 
men"),  interrogate  Jesus  as  to  whether  it  is  lawful  to  pay 
tribute  to  Gentile  authorities.  The  snare  was  this  :  Did  Jesus 
answer  in  the  affirmative  ?  It  was  a  means  of  destroying  His 
influence  with  the  people  by  stigmatizing  His  Messianic  pre- 
tensions. Did  He  reply  in  the  negative  ?  He  fell  as  a  rebel 
into  the  hands  of  the  Eoman  governor,  who  would  make  short 
work  with  Him.  This  is  brought  out  in  ver.  20  by  the 
emphatic  accumulation  of  the  terms  apyjq,  i^ovaia,  military 
power  and  judicial  authority.  Once  given  over  to  that  power, 
Jesus  would  be  in  good  hands,  and  the  Sanhedrim  would  have 
no  more  concern  about  the  favour  with  which  the  people 
surrounded  Him.  Aoyov  and  avrov  ought  both  to  be  taken, 
notwithstanding  Bleek's  scruples,  as  immediately  dependent 
on  GTrCkafitovrai :  "  to  take  Him  by  surprise,  and  to  catch 
a  word  from  Him  by  surprise."       According  to   Mark  and 

1  Ver.  20.  C.  K.  r.  25  Mnn.,  Xoyov;  D.,  ruvXoyuv;  L.,  Xoyovs  instead  of  Xoyov. 
— tf.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  uffrt  instead  of  us  ro. — Ver.  22.  K.  A.  B.  L.  6  Mnn.,  jj^aj 
instead  of  iy*<v. — Ver.  23.  K.  B.  L.  6  Mnn.  omit  rt  (t%  vupaZ,irt. — Ver.  24.  7  Mjj. 
30  Mnn.,  %n\an  instead  of  t<rt&u%a.r%. — tf.  C.  L.  50  Mnn.  add«  $£  ihi%»»  kxi  u<rt* 
after  ^jjvapav  (taken  from  the  parall.). — N.  B.  L.  Syi**.,  «/  h  instead  of  a.*ox.pi« 
hint  h. — Ver.  25.  X.  B.  L.  7  Mnn.,  Tpo;  avrov,  instead  of  murois. — Ver.  26. 
K.  B.  L.,  tiu  ptifitotroi  instead  of  avrov  pvpxros. 


chap.  xx.  20-26.  243 

Matthew,  the  Pharisees  in  this  case  united  with  the  Herodians. 
Bleeks  thinks  that  the  bond  of  union  between  the  one  party, 
fanatical  zealots  for  national  independence,  and  the  other, 
devoted  partisans  of  Herod's  throne,  was  common  antipathy  to 
foreign  domination.  The  presence  of  the  Herodians  was  in- 
tended to  encourage  Jesus  to  answer  in  the  negative,  and  so  to 
put  Himself  in  conflict  with  Pilate.  But  the  attitude  of  the 
Herodians  toward  the  Roman  power  was  totally  different  from 
Bleek's  view  of  it.  The  Herods  had  rather  planted  themselves 
in  Israel  as  the  vassals  of  Caesar.  The  Herodians,  says  M. 
Beuss,  "  were  the  Jews  who  had  taken  the  side  of  the  family 
of  Herod  against  the  patriots,"  that  is  to  say,  against  the 
Pharisees.1  We  have  therefore  here,  what  so  often  occurs  in 
history,  a  coalition  of  two  hostile  parties,  with  the  view  of 
crushing  a  third,  dangerous  to  both.  In  Galilee  we  have 
already  seen  a  similar  combination  (Mark  iii.  6  ;  Luke  xiii. 
31,  32).  There  was  a  perfectly  good  reason  for  it  in  this  case. 
If  the  answer  of  Jesus  required  to  be  denounced  to  the  people, 
this  task  would  fall  to  the  Pharisees,  who  stood  well  with  the 
multitude.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  necessary  to  go  to 
Pilate,  the  Herodians  would  take  this  part,  so  disagreeable  to 
the  Pharisees. — According  to  Matthew  (ver.  16),  the  heads  of 
the  pharisaic  party  took  care  to  keep  aloof.  They  attacked 
Him  first  through  some  of  their  disciples.  In  reality,  their 
alliance  with  the  Herodians  compromised  those  well-known 
lers  of  national  independence. 
The  address  of  the  emissaries  is  variously  rendered  in  our 
three  Gospels.  'Opdm:  without  deviating  fan  t  he  straight 
line.  Aiyeiv  and  BcSda/ceiv,  to  say  and  to  tcadi,  differ  as  pro- 
nouncing on  a  question  and  ids  of  the  decision. 
The  Hebraistic  phrase  Xajifidveiv  irpoaamov,  which  must  have 
been  a  frightful  barbarism  to  Greek  ears  {to  take  the  coimd- 
nance,  for:  to  accept  men's  persons),  is  found  only  in  Luke. 
It  would  therefore  be  him* -If,  it  he  was  copying  Matthew  or 
who  had  added  it  at  his  own  hand — he  who  was  writing 
for  Greek  readers  !  'Ohos  Geov,  tlie  way  oj  God,  denotes  the 
straight  theocr.it  ie  ]m(i  traced  out  by  the  law,  without  regard 
to  accomplished  facts  or  political  necessities.     They  tfaii 

es  to  render  it  impossible  for  Him  to  recoil.     Th.  re 
1  Hertog* Encyclopedic,  t.  xiii   p,  291. 


2-44  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

was,  in  reality, — and  this  is  what  formed  the  apparently  in- 
surmountable difficulty  of  the  question,  —  a  contradiction 
between  the  pure  theocratic  standard  and  the  actual  state  of 
things.  The  normal  condition  was  the  autonomy  of  God's 
people, — normal  because  founded  on  the  divine  law,  and  as 
such,  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  Jesus.  The  actual  state  of  things 
was  the  subjection  of  the  Jews  to  the  Eomans, — a  providential 
situation,  and  as  such,  not  less  evidently  willed  by  God.  How 
was  this  contradiction  to  be  got  over  ?  Judas  the  Galilean, 
rejecting  the  fact,  had  declared  himself  for  the  right ;  he  had 
perished.  This  was  the  fate  to  which  the  rulers  wished  to  drive 
Jesus.  And  if  He  recoiled,  if  He  accepted  the  fact,  was  this 
not  to  deny  the  right,  the  legal  standard,  Moses,  God  Himself  ? 
Is  it  lawful  for  us  (ver.  22)  ?  They  have  a  scruple  of  con- 
science !  Jesus  at  once  discerns  the  malicious  plot  which 
is  at  the  bottom  of  the  question ;  He  feels  that  never  was  a 
more  dangerous  snare  laid  for  Him.  But  there  is  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  dove  a  skill  which  enables  it  to  escape  from  the 
best  laid  string  of  the  fowler.  What  made  the  difficulty  of 
the  question  was  the  almost  entire  fusion  of  the  two  domains, 
the  religious  and  political,  in  the  Old  Covenant.  Jesus,  there- 
fore, has  now  to  distinguish  those  two  spheres,  which  the 
course  of  Israelitish  history  has  in  fact  separated  and  even 
contrasted,  so  that  He  may  not  be  drawn  into  applying  to  the 
one  the  absolute  standard  which  belongs  only  to  the  other. 
Israel  should  depend  only  on  God,  assuredly,  but  that  in  the 
religious  domain.  In  the  political  sphere,  God  may  be  pleased 
to  put  it  for  a  time  in  a  state  of  dependence  on  a  human 
power,  as  had  formerly  happened  in  their  times  of  captivity 
as  is  the  case  at  present  in  relation  to  Ca3sar.  Did  not  even 
the  theocratic  constitution  itself  distinguish  between  the  tribute 
to  be  paid  to  the  king  and  the  dues  to  be  paid  to  the  priests 
and  the  temple  ?  This  legal  distinction  became  only  more 
precise  and  emphatic  when  the  sceptre  fell  into  Gentile  hands. 
What  remained  to  be  said  was  not  God  or  Caesar,  but  rather, 
God  and  Caesar,  each  in  his  own  sphere.  The  Gentile  money 
which  passed  current  in  Israel  attested  the  providential  fact 
of  the  establishment  of  the  Eoman  dominion,  and  of  the 
acceptance  of  that  state  of  things  by  the  theocratic  people, 
Uhicunque  numisma  regis  alievjus  obtinet,   illic  incolai  regem 


CHAP.  XX.  20-2C.  245 

m  pro  domino  agnoscunt,  says  the  famous  Jewish  doctor 
Maimonides  (quoted  by  Bleek).  The  piece  of  Roman  money 
which  Jesus  calls  His  adversaries  to  show,  establishes  by  the 
image  and  inscription  which  it  bears  the  existence  of  this 
foreign  power  in  the  political  and  lower  sphere  of  the  theo- 
cratic life ;  it  is  to  this  sphere  that  the  payment  of  tribute 
belongs  ;  the  debt  should  therefore  be  discharged.  But  above 
this  sphere  there  is  that  of  the  religious  life  which  has  God 
for  its  object.  This  sphere  is  fully  reserved  by  the  answer  of 
Jesus ;  and  He  declares  that  all  its  obligations  can  be  fulfilled, 
without  in  the  least  doing  violence  to  the  duties  of  the  other. 
He  accepts  with  submission  the  actual  condition,  while  reserv- 
ing fidelity  to  Him  who  can  re-establish  the  normal  condition 
as  soon  as  it  shall  seem  good  to  Him.  Jesus  Himself  had 
never  felt  the  least  contradiction  between  those  two  orders  of 
duties  ;  and  it  is  simply  from  His  own  pure  consciousness 
that  He  derives  this  admirable  solution.  The  word  airoBore, 
render,  implies  the  notion  of  moral  duty  toward  Caesar,  quite 
as  much  as  toward  God.  De  "Wette  is  therefore  certainly 
mistaken  here  in  limiting  the  notion  of  obligation  to  the  things 
which  are  God's,  and  applying  merely  the  notion  of  utility  to 
the  things  which  are  Cesar's.  St  Paul  understood  the  thought 
of  Jesus  better,  when  he  wrote  t<?  the  Romans  (xiii.  1  et  seq.) : 
"  Be  subject  to  the  powers  .  .  .,  not  only  from  fear  of  punish- 
ment, but  also  for  conscience'  sake."  Comp.  1  Tim.  ii.  1  et  seq. ; 
1  Pet  ii.  13  et  seq.  Dependence  on  God  does  not  exclude, 
but  involves,  not  only  many  personal  duties,  but  the  various 
external  and  providential  relations  of  dependence  in  which  the 
iii  may  find  himself  placed,  even  that  of  slavery  (1  Cor. 
vii.  22).1     As  to  theocratic  indep -lnl'-nce,  Jesus  knew  well 

I  not  to  violate  the  duty  of  sub- 
mission to  Ca?sar  by  a  revolutionary  slinking  oil*  of  his  yoke, 
but  to  i  »  the  faithlul  full i nii«iit  of  all  duties  toward 

God.  To  render  to  God  what  is  God's,  was  the  way  for  the 
people  of  God  to  obtain  anew  David  instead  of  Co?sar  as  theil 
Lord. — "Who  could  find  a  word  to  condemn  in  this  solution  ? 

Cccsar ;  to  the  Hcrodians,  the 
Bender  unto  God,     Each  carries  away  hil  own   lesson ;  Jesus 

ording   to   the  interpretation,    "use  terv'UiuU  rather."      See  Lange's 
on  the  passage. 


246  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

alone  issues  triumphantly  from  the  ordeal  which  was  to  have 
destroyed  Him. 

5.  The  Question  of  the  Sadducees:  xx.  27-40. — We  know 
positively  from  Josephus  that  the  Sadducees  denied  at  once 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and 
all  retribution  after  death  (Antiq.  xviii.  1.  4 ;  Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
8.  14).  It  was  not  that  they  rejected  either  the  O.  T.  in 
general,  or  any  of  its  parts.  How,  in  that  case,  could  they 
have  sat  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and  filled  the  priesthood  ?  Probably 
they  did  not  find  personal  immortality  taught  clearly  enough 
in  the  books  of  Moses ;  and  as  to  the  prophetic  books,  they 
ascribed  to  them  only  secondary  authority.1 

Vers.  27 -33.2  The  Question. — The  Sadducees,  starting  from 
the  Levirate  law  given  by  Moses  (Deut.  xxv.  5),  agreeably  to 
a  patriarchal  usage  (Gen.  xxxviii.)  which  is  still  allowed  by 
many  Eastern  peoples,  seek  to  cover  with  ridicule  the  idea  of 
a  resurrection ;  avTiXeyovre? :  who  oppose  (avrl),  maintaining 
that  (Xeyovres). — The  whole  statement  vers.  29-33  has  in  it 
a  touch  of  sarcasm. 

Vers.  34-40.3  The  Answer. — This  answer  is  preceded  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  by  a  severe  rebuke,  whereby  Jesus  makes 
His  questioners  aware  of  the  gross  spiritual  ignorance  involved 
in  such  a  question  as  theirs. — The  answer  of  Jesus  has  also  a 
sarcastic  character.  Those  accumulated  verbs,  yapelv,  eVya/u- 
Q-gQcli,  especially  with  the  frequentative  ya/jilo-fcecrOai,  or  i/cya- 
fiLo-fceaQcu,  throw  a  shade  of  contempt  over  that  whole  worldly 
train,  above  which  the  Sadducean  mind  is  incapable  of  rising. 
Although  from  a  moral  point  of  view  the  aloov  peXktov,  the 
world  to  come,  has  already  begun  with  the  coming  of  Christ, 
from  a  physical  point  of  view,  the  present  world  is  prolonged 

1  Head  on  this  subject  the  excellent  treatise  of  M.  Reuss,  Herzog's  Encyclo- 
pedie,  t.  xiii.  p.  289  et  seq. 

2  Ver.  27.  X.  B.  C.  D.  L.  someMnn.  Syr.,  Xtyoins  instead  of  avrtXiyotrts. — 
Ver.  28.  Na  B.  L.  P.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It«u«.  Vg.,  »  instead  of  «w«<W—  Ver.  30. 

K.  B.  D.  L.,  xai  olivripog  instead  of  xi  ;  iXafitv  a  tivr.  t.  yvv.  xeci  ourog  CLitiQ.  artxvo;. 

—Ver.  31.  12  Mjj.  omit  xai  before  ev.—  Ver.  32.  tf.  B.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr. 
omit  tocvtu)). — Ver.   33.  N.  D.  G.  L.   some  Mnn.   Syr.   It.,   arrui   instead  of 

yivirui. 

3  Ver.  34.  X.  B.  D.  L.  2  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.  omit  avoxprfus  (which  is  taken 
from  the  parallels). — tf.  B.  L.  8  Mnn.,  ytztuo-xovrKi  instead  of  txyxpiZovreti. — 
Ver.  36.  A.  B.  D.  L.  P.,  evh  instead  of  own. — Ver.  37.  Marcion  omitted  vers. 
37  and  38, 


CUAP.  XX.  34-40.  247 

till  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  which  is  to  coincide  with  the 
restitution  of  all  things.  The  resurrection  from  the  dead  is 
very  evidently,  in  this  place,  not  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
in  general.  What  is  referred  to  is  a  special  privilege  granted 
only  to  the  faithful  (which  sJmll  he  accounted  loorthy ;  comp. 
xiv.  14,  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  and  Phil.  iii.  11). 

The  first  for,  ver.  36,  indicates  a  causal  relation  between 
the  cessation  of  marriage,  ver.  35,  and  that  of  death,  ver.  36. 
The  object  of  marriage  is  to  preserve  the  human  species,  to 
which  otherwise  death  would  soon  put  an  end;  and  this  con- 
stitution must  last  till  the  number  of  the  elect  whom  God  will 
gather  in  is  completed.  While  the  for  makes  the  cessation  of 
death  to  be  the  cause  of  the  cessation  of  marriage,  the  particle 
ovre,  neither,  brings  out  the  analogy  which  exists  between 
those  two  facts.  The  reading  ovBe  is  less  supported. — Jesus 
does  not  say  (ver.  36)  that  glorified  men  are  angels, — angels 
and  men  are  of  two  different  natures,  the  one  cannot  be 
transformed  into  the  other, — but  that  they  are  equal  with  the 
angels,  and  that  in  two  respects :  no  death,  and  no  marriage. 

therefore  ascribes  a  body  to  the  angels,  exempt  from  the 
difference  of  sex.     This  positive  teaching  about  the  existence 
and  nature  of  angels  is  purposely  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the 
Sadducees,  because,  according  to  Acts  xxiii.  8,  this  party  di 
the  existence  of  those   beings. — Jesus  calls  the  raised  ones 

tn  of  God,  and  explains  the  title  by  that  of  vhihl 
tlvt  resurrection.  Men  on  the  earth  are  sons  of  one  another ; 
each  of  the  raised  ones  is  directly  a  child  of  God,  because  his 
body  is  an  immediate  work  of  divine  omnipotence.  It  ttraa 
resembles  that  of  the  angels,  whose  body  also  proceeds  directly 
from  the  power  of  the  Creator, — a  fact  which  explains  the 
name  sons  of  God,  by  which  they  arc  designated  in  the  0.  T. 
The  Mosaic  command  could  not  therefore  form  an  objection  to 
the   cl  LOB   rightly   understood.      -1 

now  takes  by  that  very  Moses  whoai 

they  had  been  Opposing  to  Him  (teal,  even,  before  Moses),  the 
indisputable  truth  of  the  doctrine  (vers.  37  and  38).     Tli. 
phaiMtl  My  often  tried  to 

such  a  proof;  but  it  was  necessary  to  dig  deeply  in  the 
mine  to  extract  from  :  mimxl. 

.  M  denotes  the  place  v, 


243  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  account  of  the  bush  is  found.  The  choice  of  the  word 
fMTjvua),  to  give  to  understand,  shows  that  Jesus  distinguishes 
perfectly  between  an  express  declaration  which  does  not  exist, 
and  an  indication  such  as  that  which  He  proceeds  to  cite.  He 
means  simply,  that  if  Moses  had  not  had  the  idea  of  immor- 
tality, he  would  not  have  expressed  himself  as  he  does. 
"When  Moses  put  into  the  mouth  of  God  the  designation : 
God  of  Abraham,  etc.,  many  generations  had  passed  since  the 
three  patriarchs  lived  here  below;  and  yet  God  still  calls 
Himself  their  God.  God  cannot  be  the  God  of  a  being  who 
does  not  exist.  Therefore,  in  Him  they  live.  Mark  the 
absence  of  the  article  before  the  words  ve/cpcov  and  ^covrcov : 
a  God  of  dead,  of  living  beings.  In  Plato,  it  is  their  partici- 
pation in  the  idea  which  guarantees  existence ;  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  it  is  their  relation  to  God  Himself.  The  dative  avTa>, 
to  Him,  implies  a  contrast  to  to  us,  to  whom  the  dead  are  as 
though  they  were  not.  Their  existence  and  activity  are  entirely 
concentrated  in  their  relation  to  God.  All;  not  only  the 
three  patriarchs.  The  for  bears  on  the  word  living.  "  For 
they  live,  really  dead  though  they  are  to  us." 

This  prompt  and  sublime  answer  filled  with  admiration  the 
scribes  who  had  so  often  sought  this  decisive  word  in  Moses 
without  finding  it ;  they  cannot  restrain  themselves  from  tes- 
tifying their  joyful  surprise.  Aware  from  this  time  forth  that 
every  snare  laid  for  Him  will  be  the  occasion  for  a  glorious 
manifestation  of  His  wisdom,  they  give  up  this  sort  of  attack 
(ver.  40). 

6.  The  Question  of  Jesus :  xx.  41-44. — Vers.  41-44.1 
Matthew  and  Mark  place  here  the  question  of  a  scribe  on  the 
great  commandment  of  the  law.  This  question  was  suggested 
to  the  man,  as  we  see  from  Mark  xii.  28,  by  the  admiration 
which  filled  him  at  the  answers  which  he  had  just  heard. 
According  to  Matthew,  he  wished  yet  again  to  put  the  wisdom 
of  Jesus  to  the  proof  {ireipa&v  avrov,  Matt.  xxii.  35).  Either 
Luke  did  not  know  this  narrative,  or  he  omitted  it  because  he 
had  related  one  entirely  similar,  x.  25  et  seq. 

At  the  close  of  this  spiritual  tournament,  Jesus  in  His  turn 
throws  down  a  challenge  to  His  adversaries.     Was  it  to  giv<3 

1  Ver.  41.  A.  K.  M.  n.  20  Mnn.  addrmi  after  >.iyaun—  Ver.  42.  8.  B.  L.  R. 

8011ie  Mnn.,  xuro;  yap  instead  of  xat  aunt. 


CHAP.  XX.  41-44.  249 

them  difficulty  for  difficulty,  entanglement  for  entanglement  ? 
No ;  the  similar  question  which  He  had  put  to  them,  ver.  4, 
has  proved  to  us  that  Jesus  was  acting  in  a  wholly  different 
spirit.  What,  then,  was  His  intention  ?  He  had  just  announced 
His  death,  and  pointed  out  the  authors  of  it  (parable  of  the  hus- 
bandmen). Now,  He  was  not  ignorant  what  the  charge  would 
be  which  they  would  use  against  Him.  He  would  be  condemned 
as  a  blasphemer,  and  that  for  having  called  Himself  the  Son 
of  God  (John  v.  18,  x.  33  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  65).  And  as  He  was 
not  ignorant  that  before  such  a  tribunal  it  would  be  impos- 
sible for  Him  to  plead  His  cause  in  peace,  He  demonstrates 
beforehand,  in  presence  of  the  whole  people,  and  by  the  Old 
Testament,  the  divinity  of  the  Messiah,  thus  sweeping  away 
from  the  Old  Testament  standpoint  itself  the  accusation  of 
blasphemy  which  was  to  form  the  pretext  for  His  condemna- 
tion. The  three  Syn.  have  preserved,  with  slight  differences, 
this  remarkable  saying,  which,  with  Luke  x.  21,  22  and  som« 
ntJMT  passages,  forms  the  bond  of  union  between  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  in  those  Gospels,  and  all  that  is  affirmed  of  His  person 
in  that  of  John.      If  it  is  true  that  Jesus  applied  to  Himself 

tie  of  David's  Lord,  with  which  this  king  addressed  the 
Messiali  in  Ps.  ex.,  the  consciousness  of  His  divinity  is  implied 
in  tin  certainly  as  in  any  declaration  whatever  of  tin 

fourth  Go 

According  to  Luke,  it  is  to  the  scribes,  according  to  Matthew 
(xxii.  41),  to  the  Pharisees,  that  the  following  question  is 
addressed.  Mark  names  no  one.  The  three  narratives  differ 
likewise  slightly  in  the  form  of  the  question:  '*  How  >a\  1 1 

How  say  the  scribes?"  (Mark.)     In  Matthew,  Jesus 

:es  to  the  Pharisees  at  the  same  time  the  doctrine  of  the 
Davidic  sonship  of  the  Messiah, — very  natural  diversities  if 
they  arise  from  a  tradition  which  had  taken  various  forms,  but 
inexplicable  if  they  are  intentional,  as  they  must  be,  supposing 
the  use  of  one  ami  the  Mane  written  source.  The  Alex  read  i 
.  .  ;"  that  19  to  say :  "  there  is  room  to  put 
this  question;  for..."      The   P>yz. :   "And  (nevertheless)  he 

If  hath  said  .  .  "  Luke  says:  in  the  booh  of  Psalms; 
Matth  k:   In/    ti       i.  ri(. — The 

non-Messianic  explanations  of  Ps.  ex.  an-  tin-  masterpiece  of 
lationalistic  af  a      Th<y  begin  by  giving  to  yrh  the 


250  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

meaning :  "  addressed  to  David,"  instead  of :  "  composed  hj 
David/'  contrary  to  the  uniform  sense  of  the  h  auctoris  in  the 
titles  of  the  Psalms,  and  that  to  make  David  the  subject  of  the 
Psalm,  which  would  be  impossible  if  he  were  its  author 
(Ewald).  And  as  this  interpretation  turns  out  to  be  untenable, 
for  David  never  was  a  priest  (ver.  4 :  "  Thou  art  a  priest  for 
ever"),  they  transfer  the  composition  of  the  Psalm  to  the  age 
of  the  Maccabees,  and  suppose  it  addressed  by  some  author  or 
other  to  Jonathan,  the  brother  of  Judas  Maccabeus,  of  the 
priestly  race.  This  person,  who  never  even  bore  the  title  of 
king,  is  the  man  whom  an  unknown  flatterer  is  supposed, 
according  to  Hitzig,  to  celebrate  as  seated  at  Jehovah's  right 
hand  !  It  is  impossible  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  contents  of  the 
Psalm  without  recognising  its  directly  Messianic  bearing: 
1.  A  Lord  of  David  ;  2.  Eaised  to  Jehovah's  throne,  that  is  to 
say,  to  participation  in  omnipotence ;  3.  Setting  out  from  Zion 
on  the  conquest  of  the  world,  overthrowing  the  kings  of  the 
earth  (ver.  5),  judging  the  nations  (ver.  6),  and  that  by  means 
of  an  army  of  priests  clothed  in  their  sacerdotal  garments 
(ver.  3)  ;  4.  Himself  at  once  a  priest  and  a  Icing,  like  Mel- 
chisedec  before  Him.  The  law,  by  placing  the  kingly  power 
in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  the  priesthood  in  that  of  Levi,  had 
raised  an  insurmountable  barrier  between  those  two  offices. 
This  separation  David  must  often  have  felt  with  pain.  Uzziah 
attempted  to  do  away  with  it ;  but  he  was  immediately  visited 
with  punishment.  It  was  reserved  for  the  Messiah  alone,  at 
the  close  of  the  theocracy,  to  reproduce  the  sublime  type  of 
the  King-Priest,  presented  at  the  date  of  its  origin  in  the 
person  of  Melchisedec.  Comp.  on  the  future  reunion  of  those 
two  offices  in  the  Messiah,  the  wonderful  prophecy  of  Zech. 
vi.  9-15.  Ps.  ex.,  besides  its  evidently  prophetic  bearing,  pos- 
sesses otherwise  all  the  characteristics  of  David's  compositions  : 
a  conciseness  which  is  forcible  and  obscure ;  brilliancy  and 
freshness  in  the  images ;  grandeur  and  richness  of  intuition. 
It  was  from  the  words  :  Sit  TJwu  at  my  right  hand,  that  Jesus 
took  His  answer  to  the  adjuration  of  the  high  priest  in  the 
judgment-scene  (Matt.  xxvi.  64):  "Henceforth  shall  ye  see 
the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power."  With 
what  a  look  of  severity,  turned  upon  His  adversaries  at  the 
very  moment  when   He   quoted   this  Psalm  before   all   the 


CHAP.  XX.  41-44.  251 

people,  must  He  have  accompanied  this  declaration  of  Jehovah 
to  the  Messiah  :  "  until  I  make  TJiine  enemies  Thy  footstool" 

To  answer  satisfactorily  the  question  of  ver.  44,  put  by 
Jesus,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  introduce  the  idea  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Messiah,  which  is  the  soul  of  the  entire  Old 
Testament.  Isaiah  called  the  Son  born  to  us:  Wonderful, 
mighty  God  (Isa.  ix.  5).  Micah  had  distinguished  His  his- 
toric birth  at  Bethlehem,  and  His  pre-historic  birth  from 
\ng  (v.  2).  Malachi  had  called  the  Messiah,  "  Adonai 
coming  to  His  temple "  (iii.  1).  There  was  in  the  whole  of 
the  Old  Testament,  from  the  patriarchal  theophanies  down  to 
the  latest  prophetic  visions,  a  constant  current  toward  the 
incarnation  as  the  goal  of  all  those  revelations.  The  appear- 
ance of  the  Messiah  presents  itself  more  and  more  clearly  to 
the  view  of  the  prophets  as  the  perfect  theophany,  the  final 
coming  of  Jehovah.  No  doubt,  since  the  exile,  exclusive  zeal 
for  monotheism  had  diverted  Jewish  theology  from  this  normal 
direction.  This  is  the  fact  which  Jesus  sets  before  its  repre- 
sentatives in  that  so  profound  argument  of  His,  John  x.  34-38. 

vas  exactly  in  this  way  that  Rabbinical  monotheism  had 
become  petrified  and  transformed  into  a  dead  theism.     Jv 
has  taken  up  the  broken  thread  of  the  living  theology  of  the 
prophets.     Such  is  the  explanation  of  His  present  question. 

resolve  it,  the  scribes  would  have  required  to  plunge  again 
into  the  fresh  current  of  the  ancient  theocratic  aspiratio] 
The  descendant  promised  to  David  (12   Sam.  vii.  10)  will 
nothing  less  than  Adonai  coming  to  1 1  is  temple  (Mai.  iii.  1); 
to   His   human    birth    at    Bethlehem   there   correspond      II: 
eternal  origin  in  God  (Mic.  v.  2):  such  only  is  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  tli*    two  titles  son  and  Lord  of  David  given  to  the 
person  of  the  M 

ring  and  appropriates  n  appear  to  hi 

illy  manifest.     It  has  b  tit,  however,  to  explain  it  other- 

#116, 

•mo  think  thai  JetOJ  argues,  (torn  the  fact  that  Messiah  is  to 

be  David's  L  tie  cannot  he  his  d  '■    For  it 

ncongruous,  say  tney,  thai  an  ancestor  should  call  his  deaoondan) 

be  admil 
■  11  that  !!«•  did  ool  d<  i  rid, 

ough  among  tin-  people  they  ignorantlv  gave  Bin  the  title  sew* 

liah.     The  Christians, 


252  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

it  is  said,  yielded  at  a  later  period  to  the  popular  Jewish  instinct ; 
and  to  satisfy  it  invented  the  two  genealogies  which  seem  to  estab- 
lish the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus  (Schenkel).  But,  (a)  In  this  case, 
Jesus  would  have  acted,  as  Keim  observes,  in  a  manner  extremely 
imprudent,  by  Himself  raising  a  question  which  more  than  any  other 
might  have  prejudiced  His  standing  with  the  people.  "  The  cha- 
racter son  of  David  could  not  be  wanting  to  Him  who  thus  publicly 
made  it  a  subject  of  discussion"  (Keim).  (b)  It  would  not  only  be 
the  forgers,  the  authors  of  the  two  genealogical  documents  preserved 
by  Matthew  and  Luke,  who  had  admitted  and  propagated  this  late 
error;  it  would  also  mean  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  (xxii.  16  : 
"lam  the  root  and  offspring  of  David  ").  St.  Paul  himself  would  be 
guilty, — he  who  should  least  of  all  have  been  inclined  to  make  such 
a  concession  to  the  Judaizing  party  (Rom.  i.  3  :  "  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  flesh  ;"  2  Tim.  ii.  8  :  "  of  the  seed  of  David"). 
The  whole  Church  must  thus  have  connived  at  this  falsehood,  or 
given  in  to  this  error,  and  that  despite  of  the  exjjress  protestation 
of  Jesus  Himself  in  our  passage,  and  without  any  attempt  on  the 
part  of  our  Lord's  adversaries  to  show  up  the  error  or  falsehood  of 
this  assertion  !  (c)  The  argument  thus  understood  would  prove  far 
too  much ;  the  rationalists  themselves  should  beware  of  ascribing  to 
Jesus  so  gross  a  want  of  logic  as  it  would  imply.  If  it  was  dishonour- 
ing to  David  to  call  any  one  whatsoever  of  his  descendants  his  Lord, 
why  would  it  be  less  so  for  him  to  give  this  title  to  that  descendant  of 
Abraham  who  should  be  the  Messiah  1  Was  not  the  family  of  David 
the  noblest,  the  most  illustrious  of  Israelitish  families  1  The  reason- 
ing of  Jesus  would  logically  end  in  proving  that  the  Messiah  could 
not  be  an  Israelite,  or  even  a  man  !  (d)  Jesus  would  thus  have  put 
Himself  in  contradiction  to  the  whole  Old  Testament,  which  repre- 
sented the  Christ  as  being  born  of  the  family  of  David  (2  Sam.  vii. ; 
Ps.  cxxxii.  17  ;  Isa.  ix.  5,  6).  (e)  Luke  would  also  be  in  contradic- 
tion with  himself,  for  he  expressly  makes  Jesus  descend  from  David 
(i.  32,  69).  (/)  How,  finally,  could  Jesus  have  contented  Himself 
with  protesting  so  indirectly  against  this  attribute  son  of  David 
ascribed  to  Him  by  the  multitude,  if  He  had  known  that  He  did 
not  possess  it  ? 

2.  According  to  M.  Colani  also,  Jesus  means  that  the  Messiah  is 
not  the  son  of  David,  but  in  this  purely  moral  sense,  that  He  is  not 
the  heir  of  his  temporal  power ;  that  His  kingdom  is  of  a  higher 
nature  than  David's  earthly  kingdom.  But,  (a)  It  is  wholly 
opposed  to  the  simple  and  rational  meaning  of  the  term  son  of  David, 
not  to  refer  it  to  sonship  properly  so  called,  but  to  make  it  signify, 
a  temporal  king  like  David,  (b)  It  would  be  necessary  to  admit  that 
the  evangelist  did  not  himself  understand  the  meaning  of  this  say- 
ing, or  that  he  contradicts  himself, — he  who  puts  into  the  mouth  of 
the  angel  the  declaration,  i.  32  :  "The  Lord  shall  give  unto  Him 
the  throne  of  His  father  David  "  (comp.  ver.  69). 

3.  Keim  admits  the  natural  meaning  of  the  term  Son.  He  places 
the  notion  of  spiritual  kingship  not  in  this  term,  but  in  that  of  David's 
Lord.     "  The  physical  descent  of  Jesus  from  David  is  of  no  moment ; 


cn.vr.  xx.  41-44.  253 

His  kingdom  is  not  a  repetition  of  David's.  From  the  bosom  of 
the  heavenly  glory  to  which  He  is  raised,  He  bestows  spiritual 
blessings  on  men.  None,  therefore,  should  take  offence  at  His  pre- 
sent poverty."  But,  (a)  If  that  is  the  whole  problem,  the  problem 
vanishes ;  for  there  is  not  the  least  difficulty  in  admitting  that  a 
i  ndant  may  be  raised  to  a  height  surpassing  that  of  his  ancestor. 
There  is  no  serious  difficulty,  if  the  term  Lord  does  not  include  the 
notion  of  a  sonship  superior  to  that  which  is  implied  in  the  title 
son  of  David,  (b)  So  thoroughly  is  this  our  Lord's  view,  that  in 
Mark  the  question  put  by  Him  stands  thus  :  "  David  calls  Him  his 
Lord;  how,  then,  is  He  his  son?"  In  Keim's  sense,  Jesus  should 
have  said  :  "  David  calls  Him  his  son  ;  how,  tlien,  is  He  his  Lord  ?  " 
In  the  form  of  Matthew  (the  Gospel  to  which  Keim  uniformly  gives 
the  preference,  and  to  which  alone  he  ascribes  any  real  value),  the  true 
point  of  the  question  is  still  more  clearly  put :  "  Whose  son  is  He  f  " 
The  problem  is  evidently,  therefore,  the  Davidic  sonship  of  Jesus,  as 
an  undeniable  fact,  and  yet  apparently  contradictory  to  another 
sonship  implied  in  the  term  David's  Lord.  Finally,  (c)  If  it  was 
merely  the  spiritual  nature  of  His  kingdom  which  Jesus  meant  to 
teach,  as  Colani  and  Keim  allege  in  their  two  different  interpreta- 
tions, there  were  many  simpler  and  clearer  ways  of  doing  so,  than 
the  ambiguous  and  complicated  method  which  on  their  supposition 
II.  must  have  employed  here.  The  question  put  by  Jesus  would 
be  nothing  but  a  play  of  wit,  unworthy  of  Himself  and  of  tin- 
solemnity  of  the  occasion. 

4.  According  to  Volkmar,  this  whole  piece  is  a  pure  invention  of 
Mark,  the  primitive  evangelist,  who.  by  patting  this  <juestion  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus,  skilfully  answered  this  Rabbinical  objection  :  J< 
did  not  present  Himself  to  the  world  either  as  David's  descendant, 
or  as  His  glorious  successor ;  consequently  He  cannot  be  (he  Hessull, 
for  the  0.  T.  makes  Messiah  the  son  of  David.  Mark  answered  by 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  :  No  ;  it  is  impossible  that  the  O.  T.  could  have 
meant  to  make  MTonniah  the  son  of  David,  for  according  to  Ps.  ex. 
the  Messiah  was  to  be  his  Lord.  Bat,  (a)  It  would  follow  there- 
from, as  Volkmar  acknowledge*,  that  in  the  time  of  Jesus  none  had 
regarded  Him  as  the  descendant  of  David.  Now  the  acclamation- 
of  the  multitude  on  the  day  of  Palms,  the  address  of  the  woman  of 

tan.  that  of  BartinnMis,  and  all  the  other  lik<-  passages,  prow,  on 
ay.   that  the   Davidic  sonship  of  JeaOS   was  a  g.-ncrallv 

adni             ■.     (i>)  How  was  it  thai  the  scribes  Beret  protested 
against  the  Messianic  pretensions  of  Jeans,  especially  <>n  th oa 

Sanhedrim,  if  His  attribute  son  of  David  had 

been  a  n  :act?     (c)  The  Davidic  descent  of  the  family 

■  lesna  wasso  well  known,  that  the  emperor  Domitian  rammoned 

hews  of  Jesus,  the  sons  of  Ju<l<  Sit  brother,  to  Borne,  under 

^nation  of  sons  of  David       (</)  St.   Paul,  in  the  year  59, 

positively  teaches  the  Davidic  descent  oi   .Ttsus  (Rom.  i.  3).     And 

Mark,  the  Pauline  (according  to  Volkmar).   denied  to  Jeeoi  this 

same  sonship  in  73  (the  da'  ilkmar,  of  i  om- 

posi'  :ng  ad  hoc!     Still  moi  himself  I 


254  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Pauline  of  the  purest  water,  reproduces  Mark's  express  denial, 
without  troubling  himself  about  the  positive  teaching  of  Paul ! 
Volkmar  attempts  to  elude  the  force  of  this  argument  by  maintain- 
ing that  Paul's  saying  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  is  only  a 
concession  made  by  him  to  the  Judeo-Christian  party !  To  the 
objection  taken  from  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  (Luke  iii.  23  et  seq.), 
Volkmar  audaciously  replies  that  Luke  mentions  it  only  to  set  it 
aside  ("um  sie  zu  illudiren  ").  And  yet  this  same  Luke,  as  we  have 
seen,  expressly  asserts  this  sonship  (i.  32  and  69).  (e)  Let  us  add 
a  last  discovery  of  Volkmar's  :  Matthew  found  it  useful,  in  the 
interest  of  the  Judeo-Christian  party,  to  accept  in  spite  of  Mark  the 
idea  of  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus  as  he  found  it  contained  in 
Luke  (in  that  genealogical  document  which  Luke  had  quoted  only 
to  set  aside)  !  Only,  to  glorify  Jesus  the  more,  he  substituted  at 
his  own  hand,  for  the  obscure  branch  of  Nathan  (Luke's  genealogy), 
the  royal  and  much  more  glorious  line  of  Solomon  (Matthew's). 

Thus  our  sacred  writers  manipulate  history  to  suit  their  interest 
or  caprice !  Instead  of  the  artless  simplicity  which  moves  us  in 
their  writings,  we  find  in  them  device  opposed  to  device,  and  false- 
hood to  falsehood  !  Be  it  ours  to  stand  aloof  from  such  saturnalia 
of  criticism  ! 

Our  interpretation,  the  only  natural  one  in  the  context,  is  con- 
firmed :  (1)  By  those  expressions  in  the  Apocalypse  :  the  root  and 
offspring  of  David, — expressions  which  correspond  to  those  of  Lord 
and  son  of  this  king ;  (2)  by  Paul's  twofold  declaration,  "made  of  the 
seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh  [David's  son],  and  declared  to 
be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  since  His  resurrection,  according  to 
the  spirit  of  holiness  [David's  Lord]  ; "  (3)  by  the  silence  of  Jesus 
at  the  time  of  His  condemnation.  This  question,  put  in  the  pre- 
sence of  all  the  people  to  the  conscience  of  His  judges,  had  answered 
beforehand  the  accusation  of  blasphemy  raised  against  Him.  Such 
was  the  practical  end  which  Jesus  had  in  view,  when  with  this  ques- 
tion He  closed  this  decisive  passage  of  arms. 

7.  TJie  Warning  against  the  Scribes:  xx.  45-47. — Vers. 
45-47.1  On  the  field  of  battle  where  the  scribes  have  just 
been  beaten,  Jesus  judges  them.  This  short  discourse,  like 
its  parallel  Mark  xii.  38-40,  is  the  summary  of  the  great 
discourse  Matt,  xxiii.,  wherein  Jesus  pronounced  His  woe  on 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  which  may  be  called  the  judg- 
ment of  the  theocratic  authorities.  It  is  the  prelude  to  the 
great  eschatological  discourse  which  follows  (the  judgment  of 
Jerusalem,  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  world,  Matt.  xxiv.  and 
xxv.). — In  the  discourse  Matt,  xxiii.,  two  different  discourses 
are  combined,  of  which  the  one  is  transmitted  to  us  by  Luke 

1  Ver.  45.  B.  D.  omit  avrou  after  ix.a8nru.is. — Ver.  47.  D.  P.  R.  some  Mnn. 
Syr.  ItP,eri«ue,  Vg.,  *p9o-itt%op.ivot  instead  ot  Tfo<riux,ovr»i. 


chap.  xxi.  1-4.  255 

(xi  37  et  seq.),  in  a  context  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired, 
and  the  other  was  really  uttered  at  the  time  where  we  find  it 
placed  in  the  first  GospeL  We  have  only  an  abridgment  in 
Mark  and  Luke,  either  because  it  was  found  in  this  form  in 
the  documents  from  which  they  drew,  or  because,  writing  for 
Gentile  readers,  they  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  transmit  it  to 
them  in  whole.  —  OeXovrcov :  who  take  their  pleasure  in. — 
There  are  two  ways  of  explaining  the  spoliations  referred  to 
in  the  words  :  devouring  tcidoivs'  houses.  Either  they  extorted 
considerable  presents  from  pious  women,  under  pretext  of 
interceding  for  them, — this  sense  would  best  agree  with  the 
sequel,  especially  with  the  reading  irpocrevxpiievoi, ; — or  what 
is  more  natural  and  piquant,  by  the  ambiguity  of  the  word 
o,  Jesus  alludes  to  the  sumptuous  feasts  provided  for 
them  by  those  women,  while  they  filled  the  office  of  directors 
of  the  conscience  ;  in  both  senses  :  the  Tartuffes  of  the  period. 
The  word  Trpofyaais,  strictly  pretext,  signifies  secondarily,  show. 
The  words:  greater  damnation,  include  in  an  abridged  form 
all  the  oiat.  worn  I  of  Matthew. 

8.  The  Widow's  Alms:  xxi.  1-4. — Vers.  1-4.1  This 
piece  is  wanting  in  Matthew.  Why  would  he  have  rejected 
it,  if,  according  to  Holtzmann's  view,  he  had  before  him  the 
document  from  which  the  other  two  have  taken  it  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Mark  (xii.  41-44),  Jesus,  probably  worn  out  with  tin- 
preceding  scene,  sat  down.  In  the  court  of  the  women  then 
were  placed,  according  to  the  Talmud  (tr.  Schckalim,  vi.  1,  5, 
13),  thirteen  coffers  with  ham-ahaped  orifices ;  whence  their 
name  nnsvj\  They  were  called  ya&cpvXdKia,  treasuries.  This 
name  in  the  sing,  designated  the  locality  as  a  whole  where 
those  coflers  stood  (John  viii.  20;  Josephns,  AwHq.  xix.  6.  1). 
Thifl  is  perhaps  the  meaning  in  which  the  word  is  used  in 
41):  over  against  ;  in  Luke  it  is  applied 

to  the  coffers  themselves.  —  Aeirrov,  wile  :  the  smallest  coin, 
probably  the  eighth  part  of  the  as,  which  was  worth  from  six 
to  eight  centimes  (from  a  halfpenny  to  throo-farthings).  Two 
XeTTTti,  therefore,  correspond  Beady  to  two  centime  pieces. 
Bengel  finely  remarks  on  the  two:  "one  of  which  she 
have  retained."     Mark  translates  tl  eerion   into  Roman 

2.  9  Mjj.  several  Mnn.,  Mm  ««<  instead  of  mm  mm,     9  Mjj.  several 
in  it  ««..— Ver.  4.  «.  B.  L  ■».  omit  rw  «•••  after  )«,«. 


256  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

money  :  "  which  make  a  farthing" — a  slight  detail  unknown 
to  Luke,  and  fitted  to  throw  light  on  the  question  where  the 
second  Gospel  was  composed. — In  the  sayings  which  Jesus 
addresses  to  His  disciples,  His  object  is  to  lead  their  minds  to 
the  true  appreciation  of  human  actions  according  to  their 
quality,  in  opposition  to  the  quantitative  appreciation  which 
forms  the  essence  of  pharisaism.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  :  she  hath  cast  in  more  ;  in  reality,  with  those  two  mites, 
she  had  cast  in  her  heart.  The  proof  (yap,  ver.  4)  is  given  in 
what  follows :  she  hath  cast  in  of  her  penury  all  that  she  had. 
'TcrTepTifia,  deficiency,  denotes  what  the  woman  had  as  insuffi 
cient  for  her  maintenance.  "  And  of  that  too  little,  of  that 
possession  which  in  itself  is  already  a  deficiency,  she  has  kept 
nothing."  The  word  vaTeprjat,*;  in  Mark  denotes  not  what  the 
woman  had  as  insufficient  (varepTjfia),  but  her  entire  condition, 
as  a  state  of  continued  penury.  What  a  contrast  to  the 
avarice  for  which  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  are  upbraided  in 
the  preceding  piece !  This  incident,  witnessed  by  Jesus  at 
such  a  time,  resembles  a  flower  which  He  comes  upon  all  at 
once  in  the  desert  of  official  devotion,  the  sight  and  perfume 
of  which  make  Him  leap  with  joy.  Such  an  example  is  the 
justification  of  the  beatitudes,  Luke  vi.,  as  the  preceding  dis- 
course justifies  the  oval,  woes,  in  the  same  passage. 


THIRD  CYCLE. CHAP.  XXL  5-38. 

The  Prophecy  of  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

This  piece  contains  a  question  put  by  the  disciples  (vers. 
5-7),  the  discourse  of  Jesus  in  answer  to  their  question  (vers. 
8-36),  and  a  general  view  of  the  last  days  (vers.  37,  38). 

1.  The  Question:  vers.  5-7.1 — To  the  preceding  declaration, 
some  of  the  hearers  might  have  objected,  that  if  only  such 
gifts  as  the  widow's  had  been  made  in  that  holy  place,  those 
magnificent  structures  and  those  rich  offerings  would  not  have 
existed.  It  was  doubtless  some  such  reflection  which  gave 
rise  to  the  following  conversation.  This  conversation  took 
place,  according  to  Matthew  xxiv.  1  and  Mark  xiii.  1,  as  Jesus 

1  Ver.  5.  X.  A.  D.  X.,  *>a^a«m  instead  of  «»«^«r/».— Ver.  6.  D.  L.  ItPleri«ue, 
omit  a  after  txutx, — X.  B.  L.  some  Mnn.  add  uli  after  Xt6u  or  kihr. 


chap.  xxi.  o-i.  257 

left  the  temple,  and  on  occasion  of  an  observation  made  by 
'triples  (Matthew),  or  by  one  of  them  (Mark).     According 

0  Matthew,  this  observation  was  certainly  connected  with  the 
Iftri  words  of  the  previous  discourse  (not  related  by  Mark  and 
Luke),  xxiii.  38  :  "  Your  house  is  left  unto  you  [desolate]."  How 
can  it  be  asserted  that  three  evangelists,  copying  the  same  docu- 
jiunt,  or  copying  from  one  another,  could  differ  in  such  a  way  ? 

In  the  answer  of  Jesus  (ver.  6),  the  words,  ravra  a  Oeay- 
petre,  tlicsc  things  which  yc  hehold,  may  be  taken  interrogatively : 

1  These  are  the  things,  are  they,  which  ye  are  beholding  ?  " 
Or  we  may  take  them  as  in  apposition  to  \ido$,  and  the  subject 
of  a<j>607]<r€Tai,  which  is  more  categorical  and  solemn :  "As  to 
these  tilings  which  ye  behold  .  .  .  there  shall  not  be  left  one 
stone  upon  another." — It  was  evening  (Luke  ver.  37),  at  the 
moment  perhaps  when  the  setting  sun  was  casting  his  last  rays 
on  the  sacred  edifice  and  the  holy  city. — Several  critics  think 
that  Luke  places  this  discourse  also  in  the  temple.  But  this 
opinion  does  not  agree  either  with  vers.  5  and  6,  where  the 
temple  buildings  are  contemplated  by  the  interlocutors,  which 
supposes  them  to  be  at  some  distance  from  which  they  can 
view   them  as  a  whole,  or  with  ver.   7,  which  conveys  the 

i  of  a  private  conversation  between  the  disciples  and  the 
Master.  According  to  Mark  (xiii.  3),  Jesus  was  seated  with 
Peter,  James,  John,  and  Andrew,  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
over  against  that  wonderful  scene.  Here  is  one  of  those 
details  in  which  we  recognise  the  recital  of  an  eye-witness, 
probably  Peter.  Matthew,  while  indicating  the  situation  in 
Mark,  does  not,  any  more  than  Luke,  name 
the  four  disciples  present.  Luke  and  Matthew  would  certainly 
not  have  omitted   such  a  circuinstam n ■,  it   they   had  copied 

:  as,  on  the  contrary.  Mark  would  not  have  added  it  at  his 
Own  band,  if  he  had  compiled  from  the  text  of  the  other  two. 
form  of  the  disciples'  question,  ver.  7,  differs  in  Lake 
and  Mark,  but  the  sense  is  the  same  :  the  question  in  both 
refers  simply  I  dm  of  the  destruction  of  tlie  temple,  and 

I  by  which  it  shall  be  announced.  It  is,  no  doubt, 
possible  the  diaoiplee  more  or  less  confounded  this  catastrophe 
with  the  event  of  the  Parousia  ;  but  the  text  docs  not  say  so. 
It  is  quite  otherwise    in    Matthew;    according  to  him,   the 

ion  bears  expi\--ly  on  those  two  pointa  OOnHned :  the 

VOL  11.  h 


258  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

time  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and  the  sign  of  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Luke  and  Matthew  each  give  the  following 
discourse  in  a  manner  which  is  in  keeping  with  their  mode  of 
expressing  the  question  which  gives  rise  to  it.  In  Luke,  this 
discourse  contemplates  exclusively  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
If  mention  is  made  of  the  end  of  the  world  (vers.  2  5-2  7),  it 
is  only  in  passing,  and  as  the  result  of  an  association  of  ideas 
which  will  be  easily  explained.  The  Parousia  in  itself  had 
been  previously  treated  of  by  Luke  in  a  special  discourse 
called  forth  by  a  question  of  the  Pharisees  (chap.  xvii.).  On 
his  side,  Matthew  combines  in  the  following  discourse  the  two 
subjects  indicated  in  the  question,  as  he  has  expressed  it ;  and 
he  unites  them  in  so  intimate  a  way,  that  all  attempts  to 
separate  them  in  the  text,  from  Chrysostom  to  Ebrard  and 
Meyer,  have  broken  down.  Comp.  vers.  14  and  22,  which 
can  refer  to  nothing  but  the  Parousia,  while  the  succeeding 
and  preceding  context  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  ver.  34,  which  points  to  this  latter 
event,  while  all  that  precedes  and  follows  this  verse  applies 
to  the  Parousia.     The  construction  attempted  by  Gess  is  this : 

1.  From  vers.  4-14,  the  general  signs  preceding  the  Parousia, 
that  believers  may  not  be  led  to  expect  this  event  too  soon ; 

2.  From  vers.  15-28,  the  destruction  of  the  temple  as  a  sign 
to  be  joined  to  those  precursive  signs;  3.  Vers.  29-31,  the 
Parousia  itself.  But  (a)  this  general  order  is  far  from  natural. 
What  has  the  destruction  of  the  temple  to  do  after  the 
passage  vers.  4-14,  which  (Gess  acknowledges)  supposes  it 
consummated  long  ago  ?  The  piece  (No.  2)  on  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  is  evidently  out  of  place  between  the  description 
of  the  signs  of  the  Parousia  (No.  1)  and  that  of  the  Parousia 
itself  (No.  S).  (b)  This  division  cannot  be  carried  out  into 
detail :  ver.  22,  which  Gess  is  obliged  to  refer  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  can  apply  only  to  the  Parousia.  And  the 
"  all  these  things"  of  ver.  34,  which  he  restricts  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  first  preaching  of  the  gospel 
to  the  Gentiles,  as  first  signs  of  the  Parousia,  has  evidently  a 
much  wider  scope  in  the  evangelist's  view.  It  must  therefore 
be  admitted,  either  that  Jesus  Himself  confounded  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  world,  and  that 
those  two  events  formed,  in  His  judgment,  one  and  the  same 


CHAP.  XXI.  5-7.  2o0 

catastrophe,  or  that  two  distinct  discourses  uttered  by  Him 
on  two  different  occasions  appear  in  Matthew  united  in  one. 
Different  expedients  have  been  used  to  save  the  accuracy  of 
Matthew's  account,  without  prejudice  to  the  Saviour's  infalli- 
bility. It  has  been  supposed  that  the  description  of  the 
rarousia.  Matt,  xxiv.,  refers  exclusively  to  the  invisible  return 
of  Jesus  to  destroy  Jerusalem.  This  explanation  is  incom- 
patible with  the  text,  especially  vers.  29—31.  It  has  also 
been  alleged  that  in  the  prophetic  perspective  the  final  coming 
of  the  Messiah  appeared  to  the  view  of  Jesus  as  in  immediate 
connection  with  His  return  to  judge  Israel.  But  (a)  this 
hypothesis  does  not  at  all  attain  the  end  which  its  authors 
propose,  that  of  saving  our  Lord's  infallibility,  (b)  Jesus 
could  not  affirm  here  what  He  elsewhere  declares  that  He 
does  not  know  (Mark  xiii.  32),  the  time  of  the  Parousia. 
a  after  His  resurrection  He  still  refuses  to  give  an  answei 
on  this  point,  which  is  reserved  by  tJie  Father  in  His  own 
power  (Acts  i  6,  7).  (c)  We  can  go  further,  and  show  that 
Jesus  had  a  quite  opposite  view  to  that  of  the  nearness  of  His 
return.  While  He  announces  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
as  an  event  to  be  witnessed  by  the  contemporary  generation, 
He  speaks  of  the  Parousia  as  one  which  is  possibly  yet  very 
remote.  Consider  the  expression,  iXevaomac  yjiepai,  days 
come  (Luke  xvii.  22),  and  the  parable  of  the  widow,  the 
B|  of  which  is,  that  God  will  seem  to  the  Church  an 
unjust  judge,  who  for  a  protracted  Hmt  refuses  to  hear  her, 
so  that  during  this  time  of  waiting  the  faith  of  many  shall 
e  way  (xviii.  1  et  seq.).  The  Master  is  to  return ;  but 
haps  it  will  not  be  till  the  second,  or  the  third  watch,  or 
even  till  the  morniiuj,  that  He  will  come  (Mark  xiii.  35  ;  Luke 
xii.  38).  The  great  distance  at  which  the  capital  lies  (Luke 
nify  nothing  cist:  than  the  considerable  space 
of  time-  which  will  elapse  between  the  departure  of  Jesus  and 
irn.  In  Matt.  xxv.  5  the  bridegroom  tarries  mm  h 
than  the   bridal   procession  i  I  ;  xxiv.  48,  the 

unfaithful   servant  strengthens  himself  in   his  evil-doing  by 
the   reflection   that  his  Lord  delaycth    II  <mg.      U 

be  gospel  is  to  be  preached    in   all  the  world  and 
dl    the    C.  nii:         U  I    ,   to  every  creature)) 

Matt.  xxvi.  13,  Mary's  act  it  to  be  published  in  the  whole 


260  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

world  before  Jesus  shall  return.  In  fine,  the  gospel  shall 
transform  humanity  not  by  a  magical  process,  but  by  slow 
and  profound  working,  like  that  of  leaven  in  dough.  The 
kingdom  of  God  will  grow  on  the  earth  like  a  tree  which 
proceeds  from  an  imperceptible  seed,  and  which  serves  in  its 
maturity  to  shelter  the  birds  of  heaven.  And  Jesus,  wha 
knew  human  nature  so  deeply,  could  have  imagined  that  such 
a  work  could  have  been  accomplished  in  less  than  forty  years  ! 
Who  can  admit  it  ?  The  confusion  which  prevails  in  this 
whole  discourse,  Matt.  xxiv.  (as  well  as  in  Mark  xiii.),  and 
which  distinguishes  it  from  the  two  distinct  discourses  of 
Luke,  must  therefore  be  ascribed  not  to  Jesus,  but  to  the 
account  which  Matthew  used  as  the  basis  of  his  recital. 

This  confusion  in  Matthew  is  probably  closely  connected 
with  the  Judeo- Christian  point  of  view,  under  the  sway  of 
which  primitive  tradition  took  its  form.  In  the  prophets,  the 
drama  of  the  last  days,  which  closes  the  eschatological  per- 
spective, embraces  as  two  events  nearly  following  one  another, 
the  judgment  whereby  Israel  is  purified  by  means  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  punishment  of  the  Gentiles  by  Jehovah. 
Preoccupied  with  this  view,  the  hearers  of  Jesus  easily  over- 
looked in  His  discourses  certain  transitions  which  reserved 
the  interval  between  those  two  events  usually  combined  in 
the  0.  T. ;  and  that  so  much  the  more,  as,  on  looking  at  it 
closely,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  really  the  first  act  of 
the  world's  judgment  and  of  the  end  of  the  days.  The 
harvest  of  an  early  tree  announces  and  inaugurates  the  general 
harvest;  so  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem  is  the  prelude  and 
even  the  first  act  of  the  judgment  of  humanity.  The  Jew 
has  priority  in  judgment,  because  he  had  priority  of  grace 
(comp.  the  two  corresponding  irp&rov,  Bom.  ii.  9,  10).  With 
the  judgment  on  Jerusalem,  the  hour  of  the  world's  judgment 
has  really  struck.  The  present  epoch  is  due  to  a  suspension  of 
the  judgment  already  begun, — a  suspension  the  aim  of  which 
is  to  make  way  for  the  time  of  grace  which  is  to  be  granted  to 
the  Gentiles  (icaipol  Wvwv,  the  times  of  the  Gentiles).  The  close 
combination  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  with  the  end  of  the 
world  in  Matthew,  though  containing  an  error  in  a  chronological 
point  of  view,  rests  on  a  moral  idea  which  is  profoundly  true. 

Thus  everything  authorizes  us  to  give  the  preference  to 


CHAP.  XXI.  8-36.  261 

Luke's  account.  1.  Matthew's  constant  habit  of  grouping 
together  in  one,  materials  belonging  to  different  discourses ; 
2.  The  precise  historical  situation  which  gave  rise  to  the 
special  discourse  of  chap.  xvii.  on  the  coming  of  Christ,  and 
which  cannot  be  an  invention  of  Luke ;  3.  The  established  fact, 
that  the  confusion  which  marks  the  discourse  of  Matthew  was 
foreign  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  ;  4.  Finally,  we  have  a  positive 
witness  to  the  accuracy  of  Luke ;  that  is  Mark.  For  though 
his  great  eschatological  discourse  (chap,  xiii.)  presents  the  same 
confusion  as  that  of  Matthew  in  the  question  of  the  disciples 
which  calls  it  forth,  it  is  completely  at  one  with  Luke,  and,  like 
him,  mentions  only  one  subject,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Might  Mark  have  taken  the  form  of  his  question  from 
Luke,  and  that  of  the  discourse  from  Matthew,  as  Bleek 
alleges  ?  But  the  incongruity  to  which  such  a  course  would 
have  led  would  be  unworthy  of  a  serious  writer.  Besides, 
the  form  of  the  question  is  not  the  same  in  Mark  as  in  Luke. 
Finally,  the  original  details  which  we  have  pointed  out  in 
Mark,  as  well  as  those  special  and  precise  details  with  which 
irrative  abounds,  from  the  day  of  the  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem onwards,  do  not  admit  of  this  supposition.  No  more 
can  Luke  have  taken  his  question  from  Mark.  He  would  have 
borrowed  at  the  same  time  the  details  peculiar  to  Mark  which 
he  wants,  and  the  form  of  the  question  is  too  well  adapl 
his  Gospel  to  the  contents  of  the  discourse  to  admit  of  this 
supposition.  It  must  therefore  be  concluded,  that  if  in  the  com- 
>n  of  the  discourse  Mark  came  under  (he  influence  of  the 
tradition  lowhich  Matthew's  form  isdue,the  ten  of  the  qu> 
in  his  Gospel  nevertheless  remains  as  a  very  striking  trace  of 
the  accuracy  of  Luke's  account.  The  form  of  the  question  in 
Matthew  i  an  modified  to  suit  the  contents  of  the 

discourse ;  and  thus  it  is  that  it  has  lost  its  original  unity  and 
precision,  which  are  preserved  in  the  other  two  evangelists. 

The  Dim  ..-re.  8-36. — The  four  points  treated  by 

Jesusare:  1st  Hie  apparent  signs,  which  mnstnof  be 
for  true  signs  (vers.  8-19) ;  2d.  The  true  sign,  and  the  dettnaV 
fan  which  will    iimn.-diatcly  follow  it.  with  the 

time  of  the  Qentiles  which  will  be  oonnected  with  it  (vers.  20- 
24);  I  osia, which  will  bring  fchia  period  to  an  end 

(vers.  25-27);  AC  pplicatiou  (vers.  28-36). 


2G2  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  8-1 9. *  TJie  Signs  which  are  not  such. — "But  He  said, 
Take  heed  that  ye  he  not  deceived  ;  for  many  shall  come  in  my 
name,  saying,  I  am  he,  and  the  time  draweth  near.  Go  ye  not 
therefore  after  them.  9.  And  when  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and 
commotions,  be  not  terrified ;  for  these  things  must  first  come  to 
pass  ;  but  the  end  cometh  not  so  speedily.  10.  Then  said  He 
unto  them,  Nation  shall  rise  against  nation,  and  kingdom  against 
kingdom.  11.  And  great  earthguakes  shall  be  in  divers  places, 
and  famines,  and  pestilences,  as  well  as  great  and  terrible  signs 
from  heaven.  12.  But  above  all,  they  shall  lay  their  hands  on 
you,  and  persecute  you,  delivering  you  up  to  the  synagogues,  and 
into  prisons,  bringing  you  before  kings  and  rulers  for  my  name's 
sake.  13.  But  it  shall  turn  to  you  for  a  testimony.  14. 
Settle  it,  therefore,  in  your  hearts,  not  to  meditate  before  what  ye 
shall  answer.  15.  For  I  will  give  you  a  mouth  and  wisdom, 
which  all  your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to  gainsay  nor  resist. 
16.  And  ye  shall  be  betrayed  even  by  parents,  and  brethren,  and 
kinsfolks,  and  friends ;  and  some  of  you  shall  they  cause  to  be 
put  to  death  ;  1 7.  And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  for  my  name's 
sake;  18.  And  there  shall  not  an  hair  of  your  head  perish. 
19.  In  your  patience  save  ye  your  lives." — The  sign  to  which 
the  question  of  the  apostle  refers  is  not  indicated  till  ver.  20. 
The  signs  vers.  8-19  are  enumerated  solely  to  put  believers 
on  their  guard  against  the  decisive  value  which  they  might 
be  led  to  ascribe  to  them.  The  vulgar  are  inclined  to  look 
on  certain  extraordinary  events  in  nature  or  society  as  the 
evidences  of  some  approaching  catastrophe.  Many  events  of 
this  kind  will  happen,  Jesus  means  to  say,  but  without  your 
being  warranted  yet  to  conclude  that  the  great  event  is  near, 
and  so  to  take  measures  precipitately.  The  seduction  of  which 
Matthew  and  Mark  speak  is  that  which  shall  be  practised  by 
the  false  Messiahs.  The  meaning  is  probably  the  same  in 
Luke  (yap).  History,  it  is  true,  does  not  attest  the  presence 
of  false  Messiahs  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  And 
those  who  are  most  embarrassed  by  this  fact  are  just  our 

1  Ver.  8.  tf.  B.  D.  L.  X.  2  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  ow. — Ver.  11.  K.  B.  L.  place  xou 
before  xa.ro.  voxou;. — Ver.  12.  8.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.,  a9ra.yo/*<vou;  instead  of  ayo- 
pivous. — Ver.  14.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  6i<rh  and  4irj,  between  u;  rat 

xcefhiot,;  (T.  R.)  and  iv  rects  xupSiect;  ( Alex. ). — Ver.  15.  fc$.  B.  L.  5  Mnn.,  avnirrnveci 
n  avrsiTnv  instead  of  avruvrav  cvbi  avTttrrr,vKK — Ver.  18.  Marcion  omitted  thi* 
Yerse. — Ver.  19.  A.  B.  some  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.,  xr*nrnrfa  instead  of  xrtifcte-fiu 


ciiAr.  xxi.  8-19.  263 

modern  critics,  who  see  in  this  discourse  nothing  but  a  pro- 
phecy ah  event u.  They  suppose  that  the  author  alludes  to 
such  men  as  Judas  the  Galilean,  the  Egyptian  (Acts  xxi), 
Theudas,  and  others,  prudently  described  by  Josephus  as  mere 
heads  of  parties,  but  who  really  put  forth  Messianic  preten- 
sions.    This  assertion  is  hard  to  prove.     For  our  part,  who 

in  this  discourse  a  real  prophecy,  we  think  that  Jesus 

meant  to  put  believers  on  their  guard  against  false  teachers, 

such  as  Simon  the  magician,  of  whom  there  may  have  been  a 

it  number  at  this  period,  though  he  is  the  only  one  of 

whom  profane  history  speaks. — The  fit)  irTonOrjvat,  not  to  let 

themselves  be  terrified  (ver.  9),  refers  to  the  temptation  to  a 

premature  emigration.    Comp.  the  opposite  ver.  21.    Further,  it 

must  not  be  concluded  from  the  political  convulsions  which  shall 

shake  the  East  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  is  now  near. 

Jesus  had  uttered  in  substance  His  whole  thought  in  those 

few  words  ;  and  He  might  have  passed  immediately  to  the 

contrast  orav  he,  but  wJien  (ver.  20).     Yet  He  developes  the 

M  idea  more  at  length,  vers.  10-19.     Hence  the  words  in 

which  Luke  expressly  resumes  his  report :   T/ien  said  He  unto 

them  (ver.  10).     Tins  passage,  vers.  10-19,  might  therefore 

have  beet  inserted  here  by  Luke  as  a  fragment  borrowed  from 

a  separate  document  differing  from  the  source  whence  he  to  )k 

the  rest  of  the  discourse. — We  should  not  take  the  wo 

/€v  avroU  as  a  parenthetical  proposition,  and  connect  Tore 

>yep0t}a€Tai :    "  Then   said  He  unto  them,   One  nation 

1  rise."  According  to  the  analogy  of  Luke's  style,  we 
should    rather    translate :    "  T/un    said    JL     vnto    than,    One 

>oi  .  .  ."  When  to  great  political  commotions  there  are 
added  certain  physical  phenomena,  the  iin;inination  is  caiied 
away,  and  the  people  become  prophets.  Jesus  puts  t he  Church 
ol  Palestine  on  its  guard  against  this  tendency  (ver.  11).  It 
is  v  urn  that  the  times  which  preceded  the  destruction 

of  Jerusalem  ignalized  in  the  East  by  many  calamities, 

;ily  by  a  dreadful    famine    which    Look    place   under 

idins,  and  by  ths  ttrihquaaTT)  which  destroyed  Laodicea, 
Hierapolis,  etc.,  in  67  or  G8.1      By  the  signs  from  Jicavcn  we 

he  Annals  of  Tacitus  and  itt'u$  of  Josephus  prove  famines, 

earthquakes,  etc.,  in  the  times  of  Claudius  and  Nero  and  of  the  Jewish  war" 
(Strauss,  LebenJcsuftird.  d.  Yolk,  p.  238). 


2G4  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

are  to  understand  meteors,  auroras,  eclipses,  etc.,  phenomena 
to  which  the  vulgar  readily  attach  a  prophetic  significance. 

One  of  those  events  which  contribute  most  to  inflame 
fanaticism  in  a  religious  community  is  persecution  ;  thus  are 
connected  vers.  12  and  13.  Those  which  are  announced  will 
arise  either  from  the  Jews  (synagogues),  like  that  marked  by 
me  martyrdoms  of  Stephen  and  James,  or  from  the  Gentiles 
(Icings  and  rulers),  like  that  to  which  Paul  was  exposed  in 
Palestine,  or  that  raised  by  Nero  at  Kome. — In  the  phrase, 
before  all  these,  the  irpb  (before)  refers  to  the  importance  of  this 
sign,  not  to  its  time.  Meyer  denies  that  irpo  can  have  this 
meaning  ;  but  Passow's  dictionary  cites  a  host  of  examples  for  it. 
It  is,  besides,  the  only  meaning  which  suits  the  context.  If 
irpb  here  signified  before,  why  not  speak  of  the  persecutions 
before  the  preceding  signs  ?  What  Jesus  means  by  this  word 
is,  that  among  all  those  signs,  this  is  the  one  which  might 
most  easily  throw  His  disciples  out  of  the  calm  attitude  in 
which  they  ought  to  persevere.  "We  have  translated  the 
passive  wyofievov^  by  the  active  (bringing).  It  is  hardly  pos- 
sible to  render  the  passive  form  into  English.  Holtzmann 
thinks  that  Luke  here  traces  after  the  event,  though  in  the 
form  of  prophecy,  the  picture  of  those  persecutions  to  which 
St.  Paul  was  exposed.  Can  we  suppose  an  evangelist,  to  whom 
Jesus  is  the  object  of  faith,  allowing  himself  deliberately  thus 
to  put  words  into  His  mouth  after  his  fancy  ? — Bleek  applies 
the  word  testimony  (ver.  13)  to  that  which  will  accrue  to  the 
apostles  from  this  proof  of  their  fidelity.  It  is  more  natural, 
having  in  view  the  connection  with  vers.  14  and  15  (therefore, 
ver.  14),  to  understand  by  it  what  they  shall  themselves 
render  on  occasion  of  their  persecution.  This  idea  falls  back 
again  into  the  Be  not  terrified :  "  All  that  will  only  end  in 
giving  you  the  opportunity  of  glorifying  me !"  It  is  the  same 
with  vers.  14  and  15,  the  object  of  which  is  to  inspire  them 
with  the  most  entire  tranquillity  of  soul  in  the  carrying  out 
of  their  mission.  Jesus  charges  Himself  with  everything : 
eyeb  Bdoaeo,  I  will  give. — The  mouth  is  here  the  emblem  of  the 
perfect  ease  with  which  they  shall  become  the  organs  of  the 
wisdom  of  Jesus,  without  the  least  preparation.  The  term 
avTearelv,  gainsay,  refers  to  the  fact  that  their  adversaries  shall 
find  it  impossible  to  make  any  valid  reply  to  the  defence  of 


cmr.  xxi.  jo-2*.  203 

the  disciples;  the  word  resist,  to  the  powerlessness  to  answer 
wlien  the  disciples,  assuming  the  offensive,  shall  attack  them 
with  the  sword  of  the  gospel.  In  the  Alex,  reading,  which 
places  dirriarrjuai  first,  we  must  explain  rj  in  the  sense  of  or 
even. 

To  official  persecution   there  shall  be  added  the  sufferings 
of  domestic  enmity.     The  name  of  Jesus  will  open  up  a  gulf 

veen  them  and  their  nearest.  Ver.  17  is  almost  identical 
with  John  xv.  21.  But  even  in  that  case  there  will  be  no 
ground  for  disquiet.  The  time  will  not  yet  have  come  for 
them  to  quit  the  accursed  city  and  land.  Ver.  18:  "  There 
shall  not  an  hair  of  your  head  perish"  seems  to  contradict  the 
close  of  ver.  1 6  :  u  some  of  you  shall  perish"  This  contradic- 
tion is  explained  by  the  general  point  of  view  from  which  we 
explain  this  piece:  There  shall,  indeed,  be  some  individual 
believers  who  shall  perish  in  the  persecution,  but  the  Chris- 
tian community  of  Palestine  as  a  whole  shall  escape  the  ex- 

lination  which  will  overtake  the  Jewish  people.     Their 
condition  is  indicated  in  ver.  10,  where  this  piece  is  resumed. 
It  is  one  of  patience,  that  is  to  say,  peaceful  waiting  for  the 
divine  signal,  without  bein^  drawn  aside  either  by  the  appeals 
iriotism  or  by  persecution,  or  by  false  signs  and 
1  actions.      The  fut.  KTjjo-eaOe  in  A.  B.  is  pro- 
bably a  correction  of  the  aor.  KTijaaade  (T.  R).     The  imper. 
:  "  Embrace  the  means  which  seem  the  way  to  lose 
everything  .  .  .  ,  and  ye  shall  save  yourselves."     Kraadai  does 
not  mean   to  possess  (Ostervald),   but  to  acquire.     The    word 

jests  that  of  Jeremiah,  I  will  give  thee  thy  life  for  a  prey. 
And  now  at  length  comes  the  contrast:  the  time  when  it  will 
be  necessary  to  leave  the  passive  attitude  for  that  of  action 
(orav  Be,  hut  ivhen,  ver.  20). 

Vers.  20-24.1   The  true  Si<jn,  and  the   Catastrophe.— "  But 
when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  ilfailll,  then  know  that 
the  desolation  thereof  is  niyh.      21.    Thm  let  them  which  are 
ra  flu  to  the  vi<>,  and  let  them  which  are  in  the 

:  and  let  not  them  that  arc  in  the  fields  enter 
thereinto.  22.  For  these  be  the  days  of  vengmm^  that  all 
things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled.      23.  But  woe  vnlj 

wma,  'i\  tad  -J     v.  r  is.  n  Mjj.  ftOHaa.  it. 

Xf*.  omit  n  baaon  «-*  >mmt  wl.i  )i  T.  R.  reads,  with  9  Mjj. 


266  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  that  give  such,  in  those 
days ;  for  there  shall  he  great  distress  in  the  land,  and  wrath 
upon  this  people.  24.  And  they  shall  fall  hy  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  and  shall  he  led  away  captive  into  all  nations ;  and 
Jerusalem  shall  he  frodden  down  of  tlie  Gentiles,  until  the  times 
of  the  Gentiles  he  fulfilled." — Here  is  the  direct  answer  to  the 
disciples'  question :  "  When  .  .  .  and  with  what  sign  ?"  Jesus 
up  till  now  has  been  warning  believers  not  to  give  way  to 
hasty  measures.  Now  He  guards  them,  on  the  contrary, 
against  the  illusions  of  fanatical  Jews,  who  to  the  end  will 
cherish  the  belief  that  God  will  not  fail  to  save  Jerusalem  by 
a  miracle.  "  By  no  means,  answers  Jesus ;  be  assured  in 
that  hour  that  all  is  over,  and  that  destruction  is  near  and 
irrevocable."  The  sign  indicated  by  Luke  is  the  investment 
of  Jerusalem  by  a  hostile  army.  We  see  nothing  to  hinder 
us  from  regarding  this  sign  as  identical  in  sense  with  that 
announced  by  Matthew  and  Mark  in  Daniel's  words  (in  the 
LXX.)  :  the  abomination  of  desolation  standing  in  the  holy  place. 
Why  not  understand  thereby  the  Gentile  standards  planted  on 
the  sacred  soil  which  surrounds  the  holy  city?  Luke  has 
substituted  for  the  obscure  prophetic  expression  a  term  more 
intelligible  to  Gentiles.  It  has  often  been  concluded  from  this 
substitution,  that  Luke  had  modified  the  form  of  Jesus'  saying 
under  the  influence  of  the  event  itself,  and  that  consequently 
he  had  written  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But  if 
Jesus  really  predicted,  as  we  have  no  doubt  He  did,  the  taking 
of  Jerusalem,  the  substitution  of  Luke's  term  for  the  synonym  of 
Daniel  might  have  been  made  hefore  the  event  as  easily  as  after. 
Keim  sees  in  the  expression  of  the  other  Syn.  the  announce- 
ment of  a  simple  profanation  of  the  temple,  like  that  of  Antio- 
chus  Epiphanes, — a  prediction  which,  according  to  him,  was 
not  fulfilled.  But  in  this  case  we  must  establish  a  contradiction 
between  this  threat  and  that  of  the  entire  destruction  of  the 
temple  (Matt.  ver.  2 ;  Mark,  ver.  2),  which  is  purely  arbitrary. 
This  utterance  preserved  the  church  of  Palestine  from  the 
infatuation  which,  from  the  beginning  of  the  war,  seized  upon 
the  whole  Jewish  nation.  Eemembering  the  warning  of  Jesus 
of  the  approach  of  the  Roman  armies,  the  Christians  of  Judaea 
fled  to  Pella  beyond  Jordan,  and  thus  escaped  the  catastrophe 
(Eus.  Hist.  Heel.  iii.  5,  ed.  Lcemmer).     They  applied  the  ex- 


CHAP.  XXI.  20-24.  267 

pression,  the  mountains  (ver.  21),  to  the  mountainous  plateaus 
of  Gilead. — Ver.  21.  "Let  those  who  dwell  in  tlie  capital  not 
main  there,  and  let  those  who  dwell  in  the  country  not  tale 
refuge  in  it!'  The  inhabitants  of  the  country  ordinarily  seek 
their  safety  behind  the  walls  of  the  capital.  But  in  this  case, 
this  is  the  very  point  on  which  the  whole  violence  of  the 
storm  will  break.  Ver.  22  gives  the  reason  of  this  dispensa- 
tion. Comp.  xi.  50,  51. — Ver.  23  exhibits  the  difficulty  of 
flight  in  such  circumstances.  Luke  here  omits  the  saying  of 
Matthew  about  the  impossibility  of  flight  on  the  Sabbath, 
which  had  no  direct  application  to  Gentiles. — Tlie  land  should 
be  taken  in  the  restricted  sense  which  we  give  the  word,  the 
country. — St  Paul  seems  to  allude  to  the  expression,  wrath 
upon  this  people,  in  Eom.  ii.  5-8  and  1  Thess.  ii.  16. — Ver. 
2  4.  A  million  of  Jews  perished  in  this  war ;  9  7,0  0  0  were  led 
captive  to  Egypt  and  the  other  provinces  of  the  empire 
(Josephus).  The  term  Trarovfiivrj,  trodden,  denotes  more  than 
taking  possession ;  it  is  the  oppression  and  contempt  which 
follow  conquest;  comp.  Rev.  xi.  2.  This  unnatural  state  of 
things  will  last  till  the  end  of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles.  AY  hat 
means  this  expression  peculiar  to  Luke  ?  According  to  Meyer 
and  Bleek,  nothing  more  than :  the  time  of  Gentile  dominion 
over  Jerusalem.  But  would  it  not  be  a  tautology  to  a 
Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  by  the  Gentiles  until  the 
time  of  Gentile  dominion  come  to  an  end?  Then  the  plural 
fcaipoi,  tlie  times,  is  not  sufficiently  accounted  for  on  this  \  i 

the  choice  of  the  term  Kaipo%,  the  opportunity, 
instead  of  XP°V0*>  a  certain  space  of  time.  In  the  passage 
xix.  44,  the  time  of  Israel,  Kaipos  denotes  the  season  when 
God  visits  this  people  with  the  offer  of  salvation.  According 
to  this  analogy,  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  should  designate  tin 
whole  period  during  which  God  shall  approach  with  II 
grac  utiles  who  have  been  hitherto  strangers  to  II 

kingdom.      I  8  (J or.  vi.  2,  the  <  xpnssions  teaipb?  Bcktos, 

Tj/j.tpa   aa)T7]pia<;.      The  plural   /caipoi,   th  corresponds 

with  the  plural  the  nations;  the  Gentile  peoples  are  call* id  I 
after  another;  hence  then  arises  in  this  one  epoch  a  plurality 
of  phases. 

Modern  criticism  accuses  Luke  of  having  introduced  into  the 
discourse  ot  Jesus  at  his  own  hand  this  important  idea,  which  u 


2G8  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

wanting  in  Mark  and  Matthew  (Holtzmann,  p.  406).  This  sup- 
position,  indeed,  is  inevitable,  if  his  work  is  founded  on  those  two 
writings  or  on  the  documents  from  which  they  are  drawn,  the 
proto-Mark  or  the  Logia,  e.g.  But  if  this  saying  is  not  found  in  the 
other  two  Syn.,  the  thought  which  it  expresses  is  very  clearly  im- 
plied. Do  they  not  both  speak  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all 
Gentile  peoples  (Matt.  xxiv.  14),  and  of  a  baptism  to  be  brought 
to  every  creature  (Mark  xvi.  15;  Matt,  xxviii.  19)?  Such  a  work 
demands  time.  Gess  refers  also  to  Mark  xii.  9,  Matt.  xxi.  43,  and 
xxii.  10,  where  Jesus  declares  that  the  kingdom  of  God  will  pass 
for  a  time  to  the  Gentiles,  and  that  they  will  bring  forth  the  fruits 
thereof,  and  where  He  describes  the  invitation  which  shall  be  ad- 
dressed to  them  with  this  view  by  the  servants  of  the  Master  (par- 
able of  the  marriage  supper).  All  this  work  necessarily  supposes  a 
special  period  in  history.  Can  Jesus  have  thought  of  this  period  as 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  1  We  have  already  proved  the 
falsity  of  this  assertion.  When,  therefore,  in  Luke  Jesus  inserts 
the  times  of  the  Gentiles  between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
Parousia,  He  says  nothing  but  what  is  implied  in  His  utterances 
quoted  by  the  other  two  Syn.,  necessary  in  itself,  and  consequently 
in  keeping  with  His  real  thought.  That  established,  is  it  not  very 
arbitrary  to  affect  suspicion  of  Luke's  saying  in  which  this  idea  is 
positively  expressed  ? — This  era  of  the  Gentiles  was  a  notion  foreign 
to  the  0.  T.  For,  in  the  prophetic  view,  the  end  of  the  theocracy 
always  coincided  with  that  of  the  present  world.  We  can  thus 
understand  how,  in  the  reproduction  of  Jesus'  sayings  within  the 
bosom  of  the  Judeo-Christian  Church,  this  notion,  unconnected  with 
anything  in  their  past  views,  could  be  effaced,  and  disappear  from 
that  oral  proclamation  of  the  gospel  which  determined  the  form  of 
our  two  first  Syn.  In  possession  of  more  exact  written  documents, 
Luke  here,  as  in  so  many  other  cases,  restored  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
to  their  true  form.  If  Jesus,  who  fixed  so  exactly  the  time  of  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  ("  this  generation  shall  not  pass  till .  .  ."),  declared 
in  the  same  discourse  that  He  did  not  Himself  know  the  day  of  His 
coming  (Mark  xiii.  32),  it  must  infallibly  have  been  because  He 
placed  a  longer  or  shorter  interval  between  those  two  events, — an 
interval  which  is  precisely  the  period  of  the  Gentiles.  Is  not  this 
explanation  more  probable  than  that  which,  contrary  to  all  psycho- 
logical possibility,  ascribes  to  Luke  so  strange  a  licence1  as  that  of 
deliberately  putting  into  his  Master's  mouth  sayings  which  He  never 
uttered  1 

Vers.  25-27.2  The  Parousia. — "  And  there  shall  be  signs  in 
the,  sun,  and  in  the  moon,  and  in  the  stars;  and  in  the  earth 
distress  of  nations  vjith  perplexity  ;  the  sea  and  the  waves  roar- 

1  Holtzmann,  on  occasion  of  the  piece  vers.  25-36,  says  in  speaking  of  Lnke  : 
"  Noch  welter  yeht  die  Licenz  ..."  (p.  237). 

2  Ver.  25.  tf.  B.  D.,  ta-ovriu  instead  of  irrui. — Alex.  It.  Vg.,  vxc*>s  instead  of 
«*•■"«>'  (T.  R.,  Byz.). 


CHAT.  XXI.  23-27.  2G9 

infj ;    20.  M  to  failing  them  for  fear,  and  for  looking 

which  arc  coming  on  the  earth  ;  for  the  powers 
of  heaven  shall  be  shaken.  27.  And  then  shall  tliey  see  the  Son 
of  a  in  a  cloud  with  power  and  great  gloiy." — We 

have  found  that  the  main  subject  of  this  discourse  was  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem.  But  how  could  our 
Lord  close  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  and  the  mention  of 
the  epoch  of  the  Gentiles  which  was  to  follow  this  catastrophe, 
without  terminating  by  indicating  the  Parousia,  the  limit  of 
the  prophetic  perspective  ?  The  mention  which  He  made  in 
passing  of  this  last  event,  which  was  to  consummate  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world  begun  by  the  former,  doubtless  contributed 
to  the  combination  of  the  two  subjects,  and  to  the  confounding 
of  the  two  discourses  in  tradition. — The  intermediate  idea, 
therefore,  between  vers.  24  and  25  is  this:  "And  when  those 
times  of  the  period  of  grace  granted  to  the  Gentiles  shall  be 
at  an  end,  then  there  shall  be  .  .  . ;"  then  follows  the  summary 
description  of  the  l'arousia.  Those  two  judgments,  that  of  the 
theocracy  and  that  of  the  world,  which  Luke  separates  by  the 
times  of  the  Gentiles,  are  closely  connected  in  Matthew  by 
the  evOetos,  immediately,  ver.  29,  and  by  the  words  following: 
after  the  tribulation  of  those  days,  which  cannot  well  refer  to 
anything  eke  than  the  great  iribv  latum  mentioned  ver.  21, 
that  is  I  •  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  15-20). 

In  fact,  the  Parousia  is  mentioned  here  by  Matthew  (ver.  27) 
only  to  condemn  beforehand  the  lying  revelations  of  false  pro- 
phets (vers.  23-26)  as  to  the  form  of  that  event.  In  Mark 
the  same  connection  as  in  Matthew,  though  somewhat 
lees  absolute,  between  the  destruction  of  .Jerusalem  and  tlu 
msia   ("in    /  vs,"    but  without  tin  otcly  of 

Ma?\.  The   three  writers'  oompilatj  <  .  it  is  easily 

seen,  independent  of  one  anoti 

Jesi  wii     2<  1   wiii.    8   the    state    of 

worldliness  into  which  mm  iety  and  tin*  Church  itself  would 
sink  in  the  last  times.  In  the  midst  of  this  carnal  seem 
alarming  symptoms  will  all  at  once  proclaim  one  of  those 
universal  revolutions  through  which  our  earth  has  more  than 
once  passed.  Like  a  ship  creaking  in  every  timber  at  tin- 
moment  of  its  going  to  i  lobe  which  we  inhabit  (*} 

oiKovfiti/T}),  anil  001  whok  solar  |j  ball  undergo  unusual 


270  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

commotions.  The  moving  forces  (Swd/jLeis),  regular  in  their 
action  till  then,  shall  be  as  it  were  set  free  from  their  laws  by 
an  unknown  power ;  and  at  the  end  of  this  violent  but  short 
distress,  the  world  shall  see  Him  appear  whose  coming  shall  be 
like  the  lightning  which  shines  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the 
other  (xvii.  24).  The  cloud  is  here,  as  almost  everywhere  in 
Scripture,  the  symbol  of  judgment.  The  gathering  of  the  elect, 
placed  here  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul, 
1  Thess.  iv.  16,  17,  2  Thess.  ii.  1,  where  the  word  eVtcri;- 
vaycoyrj  reminds  us  of  the  kiriavvdyeiv  of  the  two  evangelists. 
Is  it  not  a  proof  of  the  falsity  of  that  style  of  criticism  which 
seeks  to  explain  every  difference  in  text  between  the  Syn.  by 
ascribing  to  them  opposite  points  of  view  ? — Ver.  2  7.  It  is  not 
said  that  the  Lord  shall  return  to  the  earth  to  remain  there. 
This  coming  can  be  only  a  momentary  appearance,  destined  to 
effect  the  resurrection  of  the  faithful  and  the  ascension  of  the 
entire  Church  (1  Cor.  xv.  23;  Luke  xvii.  31-35;  1  Thess. 
iv.  16,  17). 

Vers.  28-36.1  The  Application. — "  Wlien  these  things  begin 
to  come  to  pass,  then  look  up,  and  lift  up  your  heads  ;  for  your 
redemption  draweth  nigh.  29.  And  He  spake  to  them  a  parable: 
Behold  the  fig-tree,  and  all  the  trees  ;  30.  Wlien  they  now  shoot 
forth,  ye  see  and  know  of  your  own  selves  that  summer  is  now 
nigh  at  hand.  31.  So  likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  these  things  come 
to  pass,  know  ye  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  nigh  at  hand.  32. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you,  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away  till 
all  be  fidfilled.  33.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away;  but  my 
words  shall  not  pass  away.  34.  But  take  heed  to  yourselves, 
lest  at  any  time  your  Jiearts  be  overcharged  with  surfeiting  and 
drunkenness,  and  cares  of  this  life,  and  so  that  day  come  upon 
you  unawares.  35.  For  as  a  snare  it  shall  come  on  all  them 
that  dwell  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth.  36.  Watch  ye,  there- 
fore, and  pray  always,  that  ye  may  be  accounted  worthy  to  escape 
all  these  things  that  shall  come  to  pass,  and  to  stand  before  the  S071 
of  man." — Jesus  draws  practical  conclusions  from  the  whole  of 
the  preceding  discourse:  1.  In  respect  of  hope,  vers.  28-33; 
2.  In  respect  .of  watchfulness,  vers.  34-36. 

1  Ver.  33.  tf.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mim.,  <rupiXtvsovT»i  instead  of  -rupiMaet  (which  is 
taken  from  Matthew  and  Mark).— Ver.  35.  K.  B.  D.,  h  instead  of  ouv.—  Ver.  36. 
tf.  B.  L.  X.  7  Mnn.,  xx<rt<r%vff7)n  instead  of  xctru.\LuQn?i. — 15  Mjj.  omit  t«j/t«. 


CHAP.  XXI.  28-33.  271 

Vers.  28-33.  It  might  be  thought  that  after  this  saying 
relative  to  the  Parousia  (vers.  26,  27),  which  is  strictly  speak- 
ing a  digression,  Jesus  returns  to  the  principal  topic  of  this 
discourse,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  expression : 
your  deliverance,  would  then  denote  the  emancipation  of  the 
Judeo-Christian  Church  by  the  destruction  of  the  persecuting 
Jewish  power.  The  coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  ver.  31, 
would  refer  to  the  propagation  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gen- 
tiles; and  ver.  32  :  this  generation  shall  not  pass  away,  would 
thus  indicate  quite  naturally  the  date  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Yet  the  fact  of  the  Parousia,  once  mentioned,  is 
too  solemn  to  be  treated  as  a  purely  accessory  idea.  The  king- 
dom of  God  seems,  therefore,  necessarily  to  denote  here  rather 
the   final  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom;  and///' 

•crance  (ver.  28)  should  be  applied  to  the  definitive  eman- 
cipation of  the  Church  by  the  return  of  the  Lord  (the  deliver- 
ance of  the  widow,  xviii.  1-8).  Of  yourselves,  ver.  30 :  "It 
is  not  necessary  that  an  official  proclamation  announce  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  world  that  summer  is  near ! "  It  is  about 
the  middle  of  March  that  fruits  begin  to  show  themselves  on 
the  old  branches  of  the  spring  fig-tree ;  they  reach  maturity 
before  the  shooting  of  the  leaves.  The  first  harvest  is  gathered 
in  June  (Keim,  iii.  p.  206). 

:  ver.  32  refer  still  to  the  Parousia  ?  But  in  that  case, 
how  are  we  to  explain  the  expression :  this  generation  ?  Jerome 
understood  by  it  the  human  species,  Origen  and  Chrysostom 
the  Christian  Church.  These  explanations  are  now  regarded 
as  forced.  That  of  Dorner  and  Biggenbaoh,  who  take  ii 
mean  the  Jacish  people  (applying  to  their  conversion  the 
image  of  the  fig-tree  flourishing  again,  vers.  29,  30),  is  not 
much  more  natural.  In  this  context,  where  we  have  to  <!<> 
with  a  chronological  determination  ("is  nigh,"  ver.  31),  tin* 
meaning  of  y€v<  be  temporal.     Besides,  we  have  the 

authentic    commentary  on  this  saying  in  Luke  xi.   50,   51, 

re  Jesus  declares  that  it  is  the  very  generation  which 
to  shed  His  blood  and  that  of   Hi     i     ssengers,  which  must 
resides,  the  punishment  of  all  the  innocent  blood  shed 
since  that  of  Abel  down  to  this  last.     It  is  not  less  false  to 

•  to   this  expression,  with  the   Tubingen  School,  such 
extension  that  it  embraces  a  period  of  70  years  (Hilgi    told), 


272  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

or  even  of  a  century  (Volkmar) :  the  duration  of  a  man's  life. 
It  has  not  this  meaning  among  the  ancients.  In  Herod. 
(2.  142,  7.  171),  Heraclitus,  and  Thuc.  (1.  14),  it  denotes  a 
space  of  from  30  to  40  years.  A  century  counts  three  gene- 
rations. The  saying  of  Irenseus  respecting  the  composition  of 
the  Apocalypse,  wherein  he  declares  "  that  this  vision  was 
seen  not  long  before  his  epoch,  almost  within  the  time  of  our 
generation,  towards  the  end  of  Domitian's  reign,"  does  not  at 
all  prove  the  contrary,  as  Volkmar  alleges ;  for  Irenseus  says 
expressly :  a^^ov,  almost,  well  aware  that  he  is  extending  the 
reach  of  the  term  generation  beyond  its  ordinary  application. 
An  impartial  exegesis,  therefore,  leaves  no  doubt  that  this 
saying  fixes  the  date  of  the  near  destruction  of  Jerusalem  at 
least  the  third  of  a  century  after  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  The 
meaning  is  :  "  The  generation  which  shall  shed  this  blood 
shall  not  pass  away  till  God  require  it "  (in  opposition  to  all 
the  blood  of  the  ancients  which  has  remained  so  long  un- 
avenged). TldvTa,  all  tilings,  refers  to  all  those  events  pro- 
cursive of  that  catastrophe  which  are  enumerated  vers.  8—19, 
and  to  the  catastrophe  itself  (20-24). — The  position  of  this 
saying  immediately  after  the  preceding  verses  relative  to  the 
Parousia,  seems  to  be  in  Luke  a  faint  evidence  of  the  influence 
exercised  by  that  confusion  which  reigns  throughout  the  whole 
discourse  as  related  by  the  other  two  Syn.  There  is  nothing 
in  that  to  surprise  us.  Would  not  the  omission  of  some  word 
of  transition,  or  the  simple  displacing  of  some  sentence,  suffice 
to  produce  this  effect?  And  how  many  cases  of  similar 
transpositions  or  omissions  are  to  be  met  with  in  our  Syn.  ? 
But  if  this  observation  is  well  founded,  it  proves  that  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  was  not  composed,  any  more  than  the  other 
two,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

Heaven  and  earth  (ver.  33)  are  contrasted  with  those 
magnificent  structures  which  His  disciples  would  have  Him 
to  admire  (ver  5) :  Here  is  a  very  different  overthrow  from 
that  which  they  had  so  much  difficulty  in  believing.  This 
universe,  this  temple  made  by  the  hand  of  God,  passeth  away ; 
one  thing  remains :  the  threats  and  promises  of  the  Master 
who  is  speaking  to  them. 

Vers.  34-36.  Here,  as  in  chap,  xii.,  the  life  of  the  disciples 
is  appa.  ently  to  be  prolonged  till  the  Parousia.     The  reason 


CHAP.  XXI.  g-i-cg.  273 

is,  that  that  period  is  ever  to  remain  the  point  on  which  the 
believer's  heart  should  fix  (xii.  36) ;  and  if,  by  all  the  genera- 
tions which  precede  the  last,  this  expectation  is  not  realized 
in  its  visible  form,  it  has  its  truth,  nevertheless,  in  the  fact 
of  death,  that  constant  individual  returning  of  Jesus  which 
prepares  for  His  general  and  final  advent. — The  warning  ver. 
34  refers  to  the  danger  of  slumbering,  arising  from  the  state 
of  the  world  in  the  last  times,  xvii.  26-30.  On  the  last 
words  of  the  verse,  comp.  1  Thess.  v.  1-7. — Ver.  35.  The 
image  is  that  of  a  net  which  all  at  once  encloses  a  covey  of 
birds  peacefully  settled  in  a  field.  To  watch  (ver.  36)  is  the 
emblem  of  constant  expectation.  With  expectation  prayer  is 
naturally  conjoined  under  the  influence  of  that  grave  feeling 
which  is  produced  by  the  imminence  of  the  expected  advent. 
The  word  crradrjvai,  to  stand  upright,  indicates  the  solemnity 
of  the  event.  A  divine  power  will  be  needed,  if  we  are  not 
to  sink  before  the  Son  of  man  in  His  glory,  and  be  forced  to 
exclaim  :  "  Mountains,  fall  on  us  !  " 

With  this  discourse  before  it,  the  embarrassment  of  rationalism  if 

great.     How  explain  the  announcement  of  the  destruction  of  Jeru 

m,  if  there  arc  no  prophecies  1  that  of  the  Parousia,  if  Jesus  is 

hut  a  sinful  man  like  ourselves  (not  to  say,  with  Kenan,  a  fanatic)  ? 

Baor  and  Strauss  say  :  Under  the  influence  of  Daniel's  extravagant 

Jesus  could  easily  predict  His  return;  but  He  could  not 

announce  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     Base  and  Schenkel  say  : 

Jesus,  as  a  good  politician,  might  well  foresee  and  predict  the  destine 

tion  of  the  temple,  but  (and  this  is  also  M.  Colani's  opinion)  if 

impossible  to  make  a  fanatic  of  Him  announcing  His  return.    Each 

r  thus  determines  b priori  the  result  of  his  criticism,  according 

to  hifl  own  dogmatic  conviction.     It  is  perfectly  aselesi  to  dlSCUSfl 

the  matter  on  such  bases.      K<im  recognises  the  indisputable  hifl 

of  the  announcement  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 

on  the  ground  of  Matt.  xxvi.  60  ( t In*  false  witnesses),  and  of  Acts 

phen),  and  the  truth  of  the  promise  of  tne  Parousia  is 

w.  II  ;  the  Baying  Mark  xiii.  52  ifl  a  proof  of  it  which  cannot  be 

.  agreeing  in  pari  witfa  M.  Colani,  he  regards 

the  discourse  Matt.  .-.  the  composition  of  an  author  much 

C    than    the    mini-'  who   has    improwd    ttpOU    some 

This  apocalyptic  poem,  Jewish  ac<  ordii 
mi  according  to  Colani  and  Keim,  was 
before  the  destructioo  of  Jerusalem. 

•ions  to  this  hypothesis  :  1.  It  ifl  do1  in 

only  thai  Jeaua  announces  the  catastrophe  of  Israel. 

•ordinary assertion  of  Hii  return.    Qb  tho 

VuL.  lL  S 


274  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

destruction  of  Jerusalem,  read  again  Matt.  xxi.  44,  Luke  xix. 
42-44,  Mark  xi.  14,  20,  xii.  9,  etc.  etc. ;  and  on  the  Parousia, 
Matt.  vii.  21-23,  xix.  28,  xxv.  31-46,  xxvi.  63,  64,  Luke  ix.  26 
and  parall.,  xiii.  23-27,  etc.  How  could  those  numerous  declara- 
tions, which  we  find  scattered  over  different  parts  of  our  Syn. 
Gospels,  be  all  borrowed  from  this  alleged  apocalyptic  poem  ?  2. 
How  could  a  private  composition  have  obtained  such  general  autho- 
rity, under  the  very  eyes  of  the  apostles  or  their  first  disciples, 
that  it  found  admission  into  our  three  Syn.  Gospels  as  an  authentic 
saying  of  our  Lord  1  Was  ever  a  pure  poem  transformed  into  an 
exact  and  solemn  discourse,  such  as  that  expressly  put  by  our 
three  evangelists  at  this  determinate  historical  time  into  the  mouth 
of  Jesus?  Such  a  hypothesis  is  nothing  else  than  a  stroke  of 
desperation. 

Volkmar  finds  in  this  discourse,  as  everywhere,  the  result  of  the 
miserable  intrigues  of  the  Christian  parties.  John  the  apostle  had 
published  in  68  the  great  reverie  of  the  Apocalypse.  He  still  hoped 
for  the  preservation  of  the  temple  (Rev.  xi.  1  et  seq.),  which  proves 
that  he  had  never  heard  his  Master  announce  its  destruction.  Five 
years  later,  in  73,  Mark  composes  another  Apocalypse,  intended  to 
rectify  the  former.  He  elaborates  it  from  the  Pauline  standpoint ; 
he  rejects  its  too  precise  dates,  and  the  details  which  had  been 
hazarded,  but  which  the  event  had  proved  false ;  the  fixing,  e.g.,  of 
the  three  years  and  a  half  which  were  to  extend  to  the  Parousia,  a 
date  for  which  he  prudently  substitutes  the  saying :  "As  to  that 
day,  even  I  myself  know  it  not,"  etc.  Such  is  the  origin  of  the 
great  eschatological  discourse  in  the  Syn.,  the  most  ancient  monu- 
ment of  which  is  Mark  xiii.  But,  1.  This  alleged  dogmatic  con- 
trast between  the  discourse  Mark  xiii.  and  the  Apocalypse,  exists 
only  in  the  mind  of  Volkmar ;  the  latter  celebrates  the  conversion 
of  the  Gentiles  with  the  same  enthusiasm  as  the  former  foretells  it. 
2.  The  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  in  68  is  an  hypothesis,  the 
falsehood  of  which  we  have,  as  we  think,  demonstrated.1  3.  It  is 
utterly  false  that  the  Apocalypse  teaches  the  preservation  of  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem.  The  description  xi.  1  et  seq.,  if  it  is  to  be 
rescued  from  absurdity,  must  necessarily  be  taken  in  a  figurative 
sense,  as  we  have  also  demonstrated.2  4.  Certainly  the  poetical 
representations  of  the  Apocalypse  were  not  the  original  of  the  simple, 
concise,  prosaic  expressions  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus  in  the  Syn.  ; 
it  was  these,  on  the  contrary,  which  served  as  a  canvas  for  the  rich 
delineations  of  the  Apocalypse.  Is  it  not  evident  that  the  literal 
terms  war,  famine,  pestilence,  earthquakes,  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
(Luke  xxi.  9-11  and  parall.),  are  amplified  and  developed  into  the 
form  of  complete  visions  in  the  apocalyptic  seals  (war,  in  Eev.  vi. 
3, 4  ;  famine,  in  vers.  5.6;  pestilence,  in  vers.  7,8;  earthquake,  in  vers. 
12-17;  comp.  also  the,  persecutions,  foretold  Luke  vers.  16,  17,  with 
Eev.  vi.  9-11,  and  the  false  Christs  and  prophets  predicted  Matt, 
xxiv.  24,  with  Rev.  xiii.)  1    The  inverse  procedure,  the  return  from 

1  Bulletin  TMolocjique,  1865,  pp.  236-249.  2  lb.  p.  242. 


CIIAI\  XXI.  34-36.  2.  i  b 

the  elaborate  to  the  simple,  from  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Gospels,  is 
in  its  very  nature  inadmissible.  The  composition  of  Jesus'  discourse 
in  the  Syn.  is  therefore  anterior  to  that  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  not 
the  reverse.  5.  The  historical  declaration  of  Jesus  in  Mark  :  "  Of 
that  day  knoweth  no  man,  not  even  the  Son,"  is  confirmed  by  Matt. 
xxiv.  30  and  Marie  xiii.  35.  It  results  from  the  very  contents  of 
this  marvellous  saying.  Who  would  have  thought,  at  the  time  when 
the  conviction  of  the  Lord's  divinity  was  making  way  with  so  much 
force  in  the  Church,  and  when  Jesus  was  represented  in  this  very 
discourse  as  the  universal  Judge,  of  putting  into  His  mouth  a  saying 
which  seemed  to  bring  Him  down  to  the  level  of  other  human 
a  ?  Such  a  saying  must  have  rested  on  the  most  authentic 
tradition.  6.  We  have  proved  the  mutual  independence  of  the  three 
synoptical  accounts.  The  origin  of  this  discourse  of  Jesus  was  there- 
fore, no  doubt,  apostolical  tradition  circulating  in  the  Church,  agree- 
ably to  Luke  i.  1,2. 

Jesus  then  called  Himself,  and  consequently  either  knew  or  be- 
lieved Himself  to  be,  the  future  Judge  of  the  Church  and  the  world. 
In  the  former  case,  He  must  be  something  more  than  a  sinful  man — 
He  can  be  only  the  God-man  ;  in  the  latter,  He  is  only  a  fool  carried 
away  with  pride.  In  vain  will  MM.  Colani,  Volkmar,  and  Kepi 
attempt  to  escape  from  this  dilemna.  Genuine  historical  criticism 
and  an  impartial  exegesis  will  always  raise  it  anew,  and  allow  no 
other  choice  than  between  the  Christ  of  the  Church  and  the  clever 
ner  of  M.  Renan. 

What  conclusion  should  be  drawn  from  this  discourse  as  to  the 
date  when  our  Syn.,  and  Luke  in  particular,  were  composed?  De 
Wette  has  justly  concluded,  from  the  close  connection  which  this 
discourse,  as  we  have  it  in  Matthew,  fixes  between  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  Parousia,  that  this  Gospel  must  have  been 
compo  re  the  former  of  those  two  events.     And,  in  truth,  it 

requires  all  Volkmar's  audacity  to  attempt  to  prove  the  contrary 
by  means  of  that   very  evtfc'ws,  immediately  (xxiv.    29),  which  so 
]y,  as  we  have  seen,  connects  the  second  event  with  the  first. 
But  if  this  conclusion  is  well  founded  in  regard  to  the  first  Gospel, 
it  is  not  less  applicable  to  the  second,  which  in  this  respect  is  in 
■•'  umstances  as  the  first.     As  to  Luke,  it  has  often 
inferred  from  the  well-marked  distinction  kept  up  between 
the  two  subjects  and  the  two  discourses   (Parousia,   chap.   xvii.  ? 
destm  Jerusalem,  chap,  xxi.),  that  he  wrote  after  the  destruc- 

tion of  Jen  i!>  in.  when  the  interval  between  the  two  events  was 
historically  eetabliehed  Rational  as  this  conclusion  may  appear  at 
first  sight,  it  is  nevertheless  unfounded.  For,  1.  Luke  him  .It.  a 
we  have  seen  at  ver.  32,  is  not  wholly  exempt  from  the  confusion 
which  preraOl  in  thfl  Oilier  two.  2.  If  Jesus  in  His  own  judgment 
distinctly  separated  those  two  events,  why  might  1 1«  not  have  spoken 
of  them  Himself  in  two  separate  discourses  ;  and  why  nrighl  not 
Lake,  in  this  case  aa  in  many  oil  uply  reproduced  the 

i  fact  from  more  exact  originals  (i.  3,  4)  t 


276  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

3.  General  View  of  the  Situation:  vers.  37,  38.1  —  The 
preceding  discourse  was  delivered  by  Jesus  on  the  Tuesday  or 
Wednesday  evening.  Luke  here  characterizes  our  Lord's  mode 
of  living  during  the  last  days  of  His  life.  AvKi^eaOai :  to 
pass  the  night  in  the  open  air.  The  use  of  the  ek  arises  from 
the  idea  of  motion  contained  in  i^epxpfxevos  (Bleek). — 4  Mnn. 
place  here,  after  ver.  38,  the  account  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  which  in  a  large  number  of  documents  is  found  John 
vii.  53-viii.  11.  We  can  only  see  in  this  piece,  in  Luke  as 
well  as  in  John,  an  interpolation  doubtless  owing  to  some 
marginal  note  taken  by  a  copyist  from  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  which  in  some  mss.  had  found  its  way  into  the 
text  of  the  Gospel.  As  to  the  rest,  this  narrative  would  stand 
much  better  in  Luke  than  in  John.  It  has  a  close  bond  of 
connection  with  the  contents  of  chap,  xx  (the  snares  laid  for 
Jesus).  And  an  event  of  this  kind  may  have  actually  occurred 
in  the  two  or  three  days  which  are  summarily  described  in 
vers.  37  and  38. 

1  Ver.  38.  4  Mnn.  add  at  the  end  of  this  verse,  %au  *<xr,\6i*  t***-™,-  m  n*  *.*** 
aunuf  then  the  narrative  John  viii.  1-11. 


SIXTH    PART. 

THE  PASSION. 

Chap.  xxii.  and  xxiil 

THE  Saviour  had  taken  up  a  truly  royal  attitude  in  the 
temple.  Now  this  short  anticipation  of  His  kingdom, 
the  normal  blossoming  of  His  prophetic  activity,  is  over ;  and 
limiting  Himself  to  a  silence  and  passivity  which  have  earned 
for  this  period  the  name  of  the  Passion,  He  exercises  that 
terrestrial  priesthood  which  was  to  be  the  transition  from  His 
prophetic  ministry  to  His  celestial  sovereignty. 

We  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel  (chap,  xii.)  a  scene  which 
must  have  occurred  on  one  of  the  days  referred  to  by  Luke 
xxi.  37,  38,  the  discourse  which  Jesus  uttered  in  the  temple 
in  answer  to  the  question  of  some  Greek  proselytes  who  had 
desired  to  converse  with  Him,  and  the  divine  manifestation 
which  took  place  on  that  occasion.  Then  it  is  said,  "And 
id  did  h  -if  from  them"  (yer.  36).     This 

departure  could  not  be  that  of  Matt.  xxiv.  1  (parall.  Luke 
5).  The  scene  which  precedes  differs  too  widely.  It  took 
place,  then-fore,  one  or  two  days  Inter;  and  this  supposition 
agrees  with  the  meaning  of  the  last  two  verses  of  chap,  xxi., 
which  forbid  us  to  believe  that  after  the  eschatological  dis- 
course  Jesu^  did  not  reappear  Inthetempla  Thus,  if  we  place 
the  entry  into  m  on  Sunday  afternoon,  the  purification 

of  the  temple  on    Monday  (Mark),  the  captious  questions  put 
t  I    1 1  i in  on  Tuesday,  and  tin;  prophecy  respecting  the  dc 

rusalem  on  the  evening  of  that  day,  the  temple  scene 

I  John  xii.  n  rred  on  Wednesday;  in  which 

case,  Jesus  would  pass  the  last  day,  Thursday,  in   His  retreat 

in 


278  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

at  Bethany  with  His  disciples.  If  it  is  alleged,  with  Bleek, 
that  the  entry  on  Palm  Day  took  place  on  Monday,  each  of 
the  events  mentioned  is  put  back  a  day;  and  the  temple 
scene  falling  in  this  case  on  Thursday,  Jesus  must,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  passed  this  last  day,  like  all  the  rest,  at  Jerusalem. 
Whatever  Keim  may  say,  who  alleges  two  days  of  complete 
retirement,  Wednesday  and  Thursday,  everything  considered, 
we  regard  the  second  supposition  as  the  simplest. 

The  narrative  of  the  Passion  comprehends : — I.  The  pre- 
paration for  the  Passion  (xxii.  1-46).  II.  The  Passion 
(xxii.  47-xxiii.  46).  III.  The  events  following  the  Passion 
(xxiii.  47-56). 

FIRST  CYCLE. CHAP.  XXII.  1-46. 

The  Preparation  for  the   Passion. 

This  cycle  comprehends  the  three  following  events : — Judas 
preparing  for  the  Passion  by  selling  Jesus ;  Jesus  preparing 
His  disciples  for  it  at  His  last  supper ;  His  preparing  Himself 
for  it  by  prayer  in  Gethsemane, 

I.  TJie  Treachery  of  Judas :  xxii.  1-6. — Vers.  1-6.1  The 
resolution  of  the  Sanhedrim  was  taken.  The  only  question 
for  it  henceforth  was  that  of  the  how  (to  7rw?,  ver.  2).  Its 
perplexity  arose  from  the  extraordinary  favour  which  Jesus 
enjoyed  with  the  people,  particularly  with  the  crowds  who 
had  come  from  Galilee  and  from  abroad ;  the  rulers  feared  a 
popular  rising  on  the  part  of  those  numerous  friends  who  had 
come  from  a  distance  with  Him,  and  of  whom  they  did  not 
feel  themselves  the  masters,  as  they  did  of  the  population  of 
Jerusalem.  So,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  they  said  in 
their  conclaves,  "Not  during  the  feast"  which  may  signify 
either  before,  ere  the  multitudes  are  fully  assembled,  or  after, 
when  they  shall  have  departed,  and  they  shall  be  again  mas- 
ters of  the  field.  But  it  was  in  exact  keeping  with  the  divine 
plan  that  Jesus  should  die  during  the  feast  (eV  ry  eoprff) ;  and 
the  perfidy  of  Judas,  the  means  which  the  rulers  thought  they 

1  Ver.  3.  A.  B.  D.  L.  X.,  Ka.Xovfx.tvov  instead  of  ivixxXovpivov. — Ver.  4.  C.  P. 
]0  Mnn.  Syr.  ItPleri<*ue,  add  xou  rots  ypeoppecrtuo-iv  after  ton  apxnptvo-it. — C.  P. 
9  Mnn.  Syr**,  add  rov  npov  after  o-rpoirnyoi?. — Ver.  5.  The  Mss.  are  divided 
between  apyvpiov  and  upyvpia. — Ver.  6.  X*  C.  ItP|eriiue,  omit  xa/  tlufioXoyno-iv. 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-6.  279 

could  use  to  attain  their  end,  was  that  of  which  God  made  use 
to  attain  His. 

It  appears  from  Matt,  xxvl  2  and  Mark  xiv.  1  that  it  was 
Wednesday  when  the  negotiation  between  Judas  and  the  San- 
hedrim took  place.  Luke  and  Mark  omit  the  words  of  Jesus 
(Matthew),  "  In  two  days  is  the  Passover  .  .  ."     But  those   two 

I  appear  in  Mark  in  the  form  of  the  narrative. — The  word 

over,  to  Traaya,  from  pjdb,  in  Aramaic  Knos,  signifies  a 
passing,  and  commemorates  the  manner  in  which  the  Israelites 
were  spared  in  Egypt  when  the  Almighty  passed  over  their 
houses,  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  without  slaying 
their  first-born.     This  name,  which  originally  denoted  the  lamb, 

applied  later  to  the  Supper  itself,  then  to  the  entire  feast. 
The  Passover  was  celebrated  in  the  first  month,  called  Nisan, 
from  the  15  th  of  the  month,  the  day  of  full  moon,  to  the  21st. 
This  season  corresponds  to  the  end  of  March  and  beginning  of 
April.  The  feast  opened  on  the  evening  which  closed  the 
14th  and  began  the  15th,  with  the  Paschal  Supper.  Origi- 
nally every  father,  in  virtue  of  the  priesthood  belonging  to 
every  Israelite,  sacrificed  his  lamb  himself  at  his  own  house. 
Dot  since  the  Passover  celebrated  by  Josiah,  the  lambs  were 

rificed  in  the   temple,   and  with  the  help  of  the  prie 
This  act  took  place  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th,  from  three 
to  six  o'clock.     Some  hours  after  the  Supper  began,  which  1 
prolonged  far  into  the  night.     This  Supper  opened  tin  feast  of 
'topTT)  rwv  atyfAGov,  ver.  1),  which,  according 
to  the  law,  lasted  the  seven  fallowing  days.     The  first  and 

[15th  and  21st)   were  sabbatic.      The  intermediate  d. 
not    hallowed  by  acts  of   worship  and   sa<  rifices ;  work 

lawful.     As  Josephus  expressly  says  that  the  feast  of 

ted  tight  days,  agreeing  with  our  Svn., 

on  the   14th  (ver.   7;  Matt.   xwi.    17; 

Mark  xiv.  12),  and  not  on  the  15th,  we  must  conclude  that 

In  practi  e    Oi  unleavened  bread   had   been  gradually 

extended  to  the  1  1th.  To  the  pitsttri  day,  it  is  on  the  night 
between  the  13th  and  11th  that  all  leaven  is  removed  from 
Israelitish  houses. 

Luke,  ver.  3,  ascribes  the  conduct  of  Judas  to  a  Satanic 

influence.     He  goes  the  length  of  saying  that  Satan  uttered 

He  means  to  the 


280  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

intervention  of  that  superior  agent  in  this  extraordinary  crime  • 
while  John,  seeking  to  characterize  its  various  degrees,  more 
exactly  distinguishes  the  time  when  Satan  put  into  the  heart 
of  Judas  the  first  thought  of  it  (comp.  xiii.  2),  and  the  moment 
when  he  entered  into  him  so  as  to  take  entire  possession  of  his 
will  (xiii.  27).  According  to  the  biblical  view,  this  interven- 
tion of  Satan  did  not  at  all  exclude  the  liberty  of  Judas. 
This  disciple,  in  joining  the  service  of  Jesus,  had  not  taken 
care  to  deny  his  own  life,  as  Jesus  so  often  urged  His  own  to 
do.  Jesus,  instead  of  becoming  the  end  to  his  heart,  had 
remained  the  means.  And  now,  when  he  saw  things  terminat- 
ing in  a  result  entirely  opposed  to  that  with  which  he  had 
ambitiously  flattered  himself,  he  wished  at  least  to  try  to 
benefit  by  the  false  position  into  which  he  had  put  himself 
with  his  nation,  and  to  use  his  advantages  as  a  disciple  in 
order  to  regain  the  favour  of  the  rulers  with  whom  he  had 
broken.  The  thirty  pieces  of  silver  certainly  played  only  a 
secondary  part  in  his  treachery,  although  this  part  was  real 
notwithstanding ;  for  the  epithet  thief  (John  xii.  6)  is  given 
to  him  with  the  view  of  putting  his  habitual  conduct  in  con- 
nection with  this  final  act. — Matthew  and  Mark  insert  here 
the  narrative  of  the  feast  at  Bethany,  though  it  must  have 
taken  place  some  days  before  (John).  The  reason  for  this 
insertion  is  an  association  of  ideas  arising  from  the  moral 
relation  between  these  two  particulars  in  which  the  avarice  of 
Judas  showed  itself. — The  arparTjyol,  captains  (ver.  4),  are  the 
heads  of  the  soldiery  charged  with  keeping  guard  over  the 
temple  (Acts  iv.  1).  There  was  a  positive  contract  (they 
covenanted,  he  promised).  "Arep,  not  at  a  distance  from  the 
multitude,  but  without  a  multitude ;  that  is  to  say,  without 
any  flocking  together  produced  by  the  occasion.  This  wholly 
unexpected  offer  determined  the  Sanhedrim  to  act  before  rather 
than  after  the  feast.  But  in  order  to  that,  it  was  necessary 
to  make  haste ;  the  last  moment  had  come. 

II.  The  Last  Supper:  xxii.  7-38. — We  find  ourselves  here 
face  to  face  with  a  difficulty  which,  since  the  second  century 
of  the  Church,  has  arrested  the  attentive  readers  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. As  it  was  on  the  14th  Nisan,  in  the  afternoon,  that 
the  Paschal  lamb  was  sacrificed,  that  it  might  be  eaten  the 
evening  of  the  same  day,  it  has  been  customary  to  take  the 


CHAP.  XXII.  7-38.  2S1 

time  designated  by  the  words,  ver.  7,  Then  came  the  day  of 
unleavened  bread  when  the  Passover  must  he  killed  (comp. 
Matthew  and  Mark),  as  falling  on  the  morning  of  that  14th 
day  ;  from  which  it  would  follow  that  the  Supper,  related  ver. 
14  et  seq.,  took  place  the  evening  between  the  14th  and  15th. 
This  view  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  parallels  Matt.  xxvi. 
17,  Mark  xiv.  12,  where  the  disciples  (not  Jesus,  as  in  Luke) 
take  the  initiative  in  the  steps  needed  for  the  Supper.     If 

h  was  the  fact,  it  appeared  that  the  apostles  could  not 
have  been  occupied  with  the  matter  till  the  morning  of  the 
14th.  But  thereby  the  explanation  came  into  conflict  with 
John,  who  seems  to  say  in  a  considerable  number  of  passages 
that  Jesus  was  crucified  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th,  at  the 
time  when  they  were  slaying  the  lamb  in  the  temple,  which 
necessarily  supposes  that  the  last  Supper  of  Jesus  with  His 
disciples  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  seeming  contradiction  does  not  bear  on  the  day  of  the 
week  on  which  Jesus  was  crucified.  According  to  our  four 
Gospels,  this  day  was  indisputably  Friday.  The  difference 
relates  merely  to  the  day  of  the  month,  but  on  that  very 
account,  also,  to  the  relation  between  the  last  Supper  of  Jam 
at  which  lie  instituted  the  Eucharist,  and  the  Paschal  fa 
of  that  year.  Many  commentators — Wieseler,  Hofinann, 
Lichtcnstein,  Tholuck,  Riggenbach — think  that  they  can  iden- 
tify the  nit Mining  of  John's  passages  with  the  idea  which  at 
first  sight   ;  to    06    that   of  the   Synoptical    narrative; 

Jesus,  according  to  John  as  according  to  the  Syn,,  celebrated 
last  Supper  on  the  evening  of  the  14th,  and  instituted 
the  Holy  Sapper  while  celebrating  the  Passover  conjointly 
with  the  whole  people     We  have  explained  in  our  Comui 
taire  sv.  de  Jean  the  reasons  which  appear  to  us  to 

render  this  solution   impossible.1     The   arguments  adTanoed 

06  then  by  the  learned  Catholic  theologian  Langen,  and  by 
r.,iuiiilcin,  have  not  changed  our  con- 
viction.-     Che  meaning  which  presents  itself  first  to  the  mind 

1  Sec  at  xii  28,  xix.  14,  and  the  special  dissertation,  t.  ii.  pp.  629- 

636. 
*  Langen,  J%ic  Idztm  Lebtmtagt  Jcsu,  1864  ;  Dauml<  iu,  Commentar  il 


282  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

on  reading  John's  Gospel,  is  and  remains  the  only  possible  one, 
exegetically  speaking.  But  it  may  and  should  be  asked  in 
return,  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  synoptical  narrative, 
and  its  relation  to  John's  account  thus  understood  ?  Such  is 
the  point  which  we  proceed  to  examine  as  we  study  more 
closely  the  text  of  Luke. 

The  narrative  of  Luke  embraces  :  1.  The  preparation  for 
the  feast  (vers.  7-13)  ;  2.  The  feast  itself  (vers.  14-23)  ;  3. 
The  conversations  which  followed  the  feast  (vers.  24-38). 

1.  The  Preparations:  vers.  7-1 3.1  —  There  is  a  marked 
difference  between  the  rj\6e,  came,  of  ver.  7,  and  the  rjyyi^e, 
drew  nigh,  of  ver.  1.  The  word  drew  nigh  placed  us  one  or 
two  days  before  the  Passover ;  the  word  came  denotes  the 
beginning  of  the  day  on  which  the  lamb  was  killed,  the  14th. 
Is  this  time,  as  is  ordinarily  supposed,  the  morning  of  the 
14th?  But  after  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  the  14th 
began  at  even,  about  six  o'clock.  The  whole  night  between 
the  13  th  and  14th,  in  our  language,  belonged  to  the  14th. 
How,  then,  could  the  word  came  apply  to  a  time  when  the 
entire  first  half  of  the  day  was  already  past  ?  The  came  of 
ver.  7  seems  to  us,  therefore,  to  denote  what  in  our  language 
we  should  call  the  evening  of  the  13  th  (among  the  Jews  the 

Evangelium  JoJiannis,  1863.  Both  apply  the  expression,  before  the  feast  of 
Passover  (John  xiii.  1),  to  the  evening  of  the  14th,  making  the  feast  of  Passover, 
properly  so  called,  begin  on  the  morning  of  the  15th.  Langen  justifies  this  way 
of  speaking  by  Deut.  xvi.  6,  where  he  translates  :  "At  the  rising  of  the  sun 
(instead  of  at  the  going  down  of  the  sun)  is  the  feast  of  the  coming  forth  out  of 
Egypt."  This  translation  is  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  Gen.  xxviii.  11,  etc. 
The  passage  of  Josephus  which  he  adds  (Antiq.  iii.  10.  5)  has  as  little  force. 
We  think  that  we  have  demonstrated  how  insufficient  is  Deut.  xvi.  2  to  justify 
that  interpretation  of  John  xviii.  28  which  would  reduce  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase,  to  eat  the  Passover,  to  the  idea  of  eating  the  unleavened  bread  and  the 
sacrificial  viands  of  the  Paschal  week.  As  to  John  xix.  14,  there  is  no  doubt 
that,  as  Langen  proves,  the  N.  T.  (Mark  xv.  42),  the  Talmud,  and  the  Fathers 
use  the  term  •rapuo-xtvj,  preparation,  to  denote  Friday  as  the  weekly  prepara- 
tion for  the  Sabbath,  and  that,  consequently,  in  certain  contexts  the  expression 
Tapac-xivv  rod  -rutr^x,  preparation  of  the  Passover,  might  signify  the  Friday  of 
the  Passover  week.  But  this  meaning  is  excluded  in  John  :  1st.  By  the  ambi- 
guity which  the  expression  must  have  presented  to  the  mind  of  his  Greek 
readers  ;  2d.  By  the  fact  that  no  reader  of  the  Gospel  could  be  ignorant  that  the 
narrative  lay  in  the  Paschal  week. 

1  Ver.  7.  B.  C.  D.  L.  omit  tv  before  »>.— Ver.  10.  N.  B.  C.  L.,  w,  *v  instead  of 
cv  or  ov  tcy. — Ver.  12.  Instead  of  uvuytov  (T.  R,  with  X.  r.),  4  Mjj.  avwyaiov, 
the  others  avaya/sv. — K.  L.  X.,  x*x.u  instead  of  txu. — Ver.  13.  tf.  B.  C.  D.  L., 
nf*iKii  instead  of  upr.xiv. 


CHAP.  XXII.  7-13.  283 

time  of  transition  from  the  13th  to  the  14th,  from  four  to  six 
o'clock).  The  expressions  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  without 
being  so  precise,  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  a  different  meaning. 
Indeed,  the  expression  of  Mark,  ver.  1 2,  does  not  signify,  ■  at 
the  n  they  killed  .  .  .,"  but  "  the  day  when  they  .  .  ." 

But  may  we  place  on  the  13th,  in  the  evening,  the  command 
of  Jesus  to  His  two  disciples  to  prepare  the  feast  for  the 
morrow  ?  That  is  not  only  possible,  but  necessary.  On  the 
morning  of  the  1 4th,  it  would  have  been  too  late  to  think  of 
procuring  an  apartment  for  that  very  evening.  Strauss  fully 
acknowledges  this  }  "  In  consequence  of  the  flocking  of  pil- 
grims from  a  distance,  it  was  of  course  difficult,  and  even 
impossible,  to  find  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the 
feast  (the  14th),  for  the  very  evening,  a  room  not  yet  taken 
up."  Places  were  then  taken  at  least  a  day  in  advance. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  this  account,  gives  the  13th  the 
name   of  irpoeroiiiaala,   rpro-'pre/paration.     The  14th  was   the 

aration,  because  on  that  day  the  lamb  was  killed;  the 
ii,  the  pro-preparation,  because,  as  Clement  says,  on  that 

they  consecrated  the  unleavened  bread,  and  took  all  the 
other  steps  necessary  for  the  Paschal  feast.8  Hence  it  follows, 
that  the  question  put  by  Matthew  and  Mark  into  the  mouth 
oi  the  disciples,  "  Wlicre  wilt  Thou  that  ,  v  1hr  /'■ 

over?"  must  likewise  be  placed  on  the  evening  of  the  13th, 
which  for  the  Jews  was  already  passing  into  the  14th.  It 
matters  little,  therefore,  so  far  as  this  question  is  concen 
whether  the  initiative  be  ascribed  to  Jesus  (Luke)  or  to  the 
disciples  (Matthew  and  Mark).  As  to  the  rest,  on  this  point 
the  narrative  of  Luke  is  evidently  the  most  precise  ftbd  «  \ 
for  he  also,  ver.  9,  relates  the  question  of  the  dis. -ipl. •>,  but 
replacing  it  in  its  true  position.  Luke  alone  mentions  the 
names  of  the  two  apostles  chosen.      He  must  have  borrowed 

detail  from  ■  private  source — at  least  if  he  did  not  invent 

In  any  case,  the  fact  would  not  agree  very  well  with  his 

alleged  habitual    animosity   against   St.   Peter.3     Jesus  must 

■■'.  VcXkt  p.  538. 

*  "  On  this  day  (the  l  unleavened  bread 
sn«l  ths  pro-preparation  of  the  feast"— (Fragment  of  his  book,  wtfi  r$S  wdrx*t 
preserved  in  the  Chromcon  Pose// 

*  So  small  a  thing  does  sot  tro.  II  re,  according  to  hiiu, 


284  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

have  had  an  object  in  specially  choosing  those  two  disciples. 
We  shall  see,  in  fact,  that  this  was  a  confidential  mission, 
which  could  be  trusted  to  none  but  His  surest  and  most 
intimate  friends.  —  If  it  was  between  four  and  six  o'clock 
in  the  evening,  the  apostles  had  yet  time  to  execute  their 
commission  before  night,  whether  they  Lad  passed  the  day 
in  the  city,  and  Jesus  left  them  to  do  it  when  He  Him- 
self was  starting  for  Bethany  with  the  purpose  of  return- 
ing later  to  Jerusalem,  or  whether  He  had  passed  the  whole 
of  this  last  day  at  Bethany,  and  sent  them  from  the  latter 
place. 

Why  does  Jesus  not  describe  to  them  more  plainly  (vers. 
10-12)  the  host  whom  He  has  in  view  ?  There  is  but  one 
answer :  He  wishes  the  house  where  He  reckons  on  celebrating 
the  feast  to  remain  unknown  to  those  who  surround  Him  at 
the  time  when  He  gives  this  order.  This  is  why,  instead  of 
describing  it,  He  gives  the  sign  indicated.  Jesus  knew  the 
projects  of  Judas  ;  the  whole  narrative  of  the  feast  which 
follows  proves  this ;  and  He  wished,  by  acting  in  this  way, 
to  escape  from  the  hindrances  which  the  treachery  of  His 
disciple  might  have  put  in  His  way  in  the  use  which  He 
desired  to  make  of  this  last  evening. — The  sign  indicated,  a 
man  drawing  water  from  a  fountain,  is  not  so  accidental  as  it 
appears.  On  the  evening  of  the  13  th,  before  the  stars  appeared 
in  the  heavens,  every  father,  according  to  Jewish  custom,  had 
to  repair  to  the  fountain  to  draw  pure  water  with  which  to 
knead  the  unleavened  bread.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  rite  which 
was  carried  through  to  the  words :  "  This  is  the  water  of  un- 
leavened bread."  Then  a  torch  was  lighted,  and  during  some 
following  part  of  the  night  the  house  was  visited,  and  searched 
in  every  corner,  to  put  away  the  smallest  vestige  of  leaven. 
There  is  thus  a  closer  relation  than  appears  between  the  sign 
and  its  meaning. — Here  is  a  new  proof  of  the  supernatural 
knowledge  of  Jesus.  The  fact  is  omitted-  in  Matthew.  As 
usual,  this  evangelist  abridges  the  narrative  of  facts.  Probably 
Jesus  knew  the  master  of  the  house  mentioned  ver.  11,  and 
had  already  asked  this  service  of  him  conditionally  (ver.  12). 
'Avdyaiov  (in  the  Attic  form,  avcoyecov),  the  upper  room,  which 

%  malicious  notice  from  Luke,  who  wishes  to  indicate  those  two  chiefs  of  the 
Twelve  as  the  representatives  of  ancient  Judaism  (!). 


CHAP.  XXII.  li-23.  2S5 

sometimes  occupies  a  part  of  the  terrace  of  the  house.  All 
furnished :  provided  with  the  necessary  divans  and  tables  (the 
triclinium,  in  the  shape  of  a  horse-shoe). 

Matthew  (xxvi.  18)  has  preserved  to  us,  in  the  message  of 
Jesus  to  the  master  of  the  house,  a  saying  which  deserves  to 
be  weighed  :  "  My  time  is  at  hand ;  let  me  keep  the  Passover 
at  thy  house  with  my  disciples."  How  does  the  first  of  those 
two  propositions  form  a  ground  for  the  request  implied  in  the 
second  ?  Commentators  have  seen  in  the  first  an  appeal  to 
the  owner's  sensibilities  :  I  am  about  to  die ;  grant  me  this 
last  service.  Ewald  somewhat  differently  :  Soon  I  shall  be  in 
my  glory,  and  I  shall  be  able  to  requite  thee  for  this  service. 
These  explanations  are  far-fetched.  We  can  explain  the 
thought  of  Jesus,  if  those  words  express  the  necessity  under 
which  He  finds  Himself  laid,  by  the  nearness  of  His  death, 
to  anticipate  the  celebration  of  the  Passover :  "  My  death  is 
near ;  to-morrow  it  will  be  too  late  for  me  to  keep  the  Pass- 
over ;  let  me  celebrate  it  at  thy  house  [this  evening]  with  my 
disciples."  Ilouo  is  not  the  att.  fut.  (Bleek),  but  the  present 
(Winer) :  "  Let  me  keep  it  immediately"     It  was  a  call  to  the 

ner  instantly  to  prepare  the  room,  and  everything  which 
was  necessary  for  the  feast.  The  two  disciples  were  to  make 
those  preparations  in  conjunction  with  the  host.  No  doubt 
the  lamb  could  not  be  slain  in  the  temple  ;  but  could  Jesus, 

\\g  excommunicated  with  all  His  adherents,  and  already 

even  laid  under  sentence  of  arrest  by  the  Sanhedrim  (John 

xi.  53-57),  have  had   His  Iamb  slain  on   tin*  morrow  in  the 

1  form  ?     That  is  far  from  probable.     Jesus  is  about  to 

titute  the  new  Passover  for  the  old.     How  should  He  not 

the  right  to  free  Himself  from  the  letter  of  the  ordinance  ? 

all  the  mon;  that,  according  to  the  original  institution,  every 

bet  was  required  himself  to  slay  the  Paschal  Iamb  in  his 
ii  i  Himself  in  like  manner  from  the  law  as 

to  the  day.      !!<•  ie   forced,  indeed,  to  do  so,   if  He  wishes 
Himself  to  substitute  the  new  feast  for  the  old.     The  decision 
Sanhedrim  to  pot  Him  to  death  htfen  the  feast  [Matt 
xxvi.  5),  leaves  Him  no  choice.     Tin-   entire  state  of  thii 
agrees  with  the  6  D  Which  John  naes:  Beiiruov  yevotievov, 

a  supper  having  taken  place  (xiii.  2). 

2.  The  8  j .  i .  element* 


286  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

which  form  the  material  of  this  narrative  in  the  three  Syn. :  1st. 
The  expression  of  the  personal  feelings  of  Jesus.  With  this 
Luke  begins,  and  Matthew  and  Mark  close.  2d.  The  institution 
of  the  Holy  Supper.  It  forms  the  centre  of  the  narrative  in 
the  three  Syn.  3d  The  disclosure  of  the  betrayal,  and  the 
indication  of  the  traitor.  With  this  Luke  ends,  and  Matthew 
and  Mark  begin.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  deeply  the  facts  them- 
selves were  impressed  on  the  memory  of  the  witnesses,  but 
how  secondary  the  interest  was  which  tradition  attached  to 
chronological  order.  The  myth,  on  the  contrary,  would  have 
created  the  whole  of  a  piece,  and  the  result  would  be  wholly 
different.  Luke's  order  appears  preferable.  It  is  natural  for 
Jesus  to  begin  by  giving  utterance  to  His  personal  impressions, 
vers.  15—18.  With  the  painful  feeling  of  approaching  sepa- 
ration there  is  connected,  by  an  easily  understood  bond,  the 
institution  of  the  Holy  Supper,  that  sign  which  is  in  a  way  to 
perpetuate  Christ's  visible  presence  in  the  midst  of  His  own 
after  His  departure,  vers.  19,  20.  Finally,  the  view  of  the 
close  communion  contracted  by  this  solemn  act  between  the 
disciples,  causes  the  feeling  of  the  contrast  between  them  and 
Judas,  so  agonizing  to  Him,  to  break  forth  into  expression. 
Such  is  the  connection  of  the  third  part.  It  is  far  from 
probable,  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  Jesus  began  by  speaking  of 
this  last  subject  (Matthew  and  Mark).  John  omits  the  first 
two  elements.  The  first  was  not  essential  to  his  narrative. 
The  second,  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper,  was  sufficiently 
well  known  from  tradition.  We  have,  in  our  Commentaire 
sur  Vhangih  de  Jean,  placed  this  latter  event  at  the  time 
indicated  by  xiii.  2  in  that  Gospel  (helirvov  yevofiivov).  The 
feet-washing  which  followed  necessarily  coincides  with  the 
indication  of  the  traitor  in  Luke,  and  with  the  subsequent 
conversation,  ver.  24  et  seq. ;  and  the  two  accounts  thus  meet 
in  the  common  point,  the  prediction  of  Peter's  denial  (Luke, 
ver.  31 ;  John,  ver.  38). 

As  in  what  follows  there  are  repeated  allusions  to  the  rites 
of  the  Paschal  Supper,  we  must  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  to  others,  each  one  had  his  cup),  with 
this  invocation :  "  Blessed  be  Thou,  0  Lord  our  God,  King  of 


CHAI\  XXII.  14-23.  287 

the  world,  who  hast  created  the  fruit  of  the  vine ! "    Next 
there  were  passed  from  one  to  another  the  bitter  herbs  (a  sort 
of  salad),  which  recalled  to  mind  the  sufferings  of  the  Egyp- 
tian  bondage.      These  were   eaten   after  being   dipped   in   a 
reddish  sweet  sauce  (Charoseth),  made  of  almonds,  nuts,  figs, 
and  other  fruits ;  commemorating,  it  is  said,  by  its  colour  the 
hard  labour  of  brick-making  imposed  on  the  Israelites,  and  by 
its  taste,  the  divine  alleviations  which  Jehovah  mingles  with 
the  miseries  of  His  people. — Second  step :  The  father  circu- 
lates a  second  cup,  and  then  explains,  probably  in  a  more  or 
less  fixed  liturgical  form,  the  meaning  of  the  feast,  and  of  the 
rites  by  which  it  is  distinguished. — Third  step :  The  father 
takes  two  unleavened  loaves  (cakes),  breaks  one  of  them,  and 
places  the  pieces  of  it  on  the  other.     Then,  uttering  a  thanks- 
;ng,  he  takes  one  of  the  pieces,  dips  it  in  the  sauce,  and 
it,  taking  witli  it  a  piece  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  along  with 
bitter  herbs.     Each  one  follows  his  example.     This   is  the 
it  properly  so  called.     The  lamb  forms  the  principal  dish. 
The  conversation  is  free.     It  closes  with  the  distribution  of  a 
third  cup,  called  the  cup  of  blessing,  because  it  was  accom- 
ied  witli  the  giving  of  thanks  by  the  father  of  the  house. 
— Fourth  step :  The  father  distributes  a  fourth  cup  ;  then  the 
ia  sung  (Fs.  cxiii.-cxviii.).     Sometimes  the  father  added 
a  fifth  cup,  which  was   accompanied  with  the  sinking  of  the 
great  Hallel   (Ps.    cxx.-cxxvii. ;  according  to  others,  cxxxv.- 
vii. ;  BOCOtding  to  Delitzsch,  Fs.  cxxxvL).1 
Must  it  be  held,  witli   Langen,  that  Jesus  began  by  cele- 
brating the  entire  Jewish  ceremony,  in  order  to  connect  with  it 
thereafter  the  Christian  Holy  Supper;  or  did  He  transforn 
Be  went  along,  the  Jewish  Supper  ED  such  a  way  as  to  coma  it 
tcred  Supper  of  the  N.  T.  ?    This  second  view  seems 
the  only  tenable  one.     For,  1.  It  was  dm'Wg  the  oonne 
the  trast,  €<j6lovt(dv  avrcov  (Matthew  and  Mark),  and  not 
the  feast  (as  Luke  says  in  speaking  of  the  only  cup).  I 
bread  of  the  Holy  Soppec  must  have  been  distributed.      2. 
The  Hinging  of  the  hymn  spoken  of  by  Mark  and  Mattln  , 
can  only  be  that         .    Ilallrl.  md  fofiUowd  the  institution  o! 
Supper. 

ariously  described  by  those  who  !  it  ion  to 

1 1  followed  the  account  of  Langcn,  p,  147  « t  ieq. 


238  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

1st.  Vers.  14-18.1  Jesus  opens  the  feast  by  communicating 
to  the  disciples  His  present  impressions.  This  first  step 
corresponds  to  the  first  of  the  Paschal  feast.  The  hour  <Ver. 
14)  is  that  which  He  had  indicated  to  His  disciples,  and 
which  probably  coincided  with  the  usual  hour  of  the  sacred 
feast.  According  to  the  law  (Ex.  xii.  11),  the  Passover  should 
have  been  eaten  standing.  But  custom  had  introduced  a 
change  in  this  particular.  Some  Eabbins  pretend  to  justify 
this  deviation,  by  saying  that  to  stand  is  the  posture  of  a 
slave ;  that,  once  restored  to  liberty  by  the  going  forth  from 
Egypt,  Israel  was  called  to  eat  sitting.  The  explanation  is 
ingenious,  but  devised  after  the  fact.  The  real  reason  was, 
that  the  feast  had  gradually  taken  larger  proportions. — There 
is  in  the  first  saying  of  Jesus,  which  Luke  alone  has  preserved 
(ver.  15),  a  mixture  of  profound  joy  and  sorrow.  Jesus  is 
glad  that  He  can  celebrate  this  holy  feast  once  more,  which 
He  has  determined  by  His  own  instrumentality  to  transform 
into  a  permanent  memorial  of  His  person  and  work ;  but  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  His  last  Passover  here  below.  'EiriOvfiiq 
eireOvjXTjGa,  a  frequent  form  in  the  LXX.,  corresponding  to  the 
Hebrew  construction  of  the  inf.  absolute  with  the  finite  verb. 
It  is  a  sort  of  reduplication  of  the  verbal  idea.  Jesus,  no 
doubt,  alludes  to  all  the  measures  which  He  has  required  to 
take  to  secure  the  joy  of  those  quiet  hours  despite  the  treachery 
of  His  disciple. — Could  the  expression  this  Passover  possibly 
denote  a  feast  at  which  the  Paschal  lamb  was  wanting,  and 
which  was  only  distinguished  from  ordinary  suppers  by  un- 
leavened bread  ?  Such  is  the  view  of  Caspari  and  Andreee, 
and  the  view  which  I  myself  maintained  {Comment,  sur  Jean, 
t.  ii.  p.  634).  Indeed,  the  number  of  lambs  or  kids  might 
turn  out  to  be  insufficient,  and  strangers  find  themselves  in  the 
dilemma  either  of  celebrating  the  feast  without  a  lamb,  or  not 
celebrating  the  Passover  at  all.  Thus  in  Mischnah  Pesachim  1 0 
there  is  express  mention  of  a  Paschal  Supper  without  a  lamb, 
and  at  which  the  unleavened  bread  is  alone  indispensable. 

1  Ver.  14.  X*  B.  D.  Vss.  omit  2«$sx«.—  Ver.  16.  6  Mjj.  omit  evKtr,.—  x.  B. 
C.  L.  5  Mnn.  Vss.,  uvto  instead  of  t%  avrev. — Ver.  17.  6  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  add  r« 
before  nomptov  (taken  from  ver.  20).— Kc  B.  C.  L.  M.  8  Mnn.  Syr.  It.  Vg.,  i„ 
muvtov;  instead  of  tavrois. — Ver.  18.  5  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  omit  on. — 6  Mjj.  15  Mnn. 
add  wro  nv  *w  after  Tim.— ft.  B.  F.  L.  10  Mnn.,  ov  instead  of  ortv. 


CHAP.  XXII.  14-18.  289 

Nevertheless,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  us  from  holding  that, 
as  we  have  said,  the  two  disciples  prepared  the  lamb  in  a 
strictly  private  manner.  It  would  be  difficult  to  explain 
Luke's  expression,  to  eat  this  Passover,  without  the  smallest 
reference  to  the  lamb  at  this  feast. — By  the  future  Passover  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  (ver.  16)  might  be  understood  the  Holy 
Supper  as  it  is  celebrated  in  the  Church.  But  the  expression, 
"  I  will  not  any  more  eat  thereof  until .  .  .,"  and  the  parall. 
ver.  18,  do  not  admit  of  this  spiritualistic  interpretation.  Jesus 
means  to  speak  of  a  new  banquet  which  shall  take  place  after 
the  consummation  of  all  things.  The  Holy  Supper  is  the 
bond  of  union  between  the  Israelitish  and  typical  Passover, 
which  was  reaching  its  goal,  and  the  heavenly  and  divine 
feast,  which  was  yet  in   the   distant  future.     Does  not  the 

total  salvation,  of  which  the  Supper  is  the  memorial,  form 
in  reality  the  transition  from  the  external  deliverance  of  Israel 
to  that  salvation  at  once  spiritual  and  external  which  awaits 
the  glorified  Church  ? 

After  this  simple  and  touching  introduction,  Jesus,  in  con- 
formity with  the  received  custom,  passed  the  first  cup  (ver.  17), 
accompanying  it  with  a  thanksgiving,  in  which  He  no  doubt 
paraphrased  freely  the  invocation  uttered  at  the  opening  of 
the  feast  by  the  father  of  the  house,  and  which  we  have 
quoted  above. — AeljdfjLevos,  receiving,  seems  to  indicate  that  He 
took  the  cup  from  the  hands  of  one  of  the  attendants  who  held 
it  out  to  Him  (after  having  filled  it).  The  distribution  (Sia- 
fiepiaare)  may  have  taken  place  in  two  ways,  either  by  each 
drinking  from  the  common  cup,  or  by  their  all  emptying  the 
wine  of  that  cup  into  their  own.  The  Greek  term  would  suit 
better  thifl  second  view.  Did  Jesus  Himself  drink  f  The 
pron.  eaxrroU,  among  yourselves,  might  seem  unfavourable  to 
this  idea;  yet  the  words,  /  will  not  drink  mitil  .  .  .,  speak  in 

on   of  the   aflirinative.      Was   it   not.  n,  a  sign   of 

communion  from  which  Jesofl  could  hardly  think  of  refraining 
on  such  an  occasion?     Tin-   expreiriofl  J'ri'it  of  the  vine,  1 
18,  was  an  echo  of  the  terms  of  the  ritunl  PlMohd  prayer,      In 
the  mouth  of  Jesot,  il  ed  the  fa -li ng  of  contrast  betw 

the  present  terrestrial  system,  and  the  glorified  creation  which 
was  to  spring  from  ti.  Mitt.  rix  28;  com  p.  Etom, 

•"•1  et  seq.).    The  phi    ■    /     t  '  *ci  drink,  00)  Il  to 

.  it.  i 


290  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  I  will  not  any  more  eat  of  ver.  1 6.  But  there  is  a  grada- 
tion. Ver  16  means,  This  is  my  last  Passover,  the  last  year 
of  my  life;  ver.  18,  This  is  my  last  Supper,  my  last  day. 
These  words  are  the  text  from  which  Paul  has  taken  the  com- 
mentary, till  He  come  (1  Cor.  xi.  26).  They  are  probably  also 
the  ground  into  which  was  wrought  the  famous  tradition  of 
Papias  regarding  the  fabulous  vines  of  the  millennial  reign. 
In  this  example,  the  difference  becomes  palpable  between  the 
sobriety  of  the  tradition  preserved  in  our  Gospels,  and  the 
legendary  exuberance  of  that  of  the  times  which  followed. 
Ter.  2  9  of  Matthew  and  2  5  of  Mark  reproduce  Luke's  saying 
in  a  somewhat  different  form,  and  one  which  lends  itself  still 
better  to  the  amplification  which  we  find  in  Papias. 

2d.  Vers.  19,  20.1  The  time  when  the  Holy  Supper  was 
instituted  seems  to  us  to  correspond  to  the  second  and  third 
steps  of  the  Paschal  feast  taken  together.  With  the  explana- 
tion which  the  head  of  the  house  gave  of  the  meaning  of  the 
ceremony,  Jesus  connected  that  which  He  had  to  give  regard- 
ing the  substitution  of  His  person  for  the  Paschal  lamb  as  the 
means  of  salvation,  and  regarding  the  difference  between  the 
two  deliverances.  And  when  the  time  came  at  which  the 
father  took  the  unleavened  cakes  and  consecrated  them  by 
thanksgiving,  to  make  them,  along  with  the  lamb,  the  memorial 
of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  Jesus  also  took  the  bread,  and 
by  a  similar  consecration,  made  it  the  memorial  of  that  salva- 
tion which  He  was  about  to  procure  for  us.  In  the  expression, 
This  is  my  body,  the  supposed  relation  between  the  body  and 
the  bread  should  not  be  sought  in  their  substance.  The 
appendix :  given  for  you,  in  Luke ;  broken  for  you,  in  Paul 
(1  Cor.  xi.  24),  indicates  the  true  point  of  correspondence. 
No  doubt,  in  Paul,  this  participle  might  be  a  gloss.  But  an 
interpolation  would  have  been  taken  from  Luke ;  they  would 
not  have  invented  this  Hapax-legomenon  k\(o/jL€vov.  Are  we 
not  accustomed  to  the  arbitrary  or  purely  negligent  omissions 
of  the  Alex,  text  ?  I  think,  therefore,  that  this  participle  of 
Paul,  as  well  as  the  given  of  Luke,  are  in  the  Greek  text  the 
necessary  paraphrase  of  the  literal  Aramaic  form,  This  is  my 
body  for  you,  a  form  which  the  Greek  ear  could  as  little  bear 
as  ours.     The  idea  of  this  KhwfAevov  is,  in  any  case,  taken  from 

1  Ver.  20.  tf.  B.  L.  place  xca  to  vrorvptov  before  ^oauTUi. 


CHAP.  XXII.  19,  2a  291 

the  preceding  ZicKaae,  and  determines  the  meaning  of  the 
formula,  This  is  my  lody.  As  to  the  word  is,  which  has  been 
so  much  insisted  on,  it  was  not  uttered  by  Jesus,  who  must 
have  said  in  Aramaic,  Haggouschmi,  "  This  here  [behold]  my 
lody  /"     The  exact  meaning  of  the  notion   of  being,  which 

ally  connects  this  subject  with  this  attribute,  can  only  be 

rmined  by  the  context.  Is  the  point  in  question  an 
identity  of  substance,  physical  or  spiritual,  or  a  relation  purely 

bolical  ?  From  the  exegetical  point  of  view,  if  what  we 
have  said  above  about  the  real  point  of  comparison  is  well 
founded,  it  would  be  difficult  to  avoid  the  latter  conclusion. 
It  is  confirmed  by  the  meaning  of  the  rovro  which  follows : 
"Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  This  pron.  can  denote 
nothing  but  the  act  of  breaking,  and  thus  precisely  the  point 
which  appeared  to  us  the  natural  link  of  connection  between 
thf  bread  and  the  body. — The  last  words,  which  contain  the 

itution  properly  so  called  of  a  permanent  rite,  are  wanting 

in  Matthew  and  Mark.     But  the  certified  fact  of  the  regular 

ration  of  the  Holy  Supper  as  a  feast  commemorating  the 

li  of  Jesus  from  the  most  primitive  times  of  the  Church, 
supposes  a  command  of  Jesus  to  this  effect,  and  fully  confirms 
the  formula  of  Paul  and  Luke.     Jesus  meant  to  preserve  the 

over,  but  by  renewing  its  meaning.  Matthew  and  Mark 
the  words  of  institution  only  that  which  refei 

he  new  meaning  given  to  the  ceremony.     As  to  the  cum- 

id  of  Jesus,  it  had  not  been  preserved  in  tin-  liturgical 
formula,  because  it  was  implied  in  the  very  act  of  Celebrating 

A  certain  interval  must  have  separated  the  second  act  of 
the  institution  from  the  first  ;   for  Luke  says:  Aj  had 

p*d  (ver.  20),  exactly  as  Paul.  Jesus,  according  to  cus- 
tom, let  conversation  take  free  course  for  some  time.  After 
I  Be  resumed  the  solemn  attitude  which  Ee 
had  taken  in  breaking  the  bread.     So  we  explain  the  loaavrcix;, 

i/Jtse. — The  word  to  -rroTi'ipiov,  the  ntj>,  is  the  object  of  tin- 
two  verbs  \a/3a>p  .  .  .  eSaxcep  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  L9.    The 
to  is  here  a«  lose  the  cup  1 1  already  known 

17.      Tin      QOfJ    e<Miaiuly   correspmided    to    tin-    third    of    the 
-t.  which  boi  So  St 

g  (€v\oy!a<i) 


292  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

ivhich  we  bless.  In  this  expression  of  the  apostle  the  word 
bless  is  repeated,  because  it  is  taken  in  two  different  senses. 
In  the  first  instance,  it  refers  to  God,  whom  the  Church,  like 
the  Israelitish  family  of  old,  blesses  and  adores ;  in  the  second, 
to  the  cup  which  the  Church  consecrates,  and  which  by  this 
religious  act  becomes  to  the  conscience  of  believers  the  memo- 
rial  of  the  blopd  of  Jesus  Christ.  What  this  cup  represents, 
according  to  the  terms  of  Paul  and  Luke,  is  the  new  covenant 
between  God  and  man,  founded  on  the  shedding  of  Jesus' 
blood.  In  Matthew  and  Mark,  it  is  the  blood  itself.  Jesus 
can  hardly  have  placed  the  two  forms  in  juxtaposition,  as 
Langen  supposes,  who  thinks  that  He  said :  "  Drink  ye  all  of 
this  cup  ;  for  it  is  the  cup  which  contains  my  blood,  the  blood 
of  the  new  covenant."  Such  a  periphrasis  is  incompatible 
with  the  style  proper  to  the  institution  of  a  rite,  which  has 
always  something  concise  and  monumental.  There  is  thus 
room  to  choose  between  the  form  of  Matthew  and  Mark  and 
that  of  Paul  and  Luke.  Now,  is  it  not  probable  that  oral 
tradition  and  ecclesiastical  custom  would  tend  to  make  the 
second  formula,  relative  to  the  wine,  uniform  with  the  first, 
which  refers  to  the  bread,  rather  than  to  diversify  them  ? 
Hence  it  follows,  that  the  greatest  historical  probability  is  in 
favour  of  the  form  in  which  the  two  sayings  of  Jesus  least 
resemble  one  another,  that  is  to  say,  in  favour  of  that  of  Paul 
and  Luke. 

Every  covenant  among  the  ancients  was  sealed  by  some 
symbolic  act.  The  new  covenant,  which  on  God's  side  rests 
on  the  free  gift  of  salvation,  and  on  man's  side  on  its  accept- 
ance by  faith,  has  henceforth,  as  its  permanent  symbol  in  the 
Church,  this  cup  which  Jesus  holds  out  to  His  own,  and  which 
each  of  them  freely  takes  and  brings  to  his  lips.  The  0.  T. 
had  also  been  founded  on  blood  (Gen.  xv.  8  et  seq.).  It 
had  been  renewed  in  Egypt  by  the  same  means  (Ex  xii. 
22,  23,  xxiv.  8).  The  participle  understood  between  hiaO^Krj 
and  iv  tc5  al^iari  is  the  verbal  idea  taken  from  the  subst. 
BiaOrjtcr)  (SiandejAevrf) :  the  covenant  [covenanted]  in  my  blood. 
Baur,  Volkmar,  and  Keim  think  that  it  is  Paul  who  has  here 
introduced  the  idea  of  the  new  covenant.  Eor  it  would  never 
have  entered  into  the  thought  of  Judeo-Christianity  thus  to  re- 
pudiate the  old  covenant,  and  proclaim  a  new  one.     Mark,  even 


ciur.  xxii.  19, 20.  293 

while  copying  Paul,  designedly  weakened  tins  expression,  they 
say,  by  rejecting  the  too  offensive  epithet  new.  Luke,  a  bolder 
Paulinist,  restored  it,  thus  reproducing  Paul's  complete  for- 
mula. And  how,  we  must  ask,  did  Jesus  express  Himself  ? 
Was  He  incapable,  He  also,  of  rising  to  the  idea  of  a  new 
covenant  thenceforth  substituted  for  the  old  ?  He,  incapable 
of  doing  what  had  already  been  done  so  grandly  six  centuries 
before  by  a  simple  prophet  (Jer.  xxxi.  31  et  seq.)  !  And  when 
we  think  of  it,  is  not  Mark's  formula  (which  is  probably  also 
the  text  in  Matthew)  far  from  being  weaker  than  that  of  Paul 
— is  it  not  even  more  forcible  ?  If  the  expression  of  Mark  is 
translated :  "  This  is  my  blood,  that  of  the  covenant"  is  not  the 
very  name  covenant  thereby  refused  to  the  old  ?  And  if  it  is 
translated  :  "  This  is  the  Hood  of  my  covenant"  does  not  this 
saying  contrast  the  two  covenants  with  one  another  as  pro- 
foundly as  is  done  by  the  epithet  nciv  in  Paul  and  Luke  ? 

The  nom.  abs.  to  Ik^vvo^vov,  by  rendering  the  idea  of  the 
shedding  of  the  blood  grammatically  independent,  serves  to 
bring  it  more  strongly  into  relief.  This  appendix,  which  ifl 
wanting  in  Taiil,  connects  Luke's  formula  witli  that  of  the 
other  two  evangelists.  Instead  of  for  you,  the  latter  say,  for 
It  is  the  M"),  many,  of  Isa.  liii.  12,  the  d*3"i  d%U  of 
Isa.  lii.  15,  those  many  nations  which  are  to  be  sprinkled  with 
the  blood  of  the  slain  Messiah.  Jesus  contemplates  them  in 
spirit,  those  myriads  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  who  in 
future  ages  shall  press  to  the  banquet  which  He  is  instituting, 
— Paul  here  repeats  the  command:  Do  fids...,  on  which 
rests  the  permanent  celebration  of  the  rite.  In  this  point, 
too,  Luke's  formula  corresponds  more  nearly  to  that  of  the 
than  to  hi& 

If  there  is  a  passage  in  respect  to  which  it  is  morally  impossible 
to  assert  that  tin-  narrators — if  they  be  regarded  ever  so  little  SS 
seriously  h  -arbitrarily  modified  the  tenor  ot  the  sayings  of 

Jesus,  it  is  this     How.  then,  sis  wt  Is  aoeoont  for  the  ditlerences 
whi<  h  exist  between  th<-  fool  tonus]     There  must   have  existed 
the  beginning,  Ml   the  .Iinh-o  Christian  Churches,  a  generally 
d  formula  far  the  celebration  of  the  Hory  Snppefc 
This  is  certainly  vrhal  has  been  preserved  to  as  by  Mat  tin 

Mark.      Only,  tl  whi<h  exist  between  tie in  DtOTi  that 

nave  not  used  a  written  document,  and  that  as  little  has  the 
one  coped  the  otherj  thai  the  sossmsnd  of  •'•  -  ;•  "Drink  ye  nU 
of  it"  (Matthew),  which  appears  in  Mark  in  the  form  ot 


294  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LTJKK 

fact :  "And  they  all  dranh  of  it ;"  thus,  again,  in  Mark,  the  omission 
of  the  appendix  :  "for  the  remission  of  sins  "  (Matthew).  We  there- 
fore find  in  them  what  is  substantially  one  and  the  same  tradition, 
but  slightly  modified  by  oral  transmission. — The  very  different  form 
of  Paul  and  Luke  obliges  us  to  seek  another  original.  This  source 
is  indicated  by  Paul  himself :  "  i"  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
also  I  delivered  unto  you"  (1  Cor.  xi.  23).  The  expression:  I  have 
received,  admits  of  no  view  but  that  of  a  communication  which  is 
personal  to  him ;  and  the  words  :  of  the  Lord,  only  of  an  immediate 
revelation  from  Jesus  Himself  (a  true  philologist  will  not  object  to 
the  use  of  airo  instead  of  -n-apd).  If  Paul  had  had  no  other  authority 
to  allege  than  oral  tradition  emanating  from  the  apostles,  and 
known  universally  in  the  Church,  the  form  used  by  him  :  "  I  have 
received  (Zyui  ydp)  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto 
you  .  .  .,"  could  not  be  exonerated  from  the  charge  of  deception. 
This  circumstance,  as  well  as  the  difference  between  the  two  for- 
mulae, decides  in  favour  of  the  form  of  Paul  and  Luke.  In  the 
slight  differences  which  exist  between  them,  we  can,  besides,  trace 
the  influence  exercised  on  Luke  by  the  traditional-liturgical  form 
as  it  has  been  preserved  to  us  by  Matthew  and  Mark. — As  to  St. 
John,  the  deliberate  omission  which  is  imputed  to  him  would  have 
been  useless  at  the  time  when  he  wrote  ;  still  more  in  the  second 
century,  for  the  ceremony  of  the  Holy  Supper  was  then  celebrated 
in  all  the  churches  of  the  world.  A  forger  would  have  taken  care 
not  to  overthrow  the  authority  of  his  narrative  in  the  minds  of  his 
readers  by  such  an  omission. 

About  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Supper,  we  shall  say  only  a  few 
words.  This  ceremony  seems  to  us  to  represent  the  totality  of  sal- 
vation ;  the  bread,  the  communication  of  the  life  of  Christ ;  the 
wine,  the  gift  of  pardon;  in  other  words,  according  to  Paul's 
language,  sanctification  and  justification.  In  instituting  the  rite, 
Jesus  naturally  began  with  the  bread ;  for  the  shedding  of  the  blood 
supposes  the  breaking  of  the  vessel  which  contains  it,  the  body. 
But  as  in  the  believer's  obtaining  of  salvation  it  is  by  justification 
that  we  come  into  possession  of  the  life  of  Christ,  St.  Paul,  1  Cor. 
x.  16  et  seq.,  follows  the  opposite  order,  and  begins  with  the  cup, 
which  represents  the  first  grace  which  faith  lays  hold  of,  that  of 
pardon. — In  the  act  itself  there  are  represented  the  two  aspects  of 
the  work — the  divine  offer,  and  human  acceptance.  The  side  oi 
human  acceptance  is  clear  to  the  consciousness  of  the  partaker. 
His  business  is  simply,  as  Paul  says,  "  to  shoiv  the  Lord's  death," 
1  Cor.  xi.  26.  It  is  not  so  with  the  divine  side ;  it  is  unfathomable 
and  mysterious  :  "  The  communion  of  the  blood,  and  of  the  body  of 
Christ  /"  1  Cor.  x.  16.  Here,  therefore,  we  are  called  to  apply  the 
saying  :  "  The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God,  but  those  things 
which  are  revealed  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  children  for  ever,  that  we 
may  do  all  the  words  of  this  law"  Deut.  xxix.  29.  We  know  already 
what  we  have  to  do  to  celebrate  a  true  communion.  We  may  leave 
to  God  the  secret  of  what  He  gives  us  in  a  right  communion.  Is 
it  necessary  to  go  further  in  search  of  the  formula  of  union  1 


CHAP.  XXII.  21-23.  295 

3d.  Vers.  21-23.1  "  Only,  behold,  the  hand  of  him  that  bc- 
trayeth  me  is  with  me  on  the  table.  22.  And  twily  the  Son  of 
man  goeth,  as  it  was  determined :  But  woe  unto  that  man  by 
whom  He  is  betrayed!     23.  And  they  began  to  inquire  among 

Jres  which  of  them  it  was  that  should  do  this  thing." — 
As  He  follows  the  cup  circulating  among  the  disciples,  the 
attention  of  Jesus  is  fixed  on  Judas.     In  the  midst  of  those 

i,  henceforth  united  by  so  close  a  bond,  there  is  one  who 
remains  outside  of  the  common  salvation,  and  rushes  upon 
destruction.     This  contrast  wounds  the  heart  of  Jesus.     U\i]i>, 

'ag,  announces  precisely  the  exception  Judas  forms  in 
this  circle ;  ISov,  behold,  points  to  the  surprise  which  so  unex- 
pected a  disclosure  must  produce  in  the  disciples.  If  this 
form  used  by  Luke  is  historically  trustworthy,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  Judas  took  part  in  celebrating  the  Holy  Supper. 
No  doubt  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  favour 
this  view  ;  but  they  do  not  expressly  contradict  it,  and  we 
have  already  shown  that  the  order  in  whicli  Luke  gives  the 
three  facts  composing  the  narrative  of  the  feast,  is  much  more 
natural  than  theirs.  Besides,  John's  order  confirms  that  of 
Luke,  if,  as  we  think  we  have  demonstrated  (Comment.  surJcan, 
t.  ii.  p.  f>40  et  seq.),  the  Holy  Supper  was  instituted  at  the 
time  indicated  in  xiii.  1,  2.     Moreover,  John's  narrative  shows 

lesus  returned  again  and  again  during  the  feast  to  the 

-.As  usual,  tradition  had  combined  those 

saying  I  on  the  same  subject  at  different  points  of  time, 

and  it  is  in   this  summary  form   that  they  have   passed  into 

vi). — The  expression  of  Matthew  :  "  dipping  the  kmd 

into  U  ith  me"  signifies  in  a  general  way    like  that  of 

I  with  me  onti  and  the  parallels) :  "  being 

my  guest."     Jesus  does  not  distress  Himself  about  what  is  in 

store  for  Him  ;   He  is  not  the   sport  of  this   traitor;  every- 

is  He  is  cone  divinely  decreed  v.i 

ie  is  not  in  the  hands  of  a  Judas.  The  Messiah  ought  to 
die.      Boi    H'  the  eiime  and  l<»t  of  him  who  uses 

las  liberty  to  Him. 

ding  on  is  less  simple  than  tat,  and  is  hardly  com- 
patible  with  ;  The  ttX?^,  only  .  is  contrasted 

with  the  idea  of  the  divine  decree  in  dopianevov.      It  serves 
1  Ver.  22.  The  Mm  are  divided  between  *-  vi«x.). 


296  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  end  of  reserving  the  liberty  and  responsibility  of  Judas. — 
The  fact  that  every  disciple,  on  hearing  this  saying,  turned 
his  thoughts  upon  himself,  proves  the  consummate  ability 
with  which  Judas  had  succeeded  in  concealing  his  feelings  and 
plans.  The  firjri  iya>,  Is  it  I?  of  the  disciples  in  Matthew 
and  Mark,  finds  its  natural  place  here.  It  has  been  thought 
improbable  that  Judas  also  put  the  question  (Matt.  ver.  2  5). 
But  when  all  the  others  were  doing  it,  could  he  have  avoided 
it  without  betraying  himself?  The  thou  hast  said  of  Jesus 
denotes  absolutely  the  same  fact  as  John  xiii.  26:  "And 
when  He  had  dipped  the  sop,  He  gave  it  to  Judas  Iscariot." 
This  act  itself  was  the  reply  which  Matthew  translates  into 
the  words :   Thou  hast  said. 

3.  The  Conversations  after  the  Supper:  vers.  24-38. — The 
conversations  which  follow  refer:  1st.  To  a  dispute  which 
arises  at  this  moment  between  the  apostles  (vers.  24-30); 
2d.  To  the  danger  which  awaits  them  at  the  close  of  this 
hour  of  peace  (vers.  31—38).  The  washing  of  the  feet  in 
John  corresponds  to  the  first  piece.  The  prediction  of  St. 
Peter's  denial  follows  in  his  Gospel,  as  it  does  in  Luke. 
According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  it  was  uttered  a  little  later, 
after  the  singing  of  the  hymn.  It  is  quite  evident  that  Luke 
is  not  dependent  on  the  other  Syn.,  but  that  he  has  sources  of 
his  own,  the  trustworthiness  of  which  appears  on  comparison 
with  John's  narrative. 

1st.  Vers.  24-30.1  The  cause  of  the  dispute,  mentioned  by 
Luke  only,  cannot  have  been  the  question  of  precedence,  as 
Langen  thinks.  The  strife  would  have  broken  out  sooner. 
The  mention  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  vers.  16  and  18,  might 
have  given  rise  to  it;  but  the  /cat,  also,  of  Luke,  suggests 
another  view.  By  this  word  he  connects  the  question: 
Which  is  the  greatest  ?  with  that  which  the  disciples  had  just 
been  putting  to  themselves,  ver.  23  :  WJiich  among  us  is  he 
who  shall  letray  Him  ?  The  question  which  was  the  worst 
among  them  led  easily  to  the  other,  which  was  the  best  of  all. 
The  one  was  the  counterpart  of  the  other.     Whatever  else 

1  Ver.  26.  X.  B.  D.  L.  T.,  ytnrSu  instead  of  ytn<rfc.—  Ver.  30.  8  Mjj.  (Byz.) 
80  Mnn.  omit  iv  r»  /W/Xs/a  y.tv. — J?  D.  X.  20  Mnn.  Syrcur.  It*liq-  add  IuIixk 
before  fyav«/i>  (taken  from  Matthew). — 10  Mjj.,  Kxfnnrh  or  xaSnrh  instead  of 
xudtitrh. 


CHAP.  XXII.  24-30.  297 

may  be  true,  we  see  by  this  new  example  that  Luke  does  not 
allow  himself  to  mention  a  situation  at  his  own  hand  of  which 
he  finds  no  indication  in  his  documents.  The  Bofcel,  appears 
[should  be  accounted],  refers  to  the  judgment  of  men,  till  the 
time  when  God  will  settle  the  question.  Comp.  a  similar 
dispute,  ix.  46  et  seq.  and  parall.  We  are  amazed  at  a  dis- 
}m .sit it >n  so  opposed  to  humility  at  such  a  time.  But  Jesus  is 
no  more  irritated  than  He  is  discouraged.  It  is  enough  for 
Him  to  know  that  He  has  succeeded  in  planting  in  the  heart 
of  the  apostles  a  pure  principle  which  will  finally  carry  the 
day  over  all  forms  of  sin :  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word 
v:hich  I  have  spoken  unto  you"  He  says  to  them  Himself,  John 
xv.  3.  He  therefore  calmly  continues  the  work  which  He  has 
begun.  In  human  society,  men  reign  by  physical  or  intel- 
lectual force ;  and  evepyeTtjs,  benefactor,  is  the  flattering  title 
by  which  men  do  not  blush  to  honour  the  harshest  tyrants. 
In  the  new  society  which  Jesus  is  instituting,  he  who  has 
most  is  not  to  make  his  superiority  felt  in  any  other  way  than 
by  the  superabundance  of  his  services  toward  the  weakest  and 
the  most  destitute.  The  example  of  Jesus  in  this  respect  is 
to  remain  as  the  rule.  The  term  6  veutrepo^,  the  yovi. 
(ver.  26),  is  parallel  to  6  hicucovwv,  he  that  doth  serve,  because 
MMBg  tin*  Jews  the  humblest  and  baldest  labour  was  com- 
mitted to  the  youngest  members  of  the  society  (Acts  v.  6, 10). 
It  the  Baying  of  TO.  27  is  not  referred  to  the  act  of  the  feet- 
washing  related  John  xiii.,  we  must  apply  the  words  :  /  am 

m§  you  as  IJr  thai  .  to  the  life  of  Jesus  in  general, 

or  perhaps  to  the  sacrifice  which  He  is  now  making  of  Him- 
self (vers.  19  and  20).      But  in  this  way  then  is  no  accounting 
between  :  "  lie  that  sittcth  at  meat,"  and  :  "  he 
thai  ions  leave  no  doubt  that  the  fact 

of  the  bet-washing  \\as  the  occasion  of  this  Baying,     Luke  did 

confined  himself  to  transmitting  the 

ourse  of  Jesus  as  it  was  furnished  to  him  by  his  document 
Wing  thus  contrasted  the  ideal  of  an  altogether  new 
greatness  with  the  so  different  tendency  of  the  natural  hi 

eds   to   satisfy   what   of  truth    ti  in    the 

aspiration  of  the  disciples  (vers.  28-30).  The  ifteis  5e,  but 
yr,  alludes  to  Judas,  who  hnrf  not  persevered,  and  who,  by  his 
defection,   deprived   himself   of  the   magnificent  privilege  pIO- 


298  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

mised  vers.  29  and  30.  Perhaps  the  traitor  had  not  yet 
gone  out,  and  Jesus  wished  hereby  to  tell  upon  his  heart. — 
The  7reLpao-fAol,  temptations,  of  which  Jesus  speaks,  are  summed 
up  in  His  rejection  by  His  fellow-citizens.  It  was  no  small 
thing,  on  the  part  of  the  Eleven,  to  have  persevered  in  their 
attachment  to  Jesus,  despite  the  hatred  and  contempt  of  which 
He  was  the  object,  and  the  curses  heaped  upon  Him  by  those 
rulers  whom  they  were  accustomed  to  respect.  There  is 
something  like  a  feeling  of  gratitude  expressed  in  the  saying 
of  Jesus.  Hence  the  fulness  with  which  He  displays  the 
riches  of  the  promised  reward.  Ver.  2  9  refers  to  the  approach- 
ing dispensation  on  the  earth;  ver.  30,  to  the  heavenly  future 
in  wirich  it  shall  issue.  'Eyco,  I  (ver.  29),  is  in  opposition  to 
vfjueh,  ye :  "  That  is  what  ye  have  done  for  me ;  this  is  what 
I  do  in  my  turn  (tca£)  for  you."  The  verb  hiaTiQkvai,  to  dis- 
pose, is  applied  to  testamentary  dispositions.  Bleek  takes  the 
object  of  this  verb  to  be  the  phrase  which  follows,  that  ye  may 
eat  .  .  .  (ver.  30) ;  but  there  is  too  close  a  correspondence  be- 
tween appoint  and  hath  appointed  unto  me,  to  admit  of  those 
two  verbs  having  any  but  the  same  object,  jBacrikeiav,  the 
kingdom :  "  I  appoint  unto  you  the  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath 
appointed  it  unto  me."  This  kingdom  is  here  the  power  exer- 
cised by  man  on  man  by  means  of  divine  life  and  divine 
truth.  The  truth  and  life  which  Jesus  possessed  shall  come 
to  dwell  in  them,  and  thereby  they  shall  reign  over  all,  as  He 
Himself  has  reigned  over  them.  Are  not  Peter,  John,  and  Paul, 
at  the  present  day,  the  rulers  of  the  world  ?  In  substance,  it 
is  only  another  form  of  the  thought  expressed  in  John  xiii.  2  0  : 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  reeeiveth  whomsoever  I  send, 
receiveth  me  ;  and  he  that  reeeiveth  me,  reeeiveth  Him  that  sent 
me"  Is  this  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  certain  sayings 
of  Jesus  are  transformed  and  spiritualized,  as  it  were,  in  the 
memory  of  John,  without  being  altered  from  their  original 
sense  ?  At  least  the  obscure  connection  of  this  saying  in  John 
with  what  precedes  is  fully  explained  by  Luke's  context. 

Ver.  30  might  apply  solely  to  the  part  played  by  the 
apostles  in  the  government  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  in  the 
moral  judgment  of  Israel  then  exercised  by  them.  But  the 
expression,  to  eat  and  drink  at  my  table,  passes  beyond  this 
meaning.     For  we  cannot  apply  this  expression  to  the  Holy 


CHAP.  XXII.  31-34.  209 

Supper,  which  was  no  special  privilege  of  the  apostles.  The 
phrase,  in  my  lingdom,  should  therefore  be  taken  in  the  same 
sense  as  in  vers.  16  and  18.  With  the  table  where  He  is 
now  presiding,  Jesus  contrasts  the  royal  banquet,  the  emblem 
of  complete  joy  in  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God.     He  like- 

I  contrasts,  in  the  words  following,  with  the  judgments 
which  He  and  His  shall  soon  undergo  on  the  part  of  Israel, 
that  which  Israel  shall  one  day  undergo  on  the  part  of  the 
Twelve.  According  to  1  Cor.  vi.  1  et  seq.,  the  Church  shall 
judge  the  world,  men  and  angels.  In  this  judgment  of  the 
world  by  the  representatives  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  part  allotted 
to  the  Twelve  shall  be  Israel — Judgment  here  includes  go- 

iment,  as  so  often  in  the  0.  T.  Thrones  are  the  emblem 
of  power,  as  the  table  is  of  joy. — If  the  traitor  was  yet  present, 
must  not  such  a  promise  made  to  his  colleagues  have  been 
like  the  stroke  of  a  dagger  to  his  ambitious  heart !  Here,  as 
we  think,  should  be  placed  the  final  scene  which  led  to  his 
departure  (John  xiii.  21-27). — It  seems  to  us  that  the  Twelve 
are  not  very  disadvantageously  treated  in  this  discourse  of 
Jesus  reported  by  Luke !  A  saying  entirely  similar  is  found 
in  Matt.  xix.  28,  in  a  different  context.  That  of  Luke  is  its 
own  justification. 

Vers.   31-38.  Jesus  announces  to  His  disciples,   first 
the  moral  danger  which  threatens  them  (vers.  31-34);  then 

end  of  the  time  of  temporal  well-being  and  security  which 
they  had  enjoyed  under  His  protection  (vers.  35—38). 

&   31-34.1  "And  tlie  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  hchold, 

Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wlicat. 

But  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  fa  Hit  fail  not ;  and 

on  art  converted,  .    33,  34." — The 

war:  .  81  might  be  connected   with   ver.  28:  "  Ye  arc 

dontumed  \oit&   //"."     There  would  be  a  con- 

tras  !!•       El      :•  notation  in  which  ye  shall  not  continue." 

m's    pert,  in    WepeCt   of  the    disci; 
eeeins  to  be  suggested   l»v  the  ahrupL  departure  of  Judas,  in 

y.xt  h  o  nvfft.— Ver.   32.  TIm-  m 
led  between  tukuwn  and  mXmf$f  and  between  rnyfw  ami  <tt»?^#«?. — Ver.  34. 
.id  of  vfi*  r.  n   B   1    T    J  Mnn.  read  mw,  K.  M    x.  0.  16  Mini.  **t  ••», 
D.  m  •rt».— K.  l'».  I.   T.  tome  Mnn.,  pi  ■npn  uIinu  instead  of  mw*f>*rn  pm 


300  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

which  Satan  had  played  a  decisive  part  (John  xiii.  2  7  :  "  And 
after  the  sop,  Satan  entered  into  him").  The  tempter  is  pre- 
sent ;  he  has  gained  the  mastery  of  Judas ;  he  threatens  the 
other  disciples  also ;  he  is  preparing  to  attack  Jesus  Himself. 
"  The  prince  of  this  world  cometh"  says  Jesus  in  John  (xiv. 
30).  And  the  danger  to  each  is  in  proportion  to  the  greater 
or  less  amount  of  alloy  which  his  heart  contains.  This  is  the 
reason  why  Jesus  more  directly  addresses  Peter.  By  the 
address :  Simon,  twice  repeated,  He  alludes  to  his  natural 
character,  and  puts  him  on  his  guard  against  that  presumption 
which  is  its  dominant  characteristic.  The  ef  in  e^rrja-aro 
includes  the  notion :  of  getting  him  drawn  out  of  the  hands 
of  God  into  his  own.  Wheat  is  purified  by  means  of  the 
sieve  or  fan ;  <nvid^(o  may  apply  to  either.  Satan  asks  the 
right  of  putting  the  Twelve  to  the  proof;  and  he  takes  upon 
himself,  over  against  God,  as  formerly  in  relation  to  Job,  to 
prove  that  at  bottom  the  best  among  the  disciples  is  but  a 
Judas.  Jesus  by  no  means  says  (ver.  32)  that  his  prayer  has 
been  reiused.  Eather  it  appears  from  the  intercession  of 
Jesus  that  it  has  been  granted.  Jesus  only  seeks  to  parry  the 
consequences  of  the  fall  which  threatens  them  all,  and  which 
shall  be  especially  perilous  to  Peter.  Comp.  Matthew  and 
Mark :  "  All  ye  shall  be  offended  because  of  me  this  night"  The 
faithlessness  of  which  they  are  about  to  be  guilty,  might  have 
absolutely  broken  the  bond  formed  between  them  and  Him. 
That  of  Peter,  in  particular,  might  have  cast  him  into  the 
same  despair  which  ruined  Judas.  But  while  the  enemy  was 
spying  out  the  weak  side  of  the  disciples  to  destroy  them, 
Jesus  was  watching  and  praying  to  parry  the  blow,  or  at  least 
to  prevent  it  from  being  mortal  to  any  of  them.  Langen 
explains  eirto-Tpe^a^  in  the  sense  of  nit? :  "  strengthen  thy 
brethren  anew."  But  this  meaning  of  hnGTpkfyeiv  is  unknown 
in  Greek,  and  the  irore  distinguishes  the  notion  of  the  par- 
ticiple precisely  from  that  of  the  principal  verb.  This  saying 
of  Jesus  is  one  of  those  which  lift  the  curtain  which  covers 
the  invisible  world  from  our  view.  Although  it  has  been 
preserved  to  us  only  by  Luke,  Holtzmann  acknowledges  its 
authenticity.  He  ascribes  it  to  a  special  tradition.  That 
does  not  prevent  him,  however,  from  deriving  this  whole 
account  from  the  common  source,  the  proto-Mark.     But  vers. 


CHAP.  XXII.  ;;o-S8.  301 

35-38  are  also  peculiar  to  Luke,  and  show  clearly  that  his 
source  was  different 

Peter  believes  in  his  fidelity  more  than  in  the  word  of 
Jesus.  Jesus  then  announces  to  him  his  approaching  fall. 
The  name  Peter  reminds  him  of  the  height  to  which  Jesus  had 
raised  him.  Three  crowings  of  the  cock  were  distinguished ; 
the  first  between  midnight  and  one  o'clock,  the  second  about 
three,  the  third  between  five  and  six.  The  third  watch  (from 
midnight  to  three  o'clock),  embraced  between  the  first  two, 
was  also  called  a\e/cTopo<f>covia,  cock-crow  (Mark  xiii.  35).  The 
saying  of  Jesus  in  Luke,  Matthew,  and  John  would  therefore 
signify :  "  To-day,  before  the  second  watch  from  nine  o'clock 
to  midnight  have  passed,  thou  shalt  have  denied  me  thrice." 
But  Mark  says,  certainly  in  a  way  at  once  more  detailed  and 
exact:  "Before  tJie  cock  have  crowed  tvrice,  thou  shalt  have 
denied  me  thrice"  That  is  to  say :  before  the  end  of  the 
third  watch,  before  three  o'clock  in  the  morning.  The  men- 
tion of  those  two  crowings,  the  first  of  which  should  1; 
already  been  a  warning  to  Peter,  perhaps  makes  the  gravity 
of  his  Bin  the  more  conspicuous. — Matthew  and  Mark  place 
the  prediction  of  the'  denial  on  the  way  to  Gethsemane.  But 
John  confirms  the  account  of  Luke,  who  places  it  in  the 
supper  room.  We  need  not  refute  the  opinion  of  Langen, 
who  thinks  that  the  denial  wm  predicted  twice. 

I  oo-oti.1  "And  //■    mid   UNA)   tktm,    When  I  sent  you 

without  purse  and  scrij>  amd  j/c  anythi ng  ?     And 

'\  Nothing.     36.   Them  11  r><<t  now,  he 

A////  tal  9,     And. 

he  that  ho  Hi.  no  [sword],  hi  I  fctf  garment,  and  buy  on< . 

For  I  say  n ido  you,  that  this  that  it  written  must  yet  he 

acco  '  in  me,  And  He  wets  reckoned  among  the  tn 

gressors :  j  concerning  me  arc  coming  to  an  < 

.  38." — Till   llicn,   the   a]  protected   l»y   the   favour 

which  Jem  enjoyed  with  tin-  people,  bad  led  a  comparative!] 
easy  life,     l  last  conflict  between  Him  and  the  Jewish 

.;  t<»  bieak  out,  and  how  could  the  apostles, 

Vera.  35-38  were  omit!.. 1  l.y  Marcion.—  V<r.  36.  Instead  <■■ 
W  r.  f,T.»  c,,  N*  1).  •  U  IMTM.—  Instead  of  wmXntmr. 

■rm,,    S    M  .    Mim.    Wmkm$l   and    iiistr.i-1   o(  my$fmruTm,   1' 

\  UMBO  r,f*9u.—  X  Mjj.   (Alex.)  10  Man.  omit 

-  x   I:   l>   L  Q  T.,  r.  tatteid  of  r*  ifttf  »«  >«>• 


302  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKR 

during  all  the  rest  of  their  career,  escape  the  hostile  blows  ? 
This  is  the  thought  which  occupies  our  Lord's  mind  :  He  gives 
it  a  concrete  form  in  the  following  figures.  In  ver.  35  He 
recalls  to  mind  their  first  mission  (ix.  1  et  seq.).  We  learn 
on  this  occasion  the  favourable  issue  which  had  been  the 
result  of  that  first  proof  of  their  faith.  The  historian  had 
told  us  nothing  of  it,  ix.  6. — The  object  of  firj  e^cov  is  evidently 
liayaipav  (not  irrjpav  or  ftaXavrtov) :  "  Let  him  who  hath  not 
[a  sword],  buy  one."  It  heightens  the  previous  warning.  Not 
only  can  they  no  longer  reckon  on  the  kind  hospitality  which 
they  enjoyed  during  the  time  of  their  Master's  popularity,  and 
not  only  must  they  prepare  to  be  treated  henceforth  like 
ordinary  travellers,  paying  their  way,  etc. ;  but  they  shall 
even  meet  with  open  hostility.  Disciples  of  a  man  treated  as 
a  malefactor,  they  shall  be  themselves  regarded  as  dangerous 
men;  they  shall  see  themselves  at  war  with  their  fellow- 
countrymen  and  the  whole  world.  Comp.  John  xv.  18-25, 
the  piece  of  which  this  is,  as  it  were,  the  summary  and 
parallel.  The  sword  is  here,  as  in  Matt.  x.  34,  the  emblem 
of  avowed  hostility.  It  is  clear  that  in  the  mind  of  Him  who 
said  :  "  I  send  you  forth  as  lambs  among  wolves,"  this  weapon 
represents  the  power  of  holiness  in  conflict  with  the  sin  of 
the  world, — that  sivord  of  the  Spirit  spoken  of  by  Paul  (Eph. 
vi.  17). — The  teal  yap,  and  in  truth,  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
announces  a  second  fact  analogous  to  the  former  (and),  and 
which  at  the  same  time  serves  to  explain  it  (in  truth).  The 
tragical  end  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  is  also  approaching,  and 
consequently  no  features  of  the  prophetic  description  can  be 
slow  in  being  realized. — The  disciples  seem  to  take  literally 
the  recommendation  of  Jesus,  and  even  to  be  proud  of  their 
prudence.  The  words,  It  is  enough,  have  been  understood  in 
this  sense  :  "  Let  us  say  no  more ;  let  us  now  break  up ; 
events  will  explain  to  you  my  mind,  which  you  do  not  under- 
stand." But  is  it  not  more  natural  to  give  to  Uavov  ian  this 
mournfully  ironic  sense :  *  Yes,  for  the  use  which  you  shall 
have  to  make  of  arms  of  this  kind,  those  two  swords  are  enough." 
— Here  we  must  place  the  last  words  of  John  xiv. :  "  Bise ; 
let  us  go  hence."  The  Syn.  have  preserved  only  a  few  hints  of 
the  last  discourses  of  Jesus  (John  xiv.-xvii.).  These  were 
treasures  which  could  not  be  transmitted  to  the  Church  in  the 


chap.  xxn.  ;i9-40.  303 

way  of  oral  tradition,  and  which,  assuming  hearers  already 
formed  in  the  school  of  Jesus  like  the  apostles,  were  not 
fitted  to  form  the  matter  of  popular  evangelization. 

III.  ane  :  xxii.  39-46. — The  Lamb  of  God  must  be 

i  nourished  from  typical  victims  by  His  free  acceptance  of 
death  as  the  punishment  of  sin;  and  hence  there  required  to 
be  in  His  life  a  decisive  moment,  when,  in  the  fulness  of  His 
consciousness  and  liberty,  He  should  accept  the  punishment 
which  He  was  to  undergo.  At  Gethsemane  Jesus  did  not  drink 
the  cup ;  He  consented  to  drink  it.  This  point  of  time  corre- 
sponds to  that  in  which,  with  the  same  fulness  and  liberty, 
He  refused  in  the  wilderness  universal  sovereignty.  There 
He  rejected  dominion  over  us  without  God ;  here  He  accepts 
deatli  for  God  and  for  us.  Each  evangelist  has  some  special 
detail  which  attests  the  independence  of  his  sources.  Matthew 
exhibits  specially  the  gradation  of  the  agony  and  the  progi 
toward  acceptance.  Mark  has  preserved  to  us  this  saying  of 
primary  importance :  "  Abba  !  Father !  all  things  arc  pon 
unto  TJwe"  Luke  describes  more  specially  the  extraordinary 
physio*]  effects  of  this  moral  agony.  His  account  is,  besides, 
very  orach  Abridged  John  omits  the  whole  scene,  but  not 
without  expressly  indicating  its  place  (xviii.  1).  In  the 
ible  piece,  xiL  23—28,  this  evangelic  had  already 
unveiled  the  essence  of  the  struggle  which  was  hftg*nTn*wg  in 
the  heart  of  Jesus;  and  the  passage  proves  sufficiently,  in 
spite  of  K«  iin  s  peremptory  assertions,  that  there  is  no  dog- 
in  the  omission  of  the  agony  of  Gethsem: 
When  the  facts  are  sufficiently  known,  John  confines  himself 
to  communicating  some  .f  Jesus  which   enables  us  to 

understand  their  spirit  Thus  it  is  that  chap.  iii.  shed- 
light  on  the  ordinance  of  Baptism,  and  ohap,  vi.  on  that  of 
ly  Sapper, — Ileb.  v.  7-9  contains  a  very  evident  allu- 
sion to  the  account  I  I  mane,— a  fact  the  DHOW  remark- 
able, as  that  i -pi  -tie,  is  one  of  those  which,  at  the  same  time. 
most  forcibly  exhibit  the  divinity  of  Jesus. 

Vers.  39-4C).1  She  word  came  on?  ;v.r.   30)  inolmdei  Mi 

-»  Mjj.  some  Mini,  omit  *wr«v  aftor  ftmtnrmt.—  Ver.  4'2.   T 
0i  di  -rmf\ny*t,>  VZ.),  9«ptnyK*i  { Al<\. ),  ami   **f- 

nn.).— Vera.  43,  I  two  verse*,  wl 

K**«.  D.  V.  <;.  II    K.  L  M.  Q.  U.  X.  A.  the  moat  of  the  Mini.  Syr.  i 


304  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

leaving  the  room  and  the  city.  The  name,  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
which  is  used  here  by  our  three  Syn.,  may  designate  in  a  wide 
sense  the  slope  and  even  the  foot  of  the  mount  which  begins 
immediately  beyond  the  Cedron.  This  is  the  sense  to  which 
we  are  led  by  John's  account,  xviii.  1.  The  north-west  angle 
of  the  enclosure,  which  is  now  pointed  out  as  the  garden  of 
Gethsemane,  is  fifty  paces  from  the  bed  of  the  torrent. — Ver. 
40.  Jesus  invites  His  disciples  to  prepare  by  prayer  for  the 
trial  which  threatens  their  fidelity,  and  of  which  He  has 
already  forewarned  them  (ver.  31).  The  use  of  the  word 
elaekOelv,  enter  into,  to  signify  to  yield  to,  is  easily  understood, 
if  we  contrast  this  verb  in  thought  with  hcekOelv,  to  pass 
through — In  Matthew  and  Mark,  Jesus  has  no  sooner  arrived 
than  He  announces  to  His  disciples  His  intention  to  pray 
Himself.  Then,  withdrawing  a  little  with  Peter,  James,  and 
John,  He  tells  them  of  the  agony  with  which  His  soul  is  al] 
at  once  seized,  and  leaves  them,  that  He  may  pray  alone. 
These  successive  moments  are  all  united  in  Luke  in  tha 
a7T€<T7rda0r),  Re  was  withdrawn  (ver.  41).  There  is  in  this 
term,  notwithstanding  Bleek's  opinion,  the  idea  of  some  vio- 
lence to  which  He  is  subject ;  He  is  dragged  far  from  the 
disciples  by  anguish  (Acts  xxi.  1).  The  expression,  to  the 
distance  of  about  a  stone's  cast,  is  peculiar  to  Luke. — Instead 
of  kneeling  down,  Matthew  says,  He  fell  upon  His  face  ;  Mark, 
upon  the  ground. — The  terms  of  Jesus'  prayer,  ver.  42,  differ 
in  the  three  narratives,  and  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  impossible 
the  evangelists  could  have  so  modified  them  at  their  own 
hand.  But  the  figure  of  the  cup  is  common  to  all  three ;  it 
was  indelibly  impressed  on  tradition.  This  cup  which  Jesus 
entreats  God  to  cause  to  pass  from  before  {irapa)  His  lips,  is 
the  symbol  of  that  terrible  punishment  the  dreadful  and 
mournful  picture  of  which  is  traced  before  Him  at  this 
moment  by  a  skilful  painter  with  extraordinary  vividness. 
The  painter  is  the  same  who  in  the  wilderness,  using  a  like 
illusion,  passed  before  His  view  the  magical  scene  of  the 
glories  belonging  to  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

Dion.  al.  Ar.  Chrys.  Eus.,  are  wanting  in  tfa  A.  B.  E.  T.  3  Mnn.  Sah.  Cyr.,  in 
several  Greek  and  Latin  Mas.  quoted  by  Hilary,  Epiph.,  Jer.  They  are  marked 
with  signs  of  doubt  in  E.  S.  V.  A.  n.  5  Mnn. — K.  X.  some  Mnn.  Vss.,  xarecficu- 
»5»t«,-  instead  ot  x«t«jS«/v«vt£«. — Yer.  45.  All  the  Mjj.  omit  «vrev  after  px6rtmf. 


CHAP.  XXII.  39- -10.  305 

Mark's  formula  is  distinguished  by  the  invocation,  "  Abba ! 
Father  !  all  things  are  possible  unto  Thcc,"  in  which  the  trans- 
lation o  irarijp,  Father,  has  been  added  by  the  evangelist  for 
his  Greek  readers.  It  is  a  last  appeal  at  once  to  the  fatherly 
love  and  omnipotence  of  God.  Jesus  does  not  for  a  moment 
give  up  the  work  of  human  salvation ;  He  asks  only  if  the 
cross  is  really  the  indispensable  means  of  gaining  this  end. 
Cannot  God  in  His  unlimited  power  find  another  way  of 
reconciliation  ?  Jesus  thus  required,  even  He,  to  obey  without 
understanding,  to  walk  by  faith.  Hence  the  expressions,  Heb. 
v.  8,  He  learned  obedience,  and  xii.  2,  a/^77709  tt)?  7riVrea)?,  He 
who  leads  the  way  (the  initiator)  of  faith.  Yet  this  prayer 
does  not  imply  the  least  feeling  of  revolt ;  for  Jesus  is  ready 
to  accept  the  Father's  answer,  whatever  it  may  be.  What  if 
nature  rises  within  Him  against  this  punishment  ?  this  repug- 
nance is  legitimate.  It  was  not  with  the  view  of  suffering 
thus  that  man  received  from  God  a  body  and  a  souL     This 

nice  of  natural  instinct  to  the  will  of  the  Spirit, — that  is 
to  say,  to  the  consciousness  of  a  mission, — is  exactly  what 
makes  it  possible  for  nature  to  become  a  real  victim,  an 
offering  in  earnest.  So  long  as  the  voice  of  nature  is  at  one 
with  that  of  God,  it  may  be  asked,  IVhere  is  the  victim  for  the 

-offering?     Sacrifice  begins  where  conflict  begins.      Hut, 

at  the  same  time,  the  holiness  of  Jesus  emerges  pure  and  even 

perfected  from  this  struggle.     Under  the  most  violent  pressure, 

the  will  of  nature  did  not  for  a  single  moment  escape  from 

w  of  the  Spirit,  and  ended  after  a  time  of  struggle  in 

entirely  absorbed  in  it,     Luke,  like  Hark,  gives  only 

-  d  confines  himself  to  indifflMriflg  the  others 

summarily,  while  Matthew  inkodnoea  us  mote  profoundly  to 

the  progressive  steps   in    the   submission  of  Jesus  (ver.   42). 

How  much   more   really  human    do  OUf  Goepelfl   make   Jesus 

niiitics!     It  is  not  thus  t hat  the  work 

of  invention  would  have  been  carried  out  by  a  tradition  which 

Th"  appearance  of  tl.  ver.  43,  is  mentioned  only  by 

1           No  d<>  a  is  wanting  in  lome  Alex    But  it 

is  found  in  L8  Mil   and  in  the  two  oldest  translations  (Itala 

and    Pcschito),   and    this  part  i< uhir   is   cited   so   early   I 

utuiy  I.-.  It  is  not  very  pro- 

•     n  r 


306  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

bable  that  it  would  have  been  added.  It  is  more  so  that, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Nicene  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  it 
was  omitted  on  the  pretext  that  it  was  not  found  either  in 
Matthew  or  Mark.  Bleek,  while  fully  acknowledging  the 
authenticity  of  the  verse,  thinks  that  this  particular  was 
wanting  in  the  primitive  Gospel,  and  that  it  was  introduced 
by  Luke  on  the  faith  of  a  later  tradition.  Schleiermacher 
supposes  the  existence  of  a  poetical  writing  in  which  the 
moral  suffering  of  the  Saviour  was  celebrated,  and  from  which 
the  two  verses  43  and  44  were  taken.  But  tradition,  poetry, 
and  myths  tend  rather  to  glorify  their  hero  than  to  impair  his 
honour.  The  difficulty  which  orthodoxy  finds  in  accounting 
for  such  particulars  makes  it  hard  to  suppose  that  it  was  their 
inventor. — This  appearance  was  not  only  intended  to  bring 
spiritual  consolation  to  Jesus,  but  physical  assistance  still 
more,  as  in  the  wilderness.  The  saying  uttered  by  Him  an 
instant  before  was  no  figure  of  rhetoric  :  "  My  soul  is  exceed- 
ing sorrowful  even  unto  death."  As  when  in  the  wilderness 
under  the  pressure  of  famine,  He  felt  Himself  dying.  The 
presence  of  this  heavenly  being  sends  a  vivifying  breath  over 
Him.  A  divine  refreshing  pervades  Him,  body  and  soul: 
and  it  is  thus  only  that  He  receives  strength  to  continue  to 
the  last  the  struggle  to  the  physical  violence  of  which  He  was 
on  the  very  point  of  giving  way.  Ver.  44  shows  to  what 
physical  prostration  Jesus  was  reduced.  This  verse  is  omitted 
on  the  one  hand,  and  supported  on  the  other,  by  the  same 
authorities  as  the  preceding.  Is  this  omission  the  result  of 
the  preceding,  or  perhaps  the  consequence  of  confounding  the 
two  ical  at  the  beginning  of  vers.  44  and  45  ?  In  either  case, 
there  appears  to  have  been  here  again  omission  rather  than 
interpolation. — The  intensity  of  the  struggle  becomes  so  great, 
that  it  issues  in  a  sort  of  beginning  of  physical  dissolution. 
The  words,  as  it  were  drops,  express  more  than  a  simple  com- 
parison between  the  density  of  the  sweat  and  that  of  blood. 
The  words  denote  that  the  sweat  itself  resembled  blood. 
Phenomena  of  frequent  occurrence  demonstrate  how  imme- 
diately the  blood,  the  seat  of  life,  is  under  the  empire  of 
moral  impressions.  Does  not  a  feeling  of  shame  cause  the 
blood  to  rise  to  the  face  ?  Cases  are  known  in  which  the 
blood,  violently  agitated  by  grief,  ends  by  penetrating  through 


CHAP.  XXII.  45,   16.  307 

the  vessels  which  enclose  it,  and  driven  outwards,  escapes 
with  the  sweat  through  the  transpiratory  glands.1  The  reading 
KarafiaipovTos,  in  K  and  some  documents  of  the  Itala,  though 
admitted  by  Tischendorf,  has  no  internal  probability.  The 
participle  ought  to  qualify  the  principal  substantive  rather 
than  the  complement. — The  disciples  themselves  might  easily 
remark  this  appearance  when  Jesus  awoke  them,  for  the  full 
moon  was  lighting  up  the  garden.  They  might  also  hear 
the  first  words  of  Jesus'  prayer,  for  they  did  not  fall  asleep 
immediately,  but  only,  as  at  the  transfiguration  (ix.  32),  when 
rayer  was  prolonged. — Jesus  had  previously  experienced 
some  symptoms  precursive  of  a  struggle  like  to  this  (xii.  49, 
50  ;  John  xii.  27).  But  this  time  the  anguish  is  such  that 
it  is  impossible  not  to  recognise  the  intervention  of  a  super- 
natural agent.  Satan  had  just  invaded  the  circle  of  the 
Twelve  by  taking  possession  of  the  heart  of  Judas.  He  was 
about  to  sift  all  the  other  disciples.  Jesus  Himself  at  this 
time  was  subjected  to  his  action :  "  This  is  tlic  power  of  dark- 
ness" says  He,  ver.  53.  In  the  words  which  close  his  account 
of  the  temptation  (iv.  1 3),  Luke  had  expressly  declared :  "  He 
ed  from  Ilim  till  a  favourable  season" — the  return  of  the 
tempter  at  a  fixed  conjuncture. 

Vers.  45  and  46.  Luke  unites  the  three  awakings  in  ona 
Then  he  seeks  to  explain  this  mysterious  slumber  which 
masters  the  disciples,  and  he  does  so  in  the  way  most  favour- 
able to  them.  The  cause  was  not  indifference,  but  rather 
the  prostration  of  grief.  It  is  well  known  that  deep  griat 
especially  after  a  period  of  long  and  been  tension,  disposes  to 
slumber  through  sheer  exhaustion.  Nothing  could  be  more 
oppos*  this  explanation  to  the  hostile  fa  lings  toward 

the  di  liich  are  ascribed  to  Luke,  and  all  the  more 

that  this  particular  is  entirely  peculiar  to  him. — Ver.  46. 
Jesus  rises  from  this  struggle  £  from  His  fear,  as  says 

Le  to  the    II<  that  is  to  say,  in  possession  of 

the  profound  otlm  which  perfect  submission  gives  to  the  soul 
Che   i  ba     n«.t   I  hanged  its  natuic  it  i>true;  but 

rion  which  the  <  >n  of  tin:  cross  produces  on 

Jesus  is  no  longer  the  same.     He   has  given  Himself  up 
Wholly;  He  has  don-  II      Himself  proclaimed  before 

•  SecLwigen,  pp  212  214. 


308  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

passing  the  Cedron:  "For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself1'  (John 
xvii.  19).  The  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice  enables  Him  to 
feel  beforehand  the  rest  belonging  to  the  completion  of  the 
sacrifice.  Henceforth  He  walks  with  a  firm  step  to  meet  that 
cross  the  sight  of  which  an  instant  before  made  Him  stagger. 


SECOND  CYCLE. CHAP.  XXII.  47-XXIII.  46. 

The  Passion. 

The  death  of  Jesus  is  not  simply,  in  the  eyes  of  the  evan- 
gelists, and  according  to  the  sayings  which  they  put  into  His 
mouth,  the  historical  result  of  the  conflict  which  arose  between 
Him  and  the  theocratic  authorities.  What  happens  to  Him 
is  that  which  has  been  determined  (xxii.  22).  Thus  it  must 
be  (Matt.  xxvi.  54).  He  Himself  sought  for  a  time  to  struggle 
against  this  mysterious  necessity  by  having  recourse  to  that 
infinite  possibility  which  is  inseparable  from  divine  liberty 
(Mark  xiv.  36).  But  the  burden  has  fallen  on  Him  with  all 
its  weight,  and  He  is  now  charged  with  it.  He  dies  for  the 
remission  of  the  sins  of  the  world  (Matt.  xxvi.  28).  The 
dogmatic  system  of  the  apostles  contains  substantially  nothing 
more.  Only  it  is  natural  that  in  the  Epistles  the  divine  plan 
should  be  more  prominent ;  in  the  Gospels,  the  action  of  the 
human  factors.  The  two  points  of  view  complete  one  another  : 
God  acts  by  means  of  history,  and  history  is  the  realization  of 
the  divine  thought. 

This  cycle  embraces  the  accounts  of  the  arrest  of  Jesus 
(xxii.  47-53);  of  His  twofold  trial,  ecclesiastical  and  civil 
(ver.  54-xxiii.  25);  of  His  crucifixion  (vers.  26-46). 

1.  The  Arrest  of  Jesus:  xxii.  47-53. — Three  things  are 
included  in  this  piece :  1st.  The  kiss  of  Judas  (vers.  47  and 
48) ;  2d.  The  disciples'  attempt  at  defence  (vers.  49-51) ; 
3d.  The  rebuke  which  Jesus  administers  to  those  who  come 
to  take  Him  (vers.  52  and  53). 

Vers.  47  and  48.1  The  sign  which  Judas  had  arranged 
with  the    band    had  for  its   object  to   prevent  Jesus  from 

1  Ver.  47.  12  Mjj.  15  Mnn.  omit  h  after  in. — All  the  Mjj.,  uvrevs  (2,  avrois) 
instead  of  avriuv.—J).  E.  H.  X.  60  Mnn.  Syrsch.  It^.  add  after  uvrev,  tovto  yap 
rr,uuav  $3uku  uurtif,  •»  xv  <pt\r,<ru  xvrof  ten*  (taken  from  the  parallels). 


CHAP.  XXII.  49-51.  309 

escaping  should  one  of  His  disciples  be  seized  in  His  stead. 
In  the  choice  of  the  sign  in  itself,  as  Langen  remarks,  there 
was  no  refinement  of  hypocrisy.  The  kiss  was  the  usual  form 
of  salutation,  especially  between  disciples  and  their  master. 
The  object  of  this  salutation  is  not  mentioned  by  Luke  ;  it 
was  understood.  We  see  from  John  that  the  fearless  attitude 
(•1  Jesus,  who  advanced  spontaneously  in  front  of  the  band, 
rendered  this  signal  superfluous  and  almost  ridiculous. — The 
Baying  of  Jesus  to  Judas,  ver.  48,  is  somewhat  differently 
reproduced  in  Matthew  ;  it  is  omitted  in  Mark.  In  memory 
of  this  kiss,  the  primitive  Church  suppressed  the  ceremony  of 
the  brotherly  kiss  on  Good  Friday.  The  sole  object  of  the 
scene  which  follows  in  John  (the  /  am  He  of  Jesus,  with  its 
consequences)  was  to  prevent  a  disciple  from  being  arrested 
at  the  same  time. 

-.  49-5 1.1  The  Syn.  name  neither  the  disciple  who 
strikes,  nor  the  servant  struck.  John  gives  the  names  of 
both.  So  long  as  the  Sanhedrim  yet  enjoyed  its  authority, 
prudence  forbade  the  giving  of  Peter's  name  here  in  the 
oral  narrative.  But  after  his  death  and  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  John  was  no  longer  restrained  by  the  same  fears. 
As  to  the  name  of  Malchus,  it  was  only  preserved  in  the 
memory  of  that  disciple  who,  well  known  in  the  house  of  the 
high  priest,  knew  the  man  personally.  What  are  we  to  think 
of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  if  these  proper  names  were 
re  fictions  ? — According  to  ver.  4(J,  the  disr-iple  who  struck 
acted  in  the  name  of  all  (t'Soi/re?  .  .  .  cIttov,  shall  to  /). 

This  particular,  peculiar  to  Luke,  extenuates  Peter's  guilt — 
John  -ays,  with  Luke:  "the  fight  ear."  This  minute  coinci 
<l«nce  shows  that  the  details  peculiar  to  Luke  are  neither 
legeii'lary  DOS  tin-  invent  ions  of  his  own  imagination. — The 
"ro<?  tovtov  supply  in  Luke  the  place  ot  a  long  and 
important  :"  (  Jesus   in    Matthew.      Should    this  com- 

1    to   the  ollicers  :  "  Let  me  go  to  this  man" 
(Taulus)  ;   or   "to   //  where    this    m;m    is"?      But  this 

would   have  1    a$r«  f*fj  "let  me  go."      Or  should  we 

understand  it,  with  I  >■•  V.  ibaoh :   "  I  for 

a  moment"  ?      The  *&>?,  till,  does  not   lead    very  naturally  to 

1  Marcion  ornitt«<l  thU  paattge.  X    l:.  L.  T.  X.  MM  Mnn.  omit 

••*•«  before  *y»—  Ver.  51.   N    I  2  Mnn.  omit  «^»»  after  *r«##. 


310  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

this  sense.  Besides,  the  airoKpiQeis,  ansivering,  shows  that  the 
words  of  Jesus  are  connected  with  the  act  of  the  disciple 
rather  than  with  the  arrival  of  the  officers.  It  is  not  till  ver. 
52  that  Jesus  turns  to  those  who  have  arrived  (77730?  tot;? 
7rapay6vo/i€vov<i).  Here  He  is  addressing  the  apostles.  The 
meaning  is  therefore  either,  "  Let  these  men  (the  officers)  go 
thus  far  (the  length  of  seizing  me)/'  or  (which  is  more  natural), 
"  Stop  there  ;  strike  no  such  second  blow  ;  this  one  is  quite 
enough."  This  act  of  violence,  indeed,  not  only  compromised 
the  safety  of  Peter,  but  even  the  Lord's  cause.  Jesus  was  all 
but  hindered  thereby  from  addressing  Pilate  in  the  words  so 
important  for  His  defence  against  the  crime  with  which  the 
Jews  charged  Him  (John  xviii.  36)  :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world  ;  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my 
sewants  fight,  that  I  should  not  he  delivered  to  the  Jews'* 
Nothing  less  was  needed  than  the  immediate  cure  of  Malchus 
to  restore  the  moral  situation  which  had  been  injured  by  this 
trespass,  and  to  enable  Jesus  to  express  Himself  without  the 
risk  of  being  confounded  by  facts. — This  cure  is  related  only 
by  Luke ;  Meyer  therefore  relegates  it  to  the  domain  of  myth. 
But  if  it  had  not  taken  place,  it  would  be  impossible  to  under- 
stand how  Peter  and  Jesus  Himself  had  escaped  from  this 
complaint. 

Vers.  52  and  53.1  Among  those  who  came  out,  Luke 
numbers  some  of  the  chief  priests.  Whatever  Meyer  and 
Bleek  may  say,  such  men  may  surely,  out  of  hatred  or 
curiosity,  have  accompanied  the  band  charged  with  the  arrest. 
Besides,  is  not  the  rebuke  which  follows  addressed  rather  to 
rulers  than  to  subordinates  ?  As  to  the  captains  of  the  temple, 
see  xxii.  4.  As  to  the  officers,  comp.  John  vii.  45  ;  Acts  v. 
22-26.  John  speaks,  besides,  of  the  cohort,  xviii.  3,  12  ;  this 
word,  especially  when  accompanied  by  the  term  %i\iapxo<;, 
tribune  (ver.  12),  and  with  the  antithesis  twv  'IovSatwv,  can 
only,  in  spite  of  all  Baumlein's  objections,  designate  a  detach- 
ment of  the  Roman  cohort ;  it  was,  as  Langen  remarks,  an 
article  of  provincial  legislation,  that  no  arrest  should  take 
place  without  the  intervention  of  the  Eomans. — The  meaning 
of  the  rebuke  of  Jesus  is  this  :  "  It  was  from  cowardice  that 

1  Ver.  52.  &5.  G.  H.  R.  a.  50  Mnn.,  Tpo;  avrov  instead  of  «<*•'  avrov. — The  Mss, 
ff.re  divided  between  itiktiAvfan  (T.  R.,  Byz.),  i**i?Jxri  (Alex.),  and  il»xhn. 


CHAP.  XXII.  51-71.  311 

you  did  not  arrest  me  in  the  full  light  of  day."  The  other 
two  Syn.  carry  forward  their  narrative,  like  Luke,  with  a  but ; 
only  this  but  is  with  them  the  necessity  for  the  fulfilment  of 
the  prophecies,  while  with  Luke  it  is  the  harmony  between 
the  character  of  the  deed  and  that  of  the  nocturnal  hour. 
Darkness  is  favourable  to  crime ;  for  man  needs  to  be  con- 
cealed not  only  from  others,  but  from  himself,  in  order  to  sin. 
For  this  reason,  night  is  the  time  when  Satan  puts  forth  all 
his  power  over  humanity  ;  it  is  his  hour.  And  hence,  adds 
Jesus,  it  is  also  yours,  for  you  are  his  instruments  in  the  work 
which  you  are  doing;  comp.  John  viii.  44,  xiv.  30. — Luke 
omits  the  fact  of  the  apostles'  flight  which  is  related  here  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.  Where  is  the  malevolence  which  is 
ascribed  to  him  against  the  Twelve  ? — Mark  also  relates,  with 
great  circumstantiality,  the  case  of  the  young  man  who  fled 
stripped  of  the  linen  cloth  in  which  he  was  wrapped.  As, 
according  to  Acts  xii.,  the  mother  of  Mark  possessed  a  house 
in  Jerusalem, — as  this  house  was  the  place  where  the  Church 

bered  in  times  of  persecution,  and  as  it  was  therefore 
probably  situated  in  a  by-place, — it  is  not  impossible  that  it 
stood  in  the  vale  of  Gethsemane,  and  that  this  young  man 
was  (as  has  long  been  supposed)  Mark  himself,  drawn  by  the 
noise  of  the  band,  and  who  has  thus  put  his  signature,  as 

•lestly  as  possible  in  the  corner  of  the  evangelical  narrative 
which  lie  composed. 

2.    The Jvdfjmnd  of  Jeans t   xxii.  54-xxiii.  2". 

The  Ecclesiastical  Trial:  vers.  54-71. — This  account 
contains  three  things:  (1)  St.  Peter's  denial  (vers.  54-62); 

(2)  The  evil  treatment  practised  by  the  Jews  (vers.  63-65) ; 

(3)  nteaee  of  death  pronounced  by  the  Sanhedrim 
(vers.  66-71). 

Lul;  i  the  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  at  which  Jesus 

was  condemn'  <1  in  the  morning,  when  the  day  dawned  (ver. 
66).  This  morning  sitting  is  also  mentioned  by  Matthew 
(xxvii.  1,  Ou  m  •   !   M    rk  (xv.  1,  slrni'jhtvwg 

in  the  morning).     But,  ace •« «rcl i ag  to  those  two  61  s,  a 

had  taken  place  at,  the  house  of  Oaiaphaa 
during  the  night,  of  which  they  give  a  detailed  tdon 

And  this  i 

I     aiding  to  John,  had  been  |  y  sitting 


312  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

at  the  house  of  Annas,  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas.  John 
does  not  relate  either  the  second  or  the  third  sitting,  though 
he  expressly  indicates  the  place  of  the  latter  by  the  Trp&rov. 
xviii.  13,  and  the  notice,  xviii.  24.  This,  then,  is  the  order 
of  events  :  Immediately  on  His  arrest,  between  one  and  three 
o'clock,  Jesus  was  led  to  the  house  of  Annas,  where  a  pre- 
liminary inquiry  took  place,  intended  to  extract  beforehand 
some  saying  which  would  serve  as  a  text  for  His  condemnation 
(John  xviii.  19-23).  This  sitting  having  terminated  without 
any  positive  result,  had  not  been  taken  up  by  tradition,  and 
was  omitted  by  the  Syn.  But  John  relates  it  to  complete 
the  view  of  the  trial  of  Jesus,  and  with  regard  to  the  account 
of  Peter's  denial,  which  he  wishes  to  restore  to  its  true  light. 
During  this  examination,  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  had 
been  called  together  in  haste,  in  as  large  numbers  as  possible, 
to  the  house  of  the  high  priest.  The  sitting  of  this  body 
which  followed  was  that  at  which  Jesus  was  condemned  to 
death  for  having  declared  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  It 
must  have  taken  place  about  three  o'clock  in  the  morning. 
Matthew  (xxvi.  59  et  seq.)  and  Mark  (xiv.  55  et  seq.)  have 
minutely  described  it.  John  has  omitted  it  as  sufficiently 
known  through  them.  In  the  morning,  at  daybreak,  the  San- 
hedrim assembled  anew,  this  time  in  full  muster,  and  in  their 
official  hall  near  the  temple.  This  is  the  sitting  described 
by  Luke,  and  briefly  indicated,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Matthew 
and  Mark.  Two  things  rendered  it  necessary :  (1)  According 
to  a  Eabbinical  law,  no  sentence  of  death  passed  during  the 
night  was  valid.1  To  this  formal  reason  there  was  probably 
added  the  circumstance  that  the  sentence  had  not  been  passed 
in  the  official  place.  But  especially  (2)  it  was  necessary  to 
deliberate  seriously  on  the  ways  and  means  by  which  to 
obtain  from  the  Koman  governor  the  confirmation  and  execu- 
tion of  their  sentence.  The  whole  negotiation  with  Pilate 
which  follows  shows  that  the  thing  was  far  from  easy,  and 
betrays  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  as  we  have  seen  in  our 
Comment,  sur  Vevany.  de  Jean,  a  strategical  plan  completely 

1  Sanhedrim  9.  1.  Langen  objects  that,  according  to  this  same  passage,  the 
pronouncing  of  sentence  should  have  been  deferred  till  the  second  day.  But  it 
was  easier  to  elude  this  second  law  than  the  former.  It  was  possible,  for  graver 
reasons,  to  decree  urgency. 


CIIAr.  XXII.  54-71.  313 

marked  out  beforehand.  It  was  no  doubt  at  this  morning 
sitting  that  the  plan  was  discussed  and  adopted.  Matthew 
also  says,  in  speaking  of  this  last  sitting  (xxvii.  1),  that  they 
took  counsel  ware  Oavarcoaai  avrov,  about  the  way  of  getting 
Him  put  to  death.  Then  it  was  that  Judas  came  to  restore 
his  money  to  the  Sanhedrim  in  tlie  temple  (eV  tg3  vaaj,  Matt, 
xxvii.  5). 

Block  admits  only  two  sittings  in  all, — the  one  preliminary, 
which  was  held  at  the  house  of  Annas  (John),  and  during 
which  Peters  denial  took  place ;  the  other  official,  decisive, 
in  which  the  whole  Sanhedrim  took  part,  related  by  the  Syn., 
who  erroneously  connect  Peter's  denial  with  it,  and  which  is 
divided  also  erroneously  by  Matthew  and  Mark  into  two 
distinct  sittings.  Langen,  on  the  contrary,  witli  many  com- 
mentators, identifies  the  examination  before  Annas  (John 
xviii.  13,  19-23)  with  the  nocturnal  sitting  which  is  de- 
scribed in  detail  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  Against  this  exj Sa- 
nation there  are :  1.  The  entire  difference  between  the  matter 
of  the  two  sittings  :  in  John,  a  simple  examination  without 
judgment ;  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  express  pronouncing  of 
a  capital  sentence;  1'.  Ver.  24  of  John,  "  Annas  sent  Jesus 
bound  to  Caiaphas,"— a  verse  which,  whatever  may  be  made  of 
it,  implies  two  sittings,  the  one  at  the  house  of  Annas,  the 
other  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  in  the  same  night.  Tin 
opinion  of  lileek  would  be  more  allowable.  Bat  we  should 
■d   in  ascribing  to  the  first  two  Syn.  the  serious 

fusion,  and  then  the  fal-e  division,  which  Bleek  imputes  to 

Itan,  only  it  the  two  sittings  of  the  night  and  morning  could 

not  be  sufficiently  accounted  for.     Now,  we  have  just  seen 

that  it  is  quite  otherwise.     A  minute  particular  which  dis- 

lislics  them  confirms  their  historical  reality;  in  the  night 

tittu  1  been  unanimity  (Mark  xiv.  04).     Now,  if 

Luke  ia  not  mistaken  in  declaring,  uriii  51,  that  Joseph  of 

not  vote  witli  the  majority,  we   must  conclude 

thai  at  the  night  sitting  at  the  house  of 

tphas,  but  that  lie  took  part  only  in  that  of  the  morning 

in    the    temple,    Which    I  Lth    the    fart    that    Matthew 

i  li.  1)  e-  the  morning  assembly  as  a 

plenary  court,  by  ir&Tt?,  all.     The  two  sitth 

thus  really  distinct      Luke   has   mentioned   only  the  1 


314  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

that  of  the  morning,  perhaps  because  it  was  only  the  sentence 
pronounced  then  for  the  second  time  which  had  legal  force, 
and  which  therefore  was  the  only  one  mentioned  by  his 
sources. 

(1.)  Vers.  54-6 2.1  Peters  Denial.  —  The  account  of  the 
evangelists  presents  insoluble  difficulties,  if  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
dwelt  in  different  houses.  Indeed,  according  to  Matthew  and 
Mark,  who  do  not  mention  the  examination  before  Armas,  it 
is  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas  that  the  denial  must  have  taken 
place ;  while  according  to  John,  who  does  not  relate  the  sitting 
at  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  it  is  at  the  house  of  Annas  that  this 
scene  must  have  occurred.  But  is  it  impossible,  or  even 
improbable,  that  Annas  and  Caiaphas  his  son-in-law  occupied 
the  sacerdotal  palace  in  common  ?  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  high 
priests,  the  one  till  the  year  14,  the  other  from  the  year  17, 
were  so  identified  in  popular  opinion,  that  Luke  (iii.  2) 
mentions  them  as  exercising  one  and  the  same  pontificate  in 
common, — the  one  as  titulary  high  priest,  the  other  as  high 
priest  de  facto.  So  Acts  iv.  6  :  Annas  the  high  priest  and 
Caiaphas.2  But  there  is  more  than  a  possibility  or  a  proba- 
bility. There  is  a  fact :  in  John  xviii.  1 5,  the  entrance  of 
Peter  into  the  palace  where  the  denial  took  place  is  explained 
on  the  ground  that  John  was  known  to  the  high  priest,  a  title 
which  in  this  context  (vers.  13  and  24)  can  designate  no 
other  than  Caiaphas ;  and  yet,  according  to  ver.  1 2,  it  is  the 
house  of  Annas  which  is  in  question.  How  are  we  to  explain 
this  account,  if  Annas  and  Caiaphas  did  not  inhabit  the  same 
house  ?  There  is  caution  in  the  way  in  which  Luke  expresses 
himself:  "They  led  Him  into  the  high  priest's  house ;"  he  does 
not  say,  to  the  house  of  Caiaphas  (Matthew),  or  to  the  presence 

1  Ver.  54.  10  Mjj.  30  Mnn.  It.  Vg.  omit  auro*  after  utrnyxyov.— 7  Mjj.  10  Mnn., 
cuv  oiKtxv  instead  of  rev  otxov. — Ver.  55.  X.  B.  L.  T.,  Ttptx^xvrav  instead  of  «^a»- 

ruv. — 7   Mjj.    ItPleri1ue,  omit  kvtuv  after  <rvyxx0nrxvruv. — B.    L.    T.  2  Mnn.,   /xiaos 

instead  of  sv  pivu. — Ver.  57.  9  Mjj.  40  Mnn.  Syr.  ItP,eri(iue,  omit  avrev  after  np*n- 
euro.— Ver.  58.  7  Mjj.  15  Mnn.,  i<pn  instead  of  writ.—  Ver.  60.  X.  D.  It.  Vg., 
ti  Xtyus  instead  of  o  Xiyus. — All  the  Mjj.  many  Mnn.  omit  o  before  aXixrup. — 
Ver.  61.  K.  B.  L.  T.  X.  some  Mnn.,  instead  of  t»u  Xayov,  tov  pnpxros  (taken 
fiom  Matthew  and  Mark). — 8  Mjj.  25  Mnn.  read  trnpipo*  before  axctpw*. — Ver. 
62.  9  Mjj.  50  Mnn.  Syr6"',  omit  o  Utrpos  after  s|». 

2  In  this  passage,  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  presi- 
dent oi  the  Sanhedrim. 


CHAP.  XXII.  :A-G2.  315 

of  tlie  high  priest  (Mark),  but  to  the  sacerdotal  palace,  where 
dwelt  the  two  high  priests  closely  united  and  related. 

A  covered  gateway  (ttvXwv)  led  from  without  into  the  court 
where  the  fire  was  lighted  (avXj'j). — The  first  denial  is  related 
by  John  in  a  way  to  show  that  it  took  place  during  the  appear- 
ance before  Annas.  Comp.  the  repetition  xviii.  18  and  25, 
which  is  indirectly  intended  to  show  that  the  denial  was 
simultaneous  with  that  first  sitting.  The  other  two  denials 
being  placed  by  John  after  the  sitting,  took  place  consequently 
between  the  appearance  at  the  house  of  Annas  and  the  sitting 
of  the  Sanhedrim  at  the  house  of  Caiaphas. — After  his  first 
sin,  Peter,  humbled,  and,  as  it  were,  afraid  of  himself,  had 
withdrawn  to  the  gateway  (irvkwv,  Matthew),  or  to  the  outer 
court  (irpoavXiov,  Mark),  situated  before  the  gateway.  There, 
though  more  secluded,  he  is  the  object  of  petty  persecution  on 
the  part  of  the  porteress  who  had  let  him  in  (Mark),  of 
another  female  servant  (Matthew),  of  anotlwr  individual  (erepo?, 
Luke),  of  the  bystanders  in  general  (elirov,  they  said,  John). 
The  accusation  began  probably  with  the  porteress,  who  knew 
his  intimate  connection  with  John;  she  betrayed  him  to 
another  servant;  and  the  latter  pointed  him  out  to  the 
domestics.  Finally,  about  an  hour  later  (Luke),  a  kinsman  of 
Malchus  (John)  recognises  him,  and  engages  him  in  a  coin 

»n.  Peter's  answer  makes  him  known  as  a  Galilean,  and 
consequently  as  a  disciple  of  Jesus.  And  the  third  denial  takes 
place;  the  cock  crows  (Matthew,  Luke,  John)  for  the  second 
tim<>  'Mark).  Then  Peter,  awaking  as  from  a  dream,  at  the 
moment  when  lie  lifts  his  head,  meets  the  eye  of  Jesus  (Luke). 
How  euuld  the  Lord  be  there?     It  was  the  time  when,  after 

•  xamination  before  Annas,  they  were  leading  Him  t<>  th« 

sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  before  Caiaphas.     He  was  just  cross- 

OOOrt  which  divided  the  two  sets   of  apartments  ;   and 

what  John  means  to  express  by  introducing  licrc  the 

iii.    24:    "Now  Ann  smt.    Him  hound  to 

Caiaphas." — We  can  understand  the  profound  effect  produced 

upon  the  disciple  by  the  sight  of  his  Master  hound,  and  the] 

which  He  gave  him  in  passir  M    ;k  emits  this   particular* , 

Peter  was  not  like!  it  in  his  preaching     Mu-k 

ely  says:  iTrifiaXwv  eic\at€  (the  imperfect),  hurrinnrj  forth^ 
aping  without  ceasing.     The  <  peb 


316  the  gospel  of  luke. 

simply  use  the  aor.  he  wept.  Then  it  was  that  he  was  pie- 
served  from  despair  and  its  consequences  by  the  intercession 
of  his  Master :  "  I  have  prayed  for  thee  .  .  ."  The  answer  to 
the  prayer  of  Jesus  was  given  partly  by  this  look, — a  look  of 
pardon  as  well  as  of  rebuke,  which  raised  the  poor  disciple, 
while  breaking  his  heart  with  contrition.  It  was  thereby  that 
God  sustained  his  faith,  and  prevented  him  from  falling  into 
a  state  similar  to  that  of  Judas. 

We  recognise  in  the  three  Syn.  accounts  the  characteristic  of  tra- 
ditional narrative  in  their  combining  the  three  denials  in  a  single 
description  ;  it  was  the  a7ro/ivr)fjL6vevfjia,  the  recital,  of  the  denial.  John, 
as  an  eye-witness,  has  given  the  historical  fact  its  natural  divisions. 
— But  notwithstanding  their  common  type,  each  Syn.  account  has 
also  its  delicate  shades  and  special  features,  rendering  it  impossible 
to  derive  it  from  the  same  written  source  as  the  other  two.  Matthew 
is  the  writer  who  best  exhibits  the  gradation  of  the  three  denials 
(as  in  Gethsemane  that  of  the  three  prayers  of  Jesus). 

(2.)  Vers.  63-65.1 — The  evil  treatment  mentioned  here  is 
the  same  as  that  related  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  placed  by 
them  after  the  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  at  the  house  of 
Caiaphas.  It  is  the  parody  of  the  prophetic  knowledge  of 
Jesus,  the  ridicule  of  the  Jews.  We  shall  afterwards  see  the 
derision  of  the  Gentiles. 

(3.)  Vers.  66-71.2  The  Morning  Sitting. — It  is  impossible 
to  determine  to  what  extent  the  Sanhedrim  required  to  repeat 
in  their  morning  sitting  what  had  passed  in  the  night  one. 
"But  we  are  justified  in  allowing  that  some  details  of  the  one 
were  applied  to  the  other  by  tradition  and  by  our  evangelists. 
There  was  nothing  in  itself  blasphemous  in  one  calling  him- 
self the  Christ.  This  claim,  even  if  it  was  false,  was  not  an 
outrage  on  the  honour  of  God.  If  the  assertions  of  Jesus 
regarding  His  person  appeared  in  the  judgment  of  the  Jews  to 
be  blasphemy,  it  was  because  in  His  mouth  the  title  Son  of 
God  always  signified  something  else  and  something  more  than 

1  Ver.  63.  7  Mjj.  some  Mrm.  It.  Vg.,  uurev  instead  of  rov  Ina-tuv. — Ver.  64. 

J$.  B.  K.  L.  M.  T.  n.,  »£^xa>.y^«»Tif  aura*  instead  Of  Tiptx.  avr.  irv<rrav  uur. 
t.  <rpor.  xai. — 7  Mjj.  omit  aura*  after  tvrvpuruv. 

3  Ver.  66.  X.  B.  D.  K.  T.  25  Mnn.  Or.,  a-rnyxyov  instead  of  xvnyayo*. — 
fc$.  B.  L.  T.,  utov  instead  of  art. — Ver.  68.  fc*.  B.  L.  T.  omit  *«/  after  ««v  h. — 
tf.  B.  L.  T.  omit  the  w oids  ^«  n  x-xoXv<rr,n.~ Ver.  69.  7  Mjj.  ItP,eri<iU9,  Vg.  add 
it  after  »«». 


chap.  xxii.  CD.  317 

that  of  Messiah,  and  because  the  latter  was  in  His  lips  only  a 
corollary  from  the  former.  In  proportion  to  the  care  with 
which  Jesus  in  His  ministry  had  avoided  making  His  Messiah- 
ship  the  subject  of  His  public  declarations,  He  had  pointedly 
designated  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God.  Hence,  in  the  sitting 
described  by  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  high  priest,  when  putting 
to  Him  the  question  :  "Art  thou  the  Christ  ?"  takes  care  to  add  : 
"  the  Son  of  God?"  well  knowing  that  the  first  assertion  can- 
not be  the  foundation  of  a  capital  charge,  unless  it  be  again 
completed  and  explained  as  it  had  always  been  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  by  the  second.  The  question  of  ver.  67,  in  Luke, 
was  simply,  on  the  part  of  the  high  priest,  the  introduction  to 
the  examination  (comp.  ver.  70).  But  Jesus,  wishing  to  hasten 
a  decision  which  He  knew  to  be  already  taken,  boldly  and 
spontaneously  passes  in  His  answer  beyond  the  strict  contents 
of  the  question,  and  declares  Himself  not  only  the  Messiah, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  Son  of  man  sharing  the  divine  glory. 
The  particle  el  (ver.  6  7)  may  be  taken  interrogatively :  "  Art 
thou  tlie  Christ?  Tell  us  so  in  that  case."  But  it  is  more 
natural  to  make  it  directly  dependent  on  eZ7re  :  "  Tell  us  if  thou 

.  .  ." — De  Wette  has  criticised  the  answer  here  ascribed  to 
Jesus  (vers.  67  and  68).  The  second  alternative:  If  I  ask 
you,  appears  to  him  out  of  place  in  the  mouth  of  an  accused 

on.      It  is  not  so.     Here  is  the  position,  as  brought  out 
the  answer  of  Jesus:  "  I  cannot  address  you  either  as  jini 
whom  I  am  seeking  to  convince,  for  you  are  already  deter- 
mined to  put  no   faith  in  my  declarations,  nor  as  disci} ties 

an  I  am  endeavouring  to  instruct*  fox  you  would  not  enter 

into  ■  fen  discussion  with  me."     Hud  he  not  questioned  them 

once  and  again  previously  on  the  origin  of  John's  baptism,  and 

on  the  meaning  of  Ps.   ex.?     And  they  had  steadily   main- 

ned  a  prudent  silence  !    Jesus  foresees  the  same  result,  if  He 

old  now  enter  into  discussion  wit!)  them. — The  last  wo* 
//  a7ro\va7]T€,  nor  let  mc  go,  are  perplexing;  because,  while 
ted  with  the  second  alternative,  they  refer 
in  sense  to  both.  with  the  Alex.,  they  must  be  rejected, 

or  they  must  be  taken  as  a  climax  :  "Nor  far  less  §HU  will  y 
let  me  ;_r 

69.  Jesus  Himself  thus  famishes  the  Jews  with  the 

hold  whi<  h  they  -••■'.  name  Son.  <>J  man,  wIikIi   Ik 


318  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

as  most  directly  connected  with  that  of  Christ  (ver.  6  7),  is  quali- 
fied by  a  description  implying  that  He  who  bears  this  title 
participates  in  the  divine  state. — Thereby  the  trial  became 
singularly  shortened.  There  was  no  occasion  searchingly  to 
examine  the  right  of  Jesus  to  the  title  of  Christ.  The  claim 
to  divine  glory  contained  in  this  assertion  of  Jesus  is  imme- 
diately formulated  by  the  tribunal  in  the  title  Son  of  God. 
It  only  remains  to  have  the  blasphemy  articulately  stated  by 
the  culprit  Himself.  Hence  the  collective  question,  ver.  70. 
— The  form :  ye  say  that  I  am,  thou  sayest  it,  is  not  used  in 
Greek ;  but  it  is  frequently  used  in  Eabbinical  language.  By 
such  an  answer  the  party  accepts,  as  His  own  affirmation,  the 
whole  contents  of  the  question  put  to  Him. — So  far,  therefore, 
from  this  question  proving,  as  is  persistently  affirmed,  that  the 
name  Son  of  God  is  equivalent  in  the  view  of  the  Jews,  or  in 
that  of  Jesus,  to  the  name  Christ,  the  evident  progress  from 
the  question  of  ver.  67  to  that  of  ver.  70,  brought  about  by 
the  decided  answer  of  Jesus,  ver.  69,  clearly  proves  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  terms.  4s  to  the  difference  between 
the  night  sitting  and  that  of  the  morning,  it  was  not  consider- 
able. In  the  second,  the  steps  were  only  more  summary,  and 
led  more  quickly  to  the  end.  All  that  was  necessary  was  to 
ratify  officially  what  had  been  done  during  the  night.  As 
Keim  says,  "  the  Sanhedrim  had  not  to  discuss ;  they  had 
merely  to  approve  and  confirm  the  decision  come  to  over- 
night."— In  the  opinion  of  those  who  allege  that  Jesus  was 
crucified  on  the  afternoon  of  the  15th,  and  not  of  the  14th, 
the  arrest  of  Jesus,  and  the  three  judicial  sessions  which  fol- 
lowed, took  place  in  the  night  between  the  14th  and  15  th, 
and  so  on  the  sabbatic  holy  day.  Is  that  admissible  ?  Langen 
remarks  that  on  the  15th  Nisan  food  might  be  prepared, 
which  was  forbidden  on  a  Sabbath  (Ex.  xii.  16).  But  there 
is  no  proof  that  this  exception  extended  to  other  acts  of  ordi- 
nary life  (arrests,  judgments,  punishments,  etc.).  He  seeks, 
further,  to  prove  that  what  was  forbidden  on  a  sabbatic  day 
was  not  to  pronounce  a  sentence,  but  merely  to  write  and 
execute  it  Now,  he  says,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  sentence 
of  Jesus  was  written ;  and  it  was  Boman  soldiers,  not  subject 
to  the  law,  by  whom  it  was  executed.  These  replies  are 
ingenious;  but  after  all,  the  objection  taken  from  the  general 


CHAP.  XXIII.  1-5.  319 

sabbatic    character   of  the    15  th    Nisan   remains    in    all  its 
torce. 

2d.  Tlie  Civil  Judgment:  xxiii.  1-25. — Here  we  have  the 
description,  on  the  one  hand,  of  the  series  of  manoeuvres  used 
by  the  Jews  to  obtain  from  Pilate  the  execution  of  the  sen- 

.  and  on  the  other,  of  the  series  of  Pilate's  expedients,  or 
counter-manoeuvres,  to  get  rid  of  the  case  which  was  forced  on 
liim.  He  knew  that  it  was  out  of  envy  that  the  chiefs  among 
the  Jews  were  delivering  Jesus  over  to  him  (Matt,  xxvii.  1 8  ; 
Mark  xv.  1 0),  and  he  felt  repugnance  at  lending  his  power  to 
a  judicial  murder.  Besides,  he  felt  a  secret  fear  about  Jesus. 
Comp.  John  xix.  8,  where  it  is  said :  "  ft  lien  Pilate  therefore 
heard  that  saying  ('  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God '),  he 
was  the  more  afraid;"  and  the  question,  ver.  9  :  Whence  art 
thou  ? — a  question  which  cannot  refer  to  the  earthly  birthplace 
of  Jesus, — that  was  already  known  to  him  (Luke  xxiii.  6), — and 
which  can  only  signify  in  the  context :  From  heaven  or  from 
earth  ?  The  message  of  his  wife  (Matt,  xxvii.  19)  must  have 
contributed  to  increase  the  superstitious  fears  which  he  felt. 

Vers.  1-5.1  Since  Judaea  had  been  reduced  to  a  Eoman 
province,  on  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  in  the  year  7  of  our 
era,  the  Jewish  authorities  had  lost  the  jus  which  the 

Komans  always  reserved  to  themselves  in  the  provinces  incor- 
porated with  the  empire.  I  as  Langen  concludes,  with 
some  probability,  from  John  xviii.  30,  31,  previous  governors 
had  relaxed  the  rigour  of  public  right  on  this  point,  and  Pilate 
was  the  first  who  had  confined  the  Jews  within  their  strict 
ompetency.     There  is  a  tradition,  quoted  in  the  Talmud, 

forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the  temple  (and  so 
about  the  year  30  of  our  era),  the  right  of  pronouncing  capital 
taken   from   Israel"  (Cant  24.  2).     Thus  is 
esplaii  procedure  of  the  Jews  (ver.  1)  who  bring  J< 

before  Pilate.     The  «>tlu-r  motives  by  which  it  has  been  BO 
to  ex]  ;is  the  desire  to  put  the  entire  responsibility 

of  this  death  on  Pilate  (Mosheim),  or  that  of  getting  Jesus 

i  death  I  man  and  specially  cruel  punishment  of 

ioss  (Chrysostom),  or  linally,  that  of  not  violating  the 

,  ny*y*>  bttteftd  of  *y«y.>  (T.  R.).—  Ver.  2.  10  Mjj.  60 
Syr.   It.  Vg.  ndd  «««,  after  i/».r.     XI 
>.iy*iTK.—\\r.  :>.   R    i  .;."•.«.. 


320  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

quiet  of  the  feast  (Augustine),  have  been  refuted  by  Langen 
(pp.  246-251). — It  cannot  be  decided  with  certainty  whether 
Pilate  at  this  time  resided  in  the  palace  of  Herod  the  Great, 
on  the  hill  of  Sion,  or  in  the  citadel  Antonia,  at  the  north- 
west of  the  temple.  Tradition  makes  the  Via  Dolorosa  begin 
at  this  latter  spot.  The  complaint  uttered  by  the  Jews,  ver.  2, 
was  not  the  actual  beginning  of  this  long  negotiation.  John 
alone  has  preserved  to  us  its  true  commencement  (xviii.  29-32). 
The  Jews  began  very  skilfully  by  trying  to  get  Pilate  to 
execute  the  sentence  without  having  submitted  it  for  his  con- 
tinuation. The  latter,  more  adroit  than  they,  and  eagerly  pro- 
fiting by  the  turn  thus  given  to  the  case,  declared  to  them 
that  he  was  well  pleased  not  to  interfere  in  the  matter,  and 
that  he  left  Jesus  in  their  hands,  that  is  to  say,  within  the 
limits  of  their  competency  (the  execution  of  purely  Jewish 
penalties — excommunication  from  the  synagogue,  scourging, 
etc.).  But  that  did  not  come  up  to  the  reckoning  of  the  Jews, 
who  wished  at  any  price  the  death  of  Jesus.  They  must  there- 
fore abandon  the  exalted  position  which  they  had  attempted 
to  take,  and  submit  their  sentence  to  be  judged  by  Pilate. 

Here  begins  the  second  manoeuvre,  the  political  accusation 
(Luke,  ver.  2 ;  comp.  the  three  other  accounts  which  are  parallel). 
This  charge  was  a  notorious  falsehood ;  for  Jesus  had  resolved 
in  the  affirmative  the  question  whether  tribute  should  be  paid 
to  Caesar,  and  had  carefully  abstained  from  everything  which 
could  excite  a  rising  of  the  people.  The  semblance  of  truth 
which  is  required  in  every  accusation,  was  solely  in  the  last 
words :  He  made  Himself  the  Christ,  a  title  which  they  mali- 
ciously explained  by  that  of  king.  They  began  by  giving  to 
the  name  Christ  a  political  colour  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus. 
Hence  they  conclude  that  He  was  hound  to  forbid  the  payment 
of  tribute.  If  He  did  not  actually  do  so,  He  should  have 
done  it  logically.  Therefore  it  was  as  if  He  had  done  it ;  the 
crime  may  be  justly  imputed  to  Him.  This  translation  of  the 
title  Christ  by  that  of  king  before  Pilate  is  especially  remark- 
able, if  we  compare  it  with  the  transformation  of  the  same 
title  into  that  of  Son  of  God  before  the  Sanhedrim.  The  object 
of  the  one  was  to  establish  the  accusation  of  rebellion,  as  that 
of  the  other  was  to  prove  the  charge  of  blasphemy.  There  is 
a  versatility  in  this  hatred. — The  four  narratives  agree  in  the 


cu.vr.  xxiii.  6-12.  321 

question  which  Pilate  addresses  to  Jesus.  We  know  from 
John  that  Jesus  was  in  the  prcetorium,  while  the  Jews  took 
their  stand  in  the  open  square  ;  Pilate  went  from  them  to  Him, 
and  from  Him  to  them.  The  brief  answer  of  Jesus :  TJum 
sayest  it,  is  surprising.  But  it  appears  from  John  that  the 
wurd  is  only  the  summary  of  a  conversation  of  some  length 
between  Jesus  and  Pilate, — a  conversation  which  oral  tradition 
had  not  preserved.  Pilate  was  intelligent  enough  to  know 
what  to  think  of  the  sudden  zeal  manifested  by  the  Sanhedrim 
for  the  Roman  dominion  in  Palestine,  and  the  conversation 
which  he  had  with  Jesus  on  this  first  head  of  accusation  (John 
xviii.  33-38)  resulted  in  convincing  him  that  he  had  not  to 
do  with  a  rival  of  Coesar.  He  therefore  declares  to  the  Jews 
that  their  accusation  is  unfounded.  But  they  insist  (ver.  5), 
and  advance  as  a  proof  the  sort  of  popular  movement  of  which 
Galilee  was  the  starting-point  (aptjdfievos) ,  and  which  spread 
quite  recently  to  the  very  gates  of  Jerusalem  (ea><?  w8e), — an 
allusion  to  the  Palm  Days.  It  is  to  the  mention  of  this  new 
charge  that  we  may  apply  Matt,  xxvii.  1 2  and  Mark  xv.  3,  4, 
where  there  is  indicated  a  repetition  of  accusations  which  Jesus 
answered  only  by  silence.  Luke  also  declares,  ver.  5,  that  they 
V  tlie  more  fierce.  A  second  expedient  then  presents  itself 
to  Pilate's  mind :  to  consign  the  whole  matter  to  Herod,  the 
sovereign  of  Galilee  (vers.  6-12). 

.  G-12.1  Luke  alone  relates  this  remarkable  circum- 
stance. By  this  step  the  clever  I  Ionian  gained  two  ends  at 
once.  First  he  got  rid  of  the  business  which  was  imposed  on 
him,  and  then  he  took  the  first  step  toward  a  reconciliation 
with  Herod  (ver.  12).  The  cause  of  their  quaere!  had  pro- 
bably been  some  conflict  of  jurisdiction.  In  that  case,  was 
not  the  best  means  of  soldering  op  the  quarrel  to  concede  to 
him  a  right  of  jurisdiction  within  the  very  city  of  Jerusalem? 
II  rod  had  come  to  the  capital,  like  Pilate,  on  account  of  the 
feast;  ordinal  ilv  lie  lived  in  the  old  eastle  of  the  Asmonean 
kings,  on  the  hill  of  Zion.     Jesus  was  to  him  what  a  skilful 

1  Ver.  6.  N.  H.  L  T.  omit  r*x,x«,«»  before  m^mwb*—  Ver.  8.   B.  I>.  I>.  T., 
*»«»  Xftt**  instead  of  i; /*«»#«  (T.  I .,  Bjf. )  or  t\  i*«»#»  ^im»  (4  Mjj.  B 
It*****).— 8Mjj.  son  .*«  omit*-  mum,- V«r.  11.  tt&LTi 

emit  «»t#»  after  eyi/>«>.*».     X*  I..  I:  ,  inyu^ir  instead  of  muwi^tt. — Ver. 
N    B    I.   T..  «i/t#»;  instead  of  i«vr#»#. 

VOL.  II.  X 


322  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

juggler  is  to  a  seated  court — an  object  of  curiosity.  But 
Jesus  did  not  lend  Himself  to  such  a  part ;  He  had  neither 
words  nor  miracles  for  a  man  so  disposed,  in  whom,  besides, 
He  saw  with  horror  the  murderer  of  John  the  Baptist.  Before 
this  personage,  a  monstrous  mixture  of  bloody  levity  and 
sombre  superstition,  He  maintained  a  silence  which  even  the 
accusations  of  the  Sanhedrim  (ver.  1 0)  could  not  lead  Him  to 
break.  Herod,  wounded  and  humiliated,  took  vengeance  on 
this  conduct  by  contempt.  The  expression,  a  gorgeous  robe 
(ver.  11),  denotes  not  a  purple  garment,  but  a  white  mantle, 
like  that  worn  by  Jewish  kings  and  Eoman  grandees  on  high 
occasions.1  We  cannot  see  in  this,  with  Biggenbach,  a  con- 
temptuous allusion  to  the  white  robe  of  the  high  priest.  It 
was  a  parody  of  the  royal  claims  of  Jesus,  but  at  the  same 
time  an  indirect  declaration  of  His  innocence,  at  least  in  a 
political  point  of  view. — The  a-rparevfjLara,  soldiers  of  Herod, 
can  only  mean  his  attendants,  his  body-guard,  who  were 
allowed  to  accompany  him  in  the  capital. 

Vers.  13-19.2  Not  having  succeeded  in  this  way,  Pilate 
finds  himself  reduced  to  seek  another  expedient.  Two  present 
themselves  to  his  mind :  first,  the  offer  to  chastise  Jesus, — 
that  is  to  say,  to  scourge  Him ;  then  the  proposition  to  release 
Him  as  a  pardoned  malefactor,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
feast.  The  penalty  of  scourging  strictly  formed  part  of  the 
punishment  of  crucifixion  ;  it  was  the  imperative  preliminary. 
Jerome  says  (in  Matt,  xxvii.)  :  Sciendum  est  Pilatum  romanis 
legibus  ministrasse,  quibus  sancitum  erat  ut  qui  crucifigeretur, 
priiis  flagellis  verier etur  (Langen,  p.  281).  This  previous 
punishment  was  often  mortal.3  In  this  case  Pilate  offered  it 
to  the  Jews  in  place  of  crucifixion,  not  as  the  first  act  of  that 
punishment.  He  hoped  that  at  the  sight  of  this  the  more 
moderate  would  be  satisfied,  and  that  the  last  act  would  not 

1  Langen,  p.  270,  note  (Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  1.  1  ;  Tacitus,  Hist.  ii.  89). 

2  Ver.  14.  tf.  A.  L.  A.  some  Mnn.  omit  xar  before  avrou.  —  Ver.  15. 
tt.  B.  K.  L.  M.  T.  n.  several  Mnn.,  aviirip-^iv  yap  aurov  <rpo$  vpscs  instead  of 
anrtf/t^et  yap  vy.as  vpog  uv-ov,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  12  Mjj.  the  most  of  the 
Mnn.    ItPleri<Jue,  Vg.    and  Syr.    (which  substitutes  ccvrov  for  upas). — Ver.   17. 

A.  B.  K.  L.T.  n.  a  Fuld.  Sah.  omit  this  verse.  D.  Syrcur.  place  it  after  ver. 
19. — Ver.  18.  tf.  B.  L.  T.  2  Mnn.,  anxpayov  instead  of  xvsxpu%av. — Ver.  19. 

B.  L.  T.,  (ZXnfoif  instead  of  $%$>.*ii.%m. — N.  B.  L.  T.  X.,  zv  r%  Qukuxn  instead  of 

fit  <pu\a,xr,v. 

3  Cicero,  in  Flaccum,  §  10. 


CHAP.  XXIII.  13-19.  3-3 

be  demanded  of  him.  But  to  secure  the  certainty  of  this 
means,  he  combines  it  with  the  other.  The  time  was  come 
for  releasing  a  state  prisoner,  as  was  common  at  the  least. 
He  reckons  on  the  numerous  adherents  of  Jesus  who  had 
welcomed  Him  with  acclamations  on  Palm  Day,  and  whose 
voices,  in  spite  of  the  rulers,  would  make  themselves  heard 
in  demanding  His  release. 

At  ver.  15,  Tischendorf  prefers  the  Alex,  reading:  *  For  he 
sent  him  to  us,"  instead  of,  "  For  I  sent  you  to  him."      But 
this  reading  has  arisen  from  an  entire  misunderstanding  of  the. 
following  phrase.      It  was  translated,  "  And,  lo  !  nothing  is 
done  unto  him  (at  Herod's  court)  to  show  that  he  has  been 
judged  worthy  of  death;"  while  the  Greek  expression  sig- 
nifies, according  to  a  well-known  construction,  "  And,  lo  !  lie 
is  found  to  have  done  nothing  (He,  Jesus)  which  was  worthy 
of  death  [in  Herod's  conviction  as  well  as  in  mine]."     The 
received  reading  is  therefore   indisputably  the  true  one. — 
Pilate  declares  aloud  that  the  result  of  this  whole  series  of 
inquiries  has  been  to  establish  the  innocence  of  Jesus.     But 
why  in  this  case  conclude,  as  he  does  (tJierefore,  ver.  16),  by 
ring  to  scourge  Him,  thereafter  to  release  Him  ?     It  was 
already  a  denial  of  justice  to  send  Jesus  to  Herod  after  having 
nowledged  His  innocence;  it  is  a  more  flagrant  one  still  t<> 
oat  1 1 im,  without  any  alleged  reason,  the  penalty 
eourging.      This  first  concession  betrays   his  w»  akness,  and 
s  him  over  beforehand  to  his  ad  iio  are  mote 

ided  than  he. — If  ver.  17  is  authentic,  and  if  it  is  to  be 
:e  (see  the  critical   note),  the  most  natural  connection 
bet  v.  id  17  is  this:  "I  will  release  him;  for   i 

am  even  under  obligation  to  release  unto  you   a  prisoner." 
I'il;itc  affects  to  have  no  doubt  that,  when  the  liberation  of  a 
oner  is  offered  to  the  people,  they  will  claim  Jesus.     Bat 
if  this  verse  is  rejected  as  unauthentic,  we  must  recognise  in 
uTToXvaoK  /',.',.  ver.  16,  a  positive  allusion  to  the 
torn  of  releasing  I  i.     At  ver.  18,  the  Jews,  under- 

standing in  a  moni<  te's  idea,  would  reply  to  him   by 

themselves  at  U  point     Bat  tin-  explanation 

is  somewhat  forced,  and  the  omission   of  ver.  17  may  fa 

in  the  Alex,  from  confoundim:  the  two  AN  .  .  .  which 

hi  John.   1  iiile 


324  THE  UOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

reminding  the  people  of  this  custom,  directly  offers  them  the 
deliverance  of  Jesus.  This  was  probably  the  real  course  of 
events.  In  Matthew,  he  puts  the  alternative  between  Jesus 
and  Barabbas,  which  is  less  natural.  In  Mark,  it  is  the  people 
who,  interrupting  the  deliberation  relative  to  Jesus,  all  at  once 
claim  the  liberation  of  a  prisoner,  which  is  less  natural  still. 
— The  origin  of  the  custom  here  mentioned  is  not  known.  It 
is  far  from  probable  that  it  was  introduced  by  the  Eomans. 
Langen  justly  quotes  against  this  supposition  the  words  of 
Pilate  (John  xviii.  39),  "  Ye  have  a  custom."  Perhaps  it  was 
a  memorial  of  the  great  national  deliverance,  of  the  escape 
from  Egypt,  which  was  celebrated  at  the  feast  of  Passover. 
The  Eomans,  who  took  a  pride  in  respecting  the  usages  of 
conquered  peoples,  had  fallen  in  with  this  custom. 

But  before  Pilate  had  carried  out  the  scourging,  the  people 
had  already  made  their  choice.  This  choice  is  presented,  ver. 
18,  as  unanimous  and  spontaneous  {irapufk^del),  while  Matthew 
and  Mark,  more  accurate  on  the  point,  ascribe  it  to  the  pres- 
sure exercised  by  the  rulers  and  their  underlings,  which  har- 
monizes with  John  xix.  6. — Mark  and  Luke  characterize 
Barabbas  as  one  who  had  been  guilty  of  murder  in  an  insur- 
rection ;  he  was  therefore  a  representative  of  the  same  revo- 
lutionary spirit  of  which  the  Sanhedrim  were  accusing  Jesus. 
To  give  up  Jesus  to  the  cross,  and  to  demand  Barabbas,  was 
to  do  at  the  same  moment  two  significant  acts.  It  was  to 
repudiate  the  spirit  of  submission  and  faith  which  had  dis- 
tinguished the  whole  work  of  Jesus,  and  which  might  have 
saved  the  people.  It  was  at  the  same  time  to  let  loose  the 
spirit  of  revolt  which  was  to  carry  them  to  their  destruction. 
— The  name  Barabbas  comes  from  "O  and  K2K  (son  of  the 
father).  This  name  signifies,  according  to  most,  son  of  Abba, 
of  God.  Keim  understands  son  of  the  Babbin,  taken  as 
spiritual  father.  The  name  Jesus,  which  is  also  given  to  this 
man  in  4  Mnn.  of  Matthew,  and  which  was  found,  according 
to  the  Fathers,  in  a  considerable  number  of  mss.,  was  probably 
added  to  the  name  of  Barabbas,  with  the  desire  to  render  the 
parallelism  the  more  striking. 

The  liberation  of  Barabbas  was  a  judicial  act ;  to  carry  it 
out,  Pilate  must  ascend  his  judgment-seat.  It  was  probably 
at  this  moment  that  the  message  of  his  wife,  of  which  Matthew 


ciur.  XXIII.  20-25.  325 

speaks  (ver.  19,  "  IMien  he  u-as  set  doitii  on  the  judgment- 
seat  "),  was  transmitted  to  him. 

Vers.  20-25.1  This  manoeuvre  having  failed,  Pilate  returns 
to  the  expedient  on  which  he  reckons  most ;  he  will  try  to 
satisfy  the  anger  of  the  most  infuriated,  and  to  excite  the  pity 
of  those  who  are  yet  capable  of  this  feeling,  by  a  beginning  of 
punishment.  The  real  contents  of  the  declaration  announced 
by  the  Trpoae^covrjae,  he  spake  again  to  them,  ver.  20,  are  not 
expressed  till  the  end  of  ver.  22:  "  /  will  therefore  ehastise 
him,  and  let  him  go!*  But  Pilate  is  interrupted  before 
having  uttered  his  whole  thought  by  the  cries  of  the  Jews, 
ver.  21  ;  his  answer,  ver.  22,  breathes  indignation.  By  the 
Tpirov,  for  the  third  time,  allusion  is  made  to  his  two  previous 
declarations,  ver.  4  and  vers.  14,  15.  Tap  bears  on  the  idea 
<»f  crucifixion,  ver.  21 :  "  Crucify  him  ?  For  he  has  done  .  .  . 
chat  evil  V  But  this  indignation  of  Pilate  is  only  an  example 
of  cowardice.  Why  scourge  Him  whom  he  acknowledges  to 
be  innocent  ?  This  first  weakness  is  appreciated  and  imme- 
diately turned  to  account  by  the  Jews.  It  is  here,  in  Luke's 
account,  that  the  scourging  should  be  placed.  John,  who  has 
left  the  most  vivid  recital  of  this  scene,  places  it  exactly  at 
this  moment.  According  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  the  scourging 
did  not  take  place  till  after  the  sentence  was  pronounced, 
ly  to  custom,  and  as  the  first  stage  of  crucifixion. — 
Ver.  23  summarizes  a  whole  series  of  negotiations,  the  various 
phases  of  which  John  alone  has  preserved  to  us  (xix.  1-12). 
Jesus,  covered  with  blood,  appears  before  the  people.  But 
the  rulers  and  their  partisans  succeed  in  extinguishing  the 
e  of  pity  in  the  multitude.  Pilate,  who  reckoned  on  the 
effect  of  the  spectacle,  is  shocked  at  a  of  cruelly. 

He  authorizes  them  to  carry  out  the  crucifixion  themselves  at 
their  own  risk;  they  decline.  They  understand  that  it  is  he 
who  serves  as  their  executioner.  To  gain  him  there  remain 
yet  two  ways.     All  at  once  changing  their  tactics,  they  demand 

i  blasphemer:  "He  mode  him*  if  the 
Hut  on   hearing  this  accusation,  Pilate  shows 

0  Mjj.   2  Mnn.    V-  .   2,  instead  of  •*.—*.  IV   I  ft,   add 

mwTHt  aftrr  *y«rip*»»!ri».-  V.  r.  L*l.  N.  15.  I>.  F»  <>r.,  ermvpu,  rrmvpv,  lllfttmd  <>f 
rr*i/;*r«»,  rrmvf*tt*r  '      ISO  Mnn.  Itf*"***,  "luit  *«<  c*»  *pz<tfim9 

*ft«T  «i/r*».  —  V.  |  nit  muroit  nflcr  stiXu 


326  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

himself  still  less  disposed  to  condemn  Jesus,  whose  person 
had  already  inspired  him  with  a  mysterious  fear.  The  Jews 
then  determine  to  employ  the  weapon  which  they  had  kept 
to  the  last,  probably  as  the  most  ignoble  in  their  own  eyes, 
that  of  personal  intimidation.  They  threaten  him  with  an 
accusation  before  the  emperor,  as  having  taken  a  rebel  under 
his  protection.  Pilate  knows  how  ready  Tiberius  will  be  to 
welcome  such  a  charge.  On  hearing  this  threat,  he  under- 
stands at  once,  that  if  he  wishes  to  save  his  place  and  life,  he 
has  no  alternative  but  to  yield.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the 
four  narratives  again  unite.  Pilate  for  the  second  time 
ascends  the  judgment-seat,  which  was  set  up  in  a  raised  place 
in  the  open  square  situated  before  the  prsetorium.  He  washes 
his  hands  (Matthew),  and  again  declining  all  participation  in 
the  judicial  murder  which  is  about  to  be  committed,  he  delivers 
Jesus  over  to  His  enemies. 

Ver.  2  5  of  Luke  is  the  only  passage  of  this  narrative  where 
the  feelings  of  the  historian  break  through  the  objectivity  of 
the  narrative.  The  details  repeated  here  (ver.  19)  regarding 
the  character  of  Barabbas  bring  into  prominence  all  that  is 
odious  in  the  choice  of  Israel ;  and  the  words,  he  delivered 
Him  to  tlieir  will,  all  the  cowardice  of  the  judge  who  thus 
declines  to  act  as  the  protector  of  innocence.  Matthew  and 
Mark  here  narrate  the  abuse  which  Jesus  had  to  suffer  from 
the  Eoman  soldiers ;  it  is  the  scene  related  John  xix.  1-3, 
and  which  should  be  placed  before  the  scourging.  The  scene 
of  it,  according  to  Mark,  was  the  inner  court  of  the  praetorium, 
which  agrees  with  John.  It  was  less  the  mockery  of  Jesus 
Himself  than  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  in  His  person. 

3.  TJie  Crucifixion  of  Jesus:  xxiii.  26-46. — John  indi- 
cates, as  the  time  when  Pilate  pronounced  sentence,  the  sixth 
hour ;  Mark,  as  the  hour  at  which  Jesus  was  crucified,  the 
third.  According  to  the  ordinary  mode  of  reckoning  time 
among  the  ancients  (starting  from  six  o'clock  in  the  morning), 
it  would  be  mid-day  with  the  first,  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning 
with  the  second.  The  contradiction  seems  flagrant :  Jesus 
condemned  at  noon,  according  to  John,  and  crucified  at  nine, 
according  to  Mark !  Langen  brings  new  arguments  to  support 
an  attempt  at  harmony  which  has  often  been  made — that 
John  reckoned  the  hours  as  we  do,  that  is  to  say,  starting 


CHAP.  XXIII.  26-46.  327 

from  midnight  The  sixth  hour  would  then  be  with  him  six 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  which  would  harmonize  a  little  better 
with  Mark's  date,  the  interval  between  six  and  nine  o'clock- 
being  employed  in  preparations  for  the  crucifixion.1 — But  is  it 
probable  that  John  adopted  a  mode  of  reckoning  different 
from  that  which  was  generally  in  use,  and  that  without  in 
the  least  apprizing  his  readers  ? 2  We  incline  rather  to  hold 
with  Lange,  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,  that  Mark  dated  the  begin- 
ning of  the  punishment  from  the  time  of  the  scourging,  which 
legally  formed  its  first  act.  In  this  Mark  followed  an  opinion 
which  naturally  arose  from  the  connection  in  which  scourging 
was  ordinarily  practised.  It  is  John  who,  by  his  more  exact 
knowledge  of  the  whole  course  of  the  trial,  has  placed  this 
part  of  the  punishment  of  Jesus  at  its  true  time  and  in  its 
true  light.  The  scourging,  in  Pilate's  view,  was  not  the  be- 
ginning of  the  crucifixion,  but  rather  a  means  of  preventing 
it.  Thus  it  is  that  Mark  has  ante-dated  the  crucifixion  by 
the  whole  interval  which  divided  the  scene  of  the  Ecce  homo 
from  the  pronouncing  of  the  sentence  and  its  execution. — It 

dutely  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  whole  long  and 
complicated  negotiation  between  the  Jews  and  Mate  took 
place  between  the  last  sitting  of  the  Sanhedrim  (which  was 

as  soon  as  it  was  day,  Luke  xxii.  60)  and  six  o'clock  in 
the  morning.  See  my  Cominent.  sur  Jean,  ii  pp.  GOG  and 
G07. 

punishment  of  crucifixion  was  in  use  among  several 

is  argument  on  three  passages,  one  from  the  Natural  1 
of  Pliny  the  elder  (ii.  70),  the  second  from  the  Letters  of  Pliny  the  younger 
<iii.  6),  the  third  from  the  Acts  of  Polycarp's  martyrdom  (c.  7),  proving  that  at 
inning  of  the  Ch;  I  •   mode  of  lvknning  ^starting  from 

midnight  and  mid-day)  mi  already  known.    The  third  lly  possesses 

roe;  and  it  is  the  mow  important,  because  it  proceeds  from  t 
:.  which  John  wrote. 
2  We  owe  to  ML  Andre*  <  ]|.  rinili. /,  of  Qenert,  and  M.  do  Rougemonti  who 
to  us  an  int. -noting  contribution  on  this  (pn-stiun,  taken  fan  th< 
Discourse  of  iElius  Aii  reels  eophUt  of  tho  second  century,  a  » 

porary  of  Polycarp,  whom  hi  may  have  met  in  the  streets  of  Smyrna.  In  the 
first  book,  God  commands  him  in  ■  (been  to  take  a  .old  hath  ;  it  is  winter  ;  and 

chooses  tho  sixth,  undoubtedly  beOI 
warmest.     Then,  addressing  his  Hand  IJassus,  who  keeps  him  waiting,  he  says 
to  him,  pointing  to  the  pillars,  "  Scest  thou?  tho  shadow  is  nlrea.ly  tUJ 
There  is  no  d  lath  hour  with  him  denotes  mid -.. 

not  six  o'clock  morning  or  evening. 


328  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

ancient  peoples  (Persians,  Assyrians,  Egyptians,  Indians, 
Scythians,  Greeks).  Among  the  Bomans,  it  was  used  only  for 
slaves  {servile  supplicium,  Horace),  and  for  the  greatest  crimi- 
nals (assassins,  brigands,  rebels).  It  was  abolished  by  Con- 
stan tine.  The  scourging  took  place  either  before  setting  out, 
or  on  the  way  to  the  cross  (Liv.  xxxiii.  36).  According  to 
Plutarch,1  every  criminal  carried  his  own  cross.  There  was 
borne  before  him  or  hung  round  his  neck  a  white  plate,  on 
which  his  crime  was  indicated  (titulus,  aavfc,  ahla).  The 
punishment  took  place,  as  a  rule,  beyond  inhabited  houses,* 
near  a  road,  that  the  largest  possible  number  of  people  might 
witness  it.  The  Talmud  of  Jerusalem  relates  that  before 
crucifixion  there  was  offered  to  the  prisoner  a  stupifying 
draught,  which  compassionate  people,  generally  ladies  of 
Jerusalem,  prepared  at  their  own  cost.3  The  cross  consisted 
of  two  pieces,  the  one  perpendicular  (staticuhim),  the  other 
horizontal  (antenna).  Nearly  at  the  middle  of  the  first  was 
fixed  a  pin  of  wood  or  horn  (7rf)/jLa*  sedile),  on  which  the  pri- 
soner rested  as  on  horseback.5  Otherwise  the  weight  would 
have  torn  the  hands,  and  left  the  body  to  fall.  They  began 
ordinarily  by  setting  up  and  fixing  the  cross  (Cic.  Verr.  v.  66  ; 
Jos.  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  6.  4) ;  then  by  means  of  cords  the  body 
was  raised  to  the  height  of  the  antenna,  and  the  nails 
driven  into  the  hands.  The  condemned  person  was  rarely 
nailed  to  the  cross  while  it  was  yet  lying  on  the  ground,  to 
be  afterwards  raised. — The  cross  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
very  high.  Langen  thinks  that  it  was  twice  the  height  of  a 
man ;  that  is  the  maximum ;  and  it  is  probable  that  generally 
it  was  not  so  high.  The  rod  of  hyssop  on  which  the  sponge 
was  held  out  to  Jesus  could  not  be  more  than  two  or 
three  feet  in  length.  As  to  the  feet,  Paulus,  Liicke,  Winer, 
and  others  have  more  or  less  positively  denied  that  they  were 
nailed.  They  appeal  to  John  xx.  25.  But  would  it  not  have 
been  singular  pedantry  on  the  part  of  Thomas  to  speak  hero 

1  De  serd  Numinis  vindictd,  c.  9. 

2  Plautus,  Miles  gloriosus,  ii.  4.  6  :  extra  portam. 

3  Bab.  Sank.  f.  43.  1  :  "A  grain  of  frankincense  in  a  cup  of  wine  ;  ut  turhare 
tar  ejus  intellectus. " 

*  Ir.  Adv.  Hcer.  ii.  42. 

"  Justin  Martyr,   Dial.  91  :  \tf  £  1*oi%»v»-ks  ol  eretvpufitfi.     Irenceus,  Adi\ 
liar.  ii.  42.     Tertullian,  Cont.  Marc.  iii.  18. 


cii.u'.  xxiii.  50-4*  329 

of  the  lioles  in  flic  feet  t  He  enumerates  the  wounds,  which 
were  immediately  within  reach  of  his  hand.  It  is  the  same 
when  Jesus  speaks  to  Thomas,  ver.  27.  Then  they  allege  the 
fact  that  the  Empress  Helena,  after  having  discovered  the  true 
cross,  sent  to  her  son  the  nails  which  had  heen  fastened  in 
the  hands  of  Christ.1  But  it  is  not  said  that  she  sent  to  him 
all  that  she  had  found.  The  contrary  rather  appears  from 
the  tenor  of  the  narrative  (see  Meyer,  ad  Matt,  xxvii.  35). 
Hug,  Meyer,  Langen  have  proved  beyond  doubt,  by  a  series  of 
quotations  from  Xenophon,  riautus,  Lucian,  Justin,  Tertullian, 
etc.,  that  the  custom  was  to  nail  the  feet  also ;  and  Luke  xxiv. 
39  (written  without  the  least  reference  to  the  prophecy  of 
Ph.  xxii.)  admits  of  no  doubt  that  this  practice  was  followed 
in  the  case  of  Jesus.  For  how  could  His  feet  have  served 
as  a  proof  of  His  identity  (on  avrbs  iyco)  otherwise  than  by 
the  wounds  the  mark  of  which  they  bore  ? — The  small  board 

dancum),  on  which  the  representations  of  the  crucifixion 
isually  make  the  feet  of  our  Lord  rest,  is  a  later  invention, 
rendered  in  a  way  necessary  by  the  suppression  of  the  scdile 
in  those  pictures.  The  feet  were  nailed  either  the  one  above 
the  other  by  means  of  a  single  nail,  which  would  explain  the 

t  TpiarfKos,  tlarc-nailcd,  given  to  the  cross  by  Xonnus, 
in  his  versified  paraphrase  of  John's  Gospel  (4th  century), 
or  the  one  beside  the  other,  which  generally  demanded  four 
nails  in  all.  as  I'lautus2  seems  to  say,  but  might  also  be  exe- 

with  three,  if  we  suppose  the  use  of  a  nail  in  the  form 
of  a  horse-shoe  having  two  points.  Was  the  sole  of  the  foot 
supported  on  the  wood  by  means  of  a  veiy  full  bend  of  the 
knee,  or  was  the  leg  in  its  whole  length  laid  to  the  cross,  so 
that  tin;  feet  preserved  their  natural  position  1  Such  details 
probably  varied  at  the  caprice  of  the  executioner.  —  The 
isually  lived  twelve  hours,  sometimes  even  till  the 
second  or  third  day.  The  fever  which  soon  set  in  produced 
a  toning  thirst.  The  increasing  inflammation  of  the  wounds 
in  the  lark,  hands,  and  feet;  the  congestion  of  the  blood  in 
the   head,   lun,'  s    and    heart;    the  swelling    of    every    vein,   an 

rihahle  oppression,  racking  pains  m  the  head  :  the  stiff- 
ness of  the  limbs,  caused  bj  the  unnatural  position  ol  the 
body; — these  all  united  to  make  the  punishment,  in  the  ],m- 

1  8ocrate«,  IliU.  Eccl  i.  17.  «  Mo*tcU.  'J.  LU 


330  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

guage  of  Cicero  (in  Verr.  v.  64),  crudelissimum  teterrimumque 
supplicium. 

From  the  beginning,  Jesus  had  foreseen  that  such  would  be 
the  end  of  His  life.  He  had  announced  it  to  Mcodemus 
(John  iii.  14),  to  the  Jews  (xii.  32),  and  once  and  again  to 
His  disciples.  It  was  the  foresight  of  this  which  had  caused 
His  agony  in  Gethsemane.  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  says  (Eom.  iii.), 
to  give  to  the  sinful  world  a  complete  demonstration  (evBetgis) 
of  the  righteousness  of  God  (vers.  25,  26).  By  its  cruelty,  a 
death  of  this  sort  corresponds  to  the  odiousness  of  sin ;  by  its 
duration,  it  leaves  the  crucified  one  time  to  recognise  fully  the 
right  of  God ;  lastly,  its  dramatic  character  produces  an  im- 
pression, never  to  be  effaced,  on  the  conscience  of  the  spectator. 
— Of  all  known  punishments,  it  was  the  cross  which  must  be 
that  of  the  Lamb  of  God. 

We  divide  this  piece  into  three  parts :  the  way  to  the  cross 
(vers.  26—32) ;  the  crucifixion  (vers.  33—38)  ;  the  time  passed 
on  the  cross  (39—46). 

1st  Vers.  26— 3  2.1  The  punishment  required  to  be  inflicted 
outside  the  city  (Lev.  xxiv.  14) ;  it  was  the  type  of  exclusion 
from  human  society  (Heb.  xiii.).  John  xix.  17  informs  us 
that  Jesus  went  out  of  the  city  bearing  His  cross  Himself, 
according  to  custom  (Matt.  x.  38).  But  we  are  left  in  ignor- 
ance of  the  motive  which  soon  led  the  Eoman  soldiers  charged 
with  the  execution  to  lay  hold  of  Simon  of  Cyrene  for  this 
office.  Did  Jesus  faint  under  the  burden,  or  did  Simon  testify 
his  sympathy  with  Him  rather  too  loudly  ;  or  was  there  here 
one  of  those  abuses  of  military  power  which  are  readily  in- 
dulged in  the  case  of  a  foreigner  ?  We  cannot  tell.  Cyrene, 
the  capital  of  Libya,  had  a  numerous  Jewish  population,  many 
of  whom  came  to  settle  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.  9).  It  is 
natural  to  conclude  from  the  words,  coming  out  of  the  country, 

1  Ver.  26.  X.  B.  C.  D.  L.  X.  someMnn.,  2/^«va  rtv*  xvpr,venov  sp%ofitfov  instead 
of  2/w«v5;  nvos  xupnvaiou  sp%oftivov. — Ver.  27.  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.  X.  some  Mnn.  omit 
Km  after  «/.  X.  omits  at  xxi. — Ver.  29.  &?.  B.  C.  L.  tips^av,  D.  i%i0pi-4>etv,  in- 
stead of  tfykxtrxv. — Ver.  31.  D.  K.  A.  several  Mnn.  ItPler'iue  Vg.,  yivn<nrat  instead 
of  yiiYira.1. 


CHAP.  XXIII.  27-38.  331 

that  he  was  returning  to  the  city  after  his  work.  It  was  not 
therefore  a  holy  day.  Langen  answers,  it  is  true,  that  he  might 
merely  have  been  taking  a  walk !  Mark  xv.  2 1  proves  that 
this  event  became  a  bond  of  union  between  Simon  and  the 

:our,  and  that  he  soon  entered  into  the  Church  with  his 
family.  He  afterwards  settled  at  Rome  with  his  wife  and 
two  sons  (Kom.  xvi.  13). 

Vers.  27-32  are  peculiar  to  Luke.  In  ver.  27  we  see 
popular  feeling  breaking  out  through  the  mouth  of  the  women, 
not,  as  M.  de  Pressense*  thinks,  those  who  had  accompanied 
Jesus  from  Galilee,  but  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem. — The  sayings 
of  Jesus  testify  to  His  entire  self-forgetfulness ;  they  contain 
an  allusion  to  Hos.  x.  8.  The  meaning  of  ver.  31  appears  to 
be  that  indicated  by  Bleek :  the  green  wood  is  Jesus  led  to 
death  as  a  rebel,  notwithstanding  His  constant  submission  to 
the  Gentile  authorities ;  the  dry  wood  is  the  Jewish  people, 
who,  by  their  spirit  of  revolt,  will,  with  much  stronger  reason, 
bring  down  on  themselves  the  sword  of  the  Romans.  The 
more  contrary  to  nature  it  is  that  Jesus  should  die  as  a  rebel, 
the  more  is  it  in  keeping  with  the  nature  of  things  that  Israel 
should  perish  for  rebellion.  Thus  Jesus  makes  the  people 
aware  of  the  falsehood  which  ruled  His  condemnation,  and  the 

.  in  which  God  will  take  vengeance.  No  doubt,  behind 
the  human  judgment  which  visits  the  nation,  there  is  found, 

in  all  similar  sayings  (comp.  Luke  iiL  9,  etc.),  the  divine 
judgment  reserved  for  each  individual     This  last  referent' 

landed  by  the  connection  of  vers.  30  and  31.1  The  figure 
of  the  green  wood  and  the  dry  is  borrowed  from  Ezek.  x\i. 
3-8. — The  two  malefactors  were  probably  companions  of 
Barabbas.  This  accumulation  of  infamy  on  Jesus  was  awing 
to  the  hatred  of  the  rulers.  God  brought  out  of  it 
the  glory  of  His  Son. 

2d.  Vers.  33-38.2  Is  the  spot  where  Jesus  was  crucified 
that  which  is  shown  for  it  at  the  present  day  in  the  enclo. 

1Tho  ])u» ■]■  philologist  T.  in  his  Taciti  Agricola,  Leydcn  1864) 

think*  that  we  must  transpose!  v«  r.   31,   patting  it  after  v«  r.   '27:   ".\n<l  they 
Ilini,  K.iyii;  <lo  these  things,  etc."     But  this  arbitrary  trans- 

position is  not  demanded  by  a  the  text. 

33.  f.Mj.j  r*/*>  instead  of  «ciX/«.—  Ver.  34.  *•  B. 

D.  2Mnn.  It"H  omit  the  words  •  h  Urtv$  .  .  .  mum    These  w.  Had  in 

80Mjj.  the  most  of  the  Mnn.  Svr.  IM***',  Ir.  H.-ni.  ('km.  nt,  A<u  1'ilati,  etc 


332  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  ?  The  question  does  not 
seem  yet  decided.  Though  this  place  is  now  within  the  city 
enclosure,  it  might  not  have  been  so  then. — The  name  place  of 
the  skull  (skull,  in  Hebrew  rfata,  in  Aramaic  HD^ta,1  from  bbi, 
to  roll)  does  not  come  from  the  skulls  of  the  condemned  which 
remained  lying  there;  this  would  require  the  plural:  the 
place  of  skulls ;  besides,  unburied  bones  would  not  have  been 
left  there.  The  name  is  rather  to  be  traced  to  the  bare 
rounded  form  of  the  hill. — Matthew  and  Mark  relate  here 
that  Jesus  refused  the  stupifying  draught  which  was  offered 
Him.  According  to  Mark,  it  was  aromatic  wine ;  according 
to  Matthew,  vinegar  mingled  with  gall.2 

Of  the  seven  sayings  which  Jesus  uttered  on  the  cross?  the 
first  three  refer  to  the  persons  surrounding  Him — His  enemies, 
His  companion  in  punishment,  and  those  whom  He  loves 
most  tenderly,  His  mother  and  His  friend ;  they  are,  as  it 
were,  His  will.  The  three  which  follow :  "  My  God,  my  God, 
.  .  . ;  1  thirst ;  it  is  finished,"  refer  to  His  sufferings  and  the 
work  which  is  being  finished ;  the  first  two,  to  the  sufferings 
of  His  soul  and  of  His  body ;  the  third,  to  the  result  gained 
by  this  complete  sacrifice.  Finally,  the  seventh  and  last: 
"  Father,  into  Thy  hands  .  .  .,"  is  the  cry  of  perfect  confidence 
from  His  expiring  heart  in  its  utmost  weakness.  Three  of 
those  seven  sayings,  all  three  words  of  grace  and  faith,  are 
related  by  Luke,  and  by  him  only. 

The  prayer  of  ver.  34  is  wanting  in  some  mss.  This 
omission  is  probably  the  result  of  accident ;  for  the  oldest 
translations,  as  well  as  the  great  majority  of  mss.,  guarantee 
its  authenticity ;  and  the  appeal  of  the  thief  for  the  grace  of 
Jesus,  a  few  moments  later,  cannot  be  well  explained,  except 
by  the  impression  produced  on  him  by  the  hearing  of  this 

— A.  X.  several  Mnn.  Ita"i.  Vg.,  xXvpeus  instead  of  xXnpov  (which  seems  to  he 
taken  from  the  parallels  of  the  LXX.).— Ver.  35.  7  Mjj.  6  Mnn.  Vss.  omit  <rv* 
uvren  after  at  upxovrts. — Ver.  36.  X.  B.  L.,  ivivcct%xv  instead  of  inveti^ev. — &• 
A.  B.  C.  L.  omit  xa.i  before  o\o$. — Ver.  38.  X.  B.  L.  omit  yiypxpptv*. — Sca  B.  C. 
L.  Syrcur.  omit  the  words  ypapfiecfftv  tX\rtvixoi;  xat  pw/xaixms  xat  t(->^atxot;  (taken 
from  John). 

1  It  is  from  this  word  that,  the  name  Golgotna  is  generally  derived  (Matthew, 
Mark,  John).  Kraft  (Tojwgr.  Jerus.  p.  158)  has  recently  proposed  another 
etymology :  7i»  Mil,  and  nyO,  death  (comp.  the  place  named  Jer.  xxxi.  39). 

2  The  ancient  naturalists,  Dioscorides  and  Galen,  ascribe  to  incense  and  myrrh 
»  stupifying  influence  (Langen,  p.  302). 


CHAP.  XXIII.  33-38.  33  3 

filial  invocation. — The  persons  for  whom  this  prayer  is  offered 
cannot  be  the  Roman  soldiers,  who  are  blindly  executing  the 
orders  which  they  have  received;  it  is  certainly  the  Jews, 
who,  by  rejecting  and  slaying  their  Messiah,  are  smiting  them- 
selves with  a  mortal  blow  (John  ii.  19).  It  is  therefore 
literally  true,  that  in  acting  thus  tliey  know  not  what  tlicy  do. 
The  prayer  of  Jesus  was  granted  in  the  forty  years'  respite 
during  which  they  were  permitted,  before  perishing,  to  hear 
the  apostolic  preaching.  The  wrath  of  God  might  have  beef 
discharged  upon  them  at  the  very  moment. 

The  casting  of  the  lot  for  the  garments  of  Jesus  (ver.  34) 
belongs  to  the  same  class  of  derisive  actions  as  those  related 
ver.  35  et  seq.  By  this  act  the  prisoner  became  the  sport  of 
his  executioners.  The  garment  of  the  cruciarii  belonged  to 
them,  according  to  the  Roman  law.  Every  cross  was  kept  by 
a  detachment  of  four  soldiers,  a  rerpdSiov  (Acts  xii.  4).  The 
plural  K\i]pov<i,  lots,  is  taken  from  the  parallels.  The  lot  was 
twice  drawn,  first  for  the  division  of  the  four  nearly  equal 
parts  into  which  the  garments  of  Jesus  were  divided  (cloak, 
cap,  girdle,  sandals),  then  for  His  robe  or  tunic,  which  was 
too  valuable  to  be  put  into  one  of  the  four  lots. — The  word 
6e<opelv,  behold  in;/  (ver.  35),  does  not  seem  to  indicate  a 
malevolent  feeling ;  it  rather  forma  a  contrast  with  what  follows. 
The  words  avv  avToZs,  v:ilh  ihrni,  must  be  rejected  from  the 
text.  The  meaning  of  the  term,  the  chosen  of  God,  is,  that  the 
Christ  is  He  on  whose  election  rests  that  of  the  entile  people. 
— The  mockeries  of  the  soldiers  apply  to  Jewish  royalty  in 
itself,  more  than  to  Jesus  personally  (John  xix.  5,  14,  15). 
It  has  often  been  though!  that  the  wine  which  the  soldi 

to  Jesus  was  that  which  had  been  prepared  for  them- 

PSI  (ofos%  a  common  wine) ;  but  the  sponge  and  the  rod  of 
hyssop  which  axe  on  the  spot   leave  no  doubt  that  it  was 
!    to   allay   the   sufferings   of   the   prisoners.      It   \ 

SUM  draught  which  had  heeii  offered  to  them  at 
the  beginning  of  the  crucifixion.  The  soldiers  pretend  to 
treat  Jesus  as  a  long,  to  whom  the  festive  cup  is  presented. 
Thus  thi  vc   lmmage  is  connected   with   the    noniosJ 

ription  (not  hi  regard  to  Jesus,  but  in  regard  to  the 
people)  placed  on  the  etoei  Tver.  38).  It  ie  this  connection 
oi  ideal  which  is  expressed  by  the  ty  St  kui,  there  also  was, 


334  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

By  this  inscription,  so  humbling  to  the  Jews,  Pilate  took 
vengeance  for  the  degrading  constraint  to  which  they  had 
subjected  him  by  forcing  him  to  execute  an  innocent  man. 
The  mention  of  the  three  languages  is  an  interpolation  taken 
from  John. 

3d.  Vers.  39-46.1  Matthew  and  Mark  ascribe  the  same 
jestings  to  the  two  thieves.  The  partisans  of  harmony  at 
any  price  think  that  they  both  began  with  blasphemy,  and' 
that  one  of  them  afterwards  came  to  himself.  In  any  case, 
it  must  be  assumed  that  Matthew  and  Mark  did  not  know 
this  change  of  mind;  otherwise,  why  should  they  not  have 
mentioned  it  ?  But  is  it  not  more  natural  to  hold  that  they 
group  in  categories,  and  that  they  are  ignorant  of  the  particular 
fact  related  by  Luke  ?  How  had  this  thief  been  touched  and 
convinced  ?  Undoubtedly  he  had  been  struck  all  at  once 
with  the  contrast  between  the  holiness  which  shone  in  Jesus 
and  of  his  own  crimes  (vers.  40  and  41).  Then  the  meekness 
with  which  Jesus  let  Himself  be  led  to  punishment,  and 
especially  His  prayer  for  His  executioners,  had  taken  hold  of 
his  conscience  and  heart.  The  title  Father,  which  Jesus  gave 
to  God  at  the  very  moment  when  God  was  treating  Him  in 
so  cruel  a  manner,  had  revealed  in  Him  a  Being  who  was 
living  in  an  intimate  relation  to  Jehovah,  and  led  him  to  feel 
His  divine  greatness.  His  faith  in  the  title  King  of  the 
Jews,  inscribed  on  His  cross,  was  only  the  consequence  of 
such  impressions.  The  words  ov$e  <tv,  not  even  thou  (ver.  40), 
which  he  addresses  to  his  companion,  allude  to  the  difference 
of  moral  situation  which  belongs  to  them  both,  and  the  railers 
with  whom  he  is  joining :  "  Thou  who  art  not  merely,  like  them, 
a  spectator  of  this  punishment,  but  who  art  undergoing  it 
thyself."     It  is  not  for  him,  who  is  on  the  eve  of  appearing 

1  Ver.  39.  B.  L.  ovXi,  K.  C.  Syr°ur.  It*31'.  Xty*»  ouXt,  instead  of  Xtyuv  ./.— 
Ver.  40.  X.  B.  C.  L.  X.,  i-rirtfjcuv  avru  i$y>  instead  of  i-rtn^a  ccvtu  Xtyav. — Ver.  42. 
X.  B.  C.  L.,  ln<rov  (vocative)  instead  of  ru  inrov. — X.  B.  C.  D.  L.  M.  3  Mnn.  omit 
y.vp.i. — B.  L.  Italic|.,  us  ryiv  fixtriXuav  aov  instead  of  £v  m  fixtrtXiux.  aov. — Ver.  44. 
B.  C.  L.  add  rioy  before  uo~u. — Ver.  45.  K.  B.  C.  (?)  L.,  tov  nXiou  sxXivrovros 
instead  of  xai  to-xoTurh  o  n'/.tog,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  17  Mjj.  the  most  of  the 
Mnn.  Syr.  ItPleri<iue.—  K.  B.  C.  L.,  t<rxurfa  h  instead  of  xm  wXuh.— Ver.  46. 
K.  A.  B.  C.  K.  M.  P.  Q.  U.  X.  n.  20  Mnn.  Just.  Or.,  ^par^ut  instead  of 
Tupxfacropui,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  8  Mjj.  several  Mnn. — tt.  B.  C.  D.,  tovto  h 
instead  of  xxt  ravra,  which  T.  R.  reads,  with  12  Mjj.,  or  x*i  reuro,  which  K. 
M.  P.  n.  10  Mnn.  Itali«.  read. 


CHAP.  XX11I.  39-16.  ,  335 

before  the  divine  tribunal,  to  act  as  the  profane.  "Oti,  because, 
refers  to  the  idea  contained  in  <t>o/3j} :  "  Thou  at  least  oughtest 
to  fear  .  .  . ;  for  .  .  ." 

The    prayer   which    he    addresses    to    Jesus   (ver.    42)    is 

nested  to  him  by  that  faith  in  an  unlimited  mercy  which 
had  been  awaked  in  him  by  hearing  the  prayer  of  Jesus  for 
His  executioners.  It  seems  to  me  probable  that  the  omission 
of  the  word  Kvpte,  Lord,  in  the  Alex.,  arises  from  the  mistake 
of  the  copyist,  who  was  giving  the  prayer  of  the  thief  from 
memory,  and  that  the  transformation  of  the  dative  to>  'Iyo-ov 
into  the  apostrophe  ('Iwaov)  was  the  effect  of  this  omission. 
The  touching  cry,  Remember  me  !  finds  its  explanation  in  that 
community  of  suffering  which  seems  to  him  henceforth  to 
establish  an  indissoluble  bond  between  Jesus  and  him.  Jesus 
cannot  forget  him  who  shared  His  punishment.  The  ex- 
pression, coming  in  His  "kingdom,  iv  rfj  fiaaikeia  (not  for  His 
kingdom,  ek  ryjv  paaikeiav),  denotes  His  Messianic  return 
with  divine  splendour  and  royal  majesty  some  time  after  1 1 
death.  He  does  not  think  of  the  possibility  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  being  raised. — In  our  Lord's  answer,  the  word  to-day 
stands  foremost,  because  Jesus  wishes  to  contrast  the  nearness 
of  the  promised  happiness  with  the  remote  future  to  which 
the  prayer  of  the  thief  refers.  To-day y  before  the  setting  of 
the  sun  which  is  shining  on  us.     The  word_?>  -eems  to 

come  from  a  word  signifying  park.     It  is  used  in  the 

form  of  dtiq  (Eccles.  ii.  5  ;  Song  of  Solomon  iv.  13),  to  denote 
a  royal  garden.  In  the  form  irapaBeiaos,  it  corresponds  in 
the  LXX.  to  the  word  p,  garden  (Gen.  ii.  8,  iii.  1).  Th< 
earthly  Eden  once  lost,  this  word  paradise  is  applied  t<> 

I  of  Hades  where  the  faithful  are  assembled;  and  even  in 
the  last  writings  of  the  N.  T.,  the  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse, 
to  a  yet  higher  abode,  that  of  the  Lord  and  glorified  believ* 

third  heaven,  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  Rev.  ii.  7.      It  is  paradise  as 
part  of  Hades  which  is  spoken  of  here. 

The  extraordinary  signs  which  accompanied  the  death  of 
Jesus  (vers.  44,  45) — the  darkness,  the  rending  of  the  veil  ol 
the  temple,  and  ac<  to  Matthew,  the  earthquake  and 

the  opening  of  several  graves,  are  explained  by  the  profound 
connection  existing,  on  the  one  side  between  Christ  and 
humanity,  on  the  other  between  humanity  and  nature.     Christ 


336  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

is  the  soul  of  humanity,  as  humanity  is  the  soul  of  the  external 
world.  We  need  not  take  the  words,  over  all  the  earth,  in  an 
absolute  sense.  Comp.  xxi.  23,  where  the  expression  iirl  7% 
7^5,  a  weaker  one  it  is  true,  evidently  refers  to  the  Holy 
Land  only.  The  phenomenon  in  question  here  may  and 
must  have  extended  to  the  surrounding  countries.  The  cause 
of  this  loss  of  light  cannot  have  been  an  eclipse  ;  for  this 
phenomenon  is  impossible  at  the  time  of  full  moon.  It  was 
perhaps  connected  with  the  earthquake  with  which  it  was 
accompanied ;  or  it  may  have  resulted  from  an  atmospheric 
or  cosmical  cause.1  This  diminution  of  the  external  light 
corresponded  to  the  moral  darkness  which  was  felt  by  the 
heart  of  Jesus  :  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ? 
This  moment,  to  which  St.  Paul  alludes  (Gal.  iii.  13:  "He 
was  made  a  curse  J  or  us"),  was  that  at  which  the  Paschal 
lamb  was  slain  in  the  temple. — It  is  difficult  to  decide  be- 
tween the  two  readings,  ver.  45  :  "  And  the  sun  was  darkened  :' 
(T.  K.) ;  "  And  the  sun  failing."  In  any  case,  it  is  the  cause 
of  the  phenomenon  related  ver.  44,  mentioned  too  late.  Luke 
omits  the  earthquake ;  he  had  other  sources. 

The  rending  of  the  veil,  mentioned  by  the  three  Syn., 
should  probably  be  connected  with  this  physical  commotion. 
Is  the  veil  referred  to  that  which  was  at  the  entrance  of  the 
Holy  Place,  or  that  which  concealed  the  Holy  of  Holies  ? 
As  the  second  only  had  a  typical  sense,  and  alone  bore, 
strictly  speaking,  the  name  Kajairiraajxa  (Philo  calls  the 
other  tcdkv/jLfjLa'2),  it  is  more  natural  to  think  of  the  latter. 

1  Neander  cites  the  fact  (Leben  Jesu,  p.  640)  that  Phlegon,  author  of  a 
chronicle  under  the  Emperor  Adrian,  speaks  of  an  eclipse  (?)  of  the  sun  as 
having  taken  place  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  202d  Olympiad  (785  A.TT.C.), 
greater  than  all  former  eclipses,  and  that  night  came  on  at  the  sixth  hour  of 
the  day,  to  such  a  degree  that  the  stars  were  seen  shining  in  the  heavens.  This 
date  approximates  to  the  probable  year  of  the  death  of  Jesus  (783). — M.  Liais,  a 
well-known  naturalist,  relates  that  on  the  11th  April  1860,  in  the  province  of 
Pernambuco,  while  the  sky  was  perfectly  clear,  the  sun  became  suddenly  dark 
about  mid-day  to  such  a  degree,  that  for  some  seconds  it  was  possible  to  look  at 
it.  The  solar  disc  appeared  surrounded  with  a  ring  having  the  colours  of  the 
rainbow,  and  quite  near  it  there  was  seen  a  bright  star,  which  must  have  been 
Venus.  The  phenomenon  lasted  for  some  minutes.  M.  Liais  attributes  it  to 
cosmical  nebulae  floating  in  space  beyond  our  atmosphere.  A  similar  pheno- 
menon must  have  occurred  in  the  years  1106,  1208,  1547,  and  1706  (Revut 
germanique,  1860). 

3  Neander,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  640. 


cn.vr.  xxiii.  39-46.  337 

The  idea  usually  found  in  this  symbolic  event  is  this :  The 
way  to  the  throne  of  grace  is  henceforth  open  to  all.  But 
did  not  God  rather  mean  to  show  thereby,  that  from  that 
time  the  temple  was  no  longer  His  dwelling-place  ?  As  the 
high  priest  rent  his  garment  in  view  of  any  great  offence,  so 
God  rends  the  veil  which  covers  the  place  where  He  enters 
into  communion  with  His  people ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Holy  of 
Holies  is  no  more ;  and  if  there  is  no  Holy  of  Holies,  then  no 
Holy  Place,  and  consequently  no  court,  no  altar,  no  valid 
sacrifices.  The  temple  is  profaned,  and  consequently  abolished 
by  God  Himself.  The  efficacy  of  sacrifice  has  henceforth 
Bed  to  another  blood,  another  altar,  another  priesthood. 
This  is  what  Jesus  had  announced  to  the  Jews  in  this  form  : 
Put  me  to  death,  and  by  the  very  deed  ye  shall  destroy  the 
temple ! — Jewish  and  Christian  tradition  has  preserved  the 
memory  of  analogous  events  which  must  have  happened  at 
this  period.  In  the  Judeo-Christian  Gospel  quoted  by  Jerome 
(in  Matt,  xxvii.  51),  it  was  related  that  at  the  time  of  the 
earthquake  a  large  beam  lying  above  the  gate  of.  the  temple 
snapped  asunder.  The  Talmud  says  that  forty  years  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  the  gates  of  the  temple  opened 
of  their  own  accord.  Johanan  Ben  Zacchai  (pnv  is  pn,  Anna, 
with  the  name  of  Jehovah  prefixed)  rebuked  them,  and  said  : 
Temple,  wherefore  dost  thou  open  of  thyself  ?  I  see  thereby 
that  the  end  is  near;  for  it  is  written  (Zech.  xi.  1),  "Open 
thy  doors,  0  Lebanon,  that  the  fire  may  devour  thy  cedars."1 
— At  the  time  of  the  eclipse  mentioned  above,  a  great  earth- 
quake destroyed  part  of  the  city  of  Nice,  in  Bithynia.2  This 
catastrophe  may  have  been  felt  even  in  Palestine. — Those 
phenomena,  which  are  placed  by  Luke  before  the  time  of  our 
Lord's  death,  are  placed  by  Matthew  and  Marie  immediately 
after.     Another  proof  of  the  difference  of  their  sources. 

II   to  should  come  the  two  sayings  mentioned  by  John:  I 

<t,  and  :  It  is  finished.     Perhaps  the  words  :   JVTien  He  had 
cried  with  a  loud  voice  (ver.  46),  include  the  saying,  It  is 

led,  which  immediately  preceded  tin-  last  breath,     But 

le  <f>win)<ra<;  lias   probably  no  other  meaning  than 

the  verb  el-rr  If  is  voice,  He  said."      The  words  : 

lVTien  He  had  cried  with  a  lo<  in  Matthew  and  Mark, 

1  Bab.  Toma,  39.  2.  s  Lcbcn  Jesu,  p.  640. 

VOL.   II.  V 


338  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

refer  rather  to  the  last  saying  uttered  by  Jesus  according  to 
Luke :  Father,  into  thy  hands  .  .  .  The  latter  expresses  what 
John  has  described  in  the  form  of  an  act :  He  gave  up  His 
spirit. — The  last  saying  is  a  quotation  from  Ps.  xxxi.  The 
fat.  irapaOrjaofiai,  I  shall  commit,  in  the  received  reading,  is 
probably  borrowed  from  the  LXX.  The  fut.  was  natural  in 
David's  mouth,  for  death  was  yet  at  a  distance ;  he  described 
the  way  in  which  he  hoped  one  day  to  draw  his  last  breath. 
But  the  present  is  alone  in  keeping  with  the  actual  circum- 
stances of  Jesus.  At  the  moment  when  He  is  about  to  lose 
self-consciousness,  and  when  the  possession  of  His  spirit  escapes 
from  Him,  He  confides  it  as  a  deposit  to  his  Father.  The 
word  Father  shows  that  His  soul  has  recovered  full  serenity. 
Not  long  ago  He  was  struggling  with  the  divine  sovereignty 
and  holiness  (my  God,  my  God  /).  Now  the  darkness  is  gone  ; 
He  has  recovered  His  light,  His  Father's  face.  It  is  the  first 
effect  of  the  completion  of  redemption,  the  glorious  prelude  of 
the  resurrection. 

Keim  does  not  accept  as  historical  any  of  the  seven  sayings  which 
Jesus  is  said  to  have  uttered  on  the  cross.  The  prayer  for  his  exe- 
cutioners has  no  meaning  either  in  regard  to  the  Gentile  soldiers, 
who  were  merely  blind  instruments,  or  in  respect  of  the  Jews,  to 
whom  He  had  just  announced  divine  judgment.  Besides,  silence 
suits  Jesus  better  than  a  forced  and  superhuman  heroism.  The 
story  of  the  thief  is  exploded  by  the  fact,  that  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  have  known  the  innocence  and  the  future  return  of  Jesus, 
and  that  Jesus  should  have  promised  him  paradise,  which  is  in  the 
hand  of  the  Father.  The  saying  addressed  to  John  and  Mary  is  not 
historical ;  for  those  two  were  not  at  the  foot  of  the  cross  (Syn.), 
and  John  never  had  a  house  to  which  to  take  Mary.  The  prayer  : 
My  God,  my  God,  is  only  an  importation  of  Ps.  xxii.  into  the  account 
of  the  Passion  ;  Jesus  was  too  original  to  borrow  the  expression  of 
His  feelings  from  the  0.  T.  The  same  reason  disproves  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  last  saying  :  Father,  into  Thy  hands,  borrowed  from  Ps. 
xxxi.  The  It  is  finished  of  John  is  only  the  summary  expression 
of  the  dogmatics  already  put  by  the  author  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
in  His  last  discourses.  The  historic  truth  is  thus  reduced  to  two 
cries  of  Jesus  :  one  of  pain,  which  John  has  translated,  not  without 
reason,  into  I  thirst;  and  a  last  cry,  that  of  death.  This  silence  of 
Jesus  forms,  according  to  Keim,  the  real  greatness  of  His  death. — 
The  prayer  of  Jesus  and  His  threatening  are  not  more  contradictory 
than  divine  justice  and  human  intercession.  There  is  room  in  history 
for  the  effects  of  both. — The  prophetic  form  in  which  Jesus  clothes 
the  expression  of  His  thoughts  takes  nothing  from  their  originality. 


CHAr.  XXIII.  47-49.  S3 9 

They  spring  from  the  depths  of  His  being,  and  meet  with  expres- 
sions which  are  familiar  to  Him,  and  which  He  employs  instinctively. 
— John  here,  as  throughout  his  Gospel,  completes  the  synoptics. — 
We  think  we  have  shown  how  the  prayer  of  the  thief  is  psycholo- 
gically possible.  It  is  doing  too  much  honour  to  the  primitive 
Church  to  ascribe  to  her  the  invention  of  such  sayings.  If  she  had 
invented,  she  would  not  have  done  so  in  a  style  so  chaste,  so  concise, 
so  holy  ;  once  more  compare  the  apocryphal  accounts. 


THIRD  CYCLE. CHAP.  XXIII.  47-56. 

Close  of  the  Account  of  tlie  Passion. 

Vers.  47— 49.1  These  verses  describe  the  immediate  effects 
of  our  Lord's  death,  first  on  the  Eoman  centurion  (ver.  47), 
then  on  the  people  (ver.  48),  lastly  on  the  followers  of  Jesus 
(ver.  49). — Mark  says  of  the  centurion :  Wlien  7ie  saw.  These 
words  relate  to  the  last  cry  of  Jesus  and  to  the  event  of  His 
death.  In  Matthew  and  Luke  this  same  expression  refers  to 
all  the  events  which  had  just  passed. — Luke  gives  the  saying 
of  this  Gentile  in  the  simplest  form :  This  was  a  righteous  man  ; 
that  is  to  say :  He  was  no  malefactor,  as  was  supposed.  But 
this  homage  implied  something  more  ;  for  Jesus  having  given 
Himself  out  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  if  He  was  a  righteous  man, 
must  be  more  than  that.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  cen- 
turion's exclamation  in  the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Mark. 
Twice  on  the  cross  Jesus  had  called  God  His  FatJier ;  the 
centurion  could  therefore  well  express  himself  thus :  He  was 
really,  as  He  alleged,  the  Son  of  God ! — As  the  centurion's 

lamation  is  an  anticipation  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile 
world,  so  the  consternation  which  takes  possession  of  the  Jews 
on  witnessing  the  scene  (ver.  48)  anticipates  the  final  peni- 
tence and  conversion  of  this  people  (comp.  Zech.  xii.  10-14). 
The  word  Oetopia,  that  sight,  alludes  to  the  feeling  of  curiosity 
which  had  attracted  the  multitude. 

Among  the  acquaintance  of  Jesus  spoken  of  ver.  49  there 
must  have  been  some  of  His  apostles.     This  is  the  necessary 

iMMfe  instead  of  i)«g«r».-- Ver.  48.  7  Mjj.  Syr., 
Ji»fnr«mr  instead  of  htpvrrtt.— K.  A.  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn.  omit  i«vt*».- 
49.  A    BL  U  I.  I  Mnn.,  «»*•  instead  of  •»«■•»  after  y»«rc«.— K.  B.  D.  L.  K 
add  ««••  before  f***f •/•». 


340  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

inference  from  the  word  iravTes,  all.  Ma/epoOev,  afar  off, 
discovers  the  fear  which  prevailed  among  them.  John  and 
Mary  had  come  nearer  the  cross  (John  xix.  26,  27). — Luke 
does  not  name  till  later  any  of  the  women  present.  Matthew 
and  Mark  here  designate  Mary  Magdalene,  of  whom  John  also 
speaks ;  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  probably  the 
same  whom  John  calls  Mary  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  and  aunt  of 
Jesus  ;  with  the  mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  whom  Mark 
calls  Salome,  and  whom  John  leaves  unmentioned,  as  he  does 
when  members  of  his  own  family  are  in  question. — The  Syn. 
do  not  speak  of  the  mother  of  Jesus.  We  ought  probably  to 
take  in  its  literal  sense  the  words  :  "  From  that  hour  that 
disciple  took  her  unto  his  own  home  "  (John  xix.  2  7).  The 
heart  of  Mary  was  broken  on  hearing  the  deeply  tender  words 
which  Jesus  had  spoken  to  her,  and  she  withdrew  that  same 
hour,  so  that  she  was  not  present  at  the  end  of  the  crucifixion, 
when  the  friends  of  Jesus  and  the  other  women  came  near. — 
ElaTTjKeiaav,  they  stood,  is  opposed  to  virea-rpeipov,  they  returned 
(ver.  48).  While  the  people  were  leaving  the  cross,  His 
friends  assembled  in  sight  of  Jesus.  The  words :  beholding 
these  things,  refer  not  only  to  the  circumstances  attending  the 
death  of  Jesus,  but  also,  and  above  all,  to  the  departure  of  the 
terrified  multitude.  This  minute  particular,  taken  from  the 
immediate  impression  of  the  witnesses,  betrays  a  source  in 
close  connection  with  the  fact. 

Vers.  50-54.1  The  Burial  of  Jesus. — According  to  John,  the 
Jewish  authorities  requested  Pilate  to  have  the  bodies  removed 
before  the  beginning  of  the  next  day,  which  was  a  Sabbath  of 
extraordinary  solemnity.  For  though  Jesus  and  His  com- 
panions in  punishment  were  not  yet  dead,  and  though  the  law 
Deut.  xxi.  22  did  not  here  apply  literally,  they  might  have 
died  before  the  end  of  the  day  which  was  about  to  begin,  and 

1  Ver.  51.  &?.  B.  C.  D.  L.  Ita,i<'.,  a  Tpoaibtxt™  instead  of  «  xui  vpatribixtn 
(r.  some  Mnn.  Syr.)  ;  instead  of  05  xai  avros  -xpoo-itixirt  (6  Mjj.  15  Mnn.)  ; 
instead  of  o%  xai  <jrpo<r&<x,iro  xut  *ures  (T.  R. ,  with  9  Mjj. ) ;  instead  of  eg  vpo<rs- 
hx,i7o  xai  avros  (several  Mnn.  It*1'*.  Vg.). — Ver.  53.  K.  B.  C.  D.  L.  some  Mnn. 
It*H  Vg.  omit  avro  after  xcchkuv.—  K.  B.  C.  D.  ItPleri<Jue,  Vg.,  avrov  instead  of 
otvro. — X.  B.  D.  L.  3  Mnn.,  ovxu  instead  of  evti-ru. — Ver.  54.  K.  B.  C.  L.  2 
Mnn.  ItP,eri<iue}  Yg.y  iratcta xiuns  instead  of  <rupx<rxiu>). — 16  Mjj.  the  most  of  the 
Mnn.  omit  xou  before  rx/Zpurov,  which  is  read  by  K.  B.  C.  L.  some  Mnn.  Syr. 

ItPlerique^  y~ 


CHAr.  XXIII.  50-54.  341 

the  day  be  polluted  thereby  all  the  more,  because,  it  being  a 
Sabbath,  the  bodies  could  not  be  removed. — The  crucifragium, 
ordered  by  Pilate,  was  not  meant  to  put  the  condemned 
immediately  to  death,  but  only  to  make  it  certain,  which 
allowed  of  their  being  taken  from  the  cross.  Thus  is  explained 
the  wonder  of  Pilate,  when  Joseph  of  Arimathea  informed  him 
that  Jesus  was  already  dead  (Mark  xv.  44). — The  secret 
friends  of  our  Lord  show  themselves  at  the  time  of  His  deepest 
dishonour.  Already  the  word  finds  fulfilment  (2  Cor.  v.  14)  : 
"  The  love  of  Christ  constraincth  us"  Each  evangelist  charac- 
terizes Joseph  in  his  own  way.  Luke  :  a  counsellor  good  and 
just ;  he  is  the  tcaXos  tcdyaOos,  the  Greek  ideal.  Mark  :  an 
honourable  counsellor ;  the  Roman  ideal.  Matthew :  a  rich 
man ;  is  this  not  the  Jewish  ideal  ?  Luke,  moreover,  brings 
out  the  fact,  that  Joseph  had  not  agreed  to  the  sentence  (fiovky), 
nor  to  the  odious  plan  {irpa^eC)  by  which  Pilate's  consent  had 
been  extorted.  'AptfiaOaia  is  the  Greek  form  of  the  name 
of  the  town  Ramathaim  (1  Sam.  i.  1),  Samuel's  birthplace, 
situated  in  Mount  Ephraim,  and  consequently  beyond  the 
natural  limits  of  Juda?a.  But  since  the  time  spoken  of  in 
1  Mace.  xi.  34,  it  had  been  reckoned  to  this  province  ;  hence 
the  expression :  a  city  of  tlie  Jacs.  As  to  Joseph,  he  lived 
at  Jerusalem  ;  for  he  had  a  sepulchre  there. — The  received 
reading  o?  teal  TrpoaeEe^ro  koX  ai/ro?,  who  also  himself  wait <  rf , 
is  probably  the  true  one  ;  it  has  been  variously  modified, 
because  the  relation  of  the  also  himself  to  the  other  friends 
of  Jesus  who  were  previously  mentioned  (ver.  49)  was  not 
understood  ;  by  the  double  icai,  Luke  gives  prominence  to 
the  bettering  character  of  Joseph,  even  when  no  one  sus- 
pected it. 

Mark  (xv.   46)   informs  us  that  the  shroud   in   which  the 
bod;.  vas  bought  at  the  same  time  by  Joseph. 

How  could  purchase  lie  made  if  Ihi  day  was  Sabbat io, 

it  it  was  the  L5<  an  answers  that  Ex.  xii.  16 

made  a  difference,  so  far  as  the  preparation  of  food  was  con- 
cerned, between  the    1  T.th    Xisan  and   the   Sabbath  prop 
80  called,  and    I  noe   Blight   have   extruded   to 

other  matters,  to  pun  -liases  for  example  ;  that,  besides,  it  I 
not  necessary  to  pay  on  the  same  <l:iv.       But  the  Talmud 
reverses  this  supposition.      It   \  xpn     ly  stipulates,  that  when 


342  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  14th  Nisan  fell  on  the  Sabbath  day,  it  was  lawful  on  that 
day  to  make  preparation  for  the  morrow,  the  15th  (Mischna 
Pesachim,  iii.  6  et  al),  thus  sacrificing  the  sacredness  of  the 
Sabbath  to  that  of  the  feast  day.  Could  the  latter  have  been 
less  holy  !  There  is  no  ground  for  alleging  that  the  autho- 
rization of  Ex.  xii.  extended  beyond  the  strict  limits  of  the 
text. 

According  to  the  Syn.,  the  circumstance  which  determined 
the  use  of  this  sepulchre  was,  that  it  belonged  to  Joseph. 
According  to  John,  it  was  its  nearness  to  the  place  of  punish- 
ment, taken  in  connection  with  the  approach  of  the  Sabbath. 
But  those  two  circumstances  are  so  far  from  being  in  contra- 
diction, that  the  one  apart  from  the  other  would  have  no 
value.  What  influence  could  the  approach  of  the  Sabbath 
have  had  in  the  choice  of  this  rocky  sepulchre,  if  it  had  not 
belonged  to  one  of  the  friends  of  Jesus  ?  The  Syn.  do  not 
speak  of  the  part  taken  by  Mcodemus  in  the  burial  of  Jesus. 
This  particular,  omitted  by  tradition,  has  been  restored  by 
John.  It  is  of  no  consequence  whether  we  read  in  ver.  54, 
irapaa-Kevrj^  or  irapaaKevrj.  The  important  point  is,  whether 
this  name,  which  means  preparation,  denotes  here  the  eve  of 
the  weekly  Sabbath  (Friday),  or  that  of  the  Passover  day  (the 
14th  Nisan).  Those  who  allege  that  Jesus  was  crucified  on 
the  15th  take  it  in  the  first  sense  ;  those  who  hold  it  to  have 
been  on  the  14th,  in  the  second.  The  text  in  itself  admits 
of  both  views.  But  in  the  context,  how  can  it  be  held,  we 
would  ask  with  Caspari  (p.  172),  that  the  holiest  day  of  the 
feast  of  the  year,  the  15  th  Nisan,  was  here  designated,  like 
any  ordinary  Friday,  the  preparation  for  the  Sabbath? — No 
doubt  Mark,  in  the  parall,  translates  this  word  by  irpoaafi- 
fiarov,  day  before  Sabbath  (xv.  42).  But  this  expression  may 
mean  in  a  general  way :  the  eve  of  Sabbath  or  of  any  Sabbatic 
day  whatever.  And  in  the  present  case  it  must  have  this 
latter  sense,  as  appears  from  the  eirel,  because.  Mark  means 
to  explain,  by  the  Sabbatic  character  of  the  following  day, 
why  they  made  haste  to  bury  the  body ;  it  was  the  pro-Sabbath. 
What  meaning  would  this  reason  have  had,  if  the  very  day  on 
which  they  were  acting  had  been  a  Sabbatic  day  ? — Matt, 
xxvii.  62  offers  an  analogous  expression.  In  speaking  of 
Saturday,  the  morrow  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  Matthew  says : 


CHAP.  XXIII.  55,  66.  343 

"  the  next  day,  that  followed  the  'preparation"  We  have 
already  called  attention  to  this  expression  (Comment,  sur  Jean, 
t  ii.  p.  638).  "If  this  Saturday,"  says  Caspari  (p.  77),  "had 
been  an  ordinary  Sabbath,  Matthew  would  not  have  designated 
it  in  so  strange  a  manner.  The  preparation  in  question  must 
have  had  a  character  quite  different  from  the  preparation  for 
the  ordinary  Sabbath.  This  preparation  day  must  have  been 
so  called  as  a  day  of  special  preparation,  as  itself  a  feast  day ; 
it  must  have  been  the  14th  Nisan." — The  term  eVe^axr/ee, 
was  beginning  to  shine,  is  figurative.  It  is  taken  from  the 
natural  day,  and  applied  here  to  the  civil  day. 

Vers.  55,  56.1  The  embalming  of  Jesus  having  been  done 
in  haste,  the  women  proposed  to  complete  it.  This  same  even- 
ing, therefore,  they  prepared  the  odoriferous  herbs  (apco/xara) 
and  the  perfumed  oils  (fivpa)  necessary  for  the  purpose ;  and 
the  hour  of  the  Sabbath  being  come,  they  rested. — Once  more, 
what  would  be  the  meaning  of  this  conduct  if  that  very 
day  had  been  Sabbatic,  the  loth  Nisan?  Evidently  it  was 
yet  the  14th;  and  the  15th,  which  was  about  to  begin,  was 
at  once  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  the  first  Passover  day,  and 
so  invested  with  double  sacredness,  as  John  remarks  (xix.  31). 
— Mark  says,  somewhat  differently  (xvi.  1),  that  they  made 
their  preparations  wlien  the  Salhath  was  past,  that  is  to  say,  on 
the  morrow  in  the  evening.  No  doubt  they  had  not  been 
able  to  finish  them  completely  on  the  Friday  before  6  o'clock 
afternoon. — The  icai  of  the  T.  R.  before  ywaltce*;,  ver.  55,  is 
evidently  a  corruption  of  ai — It  lias  been  asked  how,  if  Jesus 
predicted  His  resurrection,  the  women  could  have  prepared  to 
embalm  His  body.  But  we  have  seen  the  answer  in  the  case 
of  the  converted  thief :  they  expected  a  glorious  reappearance 
us  from  heaven  after  His  death,  but  not  the  reviving  of 
n  ody  laid  in  the  tomb. — A  feeling  of  pious  and  humble 
fidelity  is  expressed  in  the  conduct  of  the  women,  as  it  is 
described  by  Luke  in  the  touching  words:  "And  tha/ rested 
according  to  the  comma n d flfc  ut."  It  was  the  last  Sabbath  of 
the  old  covenant.     It  was  scrupulously  respected. 

r.  55.  Instead  of  h  ««<  ymmm*t  "lii<  h  T.  R.  reads,  with  some  Hun.,  the 
Mjj.  read  either  h  ymyaej  or  it  m  fmmmtk 


41  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 


Conclusion  regarding  the  Day  of  Jesus'  Death, 

It  follows  from  the  exegesis  of  chap.  xxii.  and  xxiii.,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  Syn.,  as  well  as  according  to  John,  the  day  of  Jesus'  death 
was  not  the  first  and  great  day  of  the  paschal  Feast  (15th  Nisan), 
but  the  day  before  (or  preparation),  the  14th  Nisan,  which  that  year 
was  a  Friday,  and  so,  at  the  same  time,  the  preparation  for  the  Sab- 
bath. Hence  it  follows  also  that  the  last  Feast  of  Jesus  took  place 
on  the  evening  between  the  13th  and  14th,  and  not  on  the  evening 
between  the  14th  and  15  th,  when  the  whole  people  celebrated  the 
paschal  Feast.  Such  is  the  result  to  which  we  are  brought  by  all 
the  passages  examined  :  xxii.  7-9,  10-15,  66,  xxiii.  26,  53,  54,  55,  56  ; 
Matt.  xxvi.  5,  18,  xxvii.  62 ;  Mark  xiv.  2,  xv.  42,  46  ;  so  that,  on 
the  main  question,  it  appears  to  us  that  exegetically  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  seeing  that  our  four  Gospel  accounts  present  no  real  disagree- 
ment. The  fact,  therefore,  stands  as  follows  :  On  the  1 3th,  toward 
evening,  Jesus  sent  the  two  disciples  most  worthy  of  His  confidence 
to  prepare  the  paschal  Feast ;  in  the  opinion  of  all  the  rest,  this  was 
with  a  view  to  the  following  evening,  when  the  national  Feast  was 
to  be  celebrated.  But  Jesus  knew  that  by  that  time  the  hour  would 
be  past  for  His  celebrating  this  last  Passover.  This  same  evening, 
therefore,  some  hours  after  having  sent  the  two  disciples,  He  seated 
Himself  at  the  table  prepared  by  them  and  by  the  master  of  the 
house.  There  was  in  this  a  surprise  for  the  apostles,  which  is  pro- 
bably referred  to  by  Luke  xxii.  15  :  "  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat 
thispassover  with  you  before  I  suffer."  Above  all,  it  was  a  surprise  to 
Judas,  who  had  resolved  to  give  Him  up  this  same  evening.  This 
anticipation  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  and  of  the 
whole  law  (vi.  5),  involved  nothing  less  than  the  abrogation  of  the 
paschal  Feast  and  of  the  ancient  covenant. 

This  exegetical  result  agrees  fully  with  Jewish  tradition.  In 
Bab.  Sanhedr.  43.  1,  it  is  expressly  said  (Caspari,  p.  156)  :  "Jesus 
was  executed  on  the  eve  of  the  Passover.  A  public  crier  had  pro- 
claimed for  70  days  that  a  man  was  to  be  stoned  for  having  be- 
witched Israel  and  seduced  it  into  schism ;  that  he  who  had  anything 
to  say  for  his  justification  should  present  himself  and  testify  for 
him ;  but  no  one  appeared  to  justify  him.  Then  they  crucified  him 
on  the  evening  [the  eve]  of  the  Passover  (nDS  2"iy3)."  This  last 
expression  can  denote  nothing  but  the  evening  preceding  the  Pass- 
over, as  fOBM  my,  evening  of  the  Sabbath,  never  denotes  anything  but 
Friday  evening. — This  view  seems  also  to  be  that  which  prevailed 
in  the  Church  in  the  most  ancient  times,  as  we  see  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  lived  when  primitive  tradition  was  not  yet  effaced, 
and  who  professes  without  hesitation  the  same  opinion. — It  is, 
moreover,  in  keeping  with  the  admirable  symbolism  which  is  the 
character  of  all  God's  works.  Jesus  dies  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
14th,  at  the  very  moment  when  the  paschal  lamb  was  slain  in  the 
temple.  He  rests  in  the  tomb  on  the  15th  Nisan,  a  day  doubly 
Sabbatic  that  year,  as  being  Saturday  and  the  first  day  of  the  Feast. 
This  day  of  rest,  so  exceptionally  solemn,  divides  the  first  creation, 


ON  THE  DAY  OF  JESUS*  DEATH.  345 

which  is  terminating,  from  the  second,  which  is  beginning.  Jesus 
rises  on  the  morrow,  16th  Nisan,  the  very  day  on  which  there  was 
Offered  in  the  temple  the  first  sheaf  cut  in  the  year,  the  first  fruits 
of  the  harvest. — Is  it  not  to  this  symbolism  that  St.  Paul  himself 
alludes  in  the  two  passages  :  M  Christ,  our  Passover,  is  sacrificed  for 
us  "  (1  Cor.  v.  7) ;  and :  "Every  one  in  his  own  order;  Christ,  the 
first  fruits;  afterwards  they  that  are  His,  at  His  coming"  (1  Cor. 
xv.  23)  ?  It  is  probable,  also,  that  if  St.  Paul  had  regarded  the 
iii^lit-  on  which  Jesus  instituted  the  Holy  Supper  as  the  same  on 
which  Israel  celebrated  the  Passover,  he  would  not  have  designated 
it  simply  (1  Cor.  xi.  23)  as  that  on  which  our  Lord  was  betrayed. 

The  only  further  question  which  may  yet  appear  doubtful,  is 
whether  the  compilers  of  our  three  synoptic  narratives  had  a  clear 
view  of  the  real  course  of  events.  They  have  faithfully  preserved 
to  us  the  facts  and  sayings  which  help  us  to  make  it  out ;  but  is 
there  not  some  confusion  in  their  minds  ?  Was  not  this  last  feast 
of  Christ,  which  had  all  the  features  of  an  ordinary  paschal  Feast, 
a.nd  in  which  He  had  instituted  the  Supper  as  the  counterpart  of 
the  Israelitish  rite,  confounded  in  the  traditional  accounts  with  the 
national  paschal  Feast  ?  And  has  not  this  confusion  exercised  a 
Cfrtain  influence  on  the  account  of  the  Syn.  ?  This,  at  least,  is  the 
difference  which  exists  between  them  and  John  :  they  relate  simply, 
without  concerning  themselves  about  the  difference  between  this 
Bnppei  and  the  Israelitish  paschal  Feast ;  while  John,  who  sees 
this  confusion  gaining  ground,  expressly  emphasizes  the  distinction 
between  the  two.1 

to  the  bearing  of  this  question  on  the  paschal  controversy  of 
the  second  century,  and  on  too  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  of  John, 
it  may  be  explained  in  two  ways ;  Either  the  event  celebrated  by 
the  Asia"  as  is  natural,  the  death  of  Christ  (Steitz),  and  not 

the  fact  of  tlve  institution  of  the  Supper  (Baur),  and  hence  it  would 
follow,  in  entire  harmony  with  the  fourth  Gospel,  that  they  regarded 
the  1 4th.  and  not  the  15th,  as  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  (this  is  the 
explanation  which  we  have  advocated  in  the  Comment,  sur  Jean)  ; 
or  it  may  be  maintained,  as  is  done  by  M.  EL  Schiiivr  (whose  disser- 
<»n  on  this  question1  leaves  little  to  be  desired),  that  the  Asiatic 

pat  determined  neither  by  the  day  on  which  the  Holy  Sapper 

was  instituted,  nor  even  by  that  on  which  Christ  died,  but  solely  by 
the  desire  of  keeping  up  in  tie-  churches  of  Asia,  for  the  Holy  Kaster 
Sapper,  the  day  <>n  which  (he  Low  ordained  tlie  pasckil  Feast  to  be 
ctlrhrntrd.  In  this  case,  the  AtJatM  rite  neither  contradicted  nor 
confirm.  «1  John's  narrative  j  it  had  no  connection  with  it. 

From  thil  d« ■termination  of  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  Jesus 

died,  it  remains  for  us  to  draw  a  conclusion  regarding  the  year  of 

t  event     The  result  obtained  is,  that  in  that  year  the   1 9th 

1  We  have  the  sati*fa<  ti<>n  <»f  finding  ourselves  at  one  in  this  view  with 
rnmel,  in  the  LUtercUurU  mstadt,  February  1868,  with  at  0, 

Baggeaen  (Der  Apottel  Johannes,  $ein  Leben  und  seine  Schriftm,  1869),  and  uu 
substance)  with  Caspar! 

1  Dt  controvcrsiis  pascJtalibus  sec.  fM  scculo  exortU,  Leipzig  1869. 


34$  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Nisan,  the  preparation  for  the  Passover  and  the  day  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, fell  on  a  Friday,  and  the  day  of  the  Passover,  14th  Nisan,  on 
a  Saturday.  Now,  it  follows  from  the  calculations  of  Wurm 
(Bengel's  Archiv.  1816,  ii.),  and  of  Oudemann,  Professor  of  Astro- 
nomy at  Utrecht  (Revue  de  thdol.  1863,  p.  221),  whose  results  differ 
only  by  a  few  minutes,  that  in  the  years  from  28  to  36  of  our  era, 
in  one  of  which  the  death  of  Jesus  must  have  fallen,  the  day  of  the 
Passover,  15th  Nisan,  was  a  Saturday  only  in  30  and  34  (783  and 
787  A.U.C.).1  If,  then,  Jesus  was  born  (vol.  i.  p.  126)  at  the  end 
of  749  or  the  beginning  of  750  A.U.C.,  3-4  years  before  our  era; 
if  He  was  baptized  in  the  course  of  His  30th  year  (Luke  iii.  23) ;  if 
His  ministry  lasted  about  2^  years  (John) ;  if,  finally,  His  death 
took  place,  as  all  the  evangelists  attest,  at  the  feast  of  Passover : 
this  Passover  must  have  been  that  of  the  year  30  of  our  era  (783 
A.U.C.).  The  result  of  astronomical  calculation  thus  confirms  the 
gospel  statements,  especially  those  of  John.  And  we  can  fix  the 
date  of  Christ's  death  on  Friday  the  14th  Nisan  (7th  April)  of  the 
year  30.2 

1  Sometimes  Wurm's  calculation  is  cited  to  an  opposite  effect.  But  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  he  dates,  as  we  do,  from  midnight,  instead  of  making  the 
days  begin,  as  the  Jews  did,  at  sunset.  This  circumstance  exercises  a  decisive 
influence  in  this  case  (Caspari,  p.  16). 

2  Caspari  places  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  as  we  do,  in  28,  and  His  death  in  30. 
Keim  :  the  beginning  of  His  ministry,  in  the  spring  of  34  ;  the  death  of  John 
the  Baptist,  in  the  autumn  of  34 ;  the  death  of  Jesus,  at  the  Passover  of  35. 
Hitzig :  tie  death  of  Jesus,  in  36. 


SEVENTH    PART. 

THE  RESUBKECTION  AND  ASCENSION. 
Chap.  xxiv. 

IT  is  in  this  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative  that  the  four 
accounts  diverge  most  As  friends,  who  for  a  time  have 
travelled  together,  disperse  at  the  end  of  the  journey  to  take 
each  the  way  which  brings  him  to  his  own  home,  so  in  this 
last  part,  the  peculiar  object  of  each  evangelist  exercises  an 
influence  on  his  narrative  yet  more  marked  than  before. 
Luke,  who  wishes  to  describe  the  gradual  growth  of  Christian 
work  from  Nazareth  to  Home,  prepares,  in  those  last  state- 
ments of  his  Gospel,  for  the  description  of  the  apostolic 
preaching  and  of  the  founding  of  the  Church,  which  he  is 
about  to  trace  in  the  Acts.  Matthew,  whose  purpose  is  to 
prove  the  Messianic  claims  of  Jesus,  closes  his  demonstration 
by  narrating  the  most  solemn  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus, 
when  He  made  known  to  the  Church  His  elevation  to  universal 
sovereignty,  and  installed  the  apostles  in  their  mission  as  con- 
querors of  the  world.  John,  who  relates  the  history  of  the 
<>f  faith  in  the  founders  of  the  gospel,  side  by  side 
with  that  of  incredulity  in  Israel,  closes  his  narrative  with  the 
appearance  which  lad  t<>  the  profession  of  Thomas,  and  which 
consummated  the  triumph  of  faith  over  unbelief  in  the  apos- 
tolic circle.  It  is  vain  to  mutilate  the  conclusion  of  Mark's 
work.  We  find  here  again  the  characteristic  feature  of  liis 
narrative.  He  had,  above  all,  exhibited  the  powerful  (utiiUj/ 
of  owr  Lord  as  a  divine  evangelist :  the  last  words  of  his 
account,  xvl  19,  20,  show  us  Jesus  glorified,  still  co-operating 
from  heaven  with  His  apostles. 

347 


3-18  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Each  evangelist  knows  well  the  point  at  which  he  aims, 
and  hence  the  reason  that  the  narratives  diverge  more  as  they 
reach  the  conclusion.  The  special  differences  in  the  accounts 
of  the  resurrection  are  partly  the  effect  of  this  principal  diver- 
gence. Of  the  four  accounts,  the  two  extremes  are  that  of 
Matthew,  which  puts  the  whole  stress  on  the  great  Galilean 
appearance,  and  that  of  Luke,  which  relates  only  the  appear- 
ances in  Judcea.  The  other  two  are,  as  it  were,  middle  terms. 
Mark  (at  least  from  xvi.  9)  is  dependent  on  the  former  two, 
and  oscillates  between  them.  John  really  unites  them  by 
relating,  like  Luke,  the  appearances  at  Jerusalem,  while  men- 
tioning also,  like  Matthew,  a  remarkable  appearance  in  Galilee. 
If,  indeed,  chap.  xxi.  was  not  composed  by  John,  it  certainly 
proceeds  from  a  tradition  emanating  from  this  apostle.  The 
fact  of  appearances  having  taken  place  both  in  Judaea  and 
Galilee  is  also  confirmed  indirectly  by  Paul,  as  we  shall 
see. 

The  account  of  Luke  contains :  1.  The  visit  of  the  women 
to  the  tomb  (vers.  1-7).  2.  Peter's  visit  to  the  tomb  (vers. 
8-12).  3.  The  appearance  to  the  two  disciples  on  the  way 
to  Emmaus  (vers.  13-32).  4.  The  appearance  to  the  dis- 
ciples on  the  evening  of  the  resurrection  day  (vers.  33-43). 
5.  The  last  instructions  of  Jesus  (vers.  44-49).  6.  The 
ascension  (vers.  50-53). 

1.  The  Women  at  the  Sepulchre:  vers.  1-7. — Vers.  1-7.1 
The  women  play  the  first,  if  not  the  principal,  part  in  all 
those  accounts ;  a  special  duty  called  them  to  the  tomb. — 
They  were,  according  to  Matt,  xxviii.  1.  Mary  Magdalene  and 
the  other  Mary  (the  aunt  of  Jesus)  ;  according  to  Mark 
(xvi.  1),  those  same  two,  and  Salome  the  mother  of  James  and 
John ;  according  to  Luke  (ver.  1 0),  the  first  two,  along  with 
the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward  (viii.  3).  John  names 
only  Mary  Magdalene.  But  does  not  Mary  herself  allude  to 
the  presence  of  others  when  she  says  (ver.  2) :  "  We  know  not 
%ohere  they  have  laid  Him  "  ?     If  John  names  her  so  specially, 

1  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  fiafoo;  (T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  fiafau;  (Alex.),  and 
between  pvtifta  (T.  R.)  and  ^vr^i/ov  (taken  from  the  parall. ).  —  X.  B.  C.  L.  2  Mnn. 
ltPleri(i"«,  Vg.  omit  the  words  *«/  rms  <rw  aureus. — Ver.  4.  tf.  B.  C.  D.  L.,  a*o- 
pufftxi  instead  of  lix-roputrOai. — X.  B.  D.  It.  Vg.,  jv  io-SriTt  affrpaTTevo-v  instead  of 
•»  ttrfaatatv  a9Tpu.-XToutra.ii. — Ver.  5.  The  Mss.  are  divided  between  *••  <xpw<uxn 
(T.  R.,  Byz.)  and  t«  crpoo-uxa  (Alex.). 


ciiai\  xxiv.  1-7.  349 

it  is  because  he  intends  to  give  anew  the  account  of  the 
appearance  which  tradition  had  either  omitted  or  generalized 
(Matthew),  and  which,  as  having  taken  place  first,  had  a  cer- 
tain importance.  As  to  the  time  of  the  women's  arrival,  Luke 
says,  Very  early  in  the  morning ;  Matthew,  oyjre  crafiparcov, 
which  signifies,  not  Sabbath  evening,  but  (like  the  phrases  oyjre 
fivarvpicov,  peractis  mysteriis,  oyfre  Tpwiicayp,  after  the  Trojan 
war ;  see  Bleek) :  after  the  Sabbath,  in  the  night  which  fol- 
lowed. By  the  rfi  iin^coaKovar),  Matthew  expresses  the  fact 
that  it  was  at  the  time  of  daybreak.  Mark  says,  with  a  slight 
difference,  which  only  proves  the  independence  of  his  narra- 
tive (to  ver.  8),  At  the  rising  of  the  sun. — The  object  of  the 
women  was,  according  to  Matthew,  to  visit  the  sepulchre ; 
according  to  the  other  two,  to  embalm  the  body. 

The  fact  of  the  resurrection  itself  is  not  described  by  any 
evangelist,  no  one  having  been  present.  Only  the  Risen  One 
was  seen.  It  is  of  Him  that  the  evangelists  bear  witness. 
Matthew  is  the  one  who  goes  furthest  back.  An  earthquake, 
due  to  the  action  of  an  angel  (yap),  shakes  and  dislodges  the 
stone ;  the  angel  seats  himself  upon  it,  and  the  guards  take 
to  flight.  Undoubtedly,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  this  account, 
even  in  its  style  (the  parallelism,  ver.  3),  lias  a  poetic  tinge. 
But  some  such  fact  is  necessarily  supposed  by  what  follows. 
Otherwise,  how  would  the  sepulchre  have  been  found  open  on 
the  arrival  of  the  women  ?  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  other 
accounts  begin.  In  John,  Mary  Magdalene  sees  nothing  ex- 
cept the  stone  which  has  been  rolled  away ;  she  runs  instantly 
to  apprise  Peter  and  John.  It  may  be  supposed  that  the 
other  women  did  not  accompany  her,  and  that,  having  come 
near  the  sepulchre,  they  were  witnesses  of  the  appearance  of 
the  angel ;  then,  that  they  returned  home.  Not  till  after  that 
did  Mary  Magdalene  come  back  with  Peter  and  John  (John 
xxL  1-9).  It  might  be  supposed,  indeed,  that  this  whole 
account  given  1  -vn.  regarding  the  appearance  of  the 

angel  (Matthew  and  Mark),  or  of  the  two  angels  (Luke),  to  the 
women,  is  at  bottom  nothing  more  than  the  fact  of  the  appear- 
ance of  the  angels  to  Mary  related  by  John  (xx.  11-13)  and 
generalized  by  tradition.  But  vers.  22,  23  of  Luke  are 
favourable  to  this  view.  Mary  Magdalene,  having  seen  the 
Lord  immediately  after  t1  e  of  the  angels,  could  ooi 


350  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

have  related  the  first  of  those  facts  without  also  mentioning 
the  second,  which  was  far  more  important. 

In  the  angel's  address,  as  reproduced  by  the  Syn.,  every- 
thing differs,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  words  which  are 
identical  in  all,  He  is  not  here.  A  common  document  is  in- 
admissible. In  Luke,  the  angel  recalls  to  the  memory  of  the 
women  former  promises  of  a  resurrection.  In  Matthew  and 
Mark,  he  reminds  them,  while  calling  on  them  to  remind  the 
disciples,  of  the  rendezvous  which  Jesus  had  appointed  for  His 
own  in  Galilee  before  His  death.  Ilpodyei,  He  goeth  before, 
like  an  invisible  shepherd  walking  at  the  head  of  His  visible 
flock.  Already,  indeed,  before  His  death  Jesus  had  shown 
His  concern  to  reconstitute  His  Galilean  Church,  and  that  in 
Galilee  itself  (Mark  xiv.  28;  Matt.  xxvi.  32);  v/j,a$,  you, 
cannot  apply  to  the  apostles  only,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
women  ;  it  embraces  all  the  faithful.  It  is  also  certain  that 
the  last  words,  There  ye  shall  see  Him,  do  not  belong  to  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  which  the  women  are  charged  to  report  to  the 
disciples.  It  is  the  angel  himself  who  speaks,  as  is  proved  by 
the  expression,  Lo,  I  have  told  you  (Matthew) ;  and  more  clearly 
still  by  the  words,  As  He  said  unto  you  (Mark).  This  gather- 
ing, which  Jesus  had  in  view  even  in  Gethsemane,  at  the 
moment  when  He  saw  them  ready  to  be  scattered,  and  which 
forms  the  subject  of  the  angel's  message  immediately  after  the 
resurrection,  was  intended  to  be  the  general  reunion  of  all  the 
faithful,  who  for  the  most  part  were  natives  of  Galilee,  and 
who  formed  the  nucleus  of  the  future  Church  of  Jesus.  After 
that,  we  shall  not  be  surprised  to  hear  St.  Paul  speak  (1  Cor. 
xv.)  of  an  assemblage  of  more  than  500  brethren,  of  whom  the 
120  Galileans  of  Pentecost  were  the  elite  (Acts  i.  15,  ii.  7) ; 
comp.  also  the  expression  my  brethren  (John  xx.  17),  which 
certainly  includes  more  than  the  eleven  apostles.  —  There 
follows  in  Matthew  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  women  just 
as  they  are  leaving  the  tomb.  It  seems  to  me  that  this 
appearance  can  be  no  other  than  that  which,  according  to  John, 
was  granted  to  Mary  Magdalene.  Tradition  had  applied  it  to 
the  women  in  general.  Comp.  the  expressions,  They  embraced 
His  feet  (Matthew),  with  the  words,  Touch  me  not,  in  John ; 
Tell  my  brethren  (Matthew),  with  Go  to  my  brethren  and  say 
unto  them,  in  John.     Finally,  it  must  be  remarked  that  in  the 


chap.  xxiv.  8-12.  351 

two  accounts  this  appearance  of  Jesus  immediately  follows 
that  of  the  angeL — In  Matthew's  mind,  does  the  promise. 
There  shall  they  see  me,  exclude  all  appearance  to  the  apo> 
previous  to  that  which  is  here  announced  ?  If  it  is  so,  the 
contradiction  between  this  declaration  and  the  accounts  of 
Luke  and  John  is  glaring.  But  even  in  Matthew,  the  ex- 
;.  TJicre  [in  Galilee]  ye  shall  see  me,  ver.  7,  is  immedi- 
ately followed  by  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  those  women,  and 
that  in  Judasa  (ver.  9) ;  this  fact  proves  clearly  that  we  must 
not  give  such  a  negative  force  to  Matthew's  expression.  What 
we  have  here  is  the  affirmation  of  a  solemn  reunion  which 
shall  take  place  in  Galilee,  and  at  which  not  only  the  apostles, 
but  the  women  and  all  the  faithful,  shall  be  present.  That 
does  not  at  all  exclude  special  appearances  granted  to  this  or 
that  one  before  the  appearance  here  in  question. 

The  following  was  therefore  the  course  of  events : — Mary 
Magdalene  comes  to  the  sepulchre  with  other  women.  On 
seeing  the  stone  rolled  away,  she  runs  to  inform  the  disciples ; 
the  other  women  remain ;  perhaps  others  besides  arrived  a 
little  later  (Mark).  The  angel  declares  to  them  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  they  return.  Mary  Magdalene  comes  back  with 
Peter  and  John ;  then,  having  remained  alone  after  their  de- 
parture, she  witnesses  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  risen  from 
the  dead. 

2.  Visit  of  Peter  to  the  Sepulchre :  vers.  8-12. — Vers.  8-1 2.1 
As  we  have  found  the  account  given,  John  xx.  14-18,  in 
Matthew's  narrative  of  the  appearance  to  the  women,  so  we 
recognise  here  the  fact  which  is  related  more  in  detail  in  John 
xx.  1-10. — Luke  says,  ver.  9,  that  on  returning  from  the 
sepulchre  the  women  related  what  they  had  seen  and  heard, 
while,  according  to  U  >i  h pt  silence.     This  con- 

tradiction is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  two  sayings  refer 
to  t  rent  events  :  the  first,  to  the  account  which  Mary 

Magdalene  gives  to  Peter  and  John,  and  which  led  them  to 
the  sepulchre  (Luke,  vers.  12  and  22-24), — a  report  which 
•oon   spread  among   the   apostles  and  all  the  disciples; 

13  Mjj.  45  Mnn.  If1*.  omit««  before  iAiy*r.—  Ver.  11.  K.  B.  D.  L. 

8yT.  It^,w*,,•,  Ttt  fnftMrm   Tmvrm  instead  of  r»  ftipara.  mvrui.  veTB6 

is  entirely  omitted  by  Dabel  Fold.  Syr1"*.  It  U  found  in  19  Mjj.  all  thr  .Muu. 
Syr-'.  Syr**.  It*1*.  Sub.  Cop. 


352  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

other,  to  the  first  moments  which  followed  the  return  of  the 
other  women,  until,  their  fears  having  abated,  they  began  to 
speak.  But  this  contradiction  in  terms  proves  that  at  least 
up  to  ver.  8  Mark  had  not  Luke  before  him. — The  aC  of  the 
T.  E.,  ver.  10,  before  eXeyov  is  indispensable. — The  omission 
of  ver.  1 2  in  the  Cantab,  and  some  copies  of  the  Latin  and 
Syriac  translations  appeared  so  serious  a  matter  to  Tischendorf, 
that  he  rejected  this  verse  in  his  eighth  edition.  But  if  it 
were  an  interpolation  taken  from  John,  it  would  not  have 
mentioned  Peter  only,  but  Peter  and  John  (or  the  other  disciple). 
And  the  apparent  contradiction  would  have  been  avoided 
between  this  verse  and  ver.  24,  where  it  is  not  an  apostle,  but 
certain  of  them  (rives),  who  repair  to  the  sepulchre.  The 
extreme  caprice  and  carelessness  which  prevail  throughout 
cod.  D  and  the  documents  of  the  Itala  which  are  connected 
with  it  are  well  known.  The  entire  body  of  the  other  Mjj. 
and  of  the  Mnn.,  as  well  as  most  of  the  copies  of  the  ancient 
translations,  support  the  T.  E.  Some  such  historical  fact  as 
that  mentioned  in  this  verse  is  required  by  the  declaration 
of  the  two  disciples  (ver.  24). — There  is,  besides,  a  striking 
resemblance  between  the  account  of  John  and  that  of  Luke. 
The  terms  irapaKirtyas,  66ovia  tcei/ieva,  tt/jo?  eavrbv  a7re\6elv, 
are  found  in  both. 

3.  The  Appearance  on  the  way  to  Emmaus:  vers.  13-32. 
— Vers.  13-32.1  Here  is  one  of  the  most  admirable  pieces  in 
Luke's  Gospel.  As  John  alone  has  preserved  to  us  the  account 
of  the  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene,  so  Luke  alone  has 
transmitted  to  us  that  of  the  appearance  granted  to  the  two 
disciples  of  Emmaus.  The  summary  of  this  event  in  Mark  (xvi. 
12,  13)  is  evidently  nothing  more  than  an  extract  from  Luke. 

Vers.  13-16.  The  Historical  Introduction. — 'IBov,  behold, 
prepares  us  for  something  unexpected.  One  of  the  two  dis- 
ciples was  called  Gleopas  (ver.  18).     This  name  is  an  abbrevia- 

1  Ver.  13.  tf.  I.  K.  IT.  n.  some  Mnn.,  txctrov  z^xovret  instead  of  t^xevrx. — 
Ver.  17.  X.  A.  (?)  B.  Le.,  xat  MrruOrjirxv  fxv6pu<roi  instead  of  x*t  tfn  axvUpwrot. — 
Ver.  18.  K.  B.  L.  N".  X.,  ovof&xrt  instead  of  u  ovopa. — All  the  Mjj.,  A.  excepted, 
omit  iv  before  Upou/raX*/*. — Ver.  19.  X-  B.  I.  L.,  vaZ,apyivov  instead  of  vx^wpxtov. — 
Ver.  21.  X.  D.  B.  L.  add  xxi  after  xXXxyt. — X.  B.  L.  Syr.  omit  ffnpipov. — Ver. 
28.  X,  A.  B.  D.  L.  It*1"1.,  -rpotriToinffaro  instead  of  vrpotrz<reniro. — Ver.  29.  X-  B.  L. 
some  Mnn.  Ita,i(>.  Vg.  add  vh  after  *s«Xi*s#.—  Ver.  32.  K.  B.  D.  L.  omit  *« 
before  us  tiwwyw. 


CIIA1*.  XXIV.  13-1G.  353 

tion  of  Cleopatros,  and  not,  like  K\w7ra?  (John  xix.  25),  the 
reproduction  of  the  Hebrew  name  HWI%  which  Luke  always 
translates  by  'A \<f>aio<;  (vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13).  This  name,  of 
Greek  origin,  leads  to  the  supposition  that  this  disciple  was  a 
proselyte  come  to  the  feast.  As  to  the  other,  it  has  been 
thought  (Theophylact,  Lange)  that  it  was  Luke  himself — first, 
because  he  is  not  named ;  and  next,  because  of  the  peculiarly 
dramatic  character  of  the  narrative  following  (comp.  especially 
ver.  32).  Luke  i.  2  proves  nothing  against  this  view.  For 
the  author  distinguishes  himself  in  this  passage,  not  from  wit- 
nesses absolutely,  but  from  those  who  were  witnesses  from  the 
beginning ;  and  this  contact  for  a  moment  did  not  give  him 
the  right  to  rank  himself  among  the  authors  of  the  Gospel 
tradition.  Jesus,  by  manifesting  Himself  to  these  two  men, 
accomplished  for  the  first  time  what  He  had  announced  to  the 
Greeks,  who  asked  to  speak  with  Him  in  the  temple :  "  If  I 
be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  I  will  draw  all  men  unto  me*' 
(John  xii.  32,  33). — Emmaus  is  not,  as  was  held  by  Eusebiu.s 
and  Jerome,  Ammaus  (later  Nicopolis),  the  modern  Anwas, 
situated  to  the  S.E.  of  Lydda;  for  this  town  lies  180  fur- 
longs from  Jerusalem,  more  than  double  the  distance  men- 
tioned by  Luke,  and  such  a  distance  is  incompatible  with  our 
account  (ver.  21).  Caspari  (p.  207)  has  been  led  to  the 
conviction  previously  expressed  by  Sepp,  that  this  place  is  HO 
other  than  the  village  Ammaus  mentioned  by  Josephus  (B<ll. 
Jud.  vii.  6.  6),  which  Tit  ned  to   800  veterans  of  hi- 

army  to  found  a  colony.  This  place,  situated  E.S.E.  from 
Jerusalem,  is  called  even   at  the  present  day  Kolonich,  and 

distant   exactly   60    furloogfl    from  .Jerusalem.       In  Sc 
iv.  5,  the  Talmud  says  that  there,  at  Mu.Cr.a  (with  the  article: 

:na  Mauza),  they  go  to  gather  the  green  boughs  for  the  feast 

Tabernacles  ;  elsewhere  it  is  said  that  "  Mauza  is  Kolonieh." 
— The  reasoning,  av^nretv  (ver.  15),  bore,  according  to  ver.  21, 
on  the  force  of  the  promisee  of  Jesus.     The  itcparovvro,  v 

16),  is  explained  by  the  concurrence  of  two  factors: 
the  incredulity  of  tl  rding  the  bodily  resurrec- 

i  of  Jesus  (comp.  ver.  25),  and  a  mysterious  change  which 
bed  been  wrought  on  the  person  of  our  Lord  (comp.  Mark 
w;  l-repa  fiop^fj,  and  John   xx.  15,  supposing  Him  to 

be  the  gardener  .  . 

II.  2 


354  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Vers.  17 -19  a.  Beginning  of  the  Conversation. — Ver.  17. 
Jesus  generally  interrogates  before  instructing.  As  a  good 
teacher,  in  order  to  be  heard,  He  begins  by  causing  his  audi- 
tors to  speak  (John  i.  38). — The  Alex,  reading  at  the  end  of 
ver.  17,  allowed  by  Tischendorf  (8  th  ed.) :  and  stood  sad, 
borders  on  the  absurd. — Ver.  18.  Moi/o?  belongs  to  both  verbs, 
TrapoifceU  and  ovtc  eyvcos,  together.  They  take  Jesus  for  one  of 
those  numerous  strangers  who,  like  themselves,  are  temporarily 
sojourning  at  Jerusalem.  An  inhabitant  of  the  city  would 
not  have  failed  to  know  these  things ;  and  in  their  view,  to 
know  them  was  to  be  engrossed  with  them. 

Vers.  19&-24.  Account  of  the  Two  Disciples. — Jesus  has 
now  brought  them  to  the  point  where  He  wished,  namely,  to 
open  up  their  heart  to  Him  ;  cfvv  ira<ri  tovtois  (ver.  21),  in 
spite  of  the  extraordinary  qualities  described  ver.  19. — "Ayet, 
may  be  taken  impersonally,  as  in  Latin,  agit  diem,  for  agitur 
dies.  But  it  may  also  have  Jesus  for  its  subject,  as  in  the 
phrase  dya  Se/carbv  eVo9,  "  he  is  in  his  tenth  year."  But  along 
with  those  causes  of  discouragement,  there  are  also  grounds  of 
hope.  This  opposition  is  indicated  by  d\\a  icai,  "  But  indeed 
there  are  also  .  .  ."  (ver.  22). — Ver.  23.  Aeyovaai,  ol  "keyovaiv, 
hearsay  of  a  hearsay.  This  form  shows  how  little  faith  they 
put  in  all  those  reports  (comp.  ver.  11). — Ver.  24.  Peter,  then, 
was  not  the  only  one,  as  he  seemed  to  be  from  ver.  12.  Here 
is  an  example,  among  many  others,  of  the  traps  which  are 
unintentionally  laid  for  criticism  by  the  simple  and  artless 
style  of  our  sacred  historians.  On  each  occasion  they  say 
simply  what  the  context  calls  for,  omitting  everything  which 
goes  beyond,  but  sometimes,  as  here,  adding  it  themselves  later 
(John  iii.  22  ;  comp.  with  iv.  2).  The  last  words,  Him  they 
saw  not,  prove  that  the  two  disciples  set  out  from  Jerusalem 
between  the  return  of  the  women  and  that  of  Peter  and  John, 
and  even  of  Mary  Magdalene. 

Vers.  25-27.  The  Teaching  of  Jesus. — The  ical  avros,  then 
He  (ver.  25),  shows  that  His  turn  has  now  come.  They  have 
said  everything — they  have  opened  their  heart ;  now  it  is  for 
Him  to  fill  it  with  new  things.  And  first,  in  the  way  of 
rebuke  (ver.  25).  'Avotjtoi,  fools,  refers  to  the  understanding; 
/3/oaSet?,  slow,  to  the  heart.  If  they  had  embraced  the  living 
God  with  more  fervent  faith,  the  fact  of  the  resurrection 


CHAP.  XXIV.  28-32.  355 

would  not  have  been  so  strange  to  their  hopes  (xx.  37,  38). 
— Next,  in  the  way  of  instruction  (vers.  2  6  and  2  7).  Ver.  2  6 
is  the  central  word  of  this  narrative.  The  explanation  of  the 
eoa,  ought,  was  no  doubt  rather  exegetical  than  dogmatical ;  it 
turned  on  the  text  presented  by  the  prophecies  (ver.  27). — 
Jesus  had  before  Him  a  grand  field,  from  the  Protevangelium 
down  to  Mai.  iv.  In  studying  the  Scriptures  for  Himself,  He 
had  found  Himself  in  them  everywhere  (John  v.  39,  40).  He 
had  now  only  to  let  this  light  which  filled  His  heart  ray  forth 
from  Him.  The  second  airo  (ver.  27)  shows  that  the  demon- 
stration began  anew  with  every  prophet. 

&  28-32.  Historical  Conclusion. — When  Jesus  made  as 
if  He  would  continue  His  journey,  it  was  not  a  mere  feint. 
He  would  have  really  gone,  but  for  that  sort  of  constraint 
which  they  exercised  over  Him.  Every  gift  of  God  is  an  in- 
vitation to  claim  a  greater  (x<*>PLV  o>vr\  yapnos,  John  i.  16). 
But  most  men  stop  very  quickly  on  this  way ;  and  thus  they 
never  reach  the  full  blessing  (2  Kings  xiii.  14-10).  The  verb 
KaTatckiQiyvai,  to  at  table  (ver.  30),  applies  to  a  common 

meal,  and  does  not  involve  the  idea  of  a  Holy  Supper.  Act- 
ing as  head  of  the  family,  Jesus  takes  the  bread  and  gives 
thanks.  The  word  BtrjvoLxOrjcrav,  were  opened  (ver.  31),  is 
contrasted  with  the  preceding,  icerc  Jwlden,  ver.  16.  It  indi- 
cates a  divine  operation,  which  destroys  the  effect  of  tUn 
causes  referred  to,  ver.  16.  No  doubt  the  influence  exercised 
on  their  heart  by  the  preceding  conversation  and  by  the 
thanksgiving  of  Jesus,  a^  will  as  the  manner  in  which  He 
ke  and  distributed  the  bread,  had  prepared  them  for  this 
king  of  the  inner  sense.     The   Hidden   d  ance  of 

;:.'inatural  character.  Hi-  body  was  already  in 
course  of  glorification,  and  obeyed  more  freely  than  before  the 
will  of  Hie  Spirit  Besides,  it  must  be  remembered  that  Je 
strictly  speaking,  was  already  no  more  with,  tit  cm  (ver.  44),  and 
that  the  miracle  consisted  rather  in  His  appearing  than  in  His 
disa  '. — The  0  intimate  in  its  character,  whieli 

is  presei  ,  82,  in  any  case  betrays  a  source  close  to  the 

event  itself;   tradition  would  not  have  invented  such  a 

Tf  we  accept  the  fiew  vrhieb  recognises  Luke  hfanaeU  In  the  com- 
opaa,  we  thai]  find  ourselves  brought  to  this  crii 
result,  that  i  ft  in  a  corner  '»f  his  narrati\ 


356  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

modest  indication  of  his  person :  Matthew,  in  the  publican  whom 
Jesus  removes  by  a  word  from  his  previous  occupations  ;  Mark,  in 
the  young  man  who  flees,  leaving  his  garment  at  Gethsemane ; 
John,  in  the  disciple  designated  as  he  whom  Jesus  loved ;  Luke,  in 
the  anonymous  traveller  of  Emmaus. 

4.  The  Appearance  to  the  Apostles:  vers.  33-43. — Vers. 
33-43.1  The  two  travellers,  immediately  changing  their  in- 
tended route,  return  to  Jerusalem,  where  they  find  the  apostles 
assembled  and  full  of  joy.  An  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Peter 
had  overcome  all  the  doubts  left  by  the  accounts  of  the  women. 
This  appearance  should  probably  be  placed  at  the  time  when 
Peter  returned  home  (ver.  12),  after  his  visit  to  the  tomb. 
Paul  places  it  (1  Cor.  xv.)  first  of  all.  He  omits  Luke's  first 
(the  two  going  to  Emmaus)  and  John's  first  (Mary  Magdalene). 
For  where  apostolic  testimony  is  in  question,  as  in  that  chap- 
ter, unofficial  witnesses,  not  chosen  (Acts  i.  2),  are  left  out  of 
account.  Peter  was  not  at  that  time  restored  as  an  apostle 
(comp.  John  xxi.),  but  he  received  his  pardon  as  a  believer. 
If  tradition  had  invented,  would  it  not,  above  all,  have 
imagined  an  appearance  to  John  ? — This  account  refers  to  the 
same  appearance  as  John  xx.  19-23.  The  two  Gospels  place 
it  on  the  evening  of  the  resurrection  day.  The  sudden 
appearance  of  Jesus,  ver.  36,  indicated  by  the  words:  He 
stood  in  the  midst  of  them,  is  evidently  supernatural,  like  His 
disappearance  (ver.  31).  Its  miraculous  character  is  ex- 
pressed still  more  precisely  by  John,  TJie  doors  were  shut.  The 
salutation  would  be  the  same  in  both  accounts :  Peace  he  unto 
you,  were  we  not  obliged  to  give  the  preference  here  to  the 
text  of  the  Cantab,  and  of  some  copies  of  the  Itala,  which, 
rejects  these  words.  The  T.  E.  has  probably  been  interpolated 
from  John. — The  term  irvev^ia  (ver.  37)  denotes  the  spirit  of 
the  dead  returning  without  a  body  from  Hades,  and  appearing 
in  a  visible  form  as  umbra,  ^aviacr^a  (Matt.  xiv.  26).  This 
impression  naturally  arose  from  the  sudden  and  miraculous 
appearance  of  Jesus.  The  SiaXoyto-fAot,  inward  disputings,  are 
contrasted  with  the   simple   acknowledgment    of   Him    who 

1Ver.  33.  tf.  B.  D.,  ntpeir/ttivous  instead  of  <ruvn0poi<r/u.ivovs. — Ver.  36.  D.  It*1101, 
omit  the  words  *«/  Xtyu  avrots  tipw*  vpiv. — Ver.  38.  B.  D.  ItPleri<»ue,  sv  m  xxpSta. 
instead  of  sv  ran  xxphms. — Ver.  39.  tf.  D.  Ir.,  rxpxxs  instead  of  trxpxx. — Ver.  40. 
This  verse  is  omitted  by  D.  ItaU<J.  Syrcur.— Ver.  42.  N.  A.  B.  D.  L.  n.  Clement, 
Or.  omit  x«<  «•*•«  pi\i<taiov  xupiou,  which  is  read  by  T.  R.  12  Mjj.  all  the  Mnn. 
Syr.  lta«*.  Justin,  etc. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  44-49.  357 

stands  before  thein. — At  ver.  39,  Jesus  asserts  His  identity  ; 
"  That  it  is  I  myself"  and  then  His  corporeity :  "  Handle  me, 
and  sec."  The  sight  of  His  hands  and  feet  proves  those  two 
propositions  by  the  wounds,  the  marks  of  which  they  still 
bear.  Ver.  40  is  wanting  in  D.  Itahq.  It  might  be  suspected 
that  it  is  taken  from  John  xx.  20,  if  in  this  latter  passage, 
instead  of  His  feet,  there  was  not  His  side. — In  vers.  41-43, 
Jesus  gives  them  a  new  proof  of  His  corporeity  by  eating 
meats  which  they  had  to  offer  Him.  Their  very  joy  pre- 
vented them  from  believing  in  so  great  a  happiness,  and 
formed  an  obstacle  to  their  faith. — Strauss  finds  a  contradic- 
tion between  the  act  of  eating  and  the  notion  of  a  glorified 
body.  But  the  body  of  Jesus  was  in  a  transition  state.  Our 
Lord  Himself  says  to  Mary  Magdalene :  "  /  am  not  yet  as- 
cended .  .  .,  but  /  ascend"  (John  xx.  17).  On  the  one  hand, 
then,  He  still  had  His  terrestrial  body.  On  the  other,  this 
body  was  already  raised  to  a  higher  condition.  We  have  no 
experience  to  help  us  in  forming  a  clear  idea  of  this  transi- 
tion, any  more  than  of  its  goal,  the  glorified  body. — The 
omission  of  the  words :  and  of  an  honey-comb,  in  the  Alex.,  is 
probably  due  to  the  confusion  of  the  icai  which  precedes  with 
that  which  follows. 

This  appearance  of  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  apostles, 
related  by  John  and  Luke,  is  also  mentioned  by  Mark  (xvi.  14) 
and  by  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  5).  But  John  alone  distinguishes  it 
from  that  which  took  place  eight  days  after  in  similar  circum- 
stances, and  at  which  the  doubts  of  Thomas  were  overcome. 
And  would  it  be  too  daring  to  suppose  that,  as  the  first  of 
those  appearances  was  meant  to  gather  together  the  apostle 
whom  Jesus  wished  to  bring  to  Galilee,  the  second  was  in- 
tended to  complete  this  reunion,  which  was  hindered  by  the 
obstinate  resistance  of  Thomas  ;  consequently,  that  it  was  the 
unbelief  of  this  disciple  which  prevented  the  immediate  return 
of  the  apostles  to  Galilee,  and  forced  them  to  remain  at  Jeru- 
salem during  the  whole  paschal  week  ?  Jesus  did  not  lead 
back  the  flock  until  lie  had  the  number  completed:  "  Of  those 
uhom  Tlwu  gavest  me  none  is  lost." 

5.   TJie  last   Instructions:    vers.   44-40.  —  Vers.    44- 4 0.1 

.  44.    K.   B.   I;.   X.  MM  Mnn.   Itr'"'-?"^  \'p.,   *ft   ivrtvt  instr.i<l  "f  mvr*i(. 

—8  Mjj.  some  Mnn.  omit  n»\>  after  >.*yu.—  Ver.  46.  tf.  B.  (X  D.  L.  IfUrk»,»\  omit 


358  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Meyer,  Bleek,  and  others  think  that  all  the  sayings  which 
follow  were  uttered  this  same  evening,  and  that  the  ascension 
itself  must,  according  to  Luke,  have  followed  immediately, 
during  the  night  or  toward  morning.  Luke  corrected  himself 
later  in  the  Acts,  where,  according  to  a  more  exact  tradition, 
he  puts  an  interval  of  forty  days  hetween  the  resurrection  and 
the  ascension.  A  circumstance  which  might  be  urged  in 
favour  of  this  hypothesis  is,  that  what  Luke  omits  in  the  angel's 
message  (ver.  6)  is  precisely  the  command  to  the  disciples  to 
return  to  Galilee.  But,  on  the  other  hand :  1.  May  it  not 
be  supposed  that  Luke,  having  reached  the  end  of  the  first 
part  of  his  history,  and  having  the  intention  of  repeating  those 
facts  as  the  point  of  departure  for  his  second,  thought  it  enough 
to  state  them  in  the  most  summary  way  ?  2.  Is  it  probable 
that  an  author,  when  beginning  the  second  part  of  a  history, 
should  modify  most  materially,  without  in  the  least  apprising 
his  reader,  the  recital  of  facts  with  which  he  has  closed  his 
first  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  simpler  and  more  honest  on 
the  part  of  Luke  to  correct  the  last  page  of  his  first  volume, 
instead  of  confirming  it  implicitly  as  he  does,  Acts  i.  1,  2  ? 
3.  The  Tore,  then  (ver.  45),  may  embrace  an  indefinite  space 
of  time.  4.  This  more  general  sense  harmonizes  with  the 
fragmentary  character  of  the  report  given  of  those  last  utter- 
ances :  Now  He  said  unto  them,  ver.  44  :  and  He  said  unto 
them,  ver.  46.  This  inexact  form  shows  clearly  that  Luke 
abandons  narrative  strictly  so  called,  to  give  as  he  closes  the 
contents  of  the  last  sayings  of  Jesus,  reserving  to  himself  to 
develope  later  the  historical  account  of  those  last  days.  5. 
The  author  of  our  Gospel  followed  the  same  tradition  as  Paul 
(see  the  appearance  to  Peter,  mentioned  only  by  Paul  and 
Luke).  It  is,  moreover,  impossible,  considering  his  relations  to 
that  apostle  and  to  the  churches  of  Greece,  that  he  was  not 
acquainted  with  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Now, 
in  this  epistle  a  considerable  interval  is  necessarily  supposed 
between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  first  because  it 

**'  eura>s  ^'->  after  ytyptt-rron. — Ver.  47.  X.  B.  Syrsch.,  psravoixv  sis  K<ptffiv  instead 

0t>iTav«a»  x.a.1  aQsfftv. — N.  B.  C.  L.  N.  X:,    apZ,x/u.svot  instead  of  aplapivov. — Ver. 

48.  B.  D.  omit  so-rs  before  [/.uprvpss. — Ver.  49.  X.  D.  L.  Syrsch.  ItPleri(*ue,  Vg. 
omit  iW— K°  B.  L.  X.  a.,  sl«*o<rrsk\*,  instead  of  Kvo<r*t\\u.—  K.  B.  C.  D.  L. 
ItPieriq*%  Vg.  omit  Up™™?,*?  after  mXtt. 


CHAI>.  XXIV.  44-49.  359 

mentions  an  appearance  of  Jesus  to  more  than  500  brethren, 
which  cannot  have  taken  place  on  the  very  day  of  the  resur- 
rection ;  and  next,  because  it  expressly  distinguishes  two 
appearances  to  the  assembled  apostles :  the  one  undoubtedly 
that  the  account  of  which  we  have  just  been  reading  (1  Cor. 
w.  6) ;  the  other,  which  must  have  taken  place  later  (ver.  7). 
These  facts,  irreconcilable  with  the  idea  attributed  by  Meyer 
and  others  to  Luke,  belonged,  as  Paul  himself  tells  us,  1  Cor. 
xv.  l-:'»,  to  the  teaching  generally  received  in  the  Church,  to 
the  irapaZoais.  How  could  they  have  been  unknown  to  such 
an  investigator  as  Luke  ?  How  could  they  have  escaped  him 
in  his  first  book,  and  that  to  recur  to  him  without  his  saying  a 
word  in  the  second  ?  Luke  therefore  here  indicates  summarily 
the  substance  of  the  different  instructions  given  by  Jesus 
between  His  resurrection  and  ascension  all  comprised  in  the 
words  of  the  Acts :  "  After  that  He  liad  given  commandments 
unto  tlie  apostles"  (Acts  i.  2). — Ver.  44  relates  how  Jesus 
recalled  to  them  His  previous  predictions  regarding  His  death 
and  resurrection,  which  fulfilled  the  prophecies  of  the  0.  T. — 
Ovtol  ol  \6yoi,  an  abridged  phrase  for  ravra  iariv  ol  \6yot, : 

iiese  events  which  have  just  come  to  pass  are  those  of 

which  I  told  you  in  the  discourses  which  you  did  not  under- 

The  expression :  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  is  remark- 

;  for  it  proves  that,  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  His  separation 

from  th  now  consummated.      He  was  with   them  only 

•nallv  ;  His  abode  was  elsewhere. — The  three  terms  : 

es,  PropJcf*,  Ptalms,  may  denote  the  three  parts  of  the  0.  T. 

>ng  the  Jews :  the  Pentateuch  ;  the  Prophets,  comprising, 

with  the  historical  books   (up  to  the  exile),  the  prophetical 

books;  the  Psalms,  as  representing   the   out  in'  group  of  the 

•  'j'lia.       Bleek  rather  thinks  that  Jesus  mentions  here 

*-nlv  the  books  most  essential  from  a  prophetic  point  of  view 

u  ifiov).     If  it  is  once  admitted  that  the  division  of  the 
have  indicated  existed  so  early  as  the  time  of 
Jesi:  Bog  is  the  more  natural. 

Jesus  closes  these  explanations  by  an  act  of  power  for  which 

'    to  prepare.       He  opens  the   inner  sense  of 

apostles,  so  that  the  Scriptures  shall   henceforth  cease  to 

be  to  them  a  sealed  book  act  is  certainly  the  same  as 

that  described  by  John   in   the  words  (xx.   22):  *  A 


300  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

breathed  on  them,  saying,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
only  difference  is,  that  John  names  the  efficient  cause,  Luke 
the  effect  produced.  The  miracle  is  the  same  as  that  which 
Jesus  shall  one  day  work  upon  Israel  collectively,  when  the 
veil  shall  he  taken  away  (2  Cor.  iii.  15,  16). 

At  ver.  46  there  begins  a  new  resume — that  of  the  discourses 
of  the  risen  Jesus  referring  to  the  future,  as  the  preceding  bore 
on  the  past  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Kal  elirev,  and  He  said 
to  them  again.  So  true  is  it  that  Luke  here  gives  the  sum- 
mary of  the  instructions  of  Jesus  during  the  forty  days  (Acts 
i.  3),  that  we  find  the  parallels  of  these  verses  scattered  up 
and  down  in  the  discourses  which  the  other  Gospels  give 
between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  The  words  :  should 
be  preached  among  all  nations,  recall  Matt,  xxviii.  19:  "  Go 
and  teach  all  nations!'  and  Mark  xvi.  15  :  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature?  The 
words  :  preaching  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  recall  John 
xx.  2  3  :  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them." 
Ver.  46  forms  the  transition  from  the  past  to  the  future  (ver. 
47).  "Oto  depends  on  :  it  was  so,  understood. — The  omission 
of  Kal  outgo?  eSec,  thus  it  behoved,  by  the  Alex,  cannot  be  justi- 
fied; it  has  arisen  from  negligence.  Jesus  declares  two 
necessities :  the  one  founded  on  prophecy  (thus  it  is  turitten), 
the  other  on  the  very  nature  of  things  (it  behoved).  The  Alex, 
reading  :  repentance  unto  pardon,  instead  of :  repentance  and 
pardon,  has  no  internal  probability.  It  would  be  a  phrase 
without  analogy  in  the  whole  of  the  K  T. — The  partic.  ap£d- 
fjuevov  is  a  neut.  impersonal  accusative,  used  as  a  gerund.  The 
Alex,  reading  ap^dfievoi  is  a  correction. — The  thought  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  must  spread  from  Jerusalem  belonged  also 
to  prophecy  (Ps.  ex.  2,  et  al)  ;  comp.  Acts  i.  8,  where  this  idea 
is  developed. 

To  carry  out  this  work  of  preaching,  there  must  be  men 
specially  charged  with  it.  These  are  the  apostles  (ver.  48). 
Hence  the  vfieh,  ye,  heading  the  proposition.  The  thought  of 
ver.  48  is  found  John  xv.  27  :  that  of  ver.  49,  John  xv.  26. 
— A  testimony  so  important  can  only  be  given  worthily  and 
effectively  with  divine  aid  (ver.  49).  'IBov,  behold,  expresses 
the  unforeseen  character  of  this  intervention  of  divine  strength  ; 
and  iyco,  I,  is  put  foremost  as  the  correlative  of  vjjlcIs,  ye  (ver. 


ON  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS.  361 

48)  :  "  Ye,  on  the  earth,  give  testimony ;  and  I,  from 
heaven,  give  you  power  to  do  so."  When  the  disciples  shall 
feel  the  spirit  of  Pentecost,  they  shall  know  that  it  is  the 
breath  of  Jesus  glorified,  and  for  what  end  it  is  imparted  to 
them.  In  the  phrase  :  the  'promise  of  tlie  Father,  the  word 
promise  denotes  the  tiling  promised.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
divine  promise  par  excellence.  It  is  in  this  supreme  gift  that 
all  others  are  to  terminate.  And  this  aid  is  so  indispensable 
to  them,  that  they  must  beware  of  beginning  the  work  before 
having  received  it.  The  command  to  tarry  in  the  city  is  no 
wise  incompatible  with  a  return  of  the  disciples  to  Galilee 
between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  Everything  depends 
on  the  time  when  Jesus  spoke  this  word ;  it  is  not  specified 
in  the  context.  According  to  Acts  i.  4,  it  was  on  the  day  of 
His  ascension  that  Jesus  gave  them  this  command.  The 
Alex,  reject  the  word  Jerusalem,  which  indeed  is  not  necessary 
after  ver.  47. 

On  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus. 

I.  The  fact  of  the  resurrection. — The  apostles  bore  witness  to  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  on  this  testimony  founded  the  Church. 
Such  is  the  indubitable  historical  fact.  Yet  more  :  they  <1  i *  1  not  do 
this  as  impostors.  Strauss  acknowledges  this.  And  Yolkinar,  in  his 
mystical  language,  goes  the  length  of  saying  :  "  It  is  one  of  t In- 
most certain  facts  in  the  history  of  humanity,  that  shortly  after  His 
th  on  the  cross,  Jesus  appeared  to  the  apostles,  risen  from  the 
I,  however  we  may  understand  the  fact,  which  ii  without 
analogy  in  history"  (die  Evangel,  p.  612).  Let  us  seek  the  explana- 
tion of  the  fact. 

l)id  Jesus  return  to  life  from  a  state  offeftoryy,  as  Schleiermacher 
thought  ?     Strauss  has  once  for  all  executed  justice  on  this  hypo- 
It  cannot  even  be  maintained  without  destroying  the  moral 
character  of  our  Lord  (comp.   our  Comm.  sur  Jean,  t.  il  p.   660 
et  seq.). 

Were  those  appearances  of  Jesus  to  the  first  believers  only  r 

from  their  exalte. 1  state  of  mind  ?     Tins  is  the  hypothesis 
which  Bl  i  by  marly  all  modern  rationalism,  substitutes 

for  that  of  Schleiermacher.     This  explanation  hreaks  down  before 
facts  :— 
1.    1  1 1  «li'l  not  in  the  least  expect  the  body  of  Jesus  to 

be  restored  to  life.  Ineyconfbonded  the  resurrection,  ai  Weizsacker 
says,  with  the  Tarousia.      Now,  Rich  hallucinations  would  suppose, 

on  the  i-  i  lhrely  expectation  oJ  the  bodily  reappearance  ol 

Jesus. 


362  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

2.  So  far  was  the  imagination  of  the  disciples  from  creating  the 
sensible  presence  of  Jesus,  that  at  the  first  they  did  not  recognise 
Him  (Mary  Magdalene,  the  two  of  Emmaus).  Jesus  was  certainly 
not  to  them  an  expected  person,  whose  image  was  conceived  in  their 
own  soul. 

3.  We  can  imagine  the  possibility  of  a  hallucination  in  one  person, 
but  not  in  two,  twelve,  and  finally,  five  hundred  I  especially  if  it  be 
remembered  that  in  the  appearances  described  we  have  not  to  do 
with  a  simple  luminous  figure  floating  between  heaven  and  earth, 
but  with  a  person  performing  positive  acts  and  uttering  exact  state- 
ments, which  were  heard  by  the  witnesses.  Or  is  the  truth  of  the 
different  accounts  to  be  suspected1?  But  they  formed,  from  the 
beginning,  during  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles  and  first  witnesses,  the 
substance  of  the  public  preaching,  of  the  received  tradition  (1  Cor. 
xv.).  Thus  we  should  be  thrown  back  on  the  hypothesis  of  im- 
posture. 

4.  The  empty  tomb  and  the  disappearance  of  the  body  remain 
inexplicable.  If,  as  the  narratives  allege,  the  body  remained  in  the 
hands  of  Jesus'  friends,  the  testimony  which  they  gave  to  its  resur- 
rection is  an  imposture,  a  hypothesis  already  discarded.  If  it  re- 
mained in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  how  did  they  not  by  this  mode  of 
conviction  overthrow  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  1  Their  mouths 
would  have  been  closed  much  more  effectually  in  this  way  than  by 
scourging  them.  We  shall  not  enter  into  the  discussion  of  all  Strauss's 
expedients  to  escape  from  this  dilemna.  They  betray  the  spirit  of 
special  pleading,  and  can  only  appear  to  the  unprejudiced  mind  in  the 
light  of  subterfuges.1  But  Strauss  attempts  to  take  the  offensive. 
Starting  from  Paul's  enumeration  of  the  various  appearances  (1  Cor. 
xv.),  he  reasons  thus  :  Paul  himself  had  a  vision  on  the  way  to 
Damascus  ;  now  he  put  all  the  appearances  which  the  apostles  had 
on  the  same  platform ;  therefore  they  are  all  nothing  but  visions. 
This  reasoning  is  a  mere  sophism.  If  Strauss  means  that  Paul  him- 
self regarded  the  appearance  which  had  converted  him  as  a  simple 
vision,  it  is  easy  to  refute  him.  For  what  Paul  wishes  to  demon- 
strate, 1  Cor.  xv.,  is  the  bodily  resurrection  of  believers,  which  he 
cannot  do  by  means  of  the  appearances  of  Jesus,  unless  he  regards 
them  all  as  bodily,  the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  If  Strauss  means, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  Damascus  appearance  was  really  nothing 
else  than  a  vision,  though  Paul  took  it  as  a  reality,  the  conclusion 
which  he  draws  from  this  mistake  of  Paul's,  as  to  the  meaning 
which  must  be  given  to  all  the  others,  has  not  the  least  logical  value. 

Or,  finally,  could  God  have  permitted  the  Spirit  of  the  glorified 
Jesus,  manifesting  itself  to  the  disciples,  to  produce  effects  in  them 
similar  to  those  which  a  perception  by  the  senses  would  have  pro- 
duced 1  So  Weisse  and  Lotze  think.  Keim  has  also  declared  for 
this  hypothesis  in  his  Life  of  Jesus.9     But,  1.  What  then  of  the 

1  In  opposition  to  Strauss's  supposition,  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  thrown  to 
the  dunghill,  we  set  this  fact  of  public  notoriety  in  the  tin?e  of  St.  Paul :  "  H e 
teas  buried  "  (1  Cor.  xv.  3). 

1  Otherwise  in  his  Geschichtl.  Christut. 


OX  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS.  363 

narratives  in  which  we  see  the  Eisen  One  seeking  to  demonstrate  to 
the  apostles  that  He  is  not  a  pure  spirit  (Luke  xxiv.  37-40)  1  They 
are  pure  inventions,  audacious  falsehoods.  2.  As  to  this  glorified 
Jesus,  who  appeared  spiritually  to  the  apostles,  did  He  or  did  He 
not  mean  to  produce  on  them  the  impression  that  He  was  present 
bodily  1  If  He  did,  this  heavenly  Being  was  an  impostor.  If  not, 
He  must  have  been  very  unskilful  in  His  manifestations.  In  both 
cases,  He  is  the  author  of  the  misunderstanding  which  gave  rise  to 
the  false  testimony  given  involuntarily  by  the  apostles.  3.  The 
empty  tomb  remains  unexplained  on  this  hypothesis,  as  well  as  on 
the  preceding.  Keim  has  added  nothing  to  what  his  predecessors 
have  advanced  to  solve  this  difficulty.  In  reality,  there  is  but  one 
sufficient  account  to  be  given  of  the  empty  tomb :  the  tomb  was 
found  empty,  because  He  who  had  been  laid  there  Himself  rose 
from  it. — To  this  opinion  of  Keim  we  may  apply  what  holds  of  his 
explanation  of  miracles,  and  of  his  way  of  looking  at  the  life  of  Jesus 
in  general :  it  is  too  much  or  too  little  supernatural.  It  is  not 
worth  while  combating  the  Biblical  accounts,  when  such  enormous 
concessions  are  made  to  them  ;  to  deny,  for  example,  the  miraculous 
birth,  when  we  admit  the  absolute  holiness  of  Christ,  or  the  bodily 
resurrection,  when  we  grant  the  reality  of  the  appearances  of  the 
glorified  Jesus.  Keim  for  some  time  ascended  the  scale  ;  now  he 
igain.  He  could  not  stop  there. 
II.  The  a  COtmtt  of  the  resurrection. — These  accounts  are  in  reality 
only  reports  regarding  the  appearances  of  the  Risen  One.  The  most 
ancient  and  the  most  official,  if  one  may  so  speak,  is  that  of  Paw/, 
1  Cor.  xv.  It  is  the  summary  of  the  oral  ti m thing  received  in  the 
Church  (ver.  2),  of  the  tradition  proceeding  from  all  the  apostles 
is.  11-15).  Paul  enumerates  the  six  appearances  as 
follows  :  1.  to  Cephas;  2.  to  the  Twelve;  3.  to  the  500;  4.  to 
James ;  5.  to  the  Twelve ;  6.  to  himself.     We  easily  make  out  in 

ft,  Nos.  1,  2,  5  in  his  Gospel  (xxiv.  34,  ver.  3G  et  seq.,  ver.  50  et 

)  ;  No.  C  in  the  Acts.  The  appearance  to  James  became  food 
for  Judeo-Christian  legends.  It  is  elaborated  in  the  apocryphal 
books.     There  remfttna  No.  3,  the  appearance  to  the 500.    Astrange 

instnieiiw  fact!     No  appearance  of  Jesus  is  better  authenti- 

iore  unassailable  ;  none  was  more  public,  and  none  produced 

1  liurch  so  dednre  IB  effect .  .  . ;  and  it  is  not  mentioned,  at 

t  as  such,  in  any  of  our  four  Gospel  accounts  !     1  low  should  this 

fact  put  ii  on  our  guar  ium  )  si/atiio,  of  which 

of  the  present  day  makes  so  unbridled  e  use !    How  it 

ought  to  show  the  complete  ignorance  in  which  we  are  still  left,  ami 

probably  shall  <\vr  be,  of  tin*  circumstances  which  presided  over  the 

formation  of  that  oral  tradition  which  hi  -ed  so  decisive  an 

intluenc  ,r  goepe]  historiography  !     Lake  could  not  be  igno- 

[\  ot  tin.  hot  ii  lie  had  iva.l  hut  onc<-  the  1  to  the  C< 

thiane,  converted  once  on  the  subject  with  St.  Paul .  .  .  ;  and  he  has 
not  mention*  en  dropped  e  bint  of  it !    To  bring  down  the 

composition  of  Lake  by  halfa  century  to  explain  this  omission,  serves 
no  end.    For  the  farther  the  time  is  brought  down,  the  more  im- 


364  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

possible  is  it  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  should  not  have  known 
the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

Matthew's  account  mentions  only  the  two  following  appearances  : 
1.  to  the  women  at  Jerusalem  ;  2.  to  the  Eleven,  on  a  mountain  of 
Galilee,  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them  to  meet  Him  (ov  ird^aro 
TropevearOai).  We  at  once  recognise  in  No.  1  the  appearance  to  Mary- 
Magdalene,  John  xx.  1-17.  The  second  is  that  gathering  which 
Jesus  had  convoked,  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  before  His 
death ;  then,  immediately  after  the  resurrection,  either  by  the  angel 
or  by  His  own  mouth  (Matthew).  But  it  is  now  only  that  Matthew 
tells  us  of  the  rendezvous  appointed  for  the  disciples  on  the  mountain. 
This  confirms  the  opinion  which  we  had  already  reached,  viz.  that 
we  have  here  to  do  with  a  call  which  was  not  addressed  to  the 
Eleven  only,  but  to  all  believers,  even  to  the  women.  Jesus  wished 
again  to  see  all  His  brethren,  and  to  constitute  His  flock  anew,  which 
had  been  scattered  by  the  death  of  the  Shepherd.  The  choice  of 
such  a  locality  as  that  which  Jesus  had  designated,  confirms  the 
conclusion  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  a  numerous  reunion.  We 
cannot  therefore  doubt  that  it  is  the  assembly  of  500  spoken  of  by 
Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  If  Matthew  does  not  expressly  mention  more  than 
the  Eleven,  it  is  because  to  them  was  addressed  the  commission 
given  by  Jesus,  u  to  go  and  baptize  all  nations."  The  expression  : 
11  but  some  doubted,"  is  also  more  easily  explained,  if  the  Eleven  were 
not  alone.1  Matthew  did  not  intend  to  relate  the  first  appearances 
by  which  the  apostles,  whether  individually  or  together,  were  led  to 
believe  (this  was  the  object  of  the  appearances  which  took  place  at 
Jerusalem,  and  which  are  mentioned  by  Luke  and  John),  but  that 
which,  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  his  Gospel,  he  wished  to  set  in 
relief  as  the  climax  of  his  history, — that,  namely,  to  which  he  had 
made  allusion  from  the  beginning,  and  which  may  be  called  the 
Messiah's  taking  possession  of  the  whole  world. 

Mark's  account  is  original  as  far  as  ver.  8.  At  ver.  9  we  find  : 
1.  an  entirely  new  beginning;  2.  from  ver.  8  a  clearly  marked 
dependence  on  Luke.  After  that,  there  occur  from  ver.  15,  and 
especially  in  ver.  17,  some  very  original  sayings,  which  indicate  an 
independent  source.  The  composition  of  the  work  thus  seems  to 
have  been  interrupted  at  ver.  8,  and  the  book  to  have  remained 
unfinished.  A  sure  proof  of  this  is,  that  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
announced  to  the  women  by  the  angel,  ver.  7,  is  totally  wanting,  if, 
with  the  Sina'it.,  the  Vatic,  and  other  authorities,  the  Gospel  is 
closed  at  ver.  8.  From  ver.  9,  a  conclusion  has  thus  been  added  by 
means  of  our  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  had  appeared  in  the  interval, 
and  of  some  original  materials  previously  collected  with  this  view  by 
the  author  (vers.  15,  16,  and  especially  17,  18). 

III.  The  accounts  taken  as  a  whole. — If,  gathering  those  scattered 
accounts,  we  unite  them  in  one,  we  find  ten  appearances.     In  the 

1  If  this  expression  is  to  be  applied  to  the  Eleven  themselves,  it  must  be  ex- 
plained by  the  summary  character  of  this  account,  in  which  the  first  doubts 
expressed  in  the  preceding  appearances  are  applied  to  this,  the  only  one  related. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  50-53.  365 

first  three,  Jesus  comforts  and  raises,  for  He  lias  to  do  with  down- 
cast hearts  :  He  comforts  Mary  Magdalene,  who  seeks  His  lost  body  ; 
He  raises  Peter  after  his  fall  j  He  reanimates  the  hope  of  the  two 
going  to  Emmaus.  Thereafter,  in  the  following  three,  He  establishes 
the  faith  of  His  future  witnesses  in  the  decisive  fact  of  His  resurrec- 
tion ;  He  fulfils  this  mission  toward  the  apostles  in  general,  and 
toward  Thomas ;  and  He  reconstitutes  the  apostolate  by  returning 
to  it  its  head.  In  the  seventh  and  eighth  appearances,  He  impresses 
on  the  apostolate  that  powerful  missionary  impulse  which  lasts  still, 
and  He  adds  James  to  the  disciples,  specially  with  a  view  to  the 
mission  for  Israel.  In  the  last  two,  finally,  He  completes  the  pre- 
ceding commands  by  some  special  instructions  (not  to  leave  Jeru- 
salem, to  wait  for  the  Spirit,  etc.),  and  bids  them  His  last  farewell ; 
then,  shortly  afterwards,  He  calls  Paul  specially  with  a  view  to  the 
Gentiles.  This  unity,  so  profoundly  psychological,  so  holily  organic, 
is  not  the  work  of  any  of  the  evangelists,  for  its  elements  are  scat- 
tered over  the  four  accounts.  The  wisdom  and  love  of  Christ  are 
its  only  authors.1 

IV.  The  importance  of  the  resurrection. — This  event  is  not  merely 
intended  to  mark  oat  Jesus  as  the  Saviour ;  it  is  salvation  itself,  con- 
demnation removed,  death  vanquished.  We  were  perishing,  con- 
demned :  Jesus  dies.  His  death  saves  us  ;  He  is  the  first  who 
enjoys  salvation.  He  rises  again  ;  then  in  Him  we  are  made  to  live 
again.  Such  an  event  is  everything,  includes  everything,  or  it  has 
no  existence. 

6.  Tlic  Ascension:  vers.  50-53. — The  resurrection  restored 
humanity  in  that  one  of  its  members  who,  by  His  holy  life 
and  expiatory  death,  conquered  our  two  enemies — the  law 
which  condemned  us  because  of  sin,  and  death,  which  over- 
took us  because  of  the  condemnation  of  the  law  (1  Cor. 
xv.  56).  As  this  humanity  is  restored  in  the  person  of  Christ 
by  the  fact  of  His  resurrection,  the  ascension  raises  it  to  its 
full  height ;  it  realizes  its  destination,  which  from  the  begin- 
ning was  to  serve  as  a  free  instrument  for  the  operations  of 
the  infinite  God. 

Vers.   50-53.2  Tlie  Ascension. — Luke  alone,  in  his  Gospel 

1  8ee  the  remarkable  development  of  this  thought  by  M.  Gess,  in  his  new  work, 
M  Zeugniss  von  seiner  Person  und  seinem    Werk,   1870,  p.   193  et  seq. 
iiia  progression  in  the  appearances  of  Jesus  is  so  wisely  graduated,  that  we 
are  not  at  liberty  to  refer  it  to  a  purely  subjective  origin.     Supposing  tin  J 
all  related  by  one  and  the  same  evangelist,  it  might  doubtless  be  atteinj.- 
make  him  the  author  of  so  well  ordered  ;i  plan.     But  as  this  arrangement  r< 
only  from  combining  the  first,  the  third,  and  the  fourth  Gospels  .    .    .,   tlii-, 
explanation  also  is  exeludi •«!."     Page  204. 

*  Ver.  50.   A.  B.  C.  L.  MM  Mm  nit  i{» after mwm*.— It  B.  C.  R  [,. 

2  Mnn.,  %m  wf»t  instead  of  uh  **•>— Vcr.  51.  J*.  D.  It*"',  omit  the  woids  «« 


366  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

and  in  the  Acts,  has  given  us  a  detailed  view  of  the  scene 
which  is  indicated  by  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  and  assumed  through- 
out the  whole  K  T.  Interpreters  like  Meyer  think  themselves 
obliged  to  limit  the  ascension  of  Jesus  to  a  purely  spiritual 
elevation,  and  to  admit  no  external  visible  fact  in  which  this 
elevation  was  manifested.  Luke's  account  was  the  production 
of  a  later  tradition.  We  shall  examine  this  hypothesis  at  the 
close. 

The  meaning  of  the  igtfyaye  Be,  then  He  led  them,  is  simply 
this  :  "  All  these  instructions  finished,  He  led  them  .  .  ."  This 
expression  says  absolutely  nothing  as  to  the  time  when  the 
event  took  place. — The  term  crvvaXt^ofxevo^,  having  assembled, 
Acts  i.  4,  proves  that  Jesus  had  specially  convoked  the  apostles 
in  order  to  take  leave  of  them.  — "Em  ek  (T.  E.),  and  still 
more  decidedly  ea>?  irpos  (Alex.),  signifies,  not  as  far  as,  but 
to  about,  in  the  direction  and  even  to  the  neighbourhood  of . . . 
There  is  thus  no  contradiction  to  Acts  i.  12.1  Like  the  high 
priest  when,  coming  forth  from  the  temple,  he  blessed  the 
people,  Jesus  comes  forth  from  the  invisible  world  once  more, 
before  altogether  shutting  Himself  up  within  it,  and  gives  His 
own  a  last  benediction.  Then,  in  the  act  of  performing  this 
deed  of  love,  He  is  withdrawn  to  a  distance  from  them  towards 
the  top  of  the  mountain,  and  His  visible  presence  vanishes 
from  their  eyes.  The  words  /cal  ave^epero  et9  top  ovpavov  are 
omitted  in  the  Sinait.,  the  Cantab.,  and  some  copies  of  the 
Itala.  Could  this  phrase  be  the  gloss  of  a  copyist  ?  But  a 
gloss  would  probably  have  been  borrowed  from  the  narrative 
of  the  Acts,  and  that  book  presents  no  analogous  expression. 
Might  not  this  omission  rather  be,  like  so  many  others,  the 
result  of  negligence,  perhaps  of  confounding  the  two  Kali 
We  can  hardly  believe  that  Luke  would  have  said  so  curtly, 
He  was  parted  from  them,  without  adding  how.  The  imperfect 
dv6(j)€peTo,  He  ivas  carried  up,  forms  a  picture.  It  reminds  us 
of  the  dew peiv,  behold,  John  vi.  62.  The  Cantab,  and  some 
MSS.  of  the  Itala  omit  (ver.  52)  the  word  irpoaKw^a-avre^, 

ecvspptro  us  rev  evpavav. — Ver.  52.  D.  It*1'9,  omit  the  words  xpoffxuvnffavns  etvrov.— 

Ver.  53.  D.  It*15"*,  omit  the  words  »en  svXoyowns. — N.  B.  C.  L.  omit  onvewns  xui. 
— tf .  C.  D.  L.  n.  some  Mnn.  Italiq.  omit  a/t«jv. 

1  See  the  interesting  passage  of  M.  Felix  Bovet  on  the  spot  from  which  the 
»«cension  took  place,  Voyage  en  Terre-Sainte,  p.  225  et  seq. 


ON  THE  ASCENSION.  367 

having  worshipped  Him,  perhaps  in  consequence  of  confound- 
ing aviai  and  avrov.  The  verb  irpoa-Kuvelv,  to  prostrate  oneself, 
in  this  context,  can  mean  only  the  adoration  which  is  paid  to 
a  divine  being  (Ps.  ii.  12). — The  joy  of  the  disciples  caused 
by  this  elevation  of  their  Master,  which  is  the  pledge  of  the 
victory  of  His  cause,  fulfilled  the  word  of  Jesus  :  "  If  ye  loved 
ijc  would  rejoice  because  I  go  to  my  Father"  (John  xiv.  28). 
The  point  to  be  determined  is,  whether  the  more  detailed 
account  in  Acts  (the  cloud,  the  two  glorified  men  who  appear) 
is  an  amplification  of  the  scene  due  to  the  pen  of  Luke,  or 
whether  the  account  in  the  Gospel  was  only  a  sketch  which 
he  proposed  to  complete  at  the  beginning  of  his  second 
treatise,  of  which  this  scene  was  to  form  the  starting-point. 
If  our  explanation  of  vers.  44-49  is  well  founded,  we  cannot 
but  incline  to  the  second  view.  And  the  more  we  recognise 
up  to  this  point  in  Luke  an  author  who  writes  conscientiously 
and  from  conviction,  the  more  shall  we  feel  obliged  to  reject 
the  first  alternative. — The  numerous  omissions,  vers.  52,  53, 
in  the  Cantab,  and  some  mss.  of  the  Itala  cannot  well  be 
explained,  except  by  the  haste  which  the  copyists  seem  to 
have  made  as  they  approached  the  end  of  their  work.  Or 
should  the  preference  be  given,  as  Tischendorf  gives  it,  to  this 
abridged  text,  contrary  to  all  the  other  authorities  together  ? 
D  a  b,  which  read  alvovvre?  without  ica\  evXoyovvres;  N.  B.  C.  L., 
which  read  evXoyovvres  without  alvovvres  kcli,  mutually  con- 
demn one  another,  and  so  confirm  the  received  reading,  prais- 
ing and  blessing  God.  Perhaps  the  omission  in  both  cases 
arises  from  confounding  the  two  — mes.  Alveiv,  to  praise,  refers 
to  the  person  of  God  ;  evXoyelv,  to  !>!<  t$t  to  His  benefits.  The 
iplefl  do  here  what  was  done  at  the  beginning  by  the 
shepherds  (ii.  20).  But  what  a  way  traversed,  what  a  series 
of  glorious  benefits  between  those  two  acts  of  homage  !  The 
last  words,  these  in  particular  :  "  Thnj  were,  continually  in  the 
temple^  iuiin  the  transition  to  the  book  of  Acts. 

On  the  Ascension. 

At  first  the  apostles  regarded  the  ascension  as  only  the  last  of 
those  numerous  disappearances  which  they  had  witnessed  during 
tli-  vs  (a(fxtvT<K  tyeVcTo,  ver.  31).      Jesus  regard  «•<!    it    at  lie 

f  Sim  of  man,  to  that  fioptfrrj 
6tou  (Phil,  ii.  6)i  that  divine  state  \vlii<  h  Be  ha<l  NBOVBOOd  when 


368  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

He  came  under  the  conditions  of  human  existence.  Having  reached 
the  term  of  His  earthly  career,  He  had  asked  back  His  glory  (John 
xvii.  5) ;  the  ascension  was  the  answer  to  His  prayer. 

Modern  criticism  objects  to  the  reality  of  the  ascension  as  an 
external  fact,  on  the  ground  of  the  Copernican  system,  which 
excludes  the  belief  that  heaven  is  a  particular  place  situated  above 
our  heads  and  beyond  the  stars.  Those  who  raise  this  objection 
labour  under  a  very  gross  misunderstanding.  According  to  the 
Biblical  view,  the  ascension  is  not  the  exchange  of  one  place  for 
another ;  it  is  a  change  of  state,  and  this  change  is  precisely  the 
emancipation  from  all  confinement  within  the  limits  of  space, 
exaltation  to  omnipresence.  The  cloud  was,  as  it  were,  the  veil 
which  covered  this  transformation.  The  right  hand  of  a  God  every- 
where present  cannot  designate  a  particular  place.  Sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  must  also  include  omniscience,  which  is  closely 
bound  up  with  omnipresence,  as  well  as  omnipotence,  of  which  the 
right  hand  of  God  is  the  natural  symbol.  The  Apocalypse  ex- 
presses in  its  figurative  language  the  true  meaning  of  the  ascension, 
when  it  represents  the  glorified  Son  of  man  as  the  Lamb  with  seven 
horns  (omnipotence)  and  seven  eyes  (omniscience).  This  divine 
mode  of  being  does  not  exclude  bodily  existence  in  the  case  of 
Jesus.  Comp.,  in  Paul,  the  o-w/xartKw?,  bodily.  Col.  ii.  9,  and  the 
expression  spiritual  body  applied  to  the  second  Adam,  1  Cor.  xv.  44. 
We  cannot,  from  experience,  form  an  idea  of  this  glorified  bodily 
existence.  But  it  may  be  conceived  as  a  power  of  appearing  sensibly 
and  of  external  activity,  operating  at  the  pleasure  of  the  will  alone, 
and  at  every  point  of  space. 

Another  objection  is  taken  from  the  omission  of  this  scene  in  the 
other  Biblical  documents. — But,  1.  Paul  expressly  mentions  an 
appearance  to  all  the  apostles,  1  Cor.  xv.  7.  Placed  at  the  close  of 
the  whole  series  of  previous  appearances  (among  them  that  to  the 
500),  and  immediately  before  that  which  decided  his  own  conver- 
sion, this  appearance  can  only  be  the  one  at  the  ascension  as  related 
by  Luke.  This  fact  is  decisive  ;  for,  according  to  vers.  3  and  11,  it 
is  the  irapaSoa-Ls,  the  general  tradition  of  the  churches,  proceeding 
from  the  apostles,  which  Paul  sums  up  in  this  passage. — 2.  How- 
ever Mark's  mutilated  conclusion  may  be  explained,  the  words : 
"  So  then,  after  the  Lord  had  thus  spoken  unto  them,  He  was  received 
up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God,"  suppose  some 
sensible  fact  or  other,  which  served  as  a  basis  for  such  expressions. 
The  same  holds  of  the  innumerable  declarations  of  the  epistles  (Paul, 
Peter,  Hebrews,  James),  which  speak  of  the  heavenly  glory  of 
Jesus,  and  of  His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Doctrines,  with 
the  apostles,  are  never  more  than  the  commentary  on  facts.  Such 
expressions  must  have  a  historical  substratum. — 3.  No  doubt,  John 
does  not  relate  the  ascension.  But  can  it  be  said  that  he  does  not 
mention  it,  when  this  saying  occurs  in  his  Gospel  (vi.  62) :  "  What 
and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man  ascend  up  where  He  was  before  f " 
The  term  Oeiaptlv,  strictly  to  contemplate,  and  the  pres.  partic.  avafiat- 
vovra,  ascending,  forbid  us  to  think  of  an  event  of  a  purely  spiritual 


ON  THE  ASCENSION.  369 

nature  (comp.  Baumlein,  ad.  h.  I).  Why,  then,  does  he  not  relate 
the  historical  scene  of  the  ascension  ?  Because,  as  his  starting-point 
was  taken  after  the  baptism,  which  on  this  account  he  does  not 
relate,  his  conclusion  is  placed  before  the  ascension,  which  for  this 
reason  he  leaves  unrelated.  The  idea  of  his  book  was  the  develop- 
ment of  faith  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles  from  its  birth  to  its  con- 
summation. Now  their  faith  was  born  with  the  visit  of  John  and 
Andrew,  chap,  i.,  after  the  baptism  ;  and  it  had  received  the  seal  of 
perfection  in  the  profession  of  Thomas,  chap,  xx.,  before  the  ascen- 
sion. That  the  evangelist  did  not  think  of  relating  all  the  appear- 
ances which  he  knew,  is  proved  positively  by  that  on  the  shores  of 
the  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  which  is  related  after  the  close  of  the  book 
(xx.  30,  31),  and  in  an  appendix  (chap,  xxi.)  composed  either  by 
the  author  himself  (at  least  as  far  as  ver.  23)  or  based  on  a  tradi- 
tion emanating  from  him.  He  was  therefore  aware  of  this  appear- 
ance, and  he  had  not  mentioned  it  in  his  Gospel,  like  Luke,  who 
could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  appearance  to  the  500,  and  who  has 
not  mentioned  it  either  in  his  Gospel  or  in  Acts.  What  reserve 
should  such  facts  impose  on  criticism,  however  little  gifted  with 
caution  ! — 4.  And  the  following  must  be  very  peculiarly  borne  in 
mind  in  judging  of  MatUiew's  narrative.  It  is  no  doubt  strange  to 
find  this  evangelist  relating  (besides  the  appearance  to  the  women, 
which  is  intended  merely  to  prepare  for  that  following  by  the  message 
which  is  given  them)  only  a  single  appearance,  that  which  took 
place  on  the  mountain  of  Galilee,  where  Jesus  had  appointed  His 
disciples,  as  well  as  the  women  and  all  the  faithful,  to  meet  Him, 
and  where  He  gives  the  Eleven  their  commission.  This  appearance 
cannot  be  any  of  those  which  Luke  and  John  place  in  Judaea.  It 
comes  nearer  by  its  locality  to  that  which,  according  to  John  xxi., 
took  place  in  Galilee ;  but  it  cannot  be  identified  with  it,  for  the 
scene  of  the  latter  was  the  sea-shore.  As  we  have  seen,  it  can  only 
be  the  appearance  to  the  500  mentioned  by  Paul.  The  meeting  on 
a  mountain  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  so  numerous  an  assembly, 
though  Matthew  mentions  none  but  the  Eleven,  because  the  grand 

that  mission  of  world-wi.h-  evangelisation  which  Jesus  gives 
them  that  day.  Matthew's  intention  was  not,  as  we  have  already 
MOD,  to  mention  all  the  different  appearances,  either  in  Judasa  or 
Galilee,  by  which  Jesus  had  re-awakened  the  personal  faith  of  the 

-.  ami  concluded  His  earthly  connection  with  them.     His 

x<  lusively  in  view  that  solemn  appearance  in  which 

Jesus  declared  Himself  the  Lord  of  the  univeiM •.  the  sovereign  of 

the  nations,  and  had  given  the  apostles  their  mission  to  conquer  for 

Him  the  ends  of  the  earth.     So  true  is  it  that  his  narrative  BMMl 

terminate  in  this  nnraDM  tact,  that  Jesus  announced  it  before  His 

death  nd  that,  immediately  after  the  resurrection, 

the  am.'* -1  and  Jem  EumteU  epokt  of  it  to  the  women  (xxviii.  7-10). 

Indeed,  this  scene  was,  in  the  view  of  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel, 

the  real  goal  of  the  theocratic  revelation,  the  climax  of  the  ancient 

v  of  the.  ascension  was  the  most  important   in 

I  of  the  personal  c/<  L  the  day  of  Ilia 

VOL.  IL  2  k 


370  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

appearance  on  the  mountain  showed  the  accomplishment  of  the 
Messianic  programme  sketched  i.  1  :  "  Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  son  of 
David,  the  son  of  Abraham."  It  was  the  decisive  day  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  Matthew's  great  thought. 
Criticism  is  on  a  false  tack  when  it  assumes  that  every  evangelist 
has  said  all  that  he  could  have  said.  With  oral  tradition  spread 
and  received  in  the  Church,  the  gospel  historiography  did  not 
require  to  observe  such  an  anxious  gait  as  is  supposed.  It  was  not 
greatly  concerned  to  relate  an  appearance  more  or  less.  The  essen- 
tial thing  was  to  affirm  the  resurrection  itself.  The  contrast  be- 
tween the  detailed  official  enumeration  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.,  and  each 
of  our  four  Gospels,  proves  this  to  a  demonstration.  Especially  does 
it  seem  to  us  thoroughly  illogical  to  doubt  the  fact  of  the  ascension, 
as  Meyer  does,  because  of  Matthew's  silence,  and  not  to  extend  this 
doubt  to  all  the  appearances  in  Judaea,  about  which  he  is  equally 
silent. 

The  following  passage  from  the  letter  of  Barnabas  has  sometimes 
been  used  in  evidence  :  "  We  celebrate  with  joy  that  eighth  day  on 
which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  and,  after  having  manifested  Him- 
self, ascended  to  heaven."  The  author,  it  is  said,  like  Luke,  places 
the  ascension  and  the  resurrection  on  the  same  day.  But  it  may 
be  that  in  this  expression  he  puts  them,  not  on  the  same  day  taken 
absolutely,  but  on  the  same  day  of  the  week,  the  eighth,  Sunday  (which 
no  doubt  would  involve  an  error  as  to  the  ascension).  Or,  indeed, 
this  saying  may  signify,  according  to  John  xx.  17,  which  in  that 
case  it  would  reproduce,  that  the  ascending  of  Jesus  to  heaven 
began  with  the  resurrection,  and  on  that  very  day.  In  reality,  from 
that  time  He  was  no  more  with  His  own,  as  He  Himself  says  (Luke 
xxiv.  44).  He  belonged  to  a  higher  sphere  of  existence.  He  only 
manifested  Himself  here  below.  He  no  longer  lived  here.  He  was 
ascending,  to  use  His  own  expression.  According  to  this  view,  His 
resurrection  and  the  beginning  of  His  elevation  (Kal-Kal)  therefore 
took  place  the  same  day.  The  expression :  after  having  manifested 
Himself,  would  refer  to  the  appearances  which  took  place  on  the 
resurrection  day,  and  after  which  He  entered  into  the  celestial 
sphere. 

In  any  case,  the  resurrection  once  admitted  as  a  real  fact,  the 
question  is,  how  Jesus  left  the  earth.  By  stealth,  without  saying  a 
word  %  One  fine  day,  without  any  warning  whatever,  He  ceased  to 
re-appear  %  Is  this  mode  of  acting  compatible  with  His  tender  love 
for  His  own  1  Or,  indeed,  according  to  M.  de  Bunsen,  His  body, 
exhausted  by  the  last  effort  which  His  resurrection  had  cost  Him 
(Jesus,  according  to  this  writer,  was  the  author  of  this  event  by  the 
energy  of  His  will),  succumbed  in  a  missionary  journey  to  Phenicia, 
where  He  went  to  seek  believers  among  the  Gentiles  (John  x.  17, 
18  ;  comp.  with  ver.  16) ;  and  having  died  there  unknown,  Jesus  was 
likewise  buried  !  But  in  this  case,  His  body  raised  from  the  dead 
must  have  differed  in  no  respect  from  the  body  which  He  had  had 
during  His  life.  And  how  are  we  to  explain  all  the  accounts,  from 
which  it  appears  that,  between  His  resurrection  and  ascension,  His 


CHAP.  XXIV.  50-53.  37l 

body  was  already  under  peculiar  conditions,  and  in  course  of  glorifi- 
cation 1 — The  reality  of  such  a  fact  as  that  related  by  Luke  in  his 
account  of  the  ascension  is  therefore  indubitable,  both  from  the 
special  standpoint  of  faith  in  the  resurrection,  and  from  the  stand- 
point of  faith  in  general.     The  ascension  is  a  postulate  of  faith. 

The  ascension  perfects  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  man 
God's  design  in  regard  to  humanity.  To  make  of  sanctified 
believers  a  family  of  children  of  God,  perfectly  like  that  only 
Son  who  is  the  prototype  of  the  whole  race, — such  is  God's 
plan,  His  eternal  irpoOeat,*;  (Rom.  viii.  28,  29),  with  a  view  to 
which  He  created  the  universe.  As  the  plant  is  the  uncon- 
scious agent  of  the  life  of  nature,  man  was  intended  to  become 
the  free  and  intelligent  organ  of  the  holy  life  of  the  personal 
God.  Now,  to  realize  this  plan,  God  thought  good  (evSo/crjo-e) 
to  accomplish  it  first  in  one  ;  Eph.  ii.  6 :  "He  hath  raised  us 
up  in  Christ,  and  made  us  sit  in  Him  in  the  heavenly  places ;" 
i.  10:  "  According  to  the  purpose  which  He  had  to  gather 
together  all  things  under  one  head,  Christ;"  Heb.  ii.  10: 
"  Wishing  to  bring  many  sons  to  glory,  He  perfected  the 
Captain  of  salvation."  Such  was,  according  to  the  divine 
plan,  the  first  act  of  salvation.  The  second  was  to  unite  to 
this  One  individual  believers,  and  thus  to  make  them  par- 
takers of  the  divine  state  to  which  the  Son  of  man  had  been 
raised  (Rom.  viii.  29).  This  assimilation  of  the  faithful  to 
His  Son  God  accomplished  by  means  of  two  things,  which  are 
the  necessary  complement  of  the  facts  of  the  Gospel  history : 
P.-iitecost,  whereby  the  Lord's  moral  being  becomes  that  of 
the  believer ;  and  the  Parousia,  whereby  the  external  condition 
of  the  sanctified  believer  is  raised  to  the  same  elevation  as 
that  of  our  glorified  Lord.  First  holiness,  then  glory,  for  the 
body  as  for  the  head :  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  which  becomes 

n  by  Pentecost ;  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  which  becomes  ours 
l.y  the  Tarousia. 

Thus  it  is  that  each  Gospel,  and  not  only  that  which  we 
have  just  been  explaining,  has  the  Acts  for  its  second  volume, 
and  for  its  third  the  Apocalypse. 


CONCLUSION. 


FEOM    our  exegetical  studies  we   pass   to   the    work    of 
criticism,    which    will    gather    up    the    fruits.       This 
will  bear  on  four  points : — 

I.  The  characteristic  features  of  our  Gospel. 
II.  Its  composition  (aim,  time,  place,  author). 

III.  Its  sources,  and  its  relation  to  the  other  two  synoptics. 

IV.  The  beginning  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  first  chapter  will  establish  the  facts  ;  in  the  following 
two  we  shall  ascend  from  these  to  their  causes ;  the  aim  of 
the  fourth  is  to  replace  the  question  of  gospel  literature  in  its 
historical  position. 

C  H  A  P  T  E  E    I. 

THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE   THIRD    GOSPEL. 

We  have  to  characterize  this  writing — 1st.  As  a  historical 
production  ;  2d.  As  a  religious  work  ;  3d.  As  a  literary  com- 
position. 

I. — Historical  Point  of  View. 

The  distinctive  features  of  Luke's  narrative,  viewed  his- 
toriographically,  appear  to  us  to  be : — Fulness,  accuracy,  and 
continuity. 

A.  In  respect  of  quantity,  this  Gospel  far  surpasses  the 
other  Syn.  The  entire  matter  contained  in  the  three  may  be 
included  in  172  sections.1     Of  this  number,  Luke  has  127 

1  There  is  necessarily  much  arbitrariness  in  the  way  of  marking  off  those 
sections,  as  well  as  in  the  way  in  which  the  parallelism  between  the  three  narra- 
tives is  established,  especially  as  concerns  the  discourses  which  are  more  or  less 

372 


THE  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  THIRD  GOSPEL.  373 

sections,  that  is  to  say,  three-fourths  of  the  whole,  while 
Matthew  presents  only  114,  or  two-thirds,  and  Mark  84,  or 
the  half. 

This  superiority  in  fulness  which  distinguishes  Luke  will 
appear  still  more,  if  we  observe  that,  after  cutting  off  the 
fifty-six  sections  which  are  common  to  the  three  accounts, 
and  form  as  it  were  the  indivisible  inheritance  of  the  Sya, 
then  the  eighteen  which  are  common  to  Luke  and  Matthew 
alone,  finally  the  five  which  he  has  in  common  with  Mark, 
there  remain  as  his  own  peculiar  portion,  forty-eight — that  is 
to  say,  more  than  a  fourth  of  the  whole  materials,  while 
Matthew  has  for  his  own  only  twenty- two,  and  Mark  only 
five. 

Once  more,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  those  materials 
which  exclusively  belong  to  Luke  are  as  important  as  they 
are  abundant.  We  have,  for  example,  the  narratives  of  the 
infancy ;  those  of  the  raising  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of 
Nain,  of  the  woman  who  was  a  sinner  at  the  feet  of  Jesus, 
of  the  entertainment  at  the  house  of  Martha  and  Mary,  of  the 
tears  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem ;  the  parables  of  the  good 
Samaritan,  the  lost  sheep  and  the  lost  drachma,  the  prodigal 
son,  the  faithless  steward,  the  wicked  rich  man,  the  unjust 
judge,  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican;  the  prayer  of  Jesus 
lor  His  executioners,  His  conversation  with  the  thief  on  the 
cross,  the  appearance  to  the  two  disciples  going  to  Emmaus, 
the  ascension.  How  diminished  would  the  portrait  be  which 
remains  to  us  of  Jesus,  and  what  an  impoverishment  of  the 
knowledge  which  we  have  of  His  teachings,  if  all  these 
pieces,  which  are  preserved  by  Luke  alone,  were  wanting 
to  us ! 

B.  But,  where  history  is  concerned,  abundance  is  of  less 
importance  than  accuracy.  Is  the  wealth  of  Luke  of  good 
quality,  and  does  hi  re   not  contain  base  coin?     We 

\c  that  all  sound  exegesis  of  Luke's  narrative  will  result 
in  paying  homage  to  his  fidelity.  Are  the  parts  in  ques- 
tion those  which  are   p* -uliar  to  him — the  accounts  of  the 

common  to  Matthew  and  Luke.     M.  Reuss  (Oesch.  der  he'd.  Schriften  N. 
making  the  lections  larger,  obtains  only  124.     This  difference  may  affect  con- 
siderably the  figures,  which  it  -    comparative  fulness   of  the  three 
Gospels. 


374  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

infancy  (chap.  i.  and  ii.),  the  account  of  the  journey  (ix. 
51-xix.  27),  the  view  of  the  ascension  (xxiv.  50-53)? 
We  have  found  the  first  confirmed,  so  far  as  the  central 
fact — the  miraculous  birth — is  concerned,  by  the  absolute 
holiness  of  Christ,  which  is  the  unwavering  testimony  of  His 
consciousness,  and  which  involves  a  different  origin  in  His 
case  from  ours ;  and  as  to  the  details,  by  the  purely  Jewish 
character  of  the  events  and  discourses, — a  character  which 
would  be  inexplicable  after  the  rupture  between  the  Church 
and  the  synagogue.  The  supernatural  in  these  accounts  has, 
besides,  nothing  in  common  with  the  legendary  marvels  of 
the  apocryphal  books,  nor  even  with  the  already  altered 
traditions  which  appear  in  such  authors  as  Papias  and  Justin, 
the  nearest  successors  of  the  apostles,  on  different  points  of 
the  Gospel  history.  In  studying  carefully  the  account  of  the 
journey,  we  have  found  that  all  the  improbabilities  which 
are  alleged  against  it  vanish.  It  is  not  a  straight  journey  to 
Jerusalem;  it  is  a  slow  and  solemn  itineration,  all  the  incidents 
and  adventures  of  which  Jesus  turns  to  account,  in  order  to 
educate  His  disciples  and  evangelize  the  multitudes.  He 
thus  finds  the  opportunity  of  visiting  a  country  which  till 
then  had  not  enjoyed  His  ministry,  the  southern  parts  of 
Galilee,  adjacent  to  Samaria,  as  well  as  Peraea.  Thereby  an 
important  blank  in  His  work  in  Israel  is  filled  up.  Finally, 
the  sketch  of  that  prolonged  journey  to  Jerusalem,  without 
presenting  exactly  the  same  type  as  John's  narrative,  which 
divides  this  epoch  into  four  distinct  journeys  (to  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  chap.  viii. ;  to  the  feast  of  Dedication,  chap.  x. ; 
to  Bethany,  chap.  xi. ;  to  the  last  Passover,  chap,  xii.),  yet 
resembles  it  so  closely,  that  it  is  impossible  not  to  take  this 
circumstance  as  materially  confirming  Luke's  account.  It  is 
a  first,  though  imperfect,  rectification  of  the  abrupt  contrast 
between  the  Galilean  ministry  and  the  last  sojourn  at  Jeru- 
salem which  characterizes  the  synoptical  view ;  it  is  the 
beginning  of  a  return  to  the  full  historical  truth  restored  by 
John.1 

1  Sabatier  (Bssai  sur  les  sources  de  la  vie  de  Jesus,  pp.  31  and  32) :  "  Luke, 
without  seeking  or  intending  it,  but  merely  as  the  result  of  his  new  investiga. 
tions,  has  destroyed  the  factitious  framework  of  the  synoptical  tradition,  and 
has  given  us  a  glimpse  of  a  new  one,  larger,  without  being  less  simple.     Luke  is 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  HISTORICAL  POINT  OF  VIEW.      375 

We  have  found  the  account  of  the  ascension  not  only  con- 
finned  by  the  apostolic  view  of  the  glorification  of  Jesus, 
which  fills  the  epistles,  by  the  last  verses  of  Mark,  and  by 
the  saying  of  Jesus,  John  vi.  62,  but  also  by  the  express 
testimony  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  7,  to  an  appearance  granted  to 
all  the  apostles,  which  must  have  taken  place  between  that 
granted  to  the  500  brethren  and  that  on  the  way  to 
Damascus. 

So  far,  then,  from  regarding  those  parts  as  arbitrary  addi- 
tions which  Luke  took  the  liberty  of  making  to  the  Gospel 
history,  we  are  bound  to  recognise  them  as  real  historical 
data,  which  serve  to  complete  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end 
of  our  Lord's  life. 

We  think  we  have  also  established  the  almost  uniform 
accuracy  shown  by  Luke  in  distributing,  under  a  multitude  of 
different  occasions,  discourses  which  are  grouped  by  Matthew 
in  one  whole  ;  we  have  recognised  the  same  character  of 
fidelity  in  the  historical  introductions  which  he  almost  always 
prefixes  to  those  discourses.  After  having  established,  as  we 
have  done,  the  connection  between  the  saying  about  the 
lilies  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of  the  air  and  the  parable  of 
the  foolish  rich  man  (chap,  xii),  the  similar  relation  between 
the  figures  used  in  the  lesson  about  prayer  and  the  parable  of 
the  importunate  friend  (chap,  xi.), — who  will  prefer,  histori- 
cally speaking,  the  place  assigned  by  Matthew  to  those  t\v<» 
lessons  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  the  images  used 
lose  the  exquisite  fitness  which  in  Luke  they  derive  from 
their  connection  with  the  narratives  preceding  them  ?  What 
judicious  critic,  after  feeling  the  breach  of  continuity  which 
is  produced  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  by  the  insertion  of 
the  Lord's  prayer  (Matt,  vi.),  will  not  prefer  the  characteristic 
scene  which  Luke  has  described  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  this  form  of  prayer  was  taught  to  the  apostles  (Luke 
xi.  1  et  seq.)  ?  How  can  we  doubt  that  the  menacing  fare- 
well to  the  cities  of  Galilee  was  uttered  at  the  time  at  which 
Luke  has  it  (chap,  x.),  immediately  after  his  departure,  i.\. 

far  from  having  cleared  «wty  every  difficulty.  .  .   .   Tie  lml  tOOUQCh  ligM  to 
be  satisfy  :  wing  in  the  track  of  his  predecessors  ;  he  had  not  enough 

to  reach  the  full  reality  of  the  Gospel  history.     Hi  thus  eerves  admirably  to 
form  the  transition  be'  rst  two  Gospels  an  1  the  fourth." 


376  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

51,  rather  than  in  the  middle  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  where 
it  is  put  by  Matthew  ?  The  same  is  true  of  the  cases  in 
which  the  sayings  of  Jesus  can  only  be  fully  explained  by 
the  surroundings  in  which  Luke  places  them;  e.g.,  the 
answers  of  Jesus  to  the  three  aspirants  after  the  kingdom  of 
God  (chap,  ix.)  would  be  incomprehensible  and  hardly  justifi- 
able on  the  eve  of  a  mere  excursion  to  the  other  side  of  the 
sea  (Matt,  viii.),  while  they  find  their  full  explanation  at  the 
time  of  a  final  departure  (Luke). 

The  introductions  with  which  Luke  prefaces  those  occa- 
sional teachings  are  not  in  favour  with  modern  critics.1  Yet 
Holtzmann  acknowledges  the  historical  truth  of  some, — of 
those,  for  example,  which  introduce  the  Lord's  prayer  and  the 
lesson  upon  avarice  (chap.  xii.).  We  have  ourselves  estab- 
lished the  accuracy  of  a  very  large  number,  and  shown  that 
they  contain  the  key  to  the  discourses  which  follow,  and  that 
commentators  have  often  erred  from  having  neglected  the  in- 
dications which  they  contain  (see  on  xiii.  23,  xiv.  25,  xv. 
1,  2,  xvi.  1,  14,  xvii.  20,  xviii.  1,  xix.  11).  What  con- 
firms the  really  historical  character  of  those  notices  is,  that 
there  is  a  certain  number  of  doctrinal  teachings  which  want 
chem,  and  which  Luke  is  satisfied  to  set  down  without  con- 
nection and  without  introduction  after  one  another  :  so  with 
the  four  precepts,  xvii.  1-10.  Certainly,  if  he  had  allowed 
himself  to  invent  situations,  it  would  not  have  been  more 
difficult  to  imagine  them  for  those  sayings  than  for  so  many 
others. 

If,  finally,  we  compare  the  parallel  accounts  of  Luke  and 
of  the  other  two  synoptics,  we  find,  both  in  the  description  of 
facts  and  in  the  tenor  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  a  very  remark- 
able superiority  on  the  part  of  Luke  in  respect  of  accuracy. 
We  refer  to  the  prayer  of  Jesus  at  the  time  of  His  baptism, 
and  before  His  transfiguration — the  human  factor,  as  it  is, 

1  Weizsacker  is  the  author  who  abuses  them  most: — "No  value  can  be 
allowed  to  the  historical  introductions  of  Luke  "  ( Untersuch.  p.  139).  It  is  true 
that  he  is  necessarily  led  to  this  estimate  by  his  opinion  regarding  the  general 
conformity  of  the  great  discourses  of  Matthew  to  the  common  apostolic  sources 
of  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  Logia.  If  Matthew  is,  of  the  two  evangelists,  the 
one  who  faithfully  reproduces  this  original,  Luke  must  have  arbitrarily  dislo- 
cated the  great  bodies  of  discourse  found  in  Matthew  ;  and  in  this  case,  the  his- 
torical introductions  must  be  his  own  invention. 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  HISTORICAL  POINT  OF  VIEW.      377 

which  leads  to  the  divine  interposition,  and  takes  from  it 
that  abrupt  character  which  it  appears  to  have  in  the  other 
accounts.  In  the  temptation,  the  transposition  of  the  last 
two  acts  of  the  struggle,  in  the  transfiguration,  the  mention 
of  the  subject  of  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  Moses  and 
Elias,  throw  great  light  on  those  scenes  taken  as  a  whole, 
which  in  the  other  synoptics  are  much  less  clear  (see  the 
passages). 

We  know  that  Luke  is  charged  with  grave  historical  errors. 
According  to  M.  Eenan  ( Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  xxxix.  et  seq.),  certain 
declarations  are  "  pushed  to  extremity  and  rendered  false ;" 
for  example,  xiv.  26,  where  Luke  says:  "If  any  man  hate 
not  his  father  and  mother,"  where  Matthew  is  content  with 
saying:  "He  that  lovcth  father  or  mother  more  than  me."  We 
refer  to  our  exegesis  of  the  passage.  "  He  exaggerates  the 
marvellous ; "  for  example,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  in 
Gethsemane.  As  if  Matthew  and  Mark  did  not  relate  a  per- 
fectly similar  fact,  which  Luke  omits,  at  the  close  of  the 
account  of  the  temptation !  "  He  commits  chronological 
errors;"  for  example,  in  regard  to  Quirinius  and  Lysanias. 
Luke  appears  to  us  right,  so  far  as  Lysanias  is  concerned ;  and 
as  to  Quirinius,  considering  the  point  at  which  researches  now 
stand,  an  impartial  historian  will  hardly  take  the  liberty  of 
condemning  him  unconditionally.  According  to  Keim,  Luke 
is  evidently  wrong  in  placing  the  visit  to  Nazareth  at  the 
opening  of  the  Galilean  ministry  ;  but  has  he  not  given  us 
previously  the  description  of  the  general  activity  of  Jesus  in 
Galilee  (iv.  14  and  15)?  And  is  not  the  saying  of  ver.  23, 
which  supposes  a  stay  at  Capernaum  previous  to  this  visit, 
to  be  thus  explained?  And,  further,  do  not  Matt.  iv.  13 
and  John  ii.  12  contain  indisputable  proofs  of  a  return  on 
the  part  of  Jesus  to  Nazareth  in  the  very  earliest  times  of 
i  .ilil'.m  ministry  ?     According  to  the  same  author,  Luke 

makes  Nain  in  GkJflee  a  city  of  Judaea;  but  this  interpreta- 
tion proceeds,  as  we  have  seen,  from  m  entire  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  context  (see  on  vii.  17).  It  is  alleged,  on  the 
ground  of  xvii.  1  1,  that  he  did  DOt  know  the  relative  positions 
:n.iiia  and  Galilee.  We  are  convinced  thai  Luke  is  as 
far  as  possible  from  being  guilty  of  so  gross  a  in 
According   to   M.   Sabaticr   (p.  29),  there  is  a  contradiction 


378  fHE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

between  the  departure  of  Jesus  by  way  of  Samaria  (ix.  52) 
and  His  arriving  in  Judaea  by  Jericho  (xviii.  35)  ;  but  even 
if  the  plan  of  Jesus  had  been  to  pass  through  Samaria,  the 
refusal  of  the  Samaritans  to  receive  Him  would  have  pre- 
vented Him  from  carrying  it  out.  And  had  He,  in  spite  of 
this,  passed  through  Samaria,  He  might  still  have  arrived  by 
way  of  Jericho ;  for  from  the  earliest  times  there  has  been  a 
route  from  north  to  south  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Jordan. 
Finally,  he  is  charged  with  certain  faults  which  he  shares  with 
the  other  two  synoptics.  But  either  those  mistakes  have  no 
real  existence,  as  that  which  refers  to  the  day  of  Jesus'  death, 
or  Luke  does  not  share  them — e.g.,  that  which  leads  Matthew 
and  Mark  to  place  John's  imprisonment  before  the  first  return 
of  Jesus  to  Galilee,  or  the  charge  of  inaccuracy  attaches  to 
him  in  a  less  degree  than  to  his  colleagues,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  omission  of  the  journeys  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem. 

There  is  a  last  observation  to  be  made  on  the  historical 
character  of  Luke's  narrative.  It  occupies  an  intermediate 
position  between  the  other  three  Gospels.  It  has  a  point  in 
common  with  Matthew — the  doctrinal  teachings  of  Jesus  ;  it 
has  also  a  point  of  contact  with  Mark — the  sequence  of  the 
accounts,  which  is  the  same  over  a  large  portion  of  the  narra- 
tive ;  it  has  likewise  several  features  in  common  with  John  : 
the  chief  is,  that  considerable  interval  which  in  both  of  them 
divides  the  end  of  the  Galilean  ministry  from  the  last  sojourn 
at  Jerusalem.  Thereto  must  be  added  some  special  details, 
such  as  the  visit  to  Martha  and  Mary,  as  well  as  the  charac- 
teristics of  those  two  women,  which  harmonize  so  well  with 
the  sketch  of  the  family  of  Bethany  drawn  by  John  (ch.  xi.) ; 
next,  the  dispute  of  the  disciples  at  the  close  of  the  Holy 
Supper,  with  the  lessons  of  Jesus  therewith  connected, — an  ac- 
count the  connection  of  which  with  that  of  the  feet- washing 
in  John  (chap,  xiii.)  is  so  striking.  And  thus,  while  remaining 
entirely  independent  of  the  other  three,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is 
nevertheless  confirmed  and  supported  simultaneously  by  them 
all. 

From  all  those  facts  established  by  exegesis,  it  follows 
that,  if  Luke's  account  has  not,  like  that  of  John,  the  fulness 
and  precision  belonging  to  the  narrative  of  an  eye-witness, 
it   nevertheless   reaches    the    degree    of  fidelity  which   may 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  HISTORICAL  POINT  OF  VIEW.     379 

be  attained  by  a  historian  who  draws  his  materials  from 
those  sources  which  are  at  once  the  purest  and  the  nearest  to 
the  facts. 

C.  An  important  confirmation  of  the  accuracy  of  Luke's 
account  arises  from  the  continuity,  the  well-marked  historical 
progression,  which  characterizes  it.  If  he  is  behind  John  in 
this  respect,  he  is  far  superior  to  Matthew  and  Mark. 

Though  the  author  did  not  tell  us  in  his  prologue,  we 
should  easily  discover  that  his  purpose  is  to  depict  the  gradual 
development  of  the  work  of  Christianity.  He  takes  his  start- 
ing-point at  the  earliest  origin  of  this  work — the  announce- 
ment of  the  forerunner's  birth  ;  it  is  the  first  dawning  of  the 
new  day  which  is  rising  on  humanity.  Then  come  the  birth 
and  growth  of  the  forerunner  —  the  birth  and  growth  of 
Jesus  Himself.  The  physical  and  moral  development  of 
Jesus  is  doubly  sketched,  before  and  after  His  first  visit  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  age  of  twelve ;  a  scene  related  only  by  Luke, 
and  which  forms  the  link  of  connection  between  the  infancy 
of  Jesus  and  His  public  ministry.  With  the  baptism  begins 
the  development  of  His  work,  the  continuation  of  that  of  His 
person.  From  this  point  the  narrative  pursues  two  distinct 
a  ml  parallel  lines :  on  one  side,  the  progress  of  the  new  work ; 
on  the  other,  its  violent  rupture  with  the  old  work,  Judaism. 
The  progress  of  the  work  is  marked  by  its  external  increase. 
At  first,  Capernaum  is  its  centre  ;  thence  Jesus  goes  forth  in 
all  directions  (iv.  43,  44) :  Nain  to  the  west,  Gergesa  to  the 
east,  Bethsaida-Julias  to  the  north  ;  then  Capernaum  ceases  to 
be  the  centre  of  His  excursions  (viii.  1-3),  and  quitting  those 
more  northern  countries  entirely,  He  proceeds  to  evangelize 
southern  Galilee  and  Penea,  upon  which  He  had  not  yet  en- 
tered (ix.  51),  and  repairs  by  this  way  to  Jerusalem.  Side 
by  side  with  this  external  progress  goes  the  moral  develop- 
ment of  the  work  itself.  Surrounded  at  first  by  a  certain 
number  of  believers  (iv.  38-42),  Jesus  soon  calls  some  of  them 
to  become  II  permanent  disciples  and  feUow-labotnreri  (v. 
1-11,  27,  28).  A  considerable  time  after,  when  the  work 
has  grown,  He  chooses  twelve  from  the  midst  of  this  multi- 
tude of  disci'  them  His  more  immediate  followers, 
and  calling  then  Such  is  the  foundation  of  the  new 
ediGce.     The  time  at  length   comes  when  they  are  no  longei 


380  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

sufficient  for  the  wants  of  the  work.  Then  seventy  new  evan- 
gelists are  added  to  them.  The  death  of  Jesus  suspends  for 
some  time  the  progress  of  the  work;  but  after  His  resurrection, 
the  apostolate  is  reconstituted ;  and  soon  the  ascension,  by 
placing  the  Master  on  the  throne,  gives  Him  the  means  of 
elevating  His  fellow-labourers  to  the  full  height  of  that  mis- 
sion which  they  have  to  carry  out  in  His  name.  Is  not  the 
concatenation  of  the  narrative  faultless  ?  And  is  not  this 
exposition  far  superior  as  a  historical  work  to  the  systematic 
juxtaposition  of  homogeneous  masses  in  Matthew,  or  to  the 
series  of  anecdotes  characteristic  of  Mark  ?  The  same  grada- 
tion meets  us  in  another  line,  that  of  the  facts  which  mark 
the  rupture  between  the  new  work  and  Israel  with  its  official 
representatives.  First  it  is  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth,  who 
refuse  to  recognise  as  the  Messiah  their  former  fellow-towns- 
man (ch.  iv.) ;  afterwards  it  is  the  scribes  who  have  come 
from  Jerusalem,  who  deny  His  right  to  pardon  sins,  accuse 
Him  of  breaking  the  Sabbath  (chap.  v.  and  vi.),  and,  on  seeing 
His  miracles  and  hearing  His  answers,  become  almost  mad 
with  rage  (vi.  11) ;  it  is  Jesus  who  announces  His  near  rejec- 
tion by  the  Sauhedrim  (ix.  22),  and  the  death  which  awaits 
Him  at  Jerusalem  (ver.  31)  ;  it  is  the  woe  pronounced  on  the 
cities  of  Galilee  (chap,  x.)  and  on  that  whole  generation  which 
shall  one  day  be  condemned  by  the  queen  of  the  south  and 
the  Ninevites ;  then  we  have  the  divine  woe  uttered  at  a 
feast  face  to  face  with  the  Pharisees  and  scribes,  and  the 
violent  scene  which  follows  this  conflict  (chap.  xi.  and  xii.) ; 
the  express  announcement  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  of  the 
desolation  of  the  country,  especially  of  Jerusalem  (chap,  xiii.) ; 
the  judgment  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus  breaking  the  last  link 
between  Messiah  and  His  people ;  the  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion emancipating  His  person  from  all  national  connections, 
and  completely  spiritualizing  His  kingdom.  Thus,  in  the 
end,  the  work  begun  at  Bethlehem  is  traced  to  its  climax, 
both  in  its  internal  development  and  its  external  emanci- 
pation. 

It  is  with  the  view  of  exhibiting  this  steady  progress  of  the 
divine  work  in  the  two  respects  indicated,  that  the  author 
marks  off  his  narrative  from  the  beginning  by  a  series  of 
general  remarks,  which  serve  as  resting-places  by  the  way, 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  HISTORICAL  POINT  OF  VIEW.      381 

and  which  describe  at  each  stage  the  present  position  of  the 
work.  These  brief  representations,  which  serve  both  as 
summaries  and  points  of  outlook,  are  always  distinguished  by 
the  use  of  the  descriptive  tense  (the  imperfect)  ;  the  resuming 
of  the  history  is  indicated  by  the  reappearance  of  the  narrative 
tense  (the  aor.).  The  following  are  the  chief  passages  of  this 
kind  :  i.  80,  ii.  40,  52,  iii.  18,  iv.  15,  37,  44,  v.  15,  16,  viii 
1,  ix.  51,  xiii.  22,  xvii  11,  xix.  28,  47,  48,  xxi.  37,  38, 
xxiv.  53  (a  last  wTord,  which  closes  the  Gospel,  and  prepares 
for  the  narrative  of  the  Acts).  If  those  expressions  are  more 
and  more  distant  in  proportion  as  the  narrative  advances  from 
the  starting-point,  it  is  because  the  further  the  journey  pro- 
ceeds, the  less  easy  is  it  to  measure  its  progress. 

What  completes  the  proof  that  this  characteristic  of  con- 
tinuity is  not  accidental  in  Luke's  narrative,  is  the  fact  that 
exactly  the  same  feature  meets  us  in  the  book  of  Acts.  Here 
Luke  describes  the  birth  and  growth  of  the  Church,  precisely 
as  he  described  in  his  Gospel  the  birth  and  growth  of  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Jesus.  The  narrative  takes  its  course  from 
Jerusalem  to  Antioch  and  from  Antioch  to  Rome,  as  in  the 
Gospel  it  proceeded  from  Bethlehem  to  Capernaum  and  from 
Capernaum  to  Jerusalem.  And  it  is  not  only  in  the  line  of 
the  progress  of  the  work  that  the  Acts  continue  the  Gospel ; 
it  is  also  alon^  that  of  the  breach  of  the  kingdom  of  God  with 
the  people  of  Israel.  The  rejection  of  the  apostolic  testimony 
and  the  persecution  of  the  Twelve  by  the  Sanhedrim ;  the 
rejection  of  Stephen's  preaching,  his  martyrdom,  and  the  dis- 
persion of  the  Church  which  results  from  it ;  the  martyrdom 

mes   (chap,  xii.)  ;    the  uniform   repetition  of  the    con- 
tumacious   conduct  of   Israel    in    every   city   of   the   world 
where  Paul  is  careful  to  preach  first  in  the  synagogue ;  the 
uiations  of  the  Jews   against  him   on   occasion   of  his 
arrest  at  Jerusalem,  from  which  he  escapes  only  by  the  im- 

1  interposition  of  the  Roman  authorities;  and  finally,  in 

the  closing  scene  (chap,  xxviii.),  the  decisive  rejection  of  the 

Gospel  by  the  Jewish  oommitnitj  at  Rome,  the  heart  of  tin* 

empire:   such  are  the  steps  of  that  ever-growing  separation 

md  the  Ohnreh  and  the  synagogue,  of  which  this  last 

forms  as  it  were  the  finishing  stroke. 
It   is  interesting   to  observe   that    the    series    of   general 


382  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

expressions  which  marks  off  the  line  of  progress  in  the 
Gospel  is  continued  in  the  Acts ;  it  is  the  same  course  which 
is  followed:  i.  14,  ii.  42-47,  iv.  32-34,  v.  12,  13,  42,  vi.  7, 
viii.  4,  5,  ix.  31,  xii.  24,  xiii.  52,  xix.  20,  xxiv.  26,  27, 
xxviii.  30,  31  (the  last  word,  which  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
narrative).  The  periodical  recurrence  of  those  expressions 
would  suffice  to  prove  that  one  and  the  same  hand  composed 
both  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts ;  for  this  form  is  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  K  T. 

By  all  those  features,  we  recognise  the  superiority  of  Luke's 
narrative  as  a  historical  work.  Matthew  groups  together 
doctrinal  teachings  in  the  form  of  great  discourses ;  he  is  a 
preacher.  Mark  narrates  events  as  they  occur  to  his  mind ; 
he  is  a  chronicler.  Luke  reproduces  the  external  and  internal 
development  of  the  events;  he  is  the  historian  properly  so 
called.  Let  it  be  remarked  that  the  three  characteristics 
which  we  have  observed  in  his  narrative  correspond  exactly 
to  the  three  main  terms  of  his  programme  (i.  3) :  fulness,  to 
the  word  iraatv  {all  things) ;  accuracy,  to  the  word  a/cpt/3w? 
{exactly) ;  and  continuity,  to  the  word  /caOegrjs  {in  order).  It 
is  therefore  with  a  full  consciousness  of  his  method  that  Luke 
thus  carried  out  his  work.  He  traced  a  programme  for  him- 
self, and  followed  it  faithfully. 

II. — Religious  Point  of  View. 

It  is  on  this  point  that  modern  criticism  has  raised  the 
most  serious  discussions.  The  Tubingen  school,  in  particular, 
has  endeavoured  to  prove  that  our  third  Gospel,  instead  of 
being  composed  purely  and  simply  in  the  service  of  historical 
truth,  was  written  in  the  interest  of  a  particular  tendency — 
that  of  the  Christianity  of  Paul,  which  was  entirely  different 
from  primitive  and  apostolic  Christianity. 

There  is  an  unmistakeable  affinity  of  a  remarkable  kind 
between  the  contents  of  Luke  and  what  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
his  epistles  frequently  calls  his  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  the 
doctrine  of  the  universality  and  entire  freeness  of  the  salva- 
tion offered  to  man  without  any  legal  condition.  At  the 
beginning,  the  angels  celebrate  the  goodwill  of  God  to  (all) 
men.  Simeon  foreshadows  the  breach  between  the  Messiah 
and  the  majority  of  His  people.     Luke  alone  follows  out  the 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       383 

quotation  of  Isaiah  relative  to  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist, 
including  the  words :  u  And  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of 
God."  He  traces  the  genealogy  back  to  Adam.  The  ministry 
of  Jesus  opens  with  His  visit  to  Nazareth,  which  forms  an 
express  prelude  to  the  unbelief  of  Israel.  The  paralytic  and 
the  woman  who  was  a  sinner  obtain  pardon  by  faith  alone. 
The  sending  of  the  seventy  evangelists  prefigures  the  evan- 
gelization of  all  nations.  The  part  played  by  the  Samaritan 
in  the  parable  exhibits  the  superiority  of  that  people's  moral 
disposition  to  that  of  the  Israelites.  The  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,  xiv.)  adds  to  the  calling  of 
sinners  in  Israel  (ver.  21)  that  of  the  Gentiles  (vers.  22  and 
23).  The  teaching  regarding  the  unprofitable  servant  (xvii. 
7-10)  tears  up  the  righteousness  of  works  by  the  roots.  The 
gratitude  of  the  leprous  Samaritan,  compared  with  the  in- 
gratitude of  the  nine  Jewish  lepers,  again  exhibits  the  favour- 
able disposition  of  this  people,  who  are  strangers  to  the 
theocracy.  Salvation  abides  in  the  house  of  Zaccheus  the 
publican  from  the  moment  he  has  believed.  The  form  of  the 
institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  almost  identical  with  that 
of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  The  sayings  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  related 
by  Luke — His  prayer  for  His  executioners,  His  promise  to  the 
thief,  and  His  last  invocation  to  His  Father — are  all  three 
words  of  grace  and  faith.  The  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus 
correspond  almost  point  for  point  to  the  enumeration  of  Paul, 
1  Cor.  xv.  The  command  of  Jesus  to  the  apostles  to  "  preach 
repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins  to  all  nations"  is  as  it 

the  programme  of  that  apostle's  work;  and  these 
which  closes  the  Gospel,  that  of  Jesus  leaving  His  own  in  the 
act  ofl  g  them,  admirably  represents  its  spirit. 

a  —  nihlage  of  characteristic  features  Manging  exclu- 
sively to  Luke  admits  of  no  doubt  that  a  special  relation 
existed  between  the  writing  of  this  evangelist  and  the  mini- 
stry of  St.  Paul ;  and  that  granted,  we  can  hardly  help  lading 
a  hint  of  tin-  relation  in  the  dedication  addressed  to  Theo- 
philus,  no  doubt  a  Christian  moulded  by  Paul's  teaching: 
That  thou  migJUest  know  th>  m  things  wherein 

'  hast  been  instructed"  (see  voL  i.  D]  I). 


384  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

But  this  indisputable  fact  seems  to  be  opposed  by  another 
not  less  evident — the  presence  in  this  same  Gospel  of  a  large 
number  of  elements  wholly  Jewish  in  their  nature,  or  what 
is  called  at  the  present  day  the  Ebionism  of  Luke. 

This  same  historian,  so  partial  to  Paul's  universalism, 
makes  the  new  work  begin  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  ancient 
covenant,  in  the  holy  place  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem.  The 
persons  called  to  take  part  in  it  are  recommended  to  this 
divine  privilege  by  their  irreproachable  fidelity  to  all  legal 
observances  (i.  6-15).  The  Messiah  who  is  about  to  be  born 
shall  ascend  the  throne  of  David  His  father ;  His  kingdom 
shall  be  the  restored  house  of  Jacob  (vers.  32,  33) ;  and  the 
salvation  which  He  will  bring  to  His  people  shall  have  for 
its  culminating  point  Israel's  perfect  celebration  of  worship 
freed  from  their  enemies  (vers.  74,  75).  Jesus  Himself  is 
subject  from  the  outset  to  all  legal  obligations  ;  He  is  circum- 
cised and  presented  in  the  temple  on  the  days  and  with  all 
the  rites  prescribed,  and  His  parents  do  not  return  to  theii 
house,  it  is  expressly  said,  "  till  they  had  performed  all  things 
according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord?  At  the  age  indicated  by 
theocratic  custom,  He  is  brought  for  the  first  time  to  the  feast 
of  Passover,  where,  according  to  the  narrative,  "  His  parents 
went  every  year."  As  the  condition  of  participating  in  the 
Messiah's  kingdom,  the  people  receive  from  the  mouth  of 
John  the  Baptist  merely  the  appointment  of  certain  works  of 
righteousness  and  beneficence  to  be  practised.  If,  in  His 
ministry,  Jesus  has  no  scruple  in  violating  the  additions  with 
which  the  doctors  had  surrounded  the  law  as  with  a  hedge, — 
for  example,  in  His  Sabbatic  miracles, — He  nevertheless  re- 
mains subject  to  the  Mosaic  ordinance  even  in  the  matter  of 
the  Sabbath.  He  sends  the  healed  leper  to  offer  sacrifice  at 
Jerusalem,  as  a  testimony  of  His  reverence  for  Moses.  Eternal 
life  consists,  according  to  Him,  in  fulfilling  the  sum  (x.  26- 
28)  or  the  commandments  of  the  law  (xviii.  18-20).  In  the 
case  of  the  woman  whom  He  cures  on  the  Sabbath  day,  He 
loves  to  assert  her  title  as  a  daughter  of  Abraham  (xiii.  16). 
He  goes  the  length  even  of  affirming  (xvi.  1 7)  that  "  not 
one  tittle  of  the  law  shall  fail."  The  true  reason  of  that  per- 
dition which  threatens  the  Pharisees,  represented  by  the 
wicked  rich  man,  is  their  not  hearing  Moses  and  the  prophets. 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       385 

Even  at  the  very  close  of  Jesus'  ministry,  the  women  who 
surround  him,  out  of  respect  for  the  Sabbath,  break  off  their 
preparations  for  embalming  His  body ;  u  and,  it  is  expressly 
said,  they  rested  on  the  Sabbath  day  according  to  the  comma  tid- 

U"  (xxiii.  56).  Finally,  it  is  Jerusalem  which  is  to  be  the 
starting-point  of  the  new  preaching ;  it  is  in  this  city  that 
the  apostles  are  to  wait  for  power  from  on  high.  It  is  in  the 
temple  that  they  abide  continually,  after  the  ascension.  The 
narrative  closes  in  the  temple,  as  it  was  in  the  temple  that  it 
opened  (xxiv.  53). 

If  Paul's  conception  is  really  antinomian,  hostile  to 
Judaism  and  the  law,  and  if  Luke  wrote  in  the  interest  of 
this  view,  as  is  alleged  by  the  Tubingen  School,  how  are  we  to 
explain  this  second  series  of  facts  and  doctrines,  which  is 
assuredly  not  less  prominent  in  our  Gospel  than  the  first 
series  ?  Criticism  here  finds  itself  in  a  difficulty,  which  is 
betrayed  by  the  diversity  of  explanations  which  it  seeks  to 
give  of  this  fact  Volkmar  cuts  the  Gordian  knot ;  accord- 
ing to  him,  those  Jewish  elements  have  no  existence.  The 
third  Gospel  is  purely  Pauline.  That  is  easier  to  affirm  than 
to  demonstrate ;  he  is  the  only  one  of  his  school  who  has 
dared  to  maintain  this  assertion,  overthrown  as  it  is  by  the 
most  obvious  facts.  Baur  acknowledges  the  facts,  and  ex- 
plains them  by  admitting  a  later  rehandling  of  our  Gospel. 
The  first  composition,  the  primitive  Luke,  being  exclusively 
Pauline,  Ebionite  elements  were  introduced  later  by  the 
anonymous  author  of  our  canonical  Luke,  and  that  with  a 
conciliatory  view.  But  Zeller  has  perfectly  proved  to  hie 
master  that  this  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  Luke  different  from 
ours,  is  incompatible  with  the  unity  of  tendency  and  it 
which  prevails  in  our  Gospel,  and  which  extends  even  to  tho 
second  part  of  the  work,  the  book  of  Acts.     The  Jewish 

nents  are  not  veneered  on  the  narrative ;  they  belong  to  the 
substance  of  the  history.     And  what  explanation  does  Zeller 

self  propose  ?     The  author,  personally  a  decided  Pauli: 
was  convinced  that,  to  get  the  system  of  his  master  idmil 
by  the  Judeo-Christian  party,  they  must  not  be  offended.    II 6 
therefore  thought  it  prudent  to  mix  Dp  in  his  treatise  pieces 
of  both  classes,  some  Pauline,  fitted  to  spread  his  own  vi 
others  Judaic,  fitted  to  flatter  the  taste  of  readers   till  now 

TOL.  II.  IB 


386  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

opposed  to  Paul's  party.  From  this  Machiavelian  schem9 
the  work  of  Luke  proceeded,  with  its  two  radically  contradic- 
tory currents.1 

But  before  having  recourse  to  an  explanation  so  improbable 
both  morally  and  rationally,  as  we  shall  find  when  we  come  to 
examine  it  more  closely  when  treating  of  the  aim  of  our  Gospel, 
is  it  not  fair  to  inquire  whether  there  is  not  a  more  natural 
one,  contrasting  less  offensively  with  that  character  of  sincerity 
and  simplicity  which  strikes  every  reader  of  Luke's  narrative  ? 
Was  not  the  Old  Covenant  with  its  legal  forms  the  divinely- 
appointed  preparation  for  the  New  ?  Was  not  the  New  with  its 
pure  spirituality  the  divinely-purposed  goal  of  the  Old  ?  Had 
not  Jeremiah  already  declared  that  the  days  were  coming  when 
God  Himself  would  abolish  the  covenant  which  He  had  made 
at  Sinai  with  the  fathers  of  the  nation,  and  when  He  would 
substitute  a  New  Covenant,  the  essential  character  of  which 
would  be,  that  the  law  should  be  written  no  longer  on  tables 
of  stone,  but  on  the  heart ;  no  longer  before  us,  but  in  us 
(xxxi.  31-34)  ?  This  promise  clearly  established  the  fact 
that  the  Messianic  era  would  be  at  once  the  abolition  of  the 
law  in  the  letter,  and  its  eternal  fulfilment  in  the  spirit,  ilnd 
such  is  precisely  the  animating  thought  of  the  Gospel  histor}', 
as  it  has  been  traced  by  Luke ;  his  narrative  depicts  the 
gradual  substitution  of  the  dispensation  of  the  spirit  for  that 
of  the  letter.  The  Mosaic  economy  is  the  starting-point  of 
his  history ;  Jesus  Himself  begins  under  its  government ;  it 
is  under  this  divine  shelter  that  He  grows,  and  His  work 
matures.  Then  the  spirituality  of  the  Gospel  is  formed  and 
gradually  developed  in  His  person  and  work,  and  getting  rid 
by  degrees  of  its  temporary  wrapping,  ends  by  shining  forth 
in  all  its  brightness  in  the  preaching  and  work  of  St.  Paul. 
Mosaic  economy  and  spirituality  are  not  therefore,  as  criticism 
would  have  it,  two  opposite  currents  which  run  parallel  or 
dash  against  one  another  in  Luke's  work.     Between  Ebionism 

1  Overbeck,  another  savant  of  the  same  school,  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Acts  (a  re-edition  of  De  Wette's),  combats  in  his  turn  the  theory  of  Zeller,  and 
'  finds  in  the  work  of  Luke  the  product,  not  of  an  ecclesiastical  scheme,  but  of 
Paulinism  in  its  decadence  (see  chap.  ii.  of  this  Conclusion).  As  to  Keim,  he 
\as  recourse  to  the  hypothesis  of  an  Ebionite  Gospel,  which  was  the  first  mate- 
rial on  which  Luke,  the  disciple  of  Paul,  wrought  (see  chap.  iii.).  "We  see  :  Tot 
capita,  tot  sensw. 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       387 

and  Paulinism  there  is  no  more  contradiction  than  between 
the  blossom,  under  the  protection  of  which  the  fruit  forms, 
and  that  fruit  itself,  when  it  appears  released  from  its  rich 
covering.  The  substitution  of  fruit  for  flower  is  the  result  of 
an  organic  transformation  ;  it  is  the  very  end  of  vegetation. 
Only  the  blossom  does  not  fade  away  in  a  single  day,  any 
more  than  the  fruit  itself  ripens  in  a  single  day.  Jesus  de- 
clares in  Luke,  that  when  new  wine  is  offered  to  one  accus- 
tomed to  drink  old  wine,  he  turns  away  from  it  at  once ;  for 
he  says  :  The  old  is  letter.  Agreeably  to  this  principle,  God 
does  not  deal  abruptly  with  Israel ;  for  this  people,  accustomed 
to  the  comparatively  easy  routine  of  ritualism,  He  provided  a 
transition  period  intended  to  raise  it  gradually  from  legal 
servility  to  the  perilous  but  glorious  liberty  of  pure  spirituality. 
This  period  is  that  of  the  development  of  Jesus  Himself  and 
of  His  work.  The  letter  of  the  law  was  scrupulously  re- 
spected, because  the  Spirit  was  not  present  to  replace  it ;  this 
admirable  and  divine  work  is  what  the  Gospel  of  Luke  invites 
us  to  contemplate :  Jesus,  as  a  minister  of  the  circumcision 
(Pom.  xv.  8),  becoming  the  organ  of  the  Spirit.  And  even 
after  Pentecost,  the  Spirit  still  shows  all  needful  deference 
to  the  letter  of  the  divine  law,  and  reaches  its  emancipation 
only  in  the  way  of  rendering  to  it  uniform  homage ;  such  is 
one  set  before  us  by  the  book  of  Acts  in  the  conduct  of 
the  apostles,  and  especially  in  that  of  St.  Paul.  To  explain 
therefore  the  two  series  of  apparently  heterogeneous  pieces 
which  we  have  indicated,  we  need  neither  Volkmar's  audacious 

I  respecting  the  existence  of  one  of  them,  nor  the  subtile 
hypothesis  of  two  different  Paulinisms  in  Luke,  the  one  more, 
the  other  less  hostile  to  Judeo-Christianity  (Baur),  nor  the 
supposition  of  a  shameless  deception  on  the  part  of  the  forger 
who  composed  this  writing  (Zeller).  It  is  as  little  necessary 
to  ascribe  to  the  author,  with  Overbeck,  gross  misuiuh  rstand- 
ing  of  the  truo   system  of  his  master  Paul,  or  to  all. 

.  seems  to  do,  that  he  clumsily  placed  in  juxl 

.ithout  being  aware  of  it,  two  sorts  of  m  drawn 

from  sources  of  opposite  tendencies.    All  such  explanations  of 
h  system  driven  to  extremity  vanish  before  the  dmpl< 
that  the  Ebionism  and  Paulinism  of  Luke  belong  both  alii 

mate,  necessary,  successive  elements,  to  the  real  fa 


388  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  Jesus  and  His  apostles, — the  one  as  the  inevitable  point  of 
departure,  the  other  as  the  intended  goal, — and  that  the  period 
which  separated  the  one  point  from  the  other  served  only  to 
replace  the  one  gradually  by  the  other.  By  giving  those  two 
principles  place  with  equal  fulness  in  his  narrative,  Luke,  far 
from  guiding  two  contradictory  tendencies  immorally  or 
unskilfully,  has  kept  by  the  pure  objectivity  of  history. 
Nothing  proves  this  better  than  that  very  appearance  of  con- 
tradiction which  he  could  brave,  and  which  gives  modern 
criticism  so  much  to  do. 

Let  it  be  remarked  that  the  truth  of  the  so-called  Pauline 
elements  in  Luke's  Gospel  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  presence 
of  similar  elements  in  the  other  two  synoptics.  Eitschl,  in 
his  beautiful  work  on  the  beginnings  of  the  ancient  Catholic 
Church,  shows  how  the  one  saying  of  Jesus,  preserved  in 
Mark  and  Matthew  as  well  as  in  Luke :  "  The  Son  of  man  is 
Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath"  already  implied  the  future  abolition 
of  the  whole  Mosaic  law.  The  same  is  evidently  true  of  the 
following  (Matt.  xv.  and  Mark  vii.) :  "  Not  that  which  gocth 
into  the  mouth  defileth  a  man  ;  but  that  which  cometh  out  of  the 
mouth,  this  defileth  him."  The  whole  Levitical  law  fell  before 
this  maxim  logically  carried  out.  We  may  also  cite  the  say- 
ing, Matt.  viii.  11:  "  /  say  unto  you,  that  many  shall  come 
from  the  east  and  west ;  .  .  .  but  the  children  of  the  kingdom 
shall  be  cast  out"  though  it  is  arbitrarily  alleged  that  it  was 
added  later  to  the  apostolic  Matthew ;  then  that  which 
announces  the  substitution  of  the  Gentiles  for  Israel,  in  the 
parable  of  the  husbandmen :  "  The  kingdom  shall  be  taken  from 
you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof" 
(xxi.  43),  a  saying  which  Matthew  alone  has  preserved  to  us ; 
finally,  the  command  given  to  the  apostles  to  go  and  baptize 
all  nations  (xxviii.  19),  which  necessarily  belonged  to  the 
original  Matthew :  for,  1.  The  appearance  with  which  it  is 
connected  is  announced  long  before  (Matt.  xxvi.  32);  2.  Be- 
cause it  is  the  only  one  related  in  this  Gospel,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  wanting  in  the  original  record  ;  3.  Because  Jesus 
certainly  did  not  appear  to  His  disciples  to  say  nothing  to 
them.  But  the  most  decisive  saying  related  by  our  three 
synoptics  is  the  parable  of  the  old  garment  and  the  piece 
of  new  cloth  (see  on  this  passage,  v.  3  6).     Paul  has  affirmed 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       3S9 

nothing  more  trenchant  respecting  the  opposition  between  the 
law  and  the  gospeL 

The  fundamental  principles  of  Paulinism,  the  abolition  of 
the  law,  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
are  not  therefore  any  importation  of  Paul  or  Luke  into  the 
gospel  of  Jesus.  They  belonged  to  the  Master's  teaching, 
though  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  developing  all  their 
consequences  practically. 

This  general  question  resolved,  let  us  examine  in  detail 
the  points  which  criticism  still  attempts  to  make  good  in 

id  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  It  is  alleged  that, 
under  the  influence  of  Paul's  doctrine,  Luke  reaches  a  con- 
ception of  the  person  of  Christ  which  transcends  that  of  the 
other  two  synoptics.  "He  softens  the  passages  which  had 
become  embarrassing  from  the  standpoint  of  a  more  exalted 

i  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus"  (Kenan);  for  example,  he 
omits  Matt,  xxiv.  36,  which  ascribes  the  privilege  of  omni- 
science to  the  Father  only.     But  did  he  do  so  intentionally  ? 

I  he  acquainted  with  this  saying  ?  AVe  have  just  seen 
another  omission  which  he  makes  (p.  488);  we  shall  meet 
with  many  more   still,  in  which  the  proof   of  an   opposite 

lency  might  be  quite  as  legitimately  alleged.  Is  it  not 
Luke  who  makes  the  centurion  say,  "Certainly  this  was  a 
righteous  man"  while  the  other  two  represent  him  as  saving, 

.is  was  the  Son  of  God"  t  "What  a  feeble  basis  for  the 
edifice  of  criticism  do  such  differences  present ! 

The  great  journey  across  the   countries   situated  between 
Galilee  and  Samaria  was  invented,  according  to   P,aur,  with 
W  of  bringing  into  relief  the  non-Israel iti-h  country  of 
Samaria,     Luke   thus   sought  to  justify  Paul's  work  among 
But  would    I.  ir  at  the  same  moment 

to  01  what  he  is  building  up,  by  investing  the  refusal 

of  the  I  .us  to  receive  Jesus?     Besides,  it  is  wholly 

:  ue  that  scene  of  the  journey  related  in 

part.  Was  it  then  in  Samaria  that  Jesus  conversed  with 
a  doctor  of  the  law  (x.  25),  that  lie  dined  with  a  Pharisee, 
thai  to  conflict  with  a  company  of  scribc9  (xi.  37- 

63),  that  lie  on]  'tor  of  Abraham 

(xiii.  1  G;,  etc.  etc.  ?  and,  no  doubt,  among  the  ten 

lepers  one  who  is  of  Sa  origin  (xvii.  1  6) ;  but  if  this 


390  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

circumstance  can  lead  us  to  suppose  that  the  scene  passes  in 
Samaria,  the  presence  of  nine  Jewish  lepers  should  make 
it  appear  nine  times  more  probable  that  it  transpires  on 
Israelitish  territory. 

In  the  instructions  given  to  the  Twelve,  Luke  omits  the 
saying,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city 
of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not!'  Neither  do  we  find  the 
answer  addressed  to  the  Canaanitish  woman,  "  I  am  not  sent 
hut  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  But,  as  to  the 
first,  Mark  omits  it  as  well  as  Luke.  Could  this  also  arise 
from  a  dogmatic  tendency  ?  But  how,  in  that  case,  should 
he  relate  the  second  as  well  as  Matthew  ?  The  first  then 
was  simply  wanting  in  his  source ;  why  not  also  in  Luke's, 
which  in  this  very  narrative  seems  to  have  had  the  greatest 
conformity  to  that  of  Mark?  As  to  the  second  saying,  it 
belongs  not  only  to  a  narrative,  but  to  a  whole  cycle  of 
narratives  which  is  completely  wanting  in  Luke  (two  whole 
chapters).  Besides,  does  not  Luke  also  omit  the  peculiarly 
Pauline  saying,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  ivho  labour  and  are 
heavy  laden,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  pour  souls  "  ?  Could 
this  also  be  a  dogmatical  omission  ?  And  as  to  the  saying, 
"  This  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached  over  all  the 
earth,"  in  connection  with  which,  Holtzmann  himself  asks  the 
Tubingen  critics  whether  Luke  passes  it  over  in  silence  in  a 
Pauline  interest !  Those  declarations  were  simply  wanting  in 
his  documents.  Why  not  also  those  particularistic  sayings  ? 
They  wTould  certainly  not  have  caused  Luke  more  embarrass- 
ment than  they  did  to  Matthew,  who  sees  in  them  no  contra- 
diction to  the  command  which  closes  his  Gospel,  "  Go  and 
baptize  all  nations."  It  is  evident  that  the  prohibition 
addressed  to  the  disciples  (Matt,  x.)  was  only  temporary, 
and  applied  only  to  the  time  during  which  Jesus  as  a  rule 
restricted  His  sphere  of  action  to  Israel ;  from  the  time  that 
His  death  and  resurrection  released  Him  from  His  national 
surroundings,  all  was  changed. 

Luke  has  a  grudge  at  the  Twelve ;  he  seeks  to  depreciate 
them :  such  is  the  thesis  which  Baur  has  maintained,  and 
which  has  made  way  in  France.  He  proves  it  by  viii.  53, 
54,  where  he  contrives  to  make  Luke  say  that  the  disciples 
laughed  our  Lord  to  scorn,  and  that  He  drove  them  from  the 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       391 

apartment ;  and  yet  the  words,  " knowing  that  she  was  dead" 
clearly  prove  that  the  persons  here  spoken  of  were  those  who 
had  witnessed  the  death  of  the  young  girl ;  and  ver.  51  excludes 
the  view  that  He  put  the  disciples  out,  for  He  had  just 
brought  them  within  the  house  (see  the  exegesis).  He  proves 
it  further  by  ix.  32,  where  Luke  says  that  Peter  and  the 
other  two  disciples  were  heavy  with  sleep ;  as  if  this  remark 
were  not  intended  to  take  off  from  the  strangeness  of  Peter's 
saying  which  follows,  and  which  is  mentioned  by  the  three 
evangelists.  But  the  chief  proof  discovered  by  Baur  of  this 
hostile  intention  to  the  Twelve,  is  his  account  of  the  sending 
of  the  seventy  disciples,  and  the  way  in  which  Luke  applies 
to  this  mission  a  considerable  part  of  the  instructions  given  to 
the  Twelve  in  Matt.  x.  But  if  the  sending  of  the  seventy 
disciples  were  an  invention  of  Luke,  after  thus  bringing  them 
on  the  scene,  he  would  make  them  play  a  part  in  the  sequel 
of  the  Gospel  history,  and  especially  in  the  first  Christian 
missions  related  in  the  Acts,  while  from  that  moment  he  says 
not  a  word  more  about  them;  the  Twelve  remain  after,  as 
well  as  before  that  mission,  the  only  important  persons ;  it  is 
to  them  that  Jesus  gives  the  command  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles  (xxiv.  45  et  seq.) ;  it  is  from  them  that  everything  pro- 
ceeds in  the  book  of  Acts  ;  and  when  Philip  and  Stephen  come 
on  the  scene,  Luke  does  not  designate  them,  as  it  would  have 
been  so  easy  for  him  to  do,  as  having  belonged  to  the  number  of 
the  seventy.  Keim  himself  acknowledges  (p.  76)  "that  it  is 
impossible  to  ascribe  the  invention  of  this  history  to  Luke  ; " 
and  in  proof  of  this,  he  alleges  the  truly  Jewish  spirit  of  the 
saying  with  which  Jesus  receives  the  seventy  on  their  return. 
So  little  was  it  suspected  in  the  earliest  times,  even  within 
the  bosom  of  Judeo-Christian  communities,  that  this  narrative 
could  be  a  Pauline  invention,  that  it  is  frequently  quoted  in 
the  Clementine  Homilies.  If,  in  narrating  the  sending  oi*  the 
did  not  quote  all  the  instructions  given  by 
thew  (chap,  x.),  the  same  omission  takes  place  in  .Mark, 

0    cannot,   however,   bo    suspected    of    any    anti-aposi 
y ;  this  harmony  proves  that  the   omission  is  due  to 
the  sources  of  the  two  writers. 

[fLukel       the  intention  of  depreciating  the  G 
he  alone  describe  the  solemn  act  of  then  n  {      Would 


392  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

he  place  it  at  the  close  of  a  whole  night  of  prayer  (chap,  vi.)  ? 
"Would  he  mention  the  glorious  promise  of  Jesus  to  make  the 
apostles  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  ? 
Would  he  omit  the  assent  which  they  all  give  in  Matthew 
and  Mark  to  the  presumptuous  declaration  of  Peter :  /  am 
ready  to  go  with  Thee  even  unto  death?  Would  he  make  no 
mention  of  their  shameful  flight  at  Gethsemane,  which  is 
related  by  the  other  two  ?  Would  he  excuse  their  sleeping 
on  that  last  evening  by  saying  that  they  were  sleeping  for 
sorrow;  and  their  unbelief  on  the  day  of  resurrection,  by  saying 
that  it  was  for  joy  they  could  not  believe  (those  details  are 
peculiar  to  Luke)  ?  Luke  does  not  speak  of  the  ambitious 
request  of  Zebedee's  two  sons,  and  of  the  altercation  which 
ensued  with  the  other  disciples;  he  applies  to  the  relation 
between  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  severe  warning,  the  first 
part  of  which  is  addressed  in  Matthew  to  the  Twelve :  "and 
there  are  first  which  shall  he  last"  and  the  second  part  of 
which:  "and  there  are  last  which  shall  he  first"  might  so 
easily  have  been  turned  to  the  honour  of  Paul.  If  there  is 
one  of  the  synoptics  who  holds  up  to  view  the  misunder- 
standings and  moral  defects  of  the  apostles,  and  the  frequent 
displeasure  of  Jesus  with  them,  it  is  Mark,  and  not  Luke. 

In  respect  to  Peter,  who  it  is  alleged  is  peculiarly  the  object 
of  Luke's  antipathy,  this  evangelist  certainly  omits  the  saying 
so  honouring  to  this  apostle :  "  Thou  art  Peter"  etc.,  as  well  as 
the  narrative,  Matt.  xiv.  28-31,  in  which  Peter  is  privileged 
to  walk  on  the  waters  by  the  side  of  our  Lord.  But  he  also 
omits  in  the  former  case  that  terrible  rebuke  which  imme- 
diately follows  :  "  Get  thee  "behind  me,  Satan;  thou  art  an  offence 
unto  me"  And  what  is  the  entire  omission  of  this  whole 
scene,  compared  with  the  conduct  of  Mark,  who  omits  the 
first  part  favourable  to  Peter,  and  relates  in  detail  the  second, 
where  he  is  so  sternly  reprimanded !  If  it  was  honouring  to 
Peter  to  walk  on  the  waters,  it  was  not  very  much  so  to  sink 
the  next  moment,  and  to  bring  down  on  himself  the  apostrophe  : 
"  0  thou  of  little  faith  I"  The  omission  of  this  incident  has 
therefore  nothing  suspicious  about  it.  Is  not  the  history  of 
Peter's  call  related  in  Luke  (chap,  v.)  in  a  way  still  more 
glorious  for  him  than  in  Matthew  and  Mark  ?  Is  he  not 
presented,  from  beginning  to  end  of  this  narrative,  as  the 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  RELIGIOUS  POINT  OF  VIEW.       393 

principal  person,  in  a  sense  the  only  one  (vers.  4,  10)?  Is  it 
not  lie  again  who,  in  the  first  days  of  Jesus'  ministry  at 
Capernaum,  plays  the  essential  part  (Luke  iv.  38-44)  ?  On 
the  eve  of  the  death  of  Jesus,  is  it  not  he  who  is  honoured, 
along  with  John,  with  the  mission  of  making  ready  the  Pass- 
over, and  that  in  Luke  only  ?  Is  not  his  denial  related  in 
Luke  with  much  more  reserve  than  in  Matthew,  where  the 
imprecations  of  Peter  upon  himself  are  expressly  mentioned  ? 
Is  it  not  in  Luke  that  Jesus  declares  that  He  has  devoted  to 
Peter  a  special  prayer,  and  expects  from  him  the  strengthening 
of  all  the  other  disciples  (xxiL  32)?  Is  he  not  the  first  of 
the  apostles  to  whom,  according  to  Luke  (xxiv.  34)  as  accord- 
ing to  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.),  the  risen  Jesus  appears  ?  And 
despite  all  this,  men  dare  to  represent  the  third  Gospel  as 
a  satire  directed  against  the  Twelve,  and  against  Peter  in 
particular  (the  anonymous  Saxon);1  and  M.  Bnrnouf  ventures 
to  characterize  it  thus  in  the  Bcvuc  des  Deux  Mondes  (Decem- 
ber I860):  "Luke  seeks  to  attenuate  the  authority  of  the 
Twelve  .  .  .  ;  he  depreciates  Peter ;  he  takes  from  the  Twelve 
the  merit  of  having  founded  the  religion  of  Christ,  by  adding 
to  them  seventy  envoys  whose  mission  is  contrary  to  the  most 
authoritative  Israelitish  usacrcs."  M.  Burnouf  fonrets  to  tell 
us  what  those  usages  are,  and  whether  Jesus  held  Himself 
always  strictly  bound  to  Jewish  usages.  On  the  other  hand, 
Zeller,  the  pronounced  disciple  of  Baur,  finds  himself  obliged 
to  make  this  confession  (ApostcIgescJi.  p.  450):  "  AVc  cannot 
suppose  in  the  case  of  Luke  any  real  hostility  to  the  Twelve, 
use  he  mentions  circumstances  omitted  by  Matthew  him- 
self which  exalt  them,  and  because  he  omits  others  which  are 
to  their  discredit." 

Once  more,  in  what  is  called  the  Jewish  tendency  of  Luke, 

there  is  a  point  which  has  engaged  the  attention  of  criticism; 

we  mean  the  partiality  expressed  by  this  Gospel  for  the  poorer 

es,  its  Ebionism   (strictly  so  called)  ! 2  "  Luke's  heresy," 

as  De  Wette  has  it.     It  appears  L  53,  vi.  20,  21,  where  the 

^ays  (Apo  •     43fi) :  "In  reality,  tli^rp  nre  not  to  be 

found  in  thin  dospel  any  of  tl,  attacks,  in-sults,  mal.  nua- 

md  sarcasms  against  Jn<!  :id  the  JudcoChristian  apostles 

the  anonymous  Saxon  seeks  in  11 
'  It  is  well  known  that  this  term  arises  from  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  poor. 


394  ?HE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE, 

poor  appear  to  "be  saved,  the  rich  condemned,  as  such;  xii. 
33,  34,  xvi.  9,  23-25,  xviii.  22-25,  where  salvation  is 
connected  with  almsgiving  and  the  sacrifice  of  earthly  goods, 
damnation  with  the  keeping  of  them.  But:  1.  We  have 
seen  that  there  is  a  temporary  side  in  these  precepts;  see 
especially  on  xii.  33,  34,  xviii.  22-25.  Does  not  Paul  also 
(1  Cor.  vii.)  recommend  to  Christians  not  to  possess,  but  "  to 
possess  as  though  they  possessed  not  "  ?  2.  Poverty  and  riches 
by  no  means  produce  those  effects  inevitably  and  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  will.  Poverty  does  not  save  ;  it  prepares 
for  salvation  by  producing  lowliness:  wealth  does  not  con- 
demn ;  it  may  lead  to  damnation,  by  hardening  the  heart  and 
producing  forget fulnes3  of  God  and  His  law  :  such  is  the 
meaning  of  vi.  21-25  when  rightly  understood;  of  xvi. 
29-31 ;  of  xviii.  27  (the  salvation  of  the  rich  impossible  with 
men,  but  possible  with  God)  ;  finally,  of  Acts  v.  4,  where  the 
right  of  property  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  is 
expressly  reserved  by  Peter,  and  their  punishment  founded 
solely  on  their  falsehood.  3.  The  alleged  "  heresy  of  Luke  " 
is  also  that  of  Matthew  and  Mark  (narrative  of  the  rich  young 
man),  and  consequently  of  our  Lord  Himself.  Let  us  rather 
recognise  that  the  giving  up  of  property  appears  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  either  as  a  measure  arising  from  the  necessity  imposed 
on  His  disciples  of  accompanying  Him  outwardly,  or  as  a  volun- 
tary and  optional  offering  of  charity,  applicable  to  ail  times. 

If  now,  setting  aside  critical  discussion,  we  seek  positively 
to  characterize  the  religious  complexion  of  Luke's  narrative, 
the  fundamental  tone  appears  to  us  to  be,  as  Lange  says 
{Lelen  Jcsu,  i.  p.  258  et  seq.) :  "the  revelation  of  divine 
mercy,"  or.  better  still,  according  to  Paul's  literal  expression 
(Tit.  iii.  4) :  the  manifestation  of  divine  philanthropy. 

To  this  characteristic  there  is  a  second  corresponding  one : 
Luke  loves  to  exhibit  in  the  human  soul,  in  the  very  midst  of 
its  fallen  state,  the  presence  of  some  ray  of  the  divine  image. 
He  speaks  of  that  honest  and  good  heart,  which  receives  the 
seed  of  the  gospel  as  soon  as  it  is  scattered  on  it ;  he  points 
to  the  good  Samaritan  performing  instinctively  the  things 
contained  in  the  law  (Rom.  ii.  14);  in  the  case  of  Zaccheus 
he  indicates  the  manifestation  of  natural  probity  and  bene- 
ficence, as    he   will  do  in   the   book  of  Acts,  in  respect  to 


ITS  CHABACTEB  FILOM  A  LITE1LVRY  POINT  OF  VIEW.        395 

Cornelius  and  several  others,  especially  some  of  the  Roman 
magistrates  with  whom  Faul  lias  to  do.  Therein  we  recognise 
the  Greek  ideal  of  the  /caXbs  KayaOos. 

With  the  first  of  those  two  characteristics  there  is  un- 
doubtedly connected  that  universalism  of  grace  so  often 
pointed  out  in  Luke ;  with  the  second,  perhaps,  the  essential 
character  which  he  unfolds  in  the  person  of  Christ :  humanity 
working  out  in  Him  its  pure  and  normal  development ;  the 
child,  the  young  man  growing  in  grace  and  wisdom  as  He 
grows  in  stature ;  the  man  comes  out  in  His  emotion  at  the 
sight  of  a  mother  bereaved  of  her  son,  of  His  native  country 
on  the  eve  of  ruin,  of  His  executioners  who  are  striking 
themselves  while  they  strike  Him,  of  a  thief  who  humbles 
himself.  "We  understand  the  whole:  it  is  the  Son  of  man, 
born  an  infant,  but  through  all  the  stages  of  life  and  death, 
becoming  the  High  Priest  of  His  brethren,  whom  He  leaves  in 
the  act  of  blessing  them.  So  that  this  history  is  summed  op 
in  two  features :  divine  compassion  stooping  down  to  man  ; 
human  aspirations  entering  into  perfect  union  with  God  in  the 
person  of  Him  who  is  to  bring  back  all  others  to  God. 

!i  such  a  history  before  us,  what  narrow  unworthy 
particularistic  tendency  could  possibly  exist  in  the  writer  who 
understood  and  worked  upon  it?  Such  an  object  imposes 
objectivity  on  the  historian.1 

III. — Literary  Point  of  View. 

A.  The  first  feature  which  distinguishes  Luke's  work  in 
this  respect  is  the  presence  of  a  prologue,  written  in  a  G reek 
style  of  perfect  purity,  and  in  which  the  author  gives  account 
of  the  origin  of  his  book.  We  have  already  shown  (vol.  i.  p. 
5o)  what  is  the  necessary  inference  from  this  fact,  which  I 
no  analogy  either  in  Matthew  or  Mark;  or  even  in  John,  and 

1  This  conclusion  is  admitted  by  two  of  the  most  distinguished  ropreoei 
of  modern  criticism.     lloltzmanu  (p.   401):  "Just  as  the  most  ancient  de- 
monstrable Gospel  document,  the  Loffia,  was  written  without  tin-  Least  regu 
any  dogmatic  interest .  .  .,  so  ti.  spcl,  the  most  extensivo  work  oi 

•ynr>!  ire,  betrays  the  tendency  of  its  author  only  in  its  arrang* 

and  choice  of  materials,  and  in  slight  modifications  which  1 1  If  only  on  the  form 
of  delineation."     Rcuss  (sec.  209)  :  "Wo  shall  be  to  truth  if  we  assert 

that  It  Ml  in  no  party  interest,  but  by  means  of 

Ration,  that  the  materials  oi  .  .itivc  were  colli  ctod." 


396  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

which  would  suffice  to  demonstrate  the  Hellenic  origin  of  the 
author,  and  the  high  degree  of  classical  culture  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  circle,  with  a  view  to  which  he  wrote. 

B.  The  chief  question  which  has  been  raised  in  regard  to 
the  literary  character  of  Luke's  composition  is  whether  it 
belongs  to  the  class  of  collectanea,  simple  compilations,  or 
whether  in  all  its  details  it  observes  a  consecutive  plan.  It 
is  well  known  that  Schleiermacher  took  the  first  view.  Our 
Gospel  is  in  his  eyes  an  aggregate  of  pieces  separately  com- 
posed and  put  together  by  a  later  compiler.  In  Ewald's 
opinion  also  the  author  is  only  a  collector.  Holtzmann  him- 
self (article  on  the  Acts,  in  the  Bible  Dictionary  published  by 
Schenkel)  calls  our  Gospel  "  a  compilation  without  any  well- 
defined  plan  ; "  he  extends  the  same  judgment  to  the  Acts. 
This  opinion  is  combated  by  several  critics.  Hilgenfeld  speaks 
of  "  the  artistic  unity  "  of  Luke's  narrative.  Zeller  acknow- 
ledges "  that  a  rigorous  plan  prevails  throughout  the  entire 
work "  (Gospel  and  Acts).  M.  Eenan  sees  in  it  "  a  work 
written  throughout  by  the  same  hand,  and  with  the  most 
perfect  unity."  We  adhere  fully  to  this  second  view.  We 
have  already  pointed  out  that  one  single  idea  inspires  the 
whole  narrative,  and  has  determined  the  choice  of  its  materials, 
namely,  that  of  the  development  of  the  Christian  work  (i.  1), 
from  the  twofold  standpoint  of  its  organic  growth  and  of  its 
breach  with  the  Israelitish  people.  Once  in  possession  of  this 
idea,  we  easily  comprehend  the  course  of  the  narrative.  The 
first  two  chapters  of  the  Gospel  are  an  introduction,  in  which 
Luke  gives  the  preparation  for  the  new  work  in  that  pure 
Being  placed  by  God  in  the  bosom  of  humanity.  The  work 
itself  begins  with  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  chap.  iii.  It  com- 
prises three  parts  :  1.  The  Galilean  ministry ;  Jesus  draws  to 
Him  the  elements  of  His  future  Church,  and  lays  clown  in  the 
apostolate  the  principle  of  its  organization.  2.  The  journey 
from  Galilee  to  Judea ;  this  is  a  transition  period  :  the  work 
extends  outwardly  while  it  is  strengthened  spiritually ;  but 
the  hostility  of  the  official  representatives  of  the  nation,  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  lighted  up  already  in  the  previous 
period,  goes  on  increasing.  3.  The  sojourn  at  Jerusalem: 
the  cross  violently  breaks  the  last  link  between  Israel  and  its 
King.     But  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  freeing  Jesus  from 


ITS  CHARACTER  FROM  A  LITERARY  POINT  OF  VIEW.        397 

every  national  relation,  and  raising  Him  to  a  free  and  glorious 
existence,  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  Son  of  God  (Rom.  i. 
3,  4),  make  Him,  in  the  words  of  Peter,  the  Lord  of  all  (Acts 
x.  36).  The  Israelitish  Messiah  by  birth,  He  becomes  by  His 
death  and  ascension  the  King  of  the  universe.  From  that 
time  forth  His  people  is  the  human  race.  The  ascension, 
which  forms  the  climax  of  the  Gospel  history,  is  at  the  same 
time  the  starting-point  for  the  history  of  the  Acts.  "  On  the 
one  side,  we  ascend  to  this  summit ;  on  the  other,  we  descend 
from  it." *  Hence  the  double  narration  of  the  fact.  It  be- 
longs, indeed,  to  both  writings, — to  the  one  as  its  crown,  to 
the  other  as  its  basis.  This  repetition  does  not  arise,  as  a 
superficial  criticism  supposes,  from  the  juxtaposition  of  two 
different  traditions  regarding  that  event.2  What  sensible 
writer  would  adopt  such  a  course  ?  The  ascension  is  the 
bond  which  joins  together  the  two  aspects  of  the  divine  work, 
— that  in  which  Jesus  rises  from  the  manger  to  the  throne, 
and  that  in  which,  from  the  throne  on  high,  He  acts  upon 
humanity,  creating,  preserving,  and  extending  the  Church.  It 
forms  part  of  the  history  of  Jesus  and  of  that  of  the  Church. 

Between  the  work  which  is  wrought  in  Jesus  and  that 
wrought  in  the  Church,  and  which  is  described  in  Acts,  there 
is  a  correspondence  which  is  exhibited  by  the  parallelism  of 
plan  in  the  two  books.  After  an  introduction  which  describes 
the  community  of  believers  as  already  formed,  though  yet 
unknown  (Acts  i.,  comp.  with  Luke  L  and  ii.),  Pentecost  intro- 
duces it  on  the  theatre  of  history,  as  His  baptism  called  Jesus 
to  His  public  activity.  1.  Here  begins,  chap,  ii.,  the  first 
part  of  the  narrative,  which  extends  to  the  end  of  chap.  v. ;  it 
4es,  first,  the  founding  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the 
mother  and  model  of  all  others  ;  then  the  obstinate  resistance 

he  preaching  of  the  apostles  met  with  from  the  Jew 
authorities  and  the  mass  of  the  nation.     2.  The  second  part, 
perhaps  the  most  remarkable  in  many  respects,  delineates,  like 
the  second  part  of  the  Gospel,  a  transition  period.     It  extends 

■  M.  Felix  Bovet 

1  Any  more  than  in  the  ease  of  the  doublo  narrative  of  man  in 

i.  and  ii.).     Man  is  desci  i.,  as  the  goal  of  the  de- 

ment of  nature  ;  chap,  ii.,  as  the  basis  of  the  development  of  history. 
Nature  rises  to  him  ;  history  goes  forth  from  him. 


398  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

to  the  end  of  chap.  xii.  The  author  has  collected  and 
enumerated  in  this  piece  the  whole  series  of  providential 
events  by  which  the  way  was  paved  for  transferring  the 
kingdom  of  God  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles,  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  shall  change  the  customs  which  Moses  delivered  " 
(vi.  14).  There  is  the  ministry  of  Philip  (chap,  viii.),  who 
makes  the  first  breach  on  the  Gentile  world  by  the  conversion 
of  the  Samaritans,  in  which  Peter  and  John  themselves  come 
to  take  part.  There  is,  by  the  hand  of  the  same  Philip,  the 
baptism  of  a  man  who  was  doubly  excluded  from  the  ancient 
covenant  as  a  Gentile  and  as  a  eunuch  (Deut.  xxiii.  1).  There 
is  the  conversion  of  Saul,  who  is  to  be  the  principal  instrument 
of  the  work  about  to  begin,  the  persecutor  but  the  successor 
of  Stephen.  There  is  through  the  ministry  of  Peter  the 
baptism  of  the  Gentile  Cornelius  and  his  family,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  vision  by  which  God  taught  that  apostle  that 
the  wall  of  separation  raised  by  the  law  between  Israel  and 
the  Gentiles  was  thenceforth  broken  down.  There  is,  as  an 
effect  of  the  dispersion  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  the  foun- 
dation of  the  church  of  Antioch,  the  first  church  of  heathendom, 
the  point  from  which  Paul  will  take  his  course  to  the  heathen 
world,  his  permanent  basis  of  operations,  the  Jerusalem  of  the 
Gentile  world.  Those  six  events,  apparently  accidental,  but 
all  converging  to  the  same  end,  are  chosen  and  grouped  by 
the  author  with  incomparable  skill,  to  show,  as  it  were,  to  the 
eye  the  ways  in  which  the  divine  wisdom  prepared  for  the 
approaching  work,  the  conversion  of  heathendom.  Chap.  xii. 
concludes  this  part.  It  relates  the  martyrdom  of  James,  the 
attempted  martyrdom  of  Peter,  and  the  sudden  death  of  their 
persecutor,  the  last  great  representative  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
Herod  Agrippa — persecuting  Israel  struck  dead  in  the  person 
of  its  last  monarch.  3.  The  third  part  relates  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  among  the  Gentiles  by  St.  Paul's  three  journeys. 
His  imprisonment  at  Jerusalem  at  the  close  of  those  three 
missionary  tours,  and  the  surrounding  circumstances,  form  a 
sort  of  counterpart  to  the  story  of  the  Passion  in  the  GospeL 
It  is  the  last  act  in  the  rejection  of  the  Gospel  by  Israel,  to 
which  the   conduct  of  the  elders   of  the  Eoman  synagogue 


IT?  CHARACTER  FROM  A  LITERARY  POINT  OF  VIEW.        399 

toward  Faul  (chap,  xxviii.)  puts  the  finishing  stroke.  What 
could  be  grander  or  clearer  than  this  plan  ?  We  have  yet  tc 
wait  for  a  history  of  the  Reformation,  giving  us,  within  the 
space  of  a  hundred  pages,  as  complete  and  precise  a  view  of 
that  great  religious  revolution  as  that  which  Luke  has  left  us 
in  the  Acts,  of  the  yet  profounder  revolution  by  which  God 
transferred  His  kingdom  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles. 

C.  If  the  plan  of  Luke  is  admirable  from  the  controlling 
unity  to  which  he  subordinates  so  great  a  variety  of  materials, 
the  style  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  presents  a  similar 
phenomenon.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  a  striking  medley.  To 
the  prologue  of  classic  Greek,  classic  both  in  construction  and 
vocabulary,  there  succeed  narratives  of  the  infancy,  written  in 
a  style  which  is  rather  a  ddcalquc1  from  the  Aramaic  than  tine 
k.  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  author,  after  writing  the 
prologue  in  his  own  style,  here  uses  an  Aramaic  document  or 
a  translation  from  the  Aramaic.  We  shall  not  repeat  the 
proofs  of  this  fact  which  we  have  given  in  our  exegesis  ;  in  a 
measure  they  extend  to  the  whole  Gospel.  As  to  the  question 
whether  it  is  Luke  himself  who  has  translated  it  into  Greek, 
or  whether  he  used  a  record  already  translated,  we  shall 
answer  it  immediately.  For  the  present,  we  repeat  that  the 
proof  which  Bleek  finds  to  support  the  second  view  in  the 
expression  avaroXif  cf  ttyou?,  i.  78,  is  without  the  least  value 
(see  the  exegesis).  Finally,  besides  the  prologue  written  in 
pure  Greek,  and  the  parts  which  follow,  all  saturated  with 
Am:  we  find  other  parts,  such  as  chap.  xiv.  7-xv.  32, 

xxii.,  xxiii.,  the  Hebrew  colouring  of  which  is  much  less  pro- 
nounced, and  which  presented  nothing  or  almost  nothing 
offensive  to  Greek  ears.  It  is  not  probable  that  they  pro< 
from  an  Aramaic  document,  any  more  than  that  Luke  com- 
posed them  freely.  In  the  first  case  they  would  contain  more 
IM  ;  in  the  second,  they  would  be  still  more  com- 
pletely free  from  them.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  t! 
passages  were  composed  in  Greek  by  Luke  or  his  predecessor, 
not  from  an  Aramaic  document,  but  from  an  oral  tradition 
in  that  laagni 

The  ricty  of  style  reappears  in  the  Acts.     Th< 

1  The  name  for  the  copy  of  a  picture  traced  on  transparent  paper  placed  over 
tho  original.—  Te. 


400  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

parts  of  this  book  betray  an  Aramaic  source  in  every  line. 
This  character  gradually  disappears,  and  the  last  parts  of  the 
book,  in  which  the  author  relates  the  scenes  in  which  he 
seems  to  have  been  personally  present,  are  written  in  as  pure 
Greek  as  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel. 

On  the  other  hand,  and  notwithstanding  this  medley,  the 
style  of  Luke  has  in  many  respects  the  seal  of  a  well-marked 
unity.  Not  only  is  his  vocabulary  everywhere  more  extensive 
than  that  of  the  other  evangelists,  as  might  be  expected  from 
a  writer  familiar  with  classic  Greek ;  for  example,  he  displays 
in  a  far  higher  degree  the  facility  with  which  the  Greek 
language  indefinitely  multiplies  its  stock  of  verbs,  by  com- 
pounding the  simple  ones  with  prepositions  and  otherwise  ; 
but  he  has  also  certain  expressions  which  exclusively  belong 
to  him,  or  which  he  uses  with  marked  predilection,  and  which 
are  scattered  uniformly  over  all  parts  of  his  two  writings, 
sven  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  him- 
self the  translator.1 

There  are  also  certain  correspondences  alleged  in  vocabu- 
lary and  syntax  between  Luke's  style  and  that  of  Paul. 
Holtzmann  enumerates  about  200  expressions  or  phrases 
common  to  those  two  authors,  and  more  or  less  foreign  to 
all  the  other  N".  T.  writers.2  The  anonymous  Saxon  has 
taken  advantage  of  this  fact  in  support  of  his  hypothesis,  ac- 
cording to  which  Paul  himself  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  K  T.  who 

1  Zeller  has  devoted  two  profound  essays  to  this  element  exclusively  belonging 
to  Luke  in  his  two  narratives,  the  one  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  1843,  p.  467  et  seq., 
the  other  in  his  Apostelgesch.  p.  390  et  seq.  He  enumerates  139  expressions 
used  preferentially,  and  134  terms  and  phrases  used  exclusively,  or  almost  ex- 
clusively, by  Luke  in  the  two  works.  The  following  are  examples  selected  at 
random :  <rvpP>a\\uv,  *ipi\dp.Tuv,  and  others  like  them  ;  avaXn-^is,   o  v-^nrrc;9 

ZpQoflos,  "vrpofios,  tfotpaxpiip.K,  i\ns,  xaii&i,  huTtov,  etc.  ;  xat  auras,  Vi  xa't  (grada- 
tion), reuro  or/,  ri  on,  to  before  a  proposition  which  serves  as  a  substantive, 
*%i'ori,  ph  ovv,  xa)  ydp,  tiob  yap,  'ixiyi  1%  (in  the  sense  so  often  pointed  out  in  our 
commentary),  W  aXnhlas,  \\  %;  hp'ipat,  xara,  'idoj  or  to  uuS'os,  or  to  iMierpivov,  etc. 
For  example  :  avff  av,  aXX'  ovSi,  avriXafi$avi<T0ai,  \xxaxt7v,  vrupuhitao;,  affuTus. 
i.iTu.9oho[i.at  a'mJv  to*  h'ov,  arm^uv,  iiayy'iXXuy,  a-rtk-ri^nv,  etc. 


ITS  AIM.  401 

^>eie  educated  amid  classical  surroundings ;  on  the  other,  by 
the  personal  relations  which  they  kept  up  so  long  with  one 
another;  at  least,  if  we  are  to  trust  the  tradition  which 
ascribes  the  Gospel  to  Luke  (see  chap.  ii.  of  this  Conclusion). 
The  study  which  we  have  now  made  of  the  distinctive 
characteristics  of  Luke's  Gospel  supplies  us  with  the  necessary 
data  for  reaching  the  conclusions  for  which  we  have  to 
inquire  regarding  the  origin  of  this  composition. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE    COMPOSITION    OF   THE   THIRD    GOSPEL. 

Wl  have  before  us  in  this  chapter  the  four  following  points  : 
The  aim  of  the  Gospel,  the  time  of  its  composition,  the  author 
to  whom  it  is  to  be  ascribed,  the  place  where  he  composed  it 

I. —  The  Aim, 

The  common  aim  of  our  Gospels  is  to  produce  faith  in  Him 
whom  they  describe  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  But  each 
of  them  pursues  this  aim  in  a  particular  way :  Matthew,  b} 
bringing  the  history  of  our  Lord  into  connection  with  the 
Messianic  prophecies  of  which  it  is  the  fulfilment ;  Mark,  by 
seeking  to  reproduce  the  unique  splendour  which  rayed  forth 
from  His  person ;  John,  by  relating  the  most  salient  testi- 
monies and  facts  which  led  His  disciples  to  recoguise  and 
adore  Him  as  the  Son  of  God.  What  is  the  means  by  whirl 
Luke  wishes  to  gain  the  same  end  ? 

It  was  thought  enough,  even  down  to  our  own  day,  to 
answer  that  he  had  sought  to  trace  the  Gospel  history  as  faith- 
fully as  possible  with  a  view  to  believers  among  the  Gentiles.1 

ii  solution  is  not  precise  enough  for  the  authors  of 
critical  school,  which   seeks  party  tendencies  ev<  in 

our  sacred   writings.     By  combining  with  the  study  of 

1  So  Origen    (Ens.  H.  E.  orn,    Sclilcii>rmacher,   Dc 

Bleek,  stop  short  at  this  general  defl] 

are  simply  regarded  as  a  history  of  the  apostolic  a«e  or  oi  the  first  missions. 
.JI.  2  0 


402  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Gospel  that  of  the  Acts,  the  objects  of  which  seemed  more  pro- 
nounced, they  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  writings 
of  Luke  are  nothing  else  than  a  disguised  defence  of  the  per- 
son and  preaching  of  Paul,  in  opposition  to  the  persons  and 
teaching  of  the  Twelve ;  a  history  more  or  less  fictitious,  in- 
tended to  gain  favour  for  that  apostle  with  the  Judeo- 
Christian  party  which,  down  to  the  second  century,  remained 
obstinately  hostile  to  him.  Zeller,  in  particular,  has  de- 
veloped this  thesis  in  a  work  which  might  be  called  classic, 
if  erudition  and  sagacity  could  stand  for  justice  and  impar- 
tiality.1 MM.  Eeuss  (§  210)  and  Mcolas  (p.  268)  also  ascribe 
to  the  Acts  the  aim  of  reconciling  the  Judeo- Christian  and 
Pauline  parties,  but  without  accusing  the  author  of  wilfully 
altering  the  facts.2 

It  must  indeed  be  confessed,  especially  if  we  take  account 
of  the  narrative  of  the  Acts,  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe 
that  in  writing  this  history  the  author  had  only  the  general 
intention  of  giving  as  complete  and  faithful  a  view  of  the 
facts  as  possible.  A  more  particular  aim  seems  to  show  itself 
in  the  choice  of  the  materials  which  he  uses,  as  well  as  in  the 
numerous  omissions  which  he  makes.  Whence  comes  it  that, 
of  all  the  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul  are  the  only  ones  brought 
on  the  scene  ?  How  are  we  to  explain  the  marvellous  paral- 
lelism between  them  established  by  the  narrative  ?  Whence 
the  predilection  of  the  author  for  everything  relating  to  the 
person  of  the  latter ;  the  thrice  repeated  narrative  of  his  con- 
version, the  detailed  account  of  the  varied  phases  of  his  trial, 
the  peculiarly  marked  notice  of  his  relations  to  the  Eoman 
magistrates?  Why  relate  in  detail  the  founding  of  the 
churches  of  Greece,  and  not  devote  a  line  to  that  of  so  im- 
portant a  church  as  Alexandria  (to  which  Paul  remained  a 
stranger)  ?  To  what  purpose  the  circumstantial  recital  of 
Paul's  voyage  to  Eome  ?  And  why  does  the  account  of  his 
arrival  close  the  book  so  abruptly  ?     Is  not  Overbeck  right 

1  Zeller  (p.  363)  calls  the  book  of  Acts  "  a  treaty  of  peace  proposed  to  the 
Judeo-Christians  by  a  Paulmist,  who  wishes  to  purchase  from  them  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  Gentile  Christianity  by  a  series  of  concessions  made  to  Judaism. " 

2  M.  Nicolas  thus  expresses  the  aim  of  the  Acts  :  "To  extinguish  the  discus- 
sions of  the  two  parties,  and  lead  them  to  forget  their  old  feuds  by  showing  them 
that  their  founders  .  .  .  had  laboured  with  a  full  understanding  with  one 
another  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity." 


ITS  AIM.  403 

in  saying  that,  in  reality,  "  the  subject  of  the  book  is  not  the 
gospel,  but  the  gospel  preached  hy  Paul."  Even  the  first  part, 
that  which  relates  to  Peter,  seems  to  be  only  a  preparation 
for  the  account  of  Paul's  ministry.  The  author  seems  to  say  : 
Great  as  Peter  was  in  his  work  in  Israel,  Paul  was  not  one 
whit  behind  him  in  his  among  the  Gentiles ;  the  extraordinary 
miracles  and  successes  by  which  God  accredited  the  former 
wire  repeated  in  no  less  a  measure  in  the  case  of  the  other.1 

AW'  do  not  think  that  the  recent  defenders  of  the  historical 
trustworthiness  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  (Mayerhoff,  Baum- 
en,  Lekebusch)  have  succeeded  altogether  in  parrying  this 
blow.     They  have  attempted  to  explain  part  of  those  facts, 
while  admitting  that  the  theme  of  the  Acts  was  solely  the 
propagation  of  the  gospel  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome  ;  but  this 
very  demonstration  breaks  down  at  several  points,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  last  chapter.    For  when  Paul  readies  this  capital 
it  is  not  he  who  brings  the  gospel  to  it;   rather  it  is  the 
>el   which  receives  him  there  (xxviii.  15)  ;  and  in  what 
follows,  the  founding  of  a  church  at  Rome  by  Paul  is  not 
related.     As  Overbeck  says,  "The  Acts  relate,  not  how  the 
/,  but  how  Paul,  reached  Rome." 
While  fully  recognising  that  the  purely  historical  aim  is 
:  ictory,  it  seems  to  us  that  that  which  Zeller  proposes 
is  inadmissible.     Not  only,  as  Bleek  observes,  must  the  coldly 
calculated  deception,  which  would  be  inevitable  in  an  author 

nting  a  narrative  with  the  view  of  forging  history,  api 

absolutely  improbable  to  every  reader  who  gives  himself  up 

to  the  impression  which  so  simple  a  composition  produces ;  but 

besides,  how  are  we  to  set  before  our  minds  the  result  proposed 

I  >e  gained  in  this  way  ?     Did  the  author  mean,  asks  Over- 

!,,  to  inilucnce  the  Judeo-Christians  to  unite  with  Paul's 

;  y  ?    But  in  that  case  it  was  a  most  unskilful  expedient  to  set 

•re  them  the  conduct  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  the  odious  light 

in  which  it  appears  throughout  the  entire  history  of  the  Acts, 

i   the  persecutions  against  the  apostles  in  th  ij»- 

1  It  is  known  that  Schneckenburger  regarded  Dtl  bttwltt 

nnd  Paul  as  th<  -!<t  and  aim  of  the  Acta  (without  thinking  that 

the  truth  <>f  the  narrative  was  thercl  ni.scd).     It  is  only  as  a  curiosum 

that  we  refer  to  the  opinion  of  Abt-i  0ards  the  Acta  aa  a  memoii 

pared  with  a  view  to  Paul's  defence  in  his  trial  before  the  Imp  I  ill  ti  il.unal. 


404  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

ters,  down  tn  the  dark  plots  in  which  the  Sanhedrim  itself 
does  not  shrink  from  taking  part  against  the  life  of  St.  Paul. 
It  must  then  be  by  acting  on  his  own  party,  the  Paulinists, 
that  the  author  hoped  to  effect  the  fusion  of  the  two  camps. 
By  presenting  the  picture  of  the  harmony  between  Paul  and 
the  Twelve  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.),  he  proposed  to  bring  the 
Paulinists  of  his  time  to  concede  to  the  Judeo- Christians,  as 
Paul  had  formerly  done  to  the  apostles,  the  observance  of  the 
Mosaic  rites.  But  the  Judeo-Christians  themselves  of  that 
period  no  longer  held  to  this  concession.  It  appears  from 
the  Clementine  Homilies  that  circumcision  was  abandoned  by 
this  party.  The  author  of  the  Acts,  a  zealous  Paulinist,  must 
then  have  asked  his  own  to  yield  to  their  adversaries  more 
than  the  latter  themselves  required  !  Finally,  what  purpose, 
on  Zeller's  supposition,  would  be  served  by  the  entire  transi- 
tion part  (chap,  vi— xii.)  ?  This  elaborate  enumeration  of 
the  circumstances  which  went  to  pave  the  way  for  the  free 
evangelization  of  the  Gentile  world  might  and  should  have  its 
place  in  a  truthful  and  sincere  narrative  of  the  progress  of 
the  Christian  work ;  it  was  a  digression  in  a  romance  in- 
tended to  raise  Paul  to  the  level  of  Peter.  The  modified  form 
given  by  MM.  Eeuss  and  Nicolas  to  this  conciliation-hypo- 
thesis has  no  force  unless  there  is  ascribed  to  the  apostolic 
Judeo-Christianity  and  Paulinism  a  meaning  and  importance 
which,  in  our  opinion,  it  never  had  (see  chap.  iv.).  What 
hypothesis  does  Overbeck  substitute  for  that  of  Zeller,  which 
he  so  well  combats  ?  According  to  this  critic,  the  author  of 
the  Acts  does  not  think  of  reconciling  the  two  camps.  It  is 
the  Pauline  party  alone  which,  working  on  its  own  account, 
here  attempts  by  the  pen  of  one  of  its  members  "  to  come  to 
an  understanding  with  its  past,  its  peculiar  origin,  and  its 
first  founder,  Paul"  (p.  xxi.).  Such,  after  so  much  beating 
about,  is  the  last  word  of  Baur's  School  on  the  aim  of  the 
writings  of  Luke.  It  is  on  the  face  of  it  a  somewhat  strange 
idea,  that  of  a  party  composing  a  historical  book  to  come  to  a 
clear  understanding  with  its  past.  It  is  not,  however,  incon- 
ceivable. But  if  the  author  really  means  to  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding about  the  beginnings  of  his  party,  it  is  because 
he  knows  those  beginnings,  and  believes  in  them.  The  past 
is  to    him    a   definite   quantity  by  which  he  measures   the 


ITS  AIM.  405 

present.  But  in  that  case,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  wilful 
falsifications  of  history  in  which,  according  to  Overbeck 
himself,  he  indulged  ?  The  miracles  of  St.  Peter  in  the  first 
part  of  the  Acts  are  set  down  to  the  account  of  legend ;  but 
those  of  Paul,  in  the  second,  were  knowingly  invented  by 
the  author.  To  restore  the  past  at  one's  own  caprice,  is  that 
to  come  to  a  clear  understanding  with  it  ?  Much  more,  the 
author  of  the  Acts,  not  content  with  peopling  the  night  of 
the  past  with  imaginary  events,  went  the  length  of  putting 
himself  "into  systematic  opposition  "  (p.  xxxvi.)  to  what  Paul 
says  of  himself  in  his  epistles.  To  contradict  systematically, 
that  is  to  say,  knowingly,  the  best  authenticated  documents 
proceeding  from  the  founder  of  the  party, — such  is  the  way 
"  to  come  to  light  regarding  the  person  of  that  chief  " !  The 
Tubingen  criticism  has  entangled  itself  in  a  cul-de-sac  from 
which  it  cannot  escape  except  by  renouncing  its  first  error, 
the  opposition  between  the  principles  of  Paul  and  those  of  the 
Twelve.  We  shall  return  to  this  question  in  our  last  chapter. 
The  reperusal  of  the  third  Gospel  is  enough  to  convince  any 
one  that  its  author  seriously  pursues  a  historical  aim.  This 
appears  from  the  numerous  chronological,  geographical,  and 

r  like  notices  of  which  his  work  is  full  (Quirinius, 
ii.  2  ;  the  cycle  of  dates,  iiL  1 ;  the  age  of*  Jesus,  ver. 
23;  the  second-first  Sabbath,  vi.  1;  the  details  regarding 
the  material  support  of  Jesus  and  His  apostles,  viii. 
1-3;  compare  also  ix.  51,  xiii  22,  xvii.  11,  xxi.  37,  38, 
etc.).     The  narrative  of  the  Acts  is  everywhere  strewn  with 

ilar  remarks  (on  Bethany)  i.  12;  expulsion  of  the  Jews 
by  Claudius,  xviii.  2j  Qallio,  xviii.  1  money  value  of 

the  books  burned,  xix.  1  9  ;  the  details  of  the  disturbance 
at  Ephesus,  chap,  xix.;  the  fifty  days  between  Passover  ind 
Pentecost,  of  which  the  e  of  the  journey  enables  us 

to  give  an  exact  account,  xx.  G-xxi.  1G;  the  Dumber  of 
soldiers.  and  infantry,  farming  the  escort,  xxiii.  23  ; 

the    circumstantial   account    of    the    shipwreck,  xxvii. ;    the 

tonality  and  figurehead  of  the  vessel  which  carries  Paul  to 
i  1).     The  historical  purpose  of  th 

<jars  from  the  programme  marked  out  in  the  prologue:  to 
ng8tfrom  the  v  (i.  3). 

Yet  it  is  certain,  on  I  than  the 


406  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

other  evangelists  does  the  author  relate  history  merely  as 
history, — that  is  to  say,  to  interest  the  reader  and  satisfy  his 
curiosity.  He  evidently  proposes  to  himself  a  more  exalted 
aim.  The  tone  of  his  narrative  proves  this,  and  he  tells  us 
so  himself.  He  has  before  his  eyes  a  reader  who  is  already 
abreast  of  the  essential  points  of  the  gospel  verity,  and  whom 
he  wishes  to  furnish  with  the  means  of  confirming  the  reality 
of  the  object  of  his  faith  (rrjv  aa^akeuav).  It  is  with  this 
view  that  he  presents  him  with  a  full,  exact,  and  consecu- 
tive description  of  the  life  and  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  "  tliat 
he  might  [thus  himself]  verify  the  infallible  certainty  of  those 
things  wherein  he  has  been  instructed." 

In  what  did  those  instructions  received  by  Theophilus 
consist  ?  According  to  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  3-5),  the  essen- 
tial points  of  elementary  instruction  were  these  two :  Christ 
dead  for  our  sins,  and  risen  the  third  day.  In  Eom.  x.  6-1 0  the 
same  apostle  thus  defines  the  object  of  faith,  and  the  contents 
of  the  Christian  profession :  Christ  descended  for  us  into  the 
abyss,  and  ascended  for  us  to  heaven ;  comp.  also  Eom.  iv. 
23-25.  Such  is  likewise  the  summary  of  Peter's  preaching 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

Nevertheless,  at  the  house  of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.),  Peter 
already  feels  the  need  of  preparing  for  the  proclamation  of 
those  decisive  saving  truths  by  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  ministry 
of  Jesus.  At  Antioch  of  Pisidia  (Acts  xiii.  23,  24),  Paul 
goes  back,  like  Peter,  even  to  the  ministry  of  John  the 
Baptist.  For  there  is  in  the  mind  of  every  man,  face  to  face 
with  an  important  historical  event,  the  felt  need  not  merely 
to  account  for  what  it  contains,  but  also  for  the  way  in  which 
it  has  come  about.  And  when  the  event  has  exercised,  and 
continues  ever  to  exercise,  a  deep  influence  on  the  lot  of 
humanity,  and  on  that  of  every  individual,  then  the  need  of 
knowing  its  beginnings  and  development,  its  genesis,  if  I  may 
so  speak,  takes  forcible  possession  of  every  serious  mind. 
And  this  desire  is  legitimate.  The  more  value  the  event  has, 
the  more  important  is  it  for  the  conscience  to  defend  itself 
from  every  illusion  in  regard  to  it.  Such  must  have  been  the 
position  of  a  large  number  of  believing  and  cultured  Greeks, 
of  whom  Theophilus  was  the  representative.  What  mysteries 
must  have  appeared  to  such  minds  in  those  unheard  of  event3 


ITS  AIM.  4U7 

which  form  the  goal  of  gospel  history :  a  man  dying  for  the 
salvation  of  all  other  men ;  a  Jew  raised  to  the  condition  of 
the  Son  of  God,  and  to  power  over  all  things ;  and  that 
especially  when  those  events  were  presented  apart  from  their 
connection  with  those  which  had  preceded  and  prepared  for 
them,  having  all  the  appearance  of  abrupt  manifestations  from 
heaven !  To  how  many  objections  must  such  doctrine  have 
given  rise  ?  It  is  not  without  reason  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
the  cross  as :  to  the  Greeks  foolishness.  Was  it  not  important 
to  supply  a  point  of  support  for  such  instructions,  and  in 
order  to  do  that,  to  settle  them  on  the  solid  basis  of  facts  ? 
To  relate  in  detail  the  beginning  and  middle  of  this  history, 
was  not  this  to  render  the  end  of  it  more  worthy  of  faith  ? 
In  dealing  with  such  men  as  Theophilus,  there  was  an  urgent 
necessity  for  supplying  history  as  the  basis  of  their  catechetical 
training. 

No  one  could  understand  better  than  St.  Paul  the  need  for 
such  a  work,  and  we  should  not  be  surprised  though  it  were 
to  him  that  the  initiative  was  due.  It  is  true  there  existed 
already  a  considerable  number  of  accounts  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus ;  but  according  to  i.  3  (explained  in  contrast  with  vers.  1, 
2),  those  works  were  only  collections  of  anecdotes  put  together 
without  connection  and  without  criticism.  Such  compilations 
could  not  suffice  to  meet  the  want  in  question ;  there  was 
needed  a  history  properly  so  called,  such  as  that  which  Luke 
announces  in  his  programme.  And  if  Paul,  among  the  helpers 
who  surrounded  him,  had  an  evangelist  distinguished  for  his 
gifts  and  culture, — and  we  know  from  2  Cor.  viii  18,  19, 
that  there  was  really  one  of  this  description, — how  could  he 
help  casting  his  eyes  on  him,  and  encouraging  him  to  under- 
take so  excellent  a  work  ?  Such  is  the  task  which  Luke  has 
discharged.  It  is  neither  by  adducing  the  prophecies,  nor 
by  the  personal  greatness  of  Jesus,  nor  by  his  declarations 
respecting  1!  ■  only  origin,  that  the  author  of  the  third 

Gospel  has  sought  to  establish  or  ttrengthen  the  faith  of 
readers.     It  is  by  the  consecutive  exposition  of  that  unique 
fry  \\h<.  <r  |  ;its  have   become  the   holy  object  of 

beginning  explains  the  middle,  and  tb  the 

end;  and   from  this   illuminated  close  the  light  is  reflected 
back  on  the  events  which  have  led  to  it.      It  is  a  well-corn- 


408  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

pacted  whole,  in  which  the  parts  mutually  support  one  another. 
Luke's  Gospel  is  the  only  one  which  in  this  view  presents  us 
with  the  Gospel  history.  It  is  very  truly,  as  it  has  been 
called,  the  Gospel  of  the  development  (M.  Felix  Bovet). 

The  heavenly  exaltation  of  Jesus  was,  if  one  may  so  speak, 
the  first  stage  in  the  march  of  Christian  work.  There  was  a 
second  more  advanced :  the  state  of  things  which  this  work 
had  reached  at  the  time  when  the  author  wrote.  The  name 
of  Christ  preached  throughout  all  the  world,  the  Church 
founded  in  all  the  cities  of  the  empire ;  such  was  the  astound- 
ing spectacle  which  this  great  epoch  presented.  This  result 
was  not,  like  the  life  of  Jesus,  an  object  of  faith  to  the 
Gentiles ;  it  was  a  fact  of  felt  experience.  It  required  to  be, 
not  demonstrated,  but  explained,  and  in  some  respects  justi- 
fied. How  had  the  Church  been  founded,  and  how  had  it 
grown  so  rapidly  ?  How  had  it  become  open  to  the  Gentiles  ? 
How  were  the  people  of  Israel,  from  the  midst  of  whom  it 
had  gone  forth,  themselves  excluded  from  it?  How  reconcile 
with  this  unexpected  event  God's  faithfulness  to  His  promises  ? 
Could  the  work  of  Christianity  really  be  under  those  strange 
conditions  a  divine  work  ?  All  these  were  questions  which 
might  justly  be  raised  in  the  minds  of  believers  from  among 
the  Gentiles,  as  is  proved  by  the  passage  ix.-xi.  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Eomans,  where  Paul  studies  this  very  problem 
with  a  view  to  the  wants  of  ancient  Gentiles  (xi.  13).  Only, 
while  Paul  treats  it  from  the  standpoint  of  Christian  specula- 
tion, and  answers  it  by  a  Theodicfa,  the  book  of  Acts  labours 
to  solve  it  historically.  The  first  part  of  this  book  exhibits 
the  Church  "being  bom  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  the 
glorified  Christ,  but  coming  into  collision  at  its  first  step  with 
official  Judaism.  The  second  part  exhibits  God  preparing  for 
the  new  progress  which  this  work  was  to  make  through  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  Israel  at  the 
same  time  shedding  the  blood  of  Stephen,  and  the  king  of 
Israel  slaying  or  disposed  to  slay  the  two  chief  apostles, — in 
a  word,  the  rebellion  of  Israel  in  the  Holy  Land.  The  last 
part,  finally,  represents  the  divine  work  embracing  the  Gentile 
world,  and  the  ministry  of  Paul  crowned  with  a  success  and 
with  wonders  equal  at  least  to  those  which  had  signalized 
the  ministry  of   Peter, — most  certainly  this   parallelism,  as 


ITS  AIM.  409 

Schneckenburger  has  observed,  is  before  the  mind  of  the 
author, — while  Judaism  continues  its  opposition  in  every 
city  of  the  pagan  world  where  Paul  preaches,  and  at  length 
consummates  that  opposition  in  the  very  heart  of  the  empire, 
in  the  capital  of  the  world,  by  the  conduct  of  the  rulers  of 
the  Roman  synagogue.  Such  is  the  end  of  the  book.  Is  not 
the  intention  of  such  a  writing  clear?  The  narrative  is  a 
justification.  But  this  justification  is  not,  as  has  been  un- 
worthily thought,  that  of  a  man,  St.  Paul.  The  aim  of  the 
Acts  is  more  exalted.  By  its  simple  and  consecutive  state- 
ment of  events,  this  book  purports  to  give  the  explanation 
and  justification  of  the  way  in  which  that  great  religious 
revolution  was  carried  through,  which  transferred  the  king- 
dom of  God  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles ;  it  is  the  apology 
of  the  divine  work,  that  of  God  Himself.  God  had  left  the 
Gentiles  only  for  a  time,  tlie  times  of  ignorance;  He  had 
temporarily  let  them  walk  in  tlieir  own  ways  (Acts  xvii.  30, 
xiv.  16).  At  the  end  of  this  time,  Israel,  first  saved,  was  to 
become  the  instrument  of  universal  salvation,  the  apostle  of 
Christ  to  all  nations.  But  this  glorious  calling  which  the 
apostles  so  often  held  out  to  it  was  obstinately  rejected,  and 
the  kingdom  of  God,  instead  of  being  established  by  it,  \ 
forced  to  pass  aside  from  it.  It  was  therefore  not  God  who 
broke  with  His  people;  it  was  the  people  who  broke  with 
their  God.  Such  is  the  fact  which  the  book  of  Acts  demon- 
strates historically.  It  is  thus,  in  a  way,  the  count erpart  of 
Genesis.  The  latter  relates  how  the  transition  took  place 
from  primitive  universalism  to  theocratic  particular: 
through  God's  covenant  with  Abraham.  The  Acts  relate 
how  God  returned  from  this  temporary  particularism  to 
the  conclusive  universalism,  which  was  ever  His  real  thought. 
But  while  simply  describing  the  fact,  the  Acts  explain  and 
fy  the  abnormal  and  unforeseen  form  in  which  it  came 
about. 

The  end  common  to  Luke's  two  writings  is  therefore  to 
strengthen  faith,  by  exhibit  principle  and  phases  of 

that  renewal  Whi  messed.     Two  great 

results  had  been  successively  effected  before  the  eyes  of 

temporaries.       In    the    person    of   Jesus,  the    world    had 
received  a  Saviour  and  Mast<  Saviour  and  MasU B  had 


4:1 0  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

established  His  kingdom  over  humanity.  The  Gospel  sets 
forth  the  first  of  those  events ;  the  Acts  the  second.  The 
Gospel  has  for  its  subject  the  invisible  revolution,  the  substi- 
tution in  the  person  of  Jesus  Himself  of  the  dispensation  of 
the  Spirit  for  the  reign  of  the  letter,  the  transforming  of  the 
relations  of  God  to  man,  salvation,  the  principle  of  that 
historical  revolution  which  was  to  follow.  The  Acts  narrate 
the  external  revolution,  the  preaching  of  salvation  with  its 
consequences,  the  acceptance  of  the  Gentiles,  and  their  sub- 
stitution in  the  place  of  Israel.  Salvation  and  the  Church, 
such  are  the  two  works  of  God  on  which  the  author  meant 
to  shed  the  light  of  the  divine  mind.  The  Ascension  linked 
them  together.  The  goal  of  the  one,  it  was  the  foundation 
of  the  other.  Hence  the  narrative  of  the  Ascension  becomes 
the  bond  of  the  two  writings.  The  aim  of  the  work,  thus 
understood,  explains  its  beginning  (the  announcement  of  the 
forerunner's  birth),  its  middle  (the  Ascension),  and  its  end 
(Paul  and  the  synagogue  at  Eome). 

II. — The  Time  of  Composition. 

The  very  various  opinions  regarding  the  date  of  our  Gospel 
(Introd.  §  3)  may  be  arranged  in  three  groups.  The  first 
class  fix  it  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  between  60 
and  70 ;  the  second,  between  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  end  of  the  first  century  (Holtzmann,  from  70  to  80  ; 
Keim,  about  9  0) ;  the  third,  Baur  and  his  school,  in  the  first 
part  of  the  second  century  (Volkmar,  about  100  ;  Hilgenfield, 
Zeller,  from  100  to  110;  Baur,  after  130).  The  traditions 
which  we  have  quoted  (§  3)  and  the  facts  which  we  have 
enumerated  (§1)  seem  to  us  at  once  to  set  aside  the  dates 
of  the  third  group,  and  to  be  unfavourable  to  the  second. 
Tradition  has  preserved  to  us  only  one  precise  date,  that 
given  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  when  he  places  the  com- 
position of  Luke  before  that  of  Mark,  and  fixes  the  latter  at 
the  period  of  Peter's  sojourn  at  Borne,  that  is  to  say,  in  64 
(according  to  Wieseler),  or  between  64  and  67  (according  to 
others).  Following  this  view,  our  Gospel  must  have  been 
composed  between  60  and  67.  The  opinion  of  Irenseus  is 
not,  as  is  often  said,  opposed  to  this  (§  3).  Let  us  examine 
the  objections  raised  by  criticism  to  tVis  traditional   date, 


ITS  TIME  OF  COMPOSITION.  411 

which  would  place  the  composition  of  our  Gospel  antecedently 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

1.  The  great  number  of  gospel  narratives  already  published 
before  our  Gospel,  according  to  the  prologue,  presupposes  a 
somewhat  advanced  period  of  the  apostolic  age.1 — But  why 
might  not  numerous  attempts  at  compiling  traditions  relative 
to  the  history  of  Jesus  have  been  made  during  the  first  thirty 
years  which  followed  events  so  great  ?  "  Though  the  art  of 
writing  had  not  yet  existed,  it  would  have  been  invented  for 
such  a  subject,"  says  Lange.  When,  especially,  the  generation 
of  the  immediate  witnesses  of  the  life  of  our  Saviour  began  to 
be  cleared  away  by  death,  and  when  the  apostles,  His  official 
witnesses,  left  Palestine  to  go  and  preach  to  other  nations,  was 
it  not  inevitable  that  the  gospel  literature  should  appear  to 
fill  up  this  double  void?  Now  it  was  about  the  year  60,  at 
the  latest,  that  those  circumstances  emerged. 

2.  The  work  of  Luke  betrays  a  certain  amount  of  criticism, 
in  regard  to  its  sources,  which  leads  to  a  date  posterior  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem. — But  from  the  time  when  the  author 
had  before  him  a  certain  number  of  works  on  the  subject,  it 
is  evident  that  he  could  not  compose  his  narrative  without 
estimating  those  sources  critically ;  that  might  be  done  at  any 
period     All  that  was  needed  for  it  was  leisure. 

3.  The  influence  of  legend  (Overbeck)  is  alleged  in  the 
writings  of  Luke,  and  a  Paulinism  already  in  a  state  of 
decadence  (Reuss,  so  far  as  Acts  is  concerned). — But  has  the 
third  Gospel  presented  to  us  a  single  description  resembling 
that  of  the  fire  lighted  in  the  Jordan  at  the  time  of  the 
baptism,  which  Justin  relates  ;  or  a  single  word  which  has  any 
resemblance  to  the  account  of  the  marvellous  vines  of  the 
millennial  kingdom,  in  Papias  ;  or  a  single  scene  amplified  like 
that  which  is  drawn  by  the  Gospel  of  the  I  of  the 
interview  between  Jesus  and  the  rich  young  man  (see  on  the 
passage)?  Such  are  the  traces  of  the  influence  of  myth, 
Luke  is  entirely  free  from  it.     As  to  the  weakening  of  the 

shall  not  bo  able  to  treat  it  thoroughly  till 
p.  iv.     We  shall  only  say  here,  that  so  far  from  its  h 
the  fact  that  Luke  gives  us  a  Paulinism  in  a  state  of  deel 

m:  "  E'mc  rricfo  BvangtUm  TAUratur  uiyt  den  vorgtrHciten 
be*landdts<  tms." 


412  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

it  is  Paul  himself  who,  in  the  Acts,  following  the  example  of 
Jesus  in  the  Gospel,  agrees  to  realize  Christian  spirituality 
only  in  the  restricted  measure  in  which  it  is  practicable. 
Fidelity  to  principle  does  not  prevent  men  of  God  from 
exercising  that  prudence  and  charity  which  in  practice  can 
take  account  of  a  given  situation. 

4.  The  siege  of  Jerusalem  is  described  in  the  prophecy  of 
Jesus  in  so  precise  and  detailed  a  form  (xix.  43,  44,  xxi. 
20-24),  in  comparison  with  the  compilations  of  Matthew  and 
Mark,  that  it  is  impossible  to  assert  that  Luke's  account  is  not 
subsequent  to  the  event. — Jesus  predicted  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  that  is  certain.  The  witnesses  who  accused  Him 
of  this  before  the  Sanhedrim  did  not  invent  what  was 
absolutely  false,  and  Stephen  rested  his  statement  on  some 
such  prophecy  (Acts  vi.  14).  Now  if  Jesus  predicted  this 
catastrophe  as  a  prophet,  there  is  no  reason  why  He  should 
not  have  prophetically  announced  some  details  of  it.  But  if 
He  predicted  it  simply  through  the  force  of  His  political  in- 
sight, He  could  not  but  be  aware  also  that  this  destruction 
implied  a  siege,  arid  that  the  siege  could  not  take  place  without 
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  measure 
of  those  general  indications. 

5.  The  final  advent  of  our  Lord,  it  is  further  said,  stands 
in  Mark  and  Matthew  in  immediate  connection  with  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  while  in  Luke  it  is  widely  separated 
from  it  by  the  interval  of  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  (xxi.  24). 
In  other  passages,  besides,  the  idea  of  the  proximity  of  the 
Parousia  is  designedly  effaced ;  so  ix.  2  7,  where  Luke  makes 
Jesus  say  that  some  of  the  disciples  present  shall  see,  not 
"  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  follow  (evOecos  in  Matthew)  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem. — We  hold  that  the  relation  of  immediate  succes- 
sion 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 


ITS  TIME  OF  COMPOSITION.  413 

of  modern  critics,  that  the  interval  supposed  by  Luke  between 
those  two  events  proves  the  date  of  his  Gospel  to  be  after  that 
catastrophe.  We  have  already  treated  several  points  bearing 
on  this  question  in  our  exegesis  (vol.  ii.  pp.  259—261).  The 
decisive  question  here  is  how  Jesus  Christ  Himself  spoke  on 
the  subject.  "We  think  we  have  given  indubitable  evidence, 
from  a  very  large  number  of  His  sayings,  that  in  His  view 
His  advent  was  to  be  separated  by  a  considerable  period,  not 
only  from  the  time  that  He  was  speaking,  but  from  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which,  according  to  Him,  was  to 
happen  during  the  lifetime  of  the  contemporary  generation 
The  bridegroom  who  delays  his  coming ;  the  porter  who  has  to 
watch  late  or  till  midnight,  or  till  cockcrow,  or  even  till  morn- 
ing, waiting  for  his  master ;  the  parable  of  the  leaven,  which 
exhibits  the  gospel  slowly  and  by  a  process  wholly  from 
within  transforming  the  relations  of  human  life,  that  gospel 
which  must  be  preached  before  His  return  throughout  the 
whole  world,  while  the  apostles  shall  not  even  have  had  time 
to  announce  it  to  all  the  cities  of  Israel  before  the  judgment 
of  the  nation,  etc.  etc., — all  proves  to  us  that  Jesus  Himself 
never  confounded  in  one  and  the  same  catastrophe  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  present  dispensation. 
II  nee  it  follows,  that  if  Jesus  expressed  His  view  on  this 
subject,  He  must  have  spoken  as  Luke  makes  Him  speak,  and 
not  as  Matthew  makes  Him  speak  ;  that  consequently  He  must 
really  have  delivered  two  distinct  discourses  on  those  two 
subjects  so  entirely  different  in  His  eyes,  and  not  one  merely 
in  which  He  blended  the  two  events  in  a  single  description 

:t.  xxiv.).  Now  this  is  precisely  what  Luke  says  (see 
chap,  xvii.,  on  the  return  of  Christ,  and  chap,  xxi.,  on  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem).  If  it  is  so,  with  what  right  can  it 
be  alleged  that  Luke  could  not  recover  the  historical  truth  on 
this  point  as  he  has  succeeded  in  doing  on  so  many  others, 

I  that  his  essentially  more  accurate  account  of  the  say: 
of  Jesus  is  produced  only  by  a  deliberate  alteration  of  tin 
documents  which  lie  had  before  him  ?      What  I    Luke  relu: 
by  the  path  of  error  or  falsehood  to  historical  truth !     Reallv 

icism  here  exacts  mo-  sound  sense  than  it  can  1 

ides,  it  is  psv  impossible  that  Luke  should  have 

indulged    in   vv  g   "it    pleasure    ti  ngs    of   that 


414  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Being  on  whom  his  faith  was  fixed,  whom  he  regarded  as  the 
Son  of  God.  Again,  in  this  respect  criticism  ascribes  a  proce- 
dure to  him  which  sound  sense  rejects.  The  sayings  of  our 
Lord  may  have  been  involuntarily  modified  by  tradition,  and 
have  come  to  the  evangelists  in  different  and  more  or  less 
altered  forms;  but  we  cannot  allow  that  they  invented  or 
changed  them  deliberately.  In  what  results  are  we  landed  if 
we  take  the  opposite  view  ?  It  is  asserted  that  some  unknown 
poet  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  about  68,  the  eschatological 
discourse,  Matt.  xxiv. ;  then,  ten  or  twenty  years  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Luke  not  less  knowingly  and 
deliberately  transformed  this  discourse  to  meet  the  exigencies 
of  the  case !  But  we  ask :  if  such  were  really  the  origin  of 
our  Lord's  discourses,  would  they  be  what  they  are  ?  Would 
their  general  harmony,  and  the  points  so  often  observed  at 
which  they  fit  into  one  another,  be  what  they  are,  especially  in 
our  synoptics  ? 

In  opposition  to  those  reasons  which  appear  to  us  to  be  of 
little  weight,  the  following  are  the  proofs  which  the  book 
itself  furnishes,  to  the  fact  of  its  being  composed  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem :  1.  The  aim  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
explains  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  coincides  thoroughly  with 
that  of  the  great  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  especially  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Eomans  ;  besides,  the  correspondences  in  detail  between 
the  third  Gospel  and  that  letter  are  so  many  and  striking,  that 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  deny  that  the  two  writings  pro- 
ceeded from  the  same  surroundings  and  at  the  same  period. 
For  they  are  evidently  intended  to  meet  the  same  practical 
wants.1  The  main  fact  here  is,  that  Luke  resolves  historically 
precisely  the  same  problem  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  and  the 

1  In  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke,  Jesus  is  described  as  the  son  of  David  by 
His  descent  from  Mary,  and  as  the  Son  of  God  by  His  supernatural  birth  ;  St. 
Paul  begins  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  with  the  words  :  "Made  of  the  seed  oj 
David  according  to  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in  virtue  of  the 
epirit  of  holiness."  Luke's  two  writings,  in  their  unity,  demonstrate  Israel's 
right  of  priority  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  what  else  is  this  than  the 
privilege  of  the  -rpurov,  first,  expressly  attributed  to  the  Jews  by  St.  Paul,  Rom. 
i.  16  ?  Jesus,  in  Luke,  is  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  and  presented  in  the 
temple  on  the  fortieth,— two  ceremonies  which  subject  Him  during  His  earthly 
life  to  the  law  ;  Paul,  as  if  he  were  alluding  to  those  facts  related  only  by  Luke, 
calls  Jesus  "a  minister  of  the  circumcision"  (Rom.  xv.  8),  and  speaks  of  Him, 
Gal.  iv.  4,  "made  of  a  woman,  made  under  tJie  law."     Luke,  in  the  Acts, 


ITS  TIME  OF  COMPOSITION.  415 

calling  of  the  Gentiles  which  Paul  treats  speculatively  in  the 
important  passage,  Horn.  ix-xi. 

The  purity  of  the  tradition,  the  freshness  and  simplicity 
of  the  narratives,  and  especially  the  appropriateness  which 
Luke  is  able  to  restore  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  which 
alone  makes  their  full  charm  felt,  do  not  admit  of  the  view 
that  this  book  was  written  at  a  considerable  distance  from  the 
events,  and  that  it  was  wholly  outside  the  circle  of  the  first 
witnesses.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  burst 
over  the  Holy  Land  and  scattered  that  Primitive  Christian 
Society,  when  such  information  was  collected  as  that  to  which 
we  owe  records  so  vivid  and  pure. 

3.  The  book  of  Acts,  certainly  written  after  the  Gospel, 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  composed  after  the  destruction  of 
.Jerusalem.  True,  it  has  been  alleged  that  viii.  26  proves  the 
contrary,  but  without  the  least  foundation,  as  Overbeck 
acknowledges.  The  words :  " Now  it  is  desert"  in  this  pass- 
age, refer  not  to  the  town  of  Gaza,  but  to  the  route  pointed 
out  by  the  angel,  either  to  distinguish  it  from  another  more 
frequented  way  (Overbeck),  or,  as  appears  to  us  more  natural, 
to  explain  the  scene  which  is  about  to  follow.  How  would  it 
be  possible  for  this  writing,  at  least  in  its  last  lines,  not  to 
contain  the  least  allusion  to  this  catastrophe,  nor  even  a  word 
touching  the  death  of  St.  Paul,  which  must  have  preceded  it 
by  a  few  years  ?  We  have  already  discussed  this  question 
(Introd.  p.  13  et  seq.).  We  shall  sum  up  by  saying  that  if, 
OB  the  one  hand,  the  mention  of  the  term  of  t  .in  the 

last  verses  of  the  Acts,  clearly  assumes  that  a  new  phase  in 
is  life  had  begun  after  his  captivity,  on  the  other  hand 
the  complete  silence  of  the  author  as  to  the  end  of  the  apostle's 
career  proves  that  this  phase  had  not  yet  terminated.     The 

lity  of  the  divine  revelation  which  prwedsd  that  of  the 

Gospel:  "God  Uft  not  Himself  without  witness  among  the  GmHlm;H  1 

Bom.  i.  19,  20,  likewise  declares  the  revelation  of  the  invisible  God  made  to  the 

lis        tin  works  of  creation.     Luke  points  to  the  Good  Samaritan  lining 

Instinctively  what  neither  the  priest  nor  the  Lcvitc,  though  holders  of  the  law, 

did  ;  Paul,  Rom.  it  14-15,  26-27,  speaks  of  the  Gentiles  who  do  by  nature  the 

things  contained  in  the  lav.  j  shall  condemn  the  Jew,  who  hears, 

hut  at  the  same  time  breaks  that  law.     Luke  speaks  of  the  times  of  ignorance, 

:ig  which  God  Mg  nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways  ;  Paul,  of  the 

>d  showed  to  past  sins,  during  the  time  oj  JIU 

long-suffering  (Rom.  iii.  26  i     It  would  be  tedious  to  prolong  this  pvallcL 


416  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE, 

Acts  must  therefore  have  been  written  in  the  interval  between 
the  end  of  Paul's  first  captivity  at  Eome  (in  the  spring  of  the 
year  64)  and  his  martyrdom  (about  67).1  The  Gospel  must 
have  been  composed  a  short  time  before. 

Again,  it  has  been  alleged  that  a  considerable  interval  must 
have  elapsed  between  the  composition  of  those  two  writings ; 
because  the  tradition  followed  by  Luke  in  the  Acts,  in  regard 
to  the  ascension,  differs  from  that  which  dictated  the  account 
of  the  event  in  the  Gospel,  and  consequently  supposes  new 
information.  We  have  proved  in  our  exegesis  that  this 
hypothesis  is  erroneous.  The  account  in  the  Gospel  is  given 
summarily,  with  the  view  of  presenting  in  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  conclusion  of  Mark, 
by  supposing  that  the  first  of  those  works  appeared  about  the 
time  when  the  composition  of  the  second  must  have  been 
interrupted  (at  the  passage,  Mark  xvi.  8).  We  shall  here 
take  a  step  further.  If  it  is  true,  as  seems  to  be  the  conse 
quence  of  the  exegesis,  that  Luke  was  not  acquainted  either 
with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  or  Mark,  it  follows  that  he  wrote 
shortly  after  those  two  Gospels  had  appeared ;  otherwise  he 
would  not  have  failed  to  know  works  of  such  importance  on 
the  subject  which  he  was  treating.  If  therefore  our  exegetical 
result  is  established,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  was  composed  almost  simultaneously  with  the  other  two 
synoptics.  We  shall  examine  the  premises  of  this  conclusion 
more  closely  in  chap.  iii.  Now,  if  it  follows  from  the  con- 
founding of  the  two  discourses  on  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  on  the  end  of  the  world,  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  those 
writings  are  anterior  to  the  first  of  those  events,  supposing 
that  Luke  did  not  know  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  them, 
he  must  share  in  this  priority. 

It  seems  to  us  on  all  these  accounts  that  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  must  be  placed  between  the 
years  64  and  67,  as  was  indicated  by  tradition. 

1  The  words  of  Paul,  Acts  xx.  25,  do  not  prove  that  the  Acts  were  written  after 
Paul's  death,  as  has  been  alleged.  For  Luke  does  not  make  Paul,  any  more  than 
Jesus,  speak  according  to  his  own  fancy. 


ITS  AUTHOR.  417 


III. — The  Author. 


Here  we  start  from  a  fact  universally  admitted,  namely,  the 
identity  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts.  This 
is  one  of  the  few  points  on  which  criticism  is  unanimous. 
Holtzmann  says  (p.  374):  "It  must  now  be  admitted  as 
indisputable,  that  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  is  one  and 
the  same  person  with  the  author  of  the  Acts."  Indeed,  the 
identity  of  the  style,  the  correspondence  of  the  plan,  and  the 
continuity  of  the  narrative,  do  not  admit  of  the  least  doubt  in 
this  respect,  as  Zeller  also  proves. 

Who   is   this   author  ?      Tradition  answers :    Luke,  Paul's 

fellow-labourer.     If  it  goes  so  far  as  to  ascribe  to  Paul  himself 

a  share  in  the  composition,  this  is  a  later  amplification  which, 

e  have  seen  (Introd.  p.  27),  is  foreign  to  the  primitive 

statement. 

No  other  objections  are  raised  against  the  truth  of  this 
traditional  assertion,  than  the  arguments  alleged  to  prove  the 
composition  of  our  two  writings  in  the  second  century,  a  time 
at  which  there  could  no  longer  be  a  fellow-labourer  of  St. 
PauL  Those  arguments  having  been  refuted,  it  only  remains 
to  bring  lor  ward  from  those  two  writings  the  positive  reasons 
to  be  alleged  in  support  of  the  indication  furnished  by  tradi- 
tion : — 

1.  It  appears  from  the  prologue  that  the  author  was  not 
one  of  the  apostles,  but  one  of  their  immediate  disciples,  "  a 
(  hristian  of  the  second  apostolic  generation  "  (Penan).     This 

implied  in  the  words :  "As  they  delivered  them  unto  us, 
which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  of  these 
things." 

2.  This  disciple  was  a  Christian  from  among  the  Gen: 
as  Holtzmann  observes,  it  is  not  probable  that  a  Je\ 
istian  would  have  spoken  of  the  elders  of  tlie  Jews  (vii.  3), 

of  a  city  of  the  Jews  (xxiii.   51),  etc.  etc.     (The  position  <»i* 
John,    in    whom    we    find    siniil.  ssions,    was    cntii 

different.     In  his  case  this  form  of  cxj-icssion  is  r  I  by 

reasons  of  a  peculiar  nature.) 

3.  This  Greek  CI  was  a  believer  formed  in  the  school 
<     PauL     This  is  proved  by  that  breath  of  broad  universal 
which   inspires  1  I  more  particularly  by  the 

VOL.  II.  2D 


418  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

correspondence  as  to  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  in  his 
account  and  Paul's. 

4.  He  must  even  have  been  one  of  the  apostle's  fellow- 
labourers  in  the  work  of  evangelization,  at  least  if  he  is  speak- 
ing of  himself  in  the  passages  where  the  first  person  plural 
occurs  in  the  book  of  Acts.  And  this  explanation  seems  to  be 
the  only  admissible  one.  If  it  is  well-founded,  it  further 
follows  that  the  author  cannot  be  one  of  the  fellow-labourers 
of  Paul  who  are  designated  by  name  in  the  Acts,  for  he  never 
speaks  of  himself  except  anonymously. 

5.  This  apostolic  helper  must  have  been  a  man  of  letters. 
This  is  proved  by  the  prologue  prefixed  to  his  work,  the  classic 
style  of  this  piece,  as  well  as  of  those  passages  of  the  Acts 
which  he  composed  independently  of  any  document  (the  last 
parts  of  the  book) ;  finally,  by  the  refined  and  delicate  com- 
plexion of  mind  and  the  historical  talent  which  appear  in  his 
two  writings. 

Now  all  those  features  belong  signally  to  Luke.  We  have 
seen  (Tntrod.  p.  16): 

1.  Paul  ranks  Luke  among  the  Christians  of  Greek  origin. 
2.  He  assigns  him  a  distinguished  place  within  the  circle  of 
his  disciples  and  fellow-labourers.  3.  The  title  physician 
which  he  gives  him  leads  us  to  ascribe  to  him  a  scientific 
and  literary  culture  probably  superior  to  that  of  the  other 
apostolic  helpers. 

Not  only  do  the  criteria  indicated  all  apply  to  Luke,  but 
they  do  not  apply  well  to  any  other.  Barnabas  was  of  Jewish 
origin,  for  he  was  a  Levite ;  Silas  also,  for  he  belonged  to  the 
Primitive  Church  at  Jerusalem.  Timothy  was  a  young 
Lycaonian,  probably  without  culture,  which  explains  the  timid 
shrinking  which  seems  to  have  characterized  him  as  an  evan- 
gelist (1  Cor.  xvi.  10,  11 ;  2  Tim.  i.  6-8).  Besides,  all  these 
are  designated  by  name  in  the  Acts.  Luke  only  (with  the 
exception  of  Titus)  never  appears  by  name.  We  see  that  the 
evidences  borrowed  from  Luke's  writings  harmonize  with  those 
furnished  by  the  epistles  of  Paul,  and  that  both  coincide  with 
the  traditional  statement.  Now,  as  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
Primitive  Church  gave  itself  to  the  critical  investigation  which 
we  have  been  making,  this  agreement  between  the  critical 
result  and  the  historical  testimony   raises   the    fact    of   the 


ITS  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.  419 

authorship   of  St.   Luke  to  the  highest  degree  of   scientific 
certainty. 

Moreover,  all  the  authors  whose  judgment  has  not  been 
perverted  by  the  prejudices  of  the  Tubingen  criticism  are  at. 
one  respecting  the  person  of  the  author.  "  It  is  impossible," 
a  Holtzmann,  "  to  understand  why  Luke  should  not  be  the 
author  of  this  Gospel."  "  The  author  of  this  Gospel,"  says  M. 
Benan  (Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  16),  "is  certainly  the  same  as  the 
author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Now  the  author  of  the 
Acts  is  a  companion  of  St.  Paul,  a  title  which  perfectly  applies 
to  Luke."  Keim  thus  expresses  himself  (p.  81):  "There  is 
no  room  to  doubt  that  this  writing  was  composed  by  the  com- 
panion of  PauL  At  least  it  is  incomprehensible  how  by  pure 
conjecture  a  man  should  have  been  definitely  singled  out 
whose  name  so  rarely  appears  in  the  epistles  of  the  apostle." 

IV. — 77ic  Place  of  Composition. 

Some  very  uncertain  traditions  place  the  composition  (as 
we  have  seen,  Introd.  §  3)  at  Alexandria  (many  mss.  Mnn.), 
in  Greece  (Beotia  and  Achaia,  Jerome),  or  at  Rome.  A 
modern  critic,  Kbstlin,  has  proposed  Asia  Minor. 

find  little  ground  in  the  two  writings  for  deciding 
between  those  different  possibilities.  The  explanations  ap- 
pended to  certain  geographical  names  by  no  means  prove,  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  not  suppose  those  localities  known  to  Theopliil us 
or  to  his  readers  in  general.  Thus  it  cannot  be  concluded,  as 
has  been  attempted  from  the  explanation  respecting  the  city 

i'lnlippi  (Acts  xvi.  12),  that  he  did  not  write  in  Macedonia  ; 

nor  from  those  about  Athens  (xvii.  21),  that  he  did  not  write 

those  about  the  Pair  I  lawns  and  PheniOG 

(xxvii.  8-12),  that  lie   did   not  write   in  Crete;   and  as  little 

:n  explanations  about  localities   in    Pal    tine  (Lake  i.  26, 
iv.   31,  Nazareth,  Capernaum,  cities  of  Galilee  ;  viii.  26, 1 
country  of  sea,  opposite  Gali  iii.   51,  .'. 

hea,  a  city  of  the  J<  iv.   18,  Emmaus,  60  furlongs 

from    Jerusalem;    Acts    i.    12,   the    Mount    of   Olives,    D 

not  write  in  Pa]    tine.     What,  those 

.ages  prove  is,  that  he  did  not  wi  the  Christiana  oi 


420  THE  GOSPEL   OF  LUKE. 

Palestine  or  Macedonia,  or  Attica  or  Crete,  at  least  exclusively. 
Because  of  the  absence  of  similar  explanations  regarding 
certain  Sicilian  and  Italian  localities  (Acts  xxviii.  12,  Syra- 
cuse ;  ver.  13,  Bhegium,  Puteoli ;  ver.  15,  Appii  Fomm  and 
the  Three  Taverns),  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  he 
wrote  in  Sicily,  in  Italy,  or  in  Eome,  but  only  that  he  knew 
those  localities  to  be  familiar  to  his  readers.  It  must  be 
confessed,  however,  that  from  the  country  of  his  readers  we 
may  draw  an  inference  in  regard  to  the  place  of  composition  ; 
for  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  an  author  writes  for  the 
public  with  which  he  finds  himself  immediately  surrounded. 

The  evidences  which  Zeller  thinks  he  has  discovered  in 
favour  of  Eome  as  the  place  of  composition  either  depend  on 
his  explanation  of  the  aim  of  Luke's  writings,  which  has  been 
proved  false,  or  are  unsupported,  for  example,  when  he  alleges 
the  interest  which  the  author  shows  for  this  city  by  making 
the  foundation  of  the  Eoman  church  by  Paul  the  culminating 
point  of  his  narrative.  Now  the  fact  is,  as  we  have  proved, 
that  this  last  chapter  of  the  Acts  has  an  altogether  different 
bearing. 

The  reasons  alleged  by  Kostlin  and  Overbeck  in  favour  of 
Ephesus  are  not  more  conclusive.  1.  It  is  asserted  that 
Marcion,  on  his  way  from  Asia  Minor  to  Eome,  brought 
thence  Luke's  Gospel.  But  by  that  time  this  writing  was 
spread — this  is  proved  by  facts  (Introd.  §  1),  as  well  as  the 
other  two  synoptics — throughout  all  the  churches.  Marcion 
did  not  introduce  it  into  western  Christendom ;  he  merely 
chose  it  among  the  received  Gospels  as  the  one  which  he  could 
the  most  easily  adapt  to  his  system.  2.  The  author  of  the 
Acts  loves  to  describe  the  persons  who  afterwards  played  a 
part  in  Asia  Minor. — But  John,  the  chief  personage  of  the 
church  of  Asia  at  the  end  of  the  first  century,  is  wholly 
eclipsed  in  the  Acts  by  Peter  and  Paul.  3.  The  Acts  relate 
with  predilection  Paul's  sojourn  at  Ephesus. — True,  but  in 
such  a  way  as  to  place  in  relief  Peter's  ministry  at  Jerusalem. 
Paul's  sojourn  at  Ephesus  was  the  culminating  point  of  his 
apostolate,  as  the  times  which  followed  Pentecost  were  the 
apogee  of  Peter's. 

Evidences  so  arbitrary  cannot  lay  a  foundation  for  any 
solid  result.     Once  assured  of  the  author's  person,  we  should 


ITS  PLACE  OF  COMPOSITION.  421 

rather  start  from  his  history.  Luke  was  at  Rome  with  St 
Paul  from  the  spring  of  the  }Tear  62  (Acts  xxviii.)  ;  he  was 
still  there  when  the  epistles  were  sent  to  the  Colossians  and 
Philemon.  But  when  the  apostle  wrote  to  the  Philippians 
about  the  end  of  63  or  beginning  of  64,  he  had  already  left 
Eome,  for  Paul  sends  no  greeting  from  him  to  this  church,  so 
well  known  to  Luke.  When,  therefore,  the  two  years'  cap- 
tivity of  the  apostle  spoken  of  in  the  Acts  came  to  a  close, 
and  consequently  that  captivity  itself,  he  was  no  longer  with 
the  apostle.  Some  years  later,  when  Paul,  imprisoned  at 
Pome  for  the  second  time,  sent  from  that  city  the  Second 
tie  to  Timothy,  Luke  was  again  with  him.  Where  did 
lie  reside  in  the  interval  ?  Probably  in  Greece,  among  those 
churches  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  in  whose  service  he  had 
laboured  along  with  Paul,  and  in  Achaia  rather  than  Mace- 
donia, seeing  Paul  does  not  salute  him  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians.  Might  it  not  then  be  at  this  period  and  in  this 
latter  country,  "  in  the  countries  of  Acliaia  and  Bcotia"  as 
Jerome  says,  that  he  composed  his  Gospel  ? l  As  to  the  Acts, 
he  must  have  composed  it  somewhat  later,  probably  at  Pome 
beside  Paul,  shortly  before  his  martyrdom  in  67.  The  parch- 
ments which  Paul  asked  Timothy  to  bring  him  from  Asia,  at 
time  when  only  Luke  was  with  him,  were  perhaps  docu- 
ts  which  were  to  be  used  in  this  work  ;  for  example,  the 
summaries  of  the  admirable  discourses  at  Antioch,  Athens, 
Miletus,  which  are  like  jewels  set  in  the  narrative  of  the 
.  The  work  was  published  when  the  head  of  the  apostle 
i«ll  under  the  sword.  Hence  the  absence  of  all  allusion  to 
that  event.  The  composition  of  the  Acts,  both  in  respect  of 
place  and  date,  would  be  nearly  OOnJ  ith  that  of  the 

to   the   Hebrews,   with    which    Luke's   writings   have 
sevt  i  of  agreement  which  are  highly  h link- 

able.8 

.vent  furtl  •  of  this  hypothesis  in  our  first  I 

upposcd  Corinth,  and  even  the  house  of  Gaius,  Paul's  hot!  in  that  city 

(Rom.  xvi.  23),  as  the  place  of  composition.     M.  0.  Meyer  has  rightly  observed 

in  his  review,  that  in  this  case  there  was  no  reason  to  hinder  Lnkl  from  taking 

illy  from  I  liians  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper. 

We  therefor*-  withdraw  those  hypothetical  d<  I 

•As  to  the  the  author  ;  istle  (we  should  say  Luk<\  if  the 

reasons  in  favour  of  Barnabas  or  Silas  did  not  seem  to  us  to  |  e)  ii 


422  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 


CHAPTER    III. 

THE  SOURCES  OF  LUKE,  AND  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS 
TO  ONE  ANOTHER. 

We  have  reached  the  most  arduous,  but  not  the  least  im- 
portant part  of  our  task.  This  domain  is  that  of  hypothesis  ; 
but  as  it  is  from  the  most  remote  and  inaccessible  mountain 
regions  that  the  rivers  which  fertilize  and  the  torrents  which 
devastate  come  down,  so  it  is  from  the  obscure  regions  into 
which  we  are  about  to  enter  that  we  get  those  widely  various 
and  yet  influential  criticisms  on  the  value  of  the  Gospel 
history,  which  find  their  way  even  to  the  people.  We  shall 
first  take  up  what  concerns  the  third  Gospel  in  particular ; 
then  we  shall  extend  our  study  to  the  other  two  synoptics. 
For  those  three  writings  are  of  a  piece,  and  every  definitive 
judgment  on  the  one  involves  a  result  gained  in  regard  to  the 
other  two. 

I. — TJie  Sources  of  ZuJce. 
Two  questions  present  themselves  : — 

I.  Is  Luke  dependent  either  on  Matthew  or  Mark  ? 

II.  And  if  not,  what  were  the  true  sources  of  this  work  ? 

I. 

We  have  throughout  the  whole  of  our  commentary  ex- 
hibited, in  the  narrative  and  style,  those  characteristics  which 
seem  to  us  to  demonstrate  Luke's  entire  independence  in  respect 
of  Mark  and  Matthew.  It  only  remains  to  recapitulate  those 
proofs,  while  we  apply  them  to  refute  the  contrary  hypotheses. 

about  to  set  out  from  Italy  with  Timothy,  just  delivered  from  prison  (after  the 
martyrdom  of  Paul).     For  internal  analogies  compare  the  following  passages  :— 

Luke  i.  2, Heb.  ii.  3. 

»    "•  16,      ....        .  „     i.  6,  8,  10. 

„    ii.  7, |f    ii.  14. 

„    ii.  40,  52,        ...  M     ii.  17,  etc. 

In  Luke,  the  transformation  of  the        In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
Mosaic  system  into  spiritual  obedience,     transformation  of  the  Levitical  cultus 

into  a  spiritual  cultus. 
In  both,  the  idea  of  the  human  development  of  Jesus  forming  the  foundation 
of  the  Christology. 


ITS  SOUUCES.  423 

A.  As  to  Luke's  independence  in  relation  to  Matthew,  we 
shall  not  rest  our  conclusion  on  the  numerous  narratives  which 
the  first  has  more  than  the  second.  This  fact  would  prove 
only  one  thing :  that  if  Matthew  served  as  a  source  to  Luke, 
he  was  not  the  only  one,  at  least  unless  we  hold,  with  Baur, 
that  Luke  invented  whatever  he  contains  more  than  Matthew, 
— an  assertion  which  seems  to  us  to  be  already  sufficiently 
refuted.  Neither  shall  we  allege  the  many  narratives  of 
Matthew  which  are  wanting  in  Luke ;  for  we  are  aware  of 
the  reasons  which  might  lead  the  follower  to  omit  certain 
facts  related  by  his  predecessor.  But  we  appeal  to  the  fol- 
lowing facts  : — 

1.  Luke's  plan  is  entirely  independent  of  that  of  Matthew  ; 
for  it  appears  to  us  superfluous,  after  the  investigations  which 

have  just  carried  through,  again  to  refute  the  opinion  of 
.n,  according  to  which  Luke's  plan  is  no  other  than  that 
of  Matthew  spoiled.  What  appears  to  us  above  all  inconceiv- 
able, is  that  in  the  account  of  the  journey  (from  ix.  51)  Luke 
should  not  even  have  mentioned  Perea,  which  Matthew  ex- 
pressly makes  the  theatre  of  the  corresponding  journey  (xix. 
1).  Especially  at  the  point  where  Luke's  narrative  rejoins 
Matthew's  (xviii.  15,  comp.  with  Matt.  xix.  13),  one  would 
expect  such  an  indication  without  fail. 

2.  The  scries  of  narrations  in  Luke  is  wholly  independent 
of  that  in   Matthew.     Two   or  three  analogous  groups  like 
those  of  the  baptism  and  temptation,  of  the  two  Sabl 
scenes  (Luke  vl  1  et  seq.  and  paralL),  of  the  aspirants  to  the 

:dom  of  God  (Luke  ix.  57  et  seq.  and  paralL),  and  of  the 
ious  scenes  belonging  to  the  Gadara  excursion  (Luke  viii. 
22-56),  etc.,  are  ea  lamed  by  the  moral  or  chrono- 

logical connection  of  the  events,  in  virtue  of  which  they 
formed  one  whole  in  tradition.  Besides,  there  are  not  wanting 
features  to  prove,  even  in  this  respect,  the  independence  of 
the  two  narratives.  For  example,  the  insertion  of  the  accounts 
of  the  healing  of  tl;  lo  and  of  the  calling  of  Matth 

in  y  ive  of  the  Gadara  excursion,  and  Luke's 

adding  of  a  third  aspirant  unknown  to  Matthew. 

3.  In  the  narrative  parts  common  to  both,  the  indepen<: 

of  Loire  in  the  details  oj  the,  accounts  is  obvious  at  every  word, 
author  Lake  i.  ii.  could  not  have 


424  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

him  Matt  i.  ii.,  unless  he  had  the  formal  intention  of  contra- 
dicting him.  So  Keim  supposes  that  Luke  had  a  Matthew 
before  him  which  did  not  yet  contain  the  accounts  of  the 
infancy !  In  the  narrative  of  the  temptation,  would  Luke 
take  the  liberty  of  inverting  the  order  of  the  temptations,  and 
of  omitting  the  appearance  of  the  angels  ?  Would  he  suppress 
the  rite  of  the  confession  of  sins  in  his  description  of  John's 
baptism  ?  In  his  account  of  the  baptism  would  he  modify 
the  terms  of  the  divine  utterance  ?  So  in  that  of  the  trans- 
figuration (see  the  exegesis).  In  the  narrative  of  the  calling 
of  Matthew  himself,  would  he  change  that  apostle  into  an 
unknown  person,  named  Levi  ?  Would  he  expressly  refer  to 
another  Sabbath  the  second  Sabbatic  scene  (vi.  6)  which 
Matthew  places  on  the  same  day  as  the  first  (xii.  9)  ?  Would 
he  mention  a  single  demoniac  at  Gadara,  a  single  blind  man 
at  Jericho,  in  cases  where  Matthew  mentions  two  ?  When 
borrowing  the  conversation  at  Cesarea  Philippi  from  Matthew, 
would  he  omit  to  indicate  the  locality  where  it  took  place  ? 
Or  would  he  introduce  into  the  text  of  his  predecessor  such 
puerile  changes  as  the  substitution  of  eight  days  for  six,  in  the 
narrative  of  the  transfiguration,  etc.  etc.  ?  We  shall  be  told 
ne  used  another  source  in  those  cases  in  which  he  had  more 
confidence.  This  supposition,  which  we  shall  examine  more 
closely,  would  solve  some  of  those  enigmas  indifferently,  but 
not  all.  In  particular,  the  omissions  of  details  remain  unex- 
plained. 

4.  In  reporting  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  not  to  speak  here  of 
the  dislocation  of  the  great  discourses,  how  could  Luke  alter 
so  seriously  the  terms  of  such  a  document  as  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  or  of  a  declaration  so  grave  as  that  regarding  the 
blasphemy  against  the  Spirit,  etc.  etc. ;  and  then,  on  the 
other  hand,  indulge  in  such  petty  changes  as  the  transfor- 
mation of  the  sheep  fallen  into  the  pit  into  an  ox,  or  of  the 
two  sparrows  which  are  sold  for  a  farthing  into  five  which 
are  sold  for  two  farthings  ?  How  could  he  introduce  into  the 
middle  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  two  sayings  which  seem 
to  break  its  connection  (vi.  39,  40),  and  which  must  be 
taken  from  two  discourses,  held  in  entirely  different  situations, 
according  to  Matt.  (xv.  14,  x.  25),  where,  besides,  they  have 
an  altogether  different  application  ?     Have  we  here  again  the 


ITS  SOURCES.  425 

fact  of  another  document  ?  But,  in  conclusion,  to  what  pur- 
pose does  he  use  Matthew  ?  And  would  this  preference  for 
the  other  source  go  so  far  as  to  lead  him  to  omit  such  sayings 
as  these :  "  Come  unto  me  .  .  ."  which  Matthew  presented  to 
him  ?  For  who  could  take  in  earnest  the  attempt  to  answer 
this  proposed  by  Holtzmann  (see  pp.  46,  47)  ? 

5.  The  chief  reason  for  which  it  is  thought  necessary  to 
regard  Matthew  as  one  of  Luke's  sources,  is  the  identical  ex- 
pressions and  parts  of  phrases  which  occur  both  in  the  discourses 
and  in  the  parallel  narratives.  But  whence  comes  it  that  this 
resemblance  is,  as  M.  Nicolas  says,  intermittent,  and  that  not 
only  in  the  same  narrative,  but  in  the  same  paragraph  and 
in  the  same  phrase  ?  Did  Luke  slavishly  copy  Matthew  for 
a  quarter  of  a  line,  and  then  in  the  next  quarter  write  inde- 
pendently of  him  ?  But  this  is  child's  play,  if  the  sense  is 
the  same ;  it  is  still  worse,  if  the  change  alters  the  sense. 
We  know  the  answer  which  is  again  given  here  :  he  had 
not  Matthew  only,  but  other  documents  as  well  before  him ; 
he  combines  together  those  various  texts.  Behold  our  author, 
then,  borrowing  three  words  from  one  document,  two  from 
another,  four  from  a  third,  and  that  in  every  phrase  from 
beginning  to  end  of  his  Gospel !  "Who  can  admit  the  idea  of 
such  patchwork  ?  Need  we  here  reproduce  the  well-known 
jest  of  Schleiermacher  at  Eichhorn's  hypothesis  (Schr.  d.  Luk. 

6)1  Is  it  not  enough  to  say,  with  Lange:  "The  process 
of  death  to  explain  the  work  of  life  "  ?  No  ;  such  mechanical 
inlaying  could  never  have  become  that  flowing,  simple,  and 
limpid  narrative  which  wc  admire  in  our  GospeL  Let  the 
ible  of  the  sower  be  reperused  in  a  synopsis,  comparing 
the  two  texts,  and  it  will  be  felt  that  to  maintain  thai  the 
first  of  those  texts  is  derived  from  the  other,  in  whole  and  in 

t ,  is  not  only  to  insult  the  good  faith,  but  the  good  sense, 
of  the  second  writer. 

H  has  pointed  out  that  a  number  of  Matthew's 

•urite  expressions   (fiaaCkela  rwv  ovpavcop,  evayycXiov  rfj<; 

fiaaikeias,  nrapovaia,  avvrekeia  tov  aliavos,  aeXrjviu&aOai,  iv 

f  Kaipip,  etc.)  are  completely  foreign  to  Luke.     If  he 

had  copied   I  could  one  or  other  of  those 

to  escape  from  his  pen  ? 

7.  Luke's  Gospel  abounds  in  AramaUiny  forms,  not  only  in 


426  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  passages  peculiar  to  himself,  but  also  in  those  to  which 
Matthew  has  parallels.  And,  strange  to  say,  those  Aramaisnis 
are  wholly  wanting  in  the  text  of  the  latter.  We  find,  on 
the  contrary,  a  pure,  native,  vigorous  Greek.  To  suppose, 
therefore,  that  Matthew  was  Luke's  principal  source,  is  to 
believe  that  the  latter,  himself  a  Greek,  and  writing  for 
Greeks,  had  arbitrarily  foisted  his  foreign  Aramaic  phrases 
into  the  style  of  his  predecessor.  Who  can  imagine  such  an 
anomaly :  the  Hebrew  writer  writing  good  Greek  for  Hebrews, 
and  the  Greek  writer  cramming  his  Greek  text  with  Aramaisms 
for  Greeks ! x 

B.  Luke's  independence  in  relation  to  Mark  appears  to  us 
evident  from  the  following  facts  : — 

1.  Luke's  plan  is  certainly  not  borrowed  from  Mark,  who 
has  no  other  plan  than  the  known  contrast  between  the 
Galilean  ministry  and  the  sojourn  at  Jerusalem,  and  whose 
narrative  is  composed,  besides,  of  detached  scenes.  That 
which  Klostermann  discovers  appears  to  us  to  be  due  rather 
to  the  critic  than  to  the  evangelist.  The  unity  of  Mark's 
work  lies  elsewhere ;  it  is  found  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Him- 
self, whose  greatness  forms  the  common  basis  of  all  those 
varied  scenes,  and  in  the  impression  of  admiration  which  it 
inspires.  Therein  there  is  nothing  resembling  the  progressive 
development  which  comes  to  light  in  Luke's  work. 

2.  No  doubt  as  to  the  series  of  events,  especially  at  the 
beginning,  there  is  a  greater  agreement  between  Mark  and 

1  The  phenomenon  is  found  on  the  largest  scale.     Let  the  following  parallels 
be  compared  : — 

Luke.  Matthew. 

V.  1  :  iyhiro  .  .  .    xa,)  ccutos  %v  .  .  .    xat  iv.  18  :    VipiTccrrZv  $1  sTSs. 

tlh. 
v.   12,  v.  17,   18  :    m)    lyiv.  .  .  .  »at        viii.  1,  ix.  1,  2,  xii.  9. 

uvtos  tjv  .  .  .    xa)  Utrav  .  .  .  ;    vi.  1. 
viii.  22  :  xeu  lyiviro  .  .  .    xa,)  eciiros  .  .  .  viii.  18  :    fi&v  Ti  Ix'tXivffii. 

ix.  18,  28,  37,  57.  xvi.  13,  xvii.  1,  14,  viii.  19. 

xi.  14,  xviii.  35,  xix.  29.  xii.  22,  xx.  29,  xxi.  1. 

xxiv.  4,  15,  30,  51. 

XX.    11  :      xa)     irpoffiforo    ftp^oci    tTtpov  xxi.  36  :  vruXiv  affitrTiiXiv  eiXXcvj, 

(ver.  12)  ;  comp.  iii.  20. 
XX.  21  :    \u(*,(hu.vnv  irpoo-wrav.  XXli.  16  :     tU  vrpoffwzov  fiXivrtiv. 

Other  Hebraistic  forms  in  Luke  :  e-u(?>(ixrov  'hiunpoTpurov,  vi.  1  ;  /iiyuXvntt 
fttrx,  i.  58 ;  the  xa)  .  .  .  xa.) .  .  . ,  xxiv.  23-35,  etc. 


ITS  SOURCES.  42*7 

Luke  than  between  Luke  and  Matthew ;  but  not  without 
transpositions  much  more  difficult  to  explain,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  Mark  was  used  by  Luke,  than  is  the  analogy  in 
some  series,  without  any  dependence  on  Luke's  part. 

3.  There  is  in  Luke  a  more  important  omission  than  that 
of  some  particular  accounts ;  there  is  the  omission  of  the 
whole  cycle,  Mark  vi.  45-viii.  26  (Matt.  xiv.  22-xvi.  12). 
How  is  sucli  a  suppression  conceivable,  if  Luke,  who  never- 
theless aimed  at  being  complete  {iraaiv,  i.  3),  makes  use  of 
Mark  ?  It  has  been  supposed  that  there  was  a  gap  in  the 
copy  of  Mark  which  he  possessed  ;   can  this  reply  suffice  ? 

4.  The  same  difference,  besides,  meets  us  in  regard  to  the 
special  details  of  the  narratives,  and  in  regard  to  the  style  of 
our  Lord's  discourses,  as  between  Luke  and  Matthew.  If 
Luke  copies  Mark,  why  does  he  put  the  healing  of  the  blind 
man  at  Jericho  at  the  departure  of  Jesus,  while  Mark  puts  it 
at  His  entrance  ?  Why  does  he  omit  the  name  of  Bartimeus, 
and  the  picturesque  details  of  Mark's  description  ?  What 
purpose  could  it  serve  to  mutilate  at  will  such  dramatic 
accounts  as  that  of  the  healing  of  the  lunatic  son  ?  By  what 
caprice  substitute  for  the  words  of  Mark :  "  Save  a  staff  only'/ 
these  apparently  contradictory  ones:  "Nothing,  not  even  a 
staff"  ?  And  when  Luke  clearly  places  the  expulsion  of  the 
buyers  and  sellers  from  the  temple,  on  the  morrow  after 
Balm-day,  why  put  it  on  that  same  day  ?  Does  Luke  mala' 
sport  of  history,  and  of  the  Master's  words  ? 

5.  Of  the  very  many  11  •! ffiaiBms  which  we  have  pointed 
out  in  Luke,  only  a  very  few  are  found  in  Mark  Once 
more,  then,  Luke  made  the  medley !  He,  the  author  of 
Greek  origin,  who  could  write  classic  Greek,  overloading  his 
stylo  with  Hebraisms  which  lie  does  not  find  in  his  model ! 

6.  Finally,  we   call  attention   to   the   mixture   of  si 
lence  and  affected  originality  which  would  charai 

the  text  of  Luke,  if  he  really  reproduced  the  text  of  Mark. 
Is  not  Giesel  od  despite   such 

tation,  this  work  bears  a  seal  of  simplicity  and  of  tin- 
absence  of  pr  every  reader!"  Another 
source  has  been  apoken  of  as  used  besi  k.  So  we  are 
brought  back  to  that  manufacturing  of  phrases  of  which  we 
have  already  spoken.     The  supposition  has  been  given  forth 


428  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

that  Luke  used  the  previous  writing  entirely  from  memory. 
But  how  could  this  memory  be  at  once  so  tenacious  as  to 
reproduce  the  minutest  expressions  of  the  original  text ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  so  treacherous  as  sometimes  to  alter  the 
facts  so  seriously  ?  Here  there  would  be  an  intermitting  of 
memory  more  difficult  still  to  explain  than  the  intermittence 
of  the  style  to  support  which  this  hypothesis  is  resorted  to. 

We  conclude  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark,  in  their 
present  form  at  least,  figured  among  the  sources  of  Luke. 
Such,  besides,  is  the  conclusion  which  we  might  have  drawn 
from  his  prologue.  The  manner  in  which  he  contrasts  the 
iroWol  (many),  compilers  of  previous  writings,  with  the 
apostles  and  eye-witnesses  of  the  events,  forbids  us  to  rank  the 
Apostle  Matthew  among  the  former ;  so  that  if  he  shared  the 
received  opinion  which  ascribed  to  Matthew  the  first  Gospel, 
he  cannot  have  ranked  this  book  among  the  writings  of  which 
he  speaks.  It  would  certainly  not  be  easier  to  maintain  that, 
in  a  heap  with  so  many  ephemeral  writings,  he  referred  to 
such  an  important  work  as  that  of  Mark,  which  from  the 
first  times  the  Church  (witness  Papias,  Clement,  Irenseus) 
signalized  and  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  precious  documents 
regarding  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

IL 

Those  two  writings  being  set  aside,  what  then  are  the 
sources  from  which  Luke  has  drawn  ? 

Criticism  has  sought  to  determine  the  sources  of  Luke, 
either  from  certain  characteristics  of  his  style,  or  from  the 
religious  tendencies  of  certain  parts,  or  from  the  localities 
which  form  the  scene  of  his  narrative. 

1.  Proceeding  from  the  first  point  of  view,  Schleiermacher, 
as  is  well  known,  broke  up  our  Gospel  into  a  certain  number 
of  detached  narratives,  which  the  hand  of  the  compiler  had 
combined  in  such  a  way  as  to  form  them  into  a  consecutive 
history.  The  phrases  of  transition  which  we  have  indicated 
throughout  our  Gospel  are  in  his  eyes  the  conclusions  of  those 
short  writings ;  they  do  not  belong,  according  to  him,  to  the 
general  compiler.  This  hypothesis  cannot  be  maintained  :  a. 
Because  those  forms  have  too  much  resemblance  not  to  be 
from  the  same  hand.     Besides,  they  reappear  in  the  narrative 


ITS  SOURCES.  429 

of  the  Acts.  b.  The  unity  of  style  and  plan  proves  that  the 
evangelist  was  not  a  mere  collector.  The  author,  no  doubt,  pos- 
sessed written  materials  ;  but  he  used  them  in  such  a  way  as  to 
work  them  into  a  homogeneous  whole.  As  to  the  two  accounts 
of  journeys  which  Schleiermacher  thinks  have  been  amalga- 
mated in  one  in  the  piece  ix.  51-xix.  27,  see  at  p.  9. 

_'.  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  great  Judeo-Christian 
Gospel,  in  which  Keim  finds  the  substance  of  the  greater  part 
of  Luke's  Gospel.  But  as  there  is  no  necessity  for  regarding 
Luke's  narrative  as  swayed  by  opposing  religious  currents, 
Keim's  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  with  the  fact  on  which 
it  was  based.  According  to  Hilgenfeld,  the  author  consulted 
a  third  document  besides  Matthew  and  Mark,  that  which 
reproduced  in  a  modified  form  in  the  journal  (ix.  51-xix. 
27).  But  if  this  piece  formed  one  whole  by  itself,  whence 
comes  it  that,  at  the  point  where  Luke's  account  rejoins 
that  of  Matthew  and  Mark  (xviii.  15),  we  find  not  the 
least  sign  of  the  end  of  the  interpolated  piece  ?  Hilgenfeld 
ascribes  an  altogether  peculiar  character  to  this  piece — the 
austerity  of  the  Christian  life;  and  a  special  aim — to  narrate 
the  formation  of  a  circle  of  disciples  whose  work,  passing  be- 
yond the  Jewish  domain,  was  to  form  a  prelude  to  that  of 
Paul.  But  this  aim  enters  into  the  progressive  movement  of 
the  whole  book,  and  the  first  characteristic  referred  to  beloi 
to  the  entire  teaching  of  Jesus  (the  rich  young  man). 

3.  Kostlin    thinks    he   can    maintain    a    source    specially 

can  for  the  events  which  are  said  to  have  passed  in  -In 
and  for  those  of  which  Samaria  was  the  theatre,  or  in  which 
the  Samaritan  people  play  a  part — a  Samaritan  source. 
rda  this  latter,  the  basis  of  the  account  of  tin 
journey  (ix.  51-xviii.  27),  as  one  and  the  same  work  with 
the  document  which  furnishes  the  account  given  in  the  Acts 

the    conversion    of  a    Samaritan    population   (Acts   viii. 

well  mi  speak  of  an   Abyssinian  source  for   tin 

itive  of  the  noble  b<  to  the  court  of  Candace.  etc. 

if  it  were   necessary   to   bring  in  lo<  tl it- 

composition  of  such  a  history  !     For  a  similar  reasoi     I 

s  Galilee  as  the  place  of  the  composition  of  his  original 

I>el, — thfl   printi;  co  of  Matthew  and    Luke.      The 

.  c  of  tl.  in  ministry,  and  >n  of 


4o0  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKS, 

the  journeys  to  Jerusalem,  in  this  fundamental  writing,  arise 
from  a  predilection  of  a  local  nature.  This  hypothesis  is  as 
unsatisfactory.  The  more  elevated  the  sphere  of  a  narrative 
is,  the  less  probable  is  it  that  the  place  of  its  origin  deter- 
mined its  horizon.  This  is  not  the  time  to  occupy  ourselves 
with  other  alleged  sources  of  Luke,  to  the  supposition  of  which 
criticism  has  been  led  by  the  mysterious  relation  which  unites 
our  three  synoptics,  expressly  the  primitive  Matthew  (or 
Lngia)  and  the  proto-Mark.  This  question  will  occur  when 
we  come  to  study  the  relations  between  the  synoptics. 

For  ourselves,  the  following  is  all  that  we  conclude  from 
our  exegetical  study:  1st  We  have  established  a  source  of 
purely  Jewish  origin :  the  genealogical  document  iii.  2  3 
et  seq.  (see  the  exegesis).  2d.  From  i.  5  we  have  found 
ourselves  face  to  face  with  an  account  of  a  wholly  Judeo- 
Christian  character,  both  in  substance,  seeing  it  renders  with 
incomparable  freshness  the  impressions  of  the  first  actors  in  the 
Gospel  drama  ;  and  in  form,  for  the  style  leaves  no  doubt  as 
to  the  language  in  which  it  was  written.  This  piece  (chap, 
i.  and  ii.),  the  Aramaic  character  of  which  Luke  has  preserved 
in  Greek  as  faithfully  as  possible,  may  have  been  a  detached 
account  preserved  in  the  family  of  Jesus,  or  have  belonged 
to  a  more  considerable  whole,  one  of  the  works  spoken  of  by 
Luke.  The  other  parts  of  the  Gospel,  all  of  which,  except 
the  account  of  the  Passion,  betray  an  Aramaic  basis,  must 
have  emanated  also  from  the  Judeo-Christian  Church.  We 
shall  probably  never  know  whether  those  pieces  were  taken 
from  different  writings  or  borrowed  from  one  and  the  same 
work.  3d.  The  parts  in  which  this  Hebrew  character  is  less 
perceptible,  in  matter  and  form,  have  probably  been  composed 
in  Greek  on  the  basis  of  oral  narratives,  public  or  private. 
Thus  the  account  of  the  Passion,  in  which  we  shall  find  cer- 
tain classical  turns  of  expression  (xxiii.  1 2,  irpovTrrip^ov,  ver.  1 5, 
earl  irenrpa^^ievov  clvtw;  ver.  18,  TrainrkrjOei),  if  it  is  not  the 
work  of  Luke  himself,  might  be  taken  from  one  of  the  Gospels 
antecedent  to  Luke,  composed  in  Greek.  4&h.  The  narrative 
of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  certainly  of  Pauline 
origin ;  comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  Was  this  source  written  ?  Was  it, 
perhaps,  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians?  In  this  latter 
case,  Luke  must  have  quoted  from  memory,  as  seen  from  the 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  431 

differences  between  the  two  forms.  Or  was  it  purely  oral ! 
Luke,  having  often  celebrated  the  Holy  Supper  with  Paul 
(Acts  xx.),  might  have  retained  in  his  memory  more  or  less 
literally  the  formula  which  the  apostle  used  on  those  occa- 
sions. Such  is  all  that  we  think  can  be  advanced  with  any 
probability,  proceeding  upon  the  study  of  the  GospeL 

II. —  TJic  Relations  and  Origin  of  tJie  Synoptics. 

We  shall  first  examine  the  systems  which  are  at  present 
current ;  thereafter,  we  shall  state  our  own  view. 

I. 

A.  Most  critics  are  now  agreed  on  this  point,  that 
Matthew  and  Mark  were  not  dependent  on  Luke.  No  doubt, 
Bleek  traces  back  Mark  to  Matthew  and  Luke  ;  and,  accord- 
ing to  Volkmar,  Matthew  was  borrowed  from  Luke  and  Mark. 
But  those  opinions  do  not  enjoy  anything  like  general  accept- 
ance. Bleek's  most  plausible  argument  is  that  which  he 
derives  from  certain  phrases  of  Mark,  in  which  the  text  of  the 
other  two  seems  to  be  combined.  But  if  Mark  was  such  a 
close  copyist  as  to  place  side  by  side  two  phrases  identical  in 
meaning,  that  he  might  not  lose  a  word  or  part  of  a  pin. 
belonging  to  the  text  of  his  predecessors,  how,  on  the  other 
hand,  would  he  reject  immense  pieces  from  their  works,  or 

iify  it  in  so  serious  a  way  as  he  often  does?     The  p 
nomenon   which  has  misled  Bleek,  and  some  others  before 
him,  arises  simply  from  that  somewhat  wordy  style  of  am- 
plification   which    characterizes    Mark,    and    which    ftpp 
throughout  his  whole  narrative.     As  to  Volkmar's  opinion,  it 
contradicts   two  obvious  facts  :     the    vigorous   originality  of 

tthew's  style,  and  the  brevity  of  his  narratives  in  com- 
parison with  Luke's.     As  an  example,  let  the  history  of  I 
centurion  at  Capernaum   be  taken,  in  which,  for  all  the  steps 

•pted  by  him  to  avoid  approaching  Jesus  personally,  and 
I  coming  under  his   roof  (in  Luke),  3! 
thew  substit  E  ne  unto  Him,  beseeching 

Him  ;"  or  the  history  of  the  paralytic,  in  which  MktthftW  would 

made  to  borrow  from  Lake  the  words,  "And  sai 
faith"  after  hav;  .  «1  all  the  circumstances  to  wi 

ll  expression  refers!     AD  this  proves  nothing;  I  know,  to  a 
thinks  that  the  evangelists  minion- 


432  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

late  their  materials  according  to  tlieif  caprice.  How  could 
the  first  evangelist  have  arbitrarily  created  his  great  dis- 
courses by  means  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  scattered  through- 
out Luke  ?  Such  procedure  is  as  inadmissible  as  the  disloca- 
tion which  others  ascribe  to  Luke. 

B.  Luke  being  disposed  of,  the  only  possible  question  re- 
garding the  origin  of  Mark  and  Matthew  is  this,  Does  the  one 
depend  on  the  other?  The  general  plan  in  both  is  very 
similar  (the  contrast  between  the  Galilean  ministry  and  the 
sojourn  at  Jerusalem).  Between  those  two  parts  there  is  also 
found  in  both  writings  a  very  brief  account  of  the  journey 
through  Perea.  The  order  of  the  narratives  is  almost  identi- 
cal from  the  conversation  at  Cesarea  Philippi ;  there  are  more 
considerable  differences  in  the  first  part  of  the  Galilean 
ministry,  but  the  cause  of  them  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  omitted  by 
Mark,  is  prefixed  to  it  in  Matthew.  Finally,  at  every  moment 
we  meet  with  identical  or  similar  phrases  in  both  Gospels. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  Mark  used  Matthevj,  whence 
comes  it  that,  beside  those  identical  phrases,  we  have  con- 
tinual differences  which,  on  the  supposition  of  a  text  being 
before  him,  assume  by  their  very  insignificance  an  intolerable 
character  of  toying  and  affectation  of  originality  ?  Whence 
come  those  differences  in  respect  of  matter, — partly  mutila- 
tions, partly  amplifications,  sometimes  insoluble  or  apparent 
contradictions  ?  As  when  Mark  makes  Jesus  say,  "  Nothing, 
save  sandals  ;"  where  Matthew  says,  "  Take  nothing,  not  even 
sandals."  So  when,  in  the  narrative  of  the  expulsion  of  the 
sellers  from  the  temple,  and  in  that  of  the  barren  fig-tree, 
Mark  places  those  events  on  a  different  day  from  that  on 
which  they  transpired  according  to  Matthew.  So  in  the 
account  of  the  calling  of  Matthew,  where  Mark,  on  this  sup- 
position, substitutes  for  the  person  of  the  apostle  an  unknown 
personage  named  Levi,  without  making  the  slightest  allusion 
to  the  name  of  Matthew,  which  the  first  Gospel  gives  to  this 
publican ;  then,  in  the  cures  of  the  demoniac,  and  of  the 
blind  man  of  Jericho,  in  which  Mark  mentions  only  one 
sufferer  instead  of  the  two  spoken  of  by  his  model  ?  Kloster- 
mann's  opinion,  which  makes  Matthew's  account  the  text  on 
which   Mark    engrafted    the    descriptive    glosses    which   he 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOTTICS.  433 

received  from  Peter,  likewise  falls  to  the  ground  before  the 
difficulties  mentioned. 

Or  was  it  Matthew  who  used  Mark  ?  But  Matthew's 
method  is  wholly  original  and  independent  of  Mark's.  He 
loves  to  group  homogeneous  events  round  a  prophetic 
This  organic  principle  is  in  keeping  with  the  fundamental 
view  of  his  Gospel.1  It  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
order  followed  by  Mark  Then,  in  most  cases,  we  should  be 
forced  to  think  that  he  made  it  his  business  to  spoil  the 
narratives  of  his  model ;  so  in  the  cure  of  the  paralytic,  in 
that  of  the  blind  man  of  Jericho,  and  particularly  in  that  of 
the  lunatic  son.  Why,  besides,  omit  the  names  of  the  four 
disciples  in  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  the  apostles  on  the 
Mount  of  Olives  (Mark  xiii.)  ?  "Why,  in  relating  the  prepara- 
tion for  the  Passover,  say,  He  sent  His  disciples,  as  if  it  was 
all  of  them,  while  his  predecessor  expressly  said,  two  of  His 
disciples  ?  Why  omit  in  the  prayer  of  Gethsemane  those 
beautiful  words  preserved  by  Mark,  "  Failicr,  all  things  an 
possible  unto  Thcc"  etc.  etc. 

In  fine,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  anything  more  capri- 
cious and  less  reverential  than  the  part  which  we  make  the 
author  of  any  one  whatever  of  our  synoptic  Gospels  play,  with 
the  history  and  sayings  of  Jesus,  supposing  that  he  had  be- 
fore him  the  other  two,  or  one  of  them.  Sucli  an  explai 
will  only  be  allowable  when  we  are  brought  absolutely  to 
despair  of  finding  any  other.  And  even  then  it  were  better 
still  to  say  nict.     For  this  explanation  involves  a  moral 

contradiction.  Most  of  our  present  critics  are  so  well  I 
of  this,  that  they  have  recourse  to  middle  terms.  By  common 
sources  they  seek  to  explain  the  relation  between  those  three 
or  they  combine  this  mode  with  the  preceding.  We 
have  already  described  in  our  introduction  the  numerous 
systems  of  this  kind  which  are  proposed  at  ent  day. 

r  a  general  prophecy,  given  as  tho  basis  of  the  entire  narratives  of  the 
GaliKin  mi:.  ro  follow  :   1.  Tl.e  S-rmon  on  the  Mount ;  2. 

A  collection  of  deeds  of  power  (<liap.  viii.  ami  ix.)t  grouped  round  tho  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah,  quote  :  tp.  x.  ; 
4.  A  collection  of  the  utterances  of  xi.  and  xii.),  gr 
the  prophecy  of  I  ahlcs  of  the  king  loni,  chap. 
''..  A  scries  of  excursions  to  the  cast,  north,  and  ing  uf 
the  prophetic  programme  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  the  Galilean  ministry. 

;•  I 


434-  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

C.  Bleek  derives  Matthew  and  Luke  from  a  Greclc  Gospel, 
composed  in  Galilee.  This  hypothesis  appears  to  us  as  Tin- 
fruitful  as  those  which  derive  them  from  one  another.  Take, 
for  example,  the  Lord's  Prayer.  A  common  text,  whence  the 
two  evangelists  derived  the  terms  of  this  formulary  which 
both  have  transmitted  to  us,  is  not  less  inconceivable  than  the 
deriving  of  one  of  those  reports  from  the  other,  unless  we 
ascribe  to  either  of  them  an  incredible  degree  of  arbitrariness 
in  regard  to  a  most  solemn  utterance  of  the  Master.  And  the 
same  phenomenon  reappears  from  beginning  to  end  of  our  two 
Gospels !  Besides,  the  prologue  of  Luke  protests  against 
Bleek's  explanation.  Luke  speaks  of  many  Gospel  narratives 
which  were  in  existence  at  the  time  when  he  wrote.  Bleek's 
hypothesis  supposes  only  one.  To  escape  from  his  difficulty, 
this  critic  reduces  the  many  writings  of  which  Luke  speaks  to 
simple  revisions  of  that  original  Gospel ;  but  Luke  evidently 
understood  by  those  many  writings  not  rehandlings  of  one  and 
the  same  fundamental  work,  but  different  and  independent 
compilations  of  apostolic  tradition. 

The  hypothesis  most  in  favour  in  these  last  times  is  one 
which,  recognising  the  originality  of  Mark,  places  him  at  the 
head  of  the  Gospel  historiography,  so  far  at  least  as  the 
narrative  part  is  concerned,  but  in  an  older  form:  the  so- 
called  proto-Marh,  the  common  source  of  our  three  synoptics. 
Moreover,  a  second  source  was  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke : 
the  collection  of  discourses,  the  Logia  of  Matthew.  Holtzmann 
has  developed  this  hypothesis  in  a  work  which  is  one  of  the 
finest  fruits  of  critical  research  in  our  century.  Let  us  examine 
those  two  hypotheses  of  the  Logia  and  the  proto-Marh 

That  there  existed  a  collection  ot  discourses  written  by  the 
Apostle  Matthew  which  was  one  of  the  oldest  Gospel  docu- 
ments, we  have  not  the  least  doubt.  The  ground  of  our  con- 
viction is  not  so  much  the  testimony  of  Papias,  of  which 
G  eseler  rightly  says  :  "  Separated  as  this  notice  appears  from 
its  context,  it  is  difficult  to  draw  from  it  any  certain  conclu- 
sic  n ;"  it  is  rather  the  form  of  our  first  Gospel  itself  in  which 
w  meet  with  great  bodies  of  discourses  distributed  at  certain 
points  of  the  narrative,  and  which  appear  to  have  existed  as 
such  antecedently  to  the  work  in  which  they  are  inserted.  It 
is  difficult  to  avoid  the  impression  that  those  bodies  of  dis- 


THE  DELATIONS  AND  uRIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  435 

courses  originally  formed  one  whole.  Weizsiicker  lias,  with  a 
master  hand,  as  it  appears  to  us,  traced  the  plan  of  this  ori- 
ginal Matthew  (pp.  184-186).  The  apostolic  treatise  opened 
with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount;  it  was  the  invitation  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom,  the  foundation  of  the  edifice.  There  follov 
as  the  second  part  of  the  collection,  the  discoursed  addressed 
to  particular  persons,  such  as  the  instructions  given  to  the 
apostles  (Matt,  x.),  the  testimony  regarding  John  the  Baptist 
(Matt,  xi.),  and  the  great  apologetic  discourse  (Matt.  xii.). 
Finally,  the  eschatological  prophecy  (Matt  xxiv.,  xxv.)  consti- 
tuted the  third  part ;  it  formed  the  climax  of  the  collection, 
the  delineation  of  the  hopes  of  the  Church.  The  other  groups 
of  instructions,  the  collection  of  parables  (chap,  xiii.),  the  dis- 
course on  the  duties  of  the  disciples  to  one  another  and  on 
discipline  (chap,  xviii.),  formed,  according  to  "Weizsiicker,  an 
appendix  corresponding  to  certain  practical  wants  of  the 
Church.  AVe  would  introduce  some  modifications  into  this 
reconstruction  of  the  Logia  as  proposed  by  Weizsiicker.1  But 
this  matters  little  to  the  question  before  us :  the  main  thing 
is,  that  such  a  work  existed,  and  very  nearly  as  conceived  by 
zsiicker.  Holtzmann  thinks,  on  the  contrary,  that  the. 
ngs  of  Jesus  rather  appeared  in  the  Logia  in  the  form  in 
which  we  find  them  in  Luke's  narrative  of  the  journey 
xviii.) ;  it  was  the  author  of  our  first  Gospel,  according  to 
him,  who  grouped  them  into  systematic  discourses. 

shall  begin  by  criticising  this  second  view.  1.  It 
seems  to  us  impossible,  as  we  have  already  remarked  in 
opposition  to  Volkinar,  that  the  author  of  a  historical  work, 
such  as  our  canonical  Matthew,  took  the  liberty  of  gathering 
into  certain  large  masses  sayings  uttered  in  d  ciivuni- 

f  Baking  the  collection  of  the  parahlai  an  appendix,  we  should 
make  it  the  centre  of  the  work.  Wt  th;it  collection 

to  reproduce  our  Lord's  teaching  in  tti  c.s>mtial   cl  1,  wo 

should  say,  with  the  exposition  of  tin*  rijhteotutnesa  of  tin-  kingdom  of  heaven,  in 

Mount*     There  1  [ption  of  : 

of  that  kingdom,  in  the  collection  ol  .)  ;  finally,  Hie  great 

eschatological  discourse,  ?•!  imoiiix  in-  imntion  of 

the  kingdom,  was  the  cope-stone  of  Between  those  parts 

there  wcr<  ke  passages  between  the  tl  properly  so  calh.l, 

certain  subordinate  instructions,  such  ns  "  on  John  the  1 

the  casting  out  of  devils,  and  on  discipline  in  the  Ota   h  (Matt,  xi.,  xii.,  and 
xviii. ). 


436  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

stances,  to  form  so-called  discourses  of  which  he  might  say 
they  were  uttered  by  Jesus  at  this  or  that  time.  2.  Holtz- 
mann's  hypothesis  is  opposed  by  the  unanimous  conviction  of 
the  Church,  which  from  the  beginning  has  attached  the  name 
of  Matthew  to  our  first  Gospel.  According  to  this  view,  it 
would  really  be  the  Gospel  of  Luke  which  had  preserved  the 
Logia  in  their  true  form,  and  which  ought  to  have  inherited 
the  name  of  the  Apostle  Matthew.  By  attaching  to  our  first 
Gospel  the  name  of  Matthew,  the  Church  has  shown,  on  the 
contrary,  that  it  was  this  work  which  was  the  depositary  of 
the  treasure  bequeathed  to  the  world  by  this  apostle.  3.  The 
strongest  objection  to  the  use  of  the  Logia  by  our  two  evan- 
gelists is  always,  in  our  view,  the  wholly  different  terms  in 
which  the  teachings  of  Jesus  are  conveyed  in  the  two  recen- 
sions. One  copies  discourses  if  he  believes  in  them;  one 
invents  them  if  he  does  not.  The  supposed  middle  way,  three 
words  of  copy,  three  words  of  inveution,  seems  to  us  an 
impossibility.  IsTo  doubt  it  might  be  asserted  that  each  author 
combined  with  the  use  of  the  common  source  (the  Logia)  that 
of  different  particular  sources.  But  what  an  impossible 
procedure  is  that  which  we  thereby  reach!  Three  words 
borrowed  from  the  common  source,  three  from  one  or  other  of 
the  special  sources,  and  this  for  the  composition  of  every 
phrase  !    What  a  Mosaic !     What  an  amalgam ! 

Can  we,  on  the  other  hand,  adopt  the  opinion  of  Weiz- 
siicker  ?  Were  the  great  discourses  of  the  Logia,  as  preserved 
intact  by  Matthew,  the  source  at  the  same  time  of  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  as  reported  by  Luke  ?  No.  For :  1.  We 
cannot  admit  that  Luke  at  his  own  hand  displaced  those  great 
discourses.  2.  This  supposition  is  rendered  untenable  by  all 
the  proofs  which  our  exegesis  has  supplied  of  the  truth  of  the 
historical  prefaces  which  introduce  the  declarations  reported 
by  Luke.  It  would  be  impossible  to  conceive  a  procedure 
more  recklessly  arbitrary  than  that  which  Weizsacker  ascribes 
to  this  author,  when  he  makes  him  invent  situations  for 
discourses,  discourses  which  he  began  by  carving  out  of  the 
Logia  at  pleasure.  3.  This  arbitrariness  would  reach  its 
height  in  the  invention  of  the  narrative  of  the  journey,  ix.  51- 
xviii.  27.  This  journey,  according  to  this  view,  was  out  and 
out  a  fiction  of  the  writer,  intended  tf  serve  as  a  framework 


«THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  437 

for  all  the  materials  whioh  remained  unused.  What  would 
be  thought  of  a  writer  who  should  act  in  this  way  after 
having  declared  that  he  would  seek  to  relate  all  things  exactly 
and  in  order  ? 

The  work  of  the  Logia  then  existed,  and  we  think  that  it 
may  be  found  entire  in  our  first  GospeL  But  it  is  not  thence 
that  Luke  has  drawn  our  Lord's  discourses.  And  this  result 
is  confirmed  by  Luke's  own  declaration,  from  which  it  appears 
that,  among  the  Gospel  works  which  had  preceded  his  own,  he 
found  none  proceeding  from  an  apostle. 

In  regard  to  the  second  source,  that  from  which  the  materials 
of  the  narrative  common  to  our  three  synoptics  is  said  to 
have  been  derived,  the  proto-Mark,  not  only  do  we  deny  that 
our  three  synoptics  can  be  explained  by  such  a  work,  but  we 
do  not  believe  that  it  ever  existed.  1.  Eusebius,  who  knew 
the  work  of  Papias,  some  lines  of  which  have  given  rise  to  the 
hypothesis  of  an  original  Mark,  distinct  from  ours,  nevei 
suspected  such  a  difference ;  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he 
had  no  hesitation  in  applying  the  testimony  of  Papias  to  our 
lurk.  2.  If  there  had  existed  a  Gospel  treatise 
enjoying  such  authority  that  our  first  three  evangelists  took 
from  it  the  framework  and  the  essential  materials  of  their  nar- 

ve,  Luke  certainly  could  not,  as  he  does  in  his  prologue, 
put  the  writings  anterior  to  his  own  in  one  and  the  a 
category,  and  place  them  all  a  degree  lower  than  the  narrative 
which  he  proposed  to  write.  He  must  have  mentioned  in  ;i 
special  manner  a  document  of  such  importance.  3.  Neither 
the  special  plan  of  each  of  our  I,  nor  the  transposi- 

>ries,  nor  the  differences  more  or  less  con 
which  appeared  in  the  details  of  each  narrative,  can  be  satis- 
fied  on   the  ion    of  this   unique   and 
common  source.      Compare  only  the  three  accounts  of 

tism  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Mind  man  of  Jericho  (see  the 

^esis)  !     And  as  to  the  discourses,  those  at  leasl    w] 

:  the  proto-Mark,  take  a  mpt 

by  a  common  document,  and 

ity  or  puerility  whioh  must  be  ascril  one 

in  to  the  other  of  our  three  ei  ncm 

v  Gram  a  iie  same  document,  will  be  fully  a] 

See,  for  ex.  my  of  the  S] 


438  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

(Luke  xii.  10  and  parall.).  In  most  cases  Holtzmann  enume- 
rates the  differences,  and  lie  imagines  that  he  has  explained 
them  !  4.  The  decisive  argument  seems  to  us  to  be  that 
which  is  founded  on  the  style  of  the  three  Gospels.  As  Weiss 
says :  "  A  writing  so  harmoniously  and  vigorously  composed 
as  our  first  Gospel  cannot  he  an  extract  from  another  writing." 
In  no  case  could  it  proceed  from  a  writing  the  literary 
stamp  of  which  had  the  least  resemblance  to  that  of  Mark. 
And  Luke  ?  Once  more,  it  would  be  he  who  had  taken  a 
fancy  to  introduce  into  the  text  of  the  proto-Mark  those  so 
pronounced  Aramaisms  which  distinguish  his  Gospel  from  the 
other  two !  From  this  proto-Mark,  from  which  Matthew 
derived  good  Greek  for  Hebrews,  Luke  took  Hebraised  Greek 
for  Greeks  !  The  proto-Mark  is  a  hypothesis  which  cannot 
be  substantiated  either  in  point  of  fact  or  in  point  of  right ; 
for  were  there  really  such  a  writing,  it  would  nevertheless  be 
incapable  of  doing  the  service  for  criticism  which  it  expects 
from  it,  that  is,  supply  the  solution  of  the  enigma  of  the 
synoptics.  Besides,  the  last  authors  who  have  written  on  the 
subject,  Weiss,  Klostermann,  Volkmar,  though  starting  from 
the  most  opposite  standpoints,  agree  in  treating  this  writing, 
which  Schleiermacher  introduced  into  criticism,  as  a  chimera. 
But  what  does  Weiss  do  ?  Eemaining  attached  to  the 
idea  of  a  written  source  as  the  basis  of  our  canonical  Gospels, 
he  ascribes  to  the  original  Matthew  the  Logia,  the  part 
which  he  refuses  to  the  proto-Mark.  Only  he  is  thereby 
obliged  to  assign  historical,  and  not  merely  didactic,  contents 
to  this  writing.  No  doubt  he  does  not  regard  it  as  a  com- 
plete Gospel ;  he  thinks  that  it  contained  neither  the  records 
of  the  infancy,  nor  those  of  the  Passion  and  resurrection. 
The  book  of  the  Logia  began,  according  to  him,  with  the 
baptism ;  its  contents  were  made  up  of  detached  narratives 
and  discourses;  it  closed  with  the  account  of  the  feast  of 
Bethany.  Thereafter  came  Mark,  who  laboured  under  the 
guidance  of  this  apostolic  Matthew,  and  first  gave  the  Gospel 
narrative  its  complete  framework  ;  and  those  two  writings,  the 
Logia  and  Mark,  became  the  common  sources  of  our  canonical 
Matthew  and  Luke.  But,  1.  If  Weiss  justly  complains  that 
he  cannot  form  a  clear  idea  of  the  book  of  the  Logia  as  it 
is  represented  by  Holtzmann   (a  writing  beginning  with  the 


TIIE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  1J9 

testimony  of  Jesus  regarding  John  the  Baptist*  and  closing 
with  a  collection  of  parables),  why  not  apply  the  same  judg- 
ment to  the  apostolic  Matthew  of  Weiss  ?  What  is  a  book 
beginning  with   the   baptism   and  ending  with  the   feast   of 

bany,  if  it  is  not,  to  the  letter,  a  writing  without  either 
head  or  tail  ?  2.  Would  it  not  be  strange  if  Mark,  the  work 
which  tradition  declares  by  the  mouth  of  Papias  to  be 
destitute  of  historical  order,  were  precisely  that  which  had 
famished  the  type  of  the  historical  order  followed  by  our 
synoptics  ?  3.  It  follows  from  the  prologue,  L  1-4,  that 
when  Luke  wrote,  he  had  not  yet  before  him  any  work  wi. 
by  an  apostle ;  and,  according  to  Weiss,  he  must  have  had 
the  apostolic  Matthew  in  his  hands.  4.  While  rendering  all 
justice  to  the  perspicacity  and  accuracy  displayed  by  W< 
in  the  discussion  of  texts,  one  is  nevertheless  painfully  afTe. 
with  the  arbitrariness  belonging  to  such  a  criticism.  It 
always  comes  in  the  end  to  this,  to  educe  the  dissimilar  from 
the  same.  For  this  end  it  must  be  held,  unless  one  is  willing 
to  throw  himself  into  the  system  of  wilful  and  delibei 
alterations  (Baur),  that  the  acts  and  sayings  of  Jesus  were  an 
elastic  material  in  the  hands  of  the  evangelists,  a  sort  of 
India  rubber  which  each  of  them  stretched,  lengthened,  con- 
tracted, and  shaped  at  pleasure.  Will  a  supposition  which  is 
morally  impossible  ever  lead  to  a  satisfactory  result?  The 
last  step  to  be  taken  on  this  view  was  to  to  the  L 

of  Matthew  the  totality  of  the  Gospel  narrative ;   tins  is  what 
Klostermann  has  done ;  and  so  we  are  brought  back  to 
hypothesis  which  makes  our  Matthew,  or  a  writing  perfectly 
.  ource  of  the  other  two  synoptics. 
im    consoles    himself    for    the     little    I 
obtained  by  all  this  labour  up  till  now,  by  saying  that   I 

;bour,  reaching  nearly  over  a  century,  cannot 
remain  without  fruit.  But  on  a  mistaken  route  it  is  possible 
to  perform  prodigies  of  agility,  I  marvtUom  leaps,  to 

he  forced  marches,  without  advai 
goal,  because  the  direction  is  perverse.     Sttol  in  to  us 

to  be  the  conditi  n   in  which  criticism  has  1  so  ener 

getically.    Far,  t  iss' 

in   this  direction,  the   time  seems  to   us  t<>  for 

1  Dot  Marcus- Evamgelium  und  seine  svn.  PnraU 


440  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

retracing  our  steps,  in  order  to  recover  the  way  which  Luke 
himself  indicated,  and  which  Gieseler  brought  to  light.  True, 
the  attempt  made  by  this  eminent  historian  has  not  been 
followed;  but  rather  than  turn  away  from  it  with  disdain, 
criticism  should  have  sought  to  supply  what  in  it  was  defective. 
This  is  what  we  shall  attempt  to  do. 

II. 

If,  in  the  systems  which  we  have  passed  in  review,  the 
difficulty  is  to  reconcile  the  differences  between  our  Gospels 
with  the  use  of  common  written  sources,  or  with  the 
dependence  which  they  must  be  supposed  to  have  on  one 
another,  the  difficulty  for  us  will  be  to  explain,  without  such 
dependence  and  without  such  a  use,  the  rcsemhlances  which  in 
so  many  respects  make  those  three  writings,  as  it  were,  one 
and  the  same  work:  resemblance  in  the  plan  (omission  of 
the  journeys  to  Jerusalem)  ;  resemblance  in  the  sequence  of 
the  narratives  (identical  cycles)  ;  resemblance  in  the  matter  of 
the  narratives ;  resemblance  sometimes  even  in  details  of 
style.  To  solve  the  problem,  let  us  begin  by  ascending  to  the 
source  of  this  river,  with  its  three  branches. 

After  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, it  was  necessary  to  labour  to  nourish  those  thousands  of 
souls  who  had  entered  into  the  new  life.  Among  the  means 
enumerated  in  the  Acts  which  served  to  edify  the  new-born 
Church,  the  apostles'  doctrine  (ii.  42)  stands  in  the  first  place. 
What  does  this  term  mean  ?  It  could  not  suffice  to  repeat 
daily  to  the  same  persons  that  proclamation  of  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  our  Lord  whereby  Peter  had  founded  the 
Church.  It  must  soon  have  been  necessary  to  go  back  on 
the  narrative  of  Jesus'  ministry.  But  the  expression,  apostles' 
doctrine,  shows  that  those  oral  narratives  did  not  bear  simply 
on  the  acts  and  miracles  of  Jesus,  but  also,  and  even  specially, 
on  His  teachings.  Before  Paul  and  John  had  set  forth  our 
Lord  Himself  as  the  essence  of  the  gospel,  the  apostles' 
doctrine  could  not  well  be  anything  else  than  the  reproduction 
and  application  of  the  Master's  discourses.  One  day,  there- 
fore, it  was  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  another,  the  discourse 
on  the  relations  between  believers  (Matt,  xviii.) ;  a  third,  the 
eschatological  discourse,  by  means  of  which  the  community  of 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  441 

the  faithful  was  edified.  It  was  repeated,  and  then  commented 
on.  With  the  exception  of  John,  the  Twelve  probably  never 
passed  beyond  this  elementary  sphere  of  Christian  teaching. 
It  was  still  within  this  that  Peter  moved  in  his  instructions 
(BcBaaKaXiai)  as  he  travelled,  and  at  Borne,  at  the  time  of 
which  Pttpias  speaks,  and  when  Mark,  his  interpreter,  accom- 
panied him  collecting  his  narratives.  And  was  it  not,  indeed, 
with  a  view  to  this  special  task  of  "  testifying  what  they  had 
seen  and  heard,"  that  Jesus  had  chosen  and  formed  the 
Twelve  ?  Nor  were  they  slow  to  abandon  the  other  duties 
with  winch  they  were  at  first  charged,  such  as  the  serving  of 
th<:  common  tables,  in  order  to  devote  themselves  exclusively 
to  this  work  (Acts  vi.). 

The  rich  materials  for  those  recitals  (John  xxL  24,  25) 
must  at  an  early  period  have  become  contracted  and  concen- 
trated, both  as  regards  the  discourses  and  the  facts.  In 
respect  to  the  latter,  for  each  category  of  miracles  the  attention 
was  given  preferentially  to  one  or  two  peculiarly  prominent 
examples.  In  respect  to  the  discourses,  as  these  were  repro- 
duced not  in  a  historical  interest,  but  with  a  view  to  the 
edification  of  believers,  the  apostolic  exposition  gradually 
fastened  on  some  specially  important  points  in  the  ministry  of 
Jesus,  such  as  those  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  of  the 
sending  of  the  Twelve,  of  the  announcement  of  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  and  to  the  subjects  which  Jesus  had  treated  of 
on  those  occasions,  and  with  which  they  connected  without 
scruple  the  most  salient  of  the  other  teachings  of  Jesus  of  a 
kindred  sort.     It  was  a  matter  of  salvation,  not  of  elm 

They  likewise  became  accustomed,  in  those  d 
tions,  to  connect  certain  narratives   with  one  another  whi 

some  intrinsic  analogy  as  a  bond  of  union  (Sabbatic  scenes, 
aspirants  to  the  divine  kingdom,  groups  of  parables),  or  a  real 
historical    succession    (the    storm,    the    Gadarene    del 
Jairus,  etc.).     Thus  there  were  formed  cycles  of  narratives  more 
or  less  fixed  which  tl,  habit  of  g  at  one 

stretch  ;  some  cycles  united  together  became  groups,  traces  of 
which  we  find  in  our  synoptics,  and  which   Lachmi inn,   in   his 

resting  essay  on  the  subject  (Stud.  u.  CriliJc.  1835),  I 
called  corpusculo  "rcc  historian;  for  example,  the  group 

of  the   Messianic  ad 


442  *«E  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

the  baptism  and  temptation  of  Jesus) ;  that  of  the  first  days 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  (His  teachings  and  miracles  at  Caper- 
naum and  the  neighbourhood) ;  that  of  the  first  evangelistic 
journeys,  then  of  the  more  remote  excursions ;  that  of  the 
last  days  of  His  ministry  in  Galilee;  that  of  the  journey 
through  Perea ;  that  of  the  sojourn  at  Jerusalem.  The  order 
of  particular  narratives  within  the  cycle,  or  of  cycles  within 
the  group,  might  easily  be  transposed ;  a  narrative  could  not 
so  easily  pass  from  one  cycle  to  another,  or  a  cycle  from  one 
group  into  another. 

In  this  process  of  natural  and  spontaneous  elaboration,  all 
in  the  interest  of  practical  wants,  the  treatment  of  the 
Gospel  must  have  imperceptibly  taken,  even  down  to 
details  of  expression,  a  very  fixed  form.  In  the  narrative 
parts,  the  holiness  of  the  subject  excluded  all  ornamenta- 
tion and  refinement.  The  form  of  the  narrative  was  simple, 
like  that  of  a  garment  which  exactly  fits  the  body.  In 
such  circumstances,  the  narrative  of  facts  passed  uninjured 
through  various  mouths  ;  it  preserved  the  general  stamp  which 
it  had  received  when  it  was  first  put  into  form  by  the  com- 
petent witness.  A  little  more  liberty  was  allowed  in  regard 
to  the  historical  framework ;  but,  in  repeating  the  words  of 
Jesus,  which  formed  the  prominent  feature  in  every  narrative, 
the  received  form  was  absolutely  adhered  to.  The  jewel 
remained  unchangeable ;  the  frame  varied  more.  The  repro- 
duction of  the  discourses  was  more  exposed  to  involuntary 
alterations.  But  precisely  here  the  memory  of  the  apostles 
had  powerful  helps;  above  all,  the  striking  original  plastic 
character  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus.  There  are  discourses  which 
one  might  hear  ten  times  without  remembering  a  single  phrase 
verbally.  There  are  others  which  leave  a  certain  number  of 
sentences  indelibly  impressed  on  the  mind,  and  which  ten 
hearers  would  repeat,  many  days  after,  almost  identically. 
Everything  depends  on  the  way  in  which  the  thoughts  are  con- 
ceived and  expressed.  Formed  within  the  depths  of  His  soul, 
the  words  of  Jesus  received  under  the  government  of  a  power- 
ful concentration  that  settled,  finished,  perfect  impress  by 
means  of  which  they  became  stereotyped,  as  it  were,  on  the 
minds  of  His  hearers.  This  sort  of  eloquence,  besides,  took 
possession  of  the  whole  man  ;  of  conscience,  by  its  moral  truth  , 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  443 

of  the  understanding,  by  the  precision  of  the  idea ;  of  the  heart, 
by  the  liveliness  of  feeling ;  of  the  imagination,  by  the  richness 
of  its  colouring ; — and  what  the  whole  man  has  received,  be 
retains  easily  and  faithfully.  Finally,  the  apostles  were  con- 
vinced of  the  transcendent  value  of  the  things  which  they 
heard  from  His  mouth ;  Jesus  Himself  did  not  allow  them  to 
forget  it.  They  knew  that  they  were  called  soon  to  proclaim 
from  the  house-tops  what  was  said  to  them  in  the  car.  They 
had  not  heard  the  warning  in  vain  :  "  Take  heed  how  ye  hear" 
They  conversed  daily  regarding  all  that  they  heard  together ; 
and,  even  during  the  lifetime  of  their  Master,  a  common 
tradition  was  forming  among  them.  Those  sentences  standing 
out  in  such  pure  and  marked  ft  lief  graven  upon  them  by 
frequent  repetition,  needed  only  an  external  call  to  be  drawn 

a  from  their  mind  in  their  native  beauty,  and  to  be  pro- 
duced almost  as  they  had  received  them.  Indeed,  I  cannot 
conceal  my  astonishment  that  so  great  a  difficulty  should  have 
been  found  in  the  fact  that  the  sayings  of  Jesus  are  almost 
Uy  reproduced  in  our  Gospels.  The  differences 
surprise  me  much  more  than  the  resemblances.     The  source  of 

iixedness  is  neither  Luke  copying  Matthew,  nor  M 
copying  Luke.      It  is  the  powerful  spirit  of  a   I  li)ce 

Jesus  taking  possession  of  the  minds   of  simple,   calm,  and 

■liable  disciples  like  the  apostles.     This  was  prec: 

1  at  by   that   order  of   providence  whereby   Hifl 

her  had  brought  to  Him  as  disciples,  not  the  scribes  and  the 
learned  of  the  capital,  but  i,ncivbo 

In  the  first  times,  evan  Q   was  carried   forward    in 

•naic,  the  ad  of  the  apostles.    And 

the  poverty  of  this  language,  both  in  syntactic  and  in 

vocabulary,  also  contributed  to  tin'  fixity  of  the  form  which 

ition  took.     I;         re  was, e  ilem, a nmnerooe 

Jev.  d. it  ion   which  spoke  only  Greek — the  11 

Jews.     They  possessed  in  tl  <  indreds  of  lyi 

gogues,  where  t'  Testament  was  known  only  in  the 

translation  of  the  LXX.  the   time   when  I 

welcom<  —and  thai  was 

as  is  proved  1> 

due;  apostolic  system  of 

have  made  itself  Km]  felt     This  work  of 


444  ME  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

was  difficult  and  delicate,  especially  as  regarded  the  sayings  of 
Jesus.  It  was  not  done  at  random  ;  those  of  the  apostles 
who  knew  Greek,  such  as  Andrew,  Philip  (John  xii.),  and  no 
doubt  Matthew,  did  not  fail  to  engage  in  it.  There  were 
especially  certain  expressions  difficult  to  render,  for  which  the 
corresponding  Greek  term  required  to  be  carefully  selected. 
Once  found  and  adopted,  the  Greek  expression  became  fixed 
and  permanent ;  so  the  words  i-movo-to?  (daily)  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  and  irrepvyiov  {pinnacle)  in  the  narrative  of  the  tempta- 
tion,— expressions  which  have  been  wrongly  quoted  to  prove 
the  mutual  dependence  of  our  Gospels  on  a  common  written 
source.1  From  this  Greek  mould  into  which  the  primitive 
tradition  was  cast,  it  could  not  but  come  forth  with  a  more 
fixed  character  still  than  it  already  possessed  in  Aramaic. 

It  maintained  itself,  no  doubt,  for  some  time  in  this  purely 
oral  form,  Aramaic  and  Greek.  We  may  apply  to  the  apostles 
and  evangelists,  the  depositaries  of  this  treasure,  what  Diony- 
sius  of  Halicarnassus  says  of  the  Homeric  logographers  :  "  They 
distributed  their  narratives  over  nations  and  cities,  not  always 
reproducing  them  in  the  same  order,  but  always  having  in 
view  the  one  common  aim,  to  make  known  all  those  memorials, 
so  far  as  they  had  been  preserved,  without  addition  and  with- 
out loss."  2  Basil  the  Great  reports  a  similar  fact :  down  to 
his  time  (fourth  century)  the  Church  possessed  no  written 
liturgy  for  the  Holy  Supper, — the  sacramental  prayers  and 
formulas  were  transmitted  by  unwritten  instruction?  And  was 
not  the  immense  store  of  Talmudic  traditions,  which  forms  a 
whole  library,  conveyed  for  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,  not  a  Gospel, — that  would  have  ap- 
peared too  great  an  undertaking, — but  detached  descriptions 
and  discourses.  It  was  a  hearer  who  desired  to  preserve 
accurately  what  he  had  heard,  an  evangelist  who  sought  to 

1  Holtzmann  also  adduces,  in  opposition  to  me,  the  verb  with  its  double 
augment  uvriKartfrMn,  used  in  the  three  synoptics.  But  the  various  reading 
k*ntetrtar<Mn  is  found  in  the  three  texts,  and  usage  might  have  consecrated  this 
form  with  the  double  augment,  as  in  some  other  verbs. 

2  Judic.  de  Thucyd.  ii.  p.  138,  edit.  Sylburg  (quoted  by  Cieselcr). 
1  De  Spir.  Sand.  c.  27. 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOrTICS.  44  5 

reproduce  his  message  more  faithfully.  At  a  time  when 
books  of  prophecy  were  composed  under  the  names  of  all  the 
ancient  Israelitish  personages  (Enoch,  Esdras,  etc.),  when 
collections  of  apocryphal  letters  were  palmed  off  on  the 
ancient  Greek  philosophers, — a  Heraclitus,  for  example,1 — who 
would  be  astonished  to  find  that,  among  the  fellow-labourers 
and  hearers  of  the  apostles,  tlusre  were  some  who  set  them- 
selves to  put  in  writing  certain  acts  and  certain  discourses  of 
the  man  whose  life  and  death  were  moving  the  world  ?  Those 
first  compositions  might  have  been  written  in  Aramaic  and  in 
Greek,  at  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  or  any  other  of  the  lettered 
cities  where  the  Gospel  flourished. 

Those  adversaria,  or  detached  accounts  taken  from  the 
history  of  Jesus,  were  soon  gathered  into  collections  more  or 
less  complete.  Such  were  probably  the  writings  of  the  ttoWol 
mentioned  in  Luke's  prologue.  They  were  not  organic  wo: 
all  the  parts  of  which  were  regulated  by  one  idea,  like  our 
Gospels,  and  so  they  are  lost, — they  were  accidental  compila- 
tions, simple  collections  of  anecdotes  or  discourses;  but  thi 
works  had  their  importance  as  a  second  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Gospel  historiography,  and  a  transition  to  the  higher 
stage.  Thus  were  collected  the  materials  which  were  after- 
wards elaborated  by  the  authors  of  our  synoptic  Gospels. 

In  oral  tradition  thus  formed,  and  then  in  those  first  com- 
pilations and   collections  of  anecdotes,  do  we  not  possess  a 

i  i  firm  enough  on  the  one  hand,  and  elastic  enough  on 
other,  to  explain  the  resemblance  as  well  as  the  diversity  which 

vails  between  our  three  synoptics  ;  and,  in  fine,  to  resolve 
that  complicated  problem  which  defies  every  attempt  at  solu- 
tion by  so  unyielding  an  expedient  as  that  of  a  written  model? 

The  most  striking  feature  of  resemblance  in  the  gei 
plan,  the  omission  of  the  f*  to  Jerusalem,  is  explain 

not  perhaps  fully,  but  at  least  more  easily,  in  the  way  which 

propose  than  in  any  other.      Oral  tradition  becomi: 

densed  in   the  form  of  and  afterwards 

iped  in  cycles,  the  journeys  to  J<  did  not 

mselves  so  easily  to  the  end  of  popular  evangelization 

as  the  varied  scenes  and  lean 

'"•it  Britfe  (three  of  which,  according  to  this  critic, 
belong  to  the  first  century  of  our  era). 


446  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

ministry,  were  neglected.  The  matter  took  shape  without 
them;  and  so  much  the  more,  because  they  did  not  enter  into 
any  of  the  groups  which  were  formed.  When  the  tradition 
was  compiled,  this  element  in  it  was  wanting,  and  the  gap  was 
not  filled  up  till  later,  when  the  narrative  of  an  eye-witness 
(John)  gave  a  new  delineation  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  in  a 
manner  completely  independent  of  the  traditional  elaboration. 

2.  If  our  narratives  have  such  a  traditional  origin  as  we 
have  indicated,  we  can  easily  explain  both  the  identical  series 
of  accounts  which  we  sometimes  meet  in  our  synoptics,  and 
the  transposition  of  particular  accounts. 

3.  The  resemblances  in  the  substance  of  the  narratives  are 
explained  quite  naturally  by  the  objectivity  of  the  facts  which 
left  its  stamp  on  the  recital ;  and  the  differences,  by  the  in- 
voluntary modifications  due  to  oral  reproduction  and  to  the 
multiplicity  of  written  compends.  There  is  one  thing  espe- 
cially which  is  naturally  accounted  for  in  this  way.  We  have 
again  and  again  remarked,  especially  in  the  accounts  of  miracles, 
the  contrast  which  obtains  between  the  diversity  of  the  histori- 
cal framework  in  the  three  synoptics,  and  the  sameness  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  during  the  course  of  the  action.  This  con- 
trast is  inexplicable  if  the  writings  are  derived  from  one 
another  or  from  a  written  source.  It  is  easily  understood 
from  our  view ;  the  style  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  had  become 
more  rigidly  fixed  in  traditional  narration  than  the  external 
details  of  the  Gospel  scenes. 

There  remain  the  resemblances  of  style  between  the  three 
writings — the  identical  clauses,  the  common  expressions,  the 
syntactical  forms  or  grammatical  analogies.  If  oral  tradition 
became  formed  and  formulated,  as  we  have  said,  if  it  was  early 
compiled  in  a  fragmentary  way,  if  those  compilations  were  used 
by  the  authors  of  our  Gospels,  those  resemblances  no  longer 
present  anything  inexplicable,  and  the  differences  which  alter- 
nate with  them  at  every  instant  no  longer  require  to  be 
explained  by  forced  expedients.  The  two  phenomena,  which 
are  contradictory  on  every  other  hypothesis,  come  into  juxta- 
position, and  harmonize  naturally. 

Starting  from  this  general  point  of  view,  let  us  seek  to 
trace  the  special  origin  of  each  of  our  three  synoptics.  The 
traditions  agree  in  ascribing  to  Matthew  the  first  Gospel  com- 


THE  RELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  44  7 

pilation  which  proceeded  from  an  apostle.  It  was,  according 
to  Irenaeus,  "  at  the  time  when  Peter  and  Paul  were  together 
founding  the  church  at  Rome"  (from  G3-G4),  or,  according  to 
Eusebius,  "  when  Matthew  was  preparing  to  go  to  preach  to 
other  nations"  (after  6 0),  that  this  apostle  took  pen  in  hand.  This 
approximate  date  (60-64)  is  confirmed  by  the  warning,  in  the 
form  of  a  parenthesis,  which  we  find  inserted  by  the  evangelist 
in  the  eschatological  discourse  of  Jesus  (xxiv.  15).  Our  Lord 
declares  to  the  disciples  the  sign  by  which  the  Christians 
of  Judea  shall  recognise  the  time  for  fleeing  from  the  Holy 
Land ;  and  Matthew  adds  here  this  remarkable  nota  bene  : 
"  Whoso  rcadcth,  let  him  understand"1  This  parenthesis  con- 
tains the  proof  that,  when  this  discourse  was  compiled,  the 
Judeo-Christian  believers  had  not  yet  retired  beyond  the 
Jordan,  as  they  did  about  the  year  66. — What  was  the 
writing  of  Matthew  ?  Was  it  a  complete  Gospel  ?  Tin 
reasons  which  we  have  indicated  rather  lead  us  to  think  that 
the  apostle  had  compiled  in  Aramaic  the  great  bodies  of  dis- 
courses containing  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  as  it  had  been  put 
into  farm  by  tradition,  with  a  view  to  the  edification  of  the 
flocks  in  Palestine.  It  is  those  bodies  of  discourses  which  an 
the  : istic  feature  of  our  first  Gospel;  it  is  round  this 

dominant  element  that  the  book  appears  to  be  organized  all 
through.  The  narrative  part  is  an  addition  to  this  original 
theme.  It  was  not  composed  in  Hebrew ;  the  style  does  not 
admit  of  this  supposition.  Its  date  is  a  little  later  than  that 
of  the  apostolic  writing.  For  the  presbyter,  a  native  of  Pales- 
.  who  in  ias  remembered  a  time  when,  in  the 

relies  of-  iiey  had  no  Qteek  translation  of  the  Dis- 

•ses  of  Jesus  '),  and  when  I  repro- 

duced them  in  ( I  |  voce,  as  lie  could.     What  hand  com- 

posed ttl  deal  nan-alive,  in  :k  of  which    the 

whole  contents  of  tl.  kilfullv  distritmt 

I      it   not   most    natural    to    BQppoee    that    one    of    Matth 
dis<  reproducing  bii  Logim  in  Greek,  set  them  in  i 

complete  narrative  of  the  life  of  J<  d  the  I 

.1  the  traditi.  in  each  t  ntly 

1  This  warning  is  not  connected  with  the  quotation  from  Daniel,  and  form 
no  part  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus  ;  this  appears  from  Mark  (where  th 
I  .micl  is  unauth*  | 


443  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

heard  it  from  the  mouth  of  that  apostle  ?  This  tradition  had 
taken,  in  the  hands  of  Matthew,  that  remarkably  summary 
and  concise  character  which  we  have  so  often  observed  in  the 
first  Gospel.  For  his  aim  was  not  to  describe  the  scenes,  but 
merely  to  demonstrate  by  facts  the  thesis  to  which  his  apostolic 
activity  seems  to  have  been  devoted :  Jesus  is  THE  CHEIST. 
The  Logia  seems  also  to  have  been  arranged  with  a  view 
to  this  thesis :  Jesus  the  legislator,  Matt,  v.-vii. ;  the  king, 
chap.  xiii. ;  the  judge,  chap,  xxiv,  xxv. ;  consequently  THE 
MESSIAH.     Comp.  Matt.  i.  1. 

Mark,  according  to  traditibn,  wrote  during,  or  shortly  after, 
Peter's  sojourn  at  Eome,  about  64;  consequently  almost  at 
the  same  time  as  Matthew.  So,  like  Matthew,  he  records  in 
the  eschatological  discourse  the  warning  which  it  was  customary 
in  Palestine  to  add  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  regarding  the 
flight  beyond  the  Jordan  (xiii.  14). — The  materials  of  his 
Gospel  must  have  been  borrowed,  according  to  tradition,  from 
the  accounts  of  Peter,  whom  Mark  accompanied  on  his  travels. 
Accordingly,  he  could  not  have  used  our  first  Gospel,  which 
was  not  yet  in  existence,  nor  even  the  Logia,  which  could  not 
yet  have  reached  him.  How,  then,  are  we  to  explain  the  very 
special  connections  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  com- 
positions which  are  the  fruit  of  Matthew's  labour,  but  set  in  a 
consecutive  narrative.  Erom  whom  did  this  narrative  proceed  ? 
Indirectly  from  Matthew,  no  doubt;  but  in  the  first  place 
from  Peter,  whose  influence  had  certainly  preponderated  in  the 
formation  of  the  apostolic  tradition  in  all  that  concerned  the 
facts  of  our  Lord's  ministry.  The  only  difference  between  the 
first  two  Gospels  therefore  is,  that  while  the  one  gives  us  the 
apostolic  system  of  evangelization  in  the  summary  and  syste- 
matic form  to  which  it  had  been  reduced  by  the  labours  of 
Matthew,  the  other  presents  it  to  us  in  all  its  primitive  fresh- 
ness, fulness,  and  simplicity,  as  it  had  been  heard  from  the 
lips  of  Peter,  with  the  addition  of  one  or  two  of  the  great  dis- 
courses (chap.  iii.  and  xiii.)  due  to  the  labours  of  Matthew 
(chap.  xii.  and  xxiv),  and  with  which  Mark  had  long  been 
acquainted  as  a  hearer  of  the  Palestinian  preaching.1     The 

1  If  Mark  knew  those  discourses  so  well,  he  must  have  been  acquainted  with 


THE  DELATIONS  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS.  449 

special  differences  between  the  two  compilations  are  explained 
by  the  variable  element  which  is  always  inevitable  in  oral 
evangelizatioa1  It  may  thus  be  concluded  that  the  first 
Gospel  contains  the  work  of  Matthew,  completed  by  the  tradi- 
tion which  emanated  from  Peter ;  and  the  second,  the  tradition 
of  Peter,  completed  by  means  of  some  parts  of  Matthew's 
work 

Luke,  according  to  the  tradition  and  evidences  which  we 
have  collected,  must  have  composed  his  history  in  Greece  at 
the  same  time  when  Matthew  was  compiling  his  Logia  in 
Palestine,  and  Mark  the  narratives  of  Peter  at  Rome.  If  so, 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that  he  did  not  know  and  use  those 
writings  ;  and  this  is  what  exegesis  demonstrates.     From  what 

COBS,  then,  has  he  drawn  ?  He  has  worked — as  appears 
from  our  study  of  his  book — on  written  documents,  mostly 

:naic.  Hut  how  are  we  to  explain  the  obvious  connection 
in  certain  parts  between  those  documents  and  the  text  of  the 
other  two  Syn.  ?  It  is  enough  to  repeat  that  those  documents, 
at  least  those  which  related  to  the  ministry  of  Jesus  from  1 1 
baptism  onwards,  were  compilations  of  that  same  apostolic 
tradition  which  forms  the  basis  of  our  first  two  Gospels.     Tho 

tionship  between  our  three  Gospels  is  thus  explained. 
The  Aramaic  language,  in  which  the  most  of  Luke's  documents 

8  written,  leads  to  the  supposition  that  they  dated,  like 
those  from  which  the  same  author  composed  the  first  part  of 
the  Acts,  from  the  earliest  times  of  apostolic  evangelization. 
At  that  period  the  didactic  exposition  of  Jesus'  doctrine  was 

bably  not  yet  concentrated  and  grouped,  as  it  was  later, 
aboii t  some  great  points  of  time  and  some  definite  subjects. 
i  preserved  many  more  traces  of  the  various  circum- 
stances which  bad  famished  our  Lord  with  a  text  for  His  in- 
structions. Hence  those  precious  introductions  of  Luke,  I 
that  exquisite  appropriateness  which  leodl  I  new  charm  to 

sermon  on  the  M       '.     fa  pi    "  oven  is  clearly  indicated  in  his  narrative 
(between  vera.  19  and  20  of  chap.  iii.).     The  only  reason  for  his  omittin 
discourse  must  have  been,  fit  in  suffi <  iently  to  the  plan  <  : 

Gospel,  intended,  as  it  was,  for  Gentile  readers. 

1  We  can  understand  the  aeries  of  evidences  by  which   Klostermann  haa 
been  led  to  regard  the  text  of  Mark  as  merely  that  of  M 

scholia  d no  to  the  narratives  of  li  irfc  it  i<  feo  1     mode  of  the  series  of 

©pp<  we  have  so 

Ik  ^  S  F 


450  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

discourses  which  he  has  preserved  to  us.  As  to  the  general 
concatenation  of  the  Gospel  events  which  we  admire  in  Luke, 
he  owes  it  undoubtedly  to  special  information.  It  is  of  such 
sources  of  information  that  he  speaks  in  his  prologue,  and 
which  enabled  him  to  reconstruct  that  broken  chain  of  which 
tradition  had  preserved  only  the  rings. 

Thus  it  is  that  we  understand  the  relations  and  origin  of 
the  synoptics.  Is  this  explanation  chargeable  with  com- 
promising the  Gospel  history,  by  making  its  accuracy  depend 
on  a  mode  of  transmission  so  untrustworthy  as  tradition  ? 
Yes,  if  the  period  at  which  we  are  led  to  fix  the  compilation 
of  those  oral  accounts  was  much  more  advanced.  But  from 
60  to  65,  tradition  was  still  under  the  control  of  those  who 
had  contributed  to  form  it,  and  of  a  whole  generation  contem- 
porary with  the  facts  related  (1  Cor.  xv.  6,  written  in  58). 
In  those  circumstances,  alterations  might  affect  the  surface, 
not  the  substance  of  the  history. 

I  would  take  the  liberty  of  closing  this  important  subject 
with  an  apologetic  remark.  There  is  perhaps  no  more 
decisive  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
than  the  different  forms  in  which  they  are  transmitted  to  us 
by  Matthew  and  Luke.  An  artificially  composed  discourse 
like  those  which  Livy  puts  into  the  mouth  of  his  heroes,  is 
one  utterance ;  but  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  as  they  are  pre- 
sented to  us  by  the  two  evangelists,  are  broken  and  frag- 
mentary. Moreover,  those  similar  materials,  which  appear  in 
both  in  entirely  different  contexts,  must  necessarily  be  more 
ancient  than  those  somewhat  artificial  wholes  in  which  we 
now  find  them.  Those  identical  materials  put  to  use  in 
different  constructions  must  have  belonged  to  an  older  edifice, 
of  which  they  are  merely  the  debris. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

— To  get  rid  of  the  Mosaic  revelation,  rationalism  has  assumed 
an  original  contrast  between  Elohism  and  Jchovism,  and  sought 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  451 

to  make  the  history  of  Israel  the  progressive  solution  of  this 
antagonism;  and  in  the  same  way,  to  reduce  the  appearing  of 
Christianity  to  the  level  of  natural  events,  the  Tubingen 
School  has  set  up  a  contrast  between  apostolic  Judeo-Chris- 
tianity  and  the  Christianity  of  Paul, — a  contrast,  the  gradual 
solution  of  which  is  made  to  explain  the  course  of  history 
during  the  first  two  centuries.  Reuss  and  Nicolas,  without 
altogether  sharing,  especially  the  first,  in  this  point  of  view, 
nevertheless  retain  the  idea  of  a  conflict  between  the  two 
fractions  of  the  Church,  profound  enough  to  lead  the  author 
of  the  Acts  to  the  belief  that  he  must  seek  to  disguise  it  by 
a  very  inaccurate  exposition  of  the  views  and  conduct  of  his 
master  Paul  But  if  we  cannot  credit  this  writer  in  regard 
to  things  in  which  he  took  part,  how  are  we  to  found  on  his 
narrative  when  he  describes  much  older  events,  such  as  those 
which  are  contained  in  his  Gospel  ?  The  importance  of  the 
question  is  obvious.  Let  us  attempt,  before  closing,  to  throw 
light  upon  it 

To  prove  the  antagonism  in  question,  the  Tubingen  School 
in  the  first  place  advances  the  different  tendencies  which  are 
said  to  be  observable  in  the  Gospels.  But  it  is  remarkable 
that,  to  demonstrate  this  conflict  of  tendencies,  Baur  was  for- 
to  give  up  the  attempt  of  dealing  with  known  quantities,  our 
canonical  Gospels,  and  to  have  recourse  to  the  supposition  of 
previous  writings  of  a  much  more  pronounced  dogmatic 
character,  which  formed  the  foundation  both  of  our  Matt] 
and  of  our  Luke,  to  wit,  a  primitive  Matthew,  exclusively 
I  and  particularistic,  and  a  primitive  Luke,  absolutely 
universalistic  and  an  they  begin  by  ascribing 

to  our  Gospels  an  exclusive  not  fading  it  in 

the  books  as   we   have   them,  they   make  them   over  n; 
accord ii  -conceived   Ed  h  they  have  formed 

of  thriu.  Such  is  the  vicious  circle  in  which  this  criticism 
moves.    The  hypothesis  of  an  proto-Luke  has  b 

completely  refuted  within  the  Tubingen  School  itself;  we  may 

:efore  lea  position  aside.     There  remains  only 

proto-M  This  is  the  last  plank  to  which  Hil 

(eld     :11  clinga     He  discovers  t  nts  of  t 

fragment  to  us  of  the  Gospel  of 

the  Hebrews.     He  allege  iun 


452  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

of  this  writing  in  the  direction  of  universalism  (the  product 
being  our  canonical  Matthew) ;  afterwards  Mark,  and  then 
Luke,  continued  and  completed  the  transformation  of  the 
Gospel  history  into  pure  Paulinism.  But  this  construction  is 
not  less  arbitrary  than  that  of  Baur.  The  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  as  we  have  seen,  has  all  the  characteristics  of  an 
amplified  and  derived  work,  and  cannot  be  the  basis  of  our 
Matthew.  Even  Volkmar  treats  this  Judaizing  proto-Matthew 
as  a  chimera,  no  less  than  the  antinomian  proto-Luke.  And 
what  of  himself?  He  charges  our  three  synoptics  with  being 
Paulinist  writings,  the  sole  Judaizing  antagonist  to  which  is 
.  .  .  the  Apocalypse.  The  work  of  John,  such,  according  to 
Volkmar,  is  the  true  type  of  legal  Judeo-Christianity,  the 
document  of  which  Baur  seeks  in  vain  in  the  primitive 
Matthew,  which  is  invented  by  himself  to  meet  the  exigency 
of  the  case.  But  what !  we  ask  Volkmar,  can  you  regard  as 
strictly  legal  a  writing  which  calls  the  Jewish  people  the 
synagogue  of  Satan  (Eev.  iii.  9),  and  which  celebrates  with 
enthusiasm  and  in  the  most  brilliant  colours  the  entrance  into 
heaven  of  innumerable  converts  of  every  nation,  and  tribe,  and 
people,  and  tongue,  who  were  notoriously  the  fruits  of  the 
labours  of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  which  proclaims  aloud  the  doctrine 
of  the  divinity  of  Jesus-Messiah,  that  perpetual  blasphemy  to 
the  ears  of  the  Jews ;  and  which,  instead  of  deriving  salvation 
from  circumcision  and  works,  makes  it  descend  from  the  throne  of 
God  and  of  the  Lamb,  of  pure  grace  through  faith  in  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb,  without  any  legal  condition  whatever  ?  Such  Judeo- 
Christianity,  assuredly,  is  a  Paulinism  of  pretty  strong  quality. 
And  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  would  have  asked  nothing 
better  than  to  see  it  admitted  by  all  his  adversaries.  He 
would  very  quickly  have  laid  down  his  arms.1 

Baur  further  alleges  the  authentic  epistles  of  Paul  (the  four 
great  ones),  especially  the  second  chapter  of  Galatians.     The 

1  Chap.  ii.  29  is  alleged,  where  a  woman  is  spoken  of  who  teaches  to  eat  meats 
sacrificed  to  idols,  and  to  commit  impurity, — a  woman  who,  it  is  said,  represents 
the  doctrine  of  Paul.  But  to  teach  to  eat  meats  offered  in  sacrifice  is  to  stimulate 
to  the  eating  of  them  as  such,  that  is  to  say,  basely  and  wickedly  outraging  the 
scruples  of  the  weak,  or  even  with  the  view  of  escaping  some  disagreeable  con- 
sequence, such  as  persecution,  making  profession  of  paganism.  Now  Paul, 
1  Cor.  x.,  prescribes  exactly  the  opposite  line  of  conduct ;  and  as  to  impurity,  ws 
have  1  Cor.  vi.     It  is  libertinism  and  not  Paulinism  which  is  here  stigmatized. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  453 

following  are  the  contents  of  the  passage.  Paul  gives  an 
acccint  of  a  private  conference  (kclt  IS  lav  Be)  which  he  had 
with  those  of  the  apostles  who  enjoyed  the  highest  considera- 
tion (tow  Bokovctl),  in  which  he  stated  to  them  {aveOefxnv)  his 
mode  of  preaching  among  the  Gentiles, — a  method  which  they 
so  fully  approved,  that  Titus,  an  uncircumciscd  Gentile,  was 
immediately  welcomed  and  treated  at  Jerusalem  as  a  member 
of  the  Church  (vers.  2,  3).  And  if  he  held  out  in  this  case, 
though  circumcision  was  in  his  view  merely  an  external  rite, 
and  morally  indifferent  (1  Cor.  vil  18,  19),  it  was  not  from 
obstinacy,  but  because  of  false  brethren  unawares  brought  in  (Slcl 
Be  tou?  TrapeiaaKTovs  TJrevSaBekcpovs)  who  claimed  the  right  to 
impose  it,  and  who  thus  gave  to  this  matter  the  character  of  a 
question  of  principle  (vers.  4,  o).  Then,  from  those  intruded 
false  brethren,  Paul  returns  to  the  apostles,  whom  he  contrasts 
with  them  (utto  he  tcov  Bokovvtwv),  and  who,  that  is,  the  apostles, 
added  no  new  condition  to  his  statement  (pvBev  irpoaavedewo, 
referring  to  the  dvedifinv,  ver.  2),  but  recognised  in  him  the 
man  called  to  labour  specially  among  the  Gentiles,  as  in 
Peter  the  man  specially  charged  with  the  apostolate  to  the 
Jews ;  and  on  this  basis  they  associated  themselves  with  him 
and  his  work,  by  giving  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  (vers. 
6-10).  That  there  was  any  shade  of  difference  between  him 
and  the  Twelve,  Paul  does  not  say;  we  may  conclude  it,  how- 
ever, from  this  division  of  labour  in  which  the  conference 
terminated.  But  that  this  shade  was  an  opposition  of  principle, 
and  that  the  Twelve  were  radically  at  one  with  the  1 
brethren  brought  in,  as  Baur  seeks  to  prove,  is  what 
passage  itself  absolutely  denies.  The  contrary  also  appears 
from  the  second  fact  related  by  Paul  in  this  chapter — his  < 
tention  with  Peter  at  Antioch.  For  when  Peter  ceases  all  at 
once  to  mingle  and  eat  with  the  Christians  from  among  the 
Gentiles,  for  what  does  Paul  rebuke  him  ?  For  not  walk 
Uprightly,  for  acting  hypocritically,  that  is  to  say,  for  being 
unfaithful  to  his  real  conviction,  which  evidently  assumes 

is  the  same  conviction  as  Paul  himself.     And  tin's  is 
a  passage  which  is  to  prove,  according  to  Baur,  the  opposi: 
of]  it  here  again  there  is 

ft  shade  of  difference  implied  between  Paul  and  Peter,  and  even 
between   ivter  and  Jamas  ("before  thai  .  came  from 


454  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

James  "),  I  am  not  concerned  to  deny.  Bat  no  opposition  of 
'principle  between  Peter  and  Paul  is  compatible  with  this 
account.  Baur  has  further  sought  to  rest  his  view  on  the 
enumeration  of  the  parties  formed  at  Corinth.  According  to 
1  Cor.  i  12,  there  were  believers  in  this  city  who  called 
themselves  some  of  Paul,  some  of  Apollos,  some  of  Cephas, 
others  of  Christ.  Baur  reasons  thus  :  As  the  first  two  parties 
differed  only  by  a  shade,  it  must  have  been  the  same  with  the 
latter  two;  and  as  it  appears  from  2  Cor.  x.  7,  xi.  22,  that 
those  who  called  themselves  of  Christ  were  ardent  Juclaizers 
who  wished  to  impose  the  law  on  the  Gentiles,  the  same  con- 
viction should  be  ascribed  to  those  of  Peter,  and  consequently 
to  Peter  himself.  But  the  very  precise  enumeration  of  Paul 
obliges  us,  on  the  contrary,  to  ascribe  to  each  of  the  four 
parties  mentioned  a  distinct  standpoint ;  and  if,  as  appears 
from  2  Cor.,  those  vjho  are  Christ's  are  really  Judaizers,  enemies 
of  Paul,  the  contrast  between  them  and  those  of  Cephas  proves 
precisely  that  Peter  and  his  party  were  not  confounded  with 
them;  which  corresponds  with  the  contrast  established  in 
GaL  ii.  between  the  false  brethren  brought  in  and  the  apostles, 
especially  Peter.  The  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  therefore,  do  not 
in  the  least  identify  the  Twelve  with  the  Judaizers  who  opposed 
Paul ;  consequently  they  exclude  the  idea  of  any  opposition 
of  principle  between  apostolic  Christianity  and  that  of  PauL 

What,  then,  to  conclude,  was  the  real  state  of  things  ? 
Behind  Judeo-Christianity  and  the  Christianity  of  the 
Gentiles  there  is  Christ,  the  source  whence  everything  in  the 
Church  proceeds.  This  is  the  unity  to  which  we  must 
ascend.  During  His  earthly  life,  Jesus  personally  kept  the 
law  ;  He  even  declared  that  He  did  not  come  to  abolish,  but 
to  fulfil  it.  On  the  other  hand,  He  does  not  scruple  to  call 
Himself  the  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  to  pronounce  as  morally 
null  all  the  Levitical  ordinances  regarding  the  distinction  of 
clean  and  unclean  meats  (Matt,  xv.),  to  compare  fasting  and 
the  whole  legal  system  to  a  worn-out  garment,  which  He  is 
careful  not  to  patch,  because  He  comes  rather  to  substitute  a 
new  one  in  its  place.  He  predicted  the  destruction  of  the 
temple,  an  event  which  involved  the  abolition  of  the  whoie 
ceremonial  system.  Thus,  from  the  example  and  doctrine  of 
Jesus  two  opposite  conclusions  might  be  drawn,  the  one  in 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CI1UKCH.  455 

favour  of  maintaining,  the  other  of  abolishing,  the  Mosaic  1 
It  was  one  of  those  questions  which  was  to  be  solved  by  the 
dispensation  of  the   Spirit  (John  xvi.  12,  13).     After  Pente- 
cost, the  Twelve  naturally  persevered  in  the  line  of  conduct 
traced  by  the  Lord's  example ;  and  how  otherwise  could  they 
have  fulfilled  their  mission  to  Israel  ?     Yet,  over  against  the 
growing  obduracy  of  the  nation,  Stephen  begins  to  emphasize 
the  latent  spirituality  of  the  GospeL     There  follow  the  foun- 
dation of  the  church  of  Antioch  and  the  first  mission  to  the 
Gentiles.      Could  the  thought  be   entertained   of   subjecting 
those  multitudes  of  baptized  Gentiles   to   the   system  of  the 
law  ?     The  apostles  had  not  yet  had  the  opportunity  of  pro- 
nouncing on  this  point     For  themselves,  and  for  the  converts 
among  the  Jews,  they  kept  up  the  Mosaic  rites  as  a  national 
institution  which  must  continue  till  God  Himself  should  1: 
them  from  its  yoke  by  some  positive  manifestation  or  by  I 
return  of  the  Messiah  ;  but  as  to  the  Gentiles,  they  probably 
never  thought  of   imposing    it    upon    them.     The    quest; 
had  no  sooner  occurred,  than  God  enlightened  them  by  the 
vision  of  Peter  (Acts  x.).     But  they  were  not  absolute  masters 
at  Jerusalem,     There  there  were  many  priests  and  elders  of 
the  Pharisees  (Acts  vi  7,  xv.  5)  who  professed  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  who,  from  the  height  of  their  rabbinical  scic I 
and  theological  erudition,  regarded  the  apostles  with  a  sort  of 

lain.      On  the  one  hand,  they  were  pleased  with  the  propa- 

ion  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles;  the  God  of  Israel 
was  thereby  becoming  the  God  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  whole 
world  was  accepting  the  moral  sovereignty  of  the  children  of 
Abraham.  But,  in  order  that  the  end  might  be  fully  attaii 
and  their  ambition  satisfied,  it  was  of  course  necessary  that 
the  new  converts  should  be  incorporated  with  I.-rael,  and  that 
liould  receive  circumcision.  Only  on  this 
condition  was  the  widespread  proselytism  of 
to  them.      "  ](  I  preach  circumcision,"  says  Paul,  alluding 

I   class,  "  the  offence  of  the  cross  is  ceased "    I  11). 

it  is   to   say,   if  only  I  granted  them    circumcision,  | 
would  concede  to  D  the  cross.     It  is  easy  to  under- 

Is  them  false  brethren,  intruders  I 
Chui 

re  were  thus    really    two   di  ramps    anion- 


456  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Christians  of  Jewish  origin,  according  to  the  book  of  Acts  as 
well  as  according  to  Paul  himself:  those  wTho  made  circum- 
cision in  the  case  of  Gentile  converts  a  condition  of  salvation ; 
and  those  who,  while  preserving  it  in  the  case  of  themselves 
and  their  children  as  a  national  observance,  exempted  the 
Gentiles  from  its  obligation  (com p.  especially  Acts  vi.  7, 
xi.  2,  xv.  1-5,  24,  with  xi.  18,  22,  23;  xv.  10,  11,  19-21, 
with  Gal.  ii.).  This  last  passage,  which  Baur  has  used  to 
prove  that  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  was  a  pure  romance,  on 
the  contrary  confirms  the  contents  of  Luke's  account  at  every 
point.  At  the  public  assembly  described  by  Luke,  to  which 
Paul  alludes  when  relating  the  private  conference  (/car  IBlav 
Si,  Gal.  ii.  2)  which  he  had  with  the  apostles,  it  was  decided : 
1st.  That  converts  from  among  the  Gentiles  were  not  at  all 
subject  to  circumcision  and  the  law ;  2d.  That  the  status  quo 
was  maintained  for  Judeo-Christians  (no  one  exacted  the 
contrary)  ;  3d.  That,  to  facilitate  union  between  the  two 
different  elements  of  which  the  Church  was  composed,  the 
Gentiles  should  accept  certain  restrictions  on  their  liberty,  by 
abstaining  from  various  usages  which  were  peculiarly  repug- 
nant to  Jewish  national  feeling.  These  restrictions  are 
nowhere  presented  as  a  matter  of  salvation  ;  the  words,  "  Ye 
shall  do  well"  prove  that  all  that  is  intended  is  a  simple 
counsel,1  but  one  the  observance  of  which  is  nevertheless  in- 
dispensable (eTravayices)  for  the  union  of  the  two  parties.  Thus 
presented,  they  could  perfectly  well  be  accepted  by  Paul,  who, 
in  case  of  necessity,  would  have  admitted,  according  to  Gal.  ii., 
even  the  circumcision  of  Titus,  if  it  had  been  demanded  of 
him  on  this  understanding.  But  there  remained  in  practice 
difficulties  which  certainly  were  not  foreseen,  and  which  were 
not  long  in  appearing.  For  Palestine,  where  the  Judeo- 
Christians  formed  churches  free  from  every  Gentile  element, 
the  compromise  of  Jerusalem  was  sufficient.  But  where,  as  at 
Antioch,  the  Church  was  mixed,  composed  of  Jewish  elders  and 
Gentile  elders,  how  fettered  did  the  daily  relations  still  remain 

1  Zeller  attempts  to  translate  tl  <xpu.%}Ti  by:  "Ye  shall  be  saved."  These 
words  can  only  signify:  "  ye  shall  do  well, "  or,  "  it  shall  go  well  with  you."  As 
to  the  term  vropnia,  we  think  that  it  is  to  be  taken  in  its  natural  sense,  and 
that  this  vice  is  here  brought  into  prominence  in  so  strange  a  way,  because,  in 
the  eyes  of  so  many  Gentiles,  it  passed  for  a  thing  as  indifferent  as  eating  aud 
drinkiug  (1  Cor.  vi.  12,  13). 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  457 

between  parties,  the  one  of  whom  professed  to  remain  strictly 
faithful  to  legal  observances,  while  the  others  polluted  them- 
selves every  instant  in  the  eyes  of  the  former  by  contact  with 
unclean  objects  and  the  use  of  meats  prepared  without  any 
regard  to  Levitical  prescriptions  !  How,  in  such  circumstances, 
was  it  possible  to  celebrate  feasts  in  common, — the  Agapae, 
for  example,  which  preceded  the  Holy  Supper  ?  When  Peter 
arrived  at  Antioch,  he  was  obliged  to  decide  and  to  trace  for 
himself  his  line  of  conduct.  If  he  remained  literally  faithful 
to  the  letter  of  the  compromise  of  Jerusalem,  there  was  an 
end  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  that  city  where  the  gospel 
flourishing.  His  heart  carried  him.  He  decided  for  the 
opposite  view.  He  set  himself  to  live  with  the  Gentiles,  and 
to  eat  as  they  did  (Gal.  ii.  14).  But  thereupon  there  arrived 
emissaries  from  James,  the  man  who,  in  the  great  assend.lv, 
had  proposed  the  compromise.  They  demonstrated  to  1\ 
that,  according  to  the  terms  of  this  arrangement,  he  was  in 
fault,  because,  as  a  Jew,  he  should  not  dispense  with  the  ob- 

ance  of  the  law  ;  T.arnabas  himself  had  nothing  to  answer. 
They    submitted,  and   withdrew   from    intercourse    with    the 

j tiles.     The  fact  was,  that  the  compromise  had  not  antiei- 

be  case  of  mixed  churches,  in  which  the  two  elements 

could  unite  only  on  one  condition:   that  Jewish  Christians  on 

r  side  should   renounce  part   of  their   le  vances. 

We  0809  8     ily  understand,  even  from  this  point  of  view,  why 

Paul,  in  Ins  letters,  did  not  insist  on  this  decree,  which  1 
a  practical  difficulty  untouched. 
There  prevailed,  therefore,  not  two  points  of  view,  as  Bmi 

^es,  but  four  at  least:   1st.   That  of  the  ultra-legalists,  the 
Judaizers  properly   so  called,  who  pa  I  iw  as  a 

principle   in  the  gospel.     2d.  That  of  the  and  of   the 

moderate  Judeo-Christians,  who  personally  <>1»  -  rved  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 
do  it.  Among  them  then  existed  two  shades: 
that  of  Peter,  who  thought  be  might  subordinate  obedience  to 

law  in  mixed  m  to  union   with  tin;  Gentile  party  ; 

that  of  James,  1  d  to  maintain  the  observance 

even  in  this  oil  the  expense  of  union    3rf.  PauCt 

wt  according  to  which  the  keeping  oi   the  I 


458  THE  GOSPEL  OP  LUKE. 

a  matter  morally  indifferent,  and  consequently  optional,  even  in 
the  case  of  Judeo- Christians,  according  to  the  principle  which 
he  expresses :  "  To  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the 
law ;  to  them  that  are  without  the  law,  as  without  law ;  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  save  the  more"  (1  Cor.  ix.  20, 
21).  Uh.  Finally,  an  ultra-Pauline  party,  which  is  combated 
by  the  Apocalypse  and  by  Paul  himself  (1  Cor.  viii.  and  x. ; 
Rom.  xiv.),  which  ridiculed  the  scruples  of  the  weak,  and  took 
pleasure  in  braving  the  dangers  of  idolatrous  worship,  and 
thus  came  to  excuse  the  most  impure  excesses  (1  Cor.  vi. ; 
Kev.  ii.  20).  The  two  extreme  points  of  view  differed  in 
principle  from  the  intermediate  ones.  But  the  latter  differed 
only  on  a  question  of  ceremonial  observance  in  which,  as  was 
recognised  on  both  sides,  salvation  was  not  involved.  We 
may  put  the  difference  in  this  form :  the  conscience  of  Paul 
derived  this  emancipation  from  the  law  from  the  first  coming 
of  Christ,  while  the  Twelve  expected  it  only  at  His  second 
coming. 

What  has  this  state  of  things,  so  nicely  shaded,  in  common 
with  the  flagrant  antithesis  to  which  Baur  attempts  to  reduce 
this  whole  history  ?  As  if  in  such  moral  revolutions  there 
was  not  always  a  multitude  of  intermediate  views  between 
the  extremes  !  Let  the  time  of  the  Reformation  be  con- 
sidered :  what  a  series  of  view-points  from  Luther,  and  then 
Melancthon  on  to  the  ultra-spiritualists  (the  Schwarmgeister), 
without  reckoning  all  the  shades  in  the  two  camps  catholic 
and  philosophical ! 

But  after  having  established,  in  opposition  to  Baur,  the 
general  trustworthiness  of  the  description  given  by  the  author 
of  the  Acts,  must  we  abandon  Luke  to  the  criticisms  of  Eeuss 
and  Nicolas,  leaving  him  charged  by  the  first  with  instances 
of  "  conciliatory  reticence,"  and  by  the  second  "  with  a  well- 
marked  desire  to  bring  the  views  of  St.  Paul  into  harmony 
with  those  of  the  Judaizing  [apostles] "  ?  The  ground  for 
those  charges  is  especially  the  account  Acts  xxi.  James 
declares  to  Paul,  who  has  just  arrived  at  Jerusalem,  that  he 
has  been  calumniated  to  the  Judeo-Christians  of  Palestine, 
having  it  said  of  him  that  he  seeks  everywhere  to  lead  his 
Jewish  converts  to  forsake  Moses;  and  to  prove  the  falsehood 
cf  this  accusation,  Paul  agrees  to  carry  out  the  Nazarite  vow 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OP  THE  CHURCH.  459 

in  the  temple  with  four  Judeo-Christians.  But  in  what  is 
this  conduct,  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  ascribes  to  Paul, 
contrary  to  the  apostle's  principles  as  he  lays  them  down  in 
his  epistles  ?  Did  Paul  ever  in  any  place  act  the  fanatical 
destroyer  of  the  legal  economy  ?  Can  a  case  be  cited  in 
which  he  sought  to  prevail  on  a  Jewish  Christian  not  to 
circumcise  his  children  ?  He  resolutely  refused  to  allow  the 
yoke  of  the  law  to  be  imposed  on  the  Gentiles ;  but  did  lie 
ever  seek  to  make  a  Jew  throw  it  off  ?  At  Antioch,  even, 
would  he  have  censured  Peter  as  he  does,  if  the  latter  had 
not  previously  adopted  an  entirely  different  mode  of  acting 
Gal  ii.  14—18)?  Did  not  Paul  himself  practise  the  prin- 
ciple :  to  them  wlw  are  under  the  law,  as  under  tlie  law  I  He 
could  therefore  in  good  earnest,  as  Luke  relates,  seek  to  prove 
to  the  Judeo-Christians  of  Palestine  that  he  was  moved  by  no 
feeling  of  hostility  to  the  law,  and  that  he  was  far  from  teach- 
ing the  Jews  scattered  over  Gentile  lands  to  abjure  the  law 
and  forsake  Moses. 

The  fundamental  error  of  that  whole  view  which  we  are 
combating,  is  its  mistaking  more  or  less  the  powerful  unity 
which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  What  would  be 
said  of  a  historian  who  should  allege  that  the  Information 
proceeded  from  the  conflict  between  the  Lutheran  Church  and 
the  Reformed,  and  who  should  overlook  the  essential  unity 
which  was  anterior  to  that  division  ?  Is  it  not  committing 
the  same  error  to  make  the  Church  proceed  from  a  reconcilia- 
tion of  Judeo-Christianity  with  Paulinism  ?  But  have  not 
those  two  currents,  supposing  them  to  be  as  different  as  is 
alleged,  a  common  source  which  men  affect  to  lay  aside, 
namely,  Jesus  Christ?  Is  this  question  of  the  law,  on  which 
ion  took  place,  the  grand  question  of  the  N.  T.  ?  Is  not 
its  place  secondary  in  comparison  with  that  of  faith  in  Christ  ? 
Was  it  not  accidentally,  and  on  occasion  of  the  practical 
roaHsatioc  of  the  |  i  of  faith,  that  tl  :<>n  of  tho 

And  how  then  could  (he  antagonism  which 
manifested  itself  on  this  heed  be  the  startiniz-point  of  the  new 
creation?     Baur,  r  to  escape  the  I  :  n^  point. 

conceives  an  original  antagonism  between  two  e  ten- 

's, which  gradually  approximated,  an  Kn  virtue 

of  recipr<  -ssions,   by  suiting  and   forming  the  great 


460  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

Catholic  Church  at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  We  shall 
oppose  history  to  history,  or  rather  history  to  romance,  and  we 
shall  say :  In  Christ  the  Spirit  remained  enveloped  in  the 
form  of  the  letter.  The  Church  was  founded ;  within  its 
bosom  a  tendency  continued  for  a  time  to  keep  up  the  letter 
by  the  side  of  the  Spirit ;  the  other  was  already  prepared  to 
sacrifice  the  letter  to  the  free  unfolding  of  the  Spirit.  But 
they  were  at  one  on  this  point,  that  for  both  life  was  only  in 
the  Spirit.  From  both  sides  there  went  off  extreme  parties, 
as  always  happens,  Judaizers  to  the  right,  Antinomians  to  the 
left;  on  the  one  hand,  Nazarite  and  Ebionite  communities 
landing  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  which  sought  to  combine 
Paul  and  Simon  Magus  in  one  and  the  same  person ;  on  the 
other,  the  Antinomian  exaggerations  of  the  so-called  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  and  even  of  that  to  Diognetus,  terminating  at  length 
in  Marcion,  who  believed  the  God  of  the  Jewish  law  to  be  a 
different  one  from  that  of  the  gospel.  Between  those  extremes 
the  Church,  more  and  more  united  from  the  time  that  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  levelled  every  ceremonial  differ- 
ence between  Judeo  -  Christians  and  Gentiles,  continued  its 
march ;  and  while  casting  forth  from  its  bosom  Ebionism  on 
the  one  side,  and  Marcionism  on  the  other,  it  closed  its  ranks 
under  the  fire  of  persecution,  and  became  the  great  Church,  as 
it  is  already  named  by  Celsus.  Let  the  documents  be  studied 
impartially,  and  it  will  be  seen  whether  this  picture  is  not 
more  true  to  fact  than  that  of  Baur.1 

And  what  place,  finally,  do  our  four  Gospels  occupy  in  this 
whole  ?  They  do  not  represent  four  different  epochs  or  four 
distinct  parties.  They  each  represent  one  of  the  sides  of 
Christ's  glory  unveiled  to  one  of  the  apostles. 

The  hour  of  revelation  to  which  the  second  Gospel  belongs 
is  previous  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus ;  it  is  the 

1  M.  Reuss  attaches  great  importance  to  the  hospitality  which  Paul  meets  with 
in  the  Roman  Church  (Phil,  i.),  and  to  the  almost  complete  abandonment 
which  he  has  to  endure  a  little  later  (2  Tim.  iv.).  But  the  first  passage  merely 
furnishes  the  proof  that  the  event  which  Paul  had  for  a  long  time  been  expect- 
ing (Rom.  xvi.  17-20) — the  arrival  of  the  Judaizers  at  Rome — had  taken  place. 
As  to  the  second  event,  it  cannot  (if  the  2d  Epistle  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  dispersed  the  Roman  Church.  It 
proves  no  antipathy  whatever  on  the  part  of  this  Church  to  the  apostle. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  4G1 

enlightenment  of  St  Peter,  as  indicated  by  Jesus  Himself, 
when,  following  up  the  apostle's  profession :  "  TJwu  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God"  He  answers,  "  Flesh  and  blood  liave  not 
ded  it  unto  tlice,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  The 
divine  greatness  of  Jesus,  as  it  was  displayed  during  the 
course  of  His  earthly  life, — such  is  the  idea  which  fills,  pene- 
trates, and  inspires  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 

The  time  when  that  inspiration  was  born  which  gave  rise 
to  the  first  Gospel  came  later;  it  occurs  in  the  interval 
between  the  resurrection  and  ascension.  It  is  the  time  thus 
described  by  Luke  (xxiv.  45) :  "  Then  opened  He  tlieir  under- 
standing, tJiat  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures"  Christ, 
the  fulfilment  of  the  law  and  of  prophecy, — such  is  the  dis- 
covery which  the  Spirit  made  to  the  apostles  in  that  hour  of 
illumination  ;  the  theocratic  past  stood  out  before  them  in  tin*, 
light  of  the  present,  the  present  in  the  light  of  the  past.  This 
is  the  view  which  impelled  Matthew  to  take  the  pen,  and 
dictated  the  writing  which  bears  his  name. 

The  inspiring  breath  of  the  third  Gospel  dates  from  the 
times  which  followed  Pentecost  St  Paul  marks  this  de- 
cisive moment  with  emotion,  when  he  says  to  the  Galatians 
(i  15,  1G) :  "  When  it  jrtcascd  God,  wJio  separated  me  from  my 
motJiers  womb  .  .  .  to  reveal  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  in  me,  that  I 
might  preach  Him  among  the  Gentiles."  Christ,  tlie  hope  of 
glory  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  to  the  Jews ;  Christ,  the  Son 
ol  God  given  to  the  world,  and  not  merely  the  son  of  David 

uted  to  Israel; — such  was  the  view  contemplated  by  Paul 
during  those  three  days  in  which,  while  his  eyes  were  cl< 
to  the  light  of  this  world,  his  soul  opened  to  a  high  . 
This  light  with  which  St   Paul  was  illuminated  passed  into 
the  work  of  Luke  ;   thence  it  rays  forth  constantly  within  the 
Church. 

lot  of  John  fell  to  him  last;  it  was  the  most  sublime. 
"  The  Spirit  shall  gh>  ad  said  ;  "  He  shall  br 

things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  yoti, 
and  He  will  show  you  things  to  come."  Here  was  more  than 
the  work  of  a  day  or  an  hou  ;  it  was  tin-  work  of  a  whole 
life.     In  its  prolonged  meditations,  his  nd  self- 

collected  heart  passed  in  review  the  sayings  which  had  gone 
foil  he  mouth  of  ister  on  whose  bosom 


462  THE  GOSPEL  OF  LUKE. 

rested,  and  discovered  in  them  the  deepest  mystery  of  the 
faith,  the  eternal  divinity  of  the  Son  of  man,  the  Word  made 
flesh,  God  in  Christ,  Christ  in  us,  we  through  Christ  in  God ; 
such,  in  three  words,  are  the  contents  of  John's  writings, 
especially  of  his  Gospel.  This  view  of  the  relation  between 
God,  Christ,  and  believers,  laid  down  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  is 
alone  capable  of  raising  the  Church  to  its  full  height. 

In  those  four  rays  there  is  contained  all  the  glory  of  Christ. 
What  He  was  in  His  visible  presence,  what  He  is  in  relation 
to  the  theocratic  past,  what  He  is  in  relation  to  the  religious 
future  of  the  whole  world,  what  He  is  in  regard  to  the  eternal 
union  of  every  man  with  the  infinite  principle  of  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  honour  of  her  Head,  and  impoverish 
herself.  May  the  Church  therefore  rather  be  the  focus  within 
which  those  four  rays  perpetually  converge,  and  in  which  they 
again  become  one,  as  they  were  one  originally  in  the  life  of 
the  Head ! 


*KD  OF  VOL.  VL 


MORRISON    AND   QIBB,    EDINBURGH, 
PRINTERS   TO   HER    MAJESTY'S   STATIONERY  OFFICE. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


In  Two  Vol*.,  demy  Svo.—Vol.  I.  now  ready,  price  10s.  6d., 

A   NEW   COMMENTARY   ON 

THE     BOOK    OF    GENESIS. 

By  Professor  FRANZ  DELITZSCH,  D.D. 

MESSRS.  CLARK  have  pleasure  in  intimating,  that  by  special  arrangement 
with  the  author  they  are  publishing  a  translation  of  the  Fifth  Edition, 
thoroughly  revised,  and  in  large  part  re-written,  of  this  standard  Commentary. 
The  learned  author,  who  has  for  a  generation  been  one  of  the  foremost  biblical 
scholars  of  Germany,  and  who  is  revered  alike  for  his  learning  and  his  piety,  has 
here  stated  with  evident  care  his  latest  and  most  matured  opinions. 

'  Thirty-five  years  have  elapsed  since  Prof.  DeHtJEach'l  (Commentary  on  Genesis  first 
appeared  ;  fifteen  years  since  the  fourth  edition  was  published  in  1872.  Ever  in  the  v;m 
of  historical  and  philological  research,  the  venerable  author  now  comes  forward  with 
another  fresh  edition  in  which  he  incorporates  what  fifteen  years  have  achieved  for 
illustration  and  criticism  of  the  text  of  Genesis.  .  .  .  We  congratulate  Prof.  Delitnch 
on  this  new  edition,  and  trust  that  it  may  appear  before  long  in  an  En^li.^li  dr. 
it,  not  less  than  by  his  other  commentaries,  he  has  earned  the  gratitude  of  ovary  lover 
of  biblical  science,  and  we  shall  be  surprised  if,  in  the  future,  many  do  not  i 

y  have  found  in  it  a  welcome  help  and  guide.' — Professor  S.  R.  Dkivkk,  in  The 
Academy. 

u  <>rk  of  a  reverent  mind  and  a  sincere  believer,  and  not  seldom  there  are  touches 
of  great  beauty  and  of  deep  spiritual  insight  in  it.     The  learning,  it  is  i  .  say,  is 

vide  and  comprehensive.' — Guardian. 

Just  published,  in  post  8io,  prin 

THE    TEXT    OF    JEREMIAH; 

OR, 

A  Critical  Investigation  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew,  with  the 

Variations  in  the  LXX.  Retranslated  into  the 

Original  and  Explained. 

By  Professor  G.  C.  WORKMAN,  MA. 

VICTORIA  <   AN  A  I.  A. 

With  an  Introduction  by  PBOR880B  1'.  DELITZSCH,  D.D. 

mussing  the  relation  between   t!  hjfj  the  difficult 

problam  of  the  variations,  and  reveals  import  r  for  the   '  inter 

•ons,  the  correction,  and  thi  lotion  of  t! 

1  A  work  of  valuable  and  lasting  servi  -sor  Dbmtmoh. 

Just  published,  in  demy  8vo,  price  7s.  6d., 

THE   BOOK   OF   PSALMS. 

The  Structural  Connection  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  both  in  single  Psalms  and 
in  the  Psalter  as  an  organic  whole. 

JOHN   FOKM-IS,   D.IV, 

I  KSSOR  OF  ORIKXTAL   I.AMOUAOKH,    k ■■■WW. 

*One  cannot  l>ut  admiro  the  keenneea  of  insight  and  deftness  of  handling  arltfe 
thought  is  balanced  a«ain*t  thought,  Una  against  linn,  stanaa  against  atanxa,  i 
poem.     Only  long  familiarity  and  loring  rose.-ii  I  are  niren  such  si 

of  movement.  ...  A  mora  logged  <il  monograph  haa  not 

appaarad  recantly,  tba  contents  and  •  irhich  oommeod  tbemsalvaa  mora  power- 

fully to  believer*  in  the  Christian  revelation  and  tho  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.'— 
British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review. 


T.  and  T,  Clark's  Publications. 


Just  published,  in  demy  8vo,  price  10s.  6c/., 

THE  JEWISH 

AND 

THE    CHRISTIAN    MESSIAH. 

A  STUDY  IN  THE  EARLIEST  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 
By  VINCENT  HENRY  STANTON,  M.A., 

FELLOW,  TUTOR,  AND  DIVINITY  LECTURER  OF  TRINITY  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE  ; 
LATE  HULSEAN  LECTURER. 

4  Mr.  Stanton's  book  answers  a  real  want,  and  will  be  indispensable  to  students  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity.  We  hope  that  Mr.  Stanton  will  be  able  to  continue  his  labours 
in  that  most  obscure  and  most  important  period,  of  his  competency  to  deal  with  which 
he  has  given  such  good  proof  in  this  book.' — Guardian. 

'  We  welcome  this  book  as  a  valuable  addition  to  the  literature  of  a  most  important 
subject.  .  .  .  The  book  is  remarkable  for  the  clearness  of  its  style.  Mr.  Stanton  is  never 
obscure  from  beginning  to  end,  and  we  think  that  no  reader  of  average  attainments  will 
be  able  to  put  the  book  down  without  having  learnt  much  from  his  lucid  and  scholarly 
exposition.' — Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 

Now  ready,  Second  Division,  in  Three  Vols.,  8vo,  price  10s.  6d.  each, 

HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWISH  PEOPLE  IN  THE 
TIME  OF  OUR  LORD. 

By  Dr.  EMIL  SCHUKER, 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  GIEPSEN. 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE    SECOND    EDITION  (Revised    throughout,   and 
greatly  enlarged)  of  ■  HISTORY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TIME: 
The  First  Division,  which  will  probably  be  in  a  single  volume,  is  undergoing  revision 
by  the  Author.    (The  Second  Division  is  complete  in  itself.) 

'  Under  Professor  Schtirer's  guidance,  we  are  enabled  to  a  large  extent  to  construct  a 
social  and  political  framework  for  the  Gospel  History,  and  to  set  it  in  such  a  light  as  to 
see  new  evidences  of  the  truthfulness  of  that  history  and  of  its  contemporaneousness.  .  . 
The  length  of  our  notice  shows  our  estimate  of  the  value  of  his  work.' — English 
Churchman. 

'We  gladly  welcome  the  publication  of  this  most  valuable  work.' — Dublin  Review. 

'Most  heartily  do  we  commend  this  work  as  an  invaluable  aid  in  the  intelligent  study 
of  the  New  Testament.' — Nonconformist. 

'As  a  handbook  for  the  study  of  the  New  Testament,  the  work  is  invaluable  and 
unique.' — British  Quarterly  Review. 

Just  published,  in  demy  8vo,  price  10s.  Gd., 

AN     EXPLANATORY    COMMENTARY    ON 
ESTHER. 

OTttI)  four  appendices, 

CONSISTING  OF 

THE  SECOND   TARQUM  TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  ARAMAIC 

WITH  NOTES,   MITHRA,    THE   WINGED  BULLS 

OF  PERSEPOLIS,   AND  ZOROASTER. 

Br  Professor  PAULUS  CASSEL,   D.D.,  Berlin. 

'  A  specially  remarkable  exposition,  which  will  secure  for  itself  a  commanding 
position  in  Biblical  literature.  It  has  great  charms  from  a  literary  and  historical  point 
of  view.' — Sword  and  Trowel. 

'  A  perfect  mine  of  information.' — Record. 

4  It  is  manifestly  the  ready  expression  of  a  full  and  richly  stored  mind,  dispensing  the 
treasures  accumulated  by  years  of  labour  and  research.  ...  No  one  whose  fortune  it  is 
to  secure  this  commentary  will  rise  from  its  study  without  a  new  and  lively  realization 
of  the  life,  trials,  and  triumphs  of  Esther  and  Mordecai.'— Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 


PUBLICATIONS     OF 

T.       &c      T.      CLARK, 

38    GEORGE    STREET     EDINBURGH. 

LONDON:    HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  &  CO. 

Adam  (J.,  D.D.) — An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  of  James.    8vo,  9s. 
Ahlfeld  (Dr.),  etc. — The  Voice  from  the  Cross:   Sermons  on  our 

Lord's  Passion  by  Eminent  Living  Preachers  of  Germany.     Cr.  8vo,  price  5s. 

Alexander  (Prof.  W.  Lindsay) — System  of  Biblical   Theology. 

Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Alexander  (Dr.  J.  A.) — Commentary  on  Isaiah.    Two  vols.  8vo,  17s. 

Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library — A  Collection  of  all  the  Works 
of  the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  prior  to  the  Council  of 
Nick  a.     Twenty-four  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  £6,  6s. 

Augustine's  Works — Edited  by  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.      Fifteen  vols. 

8vo,  Subscription  price,  £3,  19s. 

Bannerman  (Prof.) — The  Church  of  Christ.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Bannerman  (Rev.  D.D.) — The  Doctrine  of  the  Church.    8vo,  12s. 
Baumgarten  (Professor) — Apostolic  History.    Three  vols.  8vo,  27s. 
Beck  (Dr.)— Outlines  of  Biblical  Psychology.     Crown  8vo,  4s. 

Pastoral  Theology  in  the  Xew  Testament.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Bengel — Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament.     With  Original  Notes, 

Explanatory  and  Illustrative.     Five  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  31s.  6d. 
Cheaper  Edition,  the  five  volumes  bound  in  three,  24s. 

Besser's  Christ  the  Life  of  the  World.     Price  6s. 
Bible-Class  Handbooks.     Crown  8vo. 
Binnie  (Prof.)— The  Church,  Is.  6d. 
Brown  (Principal) — The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  2s. 
Candlish  (Prof.) — The  Christian  Sacraments,  Is.  6d. 

The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Is.  6d. 

Christian  Doctrine  of  God.     Is.  6d. 

dson  (Prof.)— The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2s.  6d. 
Dods  (Marcus,  D.D.) — Post-Exilian  Prophets,  2s.     Book  of  Genesis,  2s. 
Douglas  (Principal) — Book  of  Joshua,  Is.  6d.    Book  of  Judges,  Is.  3d. 
Hamilton  (T.,  D.I).)— Irish  I  I  ian  Church  History, 

\DERSON  (Archibald,  M.A.) — Palestine,  with  Maps.     The  maps  arc  l>y 
Captain  Conder,  R.E.,  of  the  Pali  ttuu  Exploration  Fund.    Price  2s.  6d. 
KlLPATRICI  (T.B.,  B.D.V-  liuthr's  Three Sermonson  Human  Nature.  ls.6d. 
Lindsay  (Prof.)— St.  Mark's  Gospel,  2s.  6d. 

St.  Luke's  Gosp  1.  Part  I.,  2s. ;  Part  II.,  Is.  3d. 

The  Reformation,  2s. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Two  vols.,  Is.  6d.  each. 

MAX*  |  Prof.) — The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Is.  6d. 

MACrni:i:soN  (John,  M.A. )  —  I'lvsl.vtniaiiisin.  Is.  (M. 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  2s. 

The  Sum  of  Saving  Knowledge,  Is.  6d. 

)— The  Books  of  Chronicles,  Is.  6d. 
Scrymok-  >— Lessons  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  2s 

Sta!  !  A  )     l.f,   ol  Christ,  Is.  fi.l.     Life  of  St.  Paul,  1 

Sm  •  History  of  Missions,  2s.  6d. 

H80a  (  W,  I).,  M.A.)— Christian  Miracles  and  Cnnrlusions  of  Science.    2s. 
-Scottish  Church  History,  Is 
W  -The  Shorter  Catechism,  2s.  6d. 

Bible-Class  Primers.     Paper  covers,  6d.  each;  free  by  post,  7d.     In 
clotl  jiost,  9d. 

Crc»-  "Kings  of  Ju<1h1i. 

Gloao  (Paton  \m»,  M.A.)— Life  of  Mote*. 

res. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Bible-Class  Primers — continued. 

Eobson  (John,  D.D.)— Outlines  of  Protestant  Missions. 

Salmond  (Prof.)— Life  of  Peter.     The  Shorter  Catechism,  3  Parts.    Life  of  Christ. 

Smith  (H.  W.,  D.D.)— Outlines  of  Early  Church  History. 

Thomson  (P.,  M.  A.)— Life  of  David.        Walker  (W.,M.  A.)— The  Kings  of  Israel. 

Whsterbotham  (Rayner,  M.  A.) — Life  and  Eeign  of  Solomon. 

"Witherow  (Prof.) — The  History  of  the  Reformation. 

Blaikie  (Prof.  W.  G-.)— The  Preachers  of  Scotland  from  the  6th 

to  the  19th  Century.     Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Bowman  (T.,  M.A.) — Easy  and  Complete  Hebrew  Course.    8vo. 

Part  I.,  7s.  6d. ;  Part  II.,  10s.  6d. 

Briggs    (Prof.) — Biblical    Study:     Its    Principles,    Methods,    and 

History.     Second  Edition,  post  8vo,  7s.  6d, 


American  Presbyterianism.    Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Messianic  Prophecy.    Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 


Brown  (David,  D.D.) — Christ's  Second  Coming:   Will  it  be  Pre- 

Millennial  ?     Seventh  Edition,  crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Bruce  (A.  B.,  D.D.) — The  Training  of  the  Twelve  ;  exhibiting  the 

Twelve  Disciples  under  Discipline  for  the  Apostleship.    3rd  Ed.,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

. The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  in  its  Physical,  Ethical,  and 

Official  Aspects.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Buchanan  (Professor) — The  Doctrine  of  Justification.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Comfort  in  Affliction.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

On  Improvement  of  Affliction.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

Bungener  (Felix) — Rome  and  the  Council  in  1  9th  Century.  Cr.  8vo,  5  s. 
Calvin's  Institutes  of  Christian  Religion.  (Translation. )  2  vols.  8vo,  1 4s. 
Calvini    Institutio    Christianas    Religionis.      Curavit    A.    Tholuck. 

Two  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  14s. 

Candlish  (Prof.  J.  S.,  D.D.)— The  Kingdom  of  God,  Biblically  and 

Historically  Considered.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Caspari  (C.  E.) — A  Chronological  and  Geographical  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Life  of  Christ.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Caspers  (A.)— The  Footsteps  of  Christ.    Crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Cassel  (Prof.) — Commentary  on  Esther.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Cave  (Prof.) — The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice.  _  8vo,  12s. 

An  Introduction  to  Theology  :  Its  Principles,  its  Branches, 

its  Results,  and  its  Literature.     8vo,  12s. 

Christlieb  (Dr.) — Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief.    Apologetic 

Lectures  addressed  to  Earnest  Seekers  after  Truth.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Cotterill — PEREGRINUS  PROTEUS :  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  etc.    8vo,  12s. 

Modern  Criticism  :  Clement's  Epistles  to  Virgins,  etc.    8vo,  5s. 

Cremer  (Professor) — Biblico-Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testa- 
ment Greek.  Third  Edition,  with  Supplement,  demy  4to,  38s.  SUPPLE- 
MENT, separately,  14s. 

Crippen  (Rev.  T.  G-.) — A  Popular  Introduction  to  the  History 

of  Christian  Doctrine.     8vo,  9s. 
Cunningham  (Principal) — Historical   Theology.      Review  of  the 

Principal  Doctrinal  Discussions  since  the  Apostolic  Age.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

'■  Discussions  on  Church  Principles.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Curtiss  (Dr.  S.  I.) — The  Levitical  Priests.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 
Dabney  (R.   L.,    D.D.) — The    Sensualistic    Philosophy    of    the 

Nineteenth  Century  Considered.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Davidson  (Professor) — An  Introductory  Hebrew  Grammar.    With 

Progressive  Exercises  in  Heading  and  "Writing.     Ninth  Edition,  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Delitzsch  (Prof.)— A  System  of  Biblical  Psychology.     8vo,  12s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Delitzsch  (Prof.)— New  Commentaryon  Genesis.  Two  Vols.,  8  vo.  Vol.1. 

Commentary  on  Job.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s.     Lnow  ready,  lOs.  6d. 

.  Commentary  on  Psalms.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

On  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  the  Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Old  Testament  History  of  Redemption.    Cr.  8vo,  4s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Isaiah.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Doedes — Manual  of  New  Testament  Hermeneutics.    Cr.  8vo,  3s. 
Dollinger  (Dr.) — Hippolytus  and  Callistus  ;  or,  The  Roman  Church 

in  the  First  Half  of  the  Third  Century.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Dorner  (Professor) — History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ.     Five  vols.  8vo,  £2,  12s.  6d. 

System  of  Christian  Doctrine.     Four  vols.  8vo,  £2,  2s. 

System  of  Christian  Ethics.     8vo,  14s. 

Eadie  (Professor) — Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the 

Ephesians,  Philifpians,  Colossians.     New  and  Revised  Editions,  Edited 
by  Rev.  Wm.  Young,  M.  A.     Three  vols.  8vo,  10s.  6d.  each  ;  or  set,  18«.  nttt. 

Ebrard  (Dr.  J.  H.  A.)— The  Gospel  History.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  John.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Apologetics.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Elliott — On  the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.    8vo,  6s. 
Ernesti — Biblical  Interpretation  of  New  Testament.  Two  vols.,  8s. 
Ewald  (Heinrich)— Syntax  of  the  Hebrew  Language  of  the  Old 

Testament.     8vo,  8s.  6d. 

Revelation  :  Its  Nature  and  Record.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Old  and  New  Testament  Theology.    8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

Fairbairn  (Principal) — Typology  of  Scripture,  viewed  in  connection 

with  the  series  of  Divine  Dispensations.     Sixth  Edition,  Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Revelation  of  Law  in  Scripture,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Ezekiel  and  the  Book  of  his  Prophecy.  4thEd.,8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Prophecy  Viewed  in  its  Distinctive  Nature,  its  Special 

\  and  Proper  Interpretations.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10a.  6d. 

New  Testament  Hermeneutical  Manual.    8vo,  10s.  fid. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles.     The  Greek  Text  and  Translation. 


With  Introduction,  Expository  Notes,  and  Dissertations.     8 

Past.  >RAL  Theology  :  A  Treatise  on  the  Office  and  Duties  of 


the  Christian  Pastor.     With  a  Memoir  of  the  Author.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Forbes  (Prof.) — Symmetrical  Structure  of  Scripture.  8vo,  8s.  6d. 
1  Analytical  Commentary  on  the  Romans.    8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

STUDIES  in  the  Book  of  Psalms.     8vo,  7s.  fid. 

Frank  (Prof. F. H.)— System  OFOhRISTUM  Kyii-kv  t.     BtO,  10s.  6d. 
Gebhardt(H.)— The  Doctrine  of  nik  APOOALYPSB,  INT  II*  Li  LATION 
i    iiii;  GkM  PttTLM  OF  JOHW.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Gerlach-  Y  on  the  PentAXWXCH,     Bto,  10*  I 

Gieseler(Dr.J.C.L.)— lv  i  kai. History.    Poor 

Giftord  (Canon) — Voices  of  the  Proem ii 

Given  (Rev.  Prof.  J.  J.)— Tin:  TRUTHfl  01  BORIPnJBI  in  CONNECTION 

wm  !•  Tin-.  Oaxoic.    8vo,  6s. 

Glasgow    (Prof.)— Apocalypse    Ti:  d     and     Expounded. 

8vo, 

Gloag  (Paton  J.,  D.D.)— A  Oiu  i  hcal  Commen 

IHOFTHK.    I  •       TWO  VOK  8VO,   'Jh. 

The  Messianic  Pkophei  h    .     I  rown  8vo,  priea  7 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Gloag(P.  J.,D.D.) — Introduction  to  the  Pauline  Epistles.  8vo,  12s. 
Introduction  to  the  Catholic  Epistles.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Exegetical  Studies.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Godet  (Prof.) — Commentary  on  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
— Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Epistle  to  the  Eomans.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Commentary  on  1st  Epistle  to  Corinthians.  2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Lectures  in  Defence  of  the  Christian  Faith.    Cr.  8vo,  6s. 

Goebel  (Siegfried) — The  Parables  of  Jesus.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Gotthold's  Emblems ;  or,  Invisible  Things  Understood  by  Things 

that  are  Made.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Grimm's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament.  Trans- 
lated, Revised,  and  Enlarged  by  Joseph  H.  Thayer,  D.D.    Demy  4to,  36s. 

Guyot  (Arnold,  LL.D.) — Creation;  or,  The  Biblical  Cosmogony  in  the 
Light  of  Modern  Science.     With  Illustrations.     Crown  8vo,  5s.  6d. 

Hagenbach  (Dr.KR.) — History  of  Doctrines.  Threevols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

History  of  the  Reformation.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Hall  (Rev.  Newman,  LL.B.) — The  Lord's  Prayer.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Hamilton  (T.,  D.D.) — Beyond  the  Stars;  or,  Heaven,  its  Inhabitants, 

Occupations,  and  Life.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Harless  (Dr.  C.  A.) — System  of  Christian  Ethics.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Harris  (Rev.  S.,  D.D.)— The  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism.   8vo,  1 2s. 

The  Self-Revelation  of  God.     8vo,  12s. 

Haupt  (Erich) — The  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Havernick  (H.  A.  Ch.) — Introduction  to  Old  Testament.     10s.  6d. 
Heard  (Rev.  J.  B.,  M.A.)— The  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man — Spirit, 

Soul,  and  Body.     Fifth  Edition,  crown  8vo,  6s. 

Old  and  New  Theology.  A  Constructive  Critique.  Cr.  8vo,6s. 

Hefele  (Bishop) — A  History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church. 

Vol.  L,  to  a.d.  325  ;  Vol.  II.,  a.d.  326  to  429.     Vol.  III.,  A.D.  431  to  the 
close  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451.     8vo,  12s.  each. 

Hengstenberg  (Professor) — Commentary  on  Psalms.    3  vols.  8vo,  33s. 
Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes.     Treatises  on 

the  Song  of  Solomon,  Job,  and  on  Isaiah,  etc.     8vo,  9s. 

The  Prophecies  of  Ezekiel  Elucidated.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Genuineness  of  Daniel,  etc.    8vo,  12s. 

History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Christology  of  the  Old  Testament.    Four  vols.  8vo,  £2, 2s. 

On  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 


Herzog — Encyclopedia  of  Biblical,  Historical,  Doctrinal,  and 

Practical  Theology.     Based  on  the  Real-Encyhlopadie  of  Herzog,  Plitt. 
and  Hauch.    Edited  by  Prof.  Schaff,  D.D.    In  Three  vols.,  price  24s.  each. 

Encyclopedia  of  Living  Divines,  etc.,  op  all  Denominations 

in  Europe  and  America.  (Supplement  to  Herzog' s  Encyclopaedia.)  Imp.8vo,8s, 

Hutchison  (John,  D.D.) — Commentary  on  Thessalonians.     8vo,  9s. 

Commentary  on  Philippians.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Janet  (Paul) — Final  Causes.    By  Paul  Janet,  Member  of  the  In- 
stitute.    Translated  from  the  French.     Second  Edition,  demy  8vo,  12s. 

The  Theory  of  Morals.    Demy  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Johnstone  (Prof.  R.,  D.D.) — Commentary  on  First  Peter.      8vo, 

10s.  6d. 

Jouffroy-— Philosophical  Essays.    Fcap.  8vo,  5s. 
Kant — The  Metaphysic  of  Ethics.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Philosophy  of  Law.     Trans,  by  W.  Hastie,  B.D.    Cr.  8vo,  5s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Keil  (Prof.) — Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.     3  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Joshua,  Judges,  and  Ruth.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Samuel.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Chronicles.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Jeremiah.    Two  vols.  8vo,  2 Is. 

Commentary  on  Ezekiel.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Commentary  on  Daniel.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

On  the  Books  of  the  Minor  Prophets.    Two  vols.  8vo,  2 Is. 

Manual    of    Historico-Critical    Introduction    to    the 

Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Handbook  of  Biblical  Archaeology.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 


Keymer  (Rev.  N.,  M.A.) — Notes  on  Genesis.     Crown  8vo,  Is.  6d. 
Killen  (Prof.) — The  Old  Catholic  Church  ;  or,  The  History,  Doc- 
trine, Worship,  and  Polity  of  the  Christians,  traced  to  A.D.  755.     8vo,  9s. 

The  IgnatianEpistles  Entirely  Spurious.    Cr.  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

Konig  (Dr.  F.  E.)— The  Religious  History  of  Israel.   A  Discussion 

of   the    Chief    Problems    in    Old    Testament  History  as  opposed   to  the 
Development  Theorists.     Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Krummacher  (Dr.  F.  W.) — The  Suffering  Saviour  j  or,  Meditations 

on  the  Last  Days  of  the  Sufferings  of  Christ.     Eighth  Edition,  crown  8vo,  6s. 

David,  the  King  of  Israel  :  A  Portrait  drawn  from  Bible 

History  and  the  Book  of  Psalms.     Second  Edition,  crown  8vo,  6s. 

Autobiography.    Crown  8vo,  6s. 


Kurtz  (Prof.) — Handbook  of  Church  History.    Two  vols.  8vo,  15s. 

History  of  the  Old  Covenant.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Ladd  (Prof.  G.  T.) — The  Doctrine   of    Sacred    Scripture:    A 

il,  Historical,  and  Dogmatic  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the 
<  »ld  and  New  Testaments.     Two  vols.  8vo,  1600  pp.,  24s. 

Laidlaw  (Prof.)— The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Lange  (J.  P.,  D.D.) — The  Life  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.    Edited, 

with  additional  Notes,  by  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.     Second  Kdition,  in  Four 
vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price  28s. 

Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.    Edited 

by  PuiLir  S<i!  \  if.  D.D.     Old  TESTAMENT.  14  vols.  ;  Ni:w  Testami 
vols.  ;  Apocrypha,  1  vol.    Subscription  price,  nett,  15s.  each, 

Ox  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

On  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.    Two  vols.  8vo,  18s. 

i  i  i,  of  St.  John.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 


Lechler  (Prof.  G.  V.,  D.D.)— Tin:  Ai.-stolic  and  PosT-ArosT<»uc 

TlMP.s.     Their  Diversity  l&d  Tiiity  in  Life  and  Doctrine,     'J  vols.  cr.  8vo,  16s. 

Lehmann  (Pastor)— Scenks  from  tin:  Li  it.  i  m  •'  ksus.    Cr.  8vo,  S 
Lewis  (Tayler,  LL.D.)— Tin:  Six  I  > ays  m  ( IBBATION.    Cr.  8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Lisco  (F.  G.)— PARABLES  Of  JESUS  EXPLAINED,     Pcap.  8vo,  5s. 
Lotze  (Hermann) — Microcc  concerning  Man  and  his 

\Vorl<l.    Seoond  Edition,  two  vols.  8 vo  (1450  pages),  86a. 
Lnthardt,  Kahnis,  and  Bruckner — Tin:  CHURCH.    Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Luthardt(Prof.)— ST.JniiNTiii-.ArTiini;,,!-  iiiiImm  i;th(;<.mti..  7s.6d. 

St.  . i. .iin's  Gospel  Described  and  Explained  accoumm; 

Three  ?ola.  Bvo,  81a.  6d. 

APOLOGETIC       I  N       THK       l'i\i'\ 

b    of  OsEitTLkirm 
Bditioin.    Thru  rola,  otowb  8vo,  6s.  ea«-li. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Macdonald — Introduction  to  Pentateuch.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Creation  and  Fall.     8vo,  12s. 

M'Lauchlan  (T.,  D.D.,  LL.D.)— The  Early  Scottish  Church.    To 

the  Middle  of  the  Twelfth  Century.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Mair  (A.,  D.D.) — Studies  in  the  Christian  Evidences.    Cr.  8vo,  6s. 
Martensen  (Bishop) — Christian  Dogmatics  :  A  Compendium  of  the 

Doctrines  of  Christianity.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

— i Christian  Ethics.     (General  Ethics.)     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Christian  Ethics.    (Individual  Ethics.)    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Christian  Ethics.     (Social  Ethics.)     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Matheson  (Geo.,  D.D.) — Growth  of  the  Spirit  of  Christianity,  from 

the  First  Century  to  the  Dawn  of  the  Lutheran  Era.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Aids  to  the  Study  of  German  Theology.   3rd  Edition,  4s.  6d. 

Meyer  (Dr.)  —  Critical  and    Exegetical   Commentary    on    St. 

Matthew's  Gospel.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  Mark  and  Luke.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  St.  John's  Gospel.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  Acts  of  the  Apostles.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  Corinthians.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  Galatians.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Ephesians  and  Philemon.    One  vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Philippians  and  Colossians.    One  vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

1  On  Thessalonians.     (Dr.  Liinemann.)    One  vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles.    (Dr.  Huther.)    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.   (Dr.  Liinemann.)   8vo,  10s.  6d. 

St.  James'  and  St.  John's  Epistles.    (Huther.)    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Peter  and  Jude.     (Dr.  Huther.)     One  vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Michie  (Charles,  M.A.) — Bible  Words  and  Phrases.     18mo,  Is. 
Monrad  (Dr.  D.  G-.) — The  World  of  Prayer.     Crown  8vo,  4s.  6d. 
Morgan  (J.,  D.D.) — Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  7s.  6d. 

Exposition  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Mtfller  (Dr.  Julius) — The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin.     An  entirely 

New  Translation  from  the  Fifth  German  Edition.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Murphy  (Professor) — Commentary  on  the  Psalms.    8vo,  1 2s. 

A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  Exodus.    9s. 

Naville  (Ernest) — The  Problem  of  Evil.    Crown  8vo,  4s.  6d. 

The  Christ.   Translated  by  Rev.  T.  J.  Despres.  Cr.8vo,4s.6d. 

Modern    Physics:    Studies    Historical    and    Philosophical. 

Translated  by  Rev.  Henry  Downton,  M.A.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Nicoll  (W.  K.,  M.A.) — The  Incarnate  Saviour:    A  Life  of  Jesus 

Christ.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Neander  (Dr.) — General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and 

Church.     Nine  vols.  8vo,  £3,  7s.  6d. 

Novalis— Hymns  and  Thoughts  on  Religion.     Crown  8vo,  4s. 
Oehler  (Prof.) — Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.    2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Oosterzee  (Dr.  Van) — The  Year  of  Salvation.      Words  of  Life  for 

Every  Day.     A  Book  of  Household  Devotion.     Two  vols.  8vo,  6s.  each. 

Moses  :  A  Biblical  Study.    Crown  8vo,  6  s. 

Olshausen  (Dr.  H.) — Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  and 

Acts.     Four  vols.  8vo,  £2,  2s.     Cheaper  Edition,  four  vols,  crown  8vo,  24s. 

Romans.     One  vol.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Olshausen  (Dr.  H.) — Cokintiiians.     One  vol.  8vo,  9s. 

Philippians,  Titus,  and  First  Timothy.  One  vol.  8 vo,  10s.  6d. 

Orelli — Old  Testament  Prophecy  regarding  the  Consummation 

Of  thk  Kingdom  qv  God.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Owen  (Dr.  John) — Works.     Best  and  only  Complete  Edition.     Edited 

by  Rev.  Dr.  Goold.     Twenty-four  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  £4,  4s. 
Tin-  '  Hebrew*'  may  be  had  separately,  in  Seven  vols.,  £2,  2s.  nett. 

Philippi  (F.  A. )— Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.   From 

the  Third  Improved  Edition,  by  Rev.  Professor  Banks.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Piper — Lives  of  Leaders  of  Church  Universal.  Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Popular  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.    Edited  by  Philip 

Schaff,  D.D.  With  Illustrations  and  Maps.  Vol.  I. — The  Synoptical 
-pels.     Vol.  II. — St.  John's  Gospel,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

Vol.  III.— Romans  to  Philemon.    Vol.  IV. — Hebrews  to  Revelation. 

In  Four  vols,  imperial  8vo,  12s.  6d.  each. 

Pressense*  (Edward  de) — The  Redeemer  :  Discourses.  Crown  8vo,  6s. 
Punjer   (Bernhard) — History  of  the  Christian  Philosophy  of 

(HON  FROM  THE  REFORMATION  TO  KANT.       8VO,  16s. 

Eabiger  (Prof.) — Encyclopaedia  of  Theology.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Bainy   (Principal)  —  Delivery  and   Development  of  Christian 

Doctrine.     (The  Fifth  Series  of  the  Cunningham  Lectures.)    8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Eeusch   (Prof.) — Nature  and  the  Bible:   Lectures  on  the  Mosaic 

tv  of  Creation  in  Relation  to  Natural  Science.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Reuss  (Professor) — History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New 

Testament.     640  pp.  8vo,  15s. 
Riehm  (Dr.  E.)— Messianic  Prophecy:  Its  Origin,  Historical  Charac- 
ter, and  Relation  to  New  Testament  Fulfilment.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Ritter  (Carl) — The  Comparative  Geography  of  Palestine  and  the 

Sinaitic  Peninsula.     Four  vols.  8vo,  26s. 

Robinson  (Rev.  S.,  D.D.) — Discourses  on  Redemption.  8vo,  7s.  6d. 
Robinson  (Edward,  D.D.) — Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  the 

Nk  8vo,  9s. 

Rothe  (Prof.) — Sermons  for  the  Christian  Year.    Cr.  8vo,  4s.  6d. 
Saisset — Mantal  of  Modern  Pantheism.    Two  vols.  8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Sartorius  (Dr.  E.) — Doctrine  of  Divine  Love.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Schaff  (Professor)— History  of  the   Christian  Church.     (New 

.  thoroughly  Revised  and  Enlarged.) 

Ai'omolic  Christianity,  a.d.  1-100.     2  vols.    Ex.  8vo,  2ls. 

A  -i:  CHRIS!  i amtv.a.d.'100-325.  2  vols.  Ex.  8vo,  21s. 

P(  i  Christianity, A.D.  325-600.  2  vols.  Ex.  8vo,  2is. 

liSDLEVAL  CHRI8TIANIT1  '0-1073.    2vols.    Ex.8vo.21s. 

(Completion  of  this  Period,  1  <  >7."»-l  f»  1 7,  in  pr<  juration). 

Modern  Christianity,  a.d.  1617  1530.    2  vols.   Ex.8vo,2is. 

'I'm:  Teaching  oi  the  Twelve  Apostles.    The  Didachd 


and  Kindred  Doeuntnti  in  the  original.    Beoond  Edition,  ex.  8vo,  9s. 
Schmid's  BlBLlGAI  Tnr.oLOGY  OF  THE  N  IW  Tkstament.     8v.>.  L< 

Schiirer  (Prof.)— History  (»i-  iiii.  N  iMES.     Kt.  II. 

•  vol*.  8to.  81- 

Scott  (Jas.,  M.A.,  D.D.)— Principles  of  New  Test  ami  m  Quotation 

Establibhei-  .  8vo,  2nd  Edit,  4s. 

Shedd— lh>T"i:Y  nr  Ohrutlui  Doctrine.    Two  vols.  8 vo,  2 Is. 

Sermons  to  the  Natural  Man.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Sermons  to  the  Spiritual  Man.    8vo,  7s.  I 

Simon  (Rev.  Prof.  D.  W.)— Tin:  BlBLE;  An  Outgrowth  of  Theocratic 
Crown  8vo,  4n.  (Jd. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Smeaton  (Professor) — The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement  as  Taught 

by  Christ  Himself.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6<L 

On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     8vo,  9s. 

Smith  (Professor  Thos.,  D.D.) — Mediaeval  Missions.    Cr.  8vo,  4s.  6d. 
Stalker  (Eev.  Jas.,  M.A.) — The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.    New  Edition, 

in  larger  Type.     Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Life  of  St.  Paul.     Large  Type  Edition.     Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Stanton  (V.  H.,  M.A.). — The  Jewish  and  The  Christian  Messiah. 

A  Study  in  the  Earliest  History  of  Christianity.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Steinmeyer  (Dr.  F.  L.) — The  Miracles  of  Our  Lord  :  Examined  in 

their  relation  to  Modern  Criticism.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

The  History  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  of  our 

Lord,  considered  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Criticism.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Stevenson  (Mrs.) — The  Symbolic  Parables  :  The  Predictions  of  the 

Apocalypse  in  relation  to  the  General  Truths  of  Scripture.     Cr.  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Steward  (Rev.  G.) — Mediatorial  Sovereignty  :  The  Mystery  of  Christ 

and  the  Revelation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Argument  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  8vo,  10s. 6d. 

Stier  (Dr.  Rudolph) — On  the  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.    Eight 

vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price  of  £2,  2s.     Separate  volumes,  price  10s.  6d. 

The  Words  of  the  Eisen  Saviour,  and  Commentary  on 

the  Epistle  of  St.  James.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Words  of  the  Apostles  Expounded.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 


Tholuck  (Prof.) — The  Epistle  to  the  Komans.  Two  vols.  fcap.  8vo,  8s. 

Light  from  the  Cross.     Third  Edition,  crown  8vo,  5s. 

Tophel  (Pastor  G.) — The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    Cr.  8vo,  2s.  6d. 
TJhlhorn(G.) — Christian  Charity  in  the  Ancient  Church.  Cr.  8vo,  6s. 
Ullmann  (Dr.  Carl) — Reformers  before  the  Reformation,  princi- 
pally in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Sinlessness  of  Jesus  :   An  Evidence  for  Christianity. 

Fourth  Edition,  crown  8vo,  6s. 

Urwick  (W.,  M.A.) — The  Servant  of  Jehovah  :  A  Commentary 

upon  Isaiah  lii.  13-liii.  12;  with  Dissertations  upon  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.     8vo,  6s. 

Vinet  (Professor)— Studies  on  Blaise  Pascal.    Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Pastoral  Theology.    Second  Edition,  post  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Walker  (J.,  D.D.) — Theology   and  Theologians    of    Scotland. 

New  Edition,  crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Watts  (Professor)— The  Newer  Criticism  and  the  Analogy  of 

the  Faith.     Third  Edition,  crown  8vo,  5s. 

The  Reign  of  Causality  :  A  Vindication  of  the  Scientific 

Principle  of  Telic  Causal  Efficiency.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

Weiss  (Prof.)— Biblical  Theology  of  New  Testament.  2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Life  of  Christ.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

White  (Rev.  M.) — Symbolical  Numbers  of  Scripture.    Cr.  8vo,  4s. 

Williams — Select  Vocabulary  of  Latin  Etymology.  Fcap.  8vo,  is.  6d. 

Winer  (Dr.  G.  B.)— A  Treatise  on  the  Grammar  of  New  Testa- 
ment Greek,  regarded  as  the  Basis  of  New  Testament  Exegesis.  Third 
Edition,  edited  by  W.  F.  Motjlton,  D.D.    Ninth  English  Edition,  8vo,  15s. 

The  Doctrines  and  Confessions  of  Christendom.  8vo,ios.6d. 

Witherow(Prof .  T.  ,D.  D. ) — The  Form  of  the  Christian  Temple.  8vo,io/6. 

Workman  (Prof.  G-.  C.)— The  Text  of  Jeremiah;  or,  A  Critical  Investi- 
gation of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  with  the  Variations  in  the  LXX  Retrans- 
lated into  the  Original,  and  Explained.     Post  8vo,  9s. 

Wright  (C.  H.,  D.D.)— Biblical  Essays.    Crown  8vo,  5s. 
Wuttke  (Professor) — Christian  Ethics.    Two  vols.  8vo,  12s.  6d. 


ISHliii 


■ 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


H^SS 

A 

6339 
v.2