Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke"

See other formats
















[The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved! 

|ntcrnatipnal Critical Cnmmcntarg 

on tljc |)q[j) Scriptures of tfre #lft anb 
jfoto Ctstamcnts. 



Professor SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. 


The International Critical Commentary 









First Edition 

. 1896 

Second Edition . 

. 1898 

Third Edition . 

. 1900 

Fourth Edition . 

. 1901 

Fifth Edition 

. 1922 

Seventh Impression i960 


This volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a 
final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. 
The day is probably still far distant when any such com- 
mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which 
the present commentator has had to contend is the im- 
possibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly 
appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and 
this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds 
in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands 
of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every 
month, brings its list of new books, some of which the 
writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words 
were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to 
increase, one's difficulties : it is waiting dum dejluat amnis. 
Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be 
fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published. 
And these notes are now offered to those who care to use 
them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply 
as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the 
inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of 
those things which it is intended to convey to us. They 
will have done their work if they help someone who is far 
better equipped entirely to supersede them. 

The writer of this volume is well aware of some of 
its shortcomings. There are omissions which have been 
knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate 

reasons, (i) This series is to include a Commentary on 
a i 


(he Synopsis of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, 
Lady Margaret l'rofessor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis- 
tinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C. Allen, Fellow and Lecturer 
of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards 
the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second, 
which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed 
over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will 
be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to com- 
ment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to 
be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been 
thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to 
any one book in the New Testament : and therefore sub- 
jects, which might with propriety be discussed at some 
length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of 
necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely un- 
touched. Indeed, ^ editor of those New Testament 
volumes which are written by British scholars, the present 
writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what 
he had written as contributor to this series. And it has 
been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic 
summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the 
commentary on Romans, have been altogethei omitted, as 
being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on 
one of the Synoptic Gospels. For the same reason separate 
headings to sections and to special notes have been used 
very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate head- 
ings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the 
first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading. 

The fact of the same person being both contributor 
and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced short- 
comings of another kind. Two heads are better than one, 
and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional 
and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and 


questionable or erroneous statements might have been 
amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another's 
supervision. Even in the humble but important work of 


detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is 
great. Only those who have had the experience know how 
easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again 
and again. 

If this commentary has any special features, they will 
perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish 
writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint 
and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in 
the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions, 
and in the attention which has been paid, both in the 
Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S. 
Luke's style. 

The illustrations from Jewish writings have been sup- 
plied, not because the writer has made any special study 
of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the 
pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish 
Christians are now among the most promising helps 
towards understanding the New Testament ; and because 
these writings have of late years become much more 
accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions 
of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psalms of 
Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the 
Fourth Book of Ezra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr. 
James. 1 

A very eminent scholar has said that the best com- 
mentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance; 
and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that 
the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate. 
There is truth in both these sayings : and, with regard to 
the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, d 
fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions 
which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has 

1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schiirer, Hist, of the 
fewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. iii. ; 
W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wiinsche, 
Die judische Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, Trier : Part III. has just 

It preface to the first edition 

been made to render those who use this commentary to a 
large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some 
extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate 
now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr. 
White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous 
references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testa- 
ment, and other writings. The large majority of them 
have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of 
excluding error in such things is so great that the writer 
cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is 
possible that a few references have accidentally escaped 
verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted 
without it, because the reference seemed to be of value, 
the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy. 

Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a 
study of S. Luke's style as a matter of great interest and 
importance ; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it 
there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it 
tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel. 
It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the 
Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from 
his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving 
tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer 
of these two books was Luke the beloved physician. 

Dogma in the polemical sense is excluded from the plan 
of these commentaries. It is not the business of the com- 
mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the 
historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com- 
mentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty 
of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the 
writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This 
is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells 
us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the 
historical basis of the Christian faith (i. 1-4). The 
Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other 
Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully 


investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history 
of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet 
of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming 
of the Christ (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im- 
mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iii. 23, 
iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur- 
rection he then narrates in detail. On all these points 
the student is again and again met by the question, What 
does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this 
or that word or sentence there may often be room for 
discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole 
there is no doubt. If we ask what were "the things 
wherein" Theophilus "was instructed" and of "the 
certainty" concerning which he is assured, the answer is 
not difficult. We may take the Old Roman Creed as a 
convenient summary of it. 

rUoreuw els ©eoc imTepa iran-OKpaTopa (i. 37, iii. 8, xi. 2—4, 
xii. 32, etc.). Kal 61$ Xpicnbv 'ItjctoOc, ulbv auTou Toy fio^oye^ 
(i. 31, ii. 21, 49, ix. 35, x. 21, 22, xxii. 29, 70, xxiii. [23] 46: 
comp. iv. 41, viii. 28), -roe Ku'piof rjuwf (i. 43, ii. 11, vii. 13, x. 1, 
xi. 39, xii. 42, xvii. 5, 6, xix. 8, 31, xxii. 61, xxiv. 3, 34) t6k 

yevvrjOcWa eic ir^eofxaTOS dyiou Kal Mapias tyjs TrapOeVou (i.3 1— 35, 43, 
ii. 6, 7), TOf eirt riocTiou rkXdrou oraupcoGeVTa kcu Ta<j>eVTa (xxii., 
xxiii.), tt) TpiTt] 'np.e'pa. dmo-rdfTa e*K vtKpuv (xxiv. I-49), dmPdrra 
eiS tous oupaeous (xxiv. 50-53), Ka0rjp.€koe iv oe£ia tou Trarpds 
(xxii. 69), oBev ?px€tcu Kpicai £wrras Kal yeKpous (comp. ix. 26, 
xii. 35-48, xviii. 8). Kal cis weuaa ayioi/ (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 26, 
iv. I, 14, xi. 13, xii. IO, I2) # dyi'ai' iKK\y]<jiaw (comp. i. 74, 75, 
ix. 1-6, x. 1-16, xxiv. 49)* afaaiv daapTiwc (i. 77, iii. 3, xxiv. 47)' 
o-apKos dfdffTao-ii' (xiv. 14, XX. 27-40). 

The Evangelist's own convictions on most of these 
points are manifest ; and we need not doubt that they 
include the principal things in which Theophilus had been 
instructed, and which the writer of the Gospel solemnly 
affirms to be well established. Whether in our eyes they 


are well established depends upon the estimate which we 
form of his testimony. Is he a truth-loving and competent 
witness? Does the picture which he draws agree with 
what can be known from other authorities ? Could he or 
his informants have invented the words and works which 
he attributes to Jesus Christ? A patient and fair student 
of the Third Gospel will not be at a loss for an answer. 


University College, Durham, 
Feast of S. Luke, /<?<?&, 


The correction of many misprints and other small errors 
has been greatly facilitated by the generous help of several 
correspondents, and by the invaluable Concordance to the 
Greek Testament, according to the texts of WH., Tischen- 
dorf, and R.V., by Moulton and Geden, an indispensable 
aid, which had not been published when the first edition 
of this volume appeared. But to no one is the writer more 
indebted than to the Rev. John Richard Pullan, who has 
bestowed upon the work of a stranger an amount of 
attention which one would not venture to solicit from 
an old friend. 

This edition has also been improved by many small 
insertions, chiefly of references to books, which have either 
appeared, or have come to the writer's knowledge, since 
the first edition was published. First amongst these in 


importance is vol. i. of the new Dictionary of the Bible, 
edited by Dr. Hastings, which should be in the hands of 
every Biblical student. Three articles in particular may 
be mentioned, both on account of their excellence, and also 
of their helpfulness to the student of the Third Gospel : 
these are the articles on " Angels " (for this Gospel might 
be called the Gospel of the Angels, so often does it mention 
these glorious beings) ; on the " Chronology of the New 
Testament " ; and on the " Acts of the Apostles." To this 
must be added the new edition of A. S. Lewis' trans- 
lation of the Sinaitic Syriac Palimpsest ; the editions of 
The Assumption of Moses and The Apocalypse of Baruch, 
by R. H. Charles ; and of The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, 
by Morfill and Charles ; Das Kindheitscvangelium, by 
A. Resch ; Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien, by G. A. 
Deissmann, both of which contain valuable illustrations 
of Biblical Greek from papyri; Grammatik des NT. 
Griechisch, by F. Blass ; and the instructive but eccentric 
Historical Greek Grammar, by A. N. Jannaris. The inter- 
esting work on the Philology of the Gospels, by F. Blass, 
is chiefly occupied with the Gospel of S. Luke, and should 
be read side by side with the sections of the Introduction 
to this volume which treat of the same topics. The writer 
has only to add, that nothing which he has read since 
he wrote the Introduction has shaken his convictions as 
to the authorship, date, or integrity of this Gospel. 

A. P. 

University College, Durham^ 
Whitsuntide, i8<& 


This edition is marked by the correction of some errcrs 
that had escaped notice, and by the addition of numerous 
references and short notes. Since the second edition 
was published, three volumes have appeared which the 
student of the Third Gospel cannot afford to neglect. 
These are the Horae Synopticae of the Rev. Sir John C. 
Hawkins, The Gospel according to S. Luke in Greek, edited 
by the Rev. Arthur Wright, and vol. ii. of the Dictionary 
of the Bible, edited by Dr. Hastings. In the last of these, 
the article on "Jesus Christ" is a masterpiece of critical 
acumen and lucidity combined with reverential treatment. 
The present writer desires to express his obligations to all 
three volumes. Mr. Wright suggests in his preface that 
his own work should be used in conjunction with this 
commentary ; and those who use the commentary will 
certainly profit greatly if they follow his suggestion. 

A. P. 

University College, Durham-. 
Whitsuntide, /t 





)DUCTION . .... 




The Author ....... 


was the Author of the Acts , 


a Companion of S. Paul . . 


S. Luke .... 




S. Luke the Evangelist 

, xviii 



The Sources of the Gospel .... 

. xxiii 

No Ebionite Source ... 

. XXV 

Supposed Dislike of Duplicates . 




Time and Place 

, xxix 



Object and Plan ....... 


Analysis of the Gospel 




Characteristics, Style, and Language 


The Gospel of S. Paul .... 


of Prayer 

, xlv 

of Praise . . 

, xlvi 

literary, historic, domestic . 


S. Luke's Command of Greek , 


Expressions peculiar to S. Luke . 


to him and S. Paul 


to both with Hebrews 


to S. Luke with Hebrews . . , 


Expressions frequent in S. Luke . 


possibly medical 


His Diction compared with that of S. Matthew 

and S. Mark . . . 




The Integrity of the Gospel 




The Text 




Literary History , 


Clement of Rome 

, lxxiv 

The Didachd 


Gospel of Peter 


Testaments of XII. Patriarchs . . . 




§ 10. Commentaries .... 

Abbreviations • • 


Special Notes 

On the use of fyevero ... 

The Decree of Augustus 

The fifteenth ycai of Tiberius 

The Genealogy .... 

Demoniacal Possession . 

The Miraculous Draught of Fishes 

The title "Son of Man" 

The word SevTepoTrp&TCj) . . . 

The Sermon eir) ronov ntSivov . 

Christ's Raising the Dead 

The Journeyings towards Jerusalem 

The word dvd\r]p\j/is 

The Mission of the Seventy . 

The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the O.T 

The Blind Man at Jericho 

The Parable of the Pounds . 

The Question about Psalm ex. 

The Apocalypse of Jesus 

Readings in Chapters xxii. and xxiii. 

The Narratives of the Resurrection 

Western Non-interpolations . 

Interpolations in the Sinaitic Syriac 


I. General .... 
II. Writers and Writings 

III. Greek Words . 

IV. English and Latin Words 




















As in the case of the other Gospels, the author is not named in 
the book itself. But two things may be regarded as practically 
certain, and a third as highly probable in itself and much more 
probable than any other hypothesis, (i.) The author of the Third 
Gospel is the author of the Acts, (ii.) The author of the Acts 
was a companion of S. Paul, (iii.) This companion was S. Luke. 

(i.) The Author of the Third Gospel is the Author of the Acts. 

This position is so generally admitted by critics of all schools 
that not much time need be spent in discussing it. Both books 
are dedicated to Theophilus. The later book refers to the former. 
The language and style and arrangement of the two books are so 
similar, and this similarity is found to exist in such a multitude of 
details (many of which are very minute), that the hypothesis of 
careful imitation by a different writer is absolutely excluded. The 
idea of minute literary analysis with a view to discover peculiarities 
and preferences in language was an idea foreign to the writers of 
the first two centuries ; and no known writer of that age gives 
evidence of the immense skill which would be necessary in order 
to employ the results of such an analysis for the production of an 
elaborate imitation. To suppose that the author of the Acts 
carefully imitated the Third Gospel, in order that his work might 
be attributed to the Evangelist, or that the Evangelist carefully 
imitated the Acts, in order that his Gospel might be attributed to 
the author of the Acts, is to postulate a literary miracle. Such an 
idea would not have occurred to any one ; and if it had, he would 
not have been able to execute it with such triumphant success 
as is conspicuous here. Any one who will underline in a few 
chapters of the Third Gospel the phrases, words, and constructions 
which are specially frequent in the book, and then underline the 


same phrases, words, and constructions wherever they occur in the 
Acts, will soon have a strong conviction respecting the identity of 
authorship. The converse process will lead to a similar result. 
Moreover, the expressions which can be marked in this way by no 
means exhaust the points of similarity between the two books. 
There are parallels of description ; e.g. about angelic appearances 
(comp. Lk. i. n with Acts xii. 7 ; Lk. i. 38 with Acts i. n and 
x. 7 ; Lk. ii. 9 and xxiv. 4 with Acts i. 10 and x. 30); and about 
other matters (comp. Lk. i. 39 with Acts i. 15; Lk. ii. 39 with 
Acts xiii. 29 ; Lk. iii. 8 with Acts xxvi. 20 ; Lk. xx. 1 with Acts 
iv. 1; Lk. xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34; Lk. xxi. 35 with Acts 
xvii. 26; Lk. xxiii. 2 with Acts xxiv. 2-5 ; Lk. xxiii. 5 with Acts 
x. 37; Lk. xxiv. 27 with Acts viii. 35). l And there are parallels 
of arrangement. The main portion of the Gospel has three marked 
divisions : The Ministry in Galilee (iii. i-ix. 50), between Galilee 
and Jerusalem (ix. 51-xix. 28), and in Jerusalem (xix. 29-xxiv. 11). 
And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions : 
Hebraic (ii.-v.), Transitional (vi.— xii.), and Gentile (xiii.-xxviii.). 
In the one case the movement is from Galilee through Samaria, 
etc. to Jerusalem : in the other from Jerusalem through Samaria, 
etc. to Rome. And in both cases there is an introduction con- 
necting the main narrative with what precedes. 

(ii.) The Author of Acts was a Companion of S. Paul. 

A full discussion of this statement belongs to the commentary 
on the Acts rather than to the present volume : but the main 
points in the evidence must be noted here. It is perhaps no 
exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more 
certain than this statement. 

There are the " we " sections in which the writer uses the first 
person plural in describing journeys of S. Paul. This " we " is 
found in Codex Bezae as early as xi. 2S at Antioch, and may 
represent a true tradition without being the original reading. 2 
It appears certainly xvi. 10 at Troas 3 and continues to Philippi 
(xvi. 17). 4 Several years later it reappears at Philippi (xx. 5) 5 and 
continues to Jerusalem (xxi. 18). 6 Finally, it reappears at the 
departure for Italy (xxvii. i) 7 and continues to Rome (xxviii. 16). 8 

1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte IVerke 
desselben Ver/assers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is 
somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a 
whole stands ; hut the statistics on which it is based are often not exact. 

2 For dvacrras 5t els ^ avrQiv D has cvveaT pafx^vuiv 5£ t)ixuiv l(pT) els 4% 
airrCov, revertentibus antem nobis ait units ex ipsis. This reading is also found 
in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 57 [xvii.]). 

' 4i"riT^i(Tafj.€v e"£e\0eiv. * yfuy ^Kpafev. s tfievov rjuas. 

• da-get 6 IlaOXo* <ri>v rj/jiiv. 7 toO airoirKetv T)/uaj. • eler^Xda/J-ey eh 'P&ftvr 

§1.] THE AUTHOR xiil 

The "we" necessarily implies companionship, and may possibly 
represent a diary kept at the time. That the " we " sections are 
by the same hand as the rest of the book is shown by the simple 
and natural way in which they fit into the narrative, by the refer- 
ences in them to other parts of the narrative, and by the marked 
identity of style. The expressions which are so characteristic of 
this writer run right through the whole book. They are as 
frequent inside as outside the " we " sections, and no change of 
style can be noted between them and the rest of the treatise. 
The change of person is intelligible and truthlike, distinguishing 
the times when the writer was with the Apostle from the times 
when he was not : but there is otherwise no change of language. 
To these points must be added the fact that the author of the 
Acts is evidently a person of considerable literary powers, and the 
probability that a companion of S. Paul who possessed such 
powers would employ them in producing such a narrative as the 
Acts. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 29. 

(iii.) The Companion of S. Paid ivho wrote the Acts and the 
Third Gospel ivas S. Luke. 

Of the companions of S. Paul whose names are known to us 
no one is so probable as S. Luke; and the voice of the first eight 
centuries pronounces strongly for him and for no one else as the 
author of these two writings. 

If antiquity were silent on the subject, no more reasonable 
conjecture could be made than " Luke the beloved physician." 
He fulfils the conditions. Luke was the Apostle's companion 
during both the Koman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 
2 Tim. iv. n), and may well have been his companion at other 
times. That he is not mentioned in the earlier groups of Epistles 
is no objection ; for none of them coincide with the " we " sections 
in the Acts. Moreover, the argument from medical language, 
although sometimes exaggerated, is solid and helpful. Both in 
the Acts and in the Third Gospel there are expressions which are 
distinctly medical ; and there is also a good deal of language 
which is perhaps more common in medical writers than elsewhere. 
This feature does not amount to proof that the author was a 
physician ; still less can it prove that, if the author was a physician, 
he must have been Luke. The Apostle might have had another 
medical companion besides the beloved physician. But, seeing 
that there is abundance of evidence that Luke was the writer of 
these two documents, the medical colour which is discernible here 
and there in the language of each of them is a valuable con- 
firmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both tc 


For the voice of antiquity is not silent on the subject ; and we 
are not left to conjecture. There is no need to argue whether 
Timothy, or Titus, or Silas, or some unnamed companion of the 
Apostle is more likely than S. Luke to have written these two 
books. The evidence, which is both abundant and strong, is 
wholly in favour of Luke. Until we reach the blundering state- 
ment in Photius near the end of the ninth century, there is no 
hint that any one ever thought of any person but Luke as the 
author of either treatise. Photius has this statement : " Some 
say that the writer of the Acts was Clement of Rome, others 
Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist ; but Luke 
himself decides the question, for at the beginning of his preface 
he mentions that another treatise containing the acts of the Lord 
had been composed by him" {Amphil. Qu. 123). Here he seems 
to be transferring to the Acts conjectures which had been made 
respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. But at any rate the 
statement shows that the Third Gospel was regarded as un- 
questionably by Luke. 

The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now com- 
monly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held to 
stultify himself. But is not the external evidence for the Lucan 
authorship of the Third Gospel and the Acts equally strong? If 
these are not named by any writer earlier than Irenreus, neither are 
those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respect- 
ing the Third Gospel and the Acts is even more intelligible than 
their silence respecting Galatians and Romans, because the two 
former, being addressed to Theophilus, were in the first instance 
of the nature of private writings, and because, as regards the 
Gospel narrative, the oral tradition still sufficed. But from 
Irenaeus onwards the evidence in all these cases is full and 
unwavering, and it comes from all quarters of the Christian 
world. And in considering this third point, the first point must 
be kept steadily in view, viz. the certainty that the Third Gospel 
and the Acts were written by one and the same person. Con- 
sequently all the evidence for either book singly is available for 
the other book. Every writer who attributes the Third Gospel 
to Luke thereby attributes the Acts to Luke and vice versa, 
whether he know anything about the second book or not. Thus 
in favour of Luke as the author of the Third Gospel we have 
three classes of witnesses viz. those who state that Luke wrote 
the Third Gospel, those who state that Luke wrote the Acts, and 
those who state that he wrote both treatises. Their combined 
testimony is very strong indeed ; and there is nothing against it. 
At the opening of his commentary on the Acts, Chrysostom says 
that many in his day were ignorant of the authorship and even of 
the existence of the book (Migne, Ix. 13). But that statement 

§ 1.] THE AUTHOR x\ 

creates no difficulty. Many could be found at the present day, 
even among educated Christians, who could not name the author 
of the Acts. And we have seen that the late and confused state 
mcnt in Photius, whatever it may mean respecting the Acts, 
testifies to the universal conviction that the Third Gospel was 
written by Luke. 

But we obtain a very imperfect idea of the early evidence in 
favour of the Third Gospel when we content ourselves with the 
statement that it is not attributed to Luke by any one before 
Iren?eus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little 
earlier than the work of Irenaeus, but is probably a little later. 
We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel 
previous to Irenaeus; and also the manner in which he himself 
and those who immediately follow him speak of it as the work of 
S. Luke. 

That Justin Martyr used the Third Gospel (or an authority 
which was practically identical with it) cannot be doubted. He 
gives a variety of particulars which are found in that Gospel 
alone ; e.g. Elizabeth as the mother of the Baptist, the sending of 
Gabriel to Mary, the census under Quirinius, there being no room 
in the inn, His ministry beginning when Jesus was thirty years 
old, His being sent by Pilate to Herod, His last cry, " Father, into 
Thy hands I commend My spirit " (i Apol. xxxiv. ; Try. lxxviii., 
lxxxviii., c, ciii., cv., cvi.). Moreover, Justin uses expressions 
respecting the Agony, the Resurrection, and the Ascension which 
show that the Third Gospel is in his mind. 

That his pupil Tatian possessed this Gospel is proved by the 
Diatessaron. See Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. 3 ff. 

Celsus also knew the Third Gospel, for he knew that one of 
the genealogies made Jesus to be descended from the first man 
(Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 32). 

The Clementine Homilies contain similarities which are pro- 
ably allusions (iii. 63, 65, xi. 20, 23, xvii. 5, xviii. 16, xix. 2). 

The Third Gospel was known to Basilides and Valentinus, and 
was commented upon by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, 
p. 596, ed. Potter). 

Marcion adopted this Gospel as the basis for what he called 
the " Gospel of the Lord " or " Gospel of Christ." He omitted a 
good deal as being inconsistent with his own teaching, but he 
does not appear to have added anything. 1 See § 7 ; also Wsctt., 
Int. to Gospels, App. D ; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 

In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the 
Churches in Asia there is a quotation of Lk. i. 6 (Eus. H.E. v. 1. 9). 

1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo d 
What is known of Marcion. 


These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice 
as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It re- 
mains to notice the way in which Irenaeus and his later contem- 
poraries speak of the book. Irenams, who represents the traditions 
of Asia Minor and Rome and Gaul in the second half of the 
second century, quotes it many times and quotes from nearly every 
chapter, especially from those which are wholly or in the main 
peculiar to this Gospel, e.g. i., ii., ix.-xix., xxiv. In a very remark- 
able passage he collects together many of the things which this 
Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke : " Now 
if any one reject Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will 
manifestly be casting out the Gospel of which he claims to be a 
disciple. For very many and specially necessary elements of the 
Gospel we know through him, as the generation of John, the 
history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary," etc. etc. 
(iii. 14. 3. Comp. iii. 10. 1, 22. 4, 12. 12, 14. 4, etc.). It will be 
observed that he does not contemplate the possibility of any one 
denying that Luke was the author. Those who may reject it will 
do so as thinking that Luke's authority is inadequate; but the 
authorship is unquestioned. 

Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 190-202) had had teachers from 
Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Palestine, and had received the tradition 
handed down from father to son from the Apostles (Strom, i. 1, 
p. 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and 
from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. 
i. 21, p. 407, ed. Potter). 

Tertulhan (a.d. 190-220) speaks for the African Church. He 
not only quotes the Gospel frequently in his other works, but in 
his treatise against Marcion he works through the Gospel from 
ch. iv. to the end, often calling it Luke's. 

The Muratorian Fragment (a.d. 170-200) perhaps represents 
Rome. The first line of the mutilated Catalogue probably refers 
to S. Mark ; but the next seven unquestionably refer to S. Luke, 
who is twice mentioned and is spoken of as medicus. (See Lft. on 
Supernatural Religion, p. 189.) 

It would be waste of time to cite more evidence. It is mani- 
fest that in all parts of the Christian world the Third Gospel had 
been recognized as authoritative before the middle of the second 
century, and that it was universally believed to be the work of 
S. Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on the point. The possibility 
of questioning its value is mentioned ; but not of questioning its 
authorship. In the literature of that period it would not be easy 
to find a stronger case. The authorship of the four great Epistles 
of S. Paul is scarcely more certain. In all these cases, as soon as 
we have sufficient material for arriving at a conclusion, the evidence 
is found to be all on one side and tu be decisive. And exactly 

§1.J THE AUTHOR xvii 

the same result is obtained when the question is examined as to 
the authorship of the Acts, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (art. 
" Acts " in D.B?). Both the direct and the indirect argument for 
the Lucan authorship is very strong. 

With this large body of historical evidence in favour of S. Luke 
before us, confirmed as it is by the medical expressions in both 
books, it is idle to search for another companion of S. Paul who 
might have been the author. Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, 
Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded by 
Acts xx. 4, 5. And it is not easy to make Silas fit into the " we " 
sections. Titus is possible : he can be included in the " we " and 
the " us " without contradiction or difficulty. But what is gained 
by this suggestion ? Is a solution which is supported by no evi- 
dence to be preferred to an intrinsically more probable solution, 
which is supported by a great deal of evidence, and by evidence 
which is as early as we can reasonably expect ? 

Those who neglect this evidence are bound to explain its 
existence. Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, to say nothing of 
other authorities, treat the Lucan authorship as a certainty. So far 
as their knowledge extends, Luke is everywhere regarded as the 
writer. How did this belief grow up and spread, if it was not 
true? There is nothing in either treatise to suggest Luke, and he 
is not prominent enough in Scripture to make him universally 
acceptable as a conjecture. Those who wanted apostolic authority 
for their own views would have made their views more conspicuous 
in these books, and would have assigned the books to a person of 
higher position and influence than the beloved physician, e.g. to 
Timothy or Titus, if not to an Apostle. As Renan says, " There 
is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the 
author of the Gospel which bears his name. Luke was not yet 
sufficiently famous for any one^ to make use of his name, to give 
authority to a book" (Les Evangiles, ch. xiii. p. 252, Eng. tr. 
p. 132). "The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a 
work . . . was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. 
But to place at the head of a document a false name and an 
obscure one withal, that is inconceivable. . . . Luke had no place 
in tradition, in legend, in history " (Les Apotres, p. xvii., Eng. tr. 
p. n). 1 See Ramsay in the Expositor, Jan. 1898. 

1 Even Jiilicher still talks of " the silence of Papias" as an objection {Einl. 
in das N.T. §27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work 
only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in 
the much larger portions which have perished ? The probabilities, in the 
absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite 
without evidence. In the " Hexaemeron" of Anaslasius of Sinai is a passage in 
which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Lk. x. iS is 
quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed 
from Papias. Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. llilgenfeld thinks 



The name Lucas is probably an abbreviation of Lucanus, but 
possibly of Lucilius, or Lucius, or Lucianus. There is, however, 
no proof that Lucanus was shortened into Lucas. 1 Nevertheless 
some of the oldest Latin MSS. (e.g. Corbeiensis and Vercelletisis) 
have secundum Lucanum as the title of the Third Gospel. Lucas, 
like Apollos, Artemas, Demas, Hermas, and Nymphas, is a form 
not found in classical literature, whereas Lucanus is common in 
inscriptions. Lobeck has noticed that these contracted proper 
names in -us are common in the case of slaves (Patholog. Pro/eg. 
p. 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may 
have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Caesar, 
and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen. 

That Lucas= Lucanus is probable. 3 But that Lucanus =Silvanus, because 
Incus = silva, and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van 
Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. Equally grotesque is the 
idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 4, 6), because dpia- 
rmjeiv = hicere (Lange). 

Only in three places is Lk. named in Scripture ; and it is worth 
noting that in all three of them the other Evangelist who is not an 
Apostle is named with him (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
iv. 11). These passages tell us that "the physician, the beloved 
one " (6 iarpos 6 uyu7r77To's), 3 was with S. Paul during the first 
Roman imprisonment, when the Epistles to the Colossians and to 
Philemon were written, and also during the second imprisonment, 
when 2 Timothy was written. Besides telling us that Luke was a 
physician very dear to the Apostle, they also tell us that he was his 
"fellow-worker" in spreading the Gospel. But apparently he was 
not his "fellow-prisoner." In Col. iv. 10 Aristarchus is called 
aweux/Aa/Wros, and in Philem 23 Epaphras is called such ; but Lk. 
in neither place. 

Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke is 

that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface 
to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (Intr. p. 90, ed. 5). 

1 The argument from the Greek form (that Aevnavos, not AouKav6$, is the 
equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about a.d. 50 forms in Aowc- 
begin to take the place of forms in Aew-. 

2 Comp. Annas for Ananus ; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts 
xviii. 24); Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit. iii. 12; Mart. v. 40); Cleopas for 
Cleopatros ; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for 
Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus. 
For other examples see Win. xvi. 5, p. 127 ; Lit. on Col. iv. 15 ; Chandler, 
Grk. Accent. § 34. 

8 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evan- 
gelist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible as the human 
body ( Texte und Unters. viii. 4, p. 40) 


separated from "those of the circumcision," and therefore was a 
Gentile Christian. 1 Hofmann, Tiele. and Wittichen have not suc- 
ceeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not 
necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before 
he was a Christian must remain uncertain : his knowledge of 
Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he 
was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the 
only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin ; and, with 
the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos, 
he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who 
had had scientific training. 

If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius, 
who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). This 
Lucius was Paul's kinsman, and therefore a Jew. The identifica- 
tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1) is less impossible. 
But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas 
was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In A post. Const. 
vi. 18. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden- 
tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22). 
Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which 
seems to have been adopted by those who made Lk. x. 1-7 the 
Gospel for S. Luke's Day. The tradition probably is based solely 
on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy 
(Epiph. Haer. ii. 51. n, Migne, xli. 908). The same reason is fatal 
to Theophylact's attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that 
Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to 
Emmaus (xxiv. 13), who was doubtless a Jew {vv. 27, 32). The 
conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied 
to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion 
(Jn. xii. 20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is 
without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses 
it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, 
separates himself from those " who from the beginning were eye- 
witnesses and ministers of the word " (i. 2). The Seventy, these 
Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and 
Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this 
objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness 
from the beginning, although at the end of Christ's ministry he 
became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be 
believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best 

1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus 
Justus) are doubly bracketed together : (1) as of 6Vres £k ireptTOfj.fjs, (2) as fihvoi 
avvepyol els T7]t> pa<n\ela.i> tov Qeou, i.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who 
loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not 
bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is o-vvaixfJ-dXorros, and Mark, 
Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are ol crwepyol fj.ov, while Justus is not men- 


authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion, 
would he not have let us know this ? Why did he not use the first 
person, as in the " we " sections in the Acts ? He belongs to the 
second generation of Christians, not to the first. 

It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for 
S. Luke's Day are right in identifying " the brother whose praise 
in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches" (2 Cor. viii. 18) 
with S. Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed 
brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke 
is a reasonable conjecture. 

The attempt to show that the writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts is a 
Jew is a failure ; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below 
(§ 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles. 

Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the 
preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which 
tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the " we " sections. The first 
of these (Acts xvi. 10-17) te ^ s us that during the second missionary 
journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (a.d. 51 or 
52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time 
when his distressing malady (2 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia, 
and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 13-15). 
Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation 
of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to 
the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him "the physician, the 
beloved one," the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some 
other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned 
his gratitude. The second section (xx. 5-xxi. 18) tells us that about 
six years later (a.d. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke 
was again at Philippi * with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem 
to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. 1- 
xxviii. 16) shows that he was with him during the voyage and 
shipwreck until the arrival in Rome. 

With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge 
of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his 
magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2) S. Paul. 
That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly 
doubt, — inseparabilisfuit a Paulo, says Irenseus : but how often he 
was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no 
means of knowing. Tertullian perhaps means us to understand 
that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself 
probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus, 

1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsay takes the 
same view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Acts 
xvi. 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first lime at Troas 
IS. Paul the Traveller, p. 202). 



where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling 
those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first 
met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else 
in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education : (f>i\oo-o<piav 
/cut t. aX\r]v iraiSeiav iyKVKXiov aira<jav {I.e.). Our earliest authori- 
ties appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in 
Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1. 1, 10. 1, 14. 1-4, 15. 1, 
22. 3; Canon Murator. sub init. ; Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12 sub 
fin. ; Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). Nor can much that is very 
trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of 
Eusebius (//. E. iii. 4. 7) and of Jerome (De vir. ill. vii.), which 
may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Texte 
und Unters. viii. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of 
Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts. 
h.ovKa.% Se to fxh> yevos uv rwv air 'Avno^eias (Eus.) need not mean 
more than that Luke had a family connexion with Antioch ; but it 
hardly "amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian." 
Jerome says expressly Lucas medicus Antiochensis. This is probable 
in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of only one of the deacons 
are we told to which locality he belonged, " Nicolas a proselyte of 
Antioch " (vi. 5) l : and we see elsewhere that the writer was well 
acquainted with Antioch and took an interest in it (xi. 19-27, 
xiii. 1, xiv. 19, 21, 26, xv. 22, 23, 30, 35, xviii. 22). 

Epiphanius states that Luke " preached in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and 
Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul says of some of his companions, in his 
Epistles, Crescens in Gallia, for we are not to read in Galatia, as some errone- 
ously think, but in Gallia " {Hmr. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 90S) ; and Oecumenius 
says that Luke went from Rome to preach in Africa. Jerome believes that his 
bones were translated to Constantinople, 2 and others give Achaia or Bithyniaas 
the place of his death. Gregory Nazianzen, in giving an off-hand list of primi- 
tive martyrs — Stephen, Peter, Andrew, etc. — places Luke among them (Oral, 
adv. Jul. i. 79). None of these statements are of any value. 

The legend which makes Luke a painter is much more ancient 
than is sometimes represented. Nicephorus Callistus (//. E. ii. 43) 
in the fourteenth century is by no means the earliest authority for 
it. Omitting Simeon Metaphrastes (c. a.d. 1100) as doubtful, the 
Menology of the Emperor Basil 11., drawn up a.d. 980, represents 

1 It has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 
181 2, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and 
Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch 

2 His words are : Sepultus est Constantinopoli [vixit octoginta et quatuor 
annos, uxorem non habensj ad quam urbem vicesimo Constant ii anno ossa ejus 
cum reliquiis Andrex apostoli trans lata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in 
brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first insertion 
is made in more than one place in De vir. ill. vii. 


S. Luke as painting the portrait of the Virgin. The oldest witness, 
however, is Theodorus Lector, reader in the Church of Constantin- 
ople in the sixth century. Some place him as late as the eighth 
century ; but the name is common, and between a.d. 500 and 800 
there may have been many readers of that name at Constantinople. 
He says that the Empress Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of 
the ®€o/xrjTMp painted by Luke the Apostle, and sent it to Constantin- 
ople as a present to her daughter Pulcheria, wife of Theodosius II. 
(Collectan. i. 7, Migne, Patr. Gr. lxxxvi. 165). In 1204 this 
picture was brought to Venice. In the Church of S. Maria 
Maggiore at Rome, in the Capella Paolina, is a very ancient picture 
of the Virgin ascribed to S. Luke. It can be traced back to 
a.d. 847, and may be still older. 1 But although no such legend 
seems to be known to Augustine, for he says, neque novimus faciem 
virginis Marise, [De Trin. viii. 5. 7), yet it is many centuries older 
than Nicephorus (Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Christ. Alt. ii. p. 344, which 
quotes Gliikselig, Christus-Archdol. 101 ; Grimouard de S. Laurent, 
Guide de Fart chret. iii. 15-20). And the legend has a strong ele- 
ment of truth. It points to the great influence which Luke has 
had upon Christian art, of which in a real sense he may be called 
the founder. The Shepherd with the Lost Sheep on His shoulders, 
one of the earliest representations of Christ, comes from Lk. xv 
(Tert. De Pud. vii. and x.) : and both medieval and modern artists 
have been specially fond of representing those scenes which are 
described by S. Luke alone : the Annunciation, the Visit of Mary 
to Elizabeth, the Shepherds, the Manger, the Presentation in the 
Temple, Symeon and Anna, Christ with the Doctors, the Woman 
at the Supper of Simon the Pharisee, Christ weeping over Jeru- 
salem, the Walk to Emmaus, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
Son. Many other scenes which are favourites with painters might 
be added from the Acts. See below, § 6. i. d. 

The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Ezek. i. and Rev. 
iv., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously ex- 
plained by different writers from Irenaeus (iii. n. 8) downwards. 
But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to S. Luke. "This 
sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation ; and this 
exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of 
St. Luke's Gospel, as one which more especially conveys mercy to 
the Penitent. ... It begins with the Priest, dwelling on the 
Priestly family of the Baptist ; and ends with the Victim, in our 
Lord's death " (Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 
Pt. I. sect. vi.). 

1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed 
to the Evangelist, see The Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 



The idea of a special revelation to the Evangelist is excluded 
by the prologue to the Gospel : his narrative is the result of care- 
ful enquiry in the best quarters. But (a) which "eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word " were his principal informants, 

(b) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, 

(c) whether it was mostly in Aramaic or in Greek, are questions 
about which he is silent. Internal evidence, however, will carry 
us some way in finding an answer to them. 

(a) During a large portion of the time in which he was being 
prepared, and was consciously preparing himself, for writing a 
Gospel, he was constantly with S. Paul ; and we may be sure that 
it was among S. Paul's companions and acquaintances that Luke 
obtained much of his information. It is probable that in this way 
he became acquainted with some of the Twelve, with other 
disciples of Christ, and with His Mother and brethren. He 
certainly was acquainted with S. Mark, who was perhaps already 
preparing material for his own Gospel when he and S. Luke were 
with the Apostle in Rome (Col. iv. 10, 14 ; Philem. 24). S. Paul 
himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Cor. 
xv. 3) ; but he could help him to first-hand information. While 
the Apostle was detained in custody at Caesarea, Luke would be 
able to do a good deal of investigation, and as a physician he would 
perhaps have access to people of position who could help him. 

(b) In discussing the question whether the information was 
given chiefly in an oral or a documentary form, we must remember 
that the difference between oral tradition and a document is not 
great, when the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent 
repetition. A document cannot have much influence on a writer 
who already knows its contents by heart. Luke tells us that many 
documents were already in existence, when he decided to write ; 
and it is improbable that he made no use of these. Some of his 
sources were certainly documents, e.g. the genealogy (iii. 23-38) : 
and we need not doubt that the first two chapters are made up of 
written narratives, of which we can see the conclusions at i. 80, 
ii. 40, and ii. 52. The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), 
of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the 
main portion of S. Mark's Gospel, was probably already in writing 
when Lk. made use of it. S. Luke may have had the Second 
Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form in which we have it, and 
may include the author of it among the ttoWol (i. 1). But some 
phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (vi. 5) "the 
sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath " (Mk. 
ii. 27). He omits the whole of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 9, which contains 


the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident 
with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew 
(xv. 21-28). And all this would have been full of interest to 
Luke's Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much 
less probable. There is so much that he would have been likely 
to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily 
explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the 
visit of the Gentile Magi (Mt. ii. 1-15). At xx. 17 he omits 
" Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away 
from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof" (Mt. xxi. 43). At xxi. 12-16 he omits "And this gospel 
of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony 
unto all t fie nations" (Mt. xxiv. 14 ; comp. Mk. xiii. 10). Comp. 
the omission of Mt. xvii. 6, 7 at Lk. ix. 35, of Mt. xvii. 19, 20 at 
Lk. ix. 43, of C?e$area Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13 ; Mk. viii. 27) at Lk. 
ix. 18; and see p. xli. Both to S. Luke and his readeis such 
things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have 
left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as 
they are, if he had been aware of them? Contrast Mt. ii. 14, 15 
with Lk. ii. 39, Mt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16 with Lk. xxiv. 49; and gener- 
ally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and 
of the Resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergences in the 
two genealogies, the "eight days" (Lk.) and the "six days" (Mt. 
and Mk.) at the Transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in 
the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion 
that Lk. was not familiar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it 
at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been 
nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke 
used the same collection, or two similar collections, of " Oracles " 
or " Sayings of the Lord " ; and hence the large amount of matter, 
chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is 
not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have 
been a single document, for the common material is used very 
differently by the two Evangelists, especially as regards arrange- 
ment. 1 A Book of " Oracles " must not be hastily assumed. 

In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of 
events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the 
collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew ; and be- 
sides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated 
in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself, — Luke 

1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are 
not found in Matthew : the Demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28 = Lk. iv. 33-37) ; 
ihe Journey in Galilee (Mk. i. 35-39 = Lk. iv. 42-44) ; the Request of the 
Demoniac (Mk. v. 18= Lk. viii. 38); the Complaint of John against the 
Caster out of Demons (Mk. ix. 38 = Lk. ix. 49) ; the Spices brought to the 
Tomb (Mk. xvi. I = Lk. xxiv.. 1). Are these the result of the time when 
S. Mark and S. Luke were together (Col. iv, to, 14 ; Philem. 24) ? 


evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the 
Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. These are specially 
prominent in chapters ix. to xix. and in xxiv. But it must not be 
forgotten that the matter which S. Luke alone gives us extends over 
the whole range of Christ's life, so far as we have any record of 
it. It is possible that some of these sources w T ere oral, and it is 
probable that one of them was connected with the court of Herod 
(iii. 1, 19, viii. 3, ix 7-9, xiii. 31, xxiii. 7-12 ; Acts xiii. 1). But 
we shall probably not be wrong if we conjecture that most of this 
material was in writing before Luke made use of it. 

It is, however, begging the question to talk of an " Ebionitic 
source." First, is there any Ebionism in S. Luke ? And secondly, 
does what is called Ebionism in him come from a portion of his 
materials, or wholly from himself? That Luke is profoundly im- 
pressed by the contrasts between wealth and poverty, and that, 
like S. James, he has great sympathy with the suffering poor and 
a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich and to 
which many succumb, is true enough. But this is not Ebionism. 
He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful, or that rich men must 
give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be spoiled by 
the poor. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which is sup- 
posed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with 
the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the super- 
fluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of posi- 
tions. The strongest saying of Christ against wealth, " It is easier 
for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to 
enter into the Kingdom of God " is in Matthew (xix. 24) and Mark 
(x. 25) as well as in Luke (xviii. 25). So also is the story of Peter 
and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and 
following Christ (Mt. iv. 18-22 ; Mk. i. 16-20; Lk. v. i-n). So 
also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to 
follow Christ (Mt. ix. 9 ; Mk. ii. 14 ; Lk. v. 27, 28). In both these 
cases Luke expressly states that they forsook all (v. n, 28), which, 
however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the 
story about Zacchaeus, which is peculiar to Luke, this head tax- 
collector retains half his great wealth, and there is no hint that he 
ought to have surrendered the whole of it. Elsewhere we find 
touches in the other Gospels which are not in Luke, but which 
would no doubt have been considered Ebionitic, if they had been 
found in Luke and not in the others. Thus, in the description of 
the Baptist, it is Matthew (iii. 4) and Mark (i. 6) who tell us of 
John's ascetic clothing and food, about which Luke is silent. In 
the parable of the Sower it is the others (Mt. xiii. 22 ; Mk. iv. 19) 
who speak of "the deceitfulness of riches," while Luke (viii. 14) has 
simply "riches." It is they who record (Mt. xix. 29 ; Mk. x. 29) 
that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and pro- 


perty (dypoik) for His sake, where Luke (xviii. 29) omits dypou's. 
He alone preserves Christ's declaration that he who sits at meat 
is superior to him who serves (xxii. 27), and there is no hint that 
to have servants is wrong. While the others tell us that Joseph 
of Arimathaea was a man of rank (Mk. xv. 43) and wealth (Mt. 
xxvii. 57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his 
goodness and rectitude (xxiii. 50, 51), which does not look like 
prejudice against the rich. And it is Luke alone who tells us of 
the women, presumably well-to-do, who " ministered unto them of 
their substance " (viii. 3). To which may perhaps be added the 
fact that in the quotation from Ps. cvii. 10 in Lk. i. 79 those "fast 
bound in poverty" (TTTw^ua) are omitted. Throughout the Third 
Gospel there is a protest against worldliness ; but there is no 
protest against wealth. And there is no evidence that the protest 
against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he 
drew, and from which the others did not draw. Rather it is 
something in the writer himself, being apparent in the Acts, as 
well as in the Gospel ; and it shows itself, sometimes in what he 
selects from his materials, sometimes in the way in which he treats 
it. As Julicher says, Man hat von dem ebionitisclien charakter dieses 
Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einjlussen oder Que//en 
epsucht : sehr mit Unrecht. . , . Von tendenzidser Ebionitisirung 
des Evangeliums kann bet ihm nicht die Rede sein (Ein/. § 27, 
p. 206). Hastings, D.C.G. i. p. 506. 

(c) Frequent Hebraisms indicate that a great deal of Luke's 
material was originally in Aramaic. These features are specially 
common in the first two chapters. In translating Aramaic sources 
Luke would have ample opportunity for exhibiting his own pre- 
dilection for certain words, phrases, and constructions. If the 
materials were already in Greek when Luke made use of them, 
then he could and did somewhat alter the wording in appropriat- 
ing them. But it will generally be found that wherever the ex- 
pressions which are characteristic of him are less frequent than 
usual, there we have come upon material which is common to him 
and the others, and which he has adopted without much alteration. 
Thus the parable of the Sower (viii. 4-15) has few marks of his 
style (iv /u.£(rw, ver. 7 ; 6 Adyos tov ®eov, ver. 1 1 ; Se'^oi/rai and 
acfrLo-TavTai, ver. 1 3) which are not also in Mt. (tov a-ireipai, ver. 5) 
or in both (eV tu> o-7reipeiv, ver. 5). But absence or scarcity of 
Luke's characteristics is most common in those reports of dis- 
courses which are common to him and Matthew : e.g. iii. 7-9, 17 = 
Mt. iii. 7-10, 12 ; vii. 6-9 = Mt. viii. 8-10; ix. 57, 58 = Mt. viii. 19, 
20; vii. 22-28 = Mt. xi. 4-1 1 ; vii. 31-35 = Mt. xi. 16-19. This last 
passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we 
might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels 
in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings; 


and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of 
individual style. But we cannot doubt that an immense amount 
of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him 
and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it. 
It is incredible that two or three independent translations should 
agree quite or almost word for word. 

It is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to 
all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. viii. 22-56 = Mk. 
iv. 35-41, v. 1-43 = Mt. viii. 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives 
swarm with marks of Luke's style, although he keeps closely to 
the common material (see below, § 6. ii.). Thus he has €?7rcv 7rpos 
avTOVs, iTncrrdra, aov, i£e\6ttv o.7rd, iKavds, eSetTO avrov, o~vv, 
VTrocrrpecpe, 7rapd tous 7rd3a?, 7rapaxpf)p.a, etc., where Mark has Aeyei 
avrois, otSao-KaAe, opKi^ot ere, i£t\6elv e/c, yu.cyas, irapeKaXei avrov, p.erd, 
viraye, irpds tous 7rd8as, ev8v<;, etc. Moreover Luke has iv tw 

C. lllfitl., Kai ovto9, /cai avT09, virdp^iv, irds or U7ras, povoyein']S, etc., 

where the others have nothing. The following examples will repay 
examination: iv. 38-41 =Mk. i. 29~34 = Mt. viii. 14-17; v. 12-16 
= Mk. i. ^0-45 = Mt. viii. 1-4; v. 17-26 = Mk. ii. 1-12 = Mt. ix. 
1-8; ix. 10-17 = ML vi. 30-44 = Mt. xiv. 13-21 ; ix. 38-40 = Mk. 
ix. 17, i8 = Mt. xvii. 15, 16; and many others. It is quite evident 
that in appropriating material Luke works it over with his own 
touches, and sometimes almost works it up afresh ; and this is 
specially true of the narrative portion of the Gospel. 

It is impossible to reach any certain conclusion as to the 
amount of material which he had at his disposal. Some suppose 
that this was very large, and that he has given us only a small 
portion of it, selected according to the object which he is sup- 
posed to have had in view, polemical, apologetic, conciliatory, 
or historical. Others think that his aim at completeness is too 
conspicuous to allow us to suppose that he rejected anything 
which he believed to be authentic. Both these views are probably 
exaggerations. No doubt there are cases in which he deliberate/y 
omits what he knew well and did not question. And the reason 
for omission may have been either that he had recorded something 
very similar, or that the incident would be less likely to interest or 
edify Gentile readers. No doubt there are other cases in which 
the most natural explanation of the omission is ignorance : he does 
not record because he does not know. We know of a small amount 
which Mark alone records ; of a considerable amount which 
Matthew alone records ; of a very considerable amount which 
John alone records; and of an enormous amount (Jn. xxi. 25) 
which no one records. To suppose that Luke knew the great 
part of this, and yet passed it over, is an improbable hypothesis. 
And to suppose that he knew scarcely any of it, is also improbable. 
But a definite estimate cannot be made. 


The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been 
made and accepted too hastily. It is quite possible that he has 
deliberately omitted some things, because of their similarity to 
others which he has recorded. It is possible that he has omitted 
the feeding of the 4000, because he has recorded the feeding ot 
the 5000 ; and the anointing by Mary of Bethany, because of the 
anointing by the sinner ; and the healing of the Syrophenician's 
daughter at a distance, because- of the centurion's servant at a 
distance ; and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, because of the 
parable of the same ; and the mocking by Pilate's soldiers, because 
of the mocking by Herod's soldiers. But in many, or even most, 
of these cases some other motive may have caused the omission. 
On the other hand, we must look at the doublets and triplets 
which he has admitted. If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates, 
the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they 
extend all through the Gospel. 

The Mother of the Christ has a song (i. 46 ff.), and the father of 
the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes 
the infant Christ in the temple (ii. 28), and so does the venerable 
Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus 
(v. 27 ff.), and Zacchaeus the publican also (xix. 1 ff.). The 
mission of the Twelve (ix. 1) is followed by the mission of the 
Seventy (x. 1). True disciples are equal to Christ's relations 
(viii. 21), and to His Mother (xi. 28). Twice there is a dispute as 
to who is the greatest (ix. 46, xxii. 24). Not content with the 
doublets which he has in common with Mt. (viii. 19-22, ix. 16, 17, 
xxiv. 40, 41), he adds a third instance (ix. 61, 62, v. 39, xvii. 36?) ; 
or where Mt. has only one example (xxiv. 37-39), he gives two 
(xvii. 26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow's son 
raised (vii. 14), and also Jairus' daughter (viii. 54), where no other 
Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances 
of cleansing lepers (v. 13, xvii. 14); two of forgiving sins (v. 20, 
vii. 48); three healings on the sabbath (vi. 6, xiii. 10, xiv. 1); 
four castings out of demons (iv. 35, viii. 29, ix. 42, xi. 14). Similar 
repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed 
by the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin 
(xv. 1-10); and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve 
the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1). The exceptions 
to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter 
sayings of Christ: viii. i6 = xi. 33; viii. 17= xii. 2; viii. 18 = xix. 
26; ix. 23 = xiv. 27; ix. 24 =xvii. 33; ix. 26 = xii. 9; x. 25 = xviii. 18; 
jri. 43 = xx. 46; xii. 11, i2 = xxi. 14, 15; xiv. n=xviii. 14; 
xix. 44 = xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 21, and xxi. 23 
with xxiii. 29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suf- 
fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have had any very 
strong objection to recording duplicate instances of simhV inci- 


dents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other 
Gospel ? 

For recent (since 18S5) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham, 
The Formation of the Gospels, 1891 ; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896 ; Jolley, 
The Synoptic Problem, 1893 ; Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of 
theN.T., 5th ed. 1S91 ; Wright, The Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopsis 
of the Gospels in Greek, 1S96 ; Holsten, Die synopt. Evang. nach Form 
ihres Inhalts dargestellt, 1886; Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N.T. 1892; 
Jiilicher, Eini. in das N. T. 1894 ; Nbsgen, Geschichle Jesn Christi, being Part 
I. of Gesch. der N.T. Offenbarung, 1891 ; II. H. Wendt. Die Lehre tind das 
Leben /esu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. lxxxv. 

See especially Sanday in Booh by Booh, 1893, p. 345 ff. ; in Diet, of the 
Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on "Gospels," pp. 1217-1243 ; 
and in the Expositor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891. 


(i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lighttoot's admirable 
article on the Acts (jD.B. 1 i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Date. 
The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question 
of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an 
article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, how- 
ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 
1893 (Lect. vi.), and we may safely accept this guidance. 

The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel 
contend respectively for a time in or near the years a.d. 100, a.d. 
80, and a.d. 63. 

(a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a 
date near the close of the first century or early in the second x is 
the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the 
Acts had read the Antiquities of Josephus, a work published about 
a.d. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly 
improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are 
not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing in- 
dependently about the same facts ; while the divergences are so 
great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus 
must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to 
prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should 
not be employed to prove that Luke's statements are erroneous. 
If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge 
from it only to make blunders ? It is much more reasonable to 
suppose that where Luke differs from the Antiquities he had in- 
dependent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. 
Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke 
who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often 

1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over- 
beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The 
more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135. 


convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by 
Lft. D.B. 2 p. 39; by Holtzmann, Einl. in d. N.T. p. 374, 1892, 
and by Schanz, Comm. uber d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. 16, 1883. 

The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one 
side by Clemen (Die Chronologie der panlin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel 
(Josephus und Lukas ; der schriftstellerische Einfiuss des jildischen Geschicht- 
schreibers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus 
by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Theol. Quartalschrift, Tubingen, 
1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially 
of Krenkel. 1 It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such 
words as diroffriWetv, d<piKveiadau,, av^dveiv, ttcliSLov, tri/nireLV, irv\i), k.t.X., in 
their usual sense : and such phrases as irpoiKOWTev 7-77 crocpia Aral tjXikLq. (Lk. ii. 52) 
and ^laravro irdvres ol duovovres avrov £wl rrj avveaei ical rais AiroKpiaeariv avrov 
(ii. 47) are not strikingly similar to eis fxeydXyv jraideias irpodicowTov 4tt18o<tiv, 
fiv^fj.rj re teal awtffei doKuJv 8ia<p4peiv (Jos. Vita, 2) and davpLaaas tt\v dirbKpi.cnv 
avrov <TO(pT\v ovros yevois.ivrjv (Ant. xii. 4. 9). Far more striking resemblances 
may be found in writings which are indisputably independent. Luke alone in 
N.T. calls the Sea of Galilee 17 \1/j.vt) Ytwrjaap^T. Could he not call it a lake 
without being prompted? Josephus also calls it a \i^vr\, but his designations 
all differ from Luke's : Yevvqaap t\ Xlfifrj, rj X. YevvT)<rap, X. 17 revvTjcrap'iTis, v 
revvyvaplTts X. (B. J. ii. 20. 6, iii. 10. 7 ; Ant. xviii. 2. I ; Vita, 65), and other 
variations. Luke has irpoaiTreaev rots y6vaai.v 'lrjcrov (v. 8), and Josephus has 
roll y6vacriv avrov irpocnricrovTts (Ant. xix. 3. 4). But Josephus more often 
writes irpo(TTrlirT€iu tivi irp6s to. y6vara, and the more frequent phrase would 
more probably have been borrowed. Comp. avvexo/j-^VT] irvperQ /xeydXi^ (Lk. 
iv. 38) with Terapraiip irvperu avffx^Oeh (Ant. xiii. 1 5. 5). M^l fJ-eTewpifeade 
(xii. 29) with Ant. xvi. 4. 6, sub fin. (where, however, vevnoTipiaro is the more 
probable reading); depavros tytveTO dir' a-vruv (xxiv. 31) with depavr)? iyivtro 
(Ant. xx. 8. 6). In these and many other cases the hypothesis of copying is 
wholly uncalled for. The expressions are not very uncommon. Some of them 
perhaps are the result of both Luke and Josephus being familiar with LXX. 
Others are words or constructions which are the common material of various 
Greek writers. Indeed, as Belser has shown, a fair case may be made out to 
show the influence of Thucydides on Luke. In a word, the theory that Luke 
had read Josephus "rests on little more than the fact that both writers relate 
or allude to the same events, though the differences between them are really 
more marked than the resemblances" (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 
278). As Schiirer and Salmon put it, if Luke had read Josephus, he must 
very quickly have forgotten all that he read in him. See Hastings, D.B.'u p. 30. 

In itself, the late date a.d. 100 is not incredible, even for those 
who are convinced that the writer is Luke, and that he never read 
Josephus. Luke may have been quite a young man, well under 
vhirty, when he first joined S. Paul, a.d. 50-52 ; and he may have 
been living and writing at the beginning of the second century. 
But the late date has nothing to recommend it; and we may 
believe that both his writings would have assumed a different 
form, had they been written as late as this. Would not 6 Xpicrros, 
which is still a title and means " the Messiah " (ii. 26, iii. 15, iv. 41, 
ix. 20, xx. 41, xxii. 67, xxiii. 35, 39, xxiv. 26, 46), have become a 

1 F. Bole, Flavins Josephus iiber Chris tus und die Christen in den Judischen 
Alterthiimern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (xviii. 
3. 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke. 

§4.] TIME AND PLACE xxxi 

proper name, as in the Epistles? Would not d Kv'pios, as a 
designation of Jesus Christ, have been still more frequent? It is 
not found in Matthew or Mark (excepting in the disputed 
appendix) ; but it is the invariable designation in the Gospel of 
Peter. In Luke (vii. 13, x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, 
xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61, xxiv. 34) and in John this use is begin- 
ning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would xxi. 32 have stood 
as it does, at a date when " this generation " had " passed away " 
without seeing the Second Advent ? Moreover, the historical 
atmosphere of the Acts is not that of a.d. 95-135. In the Acts the 
Jews are the persecutors of the Christians ; at this late date the 
Jews were being persecuted themselves. Lastly, what ivould have 
induced a companion of S. Paul, whether Luke or not, to wait so long 
before publishing the results of his researches ? Opportunities of 
contact with those who had been eye-witnesses would have been 
rapidly vanishing during the last twenty years. 

(6) The intermediate date of a.d. 75-80 has very much 
more to recommend it. 1 It avoids the difficulties just men- 
tioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant 
use of d Kvpios to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omis- 
sion of the very significant hint, "let him that readeth under- 
stand" (Mk. xiii. 14; Mt. xxiv. 15). When the first two Gospels 
(or the materials common to both) were compiled, the predicted 
dangers had not yet come but were near ; and each of these 
Evangelists warns his readers to be on the alert. When the Third 
Gospel was written, these dangers were past. It accounts for the 
greater definiteness of the prophecies respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem as given by Luke (xix. 43, 44, xxi. 10-24), when com- 
pared with the records of them in Mark (xiii. 14-19) and Matthew 
(xxiv. 15-22). After the destruction had taken place the tradition 
of the prediction might be influenced by what was known to have 
happened ; and this without any conscious tampering with the 
report of the prophecy. The possibility of this influence must be 
admitted, and with it a possibility of a date subsequent to a.d. 70 
for the Gospel and the Acts. Twice in the Gospel (viii. 51, ix. 28), 
as in the Acts (i. 13), Luke places John before his elder brother 
James, which Mt. and Mk. never do ; and this may indicate that 
Luke wrote after John had become the better known of the two. 
Above all, such a date allows sufficient time for the " many " to 
" draw up narratives " respecting the acts and sayings of Christ. 

1 Some year between a.d. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, 
Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Giider, Holtzmann ?, Julicher, Keim ?, 
Kostlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, 
Schenkel, Trip, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, 
e.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make a.d. 80 the latest date 
that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts. 

XJtxii THE gospel according TO S. LUKE [§ 4 

(c) The early date of about a.d. 63 still finds advocates ; l and 
no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the simplest 
explanation of the fact that S. Paul's death is not recorded in the Acts 
is that it had not taken place. If that explanation is correct the 
Third Gospel cannot be placed much later than a.d. 63. Again, 
the writer of the Acts can hardly have been familiar with the 
Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians : otherwise he would 
have inserted some things and explained others (Salmon, Hist. 
Int. to N.T. p. 319, ed. 5). How long might Luke have been 
without seeing these Epistles ? Easily till a.d. 63 ; but less easily 
till a.d. 80. Once more, when Luke records the prophecy of 
Agabus respecting the famine, he mentions that it was fulfilled 
(Acts xi. 28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting 
the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 5-36), he does not mention that 
it was fulfilled. The simplest explanation is that the destruction 
had not yet taken place. And, if it be said that the prediction of 
it has been retouched in Luke's record in order to make it more 
distinctly in accordance with facts, we must notice that the words, 
" Let them that are in Judaea flee to the mountains" are in all three 
reports. The actual flight seems to have been, not to the moun- 
tains, but to Pella in north Perrea ; and yet " to the mountains " 
is still retained by Luke (xxi. 21). Eusebius says that there was 
a " revelation " before the war, warning the Christians not only to 
.eave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (//". E. iii. 5. 3). 
This " revelation " is evidently an adaptation of Christ's prophecy ; 
and here we reasonably suspect that the detail about Pella has been 
added after the event. But there is nothing of it in Luke's report. 

Nevertheless, the reasons stated above, and especially those 
derived from the prologue to the Gospel, make the intermediate 
date the most probable of the three. It combines the advantages 
of the other two dates and avoids the difficulties of both. It may 
be doubted whether any of the Gospels, as we have them, was 
written as early as a.d. 63 ; and if the Third Gospel is placed 
after the death of S. Paul, one main reason for placing it before 
a.d. 70 is gone. 

(ii.) As to the Place in which Luke wrote his Gospel we 
have no evidence that is of much value. The Gospel itself gives 
no sure clue. The peculiarities of its diction point to a centre 
in which Hellenistic influences prevailed ; and the way in which 
places in Palestine are mentioned have been thought to in- 
dicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (i. 26, 
ii. 4, iv. 31, viii. 26, xxiii. 51, xxiv. 13). The first of these 
considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the 

1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, 
Kahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nosgen, Oosterzee, Resch,, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and now Blass. 
Harnack has changed from (b) to [c). 

§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN xxxiii 

second has little or no weight. The fact that the Gospel was 
written for readers outside Palestine, who were not familiar with 
the country, accounts for all the topographical expressions. We 
do not know what evidence Jerome had for the statement which 
he makes in the preface to his commentary on S. Matthew : 
Terthis Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis {cujus laus in 
Evangelio), qui et discipulus apostoli Pauli, in Achaiae Bceotiaeque 
partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viii.), quaedam altius repetens, 
et ut ipse in procemio confitetur, audita magis, qua?n visa describens 
(Migne, xxvi. 18), where some MSS. have Bithynix for Bceotix. 
Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com- 
position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses 
vary much : Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lekebusch, Zeller), 
Csesarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor 
(Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet). 
There is no evidence for or against any of them. 


(i.) The immediate Object is told us in the preface. It was 
written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which 
he had adopted, by supplying him with further information 
respecting its historical basis. That Theophilus is a real person, 
and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in 
general, 1 is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with 
characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of 
this. A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name 
was a very common one, — fairly frequent among Jews, and very 
frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously 
made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book, 
or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for 
Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet Kparicrre is far more 
likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one. 
It does not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts 
xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor- 
ance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone 
of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gentile 
convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few 
fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo- 
graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as " the 

1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as 
Origen (Horn. i. in Luc), and is adopted by Ambrose : scriptum est evangelium 
ad Thtophilum, hoc est ad eum quern Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i. 3). 
Epiphanius regards the name's denoting iras dvdpuvos Qcbv dyairQiv as a possible 
alternative {H&r. ii. 1. 51, Migne, xli. 900). 


feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover" (xxii. i), 
would not have been required for a Jewish convert. 

But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person 
well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had 
only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he 
writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile con- 
verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo- 
philus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its 
introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped 
that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he 
probably did. 

Among the many indications that the book is written by a 
Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, 
6 Zr]Xu)Trj<; for 6 Kavavcuos (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Kpaviov for 
To\yo6a (xxiii. 33) ; his never using 'Pa/3/3ei as a form of address, 
but either SiSao-KoAe or ima-Tara ; 1 his comparatively sparing use 
of ap.r)v (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he 
sometimes substitutes aXtjBws (ix. 27, xii. 44, xxi. 3) or eV dA^foias 
(iv. 25, xxii. 59); his use of 1'op.i/cds for ypa/x/xaTev's (vii. 30, x. 25, 
xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3) ; his adding aKadaprov as an epithet to 
8<j.i[jl6vlov (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good Scu/xdvia, whereas 
to a Jew all ha.ifx.6vLa were evil ; his avoiding p.eTep.opcpwdr} (Mk. 
ix. 2 ; Mt. xvii. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a 
word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen 
deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ii. 1), and using his 
reign as a date (iii. 1) ; his tracing the Saviour's descent to Adam, 
the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (iii. 38). Although full 
honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (ii. 21, 

27, 39, v. 14, x. 26, xvi. 17, 29-31, xvii. 14, xviii. 20), yet there is 
not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no 
parallels to Mt. v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, xii. 5-7, 17-20, 
xv. 1-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as 
compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings 
of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, vi. 4, vii. 27, viii. 10, xiii. 19, 

28, 29, 35, xviii. 20, xix. 46, xx. 17, 37, 42, 43, xxi. 10, 24, 26, 27, 
35, xxii. 37, 69, xxiii. 30, 46) or of others (i. 15, 17, 37, 46-55, 

68-79, u - 3°> 3*> 3 2 > 1V - IO > IT > x - 2 7> xx - 2 ^)- Very little is said 
about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest 
Gentile readers (iii. 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii. 37, xxiv. 44); and of 
these five instances, all but the first occur in sayings of Christ 
addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere 

1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, 
are not found in Luke: 'A$3a (Mk.), Boavr/pyh (Mk.), Ta^add (Jn.), 
'EPpaXffrl (Jn.), 'E/ifMLfovriX (Mt.), d<p<pad<L (Mk.), Kop^dv (Mk.), Koppavis 
(Mt.), Meaalas (Jn.), w<ravi>d (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, raXeitfd 
roO/w (Mk.) and i\ut. £\wt. k.t.X. (Mt. Mk.). 

§ 6. j OBJECT AND PLAN xxxv 

reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture ; 
but the following are definitely given as citations : ii. 23, 24, iii. 4, 
iv. 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, vii. 27, x. 27, xviii. 20, xix. 46, xx. 17, 
28, 37, 42, 43, xxii. 37 Excepting vii. 27, they may all have come 
from LXX. 1 And vii. 27 does not agree with either the Hebrew 
or LXX of Mai. iii. 1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist 
knew Hebrew. But, excepting iy<!>, it agrees verbatim with Mt. 
xi. 10, and we need not doubt that both Evangelists used the same 
source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the 
Greek language and his use of " Judaea " for the land of the Jews, 
i.e. the whole of Palestine (i. 5, iv. 44?, vii. 17, xxiii. 5 ; Acts ii. 9, 
x. 37, xi. r, 29). This combination of non-Jewish features would 
be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is 
thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles. 

In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and 
many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fulness. He 
desires to make his Gospel as complete as possible. This is clearly 
indicated in the prologue. He has " traced up the course of all 
things accurately from the first " (avw8ev irao-iv), in order that 
Theophilus may " know in full detail " (eTrtyvws) the historic 
foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the 
Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than 
any other Evangelist ; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but 
with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on 
to the very end : not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascen- 
sion. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of 
material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calcula- 
tion, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 
sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (f), Matthew 114 (§), and 
Mark 84 (i) ; and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to 
himself (f ), Matthew has 22 (±), and Mark has 5 (^ T ). According 
to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of 
these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78, and Mark 67; and of these 124 
Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Matthew 17, and Mark 2. 2 The 
portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved 
for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we possess, 
and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his 
collection as full as possible. 

1 Jerome (Comtn, in Is. vi. 9, Migne, rxiv. 100) says, Evangclistam Lucam 
tradiint veteres Ecclesiez tractatores medicinm artis fuisse scientissimum, et 
magis Gnecas litteras scisse quam Hebrseas. Unde et sermo ejus, tarn in Evan- 
gelio quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est in utroque volumine comptior est, et 
mculartm redolet eloquentiam, magisque testimoniis Greeds utitur quam Hebrms. 

8 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark. 
Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark. 
See p. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the 
Synoptists see Westcott, Intr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff. 


It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old 
view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It 
was Luke's intention to write history, and not polemical or apolo- 
getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi- 
ally Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was 
founded. The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the 
whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His 
Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the 
Christ winning salvation for the whole world ; in the Acts we see 
His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the 
whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the 
interests of S. Paul ; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of 
Judaizing opponents ; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the 
disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke 
incurred by Peter (Mt. xvi. 23 ; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious 
request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21 ; Mk. x. 37), the boastful 
declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt. xxvi. 35 ; Mk. 
xiv. 31), and the subsequent flight of all (Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. 
xiv. 50) ; which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones 
(xxii. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of "all the nations" 
(xxiv. 47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why 
address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile ? Lastly, 
how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on 
Judaism as Luke has recorded? See, for instance, the following 
passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke : iv. 28, 29, 
x. 10, 11, 31, 32, xi. 39, 40, xii. 47, xiii. 1-5, 15, xvi. 15, xvii. 18, 
xviii. 10-14, xxiii. 28-31 ; Acts ii. 23, v. 30, vii. 51-53, etc. It is 
well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have 
been propounded : the examination of them is most instructive. 
But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke 
remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets 
under the cover of fictitious history. 

(ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In 
the preface Luke says that he means to write " in order " (Ka6e£r)<;), 
and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting 
the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the 
main features of the First and Third Gospels agree ; and in outline 
their structure agrees to a large extent with that of the Second. 1 
Lukf perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels 
as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from 
other sources. In arranging the additional material he followed 
chronology, where he had any chronological clue ; and where he 

1 As regards order, in the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly 
agree, while the First varies. In the second half the First and Second com- 
monly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew's additions to the common 
material are mostly in the first half ; Luke's are mostly in the second. 

§5.) OBJECT AND PLAN xxxvii 

had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar 
incidents or sayings in juxtaposition. 

But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been 
found : for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be 
made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence 
that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he 
attains it ; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often, 
being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps 
also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct. 

The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted ; and this is 
strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in 
arrangement. Comp. the use of Kade£fjs viii. i ; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23. 

That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development 
and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im- 
pression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was 
connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted , 
and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate 
the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the 
supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to 
illustrate it. So far as there is " organic structure and dogmatic connexion " in 
the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist. 
Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two 
ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended 
or not) are illuminative. They also show, by their extraordinary divergences, 
how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who 
compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosp. Hist. I. i. 1, § 20, 21), 
McClellan (N.T. pp. 427 ff. ), Oosterzee (Lange's Comm. Int. § 4), and West- 
coit {Int. to Gospels, ch. vii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but 
will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the 

The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the 
different sections and grouping them under different heads. There 
is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another 
begins ; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative. 
But most analyses recognize a break between chapters ii. and iii., 
at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxii. 
If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer- 
ous sections may be assigned. In the two main central divisions, 
which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary 
grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its cor- 
rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if 
nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke. 1 The mark § indicates 
that this portion is found in Luke alone ; ° that it is common to 
Luke and Mark ; t that it is common to Luke and Matthew ; * that 
it is common to all three. 

1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of AVI I. are most 
instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them 
or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter 01 not. The analysis 
of the Gospel by Sanday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be 
found very helpful. 


There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some 
source that was not used by Mark or Matthew ; and this presumption is in some 
cases a strong one; e.g. the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk 
to Emmaus ; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which 
they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and 
Matthew, but omitted by Mark, comes from some source not employed by the 
latter ; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them, 
but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse ; e.g. the Parable of the 
Lost Sheep. Yet the book of "Oracles," known to Matthew and Luke, but 
not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which a 
good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. xxiv) 
sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the 
Widow's Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency 
of the mark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not 
been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in the sections which 
are common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of 
his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these 
in the notes. They should be contrasted with the additions made to the 
Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels. 

I. i. 1-4. §The Preface. The Sources and Object of 
the Gospel. 

II. i. 5-ii. 52. § The Gospel of the Infancy. 

1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25). 

2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38). 

3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother ol 

the Forerunner (39-56). 

4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80) 

5. The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20). 

6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour 


7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52). 

III. iii. i-ix. 50. The Ministry, mainly in Galilee. 

i. Hie External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach- 
ing of the Baptist (iii. 1-22). 

1. § The Date (1, 2). 

2. * The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and 

Death (3-20). 

3. *He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 

§The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38). 
ii. The Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * The Tempta- 
tion (iv. 1-13). 
iii. The Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50). 

1. Visit to Nazareth; "At Capernaum an unclean Demon 

cast out (iv. 14-44). 
a. §* The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon , 
* Two Healings which provoke Controversy ; * The 
Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which 
provoke Controversy (v. i-vi 1 1). 

§5.] OBJECT AND PLAN xxxix 

3. * The Nomination of the Twelve ; t The Sermon " on 

the Level Place " ; t The Centurion's Servant ; 
§ The Widow's Son at Nain : f The Message from 
the Baptist; §The Anointing by the Sinner; §The 
Ministering Women ; * The Parable of the Sower ; 

* The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem- 
pest ; *The Gerasene Demoniac ; *The Woman with 
the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. 12-viii. 56). 

4. *The Mission of the Twelve; *The Feeding of the 

Five Thousand ; * Peter's Confession and the First 
Prediction of the Passion ; * The Transfiguration , 

* The Demoniac Boy ; * The Second Prediction of 
the Passion; *Who is the greatest? "Not against 
us is for us (ix. 1-50). 

IV. ix. 51-xix. 28. The Journeyings towards Jerusalem : 
Ministry outside Galilee. 

i. The *>parture from Galilee and First Period of tht 
Journey (ix. 51-xiii. 35). 

1. §The Samaritan Village; t§ Three Aspirants to Dis- 

cipleship ; § The Seventy : The Lawyer's Questions 
and § the Good Samaritan ; § Mary and Martha 
(ix. 51-x. 42). 

2. § Prayer ; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; § True 

Blessedness ; * The Demand for a Sign : § Denuncia- 
tion of Pharisaism ; t Fxhortation to Sincerity ; 
§The Avaricious Brother; §The Rich Fool; God's 
Providential Care; §The Signs of the Times (xi. 1- 
xii. 59). 

3. § Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman 

with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed ■ 
fThe Leaven; The Number of the Saved; §The 
Message to Antipas and f the Lament over Jeru- 
salem (xiii. 1-35). 
ii. TJie Second Period of the Journey (xiv. i-xvii. 10). 

1. §The Dropsical Man; § Guests and Hosts; §The 

Great Supper ; § The Conditions of Discipleship ; 
t The Lost Sheep ; § The Lost Coin ; § The Lost 
Son (xiv. i-xv. 32). 

2. §The Unrighteous Steward; §t Short Sayings; §The 

Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences, 
§ Forgiveness, f Faith, § Works (xvi. i-xvii. 10). 
iii. The Third Period of the Journey (xvii. n-xix. 2S). 

1. §The Ten Lepers; §* The coming of the Kingdom; 
. §The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the 
Publican (xvii. n-xviii. 14). 


2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; *The 
Third Prediction of the Passion ; *The Blind Man 
at Jericho; § Zacchreus ; §The Pounds (xviii. 15- 
xix. 28). 

V. xix. 29-xxi. 38. Last Days of Public Teaching: 
Ministry in Jerusalem. 

1. *The Triumphal Procession and § Predictive Lament- 

ation; * The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 29-48). 

2. The Day of Questions. * Christ's Authority and John's 

Baptism ; * The Wicked Husbandmen ; * Tribute ; 

* The Woman with Seven Husbands ; * David's Son 
and Lord ; * The Scribes ; ° The Widow's Mite ; 
*§ Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. i-xxi. 38). 

VI. xxii.-xxiv. The Passion and the Resurrection. 

i. The Passion (xxii. i-xxiii. 56). 

1. *The Treachery of Judas (xxii. 1-6). 

2. *The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist ; 

* The Strife about Priority ; § The New Conditions 
(xxii. 7-38). 

3. *§ The Agony ; * The Arrest ; * Peter's Denials ; The 

Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; § Jesus 
sent to Herod; * Sentence ; * Simon of Cyrene; 
§The Daughters of Jerusalem; * The Crucifixion ; 
§ The Two Robbers ; * The Death (xxii. 39- 
xxiii. 49). 

4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56). 

ii. The Resurrection a?id the Ascension (xxiv.). 

1. *§The Women at the Tomb (1-11). 

2. § [Peter at the Tomb (12).] 

3. §The Walk to Emmaus (13-32). 

4. § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43) 

5. § Christ's Farewell Instructions (44-49). 

6. §The Departure (50-53). 

Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins 
with scenes which are typical of Christ's rejection by His people : 
the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth 
(iv. 28-30) ; the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of 
Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem 
with the Lament over the city (xix. 41-44). In the first and last 
case the tragic rejection is heightened bv being preceded by a 
momentary welcome. 

It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and tht 
Parables which are recorded by S. Luke. 


Miracles. Parables. 

* Unclean Demon cast out. § Two Debtors. 

* Peter's Wife's Mother healed. * Sower. 

§ Miraculous Draught of Fish. § Good Samaritan. 

* Leper cleansed. § Friend at midnight 

* Palsied healed. § Rich Fool. 

* Withered Hand restored. § Watchful Servants, 
t Centurion's Servant healed. § Barren Fig-tree. 

§ Widow's Son raised. * Mustard Seed. 

* Tempest stilled. t Leaven. 

* Gerasene Demoniac. § Chief Seats. 

* Woman with the Issue. § Great Supper. 

* Jairus' Daughter raised. § Rash Builder. 

* Five Thousand fed. § Rash King. 

* Demoniac Boy. t Lost Sheep, 
t Dumb Demon cast out. § Lost Coin. 
§ Spirit of Infirmity. § Lost Son. 

§ Dropsical Man. § Unrighteous Stewaid. 

§ Ten Lepers cleansed. § Dives and Lazarus. 

* Blind Man at Jericho. § Unprofitable Servants. 
§ Malchus' ear. § Unrighteous Judge. 

§ Pharisee and Publican. 

§ Pounds. 

* Wicked Husbandmen. 

Thus, out c f twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him ; 
while, out of twenty-lhree parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he 
omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (iv. 26-29). 
Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records ? And 
whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records? If the 
"Oracles" contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many? If 
S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the 
Two Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see 
p. xxiv). In illustration of the fact that the material common to all three 
Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed 
that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas 
only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark. 
It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three 
occur in the same order in each of the Gospels ; and the same is true of the 
three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the 
three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are 
in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from 
Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between 
the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection 
closes all. Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all 
three Evangelists employ. 


(i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at 
fulness and completeness. (a) Comprehensive/iess is a charac 
teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a 
biography ; and his object seems to have been to give his readers 


as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the 
portions of it — infancy, boyhood, manhood — respecting which he 
had information. 

But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind 
which is equally characteristic of him : and for the sake of a 
different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S. Luke is in a 
special sense the universal Gospel. All four Evangelists tell us 
that the good tidings are sent to "all the nations" (Mt. xxviii. 19 ; 
Mk. xiii. 10; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13). 
But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as S. Luke. He 
gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of 
all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and 
again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered to all, 
and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal 
observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the King- 
dom of God, and this is open to everyone ; to the Samaritan 
(ix. 51-56, x. 30-37, xvii. n-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, iii. 6, 38, 
iv. 25-27, vii. 9, x. 1, xiii. 29, xxi. 24, xxiv. 47) as well as to the 
Jew (i. 33, 54, 68-79, n - IO ) ) to publicans, sinners, and outcasts 
(iii. 12, 13, v. 27-32, vii. 37-50, xv. 1, 2, 11-32, xviii. 9-14, xix. 
2-10, xxiii. 43) as well as to the respectable (vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1) ; 
to the poor (i. 53, ii. 7, 8, 24, iv. 18, vi. 20, 21, vii. 22, xiv. 13, 21, 
xvi. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2, xxiii. 50). And hence 
Dante calls S. Luke " the writer of the story of the gentleness of 
Christ," scriba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchid, i. 16 [18], 
ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere 
accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes 
to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of 
Simon, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. Nor 
yet that it omits Mt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxii. 14, which might be 
regarded as hostile to the Gentiies. S. Luke at the opening of the 
ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the 
great prophecy from Is. xl. 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) 
till he reaches the words "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" 
(iii. 6). And at the close of it he alone records the gracious 
declaration that " the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that 
which was lost" (xix. 10; interpolated Mt. xviii. ii). 1 

It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the 
Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women. 
Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women. 2 But all through 
this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types 

1 Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. xxviii. 28 ; and the 7ras (Lk, 
xvi. 16), which is not in Mt. (xi. 12). 

' In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made 


of womanhood are placed before us : Elizabeth, the Virgin Marv, 
the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in 
the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman 
with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, 
ihe "daughters of Jerusalem," and the women at the tomb. A 
Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance 
appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and 
Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (iii. 38). It is 
possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or 
that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness ; 
but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have been 
present also. 

It is this all-embracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in 
the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it 
is spoken of as the " Gospel of S. Paul." The tone of the Gospel 
is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris- 
tianity. It advocates faith and repe71tan.ce apart from the works 
of the Law, and tells abundantly of God's grace and mercy and the 
work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and 
expressions are constant 

The word irlans, which occurs eight times in Mt., five in Mk. , and not 
at all in Jn., is found eleven times in Lk. and sixteen in the Acts: /xerdvoia, 
twice in Mt., once in Mk., not in Jn., occurs five times in Lk. and six in Acts : 
fcci/us, thrice in Jn., not Mt. or Mk., is frequent both in Lk. and Acts : l\eos, 
thrice in Mt., not in Mk. or Jn., occurs six times in Lk. but not in Acts : &<pe<ru 
d/uapriuje, once in Mt., twice in Mk., not in Jn. , is found thrice in Lk. and 
five times in Acts ; and the expression " Holy Spirit," which is found five times 
in Mt., four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in 
Acts. See on i. 15. 

It is characteristic that rlva. fj.icdbv fxere (Mt. v. 46) becomes wola v/uuv 
X<£pis i(jTiv (Lk. vi. 32) ; and Icreade v/xeU WXetoi, il?s 6 varr/p vfx&v 6 ovpavios 
rtXeibs iariv (Mt. v. 48) becomes ylvecde olKrlpixoves, KaOdjs 6 narrip u/j.u>v 
oIktIp/j-wv iariv (Lk. vi. 36). Note also the incidents recorded iv. 25-27 and 
x. 1-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 
26, 27, iv. 1, x. 21, xi. 13, all of which are peculiar to Lk. 

But it is misleading in this respect to compare the Second 
Gospel with the Third. From very early times the one has been 
called the Petrine Gospel, and the other the Pauline. S. Mark is 
said to give us the teaching of S. Peter, S. Luke the teaching of 
S. Paul. The statements are true, but in very different senses. 
Mark derived his materials from Peter. Luke exhibits the spirit 
of Paul ; and no doubt to a large extent he derived this spirit from 
the Apostle. But he got his material from eye-witnesses. Mark 
was the interpreter of Peter, as Irenaeus (iii. 1. 1, 10. 6) and Tertullian 
{Adv. Marcion. iv. 5) aptly call him : he made known to others 
what Peter had said. Paul was the illuminator of Luke (Tert. iv. 2): 
he enlightened him as to the essential charactei of the Gospel. 




Luke, as his " fellow-worker," would teach what the Apostle taught, 
and would learn to give prominence to those elements in the 
Gospel narrative of which he made most frequent use. Then at 
last " Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel 
preached by him" (Iren. iii. i. i). 

Jiilicher sums up the case justly when he lays that Luke has adopted from 
Paul no more than the whole Catholic Church has adopted, viz. the universality of 
salvation and the boundlessness of Divine grace : and it is precisely in these two 
points that Paul has been a clear-sighted and logical interpreter of Jesus Christ 
(Einl. §27, p. 204). See also Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, p. 328, 
and the authorities there quoted. 

Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (Introd. to N.T. ii. p. 17) and Schaff 
(Apostolic Christianity, ii. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism be- 
tween the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (A ussercanonische 
Paralleicexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of lloltzmann's ex- 
amples, adds others ; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon 
doubtful readings. The following are worth considering : — 

S. Luke. 
iv. 32. in i^ovala Tjv 6 \6yos avrov. 

vi. 36. 6 Trarrjp vp.G)v oiKripp-uv iffriv. 

vi. 39. p.TjTL bvvarai rvcp\bs rv<p\bv 
bSyyelv ; 

vi. 48. ZOrjKev depiiXiov. 

vii. 8. 5.vdpu)irb% flfu virb i^ovalav 

viii. 12. riffTeiHravTes auidQcnv. 

viii. 13. fiera X a P°-* b£x 0VTaL T - ^yov. 

x. "j. fi£ios yap 6 ipydrrjs rod (iiaOov 

x. 8. icrdleTe to. iraparidip-eva vpuv. 

x. 1 6. 6 dderQv iifias ip.t dderei' b 
5t ip£ aderQiv dderei rbv dTrocrreiXavTa 

x. 20. to. dvb/xara vpu>v ivyiypawrai 
iv tols ovpavots. 

xi, 7. pvr\ fj.01 k6ttovs wdpex*. 

xi. 29. 17 7ei<ea avrtj . . . ei\p.tiov 

xi. 41. Kal ISov irdvra xaOapd 

xii. 35. i&rwffav vfxCov al 6<T(pvcs 

xii. 42. ris &pa iffriv b iriffrbs 
oUovbfj.os ; 

xiii. 27. dirbffrrjrt air' ipov travrts 
ipydrai dowlas (Ps. vi. 8). 

xviii. I. 5fiv irdvrore irpoffevxtaOai 


S. Paul. 

1 Cor. ii. 4. 6 Xbyos /jlov . . . iv 
&irooel£ei Tvevp.aros Kal 8vvdp.tu)S. 

2 Cor. i. 3. 6 TTtXTTlp TU!V OlKTipfMUlV. 

Rom. ii. 19. iriiroiOas ffeavrbv bdrrybv 
iivai rv<p\tjv. 

1 Cor. iii. 10. 8ep.i\t.ov (drjica. 

Rom. xiii. I. i^ovfflais inrtpexovaan 

I Cor. i. 21. cruiaai rovs wiffrevovras. 

Rom. i. 16. et's ffwryplav ravrl t. 


I Thes. i. 6. Sf^dp.evoi r. \byov . . . 
p-era xapas. 

I Tim. v. 18. d£ios b ipydrrjs too 
fuaOov avrov. 

I Cor. x. 27. ttS-v rb ira.paTidlp.tvov 
vpuv ioBlere. 

1 Thes. iv. 8. 6 dderwv ovk dvdpw- 
irov dderei d\\d rbv Qebv. 

Phil. iv. 3. H)v rd bvbpxtra iv jUipXtp 
fan;? (Ps. lxix. 28). 

( ial. vi. 17. tcbirovs p.ot p.i)5eh nape- 

I Cor. i. 22. 'Jovdaloi ffrjpela airovfftv. 

Tit. i. 15. irdvra Kadapd rois Ka$a- 

Eph. vi. 14. ffrrjre ovv wepi.fujffdp.evoi 
ttjv 6o(puv vfxCjv (Is. xi. 5). 

1 Cor. iv. 2. £rjT(~iTai iv roh oiKOvb- 
p.ois tva 7Tiitt6s tis evpetfrj. 

2 Tim. ii. 19. diroaTrjTu} dirb dSiKlat 
7rds 6 bvopid^wv rb 01 O/aa Kvpiov. 

Col. i. 3. irdvroTe Trpoaei'xop-evoi. 
2 Thes, i. 1 1. irpoo-evxbfJ-eda TrdvTQTq. 


Kal ^ ivKaiceiv. Gal. vi. 9. fi^ ivKa.KQ>)xev. 

xx. 16. fit) yivoiro. Rom. ix. 14, xi. 11 ; Gal. iii. 21 

xx. 22, 25. 4^ecmv i]nai Kaicrapi Rom. xiii. 7. airbbore iraaiy ra% 

(pbpov bouvai 7) oil ; dirbdoTe tcl Kaiffa- 6<pei\&s, Tip rbv (popov rbv cp&pov. 

xx. 35. ol 54 Karatiwdivres rov alQvos 2 The». i. 5. tts rb Kara^Livdrjvat 

ixdvov tvxuv. vp.ds rr/s pacrihelas rod 6eo0. 

xx. 38. iravrts yap adry fQcriv. Rom. vi. 11. fuivras rip Qetp. 

Gal. ii. 19. tva Qeip $-qcrio. 

xxi. 23. eVrat yap . . . 6pyr\ t$ I Thes. ii. 16. 4<pdaatv 84 eV' avrovt 

\aip TOirrcp. i) 6pyT) et's t4Xos. 

xxi. 24. &XP 1 °v T^ripwOCxriv tcaipol Rom. xi. 25. &xpi 08 rb Tr\r)pcop.a 

46vwv. tQiv 46vQv elcr4Xdrj. 

xxi. 34. firj ttot€ ^ap-rjOil'cnv al KapStai I Thes. v. 3-5. r&re aupviotos ai'rots 

vp.Qv 4v KpeirdXr; Kai p-idy . . . Kai iirlffrarat 6Xt0pos . . . <Ve'S 54 ouk 

(■klcttj £<f> vp.di 4<pvL8ios i) i)p.ipa 4k€lvij 4ctt4 4v (tk6tsi, live 7/ ij/xepa vp.ds w$ 

lis irayts. kX4ttt7)s [/oVtttcis] KaraXaftr). 

xxi. 36. aypvirveire 84 4v iravri xaipip Eph. vi. 18. irpocrevxbp-fvoi 4v iravri 

Scbfievoi. Kaiptp . . . Kal aypvwvovvTes. 

xxii. 53. 77 i^ovcrla rov ctkotovs. Col. i. 1 3. in rrjs i^ovcrlas rov ctkotov*. 

It is not creditable to modern scholarship that the foolish opinion, quoted 
by Eusebius with a <paal 84 (H. E. iii. 4. 8) and by Jerome with quidam sus- 
picantur {De vir. illus. vii.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of "my Gospel" 
(Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still 
rinds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted 
I Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words \4yti 77 ypacpr/ refer to the first sentence 
only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. What follows, " the labourer is worthy 
of his hire," is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Lk. x. 7 ; Mt. x. 10) 
and then by S. Paul. Had S. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, 
he would not have said \4yei 7? ypacpr). He would have used some such expres- 
sion as /xv-qfjioveveip rwv Xbywv rod Kvplov 'Itjctov 8tl aurbs \4yei (Acts xx. 35), or 
7ra/3ayye'\Xei 6 Kvpios (I Cor. vii. IO, 1 2), or p.epvrip.4v 01 tuiv Xdyiov toO Kvpiov 
']rjcrod, oOs 4XdXi)crev (Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii. I ; comp. xlvi. 7), or simply elirev 
6 Kibpios (Polyc. vii. 2). Comp. 1 Thes. iv. 15 ; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 23, 

(b) More than any of the other Evangelists S. Luke brings 
before his readers the subject of Prayer; and that in two ways, 
(1) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All 
three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Mt. 
xxvi. 39; Mk. xiv. 35 ; Lk. xxii. 41) ; Mark (i. 35) mentions His 
retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where 
Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement : and Matthew 
(xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after 
the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But 
on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed : 
at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy 
(v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first 
prediction of the Passion (ix. 18) ; at the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; 
before teaching the Lord's Prayer (xi. 1); and on the Cross (xxiii. 
[34], 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus 
that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the 
Twelve, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" (xxii. 32, 40) 


It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, 
"Ask, and it shall be given you" (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re- 
cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend 
at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8) ; 
and to the charge to "watch" (Mt. xxv. 13; Mk. xiii. 33) he adds 
"at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail," etc. 
(xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the 
difference between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviii 


(c) The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence 
which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends 
with worship in the temple (i. 9, xxi v. 53). Luke alone has pre- 
served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his 
Gospel into the daily worship of the Church : the Gloria in 
Excelsis, or Song of the Angels (ii. 14); the Magnificat, or Song 
of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55); the Benedictus, or Song of 
Zacharias (i. 6S-79) ; and the Nunc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon 
(ii. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told 
that those who received special benefits "glorified God" (So£a£eu> 
tov ©eoV) for them (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
xviii. 43). Comp. Mt. ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii. 12. The expression 
" praising God " (alvCiv tov ©eoV) is almost peculiar to Luke in 
N.T. (ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53?; Acts ii. 47, iii. 8, 9). "Bless- 
ing God" (evXoyelv tov Qeov) is almost peculiar to Luke (i. 64, 
ii. 28, xxiv. 53?): elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. "Give praise {alvov 
StSovat) to God" occurs Luke xviii. 43 only. So also x ou 7> et|/ > 
which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen 
times in Luke and Acts ; \apa seven times in Matthew and Mark, 
thirteen times in Luke and Acts. 

(d) The Gospel of S. Luke^is rightly styled " the most literary 
of the Gospels" (Renan, Les Evangiles, ch. xiii.). "S. Luke has 
more literary ambition than his fellows" (Sanday, Book by Book, 
p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not 
only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect. He 
can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his 
readers. The way in which he tells the stories of the widow's son 
at Nain, the sinner in Simon's house, Martha and Mary at 
Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one 
might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had 
mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. The sixth century was not 
far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he 
had painted the portrait of the Virgin. There is no picture of her 
so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias, 
Anna, Zacchaeus, Herod Antipas ! And with how few touches is 
each done ! As a rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than 
Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire 


and food (Mk. i. 6 ; Mt. iii. 4). In the healing of Simon's wife's 
mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. i. 31 ; Mt. viii. 15). 
In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2). 
And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have 
an illuminating addition which is all his own (iii. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15, 
40, 42, v. 1, 12, 15, 16, vi. 12, viii. 47, etc.). His contrasts are 
not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and 
the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the 
self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank- 
ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative 
Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people 
(xix. 47, 4s), and the like ; the fundamental antithesis between 
Christ's work and Satan's 1 (iv. 13, x. 17-20, xiii. 16, xxii. 3, 
31, 53), often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and 
Pharisees to His work (xi. 52, xii. 1, xiii. 14, 31, xv. 2, xvi. 14, 
xix. 39, 47, xx. 20), is brought out with special clearness. The 
development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main 
threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive 
power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and 
shadows of character and the conflict between spiritual forces, 
which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its 
original purpose (i. 4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no 
sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad ; but even where 
it is most tragic it is almost always serene. 2 As the fine Uterary 
taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world. 

(if) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes history as distinct 
from memoirs. He aims at writing " in order," which probably 
means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, ii. 42, iii. 23, 
ix. 28, 37, 51, xxii. 1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with 
the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii. 1, iii. 1). The 
sixfold date (iii. 1) is specially remarkable : and it is possible that 
both it and ii. 1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narra- 
tive. The words ctos (|^) and iu\v ( ] g°) occur more often in his 
writings than in the rest of N.T. : and this fact points to a special 
fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date, 
— probably because he found none in his authorities, — he fre- 
quently lets us know what incidents are connected together 
although he does not know in what year or time of year to place 
the group (iv. 1, 38, 40, vii. 1, 18, 24, viii. 1, x. 1, 21, xi. 37, xii. 1, 
xiii. 1, 31, xix. 11, 28, 41, xxii. 66, xxiv. 13). He is very much 

1 Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv. 31-37) the miracle of healing the 
demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being 
typical of Christ's whole work. But there is no evidence of any special 
"demonology" in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the "spirit of 
infirmity " (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone 

1 A marked exception is the violent scene so graphically described xi. 53, 54. 


less definite than Josephus or Tacitus ; but that is only what we 
ought to expect. He had not their opportunities of consulting 
public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than 
they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus 
contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The 
value of Christ's words and works was quite independent of dates. 
Such remarks a? he makes xvi. 14, xviii. 1, 9, xix. n throw far 
more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would 
have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own 
estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do 
(ii. 50, iii. 15, viii. 30, xx. 20, xxii. 3, xxiii. 12): and the notes, 
whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. If 
chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity 
and development which may be taken as evidence of the true 
historic spirit. 1 He follows the Saviour through the stages, not 
only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40, 
42, 51, 52, iii. 23, iv. 13, xxii. 28, 53). He traces the course of 
the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of 
Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Pera^a, from Peraea to Jeru- 
salem, just as in the Acts he marks the progress of the Gospel, as 
represented successively by Stephen, Philip, Peter, and Paul, from 
Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and 
finally to Rome. 

(/) But along with these literary and historical features it has a 
marked domestic tone. In this Gospel we see most about Christ in 
His social intercourse with men. The meal in the house of Simon, 
in that of Martha and Mary, in that of a Pharisee, when the 
Pharisees were denounced, in that of a leading Pharisee on a 
sabbath, when the dropsical man was healed, His sojourn with 
Zacchoeus, His walk to Emmaus and the supper there, are all 
peculiar to Luke's narrative, together with a number of parables, 
which have the same quiet and homely setting. The Good 
Samaritan in the inn, the Friend at Midnight, the Woman with the 
Leaven, the Master of the house rising and shutting the door, the 
Woman sweeping for the Lost Coin, the Father welcoming the Lost 
Son, all have this touch of familiar domesticity. And perhaps it 
is to this love of homely scenes that we may trace the fact that 
whereas Mk. (iv. 31) has the mustard-seed sown "on the earth," 
and Mt. (xiii. 31) makes a man sow it " in his field," Lk. (xiii. 19) 
tells us that a man sowed it " in his own garden." Birks, Hor. Ev. 
(ii.) When we consider the style and language of S. Luke, we 
are struck by two apparently opposite features, — his great com- 

1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one who 
"commands excellent means of knowledge . . . and brings to the treatment of 
his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight " [S. Paul 
tke Traveller, pp. 2, 3, 20, 21, Hodder, 1895). 


mand of Greek and his very un-Greek use of Hebrew phrases and 
constructions. These two features produce a result which is so 
peculiar, that any one acquainted with them in detail would at 
once recognize as his any page torn out of either of his writings. 
This peculiarity impresses us less than that which distinguishes the 
writings of S. John, and which is felt even in a translation ; but it 
is much more easily analysed. It lies in the diction rather than in 
the manner, and its elements can readily be tabulated. But for this 
very reason a good deal of it is lost in translation, in which pecu- 
liarities of construction cannot always be reproduced. In any 
version the difference between S. Mark and S. John is felt by the 
ordinary reader. The most careful version would fail to show to 
an attentive student more than a good portion of the differences 
between S. Mark and S. Luke. 

The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most 
versatile of all the N.T. writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the 
LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, 
whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew 
society, and Greek in describing Greek society. It is impossible 
to determine how much of the Hebraistic style is due to the 
sources which he is employing, how much is voluntarily adopted 
by himself as suitable to the subject which he is treating. That 
Aramaic materials which he translated, or Greek materials which 
had come from an Aramaic source, influenced his language con- 
siderably, need not be doubted ; for it is where he had no such 
materials that his Greek shows least sign of such influences. In 
the second half of the Acts, where he writes of his own experiences, 
and is independent of information that has come from an Aramaic 
source, he writes in good late Greek. But then it is precisely here 
that he is describing scenes far away from Jerusalem in an Hellen- 
istic or Gentile atmosphere. So that it is quite possible that to 
some extent he is a free agent in this matter, and is not merely 
exhibiting the influence under which he is writing at the moment. 
No doubt it is true that, where he has used materials which directly 
or indirectly are Aramaic, there his style is Hebraistic ; but it may 
also be true that he has there allowed his style to be Hebraistic, 
because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject- 

He has enabled us to judge of the two styles by placing two 
highly characteristic specimens of each in immediate juxtaposition. 
In the Acts the change from the more Hebrew portion to the more 
Greek portion takes place gradually, just as in the narrative there 
is a change from a Hebrew period (i.-v.), through a transitional 
period (vi.-xii.), to a Gentile period (xiii.-xxviii.). 1 But in the 

1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) and the speech 
of Terlullus (xxiv. 2-9) with the speeches of Petet (ii. 14-39. •"• 12-26). 


Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface 
is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the open- 
ing narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon to a 
chapter in the LXX. 1 And he never returns to the style of the 
Preface. In the Gospel itself it is simply a question of more or 
less Hebrew elements. They are strongest in the first two chapters, 
but they never entirely cease; and they are specially common at 
the beginning of narratives, e.g. v. i, 12, 17, vi. i, 6, 12, viii. 22, 
ix. 18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages 
are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construc- 
tion, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits 
fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. 
Comp. Lk. ix. 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 with Mt. xvii. 1, 2, 4, 15; Lk. 
xiii. 30 with Mt. xix. 30; Lk. xviii. 35 with Mt. xx. 29; Lk. xx. 1 
with Mt. xxi. 23. 

From this strong Hebraistic tinge in his language some (Tiele, 
Hofmann, Hahn) have drawn the unnecessary and improbable 
conclusion that the Evangelist was a Jew ; while others, from the 
fact that some of the Hebraisms and many other expressions 
which occur in the Third Gospel and the Acts are found also in 
the Pauline Epistles, have drawn the quite impossible conclusion 
that this hypothetical Jew was none other than S. Paul himself. 
To mention nothing else, the " we " sections in the Acts are fatal 
to the latter theory. In writing of himself and his companions, 
what could induce the Apostle to change backwards and forwards 
between " they " and " we " ? As to the former theory, good 
reasons have been given above for attributing both books to a 
Gentile and to S. Luke, who (as S. Paul clearly implies in Col. iv. 
1 1 -14) was a Gentile. The Hebraistic colour in the Evangelist's 
language, and the elements common to his diction and that of the 
Pauline Epistles, can be easily explained, and more satisfactorily 
explained, without an hypothesis which imports more difficulties 
than it solves. The Hebraisms in Luke come partly from his 
sources, partly from his knowledge of the LXX, and partly from 
his intercourse with S. Paul, who often in his presence discussed 
the O.T. with Jews in language which must often have been 
charged with Hebraisms. The expressions which are common to 
the two Lucan documents and the Pauline Epistles are partly 
mere accidents of language, and partly the result of companion- 
ship between the two writers. Two such men could not have 
been together so often without influencing one another's language. 

S. Luke's command of Greek is abundantly shown both in the 
freedom of his constructions and also in the richness of his vocabulary. 

1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two 
chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the 
influence of Aramaic sources. 


(a) The freedom of his constructions is seen not infrequently 
even in his Hebraisms. Two instances will suffice, (i) His 
frequent use of iyevero is often purely Hebraistic (i. 8, 9), 
sometimes less so (vi. 1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all 
(Acts ix. 3, xxi. 1). This will be found worked out in 
detail in a detached note at the end of ch. i. (2) His 
frequent use of periphrastic tenses, i.e. the substantive verb 
with a present or perfect participle instead of the simple 
tense, exhibits a similar variety. 

The use of fy with pres. or perf. part, as a periphrasis for imperf. or pluperf. 
indie, is of Aramaic origin in many cases and is frequent in the Gospels, — most 
frequent in Luke ; but it is not always easy to say whether it is a Hebraism or 
a use that might very well stand in classical Greek. For fjv with pres. part, see 
i. 10, 21, 22, ii. 33, 51, iv. 20, 31, 38, 44, v. 16, 17, 29, vi. 12, viii. 40, ix. 53, 
xi. 14, xiii. 10, 11, xiv. 1, xv. 1, xix. 47, [xxi. 37], xxiii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32. Most 
of these are probably due to Hebrew or Aramaic influence ; but many would be 
admissible in classical Greek, and may be used to imply continuance of the 
action. In i. 21, 22, ii. 51, iv. 31, xv. 1, xix. 47, xxiii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32 the 
simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such 
cases as ii. 33, iv. 20, ix. 53, xi. 14, xiii. 10, 11, xiv. 1 are Hebraistic need 
hardly be doubted. So also where ty with perf. part, is used for the pluperf. 
(i. 7, ii. 26, iv. 16, 17, v. 17, ix. 32, 45, xviii. 34), i. 7 and ix. 32 with most 
of the others are probably Hebraistic, but v. 17 almost certainly is not. 
Anyhow, Luke shows that he is able to give an Hellenic turn to his I lebraisms, 
so that they would less offend a Greek ear. Much the same might be said of 
his use of kclL to introduce the apodosis, which may be quite classical (ii. 21), 
but may also be Hebraistic, especially where ISov is added (vii. 12, xxiv. 4), or 
airr6s (v. I, 17, viii. I, 22, ix. 51, etc.) : or of his frequent use cf iv ry with the 
infinitive (i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 43, v. 1, etc.). 

Simcox, Lang, of N.T. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of periphrastic 
imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke's Hebraisms, Writers of 
N.T. pp. 19-22. 

But Luke's freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects. Al- 
though he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with 
a simple ko.1 (i. 13, 14, 31-33, xvi. 19, etc.), yet he is able to vary his sentences 
with relatives, participles, dependent clauses, genitive absolutes, and the like, 
almost to any extent. We find this even in the most Hebraistic parts of the 
Gospel (i. 20, 26, 27, ii. 4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43) ; but still more in other 
parts: see especially vii. 36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the 
optative in indirect questions, both without av (i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 23; Acts 
ivii. ri, xxi. 33, xxv. 20) and with it (vi. 11, xv. 26 ; Acts v. 24, x. 17), some- 
times preceded by the article (i. 62, ix. 46). In xviii. 36 the &v is doubtful. 
The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke 
(i. 4, v. 9, ix. 36, xii. 46, xv. 16, xxiii. 41 ; Acts i. 22, ii. 22, iii. 21, 25, etc.), 
especially after was (ii. 20, iii. 19, ix. 43, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Acts i. 1, x. 39, 
xiii. 39, xxii. 10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (xviii. 19, xxiv. 50) 
and once in Mark (vii. 13). His more frequent use of re is another instance of 
more idiomatic Greek (ii. 16, xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. 11 (Sis), xxii. 66, xxiii. 12, 
xxiv. 20) : only once in Mark and four times in Matthew. Sometimes we find 
the harsh Greek of Matthew or Mark improved in the parallel passage in Luke : 
e.g. rdv 6e\6vrwv iv oroXcus TreptwaTelv ko.1 dcrinunrovs iv reus dyopcus (Mk. xii. 38) 
has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting (pCKovvTwv before aoiraa- 
Mofo (xx. 46). Or again, aXXd. etirwfiev 'E£ dvOpwirwv — ifpofiovvro rbv 6y\oV 
iravrts yap elxov rbv'luiivijv 6vrm 5ti wpoQriT-qs tjv (Mk. xi. 32) is smoothed 


in more details than one in Luke : idv Si dirwfiev 'E£ dvdpdmwv, 6 Xads aVeu 
KaraXiddaet rj/mdi- Treira.op.ivos ydp ioriv 'Iwdvyv Trpo<p7jT7]v elvcu (xx. 6). Com- 
pare kclI npcji 'ivvvxa. \iav, which perhaps is a provincialism (Mk. i. 35), with 
yevo^ivrjs 5i i]/u.ipas (Lk. iv. 42). In the verses which follow, Luke's diction is 
smoother than Mark's. Compare also Lk. v. 29, 30 with Mk. ii. 15, 16 and 
Mt. ix. 10, 11 ; Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21 and Mt. ix. 16 ; Lk. vi. n with Mk. 
iii. 6 and Mt. xii. 14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke's narrative of 
the message of the Baptist (vii. 18-21), as compared with that of Matthew 
(xi. 2, 3), is very marked. 

(b) But Luke's command of Greek is seen also in the richness 
of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two 
writings and nowhere else in N.T. is estimated at 750 or (includ- 
ing doubtful 1 cases) 851 ; of which 26 occur in quotations from 
LXX. In the Gospel the words peculiar to Luke are 312; of 
which 52 are doubtful, and n occur in quotations. Some of these 
are found nowhere else in Greek literature. He is very fond of 
compound verbs, especially with hia. or eVt, or with two preposi- 
tions, as liravayeiv, C7T€icrep^€o"^ai, ai'Ttirapep^icrdai, crvyKOLTaTiBevai, 

Trpoaavafiaivziv. He may have coined some of them for himself. 
The following are among the most remarkable words and expres 
sions which occur either in both his writings and nowhere else in 
N.T., or in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. No account is 
here taken of the large number, which are peculiar to the Acts. 

Those in thick type are found in LXX. Those with an 
asterisk are shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers. 
Many of these might be frequent in any writers. But the number 
of less common words, which are peculiar to Luke in N.T., and 
are fairly common in medical writers, is remarkable ; and those of 
them which are not found in LXX are specially to be noted. 

Thirty times in G. and A. lylviro 8<= (not Jn. x. 22). 

Nine times in G. and A. yjp.ip<x yiverai : nine in G. (ivi. 

Eight times in G. iv auTjj Tr] (ijp.ipq, Spa, oIkLq). 

Seven times in G. and A. airoSc'xccrOai, 'avivP'iXXci.v, iv reus -tj/xipais rafrrais. 

Six times in G. and A. Ka6oTi, irovripos as an epithet of wvev/na : six in G. 
twicTdiTa, \iyeiv irapdfioXrjv. 

Five times in G. and A. eJj-fjs, Kadt^yjs, ko.6' 6X>jj t?}$, irpooixere iavrois, 6 
crrpaTriydi or oi <rrp. rod lepod, 6 vvj/tcrros or vxJ/kttos (of God) : five in G. 
avaKpiveiv (in the iegal sense), ical oCtos, ko.1 J?s, Xifivij, iv tCiv. 

Four times in G. and A. dirTeiv, Stairopeiv, c7raip6iv ttjv <J><ovt]v, lirK^iovety, 
Ka.9i€vai, *A8vvo<r0ai, *6p.iXeiv, 'avvapirdijeiv, airiov, IvavTiov, ev\a.prjs, 
Kpdncrroj, * irapa\e\v/xivos (in the medical sense of "palsied"): four in G. 
*icaTaKXiveiv, PaXXdv-riov, <j>o.tvt|, o>s rj-yyicrtv. 

Three times in G. and A. dva£r|Teiv, d£ioiJv c. injin., SieXSeiv feus, 8n<rTa- 
Kat, ^mpipd^eiv, * eirixcipeiv, ctv(AitXt|pdvv, avTTJ Tfl wpa, air' aLiivos, Ta 
8ccrp.a, Sov'Xt], Ivavri, €<nre'pa, 6dp.f3os, |3ovXt) -rovi ©ecu, * tacris, TroXirrjs, -r-j) 
T|p.e'pa tJ)v craPPaTtuv, * avyyiveia, rd inrdpxovra. airry, x £l P *vpio* : three in 
G. Ocpairevciv diro, o-KaTTTtiv, <TKipT(jv, /card rb idos, otitcvtos, ry ijfiipq rod 
aappdrov, iv pug. twv rj/xepdv. 

1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (i) whether the word 
is used by Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. In the lists 
on pp. Iii, liii, the lower number has generally been preferred in doubtful cases 


Twice in G. and A. ivaSeiKfUfai,$eiv, * avacnrdV, avacfxiivciv, 

* av€vpi(TK€iv, avT€iir£Lv, a-rro-ypa^'q, * airoTivacrcreiv, * SiaT-rjpeiv, * 5nc\vpi' 
feadai, * SioSeveiv, * cveSpeveLV, eiriSelv, * «vt6vo)S, ttj txop.tvr), &\P l no.ipov, 

* KOTaKXeieiv, icaTaKoXou9eiv, xXdffis, icXivei tj -qjiepa, * kXiviSiov, dpivds, 

* irapap\d£Ecr6ai, irtpiXdp.ireiv, iropevov tig tip^vqv, * irpoPdXXeiv, irpoiropfu- 
ccr6ai, *Trpocr8oKia, *irpovirdpx*i- v ) o-Tpand, trviveivai, Tpavpari^eiv, rpax^s, 
Xpeo^iXtTTjs : twice in G. &ypa, * dvaireipos, * avTi-rrapepxecrSai, dcrTpdirTtiv, 
OTtp, * avicrTTjpds, Povvds, -ycXdV, biayoyyv^tiv, diaXaXelv, * Sox^, £Kp.vKTT]pi- 
Jciv, eKTtXeiv, eiraiTciv, * «TTav€px«c8aL, €4>T|p.epia, ^evYos, rjyenovtveiv, oiicria, 
r\ irats, irpdicTwp, rrptcr^iia., irpo^epeiv, * airap-yavovv, <rvico4>avTeiv, * xiiro- 

It is not worth while to make a complete list of the words (over 200 in 
number) which occur once in the Third Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. The 
following will give a good idea of their character : — 

dypavXeiv, adpoii^eiv, aXXoYtvi^s, ap-ireXovp-yds, dvd8ei£is, * ivaXr)p.\(/ts, 

* ivcupiiH'elv, * dvriPdXXeiv, d7raprt(r^6s, aireXirt^eiv, * diroicXeieiv, aircxTTona- 
rl^eiv, * airo\J/vx elv > apxtTeXwvrjs, * aiirdirTrjs, * 6.<pp6s, * peXdvrj, * poXr^, pptocn- 
jios, *7TJpas, * 8ia|3dXX6iv, Siaypriyoptiv, * SiaXeiireiv, 81ap.cp1crp.d5, Siavcveiv, 

* Siavd-qua, * SiaviiKTcpe-ueiv, * biavpayixare veadai, * Siacrcieiv, * Siax^pi^civ, 

* 8lii7T|cri.s, * t-yicvos, * eSi^civ, * CKKpcpaaOcu, * €KX<<jpeiv, * iXxovv, * cp.|3dX- 
Xciv, iv5ex iTaL y iTradpot^eiu, iireiSriTrep, eircicrcpxf crSai, rb iirifiaXXov, * cmp-cXiis, 
liri.iropc'u'ccrBa.L, ciricri.Ticrp.ds, * c-irLcrxvciv, * eirixeiv, * exxpopelv, * T)p.i6avris, 

* 0£b>pia, * Gvpiav, * itcp.ds, IcrayyeXos, * KaTdPacris, * icaTaSciv, KaraXiOafetv, 
KaratrXeiv, * KaTa\J/ , ux«''V, Ktpariov, tcXicria, Kpeir&Xr], KpvwTt), Xa/xirpQs, *Xt)pos, 

* XvctitcXci, * p.£Tcu>pi£civ, fxepia-T-qs, * oScveiv, 6p.(3pos, * iirrds, * 6(j>pvs, 
Ta/XTrXr]0el, vavSox^ov, Trav8ox^^> * Tapi8o£os, TrapaKaXvirTeiv, * irapa.Tr)pr)<ris, 
TepiKpvirreiv, irepioiKeiv, irepicnrq.v, irrtyavof, * irU£eiv, * WLvaKLSiov, * irX'rjp.p.ijpa., 
*irpaYp.aT6ij£0'9at,7rpo^teXer^i', *irpoaavaPatveiv, irpoob'aira.vtf.v, TrpocrepyafioOai, 

* Trpo<r\paueiv, * irrvcraeiv, * p-r)-yp.a, * crdXos, criKepa, aividfav, <jnop.hpiov, 

* avKap-ivos, avKop.opia., crvvKaraTiOevai, * crvvKvpia, * <rvv-iriirT€i.v, * crvv- 
4>v'eiv, * T(Xec(pop(7i', Terp<nrX6os, * Tpavp.a, * {lypcis, * iidpLJTriid/S, * vtto- 

CTTpaiVVVVai, * <))6PT|0pOV, (ppOfl/jLWS, * X°'O'P-0'» * wov. 

But the words which are peculiar to Luke in N.T. are by 
no means even the chief of the marks of his style. Still more 
striking are those expressions and constructions which he uses 
frequently, or more frequently than any other writer. Many of 
these occur more often in S. Luke's writings than in all the rest 
of N.T. A collection of them is rendered much more useful by 
being to some extent classified ; and the following lists have been 
made with a view to illustrating the affinities between the diction 
of S. Luke and of S. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
both jointly with the Pauline Epistles and also by itself. In this 
survey the Pastoral Epistles have been kept distinct from the main 
groups of the Pauline Epistles, in order to show their harmony with 
the diction of the Apostle's beloved companion. Words peculiar to 
Luke and to the Pastoral Epistles are not improbably Pauline. 
Words which are found in other Pauline Epistles as well as 
in the Pastoral Epistles and in Luke's writings are still more 
safely regarded as Pauline. 

Eight classes have been made ; and in them the very great 
variety of the words included, — many of them quite classical or of 




classical formation, — illustrate the richness of S. Luke's vocabulary 
and his command of the Greek language, (i) Expressions peculiar 
to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. (2) Peculiar to S. Luke and 
S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (3) Peculiar to S. Luke 
and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) Not found in any other 
Gospel and more frequent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. 
(5) Found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more fre- 
quent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (6) Due to Hebrew 
influence. (7) Miscellaneous expressions and constructions which 
are specially frequent in his writings. (8) Expressions probably or 
possibly medical. In the first of these classes the second list con- 
tains expressions peculiar to the writers in question, although not 
frequent in Luke. The figures state the number of times which 
the word occurs in that book or group ; and in fractions the upper 
figures indicates the number of times that the word occurs in the 
writings of Luke, the lower figure the number of times which it 
occurs elsewhere : e.g. in class 3 the fraction \ means twice in 
Luke's writings and once in Hebrews ; and in classes 4 and 5 the 
fraction \ means seven times in Luke's writings and four times in 
the other books of N.T. Where various readings render the exact 
proportions doubtful a "c." is placed in front of the fraction; e.g. c. \. 
In classes 1 and 2, when a reference to chapter and verse is given, 
this is the only instance of the use of the word in that book or group. 

(1) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. 

S. Luke. 

S. Paul. 





dvd' Cbv 

dirb tov vvv . 




TO elp-qp-ivov 



^(pLcrrdvai. . , 

15 od ydp . , 
KCLKoCpyos . , 
KarayytWetir , 
naTdyeiv . , 

KO.TO.I'Tq.V . , 



xxiii. 41 


ii. 24 
xii. 58 




V. II 

xii. 23 

xviii. 6 

xvi. 4 







ix. 11 


2 Th. ii. 10 

2 Cor. v. 16 

2 Th. iii. 2 
Rom. xv. 24 
Rom. viii. 33 
Rom. iv. 18 

Eph. iv. 19 
I Th. v. 3 

1 Th. iv. 11 

2 Cor. vii. 11 

Rom. x. 6 


2 Tim. ii. 9 




S. Luke. 

S. Paul. 





Kara^iojdrjyai • . 
6 X6705 t. Kvplov . m 
olKovo/jila . . • 
t& repL . . . 
(rwetS^at, -iSeiv . , 
i^aX/uoj . . . 

xx. 35 



v. 41 




2 Th. i. 5 
1 Th. i. 8 


I Cor. iv. 4 


? I Tim. i. 4 

All the above are proportionately common in S. Luke's writings ; but there 
are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers ; e.g. 

&8rj\os . . • 

xi. 44 

1 Cor. xiv. 8 

al(pvl5tos . ■ 

xxi. 34 

1 Th. v. 3 

a/xA ta ^ a ' T ^r e "' > 

xxi. 24 


2 Tim. iii. 6 

av&yvwais . . 

xiii. 15 

2 Cor. iii. 14 

1 Tim. iv. 13 

ivddefia . 1 

xxiii. 14 


avanplveLv . , 

xxiii. 14 



ivaXlffKeiv . , 

ix. 54 


| dvaXvetv . , 

xii. 36 

Phil. i. 23 

\?dva.irtp.irei¥ . , 


?XXV. 21 

Philem. 12 

1 dvacrraTOvv . , 


Gal. v. 12 

avarideadai , , 

xxv. 14 

Gal. ii. 2 

*&V€(TIS . . < 

xxiv. 23 


6.vbT)TOt . , 

xxiv. 25 



dcoia . . 

vi. 11 

2 Tim. iii. 9 


xiv. 12 

Rom. xi. 9 


xiv. 6 

Kom. ix. 20 

dvTLKeltjdai. . 





i- 54 

«. 35 

I Tim. vi. 2 

ixtidTji . 

i. 17 

xxvi. 19 

Rom. i. 30 


aireiX-fy . 


Eph. vi. 9 

diroSeiKvvvax « 



dirofiokri . 1 

xxvii. 22 

Rom. xi. 15 


xxii. 16 

I Cor. vi. 11 

diroaTokf) . , 

i. 25 


d7rp6(T/C07TOJ . 

xxiv. 16 


iirwdeladai . 



1 Tim. i. 19 

&pa ; or &pa ; 

xviii. 8 

viii. 30 

Gal. ii. 17 

6.porpiq.v . 

xvii. 7 

1 Cor. ix. 10 

*a<r<p<L\eut . 

>• 4. 

v. 23 

I Th. v. 3 

*dro7ros . 

xxiii. 41 


2 Th. iii. 2 

d^dpicTOf . 

vi- 35 

2 Tim. iii. 2 

/3ap(3apos . 



f3iu>Tu<6s . 

xxi. 34 



v. 7 

I Tim. vi. 9 

Mt]ct.v TroiflaBau 

v. 3< 

Phil. i. 4 

I Tim. ii. 1 

8tKr6s . . 







S. Luke. 

S. Paul. 






8iayyfK\eir . . . 

ix. 60 

xxi. 26 

Rom. ix. 17 

5<a<pfii' . 

XV. 12 

I Cor. xii. 1 1 


vii - 53 

Rom. xiii. 2 


xxiv. 27 

ix. 36 


8uyfj.a . 

ii. I 





2 Tim. iv. 7 

Sl'vdcTTIJi , 

i. 52 

viii. 27 

1 Tim. vi. 15 

ei 8£ xal . 

xi. 18 



x. 40 

Rom. x. 20 

ivOo^os . 



evSuecrflai . 

xxiv. 49 


(VKaKeii> . 

xviii. I 


£vvo/aos . 

xix. 39 

1 Cor. ix. 21 


xxi. 5 

2 Tim. iii. 17 



iv. II 


i^ovaia T. VK&TOVS 

xxii. 53 

Col. i. 13 

ei-ouatdfeiv . 

xxii. 25 



xvi. 8 




x. 6 

Rom. ii. 17 

£irex elv 

xiv. 7 


Phil. ii. 16 

I Tim. iv. 16 


xxiv. 4 

2 Cor. x. 1 




1 Tim. iii. 5 


xxiv. 12 

2 Cor. xi. 28 

tincpalveiv . 

i. 79 

xxvii. 20 



xxi. 8 

Eph. iv. 11 

2 Tim. iv. 5 


xix. 12 

xvii. 11 

1 Cor. i. 26 


xvii. 23 

I Tim. v. 4 

ftav t. irvtvpLari 

xviii. 25 

Rom. xii. 11 

foula . 




v. IO 

2 Tim. ii. 26 

*£woyoveiv . 

xvii. 33 

vii. 19 

1 Tim. vi. 13 

Otarpov . 


1 Cor. iv. 9 

KadrjKtiv . 

xxii. 22 

Rom. i. 28 

KareuOvueiv . 

i. 79 


KivSevveveiv . 

viii. 23 


I Cor. xv. 30 





xxii. 25 


1 Tim. vi. 15 

\elireii' = {a.i\ 

xviii. 22 


fmpTupecdai . 



Ixedio-T&va.!. -eii> 

xvi. 4 




xii. 45 


fiepis . 

x. 42 



fieTa8i86vat . 

iii. 11 



v. 17 

v. 34 

1 Tim. i. 7 

voo<pL$e<r dai . , 


Tit. ii. 10 

vovdtreiv . , 

xx. 31 


tevla. . . , 

xxviii. 23 

Philem. 22 

^vpdffdai . , 

xxi. 24 



S. L 


S. Paul. 





6fj.o0vfji.a86v . . » 


Rom. xv. 6 



xxvi. 19 

2 Cor. xii. 1 


i- 75 

Eph. iv. 24 

6\piJ)VlOV , 

iii. 14 


iraya . , 

xxi. 34 

Rom. xi. 9 



xi. 22 


xavovpyta , 

xx. 23 


irdvrws , 

iv. 23 





I Th. iv. 2 

2 Keva'geiv 

x. 10 


Trapaxcif-dfeiv , 


1 Cor. xvi. 6 

Tit. iii. 12 

irapo£m'eadai , 

xvii. 16 

I Cor. xiii. 5 

Trappijo-iafeadai , 




ii. 4 

iii. 25 

Eph. iii. 15 

ireidapxetv . 


Tit. iii. 1 

ireplepyos . , 

xix. 19 

1 Tim. v. 13 

irepnroie'iadai , 

xvii. 33 

xx. 28 

I Tim. iii. 13 

tirl TrXelov . 



ir\r)po(popetv , 

i. I 




xxii. 28 

Eph. ii. 12 


xxiii. I 

Phil. i. 27 

iropdeiv . , 

ix. 21 


i TroecrfivripLov 

xxii. 66 

xxii. 5 

1 Tim. iv, 14 

irpecrfivTrjs . 

i. 18 

Thilem. 9 

Tit. ii. 2 

irpobbTrfi . 

vi. 16 

vii. 52 

2 Tim. iii. 4 

Trpoeiire'iv . 

i. 16 


xpodv/xLa . , 

xvii. 1 J 


irpoidtiv . , 

H. 31 

Gal. iii. 8 

irpOKOTTTeiP . 

ii. 52 



irpdvoia. , , 

xx iv. 2 

Rom. xiii. 14 

irpooplfeiv . , 

iv. 28 



xix. 36 

2 Tim. iii. 4 

Kara. Trpoauirov 

ii. 31 




xvi. 22 

2 Co. - . xi. 25 

0-tfiaGfi.a. , 

xvii. 23 

2 Th. ii. 4 

GKOireiv . 

xi. 35 


ffTOlX^" • 

xxi. 24 


avyKadl^eiy . 

xxii. 55 

Eph. ii. 6 

avyKXcieiv , 

v. 6 


ffvyxalpeiv . , 



o-vfipifiafeiv . 


4 ... 


x. 40 

Rom. viii. 26 

trvvSea ftos , 

viii. 23 

3 ... 

<rvv^K8rj/j.os . , 

xix. 29 

2 Cor. viii. 19 

ffvveadieiv . , 

xv. 2 



avvevdoneiv . , 

xi. 48 



<rwo\Tri , , 

xxi. 25 

2 Cor. ii. 4 

ffvariXXeiy , ' , 

V. 6 

I Cor. vii. 29 





S. Luke. 

S. Paul. 





<T<i)fia.TlK6s . . . 

iii. 22 

I Tim. iv. 


rb aojTTjpiov . , 

<J(j)<ppO(J\JVT) . 



xxviii. 28 

xxvi. 25 


Eph. vi. 17 
Rom. i. 23 

dovvai Tbiror , 

xiv. 9 


I Cor. vii. 19 

f'/3ptt . . , 


2 Cor. xii. IO 


vu. 39 


inrwirt.d£eiv . 

xviu. 5 

I Cor. ix. 27 

vcTTiprjfxa . 

xxi. 4 




Rom. i. 22 



Tit. iii. 4 

<pi\dpyvpos . 
(popos . . , 
Xaptieadat , , 

XO-pLTOVV . , 

xvi. 14 

i. 17 

i. 28 



Eph. i. 8 
Eph. i. 6 

2 Tim. iii. 


Xeiporoveiv , , 
XpijcrOcu • < 

xiv. 23 


2 Cor. viii. 19 


(2) Expressions peculiar to S. Lvke and S. Paul and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. 






&/j.efXTrros . 

i. 6 


viii. 7 

ivayKaios . 



Tit. iii. 14 

vm. 3 


[xxii. 19] 


x- 3 

dvTairodi86i , a.i 



x. 30 

d^LOVV . 

vii. 7 


2 Th. i. 1 1 

1 Tim. v. 17 


air ok {laden 

xix. 20 

Col. i. 5 

2 Tim. iv. 8 

ix. 27 

diroXvrpuo'is . 

xxi. 28 



da<pa\7)% . 


Phil. iii. 1 

vi. 19 




2 Cor. xii. 8 


ill. 12 

(3ov\-fi . 




vi. 17 


xvi. 28 


1 Th. iv. 6 


ii. 6 

5t' fjv alriav . 

vm. 47 



11. 11 

4K<p4p€LV ? 

XV. 22 


1 Tim. vi. 7 

vi. 8 


xxi. 36 




ivbvvafxovv . 

ix. 22 



? xi. 34 

ivTvyxdveiv . 

xxv. 24 


vu. 25 


viii. 18 


VI. 2 


xiii. 7 


2 Tim. i. 10 

11. I4 

XeiTovpyetv . 

Sill. 2 

Rom. xv. 27 

X. II 








\eiro vpyia . 

i. 23 





2 Tim. ii. 



vvvl . 




*6p/j"6lJ' . 

XXll. 22 


Rom. i. 4 

iv. 7 










1 1 im. iv. 



irepiaipeiv . 


2 Cor. iii. 16 

X. II 

irepUpxecOai • 


1 Tim. v. 


xi. 37 

aK\r)pvvei.v . 

xix. 9 

Rom. ix. 18 


Ta£lS . . 

i. 8 




xx. 35 



2 Tim. ii. 



*iiiro(TT^XKeiv . 


Gal. ii. 12 

x. 38 

XpUi" . 

iv. 18 


2 Cor. i. 21 

»• 9 

(3) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke's Writings and to the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. 

ivadix eff ^ ai it dvaQeupetv}, dvaffrdaews Tvyx^feiv}, *dvopdovv%, dvdirepov \, 
•diraXXacrtretcf, diroypdipeadai. f, dpxvy^h dcrdXetrrosf, &<TTeios$, dcrrpoi/f, 
'fiorjQeMi;, diarldeffdail, per' elprjvr}s\, etVi^atf, iK\elweiv\, * ivoxXetv^, tvrpo- 
pos*, ivKTriWeiv^, ia<lrrepos\, VCtferosf, leparela^, l\dffKe<T0ai\, KaTarai/eieJ, 
Kara<pevyei.v \, Ke<pd\aiov \, \vrpu)cns\, fitroxot-j, 6p9bs\, iraXaiovv^, els tA 
iravTeX^s}, * TrapaXuecrdai. f, irapoiKelv \, * irapo^va^6s\, Trarpiapxys^, wepiKeivdal 
ti\, iruppwdev \, ovva.vTq.v$, ffxebbff, re\eiw<Tis$, i'7rap^Ls\. Excepting dvadewpelv, 
ivacrracrews T\ryx^ vfw > ovdnepov, iffiarepos, and els rb TravreXis, all the above are 
in LXX. 

(4) Expressions not found in the other Gospels and more frequetit 
in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 

iyaXXlacrts^ , alvelv%, * dvawe'p.wei.v \ , di'd' Cj"*, awoKoyeicrdaify, dcrcpdXeia.}, 
'dTevifeiv Vi *&totos\, dcpicTTauai 1 ^, ^ouXrj^, /Sp^osSj, bia/xapTvpeffdai^, biairop- 
eveadai^, iynaXelv '{, lp.<po(ios ?, e^airoaTeXXetf \£, eirlpxeffdai. \, *ipya<rla$, iadris^, 
eva.yyeXl^tadai'i\ , e'cpiardvai * r * , *i]avxa{et.v$, KaTaytcl, Karavrav^ , *Ka.T(pxtcrd<u 
C. \*, 6 \6yos rod KVplovf, fxediffrdvai-l, fxepisi, fJ.i)v V°> """o T0 " "C"fi on-raffiaf, 
m bpl^iv%, iraveodai^, to. irepl y, wpeofivrepiov f, irpotpxevdai c. \, * it po<j ay e iv c. f , 
x\)Kvbs\ , o~iyq.v%, <rire65eii'%, * crreTpa^, avvavTav\, virdpxetv (excluding rd U7rdp- 
X " Ta )rT;i *viro5exe<rdai%, * viroXa/j.[3di>ei.v $ , biroarpi<pei.v 3 j 3 : and several others 
which occur twice in Luke and once elsewhere. All of these occur in LXX, 
except a.vaire'p.ireiv. 

(5) Expressions found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more 
freque7it in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 

ayeiv C.\\, * d/cpt/^di?, -c'crrepov -|, eV dA^flci'as -§ , dpt^orepoi ®, 
avdyetv 2 ^ 1 , * avaipelv 2 ^ , di'iorai'ai r. |!j, dvTiAcyciv J, d— ayyiWeiv C. \\. 
airordacreLV ^, aupiov^, kcu avrds^, d<f)ecri<; d/xapTicuv^, /JoaV r. |, 
yivtTai <f>iovr} c. %, Beia-Oai 1 ^, Siayaepi^civ 3, Stai'oiyeiVY, Siaorpt^fti'^, 
oiau-wcen' f , 8taTao-(r€iv i^, Siep^eo-f^ai f. y^, Strjy€Lcr6ai ^, Sovvai 1 ^, 


*a»j, cyytCcii'-jf, eflos V , «i de MY e h> €ts €Katrros2, eurayf 11/ f , eto- 
<^epeiv^, eKaTovrapxys V> «' < o"'"ao-is4, eXerjfjiCKTTivr) 1 ^, 1/nrLfjLTrXdvai, 
ifnr\r)8eiv § , cvtfdScS, e£dye«'-|, e£ai'<pv?/s T , €^avT-^s|-, iir/yeiaOai T , 
t^to-Tavai ^ , iT7iXap./3dvea0ai ^ , £7ri7ri7TTeivi".§, €7rtcrKe7rrecr0ai r , tTosff, 
«v Tais ^pepatSy^, ko.0* rjfjLepav 1 ^, #avpd£eu> «riy, *ia<r0ai-jy, '^°^ 
ydpf, iKavck r. y-j, ipano-pds f , Ka#aipeu/£, KardAupay, Karavoeivf, 
KaTa^jiActv^-, KoXXdadai \, KOViopTOSy, Kp€pav|, KraaOat^, KwAdciVyy, 
7ras 6 Aads V, /^eyaXvvciv^, */i€(roia;/cTtovy, pj/r/pay, vopi£«v^, voyu.1- 
ko'sj, ^ oi- K ovp.€VT)%, oyo/xari. 2 -^, dpflwsy, 7ravTa^ou^, €i7reiv or Ae'yeiv 
■7Tapaj3oXrjv T 4 , vapayivecrOai C. 2 ^, * iraparrjpfiv %, irapa)(p^p.a\^, •jrepi- 
X^posf, irrjpa^, TrXrjBa.v 2 -£, *TrXrjdo<; 2 -^ t irXrjv r §, * TrXy prfs \£ , 7rpocr- 
SoKav 1 -^ 1 , Trpoo-TtOevai 1 -?, irpocr(/)wv€tVy, pvp-T]^, cra.Xeua.vf, cn-dcris^, 
Sia rrrd/iaros ^ , (TTp&cp£(jBai\, crvyKaXdv T ,'4, *cruAAap- 
fiaveiv Y , <rvp.iropeveo-6ai y, crdv <:. -jf, crvvep^crOaL T |, * <rui'i;(<u' $, 
(TWTl^e'vaty, rd(T(T€LV C.j, TCTpdpXT? 1 ? y, ti's e£ V/XW^y, 01/ TpoVov*, 
v/jpt^Lv^, Ta v7rap^o^Ta y, v7roo«Kva'vai y, ut^toTO? J, ^aAay £, uxrei £ yg. 
Excepting aKpi/je'crTepoi', a<^€cris dpapriwi', e^aur?/?, di'dpaTt, Tcrpap^vy?, 

and tis <;'£ upwi/, all the above are found in LXX. 

To these may be added a few which are specially frequent in 
Luke's writings, although not in excess of the rest of N.T. taken 

together: dp\(.(r6ai y^, d^pi £". £"-, S6^€cr^ai|-|, eVirdo-creiv §, 6 Adyos 
toC ®eca>y£, Ad^vos^, 7rapayye'AAeii'y* r , y, TrpocrSe^eo-^at y, 

«rxt£«v£, rpicftewi, Tpo</»?!, x^P's twenty-five times hi Lk. and Acts, 
not in ATt. or Mk., and only thrice in Jn. 

Phrases which indicate the expression of emotion are unusually 
common, and belong to the picturesqueness of Luke's style ; e.g. 

(f)6/3os pc'yasy, X a P a - p e ydA.?7 or TroXXr']*, <f)iDvr] peyaA^ ^y. 

Equally remarkable is his fondness for dvyp, where others have 
ui'0puj7ros or ets or nothing. Thus, vi. 8 tw avSpi, Mt and Mk. tJJ 

di'6p<i)Tru) \ viii. 27 de?/p tis, Mk. dvt)pu>iro<; ; ix. 38 di'7/p, Mt. dvOpuTTOS, 

Mk. els ; xxiii. 50 di'^'p, Mt. dvdp-an-o';, Mk. nothing. Comp. v. 8, 
12, 18, viii. 38, ix. 30, xxii. 63 : and the word is very much more 
frequent in Lk. than in all the other Gospels together. 

The expression xais avrov or <rov in the sense of "God's servant" 
is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 54, 69 ; Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30), 
with the exception of Mt. xii. 18, which is a quotation from Is. 
xlii. 1. 

(6) Expressions frequent in S. Luke's Writings and probably 
due to Hebrew Influence. 

The frequent use of lykvno is discussed at the end of ch. L 
Add to this Luke's fondness for ivutiriov, which does not occur 
in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (xx. 30). It is found more 
than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially in the phrase evdrn-tov 
tov Qeov (i. 19, 75, xii. 6, xvi. 15) or KvpCov (i. 15). With this com- 


pare irpb Trpoa ioirov tivos (vii. 27, IX. 52, X. i) and Kara, -rpoo-uy 

itov tivos (ii. 31). The frequent use of ZSou (i. 38, ii. 34, 48, 
vii. 25, 27, 34, etc.) and *ai i&ov (i. 20, 31, 36, ii. 25, v. 12, vii. 12, 
37, etc.); of p^a for the matter of what is spoken (i. 65, ii. 15, 
19, 51); of oIk 09 in the sense of "family" (i. 27, 33, 69, ii. 4, 
x. 5, xix. 9) ; of els in the sense of tis (v. 12, 17, viii. 22, xiii. 10, 
xx. 1) or of 7rpo>Tos (xxiv. 1) ; of ^kttos for "the Most High" 
(i. 32, 35, 76, vi. 35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So 
also do such expressions as -n-oizlv IA.£os p.erd (i. 72, x. 37) 

and [xeyaXvv eii> IA.eos/i.CTa(i. 58); ttoic'iv Kpdros (i. 5 i) ; ef 

KoiAius fi.7]Tp6'i (i. 15); combinations with cv ttj Kaphia or ev 
rats k., such as SiaXoyC'CeaOai (iii. 15, v. 22 ; comp. xxiv. 38), hianrj- 
pciv (ii. 51), OecrOai (i. 66, xxi. 14), crvv/?aAAeiv (ii. 19); ev Tais 
rjfiepais (i. Si 39- 'i- T < IV. 2, 25, V. 35, etc.) ; rfj rj/xepa. rov crafi- 

J3o.tov (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5); with perhaps Sta arop-aros (i. 70), 
where both the expression and the omission of the article seem to 
be Hebraistic : in LXX we commonly have, however, iv rw a-ropan 
or Ik rov o-ro/xaro?. Nearly all these expressions are found in the 
Acts also, in some cases very often. The frequent use of peri- 
phrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. Ii) as being due 
in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of 
the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common 
in Luke (iv. 22, xvi. 8, 9, xviii. 6; comp. x. 6, xx. 34, 36); 
and of the frequent use of xai auros (ii. 28, v. 1, 17, viii. i, 22, 
xvii. 11, xix. 2), /cal avi-77 (ii. 37), and Kal aurot (xiv. 1, xxiv. 14) 
after iyevero, Kal l&ov, and the like. Phrases like ho£a£,iiv tov 
Qtov (v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, xviii. 43, xxiii. 47), 6 
\dyos tov ©eou (v. I, viii. II, 21, xi. 2S), and iiraipeiv ttjv 

(frwvrjv (xi. 27) may be placed under the same head; and they all 
of them occur several times in the Acts. 

In common with other N.T. writers S. Luke uses several 
Hebrew words, which may be mentioned here, although they are 
not specially common in his writings: ap.yv (iv. 24, xii. 37, xviii. 
17, etc.), jSee^€/3ov'A (xi. 15, 18, 19), ytevva (xii. 5), -n-dcrxa (ii. 41, 
xxii. 1, 7, 8,11, 13, 15), o-dpfiarov (iv. 16, 31, vi. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 
etc.), aaravas (x. 1 8, xi. 18, xiii. 16, etc.). Three others occur 
once in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. ; /?aros (xvi. 6), 
Kopos (xvi. 7), criKepa (i. 15). Other words, although Greek in 
origin, are used by him, as by other N.T. writers, in a sense which 
is due to Hebrew influence; uyycAos (i. 11, 13, 18, etc.), ypap.- 
uarevs (v. 21, 30, vi. 7, ix. 22, etc.), Sia/SoAos (iv. 2-13, viii. 12), 
IQvri (ii. 32, xviii. 32, xxi. 24 bis, etc.), dpijvy} (i. 79, ii. 29, vii. 50, 
etc.), Kvpios (i. 6, 9, 11, 15, etc.); and i(pr)p.epia (i. 5, 8) is a Greek 
word specially formed to express a Hebrew idea. 


(7) Miscellaneous Expressions and Constructions tvhich are 
specially frequent in S. LukJs Writings. 

In his use of the article he has several favourite constructions. 
He is very fond of iv tu> followed by a present infinitive to express 
time during which (i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 43, v. 1, 12, viii. 5, 42, etc.) or 
by an aorist infinitive to express time after which (ii. 27, iii. 21, 
ix. 34, 36, xi. 37, etc.) ; also of tov with an infinitive to express 
purpose or result (i. 73, ii. 27, v. 7, xii. 42, etc.). He frequently 
employs to to introduce a whole clause, especially interrogations, 
much as we use inverted commas (i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 

23> 24, 37)- 

In the case of certain verbs he has a preference for special 
constructions. After verbs of speaking, answering, and the like 
he very often has irp6<; and the accusative instead of the simple 
dative. Thus, we have threw Trpds (i. 13, 18, 28, 34, 61, ii. 34, 48, 
49, etc.), AaAetv 77/50S (i. 19, 55, ii. 15, 18, 20, xii. 3, etc.), Aeyciv 

Trpds (iv. 2 1, V. 36, vii. 24, viii. 25, ix. 23, etc.), airoKpLvecrOai 7rp6s 
(iv. 4, vi. 3, xiv. 5?), yoyyv'Cziv 777305 (v. 30), (rvvfy-elv Trpo? (xxii. 23), 
awKaXelv Trpds (iv. 36). It often happens that where Mt. or Mk. 
has the dative, Luke has the accusative with 7rpds (Mt. ix. 11; Mk. 
ii. 16; Lk. v. 30). Whereas others prefer i&pxzvOai Ik, he has 
i&PXevOa-i <x7to (iv. 35, 41, v. 8, viii. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38, ix. 5,^ etc.), 
and for 8avp.d£,eiv ti he prefers 6avp.d£eiv Ittltivi (ii. 33, iv. 22, 
ix. 43, xx. 26). For #epa7rei'€iv voaovi he sometimes has Oepa-rrevtiv 
u7r6 vocrwv (v. 15, vii. 21, viii. 2). He is fond of the infinitive after 
StaTo (ii. 4, viii. 6, ix. 7, xi. 8, xviii. 5, etc.), pera to (xii. 5, xxii. 
20), and Trpo toG (ii. 21, xxii. 15). The quite classical Zx iiv ti is 
common (vii. 42, ix. 58, xi. 6, xii. 17, 50, xiv. 14). His use of the 
optative has been mentioned above (p. Ii). 

Participles with the article often take the place of substantives 
(ii. 27, iv. 16, viii. 34, xxii. 22, xxiv. 14). They are frequently 
added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner : dvacrrdvr^ 
i£e/3a\ov (iv. 29), KaOiaras i&i8acn<ev (v. 3), o-ra^eis (KeXtvaev (xviii. 
40), orpactjets iireTip.rjcr€v (ix. 55), etc. They are sometimes strung 
together without a conjunction (ii. 36, iv. 35, v. n, 19, 25, etc.). 

S. Luke is very fond of 7ras, and especially of the stronger 
form a7ras. It is not always easy to determine which is the right 
reading; but a7ras is certainly very common (iii. 21, iv. 6, v. 26, 
viii. 37, ix. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. 1; also in Acts). Elsewhere in 
N.T. a7ra<; is rare. Not unfrequently Luke has 7ras or a7ras where 
the others have nothing (iii. 15, 16, 21, iv. 37, v. 11, 28, vi. io, 17, 
19, 30, vii. 35, etc.). ttSs 6 Xads and a7ras 6 X. are very freq. 

In the use of certain prepositions he has some characteristic 
expressions: eis to. wra (i. 44, ix. 44) and eis t<xs d*oas (vii. 1), iv 
rols (ia-tv (iv. 21) and iv pcVw (ii. 46, viii. 7, x. 3, xxi. 21, xxii. 27, 55, 


xxiv. 36) ; Kara to e#os (i. 9, ii. 42, xxii. 39), to ddio-ixivov (ii. 27), 
to €tw86<; (iv. 16), t6 tlpTf/xtvov (ii. 24), and to u>picrp.evov (xxii. 22); 
irapa tovs 7ro8as (vii. 38, viii. 35, 41, xvii. 16), whereas Mark has 
Trpo? t. Tro'Sas (v. 22, vii. 25). Luke is very fond of crvv, which 
is rather rare in the other Gospels but is very frequent in both of 
Luke's writings. Sometimes he has crvv where the others have 
fierd (viii. 38, 51, xxii. 14, 56) or kcu (xx. 1) or nothing (v. 19). 

The pronouns airrds (see below) and ovtos are specially common. 
The latter is added to a numeral, TpL-rqv ravrrjv r]p.epav (xxiv. 21), 
to make it more definite, ti's «'£ vfxwv ; is almost peculiar to him 
(xi. 5, xii. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7), and so also is ti's io-nv outos 
os; (v. 21, vii. 49). The indefinite tis with nouns is freq. 

In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining 8e with kcu', 
a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (ii. 4, 
iii. 9, 12, iv. 41, v. 10, 36, vi. 6, ix. 61, etc.) and seven in the Acts. 
It is rare in the other Gospels. His Hebraistic use of kcu auTos, 
avr-q or avroi, and of kcu l&ov, to introduce the apodosis to iycvero 
and the like, has been pointed out above (p. lxi). But Luke is 
also fond of kcu airo's at the beginning of sentences or independent 
clauses (i. 17, 22, iii. 23, iv. 15, v. 37, vi. 20, xv. 14, etc.), and 
of kcu ovtos, which is peculiar to him (i. 36, viii. 41?, xvi. 1, 
xx. 28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses Se, and et7T€v 
Se occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts. 
It is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. 
(xii, 6 [yiii. 1 1,] ix. 37 ?) : they prefer 6 Se (l-n-ev, or kcu Xeyu, k.t.A. 
Luke also has eA-eyev Sc nine times in the Gospel ; it occurs twice 
in Mk., once in Jn., and never in Mt. Five times he begins a 
sentence with kcu cos (temporal), which is not found elsewhere in 
N.T. (xv. 25, xix. 41, xxii. 66, xxiii. 26; Acts i. 10). The inter- 
rogative €i is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (vi. 7, 9, 
xiii. 23, xiv. 28, 31, xxii. 49, 67, etc.), ei Be fiy'iye five times, and ei 
dpa twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere. 

The idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in both 
books (i. 4, ii. 20, iii. 19, v. 9, ix. 36, 43, xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, 
etc.) : it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn. 

After Tovro he has oti in Gospel and Acts (x. 11, xii. 39, etc.) ; 
Mt. and Mk. never ; Jn. only after 8ta tovYo. 

He is fond of combinations of cognate words, e.g. (pvXuacrovTes 
tfivXaKas (ii. 8), i<f)oj3r)0rio-av cpofiov fj.iyav (ii. 9), /SaTTTio-^cVres to /JdV- 

Tio-fxa (vii. 29), i) dcrrpaTry] ao-TpdirTovaa (xvii. 24). Some of these 
are Hebraistic, especially such as eVicfyua eVec^i'^cra (xxii. 15). 

(8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. 

It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the 
existence of medical phraseology in the writings of S. Luke. In the 


Gentleman's Magazine for June 184 1 a paper appeared on the 
subject, and the words u^Xvs (Acts xiii. n), KpanrdXr) (Lk. xxi. 34), 
m> paXtkv fj.ii os (v. 18, 24; Acts viii. 7, ix. 23)> ira-poijvo-fjLos (Acts 

XV. 39), (TWi-^oixivq TTVperw /xeydXio (Lk. iv. ^8), and vhp<D7rii<6s 

(xiv. 2) were given as instances of technical medical language. 
Since then Dr. Plumptre and others have touched on the subject; 
and in 1882 Dr. Hobart published his work on The Medical 
Language of St. Luke, Dublin and London. He has collected 
over 400 words from the Gospel and the Acts, which in the main 
are either peculiar to Luke or are used by him more often than 
by other N.T. writers, and which are also used (and often very 
frequently) by Greek medical writers. He gives abundant quota- 
tions from such writers, that we may see for ourselves ; and the 
work was well worth doing. But there can be no doubt that the 
number of words in the Gospel and the Acts which are due to 
the Evangelist's professional training is something very much less 
than this. It may be doubted whether there are a hundred such 
words. But even if there are twenty-five, the fact is a considerable 
confirmation of the ancient and universal tradition that " Luke the 
beloved physician " is the author of both these books. Of 
Di Hobart's long list of words more than eighty per cent, are 
found in LXX, mostly in books known to S. Luke, and sometimes 
occurring very frequently in them. In all such cases it is more 
reasonable to suppose that Luke's use of the word is due to his 
knowledge of LXX, rather than to his professional training. In 
the case of some words, both of these causes may have been at 
work. In the case of others, the medical training, and not famili- 
arity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the prob- 
ability is the other way. Unless the expression is known to be 
distinctly a medical one, if it occurs in books of LXX which were 
known to Luke, it is probable that his acquaintance with the ex- 
pression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. If the expres- 
sion is also found in profane authors, the chances that medical 
training had anything to do with Lk.'s use of it become very 
remote. It is unreasonable to class as in any sense medical such 

words as dOpoi^tiv, aKor h avaipeiv, dvaXapi/Sdi'tiv, dvopbovv, aTrcuretf, 
aTraXXdaaeii', airoXvuv, raVo/ueif, d(T<f>dXtia, a<£ems. etc. etc. All of 

these are frequent in LXX, and some of them in profane authors 

Nevertheless, when Dr. Hobart's list has been well sifted, there 
still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or 
frequency of which in S. Luke's writings may very possibly be due 
to the fact of his being a physician. The argument is a cumulat- 
ive one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical 
writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large 
lumber of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for 


all of them ; especially where the word is either rare in LXX, or 
not found there at all. 

The instances given in the Gentleman 's Magazine require a 
word of comment. Galen in treating of the diseases of the eye 
gives a^Xvs as one of them, and repeatedly uses the word, which 
occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Perhaps KpanraX-q, which 
in bibl. Grk. is found Lk. xxi. 34 only, is a similar instance. It 
occurs more than once in Aristophanes, but is frequent in medical 
writers of the nausea which follows excess. In irapa\c.\vp,kvo<; we 
have a stronger instance. Whereas the other Evangelists use 
?rapaAvTiKos, Luke in harmony with medical usage has 7rapaX(Xv- 
fievos, as also has Aristotle, a physician's son {Eth. Nic. i. 13. 15). 
But this use may come from LXX, as in Heb. xii. 12. That Trapo- 
£v<Tfj.6<; is a medical term is indisputable ; but as early as Demos- 
thenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX 
(Deut. xxix. 28 ; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii.] 37). The instance in Lk. iv. 38 
is perhaps a double one : for a-wexop-iv-q is possibly, and 7rupeTw 
paydXio probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and 
ML have merely Trvpeacrovcra, and in Acts xxviii. 8 we have the 
parallel TrvptTol<z /cat SucrevTepta) crvv£^d/i.evov. In vSpoiTTLKos we have 
a word peculiar to Luke in bibl. Grk. and perhaps of purely 
medical origin. 

By adopting doubtful or erroneous readings Hobart makes other instances 
double, e.g. iirtweaev for Zireoev (Acts xiii. 11), (iapwOQioLv for fiapriQCjcnv (Lk. 
xxi. 34). Again, whether or no avcnrTvoaeiv has any medical flavour, Lk. 
iv. 17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is 

To the examples given in the Gentleman's Magazine may per- 
haps be added such instances as 8o.ktv\u> 7rpocri/'aueiv (xi. 46), where 
Mt. has oaKTu'Aw Kivrjaat: oid Tp-qp.aTo<s /JtAoV^s (xviii. 25), where Mk. 
has Sid Tpvp.aAias paepi'Sos : (.ctttj rj pwts toD al/xaros (viii. 44), where 
Mk. has i^rjpdvOr] f] Trrjyr) t. aipaTos : icrrepewdrjaav at /^dcrets airov 
(cat ra crcpvSpd (Acts iii. 7) ; and more doubtfully 666vr)v recro-apo-tv 
dp^ats K.a.6dp,€vov (Acts x. n) and dvtN:d#io-ev (vii. 15 ; Acts ix. 40). 

Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of 
the healing of Malchus' ear (xxii. 51). And perhaps the marked 
way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease 
(vi 18, xiii. 32 ; Acts xix. 12) may be put down to medical train- 
ing. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been 
afflicted (xiii. 1 1 ; Acts ix. 33) and the age of the person healed 
(viii. 42 ; Acts iv. 22) is a feature of the same kind. For other 
possible instances see notes on iv. 35, v. 12, vii. 10. 

The coincidences between the preface of the Gospel and the 
opening words of some medical treatises are remarkable (see small 
print, pp. 5, 6). And it is worth noting that Luke alone records 
Christ's quotation of the proverb, 'IaTpc, ^epaTrevo-ov aeavrov 




(iv. 23) ; and that almost the last words that he records in the 
Acts are S. Paul's quotation from Is. vi., which ends ko.1 ld<TO{ 
avTov<i (xxvui. 26, 27). 

The following table will illustrate some characteristics of S. 
Luke's diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists : — 

S. Matthew. 

iii. 10. 1j8r) 5^. 

iii. 16. Trvevfxa QeoO. 

iii. 17. (pwT) in t. ovp- 


iv. I. ivfixOy. 

iv. 5, 8. irapa\afjL^ivn. 

iv. 12. ivex^pv^ ev - 
iv. 18. rrjv ddXaaaav. 
iv. 20. d(pivres ra diKrua. 
viii. 2. Xeirpbs irpoaeKdwv 
rpofftKvvei avTiji. 

viii. 4. kclI \tyei 6 ItjjoCs. 

ix. 2. irpo<j{<pepov airr£ 
ix. 7. iyepdels. 

ix. 8. i<pop-/jdr]jav. 

ix. 9. ~M.a0da.iov \ey6fievov. 
xii. 50. rb 6i\r]/ia r. war- 

pit /J.OIK 

xiii. 7. M ras dKdv0as. 

xiii. 19. t. \6yov r. /Sa- 

xiii. 20. \afif3dvwv. 
xiii. 21. <r*a^5aX^€Tat. 
v. 15. Kalovaii' Xvxvov, 
viii. 21. /ci/piff. 

viii. 30. d7Aij x^P^' 

ix. 18. f5oi> apxuv [els'] 
wpoatKQwv irpotrKvvei. ai/nj;. 

ix. 18. tTe\e6rj]<Ter. 

x. 14. ^frpxWi'oi ^">. 
xvi. 15. X^-y«. 

S. Mark. 

i. IO. rb Tvevfia. 

i. II. <pwvi) 4k t. ovpa- 


i. 12. rb w. airrbv ^/c/SdX- 

i. 14. 1)\0ev. 
i. 16. T$\v dd\ao~o~av. 
i. 18. d<pivTes ra 5//crva. 
i. 40. \eirpbs irapaKaXQy 
airrbv Kal yovinrrruiv. 

i. 44. Kal \4yei. 

ii. 3. (pipovres irpbs airrbv 

ii. 12. rryip0y) Kal eii0vs. 

ii. 12. Qlo-Tao-Oai. 

ii. 14. Aevelv. 
iii. 35. rb 04\rj/ia r. 

iv. 7. e/j Tdr dKdv0a». 

iv. 14. rbv \byov. 

iv. 16. \afif3dvovo-iv. 
iv. 17. (TKav5aX^orra«. 

iv. 38. Si5do-Ka\f. 

▼. 7. bpKl£<j) ae. 

v. 1 1 . dyikr) x°^P uv P^Y' 

v. 22. tpxerai (U rwv dp- 
Xtcrvvayurywv Kal Trlirrei 
vpbs rods irdSas avrov. 

V. 23. itrxdrus tx €l - 

v. 29. ev0vs iti)pdv0t) ii 

vi. II. iKiropevdfievot eVe»- 

viii. 29. fVr/purra. 

S. Luke. 

iii. 9. -^St; 5£ Kal. 
iii. 22. rb irv. rb &yio*. 
iii. 22. <j>u3V7}v e'£ oi)pai'oiJ 

iv. i. virto-Tocipcv. 

lv - 5» 9- ^7 a 7 f,, » dra- 
7ay w^. 

iv. 14. virto-Tpe\ptv. 

V. I. TT)V \lnv7)v. 

v. II. d(p4vres rdvra. 

v. 12. d»<T)p TrXi^piij 
\4xpas irecruv eVi rpbo- 
wttov eBerjdi) aiirov. 

v. 14. »-ai avrbs Trap* 

v. 18. avdpet <p4pcvrti 
. . . wapa\e\v/j.4vot. 

v. 25. Tapaxpypa dv- 
affrds ivwiriov airrQiv. 

v. 26. €T\^cr0r]O-av <po- 

v. 27. dvd/xari Aevelv. 

viii. 21. rdy \6yov r. 

viii. 7. iv fiictp t. d/cav- 

viii. 11. b \6yosT. QeoO. 

viii. 13. otx ovTai * 

viii. 13. d(plffTavrat. 

viii. 16. Xi^x 1 ' '' d\f/at. 

viii. 24. e7rKrrdra. 

viii. 28. diofial aov. 

viii. 32. 07^77 x°Lp wy 

viii. 41. *cai ISov ?j\0ev 

dvrjp Kal OVTOS &pX<4V T7)t 

cvvaywyris vir?ipx*v- Kal 
irecruiv irapd tovs r65as 
1 7? <r v. 
viii. 42. xal avT'f; diri- 


viii. 44. Tapaxpvf 1 * 
tart) 77 pvffis. 

ix. 5. tZepxb/Mvot drb. 

ix. 20. eTrcc ££ 


S. Matthew. 
xvi. 20. iirerifi7]<T€v, 
xvi. 28. dp.r~v \eyu> vp.iv. 

xvii. 4. Kt'pte. 

xvii. 16. irpoa-qveyKa.. 

xvii. 18. idepairevdt] 6 

xix. T3. iraidia. 

xxii. 1 8. 7»'oi)s t^p 7roi>- 

xxvi. 20. /iera t. Sudeten 

xxvi. 27. \af3wv. 

xxvi. 29. oi) /ti7j dir' &prt. 

xxvi. 41. yprjyopeire ko.1 

TpOCT€&X €<T ^ e - 

xxvi. 64. d7r fieri. 
xxvii. 2. dir-qyayov ko.1 
TaptSwuav HeiX&Ttf. 

xxvii. 13. \eyeu 

xxvii. 57. clvdpbnros ir\oi- 
fftoi, Todvofxa. 'lucij-p. 


S. Luke. 

S. Mark. 

viii. 30. iirerlp.-qcrev. 

ix. I. dp.rjv \eyu 

ix. 5. 'VaPPel, 
ix. 18. el7ra. 
ix. 27. aviarr). 

x. 13. 7rcu5£a. 
xii. 15. e£5wy rip inr6~ 

xiv. 17. p.eTa.Tuv SwbeKa. 

xiv. 23. Xa/3<ic. 

xiv. 25. ovKtri. oil p.-//. 

xiv. 38. yprjyopeire ko.1 

w. I. diri)veyKav ko.1 
Tapt5u)Ka.v Ii.eikd.TU. 

xv. 4. eirTjpuTa. 

xv. 43. 'Itt<rJ;0 etfo'XTjyuwi' 

xvi. 8. e£e\dovcrai ... 

x.xviii. 8. d-reXdovcai . . . 
(Spa/uov d7ra77«Xai toU ovbevl oiidev elirav. 
fiadrp-aU avrov. 

ix. 21. ewiTip.T}o-a% trap- 

ix. 27. X^yw iip.iv d\-q- 

ix. 33. eTrio-rdra. 

ix. 40. iberjdrjv. 

ix. 42. I a to* 

xviii. 15. tA ^pi<ptj. 

xx. 23. AcaTavoTjcraj T7?t 

xxii. 14. oZ dir6o~To\oi 
a iiv avrtp. 

xxii. 17. Sefd/uevos. 

xxii. 18. ou pvq dirb tov 

xxii. 46. d^ao-rdy-res 

rpo<re(/x e<r ^ e - 

xxii. 69. dirb tov vvv. 

xxiii. I. dvacTTdv iLirav 
rb ir\?i6 os avrwv tfyayov 
aiirbv iwl t. IleiXdrov. 

xxiii. 9. e'wqpuTa iv Xo- 
701s t/cavols. 

xxiii. 50. teal ISoi/ dv-qp 
6v6p.a,Ti 'I., povXevTT-s 

xxiv. 9. viroffTpe'ypo.oa.i 
, . . dwriyyeiXav ravra 
iravTa rots l-vSeKO. ko.1 
■adatv Toh XoiitoU. 

These are only specimens taken from a large number of 
instances, and selected for their brevity and the ease with which 
they admit of comparison. The student who has mastered the 
main features of Luke's style will be able to find many more for 


This question may be regarded as naturally following the dis- 
cussion of S. Luke's peculiarities and characteristics, for it is by a 
knowledge of these that we are able to solve it. The question has 
been keenly debated during the last forty years, and may now be 
said to be settled, mainly through the exertions of Volkmar, 
Hilgenfeld, and Sanday. Dr. Sanday's article in the Fortnightly 
Review, June 1875, in answer to Supernatural Religion, was pro- 
nounced by Bishop Lightfoot to be " able and (as it seems to me) 
Unanswerable" (On Sup. Rel. p. 186). This article was incor- 


porated in The Gospels in the Second Century, Macmillan, 1876, 
now unfortunately out of print, and it remains unanswered. It is 
now conceded on all sides 1 that Marcion's Gospel does not 
represent the original S. Luke, and that our Third Gospel has 
not been largely augmented and interpolated, especially by the 
addition of the first three chapters and the last seven verses ; but 
that Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our S. Luke, which 
therefore was current before Marcion began to teach in Rome in 
or before a.d. 140. The statements of early Christian writers (not 
to be accepted as conclusive without examination) have been 
strongly confirmed, and it is right to speak of Marcion's Gospel as 
a " mutilated " or " amputated " edition of S. Luke. 

Irenaeus says of Marcion : id quod est secundum Lucam evangelium 
circumcidens (i. 27. 2, iii. 12. 7); and again: Marcion et qui ab eo sunt, ad 
intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cog- 
noscentes, secundum Lucam autem evangelium et epistolas Pauli decurtantes, 
haec sola legitima esse dicunt, qu& ipsi minoraverunt (iii. 12. 12). Similarly 
Tertullian : Quis tarn comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit ? 
(Adv. Marcion. i. 1). Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. 
. . . ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse 
quern csederet [ibid. iv. 2). Epiphanius also : 6 iuv yap x a P a - KT ^P T °v Kark Aovkot 
ffijuaifet rb evayyfkioV (is 8i r\Kpun-r)pla(xrai. fi-qre dpxh v ^X wv > fJ-V re P-ioo., firfre 
rAos, Ifiartov f}e§pwp.ivov virb woW&v GTyr&v iirix^ Tbv Tpbirov (Hser. i. 3. II, 
Migne, xli. 709). Epiphanius speaks of additions, rb, bk irpoa-Tidrjatv : but these 
were very trifling, perhaps only some two or three dozen words. 

The evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the contents 
of Marcion's Gospel is quite independent, and it can be checked 
to some extent by that of Irenaeus. Their agreement is remark- 
able, and we can determine with something like certainty and 
exactness the parts of the Third Gospel which Marcion omitted ; 
not at all because he doubted their authenticity, but because he 
disliked their contents. They contradicted his doctrine, or did 
not harmonize well with it, or in some other way displeased him. 
In this arbitrary manner he discarded i. ii. and iii. excepting iii. 1, 
with which his Gospel began. Omitting iii. 2-iv. 13, 17-20, 24, 
he went on continuously to xi. 28. His subsequent omissions 
were xi. 29-32, 49-51, xiii. 1-9, 29-35, xv * II- 3 2 > xv ^ > 5 -IO > 
xviii. 31-34, xix. 29-48, xx. 9-18, 37, 38, xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22, 
xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51, xxiv. 47-53. Perhaps he also 
omitted vii. 29-35 > an< ^ ne transposed iv. 27 to xvii. 18. 

It should be observed that not only does Marcion's Gospel 

1 An exception must be made of the author of The Four Gospels as 
Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and 
rakes together criticisms and positions which have been rendered impotent and 
untenable. One is tempted to apply to it the author's own words (respecting a 
volume of very real merit and ability, which has rendered signal service to the 
cause of truth), that it " may be said, without much injustice, to beg everv 
question with which it deals" (p. 491). 


contain nearly all the sections which are peculiar to Luke, but it 
contains them in the same order. Where Luke inserts something 
into the common tradition, Marcion has the insertion ; where Luke 
omits, Marcion omits also. This applies in particular to "the 
great intercalation" (ix. 51-xviii. 14) as well as to smaller 
insertions ; and this minute agreement, step by step, between 
Marcion and Luke renders the hypothesis of their independence 
incredible. The only possible alternatives are that Marcion has 
expurgated our Third Gospel, or that our Third Gospel is an 
expansion of Marcion's; and it can be demonstrated that the 
second of these is untenable. 

(1) In most cases we can see why Marcion omitted what his 
Gospel did not contain. He denied Christ's human birth ; 
therefore the whole narrative of the Nativity and the genealogy 
must be struck out. The Baptism, Temptation, and Ascension 
involved anthropomorphic views which he would dislike. All 
allusions to the O.T. as savouring of the kingdom of the Demiurge 
must be struck out. And so on. In this way most of the 
omissions are quite intelligible. The announcement of the 
Passion (xviii. 31-34) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, etc. 
(xix. 29-48), were probably disliked as being fulfilments of O.T. 
prophecy. It is less easy to see Marcion's objection to the 
Prodigal Son (xv. n-32) and the massacre of Galileans, etc. 
(xiii. 1-9) ; but our knowledge of his strange tenets is imperfect, 
and these passages probably conflicted with some of them. But 
such changes as " all the righteous " for " Abraham and Isaac and 
Jacob and all the prophets" (xiii. 28), or "the Lord's words" for 
"the law" (xvi. 17), or "those whom the god of that world shall 
account worthy " for " they that are accounted worthy to attain to 
that world" (xx. 35), are thoroughly intelligible. Others which his 
critics supposed to be wilful depravations of the text are mere 
differences of reading found in other authorities ; e.g. the omission 
of aiwviov (x. 25) and of rj nepi<TTr}v (xii. 14) ; and the insertion of 
Acai KaraXvovra rov vo/xov kou tous TrpocprJTa<; (xxiii. 2). 

(2) But the chief evidence (in itself amounting to something 
like demonstration) that Marcion abridged our S. Luke, rather 
than the Evangelist expanded Marcion, is found in the peculiarities 
and characteristics of Luke's style and diction. These run through 
our Gospel from end to end, and on the average are as frequent in 
the portions which Marcion omitted as in the rest. In the first 
two chapters they are perhaps somewhat more frequent than else- 
where. It is quite incredible that the supposed interpolator made 
a minute analysis of the style and diction of Marcion's Gospel, 
practised himself in it, and then added those portions of our 
Gospel which Marcion did not include in his Gospel : and that he 
accomplished this feat without raising a suspicion. Such a feat in 


that age would have been a literary miracle. Only those who 
have worked through the passages expunged by Marcion, carefully 
marking what is peculiar to Luke or characteristic of him, can 
estimate the full force of this argument. But the analysis of a few 
verses will be instructive. 

The dotted lines indicate that the expression is found more 
often in Luke's writings than in the rest of N.T., and the fraction 
indicates the proportion : e.g. the f with KaOtlXev means that 
KaOaipeiv occurs six times in Lk. and Acts, and three elsewhere in 
the rest of N.T. The plain lines indicate that the expression is 
peculiar to Luke in N.T., and the figure states the number of 
times in which it occurs in his writings : e.g. Kara, to eOos occurs 
thrice in Lk. and Acts, and nowhere else in N.T. 

Ka^etXcv ^ ouvao-Tas a7ro Opovwv, Kal ttyaxrev Ta7reivovs, imvaivTas 
cvtrrAr/crei' %? ayadwv, Kal ttXovtovvtcls i£airio-reiXev y Ktvovs. avreXd- 
/3ero 'Icrpar/X 7rcnSos y avrov, /xvr)o-6r}vai eXeovs («a#u)S iXdXrjo-w 
7rpos tous 7raT€oas rj/xwv) t<3 'Afipaap. Kal tw o-izipp.ari avrov eis tov 
alujva. "Ep,€iv£v Be Mapiaa o~vv ^ avrfj u>s /nijvas \p Tpeis, kcu 

VTTf.(TTp€\peV 3 ^ 3 €IS TOV OIKOV aUT^S (i. 52—56). 

Kai iiropevovro oi yoveis avTov kclt ero% |-| fis 'lepovo~aXr)p. ryj 
ioprfj tov 7racr^a. Kal ore «twv|-| SwStKa, dvaySatvovTiov 
avruiv Kara, to £#053 t»}s eoprrjs, Kal TeXeioicrdvrwv Tas rjp.€pa<; } 
iv tcu viroo-rpecp€iv 3 ^ airov<; virep.etvev Ir]o~ov<; 6 7rais cv lepovo-aXrjp.' 
kol ovk eyvwcrav 01 yovcis avrov' , avre% ^ Se airov iv rfi crwoSia 
civai ^\0ov ^pepas 6S0V, Kai ajrefcrjrow 3 avTOv ev tois crvyyevfcri Kai 
tois 2 yvwo-TOis* *g 2 Kal fxr] evpovres vnecrrpeij/av 8 ^ 8 cis 'lepovo-aXrjp:, 
ava£,r)Tovvre<; 3 avrov. Kai iyivero p.e6' r]p.epa<; Tpfis, cvpov avTov iv 
tw iepw, KaOe^op-evov iv p,eo~(p twv StSacrKaAwv, Kai aKouovTa avru)v, Kai 
eVepajTaJj/ra avrovV i^Lcrravro ^ Se 7ravTes 01 aKovovTCS avTOi! cVi 
t^ ovvc'crci Kai Tais a.TTOKpio-eo-iv avrov (ii. 41—47). 

§ 8. THE TEXT. 

The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from 
different sources, of which Tischendorf s Nov. Test. Grsec. vol. i. 
ed. 8, Lipsine, 1869, and Sanday's App. ad Nov. Test. Step/i., 
Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in 
many cases verified. Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 
Lipsia?, 1884-94, and Miller's edition of Scrivener's Introduction 
to the Criticism of NT, Bell, 1894, must be consulted by those 
who desire more complete information respecting the authorities. 

§8.] THE TEXT lxxi 

(i) Greek Manuscripts. 

Primary uncials. 

K Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the 
Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai ; now at St. Peters- 
burg. Contains the whole Gospel complete. 
Its correctors are 

K» contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second 

MS. of high value ; 
K* attributed by Tischendorf to saec. vi. ; 
N c attributed to the beginning of saec. vii. Two hands of 

about this date are sometimes distinguished as n c * and 

K cb . 

A. Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 

at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I. 
in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. 

B. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 

since 1 533 x (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul Hi, etc., p. 86). 


The corrector B 2 is nearly of the same date and used a 
good copy, though not quite so good as the original. 
Some six centuries later the faded characters weie 
retraced, and a few new readings introduced by B 3 . 

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v. In the National Library 

at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel : 
i. 2-ii. 5, ii. 42-iii. 21, iv. 25-vi. 4, vi. 3 7 —vii. 16 or 17, 
viii. 28-xii. 3, xix. 42-xx. 27, xxi. 21-xxii. 19, xxiii. 25- 
xxiv. 7, xxiv. 46-53. 
These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, 
and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX 
and N.T. 

D. Cod. Bezae, saec. vi. Given by Beza to the University 

Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains 
the whole Gospel. 

L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, saec. viii. National Library at Paris. 
Contains the whole Gospel. 

R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, saec. viii. Brought from a convent 
in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British 
Museum. Contains i. 1-13, i. 69— ii. 4, 16-27, 1V - 38-v. 5, 
v. 25-vi. 8, 18-36, 39, vi. 49-vii. 22, 44, 46, 47, viii. 5-15, 
viii. 25-ix. 1, 12-43, x - 3~ l6 > xi - 5- 2 7. xii. 4-15, 40-52, 
xiii. 26-xiv. 1, xiv. 12-xv. 1, xv. 13-xvi. 16, xvii. 21-xviii. 10, 
xviii. 22-xx. 20, xx. 33-47, xxi. 12-xxii. 15, 42-56, xxii. 71- 
xxiii. 11, 38-51. By a second hand xv. 19-21. 

T Cod. Borgianus, saec. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at 
Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains xxii. ao-xxiii. 20, 


X. Cod. Monacensis, ssec. ix. In the University Library at 

Munich. Contains i. 1-37, ii. 19-iii. 38, iv. 21-x. 37, 

xi. i-xviii. 43, xx. 46-xxiv. 53. 
A. Cod. Sangallensis, srec. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in 

Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole 

H. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, ssec. viii. In the Library of the 

Brit, and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains i. 1-9, 

i9- 2 3» 2 7> 28 » 3°-3 2 > 3 6 ~ 66 > »■ 77— ii- J 9. 2I > 22 , 33~39> 
iii. 5-8, 11-20, iv. 1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, v. 17-36, vi. 21- 

vii. 6, 1 1-37, 39-47. viii. 4-2', 25-35, 43~5 > ix - I " 2 8, 
3 2 > 33. 35. ix - 4i-x. 18, 21-40, xi. 1, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 

If these uncials were placed in order of merit for the textual 
criticism of the Gospel, we should have as facile princeps B, with 
N as equally easily second. Then T, H, L, C, R. The Western 
element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely 
absent from the Gospels. 

Secondary Uncials. 

E. Cod. Basileensis, saec. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains 

the whole Gospel, except iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53. 

F. Cod. Boreeli, sasc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains 

considerable portions of the Gospel. 

G. Cod. Harleianus, scec. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable 

K. Cod. Cyprius, saec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the 

whole Gospel. 
M. Cod. Campianus, saec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains 

the whole Gospel. 
S. Cod. Vaticanus, saec. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the 

Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel. 
U. Cod. Nanianus, saec. x. In the Library of St. Mark's, Venice. Contains 

the whole Gospel. 
Only six uncial MSS., N B K M S U, afford complete copies of all foui 

(2) Versions. 

The Versions quoted are the following : 
The Latin (Latt). 

The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet). 

The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
The Egyptian (Aegyptt.). 

The Bohairic (Boh.). 

The Sahidic (Sah.). 
The Syriac (Syrr.). 

The Curetonian (Cur.). 

The Sinaitic (Sin.). 

The Peshitto (Pesh.). 


The Harclean (Hard.). 

The Palestinian (Hier.). 
The Armenian (Arm.). 
The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 
The Gothic (Goth.). 

We are not yet in a position to determine the relation of the 
recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-Sin.) to the other Syriac 
Versions and to other representatives of primitive texts : and it 
would be rash for one who is ignorant of Syriac to attempt a 
solution of this problem. But the readings of Syr-Sin., as given 
in the translation by Mrs. Lewis, are frequently quoted in the 
notes, so that the reader may judge to what extent they support 
the text adopted in this commentary. 

It should be noticed that four of the seven instances of Con- 
flate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the 
comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this 
Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18, xxiv. 53). Mr. Miller, in his new 
edition of Scriveier's Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. 
(Bell, 1894), denies the cogency of the proof; but the only case 
with which he attempts to deal, and that inadequately (ii. pp. 292, 
293), is Lk. xxiv. 53. See the Classical Review, June 1896, p. 264. 


It is not easy to determine where the literary history of the 
Third Gospel begins. The existence of the oral tradition side by 
side with it during the first century of its existence, and the 
existence of many other documents (i. 1) previous to it, which 
may have resembled it, or portions of it, very closely, are facts 
which render certainty impossible as to quotations which bear 
considerable resemblance to our Gospel. They may come from 
this Gospel ; but they may also have another source. Again, 
there are possibilities or probabilities which have to be taken into 
account. We do not know how soon Harmonies of two, or three, 
or four Gospels were constructed. The Third Gospel itself is a 
combination of documents ; and there is nothing improbable in 
the supposition that before Tatian constructed his Diatessaron 
others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all 
three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 302). 
Some early quotations of the Gospel narrative look as if they 
may have come either from material which the Evangelists used, 
or from a compound of their works, rather than from any one of 
them as they have come down to us. On the other hand the 
difficulty of exact quotation must be remembered. MSS. were 




not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a diffi- 
culty in "verifying their references," when rolls were used and 
not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were num- 
bered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of 
different Gospels would easily become mixed ; all the more so, if 
the writers who quote were in the habit of giving oral instruction 
in the Gospel narrative ; for in giving such instruction they would 
be in the habit of constructing a compound text out of the words 
which they chanced to remember from any two or three Gospels. 
What they wanted to convey was the substance of " the Gospel," 
and not the exact wording of the Gospel according to Matthew, or 
Mark, or Luke. 

There is nothing in the Epistle of Barnabas which warrants us 
in believing that the writer knew the Third Gospel : and the co- 
incidence of Koiv(iivr)<T£i<; iv 7racrtv tw TrX-qaiov cov, Kal ovk epeis 
iSia elmi (xix. 8) with Acts iv. 32 is too slight to be relied upon. 
Comp. Didache iv. 8. Indeed it is not impossible that this 
Epistle was written before our Gospel (a.d. 70-80). In the 
Epistle of Clement, which doubtless is later than the Gospel 
(a.d. 95, 96), we have the perplexing phenomena alluded to 

Mt. v. 7, vii. 1, 2. 

HOLK&pKH. ol i\er)p.oves, 
5ti avrol ikerid-qcrovTM. 

fi^l Kpivere, tva p.r) 
Kpidrjre' iv ip yap Kplpa- 
Tt Kpivere Kpi6r)ae<r0e, 
Kal iv <p p-irpu perpelre 

Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii. 2. 

outwj yap elirev' i\e- 
are, tva iXerjdrjre ' a<plere, 
Xva acpedrj' us ttoi- 
elre, ovru iroirjOriffeTai. 
vp.1v us SlSore, ovrws 
5odr)<Terai us Kpi- 
vere, oisrus Kpi6r)crecr0e' 
us xpriaTedeade, ovrus 
XpycrTevdr)aeTai tp 
p.irpu p-erpelre, iv aimp 

Lk. vi. 36-38. 

ylvecrOe oltcrtppLoves Ka$- 
ws 6 rrarrjp vp.uv oIk- 
rlpp.uv iffrlv' Kal p:i) 
Kpivere, Kal ov p.rj KpLdrjTe' 
Kal p.T] KaraSiKafere, Kal 
ov p.r) KaraSiKaadrjre. 
arroXvere, Kal airo\v- 
dr)<Tecrde' SlSore, Kal 80- 
6r)aerai . . . u yap 
p.irpu perpelre 6\vrip.erpr)- 
6r)aerat [or p.eTpr}dr)o-erai\ 

This quotation is found in the Epistle of Polycarp (ii. 3) in 
this form : p.vrjp.ovevovTe'S Se £>v €?7rev 6 nvpios Si&dcrKwv' p.r) KpCvere, 
Zva. fir) Kpi6rJT€' dc/nVre, /cat acptOrjo-rai v/iiv' ikedre, iVa i\er)$rJT€' ai 
p.€Tpw ficTpeire, avriperprjOrjcreTat vp.iv. And Clement of Alexandria 
{Strom, ii. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) has it exactly as Clement of 

Rome, with the exception of avTipieTprjOrjaeTai for p.e.rpr}Orj(jeTaL : 

but he is perhaps quoting his namesake. If not, then the 
probability that both are quoting a source different from any of 
our Gospels becomes much greater (Resch, Agrapha, pp. 96, 





Mt. xviii. 6, 7, xxvi. 24. Clem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 8. Lk. rvii. I, 2, xxii. 22. 

8s 5' ftv OKavbaXlurj iva 


•maTevbvTwv els ip-t, (TV/jl- 
tpipei. avrtp Iva Kpefiaadrj 
ftiiXos ovmbs irepl r. rpd- 
X^Xov avTov Kal /cara- 
TrovTMrOrj 4v rip ireXdyei 
rfjs 0a\dffcrr]!. oval Tip 
K6o~p.ip. . . . 

oval 5£ rip dvBpdnrtp 
iicelvip St o5 6 vibs rov 
dvdpumov irapadiSorai' 
KaXbv fjv atrip el ovk 
iyevvrjdrj 6 dvdpwiros 

elirev ydp' oval rip 
dvdpuiirip e"Kelvip' KaXbv 
9jv avrip el ovk iyevvijdr), 
i) 'iva tQ)v iKkeKT&v /jlov 
(TKavSaXlffat' Kpe'irrov f/v 
avrip wepiredrjvai fivXov 
Kal KaTaTrovTi.<rd?]i>ai els 
rr\v ddXaaaav, ij iva rCiv 
inXeKTuv fxov 5iacrrpi\f/ai. 

dvivSeicrSp ianv rov 
ra <TKdt>8aXa ft)) tXQelv, 
ttXt^v oval Si' 0$ ipxerai' 
XvaireXei avrip el Xldos 
p.vXiKbs ireplKeirai lrepl 
rbv rpdxyXov avrov Kal 
ippiirrai els ttjv ddXaaaav, 
f) Iva o~Kavb~aXlo~TQ rCov 
fiiKpwv rovruiv iva. 

oval T(p dvdpwmp l/cclry 
81 ov Trapabiborai. 

Here again Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 18, p. 561) 
quotes exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of firj for 
ovk after ei, and the omission of rqv before daXacro-av. In Clem. 
Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have a composite quotation (Is. xiii. 1 1 ; Ps. 
xxxiii. 10; Job v. 11, etc.), which may possibly have been in- 
fluenced by Lk. i. 52, 53, xiv. 11, xviii. 14; but nothing can be 
built on this possibility. We must be content to leave it doubtful 
whether Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to Luke ; 
and the same must be said of Polycarp (see above) and of Ignatius. 
In Eph. xiv. we have <f>avep6v to SevSpov atro tov KapTrov avTov, 
which recalls €K yap tov Kapirov to BevSpov yivwcr/ceTCU (Mt. xii. 33) 
and I/cacrTOV yap b'ivhpov Ik tov ihiov Kapirov yivwcrKCTat (Lk. vi. 44). 
Smyr. iii. we have the very remarkable passage which perplexed 
Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome as to its source : otc irpos tovs 7rept 
IleTpov rjXQev, ccpT) avTols' Aa/Jere, [(/r]Xa(pr]o-aT€ pe, Kal iStre 6V1 ovk 
elfu 8aip.6viov a.o-wp.aTov. This may be a condensation of Lk. 
xxiv. 36-39, or may come from oral tradition or a lost document. 
Of other possibilities, to 7ri5p to ao-fieo-rov (Eph. xvi.) recalls Mk. 
ix. 43 rather than Lk. iii. 17 : /caAovs fxaO-qras iav <f>i\rjs, X^P 1 * °" 01 
ovk eo-riv (Polyc. ii.) is not very close to Lk. vi. 32 : rj&oval tow 
fiiov (Rom. vii.) is found Lk. viii. 14, but is a common phrase : 
and other slight resemblances (e.g. Magn. x.) may as easily come 
from other Gospels or from tradition. 

We are on surer ground when we come to the Didache and 
the Gospel of Peter, the dates of which remain to be determined, 
but which may be placed between a.d. 75 and 125. In the former 
we find further evidence of a combination of passages from 
Matthew and Luke, of which we have seen traces in Clement of 
Rome, and which suggests the possibility of a primitive Harmony 
of these two documents. 




Mt. xxv. 13. 
ypi/yopeire obv, 

Sri ovk otSare rty 
iffiipav ovSt rrp> wpav. 

DlDACint xvi. 1. 

yprjyopeire virtp rrfl 
fwi?J vfiQv ol \vx"oi 
vp.ivv /at) afiead-qauaav, 
Kal al 6a<pves vpu2v fii) 
iKXvtaOoiaav, dXXa yiv- 
eade (roip.ot' ov yap otbare 
TT]V &pav iv y 6 Kvpios 
i]fj.u)v Zpxerai. 

Lk. xii. 35. 

tarwaav b/uor al <5cr<pt>'ei 
irepie^ioapJvai Kal ol Xi/X" 
vol Kaibp-evoi, Kal v/neit 
Sfioiot avdpunroLS trpoa- 
Sexov-ivois rbv Kvpiov 

Here the acquaintance with our Gospel is highly probable, for 
of the Evangelists Luke alone has the plural of Xi^os and of 
ocr<^vs. In giving the substance of the Sermon on the Mount, the 
Didache again seems to compound the two Gospels. 

Mt. vii., v. 

M irdvra oZv 8aa idv 
9i\rfre tva irtiwaiv 

Ol &I>dp(j)TTOl, OVTUS Kal 

v/xeh iroieire abroh. 

44 dyairdre robs ix^pobs 
vfiQv Kal irpoaevxevde 
virtp rCiv SiwKbvrwv bp.ds. 

48 idv ydp dyairr/arjre 
robs dyairQvras bp.ds, 
rlva pnadbv tx rre > • • • 

47 . . . oi)%i Kal ol 
idviKol rb abrb iroiovaiv ; 

39 Saris ae pairlfei els 
rrjv Sf$idv aiayova, arpi- 
ypov abrip Kal rr\v dWriv. 

41 Saris ae dyyapevaei 
p.l\iov fv, viraye' 
abrov dvo. *° toj de\ot>rl 
001 KpiOrjvai Kal rbv x l ~ 
ricvd aov \afielv, d<pts 
abrip Kal rb lixdruov. 

42 rip airovvrl ae 86s, Kal 
rbv OtXovra dirb aov 8a- 
viaaadai p.i\ diroarpatpys. 

DidachS i. 2-5. 

vdvra St 8aa 4dv 0e\- 
■r)crr]S pel) ylveadai aoi, Kal 
ab d\\ip fi7] irolei. . . . 
eb\oyeire robs Karapio- 
pitvovs Kal irpoaev- 
Xea6e virtp ruiv ixdpuiv 
vp.uiv, vqarevere 8t virtp 
ruiv Slwkovtuiv bfids' irola 
yap X^P tJ > & v dyairdre 
robs dyawQvras iifids ; 
obxl Kal rd tdvi] rb abrb 
iroiovaiv ; vp.els St a7a- 
Trare robs pnaovvras vpias 
Kai oux t^ere €x@pb" • • • 
lav ris aoi Sip paTicr/xa els 
rrjv 8e£idi> aiaybva, arptip'' 
airrtp Kal rr)v aWrjv, Kal 
(ay riXfios" idv dyya- 
pevar] at tu p.i\uov 'iv, 
iiiraye' avrov Svo' idv 
dprj tis rb IpaTibv aov, 
Sbs aiV^J ^at rbv x iT uva' 
idv \dl3r) -m dwb aov rb 
abv, fxrf dwairei' ovSt 
yap Svvaaai. iravrl rip 
airovvTl ae SiSov, Kal /X7) 

Lk. vi. 

81 Kadus di\ere tva irot- 
waiv 11/j.iv ol dvdpuiwoi., 
iroieiTt avrois bp.olio$. 

26 evKoyeire robs Kara- 
pupiivovs, wpoaeti- 
Xeode Trepl ruiv iir-qpea- 
fbvruv vpt,as. ** d\XA 
a7a7rarf rovt ixQpovi 


83 Kal (I dyairdrf rovt 
dyairuvrat, irola 
v/luv xdpts iarlv ; Kal yap 
ol apaprwXol robs dya- 
iruvras avrobs dyaTrwaiv. 

M it\t)v dyairdre robs 
ix^pobs vp,Qv . . . Kal 
tarai b piiadbs vtiwv 

23 rip rvirrovrt ae 4irl 
T7)v aia-fbva wdpexe Kal 
TTj> &\\ijv, 

Kal dwb rod atpovrbs aov 
rb lp.dri.ov Kal rbv ^ircDva 
prj KioXvarjs. M iravrl al- 
rovvrl ae SiSov, Kal dirb 
rov atpovros rb, ad. fxi] 

Expressions which are peculiar to each form of the Sermon 
are here so abundant that we conclude that this doctrine of the 
Two Ways has been influenced by both forms. But the order in 
which the several precepts are put together is so different from 
both Gospels, that the editor can scarcely have had either Gospel 
before him. Very possibly the order and wording have been 
disturbed by oral instruction in Christian morality given to cate- 
chumens (Sanday, Bamptons, p. 302). But the evidence of 


acquaintance with the Third Gospel is strong ; and it is somewhat 
strengthened by the fact that in the Didache Christ is called the 
" Servant (7rais) of God " (ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3), a use of irais which in 
N.T. is almost confined to Luke (Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30; 
comp. iv. 25 ; Lk. i. 54, 69). But this use is common in LXX, 
and may easily be derived from Isaiah or the Psalms rather than 
from the Acts. Nevertheless there is other evidence of the in- 
fluence of the Acts on the Didache, and scarcely any evidence of 
the influence of Isaiah or of the Psalms : indeed the references to 
the O.T. are remarkably few. And this not only makes it quite 
possible that the use of 6 -kox% <rov comes from the Acts, but also 
still further strengthens the conviction that the Didache is in- 
debted to the writings of S. Luke. Comp. avyKoivutv-qawi h\ 
iravTa. t<3 dSeA<£<3 <rov nal ovk epcts ISia ttvat {Did. iv. 8) with ovSt 
«is ti toiv VTrapyovroiv avTw tXeyev l8iov eivai, a\\ rjv auTots iravra 
Kotvd (Acts iv. 32). Bryennios and Wiinsche see traces of Lk. 
ix. 1-6 and x. 4-21 in Did. xi. ; but this chapter might easily have 
stood as it does if Luke had never written. Yet there is enough 
in what has been quoted above to establish the fact of the influence 
of Luke on the Didache. 

It is generally admitted that the fragment of the Gospel of 
Peter suffices to show that the writer of that apocryphal narrative 
was acquainted with all four of the Canonical Gospels. But it 
will be worth while to quote some of the expressions and state- 
ments which have a marked resemblance to Luke in particular. 

Gospel of Peter. Lk. xxiii., xxiv. 

4. IlftXaroj irlix\pas irpbs 'Upw5r]i>. "J. YleCKdros . . . dviweii.^/ev avrbv 

Tpbs 'HpcpSrjv. 

5. Kal a&fijSaTov e , Tn<t>d>(r\ei. 54. nal oa.§{ia.TOv iirirpoiaKev. 

IO. TJvt-yKOv Svo KaKOvpyous. 32. r)yovro 5£ Kal 'irepoi KaKoOpyoi 


13- e«s Si Tit twv KaKovpywv iKelvuyv 39. eh Se twv KpefiLaaBivTwv KaKOvp- 

wveiSiaev ai/rovs, Xiyuiv' i]/j.eis 5ta to. ywv ifiXao<p-qp.ei avrbv. . . . 

KO.KO. a iiroi.-qcrai.Lev ovtio ireirbvdafij.ev, 41. &£ia yap &v errpd^a/xev diroXaft.- 

ovtos Se auTTjp ytvbfuvos tuiv dvdpu)wwv jUdvofxeV ovtos Se ovSiv Sltottov ivpa^ev. 
tL 7)biK7)aev rjfiids ; 

15. b tjXlos I5v. 45. rov ijXtov iKXelirovTos. 

28. 6 Xabs iiras yayyvfei Kal kSit- 48. irdvres ol avvrrapayevbfiuvoi 6xXoi 

rerat ra o-ttjOtj. . . . rvirTovTes to. oT-qd-q. 

34. npwtas be iTrnpucrKovTos rod <raj3- 54- Ka ^ oafifiaTov iirttpwoKev. 

36. Svo dvSpas KareXdovras iKeldev 4. dvSpes Svo iiriar-qaav ai/rati iv 

woXb tpiyyos Uxovras. iadijri aaTpairTowrj. 

50. bpdpov be rrjs KvpiaKrjs . . . 4irl I. ttj Se imicj tuiv o~afifia.Tu}v Spdpov 

T$ fi.vrjfij.aTi. fiadiwi iirl rb fiivijixa ijXdav tpipovaai 

54> 4 (ptpofiiev eh fit.vqii.oo'vvqv avrov. a ■qToifiLaaav dpw/xaTa. 

These resemblances, which are too close and too numerous to 
be accidental, are further emphasized when the parallel narratives 


are compared. S. Luke alone mentions the sending to Herod. 
He alone uses the expression a-afSfSarov iiri^uxTKev (contrast Mt. 
xxviii. i). He alone calls the two robbers KaKovpyoi. He alone 
tells us that one of the robbers reviled, and that one contrasted 
the justice of their fate with the innocence of Jesus. He alone 
mentions the sun in connexion with the darkness. He alone 
speaks of all the multitudes of spectators, and of their beating 
their breasts. He alone calls the two Angels at the tomb avSpes 
(Mt. and Mk. mention only one), and calls the tomb p.vrjp.a ; and 
he alone uses <f>ep€iv of the women bringing the spices. There are 
other passages in which the Gospel of Peter resembles Luke with 
one or more of the other Gospels; but what has been quoted 
above is sufficient to show that the writer of the apocryphal gospel 
was influenced by S. Luke's narrative. It must be remembered 
that these ten coincidences are found within the compass of fifty- 
five verses, and that they are not exhaustive. The inscription on 
the cross, ©vtos Icrrw 6 fiao-tXevs tov 'la-payX (n), is closer to that 
given by S. Luke, 6 (3. tcuv 'IovScuW ovtos (xxiii. 38), than to any 
of the other forms ; and perhaps the words of the robber, o-cotij/> 
ycvo/xevos (see above, 13), are suggested by o-oktov aeavrbv ko.1 rjp.a<s 
(xxiii. 39). The use of fj.eo~r]p.fipia. for "midday" (15) is found 
in N.T. nowhere but Acts xxii. 6. The cry of the Jews after 
Christ's death, iSerc on iroaov Si'kcuos eo-riv (28), looks like an 
adaptation of the centurion's confession, ovtcos 6 avOponros ovtos 
Sikcuos rfv (xxiii. 47) ; and perhaps i^rjyija-avTO 7ravTa a7rep e?8ov (45) 
is an echo of ifyyovvro ra iv rrj 6Sw (xxiv. 35). And, as already 
pointed out (§ 1), Pseudo-Peter always speaks of Jesus Christ 
as 6 Kvpios, a use which begins to be common in the Third 

The evidence of another interesting document of about the 
same date is worth quoting. The Testaments of the XII Patri- 
archs is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. It was 
gradually Christianized, and reached its present form c. a.d. 
70-135. It shows marked traces of a knowledge of the Synoptic 
traditions and of S. Luke's Gospel in particular. Some of the 
coincidences given below are probably the result of independent 
citation of the O.T. But the citation may have been suggested 
to the later writer by acquaintance with it in the Gospel narrative. 

Test. XII. Patr. S. Luke. 

olvov Kal criKepa ovk Zttlov( Reuben i.). olvov ko.1 oiiccpa ov fxi) irlrj (i. 15; 

Num. vi. 3). 
(yvuiv 8ti dixaiws ird<rx<*> (Sim. iv. ). /cat 17/xeis fitv SiKalws (xxiii. 41). 

taecOe ei/piaKovres X°-P'- v ivwtriov 'Iijcrous trpoeKotrrev . . . X"P' T ' 7ra P^ 

Bcov xal ivOpuirwu (Sim. v.). Gey * a l dvdpwirois (ii. 52; I Sam, 

ii. 26I 




6 Geo? aCifxa \af3Cjv Kal avveaQlwv 
didpuwois Zowaev avrovs (Sim. vi.). 

dvecf'x^cae ol ovpavoi (Levi ii., 
xviii. ). 

vepl rov fiiWovros Xvrpovadai rbv 
Iffpa-fjK {Ibid.). 

?0>J fjTKTK^l/'T/TCU Kuptos irdvra t& 
tOvrj iv o-irXdyxvots vlov avrov ?ws 
alZvos (Levi iv.). 

ffvver-qpovv rovs \6yovs rofrrovs iv t-q 
KapStq. fiov (Levi vi.). 

Kalye %Kpv\pa tovto iv ry KapSla fiov, 
Kal ovk avr^yytiKa ainb iravrl dv- 
SpLOTrq) (Levi viii. ). 't\pi(TTov (Levi xvi.). 

iiriireaev iir' airrovt rpdfios (Judah 

voieiv irdvra rd 8i.Kai.ihfw.ra Kvplov Kal 
viraKoveiv ivroKat Qeov (Judah xiii.). 

ivoiyyaovrai iir' avrbv ol ovpavoi, 
iicxia-t irvev/xa, evkoylav Harpbs dylov 
(Judah xxiv. ). 

ol iv ittux € Iq Sia Kijpiov irXovr«r- 
Oyaovrai, Kal ol iv xevla \oprao-Qrf 
aovrai, Kal ol iv dtrdevela lo~xfoovo~i 
(Judah xxv.). 

4ici.o~Tpi\pu Kap8las dreidtlt Tpitt 
~Kv(kov (Dan v.). 

Kal idv bfiaiXoyTJcas fieravoijo~g &(f>ts 
*{rr$ (Gad vi. ). 

Kal avrbt i\9wv ws dvOpwirot, iodluv 
gal irlvuv fierd tQiv dvdpdivuv (Asher 
vii.). See above, Sim. vi. 

o-weaOLei avroh (xv. 2) comp. awe- 
(pdyo/xev Kal ffwetrlofxev aimp (Acts 
x. 41). 

dv€u}x^V vai T ^ v ovpavbv (iii. 21 ; Is. 
lxiv. 1). 

avrds ianv 6 fiiWwv \vrpova6ai rbv 
'lapa-qK (xxiv. 21). 

5i<x cr7rX(i7xca iXiovs GeoD i)fj.u>v iv 
oh iiricrKi\J/erai ijfids dvaroXi] i£ vtpovi 

(i. 78)- , 

o~vvenjpei rd prjfiaTa ravra . . . iv 

ry Kapoia avrijs (ii. 1 9 ; comp. ii. 51)- 

Kal airrol icrlyi)o-av Kal ovdevl dxify- 
yei\av iv iKelvais rah ijfiipais ovbtv 
&v ewpaKav (ix. 36). 

dvvafiis 'tiplo-Tov (i. 35). 

06/3oj iiriireaev iir' avrbv (i. 12 ; 
comp. Acts xix. 17). 

iropevofievoi iv irdaais raU ivro\ati 
Kal diKauiifjMcriv rov Kvpiov (i. 6). 

dve<j>x^V val T0V ovpavbv Kal Kara- 
firjvai rb irvedfia rb dyiov (iii. 2:, 22). 

fiaKdpioi ol irrwxol, 0V1 vfieripa iarlv 
i] fSao~i\ela rov QeoC. fxaKdpiot ol irti- 
vwvres vvv, Sri x°P Tacr ^^ a ' e(r ^ e ( v '* 
20, 21 ; Mt. v. 3-6). 

iirio-Tpi\pai Kapblas iraripuv iwl 
riKva' Kal direideis iv (ppovijaei diKaluv 
(i. 17 ; Mai. iv. 5). 

Kal idv neravoTJo-g, &(pes avrQ 
(xvii. 3). 

i\rf\v6ev b vlbs rov dvdpuirov tadoiv 
Kal irlvuv (vii. 34 ; Mt. xi. 19). 

Besides these verbal coincidences there are many coincidences 
in thought, especially respecting the admission of the Gentiles to 
the Kingdom through the Messiah, who is the Saviour of all, Jew 
and Gentile alike. " The Lord shall raise up from Levi a Priest, 
and from Judah a King, God and man. He shall save all the 
nations and the race of Israel" (Simeon vii.). "A King shall rise 
fiom Judah and shall make a new priesthood . . . unto all the 
nations " (Levi viii.). Comp. Judah xxiv.; Zcbulon ix. ; Dan vi. ; 
Naphtali iv., viii. ; Asher vii. ; Benjamin ix. Moreover, there are 
passages which are very similar in meaning, although not in word- 
ing, to passages in Luke : comp. the end of Joseph xvii. with 
Lk. xvii. 27, and the beginning of Joseph xviii. with Lk. vi. 28. 

It is hardly necessary to trace the history of the Third Gospel 
in detail any further. It has been shown already (pp. xv-xvii) 
that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, the writer of the Clementine 
Homilies, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Churches of 
Lyons and Vienne, knew the Third Gospel, and that Irenaeus, the 


Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others 
definitely assign it to S. Luke. In the second half of the second 
century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative ; 
and it is impossible to show that it had not been tnus recognized 
at a very much earlier date. 

The order of the Gospels has not always been the same. But, 
just as in the interpretation of the four symbolical creatures, the 
calf has uniformly been taken as indicating S. Luke, so in the 
arrangement of the Gospels his has almost invariably been placed 
third. The order with which we are familiar is the common order 
in most MSS. and Versions: but in D 594, abcdefff^iqr and 
the Gothic Version, and in the Apostolic Constitutions, what is called 
the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) prevails. The 
obvious reason for it is to have the two Apostles together and before 
the other two Evangelists. In a few authorities other arrangements 
are found. X and the Latin k have John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, 
while 90 has John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and 399 John, Luke, 
Matthew. The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. 


A good and full list of commentaries on the Gospels is given 
by Dr. W. P. Dickson in the English translation of Meyer's Com- 
mentary on S. Matthew, i. pp. xxiii-xliii and of commentaries on 
S. Mark and S. Luke in that of Meyer's Commentary on S. Mark 
and S. Luke, i. pp. xiii-xvi. It will suffice to name a few of the 
chief works mentioned by him, especially those which have been 
in constant use during the writing of this commentary, and to add 
a few others which have appeared since Dr. Dickson published 
his lists (1877, 1880), or for other reasons were omitted by him. 1 
Of necessity the selection here given in many cases corresponds 
with that in the volume on Romans by Dr. Sanday and Mr. 
Headlam; and the reader is referred to that (pp. xcb:-cix) for 
excellent remarks on the characteristics of the different com- 
mentaries, which need not be repeated here. 

1. Greek Writers 

Origen (Orig.); t 253. Ho?niliae, in Lucam in Origenis Opp. 
ed. Delarue, iii. 932; Lommatzsch, v. 85; Migne, xiii. 1801, 
1902. These thirty-nine short Homilies are an early work, and 
have been preserved in the Latin translation made by Jerome. A 
few fragments of the original Greek survive in the Philocalia (ed. 

1 See also Ititroduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. P. J. Gloag, T. & T, 
Clark, 1895, and the literature quoted p. 209. 

§ 10.] COMMENTARIES lxxxi 

J. A. Robinson, Camb. 1893) and elsewhere. The genuineness of 
these Homilies has been disputed, but is not doubtful. A sum- 
mary of the contents of each is given in Westcott's article 
Origenes, D. Chr. Biog. iv. 113. The first twenty are on Lk. 
i., ii., and the next thirteen on Lk. iii., iv., leaving the mam portion 
of the Gospel almost untouched. Besides these there are frag- 
ments of notes in the original Greek, which have been preserved 
in Venice MS. (28, 394); Migne, xviii. 311-370. They extend 
over chapters i.-xx. 

Eusebius of Csesarea (Eus.); f before 341. Eis to Kara 
AovKciv evayyc'Atov in Migne, xxiv. 529. Only fragments remain: 
on Lk. i. 5, 18, 19, 32, 35, 38, ii. 32, iv. 18, vi. 18, 20, vii. 29, 30, 
viii. 31, 43, ix. 1, 3, 4, 7, 26, 28, 34, x. 6, 8, xi. 21, xii. n, 22, 34, 
3 6 . 37. 42, 45. xiii- 20, 35, xiv. 18, xvii. 3, 23, 25-31, 34, 37, 
xviii. 2, xix. 12, 13, 17, xx. 2, 3, xxi. 25, 26, 28-32, 36, xxii. 30, 57, 
xxiv. 4. 

Cyril of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.) ; t 444. 'E^y^o-is eis to 
Kara Aovkolv eiayye'Aiov in Migne, lxxii. 475. Only portions of the 
original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has 
been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this 
version into English (Oxford, 1S59). The Syriac version shows 
that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the com- 
mentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writ- 
ings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with 
the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation. The com- 
mentary is homiletic in form. 

Theophylact (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); 
t after n 18. Migne, cxxiii. 

Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym.) ; f after 11 18. Migne, 
cxxix. 853. 

These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among 
the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but 
do not follow slavishly, and are far superior to mediaeval Latin 
commentaries. The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of 

2. Latin Writers. 

Ambrose (Ambr.); 1397. Expositio Evang. sec. Lucam ; 
Migne, xv. 1525. Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking 
for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical 
sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched : in verbis /udit, in 
sententiis dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Horn. Orig. in Luc). 

Eucherius; J449 or 450. Liber instructionum in Lucse 
Evang. ; Migne, 1. 799. 

Arnobius Junior ; f after 460. Annotationes ad ousedam 
Evangeliorum /oca; Migne, liii. 570, 578. 


Paterius of Brescia ; friend of Gregory the Great. He col- 
lected from the writings of Gregory an Expositio Vet. et Nov. 
Test., of which Book III. is a catena of Passages on S. Luke ; 
Migne, lxxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk Alulf 
made a similar collection; Migne, lxxix. 1199. 

None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. 
Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. The extracts from 
Gregory are mainly from the Moralia or commentary on Job, full 
of allegorical interpretation. 

Bede, the Venerable; f 735- In Lucam Exp. Libri VI. ; 
Migne, xcii. 307; Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, v. 217. The 
character of the work may be given in his own words : " I have 
made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to com- 
pile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret accord- 
ing to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these 
following pieces " — and he gives a list of his writings (H. E. sub 
fin. See also the Prol. in Marc?). This commentary is far 
superior to those just mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert. 

Sedulius Scotus ; t c. 830. A mere compiler, often from 
Origen ; Migne, ciii. 27. Walafrid Strabus of Reichenau ; 
f 849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter ; 
Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous. We may pass 
over with bare mention Christianus Druthmarus; c. 850; 
Migne, cvi. 1503 : Bruno Astensis ; c. 1125; Migne, clxv. ^^: 
and Petrus Comestor ; c. 1180; Migne, exeviii. 1537. 

Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus ; 11274. Expositio 
continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to 
be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from 
Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary ol 
patristic theological teaching. Opp. ed. Venet. iv. 5 ; translated 
Oxford, 1845. 

Albertus Magnus of Ratisbon ; f 1280. 

3. Reformation and Post-Reformation Writers. 

Erasmus, Desiderius; f 1536. Adnotationes in N.T., 1516; 
Paraphrases, 1522. 

Butzer or Bucer, Martin; f 155 1. In sacra quatuor Evan- 
gelia Enarrationes, 1 55 1. 

Calvin, John ; f 1564. In harmoniam ex Matt. Marc, et Inc. 
compositam Commentarii, 1553; Brunsvigse, 1868; translated by 
the Calvin Trans. Society, 1842 ; strong and independent. 

Beza, Theodore; 11605. Adnotationes in N.T., 1565, 


Grotius (Huig van Groot) ; 11645. Adnotationes in N.T. t 
1644. Arminian ; an early attempt to apply philological principles 

§ 10.] COMMENTARIES lxxxiii 

(learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible ; 
still useful. 

Hammond, Henry ; f 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; 
" the Father of English Commentators." Paraphrase and Annota- 
tions of the N.T., 1653, 1845; "reveals genuine exegetical tact 
and learning." Biblical paraphrase is of English origin. 

One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period 
require mention. 

Cajetan, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio); 11534; a Dominican. In 
quatuor Evang. et Acta Apost. Commentarii, 1543. Under pressure 
from Luther (15 18) he became considerably emancipated from 
patristic and scholastic influence. 

Maldonatus, Joannes (Maldon.); 11583; a Spanish Jesuit. 
Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. 
K. Martin (condensed) 1850. Admirable of its kind : he rarely 
shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An 
English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by 

Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein); 11637; a Jesuit. Comm. 
in quatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the 
whole Bible. A voluminous compilation, including much allegory 
and legend ; devout and often edifying, but sometimes puerile. 
English translation of the Comm. on S. Luke, Hodges, 1887. 

Escobar Y Mendosa, Antonio; fi66g; a Spanish Jesuit, 
whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. In Evangelia sanctorum 
et temporis commentarii, 1637. 

Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a 
transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the 
present age. 

Bengel, Johann Albrecht (Beng.) ; ti75i- Gnomon N.T., 
1742. A masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, 
and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, 
Clark, 1857. 

Wetstein, Johann Jacob (Wetst.) , ti754- Nov. Test. 
Gr&cum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. 
Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the 
stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest 
service to all subsequent students of N.T. 

4. Modern Writers. 

Schleiermacher, Fried. Dan. Ernst; 11834; Ueber die 
Schriften des lukas, 181 7. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 

Bornemann, Fried. August ; 1 1850. Scholia in Lues, Evan- 
gelium, 1830 


De Wette, Wilh. Mart. L. ; fiS49. Kurze Erkldrung der 
Evangelien des Lukas und Markus, 1839. Free, precise, and 

Meyer, Hein. Aug. Wilh.; 11873. Kritisch exegetischer 
Kommentar liber das N.T. Markus und Lukas, 1846. Excellent 
A good English translation of the fifth edition was published by 
T. cS: T. Clark, 1880. Grammar is sometimes ridden to death; 
t»ut this is still one of the best commentaries for English readers. 
The German revisions of Meyer by Eernhard and Johannes Weiss, 
1885, etc., are superior, especially as regards the text. 

Oosterzee, Jan Jacob van ; fi882. In Lange's Theologisehe- 
homiletisches Bibelwerk, 1857- 1876, he commented on S. Luke. 
English translation published by T. & T. Clark, 1864. The notes 
are in three sections throughout ; critical, doctrinal, and homiletic. 

Hahn, G. L., Professor of Theology at Breslau. Das Evan- 
helium des Lukas, 1892, 1894. Two substantial volumes, full of 
useful material, but grievously perverse in questions of textual 

Schanz, Paul. Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, 1883. 
Probably much the best Roman Catholic commentary. 

Lasserre, Henri. Les Saints Evangiles, 1886, 1887. A 
French translation of the Gospels with brief notes. Uncritical, but 
interesting. It received the imprimatur of the Archbishop of 
Paris and the praise of Leo xm., ran through twenty-five editions 
in two years, and then through the influence of the Jesuits was 

Godet, Frdderic, Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
VEvangile de S. Luc, 187 1, 1872, 1888. Equal to Meyer in 
exegesis, but weak in textual criticism. The edition of 1888 is 
greatly to be preferred. An English translation of the second 
edition was published by T. & T. Clark, 1879. 

Alford, Henry; 11871. Greek Testament, vol. i. 1849, 5th 
ed. 1863. Sensible and clear. 

Wordsworth, Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; 11885. 
Greek Testament, vol. i. 1856, 5th ed. 1866. Scholarly and devout, 
supplying the patristic element wanting in Alford, but otherwise 
inferior ; weak in textual criticism. 

McClellan, John Brown. The New Testament, a new trans- 
lation, from a revised text, with analyses, copious references and 
illustrations, chronological and analytical harmony, notes and dis- 
sertations, vol. i. 1875; unfortunately the only one published. 
Contains some grotesque renderings and perverse arguments, with 
a great deal of valuable matter. 

Plumptre, Edward Hayes; 11891. The Synoptic Gospels in 
Bishop Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, Cassell, 1878. 
Popular and suggestive, with a tendency to *>i:cessive ingenuity. 

§ 10.J COMMENTARIES lxxxv 

Jones, William Basil, Bishop of St. David's, and Cook, 
Frederic Charles, Canon of Exeter ; St. Luke in the Speaker's 
Commentary, 1S78. Inadequate. 

Carr, Arthur, Notes on the Greek Testament, St. Luke, 1875. 
A scholarly handbook. 

Farrar, Fred. William, Dean of Canterbury. St. Luke in the 
Cambridge Greek Testament, 18S4 and later. More full, but less 
precise, than Carr. 

Sadler, Michael Ferrebee : 11895. Gospel ace. to St. Luke, 
1886. Dogmatic and practical rather than critical: somewhat 
capricious in textual criticism. 

Bond, John. WH. text of St. Luke with introduction and 
notes, 1890. Brief to a fault, but useful. 

Campbell, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel, 1890. 
Fails to establish a special demonology and Ebionite tendency, 
but contains many useful remarks. 

Bernard, Thomas Dehany. The Songs of the Holy Nativity, 
1895. Did not come to the knowledge of the present writer until 
the commentary on chapters i. and ii. was in print. 1 

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Synoptic Gospels in the 
Expositor's Greek Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1897. T. R, 
with introduction and notes ; modelled on Alford. 

Blass, Fredericus. Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucat 
ad Theophilum Liber Prior, secundam Formam qu& videtur 
Romanam, Trubner, 1897. Western text with introduction and 
critical notes. 

Index II. contains the names of many other writers whose 
works are of great use to the student of this Gospel. 

1 A similar fact caused the omission at p. xxix of some recent discussions of 
the Synoptic problem : e.g. The Abbe Loisy, Essays in L ' Enseignement 
Ribli/ite, 1892, Revue des Religions, 1894, and Revue Bibliqtu, 1896 (see the 
Guardian, August 1896, p. 1317); W. Arnold Stevens and E. De Witt Burton, 
A Harmony ef tkc Gospels for Hisiorii a! Study, Boston, 1896. 


Ecclesiastical Writers. 

Ambr. . 

. Ambrose, 


. Augustine. 


. Basil. 

Chrys. . 

. Chrysostom. 

Clem. Alex. 

. Clement of Alexandria. 

Clem. Horn. 

. Clementine Homilies. 

Clem. Recogn. . 

. Clementine Recognitions 

Clem. Rom. . 

. Clement of Rome. 

Cypr. . 

. Cyprian. 

Cyr. Ale v 

., Cyril of Alexandria. 

Cyr. Hier. 

. Cyril of Jerusalem. 

Dion. Alex. 

. Dionysius of Alexandria. 

Epiph. . 

. Spipnaiiius. 


. Eusebius. 


. Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Greg. Naz. 

. Gregory of Nazianzum. 

Greg. Nys. 

. Gregory of Nyssa. 

Herm. . 

. Hermas. 

Hippol. . 

. Hippolytus. 


. . Ignatius. 


. Ipenaeus. 


. Latin Version of Irenaeus 

Jer. (Hieron.) . 

• . Jerome. 


. Josephus. 

Just. M. 

. Justin Martyr. 

Orig. . 

. Origen. 


. Latin Version of Origen. 

Tert. . . 

. . Tertullian. 

Theoph. . 

. . Theophylact 



• . Egyptian. 


. Bohairic. 


f Sahidic 





1 ♦ 1 

1 • 


Arm. . . . 



Goth. . 



Latt. . 



Lat. Vet . 

■ • 

Vetus Latina. 




Cod. Am. . 


Codex Amiatimw. 




Cur. . . 



Sin. . , 












Cov. . 











Rheims (or Douay). 




Wic. . 



AV. , 


Authorized Version. 

RV. , 


Revised Version. 


TR. . 

« » 

Textus Receptus. 

Tisch. . 

> • 


Treg. . 

I ♦ 


WH. . 

» • 

Westcott and Hort 


• • 


Beng. . 

• t 


De W. . 

• • 

De Wette. 

Grot. . . 

• • 


Maldon. . 

i • 



• • 


Nosg. . 

» • 


Wetst. . 

» • 


Wordsw. . 

• • 

Wordsworth (Chr.). 


Burton . . 

t • 

Burton, N.T. Moods and 

C. I. G. 

t • 

Corpus Inscriptionum Crs> 

Didon,y. C. 

* • 

Pere Y)'\dox\, Jesus Christ. 

L. J . . . 

• • 

Leben Jesu. 

V. dej 

i ■ 


Vie de Jesus. 



Lft. Epp. . . . J. B. Lightfoot, 1 Notts, on 

Epistles of S. Paul. 
Edersheim, Life and Times 

of Jesus the Messiah. 
History of the Jewish Nation. 
Robinson, Researches in 

Schiirer, Jewish People in the 

Times of Jesus Christ. 
Scrivener, Lntroduction to 

the Criticism, of the New 

Stanley, Sinai and Palestine 
Trench, Miracles. 

New Testament Syn- 
Tristram, Natural History 

of the Bible. 
Smith's Dictionary of the 

Bible, i st or 2nd edition. 
Smith's Dictionary of Chris- 

tia n An tiqtcities. 
Kraus, Real-EK d. Chr. Alt.. Kraus, Real - Encyklopddie 

der Christlichen Alter- 

Wsctt. . 

Edersh. L. & T. 

Hist, of J. N. 
Rob. Res. in Pal. 

Schiirer, J. P. in T. of J. C. 

Scriv. Lnt. 

Stanley, Sin. &* Pal. . 
Trench, Mir. . 
Par. . 

Syn. . 

Tristram, Nat. Hist, of B. 
D. B} or D. B? 
D. Chr. Ant. . 


Herzog, PRE. 1 or PRE.* 

Crem. Lex. 

L. & S. Lex. 
Greg. Proleg. 

Win. . 


Herzog's Protestantische 

Real- Encyklopddie ; 1st or 

2nd edition. 
Cremer, Lexicon of New 

Testament Greek. 
Liddell and Scott, Lexicon. 
Gregory, Prolegomena ad 

Tischendorfi ed. N. T 
Winer, Grammar of NT. 

Greek (the page refers to 

Moulton's edition), 

N.B.— The text commented upon is that of "Westcott and Hort. The 
very few instances in which the editor is inclined to dissent from this 
text are noted as they occur. 

1 The name of John Lightfoot is not abbreviated in this volume. 




The title cannot be any part of the original autograph. It is 
found in different forms in ancient authorities, the earliest being 
the simplest : kcito. AoukSv (N B F), evayyeXiov kclto. Aovkolv (A C 
D E), to kclto. Aovkolv euayye'Atov or to Kara Aovkolv ayiov eiayyeXtov 

The Ka-ra neither affirms nor denies authorship : it implies conformity to a 
type. But, inasmuch as all four Gospels have the Kara, these uniform titles 
must be interpreted according to the belief of those who gave the titles, viz. the 
Christians of the first four centuries ; and it was their belief that each Evangelist 
composed the Gospel which bears his name. Had the kclt& meant no more 
than "drawn up according to the teaching of," then this Gospel would have 
been called /card IlavXov, and the second Gospel would have been called Kara 
Tltrpov ; for it was the general tradition that Mark wrote according to the 
teaching of Peter, and Luke (in a different sense) according to the teaching of 
Paul. The Kard, howev-f, is not a mere substitute for the genitive of author- 
ship, but indicates that the same subject has been treated by others. Thus, 
i) TraXaid diadrjKT] Kara t«vs eftZoft-qKovra points to the existence of other transla- 
tions, just as "0/J.rjpos Kara 'ApiffrapKov or Kara ' ApicrTocpdv-qv points to the 
existence of other editions. That the Kara does not exclude authorship is 
shown by such expressions as if Kara McouWa irevrdreuxos (Epiphanius) and 
77 ko.6' 'Hp68oTov IffTopiv. (Diodorus) : comp. ev tols vTrofj.vrifj.aTiafj.ols rots Karct 
t6» Seefiiav (2 Mac. li. 13). Strictly speaking, there is only one Gospel, 
evayy4\iov Qeou, the Gospel of God concerning His Son (Rom. i. 1); but it 
has been given to us in four shapes, evayy^Xiov TtTpdfj.op<pov (Iren. Hxr. 
iii. 11. 8), and the Kard indicates the shape in which the writer named 
composed it. 


The classical style of this opening, and its similarity to the 
piefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, hardly amount 
to proof that Lk. was well read in classical literature, and con- 
sciously imitated Greek historians ; but there is nothing improbable 
in this supposition. Among the words which are classical rathei 


than biblical should be noticed iirtiSijirep, CTU^ei/Deiv, avaTacro-ecrOai, 
Sirjy^cris, Ka6t$rj<s. The construction also is classical, and in no 
way Hebraistic. We have clauses idiomatically interlaced, not 
simply co-ordinated. The modest position claimed by the writer 
is evidence of his honesty. A forger would have claimed to be an 
eye-witness, and would have made no apology for writing. Ewald 
remarks that "in its utter simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it is 
the model of a preface to an historical work." Its grammatical 
construction should be compared with that of the preface to the 
synodical epistle in Acts xv. 24, 25 : 'E^ciSr) ^KovVa/Aev . . . Z8o$€v 


This prologue contains all that we really know respecting the 
composition of early narratives of the life of Christ, and it is the 
test by which theories as to the origin of our Gospels must be 
judged. No hypothesis is likely to be right which does not 
harmonize with what is told us here. Moreover, it shows that an 
inspired writer felt that he was bound to use research and care in 
order to secure accuracy. 

1. 'E-n-eiSTjirep. A stately compound, suitable for a solemn 
opening : freq. in class. Grk., but not found in LXX, or elsewhere 
in N.T. Quoniam quidem, " For as much as," Weil denn einmal. 

iroXXoi. The context seems to imply that these, like Lk., were 
not eye-witnesses. That at once would exclude Mt., whose Gospel 
Lk. does not appear to have known. It is doubtful whether Mk. 
is included in the woXXoL The writers of extant apocryphal 
gospels cannot be meant, for these are all of later origin. Probably 
all the documents here alluded to were driven out of existence by 
the manifest superiority of the four Canonical Gospels. The 
eirexeipTjo-ay cannot imply censure, as some of the Fathers thought, 
for Lk. brackets himself with these writers (eSo|e xd/xot) ; what 
they attempted he may attempt. The word occurs 2 Mac. ii. 29, 
vii. 19 ; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13 ; and is freq. in class. Grk. in the sense 
of "put the hand to, take in hand, attempt." The notion of 
unlawful or unsuccessful attempting is sometimes implied by the 
context : it is not contained in the word. Luther renders unter 
wunden haben, "have ventured." Lk. must have regarded these 
attempts as insufficient, or he would not have added another. 
Meyer quotes Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer), kirzihriTrep ircpl tovtov 

7roXAot l-rve^tp-qaav dTro\oyT]cracr6aL. It is doubtful whether 

eVi^eip. necessarily implies a great undertaking. 

deon-d^ao-Gai Siriyrjau'. "To draw up again in order a narra- 
tive"; i.e. to arrange afresh so as to show the sequence of events. 
The verb is a rare one, and occurs elsewhere only Plut. Moral 
p. 969 C, De sollert. animal, xii. (Reiske, x. p. 36), in the sense of 
"practise, go over again in order," Iren. iii. 21. 2, and as v. I. Eccles. 
ii. 20. The subst. implies something more than mere notes or 


anecdotes; "a leading through to the end" (durchfiihren), "a 
narrative" (Ecclus. vi. 35, ix. 15 ; 2 Mac. ii. 32, vi. 17 ; Plat. Rep. 
392 D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 16. 1). 

Versions vary greatly: ordinare narrationem (Latt.), componere narra- 
tionem (Beza), stellen die Rede (Luth. ), "ordeyne the telling" (Wic), 
"compyle a treates" (Tyn.), "set forth the words" (Cov.), "set forth the 
declaracion" (Cran.), "write the historie" (Gen.), "compile a narration" 
(Rhem.), "set forth in order a declaration" (AV.), "draw up a narrative" 
(RV.), composer une narration suivie (Godet), coordonner en corps de rkit 
(Lasserre), "restore from memory a narrative" (Blass). 

rail' Treir\r|po<j>opr|fjieVwK. "Of the things which have been 
carried through to the end, of the matters which have been accom- 
plished, fully established." Here again English Versions differ 
much; but "surely known" (Tyn.), "surely to be believed" 
(Cran.), "surely believed" (AV.), cannot be justified. The verb 
when used of persons may mean " persuade fully, convince," and 
in pass, "be fully persuaded" (Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5); but of things 
it means "fulfil" (2 Tim. iv. 5, 17). Here we may render 
"accomplished." Others less well render "fully proved." See 
Lightfoot on Col. iv. 12. The iv T)p.i> probably means "among us 
Christians." Christendom is the sphere in which these facts have 
had their full accomplishment. The rjjjlv in ver. 2 shows that con- 
temporaries are not meant. If these things were handed down to 
Lk., then he was not contemporary with them. The verse is 
evidence that the accomplished facts were already fully established 
and widely known, for they had already been narrated by many. 
See Westcott, Intr. to Gosp. p. 190, 7th ed. 

2. naGws irape'Soo-av T\\i.iv. "Even as they delivered them to us." 
The difference between <Ls, " as," and kclOws, " just as," should be 
marked in translation : the correspondence was exact. Lk. im- 
plies that he himself was among those who received the tradition. 
Like the iroWol, he can only arrange afresh what has been handed 
down, working at second hand, not as an eye-witness. He gives 
no hint as to whether the facts were handed down orally or in 
writing. The difference between the 7J-0AA01 and these auroVTai is 
not that the -rroXXoi wrote their narratives while the avToVrat did 
not, but that the auToVrai were primary authorities, which the 
ttoWol were not. 

6irr)peTai yei/ofieeoi tou Xoyou. They not only had personal know- 
ledge of the facts (avroVrai), they also had practical experience of 
the effects. They had preached and taught, and had thus learned 
what elements in the Gospel were of most efficacy for the winning 
and saving of souls. That tou Xoyov belongs to vir-qpiraL only, not 
to avroirrai, and means " the doctrine," i.e. the Gospel (Acts vi. 4, 
viii. 4, xiv. 25, xvi. 6, xvii. n), is manifest from the context. 
Origen and Athanasius are wrong in making tov Xo'yov mean the 


personal Word, the Son of God, a use which is peculiar to Jn. 
The air upx?) 5 refers to the beginning of Christ's ministry (Jn. xv. 
27, xvi. 4). For uirYjpsnfis see on iv. 20 and comp. Acts xiii. 5. 

3. 4'8o|e Kdjxoi. This is the main sentence, the apodosis of 
tTreiSrjirep ttoWol eVe^ei'pryo-av. It neither implies nor excludes 
inspiration : the e'So£e may or may not have been inspired. The 
wish to include inspiration caused the addition in some Latin 
MSS. of et spiritui sancto (Acts xv. 28), which makes what follows 
to be incongruous. With e'So^e comp. the Muratorian Fragment : 
Lucas iste medicus . . . nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit — 
Dominum tamen nee ipse vidit in came — et idem, prout assequi 
potuit, ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. The nap.oi shows 
that Lk. does not blame the itoWol: he desires to imitate and 
supplement them. It is their attempts that encourage him to write. 
What they have done he may do, and perhaps he may be able to 
improve upon their work. This is his first reason for writing a 
narrative. See Blass, NT. Gram. p. 274. 

■n-apT]Ko\ou0Y)K6Ti. This is his second reason for writing, making 
the argument a fortiori. He has had special advantages and 
qualifications ; and therefore what was allowed to others may be 
still more allowed to him. These qualifications are fourfold, and 
are told off with precision. In the literal sense of " following a 
person closely so as to be always beside him," -KapaKoXovddv 
does not occur in N.T. Here it does not mean that Lk. was 
contemporaneous with the events, but that he had brought himself 
abreast of them by careful investigation. -^ Comp. the famous 
passage in Dem. De Cor. cap. liii. p. 285 (344), TraprjKoXovOrjKora 
tois Trpdyfxaaiv i£ apx^7 s • a ^ s0 -^ e Fal. Leg. p. 423. 

ai/wOef. This is the. first of the four qualifications: he has gone 
back to the very beginning, viz. the promise of the birth of the 
Forerunner. " From the first " is the meaning of avwOev here, not 
" thoroughly," radicitus, as in Acts xxvi. 5, which would make 
avioOev almost the same as Tracriv. Vulg. has a principio, and d has 
desusum (comp. the French dessus). It is the irao-ii' which implies 
thoroughness ; and this is the second point. He has begun at the 
beginning, and he has investigated everything. The Syriac makes 
7rao-tv masc, but there is little doubt that it is neut., and refers to 
7rpayp.a.TUiv in ver. 1. 

dicpi|3ws. This is the third point. He has done all this 
"accurately." There is no idle boast in any one of the three 
points. No other Gospel gives us this early history about the 
Baptist and the Christ. No other is throughout so full, for of 
170 sections contained in the synoptic narrative 48 are peculiar 
to Lk. And, in spite of the severest scrutiny, his accuracy can 
very rarely be impugned. We cannot be sure whether he means 
to imply that d#c/>i/3uis was not true of the iroXXoi, but we may be 


sure that none of them could claim all three of these points. In 
any case we have an inspired historian telling us in his inspired 
writings that he is giving us the results of careful investigation. 
From this it seems to follow that an inspired historian may fail in 
accuracy if his investigation is defective. 

Ka0e£fjs. This is the fourth point, resulting from the other three. 
He does not propose to give a mere collection of anecdotes and 
detached sayings, but an orderly narrative systematically arranged. 
Chronological order is not necessarily implied in xafle^s, but 
merely arrangement of some kind. Nevertheless, he probably 
has chronological order chiefly in view. In N.T. the word is 
peculiar to Lk. (viii. i ; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23), as is also 
the more classical e^s (vii. n, ix. 37, etc.); but e^e^s does not 

KpcmoTe Oed<t>i\e. The epithet KpcmoTos, often given to persons 
of rank (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), is strongly in favour of 
the view that Theophilus was a real person. The name Theophilus 
was common both among Jews ( = Jedidiah) and among Gentiles. 
But it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader. 
See Lft. on "Acts," D.B. % pp. 25, 26. The word Kpd-rio-Tos occurs 
in N.T. only here and in the Acts, where it is evidently a purely 
official epithet, for the persons to whom it is applied are of bad 
character. See Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 1 9, for the name. 

4. Xva. iiriyvus ir€p! die KO,Tr)xr|0r|s Xoywy Trp do-<j>d\eiai'. " In 
order that thou 'mightest fully know the certainty concerning the 
words wherein thou wast instructed." The Ao'-yoi are not the 
Trpdyfiara or historic facts, but the details of the Ao'yos or Gospel 
(ver. 2), which "ministers of the word" had communicated to 
Theophilus. The compound eViyvws indicates additional and more 
thorough knowledge. It is very freq. in Lk. and Paul : see esp. 
Rom. i. 28, 32; 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Col. i. 9; Trench, Syn. 
lxxv. In N.T. KaT-rjx^y, "to sound down into the ears, teach 
orally," is found only in Lk. and Paul. The position of ryv 
ao-<f>d\eiav gives it solemn emphasis. Theophilus shall know that 
the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical 
foundation. Hastings, D.C.G. ii. p. 726. 

The idiomatic attraction, irepl &v KaT-qxnO^ \byuiv, is best resolved into 
irepl tQv \6yiov oOs KaTT)xy8vs> not n€ pl T ^ v X^wv t€/j2 S>v KaTyxyOvs- Only 
of persons does irepl twos stand after Karyxdu (Acts xxi. 21, 24) : of things 
we have the ace. (Acts xviii. 25 ; Gal. vi. 6). These attractions are very freq. 
in Lk. See Blass, Gr. p. 170. 

On the superficial resemblance between this preface and Jos. Ccn. Apion. i. 
9, 10, see Godet, i. pp. 92, 93, 3eme ed. 1888. The resemblance hardly 
amounts to remarkable coincidence, and such similarities are common in 
literature. It is more interesting to compare this preface with that of the 
medical writer Dioscorides. The opening words of Dioscorides' treatise, irepl 
CXtjj larpiKijs, run thus : IIoXXwj' ov y.bvov dpx a ^ & "'» aXX& xal viwv ffwra^afiii>up 


irtpl rrjs tCiv <papfj.dKwv (TKevaffias re Kal Swd/xeus ko.1 SoKi/Aaaias, (pCXTare 'Apete, 
veipdcrofiai croi irapaaTijcrai. /xt) k€vt)v fj.r]5i &\oyov opfirjv itrxVHtvai irpos rrivde T7j»> 
t pay pare lav. The date of Dioscorides Pedacius is uncertain ; but, as Pliny 
does not mention him, he is commonly assigned to the first or second century 
A.D. He is said to have been a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, about fifty 
miles from Tarsus ; and in that case he would almost certainly obtain hia 
medical knowledge in the great school at Tarsus. That he and S. Luke may 
have been there at the same time with S. Paul, seems to be a not impossible 
conjecture. The treatise irepl dpxairjs IriTpiKrjs, commonly attributed to Hippo- 
crates (c. 460-350 B.C.), begins: 'Ok6coi iirex^pijirav repl Irp-piKTji \£yet.v 1j 
ypd<puv, k.t.X. 


These chapters have often been attacked as unhistorical. 
That Marcion omitted them from his mutilated edition of this 
Gospel is of no moment. He did not do so upon critical grounds, 
but because their contents did not harmonize with his doctrine. 
It is more to the point to urge that these early narratives 
lack apostolic authority ; that they cover ground which popular 
imagination, in the absence of history, would be sure to fill ; that 
they abound in angelic appearances and other marvels; that 
their form is often highly poetical; and that it is sometimes 
difficult to reconcile them with the narrative of Mt. or with 
known facts of history. To this it may be replied that reserve 
would keep Christ's Mother from making known these details at 
first. Even Apostles may have been ignorant of them, or unwilling 
to make them known until the comparatively late period at which 
Lk. wrote. The dignity, beauty, and spirituality of these narratives 
is strong evidence of their authenticity, especially when contrasted 
with the silly, grotesque, and even immoral details in the apo- 
cryphal gospels. They abound in historic features, and are 
eminently true to life. Their independence of Mt. is evident, 
and both accounts bear the stamp of truthfulness, which is not 
destroyed by possible discrepancies in a few minor points. That 
Lk. is ever at variance with other historians, has still to be proved ; 
and the merit of greater accuracy may still be with him, even if 
such variance exists. 

This Gospel of the Infancy is made up of seven narratives, 
in two parallel groups of three, followed by a supplement, which 
connects these two groups with the main body of the Gospel. 

I. 1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner 
(5-25) ; 2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38) ; 
3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of 
the Forerunner (39-56). 

II. 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80); 5. The Birth of 
the Saviour (ii. 1-20) ; 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of 
the Saviour (ii. 21-40). 


III. 7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (ii. 41-52). 

On the two accounts of our Lord's infancy see Resch, Das 
Kindheitsevangelium, pp. 10 ff., 1897; Gore, Dissertations on 
Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 12 ff. : Murray, 1895. 

I. 5-25. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner. 

"When John the Baptist appeared, not the oldest man in 
Palestine could remember to have spoken even in his earliest 
childhood with any man who had seen a prophet. ... In these 
circumstances it was an occurrence of the first magnitude, more 
important far than war or revolution, when a new prophet actually 
appeared" {Ecce Homo, ch. i.). The miracles recorded are in 
keeping with this. God was making a new departure in dealing 
with His people. We need not, therefore, be startled if a highly 
exceptional situation is accompanied by highly exceptional facts. 
After more than three centuries of silence, Jehovah again speaks 
by prophecies and signs to Israel. But there is no violent rupture 
with the past in making this new departure. The announcement 
of the rise of a new Prophet is made in the temple at Jerusalem, 
to a priest of the old covenant, who is to be the Prophet's father. 
It is strong evidence of the historic truth of the narrative that no 
miracles are prophesied of the new Prophet, and that after his 
appearance his disciples attribute none to him. 

5. 'EyeVeTo iv tous rjfjie'pais. The elegant idiomatic Greek of the 
preface comes abruptly to an end. Although the marks of Lk.'s 
style are as abundant here as in any part of the Gospel, yet the 
form of the narrative is strongly Hebraistic ; so much so that one 
may be confident that he is translating from an Aramaic document 
These first two chapters seem to consist of a series of such docu- 
ments, each with a distinct conclusion (i. 80, ii. 40, ii. 52). If they 
are historical, the Virgin Mary must have been the source of much 
that is contained in these first two chapters ; and she may have 
been the writer of documents used by Lk. In any case, we have 
here the earliest documentary evidence respecting the origins of 
Christianity which has come down to us, — evidence which may 
justly be called contemporary. Both lyeviro and cv rats ^e'pats 
are Hebraistic (see on ver. 39) ; but there is no need to understand 
rjv or any other verb after e'yevero, " It came to pass that there was." 
Rather, " There arose, came into notice," or simply " There was." 
See on iv. 36, and comp. Mk. i. 4 ; Jn. i. 6. 

'HpwSou 0acTi\&Ds ttjs 'louSaias. Herod " the Great," a title not 


given to him by his contemporaries, who during his last years 
suffered greatly from his cruelty. It is in these last years that the 
narrative of Lk. begins. The Herods were Idumasans by birth, 1 
though Jews by religion, and were dependent upon the Romans 
for their sovereignty. As Tacitus say? : Regnum ab Antonio 
Herodi datum victor Augustus auxit {Hist. v. 9. 3). 

The name 'Rpub-qs is contracted from 'Hpw/57/s, and should have iota sub- 
script, which is well supported by early inscriptions. Later inscriptions and 
coins omit the iota. In the Codex Ambrosianus of Josephus the name is 
written with iota adscript, HpwiS^s (Ant. xi -xx.). See the numerous 
instances from inscriptions cited by Schiirer in the Theol. Litztg. 1892, No. 
21, col. 516. The tov inserted before /ScunX^ws in A and other texts is in 
accordance with classical usage. But in LXX the art. is commonly omitted 
in such cases, because in Hebrew, as in English, " Saul, king of Israel," 
"George, king of England," is the common idiom (Gen. xiv. 1, 2, 18, xx. 2, 
xxvi. 1, etc. etc.). See Simcox, Lang, of N.T. p. 47. 

PacriXe'cjs tt)s 'louScu'as. This was the title conferred on him by 
the Senate at the request of Antony, Messala, and Atratinus (Jos. 
Ant. xiv. 14. 4). Judaea here may mean " the land of the Jews, 
Palestine" (vii. 17, xxiii. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xi. 1, 29). Besides 
Judaea in the narrower sense, Herod's dominions included Samaria, 
Galilee, a great deal of Peraea, and Ccele-Syria. For the abundant 
literature on the Herods see D.B. 2 i. p. 1341 ; Herzog, PRE? vi. 
p. 47 ; Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. i. 1, p. 400. 

tepeu's tis cVojia-ri Zaxapias. In the Protevangelium of James 
(viii.), Zacharias is called high priest; and this has been adopted by 
later writers, who have supposed that the incident narrated by Lk. 
took place on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies. But 
the high priest would not have been called lepcu's tis, and it could 
not have been by lot (Z\a-x e ) tnat he offered incense on the Day of 
Atonement. Priestly descent was much esteemed. The name 
means "Remembered by Jehovah." For o^o/ian see on v. 27. 

€| e4>r|u,€pias 'Af3id. The word i(f>rjixepia has two meanings : 
1. "service for a term of days" (Neh. xiii. 30; 1 Chron. xxv. 8; 
2 Chron. xiii. 10) ; 2. "a course of priests who were on duty for a 
term of days," viz. for a week (1 Chron. xxiii. 6, xxviii. 13 ; 1 Esdr. 
i. 2, 15). These courses were also called Sicup«ms, and by Josephus 
TraTpiai and €<p77/xepi'S€s {Ant. vii. 14. 7 ; Vita, i.). Abijah was de- 
scended from Eleazar, and gave his name to the eighth of the 
twenty-four courses into which David divided the priests (1 Chron. 
xxiv. 10 ; 2 Chron. viii. 14). Of these twenty-four only the courses 
of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim returned from captivity 
(Ezra ii. 36-39) ; but these four were divided again into twenty- 

1 Tempas quoque Herodis alienigetm videlicet regis etiam ipsum Domenico 
attestalur adventui. Prxdiclutn namque fuerat, quia non deficiet princeps ex 
Jttda % donee veniat qui tnittendus erat (Bede). See Farrar, 7 he Herods, ch. vi.. vii. 


four with the old names. So that Zacharias did not belong to the 
original course of Abijah, for that did not return from exile. Each 
course was on duty twice during the year ; but we know far too 
little about the details of the arrangement to derive any sure chron- 
ology from the statements made by Lk. See on ii. 7. 

Wieseler places the vision of Zacharias early in October A.u.C. 748 or B.C. 6 
(Chron. Syn. ii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 123). With this result Edersheim agrees (Z. and 
T. i. p. 135), as also does Andrews (Z. of our Lord, p. 52, ed. 1892). Lewin 
prefers May 16th, B.C. 7 {Fasti Sacri, 836). Caspari is for July 18th, B.C. 3, 
but remarks " how little reliance is to be placed upon conclusions of this kind" 
(Chron. Einl. §42, Eng. tr. p. 57). For the courses of priests, see Herzog, 
PRE. 2 art. Priestertum im A.T. ; Schtirer, Jew ish People in the T. of J. C. 
ii. I, pp. 216-220. 

yvvr\ ciutuS Ik twv SuyaTepwc 'Aapoji'. " He had a wife," not " his 
wife was" (AV.). Lk. follows LXX in omitting the art. with the 
gen. after Ovyar-qp: comp. xiii. 16 and the quotations Mt. xxi. 5 
and Jn. xii. 15, and contrast Mt. xiv. 6. To be a priest and 
married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction. It was a 
common summary of an excellent woman, " She deserves to marry 
a priest." In the fullest sense John was of priestly birth. See 
Wetst. : Sacrosancta pr&cursoris nobilitas non solum a parentibus, 
sed etiam a progenitoribus gloriosa descendit (Bede). Aaron's wife 
was Elisabeth = Elisheba=" God is my oath." 

6. SiKcuoi. Once a term of high praise, and meaning righteous- 
ness in the fullest sense (Ezek. xviii. 5, 9, n, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26); 
but it had come to mean little more than careful observance of 
legal duties. The addition of the Hebraistic ivavriov tou 0eoO 
(Acts viii. 21; Gen. vi. 8, n, 13, vii. 1, x. 9) gives Sikcuoi its full 
meaning : Zacharias and Elisabeth were saints of the O.T. type. 
Symeon is called 8/mios (ii. 25), and Joseph (Mt. i. 19). Comp. 

oikcuov eivai fM 6 co/xos rj <pt'cris & ajxa -rrapa.^ tw 0ew (Eur. Ion. 

643). The Gospel was to restore to oYkcuos its original spiritual 
meaning. See detached note on the word oikcuos and its cognates^ 
Rom. i. 17. For d|x4>oTepoi see on v. 7. 

iropeuofjievoi iv 7rdo-cus rats ee-roXcus k<x! 8iKCuajp.acriv t. k. Another 
Hebraism (Deut. xxviii. 9 • 1 Sam. viii. 3, 5 ; 1 Kings hi. 14, etc.). 
The distinction often drawn, that IvroXal are moral, while Sikcuu>- 
(jLara are ceremonial, is baseless ; the difference is, that the latter 
is the vaguer term. Here, although they differ in gender, they 
have only one article and adjective, because they are so simitar in 
meaning. Comp. Col. ii. 22; Rev. v. 12 ; and see Win. xix. 3 c, 
p. 157. The two words are found combined Gen. xxvi. 5 and 
Deut. iv. 40. For 8iKaiwp.aTa, " things declared right, ordinances," 
comp. Rom. ii. 26 and Heb. ix. 1, and see note in S/>. Comm. on 
1 Cor. v. 6 as to the force of the termination -/xa. The genitive 
here, as in Rom. ii. 26 and viii. 4, expresses the authority from 


which the ordinance springs. The ajiejjurToi anticipates what 
follows, and, of course, does not mean that they were sinless. No 
one is sinless ; but the conduct of some is free from reproach. 
Comp. Phil. iii. 6. See the quotation Eus. H.E. v. i. 9. 

7. icai ouk rjr aG-rois -riwov. This calamity is grievous to all 
Orientals, and specially grievous to Jews, each of whom is ambitious 
of being among the progenitors of the Messiah. It was commonly 
believed to be a punishment for sin (Lev. xx. 20, 21; Jer. xxii. 30). 
The story of Glaucus, who tempted the oracle at Delphi, and " at 
the present time has not a single descendant" (Hdt. vi. 86. 16), 
indicates a similar belief among the Greeks. Zacharias and 
Elisabeth had the sorrow of being childless, as Anna of being 
husbandless, and all three had their consolation. Comp. the 
births of Samson and Samuel, both of whom were Nazirites, and 
of Isaac. 

Ka6<$Ti. Peculiar to Lk. "Because that" (xix. 9 ; Acts ii. 24, xvii. 31), 
or "according as" (Acts ii. 45, iv. 35). In class. Grk. editors commonly 
write Kad' 6 n. The clause /cai a/Mpdrepoi . . . fjtrav does not depend upon 
Kadori, which would be illogical, but is a separate statement. Their age 
would not explain why they had had no children, but why they were not likely 
to have any. "They had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren ; and 
they were both advanced in years," so that they had no hope of children. 

TrpoPePrjKOTes iv tcus r^u,e'pais auiw. Hebraistic : in class. Grk. 
we should rather have had rfj ^Auaa. In LXX we have Trpofiefi. 
fjfxepais, or riixepwv, or twv rj/xepwv (1 Kings i. i, Gen. xxiv. 1 ; Josh, 
xiii. 1). Levites were superannuated at about sixty, but a priest 
served as long as he was able. 

8. 'E-ye'veTo . . . e\ax«- On the various constructions with iytvero in 
Lk. see detached note at the end of this chapter ; and on ev T«j5 UpaTev'eiv 
axiTov, " while he was officiating as priest," which is another very favourite 
construction with Lk., see on iii. 21. The verb Upareveiv is freq. in LXX, 
but occurs nowhere else in N.T. It is not found earlier than LXX, but is not 
rare in later Greek. See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 119. The phrase 
k<ito to €0os is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ii. 42, xxii. 39), but occurs in Theod. 
Bel 15 ; and idos occurs ten times in his writings, and only twice elsewhere 
(Jn. xix. 40 ; Heb. x. 25). Comp. Kara rb elffurfUvor (ii. 27) and Kara rb eiudbs 
(iv. 16 ; Acts xvii. 2). It is for the sake of those who were unfamiliar with the 
usages of the temple that he says that it was " according to the custom of the 
priest's service " that it was decided by lot which priest should offer incense. 
To take Kara rb ZOos tt)s ieparias with what precedes robs it of all point ; it is 
tautology to say that he was officiating as priest according to the custom of the 
priest's service. But the number of cases in which Lk. has a clause or word 
which is grammatically amphibolous is very large ; w. 25, 27, ii. 22, where 
see note. The word leparela occurs in N.T. only here and Heb. vii. 5. " In 
relation to lepwavvrj (Heb. vii. II, 12, 24) it expresses the actual service of 
the priests, and not the office of priesthood " (Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 5). 

IXaxe toG Gupaaaai. The casting of lots took place twice a day, 
at the morning and the evening offering of incense. In the morn- 


ing the drawing lots for offering the incense was the third and chief 
of a series of drawings, four in all ; in the evening it was the only 
one. We do not know whether this was morning or evening. No 
priest might have this honour twice ; and the number of priests 
was so great that many never offered the incense. The fortunate 
lot was a i/^0os A.ev/07, to which there is a possible reference 
Rev. ii. 1 7. The priest who obtained it chose two others to help 
him ; but, when they had done their part, they retired, leaving him 
alone in the Holy Place. For the very elaborate details see 
Edersh. The Temple, its Ministry and Services, pp. 129-142. 

The gen. rod Ov/jaaaai is probably governed by ?Xa%f , which in class. Grk. 
commonly has a gen. when it means " became possessed of," and an ace 
when it means " obtained by lot" (Acts i. 17 ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 1). In 1 Sam. 
xiv. 47 we have Zaoi)\ fkaxe [at. t. KaTaKKrjpovrai] rod fiaaiKeveiv tirl 'IcrpaTjX. 
The eiffeXdwv eh rbv vabv must be taken with dv/xiaaai, not with fkaxe : "he 
obtained by lot to go in and burn incense," not "after entering into the va6s 
he obtained by lot to burn incense." The lots were cast before he entered the 
Holy Place, which was the front part of the va6s. 

10. Tray to TrX^Oos rjc tou Xaou Trpoaeuxofierat'. Cod. Am. has the 
same order, omnis multitude* erat populi orans. The position of 
rov kaov is against taking fy with 7rpoaevx6fj.evov as the analytical 
tense instead of the imperf., a constr. of which Lk. is very fond 
(w. 20, 21, 22, ii. 33, iv. 17, 31. 38, 44, etc.); tjv may mean 
" was there," or " there was," and rov \aov be epexegetic of to 
7i-A.7/0os. But certainty is unattainable and unimportant. We need 
not infer from 7r£v to ir\rjdo<; that there was a great multitude. As 
compared with the solitary priest in the vaos, all the worshippers 
outside were a ttXtjOos. The word is a favourite one with Lk., who 
uses it twenty-five times against seven in the rest of N.T. It is 
remarkable that prayer is not expressly mentioned in the Law as 
part of public worship, except in connexion with the offering of the 
first-fruits (Deut. xxvi. 15). But comp. 1 Kings viii. 33-48, 
2 Chron. vi. 14-42 ; Is. lvi. 7. The people were inside the Upov, 
although outside (e£w) the vaos, and the other priests would be 
between them and the vaos. Syr-Sin. omits !&>. 

11. w<|)0t] 8e auTui ayv^Xos Kupiou. It was the most solemn 
moment of his life, when he stood alone in that sacred spot to offer 
the pure and ideal symbol of the imperfect prayer which he and 
those outside were offering. The unique circumstances contri- 
buted to make him conscious of that unseen world which is around 
all of us (2 Kings vi. 17 ; comp. Lk. xv. 7, 10). For wcpO-q see on 
xxii. 43 ; and for an analysis of the psychological facts see Lange, 
L. of Christ, bk. ii. pt. ii. § 2 ; Eng. tr. i. 264. But must we not 
choose between admitting an objective appearance and rejecting 
the whole as a myth ? To explain it as a " false perception " or 
optical delusion, i.e. a purely subjective result of psychological 


causes, seems to be not admissible. In that case Zacharias, like Lord 
Herbert of Cherbury, 1 would have accepted the sign which he sup- 
posed that he had received. To believe in the reality of a subject- 
ive appearance and not believe its testimony is a contradiction. 
Moreover, the psychological explanation leaves the dumbness to be 
explained. Again, we have similar appearances ver. 26, ii. 9, 13, 
xxii. 43, xxiv. 4. Can we accept here an explanation which is very 
difficult (ii. g, 13) or inadmissible (xxiv. 4) elsewhere? Are all 
these cases of false perception ? See Paley, Evide?ices of Christi- 
anity, prop. ii. ch. i. ; Mill, Pantheistic Principles, ii. 1. 4, p. 123, 
2nd ed. 1 861 ; Edersh. L. 6° T. i. p. 142, ii. p. 751. 

£K 8e|i.aif tou 0ucriaoTT]piou. The place of honour. It was " the 
right side of the altar," not of Zacharias, who was facing it. Comp. 
Acts vii. 55, 56. The right side was the south side, and the Angel 
would be between the altar and the golden candlestick. On the 
left, or north side, of the altar was the table with the shewbread. 

12. <{>6|3os eireTrecrei' eV auTOf. Fear is natural when man be- 
comes suddenly conscious of contact with the unseen : Humanx 
fragilitatis est spirit ualis creature visione turbari (Bede). Comp. 
ii. 9, ix. 34; Judg. vi. 22, xiii. 22 ; Job iv. 15, etc. For the phrase 
comp. Acts xix. 17; Exod. xv. 16; Judith xv. 2. In class. Grk. 
the dat. is more usual : Thuc. iii. 87. 1 ; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 19 ; Eur. 
Andr. 1042. 

13. ciTref Se irpo? au-roV. Both ei7r€i/ Se' and €?7rev Trpos are very 
freq. in Lk., who prefers eT^ei/ Se to /cat el-n-ev even at the beginning 
of narratives, and uses 77730s airov, avTovs, k.t.X. in preference to 
avTw, av-rots, k.t.X., after verbs of speaking, answering, etc., to an 
extent which is quite remarkable (vv. 18, 19, 34, 55, 61, 73, 
ii. 15, 18, 20, 34, 48, 49, etc. etc.). This 77-pos is so strong a mark 
of his style that it should be distinguished in translation : e?7rev 
7rpos auToV, " He said unto him," and ei7rev auTw, " He said to him." 
But not even RV. does this. See pp. lxii, lxiii. 

Mtj 4>of3oG. This gracious charge is specially common in Lk. 
(ver. 30, ii. 10, viii. 50, xii. 4, 7, 32 ; Acts xviii. 9, xxvii. 24). 
Bengel says of it, Primum alloquium cceleste in aurora JV.T. per 
Lucam amcenissime descripta. Comp. Gen. xv. 1 ; Josh. viii. 1; 
Is. xliii. 1, 5, xliv. 2; Jer. xlvi. 27, 28; Dan. x. 12. 

Sioti. " Because," as generally in N.T. Comp. ii. 7, xxi. 28. 
It never means "therefore"; not Rom. i. 19 nor 1 Thes. ii. 18. 

ci<n]Kou(T0T] tj Se'rio-is ctou. " Thy supplication was heard," at the 
time when it was offered. The pass, is used both of the petition 
(Acts x. 31 ; Ecclus. Ii. n) and of the petitioner (Mt. vi. 7 ; Heb. 
v. 7). The word hiqcn<i implies personal need; it is a "special 
petition for the supply of want " (Lft. on Phil. iv. 6 ; Trench, Syn. Ii.). 
Unlike irpoaevxq, it may be used of petitions to men. The word 
1 Life, written by himself, sub fin., pp. 171 ff. ed. 1792, pp. 241 ff., ed. 1824. 

t 13, 14.] 1HE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY t$ 

favours, but by no means proves, the view that the prayer of 
Zacharias was for a son. And the context at first seems to con- 
firm this. But would Zacharias have made his private wishes the 
main subject of his prayer at so unique an opportunity ? Would 
he have prayed for what he regarded as impossible? As Bede 
remarks, Nemo orat quod se accepturum desperat. Having prayed 
for it as possible, would he have refused to believe an Angel who 
told him that the petition was granted ? It is much more probable 
that he and the people were praying for the redemption of Israel, — 
for the coming of the Messiah's kingdom ; and it is this supplica- 
tion which was heard. To make Sc^o-is refer to habitual suppli- 
cation, and not to the prayer offered with the incense, seems 

What Didon points out (p. 298) in quite a different connexion seems to 
have point here. It was an axiom with the Rabbins that a prayer in which 
there was no mention of the kingdom of God was no prayer at all (Baby I., 
Beracoth, fol. 40, 2) ; and in the ritual of the temple the response of the 
people to the prayers of the priests was, " Blessed be the name of the glory of 
the Kingdom of God for ever" (Baby I., Taanith, fol. 16, 2): Jesus Christ, 
ed. 1891. See also Edersh. The Temple, p. 127. 

ica! r\ yuvr\ crou 'E\eiCTd(3eT yevvr\(T£i ul6V ctoi. Not rj yvvi] yap. 
" For thy wife shall bear thee a son " would have made it clear 
that the son was the answer to the Sevens. But "and thy wife 
shall bear thee a son " may mean that this is an additional boon, 
which (as ver. 17 shows) is to prepare the way for the blessing 
prayed for and granted. Thus, like Solomon, Zacharias receives 
the higher blessing for which he prayed, and also the lower blessing 
for which he did not pray. 

Tewdw is generally used of the father (Mt. i. 1-16 ; Acts vii. 8, 29 ; Gen. 
v. 3-30, xi. 10-28, etc.); but sometimes of the mother (ver. 57, xxiii. 29; 
Jn. xvi. 21). The best authorities give 'Iwdvys, with only one v (WH. ii. 
App. p. 159). In LXX we have 'Ioxxvtjs (2 Chron. xxviii. 12); 'Iwdvav 
2 Chron. xvii. 15; Neh. xii. 13); 'Iwvdv (Neh. vi. 18); 'luvd (2 Kings 
xxv. 23; comp. Jn. xxi. 15-17). All these forms are abbreviations of Jeho- 
hanan, "Jehovah's gift," or " God is gracious." Gotthold is a German name 
of similar meaning. It was a Rabbinical saying that the names of six were 
given before they were born — Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and 

14, ttoMo! eirl ttj yevicru auTOu x a P 1 1 ' 0lrrai - With the ttoWol 
here contrast ttolvtI t<3 Xaai in ii. 10. The joy at the appearance of 
a Prophet after centuries of need was immense, although not uni- 
versal. The Pharisees did not dare to say that John was not a 
Prophet (Mt. xxi. 26) ; and Herod, until driven to it, did not dare 
to put him to death (Mt. xiv. 5). The word dyaAAiacri? means 
"extreme joy, exultation." It is not class., but is freq. in LXX. 
Elsewhere in N.T. only ver. 44 ; Acts ii. 46 ; Jude 24 ; Heb. i. 9 
(from Ps. xliv. 8). 


In class. Grk. x a ^P eiv more often has the simple dat., but iirl is usual in 
N.T. (xiii. 17 ; Acts xv. 31 ; Mt. xviii. 13, etc.). It marks the basis of the 
joy. The reading "yfwrjcrei (G X T) for yeviasi (S A B C D) probably comes 
from 7e«'»'77<7« in ver. 13. 

15. corai yap fx^yas ivutitiov [tou] Kupi'ou. For he shall be great 
in the truest sense of the term. Whatsoever a character man has 
before God, of that character he really is. 

The adj. ivu-mos is found in Theocr. (xxii. 152) and in LXX, but ivwwio* 
as a prep, seems to be confined to LXX and N.T. It is not in Mt. or Mk., 
but is specially freq. in Lk. (w. 17, 19, 75, iv. 7, v. 18, 25, etc.), as also 
in Rev. The phrase ivwirioit rov nvpiov or Qeov is a Hebraism (xii. 6, xvi. 15; 
Acts iv. 19, vii. 46, x. 31, 33; Judg. xi. 11 ; 1 Sam. x. 19 ; 2 Sam. v. 3, 
vi. 5). The preposition retains this meaning in modern Greek. 

olvov k<u ciKepa ou fxrj tut). He is to drink neither wine nor 
any intoxicating liquor other than wine. The same Hebrew word 
is rendered sometimes aUepa, sometimes fi^Ovo-fj-a, and sometimes 
a-LKepa fxWvcr/j.a (Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Judg. xiii. 4, 7, 14). 
Wiclif here has " ne wine ne syder." See D.B? art. " Drink, 
Strong." John is to be a Nazirite, not only for a time, as was 
usual, but for all his life, as Samson and Samuel. This is not 
disproved by the omission of the command not to cut his hair 
(Edersh. Tlie Temple, p. 322). Eusebius (Prsep. Evang. vi. 10. 8) 
has gen. crUepos, and o-ixipaTos is also quoted ; but o-Lnepa is usually 

■nvcufiaTos dyiou -rrXiqcrOrjo-eTai. This is in obvious contrast to 
otvov Kal a-LKepa. In place of the physical excitement of strong 
drink he is to have the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit 
The whole phrase is peculiar to Lk. (vv. 41, 67 ; Acts ii. 4, 
iv. 8, 31, ix. 17, xiii. 9); and the two elements of it are specially 
characteristic of him. Excepting Mt. xxii. 10, xxvii. 48, the 
verb TTLfxirXruxi occurs only in Lk., who uses it twenty-two times. 
Mt. has the expression " Holy Spirit " five times, Mk. and Jn. each 
four times. Lk. has it fifty-three times, of which twelve are in the 
Gospel. He uses three forms: irvtviia ayiov (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, 
[ii. 25,] iii. 16, iv. 1, xi. 13); to ayiov 7rve£yxa (xii. 10, 12); and to 
Trv(.vp,a. to ayiov (ii. 26, iii. 22). According to Schoettgen (i. 
p 255), "to be filled with the Holy Spirit is " locutio Jud&is famili- 
aris. He gives one example. Com p. the contrast in Eph. v. 18. 

fri ck KOiXias (AT]Tpbs avTou. A Hebraism (Ps. xxii. II, lxxi. 6; Is. 
xlix. 1, 5: comp. Judg. xiii. 5, 7, xvi. 17; Job xxxi. 18, etc.); instead of 
the more classical iK yeveriji, with or without ei/0Js (Horn. //. xxiv. 535, Od. 
xviii. 6; Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 13. 1, vii. 14. 4, viii. 12. 6). For 'he in 
comp. fri 4k /3p^eos, In air' apxv* ' T ' f ai £k TrapbvTwv, where £ri seems to 
mean "even." The expression does not imply that John was filled with the 
Spirit before he was born (ver. 41). In LXX koiXIcl is often used of the 
womb (see esp. Jer. i. 5) ; but this is very rare in class. Grk. 


16, 17. The two personal characteristics just stated — subjection 
of the flesh and sovereignty of the spirit — will manifest themselves 
in two external effects, — a great religious revival and the prepara- 
tion for the Messianic kingdom. The first of these was the 
recognized work of every Prophet. Israel, through sin, was con- 
stantly being alienated from God; and it was one of the chief 
functions of a Prophet to convert the people to God again (Jer. 
iii. 7, io, 14, xviii. 8; Ezek. iii. 19; Dan. ix. 13). 

koX avT<$s. The personal pronouns are much more used in N.T. than in 
class. Grk., esp. in the oblique cases. But even in the nom. the pronoun is 
sometimes inserted, although there is little or no emphasis. Lk. is very fond 
of beginning sentences with ical avrds, even where airr6s can hardly mean 
"he on his part," as distinct from others (iii. 23, v. 14, 17, vi. 20, etc.). In 
irpoeXeinrerai we have another mark of Lk.'s style. Excepting Mk. vi. 33 
and 2 Cor. ix. 5, the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 47 ; Acts xii. 10, 
xx. 5?, 13). 

ivwinov auroD. " Before God," who comes to His people in 
the person of the Messiah (Is. xl. 1-11; Mai. iii. 1-5). It is 
unlikely that avrov means the Messiah, who has not yet been 
mentioned. There is no analogy with avros ecpa, ipse dixit, where 
the pronoun refers to some one so well known that there is no 
need to mention him by name. For ivwmov see on ver. 15 ; and 
for Sueafus, on iv. 14, 36. Elijah is mentioned, not as a worker of 
miracles, for "John did no sign" (Jn. x. 41), but as a preacher of 
repentance : it was in this that the Baptist had his spirit and 
power. For Rabbinic traditions respecting Elijah as the Fore- 
runner see Edersh. L. & T. ii. p. 706. Comp. Justin, Try. xlix. 

The omission of the articles before irvevfiari and Swdfiei is probably due 
to the influence of an Aramaic original, in which the gen. which follows 
would justify the omission. Proper names in -as pure commonly have gen. 
in -ov (Mt. i. 6, in. 3) ; but here 'HXda is the true reading. 

emoTpei|/ai xapoias iraTc'pajf em rcKca. The literal interpretation 
here makes good sense, and perhaps, on the whole, it is the best 
In the moral degradation of the people even parental affection had 
languished: comp. Ecclus. xlviii. 10. Genuine reform strengthens 
family ties; whatever weakens them is no true reform. Or the 
meaning may be that the patriarchs will no longer be ashamed of 
their offspring: comp. Is. lxiii. 16. In any case, direiGeis is not to 
be referred to TeVva. It is not the disobedience of children to 
parents that is meant, but that of the Jews to God. 

The Vulg. renders airei8eis by incredibiles, for which some MSS. have 
incredulos : comp. dissoaabilis, petietrabilis for adjectives in -bills with this 
force. Lat. Vet. varies : inerttditos (/), non consentientes (d), con/iimaces (e). 

iv 4>pov^cr€L SiKdicjv. The prep, of rest after a verb of motion expresses 
the result of the motion (vii. 17 ; Mt. xiv. 3) : " Turn them so as to be in 
lhe wisdom of the just." For ppovrjais see Lft. on Col. i. 9: the word 


occurs only here and Eph. i. 8 in N.T. De Wette, Bleek, and others main- 
tain that <j>p6i>7]cris here means simply " disposition," Gesinnung. In what 
follows it is better to make irotfidaai dependent upon i-widTpk^ai, not 
co-ordinate with it. The preparation is the consequence of the conversion, 
and the final object of the irpoeXevaerat : ne Dominus populum imparatum 
majestate sua obterat (Beng.). 

18. Kara t£ toGto ; The very question asked by 
Abraham (Gen. xv. 8) : " In accordance with what shall I obtain 
knowledge of this ? " i.e. What shall be in harmony with it, so as 
to be a sign of it ? Comp. the cases of Gideon (Judg. vi. 36-39) 
and of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 8), who asked for signs ; also of 
Moses (Exod. iv. 2-6) and of Ahaz (Is. vii. n), to whom signs 
were given unasked. The spirit in which such requests are made 
may vary much, although the form of request may be the same ; 
and the fact that Zacharias had all these instances to instruct him 
made his unbelief the less excusable. By his c'yw yap d/xi, k.t.A., he 
almost implies that the Angel must have forgotten the fact. 

19. d.TroKpiC«ls 6 a-yYeXo? elirtv. In Attic, in Homeric and 
Ionic inroKpLvofxcu, is used in the sense of "answering." In N.T. viroKpl' 
vofiai. occurs only once (xx. 20), and there of "acting a part," not "answer- 
ing " : comp. 2 Mac. v. 25. But dironpidels for the class. diroKpivd/ievot 
(which is rare in N.T.) marks the decay of the middle voice. In bibl. Grk. 
the middle voice is dying ; in mod. Grk. it is dead. Machon, a comic poet 
about B.C. 250, is perhaps the earliest writer who uses aireKpld-qv like in the sense of "replied, answered." In LXX, as in N.T., 
aireKpivap-riv is rare (Judg. v. 29 [A] ; I Kings ii. I ; I Chron. x. 1 3). See 
Veitch, Greek Verbs , p. 78. 

19. *Eyw elfju rafjpujX. Gabriel answers his eyw el/ju with 
another. "Thou art old, and not likely to have children, but 
I am one whose word is to be believed " : dyy«Au> d^io-Teis, kol tm 
aTroareiXavTi (Eus.). The names of two heavenly beings are given 
us in Scripture, Gabriel (Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21) and Michael (Dan. 
x. 13, 21, xii. 1 ; Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7); other names were given in 
the later Jewish tradition. It is one thing to admit that such 
names are of foreign origin, quite another to assert that the belief 
which they represent is an importation. Gabriel, the " Man of 
God," seems to be the representative of angelic ministry to man ; 
Michael, " Who is like God," the representative of angelic opposi- 
tion to Satan. In Scripture Gabriel is the angel of mercy, Michael 
the angel of judgment. In Jewish legend the reverse is the case, 
proving that the Bible does not borrow Jewish fables. In the 
Targums Gabriel destroys Sennacherib's army ; in the O.T. he 
instructs and comforts Daniel. The Rabbis said that Michael flies 
in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and Death in eight ; 
i.e. mercy is swifter than judgment, and judgment is swifter than 
destruction. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 97; D.C.G. i. p. 55. 

6 irapeo-TrjKws ivumov tou Oeou. See on ver. 15. Gabriel is "the 


angel of His presence" (Is. lxiii. 9; comp. Mt. xviii. 10). "Stand- 
ing before" implies ministering. In LXX the regular phrase is 
Trapaa-rrjvaL ivw-mov (Job i. 6, which is a close parallel to this; 1 Kings 
xvii. 1, xviii. 15 ; 2 Kings iii. 14, v. 16). It is also used of service 
to a king (1 Kings x. 8). But when Gehazi "stood before his 
master," we have Trapeio-TrJKet 7rpos rbv Kvpiov avTov (2 Kings v. 25). 

Only here and ix. 27 does Lk. use the unsyncopated form of the perf. part. 
of X(XTijfii and its compounds. Elsewhere he prefers etrrws to iarrjKus (i. II, 
v. 1, 2, xviii. 13; Acts iv. 14, vii. 55, etc.). In Mt. xxvii. 47 and Mk. ix. 
1 and xi. 5, e<jTt\Kvrwv is the right reading. In Jn. the unsyncopated form 
is common. 

aTreoraXTji' XaXfjaat irpos ere Kal euayyeXicraaOai croi Taura. This 
reminds Zacharias of the extraordinary favour shown to him, and 
so coldly welcomed by him. It is the first use in the Gospel 
narrative of the word which was henceforward to be so current, 
and to mean so much. In LXX it is used of any good tidings 
(2 Sam. i. 20 ; 1 Chron. x. 9), but especially of communications 
respecting the Messiah (Is. xl. 9, lii. 7, lx. 6, Lxi. 1). See on ii. 10 
and iii. 18. 

20. Kal !8ou Ictt] CTtwrrwi' Kal iatj SuydfAeyos XaXrjcrai. The tSou is 
Hebraistic, but is not rare in class. Grk. It introduces something 
new with emphasis. Signum poscenti datur congriaim, quamvis non 
optatum (Beng.). The analytical form of the fut. marks the dura- 
tion of the silence (comp. v. 10, vi. 40 ?, xvii. 35 ?, xxi. 17); and \x.y\ 
Swa/icvo?, k.t.X., is added to show that the silence is not a voluntary 
act, but the sign which was asked for (comp. Dan. x. 15). Thus 
his wrong request is granted in a way which is at once a judgment 
and a blessing ; for the unbelief is cured by the punishment. For 
own-aw of dumbness comp. 4 Mac. x. 18. 

We have here one of many parallels in expression between Gospel and 
Acts. Comp. this with Acts xiii. 11 ; i. 39 with Acts i. 15 ; i. 66 with Acts 
xi. 21 ; ii. 9 with Acts xii. 7 ; xv. 20 with Acts xx. 37 ; xxi. 18 with Acts 
xxvii. 34 ; xxiv. 19 with Acts vii. 22. 

In N.T. y.T) with the participle is the common constr., and in mod. Grk. 
it is the invariable use. In Lk. there is only one instance of oi with a parti- 
ciple (vi. 42). See Win. Iv. 5. /S, pp. 607-610 ; Lft. Epp. oj St. Paul, p. 39, 
1895. The combination of the negative with the positive statement of the 
same thing, although found in class. Grk., is more common in Heb. literature. 
In Acts xiii. II we have iay Tv<t>\bs /j.7) (iJXeirwv ; comp. Jn. i. 3, 20, iii. 16, 
x. 5, 18, xviii. 20, xx. 27 ; Rev. ii. 13, iii. 9; Ps. lxxxix. 30, 31, 48; 2 Sam. 
xiv. 5 ; Is. xxxviii. 1, etc. 

oxpt rjs T|jA€pas. Gal. iii. 19 is the only certain exception to the rule 
that #x/"> not #X/" S > usually precedes vowels in N.T. Comp. xvii. 27, xxi. 
24, and see on xvi. 16. For the attraction, comp. Acts i. 2; Mt. xxiv. 38. 
Attractions are specially freq. in Lk. See on iii. 10 ; also Blass, Gr. pp. 169, 214, 

dv9' uv. Only in this phrase does dvri suffer elision in N.T. It is 
equivalent to dvrl tovtuv 6tl, "for that, because" (xix. 44; Acts xii. 23; 
2 Thes. ii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 43 ; 2 Kings xxii. 17 ; Ezek. v. 11). It is found 
in class. Grk. (Soph. Ant. 1068; Aristoph. Plut. 434). 



oitiv€s. Stronger than the simple relative : " which are of such a 
character that." Comp. ii. 10, vii. 37, 39, viii. 3, 15. Almost always in nom. 

cU tov Kaipov avTuiv. That which takes place in a time may be regarded 
as entering into that time : the words go on to their fulfilment. Comp. ds rd 
fj.4\\ov (xiii. 9) and et's rd /uera£i> (r&j3[3aToi> (Acts xiii. 42). 

21. tjk 6 Xaos irpocrooKoii'. As in ver. 20, the analytical tense 
marks the duration of the action. Zacharias was longer than was 
customary; and the Talmud states that the priests were accustomed 
to return soon to prevent anxiety. It was feared that in so sacred 
a place they might incur God's displeasure, and be slain (Lev. xvi. 
13). Hence e0au'p.a£ot> iv tw yjpovil.e.iv, "They were wondering while 
he tarried." Comp. ver. 8, and see on hi. 21. The common 
rendering, " at his tarrying," or " because he tarried," quod tardaret, 
is improbable even if possible. This would have been otherwise 
expressed : i$avfxa^,ov tVt (ii. 33, iv. 22, ix. 43, etc.), which D reads 
here ; or Sia (Mk. vi. 6 ; Jn. vii. 21 ?) ; or on (xi. 38 ; Jn. iii. 7, iv. 
27) ; or 7rept (ii. 18). 

22. ouk eSuVaro XaXf]o-ai ciutoTs. He ought to pronounce the 
benediction (Num. vi. 24-26) from the steps, either alone or with 
other priests. His look and his inability to speak told them at 
once that something extraordinary had taken place ; and the sacred 
circumstances would suggest a supernatural appearance, even if his 
signs did not make this clear to them. 

The compound lire'-yvoxrav implies clear recognition and full knowledge 
(v. 22, xxiv. 16, 31) ; and the late form oirTeuriav (for 6\piv) is commonly used 
of supernatural sights (xxiv. 23 ; Acts xxvi. 19 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 23, 
x. 1, 7, 8, 16). For Kai av-ris, "he on his part," as distinct from the con- 
gregation, see on ver. 17, and Win. xxii. 4. b, p. 187. The periphrastic tense 
tjv Siavevwv again calls attention to the continued action. The verb is found 
here only in N.T., but occurs twice in LXX (Ps. xxxiv. 19; Ecclus. xxvii. 
22). In SiE|t£ivc k<i>4><£s both the compound and the tense emphasize the fact 
that it was no mere temporary seizure (xxii. 28 ; Gal. ii. 5 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4). 

23. <I>s eir\iiar0r|o-ai' al Tjfjiepai rrjs XeiTOupyias outoo. When the 
week for which the course of Abijah was on duty for public service 
was at an end. See on vv. 15 and 57. In class. Grk. XeiTovpyla 
(Xcws, epyov) is freq. of public service undertaken by a citizen at 
his own expense. In bibl. Grk. it is used of priestly service in the 
worship of God (Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21; Num. viii. 22, xvi. 9, xviii. 4; 
2 Chron. xxxi. 2), and also of service to the needy (2 Cor. ix. 12 . 
Phil. ii. 30). See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 140. 

&TrfjX0ei' els Toy oikop auToG. This was not in Jerusalem, in the 
Ophel quarter, where many of the priests resided, but in an un- 
named town in the hill-country south of Jerusalem (ver. 39). It is 
probable that most of the priests who did not live in the city itself 
resided in the towns and villages in the neighbourhood. Con- 
venience would suggest that they should live inside Judrea. In 
Neh. xi. 10-19 we have 1192 priests in Jerusalem ; in 1 Chron. ix. 


13 we have 1760. Later authorities speak of 24,000; but such 
figures are very untrustworthy. The whole question of the resi- 
dences of the priests is an obscure one, and Josh. xxi. must not be 
quoted as evidence for more than a projected arrangement. That 
it was carried into effect and maintained, or that it was revived after 
the Exile, is a great deal more than we know. Schiirer, Jewish 
People in the T. of J. C. ii. 1, p. 229. 

24. auveka.$e.v. The word occurs eleven times in Lk. against 
five times elsewhere. He alone uses it in the sense of conceiving 
offspring, and only in these first two chapters (vv. 31, 36, ii. 21). 
This sense is common in medical writers and in Aristotle. Hobart 
remarks that the number of words referring to pregnancy and 
barrenness used by Lk. is almost as great as that used by Hippo- 
crates : iv yaa-Tpl ex €LV i*^- 2 3)» *y KV °s ( n - 5)> o-reipa (i. 7), aTe/cvos 
fxx. 28). And, excepting iv yao-rpl ?x e ^» all of these are peculiar 
to himself in N.T. {Med. Lang, of Lk. p. 91). 

irepieKpuPei' eau-rV p^as -ireVrc. The reflexive pronoun brings 
out more forcibly than the middle voice would have done that the 
act was entirely her own (Acts xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 31; 1 Jn. i. 8) ; 
and the compound verb implies all round, complete concealment. 
Her motive can only be conjectured ; but the enigmatical conduct 
and remark are evidence of historic truth, for they would not be 
likely to be invented. The five months are the first five months ; 
and at the end of them it would be evident that she had ceased 
to be rj o-Teipa (ver. 36). During these five months she did not 
wish to risk hearing a reproach, which had ceased to be true, but 
which she would not care to dispute. She withdrew, therefore, 
until all must know that the reproach had been removed. 

The form ^Kovfiov is late : in class. Grk. ?Kpv\pa is used. But a present 
Kpvfiu is found, of which this might be the imperfect. 

It can hardly be accidental that fify is scarcely ever used in N.T. in a 
literal sense by any writer except Lk., who has it five times in his Gospel 
and five times in the Acts. The chronological details involved in this 
frequent use are the results of the careful investigation of which he writes in 
the preface. The other passages are Gal. iv. 10; Jas. v. 17, and six times 
in Revelation. So also Itos occurs fifteen times in Lk. and six in Mt. Mk. 
and Jn. 

25. eireiBeK &<J>e\eiv SVeioos fioo iv deOpwTrois. The object of 
areiSev is neither ip.i understood (as all English Versions except 
Wic. and Rhem.) nor to oveioo's fxov (Hofmann), but acpe\elv : 
" watched to take away, taken care to remove." The constr. seems 
to be unique; but comp. Acts xv. 14. Alford and Holtzmann 
translate "hath deigned, condescended to remove"; but can 
iireiSev mean that? Elsewhere in N.T. it occurs only Acts iv. 29 j 
but in class. Grk. it is specially used of the gods regarding human 
affairs (Aesch. Suppl. 1. 1031 ; Sept. 485). Hdt. i. 124. 2 is not 


rightly quoted as parallel. Omitting eVeiSev, Rachel makes the 
same remark : 'A</>£t/\ev 6 ©cos /xou t6 ovei&os (Gen. xxx. 23 ; comp. 
Ps. cxiii. 9 ; Is. iv. 1) ; but the different position of the fxov is 
worth noting. In ev avOpw-n-oLs we have another amphibolous 
expression (see on ver. 8). It may be taken with a^eXelv, but 
more probably it belongs to to oVeiSos pov (ver. 36). 

26-38. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour. 1 

The birth of the Baptist is parallel to the birth of Isaac ; that 
of the Messiah to the creation of Adam. Jesus is the second 
Adam. But once more there is no violent breach with the past. 
Even in its revolutions Providence is conservative. Just as the 
Prophet who is to renovate Israel is taken from the old priesthood, 
so the Christ who is to redeem the human race is not created out 
of nothing, but " born of a woman." 

26. eis iroXii' ttjs TaXiXaias r\ o^ofjia Na£apeT. The description 
perhaps implies that Lk. is writing for those who are not familiar 
with the geography of Palestine. There is no reason for believing 
that he himself was unfamiliar with it. Comp. ver. 39, iv. 3i v 
vii. n, viii. 26, ix. 10, xvii. 11, xix. 29, 37, 41. 

Galilee is one of many geographical names which have gradually extended 
their range. It was originally a little "circuit" of territory round Kadesh- 
Naphtali containing the towns given by Solomon to Hiram (1 Kings ix. n). 
This was called the "circuit of the Gentiles," because the inhabitants were 
strangers (1 Mac. v. 15, Ta\. aXXcxpvXiov). But it grew, until in the time of 
Christ it included the territory of Naphtali, Asher, Zebulon, and Issachar 
(D.B.* i. p. 1 1 17). For a description of this region see Jos. B. J. iii. 3. 1-3. 
Nazareth is mentioned neither in O.T. nor in Josephus, but it was probably 
not a new town in our Lord's time. The site is an attractive one, in a basin 
among the south ridges of Lebanon. The sheltered valley is very fruitful, and 
abounds in flowers. From the hill behind the town the view over Lebanon, 
Hermon, Carmel, the Mediterranean, Gilead, Tabor, Gilboa, the plain of 
Esdraelon, and the mountains of Samaria, is very celebrated (Renan, Vie de f. 
p. 27). It would seem as if Mt. (ii. 23) was not aware that Nazareth was the 
original home of Joseph and Mary. 

1 " It has been argued that the different modes in which God is recorded to 
have communicated with men, in St. Matthew by dreams and in St. Luke by 
Angels, show the extent of the subjective influence of the writer's mind upon 
the narrative. But surely those are right who see in this difference the use of 
various means adapted to the peculiar state of the recipient. Moreover, as St. 
Matthew recognizes the ministry of Angels (xxviii. 2), so St. Luke relates 
Visions (Acts x. 9-16, xvi. 9, xviii. 9, 10). ... It is to be noticed that the 
contents of the divine messages (Matt. i. 20, 21 ; Luke i. 30-33) are related 
conversely to the general character of the Gospels, as a consequence of the 
difference of character in those to whom they are addressed. The promise of 
Redemption is made to Joseph ; of a glorious Kingdom to the Virgin " (Wsctt 
Int. to Gospels, p. 317, 7th ed;). See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 93. 


The form of the name of the town varies much, between Nazareth, Nazaret, 
Nazara, and Nazarath. Keim has twice contended strongly for Nazara (J. of 
Naz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 1 6, iv. p. 108) ; but he has not persuaded many of the 
correctness of his conclusions. \VH. consider that "the evidence when 
tabulated presents little ambiguity" (ii. App. p. 160). Nafa/>d0 is found 
frequently (eight out of eleven times) in Codex A, but hardly anywhere else. 
Nafapd is used once by Mt. (iv. 13), and perhaps once by Lk. (iv. 16). 
~Sa\apid occurs once in Mt. (xxi. 11) and once in Acts (x. 38). Everywhere 
else (Mt. ii. 23 ; Mk. i. 9 ; Lk. i. 26, ii. 4, 39, 51 ; Jn. i. 46, 47) we have 
certainly or probably Nafap^r. Thus Mt. uses the three possible forms 
equally ; Lk. all three with a decided preference for Nazaret ; while Mk. and 
Jn. use Nazaret only. This appears to be fairly conclusive for Nazaret. Yet 
Scrivener holds that " regarding the orthography of this word no reasonable 
certainty is to be attained" (Int. to Crit. of N.T. ii. p. 316); and Alford 
seems to be of a similar opinion (i. Prolegom. p. 97). Weiss thinks that 
Nazara may have been the original form, but that it had already become 
unusual when the Gospels were written. The modern town is called En 
Nazirah, and is shunned by Jews. Its population of 5000 is mainly Christian, 
with a few Mahometans. 

27. l\Lvt\vTz\)\i.£vr\v. This is the N.T. form of the word (ii. 5) : in 
LXX we have /ue/xi^o-Tev/z.. (Deut. xxii. 23). The interval between 
betrothal and marriage was commonly a year, during which the 
bride lived with her friends. But her property was vested in her 
future husband, and unfaithfulness on her part was punished, like 
adultery, with death (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). The case of the woman 
taken in adultery was probably a case of this kind. 

If oikou Aauei'o. It is unnecessary, and indeed impossible, to 
decide whether these words go with avSpC, or with napOivov, or 
with both. The last is the least probable, but Chrysostom and 
Wieseler support it. From vv. 32 and 69 we may with probability 
infer that Lk. regards Mary as descended from David. In ii. 4 he 
states this of Joseph. Independently of the present verse, therefore, 
we may infer that, just as John was of priestly descent both by 
Zacharias and Elisabeth, so Jesus was of royal descent both by 
Mary and Joseph. The title " Son of David " was publicly given 
to Jesus and never disputed (Mt. i. 1, ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, 
xx- 3°> 3 1 '■> Mk. x. 47, 48 ; Lk. xviii. 38, 39). In the Test. XII. 
Patr. Christ is said to be descended from Levi and Judah 
{Simeon vii.) ; and the same idea is found in a fragment of 
Irenseus (Frag, xvii., Stieren, p. 836). It was no doubt based, 
as Schleiermacher bases it (St. Luke, Eng. tr. p. 28), on the fact 
that Elisabeth, who was of Levi, was related to Mary (see on 
ver. 36). The repetition involved in rrjs irapGeVou is in tavour of 
taking ef oIkov Aauei'8 with dvSpt : otherwise we should have ex- 
pected avTi/s. But this is not conclusive. 

28. Xatpe, KcxapiTwfieVr]. 1 Note the alliteration and the con- 

1 The Ave Maria as a liturgical address to the Virgin consists of three 
parts, two of which are scriptural and one not. The first two parts, "Hail, 
Mary, full of grace; the Lord is with thee," and "Blessed art thou among 


nexion between x a W e an< 3 x"P ts - The gratia plena of the Vulg. 
is too indefinite. It is right, if it means " full of grace, which 
thou hast received"; wrong, if it means "full of grace, which 
thou hast to bestow" From Eph. i. 6 and the analogy of verbs 
in -o'w, K€xapiTu>fjL£vr) must mean "endued with grace" (Ecclus. 
xviii. 17). Non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratix (Beng.). 
What follows explains K^apiTnojxivr], for with fjara <rov we under- 
stand io-TL, not eo-TO) (comp. Judg. vi. 12). It is because the Lord 
is with her that she is endued with grace. Tyn., Cov., and Cran., 
no less than Wic. and Rhem., have " full of grace " ; Genev. has 
"freely beloved." See Resch, Kindheitsev. p. 78. 

The familiar eiXoyruxivi) <rd iv -/waii-tv, although well attested (A C D X 
TAII, Latt. Syrr. Aeth. Goth., Tert. Eus.), probably is an interpolation 
borrowed from ver. 42 : NBL, Aegyptt. Arm. omit. 

29. Here also ISovaa (A), for which some Latin texts have cum audisset, 
is an interpolation borrowed perhaps from ver. 12. It is not stated that Mary 
saw Gabriel. The pronominal use of the article (^ Si) is rare in N.T. 
(Acts i. 6 ; Mt. ii. 5, 9). It is confined to phrases with fiiv and Si, and 
mostly to nom. masc. and fern. 

8i€Tapax0T]. Here only in N.T. It is stronger than irapaxOri 
in ver. 12. Neither Zacharias nor Mary are accustomed to 
visions or voices : they are troubled by them. There is no 
evidence of hysterical excitement or hallucination in either case. 
The oieXoyi^eTo, " reckoned up different reasons," is in itself 
against this. The verb is confined to the Synoptic Gospels 
(v. 21, 22 ; Mk. ii. 6, 8) : Jn. xi. 50 the true reading is A.oyi'£eo-f?e. 

■n-oTcnros. In N.T. this adj. never has the local signification, 
"from what country or nation?" cujas? (Aesch. Cho. 575 ; Soph. 
O.C. 1 1 60). It is synonymous with ttoIo?, a use which is found in 
Demosthenes ; and it always implies astonishment, with or without 
admiration (vii. 39 ; Mt. viii. 27 ; Mk. xiii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. n ; 1 Jn. 
iii. 1). In LXX it does not occur. The original form is 7ro8a7rds, 
and may come from trov a-n-6 ; but -Sa-n-os is perhaps a mere ter- 

€itj. It is only in Lk. in N.T. that we find the opt. in indirect questions. 
In him it is freq. both without &v (iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 23 ; Acts xvii. II, 
xxi. 33, xxv. 20) and with &v (vi. II ; Acts v. 24, x. 17). In Acts viii. 31 we 
have opt. with &v in a direct question. Simcox, Lang, of N.T. p. 112; 
Win. xli. 4. c, p. 374. 

30. Mtj <j>ofjou, Mapirfp., eupes yap x&P 1 *' irapci tw 0ew. See on 

women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb " (ver. 42), are first found in the 
Liber Antiphonianus attributed to Gregory the Great ; and they were authorized 
as a formula to be taught with the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, c. A.D. 1198. 
The third part, " Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at 
the hour of death," was added in the fifteenth century, and was authorized by 
Pope Pius v. in 1568. 


ver. 1 3. The evpes x°-P lv ""■ T * ®* explains K^aptTwp.iviq. The phrase 
is Hebraic : Nue evpev x^P lv evavn'ov Kvpi'ou toO ©eov (Gen. vi. 8 ; 
comp. xviii. 3, xxxix. 4). See on iv. 22. 

<ru\\iinT]/fl. For the word see on ver. 24, and for the form comp. ii. 21, 
xx. 47 ; Acts i. 8, ii. 38, xxiii. 27 ; Jn. v. 43, xvi. 14, 24. In Ionic we have 
fut. \6.n\po[ Veitch, p. 359 ; Win. v. 4 f, p. 54. 

iv ya<TTp\ kcj.1 Te'£r) ul6V, Kal KaXeaeis t6 oVojia. The same word- 
ing is found Gen. xvi. 11 of Ishmael, and Is. vii. 14 of Irnmanuel. 
Comp. Gen. xvii. 19 of Isaac, and Mt. i. 21 of Jesus. In all cases 
the KoAeo-ets is not a continuation of the prophecy, but a command, 
as in most of the Ten Commandments (Mt. v. 21, 27, 33; comp. 
Lk. iv. 12; Acts xxiii. 5, etc.). Win. xliii. 5. c, p. 396. The 
name 'lrjo-ovs was revealed independently to Joseph also (Mt. i. 21). 
It appears in the various forms of Oshea, Hoshea, Jehoshua, 
Joshua, Jeshua, and Jesus. Its meaning is " Jehovah is help," or 
" God the Saviour." See Pearson, On the Creed, art. ii. sub itiit. 
p. 131, ed. 1849. See also Resch, Kindheitsev. pp. 80, 95. 

32. outos Iottou (leyas. As in ver. 15, this is forthwith ex- 
plained; and the greatness of Jesus is very different from the 
greatness of John. The title u!6s c Yi|/urrou expresses some very 
close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the Divine Son- 
ship in the Trinity ; comp. vi. 35. On the same principle as ®eds 
and Kvpios, "Yi/uo-tos is anarthrous : there can be only one Highest 
(Ecclus. vii. 15, xvii. 26, xix. 17, xxiv. 2, 23, xxix. 11, etc.). The 
K\r|0rjo-eTcu is not a mere substitute for ecrrcu : He not only shall be 
the Son of God, but shall be recognized as such. In the Acta Pauli 
tt Thedse. we have MaKapuu 01 cro<£iav Aa/3dvTes 'I770-OU Xpio-Tov, on 
auTot viol tyio-Tov K\r)6r]o-ovTCLi (Tischendorf, p. 239). For rbv GpoVof 
AaueiS comp. 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13 ; Is. ix. 6, 7, xvi. 5. 

AaueiS tou iraTpos aoToC. This is thought to imply the Davidic 
descent of Mary ; but the inference is not quite certain. Jesus 
was the heir of Joseph, as both genealogies imply. Comp. Ps. 
cxxxii. 11 ; Hos. iii. 5. There is abundant evidence of the belief 
that the Messiah would spring from David : Mk. xii. 35, x. 47, 
xi. 10; Lk. xviii. 38, xx. 41 ; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (Syr. Arab. Arm.); Ps. 
Sol. xvii. 23, 24 ; Talmud and Targums. See on Rom. i. 3. 

33. j3a<Ti\eu'<7€i ... eis tous alweas. Comp. " But of the Son 
he saith, God is Thy throne for ever and ever " (Heb. i. 8, where 
seeWsctt.); also Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14; Jn. xii. 34 ; Rev. xi. 15. 
The eternity of Christ's kingdom is assured by the fact that it is to 
be absorbed in the kingdom of the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). 
These magnificent promises could hardly have been invented by a 
writer who was a witness of the condition of the Jews during the 
half century which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, 
we may perhaps go further and say that " it breathes the spirit of 


the Messianic hope before it had received the rude and crushing 

blow in the rejection of the Messiah" (Gore, Dissertations, p. 16). 

Comp. w. 17, 54, 55. 68 ~7 I > u - 3 8 - 

The constr. fiaaCkeveiv iirl c. ace. is not classical. We have it again 
xix. 14, 27. 

34. riws eoTcu touto. She does not ask for proof, as Zacharias 
did (ver. 18) ; and only in the form of the words does she ask as to 
the mode of accomplishment. Her utterance is little more than 
an involuntary expression of amazement : non dubitantis sed admir- 
antis (Grotius). In contrasting her with Zacharias, Ambrose says, 
H&c jam de ?iegotio tractat ; ilk adhuc de nuntio dubitat. It is 
clear that she does not doubt the fact promised, nor for a moment 
suppose that her child is to be the child of Joseph. 

cTrel a^Spa ou yivwaKw. Comp. Gen. xix. 8 ; Judg. xi. 39 ; 
Num. xxxi. 17. The words are the avowal of a maiden conscious 
of her own purity ; and they are drawn from her by the strange 
declaration that she is to have a son before she is married. It is 
very unnatural to understand the words as a vow of perpetual 
virginity, or as stating that such a vow has already been taken, or 
is about to be taken. It is difficult to reconcile ovk iytvwo-Kev (im- 
perf., not aor.) avrr/v ?a»s (Mt. i. 25) with any such vow. 1 

35. nt'eujxa ayioi' e-jreXeu'creTCH eVi ere. It may be doubted whether 
the article is omitted " because Holy Spirit is here a proper name " ; 
rather because it is regarded impersonally as the creative power of 
God. Comp. «ai 7rveC/xa ®eov eVec^epeTO iirdviD toS vSaros (Gen. i. 2) : 
the two passages are very parallel. See on ver. 15. Both 7rvev/na 
and ayiov have special point. It is spirit and not flesh, what is 
holy and not what is sinful, that is to produce this effect in her. 
With cVcAev'o-eTai eVt ai comp. Acts i. 8. Excepting Eph. ii. 7 and 
Jas. v. 1, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (xi. 22, xxi. 26; Acts i. 8, 
viii. 24, xiii. 40, xiv. 19). 

Surafus 'YiJhotou eiuaiado-ei ctoi. For SuVajus see on iv. 14 ; for 
cTTicrKidcrei comp. the account of the Transfiguration (ix. 34), and 
for the dat. comp. the account of Peter's shadow (Acts v. 15). It 
is the idea of the Shechinah which is suggested here (Exod. xl. 38). 
The cloud of glory signified the Divine presence and power, and it 
is under such influence that Mary is to become a mother. 

816. This illative particle is rare in the Gospels (vii. 7; Mt. xxvii. 8); 
not in Mk. or Jn. 

to yzvv&pzvov ayioi/ i<\r|9TJcreTai ulos ©eou. "The holy thing which 
shall be born shall be called cue Son of God," or, " That which 

1 H. Lasserre renders puisque je n'ai nut rapport avec mon mart, and ex- 
plains that dprjp signifie mari, epoux ; et la phrase marque la voeu de virginiti 
conjugate fait par Marie (pp. 265, 564, ed. 1887). It is impossible that &v5p&, 
without either article or possessive pronoun, can mean " my husband." 


shall be born shall be called holy, the Son of God." The latter of 
these two renderings seems to be preferable. Comp. aytov t<2 kvoio* 
KXyjO-qaerai (ii. 22); Na£wpuios kA.t7#7/ct€Tcu (Mt. ii. 23); viol ©eou 
k\7]0t]<tovt at (v. 9); eAa^ioTOS KX-qOijo-erai and /xeyas k\. (v. 1 9). In 
all cases the appellation precedes the verb. The unborn child is 
called ayiov as being free from all taint of sin. De hoc Sancto idem 
angelus est locutus, Dan. ix. 24 (Beng.). The Ik aov, which many 
authorities insert after yevvw/xevov, is probably an ancient gloss, de« 
rived perhaps from Mt. i. 16 : X A B C 3 D and most versions omit. 

The title " Son of God," like " Son of Man," was a recognized 
designation of the Messiah. In Enoch, and often in 4 Ezra, the 
Almighty speaks of the Messiah as His Son. Christ seldom used 
it of Himself (Mt. xxvii. 43 ; Jn. x. 36). But we have it in the 
voice from heaven (iii. 22, ix. 35); in Peter's confession (Mt. 
xvi. 16) ; in the centurion's exclamation (Mk. xv. 39) ; in the devil's 
challenge (iv. 3, 9) ; in the cries of demoniacs (Mk. iii. 1 1, v. 7). 
Very early the Christian Church chose it as a concise statement of 
the divine nature of Christ. See on Rom. i. 4, and Swete, Apost. 
Creed, p. 24. For Syioi' see on Rom. i. 7. The radical meaning 
is " set apart for God, consecrated." 

36. kcu !8cu 'E\€icrdf3eT r\ o-uyyevi's crcu. Comp. ver. 20. Mary, 
who did not ask for one, receives a more gracious sign than 
Zacharias, who demanded it. The relationship between her and 
Elisabeth is unknown. 

•• Cousin," started by Wiclif, and continued until RV. substituted " kins- 
woman," has now become too definite in meaning. The kinship has led 
artr>'.s to represent the two children as being playmates; but Jn. i. 31 seems 
to be against such companionship. It has also led to the conjecture that 
Jesus was descended from both Levi and Judah (see on ver. 27). But Levites 
might marry with other tribes ; and therefore Elisabeth, who was descended 
from Aaron, might easily be related to one who was descended from David. 
This verse is not evidence that Mary was not of the house of David. 

The la:e form avyyevis (comp. evyevls), and the Ion. dat. "yripei. for y^p<f 
(Gen. xv. 15, xxi. 7, xxv. 8), should be noticed; also that oCros being the 
subject, the noun has no article. Comp. xxi. 22. The combination /cai 
oCtos is peculiar to Lk. (viii. 41 ?, xvi. 1, xx. 28). The relative ages of Jesus 
and of John are fixed by this statement. 

We may take KaXov/xtvr) as imperf. part., " Used to be called." This 
reproach would cease when she reappeared at the end of the five months 
(ver. 24). Ka\oijfjLei>os with appellations is freq. in Lk. 

37. ouk dSurarrjaei irapd tou ©eou iray pfjfia. The negative and 
the verb are to be closely combined and taken as the predicate of 
7raV pj/xa. We must not take ovk without ttolv. This is plain from 

Gen. xviii. 14: /u.7/ doviarel irapa. r<2 ®ea) prj/xa ; i.e. "Hath God 

said, and can He not do it ? " or, Is anything which God has pro- 
mised impossible ? RV. here has " be void of power " for dSwarelv ; 
but it is doubtful whether the verb ever has this signification. Of 
things, it means "to be impossible " (Mt. xvii. 20); and of persons, 


" to be unable " ; in which case, like SwareHv (Rom. xiv. 4 ; 2 Cor. 
ix. 8), it is followed by the infin. That "be impossible" is the 
meaning, both here and Gen. xviii. 14, is probable from Job xlii. 2, 
618a otl TrdvTO. Swacrai, dSuvaret 8e croc ovOiv ; and from Zech. viil. 6, 
where dhwar-qo-ei is used of a thing being too hard for man but not 
too hard for God; and from Jer. xxxii. 17, where both Aquila and 
Symmachus have ovk dSwarr/o-ci for oi /xrj diroKpvPy of LXX. We 
render, therefore, " From God no word shall be impossible." The 
idiom oi . . . 7Ttt5, in the sense of " all . . . not," i.e. " none," is 
probably Hebraic. Comp. Mt. xxiv. 22. It is less common in 
N.T. than in LXX (Exod. xii. 16, 43, xx. 16; Dan. ii. 10, etc.), 
Win. xxvi. 1, p. 214; Blass, Gr. p. 174. 

38. 'l8ou T) SouXt] Kupiou. That l8ov is not a verb, but an 
exclamation, is manifest from the verbless nominative which follows 
it. Comp. v. 12, 18. "Handmaid" or "servant" is hardly 
adequate to SovXr/. It is rather " bondmaid " or " slave." In an 
age in which almost all servants were slaves, the idea which is 
represented by our word " servant " could scarcely arise. In N.T. 
the fern. SovXr} occurs only here, ver. 48, and Acts ii. 18, the last 
being a quotation. 

Y^oito p,oi koto, to pT](jL<£ (jou. This is neither a prayer that 
what has been foretold may take place, nor an expression of joy at 
the prospect. Rather it is an expression of submission, — " God's 
will be done " : 7ri'va£ elfxi ypd<f>o/j.evo<5' o /3ovXerai 6 ypa(pev<;, 
ypa^erw (Eus.). Mary must have known how her social position 
and her relations with Joseph would be affected by her being with 
child before her marriage. There are some who maintain that the 
revelation made to Joseph (Mt. i. 18-23) * s inconsistent with what 
Lk. records here ; for would not Mary have told him of the angelic 
message ? We may reasonably answer that she would not do so. 
Her own inclination would be towards reserve (ii. 51); and what 
likelihood was there that he would believe so amazing a story? 
She would prefer to leave the issue with regard to Joseph in God's 
hands. Hastings, D.C.G. art. "Annunciation." 

dTrqXOey dir 5 au-rfjs 6 dyyeXos. Ut peracta legaiione. Comp. 
Acts xii. 10; Judg. vi. 21. 

On the whole of this exquisite narrative Godet justly remarks : " Quelle 
dignite", quelle purete, quelle sitnplicite, quelle delicatesse dans tout ce dialogtie ! 
Pas un mot de trop, pas un de trop peu. Une telle narration n'apu emaner que 
de la sphere sainte dans laquelle le fait lui-meme avail eu lieu" (i. p. 128, 3eme 
ed. 1SS8). Contrast the attempts in the apocryphal gospels, the writers of 
which had our Gospels to imitate, and yet committed such gross offences against 
taste, decency, and even morality. What would their inventions have been ii 
they had had no historical Gospels to guide them ? 

Dr. Swete has shown that the doctrine of the Miiaculous Conception 
was from the earliest times part of the Creed. Beginning with Justin 
Martyr (Apol. i. 21, 31, 32, 33, 63; Try. 23, 48, 100), he traces back 


through Aristides (J. R. Harris, p. 24 ; Hennecke, p. 9 ; Barnes, Canon, and 
Uncanon. Gospp. p. 13), Ignatius (Eph. xix. ; Trail, ix. ; Smyr. i.), the 
Valentinians, and Basilides, to S. Luke, to whom these Gnostics appealed. 
The silence of S. Mark is of no weight ; his record does not profess to go 
farther back than the ministry of the Baptist. In the Third Gospel we reach 
not merely the date of the Gospel (a.d. 75-80), but the date of the early 
traditions incorporated in these first chapters, traditions preserved (possibly 
in writing) at Jerusalem, and derived from Mar)' herself. 

The testimony of the First Gospel is perhaps even earlier in origin, and is 
certainly independent. It probably originated with Joseph, as the other with 
Mary (Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 78 ; Dissertations on Subjects connected 
with the Incarnation, pp. 12-40). Greatly as the two narratives differ, both 
bear witness to the virgin birth (Swete, The Apostles' Creed, ch. iv.). 

39-56. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother 

of the Forerimner. 

This narrative grows naturally out of the two which precede it 
in this group. The two women, who through Divine interposition 
are about to become mothers, meet and confer with one another. 
Not that a desire to talk about her marvellous experience prompts 
Mary to go, but because the Angel had suggested it (ver. 36). 
That Joseph's intention of putting her away caused the journey, is 
an unnecessary conjecture. 

It is not easy to see why the Song of Elisabeth is not given in metrical 
form either in WH. or in RV. It seems to have the characteristics of Hebrew 
poetry in a marked degree, if not in so full a manner as the Magnifcat, 
Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittis. It consists of two strophes of four lines 
each, thus — 

~Ev\oy7]/j.€vr] aii iv ywai^tv, 
Kal fv\oyr]/ji.ivos 6 KapTrbs ttjs koiKIcls <rov. 

Kal irbdev fioi tovto 
tva f\0T] T) Mr-rip tov Kvpiov fiov npbs i/J^ ; 

l8ov yap us iytvero ij <puvrj tov acnraafiov o~ov th ra wrd fiov, 
iaKLpTycrev iv ayaWidaei rb (3pi(pos iv rrj KOiXia fiov. 

Kal fxa.Ka.pia r/ iricrTevaaaa firt eaTcu TeXetwuts 
rots \a\T]p.ivois aiiTTj trapd Kvpiov. 

On all four songs see a paper on "Messianic Psalms of the N.T.," by 
B. B. Warfield, Expositor, 3rd series, ii. pp. 301, 321 ff. 

39. 'At/acr-raffa. A very favourite word with Lk., who has it 
about sixty times against about twenty-two times in the rest of 
N.T. It occurs hundreds of times in LXX. Of preparation for 
a journey it is specially common (xv. iS, 20; Acts x. 20, xxii. 10, 
etc.). Lk. is also fond of such phrases as Iv reus •qjxc'pais tcw'tcus, 
or iv Tais rjfiepais tivos (ver. 5, ii. I, iv. 2, 25, V. 35, vi. 12, ix. 36, 
etc.; Acts i. 15, ii. 18, v. 37, vi. 1, vii. 41, etc.). They are not 
found in Jn., and occur only four times in Mt, and the same in Mk. 
Here "in those days" means soon after the Annunciation. As 


the projected journey was one of several days, it would require time 
to arrange it and find an escort. See small print note on ver. 20. 

eiropeu'0T] els -n]f opirrjy. There is no trace of 'Opeo/77 as a 
proper name ; 17 opiv-q means the mountainous part of Judah as 
distinct from the plain (ver. 65; Gen. xiv. 10; Num. xiii. 29; 
Josh. ix. 1, x. 40; comp. Judith 1. 6, ii. 22, iv. 7). It is worth 
noting that in this narrative, which is from an independent source, 
Lk. twice uses -q opivij. Elsewhere, when he is on the same ground 
as Mt. and Mk., he uses, as they do, to opos (vi. 12, viii. 32, ix. 
28, 37). None of them use either opos or ra oprj. Lft. On a Fresh 
Revision of N.T. pp. 124, 186, 3rd ed. 189 1. For the shortening of 
opeivq to opiv-q see WH. ii. App. p. 154. Grotius rightly remarks on 
pe-ra cnrouSTJs, ne negligeret signum quod augendee, ipsius fiducix Deus 
assignaverat. Comp. Mk. vi. 25 ; Exod. xii. n ; Wisd. xix. 2. 

els ttoXii' 'lou'Sa. Lk. does not give the name, probably because 
he did not know it. It may have been Hebron, just as it may 
have been any town in the mountainous part of Judah, and Hebron 
was chief among the cities allotted to the priests. But if Lk. had 
meant Hebron, he would either have named it or have written t^v 
ttoXlv in the sense of the chief priestly dwelling. But it is very 
doubtful whether the arrangement by which certain cities were 
allotted to the priests was carried into effect ; and, if so, whether 
it continued. Certainly priests often lived elsewhere. Eli lived 
at Shiloh, Samuel at Ramathaim-Zophim, Mattathias at Modin. 
None of these had been allotted to the priests. See on ver. 23. 

That 'lovda is the name of the town, and represents Juttah {'Irdv or 'lerri 
or Taw), which was in the mountain region of Judah (Josh. xv. 55), and had 
been allotted to the priests (Josh. xxi. 16), is possible. Reland (1714) was 
perhaps the first to advocate this. Robinson found a village called Yuttah in 
that region {Res. in Pal. ii. p. 206), and the identification is attractive. But 
the best authorities seem to regard it as precarious. A tradition, earlier than 
the Crusades, makes Ain Karim to be the birthplace of John the Baptist. 
Didon (Jesus Christ, App. D) contends for this, appealing to V. Guerin, 
Description de la Palestine, i. p. 83, and Fr. Lievin, Guide de la Palestine, ii. 
But it is best to regard the place as an unknown town of Judah. In any case, 
the spelling "Juda" (AV.) is indefensible; comp. iii. 33. 

41. iyevtTo . . . cCTKipTrjaei'. See detached note at the end of 
the chapter. It is improbable that in her salutation Mary told 
Elisabeth of the angelic visit. The salutation caused the move- 
ment of the unborn child, and Elisabeth is inspired to interpret 
this sign aright. Grotius states that the verb is a medical word for 
the movement of children in the womb, but he gives no instances. 
It is used Gen. xxv. 22 of the unborn Esau and Jacob, and Ps. 
cxiii. 4, 6 of the mountains skipping like rams. In class. Grk. it is 
used of the skipping both of animals and of men. For iit\r\<rQr] 
nreupaTos dyiou see on ver. 15. ws = "when" is very freq. in Lk. 

42. avefyuvqaev. 1 Chron. xv. 28, xvi. 4, 5, 42 ; 2 Chron. 


v. 13: here only in N.T. Lk. frequently records strong expres- 
sions of emotion, adding p.eydXr| to Kpauyrj, (pwvr], x a P°"> e ^ c - ( n - IO > 
i v - 33» viiL 28, xvii. 15, xix. 37, xxiii. 23, 46, xxiv. 52). It is 
perhaps because Kpavyrj seemed less appropriate to express a cry of 
joy that it has been altered (A C D) to the more usual cpwv?;. But 
it is convincingly attested (x B L E). It means any cry of strong 
feeling, whether surprise (Mt. xxv. 6), anger (Eph. iv. 31), or 
distress (Heb. v. 7). Comp. Apoc. Baruch, liv. 10. 

EuXoyT]p.eVT] au iv yvvcu£'\.v. A Hebraistic periphrasis for the 
superlative, " Among women thou art the one who is specially 
blessed." Mary has a claim to this title kolt i$oxrjv. Comp. 
vii. 28. Somewhat similar expressions occur in class. Grk., esp. in 
poetry: a> <pi'Aa ywaiKwv (Eur. Ale. 460); <L cr^eVXt' avSpwv (Aristoph. 
Ran. 1048). In N.T. evXoyrjpLtvos is used of men, evXoyrjTos of 
God : see on ver. 68. With €uXoyr)p.eVos 6 Kapiros Tf)s icoiXias croo 
comp. (.vXoyrjfxiva ra e/cyova -riys k. (Jov (Deut. xxviii. 4) and Kapirbv 
KoiXias (Gen. xxx. 2 ; Lam. ii. 20). See small print on ver. 15. 

43. kcu iroQev ftoi touto. We understand yeyovcv : comp. Mk. 
xii. 37. Modestise, filii prxludens qui olim Christo erat dicturus, <rv 
epxjj 7r/3os p.€; (Grotius). It is by inspiration (ver. 41) that Elisabeth 
knows that she who greets her is 17 firjrrjp tov Kvpiov, i.e. of the 
Messiah (Ps. ex. 1). The expression "Mother of God" is not 
found in Scripture. 1 

In iW fKdy we have a weakening of the original force of tva, which begins 
with the Alexandrine writers as an alternative for the infinitive, and has 
become universal in modern Greek. Godet would keep the telic force by 
arbitrarily substituting "What have I done?" for "Whence is this to me?" 
"What have I done in order that?" etc. Comp. the Lucan constr., rovro 
iri (x. II, xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). See Blass, Gr. p. 224. 

44. 'l8ou yap a»s iyivero r] $u)vr\ tou a.cnrcKrp.ou <xou. On this 
ydp Bengel bases the strange notion that the conception of the 
Christ takes place at the salutation : ydp rationem experimens, cur 
hoc ipso temporis pu?icto Elisabet primum " Matrem Domini sui" 
proclamet Mariatn. . . . Nunc Dominus, et respectu matris et 
progenitorum, el respectu locorum, ubi conceptus szque ac natus est, 
ex Juda est ortus. It is a mark of the delicacy and dignity of the 
narrative that the time is not stated ; but ver. 38 is more probable 
than ver. 40. Excepting 2 Cor. vii. 11, l8oi> ydp is peculiar to Lk. 
(ver. 48, ii. 10, vi. 23, xvii. 21; Acts ix. 11). For iyivero i\ 4>wrrj 
see on iii. 22 and ix. 35, 36. 

45. p.a.Kapia t) mcrreucracra oti. Latin texts, both of Lat. Vet. 
and of Vulg., vary much between beata qux credidit quoniam and 
beata quse credidisti quoniam. English Versions are equally varied, 
even Wic. and Rhem. being different. " Blessed is she that 

* P. Didon inaccurately renders this, Comment se fait il que la mire de mon 
Dieu vienne & mot (p. 1 1 1 ). 


believed" is probably right. This is the first beatitude in thi 
Gospel ; and it is also the last : /AaKapioi ol /at/ iSoVtcs /cai Trio-rev- 
oravres (Jn. xx. 29). In Mk. /Aa/captos does not occur; and in 
Jn. only xiii. 17 and xx. 29. It is specially common in Lk. 

This verse is one of many places in N.T. in which 6V1 may be either " that " 
or " because " : see on vii. 16. There can be little doubt that Luther, Erasmus, 
Beza, and all Latin and English Versions are right in taking the latter sense here. 
The 6Vt introduoes the reason why the belief is blessed and not the contents (Syr. 
Sin. ) of the belief. There is no need to state what Mary believed. Elisabeth 
adds her faith to Mary's, and declares that, amazing as the promise is, it will 
assuredly be fulfilled. Only a small portion of what had been promised (31-33) 
had as yet been accomplished; and hence the tfo-Tai TcXeiioo-is, "There shall 
be a bringing to perfection, an accomplishment" (Heb. vii. n). Comp. e"£eXetf- 
aofiai els reXeluaiv tQv \6yuv &v iXaX^crare fier' ifiov (Judith x. 9). 

46-56. The Magnificat or Song of Mary. 

This beautiful lyric is neither a reply to Elisabeth nor an 
address to God. It is rather a meditation ; an expression of per- 
sonal emotions and experiences. It is more calm and majestic 
than the utterance of Elisabeth. The exultation is as great, but it 
is more under control. The introductory elirev, as contrasted with 
av€cf>a)vr](rtv Kpavyfj fxeydXr) (ver. 42), points to this. The hymn is 
modelled upon the O.T. Psalms, especially the Song of Hannah 
(1 Sam. ii. 1-10); but its superiority to the latter in moral and 
spiritual elevation is very manifest. From childhood the Jews 
knew many of the O.T. lyrics by heart ; and, just as our own poor, 
who know no literature but the Bible, easily fall into biblical 
language in times of special joy or sorrow, so Mary would naturally 
fall back on the familiar expressions of Jewish Scripture in this 
moment of intense exultation. The exact relation between her 
hymn and these familiar expressions can be best seen when the 
two are placed side by side in a table. 

The Magnificat. The Old Testament. 

MeyaKuva t/ ^vxh fiov rbv Kvpiov l 'Eo-repewOr) i] icapdla. fiov iv Kvptip, 
Kal -qyaXXLaaev to Trvev/xd fiov v\j/w0T] Kipas fiov 

iirl ry Gey ry aiarr;pi fiov" iv Geo; fiov. 

Sri iiripXeif/ev iirl rr\v rairelvwo'iy l fa? iwifiXlirwv iirifiXiipys tt\v rairel- 

rrjs dovXrjs avrov ttjs dovXris ffov — 

idoti yap dnb rov vvv 8 Ma Kapia iyd>, Sri 

fiaKapiovo~lv fie iracrai al yeveal. fia.Kapl£ovo~lv fie waaai at yvvaiKes. 

Sti i-Roly\a£v fioL fieydXa 6 dvvarbs, * Saris iTrolrjaev iv aol to. fieydXa — 

Kal ayiov to tvoaa avrov, 8 aytov Kal <poj3epbv rb 6vo/xa avrov. 

Kai t6 #Xeos avrov eh yeveas Kal yeveds 6 to 5e e'Xeos rov Kvpiov dirb rov aluvos 

Kal e"ajs rov aluivos 
rots (pofiovfiivois avrov. iirl rods (popovfiivovs avrbv. 

1 I Sam. ii. I. * 1 Sam. i. II. 8 Gen. xxx. 13. 

• Deut. x. 21. • Ps. cxi. 9. 6 Ps. ciii. 17. 



'ETrolricev Kpdros iv fipaxtovi avrov- 

dieaicdpiricrev vireprjcpdvovs 

diavolg. KapBlas airQiv. 
KaOeiXev Swdaras awb dpbvwv 

ko.1 u\j/w<rev raireivovs, 
ireivCivras iviirX-qcxiv dyadCjv 
Kai ir\ovrovvras e'taire'o-TeiKev kcvovs. 

ArrfXd/SfTo 'I<rpa7]\ iraidbs airrov, 

fj.vqadTJva.1 e\iovs, 
Kadics i\a\T]<T€v wpbs rovs varipas i]u.Qiv 
rip 'Aj3padp. Kai rf jTrep/xart avrov els 
rbv aluiva. 

* ffv eratreivwoas tLs lav vvep- 
Kai ev ti2 /3paxtoi>i. r-qs Swdfieuis ffov 

SieaKbpTnaas tous ix^povs o~ov. 

* e^awoixreWuv iepe?s atx/mXu>roi>s 
bvvdaras 5e 777s Karierpe^ev, 

* rbv Troiovvra rairewovs els v\f>os, 
Kai diroXajXora? i^eyelpovra. 

4 Kvpios ttt<j}xH €1 KCLl irAovrffet 

raneivol Kai avinpot. 
8 i /v XV v ireivQaav evtirh-qcrev dyaOQiv, 

6 Zi> 64, 'IcpaTjX, 7rals fiov, o5 dvre\a- 


7 ip.vqo~di) rov e'Xe'ovs avrov rqi 'laK<li(3. 

8 bibo~ei els ak-qdeiav ru> 'IctKw/3, fkeov 
to) 'APpadp., Kadon &/j.ocras Tots 
irarpdaiv ijfj.u>v Kara ras ijjjApas ras 

9 ry Aaveid Kai r<# o-irtpfiari avrov ?«s 


The hymn falls into four strophes, 46-48, 49 and 50, 51-53, 
54 and 55. 10 

46. MeyaXuVei tj vj/ux 1 ! f^ou rhv Kupiof. The verb is used in the 
literal sense of " enlarge," Mt. xxiii. 5 : comp. Lk. i. 58. More often, 
as here, in the derived sense of " esteem great, extol, magnify " 
(Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17). So also in class. Grk. Weiss goes 
too far when he contends that " distinctions drawn between 
ij/vxrj and TTvevfxa have absolutely no foundation in N.T. usage " 
(sind ganzlich unbegriindet) ; but it is evident that no distinction 
is to be made here. The ifoxv an d the Trvevfj-a are the immaterial 
part of man's nature as opposed to the body or the flesh. It is in 
her inner, higher life, in her real self, that Mary blesses God in 
jubilation. If a distinction were made here, we ought to have 
ju.eyaA.wei to Trve.vjxa [xov and rjyaWiacrev rj vjv^rj /xov, for the 7rvev/xa 
is the seat of the religious life, the i/^x 7 ? °f tne emotions. See Lft 
Notes on the Epp. of S. Paul, p. 88, 1895, and the literature there 
quoted, esp. Olshausen, Opusc. p. 157. 

47. T|7aXXio«rev. A word formed by Hellenists from ayd\\, and 
freq. in LXX (Ps. xv. 9, xlvii. 12, lxix. 5 ; Is. xxxv. 2; Jer. xlix. 4). The 
act. is rare ; perhaps only here and Rev. xix. 7 ; but as v. I. I Pet. i. 8. The 
aor. may refer to the occasion of the angelic visit. But it is the Greek idiom 
to use the aor. in many cases in which we use the perf., and then it is mis- 
leading to translate the Grk. aor. by the Eng. aor. Moreover, in late Grk. 

1 Ps. lxxxix. II. 'Job xii. 19. 3 Job v. 11. 

* 1 Sam. ii. 7. B Ps. cvii. 9. 6 Is. xli. 8. 

7 Ps. xcviii. 3. 8 Mic. vii. 20. 9 2 Sam. xxii. 51. 

10 On the structure of Hebrew poetry, see Driver, Literature of the O.T. 
PP- 338-345i T. & T. Clark, 1891. 

On the use of the Magnificat, first at Lauds in the Gallican Church, fiom 
A.D. 507, and then at Vespers on Saturday in the Sarum Breviary, see Blunt, 
Annotated Prayer-Book. 


the distinction between aor. and perf. had become less sharp. Simcox, 
Lang, of N.T. pp. 103-106; Lagarde, Mittheilungen, ill. 374. 

tu 0€w tw CTwrfjpi jiou. He is the Saviour of Mary as well as 
of her fellows. She probably included the notion of external and 
political deliverance, but not to the exclusion of spiritual salvation. 
For the expression comp. 1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3; Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, iii. 4; 
Jude 25; Ps. xxiii. 5, cvi. 21. In the Ps. Sol. we have 'AXr/8eia 
twv SikcuW 7rapa ®eou crcorf/pos avrwv (iii. 7) ; and ?}//.eis Se iXTnov/xev 
cVt ®ebv tov <r<DTr)pa rjfxwv (xvii. 3). Comp. Ps. Sol. viii. 39, xvi. 4. 

48. on eirc'p\e\J/ei' em tx\v Taireivwaiv ttjs SouXtjs auTOu. Comp. 
Hannah's prayer for a child 1 Sam. i. n. In spite of her humble 
position as a carpenter's bride, Mary had been chosen for the 
highest honour that a human being could receive. For TaTreiVwcns 
comp. Acts viii. 33 (from Is. liii. 8) and Phil. iii. 21 ; and for l&eiv 
tj)v Taireivuicnv comp. 2 Kings xiv. 26 and Ps. xxv. 18. This use 
of tVt/SXeVetv «rt is freq. in LXX (Ps. xxv. 16, lxix. 16, cii. 19, 
cxix. 132, etc.); see esp. 1 Sam. ix. 16. 

toou yap diro tou vvv paitapiouo'ii' p.e iraoai at yeveat. For toou 
yap see on ver. 44, and for diro tou vuv see on v. 10. Elisabeth 
had begun this yaa/capt^etv, and we have another instance in the 
woman from the crowd (xi. 27). Note the wide difference between 
the scope of Mary's prophecy, jxaKapwvcnv 7rao-ai at yeveat, and 
Leah's Statement of fact, uaKapt£oucriv //.e iracrai at ywat/ces (Gen. 
xxx. 13). See Resch, Kindheitsev. p. 104. 

The Latin renderings of a.irb rod vvv are interesting : ex hoc ( Vulg. ), 
a modo (d), a nunc (Cod. Gall.). 

49. Sti cTrotTjcrcV pot peydXa 6 ouraros. Here the second strophe 
begins. The reading /ieyaXeta may come from Acts ii. n: comp. 
a 67rotT;cras p.eyaXeta (Ps. lxx. 19). With 6 SwaTOS comp. Swa/xts 
'YipL(TTov (ver. 35) and Ki'ptos Kparatos Kai Suvaros (Ps. xxiii. 8). In 
LXX Swaros is very common, but almost invariably of men. After 
both SwaTos and avrov we should place a colon. The clause Kat 
dytov to ovoua avrov is a separate sentence, neither dependent upon 
the preceding 0Y1, nor very closely connected with what follows. 

50. Kal to eXeos auTOu eis yeyeds Kat ye^eds toIs <{>o|3oup,eVois 
outoV. Comp. Ps. Sol. X. 4, Kat to eA.€os Kvptou exi tous dya7ru)VTas 
auTOV iv dXrjOeia, ko.1 fxvrjo-6-qacrai Kvptos rwv SovXwv avrov iv iXiei : 
also xiii. II, iirl Se rovs ocrtous to eXeos KvpCov, Kal im tovs <po(3ovfx£- 
vovs avrov to eXeos auTou. With cts yeveds k. y. comp. cts ye^eas 
yevcwv (Is. xxxiv. 17), cts ycvedv Kat ycvedv (Ps. lxxxix. 2), and Kara 
yevthv Kal ycvedv (1 Mac. ii. 61). "Fearing God" is the O.T. 
description of piety. Nearly the whole verse comes from Ps. 
ciiL 1 7. Syr-Sin. for Kat yeveds has " and on the tribe." 

51. 'Eiroirjo-ev Kpd-ros ev Ppaxtovi aviTov, Suoricopiricrev, k.t.X. Begin- 
ning of the third strophe. The six aorists in it are variously explained. 


I. They tell of things which the Divine power and holiness and mercy 
(w. 49, 50) have already accomplished in the past. 2. According to the 
common prophetic usage, they speak of the future as already past, and tell of 
the effects to be produced by the Messiah as if they had been produced. 
3. They are gnomic, and express God's normal acts. We may set aside this 
last. It is very doubtful whether the aor. is ever used of what is normal or 
habitual (Win. xl. 5. b, 1, p. 346). Of the other two explanations, the 
second is to be preferred. It is more likely that Mary is thinking of the far- 
reaching effects of the blessing conferred upon herself than of past events un- 
connected with that blessing. In either case the six aorists must be translated 
by the English perfect. They show that in this strophe, as in the second, we 
have a triplet. There it was God's power, holiness, and mercy. Here it is 
the contrasts between proud and humble, high and low, rich and poor. 

Both «TToiT]cr€v Kpd-ros and ev (Jpaxiovi aiiToO are Hebraisms. For the 
former comp. 5e£id Kvpiov iTroir/aev 5vvap.iv (Ps. cxviii. 15). For ppaxLw to 
express Divine power comp. Acts xiii. 17 ; Jn. xii. 3S (from Is. liii. 1); Ps. 
xliv. 3, xcviii. 1, etc. The phrase iv x eL pl Kparaiq. ko.1 ev flpaxlovi v\f/r]\£ is 
freq. in LXX (Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vi. 21, xxvi. 8). This use of iv is in the 
main Hebraistic (xxii. 49 ; Rev. vi. 8 ; Judg. xv. 15, xx. 16 ; I Kings xii. 18 ; 
Judith vi. 12, viii. 33). Win. xlviii. 3. d, p. 485. 

virepT](j>avoiis Siavoia KapSias avTciv. The dat. limits inrepr](pdvovs : 
they are proud and overweening in thought. In N.T. vwep^cpavos is never 
"conspicuous above" others, but always in a bad sense, "looking down on" 
others (J as. iv. 6 ; I Pet. v. 5 ; Rom. i. 30 ; 2 Tim. iii. 2. It is freq. in 
LXX. Comp. Ps. Sol. ii. 35, Koifiifav vTreprjcpavovs ei's drruiXeiav alwvtov iv ; also iv. 28. See Wsctt. on 1 Jn. ii. 16, and Trench, Syn. xxix. 

52. KdGetXee SuydcrTas diro Gpoewi' kcu Styuaev Tcnreieous. " He 
hath put down potentates from thrones." " Potentates " rather 
than "princes" (RV.), or "the mighty" (AV.), because of 1 Tim. 
vi. 15. Comp. twdarat 3>apaw (Gen. 1. 4). In Acts viii. 27 it is 
an adj. It is probable that ra-n-eivovs here means primarily the 
oppressed poor as opposed to tyrannical rulers. See Hatch, Biblical 
Greek, pp. 73-77. Besides the parallels given in the table (p. 31) 

COmp. dvaXapfidvuiv Trpaels 6 Ki'pios, Ta7retvwv 8e dpapruiXovs cojs Tr}s 
y7/s (Ps. cxlvii. 6) ; Opovov; dp^ovrwv KaOeiXtv 6 Kvpios, kcu ii<d6i(Tiv 
7rpaeis avr avrHiv (Ecclus. x. 14); also Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14; Jas. 
i. 9, 10. In Clem. Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have what looks like a 
paraphrase, but may easily come from O.T. Comp. Enoch xlvi. 5. 

53. ireii'wrras e^e'-jrXr|aev dya0<2>i/. Both material and spiritual 
goods may be included. Comp. TrXrjpeis dpruiv rjXaTTwd-qcrav, ko.l 
do-devovvres ivaprjKav yrjv (i Sam. ii. 5) ; also Ps. Sol. V. IO-I2, X. 7. 

54. 'ArreXafie-ro 'loparjX. irai86s auTOu. The fourth strophe. 
The regular biblical meaning of avTiXap^dvopai is " lay hold of 
in order to support or succour" (Acts xx. 35 ; Ecclus. ii. 6) ; hence 
dvTtXrjij/Ls is "succour, help" (1 Cor. xii. 28; Ps. xxi. 20, lxxxiii. 8), 
and dvTiXrjTnoip is "helper" (Ps. xviii. 3, liv. 6). There is no 
doubt that 7ratSos avrov means "His servant," not "His son." 
The children of God are called tIkvo. or vioi, but not 7raiSes. We 
have 7reus in the. sense of God's servant used of Israel or Jacob 
(Is. xii. 8, 9, xlii. 1, xliv. 1, 2, 21, xlv. 4); of David (Lk. i. 69; 


Acts iv. 25; Ps. xvii. 1; Is. xxxvii. 35); and of Christ (Acts 
iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30). Comp. Ps. Sol. xii. 7, xvii. 23; Didache, 
ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3. 

p.^T]CT0T)cai eXe'oug. " So as to remember mercy," i.e. to prove 
that He had not forgotten, as they might have supposed. Comp. 

Ps. Sol. X. 4, xal fxvrjd 9 rjd^T at Kvptos twv Soi'Awv avrov iv e'Ae'ei. 

55. Ka9i>s eXaXfjaec -rrpos. " Even as He spake unto " : see on 
w. 2 and 13. This clause is not a parenthesis, but explains the 
extent of the remembrance of mercy. RV. is the first English 
Version to make plain that tu 'Aj3pad[i, k.t.X., depends upon 
/Avrjo-Byi'ai and not upon ikdXrjcrev by rendering 7rpos " unto " and 
the dat. "toward." To make this still more plain, "As He spake 
unto our fathers " is put into a parenthesis, which is not necessary. 
The Genevan is utterly wrong, " (Even as He promised to oui 
fathers, to wit, to Abraham and his sede) for ever." It is im- 
probable that Lk. would use both 7rpo's and the simple dat. after 
iXdXr](T£v in the same sentence; or that he means to say that 
God spoke to Abraham's seed for ever. The phrase eis TW alwva 
is common in the Psalms, together with eh tov alwva tov alwvos 
(Heb. i. 8) and els alwva aMro?. It means "unto the age," i.e. 
the age Kar i&xqv, the age of the Messiah. The belief that 
whatever is allowed to see that age will continue to exist in that 
age, makes cis tov aiwva equivalent to "for ever." This strophe, 
like ver. 72, harmonizes with the doctrine that Abraham is still 
alive (xx. 38), and is influenced by what takes place in the 
development of God's kingdom on earth (Jn. viii. 56 ; comp. Heb. 
xii. 1 ; Is. xxix. 22, 23). 

For els rbv alwva ACFMS here have £«s alwvos (1 Chron. xvii. 16; 
Ezek. xxv. 15 ?), which does not occur in N.T. 

56. "Efieiyey 8e Mapiap. ctuc auT^. Lk. greatly prefers <rvv to 
nerd. He uses avv much more often than all N.T. writers put 
together. In his Gospel we find him using avv where the parallel 
passage in Mt. or Mk. has /xe-ra or kox; e.g. viii. 38, 51, xx. 1, xxii. 14, 
56. We have crvv three times in these first two chapters ; here, ii. 5 
and 13. It is not likely that an interpolator would have caught 
all these minute details in Lk.'s style : see Introd. § 6. 

d>s \i.r\va<i Tpels. This, when compared w r ith (jlijv Iktos (ver. 36), 
leads us to suppose that Mary waited until the birth of John the 
Baptist. She would hardly have left when that was imminent. 
Lk. mentions her return before mentioning the birth in order to 
complete one narrative before beginning another ; just as he 
mentions the imprisonment of the Baptist before the Baptism of 
the Christ in order to finish his account of John's ministry before 
beginning to narrate the ministry of Jesus (iii. 20, 21). That 
Mary is not named in vv. 57, 58 is no evidence that she was not 


present. It would be unnatural to say that one of the household 
heard of the event ; and, in fact, 01 o-uyyevcis would include her, 
whether it is intended to do so or not. Origen, Ambrose, Bede, 
and others believe that she remained until the birth of John. For 
the patristic arguments for and against see Corn, a Lap. Lk. 
leaves us in doubt, probably because his authority left him in 
doubt ; but Didon goes too far in saying that Lk. insinuates that 
she was not present. 1 

For this use of ws comp. viii. 42 (not ii. 37) ; Acts i. 15, v. 7, 36. Lk. 
more often uses wa-el in this sense (iii. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59, xxiii. 44; 
Acts ii. 41, etc.). In vviarTpe^/ev we have another very favourite word which 
runs through both Gospel and Acts. It is found elsewhere only Mk. xiv. 40; 
Gal. i. 17 ; Heb. vii. 1 ; 2 Pet. ii. 21. 

Meyer rightly remarks that " the historical character of the Visitation of 
Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation." The arguments against it 
are very inconclusive. 1. That it does not harmonize with Joseph's dream in 
Mt. i. 20 ; which has been shown to be incorrect. 2. That there is no trace 
elsewhere of great intimacy between the two families ; which proves absolutely 
nothing. 3. That the obvious purpose of the narrative is to glorify Jesus, in 
making the unborn Baptist acknowledge Him as the Messiah ; which is mere 
assertion. 4. That the poetic splendour of the narrative lifts it out of the 
historical sphere ; which implies that what is expressed with great poetic beauty 
cannot be historically true, — a canon which would be fatal to a great deal of 
historical material. We may assert of this narrative, as of that of the Annuncia- 
tion, that no one in the first or second century could have imagined either. 
Least of all could any one have given us the Magnificat, — " the most magni- 
ficent cry of Joy that has ever issued from a human breast." Nothing that has 
come down to us of that age leads us to suppose that any writer could have 
composed these accounts without historic truth to guide him, any more than an 
architect of that age could have produced Milan cathedral. Comp. the Prot- 
tvairgelium of James xii.-xiv.; the Pseudo-Matthew ix.-xii.; the Hist, of Joseph 
the Carpenter iii.— vi. 

57-80. The Birth and Circumcision of the Forerunner. 

57. eTrXrjo-Qr) 6 xp°"os tou T€K€te auTr]i\ Expressions about time 
or days being fulfilled are found chiefly in these two chapters in 
N.T. (ver. 23, ii. 6, 21, 22). They are Hebraistic: e.g. iTrXrjpw- 
6rj<rav at y]/xepat tov avTijv (Gen. xxv. 24; comp. xxix. 21 ; Lev. 
xii. 4, 6 ; Num. vi. 5, etc.). And tov t(.ku.v is gen. after 6 xpovos. 

1 Didon has some excellent remarks on the poetical portion of this 
narrative. La pohie est le langage des impressions vehementes et des idies 
sublimes. Chez ies Jnifs, comme chez tons les peuples a" Orient, elle jaillait 
<T inspiration. Tout time est poete, la joie ou la douleur la fait chanter. Si 
jamais un coeur a du faire explosion dans quelque hymne inspirh, c'est bitn 
celui de lajeunefille clue de Dieu pour itre la mire du Messie. 

Elle emprunte a fhistoire biblique des femtnes qui, avant elle, ont tressailli 
dans leur maternitc, comme Liah et la mere de Samuel des expressions qu' elU 
ilargit et transfigure. Les hymnes nationaux qui celebrent la gloire de son 
peuple, la misericorde, la puissance, la sagesse et la fidelite de Dieu, reviennent 
sur ses levres habiiuees a les chanter (Jesus Christ, p. 112, ed. 1891). The 
whole passage is worth consulting. 


e|iey(£\ui'ey Kupios to eXeos auTou p.6T' aurrjg. The verb is not 
used in the same sense as in ver. 46, nor yet quite literally as in 
Mt. xxiii. 5, but rather " made conspicuous," i.e. bestowed con- 
spicuous mercy. Comp. e/xeyaAwas tt\v ScKaLOcrvvqv <tov (Gen. 
xix. 19). The fier avr?)? does not mean that she co-operates 
with God, but that He thus deals with her. Comp. ver. 72, x. 37, 
and ciSctc a i/j.eyd\vi'€v /xe#' v/ju2v (1 Sam. xii. 24). In o-ufe'xaipoy 
aurj) we have the first beginning of the fulfilment of ver. 14. It 
means "rejoiced with her" (xv. 6, 9 ; 1 Cor. xii. 26), rather 
than "congratulated her" (Phil. ii. 17). 

59. r{KBav TrepiTefieii/ to -rraiSioc. The nom. must be under- 
stood from the context, amid ad earn rem advocati, viz. some of 
those mentioned ver. 58. Circumcision might be performed 
anywhere and by any Jew, even by a woman (Exod. iv. 25). 

On the mixture of first and second aorist in such forms as 7j\dai>, ?Tetro, 
etda/iev, dvelXav, etc., see Win. xiii. I. a, p. 86; WH. ii. App. p. 164; 
and comp. ver. 61, ii. 16, v. 7, 26, vi. 17, vii. 24, xi. 2, 52, xxii. 52; Acts 
ii. 23, xii. 7, xvi. 37, xxii. 7, etc. 

iK&\ow auTo eTfl tco cVouaTi tou Trcrrpos auTou. Not merely 
"they wished to call," but "they began to call, were calling"; 
comp. v. 6 ; Acts vii. 26 ; Mt. iii. 14. The custom of com- 
bining the naming with circumcision perhaps arose from Abram 
being changed to Abraham when circumcision was instituted. 
Naming after the father was common among the Jews (Jos. Vita, 
I ; Ant. xiv. I. 3). For the hrl comp. iKkrjdrj eV ovofxart avroiv 
(Neh. vii. 63). 

60. ic\r]0r)o-€Tai 'ludn-is. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that 
the name had been divinely revealed to her, or that she chose it 
herself to express the boon which God had bestowed upon her. 
Zacharias would naturally tell her in writing what had taken place 
in the temple. With KaXeiTcu tu oyop.ciTi comp. xix. 2. 

62. iviveuov. Here only in N.T., but we have veu'w similarly 
used Acts xxiv. 10 and Jn. xiii. 24. Comp. irvevti 6cf>da\fxw, 
(rrjfxatvei 8k 7to8l, SiSdaKet, 8e lvvi.vfj.a(TLV SaKrvXwv (Prov. vi. 13), 
and 6 ewevcov ocfidaXfxoLs //.era 86\ov (Prov. x. 10). Some infer 
that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb ; and this is often the 
meaning of Koxpos (ver. 22), viz. "blunted in speech or hearing, or 
both" (vii. 22). But the question is not worth the amount of 
discussion which it has received. 

t6 t£ ay Oe'Xoi. The art. turns the whole clause into a sub- 
stantive. " They communicated by signs the question, what he," 
etc. Comp. Rom. viii. 26; 1 Thes. iv. 1; Mt. xix. 18. The to 
serves the purpose of marks of quotation. 

This use of rb with a sentence, and especially with a question, is common 
in Lk. (ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37 ; Acts iv. 21, xxii. 30). Note 


the <Lv : "what he would perhaps wish, might wish." We have exactly the 
same use of &v Jn. xiii. 24? ; comp. Lk. vi. 11 ; Acts v. 24, xxi. 33?. Win. 
xlii. 4, p. 3S6 ; Blass, Gr. p. 215. 

63. al-rrjcras iricaiciSioi'. Postulans pugillarem (Vulg.), cum petis- 
set tabulam (d). Of course by means of signs, iwev/xaa-iv 8olktv\wv. 
One is inclined to conjecture that Lk. or his authority accidentally 
put the iweveiv in the wrong place. Signs must have been used 
here, and they are not mentioned. They need not have been used 
ver. 62, and they are mentioned. The mvaKifaov would probably be 
a tablet covered with wax : loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera (Tert. 
De idol, xxiii.). 

All four forms, trlva.^, ttivixkU, irivaKiov, and Trivcuddiov, are used of writing- 
tablets, and TnvaKlda isv.t. (D) here. But elsewhere in N.T. irlva^ is a " dish " 
or " platter" (xi. 39 ; Mt. xiv. 8, n ; Mk. vi. 25, 28). Note the Hebraistic 
particularity in £ypa\pev \iyuv, and comp. 2 Kings x. 6 ; I Mac. x. 1 7, 
xi. 57. This is the first mention of writing in N.T. 

'lo)ai'T]S ecrrii' SVop-a auTOu. Not co-rat, but eoriv : habet vocabulum 
suum quod agnovimus, non quod elegimus (Bede) ; quasi dicat nullam 
superesse consultationem in re quam Deus jam definiisset (Grotius) ; 
non tamjubet, quamjussum divinum indicat (Beng.). The iQaufiaaav 
Trdrrcs may be used on either side of the question of his deafness. 
They wondered at his agreeing with Elisabeth, although he had not 
heard her choice of name ; or, they wondered at his agreeing with 
her, although he had heard the discussion. 

64. dcew)(0r) 8e to oropa auTOu Trapaxprjua. The prophecy 
which he had refused to believe was now accomplished, and the 
sign which had been granted to him as a punishment is withdrawn. 
That the first use of his recovered speech was to continue blessing 
God (i\d\ei cvAoyah'), rather than to complain, is evidence that the 
punishment had proved a blessing to him. The addition of ical rj 
yXwao-a auTou involves a zeugma, such as is common in all lan- 
guages : comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 3 ; Win. lxvi. 1. e, p. 777. 
The Complutensian Bible, on the authority of two cursives (140, 
251), inserts 8i7]p8pwdi] after 17 yXwcrcra avrov: see on ii. 22. For 
irapaxprip-a see on v. 25 and comp. iv. 39. We are left in doubt as 
to whether eXdXei euXoywc refers to the Benedictus or to some eikoyia 
which preceded it. The use of iTrpocf)tjT€v<x(v and not evXoyrja-ev 
in ver. 67 does not prove that two distinct acts of thanksgiving 
are to be understood. Here Syr-Sin. has "They marvelled all." 

65. eyeVeTo eirl irdrras <|>o{3os. See on iv. 36. Zacharias (ver. 12) 
and Mary (ver. 30) had had the same feeling when conscious of the 
nearness of the spiritual world. A writer of fiction would have 
been more likely to dwell upon the joy which the wonderful birth 
of the future Prophet produced ; all the more so as such joy 
had been predicted (ver. 14). The <xutou's means Zacharias and 


SicXaXeiTo irdv'Ta Ta p^jxaTa TauTa. This need not be confined 
to what was said at the circumcision of John. It is probably the 
Hebraistic use of prj/xara for the things which are the subject- 
matter of narration. Comp. ii. 19, 51, where RV. has "sayings" 
in the text and "things" in the margin ; and Acts v. 32, where it 
has "things" in the text and "sayings" in the margin. Comp. 
LXX Gen. xv. 1, xxii. 1, 16, xxxix. 7, xl. 1, xlviii. 1, and esp. 
xxiv. 66, Tj-avra to. p^/xara a i-rroirjo-ev. The verb SiaAaAeiv occurs 
only here and vi. n: not in LXX, but in Sym. several times in 
the Psalms. Syr-Sin. omits iravra to. pvjfiaTa. 

66. eBevro iravTts 01 aKovcravi-cs Iv -rif) KapSia av-riov. Comp. ii. 19. 
We find all three prepositions with this phrase, iv, iwl, and els : l6ero AaieiS 
ret prjixara iv ry napdiq. avrov (i Sam. xxi. 1 2) ; iOero Aavir/X iirl rrjv tcapdiav 
avrou (Dan. i. 8) ; rldeaOe els tt\v Kapdlav vp-Qv (Rial. ii. 2). Lk. is fond of 
constructions with iv rjj k. or iv rats k. (ii. 19, iii. 15, v. 22, xxi. 14; 
comp. ii. 51, xxiv. 38). In Horn, we have both detval n and Oiedai n, 
either iv (ppeal or iv <rrr\Qe(jci.. Note that, not only is7rasorfi7rasa favourite 
word with Lk., but either form combined with a participle of &kovhj is also 
freq. and characteristic (ii. 18, 47, iv. 28, vi. 47, vii. 29, xx. 45 ; Acts v. 5, 
II, ix. 21, x. 44, xxvi. 29 ; comp. Acts iv. 4, xviii. 8). See on vi. 30. 

TL apa to iraiSiov tovto «rTai ; Not ris ; the neut. makes the question 
more indefinite and comprehensive : comp. rl &pa 6 Hirpos iyivero (Acts xii. 
18). The Sipa, igitur, means "in these circumstances"; viii. 25, xii. 42, 
xxii. 23. 

ica! yap x €l P Kuptou fy p,eT' auToo. " For besides all that," i.e. 
in addition to the marvels which attended his birth. This is a 
remark of the Evangelist, who is wont now and then to interpose 
in this manner: comp. ii. 50, iii. 15, vii. 39, xvi. 14, xx. 20, 
xxiii. 12. The recognition that John was under special Divine 
influence caused the question, tl apa iarai ; to be often repeated in 
after times. Here, as in Acts xi. 21, x Ci P Ku/01'ou is followed by 
/xera, and the meaning is that the Divine power interposes to guide 
and bless. See small print on i. 20 for other parallels between 
Gospel and Acts. Where the preposition which follows is eVt, the 
Divine interposition is generally one of punishment (Acts xiii. 11; 
Judg. ii. 15 ; 1 Sam. v. 3, 6, vii. 13 ; Exod. vii. 4, 5). But this is 
by no means always the case (2 Kings iii. 15; Ezra vii. 6, viii. 
22, 31); least of all where x et P has the epithet ayaBrj (Ezra vii. 
9, 28, viii. 18). In N.T. x €i P Kv/hov is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 
xi. 21, xiii. 11 j comp. iv. 28, 30). 

67-79. The Benedictus or Song of Zacharias may be the €v- 
Xoyi'a mentioned in ver. 64. x To omit it there, in order to continue 
the narrative without interruption, and to give it as a solemn 
conclusion, would be a natural arrangement. As the Magnificat 
is modelled on the psalms, so the Benedictus is modelled on the 

1 Like most of the canticles, the Benedictus was originally said at Lauds : 
and it is still said at Lauds, in the Roman Church daily, in the Greek Church 
on special occasions. See footnote on p. 67. 




prophecies, and it has been called " the last prophecy of the Old 
Dispensation and the first in the New." And while the tone of 
the Magnificat is regal, that of the Benedidus is sacerdotal. The 
one is as appropriate to the daughter of David as the other to the 
son of Aaron. The relation between new and old may again be 
seen in a table. 

The Benedictus. 

FjvXoyrjrbs Kvpios 6 Qebs tov 'Icrparfk, 
8ti i-neoKtyaro Kal iTroirjaev Xvrpucriv 
rip Xaip avrov, 

Kal ijyeipev Kipas aurriplas i}fuv 
ev olku) Aaveld iraidbs avrov, 

KaOus iXdXrjaev did crbp.aros twv dylwv 
dir' alwvos irpo<p7]Tu>v avrov 
aurnjplav it; ix^puv VM-uv Kal €K 
Xeipbs irdvrwv ruiv pnaovvTwv 7]{iat, 
woirjcrai eXeos p.erd tQiv traripwv rip.Giv 
Kal fivrjcrdrjvai diadrjK-qs a7ias avrov, 

UpKov 5v &pLoaev irpbs ' 

rbv iraripa T)p.dv, 
tov dovvai i]pui> dcpbfiws iK x el P°s 

ixQp&v pvadivras 
\arpeveiv avri± iv baibrrjTi 

Kal diKaioavvy 
ivwiriov avrov irdaais reus 

Tj/xipais rip-Qiv. 

Kal av 8i, iraiStov, irpocprirris 

'T^iarov KKrid-qa-g, 
irpovopevari yap ivuiriov Kvpiov 

eroip-daai bSovs avrov, 
tov dovvai yvwaiv crurrjpias 

np Xat+ avrov 
iv d<p£crei dpxLpriQiv ai/ruiv 
old o-ir\dyx v a iXeovs Qeov rj/nu>v, 
iv ols eVtcTA.^i/'erat 

dvaroXrj e£ uipovs, 
tVKpdvai toTs iv aKbrei Kal o~Kia 

davdrov Kadrj/xivois 
tov Karevdvvai robs wbbas rjpLwv 

ds bbbv €Lp-qvj)%. 

The Old Testament. 

1 'EvXoyrjrbs Kvpios b Qebs 'lo-patfk. 

2 Xvrpwaiv dviareiXev 

tu~, Xaip avrov. 
8 eKei i^avareXQ Kipas rip Aaveld. 
4 dvareXei Kipas iravrl rip oiKip 'IcpaiJX. 
8 v^wcrei Kipas Xpiarov avrov. 

8 tauaev avrovs eV x el P& v p-iaovvraiv Kal 
iXvTpuxraro avrovs eK x et pbs ix^P ^' 

7 duaei els dXyjdeiav rip 'Ia/cco/S, 
iXeov Tip 'Appadp., Kadbri &fxoo~as 

tois irarpdcnv ripi&v. 

8 epLvrjaOr} rijs biadrjKrjs avrov. 

8 e/uLvrjad-r] b Qebs rrjs 8iadriKi]S avrov rffi 
irpbs 'A/3pad/i, Kal 'Itrad/c, Kal 'Ia/cti>)3. 

10 oirias crrrjffu) rbv SpKOV p.ov, 6v 
ibp-oaa rols Trarpdcnv vpiuiv, rod dovvai 
avrois yr\v piovaav ydXa Kal fiiXi. 

11 ijxvqady) els rbv alwva 8ta6rjK7]S avrov 
Xbyov o5 iverelXaro els xtXias yeveds, 

8v diiOero rip 'Appadpi, 
Kal rov bpKov avrov rip 'Iaad/c. 

12 'E7oj e^airoariXXio rbv &yye\6v fiov 
Kal eirijSXtyerai bbbv irpb irpoffdiirov 


13 eroifidcare ttjv bdbv Kvplov. 

14 Kadrniivovs iv o~Kbrei. 
16 ol KaroLKQvvres ev X^P a Ka ^ Gulf 
Savdrov (puis Xdp,\(/et. e<p' vpas. 
16 Kad-qp.ivovs iv o-Kbrei Kal OKla 


There is a manifest break at the end of ver. 75. The first 
of these two portions thus separated may be divided into three 

1 Ps. xli. 14, lxxii. 18, cvi. 48. 

4 Ezek. xxix. 21. 6 1 Sam. ii. 10. 

8 Ps. cvi. 45. 9 Exod. ii. 24. 

u Mai. iii. 1. 18 Is. xl. 3. 
16 Ps. cvii. 10. 

2 Ps. cxi. 9. 

6 Ps. cvi. 10. 
10 Jer. xi. 5. 
14 Is. xlii. 7. 

8 Ps. cxxxii. 17. 

7 Mic. vii. 20. 
11 Ps. cv. 8, 9. 
18 Is. ix. 1. 


strophes (68, 69; 70-72; 73-75), and the second into two (76, 

77; 78,79); 

67. eir\YJ(T0T] TTeeufAaTOS dyiou Kal erpot^Teuaee. See on ver. 15. 
The prophesying must not be confined to the prediction of the 
future ; it is the delivery of the Divine message ; speaking under 
God's influence, and in His Name. Zacharias sees in his son the 
earnest and guarantee of the deliverance of Israel. 

In some texts iirpo<p7)Tev<rev has been altered into the more regular irpoetfyfi- 
rev<rev, but everywhere in N.T. (even Jude 14) the augment should precede 
the prep, in this compound. This is intelligible, seeing that there is no 
simple verb (pr/revo). Comp. Num. xi. 25, 26; Ecclus. xlviii. 13, and the 
similar forms tffaev and rfvoi&v. Win. xii. 5, p. 84. 

08. EuXoyrjTos Kupi.09 6 ©eos too 'lcrpai]\. Not iariv but cly] is 
to be supplied. The line is verbatim as Ps. xli. 14, lxxii. 18, 
cvi. 48, excepting that in LXX tov is omitted. In N.T. euAoy^rds 
is used of God, but never of men : see on ver. 42. In LXX there 
are a few exceptions: Deut. vii. 14; Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13, 
xxv. 33. 

eireo-Ke'iJ/aTO Kal eTroujcrei/ XuTpwaii' tw Xaw auTOu. Here, as in 
Ecclus. xxxii. 1 7, an ace. is to be supplied after eVeo-Kei^aro ; there 
tov Ta7r€tvdv, here tov Xaov. See on vii. 16. Excepting Heb. ii. 6, 
where it is a quotation from Ps. viii. 5, this verb is used in the 
Hebrew sense (Exod. iv. 31) of Divine visitation by Lk. alone in 
N.T. Comp. Ps. Sol. iii. 14. No doubt XvTpuxriv has reference 
to political redemption (ver. 71), but accompanied by and based 
upon a moral and spiritual reformation {vv. 75, 77). Comp. 
Ps. exxix. 7. 

69. Kal Tjyeipec Ke'pas aamjpias v\\u.v. For this use of iytipuy 
COmp. rjyeipev Kupios o-iorrjpa tw 'Icpa^A (Judg. iii. 9, 1 5). In 

Ezek. xxix. 2 1 and Ps. exxxii. 1 7 the verb used is dvareXXta or . 
i£ava.Te\\u> (see table). The metaphor of the horn is very freq. in 
O.T. (1 Sam. ii. 10; 2 Sam. xxii. 3; Ps. lxxv. 5, 6, n, etc.), and 
is taken neither from the horns of the altar, nor from the peaks of 
helmets or head-dresses, but from the horns of animals, especially 
bulls. It represents, therefore, primarily, neither safety nor dignity, 
but strength. The wild-ox, wrongly called " unicorn " in AV., was 
oroverbial for strength (Num. xxiv. 8; Job xxxix. 9-1 1 ; Deut. 
xxxiii. 17). In Horace we have addis cornua pauperi, and in Ovid 
turn pauper cornua sumit. In Ps. xviii. 3 God is called a Ke'pas 
crwTT/ptas. See below on ver. 71. For -rraiSo? auToG see on ver. 54. 
" In the house of His servant David " is all the more true if Mary 
was of the house of David. But the fact that Jesus was the heir 
of Joseph is sufficient, and this verse is no proof of Mary's descent 
from David. 

70. Second strophe. Like ver. 55, this is not a parenthesis, 
but determines the preceding statement more exactly. As a priest* 


Zacharias would be familiar with O.T. prophecies. Even if the twv 
before an aiwvos (A C D) were genuine, it would be unlikely that 
tw ayidiv means " the saints " in app. with twv aiwvos -n-pocprjTwv. 
Lk. is fond of the epithet aytos (ver. 72, ix. 26 ; Acts iii. 21, x. 22, 
xxi. 28). He is also fond of the periphrasis Sid orojxaTos (Acts 
i. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25): comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. And the 
expression d-n-' aidfos is peculiar to him in N.T. (Acts iii. 21, 
xv. 18). It is used vaguely for "of old time." Here it does not 
mean that there have been Prophets "since the world began." 
Comp. 01 ytyavTCS ol air aiaivos (Gen. vi. 4), and KarafipovTa Ka\ 
Karacpeyyei tous onr' alwvos p?;ropas (Longin. xxxiv.), and adverbially 
(Hes. Theog. 609). 

71. o-uTT)piai> i£ i\QpQ>v ^p.uii'. This is in app. with Kcpas 
o-coT?7ptas and epexegetic of it. That the e^pwv rjfxZv and tuv 
fiiarovvroiv rjfia<; are identical is clear from Ps. xviii. 18 and cvi. 10 
(see table). The heathen are meant. Gentile domination prevents 
the progress of God's kingdom, and the Messiah will put an end 
to this hindrance. Comp. Exod. xviii. 10. 

Neither o-uiTtjpla (vv. 69, 77, xix. 9; Acts iv. 12,'etc.) nor rb vuT-qpiov 
(ii. 30, iii. 6 ; Acts xxviii. 28) occur in Mt. or Mk. The former occurs once 
in Jn. (iv. 22). Both are common in LXX. The primary meaning is 
preservation from bodily harm (Gen. xxvi. 31; 2 Sam. xix. 2), especially of 
the great occasions on which God had preserved Israel (Exod. xiv. 13, xv. 2; 
2 Chron. xx. 17) ; and hence of the deliverance to be wrought by the Messiah 
(Is. xlix. 6, 8), which is the meaning here. Comp. rod Kvplov i] awr-qpla iv 
oTkod 'IcrpaT]\ els evtppoavvyv alwviov (Ps. Sol. x. 9 ; and very similarly xii. 7). 
As the idea of the Messianic salvation became enlarged and purified, the word 
which so often expressed it came gradually to mean much the same as 
"eternal life." See on Rom. i. 16. 

72. "iroiTJcrai eXeos (xeTa, k.t.X. This is the purpose of rpvcipev 
K€pa<;. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12; Judg. i. 24, 
viii. 35 ; Ruth i. 8 ; 1 Sam. xx. 8, etc.). Comp. /act' avTrj<;, ver. 
58. " In delivering us God purposed to deal mercifully with our 
fathers." This seems to imply that the fathers are conscious of 
what takes place : comp. vv. 54, 55. Besides the passages given 
in the table, comp. Lev. xxvi. 42, and see Wsctt. on Heb. ix. 

15. l6 - 

73. opKoe ov wpor/ci' Trpog 'APpadji. Third strophe. The oath 

is recorded Gen. xxii. 16-18 : comp. Ep. of Barnabas, xiv. 1. 

It is best to take SpKov in app. with StadrjKijs, but attracted in case to 
ti> : comp. w. 4, 20, and see on iii. 19. It is true that in LXX p,vr\<jBr\va.i is 
found with an ace. (Exod. xx. 8 ; Gen. ix. 16). But would Lk. give it first 
a gen. and then an ace. in the same sentence? For the attraction of the 
antecedent to the relative comp. xx. 17 and perhaps Acts x. 36. 

ojjAoaev irpds 'A. So also in Horn. (Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288): but see 
on ver. 13. 

74. tov Sovvai T|fj.iv. This is probably to be taken after SpKov as the 
contents and purpose of the oath; and the promise that "thy seed shall 


possess the gate of his enemies" (Gen. xxii. 17) is in favour of this. But it 
is possible to take tov dovvai as epexegetic of ver. 72 ; or again, as the 
purpose of ijyeipev Ktpas, and therefore parallel to ver. 72. This last is not 
likely, because there is no rou with Troirjcai. This rod c. injin. of the purpose 
or result is a favourite constr. with Lk. (w. 77, 79, ii. 24, where see reff.). 
It marks the later stage of the language, in which aim and purpose become 
confused with result. Perhaps the gen. of the aim may be explained on the 
analogy of the part. gen. after verbs of hitting or missing. 

€K x ei P°5 exQpwi'. It does not follow from oaiorrjTi kclI Sikou- 
oo-vvt] that spiritual enemies are meant. The tyranny of heathen 
conquerors was a hindrance to holiness. In addition to the 
parallel passages quoted in the table, comp. Ps. xviii. 18, pva-erai 
fie. i$ i^6pu)v fj.ov cWaruiv Kal Ik twv fxiaovvroiv pe. 

For the ace. pvaOevras after ij/uv comp. aol 5e avyyvupLrj \iyeiv rah" i<rrl t 
fir] ivao-xowav ws £ytb kclkws (Eur. Med. 814). 

75. XaTpeueti' au-rw. Comp. Aarpevo-ere tw ©€w iv toj opei tovt<d 
(Exod. iii. 12). We must take ivwmov autoO with Xarpevetv avrw. 
The service of the redeemed and delivered people is to be a 
priestly service, like that of Zacharias (ver. 8). For iv&-niov see on 
ver. 15, and for XaTpeu'eiy on iv. 8. The combination 6cti6tt|s Kal 
oikcuoowt] becomes common ; but perhaps the earliest instance is 
Wisd. ix. 3. We have it Eph. iv. 24 and Clem. Rom. xlviii. : 
comp. Tit. i. 8 and 1 Thes. ii. 10. 

76. Kal o-u 8e, iraioio^. Here the second part of the hymn, and 
the distinctively predictive portion of it, begins. The Prophet 
turns from the bounty of Jehovah in sending the Messiah to the 
work of the Forerunner. "But thou also, child," or "Yea and 
thou, child" (RV.). Neither the ko.1 nor the Se must be neglected. 
There is combination, but there is also contrast. Not " my child " : 
the personal relation is lost in the high calling. The K\r)0rj<Tr] has 
the same force as in ver. 32 : not only "shalt be," but "shalt be 
acknowledged as being." 

Trpoiropeu'cTT) y^P ivdmiov KupLOu. Comp. Kvptos o ©eo? crov 6 
irpoTTopevopevos Trpo 7rpoawirov aov, Ka8a iXaXrjcrev Kvpios (Deut. 
xxxi. 3). Here Kupt'ou means Jehovah, not the Christ, as is clear 
from w. 16, 17. 

77. toO ooCcai yvCxriv CTOJTTjpias ra Xaw auTOu. This is the aim 
and end of the work of the Forerunner. In construction it comes 
after iroipdcrai oSous olvtov. We may take iv d^ecrei dp.apTiuv' aindv 
with either Sowai, or yvwcriv, or o-wr^p/as. The last is best. John 
did not grant remission of sins ; and to make " knowledge of 
salvation " consist in remission of sins, yields no very clear sense. 
But that salvation is found in remission of sins makes excellent 
sense (Acts v. 31). The Messiah brings the au>Tr)pia (vv. 69, 71): 
the Forerunner gives the knowledge of it co the people, as consist- 
ing, not in a political deliverance from the dominion of Rome, but 


in a spiritual deliverance from the dominion of sin. This is the 
first mention of the " remission of sins " in the Gospel narrative. 

78. Sia airXayx^a eXe'ous 0eou rjfAuiv. The concluding strophe, 
referring to the whole of the preceding sentence, or (if we take a 
single word) to TrpoTroptvcrr]. It is because of God's tender mercy 
that the child will be able to fulfil his high calling and to do all 

this. Comp. Test. XII Patr. Levi 1V., cms £7rio-K€ii/?/Tai Ki'/jios TrdvTa 
ra lSvv\ iv o"7r\ay^vois vlov avrov ccos alwvo<s: also Levi vii. and viii. 

Originally the crTrXayx 1 " 1 were the " inward parts," esp. the upper portions, 
the heart, lungs, and liver {viscera thoracis), as distinct from the evrepa or bowels 
(viscera abdominis). The Greeks made the <nr\ayxva the seat of the emotions, 
anger, anxiety, pity, etc. By the Jews these feelings were placed in the ZvTepa; 
and hence in LXX we have not only airXayxva. (which may include the tvTepa), 
but also KoiKla and fy/cara used for the affections. Moreover in Hebr. literature 
these words more often represent compassion or love, whereas (nrKa/yxya. in class. 
Grk. is more often used of wrath (Aristoph. Ran. 844, 1006 ; Eur. Ale. 1009). 
"Heart" is the nearest English equivalent for <rir\ayx va (RV. Col. iii. 12; 
Philem. 12, 20). See Lft. on Phil. i. 8. "Because of our God's heart of 
mercy," i.e. merciful heart, is the meaning here. For this descriptive or 
characterizing gen. comp. Jas. i. 25, ii. 4 ; Jude 18. Some would make yvwai.v 
ffwTTiplas an instance of it, "saving knowledge," i.e. that brings salvation. But 
this is not necessary. For ev ols see on iv fipaxiovi, ver. 51. For eirnricevlfeTai 1 
comp. vii. 17 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 14; Judith viii. 33 ; and see on ver. 68. 

dra-rc-Xt] e£ ui|»ous. " Rising from on high." The word is used 
of the rising of the sun (Rev. vii. 2, xvi. 12; Horn. Od. xii. 4) and 
of stars (^£sch. P. V. 457; Eur. Phcen. 504). Here the rising of 
the heavenly body is put for the heavenly body itself. Comp. the 
use of dvareXXoy in Is. be. 1 and Mai. iv. 2. Because sun, moon, 
and stars do not rise from on high, some join i$ vif/ow; with 
€7rio-K€i/r€Tai, which is admissible. But, as avaroXr) means the sun 
or star itself, whose light comes from on high, this is not necessary. 
Seeing that dvareAAoj is used of the rising or sprouting of platits, 
and that the Messiah is sometimes called " the Branch " (Jer. xxiii. 
5, xxxiii. 15; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12), and that in LXX this is expressed 
by dvaToA.77, some would adopt that meaning here. But ££ vij/ovs, 
iirupavai, and KarevOwai are conclusive against it. These expres- 
sions agree well with a rising sun or star, but not with a sprouting 

79. eTNtfjdvai T019 iv ctkotci kcu criaa Gafd-rou KaQrjfjieVois. For 
€TTL(j>ava.i comp. Acts xxvii. 20, and for the form Ps. xxx. 17, cxvii. 
27. In 3 Mac. vi. 4 we have 2u 4>apau> . . . a-jriLXecras, 4>€yyos 
€7Tt<^dva? i\eov$ 'lapaijX yeV«. Note that the KaOrj/jiei ovs iv <tkotu 
of Is. xlii. 7 and the o-ki'o. tfavd-roi; of Is. ix. 1 are combined here as 
in Ps. cvii. 10 (see table). Those who hold that these hymns are 

1 This is the reading of N B Syr. Arm. Goth. Boh. and virtually of L, 
which has 4ireaKi\panai. Godet defends iirtoKiij/aTo, because Zacharias would 
not suddenly turn from the past to the future ; but this thought would lead tc 
the corruption of the more difficult reading. 


written in the interests of Ebionism have to explain why ■jreTrefy/j.e-- 
vovs eV TTTwxeta (Ps. cvii. io) is omitted. 

tou KaTeuSuyai tous iro'Sas ^p-cof els oSoy clpi^nr]?. For the constr. 
comp. vv. 74, 77. Those who sat in darkness did not use their 
feet : the light enables them to do so, and to use them profitably. 
The rj/xwv shows that Jews as well as Gentiles are regarded as being 
in darkness until the M essianic dawn. " The way of peace " is the 
way that leads to peace, especially peace between God and His 
people (Ps. xxix. n, lxxxv. 9, cxix. 165; Jer. xiv. 13). It was one 
of the many blessings which the Messiah was to bring (ii. 14, x. 5, 
xxiv. 36). See on Rom. i. 7 and comp. oSov o-wrrypcas (Acts xvi. 17). 

80. To 8e ttcuoioi/ tji^are «al eKpctTaiouTO iryeufiaTi. The verse 
forms a set conclusion to the narrative, as if here one of the 
Aramaic documents used by Lk. came to an end. Comp. ii. 40, 
52; Judg. xiii. 24, 25; 1 Sam. ii. 26. In LXX av£dvo> is never, as 
here, intrans. Thus av^avd ere o-<po'Spa (Gen. xvii. 6); rji^drj to 
7ratStov (Gen. xxi. 8). In N.T. it is used of physical growth (ii. 40, 
xii. 27, xiii. 19), and of the spread of the Gospel (Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, 
xix. 20). With iKparaiovTo Trvev/j.a.Ti comp. Eph. iii. 16; and for 
the dat. Rom. iv. 20 ? and 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 

tjv eV tcus eprjfiois. The wilderness of Judaea, west of the Dead 
Sea, is no doubt meant. But the name is not given, because the 
point is, not that he lived in any particular desert, but that he lived 
in desert places and not in towns or villages. He lived a solitary 
life. Hence nothing is said about his being "in favour with men"; 
for he avoided men until his dvdSei£is brought him disciples. This 
fact answers the question whether John was influenced by the 
Essenes, communities of whom lived in the wilderness of Judaea. 
We have no reason to believe that he came in contact with them. 
Excepting the ascetic life, and a yearning for something better 
than obsolete Judaism, there was little resemblance between their 
principles and his. He preached the Kingdom of God ; they 
preached isolation. They abandoned society ; he strove to reform 
it. See Godet in loco and D.B? art. " Essenes." Lk. alone uses 
the plur. al Zprjfxoi (v. 16, viii. 29). 

eo)9 iqp.epas dvaSei^ews ciutou Trpos Toy 'lo"pai]\. John probably 
went up to Jerusalem for the feasts, and on those occasions he and 
the Messiah may have met, but without John's recognizing Him as 
such. Here only in N.T. does dvdSa£is occur. In Ecclus. xliii. 6 
we have dm<3afiv xpovwv as a function of the moon. In Plut. the 
word is used of the proclaiming or inauguration of those who are 
appointed to office (Afar. viii. ; C. Grac. xii.). It is also used of 
the dedication of a temple (Strabo, viii. 5. 23, p. 381). Comp. 
di/e'Sei^ei/ of the appointment of the Seventy (x. 1). It was John 
himself who proclaimed the inauguration of his office by manifesting 
himself to the people at God's command (iii. 2). 


Note on the Use of iyivtro. 

More than any other Evangelist Lk. makes use of the Hebr. formula, iyivero 
Si or Kai iyivero. But with it he uses a variety of constructions, some of which 
are modelled on the classical use of avvi^-q, which Lk. himself employs Acts xxi. 
35. The following types are worth noting. 

(a) The iyivero and that which came to pass are placed side by side as 
parallel statements in the indicative mood without a conjunction^ 

i. 8. iyivero Si iv rip leparevetv avrbv . . . fkaxe rod dv/xiacrai. 

i. 23. /cat iyivero ws iir\riffdrjaav al 7]Li.ipai rfjs Xeirovpylas avrov, dvrjXdev. 

i. 41. Kai iyivero ws jJKOvaev rbv ao-7raaLibv rrjs M. rj'E., io-Klprrjaev rb fipi<pos. 

ii. I. iyivero Si iv rah rjLiipais iKelvais i^rjXdev S6y/J.a. 

Of the same type are i. 59, ii. 6, 15, 46, vii. II, ix. 18, 28, 29, 33, 37, xi. 1, 
14, 27, xvii. 14, xviii. 35, xix. 29, xx. I, xxiv. 30, 51. In viii. 40, ix. 57, x. 
38 the iyivero Si is probably spurious. In the Acts this type does not occur. 

(/3) The iyivero and that which came to pass are coupled together by Kai, 
which may be regarded as (1) uniting two co-ordinate statements; or (2) 
epexegetic, "It came to pass, namely"; or (3) introducing the apodosis, as 
often in class. Grk., " It came to pass that." 

v. I. iyivero Si £v rip rbv &y\ov iiriKeTadat avrcp . . . Kai airrbs rjv ecrws. 
v. 17. Kai iyivero iv fiig. rwv ripiepGiv Kai ai'ros 7/v SiS&crKtav. 

viii. I. Kai iyivero iv rep Ka0e^rjs Kai avrbs Siwoevev. 

viii. 22. iyivero Si iv /iiq. rdiv rj/xep^v Kai aiirbs ivi[3r] eh tt\o?ov. 

Of the same type are v. 12, ix. 51, xiv. 1, xvii. 11, xix. 15, xxiv. 4; Acts 
v. 7. It will be observed that in nearly all cases the Kai is followed by avrbs or 
avrol. In v. 12 and xxiv. 4 it is followed by the Hebraistic IS06, and in xix. 15 
we have simply Kai elirev. 

(7) That which takes place is put in the infinitive mood, and this depends 
upon iyivero. 

iii. 21. iyivero Si iv rip pairrto-diivai &iravra rbv \abv . . . dveipxOrjvai rbp 

vi. I. iyivero be iv <raf3f3ar(p SiairopeveaBai avrbv 81b. o-iropificov. 
vi. 12. iyivero Si iv rats rifxipais ravrais i^e\deiv avrbv eh rb 6pos. 

xvi. 22. iyivero Si arroOavelv rbv irrwxbv. 

This type of construction is common in the Acts : iv. 5, ix. 32, 37, 43, xi. 26, 
xiv. 1, xvi. 16, xix. I, xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17. 

(5) In the Acts we have several other forms still more closely assimilated to 
classical constructions, the iyivero being placed later in the sentence, or being 
preceded by ws or 6Ve. 

ix. 3. iv Si rip iropei'ieaOai iyivero avrbv iyyli;eiv rrj Aafxao-K$. 

xxi. I. ws Se iyivero dvaxdrjvat i] . . . rfXdo/xev eh rr)v KtD. 

xxi. 5. 8re Si iyivero i^aprio-ai ij/xas ras Tjfxipas, i^iXdovres iiropevb/xeda. 
x. 25. ws Si iyivero rov elaeXdelv rbv Hirpov, . . . irpoo-eKvvqcrev. 

In these last three instances we are far removed from the Hebraistic types (a) 
and (/3). The last is very peculiar ; but comp. xxvii. 1 and the exact parallel in 
Acta Bamab. Apocryp. vii. quoted by Lumby, ws Si iyivero rov reXiaai avrovs 

We have obtained in this analysis the following results. Of the two Hebra- 
istic types, (a) is very common in the first two chapters of the Gospel, where Lk. 
is specially under the influence of Hebrew thought and literature, and is probably 
translating from the Aramaic ; but (a) is not found at all in the Acts, and (£) 
occurs there only once. On the other hand, of the more classical types, (7) is 
much less common in the Gospel than in the Acts, while the forms grouped 
under (5) do not occur in the Gospel at all. All which is quite what we might 
have expected. In the Acts there is much less room for Hebrew influences than 
there is in the Gospel ; and thus the more classical forms of construction become 
there the prevailing types. 


II. 1-20. T/ic Birth of the Saviour, its Proclamation by the 
Angels, and its Verification by the Shepherds. 

The second of the narratives in the second group (i. 57 — ii. 40) 
in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). It corresponds to the 
Annunciation (i. 26-38) in the first group. Like the sections which 
precede and which follow, it has a clearly marked conclusion. And 
these conclusions have in some cases a very marked resemblance. 
Comp. ii. 20 with i. 56, and ii. 40 and 52 with i. 80. This 
similarity of form points to the use of material from one and 
the same source, and carefully arranged according to the sub- 
ject-matter. This source would be some member of the Holy 
Family (see on i. 5). The marks of Lk.'s style, accompanied by 
Hebraistic forms of expression, still continue ; and we infer, as 
before, that he is translating from an Aramaic document. The 
section has three marked divisions: the Birth (1-7), the Angelic 
Proclamation (8-14), and the Verification (15-20). The con- 
nexion with what precedes is obvious. We have just been told 
how the promise to Zacharias was fulfilled ; and we are now to be 
told how the promise to Mary was fulfilled. 

1-7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem at the Time of the 
Enrolment. The extreme simplicity of the narrative is in very 
marked contrast with the momentous character of the event thus 
narrated. We have a similar contrast between matter and form in 
the opening verses of S. John's Gospel. The difference between 
the evangelical account and modern Lives of Christ is here very 
remarkable. The tasteless and unedifying elaborations of the 
apocryphal gospels should also be compared. 1 

1-3. How Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus 
Christ, although Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This 
explanation has exposed Lk. to an immense amount of criticism, 
which has been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced 
a voluminous literature. In addition to the commentaries, some 

1 " Such marvellous associations have clung for centuries to these verses, that 
it is hard to realise how absolutely naked they are of all ornament. We are 
obliged to read them again and again to assure ourselves that they really do set 
forth what we call the great miracle of the world. If, on the other hand, the 
Evangelist was possessed by the conviction that he was not recording a miracle 
which had interrupted the course of history and deranged the order of human 
life, but was telling of a divine act which explained the course of history and 
restored the order of human life, one can very well account for his calmness * 
(F. D. Maurice, Lectures on S. Luke, p. 28, ed. 1S79). 


of the following may be consulted, and from Schiirer and Herzog 
further information about the literature may be obtained. 

S. J. Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 71-81, T. & T. Clark, 
1892; T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 955, Longmans, 1865; J. B. 
McClellan, Tlie New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 
392-399, Macmillan, 1875; C. F. Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, 
pp. 172-174, Beck, 1891; *E. Schurer, Jewish People in the Time oj 
Jesus Christ, i. 2, pp. 105-143, T. & T. Clark, 1890; B. Weiss, 
Lebenjesu, i. 2. 4, Berlin, 1882 ; Eng. tr. pp. 250-252 ; K. Wieseler, 
Chronological Synopsis of tlie Four Gospels, pp. 66-106, 129-135, 
Deighton, 1864; O. Zockler, Handbuch der TheologiscJien Wissen- 
xhaften, i. 2, pp. 188-190, Beck, 1889; A. W. Zumpt, Das 
Geburtsjahr Christi (reviewed by Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
1870), Leipzig, 1869; D.B? art. "Cyrenius"; Herzog, PRE} 
xiii. art. " Schatzung " ; P. Schaff, History of the Church, i. pp. 
1 21-125, T. & T. Clark, 18S3; Ramsay, IVas Christ Born at 
Bethlehem ? 1899; Hastings, D.B. art. Chronology of N.T. 

1. 'EyeVe-ro Se iv Tats iip-ep ac s eKeiVcus e^rjXSey 8oyp.a irapd Kcu- 
aapos Auyouorou &Troypd4>ecr6cu irao-ay Tr\v oiKOUfieVirjc. For the COnstr. 
see detached note at the end of ch. i. ; and for iv Tai? ^/xepaic 
«K€tVats see on i. 5 and 39. The time of the birth of John is 
roughly indicated. Even in class. Grk. the first meaning of Soy^a, 
as " opinion, philosophic tenet," is not very common (Plat. Rep. 
538 C) ; it is more often a "public decree, ordinance." This is 
always the meaning in N.T., whether an ordinance of the Roman 
Emperor (Acts xvii. 7), or of the Apostles (Acts xvi. 4; comp. 
Ign. Mag. xiii.; Didache, xi. 3), or of the Mosaic Law (Col. ii. 14; 
Eph. ii. 15; comp. 3 Mac. i. 3 ; Jos. Ant. xv. 5. 3). For e|fj\0eK 
Soyfia comp. Dan. ii. 13 (Theod.). In Daniel hoyfj-a is freq. of a 
royal decree (iii. 10, iv. 3, vi. 9, 10). See Lft. on Col. ii. 14. 

d7roypd4>€(T0ai. Probably passive, ut describeretur (Vulg.), not 
middle, as in ver. 3. The present is here used of the continuous 
enrolment of the multitudes ; the aorist in ver. 5 of the act of one 
person. The verb refers to the writing off, copying, or entering 
the names, professions, fortunes, and families of subjects in the 
public register, generally with a view to taxation (aTroTLfxrjcris or 
TLfxrj/xa). It is a more general word than aTrorijxda), which implies 
assessment as well as enrolment. But it is manifest that the d7ro- 
ypacf>rj here and in Acts v. 37 included assessment. The Jews were 
exempt from military service ; and enrolment for that purpose 
cannot be intended. In the provinces the census was mainly for 
purposes of taxation. 

irao-ar tV oiKoup.eVTji'. "The whole inhabited world," i.e. the 
Roman Empire, orbis terrarum. Perhaps in a loose way the ex- 
pression might be used of the provinces only. But both the 7racrav 
and the context exclude the limitation to Palestine, a meaning 


which the expression never has, not even in Jos. Ant. viii. 3. 4. 
See on iv. 5 and xxi. 26. In inscriptions Roman Emperors are 
called KvpioL ttjs oli<ov{xevr}<;. The verse implies a decree for a general 
census throughout the empire. 

It must be confessed that no direct evidence of any such decree 
exists beyond this statement by Lk., and the repetitions of it by 
Christian writers. But a variety of items have been collected, 
which tend to show that a Roman census in Judaea at this time, 
in accordance with some general instructions given by Augustus, 
is not improbable. 

I. The rationariitm or rationes imperii, which was a sort of balance-sheet 
published periodically by the emperor (Suet. Aug. xxviii. ; Cat. xvi.). 2. The 
libellus or brcviarium totius imperii, which Augustus deposited with his will 
(Tac. Ann. i. 11. 5, 6; Suet. Aug. ci.). 3. The index rerum gestarum to be 
inscribed on his tomb, which was the original of the Marmor Ancyranum. 
But these only indicate the orderly administration of the empire. A general 
census would have been useful in producing such things ; but that does not 
prove that it took place. Two passages in Dion Cassius are cited ; but one of 
these (liv. 35) refers to a registration of the emperor's private property, and 
the other (lv. 13) to a census of Roman citizens. If Augustus made a 
general survey of the empire, of which there is evidence from the commen- 
tarii of Agrippa mentioned by Pliny {Nat. Hist. iii. 2. 17), this also would 
have been conveniently combined with a general census, although it does 
not show that such a census was ordered. Of some of the provinces we 
know that no census was held in them during the reign of Augustus. But 
it is probable that in the majority of them a census took place ; and the 
statement of so accurate a writer as Lk., although unsupported by direct evi- 
dence, may be accepted as substantially true : viz. that in the process of reduc- 
ing the empire to order, Augustus had required that a census should be held 
throughout most of it. So that Lk. groups the various instances under one ex- 
pression, just as in Acts xi. 28 he speaks of the famines, which took place in 
different parts of the empire in the time of Claudius, as a famine £<p' 8\t]v oikov- 
ptvyv. Of the Christian witnesses none is of much account. Riess seems to be 
almost alone in contending that Orosius {Hist. Rom. vi. 22. 6) had any 
authority other than Lk. Cassiodorus ( Variarum Epp. iii. 5 2 ) does not men- ' 
tion a census of persons at all clearly ; but if orbis Romanics agris divisus cen- 
suque descriptus est means such a census, he may be referring to Lk. ii. I . The 
obscure statement of Isidore of Spain {Etymologiarwn, v. 26. 4 ; Opera, iii. 229, 
ed. Arevallo) may either be derived from Lk. or refer to another period. What 
Suidas states {Lex. s.v. airoypacpi)) partly comes from Lk. and partly is improb- 
able. At the best, all this testimony is from 400 to 1000 years after the event, 
and cannot be rated highly. The passages are given in full by Schiirer {fewish 
People in the T. of f. C. i. 2, pp. 116, 117). But it is urged that a Roman 
census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the 
time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In 
A. D. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judaea, 
such a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod 
acted independently {Ant. xv. IO. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvii. 2. I, II. 2 ; comp. xvii. 8. 4). 
Tnat Herod paid tribute to Rome is not certain ; but, if so, he would pay it out 
of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the 
tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of 
Herod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the 
contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine 
was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation ; and he states that 


the census undertaken by Quirinius A.D. 7 excited intense opposition, presum- 
ably as being an innovation (Ant. xviii. I. I, 2. 1). 

In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schurer and Zumpt that the case 
of the Clitse(?) is not parallel. Tacitus (Ann. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the 
Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus wished to 
have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus 
would not interfere with Herod's subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. 
When Palestine was divided among Herod's three sons, Augustus ordered that 
the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had 
not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Ant. xvii. 11. 4 ; B.J. ii. 6. 3) ; and 
this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he 
could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine ; and the obsequi- 
ous Herod would not attempt to resist. 1 The value of such information would 
be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was 
adequate ; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine 
in the future. If he knew that Herod's health was failing, he would be anxious 
to get the information before Herod's death ; and thus the census would take 
place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of 
Herod. For "Clitse" we should read Kietai; Ramsay, Expositor, April, 1897. 

2. auTTj diroYpa<|>T) -rrpcoTT] iyivero. This may be accepted as 
certainly the true reading ; 2 and the meaning of it is not really 
doubtful. "This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was 
governor of Syria." The object of the remark is to distinguish 
the census which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem from the 
one undertaken by Q. in a.d. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor 
of Syria. But was he governor B.C. 4, when Herod died ? It is 
very difficult to establish this. 

From B.C. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor ; from B.C. 
6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until A.D. 6, 
when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the 
census mentioned Acts v. 37 and also by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 
1. 1, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, 
that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval 
between B.C. 4 and a.d. 6, and that his first term of office was 
b.c. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him 
between B.C. 9 and the death of Herod ; and, unless we can do 
that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian 
states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marc. 
iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun 
by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, 
Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born iirl 
Kvprjviov, and in one place states that this can be officially ascer- 
tained ck tw airoypa^wv twv yevofievwv (Apol. i. 34, 46 ; Dial. 

1 See the treatment to which Herod had to submit in the matter of Syllseu* 
(Jos. Ant. xvi. 9. 3, 4). t 

8 B (supported by 81, 131, 203) has avrrj airoypacpr} irpwr-r] eyivero. 
N has the impossible avrrjv airoypacprjv eyivero irpwrt}. 
D (supported by Orig-Lat.) has avrrj eyivero anoypacpy) irpdirr). 
Thus all three are against the i] before airoypa<t>T) inserted in A C L R 2. 


We must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is 
monstrous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake 
as to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole 
story about the census and Joseph's journey to Bethlehem is a 
fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business con- 
nected with enrolment might take Joseph to Bethlehem, and Lk. 
would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused 
this census with the one in a.d. 6, 7, which he himself mentions 
Acts v. 37, is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1) 
that a Roman census in Judaea at this time, in accordance with 
instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable; and (2) that 
some official connexion of Quirinius with Syria and the holding of 
this census is not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such that 
we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any 
statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far 
better to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade 
this by either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it. 

The following methods of tampering with the text have been suggested : to 
regard wpuTT] as a corruption of Trpwry <trei through the intermediate irponei. 
(Linwood) ; to insert irpb rrjs after eyevero (Michaelis) ; to substitute for Kv- 
pqvlov either KvivriXiov (Huetius), or KpoWoi^Saturnini (lleumann), or Zaroi/p- 
vivov (Valesius) ; to omit the whole verse as a gloss (Beza, Pfaff, Valckenaer). 
All these are monstrous. The only points which can be allowed to be doubtful 
in the text are the accentuation of avrij and the spelling of Kvprjvtov, to which 
may perhaps be added the insertion of the article. 

Among the various interpretations may be mentioned — 

(1) Giving irpCiTos a comparative force, as in Jn. i. 15, 3° " "This taxing 
took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Huschke, Ewald, Caspari) ; 
or, as €<rxd-TT] tCov vIlov i) fJ.v T VP eTeKeiTrjcre (2 Mac. vii. 41) means "The mother 
died last of all, and later than her sons," this may mean, " This took place as 
the first enrolment, and before Q. was governor of S." (Wieseler). But none of 
these passages are parallel : the addition of -rp/e/xovevovTos is fatal. When 
irpCiros is comparative it is followed by a simple noun or pronoun. It is 
incredible that Lk., if he had meant this, should have expressed it so clumsily. 

(2) Emphasizing iyivero, as in Acts xi. 28: "This taxing took effect, 
was carried out, when Q. was governor of S." (Gumpach, etc.) ; i.e. the decree 
was issued in Herod's time, and executed ten or twelve years later by Q. 
This makes nonsense of the narrative. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem to be 
enrolled, if no enrolment took place then ? There would be some point in 
saying that the census was finished, brought to a close, under Q., after having 
been begun by Herod ; but iytvero cannot possibly mean that. 

(3) Reading and accentuating avrij 17 diroypacp-q : "The raising of the tax 
itself (as distinct from the enrolment and assessment) first took place when Q.,"' 
etc. "Augustus ordered a census and it took place, but no money was raised 
until the time of Q." (Ebrard). This involves giving to a.iroypa<pr) in ver. 2 
a totally different meaning from airoypd<pe<rdcu in ver. I and diroypdij/affdai in 
ver. 5 ; which is impossible. 

(4) With avTrj 77 airoypa<pr), as before: "The census itself called the first 
took place when Q.," etc. The better known census under Q. was commonly 
regarded as the first Roman census in Judaea : Lk. reminds his readers that 
there had really been an earlier one (Godet). This is very forced, requires the 
insertion of the article, which is almost certainly an interpolation, and assumes 


that the census of A.D. 6, 7 was generally known as " ihe first census." From 
Acts v. 37 it appears that it was known as " the census": no previous or 
subsequent enrolment was taken into account. In his earlier edition Godet 
omitted the ij : in the third (1888) he says that this interpretation requires the 
article (i. p. 170). 

McClellan quotes in illustration of the construction : alrla St avrrj irpuiTTj 
eytvero rod iroKifiov (Thuc. i. 55. 3) ; avrrj tuiv irepi Qrjfias iyivero dpxv Kal 
KardcrTaais irpuTTj (Dem. 291. 10) ; rrpurrj fikv /j.r)vv<ns eytvero avrrj Kara rovrwv 
tQi> dvSpCiv (Andoc. iii. 5) ; avrrj rrpwrrj SrjfioreKrjs Kpiais iyivero operas rrpbs 
irXoOro v (Aristid. i. 124); and adds the curious remark that "the Holy Spirit 
would have us note that the Saviour of the World was registered in the first 
census of the World ! " 

TjYCfAO^u'orros rrjs Tupias KupTpiou. Like ^ye/xwv (xx. 20, 
xxi. 12, etc.) and r)yefxovia (iii. 1), the verb is generic, and may 
express the office of any ruler, whether emperor, propraetor, 
procurator, etc. It does not tell us that Quirinius was legatus 
in B.C. 4 as he was in a.d. 6. And it should be noted that Justin 
(see above) states that Quirinius was procurator (IrrirpoTvoi) at the 
time of this census (Apol. i. 34) ; and that in the only other 
place in which Lk. uses this verb he uses it of a. procurator (iii. 1). 
This gives weight to the suggestion that, although Varus was 
legatus of Syria at the time of the enrolment, yet Quirinius may 
have held some office in virtue of which he undertook this census. 
Lk. is probably not giving a mere date. He implies that 
Quirinius was in some way connected with the enrolment. For 
what is known about P. Sulpicius Quirinius see Tac. Ann. ii. 
30. 4, iii. 22. 1, 2, 23. 1, and esp. 48; Suet. Tib. xlix. Dion 
Cassius (liv. 48) calls him simply YIottXw; SovAttikios. But he 
was not really a member of the old patrician gens Sulpicia. The 
familiar word Quirinus (Kupivos) induced copyists and editors to 
substitute Quirinus for Quirinius. 

B has Kvpetvov, but there is no doubt that the name is Quirinius and not 
Quirinus. This is shown, as Furneaux points out in a note on Tac. Ann. ii. 
30. 4, by the MS. readings in Tacitus ; by the Greek forms Kvphios (Strabo, 
I2 > D > 5) 569) and Kvprjvios (here and Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1), and by Latin 
inscriptions (Orell. 3693, etc.). Quirinius is one of the earliest instances of a 
person bearing two gentile names. 

3. Kal eiropeuovTO irdrres aTroypd^eaGai, eKaorog eis ttji' cciutou 
iroXiy. The /cat looks back to ver. 1, ver. 2 being a parenthesis. 
The 7rdvT6s means all those in Palestine who did not reside at the 
seat of their family. A purely Roman census would have required 
nothing of the kind. If Herod conducted the census for the 
Romans, Jewish customs would be followed. So long as Augustus 
obtained the necessary information, the manner of obtaining it was 
immaterial. Where does Lk. place the death of Herod ? 

4. 'A^3t| Se Kal 'iworr)^ diro ttjs TaXiXaias ck ttoXcws Na£apeT 
For dee^T] comp. ver. 42, xviii. 31, xix. 28; Acts xi. 2; and for 


Se koi see on iii. 9. Note the change of prep, from wxo to Ik. 
But diro is used of towns (x. 30; Acts viii. 26, xiii. 14, xx. 17, 
etc.), and e* of districts (xxiii. 55 ; Acts vii. 4, etc.) ; so that there 
is no special point in the change, although it should be preserved 
in translation. Comp. Jn. i. 45 and xi. 1 ; also the e/c of Lk. 
xxi. 18 with the airo of Acts xxvii. 34. 

els -noKiv AaueiS. That Bethlehem was David's birthplace and 
original home is in accordance with 1 Sam. xvii. 12 ff. and xvii. 58 ; 
but both passages are wanting in LXX. In O.T. " the city of 
David " always means the fortress of Zion, formerly the stronghold 
of the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 7, 9; 1 Chron. xi. 5, 7), and in LXX 
77-oAis in this phrase commonly has the article. Bethlehem is about 
six miles from Jerusalem. Note that Lk. does not connect Christ's 
birth at Bethlehem with prophecy. 

Ijtis koAcItcu Bt]6\£€|i. In late Greek Saris is sometimes scarcely dis- 
tinguishable from fis : comp. Acts xvii. 10. But in ix. 30 (as in Acts xxiii. 14, 
xxviii. 18, and Eph. i. 23, which are sometimes cited as instances of 8aris = 
8s) there may be special point in Saris. Even here it may " denote an 
attribute which is the essential property of the antecedent," and may possibly 
refer to the meaning of Bethlehem. Comp. t6\iv nrlaas rav-rriv, i)Tts vvv 
Mt/xtfus KaXeTrai (Hdt. ii. 99. 7). 

BrjOXe^ji. " House of Bread " ; one of the most ancient 
towns in Palestine. It is remarkable that David did nothing 
for Bethlehem, although he retained affection for it (2 Sam. 
xxiii. 15); and that Jesus seems never to have visited it again, 
In Jn. vii. 42 it is called a Kwp.r), and no special interest seems 
to have attached to the place for many years after the birth of 
Christ. Hadrian planted a grove of Adonis there, which con- 
tinued to exist from a.d. 135 to 315. About 330 Constantine 
built the present church. D.B. 2 art. " Bethlehem." The modern 
name is Beit Lahm ; and, as at Nazareth, the population is almost 
entirely Christian. 

oikou k. -rraTpias. Both words are rather indefinite, and either 
may include the other. Here oTkos seems to be the more com- 
prehensive ; otherwise koL irarpia.% would be superfluous. Usually 
irarpid is the wider term. That a village carpenter should be able 
to prove his descent from David is not improbable. The two 
grandsons of S. Jude, who were taken before Domitian as 
descendants of David, were labourers (Eus. H. E. iii. 20. 1-8). 

5. diroypdij/acrGai. "To get himself enrolled." The aorist of 
his single act, the present (ver. 3) of a series of such acts. Both 
are middle, while diroypdcjieo-Oai in ver. 1 is probably passive. 
We must not take avv Mapid/x with aTroypdij/aa9ai : it belongs to 
dvifirj. It is essential to the narrative that she should go up with 
him ; it is not so that she should be enrolled with him. In a 
Roman census women paid the poll-tax, but were not obliged to 


come in person. That Mary had property in Bethlehem is a con- 
jecture which is almost disproved by her resourcelessness in the 
place. And if it was necessary for her to come, because she also 
was of David's line, would not Lk. have written 8ia to eTvai au-rous 
c£ olkov k. 7r. A. ? This reading is found in Syr-Sin. : " because 
they were both of the house of D." It is futile to argue that a 
woman in her condition would not have gone unless she was com- 
pelled : therefore Lk. represents her as being compelled : there- 
fore he has made a mistake. She would be anxious at all risks 
not to be separated from Joseph. Lk. does not even imply that 
her presence was obligatory ; and, if he had said that it was, we 
do not know enough about the matter to say whether he would 
have been wrong. Had there been a law which required her to 
remain at home, then Lk. might be suspected of an error. For 
aw see on i. 56. 

ttj efimrjoTeujiei'T] auTw, ouo-T] eyKu'w. The yvvaiKi of A, Vulg. 
Syr. and Aeth. is a gloss, but a correct one. Had she been only 
his betrothed (i. 27; Mt. i. 18), their travelling together would 
have been impossible. But by omitting yvvaiKt Lk. intimates 
what Mt. states i. 25. Syr-Sin. and some Latin texts have " wife " 
without "espoused." The ovarj introduces, not a mere fact, but 
the reason for what has just been stated ; he took her with 
him, "because she was with child." After what is related Mt. i. 19 
he would not leave her at this crisis. See on i. 24. 

6, 7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem. The Gospel of 
Pseudo-Matthe-iv (xiii.) represents the birth as taking place before 
Bethlehem is reached. So also apparently the Protevangelium 0/ 
fames (xvii.), which limits the decree of Augustus to those who 
lived at Bethlehem ! For €ir\r|o-0Yio-ai' see on i. 15 and 57. 

7. toc uibv auTrjs -roe irpcjTOTOKoi'. The expression might 
certainly be used without implying that there had been subsequent 
children. But it implies the possibility of subsequent children, 
and when Luke wrote this possibility had been decided. Would 
he have used such an expression if it was then known that Mary 
had never had another child ? He might have avoided all 
ambiguity by writing /xovoyevrj, as he does vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38. 
In considering this question the imperf. eyu/wo-Kcv (Mt. i. 25) has 
not received sufficient attention. See Mayor, Ep. of St. James, 
pp. xix-xxii. 

eo-Trapydvwo-ei' auToy. It has been inferred from her being able 
to do this that the birth was miraculously painless (tt/v avwhvov 
Kviqaiv, Euthym.), of which there is no hint. For the verb comp. 
ojxixX-rj avTj]v icnrapydvuxra, " I made thick darkness a swaddling 
band for it " (Job xxxviii. 9). 

iv <|>dTVT). The traditional rendering "in a manger" is right; 
not "a stall" either here or in xiii. 15. The animals were out at 


pasture, and the manger was not being used. Justin (Try. lxxviii.) 
and some of the apocryphal gospels say that it was in a cave, which 
is not improbable. In Origen's time the cave was shown, and the 
manger also (Con. Cels. i. 51). One suspects that the cave may 
be a supposed prophecy turned into history, like the vine in xix. 31. 
Is. xxxiii. 16 (outos oiKiqcrei iv vif/rjXw <nr7)\a.LU) 7rerpas o^vpas) was 
supposed to point to birth in a cave, and then the cave may have 
been imagined in order to fit it, just as the colt is represented as 
" tied to a vine" in order to make Gen. xlix. 1 1 a prediction of 
Lk. xix. 30-33 (Justin, Apol. i. 32). 

ouk y\v auTOis tottos iv tu Kcn-aXi/fian. Most of the Jews then 
residing in Palestine were of Judah or Benjamin, and all towns 
and villages of Judah would be very full. No inhospitality is 
implied. It is a little doubtful whether the familiar translation 
" in the inn " is correct. In x. 34 " inn " is iravSox^ov, and in 
xxii. 11 KaraXv^a is not "inn." It is possible that Joseph had 
relied upon the hospitality of some friend in Bethlehem, whose 
"guest-chamber," however, was already full when he and Mary 
arrived. See on xxii. 11. But KardXvfjia in LXX represents five 
different Heb. words, so that it must have been elastic in meaning. 
All that it implies is a place where burdens are loosed and let 
down for a rest. In Polybius it occurs twice in the plural : of 
the general's quarters (ii. 36. 1), and of reception rooms for envoys 
(xxxii. 19. 2). It has been suggested that the "inn" was the 
Geruth Chimham or "lodging-place of Chimham " (Jer. xli. 17), 
the [son] of Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 37, 38), " which was by 
Bethlehem," and convenient for those who would " go to enter into 
Egypt." See Stanley, Sin. 6° Pal. pp. 163, 529. Justin says 
that the cave was oweyyvs rr}<; Kwp^s, which agrees with " by 
Bethlehem." The Mandra of Josephus (Ant. x. 9. 5) was perhaps 
the same place as Geruth Chimham. Syr-Sin. omits " in the inn." 

8-14. The Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds : 7rrwx°t 
etiayyeAi^ovrai (vii. 22). It was in these pastures that David spent 
his youth and fought the lion and the bear (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35). 
" A passage in the Mishnah (Shek. vii. 4 ; comp. Baba K. vii. 7, 
80 a) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there 
were destined for Temple -sacrifices, and accordingly, that the 
shepherds who watched over them were not ordinary shepherds. 
The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their 
necessary isolation from religious ordinances and their manner of 
life, which rendered strict religious observance unlikely, if not 
absolutely impossible. The same Mischnic passage also leads us 
to infer that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are 
spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover — that is, 
in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is 
nearly greatest" (Edersh. L. & T. i. pp. 186, 187). For details of 


the life of a shepherd see D.B. art. " Shepherds," and Herzog, 
PRE: 1 art. " Viehzucht und Hirtenkben." 

8. dypauXoueres. Making the dypo's their avk-q, and so " spend- 
ing their life in the open air " : a late and rare word, whereas 
dypauXos is class. This statement is by no means conclusive 
against December as the time of the year. The season may have 
been a mild one ; it is not certain that all sheep were brought 
under cover at night during the winter months. 

It is of the flocks in the wilderness, far from towns or villages, that the often 
quoted saying was true, that they were taken out in March and brought home 
in November. These shepherds may have returned from the wilderness, and if 
so, the time would be between November and March. But the data for 
determining the time of year are so very insufficient, that after minute calculation 
of them all we are left in our original uncertainty. Among those who have 
made a special study of the question we have advocates for almost every month 
in the year. The earliest attempts to fix the day of which we have knowledge 
are those mentioned (and apparently condemned as profane curiosity) by 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, i. 21 sub fin.). In his time some took April 21, 
others April 22, and others May 20, to be the day. What was unknown in his 
time is not likely to have been discovered afterwards respecting such a detail. 
December 25th cannot be traced higher than the fourth century, and it seems to 
have been adopted first in the West. We must be content to _ remain in 
ignorance as to the date of the birth of Christ. See on tyy/xeplas i. 5 ; D. of 
Chr. Ant. art. "Christmas"; Andrews, L. of our Lord, pp. 12-21, ed. 1892. 

<f>u\<£<T<roi>T€s <t>u\ai<ds. The plural refers to their watching in 
turns rather than in different places. The phrase occurs Num. 
viii. 26; Xen. A nab. ii. 6. 10; but in LXX -rds <piAa*ds cj>vX. is 
more common; Num. hi. 7, 8, 28, 32, 38, etc. Comp. Plat. 
P/iiedr. 240 E; Laws, 758 D. The fondness of Lk. for such 
combinations of cognate words is seen again ver. 9, vii. 29, 
xvii. 24, xxii. 15, and several times in the Acts. See on xi. 46 and 
xxiii. 46. We may take t?}s vukto's after <pvAafcds, " night-watches," 
or as gen. of time, "by night." See Blass, 6>. p. 199. 

9. ayyeXos Kupi'ou eire'cm] au-rois. The notion of coming 
suddenly is not inherent in the verb, but is often derived from the 
context : see on ver. 38. 1 In N.T. the verb is almost peculiar to 
Lk., and almost always in 2nd aor. In class. Grk. also it is used 
of the appearance of heavenly beings, dreams, visions, etc. Horn. 
77. x. 496, xxiii. 106; Hdt. i. 34. 2, vii. 14. 1. Comp. Lk. xxiv. 4; 
Acts xii. 7, xxiii. 11. 

86|a Kupiou. The heavenly brightness which is a sign of the 
presence of God or of heavenly beings, 2 Cor. iii. 18 : comp. Lk. 
ix. 31, 32. In O.T. of the Shechinah, Exod. xvi. 7, 10. xxiv. 17, 

1 In Vulg. it is very variously translated : e.g. stare juxta (here), supervenire 
(ii. 38, xxi. 34), stare (iv. 39, x. 40, xxiv. 4), convenire (xx. 1), concurrere 
(Acts vi. 12), adstare (Acts x. 17, xi. II, xii. 7), adsistere (Acts xvii. 5, 
xxiii. 11), imminere (Acts xxviii. 2). 


xl. 34 ; Lev. ix. 6, 23 ; Num. xii. 8, etc. This glory, according to 
the Jews, was wanting in the second temple. 

10. 6 a-yYeXoq. The art. is used of that which has been mentioned before 
without the art. Comp. rb {3p£<pos and ry (pdrvr] in ver. 16. 

Mtj <f>of3€icT0€. Comp. i. 13, 30, v. 10; Mt. xiv. 27, xxviii. 5, io. 1 
For l8ou ydp see on i. 44. 

euayyeXi^ofjiai ujjlii/ x a P ay u.eyaXT]v. The verb is very freq. in 
Lk. and Paul, but is elsewhere rare ; not in the other Gospels 
excepting Mt. xi. 5, which is a quotation. See on i. 19. 

The act. occurs Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6; the pass. Lk. vii. 22, xvi. 16; Gal. 
i. 11 ; Heb. iv. 2, 6 ; 1 Pet. i. 25, iv. 6; the mid. is freq. with various 
constructions. As here, dat. of pers. and ace. of thing, i. 19, iv. 43 ; Acts 
viii. 35; ace. of thing only, viii. 1 ; Acts v. 42, viii. 4, 12?; ace. of person, 
iii. 18 ; Acts viii. 25, 40 ; ace. of person and of thing, Acts xiii. 32. 

TjTig Iotcu irawTi tu Xaw. " Which shall have the special char- 
acter of being for all the people." The ^n? has manifest point here 
(see on ver. 4) ; and the art. before Aaw should be preserved. A 
joy so extensive, may well banish fear. Comp. to Aaw, i. 68, 77, 
and rbv Xaov, vii. 16. In both these verses (9, 10) we have instances 
of Lk. recording intensity of emotion : comp. i. 42, viii. 37, 
xxiv. 52 ; Acts v. 5, n, xv. 3. Dat. after elfiC is freq. in Lk. 

11. eTe'xSrj crr]p.epoi> crwrqp. To the shepherds, as a part, 
and perhaps a specially despised part, of the people of Israel. 
Here first in N.T. is arwTrjp used of Christ, and here only in Lk. 
Not in Mt. or Mk., and only once in Jn. (iv. 42) : twice in Acts 
(v. 31, xiii. 23), and freq. in Tit. and 2 Pet. The 1st aor. of tiktw, 
both act. and pass., is rare : see Veitch. 

XpiCTTos Kupios. The combination occurs nowhere else in N.T., 
and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either " Messiah, Lord," or 
"Anointed Lord," or "the Messiah, the Lord," or "an anointed 
one, a Lord." It occurs once in LXX as a manifest mistranslation. 
Lam. iv. 20, "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the 
Lord," is rendered 7rv€vjxa irpoa-^irov ?//xcov Xpioros Kvpios. If this 
is not a corrupt reading, we may perhaps infer that the expres- 
sion Xpio-ros Kvptos was familiar to the translator. It occurs 
in the Ps. So/., where it is said of the Messiah kcu ovk Zo-tiv 
dSiKia iv Tats r)/xepai<; airov iv /Ae'crw avrihv, on 7ravres ayiot, *ceu 
/?ao-iAeus avriSv Xptcrros Kvpios (xvii. 36 : comp. the title of xviii.). 
But this may easily be another mistranslation, perhaps based on 

1 "This Gospel of Luke is scarce begun, we are yet but a little way in the 
second chapter, and we have already three noli timeres in it, and all, as here, 
at the coming of an Angel (i. 13, 30, ii. 10). . . . What was it? It was not 
the fear of an evil conscience ; they were about no harm. ... It is a plain 
sign our nature is fallen from her original ; Heaven and we are not in the terms 
we should be, not the best of us all" (Bishop Andrewes, Serin. V. On ih* 


that in Lam. iv. 20. Comp. ei7T€v 6 Ki'pios ™ Kvpiu fiov (Ps. ex. 1), 

and iTreKaXea-a/Jirjv Kupiov iraTtpa Kvpiov /xov (Ecclus. li. To). See 

Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. pp. 1 41-143. The addition of iv 
iroXei Aauei8 here indicates that this crwTijp is the King of Israel 
promised in the Prophets : see on ver. 4. 

12. Kal touto ufiLf to o-Tjixeiof. B H omit the to. Sign for what ? 
By which to prove that what is announced is true, rather than by 
which to find the Child. It was all-important that they should be 
convinced as to the first point ; about the other there would be no 
great difficulty. — euprjo-eTe |3pe'4>os. "Ye shall find a babe," "not 
the babe," as most English Versions and Luther ; Wiclif has " a 
yunge child." This is the first mention of it; in ver. 16 the art. is 
right. In N.T., as in class. Grk., fipecpos is more often a newly- 
born child (xviii. 15; Acts vii. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 2) than 
an unborn child (Lk. i. 41, 44); in LXX it is always the former 
(1 Mac. i. 61 ; 2 Mac. vi. 10 ; 3 Mac. v. 49 ; 4 Mac. iv. 25), unless 
Ecclus. xix. 11 be an exception. Aquila follows the same usage 
(Ps. viii. 3, xvi. 14; Is. lxv. 20). — io-napyavuiLevov <al Keifievov iv 
4>citct]. Both points are part of the sign. The first participle is 
no more an adjective than the second. No art. with (pdrvrj : the 
shepherds have not heard of it before. 

13. e'^n-js. 1 The fact that this is expressly stated here 
confirms the view that suddenness is not necessarily included in 
€7T£o-tt; (ver. 9). For vuv tw ayyik^ see on i. 56. — orpctTids. Magna 
appellatio. Hie exercitus tamen pacem laudat (Beng.). The 
genitive is partitive : " a multitude (no art.) forming part of the 
host." Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 19; 2 Chron. xviii. 18; Ps. ciii. 21 ; 
Josh. v. 15). — chcoui'twv. Constr. ad settsum. The whole host 
of heaven was praising God, not merely that portion of it which 
was visible to the shepherds. The verb is a favourite with Lk. 
(ver. 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53?; Acts ii. 47, iii. 8, 9). Elsewhere 
only Rom. xv. 11 (from Ps. cxvii. 1) and Rev. xix. 5; very freq. 
in LXX. 

14. Ao'£a . . . edSoKi'as. The hymn consists of two members 
connected by a conjunction ; and the three parts of the one mem- 
ber exactly correspond with the three parts of" the other member. 

Glory to God in the highest, 
And on earth peace among men of His good will. 
Ao£a balances dpijvr], iv in/ao-Tois balances £7ri y^s, ©e<p balances ey 
dv#p<jj7rois eiSo/aas. This exact correlation between the parts is 
lost in the common triple arrangement ; which has the further 
awkwardness of having the second member introduced by a con- 

1 The word is thus written in the best texts here and ix. 39 : comp. £<pvl5iot, 
xxi. 34 ; Keptav, xvi. 17 ; Kpeird\-q, xxi. 34 (WII. App. pp. 150, 151). In class. 
Grk. ovpdvLos is of three terminations ; but the true reading here may be ovpavoi 


junction, 1 while the third is not, and of making the second and 
third members tautological. " On earth peace " is very much the 
same as "Good will amongst men." Yet Scrivener thinks that "in 
the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the 
third refers to both those preceding, and alleges the efficient cause 
which has brought God glory and earth peace" {Int. to Crit. oj 
N.T. ii. p. 344) ; which seems to be very forced. The construction 
iv avOpunrois €vSo/aas is difficult ; but one of the best of modern Greek 
scholars has said that it " may he translated ' among men of His 
counsel for good ' or ' of His gracious purpose.' This rendering 
seems to be in harmony with the preceding context and with the 
teaching of Scripture in general " (T. S. Evans, Contemp. Rev., 
Dec. 1 88 1, p. 1003). WH. take a similar view. They prefer, 
among possible meanings, " in (among and within) accepted man- 
kind," and point out that " the Divine ' favour ' (Ps. xxx. 5, 7, 
Ixxxv. 1, lxxxix. 17, cvi. 4) or 'good pleasure,' declared for the 
Head of the race at the Baptism (iii. 22), was already contemplated 
by the Angels as resting on the race itself in virtue of His birth " 
(ii. App. p. 56, where the whole discussion should be studied). 
H. suggests that the first of the two clauses should end with cVl 
y»7s rather than ©ew, and that we should arrange thus : " Glory 
to God in the highest and on earth ; Peace among men of His 
good pleasure." With the construction of this first clause he com- 
pares vii. 17 and Acts xxvi. 23 : " Glory to God not only in heaven, 
but now also on earth." " In this arrangement ' glory ' and ' peace ' 
stand severally at the head of the two clauses as twin fruits of the 
Incarnation, that which redounds to ' God ' and that which enters 
into ' men.' " This division of the clauses, previously commended 
by Olshausen, makes the stichometry as even as in the familiar 
triplet, but it has not found many supporters. It destroys the 
exact correspondence between the parts of the two clauses, the 
first clause having three or four parts, and the second only two. 
W. here leaves H. to plead alone. 

eu'SoKias. The word has three meanings : (1) " design, desire," 
as Ecclus. xi. 17; Rom. x. 1; (2) "satisfaction, contentment," as 
Ecclus. xxxv. 14; 2 Thes. i. 11; (3) " benevolence, goodwill," as 
Ps. cvi. 4 ; Lk. ii. 14. Both it and cvSokuv are specially used of 
the favour with which God regards His elect, as Ps. cxlvi. 1 2 ; 
Lk. iii. 22. The meaning here is " favour, goodwill, good pleasure" ; 
and avdpwTroi €v8oKLa<; are " men whom the Divine favour has 
blessed." See Lft. on Phil. i. 15. Field (Otium Norv. iii. p. 37) 
urges that, according to Graeco-biblical usage, this would be, not 
aeOpuiroi ei'So/a'as, but a^Spes evSoKias, and he appeals to nine ex- 
amples in LXX. But two-thirds of them are not in point, being 
singulars, and having reference to a definite adult male and not to 
1 Syr-Sin. inserts a second "and " before "goodwill to man." 


human beings in general. These are 2 Sam. xvi. 7, xviii. 20 ; Ps. 
lxxx. 18; Jer. xv. 10; ibid. Aq.; Dan. x. n. There remain dvSpes 
/3ouA?}s /xov, Ps. cxix. 24, Aq. ; ol dVSpes tt}s Sia^^/c^s crov, Obad. 7; 
uVSpc? elprjviKOL crov, Obad. 7. This last is again not parallel, as being 
accompanied by an adj. and not a gen. Substitute dvSpes atju.arwv, 
Ps. cxxxviii. 19. Of these instances, all necessarily refer to adult 
males, excepting Aq. in Ps. cxix. 24, and this more naturally does 
so, for "counsellors" are generally thought of as male. But, 
allowing that the usual expression would have been dvBpdcnv 
evSoKias, this might well have been avoided here in order to em- 
phasize the fact that all, male and female, young and old, are 
included. Even in the case of an individual S. Paul writes 6 dv- 
fyxjTros ttJs di'op.i'as (2 Thes. ii. 3), so that the combination is at 
any rate possible. See on Rom. x. 1. 

The reading is a well-known problem, but the best textual critics are 
unanimous for evooKtas. The internal evidence is very evenly balanced, as 
regards both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, which are well stated 
and estimated in WH. (ii. App. pp. 55, 56). The external evidence is very 
decidedly in favour of the apparently more difficult reading evdoKlas. Roughly 
speaking, we have all the best MSS. (excepting C, which is here defective), 
with all Latin authorities, against the inferior MSS., with nearly all versions, 
except the Latin, and nearly all the Greek writers who quote the text. Syr- 
Sin, has " and goodwill to men." 

For eidodas, N* A B D, Latt.- (Vet. Vulg.) Goth. Iren-Lat. Orig-Lat. 
and the Lat. Gloria in excelsis. 

For evdoKia, LPTAAS, etc., Syrr. (Pesh. Sin. Hard.) Boh. Arm. 
Aeth. Orig. Eus. Bas. Greg-Naz. Cyr-Hier. Did. Epiph. Cyr-Alex. 

" The agreement, not only of K with B, but of D and all the Latins with 
both, and of A with them all, supported by Origen in at least one work, and 
that in a certified text, affords a peculiarly strong presumption in favour of 
eudo/a'as. If this reading is wrong, it must be Western ; and no other reading 
in the New Testament open to suspicion as Western is so comprehensively 
attested by the earliest and best uncials" (WH. p. 54). The vehemence with 
which Scrivener argues against evdoiclas is quite out of place. 

15-20. The Verification by the Shepherds. 

15. eXdXouc -rrpos d\\r|\ou9 Aie'XQwjiei' 8r). "They repeatedly 
said unto one another, Come then let us go over," or " Let us at 
once go across." The compound verb refers to the intervening 
country (Acts ix. 38, xi. 19, xviii. 27), and the Sij makes the 
exhortation urgent. Lk. is fond of Scepx^o-Qat, which occurs thirty 
times in his writings and less than ten elsewhere in N.T. In LXX 
it is very freq. Note ws= " when." 

to pf|(jLa toCto. This need not be limited to the saying of the 
Angel. It is rather the thing of which he spoke : see on i. 65. In 
class. Grk. Adyos is used in a similar manner; e.g. Hdt. i. 21. a. 
Videamus hoc verbum quod factum est (Vulg.). 

16. TJ\6av o-ireutravTes itai avevpav. For these mixed forms of the aor. 
see on i. 59. Lk, alone in N.T. uses airevdeiv in its class, intrans. sense (xij. 


5, 6; Acts xx. 16, xxii. 18). In 2 Pet. iii. 12 it is trans, as in Is. xvi. 5. 

Lk. alone uses avevplcriceiv (Acts xxi. 4), but the mid. occurs 4 Mac. iii. 14: 
2nd aor. in all three cases. The compound implies a search in order to find. 
In his Gospel Lk. never uses re without kclL (xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. 11, etc.). 
Here both Ppe<pos and (pdrvrj, having been mentioned before, have the article. 

17. ey^wpia-ae. " They made known," not merely to Mary and 
Joseph, but to the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally. Both in 
N.T. and LXX yvtopifa is commonly trans. ; but in Phil. i. 22 and 
Job xxxiv. 25, as usually in class. Grk., it is in trans. Vulg. makes 
it intrans. here : cognoverunt de verbo quod dictum erat Mis de puero 
hoc. But ver. 18 makes this very improbable. 

18. TrdcTes 01 dKouo-arres. See on i. 66. This probably includes 
subsequent hearers, just as ver. 19 includes a time subsequent to the 
departure of the shepherds. The constr. iQau^acrav -n-epi is unusual. 
But in English "about," which is common after "perplexed," might 
easily be transferred to such a word as " astonished." 

19. r\ 8e Mapia irdrra cruven^pei to. pf^fiaTa TauTa. " But Mary" 
could have no such astonishment ; neither did she publish her 
impressions. The revelations to Joseph and herself precluded 
both. Note the change from momentary wonder (aor.) to sus- 
tained reticence (imperf.): also that iravra is put before the verb 
with emphasis. Comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xxxix. 2. — auv^dWovaa 
iv -rfj KapSia aorr)9. Conferens in corde suo. From whom could 
Lk. learn this? The verb is peculiar to him (xiv. 31 ; Acts iv. 15 ; 
xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14). See small print note on i. 66. 

20. oo£d£o»res *ai aifourres. The latter is the more definite 
word. The former is one of the many words which have acquired 
a deeper meaning in bibl. Grk. Just as S6$a in bibl. Grk. never 
(except 4 Mac. v. 18) has the class, meaning of " opinion," but 
rather "praise" or "glory," so Sofd^o) in bibl. Grk. never means 
''form an opinion about," but "praise" or "glorify." It is used 
of the honour done by man to man ( 1 Sam. xv. 30), by man to God 
(Exod. xv. 2), and by God to man (Ps. xci. 15). It is also used of 
God glorifying Christ (Acts iii. 13), a use specially common in Jn. 
(viii. 54, xi. 4, etc.), and of Christ gloryfying God (xvii. 4). See 
on Rom. i. 21. For the combination comp. atv€rov kcu SeSofcur- 
fievov (Dan. iii. 26, 55). For see on ver. 13. 

■naaiv ols. For the attraction see on iii. 19. If r\K.ou<rav refers 
to the angelic announcement, then ko.Q<1>s refers to elSov only. But 
rjKovaav koI cTSov may sum up their experiences at Bethlehem, 
which were a full confirmation (Ka#ak= " even as, just as ") of what 
the Angel had said. Syr-Sin. omits kcu cuvouvres and iraaiv. 

Schleiermacher points out that, if this narrative had been a mere poetical 
composition, we should have had the hymn of the shepherds recorded and more 
extensive hymns assigned to the Angels {S. Luke, Eng. tr. p. 31). He regards 
the shepherds as the probable source of the narrative ; " for that which to them 
was most material and obvious, the nocturnal vision in the fields, is the only 


circumstance treated in detail " (p. 33). But any narrator would give the vision, 
and could hardly give it more briefly without material loss. The brevity of it, 
especially when contrasted with the apocryphal gospels, is strong guarantee for 
its truth. How tempting to describe the search for the Babe and the conversa- 
tion between the parents and the shepherds ! Of the myth-hypothesis Weiss 
rightly says that "it labours in vain to explain the part played here by the 
shepherds by means of the pastoral tales of the ancients, and is driven to drag 
in, awkwardly enough, the legends of Cyrus and Romulus" {Leben Jesu, i. 2. 
4, note, Eng. tr. p. 255). As for the old rationalism, which explained the 
angelic vision by ignis fatuus or other phosphoric phenomena, which travellers 
have said to be common in those parts ; " the more frequent such phenomena, 
the more familiar must shepherds above all men, accustomed to pass their nights 
the whole summer long in the open air, have been with them, and the less likely 
to consider them as a sign from heaven pointing at a particular event" 
(Schleierm. p. 36). 

21-40. The Circumcision and the Presentation in the Temple. 

This forms the third and last section in the second group of 
narratives (i. 57-ii. 40) in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). 
It corresponds to the Visitation (i. 39-56) in the first group. Its 
very marked conclusion has close resemblance to i. 80 and ii. 52 
See introductory note to vv. 1-20 (p. 46). The absence of parallel 
passages in the other Gospels shows that at first this portion of the 
Gospel narrative was less well known. An oral tradition respect- 
ing the childhood of the Christ (when hardly anyone suspected that 
He was the Christ) would be much less likely to arise or become 
prevalent than an oral tradition respecting the ministry and cruci- 
fixion. We can once more trace a threefold division, viz. a longer 
narrative between two very short ones : the Circumcision (21), the 
Presentation in the Temple (22-38), and the Return to Home Life 
at Nazareth (39, 40). 

21. The Circumcision. The verse contains an unusual number 
of marks of Lk.'s style. 1. Kat ore {vv. 22, 42, vi. 13, xxii. 14, 
xxiii. 33); 2. irXrjdi.iv (twenty-two times in Lk. and Acts, and 
thrice elsewhere in N.T.) ; see on i. 57 ; 3. rov c. infin. to express 
aim or purpose (i. 74, 77, 79, ii. 24, iv. 10, v. 7, viii. 5, etc.); 
see on i. 74; 4. Kat introducing the apodosis (v 1, 12, 17, vii. 12, 
ix. 51, etc.); 5. o-uA.Aa/*./3a'vetv (eleven times in Lk. and Acts, and 
five times elsewhere). See on v. 1. 

21. too -rrepi.Teu.ei> auToV. There being no art. with -rjfxipai 
(contrast ver. 22), we cannot, as in ver. 6 and i. 57, make the gen. 
depend on at r)jxipai or 6 ^povos. The m™ does not take the 
place of the art. As Jesus was sent "in the likeness of sinful 
flesh" (Rom. viii. 3), and "it behoved Him in all things to be 
made like unto His brethren" (Heb. ii. 17), He underwent cir- 
cumcision. He was "born under the law" (Gal. iv. 4), and ful- 
filled the law as a loyal son of Abraham. Had He not done so, 
ovk av oAws 7rapi8i)(6r] SiSoVkgdv, dAA.' d7re7re/A<£#?; av a>s dX\6<f>v\ot 


(Euthym.) His circumcision was a first step in His obedience to 
the will of God, and a first shedding of the redeeming blood. It 
was one of those things which became Him, in order " to fulfil all 
righteousness" (Mt. iii. 15). The contrast with the circumcision 
of the Baptist is marked. Here there is no family gathering of 
rejoicing neighbours and kinsfolk. Joseph and Mary are strangers 
in a village far from home. Hastings, D.C.G. i. p. 331. 

The reading rb iraidiov (DEGH) for avrov (X A B R 2 and versions) prob- 
ably arose from this being the beginning of a lection, " Him" being changed 
to "the child" (AV.) for greater clearness. The same kind of thing has 
been done at the beginning of many of the Gospels in the Book of Common 
Prayer, "Jesus" being substituted for "He" or "Him": e.g. the Gospels 
for the 6th, 9th, nth, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Sundays after 

teal eK\rj0r). The kcu is almost our "then" and the German 
da : but it may be left untranslated. It introduces the apodosis, 
as often in Grk., and esp. in Lk. This is simpler than to explain 
it as a mixture of two constructions, " When eight days were ful- 
filled . . . He was called " and " Eight days were fulfilled . . . 
and He was called" (Win. liii. 3. f, p. 546, lxv. 3. c, p. 756). 
Comp. Acts i. 10. " He was also called" is not likely to be right. 
The Vulgate and Luther are right. Et postqaam consummati sunt 
dies octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus. Und da 
acht Tage um waren, dass das Kind beschnitten wiirde, da ward sein 
Name genannt Jesus. This passage, with that about John the Baptist 
(i. 59), is the chief biblical evidence that naming was connected 
with circumcision : comp. Gen. xvii. 5, 10. Among the Romans 
the naming of girls took place on the eighth day : of boys on the 
ninth. The purification accompanied it ; and hence the name dies 
lustricus. Tertullian uses nominalia of the naming festival {Idol. 
xvi. 1). Among the Greeks the naming festival was on the tenth 
day ; Sekcitt/v ecr-riav or 6vuv. 

o-vMruA^G-rivai This and corresponding forms, such as \rifx\pofiai, irpocru- 
iro\i)p.ipla, and the like, are abundantly attested in good MSS. both of LXX 
and of N.T See oni. 31. KOt\ta= "womb "is specially freq. in Lk. 

22-38. The Purification and the Presentation in the Temple. 
Here also we have a triplet. The Ceremony (22-24); Symeon 
and the Nunc Dimittis (25-35); and Anna the Prophetess (36-38). 
Symeon and Anna, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, with those spoken 
of in ver. 38, are evidence that Judaism was still a living religion 
to those who made the most of their opportunities. 

22. at rjue'pai tou k. Lev. xii. 6. Lk. is fond of these peri- 
phrases, which are mostly Hebraistic. Comp. r) yfiipa tw o-afifid- 


twv (iv. 16), or rov crafifidTOv (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5), 17 ^//.e'pa twv 
u^v/xoiv (xxii. 7), and the like. 

toO Ka9apio-fjiou ail-raW. " Of their purification." The Jewish 
law (Lev. xii.) did not include the child in the purification. This 
fact, and the feeling that least of all could Jesus need purifying, 
produced the corrupt reading avrrj^, followed in AV. 

No uncial and perhaps only one cursive (76) supports the reading a.vT?jt, 
which spread from the Complutensian Polyglott Bible (1514) to a number of 
editions. It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no 
authority becoming widely adopted. It now has the support of Syr-Sin. 
The Complutensian insertion of 8irjp9pu0ri after 17 yX&aaa avrov in i. 64 was 
less successful, although that has the support of two cursives (140, 251). 
D here has the strange reading avrov, which looks like a slip rather than a 
correction. No one would alter avrQv to avrov. The Vulgate also has 
purgationis ejus, but some Lat. MSS. have ecru?n. The avrrjs might come 
from LXX of Lev. xii. 6, 6rav dvairX^pwdwo-iv al r]ti(pai KaOapcrews avrijs. 
Note that Lk. uses Ka6a.pio-fj.6s and not nddapcns, which is a medical term for 
menstruation, and which Gentile readers might misunderstand. 

The meaning of avrwv is not clear. Edersheim and Van Hengel 
interpret it of the Jews ; Godet, Meyer, and Weiss of Mary and 
Joseph. The latter is justified by the context : " When the days 
of their purification were fulfilled . . . they brought Him." Con- 
tact with an unclean person involved uncleanness. Purification 
after childbirth seems to have been closely connected with purifica- 
tion after menstruation; the rites were similar. Herzog, PRE? 
art. Reinignngen. After the birth of a son the mother was unclean 
for seven days, then remained at home for thirty-three days, and on 
the fortieth day after the birth made her offerings. 

Kcrra iw vo\iov Mojuo-e'cos. These words must be taken with what 
precedes, for the law did not require them to bring Him to Jeru- 
salem (Lev. xii. 1-8). We have already had several places in 
ch. i. (vv. 8, 25, 27) in which there are amphibolous words or 
phrases: comp. viii. 39, ix. 17, 18, 57, x. 18, xi. 39, xii. 1, xvii. 22, 
xviii. 31, xix. 37, xxi. 36, etc. 

The trisyllabic form Muvo-rjs is to be preferred to Mwj-ijs. The name is 
said to be derived from two Egyptian words, mo = " water," and ugai = " to 
be preserved." Hence the LXX, a version made in Egypt, and the best 
MSS. of the N.T., which in the main represent the text of the N.T. that was 
current in Egypt, keep nearest to the Egyptian form of the name by preserving 
the v. Josephus also has Muvarjs. But Muarjs is closer to the Hebrew form 
of the name, and is the form most commonly used by Greek and Latin writer!. 
Win. v. 8, p. 47. 

d^ayo^. One of Lk.'s favourite words (iv. 5, viii. 22, and 
often in Acts). It is here used of bringing Him up to t/ie capital, 
like avaficuvovTUiv in ver. 43. In the literal sense they went down \ 
for Bethlehem stands higher than Jerusalem. This journey is the 
first visit of the Christ to His own city. 


'lepoCTo'\u|i.a. In both his writings Lk. much more often uses 
the Jewish form 'IepoucraA^'/z (vv. 25, 38, 41, 43, 45, etc.), which 
Mt. uses only once (xxiii. 37), and Mk. perhaps not at all (? xi. 1). 
Jn. uses the Greek form in his Gospel, and the Jewish form in the 
Apocalypse. The Jewish form is used wherever the name is not 
a geographical term, but has a specially religious signification (Gal. 
iv. 25 ; Heb. xii. 22). The Greek form is neut. plur. In Mt. ii. 3 
it may be fern. ; but perhaps irSo-a fj 7ro\is was in the writer's mind. 
Neither form should have the aspirate, which a " false association 
with iepoV has produced (WH. ii. 313; App. p. 160). This visit 
to Jerusalem probably preceded the arrival of the Magi, after which 
Joseph and Mary would hardly have ventured to bring Him to the 
city. If this is correct, we must abandon the traditional view that 
the Epiphany took place on the thirteenth day after the Nativity. 
There is no improbability in Joseph's going back to Bethlehem 
for a while before returning to Nazareth. See Andrews, Life of our 
Lord, p. 92, ed. 1892; Swete, The Apostles' Creed, p. 50, ed. 1894. 

In any case the independence of Mt. and Lk. is manifest, for we do not 
know how to harmonize the accounts. Lk. seems to imply that " the law of 
Moses" was kept in all particulars; and if so, the purification did not take 
place before the fortieth day. Mt. implies that the flight into Egypt took 
place immediately after the visit of the Magi (ii. 14). As Bethlehem is so 
close to Jerusalem, Herod would not wait long for the return of the Magi 
before taking action. We adopt, therefore, as a tentative order the Presenta- 
tion on the fortieth day, Return to Bethlehem, Visit of the Magi, Flight into 
Egypt, without any return to Nazareth. 

Trapacrrrjo-ai tw Kupiw. The Heb. verb in Ex. xiii. 12 means 
" cause to pass over." It is elsewhere used of parents causing their 
children to pass through the fire in offering them to Moloch, but is 
not then translated by irapLcrrrj/xi (Deut. xviii. 10; 2 Kings xvi. 3, 
xvii. 17, xxiii. 10, etc.). For Trapaa-rrjcraL of offering to God comp. 
Rom. xii. 1. This irapao-^rjcrai tw Kvp'up is quite distinct from the 
purification, which concerned Ihe mother, whereas the presentation 
concerned the son. It is evident that the presentation is the main 
fact here. Not, " she came to offer a sacrifice," but " they brought 
Him up to present Him to the Lord," is the principal statement. 
The latter rite points back to the primitive priesthood of all first- 
born sons. Their functions had been transferred to the tribe of 
Levi (Num. iii. 12); but every male firstborn had to be redeemed 
from service in the sanctuary by a payment of five shekels (Num. 
xviii. 15, 16), as an acknowledgment that the rights of Jehovah 
had not lapsed. This sum would be about twelve shillings accord- 
ing to the present wor' h of that amount of silver, but in purchasing 
power would be nearlv double that. 

23. The quotation ' which is not a parenthesis) is a combination of Ex. 
xui. 2 with Ex. xiii. 12 ind is not exact with either : icX.T]0iicr€Ta.i a-y. perhaps 
Comes from Ex. xii. 16 comp. Lk. i. 35. For irav apcrtv see Gen. vii. 23 ; 


Ex. i. 22. The SiavoiYov piTpav seems to be fatal to patristic speculations 
respecting Mary's having given birth to the Christ clauso idero, and therefore 
painlessly : see on ver. 7. 

Excepting Mk. vii. 34, diavolyw is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 31, 45 ; Acts vii. 
56, xvi. 14, xvii. 3) ; freq. in LXX (Gen. iii. 5, 7 ; Exod. xiii. 15 ; Num. iii. 
12, etc.). 

24. tou Souku 0ucriai>. See on i. 74, and to the reff. there given 
add v. 7, viii. 5, ix. 51, xii. 42, xxi. 22, xxii. 6, 31, xxiv. 16, 25, 29, 
45. This is Mary's offering for her own purification : it has nothing 
to do with the ransom of the firstborn. The record of the offerings 
is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend 
would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by 
saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed not to bring 
the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. 

£euyos Tpvyovutv. The offering of the poor. It has been argued 
that this is evidence that the Magi had not yet come. But their 
gifts, even if they had already offered them, would not have raised 
Mary's condition from poverty to riches. Only well-to-do people 
offered a lamb and a pigeon. Neither here nor elsewhere in N.T. 
have we any evidence that our Lord or His parents were among 
the abjectly poor. 

"The pigeon and turtle-dove were the only birds enjoined to be offered in 
sacrifice by the law of Moses. In almost every case they were permitted as a 
substitute for those who were too poor to provide a kid or a lamb. . . . But 
while the turtle-dove is a migrant, and can only be obtained from spring to 
autumn, the wild pigeons remain throughout the year ; and not only so — they 
have young at all times. Consequently, at any time of the year when the turtle- 
dove was unattainable, young pigeons might be procured. There is also a force 
in the adjective 'young' ; for while the old turtle-dove could be trapped, it was 
hopeless to secure the old pigeon " (Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the B. pp. 21 1, 213). 

25-35. The Benediction of Symeon. He and Anna are repre- 
sentatives of the holiness which, in a time of great spiritual deadness, 
still survived among the men and women of Israel. They are 
instances of that "spontaneous priesthood" which sometimes 
springs up, and often among the lower orders, when the regular 
clergy have become corrupt and secularized. To identify Symeon 
with any other Symeon is precarious, the name being exceedingly 
common. He is introduced rather as an unknown person (avOpwrro'i 
r)v). It is sometimes said that Symeon, son of Hillel and father of 
Gamaliel, would hardly have been old enough ; he was president 
of the Sanhedrin a.d. 13. But ver. 29 does not necessarily imply 
that Symeon is very old. What we know of the Sanhedrin at this 
period, however, does not lead us to expect to find saints among 
its presidents. In the Gospel of Nicodemus he is called sacerdos 
magnus, and it is his two sons who are raised from the dead by 
Christ, and reveal what they have seen in Hades {Pars altera, 
A. i.). 



25. eV 'lepoucra\r)|jL It is remarkable that with one excep- 
tion (Rom. xv. 26) this expression is used in N.T. by no one 
but Lk., who has it very often (ver. 43, ix. 31; Acts i. 8, ii. 5, 
vi. 7, ix. 13, 21, x. 39, xiii. 27, xvi. 4, xxi. n). In LXX it is 
common. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 316. 

euXa-PTJs. The word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts ii. 5, 
viii. 2, xxii. 12): lit. "taking hold well," and so "cautious." Lat. 
timoratus (Vulg.), timetis (e), metuens (d), timens deum (r). 
Plutarch uses evXdfieia. in the sense of " carefulness about religious 
duties, piety " ; but €v\aj3rj<; is not thus used in class. Grk. We 
find the combination of these same two adjectives, 6Y/«zios and 
ev\a/3i]<;, twice in Plato's sketch of the ideal statesman. He ought 
to have both moderation and courage ; and of moderation the two 
chief elements are justice and circumspection. If he is merely 
courageous, he will be wanting in to hUaiov /cat evXafiis (Polit. 
311 B). See also Philo, Quis rer. div. heer. vi., of the evXd/3eia of 
Abraham. The meaning of the combination here is that Symeon 
svas conscientious, especially in matters of religion. 

irpoa8exoV ev ' 5 ( see on xxiii. 51) impaicX-rio-iy. i. "Appeal for 
help"; 2. "encouragement"; 3. "consolation." The last is the 
meaning here. Those who " sit in darkness and the shadow of 
death" (i. 79) need consolation; and the salvation which the 
Messiah was to bring was specially called such by the Jews 
Comp. "Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people" (Is. xl. 1, xlix. 13, 
li. 3, lxi. 2, lxvi. 13). There was a belief that a time of great 
troubles (dolores Messiee) would precede the coming of the Christ. 
Hence the Messiah Himself was spoken of as " the Consoler," or 
"the Consolation." Comp. Joseph of Arimathgsa, "who was wait- 
ing for the kingdom of God" (xxiii. 51; Mk. xv. 43); and with 
this " waiting " or " looking " of Symeon and Joseph comp. Jacob's 
death-song, Gen. xlix. 18. 

weGfia rjv ayio»\ This is the order of the words in the best 
authorities ; and the separation of dyiov from 7rvevfxa by ty accentu- 
ates the difference between this expression and that in the next 
verse. Here the meaning is, " an influence which was holy was 
upon him " ; i. 15, 35, 41, 67 are not parallel. See on i. 15. The 
accusative, eV avTov, indicates the coming, rather than the resting, 
of the holy influence ; the prophetic impulse. 

26. KexP T lM• aT| • 'H' € ' , ' 0, '• The act. = 1. "transact business" 
(xprjfia); 2. "give a divine response" to one who consults an 
oracle ; 3. " give a divine admonition, teach from heaven " (Jer. 
xxv. 30, xxxiii. 2 ; Job xl. 8). The pass, is used both of the 
admonition divinely given, as here, and of the person divinely 
admonished (Mt. ii. 12, 22 ; Acts x. 22 ; Heb. viii. 5, xi. 7). It is 
gratuitous to conjecture that it was in a dream that the Holy Spirit 
made this known to Symeon. Comp. Acts xi. 26; Rom. vii. 3, 


fi-f) iSeiv 0. irplv fj av i8t ( . This is the only example in N.T. of irplv 
with the subj. (Win. xli. 3. b, p. 371) ; and, if the reading is correct, the only 
instance of irplv &v : but perhaps either ij or &v should be omitted. The repe- 
tition of " see " is doubtless intentional. In many languages "see" is used 
of any kind of experience (Acts ii. 27, 31, xiii. 35-37, etc.). 

tov Xpunw Kupiou. " The Anointed of the Lord " ; Him whom 
God has sent as the Messiah. Comp. tov Xp. roi; ©eou (ix. 20), 
and also 1 Sam. xxiv. 7. 

27. eV tw ■n-i'eufia-ri. Not " in a state of ecstasy" (Rev. i. 10), 
but " under the influence of the Spirit," who had told him of the 
blessing in store for him. By t6 UpoV is probably meant the Court 
of the Women. — iv tw €icraYaYei>. " After they had brought in " : 
see on iii. 21. The verb is a favourite with Lk. (xiv. 21, xxii. 54, 
and six times in Acts) : elsewhere only Jn. xviii. 16; Heb. i. 6. 

tous yovels. We cannot infer from this that either here or 
ver. 41 Luke is using an authority that was ignorant of the super- 
natural birth of Jesus. It is more reasonable to suppose that the 
whole of this " Gospel of the Infancy " comes from one source, 
viz. the house of Mary, and that in these passages the narrator 
employs the usual expression. Joseph (iv. 22) and Mary were 
commonly called His parents : comp. ver. 33. — It is possible 
to take irepl au-rou after vo/xou or after eWicr/xivov ; but more prob- 
ably it belongs to tot) 7roi^crat. For Kara to ciflio-p.eVoi' see on i. 8. 

28. Kal auTo's. First the parents, and then he holds the child in 
his arms ; the /ecu being either " also " (he as well as they), or simply 
introducing the apodosis after iv tw daayaytiv. Each side acts its 
proper part. The parents bring Him in accordance with the Divine 
Law, and Symeon welcomes Him in accordance with the Divine 
impulse. Symeon is sometimes called ©eoSdxos. See on viii. 13. 

Latin renderings of ayndXas vary: ufrias (Vu\g.), manus (cef), amplexum 
(a), alas (d). The last is a late use of a/a. 

29-32. The Nunc Dimittis. In its suppressed rapture and 
vivid intensity this canticle equals the most beautiful of the 
Psalms. Since the fifth century it has been used in the evening 
services of the Church (Apost. Const, vii. 48 1 ), and has often been 
the hymn of dying saints. It is the sweetest and most solemn of 
all the canticles. See Bacon's Essay on Death. 

Symeon represents himself as a servant or watchman released 
from duty, because that for which he was commanded to watch has 
appeared. Comp. the opening of the Agamemnon of ^Eschylus, 

1 Most of the canticles from O.T. and N.T. were said at Lauds both in East 
and West. But the Magnificat was transferred in the West to Vespers, and the 
Nunc Dimittis seems to have been always used in the evening, in the East at 
Vespers, in the West at Compline. Kraus, Real.-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. p. 506; 
Bingham, Orig. vi. 47. 

68 the gospel according to s. Luke [it. 29-31. 

where the sentinel rejoices at his release from the long watch for 
the fire signal respecting the capture of Troy. 

29. vov. " Now that I have at last seen the long-looked for 
Messiah " : the vvv stands first with emphasis. 

d-n-oXu'eis t. 8oi)\oV a., Se'criTOTa. All three words show that the 
figure is that of the manumission of a slave, or of his release from 
a long task. Death is the instrument of release. 'AttoXvw is used 
of the deaths of Abraham (Gen. xv. 2), of Aaron (Num. xx. 29), of 
Tobit (Tob. iii. 6), of a martyr (2 Mac. vii. 9) : comp. Soph. Ant. 
1268, and many examples in Wetst. Aco-ttotijs is the "master of a 
slave" and the Greeks sometimes refused the title to any but the 
gods in reference to themselves (Eur. Hippol. 88). In Scripture it 
is not often used of God: Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; perhaps 
Jude 4, which, however, like 2 Pet. ii. 1, may refer to Christ. 
Comp. Job v. 8; Wisd. vi. 7, viii. 3; Ecclus. xxxvi. 1; 3 Mac. 
ii. 2 ; Philo, Quis rer. div. hse,r. vi. ; and see Trench, Syn. xxviii. 
In using the word Symeon acknowledges God's absolute right to 
dispose of him, either in retaining or dispensing with his service. 

Kcn-a to prj/xd crou. The Divine command communicated to 
him (ver. 26). Note the exact correspondence between his hymn 
and the previous promise : a-n-oXvets = ISelv ddvarov, cTSov = tSr/, to 
awrijpLov (tov = tov Xpicrrov Kuptou. — iv €ipT)fTj. With emphasis, 
answering to the emphatic vvv : the beginning and the end of the 
verse correspond. It is the peace of completeness, of work 
finished and hopes fulfilled. Comp. " Thou shalt go to thy fathers 
in peace" (Gen. xv. 15). 

30. 3ti. Introduces the cause of the perfect peace. — cISo^ ol 
6(J>0a\(xoi (jiou. Hebraistic fulness of expression : comp. Job xix. 27, 
xlii. 5. His hands also had handled (1 Jn. i. 1); but he mentions 
sight rather than handling, because sight was specially promised 
(ver. 26). This verse probably suggested the worthless tradition 
that Symeon was blind, and received his sight as the Messiah 
approached him. 

to (T(ji-rf]piov. " The Messianic salvation," and scarcely to be 
distinguished from rr]v o-wT^ptav. Comp. iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; 
Ps. xcviii. 3; Is. xl. 5; Clem. Rom. Cor. xxxvi. 1. In LXX it is 
freq., sometimes in the sense of " safety," sometimes of " peace- 
offering." Win. xxxiv. 2, p. 294. That Symeon says so little about 
the Child, and nothing about the wonders which attended His 
birth (of which he had probably not heard), is a mark of genuine- 
ness. Fiction would have made him dwell on these things. 

31. 32. The second strophe of the canticle. Having stated 
what the appearance of the Messiah has been to himself, Symeon 
now states what the Messiah will be to the world. 

31. T)Toijjiao-as. When used of God, the verb almost = " ordain." 
Comp. Mt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mk. x. 40; 1 Cor. ii. 9; Heb. xi. 16, 


where, as here, the word is used of ordaining blessings. It is used 
only once of punishment (Mt. xxv. 41). 

Kara Trpo'o-unroy Trdrrcov tw \adv. This includes both Jews and 
Gentiles, as the next verse shows, and is in harmony with the 
universal character of this Gospel: comp. Is. xix. 24, 25, xlii. 6, 
xlix. 6, lx. 3, and especially lii. 10, airoKakvxpu Ki'ptos tov fSpa-^lova 
airov tov ayiov Ivwttlov ttolvtoiv tu>v £$vwv, kcu oif/ovrai TrdvTa tol a<pa 
ttjs y»}s rrjv awTrjpLav ttjv irapa. tov ®eox> -qp-wv. Both in LXX and 
N.T. Kara irpoawirov is common ; it occurs several times in 
Polybius. Comp. Test. XII. Patr. Benj. xi. 

32. The aoiTTJpiov is analysed into light and glory, and " the 
peoples " into heathen and Jews, — that " profound dualism which 
dominates the biblical history of humanity from Genesis to Revela- 
tion" (Godet). The passage is a combination of Ps. xcviii. 2, 
IvavTiov twv Idvdv a.TT(.Ka\v\l/e. ttjv o~LKaioo-vvr)v avTOv, with Is. xlix. 6, 
8e'8wKa <re cts (pus iOvwv, and <^ws and 86£av are in apposition with 
to o-uiTrjpiov. But some take both as depending on<;, and 
others take So£av after ek co-ordinately with d7roKdA.ui/w. This last 
is Luther's : ein Licht zu erleuchten die Heiden und zutn Preis deines 
Volkes; but it is very improbable. Comp. Jn. i. 7, xii. 35, 46. 

d-rroKdXuiJm' iOv&v. Either 1. "revelation to belong to the Gen- 
tiles"; or 2. "instruction <7/"the Gentiles"; or 3. " unveiling of the 
Gentiles," i.e. for removing the gross darkness which covers them 
(Is. xxv. 7, lx. 2); or 4. (taking £6vS>v after <pm) "a light of the 
Gentiles unto revelation " (Is. xl. 5). The first is best, " a light 
with a view to revelation which shall belong to the Gentiles," making 
i6vC>v a poss. gen. Does d7ro/<dAi^i9 ever mean " instruction " ? l 
And to represent the heathen as revealed by the light seems to be 
an inversion: revealed to whom? D.C.G. ii. p. 253. 

Elsewhere in N.T. the gen. after 6.iroK.6.\v\pis is either the person who reveals 
(2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1), or the thing revealed (Rom. ii. 5 ; 1 Pet. iv. 13) ; but 
the poss. gen. is quite possible. The word is eminently Pauline (Crem. Lex. 
p. 343), It may be doubted whether the glory of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) is men- 
tioned after the enlightening of the Gentiles in order to indicate that Israel 
obtained its full glory after and through the enlightenment of the Gentiles ; for 
the heathen accepted the salvation which the Jews refused, and from the heathen 
it came back to Israel (Bede, Beng.). 

The strain of confidence and joy which pervades the canticle is strong 
evidence of the historical character of the narrative. The condition of the 
Jewish nation at the close of the first century or beginning of the second is cer- 
tainly not reflected in it : c'esi le pur accent primitif (Godet). And Schleier- 
macher remarks that " it is a circumstance too natural for a poetical fiction " 
that Symeon takes no notice of the parents until they show surprise, but is lost 
in an enthusiastic address to God. See small print on i. 56. 

33-35. Symeon's Address to the Virgin. " The foreboding of 
suffering to Mary, so indefinitely expressed, bears no mark of post 

1 Grotius admits without commending this rendering, and quotes Ps. cxix. 18, 
iroK&\v\j/ov Toi/s 6(p0a\poijs fiov. 


actum invention. But the inspired idea of Messiah in the pious 
old man obviously connected the sufferings which He was to 
endure in His strife against the corrupt people with those which 
were foretold of Him in Is. liii." (Neander, Leben Jesus C/iristi, 
§ 1 8, Eng. tr. p. 27). The change from the unmixed joy and glory 
of the angelic announcements and of the evangelic hymns is very 
marked. Here for the first time in the narrative we have an 
intimation of future suffering. 

33. tjv. When the sing, verb was written, only the first of the persons 
mentioned was in the writer's mind : such irregularities are common (Mt. xvii. 
3, xxii. 40). — 0avp.d£ovT£s lirt. Excepting Mk. xii. 17, this construction is 
peculiar in N.T. to Lk. (iv. 22, ix. 43, xx. 26; Acts iii. 12). It is quite 
class, and freq. in LXX (Judith x. 7, 19, 23, xi. 20; Job xli. 1 ; Eccles. v. 7 ; 
Is. Iii. 15). The objection of Strauss, that this wonder of the parents is 
inconsistent with the angelic annunciation, is pointless. Symeon's declaration 
about the Gentiles goes far beyond the Angel's promise, and it was marvellous 
that Symeon should know anything about the Child's nature and destiny. 

34. kcitou. "Is appointed," Phil. i. 16; 1 Thes. iii. 3; Josh 
iv. 6 ; not " is lying " here in thine arms. 

els ■nrwcni'. In accordance with Is. viii. 14, where the same 
double destiny is expressed. The coming of the Messiah neces- 
sarily involves a crisis, a separation, or judgment (k/ho-is). Some 
welcome the Light; others "love the darkness rather than the 
Light, because their works are evil" (Jn. iii. 19), and are by their 
own conduct condemned. Judas despairs, Peter repents; one 
robber blasphemes, the other confesses (2 Cor. ii. 16). Hence the 
irToio-is of many is an inevitable result of the manifestation of the 
Christ. Yet the purpose is not 7rraio-is, but dvdcrracris and crwrT/pia 
(Rom. xi. 11, 12). Elsewhere in N.T. dfdora<ns means the 
resurrection of the dead; in bibl. Grk. it is never transitive. 
Some understand the metaphor as that of a stone lying (kcitou), 
against which some stumble and fall (Mt. xxi. 44; Acts iv. 11; 
Rom. ix. 33 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6), while others use it as a means to rise. 
But the latter half of the figure is less appropriate. 

aTjfielov. A manifest token, a phenomenon impossible to 
ignore, by means of which something else is known. A person 
may be a 0-77/xeiov, as Christ is said to be here, and Jonah in 
xi. 30. — dcTiXeyo'/j.ei'oi'. " Which is spoken against." This is the 
fl-rakm, that men recognize, and yet reject and oppose, the 
<rr)fX€Lov ; an opposition which reached a climax in the crucifixion 
(Heb. xii. 3). For the passive comp. Acts xxviii. 22. 

35. From kch ctou to poji^aia is not a parenthesis ; there is 
nothing in the construction to indicate that it is one, and a state- 
ment of such moment to the person addressed would hardly be 
introduced parenthetically. It is the inevitable result of the 
ivriXoyCa : the Mother's heart is pierced by the rejection and 


crucifixion of her Son. — aurfjs. 1 In opposition to ovtos. — ttji' 
tyvyftv. The seat of the affections and human emotions. — poji^aio. 
i\) i A long Thracian pike; (2) a large sword, greater than /xaxaipa 
(xxii. 36, 38, 49, 52) or £i'(£os. Such a weapon better signifies 
extreme anguish than doubt, the interpretation which Origen, Bleek, 
and Reuss prefer, as if she would be tempted to join in the 
avrtXeyew. In that case we should expect to Trvevfxa for t. i/rux^v. 
The word is frequent in LXX and Rev. (i. 16, ii. 12, 16, vi. 8, 
xix. 15, 21). Syr-Sin. and Diatess-Tat. have "spear." 

ottos o.v. This depends upon the whole statement from 'Ioou 
to pojx^aia, not on the last clause only ; on Keu-ai, not on SieXcv- 
a-erai. It was the Divine purpose that the manifestation of the 
Messiah should cause the crisis just described ; men must decide 
either to join or to oppose Him. The av indicates that in every 
case the appearance of the Christ produces this result : thoughts, 
hitherto secret, become known through acceptance or rejection of 
the Christ. 

Acts iii. 19, 20 should be compared. There, as here, we have eh (?) 
followed by Situs &v. In N.T. 6iruis &v is rare ; elsewhere only in quotations 
from LXX (Acts xv. 17 from Amos ix. 12 ; Rom. iii. 4 from Ps. Ii. 6). 

6K ir. KapSiuy. "Forth from many hearts," where they have 
been concealed; or "Forth from the hearts of many." For 
StaXoyio-ixoi see on v. 22. 

36-38. Anna the Prophetess. That the Evangelist obtained 
this narrative "directly or indirectly from the lips of this Anna 
who is so accurately described," is less probable than that the 
source for all this chapter is one and the same, viz. some member 
of the Holy Family, and probably Mary herself. 

36. x\y. Either "was present? as in Mk. xv. 40, in which case 
rjv in the sense of " was " has to be understood with what follows ; 
or simply " there was," which is better. Thus all runs in logical 
. order. First the existence of Anna is stated, then her life and 
character, and finally her presence on this occasion. Symeon 
comes to the temple under the influence of the Spirit; Anna 
(Hannah) dwells there continually. The sight of the Messiah 
makes him at once long for death ; it seems to give her renewed 
vigour of life. Is this subtle distinction of character the creation 
of a writer of fiction ? We find fiction at work in the tradition 
that Mary had been brought up in the temple under the tutelage 
of Anna. There is nothing here to indicate that Anna had ever 
seen Mary previously. D.C.G. i. p. 70. 

1 It is not easy to decide whether the 5^ after <rov is genuine or not. Om. 
B LH, Vulg. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Ins. X A D, Syrr., Orig. If it be admitted, 
comp. i. 76 ; and render koX ... 3e ... in the same way in both passages : 
"Yea and." For dieXevaercu see on ver. 15. 


Neither in ver. 36 (xal Tjv) nor in ver. 37 (ko.1 avrr}) does ml = " also " in 
ref. to ver. 25. The meaning is not "There was Symeon, the holy and aged 
man ; also Anna, the holy and aged woman." Throughout the section ko.1 
= "and." 

Trpo<t>f}Tis. She was known as such before this occasion. Like 
Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and the daughters of Philip, Anna was 
a woman divinely inspired to make known God's will to others. 
That her genealogy is given because prophetesses are rare, is 
doubtful. But Lk.'s accuracy appears in such details, which a 
forger would have avoided for fear of mistakes. Although the ten 
tribes were lost, some families possessed private genealogies. For 
the word 7rpo^us comp. Rev. ii. 20; Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4; 
2 Chron. xxxiv. 22 ; Is. viii. 3. 

For the omission of the art. after Ovydr-qp see on i. 5. — Qavovqk = " Face 
of God," Peniel or Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 31, 32) ; in LXX eI5os Qeov. — 'Aer/p, 
2 Chron. xxx. II. 

aurr| Trpo|3e{3Y}Kuia, k.t.X. "She was advanced in many days, 
having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity, and 
herself a widow even for eighty-four years." From avrr] Trpofitfi. to 
reaa-dpoiv is a parenthesis in which tjv is to be understood : £^aao-a 
explains TrpofitfiriKvZa, and avrrj balances yu,cra dv8po<;. She was of 
great age, because she had lived l seven years as a wife and eighty- 
four years by Jierself (Rom. vii. 25) as a widow. The ew? draws 
attention to the great length of her widowhood ; " up to as much 
as" (Mt. xviii. 21, 22). That she should be considerably over a 
hundred years old is not incredible. But the eighty-four may be 
intended to include the seven years and the time before her 
marriage. In any case the clumsy arrangement of taking all three 
verses (36-38) as one sentence, and making avrrj the nom. to 
dvOutfjioXoyeLTo, should be avoided. That she had never, in spite of 
her early widowhood, married again, was held to be very honourable 
to her : comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 5. Monogamia apud ethnicos in summo 
honore est (Tertul. de. Exh. Cast. xiii. : comp. de Monog. xvi. ; ad 
Uxor. i. 7). See quotations in Wetst. on 1 Tim. hi. 2, and 
Whiston's note on Jos. Ant. xviii. 6. 6. Syr-Sin. has " seven days." 

37. ouk deju'crraTo tou tepoO. See on viii. 13. This is to be 
understood, like xxiv. 53, of constant attendance, rather than of 
actual residence within the temple precincts, although the latter may 
have been possible. She never missed a service, and between the 
services she spent most of her time in the temple. In spite of her 
age she kept more than the customary fasts (comp. v. 33), perhaps 
more than the Mondays and Thursdays (see on xviii. 12), and spent 
an unusual amount of time in prayer. 

1 The first aorist of ^v is late Greek. It occurs Acts xxvi. 5 ; Rom. xiv. 9 ; 
Rev. ii. 8, xx. 4. Attic writers use e(3Lwv, which is not found in N.T. 


XaTpevovo-a. Freq. in Lk., Paul, and Heb. See on iv. 8. Not in Mk. 
or Jn. Alt. iv. IO from Deut. vi. 13. — vvkto. k. T||Aepav. Comp. Acts 
xxvi. 7. This is the usual order: Mk. iv. 27, v. 5 ; Acts xx. 31 ; 1 Thes. 
ii. 9, iii. 10 ; 2 Thes. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. v. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 3. But the other is 
also common: xviii. 7 ; Acts ix. 24; Rev. iv. 8, etc.; and in O.T. is more 
common. It may be doubted whether the order makes any difference of 
meaning : see Ellicott on 1 Tim. v. 5, and comp. Horn. Od. ii. 345 ; 77. 
xxiv. 73, v. 490; Plat. Theaet. 151 A. 

38. au-rfj tt] Jpa. "That very hour" (RV.) : see on x. 7, 21. 
AV. exaggerates with "that instant," as does Beza with to ipso 
momento, and also Gen. with "at the same instant." — emorao-a. 
" Coming up " and " standing by," rather than " coming suddenly " 
(Gen. and Rhem.), although the word often has this meaning from 
the context. Comp. xxi. 34, x. 40, xx. 1 ; Acts iv. 1, vi. 12, xxii. 13, 
xxiii. 27 ; and see on ver. 9. — 6.vQoiy.o\oyzno. The dvri does not 
refer to Symeon, meaning that " she in turn gave thanks " ; but to 
the making a return, which is involved in all thanksgiving : Ps. 
lxxviii. 13 ; Ezra iii. n ; 3 Mac. vi. 33 ; Test. XII Patr. Judah i. 

e'XdXei. Not on that occasion, but afterwards, " she was 
habitually speaking." When she met Mary and Joseph she could 
not speak irao-iv tois 7rpoo-S£xo//.€vois, for they were not present. 
Grammatically -rrcpl au-rou may refer to t<3 ©ew, but it evidently 
refers to the Child. Godet divides the people into three sections : 
the Pharisees, who expected a political deliverer ; the Sadducees, 
who expected nothing ; and the blessed few, who expected the 
spiritual deliverance or consolation (ver. 25) of Jerusalem. Bengel 
argues from 77-ao-iv erant igitur non pauci, w T hich does not follow, 
especially when we consider Lk.'s fondness for the word. 

Xurpoxriv 'lepovcaXijix. This, without iv, is certainly the true reading 
(KB, many Versions and Fathers), "redemption 0/" Jerusalem." Comp. Is. 
xl. 2. Fiction would probably have given Anna also a hymn. Against the 
hypothesis that this narrative is "a poetical and symbolical representation," 
Schleiermacher asks, "Why should the author, along with Symeon, have 
introduced Anna, who is not made even to answer any poetical purpose ? " 

39. cTeXeaac. "Brought to a close, accomplished"; especially 
of executing what has been prescribed: xii. 50, xviii. 31, xxii. 37; 
Acts xiii. 29; Rom. ii. 27; Jas. ii. 8. See Jn. xix. 28, which 
illustrates the difference between TcAe'w and TcXao'w. Syr-Sin. 
here inserts "Joseph and Mary" as nom. to "accomplished." 
Why not " His father and His mother" (ver. 33) or " His parents " 
(ver. 43), if that text was framed to discredit the virgin birth ? 

Na£apeT. Lk. appears to know nothing of the visit of the 
Magi. It would have suited his theme of the universality of the 
Gospel so well, that he would hardly have omitted it, if he had 
known it. In that case he was not familiar with our First Gospel. 
From Mt. ii. 11 we infer that the Holy Family, after the Purifi- 
cation, returned to Bethlehem and there occupied a house (W;y 


oIkiclv). The parents may have thought that the Son of David, 
born in Bethlehem, ought to be brought up there. Thence they 
fly to Egypt, a flight not mentioned in the authority used by Lk. 

40. The conclusion of a separate narrative : comp. i. 80. 
Contrast the reticence of this verse (which is all that we know 
respecting the next eleven yeais) with the unworthy inventions of the 
apocryphal gospels. Hastings, D.C.G. art. "Boyhood of Jesus." 

T)u£avei' k. eKpa.Tat.ouTo. Of bodily development in size and 
strength ; for Trvevfxari. is an insertion from i. 80. — ■n-X'ripoup.ei'oi'. 
Pres. part. "Being filled" day by day. The o-cxfua is to be regarded 
as wisdom in the highest and fullest sense. The intellectual, moral, 
and spiritual growth of the Child, like the physical, was real. His 
was a perfect humanity developing perfectly, unimpeded by 
hereditary or acquired defects. It was the first instance of such a 
growth in history. For the first time a human infant was realizing 
the ideal of humanity. See Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, §139. 

xdpis ©eou r[v i-n aJ-ro. See on iv. 22 and comp. Acts iv. 33. 

It was near the beginning of this interval that the Jews sent an embassy of 
fifty to follow Archelaus to Rome, to protest against his accession, and to 
petition that Judaea might be annexed to Syria (Jos. B.J. ii. 6. 1 ; Ant. xvii. 
11. 1), of which fact we perhaps have a trace in the parable of the Pounds 
(xix. 14). And it was neai the end of this interval that another embassy went 
to complain of Archelaus to Augustus : and he was then deposed, and banished 
to Vienne in Gaul {Ant. xvii. 13. 2; B.J. ii. 7. 3). Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 877, 
944, ion, 1026. 

41-52. The Boyhood of the Messiah. 

His Visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, and His first recorded 
Words. Here again, as in the Circumcision, the Purification, and 
the Presentation, the idea of fidelity to the Law is very con- 
spicuous. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, Lect. ii., Macmillan, 1894. 

41. KaT eros. The expression occurs here only in N.T. 
Combined with the imperf. it expresses the habitual annual practice 
of Joseph and Mary. At the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles 
every male had to go up to Jerusalem (Ex. xxiii. 14-17, xxxiv. 23; 
Deut. xvi. 16). But since the Dispersion this law could not be 
kept ; yet most Palestinian Jews tried to go at least once a year. 
About women the Law says nothing, but Hillel prescribed that 
they also should go up to the Passover. Mary, like Hannah 
(1 Sam. i. 7), probably went out of natural piety, and not in 
obedience to HillePs rule. 

t^ topTf}. " For {he feast," or, more probably, "at the feast": dat. of 
time, as in viii. 29, xii. 20, xiii. 14, 15, 16; Acts vii. 8, xii. 21, xxi. 26, 
xxii. 13, xxvii. 23. In class. Grk. rrj iopry without iv is rare : Win. xxxi. 5, 
p. 269. The phrase 17 eopri] tou ird<rx a occurs again Jn. xiii. I only ; not in 


LXX. The fact that yoveh has not been changed here, even in those MSS. 
in which w. 27 and 43 have been corrupted, is some evidence that the 
corruption was not made for dogmatic reasons. The love of amplification or 
of definiteness might suffice. 

42. 6Twc 8<o8eica. At the age of twelve a young Jew became 
* a son of the Law," and began to keep its enactments respecting 
feasts, fasts, and the like. The mention of the age implies that 
since the Presentation Jesus had not been up to Jerusalem. — 
deafiau'oVTwi'. Imperf. part. "On their usual going up." — ko.t& to 
60os. See small print on i. 9 ; also Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 251. 

43. Kal reXeiwcr&vTwv. Note the change of tense. "And after 
they had fulfilled." There is nothing ungrammatical in the com- 
bination of an aor. with an imperf. part. But the reading dvafiavTuv 
is an obvious correction to avoid apparent awkwardness. — -ras 
rjfie'pas. The prescribed seven days (Ex. xii. 15, 16; Lev. xxiii. 
6-8 ; Deut. xvi. 3), or the customary two days, for many pilgrims 
left after the principal sacrifices were over. 

inriiieivev. Contains an idea of persistence and perseverance, 
and hence is used of remaining after others have gone : comp. Acts 
xvii. 14. The attraction of Divine things held Him fast in spite of 
the departure of His parents. It would be His first experience of 
the temple services, and especially of the slaying of the Paschal 
lamb. — 6 ttcus. " The Boy," to distinguish from t6 7raiSi'ov : see on 
ver. 52. — ouk eyvwaav. This shows what confidence they had in 
Him, and how little they were accustomed to watch Him. That 
it shows neglect on their part is a groundless assertion. They 
were accustomed to His obedience and prudence, and He had 
never caused them anxiety. See Hase, Geschichte Jesu, § 28, 
p. 276, ed. 1891. 

44. tt] owoSca. "The caravan." The inhabitants of a village, 
or of several neighbouring villages, formed themselves into a 
caravan, and travelled together. The Nazareth caravan was so 
long that it took a whole day to look through it. The caravans 
went up singing psalms, especially the "songs of degrees" (Ps. 
cxx.-cxxxiv.) : but they would come back with less solemnity. It 
was probably when the caravan halted for the night that He was 
missed. At the present day the women commonly start first, and 
the men follow; the little children being with the mothers, and the 
older with either. If this was the case then, Mary might fancy that 
He was with Joseph, and Joseph that He was with Mary. Tristram, 
Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 56. 

T)ix(f>as 656v. In LXX 68bv yfitpa: (Num. xi. 31 ; 1 Kings xix. 4). Comp. 
ropeiav rjfxipas /juas (Jon. iii. 4). 

The compound dve^-row expresses thoroughness (Acts xi. 25 ; Job iii. 4, 
X. 6 ; 2 Mac. xiii. 21). 

crvyyevevo-iv. A barbarous form of dat. plur. found also Mk. vi. 4 and 
I Mac. x. 89. For yvuxrToh see on xxiii. 49. 


45. pi cupdrrcs. " Because they did not find " : see on iii. 9. 
— uireVrpeiJ/cu' dwxi^rjToGrres. The turning back was a single act, the 
seeking continued a long time. Comp. Mk. viii. 11, x. 2. In such 
cases the pres. part, is not virtually fut., as if it meant " in order to 
seek." The seeking was present directly the turning back took 
place. Win. xlv. 1. b, p. 429. For uTre'orTpev|/a^ see small print on 
i. 56, and for eyeVe-ro see detached note after ch. i. 

46. Tjfie'pas Tpels. These are reckoned in three ways. (1) One 
day out, at the end of which the Child is missed ; one day back ; 
and on the third the finding. This is probably correct. (2) One 
day's search on the journey back ; one day's search in Jerusalem ; 
and on the third the finding. (3) Two days' search in Jerusalem, 
and then the finding. This is improbable. Jerusalem was not a 
large place, and less than a day would probably suffice. We may 
understand that on all three days Jesus was in the temple with the 
doctors. Godet conjectures that He there had an experience 
similar to that of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 10-22): "God 
became more intimately His God, His Father." There is no 

iv tu lepw. Not in a synagogue, if there was one in the temple 
enclosure, but probably on the terrace, where members of the 
Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and festivals. If 
this is correct, His parents had left on the third day, and the 
Passover was still going on. If all had been over, this public 
teaching would have ceased. 

K.aQet,6jxevov. As a learner, not as a teacher. St. Paul sat " at 
the feet of Gamaliel" (Acts xxii. 3). Jesus probably sat on the 
ground, while the Rabbis sat on benches or stood. — kv p.e'au. See 
on viii. 7. Not dignitatis causa (Beng.) or as doctor doctorum 
(Calov.), but because there were teachers on each side, possibly in 
a semicircle. The point is that He was not hidden, but where He 
could easily be found. For a list of distinguished persons who 
may have been present, see Farrar, L. of Christ, i. ch. vi., from 
Sepp, Leben Jesu, i. § 17. Of biblical personages, Symeon, 
Gamaliel, Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea 
are possibilities. 

dKouoira auTaic icai e'-n-epwrwrra auTous. Note that the hearing is 
placed first, indicating that He was there as a learner ; and it was 
as such that He questioned them. It was the usual mode of 
instruction that the pupil should ask as well as answer questions. 
A holy thirst for knowledge, especially of sacred things, would 
prompt His inquiries. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy represents 
Him as instructing them in the statutes of the Law and the 
mysteries of the Prophets, as well as in astronomy, medicine, 
physics, and metaphysics (l.-lii.). See on iii. 10. 

47. e£iorarro. A strong word expressing great amazement : 


viii. 56; Acts ii. 7, 12, viii. 13, ix. 21. For em comp. Wisd. v. 2 
and the brl which Lk. commonly uses after 8av/jLd£eiv (see on ver. 
33) ; and for irdrres 01 dKouorres see on i. 66. — auviaci. " Intelli- 
gence " ; an application of the o-o<£i'a with which He was ever being 
filled (ver. 40) : see Lft. on Col. i. 9. — diroKpurccrii'. His replies 
would show His wonderful intellectual and spiritual development. 
The vanity of Josephus {Vita, 2) and of Bellarmine (Vita, pp. 
28-30, ed. Dollinger und Reusch, Bonn, 1887) leads them to 
record similar amazement respecting themselves. 

48. 180'rres. Return to the original subject, <h yoveis. — f|e- 
TrXdYTjo-ae. Another strong expression: ix. 43; Acts xiii. 12. 
They were astonished at finding Him there, and thus occupied, 
apparently without thought of them. 

rj p.^rr)p auTou. It was most natural that she should be the first 
to speak. Her reproachful question perhaps contains in it a vein 
of self-reproach. She and Joseph had appeared to be negligent. 

^ToCfjiec. "Are seeking" : the pain of the anxiety has not yet 
quite ceased. For k<x! iyu see on xvi. 9. 

N B read £i]Tovfj.ei>, which WH. adopt. Almost all other editors follow 
almost all other authorities in reading iirjTovfiev. 

oSuvoifiei'oi. " In great anguish " of mind, as in Acts xx. 38 and 
Zech. xii. 10; of body and mind, xvi. 24, 25; comp. Rom. ix. 2; 
1 Tim. vi. 10. The potato, (ver. 35) has already begun its work. 
Anguish cannot be reasonable. But they might have been sure 
that the Child who was to be the Messiah could not be lost. This 
agrees with ver. 50. 

49. ti on c£t]t6it£ fj.e; Not a reproof, but an expression of 
surprise: comp. Mk. ii. 16. He is not surprised at their coming 
back for Him, but at their not knowing where to find Him. 

Here also X has the pres. ^retre. 

iv -rots tou iraTpds p.ou. " Engaged in My Father's business " is 
a possible translation: comp. to. rov ®€ov (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 
33); to. tov Kvplov (1 Cor. vii. 32, 34). But " in My Father's house " 
is probably right, as in Gen. xli. 5r. Irenseus (Hxr. v. 36. 2) para- 
phrases the Iv rfj oIklo. of Jn. xiv. 2 by iv toi? : comp. iv tois 'Afxdv 
(Esth. vii. 9) ; iv toi? avrov (Job xviii. 19); to. Avkcovos (Throe, ii. 
76). Other illustrations in Wetst. Arm. and Diatess-Tat. have 
in domo patris mei. The words indicate His surprise that His 
parents did not know where to find Him. His Father's business 
could have been done elsewhere. There is a gentle but decisive 
correction of His Mother's words, " Thy father and I," in the reply, 
" Where should a child be (Set), but in his father's house ? and My 
Father is God." For the 8ei see on iv. 43. It is notable that the 
first recorded words of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine 


Sonship as man ; and His question implies that they knew it, or 
ought to know it. But there is nothing which implies that He had 
just received a revelation of this relationship. These first recorded 
words are the kernel of the whole narrative, and the cause of its 
having been preserved. They must mean more than that Jesus is 
a son of Abraham, and therefore has God as His Father. His 
parents would easily have understood so simple a statement as 

50. ou aruvT}Kav to ptjfia. Ergo non ex Wis hoc didicerat (Beng.). 
There is nothing inconsistent in this. They learnt only gradually 
what His Messiahship involved, and this is one stage in the process. 
From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recog- 
nized that at this stage she and Joseph had not understood. This 
verse, especially when combined with the next, shows clearly who 
was the source of Lk.'s information. 1 Comp. ix. 45 and xviii. 34. 

51. rji' uTTOTao-o-o'(i.ev'os. This sums up the condition of the 
Messiah during the next seventeen years. The analytical tense 
gives prominence to the continuance of the subjection : comp. i. 
18, 20, 21. For VTvoTa.cnjf.iv comp. x. 17, 20. 

auTois. The last mention of Joseph. He was almost certainly 
dead before Christ's public ministry began ; but this statement of 
continued subjection to him and Mary probably covers some years. 
The main object of the statement, however, may be to remove the 
impression that in His reply (ver. 49) Jesus resents, or henceforward 
repudiates, their authority over Him. Comp. Ign. Alagn. xiii. 

Sie-rripci. Expresses careful and continual keeping. Gen. 
xxxvii. 11 is a close parallel: comp. Acts xv. 29. We must not 
confine irdmra to, prj(j.a.Ta to vv. 48, 49 ; the phrase is probably used 
in the Hebraistic sense of "things spoken of." Comp. i. 65, ii. 19; 
Acts v. 32 : but in all these cases " sayings " is more possible than 
here. Still more so in Dan. vii. 28 : to prj/xa iv rrj KapoYa ixov 
oieTT]pr]o~a. [? o-vveTrjprjo-a]. Syr-Sin. omits " in her heart." 

52. The verse is very similar to 1 Sam. ii. 26, of which it is 
perhaps a quotation. See Athan. Con. Arian. iii. 51, p. 203, ed. 
Bright; Card. Newman, Select Treatises of S. Athan. i. p. 419; 
Wace & Schaff, p. 421 ; Pearson, On the Creed, art. iii. p. 160. 

'ItjctoGs. The growth is very clearly marked throughout : to 
/3p€<^os (ver. 16); to TratStW (ver. 40); 'I^o-ous 6 7rais (ver. 43); 
'I^o-ovs (ver. 52). Non statim plena statura, ut Protoplasti, appa- 
ruit : sed omnes setatis gradus sanctificavit. Senectus eum non decebat 
(Beng.). Schaff, The Person of Christ, pp. 10-17, Nisbet, 1880. 

1 "This fine tender picture, in which neither truth to nature, nor the beauty 
which that implies, is violated in a single line, . . . cannot have been devised 
by human hands, which, when left to themselves, were always betrayed into 
coarseness and exaggeration, as shown by the apocryphal gospels" (Keim,y«. 
of Naz., Eng tr. ii. p. 137). 


Trpo^KOTrre»\ Here only in the Gospels, and elsewhere in N.T. 
only in S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 12; Gal. i. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13). 
The metaphor probably comes from pioneers cutting in front ; but 
some refer it to lengt/iening by hammering. Hence the meaning of 
" promote " : but more often it is intransitive, as always in N.T. 
Actual growth is expressed by the word, and to explain it of 
progressive manifestation is inadequate. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. bk. v. 

53- i-3- 

o-o<f>ia. Not "knowledge" but "wisdom," which includes know- 
ledge : it is used of the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 22). 
Jesus was capable of growth in learning ; e.g. He increased in 
learning through experience in suffering : epaOev dtp' £>v «ra#ev 
(Heb. v. 8, where see Westcott's notes). 

r)\iKia. Not "age," which is probably the meaning xii. 25 and 
Mt. vi. 27, but would be rather an empty truism here. Rather, 
" stature," as in xix. 3 : justam proceritatem nactus est ac decoram 
(Beng.). His intellectual and moral growth (o-o<£ia), as well as His 
physical growth (r/XiKi'a), was perfect. The -n-poeKOTrre ^Ai/a'a corre- 
sponds to ifJLeyaXvvtTO (in some copies tVo/j£i'eTo /xeyaXvvoixevov) in 
i Sam. ii. 26. See Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 142. 

XapiTi. "Goodwill, favour, loving-kindness" (ver. 40, i. 30; 
Acts iv. 33, vii. 10): see on iv. 22. That He advanced in favour 
with God plainly indicates that there was moral and spiritual 
growth. At each stage He was perfect for that stage, but the 
perfection of a child is inferior to the perfection of a man ; it is 
the difference between perfect innocence and perfect holiness. He 
was perfectly (tcAcws) man, as set forth in the Council of Constan- 
tinople (a.d. 381) against Apollinaris, who held that in Jesus the 
Divine Logos was a substitute for a human soul. In that case an 
increase in cro<pia and in x*P ts trapa ©ew would have been incon- 
ceivable, as Pearson points out (On the Creed, art. iii. p. 160; comp. 
E. Harold Browne, Exp. of the XXXIX. Articles, iv. 2. 4). 

■ecu dcGpoj-n-ois. Nothing of the kind is said of John (i. 66, 80); 
his sternness and his retirement into the desert prevented it. But 
an absolutely perfect human being living among men could not 
fail to be attractive until His public ministry brought Him into 
collision with their prejudices and sins. 1 Comp. what Josephus 
says of the development of Moses (Ant. ii. 9. 6); also the promise 
made in Prov. iii. 4 to him who keeps mercy and truth : " so shalt 

1 Pearson in a long note gives the chief items of evidence as to the primitive 
belief that Is. liii. 2, 3 was to be understood literally of the personal appearance 
of Jesus as " a personage no way amiable ; an aspect, indeed, rather uncomely." 
..." But what the aspect of His outward appearance was, because the Scrip- 
tures are silent, we cannot now know" {On the Creed, art. ii. pp. 87, 88). 

Lange has some good remarks on the "master-stroke of Divine wisdom" 
which caused Jesus to be brought up at Nazareth (Z. of Christ, Eng. tr. i. pp. 
317, 324)- 


thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and 

man " — ivtDTriov Kupi'ou KaL ai'6pu)TT(i)v. 

For answers to the objections urged by Strauss against the 
historical character of this narrative see Hase, Gesch. Jesu % § 28, 
p. 280, ed. 1891. 


III. 1-22. The External Preparation for the Ministry of tht 
Christ: the Ministry of John tlie Baptist, Mt. iii. 1-12; Mk. 
i. 1-8 ; Jn. i. 15-28. 

Hie quasi scena N. T. panditur is Bengel's illuminative remark. 
" It was the glory of John the Baptist to have revived the function 
of the prophet " (Ecce Homo, p. 2) ; and it is difficult for us to 
realize what that meant. A nation, which from Samuel to Malachi 
had scarcely ever been without a living oracle of God, had for 
three or four centuries never heard the voice of a Prophet. It 
seemed as if Jehovah had withdrawn from His people. The 
breaking of this oppressive silence by the voice of the Baptist 
caused a thrill through the whole Jewish population throughout 
the world. Lk. shows his appreciation of the magnitude of the 
crisis by the sixfold attempt to give it an exact date. Of the four 
Evangelists he is the only one to whom the title of historian in the 
full sense of the term can be given ; and of Christian writers he is 
the first who tries to fit the Gospel history into the history of the 
world. It is with a similar wish to do justice to a crisis that 
Thucydides gives a sixfold date of the entry of the Theban? into 
Platasa, by which the thirty years' truce was manifestly broken and 
the Peloponnesian War begun (ii. 2 ; comp. v. 20). 

The section is carefully arranged. First the Date (1, 2) ; then 
a Description of the new Prophet (3-6) ; then an account of his 
Preaching and its Effects (7-17); and an Explanation as to how it 
came to an End (18-20). He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 

1, 2. The Date. The event that is thus elaborately dated is 
the appearance of the new Prophet, not the beginning of Christ's 
ministry. See below on the conclusion of ver. 2. Ellicott con- 
siders it the date of the captivity of the Baptist. This had been 
advocated by Wieseler in his Synopsis (ii. ch. ii. Eng. tr. p. 
178), but he abandoned it in his Beitrdge. Others would make 
it refer to Christ's baptism, which may have followed closelv 


upon John's first appearance as a preacher (Caspari, Chron. Einl. 
§ 2,% Eng. tr. p. 41). But the interval between the beginning of 
John's ministry and his baptizing Jesus cannot be determined 
Some estimate it at one month, others at six months, because John 
was six months older than Jesus (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, n 71). Weiss 
(Leben Jesu, I. ii. 8, Eng. tr. i. p. 316) shows that the interval was 
not more than six months. The appearance of one who seemed 
to be a Prophet soon attracted immense attention ; and when 
large numbers accepted his doctrine and baptism, it became 
imperative that the hierarchy should make inquiry as to his 
authority and claims. But it appears from Jn. i. 19-28 that the 
first investigation made by the Sanhedrin was about the time when 
the Baptist met Jesus. In neither case can year or time of year 
be determined. If Jesus was born towards the end, John about 
the middle, of 749 (b.c. 5), then John might begin to preach about 
the middle of 779, and Jesus be baptized early in 780 (a.d. 27). 

It is little or no confirmation of this result that both the Greek and the 
Roman Churches celebrate the Baptism of Christ on Jan. 6th. Originally, the 
Nativity, the Visit of the Magi, and the Baptism were all celebrated on Jan. 6th. 
When Dec. 25th was adopted as the date of the Nativity, the Roman Church 
continued to celebrate the Baptism with the Epiphany to the Gentiles on Jan. 
6th, while the Greek Church transferred the latter along with the Nativily to 
Dec. 25th, commemorating the Baptism alone on Jan. 6th. The fact that both 
the Eastern and the Western Church have concurred in celebrating the Baptism 
on Jan. 6th seems at first sight to be imposing testimony. But there is little 
doubt that all trustworthy evidence had perished before any of these dates were 
selected. 1 

Instead of the elaborate dates given in these first two verses, Mt. (iii. 1 ) has 
simply 'Ev 5£ reus i^xepais eKetvais, while Mk. (i. 4) has nothing. Comp. the 
somewhat similar dating of the erection of Solomon's temple ( I Kings vi. 1 ). 
Beng. says of this date, Epocha ecclesim omnium maxima. Hie quasi scena N. T. 
panditur. Ne nativitatis qitidem, aut mortis, resurrect ionis, ascensionis christi 
tempus tarn precise definitur. 

1. 'Ev eT€i oe Tr€rr€K<uoeK<!iTa> ttjs ^yejioi'ias Ti{3epiou Kaiaapos. 
He naturally begins with the Roman Empire, and then takes the 
local governors, civil and ecclesiastical. "Now in the 15th year 
of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," or " of Tiberius as Caesar." Is the 
15th year to be counted from the death of Augustus, Aug. 19th, 
a.u.c. 767, a.d. 14? or from the time when he was associated 
with Augustus as joint ruler at the end of 764 or beginning of 
765, a.d. 11 or 12? It is impossible to determine this with 
certainty. Good authorities (Zumpt, Wieseler, Weiss) plead for 
the latter reckoning, which makes the Gospel chronology as a 
whole run more smoothly; but it is intrinsically less probable, 

1 For the chief data respecting the limits of our Lord's life see Lft. 
Biblical Essays, p. 58, note ; and on Lk.'s chronology in these verses see 
Ewald, Hist, of Israel, vi., Eng. tr. p. 149, and Lange. L. of C. bk. ii. pt. iii. 
§ 1, i. p. 342. 



and seems to be inconsistent with the statements of Tacitus and 
Suetonius. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 405. 

The main points are these. I. Tiberius was not joint Emperor with 
Augustus ; he was associated with him only in respect of the provinces and 
armies : ut provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret, simulqut 
censum ageret (Suet. Tib. xxi.); ut sequum ei jits in omnibus provinciis 
exercitibusque esset (Veil. Paterc. ii. 121); filius, collega imperii, consort 
tribnniciee, protestatis adsumitur, otnnisque per exercitus ostentatur (Tac. Ann. 
i. 3. 3 ; comp. i. II. 2 and iii. 56. 2). 2. It is clear from Tacitus {Ann. i. 5-7) 
that, when Augustus died, Tiberius was not regarded by himself or by others as 
already Emperor. Suetonius confirms this by saying that Tiberius, while 
manifestly getting the imperial power into his hands, for a time refused the 
offer of it (Tib. xxiv.). 3. No instance is known of reckoning the reign of 
Tiberius from his association with Augustus. The coins of Antioch, Lk.'s own 
city, which helped to convert Wieseler from the one view to the other by 
seeming to date the reign of Tiberius from the association, are not admitted by 
Eckhel to be genuine. On the other hand, there are coins of Antioch which 
date the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. It remains, therefore, 
that, although to reckon from the association was a possible method, especially 
in the provinces, for there Tiberius had been really a consort of Augustus, yet 
it is more probable that Lk. reckons in the usual way from the death of the 
predecessor (see Wieseler, Chron. Synop. ii. ch. ii. ; Keim, Jesus of Naz. ii. 
pp. 381, 382; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1044; Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 65). 
Fifteen years from the death of Augustus would be a.d. 29, at which time our 
Lord would probably be 32 years of age, which sufficiently agrees with Lk.'s 
"about 30" (ver. 23). If the earlier date is admissible, the agreement becomes 

rJYe/jioi'fas. Quite a vague term, and applicable to the rule of 
emperor, king, legatus, or procurator, as is shown by Jos. Ant. 
xviii. 4. 2, and by the use of ^•ye/j.wv in N.T. : xx. 20, xxi. 12; 
Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, etc. Wieseler is alone in seeing in this 
word (instead of /xovap^ia), and in Kalcrap (instead of 2e/3ao-Tos), 
evidence that the co-regency of Tiberius is meant (Beitrdge z. 
richtigen IVurdigung d. Evan. 1869, pp. 1 91-194). From the 
Emperor Lk. passes to the local governor under him. 

TjYep.oyeu'oi'Tog. The more exact £TnTpoTrevovTo<; of D and other 
authorities is an obvious correction to mark his office with pre- 
cision : cViTpo7ros = procurator. Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus 
a.d. 25, and was recalled a.d. 36 or 37 by Tiberius, who died, 
March a.d. 37, before Pilate reached Rome. Having mentioned 
the Roman officials, Lk. next gives the local national rulers. 

TeTpapxoGrros. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is 
used by Josephus of Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis {B.J. iii. 10. 7). 
The title tetrarch was at first used literally of the governor of a 
fourth ; e.g. of one of the four provinces of Thessaly (Eur. Ale. 
1 1 54), or one of the fourths into which each of the three divisions 
of Galatia were divided (Strabo, 430, 540, 560, 567). But after- 
wards it came to mean the governor of any division, as a third or 
a. half, or of any small country ; any ruler not a /3ao-j.Aevs (Hop 


Sat. i. 3. 12). Such seems to be the meaning here; but it may 
be used in its literal sense, Pilate's province representing the 
fourth tetrarchy, viz. the dominions of Archelaus. 

In d we have the singular rendering : in anno quintodecimo ducatus Tiberi 
Csesaris procurante Pontio Pilato Judsese, qaaterducatus, Herode. 

'Hpw'Sou. Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace the 
Samaritan. See small print on i. 5 for the iota subscript. Two 
inscriptions have been found, one at Cos and one at Delos, which 
almost certainly refer to him as tetrarch, and son of Herod the 
king (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. I. vol. ii. p. 17). 
His coins have the title tetrarch, and, like those of his father, bear 
no image. Herod Philip was the first to have any portrait on the 
coins of a Jewish prince. He had the images of Augustus and 
Tiberius put upon his coins. As his dominions were wholly 
heathen, this would cause little scandal. He even went so far as 
to put the temple of Augustus at Panias on his coins. Herod 
Antipas was made tetrarch of Persea and Galilee, B.C. 4 (Jos. Ant. 
xvii. 11. 4; B.J. ii. 6. 3). As he ruled this district until a.d. 39 
or 40, the whole of Christ's life falls within his reign, and nearly 
the whole of Christ's ministry took place within his dominions. 
For his character see on xiii. 32. He was by courtesy allowed 
the title of /3a<ri\evs (Mk. vi. 14) ; and as Agrippa had obtained 
this by right, Antipas and Herodias went to Rome, a.d. 39, to try 
and get the courtesy tftle made a real one by Caligula. The 
attempt led to his banishment, the details of which are uncertain, 
for Josephus makes inconsistent statements. Either he was 
banished at Baise, a.d. 39, to Lugdunum {Ant. xviii. 7. 2), or he 
had a second audience with Caligula at Lugdunum, a.d. 40, and 
was banished to Spain (B. J. ii. 9. 6). The latter is probably 
correct (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1561). But see Farrar, Herods, p. 178. 

♦iXiirrrou. Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleo- 
patra. He reigned for nearly 37 years, B.C. 4 to a.d. 33, when he 
died at Julias, which he had built and named in honour of the 
infamous Julia, d. of Augustus and wife of Tiberius. He was the 
builder of Cassarea Philippi (B.J. ii. 9. 1), and was the best of the 
Herods (Ant. xviii. 4. 6). He married his niece Salome soon 
after she had danced for the head of the Baptist, c. a.d. 31 (Ant. 
xviii. 5. 4). Trachonitis (rpa^wv = rpaxys kcu TrerpajS^s to7tos) 
derived its name from the rugged character of the country. It lay 
N.E. of Galilee in the direction of Damascus, and its inhabitants 
were skilled archers and very often banditti (Ant. xv. 10. 1). The 
expression 777s 'It. ko.1 Tp. x°V as > " the region of Iturasa and 
Trachonitis," seems to indicate that more than these two is 
included ; probably Auranitis and Batanasa. 'Irvpala, both here 
and perhaps everywhere, is an adjective. Farrar, p. 164. 


Auaavtou rqs 'APi\T]rf]5 TeTp. Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. 
Bauer, and Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute 
to Lk. the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, 
son of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B.C. 36, when he 
was killed by M. Antony, is still reigning 60 years after his death. 
Such a mistake is very improbable ; and the only difficulty about 
Lk.'s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this 
tetrarch Lysanias. D.C.G. art. "Lysanias." 

But 1. Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was styled kinga.r\A not tetrarch, and the 
seat of his kingdom was Chalcis in Coele-Syria, not Abila in Abilene. 2. It is 
pure assumption that no one of his name ever ruled in these parts afterwards. 

3. Josephus {Ant. xix. 5- l) speaks of " Abila of Lysanias," and (xx. 7. 1) of a 
tetrarchy of Lysanias (comp. B. J. ii. 11. 5, 12. 8) ; and as the son of Ptolemy 
was not called tetrarch, nor was connected with Abila, and, moreover, reigned 
for only 5 or 6 years, it is improbable that "Abila of Lysanias" was called 
after him. Therefore these passages in Josephus confirm rather than oppose Lk. 

4. A medal found by Pococke designates Lysanias " tetrarch and high priest." 
If this refers to either, it is more likely to refer to Lk.'s Lysanias. 5. Two 
inscriptions exist, one of which proves that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, 
left children ; the other, that at the time when Tiberius was associated with 
Augustus there was a "tetrarch Lysanias" (Boeckh, Corp. inscr. Gr. 4523, 
4521). See Davidson, Intr. to N.T. i. pp. 214-221, 1st ed. ; Rawlinson, 
Bampton Lectures for 1859, p. 203; Wieseler in Ilerzog, 2 i. pp. 87-89; and 
the reff. in Thayer's Grimm under AvcravLas. 

2. tirl dpxiepe'ws "Avva koi Kaid^a. Lk. now passes to the 
ecclesiastical rulers. The singular is probably not accidental, and 
certainly not ironical. " Under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas," 
which means that between them they discharged the duties, or that 
each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas 
de jure (Acts iv. 6) and Caiaphas de facto (Jn. xi. 49). 

Annas had held office A.D. 7-14, when he had been deposed by Valerius 
Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar 
(son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held office a.d. 
18-36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded 
Caiaphas, the last of whom (another Annas) put to death James the " brother 
of the Lord" and the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas 
letained very great influence, and sometimes acted as high priest. "Annas 
the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as 
many as were of the kindred of the high priest " (Acts iv. 6). Perhaps, so far 
as it was safe to do so, he was encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and 
to continue in office during the high priesthoods of his successors. This would 
be especially easy when his own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman 
nominee. 1 There were no less than twenty-eight high priests from the time of 
Herod the Great to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. Ant. xx. 10). 

lytveTo prjfia ©eou em '\wdvr\v. It is clear from this that what 
Lk. is anxious to date with precision is not any event in the life 
of the Messiah, but the appearance of the new Prophet, who was 

1 Josephus says that David appointed Zadok high priest 'Ajliaddpov, 
*i\os 7&p ty avry (Ant. vii. 5. 4). See Lft. Biblical Essays, p. 163. 


to be the Messiah's herald, and who was by some mistaken for 
the Messiah. John's preaching and baptizing is an epoch with 
Lk. (Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24). As distinct from 6 Ao'yos tov 
®eov, which means the Gospel message as a whole (see on 
viii. 11), prjfj-a. ©eov means some particular utterance (Mt. iv. 4; 
comp. Lk. xxii. 61). The phrase yLveaOai prjp-a Kvpiou (not ®eov) 
is freq. in LXX (Gen. xv. 1 ; 1 Sam. xv. 10 ; 2 Sam. vii. 4 ; 1 Kings 
xvii. 2, 8, xviii. 1, xx. 28, etc.) ; also yCveudai \6yov KvpCov (2 Sam. 
xxiv. n; 1 Kings vi. 11, xii. 22, xiii. 20, xvi. 1, etc.). It is the 
O.T. formula to express Divine inspiration. In such cases the 
phrase is almost always followed by 7rpo's : but in 1 Chron. xxii. 8 (?) 
and Jer. i. 1 we have eirt. Jer. i. 1 is a close parallel to this : to 
prj/j-a tov &eov o iyevero eirl lepe/xiav. The phrase occurs nowhere 
else in N.T. 

'Iwdnrn' tow Zaxapi'ou uloV. Lk. alone describes the Baptist thus. 
No other N.T. writer mentions Zacharias. — iv -rfj ip-qp-u. The one 
mentioned as his abode (i. 80). Both AV. and RV. rather obscure 
this by using " deserts " in i. 80 and " wilderness " here. Mt. calls 
it " the wilderness of Judaea" (iii. 1). It is the Jeshimon of 1 Sam. 
xxiii. 19. See D.B.- art. " Arabah," and Stanley, Sin. 6° Pal. p. 310. 

3-6. Description of the New Prophet. Lk. omits the state- 
ments about his dress and food (Mt. iii. 4 ; Mk. i. 6), and also the 
going out of the people of Jerusalem and Judaea to him (Mt. iii. 5 ; 
Mk. i. 5). The famous account of the Baptist in Jos. Ant. xviii. 
5. 2 should be compared. It may have been altered by Christian 
scribes, but its divergence from the Gospel narrative as to the 
motive for imprisoning and killing John, is in favour of its origin- 
ality. 1 See Hastings, D.B. L p. 240. 

3. irao-av ireptx^po 1 ' tou 'lopSd^ou. The same as "the plain of 
Jordan," which is thus rendered in LXX Gen. xiii. 10, 11 ; by tw 
Trepi^wpoy rod 'I., 2 Chron. iv. 17; and by tw irepioiKw tov 'I., 1 
Kings vii. 46. The expression covers a considerable portion of the 
Jordan valley at least as far north as Succoth (2 Chron. iv. 17). 
The Baptist, therefore, moved north from the limestone desert on 
the W. shore of the Dead Sea, and perhaps went almost the whole 
length of the valley to the confines of the Sea of Galilee. For 
" Bethany (Beth-Anijah = ' House of Shipping ') beyond Jordan " 
must have been near Galilee (Jn. i. 28), and is supposed by 
Conder to be the same as Bashan {Handbook of the Bible, pp. 315, 
320). See, however, D.B. 2 art. " Bethabara." John was some- 
times on one bank and sometimes on the other, for we read of his 
working in Peraea (Jn. x. 40). His selection of the valley of the 

1 "This part of John's ministry, viz. his work as a reformer, Josephus has 
brought out prominently ; while he has entirely failed to notice the indelible 
stamp of the Baptist's labours left upon the history of the Theocracy " (Neander, 
L.J.C. §34). 



Jordan as his sphere of work was partly determined by the need of 
water for immersion. Stanley, Sin. 6° Pal. p. 312. 

KTjpu'crow . . . dp.apTiwi'. Verbatim as Mk. i. 4. Nowhere in 
N.T. has its primary meaning of " act as a herald " ; but 
either "proclaim openly" (viii. 39, xii. 3; Mk. i. 45, etc.) or 
"preach the Gospel" (Mt. xi. 1; Mk. iii. 14; Rom. x. 14, 15, 
etc.). To "preach baptism" is to preach the necessity or value of 
baptism ; and " repentance baptism " (ft anna /mo. yueravoias) is bap- 
tism connected with repentance as being an external symbol of the 
inward change (Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4). The repentance precedes 
the baptism, which seals it and reminds the baptized of his new 
obligations. To submit to this baptism was to confess that one 
was a sinner, and to pledge oneself to a new life. The " change 
of mind " 1 (/xeraVota) has reference both to past deeds and to future 
purposes, and is the result of a realization of their true moral 
significance (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1, 6, xii. 17). This inward 
change is specially insisted upon in the account of John's preach- 
ing in Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 2. The word is rare in Mt. (iii. 8, n) 
and Mk. (i. 4), and does not occur in Jn. It is freq. in Lk. (ver. 8, 
v. 32, xv. 7, xxiv. 47; Acts v. 31, xi. 18, etc.). We find it in 
Jos. Ant. xiii. n. 3 of Aristobulus after the murder of his brother; 
in Plut. Pericles, x., of the Athenians after the banishment of 
Cimon ; and in Thuc. iii. 36. 3 of the Athenians after the sentence 
on Mitylene. See American Ch. Rev. No. 134, pp. 143 ff. John's 
" repentance baptism " was €19 a<|>ecn.e dp.apTiwt'. This was its 
purpose, assuring the penitent of forgiveness, and of deliverance 
from the burden, penalty, and bondage of sin (Trench, Syn. xxxiii.; 
Crem. Lex. p. 297 : comp. Lk. i. 77 ; Acts ii. 38 ; Heb. x. 18). 

4. kv PipXw Xoywe. With the exception of Phil. iv. 3, lv fiifiXu 
is peculiar to Lk. (xx. 42 ; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). The form /8t/3Xos 
is usual where the meaning is a writing or document, fivfikos where 
the plant or papyrus as writing material is intended (Hdt. ii. 96. 3, 
v. 58. 3). For Aoyoi in the sense of the " utterances of a teacher 
or prophet " comp. Acts xx. 35 ; Amos i. 1. 

4>w^t] powt'Tos . . . to,s Tpij3ous auToG. From Mt. iii. 3 and Mk. 
i. 3 we see that, in the tradition of which all three make use, these 
words were quoted as applying to the Baptist. This is therefore 
a primitive interpretation ; and we learn from Jn. i. 23 that it 
originated with the Baptist himself. John was a <pwvrj making 
known the Adyos. " The whole man was a sermon." The message 
was more than the messenger, and hence the messenger is regarded 

1 Lactantius, in writing de Pacnitentia prefers resipiscentia as a better, al- 
though still inadequate, rendering. Is enim qitem Jacti sui panitet, errorem 
sunm pristinum intelligit ; ideoque Grxci melhis et significantius fxerdvotat 
diamt, quant nos latine possumus resipiscentiam dicere. Resipiscit enim at 
mentem suam quasi ab insania recipit, etc. {Div. Inst. vi. 24. 6). 


as mainly a voice. Jn. has dOvvare for et-fleta? iroieiTt (i. 23), and 
this looks as if he were translating direct from the Hebrew, which 
has one word and not two. The quotation in the other three is 
identical, and (with the substitution of avrov for tov ©eov [77/Awv]) 
verbatim as LXX. Lk. quotes Is. xl. 4, 5 as well as xl. 3, and 
here slightly varies from LXX, having dOetas for tiBelav, and al 

Tpa\€~Lai €ts oSovs Aet'as for rj rpa^€ta eis TreSia. 1 

eV tt} eprjfiw. It is possible to take these words with eroi^a'o-aTe 
rather than with <pwv?) /3owvtos : but here, as in Mt. aid Mk., the 
latter arrangement is more natural — vox clamantis in deserto. 
Barnabas (ix. 3) connects them with /?owi/tos. It is evident from 
the scenery which is mentioned that it is in a desert that the road 
for the coming King has to be made. The details symbolize the 
moral obstacles which have to be removed by the repentance 
baptism of John, in order to prepare the people for the reception 
of the Messiah, or (as some prefer) of Jehovah (Is. xxxv. 8-10). 
That Lk. means the Messiah is shown by the substitution of auroS 
for tov ®eov : and that this interpretation is in accordance with the 
primitive tradition is shown by the fact that all three Gospels have 
this substitution. Just as Oriental monarchs, when making a royal 
progress, send a courier before them to exhort the population to 
prepare roads, so the Messiah sends His herald to exhort His own 
people (Jn. i. 11) to prepare their hearts for His coming. 

5. 4>dpa-y£. "A valley shut in by precipices, a ravine"; here only in 
N.T., but found in LXX (Judith ii. 8) and in class. Grk. (Thuc. ii. 67. 4). 
It is perhaps from the same root as <papaw=" plough " and foro = " bore." 

Powos. Herodotus seems to imply that this is a Cyrenaic word (iv. 
199. 2) : but it is freq. in later writers and in LXX. Comp. xxiii. 30, and 
for the sense Zech. iv. 7 ; Is. xl. 4. 

lorai tcL o-KoXia els, k.t.X. " The crooked places shall become 
straight ways, and the rough ways smooth ways " : i.e. roads shall 
be made where there were none before, and bad roads shall be 
made good roads. Comp. the account of Vespasian's march into 
Galilee, especially the work of the pioneers (Jos. B.J. iii. 6. 2). 

6. irao-a <rap£. Everywhere in N.T. this expression seems to 
refer to the human race only ; so even Mt. xxiv. 22 ; Mk. xiii. 20 ; 
1 Pet. i. 24; comp. Acts ii. 17 ; Rom. iii. 20. Fallen man, man 
in his frailty and need of help, is meant. In LXX it often in- 
cludes the brutes: Gen. vi. 19, vii. 15, 16, 21, viii. 17, ix. 11, 

1 Ewald says of the prophecy of which these verses form the introduction, that 
" it is not only the most comprehensive, but also, in respect of its real prophetic 
subject-matter, the weightiest piece of that time, and altogether one of the most 
important portions of the O.T., and one of the richest in influence for all future 
time. ... It is especially the thought of the passing away of the old time, 
and the flourishing of the new, which is the life of the piece " {Prophets of 0. T. % 
Eng. tr. iv. pp. 244, 254 ; comp. pp. 257, 259). 


15, 16, 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 25; Jer. xxxii. 27, xlv. 5. The phrase is 
one of many which occur frequently in Is. xl.-lxvi., but not at aU 
in the earlier chapters (Driver, Isaiah, p. 197). 

to o-amjpioy. It was obviously for the sake of this declaration 
that Lk. continued the quotation thus far. That "the salvation 
of God " is to be made known to the whole human race is the 
main theme of his Gospel. 

7-17. John's Preaching and its Effects. This section gives us 
the burden of his preaching ("EAeyev, imperf.) in accordance (ovv) 
with the character which has just been indicated. The herald who 
has to see that hearts are prepared for the Messiah must be stern 
with hypocrites and with hardened sinners, because the impenitent 
cannot escape punishment (7-9) ; must supply different treatment 
for different classes (10-14; comp. ver. 5); and must declare the 
certainty of his Master's coming and of its consequences (15-17). 

7. "EXeyee our. " He used to say, therefore " : being the pre- 
dicted Forerunner, his utterances were of this character. We need 
not regard this as a report of what was said on any one occasion, 
but as a summary of what he was in the habit of saying during his 
ministry to the multitudes who came out of the towns and villages 
(eKTro/jeuoju-eWs) into the wilderness to hear the Prophet and gain 
something from him. Mt. (iii. 7) represents this severe rebuke as 
addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees ; which confirms the 
view that Lk. is here giving us the substance of the preaching 
rather than what John said on some particular day. What he 
said to some was also said to all ; and as the salvation offered was 
universal, so also was the sin. This is thoroughly characteristic of Lk. 

pairTiCT0T]vai. As a substitute for repentance, or as some magical 
rite, which would confer a benefit on them independently of their 
moral condition. Their desire for his baptism showed their belief 
in him as a Prophet; otherwise the baptism would have been 
valueless (Jn. i. 25 ; comp. Zech. xiii. 1 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25). Hence 
the indignation of John's disciples when they heard of Jesus 
baptizing, a rite which they regarded as their master's prerogative 
(Jn. iii. 26). The title 6 fiawTio-Trjs or 6 fiawTi&v shows that his 
baptism was regarded as something exceptional and not an ordinary 
purification (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 2). Its exceptional character con- 
sisted in (r) its application to the whole nation, which had become 
polluted ; (2) its being a preparation for the more perfect baptism 
of the Messiah. It is only when baptism is administered by im- 
mersion that its full significance is seen. 

Bo.tttI{u is intensive from pdwTU), like /SaXX/fw from /3aXXw : /SaVrw, " I 
dip"; pairrifa, " I immerse." Tevvrnxara is " offspring " of animals or men 
(Ecclus. x. 18) ; "fruits" of the earth or of plants (Deut. xxviii. 4, 11, 18, 42, 
5; Mt. xxvi. 29; Mk. xiv. 25; Lk. xxii. 18); "rewards" of righteousness 
(Hos. x. 12 ; 2 Cor. ix. 10).. 


re^n^crm e'xiSywe. Genimina (Vulg.) or generatio (b ffe 1 q r) or 
progenies (acdef) viperarum. In Mt. this is addressed to the 
Pharisees, first by John and afterwards by Jesus (iii. 7, xii. 34, 
xxiii. 33). It indicates another parentage than that of Abraham 
(Jn. viii. 44), and is perhaps purposely used in opposition to their 
trust in their descent: comp. Aesch. Cho. 249; Soph. Ant. 531. 
John's metaphors, like those of the prophecy (ver. 5), are from the 
wilderness ; — vipers, stones, and barren trees. It is from this stern, 
but fresh and undesecrated region, and not from the " Holy," but 
polluted City, that the regenerating movement proceeds (Is. xli. 
18). These serpent-like characters are the a-Koitd that must be 
made straight. Comp. Ps. lviii. 4, cxl. 3. 

uire'Setley. "Suggested" by showing to eye or ear: vi. 47, 
xii. 5; Acts ix. 16, xx. 35; elsewhere in N.T. only Mt. iii. 7. 

ttjs fieXXou'o-Tjs 6pyr\<i. It is possible that this refers primarily to 
the national judgments involved in the destruction of Jerusalem 
and the banishment of the Jews (xxi. 23; 1 Mac. i. 64); but the 
penalties to be inflicted at the last day are probably included 
(Rom. i. 18, ii. 5, 8, iii. 5, v. 9). The Jews believed that the judg- 
ments of God, especially in connexion with the coming of the 
Messiah, as threatened by the Prophets (Joel ii. 31; Mai. iii. 2, 
iv. 1 ; Is. xiii. 9), were to be executed on the heathen. The Baptist 
proclaims that there is no such distinction. Salvation is for all 
who prepare their hearts to receive the Messiah ; judgment, for all 
who harden their hearts and reject Him. Birth is of no avail. 

8. 7roiT]o-aTe ouy Kapirous d|i'ous t. jx. " If you desire to escape 
this wrath and to welcome the Messiah (ovv), repent, and act at 
once (aor. imperat.) as those who repent." Comp. xx. 24; Acts 
iii. 4, vii. 33, ix. n, xvi. 9, xxi. 39, xxii. 13 ; and see Win. xliii. 3. a, 
p. 393. Mt. has Kapirov (iii. 8), which treats the series of acts as a 
collective result. Comp. S. Paul's summary of his own preaching, 
esp. a£ia 1-775 /xeTavotas epya Trpdao-ovTas (Acts xxvi. 20). 

It was a Rabbinical saying, " If Israel would repent only one day, the 
Son of David would come forthwith"; and again, "If Israel would observe 
only one sabbath according to the ordinance, forthwith would the Son of 
David come"; and, "All the stages are passed, and all depends solely on 
repentance and good works." 

The phrase xoielv Kapirov is not necessarily a Hebraism (Gen. i. II, 12) : 
it occurs [Arist.J De Plant, i. 4, p. 819, ii. 10, p. 829. Comp. Jas. iii. 12; 
Mk. iv. 32. 

fj-T] ap£r)a0e. " Do not even begin to have this thought in your 
minds." Omnem excusationis etiam conatum prxcidit (Beng.). If 
there are any passages in which dp^ofxat with an infin. is a mere 
periphrasis for the simple verb (xx. 9), this is not one of them. 
See Win. lxv. 7. d, p. 767; Grim-Thay. p. 79; Fritzsche on Mt. 
xvi. 21, p. 539. — Xeyeif iv cciutois. "To say within yourselves" 


rather than " among yourselves." Comp. vii. 49 and Xe'yere iv reus 
KapSuus vfj-wv (Ps. iv. 5). For the perennial boast about their 
descent from Abraham comp. Jn. viii. 33, 53; Jas. ii. 21; 2 Esdr. 
vi. 56-58 ; Jos. Ant. iii. 5. 3 ; B. J. v. 9. 4; Wetst. on Mt. hi. 9. 

ck rC)v Xi'Suf tou'twi/. There is a play upon words between 
11 children " (banini) and " stones " (abanim). It was God who 
made Abraham to be the rock whence the Jews were hewn (Is. 
Ii. 1, 2); and out of the most unpromising material He can make 
genuine children of Abraham (Rom. iv., ix. 6, 7, xi. 13-24; Gal. 
iv. 21-31). The verb eyetpai is applicable to both stones and 

9. tjStj. "Although you do not at all expect it." The image 
of the axe is in harmony with that of the fruits (ver. 8). In the 
East trees are valued mainly for their fruit ; and trees which pro- 
duce none are usually cut down. " And even now also the axe is 
laid unto the root." 

The irp(5s after KtiTat may be explained either, " is brought to the root 
and lies there " ; or, "lies directed towards the root." In either case the 
meaning is that judgment is not only inevitable, but will come speedily : 
hence the presents, iKKO-n-Terai and pdWerai. 

The 5£ Kal (in Mt. simply 5£) is Lk.'s favourite method of giving emphasis ; 
ver. 12, ii. 4, iv. 41, v. 10, 36, ix. 61, x. 32, xi. 18, xii. 54, 57, xiv. 12, 
xvi. 1, 22, xviii. 9, xix. 19, xx. 12. For ^i-q with a participle, expressing a 
reason or condition, com^ . ii. 45, vii. 30, xi. 24, xii. 47, xxiv. 23 ; Acts ix. 26, 
xvii. 6, xxi. 34, xxvii. 7 ; and see Win. Iv. 5 (/3), p. 607. For eKKdirreiv, "to 
cut off," of felling trees, comp. xiii. 7, 9 ; Hdt. ix. 97. 1. See notes on 
vi. 43. 

10-14. John's Different Treatment of Different Classes. Peculiar 
to Lk., but probably from the same source as the preceding verses. 
It shows that, in levelling the mountains and raising the valleys, 
etc. (ver. 5), he did not insist upon any extraordinary penances or 
" counsels of perfection." Each class is to forsake its besetting 
sin, and all are to do their duty to their neighbour. The stern 
warnings of the Baptist made the rulers leave in disgust without 
seeking baptism at his hands (vii. 30 ; Mt. xxi. 25) ; but they made 
the multitude anxious to comply with the conditions for avoiding 
the threatened judgment. 

10. eirripwTCjy. " Continually put this question." The notion 
of repetition comes from the imperf. and not, as in<lLv (xvi. 3, 
xviii. 35), from the hri, which in eVepwrav indicates the direction of 
the inquiry; Plato, Soph. 249 E, 250. Comp. k-rvSoQ-q in iv. 17. 

Ti ouc Troir|CTci)fxei' ; " What then, if the severe things which thou 
sayest are true, must we do?" For the conjunctivas deliberativus 
comp. xxiii. 31; Mt. xxvi. 54, Mk. xii. 14; Jn. xii. 27; and see 
Win. xii. 4. b, p. 356; Matth. 515. 2; Arnold's Madvig, p. 99; 
Green, p. 150. 

11. 8u'o xiTums. The xitcjv was the under and less necessary 


garment, distinguished from the upper and almost indispensable 
Ifxanov ; vi. 29; Acts ix. 39; Mt. v. 40; Jn. xix. 23. When two of 
these x'Twves were worn at once, the under one or shirt would be the 
Hebrew cetoneth, the upper would be the Hebrew meil, which was 
longer than the cetoneth. It was common for travellers to wear two 
(Jos. Ant. xvii. 5. 7); but Christ forbade the disciples to do so 
(ix. 3; Mt. x. 10). It is not implied here that the two are being 
worn simultaneously. See Trench, Syn. 1. ; Conder, Ha)idb. of B. 
p. 195; JD.B? art. "Dress"; Schaffs Herzog, art. "Clothing and 
Ornaments of the Hebrews." If the owner of two shirts is to " give 
a share" (fieTaooTcu), he will give one shirt. Comp. Rom. i. 11, 
xii. 8 ; and contrast Peter's reply to the same question Acts ii. 37, 
38. With regard to Ppw'fxaTa, nothing is said or implied about 
having superfluity or abundance. He who has any food is to 
share it with the starving. Comp. 1 Thes. ii. 8. 

This verse is one of those cited to support the view that Lk. is Ebionite in 
his sympathies, a view maintained uncompromisingly by Renan (Les Evangiles, 
ch. xiii.; V. de J. chs. x., xi. ), and by Campbell {Critical Studies in St. Luke, 
p. 193). For the answer see Bishop Alexander [Leading Ideas of the Gospel, 
p. 170). Here it is to be noticed that it is Mt. and Mk. who record, while Lk. 
omits, the poor clothing and poor food of the Baptist himself; and that it is Mt. 
who represents his sternest words as being addressed to the wealthy Pharisees 
and Sadducees, while Lk. directs them against the multitudes generally. 

12. TeXwmi. From tcAt? (Mt. xvii. 25; Rom. xiii. 7) and 
wveofxai ; so that etymologically TtXwvai = publicani, " those who 
bought or farmed the taxes " under the Roman government. But 
in usage TeXaJvat = portitores, " those who collected the taxes " for 
the publicani. This usage is common elsewhere, and invariable in 
N.T. Sometimes, and perhaps often, there was an intermediate 
agent between the TeAwvai and the publicani, e.g. dpx^e\wv7]<i or 
magister (xix. 2). 

These "tax-collectors" were detested everywhere, because of their oppres- 
siveness and fraud, and were classed with the vilest of mankind : /jloixoi ko.1 
iropvofioaKol /ecu re\Qvai ko.1 /coAa/ces /ecu avKO<pdvTai, /ecu toiovtos S/aiXoj tup Travra 
kvkwptwp iv rut ftiu (Lucian. Necyomant. xi. ; comp. Aristoph. Equit. 248; 
Theophr. Charac. vi.; Grotius, in loco ; Wetst. on Mt. v. 46). The Jews especi- 
ally abhorred them as bloodsuckers for a heathen conqueror. For a Jew to 
enter such a service was the most utter degradation. He was excommunicated, 
and his whole family was regarded as disgraced. But the Romans allowed the 
Herods to retain some powers of taxation ; and therefore not all tax-collectors 
in Palestine were in the service of Rome. Yet the characteristic faults of 
the profession prevailed, whether the money was collected in the name of Caesar 
or of Herod ; and what these were is indicated by the Baptist's answer. See 
Lightfoot, Opera, i. pp. 324, 325 ; Herzog, PRE. 2 art. Zoll; Edersh. L. 6° 71 i. 

P- 5I5- 

13. Aloao-KaXe. Publicani majore ceteris reverentia utuntut 
(Beng.). Syr-Sin. omits the word. 

irXe'ov irapa. For irapd after comparatives comp. Heb. i. 4, iii. 3, ix. 23, 


xi. 4, xii. 24; Hdt. vii. 103. 6; Thuc. i. 23. 4, iv. 6. 1. The effect »s to 
intensify the notion of excess : so also virip, xvi. 8 ; lleb. iv. 12. 

t6 8taTeTaY/j.eVof. " That which stands prescribed " (perf.) j 
a favourite word with Lk.: viii. 55; xvii. 9, 10; Acts vii. 44, xviii. 2, 
xx. 13. xxiii. 31, xxiv. 23. Comp. disponere, verordnen. It is from 
the general meaning of " transacting business " that Trpdo-o-co 
acquires the special sense of " exacting tribute, extorting money " : 
comp. xix. 23. This use is found from Herodotus onwards : Hdt. 
iii. 58. 4; ^sch. Cho. 311; Pers. 476; Eum. 624; Xen. Anab. 
vii. 6. 17: comp. 7rpa/cTcop, ela-nrpdacreLv, iKirpdaanv, and many 
illustrations in Wetst. Agere is similarly used : publicum quadra- 
gesimal, in Asia egit (Suet. Vesp. i.); but what follows is of interest 
as showing how rare an honourable publicanus was : manebantque 
imagines in civitatibus ei positai sub hoc titulo KAAQ2 TEAfiNH- 
2ANTI. This is said of Sabinus, father of Vespasian. After farm- 
ing the quadragesima tax in Asia he was a money-lender among 
the Helvetii. It is to be noticed that the Baptist does not con- 
demn the calling of a tax-collector as unlawful for a Jew. He 
assumes that these TeAunai will continue to act as such. 

14. o-TpaTeuofieyoi. "Men on service, on military duty"; mili- 
tantes rather than milites (Vulg.). In 2 Tim. ii. 4, ou8els o-Tpare.vo- 
/u.ei'0? is rightly rendered nemo militans. Who these " men on 
service " were cannot be determined ; but they were Jewish soldiers 
and not Roman, and not on service in the war between Antipas and 
his father-in-law Aretas about the former's repudiation of the latter's 
daughter in order to make room for Herodias. That war took 
place after the Baptist's death (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 2), two or three 
years later than thi^, and probably a.d. 32 (Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 
1 1 71, 141 2). These 0-rpareuop.evot were possibly gendarmerie, 
soldiers acting as police, perhaps in support of the tax-collectors. 
Such persons, as some modern nations know to their cost, have 
great opportunities for bullying and delation. By their /cat 17/Aets 
they seem to connect themselves with the reXaivat, either as know- 
ing that they also were unpopular, or as expecting a similar answer 
from John. 

MTjoeVa Siao-eio-TjTe. Like concutio, Siao-aw is used of intimida- 
tion, especially of intimidating to extort money (3 Mac. vii. 21). 
Eusebius uses it of the extortions of Paul of Samosata (H. E. 
vii. 30. 7) ; where, however, the true reading may be eVo-eiei. In 
this sense o-ct'o) also is used (Aristoph. Equit. 840; Pax, 639) ; and 
it is interesting to see that Antipho couples o-ctw with avKocpavTib. 
^(Ao/cpaT?;? ovToai iripov; toii/ vivivOevviMV Icme /cat icruKofyavTei (Orat. 
vi. p. 146, 1. 22). 1 This last passage, combined with the verse 

1 In the Passio S. Perpetux, iii., the martyr suffers much aTpariurCiv avKocpar- 
rlais nXeivTats, and this is represented in the Latin by cotuussurm militum. 
Comp. Tert. De Fuga in Pers. xii., xiii. 


before us, renders it probable that o-vko^cu'tt??, a " fig-shower," is 
not one who gives information to the police about the exportation 
of figs, but one who shows figs by shaking the tree ; i.e. who makes 
the rich yield money by intimidating them. Nowhere is ctvko- 
<f)uvT7]<; found in the sense of " informer," nor yet of " sycophant." 
It always denotes a "false accuser," especially with a view to 
obtaining money; Arist. Ach. 559, 825, 828. Hatch quotes from 
Brunet de Presle, Notices et textes du Musk du Louvre, a letter of 
B.C. 145 from Dioscorides, a chief officer of finance, to his sub- 
ordinate Dorion : irepl Se 8ia.creio-p.eIii' kcu 7rapa\ei<hv eviW Se /cat 
o-UKO<J>arreL<r6ai 7rpoexc/>efjo/AeVajv /3ouAo/ze#a vp.a<; fxi] 8ia\av8ava.v t 
k.t.X., " in the matter of fictitious legal proceedings and plunder- 
ings, some persons being, moreover, alleged to be even made the 
victims of false accusations," etc. (Bio/. Grk. p. 91). Comp. Lev. 
xix. 1 1 ; Job xxxv. 9. Hesychius explains o-uko^civt^s as \j/ev8o- 

6i|/om'ois. From oxpov, " cooked food " to be eaten with bread, 
and wveojxai, " I buy " : hence " rations, allowance, pay " of a 
soldier; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Mac. hi. 2S, xiv. 32; 1 Esdr. iv. 56; and 
freq. in Polybius. John does not tell these men on service that 
theirs is an unlawful calling. Nor did the early Christians con- 
demn the life of a soldier : see quotations in Grotius and J. B 
Mozley, University Sermons, Serm. v. 

15-17- The certainty of the Messiah's Coming and the Conse- 
quences of the Coming. Mt. hi. 11, 12. The explanatory open- 
ing (ver. 15) is peculiar to Lk. The substance of ver. 16 is common 
to all three; but here Lk. inserts the characteristic irao-iv. In 
ver. 17 he and Mt. are together, while Mk. is silent. Lk. shows 
more clearly than the other two how intense was the excitement 
which the Baptist's preaching caused. 

15. npoo-Sotcwrros. What were they expecting ? The result of all 
this strange preaching, and especially the Messianic judgment. 
Would it be put in execution by John himself? For this absolute 
use of TTpoahoKaui comp. Acts xxvii. 33. Excepting Mt. xi. 3, 
xxiv. 50, 2 Pet. hi. 12-14, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (i. 21, vii. 
19, 20, viii. 40, xii. 46 ; Acts iii. 5, etc.). Syr-Sin. omits. 

The Vulg. here has the strange rendering existimante ; although in i. 21, 
vii. 19, 20, viii. 40 trpoaboKau is rendered expecto, and in xii. 46 spero. Cod. 
Brix. has sperante here. See on xix. 43 and xxi. 23, 25 for other slips in 
Jerome's work. Here d has an attempt to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin : 
et ccgitantium omnium. Comp. ix. 43, xix. 11, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 41. 

p] TTOTc auTos. " If haply he himself were the Christ." Their 
thinking this possible, although " John did no sign," and had none 
of the insignia of royalty, not even descent from David, is remark- 
able. Non ita crassam adhuc ideam de Christo habebant< nam 


Johannes nil splendoris externi habebat et tamen talia de eo cogita- 
bant (Beng.). That this question had been raised is shown by 
Jn. i. 20. The Baptist would not have declared " I am not the 
Christ," unless he had been asked whether he was the Messiah, or 
had heard the people discussing the point. 

For the constr. comp. fir/ irore dtpr] aureus 6 9eds iierdvoiav (2 Tim. ii. 25). 
The opt. in indirect questions is freq. in Lk. both without dv (i. 29, viii. 9, 
Acts xvii. ii, xxi. 33) and also with &v (i. 62, vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, 
x. 17). 

16. irao-if. Showing how universal the excitement on this point 
was. Neither Mt. (iii. n) nor Mk. (i. 7) has the izauiv of which 
Luke is so fond : comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4, xii. 10. 

The aor. mid. direKplparo is rare in N.T. (xxiii. 9; Acts iii. 12; Mt. 
xxvii. 12; Mk. xiv. 61; Jn. v. 17, 19) ; also in LXX (Judg. v. 29 ; 1 Kings 
ii. I ; 1 Chron. x. 13 ; Ezek. ix. n). In bibl. Grk. the pass, forms prevail : 
see small print on i. 19. 

'Eyu ph uScm. Both with emphasis : "/with wafer." 

6 icrxupoTepos. Valeb at Johannes, sed Christ us multoplus (Beng.). 
The art. marks him as one who ought to be well known. 

Xuctcu Toy Ibarra rdv uTroorjfuiTwe. More graphic than Mt.'s ra 
vttoS. (3acrT<i(raL, but less SO than Mk.'s kviI/cls Axcrai rov t/x. tujv v7to8. 
aurov. Both AV. and RV. mark the difference between vTroSrjfia, 
" that which is bound under " the foot, and aavBdXiov, dim. of 
o-dvSaXou, by rendering the former "shoe" (x. 4, xv. 22, xxii. 35; 
Acts vii. 33, xiii. 25) and the other "sandal" (Mk. vi. 9; Acts 
xii. 8). The Vulg. has cakeamenta for v-o^rjfj.aTa, and satidalia or 
caligse, for cravSaXta. In LXX the two words seem to be used 
indiscriminately (Josh. ix. 5, 13); but viroB. is much the more 
common, and it is doubtful whether the Jews before the Captivity 
wore shoes or mana/im (Deut. xxxiii. 25) as distinct from sandals. 
Comp. ot ljxdvT€% twv vTrohi]jxa.T<av airwv (Is. v. 27). To unfasten 
shoes or sandals, when a man returned home, or to bring them to 
him when he went out, was the office of a slave (See Wetst. on Mt. 
iii. n). John is not worthy to be the bond-servant of the Christ 
The auTou is not so entirely redundant as in some other passages : 
" whose latchet of his shoes." x 

auTos. In emphatic contrast to the speaker. 

iv ir^ujJiaTi. dyiw. See on i. 15. That the ev with Trvevfian 
ayio) and its absence from vBan marks a distinction of any great 
moment, either here or Acts i. 5, must be doubted ; for in Mt. 
iii. 1 1 both expressions have the iv, and in Mk. i. 8 neither. The 
simple dat. marks the instrument or matter with which the baptism 

1 Comp. Mk. vii. 25 ; I Pet. ii. 24 ; Rev. iii. 8, vii. 2, 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8. 
Such pleonasms are Hebraistic, and are specially common in LXX (Gen. i. 11; 
Exod. xxxv. 29, etc.) ; Win. xxii. 4 (b), p. 1S4. 


is effected ; the eV marks the element in which it takes place (Jn. 
i. 31). See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 244. 

ica! irupi. This remarkable addition is wanting in Mk. Various 
explanations of it are suggested. (1) That the fiery tongues at 
Pentecost are meant, is improbable. Were any of those who 
received the Spirit at Pentecost among the Baptist's hearers on 
this occasion ? Moreover, in Acts i. 5 kou iwp'i is not added. 
(2) That it distinguishes two baptisms, the penitent with the 
Spirit, and the impenitent with penal fire, is very improbable. 
The same persons (v/xdi) are to be baptized with the Spirit and 
with fire. In ver. 1 7 the good and the bad are separated, but not 
here. This sentence must not be made parallel to what follows, 
for the winnowing-shovel is not baptism. (3) More probably the 
■n-vpL refers to the illuminating, kindling, and purifying power of 
the grace given by the Messiah's baptism. Spiritus sanctus, quo 
Christus baptizat, igneam vim habet : atque ea vis ignea etiam 
conspicua fiuit oculis hominum (Beng.) : comp. Mai. iii. 2. (4) Or, 
the fiery trials which await the disciple who accepts Christ's 
baptism may be meant: comp. xii. 50; Mk. x. 38, 39. The 
passage is one of many, the exact meaning of which must remain 
doubtful ; but the purifying of the believer rather than the punish- 
ment of the unbeliever seems to be intended. 

17. irru'oy. The " winnowing-shovel " (pala lignea ; Vulg. 
ventilabrum), with which the threshed corn was thrown up into 
the wind (7ttvw = "spit "). 1 This is a further description of the 
Messiah, — He whose tttvov is ready for use. Note the impressive 
repetition of clvtov after rfj x €l Ph T W aAwra, and ti)v d-n-oO^K-qv. 2 

ttjk aXura. The threshing-floor itself, and not its contents. 
It is by removing the contents — corn to the barn, and refuse to 
the fire — that the floor is thoroughly cleansed. Christ's threshing- 
floor is the world ; or, in a more restricted sense, the Holy Land. 
See Meyer on Mt. iii. 12. 

d(r|3eoT&>. Comp. Mk. ix. 43 ; Lev. vi. 12, 13; Is. xxxiv. 8-10, 
Ixvi. 24 ; Jer. vii. 20 ; Ezek. xx. 47, 48. In Homer it is a freq. 
epithet of yc/Vws, /<Aeos, fiorj, /ae'vos, and once of <f>\6£ (II. xvi. 123). 
As an epithet of irvp it is opposed to fxaXOaKov and px/cpdv. See 

1 The wooden shovel, pala lignea (Cato, R. R. vi. 45. 151), ventilabrum 
(Varro, R. R. i. 52), seems to have been more primitive than the vannus, which 
was a basket, shaped like the blade of a large shovel. The irrtiov was a shovel 
rather than a basket. In Tertullian (Preescrip. iii.) palam in maun porta/ ad 
purgandam aream snam is probably the true reading: but some MSS. have 
ventilabrum for palam. 

2 The form diaKadapai is worth noting : in later Greek iK&dapa. for indd-qpa. 
is not uncommon. Mt. here has dia.Ka.9a.piei, but classical writers prefer Sia- 
Kadaipeiv to dtaKadaplfeiv. — For the details of Oriental threshing see Ilerzog, 
PRE. 2 art. Ackerbau ; D.B. 2 art. "Agriculture." For &xvpa comp. Job 
xxi. 18, and Hdt. iv. 72. 2 ; the sing, is less common (Jer. xxiii. 28). 


Heinichen on Eus. H. E. vi. 41. 15 and viii. 12. 1. It is therefore 
a fierce fire which cannot be extinguished, rather than an endless 
fire that will never go out, that seems to be indicated : and this is 
just such a fire as to ayypov (the refuse left after threshing and 
winnowing) would make. But ao-/3eo-Tos is sometimes used of a 
fire that never goes out, as that of Apollo at Delphi or of Vesta at 
Rome (Dion. Hal. cxciv. 8). For Kcn-aKaieii' comp. Mt. xiii. 30, 
40 ; also Ex. iii. 2, where it is distinguished from kcuW : it implies 
utter consumption. 

18-20. § Explanation of the Abrupt Termination of the 
Baptist's Ministry. This is given here by anticipation in order 
to complete the narrative. Comp. the conclusions to previous 
narratives: i. 66, 80, ii. 40, 52. 

18. rioWd (lev oue ica! eTepa. The comprehensive 7roXXa /cat 
erepa confirms the view taken above (ver. 7) that this narrative 
(7-18) gives a summary of John's teaching rather than a report of 
what was said on any one occasion. The erepa means " of a 
different kind " (Gal. i. 6, 7), and intimates that the preaching of 
the Baptist was not always of the character just indicated. 

The cases in which fitv obv occurs must be distinguished. 1. Where, as 
here, fi.iv is followed by a corresponding 54, and we have nothing more than 
the distributive fikv . . . 5£ . . . combined with ot<v (Acts viii. 4, 25, xi. 19, 
xii. 5, xiv. 3, xv. 3, 30, etc.). 2. Where no Si follows, and /xev confirms 
what is said, while oZv marks an inference or transition, quidem igilicr (Acts 
i. 6, ii. 41, v. 41, xiii. 4, xvii. 30 ; Heb. vii. II, viii. 4, etc.). Win. liii. 8. a, 
p. 556. 

TrapaKaXue eur)YY £ ^l £T0 • • • cXeyxop-evos. These words give 
the three chief functions of the Baptist : to exhort all, to preach 
good tidings to the penitent, to reprove the impenitent. It is 
quite unnecessary to take t6v Xaov with TrapaKaXCjv, and the order 
of the words is against such a combination. 

In late Greek the ace. of the person to whom the announcement is made is 
freq. after ei/ayyeXt'jVff&u (Acts xiv. 15, xvi. 10; Gal. i. 9 ; I Pet. i. 12; 
comp. Acts viii. 25, 40, xiv. 21) : and hence in the pass, we have tttwxoI 
evayyeXliovTou. The ace. of the message announced is also common (viii. 1 ; 
Acts v. 42, viii. 4, 12?, x. 36, xi. 20). Where both person and message are 
combined, the person addressed is in the dat. (i. 19, ii. 10, iv. 43 ; Acts 
viii. 35; comp. Lk. iv. 18; Acts xvii. 18; Rom. i. 15, etc.): but in Acts 
xiii. 32 we have double ace. Here the Lat. texts vary between evangelizabat 
populum (Cod. Am.) and evang. populo (Cod. Brix.). 

19. c HpJ8T]s. Antipas, as in ver. 1. The insertion of the 
name <^lXlttttov after ywaiKos comes from Mk. and Mt. (A C K X 
and some versions). This Philip must be carefully distinguished 
from the tetrarch Philip, with whom Jerome confuses him. He 
was the son of Mariamne, on account of whose treachery he had 
been disinherited by Herod the Great ; and he lived as a private 


individual at Jerusalem (Jos. B.J. i. 30. 7). Josephus calls both 
Antipas and also this Philip simply " Herod " {Ant. xviii. 5. 4). 
Herodias became the evil genius of the man who seduced her from 
his brother. It was her ambition which brought about the down- 
fall of Antipas. Lk. alone tells us that John rebuked Antipas for 
his wicked life (ica! irepl -n&vroiv) as well as for his incestuous 
marriage. Obviously iXeyxofievos means "rebuked, reproved" 
(1 Tim. v. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 2), and not "convicted" or "convinced" 
(Jn. viii. 46, xvi. 8). In the former sense e'Ae'yx"" is stronger 
than iTriTijxav : see Trench, Syn. iv. 

Once more (see on ver. 1) we have a remarkable rendering in d : Herodes 
autem quaterducattis aim argiteretur ab eo, etc. 

Note the characteristic and idiomatic attraction (irdvruv wv), and com p. 
":.. 2 °> v< 9 ' ix * 43t xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, xxiv. 25 ; Acts iii. 21, x. 39, 
xiii. 39, xxii. 10, xxvi. 2. 

20. irpoCTe'GTjKev ica! touto fir! irdo-n', k are KXeicrei', k.t.X. " He 
added this also on the top of all — he shut up John in prison " ; 
i.e. he added this to all the other Trovrjpd of which he had been 
guilty. Farrar, Herod s, p. 171. 

Josephus, in the famous passage which confirms and supple- 
ments the Gospel narrative respecting the Baptist {Ant. xviii. 5. 2), 
says that Antipas put him in prison because of his immense 
influence with the people. They seemed to be ready to do what- 
ever he told them ; and he might tell them to revolt. This may 
easily have been an additional reason for imprisoning him : it is no 
contradiction of the Evangelists. What Josephus states is what 
Antipas publicly alleged as his reason for arresting John : of course 
he would not give his private reasons. The prison in which the 
Baptist was confined was in the fortress of Machasrus at the N.E. 
corner of the Dead Sea. Seetzen discovered the site in 1807 
above the valley of the Zerka, and dungeons can still be traced 
among the ruins. Tristram visited it in 1872 {Discoveries on t/ie 
East Side of the Dead Sea, ch. xiv.). It was hither that the 
daughter of Aretas fled on her way back to her father, when she 
discovered that Antipas meant to discard her for Herodias. 
Machasrus was then in her father's dominions; but Antipas 
probably seized it immediately afterwards (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 1, 2). 

The expression irpoaedriKev rovro, KariKXeiaet/ must not be confounded 
with the Hebraisms TrpoaeQero W/t^ctt (xx. II, 12), irpoaideTo avWafielv 
(Acts xii. 3). It is true that in LXX the act. as well as the mid. is used in 
this manner : irpoaddTjKe re/cetv (Gen. iv. 2) ; Trpoae6rjK€ \a\ija-ai (Gen. 
xviii. 29) : see also Exod. x. 28 ; Deut. iii. 26 ; and for the mid. Exod. 
xiv. 13. But in this Hebraistic use of vpouTie-qni. for "go on and do" the 
second verb is always in the infin. (Win. liv. 5, p. 588). Here there is no 
Hebraism, and therefore no sign that Lk. is using an Aramaic source. 

KaraKXeiav is classical, but occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxvi. 10; 
in both cases of imprisoning. It is freq. in medical writers, and Galen uses 

98 Ttffc dOSPEL ACCORDING f O S. LUKfc [til. 20, 21. 

il of imprisonment (Ilobart, Med. Lang, of Lk. pp. 66, 67). Mt. xiv. 3 we 
have airedero, and Mk. vi. 17, iorjuev, of Herod's putting John into prison. 

21, 22. Jesus is baptized by John. — It is remarkable, that 
although the careers of the Forerunner and of the Messiah are 
so closely connected, and so similar as regards prediction of birth, 
retirement, ministry, and early end, yet, so far as we know, they 
come into actual contact only at one brief period, when the 
Forerunner baptized the Christ. Once some of John's disciples 
raised the question of fasting, and Jesus answered it (v. 33 ; Mt. 
ix. 14), and once John sent some of his disciples to Jesus tc 
question Him as to His Messiahship (vii. 19-23; Mt. xi. 2-19); 
but there is no meeting between Christ and the Baptist. Lk., 
having completed his brief account of the Forerunner and his 
work, begins his main subject, viz. the Messiah and His work. 
This involves a return to the point at which the Forerunner met 
the Messiah, and performed on Him the rite which prepared Him 
for His work, by publicly uniting Him with the people whom He 
came to save, and proclaiming Him before them. 

21. iv 7(J f3airTt<T9fji'ai airacTa tov \a6c. "After all the people 
had been baptized"; cum baptizatus esset omnis populus (Cod. 
Brix.) : not, "while they were being baptized"; cum baptizaretur 
(Cod. Am.). The latter would be iv t<5 with the pres. infin. 

Both constructions are very freq. in Lk. Contrast the aorists in ii. 27, 
ix. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1, xix. 15, xxiv. 30, Acts xi. 15 with the presents in v. 1, 
12, viii. 5, 42, ix. 18, 29, 33, 51, x. 35, 38, xi. 1. 27, xvii. 11, 14, xxiv. 4, 
K, 51; Acts viii. 6, xix. I. Lk. is also fond of the stronger form (Ltras, 
which is rare in N.T. outside his writings. Readings are often confused, but 
#7ras is well attested v. 26, viii. 37, ix. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. I ; Acts ii. 44, 
iv. 31, v. 16, x. 8, xi. 10, xvi. 3, 28, xxv. 24; and may be right in other 

That there were great multitudes present when John baptized 
the Christ is not stated ; nor is it probable. Had Lk. written iv 
t<3 fta-m-ileo-dai, this would have implied the presence ot many 
other candidates for baptism ; but it was not until " after every one 
of the people had been baptized " that the baptism of Jesus took 
place. Possibly Jesus waited until He could be alone with John. 
In any case, those who had long been waiting for their turn would 
go home soon after they had accomplished their purpose. It was 
some time after this that John said to the people, " He that cometh 
after me ... is standing in the midst of you, and ye know Him 
not" (Jn. i. 26). They could hardly have been so ignorant of Him, 
if large multitudes had been present when John baptized Him. 

kch 'Ino-ou (3aiTTio-0eVTos. It is remarkable that this, which seems 
to us to be the main fact, should be expressed thus incidentally by 
a participle. It is as if the baptism of all the people were regarded 
as carrying with it the baptism of Jesus almost as a necessary com- 


plement : "After they had been baptized, and when He had been 
baptized and was praying." But perhaps the purpose of Lk. is to 
narrate the baptism, not so much for its own sake as an instance of 
Christ's conformity to what was required of the people, as for the 
sake of the Divine recognition and authentication which Jesus then 

Jerome has preserved this fragment of the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews : " Lo, 
the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist baptizeth 
for remission of sins : let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, 
Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? except perchance 
this very thing which I have said is ignorance" {Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). The Tract atus 
de Rebaptismate says that the Pauli Pr&dicatio represented "Christ, the only 
man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respecting His 
own sin, and driven almost against His will by His mother Mary to accept the 
baptism of John : also that when He was baptized fire was seen on the water, 
which is not written in any Gospel " (xvii. ; Hartel's Cyprian, ii. p. 90). The 
fire in the water is mentioned in Justin ( Try. lxxxviii. ), but not as recorded by 
the Apostles ; and also in the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews. 

Kal TrpocreuxofieVou. Lk. alone mentions this. On his Gospel 
as emphasizing the duty of prayer see Introd. § 6. Mt. and Mk. 
say that Jesus saw the Spirit descending; Jn. says that the Baptist 
saw it ; Lk. that it took place (eyevero) along with the opening of 
the heaven and the coming of the voice. Mk. says simply to 
TTvev/j.a ; Mt. has 7rvei)ju.a ®cou ; Lk. t6 irviZfia to ayiov. See on 

i. 15. 

The constr. of iyivero with ace. and infin. is on the analogy of the class, 
constr. of <7iW/3t? : it is freq. in Lk. See note, p. 45. The form ave^- 
6rji>cu is anomalous, as if assimilated to dve(fx^ ai '• comp. Jn. ix. 10, 14 ; 
Rev. iv. 1, vi. 1. 

22. CTWfjLa-riKu eioei us Trepiorepcif. "In a bodily form" is 
peculiar to Lk. Nothing is gained by admitting something visible 
and rejecting the dove. Comp. the symbolical visions of Jehovah 
granted to Moses and other Prophets. We dare not assert that the 
Spirit cannot reveal Himself to human sight, or that in so doing 
He cannot employ the form of a dove or of tongues of fire. The 
tongues were appropriate when the Spirit was given " by measure " 
to many. The dove was appropriate when the Spirit was given 
in His fulness to one. It is not true that the dove was an ancient 
Jewish symbol for the Spirit. In Jewish symbolism the dove is 
Israel. The descent of the Spirit was not, as some Gnostics 
taught, the moment of the Incarnation : it made no change in the 
nature of Christ. But it may have illuminated Him so as to com- 
plete His growing consciousness of His relations to God and to 
man (ii. 52). It served two purposes : (1) to make Him known to 
the Baptist, who thenceforward had Divine authority for making 
Him known to the world (Jn. i. 32, 33); and (2) to mark the offi- 
cial beginning of the ministry, like the anointing of a king. As at 


the Transfiguration, Christ is miraculously glorified before setting 
out to suffer, a voice from heaven bears witness to Him, and " the 
goodly fellowship of the Prophets " waits on His glory. 

The phrase cposv^v yevicrdat is freq. in Lk. (i. 44, ix. 35, 36; Acts ii. 6, 
vii. 31, x. 13, xix. 34). Elsewhere only Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 ; Jn. xii. 30 ; Rev. viii. 5. 
Comp. epxerai cpwvt), Jn. xii. 28; f'^pxerai cpwvl), Rev. xvi. 17, xix. 5. 

lu. Responsio adpreces, ver. 21 (Beng.). The Su shows that the 
voice conveyed a message to the Christ as well as to the Baptist. 
Mk. also has 2u ct: in Mt. iii. 17 we have Ouro? icrriv. Diversitas 
locutionum adhiic etiam utilis est, ne uno modo dictum minus intelli- 
gatur (Aug.). In the narrative of the Transfiguration all three have 

Of / » 

The reference seems to be to Ps. ii. 7 ; and here D and other important 
witnesses have Tio's p.ov el crv, eyili arj/xepov yeyewTjud ere. Augustine says that 
this was the reading of some MSS., "although it is stated not to be found in the 
more ancient MSS." {De Cons. Evang. ii. 14: comp. Enchir. ad Laurent, xlix.). 
Justin has it in his accounts of the Baptism {Try. lxxxviii., ciii.). In Mt. it is 
possible to take 6 dyair^Tos with what follows: "The beloved in whom I am 
well pleased" ; but this is impossible here and in Mk. i. 11, and therefore im- 
probable in Mt. The repetition of the article presents the epithet as a separate 
fact: "Thou art My Son, My beloved one." Comp. /xovvos ewv ayairr)T6s 
(Horn. Od. ii. 365). It is remarkable that St. John never uses dyairrjTos of 
Christ : neither in the Fourth Gospel nor in the Apocalypse does the word occur 
in any connexion. 

cii8<5KT]o-a. "I am well pleased": the timeless aorist. Comp. Jn. xiii. 3. 
The verb is an exception to the rule that, except where a verb is compounded 
with a prep., the verbal termination is not retained, but one from a noun of the 
same root is substituted : e.g. dSwarelv, evepyeTeiv, not aduvacrdai, evepydfecrdat. 
Comp. KapaSoKew and bv<rdv1)<jKeiv, which are similar exceptions, Win. xvi. 5, 
p. 125. 

The voice does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, as a legend would prob- 
ably have represented. No such proclamation was needed either by Jesus or 
by the Baptist. The descent of the Spirit had told John that Jesus was the 
Christ (Jn. i. 33). This voice from heaven, as afterwards at the Transfiguration 
(ix. 35), and again shortly before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), followed closely upon 
Christ's prayer, and may be regarded as the answer to it. His numanity was 
capable of needing the strength which the heavenly assurance gave. To call 
this voice from heaven the Bath-Kol of the Rabbis, or to treat it as analogous 
to it, is misleading. The Rabbinic Bath-Kol, or " Daughter-voice," is regarded 
as an echo of the voice of God : and the Jews liked to believe that it had been 
granted to them after the gift of prophecy had ceased. The utterances attri- 
buted to it are in some cases so frivolous or profane, that the more intelligent 
Rabbis denounced it as a superstition. 

It has been pointed out that Lk. appears to treat the baptism of Jesus by 
John as a matter of course. Mt. tells us that the Baptist at first protested 
against it ; and many writers have felt that it requires explanation. Setting 
aside the profane suggestions that Jesus was not sinless, and therefore needed 
"repentance baptism for remission of sins," or that He was in collusion with 
John, we may note four leading hypotheses. 1. He wished to do honour to 
John. 2. He desired to elicit from John a declaration of His Messiahship. 
3. He thereby gave a solemn sign that He had done with home life, and was 
beginning His public ministry. 4. He thereby consecrated Himself for His 


work. — This last seems to be nearest to the truth. The other three would be 
more probable if we were expressly told that multitudes of spectators were 
present ; whereas the reverse seems to be implied. John's baptism was prepara- 
tory to the kingdom of the Messiah. For everyone else it was a baptism of 
repentance. The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could yet accept the 
preparation. In each case it marked the beginning of a new life. It conse- 
crated the people for the reception of salvation. It consecrated the Christ for 
the bestowing of it (Neander, L.J. C. § 42 (5), Eng. tr. p. 68). But besides 
this it was a "fulfilment of righteousness," a complying with the requirements 
of the Law. Although pure Himself, through His connexion with an unclean 
people He was Levitically unclean. " On the principles of O.T. righteousness 
His baptism was required" (Lange, L. of C. i. p. 355). 

In the Fathers and liturgies we find the thought that by being baptized Him- 
self Jesus elevated an external rite into a sacrament, and consecrated the element 
of water for perpetual use. Baptizatus est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, 
sed mundare aquas (Ambr. on Lk. iii. 21, 23). " By the Baptisme of thy wel 
beloved sonne Jesus Christe, thou dydest sanctifie the fludde Jordan, and al other 
waters to this misticall washing away of synne" (First Prayer-Book of Edw. vi. 
1549, Public Baptism) ; which follows the Gregorian address, " By the Baptism 
of Thine Only-begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water " 
(Bright, Ancient Collects, p. 161). 

There is no contradiction between John's " Comest Thou to me?" (Mt. 
iii. 14) and " I knew Him not" (Jn. i. 31, 33). As a Prophet John recognized 
the sinlessness of Jesus, just as Elisha recognized the avarice and untruthfulness 
of Gehazi, or the treachery and cruelty of Hazael (2 Kings v. 26, viii. 10-12) ; 
but until the Spirit descended upon Him, he did not know that He was the 
Messiah (Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. ii. 9, Eng. tr. i. p. 320). John had three main 
functions : to predict the coming of the Messiah ; to prepare the people for it ; 
and to point out the Messiah when He came. When these were accomplished, 
his work was nearly complete. 

23-38. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Comp. Mt. i. 1-17. 
The literature is very abundant : the following are among the prin- 
cipal authorities, from which a selection may be made, and the 
names of other authorities obtained. 

Lord A. Hervey, The Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour, 
Macmillan, 1853; J. B. McClellan, The New Testament oj our 
Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 408-422, Macmillan, 1875; W. H. Mill, 
Observations on the Application of Pantheistic Principles to the 
Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospel, pp. 147-218; D.B. 2 
art. " Genealogy " ; D. of Chr. Biog. art. " Africanus " ; Schaff s 
Herzog, art. "Genealogy"; Commentaries of Mansel (Speaker), 
Meyer, Schaff, on Mt. L; of Farrar, Godet, M. R. Riddle, on 
Lk. iii. 

Why does Lk. insert the genealogy here instead of at the beginning of his 
Gospel ? It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that this is the beginning 
of his Gospel, for the first three chapters are only introductory. The use of 
apxo/J-evos here implies that the Evangelist is now making a fresh start. Two of 
the three introductory chapters are the history of the Foierunner, which Lk. 
completes in the third chapter before beginning his account of the work of the 
Messiah. Not until Jesus has been anointed by the Spirit does the history of 
the Messiah, i.e. the Anointed One, begin ; and His genealogy then becomes of 
importance. In a similar way the pedigree of Moses is placed, not just before 


or just after the account of his birth (Exod. ii. I, 2), where not even the names 
of his parents are given, but just after his public appearance before Pharaoh as 
the spokesman of Jehovah and the leader of Israel (Exod. vi. 14-27). 

The statement of Julius Africanus, that Herod the Great caused the genealo- 
gies of ancient Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to conceal the defects 
of his own pedigree (Eus. H. E. i. 7. 13), is of no moment. If he ever gave 
such an order, it would of necessity be very imperfectly executed. The rebuild- 
ing of the temple would give him the opportunity of burning the genealogies of 
the priests, which were preserved in the temple archives, but pedigrees in the 
possession of private families would be carefully concealed. Josephus was able 
to give his own genealogy, as he "found it described in the pub/ic records" — eV 
reus 8r}fj.o<rtaii 5e\rots avayeypa/j./xtprji' ( Vita, I ) ; and he tells us what great care 
was taken to preserve the pedigrees of the priests, not merely in Judsea, but in 
Egypt, and Babylon, and "whithersoever our priests are scattered" (Apion. 
i. 7). It is therefore an empty objection to say that Lk. could not have 
obtained this genealogy from any authentic source, for all such sources had been 
destroyed by Herod. It is clear from Josephus that, if Herod made the attempt, 
he did not succeed in destroying even all public records. Jews are very tena- 
cious of their genealogies ; and a decree to destroy such things would be evaded 
in every possible way. The importance of the evidence of Africanus lies in his 
claim to have obtained information from members of the family, who gloried in 
preserving the memory of their noble extraction ; and in his referring both 
pedigrees as a matter of course to Joseph. It is not probable that Joseph was the 
only surviving descendant of David who was known to be such. But it is likely 
enough that all such persons were in humble positions, like Joseph himself, and 
thus escaped the notice and jealousy of Herod. Throughout his reign he took 
no precaution against Davidic claimants ; and had he been told that a village 
carpenter was the representative of David's house, he would possibly have 
treated him as Domitian is said to have treated the grandsons of Judas the 
brother of the Lord — with supercilious indifference (Eus. H. E. iii. 20). 

23. auTos. " He Himself," to whom these miraculous signs 
had reference: comp. i. 22; Mt. iii. 4. The AV. translation of 
the whole clause, auTos tJi* 'Itjctous dpxo/Ji€v'o$ were! aup' TpiaKorra, 
"Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age," is im- 
possible. It is probably due to the influence of Beza : incipiebat 
esse quasi annorum triginta. But Cranmer led the way in this 
error in the Bible of 1539, and the later versions followed. Purvey 
is vague, like the Vulgate : " was bigynnynge as of thritti year," — 
erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta. Tyndale is right : " was 
about thirty yere of age when He beganne " ; i.e. when He began 
His ministry in the solemn way just recorded. Comp. the use of 
op^a/i,evos in Acts i. 22. In both cases StSdo-Keiv may be under- 
stood, but is not necessary. In Mk. iv. 1 we have the full expres- 
sion, rjp^aTo 8tSdo-Keu', which is represented in the parallel, Mt. 
xiii. 1, by iKaO-qro. Professor Marshall has shown that rjp£a.To and 
£i<d6r}To may be equivalents for one and the same Aramaic verb 
(Expositor, April 189 1) : see on v. 21. 

It is obvious that this verse renders little help to chronology. 
" About thirty " may be anything from twenty-eight to thirty-two, — 
to give no wider margin. It is certain that our era is at least four 
years too late, for it begins with a.u.c. 754. Herod the Great 


died just before the Passover a.u.c. 750, ■which is therefore the 
latest year possible for the Nativity. If we reckon the "fifteenth 
year " of ver. 1 from the death of Augustus, Jesus was probably 
thirty-two at the time of His Baptism. 

Sjv utos, ws ecojjii^eTo, 'Icocttjc)) tou c HXet. This is the right punctua- 
tion : "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of 
Heli." It is altogether unnatural to place the comma after 'lwa-q^ 
and not before it : " being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of 
Heli " ; i.e. being supposed to be the son of Joseph, but being 
really the grandson of Heli. It is not credible that utos can mean 
both son and grandson in the same sentence. J. Lightfoot pro- 
posed that " Jesus " (viz. vios, not vlov) should be understood 
throughout ; " Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so 
the son of Heli, and so the son of Matthat," etc. (Hor. Heb. on 
Lk. iii. 23). But this is not probable : see on rov ®eov (ver. 38). 

It is evident from the wording that Lk. is here giving the genealogy of Joseph 
and not of Mary. It would have been quite out of harmony with either Jewish 
ideas or Gentile ideas to derive the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the 
eye of the law Jesus was the heir of Joseph ; and therefore it is Joseph's descent 
which is of importance. Mary may have been the daughter of Heli ; but, if 
she was, Lk. ignores the fact. The difference between the two genealogies was 
from very early times felt to be a difficulty, as is seen from the letter of Julius 
Africanus to Aristides, c. a.d. 220 (Eus. H. E. i. 7 ; Routh, Ret. Sacr. ii. 
p. 228) ; and it is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedi- 
gree of Joseph and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon 
advocated, if there had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting 
it. But this solution is not advocated by anyone until Annius of Viterbo pro- 
pounded it, c. a.d. 1490. Yet see Victorinus (?) on Rev. iv. 7 (Migne v. 324). 

The main facts of the two genealogies are these. From Adam to Abraham 
Lk. is alone. From Abraham to David, Lk. and Mt. agree. From David to 
Joseph they differ, excepting in the names of Zorobabel and his father Salathiel. 
The various attempts which have been made at reconciling the divergences, 
although in no case convincingly successful, are yet sufficient to show that recon- 
ciliation is not impossible. Nevertheless, the possibility that we have here 
divergent attempts of Jewish pedigree-makers may be admitted ; for divergent 
theories, corresponding to the two genealogies, existed at the time. In addition 
to the authorities named above, the monographs of Hottinger, Surenhusius, and 
Voss may be consulted. See also the parallel tables in Resch, Kindheitsev. p. 1 88. 

37. tou Zopoj3df3c\ tou laXaGiTJX. It is highly improbable that 
these are different persons from the Zerubbabel and the Shealtiel 
of Mt. i. 12. That at the same period of Jewish history there 
should be two fathers bearing the rare name Salathiel or Shealtiel, 
each with a son bearing the rare name Zerubbabel, and that both 
of these unusually-named fathers should come in different ways 
into the genealogy of the Messiah, is scarcely credible, although 
this hypothesis has been adopted by both Hottinger and Voss. 
Zerubbabel ( = " Dispersed in Babylon," or " Begotten in Baby- 
lon ") was head of the tribe of Judah at the time of the return from 
the Babylonish Captivity in the first year of Cyrus ; and he was 


therefore an obvious person to include in the pedigree of the 
Messiah. Hence he was called the Rhesa or Prince of the Cap- 
tivity. In i Chron. iii. 19 he is given as the son of Pedaiah and 
nephew of Shealtiel : and this is probably correct. But he became 
the heir of Shealtiel because the latter had no sons. In Mt. i. 1 2 
and 1 Chron. iii. 17, Shealtiel is the son of Jechoniah, king of 
Judah ; whereas Lk. makes him the son of Neri. Jeconiah is 
called Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, and Jehoiachin, Iii. 3152 Kings xxiv. 6; 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, 9 ; and all three names mean " The Lord will 
establish." From Jer. xxii. 30 we learn that he had no children; 
and therefore the line of David through Solomon became extinct in 
him. The three pedigrees indicate that an heir for the childless 
Jeconiah was found in Shealtiel the son of Neri, who was of the 
house of David through Nathan. Thus the junction of the two 
lines of descent in Shealtiel 1 and Zerubbabel is fully explained. 
Shealtiel was the son of Neri of Nathan's line, and also the heir of 
Jeconiah of Solomon's line ; and having no sons himself, he had 
his nephew Zerubbabel as adopted son and heir. Rhesa, who 
appears in Lk., but neither in Mt. nor in 1 Chron., is probably not 
a name at all, but a title, which some Jewish copyist mistook for a 
name. "Zerubbabel Rhesa," or "Zerubbabel the Prince," has 
been made into " Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa." This correction 
brings Lk. into harmony with both Mt. and 1 Chron. For (1) the 
Greek 'Iwavas represents the Hebrew Hananiah (1 Chron. iii. 19), 
a generation which is omitted by Mt. ; and (2) Lk.'s 'IovSa is the 
same as Mt.'s 'A/3tov'S (Jud-a = Ab-jud). Again, 'WSa or 'AfiiovB 
may be identified with Hodaviah (1 Chron. iii. 24) ; for this name 
is interchanged with Judah, as is seen by a comparison of Ezra 
iii. 9 and Neh. xi. 9 with Ezra ii. 40 and 1 Chron. ix. 7. 

36. Ia\d too Kaicaji tou 'Ap<|>a|d&. In LXX this Cainan appears 
as the father of Sala or Shelah, and son of Arphaxad, in the genea- 
logy of Shem (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12; 1 Chron. i. 18). But the name 
is not found in any Hebrew MS., or in any other version made from 
the Hebrew. In LXX it may be an insertion, for no one earlier 
than Augustine mentions the name. D omits it here, while X B L 
have the form Kcuvd/i. for Kati/aV. But the hypothesis that inter- 
polation here has led to interpolation in LXX cannot be maintained 
upon critical principles. 

38. 'ASdu.. That Lk. should take the genealogy beyond David 
and Abraham to the father of the whole human race, is entirely in 
harmony with the Pauline universality of his Gospel. To the Jew 
it was all-important to know that the Messiah was of the stock of 
Abraham and of the house of David. Mt. therefore places this fact 

1 Both forms of the name, Shealtiel and Salathiel, are found in Haggai and 
elsewhere in O.T. ; but in the Apocrypha and N.T. the form used is Salathiel 
("I have asked God"). 


in the forefront of his Gospel. Lk., writing to all alike, shows that 
the Messiah is akin to the Gentile as well as to the Jew, and that 
all mankind can claim Him as a brother. 1 

But why does Lk. add that Adam was the son of God ? Cer- 
tainly not in order to show the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, 
which would place Him in this respect on a level with all mankind. 
More probably it is added for the sake of Gentile readers, to remind 
them of the Divine origin of the human race, — an origin which they 
share with the Messiah. It is a correction of the myths respecting 
the origin of man, which were current among the heathen. Scrip- 
tura, etiam quod ad humani generis ortum pertinet, figit satiatque 
cognitionem nostram ; earn qui spermint aut ignorant, pendent errant- 
que inter tempora antemundana et postmundana (Beng.). It is very 
forced and unnatural to take tov ©eov as the gen. of 6 ©cos, and 
make this gen. depend upon w vlos at the beginning of the gene- 
alogy, as if Jesus and not Adam was styled the " son of God." Thus 
the whole pedigree from ws ivo/xi^To to 'A8d/x would be a gigantic 
parenthesis between wv vlo<s and rov ®eov. The tov throughout 
belongs to the word in front of it, as is clear from the fact that 
'laHrrjcji, the first name, has no tov before it. Each tov means " who 
was of," i.e. either "the son of" or "the heir of." Both AV. and 
RV. give the sense correctly. 

IV. 1-13. The Internal Preparation for the Ministry of the 
Christ: the Temptation in the Wilderness, Mt. iv. 1-11; Mk. 
i. 12, 13. 

R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 1-65, Macmillan, 
1867; B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. ii. 10, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. i. 
pp. 319-354; H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 11 2-146, Bell, 
1890; P. Schaff, Person of Christ, pp. 32, 153, Nisbet, 1880; A. 
M. Fairbairn, Expositor, first series, vol. iii. pp. 321-342, Hodder, 
1876; P. Didon, Jesus Christ, ch. iii. pp. 208-226, Plon, 1891. 

Many futile and irreverent questions have been raised respect- 
ing this mysterious subject; futile, because it is impossible to 
answer them, excepting by empty conjectures; and irreverent, 
because they are prompted by curiosity rather than by a desire for 
illumination. Had the answers to them been necessary for our 
spiritual welfare, the answers would have been placed within our 
reach. Among such questions are such as these : Did Satan 

1 " In the one case we see a royal Infant born by a legal title to a glorious 
inheritance ; and in the other a ministering Saviour who bears the natural sura 
of human sorrow " (Wsctt. Int. to the Gospels, 7th ed. p. 316). The whole 
passage should be read. 


assume a human form, and change his form with each change of 
temptation, or did he remain invisible ? Did he know who Jesus 
was, or was he trying to discover this ? Did he know, until he was 
named, that Jesus knew who he was ? ^Yhere was the spot from 
which he showed all the kingdoms of the world ? 

Three points are insisted upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
(ii. 18, iv. 15), and beyond them we need not go. 1. The tempta- 
tions were real. 2. Jesus remained absolutely unstained by them. 
3. One purpose of the temptations was to assure us of His sym- 
pathy when we are tempted. The second point limits the first and 
intensifies the third. The sinlessness of Jesus excluded all those 
temptations which spring from previous sin ; for there was no taint 
in Him to become the source of temptation. But the fact that the 
solicitations came wholly from without, and were not born from 
within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being 
regarded as desirable. The force of a temptation depends, not 
upon the sin involved in what is proposed, but upon the advantage 
connected with it. And a righteous man, whose will never falters 
for a moment, may feel the attractiveness of the advantage more 
keenly than the weak man who succumbs ; for the latter probably 
gave way before he recognized the whole of the attractiveness ; or 
his nature may be less capable of such recognition. In this way 
the sinlessness of Jesus augments His capacity for sympathy : for 
in every case He felt the/u// force of temptation. 1 

It is obvious that the substance of the narrative could have 
had only one source. No one has succeeded in suggesting any 
probable alternative. There is no Old Testament parallel, of which 
this could be an adaptation. Nor is there any prophecy that the 
Messiah would have to endure temptation, of which this might be 
a fictitious fulfilment. And we may be sure that, if the whole 
had been baseless invention, the temptations would have been of 
a more commonplace, and probably of a grosser kind. No Jewish 
or Christian legend is at all like this. It is from Christ Himself 
that the narrative comes ; and He probably gave it to the disciples 
in much the same form as that in which we have it here. 

1 " Sympathy with the sinner in his trial does not depend on the experience 
of sin, but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin, which only 
the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last 
•train " (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 18). See Neander, Z. /. C. §§ 46, 47, pp. 77, 78. 


1. -n-Xripris weufiaTos dyiou. These words connect the Tempta- 
tion closely with the Baptism. 1 It was under the influence of 
the Spirit, which had just descended upon Him, that He went, in 
obedience to God's will, into the wilderness. All three accounts 
mark this connexion ; and it explains the meaning of the narrative. 
Tesus had been endowed with supernatural power ; and He was 
tempted to make use of it in furthering His own interests without 
regard to the Father's will. And here avqx^V • • • ^e.Lpao-6r]vai 
(Mt. iv. 1) must not be understood as meaning that Christ went 
into the wilderness to court temptation. That would be too like 
yielding to the temptation which He resisted (vv. 9-12). He 
went into the desert in obedience to the Spirit's promptings. That 
He should be tempted there was the Divine purpose respecting 
Him, to prepare Him for His work. D.C.G. ii. p. 714. 

Neither Mt. nor Mk. has Ayiov as an epithet of irvev/xa here (see on i. 15) ; 
and neither of them has Lk.'s favourite vw£<TTpe\pev. 

■^ye-TO iv tw irfeujiaTi iv ttj cpT)fJ-w. " He was led in (not into) 
the wilderness," i.e. in His wanderings there, as in His progress 
thither, He was under Divine influence and guidance. The imperf. 
indicates continued action. Tradition, which is not likely to be of 
any value, places this wilderness close to Jericho. Some region 
farther north is more probable. The Tjfxe'pas Tecro-epaKorra may be 
taken either with (RV.) or with 7retpa^o/i.evos (AV.). As the 
temptation by Satan was simultaneous (pres. part.) with the lead- 
ing by the Spirit, the sense will be the same, whichever arrange- 
ment be adopted. In Mk. also the words are amphibolous, and 
may be taken either with yv iv rfj ipij/j-ta or with 7reipa£o/xej/o?. If 
we had only the account in Mt. we might have supposed that the 
temptations did not begin until the close of the forty days. The 
three recorded may have come at the end of the time, as seems to be 
implied with regard to the first of them. Or they may be given as 
representative of the struggles which continued throughout the 
whole period. 

2. ireipa^op.ei'os. The word is here used in its commonest 
sense of " try or test," with a sinister motive. In N.T. it has three 
uses: 1. "try or attempt" to do (Acts ix. 26, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6); 2. 
" try or test" with a good motive (Jn. vi. 6 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Rev. 
ii. 2), especially of God's sending trials (1 Cor. x. 13 ; Heb. xi. 17 j 

1 Le bapteme et la tentation se succedent Pun a Pautre dans la rcalite de 
Phistoire, comme dans le recit des Evangelistes. Ces deux fails inseparables, 
qui s'e'clairent en s'opposanl dans un contraste vigoreux, sont le vrai prelude 
de la vie du Christ. Uun est la manifestation de P Esprit de Dieu, Pautre, 
celle de F esprit du mat; Pun nous montre la filiation divine de Jesus, F autre, 
sa nature humaine vouee a la lutte et a Pepreuve ; Pun nous revile la force infinie 
avec laquelle il agira, P autre, P obstacle qu'il saura renverser ; Pun nous 
tnseigne sa intime, Pautre, la loi de son action (Didon, p. 225). 


Rev. iii. 10); 3. "try or test" with a bad motive, in order to pro- 
duce perplexity or failure (xi. 16; Mt. xix. 3; [Jn.] viii. 6), especially 
of tempting to sin (1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 1 Thes. iii. 5 ; Jas. i. 13). It is 
thus of much wider meaning than So/a/i.a£eiv (xii. 56, xiv. 19), 
which has only the second of these meanings. Trench, Syn. 
lxxiv. ; Cremer, Lex. p. 494. 

uiro toG 8ia.p6\ou. All three use v-n-6 of the agency of Satan. 
He is not a mere instrument. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11; Acts x. 38. 
In N.T. SidfioXos with the art. always means Satan, " the calumni- 
ator," /car i£oxijv. In Mt, Jn., Acts, Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., 
James, Jude, 1 Pet., and Rev. this use is invariable. It is possible 
that 6 8id(3oXo<; was originally a translation of Satan = " the ad- 
versary." In LXX ev8ia/3a'AXetv sometimes means " meet, oppose " 
(Num. xxii. 22, 32), and Sia/3oAos means "adversary" (1 Mac. i. 
36). In Job (i. 6-12, ii. 1-7) and Zech. (iii. 1-3) 6 &idfio\o<; is 
used as in N.T. for Satan, as the accuser or slanderer of God to 
man and of man to God. In this scene he endeavours to mis- 
represent God, and to induce Jesus to adopt a false view of His 
relation to God. 

The existence of such a being is sometimes denied, but on 
purely d priori grounds. To science the question is an open one, 
and does not admit of demonstration either way. But the teach- 
ing of Christ and His Apostles is clear and explicit; and only 
three explanations are possible. Either (1) they accommodated 
their language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such ; or 

(2) they shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such ; or 

(3) the doctrine is not a superstition, but they taught the actual 
truth. As Keim rightly says, one cannot possibly regard all the 
sayings of Jesus on this subject as later interpolations, and " Jesus 
plainly designated His contention with the empire of Satan as a 
personal one" {Jes. o/JVaz., Eng. tr. ii. pp. 318, 325). See Gore, 
Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 23-27. 

ouk t^aycy ouSeV. This does not agree well with the supposition 
that Jesus partook of the scanty food which might be found in the 
wilderness. The vyo-revo-as of Mt. seems to imply the deliberate 
fasting which was customary in times of solemn retirement for 
purposes of devotion. But this does not exclude the possibility 
that the mental and spiritual strain was so great that for a time 
there was no craving for food. In any case the want of food 
would at last bring prostration of body and mind ; and then the 
violence of temptation would be specially felt. Both Mt. and Lk. 
appear to mean that it was not until near the end of the forty days 
that the pangs of hunger were endured. For crurreXeurScu of days 
being completed comp. Acts xxi. 27 ; Job i. 5 ; Tobit x. 7. 1 

1 The fasts of Moses and Elijah were of similar duration (Deut. ix. 9 ; 1 K. 
xix. 8). The number forty in Scripture is connected with suffering. The 


3. elnev. Mt. adds irpoaeXOwv, which is a very favourite ex- 
pression of his. It does not necessarily imply corporal presence, 
although Mt. himself may have understood it in that sense. Jesus 
says of the approaching struggle in Gethsemane, " The prince of the 
world cometh " (Jn. xiv. 30). Nowhere in Scripture is Satan said 
to have appeared in a visible form : Zech. iii. 1 is a vision. And 
nothing in this narrative requires us to believe that Satan was 
visible on this occasion. 

Ei olos cl tou 0€oG. Both Mt. and Lk. have vl6<s r. ®. without 
the article, the reference being to the relationship to God, rather 
than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is vids. 
The allusion to the voice from heaven (iii. 22) is manifest, but is 
not likely to have occurred to a writer of fiction, who would more 
probably have written, "If Thou art the Christ" The "if" does 
not necessarily imply any doubt in Satan, although Augustine takes 
it so ; l but it is perhaps meant to inspire doubt in Jesus : " Hath 
God said, Thou art My beloved Son, and yet forbidden Thee to 
give Thyself bread ? " Comp. " Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not 
eat of any tree of the garden?" (Gen. iii. 1). The suggestion 
seems to be that He is to work a miracle in order to prove the 
truth of God's express declaration, and that He may doubt His 
relation to God, if God does not allow the miracle. 

This seems better than to regard the first temptation as a temptation of the 
flesh. If the food had been there, would it have been sinful for Jesus to partake 
of it ? Again, it is sometimes said that it was a temptation to use His supernatural 
power to supply His own necessities. Among "the Laws of the Working of 
Signs" we are told was one to the effect that "Our Lord will not use I lis 
special powers to provide for His personal wants or those of His immediate 
followers." 2 This law perhaps does not hold, except so far as it coincides 
with the principle that no miracle is wrought where the given end can be ob- 
tained without miracle. Some of Christ's escapes from His enemies seem to 
have been miraculous. Was not that "providing for a personal want"? His 
rejoining His disciples by walking on the sea might be classed under the same 
head. The boat coming suddenly to land might be called "providing for the 
wants of His immediate followers." Had He habitually supplied His personal 
wants by miracle, then He would have ceased to share the lot of mankind. 
But it would be rash to say that it would have been sinful for Him to supply 
Himself with food miraculously, when food was necessary for His work and 
could not be obtained by ordinary means. It is safer to regard this as a 
temptation to satisfy Himself of the truth of God's word by a test of His own. 

Deluge lasted forty days and nights (Gen. vii. 4, 12). The Israelites wandered 
for forty years (Num. xiv. 33, xxxii. 13). Egypt is to lie waste forty years 
(Ezek. xxix. 11). Ezekiel is to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah (i.e. the 
penalty for that iniquity) forty days, each day representing a year (iv. 6). 
Offenders received forty stripes as a maximum (Deut. xxv. 3). A mother was 
unclean for forty days after childbirth (Lev. xii. I -4). Perhaps we are to 
understand that the fast of the Ninevites lasted forty days. 

1 Dubitavit de illo dxmonutn princeps, eumqiu tentavit, an Christus esset 
txplorans (De Civ. Dei, ix. 21). 

J Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 1 13. 


The singular rcj; \l9u) tout o> is more graphic than the ol \ldoi ovtoi of Mt. A 
single loaf is all that He need produce. The similarity between lumps of stone 
and loaves of bread perhaps explains why this material, so common in the 
wilderness, was selected for change into food. 

For the use of IW after dire" (x. 40, xix. 15, etc.) see Win. xliv. 8, pp. 
420-424; B. Weiss on Mt. iv. 3; Simcox, Lang, of N.T. p. 177; Green, 
Gr. of N.T. p. 170. It is a weakening of the telic force of tva. rather than a 
mere substitute for the infinitive. See Blass, Gr. pp. 217 ff. 

4. Christ does not reply to the "if" by affirming that He is 
the Son of God ; nor does He explain why the Son of God does 
not accept the devil's challenge. He gives an answer which holds 
good for any child of God in similar temptation. 1 The reply is a 
pointed refutation, however, of the special suggestion to Himself, 
6 avdpuyn-os having direct reference to mos r. ®eov. Satan suggests 
that God's Son would surely be allowed to provide food for Him- 
self. Jesus replies that God can sustain, not only His Son, but 
any human being, with or without food, and can make other things 
besides bread to be food. Comp. " My meat is to do the will of 
Him that sent Me " (Jn. iv. 34). The reply is verbatim as LXX 
of Deut. viii. 3. As all His replies come from this book, we may 
conjecture that Jesus had recently been reading it or meditating 
on it. The repeated use of a book which is so full of the trials of 
Israel in the wilderness may suggest a parallel between the forty 
days and the forty years. The direct reference is to the manna. 

The addition of the remainder of the quotation in A D and other authorities 
comes from Mt. It differs in wording in the texts which insert it. If it were 
genuine here, its absence from the best authorities would be most extra- 
ordinary. The insertion of 6 5idj3o\os and of els 8pos v\prj\6i> in ver. 5, and 
the substitution of tov Koa/xov for tt\s olKov/j.e'i'Tjs, are corruptions of the same 

5. Lk. places second the temptation which Mt. places last 
The reasons given for preferring one order to the other are sub- 
jective and unconvincing. Perhaps neither Evangelist professes to 
give any chronological order. Temptations may be intermingled. 
It is very doubtful whether the tote with which Mt. introduces the 
temptation which he places second, and the vdXiv with which he 
introduces his third, are intended to specify sequence in time. 
Many Lat. MSS. (Gbcflqr) here place vv. 5-8 after vv. 9-1 1. 
Lk. omits the command to Satan to depart; 2 and we have no 
means of knowing which temptation it immediately followed. Mt. 
naturally connects it with the one which he places last. 

dyayaYwy. See on ii. 22. The word does not require us to 

1 Trench quotes from Ambrose : Non enim quasi Deus utitur potesiau 
{quid enim miki froderat), sed quasi homo commune sibi arcessit auxilitim. 

2 It is worth noting that A. V. , which follows those texts that insert "TTrayt 
dwlffo) fiov, Sara^a in ver. 8, renders the words "Get thee behind Me, Sauu" 
there, and " Get thee hence, Satan " in Mt. 


believe that Satan had control of Christ's person and transferred 
Him bodily from the desert to a mountain-top. From no mountain 
could " all the kingdoms of the world " be visible, least of all " in 
a moment of time." If Satan on the mountain could present to 
Christ's mind kingdoms which were not visible to the eye, he 
could do so in the desert. We may suppose that he transferred 
Jesus in thought to a mountain-top, whence He could in thought 
see all. For " all the kingdoms of the world " comp. Ezra i. 2, 
where we have ttJs y^s for " of the world " : in Mt. tov Koa-fiov, 
which D substitutes here. 

tt)s oiKoufjieVTis. A favourite expression with Lk. (ii. 1, xxi. 26 ; 
Acts xi. 28, xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5) : elsewhere only six times, 
of which one is a quotation (Rom. x. 18 from Ps. xix. 5). It 
describes the world as a place of settled government, "the civilized 
world." To a Greek it might mean the Greek world as distinct 
from barbarian regions (Hdt. iv. no. 4; comp. Dem. De Cor. 
p. 242). Later it meant "the Roman Empire," orbis terrarum, as 
in ii. 1 (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 25). In inscriptions the Roman 
Emperor is 6 Kvpwi rrj<; ot/cov/xeV^s. Finally, it meant " the whole 
inhabited earth," as here and xxi. 26 (Rev. xvi. 14; Heb. i. 6; 
Jos. Ant. viii. 13. 4: B.J. vii. 3. 3). In Heb. ii. 5 it is used of 
the world to come as an ordered system : see Wsctt. Lk. omits 
»cai ttjv S6$av avTwv here, but adds it in Satan's offer. 

iv oTiyjxfj xP° you - Puncto temporis : comp. iv pnrfj 6<p0a\/j.ov 
(1 Cor. xv. 52). Not in Mt. Comp. Is. xxix. 5; 2 Mac. ix. 11. 
It intimates that the kingdoms were represented, not in a series of 
pageants, but simultaneously : acuta tentatio (Beng.). To take iv 
a-ny/AT) xp- with drayaywv is not a probable arrangement. With 
a-Ttyixrj (o~ri£eiv = " to prick") comp. stimulus, "stick," and "sting." 

6. Zol Swctoj . . . on efj.01 TTapaSeSoTai. Both pronouns are 
emphatic : " To Thee I will give . . . because to me it hath been 

The avruv after ttjv 86^av is a constructio ad sensum, referring to the 
kingdoms understood in t^v e^ovaiav rat/njj/, " this authority and jurisdiction." 
In wapaSedoTai we have the common use of the perf. to express permanent 
and present result of past action ; "it has been given over" and remains in 
my possession : comp. yiypairrai (4, 8, 10) and eip-rjrai (12). 

Satan does not say by whom it has been given over ; and two answers are 
possible : 1. by God's permission ; 2. by man's sin. But the latter does not 
exclude the former ; and in any case confitetur tentator, se non esse conditorem 
(Beng. ). That it refers to a Divine gift previous to his revolt against God, is a 
gratuitous conjecture. Christ Himself speaks of Satan as "the ruler of this 
world" (Jn. xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). In the Rabbinical writings "Lord of 
this world " is a common name for Satan, as ruler of the heathen, in opposition 
to God, the Head of the Jewish theocracy. The devil is the ruler of the un 
believing and sinful-; but he mixes truth with falsehood when he claims to have 
dominion over all the material glory of the world. Comp. Eph. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor 


iv. 4 ; Rev. xiii. 2. In $ &v WXu the mixture of falsehood seems to be still 
greater. Even of those who are under the dominion of Satan it is only in a 
limited sense true that he can dispose of them as he pleases. But the subtlety 
of the temptation lies partly in the fact that it appeals to what is in a very real 
sense true. Satan intimates that the enormous influence which he possesses 
over human affairs may be obtained for the promotion of the Messiah's King- 
dom. Thus all the pain and suffering, which otherwise lay before the Saviour 
of the world, might be evaded. 1 

7. eav Trpoo-Kun^o-ris. Mt. adds w€aw, which, like 7rpoo-cA0o)V, 
indicates that he may have believed that Satan was visible, 
although this is not certain. Even actual prostration is possible 
to an invisible being, and " fall down and worship " is a natural 
figure for entire submission or intense admiration. In the East, 
prostration is an acknowledgment of authority, not necessarily of 
personal merit. The temptation, therefore, seems to be that of 
admitting Satan's authority and accepting promotion from him. 

^vciiriov JfAov. Lk.'s favourite expression (i. 15, 17, 19, 75, etc.). The 
usual constr. after wpoaKwdv is the ace. (ver. 8 ; Mt. iv. 10 ; Rev. ix. 20, 
xiii. 12, xiv. 9, 11) or the dat. (Acts vii. 43; Jn. iv. 21, 23; Rev. iv. 10, 
vii. 11): but Rev. xv. 4 as here. 

coral crou iraaa. " The i^ovaia which has been delivered to 
me I am willing to delegate or transfer" : magna superbia (Beng.). 
The acceptance of it would be equivalent to 7rooo-KW7?o-ts. Just as 
in the first case the lawful desire for food was made an occasion of 
temptation, so here the lawful desire of power, a desire specially 
lawful in the Messiah. Everything depends upon why and how 
the food and the power are obtained. Christ was born to be a 
king ; but His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. xviii. 36, 37), and 
the prince of this world has nothing in Him (Jn. xiv. 30). He 
rejects the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly potentate, and 
thus condemns Himself to rejection by His own people. He 
rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable 
enemy. The end does not sanctify the means. 

8. Trpoo-KUkT|(T€i9. Mt. also has this word in harmony with 
Satan's Trpoo-Kwyjo-ys ; but in LXX of Deut. vi. 13 we have <f>o- 
firjOrjcrr] : see on vii. 27. — Xcn-peu'o-eis. Lit. "serve for hire" 
(Xdrpis = " hireling "). In class. Grk. it is used of the service of 
slaves and of freemen, whether rendered to men or to God : in 
N.T. always of religious service, but sometimes of the worship of 
idols (Acts vii. 42 ; Rom. i. 25). Trench, Syn. xxxv. Proposition 
erat Domino humiiitate diabolum vincere, non potentia (Jerome). 

9. to TrTepuyiov tou iepou. It is impossible to determine what 

1 In this connexion a remark of Fere Didon is worth quoting. Of the 
traditional scene of the Temptation he savs that there Christ avail sous les yeux 
ce chemin de Jericho d Jerusalem qu'il devait stavre, un jour. ai:ec ses disciples, 
pour alter d la mort {Jesus Christ ch. iii. p. 209). 


this means. The article points to its being something well known 
by this name. The three points conjectured are: 1. the top of 
the Royal Porch, whence one looked into an abyss (Jos. Ant. 
xv. 11. 5); 2. the top of Solomon's Porch; 3. the roof of the 
vaos. It was from to Trrepvyiov tov Upov that James the Just was 
thrown, according to Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 11, 16). Had 
any part of the vaos been intended, we should perhaps have had 
t. vaov rather than t. Upov. 

Ei u!6s el toG 0£oG. The repetition of this preamble is evidence 
that this temptation is in part the same as the first (ver. 3). In 
both cases Jesus is to "tempt" (ver. 12) God, to challenge Him 
to prove His Fatherhood by a test of His Son's own choosing. 
But, whereas in the first case Christ was to be rescued from an 
existing danger by a miracle, here He is to court needless danger 
in order to be rescued by a miracle. It may be that this is also a 
partial repetition of the second temptation. If the suggestion is 
that He should throw Himself down into the courts of the temple, 
so that the priests and the people might see His miraculous 
descent, and be convinced of His Messiahship, then this is once 
more a temptation to take a short cut to success, and, by doing 
violence to men's wills, avoid all the pain and suffering involved 
in the work of redemption. 1 If this is correct, then this tempta- 
tion is a combination of the other tivo. It is difficult to see what 
point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking 
peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of 
the wilderness would have served for that. The J3d\e o-eauToV 
expresses more definitely than the mid. would have done that the 
act is to be entirely His own. Not " Fall," nor " Spring," but 
"Cast Thyself"; dejice teipsum. Comp. lavTov? 7rXavwp.ev (1 Jn. 
L 8). 

10. The fact that after t. 8ia<{>u\d£ai o-e Satan omits eV 7rdo-ats 
Tats 6So?s <rov is in favour of the view that presumptuous rushing 
into danger is part of the temptation. To fling oneself down from 
a height is not going "in one's ways," but out of them. The 
disobedient Prophet was slain by the lion, the obedient Daniel 
was preserved in the lions' den. But we are not sure that the 
omission of the words has this significance. 

11. eirl xeipwy. " On their hands," implying great carefulness. 
The -n-pos XiOoy has no special reference either to the temple or the 
rocks below : stones abound in most places, and lie in the way 
of those who stumble. 

12. Ei'priTcn. In Mt. ndAtv yeypaTTTai. Jesus had appealed to 
Scripture ; Satan does the same ; and then Jesus shows that 
isolated texts may be misleading. They may be understood in a 
sense plainly at variance with some other passage. Satan had 

1 See Edersh. Z. & 71 i. p. 304 ; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 140. 




suggested that it was impossible to put too much trust in God. 
Christ points out that testing God is not trusting Him. 

The verb ^Kireipafeiv is wholly biblical (x. 25 ; Mt. iv. 7 ; Ps. lxxvii. 18). In 
the Heb. it is " Ye shall not tempt" : but in LXX we have the sing, as here. 

13. iran-a ireipaa/xdi'. " Every kind of temptation " : a further 
indication that He was tempted throughout the forty days, and that 
what is recorded is merely an illustration of what took place. 
The enemy tried all his weapons, and was at all points defeated. 
Comp. iracra a/jLapTta kcu (^kaa^-qp-Ca, " all manner of sin and 
blasphemy" (Mt. xii. 31); -n-av SeVSpoi/, "every kind of tree (Mt. 

iii. io) ; 6 /xlv Trd<rr]<; fj&ovf}<; o.7roXavo}V /cat /x^Se/uds a.7T e^o/xevos 

aKoAao-ros, " he who enjoys every kind of pleasure," etc. (Arist. 
Eth. Nic. ii. 2. 7). 

axpi Kcupou. " Until a convenient season." This rendering 
gives the proper meaning both of d^pi and of /caipds : comp. Acts 
xiii. n, xxiv. 25; Lk. xxi. 24. It is Satan's expectation that on 
some future occasion he will have an opportunity of better success j 
and an opportunity came when Judas was allowed to deliver the 
Christ into the hands of His enemies. That this was such an 
occasion seems to be indicated by Christ's own declarations : 
"The prince of this world cometh ; and he hath nothing in Me" 
(Jn. xiv. 30) ; and "This is your hour and the power of darkness" 
(Lk. xxii. 53). Satan was not visible in a bodily shape then, and 
probably not on this earlier occasion. It is Peter who on one 
occasion became a visible tempter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 2>Z)- Not 
that we are to suppose, however, that Satan entirely desisted from 
attacks between the beginning and end of Christ's ministry : " Ye 
are they which have continued with Me in My temptations," rather 
implies the contrary (xxii. 28) ; but the evil one seems to have 
accumulated attacks at the beginning and the end. In the wilder- 
ness he employed the attractiveness of painless glory and success ; 
in the garden he tried the dread of suffering and failure. All 
human temptation takes place through the instrumentality of 
pleasure or pain. Comp. xxii. 3. 

Luke says nothing about the ministration of Angels which followed the 
temptation, as recorded by both Mt. and Mk., not because he doubts such facts, 
for he repeatedly records them (i. 11, 26, ii. 9, xxii. 43 ; Acts v. 19, viii. 26, 
xii. 7, xxvii. 23), but probably because his source said nothing about them. Mk. 
seems to mean that Angels were ministering to Jesus during the whole of the 
forty days : his three imperfects (1)v . . , fjv . . . 6lt]k6vow) are co-ordinate. 

The Temptation is not a dream, nor a vision, nor a myth, nor a parable, 
translated into history by those who heard and misunderstood it, but an histor- 
ical fact. It was part of the Messiah's preparation for His work. In His 
baptism He received strength. In His temptation He practised the use of it. 
Moreover, He thus as man acquired experience (Heb. v. 8) of the possibilities of 
evil, and of the violent and subtle ways in which His work could be ruined. 

Only from Himself could the disciples have learned the history of thil 


struggle. Among other things it taught them the value of the Jewish Scriptures. 
With these for their guide they could overcome the evil one, as He had done : no 
special illumination was necessary (xvi. 29, 31). 

IV. 14-IX. 50. The Ministry in Galilee. 

Lk., like Mt. and Mk., omits the early ministry in Judaea ; but 
we shall find that his narrative, like theirs, implies it. All three of 
them connect the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the 
Baptism and the Temptation ; while Mt. and Mk. make the im- 
prisonment of the Baptist to be the occasion of Christ's departure 
from Judaea into Galilee (Mt. iv. 12 ; Mk. i. 14). But they neither 
assert nor imply that John was imprisoned soon after the Tempta- 
tion ; nor do they explain why the arrest of John by Herod Antipas 
should make Christ take refuge in this same Herod's dominions. 
It is from the Fourth Gospel that we learn that there was a con- 
siderable interval between the Temptation and John's imprison- 
ment, and that during it Jesus went into Galilee and returned to 
Judaea again (ii. 13). From it also we learn that the occasion of 
the second departure into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees, 
who had been told that Jesus was making and baptizing more 
disciples even than the Baptist. Much as they disliked and feared 
the revolutionary influence of John, they feared that of Jesus still 
more. John declared that he was not the Christ, he " did no sign," 
and he upheld the Law. Whereas Jesus had been pointed out as 
the Messiah ; He worked miracles, and He disregarded, not only 
traditions which were held to be equal to the Law (Jn. iv. 9), but 
even the Law itself in the matter of the Sabbath (Jn. v. 9, 10). 
Thus we see that it was not to escape the persecution of Herod, but 
to escape that of the Pharisees, who had delivered the Baptist into 
the hands of Herod, that Jesus retired a second time from Judaea 
into Galilee. It was " after that John was delivered up " (Mk. i. 14), 
and "when He heard that John was delivered up" (Mt. iv. 12X 
that Christ retired into Galilee. In neither case was it Herod's 
action, but the action of those who delivered John into the hands 
of Herod, that led to Christ's change of sphere. And in this way 
what is recorded in the Fourth Gospel explains the obscurities of 
the other three. 

There is a slight apparent difference between the first two Gospels and the 
third. The three Evangelists agree in noticing only one return from Judaea 


to Galilee, and possibly each knows of only one. But whereas Mt. and Mk. 
seem to point to the second return, for they connect it with the delivering up 
of the Baptist, Lk. seems rather to point to the first return, for he connects it 
with " the power of the Spirit," an expression which suggests a reference to 
that power which Jesus had received at the Baptism and exercised in the 
Temptation. It is quite possible, however, that the expression refers to the 
power with which He had worked miracles and taught in Galilee and Judaea ; 
in which case all three Gospels treat of the second return to Galilee. 

Not very much plan is discernible in this portion of the Gospel ; 
and it may be doubted whether the divisions made by com- 
mentators correspond with any arrangement which the writer had 
in his mind. But even artificial schemes help to a clearer appre- 
hension of the whole ; and the arrangement suggested by Godet is, 
at any rate, useful for this purpose. He takes the Development in 
the Position of Christ's Disciples as the principle of his divisions. 

i. iv. 14-44. To the Call of the first Disciples. 

2. v. i-vi. 11. To the Nomination of the Twelve. 

3 vi. 1 2— viii. 56. To the first Mission of the Twelve. 

4. ix. 1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem. 

These divisions are clearly marked out in the text of WH., a 
space being left at the end of each. 

IV. 14-44. The Ministry in Galilee to the Call oj the first 
Disciples. The Visits to A T azareth and Capernaum. 

14, 15. Comp. Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14. These two verses are 
introductory, and point out three characteristics of this period of 
Christ's activity. 1. He worked in the power of the Spirit. 2. His 
fame spread far and wide. 3. The synagogues were the scenes of 
His preaching (comp. ver. 44). 

14. iv tt] Suvajjiei toG weuu,a.Tos. This is perhaps to remind us 
that since His first departure from Galilee He has been endowed 
with the Holy Spirit and has received new powers (hi. 22, iv. 1, 18). 
Bengel's post victoriam corroboratus connects it too exclusively 
with the Temptation. Unless, with De Wette, we take k<h §r\Y.i\ 
c£f}\0ee as anticipating what follows, the statement implies much 
preaching and perhaps some miracles, of which Lk. has said 
nothing ; for Jesus is famous directly He returns. The power of 
the Spirit had already been exhibited in Him. Jn. says that " the 
Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in 
Jerusalem at the feast" (iv. 45). But it is not likely that they had 
heard of the wonders which attended the Birth, or of those which 
attended the Baptism. 

There are various marks of Lk.'s style. I. iiriuTpe\(/ev,{ox which Mt. has 
&v€x^pV <Jiv an d Mk. rfKdev. Comp. ver. I, where Lk. has viricfTpeipev, while 
Mt. has avrixQv- 2 - Suva/its of Divine power. Comp. i. 35, and see on 
iv. 36. 3. KaO' d\ri* in this sense. Comp. xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, x. 37; 


it is peculiar to Lk. See Simcox, Lang, of N.T. p. 148. 4. 17 irep/x w /"> y > *?« 

777, is an expression of which Lk. is fond (iii. 3, iv. 37, vii. 17, viii. 37; Acts 

xiv. 6) ; not in Jn., and only twice in Mt. (iii. 5, xiv. 35) and once in Mk. 
(i. 28 ; not vi. 55). 

15. ica! auTos eSi'SaaKei'. Lk. is so fond of this mode of transi- 
tion that avTos possibly has no special significance ; if it has, it is 
" He Himself," as distinct from the rumour respecting Him. The 
imperf. points to His habitual practice at this time, and seems to 
deprive what follows of all chronological connexion. All the 
Gospels mention His teaching in synagogues, and give instances of 
His doing so during the early part of His ministry (Mt. iv. 23, 
ix. 35, xii. 9, xiii. 54; Mk. i. 21, 39, iii. 1, vi. 2; Lk. iv. 44, vi. 6; 
Jn. vi. 59). Towards the close of it, when the hostility of the 
teachers became more pronounced, there is less mention of this 
practice : perhaps He then taught elsewhere, in order to avoid 
needless collision. It should be noticed that here, as elsewhere, it 
is the teaching rather than the worship in the synagogues that is 
prominent. Synagogues were primarily places of instruction 
(xiii. 10; Jn. xviii. 20; Acts xiii. 27, xv. 21, etc.), and it was as 
such that Augustus encouraged them. Morality of a high kind 
was taught there, and morality is on the side of order. 

iv Tais (rwaywyals auTwc. This means in the synagogues of the 

Galileans. Galilee at this time was very populous. Josephus no 

doubt exaggerates when he says that the smallest villages had 

fifteen thousand inhabitants (£. J. iii. 3. 2), and that there were 

over two hundred towns and villages. But in any case there were 

many Galileans. Among them there was more freshness and less 

formalism than among the inhabitants of Judsea. Here the 

Pharisees and the hierarchy had less influence, and therefore 

Galilee was a more hopeful field in which to seek the first elements 

of a Church. On the other hand, it was necessary to break down 

the prejudices of those who had known Him in His youth, and had 

seen in Him no signs of His being the Messiah that they were 

expecting : and the fame of the miracles which He had wrought in 

Judaea was likely to contribute towards this. Thus the Judaean 

ministry prepared the way for the more promising ministry in 

Galilee. We have no means of estimating the number of Galilean 

synagogues; but the fact that such a place as Capernaum had 

either none, or only a poor one, until a Roman centurion was 

moved to provide one ("himself built us our synagogue," vii. 5), 

is some evidence that by no means every village or even every 

small town possessed one. The remains of ancient synagogues 

exist at several places in Galilee ; Tell-Hum, Irbid (the Arbela of 

1 Mac. ix. 2),Jisch (Giscala), Meiron (Mero), Kasyoun, Nabartein, 

and Kefr-Bereim. But it is doubtful whether any of these are older 

than the second or third century. 


The origin of synagogues is to be sought in the Babylonish captivity ; and 
they greatly increased in number after the destruction of the temple. The fact 
that Jewish legend derives the institution of synagogues from Moses, shows how 
essential the Jews considered it to be. The statement that there were at one 
time 480 synagogues in Jerusalem is also legendary ; but 480 may be a symbol- 
ical number. One has only to remember the size of Jerusalem to see the 
Absurdity of 480 places of public instruction in it. But large towns sometimes 
had several synagogues, either for different nationalities (Acts vi. 9 ; see 
Lumby and Blass) or different handicrafts. 1 

oo£a£<5ji€i'os uTT-o TrdcT«i\ Because of the power of His preach- 
ing, especially when contrasted with the lifeless repetitions and 
senseless trivialities of ordinary teachers. 

16-30. The Visit to Nazareth. Comp. Mt. xiii. 53-58; Mk. 
vi. 1-6. It remains doubtful whether Lk. here refers to the same 
visit as that recorded by Mt. and Mk. If it is the same, he per- 
haps has purposely transposed it to the opening of the ministry, as 
being typical of the issue of Christ's ministry. He was rejected by 
His own people. Similarly the non-Galilean ministry opens with a 
rejection (ix. 51-56). In any case, the form of the narrative is 
peculiar to Lk., showing that he here has some special source. We 
are not to understand that the Galilean ministry began at Nazareth. 
More probably Christ waited until the reports of what He had said 
and done in other parts of Galilee prepared the way for His return 
to Nazareth as a teacher. 

16. ou rjf [dfa]Te9pau.u,eVos. This tells us rather more than 
ii. 5 1 : it implies, moreover, that for some time past Nazareth had 
ceased to be His home. But the addition of "where He had been 
brought up" explains what follows. It had been "His custom" 
during His early life at Nazareth to attend the synagogue every 
sabbath. It is best to confine /card. t6 ettu^os to the clause in 
which it is embedded, and not carry it on to aviaj-t] avayvZivai : it 
was possibly the first time that He had stood up to read at 
Nazareth. But the phrase may refer to what had been His custom 
elsewhere since He began His ministry ; or it may be written from 
the Evangelist's point of view of what was afterwards His custom. 
We may therefore choose between these explanations. 1. He had 
previously been in the habit of attending the synagogue at Nazareth, 
and on this occasion stood up to read. 2. He had previously been 
in the habit of reading at Nazareth. 3. He had lately been in the 
habit of reading elsewhere, and now does so at Nazareth. 4. This 
was an early example of what became His custom. In no case 
must the sermon be included in the custom. That this was His 
first sermon at Nazareth is implied by the whole context. 

1 On synagogues see Edersh. L. 6° T. i. pp. 430-450, Hist, of Jewish 
Nation, pp. 100-129, ed. 1896 ; Schtirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. ii. 2, 
pp. 52-S9: Hausrath, N.T. Times, i. pp. 84-93; Plumptre in D.B. ; Leyrer in 
lierzog, PRE. 1 ; Strack in Herzog, PRE?; and other authorities in Schiirer. 


In D both TeOpafiixtvos and airr£ after eiudSs are omitted, and the text 
runs, i\8tl)v 5e eis Xafaptd Sttov fy Kara, rb dwdbs iv ry rjfJ.ipa tujv aafipdrtav 
cis ti)v crvvaywyrjv ; but in the Latin the former word is restored, veniens 
autem in Nazared ubi erat nutricatus introibit secundum consuetudinem in 
sabbato in synagogam. The omissions are perhaps due to Marcionite in- 
fluence. According to Marcion, Christ came direct from heaven into the 
synagogue, afe ccelo in synagogam (see p. 131) ; and therefore all trace of His 
previous life in Nazareth must be obliterated. He was not reared there, and 
was not accustomed to visit the synagogue there. Only a custom of attend- 
ing the synagogue existed. See Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Bezrn, p. 232, 
in Texts and Studies, ii. I. Comp. the insertions ix. 54, 55, which may be 
due to the same influence. 

The phrase /card rb etwdos occurs in LXX Num. xxiv. I ; Sus. 13. It is 
characteristic of Lk. See on Kara rb edos, i. 8. With the dat. Kara rb dwdos 
occurs only here and Acts xvii. 2; and tt? yfiepa rQv aapfidruv occurs 
only here, Acts xiii. 14, and xvi. 13: but_comp. Lk. xiii. 14, 16 and xiv. 5. 
It is a periphrasis for iv roh (ra/3., or iv t£ <ra/3., or rois cra/3., or ry (ra/3.<jT(\ wayvuvai. Standing to read was the usual practice, 
excepting when the Book of Esther was read at the Feast of 
Purim : then the reader might sit. Christ's standing up indicated 
that He had been asked to read, or was ready to do so. This is 
the only occasion on which we are told that Jesus read. 

The lectern was close to the front seats, where those who were most likely 
to be called upon to read commonly sat. A lesson from the Thorah or Law 
was read first, and then one from the Prophets. After the lesson had been 
read in Hebrew it was interpreted into Aramaic (Neh. viii. 8), or into Greek in 
places where Greek was commonly spoken. This was done verse by verse in 
the Law ; but in the Prophets three verses might be taken at once, and in this 
case Je«us seems to have taken two verses. Then followed the exposition or 
sermon. The reader, interpreter, and preacher might be one, two, or three 
persons. Here Christ was both reader and preacher ; and possibly He inter- 
preted as well. 1 Although there were officers with fixed duties attached to each 
synagogue, yet there was no one specially appointed either to read, or interpret, 
or preach, or pray. Any member of the congregation might discharge these 
duties ; and probably those who were competent discharged them in turn at the 
invitation of the dpx^vvdyuyos (Acts xiii. 15. Comp. Philo in Eus. Prsep. 
Evang. viii. 7, p. 360 A, and Quod omnis probus liber xii.). Hence it was 
always easy for Jesus to address the congregation. When He became famous 
as a teacher He would often be invited to do so. 2 And during His early years 
He may have read without interpreting or expounding ; for even those under 
age were sometimes allowed to read in the synagogues. We cannot infer from 
His being able to read that He Himself possessed the Scriptures. In N.T. 
dvaytvwaKw is used in no other sense than that of reading; lit. recognizing 

1 We have no right to infer from this incident that the Hebrew Bible could 
still be understood by the people. Nothing is said about interpretation ; but 
we cannot assume that it did not take place. Mk. xv. 34 is evidence of some 
knowledge of O.T. in Aramaic. See Classical Review, May 1894, p. 216, 
against Kautzsch, Grammalik des biblischen Aramaischen, p. 19. 

2 Comp. 'Avaords di tis ruiv i/j.ireipordru)i> v(pjjy€?Tat rapiara Kal ffvvolffovra, 
oh fi7ras 6 /ftos iiriduaei irpbs rb §i\riov (Philo, De Seplenario, vi.). See also 
the fragments of Philo in Eus. Prsep. Evang. viii. 7. 12, 13, and viii. 12. 10, 
ed. Gaisford. These three passages give us Philo's account of the synagogue 


again the written characters ; of reading aloud, Acts xiii. 27, xv. 21 ; 2 Cor. 
iii. 15 ; Col. iv. 16 ; 1 Thes. v. 27. 

17. e'-ireSoQr]. " Was handed " to Him, " was given over by 
handing": comp. €Tret,rJTow (ver. 42). It does not mean "was 
handed to Him in additioii," implying that something else had 
been handed to Him previously. This meaning is not common, 
and is not found elsewhere in N.T. The reading of the Parascha, 
or section from the Law, had probably preceded, and had been 
read possibly by someone else. This was the Haphthara, or pro- 
phetic section (Acts xiii. 15). That Is. lxi. 1, 2 was the lesson 
appointed for the day is quite uncertain. We do not even know 
whether there was at that time any cycle of prophetical lessons, 
nor whether it would be strictly adhered to, if there was such. 
Apparently Isaiah was handed to Him without His asking for it ; 
but that also is uncertain. The cycle of lessons now in use is of 
much later origin ; and therefore to employ the Jewish lectionary 
in order to determine the day on which this took place is futile. 
On the other hand, there is no evidence that "Jesus takes the 
section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled " ; for evpe 
quite as easily may mean the opposite ; — that He intentionally 
found a passage which had been previously selected. 

The more definite ivairruZas (X D) is probably a correction of avolfai 
(A B L and most versions). The former occurs nowhere in N.T., while the 
latter is very common : see esp. Rev. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, x. 2, 8, xx. 12. Fond as 
Lk. is of analytical tenses, %v yeypapL/xcvov occurs nowhere else in his writings : 
eon. yeypafi. is common in Jn. (ii. 17, vi. 31, 45, x. 34, xii. 14, 16). 

18. The quotation is given by the Evangelist somewhat freely 
from LXX, probably from memory and under the influence of 
other passages of Scripture. To argue that the Evangelist cannot 
be S. Luke, because S. Luke was a Gentile, and therefore would 
not know the LXX, is absurd. S. Luke was not only a constant 
companion of S. Paul, but a fellow-worker with him in dealing 
with both Jews and Gentiles. He could not have done this 
without becoming familiar with the LXX. 

Down to dTreo-TaWv fxe inclusive the quotation agrees with 
LXX. After that the text of LXX runs thus : laa-aaOai tovs o-uvtc- 
TpLfJL/J.evov<s ttjv KapSuav, Krjpv^at ai^fiaXwrots acpeaiv kgu tu</>Xoi? dva- 
/3\eij/iv, KaXeo-at iviavrbv Kvpcov Scktov. In many authorities the 
clause IdaacrOai tovs (; rrjv KapBcav has been inserted 
into the text of Lk. in order to make the quotation more full and 
more in harmony with O.T. We have similar insertions Mt. xv. 
8; Acts vii. 37; Rom. xiii. 9; Heb. xii. 20, and perhaps ii. 7. 1 

1 Scrivener, Int. to Crit. of N. T. i. pp. 12, 13, 4U1 ed. 

The evidence against the clause IdcraaOai . . . Tr\v Kapdlav here (in X A Q of 
LXX Tg Kapdig.) is decisive. It is omitted by N B D LS, 13-69,33, most MSS. of 


In the original the Prophet puts into the mouth of Jehovah's ideal 
Servant a gracious message to those in captivity, promising them 
release and a return to the restored Jerusalem, the joy of which is 
compared to the joy of the year of jubilee. It is obvious that 
both figures, the return from exile and the release at the jubilee, 
admirably express Christ's work of redemption. 

rii'eGp.a Kupi'ou eV ejjie. In applying these words to Himself the 
Christ looks back to His baptism. He is more than a Prophet ; 
He is "the Son, the Beloved One," of Jehovah (iii. 21, 22). 

With ^71-' ifiA (iari) comp. r\v itr' avrov (ii. 25). — oO e'ivexev. No f "where- 
fore," as in Acts xix. 32, which here would spoil the sense, but "because," 
a meaning which ovvenev often has in class. Grk. Vulg. has propter quod. 
Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, xix. 8, xxii. 16, xxxviii. 26; Num. x. 31, xiv. 43, etc. 
The Ionic form e'iveKev is found xviii. 29; Acts xxviii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 10: 
but ivacev is the commonest form (2 Cor. vii. 12), and £Ve/ca also occurs before 
consonants (vi. 22 ; Acts xxvi. 21). 

Zyjpivlv fie. The Christ was anointed with the Spirit, as Pro- 
phets and priests were anointed with oil (1 Kings xix. 16; Ex. 
xxviii. 41, xxx. 30). Unlike irivrjs (2 Cor. ix. 9), tttwxos "always 
had a bad meaning until it was ennobled by the Gospels" (vi. 20, 
vii. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Jas. ii. 5). It suggests abject poverty 
(tttwo-o-w = " I crouch"). See Hatch, Bibl. Grk. pp. 76, 77. 

d-n-eoraXiceV jie. Change from aor. to perf. " He anointed 
Me (once for all) ; He hath sent Me (and I am here) " : comp. 
1 Cor. xv. 4. We have had aTroa-riXXin of the mission of Gabriel 
(i. 19, 26); here and ver. 43 we have it of the mission of the 
Christ ; vii. 2 7 of the Forerunner ; ix. 2 of the Twelve. Whereas 
7re'//,7ra) is quite general and implies no special relation between 
sender and sent, d.7roo-re'XAw adds the idea of a delegated authority 
making the person sent to be the envoy or representative of the 
sender. But irifjurw also is used of the mission of the Christ (xx. 13), 
of Prophets (ver. 26, xx. n, 12), and of the Apostles (Jn. xiii. 20, 
xx. 21). Strictly speaking, cuxp-o-Xwtois means "prisoners of war" 
(alxjxrj and dAwTo's) : freq. in class. Grk. but here only in N.T. 
The cognate at^aXwri^w occurs xxi. 24 ; 2 Cor. x. 5 ; 2 Tim. iii. 
6 ; alxfJiaXwa-La, Eph. iv. 8. Neither this metaphor nor that of 
Tu<f>\ois di'dfiXeiJ/ii' harmonizes very well with the year of jubilee, to 
which Godet would restrict the whole passage. Both might apply 
to captives in exile, some of whom had been blinded by their 
captors, or by long confinement in a dungeon. 

dirooreiXcu TeSpaucrfieVous iv d4>e'o-ei. These words come from 
another part of Isaiah (lviii. 6), and are perhaps inserted through 
a slip of memory. Jesus was reading, not quoting without book ; 
and therefore we cannot suppose that He inserted the clause. 

Lat. Vet. and best MSS. of Vulg., most MSS. of Boh. Aeth. Arm. Syr-Sin., 
Orig. Eus. etc., all the best editors and RV. See Sanday, App. ad N. T. p. 117, 


Lightfoot says that it was lawful to skip from one passage to an- 
other in reading the Prophets, but not in reading the Law {Nor. 
Heb. on Lk. iv. 17). That might explain the omission of a few 
verses, but not the going back three chapters. The insertion 
comes from the Evangelist, who is probably quoting from memory, 
and perhaps regards the unconsciously combined passages as a 
sort of "programme of the ministry." The strong expression 
/■eSpauafxeVous is here applied to those who are shattered in fortune 
and broken in spirit. 

For the pregnant construction, "send so as to be in," comp. i. 17. The 
asyndeton throughout, first between ?xP LCrev ar >d air£crTa.\Kev, and then be- 
tween the three infinitives which depend upon awtaTakKev , is impressive. 

19. eciauTOK Kupiou 8eKT6V. The age of the Messiah, which is 
Jehovah's time for bestowing great blessings on His people. 
Comp. Kcupos 8ckt6s (2 Cor. vi. 2 ; Is. xlix. 8) : Scktos is not found 
in class. Grk. It is strange that Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen, who are commonly so ready to turn fact into figure, here 
turn an expression which is manifestly figurative into a literal 
statement of fact, and limit Christ's ministry to a period of twelve 
months (comp. Clem. Horn. xvii. 19). Keim and other modern 
writers have made the same limit ; but the three Passovers dis- 
tinguished by S. John (ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55) are quite fatal to it. 1 
It is, however, an equally faulty exegesis to find the three years 
(i.e. two years and a fraction) of Christ's ministry in the three 
years of Lk. xiii. 6-9 or the three days of xiii. 31-33. The first of 
these is obviously a parabolic saying not to be understood literally; 
and the other probably is such. The suggestion that the three 
servants sent to the wicked husbandmen mean the three years of 
the ministry is almost grotesque. See Nosgen, Gesch. Jesu Christi, 
Kap. viii., MiAnchen, 1890. 

20. The vivid description of what followed the reading of the lesson points 
to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative. But the " closed " of AV. and 
RV. gives a wrong impression of the first incident : it leads one to think of a 
modern book with leaves. The Rhemish has "folded"; but "rolled up" 
would be a better rendering of imj|as. The long strip of parchment, or less 
probably papyrus (2 Jn. 12), would be wound upon a roller, or possibly upon 
two rollers, one at each end of the strip. Hence the name megillah (yolumen), 
from g&lal, "to roll." Such a book was in Greek sometimes called KtcpaXit 
(Ezr. vi. 2; Ezek. iii. 1-3) or Ke<pa\is j3i/3\lov (Heb. x. 7 ; Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. 
ii. 9) : and it is said that Ke<pa\ls originally meant the knob (cornn or umbilicus) 
at the end of the roller ; but no instance of this use of Ke<pa\Ls appears to be 
known (Wsctt. on Heb. x. 7). 

d-rroSous tu uTTT)pe'rr|. The airo- implies that it was the minister 01 

1 On the uncertainty respecting the length of the ministry, and the con- 
jectures respecting it made by early Christians, see Iren. Hser. ii. 22 ; Eus. 
H. E. i. 10; Sanday in the Expositor, 1st series, xi. p. 16. 


chazzan who had handed Him the book who received it back again. 
The tcu may have the same meaning, just as to fiifikiov means the 
book which had been given to Him. But ™ v-Tv-qpirrj more prob- 
ably means the minister usually found in a synagogue. It was 
among the duties of the chazzan to take the Scriptures from the 
ark and put them away again (Surenhusius, Mishna, ii. 246, 
iii. 266). He taught the children to read, and inflicted the 
scourgings (Mt. x. 17). A Roman epitaph to a Jew who held 
this office is quoted by Schiirer, II. ii. p. 66 — 

<I>A.a/?to5 IovXiavo? virqperr]<; 
<£>\af3ia lovXiavr) 6vya.T7]p iraTpi 
Ey tiprjvr] r] KOipLrjcris crov. 

The chazzan of the synagogue became the deacon or sub-deacon 
of the Christian Church. 

A virrjpiTTis is lit. "an under-rower" (tptcffo}). The word may be used 
of almost any kind of attendant or servant (Acts v. 22, 26, xiii. 5; Mt. 
xxvi. 58; Mk. xiv. 54, 65; Jn. vii. 32, 45; 1 Cor. iv. 1). For the two 
participles, irrv^as . . . clttoSovs, without K<xl, comp. Acts xii. 4, 25. 

€Kd9iCT£f. This was the usual attitude for expounding or 
preaching, and in the synagogues there was commonly a raised 
seat for the purpose. On other occasions we find Christ sitting 
to teach (v. 3 ; Mt. v. 1 ; Mk. iv. 1 ; [Jn. viii. 2]) ; and the 
disciples do the same (Acts xvi. 13). 

r\aav arevilovTes. " Were fixed intently." Their intense interest 
was caused by His reputation as a teacher and as a worker of 
miracles, as well as by His having been brought up amongst 
them ; perhaps also by His look and manner of reading. That 
He had selected an unexpected passage, or had omitted the usual 
lesson from the Law, and that this surprised them, is pure con- 
jecture. Comp. Acts vi. 1 5, where the same verb is used of the 
whole Sanhedrin riveting their eyes upon Stephen. It is a 
favourite word with Lk., who uses it a dozen times : elsewhere in 
N.T. only 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. It occurs in LXX (1 Es. vi. 28; 
3 Mac. ii. 26), in Aq. (Job vii. 8), and in Jos. {B.J. v. 12. 3). The 
analytical tense marks the continuance of the action. 

21. TJp^aTo Se Xe'yeii'. The r)p$aro is not pleonastic : it points 
to the solemnity of the moment when His words broke the silence 
of universal expectation: comp. vii. 24, xi. 29, xii. 1, xiv. 18. 
What follows may be regarded as a summary of what was said. 
It gives us the main subject of His discourse. We are led to 
suppose that He said much more ; perhaps interpreting to them in 
detail the things concerning Himself (xxiv. 27). The conversation 
with Nicodemus is similarly condensed by S. John (iii. 1-2 1). 
Even without this narrative we should know from vii. 22 and Mt 


xi. 5 that Christ interpreted Is. lxi. i ff. of Himself. The whole 
of the O.T. was to Him a prophecy respecting His life and work. 
And this applies not only to prophetic utterances, but also to rites 
and institutions, as well as to historical events, which were so 
ordered as to be a forecast of the salvation and judgment which 
He was to bring. 1 This verse sums up His sermon. 

t) ypafyr) auTT]. "This passage of Scripture" (Mk. xii. io; Jn. 
vii. 42, etc.) : for Scripture as a whole the plural is used (xxiv. 27, 
32, 45 ; Mt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, 56 ; Mk. xii. 24, etc.). 
His interpretation of the prophecy was at the same time a fulfil- 
ment of it; for the voice of Him of whom the Prophet wrote 
was sounding in their ears. Hence it is that he affirms ireirXiipwTai 
iv T0I9 woiv u/awi>. As Renan says, 77 ne prechait pas ses opinions^ 
il se prechait luimeme. 

22. e'fiapTu'pouy auTu. " They bore witness to Him," not that 
what He said about Himself, but that what rumour had said 
respecting His power as a teacher, was true. They praised Him 
in an empty-hearted way. What they remembered of Him led 
them to think that the reports about Him were exaggerations ; but 
they were willing to admit that this was not the case. Comp. xi. 
48. This " bearing witness " almost of necessity implies that 
Jesus had said a great deal more than is recorded here. What 
follows shows that they did not believe the teaching which so 
startled and impressed them, any more than those whose attention 
was riveted on Stephen, before he began to address them, were 
disposed to accept his teaching. The cases are very similar. 
Hence,ov expresses amazement rather than admiration. 
For 6av(j.a.£eiv iwt see small print on ii. 33. 

tois \(5-yois ttjs x^P lT0 5- Characterizing genitive or genitive of quality j 
freq. in writings influenced by Hebrew, "which employs this construction, not 
merely through poverty in adjectives, but also through the vividness of phrase- 
ology which belongs to Oriental languages" (Win. xxxiv. 3. b, p. 297). Comp. 
olKOvbfj.0% ttjs &8i.ida.s (xvi. 8) ; Kpirrjs rfjs adiKlas (xviii. 6) ; aKpoarr}! ixi\rj<Xfj.ovrji 
(Jas. i. 25) ; Kptral 8i.a\oyt<rp.Qi> Trovrjpuv (Jas. ii. 4) ; and perhaps the difficult 
Tpoirrjs diroiTKlaapLa (Jas. i. 17). The meaning here is " winning words." The 
very first meaning of x^p's (x a ^P w ) is "comeliness, winsomeness" (Horn. Od. 

1 "Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament in its full extent and its perfect 
sacredness. The Scripture cannot be broken, He says (Jn. x. 35), and forthwith 
draws His argument from the wording of it. Of course He can only have 
meant by this the Scripture in the form in which it was handed down, and He 
must have regarded it exactly as His age did (comp. xi. 51). Any kind of 
superior knowledge in these matters would merely have made Him incapable of 
placing Himself on a level with His hearers respecting the use of Scripture, or 
would have compelled Him to employ a far-reaching accommodation, the very 
idea of which involves internal untruthfulness. All, therefore, that is narrated 
in Scripture He accepted absolutely as actual history, and He regarded the 
several books as composed by the men to whom they were ascribed by tradition *' 
(B. Weiss, Lebenjesu, I. iii. 5, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 62, 63). 


viii. 175; Eccles. x. 12 ; Ps. xliv. 3; Ecclus. xxi. 16, xxxvii. 21 ; Col. Iv. 6): 

and in all these passages it is the winsomeness of language that is specially 
signified. From this objective attractiveness it easily passes to subjective 
"favour, kindness, goodwill," esp. from a superior to an inferior (Acts ii. 47 ; 
Gen. xviii. 3, xxxii. 5, xxxiii. 8, etc.); and hence, in particular, of finding 
•'favour" with God (i. 30; Acts vii. 46; Exod. xxxiii. 12, 13, 16, etc.). From 
the sense of God's favour generally (ii. 40, 52 ; Jn. i. 14, 16) we come to the 
specially theological sense of "God's favour to sinners, the free gift of His 
grace " (Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24, 32 ; and the Pauline Epp. passim). Lastly, it 
sometimes means the "gratitude" which this favour produces in the recipient 
(vi. 32-34, xvii. 9 ; 1 Cor. x. 30). The word does not occur in Mt. or Mk. 
See Sanday on Rom. i. 5, and Blass on Acts ii. 47 and iv. 33. 

Origen evidently had this passage in his mind when he wrote : " For a prool 
that grace was poured on His lips (Ps. xliv. 3, tZexvdr) i) x°-P li & X 6 ^ eo ^" ff0V ) 
is this, that although the period of His teaching was short, — for He taught 
somewhere about a year and a few months, — the world has been filled with His 
.eaching" (De Prin. iv. 1. 5). But the words so calculated to win did not win 
the congregation. They were " fulfilled in their ears," but not in their hearts. 1 
A doubt at once arose in their minds as to the congruity of such words with one 
whom they had known all His life as the "son of Joseph" the carpenter. 
Here ovros has a contemptuous turn, as often (v. 21, vii. 39, 49, xv. 2, xxii. 56, 
59, etc.) : yet the Vulg. in none of these places has isle, but hie. " Is not this 
person Joseph's son? What does he mean by using such language ? " Just as 
a single sentence is given as a summary of His discourse, so a single question is 
given as a summary of their scepticism. 

While the ovros and vl6s is in all three, the question as a whole differs. Mk. 
has Ovx out6s icmv 6 t^ktuiv, 6 vlbs ttjs Mapias ; (vi. 3). Mt. has Oi*x ovrbs iariv 
6 rod rtKTOvo% vlds ; (xiii. 55). Lk. Oi^x* v!6s iariv Twcrr;^ oCros ; And while 
the others mention Christ's brothers and sisters in close connexion with His 
mother, Lk. mentions none of them. Lk. and Jn. seem to prefer the expres- 
sion "son of Joseph " (Lk. iii. 23, iv. 22 ; Jn. i. 45, vi. 42). Renan thinks that 
Marc ne connait pas Joseph ( V. de J. p. 71). But it may be that, as he does 
not record the virgin birth of Christ, he avoids the expression " son of Joseph " 
or " the carpenter's son," which those who have recorded the virgin birth could 
use without risk of being misunderstood. 

23. ndrrus epei-rc p.01 ttji' TrapafJoXrp' TauTrp. "At all events, 
assuredly, ye will say," etc. : 7rdvTws is used in strong affirmations 
(Acts xxi. 22, xxviii. 4 ; 1 Cor. ix. 10). Excepting Heb. ix. 9 and xi. 
19, TrapaPoXtj occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels : in Jn. x. 6 and 
xvi. 25, 29, as in 2 Pet. ii. 22, the word used is irapoifita. It need 
not be doubted that the notion of placing beside for the sake of 
comparison, rather than that of merely putting forth, lies at the root 
of Trapa/3o\rj. From the notion of (1) "throwing beside" come 
the further notions of (2) "exposing" and (3) "comparing," all 
three of which are common meanings of TrapaftdWetv. While the 
adj. 7rapd/2oA.os represents the derived notion on the one side, the 
subst. irapafioXr} represents that on the other side. A irapafioX-q, 
therefore, is " an utterance which involves a comparison." Hence 
various meanings : 1. a complete parable or allegory (viii. 4, xiii. 6, 

1 Cornp. Augustine's description of his indifference to the preaching of 
Ambrose, although charmed with his winning style : Rerum incuriosus et con- 
temptor adstabam et delectabar suavitate sermonis {In Ezek. xxxiii. 32). 


etc.) ; 2. a single figurative saying, proverb, or illustration (here ; 
v. 36, vi. 39) ; 3. a saying of deeper meaning, which becomes in- 
telligible through comparison, in which sense it is sometimes joined 
with otkot€ivos Aoyos (Prov. i. 6), irpoPX-qp-a (Ps. xlix. 5, lxxviii. 2), 
and the like. In the teaching of Christ TrapafioXrj is commonly 
used in the first sense, and is a means of making known the 
mysteries of the kingdom in a mixed audience ; for it conceals 
from the unworthy what it reveals to the worthy (viii. 9, 10). See 
Crem. Lex. pp. 124, 657 ; Hatch, Bibl. Grk., p. 70 ; Hase, Gesch. 
/esu, §63, p. 535, ed. 1891 ; Didon, Jesus Christ, ch. vi. p. 391, 
ed. 1 89 1 ; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, ch. x. 

'icu-pe, Oepdireuo-oi' veavrov. " Heal thine own lameness " is the 
Hebrew form of the proverb. Similar sayings exist in other litera- 
tures : e.g. a fragment of Euripides, aAAwv itu-po?, au-ros eA/<ecri 
(ipvw ; Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero, Neque imitare vialos medicos, qui 
in alienis morbis profitentur tenere se medians, scientiam, ipsi se 
curare non possunt (Cic. Epp. ad diversos, iv. 5). Plobart quotes 
from Galen, txPV v °^ v a ^> T0V iavTOV TrpwTOV lacrOai to crvp.TrT<Dp.a. koli 
outojs iniyjcipa.v ere'povs Oepaireveiv. Comp. Aesch. P. V. 469 ; Ov. 
Metam, vii. 561 ; and the other examples in Lightfoot and Wetst. 
It is remarkable that this saying of Christ is preserved only by 
the beloved physician. Its meaning is disputed. Some take the 
words which follow to be the explanation of it : " Heal the ills of 
thine own town." Thus Corn, a Lap., " Cure Thine own people 
and Thine own country, which should be as dear to Thee as Thyself." 
Similarly Beng. Alf. Sadler and others. It is thus made to mean 
much the same as " Charity begins at home." But larpi and 
o-eavTov ought to be interpreted of the same person or group ; not 
one of a person and the other of his neighbours. "Prophet, 
heal Thine own countrymen " is not parallel to " Physician, heal 
Thyself." The saying plainly refers to the passage just read from 
Isaiah ; and although Lk. omits the words " to heal the broken- 
hearted," yet Christ must have read them, and He had probably 
explained them. He professed to be the fulfilment of them, and 
to be healing the miseries of mankind. The people are supposed 
to tell Him to better His own condition before bettering that of 
others. He must make His own position more secure, and give 
evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must work 
convincing miracles, such as He is said to have worked elsewhere. 
Comp. awo-ov areavTov kol 17/xas (xxiii. 39). Comp. also Logion vi. 

oaa T)Kou(rap.€K. They do not say oaa en-oi^cra?, wishing to leave 
it open whether the report may not be untrue. We learn from 
Jn. ii. 12 that after the miracle at Cana, Jesus was at Capernaurr 
for a short time ; and we know also that there were many unre 
corded miracles. It is probably to reports of some of these tha 
reference is here made. For the constr. comp. Acts vii. 1 2 and xxiv. 1 o. 


els tt)v Ka(j>apvaoi5(x. See on ver. 31. The readings vary between eh 
tj)v Ka.<p. (SB), eis Ka<p. (D L), iv tj Ka<p. (X), and iv Ka0. (A K). The 
substitution of 4v for eis, and the omission of the article between a preposition 
and a proper name, are obvious corrections by a later hand. The eis is not 
" put for eV." It may be doubted whether these two prepositions are ever 
interchanged. Rather eis is used because of the idea of motion contained in 
" come to pass." It is scarcely possible that eis contains the notion of " to 
the advantage of," and indicates the petty jealousy of the people of Nazareth. 
We have the same constr. i. 44 ; Acts xxviii. 6 (comp. Lk. xi. 7) > and in no 
case is there any idea of advantage. That the jealousy was a fact, and that 
the people of Nazareth were inclined to discount or discredit all that seemed 
to tell in favour of prosperous Capernaum, is probable ; but there is no hint 
of this in the eis. What is said to have happened to Capernaum ought to 
happen here. Comp. the Cornish use of "to" for "at." In N.T. cl'Se is 
never "thus," but either "hither" (ix. 41, xiv. 21, xix. 27) or "here" (ix. 
33, xxii. 38). The iv 7-77 waTpioi aov is epexegetic of w5e, and means "Thy 
native town," not the whole of Israel : comp. Mk. vi. 5 ; Mt. xiii. 58. 

24. Ei-n-e^ 8c. When these words occur between two utter- 
ances of Christ, they seem to indicate that there is an interval 
between what precedes and what follows. The report of what 
was said on this occasion is evidently very condensed. Comp. 
vi. 39, xii. 16, xv. 11, xvii. 1, 22, xviii. 9, and see on i. 8. The 
Be is " but " (Cov.) rather than " and " (all other English Versions); 
ait autem (Vulg.). "But, instead of gratifying them, He said" 
There are various proverbial sayings which declare that those who 
are close to what is great do not appreciate the greatness. Jesus 
declares that He is no exception to this rule, and implies that He 
will work no miracles to free Himself from its operation. In the 
wilderness He had resisted a similar suggestion that He should 
work a miracle of display, a mere Tepas (vv. 9-1 1). In this matter 
Nazareth is a type of the whole nation, which rejected Him 
because He did not conform to their own ideas of the Messiah. 
Their test resembles that of the hierarchy, " He is the King of 
Israel ; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will 
believe on Him" (Mt. xxvii. 42). For elirev Bl see p. lxiii. 

25. " But I am like the Prophets, not only in the treatment 
which I receive from My own people, but also in My principles of 
action. For they also bestowed their miraculous benefits upon 
outsiders, although there were many of their own people who 
would have been very glad of such blessings." Christ is here 
appealing to their knowledge of Scripture, not to any facts out- 
side the O.T. Testatur hoc Dominus ex luce omniscientise, suae 
is not a legitimate inference. Arguments drawn from what was 
known to Him, but not known to them, would not be likely to 
influence His audience. Note <Ls= " when." 

Iir' a\T)06ias. "On a basis of truth": comp. Mk. xii. 14. We hare 
similar adverbial expressions in eV leys (sc. fioipas), &rl (rxoXi/s, eV2 nif i S, 

tv' doeias. 


cm eTTj Tpia kcu fXTjfas e£. Jesus, like His brother James (Jas. 
?. 17), follows Jewish tradition as to the duration of the famine. 
In 1 Kimrs xviii. 1 we are told that the rain came in the third 
year, which would make the drought about two years and a haif. 
But ever since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three 
years and a half ( = 42 months =1260 days) had become the 
traditional duration of times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7 ; 
Rev. xi. 2, 3, xii. 6, 14, xiii. 5). The Jews would regard "in the 
third year " as covering three years, and would argue that the 
famine must have continued for some time after the rain came. 

For iid e. ace. of duration of time ("over," i.e. "during"), comp. Acta 
xiii. 31, xix. 10 ; Hdt. iii. 59. 2, vi. 101. 3 ; Thuc. ii. 25. 4. Heb. xi. 30 is 
different. In accordance with common usage \tfi6s is here masc. ; but in 
xv. 14 and Acts xi. 28 it is fern. ace. to what is called Doric usage, as in the 
Megarean of Aristoph. Acharn. 743. But this usage occurs elsewhere in late 
Greek. It perhaps passed from the Doric into the Koivr) AidXe/cros : for 
examples see Wetst. and L. and S. Lex. In LXX perhaps only 1 Kings xviii. 2. 

Iirl irao-ae rr\v yrjv. Here, as in Jas. v. 17, only the land of 
Israel need be understood ; but it is possible that in each case we 
nave a popular hyperbole, and that the whole world is meant. 
Lk. xxi. 23 and Rom. ix. 28 are not quite parallel, for there the 
context plainly limits the meaning. Lk. xxiii. 44 is another 
doubtful case, and there AV. has "earth" and RV. "land." 
Both have " land " here. 

26. The translation of el nrf in this and the following clauses by "but 
only" (RV.), sed (Beza), or sed tantutn, is justifiable, because "save" (AV.) 
and nisi (Vulg.) seem to involve an absurdity which was not apparent to a 
Greek. It is not, however, correct to say that in such cases el £177 is put for 
ak\&, any more than in Mt. xx. 23 or Mk. iv. 22 it would be correct to say 
that dXXd is put for el pr). Here and in Mt. xii. 4 (comp. Rom. xiv. 14 ; 
1 Cor. vii. 17 ; Gal. i. 7, ii. 16) " the question is not whether el fx-f) retains 
its exceptive force, for this it seems always to do, but whether the exception 
refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone" (Lft. on Gal. i. 19) : comp. 
Rev. xxi. 27. — In els ^dpeirra, k.t.X., we perhaps have a quotation from LXX 
of 1 Kings xvii. 9. There, as here, the readings vary between Ziduvos and 
2i8u>i>las (se. 777s or xupas). Here the latter is right, meaning the territory of 
Sidon, in which Sarepta lay. Zarephath (in Syriac Tsarfah, in Greek 
~Zape<pda., "Zapeirra, and ^<pda) is probably represented by the modern 
Siirafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. 

27. Iirl 'EXlctoiov. For this use of iirl with a proper name to give a date, 
" in the time of," comp. iii. 2 ; Acts xi. 28 ; 1 Mac. xiii. 42, xiv. 27 ; 2 Mac. 
xv. 22. The spelling EX«r<rcuos is not well attested (Vv 7 H. ii. App. p. 159). 
For some of the " many lepers " comp. 2 Kings vii. 3, where we have four at 
the gate of Samaria. In N.T. 2upos is the only form of the adj. that is 
found, viz. here and perhaps Mk. vii. 26 ; but "Zvpos, "Zvpios, and Zvpiands occur 
elsewhere (Hdt. ii. 104. 6 ; Aesch. Pers. 83 ; Theophr. C. P. ii. 17. 3). 

28. eir\T]a0T]crav -rrdrres 0u/jlou. See on i. 66. They see the 
point of His illustrations ; He has been comparing them to those 
Jews who were judged less worthy of Divine benefits than tho 


heathen. It is this that infuriates them, just as it infuriated the 
Jews at Jerusalem to be told by S. Paul that the heathen would 
receive the blessings which they despised (Acts xiii. 46, 50, xxii. 
21, 22). Yet to this day the position remains the same; and 
Gentiles enjoy the Divine privileges of which the Jews have 
deprived themselves. His comparing Himself to such Prophets 
as Elijah and Elisha would add to the wrath of the Nazarenes. 
On the other hand, these early instances of God's special blessings 
being conferred upon heathen would have peculiar interest for Lk. 

29. ews 64>puos tou opous. Tradition makes the scene of this 
attempt to be a precipice, varying from 80 to 300 feet in height, 
which exists some distance off to the S.E. of the town ; and we 
read that " they cast Him out of the town and led Him as far as 
the brow," etc. But modern writers think that a much smaller 
precipice close at hand is the spot. Van der Velde conjectures 
that it has crumbled away ; Conder, that it is hidden under some 
of the houses. Stanley says that Nazareth " is built ' upon,' that 
is, on the side of, ' a mountain ' ; but the ' brow ' is not beneath, 
but over the town, and such a cliff as is here implied is to be found, 
as all modern travellers describe, in the abrupt face of the lime- 
stone rock, about 30 or 40 feet high, overhanging the Maronite 
Convent at the S.W. corner of the town" (Sin. cr Pal. p. 367). 
So also Robinson (Res. in Pal. ii. pp. 325, 330), Hacket (D.B. ii. 
p. 470), and Schulz in Herzog (PRE. 2 x. p. 447). The «/>' ou, of 
course, refers to tou opous, not to o<£puos. Both AV. and RV. have 
" the brow of the hill whereon," which might easily be misunder- 
stood. The town is on the hill, but not on the brow of it : the 
brow is above the modern village. Nowhere else in N.T. does 
6(f>pv<; occur. Comp. Horn. //. xx. 151 ; and o^puoet?, //. xxii. 411, 
and Hdt. v. 92. 10, with other instances in Wetst. Supercilium is 
similarly used: Virg. Georg. i. 108; Liv. xxvii. 18, xxxiv. 29. 

Zcrre KaTaKpi^vio-ai. The uxrre is not needed (i. 22 ; Mt. ii. 2, xx. 28 ; 
Acts v. 31); but it expresses more clearly the result which was intended. 
Comp. xx. 20, where, as here, ware has been altered in some texts into the 
simpler eh rb, a constr. which Lk. does not employ elsewhere. In ix. 52 the 
true reading is perhaps wx ; but in Mt. x. I, xxiv. 24, xxvii. 1 there is no doubt 
about the ware. For Ka.Ta.Kp7ifj.vlfa (here only in N.T.) comp. 2 Chron. 
xxv. 12 ; 2 Mac. xii. 15, xiv. 43 ; 4 Mac. iv. 25 ; Jos. Ant. vi. 6. 2, ix. 9. 1. 

The whole attempt to put Jesus to death was perhaps an instance of the form 
of punishment which the Jews called the "rebel's beating," which was some- 
what analogous to Lynch Law. The "rebel's beating" was administered by 
the people, without trial and on the spot, when anyone was caught in what 
seemed to be a flagrant violation of some law or tradition. Comp. the attempts 
to stone Jesus (Jn. viii. 59, x. 31). We have a similar attempt upon S. Paul's 
life (Acts xxi. 31, 32). In S. Stephen's case a formal trial seems to have ended 
in the "rebel's beating" (Edersh. The Temple, p. 43). 

30. auT05 Se ?ce\8wy Sta p-caou auTwi' e-rropeu'eTO. "But He (in 


contrast to this attempt), after passing through the midst of them, 
went His way." The addition of 8ta pio-ov is for emphasis, and 
seems to imply that there was something miraculous in His 
passing through the very midst of those who were intending to 
slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely in their power. They 
had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them. 
Those who think that it was His determined look or personal 
majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not 
prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue. 1 It seems 
better with Meyer and ancient commentators to understand a 
miracle dependent on the will of Jesus : comp. Jn. xviii. 6 ; Dan. 
vi. 22. Jn. viii. 59 is different: then Jesus hid Himself before 
escaping. For SteXOwy see on ii. 15. 

eiropeu'eTo. Here used in its common signification of going on 
towards a goal : " He went His way " to Capernaum. And, so far 
as we know, He did not return to Nazareth. It had become a 
typical example of "His own people receiving Him not" (Jn. 
i. 11); and apparently it had no other opportunity (but see 
Edersh. Z. 6^ T. i. ch. xxvii.). If Mk. vi. 1-6 and Mt. xiii, 
53-58 refer to a different occasion, it probably preceded this. 
After the attempt on His life He would not be likely to return ; 
and, if He did return, they could hardly, after this experience of 
Him, ask, "Whence has this man this wisdom?" or be astonished 
at His teaching. 

Meyer (on Mt. xiii. 53), Wieseler {Chron. Syn. iii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 258), Godet 
(I.e., Eng. tr. i. p. 240), Tischendorf (Synop. Evan. §§29, 54), and others dis- 
tinguish the two occasions. If with Caspari (Chron. Int. § 100) we identify 
them, then Lk. is the more full and vivid, for the others omit the text of the 
discourse and the attempt to kill Him. In this case Strauss may be right in sup- 
posing that Lk. has placed the incident at the beginning of the ministry, although 
it took place later, because he saw how typical it was of the ministry as a whole 
(Lebenfesu, p. 121, 1S64). That it was this attempt on His life which made 
Christ change His abode from Nazareth to Capernaum is contradicted by ver. 
16. " Where He had been brought up " implies that He had ceased to reside 
there : and from ver. 23 we infer that Capernaum had already become His 
headquarters. Thither His Mother and brethren had also moved, while His 
sisters remained at Nazareth (Mt. xiii. 56 ; Mk. vi. 3), very probably because 
they had married there. 

31-44. The Stay at Capernaum : chiefly a Record of Miracles 
of Healing. See Wsctt. Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, 
Macmillan, 1859; Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. 
E: "A Classification of the Gospel Miracles," Macmillan, 1888. 

31-37. The Healing of a Demoniac in the Synagogue at Caper- 

1 Even Godet is among these. La majesty de sa personne et la fermete dt 
son regard imposhtnt a ces furietix. L'/iistorie raconte phtsietirs traits sent- 
blables (i. p. 327, 3eme ed. ). Better Didon : Une force divine le gardai* 
(p. 312, ed. 1891). See Hase, Gesck. Jesu, p. 445, ed. 1891. 


naum. Mk. i. 21-28. Both Lk. and Mk. place this first among 
Christ's miracles ; whereas Mt. puts the healing of a leper first 
(viii. 2-4). Marcion began his mutilated edition of Lk. at this 
point with the words 'O 0EO'2 KarrjkOev ci? Kacpapvaov/x. The 
earlier portion, which teaches the humanity of Christ, he omitted, 
excepting the first clause of iii. 1 (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. 1). 

31. Karf}\9€e. Nazareth is on higher ground than Capernaum, 
which was on the shore of the lake ; and therefore " went down " 
or " came down " is the probable meaning. But it is possible that 
here and Acts xviii. 5 it means " returned," as often in class. Grk. 
(Hdt. iv. 4. 2, v. 30. 4; Thuc. viii. 68. 3). Excepting Jas. iii. 
15, the verb occurs in N.T. only in Lk. (ix. 37 and twelve times 
in Acts). 

Kacjxxpvaovp.. This is the correct spelling, Caphar-Nahum, of which 
Kairepvaovfj. is a Syrian corruption (WH. ii. App. p. 160). It was the chief Jewish 
town, as Tiberias was the chief Roman town, of the neighbourhood. It was 
therefore a good centre, especially as traders from all parts frequently met 
there (Mk. ii. 15, iii. 20, 32, etc.). It is not mentioned in O.T., and perhaps 
was not founded till after the Exile. Josephus mentions it only once, viz. in his 
description of the lake (B. J. iii. 10. 7, 8), and then not as a town but as a 
7T7/77J yovifjMTa.T7i, which irrigates the neighbourhood : but there is no doubt that 
the Ke<papvwfj.rj, to which Josephus was carried, when he was thrown from his 
horse in a skirmish with Roman troops, is Capernaum ( Vita, 72). The identi- 
fication with the modern Tell Hum (Nau, Pococke, Burckhardt, Renan, 1 Ritter, 
Rodiger, Ewald) is possible, but not certain. Many advocate the claims of 
Khan Minyeh, which is three miles to the south (Quaresmius, Keim, Robinson, 
Sepp, Stanley, Strauss, Wilson). For the chief arguments see Wilson in D.B. 1 
i. p. 530, and in Picturesque Palestine, ii. p. 81 ; Schulz in Herzog, P£. 2 vii. 
p. 501 ; Keim,y<?j. of Naz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 369 ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 
221-239, e d- 1S92. The doubts about the site show how completely the woes 
pronounced upon the place (Mt. xi. 23) have been fulfilled. But in any case 
Jesus left the seclusion of the mountains for a busy mercantile centre by the lake. 

iroXii' rfjs TaXiXcuas. Lk. adds this, because this is the first 
time that he mentions Capernaum in his narrative. The explana- 
tion could not be made ver. 23. It is another small indication 
that he is writing for those who are not familiar with the geography 
of Palestine : comp. i. 26, ii. 4, viii. 26. 

r\v Siodo-Kwi/ auTous iv tois ( Some make vv. 31, 32 a 
general introduction, stating the habitual practice, of which w. 
33-37 gave a particular instance. In support of this they urge 
the analytical tense, rjv 8l8o.o-kwv, and the plur. tois adpfiacnv : 
" He used to teach them on the sabbath days." But in the 
parallel passage e'SicW/cev and rjv 8i8do-Kwv are equivalent, and 

1 Of the cinq fettles villes dont Fhumaniti parlera etemelletnent autant que 
de Rome et dAthenes, Renan considers the identification of Magala (Afedjdel) 
alone as certain. Of Capharnahum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, and Bethsaida he 
says, // est douteux qu'on arrive jamais sur ce sol profondetnent devast^, a fixer 
les flaces oh Phumanite voudrait venir baiser Vempreinte de ses pieds ( Vie de 
Jesus, p. 142, ed. 1863). 


apparently refer to one occasion only (note the evOvs, Mk. i. 22, 23) : 
and ra o-afifiaTa is often sing, in meaning (Mt. xxviii. 1 ; Col. ii. 
16 ; Exod. xx. 10 ; Lev. xxiii. 32 ; Jos. Ant. i. 1. 1, iii. 6. 6, x. 1 , 
Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69). Acts xvii. 2 is the only place in N.T. in which 
trdfifiaTa is plur. in meaning, and there a numeral necessitates it, 
eV! crafifiaTa rpia ; which, however, may mean " for three tveeks" 
and not " for three sabbaths." Syr-Sin. here has " the sabbath days." 

The Aramaic form of the word ends in a, the transliteration of which into 
Greek looked like a neut. plur. This idea was confirmed by the fact that 
Greek festivals are commonly neut. plur. : to. yeviffia, iyicalvia., iravad^vaia, 
k.t.\. Hence c6.fifia.Ta may either mean " a sabbath " or " sabbaths " or " a 
week." Here it is better to retain the sing, meaning, and refer the whole of 
32-37 to one occasion. In N.T. <ra.fifia.ffiv is the usual form of the dat. plur., 
with aafifidrois as v. 1. in some authorities (in B twice, Mt. xii. 1, 12). In 
LXX 'fi&Tois prevails. Josephus uses both. 

32. iv e|ouaia fjv 6 Xoyos auToG. This does not refer to the 
power which His words had over the demoniac, but to the authority 
with which they came home to the consciences of His hearers. 
The healing of the demoniac was not so much an example of this 
i$ova-La as evidence that He had a Divine commission to exercise 
it. Lie. omits the comparison with the formal and ineffectual 
teaching of the scribes (Mk. i. 22 ; Mt. vii. 29). 

The iv means "clothed in, invested with" (i. 17, iv. 36, xi. 15, l8, 19, 
20, xx. 2, 8 ; I Cor. ii. 4 ; Eph. vi. 2 ; 2 Thes. ii. 9). This use of iv is freq. 
in late Grk. Green, Gram, of N. T. p. 206. 

33. iv tt) CTuyay^Yfi- "In tlie synagogue" in which He was 
teaching on that sabbath; which confirms the view that ver. 31 
refers to a particular occasion. We have already been told that it 
was His practice to teach in the synagogues. But " in the syna- 
gogue" may mean in the only one which Capernaum possessed 
(vii. 5). 

exwy Tr^ufxa Saifioviou aKaGdpTou. The phrase is unique, and 
the exact analysis of it is uncertain. The gen. may be of apposi- 
tion (ii. 41, xxii. 1 ; Jn. ii. 21, xi. 13, xiii. 1), or of quality (see on 
ver. 22), or of possession, i.e. an influence which belonged to an 
unclean demon (Rev. xvi. 14). As to the Evangelists' use of the 
epithet axdOaprov, strange mistakes have been made. Wordsworth 
inaccurately says, "Both St. Mark and St. Luke, writing for Gentiles, 
add the word aKa.6a.pT0v to 8aip.6vi.ov, which St. Matthew, writing to 
Jews (for whom it was not necessary), never does." Alford in 
correcting him is himself inaccurate. He says, " The real fact is, 
that St. Mark uses the word haip.6viov thirteen times, and never 
adds the epithet dxaOaprov to it (his word here is Trvtvp-a only) ; 
St Luke, eighteen times, and only adds it this once. So much 
for the accuracy of the data on which inferences of this kind are 


founded." Edersheim is still more inaccurate in his statement of 
the facts (Z. 6° T. i. p. 479 n). Farrar has the strange misstate- 
ment that " the word ' unclean ' is peculiar to St. Luke, who writes 
for Gentiles." It occurs in Mt., Paul, and Apoc, as well as Mk. 
The facts are these. Mt. uses 8atp,6viov ten times, and has 
aKcidapTov twice as an epithet of nrev/xa. Mk. has haip.6viov thirteen 
times, and a.K.a6apTov eleven times as an epithet of irv(.vp.a. Lk. in 
the Gospel has haip,6viov twenty-three times, with axadapTov as an 
epithet, once of 8aip.6vtov, and five times of irvevp.a ; and with irovTjpov 
twice as an epithet of trvevpLa. In the Acts he has ocu/wioj/ once; 
and uses aKaOaprov twice, and -n-ov^pov four times, as an epithet of 
irvevp.a. The fact, therefore, remains, that the two Evangelists who 
wrote for Gentiles (to whom demons or spirits were indifferent) 
add a distinctive epithet much more often than the one who wrote 
for Jews (who distinguished evil spirits from good). Moreover, 
both Mk. and Lk. add this epithet the very first time that they 
mention these beings (Mk. i. 23 ; Lk. iv. 33) ; whereas Mt. men- 
tions them several times (vii. 22, viii. 16, ix. 33, 34) before he adds 
the aKaQapTov (x. 1). In this passage Lk. and Mk. describe the 
fact of possession in opposite ways. Here the man has the unclean 
spirit. There he is in the unclean spirit's power, iv irvf.vp.aTL 
aKa.6dpTco : with which we may compare the expression of Josephus, 
tous virb twv SaipLovtiov Xap./3avop.evov<; (Ant. viii. 2. 5). Similarly, 
we say of a man that " he is out of his mind," or that " his mind 
is gone " out of him. That a man thus afflicted should be in the 
synagogue is surprising. He may have come in unobserved ; or 
his malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to 
be cured. The presence of " the Holy One of God " provokes a 
crisis. For avenpaiev comp. Josh. vi. 5 ; 1 Sam. iv. 5 ; and for 
(Jxokfj /xeydXfl see on i. 42. D.C.G. art. " Demon." 

34. "Ea. Probably not the imperative of iao>, " Let alone, leave 
me in peace," but an interjection of anger or dismay ; common in 
Attic poetry, but rare in prose (Aesch. P. V. 298, 688; Eur. Hec. 
501; Plato, Prof. 314 D). Here only in N.T. Comp. Job iv. 
19?, xv. 16, xix. 5, xxv. 6. Fritzsche on Mk. i. 24 (where the word 
is an interpolation) and L. and S. Lex. regard the imperative as the 
origin of the interjection, which does not seem probable. 

ti Tj|juf kcu aoi; Not "What have we to contend about?" a 
meaning which the phrase has nowhere in N.T. and perhaps only 
once, if at all, in O.T. (2 Chron. xxxv. 21), but "What have we in 
common?" Comp. viii. 28; Mt. viii. 29; Mk. i. 24; Jn. ii. 4; 
Judg. xi. 12; 1 Kings xvii. 18; 2 Kings iii. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; 
1 Esdr. i. 26; Epict. Diss. i. 1. 16, i. 27. 13, ii. 9. 16. 

Mtj<tov Na£apT)V€. This form of the adjective is found xxiv. 19 ; Mk. i. 
24, x. 47, xiv. 67,. xvi. 6; but not in Mt. or Jn. or Acts. Its appearance 
here is no proof that Lk. is borrowing from Mk. Nafapaiot occurs Lk. xviii. 


37; Mt. ii. 23, xxvi. 71 ; Jn. xviii. 5, 7, xix. 19; Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, 
vi. 14, xxii. 8, xxvi. 9 ; but not in Mk. The adjective, esp. Nafwpcuot, 
which is used in the title on the cross, sometimes has a tinge of contempt ; 
and with the article it may be rendered "the Nazarene." Hence the early 
Christians were contemptuously called " the Nazarenes" (Acts xxiv. 5). Con- 
trast 6 &tt6 ~NafapdT (Mt. xxi. 11 ; Mk. i. 9; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38), which 
is a mere statement of fact. It is worth noting that this demoniac, who is a 
Jew, addresses Jesus as " of Nazareth," which the Gerasene, who was possibly 
a heathen, does not do (viii. 28). 

TJ\8e9 &TTo\e'(Tcu i^fiag ; The rjfxas and the preceding r/fuv prob- 
ably do not include the man, but rather other evil spirits. Com- 
munem inter se causam habent d&monia (Beng.). It seems to be 
idle to speculate as to the meaning of a7roXe'o-at : apparently it is 
the same as eis tt/v afivcrcrov aTrekOelv (viii. 31). 

otSd <re ti's el, 6 ayios tou 0eou. In Mk. o"Sa/A€y (?), which is more 
in harmony with rj/xtv and t^S?. Godet remarks that 6 dyio? tov 
0eov explains the knowledge. It was instinctive, and therefore 
oTSa is more suitable than yivwo-Ka). E antipathie rt est pas tnoins 
clairvoyance que la sympathie. In the unique holiness of Jesus the 
evil spirit felt an essentially hostile power. The expression 6 dytos 
toS ®eov occurs in the parallel in Mk. and Jn. vi. 69 ; but nowhere 
else: comp. Acts iv. 27; 1 Jn. ii. 20; Rev. iii. 7. It may mean 
either " consecrated to God " or " consecrated by God." In a lower 
sense priests and Prophets are called dyioi tov 0eo£> or Kvpiov (Ps. 
cvi. 16). It was not in flattery (male adulans, as Tertullian says) 
that the evil spirit thus addressed Him, but in horror. From the 
Holy One he could expect nothing but destruction (Jas. ii. 19; 
comp. Mt. viii. 29). 

35. eir€TifXT)a€i' ciutw. " He rebuked the demon " who had used 
the man as his mouth-piece. The verb is often used of rebuking 
violence (ver. 41, viii. 24, ix. 42: Mt. viii. 26, xvii. 18; Mk. iv. 39; 
Jude 9); yet must not on that account be rendered "restrain" 
(Fritzsche on Mt. viii. 26, p. 325). 

In N.T. diriTifj.dw has no other meaning than "rebuke"; but in class. 
Grk. it means — I. " lay a value on, rate" ; 2. " lay a penalty on, sentence" ; 
3. "chide, rate, rebuke." But while there is a real connexion between the 
first and third meanings of the Greek verb, in English we have a mere 
accident of language : " rate" = " value " is a different word from " rate " = 
" scold." Note that Christ required no faith from demoniacs. 

<kp.w0r)Ti. Lit. " Stop thy mouth with a <£i/*os, be muzzled " : 
used literally 1 Cor. ix. 9 ; 1 Tim. v. 18; and as here, Mt. xxii. 12; 
Mk. i. 25, iv. 39; Jos. B. J. i. 22. 3. The peculiar infin. cf>ifxolv 
occurs I Pet. ii. 15. Comp. a-n-oSeKaTOLV (Heb. vii. 5); Karao-K^volv 
(Mt. xiii. 32; Mk. iv. 32). The verb is probably a vernacular 
word: it is not found between Aristoph. (Nub. 592) and L.XX 
(Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 41). 


Kai e^cXGe air' avToJ. This is the true reading. Other writers commonly 
have e^epxofiai iK ; but Lk. prefers i^pxop-ai air 6 (ver. 41, v. 8, viii. 2, 29, 
33» 35. 38, ix. 5» "• 2 4, etc.). 

piij/ae auToc . . . p.rjoei' pXtfycu' ainov. " Having thrown him" 
down in convulsions (crirapdfjav Mk.) . . . without (as one might 
have expected) having injured him at all." With ovSev fikdipav we 
should have had a mere statement of fact. But in N.T. we com- 
monly have i*r) with participles : comp. xi. 24, xii. 47, and see Win. 
lv. 5. /5, p. 607. For /xrjSkv (3Xanf/av Mk. has (fxDvrjcrav (f>a)vr} fxeydXr]. 
It was the convulsions and the loud cry which made the spectators 
suppose that the man had been injured. The malice of the demon 
made the healing of the man as painful as possible. Hobart 
classes both piVreiv and fiXaTrreiv as medical words, the one being 
used of convulsions, the latter of injury to the system (Med. Lang, 
of Lk. p. 2). 

36. eyeVe-ro Oap-Pos. Mk. has iOa/xfiijdrjo-av ; but Lk. is fond of 
these periphrases with yivofxai (i. 65, vi. 49, viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 2, 4, 
xviii. 23, etc.) : see on iii. 22. The word expresses amazement 
akin to terror, and the subst. is peculiar to Lk. (v. 9; Acts iii. 10). 
Just as Christ's doctrine amazed them in comparison with the 
formalism of the scribes, so His authority over demons in compari- 
son with the attempts of the exorcists : all the more so, because a 
single word sufficed for Him, whereas the exorcists used incanta- 
tions, charms, and much superstitious ceremonial (Tob. viii. 1-3; 
Jos. Ant. viii. 2. 5; Justin, Apol. ii. 6; Try. lxxxv.). 

tIs 6 \6yos outos. Not, Quid hoc rei est ? " What manner a 
thinge is this?" (Beza, Luth. Tyn. Cran. Grotius), but Quod est 
hoc verbuml "What is this word?" (Vulg. Wic. Rhem. RV.). 
It is doubtful whether in N.T. Ao'yos has the meaning of " event, 
occurrence, deed": but comp. i. 4 and Mk. i. 45. Whether Ao'yos 
is here to be confined to the command given to the demon, or 
includes the previous teaching (ver. 32), is uncertain. Mk. i. 27 is 
in favour of the latter. In this case we have an ambiguous on to 
deal with ; and once more " because " or " for " is more probable 
than "that" (see on i. 45). But if "that" be adopted, 6 Xo'yos has 
the more limited meaning: "What is this word, that with authority?" 

iv c|ou<ria ica! SukdfAei. e£ovcria, cui non potest contradici ; £uva/m, 
cut non potest resisti (Beng.). Mk. has kolt i$ovcrtav only. The 
beloved physician is fond of Swa/ns, esp. in the sense of " inherent 
power of hea/ing" (v. 17, vi. 19, viii. 46, ix. 1; Acts iii. 12, iv. 7, 
vi. 8). Mk. has it only once in this sense (v. 30), and Mt. not at 
all. The plural in the sense of " manifestations of power, miracles " 
(x. 13, xix. 37), is freq. in Mt. and Mk. See on Rom. i. 16. 

37. e^eTropeu'eTo rjx°s irepl ciutoG. In these sections attention is 
often directed to the impression which Jesus made on His audi* 


ences (vv. 20, 22, 32, 36, v. 26), and to the fame which spread 
abroad respecting Him (vv. 14, 15, 37, 40, v. 15, 17). 'H^os (6) 
occurs only here, Acts ii. 2, and Heb. xii. 19. In xxi. 25, ^x ous 
may be gen. of either 17 ^w or to ^x os - But the existence of to 
f/Xos is doubtful. The more classical word is rj rj^-n, of which 
6 ^x os 1S a l ater form. Hobart classes it as a medical word, esp. 
for noises in the ears or the head (p. 64). 

As already stated, this healing of a demoniac is recorded 
by Mk., but not by Mt. Ebrard and Holtzmann would have us 
believe that it is to compensate for this omission that Mt. gives two 
demoniacs among the Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. have only one. 

In considering the question of demotiiacal possession we must never lose sight 
of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and 
repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to 
depart out of the afflicted persons. The Synoptic Gospels uniformly state that 
Jesus went through the form of casting out demons. 

If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims 
free, there is nothing to explain : the narrative is in harmony with the facts. 

If the demons were not there, and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we 
must choose between three hypotheses. 

1. Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to 
be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him. 

2. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out. 

3. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His con- 

On the whole subject consult articles in D.B. 2 , Schaff-Herzog, Ency. Brit. 
on "Demoniacs," "Demons," " Demonology " ; Trench, Miracles, No. 5; 
Caldwell, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876, vol. xxvii. pp. 369 ff. No explanation is 
satisfactory which does not account for the uniform and repeated testimony of 
the Evangelists. 

38, 39. The Healing of Peter's Mother-in-law. Mk. i. 30. 

It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship expressed by irevdepa is either 
"wife's mother" or "husband's mother" (xii. 53; Mt. viii. 14, x. 35; Mk. 
i. 30; Ruth i. 14, ii. 11, 18, 19,23; Mic. vii. 6; Dem. Plut. Lucian). So also 
wevdepbs is either " wife's father" or "husband's father" (Jn. xviii. 13; Gen. 
vxxviii. 13, 25 ; Judg. i. 16; I Sam. iv. 19, 21). But for " wife's father" the 
more indefinite ■ya./j.(3p6s ("a relation by marriage") is freq. in LXX (Exod. 
iii. 1, iv. 18; Num. x. 29 ; Judg. iv. 11, xix. 4, 7, 9). In Greek there is a dis- 
tinct term for "stepmother," viz. the very common word fXTjrpvii (Horn. lies. 
Hdt. yEsch. Plat. Plut.); and if Lk. had intended to designate the second 
wife of Peter's father, he would have used this term. That he should have 
ignored a word in common use which would express his meaning, and employ 
another word which has quite a different meaning, is incredible. That Peter 
was married is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 5. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter's 
wife helped him in ministering to women, — an apostolic anticipation of Zenana 
missions (Strom, iii. 6, p. 536, ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip 
had children, and that Philip gave his daughters in marriage (ibid. p. 535, ed- 
Potter, quoted Eus. H. E. iii. 30. 1); but he gives no names. It is remarkable 
that nothing is known of any children of any one Apostle. This is the first 
mention of Peter by Lk., who treats him as a person too well known to need 
introduction. For other miracles of mercy on the sabbath see on xiv. 1. 


38. 'Ayaoras Se diro rf\<s (Tvvaywyr\<i. This may refer to Christ's 
rising from His seat ; but it is more natural to understand it of 
His leaving the synagogue. The verb is used where no sitting 01 
lying is presupposed, and means no more than preparation for 
departure (i. 39, xv. 18, 20, xxiii. 1; Acts x. 20, xxii. 10): see on 
i. 39. Mk. has i£e\66vr€<;, the plur. including Simon and Andrew, 
James and John. Neither Lk. nor Mt. mention the presence of 
disciples, but Peter, and perhaps Andrew, may be understood 
among those who rjpwrrjaav avTov irepl avTrjs. 

owexofierr] irupe-rw |xeyd\w. Perhaps all three words are medical, 
and certainly a-vvex ^ - 1 occurs three times as often in Lk. as in the 
rest of N.T. Galen states that fevers were distinguished as 
" great " and " slight," /xeyaXot. and crpuKpoi (Hobart, p. 3). Comp. 
Plat. Gorg. 512 A. Note the analytical tense. 

39. emords errata) au-rfjs cTreTi'fiTjCTei'. Instead of this both Mt. 
and Mk. state that He touched her hand. Proximus accessus 
oslendebat, virtuti Jesu cedere morbum, neque ullum corpori ejus a 
tnorbo imminere periculum (Beng.). The eVeTt^o-ev of ver. 35 does 
not show that the use of the same word here is meant to imply that 
the fever is regarded as a personal agent. But comp. xiii. n, 16; 
Mk. be. 17, 23. The d^Kev, which is in all three narratives, 
harmonizes with either view In any case this unusual mode of 
healing would interest and impress a physician ; and Lk. alone 
notices the suddenness with which her strength returned. For 
iropaxpTJfAa see on v. 25. Syr-Sin. omits the standing over her. 

SiTjKOkei auTois. Mt. has aural : the avroi? includes the disciples 
and others present. Her being able to minister to them proves 
the completeness of the cure. Recovery from fever is commonly 
attended by great weakness. And this seems to be fatal to the view 
of B. Weiss, that Christ's cures were " momentary effects produced 
by His touch, which, although the result was absolutely certain, yet 
merely began a healing process that was completed in a perfectly 
natural way." What is gained by such an hypothesis ? 

The Attic form of the imperf. of hiaKovtu is ic>ia.Kbvovv ; but lii)Kbvovv is 
the reading of the MSS. in Eur. Cycl. 406 (Veitch, s.v.). Comp. viii. 3; ML 
iv. 11, viii. 15; Mk. i. 13, 31; Jn. xii. 2; 1 Pet. i. 12. 

40. 41. Numerous Healings in the Evening. Nous rencontrons 
ici un de ces moments dans la vie du Seigneur oil la puissance miracu- 
leuse se deploy ait avec une richesse particuliere : vi. 19" (Godet, 
i- P- 339)- Comp. Mt. viii. 16, 17; Mk. i. 32-34. The healing 
of the demoniac (ver. 35), and of Peter's mother-in-law, had proved 
that He could heal diseases both of mind and body. All three 
note the two kinds of healing ; but " the physician separates the 
two with special distinctness, and lends no support to the view 
that possession is merely a physical disorder." 


40. Au'vovtos &e tou rjXiou. Mt. has 'Oi/aas Se ycvo/Ae'vr;?, while 
Mk. has 'Ot/aas Se yevofj.evr]<;, ore coWev 6 ?]A.ios. We infer that 
here Mk. gives us the whole expression in the original tradition, of 
which all three make use ; and that Mt. uses one half and Lk. the 
other half of it. See v. 13, xxii. 34, xxiii. 38, for similar cases. 
Some infer that Mk. has combined the phrases used by the other two, 
and therefore must have written last of the three. But an analysis 
of the passages which all three have in common shows that this is 
incredible. The literary skill required for combining two narra- 
tives, without adding much new material, would be immense ; and 
Mk. does not possess it. It is much simpler to suppose that Mk. 
often gives the original tradition in full, and that the other two 
each give portions of it, and sometimes different portions. See E. 
A. Abbott, Ency. Brit. 9th ed. art. "Gospels," and Abbott and 
Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition of the Syn. Gosp. p. x. 

AuVorros. " When the sun was setting" or " ere the sun was 
set" as the hymn gives it. 1 The eagerness of the people was such 
that the very moment the sabbath was over they began to move 
the sick: comp. Jn. v. 10. Note Lk.'s favourite airavTes. 

en, eKdoTw aindv -ras x e ^P a s <=iuTi0eig. Lk. alone preserves this 
graphic detail, which emphasizes the laborious solicitude of the 
work. Sic singuli penitius commoti sunt ad fidem (Beng.). It does 
not apply to the demoniacs, who were healed Adyw, as Mt. states. 

The action is a generally recognized symbol of transmission, especially in 
conferring a blessing (Gen. xlviii. 14; Lev. ix. 22, 23 ; Mk. x. 16). It is also 
used to symbolize the transmission of guilt (Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, viii. 14, xvi. 21, 
22). The statement that "our Lord healed at first by laying on of hands, but 
gradually passed over to the exclusive use of the word of power, in order that 
He might not encourage the popular idea that there was a necessary connexion 
between the laying on of hands and the cure," is not confirmed by Scripture. 
The nobleman's son and the man at Bethesda were healed by a word (Jn. iv. 50, 
v. 8) ; Malchus, by a touch. There was no. necessity to use either word or 
touch. He could heal by an act of will, and at a distance from His person 
(vii. 10, xvii. 14 ; Jn. iv. 50). But He more often used means, possibly to aid 
the faith of those who needed healing (xiii. 13, xiv. 4, Mt. viii. 3, ix. 29 ; Mk. 
vii. 33, viii. 23, 25; Jn. ix. 6: comp. Mk. v. 23, 28, 41, vii. 32, viii. 22). 
The fact that Jesus commonly used some action in healing made the Jews the 
more irate at His healing on the sabbath. Excepting Acts xvii. 25, depenrevu in 
N.T. is always "heal, cure," not merely "serve, take care of." Like colere, it 
is used of service both to God and to men ; and like curare, it is both " to care 
for" and "to cure." The imperfects, idepairevev and ^riPX eT0 > mark the con- 
tinuance and repetition of the actions. 

41. c^pxeto 8e Ka! SaifioVia dirS iroXXaii'. " But demons also " 

1 The form dvvcj seems to be Ionic, but occurs once or twice in Attic prose 
(Veitch, s.v.). Except ?8v<xev or Zdv in Mk. i. 32, the word does not occur again 
in N.T. It is freq. in LXX (Judg. xiv. 18 ; 2 Sam. ii. 24 ; 1 Kings xxii. 36 ; 
2 Chron. xviii. 34, etc.). It means "sink into, enter," ttSvtov or the like being 
expressed or understood. Lk. never uses the unclassical dtpla (ix. 12, xxii. 14, 
xxiii. 54, xxiv. 29), which occurs often in Mt. and Mk. and twice in Jn. 


(as well as diseases) " came out of many." For 8e kcu see on iii. 9, 
and for e|epxeo-0at diro see on ver. 35 : both are characteristic of 
Lk. He alone mentions the Kpd^cif of the demons. There is not 
much difference between o vios tov ®eov here and 6 ayios tov ©eou 
in ver. 34. In both cases it is the presence of Divine holiness 
which is felt and proclaimed. Phil. ii. 10 is here not to the point; 
for KaraxOovia there probably does not mean devils. 

ouk eta auTd \a\ei>, on. " He suffered them not to speak, 
because." Not, " suffered them not to say that " ; which would 
require \ey«v. In N.T. XaXtLv and Xtyuv are never confused ; not 
even Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thes. i. 8. Excepting Mt. 
xxiv. 43 and 1 Cor. x. 13, idw is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxh. 51 , 
Acts xiv. 16, xvi. 7, xix. 30, xxiii. 32, xxvii. 32, 40, xxviii. 4); and 
dwv is the usual form of imperf. 

Godet's suggestion, that the demons wished to compromise Jesus by exciting 
a dangerous enthusiasm among the people, or to create a belief that there was a 
bond of connexion between their work and His, is gratuitous. Their cries are 
more like involuntary exclamations of dismay. That Jesus should not allow 
them to make Him known was natural, although Strauss condemns it as incon- 
sistent. Nee tempus erat, nee hi pracones (Beng. on Mk. iii. 12). " It was not 
meet that unclean demons should usurp the glory of the apostolic office " (Cyril 
Alex.). Jesus had rejected the offered assistance of the evil one in the 
wilderness, and could not desire to be proclaimed as the Messiah by his 
ministers. Moreover, while the national ideas respecting the Messiah remained 
so erroneous, the time for such proclamation had not yet come. Comp. 
Tn. vi. 15. 

42, 43. The Multitude's Pursuit of Him. Comp. Mk. i. 35-39. 
Although Lk. has some features which Mk. has not, the latter's 
account is more like that of an eye-witness. 

42. revofjieV-ris 8e T)p.e'pas. See on vi. 13. Mk. has the strong 
expression -n-poA ewvx a Xtav. It was so early that it was still like 
night. This shows His anxiety to escape the multitude and secure 
time for refreshment of His spiritual nature by converse with God : 
Mk. adds KctKet irpoa-rjvx^o. Jesus had probably passed the night 
in Simon's house ; and for 01 o^Aoi Mk has 2i/awv kol 01 /act' airov, 
for as yet Jesus had no fixed disciples. Peter in telling Mk. of the 
incident would say, " We went after Him." 

ol oxXoi eiT€^T)Toui' auToy. "The multitudes kept seeking for 
Him." The hn- marks the direction of the search : comp. iireSoO-q 
(ver. 17). They wanted more of His teaching and of His 
miraculous cures. See on xi. 29. But neither this nor the 
iroXXuv in ver. 41 proves that there had not been time to heal all 
who came the previous evening. Would He have sent any empty 
away ? Lk. is fond of recording the eagerness of the people to 
come to Christ (v. 1, 19, vi. 19, viii. 19, 40, xii. 1, xxi. 38: comp. 
xix. 3 and xxiii. 8). 

r\\9ov Iws auTOu, ical Karcixoy auiw tou pj iropcuecrdai air' aurwk. 


They did not leave off seeking until they reached Him, and they 
tried to stay Him from going away from them. 

This use of £ws with a person is not classical : comp. ?ws rjfiuv (Actj 
ix. 38) and £ws rod /SacrtX^ws (1 Mac. hi. 26). Of place (iv. 29, x. 15) 01 of 
time (xxiii. 44) ?ws is common enough. 

With Kardxov (imperf. of attempted or intended action) comp. iicaXov* 
(i. 59). The rod (j.t) iropeuecrOai is not Lk.'s favourite construction to express 
purposes or result (see on i. 74), but the gen. after a verb of detention or 
prevention : comp. Rom. xv. 22. For the apparently superfluous negative 
comp. xxiv. 16 ; Acts x. 47, xiv. 18, xx. 27. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409 ; lxv. 
2. /S, p. 755. Blass, Gr. p. 250. 

43. Kal tcus cTc'pais ttoXcctii'. Placed first for emphasis. " To 
the other cities also (as well as to Capernaum) I must preach the 
good tidings." It is a rebuke to them for wishing to monopolize 
Him. It is not a rebuke for interrupting His preaching by 
requiring Him to work miracles. There is no evidence that He 
ever regarded these works of mercy as an interruption of His 
ministry, or as an unworthy lowering of it. On the contrary, they 
were an essential part of it ; not as evidence of His Messiahship, 
but as the natural work of the great Healer of body and soul. 
They were, moreover, an important element in His teaching, for 
His miracles were parables. As evidence they did not prove His 
Messiahship, and He did not greatly value the faith which was 
produced by them (Jn. ii. 23, 24). He Himself regarded them as 
merely auxiliary (Jn. xiv. n). He warned His disciples that false 
Christs and false prophets would work miracles (Mk. xiii. 22), just as 
the O.T. had warned the Jews that a Prophet was not to be believed 
simply because he worked miracles (Deut. xiii. 1-3). And, as a 
matter of fact, Christ's miracles did not convince the Jews (Jn. 
xii. 37). Some thought that He was a Prophet (vii. 16, ix. 8, 19; 
Mt. xxi. 11 ; Jn. ix. 17), a view taken even by His disciples after 
the crucifixion (xxiv. 19); while others attributed His miracles to 
Satanic agency (Mt. xii. 24). On the other hand, the Baptist, 
although he wrought no miracles, was thought to be the Messiah 
(see on iii. 15). The saying here recorded does not mean, there- 
fore, " You are mistaking My work. I came to preach the good 
tidings, not to do works of healing " : but, " You are selfish in your 
desires. I came to preach the good tidings and to do works of 
healing to all, and not to a favoured few." For euayyeXio-ao-Gai see 
on ii. 10. 

Seu For the second time (ii. 49) Christ uses this word respect- 
ing His own conduct. Comp. ix. 22, xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
xxii. 37, xxiv. 7, 26, 44. His work and His sufferings are ordered 
by Divine decree. The word is thus used of Christ throughout 
N.T. (Acts iii. 21, xvii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 25). 

■n\v Pao-iXeiai' tou 0eoG. This is Lk.'s first use of this frequent 


expression (vi. 20, vii. 28, viii. 1, 10, etc.), which Jn. employs twice 
(iii. 3, 5), Mt. four times (xii. 28, xix. 24, xxi. 31, 43), Mk. often. For 
its import see Ewald, Hist, of Israel, vi., Eng. tr. pp. 201-210; 
Schaffs Herzog, art. " Kingdom of God " ; Edersh. L. &> T. i. 
pp. 265-270. The em toGto refers to the whole of what precedes : 
"for this end," viz. "to preach the good tidings everywhere in the 
land." For this use of «ri comp. xxiii. 48 and Mt. xxvi. 50. It 
is quite classical (Xen. A nab. ii. 5. 22, vii. 8. 4). For a-nz<n6.\-r\v 
see on ver. 18. The evidence for it (X B C D L X) as against 
aTreo-TaAjxai (A Q R) is overwhelming. Yet Godet says on pent 
hesiter. It refers to the mission from the Father, as does the 
lirjXdov of Mk. But it is possible to give the latter the inadequate 
interpretation of leaving the house at Capernaum. 

44. Kal i\v KT^puao-ajK cis -ras owaywyds tt]S 'louSaias. This 
statement forms a conclusion to the section (14-44); and the 
analytical tense indicates that what is stated continued for some 

Both Lk. and Mk. have eh r<ij ffvvayoryds, which in both cases has been 
altered into the easier iv rats awaywyah. The eh may be explained as a 
pregn. constr., " He went into the synagogues and preached there" or as ex- 
pressing the motion or direction of the preaching (Mk. iv. 15 ; Jn. viii. 26). 
Comp. et t6v Sij/xov ravra. Xiywinv (Thuc. v. 45. I ). It seems probable that 
the reading 'lovSalas (X B C L Q R) is the original one, which has been 
corrected to TaXiXalas (A DXT A A II) on account of its difficulty. But, as 
in i. 5 and vii. 17, Judaea may here mean the whole country of the Jews, 
Palestine. Lk. often uses 'lovdata in this sense (xxiii. 5 ; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, 
xi. I, 29, xxvi. 20; comp. Gal. i. 22). Classic writers use the term in much 
the same manner. Strabo means by it all the region from Lebanon south- 
wards. Syr-Sin. has "of Judaea." 

V. 1-VI. 11. From the Call of the first Disciples to the Nomina- 
tion of the Twelve. 

This section presents a symmetrical arrangement, which possibly 
is intentional. The call of a leading disciple (1-11) is followed 
by two healings which provoke controversy (12-16, 17-26); and 
then the call of another leading disciple (27-39) 1S followed 
by two incidents on the sabbath, which again provoke controversy 
(vi. 1-5, 6-1 1). 

V. 1-11. The call of Simon. In Mt. iv. 18-22 and Mk. i. 
16-20 the narrative is the call of Simon and Andrew, and of James 
and John. Here Andrew is not mentioned. And although all obey 
the call (ver. n), yet Simon alone is addressed (w. 4, 10). But 


the identity of this incident with that narrated by Mt. and Mk. can 
neither be affirmed nor denied with certainty. In Mt. and Mk. 
the disciples are fishing ; here they are washing their nets before 
putting them away. The important point is that in all narratives 
those called are at work. Similarly, Levi is called from his busi- 
ness. It would seem as if none of the Twelve were called when 

1. 'EyeVeTo %i. See detached note at the end of ch. i. For to» 
oxXok see on xi. 29 ; for iv to tov oxXoe emKelo-Gcu see on iii. 21 ; for 
Toy \6yov tou Oeou see on viii. n ; for kcu introducing the apodosis 
see on ii. 21 ; and for ko.1 auTos see on ver. 14. All these points, 
with the analytical r\v €<rrc5s (i. 7, 10, 20, 21, etc.), are characteristic 
of Lk. Not often do we find so many marks of his style in so 
small a compass. Comp. viii. 22, 37, 40, 41. For the popular 
desire to behold Christ see on iv. 42. With e-nrKeTo-Ocu comp. xxiii. 
23; Acts xxvii. 20; 1 Cor. ix. 16; Heb. ix. 10; Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 3. 
It is used in a literal sense Jn. xi. 38, xxi. 9. Here it is mainly 
figurative, but it includes the notion of physical pressure. The 
auTos distinguishes Jesus from the c^Aos : comp. iv. 15, 30. 

irapa tt\v \i\i.vt\v revvy)craptT. With characteristic accuracy Lk. 
never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake. Except 
in Rev. of the "lake of fire," \ifj.vrj in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
When he uses OdXaaa-a, he means sea in the ordinary sense (xvii. 
2, 6, xxi. 25 ; Acts iv. 24, etc). 

In AV. of 161 1 both here and Mk. vi. 53 the name appears as " Genesareth," 
following the spelling of the Vulgate ; but in Mt. xiv. 34 as " Genesaret." The 
printers have corrected this to "Gennesaret" in all three places. Yewqaapir 
is the orthography of the best MSS. in all three places. Josephus writes both 
\ifxvrj TevvTjcraptTis (Ant. xviii. 2. 1) and Xlfivr] Yevv-qadp (B. J. iii. IO. 7). 
I Mac. xi. 67 we have rb vSuip tov Yew-qadp. But in O.T. the lake is called 
QdXaaffa Xev^ped (Num. xxxiv. II?; Josh. xii. 3) from a town of that name near 
to it (Josh. xix. 35). Josephus contrasts its fertility with the barrenness of the 
lower lake in the Jordan valley (B. /. iv. 8. 2) : the one is the "Sea of Life," 
the other the "Sea of Death." See Stanley's fine description of "the most 
sacred sheet of water that this earth contains" (Sin. &* Pal. pp. 36S-378) ; 
Farrar, Life of Christ, i. pp. 175-182; Conder, D.B. 2 art. "Gennesaret." 

For irapd. c. ace. after a verb of rest comp. xviii. 35 ; Acts x. 6, 32 ; 
Heb. xi. 12 : Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 1, vii. 2. 11. 

With Jjv earths (which is the apodosis of iyivero), ko.1 etSce is to be joined : 
" It came to pass that He was standing, and He saw." It is very clumsy to 
make ko.1 airrbs J\v ecTuu parenthetical, and take ical dSev as the apodosis of 

2. 01 8£ dXeets. " But the sea-folk " (aXs) or " fishermen." It 
is one of many Homeric words which seem to have gone out of 
use and then to have reappeared in late Greek. Fishing in the 
lake has now almost ceased. The Arabs dislike the water. The 
washing of the nets was preparatory to hanging them up to dry. 
As distinct from vlttto), which is used of washing part of the human 


body, and Aovco, which is used of washing the whole of it, -n-XuVw is 
used of washing inanimate objects (Rev. vii. 14, xxii. 14; Gen. xhx. 
11 ; Exod. xix. 10). In Lev. xv. 11 all three words are used with 
exactly this difference of meaning. Trench, Syn. xlv. 

Ta StK-rua. The most general term for nets of all kinds, of which 
afi<f>if3\r)crTpov (Mt. iv. 18) and a-ayyjvr] (Mt. xiii. 47) are special 
varieties. Trench, Syn. lxiv. ; D.B. art. " Net." 

3. e-irai/ayayeii'. The correct word for " putting off to sea " 
(2 Mac. xii. 4?; Xen. Hellen. vi. 2. 28): elsewhere in N.T. only 
Mt. xxi. 18 in the sense of "return." For the double preposition 
COmp. iiravepxofJLai (x. 35, xix. 15) and eVavaTrcuxo (x. 6). Christ 
uses Peter's boat as a pulpit, whence to throw the net of the Gospel 
over His hearers. We have a similar scene Mk. iv. 1, and in 
both cases He sits to teach, as in the synagogue at Nazareth. 
Peter was probably steering, and therefore both before and after 
the sermon he is addressed as to the placing of the boat. But the 
letting down of the nets required more than one person, and hence 
the change to the plural (xaAacrare). Non statim promittit Dominus 
capturam : explorat prius obsequia Simonis (Beng.). 

6. 'EiriCTTciTa. Lk. alone uses eVto-Tar^s (viii. 24, 45, ix. -x>Zi 49> 
xvii 13), and always in addresses to Christ. He never uses 
Pa/3/?ei, which is common in the other Gospels, esp. in Jn., but 
would not be so intelligible to Gentiles. The two words are not 
synonymous, eVtcrraT^s implying authority of any kind, and not 
merely that of a teacher. Here it is used of one who has a right 
to give orders. 

81' o\t}s kuktos Komdcrarres. Through the whole of the best 
time for fishing they had toiled fruitlessly. Only in bibl. Grk. has 
KOTTLau) the meaning of " work with much effort, toil wearisomely " 
(xii. 27; Acts xx. 35; Mt. vi. 28; Josh. xxiv. 13, etc.). The 
original meaning is " become exhausted, grow weary " (Jn. iv. 6). 
Clem. Alex, quotes a letter of Epicurus, Mr/re ve'o? ns wv /ueAAeVa) 
<f>i\o(ro(peiv, /J.r/T€ yepwv VTrdp^wv KOTTiaTU) <pi\oao(p<2v {Strom, iv. 8, 
p. 594, ed. Potter). 

cm 8e tw p^/xa-ri ctou yjxk6.a<a t& SiKTua. " But relying upon 
Thy word I will have the nets let down." The " nevertheless " of 
AV. Cran. and Gen. is too strong : for that we should have irXrjv 
(Vi. 24, 35, etc.). For this use of eVi, "on the strength of," comp. 
ii. 20; Acts iv. 2i. Win. xlviii. d, p. 491. The x a ^ a ' aT£ an d 
Troi^o-avTcs show that the x a ^<xw includes the employment of 
others. Excepting Mk. ii. 4 and 2 Cor. xi. 33, ^aXdoy is peculiar to 
Lk. (w. 4, 5 ; Acts ix. 25, xxvii. 17, 30). With the faith involved 
in xaAcicrw ra (Hcktvo. we may compare xeAevo-oV p.e IXOdv rr/aos ak 
eVl t<x vSaTa (Mt. xiv. 28). 

6. o-ui/eKXeiorac tt\tj0os ixOuuc ttoXu. Not a miracle of creation, 
but at least of knowledge, even if Christ's will did not bring the 


fish to the spot. In no miracle before the Resurrection does 
Jesus create ; and we have no sufficient reason for believing that 
the food provided at the second miraculous draught of fishes was 
created (Jn. xxi. 9-13). There is no exaggeration, as De Wette 
thinks, in Siep^o-ero or in fivOt^ecrOai (ver. 7). The nets " were 
breaking," i.e. beginning to break, when the help from the other 
boat prevented further mischief, and then both boats were over- 
loaded. On the masses of fish to be seen in the lake see Tristram, 
Nat. Hist, of the Bible, p. 285, and D.B? p. 1074 : "The density 
of the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can scarcely be con- 
ceived by those who have not witnessed them. They sometimes 
cover an acre or more on the surface in one dense mass." 

The form p^aao) occurs in poetry (Horn. //. xviii. 571, xxiv. 454) and late 
prose (Strab. xi. 14. 8). It is a collat. form of p-qyvviu (Veitch, s.v., and 
Curtius, Etym. 511, 661) : but see on ix. 42. 

7. KaTeVeucrai> tois jieToxots. Possibly because they were too 
far off for a call to be heard. The other boat was still close to the 
shore (ver. 2), for Simon alone had been told to put out into deep 
water. The verb is freq. in Horn., and occurs in Hdt. and Plato, 
generally in the sense of " nod assent, grant." Here only in N.T. 
Euthymius suggests that they were too agitated to call. 

Here and Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 8) we have /u^toxos as a subst. Comp. 
Heb. iii. 1, 14, vi. 4, xii. 8: and see T. S. Evans on 1 Cor. x. 16-18 in 
Speaker's Com. "As distinguished from KOivwvhs (ver. 10; Heb. x. 33), which 
suggests the idea of personal fellowship, fiiroxos describes participation in 
some common blessing or privilege, or the like. The bond of union lies in 
that which is shared and not in the persons themselves" (Wsctt. on Heb. 
iii. 1). For avMapVo-Oai in the sense of "assist" comp. Phil. iv. 3. In 
class. Grk. the act. is more common in this sense. For TJ\0av see on i. 59. 

l-iTX^o-ae djKJJOTepa to. TrXota <3ot€ f3u0i£eo-0cu aura. For eTrXrjcrav 
see on i. 15 ; ajx^oT^pot is another favourite word (i. 6, 7, vi. 39, 
vii. 42 ; Acts viii. 38, xix. 16, xxiii. 8) ; not in Mk. or Jn. "They 
filled both the boats, so that they began to sink " : comp. Stcp^o-cro. 
The act is used 2 Mac. xii. 4 of the sinking of persons ; by Poly- 
bius (ii. 10. 5) of the sinking of ships; and 1 Tim. vi. 9 of sending 
down to perdition. Nowhere else in N.T. 

8. Iip-wy ricTpos irpocreiTe(J€i' tois yocaaii' 'inaou. This IS the only 
place in his Gospel in which Lk. gives Peter both names, and it is the 
first mention of the surname : see on vi. 14. Syr-Sin. omits IleVpos. 

The constr. irpocnrlTrreiv rots yov. is quite classical (Eur. Or. 1332 ; comp. 
Mk. vii. 25 ; Soph. 0. C. 1606) ; often with dat. of pers. (viii. 28, 47 ; Acta 
xvi. 29 ; Mk. iii. II, v. 33). 

"E|e\0e dir' ejaou. Not " Leave my boat," which is too df-finite, 
but, "Go out of my vicinity, Depart from me." See on iv. 35. 


It is quite erroneous to introduce here the notion that sailors 
believe it to be unlucky to have a criminal on board (Cic. De Nat 
Deor. iii. 37. 89 ; Hor. Carm. iii. 2. 26). In that case Peter, like 
Jonah, would have asked to be thrown into the sea. That the 
Twelve, before their call, were exceptionally wicked, virep iraaav 
afxapTiav dvofj.o}Tepov<; (Barn. v. 9), is unscriptural and incredible. 
But Origen seems to accept it (Con. Cels. i. 63; comp. Jerome, 
Adv. Pelag. iii. 2). See Schanz, ad loc. p. 198. 

Peter does not regard himself as a criminal, but as a sinful man ; and this 
miracle has brought home to him a new sense, both of his own sinfulness and of 
Christ's holiness. It is not that he fears that Christ's holiness is dangerous to a 
sinner (B. Weiss), but that the contrast between the two is felt to be so intense 
as to be intolerable. The presence of the sinless One is a reproach and a con- 
demnation, rather than a peril ; and therefore such cases as those of Gideon and 
Manoah (Judg. vi. 22, xiii. 22), cited by Grotius and De Wette, are not quite 
parallel. Job (xlii. 5, 6) is a better illustration ; and Beng. compares the 
centurion (Mt. viii. 8). The objection that Peter had witnessed the healing of 
his wife's mother and other miracles, and therefore could not be so awestruck 
by this miracle, is baseless. It frequently happens that one experience touches 
the heart, after many that were similar to it have failed to do so. Perhaps, 
without being felt, they prepare the way. Moreover, this was a miracle in 
Peter's own craft, and therefore was likely to make a special impression on 
him ; just as the healing of a disease, known to the profession as incurable, 
would specially impress a physician. 

Ku'pie. The change from eVioraTa (see on ver. 5) is remaikable, 
and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. It is the 
" Master " whose orders must be obeyed, the " Lord " whose holi- 
ness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan. x. 16). Grotius, 
followed by Trench, points out that the dominion over all nature, 
including " the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through 
the paths of the seas " (Ps. viii. 8), lost by Adam, is restored in 
Christ, the ideal man and the second Adam. But that Peter 
recognized this is more than we know. In what follows notice the 
characteristic 7rdvTas and crvv. 

9. €iri ttj aypa t£c ly^iuiv. This was the basts of their amaze- 
ment : see small print on ii. 33, and comp. Acts xiv. 3 and Rom. 
v. 14. There is no need to make aypa act. in ver. 4, "a catching," 
and pass, here, " the thing caught." " For a catch " in ver. 4 ; 
"at the catch of fish" here. If wv oWAaySov (BDX, Goth.) is 
the true reading, both may be act. But if f) o-vve\a(3ov is right, 
then in both places aypa is pass. In either case we have the 
idiomatic attraction of the relative which is so freq. in Lk. See 
small print on iii. 19. The word is common in poetry both act. 
and pass. Not in LXX, nor elsewhere in N.T. Note the change 
of meaning from crvAAa/3eo-#ai in ver. 7 to <rwe\afiov. The verb 
is freq. in Lk., but elsewhere rare in N.T. 

10. '.dKu/poi' gal 'Iwdi'rp The first mention of them by Lk. 


In Mt. and Mk. they were in their boat, mending their nets, when 
Jesus called them; and Mt. adds that Zebedee was with them, 
which Mk. implies (i. 20). For Koifui/oi see on ver. 7. Are they 
the same as the yueVoxoi? It is possible that Peter had his kolvwvoi 
in his boat, while the /u.€toyoi were in the other boat. In any case 
the difference of word should be preserved in translation. This 
Tyn. Cran. and Gen. effect, with " fellows " for fxiroxoi and 
" partners " for koivwvol. But Vulg. and Beza have socii for both ; 
and RV. follows AV. with " partners " for both. 

etirei' -n-pos toc Iip.wra 'ItjctoGs. It is still Peter who is singled 
out for notice. Yet some critics affirm that it is the tendency of 
this Evangelist to depreciate Peter. For pi <{)of3ou see on i. 13 : 
excepting Mk. v. 36 and Rev. i. 17, Lk. alone uses the expres- 
sion without an accusative. Peter's sense of unworthiness was in 
itself a reason for courage. Quo magis sibi displicebat hoc magi's 
Domino placet (Grotius). 

diro toG vuv. The present moment is a crisis in his life, of 
which he was reminded at the second miraculous draught of fishes, 
when the commission given to him now was restored to him after 
his fall. Excepting 2 Cor. v. 16 and [Jn. viii. n], curb rov vvv is 
peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, xii. 52, xxii. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). Comp. 
ews tov vvv (Mt. xxiv. 21 ; Mk. xiii. 19) and d^pi rov vvv (Rom. viii. 
22 ; Phil. i. 5). Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 253. 

dv0pc5irous 6<n] £wypwi\ Both substantive and verb have special 
point {men instead of fish ; for life instead of for death) ; while the 
analytical tense marks the permanence of the new pursuit : comp. 
i. 20. This last is preserved in Rhem. "shalt be taking," follow- 
ing Vulg. eris capiens. Beza seems to be alone in giving the full 
force of (wypdv (£wos and dypeiv) : vivos capies homines. But to add 
"alive" in English deprives "men" of the necessary emphasis. 1 
The verb is used of sparing the lives of those taken in battle:. 
£wypei, 'Arpeos vU, crv 8' a£ux o"e£cu dVoiva (Horn. II. vi. 46). Else- 
where in N.T. only 2 Tim. ii. 26, of the evil one. Comp. the 
exhortation of Socrates to Critobulus : 'AAAd dappwv iretpu) dya#os 
yiyvecrdai, teal toiovtos yiyvo'/xevos Orjpav ori^'pei tous KaAov's tc 
KayaOovs (Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 28). 

11. KaTayaYorres Ta irXota. Like liravayayuv in ver. 3, this is 
a nautical expression; freq. in Acts (ix. 30, xxii. 30, xxiii. 15, 20, 
etc.). Comp. didyetv, viii. 22. 

d4>^T€s TrdvTa T)KoXouGT)aai' chjtw. Even the large draught of 
fishes does not detain them. They are sure that He who has 
given them such marvellous returns from their usual business will 
be ready to provide for them when, at His summons, they abandon 

1 Cod. Brix. has hominum eritis captores, including James and John, 
although noli ti?nere precedes. D has Troirjcrui yap v/xas aXuls avOpwirwv (from 
Mt. and Mk.) after the insertion /xrj ylveode dXieis ixOvwv. 

V. 11.] 


their business. The call was addressed to Peter (ver. 10), but the 
sons of Zebedee recognize that it concerns them also ; and they 
leave and follow. 

In this late Greek acpl^fu is preferred to \ehrw and its compounds, and 
d.Ko\ovdtw to iiroiM.1 (which does not occur in N.T.) and its compounds. 

The fact that other disciples besides Peter obeyed the call and followed 
Jesus, is the main reason for identifying this narrative with Mk. i. 16-20 and 
Mt. iv. 18-22. All three have the important word afavres, and Mt. and Lk. 
have TiKoko-udijaav avrip, for which Mk. has airrfKdov dTrlaw avrod. But note 
that Lk. alone has his favourite iravra after d0^res (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, 
ix. 43, xi. 4, xii. 10). Against these similarities, however, we have to set the 
differences, chief among which is the miraculous draught of fishes, which Mt. 
and Mk. omit. Could Peter have failed to include this in his narrative ? And 
would Mk. have omitted it, if the Petrine tradition had contained it? It is 
easier to believe that some of the disciples were called more than once, and that 
their abandonment of their original mode of life was gradual : so that Mk. and 
Mt. may relate one occasion and Lk. another. Even after the Resurrection 
Peter speaks quite naturally of " going a fishing " (Jn. xxi. 3), as if it was still at 
least an occasional pursuit. But we must be content to remain in doubt as to 
the relation of this narrative to that of Mk. and Mt. See Weiss, Leben Jesu, 
I. hi. 4, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 54-59. 

This uncertainty, however, need not be extended to the relation of this 
miracle to that recorded in Jn. xxi. 1-14. It cannot be accepted as probable 
that, in the source from which Lk. drew, " the narrative of the call of Peter has 
been confused with that of his reinstatement in the office which had been 
entrusted to him, and so the history of the miraculous draught of fishes which is 
connected with the one has been united with the other." The contrast between 
all the main features of the two miracles is too great to be explained by confused 
recollection. 1. There Jesus is not recognized at first ; here He is known 
directly He approaches. 2. There He is on the shore; here He is in Peter's 
boat. 3. There Peter and John are together ; here they seem to be in different 
boats. 4. There Peter leaves the capture of the fish to others ; here he is chief 
actor in it. 5. There the net is not broken ; here it is. 6. There the fish are 
caught close to the shore and brought to the shore ; here they are caught in 
deep water and are taken into the boats. 7. There Peter rushes through the 
water to the Lord whom he had lately denied ; here, though he had committed 
no such sin, he says, " Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." 
There is nothing improbable in two miracles of a similar kind, one granted to 
emphasize and illustrate the call, the other the re-call, of the chief Apostle. 

The way in which the Fathers allegorize the two miracles is well known, the 
first of the Church Militant, the second of the Church Triumphant. R. A. 
Lipsius would have it that the first is an allegory of quite another kind, the 
main point of which is the /^ro^ot in the other boat. He assumes that James 
and John are in Peter's boat, and explains thus. That Christ first teaches and 
then suddenly speaks of fishing, tells us that the fishing is symbolical. The 
fishing in deep water is the mission to the heathen, which Peter at first is 
unwilling (?) to undertake (comp. Acts x. 14). The marvellous draught after the 
night of fruitless toil is the conversion of many heathen after the failure of the 
mission to the Jews. This work is so great that Peter with the two other 
Apostles of the Jews are unequal to it, and have to call Paul, Barnabas, and 
others to help them. Peter then recognizes his former unwillingness (?) as a 
si.i, and both he and the sons of Zebedee are amazed at the success of the 
mission to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9). Thus the rejection of Jesus by the people 
of Nazareth (iv. 29, 30), and His preaching " to the other cities also" (iv. 43), 
teacn the same lesson as the miraculous draught ; viz. the failure of the mission 


to the Jews and the success of the mission to the heathen [Jahrb. Jl'ir prot. 
Theol. 1875, i. p. 1 89). The whole is exceedingly forced, and an examination 
of the details shows that they do not fit. If the common view is correct, that 
James and John were the fitroxot in the other boat, the whole structure falls to 
the ground. Had Lk. intended to convey the meaning read into the narrative 
by Lipsius, he would not have left the point on which the whole is based so 
open to misconception. Keim on the whole agrees with Lipsius, and dog- 
matically asserts that " the artificial narrative of Lk. must unhesitatingly be 
abandoned ... It is full of subtle and ingenious invention ... Its historical 
character collapses under the weight of so much that is artificial " {Jes. of Naz. iii. 
pp. 264, 265). Holtzmann also pronounces it to be " legendary and consciously 
allegorical " (in loco). Does Peter's apparently inconsistent conduct, beseeching 
Jesus to depart and yet abiding at His feet, look like invention? 

12-16. The Healing of a Leper. Here we certainly have an 
incident which is recorded by all three Evangelists. The amount 
of verbal agreement is very great, and we may confidently affirm 
that all three make use of common material. Mt. (viii. 1-4) is the 
most brief, Mk. (i. 40-45) the most full ; but Mt. is the only one 
who gives any note of time. He places the miracle just after Jesus 
had come down from delivering the Sermon on the Mount. 

On the subject of Leprosy see H. V. Carter, Leprosy and 
Elephantiasis, 1874; Tilbury Fox, Skin Diseases, 1877; Kaposi, 
Hautkrankheiten, Wien, 1880 ; and the literature given at the end of 
art. Aussatz in Herzog ; also in Hirsch, Handb. d. Pathologie, i860. 

12. Kal ISou. Hebraistic ; in Mt. viii. 2, but not in Mk. i. 40 : 
the koX is the apodosis to lyivero, as in ver. 1. No verb follows 
the iSov, as if the presence of the leper were a surprise. Had the 
man disregarded the law in approaching the crowd ? Or had the 
people come upon him suddenly, before he could avoid them ? 
What follows shows a third possibility. Syr-Sin. omits /ecu iBov, 

ttXt)pt]s Xe'irpas. This particular is given only by the beloved 
physician. His face and hands would be covered with ulcers and 
sores, so that everyone could see that the hideous disease was at 
a very advanced stage. This perhaps accounts for the man's 
venturing into the multitude, and for their not fleeing at his 
approach ; for by a strange provision of the law, " if the leprosy 
break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of 
him that hath the plague, from his head even to his feet, . . . then 
the priest . . . shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague " 
(Lev. xiii. 12, 13). 

c8eY]9r) auTou. Excepting Mt. ix. 38, the verb is peculiar in 
N.T. to Lk. and Paul. It is especially freq. in Lk. (viii. 28, 38, 
ix. 38, 40, x. 2, etc.). In LXX it represents a variety of Hebrew 
words, and is very common. Here Mk. has 7rapa/<:aAwj/. 

iav 6e'\T]s, SuVaoai p.e KaGapurcu. All three accounts have these 
words, and the reply to them, ©e'Aw, KaOapiaBriTi, without variation. 
The Bvvaaai is evidence of strong faith in the Divine power of 
Jesus ; for leprosy was believed to be incurable by human means. 


It was " the stroke " of God, and could not be removed by the 
hand of man. But it is characteristic of the man's imperfect 
apprehension of Christ's character, that he has more trust in His 
power than in His goodness. He doubts the will to heal. He 
says KaOapia-ai rather than Oepa-rrevo-at or IdcracrOai because of the 
pollution which leprosy involved (Lev. xiii. 45, 46). In O.T. 
"unclean" and "clean," not "sick" and "healed," are the terms 
used about the leper. The old rationalistic explanation, that 
Ka6apia-ai means "to pronounce clean," and that the man was 
already cured, but wanted the great Rabbi of Nazareth to absolve 
him from the expensive and troublesome journey to Jerusalem, 
contradicts the plain statements of the Gospels. He was " full of 
leprosy" (Lk.) ; "immediately the leprosy departed from him" 
(Mk. Lk.). If KaOapia-ai means "to pronounce clean," then 
KaOapio-drjTL means " be thou pronounced clean." Yet Jesus sends 
him to the priest (Lk. Mk. ML). Contrast the commands of 
Christ with the prayers of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, when they 
healed. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 216. 

13. eKTeiVas TTjf x € ^P a - All three have this Hebraistic ampli- 
fication. In LXX the phrase commonly occurs in connexion 
with an act of punishment: Ex. vii. 5, 19, viii. 1, 2, ix. 22, 23, 
x. 12, 2i, 22, xiv. 16, 2i, 26, 27; Ezek. vi. 14, xiv. 9, xvi. 27, 
xxv. 7, 13, 16, xxxv. 3; Zeph. i. 4, ii. 13; Jer. vi. 12, xv. 6. In 
N.T. it rarely has this meaning. Jesus touched the leper on the 
same principle as that on which He healed on the sabbath : the 
ceremonial law gives place to the law of charity when the two 
come into collision. His touch aided the leper's faith. 

■f\ XeVpa dTnjXGee air' auTou. Here again (see on iv. 40) Mk. 
has the whole expression, of which Lk. and Mt. each use a part. 

Mk. has a.Trrj\8ev air avrov r) Xiirpa, /cat eKaOapicrdrj, and Mt. has 
eKadapiaOr) avrov r) Xiirpa. All three have ev6iw<> or evOvs, showing 
that Jesus not merely prepared the way for a cure which nature 
accomplished, but healed the leper at once by His touch. 

14. ica! auTos. Lk.'s favourite form of connexion in narrative : 
w. 1, 17, 37, i. 17, 22, ii. 28, iii. 23, iv. 15, vi. 20, etc. 

irapriYYeiXev'. The word is specially used of commanders, 
whose orders are passed along the line (irapd), and is freq. in Lk. 
(viii. 29, 56, ix. 21 ; Acts i. 4, iv. 18, v. 28, 40, x. 42, etc.); rare 
in Mt. (x. 5, xv. 35) and Mk. (vi. 8, viii. 6) ; not in Jn. All the 
others use ivriXXeaOai, and Mt. KtXevuv, both of which are rare in 
Lk. Here Mt. and Mk. have Xiyu. 

(jiT)8eci etTT€ii\ The charge was given with emphasis (opo 
urjBivl yu.?;Sa' €17717?) and sternness (ip.fipip.rjo-afj.evos), as Mk. tells 
us. The meaning of it is variously explained. To prevent (1) the 
man from having intercourse with others before being pronounced 
clean by proper authority; (2) the man from becoming proud 


through frequent telling of the amazing benefit bestowed upon 
him ; (3) the priests from hearing of the miracle before the man 
arrived, and then deciding, out of hostility to Jesus, to deny the 
cure ; (4) the people from becoming unhealthily excited about 
so great a miracle. Chrysostom and Euthymius suggest (5) that 
Christ was setting an example of humility, SiSao-Kwv to axo/A-irao-rov 
kol dcfaXorifjiov, in forbidding the leper to proclaim His good deeds. 
Least probable of all is the supposition (6) that " our Lord desired 
to avoid the Levitical rites for uncleanness which the unspiritual 
ceremonialism of the Pharisees might have tried to force upon 
Him " for having touched the leper. The first of these was prob- 
ably the chief reason ; but one or more of the others may be true 
also. The man would be likely to think that one who had been 
so miraculously cured was not bound by ordinary rules ; and if he 
mixed freely with others before he was declared by competent 
authority to be clean, he would give a handle to Christ's enemies, 
who accused Him of breaking the law. In the Sermon on the 
Mount He had said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law 
or the prophets" (Mt. v. 17); which implies that this had been 
said of Him. The command /x^Sevt fx-qhtv €i7r?/s is further evidence 
that Jesus did not regard miracles as His chief credentials. And 
there are many such commands (viii. 56; Mt. ix. 30, xii. 16; 
Mk. i. 34, iii. 12, v. 43, vii. 36, viii. 26). 

dXXa aireKOCcv deT^ov ceavrbv ry lepei. Sudden changes to the oratio 
directa are common after irapayyiXXoo and similar verbs (Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22 ; 
Mk. vi. 8, 9?; comp. Acts xvii. 3 ; Tobit viii. 21 ; Xen. Anab. i. 3. 16, 20). 
Win. lxiii. 2, p. 725. 

tw tepeu As in the original (Lev. xiii. 49), the sing, refers to 
the priest who was on duty at the time. Note the kh^s, " exactly 
as": the reference is to Lev. xiv. 4-10, which enjoins rather ex- 
pensive offerings. Comp. Mt. i. 24. For the form Moivarjs see 
on ii. 22. This charge is in all three narratives almost in the 
same words. On its import see Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 30 

Ka6aptCTp.ou. Emundatio (Vulg.), mundatio (fq) purgatio (a), 
purificatio (d). 

els papTu'ptoi' auTots. This addition is in all three, and various 
explanations have been suggested. That (1) the priests may be 
convinced of My Divine power; (2) the priests may see that I do 
not disregard the Law ; (3) the people may be convinced that the 
cure is complete, and that the leper may be readmitted to society ; 
(4) the people may see that I do not disregard the Law. It is the 
sacrifice which is the fj.aprvpiov, and therefore the second or fourth 
explanation is to be preferred. Both may be right. 1 

1 "It is worthy of notice, that all the places where our Lord is stated to 
have met with lepers are in the central districts of Samaria and Galilee. ... It 


15. Sirjpxe-ro Se fjiaWoc 6 \oyos ircpl auToG. Lk. does not state, 
as Mk. does, that this was owing to the man's disobedience. Mt. 
omits both points. This use of Siep^o/tai of the spreading of a 
report is quite classical (Thuc. vi. 46. 5 ; Xen. Anab. i. 4. 7). The 
word is a favourite one with Lk. ; see on ii. 1 5. The pZXkov 
means "more than before, more than ever" (Jn. v. 18, xix. 8), 
or " all the more," because of the command not to tell (xviii. 39 ; 
Acts v. 14, ix. 22, xxii. 2). 

auvr\pxovTO o)(Koi iroXXol &Koueii> ica! GepaireueaOai airo iw &<r- 
Oeveiuv. For miracles mentioned as being numerous, but without 
details, comp. iv. 40, vi. 18, vii. 21. The constr. 6epcnreu€(T0ai diro 
is peculiar to Lk. (vii. 21, viii. 2). The usual constr. with dep. 
is the ace. (iv. 23, 40, ix. 1, etc.). For avQeveiuv comp. viii. 2, xiii. 
11, 12; Acts xxvih. 9; Heb. xi. 34, where we have a similar 
constr., iSvvap.w6r](Tav airo do-#ev£ias. 

16. auTos 8e rjf uiroxwpoiv iv tcus epTJpois Kai irpocreuxopeyos. 
The verse forms one of those resting-places with which Lk. fre- 
quently ends a narrative (i. 80, ii. 20, 40, 52, iii. 18-20, iv. 13, 15, 
30, 44). "But He" on His part, in contrast to the multitudes 
who came to see Him, " was in retirement in the deserts, and in 
prayer." See on iii. 21. The analytical tense expresses what 
Jesus was engaged in while the multitudes were seeking Him. 
That they were unable to find Him is not implied here, and Mk. 
states the opposite. For the au-ros comp. iv. 30, vi. 8, viii. 37, 54, 
xi. 17, 28, xxiii. 9; and for 6-n-oxajpcte, ix. 10. The verb occurs 
nowhere else in N.T., but is freq. in class. Grk. Lk. alone uses 
the plur. of ep?;//.os (i. 80, viii. 29). See Bede, ad loc. 

For iv after a verb of motion, to express the rest which is the result of the 
motion, comp. Mt. xiv. 3 ; Jn. iii. 35 ; 2 Cor. viii. 16. Such condensed 
constructions are not common, if found at all, in earlier writers. The con- 
verse use of eh after verbs of rest is more common (xi. 7, xxi. 37 ; Acts ii. 39, 
vii. 4, viii. 20, 23, 40, etc.). Win. 1. 4. a, p. 514. 

17-26. The Healing of a Paralytic. ML ix. 1-8; Mk. ii. 1-12. 

We again have a narrative which is narrated by all three Synoptists 
in a way which shows that they are using common material. Mt. 
is again the most brief. Mk. and Lk. agree in the details, but 
differ considerably in the wording. Different translations of the 
same Aramaic original, or of two very similar Aramaic originals, 
would account for these similarities and differences. The cast of 
the opening verse is very Hebraistic, as is shown by, by 
iv p-ia Tail' 17/Aepcov, by Kai auro?, and by Svvafxis Kvptov rjv eU. See 
on iv. 36 and on viii. 22. The iv p.iS. rwv fjfxepwv is an absolutely 
indefinite expression, which we have no right to limit. Mt. and 
Mk. give no date. The phrase iv p.ia riv is peculiar to Lk. 

is just in this district that to this day we find the colonies of lepers most 
numerous" (Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 19). 


17. 4>apio-atoi. The first mention of them by Lk., who assumes 
that his readers know who the Pharisees were. This introduction 
of them stamps them as hostile to Christ ; and we have here the 
first collision in Galilee between Jesus and the authorities at 
Jerusalem. On the Pharisees see Jos. Ant. xiii. 5. 9, 10. 6, xvii. 2. 
4, xviii. 1. 2, 3; B.J. ii. 8. 14; Schurer, Jewish People, II. ii. § 26, 
p. 10; Hausrath, N.T. Times, i. p. 135; Keim,y<?.y. of Naz. i. p. 
321 ; Edersh. L. 6° T. i. pp. 96, 97, 310-324. 

I'Ofj.oSiSdaKaXou The word is formed on the analogy of iepo8i8do-- 
KaXos and x o P ^8do-KaAo?, but is not classical. Elsewhere only 
Acts v. 34 and 1 Tim. i. 7. In all three cases teachers of the 
Jewish Law are meant, and the term is almost a synonym for o! 
ypa/x/Aarets in the N.T. sense. That they had come Ik irav^s K&jfrns 
rf]s TaXiXouas icai 'louSaias is, of course, a popular hyperbolical 
expression, and illustrates Lk.'s fondness for 77-ds: comp. vi. 17. 

Surajjus Kuptou r\v eis to lacrGcu aurov. "The power of Jehovah 
was present for Him to heal with " ; i.e. for Jesus to employ in 
working miracles of healing. See on iv. 36 and comp. i. 35, xxiv. 
49 ; Acts vi. 8. Hence miracles are often called 8wd/ms, or out- 
comes of the power of God. Trench, Syn. xci. The failure to 
see that avrov is the subject, not the object, of lacrBai produced 
the corrupt reading avrovs (A C D and versions). This corrupt 
reading produced the erroneous interpretation of Kvpiov as mean- 
ing Christ. Lk. often calls Christ " the Lord " ; but in such cases 
Kvpios always has the article (vii. 13, x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, 
xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61). Kvpios without the article 
means Jehovah (i. 11, ii. 9, iv. 18; Acts v. 19, viii. 26, 39, xii. 7). 
This verse shows us Jesus armed with Divine power and con- 
fronted by a large body of hostile spies and critics. What follows 
Ivv. 19, 26) proves that there was also a multitude of curious 
spectators, who had not declared for either side, like the multitude 
round Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Kings xviii. 


Except in quotations from LXX (Mt. xiii. 15 ; Jn. xii. 40) and one other 
passage (Jn. iv. 47), l&adai with act. signif. is peculiar to Lk. (vi. 19, ix. 2, 
11, 42, xiv. 4, xxii. 51 ; Acts ix. 34, x. 38, etc.). 

18. os rjc irapaXeXufxeVos. "Here and wherever St. Luke men- 
tions this disease, he employs the verb TrapaXveaOai, and never 
n-apaXuTi/co's. The other N.T. writers use the popular form -n-apa- 
Xutikos, and never use the verb, the apparent exception to this, 
Heb. xii. 12, being a quotation from the LXX, Is. xxxv. 3. St. 
Luke's use is in strict agreement with that of the medical writers " 
(Hobart, Med. Lang, of St. Lk. p. 6). 

e£rj-rouK auTOf eiaeveyKtlv. Into the house, although it has not 
yet been stated that Jesus was in a house. Mk. tells us that there 


were four bearers, and that the place was thronged even about the 
door. For iviLinov see small print on i. 15. 

19. For n-f) with a participle expressing a reason see small print on iii. 9. 
With irolas understand 65ov and comp. {Keivrjs (xix. 4). Here we should 
have expected dcd, which some inferior MSS. insert in both places. " By 
what kind of a way " emphasizes their perplexity. For the omission of 656s 
comp. iii. 5. Win. xxx. II, lxiv. 5, pp. 258, 738. The classical tt\v dXXwj 
illustrates this common ellipse. Blass, Gr. pp. 106, 137. 

Sid t6i/ oxXof. " Because of the multitude " ; not " through the 
multitude," a meaning of 8id c. ace. which is found only in poetry 
and freq. in Horn. It was probably by means of outside steps 
that they " went up on to the top of the house." Oriental houses 
sometimes have such steps ; and in any case ladders could be 
used. That the Suifia was a dwelling-house is not stated. In bibl. 
Grk. it means a roof rather than a house (Deut. xxii. 8 ; Josh. ii. 
6, 8), and in N.T. seems to imply a flat roof (xii. 3, xvii. 31 ; Acts 
x. 9; Mk. xiii. 15 ; Mt. x. 27, xxiv. 17). It may have been over 
a large hall on the ground floor. Even if Jesus was teaching in 
the upper room of a dwelling-house (and the Rabbis often taught 
there), the difficulty of getting on to the roof and removing a small 
portion of it would not be very great. Edersh. Hist, of J. N. p. 253. 

8id Tvv Kepd|xwy KaOrJKay. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. 
(Acts ix. 25, x. 11, xi. 5); freq. in class. Grk. Mk. has d;r«n-ry- 

acrav tt]v (TTeyrjv oVov rjv, /cat e£opi'£avTes ^aAcucrtv. Perhaps Lk. 

thinks of Graeco-roman houses, Mk. of Palestinian. We need not 
infer from e£opu'£avT€s that under the tiles was clay or mortar to be 
"dug out." But, if there was anything of the kind to be cut 
through and removed, this could easily be done without serious 
consequences to those who were in the crowded room below. 
Men who had so much at stake, and who had got thus far, would 
not desist through fear of sprinkling a few persons with rubbish. 
To make these difficulties, which are very unsubstantial, a reason 
for rejecting the whole narrative as a legend, is rather childish 
criticism. The constructor of a legend would not have made his 
details conspicuously incredible. The suggestion that Jesus was 
in a gallery outside the house, teaching the multitude in the open 
court below, is not helpful. In that case, why unroof the gallery ? 
The sick man might have been let down to the front of it. 1 

<ruv tw kWiSi'w. Lk. alone has his favourite crvv. The sub- 
stantive occurs here only. It is the dim. of kXlvt} (viii. 16, xvii. 
34), and perhaps means here a portion of the kXlvt] mentioned in 
ver. 18. Not all of what had been used to bring him through the 
streets would be let down through the roof. Comp. K\ivdpiov 
(Acts v. 15). Double forms of diminutives are not uncommon 1 

1 For another explanation see Tristram, Eastern Customs, pp. 34, 35. 


e.g. ywaiKiov and ywai.Ka.piov (2 Tim. iii. 6) ; 7raiSiov (i. 59, 66) 
and irai&dpLov (Jn. vi. 9) ; ttivolkiov and TrivaKtScov (i. 63). Mk. has 
the inelegant Koa/3a.TTos, grabatus (Acts v. 15, ix. 33), for which 
the Greeks preferred o-ki[xttov<; or o-Kifj.Tro$iov. 

20. iSwe -n)v -nlariv auTwc. The faith of the man and of those 
who brought him. All three accounts have the words ; but Mt. 
omits the persevering energy which proved how strong their faith 
was. We need not assume that the paralytic himself did not share 
his friends' confidence. 

For a full discussion of the Meaning of" Faith" in the New Testament and 
in some Jewish Writings see detached note on Rom. i. 17. Here it will suffice 
to point out its four main uses for (1) belief in God ; (2) belief in His promises; 
(3) belief in Christ ; (4) belief in some particular utterance or claim of God or of 
Christ. Of these four the last is the commonest use in the Synoptic Gospels, 
where it generally means belief in the power of Christ, or of God in Christ, to 
work miracles. The efficacy of Christ's power is commonly dependent upon 
the faith of those who are to be benefited by its exercise, as here. Comp. vii. 
50, viii. 48, xvii. 19, xviii. 42. By an easy transition this faith in the power of 
God or of Christ to work miracles becomes used of the conviction that the 
believer himself has received power to work miracles. Comp. xvii. 6. In 
xviii. 8 the faith to be found on earth means faith in the Son of Man. 

"AyOpwrre, &<f>e'wrrai aoi al djiapTiai o-ou. Mk. has t£kvov, and 
Mt. has 6dpo-ei t€kvov. It is not likely that Lk., the writer of the 
Gospel of grace for all, has deliberately changed the more tender 
address, because it seemed to be unsuitable to one who must, as 
he thinks, have been a grievous sinner. Comp. xii. 14 and xxii. 
58. And we affirm more than we know, if we say that this absolu- 
tion was necessary for the man's cure, because otherwise he would 
not have believed that Jesus could heal him, and his faith was 
essential to the cure. He probably believed, and perhaps knew, 
that his malady was the direct consequence of his own sin (xiii. 2 ; 
Jn. v. 14, ix. 2 ; 1 Cor. xi. 30). But it does not follow from this 
that faith on his part was thus far absent. 

Suidas seems to be right in regarding d<p^o}urai as a Doric form of the 
perf. indie, for d^eurcu. But it was admitted rather freely, even by Attic 
writers. Comp. dviuvrai (Hdt. ii. 165. I ; but the reading is not certain) 
and etwda from eBco (iv. 16). Win. xiv. 3. a, p. 96 ; Veitch, s. v. In Mt. and 
Mk. the true reading here is acpUvrai : but arpiuivrai occurs again vii. 47, 48 ; 
1 John ii. 12, and probably Jn. xx. 23. Some have regarded it as a sub- 
junctive : remissa sunto. Fritzsche (on Mt. ix. 2) pertinently asks, Quo usu 
aut more subjunctivum in talibus locis absolute positum defendas ? 

21. r[piavTo SiaXoyi^ecrGcu. Not a mere periphrasis for bukoyi- 
aavro: see on iv. 21. Hitherto they had found nothing in His 
words to excite criticism. Here they seemed to see the oppor- 
tunity for which they had been watching, and their discussions 
forthwith began. 1 The ypa/xp-aTeis are evidently the same as the 

1 It has been suggested that 7j<rav KaO-qfievoi (Mk. 11. 6) and ljpiavro \=- qaat 
ipX^fxtvoi.) here are simply different translations of the Aramaic verb, which bus 


vojuoSiSao-KaXoi in ver. 17. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mention the 
Pharisees here ; and both of them imply that the criticisms were 
not uttered aloud : eV iavTois (Mt.), iv rats KapSuus (Mk.). Even 
here utterance is not stated, for Aeyovrcs may be used of thoughts 
(xii. 17; Mt. xxi. 25). 

Tis i<jj\.v outos os XaXel p\acn$)T)fuas ; An accidental iambic line. 
We have another ver. 39, if ci^ews be admitted as genuine. The 
ovtos is contemptuous, as often (iv. 22, vii. 39, 49, ix. 9, xiv. 30, 
xv. 2, etc.). In N.T., as in class. Grk., fSXaa^rjfxia has the two 
meanings of "evil speaking" (Col. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 31; 1 Tim. vi. 4; 
Jude 9 : comp. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16) and "blasphemy" (Mt. xii. 31, 
xxvi. 65; Rev. xiii. 6). These cavillers assume that Jesus has 
claimed to have pardoned the man on His own authority, not 
merely to have said that He knew that his sins have been forgiven 
by God. And Jesus does not say that they are mistaken in this. 
He acts on His own authority in accordance with the will of the 
Father, doing on earth what the Father does in heaven (Jn. v. 19, 
21). For d</neVcu of sins comp. Mt. xii. 31; Mk. iii. 28; Rom. 
iv. 7, etc. 

22. eiTiyyoug Be 6 'Itjo-ous Toug 8iaX.oyiorp.ous avrCiv. The com- 
pound verb implies thorough and accurate knowledge (1 Cor. 
xiii. 12; Rom. i. 32; Justin, Try. iii. p. 221 A). The subst. eVt- 
yvwo-is is used of " the knowledge of God and of Christ as being the 
perfection of knowledge : e.g. Pro v. ii. 5; Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6; Eph. 
i. 17, iv. 13; 2 Pet. i. 2,3, 8, ii. 20; Clem. Alex. Peed. ii. 1, p. 173" 
(Lft. on Col. i. 9). Comp. the climax in Apost. Const, vii. 39. 1, 
yvai<Tis, tTriyi'cocris, TrX-qpotpopia. On both €7n'yvwcris and SiaAoyio*- 
fiovs see Hatch, Bibl. Grk. p. 8. The latter seems here to mean 
"thoughts" (ivdv/x-ja-ei's, Mt. ix. 4) rather than "discussions" 
(ix. 46). In LXX it is used of the counsels of God (Ps. xxxix. 6, 
xci. 6). It is, however, more often used in a bad sense (Ps. Iv. 5, 
xciii. 11, cxlv. 4, etc.), and is specially freq. in Lk. (ii. 35, vi. 8, 
ix. 47, xxiv. 38). Not in Jn., and only once each in Mt. and Mk. 

iv tcus KapSicus iipuv. This seems to imply that there had been 
no utterance. Christ read their thoughts. See on Rom. i. 21. 

23. ti ecrTif euKoirwTepoe, eiirely . . . r\ eiireik. It is in this 
verse and the next that the three accounts are most similar — 
almost verbatim the same. The challenge is a very practical one, 
and the point of it is in the d-nCw. It is easier to say, " Thy sins 
are forgiven," because no one can prove that they are not forgiven. 
But the claim to heal with a word can be easily and quickly 

the very different meanings of "sitting at rest" and "beginning" ; or possibly 
of two verbs which are identical in spelling (Expositor, April 1S91, p. 285). 
See on iii. 23. But these possibilities seem to be too isolated and sporadic to 
be of great value in accounting for differences between the Gospels. 


evKoircirepov. Lit. "more capable of being done with easy labour" (ei J 
k6ttos). In N.T. always in the comparative (xvi. 17, xviii. 25 ; Mk. x. 25 ; 
Mt. xix. 24); but €<5koitov occurs 1 Mac. iii. 18; Ecclus. xxii. 15. It is 
found in Polyb. , but not in class. Grk. — For tU in the sense of " whether ol. 
two" like irorepos, as quis = uter, comp. xxii. 27; Mt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 17, 
xxvii. 17, 21 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 17. 

24. 6 ul6s tou di'Opwirou. This remarkable phrase in all four 
Gospels is invariably used by Christ of Himself; upwards of eighty 
times in all. The Evangelists never use it of Him, and no one 
ever addresses Him by this title. Yet none of the four ever 
diiects our attention to this strict limitation in the use of the 
phrase, so that their agreement must be regarded as undesigned, 
and as evidence of their accuracy. D.C.G. art. "Son of Man." 

In O.T. we have "son of man" used in three different connexions, and it 
must be noted that in each case the rendering in LXX is vlds avdpdnrov and not 
6 vlbs rod avOpwirov. In the Psalms it is used of the ideal man : viii. 4, Ixxx. 16, 
cxliv. 3, cxlvi. 3. In Ezekiel it is the title by which the Prophet is addressed, 
ii. 1, 3, 6, S, iii. 1, 3, 4, etc. etc.; upwards of eighty times in all. In DaniePs 
night visions (vii. 13, 14), "One like a son of man came with the clouds of 
heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days," and received a dominion which was 
universal and eternal. With this should be compared various passages in the 
Book 0/ Enoch, of which this is specially noteworthy. " There I saw one who 
had a head of days, and His head was white like wool ; and with Him was a 
Second, whose countenance was like the appearance of a man, and His counte- 
nance was full of grace, like one of the holy angels. And I asked one of the 
angels who were with me, and who showed me all the secrets, concerning this 
Son of Man, who He was, and whence He was, and why He goes with the 
Head of days. And he answered and said to me : This is the Son of Man who 
has justice, and justice dwells with Him ; and all the treasures of secrecy He 
reveals, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen Him, and His portion over- 
comes all things before the Lord of the spirits in rectitude to eternity. And this 
Son of Man, whom thou hast seen, will arouse the kings and mighty from their 
couches, and the strong from their thrones, and will loosen the bands of the 
strong, and will break the teeth of the sinners" (xlvi.). This Son of Man is the 
Messiah. He is called " the Anointed " (xlviii. 1 1, li. 4), " the Righteous One " 
(xxxviii. 2, liii. 6), "the Elect One" [passim), and the Lord speaks of Him as 
" My Son" (cv. 2). That these Messianic passages in the Book of Enoch are 
of Christian origin is the opinion of a few critics, but it is difficult to maintain it. 
Everything distinctly Christian is absent. This Son of Man or Messiah is not 
the Word, is not God. That He has lived on the earth is nowhere intimated. 
Of the historical Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there 
is not a hint ; nor yet of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. Why should a Christian write just what any Jew might accept about 
the Messiah and no more ? But if the whole of the Book of Enoch was 
written before the birth of Christ, then we have sufficient evidence to show that 
when Christ was teaching on earth " Son of Man " was already accepted by the 
Jews as one title, although not a common one, for the Messiah. 1 The idea of a 
weak and suffering Messiah was unwelcome to the Jews, and therefore a name 

1 Le Livre d' 'Henoch, en part icu Her, lequel etait fort lu dans V entourage dt 
Thus (Judoe Epist. 14) nous donne la clef de Pexpression de "Pils de fhomme," 
et des idees qui s'y rattachaient (Renan, V. de J. p. xi.). It is, of course, quite 
possible that the writer of the Book of Enoch took the idea from Daniel. For 
a discussion of the title see Dorner, Person of Christ, Eng. tr. I. i. p. 54. 


which emphasized human weakness was not a favourite one. " But the very 
reason which induced them to avoid the title induced our Lord to take it. It 
expressed His Messiahship definitely enough for His purpose ; but it expressed it 
in that veiled and suggestive way which characterised the whole of His teaching 
on His own person. At the same time, it conveyed to those who had ears to 
hear the whole secret of the Incarnation. That which the Jews shrank from 
and ignored He rather placed in the forefront of His mission " (Sanday in the 
Expositor, Jan. 1 891, p. 30, art. "On the Title, 'Son of Man'"). 

em rrjs yr]s. In all three accounts there is room for doubt as 
to the words which this expression qualifies. Here either iiavcrlav 
«X« or d<picvcu afiapTias. In Mk. and Mt. it may qualify 6 tuos tov 
avOpuirov. It is best taken with efouo-iav Ixct. But the difference 
in meaning is not great. 

elirev tw irapaXeXufxe'vu. This is not the apodosis to iva d&fjTe, 
but a parenthesis : * the apodosis to <Va ciS^tc is 2oi Xlyw. Note 
the emphasis on croi : " to thee I say the crucial words." Clement 
of Alexandria gives this address to the paralytic in singularly dif- 
ferent language : dvda-ra, <pr)(rl tu 7rapei/i.€vo>, tov o-/a/A7ro§a i<f> ov 
KaraKeio-ai Xafiwv dinOi oiKaSe {Peed. i. 2, p. 101, ed. Potter). Prob- 
ably a paraphrase. For the pres. imperat. see Blass, Gr. p. 191. 

25. ■n-apaxp'niJ.a dkaoras iv&Ttiw. Every one of these words is 
characteristic of Lk. For Trapaxpypa Mk. has his equally charac- 
teristic evBvs, a feature which recurs Lk. viii. 44, 55, xviii. 43, 
xxii. 60. Lk. has Trapaxpfjp-a ten times in the Gospel and six times 
in the Acts: elsewhere only Mt. xxi. 19, 20. For dvao-Tas Mt. 
has iyep6ei<s and Mk. rjyepOr] koi: see on i. 39. For ivwiriov olvtiov 
Mk. has £/A7rpocr#ev 7rdvTtov. 

apas e<{>' o KaTeVei-ro. II doit porter maintenant ce grabat qui Va 
si longtemps porte (Godet). The wording is peculiar to Lk., and is 
perhaps intended to suggest this inversion of relations. Lk. alone 
records that he glorified God. The phrase 8o$d^eiv tov ©eo'v 
is specially common with him (ver. 26, vii. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
xviii. 43, xxiii. 47; Acts iv. 21, xi. 18, xxi. 20): once in Mk., twice 
in Mt., once in Jn. 

The reading ^0' <J5 (R U A) is an obvious correction to a more usual con- 
struction. For the ace. after a verb of rest comp. xxi. 35 ; Mt. xiii. 2 ; Mk. 
iv. 38 ; Jn. xxi. 4 ; also Plato, Sym. 212 D, iirtaTrjixu. iiri tcU Ovpas. 

26. Iko-tchus e\a|3£v aTrarra;. Mk. has 7rdvTas, Mt. nothing. 
Lk. is fond of the stronger form. He alone records all three 
emotions — amazement, fear, and gratitude to God. The last is in 
all three. For €Ko-Ta<ns comp. Mk. v. 42, xvi. 8; Acts iii. 10; Gen. 
xxvii. 33; 1 Sam. xiv. 1552 Chron. xiv. 14. Mt., whose narrative 

1 That this parenthesis occurs in exactly the same place in all three proves 
that all three made use of a narrative, the form of which was already fixed, either 
in memory or in writing (Salmon, Int. to N.T. p. 121, 5th ed.). Comp. Lk. 
viii. 28, 29 with Mk. v. 7, 8, where we have similar agreement in arrangement. 


is much the most brief, adds after eSd^ao-av tov ©eov, rov SoVra 
l^ova-lav ToiavT-qv tois avOpunrois, which seems to refer to the pre- 
ceding l^ovaiav l^ei. He who is the Son of Man, the ideal repre- 
sentative of the race, had vindicated His claim to possess authority 
to forgive sins. 

EiSajxci' irapdSo£a <jr\\y.zpov. The adj. occurs here only in N.T 
In LXX it is not rare (Judith xiii. 13; Wisd. v. 2; Ecclus. xliii. 25; 
2 Mac. ix. 24; 4 Mac. ii. 13). It is used of the miracles of Jesus 
in the famous passage, of very doubtful origin, in Josephus : cro<£os 
avrjp, el ye avSpa avrov Xiyetv \PV' V v 7^P 7rapaSo£u)v epycov iroir)TT]<; 
(Ant. xviii. 3. 3). Whereas ev8o£a (xiii. 17) has reference to the 
86£a or glory of the agent, ■n-apd.Sotja refers to the &6£a or opinion of 
the spectators ; but Sd£a in the sense of "opinion" or "belief" is 
not found in N.T. For the mixed form of aor. et'Sa/xev see small 
print on i. 59, and comp. 1 Sam. x. 14 and 2 Sam. x. 14. 

27-39. The Calling of Levi and the Discussion about Fasting. 
Mt ix. 9-17; Mk. ii. 13-22. In all three narratives this section 
is connected closely with the healing of the paralytic ; but Mt. 
places both incidents much later, viz. after the return from the 
country of the Gadarenes. 

The common identification of Levi with Matthew is probably correct ; but 
his father must not be identified with the father of James the Less. Matthew 
is probably a contraction of Mattathias = "Gift of God," and this name may 
have been given to Levi after His conversion, like that of Peter to Simon. 
Comp. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23). In Galilee it was 
common to have two names ; and therefore both names may have been original. 
But if Levi was the earlier name, and was less well known among Christians, 
that would account for Mk. and Lk. using it, while Mt. equally naturally would 
let it be evident that a reXuvrjs had become, by Christ's mercy, the well-known 
Apostle. There can be no reasonable doubt that the three narratives refer to 
the same incident. And, as Levi is mentioned in no list of the Twelve, and 
Matthew is mentioned in all such lists, the identity of Levi the reXwurji with Mt. 
the reXwvtis and Apostle need not be doubted. Such doubts, however, are 
ancient. They existed in the Gnostic commentator Heracleon (Clem. Alex. 
Strom, iv. 9, p. 595, ed. Potter), and were shared by Origen. They have been 
reproduced by Grotius (on Mt. ix. 9) and Michaelis ; and more recently by 
Sieffert, Neander, Ewald, Keim, and Reuss. But a satisfactory solution, which 
is not contradicted by any evidence, is not to be rejected because it does not 
amount to demonstration. 

27. e^fjXGei'. So also Mk., while Mt. has Trapdywv iKeWev. 
Departure from the town, rather than from the house, is probably 
meant ; and we therefore obtain no evidence as to the site of 
Capernaum. We may place Capernaum away from the lake, and 
yet suppose the tcAwviov to have been close to the shore. The 
customs collected there went to Herod Antipas, not to the imperial 
fiscus (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 4, 5 ; B.J. ii. 6. 3) : see on xx. 25. 

iQedaaro reXcS^. "Looked attentively at, contemplated, a 
tax-collector," as if reading his character. The verb often implies 


enjoyment in beholding (vii. 24; Jn. i. 14, 32, 38; 1 Jn. i. 1). For 
the TeXwycu see on iii. 12. The Talmud distinguishes two classes 
of TcAwvat : the Gabbai or tax-gatherer (e.g. of income-tax or poll- 
tax), and the Mokhes or custom-house officer. The latter was 
specially hated, as having greater opportunities for vexatious 
exactions, especially from the poor. Levi was one of the latter. 
The great commercial route from Acre to Damascus, which con- 
tinued until the crusades as the via maris, passed the lake at or 
near Capernaum, and gave employment to excisemen (Is. ix. 1). 

oedjiaTi Aeueiy. Mk. has Acvtij/ tov tov 'AXcfiaiov, and Mt. has 
MadOalov. The fondness of Lk. for ovo/zan in introducing a name 
is here conspicuous. Mt. has Aeyo/xevov, and Mk. has neither. 
Comp. i. 5, x. 38, xvi. 20, xxiii. 50, and over twenty times in the 
Acts. Mt. and Mk. have wofian once each. Jn. says oVo/xa 
avrw (i. 6, iii. 1, xviii. 10). 

Ka0T]fxevo^ eirl to reXuviov. Excepting in the parallel passages, 
reXwviov does not occur in N.T. Nor is it common elsewhere. 
In Strabo, xvi. 1. 27, it seems to mean "customs, taxes," and some 
would render iirl to TeAomov, " to receive the customs." But it is 
more probable that it means the place where dues were collected, 
" the tol bothe " (Wic) or " the custom-house " (Rhem.). Comp. 
the similarly formed SeKaruviov, " the office of a collector of tenths." 
Very likely Levi was sitting outside the portitorium. He must 
have been visible from the outside : the iiri is " at," not " in." 

28. Ka.TaX.nrwf -rrdrra. Lk alone mentions this. 1 Note the 
characteristic iravra, and comp. ver. n. The fact illustrates the 
doctrine, to which Lk. often bears witness, that riches are a peril 
and an impediment, and that the kingdom of God is specially 
preached to the poor. The statement is against the supposition 
(D.B. ii. p. 969) that Mt. returned to his business afterwards; and 
it is quite gratuitous to suppose that the statement is a mere 
reminiscence of ver. 11. In that case why has d<f>Uv<u been 
changed to KUTaAetVetv ? Syr-Sin. omits dvacrrds. 

There is a slight awkwardness in Kara\nrJ}v preceding avacTas : the rising 
was the first act in the leaving all and in the following Christ. Both Mt. (?) and 
Lk. represent the following as habitual, rjKoXoudet. Mk. regards the single act 
on this occasion, TjKoXovdrjaev. With the call, 'AKoXoudei fioi, comp. Jn. i. 44, 
and with the result comp. ver. 11 and Mt. iv. 19, 22. The two combined lead 
one to the view that this is a call to become an Apostle. 

29. eTroujo-ef SoxV fieydXTji'. "Made a great reception" 
(Se'xo/xai) or banquet. The word is peculiar to Lk., who has 
ioxrjv Troieiv again xiv. 13. The phrase occurs in LXX (Gen. 
xxi. 8, xxvi. 30 ; Esth. i. 3, v. 4, 8). Of course iv ttj oikiol outou 

1 Ce seul mot suffit. La parole qui venait de guerir le lepreux, de rendre au 
paralyse le mouvement et de remettre les pechcs, transforma soudainement un 
publicain en disciple (Didon,_/. C. ch. iii. p. 340). 


means in Levi's house, which is not included in KaraXi-nw irdi/Ta. 
He was not at his house when he left all. The ttixvto. refers to his 
whole mode of life, his business as a reXwi/r/s. 

It is strange that any one should understand the words either here or Mk. 
ii. 15 as meaning "in the house of Jesus." Had Jesus a house? If so, how 
improbable that Levi should hold a reception in it ! If the narrator had meant 
this, must he not have given the name instead of at/roD, which would inevitably 
be misunderstood? Mt. has simply iv rrj oltclq., which possibly means "in- 
doors," as opposed to the outdoor scene iirl to rehuviov. There is no evidence 
that Christ had a house at Capernaum. After the call of Simon and Andrew 
He is entertained in the house of Simon and Andrew (Mk. i. 16, 29) ; and 
after the call of Levi He is entertained in the house of Levi. The new disciple 
wishes his old friends to make the acquaintance of his new Master. Cest son 
premier cute missionaire (Godet). 

tJk o^Xos iroXus Te\wywi> ical aXXwi/ ot tJctcii' jjiet' auTaiv KdTaicei- 
jieyoi. This proves that the house was a large one, which the 
house of Jesus would not have been : and it also shows the 
character of the company, for only social outcasts would sit down 
at the same table with TeXwvai. 

30. eyoyY ^ 01 ' °^ ♦apiomoi ica! oi ypafxp-aTCis auTwi\ The clvtwv 
means " the scribes of the Pharisees," i.e. who belonged to that 
party. Some scribes were Sadducees. That this is the meaning 
is clear from Mk. ii. 16. It is pointless, and scarcely grammatical, 
to make airwv refer to the inhabitants of the place, who have not 
been mentioned. These scribes were probably not invited guests, 
but had entered during the meal, like the woman that was a sinner 
in the house of Simon. The Sinaiticus and other authorities omit 
airwv, doubtless because it was not clear what it meant. 

For yoyyvfa, which is not in Mk. or Mt., see Lft. on Phil. ii. 14, and 
Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Grk. p. 39. The Atticists preferred rovdopvfa. 
Both are probably onomatop. — Note that here, as in vv. 31, 33 and iv. 43, 
Lk. has rrpds c. ace. after a verb of speaking, where Mk. (ii. 16-19) has the 
dat. See on i. 13. 

Aia ti (xeTa t£>v TeKwuv ical ap.apTwXcoi' eaOieTe ; The single 
article (so in all three) brackets them as one class. In Mt. and 
Mk. the disciples are not included in the charge (ia-8Ui, not 
lo-OUre) ; but they both mention that the disciples were sitting at 
table with Jesus and the reAaivai, and therefore were open to the 
charge. Lk., on the other hand, does not mention that the 
disciples were sitting at table, but his ia-dUre implies it. With 
81a ti comp. Exod. v. 14. 

31. In all three accounts Jesus ignores the insinuation against His disciples, 
and answers for Himself. He is responsible for the intercourse with tax- 
collectors and sinners. For oi vyiaivovTes Mt. and Mk. have ol laxi'ovres. 
This looks like a deliberate change made by Lk. for the sake of a word which 
would more definitely express health as opposed to sickness. Like irapaAeXi- 
jteVos for irapa\uTi/cds (w. 18, 24) and laadai. for diao-wfreiv (vi. 19), these chanp"* 


may be the result of Lk.'s medical training (Hobart, p. 67 ; Salmon, Int. to 
N.T. p. 129, 5th ed.). But would Lk. have made changes in a report of 
Christ's words ? There would be no need to have scruples, for ol iax^ovres is 
only a translation of the Aramaic, and Lk. might think that ol vyiafaovres was a 
better translation. Christ's reply is an argumentutn ad hominem, partly 
ironical. On their own showing the Pharisees had no need of a teacher, while 
these outcasts were in the greatest need of one. 

32. els fj.eTdi'oiav. These words are peculiar to Lk., but in 
some texts have been transferred to Mk. and Mt. Both /xerdvoLa 
and fj.€ravoHv are freq. in Lk. See on xv. 7. Obviously those who 
are really o\Woi do not need to be called to repentance ; but who 
are Si'kcuoi ? That is the question which Christ's reply suggests. 
If we had only Mk.'s account, we might suppose that what follows 
took place on some other occasion ; but both Lk. and Mt. (Tore) 
connect it with the banquet in Matthew's house. 

33. oi 8e elitav. The same who asked the previous question, 
viz. the Pharisees and their scribes (ver. 30). Mt. says that it was 
the disciples of John who came up and put this question. Mk. 
states that both the disciples of John and the Pharisees were 
keeping a fast at that very time, and joined in asking why Christ's 
disciples did not do so also. We know from Jn. iii. 26 how 
jealous the Baptist's disciples were of Christ, and therefore ready 
to criticize. Perhaps they were also jealous of the freedom from 
legal restraints which His disciples seemed to enjoy. They leave 
an opening for the reply, " You have no need to fast." The four 
words which follow vqirrevova-iv, viz. the words ttukvo. kcu Serjcreis 
TroioGfTcu, are peculiar to Lk. They imply that Christ's disciples 
habitually neglected the frequent fasts which the disciples of John 
and of the Pharisees kept. The fasts on Mondays and Thursdays 
are probably meant, which were not obligatory, but which some 
Pharisees observed (xviii. 12). Moses was believed to have gone up 
Mount Sinai on a Thursday and to have come down on a Monday. 
The Day of Atonement was the only fast of universal obligation. 
For Troi€ia9cu Serjcreis comp. 1 Tim. ii. 1 ; it refers to prayers at fixed 
times according to rule. The disciples of Jesus seemed to have no 
rule respecting such things. A late tradition fixes the number of 
the Baptist's disciples as thirty, answering to the days of the 
month, as the Twelve are supposed to answer to the months of the 
year {Clem. Horn. ii. 23). — kcu Tclvouaiv. These words also are 
peculiar to Lk. in harmony with kcu mvere in ver. 30. 

34. Individuals were at liberty to choose their own days for 
fasting, but they must not select a sabbath or any of the great 
feasts. Christ suggests another exception, which very possibly 
was made by the Pharisees themselves. Is it possible to make 
the guests fast at a wedding ? Mt. and Mk. omit the 77-oietv : Can 
the wedding-guests fast ? Would it not be morally impossible to 

1 1 


have such a combination? To John's disciples this parable would 
come home with special force, for their master had called Jesus 
" the Bridegroom," and himself " the friend of the Bridegroom." 

toDs ulous tou cujj.<J>wkos. The common Hebraism to express 
those who are closely connected with the vupc/>wp : comp. x. 6, 
xvi. 8, xx. 36; Acts iv. 36; Mt. xxiii. 15; Jn. xii. 36, etc. In 

1 Mac. iv. 2 01 viol rrj<; a/cpas means the garrison of the citadel. 
But in LXX such expressions are not very common (1 Kings i. 52 ; 

2 Sam. xii. 5 ; Gen. xi. 10). The word w/icp^v seems scarcely to 
occur in class. Grk., but it is rightly formed (Tobit vi. 14, 17). 
Comp. Trap8ev<i)v, yvvaiKwv, avSpaiv, fiowv, afXTreXwv, k.t.A.. 

35. eXcu'croircu 8e rjniepcu. " But days will come," i.e. days very 
different from the joyous days of the wedding. It is best to take 
this clause separately. After it there is an aposiopesis, which is 
mournfully impressive ; and then the sentence begins again. 

kcu oTav dirap0T] air' auTuv 6 yup.<|>ios. There is no xai in Mt. 
or Mk., and some texts omit it here, because of its apparent 
awkwardness. We may take the /cat as beginning a fresh sentence, 
or as epexegetic of the preceding clause. " But days will come — 
and when the bridegroom shall be taken away," etc. Or, " But 
days will come, yea, days when the bridegroom," etc. The word 
a-n-apOfj is in all three, and nowhere else in N.T. It is common in 
class. Grk., esp. of the moving of fleets and armies. 

totc vr\areua-ou(Ti.v. "Then they will fast" — of their own accord. 
He does not say, " Then ye will be able to make them fast," which 
would be the exact antithesis of what goes before ; and the change 
is significant. Compulsion will be as superfluous then as it would 
be outrageous now : comp. xvii. 22. This is the first intimation of 
His death and departure, after which fasting will be appropriate 
and voluntary. Its value consists in its being spontaneously 
adopted, not forcibly imposed. This point is further developed in 
the short parables which follow. Note the characteristic iv 
eVetVcus Tats 17/j.epats (not in Mt. ix. 15), and see on ix. 36. 

36. 'EKeyev 8e «at irapaBoXiV irpos auTous. These introductory 
words are peculiar to Lk., and the phrase Xe'yetv irapafBoX-qv is 
used by no one else (xii. 41, xiii. 6, xiv. 7, xviii. 1, xx. 9). For the 
characteristic 8e Kat see small print on iii. 9, and for Xeyeti' irpos 
see on i. 13. For pairs of parables see on ver. 37 and xiii. 18. 

d-n-6 IfxaTtou KaiK>G uxiaas. This also is peculiar to Lk.'s narra- 
tive, and it heightens the effect of the parable. Both Mt. and Mk 
represent the patch as coming from an unused piece of cloth. To 
tear it from a new garment is an aggravation of the folly. A good 
garment is ruined in order to mend, and that very ineffectually, an 
old one. In all three we have eVt/^A^/xa for patch ; in Mt. and Mk. 
ir\rjpwp.a also ; and Mk. for eTri/3dXkei has €7riparT£t. In Plutarch 
and Arrian l-nifi\.7]p.a means "tapestry" for hangings. In the 


sense of "patch" it seems to occur only in Sym. Josh. ix. 11 (5). 
The Latin translations of lirlfiXrjjjLa vary : commissura (Vulg.), insu- 
mentum (a), immissura (d). 

cl 8e piY€ (el 8e fir/ ye, Lach. Treg.). " But if he acts otherwise," i.e. if 
he commits this folly. Ni caveat errorem (Grotius). The formula is freq. in 
Lk. (ver. 37, x. 6, xiii. 9, xiv. 32), who never uses el 8e /j.ti. El 8e y.-f\ ye is 
Stronger than el 8e firi, and follows both negative (xiv. 32 ; Mt. ix. 17 ; 2 Cor. 
xi. 16) and affirmative sentences (x. 6, xiii. 9; Mt. vi. 1). It is found in 
Plato {Rep. iv. 425 E): comp. Hdt. iv. 120. 4. See Fritzsche on Mt. vi. I 
and Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 16. 

kcu. t6 KcuycV CTxio-61. " Both he will rend the new garment"- — 
in tearing the patch from it. AV. here goes wrong, although 
(except as regards the tense) all previous English Versions were 
right. Reading crxi'£ei with A and Vulg. rwnpit, Wic. Tyn. Cran. 
and Rhem. have " He breaketh the new," while Cov. has "He 
renteth the new." Beza has " the old breaketh the new." Luther 
and AV. seem to be alone in taking to xawov as the nom., " Both 
the new maketh a rent." With cry/cm comp. Jn. xix. 24; Is. 
xxxvii. 1. 

kcu t6 Kcuyoe . . . kcu tw iraXaiw. The double km marks the 
double folly. RV. avoids the awkwardness of " Both he will rend 
. . , and the piece," etc., by rendering, " He will rend . . . and 
also the piece," etc. The combination with kou tc3 7raAcuu> shows 
that t6 naivov is object and not subject. 

As to the precise meaning, interpreters are not agreed, beyond 
the general truth that a new spirit requires a new form. But the 
piece torn from the new garment is probably exemption from fast- 
ing. To deprive Christ's disciples of this freedom, while He is with 
them, would be to spoil the system in which they are being trained. 
And to impose this exemption upon the disciples of John and the 
Pharisees, would also spoil the system in which they have been 
trained. In the one case fasting, in the other non-fasting, was the 
natural outcome of the environment. For a variety of interpreta- 
tions see Godet, who in his third ed. has changed his own (1888). 

37. This second parable carries on and develops the teaching 
of the first. We have similar pairs of parables in the Mustard-seed 
and the Leaven, the Treasure hid in the Field and the Pearl of 
great price, the Ten Virgins and the Talents, the Lost Sheep and 
the Lost Coin, the Unwise Builder and the Unwise King. In three 
respects this second parable differs from the first. (1) The piece 
of new cloth represents only a fragment of the new system ; the 
new wine represents the whole of it. (2) The new garment and 
the old one are only marred ; the new wine is lost and the old 
skins are destroyed. (3) Not only is the wrong method con- 
demned, the right method is indicated (aXXb. . . . fBXrjriov). The 
argument is a fortiori. If it is a mistake to take the natural out- 


come from one system and force it upon an alien system, much 
more fatal will it be to try to force the whole of a new and grow- 
ing system into the worn out forms of an old one. " I thank Thee, 
O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these 
things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto 
babes "(x. 21). The scribes and Pharisees, wise in the letter of 
the law, and understanding their own cramping traditions, were 
incapable of receiving the free spirit of the Gospel. Young and 
fresh natures, free from prejudice and open to new light and new 
impressions, were needed to receive the new word and preserve it 
unchecked and untramelled for future generations. On the fitness 
of the twofold parable to the occasion Bengel remarks, parabolam 
a veste, a vino : imprimis opportutiam convivio. 

ouSels pdMei olvov viov eis dcrKOus imXcuous. For /?dAAeiv of 
pouring liquids comp. Jn. xiii. 5; Mt. xxvi. 12; Judg. vi. 19; 
Epictet. iv. 19. 12. Skin-bottles, utres, are still in use in the East, 
made of a single goat-skin (Horn. //. iii. 247), from which the flesh 
and bones are drawn without ripping up the body. The neck of 
the animal becomes the neck of the bottle. Gen. xxi. 14, 15, 19; 
Ps. cxix. 83. Comp. Hdt. ii. 121. 20, iii. 9. 2; Horn. Od. v. 265. 
In Job xxxii. 19 it is said that even new skins are ready to burst 
when they are full of new wine : comp. xxxviii. 37. See Herzog, 
PRE? art. Schlauch; Tristram, Nat. Hist, of B. p. 92. 

38. olvov viov els dcKous kch^ous (3\T]Teof. Here certainly, and 
perhaps here only in N.T., the difference between ve'os and kguvos 
must be marked in translation : "New wine must be put into fresh 
wine-skins." While ve'os is new in reference to time, " young " as 
opposed to " aged," kcuvo's is new in reference to quality, " fresh " 
as opposed to "worn out." Trench, Syn. lx.; Crem. Lex. p. 321. 
But "a fresh heaven and a fresh earth" (2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. i), 
and still more a "fresh Jerusalem" (Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2), would be 
intolerable. No English version prior to RV. distinguishes here 
between ve'os and kcuvos; and Vulg. has novus for both. None 
translates clo-kol "skins" or "wine-skins," but either "bottles" 
(Wic Cran. Rhem. AV.) or "vessels" (Tyn. Cov. Gen.). The 
conclusion, /cat a/x^oTepoi o-vvrrjpovvrai, is an interpolation from Mt. 
ix. 17 (S B L and Aegyptt. omit). 

39. This third parable is peculiar to Lk. While the first two 
show how fatal it would be to couple the new spirit of the Gospel 
with the worn out forms of Judaism, the third shows how natural it 
is that those who have been brought up under these forms should 
be unwilling to abandon them for something untried. The con- 
version of an outcast reAwv^s, who has no such prejudices, may be 
easier than one whose life is bound up in the formalism of the past 
Grotius, starting from Ecclus. i\. 15, ohos ve'os c/u'Aos ve'os* edv 
ira\ai<j)6fj, /xer' ei'cfcpoow^s irUfrai avrov, interprets : Significavit hoc 


proverbio Christus homines non subito ad austeriorem vitam pertra- 
hendos, sed per gradus quosdam assuefaciendos esse ; which implies 
that Christ considered Jewish fasting the more excellent way, up 
to which His disciples must be gradually educated. Moreover, the 
subito on which this explanation turns is an interpolation : evOeois 
is not genuine (sBC'L, Boh. JEth. Arm. omit). Wetstein quotes 
a multitude of passages to show that old wine was considered to 
be superior to new, and concludes ; Pharisseorum austeritas com- 
parator vino novo, Christi lenitas vino veteri ; which exactly inverts 
the parable. The comparative merits of the old and the new wine 
are not touched by the parable, but the taste for them. One who 
is accustomed to old will not wish for new : it does not attract him 
by look or fragrance. See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 24. 

Xryei 7<ip' 'O iraXaios xP T l a " r< ^ s l<rav. The reading of A C and Vulg. 
(XpyarbTepos, melius) is a manifest corruption. The prejudiced person will 
not even try the new, or admit that it has any merits. He knows that the old 
is pleasant, and suits him ; and that is enough : he is not going to change. 
Pharismis doctrina sua antiqua magis erat ad palatum, quam generosa doctrina 
Jesu, quam illi putabant esse novam (Beng.), and which they would not even 
taste. Comp. Rom. vii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6. If we admit the undoubtedly 
spurious evQiws, we have another iambic line in this verse as in ver. 21 : inwv 
iraXawv evdeuis 9e\ei viov. The whole verse is omitted in D and in most of 
the best MSS. of the old Latin ; but VVH. seem to be alone in placing it in 
brackets as of doubtful authority. On the three parables see Trench, Studies 
in the Gospels, pp. 168-183. 

VT. 1-5. The first Incident on the Sabbath (see Maurice, Lec- 
tures on St. Luke, pp. 82, 83, ed. 1879). The Call of Peter was 
followed by two healings which provoked opposition to Christ: and 
now the Call of Levi is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, 
which lead to similar opposition. Mk. agrees with Lk. in placing 
these two immediately after the call of Levi ; Mt. has them much 
later (xii. 1-14). On the connexion here see Schanz, ad loc. 

1. iv o-appd-rw SeuTepoirpwro). This passage is a well-known 
crux in textual criticism and exegesis. Is SevTepo-n-pcaTO) part of the 
true text ? If so, what does it mean ? The two questions to some 
extent overlap, but it is possible to treat them separately. 

1. The external evidence is very much divided, but the balance is against 
the words being original. 1 The reading is Western and Syrian, and "has no 
other clearly pre-Syrian authority than that of D aff." The internal evidence is 
also divided. On the one hand, "The very obscurity of the expression, which 
does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuine- 
ness" (Scriv.), for "there is no reason which can explain the insertion of this 

'ikACDEHKMRSUVXrAAn most cursives, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. 
Goth. Arm., Epiph. Chrys. Greg-Naz. Amb. Hieron. and perhaps 
»m. N B L six or seven good cursives, Syrr. Boh. Aeth. That evangelistarim 
omit is not of much moment, as they often omit notes of time. 


word, while the reason for omitting it is obvious" (Tisch.) On the other hand, 
"all known cases of probable omission on account of difficulty are limited to 
single documents or groups of restricted ancestry, bearing no resemblance to the 
attestation of text in either variety or excellence" (\VH.). Moreover, if any 
sabbath had really borne this strange name, which is introduced without explan- 
ation as familiar to the readers, it would almost certainly have been found 
elsewhere, either in LXX, Philo, Josephus, or the Talmud. In the life of 
Eutychius (512-582) by his chaplain Eustathius Sevrepoirpiirr] Kvpiaxri is used of 
the first Sunday after Easter, but the expression is obviously borrowed from this 
passage, and throws no light. In the whole of Greek literature, classical, 
Jewish, or Christian, no such word is found independently of this text. The 
often quoted deirrepo'HeK&TTj, "second tenth" (Hieron. ad Ez. xlv. 13), gives no 
help. The analogy of devrepoydfxos, BevreporoKos, k.t.X., suggests the meaning 
of " a sabbath which for a second time is first"; that of devrepea-xaros, which 
Heliodorus {apud Soran. Med. vet.) uses for "last but one," suggests the mean- 
ing "first but one," i.e. "second of two firsts." But what sense, suitable to 
the passage, can be obtained from either of these ? The more probable conclusion 
is that the word is spurious. 

How then did it get into the text and become so widely diffused ? The con- 
jecture of Meyer is reasonable. An early copyist inserted Trpwry to explain 4v 
erepw oafifiaTig in ver. 6 ; this was corrected to devrepy because of iv. 31 ; and 
the next copyist, not understanding the correction, combined the two words. 
A few MSS. have the reading devrepip irpwTip, among them R (Cod. Nitriensis), 
a palimpsest of the sixth cent, in the British Museum. See Knight's Field. 

2. If the word is genuine, what can be its meaning ? Jerome put this ques- 
tion to Gregory Nazianzen, and the latter eleganter lusit, saying, Docebo te super 
hac re in ecclesia (Hieron. Ep. lii.). Of the numerous conjectures the following 
maybe mentioned as not altogether incredible. (1) The first sabbath of the 
second year in a sabbatical cycle of seven years. This theory of Wieseler has 
won many adherents. (2) The first sabbath in Nisan. The Jewish civil year 
began in Tisri, while the ecclesiastical year began in Nisan ; so that each year 
there were two first sabbaths, one according to civil, the other according to 
ecclesiastical reckoning : just as Advent Sunday and the first Sunday in January 
are each, from different points of view, the first Sunday in the year. It would 
be possible to call the second of the two "a second first Sunday." But would 
anyone use such language and expect to be understood? (3) The first sabbath 
of the second month. It is asserted that the story of David obtaining the shew- 
bread would often be in the lesson for that sabbath. But the lectionary of the 
synagogues in the time of Christ is unknown. See on iv. 17. For other guesses 
see Godet, McClellan, and Meyer. Most editors omit or bracket it. Tisch. 
changed his decision several times, but finally replaced it in his eighth edition. 

8iaTropeu€o-0ai auToc Sia « Excepting Rom. XV. 24, the 
verb is peculiar to Lk. (xiii. 22, xviii. 36; Acts xvi. 4). In N.T. 
a-rvopipos occurs only here and parallels. In Theophr. {H. P. vi. 5. 4) 
we have 7) o-rropip-r), sc. yrj. In Gen. i. 29 it is applied to the seed, 
TravTa ^oprov (nropipiov (nrdipov cnrep/xa ; SO that, like cnreipttrOai, it 
can be used either of the field or of the seed. 

eTiMov oi p.a0r|TCu auTou ica! r\a8LO\> tous oraxua$. For this 
Mk. has r/p$avTO 6Sov ttouIv tiWovtcs tov<s cn-a^uas, which has been 
interpreted to mean " began to make a way by plucking the ears." 
But (1) all three imply that Jesus was walking in front of the dis- 
ciples. What need was there for them to make a way? (2) How 
would plucking the ears make a path ? (3) In LXX 6Sov ttouXv is 


used for iter facere (Judg. xvii. 8). All three mean that the 
disciples went along plucking the ears. This was allowed (Deut. 
xxiii. 25). 

\J/ojXoit€s Tats x 6 P cn ' , '• This and the tiXXovtcs constituted the 
offence : it was unnecessary labour on the sabbath. According to 
Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, thrashing, winnowing, and pre- 
paring food all at once. Lk. alone mentions the rubbing, and the 
word ij/wxet-v seems to occur elsewhere only in the medical writer 
Nicander (Theriaca, 629). It is from the obsolete xf/ww, a collat. 
form of if/doi. Comp. Hdt. iv. 75. 2. For the action described see 
Robinson, Res. in Pal. i. pp. 493, 499. 

2. -ri^es Se juv 4>api<Tcuwt'. As in v. 30, they are represented 
as addressing their question to the disciples. In Mk. ii. 24 and 
Mt xii. 2 the charge against the disciples is addressed to Christ, 
while in Mk. ii. 16 and Mt. ix. 11 the charge against Christ is 
addressed to the disciples. The -rots v<x$$a<nv may mean either 
" on the sabbath days " (AV. and most English Versions) or " on 
the sabbath day " (RV.). Although Vulg. has in sabbatis, Wic. 
has "in the saboth"; Cov. also "upon the sabbath." See on 
iv. 31. 

3. ou8e touto dyeyvwTe o eiroiTjo-ec Aaueio. " Have ye not read 
even this that David did?" Does your knowledge not extend 
even thus far ? RV. follows AV. in translating o liroiqaev as if it 
were the same as the ri cVoi-qo-cv of Mt. and Mk., " what David 

kcu. 01 jict' auTou. "The young men," whom David was to 
meet afterwards. He came to Nob alone (1 Sam. xxi. 1). 

4. eio-^XGei/ €19 "rov oXkov tou 0eoO. This is not stated in O T., 
but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, 
who was " detained before the Lord " : i.e. he was in the tabernacle 
as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow. 

tous apToos rfjs ir-poGecreojs. Lit. " the loaves of the setting 
forth." These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed 
before the Lord in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word 
" shewbread " first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther's 
Schaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with 
" looves of proposisiounn," which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has 
"loves of halowed breed." In O.T. we have also aproi rov 
irpocrwTrov, i.e. of the presence of God (1 Sam. xxi. 6; Neh. x. 33), 

Or aproi ivuiTTiOi (Exod. XXV. 30), Or aproi rrj<; 7rpocr</>opas (i Kings 

vii. 48), or again oi aproi ol 8ta7ravTos, i.e. " the perpetual loaves " 
(Num. iv. 7). But the expression used here, Mt. xii. 4 and Mk. 
ii. 26, occurs Exod. xxxix. 36?, xl. 23; 1 Chron. ix. 32, xxiii. 29: 
comp. 2 Chron. iv. 19. For the origin of 17 Trpodeo-is twv apr<ov 
(Heb. ix. 2) comp. 2 Chron. xiii. n, xxix. 18. See Edersh. The 
Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, PRE? art. Schaubrote. 


Kal e'SwKey tols u.6t' au-roG. This also is not stated in i Sam. 
xxi., but it is implied in David's asking for five loaves, and in 
Abimelech's asking whether the wallets of the young men were 
Levitically clean. For \%&rc\.v c. ace. et inf. see on xx. 22. 

5. Kupios eone toG aa(3|3dTou 6 ulos toG dv0pw7roo. In all three 
accounts Ki'pios comes first with emphasis. The Son of Man con- 
trols the sabbath, not is controlled by it. This does not mean 
that He abrogates it (Mt. v. 17-20), but that He has power to 
cancel the literal observance of it in order to perform or permit 
what is in accordance with its spirit. Mk. gives the additional 
reason that " the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 
sabbath," i.e. that it was given to be a blessing, not a burden. 
Even the Rabbis sometimes saw this ; " The sabbath is handed 
over to you; not, ye are handed over to the sabbath" (Edersh. 
L. (Sr 5 T. ii. p. 58). Ritual must give way to charity. The Divine 
character of the Law is best vindicated by making it lovable ; and 
the Pharisees had made it an iron taskmaster. And, if the sabbath 
gives way to man, much more to the Son of Man. In Jn. v. 17 
Christ takes still higher ground. The Father knows no sabbath in 
working for man's good, and the Son has the same right and 
liberty. For 6 ulos toG di'GpojTrou see on v. 24. The point here is 
that Christ as the representative of man defends man's liberty. 

Cod. D transfers ver. 5 to after ver. 10, and instead of it has the remarkable 
insertion : 7-77 cti/rj; v/J-ipa. 6eacra.fievb% rim ipya^6/xevov t£ aapp&TQ elirev avrip' 
dvdpwire, el /xei> oldas rl iroiels, fia.Ka.pios el' ei 8e firj oldas, iTriKardparos Kal 
irapap&TrjS el tou v6/aov. For dvdpwire comp. xii. 14; iwLKardpaTos, Gal. iii. 10; 
irapa(3d.Tr)s v6p.ov, Rom. ii. 25, 27 ; Jas. ii. ii. It is possible that the tradition 
here preserved in Cod. D is the source from which both S. Paul and S. James 
derive the phrase trapa^drris v6/u.ov. In Rom. ii., where it occurs twice, we have 
the address dvdpwire twice (w. I, 3). There is nothing incredible in Christ's 
having seen a man working (not necessarily in public) on the sabbath. The 
words attributed to Christ are so unlike the undignified, silly, and even immoral 
inventions in the apocryphal gospels that we may believe that this traditional 
story is true, although it is no part of the Canonical Gospels. D has other con- 
siderable insertions Mt. xx. 28 and Jn. vi. 56. See A. Resch, Agrapha 
A us ser canonise he Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 18S9) pp. 36, 189. 

6-11. The Second Incident on the Sabbath. Mt. xii. 9 would 
lead us to suppose that it was the same sabbath (/xera/fos ixeWev 
rj\8ev). Lk. definitely states that it was iv eripoj o-a./3fia.Tui, but not 
that it was " on the very next sabbath following." He alone 
mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogue on this occasion, and 
that the withered hand that was healed was the right one. 

6. 'Eye'vero 5e . . . elcre\9e?v avrbv . . . Kal %v . . . Kal %v. The same 
Hebraistic constr. as in ver. 1, somewhat modified in accordance with classical 
usage : see note at the end of ch. i. We have ^pel at the Pool of Bethesda 
(Jn. v. 3) ; but outside N.T. the word seems to mean, when applied to the 
human body, either " not wet" or " lean." 


7. TrapeTTjpourra 8e au-roe ol ypap.jiaTei9 Kal 01 4>apiCTCuoi. Lk. 
alone tells us who the spies were. Mt. puts their inquisitiveness 
into words, " Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day ? " The verb 
signifies " watch narrowly," esp. with sinister intent, perhaps from 
looking sideways out of the corner of one's eyes, ex obliquo et 
occulto. As in Gal. iv. 10, the mid. gives the idea of interested 
observance. Mk. has TrapeTrjpow : comp. xx. 20; Sus. 12, 15, 16; 
Polyb. xvii. 3. 2 ; Aris. Rhet. ii. 6. 20; Top. viii. 11. 1. 

el iv tw crappd-up 0epa-n-eu'ei. The present has reference to His 
habitual practice, of which His conduct on this occasion would be 
evidence. But K B with other authorities read OepaTrevcru, which 
is probably genuine in Mk. iii. 2, and may be genuine here. The 
future would limit the question to the case before them, 

iva eupuxriv KaTtiyopetv avrov. According to what is probably the 
invariable rule in N.T. we have the subj. in spite of the past tense on 
which the final clause is dependent. The opt. for this purpose is obsolete; 
for yvdl (Mk. ix. 30) and similar forms are probably meant to be subj. 
Simcox, Lang, of N.T. p. 107. 

8. auTos 8e fjoei tous oiaXoyi.o-u.ous auiw. " But He," in contrast 
to these spies (v. 16, viii. 37, 54) "knew their thoughts." For 
oiaXoyicruos comp. ii. 35, v. 22, ix. 46, xxiv. 38. It commonly 
means intellectual and inward questioning rather than actual dis 
puting: but see on v. 22 and comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8. 

tw av&pX tw fnpav typvn ttjv x e ^P a - " To the man who had 
his hand withered," not "who had the withered hand." For dvSpi 
comp. v. 12: M t. and Mk. have dvOpunria. 

"Eyeipe Kal o-rrj0i els to \iiaov. Lk. alone has *al <ttt)9i. 
Christ's method is as open as that of His adversaries is secret. 
" Arise and stand into the midst " ; i.e. " Come into the midst and 
stand there": comp. xi. 7; Acts viii. 40. Win. 1. 4. b, p. 516. 
In what follows note Lk.'s favourite avaards (i. 39), which neither 
Mt. nor Mk. has here. 

None of them records any words of the man ; but Jerome in commenting on 
Mt. xii. 13 states, in evangelio quo utuntur Nazartni et Ebio?iitm . . . homo 
iste qui aridam habet manum cmmentarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus 
auxilium precans, C&mentarius eram, manibus victurn qu&ritans : precox te, 
fesu, ut mihi restihtas santtatem, ne turpiter menduem cibos. See on xviii. 25. 

9. 'EirepwTw uuas, el. He answers the questioning in their hearts 
by a direct question which puts the matter in the true light. 
To refuse to do good is to do evil ; and it could not be right to do 
evil on the sabbath. 

The reading of TR., iirepwrricrw rt, is wrong in both variations ; and 
has the disadvantage of being ambiguous, for ti may be indefinite or inter- 
rogative. "I will ask you something, Is it lawful?" etc. Or, " I will ask 
you what is lawful," etc. 


iJ/uxV crwcrai r\ aTroXe'crai. It was a principle of the Rabbinists 
that periculum vitae, pellit sabbatum; but the life must be that of a 
Jew. This canon was liberally interpreted ; so that a large number 
of diseases might be attended to on the sabbath, as being 
dangerous. These modifications of the rigid rule were based on 
the principle that it was lawful to do good and avert evil on the 
sabbath ; and to this Jesus appeals. If the Pharisees said, " This 
man's life is not in danger," the answer would have been easy, 
" You do not know that, any more than in the cases always 
allowed." The addition of j\ airokiaai has special point, for this 
was what these objectors were doing. They did not consider that 
they were breaking the sabbath in plotting to destroy Jesus on 
this day (ver. 7). Were they to be allowed to destroy, while He 
was forbidden to save ? 

10. ■n-epip\ev|/d|i.e>'os Trdn-as ciutous. Mk. adds, still more 
graphically, /xer' opyy]?, o~vWv7rovfJL€vo<i Ittl rrj 7rtupujcra 7-175 KaoSias 
avTtuv : but 7ravras is peculiar to Lk. See on vii. 35 and ix. 43. 
Mt. omits the whole of this, but inserts the case of the sheep 
fallen into a pit. Lk. has a similar question about a son or ox 
fallen into a well, which was asked on another occasion (xiv. 5). 

"EKTeifoe rr]v x 6 ^ <70U « As His challenge to His enemies 
remained unanswered, He now makes trial of the man. The 
attempt to obey this command was evidence of his faith. 

With the double augment in aireKa.TeaTa.d-q comp. iirpoira^a, iirpoe^ryrevov, 
iKareaKevacrav, icvvefj/xprvpovv, rjcpdipLarai., which occur in various writers. 
Exod. iv. 7, hireKariuTT} ; Jer. xxiii. 8, aveicaTiaTrjcrey ; Ign. Smyr. xi. t 
aireKa.Te<TTadr). Win. xii. 7. a, p. 84. 

Cod. D here inserts ver. 5. 

11. avoias. The phrensy or loss of reason which is caused by extreme 
excitement; dementia rather than insipientia (Vulg. ) or amentia (Beza). 
Plato distinguishes two kinds of fivota, t6 p.ev fiaviav, rb S' dpM.6lav ( Tim. 
86 B). It is the former which is intended here. Elsewhere 2 Tim. iii. 9 ; 
Prov. xxii. 15 ; Eccl. xi. 10 ; Wisd. xv. 18, xix. 3 ; 2 Mac iv. 6, etc 

t£ &v TroiTjo-aiey. "What they should do," if they did any- 
thing. In Lk. the opt. is still freq. in indirect questions : see on 
iii. 1 5. Mk. says that the Pharisees forthwith took counsel with the 
Herodians how they might destroy Him (airoXeo-oxriv). They 
would be glad of the assistance of the court party to accomplish 
this end. With their help Antipas might be induced to treat 
Jesus as he had treated the Baptist. Lk. nowhere mentions the 

The Aeolic form iroLrjueiav is not found in the best MSS. ^ere. In Acts 
xvii. 27 \(/r]\a<pri<r eiav is probably genuine. 


VI. 12- VIII. 56. From the Nomination 0/ the Twelve to tJuir 
First Mission. 

In proportion as the work of Christ progresses the opposition 
between Him and the supporters of moribund Judaism is in- 

12-16. The Nomination of the Twelve. Common to all 
three: comp. Mk. iii. 13-19; Mt. x. 2-4. F'election des Douze est 
le premier acte organisateur accompli par Jesus-Christ. Sauf les 
sacrements, c'est le sad. Car detait ce college^ une fois constitue, qui 
devait un jour f aire le reste (Godet). 

12. kv tcus Tificpcus t. See on i. 39. This expression, and 
cyeVeTo and ty with the participle, are characteristic of Lk., and are 
not found in the parallels in Mt. and Mk. For the constr. comp. 
w. 1 and 6 \ for Trpocreu£ao-0cu see Introd. § 6. The momentous 
crisis of choosing the Twelve is at hand, and this vigil is the pre- 
paration for it. 

8iavuKT€peiJwv. Here only in N.T., but not rare elsewhere; Job ii. 9 
(where LXX has much which is not in the extant Heb.); Jos. Ant. vi. 

13. 9 ; B. J. i. 29. 2 ; Xen. Hellen. v. 4. 3. The analytical tense emphasizes 
the long continuance of the prayer. 

ttj irpocreuxfj toG ©eou. The phrase occurs nowhere else. It 
means prayer which has God for its object : comp. £f}Aos ®eou 
(Rom. x. 2) ; 6 £r)Aos tov oikod aov (Jn. ii. 17); 7rio"ris 'I-qcrov (Gal. 
iii. 22). Win. xxx. 1. a, p. 231. 1 That Trpoacvxr} here means an 
oratory or place of prayer is incredible: see on Acts xvi. 13. 
Lightfoot says that some Rabbis taught that God prays : " Let it 
be My will that My mercy overcome My wrath." But such trifling 
has no place here. Mk. xi. 22 and Jas. ii. 1 are perhaps parallel. 

13. eyeVeTo Tjp.e'pa. The phrase is freq. in Lk. (iv. 42, xxii. 66 ; 
Acts xii. 18, xvi. 35, xxiii. 12, xxvii. 29, 33, 39). — T7po<j^6vr\<riv. 
" Called to Him, summoned." This is the more correct use of 
the word. Elsewhere in N.T. it means "address, call to"; and, 
excepting Mt. xi. 16, it is used only by Lk. (vii. 32, xiii. 12, 
xxiii. 20 ; Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2). — tous pa0T]rds. These are the 
larger circle of disciples, out of whom He selected the Twelve. 
Comp. Jn. vi. 70; Mt. xix. 28; Rev. xxi. 14. That either the 
larger circle or the Twelve had spent the night with Him is neithei 
stated nor implied. 

eK\e£dp.€K>s. This implies the telling over (Xe'yeiv) in preference 
to others (eV) for one's own advantage (mid.). The word is fatal 

1 Green compares iir' evaefldq. 6eov (Jos. Ant. ii. 8. I) and irpbs lueTtiav too 
8eoC (ii. 9. 3): and, for the art. before vpocrevxy "as an abstract or general 
term," Mt. ■sxi. 22 ; Acts i. 14 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 (Cram, of N. T. p. 87). 


to Lange's theory that Judas was forced upon our Lord by the 
importunity of the other Apostles (Z. of C. ii. p. 179). 

08s kcu dTTooroXous (ieojiaCTec. Not at the time possibly, but 
afterwards. The *ai marks the naming as a separate act from the 
election. The word d-rrocn-oXos is used only once each by Mt. 
(x. 2), Mk. (vi. 30), and Jn. (xiii. 16); by Lk. six times in the 
Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 49, xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10) and often in the 
Acts. In the Gospels the Twelve are generally called the Twelve. 
The word occurs once in LXX, cyco ei/xi dVoo-ToAos 7rpos ere o-kAt/pos 
(1 Kings xiv. 6) ; and once in N.T. it is used of Christ (Heb. iii. 1). 
See Lft. Galatians, pp. 92-101, 6th ed. ; D.B? art. "Apostle"; 
Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. n 1 ff.; Sanday on Rom. i. 1. 
The theory that Lk. writes in order to depreciate the Twelve, does 
not harmonize with the solemn importance which he assigns to 
their election. And criticism is out of harmony with itself, when 
it adopts this theory, and then suggests that Lk. has invented this 
early election. See on xxii. 45. Mk. iii. 14 is doubtful. 

14-16. In construction the twelve names are in apposition to airoo-TtiXovt, 
and the narrative is not resumed until ver. 17. The four lists of the Apostles 
preserved in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts agree in two main features. 
1. The names are arranged in three groups of four. 2. The same Apostles, 
Peter, Philip, and James of Alphaeus, stand first in each group. Only in respect 
of one name is there material difference between the lists. In the third group 
Lk. both here and Acts i. 13 has Judas of James ; for whom Mt. (x. 3) and 
Mk. (iii. 18) have Thaddaeus or Lebbseus. In both places Thaddaeus is prob- 
ably correct, Lebbaeus being due to an attempt to include Levi among the 
Apostles. Levi = Lebi or Lebbi, the Greek form of which might be Le/S/3a?os, 
as Qaddalos of Thaddi. Some MSS. read Le/Scuos, which is still closer to Levi. 
See YVH. ii. App. pp. 12, 24. The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas of 
James solves the difficulty, and there is nothing against it excepting lack of direct 
evidence. No pairing of the Apostles is manifest in this list as in that of Mt. 
If the Kal after Qu/j.S.1/ be omitted, there is a break between the second and third 
group ; but otherwise the list is a simple string of names. In the first six 
names Lk. agrees with the first three pairs of Mt. In the other six he places 
Matthew before Thomas (while Mt. places himself last in his group) and Simon 
Zelotes before Judas of James. 

14. IifAwea ov ica! wKojiao-ei' rieTpov. The similarity to the pre 
ceding clause is marked. This certainly does not mean that Simon 
received the name of Peter on this occasion, and there is nothing 
to show that the Twelve received the name of Apostles on this 
occasion. But it should be noticed that henceforth Lk. always 
speaks of him as Peter (viii. 45, 51, ix. 20, 28, 32, ^^, xii. 41, etc.) 
and not as Simon. In xxii. 31 and xxiv. 34 Lk. is quoting the 
words of others. Hitherto he has called him Simon (iv. 38, v. 3, 
4, 5, 10) and once Simon Peter (v. 8), but never Peter. In the 
Acts he is never called Simon without the addition of the surname. 
The usage with regard to the names Saul and Paul is very similar. 
See papers by Dean Chadwick on "The Group of the Apostles" 


and on "Peter" in Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ix. pp. 100-114, 
187-199, 18S9 ; also Schanz, ad loc. p. 216. 

'Appeal'. Only in his lists of the Apostles does Lk. mention 
Andrew. Mt. mentions him on one other occasion, and Mk. on 
three others (Mt. iv. 18; Mk. i. 16, 29, xiii. 3). Nearly all that we 
know about him comes from Jn. (i. 41, 44, vi. 8, xii. 22). Although 
one of the earliest disciples, he does not become one of the chosen 
three, although Mk. xiii. 3 seems to indicate special intimacy. For 
legends respecting him see Lipsius, Apokryplien Apostelgeschichten 
u. Apostellegenden, i. pp. 543-622 ; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 

PP- J 7, 34- 

'idKwPoc Kdl 'iwdcTji'. This is their order according to age, and 

it is observed in all three Gospels; in Acts i. 13 John precedes 

James. The fact that James was the first of the Twelve to be put 

to death is evidence that he was regarded as specially influential. 

James and John were probably first cousins of the Lord ; for, 

according to the best interpretation of Jn. xix. 25, their mother 

Salome was the sister of the Virgin Mary. That the title of 

Boanerges was given to them " at the time of the appointment of 

the Twelve" (£>.B. 2 i. p. 1509) is a baseless hypothesis. See 

Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 138-146 ; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. 

fipovTr). Forlegends see Z>.i>.'-' i. p. 1511 ; Lipsius, iii. pp. 201-228, 

i. pp. 348-542. 

♦iXnnroy. All that we know of him comes from Jn. (1. 44-49. 

vi. 5-7, xii. 21, 22, xiv. 8, 9). There seems to have been some 

connexion between him and Andrew (Jn. i. 44, xii. 22); and both 

in Mk. iii. 18 and Acts i. 13 their names are placed together in the 

lists ; but the nature of the connexion is unknown. Lipsius, 

iii. pp. 1-53. .... 

BapOoXop.atok'. The ancient and common identification with 
Nathanael is probable, but by no means certain. 1. As Bar-tholomew 
is only a patronymic, "son of Talmai," the bearer of it would be 
likely to have another name. 2. The Synoptists do not mention 
Nathanael ; Jn. does not mention Bartholomew. 3. The Synoptists 
place Bartholomew next to Philip, and Philip brought Nathanael to 
Christ. 4. The companions of Nathanael who are named Jn. xxi. 2 
are all of them Apostles. Lipsius, iii. pp. 54-108. 

15. Ma00aloy tea! ©wjiay. In all three these names are com- 
bined ; but Mt. reverses the order, and after his own name adds 
6 TtXtLvrjs, which is found in none of the other lists. All that we 
know of Thomas is told us by Jn. (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29, xxi. 2). 
Lipsius, iii. pp. 109-141, i. pp. 225-347. 

'idKwpoy 'A\<|>atou. His father is probably not the father of Levi 
(Mk. ii. 14), and James himself is certainly not the brother of the 
Lord (Mt. xiii. 55; Mk. vi. 3; Gal. i. 19) who was the first over- 
seer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13 ; Gal. ii. 9, 12). 


The brethren of the Lord did not believe on Him at this time 
(Jn. vii. 5), and none of them can have been among the Twelve. 
But the Apostle James the son of Alphaeus is probably identical 
with James the Little (Mt. xxvii. 56; Mk. xv. 40; Jn. xix. 25), for 
Alphaeus and Clopas may be two different Greek forms of the 
Aramaic Chalpai ; but this is uncertain. See Mayor, Ep. of 
S.James, pp. i-xlvi ; also Expositors Bible, S. James and S. Jude, 
pp. 25-30 (Hodder, 1891). In all the catalogues James of Alphaeus 
heads the third group of Apostles. Lipsius, hi. 229-238. 

t6c KaXoujie^ov £t]\wtt)i'. 1 Lk. has this in both his lists, while 
Mt. and Mk. have 6 Kavai/atos, which in some authorities has 
been corrupted into KavaviV^s. Neither of these forms can mean 
"Canaanite," for which the Greek is Xavavaibs (Mt. xv. 22 and 
LXX), nor yet " of Cana," for which the Greek would be Kavcuos. 
KavavaTo? is the Aramaic Kanan in a Greek form (on the analogy 
of ^apicratos from Pharish and 'Ao-criSato? from Chasid) and = 
^AwTTfs. Lipsius, iii. pp. 142-200. See on i. 36. 

Rhem. leaves the word untranslated, Cananmus, and Wic. makes it unintel- 
ligible, "Canane." All the other English Versions make it a local adj., "of 
Cana," or "of Cane," or "of Canan," or "of Canaan," or "the Canaanite." 
The last error seems to begin with Cranmer in 1539. RV. is the first to make 
clear that " Kanansean " means "Zealot." Lft. On Revision, pp. 138, 139 
(154, 155, 2nd ed.) ; Fritzsche on Mt. x. 4. The Zealots date from the time of 
the Maccabees as a class who attempted to force upon others their own rigorous 
interpretations of the Law. S. Paul speaks of himself as irtpujaoTipws f^Xorrrjs 
VTrdpx^v tQiv iraTpiK&v fiov irapadoaewv (Gal. i. 14), i.e. he belonged to the 
extreme party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 6, xxvi. 5 ; Phil. iii. 5, 6). 
Large numbers of this party were among the first converts at Jerusalem (Acts 
xxi. 20). From these extremists had sprung the revolt under Judas of Galilee 
(Acts. v. 37 ; Jos. Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 6), and the Sicarii, who were the proximate 
cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jos. B. J. iv. 3. 9, 5. 1, 7. 2, vii. 8. 1, 
10. I, 11. 1). Milman, Hist, of the Jews, ii. pp. 191, 291, 299, 323, 4th ed. 
1866; Ewald, Hist, of Israel, vii. 559 ff., Eng. tr. ; Herzog, PRE. 2 art. 
"Zeloten." Whether the Apostle Simon was called fyXwrris because he had 
once belonged to this party, or because of his personal character either before or 
after his call, must remain uncertain. 

16. 'louSae 'laKGSj3ou. That there were two Apostles of the 
name of Judas is clear from Jn. xiv. 22, although Mt. and Mk. 
mention only one ; and the identification of their Thaddseus with 
the Judas not Iscariot of Jn. and with this Judas of James makes 
all run smoothly. 'WSas 'laKwfiov must be rendered "Judas the 
son of James," not " the brother of James," for which there is no 
justification. When Lk. means " brother " he inserts uSeA^o's 
(iii. 1, vi. 14 ; Acts xii. 2). Nonnus in his Paraphrase (Mera/JoVry) 
of Jn. xiv. 2 2 has 'Ioi'oas vlos 'JaKwfioio. 'Iouoas dSeA.<£6s 'Iclkw/3ov 
(Jude 1) is quite a different person, viz. the brother of James the 

1 This use of KaXov/ievos is very common in Lk. (vii. 11, viii. 2, ix. 10, x. 
39, xxi. 37, xxii. 3, xxiii. 33), and still more v> in Acts. Not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 


Lord's brother. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. rightly supply "sonne" 
here, and Luth. also has sohn The error begins with Beza's 
fratrem. Of this James, the father of Judas Thaddseus, nothing 
is known. Lk. adds the name of the father, because his arrange- 
ment places this Judas next to the traitor. 

'loxapiwO. This epithet probably means "man of Kerioth," 
which was a place in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), or possibly in Moab 
(Jer. xlviii. 24). Jn. vi. 71 confirms this; for there and Jn. 
xiii. 26 the true reading gives "Judas son of Simon Iscariot"; 
and if the name is a local epithet, both father and son would be 
likely to have it. In this case Judas was the only Apostle who 
was not a Galilean, and this may have helped to isolate him. 
Other derivations of " Iscariot," which connect the word with 
"lying," or "strangling," or "apron," i.e. bag, or "date-trees" 
(/mpiwrtSes), are much less probable. We know nothing about 
Simon Iscariot. Farrar identifies him with Simon Zelotes, which 
is most improbable. Simon was one of the commonest of names. 
The MSS. vary between 'lo-KaptwO, which is right here, and 'lo-Kapiu- 
1-175, which is right xxii. 3. Here only is irpoSoTYjs used of Judas : 
it occurs in the plur. Acts vii. 52 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4; and in the sing. 
2 Mac. v. 15, x. 13. All English Versions go wrong about iyivero 
irpoSoTTjs. Nowhere in Scripture is Judas styled " the traitor," and 
tyivtTo should be distinguished from rjv : therefore, not " was the 
traitor," but "became a traitor," as the American Revisers pro- 
posed. Judas " turned traitor." The difficulty about the call of 
Judas is parallel to the powers bestowed upon a Napoleon. The 
treason of Judas shows that no position in the Church, however 
exalted, gives security against the most complete fall. 

The verb used of the treachery of Judas is never irpodi56vai, but irapadi- 
dSvai (xxii. 4, 6, 21, 22, 48 ; Mt. x. 4 ; Mk. iii. 19 ; Jn. vi. 64, 71). In 
class. Grk. irpoSiddvai commonly has this meaning ; irapadidovat rarely. 
Here the Lat. texts vary between proditor (Vulg.) and traditor (c f ff a r) and 
qui tradidit eu/n or ilium (d e). 

17-19. The Descent from the Mountain, and many Miracles 
of Healing. The parallel passages in Mk. iii. 7-12 and Mt. iv. 24, 
25 are very different from Lk. and from one another in wording. 

17. em tottou ireSn'oO. This may mean a level spot below the 
summit ; but in connexion with Ka.Ta.ftds, and without qualification, 
it more naturally means level ground near the foot of the mountain. 
Hither it would be more likely that multitudes would come and 
bring their sick, than to a plateau high up the mountain. 

The Latin texts vary : in loco campestri (Vulg.), in loco campemt (a), in »'. 
p kino (f ) in I. pedeplano (1. ). 

jca! S)(Xos ttoXus p,a0K]Tui' auTou. Not a tiom. pendens^ but 


included in the preceding IcrT-q : comp. the constr. viii. 1-3. He 
stood, and they stood. But the la-rq is no evidence as to Christ's 
attitude during the discourse, because the healings intervene : 
iv. 20 shows that Lk. is aware of Christ's sitting to preach. 

Kal ttXtjGos ttoXu tou XaoG, k.t.X. This is a third group. Christ 
and the Twelve form one group. The multitude of disciples in 
the wider sense form a second. And besides these there is a 
mixed throng from Judrea and the sea-coast : see on xi. 29. 

laOrjvai dini. The prep, is not classical ; but we say "to be cured from" 
(Mk. v. 29). In the perf., 1 aor. and 1 fut. pass, the dep. idopui is pass, in 
meaning (vii. 7, viii. 47, xvii. 15 ; not Acts iii. 11). Except in Lk., the verb is 
rare in N.T. writers. — There should be at least a colon at twv vbauv avrdv : 
here the long sentence which began at ver. 13 ends. 

18, 19. For similarly condensed accounts of groups of miracles 
comp. iv. 40, v. 15, vii. 21. We once more have an amphibolous 
expression : see on ii. 22. Here d-n-6 ■n-i/eup.dTGjf d.KaSdpTwi' may be 
taken either with lvoy\ovii.e.voi or with iOepaTrevovro. From ver. 17 
and vii. 2 1 we infer that the latter constr. is right : " They that 
were troubled with them were healed of unclean spirits." But in 
the other cases the gen. with cltto follows the verb ; so that 
ivox\ovfX€voi oltto may be right. The " and " before " were healed " 
in AV. is from a corrupt reading : not only Wic. and Rhem. with 
Vulg., but also Cov., omit the "and." For Tr^eufidTwc dKaGdpTCJi' 
see on iv. 33. Note 7r£s and 7rdvTa5 here and 7rdarj<; in ver. 17. 
They are not found in Mk. iii. 7, 10 : see on ver. 30. With Trap' 
auTou e£r]px€To comp. Jn. xvi. 27. Lk. commonly writes i$ipxo- 
/iai d-n-o : see small print on iv. 35, and comp. viii. 46, which 
illustrates airTecrOai, Swa/xis, and e^v/p^ero. For ouVap,is and i&to 
see on iv. 36. 

20-49. The Sermon cttitoVoi; 7re8ivot5. D.B. v. art. "Sermon." 

To call it " the Sermon on the Plain," following the AV. in ver. 17, is con- 
venient, but scarcely justifiable. "The plain" has not been mentioned, and 
rb irebiov does not occur in N.T. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this 
tSwos iredivds was at the foot of the mount. And to talk of " the Sermon on 
the Plain " assumes, what cannot be proved, that the discourse here recorded is 
entirely distinct from "the Sermon on the Mount" (Mt. v. i-vii. 29). The 
relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because 
the materials are insufficient for a final decision. The following are the chief 
hypotheses which have been suggested in order to explain the marked similari- 
ties and differences. 1. They are reports, at first or second hand, of two 
similar but different discourses, distinct in time, place, and circumstance (Auger, 
Greswell, Osiander, Patritius, Plumptre, Sadler ; so also in the main Barradius, 
Basil, Doddridge, Toletus, Tostatus). 2. They are reports of two different 
discourses delivered on the same day, Mt. giving the esoteric address to the 
disciples on the mountain, Lk. the exoteric address to the mixed multitude 
below (Augustine, Lange). 3. They are recensions, with interpolations and 
omissions, of two independent reports of one and the same sermon (Schleier- 
macher). 4. They are recensions of the same repoit, to which Mt. adds 


material from other sources, and from which Lk. perhaps omits porticns (B. 
Weiss). 5. Mt. gives a conflate arrangement of sayings which were uttered on 
various occasions, and some of these occasions are given by Lk. (Bleek, Calvin, 
Godet, Holtzmann, Keim, Kuinoel, Neander, Pott, Semler, Weizsacker, 
Wieseler). 6. Both sermons are a conglomeration of detached sayings collected 
into an anthology of aphorisms (Strauss, and to some extent Baur). Besides 
the writers mentioned above under the last four heads, a multitude of commen- 
tators adopt the view that the main portions of the reports given by Mt. and Lk. 
represent one and the same discourse (Bengel, Bucer, Calovius, Caspari, 
Chemnitz, Chrysostom, De Wette, Ebrard, Edersheim, Ellicott, Ewald, Farrar, 
Fritzsche, Grotius, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lewin, Luther, McClellan, Meyer, 
Milman, Olshausen, Oosterzee, Origen, Robinson, Schanz, Schneckenburger, 
Sieffert, Stroud, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Wordsworth). 

Bad or inadequate arguments are used on both sides. It is a great deal too 
much to say with Schleiermacher that the fact that the portions common to both 
appear in the same order, with the same beginning and end, " proves incontro- 
vertibly the identity of the discourse." Any preacher repeating a carefully 
prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put 
his points in the same order. And it is mere dogmatism without argument 
when Sadler asserts that " the Lord must have pronounced each [beatitude] 
which St. Matthew records, and yet it is equally plain that He could hardly 
have pronounced them according to St. Luke's form. He would not have 
said, Blessed are ye meek ones, Blessed are ye merciful ones, Blessed are 
ye peacemakers. The four given by St. Luke are the only ones which could 
well have been pronounced personally on the disciples ; so that the beatitudes 
as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke respectively, could not have been altered 
forms of the same discourse." Much more reasonable is the position of Grotius, 
who believes that both record the same sermon : sicut facti narrationes circum ■ 
stantiis congruentes non temere ad res diversas referenda sunt, ita sermones nihil 
vetat ssepius habitos eosdem aut similes, prsesertim continentes vitse totius prse- 
cepta, qum non potuerunt nimium seept, repeti (on Lk. vi. 17). We know 
beyond all question that some oi our Lord's words were uttered several times, 
and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the hypothesis that the words 
of this discourse, (/use non potuerunt nimium sxpe repeti, were delivered in one 
or other of these forms more than once. Nor does it follow that those portions 
which Lk, gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered 
as parts of a continuous discourse. A preacher naturally repeats fragments of 
his own sermons in giving catechetical instruction, and also gathers up detached 
items of instruction when composing a sermon. The fact that Lk. meant to 
record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the 
similar words in this discourse. Another consideration which may have deter- 
mined his selection is the thought of what would best suit Gentile readers. But 
in any case the dictum of Grotius must be remembered, that the hypothesis of 
a repetition of verbally similar sayings may be used with much more freedom 
than the hypothesis of a repetition of circumstantially similar acts. 

The conclusion arrived at by Sanday and P. Ewald is of this kind. The 
beatitudes originally stood in the Logia in a form similar to that in Mt. v. 3-12. 
Lk. used the Logia, but had also a document entirely independent of the Logia ; 
and this contained a discourse, spoken originally on some other occasion, but 
yet so like the Sermon on the Mount as to be identified with it by Lk. The 
sermon in Luke is, therefore, a compound of the reports of two similar but 
different discourses ; and in this compound the elements derived from the Logia 
are dominated by those derived from the independent document {Expositor for 
April 1891, p. 315). It seems, however, simpler to suppose that Lk. took the 
whole of his report from the document which contained this very similar, but 
different sermon. See Paul Feine, Ueber das gegenseit. Verhaltniss d. Texte der 
Bergpredigt bei Matthaus und Lukas in theja/irb. fur Protest. TTieologie, xi. 1. 


The following tables will show the parallels between the two Evangelists : — 
Between the Two Sermons. 

Lk. vL 20, 21 . 

ML v. 3, 4, 6. 

Lk. vi. 37, 38 . 


Mt. vii. 1, 2. 

22, 23 . 

II, 12. 

41, 42 . 



27-30 . 


43-46 . 



3i • 

, vii. 12. 

47-49 • 



32-36 . 

, v. 42-4X. 

Between detached Sayings in Lk. and thb 

Sermon in Mt. 

Lk. xiv. 34, 35 

. Mt. 

v. 13. 


xi- 34-3 6 • 


vi. 22-23 

viii. 16 and xi. }^ , 


xvi. 13 . 


xvi. 17 . , 


xii. 22-31 . 


xii. 58, 59 . 

25, 26. 

xi. 9-13 . 

vii. 7-1 1 

xvi. 18 . , 


xiii. 24 . , 


xi. 2-4 . 

vi. 9-13. 

25-27 . 

22, 23 

xii- 33, 34 • 

19, 21. 

Lk. vi. 39 

Between the Sermon in Lk. and detached 
Sayings in Mt. 

Mt. xv. 14. Lk. vi. 40 

Mt. x. 24. 

This last saying was frequently uttered. It is recorded twice by Jn. (xiii. 16, 
xv. 20), and the four records seem to refer to four different occasions ; besides 
which we have a similar utterance Lk. xxii. 27. 

These tables leave three verses of the sermon in Lk. without a parallel in 
Mt. (or any other Gospel), viz. the four woes corresponding to the four beati- 
tudes, w. 24-26. The portions of the sermon in Mt. which have no parallel in 
Lk. amount to forty-one verses, viz. Mt. v. 5, 7-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-24, 27-31, 
33-3 8 , 43, vi- 1-8, H718, vii. 6, 14, 15. 

The plan of both discourses is the same. I. The qualifications of those who 
can enter the kingdom (Lk. 20-26 ; Mt. v. 1-12) ; 2. The duties of those who 
have entered the kingdom (Lk. 27-45; Mt. v. 13-vii. 12); 3. The judgments 
which await the members of the kingdom (Lk. 46-49 ; Mt. vii. 13-27). En- 
couragement, requirement, warning ; or invitation, principles, sanction ; — these 
are the three gradations which may be traced in these discourses ; and, as Stier 
remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected. 

There is considerable unanimity as to the spot where the sermon was 
delivered (Stanley, Sin &* Pal. pp. 368, 369 ; Caspari, Chron. and Geograph. 
Int. to the L. of C. § 108, p. 171 ; Robinson, Pal. ii. 370, iii. pp. 241, 485 ; 
Farrar, L. of C. i. p. 250, and on Lk. vi. 12 ; Keim, Jes. of Naz. ii. p. 289). 
On the other hand, Edersheim asserts that " the locality is for many reasons 
unsuitable"; but he gives no reasons (L. & T. i. p. 524; see also Thomson, 
Land and Book, ii. p. 118). 

20-26. The Qualifications necessary for Admission to the 
Kingdom : the Happiness of those who possess them (20-23), an( ^ 
the Misery of those who possess them not (24-26). This contrast 
of Blessings and Woes at the beginning of the sermon corresponds 
with the contrast in the parable with which it ends. 

VI. 20.] 



The Beatitudes common to Mt. and Lk. with the corresponding 

Woes in Lk. 


1. Ol TTTWXOL Ttf) TVtil- 

\mti, Srt olittGiv iarlv i) 
QacriXela tuiv ovpavwv. 

2. ol irevOovvres, bri 
avrol TrapaK\y)drjaovTai. 

4. ol TTfivQvres Kal 8i\f/- 
wvres tt)v diKaLocrvvrjv, 5rt 
avroi xopTa.<sQi\<yovTo.i. 

8. i(JTi OTO.V 6v€l8L<TUO~lV 

vfjids Kal c5iu>£uxne Kal 
elwwo~tv irav irovTjpbv KaO' 
iifiCov \f/tv86/j.evoi fvcKtv 

Xalpere Kal aya.Wia.cr0e, 
5ti 6 p.iadbs vfxQv rroXvs 
£v tois ovpavoU' ovtus yap 
e'Slco^av tovs wpocprjTas 
robs Tpb v/xQv. 


1. ol tttwxoI, 8ri Vflf- 
ripa iarlv i) ($ao~i\eia rod 

3. ol KKalovres vvv, trri 

2. ol ireivCivrts vvv, Sri 

4. icrre trrav fiia-qo-wcriv 
V/J.S.S ol dvOpwrrot, Kal 8rav 
atpopLcrwcriv v/xas Kai 6vei~ 
Slcrwcnv /cat iKfiaXucnv rb 
6vo/xa VfiQv a>s irovrjpbv 
ZvcKa. tov vlov tov avdpui- 
irov x°-PV T€ £ v iKelvyj 7-77 
rj/J.t'pQ Kal crKipTrjcraTe, iSov 
yap b fuadbi v/j.u>v ttoXvs 
iv T<f3 ovpavui- Kara tA 
airra yap inoloiv tois irpo- 
#77x0.15 ol iraripes avrdv. 


1. iifuv roh n\ovcrtott, 
5ti aire'x eTe T V V napd- 
Kkricriv vfi.Cjv, 

3. ol yeXQvrcs vvv, 8m 
TTevdrjcreTe Kal K\aio~eTe. 

2. vfuv, ol i/AireirXria- 
fiivoi vvv, 8ti iretvaatrt. 

4. 8rav KaXQs v/ ef- 
irwatv iravres ol dvdpoirrot, 
Kara ra aiVa yap ivolovv 
rots \}/ev8oTr po<pTjTai.x ol 
Trartpes avrCiv. 

VI. 20-23. Four Beatitudes ; which correspond to the first, 
second, fourth, and eighth in Mt. v. 3-12; those relating to the 
meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers being 
omitted. In the four that Lk. gives the more spiritual words which 
occur in Mt. are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more 
external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are 
declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of 
internal virtues) ; and this doctrine is emphasized by the corre- 
sponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and fulness of 
bread (as being sources of temptation). It is in the last Beatitude 
that there is least difference between the two. Even in Lk. 
unpopularity is not declared to be blessed, unless it is " for the 
Son of Man's sake " ; and there is no Woe pronounced upon 
popularity for the Son of Man's sake. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 261. 

20. Kal auTos eirdpas tous 6<}>0a\uous ciutcu eis tous p,a0T)T(£s. 
Lk.'s favourite mode of connexion in narrative : see on v. 14 and 
comp. viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, etc. With eVapas t. 6(f>9. comp. xviii. 13 
and Jn. xvii. 1. We must not take eis with eAeyev; Lk. would 
have written 7rpos, and after eAeyev: contrast xxii. 65 and Mk. 
111. 29. Mt. has Trpocrr)\6a.v ainw 01 fj.a.8r)Tal avrov. Kal . . . iSiSaaKcv 
ovtov's. The discourse in both cases is addressed to the disciples ; 
there is nothing to indicate that the discourse in Lk. is addressed 
to mixed multitudes, including unbelieving Jews and heathen. 
These Beatitudes would not be true, if addressed to them. It is to 
the faithful Christian that poverty, hunger, sorrow, and unpopularity 


are real blessings ; to others they may be mere sterile suffering. 
Whereas, even for the heathen, to be poor in spirit and to hunger 
and thirst after righteousness are blessed things. In Mt. the 
Beatitudes are in the third person and have a wider sweep. 

paicapioi ol. This is the common constr. both in LXX and N.T., the 
reason for the blessedness being expressed by a noun or participle which is the 
subject of the sentence (Ps. ii. 12, xl. 5, xli. 2, lxxxiv. 5, 6, 13, Ixxxix. 16, 
etc.); but the reason is sometimes expressed by the relative with a finite verb 
(Ps. i. 1, xxxii. 1, 2; Lk. xiv. 15; Jas. i. 12), or by tin (xiv. 14; 1 Pet. 
iv. 14), or by i6.v (Jn. xiiu 17 ; I Cor. vii. 40). 

01 iTTwxoi. See on iv. 18. We have no right to supply t^ 
Trvev/iaTL from Mt. It is actual poverty that is here meant. Nor 
is it the meaning that actual poverty makes men "poor in spirit." 
Still less does it mean that in itself poverty is to all men a blessing. 
There is no Ebionite doctrine here. But "to you, My disciples, 
poverty is a blessing, because it preserves you in your dependence 
on God, and helps you to be truly His subjects " : to yap vperepa 
rjeiKTiKws 7rpos 7rapovra9 eXeycTo (Eus.) Some of these disciples had 
made themselves poor by surrendering all in order to follow Christ. 
Comp. Ps. lxxii. 12, 13. 

6fA6Te'pa itrrlv rj Pao-iXeia. "Yours is the kingdom," not "will 
be." It is not a promise, as in the next Beatitudes, but the state- 
ment of a fact. But the Kingdom is not yet theirs in its fulness ; 
and those elements which are not yet possessed are promised in 
the Beatitudes which follow. 

21. ol Treiywrres vu\>. "Those of you who are suffering from 
actual want in this life. Ye shall have compensation." 

XopTacr9i]o-€CT0e. Originally the verb was confined to supplying 
animals with fodder (xopro<;), and if used of men implied a brutish 
kind of feeding (Plato, Rep. ix. p. 586). But in N.T. it is never 
used of cattle, and when it is used of men it has no degrading asso- 
ciations (ix. 17; Jn. vi. 26; Phil. iv. 12; Jas. ii. 16); not even 
xv. 16, if the word is genuine there, nor xvi. 21. Comp. rows 
7rTwxous avrijs ^oprao-w aprwv (Ps. CXXxii. 15). In LXX ^opTO^cj 
and TrifjLirXrjfjii are used to translate the same Hebrew word, some- 
times in the same verse : on ixopracrei/ tyvxv v k w>]v, ko.1 i/^xV 
7T£iva>o-av ev€7rXr;o-€v ayaOwv (Ps. cvii. 9). Here the filling refers to 
the spiritual abundance in the Kingdom of God. Jn ail four cases, 
although the suffering endured is external and literal, yet the com- 
pensating blessing is spiritual. 

ol icXcuorrcs vZv. Mt. has TrtvOovvres, which expresses the 
mourning, while KAaiovTes implies outward manifestation of grief in 
loud weeping, just as yeAao-cre implied outward expression of mirth 
in laughter. Though common in LXX, yeXaw occurs in N.T. only 
here and ver. 25. 


22. d4>opi'ora)(rn' ufms. " Mark you off from (Sltto) by a boundary 
(opos)." It is used both in a good sense (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 
Gal. i. 15) and also in a bad, as here. Comp. /cai fx airo yas wpurc 
(Eur. Hec. 940). Excommunication from the congregation as well 
as from social intercourse is here meant. The usual sentence was 
for thirty days, during which the excommunicated might not come 
within four cubits of any one. Comp. Jn. ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2. 
Whether there was at this time a more severe form of excommunica- 
tion is uncertain. Herzog, PRE? art. Bann bei den Hebraern ; 
Grotius on Lk. vi. 22 ; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Jn. ix. 22. 

6v€i8i<ra)(Tiv. The object to be supplied may be either the preceding 
vnas (so most English Versions) or the following rb 6vofm v/xu>v (Bede, Weiss). 
Vulg. supplies nothing ; and Tyn. and Gen. have simply "and rayle " with- 
out an object. Neither AV. nor RV. has "you " in italics. 

€kB<£\u>o-ik to SfOfxa vpuv u>s Trovt]p6v. " Throw your name con- 
temptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing." 
There is no idea of striking a name off the list as a mark of dis- 
grace, ex a/bo expungere, a meaning which eKfidWecv never has. 
It is used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing 
with contempt (Aristoph. Eq. 525 ; Nub. 1477 > Soph. O. C. 631, 
636; O. T. 849; Plato, Crito, 46 B). "Your name" means "the 
name by which you are known as My disciples," as Christians. 
" Christian " or " Nazarene " was a name of bad repute, which it 
was disgraceful, and even unlawful, to bear, for Christianity was 
not a religio licita. For irovrjpov as an epithet of ovo/xa comp. Deut. 
xxii. 19. 

eeeica tou oiou too dyGpcoirou. A vital qualification. The hatred 
and contempt must be undeserved, and be endured for Christ's 
sake ; not merited by one's own misconduct. 

23. o-KipTr]o-aT€. Peculiar to Lk. See on i. 41 and comp. 
Mai. iv. 2. 

ho-to, to, auTot yap inoiouv tois irpo^Tais. This implies that they 
are to receive "a prophet's reward " (Mt. x. 41), as in this world, so 
in the next. 

For the dat. comp. rott fuaovaiv vfias (ver. 27). In class. Gk. we should 
have had to, aura itroiovv tovs irpo(p. Thus, (y<b 51 raOra tovtov iirolrjaa. avv 
Uk-q (Hdt. i. 115. 3, iv. 166. 3: comp. Aristoph. Nub. 259; Vesf. 697). In 
later Gk. the dat. of relation becomes much more common. 

01 iraTepes aoTwi'. The gen. refers to ot avOpuyxoi in ver. 22: 
" the fathers of them " who hate and abuse you. 

24-26. Four Woes corresponding to the four Beatitudes. 
There is no evidence that these were not part of the original dis- 
course. Assuming that Mt. and Lk. report the same discourse, 
Mt. may have omitted them. But they may have been spoken on 
some other occasion. Schleiermacher and Weiss would have it 


that they are mere glosses added by Lk. to emphasize and explain 
the preceding blessings. Cheyne thinks that some of them were 
suggested to Lk. by Is. lxv. 13-16. We have no right to assume 
that no persons were present to whom these words would be 
applicable. Even if there were none present, yet these Woes 
might have been uttered as warnings both to those who heard 
them and to others who would learn them from those who heard. 
Just as the Beatitudes express the qualifications of those who are 
to enter the Kingdom, so these show the qualities which exclude 
men from it. It is possible that some of the spies and adversaries 
from Judaea were among the audience, and thus Jesus warns them 
of their condition. When the discourse as placed by Mt. was 
spoken there was less opposition to Christ, and hence no Woes 
(Pastor Pastorum, p. 256). 

24. irXijv. Curtius makes ir\-f)v an adverbial form of ir\tov, so that its 
radical meaning would be " more than, beyond" (Gr. Etym. 282) ; but Lft. 
(Phil. iii. 16) connects it with 7rAas, in the meaning "besides, apart from 
this, only." For the accusatival form comp. 81kt]v, i-rrlKX-rjv, clam, coram. It 
sometimes restricts, sometimes expands, what precedes. It is a favourite 
word with Lk., in the Gospel as an adv. (ver. 35, x. II, 14, 20, xi. 41, xii. 31, 
xiii. 33, xvii. 1, xviii. 8, xix. 27, xxii. 21, 22, 42, xxiii. 28), in the Acts as a 
prep. (via. 1, xv. 28, xxvii. 22). "But" is the only possible rendering here. 

ooal fifili' tois ttXouo-iois. As a matter of fact the opponents of 
Christ came mostly from the wealthy classes, like the oppressors of 
the first Christians (J as. v. 1-6). See Renan, L 'Antechrist, p. xii ; 
Ewald, Hist, of Israel, vii. p. 451. But the cases of Nicodemus and 
Joseph of Arimathea show that the rich as such were not excluded 
from the kingdom. — d-rre'xeTe. " Ye have to the full " ; so that 
there is nothing more left to have. The poor consolation derived 
from the riches in which they trusted is all that they get : they 
have no treasure in heaven. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Philem. 15 ; 
and see Lft. on Phil. iv. 18. This meaning is classical: comp. 
d7roA.a/i./3avw, airepyd^o/Aai. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 229, 
For TrapdK\r)cnr see on ii. 25, and comp. xvi. 25 of Lazarus. 

25. 01 €inre7r\T)o-jieVoi vuv. "Sated with the good things of this 
life," like Dives (Ezek. xvi. 49). Grotius compares the epitaph, 
Tocro-' l\<j) o(tct £7riov kcu i&rJTva. It may be doubted whether the 
change of word from xopTa'£eo-0ai (ver. 21) indicates that horum 
plenitudo non meretur nomen satietatis (Beng.) : comp. i. 53. In 
Lat. Vet. and Vulg. we have saturor both here and ver. 21. 

TreiedcreTc. This received a partial and literal fulfilment when 
Jerusalem was reduced to starvation in the siege : but the reference 
is rather to the loss of the spiritual food of the Kingdom. Comp. 
Is. lxv. 13. Hillel said, "The more flesh one hath the more 
worms, the more treasures the more care, the more maids the more 
unchastity, the more men-servants the more theft The more law 


the more life, the more schools the more wisdom, the more counsel 
the more insight, the more righteousness the more peace." 

01 yeXwires vOv. " Who laugh for joy over your present pro- 
sperity," the loss of which will surely come and cause grief. But 
the worst loss will be that of spiritual joy hereafter (Is. lxv. 14). 

26. orav Ka\w9 timi(nv ujjids. It is the wealthy who are com- 
monly admired and praised by all who hope to win their favour. 
The praise of worldly men is no guarantee of merit : rather it shows 
that those who have won it do not rise above the world's standard 
(Jn. xv. 19; Jas. iv. 4). Plutarch says that Phocion, when his 
speech was received with universal applause, asked his friends 
whether he had inadvertently said anything wrong. 

toIs vJ/€u8oTrpo<|>T)Tais. Just as the persecuted disciples are the 
representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy 
whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jer. 
v. 31 ; comp. xxiii. 17 ; Is. xxx. 10; Mic. ii. n). 

Having stated who can and who cannot enter the Kingdom, 
Jesus goes on to make known the principles which regulate the 
Kingdom. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 783. 

27-45. Requirement : the Duties to be performed by those 
who are admitted to the Kingdom of God. This forms the main 
body of the discourse. Lk. omits the greater portion of what is 
reported in Mt. respecting Christ's relation to the Mosaic Law 
(v. 17-19), and His condemnation of existing methods of interpret- 
ing it (v. 20-48) and of fulfilling it (vi. 1-18). This discussion of 
Judaic principles and practices would not have much meaning for 
Lk.'s Gentile readers. The portion of it which he gives is stated 
without reference to Judaism. The main point in Mt. is the 
contrast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. In 
Lk. the main point is that true righteousness is love; but the 
opposition between formalism and the spirit of love is not urged. 
The opposition which is here marked is the more universal 
opposition between the spirit of selfishness and the spirit of love. 
There is a break in this main portion, which Lk. marks by making 
a fresh start, YXttzv 81 ko.1 TrapafioXrjv avrois, but the second half 
(39-45) continues the subject of the working of the principle of 

27. 'A\\<£. What is the contrast which this aXXd marks ? The 
emphatic position of the v/xlv seems to show that the contrast is 
between those on whom the Woes have been pronounced and the 
faithful hearers now addressed. Others interpret, " But, although 


I have denounced them, I do not allow you to hate them : you 
must love them." There is, however, no indication that the 
enemies who are to be loved are the wealthy who have just been 
denounced, and such a limitation of the meaning of enemies 
cannot be justified : comp. Mt. v. 44. 

Tots aKououaiv. " Who give ear and obey," tois 7rci#o/i.eVois 
(Euthym.). It is unnatural to take it literally as meaning " My 
audience," in contrast to the rich who have just been addressed in 
their absence. Representatives of the rich may have been present 
among the audience. Schanz interprets "who listen with attention." 

There is on the whole a double climax in what follows, — the worse the 
treatment received, the better the return made ; but it is not quite exact. One 
would expect that ayairare would be coupled with rods /xiuovvras. This is the 
first time that Lk. uses the word dyairq.t>, which sums up the whole spirit of the 
Gospel : it is most frequent in the writings of Jn. " It should never be 
forgotten that dydirr) is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion : it 
occurs in the Septuagint ; but there is no example of its use in any heathen 
writer whatever" (Trench, Syn. xii.). This is not true of dyairq.v and ayaira- 
ftip, which are common in class. Grk. But Christianity has ennobled the 
meaning of both dyairq.v and (piKelv, with their cognates : ipav, which is scarcely 
Capable of such advancement, does not occur in N.T. See on xi. 42, the only 
place where dydin) occurs in Lk. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 198. 

toos ex^P°"S- F° r the combination with rots fjuo-ovcriv comp. 
1. 71; Ps. xviii. 18, cvi. 10; and for the fourfold description of 
enmity comp. ver. 22. In Mt. v. 44 we have only enemies and 
persecutors according to the best texts ; and as KaXws 7roie<re tous 
fxicr. v/xas (note the ace.) is not genuine there, this is the only 
passage in which koAws ■n-oifiv= "benefit, do good to": comp. 
/caAws €i7reiv (ver. 26), and contrast Mt. xii. 1 2 ; Mk. vii. 37 ; Acts 
x. 33 ; 1 Cor. vii. 37, 38; Phil. iv. 14; Jas. ii. 8, 19; 2 Pet. 
i. 19; 3 Jn. 6. — tois fjuaoucriy. For the dat. comp. tois 7rpo<£^Tcu<; 
(ver. 23) and tois i/^uoWpo^Tcus (ver. 26). See the expansion of 
this principle Rom. xii. 17-21; 1 Thes. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 9. 
Comp. Exod. xxiii. 4; Job xxxi. 29; Prov. xvii. 5, xxiv. 17, 
xxv. 2i. See detached note on the relation of Rom. xii.-xiv. to the 
Gospels at the end of Rom. xiii. 

28. euXoyeiTe tou§ Kcn-apcou-ceous upas. In class. Grk. cuAoyeiv 
means "praise, honour," whether gods or men : comp. i. 64, ii. 28; 
Jas. iii. 9. The meaning "invoke blessings upon" is confined to 
LXX and N.T. (Gen. xiv. 19, xxii. 17, xlviii. 9; Rom. xii. 14; 
Acts iii. 26). 

In class. Grk. KarapdaOat is followed by a dat. (Horn. Ildt. Xen. Dem.), 
as in Ep. Jer. 65 : but in N.T. by an ace. (Mk. xi. 21 ; Jas. iii. 9) ; and the 
interpolation Mt. v. 44. — For irpocreuxecrOe vepl we might have expected irp. 
virep, and the MSS. here and elsewhere are divided between vwep and wept 
(Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 3; Rom. i. 8). But comp. Acts viii. 15; Ileb. xiii. 18; 
Col. iv. 3. Win. xlvii. 1. 2,. p. 478. 


Toil' €TTT]p€a£6i'Tw*' uji&s. Aristotle defines eTrr/p €(10710'? as ifjiiro- 
Smt/aos rats /JorAT/creaiv, ouy. tva tl avraJ, dAA' fva /-i?) e/ceivw (Rhet. 
ii. 2. 3). It is "spiteful treatment." 

29, 30. Whereas w. 27, 28 refer to the active iyiirrj which returns good 
for evil, these refer rather to the passive fia.KpoOvp.La., which never retaliates. 
The four precepts here given are startling. It is impossible for either govern- 
ments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its 
policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist ; and if 
individuals acted in strict obedience to them society would be reduced to 
anarchy. Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The 
inference is that they are not precepts, but illustrations of principles. They are 
in the form of rules ; but as they cannot be kept as rules, we are compelled to 
look beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given 
precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with 
observing the letter, and have never penetrated to the spirit. 'What is the spirit ? 
Among other things this : — that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our 

Eroperty must never be a personal matter : so far as we are concerned we must 
e willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to with- 
stand and even to punish those who injure us : but in order to correct them and 
protect society ; not because of any personal animus. It is right also to with- 
hold our possessions from those who without good reason ask for them ; but in 
order to check idleness and effrontery ; not because we are too fond of our 
possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to 
be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery, 
whatever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those 
which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because com- 
pliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or 

29. tw Tinrroiri ae em ty^ o-iayoVa. A violent blow with the 
fist seems to be meant rather than a contemptuous slap, for 
aiaywv means "jaw-bone" (Judg. xv. 15, 16; Ezek. xxix. 4; 
Mic. v. 1 ; Hos. xi. 4). In what follows also it is an act of 
violence that is meant; for in that case the upper and more 
valuable garment (IfidTiov) would be taken first. In Mt. v. 40 the 
spoiler adopts a legal method of spoliation (/cpi^vat), and takes 
the under and less indispensable garment (xiTwva) first. See on 
iii. 11 and comp. Jn. xix. 23. 

Here only do we find rvirreiv iri c. ace. In class. Grk. c. gen., e.g. 
iirl tcdpprjs Tinrreiv or Trardaffetv (Plato, Gorg. 486 C, 508 D, 527 A). Some- 
times we have et's (Mt. xxvii. 30), which some MSS. read here and xviii. 13. 
Comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5. So also KwXveiv dird is not common. Comp. oti 
fir) jcwXi'crei rb (xv-qfidop avrov curb gov (Gen. xxiii. 6) and dirb aov nwXuuv 
(Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 11, hi. 3. 51). The more usual constr. both in N.T. and 
class. Grk. is either ace. and inf. (xxiii. 2 ; Acts xvi. 6, xxiv. 23) or ace. cA 
pers. and gen. of thing (Acts xxvii. 43). Note that aXpeiv does not mean 
simply "take," which is Xa/x^dveiv, but either "take up" (v. 24, ix. 23) or 
" take away" (xix. 24, xxiii. 18). 

30. TracTi aiToui'Ti ere Si'Sou. There is no ttclvti in Mt. v. 42, 
and this is one of many passages which illustrate Lk.'s fondness 
for was (ver. 17, vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4). The Travrt has been 
differently understood. " No one is to be excluded, not even 


one's enemies " (Meyer, Weiss). Omni pefenti te tribue, non omnia 
petenti ; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes (Aug.). Neither 
remark is quite right. Our being able to give juste et honeste 
depends not only on what is asked, but upon who asks it. Some 
things must not be conceded to any one. Others ought to be 
given to some petitioners, but not to all. In every case, however, 
we ought to be willing to part with what may be lawfully given 
to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive 
for refusing. 

8i'8ou, kcu diro toO aiporros to, <ra jxt) airaiTei. The pres. in all 
three cases implies continual action, making a practice of it. 
" Continually give, and from him who continues to take away thy 
goods do not continue to ask them again." For cupeiv in the sense 
of "take as one's own, appropriate," comp. xi. 52, xix. 21 ; Mk. 
xv. 24. It does not imply that violence is used. But the /at) 
d-n-atVet implies that hitherto asking them back has been usual. 
The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xii. 20 : comp. Wisd. 
xv. 8; Ecclus. xx. 15; Hdt. i. 3. 2). Prof. Marshall thinks that 
we have here another instance of different translation of the same 
Aramaic, and that Lk.'s atpoi/ros and Mt.'s Saveuracr&u may repre- 
sent the same word ; also Lk.'s airalru and Mt.'s airo(TTpa<p7}<;. See 
on v. 21 and viii. 15. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 68. 

31. kcu KaGws 0€\ct€. The KO.L introduces the general principle 
which covers all these cases : " and in short, in a word." How 
would one wish to be treated oneself if one was an aggressor ? 
How ought one to wish to be treated ? But obviously the principle 
covers a great deal more than the treatment of aggressors and 
enemies. In Tobit iv. 15 we have, "Do that to no man which 
thou hatest " ; but this purely negative precept, which was common 
with the Rabbis, falls immeasurably short of the positive command 
of Christ. Isocrates has d Trdcr^ovTCS ifi erepuiv opyt£ecr#e, Tairra 
Tots aXXots p-y] TroLetTe, and the Stoics said, Quod tibi fieri non vis, 
alteri ne feceris ; and the same is found in Buddhism. In the 
AiSaxrj, i. 2, and Apost. Const, vii. 2. 1, we have both the positive 
and the negative form. Cod. D, Iren. (iii. 12. 14), Cypr. (Test. 
iii. 119) and other authorities insert the negative form Acts xv. 29. 
How inadequate the so-called Rabbinical parallels to the Sermon 
on the Mount are, as collected by Wiinsche and others, has been 
shown by Edersheim (Z. 6° T. i. p. 531). Note the KaO^s, "even 
as, precisely as " : the conformity is to be exact. For Qikeiv k 
comp. Mt. vii. 12 ; Mk. vi. 25, ix. 30, x. 35 ; Jn. xvii. 24, and see 
on iv. 3. The kcu ifieis before 7touIt€ is omitted by B and some 
Latin texts. " Do likewise" occurs only here, iii. 11, and x. 37. 

32-35. Interested affection is of little account: Christian love 
is of necessity disinterested ; unlike human love, it embraces what 
is repulsive and repellent. 


32. Troi'a ufAic x^P l s- " What kind of thank, or favour, have 
you?" This may be understood either of the gratitude of the 
persons loved or of the favour of God. The latter is better, and is 
more clearly expressed by rlva fxia-Qbv lx €Te > (^t- v - 4-6). Other- 
wise there does not seem to be much point in ol afiapTtakoi. For 
\dpi<; of Divine favour comp. i. 30, ii. 40, 52 ; Acts vii. 46. 

Kai Yap. "For even"; nam etiam. Comp. Mt. viii. 9; Mk. vii. 28?, 
x. 45 ; Jn. iv. 45 ; 1 Cor. xii. 14 ; and see Ellicott on 2 Thes. iii. 10; Meyer 
on 2 Cor. xiii. 4. Syr-Sin. omits the clause. 

33. Here only is aYaGoiroiciv found with an ace. after it It does not 
occur in profane writers, and elsewhere in N.T. is absolute : w. 9, 35 ; Mk. 
iii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20, iii. 6, 17 ; 3 Jn. 11. But in 1 Pet. and 3 Jn. it is 
used of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whereas in 
Lk. and Mt. it is used, as in LXX, of helping others as opposed to harm- 
ing them : Num. x. 32 ; Jud. xvii. 13 (Cod. B ayadwel) ; Zeph. i. 12. 
Hatch, Bibl. Grk. p. 7 ; but see Lft. on Clem. Rom. Cor. ii. p. 17. 

For dfiapToAoi Mt. has in the one case TeXwvat. and in the 
other iOviKoL Of course both "publicans" and "heathen" are 
here used in a moral sense, because of their usual bad character ; 
and Weiss confidently asserts that Lk. is here interpreting, while 
Mt. gives the actual words used. But it is possible that Mt., 
writing as a Jew, has given the classes who to Jews were sinners 
vxt itjoxrjv instead of the general term. 

34. This third illustration has no parallel in Mt., but see Mt. 
v. 42 ; and comp. Prov. xix. 17. 

daviaijre. The texts are divided between this form, davel<ryp-e, Savel^-qre, 
and dai/el^ere. In N.T. dai/lfa is to be preferred to davelfa, which is the 
class, form. The verb means to "lend upon interest," whereas kIxpv/m 
indicates a friendly loan ; and therefore ra tea would include both interest 
and principal. 

diro\d|3w<n>'. " Receive as their due, receive back" or perhaps 
"receive in full" ; comp. dra-e^a) in ver. 24, and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 
5 ; also Ellicott and Meyer. The phrase d-n-oX. Td to-a need not 
mean more than " receive equivalent services," but more probably 
it refers to repayment in full : comp. ipavL^w and dvTepavi'£o>. 

35. TT\r|v. See on ver. 24. "But, when this kind of interested 
affection has been rejected as worthless, what must be aimed at is 
this." Note the pres. imperat. throughout : " Habitually love, do 
good, and lend " ; also that Christ does not change the word 
Savt^ere, nor intimate that it does not here have its usual meaning 
of lending on interest. 

finoef d-n-e\m£orres. The meaning of this famous saying de- 
pends partly upon the reading, whether we read firjSiv or /t^oeVa, 1 

1 The external evidence stands thus — 

For ixr,Uv aw. ABLRXTA etc., Latt. Syr-Harcl.? Boh. 
For fxtjSiva 6,ir. XSn*, Syrr. Tisch. is almost alone among recent 
editors in preferring /tijSefva ; WH. and RV. place in the margin. 


but mainly upon the interpretation of a.7r(\iri(ovT(<;. All English 
Versions previous to RV. adopt the common view that d7reX7r. 
means " hoping for in return," a meaning which is without example, 
but which is supposed to be justified by the context, or rather by 
the corrupted context. Thus Field argues : " No doubt this use of 
the word is nowhere else to be met with ; but the context is here 
too strong for philological quibbles (!). ' If ye lend to them vap' u>v 
'EAniZETE 'AIlOAa/k./, what thank have ye ? ' Then follows the 
precept : ' Lend firj8kv 'AIIEAniZONTES,' which can by no possi- 
bility bear any other meaning than yu/r/Sev e\7ri£ovTes airokafielv " 
( Otium Noro. iii. p. 40). The argument would be precarious, even 
if the facts were as stated ; but the true reading is Trap' S>v cAm^erc 
Xafielv (x B L H, Justin), and therefore the whole falls to the ground. 
The usual meaning of d7reA7u£w, " I give up in despair," makes 
excellent sense ; either " despairing of nothing," or " despairing of 
no one " (/x7/8eVa). " Despairing of nothing" or " never despairing " 
may mean either " never doubting that God will requite you," or 
" never despairing about your money." The latter meaning is 
almost identical with " despairing of no one," i.e. " never doubting 
that your debtor will pay." But it has been suggested that /xrjSeva 
may be neut. plur., on the authority of Steph. Thesaur. v. col. 962 
[iii. col. 3645]. If this were correct, the two readings would have 
the same meaning. On the authority of a single passage in the 
Antho/ogia Pcaatina (ii. 114, p. 325, Brunck), Liddell and Scott 
give d7T€A.7rt£a> a transitive meaning, " causing to despair " ; but 
there aXXov direA.7ri^wv (of an astrologer who said that a person had 
only nine months to live) may mean " giving him up in despair " : 
comp. Polyb. ii. 54. 7. Therefore we may safely abandon the 
common interpretation and render " giving up nothing in despair " 
or " never despairing.'' Comp. iirl </u'Aov iav o-Trdo-^s pojx^aiav, p.rj 
a7reA.7n'o-T/5 (Ecclus. xxii. 2l)j 6 Se diroKa\vijja<; p.v(TTrjpia a.Tri]\iri<rf 
(xxv'n. 2\); to. kcit avrov d7reA.7rto-as (2 Mac. ix. 18), of Antiochus 
when stricken with an incurable disease. Galen often uses the 
verb of desperate cases in medicine; see Hobart, p. 118, and Wetst. 1 

D and many early Latin texts have nihil desperantes. See the valuable 
note in Wordsworth's Vulgate, p. 344. But he thinks it possible that Lk. 
may have written aire\irl£eii> for £\irifeii> card on the analogy of aireadleir for 
icdieiv d7r6 and diirohafieiv for \aj3ui> airb. 

1 What mischief the common interpretation (sanctioned by the Vulgate, nihil 
inde sperantes) has wrought in Europe is strikingly shown by Dollinger (Aha- 
demische Vortrdge, i. pp. 223 ff. ; Studies in European History, pp. 224 ff.). 
On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking 
of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, 
and Christians were forbidden to take it, money-lending passed into the hands 
of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were 
held. The paradox that Christians may not take interest has been revived by 
Kuskin. See Morfill and Charles, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, p. 58. 


lo-eo-06 uiol 'Y<J/iotou. In Mt. v. 9 peacemakers are called vlo\ 
®eov. The moral likeness proves the parentage. Just as in vv. 
32, 33 Lk. has the generic d/*apTa>Aot where Mt. has the specific 
reXwvaL and iOviKoi, so here we have " is kind towards the unthank- 
ful and evil " instead of " makethHis sun to rise on the evil and the 
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust" (Mt. v. 45). 
For 'Yi//io-tou comp. i. 32, 35, 76. 

36, 37. A further development of the principle of Christian 
love. Having told His disciples to cherish no personal animus 
against those who injure them, He now warns them against judging 
others respecting any supposed misconduct. To pose as a general 
censor morum is unchristian. Censoriousness is a transgression of 
the royal law of love, and an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. 
Not only vengeance but judgment belongs to God. And judgment, 
when it is inevitable, must be charitable (dn-oAvcTe), directed by a 
desire to acquit rather than to condemn. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4 ; 
Jas. iv. n, 12. Hillel said, "Judge not thy neighbour until thou 
comest into his place" (Ewald, Hist, of Israel, vi. p. 27). See on 
ver. 31. 

The loose citations of these two verses by Clement of Rome (i. 13. 2) and 
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, ii. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) are interesting. Both 
have the words ws xpTjffre^ea-^e, oiirwj xP 7 l a " rev ^V a ' eTa '- "V"" immediately before 
£ /ifrpy, k.t.X. They represent ylveade oiKTlpp.oves in Lk., for which Justin 
has yiveade d£ xPV crT °l Ka -l oUrlpnoves (Try. xcvi. ; Apol. i. 1 5). Comp. Clem. 
Horn. iii. 57. It is probable that Clem. Alex, here quotes Clem. Rom. uncon- 

38. The transition is easy from charity in judging others to 
benevolence in general. Comp. ver. 30 and iii. 11. God remains 
in debt to no man. " He giveth not by measure " (Jn. iii. 34), 
nor does He recompense by measure, unless man serves Him by 
measure. Disciples who serve in the spirit of love make no 
such calculations, and are amply repaid. We are here assured of 
this fact in an accumulation of metaphors, which form a climax. 
They are evidently taken from the measuring of corn, and Bengel 
is clearly wrong in interpreting vTT€p€Kxvw6fj.€vov of fluids : eis rbv 
koXttov is conclusive. The asyndeton is impressive. 

The form virepeKxvvvbp.evov seems to occur nowhere else, excepting as 
V.l. Joel ii. 24. The class, form is i/irepeKxtv. 

Sojctouctii' els tok KoVnw tycoe. Who shall give ? Not the persons 
benefited, but the instruments of God's bounty. The verb is 
almost impersonal, "there shall be given," So^o-ctcu. Comp. 
alrova-LV (xii. 20) and alrrjcrova-LV (xii. 48). The koAttos is the fold 
formed by a loose garment overhanging a girdle. This was often 
used as a pocket (Exod. iv. 6; Prov. vi. 27 ; and esp. Ps. lxxix. 
12 ; Is. lxv. 6 ; Jer. xxxii. 18). Comp. Hdt. vi. 125. 5 ; Liv. xxi 
18. 10; Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 172, and other illustrations in Wetst. 


(L yap |i.eTpu» p.eTpeLTe. There is no inconsistency, as Weiss 
states (stimmt immer nicht recht), with what precedes ; but he is 
right in condemning such interpretations as tw airw /j-erpip, ov /xr^v 
roaovTio (Theophyl.) and eadem mensura in genere sed exuberans 
(Grot.) as evasions. The loving spirit uses no measure in its services ; 
and then God uses no measure in requiting. But the niggardly and 
grudging servant, who tries to do just the minimum, receives just 
the minimum in return. In Mk. iv. 24, 25 we have this saying 
with a different application. 

39. The second half of the discourse begins here, and this is 
marked by a repetition of the introductory Eiirey. The connexion 
with what precedes perhaps is, that, before judging others, we must 
judge ourselves ; otherwise we shall be blind leaders of the blind. 
This saying occurs in quite another connexion Mt. xv. 14. It 
may easily have been uttered several times, and it is a common- 
place in literature. We are thus shown the manifold application 
of Christ's sayings, and the versatility of truth. See Wetst. on Mt. 
xv. 14. With the exception of Mk. xii. 12, the phrase eurey irapa- 
0o\tjc is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 16, xv. 3, xviii. 9, xix. 11, xx. 19, 
xxi. 29). 

els poGJvoe. " Into a pit " rather than " into the ditch," which 
all English Versions prior to RV. have both here and Mt. xv. 14. 
In Mt. xii. 11 nearly all have "a pit." The word is a doublet of 
fioOpos, puteus, and is perhaps connected with /3a#vs. Palestine is 
full of such things, open wells without walls, unfenced quarries, 
and the like. For bh-qyzlv comp. Acts viii. 31 ; Jn. xvi. 13; Ps 
xxiv. 5, lxxxv. 11, cxviii. 35 ; Wisd. ix. 11, x. 17. 

40. This again is one of Christ's frequent sayings. Here the 
connexion seems to be that disciples will not get nearer to the 
truth than the teacher does, and therefore teachers must beware of 
being blind and uninstructed, especially with regard to knowledge 
of self. In xxii. 27 and in Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples 
must not set themselves above their master. In Mt. x. 24 the 
point is that disciples must not expect better treatment than their 
master. So also in Jn. xv. 20, which was a different occasion. 

Ka.Ti]pT(.afieVos Se iras eorat ws 6 SiSdaicaXos auTOu. The sentence 
may be taken in various ways. 1. Every well instructed disciple 
shall be as his master (AV.). 2. Every disciple, when he has 
been well instructed, shall be as his master. 3. Every disciple 
shall be as well instructed as his master (Tyn. Cran.). But Per- 
fectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister ejus (Vulg.), " Every one 
shall be perfect, if he be as his master" (Rhem.), Wenn derjiinger 
ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen (Luth.), is impossible. 
The meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master ; at the 
best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults.. 4 he 
disciple will be likely to copy them. Syr-Sin. omits. 


For icaTapTi£a», "make dprios, equip," comp. Mt. iv. 21; Mk. i. 19; 
1 Thes. iii. 10 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, xiii. 21. It is a surgical word, 
used of setting a bone or joint : for examples see Wetst. on Mt. iv. 21. There 
is no 7r as in Mt. x. 24, 25 : see on ver. 30. 

41. 42. In order to avoid becoming a blind teacher, whose 
disciples will be no better than oneself, one must, before judging 
and attempting to correct others, correct oneself. Self-knowledge 
and self-reform are the necessary preparation of the reformer, 
without which his work is one of presumption rather than of love. 

41. K<ip<|>05. "Anything small and dry" : in class. Grk. usually in plur. 
of chips, twigs, bits of wood, etc. Curtius connects it with OKap<plov, "a 
splinter" (Grk. Etym. 683); but better with K&pcpetv, "to dry up." In 
Gen. viii. 11 it is used of the olive twig brought by the dove. See Wetst. on 
Mt vii. 3. The 8ok<$s is the "bearing-beam, main beam," that which 
receives (d^x ^*-) the other beams in a voof or floor. It is therefore as 
necessarily large as a K&p<pos is small. 

KaTacoeis. " Fix thy mind upon." It expresses prolonged 
attention and observation. Careful consideration of one's own 
faults must precede attention to those of others. The verb is 
specially freq. in Lk. (xii. 24, 27, xx. 23; Acts xi. 6, xxvii. 39: 
comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24; Rom. iv. 19). 

42. ttws Soyacrcu Xe'yeiv. " With what face can you adopt this 
tone of smug patronage ? " In Mt. vii. 4 the patronizing a Aoe\<f>^ 
is wanting. 

44>es €KpiX&>. For the simple subj. after dcpiyjfii comp. Mt. xxvii. 49; 
Mk. xv. 36. Epict. Diss. i. 9. 15, iii. 12. 15. In modern Greek it is the 
regular idiom. Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356. — In ov (3Xeiruv we have the only 
instance in Lk. of 01) with a participle : " When thou dost not look at, much 
less anxioubly consider " (naravouv) : see small print on i. 20. 

u-rroKpiTci. The hypocrisy consists in his pretending to be so 
pained by the presence of trifling evil that he is constrained to 
endeavour to remove it. Comp. xiii. 15. That he conceals his 
own sins is not stated ; to some extent he is not aware of them. 
The t6t€ means " then, and not till then " ; and the 8ia(3Xe'»|/€is is 
neither imperative nor concessive, but the simple future. When 
self-reformation has taken place, then it will be possible to see 
how to reform others. Note the change from ySAeVetj/ to Sta/5Ae- 
7r«v ; not merely look at, but " see clearly." In class. Grk. 
8ta/3AeVo) means " look fixedly," as in deep thought. Plato notes 
it as a habit of Socrates (Phcedo, 86 D). 

43. oil ydp io-riv. Codex D and some versions omit the yap, 
the connexion with the preceding not being observed. The con- 
nexion is close. A good Christian cannot but have good results 
in the work of converting others, and a bad Christian cannot hav£ 
such, for his bad life will more than counteract his efforts to 
reclaim others. 



The etymological connexion between Kapirbs [carpo, Herbst, harvest) and 
K<ip<pos is by no means certain. But if it is a fact, it has no place here. The 
phrase noietv Kaptrbv is not classical, but a Hebraism (iii. 9, viii. 8, xiii. 9 ; Gen. 

I. 11, 12; Ps. cvii. 37). By aawpdv (cnjiro;) is meant (1) what is "rotten, 
putrid," and (2) what is "worthless." See Wetst. on Mt. vii. 18. A rotten 
tree would produce no fruit ; and fishes just caught would not be putrid (Mt. 
xiii. 4S). In both places the secondary meaning is required. 

44. The unreformed can no more reform others than thorns 
and briars can produce figs and grapes. It is by their fruits that 
each comes to be known (yivwo-KeTcu). The identification of the 
many Hebrew words which denote thorny shrubs is a hopeless 
task. Neither the originals nor their Greek representatives can be 
satisfactorily determined (Groser, Trees and Plants of the Bible, 
p. 172). Elsewhere in N.T. /fo'ros is used of the burning bush 
(xx. 37 ; Acts vii. 30, 35 ; Mk. xii. 26 ; Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4) : in Horn, 
it is a "thorn-bush, bramble" (Od. xxiv. 230). The verb rpvyaw 
is specially used of the vintage (Rev. xiv. 18, 19 ; Lev. xix. 10, 
xxv. 5, 11 j Deut. xxiv. 21). Comp. the similar sayings Jas. iii. 

II, 12, which are probably echoes of Christ's teaching as remem- 
bered by the Lord's brother. 

45. This forms a link with the next section. When men are 
natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth 
sometimes professes what the heart does not feel. 

46-49. The Judgments which await the Members of the King- 
dom. The Sanction or Warning. Mt. vii. 13-27. This is some- 
times called the Epilogue or the Peroration : but it is not a mere 
summing up. It sets forth the consequences of following, and the 
consequences of not following, what has been enjoined. 

46. The question here asked may be addressed to all dis- 
ciples, none of whom are perfect. The inconsistency of calHng 
Him Lord and yet failing in obedience to Him was found even 
in Apostles. What follows shows that the question applies to 
the whole of Christian conduct. Of the four parables in the latter 
half of the sermon, the first two (the blind leading the blind ; the 
mote and the beam) have special reference to the work of correct- 
ing others ; the third (the good and bad trees) may be either 
special or general ; while the fourth (the wise and foolish builders) 
is quite general. With Kvpic comp. xiii. 25; Mt. xxv. 11, 12; 
Jas. i. 22, 26. 

47. For iras 6 epx<Veeos see small print on i. 66, and foi 
oTro8ei|w see on iii. 7 and Fritzsche on Mt. iii. 7. 

48. i(TKa\\iev kcu ifi&Quvev ical !9t|K€i/ Gejxc'Xioy. "He dug and 
went deep (not a hendiadys for ' dug deep ') and laid a founda- 
tion." The whole of this graphic description is peculiar to Lk. 


Robinson stayed in a new house at Nazareth, the owner of which 
had dug down for thirty feet in order to build upon rock {Res. in 
Pal. ii. p. 338). The parables in Mt. and Lk. are so far identical 
that in both the two builders desire to have their houses near a 
water-course, water in Palestine being very precious. In Mt. they 
build on different places, the one on the rock and the other on 
the sand, such as is often found in large level tracts by a dry 
water-course. Nothing is said about the wise builder digging 
through the sand till he comes to rock. Each finds what seems 
to him a good site ready to hand. 

ir\T]fjifiupT]s. " A flood," whether from a river or a sea : and 
hence a flood of troubles and the like. See Jos. A fit. ii. 10. 2 
and examples in Wetst. Here only in N.T., and in LXX only 
Job xl. 18 (23). 

ouk Xoyyazv. " Had not strength to." The expression is a 
favourite one with Lk. (viii. 43, xiii. 24, xiv. 6, 29, xvi. 3, xx. 26; 
Acts vi. 10, xv. 10, xix. 16, 20, xxv. 7, xxvii. 16). For o-aXeuo-cti 
comp. vii. 24, xxi. 26 ; Acts ii. 25 fr. Fs. xv. 8, iv. 31 : freq. in LXX. 

81a to KaXdn; oiKoSojiTJcrGai aiTrjv. This is certainly the true reading 
(N B L 2 33 157, Boh. Syr-Harcl. marg.). The common reading, T*0e/j.e\luro 
yap iwl tt]v irirpav (A C D X etc. ; Latt. Syrr. Goth. Arm.), is obviously 
taken from Mt. The Ethiopic combines the two readings. Syr-Sin. omits. 

49. t] -rrpoae'pT^ei' 6 TroTafxos- Lk. gives only the main incident, 
the river, created by the rain, smiting the house. But Mt. is much 
more graphic : Karefir] t; fipoxv Kat r]X8ov ol TTOTa/xol Kal <LTrvtv<rai> 
01 ave/AOt Kal irpocreKoif/av Trj ouaa sKewy. 

cTUkeTreaey. " It fell in," i.e. the whole fell together in a heap : 
much more expressive than cTreaev, which some texts (A C) here 
borrow from Mt. 

eye'vcTO to prj-yfia. To harmonize with irpocrepr]£ev. This use of 
prryp.a for "ruin" (so first in Rhem.) seems to be without example. 
In class. Grk. it is used of bodily fractures or ruptures, and also of 
clothes; so also in 1 Kings xi. 30, 31 ; 2 Kings ii. 12. But Amos 

vi. 1 1 of rents in a building, Trara^ei tov oXkov tov /xeyav 0Xa.o-p.auiv, 

kol tov olkov tov fiLKpov pd.yp.acnv. Hobart contrasts the fipoxv, 
TrpoaeKOij/av, £7recrev, and 7rrcocris of Mt. with the Tr\r}p./j.vpa, Trpoaep- 
p-qiiv, crvvtTrecrev, and priyp-a. of Lk., and contends that the latter 
four belong to medical phraseology (pp. 55, 56). 

The p-eya, like p^ydX-q in Mt., comes last with emphasis. 
Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, 
produce disastrous ruin. The KzLrai cis 7n-wo-iv (ii. 34) is fulfilled. 
The audience are left with the crash of the unreal disciple's house 
sounding in their ears. 

Similar Rabbinical sayings are quoted, but as coming from persons who lived 
after a.d. 100, by which time Christ's teaching had filtered into both Tewisb 


and pagan thought. " Whosesoever wisdom is above his works, to what is he 
like ? To a tree whose branches are many and its roots few. Then the wind 
cometh and rooteth it up and turneth it over. And, whosesoever works are 
above his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few and 
its roots many. Though all the winds come upon it, they move it not from its 
place" (Afishna, Pirqe aboth, III. xxvii. ). And again, "To whom is he 
like, that with many merits uniteth great wisdom? To him who first layeth 
granite blocks and then bricks. Though ever so mighty floods wash round the 
building, yet they cannot make it give way. But to whom is he like, who 
knoweth much and fulfilleth little ? To him who layeth the foundation with 
bricks, which are disturbed by the least water {Aboth R. Nathan, xxiii.). See 
Edersh. L. 6^ T. i. p. 540 ; Nicholson on Mt. vii. 24. 

VII. 1. The division of the chapters is misleading. This 
verse forms the conclusion of the preceding narrative quite in 
Lk.'s manner. Comp. iv. 30, 37, 44, v. n, 16, 26, vi. 11, etc. 
It is not the introduction to what follows, for Jesus must have 
been in Capernaum some time before the centurion heard about 
Him. Lk. says nothing about the impression which the discourse 
made upon the people (Mt. vii. 28), or about their following Him 
(Mt. viii. 1). 

'EirtiSr) lirX^pwo-ev ttavra Ta pi^piaTa civtov. This is the only place in 
N.T. in which iireidr) is used in the temporal sense of "after that, when 
now." Hence "Eirel 54 is found in many texts. K has 'Eireidri 84, while D 
has Kal iyivtro ore. In the causal sense of " since, seeing that," iireiSJi 
occurs only in Lk. and Paul (xi. 6 ; Acts xiii. 46, xiv. 12, xv. 24 ; 1 Cor. 
i. 21, 22, xiv. 16, xv. 21). See Ellicott on Phil. ii. 26. For itrXripuce, 
" completed," so that no more remained to be said, comp. Acts xii. 25, 
xiii. 25, xiv. 26, xix. 21. 

cU Tas aKoas tov Xaov. The els marks the direction of what was said : 
comp. i. 44, iv. 44 ; Acts xi. 22, xvii. 20. Both in bibl. Grk. and in class. 
Grk. C1K07J has three senses. 1. "The thing heard, report" (1 Sam. ii. 24; 
I Kings ii. 28; Jn. xii. 38; Rom. x. 16). 2. "The sense of hearing" 
(2 Sam. xxii. 45 ; Job xiii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 17 ; 2 Pet. ii. 8). 3. " The ear " 
(Mk. vii. 35 ; Heb. v. 11 ; 2 Mac. xv. 39). 

2-10. The healing of the Centurion's Servant at Capernaum. 
Mt. viii. 5-13. Mt. places the healing of the leper (Lk. v. 12-14) 
between the Sermon on the Mount and the healing of the cen- 
turion's slave. This centurion was a heathen by birth (ver 9), and 
was probably in the service of Antipas. He had become in some 
degree attracted to Judaism (ver. 5), and was an illustration of the 
great truth which Lk. delights to exhibit, that Gentile and Jew 
alike share in the blessings of the kingdom. The anima naturaliter 
Christiana of the man is seen in his affection for his slave. 

2. TjfjLeXXey TeXeuTac. "Was on the point of dying," and would 
have done so but for this intervention (Acts xii. 6, xvi. 27, etc.). 
Burton, § 73. For Imjios, "held in honour, held dear," comp. 
xiv. 8; Phil. ii. 2Q ; 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; Is. xxviii. 16. The fact 
explains why this deputation of elders came. 


3. dTTe'crTciXee rrpos cxutoc 7Tp€cjJ3uT€'pou9. These elders (no 

article) would be leading citizens ; but they need not be identified 
with the apxivvvdyuyot. (viii. 49, xiii. 14 ; Acts xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17), 
as Godet formerly advocated. The compound Siacrw^eu', " to 
bring safe through," is almost peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts 
xxiii. 24, xxvii. 43, 44, xxviii. 1, 4 ; Mt. xiv. 36 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20). 

4. ot 8e •n-apayecofiei'oi. A favourite verb (ver. 20, viii. 19, 
xi. 6, xii. 51, xiv. 21, xix. 16, xxii. 52; and about twenty times in 
Acts) : elsewhere in N.T. eight or nine times, but very freq. in 

a£i<5s Io-tiv w irape'^xi tovto. " He is worthy that Thou shouldest do 
this for him " ; 2 sing. fut. mid. The reading vap^ei (G T A) is 3 sing. fut. 
act. and must not be taken as analogous to the exceptional forms oht, 6\pti, 
and /SotfXei. But beyond doubt irap^-Q (SABCDRS etc.) is the correct 

5. dya-rra yap t6 Z§vo% T]fAwi\ This would hardly be said of one 
who was actually a proselyte. He had learned to admire and 
respect the pure worship of the Jews and to feel affection for the 
people who practised it. This would be all the more likely if he 
were in the service of the Herods rather than that of heathen 
Rome. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 366. 

tt]v CTu^ayuyTji' aoTos <J>Ko86jir)o-ey " At his own expense he 
built us our synagogue," the one which we have ; not " a syna- 
gogue " (AV.). Had Capernaum only one synagogue ? 

If Tell HAm represents Capernaum, and if the ruins of the synagogue there 
are from a building of this date, they show with what liberality this centurion 
had carried out his pious work. But it is doubtful whether the excellent work 
exhibited in these ruins is quite so early as the first century. The centurions 
appear in a favourable light in N.T. (xxiii. 47; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 
23, 24, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 43). Roman organization produced, and was maintained 
by, excellent individuals, who were a blessing to others and themselves. As 
Philo says, after praising Petronius the governor of Syria, rots hi d.ya.Qol.% dyadas 
vwrixtiv Hones yvw/ias 6 0eds 6Y cSe wcpeXovvres dxpeX-qdriffovrat. {Leg. ad Caium, 
p. 1027, ed. Gelen.). Augustus had recognized the value of synagogues in 
maintaining order and morality. Hastings, D.C.G. art. "Capernaum." 

6. ou (icucpaV. Comp, Acts xvii. 27. The expression is 
peculiar to Lk., who is fond of ou with an adj. or adv. to express 
his meaning. Comp. ov ttoXXoi (xv. 13 ; Acts i. 5), ov tro\v (Acts 
xxvii. 14), ovk oXt'yos (Acts xii. 18, xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvii. 4, 12, 
xix. 23, 24, xxvii. 20), ovk 6 tvx^v (Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2), ovk 
ao-Tjfxo*? (Acts xxi. 39), ov /A€Tpt<Ds (Acts xx. 12). 

c-rrepuj/ei' 4>i\ou9. Comp. xv. 6, Acts x. 24. Mt. says nothing about 
either of these deputations, but puts the message of both into the 
mouth of the centurion himself, who comes in person. In Lk. the 
man's humility and faith prevail over his anxiety as soon as he sees 
that the first deputation has succeeded, and that the great Rabbi 


and Prophet is really coming to him. Therefore he sends the 
second deputation to say that he is not worthy of a visit, and that 
the visit is not necessary. 

Kupie, fit) (tku'Mou. "Lord, cease to trouble Thyself." The 
verb is a marked instance of the tendency of words to become 
weaker in meaning: o-kv'AAco (o-kvXov, xi. 22) is 1. "flay"; 2. 
"mangle"; 3. "vex, annoy" (viii. 49; Mk. v. 35; Mt. ix. 36). 
See Expositor, 1st series, 1876, iv. pp. 30, 31. What follows 
seems to show that the centurion was not a proselyte. The house 
of a Gentile was polluting to a Jew ; and therefore oi yap ucavos 
d/xi, k.t.A., is quite in point if he was still a heathen. But it 'is 
rather strong language if he had ceased to be a heathen. For <W 
after i/cai'o's see Burton, §216. 

7. eiire Xoyw, kou laG^TW 6 ttcus jaou. Lit. "Say with a word, 
and let my servant be healed." The word is to be the instrument 
with which the healing is to take place, instead of Jesus' coming in 
person: comp. Acts ii. 40 and Gal. vi. n. There is no doubt 
that 6 7rcus fiov means " my servant." This use is found in N.T. 
(xii. 45, xv. 26; Mt. viii. 6, 8, 13), and is very freq. in LXX and in 
class. Grk. 

It has been contended that in Mt. viii. 6, 8, 13 iraU must mean "son," 
because the centurion calls his servant SoCXos in ver. 9 : as if it were improbable 
that a person in the same conversation should speak sometimes of his " servant " 
and sometimes of his "boy." In both narratives 7ra?s and 5ov\os are used as 
synonyms ; and it is gratuitous to suppose that in using SoOXos Lk. has misin- 
terpreted the irais in the source which he employed. Comp. xv. 22, 26. Here 
6 7rcus fiov is more affectionate than 6 5oOA6s /j.ov would have been. 

8. iyio avQpoiiros elfii uir6 e|ou(r(.aK Tao-CTOjiecos. The tlfxi 
must not be united with Tao-o-o/xcvos and made the equivalent of : Tacro-o/xcvos is adjectival. Thus, " For I am a man who 
is habitually (pres. part.) placed under authority." But, "For I 
am an ordinary person (avQpuTros), and a person in a dependent 
position " is rather an exaggeration of the Greek. Comp. iirb rrjv 

toC /Sao-iAc'ws i^ovaiav irzaziv (2 Mac. hi. 6). The kcu yap shows 

the intimate connexion with what precedes, etxe Xoyw /cat laQryvm : 
see on vi. 32. " I know from personal experience what a word 
from one in authority can do. A word from my superiors secures 
my obedience, and a word from me secures the obedience of my 
subordinates. Thou, who art under no man, and hast authority 
over unseen powers, hast only to say a word and the sickness is 
healed." Perhaps avOpuTros hints that Jesus is superhuman. 
Evidently v-n-b i$ovatav rao-cro/Aevos means that, if an inferior can 
give effective orders, much more can a superior do so. It is the 
certainty of the result without personal presence that is the point. 

9. 6 'irjcrous eGau'fiacrei' auTov. This is stated in both narratives. 
Comp. Mk. vi. 6. Those who are unwilling to admit any limita- 


tions in Christ's knowledge have to explain how wonder is com- 
patible with omniscience. One limitation is clearly told us by 
Himself (Mk. xiii. 32); so that the only question is how far such 
limitations extend. See on ii. 46, 52, and xvii. 14. Note the 
solemn Ae'yw ufAie, and comp. ver. 28, x. 12, 24, xi. 8, 9, 51, etc. 

ouSe iv tw 'icrparjX TOCTaurrp' monk eupof. This again points to 
the centurion being still a heathen. Nowhere among the Jews had 
He found any one willing to believe that He could heal without 
being present. It is natural that Lk. should express this preference 
for a Gentile more strongly than Mt., who has Trap ov&evl Toaavr-qv 
iridTiv iv tw 'la-par]\ evpov. Lk. here omits the remarkable passage 
Mt. viii. 11, 12; but he gives it in quite a different connexion 
xiii. 28, 29. Such teaching, so necessary and so unwelcome to the 
Jews, may easily have been repeated. 

10. uirooTpe'^arres. See on i. 56 and iv. 14. Lk.'s uyiaikoira is 
stronger than the IdOrj of Mt. The servant was not only cured, but 
"in good health." Non modo sanum, sed sanitate utentem (Beng.) 
Hobart remarks that Lk. " is the only N.T. writer who uses vyiaiWv 
in this its primary sense, ' to be in sound health,' with the exception 
of S. John, 3 Ep. 2. For this meaning it is the regular word in 
the medical writers" (p. 10). See on v. 31 and comp. xv. 27. 
Here and v. 31 Vulg. has sanus ; in xv. 27, salvus. 

The identification of this miracle with that of the healing of the son of the 
royal official (/Sa<ri\i/c6s) in Jn. iv. is not probable : it involves an amount of 
misinformation or carelessness on one side or the other which would be very 
startling. Irenseus seems to be in favour of it ; but " centurion " with him may 
be a slip of memory or a misinterpretation of /3acnXt/c6s. Origen and Chrysostom 
contend against the identification. Is there any difficulty in supposing that on 
more than one occasion Jesus healed without being present ? The difficulty is 
to explain one such instance, without admitting the possession of supernatural 
powers : this Strauss has shown, and the efforts of Keim and Schenkel to 
explain it by a combination of moral and psychical causes are not satisfying. 
There is no parallel to it in O.T., for (as Keim points out) the healing of 
Naaman is not really analogous. 

11-17. § The Raising of the Widow's Son at Nain. Because 
Lk. alone records it, its historical character has been questioned. 
But there were multitudes of miracles wrought by Christ which 
have never been recorded in detail at all (iv. 23, 40, 41, vi. 18, 19; 
Jn. ii. 23, iv. 45, vii. 31, xii. 37, xx. 30, xxi. 25), and among these, 
as ver. 22 shows, were cases of raising the dead. We must not 
attribute to the Evangelists the modern way of regarding the raising 
of the dead as a miracle so amazing, because so difficult to perform, 
that every real instance would necessarily become widely known, 
and would certainly be recorded by every writer who had knowledge 
of it. To a Jew it would be hardly more marvellous than the heal- 
ing of a leper ; and to one who believes in miracles at all, dis- 
tinctions as to difficulty are unmeaning. It is not unreasonable to 


suppose, either that this event never came to the knowledge of the 
other Evangelists, or that, although they knew of it, they did not 
see the necessity for recording it. It is worth noting that nearly all 
recorded instances of raising the dead were performed for women 
(i Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36; Jn. xi. 22, 32; Acts ix. 41; 
Heb. xi. 35). 

11. iv rtS !£t}s. It is not easy to decide between the reading iv t$ i!-f)t, 
sc. XP^V (A B R), and iv rrj e^j, sc. r)/J.ipa (N C D). On the one hand, Lk. 
elsewhere, when he writes iv tQ, has Kadd-ijs (viii. 1) ; on the other, when he 
writes rrj e£rjs, he does not prefix iv (ix. 37 ; Acts xxi. 1, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18). 
The less definite would be more likely to be changed to the more definite than 
vice versa. Thus the balance both of external and internal evidence is in 
favour of iv t£ i^ijs, and we must not limit the interval between the miracles 
to a single day. In N.T. i£ ijs is peculiar to Lk. (ix. 37 ; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, 
xxvii. 18). So also is dis fjyyiaev (?'. 12, xv. 25, xix. 20, &t). 

Natv. The place is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture ; and 
the village of that name in Josephus {B.J. iv. 9. 4) is on the other 
side of the Jordan, and cannot be the same. D.C.G. art. " Nain." 

A hamlet called Nein was found by Robinson about two miles west of 
Endor, on the north slope of Little Hermon, which is where Eusebius and 
Jerome place it ; and it would be about a day's journey from Capernaum. 
" One entrance alone it could have had, that which opens on the rough hillside 
in its downward slope to the plain" (Stanley, Sin. &* Pal. p. 357) ; so that the 
very path on which the two companies met can be identified. About ten 
minutes' walk on the road to Endor is a burying-place which is still used, and 
there are many tombs cut in the rock. Robinson, Pal. iii. p. 469 ; Bibl. Res. 
ii. 361 ; Thomson, Land cV Book, p. 445 ; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 127. 
The expression, ir6\tv KaXovfiivriv Natv, looks as if Lk. were writing for those 
who were not familiar with the country ; comp. i. 26, 39, iv. 31. See on vi. 15. 

01 fia0r]Tai auToG. Including more than the Twelve; vi. 13. 
See on xi. 29. 

12. Kal l8ou e£eKojju'£€To tcOi'tjkojs. " Behold there was being 
carried out a dead man." Or, " there was being carried out dead 
the only son," etc. The /ecu introduces the apodosis of «Ls 8e 
77-yyio-e, and must be omitted in translation : " then " would be too 
strong. See on v. 12. The compound verb occurs here only in 
N.T. and nowhere in LXX. It is equivalent to e*c/>epeiv (Acts v. 
6, 9, 10) and efferre, and is used of carrying out to burial, Polyb. 
xxxv. 6.2; Plut. Agis, xxi. ; Cic. xlii. In later Gk. tKKOjxihr) is 
used for iK<popd of burial. With TecV^KcJs comp. Jn. xi. 44. 

jxoyoyci'ris ulds ttj jrnTpi aoTou. Comp. viii. 42, ix. 38 ; Heb. 
xi. 17; Judg. xi. 34; Tobit iii. 15, viii. 17. Only in Jn. is /xovoyevrjs 
used of the Divine Sonship (i. 14, 18, iii. 16, 18; 1 Jn. iv. 9). 

Kal ovtt) rjv x^P a * The fjv may safely be pronounced to be certainly 
genuine (SBCLSVS and most Versions). For o.vri\ some editors write 
avrrj, and a few authorities have Kal avrjj x^iPf- The mourning of a widow 
for an only son is typical for the extremity of grief : orba cum flet unicum 


mater (Catull. xxxix. 5). Comp. Jer. vi. 26 ; Amos viii. 10 ; Zech. xii. 10 ; 
Prov. iv. 3. 

SxXos tt]s iroXew? iKai/6s. Some of this multitude would be hired 
mourners, and musicians with flutes and cymbals. The mother 
would walk in front of the bier, and Jesus would naturally address 
her before touching it. This use of ikovo's for "enough and to 
spare, much," is specially freq. in Lk. (viii. 27, 32, xx. 9, xxii. 38, 
xxiii. 8, 9; Acts viii. 11, ix. 23, 43, xi. 24, 26, etc.). It is possibly 
colloquial : it occurs in Aristoph. Pax 354. See Kennedy, Sources 
of N.T. Grk. p. 79. D here has 77-oAus. 

13. kcu \%uv auTTjc 6 Ku'pios ecnrXayx»'to'0'r| eir* a3rjj. The introduc- 
tion of 6 Kv/hos has special point here : it is the Lord of Life meet- 
ing sorrow and death. The expression is characteristic of Lk. 
Comp. xxiv. 34, and see on v. 17. Compassion is elsewhere men- 
tioned as a moving cause in Christ's miracles (Mt. xiv. 14, xv. 32, 
xx. 34 ; Mk. i. 41, viii. 2). The verb is peculiar to the Synoptists ; 
and, excepting in parables (Lk. x. 33, xv. 20; Mt. xviii. 27), is 
used of no one but Christ. It is followed, as here, by hti c. dat. 
Mt. xiv. 14; and by irepi c. gen. Mt. ix. 36; but generally by 
c7ti c. ace. (Mt. xv. 32; Mk. vi. 34, viii. 2, ix. 22). 

Mt) kXcuc. " Do not go on weeping, cease to weep " : comp. 
ver. 6. He is absolutely sure of the result ; otherwise the command 
would have been unnatural. Qui's matrem, nisi mentis inops, in 
funere nati Flere vetat ? 

14. -rjiJ/aTO -rf)S (Topou, 01 8e |3aoTd£oeT€S €<m\<rav. Lk. clearly 
intimates that the purpose of the touching was to make the bearers 
stand still. At such solemn times words are avoided, and this 
quiet sign sufficed. Perhaps it also meant that Jesus claimed as 
His own what Death had seized as his prey. Lk. equally clearly 
intimates that the resurrection was caused by Christ's command. 
This is the case in all three instances of raising the dead (viii. 54 ; 
Jn. xi. 43). The o-opo's may be either the bier on which the body 
was carried, or the open coffin (probably wicker) in which it was 
laid (Gen. 1. 26; Hdt. i. 68. 3, ii. 78. 1). 

It is worth noting that fiacrTdfriv, which occurs twenty-seven times in 
N.T. (x. 4, xi. 27, xiv. 27, xxii. 10, etc), is found only thrice in LXX- 

ao\ Xe'yw. " To thee I say, Arise." To the mother He had said, 
11 Weep not." The o-ot is emphatic. For this use of Xiyw, almost 
in the sense of " I command," comp. xi. 9, xii. 4, xvi. 9. 

15. deeitriGiCTei' 6 yeKpos. The verb occurs only here and Acts 
ix. 40 in N.T. ; in both cases of persons restored to life and sitting 
up. Not in LXX. In this intrans. sense it is rare, excepting in 
medical writers, who often use it of sick persons sitting up in bed 
(Hobart, p. n). The speaking proved complete restoration. 


To suggest that the young man was in a trance does not get rid of the 
miracle. How did Jesus know that he was in a trance, and know exactly how 
to rouse him ? And can we suppose that this happened on three different occa- 
sions, even if we could reconcile Christ's action with a character for truthfulness? 
Here and in the case of Jairus' daughter it is the Evangelist who tells us that the 
person was dead ; but Jesus Himself declared that Lazarus was dead (Jn. xi. 14). 
We are told that the symmetry of the three instances is suspicious ; raised from 
the death-bed, raised from the bier, raised from the tomb. But no Evangelist 
gives us the triplet. Lk. is the only writer who records more than one, and the 
two which he records he places in unsymmetrical order, the raising from the bier 
coming before the raising from the death-bed. Strauss has shown how unsatis- 
factory the trance theory is (Leben Jesn, ed. 1864, p. 469). 

eSwKCf auToi/ rrj (xr|Tpt. The sudden change of nominative 
causes no obscurity. Comp. xiv. 5, xv. 15, xvii. 2, xix. 4 ; Acts vi. 
6, x. 4. Jesus might have claimed the life which He has restored, 
nam juvenis jam desierat esse matris sutz ; but compassion for the 
mother again influences Him. Comp. viii. 55; Acts ix. 41 ; 1 Mac. 
x. 9 ; 1 Kings xvii. 2352 Kings iv. 36. 

16. "EXafiec 8s $6$o<s irdi'Tas. It is natural that this should be 
the first feeling on seeing a corpse reanimated. But a writer of 
fiction would rather have given us the frantic joy of the mother 
and of those who sympathized with her. Comp. i. 65, v. 8, 26, 
viii. 37 ; Acts ii. 43, xix. 17. See on i. 12, and also Schanz, ad loc. 

Xiyorres on . . . ica! on. It is very forced to make on in 
both cases argumentative : " Saying, (We praise God) because 
. . . and because." It is possible to take the second on in this 
way ; but the common method of making both to be recitative is 
preferable. Both, therefore, are to be omitted in translation, the 
words quoted being in the oratio recta (Tyn. Cran. Cov. RV.). 
Cases in which on may be taken either way are freq. in N.T. 
(i. 45, ii. 11, iv. 36, vii. 39, ix. 22, x. 21, xi. 38, xxii. 70 ; 1 Jn. ii. 
12-14, etc.). 

'Erreo-KevJ/aTO 6 0e6s t6v \abv auTOu. Comp. i. 68, 78 ; Acts xv. 
14 ; Heb. ii. 6. The verb was specially used of the "visits" of a 
physician. Comp. Mt. xxv. 36, 43 ; Jas. i. 27 ; Acts vi. 3, vii. 23, 
xv. 36, the only other passages in N.T. in which the word occurs. 
In the sense of visiting with judgment or punishment it is never 
used in N.T. and but seldom in LXX (Ps. lxxxviii. 33 ; Jer. ix. 9, 
25, xi. 22, li. 29). After the weary centuries during which no 
Prophet had appeared, it was indeed a proof of Jehovah's visiting 
His people that one who excelled the greatest Prophets was among 
them. No one in O.T. raised the dead with a word. 

17. e£fj\0ee 6 Xoyos outos iv oXtj ttj Mouocua irepl auTOu. The 
Xo'yos is the one just mentioned, — that God had visited His people 
in sending a mighty Prophet. The statement does not imply that 
Lk. supposed Nain to be in Judaea. 'IouSata here probably means 
Palestine : see on iv. 44 and xxiii. 5. But even if we take it in the 


narrower sense of Judaea as distinct from Galilee, Samaria, and 
Peraea, there is no need to attribute to Lk. any geographical in- 
accuracy. "This saying went forth (from Nain and circulated) 
in Judaea"; i.e. it reached the headquarters of Christ's opponents. 
For irep! auTou comp. v. 1 5. Syr-Sin. omits 6 Aoyos. 

This pregnant use of a prep, of rest after a verb of motion is perhaps 
found only in late Grk., for in Thuc. iv. 42. 3 and Xen. Hellen. vii. 5. 10 the 
readings vary between air-Qtaav and air^aav. Comp. viii. 7, and see Win. 1. 
4. a, p. 514; Blass, Gr. p. 127. 

Kal ttcictt] ttj irepixoapw. Note the position of this clause, which 
is added after 7repi airov with augmented force : " and (what is 
more) in all the region round about " ; i.e. round about 'IouoWa, 
not Nain. Comp. Acts xiv. 6. The verse prepares the way for 
the next incident by showing how the Baptist's disciples came to 
hear about " all these things." 

The evidence th&t Jesus raised the dead is that of all four Gospels and of 
primitive tradition. The fact seems to have been universally believed in the 
early Church (Justin, Apol. i. 22. 48; Try. lxix. ; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 48). 
Quadratus, one of the earliest apologists, who addressed a defence of Christianity 
to Hadrian a.d. 125, says in the only fragment of it which is extant, " But the 
works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true ; those that were 
healed and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when 
they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present ; and 
not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His departure, they 
were there for a considerable time, so that some of them lived even to our own 
times " (Eus. H. E. iv. 3. 2). This does not mean that Quadratus had seen 
any of them, but that there was abundance of opportunity, long after the event, 
to inquire into the reality of these miracles. S. Taul uses the same kind of 
argument respecting the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Weiss points 
out how unsatisfactory are all the attempts to explain the evidence on any 
other hypothesis than the historical fact that Jesus raised the dead (Leben Jesu, 
i. pp. 557-565, Eng. tr. ii. 178-186). He concludes thus : " In no other 
miracle did the grace of God, which appeared in His Messiah, manifest itself so 
gloriously, by overcoming the consequences of sin and thereby giving a pledge 
for the highest consummation of salvation." See Aug. In Joh. Trac. xlix. 2. 

18-35. The message from the Baptist to the Christ. Peculiar 
to Lk. and Mt, who place it in different connexions, but assign to 
it the same occasion, viz. that John had " heard in his prison the 
works of the Christ "(Mt. xi. 2). Lk.'s narrative, as usual, is the 
more full. He does not mention that John is in prison, having 
already stated the fact by anticipation (iii. 20). The 7T£pt iravrtov 
Tovroiv shows that the works reported to the Baptist include the 
healing of the centurion's servant and the raising of the widow's son 

irpos tov Kvptov. This is probably the true reading (B L R X, a fi 2 Vulg. ) 
rather than irpbs Tov'lr}<jodv (XAXT, bcf). See on ver. 13. 

19. lu e! 6 epxofieeos; "Art Thou (in emphatic contrast to 
Irepov) He that cometh," i.e. whose coming is a matter of quite 
notorious certainty (iii. 16, xiii. 35, xix. 38; Heb. x. 37). 


tj eTcpc^ •n-pocrSoKcofiei'; " Or must we look for another, different 
in kind ? " whereas aAXov might be another of the same kind (Lft. 
on Gal. i. 6, 7). The reading 'irepov (xBLRXE)is right, and is 
not taken from Mt. It is aXXov (A D) that is the corruption. 
For the delib. subj. comp. iii. 10, 12, 14. See on iii. 15. 

The meaning of the question thus sent to Christ has been 
much discussed. 1. Chrysostom and other Fathers have sug- 
gested that the question was asked for the sake of John's disciples, 
who needed strengthening or correcting in their beliefs. See 
Oxford Library of the Fathers, x. p. 267, note e. Luther, Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others adopt this view. But the whole 
context is against it. Christ's reply is addressed to John, not to 
the disciples; and it is not clear that the disciples even under- 
stood the message which they carried. 2. Weiss and other critics 
follow Tertullian (Marcion. iv. 18) in contending that /ohn's own 
faith was failing, because the career of Jesus did not seem to 
correspond with what he and the people had expected, and with 
what he had foretold (iii. 17). There is nothing incredible in this 
view ; but the Baptist had had such a long and stern preparation 
for his work, and had received such convincing evidence that Jesus 
was the Messiah, that a failure in his faith is surprising. 3. Hase 
and others suggest that he was not failing in faith, but in patience. 
John was disappointed that Jesus did not make more progress, 
and he wished to urge Him on to take a more prominent and 
indisputable position. " If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself 
unto the world." Perhaps John was also perplexed by the fact 
that one who could work such miracles did not set His forerunner 
free, nor " cleanse His threshing-floor " of such refuse as Antipas 
and Herodias. This view suits the context better than the second. 
John's sending to Jesus is strong evidence that he was not seriously 
in doubt as to His Messiahship. For a false Christ would not 
have confessed that he was false ; and what proof could the true 
Christ give more convincing than the voice from heaven and the 
visible descent of the Spirit ? 4. The view of Strauss, that John 
had just begun to conjecture that Jesus is the Messiah, and that 
therefore this narrative is fatal to the story of his having baptized 
Jesus and proclaimed Him as the Messiah, is answered by 
Hase (Gesch. Jesn, § 39, p. 388, ed. 1891). See also Hahn, i. 

P- 475- 

21. 0cpaireu€ii' diro. See on v. 15 : it is peculiar to Lk. 

(jtaaTiywi'. "Distressing bodily diseases"; Mk. iii. 10, v. 29, 

34. In LXX it is used of any grievous trouble, but not specially 

of disease: Ps. xxxv. 15, lxxxviii. 32; Ecclus. xl. 9?; 2 Mac. vii. 

37 : comp. Horn. II. xii. 37, xiii. 812 ; Aesch. Sept. 607 ; Ag. 642 

The notion that troubles are Divine chastisements is implied in 

the word. It is used literally Acts xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. 


exapio-a-ro. " He graciously bestowed, made a free present 
of"; magnificum verbum (Beng.) ; comp. 2 Mac. iii. 31. 

22. dTTayyeiXaTe 'IwdVei. See on viii. 20. The answer is ex- 
pressly sent to John : there is no intimation that it is for the in- 
struction of his disciples, who are sent back, " like the messenger 
from Gabii to Sextus Tarquinius," to relate a symbolical narrative, 
which their master is to interpret. That they can understand it is 
neither stated nor implied. 

tu<}>\o! dvapXe'-n-ouo-ii', k.t.X. There is probably a direct reference 
to Is. xxxv. 5, 6, lxi. 1. It is clear, not only that Lk. and Mt. 
understand Jesus to refer to bodily and not spiritual healings, but 
that they are right in doing so. John's messengers had not " seen 
and heard" Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally 
leprous. Moreover, what need to add tttwxoI €vayyeAi£on-ai, if all 
that precedes refers to the preaching of the good tidings ? It is 
unnatural to express the same fact, first by a series of metaphors, 
and then literally. All the clauses should be taken literally. They 
seem to be arranged in two groups, which are connected by km, 
and in each group there is a climax, the strongest item of evidence 
being placed last. 

irrwxoi euayyeXttorrai. This was the clearest sign of His being 
the Christ (Is. lxi. 1), as He Himself had declared at Nazareth (iv. 
18-21). His miracles need not mean more than that He was "a 
great Prophet " ; moreover, the Baptist had already heard of them. 
But it was a new thing that the poor, whom the Greek despised 
and the Roman trampled on, and whom the priest and the Levite 
left on one side, should be invited into the Kingdom of God (vi. 
20). For the passive sense of evayyeXi&o-Oai comp. Heb. iv. 2, 6, 
and see Win. xxxix. 1. a, p. 326, and Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 4. For 
(vayyiWcov see on Rom. i. 1. 

23. (jiaKcipios. Not fj.aKu.pioi, as it would have been if the 
direct reference were to the disciples of John. It implies that 
the Baptist had in some way found an occasion of stumbling in 
Jesus (i.e. he had been wanting in faith, or in trust, or in patience) ; 
and it also encourages him to overcome this temptation. 

CTKawSaXiaSfj. Only here and xvii. 2 in Lk., but frequent in 
Mt. and Mk. The verb combines the notions of " trip up " and 
" entrap," and in N.T. is always used in the figurative sense of 
"causing to sin." See on xvii. 1. This record of a rebuke to the 
Baptist is one of many instances of the candour of the Evangelists. 
For 6s edV see Greg. Proleg. p. 96, and Win. xli. 6, p. 390 ; this 
use of iav for dV is common in LXX and N.T. (xvii. 33 ? ; Mt. v. 
19, 32, xii. 32, xviii. 5 ; Jas. iv. 4). 

24. irep! 'ludeou. This is further evidence that the question and 
answer just recorded concerned John himself. The people had 
heard Jesus send a rebuke to the Baptist. But He forthwith 


guards them from supposing that John has ceased to be worthy of 
reverence. He waits till his disciples are gone ; because if they 
had heard and reported Christ's praise of John to their master, it 
might have cancelled the effect of the rebuke. This panegyric is 
almost the funeral oration of the Baptist ; for soon after this he 
was put to death. For rjp£a-ro see on iv. 21. 

Ti I^XOare. In each of the three questions it is possible to put the 
note of interrogation before the infinitive, and render, " Why went ye out? to 
behold ? " etc. But the order of the words favours the usual punctuation. 
Perhaps dedaaadai implies " behold" with wonder and admiration. 

KdiXap-of . . . aaXeuop.ei'oi'. The literal meaning makes ex- 
cellent sense : " Did you go out into the wilderness to admire 
what you would certainly find there, but which would have no 
interest or attraction ? Or did you go out to see what would no 
doubt have been interesting and attractive, but which you were 
not likely to find there ? " But it also makes good sense to in- 
terpret, " Had John been a weak and fickle person, you would 
not have made a pilgrimage to see him." 

25. avQptsjTvov iv jmaXaicoIs. Such a person would not be found 
in the wilderness ; although he might have attracted them. This 
seems to show that the Ka.Xap.ov is not metaphorical, for this is 
obviously literal. Hastings, D.C.G. art. " Reed." 

ol iv IpaTiapw cVSo'^w kcu Tpu(j>t) uirapxoi'Tes. " Those who live 
in gorgeous apparel and luxury." The word i/Acmcr/Mos is of late 
origin, and is seldom used excepting of costly vesture (ix. 29 ; 
Acts xx. 33 ; Jn. xix. 24 ; 1 Tim. ii. 9 ; Gen. xxiv. 53 ; Exod. iii. 
22, xii 35; 1 Kings x. 5). See Trench, Syn. 1. For eyoo£u> 
comp. xiii. 17, and for uTrdpxoeTes see on viii. 41. In N.T. rpvcprj 
occurs only here and 2 Pet. ii. 13; in LXX only as v. I. Lam. iv. 5. 
But it is freq. in class. Grk. It means an enervating mode of life 
(OfivTTTOfjLai, " I am broken up and enfeebled "). 

26. TTcpio-o-oTepoi' Trpo^rJTou. This completes the climax : xaAa- 
fiov, avOpuyirov, 7rpo<py]T7)v, TrcpicrcroTepov Trpocp-qrov. In irepio-croTepov 
we have a late equivalent of tt\£ov. It may be masc. or neut., 
but is probably neut., like 7rXciov in xi. 32. Comp. xii. 4, xx. 47. 
They went out to see something more than a Prophet, and they 
did see it. 

27. This quotation from Malachi (iii. 1) is given by Mk. at the 
opening of his Gospel coupled with <f>wi^] Pouirros, k.t.X., and 
attributed as a whole to Isaiah. Neither Heb. nor LXX has irpo 
Trpocrojirou ctou, which Mt. Mk. and Lk. all insert in the first clause. 
See on ix. 52. Moreover, they all three have airocniXX^ and 
KuracTK€uao-et instead of the l^aTTOCTiXXui and eViySAei/'eTai of LXX 
See on iv. 18. The passage was one of the common-places of 
Messianic prophecy, and had been stereotyped in an independent 
Greek form before the Evangelists made use of it. 


28. iv Y e,/nf ] T0 ^s YuraiKui>. A solemn periphrasis for the whole 
human race ; that it implies weakness and frailty is not evident : 
in Job xiv. i these qualities are expressed. It is human generation 
as distinct from heavenly regeneration that is meant. John's 
superiority lay, not in his personal character, but in his office and 
mission : the glory of being the immediate forerunner of the 
Messiah was unique. He was a Prophet, like Moses and Elijah ; 
yet he not only prophesied, but saw and pointed out to others 
Him of whom he prophesied. Lk. omits the Hebrew a^rfv. 

The word tt/xxj^tt/s is an interpolation. The external evidence against 
it is immense (xBKLMXS and most Versions), and it is improbable that 
the possibility of Prophets outside Israel would be indicated. 

6 Be jwcpoTepos. There is no need to make this a superlative, 
as AV. alone among English Versions : better, " he that is in- 
ferior," i.e. less than other members of the Kingdom, less than 
any among the more insignificant. It is most unnatural to explain 
6 /xi/cporepos of Christ. Chrysostom says, 7repi lavrov Xeywv ciko'tws 
KpvTTTet. to 7rpoo"W7rov Sia ttjv In /cpaTovcrav xnrovoiav koX ota to ftrf 
B6$ai Trepl eavrov jxiya ti Ae'yav (Horn, xxxvii. p. 417), and above 
he explains /UKpoVepos as Kara ttjv T/AiKiav kcu Kara tt)v twv 7roAAa>v 

8o'£av (p. 416). Much the same view is taken by Hilary, Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, Luther, Fritzsche, and others. In that case iv ttj 
ySacriAeia tov ®eov must be taken after //.et£wv, which is awkward ; 
and we can hardly suppose that Jesus would have so perplexed 
the people as to affirm that He was inferior to the Baptist, who in 
all his teaching had enthusiastically maintained the contrary (hi. 
16; Mt. iii. n ; ML i. 7 ; Jn. i. 15, 20, 27, 30, hi. 28-30). By 
his office John belonged to the old dispensation ; he was its last 
and highest product {major propheta, quia finis prophetarum), but 
he belonged to the era of preparation. In spiritual privileges, in 
grace, and in knowledge any even of the humbler members of the 
Kingdom are superior to him. He is a servant, they are sons ; he 
is the friend of the Bridegroom, they are His spouse. It is 
possible to understand 'Iwavov after /xt/cpoVepo?, but it is unnecessary: 
more probably the comparative refers to others in the Kingdom. 
The paradox, " He that is less than John is greater than John," is 
capable of interpretation ; but the principle that the lower members 
of a higher class are above the highest member of a lower class is 
simpler. The superlative of /xt/cpo? does not occur in N.T. 

29, 30. Many have supposed that these two verses are a 
parenthetical remark of the Evangelist. But a comment inserted 
in the middle of Christ's words, and with no indication that it is 
a comment, is without a parallel and improbable. Jn. iii. 16-21 
and 31-36 are not parallel. There the question is whether com- 
ment is added. In both passages it is probable that there is no 


comment. But, assuming that the Evangelist is in both cases 
commenting, he appends his comment : he does not insert it into 
the utterances of others. Here vv. 29 and 30 are part of Christ's 
address, who contrasts the effect which John's preaching had 
upon the people and upon the hierarchy (see Schanz). The con- 
nexion between ver. 30 and ver. 3 1 is close, as is shown by the ovv. 

29. Trds 6 Xaos axou'cras. " All the people, when they heard " the 
preaching of the Baptist. Note the 71-as, and see small print on i. 66. 

feSiKaiworay toc Oeov, Pa-rrrio-fleVTeg. " Admitted the righteous- 
ness of God (in making these claims upon them and granting them 
these opportunities) by being baptized." Their accepting baptism 
was an acknowledgment of His justice. See on ver. 35, and the 
detached note on the word oYraios and its cognates, Rom. i. 1 7. 

30. ol eofiiKoi. Lk. often uses this expression instead of o! 
ypaixfjuxTels, which might be misleading to Gentile readers (x. 25, 
xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3). Elsewhere in N.T. the word occurs only 
Mt. xxii. 35; Tit. ni. 9, 13. Comp. 4 Mac. v. 4; Corp. Inscr. 
2787, 8. Hastings, D.C.G. art. "Lawyer." 

■u\v pouXrjy tou 0eoo T\Ql-n\<Tav cis cauTous. "They frustrated 
the counsel of God concerning themselves " : comp. cis v/xas in 
1 Thes. v. 18. The rendering, "for themselves, so far as they 
were concerned, they rendered the counsel of God effectless," 
would require to cis iavrovs. The verb is a strong one : " render 
aOerov, placeless, inefficacious" (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15 ; Jn. xii. 48 ; Lk. 
x. 16). Free will enables each man to annul God's purpose for 
his salvation. The phrase ttjv PouXtji' tou Gcou is peculiar to Lk. 
in N.T. (Acts xiii. 36, xx. 27 ; comp. ii. 23, iv. 28). It occurs 
Wisd. vi. 4; comp. Ps. xxxii 11, cvi. n ; Prov. xix. 21. With u.t| 
Pcnrrio-GefTes comp. the case of Nicodemus (Jn. iii. 4, 5). 

31. The spurious reading etwe 8i 6 Kvptos was interpolated at the be- 
ginning of this verse to mark w, 29, 30 as a parenthetical remark of the 
Evangelist. Owing to the influence of the Vulgate the interpolation was 
followed by all English Versions prior to RV. Almost all MSS. and ancient 
versions omit the words. But their spuriousness must not be quoted as 
evidence against the view which they support. Many false readings are 
correct glosses upon the true text, although that is probably not the case 

Tm oSV ofAoiwo-w. The ovv would not be very intelligible if 
w. 29, 30 were omitted ; but after ver. 30 it is quite in place. 
" Seeing that the rulers and teachers have rejected the Divine in- 
vitation given by John, and that ye (Xeyere, ver. 34) follow them 
in refusing to follow Me, to what, then, shall I liken the people of 
this generation ? " So comprehensive a phrase as tous dfGpwTrous 
ttjs yev€a<s Taurrjs may include the Baptist and the Christ : and 
to assume that it does include them frees the true interpretation 
of the parable from seeming to be somewhat at variance with the 


opening words. With the double question comp. xiii. 18; Mk. 
iv. 30. 

32. There are two parties of children. This is more clearly 
marked by rots cTepots in Mt. than by dAA^Aois here. Which of 
the two groups is blamed ? It has been taken both ways. (1) The 
children who invite the second group to play, first at dances and 
then at dirges, represent Jesus and the Baptist with their respective 
followers. The children who waywardly refuse to join in any kind 
of game are the Jews as represented by the hierarchy and the 
majority of the people. These rejected both the asceticism of 
John and the joyous freedom of the Gospel. Godet infers from 
uAAt/Aois that the two groups of children change sides and take 
turns in proposing the form of play. But it is not necessary to 
give so much meaning to oAAt/Aoi?. Yet such a change would 
not be difficult to interpret. The Jews may have proposed to the 
Baptist to become less stern. They certainly tried to force fast- 
ing on Jesus. And hence (2) the possibility of the other inter- 
pretation, which is preferred by Euthymius, Stier, and Alford, and 
is ably defended by Trench {Studies in the Gospels, pp. 150-153). 
The children sitting in the market-place and finding fault with 
their fellows are the Jews. John comes to them in his severity, 
and they want him to play at festivals. When he retains his strict 
mode of life, they complain and say, "We piped to you, and you 
did not dance." Then Christ comes to them as the bringer of 
joy, and they want Him to play at funerals. When He retains 
His own methods, they say, " We wailed, and you did not weep." 
This interpretation has two advantages. It makes the men of 
this generation, viz. the Jews, to be like the children who cry, " We 
piped," etc. And it gives the two complaints a chronological 
order. " We piped," etc., is a complaint against the Baptist, who 
came first ; " We wailed," etc., is a complaint against the Christ, 
who came afterwards. 

With Ka0T)fieVois comp. v. 27; with ayopa, Mk. vi. 56; with 
irpoCT^wfoCffii' d\\r|\ot.s, Acts xxii. 2 ; with TjuX^o-aji.ei', 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ; 
with wpxiicrao-Ge, 2 Sam. vi. 21 ; with iQpr[vr\cra\i.i.v, Jn. xvi. 20. Of 
these 7rpocr</>coj/€tv is a favourite word : see onvi. 13. Both Qpr\velv 
and KAaieiv refer to the outward manifestation of grief as distinct 
from the feeling ; and here the outward expression only is needed. 

33. p.T) ecrGwi' ap-roe p.r)Te irivuv olvov. " Without eating bread 
or drinking wine " ; spoken from the point of view of those who 
objected to John. He did not take the ordinary food of mankind ; 
and so Mt. says, "neither eating nor drinking." For the poetic 
form ecr&uj see on x. 7. Syr-Sin. omits aprov and olvov. 

L<x\.\Loviov Ixei. They afterwards said the same of Jesus (Jn 
vn. 20, viii. 48, x. 20) ; and Sat/xoViov €X €ts shows that Saifxoviou 
is ace. and not nom. Renan compares the Arabic Medj?ioun enti 



as showing that Orientals consider all madness to be possession by 
a demon ( V. de J. p. 263). See on iv. 33. One regrets that the 
American Revisers did not carry their point in getting " demon " 
substituted for "devil" as the rendering of Batfioviov. Tyn. Cov. 
and Cran. make great confusion by translating " hath the devil.'' 
Wic. is better with "hath a fende." The Xeyere in w. 33 and 34 
shows that some of those censured are present. Comp. xi. 1 5, where 
Jesus is accused of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub. 

34. <j>d-yo5. Like olvoir6rr)s, this is a subst. and therefore paroxytone : 
4>ay6s, which L. and S. give, would be an adj. See Chandler, Greek Ac- 
centuation, § 215. Latin Versions vary between devorator (Vulg. ), vorator (q), 
vorax (c e), manducator (d). English Versions vary between " devourer " 
(Wic), "glutton" (Tyn. Cov.), "gurmander" (Rhem. ), and "gluttonous 
man" (Cran. AV. RV.). The ref. is to v. 33 and similar occasions. For 
<pt\os TeKuvwv see v. 27, 29, 30. 

35. tea! €8iKaiw0T| t) o-o<J>ta. "And yet wisdom was justified." 
In N.T. xai often introduces a contrast, which is placed side by 
side with that with which it is contrasted : " and (instead of what 
might be expected), and yet." This is specially common in Jn. 
(i. 5, 10, iii. ii, 32, v. 39, 40, vi. 36, 43, 70, yii. 28, etc.). Atque 
sometimes has the same force; Cic. De Off. iii. 11. 48. Although 
the Jews as a nation rejected the methods both of John and of 
Christ, yet there were some who could believe that in both these 
mithods the Divine wisdom was doing what was right. 

eSiKcuwO-ri. This looks back to tSiKcuWav in ver. 29, and r\ 
<To<£i'a looks back to t^ /3ov\r]v rov ©eoC in ver. 30. Here, as in 
Rom. iii. 4 (Ps. Ii. 6), SiKaio'co means " Show or pronounce to be 
righteous, declare or admit to be just." The analogy of verbs in 
-6(D is often wrongly urged. An important distinction is sometimes 
overlooked. In the case of external qualities, such verbs do mean 
to " make or render" whatever the noun from which they are de- 
rived signifies (ep?7/Aoa>, rv^Xow, xpvaow, k.t.X.). But in the case 
of moral qualities this is scarcely possible, and it may be doubted 
whether there is a passage in which Sikcuo'w clearly means " 1 
make righteous." Similarly, d£io'u never means " I make worthy," 
but " I consider worthy, treat as worthy." In the case of words 
which might apply to either external or moral qualities both mean- 
ings are possible ace. to the context : thus 6/u.oiow may mean 
either " make like," e.g. make an image like a man (Eur. Hel. 33, 
comp. Acts xiv. 11; Rom. ix. 29), or "consider like, compare" 
(ver. 31, xiii. 18, 20). 

In ("diKaiwOrj we perhaps have an example of what is sometimes called the 
gnomic aorist. Comp. Jn. xv. 6; J as. i. 11, 24; I Pet. i. 24. Burton, 
§ 43. But see Win. xl. b. I, p. 346, where the existence of this aorist in 
N.T. is denied. 

diro irdrrui' Twf tIkvuv au-rijs. " At the hands of all her chil- 


dren": the justification comes from them. It is certainly incorrect 
to interpret d-n-o as implying rescuing or protecting "from the 
attacks of all her children," viz. from the Jews. The children of 
the Divine Wisdom are the faithful minority who have welcomed 
the Baptist and the Christ, not the unbelieving majority who re- 
jected them. In Mt. xi. 19 there is no iravnav, and DLMX 
omit it here. But it is certainly genuine : see on vi. 30. In APH 
7ravTwv is placed last with emphasis : there are no exceptions. 
But the order of X B is to be preferred. Mt. has epyuv for tckvwv, 
and X has Ipywv here. For the personification of the Wisdom of 
God comp. Prov. viii., ix. ; Ecclus. xxiv. ; Wisd. vi. 22-ix. 18. 

36-50. §The Anointing by the Woman that was a Sinner. 
Without note of time or express connexion. The connexion 
apparently is that she is an illustration of ver. 35. The proposal 
to identify this anointing with that by Mary of Bethany just before 
the Passion (Mt. xxvi. 6 ; Mk. xiv. 3 ; Jn. xii. 3) is ancient, for 
Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6 contends against it ; and it still has sup- 
porters. Thus Holtzmann is of opinion that the act of a " clean " 
person in the house of " an unclean " (Simon the leper) has been 
changed by Lk. into the act of an " unclean " person in the house 
of a " clean " (Simon the Pharisee), in order to exhibit the way in 
which Christ welcomed outcasts, a subject which Lk. often makes 
prominent. But the confusion of Mary of Bethany with a 
notorious d/xapTu\o's by Lk., who knows the character of Mary 
(x. 39, 42), is scarcely credible. And there is nothing improbable 
in two such incidents. Indeed the first might easily suggest the 
second. Simon is one of the commonest of names (there are 
ten or eleven Simons in N.T. and about twenty in Josephus), and 
therefore the identity of name proves nothing. Moreover, there 
are differences of detail, which, if not conclusive, are against the 
identification. The chief objection is the irreconcilable difference 
between Mary of Bethany and the d/xaprioAd?. Strauss and Baur 
suggest a confusion with the woman taken in adultery. But the 
narrative betrays no confusion : everything is clear and harmonious. 
The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either 
fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity towards 
Simon and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the 
reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection. 

On the traditional, but baseless, identification of the woman 
with Mary of Magdala see on viii. 2. The identification of this 
woman with both Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany is ad- 
vocated by Hengstenberg. His elaborate argument is considered 
a tour de force, but it has not carried conviction with it. The 
potest non eadem esse of Ambrose is altogether an understate- 
ment. It is probably from considerations of delicacy that Luke 
does not name her : or his source may have omitted to do so. 


The leading thought in the narrative is the contrast between 
Pharisees and sinners in their behaviour to Christ. 

36. 'HpciTa 8e tis auTOf tQ>v 4>apiaaiwi/ ira <^dyr\ H- 67 ' a " T0 "' There is 
nothing to show that the Pharisee had any sinister motive in asking 
Him, although he was evidently not very friendly. As the Pharisees 
were generally hostile to Christ, it may have been a courageous 
thing. He is inclined to believe that Jesus may be a Prophet 
(ver. 39) ; and Jesus rebukes him as one who loved little, not as a 
secret enemy. But, like Herod Antipas, he may simply have been 
curious. Lk. records two other instances of Christ being the 
guest of a Pharisee (xi. 37, xiv. 1). For Xva see on iv. 3, and comp. 
vi. 31, vii. 6 ; and for KaTeicXiGr) (SBDLXH) see on ix. 14. 

37. Kcu l8ou ywf\ tjtis r\v. The opening words imply that her 
presence created surprise. The 77ns is stronger than r) and has 
point here : " who was of such a character as to be " : comp. viii. 3. 
This is the right order, and Iv -rjj -ndXei follows, not precedes, ^ns 
rjv (xBLH and most Versions). The exact meaning is not quite 
clear : either, " which was a sinner in the city," i.e. was known as 
such in the place itself; or possibly, "which was in the city, a 
sinner." The city is probably Capernaum. 

djjiapTwXos. A person of notoriously bad character, and prob- 
ably a prostitute : comp. Mt. xxi. 32. For instances of this use 
of d//.a/)TwAos see Wetst. To the Jews all Gentiles were in a special 
sense d/xapTcoXot (vi. 32, 33, xxiv. 7 ; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Mac. ii. 44); 
but something more than this is evidently meant here. The rjv 
need not be pressed to mean, " She was even up to this time " 
(Alf.) ; nor does accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda 
(Aug.) imply this. The r)v expresses her public character : rjv Iv ry 
■jtoXu. She had repented (perhaps quite recently, and in conse- 
quence of Christ's teaching) ; but the general opinion of her 
remained unchanged. Her venturing to enter a Pharisee's house 
in spite of this shows great courage. In the East at the present 
day the intrusion of uninvited persons is not uncommon (Trench, 
Parables, p. 302 n. ; Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, 
p. 36). Mary of Bethany was not an intruder. Note the 
idiomatic pres. KaraKeiTcu : just equivalent to our " He is dining 
with me to-day," meaning that he will do so. 

dXdf3aorpov' p.upou. Unguent-boxes or phials were called d\d- 
fiao-Tpa even when not made of alabaster. But unguenta optime 
servantur in alabastris (Plin. N. H. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 12; comp. 
Hdt. iii. 20. 1). See Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 6. 

The word is of all three genders in different writers ; but in class. Grk. 
the sing, is aXapacrrpos, either masc. or fern. The origin of fivpov is unknown, 
fivpw, fxtippa, afivpva, fxvpros being conjectures. In N.T. certainly, and prob 
ably in LXX also, /xvpov, "ointment," is distinguished from fKaiov, " oil." 
Trench, Syn. xxxviii. 


38. cnaaa ottio-w irapa tous -rroSas auTou. The sandals were 
removed at meals, and people reclined with their feet behind 
them; she could therefore easily approach the feet. While Lk. 
writes irapb. tovs TroSas (viii. 35, 41, x. 39?, xvii. 16; Acts iv. 35 ; 
37, v. 2, vii. 58, xxii. 3), Mk. has 7rp6s tous TrdSas (v. 22, vii. 25), 
and Jn. 7rpo? toiis Tro'das (xi. 32). Mt. has -n-apa tous 7roSas (xv. 30). 

tois SdiKpucnv r\p%a.TO fiplx*<-v tous iroSas auTou ical tcus 0pi|iK, 
k.t.X. This was no part of her original plan. She came to anoint 
His feet, and was overcome by her feelings ; hence the r)p£a.To. 
The (ipix^v led to the iiep-acra-ev, which was also unpremeditated. 
Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down 
her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice. For Ppe'x* 1 *' 
comp. Ps. vi. 7 : it is probably a vernacular word (Kennedy, 
Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39). 

Kal Ko.Te<|H\ei. Note the compound verb and the change of 
tense : " She continued to kiss affectionately." The word is used 
of the kiss of the traitor (Mt. xxvi. 49 ; Mk. xiv. 45), which was 
demonstrative, of the prodigal's father (Lk. xv. 20), and of the 
Ephesian elders in their last farewell (Acts xx. 37), and nowhere 
else in N.T. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 33. Kissing the feet was a 
common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading Rabbis 
(Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 32 ; Polyb. xv. 1. 7 ; Aristoph. Vesp. 608). 

39. irpo^TTjs. Referring to the popular estimate of Jesus 
(w. 16, 17). The outos is contemptuous. No true Prophet would 
knowingly allow himself to be rendered unclean by contact with 
such a person. The reading 6 Trpo^V^s (B E) would mean " the 
great Prophet" of Deut. xviii. 15 (comp. Jn. i. 25, vii. 40), or 
possibly "the Prophet that He professes to be." The art. is 
accepted by Weiss, bracketed by WH., put in the margin by Treg., 
and rejected by Tisch. 

tis Kal TT-OTairr] r\ yuvr] ^ti§ airreTai o.utou. " Who and of what 
character is the woman who is clinging to Him." She was notori- 
ous both in person and in life. See on i. 29. The airreTcu implies 
more than mere touching, and is the pres. of continued action. 
Trench, Sy?i. xvii.; Lft. on Col. ii. 21. Into si tu, Simon, scires, 
qualis hxc jam esset femina, aliter judicares (Beng.). The Sti 
comes after iycvwa-Kev. "that she is," not "because she is." See on 
ver. 16, and comp. Is. lxv. 5. 

40. diroKpiSels 6 'lt]crous. Audivit Pharisxum cogitantem (Aug. 
Serm. xcix.). Jesus not only answered but confuted his doubts. 
Simon questioned the mission of Jesus because He seemed to be 
unable to read the woman's character. Jesus shows Simon that 
He can read his inmost thoughts : He knows tis koX TroTa-n-o's ia-n. 
For ?xu o-oi ti eiirete see on xii. 4. Christ asks permission of His 
host to speak. As Godet remarks, there is a tone of Socratic irony 
in the address. The historic present (<pr}<rtv) is very rare in Lk 


41. Av'o xP £0 4 )l ^ e ' Tat ^ av SavicTTfj tivi. For the orthography of the 
two substantives see WH. ii. App. p. 154; Greg. Froleg. p. 89. In N.T. 
Xpeo<pt\tTr)s occurs only here and xvi. 5 ; in LXX Job xxxi. 37 ; Prov. xxix. 13. 
The word is of late origin. All English Versions, except Rhem. and AW, 
rightly have "lender" and not "creditor" for 8clvi<jtt)s : Vulg. fcenerator, 
Luth. Wuchtrer. In weight of silver the denarius was considerably less than 
a shilling ; in purchasing power it was above two shillings, the wage of a day- 
labourer (Mt. xx. 2) and of a Roman soldier (Tac. Ann. L 1 7. 8, where see 
Furneaux). The two debts were about ,£50 and ^5. 

42. fir] Ixovtwv au-iw rVrrooourai. " Because they had not where- 
with to pay" ; non habentibus Mis unde redderent (Vulg.). Comp. 
xii. 4, xiv. 14; Acts iv. 14. Others render ex €tv m these passages 
"to be able," like habeo quod with the subjunctive. In exapurcn-o, 
"he made them a present" of what they owed, we trace the Pauline 
doctrine of free grace and salvation for all. Comp. ver. 21. 

T19 ouk auTww TrXeloy dyaTrf^cTei ; This is the point of the parable, 
and perhaps the only point. The love and gratitude of those who 
have had debts remitted to them depends upon their estimate of 
the amount which has been remitted to them rather than upon the 
actual amount. 

43. c dVw. " I suppose," " I presume," with an air of 
supercilious indifference. Comp. Acts ii. 15; Job xxv. 3; Tobit 
vi. 18 ; Wisd. xvii. 2. It is very improbable that vTroXajx^dvoi here 
means " I reply," as in x. 30 ; Job ii. 4, iv. 1, vi. 1, ix. 1, xxv. 1. 
In N.T. it is almost peculiar to Lk. The 'Op0<Ls expiras may be 
compared with the irdw 6p6Co<; of Socrates, when he has led the 
disputant into an admission which is fatal. In N.T. SpOws occurs 
only here, x. 28, xx. 21 ; Mk. vii. 35. Freq. in LXX. Comp. ovk 
CKptVare opdws (Wisd. vi. 4). 

44. crrpa<J>e!s Trpos tj]v yuvaiKa. She was behind Him. His 
turning to her while He spoke to Simon was in itself half a rebuke. 
Up to this He seems to have treated her as He treated the 
Syrophenician woman, as if paying no attention. The series of 
contrasts produces a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry, and in 
translating a rhythm comes almost spontaneously. 

BXe'-rreis TauTTj^-rrn' yumiKa; This is probably a question : Simon 
had ignored her presence. The aou being placed before eis Trjr 
oiKi'ae gives point to the rebuke, but it hardly makes the crov em- 
phatic. An enclitic cannot be emphatic, and crov here is enclitic 
The meaning is not " I entered into thine house," in preference 
to others ; but rather, " I came to thee in thy house," and not 
merely in the public street ; " I was thy invited guest." 

uSwp p.oi eirl TroSas. Comp. Gen. xviii. 4; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. 
xxv. 41 ; Jn. xiii. 5; 1 Tim. v. 10. The reading is somewhat un- 
certain, and there are many variations between p.01 and /xov, v6Sa<; 
and tous 7ro8as, and also of order : /aou cVl tovs 7rd8as (S L H) may 
be right 


45. 4>i\T)fxa. Comp. Gen. xxxiii. 4 ; Exod. xviii. 7 ; 2 Sam. 
xv. 5, xix. 39, xx. 9. The traitor's choosing it as a sign seems to 
mark it as usual. 

d<f>' rjs eurfjXGoe. The reading darjXOev (L 1 Vulg.) is an attempt 
to avoid the apparent exaggeration in " since the time I came in." 
But there need be no exaggeration, or difference of meaning, be- 
tween the two readings. The woman very likely entered with 
Christ and His disciples in order to escape expulsion. Fear of it 
would make her begin to execute her errand directly the guests 
were placed. The compound KaTacJuXouo-o, makes the contrast with 
(jitXrjiia more marked, and toi>? 7rdSas makes it still more so. The 
<j>i\rj[xa would have been on the cheek, or possibly (if Simon had 
wished to be very respectful) on the hand. 

40. eXai'w. Very cheap in Palestine, where olives abound, and 
very commonly used (Ps. xxiii. 5, cxli. 5 ; Mt. vi. 17). The pvpov 
would be more valuable, and possibly very costly (Jn. xii. 3, 5). 
This woman, whom Simon so despised in his heart, had really done 
the honours of the house to his guest. This fact would be all the 
more prominent if she entered close after Jesus, and thus at once 
supplied Simon's lack of courtesy. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 101. 

47. This is a verse which has been the subject of much contro- 
versy. What is the meaning of the first half of it ? We have to 
choose between two possible interpretations. 1. " For which 
reason, I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because 
she loved much " ; i.e. ou \o.^v anticipates on, and Xtyw 0-01 is paren- 
thetical. Her sins have been forgiven for the reason that her love 
was great ; or her love won forgiveness. This is the interpretation 
of Roman Catholic commentators (see Schanz), and the doctrine 
of contritio caritate formata is built upon it. But it is quite at 
variance (a) with the parable which precedes ; (b) with the second 
half of the verse, which ought in that case to run, " but he who 
loveth little, wins little forgiveness " ; (c) with ver. 50, which states 
that it was faith, not love, which had been the means of salvation ; 
a doctrine which runs through the whole of the N.T. This cannot 
be correct. 2. " For which reason I say to thee, her many sins 
have been forgiven (and I say this to thee), because she loved 
much " ; i.e. Xeyw 0-01 is not parenthetical, but is the main sentence. 
This statement, that her many sins have been forgiven, is rightly 
made to Simon, because he knew of her great sinfulness, he had 
witnessed her loving reverence, and he had admitted the principle 
that the forgiveness of much produces much love. This interpreta- 
tion is quite in harmony with the parable, with the second half of 
the verse, and with ver. 50. There were two things evident, — the 
past sin and the present love, — both of them great. A third might 
be known, because (according to the principle just admitted) it 
explained how great love could follow great sin, — the forgiveness 


of the sin. Remissio peccatorttm, Simoni non cogitata, probata a 
fructu, qui est evidens, quum ilia sit occulta (Beng). 

al ujxapTiai auTrjs at -rroMai. The second art. refers to v. 39 ; 
" The many sins of which thou thinkest." " Her sins, yes (accord- 
ing to thy estimate), her many sins." 

w 8e oXiyoe d<J>teTai. " But he to whom little is forgiven," i.e. who 
thinks that he has committed little which could need forgiveness. 
It is said with evident reference to Simon. O F7iarissee, parum 
diligis, quia parum tibi dimitti suspicaris ; non quia parum dimit- 
titur, sed quia parum put as quod dimittitur (Aug. Serm. xcix.). For 
this use of the dat. comp. Soph. Ant. 904. 

48. el-iree 8e auTf}. What He had to say to Simon (ver. 40) is 
finished : it is His true entertainer (44-46) who now occupies His 

d<t>eWTai. " Have been and remain forgiven " : see on v. 20. 
There is nothing either in the word or in the context to show that 
her sins were not forgiven until this moment : the context implies 
the opposite, and this is confirmed by the use of the perf. Augus- 
tine's accessit ad Dominion immunda, ut rcdiret munda is in this 
respect misleading. The teaching of Christ had brought her to 
repentance and to assurance of forgiveness, and this assurance had 
inspired her with love and gratitude. Jesus now confirms her 
assurance and publicly declares her forgiveness. He thus lends 
His authority to rehabilitate her with society. 

49. \eyeiv ev eauToIs. " To say within themselves " rather than 
among themselves ; so that Jesus answered their thoughts, as He 
had already answered Simon's. The outos is slightly contemptu- 
ous, as often (v. 21 ; Mt. xiii. 55 ; Jn. vi. 42, 52, etc.). The icai 
in os icat duap-rtas &$li)<riv is "even" rather than "also." But 
"also" might mean "besides other outrages." 

50. eurev Se irpos tV yumiica. " But He said unto the woman." 
He ignored their objection, and yet indirectly answered it, by telling 
her that it was her faith that had delivered her from her sins. 

TTopeuou els elp-qnrji'. " Depart into peace," i.e. into a lasting 
condition of peace : a Hebrew formula of blessing and of good- 
will, with special fulness of meaning. Comp. viii. 48 ; Mk. v. 34 ; 
1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42. In Acts xvi. 36 and Jas. ii. 16 we have lv 
elprjvr], which is less strong, the peace being joined to the moment 
of departure rather than to the subsequent life : comp. Judg. 
xviii. 6. In Acts xv. 33 we have /*«-' elptjvT]<s. 

Among the various points which distinguish this anointing from that by Mary 
of Bethany should be noted that here we have no grumbling at the waste of the 
ointment and no prediction of Christ's death, while there no absolution is pro- 
nounced and Mary is not addressed. See Hase, Gesch. J. § 91, p. 651, ed. 
1891 ; also Schanz, p. 250, at the end of this section. 

VIII. 1-3. § The ministering Women. This section is 


evidence of the excellence of Lk.'s sources. The information 
contained in it is exact and minute. The names and other details 
are utterly unlike fiction. An inventor would avoid such things 
as likely to be refuted : moreover, no motive for invention can be 
discerned. The passage tells us — what no other Evangelist 
makes known — how Jesus and His disciples lived when they 
were not being entertained by hospitable persons. The common 
purse (Jn. xiii. 29 ; comp. xii. 6) was kept supplied by the 
generosity of pious women. This form of piety was not rare. 
Women sometimes contributed largely towards the support of 
Rabbis, whose rapacity in accepting what could ill be spared was 
rebuked by Christ (xx. 47 ; [Mt. xxiii. 14 ;] Mk. xii. 40) with great 

1. Kal iyivtTO iv tw KaOefqs Kal auTos SiwSeuei'. See detached 
note p. 45, and comp. v. 1, 12, 14: for iv tu tca0e£fjs see small 
print on vii. n. The auTos anticipates ko1 01 SwSeKa, "He Himself 
and the Twelve." But the #cai before avrds comes after iyivero 
and must not be coupled with the Kat before 01 SwScKa. In N.T. 
SioSeuw occurs only here and Acts xvii. 1, but it is freq. in LXX 
(Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 1 7, etc.) ; also in Polyb. Plut. etc. Comp. ix. 6, 
xiii. 22. 

kcito. tcoKiv Kal kcjjjj.t^ Kt]p. Ne quis Jud&us preeteritum se qtieri 
posset (Grotius), Jesus preached city by city (Acts xv. 21) and 
village by village. The clause is amphibolous. It probably is 
meant to go with StwSene, but may be taken with Krjpva-awv kol 
dayy. The incidental way in which the severity of Christ's 
labours is mentioned is remarkable. Comp. ix. 58, xiii. 22 ; Mt. 
ix. 35; Mk. vi. 31. For euayyeXi^oaevos see on ii. 10. We are 
not to understand that the Twelve preached in His presence, if at 
all. Note the avv (not //.era), and see on vv. 38, 51, and i. 56. 

2. weuuciTGJi' Tron^pdji/. See on iv. 33. We cannot tell how 
many of these women had been freed from demons : perhaps only 
Mary Magdalen, the others having been cured airo darOevetwv. For 
the diro comp. v. 15, vii. 21. 

rj KaXoufjieVir] MaySaXr)^. See on vi. 1 5. The adj. probably 
means " of Magdala," a town which is not named in N.T. ; for the 
true reading in Mt. xv. 39 is " Magadan." " Magdala is only the 
Greek form of Migdol, or watch-tower, one of the many places of 
the name in Palestine" (Tristram, Bible Places, p. 260); and it is 
probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now 
bear the name of Mejdel, near the centre of the western shore of 
the lake. Magdala was probably near to Magadan, and being 
much better known through fj MaySaA-^, at last it drove the 
latter name out of the common text. See Stanley, Sin. 6° Pal. 
p. 382. Mary being a common name, the addition of something 
distinctive was convenient ; and possibly a distinction from Mary 


of Bethany was specially designed by the Evangelists. Mary 
Magdalen is commonly placed first when she is mentioned with 
other women (Mt. xxvii. 56, 61, xxviii. 1 ; Mk. xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1 ; 
Lk. xxiv. 10). Jn. xix. 25 is an exception. See on i. 36. 

d4>' t|s 8aifi6i/ia e-nra e£e\t]\u0ei. This fact is mentioned in the 
disputed verses at the end of Mk. (xvi. 9). It indicates a pos- 
session of extraordinary malignity (Mk. v. 9). We need not give 
any mystical interpretation to the number seven : comp. xi. 26 ; 
Mt. xii. 45. There is nothing to show that demoniacs generally, 
or Mary in particular, had lived specially vicious lives : and the 
fact that no name is given to the d/xaprwXos in the preceding 
section, while Mary Magdalen is introduced here as an entirely 
new person, is against the traditional identification of the two. 
Moreover, such an affliction as virulent demoniacal possession 
would be almost incompatible with the miserable trade of prosti- 
tution. If Lk. had wished to intimate that the dp.apTwA.os is Mary 
Magdalen, he could have done it much more clearly. Had he 
wished to conceal the fact, he would not have placed these two 
sections in juxtaposition. Had he wished to withhold the name 
of the dynapTwAo?, who may possibly be included among the erepai 
7roAAat', he would have done as he has done. The dp.apTioAo'9 and 
Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany are three distinct persons. 

8. 'Iwdea. She is mentioned with Mary Magdalen again 
xxiv. 10: all that we know about her is contained in these two 
passages. Godet conjectures that Chuza is the /Jao-iAiKo?, who 
" believed and his whole house " (Jn. iv. 46-53). In that case her 
husband would be likely to let her go and minister to Christ. The 
Herod meant is probably Antipas, and his e-iriTpoiros would be the 
manager of his household and estates : comp. Mt. xx. 8. Blunt 
finds here a coincidence with Mt. xiv. 2 ; Herod " said to his 
servants, This is John the Baptist." If Herod's steward's wife was 
Christ's disciple, He would often be spoken of among the servants 
at the court ; and Herod addresses them, because they were 
familiar with the subject. Comp. the case of Manaen (Acts xiii. 1), 
Herod's o-iWpo</>os (Undesigned Coincidences, Pt. IV. xi. p. 263, 
8th ed.). Of Susanna nothing else is known, nor of the other 
women, unless Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome 
(Mk. xv. 40) may be assumed to be among them. 

aiTices SitjkoVouc auTois. "Who were of such a character as to 
minister to them " ; i.e. they were persons of substance. For tjtis 
see on vii. 37, and for SiaKo^eif comp. Rom. xv. 25. The avro2<s 
means Jesus and the Twelve, the reading aura (A L M X) being 
probably a correction from Mt. xxvii. 55 ; Mk. xv. 41. But o.vtol<s 
has special point. It was precisely because Jesus now had twelve 
disciples who always accompanied Him, that there was need of 
much support from other disciples, 


ck -Tuiv uTrapxorrwc auTai9. It is this which distinguishes this 
passage from Mt. xxvii. 55 and Mk. xv. 41. There the StaKoveiv 
might refer to mere attendance on Him. We learn from this that 
neither Jesus nor the Twelve wrought miracles for their own 

Here, as in xii. 15 and Acts iv. 32, ri virdpxovra. has the dat. Every- 
where else in Lk. (xi. 21, xii. 33, 44, xiv. 33, xvi. 1, xix. 8) and elsewhere 
in N.T. (five times) it has the gen. So also in LXX the gen. is the rule, the 
dat. the exception, if it is the true reading anywhere. Both ret virdpxovra 
and inrdpxei-v are favourite expressions with Lk. See on ver. 41. 

4-18. The Parable of the Sower. Mt. xiii. 1-23; Mk. 
iv. 1-20. We have already had several instances of teaching by 
means of parables (v. 36-39, vi. 39, 41-44, 47-49, vii. 41, 42); 
but they are brief and incidental. Parables seem now to become 
more common in Christ's teaching, and also more elaborate. 
This is intelligible, when we remember the characteristics of 
parables. They have the double property of revealing and con- 
cealing. They open the truth, and impress it upon the minds of 
those who are ready to receive it : but they do not instruct, though 
they may impress, the careless (ver. 10). As Bacon says of a 
parable, " it tends to vail, and it tends to illustrate a truth." As the 
hostility to His teaching increased, Jesus would be likely to make 
more use of parables, which would benefit disciples without giving 
opportunity to His enemies. The parable of the Sower is in some 
respects chief among the parables, as Christ Himself seems to 
indicate (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the three which all three record, 
the others being the Mustard Seed and the Wicked Husbandmen : 
and it is one of which we have Christ's own interpretation. 

4. IucioVtos 8e ox_Xou iroWou tea! r&v Ka-ra TvoXiy eTuiropeuojieywi' it. 
auT. The constr. is uncertain, and we have choice of two ways, 
according as the kcu is regarded as simply co-ordinating, or as 
epexegetic. 1. "And when a great multitude was coming 
together, and they of every city were resorting to Him." 2. 
"And when a great multitude was coming together, namely, of 
those who city by city were resorting to Him." According to 2, 
the multitude consisted wholly of those who were following from 
different towns (ver. 1). As no town is named, there was perhaps 
no crowd from the place itself. In any case the imperf. part, 
should be preserved in translation. It was the growing multitude 
which caused Him to enter into a boat (Mt. xiii. 2 ; Mk. iv. 1). 

See on xi. 29. Except Tit. i. 5, Ka-ra iroXivis peculiar to Lk. 

The Latin Versions vary greatly : conveniente autem turba magna et 
eorum qui ex civitatibus adveniebant dixit parabolam (a) ; conveniente autem 
turba multa et qui de singulis civitatibus exibant dixit p. (c) ; congregate 
autem populo multo et ad civitatem iter faciebant ad eutn dixit parabolam 
talem ad eos (d) ; cum autem turba plurima conveniret et de civitatibus pro- 


perarent ad eum dixit per sitnilitudinem (Vulg. ); cum autem turba pluritna 
convenisset (<xvi>e\d6vTos, D) et de avitatibus advenirent multi dixit per 
sitnilitudinem (Cod. Brix.). 

ciTT-ee 8ia TrapafJoXr]?. The expression occurs nowhere else. 
Mt. and Mk. write iv 7rapa/3oAcus kiyeiv or XaXelu, while Lk. has 
irapa(3o\r]i' elirelv or Ae'yeiv. See on iv. 23, v. 36, and vi. 39 ; and 
on the parable itself see Gould on Mk. iv. 1 ff. 

5. e£fj\6ef 6 aireipwi'. So in all three accounts : " The sower 
went forth." The force of the article is " he whose business it is 
to sow " : he is the representative of a class who habitually have 
these experiences. Rhem. has " the sower " in all three places, 
Cran. in Mt. and Mk., Cov. in Mt. For the pres. part, with the 
article used as a substantive comp. iii. n, v. 31, vi. 29, 30, 32, ix. 
11, x. 16, etc. There is solemnity in the repetition, 6 cnrdpwv tow 
(nrzZpai tov a-TTopov. The comparison of teaching with sowing is 
frequent in all literature ; but it is possible that Jesus here applies 
what was going on before their eyes. See the vivid description of 
a startling coincidence with the parable in Stanley, Sin. 6° Pal. 

P- 425- .... 

iv tw o-rreipeif au-roV. " During his sowing, while he sowed " : 

avrov is subj., not obj., and refers to 6 cnreipwv, not rbv o-iropov. 

See on iii. 21. Note the graphic change of prepositions: irapa 

t^v 6S0V (ver. 5), €7ri tt/v TTETpav (ver. 6), iv ^.e'o-o) (ver. 7), eis tt/v 

yt\v (ver. 8). In this verse Lk. has three features which are 

wanting in Mt. and Mk. : rbv airopov, kol KareTraT-qOrj, and tov 


irapd tV 6S6V. Not "along the way," but "by the side of the 

way." It fell on the field, but so close to the road that it was 

trampled on. 

Both Lk. and Mk. here have pAv followed by ko.1 : 5 fikv . . . koI ^repov, 
Comp. Mk. ix. 12. The absence of 5<* after fiiv is freq. in Acts, Pauline 
Epp., and Heb. See Blass, Gr. p. 261. 

6. em TYjf ireS-pap. The rock had a slight covering of soil ; and 
hence is called t6 TrerpiLSe? (Mk.) and ™ ■nerpwht] (Mt), which does 
not mean " stony ground," i.e. full of stones, but " rocky ground," 
i.e. with rock appearing at intervals and with " no depth of earth." 
The thinness of the soil would cause rapid germination and rapid 
withering ; but Lk omits the rapid growth. With <}>ueV comp. Prov. 
xxvi. 9 ; Exod. x. 5 ; and (for the constr.) Lk. ii. 4. For tKp.a8a, 
"moisture," Mt. and Mk. have pita.v. The word occurs Jer. 
xvii. 8 ; Job xxvi. 14 ; Jos. Ant. iii. 1. 3 ; but nowhere else in N.T. 

7. iv p.ecru> toji' dKav0wi/. The result of the falling was that it 
was in the midst of the thorns : prep, of rest after a verb of 
motion : comp. vii. 17. Lk. is fond of iv fxio-io (ii. 46, x. 3, xxi 


21, xxii. 27, 55, xxiv. 36; Acts i. 15, etc.). Elsewhere it is rare, 
except in Rev. Neither Mt. nor Mk. have it here. 

aur^uelaai. Here only in N.T. In LXX only Wisd. xiii. 13. 
In Plato and Aristotle it is transitive : " cause to grow together." 
We are to understand that the good seed fell into ground where 
young thorns were growing ; otherwise the growing together would 
hardly be possible. Indeed the avifiyjo-av al aW-flai of Mt. and 
Mk. almost implies that the thorns were not yet visible, when the 
good seed was sown in the midst of them. The dire'wt^ai' means 
" choked it off" so as to exterminate it : comp. the d-n-o in utto- 
KTeiW Wic. has " strangliden it " ; but that, though sufficient for 
suffocaverunt (Vulg.), does not express the airo. The verb occurs 
only here and ver. 33 in N.T., and in LXX only in Nah. ii. 12 nnd 
Tobit hi. 8. Mt. xiii. 7 is doubtful. 

8. ets ttpyT" tV ayaQi')\>. Not merely upon, but into the soil. 
The double article in all three accounts presents the soil and its 
goodness as two separate ideas : "the ground (that was intended 
for it), the good (ground)." Mt. and Mk. have KaXrjv. This 
repetition of the article is specially frequent in Jn. Lk. omits the 
sixty- and thirtyfold. Isaac is said to have reaped a hundredfold 
(Gen. xxvi. 12). Hdt. (i. 193. 4) states that in the plain of 
Babylon returns of two hundred- and even three hundredfold, 
were obtained. Strabo (xvi. p. 1054) says much the same, but is 
perhaps only following Hdt. See Wetst. on Mt. xiii. 8 for abundant 
evidence of very large returns. 

6 lyjjiv wt<x dKou'eic aKoue-rw. This formula occurs in all three. 
Comp. xiv. 35; Mt. xi. 15, xiii. 43. In Rev. we have the sing., 
6 ex wv °vs olkovo-citu) (ii. 7, 11, 17, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22). The intro- 
ductory €<£tovci, " He cried aloud," indicates a raising of the voice, 
and gives a solemnity to this concluding charge. The imperf. 
perhaps means that the charge was repeated. Comp. Ezek. iii. 27 ; 
Horn. //. xv. 129. 

9. ti's auTT) eiTj rj -irapa(3o\r). " What this parable might be in 
meaning." See small print on i. 29. Mt. says that the disciples 
asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables. Christ answers 
both questions. For iirr\p(x>Tuv see on iii. 10. 

10. toIs 8c Xoi-n-ois. " Those who are outside the circle of 
Christ's disciples " ; c/cecWs tois e£w, as Mk. has it. This implies 
that it is disciples generally, and not the Twelve only, who are 
being addressed. Mt. is here the fullest of the three, giving the 
passage from Is. vi. 9, 10 in full. Lk. is very brief. 

Ira pXeTTorres pj fiXeivoHjiv. At first sight it might seem as if 
the Iva of Lk. and Mk. was very different from the on of Mt. 
But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he 
who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, 
explains both the Iva and the on. Jesus speaks in parables, 


because the multitude see without seeing and hear without hearing. 
But He also speaks in parables in order that they may see without 
seeing and hear without hearing. They "have not" a mind to 
welcome instruction, and therefore they are taught in a way which 
deprives them of instruction, although it is full of meaning to those 
who desire to understand and do understand. But what the 
unsympathetic " hear without understanding " they remember, be 
cause of its impressive form ; and whenever their minds become 
fitted for it, its meaning will become manifest to them. 

YVH. write awiw<nv, from the unused crwlw, while other editors prefer 
cvviQffiv, from avvLrjfu or the unused <jwUu). Similarly WH. have avvlovaiv 
(Mt. xiii. 13), where others give ovviovaiv. II. App. p. 167. Here some 
authorities have ffvvGxnv, as in LXX. 

11. Having answered the question Stan' eV irapa/3o\ai<; Xc'y«s ; 
Jesus now answers tis co-tiv avrrj rj Trapa/3o\rj ; To the disciples 
"who have " the one thing needful "more is given." The similarity 
between the seed and the word lies specially in the vital power 
which it secretly contains. Comp. " Behold I sow My law in 
you, and it shall bring fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it 
for ever. But our fathers, which received the law, kept it not, and 
observed not the statutes : and the fruit of the law did not perish, 
neither could it, for it was Thine ; yet they that received it perished, 
because they kept not the thing that was sown in them " (2 Esdr. 

ix - 3 x -33)- 

6 \6yos tou 0€ou. Mt. never (? xv. 6) has this phrase ; it occurs 

only once in Mk. (vii. 13) and once in Jn. (x. 35). Lk. has it 

four times in the Gospel (v. 1, viii. n, 21, xi. 28) and twelve 

times in the Acts. Here Mk. has t6v Ao'yov (iv. 15) and Mt. has 

nothing (xiii. 18). So in ver. 21, where Lk. has t6v A. tov ©., 

Mk. has to OeXrjfjia tov 0. (iii. 35) and Mt. to 6eXrjp.a tov vaTpos 

(xii. 50). Does it mean " the word which comes from God " or 
" the word which tells of God " ? Probably the former. Comp. 
the O.T. formula " The word of the Lord came to." The gen. is 
subjective. Lft. Epp. of S. Paul, p. 15. 

12. ol 8e irapa Tt]v 686V. There is no need to understand 
o-7ropevTes, as is clear from Mk. iv. 15. "Those by the wayside" 
is just as intelligible as " Those who received seed by the way- 

etra Ipx^Tai 6 oia|3o\os. Much more vivid than "And the 
birds are the devil." This is Christ's own interpretation of the 
birds, and it is strong evidence for the existence of a personal 
devil. Why did not Jesus explain the birds as meaning impersonal 
temptations ? He seems pointedly to insist upon a personal ad- 
versary. See on X. 18. Mt. has 6 vovr]p6<;, Mk. 6 crcu-ava?. The 
concluding words are peculiar to Lk. : " in order that they may 
not by believing be saved." Perhaps a sign of Pauline influence. 


13. The constr. is ambiguous. In w. 12, 14, 15 dalv is expressed, and 
it is usually understood here : " And those on the rock are they which, when 
they have heard, receive the word with joy ; and these have no root." But it 
is not necessary to insert the eWv. We may continue the protasis to rbr 
\6yov and make Kai mean also : " And those on the rock, which, when they 
have heard, receive the word with joy, — these also (as well as those by the 
wayside) have no root." Thus oCroi txovaiv exactly corresponds to ovrol 
(1(tlv in w. 14, 15. But the usual arrangement is better. The 61 wpbs Kaipbv 
■tri<TT€vov<Tiv is a further explanation of ovrot. Neither Mt. nor Mk. has 
5^x°" Tat > of which Lk. is fond (ii. 28, ix. 5, 48, 53, x. 8, 10, xvi. 4, 6, 7, 
9, etc.). It implies the internal acceptance; whereas \afj.(3di>eti> implies no 
more than the external reception. 

lv Kaipw Treipao-jioo &4>iaraKTai. Mt. and Mk. have 6\i\j/ew<; ^ 
oWy/zov, which shows that the temptation of persecution and ex- 
ternal suffering is specially meant : com p. Jas. i. 2. In all times 
of moral and spiritual revival persons who are won easily at first, 
but apostatize under pressure, are likely to form a large portion : 
comp. Heb. iii. 12. The verb does not occur in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
The repetition of Kaipo'? is impressive. As opportunity commonly 
lasts only for a short time, /caipo's may mean "a short time." 

14. to %\ els tols dicavOas ircadv. It is not probable that this is an ace 
abs. : "Now as regards that which fell among the thorns." The attraction 
of ovtoi (for tovto) to ol aKOvaavTes is quite intelligible. 

utt6 p.epip.i'wt' koI ttXoutou ko.1 rjSoewi' too {3iou. It is usual to take 
this after o-ufx-rrvtyovTai ; and this is probably correct : yet Weiss 
would follow Luther and others and join it with iropev6fx.e.voi, "going 
on their way under the influence of cares," etc. But ver. 7 is 
against this : the cares, etc., are the thorns, and it is the thorns 
which choke. This does not reduce iropevofxevoi to a gehaltloser 
Zusatz. The choking is not a sudden process, like the trampling 
and devouring ; nor a rapid process, like the withering : it takes 
time. It is as they go on their way through life, and before they 
have reached the goal, that the choking of the good growth takes 
place. Therefore they never do reach the goal. The transfer of 
what is true of the growing seed to those in whose heart it is sown 
is not difficult ; and (TVfXTrviyovTai is clearly passive, not middle 
and transitive. The thorns choke the seed (ver. 7) ; these hearers 
are choked by the cares, etc. (ver. 14). Here only in N.T. does 
Te\eo-<|>opeii> occur. It is used of animals as well as of plants 
(4 Mac. xiii. 20; Ps. lxiv. 10, Sym.). 

15. t6 8e lv tt) KaXfj yfj, k.t.X. It fell into the good ground 
(ver. 8), and it is in the right ground. Perhaps oitivcs has its full 
meaning : " who are of such a character as to," etc. The two 
epithets used of the ground, aya6r} in ver. 8 and /caA.77 in ver. 1 5, 
are combined for KapoVa : " in a right and good heart." We must 
take lv KapSia with Kare'xouo-i rather than with aKoi'o-avTes. Even 
if aKoveiv be interpreted to mean " hearing gladly, welcoming," it 


is not the same as /ccu-e^eu', which means "holdfast" (i Cor. 
xi. 2). It is reasonable to suppose that aKovi.iv means the same in 
all four cases (12, 13, 14, 15). But Kare'xoucriv (Lk.), Trapa8i)(0VTai 
(Mk. iv. 20), and <xuviojv (Mt. xiii. 23) may all be equivalents of 
the same Aramaic verb, meaning " to take in " : see footnote on 
v. 21. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 2 ; 1 Thes. v. 21. 

iv uTToji.oi'fj. "With endurance, perseverance," rather than 
" patience," which would be p.a.Kpo8vfjLia : in patie?itia (Vulg.), in 
tolerantia (c), in sufferentia (d), per patientiam (bfff 2 ). See Lft. 
on Col. i. 1 1 ; Trench, Syn. liii. This {nrop.ovrj is the opposite of 
acpio-Tavrai (ver. 13), and is not in Mt. or Mk. Thus Lk. gives the 
opposite of all three of the bad classes : Kcn-cxoucriv, non ut in via ; 
KapTTocpopovcriv, non ut in spinis ; iv virop-ovy, non ut in petroso 
(Beng.). Neither here nor in ver. 8 does Lk. give the degrees of 
fruitfulness. Mt. and Mk. do so both in the parable and in the 
interpretation. The suggestion that Lk. has mistaken three 
numerals for a word which he translates iv iirofxovf) seems to be a 
little too ingenious (Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 381). That Jesus 
knew that all four of the classes noticed in the parable were to be 
found in the audience before Him, is probable enough ; but we 
have no means of knowing it. We may safely identify the Eleven 
and the ministering women with the fourth class. Judas is an 
instance of the third. But all are warned that the mere receiving 
of the word is not decisive. Everything depends upon how it is 
received and how it is retained. Grotius quotes from the Magna 
Moralia : <S to ayaOa. iravra ovtcl dya6d eoTiv, /ecu V7r6 tovtojv /xt) 
cHacS^ti'peTai, olov vtto ttXovtov km a/3X^ ? > ° toioCtos KaXos KCU 

16-18. Practical Inference. The connexion with what pre- 
cedes need not be doubted. By answering the question of the 
disciples (ver. 9) and explaining the parable to them, Jesus had 
kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see 
that it spreads to others. Here we have the opposite of what was 
noticed in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Lk. has, gathered 
into one, sayings which Mt. has, scattered in three different places 
(v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12 : comp. xiii. 12, xxv. 29). Mk. and Lk. are 
here very similar and consecutive. Comp. xi. 33-36. 

16. Xux^oi/ cuj/as KaXuirrei auTcV o-Keuei. " Having lighted a 
lamp," rather than "a candle." Trench, Syn. xlvi. ; Becker, 
CharideSy iii. 86, Eng. tr. p. 130; Gallus, ii. 398, Eng. tr. p. 308. 
For fi\j/as see on xv. 8 : it occurs again xi. ^3i Dut not in the 
parallels Mt. v. 15; Mk. iv. 21. Instead of o-Keu'ei Mt. and Mk. 
have the more definite vtto tcV /ao'Siov, which Lk. has xi. 33. As 


Xv'xvos is a "lamp," Xux^ia is a "lamp-stand," on which several 
Xvyyoi might be placed or hung : for, whereas the Xap.irTrjp was 
fixed, the Xvxyos was portable. Other forms of Xvxyia are Av^viop 
and Xv^yelov (Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 40^ Comp. the 
very similar passage xi. 33. In both passages 01 el<riropev6p.evoi, 
the Gentiles, are mentioned instead of oi iv rrj oi/aa, the Jews (Mt. 

v. 15). 

17. The poetic rhythm and parallelism should be noticed. 
Somewhat similar sayings are found in profane writers : aya Si 
irpbs <£ws rr]v aXr/Oeiav xpdvos (Menander) ; comp. Soph. A/ax, 646, 
and Wetst. on Mt. x. 26. For <\>avepbv yen^a-cTai see on iv. 36 ; 
Mt has d.TroKaXv<p9i']o-€Tai, Mk. <pavepu>6r}. For &Tr6i<pu(J>oe, " hidden 
away" from the public eye, see Lft. on Col. ii. 3. It was a 
favourite word with the Gnostics to indicate their esoteric books, 
which might not be published. Comp. the very similar passage 
xii. 2 ; and see S. Cox in the Expositor, 2nd series, i. pp. 186, 
372, and Schanz, ad loc. 

18. pXeircTe ouc irws &Kou'eTe. Because the doctrine received 
must be handed on and made known to all, therefore it is all-im- 
portant that it should be rightly heard, viz. with intelligence and 
a "good heart" (ver. 15). Whoever gives a welcome to the word 
and appropriates it, becomes worthy and capable of receiving 
more. But by not appropriating truth when we recognize it, we 
lose our hold of it, and have less power of recognizing it in the 
future. There is little doubt that 8 Soke! ex«v means " that which 
he thinketh he hath." Wic. has "weneth"; Tyn. and Cran. "sup- 
poseth " ; Cov. and Rhem. " thinketh." " Seemeth " comes from 
Beza's videtur. It is .^-deception that is meant. Those who 
received the seed by the wayside were in this condition ; they 
failed to appropriate it, and lost it. Comp. xix. 26. 

Mk. here inserts (iv. 24) the w fierpw neTpeire, k.t.X., which 
Lk. has already given in the sermon (vi. 38) : and both Mt. and 
Mk. here add other parables, two of which Lk. gives later (xiii. 

19-21. The Visit of His Mother and His Brethren. Christ's 
true Relations. Mt. (xii. 46-50) and Mk. (iii. 31-35) place this 
incident before the parable of the Sower ; but none of the three 
state which preceded in order of time. Comp. x ; 27, 28, and 
see on xi. 29. On the "Brethren of the Lord " see Lange, Leben 
Jesu, ii. 2, § 13, Eng. tr. i. p. 329; Lft. Galatians, pp. 253-291, 
in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 3-45, Macmillan, 
1892 ; J. B. Mayor, Epistle of S. James, pp. v-xxxvi, Macmillan, 
1892. 1 D.B? artt. "Brother"; "James"; "Judas, the Lord's 

1 The work as a whole, and the dissertation on this question in particular, 
deserve special commendation. 



19. riapeyeVeTO Be irpo9 auToy r\ (j.rJTY|p xai ol dSeX^ol <xutou 
For the verb, which is a favourite with Lk., see on vii. 4. Here 
Mk. has epxovTai and Mt. iSov. In writing the sing. Lk. is think- 
ing only of 17 ^rjTrjp. Such constructions are common, and do 
not imply that the first in the series of nominatives was em- 
phatic or specially prominent, except in the writer's thoughts. 
Comp. Jn. xviii. 15, xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Philem. 23. 

The precise relationship to be understood from the expression 
ol doeX<f>ol auTou will probably never be determined or cease to be 
discussed. There is nothing in Scripture to warn us from what is 
the antecedently natural view that they are the children of Joseph 
and Mary, unless " I know not a man " (i. 34) is interpreted as 
implying a vow of perpetual virginity. The "firstborn " in ii. 7 
and the imperfect followed by "till" in Mt. i. 25, seem to imply 
that Joseph and Mary had children ; which is confirmed by con- 
temporary belief (Mk. vi. 3 ; Mt. xiii. 55) and by the constant 
attendance of the dScAtpoi on the Mother of the Lord (Mt. xii. 
46; Mk. iii. 32; Jn. ii. 12). The Epiphanian theory, which gives 
Joseph children older than Jesus by a former wife, deprives Him 
of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the house of David. 
It seems to be of apocryphal origin {Gospel according to Peter, or 
Book of James) ; and, like Jerome's theory of cousinship, to have 
been invented in the interests of asceticism and of a priori con- 
victions respecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tertullian, 
in dealing with this passage, seems to assume as a matter of 
course that the dSeA</>oi are the children of Mary, and that she 
and they were here censured by Christ (Afarcion. iv. 19; De 
Carne Christi, vii.). He knows nothing of the doctrine of a 
sinless Virgin. Renan conjectures that James, Joses, Simon, 
and Judas were the cousins of Jesus, but that the brethren who 
refused to believe in Him were His real brethren (V. de J. p. 23). 
This solution remains entirely his own, for it creates more diffi- 
culties than it solves. See Expositor's Bible, James and Jude, ch. 
iii., Hodder, 1891. 

owruxeiK. Elsewhere in bibl. Grk. 2 Mac. viii. 14 only. 

20. airrrYYeXT). A favourite word {w. 34, 36, 47, vii. 18, 22, ix. 36, 
xiii. 1, etc.). Here [Mt.] has direv 8e rts and Mk. has Xtyovaiv. The 
\ey6vTwi> is certainly spurious : om. K B D L A S, Latt. Goth. etc. 

21. htjtt]p pou <al dSeX^oi p.ou. Note the absence of the article 
in all three accounts. This is the predicate, and ovtoi, k.t.A., is 
the subject. And the meaning is not are " My actual mother or 
brethren," which would be fj p-rjrrjp p.ov /cat 01 6ZeX<poi p.ov, but 
" Mother to Me and brethren to Me," i.e. equal to such, equally 
dear. Mt. and Mk. have the singular here : outos or avrus fiov 
dSe\<pos /ecu aheXcpr] ko.1 fnqrqp iariv. We cannot infer from koX 


aSekcf)-)] that His sisters were present : they had settled at Nazareth 
(Mt xiii. 56 ; Mk. vi. 3). The texts of Mk. iii. 32, which repre- 
sent the multitude as telling Jesus that His sisters are with His 
Mother and brethren, are probably the result of this inference. 
A D and some Latin authorities insert " and Thy sisters " ; 
X B C G K L and most Versions omit the words. Christ's reply 
is not a denial of the claims of family ties, nor does it necessarily 
imply any censure on His Mother and brethren. It asserts that 
there are far stronger and higher claims. Family ties at the best 
are temporal ; spiritual ties are eternal. Moreover, the closest 
blood-relationship to the Messiah constitutes no claim to ad- 
mission into the Kingdom of God. No one becomes a child of 
God in virtue of human parentage (Jn. i. 13). Jesus does not 
say iraTTjp jxov, not merely because Joseph was not present, but 
because in the spiritual sense that relationship to Christ is filled 
by God alone. See on ver. n. 

22-25. The Stilling of the Tempest on the Lake of Gennesaret. 
This is the first of a pair of miracles which appear in the same 
order in all three Gospels (Mt. viii. 23 ff. ; Mk. iv. 35 ff.), the 
second being the healing of the demoniacs in the country of the 
Gadarenes. To these two Mk. and Lk. add the healing of the 
woman with the issue and the raising of the daughter of Jairus, 
which Mt. places somewhat later. The full series gives us a 
group of representative miracles exhibiting Christ's power over 
the forces of nature and the powers of hell, over disease and over 

22. 'EyeVeTo 8e iv jjuS tuc f\p.epC>v ko.1 ciuto$. All these ex- 
pressions are characteristic, and exhibit Aramaic influence. See 
note at the end of ch. i., and comp. v. 1, 12, 17, vi. 12. There is 
nothing like them in Mk. iv. 35 or Mt. viii. 23, and iv pna twv 
rj/xeptov is peculiar to Lk. (v. 17, xx. 1). Comp. cv /aa tuv 
TToXewv (v. 12) and ev jiua twv crvvaywywv (xiii. 10). Mt. tells US 
that it was the sight of the multitudes around Him that moved 
Jesus to order a departure to the other side of the lake ; and 
Mk. says that the disciples " leaving the multitude, take Him with 
them, even as He was in the boat." This seems to imply that 
He was utterly tired, overcome by the demands which the multi- 
tude made upon Him. For Zi£kOup.ev see on ii. 15. The nautical 
expression dvdy<-cr#ai is freq. in Lk. and peculiar to him (Acts 
xiii. 13, xvi. 11, xviii. 21, xx. 3, 13, xxi. 2, xxvii. 2, 4, 12, 21, xxviii. 
10, 11). Syr-Sin. omits kcu avijxOrjcrav. 

23. irXeonw 8e aurwv afyuirvwaev. Excepting Rev. xviii. 1 7, 
wXciv is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xxi. 3, xxvii. 2, 6, 24). In An//i. 
Pal. 9. 517, d^uTTcow means " awaken from sleep." Here it means 
" fall off to sleep," a use which seems to be somewhat late 
(Heliod. ix. 12). In class. Grk. we should rather have Kadvirvou) 


(Lob. Phryn. p. 224). This is the only passage in which we read 
of Jesus sleeping. 

KaTe'Pri XaiXaij/ dyejiou. " There came down a violent squall of 
wind," from the heights which surround the lake. These are 
furrowed with ravines like funnels, down which winds rush with 
great velocity. See Thomson, Land 6° Book, p. 375; Keim, 
iv. p. 179, who quotes Rusegger, Reisen, iii. p. 136. For XalXa»J» 
comp. Job xxi. 18, xxxviii. 1; Wisd. v. 14, 23; Ecclus. xlviii. 9; 
Horn. 77. xii. 375, xvii. 57. Mt. gives the effect of it as (moytos 
/xe'yas iv rrj QaXaa-crrj. For the accent COmp. Ka\avpo\j/, KAi/ia£, 
k.tA., and see Chandler, § 668. 

oweirX.T]pourro. The verb occurs only here, ix. 51, and Acts 
ii. 1. Note the imperf. in contrast to Kare/Sr]. The squall came 
down with a single rush ; the filling of the boat continued and 
was not completed. What was true of the boat is stated of the 
crew. In class. Grk. the act. is used of manning ships thoroughly 
(Thuc. vi. 50. 2). 

24. 'Emo-Tcn-a, cmcrrdTa. See on v. 5. The doubling of the 
name is here peculiar to Lk. Comp. x. 41, xxii. 31 ; Acts ix. 4, 
xxii. 7, xxvi. 14. Mt. has Kvpie, Mk. AiSa<x/<aXe. Augustine has 
some good remarks as to the differences between the exclama- 
tions attributed to the disciples in the three narratives. " There is 
no need to inquire which of these exclamations was really uttered. 
For whether they uttered some one of these three, or other words 
which no one of the Evangelists has recorded, yet conveying the 
same sense, what does it matter?" {De Cons. Evang. ii. 24, 25). 

e-n-e-ri/AT]<Tey tu dfejiw kcu tu icXuScim. This does not prove that 
Lk. regarded the storm as a personal agent : both the wind and 
its effect are "rebuked," a word which represents the disciples' 
view of the action. See on iv. 39. A icXuSwy (kX^civ, " wash 
against ") is larger than a Kv/xa (Jas. i. 6 ; Jon. i. 4, 12; Wisd. 
xiv. 5 ; 1 Mac. vi. 1 1 ; 4 Mac. vii. 5, xv. 3 1 ). 

yaXrjni. Mt. and Mk. add fxeydXr] : the word is common 
elsewhere, but in N.T. occurs only in this narrative. The sudden 
calm in the sea showed the reality of the miracle. Wind may 
cease suddenly, but the water which it has agitated continues to 
work for a long time afterwards. In Mk., as here, the stilling of 
the tempest precedes the rebuke : Mt. transposes the order of the 
two incidents. In both the rebuke is sharper than in Lk., who 
"ever spares the Twelve" (Schanz). See on vi. 13 and xxii. 45. 

25. rioG y| tticttis u/jlwc; They might have been sure that the 
Messiah would not perish, and that their prayer for help would be 
answered. It is not their praying for succour that is blamed, but 
their want of faith in the result of their prayer: they feared that their 
prayer would be vain. Comp. His parents' anguish, and see on ii. 48. 

tis apo. outos ecrriv; Mt. has iroTairos. There is nothing in- 


credible in the question. Their ideas of the Christ and His 
powers were very imperfect ; and this was probably the first time 
that they had seen Him controlling the forces of nature. Their 
experience as fishermen told them how impossible it was in the 
natural course that such a storm should be followed immediately 
by a great calm. The fear which accompanies this question or 
exclamation is not that which the storm produced, but that which 
was caused by a sudden recognition of the presence of super- 
natural power of a kind that was new to them. Comp. v. 26, 
vii. 16. For the apa comp. xxii. 23 ; Acts xii. 18. 

One conjectures that the framer of a legend would have made the disciples 
accept the miracle as a matter of course : comp. v. 8, 9. Keim opposes Strauss 
for rejecting the whole as a myth, although he himself by no means accepts the 
whole as historical. " Unquestionably there rests upon this brief and pregnant 
narrative a rare majesty, such as does not reappear in the other nature-miracles. 
With a few masterly strokes there is here sketched a most sublime picture from 
the life of Jesus, and a picture full of truth. . . . Even His rising up against 
weather and sea is told by Mt. and Lk. quite simply, without any ostentation ; 
and the tentative query of the disciples, after their deliverance was accomplished, 
Who is this ? is the slightest possible, the only too modest and yet the true 
utterance of the impression which they must at that time have received " (Jes. 
of Naz. iv. p. 180). See Gould on Mk. iv. 41. 

26-39. The Healing of the Demoniac in the Country of the 

Gerasenes seems to be the true reading both here and Mk. v. 1, while 
Gadarenes is best attested Mt. viii. 28 ; but in all three places the authorities 
vary between Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes. The evidence here is 
thus summarized — 

TadaprjvQv, ART A All etc., Syrr. (Cur-Pesh-Sin-Harcl txt) Goth. 
Tepao-TjvQv, B C* (ver. 37, Mat ver. 26) D, Latt. Syr-Harcl tng. 
Tepyea-qv&v, X L X S minusc. sex, Syr-Hier. Boh. Arm. Aeth. See WH. 
ii. App. p. 11. If Lk. viii. 26 stood alone, one might adopt Tepye- 
ct)vQjv as possibly correct there ; but the evidence in ver. 37 is con- 
clusive against it. 

These Gerasenes are probably not the people of the Gerasa 
which lay on the extreme eastern frontier of Persea, over thirty 
miles from the lake : even in a loose description to foreigners Lk. 
would not be likely to speak of the shore of the lake as in the 
country of these Gerasenes. Rather we may understand the 
town which Thomson rediscovered {Land 6° Book, ii. 34-38) 
under the name of Gersa or Kersa on the steep eastern bank. 
Gergesa is merely a conjecture of Origen, adopted upon topo- 
graphical grounds and not upon textual evidence. It may be 
rejected in all three narratives. There is no real difficulty of 
topography, whichever reading be adopted. The expression rr/v 
Xwpav twv T. gives considerable latitude, and may include a great 
deal more than the immediate vicinity of the town. Nor is there 
any difficulty in the fact that Mt. kno w s of two demoniacs, 


whereas Lk. and Mk. mention only one. The real difficulties in 
the miracle, for those who believe in the fact of demoniacal 
possession, are connected with the swine, i. Can beings which 
are purely spiritual enter and influence beings which are purely 
animal ? 2. How can we justify the destruction of the swine, 
which were innocent creatures, and which belonged to persons 
who do not seem to have merited such a heavy loss ? 

On the first of these two questions our ignorance is so great 
that we do not even know whether there is a difficulty. Who can 
explain how mind acts upon matter, or matter upon mind ? Yet 
the fact is as certain, as that mind acts upon mind or that matter 
acts upon matter. There is nothing in experience to forbid us 
from believing that evil spirits could act upon brute beasts; and 
science admits that it has " no a priori objection to offer " to such 
an hypothesis. And if there is no scientific objection to demoniacal 
possession of brutes, a fortiori there is none to that of men, 
seeing that men have both bodies and spirits to be influenced. 
The influence may have been analogous to that of mesmerism 01 
hypnotism. The real difficulty is the moral one. As Huxley puts 
it, " the wanton destruction of other people's property is a mis- 
demeanour of evil example." The answers are very various. 
1. The whole story is a myth. 2. The healing of the demoniacs 
and the repulse of the Healer by the inhabitants are historical, but 
the incident of the swine is a later figment. 3. The demoniacs 
frightened the swine, and the transfer of demons from them to the 
swine was imagined. 4. The drowning of the swine was an 
accident, possibly simultaneous with the healing, and report mixed 
up the two incidents. 5. The demoniacs were mere maniacs, 
whom Jesus cured by humouring their fancies ; and His giving 
leave to imaginary demons to enter into the swine, produced the 
story of the disaster to the herd. — All these explanations assume 
that the Gospel narratives are wholly or in part unhistorical. But 
there are other explanations. — 6. Like earthquakes, shipwrecks, 
pestilences, and the like, the destruction of the swine is part of the 
mystery of evil, and insoluble. 7. As the Creator of the universe, 
the incarnate Word had the right to do what He pleased with His 
own. 8. A visible effect of the departure of the demons was 
necessary to convince the demoniacs and their neighbours of the 
completeness of the cure. Brutes and private property may be 
sacrificed, where the sanity and lives of persons are concerned. 
9. The keepers of the swine were Jews, who were breaking the 
Jewish law, which was binding on them, and perhaps on the whole 
district. " In the enforcement of a law which bound the con- 
science, our Lord had an authority such as does not belong to the 
private individual" (W. -E. Gladstone, Nineteenth Century, Feb. 
1891, p. 357). Against this it is contended that the swineherds 


were probably pagans, and that the district was not under Jewish 
law (A 7 ! C. Dec. 1890, p. 967 ; March 1891, p. 455). Certainty is 
not attainab 1 ^, but it is probable that one of the last two reasons 
is the true explanation. See Expositor, 3rd series, 1889, ix. 303. 
Godet's conclusion seems to be sound, that it is one of those cases 
in which the power to execute the sentence guarantees the right 
of the judge. 1 Contrast the healing of a demoniac woman as 
recorded in the Gospel of tJie Infancy, xiv. 

26. KaTe'irXeuaac €is tt]i> y&pa.v iw repa.(ry)v£>v r^ris early drrurepa. 
" They landed at the country of the Gerasenes, which is in such a 
position as to be opposite Galilee." The verb is quite class, of 
coming to land from the high seas, but is found here only in N.T. 
Not in LXX. See Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of S. Paul, p. 28, 
and reff. in Wetst. The statement tells us nothing as to the 
position of the country of the Gerasenes, for " opposite " would 
apply to the whole of the east shore. Lk. alone mentions its 
being "opposite Galilee"; perhaps to justify its inclusion in the 
Galilean ministry. D.C.G. artt. "Gadara," "Gerasenes." 

Some texts have irtpav from Mt. or Mk. , while others have avrnripav, of 
which avTiirtpa is a later form. Another form is avTiiripas. For the accent 
see Chandler, § 867. 

27. i>Trr\vrr\<je.v avr\p T19 in rrjs -rrdXews. The man belonged to 
the city, but he came out of the tombs to meet Jesus : Ik t^s 
7roAews belongs to dv-qp tis, not to v-n-^vrr/o-ev. For this force of 
{mo in composition comp. iiroxpivofxaL, " answer back " ; i-n-oXo- 
yi£o/, " reckon per contra " ; viroo-Tpi^u), "turnback." For iKa^w 
see on vii. 1 2 ; and for cVeouo-cn-o see Burton, § 48. Lk. alone 
mentions that the demoniac wore no clothes ; but Mk. implies it 
by stating that he was clothed after he was cured. All three 
mention the tombs ; and near the ruins of Khersa there are many 
tombs hewn in the rocks. Excepting Mk. v. 3, 5 and Rev. xi. 9, 
fju^fia is peculiar to Lk. (xxiii. 53, xxiv. 1; Acts ii. 29, vii. 16) ; 
but he more often uses fi-vyj/xeiov. With epevev comp. xix. 5, xxiv. 29. 

28. Tt ejxol k<u o-oi ; See on iv. 34. 

Mtjo-ou uU tou 0€oO tou uiJuaTou. This expression rather indicates 
that the man is not a Jew, and therefore is some evidence that the 
owners of the swine were not Jews. " The Most High " (Elyon) 
is a name for Jehovah which seems to be usual among heathen 
nations It is employed by Melchisedek, the Canaanite priest and 
king (Gen. xiv. 20, 22). Balaam uses it (Num. xxiv. 16). Micah 
puts it into the mouth of Balaam (vi. 6) ; Isaiah, into the mouth 
of the king of Babylon (xiv. 14). It is used repeatedly in the 
Babylonian proclamations in Daniel (hi. 26, iv. 24, 32, v. 18, 21, 

1 See some valuable remarks by Sanday in the Contetnp. Rev. Sept. 1892, p. 
348. He inclines to the second explanation, but with reserve. 


vii. i8, 22, 25, 27). The girl with a spirit of divination at Philippi 
employs it (Acts xvi. 17). It is found in Phoenician inscriptions 
also. See Chad wick, Si. Murk, p. 144, and Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 1. 
For <J>u)Kfj peyaX-r] see on i. 42, and for oe' see on v. 12 : with 
&KaKpd£a$ of demoniac cries comp. iv. 41 ; Acts viii. 7. 

fir) fie |3acrai'urfls. Neither the verb nor its cognate substantive 
is ever used in N.T. of testing metals, or of obtaining evidence by 
torture, but simply of pain or torment. The demoniac identifies 
himself with the demon which controls him, and the torment 
which is feared is manifest from ver. 31. 

29. irapify-yeWev -yap t<3 irvevaan. Authorities are very evenly 
divided between the imperf. and the aor. If irap-qyyeikev be right, it almost 
means " He had ordered." Burton, § 29, 48. We should have expected tois 
TrveOp.i.crii', for both in ver. 27 and ver. 30 we have 8a.ifj.6vta. But the inter- 
change of personality between the man and the demons is so rapid, that it 
becomes natural to speak of the demons in the sing. Note that while Lk. 
has his characteristic i£e\0eip atrb (w. 33, 38, iv. 35, 41, v. 8, etc.), Mk. 
has the more usual i$t\delv £k. 

ttoXXois yap xp° vot s trvvTipiraKei avr6v. " Many times," i.e. on many 
occasions, multis temporibus (Vulg.), "it had seized him," or "carried hire 
away": comp. Acts xxvii. 15. Mk. has ir6\\a.Kis. Others explain "within 
a long time." See Win. xxxi. 9, p. 273. The verb is quite class., but in 
N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts vi. 12, xix. 29, xxvii. 15). Hobart counts it as 
medical (p. 244). In LXX, Prov. vi. 25 ; 2 Mac. hi. 27, iv. 41. 

dXucrecn.i' ica! Tre'Scus. Both Lk. and Mk. use these two words 
to distinguish the " handcuffs and fetters," manicx elpedicx, with 
which he was bound. See Lft. Phil. p. 8. The former is used of 
the chain by which the hand of a prisoner was fastened to the 
soldier who had charge of him. Like " chains," dAvo-eis are of 
metal, whereas -rriSai might be ropes or withes. Both dAu'o-eis and 
TrtSac are included in ra Secr/xd. The imperfects tell of what 
usually took place. During the calmer intervals precautions were 
taken to prevent the demons " carrying him away with " them ; 
but these precautions always proved futile. 

eis Tds eprj/Aous. In order to take the man away from humane 
influences. But the wilderness is regarded as the home of evil 
spirits. See on xi. 24 ; and for the plural see on i. 80. 

30. Tt ctoi oVop.d idTiv ; In order to recall the man to a sense 
of his own independent personality, Jesus asks him his name. It 
was a primary condition of his cure that he should realize that he 
is not identical with the evil powers which control his actions. 
Perhaps also Christ wished the disciples to know the magnitude of 
the evil, that the cure might increase their faith (ver. 25) : and this 
purpose may have influenced Him in allowing the destruction of 
the swine. The peculiar word Aeyiwc, 1 which is preserved in Mk. 

1 That the man had ever seen a Roman legion, "at once one and many, 
cruel and inexorable and strong," is perhaps not probable. But see Trench, 
Miracles, p. 171, 8th ed. For other Latin words comp. x. 35, xi. 33, xix. 2a 


v. 9 also, is a mark of authenticity. As Sanday points out, it is 
more probable that this strange introduction of a Latin word 
should represent something which really took place, than that it 
should be pure invention {Contemp. Rev. Sept. 1892, p. 349). 
The words on eto-^XGec Saiucma ttoWo, eis auToV are the remark 
of the Evangelist: ccmp. ii. 50, iii. 15, xxiii. 12. 

31. irapeKdXoui' auToV. "They kept beseeching Him." The 
plurality of those who ask is emphatically marked : with Sai/wia 
we might have expected 7rape/caA.ei, as in Mk. The plur. would 
have been less noticeable in Mk., because the masc. plur., -n-oXXoi. 
iafxev, precedes. 

That TrapeK&Xovv (NBCDFLS, Latt. Goth.) and not TapeK&\et is right 
here, need not be doubted. 

€19 tV a|3ucrow. In class. Grk. aj3vcrcro<s is always an adj., 
"bottomless, boundless," and is mostly poetical. In LXX rj 
a/?wo-os is used of the sea (Gen. i. 2, vii. n ; Job xli. 22, 23); 
without the art. (Job xxviii. 14, xxxvi. 16 ; Ecclus. 1 3, xvi. 18); 
of the depths of the earth (Ps. lxxi. 20 ; Deut. viii. 7) ; but per- 
haps nowhere of Hades. In N.T. it means Hades (Rom. x. 7), 
and esp. the penal part of it which is the abode of demons (Rev. 
ix. 1— ii, xi. 7, xvii. 8, xx. 1, 3). The latter is the meaning here. 
The demons dread being sent to their place of punishment. See 
Cremer, Lex. sub v. In Mk. the petition is " that He will not 
send them out of the country" ; but the verb is sing, and the man 
is the petitioner. He still confuses himself with the demons, and 
desires to stay where he feels at home. This is their wish and 
his also. The persistent confusion of personality renders it 
necessary that the man should have some decisive evidence of 
the departure of the evil spirits from him. In this way his cure 
will be effected with least suffering, Prof. Marshall thinks that els 
tt)v afivao-ov and !£co rf}s x^P a!; mav represent Aramaic expressions 
so nearly alike as readily to be confounded by copyist or trans- 
lator (Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 377). See footnote on v. 31. 

32. ayi\r\ xoi'pwi' iKaKwc. This illustrates the fondness of Lk. 
for t/cavds in this sense : Mt. has ay. x°^P 0)V ttoW&v and Mk. ay. 
\01pmv fieydXr], With characteristic love of detail Mk. gives the 
number as <I>? SktxiXioi, which may be an exaggeration of the 
swineherds or of the owners, who wished to make the most of 
their loss. Had the number been an invention of the narrator, 
we should have had 4000 or 5000 to correspond with the legion. 
It is futile to ask whether each animal was possessed. If some 
of them were set in motion, the rest would follow mechanically. 
For the l-rriTpexpev avrots of Lk. and Mk. we have the direct 
vTrdyere in Mt., which need mean no more than " depart, be gone." 
But the distinction between commanding and allowing what He 


might have forbidden is not very helpful. Whatever the motive of 
the demons may have been, Jesus uses it for a good end, and 
secures the easy and effectual cure of their victim. 

33. wppjcrei' r\ dye'\r| koto, too KpT]u.foG. These words also are 
in all three. The word Kp^/xvo's need not mean an abrupt pre- 
cipice : a steep and rocky slope suffices. MacGregor, Stanley, 
Tristram, Wilson, and others believe that the spot which suits the 
description can be identified. The art. implies that it was well 
known. Comp. 2 Chron. xxv. 12. The use of aitetrviyn] for 
suffocation by drowning is classical (Dem. p. 883). 

34. t6 yeyovos. Chiefly the destruction of the swine. In ver. 
36 ol iSoVt€s means the disciples and others near to Jesus, not the 

35-39. Note how the characteristics of Lk.'s diction stand out in these 
verses. For rbv AvOpwirov &<p' o5 t. 5. i^ijXdev (see on ver. 29) Mk. has rbv 
Sai/j.ovii6fjLevov, and irapb, rovs irbdas (see on vii. 38) has no equivalent in 
Mk. For dTrriyyeiXav (see on ver. 20) Mk. has BiyyTJixavTO, while Hirav 
(see on iii. 21), rb wXijdos (see on i. io), <£6/3y fiey&Xy (see on i. 42, vii. 16), 
ovvelxovTo (see on iv. 38), and vir£crTpe\}/ep (see on i. 56) have no 
equivalents. For ibelro (see on v. 12) Mk. has irapetcdXei ; for 6 dvrjp d.0' 
ov i^eXrjXvdet (see on ver. 29) Mk. has the less accurate 6 daifiovwOels ; for 
cvv (see on i. 56) Mk. has fierd ; and for vir6(7Tpe<pe (see on i. 56) Mk. has 

35. iu.aTio-u.eVoi\ Some of the bystanders may have given him 
clothing ; but there would have been time to fetch it. The verb 
is found neither in LXX nor in profane writers, but only here and 
Mk. v. 15. The 7rap& tous iroSas implies an attitude of thankful- 
ness rather than that he has become a disciple. It is the last of 
the four changes that have taken place in the man. He is 
KaO-qfxevov instead of restless, iju,aTio-/u.evov instead of naked, arwcppo- 
vovvtol instead of raging, and vapa tous 7ro'8as tov 'I. instead of 
shunning human society. Baur would have it that he is meant to 
represent the conversion of the Gentiles. We are not sure that 
he was a Gentile ; and this would have been made clear if he was 
intended as a representative. For -n-apd with the ace. after a verb 
of rest comp. Acts x. 6; Mt. xiii. 1, xx. 30; Mk. v. 21, x. 46. 

36. dirriYYeiXai' 8e auTois. This is not a repetition of ver. 34, 
but a statement of additional information which was given to the 
townspeople after they arrived on the scene. 

37. a-n-af to TrXfjGos. The desire that He should depart was 
universal, and all three narratives mention it. The people feared 
that His miraculous power might lead to further losses : and this 
feeling was not confined to the inhabitants of the 7ro'Ats close at 
hand (ver. 34) ; it was shared by the whole district. Comp. iv. 29, 
ix. 53, and contrast iv. 42 ; Jn. iv. 40. Although Keim rejects 
the incident of the swine, yet he rightly contends that this request 


that Jesus should leave the place gives the impression of a sober 
historical fact. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the history 
of Jesus ; and neither it nor the locality is likely to have been 
invented. Why should a myth take Jesus across to Gerasa? 
Some historical connexion with the locality is much more 
probable. Here, as in vv. 30, 36, Syr-Sin. abbreviates. 

38. eSei-ro Se ciutou 6 dfrjp. The Se marks the contrast between 
Him and the rest. Mk. says that the request was made as Jesus 
was stepping into the boat. Mt. omits the whole incident. The 
man fears the unfriendly populace, and clings to his preserver. 

39. SiTjyou oo-a <roi eTroujcrev' 6 0e6s. In Galilee and Judaea, 
where Jesus and His disciples preached, He commonly told those 
who were healed to be silent about their cures. In this half- 
heathen Persea there were no other missionaries, and the man was 
not fitted for permanent work with Christ elsewhere. Moreover, 
here there was no danger of the miracle being used for political 
purposes. Lastly, it might be beneficial to a healed demoniac to 
have free converse with all after his gloomy isolation. The 6 0e6s 
is last with emphasis. Jesus shows the man that he must attribute 
his deliverance to God. Both Lk. and Mk. preserve the highly 
natural touch that, in spite of this command, the man proclaimed 
what Jesus had done for him. Note also that xa^' oX-qv ttjv ttoXiv 
is much in excess of eis tov oXkov <rov, and Kypvao-w of St^yov. See 
on ix. 10. 

icaO' SXtjv tt)v iroXiv. With K-qpvcrvuv, not with airrjXdev : Win. xlix. d. 
a, p. 499. Mk. has iv rrj AeKairbkei. Nowhere else in N.T. does ica$ 
6\rjv occur: Lk. commonly writes ko.0' SXtjs (iv. 14, xxiii. 5 ; Acts ix. 31, 42, 
x. 37). He nowhere mentions Decapolis. 

40-56. The Healing of the Woman with the Issue and the 
Raising of the Daughter of Jairus. Mt. ix. 18-26 ; Mk. v. 21-43. 
The name of Bernice (Veronica) for this woman first appears in 
the Acts of Pilate, Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt. I. ch. vii. Respecting 
the statues, which Eusebius saw at Csesarea, and which he believed 
to represent Christ and this woman, see H. E. vii. 18. 1-3. 
Sozomen says that Julian removed the statue of Christ and sub- 
stituted one of himself, which was broken by a thunderbolt (v. 21). 
Philostorgius says the same (vii. 3). Malalas gives the petition 
in which the woman asked Herod Antipas to be allowed to erect 
the memorial (Chrongr. x. 306-8). That the statues existed, and 
that Christians thus misinterpreted their meaning, need not be 
doubted Pseudo-Ambrosius would have it that the woman was 
Martha the sister of Lazarus. 

40-48. Id these verses also the marks of Lk.'s style are very conspicuous 
(see above on w. 35-39). In ver. 40 we have iv 5t r<j5 c. infin. (see on iii. 21), 
vTro<7Tpi<peiv (see on i. 56), diredi^aro (see on ver. 40), rjaav c. parlicip. 
(see on i. 10), ir&vres (see on ix. 43), and irpoadoKu/vres (see on iii. 15). In 


ver. 41, Kal ISov (see on i. 20), Kal ovtos (i. 36), inrijpxev (see on ver. 41), 
xapa. rovs ir68as (see on vii. 38). In ver. 42, Kal aiirr) (see on i. 17) and it 
ik T<p c. infill. In ver. 44, irapaxpv/ xa ( see on v - 2 5)- I n v e f - 45, Trdvrwv 
(vi. 30, vii. 35) and iiricrTaTa (v. 5). In ver. 46, i£e\6eiv air6 (see on iv. 
35). In ver. 47, aTrrjyyei\ei> (see on ver. 20), ivwiriov (see on i. 15), 
iravrds, tov Xaov, id 6 77, and irapaxpvt ia " Not one of these expressions is 
found in the parallel passages in Mt. and Mk. See on ix. 28-36. 

40. direSe'laxo. Peculiar to Lk. (ix. 11; Acts ii. 41, xviii. 27, 
xxi. 17, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 30, and possibly xv. 4). The meaning is 
they "received Him with pleasure, welcomed Him" (Euthym. 
Theophyl. Schanz). See on iv. 42 and on xi. 29. In class. Grk. 
the verb means "accept as a teacher, as an authority," or "admit 
arguments as valid " : so in Xen. Plat. Arist. etc. 

41. 'laeipos. The same name as Jair (Num. xxxii. 41 ; Judg. 
x. 3). It is strange that the name ( = " he will give light ") should 
be used as an argument against the historical character of the 
narrative. It is not very appropriate to the circumstances. 

oTnjpxey. Very freq. in Lk., esp. in Acts : not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
The use of this verb as almost equivalent to eirai is the beginning 
of the modern usage. But the classical meaning of a present 
state connected with a previous state still continues in N.T. (ix. 
48, xi. 13, xvi. 14, 23, xxiii. 50). See Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 
26. Here also Christ does not refuse the homage (iv. 8), as Peter 
(Acts x. 26) and the Angel (Rev. xix. 10) do. 

42. pocoyerris. As in the cases of the widow's son and the 
lunatic boy (vii. 12, ix. 38), this fact may have influenced Christ. 
On all three occasions Lk. alone mentions the fact. 

€iw 8w8eKa. A critical time in a girl's life. Not only Lk., 
who frequently notes such things (ii. 36, 37, 42, iii. 23, xiii. n), 
but Mk. also gives the age. All three mention that the woman 
with the issue had been suffering for twelve years. For d-n-e'Onfjo-Kcc 
Mk. has eo-xdVws f^ci and Mt. apri IreXevTrjo-ev. The reason for 
the difference between Mt. and the others is plain. Lk. and Mk. 
give the arrivals, both of the father, who says, " She is dying," and 
of the messenger, who says, " She is dead." Mt. condenses the 
two into one. 

auvi-nviyov. Mk. has <rvv£9\ifiov, which is less strong : see on 
ver. 14. In both cases the <tw- expresses the pressing together all 
round Him. The crowd which had been waiting for Him (ver. 40) 
now clings to Him in the hope of witnessing a miracle. 

43. ovo-a ^v pvo-ei. " Being in a condition of hemorrhage." The 
constr. is quite simple and intelligible ; comp. iv <pdopa, iv iK<rT&<rei, iv 86!-ji, 
iv iKTeveia, iv tx^pQ- The form pvais is from the unused pvca, from which 
come the late forms ippvoa and tppvica, and pevais is often a v. I. Win. xxix. 
3. b, p. 230. 

larpoi9 irpocravaXucrao-a 5Xov tov Piov. " Having, in addition to all 
her sufferings, spent all her resources on physicians," or " for physicians," or 


"in physicians." This use of /Sfos for "means of living" is freq. in N.T. 
(xv. 12, 30, xxi. 4; Mk. xii. 44; I Jn. iii. 17) and in class. Grk. In 
class. Grk. fiios is a higher word than fan}, the former being that which is 
peculiar to man, the latter that which he shares with brutes and vegetables. 
In N.T. /3ios retains its meaning, being either the "period of human life," as 
I Tim. ii. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 4, or "means of life," as here. But £wr) is raised 
above /Sfoy, and means that vital principle which through Christ man shares 
with God. Hence /3/os is comparatively rare in N.T., which is not much 
concerned with the duration of temporal life or the means of prolonging it; 
whereas far) occurs more than a hundred times. See Trench, Syn. xxvii. ; 
Crem. Lex. p. 272 ; Lft. on Ign. ad Rom. vii. 3. 

WH. follow B D., Arm. in omitting larpois . . . filov. Treg. and RV. 
Indicate doubt in marg. Syr-Sin. omits. 

ouk layuvev. This use of Zo-xtxo for " be able " is freq. in Lk. 
See on vi. 48. It is natural that " the physician " does not add, 
as Mk. does, that she had suffered much at the hands of the 
physicians, and was worse rather than better for their treatment. 
The remedies which they tried in such cases were sometimes very 
severe, and sometimes loathsome and absurd. See Lightfoot, 
p. 614; Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, pp. 22, 23. 

44. -n-pocreXSoucra oincrQev rjij/aTo. She came from behind that 
He might not see her. Her malady made her levitically unclean, 
and she did not wish to own this publicly. Her faith is tinged 
with superstition. She believes that Christ's garments heal magic- 
ally, independently of His will. In other cases those who touched 
Him in faith seem to have done so openly. Comp. vi. 19; Mt. 
xiv. 36; Mk. iii. 10, vi. 56. 

For 6iri<r6ev a has de retro : comp. Baruch vi. 5, visa itaque turba de retro 
(Vulg. ). Hence the French derriere. 

tou Kpao-Tre'Sou tou ijxaTiou. "The tassel" rather than "the 
fringe" or "hem of His garment." The square overgarment or 
Tallith had tassels of three white threads with one of hyacinth at 
each of the four corners. Edersh. L. 6° T. i. p. 624 (but see 
D.B! 1 art. " Hem of Garment "). Of the four corners two hung 
in front, and two behind. It was easy to touch the latter without 
the wearer feeling the touch. D.C.G. art. " Border." 

cott] t) pu'o-is. It "stood still, ceased to flow." Mk. has 
iirjpdvOrj. "This is the only passage in the N.T. in which icrravai 
is used in this sense. It is the usual word in the medical writers 
to denote the stoppage of bodily discharges, and especially such as 
are mentioned here" (Hobart, p. 15). Both TT-apaxprjp.a, for which 
Mk. has evOvs, and irpoo-aeaXwo-aora, for which Mk. has 8a7rav7;o-ao-a, 
are also claimed as medical (pp. 16, 96). 

45. There is no reason for supposing that the miracle was 
wrought without the will of Jesus. He knew that someone had 
been healed by touching His garment; and we may believe that 
He read the woman's heart as she approached Him in the belief 


that He could heal her. Lk. evidently dates the cure from her 
touching His garment ; Mt. seems to place it in Christ's words to 
her ; Mk. in both places. 

ti's 6 d<J/d|Aey6s nou ; This does not seem to be one of those 
cases in which Christ asked for information. He knew that He 
had been touched with a purpose, and He probably knew who 
had done it. Mk.'s 7repie/3Ae7reTO ISeiv rrjv tovto Troirfaacrav rather 
implies that He knew where to look. For the woman's sake she 
must be induced to avow her act. Note the masc, which makes 
the question all the more general : Mk. has tis /jlov rjiparo tojv 
IjxaTiuiv. The verb implies more than touching, "laying hold of" 
For other cases in which Jesus asked questions of which He knew 
the answer comp. xxiv. 17 ; Mk. ix. 33. See some good remarks 
in the S. P. C. K. Comm. on Lk. viii. 46. 

apvovpivuv 8e ttcivtwi'. This explains, and to some extent excuses, 
Peter's characteristic interference. Lk. alone tells us that Peter 
took the lead in this. See on ix. 20, and comp. Mk. i. 36. Note the 
irdvTwv, and see on ix. 43 and xi. 4. For i-mcndra see on v. 5. 

owe'xoucnV ere. " Hold Thee in, keep Thee a prisoner " ; xix. 
43, xxii. 63 ; comp. iv. 38. Here only in N.T. does d-n-oGXiPen' 
occur: Lat. affligere (Vulg.), comprimere (f), contribulare (d) j om. 
abff 2 . 

46. eyvwy SuVa/u^ e^eXirjXuGuiay aTr' cjiou. For the constr. see 
Burton, §458, and comp. Heb. xiii. 23; and for SuVaps see on iv. 

47. Tpefioucra TJXOcy. The 7rdvTwv in ver. 45, if taken literally, 
implies that she had previously denied her action. The rjkOev, 
however, seems to show that she had gone a little way from Him 
after being healed. But she may also have been afraid that she 
had done wrong in touching His garment. Either or both would 
explain the rpe/iovo-a. She is afraid that the boon may be with- 
drawn. For the attraction St' rjv ain'av see small print on iii. 19, 
and Burton, §350: rovAaouis also characteristic. 

48. Tj men-is o-ou o-c'crwKeV ere. All three record these words. It 
was the grasp of her faith, not of her hand, that wrought the cure. 
Thus her low view of the manner of Christ's healing is corrected. 

49. epxeTcu tis irapa tou dpxiowaywyou. A member of his 
household arrives and tells Jairus that it is now too late. The 
delay caused by the incident with the woman must have been 
agonizing to him. But this trial is necessary for the development 
of his faith, as well as for that of the woman, and Jesus curtails no 
item in His work. The riQv-qKev is placed first with emphasis. 
For ctkuXXe see on vii. 6. See also Blass on Acts x. 44. 

50. Mr] 4>o|3ou, p,u cgi/ moTeuo-oi\ Change of tense. " Cease to 
fear ; only make an act ot faith." In Mk. v. 36 we have fiovov 

" only continue to believe." In either case the meaning 


is, "In the presence of this new difficulty let faith prevail, and all 
will be well." For urf 4>o|3oG see on i. 13. 

51. ouk d(}>fJKei/ eLCTeXOele Tied ow aoTw. " Did not allow anyone 
to enter with Him into the room," He and the disciples had 
already entered the house, and the parents had been there from 
the first. Here, as in ver. 38, Lk. has <rvv where Mk. has /x.era : 
see on i. 56. 

ru'Tpoy Kal 'lojac^v Kal 'laKajpoy. The chosen three (ckAck-tiuv 
c/c/Wtotc/joi as Clem. Alex, calls them) are probably admitted for 
the sake of the Twelve, whose faith would be strengthened by the 
miracle. These three sufficed as witnesses. Moreover, they were 
in character most fitted to profit by the miracle. Here, as in ix. 
28 and Acts i. 13, John is placed before James. Elsewhere the 
other order, which is almost certainly the order of age, prevails 
(v. 10, vi. 14, ix. 54), and always in Mt. (iv. 21, x. 2, xvii. 1) and 
Mk. (i. 19, 29, iii. 17, v. 37, ix. 2, x. 35, 41, xiii. 3, xiv. 33). 

Irenseus had a text which omitted Kal '\w&vt}v. Quinfus autem ingressus 
Dominus ad mortuam puellam suscitavit earn, nullum enim, inquit, permisit 
intrare nisi Petrum et Jacobum et patrem et matrem puellse (ii. 24. 4). No 
existing text makes this omission ; but many authorities transpose James and 
John in order to have the usual order (X A L S X L, Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth.). 
But the evidence of BCDEFHK, abcdefff 2 lqr Cod. Am. Cod. Brix. 
etc is decisive. There is similar confusion in ix. 28 and Acts i. 13. 

52. IkXcuoi' oe Traces Kal eKoirrocTO aurr)v. The mourners 
(2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Jer. ix. 17) were not in the room with the 
corpse : Mt. and Mk. tell us that Christ turned them out of the 
house. The -n-avres is again peculiar to Lk.'s account: comp. 
vv. 40, 45, 47. The ace. after KoVro/zat is class. (Eur. Tro. 623 ; 
Aristoph. Lys. 396) : " they beat their breasts for her, bewailed 
her." Comp. xxiii. 27; Gen. xxiii. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 1. 

ou yap dire'Savef d\Xd KciGeuSei. This declaration is in all three 
narratives. Neander, Olshausen, Keim, and others understand it 
literally ; and possibly Origen is to be understood as taking the 
same view. A miracle of power is thus turned into a miracle of 
knowledge. But the eiSdVes in ver. 53 is conclusive as to the 
Evangelist's meaning: not "supposing," but "knowing that she 
was dead." The KadtvSei is rather to be understood in the same 
sense as Ad£apos KCKoijxrjraL (Jn. xi. 11). But the cases are not 
parallel, for there Jesus prevents all possibility of misunderstanding 
by adding Aa£apos airtOavev. Yet the fact that Jesus has power to 
awaken explains in both cases why He speaks of sleep. We may, 
however, be content, with Hase, to admit that certainty is unattain- 
able as to whether the maiden was dead or in a trance. 

54. Kparr|cras rrjs x ei P°s aurfjs- All three mention that He laid 
hold of her, although to touch a dead body was to incur ceremonial 
uncleanness. In like manner He touched the leper: see on v. 13 


This laying hold of her hand and the raised voice (e^xuV^o-ev) are 
consonant with waking one out of sleep, and the two may be 
regarded as the means of the miracle. Comp. and contrast through- 
out Acts ix. 36-42. 

C H irals, eyeipe. " Arise, get up," not " awake." Mt. omits 
the command ; Mk. gives the exact words, Talitha cutni. For the 
nom. with the art. as voc. see on x. 21, xviii. n, 13. For e^w^atf 
comp. ver. 8, xvi. 24. 

65. €TT€OTp€<J/ef to TT^eCfia aorf]s. There can be no doubt that 
the Evangelist uses the phrase of the spirit returning to a dead 
body, which is the accurate use of the phrase. Only the beloved 
physician makes this statement. In LXX it is twice used of a 
living man's strength reviving; of the fainting Samson (Judg. 
xv. 19), and of the starving Egyptian (1 Sam. xxx. 12). Note that 
Lk. has his favourite -rrapaxp^H-^ where Mk. has his favourite 
tvdvs ; and comp. ver. 44, v. 25, xviii. 43, xxii. 60. 

8i£Ta£ei' auTfj SoG^ai ^ayetc This care of Jesus in command- 
ing food after the child's long exhaustion would be of special 
interest to Lk. In their joy and excitement the parents might 
have forgotten it. The charge is somewhat parallel to e8a>Acev aurov 
rrj firjrpl avrov (vii. 15) of the widow's son at Nain. In each case 
He intimates that nature is to resume its usual course : the old ties 
and the old responsibilities are to begin again. 

56. TTapi^YYei-Xey au-rois fiTjSev! eiireii' to y€yovo<5. The command 
has been rejected as an unintelligible addition to the narrative. 
No such command was given at Nain or at Bethany. The object 
of it cannot have been to keep the miracle a secret. Many were 
outside expecting the funeral, and they would have to be told why 
no funeral was to take place. It can hardly have been Christ's 
intention in this way to prevent the multitude from making a bad 
use of the miracle. This command to the parents would not have 
attained such an object. It was given more probably for the 
parents' sake, to keep them from letting the effect of this great 
blessing evaporate in vainglorious gossip. To thank God for it at 
home would be far more profitable than talking about it abroad. 

IX. 1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem. 

This is the last of the four sections into which the Ministry in 
Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) was divided. It contains the Mission of the 
Twelve (1-9), the Feeding of the Five Thousand (10-17), tne 
Transfiguration (28-36), the Healing of the Demoniac Boy (37-43), 
and two Predictions of the Passion (18-27, 43 _ 5°)- 

1-9. The Mission of the Twelve and the Fears of Herod. ML 
x. 1-15; Mk. vi. 7-1 1. Mt. is the most full. Lk. gives no note 


of time 01 of connexion, and we may suppose that his sources gave 
him no information. See Weiss, L.J. ii. p. 119, Eng. tr. ii. p. 306. 
For mention of " the Twelve " see vi. 13, viii. 1, ix. 12, xviii. 31, 
xxii. 3, 47. All three mention this summons or invitation on the 
part of Jesus. Mt. and Mk. describe it by their usual Trpoo-KaXelcrOai, 
for which Lk. has o-uvKa\eI<T0ai, which he more commonly uses in 
his Gospel (ix. 1, xv. 6, 9, xxiii. 13), while in the Acts he generally 
uses Trpoo-KaXdcrOai (ii. 39, v. 40, vi. 2, xiii. 2, etc.). 

1. SuVafjuy Kal e£ouow. Mt. and Mk. have l^ovo-iav only (see 
on iv. 36) : Swa/us is the power, c^ovo-ia the authority to use it. 
The Jewish exorcists had neither Swc^us nor efovo-ia, and made 
elaborate and painful efforts, which commonly failed. Elsewhere, 
when the two are combined, i£ov<ria. precedes SiW/xis (iv. 36 ; 
1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22). The iravra with 
8at/xdvia is peculiar to Lk. It covers all that would come under 
the head of possession. 

The constr. is not really doubtful : vScrovs Oepaireveiv depends on hvvaftiv 
Kal i^oviriav, and is co-ordinate with iirl iravra 8ai/x6via. Others make v. 6ep. 
depend on tSwKev and be co-ordinate with 5vv. k. ££. The least satisfactory 
way is to couple vbaovs with dai/mSpia, and make depairetjeiv refer to both " : 
"authority over all diseases and demons, to heal them." For this meaning 
Lk. would almost certainly have written rod Bepaweveiv. He as usual men- 
tions the curing of demoniacs separately from other healings (iv. 40, 41, 
vi. 17, 18, vii. 21, viii. 2, xiii. 32). 

2. After laadai C etc. ins. roi/s aaOevovvTas from Mt. ; ADLS ins. robs 
iaBeveh : om. B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. 

2. Kr\pu<T<reiv i$\v ^aaiKeiav tou 0eou Kal laaQcu. These two verbs 
sum up the ministration to men's souls and bodies. See on v. 17. 
Mt. adds that they were to raise the dead (x. 8). Mk. tells us that 
they were sent out Bvo, Su'o. For d-rrooTeMoj see on iv. 18, p. 121. 

3. fjLTJTe pd|38oi/. Mk. has el p.r) pdftSov fiovov (vi. 8); and the 
attempts to explain away this discrepancy in a small matter of 
detail are not very happy. As between Mt. and Mk. it is possible 
to explain that both mean " Do not procure (xTrjcreo-Oe) a staff for 
the journey, but take (alpuxrw) the one which you have." But both 
Mk. and Lk. use alpeiv, and the one has " Take nothing except a 
staff," while the other has "Take nothing, neither a staff," etc. 
Yet in all three the meaning is substantially the same : " Make no 
special preparations ; go as you are." From xxii. 35 we learn that 
the directions were obeyed, and with good results. Lk. says 
nothing about sandals, respecting which there is another discrep- 
ancy between Mt. and Mk., unless we are to suppose that viroSrjfjLaTa 
are different from oavSdAta. D.C.G. art. "Staff." 

p.T)Te dpyupioi/. Mk. has yakKov and Mt. has both, p.r$\ apyvpov 
fji-qll xaAKoV. Thus Lk. is Greek, and Mk. is Roman, in choice of 
words. In LXX apyvpiov is very common, apyvpos comparatively 


rare, while x^^o'? is common as a metal, but not in the sense of 

fATJTc Si'o xiTwvas exeiy. As no injpa was allowed, the second 
tunic, if taken, would have to be worn. Hence the form in Mk., 
" Put not on two tunics." Comp. Jos. Ant. xvii. 5. 7. 

In £x f "' we have an anacoluthon ; change from direct to oblique oration. 
For it is scarcely admissible to take £%«" as infin. for imperat. The actual 
imperat. both precedes (aipere) and follows (fJvere). Win. xliii. 5. d, p. 397. 
Mk. here is strangely abrupt in his mixture of constructions. 

4. ckci fieVeTe koI eKeiQer e£e'pxe<r0e. Vulg. has et inde ne exeatis. 
But only one cursive has fir} (38). Cod. Brix. has donee exeatis fr. 
Mt. The meaning is " Go not from house to house," as He charges 
the Seventy in x. 7, a passage which should be compared with this. 
The mission both of the Twelve and of the Seventy was to be 
simple and quiet, working from fixed centres in each place. This 
is the germ of what we find in the apostolic age, — " the church that 
is in their house" (Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; 
Philem. 2). 

6. For Se'xajKrat see on viii. 13, and for e|epxop,ei'oi diro see on 
iv. 35. In Acts xiii. 51 we find Paul and Barnabas performing this 
symbolical action of shaking off the dust. It signified that hence- 
forth they had not the smallest thing in common with the place. 
It is said that Pharisees performed this action when re-entering 
Judoea from heathen lands. There and in Acts xviii. 6 Lk. uses 
eKTivacrcr., which Mt. and Mk. have here. For diroTivao-o-. comp. 
Acts xxviii. 5. The tV au-rou'9 means lit. " upon them," and so 
"against them." Comp. 2 Cor. i. 23 and Acts xiii. 51, and 
contrast 2 Thes. i. 10. Mk. here has avTois. 

6. cuaYyeXi^op.ei'oi Kal OepcureiWTes. Comp. ver. 2. Union of 
care for men's bodies with care for their souls is characteristic of 
Christ and of Christian missions. The miraculous cures of the 
apostolic age have given place to the propagation of medical and 
sanitary knowledge, which is pursued most earnestly under Christian 
mfluences. For 8ir|px o, ' TO see on ii. 15, and for euayyeXiXojxefoi see 
on ii. 10. Excepting Mk. i. 28, xvi. 20, 1 Cor. iv. 17, irarraxoo 
occurs only here and three or four times in Acts : here it goes with 
both participles. 

7-9. The Fears of Herod. Mt. places this section much later 
(xiv. 1-13); but Mk. (vi. 14-16) agrees with Lk. in connecting it 
with the mission of the Twelve. It was their going in all directions 
u p and down the villages (8t^7 ) X OVTO KaTa T "? kw/acis) that caused the 
fame of Christ's work to reach Herod <f>ai'epbv yap eyeVei-o to ovofia 
auTov (Mk. vi. 14), or, at anyrate, excite his fears. 

7. 'Hpw'Srjs 6 TCTpdpxTjs. So also Mt. But Mk. gives him his 
courtesy title of /?am\evs. See on iii. 1, p. S.x. The Td Yif°p. 6m irdfTa 


means "all that was being done" by Jesus and His disciples. 
There is no iravra m Mt. or Mk., either here or in the parallels to 
ver. 1. See on viii. 45. The thoroughly classical word SiTjTTopei 
does not occur in LXX, nor in N.T. excepting in Lk. (Acts ii. 12, 
v. 24, x. 17). Antipas was "utterly at a loss" as to what he was to 
think of Jesus. Note the change of tense : he heard once for all ; 
he remained utterly at a loss. He had no doubt heard of Christ 
before. It was the startling theories about Him which perplexed 
Herod. D. C. G. i. p. 7 2 1 ; "• P- 7 x 7- 

'iwa^s tiy 6 '?^ * K •'"P""' This is strong evidence of the effect 
of John's teaching. During his life he " did no sign," and yet they 
think it possible that so great a Prophet has risen from the dead 
and is working miracles. Comp. Mt. xvi. 14; Mk. viii. 28. Foi 
6K ycKpuk' comp. xx. 35. For rjyepOr) (KB CLE 169) most MSS. 
have iyrfyepTai, which is not to be accepted because rjy^pO-q is found 
in Mt 

8. 'HXetas i$dvr\. The verb is changed from rjyepOr), because 
Elijah had not died. Mt. represents Antipas as saying that Jesus 
is the risen Baptist, and omits the suggestions about Elijah and 
other Prophets. The account of Lk. is intrinsically more exact. 
He would obtain good information at Csesarea from Herod's 
steward (viii. 3), and at Antioch from Herod's foster-brother (Acts 
xiii. 1). 

Trpo<f>rjrr]s T19 twc dpxeu'we. We know from Jn. vii. 40, 41 that 
some Jews distinguished the great Prophet of Deut. xviii. 15 from 
the Messiah. Comp. Jn. i. 21. And Mt. xvi. 14 seems to show 
that there was an expectation that Jeremiah or other Prophets 
would return at some future crisis. The rwv apxa-iwv is peculiar to 
Lk. (comp. ver. 19). It may be opposed either to a new Prophet 
(vii. 16), or to the later Prophets as compared with Moses and 
Samuel. The former is more probable. 

9. '\(advt]v eyw dir€Ke<|>d\io-a. "As for John, / beheaded him." 
Mt. and Mark represent Herod as saying of Christ, "This is 
John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead": and some in- 
terpret this remark as meaning much the same : " Seeing that I 
put him to death, he may have risen again." But this is very 
unnatural. Rather, " I thought that I had got rid of this kind of 
trouble when I beheaded John ; and here I am having it all over 
again." Perhaps, as Bede suggests, Antipas afterwards came to 
the conclusion that the Baptist had risen from the dead, a view 
which to his guilty conscience was specially unwelcome. Lk. men- 
tions the imprisonment of the Baptist by anticipation (iii. 20) ; but, 
excepting in this remark of Antipas, he does not record his death. 

ToiaoTa. This may refer either to the works of Christ or to 
the speculations of the multitude respecting Him. Although 
John had wrought no miracles during his ministry (John x. 41), 


yet, if he had risen from the dead, such things might be expected 
of him (Mt. xiv. 2). 

The tytb of TR. before d*oi5w is of very doubtful authority ( A D X T etc ) : 
Treg. brackets, Tisch. \VH. RV. omit. It would have no point. 

^Tet IZelv auToV. Not merely "he desired" (AV.), but "he 
continued seeking to see Him." He made various attempts to 
apply a test which would have settled the question. Herod knew 
the Baptist ; and he could soon determine whether this was John 
or not, if only he could see Him. Comp. xxiii. 8, where the 
gratification of this desire is recorded. No doubt it was not 
merely the wish to settle the question of identity which led Antipas 
to try to see Jesus. That he was a Sadducee is a guess of Scholten. 

10-17. The Feeding of the Five Thousand. This is the one 
miracle which is recorded by all four Evangelists (Mt. xiv. 13; 
Mk. vi. 30; Jn. vi. 1). In all four it is the climax of the ministry. 
Henceforward attention is directed more and more to the death 
which will bring Christ's work to a close. From S. John we learn 
that it took place shortly before the Passover. All four accounts 
should be compared. Each contributes some special features, 
and each appears to be to a large extent independent. The marks 
of Lk.'s style are abundant in his narrative. 

10. oTroorpevJ/a>'T€s. See small print on i. 56. Lk. connects the 
miracle with the return of the Twelve ; but he gives no hint as to 
the time of their absence. We may perhaps allow a few weeks. He 
does not often call the Twelve oi airooroXoi (vi. 13, xvii. 5. xxii. 
14, xxiv. 10). 

on-iY^o-acTo auTw o«ra ^TroiTjaac. What this was has already 
been recorded in brief (ver. 6). It is strange that anyone should 
infer from Lk.'s not expressly mentioning, as Mk. does (vi. 12, 13), 
the casting out of demons, "that Lk. wishes us to believe that 
they had failed in this respect," and "had evidently been able to 
carry out only a part of their commission." Lk. records the suc- 
cess of the Seventy in exorcizing demons (x. 17) : why should he 
wish to insinuate that the Twelve had failed? Excepting Mk. v. 
16, ix. 9; Heb. xi. 32, SirjyeiaOau occurs only in Lk. (viii. 39; 
Acts viii. 33, ix. 27, xii. 17). Comp. ver. 49. Lk. perhaps wishes 
us to understand that it was the report which the Apostles brought 
of then doings that led to Christ's taking them apart, as Mk. says, 
for rest Mt. states that it was the news of the Baptist's death 
which led to the withdrawal. Jn. has only a vague /xcra ravra. 
All may be correct ; but there can have been no borrowing. 

irapaXaPwf ciutous. Comp. ver. 28, xviii. 31. 

uTrcxwpTjCTCk KaT ' IB tap. The verb occurs only here and v. 16 
in NT. Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 9 (12). Lk. does not seem to be 
aware that Christ and His disciples went by boat across the lake 


(Mt. Mk. Jn.), while the multitude went round by land. Hence 
it is possible that he supposed that the miracle took place near 
Bethsaida on the west shore, and not at Bethsaida Julias on the 
Jordan near the north-east end of the lake. See D.B. 2 art. 
" Bethsaida." Mt. Mk. and Lk. all have kcit' 181'av. 

The common reading,